Dr. Ron big time myth or fact!

[mantisss]

sir,
when it comes to nitrobacteria they will accumalate to the point to break down ammonia to nitrite when that level is reached they stop,they wont continue to multiply to infinity in our tanks?,they grow on everything in our tanks,rocks, dead coral, sand beds, power heads,tank it self etc...So if the post is correct then why do people believe that a simple canister filter or some bio balls will contribute to excess nitrate.When you have all of this tank area with vast amounts of nitrobacteria living in the tank consuming ammonia to nitrate they think the sponge canister filter is not appropiate,i mean even if you didnt have the filter the bacteria in the tank has to process the ammonia to nitrate if the bacteria stops growing at the point of ammonia consumption then their is no need for the bacteria to have this outrageous multiplication in a sponge filter.Is'nt the only true way to prevent excessive nitrates is to not to introduce the tank with excessive feedings or a protein skimmer wich will remove the organics before it's able to break down ending in nitrates.I just feel that if the tanks biological filter reaches a point that it can deal with the ammonia,then you add a canister filter no more nitrates will be produced that wouldn't have been by the tank it self.I could go on but i hope this came out the way i intended it to.(thanks for your time sir.)

[rshimek]

Originally posted by mantisss

First. Try to use standard capitalization and punctuation when you make a long post. Then use shorter sentences and reread it to see if it makes sense. That will makes it a whole lot easier to read and understand.

Second. Nitrogen reducing bacteria function to reduce ammonia to nitrate and then to nitrogen as byproduct of other metabolism. They must be fed some other material for this to occur.

The reduction occurs best in places of low oxygen concentration, such as the inside of porous rock, or in the lower layers of deep sand bed.

...So if the post is correct then why do people believe that a simple canister filter or some bio balls will contribute to excess nitrate.

Because these areas can trap debris and detritus which will break down (= rot) releasing ammonia and nitrate.

When you have all of this tank area with vast amounts of nitrobacteria living in the tank consuming ammonia to nitrate they think the sponge canister filter is not appropiate,i mean even if you didnt have the filter the bacteria in the tank has to process the ammonia to nitrate if the bacteria stops growing at the point of ammonia consumption then their is no need for the bacteria to have this outrageous multiplication in a sponge filter.

I can not make sense of the above sentence.

Is'nt the only true way to prevent excessive nitrates is to not to introduce the tank with excessive feedings or a protein skimmer wich will remove the organics before it's able to break down ending in nitrates.

If I understand the above sentence :), the answer is no. The best way is to have some organisms processs the so-called excess nitrogen compounds turning them into tissue components (protein) and then to export those organisms.

You need to feed well or your animals will suffer.

I just feel that if the tanks biological filter reaches a point that it can deal with the ammonia,then you add a canister filter no more nitrates will be produced that wouldn't have been by the tank it self.

The nitrogen filtering capacity of a deep sand bed is many times what you can get out of a canister filter.

I could go on but i hope this came out the way i intended it to.

I don't think it did.

[hughem]

Perhaps I can gleen a couple of lucid questions from this post?

In your (and other) writings, the importance of herbivorous sand critters is explained; to paraphrase, they consume bacteria from the substrate, leaving space for new bacteria to propagate and continue the conversion process.

As there are no "critters" on bio-balls, wouldn't the bacteria reach a stauration point on this media?

Or perhaps THESE bacteria don't require renewed propagation space?

I'm not trying to resurect bio-balls -- mine are in a bucket in the yard, but bio-balls (and other wet/dry) are still considered appropriate for fish-only setups.

[rshimek]

Originally posted by hughem
As there are no "critters" on bio-balls, wouldn't the bacteria reach a stauration point on this media?

Probably. There is a defined carrying capacity for them.

...but bio-balls (and other wet/dry) are still considered appropriate for fish-only setups.

They shouldn't be. :D

[MIKE]

Originally posted by rshimek
Originally posted by mantisss

Is'nt the only true way to prevent excessive nitrates is to not to introduce the tank with excessive feedings or a protein skimmer wich will remove the organics before it's able to break down ending in nitrates.

If I understand the above sentence :), the answer is no. The best way is to have some organisms processs the so-called excess nitrogen compounds turning them into tissue components (protein) and then to export those organisms.

You need to feed well or your animals will suffer.



Ron,

By "best way" I'm assuming you don't mean it's the "only" way? If one doesn't want to utilize that method of export (for a variety of valid reasons), then there may be alternatives?

And if removing nitrogen compounds by turning them into tissue for export isn't the "only" way, I'm presuming you wouldn't disagreee that avoiding EXCESSIVE feeding, and using protein skimming are useful ways to export nitrogenous material. Or am I misunderstanding your position?

[rshimek]

Ron and Gang,

I'm a total futz and I accidentally deleted your post here. As a moderator, I'm really not too adept yet at using the tools. Sorry about that, it was totally unintentional.

Because of my "cache" copy, I was able to restore it for the most part, though it's not quite as pretty :):

Hi Mike,

Quote Mike:

"By "best way" I'm assuming you don't mean it's the "only" way? If one doesn't want to utilize that method of export (for a variety of valid reasons), then there may be alternatives?"

Response Ron:

"As long as there is significant export, any method will do".

Quote Mike:

"And if removing nitrogen compounds by turning them into tissue for export isn't the "only" way, I'm presuming you wouldn't disagreee that avoiding EXCESSIVE feeding, and using protein skimming are useful ways to export nitrogenous material. Or am I misunderstanding your position?"

Response Ron:

"I really don't think with regards to most of our organisms that we give them their normal feeding amounts, and underfeeding is, I think, one of the major causes of
stess and illness in our animals. I have seen no significant data that indicate the protein skimming actually skims many proteins. Mostly what appears to go out this way are various organic carbon molecules rather than proteins.

Basically, I view foam fractionation as a good way to aerate systems, and as a minimal way to export much..."

__________________
Cheers, Ron


[Edited by MIKE on 01-27-2001 at 12:06 AM]

[mantisss]

Hi DR.Ron,
Man I wasn't ready for that right hook to the chin.!I apologize if it was a bit hard to understand but i find it difficult describing something that im really not sure how it works to begin with,especially to a Marine Bioligist.I'm extremely new to your board and a little nervous talking to some one that i've read and heard many things about.Sir I really need to understand how this works(my post)but im afraid i just can't write down what i'm thinking.If it's appropiate sir I have no problem posting my phone number and if I could have 10 minutes of your time I would truly be honored,call me collect (xxx)xxx-xxxx my name is Rob.I feel confident that everyone here will respect my phone number posting.Thank you

[Edited by rshimek on 01-27-2001 at 07:02 AM]

[vanguard]

Originally posted by rshimek


First. Try to use standard capitalization and punctuation when you make a long post. Then use shorter sentences and reread it to see if it makes sense. That will makes it a whole lot easier to read and understand.



First. You provide a great service to our hobby. I have a lot of respect for your opinion and when you give advice I take it.

Second. When I read this person's post with his/her poor capitalization and grammer I suspected that either English wasn't his first langauge, he was young, or that he didn't have the education level of the people you are used to spending time with.

You may not realize that when you tell somebody their question is too poorly formed to answer it's a bit like getting dismissed by an athlete or a movie star. To you it may be no big deal, but to mantisss it is.

In summary, I appreciate your efforts but please be aware that your words carry a lot of weight. With that weight come responsiblity.

Vanguard

[mantisss]

?

[Edited by mantisss on 01-26-2001 at 10:40 PM]

[Joez]

Take off your shoes Vanguard; you tread on Holy ground!

[MIKE]

Ron said in the above post that I screwed up (sorry again):

"I have seen no significant data that indicate the protein skimming actually skims many proteins. Mostly what appears to go out this way are various organic carbon molecules rather than proteins.

Basically, I view foam fractionation as a good way to aerate systems, and as a minimal way to export much..."

Hi Ron,

Can you point me to references of anaylsis of skimmate? I'm always up for a little research.

I thought the issue was nitrogenous materials as opposed to proteins in the above question? Maybe I'm ignorant in not understanding the similarity/differences, but I have always assumed that protein skimmers remove "organics" of a wide variety of type prior to any significant breakdown. If not, what is that brownish gunk that I throw away on a regular basis? If you examine skimmate from a skimmer, what do you find? And is any of it "bad stuff" or are you suggesting skimmate is primarily good elements for the aquarium?

I was presuming, perhaps erroneously, that having *excessive* organics in the water stream leads to algae/bacteria blooms, which are far from desireable in a reef aquarium? I also thought that a skimmer was a tool (among many tools/methods) to help the hobbyist regulate the amount of organics in the water?

I agree with you that it is often the case that due to having had an algae bloom, hobbyist may end up underfeeding at times out of fear of another bloom. But I would think you would agree that overfeeding can also be a problem in a closed system?


[Edited by MIKE on 01-27-2001 at 01:17 AM]

[MIKE]

Originally posted by rshimek


I really don't think with regards to most of our organisms that we give them their normal feeding amounts, and underfeeding is, I think, one of the major causes of stess and illness in our animals.


BTW, I wasn't clear on what "stess" is ;)

[rshimek]

Originally posted by vanguard
In summary, I appreciate your efforts but please be aware that your words carry a lot of weight. With that weight come responsiblity.

Vanguard,

I am perfectly aware of the weight my words carry.

Anybody that posts to any forum should take the time to reread their posts and make certain that they are clearly written. This takes little time and it is a simple courtesy to the reader.

Some things to ponder:
This forum takes a significant amount of my time,
I don't really have the time to figure out what a person means to say, Nor do I want to give an inappropriate response or advise.
If posts aren't clear to me, I will say so. The person can either repost a clearer version or not.
The person posting is asking a favor of me. The very least they can do is make sure that I can understand what they are asking. If somebody's ego is bruised by being told that I can't understand what they are saying, so be it.
When posting, any person might consider the following points: Short sentences are best. Following standard rules of grammar helps, particularly for those folks who do not speak English as first language. Think about what you want to say, before you type it, and reread to make certain it is clear.

Mantiss,

This is not the place to post a phone number. I have edited your post to remove it.

[rshimek]

Hi Mike,

Originally posted by MIKE
Ron said in the above post that I screwed up (sorry again):

"I have seen no significant data that indicate the protein skimming actually skims many proteins. Mostly what appears to go out this way are various organic carbon molecules rather than proteins.

Basically, I view foam fractionation as a good way to aerate systems, and as a minimal way to export much..."

Can you point me to references of anaylsis of skimmate? I'm always up for a little research.

No, I am afraid I can't. I have read a few articles in the dim and distant past on this, but really didn't bother to archive them.

If you do some research and track down some info, I would love to hear what you have found.

I thought the issue was nitrogenous materials as opposed to proteins in the above question?

Outside of ammonia, nitrites and nitrates, most nitrogenous materials are either proteinaceous, or protein components such as amino acids, and peptides.

Maybe I'm ignorant in not understanding the similarity/differences, but I have always assumed that protein skimmers remove "organics" of a wide variety of type prior to any significant breakdown. If not, what is that brownish gunk that I throw away on a regular basis?

The brownish gunk is a bacterial soup. It is feeding on the organic compounds, but I think most of these are fats, fatty acids, and other organic compounds. Probably there are proteins here, but I don't think they make up a significant component of the skimmate. By organics, all that is meant is a carbon based compound, by the way.

Again, maybe I am wrong.

If you examine skimmate from a skimmer, what do you find? And is any of it "bad stuff" or are you suggesting skimmate is primarily good elements for the aquarium?

Damifino what's really in it. Everybody makes guesses and has suppositions, but to the best of my feak and weeble knowledge nobody has actually bitten the bullet and tested the stuff.

(As a hint of things to come, I am planning on doing just that, but probably in 9 to 10 months).

I was presuming, perhaps erroneously, that having *excessive* organics in the water stream leads to algae/bacteria blooms, which are far from desireable in a reef aquarium?

Sure it leads to these blooms (the organics are food). I am not so certain that these are "far from desireable." Consider that many suspension-feeding organisms are feeding on "particulate organic material," otherwise known as bacterial particles. This stuff is good food, it has a high nitrogen to carbon ratio. This means it is good to have, as organisms can make proteins from it.

I also thought that a skimmer was a tool (among many tools/methods) to help the hobbyist regulate the amount of organics in the water?

Yup. That is the advertising copy.

I agree with you that it is often the case that due to having had an algae bloom, hobbyist may end up underfeeding at times out of fear of another bloom. But I would think you would agree that overfeeding can also be a problem in a closed system?

Yes, I would agree, but consider these systems are NOT closed systems. If they were we could import or export material from them.

[MIKE]

Ron,

I too remember reading something about skimmate being examined some time ago. May do a search on this this weekend.

I'm assuming your statements below about skimmate and bacteria feeding on organics is a guess at this point until you have an analysis done?

As far as overfeeding. Are you advocating that a tank with a large hair algae bloom be left alone, even if it ultimately crowds out the other organisms that a reef keeper may want to keep? I don't disagree that algae is neither "good" or "bad" inherently. But when you put it in a context, I think you can make a judgement. For example, if a environmental pollution event occurs in a oceanic reef causing huge, persistent algae blooms which kill the reef, I personally would judge that as undesireable.

If I'm trying to simulate a portion of the reef in a tank that is free of large algae blooms, I would then view excessive hair algae as "problematic" or "bad" and undesireable. I would then want to employ technique consistent with my tank goals. Your thoughts? Isn't adding organics to a reef aquarium really more of a goldilocks proposition, not too much not too little?

I also guessing that you are implying that protein skimmers really don't offer much help as a tool in the "balancing act". Can you share what you base that opinion on, if not an examination of skimmate?

I said:

I agree with you that it is often the case that due to having had an algae bloom, hobbyist may end up underfeeding at times out of fear of another bloom. But I would think you would agree that overfeeding can also be a problem in a closed system?

You said:

Yes, I would agree, but consider these systems are NOT closed systems. If they were we could import or export material from them.

I'm afraid I don't understand your response here. I was under the impression that we regularly imported and exported materials into a reef tank.

Finally. I just wanted to comment on your chastizing mantisss on his posting style. Mantisss is a new hobbyist and has demonstrated to me, over and over again, an unusually strong thirst for knowledge (unlike some newer hobbyists I've seen at times). And yes, at times his posts may require, for whatever reason, a little effort to work with. I personally found your style of dressing him down to be unnecessary. Make your point if you will, but perhaps you could recognize you are dealing with the international public which will include all ages, education levels, languages, and styles.

I didn't see much of an ego problem for mantisss, (quite the contrary) and it's my impression that you are looking at the trees when perhaps a look at the forest may be in order. I don't know what your personal motivation is for being here, but I would presume at least some of it has something to do with educating. A more careful approach to your style of educating could go a long ways towards accomplishing that goal....FWIW.

[puff]

Here is a small sight that did test the skimmate....not very complete though
http://www.fishwish.com/skimmer.htm

puff

[rshimek]

Originally posted by MIKE
I'm assuming your statements below about skimmate and bacteria feeding on organics is a guess at this point until you have an analysis done?

No. Bacteria feed on dissolved organic material no matter where it is found.

As far as overfeeding. Are you advocating that a tank with a large hair algae bloom be left alone, even if it ultimately crowds out the other organisms that a reef keeper may want to keep?

No, but hair algae growth can be facilitated by appropriate currents, the wrong kind of grazers, lack of competitors, and numerous other causes. It does not necessarily indicate overfeeding.

I don't disagree that algae is neither "good" or "bad" inherently. But when you put it in a context, I think you can make a judgement. For example, if a environmental pollution event occurs in a oceanic reef causing huge, persistent algae blooms which kill the reef, I personally would judge that as undesireable.

This may be a perfectly normal event in area in question. Maybe is aesthetically undesirable, but that is subjective.

If I'm trying to simulate a portion of the reef in a tank that is free of large algae blooms, I would then view excessive hair algae as "problematic" or "bad" and undesireable.

Excluding bacteria, algae make up 80 percent or so of the living tissue on every coral reef. You simply cannot mimic a coral reef without growing algae. Hair algae have been experimentally shown to facilitated by fish grazing (Tangs) and variable currents. The best way to limit hair algal growth is to channel the nutrients feeding it into some other pathway.

I would then want to employ technique consistent with my tank goals. Your thoughts? Isn't adding organics to a reef aquarium really more of a goldilocks proposition, not too much not too little?

Not really, you have consider that energy and materials flow through an ecosystem, and what you should strive for is to efficiently expedite the flow so that you can haul them out at the other end.

I also guessing that you are implying that protein skimmers really don't offer much help as a tool in the "balancing act". Can you share what you base that opinion on, if not an examination of skimmate?

Primarily reading the discussions of folks who go to skimmerless tanks and see no real difference from when their systems were skimming. Also in my own systems, seeing the lack of difference in heavy skimming vs. light skimming.

I said:
I'm afraid I don't understand your response here. I was under the impression that we regularly imported and exported materials into a reef tank.

And that, by definition, makes them open rather than closed systems.

Finally. I just wanted to comment on your chastizing mantisss on his posting style. Mantisss is a new hobbyist and has demonstrated to me, over and over again, an unusually strong thirst for knowledge (unlike some newer hobbyists I've seen at times). And yes, at times his posts may require, for whatever reason, a little effort to work with.

Then he needs to work on his posting style.

I personally found your style of dressing him down to be unnecessary. Make your point if you will, but perhaps you could recognize you are dealing with the international public which will include all ages, education levels, languages, and styles.

I have dealt with the national and international public probably longer than most people who have been posting to these boards have been alive. For communication to work it has to clear. If someone wants to have a reply from me, then the posting should readable. That implies nothing more than re-reading the post and making sure it makes sense.

...but I would presume at least some of it has something to do with educating. A more careful approach to your style of educating could go a long ways towards accomplishing that goal....FWIW.

One can only answer the question when one can read and understand the question. It is not my responsibility to try to figure out what the questioner is trying to say. If isn't stated so I can understand it, how can I respond?

[mantisss]

Thanks Mike,
Once again your proffesional,! and good natured response is truly an asset to Reef Central.Ron,your tone of what you said was rude.I have read many articles you personally wrote and was quite excited to stumble upon you and Reef Central.Say things how you see fit,I just hope that your tone and disrespect of me was the exception to the rule and not the norm to the other people at Reef central.

[Northern Reef]

mantisss-I have to say I'm not sure what you are after? To be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails out of your question either. Seems to me since you are getting the info for free it wouldn't hurt to suggest that you work on sentence structure a bit. Ok? Like Ron says, it's not up to us to decipher what you are trying to say, that part of the equation is up to you.

[MIKE]

Ron,

Since you don't find it unreasonable to criticze posters and their communication to you, let me offer you some feedback on how you post.

In general, I have to say that having a dialog on an issue with you is a bit like dealing with a politician. You're the master of picking out the minutae that may support an argument you make, or seize on a particular word without addressing the larger issue/issues which may not support your position. This is a great technique for debate, and a poor one for educating.

Just one example is this:

I said:

I'm assuming your statements below about skimmate and bacteria feeding on organics is a guess at this point until you have an analysis done?

You said:

No. Bacteria feed on dissolved organic material no matter where it is found.

There are two parts to my statement, skimmate and bacteria. You seize on the bacteria part of my statement, while ignoring my more general reference to your statements about skimmate. This is not very helpful, and, at least appears to be more indicative of trying to "win" rather than having an interesting exchange.

Another is the "closed" system vs. "open" system thing below. You're hung up on getting the term right rather than explaining your statement, which I truely didn't and still don't understand. Oh well.

As far as your statements to mantiss, for such a bright guy, you sure seem to miss the point, or maybe I wasn't clear? My suggestions to you regarding mantisss are style related, not substance. Correct him if you will. Perhaps a little respectful style in doing so would be even better? It's not my intent to be anything less than constructive here. I'd love to see the information you have to offer, most of which I personally see as highly beneficial, reach the greatest number of people.

From what I can gleam from this thread, you've decided that there's really only one way to keep a reef aquarium...the one you recommend (not a shot, an honest distilling of what I'm reading). You've decided that protein skimming is of questionable value beyond gas exchange, without any data btw beyond personal observation and other posters and without any data about what is actually contained in skimmate. And additionally, you apparently see no useful role in hobbyist's regulating their feeding habits.

Finally, and this is my final post on this topic as I'm having a struggle to learn anything from it, and you can have the last word. The only reference I could find on skimmate was this one:

"The list of substances removed by skimming includes amino acids, proteins, fats, carbonhydrates, phosphate, fatty acids, phenols, iodide, metals such as copper, iron, and zinc complexed with proteins, detritus and leachates of plant and animal origin. A skimmer thus lowers the biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand and nitrate build-up (Dwivedy, 1973; Lomax, 1976)" TRA, Vol I, pg. 117.

I have no direct evidence that this information comes from an analysis, but it seems awfully specific to not have. Many of these substances are beneficial. Any substance in excess for any organism is not healthy. IMO, to have a tool like a protein skimmer that enables the hobbyist to be able to situationally help regulate one's reef aquarium is useful.

[mantisss]

Norther Reef,
I agree that I could learn some things about grammer and slow down abit and i will.But all i ever was to Ron was courtious, I always respected him with Sir and DR. Ron and even apoligized on a later post.His approach was disrespectful in tone!.He is the moderator and the proffesional not I.To me it's simple ,to be respectful in the manner that you would like to address me in rewritting my post to be more readable if it's hard to understand.Hay by the way cool shark.

[Northern Reef]

Mantiss--Let's agree to not make a big deal out of this. I think most people come here looking for information and answers to their questions, and not so much the manner in which the information is delivered. All we ask is that the question is phrased in such a way that it is easily understood.

You asked a question, you got an answer, and it didn't cost you one red cent. ;) Sounds like a good deal to me.

[rshimek]

Originally posted by MIKE
...You're the master of picking out the minutae that may support an argument you make, or seize on a particular word without addressing the larger issue/issues which may not support your position. This is a great technique for debate, and a poor one for educating.

Frankly, if you don't understand the ramifications of the words you use, then your evaluation of the larger issue is flawed.

...are two parts to my statement, skimmate and bacteria.

Frankly, you statement was ambiguous as to what you were referring to. I chose to answer the one that was obvious.

You're hung up on getting the term right rather than explaining your statement, which I truely didn't and still don't understand. Oh well.

Well, my take was that you did not understand the system, in that you were refering to an obviously open system as a closed one.

My suggestions to you regarding mantisss are style related, not substance. Correct him if you will. Perhaps a little respectful style in doing so would be even better?

Well, I did not and still do not percieve of my reply as disrespectful. I presume that the people who are posting have reached a certain level of maturity. If they don't want to post in a readable manner, that's fine. But don't do it here. If I indicate that the post was unreadable, then they can either do it better next time or choose not to post. I am not going into the business of policing grammar, but neither am going to spend much time on what appears to be garbled.

I am not all things to all people. The purpose of this forum is for people to converse with me. I will converse with them, providing I can understand what they are saying.

From what I can gleam from this thread, you've decided that there's really only one way to keep a reef aquarium...the one you recommend (not a shot, an honest distilling of what I'm reading). You've decided that protein skimming is of questionable value beyond gas exchange, without any data btw beyond personal observation and other posters and without any data about what is actually contained in skimmate.

You have absolutely no idea of what data I have evaluated and what I haven't.

And additionally, you apparently see no useful role in hobbyist's regulating their feeding habits.

Obviously many hobbyist's feeding habits are fine. But undoubtedly some do get asked to leave the finer restaurants.

The only reference I could find on skimmate was this one:
..Divedy, 1973; Lomax, 1976)" TRA, Vol I, pg. 117.

There are two references there. One dated 1973 and the other 1976. TRA is not a reference as it presents no original data. I think reference that are quarter century old are probably dubious at best.

[mantisss]

Northern Reef,
I agree,you will not here from me on this topic again.Thanks for your hospitality.I guess we will see if Ron wants to respond to me.

[Boom11]

Mr. Shimek,

Contrary to your opinion, several analysis show that proteins are present in the skimmate in significant numbers, typically about 30% in the form of amino acids.


B.M.

[puff]

Jeeze...Did anyone follow the link that I provided in this thread? :)

Skimmate from a Lifereef contains:
Nitrate: 27
Potassium:1.0
Sodium: 3.9
Iron: .12
Bi-Carbonate: 26
Magnesium: 2.8 Calcium
Carbonate: 4.3
Amino Acids: 29% ( several varieties)
Organic Compounds: 59% ( several Unidentified varieties)
Living Phytoplankton: 8%
Dead Phytoplankton : 12%

Skimmate from a ETSS contains:
Nitrate: 37
Potassium: 1.8
Sodium: 3.9
Iron: .21
Bi- carbonate: 19
Magnesium: 1.1
Calcium Carbonate: 3.2
Amino Acids: 31% (several varieties)
Organic Compounds: 51% (several Unidentified varieties)
Living Phytoplankton: 4%
Dead Phytoplankton: 18%

The results are in PPM, and were on heavilly overloaded tanks.
puff

[Mimbler1]

I'm a little confused by the posted analysis of skimmate. It states that quantities are in ppm, but gives percentages of the organics (that add up to more than 100 percent!). Until the units are cleared up, I don't think it is telling us much.
Regards, Mike

[MIKE]

Hi Puff,

Thanks for the info. I did look at the link and neglected to quote it. I appreciate you transferring it here.

[rshimek]

Hi,

For data listed in percentages, what are the percentages of and how do they correspond with the composition of the tank water?

If they are simply a porportion of skimmate, then we need to know the amount of time necessary to generate that volume of skimmate and/or the amount of material passing through the skimmer.

In point of fact I was hoping to address just this point with some research to be done over the next year, examining both the composition tank water from several aquarists, plus the composition of skimmates.

When added to the information obtained in my foods study, this could give us a budget for materials flow through an aquarium.

[Boom11]

Methods used for quantifying the composition of skimmate are important in comparing the results of various analysis.

However, for our purpose it should be sufficient to note that, whichever method was used, proteins equaled about 50%-60% of the amount of DOCs.


B.M.

[rshimek]

I looked at the site and at the data given in the thread, and one cannot tell what the percentages are of.

One can also not determine what the tank water looked was.

Additionally we can't determine how the skimmate was collected. I suspect that what the numbers indicate is that there is a significant abount of digested bacteria in the sample.

For data of this nature to be useful, there has to be a lot more effort spent on controls.

[MIKE]

Originally posted by rshimek

One can also not determine what the tank water looked was.

Additionally we can't determine how the skimmate was collected. I suspect that what the numbers indicate is that there is a significant abount of digested bacteria in the sample.

For data of this nature to be useful, there has to be a lot more effort spent on controls.

Ron,

You're starting to sound a bit like we Combisan apologists, a description I'm sure you'd shun.

Further precision on skimmate and skimmate data is certainly possible and desirable. While the data I quote from TRA is clearly not recent, at least it is some reference beyond someone's vague opinion, and I assume that an assay is an assay, no matter when it's done. In fact, I can only *guess* that skimmate has gotten more concentrated with the improvement in skimming since those analysis were made.

However, there's little doubt in my mind that protein skimmers are a useful tool at removing a variety of elements in a "closed system" (a term commonly used even by you Dr. Shimek to describe an aquarium vs. the ocean) beyond just aeriation. Whether a skimmer should be used indefinately, in all circumstances, and at all times is a subject of much debate and needed research.

[DJREEF]

What I want to know is where do I mail the 35 gallons of skimmate I've been saving up for such a study? I really could use the space in my spare bedroom, as the kiddie pool takes up alot of room. Can I ship it directly to your house Dr Ron? Do you think hefty bags would preserve it well enough in transit, or should I use some kind of bucket?

DJ

[rshimek]

Originally posted by DJREEF
What I want to know is where do I mail the 35 gallons of skimmate I've been saving up for such a study? I really could use the space in my spare bedroom, as the kiddie pool takes up alot of room. Can I ship it directly to your house Dr Ron? Do you think hefty bags would preserve it well enough in transit, or should I use some kind of bucket?

DJ

I would suggest sending it to G. W. Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC...

[MIKE]

Hi Ron,

LOL. Well Ron, we found something we agree on in this thread :)

Disclaimer: Not meant as a put down of our president, just some good natured banter. :)

[mengerin]

Howdy,

Ron, I believe you and I have discussed this before, but my memory may be fading on me.

In any case, the analysis that I know of is from Axel Tunze and is present in his _Aquarium Ecology_.
<pre>
Here goes (measurements are mg/l):
---------------------------------------------------------
Elements | Aquarium | Skimmer | Measurement Method
water water

Na 16,500 19,666 AAS
K 450 566 AAS
B 1.9 2.3 ICP
Fe <0.1 1.2 ICP
Al <0.01 0.55 ICP
Zn 0.01 0.33 ICP
Mn <0.1 0.02 ICP
Cu <0.1 0.16 ICP
Ni <0.01 0.23 ICP
Pb <0.01 0.02 ICP
P total - 5.3 Spectrometrically according
to German std. DIN
- exclusion w/ H2SO4 boiling
</pre>
Preparation for the analysis:

The skimmer water was used unfiltered. A quantity of 60 ml of pure skimmer water was mixed w/ 6 ml of aqua regia, which in turn was filled into an arsenic-free glass 9in order to prevent any faults caused by arsenic) and was boiled in a feflux condenser (at 200C) for at least two hours. After cooling down, the remaining solution was filled up to 100ml. For some other elements, another dilution was necessary to prevent measuring errors. The measured values of the skimmer water are rendered w/out dilution.
-----------------------------------------------------------

A second study's data has (for full details, get the book):
<pre>
Elements | Skimmer

NH4- 8.0 spectrometrically
NO3 12.6 "
NO2 3.9 "
PO4-3+ dissolved 3.0 "
PO4-3+ total 4.6 "
SiO >0.05 "
UV absorption 14
turbidity 13 NTU (New Turbidity Units)
pH after 4h 7.53
conductivity 44.6mS/cm (in aquarium: 48.5)
TOC 635 (Total Organic Carbon)
KMnO4 consumption 620 mg/l
oxygen consumption 155 mg/l
</pre>
-----------------------------------------------------------

The conclusion of Tunze was noting the concentration of phosphate and ammonia about 40X higher than the aquarium
water. That's the major evidence supporting the need for a skimmer in the book.

Thought you may be interested. If you want the rest of
the data, email me and I'll fax you a copy of the pages.
I'm tired of typing.

Cheers,
Matthew

[rshimek]

Matthew,

Thanks that pretty much supports what Bingman was saying about phosphates.

It would appear that a small amount of organics was pulled off as well (I think that the organic carbon and ammonia were likely in the form of protein or peptides and were digested by the mix).

This would indicate that skimmerless tanks have to have some pretty efficient organic processing pathways and other ways to export these materials. Likely all tanks do. I suspect Tunze's book was written before the use of DSB's and I doubt he would have compared them as they are not common in Europe. Probably this was from tanks that are not heavily fed as well.

For those kinds of tanks, I would suspect the net reductions due to skimming are insignificant when compared to other methods of export.

[mengerin]

Howdy,

Yes, this was a large tank (3,400l) and had mostly corals and a few fish. It wasn't heavily fed and every indication I've seen from Tunze, the tanks do not have DSBs.

Cheers,
Matthew

[rshimek]

Hi,

"It wasn't heavily fed and every indication I've seen from Tunze, the tanks do not have DSBs."

Yes, I thought so. I talked to him last summer in Lyon, France at an aquarium conference, and DSB's were pretty much a new idea to him then.