Sand
- Thread starter Cory
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Subsea
5000 Club Member
If you used aroggonite and if sand was deep enough to create low oxygen, then some denitrification will occur and some passive aroggonite buffering as well as trace mineral addition.
Subsea
5000 Club Member
Subsea
5000 Club Member
At the time the video was made, I hade a cryptic refugium on bottom and a Jaubert Plenum on top. I now have a cryptic refugium with a reverse flow undergravel filter on top and a mud/macro filter on bottom. I assure you, I have a high nutrient system,
Groundwater at 1000’ deep and a tds of > 900ppm goes direct into tanks. Nutrient management is accomplished thru combination of nutrient export of seaweed and nutrient recycling into fish and coral.
OP
OP
Groundwater isnt usally high in phospahte and nitrate though is it? 900 tds i bet is full of calcium causing those numbers, not high nutrients. You dont own a po4 test or no3 test?
Subsea
5000 Club Member
Cory,
I have been reefing for 50 years. I have owned those kits. When I need to know numbers, I send sample to lab. It’s been about 6 years since I needed to know numbers.
Subsea
5000 Club Member
In the next few weeks, I will send seaweed, tank water and aquifer groundwater in for analysis to complete a thread on ”old school” nutrient management.
No need to split hairs on the difference between minerals & nutrients. The last time I checked aquifer water
Na at 55ppm
K at 14ppm
Ca at 130ppm
Mg at 102ppm
SO4 at 189ppm
Cl at 34ppm
Bicarbonate @346
B at 0.33ppm
Total Nitrogen at 2ppm
Total P at Zero
Total Fe at 0.02ppm
Mn at Zero
@Cory
The high nutrients in my tank do not come from the groundwater. I feed heavy.
No need to split hairs on the difference between minerals & nutrients. The last time I checked aquifer water
Na at 55ppm
K at 14ppm
Ca at 130ppm
Mg at 102ppm
SO4 at 189ppm
Cl at 34ppm
Bicarbonate @346
B at 0.33ppm
Total Nitrogen at 2ppm
Total P at Zero
Total Fe at 0.02ppm
Mn at Zero
@Cory
The high nutrients in my tank do not come from the groundwater. I feed heavy.
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
I started off assuming my sand was very important and beneficial.
analyzing it different ways over the years, my current thinking leans more towards "neutral to mildly unhelpful"
analyzing it different ways over the years, my current thinking leans more towards "neutral to mildly unhelpful"
N.Sreefer
Valuable Member
Anyone else here use crushed coral and fine grain sand? The crushed coral sits on top of the sand layer leading to a really oxygenated top layer and an anaerobic bottom layer. I always had problem with just sand but I find I never have any issues with it set up this way.
Taricha I find sand to be that way, agreed in this regard: it’s nitrification abilities are instantly expendable
the system does not become linked to its added surface area and then wean off, I think that’s the #1 bacterial misnomer in all of reefing. The live rocks are enough in every system running on the board, they modulate bacteria based on water shear and space availability independent from ancillary surface area, that’s what I think is happening.
Nowadays in private message tank moves we let them decide if they even want to put sand back or not in the new tank, has obvious benefits as well to run clean but with high rock surface area and flow. That after all is the ideal filter because its not as retentive as sand, suspended rock zones carry all known reef tanks we’ve never seen one non compliant tank on file.
sandbed nitrification is an o.k. backup if someone likes but it’s expendable, at any moment, especially the moment the move out time on the home comes up. In thousands of home moves which are repeating data tests we can kick the sand out not even seeing pics, just asking if they use live rock. The surface area mechanics from jutted rock contact are this strong, this stand- alone capable at any moment. We all practice major redundancy.
over time a point was made to aim seneye owners who report tuned units into surface area removal tests...they all show the same fish bioload formerly adapted to sandbed + rock surface area to do just fine now in rock alone. Consistent, tank to tank.
the system does not become linked to its added surface area and then wean off, I think that’s the #1 bacterial misnomer in all of reefing. The live rocks are enough in every system running on the board, they modulate bacteria based on water shear and space availability independent from ancillary surface area, that’s what I think is happening.
Nowadays in private message tank moves we let them decide if they even want to put sand back or not in the new tank, has obvious benefits as well to run clean but with high rock surface area and flow. That after all is the ideal filter because its not as retentive as sand, suspended rock zones carry all known reef tanks we’ve never seen one non compliant tank on file.
sandbed nitrification is an o.k. backup if someone likes but it’s expendable, at any moment, especially the moment the move out time on the home comes up. In thousands of home moves which are repeating data tests we can kick the sand out not even seeing pics, just asking if they use live rock. The surface area mechanics from jutted rock contact are this strong, this stand- alone capable at any moment. We all practice major redundancy.
over time a point was made to aim seneye owners who report tuned units into surface area removal tests...they all show the same fish bioload formerly adapted to sandbed + rock surface area to do just fine now in rock alone. Consistent, tank to tank.
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
Looking at the measly ammonia consumption from my sandbed compared to my system, (sand ammonia consumption rate way under < 10% of system ammonia consumption) I agree.
I'll post some details on that later
Hey I’ve never been able to see comparatively how much sandbed area contact on the bottom helps to nitrify vs rocks that jut into the mid water, had to wing it so far in guesses.
we joke in posts that we’ve removed half someone’s surface area
i bet it’s a tenth/ the sand compared to actual rock surface area
we joke in posts that we’ve removed half someone’s surface area
i bet it’s a tenth/ the sand compared to actual rock surface area
