Bare Bottom pros or cons?
 

I will be settting up 75 gallon sps tank, plan on using two Koralia 3s. Been reading about bare bottom tanks. Any opinions and feedback?

I love my bare bottom tank. The Coraline algae has covered the bottom and looks great, plus 90% is covered with live rock anyway. I did supplement with a deep sand bed refugium.

I would never put in a sand bed again for a few reasons:

1. If you have an acrylic tank and use anything to scrape the sides the sand can get stuck in between and scratch the hell out of the tank. I have almost eliminated scratching by removing the sand.

2. When you first start a tank and are going though the fun cycle stages you WILL experience algae blooms. No fun on a 300 gallon tank full of live sand, not very manageable. You would need a ton of critters to turn the sand over enough.

3. A Deep sand bed looks great for about a year then, since In a true deep sand bed you don’t vacuum it, It starts to look “used” is the best way I can describe it.

4. More visible space for Rock and Reef.

5. Easier to clean: you can blow a power head at the bottom and stir up the stuff and siphon it off or let the overflow pick it up.

6. You don’t have to worry about sand getting into the corals. I hated when fish or other things would drop or blow sand onto the corals.

Hope that helps.

hmm bb tank sounds nice hehe

you can also point your powerheads however you like, and have no restrictions on how high of flow since there's no sand to consider.

a lot of people have tons of turnover rate but do so such that the sand doesn't move. that equates to dead spots on the sand! Better to go bare bottom and shoot as much flow as you want towards the dead spots. It won't turn into a nutrient sink either.

Re: Bare Bottom pros or cons?
 

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11222901#post11222901 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scunfcu [/i]
[B]I will be settting up 75 gallon sps tank, plan on using two Koralia 3s. Been reading about bare bottom tanks. Any opinions and feedback? [/B][/QUOTE]

I'd run the K-4's a friend has a pair in a 55 with a SB and it doesn;t toss it too bad.

Also I run BB, but do have a remote DSB. I have to much turnover to even think of putting sand into the main.

I run BB here myself as well. I am totally pleased with it. I will add that I like the idea of a remote sand DSB you get all the benefits without all of the complexities and issues of having it in the main display tank.

If that sand bed is in the tank it is way easier for it to get full of junk from feeding all the fish you may have and will get deposited in the back where it will make detritus removal out of the rock work next to impossible.

i just setup a new tank, bare bottom, no deep sand bed anywhere.

[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2115/2048952877_7b40e19eb9.jpg[/img]

I don't really like the looks of a barebottom tank. Very unnatural and a lot of junk tends to cake up on the bottom. That's personal preference though and really it only matters what you like.
The other thing that I think alot of people over look is that even a shallow sand bed is beneficial for housing all sorts of beneficial worms, bugs, and bacteria. I really think its a more complete mini eco system.
The health of our corals and fish should be our #1 priority IMO. Providing a more complete ecosystem with a sand bed somewhere in the system is a better idea IME, but it can be done either way.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224292#post11224292 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kinetic [/i]
[B]i just setup a new tank, bare bottom, no deep sand bed anywhere.

[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2115/2048952877_7b40e19eb9.jpg[/img] [/B][/QUOTE]

Nice look and scape, have you a build thread?

I found this in an article by Sanjay Joshi.

On coral reefs, the upwelling irradiance is also increased by reflection from the “white” calcium carbonate substrate found on the reef floor. In fact, on coral reefs this upwelling irradiance may be a significant portion of the total irradiance (Dustan 1982). This upwelling light plays a critical role in allowing the growth of corals on the understory of the reefs. Thus, the addition of a white calcium carbonate substrate in a reef aquarium also helps in increasing the upwelling irradiance, while simultaneously increasing the biodiversity.

well just read below........

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224351#post11224351 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hatfielj [/i]
[B]I don't really like the looks of a barebottom tank. Very unnatural and a lot of junk tends to cake up on the bottom. That's personal preference though and really it only matters what you like.
The other thing that I think alot of people over look is that even a shallow sand bed is beneficial for housing all sorts of beneficial worms, bugs, and bacteria. I really think its a more complete mini eco system.
The health of our corals and fish should be our #1 priority IMO. Providing a more complete ecosystem with a sand bed somewhere in the system is a better idea IME, but it can be done either way. [/B][/QUOTE]

You only have junk caking if you don't have correct flow. With enough flow or flow pointing in the right places, nothing ever makes it to the bottom.

If you have a shallow sand bed, and it exists without flow hitting it such that it moves, anything else like poop will collect and decay in the sand bed. If some critter shifts the sand over the top of poop, you have a nutrient trap. Bare bottom, all that poop flies around and gets into your skimmer eventually (hopefully your skimmer works well).

also, shallow sand beds *can* house worms, bugs, bacteria, but the majority will be housed in your live rock anyway. Your shallow sand bed is basically just another rock. So no, your short sand bed won't add anything your live rock won't already.

complete mini ecosystem, far from it, even with a short sand bed. =P Have you looked at the real ecosystem out there in the reefs?

You're right, the better the ecosystem, the better you'll be, but the sandbed provides nothing in terms of an ecosystem that your liverock and other existing components don't already. So a sand bed would not be a better idea for that reason.

A deep sand bed is good for mainly a way of natural nitrate reduction. A short sand bed is mainly only good for looks. Sure it may house a few worms and cerith snails, but they can easily live without it.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224382#post11224382 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by speedstar [/i]
[B]Nice look and scape, have you a build thread? [/B][/QUOTE]

sort of: [url]http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1221572[/url]

my main build thread is on nano-reef since this is only a ~78g system.

I like your tank. I don't go for insane amounts of live rock either and it makes for a much better setup.

BB's very useful for growing SPS if you keep the water circulation and skimming up to snuff.
DSB's are most useful in a remote location. A DSB in the display aquarium would be my last choice for a SPS reef aquarium.
SSB's are fairly void of life- just ask Sanjay.

[QUOTE][i]by Gary Majchrzak[/i]
[B]SSB's are fairly void of life- just ask Sanjay. [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you have any references that support this?

If I lived in a lab, I can see where going BB would make sense. Since my tank's in the living room, I think it's more attractive and presentable with a sand bed.

As far as function goes, neither one is more successful than the other.

DSB never more for me

I just take off all my sand...a lot of dirty...and my god, this thing stink

I hate a lot of particles flying around my tank,,,,now I can improve my flow and no sand anymore flying around

Now my water is more clear....I love it !!!

Taking the sand off :

[img]http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6439/tornadohu2.jpg[/img]

After :

[img]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1633/cristallt5.jpg[/img]

Now I have to do again my layout

Regards

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224433#post11224433 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kinetic [/i]
[B]
Bare bottom, all that poop flies around and gets into your skimmer eventually (hopefully your skimmer works well).
[/B][/QUOTE]

I wish such a simple theory could be true, but it really doesn't make any sense when you really think about it. In order for stuff to be taken out of the water by our skimmers it first has to have some degree of decay occur in order to release basic protein molecules into the water column. This doesn't just happen while floating around in the water. It happens from either settling on the live rock or live sand where bacteria and other microorganisms can initiate the decay process. SO, by taking away the sand bed you are essentially eliminating another area where all this breakdown can occur. Plus, the sand bed has a much larger surface area for bacteria and other microorganisms to live on/in than just a large pile of rocks.
Additionally, there's not just "a few worms and bugs" living in a shallow or deep sand bed, there's actually quite a large biomass of organisms living in the sandbed that you just don't realize are there. All of these organisms help to speed up the process of taking raw waste particles and turning into smaller molecules that can then be taken up by the skimmer, removed by carbon or phosban or further processed by smaller organisms (bacteria).
A sand bed of any depth most certainly does increase the amount of biodiversity in a tank and this is never a bad thing. A complete ecosystem, of course not, but closer to being complete than having no sandbed, yes.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11225696#post11225696 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hatfielj [/i]
[B]I wish such a simple theory could be true, but it really doesn't make any sense when you really think about it. In order for stuff to be taken out of the water by our skimmers it first has to have some degree of decay occur in order to release basic protein molecules into the water column. This doesn't just happen while floating around in the water. It happens from either settling on the live rock or live sand where bacteria and other microorganisms can initiate the decay process. [/B][/QUOTE]
For a SPS BB system you don't want any stuff (ie: food) to decay or settle out on the liverock or substrate.
With good circulation it only takes a few minutes for a good skimmer to start skimming out "stuff"- and it all happens while it's still in the water column.

A big DSB supporter here. Well really a big supporter of diversity, for which I think a DSB is essential.

These arguments are not worth it. So little fact, and 90% speculation. Both can work great, I juut see advantages in a DSB. I feel the advantages are wholly backed up by science or credited authors, where as the "disadvantages" that seem to be prevailent about DSB are not. I have yet to see any real evidence supporting most claims.

Anyways, I run 85X turnover in my tank and believe that a key to any tank, BB OR DSB, is flow. I have virtually no deadspots, and the ones I do have are easily processed by my tanks diverse fauna. It amazes me how quickly anything is consumed in my tank and the amount of life in the DSB and refugium (which has one too, and large rubble piles). I recently lost a large fish I could not access, it was gone in two nights, I had zero spikes. No skimmer could have done that. I laugh at the thought of a "nutirent sink". My tanks to hungry for that.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224679#post11224679 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hagakure [/i]
[B]Do you have any references that support this?

If I lived in a lab, I can see where going BB would make sense. Since my tank's in the living room, I think it's more attractive and presentable with a sand bed.

As far as function goes, neither one is more successful than the other. [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless a person has run SSB, DSB and BB aquaria for a number of years I don't know how one could feel comfortable comparing the merits or drawbacks of each.
Aesthetics are another issue entirely.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11225933#post11225933 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HBtank [/i]
[B] It amazes me how quickly anything is consumed in my tank and the amount of life in the DSB and refugium (which has one too, and large rubble piles). I recently lost a large fish I could not access, it was gone in two nights, I had zero spikes. No skimmer could have done that. I laugh at the thought of a "nutirent sink". My tanks to hungry for that. [/B][/QUOTE]
I used to laugh like that when I had an in-tank DSB, too.
The running joke was that you could dump Jimmy Hoffa's body in the aquarium and it would be gone the next morning.
As a matter of fact, if you do a search of old threads on RC it was a common recommendation to "feed your sandbed" to keep it healthy. What a mistake :rolleyes:

here are a few facts that pertain to DSB type environments:
[url]http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=263482&highlight=burp[/url]

Keep in mind this isn't an argument for or against anything- too many people get caught up in that. BB, SSB and DSB's all can be put to good use.

^^ only if all aspects were the same in the BB, SSB and BB tanks. I see very little of this.

I have seen many anecdotal "experiences" where people have claimed the saw improvement with a BB change, only to mention later on that they had also increased their flow, changed rock amounts, and upgraded skimmer quality dramatically when doing so. All based on the recommendation everyone gets whe "going BB"...

These changes seem to get lost in the comparisons. So do the people have switched back from BB.

Anyways, I read, reasearch, and do so A LOT. I am a "newbie" but think reading through mountains of other people experience is in many ways has more "merit" than relying on years of "personal experience". I really hate when people throw that out, I find personal experience to be far from encompassing on topics such as this. Its like doing a statisical study based on a sample size of one.

I will set up a BB tank someday I am sure :) but I have to see anything that compells me other than water that looks like air.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11226108#post11226108 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HBtank [/i]
[B] I will set up a BB tank someday I am sure :) but I have to see anything that compells me other than water that looks like air. [/B][/QUOTE]
agreed- there's nothing like firsthand experience. You need to see what your dead fish looks like 5 years from now!
Incidentally, when I was at your stage in this game my thinking coincided with yours.
Back to this thread's topic, if you want to grow Acropora in a reef aquarium you seriously need to consider running BB in the display (IMO).
It's also worth checking into running a remote deep sand bed (RDSB) in order to help keep nitrates at a low level.

I've been running a sps BB tank for at least 6 yrs now. I have never had sand in the main tank. I tried it in my refug and had a huge algae outbreak in the main tank.

So I removed all sand from the refug and have never looked back. Algae issues were resolved. I have good success with keeping sps. Colors are good and so is growth. I've never considered adding any sand to my system. I have tons of flow, and a over rated skimmer. I'll remain BB as long as I keep sps. :)

Nothings broke here so why fix it? I think BB and a DSB can both work. Just up to people what works best for them. And the BB seems to work fine for me. :)