Keeping SPS is soooo hard and expensive! Thinking about quitting after 2 years.

[kenpau]

It's absolutely unnecessary to vacuum your sandbed with every water change, or stir it up in any way shape, or form. You can do it if you want, but it's most certainly not necessary nor even all that beneficial. I've a 20 gallon nano with very rapidly growing SPS that has had the same 2" sandbed for the last 10 years. Very occasionally I may vacuum the sand within 2" of the front glass, but the rest of it remains undisturbed.

Thank you!!!! I'm glad someone else thinks this is unnecessary as I do!

If you are having to vacuum your sandbed then there is something wrong with your system because that is why we spend thousands of dollars on skimmers and powerheads!

 

[CHSUB]

nothing wrong with doing a little house cleaning and lowering nutrients some. the lower the better, with heavy inputs of food is always a recipe for success. however, removing the bio-pellets is a excellent idea and forget about carbon dosing it does the same thing. like others have said "back to the basics".

 

[dkeller_nc]

Thanks for the detailed info. The way I look at it, as long as the method used ends up creating a long lasting, healthy environment...it's all good

One correction - That should've been R.O. Classic 110 Space Saver skimmer. They make so many models now it's hard to keep up.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Thank you!!!! I'm glad someone else thinks this is unnecessary as I do!

If you are having to vacuum your sandbed then there is something wrong with your system because that is why we spend thousands of dollars on skimmers and powerheads!

Nutrients need to be removed from the system in some manner. You can have technological aids help you with this or you can take a more manual, hands-on approach which doesn't cost 'thousands of dollars'.

The methodology used is up to the reef keeper, but to proclaim that 'vacuuming the sandbed is unnecessary and if you do something is wrong with your system' is a patently false statment since it doesn't apply to all reef keeping methodologies.

 

[dkeller_nc]

Sorry to sound like an idiot but are you saying to not carbon dose or to just dose small?

If you wish to do so, I'd highly recommend reading Randy Holmes Farley's article on the subject here. Keep in mind that while it's true that vinegar dosing and vodka dosing are equivalent from the standpoint of what it adds to the system (acetate), bio-pellets are not the same thing.

Bio pellets are generally poly-3-hydroxybutyrate, though the exact formulation varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. And it's certainly true that the monomers released from the plastic are "carbon", and in a form that's usable by bacteria. However, there's certain aspects of bio-pellets that make their practical use in a reef tank a bit different than vodka or vinegar dosing. Specifically, the dissolution of the pellets to the monomer in solution is not under control of the reefer - it depends on how much is in the system, the pH of the tank water, the specific formulation of the bio pellets and the degree to which the polymer is cross-linked, and other factors. I think you'll find that most us that hang out in the Chemistry section don't care for bio-pellets because of the unknowns, and because vinegar dosing is very easy, very forgiving, and proven.

BTW - the reason I asked you where you got your coral, and how long it took for the ones in your tank to RTN has to do with light acclimation. Many LFS have their SPS frags under fairly low light, and the coral acclimates to these conditions. When they're put into a reefer's tank, particularly under intense, highly focused LEDs, they can undergo light shock. The symptoms can take the form of out-an-out bleaching, but also STN and RTN.

 

[PhaneSoul]

Randy Holmes did not take into consideration a whole bunch of things. He was paid by sponsors to say this that and the other thing. I couldn't explain the whole situation, I wasn't around when it happened. But it was right here on RC, shiemex, adey and a few others have been debunked for flawed processes. It's just sad that most of that info was lost in a server crash several years ago, I think in 2005. If you want more info read this thread:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=23487307

Before you go on believing in false philosophy, ask yourself where the poop of all these micro & macro organisms is going

 

[Spyderturbo007]

Randy Holmes did not take into consideration a whole bunch of things. He was paid by sponsors to say this that and the other thing.

 

[PhaneSoul]

Mm popcorn

 

[Reefin' Dude]

kurfer- it sounds like your system has a carbon addiction. the faster you stop the addiction the greater the chance of algae bloom. the slower you can do it the better. get that LR doing its job instead of the water borne bacteria.

if you want to make reef keeping less expensive than just break keeping corals down to the absolute basics. bring it back to the known good husbandry practices. feed it what it needs, and remove its waste in a timely manner. it is that simple. we walk our dogs, empty the litter boxes, flush our toilets, change the paper in the cage, and rotate pastures for a reason.

Thank you!!!! I'm glad someone else thinks this is unnecessary as I do!

If you are having to vacuum your sandbed then there is something wrong with your system because that is why we spend thousands of dollars on skimmers and powerheads!

skimmers and powerheads do not remove the large pieces of detritus. it takes a siphon to remove that. relying on only water based nutrient export methods misses the largest source of the problematic nutrients, the detritus. equate it to trying to remove poo from a bathroom by just running the fan and not actually flushing the toilet. you flush the toilet in order to remove the waste. siphon up the waste, you remove the poo. are we keeping corals as pets or poo?

G~

 

[reefgeezer]

Randy Holmes did not take into consideration a whole bunch of things. He was paid by sponsors to say this that and the other thing. I couldn't explain the whole situation, I wasn't around when it happened...

Buttered or plain? Do you want the large, it comes with a free refill. You may need some comfort food soon. Randy is very respected here.

 

[dkeller_nc]

2 7 inch filter socks (large sump), I took out the black sponge that sits between the middle and final return chamber. Replaced it will a PURA filter I change out monthly.

There are two ceramic 8" x 8" x 1" Plate MarinePure blocks sitting below my socks. That's it, everything else is bare bottom...my reactors feed the middle bay where my skimmer is.

Kurfer - A couple of additional thoughts. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the Chemistry forum regarding marinepure blocks in reef systems, specifically the suspicion that they seem to add aluminum to tank water in systems that run them. This suspicion is supported by Triton ICP tests, but it's unclear whether the aluminum in these tanks are or are not causing issues with corals, particularly soft corals.

Having said that, many of us with chemistry backgrounds won't run them in reef systems, because it's not worth taking the chance. In your particular case, and judging from your full-tank shots, I rather doubt that having them in the sump is substantially contributing to your tank's needs - you've a more than adequate amount of live rock and sand to provide surface area for the necessary bacteria. Based on that, I'd consider removing them.

I'm not sure what a "Pura" filter is; could you describe it to us?

 

[CHSUB]

Bio pellets are generally poly-3-hydroxybutyrate, though the exact formulation varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. And it's certainly true that the monomers released from the plastic are "carbon", and in a form that's usable by bacteria. However, there's certain aspects of bio-pellets that make their practical use in a reef tank a bit different than vodka or vinegar dosing. Specifically, the dissolution of the pellets to the monomer in solution is not under control of the reefer - it depends on how much is in the system, the pH of the tank water, the specific formulation of the bio pellets and the degree to which the polymer is cross-linked, and other factors. I think you'll find that most us that hang out in the Chemistry section don't care for bio-pellets because of the unknowns, and because vinegar dosing is very easy, very forgiving, and proven.

.

in a practical sense it's the same thing; Vinegar vs bio-pellets, trading one for another makes little sense. Vinegar dosing may be "easy" but it is far from proven. The OP is best served by reducing the varibles not increasing them...

 

[dkeller_nc]

in a practical sense it's the same thing; Vinegar vs bio-pellets, trading one for another makes little sense. Vinegar dosing may be "easy" but it is far from proven. The OP is best served by reducing the varibles not increasing them...

No, it isn't, for the reasons stated. Specifically, the amount of carbon added to the system via vodka or vinegar dosing is under exact control by the reefer; the dissolution of bio pellets isn't. Keep in mind that vinegar/vodka dosing has been around for quite some time, and there's a heck of a lot us using it. That's not the same thing as scientific proof in controlled trials, but there's very, very little about reefkeeping in general that has had the benefit of structured investigation.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

but it is. the delivery method may be different, but they are both supply elemental C to the bacteria in the water column.

oh, there is plenty of scientific data out there that is directly pertinent to the hobby, the hobby just chooses to ignore it.

G~

 

[dkeller_nc]

but it is. the delivery method may be different, but they are both supply elemental C to the bacteria in the water column.

Yes indeed, but how much is supplied to water column and in what form is at issue.

 

[PhaneSoul]

Buttered please. Extra large.

Money talks. People follow fads, they don't want to think for themselves. You see a commercial on tv for a automatic dog walker, are you gonna get it? Of course! Because you want the dog but you don't want to properly take care of it.

When you read his work, all you have to do is ask, where does the poop go? Surely it doesn't get pushes to the top of the sandbed. Yeah there are organisms that eat other organisms poop, but they poop too so where does that go? Do all the organisms have their mouths attached to the others butt? Does gravity get completely ignored in our systems?

You all talk about denitrification within the sandbed. You you even understand how it works? Because I can tell you, this graphic right here:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1652103&highlight=denitrification+cycle
Is not a accurate representation. I've been trying to grasp the nitrogen cycle for months now, it's so complicated with loops, pathways and recycling chemicals going on, it is NOT a linear conversion like we are all taught, ammonia -> nitrite -> nitrate ect.

You blindly follow the advice of few people that are were paid by sponsors to put out incomplete data, they got rich while you buy the product and when something goes wrong it's always the users fault.

How many of you let that bs slide when you buy a tv and it dies in a year? Do you chalk it up to 'oh well it was built right, I just broke it because I pressed the power button and the channel up button at the same time'

 

[PhaneSoul]

in a practical sense it's the same thing; Vinegar vs bio-pellets, trading one for another makes little sense. Vinegar dosing may be "easy" but it is far from proven. The OP is best served by reducing the varibles not increasing them...

Had you followed the link(s) I provided previously, I gave a experiment with carbon dosing and marine environment.

Like reefin' dude said, there is plenty scientific info out there.

It is you at fault for blindly following the words of few instead of following the science

 

[Reefin' Dude]

Randy Holmes did not take into consideration a whole bunch of things. He was paid by sponsors to say this that and the other thing. I couldn't explain the whole situation, I wasn't around when it happened. But it was right here on RC, shiemex, adey and a few others have been debunked for flawed processes. It's just sad that most of that info was lost in a server crash several years ago, I think in 2005. If you want more info read this thread:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=23487307

i do not think Randy was a part of all of that.

G~

 

[PhaneSoul]

i do not think Randy was a part of all of that.

G~

Oh geeze for some reason for some reaso early in the mornings I get randy mixed up with shiemek early in the morning

In that case if like to apologize for incorrect naming in the previous few threads, Randy is not the enemy, nutrients creates by sandbeds are.

 

[kurfer]

Kurfer - A couple of additional thoughts. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the Chemistry forum regarding marinepure blocks in reef systems, specifically the suspicion that they seem to add aluminum to tank water in systems that run them. This suspicion is supported by Triton ICP tests, but it's unclear whether the aluminum in these tanks are or are not causing issues with corals, particularly soft corals.

Having said that, many of us with chemistry backgrounds won't run them in reef systems, because it's not worth taking the chance. In your particular case, and judging from your full-tank shots, I rather doubt that having them in the sump is substantially contributing to your tank's needs - you've a more than adequate amount of live rock and sand to provide surface area for the necessary bacteria. Based on that, I'd consider removing them.

I'm not sure what a "Pura" filter is; could you describe it to us?

Totally forgot to mention this, I did remove them from the sump.

I don't even have the larger blocks and from what I read the size I had are not meant for nitrate filtration.

They are gone!