A
Anonymous
Guest
Not to argue, I'll just suggest you read the book.
wattage per gallon...
- Thread starter amandab
- Start date
Oh jeez, it was meant to be a suggestion, the idea of the refugium, not an argument. But I think mine is a good one. Every day I get emails from people who've never even heard of refugiums, what's the harm in the suggestion and attempt to further educate? It seems to me that precisely because someone is new to this endeavor it's a good idea to introduce them to the possibilities, how would they know to ask about something if they're unaware it exists? I'm not saying the original poster doesn't know, but she's not the only person reading this (we hope, yeah?). I know quite a few people who have crafted beautiful reef systems sans foam fractionation and with excellent refugia in situ, so I know it's possible. I'm going to try to keep this as succinct as possible, so here goes...
First, refugia (in which one may house their deep live sand bed and live rock), DSB's and quality live rock are considered a form of filtration. In the presence of refugia, and especially when attempting the most balanced, natural marine (particularly reef) aquarium, use of a protein skimmer can actually undo some of what you're trying to accomplish. To the best of my knowledge, a great deal of micro-flora/fauna will be removed via fractionation, along with those nutrients. I am normally a huge proponent of foam fractionation, and I still generally recommend them to folks for a myriad of reasons.
Nutrient export/conversion will never stop being an issue, and in the absence of these natural methods then I am absolutely all for foam fractionation. What cannot be emphasized enough is the real need for substantial water turnover in the form of water changes (dilution is the solution to pollution--you most definitely will find that in the book), which has not received sufficient mention here. Also, when one has difficulty gaining control of nutrients, foam fractionation is most definitely a handy tool, I'm not arguing that, nor am I saying foam fractionation is useless. I'm saying that if one can well employ refugia then the need for foam fractionation may be greatly reduced, and quite possibly even eliminated (except for occasional use).
I understand that my personal experience is a bit different from others, in that, as a noob all those years ago, I grew my corals and clams under normal output fluorescents (all healthy, thriving, and growing, until the tank was torn down), sans foam fractionation, with a dolomite substrate, and experienced no disease, no crashes, no nuisance algal forms. What I'm trying to present is the idea that, instead of relying so heavily upon foam fractionation and other chemical filtrants, consider relying on natural methods. The more I learn about it, the more I come to believe that it's the wave of the future, plus, how can we believe that humans can devise machinery to accomplish better what Mother Nature has fined tuned for eons upon eons? I don't see why a dedicated and well-educated beginner cannot start off their system with such. Yes, it takes a great deal of research, but I have been under the impression that we all advocate a great deal of research before undertaking reef aquaria in particular.
(I think I could also go so far as to say Bob and Anthony might agree with me, but I will never go so far as to make any of their statements for them.)
However, when one really thinks about it, does it make much sense, when choosing to house filter feeders such as clams, corals, sponges (another "filter", if you will), or (by default, usually) tunicates, to first remove that which feeds them, to then be forced to add (artificially) that which is intended to feed them? (We should not disclude deposit and detrivorous feeders from this picture, either.)
First, refugia (in which one may house their deep live sand bed and live rock), DSB's and quality live rock are considered a form of filtration. In the presence of refugia, and especially when attempting the most balanced, natural marine (particularly reef) aquarium, use of a protein skimmer can actually undo some of what you're trying to accomplish. To the best of my knowledge, a great deal of micro-flora/fauna will be removed via fractionation, along with those nutrients. I am normally a huge proponent of foam fractionation, and I still generally recommend them to folks for a myriad of reasons.
Nutrient export/conversion will never stop being an issue, and in the absence of these natural methods then I am absolutely all for foam fractionation. What cannot be emphasized enough is the real need for substantial water turnover in the form of water changes (dilution is the solution to pollution--you most definitely will find that in the book), which has not received sufficient mention here. Also, when one has difficulty gaining control of nutrients, foam fractionation is most definitely a handy tool, I'm not arguing that, nor am I saying foam fractionation is useless. I'm saying that if one can well employ refugia then the need for foam fractionation may be greatly reduced, and quite possibly even eliminated (except for occasional use).
I understand that my personal experience is a bit different from others, in that, as a noob all those years ago, I grew my corals and clams under normal output fluorescents (all healthy, thriving, and growing, until the tank was torn down), sans foam fractionation, with a dolomite substrate, and experienced no disease, no crashes, no nuisance algal forms. What I'm trying to present is the idea that, instead of relying so heavily upon foam fractionation and other chemical filtrants, consider relying on natural methods. The more I learn about it, the more I come to believe that it's the wave of the future, plus, how can we believe that humans can devise machinery to accomplish better what Mother Nature has fined tuned for eons upon eons? I don't see why a dedicated and well-educated beginner cannot start off their system with such. Yes, it takes a great deal of research, but I have been under the impression that we all advocate a great deal of research before undertaking reef aquaria in particular.
(I think I could also go so far as to say Bob and Anthony might agree with me, but I will never go so far as to make any of their statements for them.)
However, when one really thinks about it, does it make much sense, when choosing to house filter feeders such as clams, corals, sponges (another "filter", if you will), or (by default, usually) tunicates, to first remove that which feeds them, to then be forced to add (artificially) that which is intended to feed them? (We should not disclude deposit and detrivorous feeders from this picture, either.)
Hey Wade,
In all probability,not a coincidence!
The skimmerless people make heavy use of refugiums though, and their success cannot be denied. Just because you tried a skimmerless tank, doesn't mean you went about it in the best way? Did you have a refugium full of macros? I ran a skimmerless tank for a while and fed it constantly to up the pod population for my mandarin - guess what? NO ISSUES!!!
There's plenty of people with skimmers that have bryopsis too...
Cheers
Jim
In all probability,not a coincidence!
The skimmerless people make heavy use of refugiums though, and their success cannot be denied. Just because you tried a skimmerless tank, doesn't mean you went about it in the best way? Did you have a refugium full of macros? I ran a skimmerless tank for a while and fed it constantly to up the pod population for my mandarin - guess what? NO ISSUES!!! There's plenty of people with skimmers that have bryopsis too...
Cheers
Jim
seamaiden":3qdc5nwq said:
While I agree with the "more biology, less technology" approach to reef keeping, IMO there is a practical limit to the parallels we can draw between our reef tanks (which are small, closed systems) and the natural reefs (large, open systems). In many cases, we're dealing with much higher concentrations of pollutants and much more limited means of nutrient export and dilution.
That said, some organisms thrive in a higher nutrient environment and would be well suited to life in a lightly skimmed/unskimmed system. OTOH, if the person is after an SPS dominated display, the very low nutrient levels associated with that situation might be much harder to achieve without an effective protein skimmer.
IMO it's really a matter of what you want to keep and how you prefer to run your system. There's merit to a lot of these different methods and they all have their application.
JMHO...
My nano is SPS dominated, and skimmerless. You can see the pics in my signature. It's only 6 months old, but it was started from rock and sand of a nearly decade old reef tank (Rob Toonen's!). I do about a 5% water change weekly, and run carbon 2 days a month or so. There is a refugium with Caulerpa algae. But I digress...
I don't know Chris, I think there's something to what you say. While Matt's nano might be an acception, most if not all of the stellar SPS tanks that I've seen have good skimmers like you said.
I'd like to experiment with this one, but I just don't have the space, money, or time to set up another SPS tank to try this. :? If I was setting up a softie tank, I wouldn't hesitate to go skimmerless - I've seen MANY tanks like this.
Cheers
Jim
I'd like to experiment with this one, but I just don't have the space, money, or time to set up another SPS tank to try this. :? If I was setting up a softie tank, I wouldn't hesitate to go skimmerless - I've seen MANY tanks like this.
Cheers
Jim
This probably isn't a coincidence, but all the great LPS and softie tanks I've seen have skimmers too! I'd say 90% of marine tanks I've seen with ANY corals have skimmers, so it's no surprise that all the the great SPS tanks you've seen have skimmers.
A concept I'm having trouble with here is that SPS corals only come from areas of low dissolved nutrients. Acropora can be found in lagoons and backreefs where dissolved nutrients are relatively high.
The reason I like the idea of a skimmerless tank, (and I am by no means touting it as "the way to go" here), is the amount of planktonic invertebrate life that survives compared to a heavily skimmed tank. There are a few parameters that we can't really duplicate on the scale of nature in our tanks: water movement, lighting, and the amount of live food present. Not using a skimmer is simply my way of attempting to come close to reproducing that amount of food.
A concept I'm having trouble with here is that SPS corals only come from areas of low dissolved nutrients. Acropora can be found in lagoons and backreefs where dissolved nutrients are relatively high.
The reason I like the idea of a skimmerless tank, (and I am by no means touting it as "the way to go" here), is the amount of planktonic invertebrate life that survives compared to a heavily skimmed tank. There are a few parameters that we can't really duplicate on the scale of nature in our tanks: water movement, lighting, and the amount of live food present. Not using a skimmer is simply my way of attempting to come close to reproducing that amount of food.
Well, we sure have strayed off the original topic - LOL...
A very good point. Yes, most of the reefs I have seen have skimmers.
You're right - when I was snorkeling in St. Croix earlier this year I did see SPS in some of the lagoon areas we were in. My observation (which could be meaningless - I have no idea) was that the SPS we saw in those areas were generally brown. The stuff we saw out on the forereefs was more colorful.
I'm assuming here, but it seems like nutrient levels in the water could be part of the reason for the difference in coloration. Nutrient levels certainly seem to be a factor in coloration of captive SPS in our tanks. Also, IIRC doesn't the presence of certain organic nutrients hinder calcification rates?
Again I think you have a very good point - makes sense to me.
Having maintained a few marine tanks without a skimmer and then with one, I wouldn't recommend a newcomer try to go skimmerless on their first tank. IME such a system is not as forgiving of overfeeding, poor husbandry etc. (JMO).
OTOH I've not tried skimmerless with a refugium/scrubber (which seems to be the way to go if you're going skimmerless)...
Interesting discussion. BTW, your tank looks great!
Matt_Wandell":292wj3m8 said:
A very good point. Yes, most of the reefs I have seen have skimmers.
Matt_Wandell":292wj3m8 said:
You're right - when I was snorkeling in St. Croix earlier this year I did see SPS in some of the lagoon areas we were in. My observation (which could be meaningless - I have no idea) was that the SPS we saw in those areas were generally brown. The stuff we saw out on the forereefs was more colorful.
I'm assuming here, but it seems like nutrient levels in the water could be part of the reason for the difference in coloration. Nutrient levels certainly seem to be a factor in coloration of captive SPS in our tanks. Also, IIRC doesn't the presence of certain organic nutrients hinder calcification rates?
Matt_Wandell":292wj3m8 said:
Again I think you have a very good point - makes sense to me.
Having maintained a few marine tanks without a skimmer and then with one, I wouldn't recommend a newcomer try to go skimmerless on their first tank. IME such a system is not as forgiving of overfeeding, poor husbandry etc. (JMO).
OTOH I've not tried skimmerless with a refugium/scrubber (which seems to be the way to go if you're going skimmerless)...
Interesting discussion. BTW, your tank looks great!
Thanks, and I apologize to the original poster too ....but I think his question was answered. I wouldn't suggest any beginner try a tank w/o a skimmer either.
Most of the purple montipora certainly have browned up since I transferred them from my larger tank. The pocillopora is a bit greener, if anything. The green montipora is the exact same color. My acropora has gotten more purple, which I prefer. My green brain is the same color as well. It's hard to say why for sure though. They went from MH lights to PC, and from Euroreef skimmed water to skimmerless. Also a switch from artificial salt water to natural salt water. Another side effect is that their polyp extension has increased dramatically. I can't say for sure why, but I suspect the lighting has more to do with it than anything. The only reason I think this is that I moved some frags from my old tank to my old refugium (Same water, lower lighting), and they browned up.
....but I think his question was answered. I wouldn't suggest any beginner try a tank w/o a skimmer either.Most of the purple montipora certainly have browned up since I transferred them from my larger tank. The pocillopora is a bit greener, if anything. The green montipora is the exact same color. My acropora has gotten more purple, which I prefer. My green brain is the same color as well. It's hard to say why for sure though. They went from MH lights to PC, and from Euroreef skimmed water to skimmerless. Also a switch from artificial salt water to natural salt water. Another side effect is that their polyp extension has increased dramatically. I can't say for sure why, but I suspect the lighting has more to do with it than anything. The only reason I think this is that I moved some frags from my old tank to my old refugium (Same water, lower lighting), and they browned up.
Thanks everyone, and my question was answered, although it started out as a lighting question. But then again, I've always loved a good tangent... And I'm going with the skimmer. Is it possible to "overdo it" with a skimmer? Or could you run it for periods of time and then turn it off for a while?
Hi Amanda,
Yes, depending on what you want to keep, what and how much you will feed, etc. You need to find the right balance of nutrient input/export for what you're going to keep (and to keep problem algaes under control).
Based on what you mentioned earlier in the thread it sounds like you're mostly interested in zoos, mushrooms, etc. IME these corals actually do better with some nutrients in the water, so IMO there's no need to get too carried away with the skimmer.
This is always an option if you find your skimmer is a bit much running 24/7.
Did you decide whether you are going to have a sump and/or refugium? What skimmer did you have in mind?
amandab":1llgjnhi said:
Yes, depending on what you want to keep, what and how much you will feed, etc. You need to find the right balance of nutrient input/export for what you're going to keep (and to keep problem algaes under control).
Based on what you mentioned earlier in the thread it sounds like you're mostly interested in zoos, mushrooms, etc. IME these corals actually do better with some nutrients in the water, so IMO there's no need to get too carried away with the skimmer.
amandab":1llgjnhi said:
This is always an option if you find your skimmer is a bit much running 24/7.
Did you decide whether you are going to have a sump and/or refugium? What skimmer did you have in mind?
As I recollect, amanda, you mentioned that you actually do have the new book. They say the same thing Chris has above--it's possible to overdo it with a skimmer, and those utilizing refugia tend to run them occasionally. HOWEVER! While you're curing your l/r, definitely run that skimmer cranked!
Please don't forget the real importance of water changes, 10% weekly won't actually perform the dilution needed, 10% daily would come much closer. (Just taking that from a common theme/frequency I see mentioned in queries on WWM.)
Please don't forget the real importance of water changes, 10% weekly won't actually perform the dilution needed, 10% daily would come much closer. (Just taking that from a common theme/frequency I see mentioned in queries on WWM.)
Hhhmmm, I see. I was looking into the Prizm Pro, I like it because it's got a media basket, and a drain outlet... but I like the media basket because I like activated carbon, carbon is my friend. I like water changes too, water changes make me happy. Happy fish make me happy...
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:
