Deep Sand Bed with Undergravel Filter?

[brandon429]

Paul

pls detail the critical, context changing way your UGF is set up such that it compares in no way to others this thread. lead w that in ugf threads ideally

When that detail is illuminated we w have strong input on the nature of detritus in the reef tank.

How about reversing a rugf and running it a few decades? Why not, if detritus is harmless

Nobody says storing some detritus will kill anything at all, I store some

just that it counts as bioload we can’t see, modulate or be entertained by, so to have access to it if needed is better than having it locked under a hundred pounds of sand and a hundred pounds of immovable rock stacks

Invaded reef tanks need to be able to access detritus... so it’s rare that seasoned reefers purposefully draw it up under a sandbed where it cannot be removed. They tend to design ejecting mechanisms or access mechanisms or open tank layouts. We don’t use ugf filters because they’ll kill something, they don’t. We don’t use them in the classic sense for the very reasons oil filters are not mounted deep inside an engine...some things were meant to be accessed routinely and tank waste is one of those things.


People aren’t into nitrate tuning in fw like they are saltwater, so they’re common in fw and no more beneficial than other methods. A fw tank using three canister filters isn’t better than a fw tank using two, for example.

Ugf filters are highly oxygenating by design, and they create a storage space for detritus typically unreachable unless you input a hose down under one and remove out the detritus occasionally in which case I’d prefer a ugf over the sand alone technique ironically.

What you do with detritus matters, not if you use or not use a plastic grid in the tank substrate.


Having some, very little, or a lot of new or very old detritus in a given tank doesn’t mean the tank will die... that’s how we explain the old tanks still living that have stored detritus. It’s merely bioloading, do with detritus what you will, some people stock more fish than others and offsets can be arranged. The reason there is a trend to store less detritus, opposite of 1998 reefing, in part has to do with emergence of new tank invaders that can wreck your entire setup five years after you thought it’d run forever if a sandbed isn’t properly cleaned. As people lose more tanks, they aggregate together in study threads and discuss ways to make directional change, we set up tanks differently from prior years and chart how they run comparatively.

Another reason for less storage: tank mobility. Most people must relocate, moving detritus free tanks is easy...avoiding recycle losses...but moving detritus-laden ones is challenging, requires careful order of ops, and has losses at times we can see in myriad threads where sandbed disturbance caused loss

Detritus storage was the first thing people changed upon mass analysis and a demand for more stable tanks as they age. Not everyone, just the vast majority by a factor of 90% are not storing waste for the life of the tank... check build threads to see trends.


The absolute number one biological technique change in our hobby over the last twenty years is the view on detritus storage, try to dissect why that came to be

The tide changed -against- the advice of our reef teachers and that means something... Teachers, books and sages said a simple 4 inches of sand on bottom, Berlin dsb method, aged over time, mineralized waste and made it neutral. but we all went away from that...why? Are we misled non storers, or did the masses get together/compare results and begin something new for a reason?





https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/what-could-possibly-change-in-10-years.417266/#post-4885313

 

[Clueless Reefer]

Its been interesting to read these replies. Wouldn't adding an oversized population of inverts that live in the sub-strait take care of any nutrient bombs that could develop? For instance, adding a bunch of Super Tongan's, gobi's and a few sand stars.

 

[Sallstrom]

Paul

pls detail the critical, context changing way your UGF is set up such that it compares in no way to others this thread. lead w that in ugf threads ideally

When that detail is illuminated we w have strong input on the nature of detritus in the reef tank.

How about reversing a rugf and running it a few decades? Why not, if detritus is harmless

Nobody says storing some detritus will kill anything at all, I store some

just that it counts as bioload we can’t see, modulate or be entertained by, so to have access to it if needed is better than having it locked under a hundred pounds of sand and a hundred pounds of immovable rock stacks

Invaded reef tanks need to be able to access detritus... so it’s rare that seasoned reefers purposefully draw it up under a sandbed where it cannot be removed. They tend to design ejecting mechanisms or access mechanisms or open tank layouts. We don’t use ugf filters because they’ll kill something, they don’t. We don’t use them in the classic sense for the very reasons oil filters are not mounted deep inside an engine...some things were meant to be accessed routinely and tank waste is one of those things.


People aren’t into nitrate tuning in fw like they are saltwater, so they’re common in fw and no more beneficial than other methods. A fw tank using three canister filters isn’t better than a fw tank using two, for example.

Ugf filters are highly oxygenating by design, and they create a storage space for detritus typically unreachable unless you input a hose down under one and remove out the detritus occasionally in which case I’d prefer a ugf over the sand alone technique ironically.

What you do with detritus matters, not if you use or not use a plastic grid in the tank substrate.


Having some, very little, or a lot of new or very old detritus in a given tank doesn’t mean the tank will die... that’s how we explain the old tanks still living that have stored detritus. It’s merely bioloading, do with detritus what you will, some people stock more fish than others and offsets can be arranged. The reason there is a trend to store less detritus, opposite of 1998 reefing, in part has to do with emergence of new tank invaders that can wreck your entire setup five years after you thought it’d run forever if a sandbed isn’t properly cleaned. As people lose more tanks, they aggregate together in study threads and discuss ways to make directional change, we set up tanks differently from prior years and chart how they run comparatively.

Another reason for less storage: tank mobility. Most people must relocate, moving detritus free tanks is easy...avoiding recycle losses...but moving detritus-laden ones is challenging, requires careful order of ops, and has losses at times we can see in myriad threads where sandbed disturbance caused loss

Detritus storage was the first thing people changed upon mass analysis and a demand for more stable tanks as they age. Not everyone, just the vast majority by a factor of 90% are not storing waste for the life of the tank... check build threads to see trends.


The absolute number one biological technique change in our hobby over the last twenty years is the view on detritus storage, try to dissect why that came to be

The tide changed -against- the advice of our reef teachers and that means something... Teachers, books and sages said a simple 4 inches of sand on bottom, Berlin dsb method, aged over time, mineralized waste and made it neutral. but we all went away from that...why? Are we misled non storers, or did the masses get together/compare results and begin something new for a reason?





https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/what-could-possibly-change-in-10-years.417266/#post-4885313

Are there so many tanks crashing from an old sand bed? Or is it just one thing to put the blame on?

I run a couple of tanks at work with sand, some parts just 1cm, other parts maybe 5 cm. They've running for 10+ years. I have still not managed to crash any of them even if I stir the sand or move rocks around

I'm not trying to argue for any specific method here, just want to say that things can be done different ways and still get good results. Depends on the aquarist more than the method IMO.

 

[brandon429]

Well said.

That's why I like to include living tank examples with stored or classic sandbeds, the kind we don't disturb without consequence. I ran some, they work years.

Divergence occurs when working with other people's tanks, and consequences for the advisor come quick, which is why sandbed action threads are rare. Death occurs if a clear pattern isn't adhered to.

Any type of thread involving cyano and dino invasions almost invariably occurs above stored sandbeds. People need a plan on how to clean/access so they don't kill the whole tank, not due to sand grains but due to the clouding within

Clean grains never caused any invasion

You have power outage prone reefs. We list extensive BOD and supporting reasons to be low organic stores if you reef in power outage areas in outage prep threads...Detritus never helps in power outages, collectively I bet (based on prior bod lab testing for work) a filthy sandbed commands as much or more o2 per hour than the whole fish bioload. Detritus is a tax but it's a debt we are able to carry, some with more consequence than others.


Young people who move/relocate a lot, you're better off reefing clean.

Through science advancements / web threads mainly we have been able to illuminate the position of sandbed waste within aquarium designs that the masses use...so at least a new reader can see detritus as consequential, not in the least neutral, when planning for the unexpected and expected. The larger the reef, the more the keeper believes in long term full storage sandbeds.

 

[brandon429]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...ead-aka-one-against-many.230281/#post-2681445




Detritus is tame in our home in large reefs but a beast in the real world, or we'd have another sandbed thread equally worked to consider being less careful about that cloudy old waste.


that thread shows how much planning and careful execution we had to do around deep sand beds, so the tanks wouldn't die.

 

[Sallstrom]

Well said.

That's why I like to include living tank examples with stored or classic sandbeds, the kind we don't disturb without consequence. I ran some, they work years.

Divergence occurs when working with other people's tanks, and consequences for the advisor come quick, which is why sandbed action threads are rare. Death occurs if a clear pattern isn't adhered to.

Any type of thread involving cyano and dino invasions almost invariably occurs above stored sandbeds. People need a plan on how to clean/access so they don't kill the whole tank, not due to sand grains but due to the clouding within

Clean grains never caused any invasion

You have power outage prone reefs. We list extensive BOD and supporting reasons to be low organic stores if you reef in power outage areas in outage prep threads...Detritus never helps in power outages, collectively I bet (based on prior bod lab testing for work) a filthy sandbed commands as much or more o2 per hour than the whole fish bioload. Detritus is a tax but it's a debt we are able to carry, some with more consequence than others.


Young people who move/relocate a lot, you're better off reefing clean.

Through science advancements / web threads mainly we have been able to illuminate the position of sandbed waste within aquarium designs that the masses use...so at least a new reader can see detritus as consequential, not in the least neutral, when planning for the unexpected and expected. The larger the reef, the more the keeper believes in long term full storage sandbeds.

Okey, our experiences differ some.. This I how I see it

Cyano comes on bare bottoms as well, if the conditions are right for them. If I get cyano or dinos in a tank, I clean less, skim less and feed more(this is mostly for low nutrient tanks).

You can do fun stuff with a controllable DSB! You can add a carbon source, adjust pH, adjust the flow through the sand. You might even use it as a calcium reactor. But I would not recommend it for a beginner

Of course you might need to clean a sand bed. But that all depends on the bio load and what kind of life support system you run.
I think bare bottom looks boring and would never run a display tank like that. I want sand. And if the sand gets too dirty in my opinion, I clean it

Anyway, I don't want to get into a long argument here. Just don't see the point saying sand beds are so bad, when they could work fine with proper care.
Maybe I didn't understand all you wrote, English isn't my first language. Sorry if I misinterpreted something

Now it's time for World Cup football!

 

[brandon429]

its no argue at all, good science. the thread I linked shows about six years' work with aged sandbeds, shows what others had to go through, which helps a new keeper at least in the planning stages. see if their reef will endure any of the trials those reefs did...how sandbeds helped or hindered yep all good science.

 

[Paul B]

Paul

pls detail the critical, context changing way your UGF is set up such that it compares in no way to others this thread. lead w that in ugf threads ideally

When that detail is illuminated we w have strong input on the nature of detritus in the reef tank.

My reverse UG filter used to be run not reversed at first and it was a disaster. The tank was infested with Hydrogen sulfide, it smelled and wasn't very healthy.
A few years after I started the tank, maybe 1974 or so I reversed it. (I run dolomite gravel that has been in the tank since it was brackish maybe 1968 or so) The tank ran perfectly with very low nitrates, below 10 for about 20 years. At that time I wanted to re-aquascape and I discovered a way to build rocks so I took everything out and in the process looked under the UF filter.

It was packed with tube worms, Millions of them which I see as a good thing. I cleaned the gravel by rinsing in seawater and put it back in.
The tank ran another 25 years until I moved it a few weeks ago. In the last two years my nitrates have skyrocketed but it didn't seem to effect anything. The nitrate rise was due to all the fish getting larger and virtually all the paired fish were spawning so I overfed them and it was all live or frozen food. I also rarely change water. The corals that I like to keep were growing fine and the tank had no problems. Some of the spawning fish are 27 years old and for the past 35 years or so the tank has never had any disease and I don't have to quarantine.

Another reason for less storage: tank mobility. Most people must relocate, moving detritus free tanks is easy...avoiding recycle losses...but moving detritus-laden ones is challenging, requires careful order of ops, and has losses at times we can see in myriad threads where sandbed disturbance caused loss

I just moved mine and so far no problems except diatoms. I filled the tank up with NSW and about 40 gallons of my old water. All my rocks and corals were moved. I had no losses except a giant sponge which is shrinking due to a loss of nitrates.

I run the water very slow down to the UG filter. About 150 GPH down each of the three tubes. Water is first fed into a manifold then down the tubes.

just that it counts as bioload we can’t see, modulate or be entertained by, so to have access to it if needed is better than having it locked under a hundred pounds of sand and a hundred pounds of immovable rock stacks

Here my Son N Law is lifting my UG filter plate in preparation for the move. It is nothing but mud. Probably a half an inch of it. I see that as a good thing and the sea bottom is mud. There was absolutely no hydrogen sulfide and the mud was full of worms because it was oxygenated.
That mud started forming 25 years ago and hasn't harmed anything, the tank never crashed.



How many tanks crash that don't run a reverse UG filter?

Invaded reef tanks need to be able to access detritus... so it’s rare that seasoned reefers purposefully draw it up under a sandbed where it cannot be removed. They tend to design ejecting mechanisms or access mechanisms or open tank layouts. We don’t use ugf filters because they’ll kill something, they don’t. We don’t use them in the classic sense for the very reasons oil filters are not mounted deep inside an engine...some things were meant to be accessed routinely and tank waste is one of those things.

I do yearly stir the gravel where I can reach and suck it out with a diatom filter. But the last 10 or so years that is nearly impossible due to the corals and rocks. UG filters are not designed or needed to be maintained any other way. A natural perfectly running tank is an ongoing ecosystem and needs very little maintenance. I rarely do anything to my tank.
I will consider myself a seasoned reefer as I have had fish every day for over 60 years and salt water from the week they were imported to New York in 1971

What you do with detritus matters, not if you use or not use a plastic grid in the tank substrate.

If you do nothing with detritus it will make it's way to the bottom and be inert mud.

Detritus storage was the first thing people changed upon mass analysis and a demand for more stable tanks as they age. Not everyone, just the vast majority by a factor of 90% are not storing waste for the life of the tank... check build threads to see trends.

If you do "not" run a reverse UG filter storing detritus is a bad idea. UG filters fix that problem and turn it into a good thing.
The reason most people don't run UG filters is because first of all, they are young and never learned of the benefits of the thing. As I said when salt water started, we all had freshwater tanks with UG filters and we ran them the same way in salt water. That won't work and is a disaster. But after experimentation, I learned a better way. Now because of rumors started by people who never ran them the proper way, no one uses them and there are so many problems. Besides me there are 2 or 3 other people running a RUGF and their tanks are old and problem free.

The absolute number one biological technique change in our hobby over the last twenty years is the view on detritus storage, try to dissect why that came to be

True and almost every tank started in the last 2o years is no longer running.

The tide changed -against- the advice of our reef teachers and that means something... Teachers, books and sages said a simple 4 inches of sand on bottom, Berlin dsb method, aged over time, mineralized waste and made it neutral. but we all went away from that...why? Are we misled non storers, or did the masses get together/compare results and begin something new for a reason?

Actually one of the Sages and my mentor was Robert Straughn. He collected and kept everything in the 50s. He advocated UG filters but for the wrong reason. He thought of them as filters that eventually needed to be cleaned. De didn't understand completely the advantage the bacteria could do for a tank. But I use his method with some changes.
We just lost Albert Thiel another Sage.
Albert got into the hobby just after I did. I got in the same year as Martin Moe and I also wrote a book. Of course I am not as knowledgeable as those guys(maybe better looking) But my reef is still surviving, detritus and all.

I feel people's tanks crash because of a couple of things. One being quarantine. That alone is the biggest one because it makes your fish lose their immunity and if you look on the disease threads you will see that.
Feeding foods with no live bacteria is a disaster waiting to happen. Another one is tweeking the water. Seawater is very stable as long as we don't mess with it. Calcium and alk is all that is needed. All those additives and chemicals to eliminate one thing or another I feel is a bad thing. A healthy, natural tank will equalize on it's own. Algae is the best water conditioner.
This is all just my opinion of course.

 

[Lasse]

My reverse UG filter used to be run not reversed at first and it was a disaster. The tank was infested with Hydrogen sulfide, it smelled and wasn't very healthy.
A few years after I started the tank, maybe 1974 or so I reversed it. (I run dolomite gravel that has been in the tank since it was brackish maybe 1968 or so) The tank ran perfectly with very low nitrates, below 10 for about 20 years. At that time I wanted to re-aquascape and I discovered a way to build rocks so I took everything out and in the process looked under the UF filter.

It was packed with tube worms, Millions of them which I see as a good thing. I cleaned the gravel by rinsing in seawater and put it back in.
The tank ran another 25 years until I moved it a few weeks ago. In the last two years my nitrates have skyrocketed but it didn't seem to effect anything. The nitrate rise was due to all the fish getting larger and virtually all the paired fish were spawning so I overfed them and it was all live or frozen food. I also rarely change water. The corals that I like to keep were growing fine and the tank had no problems. Some of the spawning fish are 27 years old and for the past 35 years or so the tank has never had any disease and I don't have to quarantine.



I just moved mine and so far no problems except diatoms. I filled the tank up with NSW and about 40 gallons of my old water. All my rocks and corals were moved. I had no losses except a giant sponge which is shrinking due to a loss of nitrates.

I run the water very slow down to the UG filter. About 150 GPH down each of the three tubes. Water is first fed into a manifold then down the tubes.


Here my Son N Law is lifting my UG filter plate in preparation for the move. It is nothing but mud. Probably a half an inch of it. I see that as a good thing and the sea bottom is mud. There was absolutely no hydrogen sulfide and the mud was full of worms because it was oxygenated.
That mud started forming 25 years ago and hasn't harmed anything, the tank never crashed.



How many tanks crash that don't run a reverse UG filter?



I do yearly stir the gravel where I can reach and suck it out with a diatom filter. But the last 10 or so years that is nearly impossible due to the corals and rocks. UG filters are not designed or needed to be maintained any other way. A natural perfectly running tank is an ongoing ecosystem and needs very little maintenance. I rarely do anything to my tank.
I will consider myself a seasoned reefer as I have had fish every day for over 60 years and salt water from the week they were imported to New York in 1971



If you do nothing with detritus it will make it's way to the bottom and be inert mud.



If you do "not" run a reverse UG filter storing detritus is a bad idea. UG filters fix that problem and turn it into a good thing.
The reason most people don't run UG filters is because first of all, they are young and never learned of the benefits of the thing. As I said when salt water started, we all had freshwater tanks with UG filters and we ran them the same way in salt water. That won't work and is a disaster. But after experimentation, I learned a better way. Now because of rumors started by people who never ran them the proper way, no one uses them and there are so many problems. Besides me there are 2 or 3 other people running a RUGF and their tanks are old and problem free.



True and almost every tank started in the last 2o years is no longer running.



Actually one of the Sages and my mentor was Robert Straughn. He collected and kept everything in the 50s. He advocated UG filters but for the wrong reason. He thought of them as filters that eventually needed to be cleaned. De didn't understand completely the advantage the bacteria could do for a tank. But I use his method with some changes.
We just lost Albert Thiel another Sage.
Albert got into the hobby just after I did. I got in the same year as Martin Moe and I also wrote a book. Of course I am not as knowledgeable as those guys(maybe better looking) But my reef is still surviving, detritus and all.

I feel people's tanks crash because of a couple of things. One being quarantine. That alone is the biggest one because it makes your fish lose their immunity and if you look on the disease threads you will see that.
Feeding foods with no live bacteria is a disaster waiting to happen. Another one is tweeking the water. Seawater is very stable as long as we don't mess with it. Calcium and alk is all that is needed. All those additives and chemicals to eliminate one thing or another I feel is a bad thing. A healthy, natural tank will equalize on it's own. Algae is the best water conditioner.
This is all just my opinion of course.

+1000

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

I agree 90%

The other ten pct is the neutral mud claim...yet no thread of anyone here working in others' sandbeds and treating it neutral among twenty movers and twenty invaded tanks who do not use rugf

I believe only a hard work/high risk web thread using counter means could sell me totally. what works for many, across home variables, that's my interest

you list above your son holding your undergravel filter plate above neutral mud, I noticed that detail when you first posted the move.

But thats a reverse ugf plate. Your entry sentence up top was why I clicked like...it was a brief context setter bc your system as no other one here, pumps oxygen across that detritus and you have massive dilution plus algae filtration at all times as a comp. the detritus is removed from the system in addition to rugf and algae filtration, the rugf alone nor a ugf alone is insufficient it seems. The worms seem neat, ideal, but incidental, you still have to manually feed and clean the tank, they don't. To me these are at least factors to consider for long term build planning.

The worms will not arise like that in others tanks, our large thread shows what's inside a typical dsb

You stock from fully fresh ocean substrates, refreshed as needed, another huge context setter when comparing your tank to any other home reef tank

 

[beaslbob]

FWIW, when I started posting on these forums back in 2003, DSB were all the rage. Then DSB's seemed to start crashing after 5 years of operation or so.

I recommend you use algae filtration like macro algae in a refugium. The macroa will consume ammonia first then nitrates, plus phosphates and co2 and return fish food and oxygen.

By contrast a fully functional DSB works with low oxygen bacteria reducing nitrates to nitrites to nitrogen gas. So at the surface of the dsb you have a low nitrate, low oxygen, high co2 environment which is the exact things needed for cyano which uses nitrogen gas for nitrogen vrs nitrates.

Finally a ugf especially a revers flow can be an effective filter.

Still that's just me and my .02

 

[Lasse]

Then DSB's seemed to start crashing after 5 years of operation or so

And today it looks like many aquariums without DSB crash in a year or two

I run a remote DSB with reverse flow but I run it in order to create anaerobic condition in the bottom - nor the same as PaulB does. i want the mud, sludge or what you call it. Is there the magic happens. I do nor do any WC if I do not need. I have a refugium with chaeto over my DSB. I have been running this system for 2 years. At the moment - I need to ad both NO3 and PO4 in order to maintain a PO4 level between 0.04 - 0.1 and NO3 around 4. i use a skimmer for gas exchange but do not collect any skimmate - it goes directly back to the aquarium.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

I always forget to make a caveat for remotes.

they're prefiltered for detritus usually, in scale with flow and settlement, and possibly ideal in every way to the old school Berlin method bc input is not outpacing mineralization


I never doubted the denitrification abilities of various sands, just that ability to be harnessed consistently in our tanks due to the constant huge amnts of fish waste going right in on top of the display tank deep bed, this is out of scale.

but a remote one...major fish waste is usually dealt with prior to input right Lasse? how's yours? I assume its less detrital input over the course of a given day compared to a dt deep sand bed. Clearly you have it working and tuned even if its same input as a dt.

 

[Lasse]

Fish pop is not by itself detritus - its the raw material for detritus. Detritus is half digested particular organic matter and bacteria. Bacteria will digest the organic matter, build its own biomass, that will be broken down of other bacteria and so on. The organic matter (including old/dead bacteria) will be mineralized in the long run and just disappear out from our sight. An upbuild of detritus only indicate that the input of dead organic matter is higher than the bacteria consumption. In my case - all circulation (around 2500 l/h -> 660 Gph) will pass my refugium (the RDSB is the bottom of the refugium). Much organic matter will be catch of my chaeto (it forms type of thread filter) and will be a wonderful environment for bacteria to break down organic matter. (large area, much oxygen and a lot of organic matter passing by)

I have a type of standing wave in my aquaria and a lot of animals working with stirring my DT:s sand. Very few sedimentation spots and the few I have - they will be there. I have no mechanical filtration, I let my skimmate go back to the DT. I grow bacteria in a foam filter - squeezes the filter now and then. My particular organic matter will be filtered out by my filtering animals lika corals, sponges and clams too. Sea cucumbers are also working in the DT and I will probably move one of them to my refugium.

Organic matter is not a problem for me - it is a resource

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

From an ecological point of view you can always have two viewpoints according to organic waste. It is a problem or it is a resource. If you chose the normal pathway - the problem solution main street - you will create new small backstreets with more problems to solve. If you follow the way of the nature - the resource pathway - you will not create a spin off of other problems - you will create a functional biosphere.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Paul B]

You stock from fully fresh ocean substrates, refreshed as needed, another huge context setter when comparing your tank to any other home reef tank

Brndon, I just moved and filled the tank with mostly NSW but for the rest of the life of the tank it was only maybe 5% NSW as I didn't live that close to the sea. The algae scrubber which I also ran was only on the tank for a few short years, less than 5.
For over 40 years there was very little NSW or an algae filter.
I did however always collect amphipods and some mud in the sea. I still do and feel that is one of the best things you can do. If you can of course.
I feed live whiteworms almost every day mostly for the bacteria in their guts but I do not rinse the worms. I throw them in covered in the dirt they live in. That is also for the bacteria as I feel the vast majority of problems in this hobby is that tanks are to sterile and no or not enough live bacteria are added every day or ever.

 

[brandon429]

Gotcha. I’ll go link your move thread to our sand rinse thread of other moves, yours was highly detailed / no loss skip cycle move documented well

 

[SirRoadwolf]

My DSB seems to be doing well. Going into Week 8, with 7 fish, and 5 types of coral, 3 clams, some sponges, worms, 5 various shrimps, and about 20 or so assorted hermit crabs, and snails

I have a protein skimmer, and usually empty it every 2 to 3 days. But otherwise, still no Nitrate or Phosphate spikes AT All!

The sand is about 4 to 5 inches in the DT, and 1 inch in the refugium.

 

[dimidragos]

And today it looks like many aquariums without DSB crash in a year or two

I run a remote DSB with reverse flow but I run it in order to create anaerobic condition in the bottom - nor the same as PaulB does. i want the mud, sludge or what you call it. Is there the magic happens. I do nor do any WC if I do not need. I have a refugium with chaeto over my DSB. I have been running this system for 2 years. At the moment - I need to ad both NO3 and PO4 in order to maintain a PO4 level between 0.04 - 0.1 and NO3 around 4. i use a skimmer for gas exchange but do not collect any skimmate - it goes directly back to the aquarium.

Sincerely Lasse

So many great info and so much to learn from you, reading this forum. Some time is that much that make confuse a beginer like my...
I work so much no take down the nutrients and look like i did wrong. When i come back from holiday my test show 25-30 No3 and 0.4 Po4 but also a 0,025 trace of No2 . The corals was fine and no algae in tank. I start to increase the running time in algae reactor, i add a sulphure reactor to the system because i was afraid that this value will rise more. Now i have 5ppm N03, 0 No2 but 0 Po4 also....i start to have a brown sand bead and i'm sure that i make a mistake some how...

 

[Lasse]

So many great info and so much to learn from you, reading this forum. Some time is that much that make confuse a beginer like my...
I work so much no take down the nutrients and look like i did wrong. When i come back from holiday my test show 25-30 No3 and 0.4 Po4 but also a 0,025 trace of No2 . The corals was fine and no algae in tank. I start to increase the running time in algae reactor, i add a sulphure reactor to the system because i was afraid that this value will rise more. Now i have 5ppm N03, 0 No2 but 0 Po4 also....i start to have a brown sand bead and i'm sure that i make a mistake some how...

Thank you for your kind words

Your reading of 25 - 30 ppm was probably wrong. Even trace of NO2 will effect your NO3 reading. You just have to rely on what your living stock tell you - not any crazy symbols that we call math One thing I have learned - do not ever panic because of high nutrient readings if everything looks good. Just make a plan for taking them down to the figures you want during a month or two. avoid the ULN theory if you are not very skilled and careful.

Sincerely Lasse