new tank build

[zygote2k]

I'm building a new SPS system for someone else- Tell me if I've overlooked anything.

 

DT 240 Starphire front and sides 8' long, other dims to be determined later. Custom Stand

2) 2" drains with 4) 1" returns Reeflo Dart return pump.

 

2) Vortech MP40's

12) PAR38 LED's in 4) 3 bulb clusters mounted on rail system

300 # TBS Liverock on eggcrate.

2" Seaflor bottom.

 

Sump system will be 3) 40g breeders stacked. 1) fuge 2) DSB 3) sump.

3) SP3000 dosers, Maxcap 90 R/O w/ JBJ ATO.

Reefkeeper Elite

 

No Skimmer.

Edited March 8, 2010 by zygote2k

[John]

Yeah, my address...HAHA

[Coral Hind]

I see two things you overlooked, a heater and a skimmer.

[chucelli]

I would seriously re-think, or at least bring to the end-user's attention, that he/she is paying $24 per led when using those PAR38 LEDs vs 23.60 per LED for an Aqua Illumination unit. The price difference may seem negligible, but consider the additional engineering (better cooling, modular design, published specs, etc...) in the AI unit and the difference is not so small.

-Robert

[zygote2k]

The Aqua- illumination units are fine, but the PAR38's allow for spotlighting and the use of common household fixtures. I'm trying to make a unique looking tank that has several very bright spots and some very dark spots. Sort of like the natural reef.

[Glenn]

I'm hoping to see LOTS of good documentation and pictures on this one - an 8 or 10 x 2' x 2' is my new house system when we retire/move (20 months !). I don't see anything about a closed-loop system in your specs but that's about the only thing different that I have considered for mine. Well, that and a big skimmer

[zygote2k]

I might do a closed loop, but I think that 4 evenly spaced returns and 2 MP40's will cover any circulation problems that may arise. As for a skimmer, I can do SPS water quality plus more planktonic food sources by using a fuge and DSB rather than a skimmer. However, if the client would rather do the a skimmer, then I'd use an ASM G4+ for this system.

[ctenophore]

Rob IMO you're playing with fire to not have a skimmer on a service account tank. If something goes wrong, algae are not going to pull out the bad stuff fast enough. SPS can die very very quickly. There's no reason you can't have planktonic food with a skimmer- just tell the client to pour some in every few days

[zygote2k]

I think given the knowledge and experience of using no skimmer on my home tank, shows me that unless a major catastrophe occurs, I shouldn't have any problems going skimmerless on a maintenance system. After all, it will be set-up nearly identical to my home system and I will be the maintenance person. I'm starting this tank from scratch and letting the live rock mature for nearly 3 months before adding fish, corals, or clean up crew. I expect the water quality parameters to be near perfect after the long cycle.

Maybe having a back-up skimmer in place to automatically turn on in the event of an extreme emergency would be a good fail safe.

[DaveS]

Just some thoughts- "unless a major catastrophe occurs" is a pretty important point. As a professional, you are expected to plan for that unexpected major catastrophe. That's what makes someone a professional- they have the experience to anticipate the unanticipated.

 

Also, remember this won't be your home system which has very limited foot traffic and you see it every day for 3-4 hours. I don't know where the tank is going but what are the chances some kid or careless person will drop something in the tank or do something else that you wouldn't in your home tank? Will you see the tank often enough to see these issues before they become catastrophes?

[chucelli]

The problem is, I and probably others, are not convinced that your skimmerless systems are capable of sustaining SPS corals for the long haul. There are not that many SPS corals (let alone mature colonies) in your tank... unless there is another tank you have not posted pictures of...

-R

Edited March 8, 2010 by chucelli

[zygote2k]

The problem is, I and probably others, are not convinced that your skimmerless systems are capable of sustaining SPS corals for the long haul. There are not that many SPS corals (let alone mature colonies) in your tank... unless there is another tank you have not posted pictures of...

-R

 

Well- my skimmerless design is just another re-iteration of the ATS systems that I've had in the past. They were all successful while they lasted. Much of what I know came from "Dynamic Aquaria". Dr. Adey has proven that it is possible to grow SPS by algal filtration. The National Aquarium in Baltimore only used sand filters back in the day and grew SPS. There are many other people in WAMAS and other forums that use algal filtration and grow SPS. I'm just way more outspoken than they are. I've been in the retail pet industry for many years and I certainly remember SPS being grown before there were protein skimmers.

The Green Slimer that I have was only a 2" frag, and in the last 6 months it has quadrupled in size. Every SPS piece I have is growing visibly. My water parameters are excellent. I don't know why you don't want to believe that my system works as good or better than a skimmed system. Is it because I make it look too easy and didn't spend a fortune doing it? What more proof do you need?

Does it really matter in the long run how you got SPS water quality? Skimmer or not, the end result is the same.

[DaveS]

Rob, don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you have the success you do without a skimmer. I know you have inspired others to try it and I am eager to see them repeat your success.

 

But here is what I don't get- you seem to be willing to take on significant professional risk and liability to save your client $400 on a skimmer. To what end? Does the client who is spending thousands on a tank and your services really care that much about saving $400? Does he really care that much that you are able to grow SPS for him skimmerless? Or does he care he's getting pretty fish/coral that won't die on him and stink his place up?

 

The point Justin (and now I) are making is that it's a service account. Have your client spend a few extra bucks on the skimmer and pour in some plankton. It will avoid a potentially huge problem down the road for the client and more importantly YOU. That latter part is the big thing. If it ever goes bad, you could be held negligent by the client and liable for all the damages.

 

Let me give you an example from another hobby- two newly certified SCUBA divers go diving. They are dumb and decide to go down to 100' and one guy implodes and dies on the spot. The guy is dead but it's an accident, sucks for him, buddy feels bad.

 

Having been a diving instructor for 20+ years, I know for certain I can take beginners down to 100' and bring them back safely. But you wouldn't seem me do it- not even with friends. If something doesn't go right and the person stubs their toe and wants to sue, any personal injury lawyer can line up 1000 instructors who will all say that as an instructor I should have known better. It doesn't matter if they stubbed their toe climbing back on the boat, I violated accepted industry standards and I would be considered negligent in my activities and exercising questionable judgment. I'd very likely be found liable to some extent for the accident. Is it right? Is it fair? Does it matter? Just defending against that suit would cost a fortune.

 

This is what happens when you do something for money- you are held to a higher standard. Unfortunately with our legal system, businesses need to operate in a legally defensible manner at all times.

 

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox. I don't mean to tell you how to run your business. I hope the tank works out. Let us know where it is so people can visit it if accessible.

[zygote2k]

I wouldn't go out on a limb with my statemnts about the no skimmer system unless I was pretty darn sure of the success of this system. I won't accuse you or anyone of preaching from the soapbox either. You just haven't had the years of experimenting with this system like I and others have. I'm not willing to risk the lives of fish and corals to prove my point either. In my honest opinion, running the skimmerless systems have had less problems with water chemistry and fish die off than conventional skimmed systems. Sure, I've had issues with things like we all have, but I feel confident in my approach. If you would like to see one of these systems in operation, feel free to drop by the house anytime and I'll let you try to convince me that having a skimmer would be better. I've seen nor heard no good arguments to having one except in the event of a catastrophic event.

What catastrophic events are 'common' in this hobby?

1) Power failure.

2) Structural failure.

3) Accidentally dumped the food can in the tank.

4) Stray current.

5) RTN or parasitic invasion.

6) Algae bloom.

7) Fish kill.

8) Kalk overdose.

9) ATO malfunction.

10) Improper maintenance procedures.

 

None of these scenarios will be benefitted by having a skimmer vs not having a skimmer. The only thing that a skimmer does is remove dissolved nitrogenous wastes and trace elements.

A refugium or ATS does the same job in the same amount of time or quicker naturally.

 

I'll even make this claim-

If you follow my directions and maintenance procedures for setting up a fuge based system and after 1 year goes by and it's not producing corals, I'll buy you a brand new cone skimmer.

On another note, I don't and won't take any client unless I have some degree of control as to what goes on in the tank. I try to get artistic license whenever possible too.

If you are looking for the conventional maintained aquariums, there are many others who will be willing to take you.

I'm only in the business to keep my clients happy. Remember- it's quality, not quantity.

[Coral Hind]

You just haven't had the years of experimenting with this system like I and others have.

 

I had years of experience running a tank with an ATS, DSB, and no skimmer. Actually most reefers that have been doing this since pre 1995 would have been skimmerless. The biggest problem is the slowness at which the natural system responds to a problem. I also didn't like the smell or extra evaporation from the ATS.

 

 

What catastrophic events are 'common' in this hobby?

1) Power failure.

2) Structural failure.

3) Accidentally dumped the food can in the tank.

4) Stray current.

5) RTN or parasitic invasion.

6) Algae bloom.

7) Fish kill.

8) Kalk overdose.

9) ATO malfunction.

10) Improper maintenance procedures.

 

None of these scenarios will be benefitted by having a skimmer vs not having a skimmer. The only thing that a skimmer does is remove dissolved nitrogenous wastes and trace elements.

A refugium or ATS does the same job in the same amount of time or quicker naturally.

 

I don't think your statement is correct all. A skimmer would be an asset to most of those scenarios, far more then algae would. Skimmer removes more then dissolved wastes and trace elements. When a coral becomes irritated it starts to slime. If the slime is not removed it can cause a snowball effect which can cause the whole tank to slime and then crash.

 

As a WAMAS member found out this week, carbon dust can irritate filter feeders like clams . A skimmer will remove these particles while no algae is going to.

 

As for the food dumped in. The algae has to wait for the food to break down before it can process it, where as the skimmer would immediately start to collect the flakes as waste.

 

During a kalk overdose it is recommended to keep the skimmer running because the infusion of CO2 from the air lowers the pH. The O2 given off by the algae would makes things worse.

 

 

 

 

I'll even make this claim-

If you follow my directions and maintenance procedures for setting up a fuge based system and after 1 year goes by and it's not producing corals, I'll buy you a brand new cone skimmer.

On another note, I don't and won't take any client unless I have some degree of control as to what goes on in the tank. I try to get artistic license whenever possible too.

If you are looking for the conventional maintained aquariums, there are many others who will be willing to take you.

I'm only in the business to keep my clients happy. Remember- it's quality, not quantity.

 

This reminds me, you still owe me money from another bet here on WAMAS.

[zygote2k]

Smelly tanks are usually caused by protein skimmers in my experience. Especially the kinds with vented lids. If you maintain excellent water chemistry, you shouldn't have die offs that might pollute the tank. It doesn't get any easier than that. I know unforseeable events happen, but I still don't see any argument for a skimmer. Just like you mentioned, back in the day we would have had a wet/dry or some sort of ATS system to remove N and P, but people still grew corals and had excellent water chemistry all without using a skimmer. I seem to remember the argument back then as to why you needed to add a skimmer. I myself used them because at the time it made maintenance a breeze and the N dropped to zero. There was still the problem of P. The ATS system addressed both of these issues but sometimes colored the water from the tannins of the algae. Refugiums were added to raise live food, algae, and cryptic species. Only recently have people discovered that the 'fuge would do the same job as the ATS. With chaetomorpha, gracilaria, halymenia, and ochtodes becoming more readily available, the fuge keepers found that with the right blend of macros, the N and P were consumed and used much faster than an ATS system ever could. For the last 2 years, I have been experimenting with the fuge and its' capacity to act as the primary filter. I added a DSB to get the N from 20ppm to zero. The combination of these 2 items and good husbandry will work as good or better than the skimmed system. If the bottom line can be achieved in the same amount of time, what's the difference which system gets used?

Just because is not a good enough reason anymore.

anyone wanna take me up on my offer?

[steveoutlaw]

I'm not trying to be a smartass by asking this, so please don't take it that way. I know that there are big benefits to having a fuge and algal filtration on a system. So why is it that even when I see systems that have extremely large refugiums that the protein skimmer is still pulling out a ton of nasty gunk? It would seem to me that this is gunk that the fuge isn't processing and would remain in the water column if not for the skimmer. I'm just curious here.

[zygote2k]

Maybe that 'gunk' is trace elements or any other additional chemicals that are dosed into the tank. I'm sure if you put a skimmer on my tank, it would pull stuff from the water. Protein skimmers don't pull only the nitrogenous wastes from the water. They pull whatever compounds that cling to the surface of the bubbles out as well.

My answer would be that maybe those large systems would do just as well without the skimmer.

[ctenophore]

What's in skimmate: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature

[zygote2k]

Research shows that skimmers only pull out 25-30% of DOC and the bottom line, however, is that the skimmate liquid contains mostly the common inorganic ions that constitute the major ions in seawater. Only a small amount of this material can be arguably assigned to dissolved organic carbon, DOC.

This leads me to believe that until a similar test on a fuge system is run, then the argument against that system (fuge) is purely speculative. Skimmers work, but marketing works better. Those cone skimmers proved to be one of the least efficient, yet they sell for $700 or more....

I'm sticking to my guns on my hypothesis that the fuge system works equally as well or better than a skimmed system.

 

Anyone can come over and test my water, examine my corals for color and growth, then make the decision as to whether or not I'm really crazy.

[dshnarw]

It seems like the questions of importance (to me, at least) that haven't been answered here are:

 

What, if any, benefits are there to running the tank with a fuge and without a skimmer? Do those benefits outweigh the benefits of having redundancy in the system and a safeguard should (even if it's a miniscule chance) that there should be a catastrophic failure?

 

I've no doubt that a skimmerless SPS tank can (and has) been done with success. I'm just not sure why it's better than a system with both a fuge and a skimmer on this particular tank.