Persistence paid off

Hmmm... anything on your hands (lotion etc.,) that could have caused the skimmer to react? That's not typical.

Jenn
 
Hair Gel is a common culprit in making a skimmer over skim, as it's filled with polymers. Any possibility?
 
nope no hair gel or anything.. it's been skimming like mad since yesterday.. pulling all kinds of nastiness out of the water. It hasnt skimmed anything out in a couple weeks. Im glad its finally doing something though.
 
Skimmer pulling out the nasty is great...bio wheels are gone...posting so I can follow this thread. Good luck and I will be following!

CJ
 
Wow, this is kind of bizarre!

I've never heard of a Biowheel keeping a skimmer from working.

I suggest that you encourage a more experienced reefer to come by for a look-see.

:confused2:
 
Look into adding a plenum. Easy to make and no equipment to run one. It will not help you immediately, but it will longterm. I use a plenum and a macroalgae refugium on my 120 and only do about 2 water changes a year. My nitrates and phosphates are undetectable and my corals are outgrowing the tank. I replace elements with Tropic Marin products and the extra cost of those is more than made up for in savings on salt and water and hassle. But a plenum could be made for your size tank for about 10 bucks and if you keep at least 2 inches of substrate (2-4mm size) it should work well. Might take a few months to get to where you want to be, but after that, you should see good results.
 
Sorry to hear all the trouble your having this is puzzling to say the least tagging along as well
 
Respectfully, the plenum method went "out of style" about 10 years ago, and does have its own long-term issues. I've pulled out enough smelly plenums to attest to that.

Water changing once or twice a year, is also an inadequate way to keep any aquarium.

Jenn
 
JennM;728510 wrote: Respectfully, the plenum method went "out of style" about 10 years ago, and does have its own long-term issues. I've pulled out enough smelly plenums to attest to that.

Water changing once or twice a year, is also an inadequate way to keep any aquarium.

Jenn

Respectfully, maybe for you. I'm not having any issues and I've been doing this since the 80s. You'd do best to see my system before rendering such a judgement. I do siphon the sand bed once a month, but the water is reclaimed and not "changed". Surely you should know that one should not change a winning formula. I have wonderful and growing coral colonies that are all over 6 years old. I've had to give away multiple half colonies of coral to allow for continued growth. In fact, I have a 280 on the way so that I can get my adult emperor angel out so I can remove some coral and add some different colors. She doesn't eat the stuff she grew up with, but devours anything new that gets added. This has left me with limits on my variety.

Thanks for the comments. I greatly disagree with you on plenums though. Used correctly they are great.

Water changes are something that help greatly on small systems, but they are costly and less necessary on larger systems if correct biological means are used. Doing 10 percent water changes are rarely any good for nutrient control because you are only removing 10% of the nutrients......that still leaves 90% behind.
 
I wasn't trying to pick a fight, just respectfully offering an opposing opinion. If it's working for you - terrific. I've seen numerous examples to the contrary. Even Jaubert admitted there were flaws in the plenum system.

If it isn't broken - don't fix it, I agree, however in this individual's case, it's my professional opinion that a plenum isn't the answer.

Jenn
 
JennM;728642 wrote: I wasn't trying to pick a fight, just respectfully offering an opposing opinion. If it's working for you - terrific. I've seen numerous examples to the contrary. Even Jaubert admitted there were flaws in the plenum system.

If it isn't broken - don't fix it, I agree, however in this individual's case, it's my professional opinion that a plenum isn't the answer.

Jenn

No worries. You certainly have a better idea of this person's husbandry methods than I do. Typically, feeding is the issue.

Not aware of Jaubert claiming anything other than how to properly care for the plenum system. Any links citing your claim are greatly welcomed. I am acquaintances with Calfo and have discussed plenums and DSBs with him as well. He seems neutral on plenums and doesn't think they do as claimed. I've had great success with them. They helped me go from a lingering 5-10 ppm nitrate reading to consistently undetectable. The general consensus is not about whether the method works well or not......it is usually about whether they are properly applied. Plenums have been misapplied and not assembled or maintained correctly......and that may have caused the stinky plenums you refer to. I moved my entire setup in November of 2010 and the plenum had been in place for 4+ years at that point and no stink! Are referring to hydrogen sulfide production? or just detritus buildup?

I would think that 50% water changes are in order though as 10% water changes are only gonna drop him from 20ppm to 18ppm. Not sure there is much of a difference there.
 
Patrick-

Respectfully,

I have used the plenum also (125 gallon reef). What I found was that they do work...for a while.

I discovered that saltwater aquariums are inherently carbon limited. No plenum can change that. It's fundamental biochemistry, and the stoichiometry does not lie.

I have come to suspect that the nutrients become bound within the sand bed in a plenum. There is evidence, and a technical basis basis for this mechanism.

If the plenum works for you, who is anyone to argue with that?

As for me, I had a system crash that wiped out 37 healthy corals, several fish and all the inverts. This was about 3 years into the plenum use.

FWIW- I have been in this hobby off/on since the mid-70's and excel in chemistry's/biology's and physics. None of that helped me when using a plenum. I have not had any similar problems since abandoning it.


Now, I supplement using organic carbon and my system parameters are spot on. Coral health and growth are excellent. I keep mostly LE zoa's plus a few ricordea's, LPS, SPS and mushrooms.
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend>
728681=34693-zoa's.jpg
>
728681=34693-zoa's.jpg
class="gc-images" title="zoa's.jpg[/IMG] style="max-width:300px" /></a> </fieldset>
 
ichthyoid;728681 wrote: Patrick-

Respectfully,

I have used the plenum also (125 gallon reef). What I found was that they do work...for a while.

I discovered that saltwater aquariums are inherently carbon limited. No plenum can change that. It's fundamental biochemistry, and the stoichiometry does not lie.

I have come to suspect that the nutrients become bound within the sand bed in a plenum. There is evidence, and a technical basis basis for this mechanism.

If the plenum works for you, who is anyone to argue with that?

As for me, I had a system crash that wiped out 37 healthy corals, several fish and all the inverts. This was about 3 years into the plenum use.

FWIW- I have been in this hobby off/on since the mid-70's and excel in chemistry's/biology's and physics. None of that helped me when using a plenum. I have not had any similar problems since abandoning it.


Now, I supplement using organic carbon and my system parameters are spot on. Coral health and growth are excellent. I keep mostly LE zoa's plus a few ricordea's, LPS, SPS and mushrooms.

Interesting. I disagree with your premise.........except that closed marine aquariums are severely carbon limited. That is wholeheartedly true. I add 90 proof vodka for that very reason because it is certainly true. I may have a line on some moonshine.......an even better source of organic carbon. Also, I can see into my plenum from under the tank and not much is building up. Proper maintenance of a plenum is important.

If the plenum and health of the aquarium is maintained.....and the carbon availability......the bacteria...as well as other detrivores.....should limit any binding of nutrients within the plenum. One could even say that.....using your premise.....these same nutrients would become bound in any sandbed of depth......even 2-3 inches. Of course, how much flow and disturbance there is would impact that.

My whole premise for the plenum is to allow the bacteria....pseudomonas species most likely......to participate in facilitative anaerobic respiration and break down the nitrate to meet their need for oxygen. This is the main mechanism. So many think it is anaerobic bacteria that perform this task, but it is more likely that aerobic bacteria that possess the ability to perform facilitative anaerobic respiration complete the denitrification process.

In any event, glad we all have our opinions and different ways to accomplish things. It is interesting how the things that work for some, create headaches for others.

I am very open and willing to read any of the "evidence" you refer to. Always willing to learn.

Edit:
ichthyoid;728681 wrote: Patrick-

FWIW- I have been in this hobby off/on since the mid-70's

And WOW! I thought I was old.......you've got to be ancient! :lol2:
 
Patrick;728825 wrote: Interesting. I disagree with your premise.........except that closed marine aquariums are severely carbon limited. That is wholeheartedly true. I add 90 proof vodka for that very reason because it is certainly true. I may have a line on some moonshine.......an even better source of organic carbon. Also, I can see into my plenum from under the tank and not much is building up. Proper maintenance of a plenum is important.

If the plenum and health of the aquarium is maintained.....and the carbon availability......the bacteria...as well as other detrivores.....should limit any binding of nutrients within the plenum. One could even say that.....using your premise.....these same nutrients would become bound in any sandbed of depth......even 2-3 inches. Of course, how much flow and disturbance there is would impact that.

My whole premise for the plenum is to allow the bacteria....pseudomonas species most likely......to participate in facilitative anaerobic respiration and break down the nitrate to meet their need for oxygen. This is the main mechanism. So many think it is anaerobic bacteria that perform this task, but it is more likely that aerobic bacteria that possess the ability to perform facilitative anaerobic respiration complete the denitrification process.

In any event, glad we all have our opinions and different ways to accomplish things. It is interesting how the things that work for some, create headaches for others.

I am very open and willing to read any of the "evidence" you refer to. Always willing to learn.

Edit:

And WOW! I thought I was old.......you've got to be ancient! :lol2:


Ahhh, so you carbon dose! That's a game changer my friend. I assume that you have a big skimmer on this tank of yours as well?

I actually agree with everything you said, except the role that the plenum allegedly contributes.

I, and many others, have great success dosing carbon without plenums. So, what does that say about the plenums 'critical' role?

It tells me it is unnecessary/provides no benefit.

The prevailing premise is that the carbon supplementation reduces or eliminates the carbon limitation on bacterial growth in the water column. Those bacteria now grow prolifically and bind up excess nutrients, including nitrate and phosphate, before they are able to diffuse into substrates, and be incorporated by bacteria there.

Bacterial export (via protein skimming) is energetically favored, therefore dominates.

Nutrient diffusion into substrates is not favored, being dependent on pore size, diffusion gradient and depth.

FWIW-
I grew up in central Florida, in the heart of the phosphate belt, and saw the results first hand. Millions of years of this action left phosphate rich deposits several meters thick in limestone bedrock. My Dad worked in the industry for years.

I have been around a while, a little before the invention of dirt. :yes:

Now for the reference-

http://www.eas.gatech.edu/files/Ingall_NewsViews2010.pdf">http://www.eas.gatech.edu/files/Ingall_NewsViews2010.pdf</a>

At some concentration the dynamics will shift from, deposition of phosphorous into the substrate mediated by bacteria, to release back into the tanks water column. That is what I believed happened in my tank.
 
So hows the tank working out for the OP these days? Are you lowering again or did it spike?
 
Frantz;728906 wrote: So hows the tank working out for the OP these days? Are you lowering again or did it spike?

went two days w/o a change and it stayed at 15. Did a change yesterday, will see this morning if i got it down any lower. I think it has about stabled out... *knock on wood* Ill keep you all updated. Thanks again for the help and suggestions!
 
ichthyoid;728899 said:
I have been around a while, a little before the invention of dirt. :yes:

QUOTE]

One more thing we have in common. Matter of fact, I new the Dead Sea when it was just sick. :eek:
 
ichthyoid;728899 wrote: Ahhh, so you carbon dose! That's a game changer my friend. I assume that you have a big skimmer on this tank of yours as well?

I actually agree with everything you said, except the role that the plenum allegedly contributes.

I, and many others, have great success dosing carbon without plenums. So, what does that say about the plenums 'critical' role?

It tells me it is unnecessary/provides no benefit.

The prevailing premise is that the carbon supplementation reduces or eliminates the carbon limitation on bacterial growth in the water column. Those bacteria now grow prolifically and bind up excess nutrients, including nitrate and phosphate, before they are able to diffuse into substrates, and be incorporated by bacteria there.

Bacterial export (via protein skimming) is energetically favored, therefore dominates.

Nutrient diffusion into substrates is not favored, being dependent on pore size, diffusion gradient and depth.

FWIW-
I grew up in central Florida, in the heart of the phosphate belt, and saw the results first hand. Millions of years of this action left phosphate rich deposits several meters thick in limestone bedrock. My Dad worked in the industry for years.

I have been around a while, a little before the invention of dirt. :yes:

Now for the reference-

http://www.eas.gatech.edu/files/Ingall_NewsViews2010.pdf">http://www.eas.gatech.edu/files/Ingall_NewsViews2010.pdf</a>

At some concentration the dynamics will shift from, deposition of phosphorous into the substrate mediated by bacteria, to release back into the tanks water column. That is what I believed happened in my tank.[/QUOTE]


Thanks for the link. Interesting. I keep my magnesium rather high........1400-1500....not necessarily on purpose, but it just tends to stay there dosing the TM Bio Calcium that I've determined to be added to keep the Ca between 425-450. I haven't had to dose the Bio Magnesium in quite some time. I say that because I feel that the higher Mg level limits the formation of the CaPO4. I can only attribute the phosphorus level being so low to the macroalgae. And, by nutrients....I assumed you found something that included more that just phosphorus.......but that is certainly something to consider because it does leach into any CaCO3 items. And, of course back out when that same CaCO3 is broken down. Of course, the plenum is not integral, but it helped with the NO3 level even before I had the skimmer and dosing regimen I have now. It falls into the "has helped", can't hurt category for me.....and is why I use them still. It costs next to nothing and properly maintained, has helped me personally. It is cheaper and more aesthetically pleasing to me than a DSB. I do also have a BK 200 skimmer which does help.

Edit: [QUOTE=][B]UmbrellaCorp;728951 wrote:[/B] went two days w/o a change and it stayed at 15. Did a change yesterday, will see this morning if i got it down any lower. I think it has about stabled out... *knock on wood* Ill keep you all updated. Thanks again for the help and suggestions![/QUOTE]

Glad to hear that you are coming down. Sorry the thread got hijacked from my plenum suggestion. You can decide for yourself if it is something worth looking into.

But, I would strongly recommend that if you are gonna do water changes to help correct nutrients, you really need to look into doing water changes that are more like 50%. So, long as you mix the water in a separate tub for a day and nearly match salinity, and temperature.....you should be fine. It certainly cannot hurt to do even a 100% Water change in this regard as opposed to allowing nitrates to linger are very high levels. It may not be advisable on a stable system, but I would find it hard to believe that your corals would be hardy enough to survive troublesome nutrient levels, but not hardy enough to withstand a 50% water change. I have even performed 75% water changes on a tank with bleaching SPS and nitrates in the 40s. The corals rebounded nicely.......to my surprise. Disclaimer......wasn't a tank of mine, but an acquaintance in Okinawa. I never have nutrient issues because I use a plenum and refugium. :yes:
 
well my nitrates are stable now *knock on wood* i can go a week without a WC until they jump. So i just do weekly WCs and im good. Though i dont have anything in the tanks except some snails/hermits and a couple shrimp. Hopefully when i add more live stock the wont jump. The only problem now is my alkalinity is REALLY low. Working on getting that back up.
 
Back
Top