power heads in the fuge

[prow]

First of all, I would like to say thanks for the friendly debate. This is one of the thins I love about RS, people seem to keep their cool and can be mature when they disagree about things.

i am right there with you no dout

And great link! I'll have to read all the parts in that series...

yeah there is some good stuff in there. i like the way it was put together. i dont agree with everything and it dosent go into compensating mech very much. but still very good and pretty thorough for what/who it was targeted for.

In your cited article he states that "Bacteria can even convert dissolved organic material (DOM) into particulate organic material (POM) by aggregating it in the presence of carbon." However he also states that the primary source of POM is "fish feces, coral mucus, algal remnants, worm castings and burrowings, the molts of small crustaceans, uneaten food, and other debris". This suggests to me that bacterial flocculation is a minor component of the source of POM. However, I will concede that it can exist in the tank.

yes fish feces and things are the "orgin" of most, but you forgot the first part of that statement. "In aquariums as in the wild, it has its origin in fish feces, coral mucus ect.." so with your rational bacterial flocculation is a minor component of the source of POM in ocean aswell, which like you said, its been well studied and shown is a major component.

"In addition to binding particles together, the presence of mats and biofilms in sediments affects sediment physical properties such as porosity and permeability, the flux of dissolved substances in pore waters and the dissolution of particles and can, therefore, influence early diagenesis." (F. WESTALL, Y. RINCÉ (1994) Biofilms, microbial mats and microbe-particle interactions: electron microscope observations from diatomaceous sediments
Sedimentology )

Our water is extremely well mixed when compared to the ocean, here is a typical nitrate profile for water in the open ocean...

I just used nitrate as an example, but profiles with large variation can be applied to salinity, temperature, density, and many other chemicals. Comparatively, our tanks are very well mixed. Even a small amount of flow mixes the water column from top to bottom very easily. However, we may be talking about different things, if you are including the water trapped in the sand bed or rock, then I would agree that this water is very different from the water in that is flowing throughout the tank.

yes, i am/was taking into consideration rock, sandbeds even baffling within the sump. so yeah i think your right we are coming from different perspectives here.

That said, I always try to be open-minded and I would be very interested to see the studies you have referenced if you can find them.

i will try to find this certain one i have in my head. the only things i seem to find right now are studies like the one i quoted from F. WESTALL, Y. RINCÉ. here is one on hydrophobic organic stuff "that file on the water suface" and how it works with aggregate formations. (marine snow)
http://www.vims.edu/bio/faculty/tang/AME42.pdf

There are many microbial processes at work such as nitrification, denitrification, sulfate reduction, iron and manganese reduction just to name a few. My point was that macroalgae in the fuge can be very effective at removing dissolved nitrate and phosphate, and can do so in an aerobic environment.

mmm maybe internet misinterpitations at work. i agree with 100% with that.

Ok, your link has convinced me on the filter sock and mine will be coming off.

i still put one from time to time. for me it just needs to cleaned to often to keep one all teh time. some dont mind cleaning it every 3-5 days or so.

 

[prow]

This suggests to me that bacterial flocculation is a minor component of the source of POM. However, I will concede that it can exist in the tank.

ok here is a study that demonstrates how major of a component POM can be in closed system. not a reef tank and the study was not meant for hobbyists aquaria, however, in a reef tank i would think it would be even greater. its old but still...
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/8/m008p015.pdf

jsut driving the point of aggregate formations POM to detritus formations within the aquaria. i think this is where our hang up is. wheather aggregate formations are a major component or not. after all it is one of the major reasons for reduction of flow rates(turnover) with in refugium/sump. so..
a qoute from here; Organic Compounds in the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com

In a reef aquarium, the things described as POM would include living organisms, such as some bacteria and phytoplankton (and all of the "dissolved" organic materials inside of their bodies). It would also include what aquarists frequently refer to as detritus: the accumulated particulate organic material that arises from parts of dead organisms and the clumping of dissolved organic materials.

what we need is a few billionaires that are into reef aquariums to fund some research specifically for reef aquariums.

 

[Octoman]

what we need is a few billionaires that are into reef aquariums to fund some research specifically for reef aquariums.

You got that right!!


Thanks prow, you've opened up my eyes to some processes I didn't have a very good understanding of and given me some serious reading to do...

I like the idea of removing the sock because if that much POM is digestible healthy food, removing it and at the same time feeding additional food to my corals/filter feeders/fish seems counter-productive.

 

[tbittner]

And then throw a wrench in the works and take a look at some folks tanks, which are spectacular, and they don't use a skimmer. That, imo, kind of supports the theory of letting the tank take care of itself. These folks DO do water changes on a regular basis though.

 

[acer]

With the skimmer in there I have alot of flow in my sump already. Occasionally adding a UV filter and phosban reactor gives it even more. SO, additional flow is unnecessary in my setup.

 

[tbittner]

I added a PH to my fuge two days ago. My Chaeto has taken off!!!

But my fuge is a 100g tub so (I missed the obvious here) of COURSE it needs help with circulation.

:smck:

 

[tbittner]

Another question about this, how MUCH flow should be in the fuge? Should we purposely create dead spots for the pods? What would be a suggested turnover rate?

 

[naperenterprise]

I'm in the process of making a round fuge using a 30 gallon poly tank. I'm a little excited with how it will turn out. I'm going to have 2 water lines entering directly from my 330 tank, both lines will be on oposite sides of the fuge to create a while pool effect, (this should turn the Chaeto nicely).

Then I'll have the exit water go directly to a sump to then re-enter the 330 tank.

I plan to have sand and rock rumble right in the middle at the bottom of the tank, with a light shinning down into it...

 

[framerguy]

Another question about this, how MUCH flow should be in the fuge? Should we purposely create dead spots for the pods? What would be a suggested turnover rate?

according to A. Calfo, 5-10X, it was not clear if that was the volume of the DT or the fuge though. My assumption was he meant the fuge since if you have a 100g tank and a 20g fuge it would be tough to get 500-1000gph in a 20g. Talk about a hurricane!. In my 55g fuge I have 300gph passthrough and two 125gph PH's in there for 10X turnover. The extra flow hasn't bothered the pod population, in fact it may have increased it...they're EVERYWHERE!

 

[tbittner]

Well, bag a butt load of them up and send them to me...



(lol, i just got a vision of you hovering over your fuge with a pair of tweezers and Gail looking at you like you lost your mind and saying "What in the heck are you doing???")

 

[prow]

best flow all depends on what your doing with it. someone else just asked about this in another thread too, tis the season ok, the turnover rates are based on total water volume.

mostly what has been talked about so far is for exporting,

generally for macros a slowed fuge 5-10X total water volume with some turbulant flow.--more turbulant for Gracilaria or whatever flow for that macro.

nitrate removal with DSB slowed overall refugium rate 5x not to much turbulance.

pod breeding, rubble rock and cheato with high flow rates throughout 20x turnover.

plankton cultivation needs very low flow. 2x turnover rate thoughout refugium

 

[framerguy]

Well, bag a butt load of them up and send them to me...



(lol, i just got a vision of you hovering over your fuge with a pair of tweezers and Gail looking at you like you lost your mind and saying "What in the heck are you doing???")

Your vision is a daily actuality for me! The only difference is she's quit asking what I'm doing and just shakes her head sadly.

 

[framerguy]

and Prow, that's great info!! Thanks a lot!!!

 

[tbittner]

 

[CATALYST]

Okay, so...
I added a filter sock to catch detrius that I clean every say 5 days. That decreased the flow in the fuge so I added an airstone that comes from under the chaeto because I don't have room for another power head. I've had a marked increase in pods, chaeto growth and a decrease in cyno and ha.

 

[framerguy]

Okay, so...
I added a filter sock to catch detrius that I clean every say 5 days. That decreased the flow in the fuge so I added an airstone that comes from under the chaeto because I don't have room for another power head. I've had a marked increase in pods, chaeto growth and a decrease in cyno and ha.

 

[tbittner]

Greg, you need to hurry up and buy a house already. You're not spending NEARLY enough time here at RS!

 

[framerguy]

Tell me about it!!! I try to post at work in between customers and we aren't getting home til late at night, blah blah blah, I'll be glad when we find what we're looking for and can settle down. My tank is suffering a little too, you can hardly see into the tank for all the algae on the glass.

 

[Basile]

I found there was so little movement in my fuge that the Caulerpa prolifera was growing algae on it's fronds. With two small powerheads at either end the fronds sway to and fro and don't grow as much gunk on them. I've still only got about 250gph through the 55g fuge but with movement now it's doing much better. Just wondering what everyone else did.

AHhhhh do you what a fuge is for ??? because from what i'm reading there is some confusion read Myth 13 on this link, Mything the Point: Part Two by Eric Borneman - Reefkeeping.com and i would get those powerheads out of there, your making your fuge useless.

 

[prow]

AHhhhh do you what a fuge is for ??? because from what i'm reading there is some confusion read Myth 13 on this link, Mything the Point: Part Two by Eric Borneman - Reefkeeping.com and i would get those powerheads out of there, your making your fuge useless.

its not useless. you have to look at erics idea of what a fuge is. its not how many, even most, others view it. for him nutrient exporting is not what a refugium is for. for him a refugium is only for growing "small crustacean life".
a refugium with only macros is pretty much useless for him, as it doesnt provide the ideal place for pods and things to propagate. for many others, growing macros for nutrient export(mainly phos) or to aid with ph stablitiy(CO2 excess) is the primary purpose of their fuge. in erics mind this is not a refugium at all, even though you are growing organisms in a predator free environment that would otherwise be eaten in the DT, even though that is the definition of a refugium, but because its not for growing crustaceans to feed the tank its not a refugium in eric's eyes. for him its only about the crustaceans. macros are only for pods "crustaceans" to feed on and hang out in/on. there are some that even grow macros for the sole purpose of feeding it their fish, but eric would say thats not a refugium dispite his definition " refugium is a place provided to allow certain organisms to grow while freed of predation or herbivory. ". nutrient export is just a small supplemental benefit not a purpose of a fuge to him. i dont buy that at all. i dont know that he does either, as he saves himself by stating
in his words;

Otherwise, any natural filtration is probably largely supplemental to what is already occurring in average reef aquaria, although I imagine with careful consideration it might become quite significant.

"its supplemental though it can be signigicant"--
for powerheads in framerguy's fuge, that is the part of careful condideration, wouldnt you think, at least for famerguys wants/needs, that is increased exporting of nutrients.

some double talk, his words here;

To restate yet again, a refugium is a place provided to allow certain organisms to grow while freed of predation or herbivory. If one incorporates predators such as shrimp, fish, and corals into a refugium, the very reason for its existence is lost.

then followed up with this;

If one desires to keep an area for breeding or propagating organisms, it might be a tank that replicates a habitat and that may look like a refugium - but it is not a refugium.

its just his interpretation of the definitions. he veiws placing a coral in the fuge as if it was a predator and renders the fuge useless if i decide to place only macros in the "refugium" so they have a safe haven to grow without being eaten, still not a refugium??,,, but i thought--" refugium is a place provided to allow certain organisms to grow while freed of predation or herbivory. "
i dont know what orgainisms count in his mind. jsut because the the refugium is not meant to cultivate pods to feed the tank does not mean its not a refugium or is a useless refugium. for me a refugium is more than just a place for pods to grow--technically it seems he considers breeding pods in a "sump" not to be a refugium either. his words---"If one desires to keep an area for breeding or propagating organisms, it might be a tank that replicates a habitat and that may look like a refugium - but it is not a refugium"___with that, what would be refugium if not for breeding and propagating. he states "a refugium is a place provided to allow certain organisms to grow while freed of predation or herbivory."--macros grow, not a refugium though. mmmmmmmm but then pods and crustaceans breeding and propagating is not a refugium either, though it looks like one:jester:



FYI; in the opening statement his gives some misinformation, the first refugia was used by Jürgen Haffer during the 1960's in the amazon river, not by Smithsonian Caribbean mesocosm in the 1980's as erics recalls.


not bash eric, he has done a lot for the hobby. but opinions well everyone has one