Sump ideas

[+KimP]

I picked up a 30 gal tank to use as a sump that will fit under my 65 gal. That will also leave room for an ato container under there. So I have a few ideas for the sump and no real direction yet. I'm thinking I'll be limited by the size, so I wanted to get any advice here before getting my head set on any one idea.

I'm considering putting:

live rock down there

a dsb

refugium to grow macro

algae scrubber

Not all together and possibly more than one of those, but maybe just one choice. No skimmer. So just room for the return pump, which I don't have yet, so also advice on internal vs external return pumps would be nice. I'll read up on it too.

Thanks!

[Radney711]

I will be following this if you plan to update as you go because I am also trying to decide on a sump for my new 65G rimless. I have been looking at the PM's and the Aqueon and others trying to decide if I want to buy a pre made sump or build one. I have also been looking at the Mag12 return pump or the Eheim hobby and silence pumps.

[subsea]

The fact that you are going skimmerless tells me you are intereszted in maximizing biological filtration. For your sump refugium, I recommend a mud/vegatable filter with no live rock other than to seed the filter with biodiversity. Instead of using live rock to seed your biological filter, use mature live sand. Get some from a friend or consider Tampa Bay Saltwater. I also like their uncured live rock for maximam biodiversity.

http://tbsaltwater.com/

My mud refugium is 30" long with three compartments. The first compartment is 4" with bioballs to break up detritus as raw water comes from display tank. This allows detritus to be assimilated into the mud filter. The mud filter is 20" long with less than 1" of substrate. The third compartment is 6" wide and houses the pump. I like pump in the water. The disadvantage is heat from pump radiates into the water. I do not have a problem with heat, so I go with simplicity. The macro (vegatable) algae performs the job of the ATF. The mud provides a matrix for numerous soft bodied worms and micro inverts. This is the miracle of multiple nutriant pathways which provide nutriant recycling and export.

Patrick

[subsea]

On another thread, you mentioned that you could not drill your tank. I have a HOB overflow that is designed for 1000GPH. When using HOB overlows, it is imperative to adjust skimmer box to drain no more than 1" of DT (assume five gallons per inch in DT) You must operate your sump with a minimum of five gallons (I suggest ten gallons) of freeboard. In the event of power failure or snail bloocking drain line, you do not overflow your sump.

Happy reefing,

Patrick

[+brian.srock]

I would recommend having the inlet pipes go all the way down to about 2" of the bottom so the bubble will rise. If you have the inlet at the top then you will have way too much noise and all sorts of salt spray everywhere. I wouldn't put LR and just keep it with a DSB and macro. With my 55g sump I had enough room for a bubble trap, predator tank w/ Frag station, refugium, and return section with skimmer. Since you have to go HOB look up a modified durso standpipe. It works the best and keeps it the quietest.

[victoly]

From what I've read up on ATS, they're kind of a hard sell in terms of total nutrient export in relation to real estate required. You could make a similar argument for refugiums with respect to nutrient export, although they have other benefits (pod breeding/moderating pH swings if you reverse the photoperiod). DSBs seem to have really fallen out of fashion as a result of the relative risk of anoxic meltdown and increased maintenance. You'll also already have LR in the DT, so why more in the sump?

Maybe a little more info about the tank would help guide the sump decision. The fuge sounds like the only one that I might be inclined to run out of the 4 that you listed. Well, that and a skimmer

[+KimP]

Thanks for the input. I was considering keeping LR in the sump because I was thinking of keeping less in the DT. Since I'm not going with cerameco anymore (boo) that's probably not an issue. I'd like to keep fish and mostly lps in the tank. As far as skimming, I've rarely used them and have had great luck. I have 2 hob skimmers that I really like, so that's why no need for room for a skimmer in the sump. Not positive if I'll use them, but I have them if I do.

[+brian.srock]

If you were looking for cerameco type rocks I do plan on making my own soon for my tank if you want custom pieces made. My Aqua C never really pulled much out of my tank until I started vodka dosing. Now I'm looking at a gallon of green tea every month. I do have GFO and GAC in my fluval though since I perfer to have crystal clear water in my tank.

[+KimP]

If you were looking for cerameco type rocks I do plan on making my own soon for my tank if you want custom pieces made. My Aqua C never really pulled much out of my tank until I started vodka dosing. Now I'm looking at a gallon of green tea every month. I do have GFO and GAC in my fluval though since I perfer to have crystal clear water in my tank.

Do you have the fluval on the DT or running off the sump? Also what do you keep in your refugium?

[+brian.srock]

Everything is in the sump now. In the refugium I have cheato and a chocolate chip sea star.

The flow from the frag section and skimmer return provide the tumble for the cheato.

The only problem I've had is my yellow banded brittle sea star houdinid into the refugium one day and helped himself to a chocolate chip leg.

[Timfish]

As far as using an internal or external pump I would only use few turnovers per hour through the sump and to keep it simple would use an internal pump. If you want a much higher turnover per hour through your sump then I would go with an external pump to reduce heat transfer to the water. Looking at the differences between Dr. Shimeks approach and Dr. Jauberts approach to DSB what it tells me is both work fine (which is best will take long term research I wouldn't bother waiting for). So I would go with what you think will be easiest to use and maintain. If you want liverock in the sump I don't see an issue with using eggcrate to keep it an inch or two off the sand/mud.

While it may be true DSBs may be falling out of fashion that is the way of fads anyway. It certainly does not mean they can not be effective ways to maintain reef systems. Dr. Jaubert's original research in the '80s showed reef systems could be kept for years with DSBs and no pumps, skimmers or external filtering systems. I am reminded of when I first heard wet/drys cause high nitrates. I was quite surprised as NONE of the systems I kept with wet/drys had measurable nitrates. And one wet/dry system I still have running now for over 15 years still does not show nitrates. So are wet/dry systems prone to nitrates? Maybe, but the picture is much more complex. I suspect once wet/dry filters were blamed by somebody many individuals who had problems because they were not maintaining thier system properly just used wet/drys as an excuse. And wet/dry's are still being sold and still keeping reef systems going.

[subsea]

I am like Tim, in that I have maintained numerous types of low tech systems. They all worked for me. I am not big on following the fad. I wonder if some of the manufactures of these hi-tech systems have slanted public perception by writing favorable comments on some of the hobby forumns.

Patrick

[victoly]

I guess my reply on the "fad" of DSBs is that there is some inherent risk that exists to maintaining a DSB that does not exist with something like a skimmer even though they achieve the same goal. Best management practices evolve over time, and just because something *does* work, does not necessarily imply that it is the best method in terms of cost, risk, maintenance, etc. I have never, ever heard of anyone nuking their tank with a skimmer, but I have have read several accounts of DSBs taking out fish. Although It is almost always because the DSBs were not properly maintained, my thought process is why risk it if another safer method exists?

My response to Tim on wetdry filters is similar. If you already have on in place, and are willing to keep up with it (especially if youre doing more of a fish only tank), then they absolutely have a place. But when you start talking reefs, where your goal is to get nitrates very low, then you're kind of going counter current by using a device that is incredibly effective at producing nitrates vis a vis NO2/NH3 reduction. It's not that success cannot be achieved, both you and patrick are testament that the opposite is true. However, is the time spent maintaining, and risk of problem equal to the reduction in cost? I'll let the accountants decide .

That's the great thing about this hobby, there are so many ways to succeed, and all of them are fun to argue over.

[Timfish]

. . . That's the great thing about this hobby, there are so many ways to succeed, and all of them are fun to argue over.

Honestly, I think "arguing" is an important part of my learning more about maintaining reef systems. It is sometimes the best way to get all the options out on the table and looked at. Hopefully I do not come across too negatively or condescending.

All of the wet/dry systems I've converted to just basic sumps I did so when it was convienent and saved labor, usually this was during a move and it simplified setting a system back up. This one system I keep original because it is the one I had Yellow Polyps (zooanthiid sp.) release eggs in I reported in my thread http://www.austinree...._ polyp porn As far as being more work after removing any mechanical filtration some are designed to include I have not found them to be more work than tanks with just empty sumps like the sump used on this system http://www.austinree...he +odds!

I also do not understand why wet/drys should produce more nitrates than any other system. The end product of the nitrification process is nitrates and as I understand it this bacerial process is the same irregardless of the ecosystem and the amount of nitrate present is a function of the food introduced to the system and how the other organisms ie micro and macro algae, corals (more algae), plants and facultive anaerobes use it. Having healthy coral growth in my experience is what will keep nitrates low at least in part by removing ammonia before bacteria have a chance to feed off it. I also prefer to do small weekly water changes but I have not looked at what would happen long term without water changes. However, as reported by Delbeek and Sprung in thier article in FAMA, December 1990 Dr. Juabert did maintain corals and fish without water changes and demonstrated a gradual drop in nitrates over a four year period from .350 mg/l to .013 mg/l.

However, is the time spent maintaining, and risk of problem equal to the reduction in cost? I'll let the accountants decide .

You make a good point and I agree. The Cost/Benefit/Risk equation is a huge part of setting up a reef system and unfortunately one I feel is frequently overlooked or poorly evaluated when setting up a system ¹. Too often I have seen systems set up with unnecesary or expensive equipment or convoluted filtering systems but no thought was given to what it takes to maintain said equipment, add impulsive and poorly researched livestock purchases and the system fails because the labor cost to maintain it apropriately for the animals selected was too high.

1. I am often asked "What's the best filter for corals" and spend several minute explaining marine aquarists are keeping many thousands of species and many of these species have both naturally occuring as well as aquarium adapted variants. Even very closely related specimans can demonstrate very different requirements and it is impossible to say that any one methodology or set of lighting conditions will work for every animal, or algae, that is available to the aquarist. Ideally the animal (or algae) lighting and filtering methodology should be researched before setting up a system. Also these systems are capable of lasting decades if properly cared for so long term planning is important.

[subsea]

Victory,

The fad that I refer to is hi-tech reef keeping. I suggest that our results are not the same. How many NPS do you have in your tank?

Do you have Sea Apples, Red and Yellow Tree Sponges, Red and Yellow Gorgonians, Red Feathers and Sea Squirts?

No argument that the deep sand bed is a biological filter which consumes a lot of oxygen. If you lose circulation, you will have

catestropic results. The same would happen if you lost circulation with a heavy fish load. If the circulation was lost long enough, then your SPS would put the same toxins as my DSB. I have no big time investment in maintenance for my low tech reef keeping.

I say "Viva La Differance".

Patrick

[victoly]

Victory,

The fad that I refer to is hi-tech reef keeping. I suggest that our results are not the same. How many NPS do you have in your tank?

Do you have Sea Apples, Red and Yellow Tree Sponges, Red and Yellow Gorgonians, Red Feathers and Sea Squirts?

No argument that the deep sand bed is a biological filter which consumes a lot of oxygen. If you lose circulation, you will have

catestropic results. The same would happen if you lost circulation with a heavy fish load. If the circulation was lost long enough, then your SPS would put the same toxins as my DSB. I have no big time investment in maintenance for my low tech reef keeping.

I say "Viva La Differance".

Patrick

I do not have NPS, nor is my setup geared to NPS. Low nitrate systems are more desirable for systems with SPS. If you lose circulation in ANY tank, you're going to have issues, so I feel like that point is moot. If i tip over my skimmer, I might have a temporary nitrate spike. If i get to messing with my DSB and my stirrers haven't been active or have died off, H2S is gonna get everything in your tank(see the venerable Randy Homes Farly http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/rhf/index.php) . The point I'm making is not that one method is 100% better than another. One has more inherent risk than the other. To your point, there are many high-tech reefing methods that are also high-risk (CO2 reactors and whichever flavor of carbon dosing is popular this week, come to mind) which, in my opinion, the risks outweigh the benefit.

Perhaps where we should focus our unbounded mental energy is on what exactly Kim plans to keep, which might help focus the conversation.

. . . That's the great thing about this hobby, there are so many ways to succeed, and all of them are fun to argue over.

Honestly, I think "arguing" is an important part of my learning more about maintaining reef systems. It is sometimes the best way to get all the options out on the table and looked at. Hopefully I do not come across too negatively or condescending.

All of the wet/dry systems I've converted to just basic sumps I did so when it was convienent and saved labor, usually this was during a move and it simplified setting a system back up. This one system I keep original because it is the one I had Yellow Polyps (zooanthiid sp.) release eggs in I reported in my thread http://www.austinree...._ polyp porn As far as being more work after removing any mechanical filtration some are designed to include I have not found them to be more work than tanks with just empty sumps like the sump used on this system http://www.austinree...he +odds!

I also do not understand why wet/drys should produce more nitrates than any other system. The end product of the nitrification process is nitrates and as I understand it this bacerial process is the same irregardless of the ecosystem and the amount of nitrate present is a function of the food introduced to the system and how the other organisms ie micro and macro algae, corals (more algae), plants and facultive anaerobes use it. Having healthy coral growth in my experience is what will keep nitrates low at least in part by removing ammonia before bacteria have a chance to feed off it. I also prefer to do small weekly water changes but I have not looked at what would happen long term without water changes. However, as reported by Delbeek and Sprung in thier article in FAMA, December 1990 Dr. Juabert did maintain corals and fish without water changes and demonstrated a gradual drop in nitrates over a four year period from .350 mg/l to .013 mg/l.

I'll argue over just about anything, with just about anyone, just for fun . My wife isn't quite as amused... With respect to wet/drys facilitating long term nitrate creep, i think it has to do with two things:

1) Over time, people (Personally, I am perfect and do not fit into this category at all... )get lazy and tend not to break down filters for maintenance. This leads to gunk in the bioballs themselves, which thanks to the immense filtrative success of bioballs, leads to high rates of nitrate production.

2) There is a perception that if you DO take your BB out to clean, that you will "wash off" the bacteria, or somehow break them in such a manner that will be harmful to the tank. This really just reinforces my first point.

I personally favor an empty sump, with just a powerful skimmer. Maybe a refugium if you want to mitigate pH swing. I like to let live rock and foam fractionation do the work for me. VIVA LA DIFFERANCE!

[subsea]

The use of the sump is the whole point of the conversatiuon.. From your point of view, it is only a station to use foam fractionalization and hide equipment. I find much more use for the sump. My method promotes nutriant recycling and feeding the tank biodiversity that is produced by the sand bed and the macro filter.

Kim does not plan on using a protein skimmer. This was stated on post #1. With that in mind, the emphasis on protein skimming in the sump seems like a moot point to me.

Patrick

[victoly]

We're going in circles here. Time to let others chime in. I'm done with the subject. Good luck with whatever method you chose Kim!

[Timfish]

. . . I'll argue over just about anything, with just about anyone, just for fun . My wife isn't quite as amused . . .

At least I'm in good company!

[subsea]

http://www.ecosystemaquarium.com/products/marine/miraclemud/miracle-mud

At the end of this linked article is a table with different size eco-system mud filters. It would be easy to build with a standard aquarium. I would recomend some type of miracle mud up to 10 pounds. You don't want more than 1/2". My mud filter has increased in depth over the years as detritus is assimilated into the mud filter. DSB and mud filters are large consumers of oxygen. IMO, all reefkeepers should have automatic back up power or automatic back up pump or automatic back-up air pump (less than $30 for one in display and one in refugium).

Patrick

[Teresa]

I've skimmed the info above so please excuse me if this information is already stated. Can someone simplify the differences between having live rock as opposed to a dsb in the sump for biological filtration?

[subsea]

Both perform nitrification and de-nitrificaqtion chemistry. The dsb, when constructed of fine grain media, provides a matrix for both bacteria and numerous worms of every discription. The micro inverts use up nutriants and reproduce, in so doing the dsb feeds the reef with live zooplanton of many sizes required by different corals and filter feeders. This is considered nutriant recycling. Another term used in the enviromental movement is "benificial reuse".

http://www.dtplankton.com/articles/refugiums.html

After you read this, you will know the benefit. Does the benefit outweigh the risk of maintaining a "nutiant sink", time-bomb or whatever else people choose to call a dsb. Make your own choice.

Patick

[subsea]

To further explain another dsb method, Jaubert Plenumn, It performs nitrification & denitrification chemistry using bacteria only, just as in live rock. As explained in Volumn 3 of Reef Keeping.

The volumn of the bacteria in the dsb can not be exaggarated. Doctor Schmiek describes the reproduction rate as doubling every 30 minute. Think about high tech control systems that detect ammonia in water and turn on powerful protein skimmers and then turn off when not needed. Bacteria in the dsb double in population when nutriants rise. They reproduce at phenominal rates and stop growing when nutriants decrease. During this process, they release adults and spores into the water column and feed your reef tank. I like my sophisticated control system. One for the bugs.

Patrick

[Timfish]

Here's my two cents (and probably over generalized): A taxonomist or microbiologist may be able to point to different species but it seems to me at the level most aquarists operate at the bacterial processes that perform the nitrogen cycle, converting ammonia to nitrite to nitrate, and the anaerobic bacterial processes that convert nitrate into nitrogen gas are the are the same irregardless of the methodology used. The differences between a DSB, mud or liverock are in the multicellular organisms and algaes that populate the different niches in the ecosystems the different appraoches create. One argument for DSBs is the anoxic areas will dissolve calcium and other components allowing water quality to be maintained without water changes or any other filtration. But as Victoly pointed out people have reported problems with DSBs fouling.

[gatortank]

What is the problem with putting live rock and having a DSB?