Nano vs. larger tank and BB vs. SS

[czdiver]

I ran a successful 14 gal. bio-cube for a couple of years. I made a few modifications such as replacing the bio-balls with a filtration tower containing several forms of filtration and added a protein skimmer and a larger pump and power-head for increased flow. My only fish were a little yellow clown goby and a fire fish. I did have a beautiful blood or fire shrimp and something like an emerald crab only it was red, some sexy shrimp, a few hermits and a small assortment of snails. I also had a nice assortment of corals that flourished and a couple of mini-carpets.

I sold everything in my tank to a local shop when I moved several years ago because I was going to have to stay in an extended stay until my apartment was ready and then I knew I would move again in about a year when I bought a place. Anyway, I've started to get the bug again. I'd love to get a larger tank so I could have more fish but I hate to spend that much so I'm questioning whether to just start up my nano again.

I'm also debating what kind of substrate to use. I've read a really good thread on the subject on this site and I'm now more confused than ever. I used some sort of gravel/crushed coral last time. I'd rather not use that again. I like the look of white or pink Fiji sand but a guy that has a coral farm here swears by a bare bottom tank. He says the pros way outweigh the pros of live sand. I understand his arguments but, quite frankly, I really don't like the look of it. It's like having a beautifully decorated room sitting on a bare concrete floor. Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

[brandon429]

you can remedy any negative claim against a dsb by simply cleaning it.

to have a constantly detritus free sandbed is the same biology as a bare bottom wo that bare look. all the rage you see about sandbeds involves ones that aren't blasted clean often, so by reversing the trend you control the outcomes. The key is have a hands on, not hands off tank. be the exporter. be able to have a rock scape so accessible, you can lift out everything, hold it in buckets, access the bed for a 100% change or cleaning such that all detritus is removed, then they have no consequence other than this cleaning work. I have kept a dsb for nine years 6 inches deep in a one gallon mixed sps reef.

notice I didn't say partial cleaning, again that's part of the debate. anything I do to my tank is overdone to the point of pure deliberate control. my sand bed gets *cleaned*

 

[Lonely reefer's]

I don't have bare bottom tank,but if I have to do it again I would.
Look at wwc and jf display tanks

 

[chimmike]

You don't need a deep sand bed in the display tank. 1-2" is fine. Or 2-3" or more, and a sand sifting goby or jawfish and some aggressive snails and you won't have a problem. Keep good flow, and turkey baste, or use a powerhead to blast out the LR every now and then to get that detritus in suspension and out through the overflow to your nutrient export station, IMO that should be fine.

Last tank I had, 36"x36"x20", I barely ever blasted the LR, never cleaned the 2" sand bed (but had lots of snails) and my biggest issue (annoying issue, for sure) was cleaning the coralline algae off the glass. Never had a big detritus or nutrient-caused algae spike or kill off. Had a refugium and a skimmer, that's it.

Lots of flow via external return pump and a vortech.

 

[Fin]

It has always been my understanding that if you want a DSB to function properly, it needs to be chock full of small sand dwelling creatures. This fauna helps reduce the amount of detritus and their constant burrowing helps keep the sand bed stirred. You should also introduce new fauna often to help keep their numbers up and not stock your tank with sand sifting fish or starfish (in DSBs). They will feed off of the beneficial organisms in the sand bed.

This comes from the publication, "Sand Bed Secrets" by Dr. Ron Shimek. If you are considering going with a DSB, I would recommend reading that booklet. A DSB is only one way to skin a cat though. You will be able to find awesome tanks that are bare bottom or that have a shallow sand bed.

 

[Nano sapiens]

SS in a nano or larger tank works fine IF it is maintained (regular detritus removal, various methods possible). The problem is not the sand, per se, but the gunk that can accumulate in it due to advection.

 

[czdiver]

you can remedy any negative claim against a dsb by simply cleaning it.

to have a constantly detritus free sandbed is the same biology as a bare bottom wo that bare look. all the rage you see about sandbeds involves ones that aren't blasted clean often, so by reversing the trend you control the outcomes. The key is have a hands on, not hands off tank. be the exporter. be able to have a rock scape so accessible, you can lift out everything, hold it in buckets, access the bed for a 100% change or cleaning such that all detritus is removed, then they have no consequence other than this cleaning work. I have kept a dsb for nine years 6 inches deep in a one gallon mixed sps reef.

notice I didn't say partial cleaning, again that's part of the debate. anything I do to my tank is overdone to the point of pure deliberate control. my sand bed gets *cleaned*

I appreciate the reply but taking everything out of and cleaning a one gallon is a pretty easy thing vs. doing the same thing with a much larger tank. I can't believe you keep a 6" deep sand bed in a one gallon tank. How is there any room to keep anything in it? And I'm assuming you don't keep any fish in that one gallon tank which is what creates most of the problems to begin with. But I will take your response into consideration when I'm making my decision. Thanks.

 

[chimmike]

Cleaning the DSB/disturbing the entire thing defeats the entire purpose of a dsb.

 

[brandon429]

imo That causes them to be nutrient sinks across tanks, not reducers.




Here's a vid, no fish agreed. The biology modeling is the same however between aquariums, it's rare to see a 9 yr sandbed in standard tanks simply due to the notions that they should never be cleaned or handled in such a way to prevent bed incursion, they turn into nitrate factories and cause algae problems in most tanks given enough time. What I was looking for was a way to reverse their status as a nutrient sink in 90% of tanks that use them, by:

Reducing whole waste input, no fish. Size of container precludes them anyway

Representing storm nutrient upwellings on the reef flats by doing blast water changes that stir up and eject the top 1/3 layer of the bed free of detritus. The activity isn't anti microbial, so it doesn't kill the NNR bacteria, this bed is handled roughly a couple times a year.

Making feeding a non daily activity. The old sb itself is a gamete and juvenile pelagic feed source, so I can feed the tank weekly and then do a water change just after to pre export the mess that eventually sinks down

Is it impractical for larger tanks? Sure. Which is why large tanks should think twice before running a dsb in the old ways, it's a sure ticket to eventually needing sink compensation galore, GFO etc.

In many of our problem algae threads a cruddy dsb is glaring in the initial before shot and the keeper absolutely doesn't want to take the tank down to eject the waste fuel. It's my opinion after multi testing in mini models that to get consistency in deep sand beds you have to ignore the old hands off routine.

Don't hammer me too bad on crowding, it looks ugly etc...expected nothing less after a decade it's since been cleaned and thinned lol now, and the modeling off this vase has fixed 1000 normal tank algae problems all documented in peroxide threads


That yellow banding you see in the still shot is the top layer of waste/light algae complexes (since the light is from the side too, this is atypical reefing) waiting to be ejected. The bottom 2/3 doesn't have this incursion after several years= rough export consistency

 

[chimmike]

Maybe I am not understanding, but my thought is you're completely destroying the potential beneficial denitrifying anaerobic bacteria in the DSB by constantly cleaning the entire thing....you're removing all the positives such that you might as well not have a DSB to begin with.

 

[brandon429]

That's correct, water changes are not antimicrobial to NNR bacteria IMO, this gas producing bed has been blast cleaned twenty times at least.


Oxygen does not kill them, iirc old microbiology they are facultative vs obligate anaerobes and have a preference for reduced o2 environs. They have to traverse higher oxygen zones as they migrate to the areas they prefer. After my blast cleanings, they just regroup I think.


After the bed resumes after cleaning, they regroup around the o2 gradients since the bed grain size is right and the bio films remain. All the cleaning does is eject detritus, which those bacteria do not need to find their electron donor there is enough store elsewhere and by the natural waste the tank produces


IMO we are all opining about DSB pro or con, I could be wrong on any aspect of it

I've tried to base my takes off years of specific testing across micro models we could easily alter as needed. I spend most of my algae work dealing with large tanks who are using the older methods on their dsb. Nearly all old dsb's require compensating binders later on, GFO, ATS so they don't become algae pumps. IMO large tanks tend to be ok for a while on the hands off, no export model simply due to dilutions but the waste catches up in time left untended

 

[czdiver]

Brandon, I really have no idea what you are talking about. It's way too technical for me. I did take Fin's advice on this thread and read the article, "Sand Bed Secrets" by Dr. Ron Shimek. He discusses the benefits of a deep sand bed and how you are recreating an eco-system. He says that as long as you maintain the fauna in the bed by adding to it every year, keep plenty of snails, and don't keep sand sifting gobies or sea stars that eat all the fauna, the fauna and snails will keep the sand bed turned over enough and you do not need to stir the sand and, in fact the deepest layer of the DSB should not be disturbed. However, I do see how blasting the top layer of the sand bed would be recreating what happens naturally during storm surges.

Like I said, there are so many different opinions and theories, it gets very confusing. I see benefits to all sides of this conversation.

 

[brandon429]

Thank goodness how to run a sandbed is not on the continuum of immediately impactful issues in reefing, no harm either way! It's just fun to make nerd predictions that occur in time

They are also not something hard to adjust if ever needed, so I say run them in the traditional sense or modified sense it's no prob either way. I'll always use sandbeds too because I like the look, I just keep mine in a different way. The top debated actions in reefing:

What salt brand is best
Sandbed or no sb, pro and con
Is UV good or bad
How much water to change how often
Are plant filters the best thing ever invented in reefing

All of us are playing on that field in different ways creating details future readers can use in their tanks, it's all good science fun