Deep sand beds?

[E.intheC]

I'm slowly working my way down to a bare bottom from a DSB. Having emptied DSBs twice in my life, I can tell you that after a while they are straight up MUD. I can't say if it is a good thing or a bad thing, but once you see whats at the bottom of the sand bed you might think twice about building one.

I agree with this. After switching tanks or removing the sand bed, the stuff that comes out is horrible. Lol it's some of the worst smelling, gag inducing awfulness I've seen. It's enough to make me want to go barebottom.

 

[beastium]

Maybe the stuff happening in mud layers is best only if left forever alone in sump as it is in the ocean, where its permanent In which case it is ideal.

but for the purpose of a tank i guess you'd be able to skip a chain of reactions that happens in the ocean - since we have methods of keeping nutrients down in place of factors in nature.

How about this: would you ever go barebottom in both DT and refugium?

 

[homegrowncichlid]

Good question, what would I do if I was to do it all over again.

1. DSBs works well under light bioloads, and can support limited stony coral growth (with no restrictions on soft coral and anemone growth).
2. DSBs provide plenty of area for macro algae growth to help soak up nutrients and can provide a really well established refugium.
3. I think for my 3 foot 65 gallon tank to be solely supported by a DSB, I would need the surface area of a 6 foot 125gallon tank.
4. If I had the space for all this, a DSB would probably be the lowest maintenace method availble, however since I live in an apartment (with limited space), I'd opt for a higher maintenace method, utilizing carbon dosing, and mineral supliments. Refugium optional.

 

[MikeC]

How about this: would you ever go barebottom in both DT and refugium?

Yes if I was trying to remove as much phosphates from the systum.
Wether it is in the sump or the DT it's the same thing.

I prefer to not save poo to feed chato but that's just me.