 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Pet Forum / Aquaria / Marine Reef / February 2005Canister filters - Are they really that bad? Do you use one?
I was reading the "Yellow African Anemone" post and came across yet more criticism of canister filters. Before setting up our reef tank I did a lot of research on this. Purists say they are bad news because they generate excess nitrates. Pragmatists, especially those trying to encourage new people into the hobby, say they are cheap, easy to set up, easy to maintain, quiet and low risk - i.e. they are pretty much guaranteed to remove ammonia and nitrites effectively, even when set up by a novice. This of course assumes they are rated adequately for the volume of the tank. Having spoken to quite a few people who have gone down the route of having a shallow sand bed with a canister filter, I have to say that it seems to work pretty flawlessly - I haven't encountered anyone that has actually experienced unduly elevated nitrates, for example. We certainly haven't with our reef setup, which has lots of LR, corels, an anemone, shrimps and a variety of fish. My conclusion is therefore that the problems with canister filters are generally exaggerated in this forum, but I would be interested in hearing about other's experiences - good or bad. If enough people respond, I will tally up the successes and failures then we can all put this debate into perspective. So, have you had a good or bad experience with canister filters? If you use the canister for charcoal it works great (its a forced system) , I would not use media in it.  Signaturewww.reeftanksonline.com ONLINE meeting rooms >I was reading the "Yellow African Anemone" post and came across yet > more criticism of canister filters. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > So, have you had a good or bad experience with canister filters? Is this because you have tried and had problems or because of what you have heard and read? Why, specifically, do you suggest not using media? As I said, ours has always worked fine with media and so has everyone else's I know who is doing the same. I have yet to meet with or talk to someone who has actually experienced a problem first hand. > If you use the canister for charcoal it works great (its a forced system) , > I would not use media in it. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > So, have you had a good or bad experience with canister filters? |I was reading the "Yellow African Anemone" post and came across yet | more criticism of canister filters. At the root of it, is, as always, YMMV. Any filter media (or anything else for that matter) that allows nitrifying bacteria to grow is going to produce nitrates. Whether that turns into a "too much nitrates" situation depends on a great many things. 1: amount of live rock 2: bio-load 3: macroalgae 4: maintenance schedule and more. I've come to the conclusion that the canister filters' bad reputation is due to a (relatively) small number of people having bad experiences, and sharing the experiences. It seems that each and every time canister filters are brought up at RC, a dozen reefers pipe up to say they've been running a canister on thier reef for years with no ill effects. That said, I've never tried a can on a reef tank, but as soon as I find room for another tank, I intend to. billy Yes, it's pretty bad when one of the hoses comes off and you get stinking water pumped all over the carpet. I don't have anything outside the tank anymore and replaced the canister with two diy fluidised beds in 1.25 lt pet bottles. (40gal tank) No maintenance at all except for the powerheads. Andy >I was reading the "Yellow African Anemone" post and came across yet > more criticism of canister filters. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > So, have you had a good or bad experience with canister filters? Why are you using a canister ? your filtration is being done naturaly by your live rock and sand. If your canister was contributing to your filtration you would have nitrates, canister filters will get rid of ammonia and nitrite but the end product is nitrate this is and indisputable fact. Natural filtration i.e. live rock and sand and refugiums will reduce the nitrates they produce to an ecceptable level , to have healthy corals a small amount of nitrates are desirable, I say a small amount not the large amounts produced by canisters, biowheels, wet & dry filters, under gravel etc.. Also the nitrates produced are released into the water column so regular filter cleaning does little to reduce nitrates. regards, unclenorm. >I was reading the "Yellow African Anemone" post and came across yet > more criticism of canister filters. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > So, have you had a good or bad experience with canister filters? Having canister as part of your filtation system, it is ok to have. You simply need to check for nitrate and any other parameter. Nitrate will be never be gone since it everywhere. You will need to find which item are producing or converting to nitrate more. If you really care which item produce more nitrate, you will need to research from fact / fiction. Since this thread regarding about canister and opinion about it.... Then you need to research about canister and what it do. Does it remove large particle? Does it it break down large particle? What it break-down to what? What the end result? Are there any alternative beside canister that do the same function [better or worest]? Believe above may answer your question why canister should be consider or not. Canister filter is the same as any other mechanical filteration as Wet/Dry - HangOn Filter etc .. that use media to filter out large particle. CapFusion,... > >I was reading the "Yellow African Anemone" post and came across yet > > more criticism of canister filters. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > CapFusion,... You have 'X' amount of ammonia produced in a tank in a 24 hour period. If you have a canister filter with bacteria eating this and nitrites up.....you will have 'x' amount of nitrate produced at the end. If the bacteria live on live rock doing the above....you still have the same amount of nitrate at the end of the process put into the tank. I run a 40 gal tanks with corals and fish. I have LR, canister filter with only 1/2 the filter media inside and a denitrator. This is good because each one backs the other up. I have no probs with my water at all. PS My hospital tank which lives all the time hase a power head with foam as a filter and a small de nitrator attached. All water is fine in this also. lg >> >I was reading the "Yellow African Anemone" post and came across yet >> > more criticism of canister filters. [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > lg Normally I do not really want to get into canister / wetdry comparing to LR / DSB topic. This have been off and on thread for sometime now. I believe you already aware since your reply stated the result of nitrate. If you can take a step back and look at a whole picture and ask this question.... why do you need to add nitrate and why not make it a complete cycle. Why the cycle end at nitrate? When you have efficient DSB and LR, you do not really need anything else to produce and breakdown of nitrate. The only thing you want or introduce nitrate [end prouduct] is by food you feed to your critter or the waste they make. DSB / LR responsible to remove those. When you adding media to your filteration, you adding extra work for your natural filteration. Then you need to add something else to balance it out or keep in-check. So back to the subject question..... Is canister is bad? Well.... the answer is Yes and No. If your DSB can handle add fiteration that the critter and your feeding, then the answer is no. But if it the Biosload are high and feeding genously, then Yes. You definitely need any media that can trap those waste and food to break down to nitrate. You then need to do extra water changes to compensate. This extra water changes is not for compensating for replenish of element but also remove extra waste. If you have good natural efficient filteration ecosystem, you will probably not need PS but want to encourage algae instead of fight it. CapFusion,... Hi 'CapFusion', I'm afraid your statement regarding live rock filtration is not correct, if you have the correct amount of live rock for the size of the tank (live rock must be porous if it is not it can't be classed as live rock ) usualy about 1.5 to 2 lbs per gallon of water volume in the tank it will perform all the filtration necessary including the reduction of Nitrates to a desirable level, Ammonia and Nitrites are converted to Nitrate by aerobic bacteria, Nitrate is converted to Nitrogen gas by anaerobic bacteria which cannot exist in a canister filter or any other form of mechanical biological filtration due to the ecsesive amount of Oxygen in the water but they can and do exist in the inner pores of live rock which is very low in Oxygen while the outer pores harbour the aerobic bacteria, a deep sand bed, usualy in the refugium will further enhance your filtration. If your live rock is functioning correctly and you have adequate water circulation all the other paraphernalia is an unnecessary eexpense and if anything is a hindrance rather than a help. All my marine tanks are filtered by live rock and deep sand beds with the addition of a protein skimmer and nothing else and have been for many years, water changes are a rare occurrence in my tanks both marine and freshwater. regards, unclenorm. > Hi 'CapFusion', > I'm afraid your statement regarding live [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > regards, > unclenorm. Thank for repeat what I have already know. Actually I do not rely on LR for any nitrate breakdown except from my DSB. You need large anaerobic to be efficient to break down of nitrate, LR does not have that much area. And ALSO, LR where there current, there all be some Oxygen. And again, the best place for anaerobic to live / colonize are in the DSB. Most likely aeroabic in LR instead [IMO]. If there is some in the LR, the area in LR does not have enough area to be use as a whole to be efficient enough. You need a good size tank like 50USG and minium of 3 inches to be effective. BTW - ** Measurement of "1.5 to 2 lbs per gallon" as a guide is not really a good idea, especially for those newbies user. Anyone provide or suggesting this kind of measure will give wrong idea. LR come in different size / shape / porus / density etc.... This also apply to fish regarding "x" size per gallon. ** I do not recommend primary use of LR to remove / breakdown of nitrate or suggest any user to use LR for nitrate removal. But I would suggest using LR as a combo with DSB. LR take care of ANN and DSB take care of nitrate to Nitrogen gas. ** Which part of my reply regarding about LR is not correct. Please point to the error so that I can be correct it and take note for future reference. CapFusion,... Hi again CapFusion, or is it ConFusion !, I thought my reply was pretty explicit, I don't follow your statement re 1.5 to 2lbs per gall this is precisely because live rock varies, the denser it is the more you need, most knowledgeable and successful reef keepers will give this kind of advice, by successful I mean a reef a number of years old and pretty well self sufficient. It is fairly easy to create a reef by throwing money at it, doing water changes every five minutes and dumping chemicals in it to try and correct all the problems plus replacing all the casualtys every couple of weeks. Fish ! who mentioned fish ? I agree a deep sand bed is a good nitrate remover with the emphasise on deep around 6", 3" will not work, 4" might but not very efficiently. Anaerobic bacteria do require some oxygen, If good live rock didn't take care of the nitrate problem why would anybody pay the extortionate prices that it costs, ( because it does and far better than anything else, also it does not expire ! ). regards, unclenorm. > Hi again CapFusion, or is it ConFusion !, > I thought [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > regards, > unclenorm. If you disagree with what I have reply, please post your same answer to DR. Ron on ReefCentral and see what he reply back to you. Please enlighten me on your founding. My reply still stand as follow - LR best function as A > N > N LR capable of removing nitrate but not efficient and should not be consider as the main reason of nitrate removal. DSB is best for nitrate breakdown to nitrogen gas since it have larger area unlike LR. Please read Ron article - http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm - Anaerobic need low oxygen not non or no oxygen. LR can be able to breakdown nitrate but how can LR be efficient nitrate remover? You need alot of Anaerobic to be consider efficient to be consider nitrate remover. LR are good at breakdown of decay of food that is trap and food source for critter that live in it. Why LR cost more? Answer is simple.... you are paying alot of middle person that markup the price. You also paying for shipping add to the price you already pay for the rock. You can have cheap LR by making your own rock and adding those critter. And why are you attacking my name? CapFusion,... Also by Ron : "Live Rock as a Biological FIlter" http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rs/feature/index.htm >Please read Ron article - >http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm That another good link regarding about LR and it function. I knew I read that somewhere. CapFusion,... > Also by Ron : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>Please read Ron article - >>http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm Under "Problems" in the DSB article, it states : "Sand beds recycle materials and export many of the excess nutrients in an aquarium. Some excess nutrients are mobilized by becoming soluble through metabolic processes and need to be exported either as harvestable macroalgae or animals, grown in the main tank or a sump." What does "exported either as harvestable macroalgae or animals" mean ? That the soluble material needsto be changed into algae or animals ? Or should it have read "exported TO harvestable macroalgae or animals" meaning that algae or animals get rid of the soluble material ? What is the soluble material - nitrate ? I thought the DSB got rid of nitrates. >>>Please read Ron article - >>>http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm Ahhh... good question. Normally DSB consist of LS and LS consist of animal [like worm / funa]. These animal will roam the sand bed [normal top layer] and will get disturb. When this area get disturb, it release those nitrogen gases that are being trap. Plant like any other plant like ferterlizer, it uptake it. Normally, you do not see much algae since there aren't much availabe element it need to survive since it competing with DSB / LR [optional PS / Sump / Refugium] etc. CapFusion,... > Under "Problems" in the DSB article, it states : > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>>>Please read Ron article - >>>>http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm The air above the surface is 80% nitrogen so I'd expect the water would already be saturated with nitrogen gas. So releasing a small amount of bubbles ought not to influence the nitrogen level in the water. In addition, I would not expect much nitrogen gas to dissolve in the water in the short time it takes the bubble to float to the surface. >Normally DSB consist of LS and LS consist of animal [like worm / funa]. >These animal will roam the sand bed [normal top layer] and will get disturb. >When this area get disturb, it release those nitrogen gases that are being >trap. Plant like any other plant like ferterlizer, it uptake it. Normally, >you do not see much algae since there aren't much availabe element it need >to survive since it competing with DSB / LR [optional PS / Sump / Refugium] Nitrogen gas staurate in the water, this part I am not to sure about. No comment on this one. Maybe Boomer may supply this comment. But I know the nitrogen gas float out of water via bubble. Normally the tank is not cover but open. Your room where the tank is also well ventilated. CapFusion,... > The air above the surface is 80% nitrogen so I'd expect the water > would already be saturated with nitrogen gas. So releasing a small [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>to survive since it competing with DSB / LR [optional PS / Sump / >>Refugium] CapFusion, I am very conversant with all of Dr Ron Shimek's articles and am in full agreement with him 99% of the time, It would appear that if you have read them you haven't understood or properly digested them, If you read them again ( and there are many of them ) you will find that I do not contradict his articles at all. Like Dr Ron I talk from very many years of experience, around fifty !, not from reading books or from hearsay. I was not attaching your nick name, just changed it slightly to suit the confusing posts you have been writing. If you can point out to me something I have said that contradicts Dr Ron or any of the other marine or fresh water biologists who contribute to this hobby, I will explain why I said it or make a public apology if it was incorrect, I do not intend entering into any further arguments on this subject, but will answer any constructive criticism. regards, unclenorm. > CapFusion, > I am very conversant with all of Dr Ron Shimek's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > regards, > unclenorm. If you can reread my very first post on this thread. Your reply was to "lg" but mention directly to me indicate LR comment was not fully correct. Then indicating 1.5 amount ... [snip] Hi 'CapFusion', I'm afraid your statement regarding live rock filtration is not correct, if you have the correct amount of live rock for the size of the tank (live rock must be porous if it is not it can't be classed as live rock ) usualy about 1.5 to 2 lbs per gallon of water volume in the tank it will perform all the filtration necessary [/snip] I did not use or indicate x amount. I believe you and "lg" mention this. Later reply back I did not recomnd using x amount as a guide.... [snip] BTW - ** Measurement of "1.5 to 2 lbs per gallon" as a guide is not really a good idea, especially for those newbies user. Anyone provide or suggesting this kind of measure will give wrong idea. LR come in different size / shape / porus / density etc.... This also apply to fish regarding "x" size per gallon. [/snip] Then you come back indicate this - [snip] Hi again CapFusion, or is it ConFusion !, I thought my reply was pretty explicit, I don't follow your statement re 1.5 to 2lbs per gall this is precisely because live rock varies, the denser it is the more you need, most knowledgeable and successful reef keepers will give this kind of advice, by successful I mean a reef a number of years old and pretty well self sufficient. [/snip] I think you have my post and "lg" post crossed. CapFusion,... Hi Knowleman I would suggest from reading your post that your canister is realy doing very little ( it is an excepted fact that all forms of freshwater type biological filtration produce Nitrate which over time creates a problem ) the Nitrate produced by the filtration is released into the water column so cleaning the filter while have little or no impact on the nitrate concentration. In your case I'm fairly sure that your filtration is being done by your live rock, the inner pores of the live rock create a low oxygen area were anaerobic bacteria live and convert the Nitrate to nitrogen gas. I would also suggest that this situation occurs with most people that claim to run canisters etc on reef tanks with no adverse effects. regards, unclenorm. Thanks Uncle. This makes sense. I guess I could just remove the media from the canister and see what happens. My only concern is that I do not have a DSB, which reading the parallel thread seems to be a pretty important part of a self sufficient system. It would take a bit of engineering, but would it make sense to retro add a DSB? We keep a relatively light bio-load (fish wise) so it may be that the LR could cope and a DSB may not be necessary. If we went for a DSB, though, do you need any flow through the bed itself, like the under gravel filters that are common on freshwater tanks? > Hi Knowleman > I would suggest from reading your post that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > regards, > unclenorm. If you just only go for LR, you will need plenty of LR and PS since LR will not efficiently complete the cycle. But LR do act like canister that remove waste or uneaten food. PS will come in place to remove whatever circulating in your tank or system. CapFusion,... > Thanks Uncle. This makes sense. I guess I could just remove the media > from the canister and see what happens. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> regards, >> unclenorm. Hi Knowleman, If you have a light bio load and sufficient live rock of good quality i.e. good porosity you should be able to forgo the deep sand bed, do you have a sump/refugium ? if you do that's the best place for a deep sand bed. Flow through the DSB in the manner you suggest would be very counter productive, you only need a light flow at the surface of the DSB, the upper part of the bed harbours oxygen rich water and aerobic bacteria converting ammonia to nitrite to nitrate then the lower part of the bed which is oxygen depleted (not void ) harbours anaerobic bacteria which convert nitrate to nitrogen gas, they will also deal with phosphates. regards, unclenorm Guys , Its me so forgive me,,,,why is a deep sand bed the best way to go ? No sand on the bottom better? why do I see so many perfect tank pictures with one inch of bed? are they all about to have a problem? you and I both know that one day its no sand the next its 2 feet of sand. Also I have a problem understanding how bio balls feed nitrates to the tank? hope for some answers Thank you! Signaturewww.reeftanksonline.com www.nydiver.com ONLINE meeting rooms > Hi Knowleman, > If you have a light bio load and sufficient [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > regards, > unclenorm Hi Rich, This whole thread revolves around canister,wet%dry, bio wheels, etc. filtration systems verses natural i.e. live rock and live deep sand beds,plus a protein skimmer. The first group of filter systems are all more suited to fresh water. It is possible to filter out nitrate but effective equipment or chemicals takes up more space, needs more maintenance and is expensive. The facts :- The first group of filtration systems I mentioned, canisters etc. are all capable of removing suspended solids, ammonia and nitrite there problem is they produce nitrate and cannot remove it, nitrate is a much bigger problem in a marine tank along with phosphate and silicates which they cannot handle. The second group, live rock provided the pieces are not to small and have good capillary porosity live rock can handle the whole proses, it will also support copepods ( main diet of fish like mandarins ) and many other critters, it's the foundation for most corals and it has great aesthetic value, ( the outer layers harbour the aerobic bacteria,who feed on the ammonia and nitrite, the inner capillary pores are home to the anaerobic bacteria the nitrate gourmays ), this is why you see perfect tanks with little or no sand bed ( usualy FOWLR ). The deep sand bed will also do all of the above, provided it is live and has a depth of at least 6", a minimum depth of 4" might work but not very efficiently, the depth is required to facilitate a good anaerobic layer. The critters (live sand ) are required to stop compacting and create paths for the water to get to the anaerobic layer they also consume detritus aiding the filtration. Both the deep sand bed and live rock will reduce phosphates and silicates the main causes of algae blooms along with the nitrates. the best place for the DSB is in the refugium as they can be a bit unsightly in the display tank. Finally the protein skimmer as its name implies it will remove excess protein and DOC, if you have seen one working efficiently it is hard to believe that all that fowl smelling muck has come out of the aquarium water, it is it's own salesman ! Your question re bio balls - bio balls are one of the more common media for cultivating the aerobic bacteria which are the producers of nitrate !!. I feel that the live rock, deep sand bed and protein skimmer system is here for some time to come, it is the nearest thing to a natural echo system to date and I can't see any significant changes on the horizon. regards, unclenorm > Guys , > Its me so forgive me,,,,why is a deep sand bed the best way to go ? No [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > regards, > > unclenorm "Both the deep sand bed and live rock will reduce phosphates and silicates the main causes of algae blooms along with the nitrates. the best place for the DSB is in the refugium as they can be a bit unsightly in the display tank." Unclenorm, My understanding on this is that the best either LR or a DSB can do is biologically sequester phosphate and a number of other nutrients. Baring a die off or crash of some sort it will do so until it runs out of storage medium or something acts to pull the nutrients out of them. What happens when they get full? I've seen GHA, Cyano, massive bacterial turgor, etc. Virtually everything I was trying to stop. Granted both LR and DSB have the ability to convert nitrate to nitrogen but that isn't a complete solution as much remains. I also have to disagree that the best place for a DSB is a refugium. There was a time when I thought that was the case as well but have since reversed my thinking. The bacteria on and in the medium inside the tank will have first access to the vast majority of nutrients. Inside the tank nutrients can be taken up with such force that a refugium can't compete. Nutrients get pulled inside the LR and/or DSB, churned around for a time through various biological processes, then spit back out usually in the form of one or more nuisances without the remote refugium ever having seen any of the nutrients involved. Sure if one feeds heavy enough and has enough flow the refugium will get *some* food but it's still limited in ability. DSB's do have their uses though and for some species or biotope specific tanks they are likely mandatory. Even so I think the best place I ever saw one was in a canister vac prior to being placed in a dumpster. DSB's are a rather large bioload in and of themselves, but they do act as a giant nutrient sponge, least for a time. Mostly though I think DSB's and Refugiums tend to make lazy reefers that sooner or latter end up battling one plague after another leaving the tank owner scratching their heads. I heard somewhere that the average time in the hobby was under two years. I wonder if there is a correlation? Benjamin1@netins.net > Hi Rich, > This whole thread revolves around canister,wet%dry, bio wheels, [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > > regards, > > > unclenorm Hi Benjamin, Your remarks that the fug. isn't the best place for the DSB and the main tank grabbing all the nutrient would only be true if the flow between the tank and the sump was very low in which case the system would not be working very efficiently. I would suggest that to be efficient the main tank should have a flow rate of about 20 times the main tank volume every hour and as much as possible via the sump while the refugium has a low flow you would then have a very efficient system. regards, unclenorm. unclenorm, Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this? As I said I though the same thing in the past... even my website still expresses that opinion. I however no longer hold it as truth. These are diabolically opposed views and I'm not in the mood to pull tons of references even if I thought they might actually be read. So I guess I think your wrong and you think I'm wrong no sweat lost for me. -- SignatureBenjamin1@netins.net > Hi Benjamin, > Your remarks that the fug. isn't the best place [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > regards, > unclenorm. >The deep sand bed will also do all of the above, >provided it is live and has a depth of at least 6", a minimum depth of >4" might work but not very efficiently, the depth is required to >facilitate a good anaerobic layer. Are there any references to analytical measurements of oxygen concentration vs sand depth in a DSB in a marine aquarium ? Or does one rely on observing nitrogen bubbles to indicate that anerobic conditions exist ? >The critters (live sand ) are >required to stop compacting and create paths for the water to get to >the anaerobic layer When such water from above the DSB then goes down into the lower layer, it would bring in oxygen along with its nitrates, etc that are going to be decomposed. I assume that oxygen gets consumed at a faster rate than it is brought in so that the anerobic condition is maintained. > Your question re bio balls - bio balls are one of the more >common media for cultivating the aerobic bacteria which are the >producers of nitrate !!. Nitrates would also be produced in the LR and DSB. Is it just that they are assumed to be in close proximetry to conditions that will continue on to break them down (i.e. anerobic conditions). The assumption is that the nitrates do not diffuse away into the main aquarium once they are produced. unclenorm, Can you please clarify the statement "...they will also deal with phosphates." as in how they deal with it? Thanks Much! Signature-- Benjamin1@netins.net > Hi Knowleman, > If you have a light bio load and sufficient [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > regards, > unclenorm Hi Benjamin, The simple quick answer is the same way as nitrates. At the moment I don't have the time to go into detail, my typing skills are non-existent, one finger !! can I ask you to go to the following link were I think you will find the answers to your quires http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm Dr Shimek is a respected marine biologist, my answer would essentialy be the same, I would add I am not a marine biologist I just have about fifty years experience in the aquarium hobby and have used live rock and deep sand beds ( 6" or more ) mostly in refugiums for a good many years. Dr Shimek has a web site well worth a visit, you could learn a lot. regards, unclenorm. > unclenorm, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > regards, > > unclenorm Hi Benjamin, The simple quick answer is the same way as nitrates. At the moment I don't have the time to go into detail, my typing skills are non-existent, one finger !! can I ask you to go to the following link were I think you will find the answers to your quires http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm Dr Shimek is a respected marine biologist, my answer would essentialy be the same, I would add I am not a marine biologist I just have about fifty years experience in the aquarium hobby and have used live rock and deep sand beds ( 6" or more ) mostly in refugiums for a good many years. Dr Shimek has a web site well worth a visit, you could learn a lot. regards, unclenorm. > unclenorm, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > regards, > > unclenorm unclenorm, Sorry to pester... I will go read the link, however I think I've seen it before. Ok, I've read it... least the parts that mention Phosphates. There were six instances of "Phosp" so I read those paragraphs. While I'm not really qualified to counter Dr. Ron I think his article is about as clear as Mud... Pun intended. Maybe so we are on the same page you could read, or at least skim: http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28107 and possibly even... http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44798 It might ask you to register 1st, I don't know for sure... I do know that if your not registered The Reef Tank is the best single resource for understanding reef tanks that I have seen, bar none, so I would have to recommend you to sign up. Benjamin1@netins.net > Hi Benjamin, > The simple quick answer is the same way as nitrates. At the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > regards, > > > unclenorm Those two link are very good thread. It pretty much cover or get the idea of what it about. CapFusion,... > unclenorm, > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >> > > regards, >> > > unclenorm Benjamin, I have skimmed through both those forums and I don't see any evidence for phosphate or silicate only a little on nitrate which I don't think is in dispute, or is it ? other wise it is just a lot of guys arguing about nothing in particular all saying much the same thing and trying to get the last word !!! I am a member of reef tank, I'm very surprised at your remarks re Dr Ron ! he is highly regarded in the hobby and the marine biology circles and considered as one of the most knowledgeable marine biologists practising today it rare for anybody to dispute his opinion with authority. regards, unclenorm. unclenorm, Wow! That musta been some rapid skimming... now if I could just find a skimmer that fast for my tanks. :-) Right, the Nitrate question isn't the issue, I haven't found silicates to be a personal issue for me so not targeting that one either. How you missed the issues with Phosphates in the threads, I dunno, full socket blinders maybe? I do accept that Dr. Ron is without question an expert in at least a couple of areas and for sure has done large sums for the hobby. Certainly more than I could ever dream! I just disagree with the DSB as the Holy Grail philosophy is all. Sorry if my opinion offends you. I have read a good number of his writings as well as many that counter them with authority, so I don't feel that way to be spiteful. Signature-- Benjamin1@netins.net > Benjamin, > I have skimmed through both those forums and I don't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > regards, > unclenorm. Hi Benjamin, Sorry this reply is a bit late, I have been pretty busy just lately and still am setting up a 350gall system (230gall display with 120gall sump/fug.) still ongoing every thing is DIY. To answer your queries, Oxygen measurements I don't know but I do know that it is fact that below 3.5 to 4" in sand, not substrate with larger particle size, it will be anaerobic provided power heads etc. are not pumping water directly at and therefore into the sand bed, as the water permeates down into the bed it becomes oxygen depleted i.e. anaerobic. When nitrates are produced by whatever method they are immediately released into the water column ( diffused to the water column as you put it ) they do not settle out. I am not a marine biologist so I cannot give you a technical answer as to how phosphates are exported, but I can quote you my own experience. On more than one occasion I have upgraded a reef to a larger tank transferring every thing in the tank including the water, never with any nutrient issues i.e. nitrate, phosphate, silicates. the last occasion was about seven moths ago when I upgraded a 75gall that had been running with a deep sand bed for about four years with virtualy no water changes to a 120gall, now as you can imagine the sand bed was well stirred up in the proses, when water tests were done after a few days when things had settled the nitrate, phosphate and silicate values were negligible. Now that to me is ample proof that correctly operating deep sand bed does not store phosphate and silicates as some people seam to believe. If you want further more scientific information on this subject I would suggest you visit Dr Ron Shimik's web site for a start. Sorry I don't have the time to put all the referenced info together just now. My currant project will keep me fully occupied for another two or three weeks maybe more, I'm retired and on a pension, funds are quite low so I do all I can DIY which is usually just about everything !. regards, unclenorm. unclenorm, Have I ever disputed that a DSB is a giant nutrient sponge? I may have indicated that LR and DSB's have a variably finite capacity, but I really dunno what issue your addressing with your rebuttal below. Signature-- Benjamin1@netins.net > Hi Benjamin, > Sorry this reply is a bit late, I have been [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > regards, > unclenorm. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.