Sand Bed Vacuum Test - Phosphate Liberation?

[elegance coral]

It is sooooo nice to see all the posts in this thread supporting the practice of vacuuming a sand bed. Almost five years ago, when I first came to these forums, every time I mentioned the fact that I vacuumed my sand, people would go crazy. They'd all be saying, "You can't disturb a sand bed or it will spontaneously combust killing all your critters, and everyone in a three mile radios." I'm glad the truth seems to finally be getting out.

[Dog boy Dave]

I am amazed to hear every one here chiming in as if all sand beds were the same. I keep a remote deep sand bed. Its about ten inches deep, very fine and much older than most experts say they can be kept. I do not vacuum it nor do i disturb it much. It is effective and i can manage the nutrient level in my system to control the growth on the surface of the sand at will. Usually deep sand beds like this are unsucessful long term when attempted in a main display. In the past it was common to attempt them though. When kept in the main display, they usually crashed withn five to ten years. However I have seen them last longer. I have also seen corals die the day after these older deep sand beds were disturbed. I have seen it more than once in several systems. In these same systems normal water changes did not affect the corals imediate health. Usually when i see sand in a main display it is not set up as functioning deep sand bed system. Of course you should have a method to export nutrients from your substrate. Vacuuming it is probably a good idea. But please do not confuse a layer of sand in your main display or even worse in someone elses with a mature deep sand bed system. Anyone who does so will risk the life of their corals.

[Paul B]

It's true that a clean sand bed will support far fewer tiny critters than a dirty one. My goal isn't to create an environment where tiny critters that feed on rot and decay can prosper. My goal is to provide an environment where the delicate creatures, I pay for, can prosper.

If those "undesirable" creatures are thriving, the creatures you paid for should also thrive.
They are only more desirable to us because they are not free but to them, they still need the right conditions to live.

Its about ten inches deep, very fine and much older than most experts say they can be kept

How old is the sand bed? I am not a big fan of DSBs of any type and I am interested.

I also do not vacuum anything but I have a RUGF that does not show any detritus, but every few years I stir it up and suck out anything with a diatom filter.

[elegance coral]

Originally Posted by Dog boy Dave

It is effective

Effective at what? What evidence are you basing its effectiveness on? Don't say, "I have a pretty tank.", because that doesn't show your sand bed is doing anything. You may have a pretty tank in spite of the DSB, and not because of it.

Usually deep sand beds like this are unsucessful long term when attempted in a main display. In the past it was common to attempt them though. When kept in the main display, they usually crashed withn five to ten years.

Why would anyone support a practice that is known to crash tanks?
If the sand is kept remotely it is still in the same small body of water. The exact same processes that take place in the sand, in a display, will take place in the sand, in a remote container. These processes may be slowed in a remote container, because the nutrients fueling these processes can be reduced, but the end result is the same. On day one, the sand is clean. A month later, and there's a little rotting organic matter in the sand. A year later, and there's even more. Several years later, and there can be huge quantities of rotting organic matter in the sand. As organic matter rots, it releases nutrients into the environment. The more organic matter that's rotting, the more nutrients that are being released. So.... As time progresses the corals begin to suffer, as the OP has noticed, or the hobbyist is forced to step up methods of dealing with these excess nutrients. The problem is that the nutrients being release from this pile of rot and decay continues to climb. The husbandry techniques used today, may not be sufficient for tomorrow. At some point, despite the best efforts of the hobbyists, this growing nutrient source typically overwhelms the husbandry techniques, and animals die.

I have also seen corals die the day after these older deep sand beds were disturbed. I have seen it more than once in several systems.

And why did these corals die? It wasn't because of the tiny particles of calcium carbonate. It was due to the rot and filth that accumulated within these sand beds.
If this is so common that you've seen it in several systems, why would anyone support such a practice?

Usually when i see sand in a main display it is not set up as functioning deep sand bed system.

This sounds like a statement you would find in one of Shemik's articles. The only thing statements like this accomplish is to provide a means of blaming the hobbyists when the system fails, and not the system itself. It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik. This makes it real easy to tell a hobbyist, right after they've lost all their corals, that it was their fault, because they didn't have a true "functioning deep sand bed system".

[Paul B]

I think a remote DSB is better only because the thing can be removed easily when it crashes, as it will sooner or later.

It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik.

This is partially true. You may be able to set it up, but the design of it dictates that it could not last. There is no such thing as a no maintenance system and those "creatures" that are supposed to maintain the thing have other Ideas.
No creature is going to dig down in a bed where there is no oxygen.
I can understand people installing DSBs because they were new and they seemed to have some good points. I know better and installed one at the very beginning of the hobby. Bad Idea. But what do I know? heck I still run a UG filter and of course that can't work.

[Dog boy Dave]

Originally Posted by elegance coral

Effective at what? What evidence are you basing its effectiveness on? Don't say, "I have a pretty tank.", because that doesn't show your sand bed is doing anything. You may have a pretty tank in spite of the DSB, and not because of it.



Why would anyone support a practice that is known to crash tanks?
If the sand is kept remotely it is still in the same small body of water. The exact same processes that take place in the sand, in a display, will take place in the sand, in a remote container. These processes may be slowed in a remote container, because the nutrients fueling these processes can be reduced, but the end result is the same. On day one, the sand is clean. A month later, and there's a little rotting organic matter in the sand. A year later, and there's even more. Several years later, and there can be huge quantities of rotting organic matter in the sand. As organic matter rots, it releases nutrients into the environment. The more organic matter that's rotting, the more nutrients that are being released. So.... As time progresses the corals begin to suffer, as the OP has noticed, or the hobbyist is forced to step up methods of dealing with these excess nutrients. The problem is that the nutrients being release from this pile of rot and decay continues to climb. The husbandry techniques used today, may not be sufficient for tomorrow. At some point, despite the best efforts of the hobbyists, this growing nutrient source typically overwhelms the husbandry techniques, and animals die.




And why did these corals die? It wasn't because of the tiny particles of calcium carbonate. It was due to the rot and filth that accumulated within these sand beds.
If this is so common that you've seen it in several systems, why would anyone support such a practice?




This sounds like a statement you would find in one of Shemik's articles. The only thing statements like this accomplish is to provide a means of blaming the hobbyists when the system fails, and not the system itself. It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik. This makes it real easy to tell a hobbyist, right after they've lost all their corals, that it was their fault, because they didn't have a true "functioning deep sand bed system".

Wow, Its hostile responses like this that keep a lot of older hobbiest from posting on this site. "Dont say its because you have a pretty tank, you have a pretty tank in spite of your remote DSB...Are you mad bro? I am glad that you can figure out how my tank works from one post. I havent been able to figure it out in 45 years of keeping it.

"Why would anyone support a practice that is known to crash tanks? " I dont know. Why would anyone put sand in their main display and then build a wall of rocks? It looks bad and doesnt work but they still do it. Maybe they are just confused?

This sounds like a statement you would find in one of Shemik's articles. The only thing statements like this accomplish is to provide a means of blaming the hobbyists when the system fails, and not the system itself. It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik. This makes it real easy to tell a hobbyist, right after they've lost all their corals, that it was their fault, because they didn't have a true "functioning deep sand bed system."

I am not blaming anyone for any thing. I dont care. I was trying to share my experience. It works for me. I have looked at your elegant system m8. We were building stuff like that in the 80's. I have worked systems like yours in the past and I am familiar with them. Even though I have used those methods in the past, I dont feel the need to shoot or attack your methods. Some of us have learned and moved on. I still have questions. I wish i was smart enough as some of you to figure it out from a paragraph or two. If pictures of my tank inspire people to atempt to use the same methods as me, they often thank me later. But honestly m8, everything that happens in my tank is my fault. As far as your tank though, its not my concern.

I thought this was about stirring a bed of sand. Oh Elegant one, If you have a true deep sand bed you probably shouldnt stir it. That was my point. If you have a layer of sand, mostly covered with rocks then do what you want. Talk to me in ten years and let me know how it works out for you. If you want to turn this thread into a DSB bashing thread then please start your own so I can avoid it without avoiding this entire froum.

[elegance coral]

Originally Posted by Paul B

If those "undesirable" creatures are thriving, the creatures you paid for should also thrive.

For the record, I didn't call them "undesirable". That was you.

Paul....... Why do you keep making me go through this??? You're statement is not accurate. These "undesirables" are decomposers. They thrive in very high nutrient environments. Seriously. They feed on dead and rotting, animals and poo. They are the maggots of the ocean. The animals we pay for don't thrive under such foul conditions. They thrive under clean, and pristine conditions.

They are only more desirable to us because they are not free but to them, they still need the right conditions to live.

I agree, but they need clean and healthy environments to thrive in. Not poo and bug infested swamps.

[Dog boy Dave]

Paul, I have some older images of my DSB somewhere on this forum. You can search for them if you search my name. I wouldnt want to corrupt anyone by posting any new images here so these days, I tend to post more on some of the other less hostile forums. Most of my newer image posts are someplace else.
Years ago on this forum we used to have a seperate forum for discussion of DSB. The tone got so hostile and juvenile that he left about the same time as Eric closed his forum. Too bad though this board is weaker without them.

Originally Posted by Paul B

If those "undesirable" creatures are thriving, the creatures you paid for should also thrive.
They are only more desirable to us because they are not free but to them, they still need the right conditions to live.




How old is the sand bed? I am not a big fan of DSBs of any type and I am interested.

I also do not vacuum anything but I have a RUGF that does not show any detritus, but every few years I stir it up and suck out anything with a diatom filter.

[elegance coral]

Originally Posted by Dog boy Dave

Wow, Its hostile responses like this that keep a lot of older hobbiest from posting on thyis site.

I didn't mean for my post to come across as hostile. I did disagree with what you were saying, but it's hard to disagree with someone in black and white without coming across as harsh. I asked questions in an attempt to give you the opportunity to justify your claims, or support your position. I tried to make my point, but at no time was I attacking you.

"Dont say its because you have a pretty tank, you have a pretty tank in spite of your remote DSB...Are you mad bro? I am glad that you can figure out how my tank works from one post. I havent been able to figure it out in 45 years of keeping it.

WOW. Your skills at rearranging my words to come up with a meaning that suits you is impressive. You know full well that's not what I said though.

You and I have been through this before. In that thread, you made statements along the lines that your tank proves the DSB "works". Well, it doesn't, and I was simply trying to avoid going through that whole thing again.

I thought this was about stirring a bed of sand. Oh Elegant one, If you have a true deep sand bed you probably shouldnt stir it. That was my point. If you want to turn this thread into a DSB bashing thread then please start your own so I can avoid it without avoiding this entire froum.

This thread is about removing detritus/nutrients from a sand bed. You are the one that brought up DSB's. The OP is disturbing a sand bed that has been maintained similar to a DSB. I think what they're doing proves that this can be done, if done properly. Hopefully, they'll continue documenting the process, and show the results as the experiment continues.

[Paul B]

These "undesirables" are decomposers. They thrive in very high nutrient environments. Seriously. They feed on dead and rotting, animals and poo.

Elegance, sorry, I was referring to things like pods, brittle stars and such things and I guess you were referring to denitrifying bacteria.
I was just trying to say that if those creatures, (that I listed) are living well, then higher creatures will also.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Paul, I have some older images of my DSB somewhere on this forum. You can search for them if you search my name. I wouldnt want to corrupt anyone by posting any new images here so these days,

Dave, I also apologize to you. I am sure your DSB tank is beautiful.
I don't like DSBs and have my reasons but you are correct, I should not say things about them in a thread not dedicated to them. I get carried away.
I have a UG filter. You can make fun of that if you like.

[Dog boy Dave]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Elegance, sorry, I was referring to things like pods, brittle stars and such things and I guess you were referring to denitrifying bacteria.
I was just trying to say that if those creatures, (that I listed) are living well, then higher creatures will also.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.



Dave, I also apologize to you. I am sure your DSB tank is beautiful.
I don't like DSBs and have my reasons but you are correct, I should not say things about them in a thread not dedicated to them. I get carried away.
I have a UG filter. You can make fun of that if you like.

Naw man, your post was quite civil. I wasnt responding to your post at all. Normally i ignore trolls but sometimes I forget that answering them makes them think they are real and i get carried away. My apologies if you thought i was whining at you. I shot some quick video after i read your post. Dont know where the caulerpa came from. Cant remember seeing any in the last ten years or so. In the last year or so it has grown and currently out competes the cheato in the sump. Doesnt seem to be as poisonous as the experts say though. My guys eat it regularly. ANyway just a short video of my struggling system. Please dont try this at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFfRq...e_gdata_player

[Nano sapiens]

I am a proponent of vacuuming the sand bed, especially in a small Nano tank like I have. I only keep a mixed bag of LPS and SPS corals (no fish, crabs, etc), but the amount of detritus I vacuum out every week always amazes me.

It is my opinion/experience (been at this since the mid-80's) that the accumulation of detritus in a SB and the LR is the biggest contributor to a loss of vigor and possible catastrophic failure in an aquarium. Besides vacuuming the open SB weekly, I vacuum under the LR every month to remove all the detritus collecting there due to advection.

[bayoupr]

I don't vacuum my sand bed. I stir my sand a 3-4hrs before my water change which I do bi-weekly. This gives my skimmer time to skim up the most of the trash. I have a SSB.

[Paul B]

ANyway just a short video of my struggling system. Please dont try this at home.

Dave you have some nice healthy stuff living in there. Very nice, but which fish is making those dog barking sounds?

I also took a video but the shimmering light gives me a headache in the video.

[elegance coral]

Alright dog boy. We had a nice productive thread going here in the Advanced forum, until you came along making statements you can't back up.

This is a thread about removing the rot and decay from sand beds, and the potential benefits of doing so. You come along saying that your 10" pile of rot is "effective". Well, the natural question to ask is, effective at what? Which is what I did. You have absolutely no clue what it's effective at, so to avoid the subject, and to save face, you belittle my system, and flame me. You're not helping, or adding anything of meaning to this thread. You're simply here causing problems, and mucking up a good thread.

If you have something meaningful to add to the thread, by all means, go for it, but don't get a chip on your shoulder when someone asks you to clarify your statements. Especially if your statements are contradictory to everything else that's been said in the thread. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, and you're simply here to cause problems, please just move on so we can continue what could be a really great thread.

[elegance coral]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Elegance, sorry, I was referring to things like pods, brittle stars and such things and I guess you were referring to denitrifying bacteria.
I was just trying to say that if those creatures, (that I listed) are living well, then higher creatures will also.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.

It's all good Paul. No need for "Sorry".

As you know, you and I don't always see eye to eye on topics, but I always enjoy debating them with you, and respect your opinion, because you have the ability to stay on topic,(except when you're joking), and you don't get all jacked out of shape just because I don't agree with you on every little thing. On top of that, I think you, I, and others that read our debates have a chance to learn something. I'm sure some readers learned a few thing in our last debate about nutrients on corals reefs, over on the other site.

Okay, enough of that. Back to the subject.

I wasn't referring to denitrifying bacteria. I was grouping all the tiny critters that feed on left over scraps into one big group. All kinds of worms, pods, bacteria, or virtually anything that lives in the sand or rocks, and makes a living off of the scraps of others. We all have these critters in our tanks. Even squeaky clean BB tanks have them. Probably more than most people realize. Their populations are an indicator of nutrient levels within the system though. It takes a large amount of nutrients to sustain a large population of these critters. So as nutrient levels rise and decline, so does the population of these critters. If these critters are "thriving". Meaning there are large populations. The nutrients must be there to support them. Some of the critters we keep, like Acropora, don't do well with higher nutrients. So, I don't agree with the statement that if these tiny critters are thriving higher life forms will too. We're talking about critters that have different requirements to thrive. High nutrient organisms, and low nutrient organisms. If one is prospering in a system, it's highly likely that the other isn't.

[Paul B]

OK Elegance, I think this may be food for an interesting discussion.

All kinds of worms, pods, bacteria, or virtually anything that lives in the sand or rocks, and makes a living off of the scraps of others

This is true. But these creatures could also live in a tank by themselves if they were fed.
I think we both agree with that. I can keep a tank of pods, worms, and bacteria in a tank by themselves if I feed them. (I am getting to my point).

Their populations are an indicator of nutrient levels within the system

Maybe so, but their presence could also be a sign of overfeeding in a healthy system.
Yes, you are correct that usually we see multitudes of creatures in high nutrient systems,
But in a system such as mine, I overfeed but I have the theory that these creatures eat the excess food and the other parts of my system are there to remove the excess nutrients. Parts of my system such as my live hollow rock, algae trough and skimmer with ozone eliminate those excess nutrients.

If these critters are "thriving". Meaning there are large populations. The nutrients must be there to support them.

I feel that if these creatures are there, there is food there for them but a creature such as a pod, worm or brittle star lives off of real food and can not utilize a nutrient such as nitrogen. They eat scraps of food, bacteria and algae.

Some of the critters we keep, like Acropora, don't do well with higher nutrients.

I have 3 bluestripe pipefish, 2 mandarins and some tiny gobies that all eat pods. My old tank is full of pods, worms and brittle stars. Forget about bristle worms, I could write a book on them but my acropora is growing so fast that I am having trouble finding room for it and my other SPS corals.
So I do have multitudes of creatures, but also acropora.

We're talking about critters that have different requirements to thrive. High nutrient organisms, and low nutrient organisms. If one is prospering in a system, it's highly likely that the other isn't

I think we are confusing nutrients with food. Yes food if it is not utilized will become nutrients. Even if it is utilized it will become nutrients. But, if we need an example, my tank has been called a garbage dump. I even add mud from the sea. It certainly is not the nicest tank on here but it is a fact that SPS corals thrive and have been doing so for years. LPS are also living for not only years but decades and I have "almost" no algae growing in the display. I do have it in my algae trough and I use a Reverse UG filter which most people will say is useless.
I am sorry but I don't have test kits so I can't quote my parameters but a company did test the water for me in 2009.
I posted those results. At that time my tank was about 37 years old so I assume it is about the same now.
My nitrates were 5, phosphate was 0.2, alkinity carbonate was 9.225
alkinity borate was 2.226
I have all the other readings but I am an electrician and not a chemist. At the time Randy critiqued those results.
I have the tests for about 40 other nutrients in the tank but they seem about normal to me.
In "my" particular system I want to keep "extra" food in the tank to feed these creatures because I feel this resource also feeds the corals and tiny fish. Something is always spawning in this tank and although the fry do not reach adulthood, their numbers are also sustained by the "creatures for a while until they themselves become food for higher organisms.
As for releasing nutrients from a DSB or any other type of substrait, I know that if you have hydrogen sulfide such as I think the OP said he did, that is an unhealthy system. Nothing good grows in the presence of that.
I do a lot of collecting for pods, worms etc. and where I collect is full of rocks. If I lift a rock and see the black substance I know for certain that there are no higher life forms living there. If I lift a rock and see just mud, it is full of life, so much so that there is no room for mud, just pods.

[Dog boy Dave]

Originally Posted by elegance coral

Alright dog boy. We had a nice productive thread going here in the Advanced forum, until you came along making statements you can't back up.

This is a thread about removing the rot and decay from sand beds, and the potential benefits of doing so. You come along saying that your 10" pile of rot is "effective". Well, the natural question to ask is, effective at what? Which is what I did. You have absolutely no clue what it's effective at, so to avoid the subject, and to save face, you belittle my system, and flame me. You're not helping, or adding anything of meaning to this thread. You're simply here causing problems, and mucking up a good thread.

If you have something meaningful to add to the thread, by all means, go for it, but don't get a chip on your shoulder when someone asks you to clarify your statements. Especially if your statements are contradictory to everything else that's been said in the thread. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, and you're simply here to cause problems, please just move on so we can continue what could be a really great thread.

Well guys done here. Dont know what this guys problem is but anytime I try to post on any thread about sand beds this guy goes ballistic. Sorry if I offended anyone else but it wont happen again.

[salty joe]

I'm going to set up a DSB because I want to keep jawfish.
To keep the DSB from fouling, I'm going to install a network of perforated pipes under the DSB connected to a drain . This will be used for water changes. Do you think this will work longterm? Hopefully it's not a stretch for me to view this thread as sandbed maintainence rather than strictly sandbed stirring.

[Randy15]

in the past i have left my sand bed untouched durring cleanings. but in the past year i have started cleaning as much of my sand bed as possible about once a month in addition to my micrbactor/vodka regimen. i have had dramatic results in my sps and lps growth and color.

[rhdoug]

My tank turns 13 this year, 58 gallon mixed reef, shallow sand bed. I have gone thru phases of vacuuming and not vacuuming what little sand I can actually get to. For the last few years I have not vacuumed it, but instead I take my feeding baster or sea squirt (very long baster) and gently blow into the sand in the reachable areas. I do this about once a week or so. I re-arrange the sand that has piled to areas where I don't want it at the same time, using the baster to blow it where it belongs. It does cloud the water for an hour or two, but the corals seem to love it and all expand to full glory during and after the storm. Seems to keep the sand clean and the little critters in the tank. I'm not sure the fish like it so much, but none of them have actually complained...

[smsreefer]

Originally Posted by rhdoug

My tank turns 13 this year, 58 gallon mixed reef, shallow sand bed. I have gone thru phases of vacuuming and not vacuuming what little sand I can actually get to. For the last few years I have not vacuumed it, but instead I take my feeding baster or sea squirt (very long baster) and gently blow into the sand in the reachable areas. I do this about once a week or so. I re-arrange the sand that has piled to areas where I don't want it at the same time, using the baster to blow it where it belongs. It does cloud the water for an hour or two, but the corals seem to love it and all expand to full glory during and after the storm. Seems to keep the sand clean and the little critters in the tank. I'm not sure the fish like it so much, but none of them have actually complained...

It's a great way to help feed the corals in my experience.
Never seen any corals that did not respond well to it.

[LouH]

What a coincidence that the DSB topic came up. I have a 16" deep remote DSB in a 20 gallon Brute garbage can. That container is fed from the overflow of a 20 gallon refugium which receives a slip stream from my sump's return pump. I siphoned the top 1/2"-1" of sand from the DSB this weekend and got very little "crud" out of the sand. It was very clean compared to the sand in my main display. I have live rock over the DSB, but it sits on plastic light diffuser material which is held off the sand bed by about 3" with pieces of 2" diameter PVC tubing.

I have never measured nitrates in my system since installing a remote DSB several years ago, and I do not have nuisance algae in my system. You may have seen my thread a week or so ago regarding my inability to grow Chaeto, and I think that running a DSB is one of the reasons why.

Also, when I moved my syetem in October of 2010, the remote DSB was transported intact in the Brute garbage can and didn't need to cycle. I tied it right back into my system without issue.

Lou

[fio1022]

I too had problems growing and keeping sps corals.I spent allot of time and money trying to figure out what was wrong.Filter changes, increasing flow, increased water changes, lighting intensities,etc,etc,etc........
Very long story short i,I removed sand bed altogether.
My previous set up thrived with a bare bottom.My set up now is finally back on track and coral are growing again.
Not saying this look is for everyone but tank looks so much cleaner.

[LouH]

When I first got into reefkeeping, I used the wetwebmedia.com as my primary source of info. That board is moderated, or at least was at that time, by Bob Fenner, Anthony Calfo and others. Those are some pretty big names and experienced people. They were proponents of deep sand beds or very shallow sand beds of 1" or less. They claimed that problems tend to occur when sand beds are between 1" and 3". This advice seems about right with what many responders to this post are stating.

Back to my comment with my remote sand bed; I think that my sand in the RDSB stays so clean is that there are no large life forms deficating all over it, and the water feeding it has been through a mechanical filter, a protein skimmer and a refugium. With this configuration I believe that the DSB can operate for a long time without becoming an underwater composter.