conflicting opnions on dsb

[loganj]

I wonder if anyone has taken sand samples from a tank with a DSB that crashed, with OTS being the suspect, and had them analyzed to see exactly what was in there? Like everybody else, I've read about this until my eyes are crossed. I do think that it could be proven though. One would have to have very complete records on the subject tank to rule out contamination from any other source and a complete analysis on the contents of the DSB when the tank crashed. My guess is it'll take about 15 years and a couple of hundred gig of hard drive space.

 

[alrmc4]

ok next question could i do a sand bed in the main tank that starts off 6in deep in the rear of the tank sloping to about 1 to 2 in the front so that i don't have to look at as much of that nasty stuff...thanks for your thoughts.

 

[mojoreef]

The problem with DSB's is that they a way to over sold, thier benefits are greatly exaggerated and no one ever mentions thier limitations and down falls. How can a hobbist make an educated choice. What are thier limitations? nitrogen based products, thats it. Everything else dosent get processed. Most folks have seen the results of testing on foods, additives, ASW, and so on. These arent nitrogen based. Most all metals will be bound by bacteria, enzynes, microbes, ligands and chelatons what happens to these when they die, what happens to the acids made by the bacteria to digest food, what happens to the bacterial flock, particulate dust or to stuff that is just not nitrogen based??? it sinks to the bottom since thier is a bottom on most folks tanks it has no where else to go, so it builds up. This my friends is a definition of a sink.
DO I believe that OTS (if thier is even such a thing) can be put onto DSB? no not really a DSB will simply slowly stop processing and stop hold phosphates. Has thier been studies to prove this? thier have been a ton of tests done in the wild in regard to nutrient cycleing, sand bed compasities, nutrient enrichment.
Hopps I agree with you on tank crashes, all tank crashes are 9 times out of ten due to poor husbandry. As per Dr. Ron I dont want to really go thier. all I can about him is that his tank crashed after 5 years (but he is a heavy feeder). Me and Rob have had many conversations, both in person and online. Although Rob has a nice tank, I personally want more then 2 fish and some hardy soft corals, that and I like to feed my tank.

If their is in fact a problem with an end material that has nowhere to go, then indeed EVERY system will eventually fail. This is assuming that some end result indeed gets bound up in the substrate, rock, and animal tissue. If anything, I feel most secure with the longevity of a DSB over others because there is such a diversity of animals consuming the different forms of matter in the tank

I dont see the logic in saying that every system is doomed to failure, unless I am reading it wrong. Nothing gets bound to rock or even the sand particles, it lies between them. You get rid of that and you dont have a problem anymore. Problem with a dsb is that u cant. it stays thier, and unless its nitrogen based all the critters in the world are not going to make it go away.
You mention anecdotal evidence, Hoops thier has been hundred of studies done on this. if Anything is anecdotal would be the use of them. I dont want to steer folks away from them or towards them. I want people to understand the whole story. What is good and what is bad. From that point it is up to each individual to make up thier own mind.
Peolpe ask about alturnatives. In this hobby most of what we deal with is methods of removing nutrients/detritus and so on. We use algae scrubbers, calurpas, mangroves, protien skimmers, canister filters, refugium adn so on its endless. All this in the pursuit of removing detritus/nutrients BUT when it comes to DSB's we chose to stop all removal in exchange for something that if working optimaly will only remove a portion. I dont get it. Everything that happens in a DSB will happen in LR (yes not as much surface area, but good enough) the one exception is that through gravity and bacterial action detritus will be driven out of the rock (it has no sealed bottom). From thier is is simply removed. With a DSB we create this complex and huge system to create a SH** cycle, Why? Why not just simple vacuum it out once a month and be done with it. The we dont have to wait for build up, we can have all the flow we want, we dont have to fill our tanks with hundreds of pounds of sand and so on.
We talk about one guy with a tiny bioload having a old DSB and then a few scattered others have mature bed up to say 10 years. Man thier are thousands of tanks that are 20, 30+ years old with out them. A friend is a curator at the mott museum, they just moved a carib SPS display that has been living for 36 years, no DSB. Look at the public aquariums, see any (yea they have alot of water but they also have a ton of bio load). Next time your thier ask one of the marine biologists about his opinion on DSB's. ask the labs, the univercities, the NOAA.
=All I ask is if you suggest the use of a DSB to a new reefer make sure you know the good and the bads and tell them both, that way they can make an educated choice. If you dont know then you shouldnt mention either way. Well at least that is my philosophy (and I do not mean that to any person directly, just a general statement)

anyway I have babbled to much


Mike

 

[alrmc4]

you babble pretty good mike i like your points with dedicated up keep i have kept a lot of things alive with "gasp" an ugf thats right the tank i have right now is set up totally wrong for today's standards yet my losses have not been extreme could it possibly be cleaning it every week to remove the waste? or am i just lucky? do not know just know i want to do the most correct thing for the new one.

 

[HoopsGuru]

*entire approach changed, please see below*

 

[HoopsGuru]

While I find this pretty pointless, I would like to partake a little bit more.

Mojo, you go out of your way to say pretty strong statements like "limitations", "downfalls", "fact", etc. Thus, the burden of this proof also falls upon you.

I would like you to provide specific studies backing up your claims of the "sink" theory of deep sand beds. This material should include detailed studies in a controlled environment where a deep sand bed has failed. This should obviously be reproduceable as part of the study to the point where a consistent end has been established in which the deep sand bed can be expected to fail under the same conditions due to the similar settling of various elements. Just one or two of the "hundreds" you mention would easily suffice.

I would also like to see the detailed report in which Dr. Ron Shimek was able to analyze and conclude specifically the ultimate cause of his tank crash in relation to the "sink" principle. The man publishes everything else, this should be available somewhere if it exists.

We talk about one guy with a tiny bioload having a old DSB and then a few scattered others have mature bed up to say 10 years. Man thier are thousands of tanks that are 20, 30+ years old with out them. A friend is a curator at the mott museum, they just moved a carib SPS display that has been living for 36 years, no DSB. Look at the public aquariums, see any (yea they have alot of water but they also have a ton of bio load). Next time your thier ask one of the marine biologists about his opinion on DSB's. ask the labs, the univercities, the NOAA.

The use of DSB's in the hobby has nowhere near the history and use of other systems such as the Berlin method and others. It is totally unfair to compare them in the manner you just did. I would suggest waiting another decade before stating that they cannot have that history to give them a fair opportunity to prove themselves or flop. While there are some DSB's suspected of crashing from the system itself, I don't believe it is a wild assumption to state that the same can be found for people blaming other systems for similar problems. You make it clear yourself that blame often falls on failure for unfair reasons, yet DSB's are the only one in your mind that deserve these assumptions....at least that's how it appears. I also am not impressed with the opinions of marine biologists and others, who in my experience have only created their opinions based on their understanding of the theory of a deep sand bed. That is unless they have done extensive long term studies, and you can make them available as suggested above.

My whole conclusion revolves around you producing the facts before presenting your opinions as such. All you have to do is provide the detailed analysis' of the failure of deep sand beds (because of the system itself), and you will have debunked the whole debate for the entire hobby. I and most rational people will certainly not question replicated studies proving their failure by accredited professionals. Although, if they are available and exist, I have no idea why they are not mainstream already, preventing us all from making terrible mistakes.

 

[alrmc4]

i would like to thank every one for representing some very well thought out facts. I have come to the conclusion that what ever way i go it will be maintained, and watched over to the best of my ability..you have gotten me to believe that all we can do is be responsible and do the best we can and we should have much success and enjoyment from it...again thanks all

 

[mojoreef]

Mojo, you go out of your way to say pretty strong statements like "limitations", "downfalls", "fact", etc. Thus, the burden of this proof also falls upon you.

Ohhh Ok, lol. I didnt really think those 3 words were Strong statements. But I would say that this one is

I don't mind any kind of debate, as there is no "limitation" or "anything they do not do" and I am quite confident in that.

OK reading down your reply and skipping past your experiment requirements for the moment. You talk about asking for detailed proof of what killed Dr. rons tank. Rons reasoning was the build up of toxins and heavy metals in the sand and Lr over the years. This is what propted his salt and urchin testing. I am not going to spend hours searching RC, but you could just ask him if you wanted.
You then talked about the history of DSB and how they have not been around that long in comparison to other systems. Well they have actually been around for a long long time to. The most modred version was done by univercities and labratories. They could not keep the animals that they wanted to study alive long enough to study them. The NOAA cut them off collection unless they used some sand with bacteria and a few small peices of live rock. This sand and LR kept the critter alive long enough to study the critters. Now you know why Ron and others jumped all over it as a comercial enterprise.
Ok you make the statement

You make it clear yourself that blame often falls on failure for unfair reasons, yet DSB's are the only one in your mind that deserve these assumptions....at least that's how it appears

I am not sure where you got that from but that wasnt what I said. For me DSB's are far from the only thing that deserves these assumptions. With when I here statements like they have no limitations and that their is nothing they cant do, I kinda have to call BS on that.
TO understand the Biology of what goes on thier, you have to have a grasp of Marine Biology and I dont think I am a very good teacher. YOur outline of testing from what I read is that you want to see a study on someones (ie Hobbists) over a long period of time. Well that will never happen. The studies I was refering to were studies done in the wild and in controlled lab experiments. Dealing with things from nutrient cycling, phosphurious cycling, Nutrient enrichment in Sand beds, remineralization and so on.
But anyway here are a few to start.
"Dissolution of Calcite in deep-sea sediments: pH and O2 microelectrode results", Archer, David, et. al.. Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta Vol 53, pp. 2831-2845 Aug 9, 1989.

"Equatorial Pacific Calcite Preservation Cycles: Production or Dissolution?" Archer, D. E., Paleoceanography, Vol 6, NO 5, pp.561-571, Aug, 1991.

"Distribution of Carbonate in Surface Sediments of the Pacific Ocean," Berger, W.H., Adelseck, C.G., Mayer, L.A., Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 81, NO 15, pp. 2617-2627, May 20, 1976.

"Effect of Pressure on Carbonic Acid, Boric Acid, and the pH in Seawater," Culbertson, C., and Pytkowicz, RM, Limnology and Oceanography, Vol 13, NO 3, pp 403-417, July, 1968.

"Calcium Carbonater Preservation in the Ocean", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol 331, Issue 1616, The Deep Sea Bed: Its Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (Jun 19, 1990), pp. 29-40.

"Carbon Fluxes at the Sediment-Water Interface of the Deep-Sea: Calcium Carbonate Preservation," Emerson, Steven, and Bender, Michael, Journal of Marine Research, Vol 39, NO1, 1981.

"Respiration and dissolution in the sediments of the western North Atlantic: Estimates From Models of in situ Microelectrode Measurements of Porewater Oxygen an pH," Hales, B., Emerson, S., and Archer, David, Deep-Sea Research, Vol 41, NO 4, pp. 695-719, 1994.

"Dissolution of Calcite in the Deep Sea: Theoretical Prediction for the Case of Uniform Size Particles Settling Into a Well-Mixed Sediment," Keir, Robin, American Journal of Science, Vol 282, pp 193-236, March 1982.

Chemical Fluxes From a Sediment Trap Experiment in the Sargasso Sea," Spencer, DW, BRewer, PG, Fleer, A, Honjo, S.et.al., Journal of Marine Research, Vol 36, NO 1 (?), pp 493-523, 1978.

 

[mojoreef]

Hoops I will look for some online links for you, tommorrow, getting a little late here.

Alrmc4 you said

you babble pretty good mike i like your points with dedicated up keep i have kept a lot of things alive with "gasp" an ugf thats right the tank i have right now is set up totally wrong for today's standards yet my losses have not been extreme could it possibly be cleaning it every week to remove the waste? or am i just lucky? do not know just know i want to do the most correct thing for the new one.

The bottom line to removing detrius/organics/inorganice is to just remove them. IN organics are bound by the above, once this is done they become organic. All you have to do is to get a method of removal. A skimmer will remove some that are still available in the water column. Simple vacuuming out what settles on the bottom will do the trick. Some folks use algaes or calurpas (but their cells are a little to leaking for me) some folks use DSB's or plenums.
So in your choice the bottom line is to remove them. From here you have alot of choices. See corals dont grow on sand, they grow on rocks, sometime surrounded by sand but most of the time not. Reefs are pretty much nutrient free, the fast and vast amount of water keeps the water pretty clean (would be really hard to replicate this). Most of the waste (ie nutrients/detritus) is sweep away by this water motion. If you trace the reefs around the world you will see that every reef is associated with an Abyss. If you have ever watched shows like the discovery channel when they show deep water dives, it always looks like its snowing, well the vast majority of this is detritus/waste, this produces vast quanties of zoo and phyto plankton which in turn is upwelled bact to the reef. Kinda like a really really big settling tank.

Mike

 

[HoopsGuru]

Rons reasoning was the build up of toxins and heavy metals in the sand and Lr over the years.

I have read quite a bit on his theory on RC. And as I thought, this is really just his best "guess".

You then talked about the history of DSB and how they have not been around that long in comparison to other systems.

I'm talking about their use in the hobby, it has not been mainstream until recently.

YOur outline of testing from what I read is that you want to see a study on someones (ie Hobbists) over a long period of time.

Sorry if I was not really clear, although I will be reading up on some of the information provided, I want distinct studies on DSB's in tanks that prove they fail, not information on marine biology. If none of these are available or exist, then the opinions of curators, universities, hobbyists, etc. are purely anecdotal as I have mentioned previously.....even if they are educated in different fields of marine biology. If such proof does not exist, then I just don't think that the terms you use can apply. How can something be a FACT if it hasn't been proven in an actual experiment? And I DO feel the words you use such as "limitations", "downfalls" and "fact", etc. can be very powerful in the eyes of a new hobbyist. I'm just asking for the scientific proof that they will fail, not scientific theory.

 

[reefrunner69]

I'm just asking for the scientific proof that they will fail, not scientific theory.

Seems hard to prove a negative. How about some persuasive evidence. From what I've seen that's all either side has, persuasive evidence. There is no Scientific proof that it won't fail or that it will. Seems all there is is evidence (antecdotal) for either side.

 

[HoopsGuru]

Which is exactly what I am saying. If there are no results from controlled experiments, then it should not be stated what is GOING to happen. We should be talking about POTENTIAL limitations, etc. but it should be clear that it is not fact as is currently being presented. It's a best "hunch" which is fine by me, just not my opinion and certainly not fact.

 

[reefrunner69]

The idea of a DSB becoming a "sink" is completely untrue and has no factual evidence supporting it.

This was your opening line in this thread, perhaps both sides should avoid things like completely untrue and use words like speculation...IMO, neither side can prove it's point. What I want to see is why there is no end product. For instance a fish defecates, there is left over food etc...all this settles to the sand bed. We have critters to eat this food, they create waste, there are other critters to eat this food, etc...There is always waste created and in a closed (limited) system like an aquarium, we will simply run out of the diverse critters to continue to eat the waste. Certainly the Nitrate produces by the nitrifying bacteria is released as nitrogen gas, but what about the other waste?? What happens to the end product there?

 

[Guest]

What happens to the end product there?

It rots. Just like anything else in the world that is left sitting for a long period of time. The thing that I see in my tank is, after some time it either disappears, or it is taken into the sand bed by other critters. In any case, it seems that it turns to nitrate. One more thing, in doing some biological studies, isn't it true that ALL organic compounds including US, contain Nitrogen based substances ?

 

[reefrunner69]

it seems that it turns to nitrate

It can't. If it broke down to nitrate only, it would be nitrate to begin with, there is another or more byproducts from the break down. One thing is gact, Matter can neither be created nor destryed, only transformed. So what happens to the other stuff? One of the byproducts of all this is sulfide, from what I have read...What in our sandbed eats sulfide?

 

[HoopsGuru]

This was your opening line in this thread, perhaps both sides should avoid things like completely untrue and use words like speculation...

Good point, it should rather state that the "sink" theory is not proven, not that it is completely untrue which implies it was proven not to happen

 

[HoopsGuru]

One of the byproducts of all this is sulfide, from what I have read...What in our sandbed eats sulfide?

I assume you are talking about hydrogen sulfide. To my knowledge, putrification which creates H2S results from not having enough detrivores moving through the system. I don't think a DSB consumes sulfide, but is rather key in prevent it from occurring when properly set up.

 

[mojoreef]

I assume you are talking about hydrogen sulfide. To my knowledge, putrification which creates H2S results from not having enough detrivores moving through the system. I don't think a DSB consumes sulfide, but is rather key in prevent it from occurring when properly set up.

Dead wrong my friend. In a DSB thier is a carbon cycle, a nitrogen cycle and a sulfur cycle. In the sulphur zone no critters exist beyond bacteria. This is the way it works.
aerobes predominate initially, because oxygen inhibits nitrate and sulfate reduction. This means that the presence of oxygen will not allow the reduction of Nitrate or sulfate, thus your areobic zone
facultative anaerobes begin to predominate as oxygen concentration decreases. Facultative are bacteria that can fix both oxygen and nitrate. This this the begining of the anerobic zone. Critter in this zone are only the worms mentioned above, and the occantional visitor.
Anaerobes predominate when oxygen is exhausted and fermentation products (hydrogen, organic acids) accumulate. Now we are in the anoxic zone. Through the fermentation of hydrogen and organic acids it crerates its own anoxic zone. No critters with the excetion again of the worm, passing through.
Right behind these bacteria are the iron or manganese reducers (Shewanella) predominate at first. then behind them are the nitrate reducers (Pseudomonas, etc.). behind them comes sulfate reducers (Desulfovibrio, etc.) , because they compete better for hydrogen than methanogens (but only if the sulfate concentration is high) and then finally carbon dioxide reducers (methanogens) , after the sulfate supply is exhausted.
This is the cycle that is created in a DSB, this is the cycle that is created in the wild. You have to understand that nothing goes away, As Keven said it is merely chemically altered to another form. Ie. A chunk of food hits the sand bed. If critters such as pods, worms and such comsume it they will take out about 10% of the matter and poop out 90%, But then in turn will also poop out its own form of Poo. Ok so the critters are thier for 2 reasons One to stir The AREOBIC zone and to process the Poo to small more accesable particuls for bacteria. Now this is where the process of reduction start. The waste is in the form of Ammonia, the first form of bacteria to have access to it only want a small portion of it, they remove protons and electrons in order to give themselves the energy they need to live. What is left is a chemical make up we call nitrite. Next steps up another form of bacteris that will once again chemically alter the formula to what we call Nitrate. The above process occurs in the Oxygenated zone. Next comes the anerobic zone. The bacteria here can live in oxygenated water or no oxygen water. When in the oxygenated water it will fix oxygen for energy, when the oxygen is depleted they now can fix nitrates for their energy source, a byproduct of this is nitrogen gas (the little bubbles you see in your bed). thats your nitrogen cycle.
A sulphur cycle also starts in your areobic zone. Bacteria such as Beggiatoa, Sulfolobus, Thiobacillus and Thiothrix but this is mostly an oxidizing process because of the presence of oxygen. Most of the altering or reducing occur once again in the anerobic zone. This cycle works the same way as the nitrogen cycle. One bacteria altering the compound to another, then off gassing. Your tank is bacteria driven, the bugs do nothing more then to move sand and chew down the poo.
What I find funny is that you say it is not proven because no one has starred at a hobbist tank and done the study. Even though it has been studied to death in the wild and in labs and is common proof. Its like saying that even though a crash test dummy was mangled in an accident I wont believe it unless I see it in my car???

You say you dont want to know about marine biology, well enough said then, Marine biology is what makes it possible to keep a reef tank if you dont want to know how it works, then this conversation is truly pointless and we can all wait for the next fad to come out.


Mike

 

[HoopsGuru]

You say you dont want to know about marine biology

I never said that, and I don't particularly care for the tone in you are starting to bring to your replies. As for the sulfide, I made no mention to not having a sulfur cycle, but rather I was referring to the fact that there should not be a buildup of hydrogen sulfide.....again why I asked if that is what he was referring to. All I have asked for is one documented source of a tank crash that was clearly linked to the sandbed "sink" theory. I find it odd that if it is so cut and dry why this is evidently not available.

You send me a pm hoping that we can have a nice debate *This portion of your reply has been edited, it is violation of the User Ageement you agreed to when you signed up for this forum*. If this is the only way you can "debate" then I will kindly stop replying.

 

[reefrunner69]

Might be time to take a step back and take a breath. I'm gonna close the thread for a few hours, I'll reopen it at 8:30pm EST. This is a difficult area to debate I hope that we can continue this debate later in a calmer tone than it is getting. Please do not view the temporary closng as anything but a cooling off period, there are no accusations to anyone, it's just time to take a step back, have a beer and come back at it later with a more relaxed perspective.