Will having CC in refugium be enough buffering?

[DONT PANIC]

Why not go bare bottom? Look into it if you haven't its not necessarily easier to maintain than sand, just different, perhaps cheaper, I have seen some really amazing tanks bare bottom. As far as aesthetics its debateable , and up to you, but cheaper, definitely.

OMG that is the whole reason for this thread. I asked the guy who runs my local reef shop about going BB. He said the substrate is good for buffering capacity. So i was asking if i have some cc in the fuge would that work as well.

 

[morty]

I put 1/2" sand in my tank purely for aesthetics. I'm not crazy about the bare-bottom look. It gets blotchy with coralline algae and it's too unnatural for me. Simply a personal preference. (And my diamond goby would hate it )

If a person wants the sand to "do" anything other than cover up the tank bottom, i.e. provide denitrification, then it needs to be at least 5" deep IIRC. So, as far as I'm concerned if you want sand for looks but don't want denitrification, it should be as shallow as is practically possible to minimize trapped organics and facilitate cleaning. IMO the only reason you may want more is because you get bare tank patches created my wavemakers, or if you have fish that like to burrow/sift. Leopard wrasses will bury themselves at night, for example.

As far as buffering is concerned, what others have said here is correct, and the LFS guy shouldn't be offering that kind of advice at an LFS. Coral-based substrate can act as a pH buffer, but not for the proper pH range of marine tanks. (I understand it's a great substrate for African cichlid tanks, however.)

 

[DONT PANIC]

well according to this calculator:
http://www.marinedepot.com/md_educationcenter_calculators_sand_bed_calculator.html
If I only want 1/2 inch covering the bottom I should be ok with 58lbs.

If thats all i need then the cost savings from using pfs wouldnt be worth the cost savings. I thought i would need way more than that.

 

[disc1]

I asked the guy who runs my local reef shop about going BB. He said the substrate is good for buffering capacity.

He was thinking right, but he missed the fact that the rock is made of the same stuff. If you want to go bare bottom, the rocks will serve the same purpose that any sand would have in regards to buffering capacity. There are other tradeoffs to talk about like denitrification and detritus traps and bottom dwellers, but as far as buffering the water goes, the rock will do anything the sand or CC would have.

 

[DONT PANIC]

That makes me wonder as well bc I was planning on getting a controller, likely an Apex, and utilizing dosing pumps.

If I have a good controller wont i be able to detect water parameter changes before they become a serious issue?

 

[morty]

That makes me wonder as well bc I was planning on getting a controller, likely an Apex, and utilizing dosing pumps.

If I have a good controller wont i be able to detect water parameter changes before they become a serious issue?

Absolutely.

And it can email you when something goes wrong, as well as disable whatever may be causing the issue. (For example, if a topoff is dosing too much kalk, the pH will spike, and you can have the controller disable any further topoffs until the issue is addressed.)

 

[tdjmain]

With deep sand beds you do get buffering and nitrate reduction both with aragonite based sand

 

[david.faik]

Very fine particle sand is the best for letting a plethora of small living things develop that will clean the sand. Rubble does not allow them to grow (they can't turn the rubble). I'd only use a small say corner with rubble above the sand in order to provide a refuge for larger beasties that may hide out there, and be picked off slowly by your fish.
IMHO vacuuming my apartment is a big enough chore, and I don't really want to vacuum my reef tank. Each to his own though.
I understand that some sands are sharp, and this also impacts the tiny beasties you want in the sand.
Then there are tons of views about whether silica is the mother of all evils, or not.
Personally I'd steer clear, get some reef sand and suck up the cost. Would advise against using coral gravel as substrate (from personal experience).
However, in general it is sensible to look at the products sold where there are viable alternatives in this hobby. I buy all my additives from chemical lab suppliers, for examples. However sometimes you do get what you pay for. Alas!
Good luck!

 

[Lavoisier]

I'm not to familiar with pool filter sand, but Silica is definitely a no no in a reef tank.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/1/aafeature1

All respect to Randy but I've been using silcate based sand for 30 years and have never had a problem with diatom blooms. Granted, my experience is anecdotal but I've read a couple of articles that suggest the critical issue is size of the granules.

 

[DONT PANIC]

Thanks for the feed back guys it is much appreciated. My understanding is that there is a lot of differing opinion of whether silica is a problem.
Point in fact the link which was provided as a "no-no" heads up, to my understanding, does not definitively take a position on this issue.
It seems like there are perhaps a lot of variables in play, like maybe not all silica based substrates are equal.
I've spoken with people who have used PFS for their SW setups without issue so I assumed it was ok, until I was told i needed "buffering capacity", hence this thread asking for some advice.