What do u think? Are sandbeds and refugiums evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eagle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None

eagle

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
296
Reaction score
4
Location
Meridian, MS
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi everyone. I've been out of the hobby several years. The last time I had a tank the "ecosystem" refugium setup was taking hold. And I dove in and setup a fuge. I thought it was pretty cool. It seemed that not many people were discussing phosphates much. I never had any troubles out of it really. I was pretty proud of the growth i got and the fuge critters etc. Fast forward to now, I set up a new tank, 3" sandbed to cover my rock stands (stands to keep rock above sand for less detritus buildup and easier cleaning), put in a nice custom fuge. I go to my old stomping ground forum (not this forum) and realize, things have changed in the last 5 years lol. And some of these people are dead serious lol. I find that now, a sandbed and refugium are "phosphate time bombs waiting to explode". Bare bottom tanks are the only way to go. And you cant even begin to argue that u like a sandbed because now you're irresponsible for having excess nutrients. So, I decided to move along. Is this the new philosophy? Am I screwing up by having a sandbed in a sps tank?
 
Hi everyone. I've been out of the hobby several years. The last time I had a tank the "ecosystem" refugium setup was taking hold. And I dove in and setup a fuge. I thought it was pretty cool. It seemed that not many people were discussing phosphates much. I never had any troubles out of it really. I was pretty proud of the growth i got and the fuge critters etc. Fast forward to now, I set up a new tank, 3" sandbed to cover my rock stands (stands to keep rock above sand for less detritus buildup and easier cleaning), put in a nice custom fuge. I go to my old stomping ground forum (not this forum) and realize, things have changed in the last 5 years lol. And some of these people are dead serious lol. I find that now, a sandbed and refugium are "phosphate time bombs waiting to explode". Bare bottom tanks are the only way to go. And you cant even begin to argue that u like a sandbed because now you're irresponsible for having excess nutrients. So, I decided to move along. Is this the new philosophy? Am I screwing up by having a sandbed in a sps tank?


lol i like your post, i recently added a refugium to my set up so i guess that makes me wrong lol jk
but every tank is different what works for one might not work for the next one. you should do what
has work for you.
how i like to say there is no one right or wrong way to do things
 
No you're not irresponsible. Most folks, I think, still run some form of sandbed. And there are lots of folks out there with successful tanks and refugiums.

Personally I am doing BB on my new build, but that's because I don't want to have to maintain a sandbed more than any other reason.
 
I use a 1" sandbed. I stir it often to render it inert. The only thing that could build up in a fuge and be time bomb is a deep sand bed. If you touch an established deep sand bed you are toast. ;)

Check out oregonreef.com. Go to where he talks about his sand. It will explain how to run a shallow sand bed as if it were bare bottom.
 
That's why R2R is a great forum. No attitude, nobody pushing their beliefs, just expert friendly advice.
Welcome back.
I took about a ten year break and got back into it about a year ago, amazing how things have changed.
 
I feel that way too, and I tried to defend that notion, but was really out numbered and out spoken lol. Some people can throw so many numbers and scientific arguments in that it just gets confusing to everyone. Im not a scientist lol. I can see how a bb tank would be easier to keep clean though.
Getting on another part of it... I started out in the hobby reading Julian Sprung's work, Albert Thiel, Shimek, Bob Fenner, Dana Riddle etc etc. I've seen the hobby kinda evolve from different methods and new technology. I get that. And I personally think each of those guys probably did the best they could with the info they had at the time. They sure knew more than I did and I learned quite a bit from their work and always thought highly of them. If I'm talking with Albert Thiel in a thread it's pretty cool to me. He's been keeping tanks for 40 yrs. But some people I've met lately, I think, are just rude about some of their work. I don't believe anyone purposely mislead us about the "phosphate cycle". As far as I know, until the hanna checkers you couldn't even read the lower phosphate readings. Some pioneered the dsb/plenum type setups. Maybe in hindsight we've learned it's not the best method, but who am I to say Shimek was purposely misleading people. Just my opinion/rant lol. I think there are many different methods and it depends on a persons tank, specimens, and practices. Each are different and unique from one tank to another.
 
Actually Kole, I have seen his tank before a long time ago. It is a very nice setup. I never read at the site though, but I will. I'm kinda kicking myself now for putting in as much sand. Second guessing. My wife will kick my rear if I have to get rid of expensive live sand lol. I'm thinking I will just be a little aggressive with siphoning detritus. It will dwindle down. I really want this tank to be perfect. I think we all strive for that and if less sand will help any I don't mind. But I doubt I would do bare bottom just because I like the look of some sand. Thanks again for the link
 
Thanks solar,
You know I used to read that you never wanted to disturb your sandbed. I used to try not to. Like Kole was saying about a dsb in the fuge. I kept freshwater fish forever when I was a kid and used to clean the gravel all the time. I always wondered why you couldn't do that with sand lol. Makes more sense to keep it stirred up and clean to me.

Things do change fast willow, so far I really like R2R. Everyone has been super nice. I really like the layout and design of the forum too.
 
I started out in the hobby reading Julian Sprung's work, Albert Thiel, Shimek, Bob Fenner, Dana Riddle etc etc. I've seen the hobby kinda evolve from different methods and new technology. I get that. And I personally think each of those guys probably did the best they could with the info they had at the time.

For sure, many of us though, always though the hypotheses to explain how a DSB and live-rock worked, were lacking. Shimek for example, came up with ideas about worms and other critters, moving through the pores of a rock, would transfer nitrite into the pores where the denitrifying bacteria live. This always seemed like a clunky explanation. We now know though, that bacteria grows in films, that create a micro-environment, where bacteria and other organisms share products amongst the community and modulate the permeability of various chemicals and molecules etc.. The bacteria which use nitrate, and converts it to N2 gas, do so, only if O2 is low. As it turns out, these bio-films though, are not actually very permeable to oxygen. As described here Biofilm Gradients.

So, O2 actually can become low enough for denitrification to happen within micrometers of any surface, due to the low permeability of bacteria in films, which form on surfaces within minutes in saltwater. The bacteria at the bottom then, would be expected to use nitrate, rather than O2, as O2 is no longer available. So, the old myth that you need lots of sand to decrease permeability of O2, just doesn't seem to hold true based on what we know today. The reality is you just need films to form on the surfaces. More sand may help, as it may increase surface area, but it is the film decreasing permeability as well, not just the sand and the film should do so more reliably I think, as the films will not tend to get overly thick.

The issue with sifting would be that after N is low, then the bacteria will start to use sulfur and produce hydrogen-sulfide. With a shallower sand bed, you'll have less risk of that and can stir away and honestly, I have never had issues with nitrate with shallow sand beds. I think, there is a lot of surface area in a shallow bed. Going beyond what is necessary, likely just increases the odds of the sandbed becoming a nutrient sink, which, is probably why people turned to bare-bottom tanks to get lower nutrient systems. Really though, I think a little sand can help and look good, it's more overdoing it, do the the incorrect belief that it is the sand that reduces O2 permeability, that is the problem.
 
IMHO it is the dsp's that are the ticking time bombs and phosphate generators. Not the refugiums with macro algae.
 
Go with what works best for you. I can understand the "scientific" portion of why not to have a DSB but I have run one in past set ups and never had a problem with them. Heck when I set up my NEW tank I will be committing the sin of all unforgivable sins.....I'll be using a crushed coral substrate!!
 
Thanks for the good info. I was just telling my wife that we will just siphon away some of the sand during cleaning and keep it stirred up. I run a diatom filter every once in a while anyway. Ill just stir the beds while running it. The sand is pretty dang cloudy anyway. I had to run the diatom after putting the sand in. It really clouded up the tank. And after moving rock stands around it clouded back up. Im not looking forward to it doing that after the tank is stocked lol. Hopefully i can get most of that filtered out by then. I have oolite sand.
 
eagle, you must be referring to the think tank as your old stomping grounds?

there is some very good information there, but there are a few hardcore zelots that have an all or nothing type of mentality.

some good macro growing in a fuge is not a bad thing, just balance your nutrient load. fwiw, I used DSB's in my display for 10yrs, but I dont think I will ever do it again.
 
Some really great responses so far.

My 2 cents is that I believe that DSB work well but take a very long time to establish correctly...much longer than what most people are willing to wait before adding livestock (in particular, fish). I think once they are established and crawling with life/bacteria, they are able to handle very large bioloads very efficiently. I also am beginning to suspect that the "standard" thinking of needing at least 5" to reap full benefit of a active sandbed is bit more flexible than i had thought...these are just my own observations on sand beds.

That said I have no idea if they are "phosphate ticking time bombs". I do think they can be kept for a very long time without issue when setup properly.

Here's a great article by Eric Borneman that touches on this issue as he relates it to the "rising" of methodologies that overwhelm the popular thought on reefkeeping (as seen in DSB vs BB and in the more current idea of Vodka/bacteria dosing):

The Old Becomes New, Yet Again: Sandbeds and Vodka by Eric Borneman - Reefkeeping.com
 
That's what gets me. I did things one way and it worked ok. But it was harder to clean for sure. I will try this shallower bed approach now. I'm all for making things better just didnt really want a bb tank. And i like the fuge lol
 
Great thread. I'm in a similar position...getting back into the hobby after a few years and finding myself feeling almost guilty that I want to run a DSB (love the diversity that thrives in a DSB and hate the look of BB).
 
Hey guys, i went ahead and removed a lot of sand from my tank. While moving it i put it in the refugium. I wanted to get some opinions on whether or not to keep the dsb in refugium or to just throw out the excess sand. Thanks for any thoughts about a remote dsb.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top