The Protein Skimmer is Necessary (I am looking at you, Nano Reef)

Discussion in 'Other Reef Talk' started by OnTheReef, May 5, 2017.

  1. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member


    My point was that your objection to a 12 hr light period does not apply to all tanks but the way you worded it suggests that a light period longer than 10hrs or your own 7hrs is bad for all tanks.

    If you had said, because of your high nutrients, a long light period would not be a good idea since the algae would outcompete everything else, would have limited your observation to his tank.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  2. Coral reefer

    Coral reefer President

    I. I wasn't telling anyone they shouldn't have more light hours than me. We weren't talking about anybody's tanks but his until I used my tank as an example, it should be pretty obvious I was making suggestions for the op situation.
    To use your own logic against you, your post makes it seem like everybody should have a 16hr photoperiod no? Maybe you needed to spell it out that it wouldn't work for everybody? If your point was to have a rebuttal to my post then you could've done that, your post of my photoperiod is 16hr really doesn't help the discussion any imo.
     
  3. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member

    Not really because I never said a 16hr light period is bad or good, nor did I recommend it in that post for anyone else nor tell anyone not to run it.

    I just stated a fact that I run my lights that long in response to your post about 12hr light periods being bad as fact.

    As to if I would run my lights that long if I had algae problem, in fact I did. My light schedule hasn't really changed since I started my 40g AIO. My nutrient export methods have. I had algae problems in that tank as well as the 40b I'm running right now.

    But I changed my nutrient export in the 40b and it hasn't had any algae problems since.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. Coral reefer

    Coral reefer President

    Ok whatever. You clearly misinterpreted my post. Have a good day. Thanks for trying to help. I'm sure your way is the only way
     
  5. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member

    Yes absolutely! That's my agenda, shove my way down everyone's throat!

    /sarcasm

    If I misunderstood your post, could others as well?

    Could someone reading thread, read your post and decide to lower their light period because they read that you said 12hrs was too long and you only run 7hrs?

    If someone else asks why did they did that, they can quote your post and prove them wrong! Coral Reefer said a 12hr light period is too long!

    All I'm saying a little bit more info to clarify what you are saying will go a long way in making sure the info you are giving cannot be misinterpreted any other way other than what you intended.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. JVU

    JVU Supporting Member

    My fish poop in my skimmate DOES stink if we're still talking about skimmers, lol.
     
    OnTheReef and Coral reefer like this.
  7. Nano sapiens

    Nano sapiens Guest

    I don't have anything to say about poop, butt ;)

    The length of the lighting period can certainly be a factor in excess algae growth, as can the wavelengths emitted (especially warmer colors like 'red'), the intensity and the DLI (Daily Light Integral). The equatorial daylight length is 12 hrs. and some might think this is optimal. However, during the first and last hour of the daylight period (approximately) the light doesn't penetrate the water surface due the shallow angle of incidence (violet and blue wavelengths start to penetrate after ~15 degrees is achieved). So if one follows a natural equatorial cycle, then 10 hr. lighting cycle with around 2 to 2-1/2 hrs. of gradual ramp up and ramp down would be a decent approximation.

    Now having said that, corals are very adaptable organisms and can do very well with a somewhat shorter or even a bit longer daylight periods. I noted this on my last trip to Palau where many of the best concentrations of LPS (Brains, Lobos, etc.) were in lagoons surrounded by the iconic limestone hillocks of the area. Many of these corals didn't receive direct light until 10 or 11 am and they were back in indirect light/shadow again around 2-3 pm. On the flip side, vast fields of acropora in open reef areas were subjected to the full 12 hour daylight period with peak lighting of around 6-7 hours.

    Getting back to algae, herbivores are of special importance, both on the reef and in our tanks. Pico and nano tanks have a challenge in this regard due to a much smaller choice of organisms that are suitable for the small sizes. However, various hermit crabs and snails can help contain growth, but not if it becomes excessive due to other factors. Of equal importance is coverage of bare live rock areas with corals and the like. As well as being direct competitors with algae for nutrients, they deny space to would be algae settlers. Another often neglected piece is the productivity of the benthic micro organisms that perform various reduction processes. I use weekly gravel vacuuming as a method to remove some of the bacteria, which then causes the rest to reproduce, which consumes and sequesters nitrates and phosphates (as well as other nutrients). The process also serves the function of removing decaying material that can contribute to increasing in tank nutrients.

    Using various 'natural' processes and regular 10% water changes means that GAC, GFO, skimmers, polypads, etc. are not necessary in my old nano and these methods are effective in keeping PO4 consistently undetectable and NO3 at 1 ppm or less (Salifert kits).

    Happy reefing! :)
     
    Coral reefer likes this.
  8. Coral reefer

    Coral reefer President

    I just don't get why you are asking me for more of an in depth post when this is your response.
    enough said?
    I feel like I'm trying to help and you're trying to argue. Maybe it's all lost in text. Who knows
     
  9. Coral reefer

    Coral reefer President

    Thanks for the in depth post. Maybe this will satisfy Vincent's requirements for elaboration.
     
  10. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member


    That is my response because this was your post

    Which I don't agree with.

    But you were not talking about in general were you? You were talking about OP's tank specifically. Which was my point.

    If you can't see how your statement can be taken out of context and misinterpreted by someone else then I'll leave it at that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member

    Given light and enough nutrients, algae will grow. They grow faster than (I would imagine) soft coral and definitely faster than hard.

    While long light periods will certainly give algae more energy for growth, short light periods will not really get rid of any algae you have. This only treats the symptom and not the cause.

    Find out why you have excess nutrients. Figure out why your nutrient export is not up to par.

    If you have corals, fiddling around with light periods and changing water parameters rapidly will stress them out more than the algae really affects them. Unless of course if you have algae covering the corals. If you left it that long, drastic measures maybe required.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. Coral reefer

    Coral reefer President

    I don't understand why you purposefully keep misinterpreting it? Just doesn't make sense to me. Someone else possibly could take it out of context, so you do so on purpose? Do you fall down a flight of stairs. Cause the railing isn't in good condition because someone else possible could?
     
  13. Coral reefer

    Coral reefer President

    And this couldn't be misinterpreted as instruction for other people to leave their lights on 16 hours? I don't think that is good advice for most people. Especially when they are already having algae issues. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    Either bust my balls and make your posts not have the same issue as mine, or keep your overly picky problems with my posts to yourself please.
     
  14. Nano sapiens

    Nano sapiens Guest

    To add some science to the conversation, Dana Riddle's article references tests done on a Torch coral using prolonged and continuous lighting:

    http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/5/aafeature

    The takeaway here is that 17 hours of lighting caused abnormalities in cell division. 16 hrs. would then appear to be an upper threshold before such issues come into play.
     
    rygh and Coral reefer like this.
  15. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member

    Simple distinction. I wasn't giving advice. If anyone feels like my tank is doing well and want to emulate my settings, be my guest.


     
  16. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member

    Firstly, I did not purposefully misinterpret your post. Meaning I did not single out your post to attack. I did not reply to provide a teaching point or to point out what I thought was wrong with your post. My post was a simple response to yours.

    Your second post made me think that maybe you meant it specifically for nano tanks with alage problems.

    Then you posted this

    Put in bold what I'm responding to.

    And this little gem.

    All my subsequent posts were to show you WHY I posted what I posted. Not because I wanted to show what could happen but to explain why it DID happen.
     
  17. Vhuang168

    Vhuang168 Supporting Member

    Interesting read. However the photoperiods are in relation to how many Mol photons received. And that is relative to PAR. Most home aquaria cannot achieve the PAR levels recorded. Meaning the number of Mol photons received in the same light period will be lower, much lower.
     
  18. Gablami

    Gablami Supporting Member

    Can one of you be the bigger person and just let it go? You're both well respected in our community and it's like watching parents fight.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  19. Vincerama2

    Vincerama2 Evil Overlord

    Skimmers help with gas exchange too, so for that reason alone I'd run one.

    V
     
  20. yellojello

    yellojello Supporting Member

    I wonder if you still went skimmerless after "cooking" the rock, if the problems would have alleviated.
     
    OnTheReef and JVU like this.

Share This Page