Minimal Filtration Methods

[Josh@BVA]

So Im curious at the levels of success people have had with a minimalistic approach to filtration. Right now i run NO SOCKS, NO SKIMMER and just a ton of bio from a 4-6 inch sand bed in main display, a bunch of rock and some bio balls in the sump. every now and then when I do a big feeding i'll throw some socks in the sump to collect the debris but for the most part it is all Bio.

I have 8 fish including 2 clowns, flame angel and a bunch of small gobies in a 93 cube. I run 2 MP402 and a gyre in the back corner so there are little to no dead spots for flow. I dont get much of any algae and when I do I just add a few more hermits and snails and they take care of it. There are about a dozen different species of coral including zoas, mushrooms, and leathers and euphelia. Tank has been running like this for over a year and I have done maybe 4-5 water changes since the tank was started

What kinds of minimalistic filtration strategies have you found in your tank

 

[Quietman]

All kinds of ways to do this right! One of the things I like best about this hobby.

Not sure about the term "minimalistic" though. A well managed deep sand bed (not going into that debate ) is a powerful filtration system and will still require occasional maintenance. I strongly debate (and continue to do so) with myself on next tank system as I've always liked the concept of a plenum DSB.

I consider mine "minimalistic" compared to most. I run a Skimmer, sponge for mechanical, bag of media (GAC/PO4 or equivalent) and now a UV filter - maybe I should say "Minimal +" now. No Fuge/Algae, No Media reactors, No roller mats. Took a year to settle in, but it's doing the job just fine now.

 

[MONTANTK]

While it wasn’t intended, I am finding my nano SPS tank to be pretty minimalistic as far as maintenance is concerned. I have two fish and 6 sticks right now and I’m finding it difficult to keep the nutrients up. Originally started doing 1 wc a week but waited about 2 weeks before doing the last one. Only did it because I felt guilty for waiting so long lol. All I do is test and dose right now. Seems more and more people are finding out ways to avoid the weekly water change

 

[Quietman]

I tried setting up a pico where I'd change 50% of the water weekly and that was only filtration. Talk about minimal. Thing is, you actually have to change out 50% of the water weekly or it doesn't work out so well.

 

[Josh@BVA]

i honestly should do more water changes but I've been surprised with how well its doing without. just kinda letting it ride. installing apex this weekend to monitor parameters a bit more and help inform my next decision on how to take it

 

[Timfish]

From what I've read the carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in reefs are pretty complex irregardless of how much, or how little equipment is used. But here's some of my "minimal filtration" systems, no skimmers, dosers, mechanical filtration, reactors or whatever else. I do like redundancy though and I have found regular water changes to be very helpful.

90 Gallon Mixed Reef


Mixed Reef started in 1997, 10-07-19


220 Rimless 450 view

 

[BTimms]

From what I've read the carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in reefs are pretty complex irregardless of how much, or how little equipment is used. But here's some of my "minimal filtration" systems, no skimmers, dosers, mechanical filtration, reactors or whatever else. I do like redundancy though and I have found regular water changes to be very helpful.

90 Gallon Mixed Reef


Mixed Reef started in 1997, 10-07-19


220 Rimless 450 view

How often do you do water changes?

 

[Dkmoo]

There must be some mechanism for nitrate and phosphate removal. A lot of the underpinning concept of "low filtration" methods is to try to emulate nature and "let biologically do its thing" to filter the waste.

However there is one key difference between nature and your tank - nature is a closed system but ur tank you are constantly feeding (unless you dont, and all your fish are eating only things that grow in the tank).

The stuff you put into the tank add to the system that eventually need to be removed, otherwise it will just accumulate and slowly tip the balance. A properly maintained DSB can convert nitrate to nitrogen gas that can then escape the tank but even that im not sure how phosphates get removed wo something like a gfo

A DSB thats not properly maintained will instead of converting no3 into n2, it will just traps the NO3. A DSB has a lot of capacity to soak up waste that you may not see any noticeable change in your params in the first year but it will eventually reach a tipping point and you'll be in for a nasty surprise a couple of years down the road.

A proper minimal/biofilter isn't just about breaking down the waste, its about being effective enough to remove out of the system all the nutrients that you put in (or most, since a small portion is converted to flesh/bone growth)

 

[Nano sapiens]

I ran this 'ultra low maintenance' 55g with just live rock/live sand for nearly 10 years (occasional gravel vacuuming and a couple small 5% WCs during it's lifetime):

Current 12+ year old 12g with only LR/LS and 10%/wk WCs (with excess detritus removal via gravel vacuuming):

So yeah, it's a very viable long-term 'method' since there is less to go sideways (especially equipment-wise).

 

[BTimms]

There must be some mechanism for nitrate and phosphate removal. A lot of the underpinning concept of "low filtration" methods is to try to emulate nature and "let biologically do its thing" to filter the waste.

However there is one key difference between nature and your tank - nature is a closed system but ur tank you are constantly feeding (unless you dont, and all your fish are eating only things that grow in the tank).

The stuff you put into the tank add to the system that eventually need to be removed, otherwise it will just accumulate and slowly tip the balance. A properly maintained DSB can convert nitrate to nitrogen gas that can then escape the tank but even that im not sure how phosphates get removed wo something like a gfo

A DSB thats not properly maintained will instead of converting no3 into n2, it will just traps the NO3. A DSB has a lot of capacity to soak up waste that you may not see any noticeable change in your params in the first year but it will eventually reach a tipping point and you'll be in for a nasty surprise a couple of years down the road.

A proper minimal/biofilter isn't just about breaking down the waste, its about being effective enough to remove out of the system all the nutrients that you put in (or most, since a small portion is converted to flesh/bone growth)

This is the kind of info I am looking for. Thank you for the information!

 

[BTimms]

I ran this 'ultra low maintenance' 55g with just live rock/live sand for nearly 10 years (occasional gravel vacuuming and a couple small 5% WCs during it's lifetime):

Current 12+ year old 12g with only LR/LS and 10%/wk WCs (with excess detritus removal via gravel vacuuming):

So yeah, it's a very viable long-term 'method' since there is less to go sideways (especially equipment-wise).

Forgive my noob questions. What is LR/LS?

 

[D E N I N O]

Sanjays nano has to qualify...

 

[BTimms]

There must be some mechanism for nitrate and phosphate removal. A lot of the underpinning concept of "low filtration" methods is to try to emulate nature and "let biologically do its thing" to filter the waste.

However there is one key difference between nature and your tank - nature is a closed system but ur tank you are constantly feeding (unless you dont, and all your fish are eating only things that grow in the tank).

The stuff you put into the tank add to the system that eventually need to be removed, otherwise it will just accumulate and slowly tip the balance. A properly maintained DSB can convert nitrate to nitrogen gas that can then escape the tank but even that im not sure how phosphates get removed wo something like a gfo

A DSB thats not properly maintained will instead of converting no3 into n2, it will just traps the NO3. A DSB has a lot of capacity to soak up waste that you may not see any noticeable change in your params in the first year but it will eventually reach a tipping point and you'll be in for a nasty surprise a couple of years down the road.

A proper minimal/biofilter isn't just about breaking down the waste, its about being effective enough to remove out of the system all the nutrients that you put in (or most, since a small portion is converted to flesh/bone growth)

What is your method of maintaining a DSB properly?
Thanks for the info!

 

[Dkmoo]

Some additional thoughts on my "in must equal out" point above. hopefully it'll help OP to find his own long term success

I'm not saying that one method is better than the other, there are a lot of ULMS success stories (like @Nano sapiens - great tanks btw). the key here will always be reaching that equilibrium point between what you put in and what gets taken out. A lot of the export mechanism also becomes more effective "the more the build up is" so even you don't do anything different, then "eventually" the tank will reach that "break even point" and equalize your in and out.

For example, assume you put in 10 "parts" of Nitrogen in the form of fish food per day. The 10 N is going to end up somewhere in your tank - maybe 2 Ns gets bind up in your biomass in the form of fish growth, that mean 8 Ns are flowing in your tank somewhere that eventually becomes 8 Nitrates. Then assume you do 10% WCs every week, in that 1 week, you have accumulated 8 x 7 = 56 of waste Nitrates, so, if 10% WC is all that you do, then you will have to accumulate 560 nitrates in order for the 10% WC to equalize the "out" with the "in". So what does 560 Nitrates mean to your specific tank? maybe not much in a large tank so ppm gets diluted down, but could be lethal in a smaller tank. In practice, WC is often accompanied by vacuuming the detritus, so the N taken out is likely higher than the 10% so it may not need to accumulate to 560, but the concept of "there need to be a critical mass of concentration before the out can equal the in" remains.

That's just one example, but every mechanism, whether is WC, or skimmer, or fuge, or DSB, etc,, has this similar concept of "needing to accumulate to a criticle mass". So the question becomes - where is that break even point and where is the "maximum" threshold point that your tank can safely sustain? If the break even point is lower than the maximum threshold, then you will have sustainable success, if not, you'll eventually have problems. Where that point is is different for every tank based on the waste profile, nutrient uptake profile, and biodiversity of the specific tank.

So, whatever methods you use, long-term success depends on getting to that "point" before your tank crashes. the dichotomy of "ULMS" or "nature/Bio" method, vs the traditional "extra filtration" method is highlighted below

1) the ULMS methods relies on increasing the biodiversity to increase the maximum threshold to allow for enough room for the "in" to builds up and reach the critical mass to match the "out". it also relies on having the right tank mates that can thrive in such conditions. Success stories often have the same below factors:

a) very judicious in feeding, to try keep the "in" as low as healthy for the tank mates
b) have the right tankmates - ie, softies/shrooms/lps will generally be more tolerant. Also majority of the biomass is is corals, which actually is an AMAZING sponge to absorb and lock up nutrient/waste into the biomass. Fish on the other hand, have a much more "dirtier" waste profile.
b) have big enough a biodiversity/biomass - look at the two ULMS tanks posted above - the both have a huge amount of both biodiversity and coral biomass relative to fish.

In theory, if the above is large enough and the maximum threshold is high enough, you can get away with "not doing any" export, where the nutrient eventually end up in coral structures and the coral outgrows your tank. at that point you'll have to frag out your coral to make room, and "fragging" becomes your export method.

2) the traditional method, on the other hand, focuses on increasing the "out" to match the "in" as quickly as possible to get to the break even point before the tank crashes. Not gonna go into detail here but this is your traditional skimmer/fuge/wc/etc... approach. one thing i do want to point out is that this method probably has higher chance of success if your tank mates and tank makeup is not compatible with the factors listed in point 1) above - ie, you have a lot of fish and not enough corals, or if you have corals thats sensitive to higher levels of waste - SPS, for ex.

So, where does that leave you? that's something only you can answer b/c you know how much you feed, you know what's in your tank etc, whereas our recommendations on what you should do is only dependent on the tidbits of information that you post here. Hopefully the above can help you focus on what you should be thinking about. Finding that "break even point" is not easy since we can't ready measure how much we put in, vs how much is taken out, vs how much is bound by biomass. Highest success is usually achieved by doing doing a combination of both - there is no harm in trying to increase your maximum point while also trying to increase the "out" to get to the break even point faster. Unfortunately, The only true indication, if you got to the breakeven point, is time; and the only indication that your "maximum" point isn't big enough is after your tank has a problem. But, at the end of the day, that's what makes this hobby so addictive right? as an OG in R2R (@Paul B ) said - "reefing is not about the destination, it's about the journey".

whatever you do, just enjoy the process and have fun!

What is your method of maintaining a DSB properly?
Thanks for the info!

@BTimms - saw your question while i was typing my "book" above - sry if gave you the wrong impression, but i don't use DSB lol, partly b/c of the reason i initially gave that i'm not sure how P export would work there, and partly b/c i know it's not easy to maintain. My export is more of the traditional approach - I have skimmer and fuge. Fuge, in my mind, is one of the more effective methods not only b/c it exports both No3 and Po4, but it does it in a similar ratio as what you put in - (look up the redfield ratio, chaeto is about 16:1, which should be similar to the food you put in if you put in a high grade feed)

 

[40yreefer]

I think it really depends on what type of marine life you would like to keep in your tank. I've got one that's been running 20 years with only 2 small powerheads on it. Xenia do great, mushrooms, leathers, green star polyps. Wouldn't even think about putting a SPS in there. Wouldn't last 2 days. I think you will find that some will flourish and some will fade away and eventually reach an equilibrium. That's the way Mother nature works. I think it is prudent to research what you put in your tank first for what your setup/filtration is and definintly don't buy something just because it's pretty.
You can be successful with all types of Marine tanks!

 

[Nano sapiens]

Forgive my noob questions. What is LR/LS?

Live rock/live sand

 

[BTimms]

Some additional thoughts on my "in must equal out" point above. hopefully it'll help OP to find his own long term success

I'm not saying that one method is better than the other, there are a lot of ULMS success stories (like @Nano sapiens - great tanks btw). the key here will always be reaching that equilibrium point between what you put in and what gets taken out. A lot of the export mechanism also becomes more effective "the more the build up is" so even you don't do anything different, then "eventually" the tank will reach that "break even point" and equalize your in and out.

For example, assume you put in 10 "parts" of Nitrogen in the form of fish food per day. The 10 N is going to end up somewhere in your tank - maybe 2 Ns gets bind up in your biomass in the form of fish growth, that mean 8 Ns are flowing in your tank somewhere that eventually becomes 8 Nitrates. Then assume you do 10% WCs every week, in that 1 week, you have accumulated 8 x 7 = 56 of waste Nitrates, so, if 10% WC is all that you do, then you will have to accumulate 560 nitrates in order for the 10% WC to equalize the "out" with the "in". So what does 560 Nitrates mean to your specific tank? maybe not much in a large tank so ppm gets diluted down, but could be lethal in a smaller tank. In practice, WC is often accompanied by vacuuming the detritus, so the N taken out is likely higher than the 10% so it may not need to accumulate to 560, but the concept of "there need to be a critical mass of concentration before the out can equal the in" remains.

That's just one example, but every mechanism, whether is WC, or skimmer, or fuge, or DSB, etc,, has this similar concept of "needing to accumulate to a criticle mass". So the question becomes - where is that break even point and where is the "maximum" threshold point that your tank can safely sustain? If the break even point is lower than the maximum threshold, then you will have sustainable success, if not, you'll eventually have problems. Where that point is is different for every tank based on the waste profile, nutrient uptake profile, and biodiversity of the specific tank.

So, whatever methods you use, long-term success depends on getting to that "point" before your tank crashes. the dichotomy of "ULMS" or "nature/Bio" method, vs the traditional "extra filtration" method is highlighted below

1) the ULMS methods relies on increasing the biodiversity to increase the maximum threshold to allow for enough room for the "in" to builds up and reach the critical mass to match the "out". it also relies on having the right tank mates that can thrive in such conditions. Success stories often have the same below factors:

a) very judicious in feeding, to try keep the "in" as low as healthy for the tank mates
b) have the right tankmates - ie, softies/shrooms/lps will generally be more tolerant. Also majority of the biomass is is corals, which actually is an AMAZING sponge to absorb and lock up nutrient/waste into the biomass. Fish on the other hand, have a much more "dirtier" waste profile.
b) have big enough a biodiversity/biomass - look at the two ULMS tanks posted above - the both have a huge amount of both biodiversity and coral biomass relative to fish.

In theory, if the above is large enough and the maximum threshold is high enough, you can get away with "not doing any" export, where the nutrient eventually end up in coral structures and the coral outgrows your tank. at that point you'll have to frag out your coral to make room, and "fragging" becomes your export method.

2) the traditional method, on the other hand, focuses on increasing the "out" to match the "in" as quickly as possible to get to the break even point before the tank crashes. Not gonna go into detail here but this is your traditional skimmer/fuge/wc/etc... approach. one thing i do want to point out is that this method probably has higher chance of success if your tank mates and tank makeup is not compatible with the factors listed in point 1) above - ie, you have a lot of fish and not enough corals, or if you have corals thats sensitive to higher levels of waste - SPS, for ex.

So, where does that leave you? that's something only you can answer b/c you know how much you feed, you know what's in your tank etc, whereas our recommendations on what you should do is only dependent on the tidbits of information that you post here. Hopefully the above can help you focus on what you should be thinking about. Finding that "break even point" is not easy since we can't ready measure how much we put in, vs how much is taken out, vs how much is bound by biomass. Highest success is usually achieved by doing doing a combination of both - there is no harm in trying to increase your maximum point while also trying to increase the "out" to get to the break even point faster. Unfortunately, The only true indication, if you got to the breakeven point, is time; and the only indication that your "maximum" point isn't big enough is after your tank has a problem. But, at the end of the day, that's what makes this hobby so addictive right? as an OG in R2R (@Paul B ) said - "reefing is not about the destination, it's about the journey".

whatever you do, just enjoy the process and have fun!




@BTimms - saw your question while i was typing my "book" above - sry if gave you the wrong impression, but i don't use DSB lol, partly b/c of the reason i initially gave that i'm not sure how P export would work there, and partly b/c i know it's not easy to maintain. My export is more of the traditional approach - I have skimmer and fuge. Fuge, in my mind, is one of the more effective methods not only b/c it exports both No3 and Po4, but it does it in a similar ratio as what you put in - (look up the redfield ratio, chaeto is about 16:1, which should be similar to the food you put in if you put in a high grade feed)

The knowledge that I have taken in from the members in this forum is amazing. I truly appreciate this input. And will refer back to this post over the next months I’m sure.

 

[Timfish]

How often do you do water changes?

It varies, the 90 gallon I posted above was getting a 20 gallon water change every 2-3 weeks but since there was no ATO effective water change was more like 12 gallons depending on evaportion. The other's get roughly 5% - 10% a week.