I am planning on going bare bottom on the 180. Any pros, cons and suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Wayne
Thanks,
Wayne
waynesreef
61 - 80 of 155 Posts
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
Emphasis added.Kirbster said:
Mkes perfect sense, though in the past, some here have reacted very badly to anything that sounds too "scientific". Hmmm, when I've attempted to spell this out in the past, I've been the Big Bad Wolf. Maybe we're entering a kinder, gentler era of Reefkeeping discussions.
Many who, IMHO, seem to consider themselves as following in the footsteps of some of the more prominent "experts" in captive reefkeeping have very definitely argued that some export modes (skimmers especially) are harmful or at least not needed. Some have argued that even routine water changes might not be needed.
Without permanent export of some kind (harvest, skimming, water changes), ALL system inputs will tend to accumulate. DSBs aren't magic. Neither are tanks with HDPE (or ugly, ugly, Corian) on the bottom.
We're higher up on the food chain. It's not like we're a species that has evolved to eat other animals' waste. I mean there may be some nutrition there but we have too many better choices...Like fruits, vegetables, fish, whole grains, etc... But, you can go ahead and try it, I'd be totally interested 9not really) in hearing about your experience.tekknoschtev said:
Yeah, it's not a good thing to lay down that late at night when you have to be up in two hours. Your mind may tell your body it's time to get up but you body will disagree after getting relaxed.tekknoschtev said:
"Merg," What is this? I never saw that before. Sorry, I was deprived of a proper education...
I don't know who is trying to follow in the footsteps of any "expert" but I know I've said that skimmers aren't needed and said that there are skimmerless DSB systems out there that rarely recieve a water change or haven't in 12 years and they do fine. Skimmers can be harmful to certain organisms, aposymbiotic corals for instance. Skimmers are not a requirement of a healthy tank, you can have a healthy tank without one. They serve their purpose just like any form of filtration, like a DSB.scleractinian said:
The no water change thing is crazy to me but I've seen it work with only, biological filtration, algae harvest and element supplementation (no carbon or nothin'). I wouldn't do it but I've seen it work and it goes to show that some of us may not give enough credit to the filtering capacity of the life in our tanks.
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
Yeah, as Kirby points out, anybody that thinks they can add food infinitely without taking anything out of the tank is looney What sand beds/mud is good at doing is converting waste material that would otherwise have to be removed from the tank (e.g. piles of detritus building up on the bottom) into more useful forms (e.g. bacteria, veligers, etc. that feed suspension feeders). This does two things: 1. reduce the amount of material that has to be exported--without massive waterchanges this usually means a tank is easier to care for, for most people, and 2. feed all the suspension and deposit feeding animals in the tank foods that we can't provide any other way. One cannot buy a bottle of bacterioplankton that's decent quality, for instance, or a bottle of snail veligers.
By increasing the number of connections in a food web and increasing biodiversity creates more efficient uses of resources. This has actually been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, having higher biodiversity (say 10 worms and 10 snails instead of 1 of each species) promotes fuller usage of resources and thus we have to remove still less from the tank. Instead the material is either put into new tissues (growth), exported as a gas (e.g. CO2, N2, N2O, etc.), or sequestered geologically, which takes it out of circulation (P especially).
I've seen tanks work very well without skimmers. Skimmer aren't necessary for reef tanks, but they are a very good option for most people. The aquarium in Monaco runs dozens of amazing tanks with no nutrient export at all except a 25% a week water change. Their tanks couldn't be any better. I've seen the same from other aquarists too. A key to this success, however, is high biodiversity and patience. Their tanks are without livestock for the first 6 months. So, while skimmers definitely aren't required on every tank, or perhaps even most tanks, they're probably a good thing for many aquarists. I'd never suggest anything but a powerful skimmer to a beginner, for instance.
cj
What sand beds/mud is good at doing is converting waste material that would otherwise have to be removed from the tank (e.g. piles of detritus building up on the bottom) into more useful forms (e.g. bacteria, veligers, etc. that feed suspension feeders). This does two things: 1. reduce the amount of material that has to be exported--without massive waterchanges this usually means a tank is easier to care for, for most people, and 2. feed all the suspension and deposit feeding animals in the tank foods that we can't provide any other way. One cannot buy a bottle of bacterioplankton that's decent quality, for instance, or a bottle of snail veligers.By increasing the number of connections in a food web and increasing biodiversity creates more efficient uses of resources. This has actually been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, having higher biodiversity (say 10 worms and 10 snails instead of 1 of each species) promotes fuller usage of resources and thus we have to remove still less from the tank. Instead the material is either put into new tissues (growth), exported as a gas (e.g. CO2, N2, N2O, etc.), or sequestered geologically, which takes it out of circulation (P especially).
I've seen tanks work very well without skimmers. Skimmer aren't necessary for reef tanks, but they are a very good option for most people. The aquarium in Monaco runs dozens of amazing tanks with no nutrient export at all except a 25% a week water change. Their tanks couldn't be any better. I've seen the same from other aquarists too. A key to this success, however, is high biodiversity and patience. Their tanks are without livestock for the first 6 months. So, while skimmers definitely aren't required on every tank, or perhaps even most tanks, they're probably a good thing for many aquarists. I'd never suggest anything but a powerful skimmer to a beginner, for instance.
cj
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
Ha, wow, sorry about that guys. Wait, so are you telling me you don't all have at least an MS in invertebrate zoology?
I tried BB for a while and honestly it caused a few problems. Ph would always have wild swings when I was BB.
The main reason I disliked BB was the look of it. Made my tank look very dull and unnatural. When I added sand my tank lit up and I am much happier with the results. Tank looks twice as bright now.
With the SSB my Ph is much more stable and I like that the corals recive more light from the sand.
You could do what I do and replace the sand twice a year. I only have 30lbs of sand in my tank. The rocks are sitting on cutting board while the sand is only in the front.
I have made many changes to the tank since the last time you were over, Wayne.
The main reason I disliked BB was the look of it. Made my tank look very dull and unnatural. When I added sand my tank lit up and I am much happier with the results. Tank looks twice as bright now.
With the SSB my Ph is much more stable and I like that the corals recive more light from the sand.
You could do what I do and replace the sand twice a year. I only have 30lbs of sand in my tank. The rocks are sitting on cutting board while the sand is only in the front.
I have made many changes to the tank since the last time you were over, Wayne.
SUnny,
That is a great looking tank my friend. Explain further what you disliked about teh BB system. I think people who have tanks such as yours (no offense meant towards anyone else) have a little more elbow room when they have tried it both ways. I am interested to know what you liked and disliked and also would like to see pics of the system when it was BB vs SSB like now
That is a great looking tank my friend. Explain further what you disliked about teh BB system. I think people who have tanks such as yours (no offense meant towards anyone else) have a little more elbow room when they have tried it both ways. I am interested to know what you liked and disliked and also would like to see pics of the system when it was BB vs SSB like now
Thank you for the complement.Mike said:SUnny,
That is a great looking tank my friend. Explain further what you disliked about teh BB system. I think people who have tanks such as yours (no offense meant towards anyone else) have a little more elbow room when they have tried it both ways. I am interested to know what you liked and disliked and also would like to see pics of the system when it was BB vs SSB like now
I really don't see why so many people get so heated about the BB vs. Sand issue.
There should be no issue. It's all preference.
For me, it's all about looks. If I don't like the look of the tank I change it. BB to me, and my friends and family was ugly. It is not really natural to see a hermit crab skating along the bottom of the tank when it should be in a heap of sand. Not to mention my worms. They are the back bone of my tank. They eat anything and everything they can get to.
When I switched back to sand the tank was much more stable along with added growth to my SPS. You could see the new growth on the underside of the SPS, which was happening because of the reflected light coming up from the sand. My reflectors push light into the tank, the sand pushes it back up to the corals and the SPS are in-between capturing all the light.
I was amazed when I looked back at the TOTM over at Reefcentral. I don't think I even seen ONE TOTM that was BB-confused -confused .
I really don't understand the whole debate. Bomber came along and brainwashed many people.
People need to be focusing more on water quality, water motion, lighting, and husbandry instead of wasting time on something as insignificant as substrate.
To tell you the truth, a great reefer could make any system.
Personally, ill never leave sand again.
The water is directed so no sand is kicked up. To replace you simply use a hose and siphon it out.Mike said:thanks for the insight.
do you notice the sand shifting to much with you flow? and what method are you usng to remove the sand when you replace it?
I've always had DSB in the display but next time I tear down I may go with the SSB. Steve Weast uses the same theory on his 850, sand bed for looks, siphon it out and replace it occasionally.SunnyX said:
My current BB in the frag tank and DSB in the Fuge still works for me though.
As i have learned ssb's need to be replaced yearly, as i was going to but since switching tanks i holded off.
Wish i did.
I am going to try the grey coast sand by seachem. Sweet dark grey arag sand.
You should look at mustangs tank wayne the black makes colors pop.
Wish i did.
I am going to try the grey coast sand by seachem. Sweet dark grey arag sand.
You should look at mustangs tank wayne the black makes colors pop.
My current tank is my first main tank to have a DSB. I always placed my DSB's remotely in the past. Chris tried to tell me that I'd be better off using them in the main tank also but I didn't listen. The reason why I went with a DSB in the main tank this time is for filtration. Remote DSB's can filter also but it's better to have one in the main tank so you can get some decent filtration there. You know how you go to LFS's and look at corals in BB tanks and there is algae all around the corals? Or, people have a BB frag tank with algae around the corals? If there was a DSB there I don't think you'd see as much algae because the DSB will compete with the aglae. It's possible to not have an algae problem without a DSB so I'm not saying that algae will be a problem, but it may. What I'm trying to say is that if you take away a big filter (DSB) from your main tank then something else will do the filtering. Rock may be sufficient or herbivores may keep up with the algae or...whatever, it's different for every system but that's just something you may want to consider.jblabs said:
If I get rich and set up my big natural system that I want I might set up a remote BB tank with intense light and nothing in it but snails and nuisance algae. I've seen so many of these bare/empty tanks filled with algae that I seriously think they'd make a good algae refugium. Hey, I wouldn't have to buy sand for that refugium or worry about putting it above the main tank to get any "critters" to the main tank safely.
I might throw some chaeto in there too..yeah, that would work.61 - 80 of 155 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
