Okay so Im now in the planning stages of my up coming 180 gallon tank. I have a couple questions, first off this is going to be a 95% SPS tank. Im trying to figure out rather or not to use sand or not. Ive seen a lot of post about it but cant figure out the best way to go. My orignal plan was to not to sand so I could blast flow all over. But then the more I thought about it a lot of the fish I want are wrasses. The center peice of the tank is going to be a harlequin tusk. But I also am looking at mystery wrasse and melenarus. I know 2 of the 3 like sand. So has anyone kept any of those 3 fish in a sandless tank? Im just not wanting sand b/c ill be using 2 MP60's a MP40 and possiably a tunze wave box, unless theres a way to keep the sand down with all that flow. Thanks for any help!
To sand or not to sand?
- Thread starter Treed
- Start date
Blueline12
Member
I've got 5 hawaiian flame wrasses in a bare bottom tank with no problems. I say no sand. You can blast flow and after a few years it holds in phosphates and nitrates. My sand was filthy black and smelled horribly when I pulled it out. For 95% sps where water quality is key I would say no sand.
bobkill
reefer
Going to toss water out of the tank with 2mp60 and 1 mp40 - better feed those fish bc they are going to have to swimmmm - I think the wrasses will be able to hide in your live rock and be just fine - escp the guys listed above - might be more important if it was a leopard or such-
I like a small sand bed bc of the look - bare bottom don't look very aestheticly pleasing to me - What the deminsons of the tank?
I like a small sand bed bc of the look - bare bottom don't look very aestheticly pleasing to me - What the deminsons of the tank?
bobkill
reefer
Going to toss water out of the tank with 2mp60 and 1 mp40 - better feed those fish bc they are going to have to swimmmm - I think the wrasses will be able to hide in your live rock and be just fine - escp the guys listed above - might be more important if it was a leopard or such-
I like a small sand bed bc of the look - bare bottom don't look very aestheticly pleasing to me - What the deminsons of the tank?
I like a small sand bed bc of the look - bare bottom don't look very aestheticly pleasing to me - What the deminsons of the tank?
Over the years I have run a DSB, a SSB and BB. I prefer the look of sand and even in a shallow bed you have life that helps with breakdown of nutrients. BB is fine if you have a high enough fish load but the tank looks unnatural to me. Flow is another issue but not a deciding factor, placement is important. I am running between 7300 and 8700 gph in a 40x40x17 pentagon, the sand will move if I don't place the flow correctly. The amount of flow I have with only an actual 15" of water depth should push the sand all over the place, but it doesn't. The right sand also makes a difference.
I doubt I will ever go BB again, sand serves a purpose and just looks better.
It is a matter of preference, but I will stay with sand.
I doubt I will ever go BB again, sand serves a purpose and just looks better.
It is a matter of preference, but I will stay with sand.
Amphiprion
Premium Member
Over the years I have run a DSB, a SSB and BB. I prefer the look of sand and even in a shallow bed you have life that helps with breakdown of nutrients. BB is fine if you have a high enough fish load but the tank looks unnatural to me. Flow is another issue but not a deciding factor, placement is important. I am running between 7300 and 8700 gph in a 40x40x17 pentagon, the sand will move if I don't place the flow correctly. The amount of flow I have with only an actual 15" of water depth should push the sand all over the place, but it doesn't. The right sand also makes a difference.
I doubt I will ever go BB again, sand serves a purpose and just looks better.
It is a matter of preference, but I will stay with sand.
Agreed. I've used upwards of 12000 gph in a 40 breeder with comparatively deep sand. In addition to the above, allowing the sand to develop a biofilm before blasting it with flow also helps.
dixiedog
New member
Yeah, if you go barebottom you MUST put some white PVC or "starboard" on the bottom. Bare glass looks horrible. I run a starboard botom, and you really don't notice it's barebottom.
Sand is even prettier, but it comes at a price. Getting rid of it was the only way I ever could beat cyano.
Sand is even prettier, but it comes at a price. Getting rid of it was the only way I ever could beat cyano.
robs.mark
Premium Member
Short term the glass stands out i agree, however once the tank matures and covers on coralline and corals then its a different story. I recently removed my sandbed and its the best thing i ever did, i can point the powerheads wherever i like and p04 are undetectable. When i see waste i simple take a turkey baster and suck it out, I love barebottoms.
bskiba
Member
I have done a mystery and they are fine with no sand. i also went BB because i have just under 4000 gph in a 60 cube. i dont want anything collecting in my tank. I try and reduce pollutants It is easier but I have to admit sand looks better. If you do sand you have to plan the flow a bit more carefully.
I like the beachy look and use shallow( an inch or less) sand in some of my sps dominant display tanks along with deeper pools of it for animals that need it like leopard wrasses. Puffing up a shallow bed with a turkey bster once a week or so keeps it clean. Sand provides lots o surface area for bacteria to colonize too. High flow can be directed so as not to blow it all over.
November Tank of the Month
November Tank of the Month
aandfsoccr04
Active member
I personally like the look of sand and think a bare bottom looks unnatural. It's all pretty much personal preference. I'd stay away from the sugar grain size sand if you're doing SPS as it will blow all over the place and is rather annoying.
CHSUB
"Certified Hobby Expert"
12000 GPH in a 40 breeder??? now that's some flow!!!!
