Bare Bottom pros or cons?

[King-Kong]

Originally posted by hatfielj
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.

Sorry -- maybe 20 years ago. My skimmer pulls out whole shrimp molts. A real skimmer, these days, is capable of removing large pieces of organic matter well before it has the chance to break down.

Originally posted by hatfielj

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.

My small bits of live rock have everything in them that a SSB might have. Infact, my LR prolly has some areas of anaerobic bacteria.. something a SSB wont have. I dont know what "extra" organisms are being held in your special SSB that arent being held in LR - i've got pods, worms, and plenty of bacteria in my system. I don't need more of my nutrients bound up a SSB that cant be properly managed.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally posted by RoBolton
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.

it's common to see the white calcium carbonate substrate be replaced with 'starboard' (a type of cutting board) in BB systems.

[King-Kong]

but in all fairness.. it gets covered in corraline almost instantly..

I do know one person who keeps theirs clean by constantly scrubbing it.. I wish i would have done that with mine, before the reflected light caused GREAT polyp growth underneath branches.

[burton14e7]

i've read of peoples tanks crashing with DSB's after it soaks up and can't soak anymore.

[250G]

con - ugly (IMO)

Whether you go BB, DSB, or SSB, this decision will not limit your abilty to run a successful system. There are many examples of great tanks in this forum that use the various styles (and just as many opinions on the matter).

250

[chewie]

Originally posted by Gary Majchrzak
it's common to see the white calcium carbonate substrate be replaced with 'starboard' (a type of cutting board) in BB systems.

Or just paint the underside white.

[SunnyX]

I have run Both systems and will give you MY take on the matter:

BB

Pros:

-You can direct flow anywhere you would like without worrying about shifting sand.

Cons:

-Looks very unnatural
-Lower buffering ability
-Less lighting


I went the BB route for 6 months and was unhappy with the results. In the beginning things were good, but over time I began to have issues with buffering and coral growth that I did not have before. The undersides of the corals began to grow pale and I had the hardest time getting the Ph to remain stable. Besides all of that it just looked too strange without the sand.

If you are running a sandbed an do not have ample creatures to stir and maintain it you may run into problems down the road.

Basically, both systems work.

Ill stay with my sand, works for me.

[SunnyX]

Originally posted by chewie
Or just paint the underside white.

Yea, thats good fo about a month until the coriline algae takes over.

[em805]

I have a DSB tank and a BB tank and I see pros and cons in both:

DSB pros:

* preference in the look of sand over glass
* ability to keep sand dependent species, i.e. sand sifting, burrowing.
* a lot more area for bacterial growth and nutrient decomposition

DSB cons:

* constantly scratching your tank with sand :/
* cyano blooms from hell!
* after a while the sand doesn't look so white anymore
* having to use a gravel vacuum :/

BB Pros:

* always looks "clean"
* ability to use, RAWR! 5000gph closed loop in a 112g tank
* ability to secure frags directly on the bottom of the tank
* algea blooms almost eliminated
* seems less sensitive to parameter changes
* rockwork is much more stable

BB cons:

* can't keep burrowing type fish or sand dependent species
* corralline growth on the bottom of tank
* less natural look

That's just been my experience...

[HBtank]

Originally posted by King-Kong
Sorry -- maybe 20 years ago. My skimmer pulls out whole shrimp molts.

lol... like to exaggerate a little?

I understand your point, but come on, you really have no strainer on your intake pump and "whole shrimp molts" are unaffected by your needle wheel pump?

[HBtank]

Originally posted by em805
I have a DSB tank and a BB tank and I see pros and cons in both:

DSB cons:

* constantly scratching your tank with sand :/
* cyano blooms from hell!
* after a while the sand doesn't look so white anymore
* having to use a gravel vacuum :/

All experiences are not the same, sound like you had to little flow or a nutrient problem.

I have not had a cyano bloom since the first three months, my sand is white as the first day I put it in, and I have never used a gravel vaccum.

[em805]

Originally posted by HBtank
All experiences are not the same, sound like you had to little flow or a nutrient problem.

I have not had a cyano bloom since the first three months, my sand is white as the first day I put it in, and I have never used a gravel vaccum.

That's why I said it was only my experience... Don't get me wrong the DSB tank I was referring to had its good days and its bad days, the problem is the bad days seem to stick in my mind a lot better. For a tank that has been up for 4+ years I find it difficult to maintain a DSB tank in comparison to my BB so far... Also, I find it hard to believe that your sand is white as the first day you put it in without using a gravel vacuum or some other mechanism. The upper layer might me clean but, you will always get that rusting color (seen clearly on the front of most DSB tanks) on the deeper layers from organisms living in the sandbed.

[HBtank]

The color on the front of the tank in the DSB is photosyntetic bacteria and algae growing due to exposure to light, and only exists on the glass. It is not representative of the sandbed.

[anthias_lover]

I had a BB tank before but currently run a DSB tank. I have experience with pros and cons above. IMO, BB for acrylic tank if you don’t want scratching tank by sand. It’s a good idea to have starboard to support all liverock and prevent future coralline growth on the bottom of tank. DSB look natural and it’s nice if you can keep good flow at many death spots. If you have a glass tank and strong flow without sand storm, you fish and corals will be happy with DSB. I like my sand bed…ignore my signature

[King-Kong]

Originally posted by HBtank
lol... like to exaggerate a little?

I understand your point, but come on, you really have no strainer on your intake pump and "whole shrimp molts" are unaffected by your needle wheel pump?

Ok -- large identifiable pieces of shrimp molt. like 1/4 of the molt easily make it by and are found in my collection cup -- none the less, the point stands.

[Unarce]

Originally posted by King-Kong
none the less, the point stands.

The only true point made here was HBtank stating that there's 'So little fact, and 90% speculation' in SB/BB debates.

Do what ever works best for you and your tank. Neither method is immune to a tank crash, algae bloom, etc., but both can definitely be successful

[King-Kong]

Originally posted by Unarce
The only true point made here was HBtank stating that there's 'So little fact, and 90% speculation' in SB/BB debates.

I'm not sure what that means...

Someone made a claim of fact that skimmers *only* remove organic matter after it has decomposed, and they are incapable of pulling out anything larger. I stated an observable fact otherwise. It's not speculation.. cause I didnt put that shrimp molt in my skimmer's cup.

[Unarce]

Just that you were implying that a successful BB tank nowadays would require a 'real skimmer' to remove larger pieces instead of '*only* remove organic matter after it has decomposed'?

I'm sure there's a large percentage of BB reefers that don't have a skimmer as capable as that, but still manage.

[King-Kong]

I didnt imply anything -- you made up something that doesnt exist.

All I said was, "Sorry -- maybe 20 years ago. My skimmer pulls out whole shrimp molts. A real skimmer, these days, is capable of removing large pieces of organic matter well before it has the chance to break down."

I said NOTHING about general BB theory, and certainly didnt say that a "successfull BB tank" requires a "real skimmer".

Don't insert or read into something that isnt there.

[King-Kong]

Originally posted by SunnyX
Yea, thats good fo about a month until the coriline algae takes over.

If you dont have anything on the bottom, (so just glass), and you paint the underside, or use some material underneath, then it should be really easy for you to scrape corraline off the glass.

I have starboard, and I cant take a razorblade to it, and scraping the corraline is much more difficult. To that extent I envy the glass-only people.

[mitchellmoto]

I'm converting as we speak. I have a deep sand bed and it works great but I'm tired of the maintanence of it. I haven't near enough flow and sand is everywhere. And the dreaded powerhead falling off and creating a 1/2 barebottom tank has happened to me as well.
I will be running a RDSB in my sump/ refuge and would take care of the diversity issue someone was complaining about.

And for the people that like the sand look there is the Faux sandbeds. Even though they eventually will be covered in coraline.

Looks are are also an opinion. yes DSB look nice but I like that doctor office clean you get with BB.
I've been to the reefs and most of the coral isn't even near the sand. Almost all of it grows on the reef not on the sand. I'm sure there are some but most do not.

Please don't take this as a hit to anyone. I currently run DSB and it works great but I want some change and tons more flow and the sand is just not cutting it everytime I add more. There is so much sand on my rock it is insane.
I personally say either can be done with great succsess it is all up to what works for you.

And King-Kong I I've been following you guys over in the BB thread on TRT And like your tank setup.
Haven't regestered there yet but I've been reading like a madman trying to get ready for the conversion from DSB to BB

[Unarce]

Kong,

If you say you weren't implying it, that's cool. That's just how it looks above.

You also speculate that 'my LR prolly has some areas of anaerobic bacteria.. something a SSB wont have'. Do you have anything to support this, too, or does this not exist, either?

[King-Kong]

I'm not going to do the foot work for you, but i seriously hope you dont think a SSB (~0-2" of sand) has anaerbic layers of bacteria in it. If so, you're disputing folks like Anthony Calfo.

And I still dont even understand how it "looks" like i implied anything. You just wanted to think that, but I made my statement as simple and clear as possible. In fact, not once in did I even say BB, so for you to somehow extend that to a discussion on BB theory is concerning.

[Unarce]

Originally posted by King-Kong
I'm not going to do the foot work for you, but i seriously hope you dont think a SSB (~0-2" of sand) has anaerbic layers of bacteria in it. If so, you're disputing folks like Anthony Calfo.

It wouldn't be for me. I don't believe everything I read. It would help others though, if you make this statement and post something to support it. This is why this thread is mostly speculation.

[HBtank]

KK you also speculate that your LR has the same exact fauna diversity that a SSB has.

I really do not know what you based that on.... It really does not fit with anything I learned in my studies. Organisms fill niches, and have evolved to fill those niches. To say sand and LR present the same niche in reef aquaria is kind of silly.

Rats and cockroaches can live almost anywhere, but do not represent all life on earth. To point at a few generalists as reasoning that a house and a forest provide the same diversity just does not follow anything I have read.

Anyways, I will stand by my point, 90% speculation in these threads, and that is a perfect example.

Not to mention the person you quoted was talking about BOTH SSB and DSB for fuana diversity, but you went on about just SSB in regards to diversity as well as anaerobic bacteria (something he never even mentioned). Seemed funny to me you chose to pick on the "small guy"

I always find these threads interesting, it generally follows the rule of the "tren setting" BB users on the offensive against DSB's. And never with one source to back it all up.