Bare Bottom pros or cons?

scunfcu

New member
I will be settting up 75 gallon sps tank, plan on using two Koralia 3s. Been reading about bare bottom tanks. Any opinions and feedback?
 
I love my bare bottom tank. The Coraline algae has covered the bottom and looks great, plus 90% is covered with live rock anyway. I did supplement with a deep sand bed refugium.

I would never put in a sand bed again for a few reasons:

1. If you have an acrylic tank and use anything to scrape the sides the sand can get stuck in between and scratch the hell out of the tank. I have almost eliminated scratching by removing the sand.

2. When you first start a tank and are going though the fun cycle stages you WILL experience algae blooms. No fun on a 300 gallon tank full of live sand, not very manageable. You would need a ton of critters to turn the sand over enough.

3. A Deep sand bed looks great for about a year then, since In a true deep sand bed you don’t vacuum it, It starts to look “used” is the best way I can describe it.

4. More visible space for Rock and Reef.

5. Easier to clean: you can blow a power head at the bottom and stir up the stuff and siphon it off or let the overflow pick it up.

6. You don’t have to worry about sand getting into the corals. I hated when fish or other things would drop or blow sand onto the corals.

Hope that helps.
 
you can also point your powerheads however you like, and have no restrictions on how high of flow since there's no sand to consider.

a lot of people have tons of turnover rate but do so such that the sand doesn't move. that equates to dead spots on the sand! Better to go bare bottom and shoot as much flow as you want towards the dead spots. It won't turn into a nutrient sink either.
 
Re: Bare Bottom pros or cons?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11222901#post11222901 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scunfcu
I will be settting up 75 gallon sps tank, plan on using two Koralia 3s. Been reading about bare bottom tanks. Any opinions and feedback?

I'd run the K-4's a friend has a pair in a 55 with a SB and it doesn;t toss it too bad.
 
Also I run BB, but do have a remote DSB. I have to much turnover to even think of putting sand into the main.
 
I run BB here myself as well. I am totally pleased with it. I will add that I like the idea of a remote sand DSB you get all the benefits without all of the complexities and issues of having it in the main display tank.

If that sand bed is in the tank it is way easier for it to get full of junk from feeding all the fish you may have and will get deposited in the back where it will make detritus removal out of the rock work next to impossible.
 
i just setup a new tank, bare bottom, no deep sand bed anywhere.

2048952877_7b40e19eb9.jpg
 
I don't really like the looks of a barebottom tank. Very unnatural and a lot of junk tends to cake up on the bottom. That's personal preference though and really it only matters what you like.
The other thing that I think alot of people over look is that even a shallow sand bed is beneficial for housing all sorts of beneficial worms, bugs, and bacteria. I really think its a more complete mini eco system.
The health of our corals and fish should be our #1 priority IMO. Providing a more complete ecosystem with a sand bed somewhere in the system is a better idea IME, but it can be done either way.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224292#post11224292 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kinetic
i just setup a new tank, bare bottom, no deep sand bed anywhere.

2048952877_7b40e19eb9.jpg

Nice look and scape, have you a build thread?
 
I found this in an article by Sanjay Joshi.

On coral reefs, the upwelling irradiance is also increased by reflection from the “white” calcium carbonate substrate found on the reef floor. In fact, on coral reefs this upwelling irradiance may be a significant portion of the total irradiance (Dustan 1982). This upwelling light plays a critical role in allowing the growth of corals on the understory of the reefs. Thus, the addition of a white calcium carbonate substrate in a reef aquarium also helps in increasing the upwelling irradiance, while simultaneously increasing the biodiversity.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224351#post11224351 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hatfielj
I don't really like the looks of a barebottom tank. Very unnatural and a lot of junk tends to cake up on the bottom. That's personal preference though and really it only matters what you like.
The other thing that I think alot of people over look is that even a shallow sand bed is beneficial for housing all sorts of beneficial worms, bugs, and bacteria. I really think its a more complete mini eco system.
The health of our corals and fish should be our #1 priority IMO. Providing a more complete ecosystem with a sand bed somewhere in the system is a better idea IME, but it can be done either way.

You only have junk caking if you don't have correct flow. With enough flow or flow pointing in the right places, nothing ever makes it to the bottom.

If you have a shallow sand bed, and it exists without flow hitting it such that it moves, anything else like poop will collect and decay in the sand bed. If some critter shifts the sand over the top of poop, you have a nutrient trap. Bare bottom, all that poop flies around and gets into your skimmer eventually (hopefully your skimmer works well).

also, shallow sand beds *can* house worms, bugs, bacteria, but the majority will be housed in your live rock anyway. Your shallow sand bed is basically just another rock. So no, your short sand bed won't add anything your live rock won't already.

complete mini ecosystem, far from it, even with a short sand bed. =P Have you looked at the real ecosystem out there in the reefs?

You're right, the better the ecosystem, the better you'll be, but the sandbed provides nothing in terms of an ecosystem that your liverock and other existing components don't already. So a sand bed would not be a better idea for that reason.

A deep sand bed is good for mainly a way of natural nitrate reduction. A short sand bed is mainly only good for looks. Sure it may house a few worms and cerith snails, but they can easily live without it.
 
BB's very useful for growing SPS if you keep the water circulation and skimming up to snuff.
DSB's are most useful in a remote location. A DSB in the display aquarium would be my last choice for a SPS reef aquarium.
SSB's are fairly void of life- just ask Sanjay.
 
by Gary Majchrzak
SSB's are fairly void of life- just ask Sanjay.

Do you have any references that support this?

If I lived in a lab, I can see where going BB would make sense. Since my tank's in the living room, I think it's more attractive and presentable with a sand bed.

As far as function goes, neither one is more successful than the other.
 
DSB never more for me

I just take off all my sand...a lot of dirty...and my god, this thing stink

I hate a lot of particles flying around my tank,,,,now I can improve my flow and no sand anymore flying around

Now my water is more clear....I love it !!!

Taking the sand off :

tornadohu2.jpg


After :

cristallt5.jpg


Now I have to do again my layout

Regards
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11224433#post11224433 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kinetic

Bare bottom, all that poop flies around and gets into your skimmer eventually (hopefully your skimmer works well).

I wish such a simple theory could be true, but it really doesn't make any sense when you really think about it. In order for stuff to be taken out of the water by our skimmers it first has to have some degree of decay occur in order to release basic protein molecules into the water column. This doesn't just happen while floating around in the water. It happens from either settling on the live rock or live sand where bacteria and other microorganisms can initiate the decay process. SO, by taking away the sand bed you are essentially eliminating another area where all this breakdown can occur. Plus, the sand bed has a much larger surface area for bacteria and other microorganisms to live on/in than just a large pile of rocks.
Additionally, there's not just "a few worms and bugs" living in a shallow or deep sand bed, there's actually quite a large biomass of organisms living in the sandbed that you just don't realize are there. All of these organisms help to speed up the process of taking raw waste particles and turning into smaller molecules that can then be taken up by the skimmer, removed by carbon or phosban or further processed by smaller organisms (bacteria).
A sand bed of any depth most certainly does increase the amount of biodiversity in a tank and this is never a bad thing. A complete ecosystem, of course not, but closer to being complete than having no sandbed, yes.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11225696#post11225696 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hatfielj
I wish such a simple theory could be true, but it really doesn't make any sense when you really think about it. In order for stuff to be taken out of the water by our skimmers it first has to have some degree of decay occur in order to release basic protein molecules into the water column. This doesn't just happen while floating around in the water. It happens from either settling on the live rock or live sand where bacteria and other microorganisms can initiate the decay process.
For a SPS BB system you don't want any stuff (ie: food) to decay or settle out on the liverock or substrate.
With good circulation it only takes a few minutes for a good skimmer to start skimming out "stuff"- and it all happens while it's still in the water column.
 
Back
Top