On my new 240 gallon tank I have a skimmer, filter rollers, algae reactor, UV and refugium, very immature and needs help with nutrient reduction. On my 5 year old 90 gallon SPS dominant tank that is full of coral. I have nothing. In time the tank absorbs everything that goes in. Chaeto eventually died off, and the corals looked dull with the skimmer on. The filter socks don't ever need changing, they are mesh and just sit in the sump with water going through. I haven't had any filtration on the SPS tank for 1 year now and it looks better then ever.
Is it feasible to remove the skimmer? Could it solve the decades-long problem of nutrient accumulation?
- Thread starter Belgian Anthias
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I have to use a fuge even with three skimmers to keep residual P numbers in check. If I do not prune the chaeto or get lazy with water changes or adding iron (ferrion), then the chaeto can slow down and P can rise a bit.
I would likely have to use GFO, Al Oxide or Lan Chloride if I did not have a fuge too.
I strongly advise most of you with newer tanks to understand what is happening with your aragonite binding phosphate and how it might be working now, but cannot do it forever. In the end, you will have a larger bill to pay.
I would likely have to use GFO, Al Oxide or Lan Chloride if I did not have a fuge too.
I strongly advise most of you with newer tanks to understand what is happening with your aragonite binding phosphate and how it might be working now, but cannot do it forever. In the end, you will have a larger bill to pay.
There has yet to be anybody or any method that has found a way for a tank to find it own balance in a complete way. This is not theory, but in practice. Balance can happen with nitrate since anoxic bacteria can exist and turn no3 into nitrogen gas, but there is nothing for phosphate. Balance cannot happen with import of major and minor elements and removal of other things. The tank will always need something from you wether it be even pruning chaeto and providing it with traces for growth, using GFO, skimming more, or whatever. IME, the best that you can hope for is a linear and predictable increase that you can account for with an export method, but this is still somewhat of a fantasy since nothing is ever that predictable... but you can do a pretty good job even with some fluxuations.
For example, I have to prune my corals back to nearly nothing about every three years since they get too big and take over the tank. The fish load stays the same. The corals use some P, but when I prune them back, the chaeto has to take over since 1" frags do not use what dinner plate colonies use. ...so you always have to adapt and modify, but this is part of it. I only test P like once every few months, so it is not a daunting task, but I also have the skimmers which do a LOT of the heavy lifting for me.
I will also say that I am in this for the long term and make decisions based on 5 years from now. I could cut back on a lot things and suffer no affects for years, but eventually, my tank will need me to remove that P that the aragonite bound, replace the pods, mini brittle stars, etc. that need very low residual N and P to live (these are sensitive inverts that cannot live at higher levels), etc. When some people on this thread have asked for long-term results, they have seen a year or two work and then see what happened afterwards.
I forgot about all of the sensitive inverts, but I have a lot and I love them even though I barely see them. I have thousands of mini brittle stars that do a lot of cleanup work. I also have a wide variety of pods, sponges, worms, etc. that also can suffer and higher N and P levels. Again, you can replace the work that all of these do with some other method than a skimmer, but if you want these things, you HAVE to keep these residual levels low which means that you will have to use some sort of method.
I have totally seen calcification slow down as residual N and P levels increase. First coralline and your trickier acropora at lower levels and then other. Then loss of some inverts that I like, or them slowing down too. This is my actual experience and not from studies or other dogma - even though I love me some studies, only too few actually matter in our little boxes and even fewer are broad enough to apply to more than usually the the few species or two that they apply to. Best example is the study that showed that GAC caused HLLE, but it was done on fish that are not usually suitable to the aquarium trade and can get HLLE anyway - since I use GAC and never have gotten HLLE in three decades, I like this study, but am not down with the results.
I just want people to understand that nobody yet has found a way to not export stuff and have a great long term tank. I don't care if anybody wants to have a skimmer do part of that exporting, but something needs to do it.
LPS Bum
Well-Known Member
Can you have a successful reef without a skimmer? Sure. If you can find other ways (refugiums, algae scrubbers, large and very frequent water changes, etc) to successfully remove organics and wastes before they degrade water quality, then go for it.
Personally, having seen what my skimmers pull out each week, I would never consider running a saltwater system without them.
Personally, having seen what my skimmers pull out each week, I would never consider running a saltwater system without them.
malacoda
Valuable Member
Quite an informative and detailed response to my question. Very helpful info for me. Thank you for taking the time @jda, much appreciated!
@Belgian Anthias — my apologies if I in anyway highjacked the thread. Just felt my question might helpful to others who are debating whether or not to employ a skimmer in their own unique setups (and for what given purpose) ... and thought it may also spark further thoughts and dialogue to your discussion.
No argument here. Specifically in regards to phosphate...
Some of our very common reef keeping procedures also remove phosphate, but this is not so obvious since it's hidden from our unaided eyes. Every time a water change is performed, millions of bacteria, archaea, viruses and other micro organisms are removed and then the resident aquarium population repopulates (phosphate removal via microorganism removal, then phosphate sequestration via microorganism reproduction...over and over again). Same thing happens when detritus and all it's associated organisms are regularly removed. If these two actions are performed regularly, then they certainly help with phosphate management (and for certain systems may even be effective enough that no other phosphate removal processes are needed).
Since I have done both of these regularly for well over 10 years and have only LR and LS for filtration, I have come to believe that this may be the main reason why I've been able to keep a small mixed reef aquarium for so long with undetectable PO4 levels.
This type of regular water change/detritus removal is much more difficult/costly in a large system, hence the deployment of various methods to control phosphate buildup.
malacoda
Valuable Member
LS ... live sand I take it? Or live sponge? BTW - your tank was one of the handful that inspired me to get into the hobby back at the start of 2016. Thanks for posting the FTS earlier. Hadn't see a pic in a while and nice to a recent one to follow the progression.
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
In a closed environment it is possible some nutrients are used up, creating an unbalance, certainly if they are chemically removed without respecting the basics for growth. In an aquarium always some nitrogen is exported due to denitrification, so, nitrate build up is caused by the way a closed system is managed.
Organic carbon is the energy source for heterotrophs. In normal conditions, when all organic carbon present in organic waste is used up, the organic waste is broken down to its elements, most carbon is used to produce energy ,released as CO2, the rest is used for growth. This means most nitrogen, phosphorus, and other building materials once part of the bio waste are left over after all organic carbon is used up. What is left over is then used up by slower growing autotrophs that may use the produced CO2 to produce the energy needed, and use up the available building materials not used by the heterotrophs. This way nature limits heterotrophic growth, making it possible a balance can be found between consumers, reducers and producers, to close the carbon and nitrogen cycles
in a system using a skimmer this balance cannot be found without surpluses. In order to get rid of the surpluses in a natural way, one must restore the balance with nutrition adapted to the circumstances. This is possible with AAM.
Algae filters cannot ensure sufficient growth if all conditions are not met, including sufficient light and CO2. In the filtration chain, the waste is first broken down and CO2 is produced, then the CO2 and everything left over after complete remineralization is used for new growth which can be harvested to be reused as food.
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
I can conclude that the use of a skimmer does not contribute to a balanced removal of the nutrients that are fed and as a result of these nutrients will remain and accumulate in the tank.
In a nutrient-poor reef aquarium with mainly stony corals this will usually only manifest itself after a very long time and then it is good to realize where the problem comes from and how it originated, which can usually lead to a simple solution.
Why can nitrogen build up slowly in a well lit aquarium? That is a question that I have often asked myself in the past and the answers have been sought. Why don't the photoautotrophs use the available nitrogen? Why is a balance between decomposers and producers not achieved in any normally fed aquarium?
Producers, makers of organic substances with CO2 produced by the decomposers, have access to a theoretically inexhaustible and free source of energy, light.
Answering the questions will solve most if not all filtration issues.
Should we be thankful to the skimmer by making sure corals don't get overgrown? Or does it mainly depend on what we add to the tank without the assurance that what's left can be effectively removed.
Most tanks only have a passive filtration capacity, which means that the load-bearing capacity cannot be adjusted as desired. This is very easy to adjust.
A skimmer can be used at the beginning of the filtration chain but also at the end of the chain. If used in the end, why use a skimmer and not activated carbon or a polymer developed for that purpose.
Polymers are being developed which remove dissolved organic compounds in a balanced way, without distinguishing between polar or non-polar and can therefore also be used at the beginning of the chain without causing problems in the longer term. And then I see no reason to use a skimmer anymore.
A frequently published argument is the added value as an aerator. Also for this claim few or no references are added which provide useful information that can confirm this. It seems so obvious!
If anyone has any useful references on this topic, I'd love to hear them.
In a nutrient-poor reef aquarium with mainly stony corals this will usually only manifest itself after a very long time and then it is good to realize where the problem comes from and how it originated, which can usually lead to a simple solution.
Why can nitrogen build up slowly in a well lit aquarium? That is a question that I have often asked myself in the past and the answers have been sought. Why don't the photoautotrophs use the available nitrogen? Why is a balance between decomposers and producers not achieved in any normally fed aquarium?
Producers, makers of organic substances with CO2 produced by the decomposers, have access to a theoretically inexhaustible and free source of energy, light.
Answering the questions will solve most if not all filtration issues.
Should we be thankful to the skimmer by making sure corals don't get overgrown? Or does it mainly depend on what we add to the tank without the assurance that what's left can be effectively removed.
Most tanks only have a passive filtration capacity, which means that the load-bearing capacity cannot be adjusted as desired. This is very easy to adjust.
A skimmer can be used at the beginning of the filtration chain but also at the end of the chain. If used in the end, why use a skimmer and not activated carbon or a polymer developed for that purpose.
Polymers are being developed which remove dissolved organic compounds in a balanced way, without distinguishing between polar or non-polar and can therefore also be used at the beginning of the chain without causing problems in the longer term. And then I see no reason to use a skimmer anymore.
A frequently published argument is the added value as an aerator. Also for this claim few or no references are added which provide useful information that can confirm this. It seems so obvious!
If anyone has any useful references on this topic, I'd love to hear them.
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
A rock covered with periphyton may add nutrients to the environment or retrieve nutrients from the environment, depending on the growth rates of the moment.
Anoxic or anaerobic? Sometimes confusing.
There are no anoxic bacteria! There are anoxic conditions. Anoxic is a condition <0.5ppm DO
Not all denitrifiers need an anoxic environment to use their anaerobic pathway.
Bacteria follow an aerobic or and an anaerobic pathway.
Some bacteria ( Acinetobacter sp.) are able for simultaneous nitrification and denitrification and will create an anoxic condition within the cell in a normal oxygen rich environment, this way able to denitrify using their anaerobic pathway.
Other denitrifying bacteria , such as Thiobacillus denitrificans, are able to switch between an aerobic and anaerobic pathway, depending on the biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the zone where they are active, They use HS and sulfur( BADES), available in most biofilms, produced everywhere in the tank. They do not need an anoxic environment.
Most heterotrophic denitrifiers only can use an anaerobic pathway and need anoxic conditions to be able grow. The process is called anaerobic dessimilation ( remineralisation) They decompose organic material to retrieve organic carbon to make sugars resulting in ATP, energy.
Can you explain why terrestrial phoshorus (phosphate) will not allow ( anoxic?) bacteria to grow?
You are blaming phosphate availability to be responsible for bad growth, dying algae. You are saying +- 2ppm phosphate may be responsible? Is 2ppm too high? Why?
Denitrification takes place everywhere a biofilm may grow, in normal aquarium conditions.
The denitrification capacity can be easily adjusted without denitrators by promoting BADES.
Using AAM, active algae management, the N/P balance can easily be restored without denitrification or GFO , using for the target nutrients modified feed. Also when using a skimmer!
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
I advise to keep the nutrient reserve below 10/1, this to prevent the nutrient reserve may become responsible for phosphate to become the growth limiting factor. if 0.2 ppm phosphate a nitrate level below 2 ppm or if 0.1 ppm a nitrate level below 1 ppm. The lower the phosphate level the more important a low nitrate level. To decent the phosphate level 0.1ppm by growth about 1ppm nitrate is needed, to decent the nitrate level with 10ppm harvesting growth, +-1ppm phosphate is needed. Using AAM, this is not needed because the nutrient balance in the refuge is managed in function of the needs by adding for the target nutrient modified feed.
Technology does not depend on hardware, it is about how using hardware, but mainly how to make good use of natural processes taking place without any hardware, which is for free.
You used Nopox and you claim the tank was cycled.? My god. Nopox is growth based, it is about growing enough heterotrophic bacteria by adding organic carbon. You should be aware this removes nitrification capacity because it limits the availability of ammonium for nitrification and the nitrogen source for other slower growing organisms which are mainly producers. This way the balance between consumers, reducers and producers is limited to consumers and reducers. Corals are consumers but are dependable of reducers and producers (symbiodinium) present in their holobiont. The symbiodinium may have a very high supply of essential CO2 but very little of everything else.
In a new tank, where did all that nitrogen come from? 200 ppm nitrate represents about 0.4 grams protein/liter or 1 gram food with 35% protein/liter.
To assimilate nitrogen using nopox protein has to be produced due to bacterial growth, the basics for growth must be respected. nopox does not export nitrogen, everything stays in the tank and will come back if not harvested. A skimmer may remove max +- 35%.
Before adding the first fishes, the tank should have been conditioned.
A cycled tank is a tank in which everything is present needed to close the nitrogen and carbon cycles. This takes +- 3-4 weeks. A conditioned tank is a cycled tank able to support the bioload you are going to add.
Try to manage the tank making use of what is present by nature, without adding stuff as nopox or other things one does not need and which messes up the natural nutrient balance completely.
I don't think you fully grasped what I said.
Already mentioned 10:1. Also noted others have claimed 20:1. Hence we are still learning.
Reason my nitrates were 160 plus was because I stress tested my system by increasing the ammonium chloride added to measure if at close to double the dose recommended would my ammonia and nitrites process down to zero and they did. Ammonia was raised to 3 ppm plus. kit has limited ranges so I went off what I added as my base. This was done repeatedly prior to adding fish.
A also added red food coloring to confirm flow through my filter. Seems that also contributes to nitrates. Both times nitrates were elevated post 160 ppm came after adding food coloring. GAC was used to remove the coloring.
NoPox was added with MB7. Source of the heterotrophic bacteria that ultimately utilize bound oxygen when DO is below 1 ppm. My addition of NeoPhos was the catalyst for bringing the nitrates down since NoPox and MB7 alone weren't doing it.
I don't subscribe to the theory of ultra low anything to all solutions. Not impossible to maintain reef tanks with elevated phosphates beyond the magical 0.03 plus my test kit only reads down to 0.25 therefore no clue where exactly it is. It's a proof of concept on filtration and not yet at a point of adding corals plus for this I may just add softies which aren't as fickle about not being extremely low.
Nitrates are below 20 ppm because again test kit only goes that low. In both cases the next reading is zero and neither show that therefore it is safe to assume I'm not bottoming out my nutrients. Probably because I feed heavily. Yet my nutrients aren't rising above lowest kit value and I perform zero water changes.
Goal is to validate my understanding of decomposition and how to best naturally achieve a balanced process where periodic ICP testing can identify what I'm lacking and address that versus large volumes of water changes. Don't know if achievable but I'm going to find out. Not my first rodeo. Did similar in the 80s with an undergravel filter and air stone and 4" of undisturbed gravel. Although that system took months to stabilize and was at least six months before I got it below 20 ppm. I know. Many discount undergravel filters. My experience tells me otherwise. Fact is my experience is all I focus on. It's only theory until put to practice and mistakes made and learned from. No real short cuts.
Did the same experiment in the 90s with an Eheim canister filter but that never got below 40 ppm and have concluded likely because the flow was too fast and DO always at higher levels than would allow an anoxic environment. Oddly, it was when that canister was at it's dirtiest and flow reduced that my nitrates would drop to 40, otherwise they would hover around 80 which being fish only wasn't much of a concern. No water changes, either. Filter was cleaned about every six months.
The concept is simple, food plus bound oxygen in an environment devoid of DO and denitrification takes place. This is what likely happens deep inside porous rock where regardless of tank flow the movement of water is reduced, nitrification exhaust all DO and an anoxic environment is created. Catalyst being carbon which could be dosed or just allowed to naturally enter from the decomposition of detritus. Something that oddly we devote extensive effort to eradicate then dose with carbon.
Reason we don't conduct massive whole tank water changes daily to deal with ammonia and nitrites is because we filter those down to nitrates. Do the same for nitrates and the only reason for water changes is to replenish necessary elements for which many if not all can be solved by dosing.
Something not considered is the affects of denitrification on alkalinity. It's the inverse of nitrification where acids drop it yet denitrification adds base. Doesn't appear to be a one for one exchange from my research but will reduce some of the dosing required to maintain that element.
Final step of decomposition is mineralization where bound calcium and magnesium along with other elements are released. What I've not been able to determine is how long this process takes. However, at some point it will happen and why the mulm left from decomposition is vital and something farmers learned long ago and treat as gold when it comes to growing crops.
Contact time is the key to making this work. Something achieved by either having a large amount of media and/or slow flow rate to achieve nitrification that fully utilizes and strips all DO below 1 ppm. I've accomplished that but still in the early stages and will need several more months to confirm as I add more life and test the limits before any one component can no longer be kept within safe ranges. Once I'm ready to add corals then I'll obtain Hanna checkers for both Nitrates and phosphates. Until then staying below where I'm at is fine for where I'm at in this experiment. Can't complain too much about zero ammonia, zero nitrites, nitrates below 20 ppm, phosphates below 0.25 ppm and ugly brown phase now ending, I have one to two hair algae which I'm building a CUC to resolve and for the most part seems like a success.
No skimmer. No socks trapping detritus. No water changes. Replace dirty filter pads only because I like gin clear water. Plus I rinse my GAC when changing filter pads just to keep it from clogging so it does it's job which is to remove yellow water. GAC replaced only when water no longer clear. Budget friendly too.
Last edited:
TastyScrants
Active Member
This thread has been a great read!
I’m running a 170L tank with a redsea rsk300 (rated 600L for mixed reef) in the sump. I have 9 fish, mainly LPS and soft corals and a rainbow monti, and feed heavily (pellets and up to 3x frozen cubes a day, plus reefenergy for my coral - I’ve also just ordered some pods, rotifers and phyto). Since I started the tank I’ve struggled with 0 measurable nitrate and phosphate. I think this is due to the skimmer pulling out too much waste before it gets a chance to deteriorate (this is with my sump flow dialled down to 500L/h from 2000L/h).
I’ve now switched my skimmer off and I’m going to leave it off until my nitrate and phosphate re-accumulates to desirable levels.
I think the skimmer is too big for my tank despite my heavy bioload (this skimmer pulls out lots of dark waste), but this experience has definitely given me a nudge towards going skimmerless and looking for an alternative such as an ATS or refugium.
Or maybe the time has come for us to stop viewing this as a skimmer v skimmerless discussion, and thinking more about how long should I run a skimmer for each day?
Heres some pics of mine.
I’m running a 170L tank with a redsea rsk300 (rated 600L for mixed reef) in the sump. I have 9 fish, mainly LPS and soft corals and a rainbow monti, and feed heavily (pellets and up to 3x frozen cubes a day, plus reefenergy for my coral - I’ve also just ordered some pods, rotifers and phyto). Since I started the tank I’ve struggled with 0 measurable nitrate and phosphate. I think this is due to the skimmer pulling out too much waste before it gets a chance to deteriorate (this is with my sump flow dialled down to 500L/h from 2000L/h).
I’ve now switched my skimmer off and I’m going to leave it off until my nitrate and phosphate re-accumulates to desirable levels.
I think the skimmer is too big for my tank despite my heavy bioload (this skimmer pulls out lots of dark waste), but this experience has definitely given me a nudge towards going skimmerless and looking for an alternative such as an ATS or refugium.
Or maybe the time has come for us to stop viewing this as a skimmer v skimmerless discussion, and thinking more about how long should I run a skimmer for each day?
Heres some pics of mine.
Those corals look happy! Especially that Goni or maybe it's Alveopora, I'm seeing 12 tentacles looks fantastic!This thread has been a great read!
I’m running a 170L tank with a redsea rsk300 (rated 600L for mixed reef) in the sump. I have 9 fish, mainly LPS and soft corals and a rainbow monti, and feed heavily (pellets and up to 3x frozen cubes a day, plus reefenergy for my coral - I’ve also just ordered some pods, rotifers and phyto). Since I started the tank I’ve struggled with 0 measurable nitrate and phosphate. I think this is due to the skimmer pulling out too much waste before it gets a chance to deteriorate (this is with my sump flow dialled down to 500L/h from 2000L/h).
I’ve now switched my skimmer off and I’m going to leave it off until my nitrate and phosphate re-accumulates to desirable levels.
I think the skimmer is too big for my tank despite my heavy bioload (this skimmer pulls out lots of dark waste), but this experience has definitely given me a nudge towards going skimmerless and looking for an alternative such as an ATS or refugium.
Or maybe the time has come for us to stop viewing this as a skimmer v skimmerless discussion, and thinking more about how long should I run a skimmer for each day?
Heres some pics of mine.
TastyScrants
Active Member
Hi thank you. It’s an Alveopora. It’s started sulking recently due to this chronic low nutrient issue. If they don’t increase soon I’m going to have to start dosing, which I really don’t want to do.
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
A mixed reef system is a low nutrient system compared to most marine aquaculture systems and filtration methods do not need to be optimized to achieve maximum efficiency, removing excess is sufficient.
It is the total oxygen demand ( BOD) , reminineralzation including nitrification , that will create the conditions for anaerobic processes to take place. In a normal nitrifying biofilm +- 40% of the population are using an anaerobic pathway.
If using filter columns the filtration capacity easily can be adjusted and the substrate can be adapted to the objectives
A BADES reactor works fine as a denitrator still having 2 ppm DO in the effluent of the reactor. But a reactor is not needed.
BADES will work fine in normal aquarium conditions using BADES columns
Using filter columns or any other bio-filtration in a refuge or reactor, DO should be kept above 4ppm. This does not mean one has to measure it, it means one has to provide effective gas exchange and circulation
What most likely happens deep inside very porous rock is sulphate reduction. Heterotrophic denitrification (anaerobic remineralisation using nitrate) needs organics. Deep inside pores most likely no nitrate is produced and the water exhange rate will be very low by which the heterotrophic denitrification capacity is very limited or not existing.
Water enters the pores and oxygen present is used. Entering deeper in the pores nitrate is used up ( denitrification) mainly by autotrophic sulfur bacteria making use of HS produced deeper in the pores due to anaerobic remineralization, using sulphate.
Where heterotrophic denitrification can takes place also DNRA ( from nitrate back to ammonia) takes place and of coarse sulphate reduction due to limited or no availability of nitrate. Instead of exporting nitrogen ammonia is produced. All this is normal and should not cause problems but it questions the dogma porous rock is good for promoting denitrification
Using up nitrate for growth increases alk.
Using ammonium-nitrogen for growth depletes alk
Nitrtrogen is exported ( closing the nitrogen cycle) only by using safely stored nitrate-nitrogen.
For every gram of ammonium nitrogen that is converted to nitrate nitrogen, 7.05 grams of alkalinity is consumed (CaCO3),
Nitrification talking place on a calcium carbonate substrate will have little effect on alkalinity, even may buffer the water. It was found that the effect that nitrification has on the alkalinity is fully compensated. One mole of CaCO3 is dissolved per mole of NH4-N converted to nitrate.( Green en Co 2001
AAM, Managing a mixed reef tank using active bio-filtration is about maintaining the growth rates needed to keep the water clean , finding a balance between consumers, reducers and producers. Active management means maintaining enough growth by feeding and harvesting, controling the nutrient levels by managing the nutrient availability due to growth feed
If one has conditioned a refuge using AAM able to assimilate 2 ppm nitrate daily at half max capacity, the capacity may increase if the nutrient availability increases. Because a minimal growth rate is maintained ( 2ppm nitrate daily) at all times by target feeding, the nutrient balance can be easily adjusted by feeding for the target nutrient modified feed medium.
The used numbers are just for information and can be adjusted as desired.
AAM is in combination of effective remineraization of all biowaste including DOC
Preventing remineralization is not a target, using a skimmer is therefore counterproductive.
To answer the questions:
" YES, it is feasible to remove the skimmer"
Could it solve the decades-long problem of nutrient accumulation?
I think the question was answered.Without planning bio-filtration for conditioning the system not using a skimmer may not be a good idea.
In most situations it is not the level of nutrients that influences growth, it is availability.
I think we are both saying the same thing. You’re getting deep into the science. Beyond my scope of knowledge or degree of detail I’d care to achieve.
Bottomline. Contact time ensures depletion of DO creating the required environment to allow heterotrophic bacteria to utilize bound oxygen thereby completing the nitrogen cycle.
Although I wasn’t aware that deep inside rocks it was sulphur that was available. Thought this bacteria would first prefer nitrates then sulfate. Learn something new although wouldn’t carbon reach the inner core?
Berlin method may no longer be viable in its original design due to lack of porous rocks. With imports being limited and current options being dense something will have to take its place such as marine pure blocks or in my case pumice. Latter being widely available in various sizes and relatively cheap plus due to gravel like for format much easier to apply. Low flow canisters/reactors replacing large amounts of rocks.
BTW, tested my alkalinity and it rose 1 dkh. I don’t dose anything since I only have fish and slowly building up my CUC. Best assumption is either the denitrification is adding it or perhaps the Reborn I’m using as substrate is melting in areas where nitrification is occurring. That was the reason I added it as a top layer above the pumice.
Need to get around to doing a build thread. Just waiting on more live stock and testing so I can do a good write up versus leaving questions unanswered. Plus I’m sure to make a few mistakes. Always do. Learn from them. Find solutions. Post those along with everything else.
One other thing. My mind often drifts because of others things and I have three test kits for nitrates. Two are strips for quick checks during cycling and those don’t drop below 20 ppm. Also have an API liquid and that has shown as low as 5 ppm. Totally forgot about that. Had to go back in my notes.
Starting to feel comfortable this test tank is working out but that won’t be confirmed until a larger bio load is present. Fingers crossed.
fragit
2500 Club Member
I just shut my skimmer off to see what happens, as I have no detectable nitrates with Hanna HR, and currently phosphate is 0.067ppm with Hanna ULR. I have a 120 DT, roller filter, skimmer,live rock in a DIY 40 breeder sump, and a 40 breeder remote fuge with Caulerpa. I change about 25gallons of water every 2 weeks, run 1cup of carbon in a mesh bag, and started with 1/2 cup gfo a few months ago and have been working on getting that dialed in. I have a mixed reef, 11 small fish, I feed home made food from a mixture of fresh seafood and frozen commercial fish foods, about 1/2 a house hold ice cube daily. Some Acro frags are doing okay, some really good, some not, I’ve recently lost birdsnest frag, and Stylophora frag which I think is strange because they are “easier” than Acros.. A couple of Acros are pale others have great color, a couple have browned out and RTNd. Tank is 5 years old started from dry Pukani (that was cured for 4 months prior to set up). It has been the biggest challenge getting nutrients and my biomass/biome under control. I will never start a tank with dry rock again! I’ve had some unidentified algea at the beginning, Dinos, power outage crash, hair algae, dino’s again and then more hair algea finally I can see light at the end of the tunnel and I feel the tank is coming into its own, but BALANCE is not easy to achieve. Our filters, and the components they are comprised of change over time as the system matures and equipment ages, and new devices are added. The aquarist’s challenge is to respond with calculated patience as to not disrupt any harmony in a detrimental way.
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
Thanks for the info!
Growth does adapt to relative high differences and derivation but there are limits. Using a skimmer growth must adapt to what is in hydrophilic compounds and to a lot of inorganic nitrogen directly released in the water.
You probably never used AAM and did not condition bio-filters for supporting the minimal growth needed. AAM means installing photo-autotrophs in a way they are able to close the carbon cycle, using up CO2 and all other elements and compounds produced by the reducers . In most reef tanks the balance between reducers and producers can not be maintained if not part of the biowaste is exported by mechanical filtration. A skimmer is needed.
AAM, Algae availability can be conditioned in advance to maintain the growth rate needed. Even when most nutrients in the supply are used up the minimal growth rate is maintained. Some experience is needed, also to harvest growth in time.
Macro algae may release a lot of phosphorus and ammonia when in survival mode that is often the case when nutrient availability is not guaranteed,.When an algae filter grows very well the nutrient availability reduces until growth not can be maintained any more and the macro algae go in survival mode, become transparent, releasing nutrients in the environment to keep everything going . AAM does prevent algae have to go in survival mode.
I have totally seen calcification slow down as residual N and P levels increase. Was this caused due to increasing levels or where the increasing levels the result of bad growth and something else was limiting growth,? You have seen it? How did you determine the reason for both, the increase of nutrients and slow down of calcification? How did you determine the connection and relation between the two? How did you compare calcification rates with growth ? On what ground your conclusion is based? Or is it only based on what you have seen when residual nutrient levels increase?
This way dogma's are created if one has enough believers. But it is not a dogma because one can see it.
We do know phosphorus enrichment does increase calcification rates, so , one may conclude calcification was limited by something else, if it was the case. ref: MB calcificatie Anthias 2020
Troubleshooting starts with the correct approach. Concerning calcification we may start with the main factors for coral calcification which differs from other calcifying organisms. But I would start with the reason why the nutrients are increasing because in most cases they are the messengers of underlying problems and not the cause.
I know growth of Symbiodinium is connected with calcification by internal pH regulation, managing carbonate and CO2 availability, CO2 which in a marine environment is limited available. Corals are heterotrophs and coral polyp growth and calcification rates are often not in relation due the different demand for carbonate availability and feed, although it is all part of the holobiont.
Growth rates determine the availability of nutrients in the water.
Using AAM is exporting nutrients in its natural balance. If balanced feed of marine origin is used the change nitrogen may build up is very small because some nitrate always is exported to close the nitrogen cycle.
A skimmer has proven that it does what it was made for, and that is best taken into account.
Happy reefing.
Similar threads
