Further discussion about filtration methodologies

[HClH2OFish]

Yeah, any fish that puts out lotsa waste I'd feel would be better off using a skimmer. Everything I've seen/heard/read points to skimmers being able to remove excess much faster than plant life.
I suppose if you had a lot of plant life, it may be different. I'd love to see some studies regarding use of plant life as filtration...IIRC there were a few done in the past..just haven't had time to look for em..

 

[Anonymous]

Look guys, all I am saying is to start the refugium with macros as the first thing, then do the rest.

What I find so amazing is all the posts around that central idea.

I have heard of many many tank running bare bottom skimmerless.
I have not seen a single system over 55g with fish and corals that did not have a refugium full of macros.
I know my parameters are right on. [ammonia,nitrIte,nitrAte 0.0, ph 8.4, cl 420, alk 2 meg/l, mag 1200] And with no dosing or added supplements.
I know my harder (sps) corals have excellent growth and extension for the limited time I have had them.
My softer corals are now over a year old. Right next to the plant life.
I have heard that DSBs produce ammonia and can fail after a few years. I would have no idea if that is true because my tanks have ran for years and years with plant life.
I know parasites as well as "good" critters are in the LR and LS.
I know my FW and salt FO tanks had fish for years and years with plants and no other filtration.
I know the water remains clear with plant action. And with help in salt from crushed oyster shell filter media to maintain calcium.
I know from the web that "planted" salt tanks with corals have ran for years and years with no water changes.
I know that my former hospital tank (fish died in it) went from 160+++ ppm nitrates to 0.0 nitrates in three weeks. Tank was new (dead) play sand with 8- 4" gracillaris bushes, some ulva, some caulpera profilera in a 20g long. No circulation, no other filtration. Water remained crystal clean. a baby molly grew from 3/16" to 1.5 " in 6 weeks.

So why is it that newbies must be isolated from the concept of simply establishing a refugium with plant life as the first thing? Then do the rest. If a month later they want a skimmer then so be it. In six months the result would be the same. A tank with a refugium full of plant life.

All I am saying is make the plant life refugium part of the initial setup. Then do the rest.

My experience tells me that even in a reef tank you don't need to do much more.

 

[Anonymous]

Look guys, all I am saying is to start the refugium with macros as the first thing, then do the rest.

That is untrue Bob. If that is all you were doing, nobody would be arguing with you.
For example, from earlier in this thread:

Well I see you have updated and added skimmer. Andl that you have bought aquarium sand and live rock. So I guess I can't help you save that money.

What I would stongly recommend is adding (if you haven't already) plant life such as macro algaes or marine plants. IME they will do more to establish your system and make it more goof proof than any man made device.

[/quote]What I find so amazing is all the posts around that central idea.[/quote]

Understandable if you think that is the idea that you have been posting about.

I have heard of many many tank running bare bottom skimmerless.

Actually, most go the other way and current and past BB thinking suggest heavy 'wet' skimming for such a system.

I have not seen a single system over 55g with fish and corals that did not have a refugium full of macros.

In your year of reefing that does not surprise me. Macro filled 'fuges' are one of the latest fads. I have seem many many large successful systems no macro filled 'fuges'.

I know my parameters are right on. [ammonia,nitrIte,nitrAte 0.0, ph 8.4, cl 420, alk 2 meg/l, mag 1200] And with no dosing or added supplements.
I know my harder (sps) corals have excellent growth and extension for the limited time I have had them.

The limited time is important. Lots of people have the same results in the first year or two, and then there is trouble. Got any details of your system? How about some pics?

My softer corals are now over a year old. Right next to the plant life.

I am not sure why you think that is important. No one says that plants are a bad thing, or that they will hurt your system, just that they are not the fantastic filter that you are portraying them to be.

I have heard that DSBs produce ammonia and can fail after a few years. I would have no idea if that is true because my tanks have ran for years and years with plant life.

DBS's can fail after a few years. I have no idea where you heard that they produce ammonia.
The years are years comment is a misrepresentation of reality, and is the kind of statement that make RDO staff anxious. You have only run a reef for a year.

I know parasites as well as "good" critters are in the LR and LS.

Sometimes. I am not aware of parasites in the sand.

I know my FW and salt FO tanks had fish for years and years with plants and no other filtration.

And those animals have different needs than reef animals.

I know the water remains clear with plant action.

Sure, but you have no idea if that plants have anything to do with it.

And with help in salt from crushed oyster shell filter media to maintain calcium.

Again, you have no idea if the oyster shell is actually doing anything. You have only you single instance of anecdotal evidence.

I know from the web that "planted" salt tanks with corals have ran for years and years with no water changes.

Possibly, but the only ones you have linked to don't really do that.

I know that my former hospital tank (fish died in it) went from 160+++ ppm nitrates to 0.0 nitrates in three weeks. Tank was new (dead) play sand with 8- 4" gracillaris bushes, some ulva, some caulpera profilera in a 20g long. No circulation, no other filtration. Water remained crystal clean. a baby molly grew from 3/16" to 1.5 " in 6 weeks.

I don't see the relevance. Mollies will grow like that is much worse conditions.

So why is it that newbies must be isolated from the concept of simply establishing a refugium with plant life as the first thing?

No one has suggested any such 'isolation', and that is not what you have been advocating.

All I am saying is make the plant life refugium part of the initial setup. Then do the rest.

That is far from all you are saying. Look at a bunch of your recent posts and hopefully you will see what we are talking about.

My experience tells me that even in a reef tank you don't need to do much more.

Again, any pics of your system?

 

[HClH2OFish]

Don't have time to post responses to each point, so I'll sum it all up as I see it:
First off, this is *not* a flame! Hell, I like the info you gave me about my jelly tank.
Here's the issue -Nobody is saying to any newbie *not* to setup a fuge w/plant life as first thing. What we're saying is that your methods are one way to do things...and regardless of the success you are having, it is *not* something that is an accepted reefkeeping practice.
If I had the $$ I'd setup a 55gal just like yours is setup to see what happens and see if I could duplicate your efforts. I'm always willing to try new things and believe me, I like simple!

The problem I think most of us have is that your posts come across with the tone of your method being the only way to use if you want to do it right, and all those others with years more experience than you are wrong.

Reefing is a hobby in a constant state of flux. New techniques & technologies come out every day. We are all striving to simulate the ocean as closely as possible in our little microcosms. There are many ways to do this, and yours is just one of them. HOWEVER..with little data to back up your method, it leads back to the point that your methods are *not* those that are an accepted practice.

This doesn't mean you're wrong, it simply means on a whole, there is not enough data to support your claims, other than your word, and your tank.
If there are enough tanks out there setup just like yours for extended periods of time to study the effects of this kind of system, then it would be determined if there should be a Berlin syste, Jaubert system and we'd add a beaslbob system
Until then, you are just pushing info that has, so far, only worked FOR YOU with regards to reefkeeping.

Pleassse remember, tone doesn't come across very well with text
Some of your posts have *seemed* arrogant and dismissive.

 

[Juck]

I swear Bob,,, everytime I read one of your posts I hear that circus/clown music in my head. De-de-deedle-eedle-ee-dee-dee-dee,,,,,

>>I have heard of many many tank running bare bottom skimmerless

Yeh,, with water changes and dosing Ca in a way that actually doses calcium (unlike your cockamamy fairytale contraption).


>>I have not seen a single system over 55g with fish and corals that did not have a refugium full of macros.

What are you drinking? Still plenty of big tanks out there using wet-dry, DSB and skimmers with no Macros in sight. Hell,, there's a 155g tank like that at my LFS,, I'd bet my left nad it looks healthier than yours.


>>I know my parameters are right on,,blah,,blah,,with no dosing or added supplements.

Without water changes or dosing this simply is NOT sustainable in a reef tank.


>>I know my harder (sps) corals have excellent growth and extension

So now you're successfully growing SPS under NO lights with no additives or water changes? Nahhhh!


>>I have heard that DSBs produce ammonia and can fail after a few years

Huh? Why would a DSB produce ammonia?


>>I know parasites as well as "good" critters are in the LR and LS.

Really? Like what? I think you'd be pretty unlucky to pick up something like an isopod from LR,,, I'd say parasites & bacterial diseases come along with the fish 99% of the time,, not the rock or sand.


>>And with help in salt from crushed oyster shell filter media to maintain calcium.

You think your salinity is being maintained from salt in the oyster shells? Oh Lordy.

Bob, if your above average family income can stand it,,, how's about buying a digital camera and posting a bunch of pics of this 'reef' (cough) of yours?

Posting this kind of mis-information in the newbie forum belays a breathtaking lack of respect for those trying to get into the hobby,,, how long before we see a post titled: "I did exactly what Beaslbob said and I have a tank full of dead stuff'.

You see that post at the top of the forum "***If You're New To Reefs.Org Please Read This***"? Can you guess why that's there?

When I got into fishkeeping I went straight from a 10g FW with plastic plants and pink gravel to a SW SPS reef tank,, and it was places like reefs.org that helped me do it without taking unnecessary risks with livestock or money,, I'm sure glad I didn't run into anyone like you back then.

Chris and Righty and others tried reasoning with you (impossible) and have told you repeatedly to stop posting this twaddle in the Newbie forum,,, but like a dog returning to it's own sick,, here you are again.

The admins here have the patience of saints,, I would have booted your arse off this board long ago. Now go on,,, put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and shout 'LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA".

 

[Anonymous]

Alright,
We gotta insist that this remain civil and there be no name calling or the 'Saints' will have to act unsaintly.

 

[Juck]

 

[HClH2OFish]

Can we please combine this post and Supergiantrobots post into a *separate* post where we can debate this?
Both threads have unfortunately degenerated into issues that have *no* place in trying to answer the original questions posted and are of no relevance to the new reefers. We don't wanna confuse em...

 

[Anonymous]

...

DBS's can fail after a few years. I have no idea where you heard that they produce ammonia.


...

Sometimes. I am not aware of parasites in the sand.

...

the fact you accuse me of telling newbies confusing and unproven techniques which don't work, and don't understand parasite (like ich) can come from sand, is troubling

on the ammonia:

DSB work with anoxic and anaerobic bacteria. I suggest you study the anaerobic process further. There was a writeup in Freshwater and Marine aquariums describing exactly how that is true. And ammonia (along with nitrogen gas) is a product of sand operation pictured in the chart included with the mag 5/7 pumps i purchased. In describing the problem with anaerbic nitrate reducers (the same bacterial process) at this link: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/marine/setup ... ofiltr.htm

My respect is not so great for anaerobic denitraters. Denitrification is just what it appears to be; a reverse of the biological processes we've gone over called nitrification, with nitrate being converted back to nitrate, then nitrite, ammonia and finally nitrogen gas. This feat is accomplished by other bacteria species that thrive in the absence of oxygen (hence anaerobic). Some anaerobic denitrification does occur in every system; but not enough to offset the forward accumulation of nitrate. There are filter module products that portend to promote these microbes and their beneficial activities. Like dating, I urge you to be careful in their selection and use. Many (dates and denitraters) are "high-maintenance" units requiring daily fooling-with. All have the potential defect of other anaerobic production toxifying your system. Finally, in my opinion, they're just not worth the hassle, cost and possible chemical downside; compared with water changes, chemical filtrants, and other biological intervention (i.e. photosynthesis).

And a good option to anerobic DSB operation is photosynthesis. IE plant life.

Finally, If anyone wants to test "My" methods, all you need is a 1 gallon jar, mix up some saltwater with cold tap water, throw some chaeto in and see what happens.

 

[tazdevil]

Bob, some glaring problems with that article:

with nitrate being converted back to nitrate

How is nitrate converted back into nitrate?

anaerobic denitraters

he's discussing that automatic denitrators there. That's pretty much the crux of the article. Many here do not believe in using autodenitrators as well, as they are problematic, and expensive.

There are filter module products that portend to promote these microbes and their beneficial activities. Like dating, I urge you to be careful in their selection and use. Many (dates and denitraters) are "high-maintenance" units requiring daily fooling-with. All have the potential defect of other anaerobic production toxifying your system.

Again from your article, again discussin autodenitrators, not DSB's. Did you really read it before posting it?

Finally, in my opinion, they're just not worth the hassle, cost and possible chemical downside; compared with water changes, chemical filtrants, and other biological intervention (i.e. photosynthesis).

Also from the article you posted, the advice of using water changes (which you denounce). You can not compare DSb's to autodenitrators. The complexity of an autodenitrator and its operations are just to different.

 

[Anonymous]

the fact you accuse me of telling newbies confusing and unproven techniques which don't work, and don't understand parasite (like ich) can come from sand, is troubling

Good point. I wasn't thinking about ich. I hope that removes your troubled feeling. Care to address any of the other myriad points I brought up instead of just the one?

My respect is not so great for anaerobic denitraters. Denitrification is just what it appears to be; a reverse of the biological processes we've gone over called nitrification, with nitrate being converted back to nitrate, then nitrite, ammonia and finally nitrogen gas. This feat is accomplished by other bacteria species that thrive in the absence of oxygen (hence anaerobic). Some anaerobic denitrification does occur in every system; but not enough to offset the forward accumulation of nitrate. There are filter module products that portend to promote these microbes and their beneficial activities. Like dating, I urge you to be careful in their selection and use. Many (dates and denitraters) are "high-maintenance" units requiring daily fooling-with. All have the potential defect of other anaerobic production toxifying your system. Finally, in my opinion, they're just not worth the hassle, cost and possible chemical downside; compared with water changes, chemical filtrants, and other biological intervention (i.e. photosynthesis).

You know he isn't talking about sand here?

Finally, If anyone wants to test "My" methods, all you need is a 1 gallon jar, mix up some saltwater with cold tap water, throw some chaeto in and see what happens.

I don't see how that could possibly tell us anything useful.

 

[cdeakle]

I'm still waiting to see pictures of his system :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Blah blahblah :!: Just for fun I did a tank(on paper) to keep Nemo and a girlfriend happy. The system was about $500.

 

[SpecialK]

"I have heard of many many tank running bare bottom skimmerless."

I run one of these myself yet I would NOT recommend this, if you are new to this hobby "Dont Just Try It".

When I started I ran skimmerless with a DSB but I let the tank cycle 7 months before adding to it than I added slowly.
A skimmer will help a great deal if you are new and you dont want to wait a long time, think of it like a safety net It will help catch you if you fall.

It took me a couple of years before I pulled the sand bed out & I will say I have a skimmer here just in case.

Kaye

[/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Many people run tanks without skimmers, I have myself in fact.

It is a more difficult way to manage a tank, and in my opinion an irresponsible thing to reccomend to new people just starting. A skimmer always helps the water quality.

New reefkeepers tend to do one thing that makes going skimmerless from the start a bad idea. They overstock their tank. I have seen so many posts from newbies that have way too many fish in a small tank, because they are at this point ignorant of how many fish a certain tank size can handle. A skimmer will really help a new reefkeeper as they learn the proper care of their tank.

Another thing that I love about skimmers, they help keep the water moving and well oxygenated. I think this is a big plus and should not be ignored!

 

[Anonymous]

Many people run tanks without skimmers, I have myself in fact.

It is a more difficult way to manage a tank, and in my opinion an irresponsible thing to reccomend to new people just starting. A skimmer always helps the water quality.

New reefkeepers tend to do one thing that makes going skimmerless from the start a bad idea. They overstock their tank. I have seen so many posts from newbies that have way too many fish in a small tank, because they are at this point ignorant of how many fish a certain tank size can handle. A skimmer will really help a new reefkeeper as they learn the proper care of their tank.

Another thing that I love about skimmers, they help keep the water moving and well oxygenated. I think this is a big plus and should not be ignored!

For many of exactly the same things I recommend newbies start plant life (in refugiums sure) as the first thing. Plant life consumes ammonia directly, vastly reduces or eliminates cycles, completes the nitrogen cycle by consuming nitrates without the risk of releasing toxic gas or ammonia, reduces and/or eliminates the nusiance algaes, filters out toxins and heavy metals, keeps the water clear, consumes carbon dioxide, and oxygenates the water. Therefore more fish can be added sooner. With the addition of a simple powerhead you get more advantages then you mention with skimmers without the expense.

 

[Anonymous]

For many of exactly the same things I recommend newbies start plant life (in refugiums sure) as the first thing. Plant life consumes ammonia directly, vastly reduces or eliminates cycles, completes the nitrogen cycle by consuming nitrates without the risk of releasing toxic gas or ammonia, reduces and/or eliminates the nusiance algaes, filters out toxins and heavy metals, keeps the water clear, consumes carbon dioxide, and oxygenates the water. Therefore more fish can be added sooner. With the addition of a simple powerhead you get more advantages then you mention with skimmers without the expense.

RDO would like to temper the negative sentiments about Beaslbob's methodologies by saying that they might work for him (has not been proven), but they're unorthodoxed and not recommended by most (actually all) experienced hobbyists I know. We recommend new reefkeepers stick with tried and true methods like those successful systems you've seen featured in print and online magazines.

 

[Len]

beaslbob: After much deliberation with the admins and moderators, Reefs.org would like to request you desist with posting these types of advice in the New Reefkeepers Forum for the sake of new hobbyists. Discussions about your unorthodoxed methods is welcomed in the General Reef Discussion where more experienced hobbyists can better engage in discussions with you. Reefs.org does not wish to continue seeing the long, confusing debates in the NRF that inevitably ensues in your threads. Our community believes some of your advice to new hobbyists is unsound, and despite everyone posting opinions and facts to the contrary, you still persist on repeating the same information. Reefs.org thinks your ideas are best suited for the GRD.

 

[Len]

Can we please combine this post and Supergiantrobots post into a *separate* post where we can debate this?
Both threads have unfortunately degenerated into issues that have *no* place in trying to answer the original questions posted and are of no relevance to the new reefers. We don't wanna confuse em...

I will review this thread. Hopefully, I will be able to find a suitable location to split it into two threads. The split thread containing more advanced topics will be moved to the GRD for further discussion.

EDIT: I found a good spot to split and have done so.

 

[HClH2OFish]

You da man! :lol:

Thanks for all your hard work....much appreciated