Substrate - good, bad, or just scary?

[tHEcONCH]

So I've noticed some of you aren't into sand etc. Did you have a bad experience with sand as a child? At the risk of asking a dumb newbie question, why don't you use it? Is it easier to do maintenance and control water parameters etc, or is there more to it?

[markoshark]

acros = more flow.

More flow = sandstorm.

[tHEcONCH]

Ahhh... I see.

[wasp]

That, plus any substrate can harbour dirt. Which can be a good or bad thing depending what you are keeping, and what you are trying to do.

[Fmxmatt]

Did you have a bad experience with sand as a child?

Bwhahaha!

[tHEcONCH]

So what kind of tank / coral would be better suited to a bare bottom setup? Anything that requires high flow, I assume, but are there other scenarios where it could be advantageous? I just assumed that substate was probably beneficial.

[reef]

Substrate is very beneficial for snails. small organisms etc, also small gobys/wrasses.

I find keeping a barebottom tank is harder to look after as it seems to be always dirty.

Cooking rock is not going to help either as rocks attract dirt so they will always be releasing dirt. no matter how long you cook them.

Most bare bottom tanks look like quarantine tanks and look unfinished.

Although the odd one looks ok being barebottom.

whilst you do get dirt in the sand it should not be a problem as it gets used buy oragainsms and might help with keeping some supply of nutrients for corals as too low nutrient can cause problems.

acros = more flow.

More flow = sandstorm.

It depends on your tank design as i have more flow than most tanks and i have a substrate. i have over 34 times turnoverof water flow in my tank.

I think having a 1 inch substrate will limit the anount of dirt and provide a pleasing look.

Germans have arguably the best tanks and none are bare bottom.

That is enough anecdotal evidence that substrate is the way to go to have a complete ecosystem.

[evilknieval69]

only 34 times turnover?!?! i'll bet theres heaps here with more turnover then that reef!

[reef]

only 34 times turnover?!?! i'll bet theres heaps here with more turnover then that reef!

My is actually 44 times since last review. still one of the higest based on some of the privileged tanks around the world as per Practical fishkeeping review dated Nov 2007

Over kill of flow does not mean it is better as it can cause problems to corals.

In the review dated 2002 my tank was only 16 times turnover.

It’s easier to get higher flows in smaller tanks than large tanks but overkill is unnecessary.

Good placement of powerheads can overcome adequate water flow.

[evilknieval69]

Yea but you said "I have more flow than most tanks and i have a substrate", then you said that you have 34 times turnover..... I'd say that alot of tanks in NZ would have more than that, and hardly any would have less........

[reef]

No, i said i have over 34 times,

[Gannet]

34 times is alout, most that i know of are only about 10-15... stop stiring up sh*t evil

[evilknieval69]

ohk, over 34 times. but then you said that you had 44. Im still sure theres some with more than that out there

[wasp]

Mines about 80 x's but it's a smaller tank.

I think in a bigger tank you can get away with less cos you can make it do more, ie if you got a pump putting out a certain velocity in a small tank, it will do the same in a bigger tank but the flow will go further.

So for example in my tank, a 4 footer, in order to get flow into all the cracks & crannies I have had to put quite a few pumps around the place pointing in different directions, and some of them counteract each other.

So from that point of view the x amount of times flow thing does not nessecarily apply in all tanks, it is still a good starting point though for a beginner in the hobby to have at least a rough idea what is required.

BTW I did want to have sand in my tank and actually put some in, but it was impossible, just got blown into a couple of big heaps and the rest of the tank bottom was bare so I syphoned it out.

Not sure I fully buy that BB tanks are more dirty, the dirt can be seen, but can be syphoned, whereas in a tank with sand it would dissapear into the sand and remain in the tank. Having said that it is true there are some awesome tanks with sand, Iwans is a stunning example and has a Deep Sand Bed. The overall management of the tank is important and may be able to take advantage of the positives in having sand and outweigh the negatives.

I think you raised a good point about the rock cooking thing reef, and one that has not really been said before on this forum. While cooking is probably beneficial especially if starting with rock that is really filthy, it has to be said there are people who have cooked rock for many months till it just couldn't get cooked any more, and then when they set up their tank they still had nutrient / algae problems anyway. It's probably again, more about the overall long term tank management.

[wasp]

Edit. Double post.

[wilson]

ive got about 13 x but thats going to be put up soon

[markoshark]

I'm waiting for my tank to finish cycling before putting in substrate, at present I think its looking pretty good

[puttputt]

Theres no way I could run sand with the flow in my tank, plus I like the look once coraline develops over the glass. Barebottom tanks certainly don't look dirty, not the ones I've seen anyway.

Go to a coral reef, dive around the tops where the acros etc grow in the most current and wave action, and show me where theres any sand - its metres below.

If you want to look at unnatural, look at the tanks with sand, rock walls, and every type of coral, regardless on the individual requirements, mixed together - thats unnatural.

[puttputt]

Spot the sand???????????????????

[reef]

same in my tank

spot the sand, same as coral reef. tend to keep the sand on the ground

[puttputt]

The photos are of an area somewhat bigger that individual corals in your photos reef. Why compress what in nature is tens of metres deep, into a couple of inches in a tank, so you can have a little artificial beach in front of your corals.

[tHEcONCH]

So basically a substrate can be useful, or otherwise, entirely dependant upon what you are trying to achieve and how you go about doing it.

[puttputt]

34 times is alout, most that i know of are only about 10-15... stop stiring up sh*t evil

We're talking about reef tanks, X34 or even X44 isn't a huge amount of flow, and i doubt anyone with a reef tank has 10 times turnover - thinking before writing :roll:

Mines about 50 X, and it could do with more.

[puttputt]

So basically a substrate can be useful, or otherwise, entirely dependant upon what you are trying to achieve and how you go about doing it.

yes, exactly, and also down to personal preference.

[reef]

I don’t think there is a magic number as too much flow serves no purpose either.

Of all the tanks rated in Practical fish keeping over the last 5 years did suggest that mine was one of the highest, which would concur that you don’t need an overkill of flow.

Many bare bottom tanks have lots of flow so that it does not leave the dirt on the bottom glass, however you have to have a filter bag in the sump to collect the dirt,

With no sand you tend to get lots of the dirt sitting on the rocks which the power heads cant move.

Sand seems to hold the dirt which is a plus as it can be syphoned out.

100 time’s turnover in my tank is not going to improve other than stress some of my acropora. So it’s a balance.

Have to also bare in mined only few people have sps corals so high flow is not good for many corals.

Plenty of tanks have less than 10-15 times flow. Many only have one power head,