Imperator_
New member
That's interesting.... your clowns hosting that clam!
Skimmerless: who's doing it? pros and cons
- Thread starter rick12
- Start date
That's interesting.... your clowns hosting that clam!
Its crazy. A couple of years back, a Yellw Angel would peck at the mante of the same clam. One morning as I was waking up with first cup of coffee, the angel pecked and the clam caught him. It took the Angel several seconds to break free. The Angel never pecked anymore. Now the clam allows the clowns all up inside.
Go figure.
Patrick
Last edited:
Imperator_
New member
Wow! I'm tempted to get a clam now that I know that is even possible. My clowns host a colony of Xenia and fiercely defend it from the emperor, although I'm sure all he's trying to get to is whatever algae is growing on the live rock the Xenia is attached to. :hammer:
Do you consider introduction of diversity in bacteria as bad?
My opinion:
Depends on what that means exactly? I'm skeptcial I can actually manage "bacteria diversity" in the face of competition for nutrients food and space by viable indigenous bacteria already thriving in a tank. Don't think there is any evidence that efforts to mange bacterial " bacterial diversity " is benficial in a reef tank
IMO, the amount of availabe food/nutients ( C , N, P ,Sulfur ,iron, carbohydrates, acetate etc) drives bacteria. Specific types will gain a edge when the nutrients they need are least limited vis a vie the others.
I see no harm and some potential benefit in replenishing fuana when adding live rock or natural sands on occasion , except for the chance of introducing a hitchiking pest or pathogen ; or ,if it's collected in the wrong place, it may have some toxic or harmful pollutants. I don't think it will ensure sustainable changes in the mix of bacteria in the tank though any more than foods will.
On the other hand, if someone were to try to mimic some wastewater methods to grow ammanox bacteria, I think that would be bad ;even if growth and viability was achievable by these very slow growing bacteria which are very poor competitors , I wouldn't want to see the hydrazine they produce as by product in my tank.
I think each tank will develop it's own viable populations of bacteria of various species depending on the nutrients and other tank conditions .
Some holibonts may be adversely effected by some types of bacteria one might introduce as well.
My opinion:
Depends on what that means exactly? I'm skeptcial I can actually manage "bacteria diversity" in the face of competition for nutrients food and space by viable indigenous bacteria already thriving in a tank. Don't think there is any evidence that efforts to mange bacterial " bacterial diversity " is benficial in a reef tank
IMO, the amount of availabe food/nutients ( C , N, P ,Sulfur ,iron, carbohydrates, acetate etc) drives bacteria. Specific types will gain a edge when the nutrients they need are least limited vis a vie the others.
I see no harm and some potential benefit in replenishing fuana when adding live rock or natural sands on occasion , except for the chance of introducing a hitchiking pest or pathogen ; or ,if it's collected in the wrong place, it may have some toxic or harmful pollutants. I don't think it will ensure sustainable changes in the mix of bacteria in the tank though any more than foods will.
On the other hand, if someone were to try to mimic some wastewater methods to grow ammanox bacteria, I think that would be bad ;even if growth and viability was achievable by these very slow growing bacteria which are very poor competitors , I wouldn't want to see the hydrazine they produce as by product in my tank.
I think each tank will develop it's own viable populations of bacteria of various species depending on the nutrients and other tank conditions .
Some holibonts may be adversely effected by some types of bacteria one might introduce as well.
Last edited:
After conversations from this last week, I have decided to experiment with organic carbon dosing on my 75G skimmerless Jaubert Plenum System with 30G mud/macro refugium modeled after "The Ecosystem Aquarium" proposed by Leng Sy. After those same conversations, I turned off my UV sterilizer which has been in operation for 9 months. More than 20 years ago, Bob Goemans suggested that I feed the denitrifying bacteria some sugar once a month. Would white sugar work as an organic carbon source or would honey be better. I have 5% distilled white vinegar. Would that work?
I would appreciate any recommendations on the use of carbon dosing in my system with a focus on NPS, clams and filter feeders in general. I will start a thread in the advanced topic forum to that end.
I seek to learn,
Patrick
I would appreciate any recommendations on the use of carbon dosing in my system with a focus on NPS, clams and filter feeders in general. I will start a thread in the advanced topic forum to that end.
I seek to learn,
Patrick
Aquarist007
New member
How important do you feel it is to move this return from the refugium to the return section of the sump on the right. I just discovered it is draining right into the skimmer section. Along with the uv being there...unhooked now...I don't know how many critters were making it to the display tank. I've removed the Gfo from the return area also and the sock.
Just want to throw in a bit of information on uv and how it relates to our systems. Let me preface this by saying that uv is what I do for a living. I work for one of the largest, if not the largest, aquarium uv companies out there. I work with systems from 5 gallons per minute up to 5,000+. Here's the one good scholarly article I've been able to find that references doseage rates for cryptocarion irritants (ich). http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164 There isn't great info out there about this parasite unfortunately, but from my personal experience the 280 mJ dose that is mentioned is enough to sterilize the Theront stage. UV Will never get rid of ich once it is established on a fish, but it will stop the spread. Most of the uv's I see on this site are probably giving a dose of 30-100 mJ. Great for algae control, water polishing, and bacteria sterilization, but will do nothing for ich. Now, uv dose is a function of three things: Uv-C output of the lamp, exposure time, and UV transmittance of your water. Remember that the flow rate on your uv is not based on ich destruction. You need to find out the dose and uv transmittance the manufacturer uses and base your own calculation off that. As far as organisms like pods being harmed by the uv, I wouldn't even bother worrying about that. They are far too large, and our doses are far too small to have any effect. I'm getting a but long winded now so I'll stop. I'm glad to answer more specific questions related to uv.
Aquarist007
New member
Wow read my mind posting this Tks
If the uv units we use ... The one in the pic is a 36 watt Coralife and I am using a mp mini 1100(200 gph)... There is about 750 gph flow through the sump. Are only widow dressing or polishing the water then should we remove them in order to keep the numbers of water born bacteria and plankton higher?
Would white sugar work as an organic carbon source or would honey be better. I have 5% distilled white vinegar. Would that work?
I would appreciate any recommendations on the use of carbon dosing in my system with a focus on NPS, clams and filter feeders in general. I will start a thread in the advanced topic forum to that end.
I seek to learn,
Patrick
My experience with sugar is not good. I tried it several times. ,Twice on the main system I added a very small amount of sugar to the vodka and vinegar mix.( Vodka . Sugar Vinegar(VSV) was the popular mix 7 years ago or so; it was thought bacterial diversity would be encouraged this way ) Corals exhibited browning and recission. Several others have had similar experiences with sugar of various types as well as with ascorbic acid (vitramin C);some use it; though I haven't seen many reports on sugar in a couple of years.
Consider:
Excess glucose has been shown to increase coral mortality in at least one study. It may be the gloucose or other monomers feed types of bacteria that out compete holibonts or the glucose may interfere with them or the zooxanthelae in some way. Don't know for sure I know it bothers some of my corals. lps and anemones mostly.
Acetogensis is a process of cascading bacterial activity with a variety of bacteria in action.
In an oversimplified look at it it goes like this:
. Carbohydrates/polymers ( rice pototoes , fruits, vegetable mattr bio pellets et alia) are degraded to monomers ( mostly sugars) ; sugars are degraded to ethanol via fermentation and other pathways; ehtanol( vodka) is oxidized to ehtanoic / acetic acid( vinegar), which is ultimately degrades to methane in the sea.
The diversity in bacteria and degradation gained by starting at the top of the process with carbohydrates or sugars may not be beneficial ; it may be harmful. I choose to use only ethanol and acetic acid thus avoiding additions of extra sugars when carbon dosing.
I suspect, my tanks likely get enough monomers and sugars and associated bacterial activity from regular feedings ,coral slime and the like and adding more throw off the balance in a harmful way in some tanks,; it seems to be the case in mine.
Store brand plain white vinegar is acetic acid and water with a short pathway to acetate . It should be dosed slowly during periods of photosynthesis to avoid a precipitous downward pH spike from it's initial quick release of H. Vodka lens itself more easily to bolus dosing if that's preferred.
If you choose to add organic carbon you will increase heterotrophic bacterial populations. They use oxygen and produce CO2. Extra aeration is a big plus ,skimmers are very good at that offering large amounts of areas for air water interface and gas exchange in a realtively small space but there may be are other ways to accomplish it. A large enough wet and dry tirckle filter may be one if nitrate is not a concern..
There is also a net addition to TOC( total organic carbon when dosing); skimming removes some of that and seems well suited to the apparently amphipathic nature of the bacteria; GAC may do it a bit better if it doesn't clog with bacterial mulm.. I use both on the main system and just GAC on one of my skimmerless tanks where I've been feeding a little vinegar for the past few weeks.
I would appreciate any recommendations on the use of carbon dosing in my system with a focus on NPS, clams and filter feeders in general. I will start a thread in the advanced topic forum to that end.
I seek to learn,
Patrick
My experience with sugar is not good. I tried it several times. ,Twice on the main system I added a very small amount of sugar to the vodka and vinegar mix.( Vodka . Sugar Vinegar(VSV) was the popular mix 7 years ago or so; it was thought bacterial diversity would be encouraged this way ) Corals exhibited browning and recission. Several others have had similar experiences with sugar of various types as well as with ascorbic acid (vitramin C);some use it; though I haven't seen many reports on sugar in a couple of years.
Consider:
Excess glucose has been shown to increase coral mortality in at least one study. It may be the gloucose or other monomers feed types of bacteria that out compete holibonts or the glucose may interfere with them or the zooxanthelae in some way. Don't know for sure I know it bothers some of my corals. lps and anemones mostly.
Acetogensis is a process of cascading bacterial activity with a variety of bacteria in action.
In an oversimplified look at it it goes like this:
. Carbohydrates/polymers ( rice pototoes , fruits, vegetable mattr bio pellets et alia) are degraded to monomers ( mostly sugars) ; sugars are degraded to ethanol via fermentation and other pathways; ehtanol( vodka) is oxidized to ehtanoic / acetic acid( vinegar), which is ultimately degrades to methane in the sea.
The diversity in bacteria and degradation gained by starting at the top of the process with carbohydrates or sugars may not be beneficial ; it may be harmful. I choose to use only ethanol and acetic acid thus avoiding additions of extra sugars when carbon dosing.
I suspect, my tanks likely get enough monomers and sugars and associated bacterial activity from regular feedings ,coral slime and the like and adding more throw off the balance in a harmful way in some tanks,; it seems to be the case in mine.
Store brand plain white vinegar is acetic acid and water with a short pathway to acetate . It should be dosed slowly during periods of photosynthesis to avoid a precipitous downward pH spike from it's initial quick release of H. Vodka lens itself more easily to bolus dosing if that's preferred.
If you choose to add organic carbon you will increase heterotrophic bacterial populations. They use oxygen and produce CO2. Extra aeration is a big plus ,skimmers are very good at that offering large amounts of areas for air water interface and gas exchange in a realtively small space but there may be are other ways to accomplish it. A large enough wet and dry tirckle filter may be one if nitrate is not a concern..
There is also a net addition to TOC( total organic carbon when dosing); skimming removes some of that and seems well suited to the apparently amphipathic nature of the bacteria; GAC may do it a bit better if it doesn't clog with bacterial mulm.. I use both on the main system and just GAC on one of my skimmerless tanks where I've been feeding a little vinegar for the past few weeks.
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
Welcome to the dark side Patrick:fun5:
If you chose vinegar I would check with Tom regarding any harmful affects to the sea apple
Last edited:
Thanks,
The aritlce cited was cited earlier,btw:
This is from it:
Use of ultraviolet (UV) sterilization to kill theronts has been suggested, based on research involving Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (freshwater "ich"). The recommended UV dose for Ichthyophthirius theronts is 100,000 µWsec/cm<sup>2</sup> (Hoffman 1974). However, UV doses required for Cryptocaryon irritans are anecdotal or extrapolated, and range from 280,000 µWsec/cm<sup>2</sup> (industry numbers) to 800,000 µWsec/cm<sup>2</sup> (Colorni and Burgess 1997).
Theronts must go through the UV sterilization unit in order to be exposed, so any theronts that are not exposed to UV radiation and remain in the tank or holding areas will be unaffected. Similarly, encysted tomonts within the tank or holding area will not be affected.
So, it's not just parasites in the fish that are not exposed to uv. Many of the theronts will remain unexposed too it seems as well as the tomonts,potomonts and throphonts.
Does your company have access to any study of the effects of uv sterilization vis a vie population densities of these parsites in a closed recirculating sytem?
I know a large enough uv will kill them if they pass through. It seems many won't and may have a short path to a host given their nature for nighttime encystment and excystment in or near the fish's resting area.
In other words, how effective is uv really based on any research your company may have done, in terms of slowing the spread of crytocaryon irritans? It is my opinion and experience that it does little to control this disease not withstanding any small/temporary decrease in theront population densities that may occur . Of course that's just my opinion ; I would like to see some data if it's out there and wonder why it's not easy to find.
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
I get this..I really do. I just have a hard time explaining to myself why the ich disappeared in the tanks I used it on.. The most scientific explanation I have is "you got lucky" :bounce1:
Still the fact remains that even though my tank is recently setup I have next to none visible organisms in it. Even with keeping 250'lbs of my rock
I do believe that the uv was or is responsible for this. And if not the visible organisms certainly a good deal of the micros
Is that a reasonable inference?
Last edited:
Scott ,
It might kill a significant percentage of theronts ; it might not. I tend think some but not necessarily a significant number. Neither of us has data to support different anecdotal observations. I may just be that the bacteria it kills and perhaps some velvet ( dinofalgelaltes) are helpful. A study on ich would be useful.
It might kill a significant percentage of theronts ; it might not. I tend think some but not necessarily a significant number. Neither of us has data to support different anecdotal observations. I may just be that the bacteria it kills and perhaps some velvet ( dinofalgelaltes) are helpful. A study on ich would be useful.
Last edited:
Thankyou . Glad it was helpful. It's not intended to be a bilbe or contain any divine reverlations or prescritions. It's a gathering place for discussion and shared thoughts,esperiences and facts on organic carbon dosing. I started it 2.5 years ago in response to many who had seen my tanks and wanted to know more about it. Since then it has grown beyond the local club interest right along with the popularity of organic carbon dosing.
For my level of understanding, a functional symbiosis indicates a complex process that indicate more than indigenous and random bacteria. In the next article that I link there is a communication process between diverse bacteria in the community that provides a healthy balance in the population as needs arise. Quorum sensing within this bacteria community provides for cellular communication which controls symbiosis of bacteria and microorganisms within and on the coral
OK Patrick,a few comments and questions.I doubt the holibont bacteria and/or zooxanthelae are reduced by skimming because they are in the coral or adjacent benthos for the most part. I think most of the conern on this was related to extra heterotrophic bacteria from organic carbon dosing and posisble effects from them and the TOC increase in terms of increased competition with the holibonts for nutrients.
After years use of organic carbon dosing experience by many this concern doesn't really bear out ,IMO out anecdotally with moderate dosing of soluble organics (acetic acid and ehtanol) coupled with organics removal controls like skimming and GAC.
I have no idea how one would replenish holiobont bacteria or clades of zooxanthelae if and when they depleted. Nor would I have the ability to know it.
OK Patrick,a few comments and questions.I doubt the holibont bacteria and/or zooxanthelae are reduced by skimming because they are in the coral or adjacent benthos for the most part. I think most of the conern on this was related to extra heterotrophic bacteria from organic carbon dosing and posisble effects from them and the TOC increase in terms of increased competition with the holibonts for nutrients.
After years use of organic carbon dosing experience by many this concern doesn't really bear out ,IMO out anecdotally with moderate dosing of soluble organics (acetic acid and ehtanol) coupled with organics removal controls like skimming and GAC.
I have no idea how one would replenish holiobont bacteria or clades of zooxanthelae if and when they depleted. Nor would I have the ability to know it.
Imperator_
New member
Thanks for your response. I have started to run GAC, and my water hasn't looked this pristine in a while. It only has been 12hrs since the introduction of GAC. I'm interested in starting carbon dosing, but vinegar doesn't work for me due to my already low pH. I stopped all Lime water dosing in order to bring my Dkh down from 13, and thus far my pH remains stable at 8.0 with a low of 7.97. Since the bacteria produced from organic carbon increases CO2, I presume that would affect my pH as well, but how much? Has any of you tried Beer? I know there was a tread about it, what do you think? It would just be highly convenient. I imagine the GAC would remove some of the bacteria as well, but not all, what happens to the rest? Water changes? I unplugged my sterilizer unit, it really has never helped much with Ich. I had better results with other products. What type of Vodka is the best?
Aquarist007
New member
I agree with you that holiobont bacteria would not be removed by skimming because they are not water borne as with bacteria existing in biofilms.
I would like to know what water borne bacteria are being skimmed out other then heterotrophs that are caught passing to and from biofilms etc.
Do you know of any studies involving studies of skimmate for bacteria content?
Unfortunately I don't have any info on the densities of these organisms. Iall I personally possess is knowledge based on reviews I've heard from people. Ich is a tough one because there really just isn't much out there. not many universities are getting funding to do tests on a disease that really only impacts aquarium hobbyists. It is something I would like to pursue in the future though.
The idea here is that if you turn the aquariums water through the uv fast enough you will destroy a majority of the parasites. I am of the opinion that a fish can withstand a small number of parasites without being overcome. In most aquaria though that number goes uncontrolled and quickly overwhelms the fish.
Similar threads
