You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LR vs DSB: the next great debate
- Thread starter VegasDealr
- Start date
I am not yet convinced that teh DSB would have "higher surface area" than 1.5-2lbs live rock/gal. Keep in mind that only the surface of the DSB is exposed to the water column. My liferock is riddled with small holes, channels, etc.
Also, if surface area were the primary factor, why are fluidized sand beds not popular? You can use non-silicate sand in the fluidized bed, BTW.
I use both, but if I had to only use one I would go for LR.
I, too wonder about the inability to vacuum detritus w/ my sand bed.
E
Also, if surface area were the primary factor, why are fluidized sand beds not popular? You can use non-silicate sand in the fluidized bed, BTW.
I use both, but if I had to only use one I would go for LR.
I, too wonder about the inability to vacuum detritus w/ my sand bed.
E
I use a dsb in my refugium and a bare bottom in my sps show. They are connected to a common sump. I have been curious about the point raised by kalkbreath. I watch the inorganic detritus buildup on the bottom of my sps tank and it's easy to siphon it out. This same thing is occurring over our dsb but it can't be removed. Eventually this should lead to silting and clogging of the filter. In nature the sand bed is not primarily functioning as a denitrification filter like it is in our beds. I have a feeling these beds are going to need to be re-built over time.
One should always keep in mind the fact that as the tank matures, and corraline algae begins to form, LR loses much of its value in nitrate conversion as the multiple small tunnels in the rock with a waterflow low enough to support anaerobic bacteria are grown over and sealed.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron:
<STRONG>The nitrogen cycle is suppose to happen deep within the LR same with LS this is why deeper sand beds are better. =more surface area. The bacteria=nitrogen cycle happens within the sandbed not on top. Not on top of the lr either</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is not correct. Denitrification occurs deeper in the substrate/rock. Nitrification occurs in the shallow surfaces. It's all about oxygen availability (or the lack of).
<STRONG>The nitrogen cycle is suppose to happen deep within the LR same with LS this is why deeper sand beds are better. =more surface area. The bacteria=nitrogen cycle happens within the sandbed not on top. Not on top of the lr either</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is not correct. Denitrification occurs deeper in the substrate/rock. Nitrification occurs in the shallow surfaces. It's all about oxygen availability (or the lack of).
There are of course several types of coral that prefer to rest in substrate only. There are also many species of anemones that prefer this as well. So in a way there may be a need to have a DSB only tank if you were attempting to create an environment for such a group of animals.
I also think that an interesting tank would be one where a burrowing jaw fish was allowed his normal 360 degrees of view that they keep in the wild. In reef tanks they hundle up under a coral or a piece of rock. In the wild they seem to be very much out in the open. More food drifts by, more of a chance to see an aproaching predator.
I also think that an interesting tank would be one where a burrowing jaw fish was allowed his normal 360 degrees of view that they keep in the wild. In reef tanks they hundle up under a coral or a piece of rock. In the wild they seem to be very much out in the open. More food drifts by, more of a chance to see an aproaching predator.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leonard:
<STRONG>
This is not correct. Denitrification occurs deeper in the substrate/rock. Nitrification occurs in the shallow surfaces. It's all about oxygen availability (or the lack of).</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its all part of the nitrogen cycle deep in the lr deep in the sand where the o2 doesn't reach. This is where its turned in to nitrogen gas. Whats wrong with what i said? Maybe nor complete. The parts that receive o2 are the shallow parts. Suppose to only rid things up to nitrates but not turn them into nitrogen gas. This is why bioballs don't complete the process = not as effective. Same with fluidized filter to much o2. Funny how ppl arguee on something thats really has no merit?
<STRONG>
This is not correct. Denitrification occurs deeper in the substrate/rock. Nitrification occurs in the shallow surfaces. It's all about oxygen availability (or the lack of).</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its all part of the nitrogen cycle deep in the lr deep in the sand where the o2 doesn't reach. This is where its turned in to nitrogen gas. Whats wrong with what i said? Maybe nor complete. The parts that receive o2 are the shallow parts. Suppose to only rid things up to nitrates but not turn them into nitrogen gas. This is why bioballs don't complete the process = not as effective. Same with fluidized filter to much o2. Funny how ppl arguee on something thats really has no merit?
Iron,
The nitrogen cycle does not get "completed." Like the term suggests, it's a cycle (essentially, it's the pathways for nitrogen within a given area). The removal of nitrogen from the immediate environment (e.g N, N2, or NO gas formation) is called denitrifcation - an entirely different issue, independent of the nitrogen cycle. Denitrification occurs with the absence of oxygen in the environment (anoxic), whereas nitrification occurs with the availability of oxygen (aerobic). Very different processes. Denitrification is NOT a part of the nitrogen cycle.
I'm not arguing "something that has no merit." I don't take kindly to the suggestion that I'm frivilous. It's science. If you're going to use terminology, use it properly.
I had to edit to keep my tone civil. It's a little upsetting when people vehemontly defend ideas they have little understanding about - just to save face. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. Take the correction graciously.
[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
The nitrogen cycle does not get "completed." Like the term suggests, it's a cycle (essentially, it's the pathways for nitrogen within a given area). The removal of nitrogen from the immediate environment (e.g N, N2, or NO gas formation) is called denitrifcation - an entirely different issue, independent of the nitrogen cycle. Denitrification occurs with the absence of oxygen in the environment (anoxic), whereas nitrification occurs with the availability of oxygen (aerobic). Very different processes. Denitrification is NOT a part of the nitrogen cycle.
I'm not arguing "something that has no merit." I don't take kindly to the suggestion that I'm frivilous. It's science. If you're going to use terminology, use it properly.
I had to edit to keep my tone civil. It's a little upsetting when people vehemontly defend ideas they have little understanding about - just to save face. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. Take the correction graciously.
[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leonard:
<STRONG>Iron,
I'm not arguing "something that has no merit." I don't take kindly to the suggestion that I'm frivilous. It's science. If you're going to use terminology, use it properly.
[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was talking all these post debating which is better(lr/ls )not just yours. Isn't nitrogen cycle ammo-nitrite-nitrate-nitrogen gas. What ever doesn't matter how you call it still this post will probally get the most post and it doesn't even really help someone. cracks me up.
<STRONG>Iron,
I'm not arguing "something that has no merit." I don't take kindly to the suggestion that I'm frivilous. It's science. If you're going to use terminology, use it properly.
[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was talking all these post debating which is better(lr/ls )not just yours. Isn't nitrogen cycle ammo-nitrite-nitrate-nitrogen gas. What ever doesn't matter how you call it still this post will probally get the most post and it doesn't even really help someone. cracks me up.
No, the nitrogen cycle is not NH4 to NO2 to NO3 to N/N2/NO gas. That's not the nitrogen cycle. The last process is called denitrification, which, as stated, is not part of the nitrigen cycle. Put simply, the nitrogen cycle is how the element nitrogen is recycled in an given environment. Nitrification is part of the cycle (oxidatitive conversion of nitrogenous waste to ammonia to nitrite to nitrate).
Removing nitrogen from the environment is called denitrification, and is not part of the nitrogen cycle. It should also be worth noting that denitrification does NOT mean getting rid of Nitrate (NO3); all denitrification means is getting rid of nitrogen (N) from the immediate environment.
Is it clear this time around?
I would think that understanding basic scientific principles should be important.
You may feebly laugh at my "pointless banter" as a defensive mechanism, but hopefully I've educated others on the differences/definations of nitrogen cycle, nitrification and denitrification. [deletion of last line]
[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Removing nitrogen from the environment is called denitrification, and is not part of the nitrogen cycle. It should also be worth noting that denitrification does NOT mean getting rid of Nitrate (NO3); all denitrification means is getting rid of nitrogen (N) from the immediate environment.
Is it clear this time around?
I would think that understanding basic scientific principles should be important.
You may feebly laugh at my "pointless banter" as a defensive mechanism, but hopefully I've educated others on the differences/definations of nitrogen cycle, nitrification and denitrification. [deletion of last line]
[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Hi All,
A deep fine particle DSB, properly seeded with detrivores and matured through adequate feeding, is a much more efficient overall nutrient processor because:
1 It provides a host to a “high order” fauna community the processes detritus, and passes it on to lower order fauna that intern passes it down to bacterial and finally chemical processes.
2 It provides a much higher over surface area than live rock.
3 It provides a large, gradual oxygen gradient that is suitable for host higher order fauna and aerobic bacterial processes in the upper layers, low oxygen processes in the mid layers, and anaerobic processes in the lower layers. I can be argued that live rock also has these gradient zones, but in terms of relative volumes, there is not much of a comparison.
With a good DSB, “aesthetic” considerations and SPS platforms becomes more of what you have live rock for. You are certainly not tied to any arbitrary “x” # of pounds of live rock per gallons of water formulas.
Regards,
Scott
A deep fine particle DSB, properly seeded with detrivores and matured through adequate feeding, is a much more efficient overall nutrient processor because:
1 It provides a host to a “high order” fauna community the processes detritus, and passes it on to lower order fauna that intern passes it down to bacterial and finally chemical processes.
2 It provides a much higher over surface area than live rock.
3 It provides a large, gradual oxygen gradient that is suitable for host higher order fauna and aerobic bacterial processes in the upper layers, low oxygen processes in the mid layers, and anaerobic processes in the lower layers. I can be argued that live rock also has these gradient zones, but in terms of relative volumes, there is not much of a comparison.
With a good DSB, “aesthetic” considerations and SPS platforms becomes more of what you have live rock for. You are certainly not tied to any arbitrary “x” # of pounds of live rock per gallons of water formulas.
Regards,
Scott
Scott,
Well stated.
As a nutrient processor, I believe sandbeds are more capable. But as for fauna/flora habitiation and species diversification, live rock takes home the trophy. With the exception of particular species/zone specific setups, you'd benefit from a mixture of both.
Well stated.
As a nutrient processor, I believe sandbeds are more capable. But as for fauna/flora habitiation and species diversification, live rock takes home the trophy. With the exception of particular species/zone specific setups, you'd benefit from a mixture of both.
What is your goal as an aquarist??? To create an EFFICIENT environment?! Give me a bleepin break, I believe that being an aquarist is more than finding the most efficient filtration...It is obvious to me that replicating the natural environment as closely as possible while minimizing the impact on the source environment is a good objective. Both LR and DSB will take care of ammonia and nitrites, but give me a break this concern is for beginners...even the disposal of nitrates in a system is hardly a concern if you have ample amounts of natural LR and a DSB. They are both necessary to make the majority of fish and corals happy. PERIOD. I don't think that any fish should suffer a stupid strech of sand and macro without any rock, nor should corals be sitting on cinder-block portions hidden by a thick bed of sand. This is an irrelevant discussion if using only one or the other is being discussed. Build the closest thing you can to the real thing, for the health of your babies. If you find a fish or invert. that spends its life in a sand bed and never encounters rock, and you want to give this guy a proper home, then only DSB is an option. But the majority of creatures we care for should have the benefits of their environment...not just the benefits of an efficient one. There is a happy balance. Learn about the area your organism occupies and populate it with familiar organisms!
-Stephen
-Stephen
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
