BB vs. SB

[Tonyscoots84]

SSB - Shallow Sand Bed - about 3 inch. or less....
DSB - Deep Sand Bed - about 5 inch. or more....

 

[Manny]

SSB - Shallow Sand Bed - about 3 inch. or less....
DSB - Deep Sand Bed - about 5 inch. or more....

What about 4" :joke:
Thanks tony
I guess I'm SSB

 

[Tonyscoots84]

hahahaha lolz... manny with the jokes.. i would consider that

:scratch: MSB = Medium sand bed.. lolz J/K:icon16:

 

[fritz]

hahahahahah

"Which is better DSB or BB?"
THat is like asking, "What is your religion and why is it better than the others?"

BB is great for advanced aquarists who keep SPS tanks.
DSBs (greater then 4 inches) are very forgiving. Most misconceptions and horror stories start with a DSB that is not really a DSB. In order to have a DSB you need it to not be disturbed! If you have a DSB with some large animals that sift the sand for you, it's not a DSB. If you started a year ago with a 3 inch sand bed much of it has disolved over the year and you no longer have a DSB. People who say "I have a 2inch DSB" they have a ticking time bomb, not a DSB.

This is dangerous because everything inbetween 1 inch and 3 inches is a death trap. It is enough to accumilate tons of waste, but not deep enough to denitrify it. When you keep a DSB you need to periodicly add sand (VERY SLOWLY a little at a time, over time). This will maintain the anerobic bacteria that break down the nitrogenous waste.

ALSO, keep in mind that the smaller the grain of sand the less of it you need in a DSB. Miracle Mud etc are VERY small so you use less. All of the above depth quotes are for "sugar sized" grains of sand. If you use larger sand grains then you need more depth.

I prefer shallow sand beds, less then 1/2 inch.

Here's a link all about DSBs http://www.wetwebmedia.com/deepsandbeds.htm

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

I let you guys know how mine works out

I am a newbie and thus experimenting different styles would not be too much a headache or financially hurting.

1)I will first go BB

2)Then if it does not work well for me I go VSSB = very shallow sand bed icon16: I just coined a new term) like 1" inch so that I can try to put animals in the sand. I love things that hide in the sand except wormseek: )

3)If it works and gets fun, I would go for DSB and put even more sanding hiding animals in.

By now you guys should have read some of my replies and know that I put 51 fish in a 55G tank. As of yesterday, its now 52 fish-just added one more, fostering for a friend. So far more than a year, no death. I just like busy tanks.

 

[fritz]

"I put 51 fish in a 55G tank"
Dude I don't even know what to say about that.....
You could also put a 2 foot nurse shark in there but that wouldn't make it a good idea.
"I just like busy tanks."

Something that we all grapple with is that what we love in this hobby really does no justice, or no good to the things we love. Keeping anemones, fish, corals it's really not a good thing to do. But we try to take something bad and destructive and make something positive out of it. We learn, we share we expose people to the beauty of reefs who may not otherwise see them. We hopefully and indirectly raise the awareness of the random people who come to our homes and say "Woah, nice tank!"

When we snatch these animals from the sea and force them to live in small glass boxes we usually try to make it as comfotable experience as possible for them. We try to replicate their natural environment and we try not to stress them to badly. To put 52 fish in such a small tank, I see you've never gone through central booking.

The best thing you can do is pull up wetwebmedia.com and start reading. Read everything, pick up some books on reef keeping and marine fish at your local library and read them cover to cover. To be successful in this hobby you will NEED to become a jr marine biologist. If you don't you'll fail and end up on the "for sale / for trade" board hocking all your stuff.

Good luck and please find a new home for some of those guys.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

I noticed my addiction

"I put 51 fish in a 55G tank"
Dude I don't even know what to say about that.....
You could also put a 2 foot nurse shark in there but that wouldn't make it a good idea.
"I just like busy tanks."

Something that we all grapple with is that what we love in this hobby really does no justice, or no good to the things we love. Keeping anemones, fish, corals it's really not a good thing to do. But we try to take something bad and destructive and make something positive out of it. We learn, we share we expose people to the beauty of reefs who may not otherwise see them. We hopefully and indirectly raise the awareness of the random people who come to our homes and say "Woah, nice tank!"

When we snatch these animals from the sea and force them to live in small glass boxes we usually try to make it as comfotable experience as possible for them. We try to replicate their natural environment and we try not to stress them to badly. To put 52 fish in such a small tank, I see you've never gone through central booking.

The best thing you can do is pull up wetwebmedia.com and start reading. Read everything, pick up some books on reef keeping and marine fish at your local library and read them cover to cover. To be successful in this hobby you will NEED to become a jr marine biologist. If you don't you'll fail and end up on the "for sale / for trade" board hocking all your stuff.

Good luck and please find a new home for some of those guys.

I noticed my addiction is serious.

 

[prattreef]

If you want some insight into what the only scientific research to date has to say about sandbed depths ( BB not part of the study) please read the Advanced Aquarist June and July 2005 articles by Rob Toonen. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/

It might surprise you..

Randy

 

[herman]

It surprised me!!!! Thanks for link man!!!!!

 

[kimoyo]

I wasn't going to respond in this thread but since this is the newbie forum I say something.

"Which is better DSB or BB?"
THat is like asking, "What is your religion and why is it better than the others?"

BB is great for advanced aquarists who keep SPS tanks.
DSBs (greater then 4 inches) are very forgiving. Most misconceptions and horror stories start with a DSB that is not really a DSB. In order to have a DSB you need it to not be disturbed! If you have a DSB with some large animals that sift the sand for you, it's not a DSB. If you started a year ago with a 3 inch sand bed much of it has disolved over the year and you no longer have a DSB. People who say "I have a 2inch DSB" they have a ticking time bomb, not a DSB.

This is dangerous because everything inbetween 1 inch and 3 inches is a death trap. It is enough to accumilate tons of waste, but not deep enough to denitrify it. When you keep a DSB you need to periodicly add sand (VERY SLOWLY a little at a time, over time). This will maintain the anerobic bacteria that break down the nitrogenous waste.

ALSO, keep in mind that the smaller the grain of sand the less of it you need in a DSB. Miracle Mud etc are VERY small so you use less. All of the above depth quotes are for "sugar sized" grains of sand. If you use larger sand grains then you need more depth.

I prefer shallow sand beds, less then 1/2 inch.

Here's a link all about DSBs http://www.wetwebmedia.com/deepsandbeds.htm

I don't feel like arguing but many of you conclusions are off base. I would suggested reading more about how bacteria works in your aquarium.

If you want some insight into what the only scientific research to date has to say about sandbed depths ( BB not part of the study) please read the Advanced Aquarist June and July 2005 articles by Rob Toonen. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/

It might surprise you..

Randy

Some of things said in that study are just wrong. Its been discussed many times on many boards.

 

[prattreef]

Yeah,
This was one of the most interesting presentations at MACNA 2 years ago. Toonen is a very solid scientist, and was one of the early, strong advocates of deep sandbed methodology. Very refreshing to see someone in this hobby present their findings even if they seem to contradict their long held beliefs. Clearly, this study doesn't provide all the answers, but it does raise lots of interesting questions. And I agree with your earlier statement that there are no magic means to running a reef system. All of the commonly used methodologies can and have worked well, but they all have their limitations and we as hobbyists must understand these and proceed accordingly.

Randy

 

[Chiefmcfuz]

To put 52 fish in such a small tank, I see you've never gone through central booking.

LOL ROFLMAO Central booking on a hot clear summer weekend is kind of like this LOL Great analogy. The stench and the bodies packed into a cell big enough for 1/4 the amount of people.

It's not 1 fish per gallon it is 1 square inch of fish per gallon in a fresh water tank.

 

[prattreef]

Paul,
Until somebody actually does the research/experiments to prove that the results are wrong, I think I'll stick with the results as they stand. Lots of people on lots of boards can speculate all they want, but when a credible scientist actually takes the time to run the experiments, (they are virtually non-existant in this hobby) they deserve the courtesy of being refuted with evidence gained through similar experimentation, not extrapolation from the literature or worse from the mind of someone who thinks they know better ( I'm not referring to you).

Randy

 

[kimoyo]

Paul,
Until somebody actually does the research/experiments to prove that the results are wrong, I think I'll stick with the results as they stand. Lots of people on lots of boards can speculate all they want, but when a credible scientist actually takes the time to run the experiments, (they are virtually non-existant in this hobby) they deserve the courtesy of being refuted with evidence gained through similar experimentation, not extrapolation from the literature or worse from the mind of someone who thinks they know better ( I'm not referring to you).

Randy

Randy here's the quote:


"Overall death rates were roughly twice as high in aquaria with shallow sediments as in deep sediment treatments. The highest overall death rates were seen in aquaria with shallow coarse sediments over a plenum, and the lowest death rates occurred in aquaria with a sandbed composed of deep coarse sediments. The treatments that were closest to the design aquarists employ for deep sandbed, Miracle Mud and Jaubert plenum aquaria had intermediate death rates. The shallow coarse sediment design that is closest to that used in Berlin systems had one of the highest death rates, and the deep coarse sediment design for which there is currently no accepted name had the lowest overall mortality (Fig. 10). We did not test bare bottom tanks, but the data clearly suggest that the shallower the sediment, the higher the mortality rate, and you can't get much shallower than a bare bottom tank!"


I'm not advocateing BB's but damn, the bolded statement is just ridiculous and unfair (not to mention they didn't actually test it). They were doing a study on biological filtration (bacteria), yet they made a statement about a method that uses mechanical filtration (i.e. skimmer) as its primary form of export. How can you remove the skimmer from the BB system and still call it that. Does that make sense to you? Its no longer a BB system but just a tank with water in it.

Here's a test for them. Put a tank with no sand and a big skimmer vs. a tank with sand and a big skimmer. Add whatever nutrients you want and wait a while. Then purposely fluctuate the system to crash it causing bacteria to die and test for nutrients. The nutrients in the system with sand will be much greater.

 

[herman]

The experiment is primarily to test the differences in sand beds. Bare bottom is well bare bottom. No sand bed. Why wouldnt they exclude it? I think it would have been less fair if it had been included.

You cant compare BB vs DSB. They are very different systems. For an experiment to work you need a controlled environment with specific variables.

I am not an advocate of any particular system. I just use, what is best suited to my lifestyle and what I want to keep in the tank. Currently it happens to be BB.

As to comparing the two - you cant reasonably compare them without getting into a major altercation on the board.

Rather than arguing which is better, we should approach it constructively and list pros and cons of each system so that people can make an informed decision as opposed to confusing people with data that they dont understand!

 

[herman]

Here's a test for them. Put a tank with no sand and a big skimmer vs. a tank with sand and a big skimmer. Add whatever nutrients you want and wait a while. Then purposely fluctuate the system to crash it causing bacteria to die and test for nutrients. The nutrients in the system with sand will be much greater.

How is that proof of anything. Of course the the DSB system will be much greater. Higher bacterial population amongst others. Thats no test!

 

[kimoyo]

How is that proof of anything. Of course the the DSB system will be much greater. Higher bacterial population amongst others. Thats no test!

Thanks thats my point.

Then how is testing the BB method without a skimmer a test?

 

[kimoyo]

The experiment is primarily to test the differences in sand beds. Bare bottom is well bare bottom. No sand bed. Why wouldnt they exclude it? I think it would have been less fair if it had been included.

Again I agree, but then why did they include them by making that remark?

As to comparing the two - you cant reasonably compare them without getting into a major altercation on the board.

Rather than arguing which is better, we should approach it constructively and list pros and cons of each system so that people can make an informed decision as opposed to confusing people with data that they dont understand!

I'm not comparing the two or saying one is better. After seeing some of the members tanks on this board I have to say that what method you use doesn't matter as long as you do it right. All I am saying is there are some seriously wrong things said in that article that people are basing conclusions on.

 

[herman]

Why they made that remark? They obviously prefer one over the other. Ive put remarks in the past where they really dont belong either. Right now I try (try being the keyword) to stay objective. Agree to disagree.

 

[kimoyo]

Yeah but its a little different when its an article published in advanced aquarist. They compared BB's with death traps :lol:. BTW, my point was to show prattreef that all you need is to use your own common sense when looking at that article to see its shortcomings.