How to build a sump
- Thread starter Macgammon
- Start date
NanoReefWanabe
Active member
personally i would want a tank about 30% of the display volume for a sump, under your tank a 20Long would work nice...by motor i assume you mean pump? for circulation i also assume...there are hundreds of sites listed at the bottom of the mainpage you can look at (forum sponsors)
on a side note a sump is no place for liverock or other biological filters...for this you want a refugium...there are many sites out there that can also help you incorporate a refugium into your sump...melevsreef is a good place to start...
on a side note a sump is no place for liverock or other biological filters...for this you want a refugium...there are many sites out there that can also help you incorporate a refugium into your sump...melevsreef is a good place to start...
Aello
Premium Member
I tend to disagree with nano reef. There is no problem with creating a sump that uses live rock as a filter medium. A lot of people use carbon or other media in there sump, so why not put live rock or even live rock rubble in the sump? I do agree that things like sand and algea like cheato are ment to be in a refugium. As far as the 10 gallon, you MIGHT be ok, but the bigger you go, the more stability you will have in the long run, plus it also will allow you to add more equipment later on if you want. The best advice I recieved for this life style, is buy the biggest and best equipment that you can, because in the end if you don't, you will wind up buying it in the end and be out alot more money than if you would have just got the best to begin with. I know it does not work for everything, but in alot of cases, sump, skimmer, lights, tank, it works
uncleof6
Active member
Carbon has a specific purpose; other filter media is of extremely questionable value. What would you expect live rock to do in a sump, that the live rock in the DT is not doing already? Live rock/ rubble is nothing but large brown bio balls, something that has been depricated for the most part. The only difference is you can make an aquascape with live rock. Really no point to doing that in a sump. This is another example of what a lot of people do, but there is no justification for it.
Aello
Premium Member
Live rock in the sump does have a purpose, you can add more surface area, via the rock it the sump, rather than just cramming your DT with rock, not all people have large tanks to put mass amounts of rock in. The more surface area you have the better. Plus with other media, GFO, mud, phosphate or nitrate remover, those all have an unquestioned value that many many people have seen. I myself use rock rubble in my sump and have seen the bennifits. It has also been shown that in higher vs lower flow areas different bacteria can grow that focus on different aspects of the nitrogen cycle. And with high flow like you find in a sump you won't have as much buildup of deitirus on the rocks in the sump, bioballs and media like that is a different story
Stability with the right conditions in the long run is what a reef needs to thrive and survive, maximizing bacteria levels is what we do while cycling our aquariums, the more surface area the better.
Stability with the right conditions in the long run is what a reef needs to thrive and survive, maximizing bacteria levels is what we do while cycling our aquariums, the more surface area the better.
uncleof6
Active member
But if you follow the rules of thumb, you end up with way too much rock in the DT, so much so that circulation is severely hindered, and hobbyists go looking for other reasons for their problems; it certainly could not be too much rock...
You say that bioballs are a different story, however, all they do is add surface area, which is what you are saying is the big advantage to rock in your sump! Detritus, flow rates, etc. are all well and good, but we need to focus here on what exactly is the difference between rock rubble in the sump, adding surface area to produce nitrates, and bio-balls in the sump, adding surface area to produce nitrates. There isn't anything else going on with the rock.
Mud (miracle mud) has actually (by analysis) been shown to be nothing but silica sand, with a high iron content that is very good at growing nuisance algae, but of no other value whatsoever! GFO, and other phosphate removers are used indescriminantly in systems from start-up, when there has been no determination as to whether or not a phosphate issue acutally exists, something that is very hard to determine in the first place, and removal of phosphates can make a system less capable of supporting life. Good way to get your money however...
I have never seen any benefits to a pile of rock in the sump. IMO/IME simply acts as a nitrate factory (just like our old trickle filters - does anyone use one of those anymore?). I suppose, given a particular bio load, that if ammonia or nitrite starts showing up because there is insufficient rock in the DT to provide biological filtration then perhaps supplementing in a sump or fuge may be called for, but that doesn't seem to be the common experience.
uncleof6
Active member
Most often folks' systems have an overabundance of Nitrate to deal with, rather than ammonia. Nitrate is by far the harder thing to deal with. Actually, though it goes back further than that, and dissolved organics are the biggest issue for marine systems. Freshwater systems the culprit is ammonia, however in marine systems, the ammonia is an intermediate step for the most part, marine critters secreting organics directly, rather than just ammonia.
After a system is "seasoned," the bacteria population will remain fairly stable, not increasing or decreasing in size, merely adjusting metabolic rates, to compensate for spikes in ammonia, of course Nitrite is not an issue at all. As ca1ore pointed out, I have yet to see a system that lacked surface area for the processing of ammonia. Lots of rock in the DT, or just a little rock in the DT, does not make a lot of difference, because every surface of the system partakes in the party, and bacteria populate every surface, not just that of rock.
To get back to the topic, sump design, sumps are the simplest part of the system. But one can make them a nightmare of complexity. The age of "nuclear power plant" systems (reactors and such,) has passed, (a very good thing,) and the use of more biology should be the push. Skimmers aren't really biology, and pumps are not biology, but they are more important than rock rubble, or fuge's in general, and should be the prime concern with sump design. Plenty of room for the pump, no shoe horning, for the pumps protection, and room for a quality skimmer. The rest is a whole lot of hullabaloo about nothing.
After a system is "seasoned," the bacteria population will remain fairly stable, not increasing or decreasing in size, merely adjusting metabolic rates, to compensate for spikes in ammonia, of course Nitrite is not an issue at all. As ca1ore pointed out, I have yet to see a system that lacked surface area for the processing of ammonia. Lots of rock in the DT, or just a little rock in the DT, does not make a lot of difference, because every surface of the system partakes in the party, and bacteria populate every surface, not just that of rock.
To get back to the topic, sump design, sumps are the simplest part of the system. But one can make them a nightmare of complexity. The age of "nuclear power plant" systems (reactors and such,) has passed, (a very good thing,) and the use of more biology should be the push. Skimmers aren't really biology, and pumps are not biology, but they are more important than rock rubble, or fuge's in general, and should be the prime concern with sump design. Plenty of room for the pump, no shoe horning, for the pumps protection, and room for a quality skimmer. The rest is a whole lot of hullabaloo about nothing.
