DSB vs More Live Rock

Thalast · 02/16/2008, 01:26 AM

So, which is better for denitrification? I am setting up a 90g display, and will be looking at a significant bio load for this system. If this has already been discussed just point me in the right direction. Anyway, the system has a 36" by 24" footprint, and looks aside, would a 6" dsb or the equivalent space full of live rock rubble be better for denitrification? By rubble I am talking pieces marble to golfball size. Just curious what people think.

I am also looking at putting a remote refugium for the dsb, but what if someone were to just pack the container full of live rock rubble to within an inch of the waterline.

xenon · 02/16/2008, 01:29 AM

DSB will outperform LR pound for pound.

Do you have room for a RDSB?

widmer · 02/16/2008, 01:38 AM

Well...

The point of DSB as far as I know is to provide anaerobic (airless) conditions that harbor nitrate removing bacteria.

Meanwhile, live rock and its rubble which doesn't have nearly as much oxygen-deprived surface area, is primarily useful for harboring the aerobic bacteria which remove ammonia and nitrites.

"What if someone were to just pack a container full of live rock rubble to within an inch of the waterline?" Just do whatever you determine will conduct water past enough aerobic bacteria so that deoxygenated water can reach a space with enough area to harbor the anaerobic bacteria.

In closing, do the remote dsb so that you can avoid EVER disdurbing it. I don't believe there's any other sensible way to replicate the conditions of the remote DSB. Just remember, that thing can turn into a land mine with dangerous sulfide deposits so don't disturb it. GL

widmer · 02/16/2008, 01:41 AM

While we're on the subject, @ how deep do we switch from calling it DSB to RDSB? My guess is...

bare-bottom = "not aesthetically pleasing" :-P
1/2 inch = "standard shallow bed"
up to 5 inches = "DSB"
greater than 5 inches = "RDSB"

does this sound about right?

demonsp · 02/16/2008, 01:44 AM

Theres no 1 answer. You say huge bio load do you mean in coral or fish or both a huge fish load is bad and coral is hard to overload. Your LR and LS are your best bio filtration if dont right. With minimum LR of 1 lb per gallon and SB of 1 to 1.5 lb per gallon or 3 to 4 inches with good rock setup and proper flow the LR and LS will convert nitrate and ammonia into harmless nitrogen but if unkept will only collect.
With such a deep bed i would concentrate on sand sifting CUC,ones that will chur the bed up not only clean the surface.
Its about getting a balance for better results.

02/16/2008, 01:26 AM	#1
Thalast Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Buena Park, Ca Posts: 39	DSB vs More Live Rock So, which is better for denitrification? I am setting up a 90g display, and will be looking at a significant bio load for this system. If this has already been discussed just point me in the right direction. Anyway, the system has a 36" by 24" footprint, and looks aside, would a 6" dsb or the equivalent space full of live rock rubble be better for denitrification? By rubble I am talking pieces marble to golfball size. Just curious what people think. I am also looking at putting a remote refugium for the dsb, but what if someone were to just pack the container full of live rock rubble to within an inch of the waterline. __________________ Thal Current Tank Info: 90g mixed reef, 33g nano

02/16/2008, 01:29 AM	#2
xenon Owner of Canada Corals Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Mississauga, Canada Posts: 3,148	DSB will outperform LR pound for pound. Do you have room for a RDSB?

02/16/2008, 01:38 AM	#3
widmer Drug Enthusiast Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rochester, MN Posts: 2,958	Well... The point of DSB as far as I know is to provide anaerobic (airless) conditions that harbor nitrate removing bacteria. Meanwhile, live rock and its rubble which doesn't have nearly as much oxygen-deprived surface area, is primarily useful for harboring the aerobic bacteria which remove ammonia and nitrites. "What if someone were to just pack a container full of live rock rubble to within an inch of the waterline?" Just do whatever you determine will conduct water past enough aerobic bacteria so that deoxygenated water can reach a space with enough area to harbor the anaerobic bacteria. In closing, do the remote dsb so that you can avoid EVER disdurbing it. I don't believe there's any other sensible way to replicate the conditions of the remote DSB. Just remember, that thing can turn into a land mine with dangerous sulfide deposits so don't disturb it. GL

02/16/2008, 01:41 AM	#4
widmer Drug Enthusiast Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rochester, MN Posts: 2,958	While we're on the subject, @ how deep do we switch from calling it DSB to RDSB? My guess is... bare-bottom = "not aesthetically pleasing" :-P 1/2 inch = "standard shallow bed" up to 5 inches = "DSB" greater than 5 inches = "RDSB" does this sound about right?

02/16/2008, 01:44 AM	#5
demonsp Moved On Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: el paso tx Posts: 7,634	Theres no 1 answer. You say huge bio load do you mean in coral or fish or both a huge fish load is bad and coral is hard to overload. Your LR and LS are your best bio filtration if dont right. With minimum LR of 1 lb per gallon and SB of 1 to 1.5 lb per gallon or 3 to 4 inches with good rock setup and proper flow the LR and LS will convert nitrate and ammonia into harmless nitrogen but if unkept will only collect. With such a deep bed i would concentrate on sand sifting CUC,ones that will chur the bed up not only clean the surface. Its about getting a balance for better results.