• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

jhale

ReefsMagazine!
Location
G.V NYC
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
these are from when I was first setting up the tank.
after the last baffle I put in another one that started from the top going down, it stops about 6" from the bottom of the sump.
I made the space 4" wide to accommodate pads and bags of media.
I glued in ledges to hold egg-crate for the media to sit on.
the nice thing is that this makes the media active filtration, it's not just sitting in the water, all the sumps circulation is being forced through it.






[ April 06, 2005, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: jhale ]
 

ShaunW

Advanced Reefer
Location
Australia
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Originally posted by House of Laughter:
My experience in using PO4 removers (I used the polyfilter)is that it also removes your Iodine - I have found iodine to stop the RTN in my tank and use it religiously, and no, I don't test for it. I just use it.

As for water changes, nothing replaces fresh made water. If your RO/DI reads "0", then more frequent water changes are better than one larger one at a longer time. Also, if the accumulation is 1.5-2.0 at a month, do a beta test and change 1/2 the amount of water in 1/2 the time, get a reading, and then do the second 1/2 at the regularly scheduled monthly, and test again to see where it is. Since you are reducing it's increase over time, I think you'll have lower PO4 levels.

My .02

House
I agree with Jim. If it was me I would just keep doing water changes until the phosphate levels decrease. I don't understand why the "good old water change" is so overlooked as a remedy for most problems!! What salt do you use? some salt has phosphate present!

Since you are BB, it shouldn't return, once you have the levels down to a undetectable levels.

Putting rust (iron based phosphate removers) in your tank is risky. Iron stimulates plant growth, specifically algae.
 

jhale

ReefsMagazine!
Location
G.V NYC
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
I'm using Kent salt. I have not tested it for P yet. maybe I should.

I'm going to try using the phosban, In low doses I'd like to see how effective it is. I'll also moniter the levels of iron. I'll test before using the phosban and then after it's been running.
I can chart the two tests, iron, and phosphate. We'll see how much the iron goes up as the phosphate goes down.

I also read that PVC leaches P as well. I have a lot of PVC in my tank. Anyone have info on PVC and P?
 

alrha

...
Location
Brooklyn
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
thats not fair jim, you didnt even get past saying it twice! and you want us to say it three times???
p.s. if we click our shoes at the same time, does it get done automatically?
 

jhale

ReefsMagazine!
Location
G.V NYC
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
regaurding the pvc and po4, I've seen it mentioned in several posts on RC.
Would it matter in residential use? There is plenty of phosphate in tap water.
I don't think it's a large amount that comes off the PVC, but porbably enough to make a difference in a reef tank. I've just never found an answer as to how much P is leached.

I do water changes, I think I need something to help in addition to them. I must have a lot of P
 

ShaunW

Advanced Reefer
Location
Australia
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Originally posted by yessongs:
Hi Shaun,
My understanding is iron stimulates macro algae growth, and that the iron would help it out-compete the microalgae.
www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/aug2002/chem.htm
Is there any truth to this?

BTW, i never added iron to my system.
The problem is that iron stimulates all life, it is essential for growth/life (including plant life). But if it is available in large quantities the life (let's talk specifically about algae including macroalgae) that grows the fastest will benefit the most. So you need to think of it as selecting for the fastest growing life in your tank. Therefore, if your tank has unwanted fast growing algae, that algae will benefit the most. If you don't have any algae problems then you may be OK, since I am sure that it removes phosphate. But it is a crap shoot if you don't understand the algae population in your tank. Water changes are a much simplier and cheaper solution. Jonathan's tank is barebottomed and presently has no fish therefore high phosphate shouldn't be a problem once it is decreased.

For Jim, ;) , WATER CHANGE, WATER CHANGE, WATER CHANGE!!!! Reminds me of the movie "Animal House".

[ April 07, 2005, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: solbby ]
 

spykes

Senior Member
Location
Brooklyn
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
well i can say adding carbon eventually leaches po4 adding carbon with iron oxide counter acts that problem lol! i think im gonna use half dose too but only with iron oxide. I heard this stuff works good, how much is this locally?
 

alrha

...
Location
Brooklyn
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
well the same with the Phosguard, Seachem's CupriSorb can absorb any Al released by the Phosguard, use them together and you are safe.
For the ultimate formula, you can use carbon with phosguard to absorb the PO4 from the carbon and CupriSorb to absorb the Al from the Phosguard.
next we need to find out what CupriSorb will release and what we can use to absorb it.

on another note, i was reading on Coral magazine about the Redfield Ration and nutriend limitation. They seem to suggest there that PO4 limitation may result in RTN. If this is so, the problems with the Iron based media may be that they are adding Iron, and along with the N in the tank, while removing PO4, the result is PO4 limitation and the resulting RTN.
 

House of Laughter

Super Moderator
Staff member
Vendor
Location
Ossining, NY
Rating - 100%
310   0   0
Albert, that is a great article and begs the question about nutrient presence and heatlh of SPS. I had this same conversation with Jackson yesterday about certain SPS types that show "healthier" colors where nutrient support is present and ones that strive where nutrients are not present. Very interesting!!!!

There is a place (not sure where) that is exactly where you need to be. Hope we can find this magic place - right in between no and some nutrient support.

Jim
 

jhale

ReefsMagazine!
Location
G.V NYC
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
OMG how are you supposed to fine tune your nutrients that much. I don't think we can even test for that. Jim's right it is magic.

I like your formula's Albert I was LMAO, but it's true. Once you start to use one product you have to use another to counter act the bad side effects of the first.

I spoke to some guys on RC last night, the ones that used the full amount of phosban had problems, the ones that only used half the portion were fine. I think it comes down to gradually decreasing phosphates, that is safe for SPS.
It makes sense, you would not want to change other water parameters that quick, so I could see how sucking all the P out of your system overnight could freak the SPS out.

My reactor formula is 30g of phosban and 100g of hydro carbon,( 2lf's brand). I have some purigen I might throw a bag on top of the carbon. I'm going to measure the FE and P in the tank, as well as what is coming out of the reactor. I'll be starting this weekend when I have a chance to set it all up.

I might even change a couple of gallons of water.
 

jackson6745

SPS KILLER
Location
NJ
Rating - 99%
201   2   0
Yep Jim. I used to think that as close to no nutrients was the way to go (zeovit-like). After seeing quite a few local reefs, including yours, I noticed that the guys with the moderate nutrient levels had nice deep colors and great polyp extension on their SPS.
Caireefs tank in particular really changed my mind. He has like 40 good sized fish in his system ( I would guess about 500gals total). his nutrient level is definitely higher than what most SPS keepers would suggest but his corals colors are very rich and deep......I think it looks a lot better than faded "starving" SPS.

Anyway, I still don't plan on feeding my SPS because i'm not convinced any of these coral food do any good, but I do plan on adding quiet a few fish and feeding the fish alone should put me where I want to be.
 

alrha

...
Location
Brooklyn
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
well, that would explain why my SPS are happy even without a skimmer.
Almost all of our tanks have nutrients in them due to feeding and stuff (unless there is a tank that contains no fish and is just corals under lights and not fed). IMO, using the "natural" approach of macroalgae would give the corals a chance to use whatever nutrients they want and have the macro's suck up whatever is left over. Using chemical media (such as phosban, etc) continously even when there is no detectable nutrients may run the risk of starving the system (as opposed to macro's which would not be as efficient and not really outstarve to corals). I would use media only to lower high levels of nutrients but then remove the media once the nutrients are lowered and not continue with "preventative" use. That is what i would do as this can keep the nutrients in check but not really starve the system. after all, the oceans are not running huge phosban reactors and i'm sure they have some nutrients in them as well, if it is undetectable it is because it is being used up (sort of like tanks with algae outbreaks and no nutrients detected).

but i do not want to derail this thread, perhaps a new thread on "Nutrients in Reef Tanks" would be appropriate. I do think it is great to see us having high level discussions here on our site rather than just using this site for local stuff and having to use RC for higher education.
 

jhale

ReefsMagazine!
Location
G.V NYC
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
I do think it is great to see us having high level discussions here on our site rather than just using this site for local stuff and having to use RC for higher education.


I agree, there's such a huge amount of info on RC, it makes a great library. Now if we can just get Shaun to write some papers for us like Randy does for RC, we would be even more competitive

I think we have some smart well informed reefers here, we're even going to make our own equipment with the help of wedfr, how cool is that.
 

ShaunW

Advanced Reefer
Location
Australia
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Originally posted by House of Laughter:
Albert, that is a great article and begs the question about nutrient presence and heatlh of SPS. I had this same conversation with Jackson yesterday about certain SPS types that show "healthier" colors where nutrient support is present and ones that strive where nutrients are not present. Very interesting!!!!

There is a place (not sure where) that is exactly where you need to be. Hope we can find this magic place - right in between no and some nutrient support.

Jim
That special place to be is dependent on the coral species you want to keep in your tank. Algae in this regard is quite helpful as a guide to nutrient levels (better than any test kit), but observing its growth. Keeping an eye on how often you need to clean your front glass, how fast coraline algae and macroalgae grows tell you your nutrient availablity. Since algae grows the fastest, it will use the nutrients the quickest, therefore if algae can't grow I am sure that your nutrient dependent SPS (etc.) are being starved as well.
 

ShaunW

Advanced Reefer
Location
Australia
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Originally posted by alrha:
well, that would explain why my SPS are happy even without a skimmer.
Almost all of our tanks have nutrients in them due to feeding and stuff (unless there is a tank that contains no fish and is just corals under lights and not fed). IMO, using the "natural" approach of macroalgae would give the corals a chance to use whatever nutrients they want and have the macro's suck up whatever is left over. Using chemical media (such as phosban, etc) continously even when there is no detectable nutrients may run the risk of starving the system (as opposed to macro's which would not be as efficient and not really outstarve to corals). I would use media only to lower high levels of nutrients but then remove the media once the nutrients are lowered and not continue with "preventative" use. That is what i would do as this can keep the nutrients in check but not really starve the system. after all, the oceans are not running huge phosban reactors and i'm sure they have some nutrients in them as well, if it is undetectable it is because it is being used up (sort of like tanks with algae outbreaks and no nutrients detected).
Great post, I couldn't agree with you more. Here is the final piece to the puzzle as beautifully described by none other than Eric Borneman on Reeffrontiers (if he ever reads this I hope that he doesn't mind me quoting him,
):

Eric Borneman on Reeffrontiers:
"....the thing about algae is, as I think I mentioned, there is a nutrient component and an algae component. Algae, being fully autotrophic, will thrive in very low nutrients if there is no grazing. The reason they don't take over even oligotrophic reefs is the grazing pressure. Obviously, higher dissolved nutrients helps them grow faster - and in excess makes corals fare peooer - but algae almost always grow faster and outcompete corals were in not for grazing. Turfs are highly grazed, macroalgae less grazed and also depedning on how palatable they are and what other algae are present.

Fish tend to be most finicky, especially if they know there is food coming (like in tanks). many urchins are great unfinicky generalist grazers - even though if offered turfs or Dictyota, they will graze turfs first, they will eat Dictyota when there is nothing else left. A fish in a tank will probably think "screw the Dictyota, a lettuce clip will be along soon enough". Snails work, but nowhere near to the eficiency of urchins, and snails may not graze some algae, or they can lierally be killed by it. Some of the brown algae are very toxic, and urchins can detoxify them somewhat - as can some fish. I am not aware of snails that can do this.

Anyway, those types of organsims, including lettuce slugs, etc, are macrograzers. A large portion of grazing belongs to the micrograzers - basically amphipods. If you poke through a Derbesia patch, you'll see tons of amphipods. The idea here is to let the macrograzers do their work on the big unpalatable and out-in-the open areas and reduce the load on the amphipods who will take care of little new sprouts., stuff in the nooks and crannies, etc.

As to rock crevices being filled with detritus or purportedly acting as a nutrient "sponge" that leaches out nutrients, I don't really go for that idea. It's possble, but I think it is rare, esepcially if the carbonate source is not from some polluted coastal area. The porewater of rocks is loaded with critters and microbes that easily should be able to manage any organic deposits over time. They cycle....lots of detritus, low bugs leads to increase of bugs then decrease of detritus, then die off of bugs, and repeat. As for the idea of carbonate acting as a time-release capsule for dissolved nutrients, same thing - the life in the rock should handle it easily, and if the water is that nutrient laden, and the rock is also laden, and the water is changed to a pure form, and the nutrients seep out through porewater, it won't take that long in reef rock because of the porosity and small size of rock. Turnover time, by necessity if in low nutrient water and without any life present in the rock at all cannot exceed the length of time it took to get that way in the first place. Any leaching, provided it is not by solid material containing harmful elements being slowly dissolved, should be pretty quick.

Finally, I have spent a lot of time taking both live rock and dead coral skeleton and decalcifying it (using acidified EDTA). The amount of algae, worms and sponge in marine carbonate is ridiculous. Sometimes I think there is more sponge than carbonate. So, nutrient leaching could also just as easily come from the die-off, excretion and boring action of all these organisms. If you put a piece of live rock in a bare bottom tank and wait, you'll get a pile of detritus really fast. Where do you think this comes from? The surface? Well, a little from algal shedding and surface material and mucus, but the majority comes from borings and waste of those things inside the rock and released out the pores. Live rock is a very active thing, and the notion that it is a big carbonate sponge that sucks up all the nutrients and slowly releases them causing algae and/or posioning the tank I think is relatively rare. Porewater is greatly higher, normally, in N and P, and is largely oxidized or absorbed before it enters seawater. That aspect of it is what makes it functional and able to support the great amount of life in it.

Sometime when I decalcify some substrate, I'll take a photo of the substrate and the material left after decal....its really amazing. I'm not saying that it never happens, or that a mismanaged tank could not produce these results, but if the tankis mismanaged to that extent, those issues need to be addressed before one starts throwing out the sand or rock thinking its going to fix an algae problem. I can assure you that even a cesspool of a tank in the presence of leaching substrates and gross food inputs will have no visible algae in the presence of enough grazers. Not suggesting this, just making a point. "

[ April 07, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: solbby ]
 

jhale

ReefsMagazine!
Location
G.V NYC
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
buy more Tangs!

just kidding, that was very informative, thanks Shaun.

actually I have very little algae, that could be due to the amount of snails, hermits, and amphipods in my tank. the snails do an amazing job of keeping the marina board clear of algae. I just have to help them out with the sides of the tank. I'd rather they work on the rocks.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top