Tank Trials: Ultra Low Maintenance Tanks | BRStv Investigates

[Ryanbrs]

Just to clarify, the inverter in the UPS isn't the big problem (although it's an inefficient way to power electronics that consume DC, like DC pumps). The big problem is that the batteries in UPSs are just too small.

The Duracell battery you showed in the video has a rated capacity of 35Ah, which at 12V is about 420W total. My Vortech MP10 uses about 7W on Reef Crest at 100%. At that load, the battery you showed will last up to 60 hours, give or take a few hours to account for battery DOD.

This $144 UPS from Amazon, by contrast, has a total of 15Ah (according to the replacement battery sizes). This equates to around 180W of power. This would only run one MP10 for 25 hours at the very most. Not bad, but that's a $150 UPS. A battery like the one you showed in the video is much cheaper, usually around $65.

UPSs will certainly work, but they're not my favorite solution. Hooking a battery up to the battery backup port of a DC pump will be much cheaper.

Interesting, I certainly don't claim to be an electrical engineer : )

We were working with a UPS supplier at one time and they shared one of the reasons we got shorter run times than anticipated for the battery size was the internal inverter consumes considerably more power than the ~7watt pumps we are using. They also suggested that the larger UPS's with bigger batteries also have larger inverters capable of producing higher wattage AC power but it also consumes more power so there are instances where a smaller UPS may actually last longer on a single ~7 watt pump. End of the day he said we should find a UPS with the highest efficiency inverter, likely with the lowest output rating coupled with the largest battery. The aquarium needs just ended up being pretty different than the higher wattage PC needs.

Now that said this is way outside my field so I can't claim that to be accurate, just what the manufacturer's rep shared with me and sounded plausible at the time. It was many years ago but we did run some tests of various sizes/outputs of the same UPS brand and while the larger sizes always lasted longer, double the Ah did not produce double the run time on the single Tunze ac pump we used. I can't remember the exact run times but the difference and how they scaled was notable.

 

[Servillius]

The conundrum

Identifying the difference between correlation and causation. All too often a correlation of I did X and Y happened in reefing is translated into a "reef fact" as long as it sounds plausible. This is true even when there is very little evidence of direct causation and only a portion of reefers experience those results. I think we get closer to causation when we identify what other similarities the users share. To be frank with something like biopellets, GFO, vodka , refugiums and similar ULN type tanks the mass of users is so large that it is inevitable that some portion will have similar issues.

AT BRS we have the unique position that we talk to tens of thousands of reefers a year and on the phone, people are often able to give a better picture of what is happening. Most people on the phone are also a bit more likely to share some of the system or approach faults than they are on a public forum. I think one of the best examples of the disparity between what is commonly repeated on forums and what I see in person is "gfo will bleach your corals by stripping all the nutrients out and starving your corals." I believe this is 99% simply because it seems "plausible" and got repeated enough times, not because there is any evidence suggesting causation, just correlation in a small portion of experiences.

I guess it could be true that the resulting near zero phosphate causes bleaching but talking to reefers this is likely happening to less than 1 in 100 people. Just reading the reviews I think it could be even lower. This much I can guarantee, if anyone puts something they bought from us in their tanks and it kills corals we are going to hear about it. Considering the hundreds of thousands of pounds of GFO we have sold over the years there would be an overwhelming amount of negative feedback, we would have to have a special forces team just to field these calls and in reality, it is a question we get a handful of times a year.

I think the same could be said of the belief that activated carbon causes head and lateral line erosion (hlle). There might be a correlation there in a small percentage of users but if it was direct causation none of us would be debating it. There is such a huge critical mass of carbon users over multiple decades who have never experienced that its almost imposable there is simple direct causation without at least some type of additional factor.

Possibilities

So why do some experience issues with products like GFO but also similar ULN methods? It's the million dollar question.

• Maybe the tank is less than stable to begin with so any significant chemistry change stressed the coral. Keep in mind on a scale of 1-10 most people would not be able to visually assess the coral's health until it gets as low as a three or four and shows visual signs of deterioration or distress. Most people can easily be riding on the edge of 5 and never know it.
• Could be how they use it, maybe 20x the recommended amount.
• Maybe they liked how it tumbled so it turned it on turbo, ground it up and released a ton of fines.
• Maybe the 1 in a 100 are those who have rediclious levels of nitrate and an extreme Redfield ratio imbalance between nitrate and phosphate.
• It is valuable to look at who uses GFO, its often a mix of brand new reefers who use it just because it seemed like a good idea or someone who has very high phosphate levels and wants to get them down. I will note that very high phosphate levels are an indication of minimal contaminant export methods so users of a specific additive or food may have other issues than nutrients stressing the corals.

My best guess ( plausible theory) as to why there is a critical mass of reefers who both fail and find success with both high and low nutrients.

• Stability - Making drastic changes one way or another always has the potential to produce undesirable results. It will likely take 3-6 months for the corals to fully adapt to the new water chemistry. So change slowly and when you change leave it alone. Going high or low nutrients are very often knee-jerk reactions to either something negative going on in the tank or just the desire to constantly change things.
• Goals - The goals are different for reefers in different stages. In the beginning, it is often zero algae and fast growth so high phosphate levels inhibiting calcification may be an issue. In an older robust tank growth can actually just mean a lot of work managing growth so the tank doesn't get overgrown. Slower growth in older robust tanks may actually be desirable.
• Age of the tank - New tanks in the 1-2 year range are 1,000 times more likely to run into algae issues related to high nutrients. Old tanks often have very little habitat for algae because all of the surfaces are covered in coralline or corals. Older tanks also have a robust algae grazing populations most notably microfauna but also fish and inverts.
  
• Natural selection - A vast majority of the awesome 5-10 year tanks out there will openly admit they have had plenty of corals die and the tank is ultimately filled with corals with corals that survived. Corals are amazingly adaptive creatures so most will adapt to the environment you provide. So many of these tanks are just filled with "those that lived" in either environment. As long as that environment is stable.
  
• Extreme goals require effort - Most of the tanks that are examples of "why high nutrients don't matter" are the net result 5 year plus robust tanks that may have not always been that way but are now. For every example of a tank that shares this mentality and general maintenance practices, there is a pretty healthy share of failures overun with algae and didnt make it past year two because of that. Same can be said with ULN you need you make sure there is enough nitrogen and phosphorus for the corals. Similar to the oceans reefs, as long as is consistently above absolute zero throughout the day there is probably enough. It is possible there may benefit with a controlled more. In any case, most of the success stories will be those who emulate others successful methods from the beginning or look for a retail method that a critical mass of reefers have been successful using and resist the temptation deviate from what produces successsucess.

For what it is worth, part of the reason we do tank builds like the clown harem tank, BRS 160 and now the ULM tanks is you get a chance to follow the whole story from beginning to end. I think it is critical to know not just what's working now but how you got there.

For example, prior to this, there was a pretty significant debate if you can house that many clowns in a single tank. I think that debate is over, as long as you manage food and habitat aggression with a plan from the beginning and make minimal changes to their environment it is actually pretty darn easy. Same with the BRS160, this is a near zero nitrate and phosphate tank but rich with food input and you get to see the story from day one.

I can’t get over the fact we’re really at the point of suggesting the ocean is a bad model for coral environments. We may still have a lot to understand and a bit of extra nutrient might be a stopgap solution, but it feels like over a weekend we switched to 40 ppm NO3 is ideal. That’s wacky.

Thanks for the solid food for thought.

 

[jasonrusso]

I can’t get over the fact we’re really at the point of suggesting the ocean is a bad model for coral environments. We may still have a lot to understand and a bit of extra nutrient might be a stopgap solution, but it feels like over a weekend we switched to 40 ppm NO3 is ideal. That’s wacky.

Thanks for the solid food for thought.

What does the ocean know? It hasn't changed for years. We are trying to modernize things.

 

[Greaps]

What does the ocean know? It hasn't changed for years. We are trying to modernize things.

I think of the corals and our attempts to do better than the natural environment much like how we know how to artificially improve food production and quality.

 

[flagg37]

For the alk/Ca dosing my opinion would be to use kalkwasser in the softy tank with its presumably low consumption, dose 2 part on the lps tank (maybe even go triton meathod), and calcium reactor on the sps tank. It could potentially go over a year without touching it once it’s set up and dialed in.

 

[Ryanbrs]

I think of the corals and our attempts to do better than the natural environment much like how we know how to artificially improve food production and quality.

This is where the GMO vs organic tank debate starts

 

[jasonrusso]

This is where the GMO vs organic tank debate starts

That's what I was thinking but I wasn't going to poke the bee hive. [emoji1]

 

[rtparty]

For the question this week...here are my thoughts

Softy tank:
I'm not sure this tank really needs to be closely monitored when it comes to the big 3. Anything in the acceptable range of all 3 should produce solid results. Therefore, once a month water changes (or small daily changes with an AWC) should do the trick. That once a month may need to be large (50% or more) and periodic dosing will keep things where they need to be. Using Red Sea Pro salt would help since it is elevated to begin with. I just don't see the big 3 demand being too high. Worse case is kalk in the ATO or a simple 2 part doser setup.

LPS tank:
I think everything above fits this as well. Maybe add a third doser for Mag. My heavy LPS tanks have usually required more Mg dosing than a softy tank.

SPS:
This is where it gets a little more interesting. Let's say you use kalk in your ATO and have to leave for a month. If your ATO can't hold enough water and someone has to refill it, can you trust them to add the kalk properly? Or do you setup the ATO to be auto refilled by a reservoir connected to your RO/DI? (I don't remember if you guys have gone over the RO and ATO setups. I think so but don't remember the details.) If the ATO is setup to auto refill, someone will have to add the kalk. So kalk may not be a good choice here. (It may not be a good choice for any of the tanks.)

A simple 3 part dosing setup makes life super easy. With a couple probes and some redundancy, an overdose shouldn't happen and at least you can be alerted if it did.

While I've never had the opportunity to run one, a calcium reactor may be the easiest and most straight forward setup here. Make sure it's full before leaving for your trip and let it go to work. The proper size should last well over a month and a couple redundant steps will/should stop an overdose. (Overdosing is always my biggest concern when we automate this stuff.)

For my last point:

I know people are suggesting Triton but we've already seen a tank with that setup. Running it on any of these three is pointless IMO. Not to mention the total lack of space required for a large enough chaeto fuge that Triton requires. Welcome to the 2 foot cube club! *sarcasm*

 

[Gareth elliott]

The fact you are running full triton in the 160. Might be an interesting comparison to use another balling dosing method on the sps tank.
Aquaforest
ESV
Red Sea
Etc.

Or using a calcium reactor where you are less likely to mess with settings as well as less reliance on peristaltic pump heads where tubing stretches and requires periodic calibration.

 

[foozed]

I’ll look into a other ways to share the programming outside of the advanced programming we shared in the video discription.
I think the closest we saw that could somewhat achieve what we were able to with the Apex would be the Gradual Pulsing mode with pump A and B linked in a Reverse Time Delay cycle. I can’t say it will do the same that Ryan mentions in this video, but from the looks of their flow graphs in the manual it looks fairly similar.
-Randy

Is the IceCap module for Apex no longer available?

 

[Ryanbrs]

Is the IceCap module for Apex no longer available?

they are bringing it back. I think we are a month away : )

 

[rtparty]

they are bringing it back. I think we are a month away : )

Can it be used on the new 1k gyres as well?

 

[vio]

My List:

1)AWC with a large resovoir=Least maintenance.
2) Chaeto is better than carbon dosing.
3) GFO ans GAC are still easy.
4) A controller is a must have.
5) 2 main pumps are better than one (if one dies it's not an emergency).
6) Automatic/renote monitoring of everything you can. PH, Salinity, ORP, Temp, PAR, flo, leak points even DO
7) Use a 6 stage water saver and booster pump to 75psi=Less waiting around when making water.
8)Auto feeders but only for half the nutritional needs...still gotta do frozen and Mr. Chilli
9) LEDs...no bulb or heat issues.
10) The trident for alk,ca,mg is probably gonna eventually make the lost.
11) Ca reactor or dosing pumps no manual dosing.
12) Don’t skim, too maintenance intensive. Hook an ozone genetaror to it, turn it down so it doesnt skim and let it run.
13) Run a nitrate reactor, they are zero maintenance for year(s) at a time.
14) Filter socks....im not sold on roller mat....yet. But i do q 4-5 days instead of every 3.

Sorry but i disagree in some.
2) Chaeto is NOT the best way to lower the Nutrition , i refer 99% SPS , Sulfur Denitrification a way better ( Nitrate in special).
3) When have 2.5 to max. 4 ppm Nitrate , yes is easy to control PO4 via GFO ( Rowa)
4) Controller just 2 cents , NO need.
6) PH monitor yes, ORP yes.
7) Depend were you locate , 45 TDS in N.Y. is NOT bad.
8) Auto feeders......NO Thank You.
10) trident ?
11) Both works PERFECT.
12) NO Ozone , kill more then we NEED.
14) There is a way to skip the socks ( 2 extra small pumps behind Protein Skimmer , make it a way more efficient.
15) I will add. NO sand run B.B. in display tank , more flow , faster you remove the Detritus , the better IS.
16) Refuge , will be a must, lots of Live Rocks.
In my opinion.

 

[CurtnStac]

Love y'alls vids! I learn so much. Do you think sometime you could do a controlled experiment on bubble algae? There are so many myths and no solid way of easily and completely eradicating it. It would be nice to know the truth about what this algae is all about.

 

[vio]

Emerald crab may eat those , after they eat all bubble algae may go after coral polyps, i use Vibrant , works well , but use 1/2 dose, you still have to control the Nitrate .

 

[CurtnStac]

Emerald crab may eat those , after they eat all bubble algae may go after coral polyps, i use Vibrant , works well , but use 1/2 dose, you still have to control the Nitrate .

Yeah if love to see some myths about bubble algae confirmed or busted. Like popping them causes more, and they don't need high nutrients to thrive.

 

[randyBRS]

ULM Tank Trials Ep-14: Stable Tank Chemistry for Ultra Low Maintenance | BRStv

Water changes, Kalkwasser, 2-part, or Calcium Reactor? How can they be Ultra Low Maintenance and which one may work best for the ULM Softie, LPS and SPS tank? In today's episode Ryan walks through each approach, shares your thoughts and discusses what we will do for the BRS ULM tanks.

Thanks to the Reef2Reef and YouTube community for chiming in this week and a special thanks to @flagg37 ; @rtparty ; and Seth Williamson.

This week's question:

-Fish and Clean-Up-Crew for a barebottom ULM tank: What would you use?

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

I would not necessarily say that Reef Crystals is a better choice than Instant Ocean for auto-water changes. Almost every batch of IO that I've received has alkalinity between 10 and 11 dKh, calcium around 450 ppm and magnesium around 1,400 ppm. The calcium and alkalinity might be a bit higher with Reef Crystals, but 450 ppm and 11 dKh respectively don't seem like bad values for these elements.

It's also worth noting that per Randy Holmes-Farley, Reef Crystals contains organics that can break down with time.

 

[Greaps]

Great episode, you made an automatic water change process much simpler than most I have seen. Dosing saturated kalk water from a dedicated container rather than mixing into the ato makes a lot of sense, I had seen this done before from smaller containers, I hadn't considered how well this might work on a larger scale.

 

[Ryanbrs]

Fair feedback, if you are getting those levels I would agree it is perfectly suitable for this application.

Hard to say what the goal levels are with IO because they don't have any of the target parameters listed on the bucket like they do with RC. I will say if the numbers you are stating are the new standard it does seem to have changed over time. I have historically seen many of reports in the 380-400 range for calcium which is perfectly suitable for a fish application. For that matter, it may be suitable for a softy and polype application. However, in a water change only application like we were discussing it will almost always run consistently lower than whatever the freshly mixed saltwater levels are.

As always, thanks for keeping us sharp