Wet / Dry vs. Live rock

[wildman926]

OH MY!!!!! That is INSANE!!!!! my main fear though is disrupting the bio now. i just dont want to allow anything to damage my fish and the coral. i guess thts what the protien skimmer is there for. ur tanks look amazing though.

When I converted the wet/dry from bio balls to liverock, I just did it all at once. If it is not cured lr, and you have enough in the display tank, it will be fine. If it is cured, you are good to go for sure. I am sharing this from my exp. Here is my sump on my 80g. before and after -

 

[daveonbass]

I am tired of the all the "problems" associated with Wet/dry filters being nitrate factories... If you don't have all the right equipment then yes they will be. I have lots and lots of live rock full of life and bacteria, an amazing protein skimmer, and lots more rock in my sump area. I have no nitrates and my corals are thriving. You just have to keep up with the maintenance and I think that's where people fail to do. They don't understand their tank and they don't tune their protein skimmers

I'm confused. Are you saying you agree that wet dry filters suck for that reason and are tired of them, or that you are tired of them getting a bad rap and use one successfully? The reason I ask is because it looks like you have a nice set up now, but its still very new. If you are using a wet dry filter its still quite possible for it to become a problem. I'm speaking from experience here.

 

[wildman926]

using a wet dry filter its still quite possible for it to become a problem.

Only if you do not do maintenance on it. Just like everthing else, you have to do maintenance.

I change the prefilter pad every 2 weeks, just rotate a clean one in, and take the old one, clean it, let it sit for the next swap out.

Once a year, take the lr out, dip and shake in fresh saltwater. Once the wet/dry is empty, then clean it out, and refill with fresh saltwater, clean the filter pad, and put it all back. The filter pad, I clean every 3-4 months, the one after the live rock. No big deal.

 

[khowst]

+1 wet/dry filters ARENT nitrate factories. The people that set them up and dont touch them for months at a time are nitrate factories. Its just like any other piece of kit, it needs maintenance. Canister filters get the same bad rep, sure if you turn it on, close the door and dont look at it for 6 months youll have issues. You'll have the same problem using LR in a filter as well.

wet/dry are considered aged technology by alot of people but go to your local aquariums/zoo's etc and youll see a wet dry in the mix somewhere. Youll also see people that are paid to handle the upkeep on them as well.

 

[vitz]

+1 wet/dry filters ARENT nitrate factories. The people that set them up and dont touch them for months at a time are nitrate factories. Its just like any other piece of kit, it needs maintenance. Canister filters get the same bad rep, sure if you turn it on, close the door and dont look at it for 6 months youll have issues. You'll have the same problem using LR in a filter as well.

wet/dry are considered aged technology by alot of people but go to your local aquariums/zoo's etc and youll see a wet dry in the mix somewhere. Youll also see people that are paid to handle the upkeep on them as well.

Wetdrys are aerobic and therefore do not reduce nitrates. LR is both an aerobic and anaerobic filter,hence they also reduce nitrates. This is why,in comparison,wetdrys are referred to as 'nitrate factories'. All other things being equal,a wet dry will lead to a faster and higher rise of NO3 in a closed system.

This isn't really a matter of opinion

 

[jimmyj7090]

^ what he said.

LR (and sand) provide both nitritification and denitrification, as well as hosting misc organisms that will feed on waste insted of just breaking it down.

Wet dry filters are too good at what they do, break down waste into nitrate and then leave it in that form to accumulatte. Wet dry filtration is great for some applications such as fish only systems, but not good at all for reef systems. Yes you can make a reef system with both a wet dry and natural filtration work, but the wet dry would only make that more difficult to acheive.

 

[alton]

I started using Bio Bale in 1991 and then switched over to bio balls in the middle 90's on my 135. When I set up my 200 in 99 I went back to a wet/dry with bio balls changing the filter fluff twice a month. In 2010 I sold the tank which was full of corals and fish. The nitrates stayed between 2 and 5. When I tore tank apart the bio balls where full of all kinds of characters. On my 300 today I have a wet dry section, a fuge, and a skimmer section. My nitrates are between 2 and 4. So in twenty years of using a wet dry with bio bale/balls I have never had a crash and some how maintain tanks with very low nitrates. So if wet drys are nitrate factories I have not seen it.

 

[vitz]

'Nitrate factory' is simply a comparative description to a different filtration method's nature operation and performance. It makes no inference to end accumulation of nitrates in a maintained closed system. Doesn't make the science and biology of a wetdry vs lr as explained in my post above any less correct.

There are other environments in your system besides the 'local' one of the wetdry where reduction can occur,along with one's maintenance protocols.


Again,opinion is irrelevant on this one-a wetdry HAS to produce more nitrates over time,(all other things being equal) than LR filtration. That's simply the way the biology works with comparing an oxidizing biofilter vs an oxidizing AND reducing one

Biology's $0.02

 

[Matthew91]

I'm confused. Are you saying you agree that wet dry filters suck for that reason and are tired of them, or that you are tired of them getting a bad rap and use one successfully? The reason I ask is because it looks like you have a nice set up now, but its still very new. If you are using a wet dry filter its still quite possible for it to become a problem. I'm speaking from experience here.

I have seen wet/dry filters used for reef tanks with no problems. This guy I know uses a wet/dry filter for his reef and has been using it for almost 12 years with no problems. He gave me advice like have more live rock than you would usually have in your tank, place live rock in your sump, keep checking in on your protein skimmer, and change your filter pad every week or two weeks depending on the amount of organic waste on it. My tank is still very brand new but I know with daily maintenance I should be fine. I do think they get a bad rep. Hopefully I can change that. I will posting updated pictures of my tank every other month. Next pictures should be coming soon when my gf comes back from Berlin.

 

[Matthew91]

Thanks alton

 

[sporto0]

Wetdrys are aerobic and therefore do not reduce nitrates. LR is both an aerobic and anaerobic filter,hence they also reduce nitrates. This is why,in comparison,wetdrys are referred to as 'nitrate factories'. All other things being equal,a wet dry will lead to a faster and higher rise of NO3 in a closed system.

This isn't really a matter of opinion

Here is something else that really isn't a matter of opinion, Live Rock/Protein Skimmer filtration only can only handle a very small bio-load put upon it, because in order for the "aerobic" filtration to take place on live rock, there must be very high water flow to create the oxygen rich conditions needed, whereas a wet/dry filter has vast "aerobic" conditions. I find it foolish not to employ both of these types of filtration as a hand in hand sytem. Cleaning some bio-balls every 4 to 6 months is really no big deal & having POROUS Live Rock from which deep within the anerobic filtration can take place is also a must if you expect nitrate exportation through nitrogen gas, in other words not all rock types are idyllic.

 

[vitz]

"Here is something else that really isn't a matter of opinion, Live Rock/Protein Skimmer filtration only can only handle a very small bio-load put upon it"

That is indeed an opinion

Where do all of these fallacies come from? (Sigh)

LR+skimming can handle HUGE loads under the typical flow rates in both reef AND fish only systems. A single fist size rock w/a cheezy airstone skimmer skimmer can easily handle the biomass of a 6" miniatus, given time for the development of the bacterial fauna.

It's not just the top .1mm surface layer of lr that's aerobic.

Please bear in mind the phrase 'all other things being equal'

I'm not going to debate the comparative virtues of systems philosophies-that was not in my post, and it's a pointless debate.

The bottom line still remains:

Take 1ml ammonia into two systems-one that has enough bioballs,and one that has enough lr to metabolize said ml in the same amount of time.

Then go measure the NO3. Again, one method also reduces the NO3 and one doesn't.

I place no end value judgement on other methods (47 ways to skin a cat and all that).


Your post implies that incorrect application of the method (i.e. not enough flow) means the method itself is faulty

 

[sporto0]

"Here is something else that really isn't a matter of opinion, Live Rock/Protein Skimmer filtration only can only handle a very small bio-load put upon it"

That is indeed an opinion

Where do all of these fallacies come from? (Sigh)

LR+skimming can handle HUGE loads under the typical flow rates in both reef AND fish only systems. A single fist size rock w/a cheezy airstone skimmer skimmer can easily handle the biomass of a 6" miniatus, given time for the development of the bacterial fauna.

It's not just the top .1mm surface layer of lr that's aerobic.

Please bear in mind the phrase 'all other things being equal'

I'm not going to debate the comparative virtues of systems philosophies-that was not in my post, and it's a pointless debate.

The bottom line still remains:

Take 1ml ammonia into two systems-one that has enough bioballs,and one that has enough lr to metabolize said ml in the same amount of time.

Then go measure the NO3. Again, one method also reduces the NO3 and one doesn't.

I place no end value judgement on other methods (47 ways to skin a cat and all that).


Your post implies that incorrect application of the method (i.e. not enough flow) means the method itself is faulty

Define Aerobic & Anerobic conditions, & there within lies the fallacy of your theory, submerged vs wet/DRY trickle. Highly oxygenated vs oxygen poor. Not an opinion, fact.

 

[vitz]

The definitions are not mine, hence I don't need to define them. I don't understand your last point or its relevance.

I also don't wish to pointlessly argue with someone who doesn't have a clear understanding of the basic principles involved in closed tropical marine aquatic systems management-been there done that way too much often. Especially when those debating me don't take the time to actually read my posts

Seems like you want to keep arguing against a simple known established biological reality (?). Your argument isn't with me.

I would like to compare our respective life experiences with closed systems management ranging from nanos to 60k gallon fish/coral facilities and commercial polyaquaculture though, mebbe, one day

For now I'll bow out quietly.

 

[jimmyj7090]

Define Aerobic & Anerobic conditions, & there within lies the fallacy of your theory, submerged vs wet/DRY trickle. Highly oxygenated vs oxygen poor. Not an opinion, fact.

This qoute quite vividly demonstrates that you don't understand what those terms mean in a reef tank.

Hint, both conditions DO occur underwater

 

[sporto0]

The definitions are not mine, hence I don't need to define them. I don't understand your last point or its relevance.

I also don't wish to pointlessly argue with someone who doesn't have a clear understanding of the basic principles involved in closed tropical marine aquatic systems management-been there done that way too much often. Especially when those debating me don't take the time to actually read my posts

Seems like you want to keep arguing against a simple known established biological reality (?). Your argument isn't with me.

I would like to compare our respective life experiences with closed systems management ranging from nanos to 60k gallon fish/coral facilities and commercial polyaquaculture though, mebbe, one day

For now I'll bow out quietly.

Lol, Lol, I read your post, I understand your argument, wet/dry will end up producing more nitrate because no anerobic filtration takes place. Wow, what a compelling argument not to use it.

I laugh at your contention that I don't understand basic principles involved in closed tropical marine aquatic systems management, but then again you don't know me, so I'll let that pass.

I have one more opinion for you before I bow out as well, if you don't end posts with "it's really not a matter of opinion", people will be less likely to want to disagree with you, because this topic & your assertions are full of opinions.

 

[sporto0]

This qoute quite vividly demonstrates that you don't understand what those terms mean in a reef tank.

Hint, both conditions DO occur underwater

Thanks Jimmy, now I understand, boy do I feel dumb! Did you even read my other posts? There has to be good flow to create highly oxygenated conditions for this to occur under water, again whereas it happens much easier in a wet/DRY filter because there is way more oxygen present.

 

[vitz]

Oy

I stated quite plainly that I'm NOT making any value judgements as to whether one should or shouldn't use any particular method. Again, please at least be courteous enough to those you debate with to actually read their posts!

Fwiw-my 1st 'reef' tank was a 30 gal long w/an ug filter,4" of dolomite. I was keeping and growing ricordea,caulerpa,and red tree,orange ball sponge back in 77- everything proliferated to where I was selling sponge back to the lfs (also my first employment gig p/t in high school).I've seen and worked with just about every method used in the hobby. Different strokes for diff folks and they can ALL work

The real trick is learning and understanding the why and how

 

[sporto0]

Oy

I stated quite plainly that I'm NOT making any value judgements as to whether one should or shouldn't use any particular method. Again, please at least be courteous enough to those you debate with to actually read their posts!

Fwiw-my 1st 'reef' tank was a 30 gal long w/an ug filter,4" of dolomite. I was keeping and growing ricordea,caulerpa,and red tree,orange ball sponge back in 77- everything proliferated to where I was selling sponge back to the lfs (also my first employment gig p/t in high school).I've seen and worked with just about every method used in the hobby. Different strokes for diff folks and they can ALL work

The real trick is learning and understanding the why and how

Fair enough, I did read all of your posts & perhaps I am wrong for debating you, you clearly never advocated one method over the other. I stand corrected.

 

[vitz]

I was merely trying to explain the colloquial term 'nitrate factory' as referred to in the context of the mo hobby

Fwiw-you can find quite afew threads from way back dealing with the debate of the comparative values/ 'worthiness' of 'nitrate factories'. (read: aerobic only filtration vs both aerobic+anaerobic) on rdo. Just search for 'nitrate factory'.

My Personal tack is that I prefer system components that kill both birds w/ one stone-makes my life easier