Flatlander
Well-known member
Mike, whatever became of the published report Charles was bringing forth on his plenum study? Still in the works?
Should I use an UGF?
- Thread starter Ray Pollett
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Witfull
Well-known member
man, i gotta find some way to get there this year!
Scooterman
Well-known member
Man I'm gonna end up learning something if I keep reading this LOL!
aquariumdebacle
electrolyte addict
THE SYSTEM IS DETERMINED BY WHATS IN IT!
The bacteria sough-off that I'm refering to is from Spotte (I think?) The problem in the waste-water industry is in the engineering of the towers. The bacteria grow on the suface areas and continue to add layers upon layers. Anaerobic bacteria will form under the aerobic ones. These are not the ones in the deepest part of a DSB but ones that can live in both aerobic/anaerobic environs. Eventually the layer gets to deep and it will sough-off. When this occurs it will make it's way to the bottom of the chamber and be labeled detritus. I believe in an over-sized system with more flow and/or volume the layers do not build up to the point of sough-off.
Now, this cannot be extrapolated to a DSB. There is no flow and thus no slough-off. What i do belive is happening (empirically) is that the bacteria populations are reaching some point of equilibium at which time the population is stable. As many are being born as dying. Due to ecological facts no populations of organisms can exceed their food supply (common sense too!)
The real question is how much can we feed a system. Here's the caveat Mikey!
In a SPS, high-energy system, as stated many times; none or virtually.
In a LPS/soft coral environment, the system can be fed as much plankton and other food sources that they need to thrive.
In a fish-only tank they can be fed to satiation three times a day or more as long as they eat all the food.
In regards to food capacity I believe the bare bottoms should only be allowed on nude beaches unless under five yeards old. The do not have the capcity and are usually not designed to process large amounts of organics.
The deep san bed can process a considerable amount of introduced organics (organisms both dead and alive. This can make an ideal environment for LPS, soft coral, and filter-feeders that absorb organics from the water column.
The trickle /Under gravel/ canister filters can process the most organics and keep them at non-toxic levels. These are best suited for fish and the hardier invertrabrates like crustaceans (finally a place for crabs!)
Rather say which system is best : let's decide what we want to keep alive then go about the best way to do it!
By the way I have a 120 gallon, 4+ inch DSB WITH a trickle filter and no protein skimmer-don't do as I do; do as I say!
The bacteria sough-off that I'm refering to is from Spotte (I think?) The problem in the waste-water industry is in the engineering of the towers. The bacteria grow on the suface areas and continue to add layers upon layers. Anaerobic bacteria will form under the aerobic ones. These are not the ones in the deepest part of a DSB but ones that can live in both aerobic/anaerobic environs. Eventually the layer gets to deep and it will sough-off. When this occurs it will make it's way to the bottom of the chamber and be labeled detritus. I believe in an over-sized system with more flow and/or volume the layers do not build up to the point of sough-off.
Now, this cannot be extrapolated to a DSB. There is no flow and thus no slough-off. What i do belive is happening (empirically) is that the bacteria populations are reaching some point of equilibium at which time the population is stable. As many are being born as dying. Due to ecological facts no populations of organisms can exceed their food supply (common sense too!)
The real question is how much can we feed a system. Here's the caveat Mikey!
In a SPS, high-energy system, as stated many times; none or virtually.
In a LPS/soft coral environment, the system can be fed as much plankton and other food sources that they need to thrive.
In a fish-only tank they can be fed to satiation three times a day or more as long as they eat all the food.
In regards to food capacity I believe the bare bottoms should only be allowed on nude beaches unless under five yeards old. The do not have the capcity and are usually not designed to process large amounts of organics.
The deep san bed can process a considerable amount of introduced organics (organisms both dead and alive. This can make an ideal environment for LPS, soft coral, and filter-feeders that absorb organics from the water column.
The trickle /Under gravel/ canister filters can process the most organics and keep them at non-toxic levels. These are best suited for fish and the hardier invertrabrates like crustaceans (finally a place for crabs!)
Rather say which system is best : let's decide what we want to keep alive then go about the best way to do it!
By the way I have a 120 gallon, 4+ inch DSB WITH a trickle filter and no protein skimmer-don't do as I do; do as I say!
Yea different world on the waste water towers.
On the Softies I will give you that on the dsb being a better model of filtration. the production of nutrients by a dsb is ideal for any tank that has corals that require such nutrients. As per LPS, you streeching thier, its more of a catch 22. the tissue mass would appreciate the nutrients but those same nutrients would inhibit calcification. I would perfer to introduce the nutrients in the case of lps, that way I could feed and then remove the left overs, this way the coral get the nutrients it needs from the food and not the P problems with calcium.
I have a feeling thier going to be a long toalk going on, on the way to spokane, lol. Hmmmmm we will take my truck
Mike
Naw in a DSB its always in a state of flux. No square inch is the same in either enviroment or in food input. I agree with you on the food input controling the population. You can equate the population flux by just birth and death, thier is so vastly more at work here. Your not taking into concederation the biofilms, the enzymes, the microbes and so on, thier mass alone is more then the bacterial mass. thats alot of stuff that doesnt get eaten or broken down????
LOL now who is baffling the BS, hehehe. A dsb can not process a considerable amount of organics. it is very limited to what it can actually handle, another reason they load up quick. Even Ron say only 2 to 3 small fish per 100 gallon tank and 3 to 4 corals. that not alot brother. On a BB tank it can handle as much organic load as you put in base on how efficiently you remove it.
On the Softies I will give you that on the dsb being a better model of filtration. the production of nutrients by a dsb is ideal for any tank that has corals that require such nutrients. As per LPS, you streeching thier, its more of a catch 22. the tissue mass would appreciate the nutrients but those same nutrients would inhibit calcification. I would perfer to introduce the nutrients in the case of lps, that way I could feed and then remove the left overs, this way the coral get the nutrients it needs from the food and not the P problems with calcium.
I have a feeling thier going to be a long toalk going on, on the way to spokane, lol. Hmmmmm we will take my truck
Mike
I started with a 100 gallon aquarium with approximately 200 lbs of live rock and a crappy bio ball system with the lamest skimmer around. I kept crashing over and over every year and almost gave up.
Then someone introduced me to caulerpa, and my tanks have been so stable I used to throw fully icked out fish in there to give them a chance to live, when we were importing fish from overseas for resell to stores.
I now truly believe in keeping as close to a 50/50 ratio of caulerpa in my refugium. I won't ever get rid of my skimmer, but I will tell you that in the 5-6 years I have been keeping tanks since going with caulerpa my tank has only crashed once. That was because I was topping off directly from the RODI unit and my husband called the water co about our bill and they changed our meter and pressure tested the lines blowing my filters then topping off the tank with toxic levels of copper. But not one fish died! All my Bali Acros and shrimp died. But no one stinking fish.
I pretty much have had these fish for going on 4 years, some as long as 6. A few found other homes to be jerks in, but they didn't die.
How come no one here extolls the use of the ultimate biological filter, the one that actually does this work in the wild? Prolifera is renown for removing 98% of the "bad nitrate" and razor is not far behind. Even the magnesium sucking Mangrove?
Stop thinking mechanical and look at the reef system in the wild and try emulating that! I believe the chemicals and stuff (which I will use in extreme cases) are all bad for a closed system. Got cyano, get fighting conch, got detritius in the sand bed? Get Nassarius, Sand Sifting Stars, and Cerith snails, and Sand Sifting Gobies. Fight nusiance with biology, your system will be more stable and your tank mates will thank you for it. Because these things don't go away. The chemical is a temporary fix, unless you want ot keep buying it and dealing with it.
And for those of you that mark this in red and nitpick everything I just said, MY TANK IS BIGGER THAN YOUR TANK! I have worked hard to find a formulae that will work for me and I try to go natural as often as I can, but occassionally things get out of hand, then as a last resort I use rowaphos or phosban. But never use any medications to cure a fish in your reef. If I can stress that enough, I would. "Let that durn fish die" has been the hardest lesson I have ever learned. No one fish is worth nuking your tank, and nothing, I say nothing, is absolutely reef safe. There will always be a cirumstance that will cause that STUPID "Reef Safe" stuff to nuke your tank. Grin and bear it.
Then someone introduced me to caulerpa, and my tanks have been so stable I used to throw fully icked out fish in there to give them a chance to live, when we were importing fish from overseas for resell to stores.
I now truly believe in keeping as close to a 50/50 ratio of caulerpa in my refugium. I won't ever get rid of my skimmer, but I will tell you that in the 5-6 years I have been keeping tanks since going with caulerpa my tank has only crashed once. That was because I was topping off directly from the RODI unit and my husband called the water co about our bill and they changed our meter and pressure tested the lines blowing my filters then topping off the tank with toxic levels of copper. But not one fish died! All my Bali Acros and shrimp died. But no one stinking fish.
I pretty much have had these fish for going on 4 years, some as long as 6. A few found other homes to be jerks in, but they didn't die.
How come no one here extolls the use of the ultimate biological filter, the one that actually does this work in the wild? Prolifera is renown for removing 98% of the "bad nitrate" and razor is not far behind. Even the magnesium sucking Mangrove?
Stop thinking mechanical and look at the reef system in the wild and try emulating that! I believe the chemicals and stuff (which I will use in extreme cases) are all bad for a closed system. Got cyano, get fighting conch, got detritius in the sand bed? Get Nassarius, Sand Sifting Stars, and Cerith snails, and Sand Sifting Gobies. Fight nusiance with biology, your system will be more stable and your tank mates will thank you for it. Because these things don't go away. The chemical is a temporary fix, unless you want ot keep buying it and dealing with it.
And for those of you that mark this in red and nitpick everything I just said, MY TANK IS BIGGER THAN YOUR TANK! I have worked hard to find a formulae that will work for me and I try to go natural as often as I can, but occassionally things get out of hand, then as a last resort I use rowaphos or phosban. But never use any medications to cure a fish in your reef. If I can stress that enough, I would. "Let that durn fish die" has been the hardest lesson I have ever learned. No one fish is worth nuking your tank, and nothing, I say nothing, is absolutely reef safe. There will always be a cirumstance that will cause that STUPID "Reef Safe" stuff to nuke your tank. Grin and bear it.
NaH2O
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 8,568
The problem I have with Caulerpa is the leaking of toxins. I don't find that desirable to a tank of SPS trying to combat it. There is information about caulerpas in these threads: Caulerpa Toxicity in Perspective and Caulerpa Problems Poll. I understand there are loads of folks that use caulerpa without problems, I just don't want to be one of the unfortunate ones that has issues. A refugium full of caulerpa (or any macro for that matter), is another method of controlling excess nutrients. Why not just remove the waste to begin with, rather than relying so heavily on something else to do the job?
I thought cyanobacteria was the best at removing nitrogen? Someone correct me with this please.
I disagree with this a little bit. It is almost impossible to emulate a reef in a closed environment. Too many differences, so IMO, a tank needs to be treated like what it is...a closed system.
All the critters listed above will help to break down detritus and waste, however, they poop too, so it is still there in the sandbed...just might be smaller.
Also, some biological methods, can be similar to use of chemicals. Find the root of the problem and deal with it, instead of relying on something else as a "band-aid fix". I see macroalgaes in a similar way. Become too dependent on them, and if something happens (i.e. going sexual, or large die off), the tank could suffer. I like mechanical methods of control for my system...get the detritus and waste removed, so it can't sit in the tank....skim it out, siphon it out, just get it out.
Guess I'm one of those nitpickers....at least I didn't use red. I know your tank is bigger than mine, and I probably won’t ever have a tank as large as yours. I'm glad the methods you have formulated work for you, it sounds like your years of experience have made you successful with these methods.
I agree on the medications put into a tank for a diseased fish is not a smart idea - we have so many microorganisms in our tanks....much better to get the fish into a hospital tank for treatment. There are so many treatments on the market listed as reef safe, and IMO, not even caulerpa is totally reef safe.
I thought cyanobacteria was the best at removing nitrogen? Someone correct me with this please.
I disagree with this a little bit. It is almost impossible to emulate a reef in a closed environment. Too many differences, so IMO, a tank needs to be treated like what it is...a closed system.
All the critters listed above will help to break down detritus and waste, however, they poop too, so it is still there in the sandbed...just might be smaller.
Also, some biological methods, can be similar to use of chemicals. Find the root of the problem and deal with it, instead of relying on something else as a "band-aid fix". I see macroalgaes in a similar way. Become too dependent on them, and if something happens (i.e. going sexual, or large die off), the tank could suffer. I like mechanical methods of control for my system...get the detritus and waste removed, so it can't sit in the tank....skim it out, siphon it out, just get it out.
Guess I'm one of those nitpickers....at least I didn't use red
. I know your tank is bigger than mine, and I probably won’t ever have a tank as large as yours. I'm glad the methods you have formulated work for you, it sounds like your years of experience have made you successful with these methods. I agree on the medications put into a tank for a diseased fish is not a smart idea - we have so many microorganisms in our tanks....much better to get the fish into a hospital tank for treatment. There are so many treatments on the market listed as reef safe, and IMO, not even caulerpa is totally reef safe.
Caulerpa
I know alot of people have problems with Caulerpa going aesexual, but I have never had that problem. I leave the 'fuge lights on 24 hours a day 365 days a year, and have found some really cheap and efficient ways to light it.
My husband found this 10K bulb that burns so cool you can unscrew it while it is on, I will ask him what it is and post it here.
In say, 5 years of using caulerpa I have not had it go aesexual even once. So I don't see the problem with using it. It's the pruning it that gets annoying!
As to why am I using it to remove wastes, well because I have not found a method that will work completely. So I try to do a little bit of it all.
I have the "clean up crew", the two monster skimmers, and I even have PurFlow Cannister filters on the closed loops. Having those allows me to put in a filter to polish the water of all the particulate matter, or put bags of carbon, or even rowaphos into them.
I am not extolling one versus the other, I am just wondering why people don't try many things, and many more natural things???
The caulerpa did not inhibit my Acro growth at all, I had awesome acros and even had pics from my tank in the November 2004 Aquarium Magazine. But, sniffle, I am starting over now after copper was dumped into my system.
But you know what's weird? I had a few acros turn brilliant blue when the copper was in the tank, and now that the copper is gone they are back to brown with blue tips. So acros can be amazingly resilliant. PS I still got that guy!
I know alot of people have problems with Caulerpa going aesexual, but I have never had that problem. I leave the 'fuge lights on 24 hours a day 365 days a year, and have found some really cheap and efficient ways to light it.
My husband found this 10K bulb that burns so cool you can unscrew it while it is on, I will ask him what it is and post it here.
In say, 5 years of using caulerpa I have not had it go aesexual even once. So I don't see the problem with using it. It's the pruning it that gets annoying!
As to why am I using it to remove wastes, well because I have not found a method that will work completely. So I try to do a little bit of it all.
I have the "clean up crew", the two monster skimmers, and I even have PurFlow Cannister filters on the closed loops. Having those allows me to put in a filter to polish the water of all the particulate matter, or put bags of carbon, or even rowaphos into them.
I am not extolling one versus the other, I am just wondering why people don't try many things, and many more natural things???
The caulerpa did not inhibit my Acro growth at all, I had awesome acros and even had pics from my tank in the November 2004 Aquarium Magazine. But, sniffle, I am starting over now after copper was dumped into my system.
But you know what's weird? I had a few acros turn brilliant blue when the copper was in the tank, and now that the copper is gone they are back to brown with blue tips. So acros can be amazingly resilliant. PS I still got that guy!
WildReef said:
Actually, if you are looking for a system that deals with nutrients in a somewhat similar fashion to the reefs in the ocean, than the BB with heavy skimming and mechanical filtration probably is the closest to emulating what occurs out there (much as I hate to admit it
)In the wild, the large majority of nutrients are tied up at any given time by organisims in a complex food chain (much more complex than we can hope to duplicate in our tanks). Claupera is simply a very small part of this chain. The remainder of the nutrients are diluted with the massive amount of water in the reef ecosystem. The bioload of our tanks on a gallon per gallon ratio is vastly larger than that of the wild reef.
Obviously, we can't dupicate the complex food chain or ecosystem of the wild reef in our tanks. Nor can we have a similar dilution ratio of gallons of water per nutrient level. So, the concept of the BB system does the next best thing, which is aggressive actual removal of free nutrients from the system. The agressive removal substitues for the gaps in the food chain and the dilution issues. This, as I see it, likely gives you conditions closest to what exist on the natural reef.
MikeS
Quote
I am not sure I understand the concept of reversing the flow of an under gravel filter?? if you got a moment let me know what the plan is thier.
Mike, the reason UG filters went out of fashion is because we tried to use them the way we used them on fresh water tanks forty years ago. They will not work like that for long in a reef. Also the reason for reversing them is not to run a lot of water through them and try to suspend detritus. You would need far more flow for that than you would get with a powerhead.
I think it's safe to say that I have been running a reverse UG filter probably longer than anyone here and I have a theory on how to run it correctly where it is the longest lived least maintenance of any system.
It is run in reverse so you can filter the water before it goes under the gravel. Also I run it very slow, 50 gal/ hr down each tube. I do this because I want anerobic areas to develop between the grains of gravel. With this slow flow oxygen will be practically or totally depleted in many minute areas. These areas will be too small to produce hydrogen sulfide.
My reverse UG filter has been running since 1972 and my nitrates are still zero. For maintenance I stir up the parts of the gravel where I can reach maybe twice a year and diatom filter the water. Last year I removed the UG filter plates for the first time in 25 years and although there was detritus under there, it really was not that bad. I really wanted to see what was going on under there. In another 25 years I will do it again.
Have a great day.
Paul
I am not sure I understand the concept of reversing the flow of an under gravel filter?? if you got a moment let me know what the plan is thier.
Mike, the reason UG filters went out of fashion is because we tried to use them the way we used them on fresh water tanks forty years ago. They will not work like that for long in a reef. Also the reason for reversing them is not to run a lot of water through them and try to suspend detritus. You would need far more flow for that than you would get with a powerhead.
I think it's safe to say that I have been running a reverse UG filter probably longer than anyone here and I have a theory on how to run it correctly where it is the longest lived least maintenance of any system.
It is run in reverse so you can filter the water before it goes under the gravel. Also I run it very slow, 50 gal/ hr down each tube. I do this because I want anerobic areas to develop between the grains of gravel. With this slow flow oxygen will be practically or totally depleted in many minute areas. These areas will be too small to produce hydrogen sulfide.
My reverse UG filter has been running since 1972 and my nitrates are still zero. For maintenance I stir up the parts of the gravel where I can reach maybe twice a year and diatom filter the water. Last year I removed the UG filter plates for the first time in 25 years and although there was detritus under there, it really was not that bad. I really wanted to see what was going on under there. In another 25 years I will do it again.
Have a great day.
Paul
Curtswearing
Mantisfreak
Holy revived thread Paulman!!! :lol:
As for nutrient rermoval I use an algae trough which sits above the water, to the rear and just under the lights. The water flows through it very fast and there is a plactic screen on the bottom which is "infused" with cement
(algae loves cement) The screen is removed for removing the algae. None of it grows in the tank, it all grows on the screen because the conditions are better for it.
(algae loves cement) The screen is removed for removing the algae. None of it grows in the tank, it all grows on the screen because the conditions are better for it.
Mike it is just a sponge filter. I just want water down there no dirt, food, fish etc. I have all three tubes connected together in a sort of manifold so all three tubes get about 50 gal/hr each. As I said, it lasts at least 25 years before cleanings. It could have gone longer but since my tank has always been an experiment I really wanted to see what was living under there, it was mostly tiny red tubeworms.
Paul
Paul
liveforphysics
Banned
This is very interesting. I would love to hear more about your setup.
So, I'm assumeing you just rip out a handful or two of the hair algae growing in the cement traugh for phosphate export?
Any system that has worked for 25years definately has a system to remove all the problem compounds and elements that would accumulate over long periods of feeding time.
So, I'm assumeing you just rip out a handful or two of the hair algae growing in the cement traugh for phosphate export?
Any system that has worked for 25years definately has a system to remove all the problem compounds and elements that would accumulate over long periods of feeding time.
Liveforphysics, I do not have to rip out the HA, I roll up the screen when it is nice and full and rinse it under the sink. I also replace the screen every year because the cement loses it's attraction for HA about that time.
Oh and the tank is 35 years old, but I cleaned the reverse UG filter plates after 25 years to see what was growing under there. Mostly tube worms.
As for the set up, you may not believe some of my set up since it was set up way before computers or even salt water books. I built most of the equipment and I collected or built all the rocks. Much of the water is NSW from New York right near the city and the tank seems to be immune to paracites, although I don't know why. The tank was featured in "Marine Fish Monthly" about ten years ago. It is a mixed reef with mostly LPS and there is a bit of locally collected sea weed. Some of the rock is NYC asphalt that was dumped in the sea about fifty years ago.
There is an article about the history of the tank if I can find it.
Have a great day.
Paul
Oh and the tank is 35 years old, but I cleaned the reverse UG filter plates after 25 years to see what was growing under there. Mostly tube worms.
As for the set up, you may not believe some of my set up since it was set up way before computers or even salt water books. I built most of the equipment and I collected or built all the rocks. Much of the water is NSW from New York right near the city and the tank seems to be immune to paracites, although I don't know why. The tank was featured in "Marine Fish Monthly" about ten years ago. It is a mixed reef with mostly LPS and there is a bit of locally collected sea weed. Some of the rock is NYC asphalt that was dumped in the sea about fifty years ago.
There is an article about the history of the tank if I can find it.
Have a great day.
Paul
LakeEd
Achilles
I feel all of this just goes to show... there is no "RIGHT WAY" or Only Way to setup a Reef Tank. Each variation has different requirements along with it. As long as those requirements are explored as fully as possible by us... which "WAY" we choose to setup our tanks is totally up to us! We are the only ones that know our tanks, our habbits, and what will work for us. Read, Learn, Experiment... and most importantly, ENJOY our hobby! *smile*
By The Way...
Paul... your tank looks GREAT! Thank you for sharing!!
By The Way...
Paul... your tank looks GREAT! Thank you for sharing!!
fishermann
Well-known member
Paul what size is the sqares in the screen and how do you lace it with cement, I really like that part of your setup.
