Weekly Discussion - BB vs DSB

[Anonymous]

His post was completely passed over in terms of asking about what might have achieved this.

Sorry, we have talked about Len's tank in the past. IIRC, the ideas thrown around were that he has good skimming and good flow so perhaps he has been exporting ickies before they settle into the sand.

Can those who have continuously criticsed the proponents of DSB systems

I don't think anyone here has done that.

honestly say that they are non-biased when they pay no attention to such a prominent success story?

Again, attention has been paid to Lens tank in the past, and some of the thoughts about it are in this thread, they just don't refer to Lens tank specificly. The gist is, for some reason Lens sand hasn't filled up. Sometimes sand fills up, sometimes it doesn't - those are the kinds of numbers we are looking for, but are hard and expensive to get.

 

[Anonymous]

Also, how does Heavy Metal buildup factor into the equation? The good Dr had already predicted that 4 years would be the max for your LR/LS if you are using salt mixes high in minerals; is problems that people are experiencing with DSB failure due to it 'filling up' or Heavy Metals?

To be short, heavy metal buildup from artificial seawater is a figment of the Dr’s imagination, coupled with poor experimental design and improper equipment use.

Knowing that plankton, algae and bacteria blooms occur in nature (the ocean) regularly, no matter what climate/location

Actually the climate and location matter very, very much, and are first order controls in such blooms.

They have been pretty fundamental at making SPS populated tanks viable

This is not the case at all, not even in the hobby. Just ask Dietrich Stuber, who is credited to be the first person to maintain acroporid corals in the hobby. His system was bare bottom.

 

[RustySnail]

Also, how does Heavy Metal buildup factor into the equation? The good Dr had already predicted that 4 years would be the max for your LR/LS if you are using salt mixes high in minerals; is problems that people are experiencing with DSB failure due to it 'filling up' or Heavy Metals?

To be short, heavy metal buildup from artificial seawater is a figment of the Dr’s imagination, coupled with poor experimental design and improper equipment use.

Has this been verified scientifically? I thought that that is what the salt test here on reefs.org was going to try and determine.

Knowing that plankton, algae and bacteria blooms occur in nature (the ocean) regularly, no matter what climate/location

Actually the climate and location matter very, very much, and are first order controls in such blooms.

sheesh... all I was trying to say is that you can have blooms in temperate waters or equatorial... They happen in nature; wouldnt you then expect that nutrient cycling/blooms in aquaria?

They have been pretty fundamental at making SPS populated tanks viable

This is not the case at all, not even in the hobby. Just ask Dietrich Stuber, who is credited to be the first person to maintain acroporid corals in the hobby. His system was bare bottom.

Then why the heck did anyone decide to add a plenum sandbed, or a DSB? If it worked, why change it? Because nutrient buildup was happening in the early barebottom systems. They were very high maintenance and difficult to keep. That's why other more complete bio-systems were developed.

While skimmers have improved since then, I can't agree with the notion that they will effectively remove enough gunk. They only remove surface active minerals/nutrients, and some solids. What happens to the rest that is not skimmed out?

 

[RustySnail]

His post was completely passed over in terms of asking about what might have achieved this.

Sorry, we have talked about Len's tank in the past. IIRC, the ideas thrown around were that he has good skimming and good flow so perhaps he has been exporting ickies before they settle into the sand.

That does not explain why it is being overlooked in this thread; as if success is non-existent with DSB setups. His reef defies most if not all of the arguments that 'a DSB will crash, just a matter of time'. Doesn't it seem that this phenomena of DSB's crashing is pretty recent (within the last year or so)? Seems like many people are having problems at the same point in time, when it should be spread out over time more. Could it be due to the use of a certian FW irradicating chemical? (just another hypothesis)

Can those who have continuously criticsed the proponents of DSB systems

I don't think anyone here has done that.

That's your perspective. I don't see anyone who says "Go BB's" getting quoted line for line with negativity. Guess I'm the only one willing to go there (the rest have gone back to reefkeeping and enjoying their DSB tanks) :roll: I also have not read much that would convince me that a BB setup will be any more maintenance free than a DSB either. :roll::roll:

honestly say that they are non-biased when they pay no attention to such a prominent success story?

Again, attention has been paid to Lens tank in the past, and some of the thoughts about it are in this thread, they just don't refer to Lens tank specificly.

I was not privy to the discussion about his tank in the past; and I think it's safe to assume that many others who casually browse the boards are not aware of his tank.

The gist is, for some reason Lens sand hasn't filled up. Sometimes sand fills up, sometimes it doesn't - those are the kinds of numbers we are looking for, but are hard and expensive to get.

Are you sure about that 'filling up' theory? I would not be so... If any sandbed were going to 'fill up' it would be his (recall he stated that he does nearly no waterchanges).

 

[Anonymous]

i want to add one thing in short here and i warn you, it isn't original thought :wink:

i think all these different sytems of biofiltration can and do work.
it is the inconsistencies of the aquarist that i am currently focused on.

whether Galleon, Dr. Shimek, Bomber, or any of the scientifically accredited crew agrees with me, i think there are too many variables in the aquarist's role to accurately rule one of these methods as more successful than the other.

it could well be that the DSB method that was referred to as a simple means of husbandry for quite a few years may actually be nothing of the sort. although, i can't help but hold the opinion that it is a viable mehtod even if it's a temporary one.
furhtermore, i think placing an accurate life expectancy on a DSB is more of a daunting task than has been addressed in the threads i have read.

with that i will pass the bag... :mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

That does not explain why it is being overlooked in this thread;

I think it is more because we just don't know why his tank has done so well.

as if success is non-existent with DSB setups. His reef defies most if not all of the arguments that 'a DSB will crash, just a matter of time'.

I, and I think this thread, am/is not taking the position that 'DSB will crash, just a matter of time'. Perhaps that is baggage from a previous discussion.

Doesn't it seem that this phenomena of DSB's crashing is pretty recent (within the last year or so)? Seems like many people are having problems at the same point in time, when it should be spread out over time more. Could it be due to the use of a certian FW irradicating chemical? (just another hypothesis)

When I set up my 55 4 or 5 years ago I remember reading debates about using sand.
You mean flat worm exit?

your perspective. I don't see anyone who says "Go BB's" getting quoted line for line with negativity.

I certainly am not going at your posts line of line with negativity. I am sorry if you get that feeling, but be assured I have no negativity towards you or your posts.

Guess I'm the only one willing to go there (the rest have gone back to reefkeeping and enjoying their DSB tanks) :roll: I also have not read much that would convince me that a BB setup will be any more maintenance free than a DSB either. :roll::roll:

I don't think anyone here is polarizing the discussion as much as the above quote indicates you seem to feel it is.

I was not privy to the discussion about his tank in the past; and I think it's safe to assume that many others who casually browse the boards are not aware of his tank.

Fair enough. But please, ask about stuff rather than assuming nefarious intent.

Are you sure about that 'filling up' theory? I would not be so... If any sandbed were going to 'fill up' it would be his (recall he stated that he does nearly no waterchanges).

I don't know if water changes can be held mainly responsible for sand 'filling'. More how much detritus hits the bed. There are prolly many reasons some sand beds do not fill up, and I am interested in discussing all of them.
I am pretty convinced that sand beds 'fill' up, but I am in no way certain about the speed in which they fill up.

 

[npaden]

We really are talking about a lot of flow in a BB system. So much that you couldn't keep sand on the bottom if you wanted to.

I would have to disagree with this statement. I've always felt that water flow should be a very important aspect to properly setting up a reef tank. Like my signature tagline says "Maximize Flow, Minimize Velocity!"

If properly planned and setup you can have tremenduous massive water flow in a tank with sand. I have 12,000+ gph of flow in my tank with 100% southdown sand. I feel that I could (and plan to if I can ever get over the sticker shock) add a pair of Tunze stream 6100's and although the sand will move around it will stay in the tank. My sand started at a fairly uniform 5" depth but now it is about 2-3" in the middle and almost 8" on the ends of the tank.

With massive flow and fine sand I feel that the detritus doesn't have anymore of a chance to settle into the sand in my tank than it would in a BB tank. My sand doesn't have any of the clumping or nastiness that I hear reported by many DSB hobbyists. If I for some reason stir the sand up it will cloud up for a while and eventually settle back down somewhere in the tank.

Oh well, not much of an argument for or against DSBs or BBs but just wanted to point out that you can have massive flow in a tank with sand in it.

FWIW, Nathan

 

[Anonymous]

Nathan, I feel the same way. I also have lots and lots of flow in my tank, and I don't think detritus has much of a chance to settle. Well, some does, but not all that much. I think the same thing is going on in Lens tank.

Some of the BB proponents on other boards think what you and I are saying is untrue and unworkable, although I haven't seen anything other than opinions.

Thanks for pushing me to the clarification!

 

[npaden]

I know that I have more flow than some of the BB proponents with similar sized tanks already, without adding the tunze streams. The key is flow rather than velocity IMO. The streams are perfect for this. They will move some sand dunes around but the sand will find a spot to settle. The same place that detritus would find a spot to settle in a BB tank. The difference is that the sand has already made a dune there in my tank and the detritus has a hard time staying on top of the hill and rolls down and gets swept up in the current again.

Oh well. I just wanted to get a clarification on your statement.

I have a beautiful LTA on one end of my tank that loves the sand (it's buried all the way down in 8") so I'm pretty much stuck with it regardless of who wins this debate!

FWIW, Nathan

 

[mountainbiker619]

When I removed the DSB from my aquarium and went to a starboard setup, the emptying of the skimmer cup went from weekly to every two months. The skimmer was a Euroreef CS6-2 on a 60g setup. To me, the skimmer tells all. I will never utilize a DSB again.

 

[npaden]

When I removed the DSB from my aquarium and went to a starboard setup, the emptying of the skimmer cup went from weekly to every two months.

From my understanding that isn't what the BB proponents are saying. Your skimmer should be skimming all that detritus that isn't sinking into the sandbed. In the first 2 to 4 years of running a DSB your skimmer should be underproducing compared to a BB setup.

Did I miss something?

 

[mountainbiker619]

All I know is what took place in my aquarium. I used the same rocks, corals and the same water..only difference was no sand.

 

[klask]

The P-buildup in the DSB. How is the P stored?
1. chemically bonded to the CaCO3 (like P-remover material)?
2. incuded in detritus (=bacteria mostly?)?
3. included in higher lifeforms?
Probably all of them, or?
The reason I ask is that after having a successful (OK, in my opimion successful) sandbed (0-2’’) for some years, algae are now beginning to grow on the sand grains. My interpretion is that it has reached the “full”-level and started to release P. What to do now? My thoughts are to take away the sand. But then? I really likes the look of a sandbed! If the P is not chemically bound to the sand (or only a minor part of it), I can just wash the sand and reintroduce it.
Is my reasoning correct?

 

[Mouse]

whether Galleon, Dr. Shimek, Bomber, or any of the scientifically accredited crew agrees with me, i think there are too many variables in the aquarist's role to accurately rule one of these methods as more successful than the other.

Yea, beyond the fact that it must contain 4 walls and a floor, and the contents partially filled with water, i think thats about as far as anyone agrees.

So i guess checking back to this thread for a conclusion was a little hopefull, wake me up when the dusts settled.

 

[K9coral]

DSB = deep sand bed
BB = ?

thanks

 

[mountainbiker619]

BB=BareBottom

 

[Alex64]

Funny enough, this is the same long thread that you can find on an italian twin forum (the other thread we share is "which bulb is the best"...)

I used to be in the DSB club, but I honestly admit that some of the best tanks I've ever seen are BBs.

Besides that, I understand that most DSBers have mixed tanks, with a variety of softies, polyps, LPS and SPS. I saw few specialized tanks. Most BB lovers run "acropora gardens" and are having great success with their SPS.

Of course, this is no statistics, just my feeling. But it seems that with a DSB you are looking for greather biodiversity and a higher nutrient environment, while with BB you aim at a cleaner tank with higher redox potential.

So the question is: are they different methods or just different biotopes?

 

[Mouse]

Right now Alex, we seem to be argueing which is the best. Im sure there are situations where both methodologies would have distinct advantages. I.E. a DSB in a predatory soft coral system where all of the nutrients have to be obtained from the water column, but im thinking that just a regular fuge would supply that, DSB or not. Just providing you gave the lill micro guys somewhere to hide and reproduce. I think BB tanks have a huge advantage over DSB's in the large predatory fish systems, where messy eaters can be accomadated cleanly.

Question is everybody wants everything in their tank, so youll find many mix and match systems here. (personally i think you should split the corals up if you want them to look good, i hate running carbon). And as a result we're argueing over that grey area of the "community reef tank" if there were to be such a defenition.

In a nutshell, the flaw with the BB tanks is that the LR may not be able to provide sufficient surface area for total denitrification, unless you have allot of rock, very carefully laid out to provide adequate flow through the structure ensuring plenty of contact.

DSB's on the other hand provide you with the oxygen free denitrifying zone in abundance, which is advantagous for tanks that would require a small ammount of rock work. But the phosphates absorbed by the bed will eventually reach saturation point and start to leach back into the tank. Something you wouldn't see in a BB tank.

Macro's and such have been proven bad exporters of said phosphates, and tend to leak it back into the water column. So seen as were unable to export it then its going to stay unless we remove the sand.

My only problem with this is how much phosphate is being produced?

What level of water changes would be requred in a BB system to completely eliminate this compound from the water. (i have a feeling that waterchanges just wont cut it)

And if the answer is that regardless of system design, phosphates are only treatable by using resenous compounds.

In which case in a DSB system, would it be feesable to have this phosphate absorbing resin working to take the excess leakage from the bed at such a rate that it would be invisible.

Either way its about phosphates for the moment, im sure once we get that one cracked someone else will come allong with another hurdle to cross. but thats life i guess.

peace

 

[DonJasper]

I disagree with both of you. Not only is success objective, but also easy to measure. Growth. Crop yield. Measured by weight gained, or increased volume displaced, number of baby sea urchins alive or dead, you figure it out.

Isn't that kind of a cop out? Its easy but you can't tell us what it is? :wink: If you feel that success is so easy to objectively measure, please let us know what constitutes success. Personally, I think it is easy to measure success, the hard part is getting everyone to agree what constitutes success. Much time is spent in science, industry and all business defining success, and usually that definition is limited to a specific part of a process.

I don't understand. The definition of success is life. Easily measuerd by the growth of sea creatures. Fast growth is better than slow growth is better than no growth is better than death. What sort of success did you have in mind?

 

[DonJasper]

Also, how does Heavy Metal buildup factor into the equation? The good Dr had already predicted that 4 years would be the max for your LR/LS if you are using salt mixes high in minerals; is problems that people are experiencing with DSB failure due to it 'filling up' or Heavy Metals?

To be short, heavy metal buildup from artificial seawater is a figment of the Dr’s imagination, coupled with poor experimental design and improper equipment use.

Yes, but as a source of consumer buying information it's pure gold. Someone someday will be able to find out why IO is more toxic to baby sea urchins than the other salt mixes. If it turns out not to be metal related, but some sort of bi-hexa-checmical-babbled-oxide that IO creates - I don't really care. But that's the most applicable measurement of how my corals will react to a given salt mix that I can find.

Where's Consumer Reports when you really need them?