How many have switched to Bare bottom

[andysho]

how many sps lovers here have switched to bare bottom?

Care to share the Cons and Pros of it

thanks

For mine , is I can place my tunze everywhere i like without

seeing any sand storm ....

[weileong]

For me 4 days after switching to BB, my PO4 reading dropped from 0.06ppm (had spend 8 months working hard and only reduced from 0.22ppm to 0.06ppm) to 0.03ppm measured abt 4 days ago.

Where did the PO4 source came from? Obviously from the DSB.

What did I find out? My tangs were shitting at one corner of the tank, big pile of shits were found there daily. I had to siphon them out daily till I get a tunze installed soon so I could get them into the water column and let the skimmer do it's job.

BTW there were not sandstorm during my DSB days even with 3x6100 and one 12,500 l/h Red Dragon blasting in the tank.

When I removed the sandbed, only the top 2" layer is a little dirty, the bottom 6" is totally clean, exactly like when I put them into the tank 1.5yr ago.

[andysho]

Weileong ~~

After i have switched to Bare Bottom , i also can see my Po 4 start to

drop ....

So are you still using Zeovit system ~~?

[weileong]

9 months into zeovit Glad I got thru the first 4-5months.

[madmac]

i'm in, 2.5 mths now.

Cons:

1. • Wet skimming drives me up the wall... I'm unable to tame it... over 6 times now(and still counting), it overflowed the excess pail, 1G in size, and spilled to the floor... kena hard scolding...

2. • I'm still getting lots of detritus, mainly snail poo now, so still syphoning it out, sometimes after syphoning, the detritus becomes extremely fine and clouds the water in the pail... which I throw away... so to replace the seawater loss, need to have backup

3. • Algae, still grows on the glass walls... abt 4 days must clean once, some grows on the rocks too. Cyano (round brownish red type) still around and multiplying.

4. • Coraline algae, I think will a foreseeable pest... on the bottom glass as it grows very fast

[weileong]

2. • I'm still getting lots of detritus, mainly snail poo now, so still syphoning it out, sometimes after syphoning, the detritus becomes extremely fine and clouds the water in the pail... which I throw away... so to replace the seawater loss, need to have backup

You could let the dirt settle down for 2-3hrs then pour the water back to the main tank.

You need more flow at the bottom

[iantoh]

hi everyone. just some thoughts that came to me upon reading this thread that i think might be of help.

1) i think the use of a large clean up crew- snails, cukes, etc- will have limited benefits without a DSB, primarily because any algal matter that is consumed by the snails (that contains binded phosphates within their algae tissue) will be excreted by the snails in their poo. in this manner, phosphate isnt exactly dealt with but recycled within the system.

2) some diatoms within a system is unavoidable i think, because the only way to entirely eradicate diatoms is to have absolutely no nitrates, phosphates, and silicates within your tank's water, and short of arguing that i think that is not possible, such a situation would be detrimental for your corals because even though phosphates and nitrates are undesireable in our tanks, a small amount is still needed for photosynthesis by the zooxallanthae that reside within your corals. the more important aspect to reducing micro algae growth i think (diatoms/cyano), is control of the silicate level within your tank. it was the topic of concern in the advanced aquarist a few months back if i remember correctly. silicates at 0.05ppm will allow zooxallathae photosynthesis whilst limiting microalgae growth such that you can clean your glass with a magnet cleaner once a wk and that should be enough.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2003/feature.htm

3) from what i infer, i think most of you keep more than one tang in your tanks. the reason why most marine aquaria authors discourage keeping more than one tang per tank is not only due to conspecific agression but also due to bioload issues. tangs are the cows of the ocean, and require a great intake of food for proper nutrition, so keeping more than one in a tank that is not above 100g will cause a higher bioload then that tank can naturally handle. rightly though, here comes the berlin system that you guys are using, which allows overstocking, but only to an extent. powerful skimming may remove most of the organics within your tanks waters, but it is inevitable that some organics will be broken down into nitrites and nitrates before they can be skimmed. you cant skim every single particle of water in your tank at every instance. good circulation helps, but is limited as long as bioload is high.

4) i think it is unfounded and spurious for one to draw the conclusion that PO4 build-up is from the DSB. if you said the DSB was a source of sulfides, perhaps, but phosphates? no. in time, you are going to get PO4 build-up even without your DSB. 4 days into a bare-bottom system will not reveal the true ability of the system to handle PO4 buildup. just let it run another fortnight and measure your PO4 again. i'm rather sure it'll be back up. tangs are herbivores, and a large proportion of the foods fed to them, either the macroalgaes or hair algaes within the aquarium or foods such as formula two will contain high concentrations of phosphates, and this is your source for PO4- the phosphates that are present in plant materials consumed by your herbivorous fish that then excrete this PO4 back into your water. broken down PO4, unless it is binded through photosynthesis by diatoms or other macroalgaes will not be skimmed out by your skimmers, and will only build up. in this way, diatoms and cyanobacteria may be helpful, as they may bind PO4 in their tissues for you to clean them later and allow them to be skimmed out, along with them the PO4. think of diatoms as the natural way. better to have easy to clean diatoms then blue/green algae anyway.

5) perhaps using a resin or ferrous iron filter media for phosphates may help.

well. hope that helps.

cheers,

ian

[iantoh]

hi guys,

its my holidays so took some time to read up more on silicates and phosphates and heres another great article by Thiel again on silicates and how they are the primary determinant of diatom growth in aquaria. hope it helps to check it out ya.

http://www.reefs.org/library/aquarium_net/0297/0297_3.html

cheers,

ian

[weileong]

Ian, I agree with you on your points but this is limited and true only if one is using the "pure" berlin method without any supplement methods like the use of PO4 remover, denitrator, zeovit, ammonia absorber media like zeolites etc.

Now the interesting part. The tang shit near the sandbed at the low flow area and the shit dropped onto the sandbed to be decomposed. End results? Inorganic PO4 which cannot be skimmed.

Now with BB system and higher flow at the bottom of the tank, the tang shit but this shit is blown and suspended in the water column and easier for the skimmer to remove it. End results, lesser in-organic PO4.

That is what I meant by the sandbed "releasing" inorganic PO4. The key is to remove as much as possible before they are broken down. With the DSB it is just not possible to blast the DSB with high flow.

So how to deal with the inorganic PO4? Use zeovit system Oh pls not going to start a discussion on zeovit system here.

Keeping a low bioload and with that having good water parameters is so easy, the challenge is having higher bioload yet maintaining good water parameter

[planetg]

let's target 30 fishes and colourful SPS!

[iantoh]

hi all! thanks for your thoughtful reply weileong. guess higher bioloads really are more challenging. well, keep us all posted on the successes of your respective systems ya.

cheers all

ian

[weileong]

Here's what I meant by my tang's toilet - pile of tang shit. The only big fishes I have are my tangs

I just siphon them last night and now one pile again.

With the DSB, all these shit are going to accumulate and decompose and finally PO4 is released.

I just got a tunze 6080 to add circulation to the bottom of the tank so all these will be blown away and let the skimmer handle it instead of letting them pile up and cause nutrient problems later.

I guess for my situation BB is better.

[lightningstrike]

Here's what I meant by my tang's toilet - pile of tang shit. The only big fishes I have are my tangs

I just siphon them last night and now one pile again.

With the DSB, all these shit are going to accumulate and decompose and finally PO4 is released.

I just got a tunze 6080 to add circulation to the bottom of the tank so all these will be blown away and let the skimmer handle it instead of letting them pile up and cause nutrient problems later.

I guess for my situation BB is better.

WL, u r ur tangs' nightsoil man. (joking)

[weileong]

At least my tank got nightsoil man..... some reefers dun even know need to employ nightsoil man lol.

To tell the truth when one reefer friend told me his tangs got "toilet" I didn't believe him at all until I saw my tangs doing it lol... this must have been the main source of the PO4

[daimy068]

Wah piang! That's alot of cr#p man!

I can see that Bare Bottom would be most appropriate for your set up huh! Well thought of man!

[andysho]

For me .. still going a fishless tank ~~ Lol

Zeobak shipment is in~~ can restart my zeovit again

with a wise dosage before STN occur sia

Patience is the key ~~~

[madmac]

You could let the dirt settle down for 2-3hrs then pour the water back to the main tank.

You need more flow at the bottom

Thx, I could wait I guess and I do sometimes in the pm... jus that the syphoning is done at 12 hrs interval, the AM one cannot wait, at work leow. Tank design is the other problem... the one I hv is no different from a large goldfish bowl, no sump, so hard blowing at the bottom is quite tough... don't want it to settle on the rocks instead.. the concentration of the flow is more on the top now rather than the bottom.... I shd try other positions, it'll be great if the an o/f to sump is an available option.

[weileong]

Tunze 6080 installed at the bottom under the rocks, now the tang poo are automatically "flushed" away, I'll still need another tunze 6080 but currently PR out of stock. Maybe two weeks later.

Now all the detritus either get skimmed out or settled at the sump, siphoning will be done there to avoid stressing my fishes.

[madmac]

hi everyone. just some thoughts that came to me upon reading this thread that i think might be of help.

1) i think the use of a large clean up crew- snails, cukes, etc- will have limited benefits without a DSB, primarily because any algal matter that is consumed by the snails (that contains binded phosphates within their algae tissue) will be excreted by the snails in their poo. in this manner, phosphate isnt exactly dealt with but recycled within the system.

2) some diatoms within a system is unavoidable i think, because the only way to entirely eradicate diatoms is to have absolutely no nitrates, phosphates, and silicates within your tank's water, and short of arguing that i think that is not possible, such a situation would be detrimental for your corals because even though phosphates and nitrates are undesireable in our tanks, a small amount is still needed for photosynthesis by the zooxallanthae that reside within your corals. the more important aspect to reducing micro algae growth i think (diatoms/cyano), is control of the silicate level within your tank. it was the topic of concern in the advanced aquarist a few months back if i remember correctly. silicates at 0.05ppm will allow zooxallathae photosynthesis whilst limiting microalgae growth such that you can clean your glass with a magnet cleaner once a wk and that should be enough.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2003/feature.htm

3) from what i infer, i think most of you keep more than one tang in your tanks. the reason why most marine aquaria authors discourage keeping more than one tang per tank is not only due to conspecific agression but also due to bioload issues. tangs are the cows of the ocean, and require a great intake of food for proper nutrition, so keeping more than one in a tank that is not above 100g will cause a higher bioload then that tank can naturally handle. rightly though, here comes the berlin system that you guys are using, which allows overstocking, but only to an extent. powerful skimming may remove most of the organics within your tanks waters, but it is inevitable that some organics will be broken down into nitrites and nitrates before they can be skimmed. you cant skim every single particle of water in your tank at every instance. good circulation helps, but is limited as long as bioload is high.

4) i think it is unfounded and spurious for one to draw the conclusion that PO4 build-up is from the DSB. if you said the DSB was a source of sulfides, perhaps, but phosphates? no. in time, you are going to get PO4 build-up even without your DSB. 4 days into a bare-bottom system will not reveal the true ability of the system to handle PO4 buildup. just let it run another fortnight and measure your PO4 again. i'm rather sure it'll be back up. tangs are herbivores, and a large proportion of the foods fed to them, either the macroalgaes or hair algaes within the aquarium or foods such as formula two will contain high concentrations of phosphates, and this is your source for PO4- the phosphates that are present in plant materials consumed by your herbivorous fish that then excrete this PO4 back into your water. broken down PO4, unless it is binded through photosynthesis by diatoms or other macroalgaes will not be skimmed out by your skimmers, and will only build up. in this way, diatoms and cyanobacteria may be helpful, as they may bind PO4 in their tissues for you to clean them later and allow them to be skimmed out, along with them the PO4. think of diatoms as the natural way. better to have easy to clean diatoms then blue/green algae anyway.

5) perhaps using a resin or ferrous iron filter media for phosphates may help.

well. hope that helps.

cheers,

ian

1. Snails are absolute necessary here... its a "harvest and export" concept... the algae reduces the PO4 and NO3, the snails grow in biomass, their poo detrital, while still containing some PO4, would be lesser, and the process goes on.

3. Same concept... "harvest and export", as long as tangs consume the algae, and grow on it, their o/put will contain less.. this simple scenario could go on indefinitely until no algae is produced, and the Tangs start to starve.

4. Ian, again, PO4 buildup is from DSB. Its building up all the time, every second of the moment. The reason you don't know it is because you are measuring water-soluble PO4. Its either building up PO4 or releasing it. You've got a great sink there, a sink where bacteria can thrive extremely efficiently (depending on depth and grain size). Think bacteria, when you talk PO4. What are the two things that bacteria need to live on?

The difference with BB is they don't hide it, and give you a false impression... that PO4 is zero and NO3 is zero. BB tanks don't lie, they say it as it is.. And there is a distinction btw Berlin and BB(as advocate by Bomber). Pls don't confuse the two. You said powerful skimming, in wet or dry? Whats the difference? Why must it be wet.?

5. doesn't work as it doesn't bind organic phosphates.

HTH

ps: you know what will really help.... is if you keep your post short... I don't know where to begin with.

[iantoh]

hi madmac.

i have no grieviances with the barebottom system or ideology; just that i do not believe that DSBs categorically contribute, as of on their own, to PO4 buildup. pls do read my post taking into account the qualifiers i place before my assertions. DSB systems exist to facilitate denitrification processes. clearly, in order to achieve denitrification, you must have anoxic regions that accumulate sulfides. likewise, you wont be able to have such high flows as the barebottom system would allow because sand would be blown everywhere. the barebottom thus allows far better flow, and is likely more beneficial for all manner of sps. however, i still disagree that PO4 issues are to do with the DSB. you have to stock a DSB tank appropriately as the system calls for, and incorporate the necessary clean up crews that are associated with DSBs.

as for bacteria, the only things they require are soluble sugars as a means of energy, and nitrogen in the form of either nitrites or nitrates. this is well documented. they dont require nor consume PO4 as they are not photosynthetic. similarly, snails dont consume phosphates, nor do fish. they consume the sugars derived from the carbohydrates in plant matter and excrete most of the phosphates. i used to think they consume everything too, but have been shown otherwise. suck up some snail poo and leave it in a bowl of water after you have measured the water's phosphate levels, then measure it again after the snails poo has broken down. youll see the direct link. phosphates will accumulate unless exported through the binding of it by plant tissue growth. its one of the main reasons why a sump with macroalgae is often used.

to remove PO4 and silicates merely requires you to feed appropriately and utilise PO4 filtering resins or media like phosbad or rowaphos. the assertions made henceforth have suggested that DSBs are the sole cause of PO4 and thats honestly quite an argument to make. plant matter that gets fed into the system will naturally bring PO4 into the tank's waters. and because some of the wastes will definitely be broken down despite the best circulation and skimming, there is still the need for nutrient export (PO4 included) by other means biological. if you leave the barebottom system to run without the handlers interventing and siphoning out wastes as you say, etc, wastes will still ultimately accumulate on the rocks or in hidden crevices despite turbulent flow, and then PO4 will still accumulate. all i am saying is that there are more direct ways of reducing PO4, and that the DSB is only a sink due to the bioloads imposed on it. theres nothing wrong with having a barebottom system to better suit your bioload requirements of more efficient waste export and skimming, but blaming PO4 buildup categorically on the DSB is, in my opinion, missing the point.

pls dont interpret my post as being an attack on your preference of the barebottom system because it isnt. its just that within this thread, four days of employing the barebottom system with low PO4 was cited as confirming the fault of DSBs as a PO4 sink. i think thats a hurried conclusion. i have no doubts that with the greater and more comprehensive water flow that is allowed by the barebottom tank, and efficient powerful skimming, that PO4 and nitrates will be lower in the BB as compared to a tank with a DSB that allows a lower flow rate. but that does not mean the DSB is responsible for the PO4. the systems are run differently. i dont see why in favouring the barebottom system is there a need to disparage the DSB system.

ian

[weileong]

Ian, you have already agreed with my points yet disagree with them again.

Firstly the DSB do not break down PO4.

2ndly due to the waste accumulating and collected on the sandbed, PO4 will be generated after all the waste are broken down.

What happens in the long term? PO4 accumulation unless PO4 absorbers are being used. You let the waste break down and produce PO4 and then try to remove it.

You already agreed with the BB system, PO4 and NO3 will be lower compared to running the DSB citing the reason that they are run differently. Yes what is the difference? The difference I've already mention earlier in this post that is to allow the waste to accumulate and finally broken down into NO3 and PO4.

The NO3 will be further reduced by bacterial action but may I ask you what will happen to the PO4? It is going to be slowly released to the water column.

I understand that you are trying to say that the PO4 accumulation in the DSB is caused by high bioload, now unless you don't stock any fish or LS that generate solid waste, if not any waste that drops onto the DSB will accumulate inside and later caused PO4 problem. May I ask if this is not PO4 sink then what is it?

[weileong]

pls dont interpret my post as being an attack on your preference of the barebottom system because it isnt. its just that within this thread, four days of employing the barebottom system with low PO4 was cited as confirming the fault of DSBs as a PO4 sink. i think thats a hurried conclusion. i have no doubts that with the greater and more comprehensive water flow that is allowed by the barebottom tank, and efficient powerful skimming, that PO4 and nitrates will be lower in the BB as compared to a tank with a DSB that allows a lower flow rate. but that does not mean the DSB is responsible for the PO4. the systems are run differently. i dont see why in favouring the barebottom system is there a need to disparage the DSB system.

Day 10 of Barebottom and PO4 0.01ppm. Fishes (including 4 tangs) are feed daily with NLS pellets. All fat and healthy fishes and not paper thin super weak fishes that can get stuck at powerhead anytime.

Do you still need PO4 readings 2 weeks later??

[iantoh]

hi weileong, like i said previously, i dont disagree with the barebottom system. clearly high water flow and efficient skimming aids in PO4 removal, and such high water flows will not be acheived by DSBs. but to say that the source of the PO4 is the existence of a sand bed doesnt accurately adjudge the source right? i'm not here to argue either ways, merely to add my perspective to things so we can all share and improve our overall knowledge, etc, etc. a DSB system will require the tandem use of a refugium or macroalgae growth to remove PO4, or the use of PO4 removing resins or filter media. if you run a DSB without these, clearly the PO4 will accumulate. thats all i'm saying. kudos to the fantastic PO4 levels you are achieving. this may be an sps forum, so i can understand how it is that the barebottom is tremendously useful for the husbandry of sps, but to across the board blame the DSB for PO4 buildup neglects to consider that a sandbed is necessary for many other species of corals and fish. most corals also feed via biological absortion through the taking in of water to expand their polyps and benefit from bacterial and diatom activity within the tank. if the silicate levels are not maintained as similarly low as your phosphate levels, i think algaes will still be able to use the low phosphates within a tank for growth. similarly, as you mentioned, even with the high flows, it is not possible to achieve 0% dead spots, and you still need to occasionally siphon off wastes as it builds up in the sump or what. if you did that with a DSB wouldnt PO4 levels be lowered there too? all the same, nice to hear the results youre getting with the barebottom.

cheers,

ian

[iantoh]

dear everyone, i think its obvious to all that i believe in the benefits of the DSB system. pls understand that i merely think that there are aspects to the DSB that are useful, and in no way is my aim here to put down the barebottom system.

ian

[weileong]

Ian, I hope I don't paint the wrong picture to you. I am not pushing down the DSB but rather trying to tell the main source of PO4 in my tank.

Am I right to say that the DSB is leaching PO4? We don't deny that the source comes from somewhere and that is from the waste of the fishes. From your post seems like you're trying to imply that with DSB in place one should keep very light bioload if not you end up with PO4 problem and supplement method like algae filtration or PO4 absorbing media should be used.

We can always clean the sandbed but those waste don't just drop onto the top part/surface of the sandbed, they get accumulated into the deeper part of the sandbed, do you want to clean deep down and disturb the DSB?