PDA

View Full Version : Sandbed for a reef: Deep. shallow, or none?


Skerp
12/31/2008, 05:32 PM
who has what and how has it worked for you?I'm also interested in time spent with maintenance and cleaning.

Thanks :)
Matt

phish guy
12/31/2008, 05:42 PM
its really more of waht kinda tank your goin for.

high flow SPS dominated tanks usually send sand every where.

gobies or other burrowing fish/shrimp need sand.

so...what you trying to do?

stricknine
12/31/2008, 05:48 PM
I am finally putting my new set up together and this is my plan, based on research and what Ive heard;

2-3" in the display tank. Reason being, I want a pistol shrimp and goby combo which require enough for burrowing, and is also enough to maintain the bio in the sand. You have to have some in there.

6" "DSB" in the refugium portion of my sump. The benefit is denitrifying bacteria that lives deep in the sand bed in a low oxygen atmosphere is apparently going to keep the nitrates down in the tank. Putting it in the sump because I dont think 6" of sand in a display is too attractive, and the cost would be huge. Play sand in the sump will do the trick.

RobNJ
12/31/2008, 05:49 PM
go bare or go home!

stricknine
12/31/2008, 06:57 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14052285#post14052285 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobNJ
go bare or go home!

Many reasons not to go bare, I cant understand why anyone would, so please enlighten me.

1- prevents your rock from beating up the bottom glass (also if you drop something).
2- prevents the ugly glare or mirror effect from the bottom glass
3- biological filter
4- pod refuge
5- home to a lot of beneficial critters
6- just looks proper IMO

isgon26
12/31/2008, 07:15 PM
I HAVE THE SAME SETUP YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN MY SETUP. I HAVE 3 INCHES IN THE DISPLAY AND 7 INCHES IN THE REFUGIUM. wORKS GREAT FOR ME.

isgon26
12/31/2008, 07:17 PM
I have play sand from home depot in my display. Caribean sea sand in the refugium. Works great.

Skerp
01/01/2009, 10:48 PM
I'm looking at mostly soft corals and leathers. . . I did originally plan on putting just a few inches in display and about 6 in the refuge, I guess ill stick with that plan.

phish guy
01/01/2009, 11:05 PM
thats what i would do.

xJake
01/01/2009, 11:15 PM
Sounds like a good plan to me for a softy-dominated tank.

Whys
01/02/2009, 01:05 AM
Personally, I'm happy with the DSB in the DT, rather than the fuge, and have a full 5" in mine. DSBs benefit from the larger footprint and close contact to the source of bio-load. I regard remote DSBs as too far removed and ecologically top-heavy. This is my opinion, but it is shared by some others.

I only have a dusting of mixed-size sand in the fuge, but am considering a half inch of oolite, as I'd like to support a larger copepod population.

Skerp
01/02/2009, 05:28 PM
Yea I have heard from a few different people that the remote DSB doesn't work as well as a DSB in the actual display tank but I think I'll try it out and see whats up. Thanks all for the replies.

:)
Matt

Aquarist007
01/02/2009, 05:54 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14064934#post14064934 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skerp
Yea I have heard from a few different people that the remote DSB doesn't work as well as a DSB in the actual display tank but I think I'll try it out and see whats up. Thanks all for the replies.

:)
Matt


I disagree---remote deep sand beds are much easier to maintain, do even a better job if a large surface area is used and are less problematic for releasing toxins back into the display tank.

You need to look at your tank needs in terms of bioload. Using a quality protein skimmer is a must, however you might not need a deep sand bed for removing nitrates if they can be kept minimal by use of macro algae in a refugium.
If properly harvested cheato macro algae absorbs both nitrates and phosphates.

As far as the display tank--3-4 inches would be adequate for providing a habitat for fish and inverts that need it. Its easy to maintain and replace(or add to once a year) and it helps with the water's buffering capabilities.

mg426
01/02/2009, 06:17 PM
I run about 1/2 inch of reef grade sand in the display and 8 inches in my remote DSB.

mudskipper1
01/02/2009, 06:29 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14052626#post14052626 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stricknine
Many reasons not to go bare, I cant understand why anyone would, so please enlighten me.

1- prevents your rock from beating up the bottom glass (also if you drop something).
2- prevents the ugly glare or mirror effect from the bottom glass
3- biological filter
4- pod refuge
5- home to a lot of beneficial critters
6- just looks proper IMO

Just to "enlighten you"...not that I have one, but

1. Starboard is used to prevent damage
2. Starboard looks similar to sand, especially after grown in...
3. can be accomplished with RDSB, skimming, and refugium
4. Fuge can also be used
5. true...
6. If thats what you think, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not everyone feels that way for sure...

Also allows easy maintenance through siphoning of detritus, allows more flow, sand does not need to be replaced.

I have a ssb in the dt, and thats it...but i will probably put a sandbed of some depth in my new fuge...

What you choose depends on what you are going for... I think anything would be fine for what you are going to stock...All your choice, what you like...

Radicaljbr
01/02/2009, 07:30 PM
This has of course been a huge depate over the years and these arguements caused several pros on here to leave this site for another for reasons I cannot mention as I like being a member on here.

I see one person said bare or go home. I am the opposite.

I understand the potential problems if not properly maintained.

But, I first got into this hobby after years of scuba diving and I was trying to create a piece of ocean reef in my home.

Bare bottom for me looks nothing like the ocean floors and reefs. I love the sand and how it looks diferent and moves around a little after moving a PH or something. Nothing looks more natural. I was one of the last to find a skid of South Down and I guard it with my life. If my DSB some how were to fail and ruin my tank, I would quite this hpbby all together. But one needs to do research on the subject. You can't just put sand in and be done with it. I personally get scoops of sand from local reefers to recharge my sand once a year or so. I also buy worms fuana on the internet. I also buy a small piece of LR once in a while and place it on the sand floor for several weeks before placing it somewhere else. This lets all the worms and critters go from the rock to the sand bed. You really need to keep stocking the bed with critters. I keep mine about 6 inches deep and you know all is well when you have tons of tunnels in the sand next to the glass and sometimes I can actually see little critters digging through the sand. These critters eat the fish waste and convert to Nitrates. All good as long as you keep the bed alive.

You do have to keep doing things to keep it alive, but I would never do it any other way.

Just my opinion

Whys
01/02/2009, 07:58 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14065100#post14065100 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
I disagree---remote deep sand beds are much easier to maintain, do even a better job if a large surface area is used and are less problematic for releasing toxins back into the display tank.

I consider you the local authority on refugiums, however... :]

You're over generalizing.

How is a remote DSB easier to "maintain" when its likely smaller footprint will require it be rejuvenated more often with fresh critters?

Exactly how does a remote DSB do an even "better job"? I assume you are referring to the benefits of a slower flow, but that would be an assumption for a lot of refugiums and doesn't change the fact that it is still removed from the actual source detritus and must rely on what is brought to it by its likely slower flow.

If a larger surface area is used? Larger than what, the display tank? The DT is almost always going to be the bigger footprint.

I see your point about toxin release, because it can be disconnected from the system. But why exactly should a healthy DSB have to worry about toxin release anyway? Just don't touch the thing.

I think you are right that there is a degree of safety and simplicity given that the remote DSB can be detached from the system. But I also think a remote DSB is more likely to have problems that require it be disconnected.

Just my 2ยข.

noahm
01/02/2009, 09:34 PM
One thing that really messes with people on this subject is using common formulae with cumpletely different substrate. Sand comes in all shapes and sizes and reacts completely different as far as compaction, surface area for bioactivity, flow etc. Aside from the bare/not bare siders, I think this widely ranging factor has caused more unnecessary arguments than any other when discussing this. That being said, I don't think you are proposing anything but a balanced approach.

ron69
01/02/2009, 10:33 PM
My 2cents worth: My kids enjoy watching my deep sand bed as much as the tank (and I'm just a big kid myself lol). The pistol shrimp has tunnels that go all the way to the bottom of my 6" dsb, so do our jawfish. All the diffrent worms, snails, etc.,etc. that live in the sanbed are fun to watch as well.

Supposedly the big downfall wit dsb's is them releasing toxins. I have never experencied this. My current dsb is 9 years old. But a proper clean up crew is a must!

xJake
01/02/2009, 11:05 PM
Here is an article by Borneman that you may find useful:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-02/eb/index.php