Going for SPS tank...sump question

[Acroman]

I have a 30 gal sump. (65 gal main)
From the overflow going down into the sump. (outtake)

1st, I have 1 filter sock, 1 canister filter with just GFO and Carbon in separate layers/shelfs built in the canister. And last 20lbs of live rock.

2nd, section is the skimmer that I have blowing the water from its return back into the 1st section going over the live rock.

3rd, section is just a few sponges trapping out an bubbles.
4th, is then just the return.
_______________________________________
I have a 20 gal setup with a gravity effect allowing from a hose, water to go into the 20 gal than I drilled a hole in its side to than go over the live rocks in the sump. The 20 gal is 3/4 for frags and the other part is divided for a refugium. Have 1" sand for right now it the 20. (tons of pods, and mysis shrimp) 1 150watt HQI Viper k2.

My question is with the setup I have stated is the filter enough to run with out the sock?

 

[DaveK]

You sump sounds ok, except that I would not have used LR in the sump, and I would have placed the skimmer before the chemical filtration.

However these are minor points. So, what is your question?

 

[Acroman]

I have a 20 gal setup with a gravity effect allowing from a hose, water to go into the 20 gal than I drilled a hole in its side to than go over the live rocks in the sump. The 20 gal is 3/4 for frags and the other part is divided for a refugium. Have 1" sand for right now it the 20. (tons of pods, and mysis shrimp) 1 150watt HQI Viper k2.

:apimp: My question is with the setup I have stated is the filter enough to run with out the sock?

I did have the skimmer in with the sock but just seems better to have LR in the sump as part of the filter as a bio control.

 

[BigJay]

You sump sounds ok, except that I would not have used LR in the sump,

actually if he's employing filter socks , the live rock in the sump is just fine. The real problem with live rock in the sump is it tends to trap organics. If these are filtered out and not reaching the liverock it shouldn't be a real problem.
but as in your last post if you ditch the sock , I would move the rocks to the refugium. I actually love filter socks , but they are a pain in the butt sometimes. I would buy 2 or 3 if your going to use them. If your socks are heavy duty you can just throw them in the washer machine with a little bit of vinegar and set the washer machine on quick cycle/hot. Really the only pain I have is I like to rescue all the pods out of them. Which you can do by filling a bucket with tank water , rinsing the filter sock in the bucket, let the water settle, put the bucket under a bright light and put a piece of dark colored sponge or rock and let it sit overnight. Most of the pods will migrate to the rocks or sponge.

 

[BigJay]

I am a bit confused on something. Does the 65g have live rock? If so the frag tank and refugium if fish free won't need any additional rock to compensate for it.

 

[DaveK]

actually if he's employing filter socks , the live rock in the sump is just fine. The real problem with live rock in the sump is it tends to trap organics. If these are filtered out and not reaching the liverock it shouldn't be a real problem.
...

I would disagree with you on this point.

IMO live rock in a sump is going to become a dirt trap, filter sock or not. A filter sock will slow it down a bit, but it's quite capable of creating it's own dirt from the bacteria films and other stuff that will grow on it. It will also be a big oxygen consumer. If you are measuring ORP, you'll typically see an increase when you get the LR out of the sump.

 

[BigJay]

, but it's quite capable of creating it's own dirt from the bacteria films .

something I would have never considered. Could you link me to any supporting documentation?

 

[Acroman]

I do think films will not have the chance to start since the water flowing from the canister and skimmer's return will be right over the rocks. Also no light will be on the LR as well.

 

[Frankie]

I have to agree with Dave that the sump is not the ideal place for LR. The sump is where all the crap ends up and why it is called a SUMP. Keep in mind that most detritus and waste nutrients are in a soluble form and not solid. Socks are good for food waste but not much else. That is why we tend to depend on protein skimmers.
Keeping the sump free and clean is key to success imo. This is the place for mechanical filtration, not biological filtration.

 

[BigJay]

come on Frankie I know you got to have a link.

 

[Eric]

:lurk:

 

[Acroman]

ok.. So would than it be best to move the LR into the 20 refugium? Would I be able to keep a MH over it and not worry about LR causing issues? Does anyone else have frags in a refugium if not touching the micro-algae?

 

[Frankie]

come on Frankie I know you got to have a link.

Sorry man. I have no idea what Dave is talking about. I'll let him answer the question you had for him.
I too would like to understand how LR in the sump will deplete the oxygen~

 

[Acroman]

I'm kind of looking at the LR in the sump idea now as to only trap waist. For part of that reason I would assume there is enough flow going onto the LR to make sure nothing is trapped. As far as deplete oxygen... the only idea I can think of is since LR has Good Bacteria on it.... Its only that Bacteria that requires the oxygen. So I guess a form of depletion takes place...
Yes..No??? I do not want to have a refug in my sump. So I'm going to go with adding LR to the 20gal I have setup and make that my refurium and later on frag tank. Will have it sectioned off with egg crate.

 

[Acroman]

or I just leave the rock in the sump and add some cheato and a light than remove the sock.
I will have just the Skimmer, GFO, Carbon running with in the sump.

 

[DaveK]

something I would have never considered. Could you link me to any supporting documentation?

I don't have a specific link, but I will refer you to Stephen Spotte's book Captive Seawater FIshes, Chapter 2 in the section Efficiency of Bacteriological Filters.

Also, consider a typical berlin sump. Every so often you got to clean it out, even if your religious about cleaning filter socks. It's amazing what you can find growing there, even though this should be a clean water area.

I'd also see this in systems when bioballs in trickle filters were common. If I added top off water too quickly, causing a big shift in SG, the biological film on the bioballs would slough off, and be something else for the mechanical filtration to collect.

 

[DaveK]

I do think films will not have the chance to start since the water flowing from the canister and skimmer's return will be right over the rocks. Also no light will be on the LR as well.

Bacteria films will grow on almost anything. Ever clean the insides of a power head or external pump? It's dark, with massive amounts of water flow, and you still get a lot of build up inside them. I clean my external pumps several times a year, and there is a marked improvement in water flow once all the "glop" has been cleaned off.

 

[Acroman]

You can not use mechanical filtration as an example for collection film D. Are you saying Live rock is a mechanical filter?
Plastic is like a magnet when it comes to collection of film.
Stephen Spotte's book Captive Seawater FIshes is most based from fish only setups in which you are going to deal with more fish food and waist from fish to.
I have been cleaning out the sock 1 per week.

 

[BigJay]

I think I understand what you mean to say Dave. I contemplated it for quite a long time last night. I understand how it would effect Redox as well although I think it would depend on the tank , amount of rock , amount of waste, source of rock, level of light reaching sump etc etc etc.
I used to house dry rock in my sump for fragging and I stopped a while back. The reason being was the way the rocked caused eddies where anything could settle it would. Even with the LR out and just a skimmer in my sump I still have to clean my sump and I still believe in cleaning the LR in the tank itself via siphoning surfaces, running a powerhead over it or blasting it with water.
As far as comparing it to trickle filters I think is a little reaching since your comparing a highly aerobic far less stable type of filtration. Where all bacterial surfaces are exposed. Plus some of the older wet/drys were black boxes nearly devoid of all light.
For everyone else reading this I'm just thinking out loud so I'm just gonna stop here as not to confuse anyone further. I highly respect what you have to say Dave and if you have the time I'd love to discuss it further. If there is an error to my thinking, I want to understand it.

 

[stiffler70]

I read alot of people suggesting LR in the sump is a bad idea. May those who posted that or agree with NOT having LR in the sump please post there reasons as to why it is not good idea? create a list or pros and cons? or perhaps a reputable website that states that?

Because in my opinion LR in the sump i find beneficial to the system, soluble organics that build up as most have stated, will be used by the beneficial bacteria on the LR. Again for best results you want to have ur overflow first pass in sequence through your protein skimmer, then ur liverock, then return. really dense liverock actually has anaerobic bacteria (bacteria that thrives in the ABSENSE of oxygen) therefore oxygen consumption by the liverock in the sump shouldnt change much from within the tank. these anaerobic bacteria also use nitrates and produce N2 gas.

Remeber, a biological system, is ALWAYS better than a mechanical system.