Is this idea viable?

[Jethro]

The situation:
I am a complete beginner, not even got my tank yet (due 9th of Jan) but I have been doing a lot of reading on websites and forums.
I have opted for a DSB sump and intend to jump in at the deep end (no pun intended :o) and get one up and running with the intention of growing macro algae in it.
But I have read that this can cause the ineficiency of both DSB and macro algae growth, so my idea was to build a tray on legs above (but within) the DSB section of the sump containing mud and macro algae, therefore getting the best of both worlds.
Is this viable, has anyone tried it?, am I getting ahead of myself? and should I have posted this in another section (if so I am sorry).
Be kind people :D

Jethro

[Cranners]

How about sticking with either a DSB perhaps with algae above it or ideally you would need two separate compartments - one DSB and an algae refugium or a Mud filter with just a couple of inches of mud with algae growing in that and nothing else?

I have a rough 2ft cube approx 200litres with a 3ft clearseal tank converted into a mud filter - no skimmer just the filter and a small section of live rubble before the return.

The possible problem with lifting the mud above the DSB would be reduction in flow over the DSB, plus disturbance to the mud potentially. I dont think you could resolve that

I would say read up on the two different filters and choose one or the other try not to complicate matters.

J

[Jethro]

Thanks for the reply Cranners.
I am going to go down the DSB route with chaeto (which I have since learned does not put down roots).
Still a lot to learn :)

[aquadorge]

Some recent thoughts on DSB's are that they are best not run with algaes and kept dark, also that they are much better when operated with a high throughput. If you are intending on an algae sump with a normal throughput (ie 4-7x per hour) then mud may be better.

Also, ask why you want a DSB - nitrate can be managed through sensible stocking and good husbandry woithout the 'hassle' (potential or otherwise) of running a DSB

[Jethro]

Thanks for your input aquadorge, most appreciated. :worship:

"Some recent thoughts on DSB's are that they are best not run with algaes and kept dark, also that they are much better when operated with a high throughput. If you are intending on an algae sump with a normal throughput (ie 4-7x per hour) then mud may be better."

Could you point me towards some reading regarding the latest thinking on these systems please?

"Also, ask why you want a DSB - nitrate can be managed through sensible stocking and good husbandry woithout the 'hassle' (potential or otherwise) of running a DSB"

This is very true, but I would ask then, apart from the asthetics of getting all the mechanics out of the display tank and the advantage of extra water in the system, why have a sump at all??, and why would a mud system be any less hassle than a DSB?, surely they both work on the same principle of aerobic and anaerobic conversion, the DSB having the advantage of being a lot cheaper to set up with no more risk of an H2S problem as far as I can see.
I tend to get a bit sceptical about anything called "miracle" anything, which costs you a fortune :whistling:.

[aquadorge]

I'll need to have a hunt fo rthe references as it was something I picked up 2nd hand.

As for why a sump, you answered your own question :D All those benefits are worth the extra work IMO.

I agree that the 'Miracle' name is unfortunate - but I can only go by what I see and several of my friends are running mud systems on their softie tanks with great success - check out Frogfone and Snowsurfers tanks of the month last year. In fact, I don't think there's a single TOTM last year that was running a DSB which is as good an indicator for me as any. As for hassle, the mud system is easier managed according to those I have spoken to that are running it, the mud is only a few cm thick so the anaerobic/H2S issue is greatly reduced, flow rates are sensible through it, the critter life that flourishes is unbelievable, softies, polyps, mushies etc all thrive on whatever witchcraft the mud does etc etc. FOr me it would be a no brainer between the two if that was the route I wanted my system to go. You also save on a skimmer if you run a pure mud system

[wayne in norway]

The best starter reference is Delbeek and Sprung Vol 3. for the theory behind dsbs, water velocity and advection. After that you're straight in scientific papers though some of those are pretty straightforward. Growing caulerpa on top of a dsb is workable (have done it), chaeto has some advantages both theoretical and real, and compared to caulerpa does better with a higher water velocity anyway.
I run a dsb and I'm not going to knock it. MM systems are pretty easy to run also, but a dark dsb with high flow over is ridiculously easy to setup and manage, and very effective. I dose carbon and bacs in addition to feed it and simply test out zero on nitrate and P every time. It is the easiest way to keep nitrates at a very low level. I don't think a pure berlin system is guaranteed or even especially likely to keep nitrate in the range 0-5, and that's always been a problem.

If you're going to run mud you ought to run caulerpa. If you run chaeto you mayas well run bare bottom as mud. The very fine grain size of mud means that you hit layers of sediment that are purely anerobic at a very shallow depth, and here nitrate is not reduced to nitrogen, it's reduced to ammonium, rocket fuel for algae that have a 'root' system to take advantage of it. Caulerpa has this, chaetomorpha does not. There is only going to be a very thin zone where oxygen levels are going to be low enough to reduce to nitrogen, but high enough not to go to ammonium, so the functions of dsb and mm systems are fundamentally quite different.

H2S has never been an issue for me - it seems to be a bit of a red herring.

[Jethro]

Thanks for those informative replies guys.
I feel I am being sucked into the dark side by the mud :D

A few questions for you both:

What is the optimum depth for a mud bed?
Growing caulerpa in it requires 24/7 lighting I presume?.
Is a skimmer detrimental to a mud bed by denying it food?
If so, would a split drain to the sump get round this by supplying a small amount of unskimmed water to the mud, the rest going via the skimmer, or would this be the worst of both worlds?
The same question applies to a DSB.
Is there any difference between the various brands of mud?
Why is a dark DSB more effective, surely light does not penetrate very far into the substrate?

Thanks again for your input, keep it coming :)

Jethro

[Sanj]

If you use Miracle Mud 1" of substrate is recommended (leng Sy), it is finer than Mineral Mud and you need less of it.