How many have switched to Bare bottom

[weisoon]

MayI contribute something, since now overseas and have lot of free time.

If one were to siphon off the waste off the top of a DSB, then will the DSB ever work? There will no more 'food' for the bacteria. Sometimes quite ironic isn't it....need to fed the DSB but feeding it will cause accumulation of PO4 and cause leaching back to the water cloumn.

There should not be any worry on silicate at all if one were to use RO/DI or buy distilled water for topup.

Actually, DSB and refugium do not work well together...it is like fighting each other for food. On one hand, the bacteria on the DSB wants the NO3 as food and on the other hand, the refugium's algae also need the NO3 to grow. So who will win? I also do not know who to bet on.

On the use of snails to remove algae....

Snails will comsume diatom and some brown algae but not hair algae or cyno.

The snail will comsume and grow and the poo will be released back into the water column. Of course the poo will release some nutrients back into the water column but one day, the food supply (algae) will not be able to meet the demands of the snails and what will happen....they die and release back all the nutrients that were stored in their body. If one really need clean up crew, one must make sure that the result of the equation must be a net reduction....meaning, as the food source gets scare, sell off or give away some of the snails and maintain the right amount to control the input.

Just some thoughts.......

[andysho]

I rem When i started to remove my sand , I can smell the horrible

smell inside the sand after long term of traping watever shit inside

So IMO , just by looking at the surface of the DSB dun tell you

whether deep inside Your DSB is it whether is it clean or very dirty

I think only those who remove DSB before will more or less know

how it smell like ....

Ever came across an article about DSB written by dun know wat Dr ... , he

mentioned that It is advisable to change a DSB after 4 or 5 years before

something happen , because we cant see from our eyes wat really is happening

inside DSB, however for Bare bottom ... at least we dun have to wonder anything

at all because it just simply bare bottom

Example will be if a small fish died on the base of the tank .. we can simply notice it

and remove it , but for DSB ... maybe if that fish is small enought , it will be cover

by sand ... and just simply start rotting inside....

For Bare Bottom .. We cant just depend on this system alone . We do

need a good skimmer and constant cleaning of the tank itself and current

play a Part too

So IMO , DSB and Bare Bottom need constant cleaning too

No short cut to it.......

But For Sps , it seems that BB will be a better choice which have been mentioned

by Anthony Calfo

[Reefaholic]

MayI contribute something, since now overseas and have lot of free time.

If one were to siphon off the waste off the top of a DSB, then will the DSB ever work? There will no more 'food' for the bacteria. Sometimes quite ironic isn't it....need to fed the DSB but feeding it will cause accumulation of PO4 and cause leaching back to the water cloumn.

There should not be any worry on silicate at all if one were to use RO/DI or buy distilled water for topup.

Actually, DSB and refugium do not work well together...it is like fighting each other for food. On one hand, the bacteria on the DSB wants the NO3 as food and on the other hand, the refugium's algae also need the NO3 to grow. So who will win? I also do not know who to bet on.

On the use of snails to remove algae....

Snails will comsume diatom and some brown algae but not hair algae or cyno.

The snail will comsume and grow and the poo will be released back into the water column. Of course the poo will release some nutrients back into the water column but one day, the food supply (algae) will not be able to meet the demands of the snails and what will happen....they die and release back all the nutrients that were stored in their body. If one really need clean up crew, one must make sure that the result of the equation must be a net reduction....meaning, as the food source gets scare, sell off or give away some of the snails and maintain the right amount to control the input.

Just some thoughts.......

I think i agree with weisoon, foodchain.... in our tank.

[madmac]

Ian, you're one confused man. You postings are convoluted... it becomes difficult to read and understand. Take this one:

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.

... then

if you run a DSB without these, clearly the PO4 will accumulate. thats all i'm saying.

.. actually thats all and fine... I think the kicker to what got the antennas up was this earlier quote: " I think it is unfounded and spurious for one to draw the conclusion that PO4 build-up is from the DSB." Those are big words to use here without prove. The consistency of the tests by weileong bears no reason to doubt. The indications are obvious. They were simple before/after tests. We do such tests all the time to draw plain conclusions.

[hmkui]

hi guys... keep yr cool man.... DSB and BB have been around for many many years and reefers have success in both system... and at the same time encounter it own problems... so lets not get too 1 sided shall we... we should have an open mind and at the same time adopt the method which suit you the best... beside it is great fun trying out different method of reefing and keep on improving...

[iantoh]

hi madmac. the reason i i responded to this post was because four days of running a barebottom system was cited as being conclusive proof that the DSB is responsible for PO4 buildup. think about that- as of on its own, does that not come across as a hurried conclusion? similarly, the spurious element is the association of the DSB being a sink when it is not designed for PO4 management. the DSB as of its own has no PO4 creating capability. where and when it accumulates PO4 because of the wastes that settle (because it is not possible for one to achieve the high flow rates that the BB can allow), the source of PO4 still remains the input of PO4 containing foods and not the DSB. you explain in your post that you siphon out wastes from your BB, and i merely asked why dont you try doing that with a DSB because it will similarly help reduce PO4 if you siphon out wastes in a DSB system. cause i mean, if you have to siphon off wastes from a BB, it necessarily means that there are still areas within your BB that accumulate wastes, so how is that different from the DSB?

as i said previously, i have no grieviances with anyone or any system, and i dont necessarily believe the DSB is superior or anything like that to BB, but you must understand that i only have what you guys post to go by. would you not have queried a post, if for example, i asserted in a thread that "i ran a DSB for two weeks and no nitrates detectable and hence, denitrification takes place"? the assertion of four days is similar.

the DSB was conceived to provide greater bacterial surface area for denitrification. whether or not you believe DSBs actually achieve that is up to you, but it doesnt call forth for BB users to assert outrightly that "denitrification does not take place in tank DSBs", when all the research and aquaculture facilities and public aquarias utilize DSBs. both borneman and calfo similarly have personal DSB tanks. not to say that such authorities necessarily know best, but that the DSB has been used succesfully. PO4 that is introduced into a tank through foods will need to be removed, and for the DSB system that does not allow such comprehensive turbulent water flows as the BB, PO4 filtering resins must be used. likewise, one can employ the growth of macroalgae to bind PO4 and nitrates for nutrient export.

the use of a sump and an in-tank DSB is not counter productive similarly. bacteria do not eat nitrates or nitrites- they Breathe it in. their food or energy source is actually sugars. the use of a sump or refugium is to add to the sandbed surface area of the main tank to yield an even higher bacterial population for denitrification.

if you read my posts again, i think it is clear that i wrote them without malice or anything like that. i honestly wrote them in good spirit not expecting to get flamed. i am sorry where i have offended anybody but it was never my intention to. i sincerely thought it might have helped to share what i recently found out about silicates, in that they are a greater determinant of microalgal growth. the removal of silicates alone to below 0.05ppm has been proven to limit microalgae growth despite high PO4 levels. most people seek to reduce PO4 to minimize diatom and cyano growth so i thought sharing the silicate aspect would be useful. as for RO or DI removing silicates, its been shown that with these units, the resins fail to sufficiently remove silicates because of the high levels of silicates in tapped water that soon fills up the resins. a reading of low PO4 only registers PO4 in the water column. if PO4 is being consumed as fast or faster than the rate that it is produced, then water borne PO4 will certainly read low, but diatoms and cyanos may still grow. i never ever bothered with the issue of silicates until recently, and with this thread, i just figured it might help.

again, apologies for where i have erred.

ian

[scarab]

I always find when discussion get so 'technical' a lot of misunderstanding occur.

Bros, reading up is good but try not to go overboard into the fine prints and start pointing out each others' discrepancies in the posting. Researching to learn the basics is the way to go. All the small technical details will surface differently in different tanks.

Once you have mastered the basics, go and just do it. Then come back and post your findings and experiences. I think this will be more practical and beneficial. All the technical papers and findings cannot beat hands on experience.

The proof is in your tank..

Just my opinion.......

[Rocks]

can someone post some pic of bare bottom tank? ... i wonder how it look like..

[weileong]

Scarab, I fully agree with you. Nowadays there are just too many "internet reefers" around. They read something on the internet and then think they know everything. If you asked if they had practical experienced with what they have posted then the answer is a big "NO". Some don't even have any tank photo to show at all.

Ian, thank for sharing with us. I hope you do not have any hard feelings as all these are just friendly exchange of information.

as i said previously, i have no grieviances with anyone or any system, and i dont necessarily believe the DSB is superior or anything like that to BB, but you must understand that i only have what you guys post to go by. would you not have queried a post, if for example, i asserted in a thread that "i ran a DSB for two weeks and no nitrates detectable and hence, denitrification takes place"? the assertion of four days is similar.

But you make the assumption that PO4 will raise again. You already know that running a BB system with good flow and less dead spots will allow detritus to be removed compared to using a DSB system where they will all settle down and eventually lead to leaching of PO4. Is it too early to just assume that PO4 will surely rise again?

Am I right to say the DSB is leaching PO4? It doesn't matter where is the source of the PO4. We want to eliminate the cause of the nutrients problem. It can be easy to keep a fishless tank but if you have a choice, do you like a dead SPS/coral only tank or a tank with fishes and sps/corals? This is all about removing the nutrients before they have a chance to accumulate and end up causing all the problems.

Silicates is not removed by RO process so had to be removed with DI resin and silicates do not register any TDS counts. However this can be solved by using DI resins that change color when they are exhausted. So far no nuisance algae problem in my tank even when the DSB is running just that I find 0.06ppm of PO4 is too high for my liking.

[iantoh]

hi bros scarab and weileong, and others,

certainly, no hard feelings. i just get worried when friendly exchanges turn contestational, and casual statements become scientific claims that one has to either advocate or defend. not like i helped the situation though ya. apologies all round ya.

well guys, my exilim cam is only two megapixels, so photos that i try to take of my corals hardly show up more than just a blotch of colour and i didnt want to post those up. also, my WIP shallow bed aquaculture tanks in my balcony is not even running yet, and i am still thinking about whether i should try natural sunlight or not as it will save me so much money. guys share your opinions?

heres two video files of my present goniopora system. sorry only videos as my two megapix photos cant see crap. and videos also rather blur but abit better especially as my subjects usually so small.

video 1 is of my live mysid refugium,

video 2 is of my pulsing xenias.

and last is a normal film cam picture that i scanned of my balanophyllia sp coral. only one polyp i have. hahaha.

cheers,

ian

[weileong]

Ian, no worries at all. From all those that has posted in this thread so far, all are cool headed and post based on facts and without getting too personal unlike some who place their reputation and experience on something they firmly believe, only to slap their own faces later when they turn their backs on it

[iantoh]

hi weileong. how do i post a video ah? i tried uploading and attaching but cant.

[iantoh]

hi guys, im still not able to upload the vids, so pic first.

[iantoh]

hi guys. as i cant figure out how to upload the videos, i created a new yahoo briefcase account. if youd like to check out hte videos, log in to <http://briefcase.yahoo.com>

user: ianmajeur

password: password

inside the 'my documents folder will be two videos of my mysids refugium and pulsing xenias.

cheers,

ian

[weileong]

I think the file size might be too large that's why you cannot post, better check with the mods.

[iantoh]

ya thats what i thought but the file is only 2 plus MB and the max attachment file size is 4.88MB. keeps saying i cant upload this file type. ah well..

[madmac]

... similarly, the spurious element is the association of the DSB being a sink when it is not designed for PO4 management. the DSB as of its own has no PO4 creating capability. where and when it accumulates PO4 because of the wastes that settle (because it is not possible for one to achieve the high flow rates that the BB can allow), the source of PO4 still remains the input of PO4 containing foods and not the DSB. you explain in your post that you siphon out wastes from your BB, and i merely asked why dont you try doing that with a DSB because it will similarly help reduce PO4 if you siphon out wastes in a DSB system. cause i mean, if you have to siphon off wastes from a BB, it necessarily means that there are still areas within your BB that accumulate wastes, so how is that different from the DSB?

sigh... : (

PO4 is any waste incl. bacterial waste.

So how does one syphon out PO4 in a DSB... where can it go. At least in LR, the detritus drops/sheds out of the rocks. Thats why it can't do 'PO4 management', its not where the waste settle for DSBs and you need to syphon it out.

bacteria is limited by food and habitat(a host), in our tanks, its just habitat, in nature its food... you can't cycle a new tank with just food alone. When it fills up, there's no place to go but out.

[Achilles Tang]

I would have kept a DSB for its denitrification & aesthetic purposes.

Even when I tore down my DSB, frankly, the dirty portion with all the accumulated detritus was only about 2.5 inches deep. Beyond that, the sand was clean! And it did not have a foul stench.

Every tank would have been different. *shrug*

Now I keep a BB tank, only because I have full confidence that my water circulation is now twice more than my previous DSB setup's. I also have a very large skimmer.

There are pros and cons of each method. I may have to keep a very close eye on my tank as a BB tank is not as forgiving as a DSB one.

Also, heavier detritus needs to be regularly siphoned out as blowing them up would see an unsightly snowstorm. Detritus tends to be processed by DSB (or sinking in).

For those keeping SPS only, a BB tank is ideal due to you being able to whip up water flow without a sandstorm.

For those keeping LPS & softy tanks, a DSB tank would be ideal for them, for natural feeding and placement.

There is no right and wrong... just understand the logic of what you're doing and the pros and cons of each method.

Coke and water both replenish the body with fluids but not everyone likes water! - Coke addict.

[roidan]

That's why I will still be using sandbeds for my next tank,

the benefits that I see currently on my present tank for my softies, LPS, fishes far outweigh the minuses of the DSB/sandbed system.

Going BB and too drastically nutrient-poor would be depriving the softies, LPS and fishes of the good stuff generated by the DSB/sandbed system.

So it boils down to what you keep and adapting theories/practical information to your reefkeeping routine

Don't you find the sandbed refines or even completes the look of the reef? In our quest for technical perfection of achieving ultra-low nutrient levels, by removing the sandbed, we probably have removed a major aspect of a natural looking reef environment in our tank> After all, aren't most of us striving to make our reefs as natural-looking as possible?

I know BB can be very effective....but is it beautiful? natural looking? Personally BB ain't beautiful in my eyes, but I know why some of the reefers have gone the BB way and I understand their reasons and respect their choice and judgement.

But for me, I simply can't face up to the fact that I will wake up every day seeing a botak, ###### 'ocean floor'

[Achilles Tang]

Actually, given time, coralline algae will cover the entire glass surface... or you might cover it with encrusting sps....

[roidan]

Seriously speaking if I am keeping sps, I would have probably gone bare bottom too

So that I can maintain very high water flow at the tank bottom without kicking up a sandstorm....but i would probably have the base board of acrylic/starboard with a layer of sand glued on it...something like how watercircle glued the externals of their seahorse showtank with a layer of sand

Meaning, while it still doesn't give the realism of a normal sandbed, at least I prefer it to a purple/red coralline floor or at least as I look between those encusting sps on the tank floor, I still see the 'whitish/biege sand' for those parts not encrusted yet

Personal preference lah...hehe

[weileong]

But very soon your fake sandbed also will be covered by coraline. Unless you buy a lot of sea urchin.

[roidan]

Hmmm....tat's true also hor, i overlooked how fast coralline can take over a tank esp with our high cal/alk tanks

I forgot it was only by scraping regularly, that coralline was prevented from coating the tank walls...

can't simply scrape the coralline off the fake glued sandbed hor, that will remove the fake sand layer and end up seeing the ###### black acrylic baseboard or white starboard again.....

sigh...seems that Sand is not destined to go with BB systems

[RAV-65]

sigh...seems that Sand is not destined to go with BB systems

bro, if got sand, even if it's a thin film, den it's not BB liao...

[roidan]

bro, if got sand, even if it's a thin film, den it's not BB liao...

technically very true