barebottom tanks...opinions
- Thread starter Tackett
- Start date
.Matt_Wandell":d68rcoej said:
I tend to agree with Matt here, I've never had any issues with dropping rocks in my tanks, and if it's full of water IME the rocks aren't going to crack the bottom of the tank if they slip/slide a bit. I think it's sortof a non-issue personally. Just take some care when setting up and make sure your rockwork is well supported.
Besides, whether you have starboard, substrate glued to starboard or bare glass on the bottom, it's all going to look the same in a few months when it's covered in coralline algae.
Just seems like an extra step to me for not much benefit. JMO of course...
I wonder if the available "nutrients" in a system are affected one way or another by a sandbed. I have a strong feeling that any nutrients from detritus in the sand are consumed very quickly and very locally. It might mean higher bacterial levels, but thats just food in the end anyway. I'm guessing that with a barebottomed system, unless you do a weekly siphon to remove settled debris, the nutrients produced would be much more free to move about the system and cause increases as far as the corals are concerned.
Its all conjecture of course (just like this whole issue) until someone proves otherwise.
In another direction... I was involved (only remotely at the time) with the hobby in the late 80s when bare bottomed was the normal way of doing a tank. It was ugly then as it is now and did not hold any benefits overall that I could see. No point in repeating history.
Its all conjecture of course (just like this whole issue) until someone proves otherwise.
In another direction... I was involved (only remotely at the time) with the hobby in the late 80s when bare bottomed was the normal way of doing a tank. It was ugly then as it is now and did not hold any benefits overall that I could see. No point in repeating history.
I ran my last tank with a DSB (as an experiment) for a couple of years and then switched back to BB. Within a few months I had irradicated several algaes that plaqued the DSB setup the whole time, skimmate production went WAY down and macros in the fuge stopped growing all together (just took them out eventually).
Also, at first I had to syphon crap off the bottom every week, but gradually the detritus that was showing up got less and less to where I was only doing it once every few weeks. Several SPS corals I had in the DSB setup that were consistenly brown finally colored-up as well.
It sure wasn't a controlled experiment, and there could have been other factors (for example, without the fine sand I was able to really crank-up the flow without kicking sand around) but I got the impression it was easier to keep nutrient levels under control without the sand.
JME...
Also, at first I had to syphon crap off the bottom every week, but gradually the detritus that was showing up got less and less to where I was only doing it once every few weeks. Several SPS corals I had in the DSB setup that were consistenly brown finally colored-up as well.
It sure wasn't a controlled experiment, and there could have been other factors (for example, without the fine sand I was able to really crank-up the flow without kicking sand around) but I got the impression it was easier to keep nutrient levels under control without the sand.
JME...
Anyone who blances scores or hundreds of pounds of sharp rocks on a glass bottom is playing russian roulette IMO,,, especially if it's a tempered bottom.
Sure you can whack tempered glass all day long with a rubber sledgehammer and it might not break, but too much pressure over a very small area from a sharp piece of rock and it's gonna go,,, supported or not.
Sure you can whack tempered glass all day long with a rubber sledgehammer and it might not break, but too much pressure over a very small area from a sharp piece of rock and it's gonna go,,, supported or not.
From what I understand from reading a planted marine tank message someplace (as well as my own experience with FW planted) is that unfiltered marine systems being maintained solely by plant life, do develop a mulm at the bottom. But nitrients are still 0.0 due to the plant action. So the mulm is basically inert and just provides a place for pods to thrive.
With my existing tanks and past tanks I thought Starboard was a waste for sure. Building a big new one I thought why not, it can't hurt. Still I do have one concern with it, the little layer of water below the starboard might not see much movement and might have a bit of a toxic build up? I don't know and have asked the question before never got in responces so maybe it is not a issue.
The detrius on the BB issue I do siphon it, no not weekly. I have losts of flow and return inputs, and a input aimed right at the bottom keeping lots in suspension.
What looks better sand or BB... some look good some don't. I like the look of both. Just to argue I think bare bottoms look more like a cutaway section of a reef and sand bottoms look like the ocean floor.
Trying to add a pic I think I'll be to big so it might not work. Not a good photo (bad photo skills) it just show a bit of my bottom. It not all sterile and boring, it's full of stuff. This stuff makes it really easy to siphon out the crap that isn't kept in suspension.
(my attachment is to big when I have more time I'll try and reduce it and send some pics. ) :wink:
The detrius on the BB issue I do siphon it, no not weekly. I have losts of flow and return inputs, and a input aimed right at the bottom keeping lots in suspension.
What looks better sand or BB... some look good some don't. I like the look of both. Just to argue I think bare bottoms look more like a cutaway section of a reef and sand bottoms look like the ocean floor.
Trying to add a pic I think I'll be to big so it might not work. Not a good photo (bad photo skills) it just show a bit of my bottom. It not all sterile and boring, it's full of stuff. This stuff makes it really easy to siphon out the crap that isn't kept in suspension.
(my attachment is to big when I have more time I'll try and reduce it and send some pics. ) :wink:
Attachments
wade":2gmv5kn9 said:
The science seems to show that the nutrients are consumed very quickly until there are too many nutrients to be consumed. Then they get re released into the WC.
One of the things that is often glossed over regarding BB is the high flow and skimming, which, respectively, keep the debris in suspension and exported.
On another board there is a thread with many many links to scientific papers that support the idea of sand 'filling up' and re releasing nutrients. I have yet to see a paper that supports the idea that a properly stocked sand bed will be able to break down all nutrients - Ron won't share thought he says the papers are out there, and last I heard he recommends replacing your sand and rock ever 4 or 5 years.
beaslbob":xe07u8ji said:
All marine tanks develop mulm that settles somewhere. IIRC it is not inert and serves detritus trap.
Part of the problem in the DSB BB debate is that there are different kinds of phosphate and they are very had to test for. The phosphate kits on the market seem to also be lacking in accuracy.
FWIW, Starboard was used because it is supposed to not leach anything into the water and the corners don't seem to curl like acrylic does and it seems to be cheaper than acrylic.
If I was going BB I would definitely put something on the bottom of a glass tank. The right edge hitting at the right angle and the glass will crack says the glass blower!
There, is that enough posts?
:mrgreen:
If I was going BB I would definitely put something on the bottom of a glass tank. The right edge hitting at the right angle and the glass will crack says the glass blower!
There, is that enough posts?
:mrgreen:
beaslbob":h2r8x2zc said:
If macros are growing there's plenty of dissolved nutrients in the water column. The mulm is referred to as detritus in reef tanks and letting it lay on the bottom and decompose will contribute to more dissolved nutrients in the water column. These are not the conditions reefers interested in growing colorful stony corals are after...
ChrisRD":2czwyw0y said:
Just wanted to emphasis the point I made. Sure there nutrients in the water. And the plant life immediately consumes those nutrients. So that ammonia, nitrite, nitrates and phosphates always measure 0.0. So even though the decomposition is going on, the levels are 0.0.
If reefers do not want 0.0 levels of ammonia,nitrites, nitrAtes, and phosphate then what levels of those things do reefers want?
beaslbob":3f13d0la said:
Not necessarily - proximity, levels of nutrients, and number, kind and size of plants are factors.
It depends on how much decomp is going on.
You do not want 0 phosphate, corals need some to live. Also there are different kinds of phosphate that we can't/don't test for.
My 2c: if you really are after growing colorful SPS only it's likely that a BB is the way to go: just feed very little zooplankton and/or DT and you're OK.
If you want biodiversity then a sand bed helps a lot in closing some cycles that support and are supported by the biodiversity. The creatures that live in the sandbed and the macroalgae/seagrasses that get nutrients from the sandbed are part of those cycles.
I'm running a DSB myself and I'm as happy as a pod.
M.
If you want biodiversity then a sand bed helps a lot in closing some cycles that support and are supported by the biodiversity. The creatures that live in the sandbed and the macroalgae/seagrasses that get nutrients from the sandbed are part of those cycles.
I'm running a DSB myself and I'm as happy as a pod
.M.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
