Bare bottom?
- Thread starter weezywe12
- Start date
I've had my 3" sandbed for over 3 years and its still bright white. How did it turn "muck"?
agsansoo
Premium Member
+1 on BB ! Went bare bottom over two years ago, never looked back !
Sand bed = septic tank !
BB is different than a sandbed because you are relying on immediate exportation instead of delayed. With BB detritus shouldn't settle and it can be removed via siphoning, skimmer, filter socks etc. A sandbed may be thought as a temporary holding area for the detritus until it is exported. The problems begin when the holding area backs up ! Like mention above, if the sand bed isn't deep enough the nutrients will reach higher concentrations.
Sand bed = septic tank !
BB is different than a sandbed because you are relying on immediate exportation instead of delayed. With BB detritus shouldn't settle and it can be removed via siphoning, skimmer, filter socks etc. A sandbed may be thought as a temporary holding area for the detritus until it is exported. The problems begin when the holding area backs up ! Like mention above, if the sand bed isn't deep enough the nutrients will reach higher concentrations.
Hi All,
There were several comments made above that I must take exception to:
1 “Any sand works” Sand particle size is of paramount importance. A functioning DSB is all about particle size and it ability to host the appropriate sand bed fauna that keeps it from becoming the aforementioned “Septic Tank” Lots of people have implemented improperly set up DSB and gotten the exact outcome that those who decry DSBs talk about.
2 The aragonite vs. silica sand is more an issue of abrasiveness than particle size. Silica sand based DSB are less critter friendly because of its abrasiveness.
So bottom-line, a successful DSB must be setup, seeded with fauna and “fed” correctly to succeed. If you are not willing to do the research, and spend the time & $ to set it up correctly, your probably are better off avoiding them altogether.
The acknowledged SMEs on this subject are Dr. Ron Shimek and Dr. Bob Toonen and a Google of their name will get you to their Web sites where they have detailed articles.
Regards,
Scott
There were several comments made above that I must take exception to:
1 “Any sand works” Sand particle size is of paramount importance. A functioning DSB is all about particle size and it ability to host the appropriate sand bed fauna that keeps it from becoming the aforementioned “Septic Tank” Lots of people have implemented improperly set up DSB and gotten the exact outcome that those who decry DSBs talk about.
2 The aragonite vs. silica sand is more an issue of abrasiveness than particle size. Silica sand based DSB are less critter friendly because of its abrasiveness.
So bottom-line, a successful DSB must be setup, seeded with fauna and “fed” correctly to succeed. If you are not willing to do the research, and spend the time & $ to set it up correctly, your probably are better off avoiding them altogether.
The acknowledged SMEs on this subject are Dr. Ron Shimek and Dr. Bob Toonen and a Google of their name will get you to their Web sites where they have detailed articles.
Regards,
Scott
Last edited:
Sohal Tang Tim
Member
incredible article on sand beds
incredible article on sand beds
check this out.....incredible article
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/rs/feature/index.php
Tim
incredible article on sand beds
check this out.....incredible article
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/rs/feature/index.php
Tim
Sohal Tang Tim
Member
and here is one more to check out
and here is one more to check out
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/rs/feature/index.php
between those two articles not much more one needs to know about sand beds......good luck.
Tim
and here is one more to check out
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/rs/feature/index.php
between those two articles not much more one needs to know about sand beds......good luck.
Tim
Big E
Premium Member
I don't want to side track the original OP question...........I assume you're going to carry I high bioload that won't starve your algae? Why the mud & what exactly is this mud made of?
Scott, it's good to see you around posting again. I always enjoyed your input.......those were the good old days where some great discussions evolved with some very solid people.
You should make a new thread about your export system preference...........could make for an interesting discussion.
Big E.
Good to see you on the board as well.
The board was fun back then, lots of "œold salts" that had lots of years under their belts.
I miss having Guys like Dr. Ron as moderator and guys like Rob Toonen as regular contributors. In some ways the reef boards are victims of their own success. The "œFinding Nemo" generation burnt out the guys that knew what they were doing. They got tired of trying to coach the ones that thought they had it all figured out after a couple of months in the hobby. The other newbie's that actually wanted to learn were confused by the noise. The moderators had to relinquish the style of moderation where they actually offered guidance and be satisfied with simply keeping WWIII from breaking out.
(Sorry, I am sounding like an old codger)
Anyhow, back to the mud.
All I will say about the mud is that it was of a particle size that seemed very conducive to a large fauna population. It also seems to contain some iron which the macroalgae appreciated. Would some very fine aragonite work about the same? (Very possibly) The pod population in the sump/Algae filter was huge. The mud had the particle consistency that was almost silt. I guess an EcoSystem filter is analogous to the way that an estuary and reef environment are often symbiotic.
My comment about the skimmer competing with the macro algae filter was just that with a small "œfish" (Higher order critters) and associated low food input, it was possible to "œstarve out" the macoalgae. My systems seemed to do at least as well sans the skimmer. (And the "œbalancing act" took lots less "œfiddling")
Regards,
Scott
Good to see you on the board as well.
The board was fun back then, lots of "œold salts" that had lots of years under their belts.
I miss having Guys like Dr. Ron as moderator and guys like Rob Toonen as regular contributors. In some ways the reef boards are victims of their own success. The "œFinding Nemo" generation burnt out the guys that knew what they were doing. They got tired of trying to coach the ones that thought they had it all figured out after a couple of months in the hobby. The other newbie's that actually wanted to learn were confused by the noise. The moderators had to relinquish the style of moderation where they actually offered guidance and be satisfied with simply keeping WWIII from breaking out.
(Sorry, I am sounding like an old codger)Anyhow, back to the mud.
All I will say about the mud is that it was of a particle size that seemed very conducive to a large fauna population. It also seems to contain some iron which the macroalgae appreciated. Would some very fine aragonite work about the same? (Very possibly) The pod population in the sump/Algae filter was huge. The mud had the particle consistency that was almost silt. I guess an EcoSystem filter is analogous to the way that an estuary and reef environment are often symbiotic.
My comment about the skimmer competing with the macro algae filter was just that with a small "œfish" (Higher order critters) and associated low food input, it was possible to "œstarve out" the macoalgae. My systems seemed to do at least as well sans the skimmer. (And the "œbalancing act" took lots less "œfiddling")
Regards,
Scott
from various sources, to avoid the worst of both worlds, a sand bed should be less than 1 inch, or more than three. . ..
ldballoon4
New member
BB for me too. Flow is unrestricted, coralline will grow eventually at the tanks base.
elegance coral
They call me EC
I have to take exception to some of these comments. I keep BB and DSB systems so I'm not on either side of the fence. There are however rules of nature that can't be broken simply because we coin a phrase like "Deep Sand Bed". There is nothing magical taking place in a DSB. If you fallow Dr. Shimek's methods, the sand bed will become a "septic tank". There's no real way around it. His method is equivalent to a septic tank for your reef. Sand bed fauna never have, never will, and don't in nature, keep sand beds clean. What they do is turn solid organic particles into fertilizer. That's their job. Just as the organisms in a septic tank turn waste into fertilizer. If you look in a yard that has a septic tank, it's usually pretty easy to see where the drain field is. It will be the area of the yard with the tallest and greenest grass. If you add more organisms to a septic tank, it doesn't short circuit this process. It simply speeds up the time it takes to convert solid particles into fertilizer. At least on a temporary basis. Sand bed fauna perform the same task. They take harmless particles like fish poo, fish food, and dead organisms, and break them down releasing the phosphates, and nitrogenous compounds they contain. These substances are detrimental to organisms like stony corals and coraline algae. This is why, if you look at Dr. Shimek's pic's of his DSB on his site, you will see very little coraline algae growth (if any), and what was once white calcium carbonate, stained dark with decomposition and microalgae. This is not an environment that is friendly to organisms that rely on calcification. If you allow organic matter to accumulate in a DSB, it doesn't matter how may organisms you dump into it. The end result will always be the release of substances like phosphate that inhibit stony coral growth and health. If this were not true, life on this planet, as we know it, would not exist.
elegance coral
They call me EC
I couldn't edit my post, but I wanted to make another point, so here's a new post.:rolleye1:
The only real difference between a septic tank for your house and Dr. Shimek's septic tank, is that the one for your house actually removes these harmful substances from the environment where we live, and Shimek's keeps these substances in the same environment with the delicate life we are trying to keep. This would be like having a sand box in the corner of your living room where all the family relieved themselves, all the uneaten food was placed, and expecting a bunch of fishing worms to keep it clean. It simply would not work. Eventually people in the house would become ill, and we could no longer live in it.
The only real difference between a septic tank for your house and Dr. Shimek's septic tank, is that the one for your house actually removes these harmful substances from the environment where we live, and Shimek's keeps these substances in the same environment with the delicate life we are trying to keep. This would be like having a sand box in the corner of your living room where all the family relieved themselves, all the uneaten food was placed, and expecting a bunch of fishing worms to keep it clean. It simply would not work. Eventually people in the house would become ill, and we could no longer live in it.
SIR PATRICK
New member
BB guy here, but looking into having a ssb in the sump for bacterial reasons- going pro-biotic, and think it will help.
I like agsansoo's responce- If you are going to have a ssb- maintain it (vacume) on a regular basis.
If you are going to use a dsb, maintain that too. Remove/replace sections, very carfully, at a time, and make sure they arent disturbed in between cleanings/replacement.
If you are going to go bare bottom- research it well, and do it right. There are concequences to not doing things the right way here too.
Pretty much all boils down to which way you plan on skinning your cat. There are pros and cons to each way you go. Its up to you to figure out which path you decide to travel, and do whats necesary to suceed w/ that plan.
I like agsansoo's responce- If you are going to have a ssb- maintain it (vacume) on a regular basis.
If you are going to use a dsb, maintain that too. Remove/replace sections, very carfully, at a time, and make sure they arent disturbed in between cleanings/replacement.
If you are going to go bare bottom- research it well, and do it right. There are concequences to not doing things the right way here too.
Pretty much all boils down to which way you plan on skinning your cat. There are pros and cons to each way you go. Its up to you to figure out which path you decide to travel, and do whats necesary to suceed w/ that plan.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Why "remove/replace sections"? Why can't we disturb the sand? Wouldn't it be easier to just keep the sand clean from day one, so we don't need to worry about removing/replacing sections, or having noxious substances form within the sand?
agsansoo
Premium Member
I agree with elegance coral. But I'm in the "to dumb to run a DSB club" LOL.
If you are going to go bare bottom- Cook your live rock, siphon any detritus that builds up in your DT or sump.
One more thing on DSB's:
Marine sediments do not shed particulate bacterial detritus until they are full. What you are counting on in marine sediments is a large aerobic (top oxygenated) area supported by a smaller more efficient anaerobic area (bottom low oxygen) separated by a anoxic area (middle that leaks a lot). There is no way for a hobbyist to know what shape that DSB is in until they see hair algae and coral animal problems.
If you are going to go bare bottom- Cook your live rock, siphon any detritus that builds up in your DT or sump.
One more thing on DSB's:
Marine sediments do not shed particulate bacterial detritus until they are full. What you are counting on in marine sediments is a large aerobic (top oxygenated) area supported by a smaller more efficient anaerobic area (bottom low oxygen) separated by a anoxic area (middle that leaks a lot). There is no way for a hobbyist to know what shape that DSB is in until they see hair algae and coral animal problems.
SIR PATRICK
New member
Kinda late, but gonna give it a shot explaining this-
why dont we disturb a dsb- Disturbing a dsb will disturb the whole biological purposeof a dsb. A dsb has layers. As nutrients work their way to the bottom layers, they get broken down. The denitrification happens deep enough for the bacterias (that have lowest oxygen and light) to grow. Disturbing a sand bed will also realease nutrients, that are working their way to the denitrifying bacterias, into the water column, causing spikes, particularly nitrate (somtimes from close to zero to upwards of 50-100ppm in a few hours) depanding on the age of your sand bed/tank maintanance.
Removing/replacing sections of sand (but not all at once, and not while the tank is full of water) will make sure your sand bed doesnt become saturated (beyond carrying capacity) with bacteria/excess nutrients which will cause much larger issues if the sand bed is disturbed- it happens somtimes...to me- more times than I would like to admit. As long as you are practicing sand bed husbandry, there is no need to worry much about the sand bed over saturating w/ nutrients, and will continue to perform the way they were meant for a long time to come.
Keeping the dsb clean from day one- I dont see how that is possible w/o disturbing the layers necessary for a functional dsb. Cleaning the sand would cause oxygen to get to the deeper layers of the dsb that need to be without. A ssb is another story- they need to be vacumed, on a regular basis (much like a bb tank needs siphoned) or else the nutrients work their way into the sand and get trapped, with no denitrifacation bacteria zones due to depth (light and oxygen).
The process of keeping a dsb clean, and the possibility, because of human and mostly mechanical error (like a powerhead faling, blowwing the dsb to the glass over night) and the maintanance (vacuming) of a ssb are the main reason I have chosen to go with bare bottom tanks- along with the banefites of flow.
But as stated before- with reasearch and tank husbandry- all 3 can work out great, just depends on the needs and husbandry processes of each particular reefer and their tanks. I have run all 3 sucessfully, just the right precautions/maintanance should be researched to keep them functioning.
Each choice comes with its own pros and cons- just gotta figure out which works best for you and go with it properly.
why dont we disturb a dsb- Disturbing a dsb will disturb the whole biological purposeof a dsb. A dsb has layers. As nutrients work their way to the bottom layers, they get broken down. The denitrification happens deep enough for the bacterias (that have lowest oxygen and light) to grow. Disturbing a sand bed will also realease nutrients, that are working their way to the denitrifying bacterias, into the water column, causing spikes, particularly nitrate (somtimes from close to zero to upwards of 50-100ppm in a few hours) depanding on the age of your sand bed/tank maintanance.
Removing/replacing sections of sand (but not all at once, and not while the tank is full of water) will make sure your sand bed doesnt become saturated (beyond carrying capacity) with bacteria/excess nutrients which will cause much larger issues if the sand bed is disturbed- it happens somtimes...to me- more times than I would like to admit. As long as you are practicing sand bed husbandry, there is no need to worry much about the sand bed over saturating w/ nutrients, and will continue to perform the way they were meant for a long time to come.
Keeping the dsb clean from day one- I dont see how that is possible w/o disturbing the layers necessary for a functional dsb. Cleaning the sand would cause oxygen to get to the deeper layers of the dsb that need to be without. A ssb is another story- they need to be vacumed, on a regular basis (much like a bb tank needs siphoned) or else the nutrients work their way into the sand and get trapped, with no denitrifacation bacteria zones due to depth (light and oxygen).
The process of keeping a dsb clean, and the possibility, because of human and mostly mechanical error (like a powerhead faling, blowwing the dsb to the glass over night) and the maintanance (vacuming) of a ssb are the main reason I have chosen to go with bare bottom tanks- along with the banefites of flow.
But as stated before- with reasearch and tank husbandry- all 3 can work out great, just depends on the needs and husbandry processes of each particular reefer and their tanks. I have run all 3 sucessfully, just the right precautions/maintanance should be researched to keep them functioning.
Each choice comes with its own pros and cons- just gotta figure out which works best for you and go with it properly.
