Removing Sand bed - Could I put Live Rock On Glass Bottom?

[ChrisRD]

Yup, that's the tank I was thinking of...

 

[Saltykirk]

Uh, if bacteria & organisms do not break down nutrients & waste in nature why don't you go dig your dead dog or a loved one & tell me how familiar they look? Do all the dead fish just "sink to the bottom of the abyss"? I realize these examples are not on the basic nutrient level so consider this. Nitrate & ammonium is used to fertilize soil because corn & other crops remove it & use it in growth. Are you saying this does not happen in the ocean? A healthy fuge & skimmer should remove nutrients before they have time to bind to the substrate. If they have time to bind to the substrate then water flow must be like, really low. Turn the tank over more times than the guy @ Petsmart tells you & you will be on your way. If the skimmer is adequate & the fuge is there as a filter as opposed to something that everyone else is doing you shouldn't have a big floating soup of phosphate & nitrate to fuel these algae problems from hell.

 

[middletonmark]

Ah, but all that sand/substrate ... what do you think is attached to every bit of that?

The largest `soup' of bacteria you could imagine. Eating, cycling ... and releasing N + P. It's just one huge soup of bacteria, all that N + P in the tank.

IMO, that's one of the issues with much substrate - it's nearly impossible not to have it skewed/dominated by bacteria.

 

[ZooKeeper1]

Every surface of the tank is covered with bacteria, and we want bacteria in the sand. When a sand bed is running good, Nitrate and phosphate should be at undetectable levels. It took six weeks for my nitrate levels to fall to undetectable after adding the sandbed.

 

[middletonmark]

True, but all that bacteria is constantly dying ... and is composed of large %'s of N + P ... so while you cannot measure N or P in the aquarium, there is a constant turnover.

Given biological filtration does not need such a heavy skewing of bioload towards bacteria ... IMO why add it.

It took under a month for me to have zero nitrates without any substrate. Tested again this weekend ... zero / clear w/ Salifert.

I dunno, I do run a very efficient skimmer ... but would say I've got a pretty heavy bioload in there.

But hey, different things work for different folks ... but IMO I found I was made to fear the Nitrate boogeyman far more than it seems I had to.

 

[ZooKeeper1]

I'll admit I'd be scared about them after reading a few posts like this.
I'll keep my sand as long as it's not a problem.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll keep my sand as long as it's not a problem.

I think that is the key, keep if if you already got it, be on the lookout for sand bed issues, and if you can think of a good excuse to change it before there are issues go for it!

 

[Saltykirk]

Still it doesn't add up. With bacteria dieing off all the time, it has to reproduce to contiually die as you say it does. Biological filtration is performed by bacteria, I don't see people yanking out the gravel in their freshwater tanks. They wait for the bacteria to develop before they increase the fishload of the tank. I am willing to bet that the majority of people having trouble w/ their dsb's have sand sifting stars & other "sand sifters" deemed have to have by those that sell them. Again, if the bacteria are constantly eating the n&p, then dieing off to release it, when is the algae able to take hold of it? I agree w/ you on the different methods working. I havn't had the algae problems w/ dsb's. I have seen really nice tanks w/ bare bottoms too. I hope yours takes care of your troubles.

 

[Anonymous]

Still it doesn't add up. With bacteria dieing off all the time, it has to reproduce to contiually die as you say it does.

Yep.

Biological filtration is performed by bacteria, I don't see people yanking out the gravel in their freshwater tanks. They wait for the bacteria to develop before they increase the fishload of the tank.

But they do vacuum them regularly. We have been led to believe that vacuuming a sand bed is a bad idea.

I am willing to bet that the majority of people having trouble w/ their dsb's have sand sifting stars & other "sand sifters" deemed have to have by those that sell them.

I'm not really sure I understand that sentence, but I will take a stab at it.
I would be happy to take your money on such a bet. Even Dr Ron has problems.

Again, if the bacteria are constantly eating the n&p, then dieing off to release it, when is the algae able to take hold of it?

When there is extra n&p around from all the other sources of n&p in the tank and added to the tank. Also, I believe the bacterial population is not constant which may have a connection to n&p release.

I agree w/ you on the different methods working. I havn't had the algae problems w/ dsb's. I have seen really nice tanks w/ bare bottoms too. I hope yours takes care of your troubles.

Nicely said in a type of discussion that seems to get heated! :mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

It appears to also be the case that there is no research that says that sand beds do what Dr Ron says they do.
And, the idea that putting sand near the corals is mimicking nature is bunk - there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand. If sand were good for corals we should see more of them on the sand in nature.

Do you have any idea about reefs? What kind of nonsense is this? The only areas of the reef with no sand are high energy zones which have no sand because it gets washed off. Your tank can in no way replicate that zone so your point is void.

 

[Anonymous]

It appears to also be the case that there is no research that says that sand beds do what Dr Ron says they do.
And, the idea that putting sand near the corals is mimicking nature is bunk - there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand. If sand were good for corals we should see more of them on the sand in nature.

Do you have any idea about reefs? What kind of nonsense is this?

We're having a nice discussion - no need to drag it to stupidity. Of course, I may just taking it the wrong way, and if so I apologize.

The only areas of the reef with no sand are high energy zones which have no sand because it gets washed off.

Where are the corals on the reef? Not covered with sand in the low energy zones eh? :wink:

Your tank can in no way replicate that zone so your point is void.

Depends how comprehensive you require the replication to be.
I think you think I think something different than what I think. Lets get on the same page, what point do you think I was making?

 

[Anonymous]

It appears to also be the case that there is no research that says that sand beds do what Dr Ron says they do.
And, the idea that putting sand near the corals is mimicking nature is bunk - there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand. If sand were good for corals we should see more of them on the sand in nature.

Do you have any idea about reefs? What kind of nonsense is this?

I am unsure why you didn't just leave the weenieness out. We're having a nice discussion - no need to drag it to stupidity. Of course, may just taking it the wrong way, and if so I apologize.

The only areas of the reef with no sand are high energy zones which have no sand because it gets washed off.

Where are the corals on the reef? Not covered with sand in the low energy zones eh? :wink:

Your tank can in no way replicate that zone so your point is void.

Depends how comprehensive you require the replication to be.
I think you think I think something different than what I think. Lets get on the same page, what point do you think I was making?

You have obviously never been to visit a reef for yourself. Corals exist in the lagoons, completely surrounded by sand and in some cases growing through the sand. Corals exist on back reef margins, which are very sandy areas. Corals exist on back reef slopes, where sand is less common but by no means non-existant. Corals exist on the reef lower slope which can be quite sandy. Corals exist on the reef upper slope, alongside sand. I could go on, but I think you get the point. The only area that sand doesn't exist to a substantial degree is on the reef crest. As you can see corals live and thrive in all areas of the reef zone, most of which also contains sand. Of course the corals aren't covered by sand, but likewise no one does that in their tank.

I am just pointing out that pretty much every zone except the reef crest contains sand in close proximity to corals, which you obviously don't agree with for some reason. I was also pointing out that the reef crest is basically imposssible to simulate in an aquarium. Therefore, when people are simulating a zone in an aquarium, it must be one other than a reef crest which, shock horror has sand!.

 

[Anonymous]

You have obviously never been to visit a reef for yourself.

What a very incorrect conclusion you have jumped to.

Corals exist in the lagoons, completely surrounded by sand and in some cases growing through the sand. Corals exist on back reef margins, which are very sandy areas. Corals exist on back reef slopes, where sand is less common but by no means non-existant. Corals exist on the reef lower slope which can be quite sandy. Corals exist on the reef upper slope, alongside sand. I could go on, but I think you get the point. The only area that sand doesn't exist to a substantial degree is on the reef crest. As you can see corals live and thrive in all areas of the reef zone, most of which also contains sand. Of course the corals aren't covered by sand, but likewise no one does that in their tank.
I am just pointing out that pretty much every zone except the reef crest contains sand in close proximity to corals, which you obviously don't agree with for some reason.

Please define 'completely surrounded', 'very sandy', 'less common by by no means nonexistent', 'can be quite sandy', 'alongside sand', and 'close proximity'. Actually don't. I think you are off on a tangent about a position that I don't even hold. What do you think my point was?

 

[Anonymous]

You have obviously never been to visit a reef for yourself.

What a very incorrect conclusion you have jumped to.

Corals exist in the lagoons, completely surrounded by sand and in some cases growing through the sand. Corals exist on back reef margins, which are very sandy areas. Corals exist on back reef slopes, where sand is less common but by no means non-existant. Corals exist on the reef lower slope which can be quite sandy. Corals exist on the reef upper slope, alongside sand. I could go on, but I think you get the point. The only area that sand doesn't exist to a substantial degree is on the reef crest. As you can see corals live and thrive in all areas of the reef zone, most of which also contains sand. Of course the corals aren't covered by sand, but likewise no one does that in their tank.
I am just pointing out that pretty much every zone except the reef crest contains sand in close proximity to corals, which you obviously don't agree with for some reason.

Please define 'completely surrounded', 'very sandy', 'less common by by no means nonexistent', 'can be quite sandy', 'alongside sand', and 'close proximity'. Actually don't. I think you are off on a tangent about a position that I don't even hold. What do you think my point was?

If you don't understand english, go back to school and stop wasting my time. Your original point was, and I quote "there really is no sand close to reefs". I just proved that your point was a load of rubbish. Anyone who has ever visited a reef will verify that there really is sand close to reefs.

 

[Anonymous]

If you don't understand english, go back to school and stop wasting my time.

:roll:
Defining terms is a necessary part of communication. The terms I asked you to define are very subjective, and, in reality, we probably very much agree.

Your original point was, and I quote "there really is no sand close to reefs".

If you are going to quote someone, you really should pay attention to the whole sentence that you are quoting:

there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand.

It might have been better if you had asked for further clarification on 'except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand' instead of getting so oddly worked up. I was speaking in very general terms and you have jumped to specifics with out clarifying the gerenralities. I think you and I actually agree a great deal, but you are stuck on a weird quasi semantic tangent.

I just proved that your point was a load of rubbish.

No, you missed my point, and are assuming detail that isn't included in my point.

Anyone who has ever visited a reef will verify that there really is sand close to reefs.

I refer you back to the 'except' part of my quote. Perhaps understanding that will help you understand what I was saying.

 

[middletonmark]

How about this ... there is no anaerobic layer in the top foot at least of sand near a reef.

In a reef tank, it's maybe an inch down once the bed is `mature'.

The quality of sandbeds on a reef and in a reef tank are totally different things. A reef tank sandbed is a eutrophic sand bed, where on a reef, it's ogliotrophic.

Yup, it's all sand ... but it's two totally different things. Like comparing the dirt at home plate with a peat bog. Yep, it's all dirt, but ....

And as Righty put it so well ... how long has Dr. Ron run his longest DSB? Maybe 4 years ...

 

[Anonymous]

How about this ... there is no anaerobic layer in the top foot at least of sand near a reef.

In a reef tank, it's maybe an inch down once the bed is `mature'.

The quality of sandbeds on a reef and in a reef tank are totally different things. A reef tank sandbed is a eutrophic sand bed, where on a reef, it's ogliotrophic.

Yup, it's all sand ... but it's two totally different things. Like comparing the dirt at home plate with a peat bog. Yep, it's all dirt, but ....

And as Righty put it so well ... how long has Dr. Ron run his longest DSB? Maybe 4 years ...

Yes but we are arguing about which looks more natural a sand bed or a bare bottom. Personally I think a sand bed is far more natural than glass or starboard. How much glass or starboard do you see on a reef? If you truly wanted a natural look from a high energy reef zone, you would probably best to have a completely rock covered bottom with pockets of rubble.

 

[Anonymous]

If you don't understand english, go back to school and stop wasting my time.

:roll:
Defining terms is a necessary part of communication. The terms I asked you to define are very subjective, and, in reality, we probably very much agree.

Your original point was, and I quote "there really is no sand close to reefs".

If you are going to quote someone, you really should pay attention to the whole sentence that you are quoting:

there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand.

It might have been better if you had asked for further clarification on 'except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand' instead of getting so oddly worked up. I was speaking in very general terms and you have jumped to specifics with out clarifying the gerenralities. I think you and I actually agree a great deal, but you are stuck on a weird quasi semantic tangent.

I just proved that your point was a load of rubbish.

No, you missed my point, and are assuming detail that isn't included in my point.

Anyone who has ever visited a reef will verify that there really is sand close to reefs.

I refer you back to the 'except' part of my quote. Perhaps understanding that will help you understand what I was saying.

Ok, your original argument was that using sand beds in reef tank aren't truly natural because "there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand". Please explain how this makes sense? I see two ways that this can be interpreted, first that you don't think that there is any sand on a reef and that the closest sand is on the ocean floor which is adjacent to the reef and therefore "close" to the reef. The second is that you are saying there isn't sand on a reef but there is, which clearly makes no sense. Please explain what you were trying to say.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, your original argument was that using sand beds in reef tank aren't truly natural because "there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand". Please explain how this makes sense?

Most of the corals we keep at home don't occur in nature close enough to the sand to support the idea that sand is important to their well being (and there are many that sand is detrimental to). Its like saying that a stag-horn fern should be kept in a terrarium with dirt because the tree the fern lives on in nature is on the dirt.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, your original argument was that using sand beds in reef tank aren't truly natural because "there really is no sand close to reefs except in the sense that most of the ocean bottom is sand". Please explain how this makes sense?

Most of the corals we keep at home don't occur in nature close enough to the sand to support the idea that sand is important to their well being (and there are many that sand is detrimental to). Its like saying that a stag-horn fern should be kept in a terrarium with dirt because the tree the fern lives on in nature is on the dirt.

The original point was that it doesn't LOOK natural.
Are you trying to tell me that starboard or glass look more natural than sand in a reef area?