Barebottom Fish Selection

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

luntiz

Aquarium Advice Freak
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
272
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Does going barebottom prevent me from getting some species of fishes? I plan on getting a Midas Blenny in the future, from what i read, LR should be fine to house one.
 
i personnly and lots of people on here would tell you not to go bare bottom

mainly because you need substrate to catch all the doo doo and un eaten food

yup thats all folks
 
i heard on another board that an advantage of a barebottom tank is that it will make sure that waste DOESNT settle, and then it will stay in the water column and be filtered out. Just what i read though, no experience.
 
Here is a topic I found a while back on another board that Discusses the pros and Cons of I believe all filtration methods such as barebottom, SSB, DSB, Miracle mud, Ect..

http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1974&highlight=FILTRATION

Hope that helps making your decision.. As for fish selection I have seen one LFS that doesnt seem to hold back from any fish.. I would only stay away from Sand Sifters if I were you.. And Cukes are going to be out of the question.. The LFS around here keeps Scooter blennies and other various fish and they believe in barebottom.. ( www.soutassaltwater.com )

HTH<
James
 
Obviously, any fish that uses some sort of burrow is out of the question, or one that sifts sand for food. Other than that, everything should be fine.

Just to make a point, substrate is not "needed" to catch poop. Bare bottomed tanks are easy to siphon out poop and detritus or is stays suspended in the water column to settle in the sump (and be siphoned) etc. People using sand bottoms require critters to help process waste. The two have pros and cons, but no tank has a "requirement" for sand, no sand, crushed coral, no crushed coral, dolomite, no dolomite....blah blah blah. They are all different successful systems.
 
yes but does'nt that defeat the purpose of having a aquarium (to simulate the wild)

so in my opinion when in doubt look to good ol' mother earth
 
You start getting into very debatable stuff here mhaynes01, and I'm only going to dip my toe in! :wink:

The "wild" is a fairly relative term. In the wild, waste is carried out in incredibly surges of water...a bare bottom tank can simulate this in the same manner that nutrient processing by infauna can be done by livesand, etc. Each system has their own pros and cons, but I don't consider one to be more "synthetic" over the other. It is more a matter of personal choice. I don't choose to use BB in favor of livesand, but I can say that they like barren glass bottoms as one would perceive. They get covered in coralline, corals, etc. and can look pretty amazing.

All systems have the same intended final process....reduction or removal of waste.
 
yeah i guess you are right

but i stil prefer teh good ol sand and coral chips myself

btu hey to everyone his own

and also what is hirocks?
 
Yeah, I like sand too, but am interested to run a BB nano to see what it is like. I'm actually surprised you were able to make sense of my post, I seem to have left out some words along the way! :crazyeyes:

www.hirocks.com sells excellent quality baserock from Hawaii.
 
I have a barebottom Tank. Its great you can have lots of flow, and I have no settling problems. Another advantage is my tank is acrylic and if you know acylic well it scratches easily. Easy to clean!

There are a few fish that can not go in a barebottom tank.

Kaye
 
I agree with mhaynes about the purpose of the aquarium. But I just don't think it will look as good without somekind of substrate. But hey that is just my opinion and eveybody has there own.
 
Back
Top Bottom