|
|
|
|
#51
11/21/2007, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I know mine does. Get enough crud accumulated at the bottom of a BB aquarium and the substrate (if you want to call it that) can contain more microfauna per inch than you'd find in a typical 'clean' DSB reef aquarium because populations are a direct result of food availability. (Obviously diversity will depend on what's introduced to the aquarium). This brings up another good point- most of the microfauna found in reef aquaria arrive in/on liverock or as hitch-hikers on corals, not in sand samples. You can call it speculation but the fact remains- bare bottom reef aquaria were "in" during the early 80's. DSB's arrived later. There's many good reasons that reefkeepers have returned to running BB and to call these reasons all specualtiuon is simply not true. Quote:
HB- it doesn't appear that you have a SPS reef aquarium. All the photos in your gallery are softies...
__________________
some common aquarium nuisances: Bryopsis,Derbesia(hair algae),Cyanobacteria(red slime), Diatoms(golden brown algae), Dinoflagellates(gooey air bubbles),Valonia (bubble algae) Last edited by Gary Majchrzak; 11/21/2007 at 03:26 PM. |
|
#52
11/21/2007, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I said the exact same, not amount of. If it was not clear, I was speaking of sand beds increasing total tank diversity in addition to live rock. KK was stating that any no additional "special" diversity was provided by sand beds. Last edited by HBtank; 11/21/2007 at 04:00 PM. |
|
#53
11/21/2007, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do also have around 10 species of LPS and thousands of Zoanthids/paly's, and many various shrooms, some GSP etc.. Some random shots         And of course the nasty sand bed in question 
Last edited by HBtank; 11/21/2007 at 04:11 PM. |
|
#54
11/21/2007, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Unless you specifically purchase some sand for the (sandbed) critters it contains you'll only have the species diversity that arrives as hitch-hikers on your liverock. In most cases this translates into no additional "special" diversity being provided by sand beds. Nice pix of some nice corals. It looks like you're phasing out the softies. Maybe it's time to consider phasing out the in-tank DSB 
__________________
some common aquarium nuisances: Bryopsis,Derbesia(hair algae),Cyanobacteria(red slime), Diatoms(golden brown algae), Dinoflagellates(gooey air bubbles),Valonia (bubble algae) |
|
#55
11/21/2007, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Just like you can get species specific pests from non related species you purchase. Anyways, yes, you can definately make a SB more diverse by specifically stocking it.. I never thought I would like the "brown sticks", as I used to call them. Well I do now, but my wallet doesn't..lol |
|
#56
11/21/2007, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gary said it better than I did, so I'll leave it at that.
As for "speculation" related to anaerobic bacteria populations existing in SSBs, some things are known to be truths because theyve been well documented and researched, and we dont have to re-invent the wheel every time the discussion pops up. SSB's dont contain the depths necessary to facilitate growth of anaerobic bacteria for the consumption of nitrates; DSB's do. The world is also round, and we orbit the sun; do we need to post literature everytime this comes up, or can we begin to accept certain simple things in this hobby? |
|
#57
11/22/2007, 09:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
wetwebmedia.com and do a search. Reef Invertebrates by Calfo and Fenner, page 36 The Reef Aquarium by Delbeek and Sprung, chapters 2 and 6 Book of Coral Propagation by Calfo, page 93
__________________
Mike, a NFMAS member. |
|
#58
11/22/2007, 10:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Controllable and manageable, in my experience. It not about aestetics, but about survival of the tank in the hands of the some of us (like me
).I found most of the needed information in different Barebottom 101 threads. |
|
#60
11/22/2007, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In your opinion. 
__________________
Doug |
|
#61
11/22/2007, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#62
11/22/2007, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My bottom is bare and I am topless.
__________________
Too young for Medicare Too old for women to care |
|
#63
11/22/2007, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, not butt ugly. I exagerated a little. You BBers don't seem to have a problem with KK doing it.
Seriously. Lots of BB tanks look nice, but you take any BB tank from a TOTM down to a newbie's like me, add sand to it, and it's brighter, more natural, and more attractive. No other way to put it. If the 7 year itch is on the side of BB, then kudos to those that aren't followers. |
|
#64
11/22/2007, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I run a Faux Sand Bed - all the aesthetics of a SB with all the benefits of BB.
I also have about 4-5 cups of sand in the tank. It shifts around from time to time, stopping coralline from covering the entire bottom, and giving a home for burrowing snails and worms while reflecting light up. I am not convinced about the more natural look of DSB's. I think its more that people are used to seeing tanks with a sand bottom - which is fine, but I don't think it really look more natural. Almost all of the reefs I have seen don't have sand anywhere near the corals, which grow up and away from the sandy bottom. Here is a pic from PNG, no sand in sight :
__________________
The reefer formally known as Lefty Ink is the way; the way is ink. |
|
#65
11/22/2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please
If you notice everyone else is trying to get their points across but are being respectful. Then you come in with your completely unwelcome comment. Your comment doesn't help the thread at all and is completely useless. No one cares that you think a barebottom tank is butt Ugly. You don't realy post much to support the site which in turns helps the hobby. And if I had to guess all 15 of your post are more than likely no better. Why is it someone always has to be ignorant and say things to purposefully rock to boat. Also another thing I notice is when this topic comes up, this site or others, the sand tank folks are so agressive. Most BB folks never say thing like DSB never work and sand is satan. They just state that this is what works for them |
|
#67
11/22/2007, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I purposely tried to hit a nerve, just to see your reactions. It's interesting for you to suggest that my opinion or comment holds little bearing because of my low post count. Or is it because I favor SBs.
We're still on equal planes. I haven't posted any more supporting facts that favor SBs than any BBers here, so what's the big deal. From all the searches I've done on the subject, two things are clear. One, most find BB ugly. Two, it's more of a bandwagon concept, as opposed to any real benefit other than being able to tremendously increase flow. Is it necessary? Of course not. |
|
#68
11/22/2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bare Bottom pros or cons?
Quote:
Ive noticed a couple things with the switch Im happier with. One is that I seem to need a smaller cleanup crew and can accomplish it almost exclusivly with snails although I do have a dozen hermits just for anything that dies I might not notice. In the past making sure I had enough critters to keep a sandbed healthy required yearly or sooner restocking of crittlers. I have found that alot of flow can keep the tank much cleaner and the couple small areas that build detritus can easily be sucked out during waterchanges and there is virtually no place except directly under the rocks that can build, even then a powerhead sweep blows it out for the skimmer. Yes my skimmer (a simple G-2) will suck in anything that gets too close to the intake, Collonista snails and pods seem to regularly make it to the cup. I have starboard and it does get covered with coralline easily but sometimes also comes up in plates, the look doesnt bother me much although I do like the look of sand. The beautiful thing about BB is that if you really dont like it you can add sand after, easier than taking it out. Im starting to move into SPS a little and the only thing I can tell for sure is that buffering is a bit more difficult with PH hovering around 8-8.1 which is still fine in my book. The RDSB Im very happy with and originally went with Calfo's unlit high flow teachings but for PH stability decided to reverse light it and run it as a fuge. It still works great and Im especially happy I can take it offline without disturbing the display. I do however run a filter sock on the input to keep the larger stuff from the overflow from making it to the RDSB. Anyway, good luck with your choice. Im a firm believer there is no right or wrong and a blend of the 2 styles has worked great for me. |
|
#69
11/22/2007, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Quote:
Considering that flow is so important to reef tanks, that seems like quite an advantage. |
|
#71
11/22/2007, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There are more benefits to BB other than to increase flow, and the benefits of that increased flow are more than just making sps happier. I am not sure if you are really interested in discussion, your being interested in trying to hit a nerve and all, so I won't bother with more detail right now.
__________________
The reefer formally known as Lefty Ink is the way; the way is ink. |
|
#72
11/22/2007, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't see why everyone gets their feathers so ruffled just b/c he said he thought bb was ugly. Its his opinion. It has been proven that you can have a very successful tank with either method. It's a matter of personal preference. If your happy with it, so what anybody else thinks.
|
|
#73
11/23/2007, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
AND THE DEBATE BEGINS!
|
|
#74
11/23/2007, 02:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't intend to ruffle feathers in the beginning, but listening to BBers exude authoritatively about how the method fixed all their woes, then with tongue in cheek, say that sand beds also work, too, gets tiring.
Again, this isn't really for me. I simply do not succumb to trends. If many of you feel a need to have 100X turnover rate in an SPS tank, so be it. Is it necessary, of course not. That's a very interesting take, Thales, regarding sand not being near reefs. I suppose if I took a picture of the first few feet of every reef patch during my dives, I wouldn't see sand, either. However, this is really just selective reasoning.    I do suppose that a natural looking tank is a moot point, here. So many tanks are **** blue that they look more like black light displays than a reef flat. I don't know whether I should pass the bong or put on a sequined dress. |
|
#75
11/23/2007, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damn. I did the thing I said brought down the conversation. I generalized.
I should have said many or most. There are some that grow on the fringe, and there are some that grow outright on sand. However, most of them are up and away from the sand, and the ones that aren't look like your pictures: beat up and abraded.
__________________
The reefer formally known as Lefty Ink is the way; the way is ink. Last edited by Thales; 11/23/2007 at 03:49 AM. |
|
|
Linear Mode
