Research: OK 4" vs. <1" and Mud vs. Sand and LR

[dwhanc00]

Doing research sometimes only makes things more confusing!!!!! I was set on 4" of live sand and creating a refugium with bio's first chamber, LS & LR second, and a skimmer and pump in the third. Now I go out to http://www.ecosystemaquarium.com/index.html and I am all confused! I have also been doing research on the 4" sand bed (have not backed up this claim) and was told that the large beds trap waste, hydrogen sofide (sp?), and anarobics (again spelling, very know). I am very confused and would like some opinions.

Thanks for your assistance!

[Tommy Gun]

Hey dwhanc00 - If I haven't already said so, welcome to the forum!!!

Doing research sometimes only makes things more confusing!!!!!

You might be surprised to know just how many people get this same rude awakening --- especially when it relates to this hobby because conflicting information is everywhere it seems.

Now I go out to http://www.ecosystemaquarium.com/index.html and I am all confused!

Unless I am missing something staring me right in the face (which is very possible), I don't really understand what that web page said or did to make you waver from your first thoughts...or was it something you opened from that main page that has caused this?

I have also been doing research on the 4" sand bed (have not backed up this claim) and was told that....

Ahhh, this is where you start to find conflicting information, right? Let's see if I can help you out a little bit since I am also using a deep sand bed (DSB):

large beds trap waste

While no one can really say that a sand bed will absolutely never trap any wastes, because sand 'locks' itself together so well (because of the small granules), the very vast majority of wastes and/or debris will be kept on top; which is easier to remove versus larger types of substrate because you can actually see what you are doing. In short, this notion is definitely more closely related to gravel and other similar, large grained substrates.

hydrogen sofide

This is actually true - a deep sand bed will eventually lead to the formation of some chemicals that we may want to avoid. HOWEVER, the creation of these chemicals rarely become problematic or lead to disaster - with my guess being that they are formed slowly and eventually gas out of the water harmlessly (although I am sure there are exceptions to that and someone might very well come along and point that out).

anarobics

Who ever told you this must have been referring to the anaerobic bacteria that find their way into a deep sand bed...but he/she/they would be wrong to imply that this is a bad thing because these bacteria are one of a few important benefits that make us consider a DSB in the first place!

Hopefully I am not insulting your intelligence here, but just in case it helps...anaerobic bacteria are those which need to be in an environment that is free of oxygen. So as I mentioned earlier, because the sand is so tightly woven together, it is very possible that anaerobic pockets are formed. With that in mind, the benefit here is that this sort of bacteria will 'feed' upon or otherwise remove nitrates...which theoretically means you would have to perform less water changes due to nitrate levels (although this doesn't mean we should strive for that because there are plenty of other reasons for more frequent water changes) and/or helps reduce the stress on livestock which is more sensitive to nitrates such as corals and inverts (fish can usually handle a much larger amount of nitrates than these items). Make sense?

I am very confused and would like some opinions.

If you don't mind me getting behind my pulpit for a second, the reason you are getting so much conflicting and confusing information and ideas is, IMHO, due to the fact that many people (aquarists or not) seem to enjoy stating his or her opinion as though it was a fact. For example, any type of substrate, including not having any at all (bare-bottom), will have its pros and cons associated with it so to say that sand is a very very bad choice is only someone stating an opinion. Obviously many many many hobbyists utilize a DSB in his/her tank and since I am sure some of them have been doing so for years and years, wouldn't it make sense to say that a DSB is a viable option for us because no one has been able to empirically prove that wrong yet? If you agree with that, then I would say you should go with the DSB if you want to go with the DSB!
---------------------------------

(again spelling, very know)

Just in case it helps in the future, the forum does have a spell-check feature which you can use by clicking on the icon that looks like this: . If it is your first time using it though, you may have to install the program on your computer....which I assure you, is safe to do.

Again, welcome to the forum - it is great to meet you!

[dwhanc00]

Thanks Tommy Guns! So what are you thoughs on the Mud vs. sand and live rock in a refugium? Both appear to be very beneficial, but the website referenced claims the use of the mud eliminates the need for a skimmer.

You by no means insulted me. My career is math oriented, I have very little knowledge of biology! I am taking everything with a grain of salt. Alot of the people I have talked with alot of times have an agenda behind their answers (sellers of equipment or sand). I listen to their explaination and then often times do additional research or come to you guys to help clarify any conflicting answers I might get. You all have been very helpful, and for that I thank you!!!!!

[Tommy Gun]

So what are you thoughts on the Mud vs. sand and live rock in a refugium?

To be honest, I have never used mud - only live sand and live rock - so I can only say that the sand/rock works well for me...but I can't really say that I have ever used a true refugium either. In fact, I can't even say that I know anyone who uses mud, but then again, I haven't really been paying a whole lot of attention to this subject either.

the website referenced claims the use of the mud eliminates the need for a skimmer.

Again, I have never used it, but my gut feeling is that this claim may be a bit "too good to be true", so I doubt that using it will completely negate the need for, or benefits provided by a skimmer. Perhaps it is flawed logic but if this really was the case, I don't know why everyone isn't suggesting that mud is a 'must have'....or why there is still a market for skimmers.

My career is math oriented, I have very little knowledge of biology!

I don't know how you can handle anything that is "math-oriented"....I just took quite a few economics, finance, and accounting courses and I was as bad, if not worse than I was in high school as far as putting my "homework" off until the last second because I dreaded it!!!

Anyways, if you stick with this hobby for any length of time, you will wind up knowing quite a bit of biology....but in this case, learning might actually be all kinds of fun.

Alot of the people I have talked with alot of times have an agenda behind their answers (sellers of equipment or sand)

You are actually going to be way ahead of the game since you already realize this. In fact, a lot of the same thing applies to websites as well.....sometimes there is more than meets the eye behind the information/ ideas that are being presented so IMHO, it is good to remain somewhat of a skeptic. While I can't really apply this to every forum in the world, the great thing about FTF is that bad or misleading information is posted, someone will come along to straighten that out (our members here are VERY good at doing that). Although, like I mentioned, a lot of times a group of people will argue over something even though everyone of them is right, but only differ in opinion; so it can be hard to separate fact from opinion at first. For this reason, I strongly suggest using the "rule of three" ----- if you can find the exact same information and/or idea from three completely unrelated resources, then there is a good chance that it is accurate. In fact, most, if not all FTF members are more than willing to provide support to his or her comments.

I listen to their explanation

If you are interested, I was thumbing through the January '08 edition of Tropical Fish Hobbyist and ironically, noticed that they have an article on anaerobic bacteria.