# Substrate question for pygo's



## SERRASOMETHING (Jun 29, 2004)

I took out my 1/2"of white gravel, got sick of seeing it, the bottom of the tank is painted black, The tank is a 125 gallon with 12 pygos and a 17" pleco. 
the filtration is about 1300 gallon's per hour on my 300 gallon wet/dry w/overflow, 
What is the best possible substrate for my tank, sand, keep it bare, because i don't mind it, better color gravel to bring out the color of the fish like a red or orange? I am leaning for sand of sorts, like a light layer of black, but what do you guys think.
What should I do?
rick


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

i'm partial to black or white. i have white sand in one tank, and the 60gallon has black gravel. i'm actually planning on switching to a little coat of black sand. so, i suggest black sand >


----------



## SERRASOMETHING (Jun 29, 2004)

So, Alittle black sand, like I said I don't care really what it looks like, I just want the best for the fish.
rw


----------



## SERRASOMETHING (Jun 29, 2004)

I mean, do you need anything really?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

The darker the substrate, the more secure your fish will feel. Downside of dark/black gravel is that poop and debris are painfully visible, which means more maintenance work to keep your tank presentable.
Sand is trickier than gravel if you want live plants, but does look better (imo.)


----------



## SERRASOMETHING (Jun 29, 2004)

I have noticed all fish darker in color, but more settled in nature, maybe the black tahiti sand will do. Now I just need to find it.
rw


----------



## shutter13 (Jun 23, 2004)

you could mix black and white sand.. that would look cool


----------



## chiefkyle (May 3, 2004)

Sounds to me like you want someone to tell you it is ok if you don't have any gravel at all.

Let me tell you, *it is ok not to have gravel*.

Have you ever notice that there is a limit on how much gravel should be put in a tank, but not a minimum amount? Less to no gravel is the easiest of tanks to mantain because there is no collection of poo and debri in your tank, which in turn causes *less of a "Bio-Load"* on your filters. Less bio-load equals less stress on fish, less Amonia, Less Nitrate, Cleaner water, less matenence.

Hows that sound? ; )

One note I would like to add. If you don't use gravel, buy a power head to blow poo and debree around in your tank till the filter can catch it. Else the unwanted stuff will sit on the bottom and need to be stired.

(This post is my own opinion.)


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

> Have you ever notice that there is a limit on how much gravel should be put in a tank, but not a minimum amount? Less to no gravel is the easiest of tanks to mantain because there is no collection of poo and debri in your tank, which in turn causes less of a "Bio-Load" on your filters. Less bio-load equals less stress on fish, less Amonia, Less Nitrate, Cleaner water, less matenence.


Bio-load is simply an amount of waste producing creatures that would have any affect on the nitrifying bacteria amount. Technically, less or more bio-load would have no effect on the fish if the fish is added properly. And logically speaking, [assuming that you do an extremely well job of gravel vacuuming], the amount of poop wouldn't lessen without gravel. It would be easier to clean, but there wouldn't be less poop.

But also, even with the remainder of the detritus that is left behind [as you won't be able to remove ALL dung from the gravel], the gravel also holds nitrifying bacteria. So it all balances out. And a layer of ubstrate can hold a large amount of bacteria [though it wouldn't be as effective as a wet/dry since there isn't must oxygenation.] But that's what powerheads are for.

No substrate or some, it doesn't matter. Although, I agree in that no gravel would mean less maintenance. However, it's not painstaking work that requires hours of time, just a few extra minutes to dig through nooks and crannies for poo.


----------



## SERRASOMETHING (Jun 29, 2004)

enouph poop talk. lol
I was just wondering everyones expirence with a plain black painted bottom, trust me this wet/dry has got the bottom spotless every day I come home from work.
I just noticed all the fish to be darker in color then with the white gravel.

Rick


----------



## illnino (Mar 6, 2004)

bare bottom tanks are fuggin ugly


----------



## watermonst3rs (Feb 15, 2004)

broken glass.


----------



## SERRASOMETHING (Jun 29, 2004)

broken glass?


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

just get a thin layer of sand. bare bottom tanks look nappy. and no one wants to have a nappy looking tank. look at genin's setup. his is simple but looks really nice.


----------



## ineedchanna (May 27, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> The darker the substrate, the more secure your fish will feel. Downside of dark/black gravel is that poop and debris are painfully visible, which means more maintenance work to keep your tank presentable.
> Sand is trickier than gravel if you want live plants, but does look better (imo.)


----------



## iLLwiLL (Jun 13, 2003)

in my old pygo tank, i had a mixture of 1 part black gravel to 2 parts natural. i also added a 10 lb. bag of "river rock" to the mix to give it a more random appearance.

~Will.


----------



## SERRASOMETHING (Jun 29, 2004)

results, gave the shinny black bottom a week, fish adjusted slowly at first, after a week they were normal acting. Problem, fish looked horrible no reds oranges yellows, all kinda fady. Today, put back in the light layer of white gravel and bingo, fish are brighter then ever, talk about adaptation, it was immediate!
rw


----------

