Jump to content
Cultivated Reef

Chaeto Reactors compared to Algae Scrubbers


SantaMonica

Recommended Posts

With more people wanting to use natural filtration for their tanks, we are going to look at the two main types of units that you can put on your system: Chaeto reactors (or "algae reactors") and algae turf scrubbers (ATS). We won’t be looking at refugiums however, since those have mostly a different purpose. This will be a multi-part post; the next post will start with the basics, so if you’d like anything in particular to be covered, let us know.
 

Link to comment
On 9/17/2017 at 6:35 PM, SantaMonica said:

so if you’d like anything in particular to be covered, let us know.

  • What is the optimal flow rate?
  • What is the best light spectrum to grow chaeto?
  • Are certain nutrient levels are required to start a chaeto fuge/reactor?
  • Can you start a chaeto reactor on a completely new setup?
  • Do you suggest dosing nutrients if either nitrate or phosphate becomes a limiting factor?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Chaeto Reactors compared to Algae Scrubbers, part 1

 

All macroalgae operate basically the same, chemically. They all use light, photosynthetically, to absorb nutrients from the water (i.e., filtering) and to grow biomass. Just like trees. The differences between types of macroalgae are in the physical structure of the macroalgae growth and the way the structure affects nutrient absorption speed, which means filtering. Here are the main differences as far as aquarists are concerned:

 

Chaeto: Pronounced KAY-toe. Chaeto is the nickname for Chaetomorpha, and it looks like a green dishwasher cleaning pad. It has no "roots" and thus does not attach to solid surfaces. It grows in saltwater only, and is not eaten by many fish.

 

Green Hair Algae: Includes Cladophora "angel hair" and Ulva "Easter basket" types. It has "roots" which attach to solid surfaces. It grows in freshwater and saltwater, and is eaten by almost all herbivores.

 

Slime: A solid algal growth, bright green to brown to black in color, that attaches to solid surfaces but not very securely.

 

Chaeto Reactor: A device that has water running through it, with chaeto growing in it. Also known as an "algae reactor". A chaeto reactor does not allow air to enter; only water, and these reactors usually have a lid attached with screws to keep water in and air out.

 

Algae Scrubber: Also called a Turf Scrubber, or Algal Turf Scrubber (ATS). A device that allows air and water to interact to create a turbulent air/water interface like waves on a beach; it grows green hair algae or slime that attaches to solid surfaces.

 

Reactors and scrubbers are different from refugiums; a refugium (“fuge”) is a space in a sump where macroalgae is placed, and a light is put over it. Refugiums have very slow flow, and very low light penetration, compared to reactors or scrubbers. You could modify a refugium to be a reactor, and with more mods you could make it a scrubber. But then it would no longer be a refugium.

 

All oceans, reefs, lakes and rivers are naturally filtered by photosynthesis. This means that algae does all the filtering of these waters. This is why algae is at the base of the entire aquatic food chain, and why algae biomass dwarfs the biomass of all aquatic animals combined. But for algae to absorb nutrients out of the water, the algae must grow. And to absorb nutrients faster, the algae must grow faster.

 

Next we will look at what makes different types of macroalgae absorb nutrients differently.

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...

Chaeto Reactors compared to Algae Scrubbers, part 2

By Santa Monica Filtration

 

Now for some basic differences; more detailed differences will be in subsequent posts. 

 

The first and maybe most important difference is that chaeto reactors grow only in saltwater (fish only, or fish with live rock, or reef) whereas algae scrubbers grow (filter) in both saltwater and freshwater. Growing = filtering. But even if you are exclusively freshwater, understanding the differences between reactors and scrubbers enables you to optimize a system for your tank. There have not been any experiments of chaeto in brackish water however.

 

A second difference is size; a chaeto reactor needs to be much larger than an algae scrubber. Many saltwater tanks have large sumps, and even dedicated fish rooms, so this may not be an issue. Through experiential results of individual aquarists running chaeto reactors over the last few years, and through many thousands of aquarists running algae scrubbers over the last ten years, it has been observed that a chaeto reactor needs to be 4 to 8 times the physical size of an algae scrubber to provide the same rate of filtering capacity (rate of nutrient removal).

 

A third difference is seeding; a chaeto reactor needs to be seeded with a small amount of chaeto, either from another aquarium, reactor, or from your last harvest (i.e., you don’t harvest all of it), whereas an algae scrubber will self-seed from invisible algal cells in the water. When self-seeding, algae scrubbers usually start out with a slime type of growth, and this sometimes progresses on to a green hair algae growth, depending on the nutrients in the water.

 

A fourth difference is in how you clean (harvest). For a chaeto reactor, you disassemble the reactor usually by unscrewing several screws on the top of the container, and then by pulling out a tube or frame from the container; the chaeto growth is then removed from the frame and the frame is replaced back into the container, and the lid and screws are put back into place. Since chaeto does not attach to a surface, you often get broken chaeto pieces that flow into your tank or sump when you harvest; a filter screen in the reactor can reduce this.

 

For an algae scrubber, cleaning (harvesting) varies on what design it is; freshwater versions will usually be taken to a sink for the cleaning because of the thin and slimy growth (saltwater versions can also be cleaned in a sink, but are sometimes harvested in-place). A horizontal river design will have a light that you lift up off of the container, and a screen that you remove from the container. A waterfall design will have a screen that you remove from a pipe; sometimes the whole pipe is removed, and sometimes the pipe is in a container that you need to open first. A bubble upflow design has at least part of the container under water, which you lift out of the water. And for all algae scrubbers, since the growth is attached to a surface, broken floating algae pieces are not common when you harvest on a proper schedule. Bubble upflow scrubbers almost never detach because the growth is supported by the water.

 

A fifth difference is fish feeding; by feeding your fish from the growth, the fish eat naturally and you don’t have to buy and add food to the water (which creates nutrients). Very few if any aquarium animals eat chaeto, so the only option is to remove the chaeto and either throw it away or give it to a friend. For algae scrubbers, it depends on the growth: Slime (although full of absorbed nutrients from the water) is usually not eaten by aquarium fish and thus is scraped off and thrown away or used as garden fertilizer. Green hair algae however is eaten by almost all herbivore fish and many snails (it’s their nature food), and thus some of the growth can be fed back to the fish, especially in freshwater where algae scrubbers almost always grow this type of growth. 

 

A sixth difference is overgrowth of algae on the lights. Chaeto reactors usually have a large surface area light (such as a long coiled light strip), and the illumination from these is not enough to “burn” off algae growth on the surface of the clear wall (this growth reduces illumination output). So you will need to clean these glass surfaces in order to keep the illumination at full output. Most algae scrubbers however use discrete (separate) high power LEDs which produce enough illumination in a small space to burn off algal growth on glass surfaces; for these you do not need to wipe the growth off because it does not grow there.

 

A last difference is overgrowth of algae on the algae itself. Chaeto is a slow growing species of algae because of it’s thick cellular structure, and if conditions favor faster growing algae you will get green hair algae which attaches on top of the chaeto, causing the chaeto to be blocked from light and flow, and eventually causing the chaeto to die and rot. There is no easy way to wipe green hair algae from chaeto; the chaeto must just be harvested earlier instead. For algae scrubbers, green hair algal growth on top of more green hair growth is how scrubbers operate in the first place, so earlier harvesting is not needed.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

Chaeto Reactors compared to Algae Scrubbers, part 3

 


Now for nutrients.

 

Nutrients are defined as inorganics, not organics. The word "nutrient" is sometimes confused with "nutrition", and maybe in restaurants the words might mean the same thing, but for aquarists they are totally different. Nutrition food particles are mostly visible, but nutrients are invisible, and for aquariums the nutrients are:

Ammonia/ammonium
Urea (pee)
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphate
Iron
CO2

 

Organics: These are food particles, and most of them big enough to see. They can be apples, pellets, nori, baby brine shrimp, flakes, peanut butter, poop, mucus, leaves, twigs, fish eggs, and other types of detritus, all of which are eaten/consumed by some type of organism. Organics are usually very visible when concentrated, and only after the organics get digested by a long chain of animals and bacteria do organics become invisible inorganics (this is called “remineralisation”, because they are now basic minerals once again). Organic food particles (which include waste) can be large, small, or dissolved, and if dissolved in water then the water may be cloudy or clear. For example, if you take mucus and blend it in water, the resulting dissolved organics would be invisible. Natural reefs are very highly loaded with organics, especially at night (sometimes a night diver cannot see his own hand because of the camera light reflecting off of the mass of particles). Lakes even more so, so much that sometimes you cannot see more than a meter underwater in full daylight. Aquarium keepers however tend to want ultra “clear” water, where all the natural food particles are removed from the water.

 

Algal Structure: The structure of algal cells make the algae thick or thin; solid or soft. The thinner the algae is, the more surface area it has, just like small particles of sand have more surface area than larger pebbles do. This increased surface area has more contact with water around it and thus can pull in nutrients faster. And the softer the algae is, the less structural cellulose-like material (like celery) it has. Hard structural cells, like celery, are great for holding a shape but bad for photosynthesis because there are less photosynthetic cells like there are in a leaf; so harder/stiffer algae absorb nutrients slower. Therefore for faster nutrient absorption, you want thin and soft algae. 

Chaeto: Has a firm structure that holds it's shape, and is about 1 mm in thickness. Nutrient absorption is slow.

Green Hair: Has a soft structure that does not hold its shape, and is about 0.1 mm in thickness. Nutrient absorption is fast.

 

Slime: A different category altogether.

 

Light: Photosynthesis does all the nutrient filtering, and it requires light; if the light is reduced, then filtering is reduced. Two facets of algal cells can alter the light: Translucency and self-shading. Translucency is the ability of light to go through a strand of algae; if light can do this, the light can reach cells further inside or on the other side of the strand and do more filtering there. Self-shading is when one strand of algae shades another strand; when this happen to a large degree, the growth of inner portions of a clump of algae slows down or dies, as outer growth is added over it. Thus the clump may appear to be increasing is size but the inner portions will actually be dying and putting nutrients back into the water, sometimes faster than the newer outer layers are taking the nutrients out of the water. And the larger the clump is, the more the inside starts dying. Only the outside portion grows.

 

Chaeto: Non-translucent (opaque), with high shading of other strands.

Green Hair: Medium to high translucency, with medium shading.

Slime: Low translucency when thick, and high shading.

 

The graphs of the following study show the light-blocking characteristics of chaeto: "Production within dense mats of the filamentous macroalga Chaetomorpha linum in relation to light and nutrient availability"

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/134/m134p207.pdf

 

Fig 5B shows how, under bright light, chaeto productivity (filtering) drops 72 percent with just 2 cm of chaeto thickness. And this does not take into account any dying chaeto underneath.

 

With green hair algae however, the green hair filaments are very thin, and translucent, so light and water flow spread throughout the algae, thus maximizing filtering. No part of the algae is "on the dark side of the growth" like it is on almost all parts of chaeto.


 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

@SantaMonica, so I was originally thinking that you might be considering adding chaeto reactors to your lineup (or that maybe you started this thread just to discuss DIY projects, or chaeto reactors in general as a reef hobbyist). But it looks like you are comparing them primarily to show how ATS units are superior (given the recent increased interest in chaeto reactors).

 

TBH, I'm a little disappointed that we didn't start getting into the weeds of chaeto reactors, so that people could make them more efficient nutrient uptake devices.  You know things like: flow rates, light spectrums, intensity, the Redfield ratio (and nutrient dosing to promote uptake), and optimal size to achieve nutrient reduction.

 

Like Harry suggested, it seems more like a marketing promotion for algae turf scrubbers.  Harry, I know he used to be a sponsor; however, it looks like he's let that lapse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

I found merit in the points about how photosynthesis was more efficient with the softer slime algae as opposed to the stiffer celery structure like chaeto

 

 The reference to night diving with mucus protein feeding the reef was interesting to me.  So many reef tanks are operated toward nutrient deserts, because they claim that the reefs are nutrient poor.  The post indicates otherwise.  My own experience with filter feeding corals at night told me that corals like nutrient rich.

 

Santa Monica,

I once asked you about DOC in a reef tank using an ATS.  Would you clarify that point?

 

 

Link to comment

I will try to find the link.  Steve Tyree and my friend Timfish are very deep into cryptic sponges for removing DOC, which includes a liabrary of organic compounds and is a complex topic.  For certain, the average hobbiest can not measure it, but bioindicators show it, like yellow tint in the water.  

 

In the list of algae producing DOC, Chaetomorphy produces the least DOC of all algae’s.

Link to comment
On 10/22/2017 at 7:31 PM, SantaMonica said:

Chaeto Reactors compared to Algae Scrubbers, part 1

 

All macroalgae operate basically the same, chemically. They all use light, photosynthetically, to absorb nutrients from the water (i.e., filtering) and to grow biomass. Just like trees. The differences between types of macroalgae are in the physical structure of the macroalgae growth and the way the structure affects nutrient absorption speed, which means filtering. Here are the main differences as far as aquarists are concerned:

 

Chaeto: Pronounced KAY-toe. Chaeto is the nickname for Chaetomorpha, and it looks like a green dishwasher cleaning pad. It has no "roots" and thus does not attach to solid surfaces. It grows in saltwater only, and is not eaten by many fish.

 

Green Hair Algae: Includes Cladophora "angel hair" and Ulva "Easter basket" types. It has "roots" which attach to solid surfaces. It grows in freshwater and saltwater, and is eaten by almost all herbivores.

 

Slime: A solid algal growth, bright green to brown to black in color, that attaches to solid surfaces but not very securely.

 

Chaeto Reactor: A device that has water running through it, with chaeto growing in it. Also known as an "algae reactor". A chaeto reactor does not allow air to enter; only water, and these reactors usually have a lid attached with screws to keep water in and air out.

 

Algae Scrubber: Also called a Turf Scrubber, or Algal Turf Scrubber (ATS). A device that allows air and water to interact to create a turbulent air/water interface like waves on a beach; it grows green hair algae or slime that attaches to solid surfaces.

 

Reactors and scrubbers are different from refugiums; a refugium (“fuge”) is a space in a sump where macroalgae is placed, and a light is put over it. Refugiums have very slow flow, and very low light penetration, compared to reactors or scrubbers. You could modify a refugium to be a reactor, and with more mods you could make it a scrubber. But then it would no longer be a refugium.

 

All oceans, reefs, lakes and rivers are naturally filtered by photosynthesis. This means that algae does all the filtering of these waters. This is why algae is at the base of the entire aquatic food chain, and why algae biomass dwarfs the biomass of all aquatic animals combined. But for algae to absorb nutrients out of the water, the algae must grow. And to absorb nutrients faster, the algae must grow faster.

 

Next we will look at what makes different types of macroalgae absorb nutrients differently.

 

 

Until I got to the last paragraph, I agreed 100% with the reading.  However, when you say that algae does all the filtering in these waters, I beg to differ.  Unequivocally, bacteria are major players along side of photosynthesis activity with the food chain and biofiltration.  When you say filtering, I assume you to mean uptake of inorganic nutrients to grow.  What about organic nutrient uptake and what about the algae byproducts contributing to dissolved organic carbon, which will grow more bacteria, unless removed.  IMO, skewed bacteria populations in a closed system are a bigger problem than nutrient control.   Coral growth accomplishes nutrient control.

 

What deals with the organic byproduct of using algae to balance a closed system?

 

PS.  I turned out the lights 4 months ago in my twenty five year old 30G EcoSystem mud/macro refugium.  It is still a reguim.  In fact, I think that the pods like the dark better as they seem to feed continually.  Micro stars and worms are breeding in the mud and now I also have cryptic sponges in this “cryptic refugium”.

Link to comment

chaeto flow rates, light spectrums, intensity, the Redfield ratio (and nutrient dosing to promote uptake), and optimal size to achieve nutrient reduction.

 

Yes some of this is good for the future. Although spectrum is still mainly 660nm red, and redfield I feel is chasing ghosts, and optimal is biggest, for most filtering capacity. Especially chaeto which needs such large sizes anyway (4 to 8 times a scrubber).

 

DOC in a reef tank using an ATS

 

Algae just makes what it does in nature: vitamin C, amino's, etc. which are consumed by corals and by bacterial then corals. There is no buildup because bacteria grow to equilibrium.

 

yellow tint in the water

 

This is usually caused by algae dying and turning yellow, due to lack of light and flow from too-thick growth when not cleaned. Most often this is on chaeto because it gets too thick, and waterfall style scrubbers because they are out of the water. Upflow scrubbers, because they are always submerged, rarely die off.

 

Chaetomorphy produces the least DOC of all algae

 

Understandable, because of the low photosynthesis of the high celulose content. It's the photosynthesis that produces the desired DOC's.

 

bacteria are major players along side of photosynthesis activity with the food chain and biofiltration

 

Autotrophic bacteria, yes.

 

I assume you to mean uptake of inorganic nutrients to grow.  What about organic nutrient uptake

 

This is why I defined nutrients, above, to help new reefers understand. In this definition, there are no organic nutrients; only organic nutrition. Nutrients are all inorganic.

 

algae byproducts contributing to dissolved organic carbon

 

Yes the desired amino's, ascorbic acid, vitamins including vitamin C, etc are all produced by the photosynthesis of algae. This is true in all oceans, reefs, lakes and rivers.

 

What deals with the organic byproduct of using algae to balance a closed system

 

The organics are consumed as food by bacteria and corals, to grow. If you don't produce enough in your tank (compared to a reef), then of course you can dose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I  agree with what you said.  

 

The brief simplification of corals alone absorbing all DOC generated by algae demands a mature biofilter.  In small captive systems like nano tanks, this is nor realistic, for certain, not in a new system.

 

What is is your opinion of using algae with GAC.?  

Link to comment
18 hours ago, seabass said:

@SantaMonica, so I was originally thinking that you might be considering adding chaeto reactors to your lineup (or that maybe you started this thread just to discuss DIY projects, or chaeto reactors in general as a reef hobbyist). But it looks like you are comparing them primarily to show how ATS units are superior (given the recent increased interest in chaeto reactors).

 

TBH, I'm a little disappointed that we didn't start getting into the weeds of chaeto reactors, so that people could make them more efficient nutrient uptake devices.  You know things like: flow rates, light spectrums, intensity, the Redfield ratio (and nutrient dosing to promote uptake), and optimal size to achieve nutrient reduction.

 

Like Harry suggested, it seems more like a marketing promotion for algae turf scrubbers.  Harry, I know he used to be a sponsor; however, it looks like he's let that lapse.

I have to agree.  This smacks of marketing to me.   To be honest I just started a chaeto reactor and seriously considered a SM algae scrubber but the price point was just too high to try it.  From what I have read it is a quality product but I would have liked to have read an unbiased discussion here.  Based on this thread one would think chaeto is not a viable solution.  I suppose I will find out soon. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Duane Clark said:

Based on this thread one would think chaeto is not a viable solution.  I suppose I will find out soon. 

I don't feel that chaeto refugiums (or reactors for that matter) are necessarily as ineffective as SM suggests.  However, maybe an upflow scrubber is more effective (there's a good chance, but I couldn't say).  While he says chaeto requires large sizes, he also says that filtering drops as much as 72% in as little as 2 cm of thickness (and underlying chaeto mass will be dying and releasing nutrients).  This would make me think that a reactor might actually be as or more effective than a large ball of chaeto in a refugium.  IDK, chaeto fuges are common and seemingly effective.  Plus, I don't think the mass dies at such shallow depths.

 

I'm not sure that the experiment which SM linked actually singles out the effects of light blocking.  I just browsed it, but it appears that they were trying to measure photosynthesis; however, O2 saturation and low CO2 levels (and resulting pH) at depth would affect growth/photosynthesis/nutrient uptake.  I wonder how the results would be from a reactor with multiple light sources and higher water flow throughout the mass (to help distribute O2 and CO2).

 

While there is likely some truth in what he's saying, I still feel like it's being spun to suggest that chaeto is ineffective for nutrient uptake.  Empirical evidence suggests that this isn't the case.  Again, maybe an upflow ATS is even more effective (possibly, but I'm not sure).

 

If we were actually comparing model X ATS with model Y chaeto reactor, we would need a dark room, a container of freshly made saltwater, and nutrients to dose.  We would dose the nutrients daily (for several days) and monitor the nutrient levels (first using model X ATS, then after a complete water change, using model Y chaeto reactor).  Of course the biomass of each unit would be significant variables.

 

I definitely don't want to dismiss the value of an ATS.  However, even if it is more effective, that doesn't discount the benefits people have observed by growing chaeto in their systems.  Not to mention the pods which make their home in it.

Link to comment

While I can not address the reactor, chaeto is a good species to grow if you have nutrients, but it will fall apart if no nutrients are available.  In tanks open to sunlight with same water and same sun, Ulva outgrew chaeto twice as fast.

 

I agree with Seabass, I feel as if someone just slimmed me.  I know little about ATS, but I know a lot about algae.  To dismiss the waste products of ATS or Chaetomorphy reactor as food for corals is very simplistic and totally inaccurate for the average aquarists.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Subsea said:

chaeto is a good species to grow if you have nutrients, but it will fall apart if no nutrients are available.

Which is why I brought up the question of starting a reactor on a new system.  I essentially  knew the answer, but was trying to spark a conversation.  It's also why I brought up the Redfield ratio.  If there is no phosphate, nitrate uptake would suffer.  It's not so much chasing ghosts as recognizing limiting factors which could affect the biomass and nutrient uptake.  In certain instances, we might wish to adjust our chemical filtration (or other factors which can affect nutrient levels) to further assist nutrient uptake of the biomass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, seabass said:

Which is why I brought up the question of starting a reactor on a new system.  I essentially  knew the answer, but was trying to spark a conversation.  It's also why I brought up the Redfield ratio.  If there is no phosphate, nitrate uptake would suffer.  It's not so much chasing ghosts as recognizing limiting factors which could affect the biomass and nutrient uptake.  In certain instances, we might wish to adjust our chemical filtration (or other factors which can affect nutrient levels) to further assist nutrient uptake of the biomass.

I agree.  one reason why I waited 3 months before starting one.  It may be too soon still...who knows.  I also took out all resins.  It's a great topic if we just really dive into it objectively. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, seabass said:

Which is why I brought up the question of starting a reactor on a new system.  I essentially  knew the answer, but was trying to spark a conversation.  It's also why I brought up the Redfield ratio.  If there is no phosphate, nitrate uptake would suffer.  It's not so much chasing ghosts as recognizing limiting factors which could affect the biomass and nutrient uptake.  In certain instances, we might wish to adjust our chemical filtration (or other factors which can affect nutrient levels) to further assist nutrient uptake of the biomass.

Interesting about adjusting chemical filtration.  Because I am not accoustomed to nano tanks and low phosphates,  J actually add nitrogen to consume phosphate and organic carbon that is abundant in my systems.  I rely heavily on nutrient recycling, either into herbivores, ornamental & utilitarian macros, fish biomass or coral biomass.  When harvested, anyone of those biomasses become nutrient export.  

 

Hopefully, frag and sell coral.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, seabass said:

Which is why I brought up the question of starting a reactor on a new system.  I essentially  knew the answer, but was trying to spark a conversation.  It's also why I brought up the Redfield ratio.  If there is no phosphate, nitrate uptake would suffer.  It's not so much chasing ghosts as recognizing limiting factors which could affect the biomass and nutrient uptake.  In certain instances, we might wish to adjust our chemical filtration (or other factors which can affect nutrient levels) to further assist nutrient uptake of the biomass.

Redfield is a great topic and should be understood in general by all.  Earth is a carbon based planet and organic matter will combine in the ratio of 106/16/1 of carbon/nitrogen/phosphorus.  

 

In specifics, I have some comments.  Most living biomass has storage mechanisms to uptake more nutrients when available to be used when not available.  I have produced those results with iron dosing Gracilaria Hayi.  I have had those results tested by agriculture lab that showed a 30:1 ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus, instead of 16:1.   Also at that time, the dry mass concentration of zinc was 7 ppm  and 4 ppm of copper In Gracilaria Parvispora.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Subsea said:

Redfield is a great topic and should be understood in general by all.  Earth is a carbon based planet and organic matter will combine in the ratio of 106/16/1 of carbon/nitrogen/phosphorus.  

 

In specifics, I have some comments.  Most living biomass has storage mechanisms to uptake more nutrients when available to be used when not available.  I have produced those results with iron dosing Gracilaria Hayi.  I have had those results tested by agriculture lab that showed a 30:1 ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus, instead of 16:1.   Also at that time, the dry mass concentration of zinc was 7 ppm  and 4 ppm of copper In Gracilaria Parvispora.

Question...this is very interesting on an academic level but my question would be, and I am very sincere about this since I am just now trying to play with "natural" filtration, how much of this naturally occurring process applies to nano tanks where water volume is so low that perhaps the lack of volume stunts these processes.  Is it necessary to "cheat" in some way simply because these processes cant or wont work efficiently in such small scale?  water changes come to mind for example.  

Link to comment

There is no cheating.  Water changes accomplish many things that are good.  However, if your biofiltration is inadequate, “dilution is not the solution to pollution”.  In a nano tank, you cannot do the same biomediation as with large systems.  As I mentioned, sponges already.  How about your protein skimmer in such a small cube.  By using GAC you have eliminated the need for protein skimmer and sponge refugium.

 

Nano systems do not impede biofiltration.  Sometimes natural filtration does not remedy overstocking of fish livestock.  You should look up nano sapiens thread.  He is using biofiltration with many years of longevity on his system.

 

https://www.nano-reef.com/profile/39264-nano-sapiens/

 

Getting him involved in this conversation would be very helpful.

Link to comment

Duane, 

 

As I reread your build thread, your  tank is a jewel to look at.  At three months, it is cycling.  At 25 years, my tanks are still cycling, albeit, less than yours.  It is called Dynamic Equilibrium.  It works biochemically without much assistance from us.  It works thru physics with the athmosphere.  It works thru photosynthesis using alkalinity supplied by carbon dioxide to produce glucose.  This is carbon fixation.  Research currently ongoing says that corals get their carbon thru this process as supplied by zooanthellia. 

 

I say hold on for the ride of your life.  I have been here 45 years.  It does not get boring.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recommended Discussions

×
×
  • Create New...