Chaeto put to the test: Going beyond our expectations! (Part 1)

[jhuntington12]

I have a 75 gallon reef tank and around 4 months ago decided to build my own chaeto reactor. Its now my only source of nutrient removal on my system. My nitrate is less than 1 ppm and phosphate 0.02 with a ph of 8.4. The results are far better than I expected and I shall keeping the unit on my system.

I did this with an old reactor as well. Great results however my acrylic seemed to develop what looks like white stress fractures or burns on the surface. I think the leds were we're creating a hot spot around it. Not sure why this happened but nevertheless the entire reactor is now all white instead of clear where the leds wrap and prevent light from entering. Are u having this problem too?

 

[Wildcats1023]

I have a 75 gallon reef tank and around 4 months ago decided to build my own chaeto reactor. Its now my only source of nutrient removal on my system. My nitrate is less than 1 ppm and phosphate 0.02 with a ph of 8.4. The results are far better than I expected and I shall keeping the unit on my system.

What led strip did you use? Where did you get the led strip? I'm looking at building one myself.

 

[randyBRS]

where did you guys get the par 38 light? / is it for sale on your website and same with the socket for the light / mounting

We do carry these PAR38 bulbs. Just type in "PAR38" to our search block.

-Randy

 

[randyBRS]

Once again great job...appreciate your efforts to approach these questions using a scientific approach...very valuable to add to our knowledge base and not just have anecdotal information to go on!!What is the brand of the blender you used to blend up the frozen food...thanks

Haha! That is the Magic Bullet. Works well at blending up the food and great at making a Green Hair Algae smoothie!

-Randy

 

[randyBRS]

Hi Randy, great test and great video. Thanks for this!
A question. Did you consider adding/supplementing iron as well, maybe in a next test? Cheers

The primary focus for this first run of the test was to see direct effects on nutrients alone, so the least amount of variables we could add the better. It may be something to look at as this test evolves. ;-)

-Randy

 

[GoVols]

The primary focus for this first run of the test was to see direct effects on nutrients alone, so the least amount of variables we could add the better. It may be something to look at as this test evolves. ;-)

-Randy

Randy,

Has BRS got a release date from Kessil on the H80?

Thanks, Freddie

 

[ahammer]

Exceptional video! Looks like I need to add a bunch of chaeto! Unfortunately chaeto never seems to do well for me in my systems. Possibly from dosing nopox.

 

[-Logzor]

I wonder what the impact is of removing the bubble filter and if adding an airstone to a fuge in a reef tank greatly improve nutrient uptake of chaeto.

I shut down my fuge awhile back because it became a huge mess of chaeto tangled with hair algae. This may have been a result of too much light, similar to what was reported with the red spectrum LED light used in this experiment. I guess it just requires more diligent maintenance of the fuge to mitigate this issue.

 

[Ryanbrs]

I wonder what the impact is of removing the bubble filter and if adding an airstone to a fuge in a reef tank greatly improve nutrient uptake of chaeto.

I shut down my fuge awhile back because it became a huge mess of chaeto tangled with hair algae. This may have been a result of too much light, similar to what was reported with the red spectrum LED light used in this experiment. I guess it just requires more diligent maintenance of the fuge to mitigate this issue.

I find that just a bit of effort, in the beginning, avoids this. When you see the first signs of hair algae just remove it by hand. Within a couple of weeks, the cheato outcompetes it. This assumes the bed of cheato is large enough to do that.

 

[Batu]

Hey guys!

Today we're updating you on the Chaetomorpha test that we have been brewing for the last few weeks. What we found about fuge size and PAR really surprised us, so we couldn't just stop there!

As you can tell from the title, we are going to be changing it up with this test and will continue the investigation. So check out this first installment of the Chaeto test and let us know your thoughts!





-Randy

The only thing this test shows is a (refugium) that is 25 gallons with a massive amount of chaeto reduces 1 cube of food, and applying this test results to a working aquarium is faulty at best. This test is only misleading and not really applicable to ANY standard aquarium setup. The test was to determine if a refugium would be a practical filter system. This test in no way even addresses this.

The test should have been setting up an ACTUAL tank, (typical size) with ACTUAL animal life (typical stock), with a typical sump with a typical refugium chamber size found in most sumps, and chaeto amount applicable to the chamber, and then test the water quality over time. While interesting, this test is all but useless for a realistic tank application.

The test parameters and the controls need to be similar and applicable to the environment you are testing for, not just making up a test that really has no application to a typical reef/aquarium setup.

 

[GoVols]

The only thing this test shows is a (refugium) that is 25 gallons with a massive amount of chaeto reduces 1 cube of food, and applying this test results to a working aquarium is faulty at best. This test is only misleading and not really applicable to ANY standard aquarium setup. The test was to determine if a refugium would be a practical filter system. This test in no way even addresses this.

The test should have been setting up an ACTUAL tank, (typical size) with ACTUAL animal life (typical stock), with a typical sump with a typical refugium chamber size found in most sumps, and chaeto amount applicable to the chamber, and then test the water quality over time. While interesting, this test is all but useless for a realistic tank application.

The test parameters and the controls need to be similar and applicable to the environment you are testing for, not just making up a test that really has no application to a typical reef/aquarium setup.

Duly Noted!

 

[-Logzor]

I find that just a bit of effort, in the beginning, avoids this. When you see the first signs of hair algae just remove it by hand. Within a couple of weeks, the cheato outcompetes it. This assumes the bed of cheato is large enough to do that.

Good to know that works! I had abandoned my fuge due to this issue. My aquarium performed OK without it for awhile, but now I have algae growing all-over inside the aquarium. I'm planning on rebuilding the fuge this weekend - then I have to keep up with the husbandry.

 

[mort]

The only thing this test shows is a (refugium) that is 25 gallons with a massive amount of chaeto reduces 1 cube of food, and applying this test results to a working aquarium is faulty at best. This test is only misleading and not really applicable to ANY standard aquarium setup. The test was to determine if a refugium would be a practical filter system. This test in no way even addresses this.

The test should have been setting up an ACTUAL tank, (typical size) with ACTUAL animal life (typical stock), with a typical sump with a typical refugium chamber size found in most sumps, and chaeto amount applicable to the chamber, and then test the water quality over time. While interesting, this test is all but useless for a realistic tank application.

The test parameters and the controls need to be similar and applicable to the environment you are testing for, not just making up a test that really has no application to a typical reef/aquarium setup.

I disagree. Why does the tank have to be normally stocked when you are just testing input vs output. The method of input, breakdown, output doesn't matter as it's simply a test of where the nutrients go. Complicating it just makes it harder to compare. If anything this simplified version makes it harder for the chaeto as there is less biological action going on like in a complex ecosystem of a normal tank.
The video also states that they will up the food as they go along to see how this affects the growth.

For me there has never been a question over whether they work and it's fair to say the conclusions of this video sum it up. They don't claim it's the best but it helps provided you give it a chance.

 

[Ryanbrs]

The only thing this test shows is a (refugium) that is 25 gallons with a massive amount of chaeto reduces 1 cube of food, and applying this test results to a working aquarium is faulty at best. This test is only misleading and not really applicable to ANY standard aquarium setup. The test was to determine if a refugium would be a practical filter system. This test in no way even addresses this.

The test should have been setting up an ACTUAL tank, (typical size) with ACTUAL animal life (typical stock), with a typical sump with a typical refugium chamber size found in most sumps, and chaeto amount applicable to the chamber, and then test the water quality over time. While interesting, this test is all but useless for a realistic tank application.

The test parameters and the controls need to be similar and applicable to the environment you are testing for, not just making up a test that really has no application to a typical reef/aquarium setup.

Fair position and it would be nice to test it on an actual reef tank. In the end, we could not perform the test on a series of live systems because of the tremendous amount of variables each system would have and the data would be pretty low value. Even if we did find a way the setup and livestock would be dramatically different from other reefers tanks and not have a lot of value unless they were the same.

Instead, we wanted to test something more finite or controlled test which was solely looking at "can cheato uptake an appreciable amount of nutrients? If so how much?" Once we have identified that, we can consider adding additional variables in which get closer to a reef tank.
I think what we found is almost precisely what you suggested. "a 25-gallon fuge and cheato it contains is capable of removing at least one cubes worth of food a day." I think the next step is to identify what is the maximum amount of food it can uptake in this environment. After that we can start discussing what putting this type of fuge on a live system would look like with a focus on turnover, contact time, display lighting and nitrogen and phosphorus input.

In the end, I think this is going to be relatively long and interesting journey: )

 

[Ryanbrs]

Batu,

Almost forgot we had these A/B Vertex test tanks here. I think corals would be a later introduction but what about a fish only with live rock system. One with Cheato, one without?

 

[beaslbob]

WOW

you'll up to 6 pages already.

Just had another genuine beaslbob idea.

(more commonly know as a brain f***)

Try putting 4 male mollys in the tanks (including test). And see what happens to the nitrogen cycle and how the fish do.

The live fish will be adding co2 as well as just the rotting food.

But that is just a thought

Worth at most .02

 

[beaslbob]

pssst

can hardly wait for part 2

 

[mazoli]

Try putting 4 male mollys in the tanks (including test).

Worth at most .02

Or 2 clowns in each.

 

[Rick Mathew]

Haha! That is the Magic Bullet. Works well at blending up the food and great at making a Green Hair Algae smoothie!

-Randy

Have one every morning...Good for the lower GI

 

[Rick Mathew]

The only thing this test shows is a (refugium) that is 25 gallons with a massive amount of chaeto reduces 1 cube of food, and applying this test results to a working aquarium is faulty at best. This test is only misleading and not really applicable to ANY standard aquarium setup. The test was to determine if a refugium would be a practical filter system. This test in no way even addresses this.

The test should have been setting up an ACTUAL tank, (typical size) with ACTUAL animal life (typical stock), with a typical sump with a typical refugium chamber size found in most sumps, and chaeto amount applicable to the chamber, and then test the water quality over time. While interesting, this test is all but useless for a realistic tank application.

The test parameters and the controls need to be similar and applicable to the environment you are testing for, not just making up a test that really has no application to a typical reef/aquarium setup.

Actually I do not quite see this the same way. If the primary question they proposed is "Are Chaetomorpha based refugiums effective as a primary source of nutrient reduction" Then the first question you must answer is " Is it a source of nutrient reduction at all and if so can we quantify it" I you did the experiment as you proposed on a actual tank you would confound the data you get with other nutrient uptake components...skimmers, stock influences, and others. At this point you would not be able to answer the primary question proposed because you would have no way to separate the confounding effects....IMO

Rick