replacing LR

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Wouldn't save alot more money by just avoiding the DSB then?? I mean I never heard of OTS with cc or ssb or bb.
 
That is also where the big question lies...you've been doing SW for 8 months...can you actually forsee NOT upgrading within 5-7 years? much less 7-10...

Hehe.. I already have dreams of a larger tank and mine just got started.

:mrgreen:
 
Heh..I got my 175bow about 6 months ago. I plan on upgrading to a 500 w/i the next 5 years! Cant wait....The cool thing is that my wife is as addicted as I am...I wont even have to talk her into it! :jump:
 
As another one who has just switched my cc for DSB I am hoping for the best that this will all be figured out by the time I am heading for OTS. The main reason for my switch was to get control of nitrates before introduction of corals.

I think the more difficult question is how to control nitrates without a DSB rather than worrying about what will happen in 5-7 years.
 
I think the more difficult question is how to control nitrates without a DSB rather than worrying about what will happen in 5-7 years.

1.5 lbs - 2lbs LR per gallon of tank volume, aggressive protien skimming, 1-1.5" sandbed, limited nutirent import and not overstocking have always worked for me. Actually my 150 was overstocked and I still didn't have a nitrate problem. The thing is to look at the big picture, there is no]/b] one thing that can make a tank perfect, it is the whole enchilada ;)
 
Ok now I have a dumb question. If my tank is a 46 gal and I have 4 to5 inches of sand, and 40 lbs of rock (about 45 but I'm not counting the base rock I stuck in), then my actual tank volume should be somewhere around 38 gal. correct? Would that be the figure I use?
 
If you have a 5" DSB, you won't have to worry about it, my suggestions (experience actually) is without a DSB. But to answer the question the figure would be net gallons, so 46.
 
But to answer the question the figure would be net gallons, so 46.

I thought the term net implied "containing" as in if you buy a bag of ls it's net 20 lbs so you get 20 lbs of stuff. not including the packaging. That being the case would we still go by the "empty" tank volume. I'm not arguing, just trying to under stand why we do what we do. :?
 
I apologize, I meant gross not net, been up since early this morning.

net volume would be minus the displacement, gross would be the tank volume total. At anyrate, I'm not sure whare the number comes from, simply that it is, it's not hard and fast either, you would need less weight of a very pourous light weight rock with lots of surface area that of a more dense less porous rock.
 
I under stand (I think). I just got back from watching "Passion of the Christ" and I'm not sure I'm fully recovered.

I guess it dosen't matter I've got 40 lbs of live rock plus the 3 or 4 pounder I tossed in the tank, plus my dsb. I did buy a bag of the "live sand" I'm in thr process of trying to get some infauna. Maybe Logan will have some, he is only an hour away. :lol:
 
OK i got the response from Bob Fenner this morning regarding replacing LR and i thought i would share...

<Likely there are mentions of this issue stored on WetWebMedia.com but no
definitive explanation. I will try to be brief here: There is a general "trend"
in marine aquarium keeping with LR and substrates seeming to "run out" of
soluble materials, capacity to sustain biomineral, alkaline (pH) over time...
that "crashing" syndrome is right around a year and a half after set-up... And
there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the practice after this time of
removing or adding 10-25% or so of new LR, substrate forestalls this effect...
So, my pitch on after the first year and a quarter, year and a half for
aquarists to switch out or add more of these materials... on a six month basis
thereafter. The new LR of course does many other useful "things"... restoring
biodiversity, introducing new "fodder"... and aquarist interest! Bob Fenner>


He did say at the meeting that this can be done in your sump and/or other container.
 
Well....I guess all of us with tanks over a year and a half old, should feel very lucky our tanks aren't crashing, or are they??

I'll wait it out, my last tank ran 6 years with no LR or sand removal or addition. The reason it's not still running is I tore it down to move up here....
 
It seems to me that there a lot of tanks with a DSB over 2 years old andmany over 5 years old or older that haven't crashed.

I wonder what other factors may be at work. I read that some folks don't do water changes, relying on the LR and DSB to do the work. They just add top off and some trace minerals. Could that be part of the cause.

How many of the crashed tank owners took the time to clean their LR of detritus? Did they ever use a PH or turkey baster to blast the rock on occasion?

What other causes could lead to these early crashes?

While I give merit to the heavy metal sink theory, I don't see that happening in a year old system. There are too many tanks in the 5+ years range to beleive this.
 
Still sounds like DSB's lead to nothing but problems. So why have them?
 
gotz_potential said:
Still sounds like DSB's lead to nothing but problems. So why have them?
Now I'm interested.... :wink: Time to tag along... hehehe

Cheers
Steve
 
Back
Top Bottom