DSB or BB? Your thoughts.

[Chad and Belinda]

Belinda and I will be starting a new tank in the coming weeks. I'll be making some changes from what we have now and I'll get further into details when we start a build thread. I have always valued y'alls input and would like to know your thoughts on the subject of deep sand beds vs bare bottom. This will be a mixed reef with sps, lps and softies. There will also be fish. I plan on having a refugium as well. If I forgot any additional details, feel free to let me know.

[victoly]

I prefer a decorative sand bed in the dt. IMO bb looks weird for a mixed reef. I'm not a big fan of dsb, but am bracing myself for the incoming barrage of DSB RUELZ sentiment

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jestep]

Based on my observation and research and personal preference, I would go shallow sand or barebottom for the DT and a remote DSB if any. Not sure if that's possible given your setup, but it seems that the benefits of a good DSB are much more practical when kept separate from the main tank. This is both for the ability to change out the DSB if it gets nasty, and it's less likely to be disturbed. I also like the look of a shallow bed much better than seeing 6" of sand in the DT.

Edited October 4, 2012 by jestep

[ClarkiiCircus]

I have one of each for my clowns. There are pros and cons to both. There is research done that DSBs significantly improve water quality as they allow for the bacterial population to expand. But then again, one wrong stir up moving the sand around and those nutrients are released and could kill everything.

The BB tank is very esthetically different. It doesn't look as "natural" like you might picture a real reef. I'm always worried my rocks don't have enough grip on the bottom and could slip one day. I also have to siphon the BB detritus out often. But, then again, because I am forced to siphon the detritus, I KNOW I am removing those nutrients, and I actually tend to see better parameters on my BB because of it. I have no algae growth on my BB tank, and a moderate amount in my DSB tank.

I really think its preference and everyone is going to tell you something different :]

[Timfish]

Historically I have thought this discussion was almost purely an issue of aesthetics. Recently I noticed in one of my sump tanks that is partially covered with a thin layer of sand that tunicates and especially copepods could only be seen on the sand. I could understand the tunicates only settling on a calcium substrate but was suprised the copepods clearly chose the sand substrate over no substrate even when they activley swam above the bottom.

[subsea]

What is the nutriant export mechanism in your new tanK? A DSB will perform nitrification and denitrificatin as well as nutriant recycling by feeding the fish and coral in the tank. What does BB do for biological filtation? Did I miss the point? I stir the top 1" of my DSB up every day to feed Sea Apple and corals. No body jumps out of the tank and dies. In fact as the nutriants/detritus swirl in the water column coral polyps extend and everybody feeds.

Use a remote DSB.

Patrick

[Chad and Belinda]

What does BB do for biological filtation? Did I miss the point?

Are you asking me or is directed toward someones post?

At this point, I plan to have a tank, stand, refugium, sump, light, rocks, fish, corals and water. Everything else is still in the air.

A remote DSB is what I have thinking about more than anything. I had one in the past and it appeared to work out pretty good.

[victoly]

the point of BB isn't biological filtration. Biological filtration can be achieved through live rock and if necessary or desired, a remote DSB. BB is to keep detritus from settling on the tank bottom by way of blowing around the crud so it can be removed mechanically by filter socks.

[subsea]

What does BB do for biological filtation? Did I miss the point?

Are you asking me or is directed toward someones post?

At this point, I plan to have a tank, stand refugium, sump, light, rocks, fish corals and water. Everything else is still in the air.

I was being mildly facetious. In the long run, if you do not have significant denitrification, you will continually have to dilute your tank with partial water changes.

The built in requirement to do partial water changes tells me, the method is flawed. I provide sufficient nutriant pathways with DSB and mud filters. No skimmers, no partial water changes, water from the Trinity Aquifer goes straight into the tank. When you operate large systems with 1000G, I question any assertion that tells me it is good husbandry to throw away good tank water.

Patrick

[victoly]

What does BB do for biological filtation? Did I miss the point?

Are you asking me or is directed toward someones post?

At this point, I plan to have a tank, stand refugium, sump, light, rocks, fish corals and water. Everything else is still in the air.

I was being mildly facetious. In the long run, if you do not have significant denitrification, you will continually have to dilute your tank with partial water changes.

The built in requirement to do partial water changes tells me, the method is flawed. I provide sufficient nutriant pathways with DSB and mud filters. No skimmers, no partial water changes, water from the Trinity Aquifer goes straight into the tank. When you operate large systems with 1000G, I question any assertion that tells me it is good husbandry to throw away good tank water.

Patrick

I disagree. A water change isn't a flawed method. It's a time tested method that 95% of successful aquarists use. Not everyone has access to well water vs city water, and not everyone has 1000 gallons to do water changes on. You have to consider that not everyone has a system like you, and your method may not be the best for any and all scenarios.

[Chad and Belinda]

the point of BB isn't biological filtration. Biological filtration can be achieved through live rock and if necessary or desired, a remote DSB. BB is to keep detritus from settling on the tank bottom by way of blowing around the crud so it can be removed mechanically by filter socks.

This is the reason I was considering going BB in the DT. However, I don't like the look and was considering a PVC bottom with a layer of sand. Any thoughts on that?

[(Bio)³]

What does BB do for biological filtation? Did I miss the point?

Are you asking me or is directed toward someones post?

At this point, I plan to have a tank, stand refugium, sump, light, rocks, fish corals and water. Everything else is still in the air.

I was being mildly facetious. In the long run, if you do not have significant denitrification, you will continually have to dilute your tank with partial water changes.

The built in requirement to do partial water changes tells me, the method is flawed. I provide sufficient nutriant pathways with DSB and mud filters. No skimmers, no partial water changes, water from the Trinity Aquifer goes straight into the tank. When you operate large systems with 1000G, I question any assertion that tells me it is good husbandry to throw away good tank water.

Patrick

I disagree. A water change isn't a flawed method. It's a time tested method that 95% of successful aquarists use. Not everyone has access to well water vs city water, and not everyone has 1000 gallons to do water changes on. You have to consider that not everyone has a system like you, and your method may not be the best for any and all scenarios.

Gonna have to ask for the source of the stats %.

[Scutterborn]

I vote 1" sand bed in the DT with a remote DSB. of all the research I've done, this is my route. The DSB in the DT isn't as aesthetically pleasing as a 1" layer. If you keep the bed 1" or less, it shouldn't create hydrogen sulfide. Anywhere between 1"-4" can do that. Also the lack of 4" depth will not create an anaerobic zone for denitrification. There's no point to it other than to deplete your wallet and create a potential anoxic zones that can/will lead to H2S gas.

- Ben -

[jestep]

This topic, like the skimmer one, is way too subjective to debate via a recommendation thread. There are multiple ways of accomplishing a successful reef tank. The high nutrient systems work but many people don't like lagoon style tanks or macros in their DT. ULNS work as well, but they are very much reliant on artificial means of nutrient reduction and replenishment. The majority of tanks use water changes as part of our nitrate export and to replenish minerals. Neither method is "the right way". The right way is the way that creates a stable system that you are comfortable with and proud of.

Edited October 4, 2012 by jestep

[Scutterborn]

Agreed ^. I wouldn't shy away from asking the question though. This "debate" is what fuels this forum and leads to expanding our knowledge o the the marine ecosystem. Most of it is personal preference but, tempered by others experience.

- Ben -

[subsea]

the point of BB isn't biological filtration. Biological filtration can be achieved through live rock and if necessary or desired, a remote DSB. BB is to keep detritus from settling on the tank bottom by way of blowing around the crud so it can be removed mechanically by filter socks.

This is the reason I was considering going BB in the DT. However, I don't like the look and was considering a PVC bottom with a layer of sand. Any thoughts on that?

What is a PVC bottom?

For the average reef hobbiest, I would recommend a 1" sandbed in DT using either Special Reef Grade Aroggonite are Florida Crushed Coral. I prefer Florida Crushed Coral as it provides a excellant matrix for pods to breed and multiply. My quick cycle for reef tanks includes , 1/4" lb of Red Ogo circulating with a vertical loop current. In a 55G tank 20 mollies with pods introduced early as the clean up crew. When and if I stock my tanks, I consider who will consume pods and they are not included in the livestock. Bacteria in DT sandbed deal with ammonia and nitrate. With respect to denitrification chemistry in the depth of the live rock, I will bet that one pound of Florida Crushed Coral, in the "facultative zone" will out produce 20 lbs of live rock with denitrification. Considering the cost of live rock, from the economic point of view, it is an economic failure to me. I do not get live rock for bio filtration in its interior. I get live rock for its biodiversity on the surface.

Patrick

[Chad and Belinda]

This topic, like the skimmer one, is way too subjective to debate via a recommendation thread. There are multiple ways of accomplishing a successful reef tank. The high nutrient systems work but many people don't like lagoon style tanks or macros in their DT. ULNS work as well, but they are very much reliant on artificial means of nutrient reduction and replenishment. The majority of tanks use water changes as part of our nitrate export and to replenish minerals. Neither method is "the right way". The right way is the way that creates a stable system that you are comfortable with and proud of.

I want to get peoples experience rather than read article after article and get conflicting information. I know a lot of people on this forum and have a great deal of respect for their opinion. The real perk is I can go see their system and have a better idea of how it works and if it is right for me before I go through the expense of purchasing something I might not care for once it's set up (which I have done too many times). I asked for peoples thoughts on the subject and figured there would be a friendly debate. That just tells me there are at least 2 people who are passionate about their system. I don't mind as long as it doesn't get personal and argumentative. I can go to Reef Central for that. Lol This is actually what I want in a sense because I get to see both sides of the argument. I knew Patrick would give his opinion just because of his prior posts and I was very interested in what he has to say on the matter. I have never seen his set up, nor have I ever seen a "lagoon" system. I was pretty much under the impression that this may not be something I could do but it gives me a better idea of the diversity in different systems. What Victoly spoke about is more main stream and something I have more experience with but what I really didn't think about to begin with was having a remote DSB. Had I not posed the question I may not have thought about this. I completely agree with Victoly and my consideration of a BB tank was just as he mentioned "BB is to keep detritus from settling on the tank bottom by way of blowing around the crud so it can be removed mechanically by filter socks". On top of that, I am curious what folks with BB tanks have (if at all) in addition to a sump and a skimmer to help remove detritus, etc. On that note, I have heard some people sum up their opinion (here and other sites) of skimmers. Why not do it on a thread that deals with BB and DSB. If thats too much to ask, then I guess it wasn't worth listening to in the 1st place.

I 110% agree with "Neither method is "the right way". The right way is the way that creates a stable system that you are comfortable with and proud of". I want to see what way is the right way for me because I feel I can always improve what I have.

Patrick, a PVC bottom is basically just that but what I intend to do is have a glass bottom tank with a PVC board on top of it with sand that is permanently attached to it so it gives the look of sand but provides the benefit of a BB. The ones I have seen so far look good but lack the contour I have become accustomed to.

[jestep]

Definitely understood and agree. I think you can find a successful tank using every method imaginable including ones that shouldn't work...

I had a barebottom for a while in my cube tank. My main complaint with it is that manual removal of detritus is pretty much a necessity. No matter how much flow there is, it always finds places to settle and collect and it's very visible. Otherwise, you can be fairly certain that nothing is decomposing in the tank.

[mFrame]

I've seen several posts here about people making faux sand bottoms or walls for their tank. Getting a piece of pvc or acrylic and cutting it to shape is easy. You'll want to be careful which adhesive you use and allow it to cure properly, as well as to make sure it's heavy enough to stay down (but rock on top of it should achieve that). It could also lead to some very confused burrowing critters, but at MACNA I actually saw a Reel Reef Rock "bowl" that you put sand in so that your burrowers have a place they can do that without having sand completely cover the bottom of the tank.

The main question I would ask for BB vs DSB is: How good are you at tank maintenance such as water changes? I think that if you're lazy a BB is a bad idea.

[+SChrisEV]

Thanks for starting this post! I have never liked the look of a BB tank, completely based on the aesthetics. So for me it is sand, natural looking, in all my scuba, and snorkeling I have yet to see a "bare bottom" reef ... That being said, I do follow the "pros and cons" of a DSB and BB, given what I said, I'm going with sand.

Scutterborn comments do raise another questions that may be inline with that Chad's general questions are... If one does not do a DSB in the DT, but have say a 2 inch sand bed, is that going to cause issue? Scutterborn: "create a potential anoxic zones that can/will lead to H2S gas" Are there other things that one needs to do to maintain that bed?

I do plan on having a DSB in my refugium, the depth and size are still in the planning stage.

Edited October 4, 2012 by SCEV

[victoly]

Thanks for starting this post! I have never liked the look of a BB tank, completely based on the aesthetics. So for me it is sand, natural looking, in all my scuba, and snorkeling I have yet to see a "bare bottom" reef ... That being said, I do follow the "pros and cons" of a DSB and BB, given what I said, I'm going with sand.

Scutterborn comments do raise another questions that may be inline with that Chad's general questions are... If I don't do a DSB in my DT, but have say a 2 inch sand bed, am I going to cause issue? Scutterborn: "create a potential anoxic zones that can/will lead to H2S gas" Are there other things that one needs to do to maintain that bed?

I do plan on having a DSB in my refugium, the depth and size are still in the planning stage.

Here's all you could ever want to know about H2S in the reef

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/rhf/index.php#14

[subsea]

Thanks for the BB seminar.

In using the contoured PVC, have you considered how long it would take to be obscured with coraline. I do not cover my back glass with anything. Within less than 6 months, it is disguised and within one year it is covered up solid with coraline. This would allow the benefit without the danger of adhesives. It would also provide a quasi cryptic/refuge in the display tank in the faux bottom. No telling what might grow there. Possible reef food.

May good things go your way,

Patrick

[Chad and Belinda]

I've seen several posts here about people making faux sand bottoms or walls for their tank. Getting a piece of pvc or acrylic and cutting it to shape is easy. You'll want to be careful which adhesive you use and allow it to cure properly, as well as to make sure it's heavy enough to stay down (but rock on top of it should achieve that). It could also lead to some very confused burrowing critters, but at MACNA I actually saw a Reel Reef Rock "bowl" that you put sand in so that your burrowers have a place they can do that without having sand completely cover the bottom of the tank.

The main question I would ask for BB vs DSB is: How good are you at tank maintenance such as water changes? I think that if you're lazy a BB is a bad idea.

You must have talked to Belinda about my tank maintenance. Lol Actually, I have gotten a lot better these days and do a water change every 2 weeks. Sometimes, very small changes weekly on Belinda's 34 gallon.

I saw that bowl. Don't be suprised if one winds up in our tank. Belinda love it.

[subsea]

With respect to H2S, if you can smell it, then you are safe. The human sense of smell detects H2S at parts per billion. If you get into the parts per million, then prepare to die with no smell to warn you. I routinely smell H2S if I stir too deep into my Jaubert Plenumn sandbed. Sea Apple and coral polops extend into feeding mode. I consider my tank inhabitants to be the final authority. I do not believe some of the data that is purpose driven for interpretation to be the final authority on good and bad.

Patrick

[jestep]

Scutterborn comments do raise another questions that may be inline with that Chad's general questions are... If one does not do a DSB in the DT, but have say a 2 inch sand bed, is that going to cause issue? Scutterborn: "create a potential anoxic zones that can/will lead to H2S gas" Are there other things that one needs to do to maintain that bed?

It depends on flow, sand sifting life forms, amount of waste, grain size, and probably a half dozen other factors. As long as you don't create completely anoxic zones, you don't need to worry about massive denitrification, and thus the production of H2S. Using special grade sand or equivalent, 3 - 4 inches is probably safe. The smaller the grain size, the less depth is needed to deplete oxygen. I've read that the extremely small grain sand or mud can become anoxic in an inch or so. With that being said you would still need decaying material to produce a significant amount of H2S. Secondly, if you do inadvertently create anoxic zones, they may not be any problem unless they're disturbed, and they may not be a problem even if they are disturbed.

Edited October 4, 2012 by jestep