Nano Reefing 101 Quiz, Part I

[andywg]

The bubbles aren't likely to shrink if there is a continual production of gasses (as we would like), but the bubbles themselves are not bad, or indicative of an ill kept DSB.

Just because it doesn't look like you want it to, doesn't mean it isn't working right. Have you considered that perhaps the ones getting turned over so often by inverts were not processing waste as fast and as such were themselves the lessor of the DSB?

The implementation of DSB in the hobby has been woeful. People have read parts of Jaubert's ideas and implemented bits and pieces without truly trying to understand the whole. This has led to huge amounts of misinformation and myths about using a DSB in a tank.

 

[Donya]

Just because it doesn't look like you want it to, doesn't mean it isn't working right. Have you considered that perhaps the ones getting turned over so often by inverts were not processing waste as fast and as such were themselves the lessor of the DSB?

The tanks in question that show periodic aggitation of the DSB are some of the healthiest tanks I've seen. By aggitation I mean that the sand bed is not compacted at completely stationary...in a real environment, you wouldn't find that in the upper 6" or so inches because there are things that burrow in to quite some depth, dig, etc. I'm not meaning that the entire bed is being turned over bottom to top, which doesn't occur in any of the tanks I've mentioned. However, the grains are moved around locally by substrate-delling organisms to prevent compaction.

but the bubbles themselves are not bad, or indicative of an ill kept DSB.

When the bubbles are big enough that all it would take is a bump to send them out into the water, and if there is a chance they can contain hydrogen sulfide as part of the gasses, I fail to see how it's a good thing. Seems like a gamble I wouldn't want in with a bunch of expensive nano stock. The bubble-containing tanks were not what I'd call healthy tanks.

 

[steelhealr]

In my reading and understanding, experience and hobnobbing, it's not the depth of the DSB in the nano..yes...DSB depths are 4inches. It's the surface area. They don't function well and cause more headaches than do good. The last hot topic that I've read on these are RSDBS, or , remote DSBs. These are 5 gallon Home Depot buckets filled with sand, set above the height of the tank and water is pumped into the RDSB and returns into the tank. SH

 

[andywg]

In my reading and understanding, experience and hobnobbing, it's not the depth of the DSB in the nano..yes...DSB depths are 4inches. It's the surface area. They don't function well and cause more headaches than do good. The last hot topic that I've read on these are RSDBS, or , remote DSBs. These are 5 gallon Home Depot buckets filled with sand, set above the height of the tank and water is pumped into the RDSB and returns into the tank. SH

Surely a bucket will have a lower surface area than the tank though? OR is it that the surface area is too large? But then that would go against most of the observations of the larger Jaubert systems.

The tanks in question that show periodic aggitation of the DSB are some of the healthiest tanks I've seen. By aggitation I mean that the sand bed is not compacted at completely stationary...in a real environment, you wouldn't find that in the upper 6" or so inches because there are things that burrow in to quite some depth, dig, etc. I'm not meaning that the entire bed is being turned over bottom to top, which doesn't occur in any of the tanks I've mentioned. However, the grains are moved around locally by substrate-delling organisms to prevent compaction.

Then surely the other tanks were immature, rather than ill maintained? Until the tank has enough of a microfauna population it will be far from ideal in replicating nature. The same is true of live rock, until it has a full colony of the microfauna that is so useful it does not function well.

When the bubbles are big enough that all it would take is a bump to send them out into the water, and if there is a chance they can contain hydrogen sulfide as part of the gasses, I fail to see how it's a good thing. Seems like a gamble I wouldn't want in with a bunch of expensive nano stock. The bubble-containing tanks were not what I'd call healthy tanks.

But then it all comes down to opinion. You don't see them as overly healthy, my remote sand bed in my sump has a fair collection of bubbles, I don't see that as a problem. As to the bubbles, I repeat, I have never come across anyone who can explicitly state it was a bubble from a DSB that has in anyway affected their fish. The only likely way I can see is that the fish is a labrynth, or other air breathing, fish and it takes in the gas in the bubble, otherwise it will de-nature as it comes into contact with dissolved oxygen in the tank.

But to each his own. I am somewhat saddened how many people view a bare bottomed tank as bad though...

 

[Donya]

Then surely the other tanks were immature, rather than ill maintained? Until the tank has enough of a microfauna population it will be far from ideal in replicating nature. The same is true of live rock, until it has a full colony of the microfauna that is so useful it does not function well.

I'm pretty sure it was not that the tanks were immature, since I watched it develope and the LR looked fine. The appearance suggested to me that, for whatever reason, the bacteria had colonized just fine, but the substrate did not have good gasses making the bubbles and was quite a hostile environment beneith surface. It's possible the tank was poorly set up somehow from the get-go (maybe the LR was't carying enough bioda at the time it was added and substrate-dwellers didn't get in).

As to the bubbles, I repeat, I have never come across anyone who can explicitly state it was a bubble from a DSB that has in anyway affected their fish.

I also said from the beginning that I don't claim the gasses to be "fish killing," except perhaps under strange circumstance like you mentioned with the fish inhaling the bubble somehow. I've also seen a few nanos with DSBs that show nothing out of the ordinary, so I'm not saying it's a condition that affects all nanos either.

 

[atmmachine816]

I can't add much to the discussion though it's very interesting to read but I do agree with andwg about bb is not that bad looking and fairly attractive and coraline algae can grow on it too which makes it look appeasing to the eye and something different, that is the type of algae right?

Doesn't aragonite slowly dissolve though?

 

[andywg]

Doesn't aragonite slowly dissolve though?

It does indeed, that is why DSB have to gradually be topped up. The smaller the grain, the quicker it will dissolve.

 

[steelhealr]

I maintain that nano's should not have DSB's. BB's are done, interesting, have their issues, but are workable. SH