If their not their you don't need alot of biological reduce to take place. I am getting the assumption that you think a BB tank has no biological filtration, that is not the case what so ever.
My statement was somewhat incomplete, that was not my point at all. What I was saying was in the same regard to using a DSB and a UGF the
right way. What I was implying is people will start to switch to bare bottoms without taking into consideration they then need to remove the detritus, bare bottom alone isn't the method, it is only part of it. I support the concept of a bare bottom tank, but like a DSB, it has to be done right. What I was trying to point out is what I think will happen is people will skirt the details, remove their sandbed without adding any means of trapping the detritus, then complain that their barebottom failed. I think this is the major cause of DSB failures, people not using them right. You see a lot of people switching to a DSB but not taking into account that they can trap detritus (insufficient flow near the sand) and they don't introduce enough fauna to the sand bed (or continue to do so) so you end up with finger pointing at the method rather than the real problem which was execution by the hobbyist.
If you are running a tank as DSB tank, remove the DSB to bare bottom and do nothing else you've lost a component of your biological filter. You need to do more than just have a bare bottom to have a bare bottom tank. My comment was supposed to get across that you need to do it right for it to work, you need the entire system.
I was trying to use other examples of why I think UGF's got a bad rap, people put them on and then either sucked water through them, or worse, used airstone to drive them. The wrong way to do it - that just creates the nutrient trap/sink that UGF have become known for. When I mentioned running it backwards at high volume - the right way to use one - that was where I was pointing out there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. When people don't use something the right way it gets a bad rap, people point fingers at the equipment rather than looking into if they were using it the right way, then they move onto whatever is currently popular.
But since we're talking about bare bottoms now I think they can be really useful as long as you export the organic waste from the tank before it can start to break down and pollute. I think this is going to be a hurdle for some people to grasp and what may eventually lead to a lot of negativity towards having a bare bottom system. That and because of the current require to keep the detritus in suspension to trap it I think they are really only well suited to tanks with harder corals due to the high amount of water turnover required. The amount of flow needed really isn't going to be good for a tank full of leathers or mushrooms, which will lead people with such tanks to turn down their flow, negating the concept of the bare bottom somewhat.
What I meant to basically say about barebottoms (in summary) is I think you will see a lot of people yanking out their DSB or whatever and failing to increase their flow or skimmer capacity. These people who are following the mainstream will suffer from not doing things right (I've already seen cases of it popping up) but that was not a dig at bare bottoms, but hobbyists who follow mainstream concepts with just enough of a cursory glance that it causes negative feedback for the method used, which then leads to people jumping on the next miracle fix.
Hopefully that was a little clearer. I need to stop posting first thing in the morning before the old brain has woke up.
