Trends in successful aquaria that use conflicting theories

[Newreeflady]

I think (and hope) that the current trend in marine reef keeping is the realization that there are lots of ways of providing the basic requirements for a living system (namely, providing the things our animals need to live while removing the things they can't tolerate) and while there are going to be pros and cons to every systems design, as long as you can meet those goals, your setup can work.

Yes, we do know that there are lots of combinations that work. The problem lies in that not every combination works (as we've been talking about), and execution of a design may be difficult when we don't know what the true key elements are, and what things must absolutely be avoided in a particular system... that's what the discussion is about, trying to figure out from the mass of information and successful and unsuccessful systems what the trends are. It's hairy, no doubt, but it's been a good discussion thusfar I think.

This is sort of a rough thread, I'd suppose, because what we're looking for is something that really can only be known by those who are fairly experienced or who have done a great deal of research: trends. Someone who sets up two systems and has success, may not have analyzed why they have had success. Also, someone who fails with one system but doesn't think critically about why but rather just sets up a different system also will likely not be of help here.

I suppose it's quite easy to try to follow someones system parms to create your own, which I think is why people like to post a synopsis of their systems here. But, realize that it is nearly impossible to copy a system to a tee, particularly given a tiny paragraph of knowledge. A small change, such as flow direction or irregularity, can mean the difference between that particular system being a success or not.

For instance, I tried a bb system but was unsuccessful. I had too many areas where detritus pooled- it really seems quite key to get some sort of gyre that picks the junk up off of the floor and gets it into the overflow. Or, to at least pool the detritus in one easily accessible area and siphon weekly. In my case it was a problem not considering what the most important parts of this type of system were- certainly I think that removal of detritus immediately is quite important. Perhaps it is even necessary to run a filter sock and change it frequently to really get the gunk out. Also, my skimmer was moderately sized. I think I've realize that most people who are successful with a bb tank have mondo skimmers. So, perhaps that was another contradiction to having success with that tank.

 

[crazylegs]

Stuart- I think you have proven, in theory, that carbon dosing combined with controlled introduction of benefitial bacteria may allow the modern reef tank to overcome the proverbial "wall" that has yet to be conquered. The train of thought has always been to maintain prestine water quality, with minimal nutritional value, and allow coral to grow from the energy derived from light alone. If carbon dosing is proven to be as effective as it sounds, this could allow the introduction of phytoplankton and zooplankton into reef systems, thus providing a more well rounded environment for coral growth. Now, if one were to feed their reef tank wiith larger amounts of planktons, and supply carbon, this would cause bacterial colonies to grow exponentially. Housing these colonies and the associated maintenance would be an undertaking of considerable proportion. Look at basic coil denitrators. Difficult enough to keep the bacteria from clogging. Any ideas on how to provide the amount of surface area required without the potential for flow restriction? And what might happen with the introduction of too much solid source carbon? Most practices are to run carbon for only a short time so as to prevent leaching of nutrients. This is a glaring contradiction to traditional techniques.

I nominate you to set up a reef display and apply these thoughts! Come on man, you could change our hobby!

 

[Stuart60611]

Stuart- I think you have proven, in theory, that carbon dosing combined with controlled introduction of benefitial bacteria may allow the modern reef tank to overcome the proverbial "wall" that has yet to be conquered. The train of thought has always been to maintain prestine water quality, with minimal nutritional value, and allow coral to grow from the energy derived from light alone. If carbon dosing is proven to be as effective as it sounds, this could allow the introduction of phytoplankton and zooplankton into reef systems, thus providing a more well rounded environment for coral growth. Now, if one were to feed their reef tank wiith larger amounts of planktons, and supply carbon, this would cause bacterial colonies to grow exponentially. Housing these colonies and the associated maintenance would be an undertaking of considerable proportion. Look at basic coil denitrators. Difficult enough to keep the bacteria from clogging. Any ideas on how to provide the amount of surface area required without the potential for flow restriction? And what might happen with the introduction of too much solid source carbon? Most practices are to run carbon for only a short time so as to prevent leaching of nutrients. This is a glaring contradiction to traditional techniques.

I nominate you to set up a reef display and apply these thoughts! Come on man, you could change our hobby!

Well, this is not something new and that is precisely what people who carbon dose do. Carbon dosing allows people to feed phytoplankton and other small particles of food to corals liberally because the bacteria created by the carbon dosing keeps nutrients in check. There are many people who have been doing this for years. In fact, this concept of feeding corals in this manner and controlling the substantial nutrients created thereby by bacteria is the basis for the zeovit system which has been around for quite a while. To keep the carbon dosing appropriate for the amount of nutrients in the system, one simply has to regularly measure nitrate and phosphate and adjust the carbon dosing appropriately. Reefkeeper has an article on this and how to slowly regulate the carbon you add to the system to reach a balance with the system's nutrients. There is nothing you have to do to maintain the bacterial colonies created by carbon dosing. One is not trying to maintain the bacteria but is instead trying to breed large numbers of them to consume nutrients and then get skimmed out with the nutrients that they eat. This is how carbon dosing exports nuntrients from the system. Obviously, a very good skimmer is required. If you carbon dose too much, you can get cloudy water and even white stringy bacterial colonies which go away almost always without any adverse consequences in several days once you reduce the carbon dose. There is also a risk of depriving the system of too much oxygen when over carbon dosing which is easily mitigated by having a lot water movement, oxyginated water from protein skimming, and dosing the carbon with lights on. I would love to take the credit for this, but this is not something new and is pretty much a tried and true method in modern marine aquaria for a number of years now. The only new innovation with carbon dosing is, as I describe, these new solid carbon pellet products which have substantial potential advantages over traditional carbon dosing as I described earlies in this thread.

Now the problem with these new solid dosing carbon products, as I describe above, is it appears that manufacturers are rushing these to market without deteriming first exactly how they work in terms of which species of bacteria tends to multiply and feed more aggressively from the varying polymer carbon sources used by particular manufacturers. As such, it is unclear as to whether they should be used with GFO or live bacteria, for example. Now I guess the same can be said about dosing traditional carbon sources, like vodka, because as far as I am aware no has figured out which bacteria prefer vodka as opposed to say vinegar, although Randy and many others have reported that cynobacteria seems to prefer vodka over vinegar. However, the difference here is that companies are selling their sold carbon dosing products and thereore I believe they have a further obligation to determine this and disclose it to aquarists so that their products can be used safely and effectively. If we knew which polymer was prefered by which species of bacteria, you then could determine which polymer to use to encourage the growth of a particular species of bacteria which is best suited to battle nitrate, phosphate, or both. Moreover, you could further enhance the effect of the carbon dosing by dosing live species of particular bacteria coupled with the appropriate polymer.

 

[herring_fish]

I have used carbon dosing from time to time over the years. Since I use an Algal Turf Scrubber, I was told to be doubly careful when using vodka. I did find that I the tank could handle the schedule that is called out in the popular articles but when I pushed it, I did see that faint white cloudiness in the water. I was a little afraid that if I had an accidental spill or a miss calculation, I might have some serious problems.

I know that this is really low tech. but I started using Reef Bugs. I feel that it is safer for me. I do get the stringy white bacteria if I push it but I don't get cloudy water. It seems to be much more manageable.

Instead of adding the carbon, I mix it in a glass prior to poring it in the tank, according the directions. The product does have some carbon in it but supposedly, it is only enough to support the bloom in the glass. That is why you wait to add it to the tank. When you pour the soup in, an array of critters do there thing and provide food before dyeing or going dormant, returning to spores and other things.

Anyway it works for me even though I don't use a skimmer.

 

[Stuart60611]

I have used carbon dosing from time to time over the years. Since I use an Algal Turf Scrubber, I was told to be doubly careful when using vodka. I did find that I the tank could handle the schedule that is called out in the popular articles but when I pushed it, I did see that faint white cloudiness in the water. I was a little afraid that if I had an accidental spill or a miss calculation, I might have some serious problems.

I know that this is really low tech. but I started using Reef Bugs. I feel that it is safer for me. I do get the stringy white bacteria if I push it but I don't get cloudy water. It seems to be much more manageable.

Instead of adding the carbon, I mix it in a glass prior to poring it in the tank, according the directions. The product does have some carbon in it but supposedly, it is only enough to support the bloom in the glass. That is why you wait to add it to the tank. When you pour the soup in, an array of critters do there thing and provide food before dyeing or going dormant, returning to spores and other things.

Anyway it works for me even though I don't use a skimmer.

Two things come to mind to me when reading your post. First, you provide, perhaps, a very good example of employing two conflicting theories in your husbandry. I agree that you should be careful when carbon dosing while maintaining an algae scrubber because I think using them both at the same time is counterproductive. The carbon dosing limits nitrate and phosphate which the algae for the algae scrubber needs to grow and allow the scrubber to export nutrients. When doing these together, what you have is a situation where the carbon dosing is making the algae scrubber ineffective and even dangerous because too much carbon could cause a massive die off of the algae in the scrubber and resulting ammonia spike. At minimum, the carbon dosing and algae scrubber are both much less effective because they are competing for the same nutrients. Your algae scrubber exports nutrients when you harvest the algae that grows, but it will grow much slower, not grow at all, or die with carbon dosing which greatly limits its effectiveness. This is very similar to using macro algae in a refugium and carbon dosing discussed on the first page of this thread.

Second, carbon dosing will do nothing for exporting nutrients without a skimmer. The bacteria simply consume nutrients and die in the system puting everything they consumed right back in the system. Remember, you somehow have to remove the nutrients from the system. Skimmers are critical at removing the bacteria along with all the nutirents they consume.

Your posting is remarkable in that it really symbolizes the thesis of this thread where aquarists hybndize their husbandry techniques and inadvertantly employ two methodologies which undermine each other.

 

[herring_fish]

I agree with most of what you have to say but I take issue with the word "inadvertent" and the word "dangers" is a bit strong. I have mentioned several times in various threads that my algae scrubber is depressed by the bacteria and the two techniques compete with each other.

I feel that it is mostly dew to the large amount of coral rubble in the sump. The Reef Bugs only help add to this population and are primarily introduced as food. You might say that the algae scrubber has been relegated to a status of insurance but not exactly.

To digress a moment, I love the esthetics of the scrubber. I placed it higher in the hood to create a great splash, directed and contained by a 6 inch tube. This is very interesting to watch and relaxing to hear so I would keep it even if it didn't work any more.

I have direct access to some of the most prominent people in the hobby and I took a lot of consultation before embarking on this part of the project. My intent was to add a specially porous coral rubble (not available for sale) in the sump, in addition to the scrubber that has served me well for many years. The reason for this was to add capacity to the system because I had planned to start feeding for non-photosynthetic, filter feeders and carnivorous corals. As you know, the amounts can be staggering so if there is enough waste to go around then both can prosper.

If the bacteria goes from dust to dust so be it. Then it just becomes marine snow, detritus, what ever but the tank is successfully processing it. The algae doesn't grow fast but it does grow and it doesn't die. It exports the nutrients that are there and they stay very low. Additionally, the algae converts CO2 the O2, exporting carbon dioxide, if you well. My dissolved oxygen levels are almost at the saturation point. It took a year before my pH stabilized without additives or dosing.

Dr. Adey has always promoted the use of algae, live rock and deep sand bed. This is nothing new. I'm just running live rock on steroids. Admittedly, this is an experiment but by an experienced reefer and of course I love the results.

I have thrown in tons of different food types with no adverse result. Of course, I have slowly built up capacity to this point but I still have a lot left to tap.

 

[Stuart60611]

Herring Fish:

You make some good points. Apparently your choice in seting up your system this way was far from inadvertant and rather the product of a comprehensive approach. And yes, if you have enough nutrients both your scrubber and carbon dosing can co-exist. However, I submit from a filtration perspective that a full blown version (larger carbon dosing or growing more algae in the scrubber) of either technique may be much more efficient because resources would not be expended with one undermining the other. However, the fact that this works for you raises a very valid counter in that even if your approach may (in my view) not be the most efficient, if it is handeling your bioload well then added efficiency is of little utility.

Your other points about the algae scrubber helping to stabilize PH and export C02 are well taken. I was focusing on exclusively the use of an algae scrubber in terms of exporting nitrate and phosphate, and I agree unfairly failed to account for its other substantial benefits, including the asthetics that you mention. The scrubber also has the added benefit of providing food and shelter to a vast array of fauna, like pods and such. As far as the dangers of using a scrubber and carbon dosing together, they are manageable for sure but very real. If you overdosed the carbon and had a major algae die off you could absolutely run into ammonia problems. I have experienced this when I carbon dosed too aggressively and killed too much hair algae in my tank too fast.

 

[herring_fish]

Yep,

That's why I use Reef Bugs. I tend to push the envelope and as I said, have seen the white cloud of death but algae in the scrubber gets so much light that it is very hardy. I'd be much more concerned about the bacteria sucking up all of the oxygen. Two gallons of water falling a foot all at once, in as little as 20 second intervals, makes for an awful lot of air exchange but if a bloom comes on too fast you're dead no matter what you do.

I have had experienced retrenchment but that happened when I harvested and didn't get much re-growth. I never had any hair algae in the main tank. If the 2 square feet of algae in the tray, died all at once, it wouldn't be a big deal, comparatively. If it didn't all die off, algae loves ammonia. I a beta tester for several companies and have dumped test products in that put the ammonia level at the top of the acceptable range and it drops right back down in no time.

Now, you are right, this is not the most efficient way of doing things but it works for me.
I really don't want to sound like a sparring partner but do like to give information about the actual experience that I have gained over the years about scrubbers.

Please let me zero in on one more word that was used correctly. Filtration The biggest reason that I like scrubbers is that I am into filter feeders and there isn't any mechanical filtration in my system. This lets food stay suspended as long as possible.

It's true that a scrubber, on an opposite light cycle from the tank, can help stabilize hourly/daily pH levels. It can also help with the "œexport" of CO2 which can help stabilize pH.

On the other hand and going back to the sump, I have a feeling that a large amount of calcareous structure can help buffer a tank once the right kind of bacteria gets well established. I am not well studied on this subject so I would invite comments on this assertion. My old tank had a stable pH and after a year my new tank started to stabilize. Is this an erroneous conclusion?

 

[Newreeflady]

On the other hand and going back to the sump, I have a feeling that a large amount of calcareous structure can help buffer a tank once the right kind of bacteria gets well established.

Hi herring,

It sounds like you're implying that your view is that the bacteria aid the pH buffering by your rock. I would think this would be actually opposite of the truth unless the bacteria, sans rock, can buffer pH. The presence of bacteria on the rock should actually clog it to some extent I would think, leaving less of the calcium structure exposed to the water without something (bacteria) between them. This should be a detriment to the dissolution of the rock- the more surface area of calcium carbonate available to the water column, the more buffering you would get. Now, whether the rock provides significant buffering to the system, particularly when aragonite sand is present, is another question (and I would think not so much). thoughts?


-A

 

[Newreeflady]

Hi again herring,

It turns out that your proposition is not a new one. The article below discusses the topic. Jaubert, it turns out, had proposed that sand buffered pH due to bacteria that produced acids as byproducts of metabolism, and those local conc of acids may dissolve the sand. In sand beds, at least, this article seems to have found that that is not a significant contributor due to other factors that cause the sandbed itself to be buffered. However, I am not certain as to the rock considerations as the dynamics are likely different than in sand...

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-02/eb/index.php

cheers,
-A

 

[herring_fish]

Ya,

I briefly heard that theory, as a statement of fact, a long time ago and didn't remember where I got the idea from. ...so the up shot is that it's not to great an idea. I will jump on this article. Now I have something real to read.

Thank you