skimmer vs. refugium

[extreme_tooth_decay]

This sounds like something the extremist right would say.

No politcs. BB!

 

 

Talk about being off topic...

 

You may want to review the forum rules, sir. Attacking someone in this unproviked, off-topic manner is not really what WAMAS is about.

 

I know you are new here, but you will do well to stick to the topic and away from personal attacks.

 

tim

 

 

The original post was edited to remove political content. BB

Edited November 24, 2008 by BeltwayBandit

[chucelli]

hmm,

I didn't see that as a personal attack.

[SeanCallan]

Talk about being off topic...

 

You may want to review the forum rules, sir. Attacking someone in this unproviked, off-topic manner is not really what WAMAS is about.

 

I know you are new here, but you will do well to stick to the topic and away from personal attacks.

 

tim

 

Following all your comments with ", sir" doesn't make them any more disrespectful than his comments. His comments are about politics which are not allowed, your large hand comment either refers to a fictional giant or God, which is religious and therefore off-topic as well.

 

I'm a "right wing whacko" and I am less offended by his comment than yours. Your comment either assumes we're just too dumb to know that a big hand doesn't clean the shoreline or you were looking for someone to get fired up about it. Either way it is as deserving of a post on the thread as his comments.

 

If everyone just contributes something of substance, regardless or wrong or right, there shouldn't be a problem. But egging on people is going to further derail the post.

 

Can't we all just get along?! Think about the corals!

Edited November 24, 2008 by SeanCallan

[extreme_tooth_decay]

If not for wave action which happens 24/7 without the need for sunlight?

 

I bet those Tsunamis and Typhoons help.

 

 

You may be right.

 

"My gut" tells me that there just isn't much (or more than just trace amounts) of skim being carried by wind out and away from the ocean system, even through 24/7 churning, but I don't know. Even at 1/1000 the rate of our own tanks, there would seemingly be a titanic amount of skimmate. Or 1/10000. I would think whatever dilution rate you choose, the unaccounted for skimmate would be huge. That's just my guess, though.

 

Are you aware of any data that has been collected which can be used to answer this question?

 

Unfortunately, I think that this is just another question in this hobby which is unanswered except for collective guessing.

 

tim

[SeanCallan]

You may be right.

 

"My gut" tells me that there just isn't much (or more than just trace amounts) of skim being carried by wind out and away from the ocean system, even through 24/7 churning, but I don't know. Even at 1/1000 the rate of our own tanks, there would seemingly be a titanic amount of skimmate. Or 1/10000. I would think whatever dilution rate you choose, the unaccounted for skimmate would be huge. That's just my guess, though.

 

Are you aware of any data that has been collected which can be used to answer this question?

 

Unfortunately, I think that this is just another question in this hobby which is unanswered except for collective guessing.

 

tim

 

The world's oceans have approximately 350,000,000,000,000,000 US gallons. WAY beyond 1/1000 or even 1/10000

 

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml

 

As for facts? I could get some if you'd like. I studied biology extensively in college and even did some time in the marine biology labs studying clams and the reefs off of Savannah.

 

Remember that every single time the wave crashes to shore it's working as a mechanic filter and removing a portion of what we refer to as skimmage. It may not all be clearly visible at one given time, but it's occurring everywhere all the time.

Edited November 24, 2008 by SeanCallan

[extreme_tooth_decay]

I'm a "right wing whacko" and I am less offended by his comment than yours. Your comment either assumes we're just too dumb to know that a big hand doesn't clean the shoreline or you were looking for someone to get fired up about it. Either way it is as deserving of a post on the thread as his comments.

 

 

Like the previous poster commented, the big hand comment was obviously a joke. I was not trying to offend you, and I'm sorry if I did. I was also responding to someone else when I made that reply, not you.

 

I did not call you a name like he did to me, or make an irrelevant list of jibberish and claim it's something you might believe. I was joking with someone else.

 

tim

[extreme_tooth_decay]

The world's oceans have approximately 350,000,000,000,000,000 US gallons. WAY beyond 1/1000 or even 1/10000

 

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml

 

 

I was saying the rate, not the size. I was taking about the rate per gallon of skimmate production.

[zygote2k]

What kind of things will a skimmer remove that a 'fuge won't?

[SeanCallan]

I was saying the rate, not the size. I was taking about the rate per gallon of skimmate production.

 

I know exactly what you were talking about. But considering that the ocean is ENORMOUS in comparison to our tanks and the reefs are such a tiny fraction, they don't push the bioload of the ocean nearly as much as our tanks do.

 

At home you have such a small portion of water pet fur and dust can be measurable in your tank (without skimming), but in the ocean they would be completely lost.

[extreme_tooth_decay]

I know exactly what you were talking about. But considering that the ocean is ENORMOUS in comparison to our tanks and the reefs are such a tiny fraction, they don't push the bioload of the ocean nearly as much as our tanks do.

 

At home you have such a small portion of water pet fur and dust can be measurable in your tank (without skimming), but in the ocean they would be completely lost.

 

 

Like I mentioned in my previous post, I'm just not satisfied with this type of analysis.

 

Real data is needed. Yes, the ocean is big, but that may or may not be the answer. It seems reasonable that over long periods of time without *something*, even the big ocean would get polluted.

 

The 2 "ideas" here seem to be either a refugium-esque handling of the "skimmate" or a wind driven removal of it.

 

I'd like to see data (which I'm sure does not exist) to go forward, but my hunch (since there is no data) is that the wind-based removal just doesn't add up.

 

Doesn't look like we're really getting anywhere here (and, like so many other topic in this hobby, we can't without data), so I'll remove my ugly mug from this thread.

 

Best to you all.

 

Except that one guy.

 

tim

[ctenophore]

What kind of things will a skimmer remove that a 'fuge won't?

 

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.

 

According to you, trace elements and "any kind of protein"?

[zygote2k]

According to you, trace elements and "any kind of protein"?

SeanCallan had stated that a skimmer pulls out stuff that a 'fuge won't. I know that skimmers pull out all sorts of nitrogenous wastes and trace elements. A 'fuge will pull the same stuff out too.

[Sugar Magnolia]

I think this thread has gotten to the "we can agree to disagree" stage. Everyone (*) is entitled to their own opinion and and at this point, everyone's opinion has been stated. No point arguing the point any longer IMO.

 

(*) By everyone, I mean those who have participated in this thread thus far.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Sugar Magnolia

[davelin315]

First off, let's clear something up here. A refugium is simply an area of refuge for organisms that may not typically survive in the main display due to predation or conditions. Macroalgae is something that you can add to a refugium, but it is not necessary to have a refugium. It's all about the nomenclature.

 

Now, that pet peeve aside, refugiums do not remove organics and particulates from a system. What they do is they aid in breaking them down and also help to concentrate them in one place and absorb whatever they can from that area. A skimmer is indiscriminate about what it removes from your water column, be it particulates or organic matter. They are far superior in removal of unwanted things from your tank. Next time you harvest your macroalgae, give it a shake and see what comes out, you'll get an awful lot of detritus, much of which will make its way back into your system when you remove the algae. If you have rooted algae then you'll note that it gathers a lot of detritus in its roots, again, not removing it but collecting it. A skimmer on the other hand simply removes this stuff. I recently had to OD my tank on carbon when I had a leak through the ceiling, dropping who knows what into the tank. This in turn caused a lot of problems with the carbon dust because I had to be so aggressive with the way I was using it to rapidly filter my system. This in turn caused problems for some of my tangs with HLLE. My skimmer pulled all of the carbon dust out of my water and allowed the tank to get closer to how it was prior to the leak. The skimmate was actually black and the particulates in it would not precipitate, so with just a refugium, I wouldn't have been able to have success. Also, if you look at skimmate, you'll notice that it is always cloudy, it doesn't settle out. I have a large refugium with macroalgae and it doesn't do nearly the job that my skimmer does.

 

Again, I think that you have valid opinions, but you shouldn't knock the skimmer. There are lots of variables that are present and you should consider each as being unique to each tank. A refugium with macroalgae is great, but may not accomplish what you want it to if you are maintaining more difficult livestock. Also, single celled algae is present whether you maintain it in your system or not. Now, if you were to tell me that using a refugium has resulted in absolutely no need to ever scrape the front of your tank because of algae growth, then that's another thing altogether.

 

By the way, everyone needs to take it easy here. That's not advice, that's a warning.

[lanman]

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.

I ran my system without filter socks for 2 months. I couldn't measure any difference.

 

You add trace proteins?

 

bob

[davelin315]

I also don't understand your assertion that filter socks add pollution. Of course, if you leave them in there for too long they will collect a lot of detritus and allow it to begin breaking down in your system, but routine maintenance will prevent that from happening.

[zygote2k]

I also don't understand your assertion that filter socks add pollution. Of course, if you leave them in there for too long they will collect a lot of detritus and allow it to begin breaking down in your system, but routine maintenance will prevent that from happening.

That's what I meant. I also think that some of the stuff that the socks trap is beneficial. As far as detritus is concerned, I get the same amount in a skimmed system as I do in the 'fuge system. The chaeto doesn't trap very much except pods. It gets very violent direct current which forces any detritus through the mass and onto the bottom of the 'fuge

[davelin315]

How do you remove the detritus from your system? Is it from water changes or do you leave it there to be consumed by things in the refugium?

[zygote2k]

I currently have about an 1/8th inch of detritus and mulm under the chaeto mass. I'm planning on moving next month, so I may as well siphon it out so it doesn't cloud the water, but if I wasn't moving, I'd probably just leave it be. There are all sorts of detritivores in there that just love the stuff. The Mandarin likes to patrol that area for errant 'pods.

[davelin315]

I'd be careful of that. That's the type of stuff that can cause a sandbed to crash, too much detritus on it.

[treesprite]

Macros take up nutrients - that is natural. Anaerobic bacteria in a DSB take of nitrate - that is natural. If all of it is in a single body of water I would say it is natural filtration. A system with the filtration in a separate container, with streams of water going through tubes, is not natural regardless of whether man-made or nature-made filtration mechanisms are used. There are no holes in a reef with tunnels to move a very small fraction of water at a time to somewhere off the reef, the water is continuously agitated and moves as a body.

Edited November 25, 2008 by treesprite

[zygote2k]

I'd be careful of that. That's the type of stuff that can cause a sandbed to crash, too much detritus on it.

The detritus doesn't settle out onto the sandbed. The water comes from the drain of the tank and crashes onto a mass of chaeto. From there it goes through 2 baffles and into the main body of the 'fuge. This area contains rubble and other types of macros as well as some xenia, colt pieces, skeleton-less frogspawn, and a few tiny shrooms. There's even a Mantis in here along with 2 hermits and a Trochus snail. The Mandarin cruises the whole sump- it only took him a few minutes to figure out the baffle system.

The top of the sump at the far end has a bulkhead overflow going to a 24 gal rubbermaid sump/ DSB. There is about 4-5" of Aragamax and 3 big pieces of rock that is covered by a piece of eggcrate. The return pump sits on top of the eggcrate. There is a small amount of detritus in here, but apparently there are some sort of tube worms that use it to make their tubes. The sump is covered and remains dark 24/7. The 'fuge is lit by a 42w 6500k CF fixture from Home Depot. When we move next month, I'm going to replace it with a 250w 6500k MH and use the CF to grow the mangroves in another connected vessel even though to some it isn't natural that all these areas are connected by pipes and tubes. Crazy.

[jamesbuf]

The detritus doesn't settle out onto the sandbed. The water comes from the drain of the tank and crashes onto a mass of chaeto. From there it goes through 2 baffles and into the main body of the 'fuge. This area contains rubble and other types of macros as well as some xenia, colt pieces, skeleton-less frogspawn, and a few tiny shrooms. There's even a Mantis in here along with 2 hermits and a Trochus snail. The Mandarin cruises the whole sump- it only took him a few minutes to figure out the baffle system.

The top of the sump at the far end has a bulkhead overflow going to a 24 gal rubbermaid sump/ DSB. There is about 4-5" of Aragamax and 3 big pieces of rock that is covered by a piece of eggcrate. The return pump sits on top of the eggcrate. There is a small amount of detritus in here, but apparently there are some sort of tube worms that use it to make their tubes. The sump is covered and remains dark 24/7. The 'fuge is lit by a 42w 6500k CF fixture from Home Depot. When we move next month, I'm going to replace it with a 250w 6500k MH and use the CF to grow the mangroves in another connected vessel even though to some it isn't natural that all these areas are connected by pipes and tubes. Crazy.

 

 

Can we get a pick of your refugium? Sounds pretty cool.

[lanman]

So I take Anthony Calfo out to dinner tonight... (well, I took his book with me), and I'm reading up on using macro-algae for nutrient export. And he says that you need a surface area equal to that of your tank in order for it to do any noticeable good. i.e. - for my 240-gallon tank, I need 15 square feet of caulerpa. Sure am glad refugiums are good for other things than nutrient export!

 

He also says I'm not trimming mine often enough - I shouldn't wait until it's a solid mass. I may have to trim twice a week! Oh... and don't cut - pull gently.

 

bob

[zygote2k]

Here are some pics of the Franken-fuge.