Talkingreef Live - Episode 9

[Rob]

Here are a list of items discussed in this weeks Talkingreef Live show

* Trying Shorter shows - about 30-45 mins (looking for feedback)
* Tank of The Month or Photo of The Month contests

* Intro Topic: Converting Shallow Sand Bed (SSB) to a Deep Sand Bed (DSB)
- - Converting a tank
- - Remote Deep Sand beds
- - Related links
- - remote dsb
- - http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=595109

* Ich Quarantine times
* QT tank sizes and lager fish

* Curing Live rock
* Seeding Base rock

* DIY Protien skimmers
- - AquariaForums.com - DIY Plans Database

* Whats the best type of Macro Algae


Here is the link to subscribe to the feed



Or click here to download the individual episode
And Please consider taking the listner survey

[lReef lKeeper]

nice !! just waiting for it to show up on iTunes !!

[rroselavy]

* Intro Topic: Converting Shallow Sand Bed (SSB) to a Deep Sand Bed (DSB)
- - Converting a tank
- - Remote Deep Sand beds
- - Related links
- - remote dsb
- - http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=595109

I just listened to TR Live Ep. 9, and have a concerns about the RDSB topic.

If I recall correctly, Bobby indicated that his RDSB bucket is plumbed so the incoming water flows through a pipe to the bottom of the bucket, then percolates up through the sand and exits through a drain pipe above the sand bed. Rob likened this to a sand filter, which to me is different than a traditional DSB.

From what I have read of Anthony Calfo's thread(s) on the buffering & denitrifying RDSB Bucket, Calfo prescribes plumbing the bucket so the water flows across the surface of the sand, coming into the bucket above the sand level and having the drain across from the inlet (also above the sand level). The flow (from what I remember reading) must be brisk enough to prevent detritus accumulation in the bucket, but not too strong as to disturb the sand.

Now we come to (what sounded like) Rob's concern: The thread continued by readers asking how the water could effectively penetrate (diffuse) through 12-14" of sand. Calfo's answer was that if there were a bit of gasoline at the very bottom of the bucket, would we not expect the gasoline to eventually taint the water at the bucket's surface? By the same principal, water that diffuses deep into the sandbed eventually works its way out. Other readers asked if a shallower (ie.. 6", but longer) tray would be more effective than a bucket, and I believe the answer (in lieu of further research) was anything is better than nothing, as long as detritus does not accumulate. Perhaps larger, longer beds are prone to settling detritus because the flow is not as vigorous over larger square area? Apart from the oolitic sand, Calfo's bucket was intended to be very cheap to deploy (standard 5g bucket with 2 curved-wall bulkheads, some tubing and a modest powehead.), and relatively maintenance free.

The one question I have may be pertinent. These RDSB buckets may prove to be very effective, but the system as a whole (based on the bioload and amount of nutrient import) may become reliant on the RDSB. Removing a sole RDSB bucket from a system could have catastrophic results, no? Perhaps having multiple buckets, carefully being phased in and out on staggered schedules is required in order that the system doesn't experience a sudden halt in denitrification should a bucket be removed?

[lReef lKeeper]

thanks for bringing this up.

after re re re re re reading the threads last night ... i have removed the downward pipe in my RDSBs. i guess we both walked away with the same understanding. i have no intention on removing either of my RDSBs (may even add another), i think that your staggered cycling of the buckets is probably an excellent way to go about removing them though.

i will be changing the sand out on a yearly basis though. i will do this by adding a new bucket of sand about 2-3 months before removing one and replacing the sand in it. that way ... i will always have 2 RDSBs running in my system.

[rroselavy]

BTW: The RDSB link in the OP is not working. It should be "http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=595109", but has been shortened to "http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=595109"

[nay,kid]

I went back and read calfo's book pertaining to this and came up with what rroselavy mentioned. according to my understanding is the bacteria live in depths up to 15". They need a low oxygen environment so the deeper the better.As far as becoming dependent on the DSB I think you still need other forms of denitrification which would continue to work without the RDSB.

[IAreef]

This was my first time listening to one of the shows live, and I believe the entire show was informative I liked the idea that was brought up about keeping the main show around 40 mins or so then having an open discussion at the end, I know many valid points came up in the open discussions both before and after the show was recorded, that many who are not or cannot listen to the show live miss out on.

[Steve480]

I know im not doing the shows, but 40 min. seems to short. Most of the time questions take alot of time to get explained and you dont get as many questions in the show with 40 mins. I liked the 1hr. long shows seems like more topics come up.

[rroselavy]

I know im not doing the shows, but 40 min. seems to short. Most of the time questions take alot of time to get explained and you dont get as many questions in the show with 40 mins. I liked the 1hr. long shows seems like more topics come up.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this.

I (respectfully) fail to understand the concern to keep the shows to 40-45 minutes. We all live in this digital age where there is stop, play, and fast forward buttons at our service. Why not use these if we get bored or simply do not have the time to listen to a whole episode at once? I suggest keeping the intro and intro topic a bit more concise (ie..15-20 minutes), and running the show to 1 hour or until all questions are answered (whichever comes first).

As stated elsewhere, it would be great to hear a TRL show with a industry guest expert to deliver the intro topic and answer questions.

Of course, with my weekend schedule - I will only be able to listen to the shows and not participate.

[xtmreef]

hey guys,

First let me say that I am still learning the ropes when it comes to "podcasting" here in TR. I'd like to participate in your live discussions but I don't know how, where, and when. I download and listen to every episode but I'd like to join sometime. Anyways, I'm all for longer shows (1+ hr) my suggestion is to divide the show into parts, ie. Introduction, then maybe some news, a Monologue, then main topic, a Q&A from listeners, and finally a conclusion.

also a quick question: What is the "subscribe to this podcast" mean? Why would I subscribe to a podcast that has already "happened"? Or is it for subscribing to future podcasts?

In my opinion, "remote DSB's" are a waste of space - well maybe unless you have a nano. In a nutshell, Anaerobic bacteria needs a LOT of surface area for denitrification, and I think a "DSB in a bucket" has no sufficient real estate to efficiently do this task. Also, when you simply let water pass through on top of the bucket, the effluent is not "exposed" long enough to be filtered by the RDSB. If you have to have a functional DSB, the most effective way is to do it is IN the display.

[Rob]

first off, thanks to all for there feedback on the show length, it does help me alot

hey guys,

First let me say that I am still learning the ropes when it comes to "podcasting" here in TR. I'd like to participate in your live discussions but I don't know how, where, and when. I download and listen to every episode but I'd like to join sometime. Anyways, I'm all for longer shows (1+ hr) my suggestion is to divide the show into parts, ie. Introduction, then maybe some news, a Monologue, then main topic, a Q&A from listeners, and finally a conclusion.

Thank you again, the feedback is a great help

also a quick question: What is the "subscribe to this podcast" mean? Why would I subscribe to a podcast that has already "happened"? Or is it for subscribing to future podcasts?

Subscribing is for future shows. it means to use a podcast client such as iTunes and creating a podcast subscription (free) to the shows feed. What this does is wehn itunes is running it will automatically check and download any new shows that are released. this is helpful for people that listen to multiple pdocasts, or want to automate the downloading or the shows as they are released. see here for more details on this process
Talkingreef - Questions About the Talkingreef Podcast

In my opinion, "remote DSB's" are a waste of space - well maybe unless you have a nano. In a nutshell, Anaerobic bacteria needs a LOT of surface area for denitrification, and I think a "DSB in a bucket" has no sufficient real estate to efficiently do this task. Also, when you simply let water pass through on top of the bucket, the effluent is not "exposed" long enough to be filtered by the RDSB. If you have to have a functional DSB, the most effective way is to do it is IN the display.

Remote DSB are infact very effective, however i am not certain that the use of a RDSB in a bucket as discussed in this episode is effective. the way it was used here its a "Fluidized bed filter". I believe Bobby (IReef IKeeper) is currently re-evaluating his setup based on these details. A common RDSB is more along the methods i describe in which a secondary tank or refugium is setup with a DSB.

[xtmreef]

Sorry I didn't clarify... I was referring to the DSB-in-a-bucket being ineffective.

Yes, I agree that the remote sump with DSB is effective (large area)

sorry for the mixup

[dan3949]

No reason to limit show length to 45 minutes. I vote to extend as long as needed to cover the questions/topics.

[CarmieJo]

Hello dan3949 and to TR.

[doctorthompson]

In my opinion, "remote DSB's" are a waste of space - well maybe unless you have a nano. In a nutshell, Anaerobic bacteria needs a LOT of surface area for denitrification, and I think a "DSB in a bucket" has no sufficient real estate to efficiently do this task. Also, when you simply let water pass through on top of the bucket, the effluent is not "exposed" long enough to be filtered by the RDSB. If you have to have a functional DSB, the most effective way is to do it is IN the display.

Actually, an RDSB that is properly pre-filtered and has a high enough flow rate to keep detritus from settling on the substrate is an extremely effective way to perform denitrification. An RDSB is typically not lit so you don't have that spongy top layer of sand with all the infauna and algae and cyanobacteria. The brisk flow over the top of the sand pulls the nitrate laden water down into the substrate through a process called "advection" which can saturate very deep substrates much faster than the rather slow "sand stirring infauna" method that handles the exchange in a display DSB system (where powerful laminar flows across the substrate surface aren't always desirable or even maintainable due to the turbulence caused by rocks and fish and other livestock).

I wish I could find a reference to Julian Sprung's advection studies where he added a bright red carmaline dye to the water and you could see it turning the sand red all the way down to the bottom of a 9" or 10" aragonite sandbed -- within minutes. A typical bucket-style remote DSB can start making a significant impact on nitrate levels within 6-8 weeks of being plumbed into the system.

[doctorthompson]

Sorry I didn't clarify... I was referring to the DSB-in-a-bucket being ineffective.

Yes, I agree that the remote sump with DSB is effective (large area)

sorry for the mixup

Just watch that your DSB isn't going to get pH fluctuations ... a sump is usually a great place to dose kalkwasser and other calcium and alkalinity additives (large volume of water, no livestock, typically slow flow back into the display tank). Frequent localized pH fluctuations, especially pH spikes from kalkwasser dosing, can cause aragonite sand to start fusing and cementing together, turning your deep sandbed into a brittle and useless slab of carbonate-based concrete. When you hear opponents of DSB methodolgies complain about a DSB that "solidified from accumulated nutrients", it actually solidified from the pH of the water above the substrate going from 8.0 to 8.6 and back to 8.2 in a span of 30 minutes, every night, for months on end. The excessive "trapped" nutrients they think they can see accumulating in the sandbed through the side of the glass is just the normal nutrient load that a DSB can process, but it can no longer escape or move.