Bare bottom or SSB?

[taftonomos]

I've read on RC until I simply can't keep my eyes open. Here is the proposed setup:

75 aga
Drilled with calflo-style overflow. 2 1.5" bulkheads, one feeds the CL Dart, one feeds the sump
OR 3500 return pump - feeds tank via 2 1" nozzles
MRc-1 skimmer w/mag 12
Dart runs back to tank via 2 1.5" bulkheads on a spray-bar, and 2 1" bulkheads w/nozzles.
20L sump, baffled. Skimmer draws water from overflow box, discharges clean water into a 3 baffle section to eliminate bubbles. Objective was to have the skimmer draw only dirty water to get maximum use from it.
2 x 250 MH's, XM 10k's, w/ 150 watts of VHO actinic suppliment.

What do I want to keep? Well, I don't really have a exact goal, mixed reef would be my best guess. I'd like to have a clam, some SPS, Ric's, zoo's, etc.


I'm torn between BB and a sand bed. All my past experiance has been with sand-bed tanks. Nothing DSB mind you, perhaps 3" thick in places. A LOT of people seem to be going BB, say you can keep more fish in the tank, and that the tank takes less CA and Alk because the sand bed isn't using it. I've also read some horror stories about people that have had a DSB or SSB tank, switched over, and never had any success. I origionally started looking at a BB setup because I was worried I would have to much flow in the tank. The spraybar calmed down a lot of that flow while I was testing it, so I think a sandbed would stay put.

I do plan/want to put a 30g or so refugium next to the tank as well, with perhaps a frogfish or something equally cool in it (that likes low flow)

 

[dannybradley]

Just do about a pound per gallon. That will give you enough to cover the bottom of a 75 with about 2 inches. I hate the look of BB tanks. I had a 75 BB reef and added sand later on. I do the complete tank look. The whole thing collectively has to look great. BB is not what a reef looks like. Even if I don't stock the rarest corals, anyone can come up and say that it's a nice tank.

 

[seedless reefer]

I just can't fathom the trend in BB. Looks far to barren for me.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[dakota9]

Real Men go DSB, the deeper the bed, the more Manly.......


My DT is 6 inches, my fuge is 8 inches. It makes for a stable enviroment.

(first sentance is complete BS BTW)

 

[lockeoak]

In my experience BB is easier if you have to move tanks frequently. If you don't have to worry about disturbing a sand bed moving tanks (especially nanos) is much easier. That's helpful for the unsettled among us (renters etc.).

 

[taftonomos]

Do you buy into the whole "phosphates buildup and eventually flood the sb, then leech into the rock and ruin it" train of thought? I've moved a few SB tanks before. Takes a bunch of water changes after moving the sand for it to be right again, so I know how that goes.

I won't be upgrading this anytime soon. It's over a basement, and I've got a little one on the way in March, so the funds for a larger tank are not going to be there

 

[lockeoak]

I really haven't heard much about that idea. On first glance it doesn't sound very plausible to me, but I could be completely wrong. If you have macroalgae in a refugium and strong growth I wouldn't worry much about phosphate buildup. Light stocking helps as well, of course. One benefit I had in my 10G nano is that without the sand you have a lot more vertical depth, more water volume to dilute nutrient input, for fish to swim, and of course to put corals. Assuming the 75 is a 48 long by 18 deep by 20 high, a 2" sandbed takes the space of ~7.5G of water, a decent amount. Granted there would be some water between sand grains in the bed. I kind of have the general feeling that BB tanks are more for the people that are in the hobby for the corals, while sand bed tanks are for the people that like fish or fish and corals. That's just my general impression.