No filter sock in sump? Why Randy?

[SaracensRugby]

Randy,

I read in one of your articles that in your tank you don't use filter socks, let detritus build in your sump, as well as have a large refugium. Also you use a little GFO if I recall correctly, as well as 20% water change per month. What are the chemical benefits of no filter socks, i.e. taking out the detritus before it can metabolize into phosphate, etc etc etc. Better for the corals, or the detritus is used by whatever you have growing in your refugium? Sorry if I oversimplified your husbandry and the chemistry above, but outside of water changes and dosing trace elements it seems similar to the Triton method, no?
Just trying to understand, thanks in advance!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The idea is to let filter feeders and other organisms feed on the particulates, rather than removing them.

My husbandry methods included:

GFO
growing macroalgae
organic carbon dosing (vinegar)
1% daily water changes
GAC (RoX 0.8)
skimming
large rock-filled refugia

 

[SaracensRugby]

The idea is to let filter feeders and other organisms feed on the particulates, rather than removing them.

My husbandry methods included:

GFO
growing macroalgae
organic carbon dosing (vinegar)
1% daily water changes
GAC (RoX 0.8)
skimming
large rock-filled refugia

Great, thanks. I have read other people doing 1% water change per day as well, is there some calculation that goes into that for you, or just minimal impact to the tank when doing a water change (temp, parameters, etc.), while still achieving the same goal of changing water?

 

[Ace6090]

Randy, Do you feel there is a benefit to the 1% daily water changes vs. 5% weekly or another frequency?

 

[Reef Able]

Randy, Do you feel there is a benefit to the 1% daily water changes vs. 5% weekly or another frequency?

Yeah I m keen to know the benefits of this as well tagging along.

 

[FlyinBryan]

There was a reefer here a couple years ago that had a thread where he did like 1 or 5 gpd water changes for 30 days. I don’t think it had any significant changes on his tank.
Also, I took Randy’s advice and am doing what he does. No filter socks. For me it was a result of forgetting to change them out because of my traveling.
I try to change ~45g on my ~405g system every other week.
I haven’t been able to get any detectable nitrates going in my tank. I hadn’t been seeing good coral growth and realized my Po4 has started creeping upwards. Due to a bit of over feeding with new fish in tank. I had removed gfo but added it back after this.
Hope corals get back to growing again!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Great, thanks. I have read other people doing 1% water change per day as well, is there some calculation that goes into that for you, or just minimal impact to the tank when doing a water change (temp, parameters, etc.), while still achieving the same goal of changing water?

Not really any calculation. it isn't enough for some things (like maintaining many trace elements) but it does keep exporting anything that is accumulating and importing some things that may be depleting,a nd the amount changed is balanced against the cost. In a tiny tank I'd change more, in a really big tank, less.

I discuss the 1% changes and what they can accomplish relative to other changes here:

Water Changes in Reef Aquaria by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy, Do you feel there is a benefit to the 1% daily water changes vs. 5% weekly or another frequency?

The ~1% daily I did was actually running for many 15 minute periods each day, so it was actually almost continuous. It is potentially less stressful on organisms to change water that way, and less stressful on me since I needn't match anything (not temp, salinity, etc.) and it runs automatically. I only needed to make up new salt water once a month or so and it did its thing on its own with a two line diaphragm pump on a timer..

 

[ChrisOFL]

I've been running without a filter sock for around 10 months now. I've come to believe this is more beneficial because polyp extension improved as the water became more saturated with floating particulates. The microfauna have increased dramatically, I'm thinking I may need a predator to handle all these spaghetti worms, they are starting to float around my tank they are so abundant. Pod populations are more sustainable with the extra detritus floating around as well. Give it a try and see how your tank responds over 30 days.

 

[Jimbo662]

The ~1% daily I did was actually running for many 15 minute periods each day, so it was actually almost continuous. It is potentially less stressful on organisms to change water that way, and less stressful on me since I needn't match anything (not temp, salinity, etc.) and it runs automatically. I only needed to make up new salt water once a month or so and it did its thing on its own with a two line diaphragm pump on a timer..

Would love to see some pics of your tank.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Would love to see some pics of your tank.

The tank is down now but was up for 20 years. Here are some pics through the years:

 

[SaracensRugby]

Not really any calculation. it isn't enough for some things (like maintaining many trace elements) but it does keep exporting anything that is accumulating and importing some things that may be depleting,a nd the amount changed is balanced against the cost. In a tiny tank I'd change more, in a really big tank, less.

I discuss the 1% changes and what they can accomplish relative to other changes here:

Water Changes in Reef Aquaria by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

Thanks again for the information. One last question, do you think throughput in terms of gallons per hour through your sump was important? In that some people, Triton method and others, suggest 10x turnover of your tank per hour through your sump. I have also heard somewhat the converse in that you want to maximize your equipments (refugium, skimmer, etc) exposure to the water, so 5x is ok. You don't need water blowing through your sump so to speak. Thoughts?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Unless you are using the sump as a place to take up a lot of ammonia (meaning not much rock), I cannot see how 10x is needed. What exactly would happen in 6 minutes in the main tank that needs to be 100% turned over in that time?

I think much slower is usually fine. Not sure how much slower, but it depends on the system.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here are some other pics I found of my tank

:

 

[FlyinBryan]

Thanks again for the information. One last question, do you think throughput in terms of gallons per hour through your sump was important? In that some people, Triton method and others, suggest 10x turnover of your tank per hour through your sump. I have also heard somewhat the converse in that you want to maximize your equipments (refugium, skimmer, etc) exposure to the water, so 5x is ok. You don't need water blowing through your sump so to speak. Thoughts?

So if I have 150g display I need to throughput 1500g!?! There’s just no way. At that point my sump is a river and not a filtering sump accomplishing anything. Maybe there’s something magical that happens with this new no water change method but I just don’t see it.

I was a noob several years ago at a lfs buying equipment for my new tank and didn’t know quite enough and a guy sold me a pond pump with that same notion of 10x turn over in the display going through the sump. Also had 2 power heads. I hooked it all up, turned it on, and it was just a torrent of water. Sand was blowing all over the place and the power heads. It didn’t mater where I pointed the inlets it was just so much water. It was just way too much. I dialed it way back with a much smaller pump and the tank seemed much more normal. I had a very successful tank for many years. I also focused more turnover internally with power heads.

 

[SaracensRugby]

So if I have 150g display I need to throughput 1500g!?! There’s just no way. At that point my sump is a river and not a filtering sump accomplishing anything. Maybe there’s something magical that happens with this new no water change method but I just don’t see it.

I was a noob several years ago at a lfs buying equipment for my new tank and didn’t know quite enough and a guy sold me a pond pump with that same notion of 10x turn over in the display going through the sump. Also had 2 power heads. I hooked it all up, turned it on, and it was just a torrent of water. Sand was blowing all over the place and the power heads. It didn’t mater where I pointed the inlets it was just so much water. It was just way too much. I dialed it way back with a much smaller pump and the tank seemed much more normal. I had a very successful tank for many years. I also focused more turnover internally with power heads.

That makes way more sense to me on both points. In my current 60 cube I don't know what the exact turnover through my sump is, but I know I had to dial it back as I bought a pump that was more power than I needed (just in case per the lfs), otherwise same thing, sand everywhere. I almost didn't need powerheads in the tank it was so strong.

 

[SaracensRugby]

Also, for further evidence on turnover, I submit this tank. I believe he said he has turnover of 3 times per hour. For a 10,000 gallon tank.

 

[erk]

On my current tank, I run ~5x turn over, probably far less due to head loss, etc. I don't run filter socks, carbon, or gfo on my tank. Just have a large rock filled refugium and a zeolite reactor for more bacterial surface area. Vodka dosing and a large skimmer are my main method of nutrient export.

With the low turnover rate, it gives a longer contact time with the skimmer and refugium. I did put small powerheads in my sump to keep as much detritus suspended as possible. It's food and I want to ensure it gets to the refugium/DT for all the organisms to eat. I will occasionally blow out the sump, but I really don't get a lot of detritus buildup.

The thing I have found most difficult in this tank is maintaining NO3/PO4. I have killed a lot of coral by starving the tank. Not on purpose, but finding that sweet spot between vodka dosage and feeding has taken a long time. Mostly because I can be impatient/lazy and don't test NO3 on a regular basis or really any basis.

 

[AzReefn]

@Randy Holmes-Farley I have a question... I assumed the turnover rate is only the return pump ie: water moving through the sump, or does it include the powerheads? I have approx 110G water volume between my sump and DT. Currently I have a Rio+ 2500 (592gph @ 3' head) return pump and two Sicce voyager 3 powerheads (2400gph combined). DT is a 90G 48x18x24 and sump is 30G. So my turnover (through sump) is ~5.4x gph, would this be correct? I'm asking because I've seen 20x turnover for SPS. Does this mean 20x through sump or is it "water movement" from the return pump and powerheads that make up the 20x? My total gph combined is ~27x, is this where I should be having only soft and LPS? Sorry if these are dumb questions but I'm very new to the hobby I would like to remove my filter sock as well but I'm trying to grasp what I need to do so.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Randy Holmes-Farley I have a question... I assumed the turnover rate is only the return pump ie: water moving through the sump, or does it include the powerheads? I have approx 110G water volume between my sump and DT. Currently I have a Rio+ 2500 (592gph @ 3' head) return pump and two Sicce voyager 3 powerheads (2400gph combined). DT is a 90G 48x18x24 and sump is 30G. So my turnover (through sump) is ~5.4x gph, would this be correct? I'm asking because I've seen 20x turnover for SPS. Does this mean 20x through sump or is it "water movement" from the return pump and powerheads that make up the 20x? My total gph combined is ~27x, is this where I should be having only soft and LPS? Sorry if these are dumb questions but I'm very new to the hobby I would like to remove my filter sock as well but I'm trying to grasp what I need to do so.

In the context of refugia discussions, it is (or should be) flow from tank to refugium and back, and IMO, 10x needed makes no clear sense.

That said, it is certainly possible that some people confound these different ideas: tank flow vs refugium flow through.