I see you guys pulled out the big guns. :lol:
Welcome steve and as usual awesome tank.
so let's analyze. 850g tank with 100's of fish. Kinda like an 85 with 10's of fish or a 55 with 8's fish. Bout the same as mine and most.
lotsa live rock and corals with awesome sps all around.
so rob and loard should do exactly what steve has done on a smaller scale.
run a refugium with macros algaes for two years. And when the equipment and plant life in the tank have caught up with the bioload then dump the macros.
Which is not what lord and rob have done.
Steve I really do wish you the most awesome tank ever. My concern is the unpreceivable, unmeasureable, and slow build up of toxins like copper. They are in the food you add. some get through the ro/di. the mechanical filtration will not get all of them and the water changes will slow but not prevent the build up. And hopefully you never have mechanical failures of all those things. But hopefully the corraline on the rocks will help. So that in 5-10 years from now you will not have a crash. After all it has only been a year since you removed the macros. Which exported bioaccumulated copper and other toxins every time you harvested them.
Welcome steve and as usual awesome tank.
so let's analyze. 850g tank with 100's of fish. Kinda like an 85 with 10's of fish or a 55 with 8's fish. Bout the same as mine and most.
lotsa live rock and corals with awesome sps all around.
so rob and loard should do exactly what steve has done on a smaller scale.
run a refugium with macros algaes for two years. And when the equipment and plant life in the tank have caught up with the bioload then dump the macros.
Which is not what lord and rob have done.
Steve I really do wish you the most awesome tank ever. My concern is the unpreceivable, unmeasureable, and slow build up of toxins like copper. They are in the food you add. some get through the ro/di. the mechanical filtration will not get all of them and the water changes will slow but not prevent the build up. And hopefully you never have mechanical failures of all those things. But hopefully the corraline on the rocks will help. So that in 5-10 years from now you will not have a crash. After all it has only been a year since you removed the macros. Which exported bioaccumulated copper and other toxins every time you harvested them.
Righty":2rtcwjx6 said:
You have no evidence that the macros you keep uptake copper. You have a study of cold water macros which may or may not be related to the macros we keep (not to mention the lack of evidence regarding toxic metal buildup in the first place). I think it is irresponsible for you to keep making such dogmatic recommendations based on essentially no evidence.
BTW bob, Since my LR is so fouled I do now have Macros growing on the LR. They came from somewhere. Some halmedia and some fern looking plant . Guess what - the hair algae is still growing like mad.
Once I get my new RO/DI filters and a good clean up crew/scrubbing the tank should rebound.
_________________
1950 recession
Once I get my new RO/DI filters and a good clean up crew/scrubbing the tank should rebound.
_________________
1950 recession
Thank you steve for silencing bob... The problem with your method Righty is that I have corals over most rock and the other rock with HA is the rock under the corals...No problem except the nice mess it will make moving that rock around..I dont want to kill my crocea by turning the water conditions into crap..In 2 years never had this problem and heres how i think it started.. I noticed a few months ago it starting to grow in the skimmer and im thinking what happened is some broke loose and got into the display starting my ordeal...No i havent tested PO4 and ill have to order a test kit over the internet..My LFS doesnt have a PO4 test kit..all other parameters are good...But i thank yall for the advice and continuing help..
Righty":kr6y0fbq said:
then what exactly do you need for evidence? Guy's macros in Dr. Shimek's reef snapshots revealed in the ball park copper levels as those cold water macros that are not in our aquaria. Bioaccumulation factors of copper in macros have been measured to be up to 27,000. Caulpera's Ulva's and seaweeds are harvested and used a bio indicators up stream of copper mines and power plants to test for copper polution.
What is irresponsible is to ignore all that evidence and flat out state than no plant life in our tank bioaccumulate any copper. You obviously don't believe evidence where macros were exposed to various levels of copper and the macro's uptake of copper was measured over time.
Perhaps you could email Dr. Addey or someone else you have more faith in.
but regardless, 1/10 of a pound of macros will bioaccumulate the copper in a 55g aqaurium when that copper is maintained at the highest at the faucet level of 90% of the households in the major US cities. And the rate is porportional to the copper level in the water column. So after a few months of harvesting, the copper in the water is acceptable for any livestock.
Rob:
What is happening is the slower growing macros are showing up. If you continue to provide the conditions for those macros they will slowly out compete the faster growing stuff you don't like. To me you simply would not have had the hair algae if you had added those macros right at the beginning. Just as Steve did in his tank.
Lord:
You do get some spikes of various things including hair. Perhaps the best thing to do is just to let it run it's course. And of course, cleanup crews, limiting feeding and so on. A refugia with other plant life would help also. even if all you do is simply grow the same nusiance algaes there.
SInce when is calupera taxafolia a slow growing macro? Honestly give up! MARCOS WONT CURE EVERYTHING. A lot of people find encroaching marcos to be as much of a problem as HA. Rob has his answers already, his RO was bad and needed a new membrane. On top of that he seems to have detritus build up. Under and in his rock, a common occurance for rock that came from a system with a sandbed.
Algae sufferers_
If you should have good quality water - (good skimming, RO)
And good circulation - (heavy flow)
And suitable herbivores (large snail population of several species; tangs are usually not effective)
Then you might look at detritus accumulation:
- Get a micron bag for your drain to the sump. You will be amazed by how much stuff accumulates there on a regular basis. And every time you do a water change blow off all your rock real well with a powerhead, the bag will collect it all.
If you should have good quality water - (good skimming, RO)
And good circulation - (heavy flow)
And suitable herbivores (large snail population of several species; tangs are usually not effective)
Then you might look at detritus accumulation:
- Get a micron bag for your drain to the sump. You will be amazed by how much stuff accumulates there on a regular basis. And every time you do a water change blow off all your rock real well with a powerhead, the bag will collect it all.
Ben":3vrb5229 said:
Ben the point was the halimeda. With low light I had trouble getting the "fern" established. But even that would much slower growing than the micro and hair algaes. or the corals for that matter. But you have to provide the conditions that encourage those forms. And a single 1/8" bud of halimeda is not going to starve out a tankfull of hair overnight. but keep it growing and expanding then it will reduce the hair.
But you shouldn't throw in the towel, rip apart the entire tank, make massive changes just because ugly algaes are next to thriving corals.
First of all....my original post was in response to Bob's post that proposed that a long term high fish load could only be acheived with the presence of macro algaes....this, I feel, is ridiclous. My fish load is actually quite a bit higher than Bob's thumbnailing math.....most of my fish are very large... perhaps a total fish length might be more precise.... but, that's nitpicking.
The reason that I pulled my macro was that I felt that it contributed nothing....or, at best, very little.... to the overall nutrient export program. From the beginning, I had my occasional algae breakout battles here and there.....but, it wasn't until I dramatically increased my nutrient export regimen (larger skimmer, UV, and ozone) that I started seeing the results that I was looking for (clear water, minimal algae, improved coral color, etc). There was no way that my meager 150gal refugium filled with macros could keep up with the main tank.
Macro algae harvesting, IMO, is a viable means of nutrient export..... just not a very efficient one. Maybe if I had a much, much larger refugium...and was willing to risk the macro's going sexual ....and was willing to put up with the yellowing of water.... maybe, just maybe, the macros could keep up with the main tank..........OR, I could just put on a bigger skimmer. To me, I'd rather remove wastes than try to process wastes.....and the macro algae's uptake was just too slow for my tastes.
Now, just for a point of reference Bob, could you post a pic of what the "holy grail" of reef tanks for you is ? I mean one that is solely filtered through the use of macros (if that is what you're proposing here). I've seen many, many examples of long term reefs filtered through technology (skimmers, media,uv, etc)....but, I've never seen a quality reef solely filtered through macros. After all....a picture is worth a thousand words.
The reason that I pulled my macro was that I felt that it contributed nothing....or, at best, very little.... to the overall nutrient export program. From the beginning, I had my occasional algae breakout battles here and there.....but, it wasn't until I dramatically increased my nutrient export regimen (larger skimmer, UV, and ozone) that I started seeing the results that I was looking for (clear water, minimal algae, improved coral color, etc). There was no way that my meager 150gal refugium filled with macros could keep up with the main tank.
Macro algae harvesting, IMO, is a viable means of nutrient export..... just not a very efficient one. Maybe if I had a much, much larger refugium...and was willing to risk the macro's going sexual ....and was willing to put up with the yellowing of water.... maybe, just maybe, the macros could keep up with the main tank..........OR, I could just put on a bigger skimmer. To me, I'd rather remove wastes than try to process wastes.....and the macro algae's uptake was just too slow for my tastes.
Now, just for a point of reference Bob, could you post a pic of what the "holy grail" of reef tanks for you is ? I mean one that is solely filtered through the use of macros (if that is what you're proposing here). I've seen many, many examples of long term reefs filtered through technology (skimmers, media,uv, etc)....but, I've never seen a quality reef solely filtered through macros. After all....a picture is worth a thousand words.
Steve, can you provide more details on your main methods of nutrient export then? I saw on your website:
I guess you've stopped using the macroalgae.
Personally, my main means of nutrient export are my skimmer and macroalgae. At times, I wish I had a stronger skimmer, and I've read that the phosphate removing media can be quite powerful in its effect.
BTW Steve, your tank always amazes me both technically and aesthetically.
steveweast":2wcm8ka5 said:beaslbob":2wcm8ka5 said:
Bob's statement has got to be the most laughable ever. I'll start with my 3 yr old 850gal tank that has over a hundred fish....no fuge (I pulled all the macro it had over a year ago since it did little for nutrient export and turned it into an eel/angler tank).... and no algae problem. There are many methods of nutrient export....just few as inefficient as macro harvesting.
Steve and with respect.
I see nothing in my original statement that says "macros".
All I am saying is that plant life (as opposed to any specific form of plant life) should be part of the system.
I am not advocating filtration with only macros or even only plant life of anykind.
Even my current 55g has other filtration and circulation.
What I am very concerned about is the total ignoring of plant life to newbies and specifically here rob and lord.
Rob has already torn down his system because of the advice here to follow the in thing to do. DSB got algae. So go bb. All fish died and algae came back. Lord gets algae.
And the advice to Rob is to cook rocks and therefore tear the system down again.
You system is awesome. And has only ran a year without a refug. And for two years with. Plus it is teaming with plant life.
They tell me my system is ugly. Yet no hair algae is present and fish and corals have lived there for two years.
And was it borneman's or shimek's DSB tank the crashed after 5 years? Then the BB started posting on these boards.
So all I am saying is to factor in the plant life in the analysis. IMO everything else is secondary to that fact. Sure use a skimmer. As long as the plant life is thriving.
Sure do water changes. As long as the plant life is thriving.
Sure use carbon. As long as the plant life is thriving.
sure use phosban. As long as the plant life is thriving.
Sure use ro/di. As long as the palnt life is thriving.
Sure use LR as long as the plant is thriving.
Sure use DSB and LS. As long as the plant life is thriving.
And even.
sure use bio balls. As long as the plant lefe is thriving.
Sure use canister filters. As long as the plant life is thriving.
Sure over populate. As long as the plant life is thriving.
Sure use ugfs, fluidized bed filters, etc etc etc. As long as the plant life is thriving.
Or do none of that, have some circulation, a source of calcium carbonate and get the plant life thriving.
Meahwhile rob and lord should not have to completely redesign their systems. Spend $1000. Have to spend 10-20 hours per week. Just because a patch of algae showed up.
But then newbies who have added refugiums have already found this out.
MY philosophy of reefkeeping is to remove wastes and not try to process them.....and as a result, my nutrient export philosophies tend to follow those of barebottom reefers.....ie. strong flow (to keep detritus in suspension until it reaches the overflows). strong wet skimming, and removal of any settled detritus. Any detritus removed is detritus that isn't subject to bacterial action that will release its load of phospate. To this end, I blow off my rocks at least weekly, I vacuum my very shallow sand bed at least weekly, and I completely empty and wipe clean my sump with every water change. This routine coupled with pre-fliters keeps my detritus collection to a minimum. For me, the waste processing ends at removing the detritus....for those that want to fully process the waste, it's just beginning.
The macro just didn't seem to offer much in nutrient export.....and for it to be able to, I, IMO, would have needed a much larger refugium. So, instead of maintaiing the macros, I pulled them and used the space to keep a few things that I couldn't place in the main tank...like a few eels.
The macro just didn't seem to offer much in nutrient export.....and for it to be able to, I, IMO, would have needed a much larger refugium. So, instead of maintaiing the macros, I pulled them and used the space to keep a few things that I couldn't place in the main tank...like a few eels.
understand steve. And you have only done that for the last year.
You are correct you would have needed IMO a much larger refugium.
My concern is that will not prevent a very slow build up of stuff. You simply can not get all the junk before bacterial action. And therefore will have a slow build up.
but with plant life on the live rock and in the corals you still have plant life processing those wastes.
Hopefully then can keep up for a few more years.
And hopefully you will not have the chain reaction crashing the system when a single fish dies. Hopefully the plant life in your rocks and corals will be able to process the ammonia prevent the deap spikes until you get the dead fish outta there.
My philosophy in all my tanks is to get plant life as the main filtering and processing in the system. Then when something goes south. The plant life steps up, makes adjustments, and rapidly bring the system back to normal operation.
You are correct you would have needed IMO a much larger refugium.
My concern is that will not prevent a very slow build up of stuff. You simply can not get all the junk before bacterial action. And therefore will have a slow build up.
but with plant life on the live rock and in the corals you still have plant life processing those wastes.
Hopefully then can keep up for a few more years.
And hopefully you will not have the chain reaction crashing the system when a single fish dies. Hopefully the plant life in your rocks and corals will be able to process the ammonia prevent the deap spikes until you get the dead fish outta there.
My philosophy in all my tanks is to get plant life as the main filtering and processing in the system. Then when something goes south. The plant life steps up, makes adjustments, and rapidly bring the system back to normal operation.
Bob
Plants can not process a large quantity of waste. It is better to get as much out as possible so it does not have to be processed. Why do you continue to bring this up especally when you know the feelings of the thread originator. You are not helping just pulling the focus from helping rob to pushing you ideas.
Plants can not process a large quantity of waste. It is better to get as much out as possible so it does not have to be processed. Why do you continue to bring this up especally when you know the feelings of the thread originator. You are not helping just pulling the focus from helping rob to pushing you ideas.
I really don't have a problem with your above post.... as long as you view "plant life" as just one of many tools available for nutrient export. We can go back and forth all day as to which tool is most efficient....something I will not do. For me, the nutrient export battle is waged with several of the tools you mentioned.....I just shelved the one you seem to be most passionate about...plant life. For me, it wasn't as efficient as some of the others you mentioned.
I must take exception with one thing you stated.....my tank is NOT teeming with plant life. I have minimal aglae growth....which I remove. I dislike the look of coralline, so I have employed over 20 urchins to keep that from accumulating....where is the teeming plant life in my tank ? I know there's some...but teeming ? If it is teeming, I know what I'll be doing this weekend.
Oh, as for "experts"..... I can't think of a single one whom I'd trust....save maybe Tyree. I'm more of a "show me" guy.....and everytime I see the fruits of their labor, I'm disappointed.
I must take exception with one thing you stated.....my tank is NOT teeming with plant life. I have minimal aglae growth....which I remove. I dislike the look of coralline, so I have employed over 20 urchins to keep that from accumulating....where is the teeming plant life in my tank ? I know there's some...but teeming ? If it is teeming, I know what I'll be doing this weekend.
Oh, as for "experts"..... I can't think of a single one whom I'd trust....save maybe Tyree. I'm more of a "show me" guy.....and everytime I see the fruits of their labor, I'm disappointed.
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:
