Pro's and Con's

[scar_11]

I am going to start building my tank up. The problem I am having is I am not sure what to do with the bottom. I was looking at doing a BB tank. But then reading books they said some benefits of having a 3-4 inch sand bed. Now I and not sure what to do, Can some people post what they think I would love to hear the Pros and cons of both.
Thanks

 

[faze07hd]

I personally like the sand. But if you go with a BB then just make sure you have plenty of movement to stir up any detritus. I think this is all personal preferance.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

I like a sand bed myself.
Looks more natural, helps buffering capacity and can help de-nitrate as well.
Every bare bottom tank I have seen just looked like something was missing. (sand)

 

[kraze3]

BB is much easier to keep clean, just siphon crap off the bottom.

I also like the look of sand. Your sand is not going to help lower your nitrates unless it is a deep sand bed. A deep sand bed can also cause probelms if it is disturbed once established. However if you want a DSB to help wth nitrates and no sand in the tank you can set up a remote deep sand bed in a 5 gallon bucket. I have 1-2 inches in my DT and then a RDSB also.

 

[an411]

I like the sand personally the only thing that i dont like about the sand is that when you have a lot of flow in the tank your sand never stays in one place

 

[k.tran]

sand helps keep a more stable healthy tank

 

[scar_11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14587198#post14587198 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kraze3
BB is much easier to keep clean, just siphon crap off the bottom.

I also like the look of sand. Your sand is not going to help lower your nitrates unless it is a deep sand bed. A deep sand bed can also cause probelms if it is disturbed once established. However if you want a DSB to help wth nitrates and no sand in the tank you can set up a remote deep sand bed in a 5 gallon bucket. I have 1-2 inches in my DT and then a RDSB also.

So I could do to 6 inches of sandbed in my fuge so I didn't have to put so much in my tank

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

IMO 6" is overkill - 3"-4" is all you need.

 

[kraze3]

I have seen this done before but It depends what size tank and what size fuge. The reason that this is done in a bucket is because if there are any problems the bucket can easily be removed from the system. It is also suggested that the bucket and sand be switched every year and a half or so.

Check this thread.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=595109&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

 

[scar_11]

thanks everyone

 

[MileHighFish]

I would review this before making a decision..

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1593453

 

[crvz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14587370#post14587370 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by k.tran
sand helps keep a more stable healthy tank

How's that?

While sand may add some amount of buffering capability for a tank during the learning curve inherent with the hobby, ultimately it can be a maintenance nightmare. Though both can be used with success over the duration for a tank, I've had much better success ever since I eliminated a sand bed. Sand, when used as a "filter" without other adequate means of nutrient export, is more likely to cause problems than solutions.

But this is a long-standing argument that has supporters and detractors on both sides. You can argue aesthetics, but ultimately most corals (especially stony corals) don't grow on sand, they grow on rock. To say a sandbed is needed is fallacy, and to imply a tank would do better with one is equally misleading.

I wouldnt get wrapped up with what one person says, or really any hobby literature regardless of the author. It's all up for debate, much of the science behind support of a sandbed I've found to be littered with assumptions that they work just as they do in nature. To me, this is a hopeless assumption, as there is an effective infinite amount of available substrate in nature and a very finite amount in your tank. The real data is the experience base of every person who's ever kept a tank, and there's evidence that both work. I'd recommend pursuing the one that appeals to you, research its successful implementation, and have at it.

 

[MileHighFish]

+1 crvz

 

[barrettrhoades]

Sandbeds have more pros than con's in my opinion. First of all the aragonite used in reef tanks is not just sand. It is old dead corals broken down into tiny pieces by fish and waves. So with aragonite a small amount of necessary nutreints will dissolve in a system. What better to dissolve then the actual building blocks of corals and calcareos algae. If you have a 3" sandbed in a year or so about 1-2" of that sand will dissolve into the water column and be used by your growing corals. Stony corals are not the only corals that use calcium, carbonates, strontium and magnesium. When leather corals grow, they too build a crystal structure out of these elements to help support them. Haveing a sandbed will help buffer the pH to the proper 8.2-8.3 by dissolving.

 

[corbett_n]

I like shallow sand beds and they look just fine. I don't like the way 3 & 4" sandbeds get that brown and green algae between the glass and the sand.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

That does not happen if a sand bed is properly maintained.
The only reason I can think of to go BB as opposed to a sand bed is laziness.
And by the way the ratio of subtrate to water in our tanks is much higher than in nature.

 

[crvz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14595530#post14595530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Uncle Salty 05
The only reason I can think of to go BB as opposed to a sand bed is laziness.

And it's closed-minded generic comments like this that make the subject so contentious. What's effectively stated is that I'm lazy because I don't want to deal with sand. On the contrary, if I'm able to establish a tank with high-flow that allows for a large quantity of active fish (including the necessary feeding) while still creating a low nutrient environment which allows stony corals to thrive, it's nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with application for success. Check out my tank, examine the time and energy spent on my setup. Look at the level of effort I put into design and implementation. I think it's rather unfair to say laziness has anything to do with it.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14595530#post14595530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Uncle Salty 05
And by the way the ratio of subtrate to water in our tanks is much higher than in nature.

This is not the point being made, youre greatly limited on the total amount of substrate with what many expect it to do, not the ratio of water/sand. The diversity of organisms is also limited and often unsustainable.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14595471#post14595471 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barrettrhoades
Sandbeds have more pros than con's in my opinion. First of all the aragonite used in reef tanks is not just sand. It is old dead corals broken down into tiny pieces by fish and waves. So with aragonite a small amount of necessary nutreints will dissolve in a system. What better to dissolve then the actual building blocks of corals and calcareos algae. If you have a 3" sandbed in a year or so about 1-2" of that sand will dissolve into the water column and be used by your growing corals. Stony corals are not the only corals that use calcium, carbonates, strontium and magnesium. When leather corals grow, they too build a crystal structure out of these elements to help support them. Haveing a sandbed will help buffer the pH to the proper 8.2-8.3 by dissolving.

To dissolve at any appreciable rate, the pH would have to be greatly reduced, hence the implementation of calcium reactors. I would not expect anything near 60% of your sandbed to dissolve in a year under normal circumstances.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

You are correct, laziness was a poor choice of words on my part.
I did not mean to have an adversarial tone.
I have looked at your tank and the planning that went into it and it is quite impressive, but to be completely honest it just does not look natural to me.
I have stony corals in my tank with a sand bed and they are thriving just fine. I have large active fish as well but I only have to feed once a week due to the pods produced in my refugium. (they are all fatties - my fish that is)
Please don't take this the wrong way I am not putting your tank down in any way, you have worked hard on it and it shows.
Bare bottom tanks just don't do it for me.
It is personal preference and nothing more.

 

[crvz]

Ah, well personal preferences are hard to argue. No slight taken, I was just making a point, but thanks for clarifying, Uncle Salty. You can argue what is natural vs. what looks natural (again, going back to where corals are actually found, which is seldom on sand), but that's another discussion.