Can bare bottom have Refugium w/ DSB?

[icliao]

I have another 200GL with shallow sand bed currently.
I want to convert it to bare bottom and remove all my fish just for the sack of experiment (to reduce nutrient further and see if I can get more color out of my SPS.)

My question is there is a big refugium with DSB connecting to it, will this cause any negative effect on the bare bottom system?

 

[ONEMANBAND]

Kinda defeats the purpose of getting rid of your sandbed to reduce nutrients.

 

[icliao]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7102267#post7102267 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ONEMANBAND
Kinda defeats the purpose of getting rid of your sandbed to reduce nutrients.

So I should empty the refugium all together and leave nothing there?

Or should I keep some macro algae and live rock in there?

This tank will be fishless untill I get good result with SPS colors.

 

[twon8]

if you are fishless i doubt you will need the chaeto growth for nutrient export, but i don't see how it could hurt. i would stick macro and a bit of live rock in there.

 

[ONEMANBAND]

macro and live rock is good idea, I went BB a few years ago, after about 6 months the macro pretty much stopped growning so its been converted to a frag grow out area.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7102267#post7102267 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ONEMANBAND
Kinda defeats the purpose of getting rid of your sandbed to reduce nutrients.

I completely disagree. Its all in how you set it up.

The sand bed nutrient issue is because of crap settling on the sandbed. Run your drain through your skimmer, and detritus never gets to the sandbed, and it gets to do what it is so good at, process nitrates.


That being said, most of the BB guys are adding more fish.

 

[TCU Reefer]

What do most BB SPS owners keep in the fuge?

I just set up my 215 BB and the fuge is empty. Should I keep it empty?

Sorry to hijack but this question seemed appropriate for the topic. Hope you don't mind.

 

[xtrstangx]

Most BB reefers don't have a fuge. If you have a skimmer, that should take care of all of your nutrients.

 

[concept3]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7104176#post7104176 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TCU Reefer
What do most BB SPS owners keep in the fuge?

can't keep macro alive, I have Live rock rubble in the "fuge" that I take out as frag mounting rocks.

 

[shelburn61]

the whole bb thing is based on removing detritus before it can settle and decay: lots of flow and no sand/macro for the crud to get caught up in before hitting the skimmer. the bb thugs will tell you a fuge won't work with BB, but as said before if the crud can't get to the fuge what's the problem

There is no one way to do things.

 

[icliao]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7106811#post7106811 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shelburn61
the whole bb thing is based on removing detritus before it can settle and decay: lots of flow and no sand/macro for the crud to get caught up in before hitting the skimmer. the bb thugs will tell you a fuge defeats the purpose, but as said before if the crud can't get to the fuge what's the problem

There is no one way to do things.

Why will there be crud if I do not intend to keep fish or feed anything other than coral food?

 

[shelburn61]

everything poops

 

[ONEMANBAND]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7103564#post7103564 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
I completely disagree. Its all in how you set it up.

The sand bed nutrient issue is because of crap settling on the sandbed. Run your drain through your skimmer, and detritus never gets to the sandbed, and it gets to do what it is so good at, process nitrates.


That being said, most of the BB guys are adding more fish.

Really, do you think that your sandbed is for nitrate processing only. How does it accomplish only this feat? Are you using magical sand?

 

[shelburn61]

what else would it do?

 

[ONEMANBAND]

It will sink organics, and once its full it will leach them back into the system, the whole idea of a BB setup is to keep the detrius from collecting and breaking down by using increased flow, powerful skimming, and frequent waterchanges( in a nutshell). The thread is not really BB vs DSB, but the origional poster wanted to know about removing his ssb (in his words lowering nutrient) and then utilizing a large dsb fuge, which pretty much goes against the concept of keeping a BB Reeftank. If the guy already has a big establised dsb refugium attached, it will resist the change he is trying to accomplish by switching to BB.

 

[MiddletonMark]

IMO, the BB system is trying to avoid large bacterial filters, like a DSB, to avoid the many nutrients that bacteria can hold.
[along with preventing detritus accumulation, etc]

Given that, it would appear to me that having substrate anywhere in the system allows for a large bacterial filter like what the BB method is trying to avoid [bacteria are good at grabbing nutrients, yet imperfect at holding them forever].
IMO, it will be difficult to avoid growing huge quantities of bacteria [aka bioload, aka temporary storehouse for nutrients] with any fine substrate in the system.

If that's what you want to achieve by going BB, then IMO a mud/sand fuge will work counter to the point.
If you have other wishes from the BB, think that you can make it work - there's a million opinions + ways to run a tank. I sure can't assure success, or failure, just from ideas on a message board

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7108064#post7108064 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ONEMANBAND
It will sink organics, and once its full it will leach them back into the system,

A DSB will process Nitrates and sink Phosphates. It can't sink much phosphate if the skimmer is already taking that out as you explain.

the whole idea of a BB setup is to keep the detritus from collecting and breaking down by using increased flow, powerful skimming, and frequent waterchanges( in a nutshell).

Yep, keep detritus out of the tank.

If the guy already has a big establised dsb refugium attached, it will resist the change he is trying to accomplish by switching to BB.

Nope, it's just another filter. Run the drain to the skimmer, all set.

> Barry

 

[MiddletonMark]

If you have a skimmer which takes 100%, not missing a thing, of both nutrient and particulate ... well, I'd love to see it.

 

[barryhc]

A bare bottom boyz dream !

> Barry

 

[reef_dude76]

IMO, the BB system is trying to avoid large bacterial filters, like a DSB, to avoid the many nutrients that bacteria can hold.

[along with preventing detritus accumulation, etc] Given that, it would appear to me that having substrate anywhere in the system allows for a large bacterial filter like what the BB method is trying to avoid [bacteria are good at grabbing nutrients, yet imperfect at holding them forever].IMO, it will be difficult to avoid growing huge quantities of bacteria [aka bioload, aka temporary storehouse for nutrients] with any fine substrate in the system.If that's what you want to achieve by going BB, then IMO a mud/sand fuge will work counter to the point.

This may be a stupid question, but if the point of getting rid of a dsb is to get rid of a "bacteria filter" because bacteria are imperfect at holding onto nutrients. Then why keep the live rock? It is a bacteria filter too. Bacteria break down nitrogenous wastes in the live rock like they do in the sand. I've even heard rock described as having aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic areas to accomplish the different parts of the nitrogen cycle. LR traps detritus as well. I know the idea is to keep 100% suspended for removal from the system, but just like someone mentioned eairler about a 100% efficent protein skimmer not existing, 100% nutrient or detritus removal is unrealistic also. The LR will still trap waste it its crevices.