Your comments as to what's below and/or new comments and questions can be forwarded to my e-mail address - saltcorner@cs.com. Take into consideration that I'm a 'Senior Citizen' and growing a little slower every day. Your e-mail may be one of twenty or more received daily, and between travel, both pleasure and business, answering may take a week or more.
Hello Bob,
Your website is great, also enjoy your books. Let me say your tanks are absolutely breathtaking, but I'm sure you already know that. For some background info I have a 200G reef with 300 lbs of live rock, wet/dry sump with 10G of bio balls, rainbow life guard chem. and mech filters, Reef Concepts Ca reactor, and a Prism Pro skimmer. I'm circulating 2000gal/hour with a full time posterior desilter employed. Lighting is handled by 3 175W MH, and 4 six foot vho bulbs with a 1/3 hp JBJ chiller. The tank was set up six months ago, I have a moderate bio load with several soft coral, a couple hundred snails and crabs, seven fish, a few shrimp, and three large star fish with a three inch agronite base. I have had fresh water set-ups for about 20 years, but the marine ecosystem is new to me.
My biggest problem it nitrates, and am running NO-3 20-25 ppm, and I cant seen to find a test kit that measures NO-N. Despite several resins and water changes my nitrates remain the same. This prompted me to buy a natural reef nitrate reactor which uses a methanol based solution, that contains organic carbon, and bacterial growth enhancers to break down nitrate to nitrite forming nitrogen gas. This also comes with a strontium based solution that binds with inorganic phosphate, They are called nitragon, and phosphagon. I`m wondering what you think about this method, or are you familiar with these reactors. Its seems like an unnatural way to deal with this problem, but they state I will never have to do another water change. Plus my NO and PHOS levels will be zero like they are in nature. I'm wondering if I can use this reactor as a bridge until the tank equilibrates.
I wanted to try some other ways to reduce nitrates as well. New school concepts seen to discourage the use of bio balls, and I have a lot of them. I am not sure if the bio balls act as back up chemical filtration or work synergistally with the live rock and sand. What do you think the bet way is to remove them? I was thinking a slow wean maybe 1% per weak, or do I need not be so conservative.
One more question, My chiller seems to be running constantly. I bought a model that is rated for 340 gal. Does this seem right to you?
I hope you find the time to respond to this email, you expert advise would mean a lot to me.
Thanks.
Brian Tapasto
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the nice comments about my website, tanks, and books.
Unfortunately you do not say what brand nitrate test kit you are using! And if that one is only testing for the molecule weight of nitrate, then your nitrate level is really only about 10 ppm, which is perfectly acceptable.
I would recommend getting the Aquarium Systems Nitrate fastest kit. I use and have used that brand kit for many years and find that it is not only inexpensive, but also quite accurate.
As for the equipment mentioned, I'm not in favor of it, not because it won't do as advertised, but because if its not properly maintained it could have a detrimental effect on your reef environment. I would first be sure of your present nitrate level before moving into something that may not be needed. And if a correction is needed, then it would be time for us to discuss 'all' options and see which would make more sense for your system.
Hope this helps,
Bob
Hi Bob:
You and your publications were very helpful with a recent algae problem I had. I thought I had solved the problem only to find out that it has come back. I recently tried adding a small power compac light in my sump along with some macro algae in hopes that it would consume any additional nitrogen waste. It seemed to work beautifully for about a month being run at night. Now the macroalgae is rapidly diminishing, possibly from lack of nitrogen. As the macroalgae has died off in the sump, the algae has begun to creep back in the tank on the glass and live rock. Is it possible the algae in the tank is starving out the algae in the sump?
Realizing that its very hard to make any kind of diagnosis via email I thought perhaps I could share enough data with you in hopes that there might be something I have overlooked. Here goes:
The live rock in the upper portion of the tank is covered with a very short dense olive drab hair algae and I have a very small and stubborn diatoms on the glass. I have also tried scrubbing individual pieces of live rock only to have the algae return. Note, no chemicals were used on the live rock, only mechanical scrubbing. I am considering trashing my live rock and starting over.
Any thoughts or guidance you might have would be greatly appreciated. Alternatively if there is an internet/mail order source of live rock you might recommend I would appreciate that as well.
Thanks in advance for your help. In quest of a clean tank,
Greg Vontz
Hi Greg.
I've heard this often over the past number of years and can only say that if you control phosphates from the beginning, algae will be far from any kind of serious matter. What I'm about to recommend is something that you may find difficult to follow though on, but I know it works, and works well!
The best phosphate removing product that I know of, and I now have all the scientific data on each brand, is a product called ROWAphos. It comes from Germany, and is available through a company called D&D aquarium Solutions (www.d-daquariumssolutions.com) that is located in the U.K. Suggest getting a 5 liter amount.
The product is a ferric hydroxide material (iron-based product). It differs from other similar material sold here in the U.S. as it is specifically treated in a patented process to increase its absorbability. I would venture a guess its about 40% better than the U.S. brands. Anyway, it's a must in my opinion it be used correctly or you're wasting money, i.e., in a canister filter. I suggest a Fluval 404 for you, which has three internal baskets. Fill the lower basket with your choice of activated carbon (I use the brand from ESV) in a sack of course, and also cut up a Poly-Filter into small pieces. That fills the first basket. In the middle basket place a layer of filter fluff and spread four table spoons of ROWAphos over the filter fluff. Cover the media with another shallow layer of filter fluff. Do the same in the top basket. Start the canister filter and in about 30 - 40 days most of the algae in the aquarium will have dissipated. It has worked for me, my clients, and many of my readers. Change the media when there is the first sign of any phosphate reading on your test kit. Suggest you use only the Salifert test kit.
If for some reason you can't get the ROWAphos, you can use either the Two Little Fishes or Marc Weiss media, however, increase the amount used.
Give this a try, as I'm fairly sure you'll be one of the growing converts to this product!
Hope this helps,
Bob
Dear Mr. Goemans,
This is not a "please tell me how to...without doing any research on my part" type of letter. I have three reasons to write you, and such are described below:
1) I was looking for information on one of your previous reef tanks, specifically lighting. I have recently transferred from a 55 gallon reef to a 125 gallon reef using all the previous equipment and livestock. I was interested in finding out what you used for your past 125 gallon reef system as seen on your website. Currently I continue using a four foot 4 fluorescent lamp (65W each lamp) fixture from the previous tank. I intend to eventually get a 3 lamp MH setup, but like everybody else in this hobby, I'm stuck with the endless discussions about 175W vs. 250W and the need for actinic lamps. I don't want to even think about a chiller for the tank.
2. While I know you're not affiliated with any company, I want to let you know that I'm in the process of upgrading my Jurassic skimmer (because it's airstone operated). Do you have any suggestions?
3. On your website I read some of the arguments and comments against plenum systems that were initiated by people who think in the box! All I can say is that it's shameful thinking. My previous 55 gallon system was setup with a plenum system, which I liked. I believe it worked and was happy about it. Then I set up this 125 gallon system with a DSB directly on the tank bottom. The only reason for this was that I wanted to try this other way, and so far it's also working well. I am using both your advice and those that say don't ever vacuum the sandbed. I'm now vacuuming about once a year. While I find it reasonable that we are trying to keep some organisms in the tank (the don't vacuum people), it also seems reasonable that our tanks are closed systems and need some intervention on our part to remove accumulated debris. Anyway, the point I'm trying to get to is that you have the appreciation of all reefers. We value your work, you are a respected member of the reefing community, and just for your decency on not giving into the provocation of the very aggressive tone of some people, makes me stand by you 100%.
Best regards,
Omar Hernandez
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Dear Omar,
Thank you for your letter, and we live in Tucson, Arizona and also have exceptionally hot summer months! In fact, it was 110°F a few days ago, and we've had two power outages, one for almost seven hours, in the past week. So I can easy understand heat problems, and the heat generated with metal halide lamps! And, I thank you for your kind remarks about the 'professionalism' level exhibited on my website. Information, not gossip or blatant controversy for the sake of attention, is its goal!
As for lighting on the past 125 gallon reef system, it used two 175W 10K metal halides and two 30 watt 50/50 fluorescent lamps. The actinics were used for a sunrise and sunset photoperiod, besides remaining lit when the other lights were on. However, the system did need a chiller for the July and August months. There was simply no way in those summer months where the home A/C unit would provide enough cooling to keep the aquarium water within a reasonable range when the metal halides were lit. As for your system, whether you use 175 or 250's depends upon your invertebrate goal. If it includes mostly sps corals, then the 250's would be a better choice. Otherwise, the 175's would probably suffice.
(The are some very good protein skimmers on the market, and I mentioned several brands in my response. If that's of interest to readers of this column, please contact me.)
Again, thanks for your letter and hope this helps. Keep me posted.
Bob
Hi Bob
I have been out of the hobby for about one year. I closed down my reef system prior to moving and still haven't had the time to set up a new system. The old system was plumbed from the bottom and used a wet dry and very few animals. It consisted of two 120 gallon tanks with a 80 gallon sump and never contained more than twenty small fish between the two tanks and about 20 corals. The fish were damsels, clowns, pygmy angels and small tangs. Corals were bubble, elegance, hammerhead, brain and leather corals, many mushrooms and two small clams. I gave the animals to friends in the hobby and the live rock to a pet store. The aquariums were built into the wall of the house and remained behind.
Despite a large quality brand skimmer and the use of a phosphate remover, filamentous algae was a problem. Yet, there was never any measurable nitrate and phosphates. Temperature was automatically regulated (heater and chiller), by an Octopus 2000 Controller, upgraded to the 3000 model one month prior to sale of home.
Enough background. I am again ready to set up two reef aquariums in my new house. They will be in an indoor poolroom. They will again share a common sump, chiller and protein skimmer. Suggestions on the skimmer as well as other equipment such as a calcium reactor and lighting would be greatly appreciated.
Makeup water will again be processed with an RO + DI unit. The tanks are each 30" high for a 24" water column, 6" for the 4" sand bed and 2" for the plenum. The surface overflow will run the whole back of each tank. One tank is 220 gallons and the other is 245 gallons. Sources for the appropriate amount of aragonite sand or preferably live sand would also be appreciated. There are very few pet stores in my area and the most that I can hope for is to stock the fish for my aquariums from one or two of the stores. The last store that sold corals and live rock closed about 1 year ago!
I intend to set up the mechanics of the aquariums first then add sand shortly after. I will probably wait several months before adding live rock and again several more months before adding fish, and several more months before introducing corals. I figure it will take about 1 year from the time the tanks are built to the time the aquariums are fully functional. Is this reasonable?
Brian Gillespie
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your letter and most hobbyists think that if nitrates are low and phosphate appears fairly low, the green monster won't attack. Not always correct! The problem is that the forms of algae we hate the most, such as hair algae and slime algae are really cyanobacteria growths.
Slime algae begins as a 'biofilm,' which is nothing more than a very thin film or grouping of microorganisms. Usually, they are found where the water flow is somewhat slow, an adequate food supply exists, and where there is a preferred light spectrum. These films can form on any solid matter that remains in contact with water, even living tissue. Often, it evolves into a larger more prominent structure called a 'microbial mat' which is nothing more than a greatly enhanced version of the film. Aquarists generally see it as a red-like slime covering sandbed surfaces, aquarium side panels, and even living corals.
Often, hobbyists relate only to excesses of nitrate and phosphate as the cause of unwanted algae growths. Actually, it's the 'nitrogen' portion of nitrate "and/or" nitrite and ammonium that provides the 'bread and butter' portion of their diet. All are readily available in closed systems and more so in some other systems.
As for phosphate, it's the primary energy ingredient that initializes the growth of these unwanted forms of cyanobacteria. Depending upon the efficiency of the aquarium's biological filtration in relation to bioload and general maintenance, it can be available at substrate interfaces via precipitation or in the bulk water from foodstuffs or unprocessed tap water. Unfortunately for hobbyists, the advanced stages of these photosynthetic 'mats' mostly become a self-sustaining ecology. Therefore they need little outside input to grow and reproduce. They simply make their own nitrogen and phosphate needs in and below their base structures with the aquarist providing little else but a preferred spectrum. And, initial growth is usually in an area at or adjacent to a small amount of nutrients usually found on or in a rock crevice, or on the sandbed/bulk water interface.
And then there is Hair Algae, which looks more like a plant than bacteria because of its long, soft and hair-like strands. It's difficult to overcome because aquarists fail to understand its cycle and wait far too long to intercede. Not only does it become independent of bulk water nutrients once established, trapped detritus/debris can add further nutrients to the bulk water. It has two life cycles - small bubble-like growths and that of an easily recognizable plant-like structure. There are tiny spore packages that form on its hair-like strands. When these packages mature they burst open and release spores that settle and grow into small green bubbles. When these bubbles mature they release male or female cells that eventually unite and form a base unit for the growth of a new structure of hair algae. Some aquarists say 'hair algae' does not grow on surfaces covered with coralline, however, that is not true.
The keys to the kingdom, so to speak, are in maintaining 'extremely' low levels of phosphate, i.e., below 0.015 ppm; having a microbially efficient substrate; and, removing any of these growths when they first become visible. Yes, a good protein skimmer is helpful, so is the iron-based phosphate removing media. Most systems should not be without this type phosphate removing media!
And even though you say you had very little phosphate, I doubt that very much. As long as you feed, there will be a constant supply of phosphate in the bulk water. How much is dependent upon how well you control the situation. Anything over the above mentioned level is sufficient to get an alga spore growing. Unfortunately almost all aquarium test kits only read down to 0.05 ppm and even that's doubtful because aquarium reagents are not too accurate. There are two that I would recommend, and they those by Merck or Salifert.
When you begin your next system, begin it with one of these iron-impregnated phosphate removers, an efficient protein skimmer, and don't over crowd the tank with too much live rock. Leave enough substrate surface area for monthly vacuuming.
Lighting is dependent upon the goals of the system(s). If you stay within the range of what you had in the previous system, 250W 10K metal halides lamps should suffice. However, if the goal is more ambitious, i.e., lots of sps corals and clams, then 400W lamps are recommended.
(As for skimmers, calcium reactors and lighting brands, I did mention quite a few and as mentioned in the first letter in this article, readers of this column can contact me for that information or simply visit my website for product reviews and/or ads by some of those companies. As for sand, bagged live sand is now available and I also mentioned a couple of brands that might consider shipping to the reader's location.)
And last, I would recommend getting the live sand and immediately adding some pieces of live rock to begin. Then over the coming month or two, add some more rock being sure not to cover too much of the sand surface (Dr. Jaubert recommends not covering more than 25% of the sandbed surface) and some corals. Once some algae becomes visible, add some herbivores, both fish and invertebrates. Once the algae situation is well under control, begin adding the remaining animals.
Hope this helps and keep me posted.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
I urgently need your advice! My 100 gallon tank is plenum equipped, and uses an aragonite sand. I also employ a calcium reactor (with ARM media) with no other additives or limewater. The tank has worked well so far, except for a slightly low KH. The pH at the moment is ranging from 7.95 to 8.18. The tank is full of stony coral. I note that some stony corals are "melting" at their bases. I checked the parameters and find that the KH is as low as 4.4 and the calcium is at 340!
The calcium reactor works well so far and I also check the effluent/output. The manufacturer of the reactor recommended that about 60 - 100 drops of water output per minute would be fine. I tested the result of this and noted a KH of about 40. However, I do not work my reactor in accordance with the direction of the manufacturer as I simply do not find sufficient output to feed the requirement of my tank.
My way of dealing with the reactor is that I increase the output of the reactor to the extent that the output will be 20ml per minute at a pH of 7.3 (bearing in mind that the ARM will melting at pH of 7.5). Even the output water has only a KH of 9.6 and a calcium of 400, I do think that the aggregate sum of carbonate and calcium generated by this means will be far greater than 100 drops of super saturated solution as recommended by the manufacturer. Am I right?
On my direction to handle the reactor, I still find that the KH in the tank is gradually dropping and to 4.4 at the moment. I think that because I house many stony corals, the input of carbonate, etc. is far less that the consumption rate which lead to a gradual decline of the KH in the tank and further to the extent that the depiction of carbonate in the tank affect the growth of the stony coral. I do not have the opportunity to check the magnesium at the moment.
My questions being:
1) What is the safe method to rebuild the KH without damaging the equilibrium so as to halt the stony coral "melting"?
2) What is the long-term method to keep the KH and calcium at a reasonable or NSW level? I note what you wrote in one of your booklets and started to use a calcium reactor for more that half a year without adding other additives. However, I cannot hold the KH and the calcium level firm so far.
3) I am adding a KH buffer additive solution into the tank at a very slow manner hoping that the situation will be improved, does it work or safe to do so?
Look forward to your early reply.
David Wong
Hong Kong
Hi David,
As for your words "melting" I wonder about water movement in these areas. I've had similar type situations when the overall coral mass had increased greatly and caused a reduction in water flow at the base of those corals. Pruning and increasing water flow, besides careful monitoring of alkalinity and calcium resolved those problems.
As for calcium reactor effluent rate, it's mostly predicated on the "volume" and "type" of media in the reactor! It's why I recommend a duel column reactor and/or a very large column if it's a single column reactor, no matter what the size of the aquarium. Better to have control and deliver what's needed, than constantly fight the battle of changing CO2 rate and effluent drip rates, which often occurs with small reactors on large systems!
The goal with calcium reactors is to provide a "minimum" effluent reading of 12 - 15 meq/l or about 36 dKH. Depending upon the size of the aquarium and the draw on the systems alkalinity base/calcium, that reactor and its media with "X" number of drops per minute (whatever they are) at this minimum alkalinity level, may be enough to maintain the "system's" alkalinity at 10-12 dKH or about 4 meq/l alkalinity level. Which is ideal in my opinion. If system alkalinity and calcium levels are not maintained with the recommended effluent parameter, then enriching the CO2 bubble rate may increase the effluent dKH level. If so, the effluent drop rate can be enhanced, yet its dKH level should not fall below the recommended minimum level. If increasing the CO2 does not increase the level of alkalinity in the effluent, the answer is not to increase flow because you can only get some much juice out of an orange no matter how many times you squeeze it!
And when its comes to drip rate, there's no such thing as a given number of drops per minute. They will be whatever they will be to deliver the required parameters. Only time tells if the best any calcium reactor has to offer will keep pace with system demands. This is definitely a case of bigger is better! And in your case, it appears the reactor may be undersized.
Whatever the effluent drip rate, it will be whatever will supply a flow of water containing an alkalinity that is in the range of 3 to 4 times the desired 'alkalinity' of the main system! And that's not happening when you increase flow to 400 drops per minute in your system. Even the calcium level in the effluent is far below what it should be. I would guess you're calcium usage is probably at least 30 ppm per day, and if only 400 ppm is in the small amount of fluid going into your tank everyday, the level of calcium in the aquarium will slowing become depleted.
Go back to the ranges noted above and with a CO2 bubble rate of about 60 bubbles per minute, slow the effluent drip rate until you have the best possible dKH level (keep in mind the minimum mentioned above). If that drip rate is under 100 drops per minute, get a new reactor or at least try installing some new media.
Keep in mind the CO2 bubble rate does impact the dissolution rate of the media, however, ARM and the Knop brand media need very little pH reduction as it dissolves somewhere about 7.8 - 8.0 pH. With a pH lower than that, the amount of dissolution increases, and the effluent rate can be reduced (if needed), however, so does the life span of the media. If anything, as the media becomes worn down, there will be less and less useful alkalinity, and sometimes even a major increase in CO 2 won't help. It's simply time to change the media. And, if you wait too long or use a cheaper/inadequate media, there will be a very large gap between the amount of none useful carbonates and calcium delivered to the aquarium. Carbonates will increase, however, calcium will decrease. That's not a good situation for balanced coral skeleton growth.
You can monitor this value by testing a sample of the effluent when the media is new, and then down the road six months later. You will notice a reduction of useable calcium in the test sample even if the meq/l or dKH levels may be equal! Interesting, but a fact.
There is a new and quite interesting calcium reactor that I've just seen. There's a new type "fluidbed" reactor on the market, and if interested, contact me. Could be the future in calcium reactors is here! A Kalkwasser drip would also benefit the system. I would not add separate buffers as they can upset system chemical balances. Either a new reactor, new media, or add the Kalkwasser drip. Either way, your present reactor appears to be inadequate for your size system.
Hope this helps my friend.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
I know you are an extremely busy individual, but I was wondering if you could comment on your views of the slow plenum siphoning technique that some aquarists are utilizing and/or recommending after the plenum has been in extended service. Personally, I don't think this is needed and would probably only cause setbacks in plenum operation, (even if done slowly) but wanted to compare my thoughts on this with someone who would definitely know better than I. Anyway, thanks for your time.
Rich Valentine
Hi Rich,
I've seen this question asked many times. Some aquarists, especially those who speculated the plenum system was something similar to a septic tank where nutrients checked in but didn't check out, claimed the plenum area should periodically be drained to prevent build-up of nutrients. Unfortunately they spread the word that accumulation of nutrients in the plenum would soon leach out into the aquariums bulk water and kill everything and/or cause a major algae problem. Little did they realize only some accumulation of nutrients occur because that is another purpose of the plenum - to take nutrients out of the loop until they can be processed by the very efficient microbial processes in the above sandbed. An energy reserve so to speak. So a nitrate reading of something above what is found in the bulk water is a very normal happening and far from anything worrisome. Just part of Mother Natures control over existing, sometimes shifting parameters. Furthermore, it has never been found that these slightly accumulated nutrients leach into the bulk water.
As for siphoning the plenum, its possible it could bring too much oxygen into the plenum area and its sandbed changing anoxic areas to aerobic and thereby changing the electrical charge value of the bed and plenum area. This alone could cause a new chain reaction of events and effects, limiting equilibrium. There were also some aquarists who claimed to be using their siphon system to test different plenum water parameters. Unfortunately they appeared to be unfamiliar with the necessary protocols for testing to achieve accurate results. Without monitoring redox and dissolved oxygen parameters throughout the plenum and sandbed for a baseline, test results must be considered quite questionable. And as for a very slow withdrawal of water, its simply a wasted effort as it serves no useful purpose.
For those who have not spent six years of their life researching sandbed parameters in all kinds of situations both in the wild and closed systems, its easy to come up with logical sounding ideas. However, after six years of research it became evident why plenum systems performed as they did! Once the more involved microbial pathways were understood, and especially the importance of the associated electrical charge at different levels of the plenum and its bed of sand where unprocessed nutrients in the plenum area are attracted back to the above sandbed for reduction, siphoning was no longer logical or should even be considered a wise recommendation!
Hope this helps,
Bob
Hello Bob,
This is Lucas again and it has been a little over two weeks since I received your latest correspondence. I read what you had to say and recommend and I can say that the information was very helpful.
I looked at the website www.joesjuice.com and was very intrigued by how simple and potentially effective this product can be. I have yet to place an order (I know you want some feedback on the effectiveness of this product) but when I do (as soon as I can scrape together a little more cash, being the holiday season and all) I will give you some feedback. From what I could glean from the website, the product looks safe, effective, easy to use, and economical (with free shipping to boot!).
I also purchased for my aquarium an Eco-aqualizer E55 unit complete with the re-circulation kit to implement with my aquarium set-up. I told them about my past experiences with their product (I had tried it about six or so months ago with no success and returned the product, only to not receive my shipping and handling refund, which their website says should be the case), and was told that they would ship out a FREE E55 unit complete with the re-circulation kit and detailed instructions to walk me through step by step the installation for my aquarium. I must say this was VERY gracious indeed, and I look forward to seeing how the device will/should help with my water quality.
There were a few "glitches" so to say in implementing some of your recommendations. For invertebrate food, for instance, you recommended the "Bioplankton" product made by the folks at Liquidlifeusa. I contacted Edward Rameirez directly like you instructed and was able to personally talk with the man. We went into detailed discussions about the harvesting and processing of the phytoplankton cultures, etc., and what ultimately would be the best route for my aquarium needs. I told him that his product sounded intriguing, but that the only problem for me economically speaking would be the shipping of the product (it needs to be shipped second day air or faster). This effectively takes a product that looks feasible right off the bat (a 30 ml. bottle only runs about twenty-four dollars from most online stores I have looked at) but once you throw in the expedited shipping costs (about twenty dollars for most locals) the product doesn't seem very intriguing anymore. I told Edward of a few options that would work for me, one being if he could interest the folks at DrsFosterSmith.com to carry the product. I have ordered from this outfit before, and due to the very short distance separating me from them (I'm in Minnesota; they are across the border in Wisconsin) I only have to pay the standard shipping charge for most orders, and my goods arrive to me in LESS than two days. However, Edward has not contacted me again as to whether or not he is willing to do this, so perhaps his product will not be going into my tank after-all.
You also wrote and suggested the Tunze brand of powerheads as being the right pick for most people. I went to their website and looked over all of their product lines, and I must say that these devices look to be top of the line. The only problem is, top of the line means BIG BUCKS, and the Turbelle powerhead unit that I figured would best meet my needs runs about $80 a powerhead! That is WAY too much money than I am willing to spend just on powerheads, so I was wondering if you had any other suggestions. I was considering the powerheads made by the folks at Aquaclear, as they seem to be top of the line also, but yet FOUR times cheaper that what Tunze is willing to price their products at. I have not contacted Roger at AquaTek like you suggested, but seeing as I am only a know-nothing, unheard of aquarium keeper instead of a nationally prominent and well respected gentleman like yourself, I doubt that Roger would even have the time of day to address my needs (perhaps offering up some "used" equipment or what not that he would offer for, say, half the price of the what his products normally go for). Plus, the number you gave was not toll-free, so just trying to talk to and get a hold of the man would cost money. Could you offer up an email where I might be able to contact this individual, as this was the way I was able to get the ball rolling with Edward at Liquidlife. As far as contacting fellow hobbyists, I'm not sure I would like to go this route, for while most are very conscientious and take care of their tanks and equipment very well (myself included), there are a few that who knows what you are going to get from them. Any suggestions that you could offer would be welcome.
I guess this covers the "jest" of my letter. If you can expand on or otherwise offer up any more suggestions, I would welcome the input. It should be working just fine and should not give you any problems (I have sent and received information from others with no difficulties). Reply as soon as you can, but if you busy, please feel free to take your time. Thanks for your time and happy holidays!
Sincerely,
Lucas Grathwohl
Hi Lucas,
I'm glad the holidays are just about over as the visiting family, both from the east coast and Mexico has worn me down! And I've had little computer time to keep pace.
I'm happy to hear the folks at ECO-Aqualizer treated you so well! They really are good folks, and have a worthwhile product. However, people who still think in the box may not agree!
As for Edward at Liquidlife, I'm very sure he will follow up on anything that will enhance the distribution of the product. And by the way, he now has a Rotifer product that is similar to the BioPlankton product! I've tested it, and it appears to be an excellent product. Give him some time to respond, then email him to see where things have progressed.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
I was wondering if you have any experience with this. In my 240 gallon reef tank I have a good number of small brown tube worms that live in clusters. I read somewhere that they may be one of the life stages of a jellyfish. The reason I ask is that this morning I found about a dozen small jellyfish in my tank. They are about 1/4" diameter, do not appear to have tentacles, and swim in a typical jellyfish pulsing manner.
My fish do not bother them, however, they do take a look at them, but then swim away. Unfortunately, the current blows around these little guys rather rapidly. When they reach a calm area of the tank (albeit momentarily) they rise to the top and after a moment begin to color up in a brown/pink color that seems to indicate the presence of zooxanthellae. I know they will not survive very long in this tank. Even if they escape my more actively feeding corals (Frogspawn, yellow and button polyps, Rhodactis mushrooms) they will be destroyed by the man made predators in the tank (impellers).
Do you have any information about them? Are they a reason for concern? And, of course, since the rock is at least 4 years old (some older) in the tank, why would they go to this life cycle stage now? Are they a potential problem for my desirable life forms - fish, corals?
Any information would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Charlie Greiner
Hi Charlie,
Thanks for a very interesting letter, and no I've not had any experience with this species, however, do have some insight as to their origin and classification. They are not tubeworms, as they are actually the polyp stage of a jellyfish, probably Nausithoe punctata. They appear tube-like with numerous tentacles surrounding the opening of the tube. They can encrust large areas, especially where light is strong as they do have zooxanthellae and either use that or capture planktonic organisms for nutrition. They are almost feather duster-like in appearance. The medusa larvae forms on top of the tube-like polyp and are stacked like coins, i.e., one on top of another and are released one at a time. And they can for years remain in the polyp stage, then some biological event triggers them and produce what you are now seeing. Adding a moon light, changing the intensity of the lamps, change in salinity or temperature, change photoperiod, adding a different type of suspension type foodstuff, are some of the possible reasons that may cause this change to the existing status.
In fact, a photo of this species polyp stage appears in Vincent Hargreaves book "The Complete Book of the Marine Aquarium" on page 197. I contacted Vincent and asked his help in identifying this organism. He was most helpful and supplied the following:
"Nausithoe species belong to the 'Crown Jellyfish' group (Order Coronatae) and the free-swimming medusae usually have a diameter of 2 to 25 cm. The name refers to the umbrella form of the individual medusa that gives the impression of a crown. Underneath the crown there is a circle of thick feet (Pedalia). Almost all of these feet possess a single tentacle. Most specimens are imported from the Indo-Pacific on live rock or invertebrate colonies such as corals, zoanthids and corallimorpharians. Generally, in this polyp stage, they look like colonial hydroids. Many species live in deep and colder water. They are extremely attractive, often with striking colors and sometimes luminescence (bioluminescence). The few species that inhabit tropical reef shallows are from the genus Nausithoe whose medusae seldom reach a diameter of more than 2 to 3 cm. In an aquarium, the polyp stage is easily visible as a brownish colony of swaying tentacles, the medusae are not frequently seen. Zooxanthellae is usually present in the medusa stage, but this is not so readily apparent in the polyp stage. The polyps can reproduce asexually and the ephyra-larvae of the polyps are stacked like coins, one on top of the other throughout the height of the polyp column. These are released one after the other by strobilation to form free-swimming medusae."
I doubt the free-swimming medusae will remain a viable organism in a closed system. And, they probably will end up being sucked into a pump or simply flowing over the edge of a surface drain and be killed. If you notice them going to waste, it may be better to net them out so water quality is not affected. Otherwise, they would not harm anything in your aquarium.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
I was reading your reply to one of the reader's questions regarding the set up of 180 gallon show tank with a 75 gallon plenum and came across something that I didn't understand. You said the overflow from the main tank to plenum tank should be half of that 75 gallon volume, which is about 40 GPH. My main set up is a 44 gallon tall reef tank with a 20 gallon plenum/refugium tank with build-in wet/dry filter. This offers double bio filtration, which is good - wouldn't you agree?
I use a Rio 1700 powerhead to flow water from the plenum to upper tank. From the manufacture chart my pump or overflow rate would be about 250GPH (the only source of water flow in main tank at this time). The wet/dry filter has a separate pump.
As for the plenum setup: 1.5" deep plastic grid, 1" of 2mm crush shell, 1" of 1.5 mm gravel, 1.5" of 1 mm gravel, 1" of fine sand, and about 0.3" of ultra fine sand, plus a couple pieces of life rock and some macro algae. As for main tank, I have 3' of fine sand and about 20 pounds of live rock. The system doesn't have a protein skimmer at this time and the major source of light is indirect bright natural sunlight. The tank has been running for about a month without a major algae outbreak. One candy coral I placed in the tank two weeks ago is looking real good and the mushroom corals are looking great also (one is 2+ inches in diameter!) Last time I checked, no detectable nitrite, little bit of nitrate and ammonia.
In your opinion, should I lower the overflow rate to 10 GPH and why do you recommend a slow return water flow? That means I would have to run a different power pump to increase water flow in the main tank (more $ for electric bill+heat!) I also just started to run UV light this week to control Ich problems. Will that affect the system's bio-filtration ability? Any other suggestions that you could provide to make the system better, reduce maintenance and lower its operation costs would be appreciated. Thank you!
Tony
Los Angeles, CA
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your letter and can understand the confusion! There are many different ways to set up aquariums where main system water flows to smaller sump-like systems. The problem here is that the purpose of the smaller interconnected tank needs to be resolved before its brought into play. Will it be a tank to house equipment, e.g., protein skimmer, trickle filter, etc., or a refugium of some type, or will it simply be an interconnected plenum style biological filter. It can't or shouldn't be all three! Where my past 180 gallon system was concerned, I felt that its 60 gallon interconnected plenum system was all the additional biological filtration my system needed. Most of the system's nitrification occurred in the main system's shallow course grained (2 - 4mm) sandbed and the resultant nitrate was either somewhat acted upon in its deeper areas or much more efficiently in the below plenum system. Water movement in the main system was provided by Tunze powerheads, which more than adequately took care of circulation in the main system.
As for flow rate between an interconnected plenum system and a main show tank, it would make no sense to speed the water through the interconnected plenum system. Past history has shown that if water was pumped between systems at very high rates, i.e., above the volume of the plenum system, there was usually less reduction of the incoming nitrate. Not a scientific finding, however, something that has shown itself to be evident over the past five or six years where auxiliary plenum systems have been used. Keep in mind the same premise is true where protein skimmers are involved! Where interconnected plenums are concern, it appears that adequate "dwell time" has an apparent valve.
Also, in my opinion, the use of a trickle filter, placed anywhere in a plenum system, is counterproductive. Why allow its nitrate to be discharged into the bulk water. Enough will be produced by the sandbeds, where hopefully most of it will diffuse downward and be reduced.
As for the sand used, it appears better suited for a macroalgae style refugium, as the very fine sand will halt diffusion and cause the bed to become anaerobic where only ammonium, an algae nutrient will be produced. And I should add there is no need to use different size sand grains in the plenum bed. Where that misinformation came from remains a mystery, but is totally incorrect. All of the sand should be in the range of 2 - 5mm. Also, if the sand is very fine in the main system, the same may happen there. If you want to grow macroalgae, then you want a fairly nutrient rich environment. If you want a fairly nutrient poor environment, then a properly constructed plenum system will help attain that goal. But your plenum bed is 'not' what a 'plenum' bed should be! Make a choice as to what function the smaller tank will serve.
The UV will not harm already established bacteria colonies, however, it doesn't sound like yours are fully established yet. Could be its use will slow further nitrification bacteria colonization. And, it will kill useful bacteria and algae cells in the water that passes through it that coral could feed upon. It is not the answer when it comes to curing a Marine Ich problem. If the situation is not too severe, consider getting a couple of cleaner shrimp such as Lysmata amboinensis. They will help pick off the parasites before they can multiply, and have successfully prevented major outbreaks in many aquaria. New systems usually look good for the first six months, however, its what happens to them after that, that will tell how good your planning and husbandry methods are! Visit my website and go to the "Guest Articles" page and read the Sandbed Articles Part I & II. You may find the information posted there quite helpful.
Hope this helps,
Bob
Hi Bob,
I had talked with you a while back about a plenum setup, with this one in a freshwater African Cichlid tank. I must say it's doing great so far. I have never seen a bit of algae and even after the nitrate spike due to the nitrification cycle, the plenum seemed to just "eat" it up, and its staying below 5ppm. I am very happy with this system, and it seems to be working better than I ever thought. I smile every time I see the nitrogen gas bubbles coming up from the substrate.
I have a 75 gallon tank that I am considering changing out the substrate to allow a better "Plant" substrate. I emailed SeaChem about this product and they said, "The grain size of Flourite Red is very similar to regular Flourite. Both of these substrates vary in size but average grain size is from 3 - 5 mm with some being larger (up to 8 - 10 mm) and some being smaller (2 mm and below."
I would think that most of it is within the proper grain size for a plenum bed, however, would appreciate your thoughts.
Again thanks for all your help. I think the system you helped me design has worked wonderfully, and as you can tell, I am happy and wanting to do another one.
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Brian,
I'm not familiar with the Seachem product, however, I suspect from its name it's a product that is high in iron content. Which of course is ideal for planted tanks. If that's the goal, I would suspect the product should suffice.
If the goal is simply a Cichlid system, where no plants are feasible, then CaribSea produces a Cichlid substrate that was successfully used in an plenum experiment that I did with a Cichlid aquarium society about three years ago. CaribSea provided the substrate for several systems, and each plenum system had marvelous results. And, many of the tanks were extremely crowded, yet nitrate levels were far lower than any of these members had seen in previous non-plenum applications. Everyone came away highly impressed!
Even though the plenum method is not the perfect application for all aquariums, nor does it "guarantee" the perfect environment, deciphering its pathways has led to a much better understanding of the microbial pathways in our aquaria. How that is applied depends greatly upon the correctness of the information surrounding the method. Unfortunately, there are still individuals misquoting the facts, some of which has and is still appearing in various magazines.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
You helped me set up a 75 gallon marine tank last year and I just want to send you an update report. Without you I wouldn't have enjoyed the past year with my tank. I have been going on snorkeling trips to our Bay Islands and have collected several specimens for my tank, including live rock, anemones, crabs, shrimp, snails, macroalgae, brittle stars, fan worms, feather dusters, etc. I and everybody that visits us loves my tank.
As of right now I have 2 Yellowtail Blue Demoiselles, 2 Ocellaris Clowns, 1 Clarks Clown (lives in a Condylactis), 1 Yellow Tang, 1 Blue Tang, 1 Fox Face, 1 Bicolor Blenny, 1 Longnose Hawkfish, 1 Royal Dottyback, and 1 Purple Firefish. As for the Inverts; 2 ringed anemones (collected), 2 Condylactis (1 collected), 1 bubble tip anemone, 1 tube anemone, 5 feather dusters, several hermit crabs, emerald crabs, 2 - 3 mantis shrimp all collected or stowaways on the live rock, and 1 Banded Coral Shrimp (bought).
I know that my light is still not enough for the anemones, as I presently use two 65W compact fluorescents, and hope to double that soon. Remember, I can't buy anything here, as there are no aquarium stores in my area. I do not intend to add anything more to my tank. Yet maybe an occasional live rock in case I go snorkeling again. My fish seek out the Banded Coral Shrimp for cleaning, but he doesn't do it. What other shrimp or fish can you recommend for that purpose?
Thank you again,
Bernd Losert
La Ceiba, Honduras
Hi Bernd,
The snorkeling trips to the Bay Islands sounds fascinating, and when and if we visit some of our family living in Honduras, they actually only live 20 minutes from you, I may also do some snorkeling in that area. And, when that trip happens, we will finally get to visit with each other!
As for your bioload, it has swelled since the last time we spoke. Its really is in excess for your size aquarium, however, if all are getting along with each other I would leave it be. If not, the troublemakers should be removed, and I would begin with trying to rid the tank of the mantis shrimps. Depending upon their size, they 'will' attack whatever they feel they can eat! And that's going to mostly happen at night, so be aware there's danger lurking in your tank.
As for Banded Coral Shrimp, they do accomplish cleaning in the wild, however, rarely exhibit those activities in captivity. I would recommend 'Lysmata amboinensis' generally called the Scarlet Cleaner Shrimp. It is one of the most popular of all cleaner shrimp. This beauty has two red longitudinal stripes separated by a white stripe that terminates in a white blotched inverted "T" on the tail fan. It also has extremely long white antennae. This 3 inch (8 cm) cleaner shrimp can be kept in small groups, and will come directly onto your hand to take pieces of clam, shrimp, krill, mussels, frozen mysis, fresh fish flesh and the hair off the back of your hand. It is frequently in view during the day, yet may pick/steal food from corals, but does not seem to be destructive. Since these shrimp are hermaphroditic spawners (possess both male and female sex organs), all adult members of the group produce eggs and are fertilized by another member of the group. Therefore, any two of these shrimp is sufficient to propagate the species, if they like each other! Take note, as I know your aquarium runs a little warm at times, they seem to be sensitive to temperatures above the low eighties. Photos of these shrimp are on my website.
Could be in your area that 'Lysmata grabhami' usually called the 'Candy Cane Cleaner Shrimp' may be more available. It is similar in appearance to L. amboinensis, and sometimes called the Caribbean L. amboinensis. It has its white stripe edged in white at the tail fan. Same requirements.
Keep in mind the above mentioned cleaners don't have a claw, and therefore they are quite defenseless, especially to mantis shrimp!
Enjoy,
Bob
Hi Bob -
I have a 120 reef tank, and have a problem with Cyanobacteria at the substrate/bulk water interface which turns into a microbial mat. Even after doing water changes with RO/DI water, and skimming with a good protein skimmer like you suggest, it keeps coming back. I haven't got a test kit that measures low enough yet, but suspect phosphates are the culprit.
After reading your response to a letter in Sand Mail (FAMA), I have learned that these mats become self-sustaining, which seems to be the case, because even after siphoning the cyano out, it reappears in about a week. It is not growing anywhere else except the top layer of substrate which is furthest away from the live rock. Is that an indication of something?
I do not have a huge bioload, do not overfeed, and was not aware that as long as the fish are fed, there is a constant supply of phosphate in the bulk water. Does that mean all fish food contains phosphate, or that there is phosphate in fish waste?
The two phosphate removers that I have seen with iron in them are PhosBan (two little fishes), and Phosphate Killer (Salifert). Do you have a personal favorite?
Lastly, have you heard any good or bad about the two liquid products made by Korallin : PO4-Minus phosphate exporter, or AZ-NO3 nitrate and dissolved organics exporter?
I have learned to value your knowledge, and look forward to your response.
Robb Drape
Hi Robb,
The best phosphate removing product that I know of is a product called ROWAphos. It comes from Germany, however, is now available here - www.aquatichouse.com. The product is a ferric hydroxide material (iron-based product). It differs from other similar material sold here in the U.S. as it is specifically treated in a patented process to increase its absorbability. I would venture a guess its about 40% better than the U.S. brands. Anyway, it's a must in my opinion it be used correctly or you're wasting money, i.e., in a canister filter. I suggest a Fluval 304 for you, which has three internal baskets. Fill the lower basket with your choice of activated carbon (I use the ESV brand - really the best out there!) in a sack of course, and also cut up a Poly-Filter into small pieces. That fills the first basket. In the middle basket place a layer of filter fluff and spread five tablespoons of ROWAphos over the filter fluff. Cover the media with another shallow layer of filter fluff. Do the same in the top basket. Change the media when there is the first sign of any phosphate reading on your test kit. Suggest you use only the Salifert phosphate test kit. If for some reason you can't get the ROWAphos, you can use either the Two Little Fishes or Marc Weiss media, however, increase the amount used. As for Salifert phosphate product, I don't have any details about it, however, would venture a guess it's the same stuff as the Two Little Fishies and Marc Weiss products, as existing contracts in Germany forbid the ROWAphos product being sold to anyone except the one company that now distributes ROWAphos.
As for the products made by Korallin PO4-Minus phosphate, or AZ-NO3 nitrate exporter, it would be a cold day in you know where before I would use them! And I should note I've seen some horror stories where AZ-NO3 is concerned!
And yes, the majority of phosphates comes from the foods fed, especially green foods such as nori and flake foods. But, with proper attention to removal, it should never become a problem. And remember, cyano is a photosynthetic creature, and mostly prefers to be where there is some light penetration, preferably a red spectrum.
As for cyano, I have recently seen a product called Chemi-Clean from Boyd Enterprises used in a store reef tank and it was 100% successful in wiping out a bad case of cyanobacteria, and I mean real bad case! However, when I questioned Boyd about its ingredients, they refused to speak to me! Could be I guessed too closely as to what it was and they didn't like to hear that! I'm guessing it's a concentrated carbohydrate such as a special sweetener that causes the cyano to work overtime and devour itself! I've heard of people using excessive doses of the Marc Weiss Reef-Vital DNA, a similar sweetener product, and all cyano disappearing.
Of course, you could use a tablespoon of brown sugar or unprocessed honey once per month in your 120 gallon tank and it might do the same thing.
Hope this is helpful and have a safe new year.
Bob
Hi Bob,
I enjoy reading your Sand-Mail each month and would appreciate it if you could help me out with just a tad bit of further clarification regarding deep sandbeds (DSB).
I know that you are in favor of using a plenum when utilizing a DSB. Personally, I have had a 4" DSB in place for over a year now - without a plenum - and I am unable to achieve low nitrates. I just finished reading your column in the September FAMA issue, and noticed that you advise a sandbed with a depth of no more than 2" when not using a plenum. Will this approach still help with denitrification? The aerobic/anaerobic part of the sandbed still confuses me a bit.
I will be moving this coming weekend and would appreciate any advice you may have concerning my dilemma. I prefer not to use a plenum with the new setup. My tank is not overstocked, and I do not overfeed. All of the tank inhabitants are healthy and growing, although I refuse to add any SPS (Acropora and such) until I crack the code with my nitrate problem. I can see the difference in the color of the sand below the 2" mark. What is this telling me?
I know you are a busy man, and would appreciate your input at your earliest convenience.
Thanks,
Robb Drape
Hi Robb,
The situation around deep and shallow sandbeds directly on the aquarium bottom, plenum systems, nitrate accumulation, and unwanted algae continue to be interesting topics, and often frustrating to say the least.
As with anything, it's better to begin at the root level and work our way towards the end result. That begins, in my opinion, with the aquariums smallest members, its bacteria and the confusion that revolves around the words anoxic and anaerobic.
Depending upon the oxygen level in the sandbed, certain types of bacteria exist. In the first half inch of sand, the aerobic heterotrophs exist and in this oxygen rich area the nitrification cycle is accomplished. Below that and in areas where there is a small amount of oxygen (0.5 - 2.0 mg/l), facultative anaerobic heterotrophs exist. It past research we have termed that area as 'anoxic.' Those bacteria living in that area are capable of reducing nitrate back to nitrogen gas. In a system without a plenum, that area would be approximately the lower half of the upper inch of substrate. Of course the physical grain size of the medium is important, but for all practicable purpose I'm assuming something in the range of 1 - 4 mm. Where there is no oxygen, such as below one inch in depth, obligate anaerobic heterotrophs exist and they only reduce nitrate to ammonium, no further. Basically the same is true for what is happening inside live rock. So, the production of a nitrogen based product, ammonium, is occurring where there is no oxygen. We call that the anaerobic area.
The ammonium produced in an anaerobic area, if it leaches upwards, either gets used by algae, as ammonium is the prime algae nutrient, or it has to be converted by nitrification bacteria back to nitrate. So the nitrification bacteria in the upper half inch of the bed are working overtime in trying to keep pace with the incoming supply of nutrients in both directions. If some of the nitrates and ammonium leach back into the bulk water, O'well, there's just so many nitrification aerobic bacteria and they are all already doing the best they can!
The claim that an anaerobic region in the sandbed is something good to create because it reduces nitrates is a weak and misleading statement! A more potent nutrient, ammonium, is being produced!
If the depth of the bed directly on the aquarium bottom is reduced to a couple of inches, there is simply less anaerobic/inefficient area. If the bed is much deeper, the penetration of oxygen via diffusion is hampered, thereby reducing the level of very efficient nitrate reduction, i.e., back to nitrogen gas. Therefore the deeper region of a sandbed directly on the aquarium bottom can become an endless cycling factory of ammonium to nitrate and back to ammonium. Of course there are other considerations, such as bioturbation/influx of fauna, however, that's usually a wildcard and its associated value impossible to quantify. So it's a must I dwell upon known entities, such as what bacteria is going to exist, where they will exist, why they will exist, and what they 'will' accomplish. Creating less efficient microbial areas is simply not conducive to long-term system balance.
And, I could say that somewhat differently for those that prefer deep beds - if one is depending upon the influx of infauna to bring in the needed oxygen to the lower sandbed level to prevent anaerobic areas from forming, the predictability of infauna verses that of microbial processes remains highly questionable! Therefore, my position is to go with known parameters, and that would be the microbes themselves and not the 'possibility' that some worm or crustacean is going to create the right size burrow throughout the sandbed so as to prevent the majority of it from becoming anaerobic!
As for a color change below the two-inch level, that may be an indicator of hydrogen sulfide accumulating in the depths of your bed. A gray/blackish color would lead me to believe this possibility is a very real situation in your system. First, the occurrence of hydrogen sulfide in a deep bed is a normal happening. How much accumulates is the big question. And if present, should not be released into the bulk water. So don't stir the bed with any animals still in the aquarium. Plenum systems and shallow beds are less apt to develop serious hydrogen sulfide situations, simply because they contain more dissolved oxygen!
If you're interested in further understanding the microbial processes you can checkout what Martin Moe Jr. and Dr. Jean Jaubert have to say about my new book called 'The New Wave.' Visit my new website and check it out.
Hope this helps,
Bob
Dear Bob,
After a 16 year absence from reef tanks I finally have the opportunity to return to my mistress, marine aquariums. I have read your column in FAMA for over 2 years now. I have also read some of your booklets and The New Wave as part of my research on new developments since my introduction to reef systems by George Smitt in about 1985. Is it that long ago?
Your books and column have answered many questions about why I experienced failures with my mini reef system but I have two questions that remain unanswered.
1. You have constantly stated that improper use of carbonate buffering and use of calcium result in a build up of calcium phosphate that acts as a nutrient source for algae and binds the substrate. The message is clear and I understand the problem but in your writings you have not articulated what is an appropriate use of calcium and buffering additives. Perhaps you could share your experience in this area and recommend an appropriate approach to testing and buffering.
2. You have often stated that the ideal start to a reef aquarium is to use live sand. Unfortunately live sand is not available in Australia. The best we can hope for is a few cups full of substrate from an established tank. Perhaps you could make recommendations on the best way to cycle a new tank using dead sand and the best way to stage the addition of live rock.
Thanks for your valuable insights to successful marine aquariums.
Gary Solomon
Sydney, Australia
Dear Gary,
Thanks for your letter and you think the George Smitt timeframe was far back. I had my first marine aquarium in 1956!
There's no doubt the precipitation of calcium will take phosphate with it. Whether its with the use of Kalkwasser, improperly used buffering and calcium additives, or simply the misguided thought that reef systems need far higher amounts of calcium than exist in natural seawater. In some ways, the removal of phosphate is very helpful in preventing unwanted cyanobacteria or unwanted algae blooms. Whether or not these precipitants ever reenter the bulk water has led to much conjecture over the past years.
As for phosphate, most comes from food that is fed the fishes, with the quality of the tap water used for evaporation makeup or water changes another very possible source. Yet once phosphate is precipitated and bound to calcium, it is unlikely it will ever reenter the bulk water as it is quite stable and will not be reduced/oxidized unless subjected to a very low oxygen content, such as what can be found in an anaerobic zone. As unlikely as that is from happening, precipitated calcium phosphate could be on the surface of some live rock and if covered by a cyanobacteria mat or algae mat, it could then be subjected to that low oxygen content. If so, it may become oxidized, releasing the bound phosphate and encouraging a further bloom of unwanted bacteria or algae.
When it comes to binding of sand grains, precipitation and quickly forming bacteria colonies are two reasons why sandbed clumps form. Whichever may be the cause, it behooves the aquarist to survey the sandbed occasionally, probably once per month, to be sure the bed grains remain loose and have not began to solidify. Once the sand becomes hardened, it loses its ability to act as a biological filter. Actually, no different than a dirty filter pad where water now flows around it instead of through it!
In my opinion, the goal in reef systems should be to maintain calcium levels near what it is in natural seawater (400 ppm). In fact, I've found that something in the range of 380 - 430 ppm is quite adequate for our reef systems. And that can be accomplished with either a calcium reactor or if that piece of equipment is outside the budget, a two-part liquid calcium and buffer product. In fact, I'm currently using the ESV two-part solution in my new 60 gallon reef system where pH (8.0 - 8.1), calcium (420 ppm) and alkalinity (12 dKH) are right where I desire it.
As for the use of separate powdered buffer and calcium additives, in which one is used to solely raise pH 'or' the calcium level when either appears low, they are in my opinion sometimes detrimental to the stability of the chemical environment in the bulk water. I say detrimental not because they are inferior products, but because they are 'often' improperly used. In fact, this whole subject (calcium & alkalinity) is covered in depth in one of my booklets where it alone encompasses about 6500 words.
I know Australia is highly restrictive when it comes to the import of many aquarium products, especially chemical/food additives. Yet, I would tend to believe there must be some starter additives in your area that encourage the nitrification cycle. These products will help reduce the cycle time of any new aquarium. Yet, a cup of active gravel/sand from a healthy aquarium will also do the same thing.
As for the use of new uncured live rock, my preference is to first place the needed amount in a clean plastic container similar to a trash/garbage can and cycle it for about ten days. Place a pump in the container for water movement, and if possible connect a protein skimmer to draw-off some of the liberated nutrients. The nutrients from the new rock are far better in the holding/curing container than your aquarium!
Of course, the sandbed with a starter additive or a cup of starter substrate from another aquarium can begin before the addition of the live rock. Once the rock is initially cleaned of most of what would die-off and add nutrients to the aquarium it can all be added to the aquarium. If the newly purchased live rock is already cured, it could be added on the same day the sandbed is installed. As for 'staging' the addition of live rock, that would be necessary if you were adding fresh, uncured live rock. If you did not have the capability to cure the rock, then one or two pieces of uncured rock could be added to the new tank when first established. Then, over the coming months add small amounts of uncured live rock until the basic reef structure is completed. However, this requires great patience, which some aquarists don't have when starting a new system. And, the die-off from that uncured rock needs to be addressed in the new system as necessary, i.e., siphon out any loose debris and/or detritus that is collecting in areas, and replace with newly prepared seawater.
I hope this is helpful and keep me posted.
Cheers,
Bob
Dear Bob,
First of all, thank you for the responses to my emails in the past. You should be commended for the efforts you put into the marine aquarium hobby. You are very unselfish with your time, and I think I've emailed you three times over the past five years and have gotten a great response each time. I don't know how you do it.
I would like to know if there has been any more study on the substrate size used in the plenum system. What I would like to do is use the recommended size for the 1st layer of substrate. On top of that I would like to put 2 layers of window screen and use oolith sand on top for the upper layer. Is this combination possible and still retain the integrity of the plenum system? My reasoning behind it is, honestly, I prefer the look of oolith sand but also believe that less detritus would get caught up in the sand as opposed to the larger grains. From what I have read my understanding is that a size of 1 - 2 mm used throughout the system is ideal. Is that correct?
I fully believe that for the plenum to work properly it needs to be set up properly. From my experiences those that have had problems with the system seem to have deviated in one way or another. My first plenum was set up per the instructions from your articles in the Marine Fish Monthly magazine. I have since then read your book and another persons book. I really wish the other person would spend less time talking about why everyone else is wrong and more about how his ideas work. I belong to several forums on the web and am a little overwhelmed by all the info out there, some good but mostly bad (in my opinion).
I have never done a deep sand bed but from what I have read, it seems to work, but if something goes wrong or you need to move the tank, look out. I also do not feel that it has been proven long term. I also do not feel it would be as efficient as a plenum. Do you have any insight you could offer me? I currently have my tank moved into a 100 gallon vat in the basement (thanks to your info on moving a tank) and will be setting up my new 200 gallon tank once the living room is remodeled (part of the deal made to get a larger tank). So I have the opportunity to set up a new system and would like to do so with the most up to date information available.
Thank you so much for your time.
Mark Szwabinsky
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your kind words. I enjoy this hobby and always had a passion for learning more. I see from your letter that you're a past reader of Marine Fish Monthly magazine, which went out of business due to the Editor's poor health. My 'Salt Corner' column in that magazine had 178 straight monthly articles without ever missing one month! Now in my retirement years I'm still spending a lot of time to helping others along with building an educational website where hobbyists can get honest, professional, and up-to-date information.
As for your question on substrate particle size for plenum use, there has been much study over the past decade on what size sand grain is the best for diffusion, which is the main nutrient transport method in substrate. The result is that a grain size of 2 - 4 mm is the best. Yes, the 1 - 2 mm size is still usable, however, it has been found that a slightly larger size material insures diffusion will remain achievable even when system maintenance lags. And, I should note that all substrate should be the same physical size, i.e., 2 - 4 mm. Where the notion started that different size sand grains should be used is not clear, however, it serves no useful purpose.
There's no doubt fine sand can help lessen the penetration of detritus, however, it also reduces the degree of diffusion/oxygen penetration. And that would then put more emphases on the need for infauna to ply the depths of the bed, which is the case in deep sandbeds directly on the aquarium bottom. Keep in mind diffusion/oxygen penetration is of great importance and the key to plenum efficiency. Even with 2 - 4 mm sand grains, some detritus penetration is not of major concern (actually a food supply for some of its bacteria) if one performs their system maintenance as they should. And if you don't like the look of some detritus along the side panels of the aquarium, leave a half inch space between the edge of the plenum grid and the side of the aquarium. Then, as needed, simply run a thin wooden/plastic rod (I use a chop-stick) between the grid and side panels to stir the gravel. This does not, even in the slightest, affect the efficiency of the overall plenum system and the sand will always look clean.
As for oolitic sand, a term used to describe the shape of this particular structured sand particle, it's shaped differently than the more pure aragonite mineral. It is basically round from being tumbled by wave action, whereas aragonite is an irregular shaped 'mined' product. And, just as important, aragonite is a softer more porous mineral and more easily dissolved than oolitic sand. Oolitic sand consists of concentric layers (like an onion) of calcium carbonate that surround tiny remains of coral skeleton material, invertebrate shell, calcareous Halimeda algae (basically the aragonite mineral), and tiny amounts of calcite. And because of its smooth rounded shape, sites for bacteria adhesions are not as good as they are with courser, more angular grained material. I would think more about your selection of substrate. And, if it were my system, I would go with one size sand material and would eliminate the dividing screen if at all possible if no major digging animals will be in the system. As for two layers of screening material, whether on the grid or as a dividing screen, consider that the maximum on the grid and only one layer as a dividing screen.
Without a doubt, the plenum system has proven to be very successful, and that it is best established using the very simple setup instructions that apply to it. When I was speaking in Chicago last year I mentioned that any type system, e.g., undergravel, shallow sandbed, deep sandbed, algae scrubber, no sandbed, plenum, or Berlin system can be successful (I've had them all), and that their success is simply related to the level of maintenance each receives. However, I've found that when the plenum method is used, it has resulted in far better water quality because of its more efficient biological processes.
Hope this helps and keep me posted.
Bob
Hello Bob,
I have been looking for some answers for about a month now with no results. I was just told that you would be the guy to talk to. My wife and I have set up a 125 gallon marine tank. We are hoping to make a reef but have so far been unsuccessful. I guess I will start with what we have for a system. The tank is 72" x 24" x 18"tall. It has a hole drilled in the back that goes to the homemade 35 gallon wet/dry. Also in the sump is an airstone protein skimmer. The skimmer is about 18" tall and 8 to 10" in diameter. The water is returned by a 950 GPH pump. Inside the tank are two 804's and one 304 powerheads that circulate water. The two 804's have the filter cartridge on the bottom of each.
Inhabitants; 90 pounds of live rock, 10 pounds of live sand, 2 to 3 inches of aragonite. For creatures we have: 1 Coral Beauty, 1 Yellow Eye Tang, 1 Sixline Wrasse, 3 Green Chromis, 3 cleaner shrimp, 1 Arrow Crab, 1 Emerald green crab, 2 brittle stars, 20 blue leg hermit crabs and several red legged hermit crabs. For lighting we have 440 watts of Coralife VHO.
Now for the frustrating part. I have attempted over 30 Turbos (all from the same source) and all have died within 3 to 4 days of being in there. We are also down a star polyp, a green mushroom, and a tongue coral. All of these we were told would be fine in our tank. After about 2 months of set up we lost a carpet anemone within 5 days of being put in. The tank is currently almost 4 months old. We have seen no evidence of any algae growing, coralline or green. All the water came from our newly purchased R. O. unit and we are using Kent Marine Salt.
Chemistry;
We are also adding Iodine, Strontium, and Magnesium. We added the magnesium because we could not get our calcium to raise in the beginning and the fish store told us it was probably due to a lack of Magnesium. We also have used powered calcium additives and a "Clarifier" solution.
So far we have been told anything from "I have no idea" to "It's just not that mature enough of a tank yet" but as I search on the Internet and find people that add corals from 1 to 2 months I don't know what to believe. Any suggestion or ideas you would have would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Cheryl and Derric.
Dear Cheryl & Derric,
Thanks for your letter and honestly, I see many areas that need attention. And, very possibly you have contacted the right person, as I've been in this hobby for well over 50 years. And because I've just returned from a business trip and my email is overflowing, I'm a little tardy in answering your letter. Better late than never, as I do care about my fellow hobbyists.
After reading your letter I'm not sure whether to start with what's right or needs correction! But we need to begin somewhere, so lets take each paragraph and comment as needed.
In the first paragraph you mention your equipment, which includes a wet/dry in the sump along with an airstone powered protein skimmer and the powerheads for water movement in the aquarium. If it were my aquarium, the wet/dry would go, and so would the air powered protein skimmer. Both would be replaced with a single quality brand venturi powered skimmer. I say this because the wet/dry is better suited for a fish-only system where its end product of nitrate is not of major concern. In a reef system, the goal is to maintain a very low nitrate level and any device producing that and dumping it into the bulk water is not the way to handle that compound. The best way in my opinion, is to have nitrate produced in the upper half inch of your sandbed and via diffusion, have it acted upon by bacteria in the lower portion of the bed. Of course, nitrate can also be produced on the outer surface areas of live rock and be oxidized in its interior deeper areas. And it seems like your sandbed and rock are handling the situation, but keep in mind your bioload is still quite low. Again, to have nitrate dumped into the bulk water in "reef systems" is a questionable practice! I should also say that some hobbyists use the wet/dry to help get their reef systems up and running. Not a problem, however, it's the long-term effect that needs to be addressed. For those that do so, I recommend removing the trickle media in equal parts over a period of three months, then dispensing with the device 'if' the system is equipped with a quality skimmer. And as for skimmers, air powered skimmers, in my opinion, are dinosaurs! They are no where near as efficient as modern venturi skimmers or those that use other means of aerating the incoming water supply. There are five brands that I highly recommend. (For those reading this letter, if interested, please contact me.) And keep in mind a quality skimmer not only helps to remove much of the matter that will eventually breakdown into nitrate, it also greatly oxygenates the bulk water. Two extremely important benefits for closed systems.
As for the water circulation powerheads, I would remove the bottom filter cartridges as they are probably not needed and they probably also reduce flow. Could very well be that additional filtration is not needed, nor would serve any useful purpose in your system. Besides, it's just one more item needing maintenance.
In the second paragraph you mention aragonite sand, but don't mention grain size. Hopefully its not extremely fine, as I would recommend a bed depth of about two inches using a sand grain size of about 2 - 4 mm. The thoughts behind that and other chemical and biological processes are lengthy, and if interested in knowing more about them, I suggest reading my newest booklet, which fully explains them. It and my other booklets and where to get them are explained on my website. But in a nutshell so to speak, the finer the sand the less diffusion of oxygen. The less diffusion, the greater the anaerobic area, therefore nitrate will not be converted into nitrogen gas, as the bacteria living in this area can only reduce it to ammonium, no further! And ammonium is a primary algae nutrient, even much better than nitrate. So hands-on experience over many years with many, many different types of sandbeds and aquarium systems has shown that if the choice is a bed directly on the aquarium bottom, a shallow bed of courser sand is the way to go. Otherwise, I would highly recommend the plenum method.
As for the amount of live rock for your size system, it's about what I would normally recommend, yet your selection of live stock is not what I would recommend for a new system. The Coral Beauty is something I would only recommend being added to a well-established system where there is an ongoing and adequate supply of live crustaceans, e.g., copepods. These fish usually waste away in most systems because they fail to get an adequate food supply and the worst place for them is in a new system. And, as for hermit crabs, they should never be added unless there is a need for them. In a new system, most will starve to death, only adding to system nutrient load. I usually recommend, depending upon system condition, not adding them until the system is about six months old. However, at least you didn't add too many. And, as for the emerald crab, if there isn't enough algae, it will also starve to death. They are good consumers of algae, but, without enough to eat, they quickly perish. As for the arrow crab, generally safe, however, not completely trustworthy, especially if you have cleaner shrimp, who can't protect themselves especially when they molt. I generally don't recommend having both species in the same tank.
As for lighting, the wattage appears sufficient, however, you do not mention the spectrum/Kelvin range. Hopefully they are in the 6500 to 10K range and that you have a sunrise/sunset photoperiod, and that light duration is somewhat in the range of 7 to 10 hours. I would recommend the 10K range.
Now for the 'frustrating' paragraph. I rarely if ever recommend Turbo snails! They are large consumers of microalgae and if not provided with an almost endless supply they quickly die. And when they die, they create a stinking mess that can easily pollute the system. They are also sensitive to handling, heat, and low salinity (which you have). They may be okay in systems that are experiencing a major algae bloom, but for most aquariums, the Astraea snails are far better. And unless you have an algae problem, about 15 would suffice in your system. As for the coral deaths, your salinity is far too low. Bring it up slowly to 1.025 - 26. If you want only a fish-only tank, than 1.021 is ok to maintain, but not for a reef system. As for slowly, that would be no more than .002 - .003 per day. If you do it too rapidly, your fishes' will experience osmotic shock. As for the anemone, they are difficult to maintain for most aquarists, and I generally don't recommend trying to keep one unless the goal of the system requires one. Also, that anemone death was probably helped along by the low salinity and too shallower depth of sand. Also, depending upon your tap water quality, you may want to consider DI equipment as part of your RO system. There's an article on my website concerning RO/DI equipment that you may find informative. The Kent Marine Salt is an excellent product. Except for your salinity, the water parameters mentioned are good, however, one extremely important water parameter and crucial to the formation of coralline algae is not mentioned - and that is alkalinity. Which should be maintained in the 3.5 - 4.0 meq/l range. And a quality calcium reactor would help resolve that part of the water quality equation and do away with liquid and powder additives.
In the next paragraph you note the additives being used. The need for iodine is questionable, and there's a lot to it that doesn't meet the eye of the average hobbyist. The same is true for strontium and magnesium. Magnesium level 'must' be related to salinity, and strontium if over dosed is hazardous, as is iodine. And that can easily happen if your not testing these parameters. In your case, I suggest not adding them.
I also have to question why a 'clarifier' of any type would be used! The use of these type products must have much forethought and not be used without a thorough understanding of what they consist of and how and what impacts there may be. Hopefully that was not a suggestion by your local fish store! And if your local fish store recommended adding magnesium without testing, I suggest finding another store or at least questioning the owner about this obvious misinformation. And if some of your animal purchases were also recommended by your local store and they knew your aquarium history, I would be quite upset with their level of customer care, or should I say "lack" of customer care. Could very well be you may want to find a good shop, and even if their prices are somewhat higher, give them your business.
Hope this has been helpful.
Bob
Hi Bob,
My name is Jarvis I live on the island of Mauritius ( Indian Ocean ).since long it was my dream to build a glass reef aquarium at a capacity of 100 gallons.While surfing on the internet I got many informations but the problem is what to choose, for example the filtration system . I would be grateful to you if you can advise me what is needed for a reef aquarium and where can I get a good drawing or plan of the installation ( i.e plumbings,pumps,etc.).Pls note that to get sea water,sand,corals ,fish etc is not a problem for me because I live not too far from the sea.
Thanks
Kind Regards
Jarvis.
Dear Jarvis,
Thanks for your letter and the where to begin overwhelms me! If you have all the needed info on building the glass aquarium and only filtration/plumbing are the remaining issues, I would recommend visiting my website at www.saltcorner.com and first opening the "Guest Articles" page. Read Sandbeds Part I & II, and the article by Julian Sprung. You may also want to read through a lot of the past email that is posted on the FQA page.
I think that will give you a broad view of biological filtration, and then visit my "Photo Gallery" page and view the systems shown there. You'll also find a history of each system and description of their pumps, etc., along with some photos of their filtration/plumbing system. This should help resolve most of your questions, and if not, contact me again and we'll discuss those.
Cheers,
Bob
Dear Bob:
Your advice regarding the heavy diatom growth I was having in my recently set-up 180 marine aquarium was, as usual, right on the button. I carefully siphoned the upper layer of the exposed sand areas, and although this took some sand with it, the sand bed was deep enough to easily account for this. The returning growth was much lighter, and one week later I followed this procedure again and the problem was solved! I then re-arranged the rock to make access to the sand areas easier, and the tank now looks great. My latest reading with a Salifert nitrate kit was just 1 ppm, so it appears this tank is functioning as expected. Sorry it took so long to get back and thank you.If you don't mind, I have one other question. Our best marine aquarium store here in Erie, PA received a Regal Angelfish exactly one month ago (February 28th), and it was easily the finest specimen I had ever seen. It was the Red Sea version, with a bright yellow-orange chest and distinct coloration. Some say the Red Sea specimens are hardier than the Indo-Pacific ones. It was very thick-bodied, evidence that it was living quite well on the reef before it was taken. We both know the dismal survivability record of this fish, and for years I would never consider this type of angelfish for any of my aquariums. However, upon visiting this store (about twice a week) this angel has done great over the past month, and has not lost any bulk (he's still as fat as the day he arrived). I have asked the dealer to feed him several times, but he refuses the meaty foods he is offered -- such as mysis shrimp or plankton. However, he greedily goes after the lettuce-clip with nori that is put in his tank twice a day. He even goes after pieces that break loose and float about in the tank. The dealer refuses to sell him to certain customers whom he labels as "Dr. Death", knowing their poor track record with delicate specimens such as this. However, he indicated that if I were truly interested, he'd sell him to me for the discounted price of $90 (he's $110 retail). The dealer knows that my record with some of the more difficult to keep fish is very good, and he believes that my 180-gallon tank (with 206 pounds of live rock) would suit this fish well. However, I'm concerned about the fact that he's only eating nori, and ignoring other food types. Obviously, my 180-gallon tank would be a much better home for him than the dealer tank he is in now. But, the tank is only four months old and I usually wait at least six months before introducing questionable types into newly established aquariums.
Based on your experience, do you think I'm being foolish to even consider a 'regal'? I may be this fish's best shot for survival, but I'm torn when it comes to purchasing specimens that should really be left in the sea. Does the fact that he's only taking nori concern you, or do you believe he could suffice on such a diet? Several years ago I had a beautiful three-spot (flagfin) angelfish who was dynamic and bold. I took excellent care of him (varied diet, good water quality, etc.), but at the one year mark he went down hill rapidly for no apparent reason, and within one week I lost him. Some might say I did well to keep him for one year, but I don't see it that way. If the Regal Angelfish is truly impossible, is there one or two that are your favorites that you might recommend (larger than centropyge species)? For the record, the resident fish already in this tank include a Pebbled Butterflyfish (c. multicinctus), One-spot Foxface, a Tri-color Wrasse, an African Flameback Angelfish, and a Cherub Pygmy Angel. All are quite peaceful, though the little pygmy becomes a bit pugnacious whenever a new fish is added. He usually settles down in a day or two.
Thanks, again. I appreciate your input.
Sam
Hi Sam,
Glad to see that the diatom situation has cleared up.
As for the Regal, long-term survivability has a lot to do with its size when obtained, besides other obvious health conditions such as you mentioned. As noted in my Animal Library on my website (www.saltcorner.com), its natural diet consists mainly of crustaceans, sponges, tunicates and some algae. Once over a two to three inches in length their food preferences have probably been established and on-going feeding may be a problem. The good thing about nori is that it easily absorbs liquid additives such as Selcon, etc. So, could be if you vary the additives used, you'll be able to keep it healthy. It's at least worth the try and hopefully over time maybe it will accept mysis shrimp, which would be a plus in its diet.
Cheers,
Bob
Sir,
Just finished you book noted above, the first time. I shall perhaps read it thrice to make sure I get all of the nuggets you lay out. I just wanted to thank you for the no nonsense book and for the direct line of thought. I could use more of same. I have your Protein skimming and carbon secrets, but have only glanced through it at this time. I did pick up in the carbon section some key insight to the use of carbon, again I thank you.
I should like to read your published works if perhaps you have a listing of such, and or where one could purchase same.
Kindest Regards,
Rodney J. Sorensen
Mendon, Utah
Hi Rodney,
Thank you for the kind words and if you liked the books, visit my non-profit website (www.saltcorner.com).
Bob
Good evening Bob,
Several years ago I broke down a 125G plenum system to move to a new home and 3 years later here I go again. I had also stopped all of my subscriptions so I am really out of touch, but I of course remember all of your books and articles and again seek a bit of reassurance as I begin that spending spree again. Ah but yes I still have the better equipment and books on hand. As matter of fact you and I met at the Chicago MACNA while my wife and I attended, not that I would expect you to remember but you were wait in a back area waiting for Sam G. I was also particularly interesting in seeing him since he had helped me for so many years via e-mail as sand beds began to take off.
I have no reason not to do things the same unless something has changed in a few years, so my all important questions are that, as I recall you had been mentioning and magnetic device that would brake a nitrate molecule as to render it harmless (or something like that) if you recall, you were just testing it at the time and I am wondering if that product ever come to reality?
Also a sand question, as I this week begin renewing my subscriptions, I am assuming a 4" bed of 1mm sand still it the norm. This is just a 125g system lit w/ 3 x 175MH & 2 55w PC's and a Euro Reef skimmer. The sand will be installed in a 50g sump once the rock has cured for a bit.
As always, your help and advice are always welcome and respected.
Pete Michela
Damascus, MD
Hi Pete,
There's been a lot of water under the bridge so to speak from the time we met! However, plenum construction is still the same, except I recommend using 2 - 4 mm grain sand. Over the long-term, the slightly larger grain size insures that diffusion will not be hampered by poor maintenance or too high bioloads.
As for the magnetic device, we gave up on it for many reasons, but low and behold someone else has brought it to the marketplace. Go to my website (www.saltcorner.com) and open the "Book and Product Reviews" page. Simply click on its icon at the bottom of the page visible after entering through the keyhole on the opening page. Then click on the review titled ECO-Aqualizer and read all about it! However, its not to the point where nitrate will be all removed, but its certainly a good product as explained in the review.
Checkout my website and let me know your thoughts,
Cheers,
Bob