[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Troy F

One of things that really opened my eyes was Dr Shimek's latest claim that we have to replace all substrate periodically do to detritus/heavy metal pollution. It certainly lends credibility to the anti-DSB lobby.

This is the problem Troy, the anti-DSB side is saying Dr. Shimek's high metal theory is bunk and not valid. Randy's (RHF) tests have shown the opposite of the good Dr.'s but what the major consciences seams to be that it is caused by high Organics. even Dr. Ron is starting to say that we cannot come close to replicating the ocean's bio diversity in out tanks as his original counts were 10X to low so instead of 100 organisms in a given area in reality it is over 1000 organisms in that area. Also he is now saying that instead of the 500 to 1000 types of "critters" that are commonly found in the reef mud of the ocean in home aquaria there are only 32 different types commonly accounted for.

Also there have been tests on the benefits of plankton produced by a DSB and if my memory serves it right it was Toone, that demonstrated that any plankton developed was either the wrong type or of an insignificant amount to feed our tanks. Also I have found that DSB's were originally used to create a stable high nutrient environment in labs and such to make the keeping of LPS and softies easier.

So now this brings us to another intersection in the road ahead, it looks like for a LPS/Softie tank a DSB is good, but for a SPS tank it isn't. This is not my conclusion but rather the general condenses that seams to be running around between all the people who are big in the hobby, I am merely trying to make head and tails of it.

So the conclusion I have come to is that we should look at a DSB in two ways the first being aesthetically and the second being a bacteria driven denitrification bed with a finite life.

Steve