My first skimmerless system

[Timfish]

I stopped using ozone a couple decades ago. There was no way to verify the equipment was working and calibrating it was flaky. Charles Delbeek in his presentaion at NextWave 2011 in Dallas gave the same reasons recommending aquarists not use it. Since then looking at the roles of DOC in promoting autotrophic vs heterotrophic microbial activity I've stumbled on research that shows there are ozone refractory DOC compounds and ozone also creates biodegradable DOC. Not knowing how those forms of DOC affect the growth of heterotrophic microbial populations which promote coral diseases and not having needed it to maintain my systems for 20+ years I won't use it.

 

[karimwassef]

Ozone, UV, peroxide, etc... they're all techniques to break down excess organics in the water column. This could be bacteria or plankton of any type. I run without any mechanical filtration - only cryptic sponges, algae scrubber and sand bed in the tank. So my water is full of organics. There is always the potential for something in the water to go to an extreme, so I keep a large UV plumbed in but not running ... like brakes to biology.

In nature, the top surface of the water is constantly sterilized by solar UV. This doesn't sound like it matters, but when you compare the surface area to volume of the reefs, it's actually a massive effect. I run MH so I get surface UV, but nowhere near the ratio in nature.

 

[Timfish]

Ozone, UV, peroxide, etc... they're all techniques to break down excess organics in the water column. This could be bacteria or plankton of any type. I run without any mechanical filtration - only cryptic sponges, algae scrubber and sand bed in the tank. So my water is full of organics. There is always the potential for something in the water to go to an extreme, so I keep a large UV plumbed in but not running ... like brakes to biology. . .

I've never needed to break down organics, corals and cryptic sponges do a fine job dealing with it by themselves. I rarely use GAC, as pointed out above it's been a couple decades since I messed with ozone as well as mechanical filters and UV sterilizors are used only to control external parasites. All I do is reduce nuisance algae as needed when I do small weekly water changes. In trying to understand the various roles of DOC corals besides uptaking inorganic nutrients (competing with algae), they are removing particulate organic carbon and nitrogen from the water, sponges are removing DOC and bacterioplankton from the water. Algae, on the other hand are promoting heterotrophic bacteria populations which include more pathogenic types and are less diverse than what corals promote.

 

[karimwassef]

I rarely use my uv. But I like to reduce risk.
It's no different than having a fire extinguisher in a kitchen.

On algae, we can disagree. Not all algae are the same and my experience with turf has been very positive.

On cryptic sponges, two thumbs up! Always a benefit with no downside I can see.

 

[Subsea]

I've never needed to break down organics, corals and cryptic sponges do a fine job dealing with it by themselves. I rarely use GAC, as pointed out above it's been a couple decades since I messed with ozone as well as mechanical filters and UV sterilizors are used only to control external parasites. All I do is reduce nuisance algae as needed when I do small weekly water changes. In trying to understand the various roles of DOC corals besides uptaking inorganic nutrients (competing with algae), they are removing particulate organic carbon and nitrogen from the water, sponges are removing DOC and bacterioplankton from the water. Algae, on the other hand are promoting heterotrophic bacteria populations which include more pathogenic types and are less diverse than what corals promote.

Tim,
Because of the results I see in your systems, I know what you say works. For certain, many things in reef aquarium work. It more often than not totally depends on the husbandry skills and TLC of the operator.

As I further analyze cause and effect of what you propose, it seems to me that you freeze the progression of nuisance algae with aggressive maintenance: aggressive vacume of substrate during frequent water change. While I am not totally convinced that “dilution is the solution to pollution” with water changes, I am convinced on cleaning sandbed so that inhabitants can breath and perform both oxidation and reduction chemistry.

I would further like to discuss why limited use of GAC. What is the downside of continuous use? Also for some without large, mature biological filters, there is no other equal to the chemical absorption of GAC.

 

[karimwassef]

I see GAC as a temporary reprieve delaying the need for water changes. It's not really permanent unless you change the media regularly... with all that effort, might as well run automatic water changes?



Let the good times roll!

 

[Subsea]

When you are a zero discharge facility, water changes are not an option. I am not trying to simulate the diversity of the reef. I am cultivating mono cultures in “too many tanks”. To accomplish this I use GAC and UV.

 

[djbon]

I have been running a mixed reef (sticks dominated) 75G and the tank is still kicking and growing. I use GAC as skimmer replacement. Good job to everyone!

 

[Subsea]

Ken Felderman’s research on carbon dosing in reef tanks demonstrated DOC removal efficiencies: foam fractionators at best 30%, GAC at 50%-60% and reef tank inhabitants removed 75%.

DOC consists of many components, just like PAR is an accumulation of all spectrum between a certain range. So, I ask the question, which components of DOC do inverts absorb and which component does GAC. Considering the complexity of DOC, I would expect inverts to be selective as to what they process. Not so with GAC. Because of its unique characteristic of both absorption and adsorption (chemisorption) GAC is indiscriminate. Until it is saturated in its internal pore spaces GAC absorbs and when replaced removes DOC.

Aside from cost, what is the downside of GAC?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Ken Felderman's research on carbon dosing in reef tanks demonstrated DOC removal efficiencies: foam fractionators at best 30%, GAC at 50%-60% and reef tank inhabitants removed 75%.

DOC consists of many components, just like PAR is an accumulation of all spectrum between a certain range. So, I ask the question, which components of DOC do inverts absorb and which component does GAC. Considering the complexity of DOA, I would expect inverts to be selective as to what they process. Not so with GAC. Because of its unique characteristic of both absorption and adsorption (chemisorption) GAC Is indiscriminate. Until it is saturated in its internal pore spaces GAC absorbs and when replaced removes DOC.

Aside from cost, what is the downside of GAC?

From Feldman -
GAC filtration is quite effective at stripping reef tank water of its TOC load, removing 60 - 85% of the TOC present.

And, quite intriguingly, the natural biological filtration, which starts with bacteria and other microbes, is remarkable in its capacity to remediate reef tank water of TOC, easily removing 50% or more of the post-feeding TOC increase in tank water.

I take it GAC removes 60 - 85% of of the various types of organic carbon available in the water. I'd wager ROX 0.8 would be even more effective.

 

[karimwassef]

I don't see DOC as bad... I see if as food for the reef. Excess removal isn't the best scenario.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I don't see DOC as bad... I see if as food for the reef. Excess removal isn't the best scenario.

I think part of the intent when removing DOCs is really removing the compounds you don't want in the tank.

In any case, the fish don't need DOCs. The photosynthesising corals don't need loitering DOC as their zooxanthallae make their own. That leaves heterotrophic organisms needing DOC. Like sponges. Removing too much DOC artificially will be detrimental to them. Infact it's their job to remove DOC from the water.

I believe subsea was asking the question - do sponges, etc, remove a greater or less cross section of the various DOC components as activated carbon does, for example?

Good question. Sponges may not remove the specific DOCs we would like removed from the water. I don't know?

 

[karimwassef]

Biodiversity is much more than fish and corals. They're the tip of their respective food pyramids/webs but they sit on a much broader base.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27592&page=11

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Biodiversity is much more than fish and corals. They're the tip of their respective food pyramids/webs but they sit on a much broader base.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27592&page=11

Yes,I was simplifying things.

your link is to the cryptic sponge & sea squirt thread I'm reading steve's books at the moment.

Steve's emphasis on sponges is that they remove DOCs and replace skimmers & carbon. What he also points out, repeatedly is, sponges have the added advantage that they also remove water column bacteria, keeping densities low, & that this is a good thing.

DOCs are bacteria food especially.

 

[Subsea]

Karim,
When you have a 1500G system, the biodiversity to process all components of DOC may we’ll be available. That is not the case for the average reefer. Think about this from a hobbiest point of view. Does he want a media bag of GAC to operate his reef tank or does he want 1500G of different ecosystems tied in to his reef tank.

 

[Subsea]

I don't see DOC as bad... I see if as food for the reef. Excess removal isn't the best scenario.

Excess removal is the key. As in most things, it is a "œQuestion of Balance".

 

[Subsea]

This is interesting. In freshwater planted tanks there is a method of dosing called EI. The theory is to dose large quantities of nutrients to so that they are a non-limiting resource. As long as the majority of the tank is densely planted and light and C02 are provided in the proper amounts, the plants out compete the algae. In reading this thread it is interesting to consider that coral growth may be able to provide a similar function. I wonder if the types of corals grown is a factor.

"œDensely planted to work in freshwater, prevents competition from starting."
Makes perfect sense to me.



Tim's philosophy is to control the algae as it crops up. Then maintain this control until other elements in biological filter mature.

I do not test parameters. I use bio indicators like cynobacteria or GHA to tell me what to do.

 

[Timfish]

Hair Algae, A Case Study

Hair Algae, A Case Study

Tim,
Because of the results I see in your systems, I know what you say works. For certain, many things in reef aquarium work. It more often than not totally depends on the husbandry skills and TLC of the operator.

As I further analyze cause and effect of what you propose, it seems to me that you freeze the progression of nuisance algae with aggressive maintenance: aggressive vacume of substrate during frequent water change. While I am not totally convinced that "œdilution is the solution to pollution" with water changes, I am convinced on cleaning sandbed so that inhabitants can breath and perform both oxidation and reduction chemistry.

I would further like to discuss why limited use of GAC. What is the downside of continuous use? Also for some without large, mature biological filters, there is no other equal to the chemical absorption of GAC.

It's not aggressive removal at all. I persistantly remove as needed nuisance algae during weekly maintenance. I also rarely siphon sand. With this system for example, that means about 5-10 minutes on a roughly a monthly using a toothbrush to remove some cyano on some of the rocks during the weekly water change, which by the way only takes 15-20 minutes and I can't remember when I last bothered to remove any sand.

+++++++++++++++++++++

I will use aggresive methods initially when I'm called to correct a nuisance algae problem. Here's a recent example of a 4' tall roughly 200 gallon 4 year old system. GFO and algaecide had been used by the previous maintenance company. The PO4 was .02 mg/l, much lower than most reefs. As can be seen the algae is doing very well.

https://youtu.be/lqeqtxjPxgU
Initial steps including removing about half the rock and scrubbing off the algae (a couple pieces were not reused). Removing the GFO and filter sock used by previous maintenance companies, turning off the skimmer and adding an autofeeder with multiple daily feedings. (As near as could be determined discussing the tank's history with the new clients the fish were only being fed once a week by the previous maintenance company.) Water changes are also using tapwater with dechlorinator.


The following 3 pics are during a cleaning weeks after the initial cleaning. Just to clarify the only time the rocks were removed to be scrubbed was the initial cleaning. Scrubbing the rock with the scrub brush during the weekly cleanings took roughly 15 minutes.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.c8764fae954f2a91d60f100feebdd256.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.36753e3ee576c423dc2b817995ed35ca.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.b8bae7b08390f98c34dd6b7f1e298f72.jpg

Here's about 4 months after the initial cleaning. The hair algae has largey disappeared from the areas I can't get too but some red cyano has showed up on some of the rock and on the sand.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.875049b2521da09a6d2f184469be7349.jpg

Here's 2 weeks later. The cyano is more prevelant. Again the only thing I'm doing is small 5% - 7% weekly water changes during which I siphon off the algae.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.d32023a8bac0b3d82521e8eb4a700fda.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.c8a27cedf15b0351c4942570b1b0974f.jpg

And here's a month after the cyano showed up. Repeatedly seeing shifts in ecosystems like this over the years with only small water changes and manual removal is one of the reasons Rohwer's DDAM model best explains what's going on in our aquariums. (For those who are reading this for the first time I highly recommend getting Rohwer's book "Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas".)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.2190f1f1a712ac8f3a8e9bf2a0084aa4.jpg

Here's 5 1/2 months after the initial cleaning. This is also 3 weeks without scrubbing off the rocks, nuisance algae has significantly slowed down.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.d308d043db74d3db9247188a2b7fdaf7.jpg

Here's 7 months after initial cleaning.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/arcipsbucke...humb.jpg.9af4152337f83ee12f80bb748a91d16a.jpg

 

[Timfish]

. . . In nature, the top surface of the water is constantly sterilized by solar UV. . .

Do you have research for this? I can't say I've ever seen or heard of UV sterilizing a tidepool or surface phytoplankton in the tropics.

 

[karimwassef]

Some points and I assembled my own conclusions

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00572672

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsu...decrease-suns-ability-to-disinfect-lakes/amp/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...sunlight-and-salt-or-lime-juice/#.Wf9p_YVMGEc