do you use a filter sock?

[Reefski's]

why or why not?

Carl

[SeanT]

I do, to catch the crud.
I change it out every 2-3 days.
Sean

[want2reef]

I do it to catch the doodoo, and I don't change it out enough.

[ToddG.]

I do only because i have to to keep micro bubbles out of my main tank otherwise i wouldnt use them and thats because my sump wasnt planned propery oh well live and learn.

[eddie c]

only when cleaning tank, i was running it fulltime but it clogs quickly and it's a pain to clean.

[rutz81]

I do, change it daily. GIves your skimmer a hand in removing some of the larger particle matter.

[nstees]

I use 100 micron filter socks and change them out every 1-2 weeks which is probably not enough Im thinking of building a new sump and cannot decide to include filter socks or not?

[arcab4]

i use it. amazing how much gunk is collected. it's just so painful to change it everytime haha.

[arcab4]

i use it. amazing how much gunk is collected. it's just so painful to change it everytime haha.

[tleip]

I have two that I alternate, they are about 8" diameter and 14" long (if I remember), they remove an amazing about of junk; my sump no longer collects crud. Sometimes I even stuff some floss into the open end of the sock when I'm stirring up the tank so that it doesn't clog up the sock too quickly...

Terry

[old salty]

I use them because they pull a bunch of junk out of the water column. I run skimmerless, so this is pretty important (to me anyways.)

[Bebo77]

i use them where ever i can ..its amazing the stuff that they catch....

[raskal311]

No!!! :D stop using one a few months ago and never looked back.

[Vamp75]

Hopefully I'll never have to again as soon as my new sump gets here, they are a pain on the butt!!!

[integra]

I agreed it will take out some junky stuffs from the water but having it will induce nitrate/phosphate to your water unless you change it routinely...good luck.....

[Demeter]

I just started using them during this latest algae outbreak. It's amazing how much stuff it collects. I hav eto change it out every 2 or 3 days. That's a PIA, but it has to be done.

[meco65]

I use a over the back filter I have taken the coal out of it so I can clean it easier. Works great and is so much easier to keep clean. Just clean out when i do water changes or every two weeks if i can, works for me.

[SCR]

I have tried it both way. They remove alot of crud and this is a hobby so I don't mind taking the time to clean them, give me something to do.

[fishdoc11]

Only when I blow my rocks off. I tried running one all the time but noticed when I (inevitably)only changed them out every 4 or 5 days nutrient levels would rise.
Chris

[Louisb]

I had hair algae like you wouldn't believe. I started using a filter sock and clean it out every 2-3 days. It is a pain, but I think it is the main reason why I am now HA free!!!!

[atlfishes]

Are you guys/gals just over the pipe that drains into your sump/fuge? I'm having a problem with micro bubbles and if this will cut some of the bubbles I'll give it a try. Just curious on the setup. Thanks

[jasper24]

Atlfishes. Yes my filter sock is tied around the pvc that drains into my sump. I use it to eliminate micro bubbles and it does work. I have 2 that I alternate once a week. When I do my weekly water changes I take the old one turn it inside out and put it in the washing machine with about 1/4 cup of bleach. I wash it through a cycle and then do 3 additional rinse cycles. Let it hang dry and it is ready to go. been doing this for 9 months w no problems.

[lossman]

I use them to control microbubbles and to catch the crud. I change them every other day, sometimes every day. It used to be a pain to do this but I have developed a system now and it's no more a bother than swipping the glass with the magfloat. :)

[atlfishes]

How small do the holes need to be for the best results?

[jasper24]

I bought mine for like $7 at marinedepot.com. They are 7" x 16" 100 Micron filter sock with drawstring.

[reefkeeper135]

change mine about every 2 weeks was a pain at first but now just another part of the routine!!

[kysmith]

I'm thinking about buying 3 of these, run them 2 days each, and wash them all on sunday when I do my water change. Opinions?

[jasper24]

Depends on your load. In my 40Breeder I have only 3 small fish so my filter sock does not start looking dirty until the 4th or 5th day. I wash it every 7 days and it is not to the point of being clogged.

[lossman]

We have a 150g with two overflows/filter socks. I change mine every day to every other day. .Any longer than that and they fabric gets so clogged with crud that they are useless. I have several sets so this way I wash them twice a week when I do the tank towels.

[Sindjin]

I just ordered the Berlin Filter Sock holder thingy from marine Depot. It will hang on the inside of my sump and hold the filter sock.

[reefmutts]

I'm having a sump built and I have also been looking at the Berlin Filter sock setup. Anyone have any experience in them..

[lossman]

Our set up is similar to the Berlin Filter Sock set up. We have an acrylic mount that sets into the sump with two holes to hold the filter socks. Our acrylic mount is removable for easier cleaning.

Our sump has three compartments - one where the water drains from the tank into the filter socks. A middle area that contains the refugium and a third area that hold the return pump and the skimmer and any other equipment needed.

[finneganswake]

I'm a strong believer in not using filter socks other than when I blow off my rocks with a turkey baster. They're nitrate factories no matter how often you clean them out--hundreds of gallons of water per hour flowing through rotting material.

For those who don't believe they're nitrate factories, I've got a way to prove it. Clean out your skimmer's collection cup and run it for 24 hours with a filter sock and mark the level of skimmate collected. Then clean out the collection cup again and run it for 24 hours without a filter sock. You'll be amazed at the difference--there's about 5 times as much skimmate when running a filter sock. I know many people think the more skimmate the better, but in this case the larger amount is due to there being more ammonia available. Who knows how much of it manages to get past the skimmer?

Also, filter socks remove plankton from the water column, so they're impacting your food chain.

[jasper24]

Well I do not run a skimmer and do use a filter sock. I have 0 Nitrates going on 1 year and 2 months. Granted I have a small bio load 3 small fish in a 40 G. I only swap socks (Filter that is) once a week. I have 0 algae in my tank that is stocked with mostly lps and softies with a few sps.

[lossman]

The times that I don't use filter socks (such as weekly feeding of the filter feeders) I find I have to vaccumn the sump out. The detritous will collect somewhere, whether in the filter sock or in the sump. It will always need to be removed. I'd rather do it the easy way by replacing the sox that trying to vaccumn out the sump every couple of days. :)

[Sindjin]

Does anyone use Prefilter Foam in their overflows?

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6437379#post6437379 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jasper24
Well I do not run a skimmer and do use a filter sock. I have 0 Nitrates going on 1 year and 2 months. Granted I have a small bio load 3 small fish in a 40 G. I only swap socks (Filter that is) once a week. I have 0 algae in my tank that is stocked with mostly lps and softies with a few sps.

If I had a dime for everyone who claimed 0 nitrates until I tested their water:D

If you don't have a skimmer, where is all of that ammonia going? I don't think you can debate that there is ammonia coming out of that filter sock. You must do massive water changes if your nitrates are at 0.

[lossman]

We tried that in the beginning. It did not work to adequately remove the microbubbles.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6437391#post6437391 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lossman
The times that I don't use filter socks (such as weekly feeding of the filter feeders) I find I have to vaccumn the sump out. The detritous will collect somewhere, whether in the filter sock or in the sump. It will always need to be removed. I'd rather do it the easy way by replacing the sox that trying to vaccumn out the sump every couple of days. :)

The only problem with this is that the detritus in the sump isn't having hundreds of gallons of water per hour forced through it. Don't take my word on it; try the test that I mentioned in my earlier post--you'll be shocked at the difference.

[lossman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6437502#post6437502 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by finneganswake
If I had a dime for everyone who claimed 0 nitrates until I tested their water:D

If you don't have a skimmer, where is all of that ammonia going? I don't think you can debate that there is ammonia coming out of that filter sock. You must do massive water changes if your nitrates are at 0.

What test kit are you using? We are going on a year use of the filter socks. We have zero ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate and silicates. We test our water weekly and once every few months have the lfs check it with their kits. We do 30 gallon water changes ever two weeks. I'm not sure why filter socks, if properly maintained, would cause ammonia to build up any faster than if the detritous was sitting in the sump.

[lossman]

Hmmm...I have never noticed a difference in the amount of skimmate produced by our skimmer on the days that we do not use the socks...the days we heavily feed the filter feeders and other critters. I might have to take a closer look this weekend. However, if what you say is true.....five times more skimmate.....I'm sure I would have noticed that!! :)

[jasper24]

Finneg. I use Salifert test kits. I also have my LFS check from time to time. I would think that if I had high nitrates or ammonia I would be able to tell right. In over a year that my tank has been up I have lost 1 fish (Six Line went carpet surfing), I have 0 algae problems except for a piece of LR that has some red vine algae on it, no coral loses lps, sps, or softies, and I have a Crocea and a Squamosa Clam that are growing and looking good. Yea if I did not have the micro bubble problem I would not use the sock but the sock is not adversley affecting my tank. But...If you want to test my water for me come on over!!!!!!

[lossman]

Just for ha-ha's (and because I am a natural born sceptic) I decided to do a few tests of my own using two speparate test kits. First, tested the water inside the filter sock. This sock has been on for 24 hours and is due to be changed, you can see the brown on it and looking inside the sock you can see the detritous in the fabric. I also tested the water in the sump chamber outside the sock. Then I tested the water in our qt tank that has been set up for some time and has not had a water change in a while (nothing in it).

First two tests on the water inside and outside the sock (using two separate test kits) show 0 ammonia. Third test kit (on the qt tank) shows ammonia at .25.

Perhaps if I left my filter socks on for a week or more and neglected other regular maintenance, the results would have been different.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6437616#post6437616 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jasper24
Finneg. I use Salifert test kits. I also have my LFS check from time to time. I would think that if I had high nitrates or ammonia I would be able to tell right. In over a year that my tank has been up I have lost 1 fish (Six Line went carpet surfing), I have 0 algae problems except for a piece of LR that has some red vine algae on it, no coral loses lps, sps, or softies, and I have a Crocea and a Squamosa Clam that are growing and looking good. Yea if I did not have the micro bubble problem I would not use the sock but the sock is not adversley affecting my tank. But...If you want to test my water for me come on over!!!!!!

Ok, you didn't mention that you had clams--that changes things, since they'll suck ammonia right out of the water column:)

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6437701#post6437701 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lossman
Just for ha-ha's (and because I am a natural born sceptic) I decided to do a few tests of my own using two speparate test kits. First, tested the water inside the filter sock. This sock has been on for 24 hours and is due to be changed, you can see the brown on it and looking inside the sock you can see the detritous in the fabric. I also tested the water in the sump chamber outside the sock. Then I tested the water in our qt tank that has been set up for some time and has not had a water change in a while (nothing in it).

First two tests on the water inside and outside the sock (using two separate test kits) show 0 ammonia. Third test kit (on the qt tank) shows ammonia at .25.

Perhaps if I left my filter socks on for a week or more and neglected other regular maintenance, the results would have been different.

If you're doing that for ha-has, try the test I mentioned for ha-has. I have yet to hear from anyone who didn't see a major difference.

Also, don't neglect the plankton issue--that's a lot of what the brown stuff on your sock is made of. It should be in the water column, not exported through bleaching the sock;)

[asphaltpilot]

I used one just to see how effective it is, now I wouldn't consider not using one. You'll end up changing it out every day or so, but it's worth it.

[lossman]

As stated earlier, once a week I run the tank without the filter sox for 24 hours while feeding the corals and other filter feeders (30 plus bivalves, numerous sponges and tunicates, corals etc.) If what you state - 5 times more skimmate - is true, I don't see that kind of results. I don't actually notice a larger production on the sockless days than any other day. However, this weekend I will measure.

Otherwise, our tank is extremely healthy. Loads of pods in the refugium, great growth on our corals, our sponges reproduce and have only lost 2 bivalves in the close to a year since they went in (very beginning of the cycle). So, I really don't think the phytoplankton is a huge issue (as I feed weekly anyway). I would prefer a cleaner tank and a bubble-less water column. :)

[jasper24]

Finneg. You won't give up so I admit my tank sucks. Every last colorful piece of healthy coral, fish, and clams are being ruined by my filter sock. Carry on.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6438038#post6438038 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lossman
As stated earlier, once a week I run the tank without the filter sox for 24 hours while feeding the corals and other filter feeders (30 plus bivalves, numerous sponges and tunicates, corals etc.) If what you state - 5 times more skimmate - is true, I don't see that kind of results. I don't actually notice a larger production on the sockless days than any other day. However, this weekend I will measure.

Otherwise, our tank is extremely healthy. Loads of pods in the refugium, great growth on our corals, our sponges reproduce and have only lost 2 bivalves in the close to a year since they went in (very beginning of the cycle). So, I really don't think the phytoplankton is a huge issue (as I feed weekly anyway). I would prefer a cleaner tank and a bubble-less water column. :)

Phytoplankton's not the issue--zooplankton is. Pods in the refugium is great, but do they stay in the main tank or are they going down the overflow and into the filter sock? When I turn out the lights in my tank, there is so much zooplankton in the water column that it looks like a snowstorm--I've never seen this on any system that constantly uses a filter sock, but it's common on those that don't. If you don't have sps or lps, it's not that big of a deal, but zooplankton is necessary for the best health of sps and lps, despite the pervasive myth that corals get all of their nutrition through photosynthesis.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6438060#post6438060 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jasper24
Finneg. You won't give up so I admit my tank sucks. Every last colorful piece of healthy coral, fish, and clams are being ruined by my filter sock. Carry on.

Did you even read my response to your post:confused:

[jasper24]

The last post of mine that you answered said that my clams were removing the ammonia from my tank. Hey no bad feelings. Opinions just differ. I attribute my success to frequent water changes and a low bio load. It's all good!

[lossman]

Even with the filter socks on, I have a ton of suspended stuff in the water column. Visible with and without the lights on. I have pods both in the refugium and in the main tank. I only see one or two in the filter socks and when I turn the socks inside out to clean them, I try to dump those back in the tank. I'm sure a bunch of microscopic ones get laundered, but as long as my fish, corals, invertes and macros are all growing and healthy, I am not concerned. :)

I'm sure the fact that the refugium is between the main tank and the sump area helps.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6438277#post6438277 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lossman
I'm sure the fact that the refugium is between the main tank and the sump area helps.

You've lost me on this one. So it goes main tank-->refugium-->sump? If this is the case, the pods that leave the refugium don't have anywhere to go other than into the filter sock. Am I missing something?

[lossman]

I guess I did not word that correctly. :) It goes, from main tank down the overflows to the filtersocks in the sump >>>>>> into refugium >>>>> into third sump area that holds the skimmer, return pump and other equipment >>>>>> back to main tank.

[lossman]

OK, so for ha-ha's I tried finnigan's test. :) I removed the filter socks yesterday afternoon. I first measured the amount of skimmate in the cup (it had been cleaned the day before) and cleaned the cup. The tank ran yesterday afternoon, all last night and all morning today with no filter socks. Today there is no measurable difference in the amount of skimmate.

So, not only do I have zero ammonia either inside the dirty filter sock or outside the sock in the sump as well as none in the main tank, I also do not show any measurable difference in the amount of skimmate either with the filter socks on or with them off.

So the only impact on my tank will be the loss of some phytoplankton/zooplankton. But then, since I spot feed my corals and feed the filter feeders weekly, and since all are growing and healthy, I don't feel this is an issue.

I vote for using socks!!! :)

[jasper24]

Me too!

[PeteUK]

What's the optimum size for holes in the socks? 5 / 25 / 50 / 100 microns?

I'm going to put the sock over the skimmer outlet so the skimmer gets raw water and the microbubbles and bits the skimmer misses are taken out by the sock. Is that a good idea?

[lossman]

I just have a sponge tube over my outlet. It gets cleaned the same time the socks do. :) The sponge I use is the same type that's on the Euroreef skimmers.

If you do use a sock for the skimmer, remember to clean it often as it will collect a good amount of crud.

[reefkeeper135]

I use 200 micron filters and get them from www.filterbag.com great prices. the part number i use is PENG200PIP the bags are 2.50 each in bulk of 50

[rutz81]

Pretty confusing site...Anyone have any idea where these would be on that site??? Filter Sock (http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=EA1351)

TIA,
Dave

[lossman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6451124#post6451124 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rutz81
Pretty confusing site...Anyone have any idea where these would be on that site??? Filter Sock (http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=EA1351)

TIA,
Dave

Do a search for this part number: PENG100P1-DS :)

Sally

[ReeferAl]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6437326#post6437326 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by finneganswake
I'm a strong believer in not using filter socks other than when I blow off my rocks with a turkey baster. They're nitrate factories no matter how often you clean them out--hundreds of gallons of water per hour flowing through rotting material.

I run a filter sock and typically change it every 2-3 days (every day if I am dosing any vodka). My measurements by Hach colorimeter are:
ammonia <.02ppm (undetectible, .02 is lower limit of detection)
nitrate <.05ppm (undetectible, .05 is lld)
phosphate .02ppm

For comparison, these values for NSW near reefs are about (approximate as values vary on different reefs):
ammonia ~.02ppm
nitrate ~.06ppm
phosphate ~.003 to .03ppm

For those who don't believe they're nitrate factories, I've got a way to prove it. Clean out your skimmer's collection cup and run it for 24 hours with a filter sock and mark the level of skimmate collected. Then clean out the collection cup again and run it for 24 hours without a filter sock. You'll be amazed at the difference--there's about 5 times as much skimmate when running a filter sock.

I used to run my tank without a filter sock for about 2 years. If anything I saw a slight decrease in skimmate when I went to a sock.

I know many people think the more skimmate the better, but in this case the larger amount is due to there being more ammonia available. Who knows how much of it manages to get past the skimmer?

This makes no sense. Skimmers cannot remove ammonia, nitrate or phosphate. They can only remove larger molecules. They "remove" these nutrients ONLY by removing the molecules that contain N or P atoms before they are broken down to release these atoms as ammonia, nitrate or phosphate. If these substances were being produced in the filter sock because of breakdown occurring in the sock then there should be LESS to skim out not more.


Also, filter socks remove plankton from the water column, so they're impacting your food chain.

Absolutely true. No one has really proven how much plankton really exists in aquaria nor how important it is to coral growth. Many SPS corals consume mostly bacterioplankton and very small particles. Many of these are not removed that easily by filter socks. Skimmers are more efficient at removing them. Even accepting that they may remove a significant amount of plankton, IMO when they are cleaned regularly, their benefits outweigh their only downside of plankton removal.

Allen

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6451380#post6451380 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReeferAl
Absolutely true. No one has really proven how much plankton really exists in aquaria nor how important it is to coral growth. Many SPS corals consume mostly bacterioplankton and very small particles. Many of these are not removed that easily by filter socks. Skimmers are more efficient at removing them. Even accepting that they may remove a significant amount of plankton, IMO when they are cleaned regularly, their benefits outweigh their only downside of plankton removal.

Allen

Actually, there have been plenty of recent books (Borneman and Calfo, for example) that say that most reefers are seriously mistaken about the feeding habits of sps corals. They say that they don't get nutrition from phytoplankton (I'm assuming this is what you're referring to when you say small particles) but they do get a fair amount of nutrition from smaller zooplankton. They say they think the reason people believe that sps don't feed on zooplankton is because their polyps aren't as large as lps corals, so therefor they can't eat the same stuff and must feed on the smaller phytoplankton. However, sps from the ocean typically test at 10% nutrition from small zooplankton. This is in nature--with our inferior lighting in tanks, who knows how much they need in a captive environment? This is exactly the type of plankton that a filter sock removes from the water column.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6451380#post6451380 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReeferAl
Absolutely true. No one has really proven how much plankton really exists in aquaria nor how important it is to coral growth. Many SPS corals consume mostly bacterioplankton and very small particles. Many of these are not removed that easily by filter socks. Skimmers are more efficient at removing them. Even accepting that they may remove a significant amount of plankton, IMO when they are cleaned regularly, their benefits outweigh their only downside of plankton removal.

Allen

Actually, there have been plenty of recent books (Borneman and Calfo, for example) that say that most reefers are seriously mistaken about the feeding habits of sps corals. They say that they don't get nutrition from phytoplankton (I'm assuming this is what you're referring to when you say small particles) but they do get a fair amount of nutrition from smaller zooplankton. They say they think the reason people believe that sps don't feed on zooplankton is because their polyps aren't as large as lps corals, so therefor they can't eat the same stuff and must feed on the smaller phytoplankton. However, sps from the ocean typically test at 10% nutrition from small zooplankton. This is in nature--with our inferior lighting in tanks, who knows how much they need in a captive environment? This is exactly the type of plankton that a filter sock removes from the water column.

[finneganswake]

Huh? How did that double post???

[Reefski's]

so you do not use a filtersock? but do have a DSB.

my 260 g tank is BB.

over the weekend i have just set up a 55 gallon tank withy 6" sand that is connected to my main system and draws from the sump.

right now i have my sump with a filter sock and the skimmer draws water before the filter sock and the new refusium, DSB draws water from just after the filter sock. how does that sound?

Carl

[rutz81]

Finnegan: Considering that so many people are running filter socks and have "successful" tanks, there's got to be something else behind the whole filter sock dilemma. IMO, SPS DO feed to an extent. But, I also feel that the typical 100 Micron filter sock do remove even close to all the zoo/phyto plankton in the water column. I'm sure there are much more plankton in the water that is smaller than 100 microns, and therefore would go right through. I am not trying to argue with you, but, there are so many SPS tanks that run socks, and still get great growth and color.

Dave

[ReeferAl]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6459003#post6459003 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by finneganswake
... They say that they don't get nutrition from phytoplankton (I'm assuming this is what you're referring to when you say small particles) but they do get a fair amount of nutrition from smaller zooplankton. ...

No, actually I was referring to POM, particulate organic matter- very fine detritus, suspended macromolecular conglomerates etc. Some of that POM will be removed by the filter sock (the larger component), but most of it is removal by the skimmer.

Allen

[Sindjin]

I would rather remove as much dirt/debris from the water column as possible. If my corals need food, I will feed them. I should be recieveing my new Berlin Filter Sock holder-thingy on Wednesday...we'll see how much it will collect!

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6459237#post6459237 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rutz81
Finnegan: Considering that so many people are running filter socks and have "successful" tanks, there's got to be something else behind the whole filter sock dilemma. IMO, SPS DO feed to an extent. But, I also feel that the typical 100 Micron filter sock do remove even close to all the zoo/phyto plankton in the water column. I'm sure there are much more plankton in the water that is smaller than 100 microns, and therefore would go right through. I am not trying to argue with you, but, there are so many SPS tanks that run socks, and still get great growth and color.

Dave

Obviously the phyto will still get through, as it's mostly in the (I think) 2-10 micron range. I doubt that any zooplankton, except maybe the very smallest, could get through.

And I agree with you that there are plenty of nice tanks with socks. I just think that removing the sock is one of those little things that helps.

[lossman]

In some cases it may help. I'd like to be able to remove our socks, but the amount of microbubbles generated by our overflows is just too much. I think the micro bubbles are probably worse for the inhabitants than the use of the socks. And before you suggest it, I have already tried a large number of modifications and none work as well as the socks. I even had a tank maintenance person come over and attempt to get rid of most of the micro bubble problem with no luck. I'll stick with the use of my socks. :)

[dnjan]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6437326#post6437326 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by finneganswake
I'm a strong believer in not using filter socks other than when I blow off my rocks with a turkey baster. They're nitrate factories no matter how often you clean them out--hundreds of gallons of water per hour flowing through rotting material.

For those who don't believe they're nitrate factories, I've got a way to prove it. Clean out your skimmer's collection cup and run it for 24 hours with a filter sock and mark the level of skimmate collected. Then clean out the collection cup again and run it for 24 hours without a filter sock. You'll be amazed at the difference--there's about 5 times as much skimmate when running a filter sock. I know many people think the more skimmate the better, but in this case the larger amount is due to there being more ammonia available. Who knows how much of it manages to get past the skimmer?

Also, filter socks remove plankton from the water column, so they're impacting your food chain.
I don't believe there is a direct relation between your theory and your experiment. The increased skimmate production (with a filter sock) is probably due to the intereference with bubble stability for your skimmer caused by the larger particulate matter when you do not have a filter sock in the system. With the filter sock removing the larger suspended particles, you skimmer probably runs more efficiently.

[xtrstangx]

I will on my new 75g setup.. I didn't on my 40g cause I left no room in my sump for one. My 75g is going to have 40g to house a skimmer only so I should have plenty of space for a filter sock ;)

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6460488#post6460488 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dnjan
I don't believe there is a direct relation between your theory and your experiment. The increased skimmate production (with a filter sock) is probably due to the intereference with bubble stability for your skimmer caused by the larger particulate matter when you do not have a filter sock in the system. With the filter sock removing the larger suspended particles, you skimmer probably runs more efficiently.

I don't think this is true, as the skimmate with the filter sock off is downright nasty, while the skimmate produced with the filter sock on looks like really weak tea. Also, there's so much distance between my overflow's pipe and my skimmer intake that I don't think many large particles manage to make their way over to it.

[dnjan]

Actually, what you said kind of confirms what I thought - the suspended detritus particles (without the filter sock), would reduce the bubble stability, resulting in less liquid being skimmed. But the liquid that was skimmed would include at least some of the suspended detritus (stink). With the sock in place (and many of the suspended particles removed), your bubbles are more stable, and your skimmate is therefore wetter. (Unless you are changing the adjustments of the skimmer for your with or without sock conditions.)

As far as the detritus particles not making it across youyr sump - I should probably clarify that I am talking about detritus particles in the hundred to a few hundred micron size. These particles would take a while to settle in still water, and I assume that you have some movement in your sump.

[dnjan]

Preservation of the various planktons may be another reason to clean your filter sock fairly often. Any time you have particles being retained against a porous filter, you get an accumulation of particles on the upstream side of the filter. As these particles accumulate, two things happen:

First, they gradually reduce the flow rate through the filter, eventually resulting in clogging.

And Second (and most important for preservation of plankton), this accumulation of material effectively decreases the apparent opening size of the filter.

This decrease in the effective opening size can be fairly significant - an order of magnitude or more.
Translation - A 200-micron filter sock that has been allowed to accumulate a considerable layer of particles can easily be removing materials as small as 20-microns or smaller.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6460947#post6460947 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dnjan
Actually, what you said kind of confirms what I thought - the suspended detritus particles (without the filter sock), would reduce the bubble stability, resulting in less liquid being skimmed. But the liquid that was skimmed would include at least some of the suspended detritus (stink). With the sock in place (and many of the suspended particles removed), your bubbles are more stable, and your skimmate is therefore wetter. (Unless you are changing the adjustments of the skimmer for your with or without sock conditions.)

As far as the detritus particles not making it across youyr sump - I should probably clarify that I am talking about detritus particles in the hundred to a few hundred micron size. These particles would take a while to settle in still water, and I assume that you have some movement in your sump.

That's a possibility, I suppose, but given that my nitrates and phosphates are both undetectable, it seems unlikely that my skimmer isn't working at full capacity.

Also, if you read the manuals of most high-end skimmers, they say that dirty skimmate is far preferable to wet skimmate, so, again, it sounds like my skimmer is doing what it's supposed to.

My theory is that all of the wet skimmate that is produced when I put a filter sock on is just fouling agents released from the rotting stuff in the filter sock. I don't know--maybe it's because I only run a filter sock when I have blown off my rocks; it's possible that all of the skimmate is due to the large amount of detritus shed from the rocks during this procedure.

This has made me think, though--I'm going to post on Anthony Calfo's forum about this and see what he thinks; he's (IMO) the god of skimmer knowledge. I'll let you know what he says:)

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6461082#post6461082 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dnjan
Preservation of the various planktons may be another reason to clean your filter sock fairly often. Any time you have particles being retained against a porous filter, you get an accumulation of particles on the upstream side of the filter. As these particles accumulate, two things happen:

First, they gradually reduce the flow rate through the filter, eventually resulting in clogging.

And Second (and most important for preservation of plankton), this accumulation of material effectively decreases the apparent opening size of the filter.

This decrease in the effective opening size can be fairly significant - an order of magnitude or more.
Translation - A 200-micron filter sock that has been allowed to accumulate a considerable layer of particles can easily be removing materials as small as 20-microns or smaller.

But how many copepods will make it through the cleanest 200 micron filter? I don't think that any but the smallest zooplankton can make it through something like this--remember, 200 microns is EXTREMELY tiny.

[lossman]

When I ran my tank without the socks for 24 hours to see what the skimmer would do, not only did I not notice any difference in the amount of skimmate, but the quality seemed to be the same also. I did not make any adjustments to the skimmer between with or without the sock. Perhaps if I ran it longer than 24 hours I would have seen a difference.

[Sindjin]

With my setup, I have 2 OverFlows going into my sump. One goes directly into the skimmer but the other I just have going to the sump. I'm adding a Sock to the second one because I am seeing a lot of build up in my sump. I think it is getting blown back into the aquarium. In addition, I am noticing a periodic haze to my water ... Im thinking it could be caused by the extra detritus getting spit back into the aquarium from the sump.

Hopefully a Sock will correct this. We'll see.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6461584#post6461584 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sindjin
With my setup, I have 2 OverFlows going into my sump. One goes directly into the skimmer but the other I just have going to the sump. I'm adding a Sock to the second one because I am seeing a lot of build up in my sump. I think it is getting blown back into the aquarium. In addition, I am noticing a periodic haze to my water ... Im thinking it could be caused by the extra detritus getting spit back into the aquarium from the sump.

Hopefully a Sock will correct this. We'll see.

How is running the overflow directly into the skimmer working out? I've got a new Deltec AP600 waiting for me at home and a gravity fed project that I'll (hopefully) have time to work on tomorrow.

[Sindjin]

How is running the overflow directly into the skimmer working out? I've got a new Deltec AP600 waiting for me at home and a gravity fed project that I'll (hopefully) have time to work on tomorrow.

It seems to work great. But the problem I had before was that I only had one overflow. So when I would adjust the gate valve to my skimmer, the water level in my sump would adjust way too much. So I added a second overflow ...but now I need the Sock to catch the detritus from that. Is the Deltec a Recirc Skimmer?

[wastwage]

Socks all the way,They dont affect your skimmer at all.:rolleyes:

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6461865#post6461865 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sindjin
It seems to work great. But the problem I had before was that I only had one overflow. So when I would adjust the gate valve to my skimmer, the water level in my sump would adjust way too much. So I added a second overflow ...but now I need the Sock to catch the detritus from that. Is the Deltec a Recirc Skimmer?

Yep. It's a recirculating model.

Did you put a T pipe between the overflow and the skimmer? That's what I'm doing so that any water not used by the skimmer (which is probably a lot since it only takes 160gph) will back up to the T and then overflow into the sump. Hopefully this will take care of things as this is my first plumbing experiment:eek:

[Sindjin]

Thats a Good Idea, Finn...

What I did initially was place a T and a ball valve on the output from the sump pump. Part of the T went to the tank the other back into the sump. Then I adjusted the flow accordingly and this did not cause backpressure to the pump. I like the sound of your way better, but I would still put a ball valve on it so you can adjust flow to the skimmer if need be.

[JimW]

Maintenance seems to be the key to successfully using filter socks. Might be better not to use them for "the less enthusiastic reefer". Can't see where use of filter sock, or lack there of, would make much difference in the pod/plankton issue, since most people feed regularly anyway.

[Reefski's]

Anthony Calfo says to put your skimmer intake before the sock. i had mine after the sock but after hearing Anthony's lecture i shortened the intake pipe to the skimmer so it is actually inside the sock. i still can't tell if it is producing more or less skimmate. there probably is a difference but i can't tell what it is.

Carl

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6462670#post6462670 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JimW
Maintenance seems to be the key to successfully using filter socks. Might be better not to use them for "the less enthusiastic reefer". Can't see where use of filter sock, or lack there of, would make much difference in the pod/plankton issue, since most people feed regularly anyway.

Hey now:mad: !

I don't use a filter sock but that hardly makes me an unenthusiastic reefer--I'd say I spend about 3 or 4 hours a week minimum on maintainance of my tank. Personally, I think it makes me an enthusiastic reefer as I tried to educate myself about the issue instead of just doing what 99% of people do.

[lossman]

I don't think he meant that if you do not use a filter sock, you were an "unenthusiastic reefer". I think he meant for those that maintenance might be a chore, and so they would be less likely to change the socks as often as they need to be changed. :)

[Sindjin]

Well, I just added the Berlin Filter Sock Holder thingy from Marine Depot. Its a nice holder. This morning my filter sock was tan....so i know its working. Last night I siphoned out my entire sump and removed all the debris. Hopefully I'll have crystal clear water in the next few days.

Does anyone add carbon to the bottom of their filter sock? I was thinking a few tablespoons may be a good way to run carbon.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6481996#post6481996 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sindjin
Does anyone add carbon to the bottom of their filter sock? I was thinking a few tablespoons may be a good way to run carbon.

I'd strongly recommend not doing this. I'm a big carbon fan, I just think that having constant waterflow over it will be too much of a drain on your trace elements. Every author I've read suggests using it passively--ie, just putting it in your sump. I do this, at one cup for my 50g, and change it every 30 days. It keeps the water crystaly clear and, IMO, has a lot to do with the success of a mixed reef tank since I keep softies, lps, and sps together with very good results. There were zoas and ricordeas in there at one time and they also thrived so well that I ended up removing them as they were starting to take up way too much space.

[SeanT]

I'd suggest not using carbon at all.
Not a good idea.

[Sindjin]

Hmmmm,

SeanT ...just curious as to why none at all?

Finn,

Good point on not running it consistantly. I was planning on periodic additions anyway. Keep in mind my Filter sock is for one of my overflows...the other goes directly into my skimmer.


Thanks for the input.

[SeanT]

You have two choices with carbon.
One is acid washed and releases P, the other is coal based and
releases iron.

[fishamajiggle]

i dont and definately should.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6483296#post6483296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SeanT
You have two choices with carbon.
One is acid washed and releases P, the other is coal based and
releases iron.

Don't tell me Bomber has gotten to you regarding carbon also:p

Carbon can release phosphate but most aquarium grade carbon doesn't--fortunately, it is the kind you can test for. I've never heard about the iron release, but since I dose iron to begin with, that's not even an issue with me.

So, IMO, you're looking at a negligible chance of leaching phosphate and a possible chance of releasing something many people dose to begin with versus all the benefits of using carbon.

[Sindjin]

You dose Iron in your Reef? Is that to feed your algae? :)

SeanT.... thanks for the info!

My tank is a lot clearer today...but there is still a lot of particulates floating around. I'll give it another day...

[Sindjin]

Today is the 2nd day Im running my sock and its brown, full and almost overflowing. Im gonna clean it out when I get home. I ordered 3 more from Marine Depot for back-ups. Also...

Im thinking of making a box out of eggcrate that I can slide between my bubble trap baffles....I was planning on filling it up with filter floss. I figure its a cheap, easy way for periodic mechanical filtration.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6485506#post6485506 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sindjin
You dose Iron in your Reef? Is that to feed your algae? :)

No, that's a popular misconception--that iron automatically leads to algae blooms. I've never had any algae issues in my tank other than the typical cycling stuff. The worst thing that's shown up is maybe three or four (total) single bubble algaes--not the clumps, just isolated bubbles.

The reason I dose iron is that it has a very strong effect on the colors of green and red corals. I'll dose a couple of drops every day until they get really bright, then drop down to a couple of drops every three or four days until they start to lose some of their color. The difference in color is amazing--I've got a acropora millepora that I always thought was pink until I started dosing iron, at which point it turned brick red. I also have a lot of green corals that have gone from kind of green to screaming green after dosing iron.

It's really easy not to overdose--you just tone down the dosage when the colors get nice, as you know at that point that there's enough in the water.

[Sindjin]

Hmmm... I havent heard of that before ...good tip!!
I use reef crystals.... I wonder if it has iron in it.

[Reefski's]

what kind of iron, from where?

Carl

[Sindjin]

Well...I rinsed out my filter sock....it started overflowing already.
Whats the best method for cleaning these things?

In addition, I used eggcrate and made a hanging box that goes inbetween the baffles of my bubble trap. I bought inexpensive filter pad material that I can just throw away when it gets dirty. I think this will polish it up pretty nicely. My water is so much clearer since I started running the sock.

Like finneganswake said...my skimmer isnt really pulling out as much...no worries though...I can wetskim a lot easier now.

[sjm817]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6497674#post6497674 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sindjin
Well...I rinsed out my filter sock....it started overflowing already.
Whats the best method for cleaning these things?

Toss it in the washing machine with some bleach. Use the extra rise cycle. Let it dry before you use it.

[Sindjin]

Thanks... I'll try that when my shipment of back-ups arrives.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6491429#post6491429 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by carloskoi
what kind of iron, from where?

Carl

I've tried both Kent and ZeoVit iron. I think I've had better results with ZeoVit, but that's just anecdotal. It really does make an impact on green and red sps.

[finneganswake]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6491429#post6491429 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by carloskoi
what kind of iron, from where?

Carl


I've tried both Kent and ZeoVit iron supplements. I personally believe ZeoVit has given me better colors, but it's purely anecdotal. It really does make a huge difference in the color of red and green sps.

[finneganswake]

D'oh! That's weird--originally, my first post didn't appear to have gone through.

[Sindjin]

Hey Finn,

How much Iron do you dose? Do you test for it?
Any advese effects on the system?