No skimmer system

[dpdecaro]

hello

I just wanted to post this thread. i am always into looking at all the coolest latest technolgy. I personnaly run a combonation on both my tanks. I just moved to salt lake and met this gentaman at one of there club meetings. He runs skimmerless with no cal reactor or anything. i seen his tank and it looks awsome. He use's nature as filtration including carbon clams a ton of snail and sunlight through the window. When i was at his house we was currently running a 75 gal with a home made frag tank and was ,looking to add another frag tank to his system. He also help me start my system very cheap by provideing me with some salt lake sand and rock. He also feeds his tanks brine shrimp from the salt lake. I think he is very intersting to listen to and has a lot of information. Here is a link to his post stating why to go skimmerless. Sorry for my post being sloppy and comfussing still getting familier with organizing my thoughts on here.

David

http://www.utahreefs.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6157&KW=mark%27s+tank

 

[liveforphysics]

Big T- I dont know for sure why you had cyno, but I have found that when I intentionally introduce cyno or hair algae into my fuge or display that it withers, shrinks, and dissapears in short time.

I think a lot of macroaglae growth problems are linked to the type of bulb being used, and its placement.

If you read that link from Randy Farley above, just by having the macro algea near the end of the bulb (but still under it) caused it to DIE in the 10day test, where algae 1ft away increased by 6times its starting mass. This means reflectors and proper light are absolutely essential.

I know I've said it before, but I just cant grow any algae with 10k, or 6.5k (at least the bulbs I tried). It either barely grew at all, or just flat out died. So, my best guess is that the lighting was your problem.

Now, as far as why the cyno ect. was plaugeing you so badly, remember, if chaeto isn't growing, its not doing a damn thing but being a liability. IMO, if its not growing, take it out, or get the correct light on it, because otherwise its just unstable biomass with no reason to be there.

I'm in puyallup area today, so if you want me to stop by and take a look at where you are/were trying to grow it, I would be available for that. Just PM me, or you could get my cell number from Mike.

-Luke

PS, dont worry, the bulb with the broken section just means it doesnt reflect quite as well as it used to. Still functions fine, the spotlight outside is just for reflecting, and not essential for bulb functionality.

 

[big t]

Post up the link Luke, I think that you just posted a quote from it.

 

[Flatlander]

Flatlander- If you wouldnt mind, I would love to see some pics of an ATS.
I've never used one or even seen one in person, but I'm always curious about creative methods.

Just for kicks, would you like to try out packing your ATS up with chaetomorpha rather than turf algae? And spending 20$ on a 4 pack of homedepot bulbs and running it? If you are interested, just let me know how much chaeto you need.

This is the scrubber in original condition. It arrived with the main body smashed, so we built a glass body for it, with a different delivery chute. The other pic, is the dump tray and turf screen. Cant remember but must be after being scrapped, as it looks pretty clean.

I would think other algaes would not work in this fashion and studies by Adey & others have shown, turf algaes to be the most proficient at nutrient removal. I do run a pair of 55w power compacts, direct over the algae tray.

However the discussion here is skimmers versus other methods of filtration. I also ran the large container of algae in a sump style setting, {see my April 01, TOTM @ RC}. But I also found it needed skimming. My friend has a very nice 180g soft coral tank. His 100g sump, is full of a similar algae growth and its proven to be a very beneficial assist in filtration but he still runs a large beckett skimmer.

My point is the same now, as it was many years ago during the same arguments. Skimmerless aquarists argue, {discuss, }, like others love to spend money & run huge power sucking skimmers. However it seems to work, which is why its hard to find anyone using just algae type filtration in larger systems. Oh sure, there are a few, but I must ask now, as I did then and as I do trying to find others running scrubbers. If it works so well, why is it not more widely used?

And I understand that alage is used by many aquarists, as a supplement to their skimmers but seldom alone, in comparison with skimmed aquariums. I look at Mike,s here and then look for others that look similar but dont use skimmers?

Same as for scrubbers. I look & look.

 

[liveforphysics]

Sorry I somehow missed includeing the link with my last post.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/april2003/chem.htm

 

[wave98]

You inquired with reguards to a concern about the amount of algae I leave in the sump after harvesting being insuficient or potentially insufficient. What I'm trying to elude to, is that the quanity is not important, simply the rate of increase in quanity is important.

I have to agree with Don here. The amount of nutrients a system has to process or filter is tied closely to the size of the system. You might harvest down to a 1/2 cup of Chaeto for a 1 gal. nano, but you would certainly leave more, and in a much larger sump, for a 180 gal. tank.

Gee Luke maybe it has something to do with you dosing water from your FW tank that is laidened with "80ppm NO3, and about 3ppm PO4 "???????????

Tell us something about the "downside" to this Mojo.

> Barry

 

[mojoreef]

Tell us something about the "downside" to this Mojo

just having a hard time getting my hands around this one Barry. So in order to make this system work we have to do/or have the following.
>We have to have a specific light type source or the algae will not grow no matter what you do.
> we need to dose water that is saturated with nitrogen and phosphate in order to eliminate trace amounts of of nitrogen and phosphate that may be in our tanks.
> we are hoping to have as much nitrogen and phosphate bound into bacteria and similar along with the algae.
> we have to turn off our skimmer for fear of exporting these bacteria and similar or any possible beneficial algae spores.
> and we shouldn't do any water changes as it will screw up the nitrogen and phosphate that is helping the growth of the algae in the refugium.


And we do all this to keep nuisance algae out of the display????


Mike

 

[Skimmy]

zzzing!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wave98]

just having a hard time getting my hands around this one Barry.

Well, I was refering to the "Quote" of your question about dosing N and P. However I will respond to your new post first.

So in order to make this system work we have to do/or have the following.
>We have to have a specific light type source or the algae will not grow no matter what you do.

This is for a seperate volume of water from the display, and a very cheap light as well, so I don't see a problem there. I think the 2.7k lights tend to grow Chaeto and some other algaes better than others, and some algaes that might be less advantageous are inhibited somewhat.

> we need to dose water that is saturated with nitrogen and phosphate in order to eliminate trace amounts of of nitrogen and phosphate that may be in our tanks.

When I read Luke's previous post on this, he stated that he was dosing this high-nutrient water, just to see what the Chaeto could handle, NOT in order to make it function.

> we are hoping to have as much nitrogen and phosphate bound into bacteria and similar along with the algae.

Do you think we are depriving the bacteria of necessary nutrients ?

> we have to turn off our skimmer for fear of exporting these bacteria and similar or any possible beneficial algae spores.

I'm not yet convinced of eliminating the skimmer, but a lower level of export there as some have mentioned, might be conducive to a larger variety of animal types within one system.

> and we shouldn't do any water changes as it will screw up the nitrogen and phosphate that is helping the growth of the algae in the refugium.

If you have been reading my posts Mike, you know I have some concern with compound build-ups that can only be held in check, practicaly, by way of water changes.

And we do all this to keep nuisance algae out of the display????

I thought the problem had to do with the health of corals, and that Phosphate was really the big concern here because of inhibiting coral calcification.

So, as to the experimental dosing that Luke has been doing, My point was that there might be a detrimental effect of growing more chaeto than is needed to process N and P, as in other compounds that might accumulate, or be "stripped" from the water column, especially considering the "sparse" water changing.

> Barry

 

[moortim]

I think I agree with Mojo, why would we want to add more in an effort to get less?

Not that I don't agree with that statement but I just don't understand why you would want to do that. Any insight Luke?

Edit: I think we were typing at the same time Barry, I like your insight.

 

[liveforphysics]

I dose the cichlids water just because I'm always amazed to see how rapidly it zeros out again. Everytime I do it, it kinda makes me laugh when I read all the posts about the people with blah blah $kimmers and blah blah equipment who struggle and barely feed the tank to keep nutrients undectable, all the while struggling with nusicence algaes in the display. I like to experiement and try to find the limits of things, so far, no matter what I overfeed or dose, it always just spurs a growth of chaeto, and it never causes a problem. Its just an extra fun thing to add the cichild water, certianly not required maintence.

I wouldnt recomend a system to anyone unless I had tested its functionality.

I cant see how its extra work at all. I seriously just take out some chaeto every week or two depending on how lazy im feeling, and feed whenever I wana watch things eat, and I keep the tank from running out of water from evap.

Thats the whole maintence procedure, AND as a bonus, I often get to sell the chaetomorpha algae to LFS, or I get to meet new people when they come to pick it up free. (an event that happens quite regularly).

I cant think of an easier tank maintence setup. And I couldnt ask for better results from it, I love my SPS colors and growth (though to be fair I need to give them 6months of time or so), I love how I get to watch things feed naturally, I love how I dont have any visible detritus, I love watching my fish hunt for live macrofauna, which is abundent.

I dig my setup, it gives me everything I have ever wanted out of this hobby, and for less effort than I have ever put into it.

I also dig Mike's (Mojoreef) setup, its another way that works totally awsome. Its likely a better method for very long term reefs, and his results are 100% awsome! The super slow skimming method with an airstone type skimmer gets my 2 thumbs up. I see it just like an unskimmed tank that gets a continous slow water change. The slow flow keeps his tank having a much more complete eco system than high flow tanks. I belive this eco-system bio-diversity in the fauna is crucial.

Mikes setup totally kicks ass, and he says its low maintence (looked like a whole bunch of equipment to fuss over to me, but I trust Mike when he says its low maintence). My cheato only setup does everything I could want, and the maintence is extremely low, and the cost is extremely low to setup and maintain.

I dont really give a damn how you filter your tanks. I'm just shareing a method that does everything I could possibily want for minimal work and investment.

 

[wave98]

Luke had stated in another thread, that he was concerned about Natural Nitrate Reduction, because he was already running at a ratio of Nitrate/ Phosphate, that is lower than a common ratio that he found somewhere, and his feeling was that he didn't want Phosphate removal to suffer from a lack of Nitrate( the end result of NNR of course ).

I don't know the numbers involved here, well enough to expound on this ratio, but my concern is that there are other compounds to be considered, and I'm trying to get at what they are, and how they are affected by skimming, and by Macro harvesting.

> Barry

 

[mojoreef]

Nice post Barry

This is for a seperate volume of water from the display, and a very cheap light as well, so I don't see a problem there. I think the 2.7k lights tend to grow Chaeto and some other algaes better than others, and some algaes that might be less advantageous are inhibited somewhat.

Most algae will grow as long as they get a certain ammount of the right light waves. I found it a little strange that a algae would stop growing and die off unless it had this particular light.

When I read Luke's previous post on this, he stated that he was dosing this high-nutrient water, just to see what the Chaeto could handle, NOT in order to make it function.

From my understanding Luke was looking for a particular redfield ration of P and N that was required in order for the algae to uptake. This was from a different thread however.

Do you think we are depriving the bacteria of necessary nutrients ?

I think we have a bacterial population based on the ammount of P and N that is available to them in the system. X amount of food = x amount of bacteria. If one keeps enriching one will also increase the bacterial population, I dont see an end to that, myself I perfer to remove as much as I can by exporting them when they are reducing detritus.

I thought the problem had to do with the health of corals, and that Phosphate was really the big concern here because of inhibiting coral calcification.

P is a double edged sword, is an absolute requirement for all types of growth. When it is skewed to prominance then it is skewed more toward algae then it would be to corals. As per the health of corals I dont think it would be a factor.


Luke

looked like a whole bunch of equipment to fuss over to me,

Yes their are a few pumps thats for sure, but you have to remember that all your tanks doesnt quite add up to my sump??

I wouldnt recomend a system to anyone unless I had tested its functionality.

I here ya but you have to remember that growing algae in refugium has been done for a long time, using a number of different algaes and methods. The pros and cons have been out their for a long time, thus so has the folks that use and thase that dont.

I dont really give a damn how you filter your tanks. I'm just shareing a method that does everything I could possibily want for minimal work and investment

And the same applies for me, BUT on a board such as this we need to assure that folks get the full comprehension of what is and isnt happening in a system such as you have put forth.


Mike