Bare Bottom Tanks

[Dopey]

Hey everyone

I was just wondering if anyone could give me the pros and cons of bare bottom tank setups. I'm cycling a 15 gallon right now and its currently a bare bottom. Does this limit what you can stock the tank with?

Oh does anyone use Chemipure?

[Richer]

BB tanks are advantageous because you can put in a large amount of flow through your tank without kicking up a sandstorm. Having a large amount of flow allows you to keep detritus suspended in the water column for your filters to take out (ie. skimmers, sumps, foam, etc.). This in turn helps you keep your tank cleaner (assuming you have a good upkeep routine for your filtration devices). Some corals also like large amount of water movement (read as flow, not velocity).

I'm sure other people will probably chime in, but thats my general thought on BB systems. I run one, and I like it.

-Rich

[Nemo]

I don't like the idea for a couple of reasons

1. I think we should provide an environment close to the ocean and this includes sand.

2. The sand bed is "alive" thus an important part of your eco system.

JMO

[StirCrazy]

the only disadvantage and it may only apply to certain people is the look, I am used to the look now and kinda like it more than the sane. as mentioned above, easier maintenance, allows better dispersed water flow, gives you more "tank" that is usable.

as for providing a natural environment, this depends on what kind of fish you want to keep, some live exclusively in the sand, some never see sand and some can do with both. but 4 glass walls is definitely not a natural environment so go for what you like.

as for the sand bed being alive, I was of this school once, and if you search back you will probably find I was one of the biggest proponents of sand beds on this board, but now I would never have one again unless I was setting up a specific tank for something that needs sand. my smaller tank is an example of this as I have a fighting conch in it and until he dies he will have sand, but my SPS tank is bare bottom and aside from some green hair algae is very sanitary. The problem with the life in the sand bed is that acording to the good Dr. Ron (who started this sand bed craze) we can only support 10% of the number and viriaty of "bugs" that it takes to make a sand bed work properly.

a good comparison for Bare bottom VS sand is my two tanks, both are hooked to the same water supply and the bare bottom tank is sanitary compared to the sand one. In the SPS tank there is what is left of a hair algae outbreak from when I removed the sand and restarted the tank, but it is only still there for two reasons, well one reason my laziness anywhere I have manually removed it, it has not grown back but then again you can hardly see into that tank due to the Coraline algae growth on the glass (another point of my laziness of late) as Brad can attest to. now the other tank has some funky brown velvet algae, hair algae, cyno, ect and it has the sand bed. remember same sump connects both tanks so they receive the same filtration, additives, ect. and both are stocked with approximately the same amount of rock/gal. the only difference is flow and the substrate.

Don't get me wrong both tanks look nice (if you could see through the Coraline algae) but I think over all the bare bottom is a much cleaner tank.

Steve

[Aquattro]

I'll vouch for Steve, he is certainly lazy these days. And the other stuff he said I'd attest to!!

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by reef_raf

I'll vouch for Steve, he is certainly lazy these days. And the other stuff he said I'd attest to!!

I don't know weather to thank you or kick ya

Steve

[Funky_Fish14]

Steeve, im guessing the lower flow is in the tank with the sand-bed? With higher flow the algae tends to be discouraged. But im not arguing that sand-beds are better. Im making a prop-system soon, and It is going to be BB(except for the fuge).

Chris

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Funky_Fish14

Steeve, im guessing the lower flow is in the tank with the sand-bed? With higher flow the algae tends to be discouraged. But im not arguing that sand-beds are better. Im making a prop-system soon, and It is going to be BB(except for the fuge).

Chris

well kinda not really, the hair algae I have in the SPS tank is directly in front of the tunze I placed to blow along the bottom, so I have algae in the highest flow area. I think this is because the flow is creating an O2 rich area along the rocks but I could be out to lunch also. also the rocks have a lot of detritus that I never got off them in that area. but as I pull the algae it is taking the crap with it and leaves clean rock.

the small tank has about a 10X turnover but is a 3 year old sand bed. I believe that the bed has adsorbed so many nutrients that they are now starting to come out. because sand beds cannot function properly in a home environment (as mentioned above... to little bugs and not enuf types) the theory now is they act like a nutrient sink, adsorbing and adsorbing until they are full. because we can not make the function properly they cannot get rid of the junk but only store it and eventually it hits a critical mass where it cannot adsorb anymore. Also with a BB allowing you to have a much higher flow rate though out the tank you can cause crap to be suspended in the water column making it easier to be removed by the skimmer which is also why I think my SPS tank is doing better than the other.

Steve

[Beverly]

We have three BB tanks, a 37g, a 67g and a 120g. Had them up for a year. Previously, all our tanks, ranging in size from 2.5g to 180g all had sandbeds. Would never go back to using sand as I now consider them detritus traps.

Here's a thread that, partway down, has pics of the amount of detritus we siphon out of our 67g on a weekly basis:

http://www.canreef.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16978

[Dopey]

Thanks for all the info
I've noticed alot of stuff on the bottom of my tank and all I have right now is live rock.