Mega Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover - DIY!
- Thread starter SantaMonica
- Start date
Update: Other ways to reduce nutrients
If you are using a scrubber, here are some other permanent ways to reduce nutrients (aside from feeding less), starting with the easiest first:
o Remove floss/foam/socks (they trap food and cause it to rot).
o Remove chaeto (also traps food and causes it to rot).
o Remove bio balls (or similar media) slowly (they create excess nitrate, and trap food).
o Remove all sand in your sump (food settles in sand and rots); if anything, use LR.
o Use kalkwasser (lime water) in your top-off (the higher pH causes phosphate to precipitate).
o Change any area of the sump that lets food settle to the bottom; all food should
continue through the sump and back to the display (this is why an open sump is best).
o Reduce sand in your display to 1/4 inch (6mm), or increase it to 4 inches (10cm).
o Using an ultraviolet sterilizer also helps reduce phosphates, but it also kills the live
pods that come from the scrubber; thus it's not recommended for normal use.
If you are using a scrubber, here are some other permanent ways to reduce nutrients (aside from feeding less), starting with the easiest first:
o Remove floss/foam/socks (they trap food and cause it to rot).
o Remove chaeto (also traps food and causes it to rot).
o Remove bio balls (or similar media) slowly (they create excess nitrate, and trap food).
o Remove all sand in your sump (food settles in sand and rots); if anything, use LR.
o Use kalkwasser (lime water) in your top-off (the higher pH causes phosphate to precipitate).
o Change any area of the sump that lets food settle to the bottom; all food should
continue through the sump and back to the display (this is why an open sump is best).
o Reduce sand in your display to 1/4 inch (6mm), or increase it to 4 inches (10cm).
o Using an ultraviolet sterilizer also helps reduce phosphates, but it also kills the live
pods that come from the scrubber; thus it's not recommended for normal use.
Update: Screen roughness
If your screen is only growing little spots of algae here and there, it means the screen is not rough enough. What is happening is that algae is trying to attach and grow all over the screen, but the water washes the algae away. Only a few areas have enough roughness for the algae to hang on in the water flow. So, you need to remove the screen and really really really sand/scrape/rough it up. If it's a clear screen (i.e., acrylic), you should not be able to see through it. If it's a plastic canvas screen, it should feel prickly. For highest results (and highest maintenance)... rug canvas works the best, but it only lasts so long before it comes apart. Then you have to make a new one. Whatever you use, make it as rough as possible.
If your screen is only growing little spots of algae here and there, it means the screen is not rough enough. What is happening is that algae is trying to attach and grow all over the screen, but the water washes the algae away. Only a few areas have enough roughness for the algae to hang on in the water flow. So, you need to remove the screen and really really really sand/scrape/rough it up. If it's a clear screen (i.e., acrylic), you should not be able to see through it. If it's a plastic canvas screen, it should feel prickly. For highest results (and highest maintenance)... rug canvas works the best, but it only lasts so long before it comes apart. Then you have to make a new one. Whatever you use, make it as rough as possible.
Successes Update:
Macman on the RF site: "To show how affective these scrubbers are I have carried out a little experiment. As you may know I have been running a small 180 litre tank fully stocked with corals and fish, running an external filter and an internal filter. My nitrates have always been between 7 and 12, but I recently had a death of one of my fish and corals which put the nitrate through the roof (and I mean through the roof!) Between 80 and 100 VERY SERIOUS. I decided with my new 7 week old 400 litre tank (which only runs a scrubber) and has nitrates at <1 to carry out a few water exchanges [between the new and old tanks]. I exchanged approximately 80-100 litres in about 5 days, and saw my nitrates go from <1 to nearer 50 in the new tank (A little worrying, but to be expected when considering the concentration of nitrates in the smaller tank). That [nitrate] test was carried out on 12th March. I carried out the same [nitrate] test last night, 25th March, on the scrubber tank and my nitrates are 25. Like I said before this tank has only a scrubber within its system, and live rock. The only thing I did notice [on the new tank] before the water exchange was that I was getting to a period where I was getting a nice light green algae build up on the scrubber, and once I had done the water exchange the algae went back to a dirty black/brown on the scrubber. Only this morning have I started to see a little green again, so it has set me back a few weeks. This system does work and this proofs it. I must admit I was a little concerned when my water went near to 50, but the scrubber came good for me."
Melonbob on the LR site: "Well, just figured I'd update my success story. February 2nd I set up my algae scrubber, and clean one side every friday. I've gone from at least 30-40 nitrates down to less than 5 as of todays test! And lets just say I'm very lazy with water changes.......lol! I'm jazzed!"
Creetin on the SRC site: "day 60 update...! i prolly will stop counting the days but so far i have to say 2 months into the scrubber thingy and i am totally sold on it! its amazing such a great kick algae ###### idea has remained eluded from most of us...so SM, allow me to say that you are truly my idol!!! This has got to be one of the single most important 'discoveries' being revealed...."
Macman on the RF site: "To show how affective these scrubbers are I have carried out a little experiment. As you may know I have been running a small 180 litre tank fully stocked with corals and fish, running an external filter and an internal filter. My nitrates have always been between 7 and 12, but I recently had a death of one of my fish and corals which put the nitrate through the roof (and I mean through the roof!) Between 80 and 100 VERY SERIOUS. I decided with my new 7 week old 400 litre tank (which only runs a scrubber) and has nitrates at <1 to carry out a few water exchanges [between the new and old tanks]. I exchanged approximately 80-100 litres in about 5 days, and saw my nitrates go from <1 to nearer 50 in the new tank (A little worrying, but to be expected when considering the concentration of nitrates in the smaller tank). That [nitrate] test was carried out on 12th March. I carried out the same [nitrate] test last night, 25th March, on the scrubber tank and my nitrates are 25. Like I said before this tank has only a scrubber within its system, and live rock. The only thing I did notice [on the new tank] before the water exchange was that I was getting to a period where I was getting a nice light green algae build up on the scrubber, and once I had done the water exchange the algae went back to a dirty black/brown on the scrubber. Only this morning have I started to see a little green again, so it has set me back a few weeks. This system does work and this proofs it. I must admit I was a little concerned when my water went near to 50, but the scrubber came good for me."
Melonbob on the LR site: "Well, just figured I'd update my success story. February 2nd I set up my algae scrubber, and clean one side every friday. I've gone from at least 30-40 nitrates down to less than 5 as of todays test! And lets just say I'm very lazy with water changes.......lol! I'm jazzed!"
Creetin on the SRC site: "day 60 update...! i prolly will stop counting the days but so far i have to say 2 months into the scrubber thingy and i am totally sold on it! its amazing such a great kick algae ###### idea has remained eluded from most of us...so SM, allow me to say that you are truly my idol!!! This has got to be one of the single most important 'discoveries' being revealed...."
Hi SM, I've a 90 gallons reef tank for the past 2 yrs. Nitrates are always in the 30-40. After all different methods (>$1,000), I've ran across this forum and I was amazed by the success stories up here. So on Mar 15th, I set up my 11"x13" screen with 400gph pump and 2 3500k CFL flood lights. After 4 days, the screen start to turn brown and start to grow. On Mar 28th, I've read your update on page 24 about "The Trick of Dark Brown Algae". I took out my screen for the first time and rince, didn't even have to srub, the brown algae just falls off and leaving some very light green algae patches. It has been 4 days and the brown algae has grown all over again (not thick but all brown). My question is how often should I clean and when should I expect to see green instead of brown algae?
P.S. I've not change my water since the start of ATS. Nitrates steady at 30. I really don't want to change any and just see how this ATS can do.
P.S. I've not change my water since the start of ATS. Nitrates steady at 30. I really don't want to change any and just see how this ATS can do.
Excerpt from "Waste Extraction, the Invertibrate Way" by Ron Shimek
Waste Extraction, the Invertebrate Way by Ronald L. Shimek, Ph.D. - Reefkeeping.com
"The animal poops it out, and from then on the scavengers/detritivores get rid of it." This is, of course, a very concise way of thinking about the elimination of uneaten food from the digestive tract. Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with what biologists consider to be waste. Not to put too fine a point on it, but fecal matter is nothing more than uneaten, partially digested and processed food.
"Actual waste materials are something else altogether. Strictly speaking, to a biologist, only a couple types of materials are truly waste materials. These are the byproducts of cellular respiration and protein metabolism, which in most animals, are carbon dioxide and ammonia, respectively.
[scrubbers remove ammonia and carbon dioxide; skimmers do not]
Waste Extraction, the Invertebrate Way by Ronald L. Shimek, Ph.D. - Reefkeeping.com
"The animal poops it out, and from then on the scavengers/detritivores get rid of it." This is, of course, a very concise way of thinking about the elimination of uneaten food from the digestive tract. Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with what biologists consider to be waste. Not to put too fine a point on it, but fecal matter is nothing more than uneaten, partially digested and processed food.
"Actual waste materials are something else altogether. Strictly speaking, to a biologist, only a couple types of materials are truly waste materials. These are the byproducts of cellular respiration and protein metabolism, which in most animals, are carbon dioxide and ammonia, respectively.
[scrubbers remove ammonia and carbon dioxide; skimmers do not]
Update: Displays with lots of Hair Algae
It's happened several times now: Someone wants to add a scrubber to their system because they have a display with very thick hair algae on the rocks. They already measure zero nitrate and phosphate, and when they add their scrubber, the scrubber has a very slow start and does not seem to grow much.
Of course what is happening is that the hair algae in the display is ALREADY a scrubber, attached to the rocks! It has had plenty of time (months? years?) to establish itself, and most important, it has a gigantic area to attach itself to. So how do you beat it with your newly-built DIY scrubber? You do it with the power of light.
All algae operate on the of photosynthesis of light. The stronger the light, the more the algae will pull nitrate and phosphate out of the water, and it will pull it away from any other algae that has less light. This is important to understand: If two areas of a tank are identical, except one has stronger light than the other, the area with the stronger light will grow more algae, and, the area with less light will grow less (or none at all). This is why the top of your rocks grow more algae (it has more light) than the sides do (has less light).
So if you already have lots of hair algae in your display, you have to build your scrubber with even more powerful lighting than you normally would, so that the photosynthesis in your scrubber will overpower the photosynthesis of the algae in your display (then, after all the algae is gone in your display, you can reduce the wattage if you want). The bulb wattage to do this is about one CFL watt for every square inch (6.25 square cm) of screen area. Example:
Say your screen size is 10" X 10" = 100 square inches; if you did NOT already have a lot of algae in your display, a 23W CFL floodlight on each side of this size screen would be sufficient to keep all nuisance algae away. This would be 2 X 23W = 46 total CFL watts, for 100 square inches of screen. This is about a half watt per square inch. But to beat a large amount of established hair algae in the display, go for maximum power: 1 watt per square inch. This is about twice as much. So, using two of these same bulbs on each side (4 total bulbs) would give you about 92 total watts for 100 square inches, or, almost 1 watt per square inch. This would do it!
Note about wattage: We are talking here about real CFL watts, not "equivalent" watts. If the bulb says "23W = 120W", or "23W equivalent to 120W", we are talking about the 23. And if you are using T5HO, such as a 24 inch 24W bulb, you just use the wattage it says.
Another trick: Add a lawnmower blenny to the display. He will eat the "scrubber" in the display, so that the scrubber you build gets off to a faster start.
It's happened several times now: Someone wants to add a scrubber to their system because they have a display with very thick hair algae on the rocks. They already measure zero nitrate and phosphate, and when they add their scrubber, the scrubber has a very slow start and does not seem to grow much.
Of course what is happening is that the hair algae in the display is ALREADY a scrubber, attached to the rocks! It has had plenty of time (months? years?) to establish itself, and most important, it has a gigantic area to attach itself to. So how do you beat it with your newly-built DIY scrubber? You do it with the power of light.
All algae operate on the of photosynthesis of light. The stronger the light, the more the algae will pull nitrate and phosphate out of the water, and it will pull it away from any other algae that has less light. This is important to understand: If two areas of a tank are identical, except one has stronger light than the other, the area with the stronger light will grow more algae, and, the area with less light will grow less (or none at all). This is why the top of your rocks grow more algae (it has more light) than the sides do (has less light).
So if you already have lots of hair algae in your display, you have to build your scrubber with even more powerful lighting than you normally would, so that the photosynthesis in your scrubber will overpower the photosynthesis of the algae in your display (then, after all the algae is gone in your display, you can reduce the wattage if you want). The bulb wattage to do this is about one CFL watt for every square inch (6.25 square cm) of screen area. Example:
Say your screen size is 10" X 10" = 100 square inches; if you did NOT already have a lot of algae in your display, a 23W CFL floodlight on each side of this size screen would be sufficient to keep all nuisance algae away. This would be 2 X 23W = 46 total CFL watts, for 100 square inches of screen. This is about a half watt per square inch. But to beat a large amount of established hair algae in the display, go for maximum power: 1 watt per square inch. This is about twice as much. So, using two of these same bulbs on each side (4 total bulbs) would give you about 92 total watts for 100 square inches, or, almost 1 watt per square inch. This would do it!
Note about wattage: We are talking here about real CFL watts, not "equivalent" watts. If the bulb says "23W = 120W", or "23W equivalent to 120W", we are talking about the 23. And if you are using T5HO, such as a 24 inch 24W bulb, you just use the wattage it says.
Another trick: Add a lawnmower blenny to the display. He will eat the "scrubber" in the display, so that the scrubber you build gets off to a faster start.
Update: Yellow rubber algae
Many people, including me, get large parts of the screen that turn into a thick yellow growth that feels rubbery. This is caused by flow that was cut off, by algae growing up into the slot. As the slot gets cut off and the flow reduces, the algae that was growing on the screen in that flow now has no flow. And the yellow rubbery algae is what results. It does not appear to hurt anything, but it surely is not effective at filtering, since there is no water flowing over it for it to filter. One solution is to make cross-cuts in the slot. Another is to put a light-shield over the slot. Another is to point the bulbs further down the screen to they don't shine as much on the slot.
Many people, including me, get large parts of the screen that turn into a thick yellow growth that feels rubbery. This is caused by flow that was cut off, by algae growing up into the slot. As the slot gets cut off and the flow reduces, the algae that was growing on the screen in that flow now has no flow. And the yellow rubbery algae is what results. It does not appear to hurt anything, but it surely is not effective at filtering, since there is no water flowing over it for it to filter. One solution is to make cross-cuts in the slot. Another is to put a light-shield over the slot. Another is to point the bulbs further down the screen to they don't shine as much on the slot.
Hello SM. All is well! Scrubber is doing great. No algae in tank! No water changes in 3 months. Which leads me to my question: No water changes means we are not offering our systems the trace minerals, elements and all that fun stuff in the correct ratios equivilent to natural sea water. I maintain Calcium @ 500ppm & Magnesium @ 1480ppm, Dkh @ 11, Ph @ 8.1. And I add Strontium & Iodine to the system. That's it. But aren't there so many other things out there (ie...manganeese, iron, trace elements) that come naturaly in a water change with salt water (weather it be natural sea water or Reef Crystals)? How do you stay on top of those things to be sure they are maintained in the system. What do you buy/add? Thanks.
Great to hear of no algae!
Research has shown that our tanks actually have too much trace elements... poisionous amounts. Adding more only makes it worse. Everything you need comes in the food you put in. I'll be posting the research/articles soon. It's one of those beliefs that everyone has, kinda like everyone thought skimmers removed nitrate and phosphate.
Research has shown that our tanks actually have too much trace elements... poisionous amounts. Adding more only makes it worse. Everything you need comes in the food you put in. I'll be posting the research/articles soon. It's one of those beliefs that everyone has, kinda like everyone thought skimmers removed nitrate and phosphate.
Excerpt from "Feeding The Reef Aquarium", by Ron Shimek
Feeding The Reef Aquarium, A New Paradigm - by Ronald L. Shimek - Reefkeeping.com
"It will become apparent that many of the problems we have with reef aquaria, such as excess nutrients, excessive growth of undesirable algae, and the inability to keep some animals alive and healthy is simply due to the feeding of inappropriate foods, compounded by feeding in the wrong manner.
"Bacteria, in fact, are an important food for most benthic or bottom-dwelling marine animals. This is because bacteria have higher nitrogen to carbon ratios in their cells than do either typical animals, plants or algae. As a consequence, many marine animals are specialized to eat bacteria, either directly out of the water column or indirectly as a frosting on sediment or detritus particles.
"One quite good study discussing zooplankton availability and concurrent feeding by planktivorous reef fishes has been published (Hamner, et al., 1988) [...] These researchers examined a reef [and found that] during a 12 hour period [in a section of reef only 3 feet wide, there were] 1,098,000 potential food items, about 70 percent of which are copepods and larvacean tunicates.
"A large amount of the zooplankton food that would have impinged upon the reef does make it to the reef, albeit modified into the form of fish feces. This [waste] is rapidly ingested by corals and other benthic animals.
"Also, what is apparent is that the fish eat ALL the plankton approaching the reef. NONE of it will reach the reef during the day when the fish are feeding.
"All of these fishes [listed in this article] eat large amounts of crustacean prey, particularly copepods.
"From this study, it is apparent that these fish are feeding continuously throughout the daylight hours. They are eating small items, but on the average they eat an item of food every three minutes, all day, during a twelve hour day. During that period they eat an average of two grams of food per day. [...] On the average, if you wish your fish to have the same mass of food that they are likely to eat in nature, presuming the data of Hamner et al., 1988, is applicable to other fishes, you should feed each fish in your aquarium that is the average size of a damsel fish, the equivalent of about 70% of a cube of this food per day. Large fishes would get proportionally more.
"During the day on a natural reef, it appears that virtually no moderately large zooplankter would reach the coral on the reef's face [because they are eaten by the fish]. Nonetheless, this area would be bathed in a diffuse rain of particulate organic material derived from fish feces [waste], dissolved material and microzooplankton.
"All aquarists may significantly control the amount of particulate food in their aquarium. This food will mimic either the zooplankton or the particulate organic material components of coral reef feeding dynamics. For the animals in a system to be healthy, those animals must be fed foods that more-or-less duplicate the qualities of their natural foods, and they must be fed in a more-or-less normal matter. Reef aquarium foods and feeding regimes tend to fail rather spectacularly on both accounts.
"The standard reef aquarium is probably fed once about once a day (Shimek, 2002), and the average daily feeding ration weighs 15.39 ± 15.90 grams, or roughly a half of an ounce, wet weight, of food. On a natural reef, this would be enough to provide roughly eight damsel fish with their normal daily allotment of food. Unfortunately, this amount of food all occurs effectively at once (or over a very short period) in an aquarium, whereas on a natural reef it would occur over a 12 hour period. Additionally, aquarium food is a relatively high-protein material. When most reef fish\es encounter planktonic patches of food, they eat voraciously, and material gets passed through their guts in a rapid manner resulting in incomplete digestion. This is precisely what happens to many fish in an aquarium when it is fed. If you watch some of your plankton feeding fishes, such as clown fish or damsels, you will see that shortly after the initiation of feeding they start defecating food at an increased rate. In effect, they are pumping food through their guts. The faster the passage of the food through the gut, the less the fish get from it. Perhaps in nature this doesn't matter, as the food is always coming at them. In the aquarium, this effect could be quite deleterious.
"In aquaria, fish that naturally feed consistently on small particulate material throughout the day are being forced to exist on bulk feedings once a day or with less frequency. Under such conditions, the animal is going through continuous cycles of near starvation followed by satiation followed by near starvation. This cyclic feeding simply must have a deleterious effect on the fish. Under such situations one could expect lower than normal growth rates, higher stress, increased susceptibility to disease and possibly problems with nitrogen metabolism.
"The amount of food impacting on the [natural] reef over the course of a day is substantial. Over a section of a natural reef about three feet on side, flows a continuous flood of water carrying with it about 2,000,000 food items with an aggregate weight of about two pounds in a 24 hour period. These tiny food items would be like a rain of diffuse nutrition on the reef and reef animals, particularly the fish.
"It is apparent that coral reef planktivorous fishes, and this is most of those kept in aquaria, would benefit from changes to the normal aquarium feeding regimen. They should be fed by some sort of continuous feeding apparatus. The food dispensed by such an apparatus should be particulate in nature, and very small. The largest sizes should probably be on the size of a brine shrimp or smaller. Such food need not be specifically formulated to be highly nutritious: Rather it should be of low to moderate nutritional value. If aquarium fish are able to eat more continuously and slowly, they will get much more nutrition out of each food item than they do now. Feeding a low quality food should result in significantly less nutrient accumulation than is now commonly seen in tanks.
"In effect, we need to turn our feeding regime on its head. Rather than feeding a small amount of highly nutritious food once a day, we should be feeding a large amount of low nutrient value food frequently. Such a feeding regime as this should reduce significantly the amount of pollution effects in reef aquaria. Additionally, there would not be a daily pulse of nutrients to temporarily overwhelm the biological filter. In turn, there would less potential growth of problem algae and the development of a more balanced and easily controlled assemblage of animals within the tank.
[Skimmers remove plankton, particulates, and copepods]
[Scrubbers add copepods, and don't remove plankton or particulates]
Feeding The Reef Aquarium, A New Paradigm - by Ronald L. Shimek - Reefkeeping.com
"It will become apparent that many of the problems we have with reef aquaria, such as excess nutrients, excessive growth of undesirable algae, and the inability to keep some animals alive and healthy is simply due to the feeding of inappropriate foods, compounded by feeding in the wrong manner.
"Bacteria, in fact, are an important food for most benthic or bottom-dwelling marine animals. This is because bacteria have higher nitrogen to carbon ratios in their cells than do either typical animals, plants or algae. As a consequence, many marine animals are specialized to eat bacteria, either directly out of the water column or indirectly as a frosting on sediment or detritus particles.
"One quite good study discussing zooplankton availability and concurrent feeding by planktivorous reef fishes has been published (Hamner, et al., 1988) [...] These researchers examined a reef [and found that] during a 12 hour period [in a section of reef only 3 feet wide, there were] 1,098,000 potential food items, about 70 percent of which are copepods and larvacean tunicates.
"A large amount of the zooplankton food that would have impinged upon the reef does make it to the reef, albeit modified into the form of fish feces. This [waste] is rapidly ingested by corals and other benthic animals.
"Also, what is apparent is that the fish eat ALL the plankton approaching the reef. NONE of it will reach the reef during the day when the fish are feeding.
"All of these fishes [listed in this article] eat large amounts of crustacean prey, particularly copepods.
"From this study, it is apparent that these fish are feeding continuously throughout the daylight hours. They are eating small items, but on the average they eat an item of food every three minutes, all day, during a twelve hour day. During that period they eat an average of two grams of food per day. [...] On the average, if you wish your fish to have the same mass of food that they are likely to eat in nature, presuming the data of Hamner et al., 1988, is applicable to other fishes, you should feed each fish in your aquarium that is the average size of a damsel fish, the equivalent of about 70% of a cube of this food per day. Large fishes would get proportionally more.
"During the day on a natural reef, it appears that virtually no moderately large zooplankter would reach the coral on the reef's face [because they are eaten by the fish]. Nonetheless, this area would be bathed in a diffuse rain of particulate organic material derived from fish feces [waste], dissolved material and microzooplankton.
"All aquarists may significantly control the amount of particulate food in their aquarium. This food will mimic either the zooplankton or the particulate organic material components of coral reef feeding dynamics. For the animals in a system to be healthy, those animals must be fed foods that more-or-less duplicate the qualities of their natural foods, and they must be fed in a more-or-less normal matter. Reef aquarium foods and feeding regimes tend to fail rather spectacularly on both accounts.
"The standard reef aquarium is probably fed once about once a day (Shimek, 2002), and the average daily feeding ration weighs 15.39 ± 15.90 grams, or roughly a half of an ounce, wet weight, of food. On a natural reef, this would be enough to provide roughly eight damsel fish with their normal daily allotment of food. Unfortunately, this amount of food all occurs effectively at once (or over a very short period) in an aquarium, whereas on a natural reef it would occur over a 12 hour period. Additionally, aquarium food is a relatively high-protein material. When most reef fish\es encounter planktonic patches of food, they eat voraciously, and material gets passed through their guts in a rapid manner resulting in incomplete digestion. This is precisely what happens to many fish in an aquarium when it is fed. If you watch some of your plankton feeding fishes, such as clown fish or damsels, you will see that shortly after the initiation of feeding they start defecating food at an increased rate. In effect, they are pumping food through their guts. The faster the passage of the food through the gut, the less the fish get from it. Perhaps in nature this doesn't matter, as the food is always coming at them. In the aquarium, this effect could be quite deleterious.
"In aquaria, fish that naturally feed consistently on small particulate material throughout the day are being forced to exist on bulk feedings once a day or with less frequency. Under such conditions, the animal is going through continuous cycles of near starvation followed by satiation followed by near starvation. This cyclic feeding simply must have a deleterious effect on the fish. Under such situations one could expect lower than normal growth rates, higher stress, increased susceptibility to disease and possibly problems with nitrogen metabolism.
"The amount of food impacting on the [natural] reef over the course of a day is substantial. Over a section of a natural reef about three feet on side, flows a continuous flood of water carrying with it about 2,000,000 food items with an aggregate weight of about two pounds in a 24 hour period. These tiny food items would be like a rain of diffuse nutrition on the reef and reef animals, particularly the fish.
"It is apparent that coral reef planktivorous fishes, and this is most of those kept in aquaria, would benefit from changes to the normal aquarium feeding regimen. They should be fed by some sort of continuous feeding apparatus. The food dispensed by such an apparatus should be particulate in nature, and very small. The largest sizes should probably be on the size of a brine shrimp or smaller. Such food need not be specifically formulated to be highly nutritious: Rather it should be of low to moderate nutritional value. If aquarium fish are able to eat more continuously and slowly, they will get much more nutrition out of each food item than they do now. Feeding a low quality food should result in significantly less nutrient accumulation than is now commonly seen in tanks.
"In effect, we need to turn our feeding regime on its head. Rather than feeding a small amount of highly nutritious food once a day, we should be feeding a large amount of low nutrient value food frequently. Such a feeding regime as this should reduce significantly the amount of pollution effects in reef aquaria. Additionally, there would not be a daily pulse of nutrients to temporarily overwhelm the biological filter. In turn, there would less potential growth of problem algae and the development of a more balanced and easily controlled assemblage of animals within the tank.
[Skimmers remove plankton, particulates, and copepods]
[Scrubbers add copepods, and don't remove plankton or particulates]
Good to hear your N is dropping.
I dose kalkwasser in the top-off, which takes care of cal and alk and pH. Then I dose strontium and mag when the test shows I need it (mag is never low, but strontium always is.) And as an experiment to see if it help algae growth, I dose Kent's Iron, along with Marine Lab's Iodine, and then I'll stop dosing. I can't tell a difference in growth. I try to keep things at:
Cal 500
Alk 8
Mag 1500
pH 8.4
Str 10+
I dose kalkwasser in the top-off, which takes care of cal and alk and pH. Then I dose strontium and mag when the test shows I need it (mag is never low, but strontium always is.) And as an experiment to see if it help algae growth, I dose Kent's Iron, along with Marine Lab's Iodine, and then I'll stop dosing. I can't tell a difference in growth. I try to keep things at:
Cal 500
Alk 8
Mag 1500
pH 8.4
Str 10+
Last edited:
Thanks SM... Your infos on dosing comfirm I'm doing the right thing.. I guess 
I'm having a local aquarium building up a new 300 gals saphire tank for me right now, this 90 gals will be move to my office.
I got my engineers to create a 4 lights octagon scrubber (will take pictures to show you my design) for this 300 gals. I'll prove to everyone if I could run a 300 gals SPS reef tank using your methods. Just that thoughts putting a smile on my face.
I'm having a local aquarium building up a new 300 gals saphire tank for me right now, this 90 gals will be move to my office.
I got my engineers to create a 4 lights octagon scrubber (will take pictures to show you my design) for this 300 gals. I'll prove to everyone if I could run a 300 gals SPS reef tank using your methods. Just that thoughts putting a smile on my face.
Update: Pancaked screens
Since nobody is currently manufacturing a proper screen for a scrubber, we have to make the best of the materials we can get. Whatever material you use, it has been found that stacking two screens together works better than one. This is when you "pancake" two sheet of screen material together; they can be glued, sewn, or clamped together. This gives the algae much more to grab onto.
Since nobody is currently manufacturing a proper screen for a scrubber, we have to make the best of the materials we can get. Whatever material you use, it has been found that stacking two screens together works better than one. This is when you "pancake" two sheet of screen material together; they can be glued, sewn, or clamped together. This gives the algae much more to grab onto.
Update: Empty Spots On Screen
Some people have small spots on the screen, about 1" (25mm) wide, that have no algae; these spots are scattered across the screen (not just near the bulb). These spots are where algae actually WAS growing, but the algae could not hold on, so it let go and went into the water. The reasons the algae could not hold on are:
1. The screen is too smooth (most common problem). No matter what material you use, you should use rough sandpaper to really mess up the surface. If the material is clear (like acrylic; not recommended), you should not be able to see through it at all. If the material is not clear, you should not be able to see a reflection, at all. If the material is a solid sheet, holes should be drilled every 1/4" (6mm)... instead of every inch like many people have tried. With solid sheets, instead of drilling holes, it's better to lay a layer of rug canvas, plasic canvas, shade cloth, or perforated drawer liner, across the surface. You would sand this also.
2. The screen is too thin. Screens should be about 1/4" (6mm) thick. This is thicker than most materials, so you should use two or three pancaked layers of material. This gives the "roots" of the algae more to grab onto.
3. The lights are not being turned off each night (18 hours ON, 6 hours OFF). So the algae grows, but then gets weak because it cannot rest. So it lets go.
4. The flow is too low (the opposite of what you would think). Higher flow delivers more nutrients to the algae (so it can grow strong), and also gives the algae more protection from the light (since the thickness of the water on the screen is more.)
5. The bulbs are actually TOO near, or TOO strong (this is very rare, however). It seems that bulbs that are 60 watt CFL (actual, not equivalent), AND which are 2 inches (5cm) from the screen or less, start to do this. If your flow is strong, then try decreasing the light by either (1) reducing the ON hours, (2) moving the light out to 4", or (3) getting smaller bulbs. But only try one technique at a time.
Some people have small spots on the screen, about 1" (25mm) wide, that have no algae; these spots are scattered across the screen (not just near the bulb). These spots are where algae actually WAS growing, but the algae could not hold on, so it let go and went into the water. The reasons the algae could not hold on are:
1. The screen is too smooth (most common problem). No matter what material you use, you should use rough sandpaper to really mess up the surface. If the material is clear (like acrylic; not recommended), you should not be able to see through it at all. If the material is not clear, you should not be able to see a reflection, at all. If the material is a solid sheet, holes should be drilled every 1/4" (6mm)... instead of every inch like many people have tried. With solid sheets, instead of drilling holes, it's better to lay a layer of rug canvas, plasic canvas, shade cloth, or perforated drawer liner, across the surface. You would sand this also.
2. The screen is too thin. Screens should be about 1/4" (6mm) thick. This is thicker than most materials, so you should use two or three pancaked layers of material. This gives the "roots" of the algae more to grab onto.
3. The lights are not being turned off each night (18 hours ON, 6 hours OFF). So the algae grows, but then gets weak because it cannot rest. So it lets go.
4. The flow is too low (the opposite of what you would think). Higher flow delivers more nutrients to the algae (so it can grow strong), and also gives the algae more protection from the light (since the thickness of the water on the screen is more.)
5. The bulbs are actually TOO near, or TOO strong (this is very rare, however). It seems that bulbs that are 60 watt CFL (actual, not equivalent), AND which are 2 inches (5cm) from the screen or less, start to do this. If your flow is strong, then try decreasing the light by either (1) reducing the ON hours, (2) moving the light out to 4", or (3) getting smaller bulbs. But only try one technique at a time.
Hey SM: Nitrates are less than 2ppm and I have no algae on the live rocks but I still get a good amount of green algae dust on my glass within a day or two of not cleaning it. Is that normal in your opinion. I run 432 watt T5 lighting (1/2 10,000K and 1/2 actinic). I've read that as the white light bulbs age they produce more red light (good for algae growth). What do ya think?
OceanParks
OceanParks
It's your phosphate that is high; that's what is allowing the algae to grow on your glass. If your phosphate is really low ("clear" on the Salifert test), you won't see anything on your glass at all for a whole week, and you won't really need to clean it for 2 weeks. So just focus on getting your phosphate lower. Has nothing to do with your display lighting.