Chaeto Test Part III: We've proven it works, now time to up the game! | BRStv Investigates

[JamesP]

filtration (photosynthesis) = light X attachment X air water interface turbulence.

What does this mean exactly?

 

[jason2459]

Id go with a refugium/ ats over a skimmer if i had to choose one.

But since im vodka dosing id choose a skimmer.

Id like to see if the kessil refugium could reverse a tank full of hair algae. That would be sweet to see.

One could argue that carbon dosing could become unnecessary if harvesting enough algae.

Vinegar though is my choice as the acetic acid is readily taken up by more then just bacteria.

 

[Cory]

So your vote is for skimmer so you can vodka dose? That's essentially what I was thinking too since a skimmer opens up other options such as vodka.

Yeah thats what im doing. I dose it 24 times a day via dosing pump. So far algae hasnt grown and others are receeding.

 

[Cory]

One could argue that carbon dosing could become unnecessary if harvesting enough algae.

Vinegar though is my choice as the acetic acid is readily taken up by more then just bacteria.

Yeah my ats worked great on the previous tank. 0 no3 po4. With the 240 im trying vodka. So far so good. Sps are growing, hair algae receeding on rocks. Bubble algae dissolved away. But softies hate it. So does exenia. But the monti loves it and is growing again. Perhaps my old system just wasnt large enough or too large.

Oh and id rather use vodka because it doesnt impact ph on contact with water.

 

[RnG-tank]

Hey guys,

FINALLY! We've made it to the next update for the Chaetomorpha test! These results are pretty interesting and what we're going to do next is worth the wait!

Let us know your thoughts on the test and the future test plans!

Would the results be the same for a chaetomorpha reactor

 

[JasPR]

Hey guys,

FINALLY! We've made it to the next update for the Chaetomorpha test! These results are pretty interesting and what we're going to do next is worth the wait!

Let us know your thoughts on the test and the future test plans!

So I bought the 'red' kessil as suggested and within three weeks all my chaeto turned white and feel apart-- let the buyer beware

 

[Reefcowboy]

So I bought the 'red' kessil as suggested and within three weeks all my chaeto turned white and feel apart-- let the buyer beware

Could you elaborate a bit about your tank parameters? Any algae on the main display? Low nutrient tank? Thanks

 

[Mark Gray]

Well Time to upgrade my Fuge light have a Kessil H80 wonder if I can sell it

 

[Mark Gray]

So I bought the 'red' kessil as suggested and within three weeks all my chaeto turned white and feel apart-- let the buyer beware

I have the H80 mine is growing but very slow and I still get hair algae in my display

 

[carloriv]

I wonder why you don't test the par38 36 watts refugium led light you used in the first test ,it seems to be a good alternative to light the chaeto.

 

[JamesP]

How does the par38 compare to an h80? I've never seen the two of them compared against each other.

 

[Ryanbrs]

I wonder why you don't test the par38 36 watts refugium led light you used in the first test ,it seems to be a good alternative to light the chaeto.

The text systems Vertex made for us only had 4 chambers so we picked what we had readily available and seemed to be the most interesting to reefers at the time.

One could argue that carbon dosing could become unnecessary if harvesting enough algae.

Vinegar though is my choice as the acetic acid is readily taken up by more then just bacteria.

I think this gets to the heart of a lot of different conversations. More or less if one form of filtration is achieving all your goals why spend time, money, space or other resources on others? If my fuge was removing all the excess nitrate and phosphate from my system I certainly wouldn't complicate matters with carbon dosing at the same time.

I have successfully used carbon dosing, appreciate the approach and would recommend it to many reefers who are willing to do the research. My most recent carbon dosing success with the zeovit method and the 160. I would call that approaching a 2-year success. The thing about carbon dosing is we know it works but there are so many unknowns that come with it. Almost everything is what I'd call plausible theory. Sounds right and generally matches known scientific theory so we treat it as close to fact. However, there are many unknowns as to what happens in a reef tank with all the different sources, sugar, vodka, vinegar, no3po4x , zeostart, various biopellets ...

I think the biggest unknown is what are the results of overdosing? Potentially a large single overdose but more so the effects of overdosing a small amount over a long period of time and the resulting carbon build up. More or less we are doing carbon because it is believed that while our tanks are phosphorous and nitrogen rich they are deficient in carbon. Dosing carbon as an attempt to correct that balance certainly seems to be effective in reducing nitrate and phosphate. However, I think it is safe to presume that a lot of reefers are doing more carbon than is actually needed, could be slightly more or it could be a lot, hard to say because we don't have a precise method of testing organic carbon in the tank. Over time the chances of excess carbon building up in the tank is a realistic concern and something worth exploring.

I don't share this to be scary because I am willing to carbon dose my own tanks and would certainly recommend some of the more tried and true methods to others but being aware of the potential pitfalls is the first step in avoiding them. I would certainly never mess with it if I had other solutions that were already achieving my goals.

I guess we don't know everything about what a refugium is adding or taking out of the water either but the process nutrient uptake or even die off and reuptake is a bit easier to understand and implement than many other methods and very few reefers have reported significant challenges. I think most people would agree that the likelihood of a real issue developing as the result of a refugium is significantly lower than some other more complex methods of nutrient control. The biggest issue might be some elements being depleted which can be tested for and replenished.

Somewhat related to this, here are a few photos of the 160 and how carbon dosing and zeo has worked for us so far. I would expect to see a complete update on youtube soon.

https://www.instagram.com/ryanbrs/?hl=en

 

[hart24601]

I do want to point out there are other reasons for carbon dosing besides nutrient reductions. I carbon dose to feed the food chain from the bottom up and support filter feeders along with other organisms that I feel directly or indirectly benefit from carbon dosing. The dose is decidedly less than when used for nutrient reductions, however I just wanted to point out that carbon dosing can have other benefits.

 

[Ryanbrs]

I do want to point out there are other reasons for carbon dosing besides nutrient reductions. I carbon dose to feed the food chain from the bottom up and support filter feeders along with other organisms that I feel directly or indirectly benefit from carbon dosing. The dose is decidedly less than when used for nutrient reductions, however I just wanted to point out that carbon dosing can have other benefits.

Certainly an interesting approach. Promoting bacterial growth as the base of a food chain that supports filter feeders and other organisms is thought provoking for sure. Almost certainly low risk as well : )

 

[Devaji]

I have a question the entire BRS been debating internally since all this started. If you could only have one method of filtration would it be mechanical filtration like a skimmer or organic like an ATS or fuge? While a lot of us don't have space or budget for both, the center chamber in most sumps can really be used for either and the implementation cost is in the same neighborhood.

I have to say running without a skimmer seems insane because it has been at the core of all our tanks for so long but if the end goal is just nutrient reduction I think there is some debate to be had as to which will perform better.

oh man that would be a hard choice. for me I think it would depend on the system .I run a skimmer on my 90 reef and ATS but on my nano phosgard and top shelf carbon. man that would be such a hard choice to do only one and I would find a way to do both. like you said inch per inch TAS are better than cheato and a small upflow ATS dont not rally take up much space.

even with limited space I think we can find a way to do both skimmer and ATS.
that said you answer your question as hard is it would be IF i had to only do one I think I would do skimmer. only because there are more ppl useing that method. but I really like the idea of ATS only system.

i think skimmer and ATS go hand in hand

great thread & discussion...

 

[stunreefer]

However, there is no way around some of the math here in less than ideal instances. If you have 30 ppm nitrate a 20% water change is going to result in ~24ppm nitrate which isn't all that effective. Short of 100% water changes, it is always going to be some factor of dilution.

Wholeheartedly agree

We see many aquarists with nutrient issues relying on the archaic 15-20% water change routine yielding little positive results. If someone has let nutrients skyrocket, they should be looking into considerably larger water changes, then getting back into good habits.

I don't think that using Triton on the 160 will demonstrate much in relation to the value of trace elements but I think we will be able to show the results of using cheato as a primary nutrient reduction method in one of the hardest environments, a tank that gets fed a ton and has zero water changes.

Sincerely look forward to your results!

 

[Greaps]

Mechanical or organic.

I would like a test done that compares 2 skimmers v 2 cheato fuges. Skimmers can be priced near $300 to match the kessil or a different price point comparison, maybe a sun blaze 4-6 bulb T5, or other setup to get a less expensive setup comparison. Run the test similar to before 1 mysis cube per day. I wouldn't be surprised if the organic method ends up producing better results after seeing your tests and comparing it to older skimmer efficiency studies id seen.

 

[Thales]

I have a question the entire BRS been debating internally since all this started. If you could only have one method of filtration would it be mechanical filtration like a skimmer or organic like an ATS or fuge? While a lot of us don't have space or budget for both, the center chamber in most sumps can really be used for either and the implementation cost is in the same neighborhood.

I have to say running without a skimmer seems insane because it has been at the core of all our tanks for so long but if the end goal is just nutrient reduction I think there is some debate to be had as to which will perform better.

Hi Ryan. Great vids and experiments. I would rather see a straight implementation of cheato as a major sources of nutrient control on an established reef rather than seeing you guys swap methods wholesale, but that's me.

As for one method of "filtration" It all works, but it all has different needs. If I were going to do one method, it would be large regular water changes. You are absolutely correct when you say 20% water changes are often ineffective - at the same time, big, regular ones are really effective. That is mostly what actually happens on wild reefs. It all depends on how you want to spend your time and money. What always gets me is when people want things to be small, cheap, easy, and effective, and then when they confuse goals - are they trying to reduce algae or lower nutrients? . Its all a trade off.

I have been doing automatic water changes for about a year now and have seen no difference in Nitrate and Phosphate levels, just like when I added an ATS to the system. But then, you know I have a slightly different ongoing take at the whole nutrient thing and detritus thing, and despite the 'high' levels, my tank is doing just fine - but that's a different discussion for MACNA.

Thanks for working on actual experiments. Good stuff.

Rich Ross

 

[jason2459]

....


I think this gets to the heart of a lot of different conversations. More or less if one form of filtration is achieving all your goals why spend time, money, space or other resources on others? If my fuge was removing all the excess nitrate and phosphate from my system I certainly wouldn't complicate matters with carbon dosing at the same time.

I believe in a multi factor approach where when, not if, something happens and one thing is no longer working the other methods help pick up the slack. Plus I see many methods help complement each other. Like a skimmer will help remove some organics while harvesting algae will help remove some inorganics. Plus depending on a single method could run into problems as they ALL have some pros and cons.

I've always been a fan of many methods and many do compliment each other. I have been running for many years now a skimmer, algae harvesting of some kind, carbon dosing(vinegar), small frequent water changes (currently multiple times a day), and ozone.

I see the water change as a basis to help remove any build up of untestable unknowns and testable unwanted elements and help replenish the basic chemicals everything needs. Then lots of food and lime water to add anything else needed. I don't see water changes as an effective main means of nutrient control at all. Then there is at least one person I know of some what success full "0" water changes and that's GlennF. He uses heavy mechanical filtration with a skimmer and pumps with filter wrapped around it, etc. Last time he did what would be called a water change I think was 2012. Then there's small nano's like my 20 gallon long mantis tank with softies in it and all I do for it are water changes. Nothing else for the past 6 years.

Carbon dosing I've really had the most success maintaining lower nitrates and phosphate levels. GFO to bring down high PO4 values. And extreme cases lanthanum cl. My preference is vinegar. I really like the acetate as a food that is taken up directly by some organisms including bacteria driving up their counts which in turn becomes more food for other organisms which in turn... etc But I've seen carbon dosing spur on many unwanted pests as it's all about competition for food. But if done right there's people like Randy that was carbon dosing close to a couple decades running a gorgeous tank.

I do use ozone as well but a very small amounts. It does help break down some organics but at the small amounts I use not that much. I personally feel (totally anecdotally) that the small amount I use is helpful as a flocculant for my skimmer and if I use to much then my skimmer's production goes down. PaulB has been running ozone for many many many decades into his skimmer as one method of his.

Skimmer to me is just simple cheap filtering. It's not very efficient as a mechanical filter compared to something like filter socks, floss, rollers, diatom filters etc. or even remotely as effective at removing DOC's vs. GAC. Which to me is perfect as I don't want 100% efficiency or anywhere near it. I want critters to live and thrive. It's commented here and there its only about "30% efficient" due to some advanced aquarist articles. I also look to it to help remove excess bacteria, boost aeration, and help drive up pH. Plus its my ozone reactor. Win win win win all around on my book. I see no reason for me to not run one on my larger tanks. But there are some that don't like another member named TimFish has a beautiful "successful" reef tank going on over 2 decades now. Uses water changes and several other methods of nutrient control.

As for the algae harvesting. I look to it to supplement nutrient export with the skimmer with out hindering my critters that other mechanical filters would remove. In fact I look at it as helping to increase the biodiversity and a vacation home for those critters and something else for some of them to eat. Plus helping to increase pH slightly. Plus what ever marketing benefits algae may have. And this I see as any kind of algae harvesting. I used to have a hang on back fuge on my old 55g. It grew ulva, caulerpa, and chaeto but the chaeto didn't compete very well with those other two. Currently I've been runngin a Turbo's aquatics ATS. People have been harvesting algae for decades. Again, I'll reference PaulB as he's ran an algae trough for several decades and most recently put together an algae scrubber. FWIW, my algae scrubber is my favorite place to collect samples from to look under a microscope as the biodiversity that grows in there is very, well, diverse.

And talking about biodiversity, the under gravel filter. Another page from PaulB's book that I took and implemented in reverse like he does. That is a breeding ground like no other. A refugium in itself. I will not run a tank with out one. To me creating an environment to help life of all kinds thrive helps maintain a healthy tank. And yes, this includes pests as well but if you have a diverse population of organisms those pests can be pushed back and kept from blooming. IMO of course but also IME as I know for a fact I have many pests that people struggle with and have no issues with them in my tank. I can if wanted, and have done and will do, spur on a bloom of cyano or dino's etc to test something out.

I have successfully used carbon dosing, appreciate the approach and would recommend it to many reefers who are willing to do the research. My most recent carbon dosing success with the zeovit method and the 160. I would call that approaching a 2-year success. The thing about carbon dosing is we know it works but there are so many unknowns that come with it. Almost everything is what I'd call plausible theory. Sounds right and generally matches known scientific theory so we treat it as close to fact. However, there are many unknowns as to what happens in a reef tank with all the different sources, sugar, vodka, vinegar, no3po4x , zeostart, various biopellets ...

I think the biggest unknown is what are the results of overdosing? Potentially a large single overdose but more so the effects of overdosing a small amount over a long period of time and the resulting carbon build up. More or less we are doing carbon because it is believed that while our tanks are phosphorous and nitrogen rich they are deficient in carbon. Dosing carbon as an attempt to correct that balance certainly seems to be effective in reducing nitrate and phosphate. However, I think it is safe to presume that a lot of reefers are doing more carbon than is actually needed, could be slightly more or it could be a lot, hard to say because we don't have a precise method of testing organic carbon in the tank. Over time the chances of excess carbon building up in the tank is a realistic concern and something worth exploring.

We know what instant effects of overdosing a carbon source is: bacterial blooms, depleted oxygen, potential toxins released depending on what else blooms like some dino's, potential pH drops, etc. But good question on long term effects of carbon dosing. I think carbon dosing has been around long enough now though that we should be seeing what those effects may be but I haven't really seen any but doesn't mean there couldn't be. There has been research though on organics in reefs and effects on them. With out enough grazers (algae eaters) it's not good. Which there are some reefs being impacted by this problem of high DOC and low grazer counts. So, I like a lot of algae eaters in my tank as well from snails to fish. I'm pretty heavy on algae grazers. A good quick easy read on some research on this is "Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas". It's on kindle as well. TimFish actually pointed me to it to try and argue his points but I got out of it a different take that helped my argument as well. lol

The interesting thing is algae will help remove inorganics but does produce some organics in the form of photosynthate which is basically like a sugar. This increases the TOC of the water which can be consumed by many other organisms good or bad just like any other kind of carbon dosing. So, this usually confuses people when they are growing and harvesting algae like there is no tomorrow, their nutrient levels are totally in check, and yet they keep having cyano blooms. Well, basically to me that tells me they need some better biodiversity in the bottom of the food chain to out compete the cyano. Cyano will never be totally removed. It's in the air we breath and has been around from near the beginnings of life.

I don't share this to be scary because I am willing to carbon dose my own tanks and would certainly recommend some of the more tried and true methods to others but being aware of the potential pitfalls is the first step in avoiding them. I would certainly never mess with it if I had other solutions that were already achieving my goals.

I guess we don't know everything about what a refugium is adding or taking out of the water either but the process nutrient uptake or even die off and reuptake is a bit easier to understand and implement than many other methods and very few reefers have reported significant challenges.

I suggest everyone get a microscope and go look at what their refugium is creating a home for.
Plugging my microscope thread that has become a hobby in itself: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/our-tanks-biology-up-close.239838/page-32

I think most people would agree that the likelihood of a real issue developing as the result of a refugium is significantly lower than some other more complex methods of nutrient control. The biggest issue might be some elements being depleted which can be tested for and replenished.

Actually pointed out above where harvesting algae could potentially spur on pests just like any kind of carbon dosing could.

For depleted elements I like to feed a diverse set of food and lots of it. That brings in plenty of nutrients and other elements/compounds that are taken up by algae. From pellet foods dropped in 4 times a day, chopped up meaty foods 2-3 times a day, and several sheets of nori I get a lot of imports along with the 1% daily water changes. Only thing I've starting dosing again because of Algae is some iron that I had some fun making myself. K should be monitored too if harvesting a lot.

Somewhat related to this, here are a few photos of the 160 and how carbon dosing and zeo has worked for us so far. I would expect to see a complete update on youtube soon.

https://www.instagram.com/ryanbrs/?hl=en

You all have been pretty awesome in what you've been trying to do. Thank you.

 

[biecacka]

Jason, I can attest to "too much carbon dosing passably causing cyano or dinos". Randy and I spoke briefly about it a few years ago. Well I kept dosing vodka/vinegar mix and had a good grasp on my tank. 240 gallons with about 30 fish. Well eventually I maxed out my dose limit I think and got a bit of cyano on a few rocks. (Also had my gyre stop working, so less flow.)
I first noticed a white stringy snot in my sump, upon inquiring about it at my LFS, he stated it might be bacteria and harmless. Well then I noticed a bit of cyano and it's probably from too much carbon he thinks. I don't know, I'm not a scientist at all.....but I've had others say the same thing. Well, I cut back on the dose and plan to mostly just let it ride out it's course. There isn't much of it so I hope it's quick.
But in my research I have noticed that zeros on n03 and p04 are no5 necessarily a good thing as cyano and dinos can thrive in that environment. I ran an algae scrubber (DIY) for awhile with some success but limited due to carbon dosing. Well I plan on putting a scrubber back on soon. I know a guy who is getting a Turbo ATS but waiting for the current model to be delivered, then he might sell me his old one . My plan will then be to stop carbon pretty much all together. I have stopped the vodka/vinegar mix in exchange for a pellet reactor, mostly to just try one. My buddy had one laying around. Im using half the suggested amount.

Corey