Newbie mcTank'erson needs advice

[mhurley]

First suggestion I have for you is to not compare your tank to the ocean. There is not much our boxes of water do that can compare with the ocean.

My tank is all SPS and fish and my flow rate is in the 40-50X range. Does that work for me? Sure does. But I have also seen people with flow rates that are significantly lower that have far more successful systems. You will quickly find that absolutely no 2 systems can be compared to each other.

My biggest suggestion is to do nothing that boxes you into any one solution. Leave yourself the ability to upgrade or change something because as exhaustive as you think your reasearch and planning has been, you will change it within a month of setting it up. Trust me, I spent 6 months planning my system and 3 years later still have not stopped messing with it.

Specific to what you've asked about though, I am not a fan of PC lighting. I ran 4x96 watt PC's on my old 120 and the bulb life just is not good and when the bulbs start to shift spectrum, it was algae growth city fast. I would recommend VHO's personally.

The other big item I always have a concern with is not having your own water supply. RO water is one of the core foundations to a healthy tank. Topping off your tank with tap water is likely setting yourself up to being back here in 4 months asking why you have so much algae. Secondly, I simply do not trust any LFS water. I've been around here long enough to have read stories about LFS that don't filter the water at all, or use the waste water from their RO unit that has not had filters changed in years. You don't know what Specific Gravity they are mixing to..You just have no control over something that you should have control over. I lived in an apartment with my 120 and could easily fit an RO/DI until under the bathroom sink and just hooked it up when I needed it.

Anyway...enough from me.
Good luck.

 

[jezzeaepi]

Well the LFS by my place seems to be pretty quality. It is owned and run by one guy who is a hobbyist himself who chose to open a small store for other hobbyists in the area. He seems pretty legit, but Ill quiz him next time I go in.

I plan on keeping a bucket for the SW so I can check the SG before using it for water changes. I also planned on keeping several water jugs of ro/di water on hand for daily top off... but alas... You guys are good salesmen! Bah! I guess the RO/DI will come in the next month or two. Untill then Ill just buy the water.

 

[skylab1]

Jesse,

You've ask a lots of good questions, that's good

It's going to take some time to answer your question, it's 8:30am in L.A. I have a full day of schedule; 2 setup and 4 tanks need service and I go to get out the house now. When I get home tonigh have some down time, I'll reply your questions.

Bertoni, I'll answer your residence time question tongiht as well.

Very late tonight, so don't wait up.

 

[bertoni]

As far as the chemical filtration goes, carbon will bind to some things, like iron, IIRC, as well as compounds you'd like to remove, like toxins emitted by corals to kill nearby competitors.
Running carbon seems like a good idea, all in all, but it's hard to prove much about our systems, so we're all guessing on that one.

Phosphate media are more specific, but I think they're rather expensive for what they provide, and I remove phosphate by other methods. That's not always feasible for every tank.

As far as flow goes on a reef, that all depends on where you look. The reef crown gets more flow than we can provide in practical terms. Lower areas can get less flow. Lagoons can be comparatively still. Corals of various sorts will grow in all those places. How the water moves will affect what corals grow well, and even the morphology of the same species can change dramatically depending on the flow. This book has a lot more data:

[ericsbook]

 

[jezzeaepi]

Ordered the book yesterday cant wait for it to get here =)

 

[npaden]

jezzeapi,

You are on a good start. It is important to ask questions and plan things out before you jump in. I have a 40g breeder (36"x18"X16"tall) at my office setup as a mixed reef and I really enjoy it.

I run 4 - 39W T5's on it with reflectors and they keep everything pretty happy. I run a remora pro skimmer and it does pretty well. For supplementation I just add a spoon of kalkwasser to my top off setup once a week or so and that works great for me. (Don't add it all at once, I have an automated top off that adds just a little at a time as it evaporates). I have a 900gph Ehiem pump on a closed loop and a Mag 9.5 as my return pump for a turnover of about 35 times and it seems to keep everything happy. It is mostly soft corals but they enjoy swaying in the breeze.

I'm not a big fan of the Tampa bay rock as your only rock in a tank. It tends to be chunky and heavy and your 30lbs of rock from them will only be 3 or 4 pieces. For you 40g tank I would get a 45lb box of fiji rock. The way they harvest the rock really isn't very hard on the reef in my opinion. When I was in Fiji I was amazed at the coral rubble they were using for their driveway and although one bad practise doesn't justify another it really is a renewable resource and as long as they don't over harvest I think it is fine.

Keep asking questions and you'll do fine. There are several ways to skin a cat and some work better than others but most of them get the job done!

Skylab1,

The flow rates on many coral reefs run in the 4 ft/second range. When drift diving in Fiji some of the currents ran at 4+ miles per hour. (That's almost 6 ft/second). Those dives were on mixed reefs. (I have a bunch of pictures if you look at my website).

If water flowed through my 10' display tank at 4 ft/sec it would take it 20 seconds to go from one end to the other. That is 3 times per minute or 180 times per hour. I have a measley 15,000 gph going through it for a turnover of 36 times per hour. The key is getting a nice overall flow at a reasonable velocity in your tank.

I'm not sure how much flow is too little, but I know that 36 times is not too much.

FWIW, Nathan

 

[WaterKeeper]

Hi Jesse,

First off I got your PM and from reading your post you have done a very good job of planning. The main issue here is flow rate and unless it is too low is a non-issue. I always say at least 10X or higher with no upper limit stated. That is because about the only flow that is too much is one that blasts the sand into the water column. If you read up on the corals you select you will find which ones need a high or low flow and place them in the tank accordingly.

The other question appears on using a canister for carbon and phosphate remover. It is fine for both. The amount of carbon used just decides how often it needs changing.

I have to run but you appear to be on your way.

 

[timdog]

I'm a newbie myself so I won't comment on the reef stuff, but as far as the RO/DI unit in an apartment goes, I keep mine under the sink and hook it up when I need it. The key, though, is to keep any air from getting into the unit when it's disconnected so what I did was get a piece of medical tubing and connect the waste-water and output tubes when I'm not using it while keeping the input submerged in a glass of water.

Tim

 

[WaterKeeper]

Hi Tim
[welcome]

Good tip! :thumbsup:

 

[skylab1]

OK, to answer your question Jonathan, the average residence time is about 8.5X of the flow rate.

You were right Jesse, it a lot harder to find tanks that have less then 15 x flows, thatââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s because no one is doing it. For some reason, every body think the coral need fast flow in order for them to thrive in captivates; but in reality they donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t. The only reason you are thinking about doing at 30 is because everybody does, since everyone is doing it, it must be right. Just because everyone is doing the same thing, it doesnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t mean is correct.

For the carbon, I did not come up with the magical formula. I wish I did, but I am not that smart. I learned from the best in this business, and it worked like a charm. (Correction: the formula is .1667x gal of water, not .176). Again the reason you never hear of it is because very few people are using carbon this way. Your LFS will never tell you this; if you do it the right way you wonââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t need pump inside the tank, no skimmer, no Ca reactor, no RO/DI unit. How much money are you saving off the back on equipment? How much money LFS stand to lose if you donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t purchase all of that equipment? Why would they tell you even if they knew?

The carbon I use if not the same carbon you buy from your LFS, the Tri-Base Palletized Carbon I use is very different, and this carbon in each pellet contains three different types of carbonized material. The advantages of this material versus other carbonized material are as follows:

1) The Pellet form does not allow channeling.
2) The Pellet form does not allow anaerobic build up.
3) The proprietary carbon source allows the AEROBIC conversation of Nitrates to Nitrogen Gas.
4) This Pellet bed will last as a biological and carbon source for approximately 5 + years providing a pre-filter is employed. Do not confuse this with chemical reduction.
5) This vast surface area of TOC allows Bacteria counts per gram from 1 x 109 to 1 x 1011 versus silica sand or anthracite coal which support population densities of 1 x 106 to 1 x 107.

To prevent the pores on the carbon from clogging, lightly rinse the tri-base carbon once a month with fresh water. This is the only thing you have to do. As for the biological filtration is concerned, the tri-based carbon has the most surface area then any other material, here is the break down:

1) Bio Ball's surface area is 100 cubic feet for every cubic foot of material. Does not contain the available carbon source.
2) Lava Rock's surface area is approximately 315 meters squared per gram. Does not contain the available carbon source.
3) Silica Sand is approximately 390 meters squared per gram. Does not contain the available carbon source.
4) Aquarium activated Carbon is approximately 650 meters squared per gram. Does not contain the available carbon source.
5) Tri Base Palletized Carbon surface area is approximately 1,150 meters squared per gram. Tri Base Palletized Carbon contains an available carbon source.


The biological filtration comes from the bacteria that will colonize carbon; I donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t mean the regular bacteria that in most tanks. I use patented Right Now Bacteria for biological filtration; these bacteria need the correct amount of tri-base carbon in order to work. At 250C, for every pound of Tri Base Palletized Carbon, one pound of Right Now Bacteria will be established in the aquatic environment. This is more than adequate for any system for the reduction of Nitrogenous waste and the aerobic reduction of Nitrates to nitrogen gas. If the desire is to increase fish population densities, more carbon must be added. The least amount of carbon necessary for aerobic nitrate conversion is .1667 x gals of water = pounds of Tri Base Palletized Carbon. Thus, you CAN use carbon for both chemical and biological filtration provided you are using the right carbon and bacteria.

Now, if you are using just one little bag of regular carbon and replacing them on a monthly basis, then yes, you are removing all the nitrifying bacteria that is on the carbon.
But if you use sufficient amount of the tri-based carbon, you wonââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t need to replace the carbon every month. Even if you do, you only need to replace a small portion of it, not the whole thing. The newly added carbon will be quickly colonize by the bacteria, unless you replace all the carbon at the same time, then you will have to start the cycle every time. With the tri-based carbon and the right now bacteria, you can setup a bare bottom tank with no sand and rocks, the tank will not crash because you will have enough biological filtration in your filter to support all of your live stock.

 

[bertoni]

Hmm, lots of statements.

I find it hard to believe that anyone has produced 4 digits of accuracy (.1667) for any measurement of this type. In any case, although you make a number of claims for this product, some don't make much sense to me.

I don't see how you can use carbon long-term for chemical filtration. It will adsorb compounds, and then become exhausted. In addition, bacterial colonization would coat the surfaces, and I think that would tend to prevent adsoption.

As a bacterial bed, it would work well enough, but I don't see any advantage or functional difference compared to live rock and live sand. It would provide more surface area, at least initially, if your data is correct, but live rock and live sand seem to work quite well.

I don't see any evidence from your description that aerobic denitrification is going to occur, nor do I see any advantage, if so. I see no way to prevent the formation of anaerobic films, in any case.

I see no way for the system you describe to provide the capabilities of an RO-DI system, protein skimmer, etc. I see no automatic advantage to providing a carbon source. It just sounds like a standard biological filter to me.

I was asking how long each coral sat in your holding tank on average.

 

[npaden]

Skylab1, Some of your claims are pretty far out there. I'm not aware of any special bacteria that can convert nitrates to nitrogen gas in an aerobic environment. The only bacteria that I am aware of that convert nitrates to nitrogen gas require an anerobic environment. Also most people with reef tanks don't have an issue with nitrates to begin with and if you are then you are probably overstocked to begin. IMO most people have more problems with fish health issues due to overcrowding and stress rather than water quality issues.

As far as carbon useage, here's a 2 part article on activated carbon by Richard Harker:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000918...om/fish2/aqfm/1998/may/features/1/default.asp

http://web.archive.org/web/20000918...m/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/default.asp

Hope this helps.

Nathan

 

[WaterKeeper]

Yikes, well carbon is one of the areas of debate that has been almost a constant in the aquarium hobby since people started using it years ago. Depending on who does the study, either bituminous, anthracite, coconut base or lignite make the best carbons. I do know that there must be a hundred papers out there extolling one over the other. If I ever do get around to my filtration thread carbon will be a major discussion. Anyhow, at the moment I wouldn't lose sleep over they type used as long as it is low phosphate, low ash, virgin carbon. You don't want recycled carbon used to purify electro-plating baths or for cleaning up a toxic waste site. :eek1:

 

[skylab1]

bertoni, I see you don't see a lots of things, but it doesn't really matter. People like myself and others who has use these product knows the stuff works. The are FS around the county setup their whole system based on these product, my live stock supplier here in L.A. use it on their holding system; U.S. goverment buys them on a reqular basis.

Now, if you want to know more on how this can possibly be done, the following articles may help.

http://www.hdltd.com/technical/t_aerobic.html
http://www.hdltd.com/technical/t_24hour.html

RO-DI system can be replace by adding Chloradsorb to the tap water, one bottle of 16oz Chloradsorb treats 960 gallons of tap water. No need for expensive RO-DI system. I have two RO units, I hardly ever use anymore.

The Right Now bacteria eat the protein from the water before it become solution to the water. The main function of the protein skimmer is to remove protein from the water, without protein there is not much left for the skimmer to skimm, you don't really need the skimmer anymore.

The coral stay in the tank in average about two weeks, the longer I hold them the better the coral looks.

Nathan, my clain is not far out at all. I know that you don't know there are such bacteria as the Right Now out in the market; most people don't. This bacteria was original develop for environmental use it's been around for years, but unless you are in the environmental business most likely you won't hear about it.

Check out the URL above, it may help you to understand it.

 

[npaden]

I still don't see the need for it unless you are using it in a breeding facility or similar setup. I've never had an issue with nitrates in 6+ years of reefkeeping and most consider my stocking levels of fish to be very high.

I'll stick with my protien skimmer for now. There have been many products out there that have claimed to do a lot of things but most of them don't stick around very long. I read the information you linked to (marketing material by the company selling the stuff), I got about as far as where I needed to wait after treating and then use "metal gone" and that was enough for me. I'm not a big fan of dosing chemicals in my tank but to each thier own. Are you a distributor of these products? Just wondering why you are pushing them so hard.

Based on the recommendations I would need almost 300lbs of the fancy carbon in my system anyway. I think I would rather have nice live rock to handle my nitrogen cycle instead of 300lbs of carbon.

 

[skylab1]

Nathan,

Personally I can care less if you or anybody else use it or not. If you are interest in trying an alternative way to keep fish and likes I am more the happy to sell you the product and show you how to use correctly. If you think what you have is good enough for you, then that's good enough for me.

 

[WaterKeeper]

The Right Now bacteria eat the protein from the water before it become solution to the water. The main function of the protein skimmer is to remove protein from the water, without protein there is not much left for the skimmer to skimm, you don't really need the skimmer anymore.

All the more reason to skim by friend. When protein is taken up by bacteria action it is converted to ammonia and excreted. Unless the bacteria in Right Now have terminal constipation that is what they are doing. Using bacteria to hydrolyze protein is just adding to the overall nitrogen burden of one's tank. I don't think you understand the reason for using a skimmer. It removes the protein before it is metabolized and thereby prevents it from entering the water column form the get-go.

RO-DI system can be replace by adding Chloradsorb to the tap water, one bottle of 16oz Chloradsorb treats 960 gallons of tap water. No need for expensive RO-DI system. I have two RO units, I hardly ever use anymore.

A very debatable statement on your part. Removing chlorine is accomplished by an RO/DI's carbon system but the rest of the unit does much, much more. An RO/DI will remove 90% + of the organic materials from the water and almost all inorganic ions that are in the feed. Unless Chloradsorb uses a transporter and Scotty beams them into space those materials will be in untreated tap water. Sure, some chlorine removal products load up with EDTA or other chelating agents but all they do is enhance solubility, and perhaps bio-availability, of the complexed metal ions. Take it form me, there is no substitute for using RO/DI water or at least a store bought distilled.

Nathan, my clain is not far out at all. I know that you don't know there are such bacteria as the Right Now out in the market; most people don't. This bacteria was original develop for environmental use it's been around for years, but unless you are in the environmental business most likely you won't hear about it.

Well, it just so happens I have been in the environmental field for over 35 years and I am very familiar with products used as wastewater treatment supplements and spill clean-up. These cultured bacteria do help some but in every trail so far it was found they were not cost effective unless to solve a short term problem. Their main use in wastewater systems is to reduce VOC production and thereby the overall biomass that must be removed from such systems. I do grant they work at that task. Since I don't know of any reefers that practice "sludge wasting" on their tanks the benefits would be suspect.

Finally, I don't have any idea who Hiatt is but their own technical papers need some peer review before I'd believe their claims. Get a couple of great references in Limnology and Oceanography testing the products and I'd feel better about believing those claims.

 

[bertoni]

bertoni, I see you don't see a lots of things, but it doesn't really matter.

The coral stay in the tank in average about two weeks, the longer I hold them the better the coral looks.

Okay, other than the personal attack, you've said a number of things that I think WaterKeeper has talked about most of the claims you make.

Since you're only keeping corals on average two weeks in your tank, I must say I'm not interested in your personal observations on your holding tank. Keeping a coral for two weeks or so is not that big a feat, IMO. If the tank only has corals in transit, it won't need much filtration in any case.

 

[skylab1]

Tom, you said you are in the environmental field for over 35 years and you never hear of Bill Haitt? That's odd.

 

[npaden]

Nathan,

I am more the happy to sell you the product and show you how to use correctly.

Does that make this whole discussion a commercial post?