BareBottom Club

[bourganaes]

Thanks for the link Witfull

 

[pablosol]

Barebottom tanks are easier to keep. They soon get covered with coraline algae and polyps becoming beautiful and natural.

 

[ldrhawke]

Another vote for BB...... I covered it with acrylic, just like the tank, but in black. Even wrasse can adapt.

 

[Witfull]

bring the bottom to the top...welcome livingreef to da club~~

 

[Jerome]

I covered my tank to SPS from LPS and taking out the DSB was the best thing I have ever done. The amount of crap that builds up in DSB is frightning! I will never put sand in a tank again.

 

[livingreef2004]

thnx wit and i agree i feel like im finally in control of my tank
instead of not knowing how much of whatever is building up in the dsb i can see the garbage and suck it out with the water change

that makes me want to show my bare bottom to the world!!!!! lol
but ill refrain

 

[fishhead]

no, no..please do

 

[Witfull]

/me covers my eyes~~

 

[Woodstock]

You're peeking Witty.....

 

[Witfull]

ive been known to peek,,,hehe

 

[Scooterman]

The rock doesn't shed more detritus simply because you don't have a substrate in the tank, it sheds the same amount in a tank with a sandy bottom

Wouldn't the LR actually shed more because the sand isn't helping out with denitrification & the Lr has to work harder or you need to get more lr maybe?

but for some reason, people have this mentallity that you don't need to clean the substrate. It's the misconception of the "set it and forget it" mentality that came about with the DSB that I feel is the major source of the problem.

For a DSB you would need to feed the bed but for a shallow bed this wouldn't be the case but we also found that even a thin bed will denitrify just as well as a DSB just not for as long lived right? I know I've read this somewhere a while back, maybe I can find it.

 

[ScottT1980]

For a DSB you would need to feed the bed but for a shallow bed this wouldn't be the case but we also found that even a thin bed will denitrify just as well as a DSB just not for as long lived right? I know I've read this somewhere a while back, maybe I can find it.

That was my perception as well. I don't think I could ever be converted, if not for shear aesthetics alone...

I am glad some many people are having some success. It seems that for an SPS tank, this really is the way to get insane growth. I often wonder if it is more a product of increased flow, but feel sure that better nutrient export plays a role. One thing is for sure, you can't get too lazy with a DSB (or at least that what the evidence seems to show) in most cases. But good lord, how do you manage to look at a cutting board at the bottom of your tank

Take er easy
Scott T.

 

[Scooterman]

Scott In a BB your required frequent siphoning otherwise your growing nice green algae so husbandry is different & maybe easier but still required often, also parameters will shift quickly in a BB, you don't have the huge sink to help keep things as stable.

 

[ldrhawke]

Scott In a BB your required frequent siphoning otherwise your growing nice green algae so husbandry is different & maybe easier but still required often, also parameters will shift quickly in a BB, you don't have the huge sink to help keep things as stable.

With a BB if you have enough energy input and water movement to keep the waste in suspension you can eliminate any siphoning being required.

 

[cheeks69]

my thinking is that a system of this size should not need the skimmer since it will be bare bottom and i will be doing weekly water changes

I thought the point of BB tanks is to remove detritus via major flow and aggressive skimming ? I don't see how W/C's will suffice unless they're very large.
How much total flow will you have in the tank ?

 

[livingreef2004]

well right now im running 1800 gph on a closed loop when i set the tank up in my new home the sump will have a md40 for return so it will be somewhere around 2700 gph in a 30 gallon tank

once i set the tank up in the new house i think i will use a urchin pro for skimming

im not sure about how long the tank will flourish like this but like a lot of people say there are a lot of differant ways to set up a tank and a lot of them work its just finding what works for you

my waterchanges are pretty big like you stated usually 3 gal a week sometimes 5 gal

this is a temp setup i already have the 33 gallon acrylic tank for the new house but unfortunatly the new house wont be ready for me till spring of 06 i hate looking at that tank everyday just sitting on the shelf its driving me nutz



cheeks let me add something to what i said i believe the reason its working so well is that my livestock is in the refuge side of the sump and all the detritus seems to settle on the return side of the sump so i siphon it all out weekly if it was in a reg rectangular tank i think all the detritus would be blowing all around the tank with nothing to stop it

if you have any more questions let me know

 

[Scooterman]

With a BB if you have enough energy input and water movement to keep the waste in suspension you can eliminate any siphoning being required.

Not necessary I guess husbandry can be different but the flow is two fold, one for sps & yes to keep particulate waste in motion but you still need siphoning, there is no reason to do more water changes than that any other system, that would depend on whatever else your using, like phosphate reactor, carbon, UV, & yes Heavy Skimming. The key is not turnover rates but coverage, you have to cover everything I never saw a system that was so efficient you didn't have to siphon, their are some better than others for sure but at some point siphoning is required.

 

[ldrhawke]

Not necessary I guess husbandry can be different but the flow is two fold, one for sps & yes to keep particulate waste in motion but you still need siphoning, there is no reason to do more water changes than that any other system, that would depend on whatever else your using, like phosphate reactor, carbon, UV, & yes Heavy Skimming. The key is not turnover rates but coverage, you have to cover everything I never saw a system that was so efficient you didn't have to siphon, their are some better than others for sure but at some point siphoning is required.

My statement assumed good flow and good mixing of particles on the bottom. If you have high enough flow it is difficult not to get good mixing on the bottom, but I guess you could have high flow without adequate bottom movement. I was speaking about my set up when I said I never siphon. I pulse high flow at nearly 50 turn overs an hour and the air injection to add a little boost to particle pickup, which helps a lot in my case to eliminate the need to siphon.

 

[Scooterman]

That must be a nice set-up Hawke, there are always exceptions!