[AngelLeah1981]

I read this article and have a couple questions. I will also post the location just in case.
Silica Sand/Aragonite Mix in a Reef? - 10/10/06
Hey.
<<Hey>>
I wanted to get your opinion on using play box sand for a reef tank.
<<Is doable>>
I have done a lot of reading on this and have gotten contradicting opinions, as with many issues in this hobby.
<<Indeed>>
I found sand called Kolorscape which is distributed by Oldcastle (same company that once distributed the famous but impossible to find Southdown).
<<I've heard some about this sand before...supposedly aragonite based>>
This sand is supposedly mined in a different area and is not purely aragonite.
<<Easy enough to test>>
From my understanding the sand passes the "vinegar test" but not all of the sand dissolves meaning it's mixed with at least some silica type sand.
<<Hmm, maybe so...still...better than "all" silica. Not that using silica sand is necessarily bad, it just doesn't offer any buffer capacity/earth elements to the system>>
It also clearly states on the bag that it may contain silica.
<<Ah, I see...>>
Is this really that big of a deal?
<<Not in my opinion>>
I read that silica sand is inert and won't release anything into the water.
<<I don't think that is entirely true, but I think the concern for silica sand to foster huge diatom blooms or other maladies in our marine tanks is mostly overrated...and even less of an issue in the case of this "mixed" sand. I've used 100-percent silica sand in a couple marine systems over the years and can't attribute any deleterious effects to the use of the sand>>
The source stated that it's only a rumor that won't die.
<<As with so many of them>>
In your opinion/experience have you found this to be true?
<<As stated>>
Should I spend the big bucks for aquarium sand or take a chance and save a bundle?
<<Considering the Kolorscape does contain aragonite...I would use it>>
I have read forums where people stated that they used Kolorscape and loved it, but the opinion was based on only a few months of use. Any thoughts?
<<Perhaps you will let us know/write a piece on its performance>>
By the way, I already have aragonite that will be used for the deep sand bed in the refugium so buffering won't be an issue.
<<Likely wouldn't anyway...but very good>>
I want to use the Kolorscape as a 1/2 inch deep sand in the display
and am only concerned about the safety/silica issues.
MarSubstSel3

I1. s it better to have argonite sand?
2. How do you test to see if it's argonite?
3. Is it true - if you put vinegar in the sand and it bubbles it is safe to use in your aquarium and you don't have to worry about anything else. (from another forum)
4. Does it matter if the sand you use contains silica?
5. Are maladies diseases? Do you think you need to get argonite so you won't get this?

The only thing I know about sand is live, and not live and how to seed it. I'm pretty sure I either want white sand or Indo-Pacific Black (click on "arig-alive" to see the indo pacific black if you want) 6. I need advice and information about what to look out for when buying sand and if I choose to buy white sand what kinds are bad 7. or can I just buy any ol white sand and just seed it with my rock? Thanks.

[scubadude]

Hi Angel Leah

love your subject line

This topic of aragonite vs. silica sand has been beaten up over the years and is very controversial mainly because of the cost of the sand.

Originally Posted by AngelLeah1981

1. Is it better to have argonite sand?

IMO Yes, how much better is all a matter of personal perspective

2. How do you test to see if it's argonite?

The vinegar test like posted in link above. I have also heard that Muriatic Acid works well too and all the aragonite will totally dissolve much quicker whereas silica will not.

3. Is it true - if you put vinegar in the sand and it bubbles it is safe to use in your aquarium and you don't have to worry about anything else. (from another forum)

I dont know about that, but the main objective here is too find out if the sand is aragonite based which is the purpose of the vinegar test. Im a firm believer in the good ole naked eye, you can look at the sand and check its consistency and usually see impurities.

4. Does it matter if the sand you use contains silica?

Nope, atleast not in my opinion, however it doesnt look as nice, or natural to me. Not to mention that it doesnt have the buffering capability no matter how minute it may be.

5. Are maladies diseases? Do you think you need to get argonite so you won't get this?

mal·a·dy (māl'ə-dē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. mal·a·dies

A disease, a disorder, or an ailment.
An unwholesome condition

To answer the 2nd part of your question: No, you just need clean sand w/no impurities...meaning silica sand will work fine just make sure its clean...aragonite sand will work fine just make sure its clean.

6. I need advice and information about what to look out for when buying sand and if I choose to buy white sand what kinds are bad

Chances are if you go to a LFS and buy a 15lb bag of sand that is advertised as aragonite based sand for your salt aquarium then I think its fairly safe to say that you got some good sand even though you may have paid 30bux for it...or watever the amount, with that said I would still rinse it. I would try to stay in the sugar sized grains for the most part...you can have larger grain but the majority should be sugar sized.

7. or can I just buy any ol white sand and just seed it with my rock? Thanks.

If the bag is sealed, and you cant see what the sand looks like or test it, or it doesnt explain on the bag what the ingredients of the sand are then I would stay away from it.

Here is another thread on this matter

On a sand hunt -help

[AngelLeah1981]

[quote][you can look at the sand and check its consistency and usually see impurities./QUOTE] How so? Also, how do you make sure it is clean?
What is buffering? I must be google-ing it wrong.

Someone told me

Sand is a great function in our systems. I prefer larger grain size than the sugar sized stuff that is offered as play sand. More microfauna is able to colonize it, and that is my mine reason for having it. Tiny grains get compacted, and don't let food into the places where the zooplankton try to live and reproduce. I use CaribSeas brands, the "reef grade" size.

What do you think about this?

[zhenya]

Someone told me
Quote:
Sand is a great function in our systems. I prefer larger grain size than the sugar sized stuff that is offered as play sand. More microfauna is able to colonize it, and that is my mine reason for having it. Tiny grains get compacted, and don't let food into the places where the zooplankton try to live and reproduce. I use CaribSeas brands, the "reef grade" size.
What do you think about this?

I personally think it is nonsense. In fact I think more microfauna is able to colonize smaller particle sized sand than the larger, corse sand.
But, I think you'll find more information about sand beds in this articles than in my or anyone elses posts.
How Sandbeds REALLY Work by Ronald L. Shimek, Ph.D. - Reefkeeping.com
http://web.archive.org/web/200012122...wb/default.asp

Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine - Feature Article: An Experimental Comparison of Sandbed and Plenum-Based Systems. Part 1: Controlled lab dosing experiments
Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine - Feature Article: An Experimental Comparison of Sandbed and Plenum-Based Systems: Part 2: Live Animal Experiments

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by AngelLeah1981

Someone told me

Quote:
Sand is a great function in our systems. I prefer larger grain size than the sugar sized stuff that is offered as play sand. More microfauna is able to colonize it, and that is my mine reason for having it. Tiny grains get compacted, and don't let food into the places where the zooplankton try to live and reproduce. I use CaribSeas brands, the "reef grade" size.

What do you think about this?

For starters, zooplankton do not live in the sand bed. By definition, both zoo- and phytoplankton live in the water column. Plankton is a description of a life-style. The word "plankton" is derived from the Greek word "planktos," meaning "wanderer" or "drifter."

Secondly, the person who told you that has the facts backwards. Smaller particle sizes actually support a larger and more diverse population of microfauna than larger sizes. The statement "tiny grains get compacted" is complete nonsense.

There are good arguments to be made for choosing Carib-Sea's "reef grade" particle size aragonite sand but they have absolutely nothing to do with the claims made by that person, who obviously has no clue what he/she is talking about.

There are equally compelling arguments to be made for using aragonite sand in smaller particles sizes, too. I suggest you read up on the subject so that you can decide which particle sizes are best for your particular situation. You can use the links already provided by scubadude and zhenya.

P.S. -- In the exchange you copied from Wet Web Media, the comments made by the Wet Web Media assistant are correct. I wouldn't personally use silica sand but that's another topic.

It might help to repeat here that silica sand is also called quartz sand. The warnings about "silica" in sand that you will often find on bags of quartz sand (aka silica sand) are required by California's law mandated by Proposition 65 that requires warnings on all products known to be carcinogenic to humans.

Silica is carcinogenic to humans if inhaled, just as asbestos is carcinogenic to humans if inhaled. This warning has absolutely nothing to do with the use of silica sand in an aquarium. And the warnings that were sometimes printed on bags of Southdown, Yardright and Oldcastle Tropical Play Sand from the Caribbean (aragonite sand) that it was "not for aquarium use" had absolutely nothing to do with whether it was safe for aquarium use. They wanted you to buy the more expensive product sold for aquarium use.

[scubadude]

Originally Posted by zhenya

I personally think it is nonsense. In fact I think more microfauna is able to colonize smaller particle sized sand than the larger, corse sand.

Totally agree w/ Gene on this.

[Samper]

So with smaller particle sizes you have less surface area per grain but more surface area total because of the amount you can fit in the same volume compared to larger particle sizes. Is that correct?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Samper

So with smaller particle sizes you have less surface area per grain but more surface area total because of the amount you can fit in the same volume compared to larger particle sizes. Is that correct?

I believe the point you're trying to make is that smaller particle sizes have a larger surface to volume ratio and therefore provide a larger surface area for colonization by beneficial bacteria. This is true and it seems to provide a logical argument in favor of smaller grain sizes as far as denitrification capacity is concerned; however, if you read Dr. Rob Toonen's articles, which have been previously linked by zhenya, you will learn that this is not as important as previously thought.

Rather than try to summarize his conclusions, I suggest you read, or reread, his articles. The results of his latest studies were somewhat surprising, even to Rob himself. Start by reading his two-part article here and here for an understanding of the chemical reactions that take place in sand beds. Rob wrote that eight years ago. After you read that, then go to the two-part article he wrote in 2005 that reported the results of his experiments at his lab in Hawaii, here and here.

However, that's not the reason that zhenya and I and others have written about a preference for a smaller average size particle mix for deep sand beds. It may have been one of the reasons that we initially believed supported our preference and, in fact, it remains one of the reasons but it's not the only reason. There is another reason that smaller average particle sizes are superior to larger particle sizes: they support a more diverse population of sand bed infauna. We're no longer talking about bacteria now, we're talking about the tiny microcrustaceans and polychaetes, some of which you would need a microscope to see but others of which would be large enough to view with the naked eye.

So we're talking about essentially two different things here because sand beds are capable of a lot more than just denitrification. This is where the articles by Dr. Ron Shimek come in handy. I believe zhenya has already linked a couple of those. Ron explains why it is important to the long-term maintenance of a healthy sand bed that it contain a diverse population of sand bed "critters." It's these "critters" that keep the sand bed particles in motion and keep water flowing through the sediments, albeit extremely slowly.

Besides keeping the sand bed in motion so that it remains healthy and doesn't clump up, the sand bed "critters" also reproduce and their larvae become food for the corals and other animals that live in the water column.

Go back and read Ron's articles that discuss why smaller average particle sizes are better. I believe Rob touches on this in his earlier writings from about ten years ago. In fact, several authors have written on this over the years. Particle size is important because many sand bed critters -- especially the ones that are too small to see without a microscope -- will only populate sediments of a particular particle size. If you want to provide the best environment, you would avoid a sand bed of uniform particle size, especially uniform larger particle size. Obviously such sediments aren't even available anyway. That's why you will see a particle size range given for each of Carib-Sea's products. If you want to match the particle size mix that is recommended by Ron and Rob in their articles, just reread their articles. Rob even has an article on the particle size distribution of the no-longer-available Southdown aragonite sand: here. Rob decided to measure the particle sizes in Southdown to see how it matched up with the particle size distribution recommended by Ron Shimek. It did! Please read that article, too.

After you have read all of those articles, be aware that many hobbyists don't follow those recommendations for various reasons. Just as it's not practical for most people to put a 400w metal halide lamp over a 30-gal Oceanic cube because of overheating issues, it's not practical for some people to put a 4"+ DSB of fine particle sand in an SPS-dominated tank with extremely robust water circulation. Rob even says in the two-part article he wrote in 2000 that he doesn't think such a sand bed is appropriate for every situation, especially for those who wish to really crank up the volume on water flow. Ron doesn't really get into that because, if you have read what Ron writes, you will know that he's not interested in "SPS garden" tanks in the first place.

Talk to Kevinpo for advice on how to manage a large tank (500+ gallons) with a fine particle DSB with somewhat robust water flow. That's what he has.

You have to decide what approach is best for your particular situation. A fine particle DSB provides wonderful possibilities for a natural environment that supports a wide variety of marine life, both in the water column and in the sand bed, but it may not be for everyone.



P.S. -- Not everyone who advocates the DSB approach recommends the exact same particle size distribution. In general, Ron Shimek, Rob Toonen and Eric Borneman are in argeement on the ideal particle size mix but others in the hobby/industry have different approaches. Some recommend a deeper minimum sand bed and some recommend not only deeper but with larger particle sizes. One author who wrote on this topic about ten years ago recommends a minimum of 6" but says 8" would be better. Ron recommends a minimum of 4" but believes 6" would be better. Rob recommends (or, at least, he did recommend at one time) a minimum of at least 3" but says deeper is better.

The guys at Inland Aquatics run some very deep DSBs and their recommendation on particle size mix includes more larger particle sizes. Note that their recommendation for hobbyists is that the sand bed should be at least 3" deep. They actually run some tanks with DSBs that are more than 10" deep. I'm providing that link just to show that some people recommend a particle size distribution that is different.

[zhenya]

In my 75 gallon sps dominated tank I had a "pleasure" of getting some live sand from the LFS in the beginning stages of it's existence. Particle size of the grains of sand was no where near those recommended by the two good Doctors. I took it nonetheless because I new nothing about Southdown sand at the time. This original sand bed was roughly 3-3.5 inches deep, and I mainly pushed most of it towards the back of the tank(where I positioned my reef structure). After few months, (more like a year ) I bought some more live sand from Bill Chamberlain(billsreef) and Inlandaquatics to boost diversity of organisms in the sand bed. I talked to Morgan Lidster for quite some time as to how to make things better... Long story short, I ended up wit very active sand bed that continues to exist and thrive today, albeit I almost killed it while treating for red bugs. Never do that in an aquarium containing DSB, or even live rock for that matter.

I agree with Ninong that denitrification was never really a major part why I decided to have a DSB. I was thinking of my aquarium as ecosystem in whole and in part, where diversity of life is the major enjoyment for the keeper of such aquarium.

[AngelLeah1981]

I am so sorry I never thanked you for your very detailed answers. I was without internet for a while. Thank you all for your time. ....very helpful !
Leah