Wow, Reiverix, that's some very nice macrotank! Could You tell more about it, for example how often do You dose.

Dosing is standard EI but smaller amounts. So, every other day I add nitrate and phosphate and on the in between days I add the micros.

Measuring is totally an estimate in this too. I actually just grab a small pinch of KNO3 between my thumb and index finger and sprinkle it in the sump. Much the same with phosphate but just a couple of particles. For traces I'm using Kent chelated iron. It's specifically for macros and contains a few other elements. It is a really weak solution though. I just follow the instructions and go for 8 drops per 50 gallons.

So far I couldn't be happier except for a serious hassle with diatoms that lasted about three weeks. It cost me half of my manatee grass because I couldn't keep it off them. My pistol shrimp is making it hard to keep the rest rooted.

Next stage is to think about how I want the tank to look for the long term. Some of the caulerpas will stay but mostly I'm just going for growth and balance. Trying to get a feel of how it is in the world of SW plants, and how can I apply EI to a setup like this. No complaints so far but still early days.

Too much PO4= diatom bloom, careful there.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Oh, thank you guys for info! Tanks like yours, Reiverix, and Toms pics of his tank, are great inspiration!

I set up a SW-planted tank also a short while ago, and was wondering how much macroalgae biomass I would need for every centimeter/inch of fish or shrimp I add. I would like to run my marine planted without any skimmer, and would like to have both nitrate and fosfate just barely measurable with hobby testkits, if measurable at all.

Planted marine and reef tanks with a refuge require no skimmer.

Even if you have a skimmer, it will not produce hardly any foam once you get the plants growing.

You trade the added lighting for the refuge, but the export using macros is nicer.
Use use a bit less electric in many cases also and certainly for a macro main tank.


Regards,
Tom Barr

Yes, I've learned it the hard/expencive way. I bought a big skimmer first, it skimmed a lot when the tank didn't had any macroalgae. When I densely planted the tank I saw that the skimmer almost skimmed nothing. Seemed weird at first. Now I swapted my skimmer for a better lightning.

Tom, do You (or someone else) know how much algaebiomass that can support say 1 cm of fish. By support I mean that can remove N and P from fishfood. Is it like 1 kilo of macroalgae in wet weight for every single clown fish? or for two clown fishes?

Really appreciate you taking time for answering such simple questions!

My skimmer is still actually running but it's nothing more than an expensive aerator nowadays. I should really just pull the plug and maybe run it if I do serious maintenance and stir things up a bit. In fact I'm going to do that tonight.

If I turn off the skimmer but leave it in the sump, is it safe to switch it on again if it has not run for a while? Will the water in it stay fresh?

There's an entire group of SW folks that have tossed the skimmers for refuges.
This is not just my observation, everyone reports this.

You'll also have better coral growth, the micro algae that give the coloration are better as well.

There's less nutrients stripped out and the macro algae nutrients allow the coral's micro algae to grow very well also.

If you want very low nutrients etc, and have no refuges, then use a skimmer.
But if you want to use biologhical means, then use a refuge or just do an outright planted marine tank and make the tank the filter.

N and P balances with fish waste/food etc are often hard to do, if you remove all the NO3, that's bad for the macros, if you remove all the PO4, that's bad for macros also.

what you want is an easy to manage low level of nutrients that's balanced, fish alone cannot do that effectively over time, the waste and what the plants demands will be different, therefore you have to top off the nutrients suspected of being too low.

You can test to see, use Lamotte or better test kits for this also.
I think doing large water changes makes Marine systems work extremely well.

MBA uses large flow through water changes to maintain the health of their systems and it works better than anyone else's.

Yes, it cost $ to do weekly water changes etc, but it's still cheaper and easier than many other solutions.

No Kalk additions, no dosing various things, no organic build up, no skimmers, no test kits, it makes life simple for smaller tanks, say less than 100 gallons.
A 32 gall trash can to pre mix the water is all that's needed.

Salt for that will run a few $$
200 gal of salt mix runs me about 29.99.
So 200gal/32 gallons= 6.25 changes per bucket

30$/6.25 = 4.80$ per water change which for many will not pay for the electrical bill for a huge skimmer and Test kits etc.

Some might have an issue with a simplified method called water changes due to this cost, but it's not that much really and you spend less on other junk and less time fiddling.

You can let things go a week etc also and still dose and get a feel for things, maybe doing water changes once every 2 weeks, then the electrric cost for a a large skimmer will be that of the salt cost.

Balancing the salt cost vs the added junk and equipment is a very real issue, then you are not bound by excess nutrient build up since a water change addresses it, and Alk and Ca++ levels etc

Economically, you should really look at all the cost and the practical hassle of dealing with all the automation and other crap and keeping it all going.

The simplicity of a water change is difficult to beat.

Regards,
Tom Barr

This tank is going to be phenomenal in just a few months. Don't be afraid of NO3, even in saltwater. I know its a touchy subject, but since you're a planted tank guy as well as a reefer, I think we can toss you into the deep end. You can easily go up to 10ppm of NO3 without negative effects and great growth from the algae/plants.

If I were you, I would get rid of some of the coralline in the back. Spots of it may look very nice and artistic on the rockwork, but it obscures the outline of the macroalgae towards the back pane of glass. Even if you just artfully scraped out sections of it, it may help a lot in the overall appearance.

Then again, I am not you, and dont have the prospect of hours of wet arms and salt smears to look forward to. I do realize its a lot of work. Would be a real show of dedication if you took on the project.

I would be very tempted to relocate the mushrooms to that first 1/3rd of the tank underneath (what appears to be) Botryocladia and keep them in a slightly spread out grouping. More impact. I like the rockwork though a lot.

You have plenty of light for some Halophila seagrass to use in the foreground, instead of allowing Caulerpa to trellis from rock to sand. Just a thought.

I'm curious, given the amount of macroalgae and the presence of seahorses, how is your pH through the photoperiod? Do you find you have enough gas exchange from water circulation to offset the consumption of CO2 and carbonates, or are you supplementing one or both?

Overall I love it. Really impressed. Keep up the great work.

>Sarah

Wow, Tom, what an answer, thank You so much, I really really appreciate it!!

I understand that fishies only will never be able to support good macrogrowth, I have been keeping FW "high-tech-CO2"-tank for a couple of years with your EI-method, and it worked like a charm with KNO3, KH2PO4 and Traces. It was challenging to keep the CO2 levels high enough, but I understand everyone falling into that trap now and then.

Anyway, as I said, I fully understand that only fishpoo and ammonia from their gills cannot support good macrogrowth. Due to my background as plantnerd in freshwater I was cocky enough to say to reefers here in Sweden that even macroalgae can strip saltwater clean of nitrates and phoshpates much better then any skimmer and phospatresins. Nobody - except one guy that professionally worked with algae/fish for a living - believes me. Nobody.

I told reeffolks here that if one has a densely planted refugie, that is as big as the show tank with fish, one gets such low levels of phospates and nitrates that the corals will colour up the same way, if not better, as if one had a skimmer and a phosphatresin. Many people there think I'm an idiot suggesting it. It gets worse when I'm telling ppl that in order to get phospates down one has to dose KNO3. And they think that I am a complete fool when I tell 'em that it wouldn't hurt to dose just a little little tiny bit of KH2PO4 to keep the macroalgae, that in turn consume ammonia and phosphates from fish and fishfood.

I feel quite confident that macroalgae - just like freshwater plants - shouldn't be underestimated, but I still would like to hear Your opinion: would it suffice with a refugie that is as big as show tank to be able to keep the nitrates and phosphates very very low without skimmer/phospatresins?? (if one wanted those levels to be very low thats is). Or is it even enough with a much smaller refugie than the show tank, and still not use any skimmer/phosphateresins?