BB SPS tanks.. What are we missing?

[brad65ford]

old article, but this was the data i was looking for in relationship to bacteria count in the water column differences.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

 

[Nano sapiens]

While I acknowledge that a BB setup can give great results in the hands of a knowledgeable, attentive aquarist, I believe in using a SSB somewhere in the system. IMO, the bacteria in a SB can perform varied functions that enhance an aquariums stability.

Fine exchange here, but consider these points:

Back in the day it was thought that denitrification could only occur in deep dark anoxic zones such as provided by a DSB or deep within LR. More recent studies have shown that denitrification actually occurs in close proximity to nitrification in a substratum. Basically, this means that anaerobic denitrifying bacteria occur in micro pores in close proximity to aerobic nitrifying bacteria. From a practical standpoint, this explains why a SSB can be a very effective denitrification zone IF kept relatively free of detritus. Looking at this process from a strictly mechanical perspective, detritus buildup reduces the advective flow into the substratum which can greatly limit the nitrification/denitrification bacterial populations' numbers and efficiency. This is the main reason why nitrates typically rise steadily in an older, established aquarium if regular detritus removal is not performed.

Using a phosphate removing substance is going after the phosphate 'after the fact'. The detritus in the LR and LS is the main phosphate source (assuming one isn't using phosphate rich make-up water). Once bacteria get to work on this material, phosphate (mostly PO4, aka 'inorganic phosphate') is released and quickly absorbed by a calcareous substratum. Once the substrate has reached saturation, that's when the trouble starts as phosphate now becomes readily available to algae and plants. Any excess beyond biological uptake ends up in the water column where we can read it via a test kit. In a system regularly cleared of detritus, the amount of phosphate liberated by bacteria is greatly reduced, uptake of phosphate by the calcareous substrate is greatly reduced and, quite importantly, other types of bacteria can now operate efficiently to release phosphate bound to the calcareous substrate due to enzymatic processes without being overwhelmed by massive phosphate influx. As a result, it is my opinion that a 'clean' substrate can reach a 'phosphate equilibrium' of sorts where absorption and dissipation of phosphate are roughly equal. This process can explain why 20, 30 and even 40 year old LR and LS from systems where regular detritus removal is part of good husbandry practices can still have very low to non-existent phosphate readings without using phosphate removal products.

 

[jason angel]

jason angel, from your pipe description for a modular dsb, would you end up with 12 inch high pipes with a 6 inch diameter, filled to about 10 inches with sand? i'm not sure i understood your description..
if so, i don't see why this wouldn't work, although i dont think that depth is necessary to achieve the denitrification.

the porous containers would be placed side by side, right up against each other so that there would effectively be no water movement around them, just along the top surface. my rational for this is that although the sand bed would be modular in design, it would still act as one large sand bed since each section of sand would still communicate, so to speak, with the other sections.
maybe it is over thinking the concept, but i think that this method would allow for better transmission of microfauna and bacteria between sections and would also allow for quicker colonization of the newly introduced sections of sand.

Ahh yes that is a very good idea!

This. I'll try to find it, but Randy Holmes-Farley was talking about this a while ago. It takes a minimum of two square feet, of at least six inch depth, to add any kind of denitrification. It can't be twenty square feet if its only one inch deep, it simply doesn't work that way.

As far as more room for bacteria to colonize, the rock should provide plenty.

:thumbsup: awesome. thanks hobbz

 

[kissman]

Great thread

 

[psykobowler]

I have a 150 gallon tank connected to my system that is full of boulder size pukani rock. Bare bottom system. Nitrate and phosphate not an issue. I also have a 34 gallon refugium with chaeto connected to the system. No problem with bacteria or nutrient export here.

Glenn

 

[brad65ford]

Wow old thread just a bump for a bump

 

[suzig]

my last tank had a dsb- did great for about 3 years. slowly started its demise after no apparent changes in my husbandry methods. ive attributed this to the sand bed basically becoming full.

my current tank is BB. nice growth from some corals while others barely show any signs of growth. colors come and go- there will be weeks where things look amazing and then things slowly start to turn around- colors become lackluster. ill usually experience some type of algae bloom such as cyano starts to pop up then goes away with a water change. hair algae will appear out of nowhere. this probably has to do with the tank not being able to properly process feedings (as i have acans/ an anemone i like to feed and sometimes my fish beg more). this system will be coming down soon.

my next system- the display tank will remain BB but i will have a settling/ skimmer/ filter sock tank, a refugium/ frag tank, and remote DSB tank which will probably remain unlit. I think this is the system that will do it for me :spin3:

 

[mhucasey]

I think that having some measure of substrate acts as a kind of shock absorber for the system, smoothing out the nutrient spikes while preventing nutrient levels from going to absolute zero. There is a lot that bare bottom tanks offer intellectually as far as benefits but it seems that many bare bottom tanks do not do as well as they should.

 

[Wazzel]

I have had the best success with bare bottom tanks. Tried deep and shallow sand beds and was always fighting something. Personally I do not see anything missing. It is just another method.

 

[Crackem]

Is there any benefit to use starboard or tile vs bb or is it just for looks?

 

[mhucasey]

A white substrate reflects significant amounts of light and increases the ambient PAR in the tank as well as under the branches of corals.

 

[Wazzel]

Is there any benefit to use starboard or tile vs bb or is it just for looks?

You can get the same benefit by painting the bottom of your tank white. On the outside of course. Eventually it will all turn pink/purple.

 

[rovster]

As you know I did bare bottom for a while and now I'm back to a shallow sandbed (1-3") depending on how its gets blown around. What I noticed is that it was super easy to keep detritus to a minimum, but my nitrates would creep up if left unchecked. I had to resort to carbon dosing in the BB tank to keep my levels where I wanted, but I had to actively try and remove NO3.

Now with my sand bed, I never have any NO3 registering, and have to actively add NO3. Go figure! I have a friend that has a similar sized tank as me with bare bottom, and his nitrates are off the charts, to the point he has to implement all kinds of measure to control it (read denitrator....)

If I were ever to do a BB tank again (would likely be some form of a frag/growout tank) I would probably add some stones like Siporax to the sump to have a greater surface area for bacteria to colonize. Either that, or maybe experiment with Zeovit.

I still do think the look of sand is hard to beat, but at the same time it takes some time for the sand to go through its cycles, so for the first 6-12 months that beautiful white sand is usually covered in some form of diatoms, cyano, dino, etc. After 6-8 months mine is starting to clean up a bit, but I still have patches of unsightly stuff on it.

 

[SneekaPeek]

As you know I did bare bottom for a while and now I'm back to a shallow sandbed (1-3") depending on how its gets blown around. What I noticed is that it was super easy to keep detritus to a minimum, but my nitrates would creep up if left unchecked. I had to resort to carbon dosing in the BB tank to keep my levels where I wanted, but I had to actively try and remove NO3.

Now with my sand bed, I never have any NO3 registering, and have to actively add NO3. Go figure! I have a friend that has a similar sized tank as me with bare bottom, and his nitrates are off the charts, to the point he has to implement all kinds of measure to control it (read denitrator....)

If I were ever to do a BB tank again (would likely be some form of a frag/growout tank) I would probably add some stones like Siporax to the sump to have a greater surface area for bacteria to colonize. Either that, or maybe experiment with Zeovit.

I still do think the look of sand is hard to beat, but at the same time it takes some time for the sand to go through its cycles, so for the first 6-12 months that beautiful white sand is usually covered in some form of diatoms, cyano, dino, etc. After 6-8 months mine is starting to clean up a bit, but I still have patches of unsightly stuff on it.

+1 however, Im a bb guy. sand looks good but it takes time, once everything is dialed in and I have a grip on routine and maintenance it becomes a beautiful living part of our everlasting adventure of mimic'ing a reef. sand if left alone for a while becomes unsightly and full of junk. the one thing I hate most about sand is if it blows onto corals such as encrusting montis and kills parts of it. just imagine a beautiful fully lit up healthy montipora with patches of dead spots on it. that's why I go bare bottom, but im super ocd about certain things like that!

 

[rovster]

+1 however, Im a bb guy. sand looks good but it takes time, once everything is dialed in and I have a grip on routine and maintenance it becomes a beautiful living part of our everlasting adventure of mimic'ing a reef. sand if left alone for a while becomes unsightly and full of junk. the one thing I hate most about sand is if it blows onto corals such as encrusting montis and kills parts of it. just imagine a beautiful fully lit up healthy montipora with patches of dead spots on it. that's why I go bare bottom, but im super ocd about certain things like that!

Just for the record, I am not against bare bottom. I was just sharing my experience. I personally like the look of sand, but preferred the function of the bare bottom. I had a couple of powerheads on the bottom of the tank that I used to keep the detritus from settling and I had ridiculous flow in there which made for a super high energy system. Polyp extension was crazy in that tank. I hate the fact that I can't keep the sand in one place in my new tank. Placing the vortechs high helps, but it ain't enough. I'm hoping when my corals grow out, it will block some of the flow to the sandbed:deadhorse1:

 

[brad65ford]

Well I'm running BB with only live rock, BB sump and skimmer only. I've always believe the system is missing something do to having poor growth and its always like as if the corals are just getting by. I've noticed that there are a lot of BB system that are running Carbon and GFO to help with nutrients or basic adding filtration. I'm pretty much done with testing for anything but alk/cal these days after years of reef keeping its pretty easy to tell p04/n03 levels by glass algae or other algae blooms especially with a BB system.

 

[SneekaPeek]

Well I'm running BB with only live rock, BB sump and skimmer only. I've always believe the system is missing something do to having poor growth and its always like as if the corals are just getting by. I've noticed that there are a lot of BB system that are running Carbon and GFO to help with nutrients or basic adding filtration. I'm pretty much done with testing for anything but alk/cal these days after years of reef keeping its pretty easy to tell p04/n03 levels by glass algae or other algae blooms especially with a BB system.

try feeding more aminos. I noticed with barebottom the user has more control over all the elements to tinker and change things to their desire. easier to keep clean and sterile.

 

[brad65ford]

try feeding more aminos. I noticed with barebottom the user has more control over all the elements to tinker and change things to their desire. easier to keep clean and sterile.

Used it many of times but never on a dosing pump which might be better then dumping in "x" amount. I really want to try carbon in a reactor soon, never ran it before always small amounts with a bag of activate carbon in the sump nothing to crazy.

 

[Tweaked]

BB here for over a year and love it. I also strip the crap out of my water, and run acro power on a doser over night.

 

[SneekaPeek]

it takes out the variable, that many people can agree on, of a sand bed causing issues with overall water parameters. The way I look at it is, if you can strip the water down to nothing, then the user can add whatever he wants to the water to make it to whatever level he desires. Its hard to account for a sand bed that might release some toxins/phosphorous one day and not the next. With my one tank that has a sand bed, I put a crap ton of nassarius snails to turn it over and do 3 water changes a week to keep it up to par.