Sand bottom vs bare bottom

[WetWhistle]

The smaller the water volume the easier and quicker the PH swing. Sand bottom does add some buffer protection from that. That alone is worth it to me. But both with or without substrate work.

 

[neuwave]

I'm an advocate for sand. I feel it looks more natural. The reflective bottom dosent look natural in my opinion. Yes coraline will grow as well as some corals. But that simply looks like your reef is sitting on top of a flat rectangle/square rock once it is encrusted. For a frag tank a bb is well suited because it's a tank designed as a coral grow out location. A BB is a simplified system for low nutrient maintenance and clean quarantine type look. But that's just thoughts.

 

[Rjramos]

I start all my tanks with bare bottom with liverock set up right on the glass. After a month, I add no more than 1" livesand. I simply like the look and contrast between sand and rock. After 2-3 years, I've observed, that any sand bed that is not a DSB (+5"), to become nitrate sinks. You start to see nuisance algaes and red slimes on the sands surface. When I start to see this, I start removing the sand during water changes. I get it back to bare bottom and then add fresh sand.

 

[scottsweet]

What is interesting is the conversation of having a sand bed in the display tank. I had a 450 years back with a DSB/plenum. I didn't have it up long enough to say if it was good/bad. I had a closed loop with spray bars that was right near the surface of the sandbed. The new tank I want to do will likely be a BB. That said, I like the idea of a DSB in a refugium or a part of the sump. It provides the value of the DSB for nutrient and gas exchange, but isn't impacted by the heavier maintenance requirements found for the display tank.

The ocean has a DSB so it does have something to add. The question I think is how can we use it to add value to the tank, but minimize the maintenance and introduction of problems as a result of it being a closed system.

 

[GOSKN5]

I'm a huge fan of BB... so easy to clean and keep clean... I painted the underside white and it's offers a nice illusion of sand... I scrape the bottom just like the sides... I also keep a spot of sand in the back behind an acrylic wall for my wrasses to sleep... works great... I doubt I ever have sand again in my tanks..

 

[toohipnoob]

Interesting discussion. As a 2 year noob, I went sand, about an inch+, but learned the hard way about "hydrogen sulfide" build up. The first time I cleaned my tank, I thought I had to clean the sand too so stirred it up along with hydrogen sulfide and had a complete die off of my fish. Then a second incident of the same thing, went on vacation, and my daughter overfed and food lying the bottom and inside/under the coral. I tried to vacuum it up, but had to move coral to get to the debris and disturbed the sand, second die off. I know. should of done a massive water change following this. (I'm learning the hard way on this). But now my sand bed, still about an inch+ is black with hydrogen sulfide. I'm careful not to disturb it anymore, but have a clean up crew of hermits, naurcissius? snails. Tried a Diamond back goby, but both died mysteriously (disappeared). So I guess my question is, I prefer the sand for the reasons give above about the critters, and the look (but great idea of painting a bare bottom white from below!). . . but should I remove the sand and try to clean it up, or with that kill the good bacteria too, or just replace it, or stay the course and be careful?

One tool I find great for cleaning up debris is a battery powered gravel vacumn. This is just an example of what it looks like (http://www.amazon.com/KollerCraft-C...d-Gravel/dp/B003OYOPNW/ref=zg_bs_3048856011_6), but I pay $10 for one on ebay I believe. I have two, and the switches are very cheap, and have to be messed with, and take odd sized "C" batteries. But they're great for vacuuming debris before a water change. I also use a larger siphon hose on water changes, and by keeping the vac and siphon hose "just" above the sand so not to suck sand, I can suck up debris, before adding new water.

I can see where a bare bottom would be better for maintenance and reduce risk of hyd. sufide build up, but I like the asthetics of the sand critters, the critters who like sand, and the appearance. To each his own. I wonder if I reduced the depth of my sand to say a half inch if that would be better yet still provide a sand bed? I've read about "deep sand beds" but that seems even more riskier. I can appreciate (but not totally understand) the ph benefits, bacteria bank, etc of the chemical/physical benefit of sand, and that's got to be a positive too. Thanks for the info!

 

[hart24601]

I like the look of the bare bottom tanks but I don't think I will like seeing alge grow all over the bottom of my aquarium glass. I have also heard the sand bottom tanks are better for smaller setups due to the fact that it takes away a lot of the problem that are water related. Still undecided as of now on what I'm going to do with my new setup.

I had the opposite experience in my biocube 14, sand was a horrible choice for me in that small tank. I had sand for about a year and a half it did fantastic. It was so good that I eventually went all SPS and the colonies grew really large, but I started noticing algae problems and cyano that I didn't have before. It got to the point that I took some rock out to scrub it and noticed the sand bed was just disgusting. I had lots of CUC in there, but the rock was pretty dense packed and the corals were large (for the tank) so I couldn't manually clean the bed and over the course of 1.5 years I guess the CUC couldn't either. I made the horrible mistake of stirring some of the sand... in that small tank without skimmer it crashed it. I took the opportunity to remove the remaining sand and it was so nasty it really turned me off of sand, especially in small tanks that don't have the filtration of larger systems and that tend to have more rock/less room. After that I ran it BB with a powerhead right on the bottom and I really liked it. With the smaller tank it didn't take long for zoas to cover the bottom since there wasn't much exposed bottom to start. I can't find a picture right now, which is a bummer since I sold the tank, but no sand for me, and never ever again in a small tank!

 

[toohipnoob]

I had the opposite experience in my biocube 14, sand was a horrible choice for me in that small tank. I had sand for about a year and a half it did fantastic. It was so good that I eventually went all SPS and the colonies grew really large, but I started noticing algae problems and cyano that I didn't have before. It got to the point that I took some rock out to scrub it and noticed the sand bed was just disgusting. I had lots of CUC in there, but the rock was pretty dense packed and the corals were large (for the tank) so I couldn't manually clean the bed and over the course of 1.5 years I guess the CUC couldn't either. I made the horrible mistake of stirring some of the sand... in that small tank without skimmer it crashed it. I took the opportunity to remove the remaining sand and it was so nasty it really turned me off of sand, especially in small tanks that don't have the filtration of larger systems and that tend to have more rock/less room. After that I ran it BB with a powerhead right on the bottom and I really liked it. With the smaller tank it didn't take long for zoas to cover the bottom since there wasn't much exposed bottom to start. I can't find a picture right now, which is a bummer since I sold the tank, but no sand for me, and never ever again in a small tank!

Interesting. I agree avoiding the die off would be a positive thing to eliminate the risk, but I can't see giving up on the aesthetics of sand and I like the typical CUC critters. I'm very careful now not to disturb the sand, and my rock is about 1/5th to 1/7th the volume of the tank, but stacked so the fish and CUC and move in and out (which also makes it difficult to capture a critter [beware of Dominoe damsels!]). I have a small skimmer, that helps, but could do better. What I want to know, can I reduce the layer of sand, to say, maybe a half inch that would reduce the risk of the hydrogen sulfide build up, but still provide the aesthetics and space for the sand dwellers?

 

[TUSI]

This topic always come up and I don't think there is a right or wrong. It's definetly a more realistic look to the ocean if that's what we are trying to achieve. Every thing in a tank is a balance and sand requires that balance too. I've had sand in my tank from day one. Never done anything to it except add and replenish cleaning crews and have one nassarius snail per gallon and my sand bed is clean all the time. I think it's more of a preference by the hobbyist one vs the other

 

[reeffirstaid]

The main consideration when switching to bare bottom is nutrients. Since the sand bed is a great home for anaerobic bacteria, removing sand can make denitrification tough. The good news, today there are a host of ways to offer the same denitrification a deep sand bed does. For me, the perks are many. One, you don't have to worry as much about sedimentation, even if a powerhead falls. As you mentioned, keeping a sand bed clean is a real hassle. It also opens up room on the bottom for some alternative stuff, such as using zooanthids sort of like substrate. Depending on the amount of live rock you have and other filtration methods you are using, it may be necessary to consider something to make up the lost denitrification. In minor cases, an up flow algae scrubber would do the trick - in severe cases you may need to resort to a reactor. The only other thing to remember, debris does accumulate in bare bottom tanks and to keep them looking sharp you need to siphon it out from time to time. It's not hard, but still a maintenance chore. Some folks clean their bare bottom of algae. IMHO if your tank is maintained properly, you shouldn't have enough algae on the bare bottom to require cleaning.

 

[eric3316]

Interesting. I agree avoiding the die off would be a positive thing to eliminate the risk, but I can't see giving up on the aesthetics of sand and I like the typical CUC critters. I'm very careful now not to disturb the sand, and my rock is about 1/5th to 1/7th the volume of the tank, but stacked so the fish and CUC and move in and out (which also makes it difficult to capture a critter [beware of Dominoe damsels!]). I have a small skimmer, that helps, but could do better. What I want to know, can I reduce the layer of sand, to say, maybe a half inch that would reduce the risk of the hydrogen sulfide build up, but still provide the aesthetics and space for the sand dwellers?

You can put in as little or much as much sand as you want. If you are looking to supply sand for fish that need cover you need to look at their specific needs. If fish need to sleep in the sand like some wrasses they may require a certain amount of sand. Of course their are wrasses that don't sleep in the sand and people even keep wrasses that do in BB tanks with success.

I had sand with nassarius snails and then decided to remove my sand bed. The snails are fine and just hide under the rock work now.

 

[hart24601]

Interesting. I agree avoiding the die off would be a positive thing to eliminate the risk, but I can't see giving up on the aesthetics of sand and I like the typical CUC critters. I'm very careful now not to disturb the sand, and my rock is about 1/5th to 1/7th the volume of the tank, but stacked so the fish and CUC and move in and out (which also makes it difficult to capture a critter [beware of Dominoe damsels!]). I have a small skimmer, that helps, but could do better. What I want to know, can I reduce the layer of sand, to say, maybe a half inch that would reduce the risk of the hydrogen sulfide build up, but still provide the aesthetics and space for the sand dwellers?

Personally I would reduce the sand bed, yes. I would go thin enough that I could use a baster and stir it up ever couple of months, or waterchange, if you can't siphon the sandbed very well. I did this for a while before going BB, it makes a storm for a few hours, but IME it was worth it. I would even keep less than a half inch, but if you can stir it or clean it that is the big thing.

IMO you can keep however much sand you like if you plan on it. I didn't realize that it would become an issue for my in my biocube and had lots of rock and let the coral grow big. If you keep a plan in mind so you can keep the sand bed from getting nasty it will be fine - but I have come a rule of thumb that if you are scared to stir the sand or stir it and worry about crashing your tank or even if it releases a bunch of nasty stuff when disturbed then the sand bed will become an issue eventually. If you keep it clean you will be just fine though!

 

[nitro'sreef]

My 120 is bare bottom and it's awesome. But there are certain fish I would like to have but they require sand!!!

 

[techhnyne]

My auestion is. How thick of a sand bed can one keep where is would be safe to stir up for cleaning without releasing hudrogen sulfide(i think thats the stuff that kills off your tanks when sturring sand)

 

[Luno]

My auestion is. How thick of a sand bed can one keep where is would be safe to stir up for cleaning without releasing hudrogen sulfide(i think thats the stuff that kills off your tanks when sturring sand)

How longs a piece of string? Haha it's really one of those questions.

The problem with stirring sand beds is beds that have not been stirred for a long time. This will release all the bad stuff. If you had a sand bed that you constantly stirred since starting the tank say once a week it wouldn't be such a big deal.

As for what stirred up I don't know specific names haha! My understanding is it's anaerobic bacteria which then dies and turns to ammonia when stirred up. This was what was told to me maybe 10 years ago so I assume it's accurate but may not be

 

[toohipnoob]

Still a noob, I'm guessing a very thin sand bed that won't allow much hydrogen sulfide to build up or as Luno suggests, keep it constantly stirred so there is no build up. I have narsarrius (sp) snails that are supposed to burrow into the sand and clean, but they can't get it all done. I've read arguments that a flat non sand bottom is better, but not very good looking. I have a small fresh water tank (5 gal) that the food particles seem to fall in between the gravel and decay when the fish don't grab them in time. I was thinking of making that a flat bottom.

 

[DracoKat]

I am BB in my pico, and I hated the look of it. It looked unnatural to me. But due to the 2.7 gallon size, I chose to stay away from sand. Now that the corals grew over it, it looks much better.

The wrasses, goby and conch snails keeps my sandbed in my 75g tank clean. I barely touch it, occasionally I'll stir areas where the wrasses don't sleep.

 

[DeniseAndy]

I have both sand and barebottom tanks. In fact my two 6g tanks one each way. I can say that I have more stability issues and algae issues with the tank that is barebottom, but doubt that is related to that only. Very different animals in each.

All depends on animals you are keeping and what you like the look of. Maintenance is maintenance for me. Vacuum sand or scrape bottom is same thing for me.

 

[roberthu526]

Sand bed that is less than one inch is likely to have less issues and requires less maintenance.

 

[Gungo]

In my new build, I'm still deciding between BB or sand!!!