Sand Recommendation
- Thread starter jhale
- Start date
Sobby, I can explain it to you quite well. I had a DSB with a plenum. I would say the entire thing must have been like 6~7 inches deep. I really did like the look of this thing. At the time I followed the garf way since they seemed to be doing it successfully. I followed evey step to the T. But they must have not explained something somewhere that I missed. As said it worked beautifully for a couple of years. Everything was thriving. One day I come home and the house smells like a toilet. I moved as much as I could into quarantine tanks moved the rocks into rubbermaids and proceeded to to siphon out the water in the tank so I could see the sand bottom to find out what the hell happened.solbby said:
Inside the plenum had basically become a sewage pot. There was no evidence of this even the day before but inside the sandbed it was just this horrible stench. I proceeded to check my other tanks with a smaller sandbed without a plenum and checked the sandbed and it wasnt as bad as the plenum, but there was a distinct smell of nastiness. I had all the sandsifters etc
I broke down all of my tanks and started BB ever since.
Like Bomber says, I am too stupid to run a DSB. Optically I do prefer the sandbed. It looks beautiful and I love the various sandsifting gobies. They happen to be my favorite. Whenever I run a DSB something always happens around the 4~5year mark. Then I have to start over. I dont like to start over so I went BB.
Herman,
With the plenum system (which for the record I don't believe in), did it smell like H2S? i.e. rotten eggs? Do you think that the plenum was breached, and oxygen was entering the plenum in large amounts and causing the anaerobic bacteria to die? Hence the rapid crash?
In therory a DSB would crash slowly, IMO, causing a slow increase in phosphate (from direct anaerobic bacterial dieoff) and nitrate (from indirect anaerobic bacterial dieoff) as it leaches back into the system. So what I would imagine a DSB crash to look like would be seen as increased "bad" algae growth, an inability to keep sensitive corals (certain SPS), and a general reduction in coral growth over time as algae starts to compete for the trace elements (or essential elements for life/growth) present in the system.
With the plenum system (which for the record I don't believe in), did it smell like H2S? i.e. rotten eggs? Do you think that the plenum was breached, and oxygen was entering the plenum in large amounts and causing the anaerobic bacteria to die? Hence the rapid crash?
In therory a DSB would crash slowly, IMO, causing a slow increase in phosphate (from direct anaerobic bacterial dieoff) and nitrate (from indirect anaerobic bacterial dieoff) as it leaches back into the system. So what I would imagine a DSB crash to look like would be seen as increased "bad" algae growth, an inability to keep sensitive corals (certain SPS), and a general reduction in coral growth over time as algae starts to compete for the trace elements (or essential elements for life/growth) present in the system.
- Location
- Howell, NJ
one word and that is WOW. hehe solbby no's his stuff.
It smelled like concentrated hydrogen sulfide. I gagged a couple of times during cleaning.
Even on the non plenum system when I took it apart after the big crash it smelled. Not nearly as bad though. That tank was a bit youger. I took it down because I just did not want to risk it. Now I see sandbeds to be one big litterbox. But it takes several years for it to become unstable!
Even on the non plenum system when I took it apart after the big crash it smelled. Not nearly as bad though. That tank was a bit youger. I took it down because I just did not want to risk it. Now I see sandbeds to be one big litterbox. But it takes several years for it to become unstable!
- Location
- Howell, NJ
hehehe good that it takes several years cause i was just about to reek havoc on my sandbed and start emptying the tank out. hehe. ill wait on that to much work right now and everything seems to be going well
solbby said:
When a biologist says this, what would possess a person to have DSB unless their tanks dont last several years to begin with (they need not comment). When I set up a reef tank, I am in it for the long run. I buy corals to let them thrive and grow. I buy fish that are useful for my system not because I like the way they look. I like the look of a sandbed but I cant have one.
What are the advantage or disadvantages of a shallow sandbed?
- Location
- Howell, NJ
hehe thanks herman i wish my self luck to. thats one thing i cant stand. u no i really see the big idea with the bb but whats on the bottom of the ocean theres sand. i would rather see a tank bottom with pure white sand then see a BB tank. i dont no but its something i will have to make a desicion on in the future.
It sounds like the stratified layers of your DSB were breached. The smell is the ananerobic bacteria dying from exposure to oxygen (oxygen is toxic to anaerobic organisms). Their rapid death caused a huge release, for lack of a better word, CRAP into the system that was no longer bound up in their little bacterial bodies.
I am also finding that I like BB very much, however, it does require a different focus in the husbandry than that used for DSB. Since there is no longer any anaerobic bacteria present in the system (please hold off on the comments that anaerobic bacteria live in the live rock for now), a way to export nitrate to nitrogen is needed. Many BB users subscribe to the high flow, wet skimming to prevent dendritis (sp?) build up as a means to control nitrate. A sort of preventitive medicine approach.
I don't have as much flow as I probably should, but what I am finding in my system now, is that my macroalgae is growing again (red graciaria and cheto (sp?
)). Which is really COOL, since it adds color to my sump housing the big clam. It wasn't growing when my system was DSB, and now I am assuming that the reason is that it was limited for nitrate, since it was competing with the anaerobic bacteria in the DSB for it.
I am also finding that I like BB very much, however, it does require a different focus in the husbandry than that used for DSB. Since there is no longer any anaerobic bacteria present in the system (please hold off on the comments that anaerobic bacteria live in the live rock for now), a way to export nitrate to nitrogen is needed. Many BB users subscribe to the high flow, wet skimming to prevent dendritis (sp?) build up as a means to control nitrate. A sort of preventitive medicine approach.
I don't have as much flow as I probably should, but what I am finding in my system now, is that my macroalgae is growing again (red graciaria and cheto (sp?
)). Which is really COOL, since it adds color to my sump housing the big clam. It wasn't growing when my system was DSB, and now I am assuming that the reason is that it was limited for nitrate, since it was competing with the anaerobic bacteria in the DSB for it.I had a DSB tank that was sucessful for 8 years. It never crashed, who knows if it would have? but the sand was a pain for many reasons (if you want the list I can give them to you).hermangareis said:
If I were to do a DSB sand bed I would do it like I recommended to Jim (House). Have a shallow sand bed in the main tank with a remote DSB attached that can be easily broken down and replaced sometime in the future. Changing over the main tank is such a pain in the ass.
A shallow sand bed's only advantage is that it looks good and you can have critters that like to "play in the sand"
Since it would be shallow, and I would suggest no more than 1.5 inches, oxygen would be flowing through it, so no anaerobic bacteria would be able to grow and live there, thus the nitrate removing ability seen in the DSB would not be present. So the sand bed would serve no biological funtion other than home for sand loving creatures.The big downside is that it would collect debris and you would not be able to have a high enough flow in the tank to suspend debris without creating a huge sandstorm. I would suggest the smallest sand particle as possible for such a system, preventing big debris accumulation in the bed.
As for me, I will only ever go BB from this point forward until someone can tell me a surefire way to identify and recify problems brewing in my sandbed.
Youre right about the fact that BB requires different methods of husbandry. It was quite a chnage and lots of arguments/discussions with Bomber but in the end he got me. It took me a while to understand/accept the BB method because it was so radical at the time. (for those of you who are new to the hobby, skimmers back then were not like the ones today, high flow tunzes - nonexistent, you get my point) I gave it a try and it really took a while for me to accept it but my corals took to the BB system very well, but I do miss the diversity of critters I had in the DSB.
Tony, not all parts of the ocean has sand. Look for Jhales biotope thread.
Youre right about the fact that BB requires different methods of husbandry. It was quite a chnage and lots of arguments/discussions with Bomber but in the end he got me. It took me a while to understand/accept the BB method because it was so radical at the time. (for those of you who are new to the hobby, skimmers back then were not like the ones today, high flow tunzes - nonexistent, you get my point) I gave it a try and it really took a while for me to accept it but my corals took to the BB system very well, but I do miss the diversity of critters I had in the DSB.
Tony, not all parts of the ocean has sand. Look for Jhales biotope thread.
- Location
- The Big City
Back in the mid 80's the standard setup at that time was either for a BB or a very fine layer of sand. So this is nothing new just a rehash of something old.
As for skimmer basically the models where the Sanders that worked on wooden air stones. Sander did actually have a larger model that was a venturi and it either stood in your tank or in your sump, if you have one. It worked pretty well, need to attach a power head to it make it work. Also Tunze had some really nice skimmer but they cost big $$$ back then, even more than what today models costs.
As for skimmer basically the models where the Sanders that worked on wooden air stones. Sander did actually have a larger model that was a venturi and it either stood in your tank or in your sump, if you have one. It worked pretty well, need to attach a power head to it make it work. Also Tunze had some really nice skimmer but they cost big $$$ back then, even more than what today models costs.
I actually think that the problem with BB tanks looking unnatural can be rectified by the type of rock work you have. I think that my new BB style tank looks almost the same as when it had the DSB! Here is a picture of it. There are only a few rock contacts touching the starboard but it doesn't look that way, . On the starboard is all my zoanthids, ricordea and clams. They cover the starboard nicely, when I had sand they covered my sand bed in a similar manner, so in reality I never really saw my sand. To do a water change I remove all the corals on the starboard and vacum up all the debris collected with the water removal. I also have maxijets on the bottom of the tank blowing debris to the front of the tank.
. On the starboard is all my zoanthids, ricordea and clams. They cover the starboard nicely, when I had sand they covered my sand bed in a similar manner, so in reality I never really saw my sand. To do a water change I remove all the corals on the starboard and vacum up all the debris collected with the water removal. I also have maxijets on the bottom of the tank blowing debris to the front of the tank.Attachments
since the inevitable debate started I'll throw my thoughts in.
first I like the look of sand, there I said it (again).
but I also like the look of a BB tank. when you think of reefs and how they are constructed very few of our corals are actually near the bottom and the sand.
what I tried to do with the biotope thread herman mentioned was to get people thinking of how they went about setting up and stocking their tanks. it did not get much response so I'm guessing people don't care and will throw just about anything they like into their tanks :sigh1:
why do I like a BB tank?, it was mentioned by drzl before, but when I siphon out my sump I see exactly what I'm removing from the tank as far as garbage goes. All the junk eventually makes it's way to the bottom of my sump. Yesterday I did a water change and the water I siphoned from the sump turned pure black, nasty. there are nice piles of detritus always waiting for me to siphon out. I do this once or twice a month depending on whether it needs it or not. I also now sweep the bottom of the display tank with a tunze and get every bit of crap out from under the rocks and off the bottom. this is the ultimate in NO3 export. try that with a sand bed, it does not work that well. I've also started attaching SPS to the bottom of my tank, I doubt if you look at my tank you will be missing the sand. I even have some sps that began growing on the marinaboard by themselves
There are people who have sand beds whose tanks I admire, House, and Kedd are two. as long as the sand bed remains clean I like the look. but when people let the sand bed get full of algae and let the sides of the tank start to look like the sand bed, that's just not attractive to me.
so like Herman, I don't think I'll have a tank with sand in it for a while. some new technology will have to be developed to make a sand bed viable for the long term. I know Michael keeps saying the BB is a fad that will cycle out over time , but I think the advent of new skimmer technology and super powerful flow producers like the tunze, and now the vortex, will make keeping a BB tank popular for good.
I'll throw my thoughts in.first I like the look of sand, there I said it (again).
but I also like the look of a BB tank. when you think of reefs and how they are constructed very few of our corals are actually near the bottom and the sand.
what I tried to do with the biotope thread herman mentioned was to get people thinking of how they went about setting up and stocking their tanks. it did not get much response so I'm guessing people don't care and will throw just about anything they like into their tanks :sigh1:
why do I like a BB tank?, it was mentioned by drzl before, but when I siphon out my sump I see exactly what I'm removing from the tank as far as garbage goes. All the junk eventually makes it's way to the bottom of my sump. Yesterday I did a water change and the water I siphoned from the sump turned pure black, nasty. there are nice piles of detritus always waiting for me to siphon out. I do this once or twice a month depending on whether it needs it or not. I also now sweep the bottom of the display tank with a tunze and get every bit of crap out from under the rocks and off the bottom. this is the ultimate in NO3 export. try that with a sand bed, it does not work that well. I've also started attaching SPS to the bottom of my tank, I doubt if you look at my tank you will be missing the sand. I even have some sps that began growing on the marinaboard by themselves
There are people who have sand beds whose tanks I admire, House, and Kedd are two. as long as the sand bed remains clean I like the look. but when people let the sand bed get full of algae and let the sides of the tank start to look like the sand bed, that's just not attractive to me.
so like Herman, I don't think I'll have a tank with sand in it for a while. some new technology will have to be developed to make a sand bed viable for the long term. I know Michael keeps saying the BB is a fad that will cycle out over time
, but I think the advent of new skimmer technology and super powerful flow producers like the tunze, and now the vortex, will make keeping a BB tank popular for good.Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
