Micro-Small Algae Remover System for Nano's: Free!

[SantaMonica]

If skimmers didn't do much or weren't required to keep SPS then people wouldn't be doing it.

 

Now I think you know better, that you cant use this as a logical argument.

 

Are you skimming on your tank? Do you keep SPS?

 

No and yes. Sps is growing.

 

Are you aware of any tanks who keep SPS that don't skim?

 

Of course. Many many many (hundreds). When you talk on several boards, they surface.

 

Large-scale aquariums who used to use algae scrubbers wouldn't have changed over to skimmers, then touted the improvement in water quality and coral health if it didn't happen.

 

Well they are a different operation, with different criteria. Things as different as income and labor costs, etc, which have no pertinence to you, probably weight greatly for them.

 

Remember that scrubbers started out in public tanks, and they they started there by not being run correctly. They did not remove their screens and take them to a sink for a FW cleaning, and, they did not clean them weekly. So they got yellow water, and thus all public aquariums assumed that scrubbers mean yellow water (the proper technique of scrubber cleaning was not discovered until June 2008.) Public tanks can't have yellow water, and they did not know that it would be fixed by changing how they clean, so they just dropped scrubbers all together. Remember that the proper cleaning technique was not discovered until just eight months ago.

 

Also, scrubbers large enough to handle public tanks would be very large, and thus would give off a lot of light. Enough light that it might get into the viewing areas where the public walks. It's not easy to build a box around such a big scrubber, and scrubbers are not available to be bought anywhere, so in order to keep excess light in control, it might be easier to just not have the light in the first place.

 

Another thing is that the rocks in public tanks are far away from the front glass. So a little bit of nuisance algae on the rocks (because of the excess nitrate and phosphate that the skimmers don't remove) will not be that obvious. Plus, public audiences won't even know the difference between nuisance algae and clean rock. The public will also not judge a tank by how much coralline vs. algae the rocks have; they just want nice fish and corals. And since coralline is reduced or eliminated because of the the higher phosphate in the water in skimmed tanks, it's less for them to have to clean off of those huge front glass panels.

 

Feeding such large tanks becomes more "shotgun" than feeding your tank. They can't hand feed each small tang or coral, so, food has to be broadcast out across everything. This causes a higher percentage of food to go uneaten (compared to our tanks), and thus a skimmer should help remove all that excess food.

 

None of these criteria apply to hobby tank.

 

Lastly is availability. Nobody makes scrubbers, especially, scrubbers the size of your living room.

[wombat]

Well they are a different operation, with different criteria. Things as different as income and labor costs, etc, which have no pertinence to you, probably weight greatly for them.

 

Remember that scrubbers started out in public tanks, and they they started there by not being run correctly. They did not remove their screens and take them to a sink for a FW cleaning, and, they did not clean them weekly. So they got yellow water, and thus all public aquariums assumed that scrubbers mean yellow water (the proper technique of scrubber cleaning was not discovered until June 2008.) Public tanks can't have yellow water, and they did not know that it would be fixed by changing how they clean, so they just dropped scrubbers all together. Remember that the proper cleaning technique was not discovered until just eight months ago.

 

Also, scrubbers large enough to handle public tanks would be very large, and thus would give off a lot of light. Enough light that it might get into the viewing areas where the public walks. It's not easy to build a box around such a big scrubber, and scrubbers are not available to be bought anywhere, so in order to keep excess light in control, it might be easier to just not have the light in the first place.

 

Another thing is that the rocks in public tanks are far away from the front glass. So a little bit of nuisance algae on the rocks (because of the excess nitrate and phosphate that the skimmers don't remove) will not be that obvious. Plus, public audiences won't even know the difference between nuisance algae and clean rock. The public will also not judge a tank by how much coralline vs. algae the rocks have; they just want nice fish and corals. And since coralline is reduced or eliminated because of the the higher phosphate in the water in skimmed tanks, it's less for them to have to clean off of those huge front glass panels.

 

Feeding such large tanks becomes more "shotgun" than feeding your tank. They can't hand feed each small tang or coral, so, food has to be broadcast out across everything. This causes a higher percentage of food to go uneaten (compared to our tanks), and thus a skimmer should help remove all that excess food.

 

None of these criteria apply to hobby tank.

 

Lastly is availability. Nobody makes scrubbers, especially, scrubbers the size of your living room.

 

 

No, no, no, no, and no.

[Reefer Al]

I think this is kinda ridiculous. I'm not doubting the benefits of a scrubber, the one in your eclipse five gallon hex tank is completely free and easy to use. It efficiently exports nitrates and phosphates.

 

However, most people have lights over there aquariums and do not wish to have 40% of the water's surface area completely covered up. Most people have aquariums for their aesthetics and an algae scrubber is not pretty, nor is a floodlight from the grocery store. Most tanks do not have filters built into the hoods that can be easily modified such as your 5g hex.

 

And no one is going to say, screw skimmers, let's forget all about them and cover our hoods with algae!!!!!!!

 

However, I do own a 5g hex and I would do this in a heartbeat if I put a decent looking light over it.

[ocean_of_mirth]

If someone were to do this, I think this is an area where LEDs would shine -- LEDs are much smaller and much more efficient than other lights, and you could keep the heat away from the water (use a heat sink on the back).

 

It's a neat idea, but it would also have to modified to use in an aquaclear or some other standard piece of equipment that can be gotten cheaply, since most of us do not have the horizontal piece that you have in your 5g hex.

[SantaMonica]

Perhaps food for the microbial food web but I have yet to see a flourishing SPS tank that carries a lot of DOC.

 

How do you know? There is no hobby DOC test kit. Apparently, only recently have lab instruments been applied to aquaria, and these are the results posted above. Result: All the SPS tanks that we thought were "ultra-low" nutrient tank, weren't. They were, however, ultra-low food. Which is why some SPS folks add fish when their corals bleach; the fish waste (food) helps feed the corals, hopefully before the waste (food) gets skimmed out. Add to this the fact that skimmers do not remove ammonia/nitrite/nitrate/phosphate/metals/C02.

 

Skimmers only remove POC? How are you defining POC? What is the cut-off between POC and DOC?

 

From http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3#h2 ...

 

"Carbon in this context is a catchall phrase which refers to carbon-containing (i.e., organic) chemicals that are either dissolved in the water itself (= Dissolved Organic Carbon, DOC) or suspended in the water as small particles, including single-cell organisms (= Particulate Organic Carbon, POC) (Holmes-Farley, 2004). Together, these carbon sources are called Total Organic Carbon, TOC. The divide between DOC and POC is arbitrary and is based strictly on the capabilities of commercially available filtering materials. At present, the operational definition of DOC includes carbon-containing material that passes through the pores of a 0.2 micron filter. Any carbon-containing material left behind, which includes most bacteria/single-celled organisms, then is labeled Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) (Benner, 2002)."

 

Also, how does adding O2 "clear the water"?

 

Reports from user have said that it works in a related fashion to ozone: Higher O2 helps clear the water by oxidizing the carbon. I have no link for this, because it's not the focus of a scrubber. The point is: A scrubber will not yellow the water, which fortunately has been proven hundreds of times in the last eight months (not one single case of yellowing, when operated properly).

 

Important keyword there. Note that most people on this site skim to remove the large DOC, the type that hasn't yet been broken up by microbes.

 

"Large DOC" would be POC, which you could also call "food". So you are correct: Skimming removes the food.

 

I would say that's precisely what is going on but that doesn't mean that skimmers only remove POC.

 

Skimmers clear the water pretty well of particulates, so most people agree they remove POC. But if the research is correct, then removing only 20-30 percent of DOC would have to be considered by anyone as "ineffective" at removing DOC. But I still say, high-DOC is not a problem, and is actually a benefit, because of it's food content.

 

Has little to do with our tanks unless you also have figures for the DOC and TOC in our tanks. The author did put up some numbers for his own tank, but I'd like to see a bit more.

 

Understood. However chemistry is chemistry; it does not change from ocean to tank. If a coral needs X chemical to survive in the ocean, it will also need X chemical in a tank.

 

So why is there still so much DOC left in the water if the bacteria consumes it all? The answer is that it doesn't.

 

Nope. The answer is that it's a continuous process. Corals and fish (and feeding) are continuously putting more DOC into the water; bacteria are continuously eating it.

 

If someone were to do this, I think this is an area where LEDs would shine

 

LED scrubber are currently being experimented with on the algae scrubber site. The are not ready for prime time yet.

[SantaMonica]

Update: CFL Reflectors

 

When I see a regular CFL bulb (not a floodlight) being used, I always say that it needs a reflector. Although it would just be easier to use CFL floodlight (which does not need a reflector), below are some reflectors you can use with regular CFL bulbs. You can find many others by searching for "CFL reflector", or by going to any hydroponics or gardening store:

http://www.hydroleaf.com/categoryview.do?cat_id=107

[wombat]

These posts are filled with so much gibberish I don't even know where to start. There is a reason no public aquarium in the world uses algal turf scrubbers on coral tanks. It is not because someone learned how to "properly clean" them in the last 8 months, either. If the tank in your link is evidence of your method, it's not proving your point very well at all.

[Mr. Fosi]

I've walked away from this thread b/c there is too much crap to wade through... I have my comps coming up and I can't take the time to address all the points presented here. I am hoping that someone else will do it (wombat or another qualified person).

 

I will say this though: microalgae don't produce much, if any, ozone. If they did and they didn't immediately mitigate it, the ozone would oxidize their cell contents and they would die. O2 will not clear the water in the same way that O3 will, which is why you have no link to support your claim.

 

Also, how do I know that DOC will only fuel the microbial web? Because that is what directly uses DOC and it's what my research has focused on thus far. Sure, some of it will filter up through primary consumers but the idea that increasing skimmable DOC is good for reef aquaria is an anathema to all that has been learned regarding such aquaria over the last 30 years. There is a reason that coral tanks were largely an unreality until skimming was popularized in the late 80's.

 

When I am done with my comps next month and if I remember this thread, I will be back to address any remaining points in depth.

[lakshwadeep]

All I could read was "chemistry is chemistry". This is true, if you understand chemistry. I'm too lazy to analyze the psuedoscientific chemistry claims, but I'm pretty sure this is one of them:

 

Higher O2 helps clear the water by oxidizing the carbon. I have no link for this, because it's not the focus of a scrubber.

[ls7corvete]

They work. If Erin Borneman says so I am sold. Let him promote it, they work just fine at what they do.

 

Other threads have pointed out that they work very well in starting up a tank as they can be estabilished before the tank is setup and help to produce a ammonia free cycle.

 

I plan to use one on my next tank, cheato too.

[SantaMonica]

NR did not get the previous parts of this series, but nevertheless, here is feeding information starting at part six:

 

Part 6 of 7:

 

"The Food of Reefs, Part 6: Particulate Organic Matter" by Eric Borneman

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/eb/index.php

 

"This article will address a very important food to corals and many other animals, particulate organic material (POM). This food source has many names, including detritus [waste], floculant organic matter, reef snow, marine snow, and suspended organic material.

 

"Not so long ago, marine aquarists made every attempt to be assured that their water column was "polished." I never fully understood the term, but the premise was that a clean water column was a good water column. Various means were employed to accomplish this, including the use of various power filters, mechanical flosses and screens, sterilizers, ozonizers, canister filters, diatom filters, foam fractionators [skimmers] and many other devices. [However] "polished" water might not be in the best interest of reef tanks or corals.

 

"Particulate organic material has its origins in life, being composed by and large of the remains, secretions and excretions of living organisms. On coral reefs, it is composed mostly of dead algae, bacteria, mucus, and feces.

 

"When food, waste, or other particulate organic matter (POM) is trapped, especially in an aerobic environment, it is acted upon by several types of bacteria that break down the substances into more basic dissolved organic and inorganic components. Some of these breakdown components are organic acids and refractory compounds that can impart a yellow tint to the water column. This yellowing has been called "gelbstoff." However, both the substances remaining after [various types of] filtration, as well as the substances removed by the filtration, can be utilized by the life in the aquaria, and are taken up by corals, sponges, some other invertebrates, phytoplankton, bacteria, and algae.

 

"On reef slopes and crests, the [waste] material is mostly coral mucus, while over the reef flats and lagoons, the material is mostly algae and fecal matter. This material, by itself, has a high carbon content. However, it acts as a substrate for bacteria, ciliates, cyanobacteria, and other microorganisms that coat the particles. Bacteria can even convert dissolved organic material (DOM) into particulate organic material (POM) by aggregating it in the presence of carbon. This provides a substantially enriched particle replete with amino acids and valuably higher nitrogen content. As such, detritus [waste] becomes a very nutritious food source for many organisms. It is such a complex "dirt", that detritus has been described as a completely self-contained microhabitat of its own, with plant, animal and microbial components, and its own "built-in" nutrient source.

 

"Another major consumer group of detritus is the zooplankton. These small animals, themselves a very important food sources to reef consumers, have been found to have 90% of their gut contents composed of detritus. Mucus-producing animals, like corals, tend to trap detritus, and the material is either removed or consumed by ciliary action across the tissue surface. Many fish also consume coral mucus, and any attached particulate organic material"

 

"Detritus [waste] forms the basis of several food webs that are part of a balanced autotrophic/heterotrophic community. It also plays a role in establishing various levels of nutrient production and decomposition. It is this material that is the principal food source for the many bacterial species that work in various nitrification and denitrification activities. Before reaching the microbial community, however, it acts as a food source for the smaller consumers such as amphipods, copepods, errant polychaetes, protozoans, flagellates, ciliates and other animals whose activities contribute to the stability and productivity of a coral reef and a coral reef aquarium.

 

"It is the microbial community, though, that is most important in the detrital processes. On the reef, the productivity of bacteria (both aerobic and anaerobic oxidation and reduction, including important sulfate reduction) depends heavily on detritus. Without this microbial community, coral reefs would cease to exist.

 

"Corals, in particular, are notable for their consumption of detritus. All corals studied feed to some degree on POM, and coral communities have been found to remove half of the POM present on some reefs. So prevalent is this material, that it is termed "reef snow" in the wild. [...] Given the ability of so many corals to consume and utilize this material, along with its relatively high abundance and ability to provide up to 100% of corals' carbon and nitrogen requirements, it may now (hopefully) seem rather foolish to attempt to remove this material from aquaria.

[Scott Riemer]

Saw "Borneman" and immediately though tl;dr

[SantaMonica]

Here is a Nano hang-on-back or hang-on-top box scrubber that somebody could build to sell. That is the reason for the tighly fitting lid, and the built-in pump; no decisions or adjustments are needed by the customer. After building it, you could buy a banner ad on this site to sell them.

 

However if you were just building it for yourself, you can make the lighting simpler by just setting a T5HO light fixture on top of the box (although you would not get the benefit of the noise and light being sealed off by the lid), and you could make the pump simpler by just putting the pump in the tank (up near the waterline):

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not providing any links or part numbers, because it's up to the person building it to make sure that everything works together properly (it's not a beginner's project). Here are a few notes:

 

 

This scrubber MUST be placed above the tank, so it drains down into the tank.

 

The overflow drain must be lower than the bulbs.

 

The pump must be self-priming, capable of pulling water up 12" or so from the tank.

 

There should be no holes in the sides or bottom of the box, except for the drains; all other tubing and wires should come out of the top of the box. This will eliminate any possibility of leaky connections.

 

Two bulbs will provide more filtering than one will. And if you can fit three, all the better. 12" T5 bulbs are only 8 watts each.

 

The screen needs a solid backing, with some plastic canvas laid on over it.

 

The mounting brackets could hook onto the top of the nano, or they could be made into extended legs that go all the way down to the cabinet. Or, the whole box scrubber could be set on top of the nano, and be moved as needed.

 

The pump should be able to run "dry" without burning up.

 

The upflow-tubing should not go very far into the display; maybe a half inch or so. This limits how much water can be pulled out of the tank if there is a problem.

 

The size shown, 13.5" X 3" X 3", gives a one-sided screen of about 40 square inches. This will fit neatly behind (and on top of) a typical 6 or 8 gal nano without sticking out, but will also provide enough filtering for an 18 gal nano that gets weekly cleanings. For 24 gal and larger, use two separate scrubbers. This has the added benefit of redundancy, and, allows you to keep one running while the other one grows back after cleaning.

 

Overflow protection test: (1) plug up the drain at the bottom of the screen; the water should rise and start going out the overflow drain without spilling out of the lid, and it should not get high enough to touch the bulbs. (2) Now, also plug up the overflow tube. The pump should start running dry before the box spills, if you placed the upflow tubing high enough in the tank.

 

The T5 sockets should be the "waterproof" type, they keeps spray and salt out. They are not really "waterproof", but they are made for aquarium use.

 

 

 

Basic costs of building one (multiples would be cheaper)...

 

Box w/lid: $40

Pump: $35

2 Bulbs: $15

Sockets: $20

Ballast: $35

Misc: $40

---------------

Total: $185 USD

[ls7corvete]

Basic costs of building one (multiples would be cheaper)...

 

Box w/lid: $40

Pump: $35

2 Bulbs: $15

Sockets: $20

Ballast: $35

Misc: $40

---------------

Total: $185 USD

Thats far to expensive for what it does. SM, seems like you arent trying anymore, tisk tisk.

[HecticDialectics]

holy non-responsive quoting, santa monica!!

 

You make claims, and then quote random sentences that have nothing to do with your claims to back them up...

[davenia7]

Well, considering that I have the exact same tank... that I can use natural filtered light on.... I'm gonna give it a try... There's no where for a refugium without removing the filter in the hood... and then my cat would go fishing.... I'm soooooo trying this.

[CorvetteJoe]

On my first tank (no longer in use) I had a BackPack II skimmer than fit on my little 12gal hex, which had almost no edge to fit anything on to begin with and it worked beautifully. It was the perfect size. The return chamber was stuffed full of chaeto too and it thrived in there nicely.

 

 

Your "free" system turned out to cost more than most nano skimmers LOL

[SantaMonica]

Your "free" system turned out to cost more than most nano skimmers

 

This is not the free system. Try reading page 1.

 

Well, considering that I have the exact same tank... that I can use natural filtered light on.... I'm gonna give it a try

 

Which one?... the box scrubber or the free one?

[SantaMonica]

Update: N and P are invisible:

 

It's important to know/remember that Inorganic Nitrate and Inorganic Phosphate, which is what your test kits read, and which are also what causes the nuisance algae to grow in your tank, are invisible. You can see the results of the nitrate and phosphate; it's the nuisance algae. But you cannot see the nitrate and phosphate itself. This fact causes the most problems when people see a lot of stuff (food) that their skimmers have removed, but wonder why their nuisance algae is not being removed (skimmers don't remove Inorganic Nitrate and Inorganic Phosphate), and also when their phosphate tests zero, but they still have algae on certain parts of the rocks (the invisible phosphate is coming out of the rocks.)

[supernip]

wtf? you should win best troll on nano-reef.com

[bigbenji]

This subject has been beaten to death on every single aquarium related website on the net. Just search for it. By the way, I think all of the other threads were closed because of the arguments and personal attacks. The bottom line as I remember it is this:

 

The algae scrubber is supposed to grow turf algae. This type of algae is supposed to use up more phosphate and nitrate than cheato and a DSB in a refugium. Most people argue that the algae scrubbers cannot replace all of the other filtration we use, but that it has its own benefits. It's an old method that Santa Monica has perfected and apparently works better because he's cleaning half of the turf algae off of the screen every week or so. He removes the screen and rinses off the turf algae to prevent the yellow water effect these scrubbers are known for. I think the old method had you cleaning the screen off above your sump or something. Anyway, I'll have a HOB refugium but I'll try to use one of these as a supplement.

 

I added small screens to the outputs of my HOB filter and my HOB skimmer and they're starting to grow junk on them. It's been about a week and I've seen no benefits yet. That was my idea for a super-tiny scrubber.

[macclellan]

Even the "free" method required a tank divider, CF Flood light, and later, a reflector was recommended. I'm not saying that there is, or isn't anything to turf scrubbers, just that there is no free lunch, and every equipment has a trade off.

[wombat]

It's an old method that Santa Monica has perfected and apparently works better because he's cleaning half of the turf algae off of the screen every week or so. He removes the screen and rinses off the turf algae to prevent the yellow water effect these scrubbers are known for. I think the old method had you cleaning the screen off above your sump or something.

 

The only thing he's perfected is rewriting history. I wish I had time to respond to his post about large public aquarium tanks bit by bit--I help maintain a 200,000 g tank and nearly every sentence is pure BS.

 

It really did occur to people a long time ago to remove and clean them frequently, and they still didn't work long term as a stand alone filtration method to grow corals. Take a look at the link in his sig if you want evidence of this.

[SantaMonica]

Benji that's a good overview of scrubbers. Probably the best in one paragraph that I've ever seen. Your micro-size version may indeed work too, although I'm guessing it's more for experimenting with.

[SantaMonica]

Update: FW cleanings

 

Pods eating the algae: The reason you need to run freshwater over your screen every week is because you want to kill the baby pods that start to grow and eat the algae. You may not see the eaten areas, unless the algae is very thin like this:

 

 

However, pods are always growing and multiplying. And they eat algae. The reason this is a problem is that (1) pods are constantly flowing out of your scrubber into the tank. If they eat algae first, then the nitrate and phosphate that is in that algae gets released back into the water, and (2) you now have less algae to do the filtering. Unlike the picture above, however, the algae is usually too thick for the eaten areas to be seen. The pods stay out of the light, in the underlying layers; so you don't see what they are eating. By cleaning your screen in freshwater, you kill the pods that are on your screen. They will start multiplying again within a few minutes, but at least you can keep them under 7 days old. And even if you clean only half of the screen each week, you still want to wash the whole screen in FW.