Thinking about Switching to Bare Bottom

[TheDeepEnd]

I prefer barebottom for SPS tanks. Easier to keep detritus under control and you can have higher flow without blowing sand all over.

 

[theshaman]

Go bare bottom once and you'll never think about having sand ever again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patrick Cox]

...Easier to keep detritus under control...

Thanks. This was my thinking and reasoning.

 

[jda]

After giving bare bottom a shot for two years, I would never again be without sand.

I seriously think that if you just leave your sand alone then you will get that you are looking for out of your tank. Vacuuming sand is probably not as good as either having a living sand ecosystem or BB - it is a bad place in the middle, IMO.

Once the fish poo has been around for a few hours, it is mostly benign. Dr. Holmes-Farley has indicated that nearly all of the phosphate and most of the organics are excreted in urine and what is offered organically in the poo is quickly consumed in the tank (hours). IME, the stuff can gum up the works, which is why I vacuum a bit after 4-5 years. What I am trying to say is that by the time that you get around to vacuuming up detritus, it is just for aesthetics and not to lower nutrients.

 

[DesertReefT4r]

I don't really follow this. I dose daily now with a sand bed. Are you saying that I may need to dose more without a sand bed?

Its depends each tank is different. Im my case water changes and dosing 2-3 times a week kept my alk between 7 and 9. My demand was fairly low at the time. After remicing my sand bed in rhe display my alk dropped and I needed to increase dosing to daily to keep at at the same levels as before. Keep in mind reef sand is mostly crushed coral and works as a buffer to help wirh keeping alk more stable and ph higher. Not saying a sand bed is all you need to keep alk stable but it helps a little.

 

[DesertReefT4r]

It would drop unless you kept up your daily dosing...what did you think was going to happen? Are you saying that your alk consumption stopped because you added sand back? You said it yourself, if you have a high enough demand for alk and have a dosing system you wont notice alk issues...sand or not.



Im really not trying to pick on you here but adding a large CUC isn't going to resolve nutrient issues. A large CUC can certainly help control algae from said nutrients, but algae will continue to grow and come back until nutrients are better handled. Algae>Snails>Snail Poop>Nutrients back into the tank unless removed by proper maintenance.

No alk was more stable with a sand bed in my case. I also said that I did not need to dose daily at the time I did not say I did not dose. Like I said sand is a buffer to aid in alk stability and if you already dose daily and have a high demand for alk then not having a sand bed would not even be noticable.
I agree a large CUC does not solve the issue and I did not say it would. Large CUC will aid in removing pest algae as you manually remove algae and work on resolving the issue. Then you need to remove the CUC and either trade then at the LFS, sell or give them to so eone that needs them. Keeping them in the tank after the nutrient issue is resolved and all the algae is gone will lead to their death and releasing all the nutrients from the algae they consumed back into the water. I dont approve of large CUC LFS and online retailers sell you as start up packages or refresh packages. Only keep enough CUC that your tank will support.

 

[Patrick Cox]

Well, I thought I would follow up on this thread...

I have about all of the sand out that I can get to. And it is definitely easier to vacuum up fish waste and other detritus this way.

However I believe I caused myself a bit of a problem in the process. A couple of times while I was removing sand, I stirred up a dust storm and quite a bit of debris end up on my rocks. And now I am getting what I believe is some sort of cyano/algae bloom. Especially on one rock that has always had more algae than the others. That one is pictured. I am actually considering removing that rock because it has always been a problem. I am also thinking about replacing that one and a few other rocks with some new live rock. I am not sure if that would be a concern or not but the guy at Tampa Bay Saltwater says he has people who do add fresh live rock to their tanks to help with adding new bacteria.

The good news is that my corals look great. So I am a bit unsure about how to reduce the algae without harming my corals. I am ordering a larger CUC. I am not sure beyond that.

These aren't the best pictures but here are a few...

Worst rock that shows the type of algae I am getting...

For reference, here is what that rocked looked like two years ago from TBS. All of those sponges died off and I feel like this has fueled algae growth ever since...

Corals look good and are growing:

I'll post a FTS and try for better pictures later.

Thanks for any suggestions.

 

[DesertReefT4r]

I would agree that the die off on that rock is the cause of algae on that rock. Remove it and replace it with a clean cured piece of rock. Its important to cure it first or you will just be adding nutrients back into the tank. Removing that rock will remive all the algae and any locked up nutrients it may release.
Increase your flow to keep the other rocks clean and having a powerhead on the bottom is a good idea as well.

 

[Patrick Cox]

I would agree that the die off on that rock is the cause of algae on that rock. Remove it and replace it with a clean cured piece of rock. Its important to cure it first or you will just be adding nutrients back into the tank. Removing that rock will remive all the algae and any locked up nutrients it may release.
Increase your flow to keep the other rocks clean and having a powerhead on the bottom is a good idea as well.

Thanks for your suggestions! So are you saying I should avoid Live Rock? I was thinking about ordering a few pieces from Tampa Bay Saltwater but asking for rock without a lot of growth on them.

And then I have also been wondering if I should add another powerhead. Where would you add one? I actually have a couple that I am not using.

Currently I run my two MP40s at about 60% in Reef Crest Mode, one in Anti Sync.

Here are some pictures of my tank as is now just to get an idea of the rock work layout...

 

[ramseynb]

I don't have any experience going BB, but I will say that I'm tempted sometimes. It's not only because of detritus but more so - flow. I really wish I could crank up my power heads more and position them lower without sucking up sand or causing bare spots. I feel like I can do a good job with detritus by siphoning sand and keeping it somewhat stirred up and moved around. What I can't do is really blast the tank with flow and position my PHs wherever I want.

 

[JMorris271]

I have done both. started with sand, then restarted with bare bottom.
now I just restarted and went back to sand (aragonite).
from my experience, the bare bottom only looks nice at first, in a few months, or years, it will be harder to keep it clean and in my case, after like 5 years, the bottom is just filled with crap that is ugly and impossible to clean. Mostly thick coralines and calcium build ups and lots of sand like particles (I assume this are calcium precipitate).
I would not go back to bare bottom.

Why did you not give urchins a go to control your coralin?

 

[ThRoewer]

I find bare bottom just not appealing. On top of that you seriously limit the settling space for micro organisms and pods.

I would however also not go with a deeper sand bed or fine sand in an SPS system - you simply can't crank up the flow as you would want and the sand accumulates way too much gunk.

On my current tank restart I'm trying a middle way with flat rocks and "thin" layer of coarse gravel. That way you get a more natural look and space for pods to have a refuge inside the tank. The deeper sand bed and the shrimp gobies that needed it go into one of my sump tanks.

As for urchins as coraline control, I found that they also like to mill over flat corals and small frags. The damage they caused me just wasn't worth it. I keep them now in the sump just in case I need them to re-condition (= mill off the surface layer) some rock.
If coraline is a problem it can be easier controlled by Aquilonastra sea stars (often incorrectly called Asterina by reefers). I never found them to do damage to corals and most have them in their tanks anyway.
I personally prefer the coraline though.

 

[Patrick Cox]

Thanks for the recent replies. Re: Urchins, I do have one urchin and it does a pretty good job on the algae along with quite a few snails. I still have some algae issues in lower flow areas but my tank is doing pretty well bare bottom. I have to say that if I start a new tank, it will definitely be bare bottom. I do agree that a clean sand bed looks better but I was never able to maintain a sand bed in the condition that was acceptable to me. And I am certain that it contributed to excess nutrients in my tank. Here is a recent picture...

 

[Systemwizardinc]

i have ran a BB in the past I would never again be without sand i just dont like the look of it