470g inwall construction thread

[GSchiemer]

For those who care to have more meaningful dialogue:

Bare-bottom reef aquariums are nothing new. That was the only way we kept reef aquariums here in the USA during the 1980's and early 90's. They fell out of favor in place of a shallow layer of natural coral sand. Julian Sprung pioneered this methodology because it provided a more natural look, aided in biological filtration, added diveristy to the reef aquarium, was required by certain fish, and it reflected light. We've done a complete 360 with the current trend back to BB reefs.

I've kept BB reef tanks for many years; there's no question that they work. I just prefer a sand substrate for the reasons I outlined above. I couldn't dream of giving up my sand-dwelling wrasses, cucumbers, pistol shrimp & gobies, etc.

Greg

 

[bussboy]

hey curt how much did that cost
tank?
lights ?
skimmer?
pumps?
room?
rock?
water?
salt?

 

[mikeo1210]

People didn't keep the species of acropora like we're able to today. One of the reasons is the trend towards making circulation more like a natural reef. Large closed loops and mass water movement. If you've ever been diving on a reef you'd know what I mean. Sand doesn't just sit stagnate (and collect detritus like it does in our tanks) it's constantly being sifted and blown around.

If you've kept BB tanks half your life you'd know the idea is to keep detritus in suspension so it can be exported before it becomes organic sediment. This can't be accomplished w/ a sand bed.

Sorry for hijacking this thread. This has been discussed to exhaustion elsewhere on RC. The search button at the top of the page is useful in finding those threads where one could discuss it or research it further.

 

[GSchiemer]

People didn't keep the species of acropora like we're able to today. One of the reasons is the trend towards making circulation more like a natural reef. Large closed loops and mass water movement. If you've ever been diving on a reef you'd know what I mean. Sand doesn't just sit stagnate (and collect detritus like it does in our tanks) it's constantly being sifted and blown around.

If you've kept BB tanks half your life you'd know the idea is to keep detritus in suspension so it can be exported before it becomes organic sediment. This can't be accomplished w/ a sand bed.

Sorry for hijacking this thread. This has been discussed to exhaustion elsewhere on RC. The search button at the top of the page is useful in finding those threads where one could discuss it or research it further.

I, as well as many other successful reef aquarists, have kept Acropora species in both BB and sand-bottomed reef aquariums. They both work. I prefer the more natural processes associated with sand substrates. The idea with sand is to process the detritus naturally with the help of cucumbers, sea stars, gammarid shrimp, polychaete worms, etc. We tried the sterile approach to reef-keeping and it's more work and less interesting.

BTW, when I talk about a sand substrate, I'm not referring to a sugar-fine DSB. I mean 2-3 inches of 1-2 mm sized reef sand. You certainly don't need a BB to keep any species of Acropora. In fact, in all my years of diving I don't recall seeing Acropora corals on a reef with a Starboard substrate.

Greg

 

[elephen]

Nice work on the tank, keep it up.

 

[lugi]

I think Curts reason for going bb was because he has not had any luck with a deep sand bed. I helped tear down his old tank and when we pulled out his sand only one side stunk really bad the other side smelled ok? Anyway I think the other reason he decided to go bb was to **** his friend Bryan off (who has about a 16 inch deep sandbed) and also I really think he likes being verbally abused. So after his friend Bryan finally let up on the abuse he came here for any kind humiliation he could muster up! (good work Curt) So everyone pitch in and PM curt with a big "STUPID" I know he would really appreciate it. Also Greg after moments of research I found an article that might help you get a grasp on the issue at hand link


Randy

 

[GSchiemer]

Nice work on the tank, keep it up.

 

[GSchiemer]

I think Curts reason for going bb was because he has not had any luck with a deep sand bed. I helped tear down his old tank and when we pulled out his sand only one side stunk really bad the other side smelled ok? Anyway I think the other reason he decided to go bb was to **** his friend Bryan off (who has about a 16 inch deep sandbed) and also I really think he likes being verbally abused. So after his friend Bryan finally let up on the abuse he came here for any kind humiliation he could muster up! (good work Curt) So everyone pitch in and PM curt with a big "STUPID" I know he would really appreciate it. Also Greg after moments of research I found an article that might help you get a grasp on the issue at hand link


Randy

I think "dgasmd's" tag line sums it up well:

Arguing with ignorant people is an exercise in futility. They will bring you down to their level and once there they will beat you with their overwhelming experience.

 

[spshead]

i wonder when curthendrix can have his thread back about his tank. i would like to see an update.

 

[dgasmd]

You know, I was just about to unsubscribe to the thread, but it is way too much fun LOL....................

 

[lugi]

I think "dgasmd's" tag line sums it up well:

Arguing with ignorant people is an exercise in futility. They will bring you down to their level and once there they will beat you with their overwhelming experience.

I was never meaning to imply that anyone was ignorant sorry.:love1:

 

[curthendrix]

BTW, when I talk about a sand substrate, I'm not referring to a sugar-fine DSB. I mean 2-3 inches of 1-2 mm sized reef sand

Isn't 2-3" of 1-2mm sized reef sand the worst of both worlds. How does 2-3 inches of sand accomplish the denitrification (sp?) process long-term. Don't you need a good 5 to 6 inches of sand to accomplish this. I had a 2 to 3 inch substrate of 1-2mm sized reef sand which worked great for 2 yrs. Unfortunately, my tank began to deteriorate after the 2nd yr.......a deterioration which I greatly attribute to my shallow sb. I can't recall any so-called experts advocating a shallow sb w/ the larger size sand.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[kimoyo]

GSchiemer and dgasmd,

You guys might have some valid points but I see no reason to argue and attack Curthendrix in his own thread. Just say your comments in a post and then make another thread to argue about it.

I've never seen GSchiemer's tank but Dgasmd I thought that huge wall of rock in your tank sucked. But I didn't comment in your thread because I wanted to be respectful of the work you put in. And I'm sure I could find something I don't like about GSchiemer's tank. But you guys seem like you are trying to beat Curthendrix into submission and have him change his tank in his own thread. He put a lot of effort into his tank, so point out what you want but leave it be. I'm surprised a mod hasn't said anything yet.

Personally, I'm not subcribed to this thread to see a Sandbed vs. Barebottom thread (and I'm already subcribed to a few) for two pages! I'm subscribed to Curthendrix's tank thread and I think you guys need to understand that.

 

[GSchiemer]

1-2 mm is not large-grained sand; it's natural-sized reef sand. A 2-3 inch sand bed has been the staple in the reef hobby since 1993 and a defacto part of the Berlin system. You DON"T need a DSB to accomplish denitrification. The majority of all biological activity takes place in the first two inches of any sand bed.

I suggest reading Toonen's two-part article on sand beds in the June and July issues of Advanced Aquarist Online AAO

 

[spshead]

Isn't 2-3" of 1-2mm sized reef sand the worst of both worlds. How does 2-3 inches of sand accomplish the denitrification (sp?) process long-term. Don't you need a good 5 to 6 inches of sand to accomplish this. I had a 2 to 3 inch substrate of 1-2mm sized reef sand which worked great for 2 yrs. Unfortunately, my tank began to deteriorate after the 2nd yr.......a deterioration which I greatly attribute to my shallow sb. I can't recall any so-called experts advocating a shallow sb w/ the larger size sand.

Are we having fun yet?

dont stir the pot. They made there point and feel important. let it be.

most of us are watching this thread in order to see the updates on your tank. thats because most of us would love to have a setup like that. i am happy and content with my current setup but i enjoy watching the threads with the "extreme setups". so once again let it go and o back to what this thread was about. if you go back a couple of pages this thread had a completely different tone. now it has just turned into an argument. That takes the fun away to a certain degree.

now back to the show

 

[spshead]

1-2 mm is not large-grained sand; it's natural-sized reef sand. A 2-3 inch sand bed has been the staple in the reef hobby since 1993 and a defacto part of the Berlin system. You DON"T need a DSB to accomplish denitrification. The majority of all biological activity takes place in the first two inches of any sand bed.

I suggest reading Toonen's two-part article on sand beds in the June and July issues of Advanced Aquarist Online AAO

this was posted before i finished mine. this is a correct statement but lets go back to the nice tank syndrome.

 

[kimoyo]

You're not looking through the bottom, so who cares if it scratches. You don't see scratches inside the aquarium anyway. And if you wanted a white bottom, which I personally think is hideous, you could have painted the bottom white.

I don't mean to pick on you, it's just that I find this whole "Starboard" thing ridiculous. It's just today's fad.

Why is putting starboard down so horrible? Is there a negative other than you saying its pointless. I don't want to scratch the bottom of my expensive acrylic tank either. Do you know how easy acrylic scratch with rock? I'm thinking about putting sand in but I'm leaving the starboard down to protect the acrylic regardless (and not because I'm worried about it breaking).

 

[kimoyo]

As far as a BH leaking....if the BH couldn't be fixed you would obviously have to drain your water down to the BH into a tub, replace the bulkhead, and pump the water back into the tank. The sps should be fine out of the water for a short peroid of time and you could either leave the fish in the remaining water or remove them as the water drains. I have a friend that does 100% water changes twice a yr by completely draining his tank then re-filling it with fresh saltwater....its really not as big of hassle as your making it if you have a good pump and a couple 150g tubs.

Curthendrix,

Zephrant has a nice thread about how he made an acrylic box and place it up against the wall of the tank and removed a bulkhead without draining the tank. In case it does leak. But people should avoid drilling bulkheads too low for the reasons people said previously. That said, I wouldn't worry about it now that you did it. If you need to change the ball valve, put a cap on the inside of the bulkhead or a 90 with pipe leading to the surface. And remember to turn the ball valve several times a month so they don't get stuck.
Paul

 

[dgasmd]

I've never seen GSchiemer's tank but Dgasmd I thought that huge wall of rock in your tank sucked. But I didn't comment in your thread because I wanted to be respectful of the work you put in. And I'm sure I could find something I don't like about GSchiemer's tank. But you guys seem like you are trying to beat Curthendrix into submission and have him change his tank in his own thread. He put a lot of effort into his tank, so point out what you want but leave it be. I'm surprised a mod hasn't said anything yet.

I will actually take offense to this. Maybe you have a learning disability or interpret too much out of what you read, but if you go back up and re-read my post you will see no attack to him or his set up. I think I was quite respectful and polite, so don't put words in my mouth. Did I agree with gschiemer about what he pointed out regarding the plumbing and such? Yes and I still do. I also mentioned about being guilty of doing the same myself. SO, how could I "beat anyone into submission" for the very same thing I did? There isn't a tank built or set up yet that is free of potential problems. However, I do appreciate others pointing out things I may have not seen myself. I guess am very guilty of assuming everyone else is also wanting to hear that.

Did you not read this?
Again, it is your tank and a nice one. Enjoy it. I hope you get lots of trouble free years out of it.

I've never seen GSchiemer's tank but Dgasmd I thought that huge wall of rock in your tank sucked. But I didn't comment in your thread because I wanted to be respectful of the work you put in.

Funny you mentioned that. I heard the same from a few people and took no offense to it. I believe LR serves only 2 purposes in a tank: to support biological filtration and to serve as a shelf for the corals sitting above it. My goal is not to have to see LR, but the corals above it. I built the tank with the vision of 2 years down the road when the corals are fully grown. Look at the first page in this thread and see the picture curthendrix postedof hid current tank. Anyone see that picture and they can't tell what the hck of a structure is under it. And just to show that different peole like different things. I think those people that do all those elaborate rock formations are nothing but ridiculous. They end up killing 70%+ of the potential places to put corals in. To me it is about the corals, but to a lot of people it is about everything else. That is nothing to be offended over.

Do I need to say it again? Yes, curthendrix has a nice tank and I hope he enjoys it regardless of the criticism (good or bad).

 

[dgasmd]

curthendrix:

How much lower is the room behind the tank than the room in front of the tank?

Also, what kind of RO unit is that? Can you tell us how is it different from the average RO/DI units seen at most online outfits?