G
Guest
Who does tanks without sand in the bottom and what are the benifits?
-
Welcome back Guest!MARSH is a private reefing group. Comments and suggestions are encouraged, but please keep them positive and constructive. Negative threads, posts, or attacks will be removed from view and reviewed by the staff. Continually disruptive, argumentative, or flagrant rule breakers may be suspended or banned.
Users who are viewing this thread
OP
OP
Guest
Our 180 is running BBWS (bare bottom with starboard). The benefit it, you dont have a nitrate sponge/bomb sitting on the bottom of your tank ready to nuke it. You can see where the detritus is collecting, and all you have to do is hose it out.
DonnieKim
Guest
and they, (Boosted98gsx), have an absolutely gorgeous tank!!! One of the finest I've seen!
OP
OP
Guest
come over in a few weeks and you'll see some black starboard 
MMaddox
Guest
I totally disagree with bare bottom...DSB all the way. Works for the ocean, too....
"Sand beds are not nutrient traps unless seriously mismanaged, in which case the problem is with the aquarist and not the sand. If mismanaged and a chronic problem, simply yell "do-over" and fix the problem and not repeat the problematic behaviors that initiated it in the first place. The sediment communities and associated microbial communities are the major source of nutrient processing, decomposition, recycling, and remineralization in the wild, and likely in tanks, as well."
Eric Borneman, Reefkeeping Magazine, November 2004
"Sand beds are not nutrient traps unless seriously mismanaged, in which case the problem is with the aquarist and not the sand. If mismanaged and a chronic problem, simply yell "do-over" and fix the problem and not repeat the problematic behaviors that initiated it in the first place. The sediment communities and associated microbial communities are the major source of nutrient processing, decomposition, recycling, and remineralization in the wild, and likely in tanks, as well."
Eric Borneman, Reefkeeping Magazine, November 2004
OP
OP
Guest
In the ocean, you have miles and miles of sandbeds compared to relatively small areas of reef. You have fish stocking densities that are a fraction of the levels you have in even a lightly stocked hobbiest tank. People that tout the "natural" approach need to acknowledge that there is nothing natural about keeping fish and corals in a little glass box.
There is no denying that sandbeds act as a sink for nutrients. If the sandbed is managed correctly, if you keep exactly the right proportions of poop-eating critters, and critters that eat their poop, and so on, then you can probably forestall the bed "filling up" for some time, but for most people it will happen eventually.
I've read Eric's article that you posted, and I've also read several critiques of it as well. I think it's disingenuous to point to failed sandbeds as failure on the part of the aquarist. The whole concept of leaving waste in the tank in the hopes that it will somehow be tranferred to a parallel universe by magical detritovores seems like bad husbandry to me.
I mean come on - the whole reason DSB's are popular is because they are supposed to be "easy". Just leave the poop alone and let the bugs eat it. And anything they miss, grow macro algae to export it. Yay - anyone can have a reef tank with little maintenance involved. For a year or two, at least. When you are promoting a lazy method of reefkeeping, don't turn around and blame the failures of that method on the laziness of the people using it.
There is no denying that sandbeds act as a sink for nutrients. If the sandbed is managed correctly, if you keep exactly the right proportions of poop-eating critters, and critters that eat their poop, and so on, then you can probably forestall the bed "filling up" for some time, but for most people it will happen eventually.
I've read Eric's article that you posted, and I've also read several critiques of it as well. I think it's disingenuous to point to failed sandbeds as failure on the part of the aquarist. The whole concept of leaving waste in the tank in the hopes that it will somehow be tranferred to a parallel universe by magical detritovores seems like bad husbandry to me.
I mean come on - the whole reason DSB's are popular is because they are supposed to be "easy". Just leave the poop alone and let the bugs eat it. And anything they miss, grow macro algae to export it. Yay - anyone can have a reef tank with little maintenance involved. For a year or two, at least. When you are promoting a lazy method of reefkeeping, don't turn around and blame the failures of that method on the laziness of the people using it.
MMaddox
Guest
I suggest you further your reading on DSB's in particular. I know of several aquariums (public and private) that have had DSBs, and have been succesful for 10+ years.
In an aquarium with a DSB, the DSB alone isn't solely responsible for the nutrient export. Just becuase someone is using a DSB doesn't mean they're not using a skimmer, ozone, carbon, water changes, etcetera. They are using the DSB to help control nitrates, as well as provide a helpful fauna that is not found in bare bottom aquaria. I believe you're looking at a DSB as a 'holding area' or a 'sink' for nutrients, which isn't what they are at all. They are simply a natural way of processing excess nitrates and other organics that aren't being removed by other means of export.
I personally have had reef aquariums both with DSBs and without - and I find the DSB aquariums to have lower nitrates (obviously ^^) and better coral growth. Purely anecdotal, but it has been my experience.
I am not aware of a single "big name" that doesn't advocate DSBs. Robert Fenner, Anthony Calfo, Eric Borneman, Julian Sprung, and, of course, Jean Jaubert all use\have used them - they must work!
In an aquarium with a DSB, the DSB alone isn't solely responsible for the nutrient export. Just becuase someone is using a DSB doesn't mean they're not using a skimmer, ozone, carbon, water changes, etcetera. They are using the DSB to help control nitrates, as well as provide a helpful fauna that is not found in bare bottom aquaria. I believe you're looking at a DSB as a 'holding area' or a 'sink' for nutrients, which isn't what they are at all. They are simply a natural way of processing excess nitrates and other organics that aren't being removed by other means of export.
I personally have had reef aquariums both with DSBs and without - and I find the DSB aquariums to have lower nitrates (obviously ^^) and better coral growth. Purely anecdotal, but it has been my experience.
I am not aware of a single "big name" that doesn't advocate DSBs. Robert Fenner, Anthony Calfo, Eric Borneman, Julian Sprung, and, of course, Jean Jaubert all use\have used them - they must work!
OP
OP
Guest
Hey mikester. I have a DSB. Does that mean I'm lazy?????
In fact I have two systems with DSBs. Does that make me twice as lazy?
In fact I have two systems with DSBs. Does that make me twice as lazy?
OP
OP
Guest
mandoman said:
Do we have to be honest?
just kidding!anyhow.. here we go.. another DSb vs BB thread. time for me to move on.
OP
OP
Guest
Yeah, I'm not doing the whole DSB vs. BB thing again. It's been done to death, and it already is getting ugly.
The point I was trying to make was, don't just come on here and say "don't do a BB - Eric Borneman says it's wrong". I have a lot of respect for Eric, and for all those people you mentioned in fact, but I don't take anything they say as gospel.
Especially when that article you mentioned is heavy on personal opinion and extremely light on science. There's a reason it appeared in an online magazine (which Eric is an editor of, BTW) and not a scholarly journal. It has also been pointed out by others that the same magazine has failed to publish other articles that disagree with some of Eric's points, and have a lot more science to back them up (not on DSB's in particular - I'm referring to the vodka portion of the article).
BTW - there are plenty of experts that advocate barebottom tanks. Most of the published works predate Jaubert et. al., but just because they are old doesn't mean they are wrong. In fact, the very problems with BB tanks pointed out by Eric in his article have all been overcome in modern systems, where we have lighting, water flow, and skimming capacity that could only have been dreamed of 20 years ago.
The point I was trying to make was, don't just come on here and say "don't do a BB - Eric Borneman says it's wrong". I have a lot of respect for Eric, and for all those people you mentioned in fact, but I don't take anything they say as gospel.
Especially when that article you mentioned is heavy on personal opinion and extremely light on science. There's a reason it appeared in an online magazine (which Eric is an editor of, BTW) and not a scholarly journal. It has also been pointed out by others that the same magazine has failed to publish other articles that disagree with some of Eric's points, and have a lot more science to back them up (not on DSB's in particular - I'm referring to the vodka portion of the article).
BTW - there are plenty of experts that advocate barebottom tanks. Most of the published works predate Jaubert et. al., but just because they are old doesn't mean they are wrong. In fact, the very problems with BB tanks pointed out by Eric in his article have all been overcome in modern systems, where we have lighting, water flow, and skimming capacity that could only have been dreamed of 20 years ago.
OP
OP
Guest
I just recently went to bare bottom and love it! The main reason I did it was so I could have a lot of flow (about 4000 GPH in a 120) with out having to worry about sand storms. Also, I like that fact that I can suck up all the crap that would normally just sit on the bottom.
OP
OP
Guest
Chris - same here. I have been amazed at how much crud keeps leeching out of my rocks that used to be in my DSB tank. It's so much easier to just siphon everything off the bottom of the tank than to worry about all the headaches of the DSB.
The increased flow is another huge benefit of a barebottom tank, IMO. I have over 5000 gph in my 140g. When I had a DSB, it was hard to get flow at the bottom of the tank without blowing the sand everywhere, which would usually lead to rounds of cyano outbreaks.
Asthetically, the barebottom look is just OK, but I like it more than I thought I would. Maybe it's just me, but I hate the look of DSB's too - it takes up to much of the tank, and the algae that grows between the sand and the glass just looks gross. I think a shallow sand bed is the most visually appealing, but it is also the hardest to pull off since you don't get the benefits of a DSB or BB.
The increased flow is another huge benefit of a barebottom tank, IMO. I have over 5000 gph in my 140g. When I had a DSB, it was hard to get flow at the bottom of the tank without blowing the sand everywhere, which would usually lead to rounds of cyano outbreaks.
Asthetically, the barebottom look is just OK, but I like it more than I thought I would. Maybe it's just me, but I hate the look of DSB's too - it takes up to much of the tank, and the algae that grows between the sand and the glass just looks gross. I think a shallow sand bed is the most visually appealing, but it is also the hardest to pull off since you don't get the benefits of a DSB or BB.
jeez.. aren't we taking things personally?
mandoman, I couldn't find where Mike was calling you lazy. It isn't owning a DSB that makes you 'lazy.' It's having one crash that labels a person's care as "mismanaged." It sounds like such a cop-out. If you're designing software and you find a bug in the programming, you don't merely say.. "Well, it's an exploit and nobody's supposed to do that with this program anyway. If it causes their computer to crash, it's user-error." Sounds pretty silly to me. That's the point he was trying to make.
I'll elaborate on one other point by Mikester. When you look at the levels of fauna per gallon of water in any specific ocean, the waste they produce is eventually diluted to such a miniscule level. Aquariums are not an accurate representation of the natural ocean. To put in into perspective, keeping just a single cleaner shrimp in a 50 gallon tank is overcrowding it more than in its natural environment. Just think about the total volume of water around it.. they're under how many feet of water?
Can DSBs work? Yes. Can they not work? The answer is also yes. Can a tank with a 10-year-old DSB fail? Yes. Does that mean that they will fail? No.
That being said, I don't keep a fish tank to do what the 'big-names' are doing. It isn't a must and people are successful in keeping just as many various fish and inverts with either setup. I won't rule out BB simply because it isn't "natural" or because it isn't what other people use in their own personal setups. Both are working methods to achieve a common goal (i.e. Berlin vs. Ecosystem setups).
MMaddox, you "totally disagree" w/ BB.. but is there a fatal flaw to a BB system that bothers you? I am not convinced that either method is natural and that every person w/ a crash had 'mismanaged' their sandbeds.
mandoman, I couldn't find where Mike was calling you lazy. It isn't owning a DSB that makes you 'lazy.' It's having one crash that labels a person's care as "mismanaged." It sounds like such a cop-out. If you're designing software and you find a bug in the programming, you don't merely say.. "Well, it's an exploit and nobody's supposed to do that with this program anyway. If it causes their computer to crash, it's user-error." Sounds pretty silly to me. That's the point he was trying to make.
I'll elaborate on one other point by Mikester. When you look at the levels of fauna per gallon of water in any specific ocean, the waste they produce is eventually diluted to such a miniscule level. Aquariums are not an accurate representation of the natural ocean. To put in into perspective, keeping just a single cleaner shrimp in a 50 gallon tank is overcrowding it more than in its natural environment. Just think about the total volume of water around it.. they're under how many feet of water?
Can DSBs work? Yes. Can they not work? The answer is also yes. Can a tank with a 10-year-old DSB fail? Yes. Does that mean that they will fail? No.
That being said, I don't keep a fish tank to do what the 'big-names' are doing. It isn't a must and people are successful in keeping just as many various fish and inverts with either setup. I won't rule out BB simply because it isn't "natural" or because it isn't what other people use in their own personal setups. Both are working methods to achieve a common goal (i.e. Berlin vs. Ecosystem setups).
MMaddox, you "totally disagree" w/ BB.. but is there a fatal flaw to a BB system that bothers you? I am not convinced that either method is natural and that every person w/ a crash had 'mismanaged' their sandbeds.
MarkieB
Guest
mikester said:
I switched myself. Problems with phosphate and hair algae lead me to the path. A month later I too am amazed how much crap keeps comming out of my rocks. The hair is dying, My nitrates are 0, and my phospahtes are dropping daily.
My best move in tanking was bare bottom.
I am sure the sand method works for some, I just dont want to have to work so hard to keep my tank clean. With my bare bottom, 5 minutes a week and all the crud is removed.
My skimmer is another indicator this is for me. The skimmer collection cup pulls out in a week, what it used to in a day!
OP
OP
Guest
cparka: mikester was not calling me lazy. He said that DSB was a "lazy method of reefkeeping."
Nothing personal was taken.
I have had success with DSB. But knowing the potential problems, I manage the sandbed by replacing portions on a regular basis. My skimmer doesn't remove very much skimmate as a result. That said, I am not closed to the idea of a BB system in the future.
There are many people who have great tanks with BBs. That's good. Whatever works and different strokes... I just object to judgemental statements.
Cheers, Steve
Nothing personal was taken.
I have had success with DSB. But knowing the potential problems, I manage the sandbed by replacing portions on a regular basis. My skimmer doesn't remove very much skimmate as a result. That said, I am not closed to the idea of a BB system in the future.
There are many people who have great tanks with BBs. That's good. Whatever works and different strokes... I just object to judgemental statements.
Cheers, Steve
OP
OP
Guest
WOW, okay. :-o
I asked b/c my tank sprang a leek and I went buy another one and transfered everything over. I was wondering whether or not to transfer the sand over cause I didn't like the look of it against the glass where you could see some dirty stuff, and I thought if it looks dirty against the glass after only 4 months what will it look like in a few more months. Oh well, to make this short I decided to only fill the sand in the new tank to the rim before the glass starts so I would have it for aestetic reasons. With this I know i probably won't reap the benifits of live sand much except to have some of the critters who like sand. So, I did this before reading this thread so now after having read it, I will just plan on cycling the sand with new sand and see what happens. Not planning on having this tank for a whole lot longer anyway. Want to upgrade this year and will see how the thin sand bed works before getting the bigger tank I guess.
I asked b/c my tank sprang a leek and I went buy another one and transfered everything over. I was wondering whether or not to transfer the sand over cause I didn't like the look of it against the glass where you could see some dirty stuff, and I thought if it looks dirty against the glass after only 4 months what will it look like in a few more months. Oh well, to make this short I decided to only fill the sand in the new tank to the rim before the glass starts so I would have it for aestetic reasons. With this I know i probably won't reap the benifits of live sand much except to have some of the critters who like sand. So, I did this before reading this thread so now after having read it, I will just plan on cycling the sand with new sand and see what happens. Not planning on having this tank for a whole lot longer anyway. Want to upgrade this year and will see how the thin sand bed works before getting the bigger tank I guess.
t0mmy108
Guest
mandoman, I gotta see your tank! I hear it's beautiful.
OP
OP
Guest
Mike, I thought I wasn't going to like the tank being bare bottom, but truthfully I am very happy wit the way it turned out. I never had a DSB; I only kept about a 1.5" bed.
As said before the main reason was for the flow. I knew with a pair of the Tunzes I wouldnt be able to keep sand on the bottom or at least on the whole bottom. I've seen peoples tank with one stream and they still have bald spots on the bottom with the stream throttled all the way down. Also, the SPS corals are starting to look much better. The polpy extension I am getting out of some are amazing. I had 5 MJ 1200s in there before and now just have the streams and return.
My only concern is the coralline algae that will grow all over the bottom now. I am a 'neat' reef keeper and I like to keep the glass clean, but I should be able to hide most of it with some LPS corals on the bottom (brains, acans, a sun coral...those type of things if there is not too much flow down there).
IMO the bare bottom and the streams are probably the two best things I have done for my tank.
As said before the main reason was for the flow. I knew with a pair of the Tunzes I wouldnt be able to keep sand on the bottom or at least on the whole bottom. I've seen peoples tank with one stream and they still have bald spots on the bottom with the stream throttled all the way down. Also, the SPS corals are starting to look much better. The polpy extension I am getting out of some are amazing. I had 5 MJ 1200s in there before and now just have the streams and return.
My only concern is the coralline algae that will grow all over the bottom now. I am a 'neat' reef keeper and I like to keep the glass clean, but I should be able to hide most of it with some LPS corals on the bottom (brains, acans, a sun coral...those type of things if there is not too much flow down there).
IMO the bare bottom and the streams are probably the two best things I have done for my tank.
OP
OP
Guest
Yeah, I don't like the coralline growing on the starboard either. When I swap out tanks in a few weeks, I have to replace my starboard anyway (the new tank has different internal dimensions) so I am thinking of going with black starboard. I think that would hide the coralline a little better, and it looks really nice.
The only down side is that I've heard that the lack of light reflection can be a big negative. Any thoughts?
The only down side is that I've heard that the lack of light reflection can be a big negative. Any thoughts?
