Jump to content

My First Skimmerless System


Timfish

Recommended Posts

In my maintenance business I have several combinations.  This system does not have any place to grow macro algae or an algae scrubber and after what I have read about the different roles played by DOC released by algae and by corals I would not reccomend trying to use macro algae or algae scrubbers.  But if you set on doing so cheato produces far less harmfull DOC than most other algae.  I definitely would not use any form of carbon dosing, you're selectively manipulating the microbial populations and you cannot test what you are doing, same reason for not using skimmers.   Regarding PO4 there has been a misconception for a long time, unfortunately endorsed by some prominant "Gurus", that just small amounts cause "poisoning" of the coral skeleton when in reality research shows coral growth is increased wiht increased PO4 levels.  What is also rarely passed on is the average on reefs is .13 mg/l and upwellinf will expose reefs to as much as 2.0 mg/ and that phosphate is a limiting nutrient for corals to utilize ammonia and nitrate as a food source for their zooxanthellae.  In my experienece I don't see any deaths I can attribute to PO4 until levels are at 7 or 8 mg/l.  As far as nitrate, forget about it, you need really high levels, way in excess of 100 mg/l to cause potential problems.    Corals are competing with algae for ALL forms of nitrogen, organic (amino acids and urea) and inorganic (ammonia and nitrate).  So you can see there's a whole lot going on with nitrogen and phosphate we can't test for.  Focusing just on one form of each often doesn't help solve any problems.  Helping MFrame with hair algae, th PO4 and nitrate levels increased after we got rid of the algae.  Trying to get rid of the hiar algae by reducing the PO4 and Nitrate only would have impacted the corals ability to compete and aggrevated the problem.

   

I have to hop in with respectful disagreement on this one. Although many methodologies are applicable, and even independently validated in the extremely complex cycle of invertebrate growth - algae will uptake phosphates, and grow at a much faster rate than any coral skeletal structure that utilizes PO4. Which will deplete the valuable resources corals need. Just as there are different ideologies in plant growth, there are many in reef systems as well, and an aspiring reef keeper must take these into account when planning which livestock they intend to keep.

 

By your reasoning, removing the algae from Mikes tank should have freed up more nutrients for corals to uptake, but in my experience only more of the rapid, more efficient algae strains are able uptake the high nutrient load, and again out compete the corals. Creating a cycle that will not end until the source of nutrients is diminished.

 

While I agree that many of the crucial nutrients for our closed systems cannot be measured successfully - I do believe phosphates are one that can be quite useful. If you can selectively control these levels, as is done naturally through diffusion in sea water. Then you can effectively limit the amount of available nutrients for the much faster growing algae, and you can avoid the DOCs that you explained. Yes, you will most certainly not have the rapid growth that the gurus point out as terms of success, and may suffer short term effects of nutrient spikes - but you will have controlled stability by eliminating unwanted algae growth. Which I strongly believe is the only way to sustainably grow, and KEEP a large variety of small polyp stony corals. Although I have no where near the amount time Tim has put into these endeavors. I'm a firm believer in starting from zero , and getting to what your system needs will end up proving for a much more sustainable ecosystem then riding the rollercoaster of unwanted algae growths effect on available nutrients.

 

It really depends on what you want to keep, and how. Keeping the systems nutrient levels sustainably low, without depleting them is much more time consuming and difficult, but that's why they're referred to as gurus. They have seemingly limitless time, resources and probably some magic fairy dust too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, where to start.  :lol:

 

Quote

. . . By your reasoning, removing the algae from Mikes tank should have freed up more nutrients for corals to uptake, but in my experience only more of the rapid, more efficient algae strains are able uptake the high nutrient load, and again out compete the corals. Creating a cycle that will not end until the source of nutrients is diminished . . .

Exactly, nutrients did increase after the hair algae disappeared.  PO4 went from 3-4 to 8-10 and nitrate went from ~5 to ~20 mg/l.  And I say "disappeared" since it stopped growing in the nooks and crannies and holes where neither I or the various algae eaters in the system could reach so the equilibrium shifted to a set of conditions that was adverse to nuisance algae (for the record I don't believe in fairy dust).  There certainly are cases where a system is being overfed and reducing the feeding and/or measurable nitrate and PO4 would reduce nuisance algae.  But in my experiences over the last 3 decades I was not seeing an association between PO4/nitrate and nuisance algae and coral growth and that prompted me into look a lot closer at the science since my experiences contradicted so many "gurus".    I do expect to see nuisance algae to be the first to react when a system is started or disrupted.  I have also seen systems correct themselves (3 times in 3 years in one system) without manual removal, just small weekly water changes and I found it fascinating the process pretty much follows the timeline Nilsen and Fossa laid out for new systems in VOL 1 of their "Modern Coral Reef Aquarium" series.  (I suspect many aquarists would be far more successful if they followed Nilsen and Fossa's recommendation to use mostly or all wild live rock and leave a system alone for the first 10 months.)  Manual removal of nuisance algae with small weekly or every other week water changes I've found to the most reliable way to shift the equilibrium of a system that favors corals over algae.   In Mike's system the negative effects of the increased PO4 has been very slowed growth of the Sinularia spp which uses calcium crystals to give the colony rigidity, the stunted growth of Pocillopora damicornis and the death of green birdsnest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple small things:

On 5/12/2017 at 11:01 PM, Bluemoon said:

. . . coral skeletal structure that utilizes PO4. Which will deplete the valuable resources corals need. . .

PO4 is not needed for a coral's skeleton per se, although it does seem to slow bioeroders that are trying to dissolve it when it gets incorporated into the skeleton.  PO4 is a limiting nutrient for a coral to utilize inorganic nitrogen for it's zooxanthellae.  The coral's symbiotic algae obviously needs it.  Coral's also need phosphate to make their own DNA, RNA and proteins including the proteins that make their colors.  If an aquarist strips out PO4 the corals have to be feed although if the fish load is large enough and well fed the corals should get their needed nitrogen and phosphate directly from the water before it's stripped out.

 

On 5/12/2017 at 11:01 PM, Bluemoon said:

. . . While I agree that many of the crucial nutrients for our closed systems cannot be measured successfully - I do believe phosphates are one that can be quite useful. If you can selectively control these levels, as is done naturally through diffusion in sea water. . .

All the biological process that are crucial are beyond our ability to test.  We can't test how much organic or inorganic nitrogen is being produced or consumed daily, we can test for any leftover nitrate but not urea or amino acids and we also can't test for nitrogen that's hidden in DOC.  We can't test how much organic or inorganic phosphate is being produced or consumed in our systems just leftover inorganic phosphate.  We can't test for the beneficial or harmful DOCs being produced.  We can't test for beneficial or harmful microbial activity. 

And you need to clarify "as is done naturally through diffusion in sea water".  Because natural diffusion of PO4 in the oceans shows reefs are sucking it up and dropping levels in waters around them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just realized I hadn't posted these links here yet.  The below links to the research by Feldman, et al, on activated carbon (GAC) skimming, skimate analysis, total organic carbon (TOC) and bacterial counts in reef systems I feel are important also.

Granular Activated Carbon Pt 1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1

Granular Activated Carbon Pt 2
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1

Total Organic Carbon Pt 1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3

Total Organic Carbon Pt 2
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2

Protein Skimmer Performance, Pt 1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2

Protein Skimmer Performance, Pt 2
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

Skimmate Analysis
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature

Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

And here's some thought provoking papers:

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/214/16/2749.full

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/1979/00000029/00000004/art00011

http://wap.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_48/issue_6/2266.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The Pagoda?  It was a 3" colony in 2000.  I'm guessing it's 35-40 lbs now.   I'm not as fond of Sarcophyton and especially Sinularia as I was and try to keep them under 10% of the total coral biomass now (obviously I'm not followin that dictate religiously :mellow:).  I've had several systems now where significantly reducing their biomass has noticably improved the growth of corals from other genus.   I can't say if it's reduced competition for nitrogen and phosphate and calcium (Sinularia use a lot in the spiculules imbeded in their tissue) or if it's due to growth inhibitors (Sinularia is researched for ditripenes as cancer inhibitors) or probably more likely a combination of the two.  

 

Anthelia though is a scourge I would avoid with stony corals.  After having it in this tank for over 1 years I got tired of it causing problems with some of the other corals  I ended up losing a couple nice acros.  However  I can see Anthelia being used to great effect in a tank with a wave maker where a lot of movement is desired along with having fish that might prey on stony corals.  (I've known aquarist to let Xenia take over and kill nice stony corals because they preferred the movement over the colors.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a Squamosa, easiest of the Tridacnas but not as  colorful as Maxima or Derasa.  This system has had a smaller clam species reproducing in it for a while and there is a small one that has attached itself to it.  As far as care they don't get any special attention or feeding. 

20170814_110254.jpg

20170814_110301.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

So, there are no powerheads? Where are the The bubbles coming from? Under sand filtration? Is there a sump? And what kind of lights are you using? How often do you do water changes? I went back to the beginning of this thread to make sure none of those answers were already there, but I didn’t see them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Christyef said:

So, there are no powerheads? Where are the The bubbles coming from? Under sand filtration? Is there a sump? And what kind of lights are you using? How often do you do water changes? I went back to the beginning of this thread to make sure none of those answers were already there, but I didn’t see them.

No powerheads in quite awhile, there used to be three but as they wore out I didn't bother to replace them.  The bubbles are from rigid airlines stuck under the rocks, about once a year they need to be cleaned as calcium builds up in the open ends.  This tank has 12" wide glass top cross braces and the bubbles are positioned to bubble under them to minimize salt creep.  No under sand filtration, in most places the sand is only about half an inch thick.  Sump is a 75 gallon tank that runs about half full.  Lights are a combination of BMLs and as they've died I've been replacing them with "PopularGrow" LED bars off Ebay.   (They're not a direct replacement, each PopularGrow bar is about 2/3s the output of the same length BML.)   Water changes are 15 gallons weekly, depending on evaporation an additional 5-15 gallons of RO is added before water changes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Yes clams reproduce sexually.  some species have separate sexes, some are hermaphrodites and some are sequential hermaphrodites.  I haven't been able to verify the exact species I have in my tanks but my suspicion is they are hermaphrodites.  Tridacna clams are sequential hermaphrodites starting off male and switching to females.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...