DSB Opinions?

[ChrisRD]

I have spoken with a lot of experienced reefkeepers who don't believe in them. Of course, there are plenty of folks who seem to like them too.

There seems to be a lot of experts and experienced reefkeepers on either side of the fence...

What are your thoughts?

 

[Anonymous]

I see no reason why harnessing as many natural methodologies as possible could be a bad thing. In my opinion, when going with what's already tried and true in the macrocosm, yet experiencing failure, the problem lies with the interface between the equipment and the system--in other words, the person who's created the microcosm.

Nature's already got it down pat, we're the ones who have the learning to do, and those who think that man can outdo Mother Nature are, in my opinion, fooling themselves.

Disclaimer: these comments are not intended to insult anyone, though I realize the likelihood is there.

 

[Anonymous]

I like DSB's, I think they work well and I like the way they look. I will probably always have them.

However, I do not think they are neccesary, since I have maintained healthy reef tanks woth 0 nitrates well before I had even heard of DSBs.

 

[bashcraft]

Personally, I think they look horrible. I would never have one in my tank in the living room where all my guests can see it. Any benefits from a DSB are completely offset when they start growing algae between it and the glass, and destroy the looks of the tank.

I do have a DSB in my tank in the basement, but no one sees it down there.

 

[ChrisRD]

Anyone else?

 

[Anonymous]

I keep mine in the sump and just have a thin sandbed for looks in the display tank. In theory this should enable me to vacuum detritus out of the display more easily, unfortunately it is very difficult for me to reach that far down in the tank the way my hood & stand worked out.

I voted for them but haven't been running it long enough for my opinion to count for much.

 

[Anonymous]

If I had more money and space I would confine the DSB to the fuge/sump. But I do not have such a luxury. I am also a natural look kind of guy and the DSB in the main tank looks natural. So I can overlook the algae on the glass thing. The added filtering benefits are welcomed by me as well. The more backup the better IMO. Like stated above "not necessary" but a welcomed addition.

 

[tkhawaja]

I've just gotten back into the marine aquarium hobby after about 3 years. Previously I had a 20G and waited until I could afford a properly set up larger tank. Back then the latest thinking seemed to suggest a plenum and that is what I used with great success. While doing research for my return to the reef aquarium hobby the latest thinking seems to be about Deep Sand Beds. The theory is the same, provide a oxygen poor environment except the plenum setup normally used some sort of a powerhead to provide water circulation through that oxygen poor area. The "experts" suggest that the natural processes within the DSB will provide enough of a water circulation to make it even better then a plenum.

Purely from a mathematical point of view, having all that real estate for bacteria to grow on instead of just water under a plenum makes a lot of sense. In any case I'm going to trust the experts about natural water circulation within a DSB and try it in my next 100G aquarium. I recently read an article on another website about DSB's that suggested a few criteria:

- Oolitic sand ( has the proper grain size, Aragonite, sugar sized )
- critters in the bed for sand turning ( otherwise bacterial excretions create hard lumps )
- no hard sharp objects ( things like crushed shells would scrap against the burrowing critters )

So far, I have not read any "expert" advice about the minimum depth required for an effective DSB. Personally I'm going for 5" in tank sloping to 1" near the front and sides, and 8" in the refugium.

 

[Joey French]

I love dsb's and will probably run one in some form for as long as I have tanks. Aesthetically, they can be a little bit ugly to some, unless you prefer the "ant farm" look, as I have come to appreciate it. In some ways, it gives insight to the viewer, owner, whoever, that there is a natural process at work down below, and you can see the inner workings of it. However, I have also built all of my stands to have the lip come up a few inches, so that in a display tank, it doesn't appear that the bottom 5-6 inches you see is dark black gunk sand. Also, one could implement a remote sand bed, although I have heard some say that this is not as effective.
The other benefits of it is the nitrate reduction side of it, hadn't been able to keep nitrates low before I used one, don't have a trace of them for about 6 months now. Also, there is a lot more area for things to live, which gives them room to multiply, feeding animals in the system, processing waste into the bed, rendering the system more stable. Just my 2 cents... Joey

 

[ChrisRD]

Last call...

 

[Anonymous]

So far, I have not read any "expert" advice about the minimum depth required for an effective DSB. Personally I'm going for 5" in tank sloping to 1" near the front and sides, and 8" in the refugium.

The "experts" I know all agree--4"- 6" is best.

 

[Anonymous]

You could always paint the bottom front of the glass the color of your choice. Leave the paint just below the sand line. If you want to remove the paint you can scrape it off with a razor. I second the seamaiden on 4-6" as best.

 

[0rganicreefer]

the problem with dsb's is that regardless of the amount of life in it -they cannot break down the detritus to nothing ..something will always be left-worms poop too and bacteria dies.

so theyll always be something being buried and overtime it will build up and cause problems.

dr rons tanks crashed after seven years...i started noticing problems with my tank after 5 years and removed my dsb's,after which the problems seem to miraculously reverse.

even in nature -a large portion of organic carbon is buried in the deep sea sediment and taken out of the "nutrient cycling loop" through stratification..how much do you think can be bureid in a 4" bed in a closed system before it reaches problem proportions??not very much -imo

dsb's work -for a time ..but eventually they will be "full"..this opinion is based on both logic -and my personal exp...not to mention that the guru of dsb's couldnt make it last...

dsbs incorporate nutrients into a closed system -id rather concentrate on exporting those nutrients.

 

[Anonymous]

Indeed! Would not the utilization of a refugium, in which certain "nutrient grabbing" macrobes could be housed (macroalgal cultures), through which nutrient export is achieved by physical removal? This is normally also supplemented by regular water changes, yes? Making certain assumptions, at least.

 

[Joey French]

I agree that the dsb should be supplemented with magro growth, it just seems like a logical combination to me. Anyone else?
Joey

 

[danmhippo]

Some tanks may be more suitable with coral pebbles, such as tanks for gobies as sand are not the best burrow building elements. Tanks with some triggers are not recommended with DSB. Pretty much any tanks with active digger should not use DSB.

DSB however, IMHO, can be very effective if you put them in sump/refug. If I were to setup another tank, I'd first use black paint to cover 5" up from the bottom of the side walls. As the DSB ages, the anaerobic layers looked terrible against the glass......

 

[Anonymous]

dr rons tanks crashed after seven years...i started noticing problems with my tank after 5 years and removed my dsb's,after which the problems seem to miraculously reverse.

I hadn't heard Dr. Shimek's tank crashed. The scientist in me is a bit skeptical of your claims, but don't take it the wrong way. How exactly did you remove your DSBs without unleashing all the nutrients sequestered in the sandbed? And how do you know for sure that what made the difference was removing it? I'm sorry, but I've heard "I've got a friend whose tank crashed after 7 years........and he has a DSB. Thus, DSBs are bad." several times, and it just doesn't make any logical sense to me. There are several reasons why tanks crashing after 5-7 years could be happening, DSBs could be one of them.


I voted "Maybe". I personally like the look of fine grained sediments better.

 

[danmhippo]

There are also plenty that has their tank thriving after 7 years mark with DSB in it. In fact, a coupld of our admins' tank.

 

[Keith and Lisa]

Somewhere in the reefs.org library there are several articles on DSB's and if memory serves correct, a good share of them were written by Dr. Shimek.

If Dr. Shimek is saying that the DSB caused his tank to crash, show me the article and/or show me the post.

As for the aestetics of the tank, perhaps a piece of stained and varnished trim or thin acrylic to cover the "ugliness" will work fine.

Personally, in the last nine years I have gone from wet/dry to pure berlin to plenum to DSB. I am not giving up the DSB. ( I even like the colors created by the different zones)

OrganicReeefer can you tell us what happens to 7 year old worm poop and why we shouldn't leave it in our tanks?

 

[Anonymous]

the problem with dsb's is that regardless of the amount of life in it -they cannot break down the detritus to nothing ..something will always be left-worms poop too and bacteria dies.

But the point of a DSB is to convert nitrate to N2 gas. That escapes out of the tank through gas exchange. I'm not sure how the DSB can get full unless the process isn't going all the way to completion. Regardless of how many worms are pooping.