Jestersix

Why I don't use filter socks

bookfish

bookfish

Guest
BARcard
Once upon a time I used to use socks. But i never cleaned them enough (daily) for me to feel like I was actually removing stuff before it partially or totally broke down in the water column. Additionally, those particles in the sock stand 0% chance of being taken up and used as food by some other animal in the tank, coral, dusters, mysids etc...
I have gone to using an oversized skimmer and systems designed with particle suspension as a priority as my sole means of physical filtration. I also try to siphon any accumulated detitus during water changes. I skim wet, clean the skimmer once per week and have a drain hose to 5 gallon skimmate reservoir. More about this style of tank design will be detailed in the next issue of "The" mag.
Now, any thoughts?
 
I do use filter socks from time to time.

I will use them when I do major aquascaping and stir up a good deal of stuff into the water column. I puchased eight or ten from filtersocks.com (no affiliation) so if need be I could change them out if I needed to clean up a neglected algae overgrown tank every other day if not everyday. I try not to keep it in the sump for more than three days max. The filter sock (100 micron) clogs easily after the second day, so it really forces me to change them out regularly.
 
I use it only after wc or when I mess with the tank. Take it out after the tank is cleared. I use a good skimmer too. I don't clean the skimmer that often though. I know it works better if it's cleaned once a week but i'm too lazy ;D ..
 
I can totally see the occasional use of socks along with maintenance like storming the tank or reaquascaping. What I can't see is leaving a particle of food for days in a position where it gets huge flow and O2 (speeding up decomposition) and where nothing can get to it. I also like to keep food particles in suspension for hours when I feed the corals so it wouldn't work for me on that basis either. Here's a rhetorical question for people who don't change their socks daily:
How long do you think it takes food (cyclopeeze, frozen BS, WHY) to mostly break down chemically to nitrates in a super oxygenated, heavily agitated environment like the inside of a filter sock?
 
[quote author=Raddogz link=topic=2292.msg23061#msg23061 date=1186775168]
I was under the impression it was less than 12 hours.
[/quote]
I think that for the smaller, higher surface area, richer foods, it may be even less than that.
I see people on RC talking about changing socks weekly, if that often. Can anyone think of a reason why this is any sort of a good idea?
A final point is that the food we put in our tanks isn't cheap, and some corals' feeding response isn't fast. Does it make sense to limit the food to 1 or 2 passes through a tank before it's removed from the water column.
If I run for VP again I'll use the slogan:
DON'T FEED THE SOCK!
 
Ok, now we're jumping into chemistry which I never took :D So I'm confused... lets say you have a 1 cc lump o' "stuff" lets take two situations, lump o' stuff at bottom of tank, lump o stuff in super oxygenated, etc etc... After a day... you'll have basically 1 cc lump o' stuff in both cases (ignoring of course "stuff" consuming animals) the nitrates that are produced are basically a biproduct of bacteria trying to break them down. Correct?

(I'll stop here)
 
I think there are some really good points here though that are worth discussing.

I think the common mis-conception is to just leave the darn thing in there past the point where it is doing more "harm" than good.
 
[quote author=sfsuphysics link=topic=2292.msg23066#msg23066 date=1186775636]
Ok, now we're jumping into chemistry which I never took :D So I'm confused... lets say you have a 1 cc lump o' "stuff" lets take two situations, lump o' stuff at bottom of tank, lump o stuff in super oxygenated, etc etc... After a day... you'll have basically 1 cc lump o' stuff in both cases (ignoring of course "stuff" consuming animals) the nitrates that are produced are basically a biproduct of bacteria trying to break them down. Correct?

(I'll stop here)

[/quote]
Yes, that's correct, but there's a bit more to it. First, the "stuff consuming animals" are eating food before and during the rotting process and converting it into energy, growth, reproduction etc... and also waste. By this manner of having nutrients taken up into the food chain, the eventual negative bioload impact is different and less likely to throw a system out of balance.
Secondly, the superoxygenation of the o/f drain (where most people install their socks) guarantees that free oxygen is readily available, allowing the bacteria to metabolize waste as fast as possible. This means an increased likelihood of high level, transient ammonia and nitrite spikes. And the extreme turbulence in the sock makes it likely that anything which would normally stay together, like a brine shrimp, is pureed quickly.
I guess I don't like socks for continuous reef use any more than I like bioballs, and for many of the same reasons!
 
I agree with Jim 100%, I just came from servicing a 200g with two giant filter socks. Once a week I swap the dirty ones out with clean bleached ones, all that work and the only benefit I really see is the sump stays super clean. The sludge that collects in the sock I do not see anywhere in the system if there weren't any socks, so my conclusion is yes waste is waste to a certain extent however, I would like the critters to consume it, rather than bacteria (the bacteria can have it later in the form of poo).
 
Alrighty good enough for me... I just haven't seen any new issues since I put the filter on... granted I don't check nitrates so could be off the chart! :D But no new algae growth has come up..

Welp I'm off to make a ton of pink zoa frags now...
 
I have a total volume of about 200 gal and my overflow splits and goes into 2 socks, i usually change them every weekend and i have tested for nitrate and is always 0. No Algae problems, in fact my front glass only needs cleaning once every 1-2 weeks. I think in theory your probbably correct (I am no chemist or biologist either), but i think that the negitive side effect of nitrate is so minute that it doesnt make any noticeable effects, however mabe if some one that was running a 29 or 40 gal tank with say 40-50 total sys. gallons has the same setup there is a lot higher potential for a higher nitrate because less water, less live rock? Mabe someone with a smaller system can test this theory out. Dont hate me, I just had to chime in as the opposition. :)

P.S. i am acctually running an undersized skimmer (ER RS-80)
 
[quote author=bookfish link=topic=2292.msg23065#msg23065 date=1186775568]
I think that for the smaller, higher surface area, richer foods, it may be even less than that.
I see people on RC talking about changing socks weekly, if that often. Can anyone think of a reason why this is any sort of a good idea?[/quote]

I think the key word is think when it should be supported by data. :D
It seems that if you let a sock collect waste long enough, you can get a nitrate factory, but how long is long enough? No one really knows, but it seems like changing the sock out weekly is enough to prevent the factory.

A final point is that the food we put in our tanks isn't cheap, and some corals' feeding response isn't fast. Does it make sense to limit the food to 1 or 2 passes through a tank before it's removed from the water column.
Click to expand...

I don't think much food makes it back into the tank from most sumps - except for really small sumps with lots of turblence. Most sumps that I see have a whole lot of room for stuff to settle or get skimmed out, so I'm not convinced that much food that actually makes it into the sump ever gets back out. Of course, I may be warped by having essentially an 8 foot long sump!

When I reed phyto and rotis I either turn off my return pump, or dial it way way down, or use the tank bypass to make sure the food says by the animals that I want to be eating that food. I will even feed in stages every hour or two.

I only use socks when I am 'storming' the tank, and will usually leave them on for a day or less.

If I run for VP again I'll use the slogan:
DON'T FEED THE SOCK!
Click to expand...

That sounds presidential to me!
 
[quote author=bookfish link=topic=2292.msg23058#msg23058 date=1186774974]
How long do you think it takes food (cyclopeeze, frozen BS, WHY) to mostly break down chemically to nitrates in a super oxygenated, heavily agitated environment like the inside of a filter sock?
[/quote]

Loaded question! With no parameters (size, amount, content, etc) of said food being listed, TEMP of tank, etc, you're only going to get guesses and assumptions.

A brine shrimp will be consumed by bacteria far quicker then Cyclopeeze over the simple fact CyclopEeze is loaded with Ethoxyquin which is a powerful anti-oxident and the fatty acids in it will take longer to break down.
 
[quote author=Raddogz link=topic=2292.msg23061#msg23061 date=1186775168]
I was under the impression it was less than 12 hours.
[/quote]

Less then 12 hours for what? Amount, type, etc were not listed so how can you venture a guess on this? You fell for the loaded question :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top