bare bottom vs sandbed

[Teenreefer15]

Im thinking about starting a new 20 gallon reef and am wondering wether I should add a sandbed or not. I recently saw this beautiful display tank at my supplier and he had it bare bottom. He told me that all a sandbed is, is a trap for nitrates. I know a sandbed does have some biological properties and your nass snails like it but what do you think? Im inclined to go bare bottom. Will this be a good idea?

 

[toothybugs]

For high-flow, low-nutrient tanks, barebottom is great. You'll need a good skimmer to pick off the crud. The biggest issue people have is the look, but you like it so you're ahead.

 

[gbru316]

20 gallon high, no sandbed, no regrets.

50 to 80x turnover keeps all detritus in a nice, neat pile in a corner that gets siphoned out during water change every week.

 

[peasofme]

bare bottom is more maintenance. a lot of fish/animals like or require sand.

 

[gbru316]

bare bottom is more maintenance.

That's news to me. I spend far less time maintaining my barebottom than I did when I had sand.

 

[igadget56]

bare bottom is more maintenance. a lot of fish/animals like or require sand.

lol

 

[ca1ore]

More of an aesthetic choice than anything else IMO. I've kept both, prefer sand, and have found very little difference in consequential water quality. Sand can act as a nitrate sink, but it can also function as a nitrate reducer. All depends upon implementation and husbandry. If you intend to keep animals that require sand then you're going to need sand, otherwise go for whichever approach most appeals to you.

 

[Teenreefer15]

More of an aesthetic choice than anything else IMO. I've kept both, prefer sand, and have found very little difference in consequential water quality. Sand can act as a nitrate sink, but it can also function as a nitrate reducer. All depends upon implementation and husbandry. If you intend to keep animals that require sand then you're going to need sand, otherwise go for whichever approach most appeals to you.

alright, well I didn't think about keeping fish that require a sandbed so maybe I should go with that option. Thank you all for your input though.

 

[ca1ore]

That's news to me. I spend far less time maintaining my barebottom than I did when I had sand.

Really depends. I'd actually concur that when I ran BB it was more maintenance than a sand bed. If you are OCD about vacuuming the sand, then maybe not. But I never vacuum mine, preferring to rely on high flow and sand dwelling animals to keep things clean. A dirty BB used to make me crazy, so fed my particular OCD.

 

[Teenreefer15]

Really depends. I'd actually concur that when I ran BB it was more maintenance than a sand bed. If you are OCD about vacuuming the sand, then maybe not. But I never vacuum mine, preferring to rely on high flow and sand dwelling animals to keep things clean. A dirty BB used to make me crazy, so fed my particular OCD.

haha

 

[lhm nole]

I run bare bottom and with proper flow and cuc it stays very clean now all you see is coraline .. Negative is some of the wrasses I cant have

 

[whosurcaddie]

Really depends. I'd actually concur that when I ran BB it was more maintenance than a sand bed. If you are OCD about vacuuming the sand, then maybe not. But I never vacuum mine, preferring to rely on high flow and sand dwelling animals to keep things clean. A dirty BB used to make me crazy, so fed my particular OCD.

+1 I also ran a bare bottom a while back. It is more maintenance. There was always little clumps of poop piling up that I constantly had to siphon and that was with over 80x turnover. I never really saw a difference in water quality and sand just looks nicer to me.

 

[Teenreefer15]

+1 I also ran a bare bottom a while back. It is more maintenance. There was always little clumps of poop piling up that I constantly had to siphon and that was with over 80x turnover. I never really saw a difference in water quality and sand just looks nicer to me.

yeah I see how you could say its high maintenance but the people who see it as low maintenance is because all you have to do is siphon out the poop. With a sandbed technically you don't have to do anything so thats why you would say its high maintenance.

 

[Teenreefer15]

I run bare bottom and with proper flow and cuc it stays very clean now all you see is coraline .. Negative is some of the wrasses I cant have

yeah, the wrasses are a downside to having bare bottoms but all you have to do is siphon out the poop until you get a CUC.

 

[StevieK]

I run bare bottom and with proper flow and cuc it stays very clean now all you see is coraline .. Negative is some of the wrasses I cant have

some? My new tank setup is BB and was wondering if there are any wrasses I can have?

 

[cloak]

In my experience, a SSB is just to damn easy to keep clean. I couldn't imagine NOT having any sand in a tank at this point. (frag tank aside)

 

[JoelA7]

I have sand. Mix of superfine and other sizes up to 3-4mm. 1-4" deep after the mp40s pushed it around. Lots of snails, couple hermit crabs two peppermint shrimp. Looks really natural to me and I have never had to touch it. The QT otoh is bare bottom and to my eye butt ugly.

 

[mntnbighker]

I started my 75 mixed reef with #4 bulk dry aragonite from the LFS. I have had cyano and hair algae issues like crazy in the past 2 years since startup. I recently removed most of my substrate and added both an lawnmower blenny and a huge sea hare. My pH has been on the rise and I'm finally growing chaeto in my sump. I attribute this mostly to the sea hare eating gobs of algae from the DT and making tons of poop that is ending up in the skimmer and sump. The bottom line is that the SSB had huge amounts of crud in it, and that was doing a much better job of growing algae in my DT than in my sump. I prefer to have a SSB, but not at the expense of all that nuisance algae. I suspect that if I had a coral only DT (or no tomini tang) it might be a lot easier to make a SSB work. I think there are many factors involved, not the least of which is water volume to sand bed volume ratio. I am seriously considering going back to a SSB, but only after I reduce the number of fish in my tank as much as possible. I don't have a huge number of fish as it is, but I may only keep the tang, one wrasse, canary blenny, basslet, firefish and lawnmower. All but the tang are quite small fish, and I won't lose the tang because it happens to be the centerpiece of the tank. I have just tonight noticed a large calcium drop, which I believe is because for the first time in a while I finally have some coral growth again. I have increased my calcium dosing to supplement my calcium reactor without driving the pH back down. I'm really hoping to avoid taking any steps other than Alk dosing to keep the pH up. One thing removing the sand bed can do is reduce pH stability it seems. Mine hovers right around 8 now and it has been a balancing act to keep it high enough with a calcium reactor.

 

[SGT_York]

The key for a successful bare bottom tank is high flow, it's a pain without it. That said if you are looking for a fish intense or softie tank sand is a better option, if you are looking for SPS dominant Bare Bottom can't be beat. Sand or crushed coral just can't handle the flow it always piled up and I'd get a partial BB/DSB tank that just looked horrible.

Now I've got a faux sandbed with 2 part epoxy and it looks great.

 

[Stackemdeep]

My Melanurus and Yellow Coris wrasses are my primary means of natural pest control so I am happy to provide them sand. Don't have much left though after a cyano battle. I need to learn about adding sand without causing a problem but don't want to derail OP's thread. Send me a pm if you have some good advice. Thx.