Remote very deep Sandbed

[brandon429]

All worms emit solid waste pellets, and pods too.

Detritus can only be reduced to minerals via bacterial action, no animals remove it from beds unless they physically kick things up into suspension, so input from a non export system can only be processed slowly to truly not be just a storage location we'd better not disturb.

If a dsb hands off is under the rock structure in the DT, under fish, the only reason it works hands off is due to the dilution of the tank and the isolation in the bed. Can run years in liability mode since it's not in a nano.

Cannot be done in a nano, which us how we know it doesn't work for most large tanks*using the bioload* we typically use

Not anyone has a hand off dsb ancient nano, even 3-4 years isn't ancient there are nanos 3x that old and they don't use hands off dsbs

Modeling reveals the luxury large tankers have via dilution, without dilution their plans will break down after x number of years and variables


Sure, if someone has a single clownfish in a 240 full of live rock and sand then true reduction can work... but we are load greedy.

But disturb the average 3 yr old dsb deeply with a stick, all that detritus supposed to be gone will kill the tank or stress it measurably.

Out of sight out of mind runs the typical dsb, which is why we must use carbon dosing or ATS to process what they cause by non export and outpaced input

But when dsbs are remote, the large obvious waste from the tank is usually exported before sinking into the bed, leaving the bed to process the waste at the right input levels

Dsbs under the rock structure taking on full detritus have been shown a liability or we'd all still be using them like 98

In 8/10 problem algae tanks following that method that all untouched dsbs in a DT will remove waste and not cause waste, correcting the sandbed biology is required for a true restore. The display-tank dsb was touted for 10~ yrs to prevent and not cause that condition.

Every form of supplemental nutrient controls beyond water changes was invented to address the massive shortcomings of the display tank deep sandbed.

Even the oldest home reef we can find for an example uses opposite of the prescribed display tank dsb method. Paul's dsb is markedly hands on, or it wouldnt be 45

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

The worms eat the detritus and break it down further for the bacteria they secrete it back out to be skimmed. Or to be used by the macro in the fuge. They also provide flow in the DSB so you don't need the stick. Yea you have to keep it healthy. Like carbon dosing. But that's jus vinegar in the kalkwasse. Yea the nutrients are higher.
But I'd rather do that than use stump remover.

But your dead on the use of a remote DSB. And yea I like worms. :)

I haven't found much on the net yet on remote DSB use and first hand experience. The few pics I did see were remote in tanks and they usually had worm tracks up the glass to. Curious.

 

[brandon429]

Agreed they would work better with less bio loading than we use by a long shot...


In the nineties when they were written about as the best method nobody listed all these subtle nuances it took to make one work it was supposed to be just install the right size grain at the right depth and it always works


The worms Ronald writes about are from natural studies we don't see that level of worm density in the typical old deep sand bed we see only mud when we disassembled them...so it cast all my former readings in doubt




One could also siphon out a test cup of the bottom layer of any suspected bed and test it for ammonia and nitrate compared to the top water

We would simply sample whichever layer has been written about to be the final safe layer of minerals only proving all detritus reduced

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

heres what I found and some further leads to a remote dsb.
Thanks to @Scott Fellman

 

[brandon429]

yep hes tops I like his stuff