who out there goes with a bare bottom tank. Just live rock and no substrate? - Page 94

golusin · #**2326** 11/07/2004, 06:05 AM

I just removed my sand bed ( and took down the whole tank for a rebuild).

After sifting through the sand before taking it out, I really, really cannot understand why we are even debating having deep sand beds.

Make then remote, add more rock, siphon out more crap, but really, in a closed system like a tank they cannot be the best solution to keeping a tank long term - just ask the italians.

I found so much foul smelling crap, along with so many worms and other critters that I have no idea what they were, they looked like garden worms. I have always had this niggling feeling being an ex freshwater fish keeper for the last 20 or more years, you just never had an aneorobic sand bed.

I am going to do the same as ivy64 and have a nice clean bare bottom tank with remote sump with the deep sand bed with a fuge attached

deepblue68 · #**2327** 11/07/2004, 10:48 AM

i had a dsb and just switch to about 1/2 in of sand on the bottom of my tank for cosmetics and it looks fine .i think iam going to go full bare bottom for easy maintenance ,because iam working alot of hours right now.

frogguy1 · #**2328** 11/07/2004, 11:08 AM

I have a 120g barebottom reef with a black cutting board bottom that I bought from the www.cuttingboardfactory.com and am very pleased. When doing water changes I only suck up what needs to be taken out not sand because there is none! Plus it looks awesome.

adrinal · #**2329** 11/07/2004, 12:48 PM

After looking at boat supplies and the normal route, I searched for plastic and MN (my state). After talking with some plastic makers they sent me to a company that buys their stuff. This company doesn't really advertise to the public, but the will cut pieces for you. They only make you pay for your cut as well!.
I got a piece for my 75 gallon for 25 bucks and no shipping charge.

I imagin if you live near any city this kind of company must exist. GL

BOTR · #**2330** 11/24/2004, 10:03 PM

How many people did I just send an email to? Figured we can't let this thread die off, must keep it active...

Dag · #**2331** 11/25/2004, 12:02 AM

Maybe Borneman's article last month (favoring DSBs) took some steam out of this thread.

Bomber · #**2332** 11/25/2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dag
Maybe Borneman's article last month (favoring DSBs) took some steam out of this thread.

Don't be silly.

deepblue68 · #**2333** 11/25/2004, 08:46 AM

thanks for the hint frogguy.

Dag · #**2334** 11/25/2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Don't be silly.

Bomber, you have the "courage of your convictions" -- an oxymoron. Real "courage" means to attack one's convictions.

Having debated and thought about the issue as long as you have, I'm sure if you tried, you could present a very credible case for the other side.

gregt · #**2335** 11/25/2004, 02:57 PM

Just curious Aryeh. Have you read the last 94 pages?

Bomber · #**2336** 11/25/2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dag
Bomber, you have the "courage of your convictions" -- an oxymoron. Real "courage" means to attack one's convictions.

Having debated and thought about the issue as long as you have, I'm sure if you tried, you could present a very credible case for the other side.

Oh and I do that too. I love playing devils advocate, just ask Randy. The problem was, no matter how we came at this, you still can't get around what marine sediments do.

BOTR · #**2337** 11/25/2004, 08:51 PM

So glad I drug this one back up. Now where is AgedSalt? He's about due for an apperance no?

Dag,

Greg is right, bomber has spent the last 90 pages or so pointing out where he stands on the issue. And darnit if I dont agree with him 98%.

Dag · #**2338** 11/25/2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Just curious Aryeh. Have you read the last 94 pages?

Don't be silly.

BOTR · #**2339** 11/25/2004, 11:01 PM

lol thats great! Classic!

0racle · #**2340** 11/26/2004, 01:18 AM

After reading alot of good things about DSB, and doing alot of research. I thought i was ok.

now i have rip out my sand???
sheesh....i didnt even want sand.

Milo · #**2341** 11/26/2004, 01:54 AM

Anyone got a link to Borneman's recent article on DSBs?

Bomber · #**2342** 11/26/2004, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dag
Having debated and thought about the issue as long as you have, I'm sure if you tried, you could present a very credible case for the other side.

I think you guys missed what Aryeh was saying.

To make a credible case "for" DSB's.

I tried to play devils advocate several times Aryeh. The problem was you still have to tell what DSB's actually do and don't do.

MiddletonMark · #**2343** 11/26/2004, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Milo
Anyone got a link to Borneman's recent article on DSBs?

www.reefkeeping.com

He has another in the previous issue too as part one [current issue has part 2].

Dag · #**2344** 11/26/2004, 09:41 AM

Quote:

The problem was you still have to tell what DSB's actually do and don't do.

Isn't the "what" DSBs do rather simple? There may be undesirable side effects (but few if any things in this world are 100% good) and there may be other and perhaps better ways of doing it (more than one way to skin a cat) but both the theory and the anectodal evidence is substantial that DSBs reduce nitrates.

gregt · #**2345** 11/26/2004, 09:52 AM

Dag, first off, I meant that if you read back through the thread you'll see that Bomber isn't anti-DSB. He recommends them in certain situations.

Of course they have benefits. However, to stretch a long way to make a point - removing all the water from your tank will also "reduce nitrates", but that doesn't make it a good solution for all situations.

If you can accomplish the same things without the expense and hassle of 4+ inches of sand - and without the negative side effects, doesn't that make sense?

MiddletonMark · #**2346** 11/26/2004, 09:56 AM

And both theory and anecdotal evidence is substantial that DSB's cannot `process' phosphates, they can only hold them for a period.

So while a DSB may address one issue [that can be addressed other ways successfully] ... it is not `complete nutrient recycling'.

It all depends on what you're keeping, wanting, and planning with the aquarium. I don't think anyone has suggested that any solution is ideal for the wide range of creatures we keep.

Bomber · #**2347** 11/26/2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dag
Isn't the "what" DSBs do rather simple? There may be undesirable side effects (but few if any things in this world are 100% good) and there may be other and perhaps better ways of doing it (more than one way to skin a cat) but both the theory and the anectodal evidence is substantial that DSBs reduce nitrates.

That they do. But it's been grossly over exaggerated.
You have to stop and think where nitrates (nitrogenous compounds) come from. If you eliminate the source, you eliminate the need. Also, DSB's store those nitrogenous compounds. It's a strange phenomenon, you almost need a DSB to support a DSB.
People were having problems with the equipment and methodology presented at the time eliminating those sources of nitrogenous compounds. Now we know better.

Because of the difficulty in testing for phosphorous compounds, those compounds were left out of the formula and nitrates took a lot of the blame. Reason being, when people noticed a decline in over health of the animals the one thing that they could test for was nitrates. Without realizing that elevated nitrates are a sign of elevated nutrients and elevated phosphorus compounds are associated with elevated nutrients.

There's a lot of that old thinking that's still prevalent in the hobby. Even a lot of the experts are still concerned with nitrates and fail to mention phosphates. When they do, they mention that they test for phosphates and the test is negative. The P tests that are available to the hobby test for highly reactive and unstable water soluble ortho-phosphates. There a certain conditions that have to be in place for those phosphorus compounds to be available and it is the least accurate way of testing for them.

Genaroleon · #**2348** 11/26/2004, 12:37 PM

Man this thread took forever...

To each his own is what can be gathered from this topic.

I myself am just about ready to setup a 150 gallon, and while im not sure if i want to run it completly bare bottom..I do not want .. I do not want to have much substrate in their if I do decide to go with some sort of sandbed

My whole concern is on a bare bottom.. Im more worried about a rock falling over and striking the bottom of the tank.

I saw in an earlier post that someone was putting egg crate on the bottom, and simply put enough sand to cover the crate. Has anyone NOT used any sand over the egg crate?? And just run the bottom with the crate

grochmal · #**2349** 11/26/2004, 12:41 PM

You should check out the threads on putting Starboard on the bottom of your tank.
That will take care of your rock falling worries.

Here is probably the most infamous thread:
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...hreadid=223301

Dag · #**2350** 11/26/2004, 03:19 PM

Bomber, while you and Randy apparently have a happy give and take on these issues, I gather your exchanges with Dr. Ron have not been so amicable. At the risk of raising a red flag, here's my question and his response he gave me on 10/5 regarding phoshpates

Quote:

Dr. Ron, the DSB critics are blaming my sandbed [for my cyano outbreak] even though it's only a year old. I was wondering: Even assuming, as some say, that the sandbed becomes a phospate sink, wouldn't the cyano eventually use up the phospate and disappear?

Quote:

It is impossible for the sand bed to become a phosphate sink when the phosphates are at reef aquarium levels. Those that think it does, haven't read the research or are incapable of doing the math.

According to Dr. Ron, it seems, this is not merely a matter of two reasonable people taking a different view; those who accept the phospate theory are incompetent (i.e. can't do the math).

From other threads I perused (not every page mind you), I believe Randy also had a hard time accepting the phosphate build up theory.

I'm too simple of course to arrive at an opinion on my own. I have to make a guess based on the varying expert opinions. It would help, Bomber, if you could identify another expert who sides with this phospate-build up theory. [Mind you, even if there are none, you could be still be right -- the lone righteous voice, as it were -- but in that case, I'll just stick with the herd.]