Can bare bottom have Refugium w/ DSB?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7108207#post7108207 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 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.
Click to expand...

Mark, if you're going to make that argument, than your BB shoudl crash too. It should have organics building up at all times.

If I assume it takes 2 years for the average DSB to crash, than if your skimmer can cut down the immediate waste to 10%, which if you're running your drain to your skimmer, I think it gets more than that, then your remote DSB/fuge is only getting 10% of the waste, and should take 20 years to crash. Take away the fact that the macro is taking say 1/2 those organics, and now we're up to 40 years for it to crash.

So, who cares.

People need to stop thinking about this as all or nothing. I've seen plenty of BB tanks with fuges. Why do people assume fuges need to be really low flow?



ReefDude, during the barebottom wars, I asked the LR as filter question to bomber. His response was basically "You can't run a tank without LR because thats how its done."

He couldnt give an explanation.

I ask the same thing, whats the difference between LR and a sandbed? I dont see any.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7108106#post7108106 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 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.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem consistent with a lot of BB practices. Isn't the point of cooking rock to build up bacterial populations in the rock (along with detritus shedding)? Zeovit also uses bacteria as a form of nutrient export? A frequently replaced filter sock would keep particulates out of the fuge and bacterial populations in the DSB are only a function of nutrient inputs.

I'm not trying to argue BB v. DSB. I just think elements of both can work together. In this case there might even be a benefit from the fuge as a source of food in an otherwise extremely nutrient poor system.

IMO BB and no fish is a recipe for lightening issues anyway.
 
Rich and Barry, your views are more realistic on a new system setup, the guy has a huge existing fuge thats been on a large tank with sand, will the Phosphates ,Nitrates, bacteria, etc.. that have been accumulating in this fuge magically disappear. I'm not advocating the BB is the only way to go, in fact I have only one BB tank and 2 with DSB, both work , but you cant mix and match the methods and expect miracles. If you want to run BB run it the accordingly , If you want to run DSB run DSB, but if the reason for switching from DSB to BB is to lower nutrients, you have to ditch the remote DSB.

Shelburn- the concept of cooking the rocks is to use bacterial turgor pressure to push the detrius out of the rocks.
 
Its not magic, OneManBand, its what macro does.

The above poster was saying that fuges on BB can not work, not that they shouldnt be used in this situation. I was responding to that.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7109409#post7109409 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ONEMANBAND


Shelburn- the concept of cooking the rocks is to use bacterial turgor pressure to push the detrius out of the rocks.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but accorcding to to common barebottom thoughts, the rock would be bad. It processes waste, and acts as a phosphate sink. According to the barebottom methodology, you'd be better off without any wrong.

I'm not saying Barebottom is bad, I'm just saying that I dont think people understand it correctly.
 
Here is another stupid question of mine. I see all the time the comment that sand beds "crash" and release nutrients back into the system. Why is it that no one says that LR "crashes"?

Detritus gets trapped between sand grains and accumulates, detritus gets trapped in LR cracks and crevices and accululates. I have even heard people talk about LR "leeching" elements back out into the system. Would this be the equivelant of a LR "crash"? And if so, does this mean we should replace our live rock every 2-3 years to prevent the "crash"?
 
Both sand and LR process Nitrate and "sink" Phosphate and other compounds and heavy metals, Plain and simple. Neither one "leaches" anything back into the water, it's just that when they become full, they can't hold anymore, and water column values rise as a result.

You can "cook" your live rock, and rejuvinate it to some degree because it has rather large openings to be cleaned out, whereas sand's pores seem to be too small to rejuvinate.

The biggest point to Bare Bottom methodology is to keep the detritus removed to avoid it's breakdown in the tank.

Exactly the same reasoning can be applied to DSB systems with much benefit.

The biggest differential between sand bed and bare bottom, from previous arguments came from avoiding skimming and high flow in some sand bed systems, and with their inclusion, the difference really "narrows" a lot.

The "VERSUS" really isn't necessary but the good husbandry of detritus management is a plus to all systems.

> Barry :)
 
If running a BB system properly the rock will have little detrius in it (cooked) from the start, and having high flow/ powerful skimmer/ frequent waterchanges etc. will keep the detrius in ther skimmer cup vs. collecting in the system. To answer your question about why its sandbed leaching vs live rock leaching you need to consider the surface area of sand particles vs rocks. The sand has much more surface area to for bacterial growth, and to trap detrius. True- eventually the rock will collect detrius but not nearly as quick as the rock.
 
Exactly.

Some of the `sink' of LR IMO is combatted by the fact that it's normally elevated, with good flow going around/through it. [both substrate is not]
While it may hold detritus for a while - there is `somewhere to go' for debris - in substrate, there is nowhere that gravity can take stuff.

Most folks who go BB remark at how much their rock `sheds' the first month or two ... material coming off the rock. Without disturbing, does the same thing happen in the same quantity from substrate? IMO/IME ... no.

Part of BB's benefit, IMO, is that with a lessened bacterial biomass - nutrient issues can be affected through heavy export, w/c, etc etc ... where it can be a long road eliminating stored nutrients from both LR + substrate IMO.
Don't take this as an argument against bacteria, or for a `sterile' tank ... but one strong benefit to a DSB was always argued the absolutely massive surface area in all that sand for bacteria. This would, to me, be an attempt to maximize bacterial biomass in the tank; and I would just argue that maximizing that might be against what I try to accomplish with BB. Not to say we're combatting bacteria or the like - but rather, we're not trying to maximize it.

Does that mean anything in regards to Barry's last post? Not really - as he's talking about good husbandry IMO, something that would benefit any reef aquarium. I'm happy for my BB tank, partly because it has taught me to keep any aquarium better IMO.
 
Reading the last several posts it just became very obvious to me that debating which is better, DSB vs. BB, is really a debate comparing apples to oranges. The actual point that is being debated is which "type" of system would benifit from having a sandbed, and which "type" of system would not.

What the advocates of bare bottom reefing are actually saying seems to be : if you are trying to keep corals that come from nitrient poor or starved portions of the reef ... i.e. ... sps corals, then don't use a sandbed because the added biomass of "bacteria" undermine your attempt to create a nutrient poor environment. Well ... of course ... why would you try to keep something in an environment that it doesn't like. That would be like trying to keep a lion in a 2' x 2' cage and debating that it is not thriving because of the composition of the ground it is sitting on, not the fact that it needs more space to roam.

Contrast that with certian species of LPS, polyps, and mushrooms that come from nurtient rich lagoon and inner reef areas. Here a sandbed would be of use to keep nutrient levels higher (this is of course a relative statement, you obviously are not going to strive for phosphate levels of 10 and promote hair algae or cyano growth) but again I am talking about trying to reproduce a specific niche in the reef ecosystem.

Which to me, therein lies the answer to the BB or DSB debate. First figure out what niche of the reef you are trying to keep, and build a system that approximates the conditions as closely as possible.

I apologize for the soap box, but am I off base with this line of thinking? I figure this is probably the best forum to ask as all you guys and gals in here are trying to keep the more difficult to keep corals and thus are well read and versed in reef husbandry.
 
The bacteria "problem" just doesn't "wash". If it did, the BB boyz would be trying to find something to replace their live rock with, and they aren't.

Nutrient issues need to be dealt with thru limiting import and promoting export. The surface area for bacteria in a reef tank affects the tank's ability to process Nitrate primarily. That amount that is not initially removed via skimming, will be processed by both live rock and sand.

It isn't a difficult thing and there is no need to promote "mutual exclucivity". They work just fine together.

It is overfeeding, and negligence in detritus removal that cause problems in DSB's and exactly the same is true for BB.

The sand bed is not creating bio-load, it is processing it. If the flow and skimming are being handled well, the sand bed doesn't have that much work to do, and will last an extremely long time. Not forever, but 10 to 15 yrs. isn't bad.

> Barry :)
 
Actually, IME, all corals would benefit from pretty much the same conditions in this regard. The differences would be pretty minimal. [I'd check Chris Jury's article in Mar2006 Reefkeeping, I think he argues this well].

I think that once livestock are assured to do ok without substrate, it gets to `which system can you keep best?'. Everyone's different, and we see tanks from 10g to 250g+ displayed here, with different equipment, setups, etc etc. Is there a suprise different methods work better for certain folks?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7109980#post7109980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reef_dude76
Reading the last several posts it just became very obvious to me that debating which is better, DSB vs. BB, is really a debate comparing apples to oranges. The actual point that is being debated is which "type" of system would benifit from having a sandbed, and which "type" of system would not.

What the advocates of bare bottom reefing are actually saying seems to be : if you are trying to keep corals that come from nitrient poor or starved portions of the reef ... i.e. ... sps corals, then don't use a sandbed because the added biomass of "bacteria" undermine your attempt to create a nutrient poor environment. Well ... of course ... why would you try to keep something in an environment that it doesn't like. That would be like trying to keep a lion in a 2' x 2' cage and debating that it is not thriving because of the composition of the ground it is sitting on, not the fact that it needs more space to roam.
Click to expand...

Now, the problem with that, is your are arguing that DSBs are bad for SPS, and I've seen enough old, beautiful DSB tanks to know thats not true.

As to what Mark said (I think it was him) "if rock was bad BB guys would be looking for something else" Why? If its not bad enough to cause a problem, thered be no reason. I was more talking about the fringe... IE if I get a big enough skimmer, could i run without LR. I think the BB guys were basically asking the same thing.. IF I get a big enough skimmer,and enough flow, can I run without sand. Obviously, yes.

The question is, can we take it 1 step further?
 
The sand bed is not creating bio-load, it is processing it. If the flow and skimming are being handled well, the sand bed doesn't have that much work to do, and will last an extremely long time.....


How is a sandbed full of bacteria processing nitrogen not a bio-load on a system?
 
When power goes out, that sandbed bacteria is consuming precious oxygen and can cause a problem.

Explain to me how this is not bioload?
 
I'm with Mark. A sandbed is a very large bioload. When I removed my sandbed, I was amazed that I had to throttle back my calcium reactor, The difference in calcification was amazing.

Also, I found that my pH swings became much smaller once I removed the sandbed.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7110195#post7110195 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Actually, IME, all corals would benefit from pretty much the same conditions in this regard. The differences would be pretty minimal. [I'd check Chris Jury's article in Mar2006 Reefkeeping, I think he argues this well].
Click to expand...

Really nice article By Chris. It's the different types of food, flow in some cases, and light of course that makes it quite difficult to spread "diversity" all the way to "the borders". This is our excuse ( at least ) for more tanks. :D It is the food though > type, quantity and method of delivery, and then most especially "clean-up" that "muddies the waters".

I think that once livestock are assured to do ok without substrate, it gets to `which system can you keep best?'. Everyone's different, and we see tanks from 10g to 250g+ displayed here, with different equipment, setups, etc etc. Is there a suprise different methods work better for certain folks?
Click to expand...


There are quite a number of animals that need the sand to survive and prosper. For those who are not interested in these animals, Bare Bottom becomes a valid option.

You're quite right Mark, the Aquarist is an important consideration in the make up of the system, in many ways.

The Question OMB, is, How is a sandbed full of bacteria processing nitrogen, a load on the system?

> Barry :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7110347#post7110347 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
When power goes out, that sandbed bacteria is consuming precious oxygen and can cause a problem.

Explain to me how this is not bioload?
Click to expand...

We had a 125 gallon with 6" sand bed (roughly 5 years old) lose power for 8 hours a little while ago. The temperature in the tank dropped into the high 60s. (gotta love new england). She lost nothing.

All that was running was a $10 battery powered air pump. If that can keep that tank alive, then I dont think its enough of a consideration to worry about.
 
MiddletonMark and barryhc: I think you made very profound statements with those last posts. It IS about which system you keep best, or rather which system you will bother to maintain. And weather or not you pay attention to what you are putting in and pulling out of the system.

I'm not sure what you mean by "promoting mutual exclucivity" though.

My whole point, which both of you made and thank you for doing so, is not to run anyone who wants to keep BB or DSB into the ground for doing so. But to point out that the majority of the time I have seen BB promoted because it is "eaiser" to remove waste. Well, yes and no depending on what you are trying to remove and how are you trying to remove it. It will help to remove detritus but not dissolved organics (you still need the skimmer for that).

Likewise, will a DSB last forever? No, of course not. The question is do you like the look of sand enough to fool with replacing it in 2 - 10 years depending on how well you manage import and export of nutrients for the system as a whole.

I guess what gets my dander up :rollface: is broad comments about things like bacterial biomass and BB is better than DSB or vise versa beacuse of x, y, or z reason when most of the time, IMHO, lack of sucess with a reef tank is do to:

1. Poor planning
2. Buying cheap equipment that doesn't work
3. Not doing your homework before setting up the tank either regarding system design or health requirements of the organisms in the system.
4. Being lazy and not doing your routine maintence
5. Not paying attention to what you are putting in the system

Here is my main motivation. I tried to keep sps in the past. I failed .... horribly. Why? I didn't know. So I came to RC and asked. I was decimated for keeping a DSB, and this was labeled as the reason for my failure. I took the DSB out. I still couldn't keep sps. Why? I didn't know, so I asked again. This time I was told it was due to my subpar skimmer a (CPR SR4). By this time, I was moving so I tore the reef down, moved, and spent 3 months trying to figure out my mistake. Which I concluded was poor system design in both plumbing, skimmimg, and circulation as well as my being lazy in routine maintence. I replumbed the tank, changed the postion and plumbing of the same skimmer, added a HOB refugium to reduced the amount of detritus that could settle, put the DSB back in, and went with it. Four months after setup, sps are growing (still working on coloration) PO4 is zero, nitrate is zero, water is crystal clear. Thus it wasn't my DSB, it was me and my lack of having a clue about what I was trying to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Nutrient Export
Replies
0
Views
93
SantaMonica
S
BuckeyeFish
AIO 24g refugium?
Replies
1
Views
163
griss
griss
L
Should have known better.
Replies
2
Views
406
lb013
L
E
Can I lop a toadstool?
Replies
6
Views
523
midnightbast
M
stevedola
Remote sump??
Replies
6
Views
353
shred5
shred5
Back
Top