LR vs DSB: the next great debate

[VegasDealr]

UP

 

[Anonymous]

Live rock is not essential in a reef tank at all, if you have a DSB. ALso, the DSB is 1000 times more efficient than live rock in ammonia/nitrate processing. It is relative to the particle size and depth of the sand. I don't know why you want the debate, this info has been around for quite some time. Do a search on Dr. Ron Shimek and you will get more than you need to answer your question.

 

[Anonymous]

Why not have both?

 

[Jon_Hewett_85]

Just thought it was time to liven things up a bit and thought this might make an interesting (if a bit unusual debate

) Sooo this isn't really an "i need advice thread" this is a "whatcha think would happen if...." kinda thread

 

[lil_ol_me]

I would vote for the DSB.

Dave

 

[Jazzcat]

My first reef tank was a 20g with 21 lbs LR and a shallow sand bed. I struggled with copious amounts of hair algae for two years. Then someone suggested that my sand bed was too shallow. So I added three or so inches sugar sized aragonite to it. Within a month, I had no more hair algae!!! And it's NEVER come back! I'm a DSB believer (but I think that both are best.)

 

[Emmitt]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

Live rock is not essential in a reef tank at all,

Gee, I dunno. Kinda tough to have a reef without rock, I'd think. Try mounting all your corals on a DSB

Does Shimek espouse not having LR in the tank? If so, I'd say that's going a little too far. I agree that both are necessary.

 

[Toadally1]

My tank only has live rock. I chose not to use a DSB. The tank has been up for almost six months and is doing just fine.

 

[Jon_Hewett_85]

Okay this time it's Live rock vs a deep sand bed.

Which will win eh? For the sake of this argument we'll setup 2 seperate tanks. One is a bare tank containing an average amount of liverock and with macro growing in it. Tank number 2 is a tank with a DSB NO live rock and also with macro. Lets assume both tanks have identicle lighting say dual 400w iwasaki's. Both tanks get identical feedings and have the same amount of circulation. And the kicker: neither tank contains fish of any kind. also lets assume for the sake of argument that both tanks have been established for a time..and both tanks have been seeded with worms, pods, etc. Also assume a DSB depth of 3 inches. You may use examples of larger/smaller ammounts of both systems (and you are encouraged to) to faccilitate your points.Grain size for sand is assumed to be very fine grained

We will judge these tanks on the following categories:

Ability to assume a sudden large bio-load. Ability to maintain/produce critter populations (b-worms, pods, etc)
Overall system stability.

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!!!

[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jon_Hewett_85 ]

[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jon_Hewett_85 ]

 

[Sardaukar]

Im not sure that this is a viable option in real life, but i would think that for a sudden bioload absorption, i would have to go with LR. For maintaining critters, it would prolly be the sand bed. Not sure which would be more stable, i would have to go with the LR.
This is kind of an odd topic, since most aquarists would use BOTH instead of one or the other. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Iron]

you don't need LR or ls you can use bioballs for a filter. But it maynot be as effient. I belive the LS would be more effient= more surface area. So it doesn't really matter how /what you keep you still need lr for placement of corals. I keep both. There is -/+ to both there isn't a better methoid except using both gives you the best advantage= more life

 

[Jon_Hewett_85]

i think you guys are missing the point...there is no point to this and it's purarly hypothetical

Since when did corals come into the equation? Of course in a real tank you would use both LR and a DSB this is pururly for the acedemic interest of "what if"

have fun

 

[Anonymous]

This is just a poorly designed hypothetical comparison. You also have to factor in zonation, trophic complexity, etc.. The need in aquaria is to duplicate many variables that have not been touched on here, according to the zonation you intend to replicate in each individually specific system.

 

[Iron]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by galleon:
<STRONG>This is just a poorly designed hypothetical comparison.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats what i was thinking but if you are going for a biological filter the sand would have more surface area

 

[Anonymous]

Bioballs in a trickle filter are by far the most efficient way of making ammonia into nitrates. The most efficient way to reduce these to nitrogen gas is a denitration reactor. Live rock and sand are less efficient, but efficiency isn't the only goal.

 

[suckair]

The DSB will provide good nitrate reduction over time but the surface area of the Live rock will provide good nitrite eating bacteria..

It just so happens you need both..
Live rock will house nitrate eating bacteria in it's inner core as well but a DSB does a much better job at nitrate control. IMO..

 

[Kalkbreath]

I think the main concern with DSB is longevity? Sooner or later inorganic buildup will clog the bed?{ 3 years -20 years?} There is no chance of this with a berlin LR system.{ Siphon} Even the pioneers of the DSB found the need to have most of the bed surface clear, to prevent settling of Detritis? A great man once said," A DSB is like a Rio power head- most powerful tool, But your future may be a slick one !

 

[reefer6]

All in fun here if I had to choose one I would go with DSB because of the surface area however one thing that I have to throw out there is that we are all trying to achieve balance in many ways. Notto get to far off track here I have heard many opinions on feeding the reef tank some very little others heavy. I also see differences of opinion in sand sifting some say no sand stars they will destroy your fauna. however I feed my tank heavy and have with no ill effect nitrates very low with water changes spaced at least a month apart. this was achieved by working up to the bioload that I currently keep at first yes the amonia would show up in tests and I would let the system catch up however now I think my 55 could take some serious load increases if they occured. as for the star fish I have a perfectly healthy fauna population and a very happy starfish that also helps keep the sandbed fresh (no dead spots) so I think in a complex system like a reef tank we should always utilize as many different organizms that we can as long as we make sure the population of one does not adversly effect the population of the others.

OK I GUESS IM SAYING I WOULD USE BOTH

 

[Jon_Hewett_85]

Quoted by reefer "not to get too far off track" Too late for that i think...llook at this this whole thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense even to me. Just take a leson from me and that late night posting and painkillers don't mix with the best resuslts

Oh well even in spite of me..i have seen some good information on this post...which has a suprsing number of replys and a large amount of useful information even givin the what is he talking about state of afaris

And once again i'm gonna call it a night...noting that it's 4 am.

 

[Josh's Reef]

I think the DSB would give you a higher nitrate reading.
Circulation and DSB stiring was not mentioned.