My first water change
- Thread starter njjamie
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by clekchau
...thanks for your opinion though LOL
I wasn't really stating "opinion". I'll be more than happy to give you references (Calfo, Fenner, Tullock, etc.)
Sand beds can fail when done improperly. No question there.
Running deep sand beds in a refugium doesn't make sense if you are worried about it failing... why would it fail in a display but not in a refugium?
Can bare bottom tanks run successfully? Sure. Do they provide ideal habitat for fish, inverts, micro crustaceans, etc.? Nope. Does a bare bottom tank provide the same habitat for bacteria? Nope.
The key in my opinion is providing the best, most natural habitat for the life in my aquarium.
...thanks for your opinion though LOL
I wasn't really stating "opinion". I'll be more than happy to give you references (Calfo, Fenner, Tullock, etc.)
Sand beds can fail when done improperly. No question there.
Running deep sand beds in a refugium doesn't make sense if you are worried about it failing... why would it fail in a display but not in a refugium?
Can bare bottom tanks run successfully? Sure. Do they provide ideal habitat for fish, inverts, micro crustaceans, etc.? Nope. Does a bare bottom tank provide the same habitat for bacteria? Nope.
The key in my opinion is providing the best, most natural habitat for the life in my aquarium.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by clekchau
Ok... browsed for a few on the forum over there..
I didn't spend a lot of time but I did read a couple of threads where problems with DSBs were discussed. One aquarist posted he had a "pseudo DSB".
That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I was talking about.... It's well documented that an "in between" sand bed can lead to problems.
There might be some better examples; I'm too tired to look tonight. Having said that, however, until you can explain to me the methodology of a DSB "crash" I'm going to keep mine.
For the record, I just moved my 210 which had a 6 inch DSB. Tank was about 18 months old. The sand was clean through and through.... NO sign of detritus pockets whatsoever.
Ok... browsed for a few on the forum over there..
I didn't spend a lot of time but I did read a couple of threads where problems with DSBs were discussed. One aquarist posted he had a "pseudo DSB".
That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I was talking about.... It's well documented that an "in between" sand bed can lead to problems.
There might be some better examples; I'm too tired to look tonight. Having said that, however, until you can explain to me the methodology of a DSB "crash" I'm going to keep mine.
For the record, I just moved my 210 which had a 6 inch DSB. Tank was about 18 months old. The sand was clean through and through.... NO sign of detritus pockets whatsoever.
1journeyman
Active Member
Found this today: "in a nutshell, the real pitfall of a bare bottom tank is the lack of denitrification processes. I don't want to oversimplify things, but it essentially boils down to that. A sand bed-preferably a deep one- will foster denitrification processes that can greatly improve water quality. Tanks without sand beds tend to develop accumulations of nitrate over time. Yes, there are some detractors of DSBs on the popular message boards, and a few people are trying to go "retro" back into the bare-bottom "Early Berlin" style of the mid eighties. They tout the ease of being able to remove detritus from the tank, the "cleaner" look, etc. I'm a bit puzzled as to why people want to go back to a technique that really didn't work that well in the eighties...Personally, I think that the new bare bottom trend is just an excuse for running super-powerful pumps without worrying about blowing sand around! Aggressive protein skimming and good husbandry- mandatory for any successful system, are crucial in bare-bottomed tanks. I sincerely believe in my heart that a well-maintained tank with a decent sandbed can run for years and years without problems. Do get different opinions on this, of course. Good luck! Regards, Scott F"
clekchau
Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I wasn't really stating "opinion". I'll be more than happy to give you references (Calfo, Fenner, Tullock, etc.)
Sand beds can fail when done improperly. No question there.
Running deep sand beds in a refugium doesn't make sense if you are worried about it failing... why would it fail in a display but not in a refugium?
Can bare bottom tanks run successfully? Sure. Do they provide ideal habitat for fish, inverts, micro crustaceans, etc.? Nope. Does a bare bottom tank provide the same habitat for bacteria? Nope.
The key in my opinion is providing the best, most natural habitat for the life in my aquarium.
here is a thread with over 20 bb/starboard aquariums that switched from dsb bottom. they did everything as required and there are alot of examples of before / after pics. it is a fact that dsb's in certain aquariums became nutrient sinks and eventually leaked back into the aquarium, even when done correctly. if you want an explaination of the dsb crash that has happened to so many experienced reefers, refer to bomber's comments and look at his before dsb and compare it to his bb aquarium. he goes into great lengths to explain the tank conditions while running a dsb compared to bb, btw he is marine biologist.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...ight=starboard
every tant that switched is run by very experienced reefers and you can tell by the photos, their reef tanks are nothing short of spectacular, nothing unnatural about it. a great example would be joseph weatherson's aquarium, it started as a dsb, switched to ssb and finally torn completely down and switched to a bb. here is a link to this tank
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/totm/index.php
regarding scott f's quote, he says "he believes", these people have actually "had" dsb's for years and switched over. it's definetely NOT a trend that has come and gone
btw, anthony calfo does not recommend a dsb but a rdsb to avoid the very thing you said could never happen, it becoming a nutrient sink, here a 40 page thread where you can read up all about it
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=595109
and a thread on his forum
http://forum.***********.com/Topic20039-13-1.aspx
btw i see you live in denton, are you a member of dfwmas?
I wasn't really stating "opinion". I'll be more than happy to give you references (Calfo, Fenner, Tullock, etc.)
Sand beds can fail when done improperly. No question there.
Running deep sand beds in a refugium doesn't make sense if you are worried about it failing... why would it fail in a display but not in a refugium?
Can bare bottom tanks run successfully? Sure. Do they provide ideal habitat for fish, inverts, micro crustaceans, etc.? Nope. Does a bare bottom tank provide the same habitat for bacteria? Nope.
The key in my opinion is providing the best, most natural habitat for the life in my aquarium.
here is a thread with over 20 bb/starboard aquariums that switched from dsb bottom. they did everything as required and there are alot of examples of before / after pics. it is a fact that dsb's in certain aquariums became nutrient sinks and eventually leaked back into the aquarium, even when done correctly. if you want an explaination of the dsb crash that has happened to so many experienced reefers, refer to bomber's comments and look at his before dsb and compare it to his bb aquarium. he goes into great lengths to explain the tank conditions while running a dsb compared to bb, btw he is marine biologist.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...ight=starboard
every tant that switched is run by very experienced reefers and you can tell by the photos, their reef tanks are nothing short of spectacular, nothing unnatural about it. a great example would be joseph weatherson's aquarium, it started as a dsb, switched to ssb and finally torn completely down and switched to a bb. here is a link to this tank
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/totm/index.php
regarding scott f's quote, he says "he believes", these people have actually "had" dsb's for years and switched over. it's definetely NOT a trend that has come and gone
btw, anthony calfo does not recommend a dsb but a rdsb to avoid the very thing you said could never happen, it becoming a nutrient sink, here a 40 page thread where you can read up all about it
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=595109
and a thread on his forum
http://forum.***********.com/Topic20039-13-1.aspx
btw i see you live in denton, are you a member of dfwmas?
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by clekchau
here is a thread with over 20 bb/starboard aquariums that switched from dsb bottom.
Not arguing that BB tanks can look good.
Originally Posted by clekchau
they did everything as required and there are alot of examples of before / after pics. it is a fact that dsb's in certain aquariums became nutrient sinks and eventually leaked back into the aquarium, even when done correctly.
Actually that's not a fact... just the opposite, imho. From Bomber's comments it seems certain many did NOT set them up appropriately. How could a properly run DSB "go" bad? From a logical standpoint that makes no sense...
Originally Posted by clekchau
if you want an explaination of the dsb crash that has happened to so many experienced reefers, refer to bomber's comments and look at his before dsb and compare it to his bb aquarium. he goes into great lengths to explain the tank conditions while running a dsb compared to bb, btw he is marine biologist.
I read Bomber's comments.. at least those you referenced... In respect to whoever that guy is, he's missed the whole point. He keeps talking about DSB's storing detritus. That's frankly a falsehood. Like I posted earlier, I just broke down my 210 with a 6 inch DSB. I know first hand what was in the bottom of my tank... sand. A DSB uses critters to eat any detritus that makes it to the sand. That, together with a brisk flow, prevents build up.
I've got a degree in Biology/Marine emphasis, Minor in Chemistry as well, fwiw. Broad theories are fine, but in the home aquarium there is still a lot to learn....
Originally Posted by clekchau
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...ight=starboard
Long thread... big on "Bomber Worship", light on facts... posts like "With a shallow sand bed you're trapping waste - but you don't have the bottom anaerobic area to store it." Destroy the credibility of the poster, imho. Another poster on that thread tried to compare a tank with and without a sand bed by the life of his corals... problem is he states openly on the DSB tank he was using an undersized skimmer... does that seem logical? I quit reading the link at this point on page 7 when this was stated by Bomber "It's a whole lot easier to provide people with a "formula" - put this much of this sand in the bottom of your tank, wait this long, and you can go out and buy corals. You can run a crappy skimmer and pumps wrong, you don't have to worry about keeping the tank clean, sand beds will "sink" all your problems, and my all time favorite - sand beds feed your corals." That's a blatant lie and false propaganda... I defy you to show me an author advocating DSBs who says this... Just the opposite is the truth. He keeps talking about sand beds "sinking" your problems... no one advocates that either. People lie and make up facts to create support for weak theories... He even infers that sand beds absorb your Ca. That's false too. Aragonite sand breaks down and RELEASES Ca Carbonate....
Originally Posted by clekchau
every tant that switched is run by very experienced reefers and you can tell by the photos, their reef tanks are nothing short of spectacular, nothing unnatural about it. a great example would be joseph weatherson's aquarium, it started as a dsb, switched to ssb and finally torn completely down and switched to a bb. here is a link to this tank
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/totm/index.php
That tank looks good. Thank tank also definitely has a sand bed...
Originally Posted by clekchau
btw, anthony calfo does not recommend a dsb but a rdsb to avoid the very thing you said could never happen, it becoming a nutrient sink, here a 40 page thread where you can read up all about it
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=595109
I beg to differ. See "reef Invertebrates" for a detailed section on properly setting up a DSB in your display tank. I didn't read every post that Calfo made, but I never saw a thread where he was against DSB's; only that he supported RDSBs. That's quite a distinction, imho.
Benefits of a deep sand bed include: buffering your water, providing habitat for micro fauna, providing proper habitat for your livestock (including clams and corals), and nitrification. Why would you give those things up???
Originally Posted by clekchau
btw i see you live in denton, are you a member of dfwmas?
I am not... I might try it out one of these days..
here is a thread with over 20 bb/starboard aquariums that switched from dsb bottom.
Not arguing that BB tanks can look good.
Originally Posted by clekchau
they did everything as required and there are alot of examples of before / after pics. it is a fact that dsb's in certain aquariums became nutrient sinks and eventually leaked back into the aquarium, even when done correctly.
Actually that's not a fact... just the opposite, imho. From Bomber's comments it seems certain many did NOT set them up appropriately. How could a properly run DSB "go" bad? From a logical standpoint that makes no sense...
Originally Posted by clekchau
if you want an explaination of the dsb crash that has happened to so many experienced reefers, refer to bomber's comments and look at his before dsb and compare it to his bb aquarium. he goes into great lengths to explain the tank conditions while running a dsb compared to bb, btw he is marine biologist.
I read Bomber's comments.. at least those you referenced... In respect to whoever that guy is, he's missed the whole point. He keeps talking about DSB's storing detritus. That's frankly a falsehood. Like I posted earlier, I just broke down my 210 with a 6 inch DSB. I know first hand what was in the bottom of my tank... sand. A DSB uses critters to eat any detritus that makes it to the sand. That, together with a brisk flow, prevents build up.
I've got a degree in Biology/Marine emphasis, Minor in Chemistry as well, fwiw. Broad theories are fine, but in the home aquarium there is still a lot to learn....
Originally Posted by clekchau
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...ight=starboard
Long thread... big on "Bomber Worship", light on facts... posts like "With a shallow sand bed you're trapping waste - but you don't have the bottom anaerobic area to store it." Destroy the credibility of the poster, imho. Another poster on that thread tried to compare a tank with and without a sand bed by the life of his corals... problem is he states openly on the DSB tank he was using an undersized skimmer... does that seem logical? I quit reading the link at this point on page 7 when this was stated by Bomber "It's a whole lot easier to provide people with a "formula" - put this much of this sand in the bottom of your tank, wait this long, and you can go out and buy corals. You can run a crappy skimmer and pumps wrong, you don't have to worry about keeping the tank clean, sand beds will "sink" all your problems, and my all time favorite - sand beds feed your corals." That's a blatant lie and false propaganda... I defy you to show me an author advocating DSBs who says this... Just the opposite is the truth. He keeps talking about sand beds "sinking" your problems... no one advocates that either. People lie and make up facts to create support for weak theories... He even infers that sand beds absorb your Ca. That's false too. Aragonite sand breaks down and RELEASES Ca Carbonate....
Originally Posted by clekchau
every tant that switched is run by very experienced reefers and you can tell by the photos, their reef tanks are nothing short of spectacular, nothing unnatural about it. a great example would be joseph weatherson's aquarium, it started as a dsb, switched to ssb and finally torn completely down and switched to a bb. here is a link to this tank
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/totm/index.php
That tank looks good. Thank tank also definitely has a sand bed...
Originally Posted by clekchau
btw, anthony calfo does not recommend a dsb but a rdsb to avoid the very thing you said could never happen, it becoming a nutrient sink, here a 40 page thread where you can read up all about it
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=595109
I beg to differ. See "reef Invertebrates" for a detailed section on properly setting up a DSB in your display tank. I didn't read every post that Calfo made, but I never saw a thread where he was against DSB's; only that he supported RDSBs. That's quite a distinction, imho.
Benefits of a deep sand bed include: buffering your water, providing habitat for micro fauna, providing proper habitat for your livestock (including clams and corals), and nitrification. Why would you give those things up???
Originally Posted by clekchau
btw i see you live in denton, are you a member of dfwmas?
I am not... I might try it out one of these days..
clekchau
Member
whew i don't even know where to start, for one please show me how bomber did not set up his dsb properly? your dsb was running for less than 2 years, wait 3 or 4 years and see how much of a nutrient sink it will be.
perhaps you didn't read my post, weatherson's aquarium was initially set up with a dsb, than a shallow sand bed and now no sand bed, in that thread he has pictures at all stages, his dsb tank looked dirty and full of unwanted nutrients compared to his bb, he advocates bb over dsb btw
in the beginning (as in less than 2 or 3 years which is where you are at) a dsb sounds fine, eventually it will be just that, a nutrient sink. do you have any sand sifters in your aqaurium? according to calfo, you do not need any kind of sifters as a properly set up dsb will have enough flow to move all the junk out of the tank. unfortunately 99% of people do not properly set up a dsb which is why he advocates a rdsb over a dsb. did you even read the thread? LOL
a proper habitat for marine life would be a place where they are healthy, happy living with perfect water parameters and growing like crazy. that would be a bb aquarium.
you don't need a dsb for nitrification there are alot of other ways to do it alot more cleaner too. the other points you made could easily be done in a refugium. i have a bb, moderate/heavy stocked fish only aquarium that has nitrates at less than 5ppm for over a year until i sold it, it had a rdsb (which i strongly recommend over a dsb) and a refugium with chaeto and 1 lb of live rock per gallon and a huge very efficient protein skimmer. my mechanical filteration is siphoning detritus from my sump each week when i do water changes and there is very little due to great skimming. perfect filter, easy to clean, spotless tank, happy and healthy animals and perfect water parameters. in fact maintaining my large fowlr is easier than any aquarium i've ever maintained while in this hobby and i've been in it awhile. what more could you ask for?
the debate rages on but the fact is, more people, experienced people with beautiful reef tanks are switching to bb over their current dsb with great results. give your tank a few years, you just might make the switch to a cleaner, easier to maintain and healthier aquarium also
perhaps you didn't read my post, weatherson's aquarium was initially set up with a dsb, than a shallow sand bed and now no sand bed, in that thread he has pictures at all stages, his dsb tank looked dirty and full of unwanted nutrients compared to his bb, he advocates bb over dsb btw
in the beginning (as in less than 2 or 3 years which is where you are at) a dsb sounds fine, eventually it will be just that, a nutrient sink. do you have any sand sifters in your aqaurium? according to calfo, you do not need any kind of sifters as a properly set up dsb will have enough flow to move all the junk out of the tank. unfortunately 99% of people do not properly set up a dsb which is why he advocates a rdsb over a dsb. did you even read the thread? LOL
a proper habitat for marine life would be a place where they are healthy, happy living with perfect water parameters and growing like crazy. that would be a bb aquarium.
you don't need a dsb for nitrification there are alot of other ways to do it alot more cleaner too. the other points you made could easily be done in a refugium. i have a bb, moderate/heavy stocked fish only aquarium that has nitrates at less than 5ppm for over a year until i sold it, it had a rdsb (which i strongly recommend over a dsb) and a refugium with chaeto and 1 lb of live rock per gallon and a huge very efficient protein skimmer. my mechanical filteration is siphoning detritus from my sump each week when i do water changes and there is very little due to great skimming. perfect filter, easy to clean, spotless tank, happy and healthy animals and perfect water parameters. in fact maintaining my large fowlr is easier than any aquarium i've ever maintained while in this hobby and i've been in it awhile. what more could you ask for?
the debate rages on but the fact is, more people, experienced people with beautiful reef tanks are switching to bb over their current dsb with great results. give your tank a few years, you just might make the switch to a cleaner, easier to maintain and healthier aquarium also
1journeyman
Active Member
I quoted Bomber.
My DSB was up for less than 2 years and showed 0 signs of waste accumulation. 0.0 x's 1000 years still is going to equal 0. I also tested the water once everything had been moved. 0.0 ammonia.
I do not use sifters. I do employ sand shifters (Nass. snails, cucumbers, etc.).
We can provide a proper habitat for marine critters. Many marine species live their entire lives in the same few feet of reef. (There is a Damsel fish on the Great Barrier Reef outside on Cairns that farms the same spot of sea floor for algae. The dive boat I've been on has been observing him for 5 years. I've seen it twice, 3 years apart). My tank is not overcrowded, not under skimmed, and certainly not lacking in water movement. Using that for an excuse to go BB is lacking merit, imho. You conveniently use that as an excuse to avoid addressing the benefits of sand.
I did not read on Wetherman's webpage where he had switched to BB. I believe you, but I didn't see that nor notice it in the many pics he had.
I don't use a filter either. I use rock, sand and a protein skimmer. My refugium will eventually employ macro algaes.
In 3 or 4 years I won't be switching I may go with the next proven method of aquarium keeping, but I won't take a leap back 20-40 years for the sake of ease... As the post earlier said, why go back to a method that didn't work?
My DSB was up for less than 2 years and showed 0 signs of waste accumulation. 0.0 x's 1000 years still is going to equal 0. I also tested the water once everything had been moved. 0.0 ammonia.
I do not use sifters. I do employ sand shifters (Nass. snails, cucumbers, etc.).
We can provide a proper habitat for marine critters. Many marine species live their entire lives in the same few feet of reef. (There is a Damsel fish on the Great Barrier Reef outside on Cairns that farms the same spot of sea floor for algae. The dive boat I've been on has been observing him for 5 years. I've seen it twice, 3 years apart). My tank is not overcrowded, not under skimmed, and certainly not lacking in water movement. Using that for an excuse to go BB is lacking merit, imho. You conveniently use that as an excuse to avoid addressing the benefits of sand.
I did not read on Wetherman's webpage where he had switched to BB. I believe you, but I didn't see that nor notice it in the many pics he had.
I don't use a filter either. I use rock, sand and a protein skimmer. My refugium will eventually employ macro algaes.
In 3 or 4 years I won't be switching I may go with the next proven method of aquarium keeping, but I won't take a leap back 20-40 years for the sake of ease... As the post earlier said, why go back to a method that didn't work?
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by clekchau
this is weatherfan's aquarium during his dsb heyday and after when it was bb, it's easy to see why he preferred to go bb,
same camera, angle, lens, exposure, rock, fish etc
Ok... that's just silly. Would you like to see photos of tanks that have DSBs that look good? Would you like to see tanks that look bad BB (Go to your nearest *****).
this is weatherfan's aquarium during his dsb heyday and after when it was bb, it's easy to see why he preferred to go bb,
same camera, angle, lens, exposure, rock, fish etc
Ok... that's just silly. Would you like to see photos of tanks that have DSBs that look good? Would you like to see tanks that look bad BB (Go to your nearest *****).
clekchau
Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ok... that's just silly. Would you like to see photos of tanks that have DSBs that look good? Would you like to see tanks that look bad BB (Go to your nearest *****).
just giving you an example of an experienced aquarist dealing with the aftermath of having a dsb and what happened when he switched to bb
even his dsb looked good, well it looked great in the first few years
*****... ha ha ha i feel so bad for all those fishies though
Ok... that's just silly. Would you like to see photos of tanks that have DSBs that look good? Would you like to see tanks that look bad BB (Go to your nearest *****).
just giving you an example of an experienced aquarist dealing with the aftermath of having a dsb and what happened when he switched to bb
even his dsb looked good, well it looked great in the first few years
*****... ha ha ha i feel so bad for all those fishies though
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by clekchau
i agree with you there buddy, good luck with your aquarium, whatever works is my stance also there are so many different ways to achieve a happy, healthy aquarium
LOL, we wasted a lot of time to arrive at the same conclusion.
i agree with you there buddy, good luck with your aquarium, whatever works is my stance also there are so many different ways to achieve a happy, healthy aquarium
LOL, we wasted a lot of time to arrive at the same conclusion.
O
oreo12
Guest
This is so funny how this post has been going I don't see one thing in the starters ? about going with a bare bottom. I don't see anything about changing anything about the set up just how to do a water change How are any of you helping this person out? Start your own thread and argue the vare bottom vers the deep sand bed. Lets help out those that need it.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by oreo12
All I know is my engeiner goby has tunnles all over the place he loves to dig up and pile the sand in a mound then moves the mound to a new location. My yellow wacthman in my 55 also loves to tunnel. I can look under the tank and see his tunnels
Originally Posted by oreo12
This is so funny how this post has been going I don't see one thing in the starters ? about going with a bare bottom. I don't see anything about changing anything about the set up just how to do a water change How are any of you helping this person out? Start your own thread and argue the vare bottom vers the deep sand bed. Lets help out those that need it.
Kind of pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?
NJJamie, sorry for going sideways in your thread. I saw a post I disagreed with and didn't want you to get wrong information about your setup.
All I know is my engeiner goby has tunnles all over the place he loves to dig up and pile the sand in a mound then moves the mound to a new location. My yellow wacthman in my 55 also loves to tunnel. I can look under the tank and see his tunnels
Originally Posted by oreo12
This is so funny how this post has been going I don't see one thing in the starters ? about going with a bare bottom. I don't see anything about changing anything about the set up just how to do a water change How are any of you helping this person out? Start your own thread and argue the vare bottom vers the deep sand bed. Lets help out those that need it.
Kind of pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?
NJJamie, sorry for going sideways in your thread. I saw a post I disagreed with and didn't want you to get wrong information about your setup.