I'm starting a 210g upgrade. I have been back and forth on DSB. I want raise SPS & clams and have seen several threads about peolple going to BB. I know flow is a big question and that should not be a concern. Have Mag 18 in sump on standard Bulkheads (2x1" drain and 2x3/4" returns) I will also add a dart closed loop manifold with 8 outlets. With that said what is the advantages and disdvantages of both (DSB vs BB)? Thanks for the help. Pictures of DSB with SPS would be great.
Here we go again...DSB...yes or no?
- Thread starter wvarnado
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
In my experience: I had a DSB for about a year and had a heck of a time keeping my nitrates in check. I tried everthing! Eventually i wen BB and haven't had a problem since (2 years now). I know people who do have a DSB wih SPS and have no problem with trates at all! Go Figure!!
I'll let others chime in with their experience.
I'll let others chime in with their experience.
Nitrates were never a problem with mine - I had (and occaisionally still have) issues with organics from detritus accumulation.
I think that the real question is what kind of bioload are you planning. In my experience, DSB's are best with light bioloads. I have two yellowtail blue damsels, one sixline and one lawnmower blennie in a 100-gal. Plus, no corals that require significant (larger than zooplankton) feeding. DSB's do an excellent job of processing small amounts of waste.
I think that the real question is what kind of bioload are you planning. In my experience, DSB's are best with light bioloads. I have two yellowtail blue damsels, one sixline and one lawnmower blennie in a 100-gal. Plus, no corals that require significant (larger than zooplankton) feeding. DSB's do an excellent job of processing small amounts of waste.
A DSB with a plenulum and sand seeded with GARf grunge or the stuff from IPSF really helps with nitrates. My tank looks great after 2 years.
That being said, I'm upgrading to a new tank and will not use a plenulum and go with about 3 inches of sand. The important thing is to have a lot of clean-up crew.
That being said, I'm upgrading to a new tank and will not use a plenulum and go with about 3 inches of sand. The important thing is to have a lot of clean-up crew.
IPSF??? By Clean up crew are you talking about worms and Pods?
From my experience you have to feed the deep sand bed (in tank or remote) to get the full effect of nitrate and phosphate removal. I fed my tank Acetate when I had a plenum, and alcohol now that I have a RDSB and a shallow sand bed in the tank. I have seen first hand that it helps to keep the phosphates and nitrates down from experience, but to completely eliminate them you have to chemically strip them out with Rowaphos or other resin.
I went with a remote deep sand bed after my plenum solidified into 18" by 48" sheets of agrocrete. At least this way I can remove and clean the RDSB over time without having to remove the critters.
I went with a remote deep sand bed after my plenum solidified into 18" by 48" sheets of agrocrete. At least this way I can remove and clean the RDSB over time without having to remove the critters.
Sweet Reefer
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11
dude, I have to note that from my reading what you are doing is carbon dosing and its success doesn't have anything to do with the dsb really.
I am going all over recommending people not use deep sand beds unless they understand why they are doing it, not because it doesn't work but because of what happened to the idea. It got twisted so people thought a little dsb would solve high nitrates caused by overstocking and poor nutrient export. Then the system crashes and they blame the sand bed, which now has a reputation on many forums as a ticking time bomb. They don't realize that it was their poor overall technique that caused the crash and the DSB probably held it off for a while, but the same would have happened anyway all other things being equal.
I am going all over recommending people not use deep sand beds unless they understand why they are doing it, not because it doesn't work but because of what happened to the idea. It got twisted so people thought a little dsb would solve high nitrates caused by overstocking and poor nutrient export. Then the system crashes and they blame the sand bed, which now has a reputation on many forums as a ticking time bomb. They don't realize that it was their poor overall technique that caused the crash and the DSB probably held it off for a while, but the same would have happened anyway all other things being equal.
I have been carbon dosing for a while for phosphate control. I do not have a nitrate problem (Knock on wood). It works very well for me. Carbon dosing in the past for me resulted in my last plenum turning into agrocrete, thus rendering it useless, and impossible to change.
I agree with you that a DSB are useful as a nutrient exporter, and can get a bad rap. They can be ticking time bombs if not cleaned just like a canister filter. The anaerobic bacteria need a carbon source in an oxygen poor environment to function for nutrient export. That is why I carbon dose my RDSB. If you read my post I went to the RDSB so that it COULD BE REMOVED from the system without having to remove all the critters. Since I have been using the RDSB for the last three months, the sand in my tank sand is very clean, and I am very happy. The RDSB takes the brunt of the nutrient export. I also point out the limits of the RDSB, and the necessity of using some other chemical treatment like ROWA Phos to completely eliminate Phosphates.
I have been keeping posting updated. If I find a problem with it then I will remove it, and report it on the forum. Anything in a tank not properly maintained can result in a tank crash.
I agree with you that a DSB are useful as a nutrient exporter, and can get a bad rap. They can be ticking time bombs if not cleaned just like a canister filter. The anaerobic bacteria need a carbon source in an oxygen poor environment to function for nutrient export. That is why I carbon dose my RDSB. If you read my post I went to the RDSB so that it COULD BE REMOVED from the system without having to remove all the critters. Since I have been using the RDSB for the last three months, the sand in my tank sand is very clean, and I am very happy. The RDSB takes the brunt of the nutrient export. I also point out the limits of the RDSB, and the necessity of using some other chemical treatment like ROWA Phos to completely eliminate Phosphates.
I have been keeping posting updated. If I find a problem with it then I will remove it, and report it on the forum. Anything in a tank not properly maintained can result in a tank crash.
Very well put.
I had a DSB for 5 years, BB for almost 3 years now...they both have pro's and cons. As stated by another poster, the DSB does work best in lower bioload situations, it was never really meant to handle a large bioload, although many reefers saw it that way in the beginning.
A good education on what a DSB is able to do and what it isn't, and a good understanding of the biological processes taking place and their limitations is a must before trying one in your tank. Also, don't make the mistake of believing that a DSB closely resembles how a reef in nature deals with nitrates, it's not even close, it's actually almost the opposite.
DSB's have gone from being viewed as a magic cure-all for your tank to a disaster waiting to happen. Now I think reefers are looking at them a little more objectively and understanding how they work and what their real limitations are.
Sweet Reefer
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11
I really don't want to be a jerk, but you kind of just proved my point exactly. What you are doing will work for what you are trying to do, just not for the reasons you think. The RDSB might as well not be there IMHO. I have no interest in arguing as I'm burnt out on that already. MikeS knows what he's talking about obviously, listen to him. Peace.
Sweet Reefer
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11
Also, MikeS your reef tank is sweet. I like the halimeda all over, one of the more interesting ones I've seen.
Could somebody please provide a brief chemical explanation for the role of carbon in anaerobic bacteria and nutrient reduction? I had thought that the anaerobic bacteria were converting nitrate into nitrogen gas. Is the carbon necessary to simply absorb the oxygen (from the nitrate) and be converted into CO2?
The carbon source is an organic food. The example below is for methanol (CH3OH), it would need to be balanced differently if another carbon source is used.
NO3- + 5/6 CH3OH => 1/2 N2 + 5/6CO2 +7/6 H2O +OH-
Ref. The Reef Aquarium Vol III, J Charles Delbeek, Julian Sprung, Chapter 6, pg. 260.
NO3- + 5/6 CH3OH => 1/2 N2 + 5/6CO2 +7/6 H2O +OH-
Ref. The Reef Aquarium Vol III, J Charles Delbeek, Julian Sprung, Chapter 6, pg. 260.
Thanks...I figure if I'm going to have algae in there, it may as well be halimeda. It is a little rough on my Ca levels, but it doesn't grow like wildfire and it's much easier to isolate and prune back than calupera...
Thanks! Kind of what I suspected, but just wasn't sure.
From that reaction, it would seem like the pH would increase - correct?
Also, how does the methanol diffuse into the anerobic area without oxygen coming along as well? Or is the oxygen all consumed in the aerobic zone?
