Sand or chaeto in sump?

Landolakes

New member
All this chaeto talk has me rethinking my sump in the new 125. I have a spot in the sump probably equivalent to a ten gallon. I have always kept a 5" sand bed with chaeto on top. I saw that TMZ has better luck with a bare bottom :eek2:. My question is what would be more beneficial to the system the sand or the chaeto?
 
I run bare bottom in the refugium. I have about 800-900 GPH running through my 29G fuge and you'd be surprised at how much detritus gathers in even a weeks time.
 
I've read some scary stores about tank crashes caused by deep sand beds, so I keep Chaeto and a little rock rubble in my sump.
 
I knew I could count on you Gary ;-) . On what? It's a new system with nothing but live rock and a frag of frogspawn I put in there to make me feel better. It will be lps dominated with the occasional sps that catches my eye. As always my reefs are fish dominant or as I like to say fish only with coral. I have a pair of clowns and some yellowtails the moment.
 
if you already have a sandbed in the display... a sandbed in your sump won't change much.
So Chaeto would make the biggest splash in this case.

FWIW (and many here probably already know this) Chaetomorpha is pretty easy to starve out with other types of macroalgae and/or a good skimmer.
 
I HATE putting sand in the sump, or at least any sump on the floor... Since it's down there you can't start a vaccum siphon to clean it out and it just PILES up with detritus over time. Then it's a big HOT MESS when you go to move the tank or do any serious maintenance. My vote is for chaeto ;)
 
I have a 7 inch deep remote deep sand bed in a 32 gallon bin with rocks on top and no lights.
I also have a bare chaeto refugium.

I installed the sand bed years ago to help with a nitrate problem it didn't do much but I never took it out. The top inch or two is productive.

The problem is the deep sand won't do much since nothing delivers flow down there except diffusion( molecular equilibration) which is very weak and slow. So since there is no organic carbon and/or much nitrate or phospahte in the depths , there are few if any of the facultative heterotrophic bacteria that use these things .
The piled rocks help a bit since when the current hits them it casues a pressure drop in their footprint which resluts in an upwelling and consequent downward flow to fill the void .This is called advection; natural reefs work this way. But even advection is too weak to get the bed working down deep. Most of the denitriication is going to occur in the top inch or less. So, if I built anothersand bed it would be shallow with a alrger surface area.

If I had to pick one or the other and didn't mind lighting it, I'd go with chaeto. It uses CO2, provides O2, consumes PO4 and NO3 and is relatively easy to harvest and keep clean in a bare bottom set up.
 
If I had to pick one or the other and didn't mind lighting it, I'd go with chaeto. It uses CO2, provides O2, consumes PO4 and NO3 and is relatively easy to harvest and keep clean in a bare bottom set up.
I agree. In fact... more than nutrient reduction I think a larger benefit of Chaeto in a typical small scale "algae scrubber" arrangement is CO2 reduction and O2 provision.
 
Back
Top