Deep Sand Bed Rhetoric

Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum

Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:

aquariumdebacle

electrolyte addict
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
613
Location
Seattle
I thought I would make my own thread here as I don't want to confuse anyone by using facts. I too jumped on the deep sand bed wagon and after having many numerous conversations including two six hour ones with the ever so humble Mr. O'Brien, I have come to the conclusion that everyone is wrong and that my sand bed performed miracuously!

I recently had the pleasure of moving my 120 gallon tank and 300 lbs of wet sand (where were ya Mike? I couldn't seem to get a hold of you!) When I got past the first layer I noticed pristine clean sand. This is not an exaggeration. The sand was as clean as when I put it in two years ago. It did get a milky appearance from the pariculate dust as I did not rinse it at installation. There was zero detritus and absolutely no stink. There was not even the usual "beach" smell. The "bio-balls" were entirely clean with no detritus in them at all. The sump did not have any accumulations of any kind.

The way that I designed and installed the system had erverything to do with the success. The maintainance and stocking were contrary to all reasonable or even sane practices. I aged the bed properly for about a half year. Then I aged Tonga branch coral for a few months. I then drained the tank and added fresh saltwater. I overstocked the tank with thirty chromis and a bunch of shrimps, crabs and a lobster. I fed primarily Tetra Spirulina Conditioning food in excessive quantities two or three, sometimes four or five times a day as the mood hit me. I added two sand sifting Orange Spot gobies and two Watchman gobies that immediately decimated my beautiful worm collection over the entire bed within a day. So much for diversity. I have an Aqua Medic Turbofloater protein skimmer attached directly to the display. There was a heavy accumulation of detritus on the rockwork that fed my hair algae nicely. The detritus did not accumulate in the sand and there was no cyano visible on the sand or in the system as a whole. The attached refugium was fed from the overflow and then flowed into the main display. The refugium was kept clean of algae by huge amounts of copepods and algae was only able to grow on the walls. The stability of the sand bed was kept intact by a series of eggcrate plates that formed a structure three and three-quarters of an inch deep. This kept the rockwork out of the sandbed and prevented it from being disturbed. The Tonga Branch liverock allowed a minimal footprint to increase surface exposure for the sand bed. Circulation was good but provided by only two Mag5 pumps that outlet to the two top corners. I considered this to be the minimum amount as I had tried two Quiet One 1200's which did not provide enough waterflow. I also tried two Ehiem 1260's but my six inch overflow could not keep up with pump capacity and I had to crank back the return. I did no waterchanges. The lobster ended up eating all the chromis. The tank turned a crystal clear after about month of light stocking of two fish and a lobster. I was really suprised at the disappearance of the yellowing compounds as I have never used carbon. I did add Kalkwasser on a somewhat regular basis but that was the only additive I used during the entire time.

The next stage of the system will be to add a plenum and feed it with reverse flow that comes from a oxygen deprived sump. A very light turnover rate measured in days or even weeks will keep an upwelling of water through the bed without changing the eviroment from anaerobic to aerobic periodically. I believe this will maximize the potential of the bed and see what one of these can really accomplish.

The sand bed performed as it should have and supported two or three small fish as advertised. Mike, I believe that you owe the Ronnettes a deep and sincere apology in that the sand bed works as prescribed. I would be more than happy to hand deliver it to Ron personally at the next convention that you both attend. I have in mind a sea grass display that I think will work great with this type of system.
 
Great post Dan! :D It's about time somebody stuck up for the Ronettes.... :lol:

MikeS
 
I was under the impression that pushing water back up through the sand bed would have some negative effects. All of the stuff that is in the lower layers of sand would then be pushed back up and into your water column. I would also be concerned that i was taking away the food source for the bacteria that live there . I have seen numerous threads suggesting that you stir the top layer of sand to free excess detritus and not to disturb the bottom layer.
 
Sorry Mikey, You know us Proletariats are kept down by you Bourgeosie and can't afford any of those fancy things like cameras! It did have a nice thick mat of hair algae on the upper layers of the Tonga Branch before I cut down the lighting. I placed the sand in buckets three weeks ago and just moved two buckets into one yesterday. The top half of the four gallon buckets were nice and clean just like when they were in the tank even though the tops were sealed. The bottom half had the nice slightly black sand with the familiar rotten-egg smell. As I had none of the anaerobic signs when I removed the sand, it leads me to believe that I may have not had anaerobic condittions in the tank itself. It may have been an entirely aerobic bed. It is hard to accept those conditions because there was a consistent four inch layer of bed throughout the tank but the entire lack of smell and the clean nature of the sand leaves some serious questions as to the depth theory, maybe we need to go to twelve or more inches to get a truly anaerobic situation.

The negative effects of pushing water up through the sand are that the new water coming up would replenish the oxygen thus making it an aerobic bed instead of an anaerobic enviroment. Mike and I discussed periodically removing the water from under the substrate to prevent the "sink effect" that long term DSB's tend to suffer. I am of the opinion that if oxygen depleted water is forced up through the sand bed on a regular or even continuous basis that the bed would not accumulate material and any nitrates making it through the sump would be consumed in the bed. A drip feed of Stolichnaya would be very easy to add to the sump and give me an exuse to have a bottle in the freezer. Yeah, it's for the FISH! Greyhounds for the Moorish Idols!
 
aquariumdebacle said:
but the entire lack of smell and the clean nature of the sand

Dan, how can you say this, when 2 sentences prior you said this...

aquariumdebacle said:
The bottom half had the nice slightly black sand with the familiar rotten-egg smell.

Please clarify the statement.

Sounds like the thick mat of hair algae may have been using excess nutrients before it had a chance to sink in the bed.
 
LOL your to funny Dan!! No one knows how to muddy the waters (no pun intended) better then you free thinking L's, hehe
Remember you dont need black sand to have a sulfuric zone. It will only go black with the presence of iron. Alos on the anaerobic zone it can happen on the surfae of the sand or even in the water column. Mostly in dsb's it happens about a 1/2 down unless you do something dramatic to not allowthat to occur


Mike
 
I put my sand bed in the field next to my house. I have noticed after a good rain or too it turns white and stops stinking. I took over a tank and it had terrible hair algae and cyano, I removed the sand bed and the puka shell that had been laid in on top of it. For some reason the tank is staying crystal clear with no algae. I put the sand in a 20 gallon tote from D.G. and left it over night. The next morning my brother came over so I had him help me dump it in the field. The stench almost made me throw up. I just know if there is that much stuff to die in a bed, and there is always a risk of it dying in my tank. I dont really want to take it. I have noticed signifigant color improvement in the tanks that are now barebottom and the amount of work I have to do is less. Just my experince with and without sandbeds. I used to think you were crazy if you didnt have one. Now I know that it will work either way, my choice though is barebottom.
Steve
 
Dan:
Three fish in a 120 gal. tank is certianly not a sane practice. hehehe If you are serious about a reverse flow plenum you will need to direct that flow through a lot of verry tiny holes that add up to an area ( square inches ) that is equal to or smaller than your supply tube diameter.

You may need a larger manifold tube to feed smaller outlet tubes so that your flow is even in all areas of the bed. The flow needs to be "higher pressure" and short bursts VS "low pressure" and long bursts to maintain even flow.

I have done some investigation on this for a CWP that I have built and installed, but have not started wasting yet. I did test the flow however with good results.

Good luck!
 
Dylan:

The sandbed controversy makes everybody's head hurt. We should get to the "bottom of it". - - pun intended

-Barry
 
even with my barebottom tank, you still get some detritus under the back rockwork. i can only imagine what is trapped in sand beds behind and under the rocks. There is no real way of getting to it exept flow. too much flow and you have a sand storm. h2s is not a good thing to be acumilating in your tank. for humans 700 ppm deadens the sense of smell and at 1500 ppm your dead. think of the size of the little critters in your tank, if you were to release this through a sand bed gone wrong the consequences would be devistating.
 
So, Mikey, would the opposite of a free thinker be an expensive one?

After leaving the sand in sealed buckets for three weeks I noticed the bottom half of the bucket to be the traditional anaerobic environment. What I am suggesting is that the entire bed, when it was in the display, may not have been sufficiently anaerobic. The sand bed may not have been deep enough to get to the point where it was entirely anaerobic. The concentration of hydrogen sulfide was definitely not in the noticable range to me personally until I let it sit in a bucket that had more that twelve inches of sand in them. Even after this the smell was only in the bottom half and not significant enough to overwhelm the nose. What this suggests to me is that the nutrient load in the bed was very low. This may be due to thorough circulation and prevention of accumulation coupled with an efficient aerobic proccessing enviroment. The water column definitley had a large nutrient load that kept the algae thriving. The detritus accumultation on the rockwork was visible everytime a fish disturbed the thick layer. The suprising aspect is that the sand bed did not accumulate detritus to any significant level. Had it, the overpowering stench would have been noticed at least when the bed was removed not to mention when it had sat for three weeks.

The use of Bio-balls also runs counter to conservative thought by feeding nitrates into the system. This may have been occuring during the "overstocked" period but may have reached an equilibrium when stocking levels were significantly reduced. The yellowing compounds definitely disappeared and the water was crystal clear at the time I took the system down. I did not test the water but would suspect the nitrates to be high.

I isn't educated enough to draw scientific conclusions but the empirical evidence is contrary to what I am told would happen or even what I would have guessed. In nutrient rich enviroments sand beds are able to process a lot more than expected. I would like to seek ways to maximize the proccessing of nitrogen for systems with large bio-loads.

When I rebuild the system I will take into consideration the manifolds and baffling to create a somewhat uniform dispersion of oxygen depleted water up through the sand bed. The upward flow of water should dislodge and prevent the accumulation of materials in the bed. I plan to experiment with an alcohol drip-feed to the anaerobic sump. I also need an excuse to keep a bottle of Stolichnaya in the freezer. Greyhounds for the fishes! I am not sure on the sump design or the flow rate and will have to design-in some flexibility to experiment.
 
Dan:

It sounds like you could be onto something here. The details of this might be a bit touchy regarding grain size, depth, and flow rate not to mention the "feeding" that you describe.

You can, however, excercise some variation in the flow and feeding, so your size and depth aren't overly critical, since you can tune the system initially with feeding and flow adjustments.

I would like to see it succeed with little or no "feeding" required, eventually, but your experimentation here will have to lead the way.

It is likely that you would find a particular flow rate to be necessary, in order to obtain the nutrient removal rate that you require. I assume that you would check the "effluent levels" at the surface of the substrate and adjust flow and or feeding accordingly.

At least, if the flow rate is lower than you want ( for total system nutrient levels ), you can always add more, or finer substrate on the surface and crank up the flow to suit. And with upward flow, there is certianly nothing stopping you from adding a bit of rubble on top of that to allow closed loop system flow to be at whatever level you desire. :idea:

It would appear that you can tune it to your requirements with flow and substrate initially, and you still have feeding, if need be, to resolve any other isuues that might pop-up.

I applaud you for you open minded approach here. Please keep us informed of your progress. ;)


NaH2O:

You did not read Dan's original post carefully. There is no conflict in the two statements that you cite. One is upon removal from the display tank, and the other is after 3 weeks in sealed buckets and over 12" depth. :D

Wave98 :)
 
Last edited:
I will probably use a 10% to 90% ratio on the feeding at first. The 10% going to the tank and the 90% going to the freezer for the afore mentioned greyhounds. The feeding aspects are more out of curiosity than real expermintation. I want to make sure that I set up the system in advance so that I can use different methods to see what comes of it. The overall attempt is to minimize nitrates in a extremely high bio-load. Eventually a nice seagrass bed will occupy the sand bed.
 
I figure 20 inch sand bed and 4 inches of water Danny!! just get thin fish and it will rock!! bug city


MIke
 
:lol: Garden eels maybe? good choice for 20" of sand and 4" of water... :lol:
 
Back
Top