Dsb Size And Risks [Archive] - UltimateReef.com

kim

10-10-05, 20:08

15 " square is quite small.

First, a DSB should ideally have about the same surface area as the tank which it supports. If it is too small in comparison (who knows where the cut off should be ?) then it will simply not support enough life to process all the detritus generated, or may be too small a target in which the detritus can settle (when in the main tank it will settle, of course).

That leaves you siphoning detritus, which rather misses the point.

Second, there's an absolute limit. DSBs need (I believe and I'm not without my opponents here) to be of sufficient size to support breeding colonies of a very wide variety of small animals. They won't increase in density just because the bed is small, they don't live well with each other (nature red in tooth and claw etc., and even when they aren't eating each other, they are eating or disturbing each other's eggs and larvae and engaging in chemical warfare). Diversity is important to process a wide variety of detritus, and for stability. DSBs tend to be a large tank solutions.

You might be able to keep a small bed healthy with care, but I'm not sure how useful it would be given its limited volume.

I remember from other threads that you like large fish ? DSBs are not really good for fish only/predator tanks and the like where the waste can be high. They don't have enough "oomph" because the critters need space.

On the sand, probably the best you can find is Aragamax. This is still rather large grained. STM recommend adding some of their fine white silica (which is Nature's Ocean Fine White) which I think is a good idea but don't overdo it. The silica is all pretty much the same grain size, and while you want small, you also want diversity. Small but diverse grain sizes score high with ctitters.

Depth...probably about 3 - 5 inches. No point being excessively deep, but you need some depth to provide a nice volume in which the critters can live, and possibly enough so that the lower levels are oxygen depleted to encourage denitrification. The critters should keep the top 3 inches oxygenated as they burrow.

Flow rate should be as high as possible consistent with not washing the sand away and getting detritus to settle (obviously a problem when the DSB is external to the main tank and small).

You can try using LR to seed the bed but should also seek sand swaps etc. Not everything living in a rock also lives in the sand (there are pretty well-defined differences). But do not place the rock on the sand. That compresses the sand, prevents the critters doing their work and leads to nutrient build up.

The key is to create and maintain the bed so that it is a nutrient recycling machine, rather than a nutrient sink. Which means don't overload it, use small but diversified grains of sand to allow the critters to operate but encourage diversity, and keep the critters happy. Sing to them.

:)

kim

chronic2005

10-10-05, 21:01

:thumbsup: No, I dont want this in a begineras section as i know the basics. I knew the basics, im just wainting your opinions.As a member of this board said, some people swear by them , some people swear at them, the dsb that is. i may ask beginears questions but they can still be gone in to into ADVANCED depth. Oh and i did read the reef eden link, but you cannot expect me to take every single part of that in.

Ok then, i will find loads of my smaller peices of live rock and get some from my lfs and place them on top. Is this still ok, as in the article it says do that but youve just told me not to, to aviod nutrient build up. So if i use little peices this should not happen, or not to a extent that it will be come a problem.

The dsb can only be that size, i will also have a new filtration system developed by andrew caine on the tank. So the dsb is a add on basically. Whilst on the subject of andrews caines new system, does anyone have any in depth info on it. I know that its like a plenum, but thats all i basically got. I got told over the phone whilst ordering my sump LOL .

Thanks for the advice

Mike4271

10-10-05, 21:11

Chronic, you say 15 x 15 is what you are planning, but could go larger, what space do you actually have available???

chronic2005

10-10-05, 21:20

Well, im using this new type of filtration by andrew cane. Im not sure what this actully is. But i trust the person who has told me it will work. I imagine this section being 24 inch. And my sump is 55 gallons 48/15/20 the first section i think would be 5 inch and the return being 4 that added to my dsb makes 48. Thats just a guess on measurements by the way.
thanks

Mike4271

10-10-05, 21:31

Originally posted by chronic2005@Oct 10 2005, 20:20
Well, im using this new type of filtration by andrew cane. Im not sure what this actully is. But i trust the person who has told me it will work. I imagine this section being 24 inch. And my sump is 55 gallons 48/15/20 the first section i think would be 5 inch and the return being 4 that added to my dsb makes 48. Thats just a guess on measurements by the way.
thanks
Not familiar with that system, but your bit of samd bed won't do any harm, maybe put a little rock rubble pile as a pod pile, but is only going to be that, not really an effective part of your filtration. Let us know when you have more details on that system, Mike

wayne in norway

10-10-05, 21:38

No mention here of something along the style of Calfo's 'dsb in a bucket'? Lots of depth, not much life, rely on bacterial movement and diffusion to feed nutrients thro' the sand?

chronic2005

10-10-05, 21:58

Heard of it, but all i know is that it can be removed if anything bad comes SOOOOooo

Im listening :whistling:
:thanx:

wayne in norway

10-10-05, 21:59

It's all on reefcentral ..... all of it , including practical descriptions.

kim

10-10-05, 22:49

WiN,

Do you have a link ? I am amazed, since if (if) you take the original purpose of a DSB as a detritus processor, there are all kinds of reasons why this wouldn't work. As a denitrifying bed, it is excessive. Having said that, Calfo is (IMHO) one of the few amongst many "expert" commentators to combine practical experience with a very good analytical mind, and I read anything he writes with respect. He is a persuasive guru.

kim

(NWRP, one of those things that happens, sorry to have been a part of it. I am going to delete my posts on the subject to avoid polluting this thread. So this addendum will look odd to later readers.)

elliot

10-10-05, 23:02

Originally posted by chronic2005@Oct 10 2005, 14:03
Hi
Im planning a 15/15 inch dsb, should i go thi size or should go bigger? im going to have it 5 inch high. Is that right or wrong aswell?

How should i get the inhabitants for it? i have at least 5 kg of 5 cm or less peices of lr, should i just place them over the dsb?

What signs should i look out for, if it is in good health and functioning properly?

Whats signs would i notice if it wasnt working?

Has anyone got a picture of a fuctioning dsb and has anyone got one of a dead one?

One more thing, could someone give me a link to the correctly sized gravel

Thanks and sorry for some many questions :thumbsup:
15 x 15 is too small to be "effective" ... if it all... do a search on dsbs and use my name... there is a cracking debate (10 pages long) not too long ago.

e

elliot

10-10-05, 23:05

Originally posted by chronic2005@Oct 10 2005, 20:01
:thumbsup: No, I dont want this in a begineras section as i know the basics. I knew the basics, im just wainting your opinions.As a member of this board said, some people swear by them , some people swear at them, the dsb that is. i may ask beginears questions but they can still be gone in to into ADVANCED depth. Oh and i did read the reef eden link, but you cannot expect me to take every single part of that in.

Ok then, i will find loads of my smaller peices of live rock and get some from my lfs and place them on top. Is this still ok, as in the article it says do that but youve just told me not to, to aviod nutrient build up. So if i use little peices this should not happen, or not to a extent that it will be come a problem.

The dsb can only be that size, i will also have a new filtration system developed by andrew caine on the tank. So the dsb is a add on basically. Whilst on the subject of andrews caines new system, does anyone have any in depth info on it. I know that its like a plenum, but thats all i basically got. I got told over the phone whilst ordering my sump LOL .

Thanks for the advice
to be honest this is more a reefs question... as said do a search and you will find enough information (especially by reefclown) to knock you off your feet .

The mods do a great job anfd if a topic in reefs is advanced it will be moved over.... ;)

(no cheating and go read the reeftank's point of view).

e

chronic2005

10-10-05, 23:12

Ok elliot, ive tried searching but i prefer to ask and get new answers. Sorry anyway you guys must be getting really pissed of with the amount of posts on the subject. ill tell you what i go for anyway. Now, off the subject but can anypone give me some info on the new filtration system by andy caine?

thanks

wayne in norway

11-10-05, 08:59

GO to reefcentral, go to 'All things salty' (you need to be registered) and it's in a thread called dsb in a bucket. Note that what this is about is nitrate reduction by anoxic bacteria, and simply relys on a regular feed of nitrate to the bacteria. I'm at this point planning my 'next years system and am planning to plumb in a remote dsb like this.

Chronic - I know it's great to ask questions and get answers, but frankly all of this has been written up before, and there are better ways to spend your time than reinventing the wheel. Did you bother looking in reefcentral for this, as it's almost exactly what you're describing in process

grazza

12-10-05, 09:04

Wayne

I can't believe you've just told chronic to ....basically stop asking questions here, and go get better information on a bigger site! :o

If people dont post questions, the site stagnates, like some others have done.
On the other hand if you dont want to reply then dont bother, leave it to someone else with interest in answering

In fact its good to see questions about useful topics crop up amongst what is often a load of banter and "thats great m8" type of chat

I aggree maybe this question is not "advanced", but going down the list how many of the topics are? They are quite a mix

Regards

Graham

chronic2005

12-10-05, 09:46

the topic may not be advanced, but i have learned the basics of it. So i wanted to learn a little more, on the risks. Reef eden covers it abit but surely this muct be more to it.

For a dsb size, im thinking of 24/16/5 :thumbsup: but im going to give this new filtration ago first :thumbsup:

evilervin

12-10-05, 10:00

but im going to give this new filtration ago first

What is this new filteration? Have i missed somethink?

Gog

chronic2005

12-10-05, 10:54

Hi
Evilervin, you know more than likely the same amount as me NOTHING. I guy who is building my sump, told me about it over the phone. And he said that andrew caine designed it and is getting alod os stick for it. But i trust the guy who is designing my sump, so im going to give it ago. If it doesnt work out, thats where the dsb comes in. But i really do know much about it.
Thanks

simon garratt

12-10-05, 11:14

Reef eden covers it abit but surely this muct be more to it.

Not really..........the basic principles are there as a footing, only time and experience with the method in question will fill in the blanks becouse every system is different. This applies to any filtration method, they all have their pros and cons (even the humble UGF and RUGF).

As far as Andy's system is concerned, unless hes found a way to re-invent mother nature he'll be using all the same principles as any other filtration method, ie biology, chemistry and a bit of flow dynamics. Its these principles that that are the foundation, its simply a question of preference which area is given what degree of priority as to how effective the end result is, the rest is in the lap of the gods and the keeper.

The real Q here i feel, is what are you trying to atchieve? If your looking for guarenteed success then your never going to get it no matter who desighnes the system, or how much you read up on it. Ultimately the best course of action if your fairly new to these ideas is to innitially go with the concensous, opt for a tried and tested method that offers you the highest degree of success in accordance with your proposed stock etc (accounting for limited experience) and then go from there as your knowledge and more importantly 'experience' grows.

IMO opting for a new fangled method that is in any way controvertial, in the early period of your hobby is asking for more trouble and confusion than you'll know what to do with. effectively, you wont know wether its your methods or the desighn that is at fault should you come into problems. This i feel is an unessesery risk to both your pocket, and more importantly the livestock.

regards

Si..

evilervin

12-10-05, 11:34

This is all the info i can find on Andy C's method.

http://www.ultimatereef.net/uploads/acsump.jpg

"However, for marine aquariums designed for your home we offer a unique system developed from our own research, which enables people to enjoy them in locations such as conservatories, previously a no no due to algal problems.

We were the first to develop this system and now other companies are already jumping on the band wagon and copying our prototype. This reef is now 28 months old located in our shop front window with no algal or temperature problems.

The secret to this system is the turn over of water through a biological filter bed of at least 15 times per hour. This removes biological toxins from the water body 10 times faster that other systems, therefore the toxin residence time in the system is very low, resulting in the affects of the toxin on the livestock being vastly reduced." - Aqua-World (http://www.aquaworld.co.uk/system/index.html)

HTH
Gog

danny

12-10-05, 14:13

Wow, a remote undergravel filter, whatever wil they think of next :P

kim

12-10-05, 15:44

Originally posted by danny@Oct 12 2005, 13:13
Wow, a remote undergravel filter, whatever wil they think of next
I'm working on a top-secret remote reverse flow over-tank undergravel filter with triple floss.

:lol:

Still, it's a tried and tested formula.

:)

Now, where are my old bell-bottoms ?

kim

chronic2005

12-10-05, 16:19

Well as i said i can remove it if i see bad results :thumbsup:

chronic2005

12-10-05, 16:21

Oh simon, your site is nformative but as you said time will only give me the answer but why can people who have already spent the time tell me?

Thanks :thumbsup:

simon garratt

12-10-05, 17:57

Oh simon, your site is nformative but as you said time will only give me the answer but why can people who have already spent the time tell me?

So what exactly is it you want to know?

regards

Si.

CaCo

12-10-05, 18:32

Find any info on DSB's written by Calfo or Shimek and you can't go wrong. Don't let too much advice confuse you, it's a simple system. :thumbsup:

Mike4271

12-10-05, 18:35

Originally posted by CaCo@Oct 12 2005, 17:32
Find any info on DSB's written by Calfo or Shimek and you can't go wrong. Don't let too much advice confuse you, it's a simple system. :thumbsup:
Read the whole thread, he has already read them, the links are on page 1 ;)

CaCo

12-10-05, 18:39

Originally posted by chronic2005@Oct 12 2005, 15:21
Oh simon, your site is nformative but as you said time will only give me the answer but why can people who have already spent the time tell me?

Thanks :thumbsup:
Speak to Danny at Watford Aquarium.

chronic2005

12-10-05, 18:43

Hi
i know that hydrogen sulfide can be realeased (toxin) but my question was surely their must be more toxins than this, and what can be done to avoid this apart from a good crita population.
Thanks

CaCo

12-10-05, 18:49

Seriously chronic, forget hydrogen sulphide or any toxins or any other long fancy scientific names. All you need is 6" of sugar-grain aragonite and a hand full of sand from an established tank and you'll be up and away.
All the best. :thumbsup:

simon garratt

12-10-05, 19:18

Hi
i know that hydrogen sulfide can be realeased (toxin) but my question was surely their must be more toxins than this, and what can be done to avoid this apart from a good crita population.
Thanks

Please read sections 1&2 of the summery again, and youll find the answers there.

regards

Si.

kim

12-10-05, 19:25

Originally posted by chronic2005@Oct 12 2005, 17:43

i know that hydrogen sulfide can be realeased (toxin) but my question was surely their must be more toxins than this, and what can be done to avoid this apart from a good crita population.

With a good critter population, things don't build up in the bed, they are recirculated into the tank. The DSB is not so much a filter, retaining nasty stuff, but rather a processor of organic waste. What goes in, comes out, but is transformed into mainly inorganic chemicals.

It converts detritus into simple minerals and gases, and those (eg phosphates)which don't bubble away from the tank will be removed via water changes and standard procedures. There may be some build up of toxic deposits such as hydrogen sulphide, metallic sulphides etc. in the deeper anoxic layers, but even these will be recirculated eventually, and there's no reason for the release to be anything other than slow and unimportant.

The danger is that without critters, or if the bed is overloaded, this anoxic layer will expand and consume the whole bed and trigger a rapid release of nutrients and toxic salts. Then you have to get rid of the bed, quickly. Shouldn't happen, and if it starts, the signs are clear.

Critters are the key. Their activity confines anoxic layers to the deepest reaches of the bed, and also is responsible for the slow but continuous "flushing" of the bed preventing too much from building up over time. When the critters go, look out.

kim

wayne in norway

12-10-05, 20:11

Kim, can you tell me which water changes and/or standard techniques I need to do to remove phosphates bound into the substrate as you describe above. Also can you tell me quite how metal sulphides are recycled?
If you read the dsb in a bucket thread on rc it does a single simple thing. It converts nitrate into nitrogen gas. That's it . It relies on diffusion to feed nitrate into the bed, and water flow across the top of the bucket, and not critters.
it won't save the universe, it's not a prefect mature dsb if you want something to stir to feed your corals, but it should remove nitrate. If it doesn't work you pull it out. the testimonials are on thread, and I am looking ofrward to trying it

kim

12-10-05, 20:54

Wayne,

It's not what I would call a "DSB". Eg a DSB (in my world) is a recycler of detritus, and denitrification is simply the final step in just one of the routes followed. I wouldn't bother with this type of "critter based" DSB just for denitrification.

But that aside, I don't see any reason why what you describe shouldn't work.

Or why it shouldn't be called a DSB, except it then confuses the two quite different structures. :lol:

You'd want to keep it clear of detritus, which would clog it and turn it anoxic. If there are no critters, I'd have thought a relatively shallow bed would do it. It's the critters that keep the upper layers of a DSB oxygenated. The small ones in our tanks give maybe a three inch oxygenated layer. In nature, it goes down several feet ! Without critters a few mm should do it if you use fine sand. Plus, it's not 100 % clear that you really need anoxic conditions for denitrification.

Many people claim that their shallow beds denitrify, and from all my reading about these bacteria, they may well be right. Some denitrify in oxygenated water, and in many cases just the bacterial film on a grain of sand means that the innermost bacteria are in anoxic conditions.

I still haven't read the RC bit, I'm having trouble getting onto the site (I'm having trouble all over the net at the moment). What you describe sounds like an artificial live rock. It's cheaper, but possibly more prone to clog because the surface of sand isn't a solid barrier which repels crap. But that should be easy to correct.

On the phosphates, these bind onto aragonite most strongly at a pH around 8.4. Any increase or decrease in pH and they are quite rapidly released. In a DSB, this happens within the (more) acidic anoxic portions (which usually surround the decaying matter which release the phosphates in the first place).

Once released, they can be removed...algae or granular ferric oxide. But the key is to maintain a low phosphate environment from day one, to prevent them accumulating. Once they have accumulated, it is a long job to get rid of them, unless you can remove the sand.

On the sulphides, I am not clear which of these are the most soluble (most are pretty insoluble, in which case they are pretty harmless). But for those which can dissolve a little, the DSB ensures their slow release. There's no reason for them to go potty one day !

Then a programme of water changes should eliminate them without you ever being the wiser. The boundary between the oxygenated and anoxic layers of a DSB is always on the move, so what was once anoxic becomes oxygenated, and the critters perform their function of flushing the erstwhile anoxic bits. Also many critters (eg nassarius snails) have evolved siphons, so in nature at least they actually get down into the anoxic layers and stir those up, while breathing good water higher up. Good things, nassarius !

Anyway, in short what you describe makes sense...it's a fairly established technique I think, but probably needed bringing back to the fore. Especially for those who would go for the "critter-based DSB" for denitrification, it's a worthwhile alternative. Typical Calfo, really.

Sorry so long....you asked a few questions there ! I'll post this now to find that SiG has posted two links to his site instead....can't compete ! :lol:

kim

chronic2005

12-10-05, 21:19

Thanks for that all. Simon ill have a few more reads through as really i cannot take it all in, in 1 single read :thumbsup:

:thanx:

simon garratt

12-10-05, 21:20

My only concern with this bucket, critter free method is the inevitable glycocalyx binding from bacterial growth and its effects on diffusion ability within the sand layers and ultimately the health of the sand bed in Question and possible effects on livestock.

regards

Si.

PS. bloody good response there from Kim me thinks and admirably coverd on the Po4 issue. :D

wayne in norway

12-10-05, 21:33

Agree with you there, thank you kim. I think I would rather use the P remover before the P enters the substrate rather than fighting it when it's all released by a pH drop.
I would argue that the depth of the aerobic/anaerobic boundary is as much determined by the nature of the water movement above as by biological action. Oh well, maybe not as much but it can still be significant.
I need to do more reading about the realities of denitrafication especially the recent Rob toonen work - it looks quite interesting. As an aside I no longer believe the story above bacteria inside live rock doing the denitrafication - rather I believe the works is done by 'protected' layers of anaerobic bacteria at the rocks surface. I feel slightly more qualified there as I've recently been working on the properties of limestones as oli/gas resevoirs, and I don't believe that many of them have enough permeability (not porosity) to allow much volume of nutrient input, gas output.

Si - I have no answer to the bacterial sticking question. Stirring ?- it's a more than fair point

kim

12-10-05, 22:17

I'd have thought that the occasional stirring would do it, and also get rid of detritus in the bed (like we used to do with undergravels). :unsure:

I think that the level of nutrients and "packing" will be crucial to determining the depth of the anoxic/oxygenated boundary. The nutrients feed bacteria, which then deplete oxygen, so (similar to the "film theory" of denitrification) create anoxicity (if that word exists). Feed them well, the boundary will move up. In nature, this is clearly observed. Seasonal phytoplankton bloom....boundary moves up.

Grain size is obviously going to affect the spaces between the grains and influence diffusion, and I believe that another factor is diversity of size (diverse sands apparently pack less readily, while a sand of homogeneous size easily finds a stable equilibrium and just sits there. Apparently, I await the proof).

Oooh, we've gone into other areas...

Oh well, Chronic, if you get this far and have read the links, one thing to take away is that an overloaded DSB isn't just one which simply fails to provide you with the amount of filtration that you want. It is one that will turn round and bite.

And I know that you like big fish !

kim

chronic2005

12-10-05, 22:20

" i know that you like big fish " :lol: Come on im only haveing a powder blue, snowflake ell and volitains :lol: :thumbsup:

This is a great thread, for me anyway. Its great to learn stuff and i hope one day that i will be able to do more than just nod my head :thumbsup:

kim

12-10-05, 23:40

Originally posted by chronic2005@Oct 12 2005, 21:20
" i know that you like big fish " :lol: Come on im only haveing a powder blue, snowflake ell and volitans
That's a lotta fish. Not exactly five chromis and a clown. :lol:

Bear in mind that, even of the food they eat and digest, so ignoring what they miss, fish only extract something like 20 % at most of the nutrients. If you are relying on a "critter driven" DSB to remove the waste and the poop, you are loading it with at least 80 % of everything you feed.

Also bear in mind that while a reef is a densely populated habitat, in nature the waste is then washed away in high currents and, as it slowly decomposes, is processed by the plankton and (to a lesser extent) phytoplankton living in the massive volumes of the ocean, and then when (if ever) it reaches a sandbed on the ocean floor, these are millions of square miles in expanse.

Most DSB environments are nowhere near a reef, the flow is too great, fine sand can't settle. Even the lagoons don't fit the description. While DSBs are naturally occurring features, and well-studied, our use of small versions of them to provide the primary detritus mechanism within a reef tank is totally artificial.

In short, reefs are not filtered by equivalent expanses of sandbeds, but huge expanses assisted by many other mechanisms. If you were to pop over to your local estuary and find a nice expanse of mud, a 2 foot square area would not be supporting the equivalent of a volitans, a powder blue and an eel. It might be supporting a tiny area of reef ten thousand miles away.

A DSB is a natural approach, but it is used in a totally unnatural context and that needs to be considered.

kim

simon garratt

13-10-05, 08:44

Or to add to Kims comments.

Think of it this way, If we truly wanted a DSB to act as a total filtration system for 'all' the waste generated (not forgetting that it also has to deal with internally generated die off (bio flux), then your looking at a sand bed the size of a football pitch bolted on to your average 150gallon reef stocked with a good assortment of fish. Sounds extreme, but thats the basic score if you want to factor in critter diversity and reducing the effects of predation to a degree you could run the tank for an indefinate period without any possibility of future collapse or failyer.

Bare in mind that even with a very well populated in-tank or large remote DSB, allmost 99% of these keepers will back up with heavy skimming in the region of 5+ times the tank volume per hour and pull out an average of 1/2pint of massively condensed waste every day or so. (im talking known/documented succesfull DSB based sytems here). so it should leave you with the idea in mind that the DSB, SSB, Plenum, Bucket sand bed, or humble UGF is/should only be considerd an addition to other methods of waste removal or control and not the be all and end all of the subject. (eggs in one basket etc).

As far as the glycocalyx binding goes then yes, a regular knifing through of the substrate would alleviate this scenario ( used to be very well documented and hailed as a possible cause of tank splits in plenum based systems). Im also a big fan of using Cukes to clear surface buildup of detritus and algal growth in the upper layers of the sand bed. (which as a side line would also possibly play a roll in recycling iether ingoing or outgoing phosphates).

regards

Si.

TheThingIs

13-10-05, 12:38

On the phosphate build up issue and SiG's sump design....would having the takeoff and return both in the dsb section help to keep phosphate levels from rising in the dsb? Wouldn't this also make phos removal more efficient as it would be processing a lower volume of water per hour? I was going to have the takeoff from the same place as the skimmer takeoff and return it to the dsb but wouldn't that also increase flow across the dsb and therefore I'd have to slowdown the input from the overflow and doing that would reduce the dsb's food source?

Also, the size of the dsb. SiG's is 24x12 which gives him a surface area of (digs out the ms calculator) 288 sq inches. You started off asking if 15x15 was ok which gives you 225 sq inches. I know there's no hard and fast rules here as bigger is better but what would you recommend as the minimum size, say a ratio in sq inches to water volume?

Cheers,

Lee

chronic2005

13-10-05, 13:59

Hi
Im not just planning a dsb as sole filtration. Im stocking around late december or even january. And the reason for that is for xmas, im going to get 30kg of reef bones. That along with my DIY skimmer, which will more than liekly be designed for a 300 gallon tank. I think would be ok.

Filtration

Andy caine THING or dsb
30-40 kg live rock
skimmer (300 gallon)
A turn over of around 30x per hour
And a pre filter on entering the sump which should catch all big waste particles.

Thanks for the info all. Oh and if i do go dsb it would be 24/16/5 MIN!!! :thumbsup:

BulldogR

13-10-05, 22:19

....just like to say can't really be bothered to argue especially when it's the legend of his own fishbowl......hi kim :bow: :thumbsup: ;)

.....but the system described as the Andy Caine method is just one of the systems we supply and use at Aquaworld, infact 2 of the 3 coral systems we use are MM/Skimmer based, my own system is MM/DSB (see tank of the month June..by the way the DSB is 11x24 in my own setup) also various other systems are used SUCCESSFULLY by customers and employees alike at Aquaworld so I recent the suggestion that the methods we use and advice is out of date, indeed the :lol: Andy Caine :D method isn't my 1st choice of system but many people use it SUCCESSFULLY and our window tank has run without hitch and on very little maintenance for the last 5+years on this so called cainey filter.....so as you might have guessed the system certainly ain't 'NEW'

.....but at the end of the day it's YOUR choice on what type of system you go for, and not matter which you choose it's success on the most part will be based on the time, effort and knowledge you put into it......one thing I have learned over the years is money in Reefkeeping certainly does'nt always guarantee success, but care and effort will... :thumbsup:

kim

13-10-05, 22:55

BulldogR,

Relax, I said in my post that a UG is a tried and proven technology. Especially for chronic, it could be just the ticket (whatever he says, those are big fish.... :lol: ). Nothing wrong with something that works, even if it isn't shiny. I'm no "fashionista". :P

But the structure presented in the advertisement as some kind of breakthrough resulting from your own research looks exactly the same as that sold to me over 25 years ago :o by Graham Cox. Very effective it was, though in those days the livestock we aspired to keep was rather limited, and that I could afford even more so. Chronic is a very lucky young man in comparison.

If I or others have missed something, then it would be interesting to learn about the advances you have made.

In the absence of which, the sales pitch does demand some leg pulling, I think, and you are just going to have to decide whether you want to giggle along with us, or not.

Back to my bowl....splosh.

:)

kim

BulldogR

13-10-05, 23:13

Originally posted by kim@Oct 13 2005, 21:55
BulldogR,

Relax, I said in my post that a UG is a tried and proven technology. Especially for chronic, it could be just the ticket (whatever he says, those are big fish.... :lol: ). Nothing wrong with something that works, even if it isn't shiny. I'm no "fashionista". :P

But the structure presented in the advertisement as some kind of breakthrough resulting from your own research looks exactly the same as that sold to me over 25 years ago :o by Graham Cox. Very effective it was, though in those days the livestock we aspired to keep was rather limited, and that I could afford even more so. Chronic is a very lucky young man in comparison.

If I or others have missed something, then it would be interesting to learn about the advances you have made.

In the absence of which, the sales pitch does demand some leg pulling, I think, and you are just going to have to decide whether you want to giggle along with us, or not.

Back to my bowl....splosh.

:)

kim
Kim I'll tell you the truth to be totally honest thats the first time I've seen the 'cainey' :lol: filter in our advert and agree Andy can sometimes get slightly over enthusiastic in his descriptions, and thats all I'll say, mainly because he'll probably end up reading this, and I have to work with him tommorrow :P :lol:

kim

13-10-05, 23:37

:lol:

In which case I'm sure he'll appreciate that you leapt in and made a vigorous defence (maybe I should PM him to make sure that you get full credit). :ph34r:

Nobody here criticised the method (and as I'm sure you know, sometimes people have a knee jerk reaction to UGs, but no sign of that prejudice here). Simply a laugh at the blurb.

:)

kim

reefclown

14-10-05, 02:20

it's YOUR choice on what type of system you go for, and not matter which you choose it's success on the most part will be based on the time, effort and knowledge you put into it Amen :D

But the structure presented in the advertisement as some kind of breakthrough resulting from your own research looks exactly the same as that sold to me over 25 years ago by Graham Cox.

Is this the guy from Waterlife that was investigated for some serious crimes? :ph34r: Best shop in the country 20 years ago B)

Simply a laugh at the blurb, a smile a day..... :D

FWIW,
never had a problem with small remote sandbeds clumping (argamax, p52, large coral sand, all were OK), the net effect of "glycocalyx binding" will depend on the system in play, simply too many parms... ;)

IME, heavy loads, with plently of feeding is an excellent system to play with, sooo many challenges/chances to play and discover, you are going to have some fun :)

and at the end of all the play, you'll have a method that you are happy with, publish the system and we can all let rip with another smile :D :thumbsup:

[/QUOTE]I'm no "fashionista". [QUOTE]

it's all in the ocean motion :P

BulldogR

14-10-05, 08:24

Originally posted by kim@Oct 13 2005, 22:37
:lol:

In which case I'm sure he'll appreciate that you leapt in and made a vigorous defence (maybe I should PM him to make sure that you get full credit). :ph34r:

Nobody here criticised the method (and as I'm sure you know, sometimes people have a knee jerk reaction to UGs, but no sign of that prejudice here). Simply a laugh at the blurb.

:)

kim
...decided on the constructive criticism approach ;)

simon garratt

14-10-05, 09:49

Fair do's to all i say for a light hearted debate........... :D Though i do find the link to conservatories/natural light and algae a bit of a miss direction with the aim of sales pitching. ;)

After all, i can think of several keepers who either actively encorage natural light or ignore its heavy presence without incident who dont use this method. All in all its more down to how well the system maintains ambiant No3/Po4 levels that are the major factor to wether exess natural light induces algae blooms or not. If you can keep them down to very low levels you wont have problems, and if a system is desighned that atchieves that goal then great, But if that is the case, then just say 'this system can deliver near NSW levels of No3/Po4' rather than polishing it up as something more than it is. Its no better, simply another way of atchieving the same result.

But all in all congrats to Andy on the marketing i say.......... :D At least he isnt lying, which is more than can be said for some companies in this industry. ;)

On the phosphate build up issue and SiG's sump design....would having the takeoff and return both in the dsb section help to keep phosphate levels from rising in the dsb? Wouldn't this also make phos removal more efficient as it would be processing a lower volume of water per hour? I was going to have the takeoff from the same place as the skimmer takeoff and return it to the dsb but wouldn't that also increase flow across the dsb and therefore I'd have to slowdown the input from the overflow and doing that would reduce the dsb's food source?

Also, the size of the dsb. SiG's is 24x12 which gives him a surface area of (digs out the ms calculator) 288 sq inches. You started off asking if 15x15 was ok which gives you 225 sq inches. I know there's no hard and fast rules here as bigger is better but what would you recommend as the minimum size, say a ratio in sq inches to water volume?

Cheers,

Lee

I dont think it will matter were you put the return Lee, Po4 is a chemical polutant that is evenly despersed through the entire water body (more or less) so its going to make its way into the DSB no matter what you do, (Dont forget the sand that is in the tank as well, and any binding happening within/on the Lr these are all sites of binding and possible future release should pH levels fall for any reason). The main key with my desighn is that i have been able to combine two dynamically different and supposedly opposing demands in a small area, ie cover the need for high 02 levels, whilst at the same time keeping flow across the sand bed slow enough that detritus etc can fall from solution better than if i was going with generally accepted concesouse regarding high flow and sand layers. Its the skimmer output that solves this problem, and the combined algae solves the Po4 problem. The surplus load is dealt with by heavy skimming of the bypassed water.

There are alot of balls to juggle in filtration methodology and my initial wish for the desighn was to juggle as many of these balls as possible at the same time, as safely as possible.

I think i pretty much got there.................. ;)

As for minimum recommended size. Its a bit of a difficult question with an answer that is heavily effected by both the keepers time commitments and the system its bolted to. As for a blind answer id say that the bigger the bed, the less work is involved.... the smaller the bed, then the more time you need to put in to cover things like critter predation (replenishment) and observation on wether the bed is coping with the loads placed upon it. Im my case id hazard a guess that the intank SSB and skimmer are the primary filters and the sump DSB/algae bed is the final polisher that tips the scale in my favour and soakes up any random fluctuations . Hence my readings.

Regards

Si. :D

Martyn

21-10-05, 19:57

Originally posted by kim@Oct 10 2005, 19:08
15 " square is quite small.

First, a DSB should ideally have about the same surface area as the tank which it supports. If it is too small in comparison (who knows where the cut off should be ?) then it will simply not support enough life to process all the detritus generated, or may be too small a target in which the detritus can settle (when in the main tank it will settle, of course).

That leaves you siphoning detritus, which rather misses the point.

Second, there's an absolute limit. DSBs need (I believe and I'm not without my opponents here) to be of sufficient size to support breeding colonies of a very wide variety of small animals. They won't increase in density just because the bed is small, they don't live well with each other (nature red in tooth and claw etc., and even when they aren't eating each other, they are eating or disturbing each other's eggs and larvae and engaging in chemical warfare). Diversity is important to process a wide variety of detritus, and for stability. DSBs tend to be a large tank solutions.

You might be able to keep a small bed healthy with care, but I'm not sure how useful it would be given its limited volume.

I remember from other threads that you like large fish ? DSBs are not really good for fish only/predator tanks and the like where the waste can be high. They don't have enough "oomph" because the critters need space.

On the sand, probably the best you can find is Aragamax. This is still rather large grained. STM recommend adding some of their fine white silica (which is Nature's Ocean Fine White) which I think is a good idea but don't overdo it. The silica is all pretty much the same grain size, and while you want small, you also want diversity. Small but diverse grain sizes score high with ctitters.

Depth...probably about 3 - 5 inches. No point being excessively deep, but you need some depth to provide a nice volume in which the critters can live, and possibly enough so that the lower levels are oxygen depleted to encourage denitrification. The critters should keep the top 3 inches oxygenated as they burrow.

Flow rate should be as high as possible consistent with not washing the sand away and getting detritus to settle (obviously a problem when the DSB is external to the main tank and small).

You can try using LR to seed the bed but should also seek sand swaps etc. Not everything living in a rock also lives in the sand (there are pretty well-defined differences). But do not place the rock on the sand. That compresses the sand, prevents the critters doing their work and leads to nutrient build up.

The key is to create and maintain the bed so that it is a nutrient recycling machine, rather than a nutrient sink. Which means don't overload it, use small but diversified grains of sand to allow the critters to operate but encourage diversity, and keep the critters happy. Sing to them.

:)

kim
Nice one Kim I see you have done your homework :thumbsup:

Regards
Martyn