just curious as to the size range and species of microfauna commonly removed by foam fractionation devices. I am aware of the laundry list of elements fractionation devices are capable of removing but I have yet to find a truly comprehensive list of microfauna/bacterias/small fungal colonies/flocculents etcetera, that are removed by them. I was wondering if you could enlighten me at all. I would assume this question may be right up your alley (please correct me If I am wrong)
question for the microbiologist
- Thread starter reefkprZ
- Start date
It seems you know the answer to the question already. We employ no microbiologist here at MR, however one or two of our members might work in that field. Members check in from time to time, once in a while or every day. Give it time someone may answer you in the near future.
- Location
- Marine Park
thats what I figured, But I thought maybe one of you guys could say "well he usually come on on fridays for an hour or two" or something like that.. like I said I'm not really in a rush. I just thought this topic is a good one to discuss with some one who makes their living with microbes.
well I just took the time to read through the first half of that link. not much in the way of suprising revelations to me. some interesting facts I didnt know came to the fore though.
I ran an unnofficial/very unscientific expiriment some months ago to see if I could visually notice a difference in my tank from week to week while running my skimmer on one week and off the next. in the corals I did not notice ANy difference that I could pick out. the only visible difference was my front glass seemed to aquire the "film of obscurity" quicker by about half a day to a day towards the end of the skimmerless week. I would guess due to a slow build up of available phosphates to be consumed.
I then ran skimmer-less for an entire month (due to a skimmer malfunction that I was to lazy to repair). I did not notice any difference in the appearance of my tank and inhabitants other than the aforementioned "film of obscurity" having to be cleared every day instead of every 3-4 days at the end of the month.
I would like to mention on these points I have an extremly strict water change schedual that is not deviated from. being 25% a week and 50% once a month. I do this because of my very high rate of feeding and lack of any means of mechanical filtration. (I feed 5-7 times a day of various foods) this is my attempt to mimic the oceans 100% water change every day (or relocation rather than change) also to keep my trace elemants as high as possible without the risk of overdosing.
any feedback or thoughts or similar "unscientific" expiriments would be a great addition to this one sided conversation I have started.
I ran an unnofficial/very unscientific expiriment some months ago to see if I could visually notice a difference in my tank from week to week while running my skimmer on one week and off the next. in the corals I did not notice ANy difference that I could pick out. the only visible difference was my front glass seemed to aquire the "film of obscurity" quicker by about half a day to a day towards the end of the skimmerless week. I would guess due to a slow build up of available phosphates to be consumed.
I then ran skimmer-less for an entire month (due to a skimmer malfunction that I was to lazy to repair). I did not notice any difference in the appearance of my tank and inhabitants other than the aforementioned "film of obscurity" having to be cleared every day instead of every 3-4 days at the end of the month.
I would like to mention on these points I have an extremly strict water change schedual that is not deviated from. being 25% a week and 50% once a month. I do this because of my very high rate of feeding and lack of any means of mechanical filtration. (I feed 5-7 times a day of various foods) this is my attempt to mimic the oceans 100% water change every day (or relocation rather than change) also to keep my trace elemants as high as possible without the risk of overdosing.
any feedback or thoughts or similar "unscientific" expiriments would be a great addition to this one sided conversation I have started.
bad coffee
Inept at life.
- Location
- Location: Location:
Wow...
- Location
- Marine Park
hahahahaha I love this thread
Randy, prattreef runs or ran a skimmerless "hospital" tank. He would put sick or stressed corals in there and they would pop back to life. He can elaborate more.
I think you're spot on in your water change regimen. A no longer here member Chris, loismustdie, had a skimmer malfunction and ran a 180 gallon sps tank skimmerless. He was doing 10% a day water changes often going as high as 20% a day. His tank didn't miss a beat, in fact his growth and colors increased. He also found that water changes were a far better means of dosing trace elements than two part or a calcium reactor ever could.
My tank as well was at it's best when I was doing 10% daily water changes. Your 50% once a month would freak me out personally but there's a few RC threads from years ago where people were doing that. They claimed the brief air exposure did a lot for their corals compared to the same corals lower in the tank that were never exposed to air. Interesting to say the least.
Also I agree with brett, Wow and might I add, hey.
Randy, prattreef runs or ran a skimmerless "hospital" tank. He would put sick or stressed corals in there and they would pop back to life. He can elaborate more.
I think you're spot on in your water change regimen. A no longer here member Chris, loismustdie, had a skimmer malfunction and ran a 180 gallon sps tank skimmerless. He was doing 10% a day water changes often going as high as 20% a day. His tank didn't miss a beat, in fact his growth and colors increased. He also found that water changes were a far better means of dosing trace elements than two part or a calcium reactor ever could.
My tank as well was at it's best when I was doing 10% daily water changes. Your 50% once a month would freak me out personally but there's a few RC threads from years ago where people were doing that. They claimed the brief air exposure did a lot for their corals compared to the same corals lower in the tank that were never exposed to air. Interesting to say the least.
Also I agree with brett, Wow and might I add, hey.
Nobody actually knows the answer to your question to date, since many skimmers are as different as the tanks one would look at.
BUT, I did do a study looking at the total amount of planktonic bacteria present in the water column from 6 different reef tanks. It is 100 fold lower than the range found on natural reefs (ocean planktonic bacteria 1,000,000 cells/mL; reeftanks generally 10,000 bacteria/mL). So it seems the numbers aren't there to begin with. One of the tanks was actually skimmer-less and didn't seem to be any different. In terms of removing the bacteria from the water column, based on chemistry I would speculate that a skimmer is not an efficient way of doing so, but of course it must remove some bacteria.
In general, all the bacteria within a reeftank are surface attached. Most probably in the form of biofilms. There is also a huge populations in symbiotic relationships with corals, and this population can be actually greater than the planktonic mass when compared volume for volume.
Last edited:
bad coffee
Inept at life.
- Location
- Location: Location:
advanced aquarist editorial article this month:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/5/aaeditorial
B
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/5/aaeditorial
B
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
