DJBoy98 November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 To add to the thread, had anyone ever had crazy growth in the Overflow? I had tons of green turf/hair algae growing there that it kept the Chaeto and regular algae growing in the main tank. When I covered it with foil, the algae started growing in the main tank. Now, I'm just content to letting it grow in the overflow and harvesting it periodically. I have filter socks to catch the loose stands. I think you need both. My skimmer pulls a lot of foul stuff and keeping Anthias doesn't help. Probably a stupid question but does a skimmer pull stuff like Ca, Mg, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Reefer November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 IMHO, controlling nitrates & phosphates in a reef system is the number one problem in this hobby. I see beginners at the LFS all the time eyeing the salt water fish and corals. Usually they have had fresh water fish and decided to go for it. They have no understanding of water parameters, the nitrogen cycle or anything that is involved in this hobby. They rely on the LFS for advice & are told that it really does not cost much & all they need is a skimmer, proper water circulation, proper lights, live rock and some sand. They buy a system & are up in running. The first thing they add are usually fish. At this point, they do not have any plan for taking care of the nitrates & phosphates and think a skimmer & live rock will take care of the problem. They always seem to add to many fish for what their system can handle. The next thing that happens is microalgae takes over their system and then they learn about the problems of exporting nitrates and phosphates. Many drop out because of the algae problems. Perhaps the beginners would be better off if they were told that they need a large refugium with lots of sand & macroalgae to start with rather than buying some cheap skimmer that does not work very well. Later on, they could add on a nice skimmer if they insist on adding more & more fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zygote2k November 24, 2008 Author Share November 24, 2008 To add to the thread, had anyone ever had crazy growth in the Overflow? I had tons of green turf/hair algae growing there that it kept the Chaeto and regular algae growing in the main tank. When I covered it with foil,the algae started growing in the main tank. Now, I'm just content to letting it grow in the overflow and harvesting it periodically. I have filter socks to catch the loose stands. I think you need both. My skimmer pulls a lot of foul stuff and keeping Anthias doesn't help. Probably a stupid question but does a skimmer pull stuff like Ca, Mg, etc? A skimmer pulls out indiscriminately. ANY kind of protein. That is one of the main reasons of needing to add regular additions of trace elements in a skimmed system. Take out the filter socks- they only add to the pollution in the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 A skimmer pulls out indiscriminately. ANY kind of protein. That is one of the main reasons of needing to add regular additions of trace elements in a skimmed system. Take out the filter socks- they only add to the pollution in the system. What about algae? They are known to uptake many elements. I don't follow the logic that harvesting algae from a refugium requires no trace element replenishment, but a skimmer that pulls out an unquantifiable and unqualifiable amount of gunk requires us to add back a similarly unqualifiable and unquantifiable amount of trace elements. FWIW, I only add things I can test for, skimmer or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucelli November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 There is nothing natural about the way we keep reef animals, be it corals or fish. Of all the different systems we employ to fight the constant nutrient battle, none replicate what truly happens in the ocean. The difference between a refugium and a skimmer in the way they handle nutrients is that a skimmer attempts to take them out before they break down, while a refugium contains organisms which break down the nutrients into phosphate and nitrate as end products. A functioning DSB or large amounts of algae can further process the nitrates. Employing a refugium or algae to deal with nutrients adds additional maintenance (maintaining the sandbed with numerous creatures which turn the sand slowly to avoid stagnation and nitrogen sulfate buildup) not to mention what is involved in supporting a large algal population (one of the reasons in which Dr. Adey's system was not able to support sps species IMO). Skimmers where mentioned earlier to possibly remove beneficial trace minerals vital to coral health. While that may be a possibility, algae also consumes trace minerals as they grow, not to mention the chemicals some of them release which hinder coral growth. There are also scientific papers written about the proximity of algae to sps inhibiting calcifying coral growth. IMO a skimmer is necessary to help keep water closer to natural reef clarity/cleanliness. If what we are talking about are soft coral only reef tanks, then nothing said above really matters. Like ctenophore said "That stuff will grow in drainage ditches given some salt and the right temperature" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucelli November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 Also wanted to add that if "Natural" is what we want, a skimmer is more natural than a refugium in the sense that on a reef, nutrients/food is brought in and swept out by the current before it has a chance to breakdown. A skimmer is the best tool we have to simulate that aspect of the reef. Nothing really gets a chance to sit around and be broken down like they are in a refugium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zygote2k November 24, 2008 Author Share November 24, 2008 Algae also requires trace elements to grow properly, fish and inverts do too. I thought that what we were ultimately trying to do was to obtain a complete nitrogen cycle in our tanks. The 'fuge accomplishes that. I believe the algae that inhibits sps growth was hair algae or Caulerpa. I'm 100% against growing that stuff. There doesn't seem to be large growths of macros around sps on the reef either, but the nearby lagoon probably does a good job of filtering some of the wastes that are associated with the reef. I obtained a piece of Tyree Tricolor Bali Acro for the starter colony of sps in my system. My prediction: Growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extreme_tooth_decay November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 Also wanted to add that if "Natural" is what we want, a skimmer is more natural than a refugium in the sense that on a reef, nutrients/food is brought in and swept out by the current before it has a chance to breakdown. A skimmer is the best tool we have to simulate that aspect of the reef. Nothing really gets a chance to sit around and be broken down like they are in a refugium. I find these threads amusing. I sure disagree with the above assertion! Nothing natural at all about a skimmer (unless a super being is emptying out a giant collection cup into a giant sewer somewhere...no jokes about NJ please). It's 100% artificial technology. Fuge: 100% natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Hind November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I guess you have never seen foam at the beach before. "Scientists explain that the foam is created by impurities in the ocean, such as salts, chemicals, dead plants, decomposed fish and excretions from seaweed. All are churned up together by powerful currents which cause the water to form bubbles. These bubbles stick to each other as they are carried below the surface by the current towards the shore. As a wave starts to form on the surface, the motion of the water causes the bubbles to swirl upwards and, massed together, they become foam." Photos and quote taken from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucelli November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I find these threads amusing. I sure disagree with the above assertion! Nothing natural at all about a skimmer (unless a super being is emptying out a giant collection cup into a giant sewer somewhere...no jokes about NJ please). It's 100% artificial technology. Fuge: 100% natural. I'm glad we can amuse you. I completely respect your disagreement to my above statement. However, this thread would benefit more if readers can see the scientific basis on which a poster makes a claim. You have not stated anything which reinforces your idea that refugiums are 100% natural. Anyways getting back on topic.. My point is that to support all the added organisms in a refugium, additional maintenance is needed. Some examples are: *harvesting of algae *use of carbon to remove yellowing compounds released by algae *the use of reverse light cycle to prevent ph dips caused by algae respiration. *regular replenishing of sand stirrers to prevent sand stagnation, but not so much as to disturb the anaerobic bacteria under. None of the above are natural BTW. Therefore, IMO a refugium is not a better way for dealing with the nutrient problem. The only reason I see for keeping a refugium is the possibility of increasing the pod population or just for kicks (because you enjoy keeping algae/pods/ and stuff). Why go though all that trouble of breaking all that down if you can just remove it to begin with? On the reef, corals are brought fresh live foods in daily cycles. Waste are swept away in the same way live foods are brought in. Most of us do not have the luxury of feeding live foods so we make do with dried or frozen. However, any food, be it fresh or frozen, needs to be removed before it decomposes. That's what a skimmer does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extreme_tooth_decay November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 You have not stated anything which reinforces your idea that refugiums are 100% natural. Sorry, I thought that part was obvious. The reason I state they are 100% natural is because everything in them is naturally found in the ocean. tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extreme_tooth_decay November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I guess you have never seen foam at the beach before. I still don't see the giant hand removing that skimmate from the ocean and putting it somewhere else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zygote2k November 24, 2008 Author Share November 24, 2008 A properly stocked 'fuge allows fresh, live food to always be present. The carbon is not to remove any tannins, but to simply polish the water. Since I don't use single celled algae, I don't have the "yellow water" syndrome. I harvest the algae for food for me and the fishes too. I don't know what other types of systems would allow you to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBoy98 November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I still don't see the giant hand removing that skimmate from the ocean and putting it somewhere else.... Haha that is funny.. But then again, you don't see the Jolly Green giant harvesting the algae either. Either way, they help export nutrients. Much like when MH's were considered a must for SPS, T5's have changed that notion. It's really up to the reefer what he/she prefers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanCallan November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 Also wanted to add that if "Natural" is what we want, a skimmer is more natural than a refugium in the sense that on a reef, nutrients/food is brought in and swept out by the current before it has a chance to breakdown. A skimmer is the best tool we have to simulate that aspect of the reef. Nothing really gets a chance to sit around and be broken down like they are in a refugium. I guess you have never seen foam at the beach before. "Scientists explain that the foam is created by impurities in the ocean, such as salts, chemicals, dead plants, decomposed fish and excretions from seaweed. All are churned up together by powerful currents which cause the water to form bubbles. These bubbles stick to each other as they are carried below the surface by the current towards the shore. As a wave starts to form on the surface, the motion of the water causes the bubbles to swirl upwards and, massed together, they become foam." Photos and quote taken from here. Bingo! Wave action = skimming. I still don't see the giant hand removing that skimmate from the ocean and putting it somewhere else.... The only thing you're trying to do in this post is upset people in the discussion. You've contributed nothing but an obviously sarcastic comment in the hopes of bating someone. But to answer your question, theres this thing we often times refer to as wind which is responsible for carrying foam from the beach further inland where it would ultimately be absorbed into the soil. I've been under the weather lately so I spent some re-watching all the Planet Earth series and it highlighted a fact people seem to miss: Food in the ocean. They repeatedly mention that creatures in the ocean are on a constant hunt for food, there is no abundance of it in one particular area all the time. For the same reasoning as to why a skimmer isn't natural, neither is a fuge. For every reef there is heavy current and waves which will skim a portion of the proteins but there is no large dedicated patch of algae for each reef to filter the water or provide nutrients. Pods and other critters will grow in a tank without a fuge but you won't get the mechanic removal the waves provide without a skimmer (or ridiculous wave maker). The vast majority of TOTM across the web with their vibrant colors and varied livestock use skimmers but not all of them use fuges. Fuges have some serious pros, but they also have a number of cons which a skimmer simply doesn't not bring to the table. That all being said I always use a skimmer and most of the time have a small fuge, but the fuge is more for reproduction of pods than it is for waste removal. There are just some pollutants that you'll never remove with a fuge which will be removed with a skimmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I still don't see the giant hand removing that skimmate from the ocean and putting it somewhere else.... Sure, it's called wind. That skimmate goes into estuaries, coastal swamps and grassflats. Those are nature's refugiums. Because corals & fish don't want to live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extreme_tooth_decay November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 The only thing you're trying to do in this post is upset people in the discussion. You've contributed nothing but an obviously sarcastic comment in the hopes of bating someone. But to answer your question, theres this thing we often times refer to as wind which is responsible for carrying foam from the beach further inland where it would ultimately be absorbed into the soil. Completely incorrect, sir, and I don't appreciate your negativity. I completely believe and re-assert: A skimmer is unnatural technology that is unlike anything in the ocean. A refugium is completely natural, made up of naturally occuring items from the ocean. That's all I said, and there was nothing negative about it. Those are my opinions, and seem closer to facts than opinions, but that's my opinion! About the assertion of wind carrying away skimmate...well, the billions (or trillions) of gallons that would be necessary to equate to an ocean-sized skimmer...I just don't believe it. Everything within 100 miles of the coast would be coated in 3" of skimmate in 3 months... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 About the assertion of wind carrying away skimmate...well, the billions (or trillions) of gallons that would be necessary to equate to an ocean-sized skimmer...I just don't believe it. Everything within 100 miles of the coast would be coated in 3" of skimmate in 3 months... Better not cut down those mangrove forests and grassflats then! You might want to pick up a good text on ocean ecology to better understand nutrient cycles. There is a lot more to nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon pathways than simple sea foam blowing in the wind. You will be surprised just how unnatural anything you keep in a glass box in your house is compared to the real thing, "refugium" or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbuf November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I wonder if this toolbag even knows what he's covered in GROSS!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanCallan November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 Completely incorrect, sir, and I don't appreciate your negativity. I completely believe and re-assert: A skimmer is unnatural technology that is unlike anything in the ocean. A refugium is completely natural, made up of naturally occuring items from the ocean. That's all I said, and there was nothing negative about it. Those are my opinions, and seem closer to facts than opinions, but that's my opinion! About the assertion of wind carrying away skimmate...well, the billions (or trillions) of gallons that would be necessary to equate to an ocean-sized skimmer...I just don't believe it. Everything within 100 miles of the coast would be coated in 3" of skimmate in 3 months... The solution to pollution is dilution. Reefs are a very very small part of a very huge ocean. Theres no need for tons of skimming since the ocean is no way near as packed as our tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I wonder if this toolbag even knows what he's covered in GROSS!!!!! Somehow I doubt he would have as negative a reaction as those girls in the second photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucelli November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 (edited) Completely incorrect, sir, and I don't appreciate your negativity. About the assertion of wind carrying away skimmate...well, the billions (or trillions) of gallons that would be necessary to equate to an ocean-sized skimmer...I just don't believe it. Everything within 100 miles of the coast would be coated in 3" of skimmate in 3 months... No politics. BB Edited November 24, 2008 by BeltwayBandit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extreme_tooth_decay November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 You might want to pick up a good text on ocean ecology to better understand nutrient cycles. There is a lot more to nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon pathways than simple sea foam blowing in the wind. I was just replying to what was being said. I don't buy that argument either. You will be surprised just how unnatural anything you keep in a glass box in your house is compared to the real thing, "refugium" or not. I don't think I would. My whole point is that our tanks are very unnatural. The solution to pollution is dilution. Reefs are a very very small part of a very huge ocean. Theres no need for tons of skimming since the ocean is no way near as packed as our tanks. This is a good point. It would be interesting to add up the water volume of reefs in the ocean and estimate how much, if any skimmate would need to be actually removed from the system to approximate our own tanks. You are probably right, in that once diluted into the ocean it becomes trace. Of course, those traces might add up over time if not for... I wonder if this toolbag even knows what he's covered in I wonder if we do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucelli November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 I wonder if this toolbag even knows what he's covered in GROSS!!!!! Too funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanCallan November 24, 2008 Share November 24, 2008 This is a good point. It would be interesting to add up the water volume of reefs in the ocean and estimate how much, if any skimmate would need to be actually removed from the system to approximate our own tanks. You are probably right, in that once diluted into the ocean it becomes trace. Of course, those traces might add up over time if not for... If not for wave action which happens 24/7 without the need for sunlight? I bet those Tsunamis and Typhoons help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now