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

[jason2459]

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

Yes, dosing carbon does not guaranty that pests like cyano won't take advantage of it. If it happens it would be prudent to reduce dosages, stop dosing, and/or change carbon sources.

I should clarify that I was referring to the statement of long term build up of even dosing the smallest amounts of a carbon source. I would consider what you experienced a short term effect.

And I totally agree that undetectable nitrates and phosphates are not desirable IMO. There are systems that revolve around that but take extra measures to run so. I think you saw my run with vodka/vinegar. It brought my nutrients to low. I probably could have just reduce dosing but I just went with switch back to just vinegar.

Btw, I just happen to be getting Bud's latest Rev4 model too very soon.

 

[biecacka]

Yeah I was dosing for over a 2 years before it caught up to me. I have changed sources for now. But I might do away n only run your Rev2 after you sell it to me.

Corey

 

[Ryanbrs]

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...

It is a hard decision but fun to explore the various concepts : )

Zack is running a ATS only system with no skimmer at the shop. I would be pretty hard pressed to tell him to change what he is doing.

 

[Aldrinlights]

I have a 10 gallon fuge with a 20 gallon tall display. Im Having algae trouble in the display tank and due to this video series it finally occurred to me that the little led white light in the fuge is not able to out compete the full color spectrum I have in the display tank.

Do you guys think I would have success with keeping the photosynthesis competition in my chaeto down in the fuge If I go with the Kessil H80 or should I go for the 380? I just think possibly with my nano setup that the H380 might be a little too big in my stand as well as what I really need to spend money on.

 

[Scott Campbell]

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.

That is difficult to answer as I also consider carbon dosing to be organic filtration. As well as a wonderful food source for the tank. For me the skimmer is simply the means of harvesting excess bacteria since I can't just grab a handful of bacteria.

Most of the algae that grows in my main tank and my refugium also ends up as food. I enthusiastically support Jason's position that a robust microfauna makes a world of difference in tank health and stability. And microfauna need algae, bacteria and detritus.

So for me the refugium allows easy access to harvest out excess algae. And the skimmer allows easy access to harvest out excess bacteria. The algae, bacteria and microfauna growth provide a constant food source for the main tank. The ability to remove excess algae and bacteria at my leisure seems such a better approach to dealing with excess nutrients than large water changes, frequent use of a turkey baster, targeted feedings, constant detritus siphoning, elimination of any and all substrate (which would make my wrasse very sad) and a rather heavy dependence on me to stick to a maintenance schedule.

So I see algae and carbon dosing as two sides of the same coin. The debate seems to be rather - do you trust bacteria and algae to keep your tank stable and do you prefer to maintain tank parameters through human intervention (water changes, siphoning, etc.) At my house the bacteria and algae are much more reliable and dependable.

 

[Aldrinlights]

My experience/opinion. I have a 10g sump with 3-4 gallons dedicated to Chaeto with the H380 running to support a 20g display. I used to clean the algae off the glass every week and depended on the CUC to eat the hair algae off the base of my Dendros. Since running a fuge for 3 months with the H380, I have no hair algae and virtually no algae growth on the glass in the DT. Since adding the light I've noticed very fast skin and skeleton growth on the Dendro heads.

Yes, a $300 light for a fuge/Chaeto does seem crazy but for me I think it's well worth it with the pros of noticeable coral growth, scraping very little algae off the glass once a month, and feeding more often with no excess nutrients like I used to have.

How much room above your refugium do you have for the light? I have the same setup and was hoping to discover if the H80 would work just fine or I should go for the bigger one. I have the fuge in the stand and only about 5" above the fuge to the next level where there is a shelf with all of the supplies.

 

[thunderdood]

How much room above your refugium do you have for the light? I have the same setup and was hoping to discover if the H80 would work just fine or I should go for the bigger one. I have the fuge in the stand and only about 5" above the fuge to the next level where there is a shelf with all of the supplies.

The light is maybe a foot away from the tank. I don't have a foot of clearance right above the sump so I have the light off to the side at an angle.

 

[SantaMonica]

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

What does this mean exactly?

It mean that filtration is proportional to those three things.

Illumination is easy.

The turbulence part means that, due to the laminar or boundary effect of water molecules on the surface of algae (like air molecules on the surface of an airplane's wing), the velocity of water slows to a stop there and nutrient transfer slows down too. So to counteract this, an air/water turbulent interface breaks up this boundary layer and allows nutrients to travel again to and from the algae. This is described by Adey in Dynamic Aquaria. Also, for bubble upflow versions, the air in the bubbles also delivers CO2 to the algae, and helps physically move the algal strands around so light can get through.

The attachment part is what hold the algae in place so water molecules can swiftly bring more nutrients into the algae, again, like air over a wing. If the algae is not attached, like chaeto, it flows with the water, and the boundary layer sees little velocity. This reduces nutrient transfer.

This is why putting air bubbles below chaeto will cover the cheato with gha, and kill it.

water changes are often ineffective - at the same time, big, regular ones are really effective. That is mostly what actually happens on wild reefs

A review of some literature, especially shelf-scale nutrient studies, shows the opposite. Reefs are "nutrient poor" because the nutrients are locked up in living biomass, and as soon as nutrients are released by one organism, they are taken up by another just inches or meters away. They nutrients don't make it out to sea.

The water might come and go from the ocean into reefs, but the nutrients don't.

 

[Bronx19]

I have macro going crazy in my tank now, and I've noticed zero film algae growth on the glass for weeks. I have a spare reactor laying around, so I just picked up 5m of RGB LED strip (Submersible). I've seen the benefit, now I just need to get it out of the tank and into the reactor.

 

[gutokoro]

How long does it take to perform one of these measurements in a lab? Is it just a push of a button and poof results on a screen? Or is it an involved process?

Hi James, it is a quick measurement, for que saltwater is needed just a dilution. In US is a cheap analysis, where I live is very expensive.

The macro-algae has a lot of benefits but it really has cons. One of them is that they consume other nutrients important for the reef like potassium, calcium, magnesium and others. In my personal opinion, just a water change isn't enough to replenish all the nutrients and synthetic salts doesn't r ally care about nutrients other than Ca and Mg and carbonates.

Cheers

 

[VJV]

@Ryanbrs Hey Ryan, would you say that forcing the chaetomorpha to rotate improves the results? My experience is that when I do not rotate the chaetomorpha the top will start loosing color and dying off leading to GHA to grow over he chaetomorpha. I was wondering what others opinions on this are.

 

[SantaMonica]

they consume other nutrients important for the reef like potassium, calcium, magnesium

The kind of macro used for filtering does not really use calcium, and not much potassium or mag either.

forcing the chaetomorpha to rotate

Will probably help. The problem with chaeto is it is thick, and light can't get to the middle. So the middle rots. If you anchor it though, and provide strong current (and especially if you provide air/water turbulence), you will get GHA that kills the chaeto. This study might help:

"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.

 

[Tautog]

As always, great studies, but please answer this : most DT lights are on for a limited time to reflect
daylight hours, so if the refuge lights are on 24/7, isn't the photo period longer regardless of the lamp par/pur for the algae in the refuge to out compete the algae in the DT. Plants that are growing under lights 24/7 need high nutrients to grow during a long photo period. Once the DT lights are on, competition starts for both algaes, but the DT algae is starting and only competing for a small amount of time, really not enough to get going I believe. Please investigate this end of your experiment, I'm hoping this would make the biggest difference, and conclude why a refuge would be so important. Thanks in advance

 

[JamesP]

As always, great studies, but please answer this : most DT lights are on for a limited time to reflect
daylight hours, so if the refuge lights are on 24/7, isn't the photo period longer regardless of the lamp par/pur for the algae in the refuge to out compete the algae in the DT. Plants that are growing under lights 24/7 need high nutrients to grow during a long photo period. Once the DT lights are on, competition starts for both algaes, but the DT algae is starting and only competing for a small amount of time, really not enough to get going I believe. Please investigate this end of your experiment, I'm hoping this would make the biggest difference, and conclude why a refuge would be so important. Thanks in advance

You don't want to run your fuge 24x7. It's will actually be counterproductive as it will cause photosynthesis to shut down in the refugium. The plant needs time to rest or it will be bad for it. Run your light on a reverse photoperiod so it is on in the fuge at night and off during the day.

 

[VJV]

The kind of macro used for filtering does not really use calcium, and not much potassium or mag either.



Will probably help. The problem with chaeto is it is thick, and light can't get to the middle. So the middle rots. If you anchor it though, and provide strong current (and especially if you provide air/water turbulence), you will get GHA that kills the chaeto. This study might help:

"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.

Thanks. The problem I experience is not the core rotting (when the chaetomorpha is not rotating) but rather the top of the mat that tends to rise to the surface and brown out. GHA starts to grow all over the top. In fact, in my experience the core tends to be a darker green, whereas the outer layers are usually of a lighter shade.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hi James, it is a quick measurement, for que saltwater is needed just a dilution. In US is a cheap analysis, where I live is very expensive.

The macro-algae has a lot of benefits but it really has cons. One of them is that they consume other nutrients important for the reef like potassium, calcium, magneespecially calcium and magneisum) from normal macroalgae growth.sium and others. In my personal opinion, just a water change isn't enough to replenish all the nutrients and synthetic salts doesn't r ally care about nutrients other than Ca and Mg and carbonates.

Cheers

I doubt you are even able to detect changes in the levels of calcium and magnesium from macroalgae growth since they take up very little. According to Ron Shimek's data, caulerpa actually has less magnesium in it than the surrounding water.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You don't want to run your fuge 24x7. It's will actually be counterproductive as it will cause photosynthesis to shut down in the refugium. The plant needs time to rest or it will be bad for it. Run your light on a reverse photoperiod so it is on in the fuge at night and off during the day.

I compared 24/7 to other schedules on my refugia and found little difference, although the cost is less to light less.

 

[jason2459]

I run my ATS 24/7 and it does very well but it had to work its way up that schedule. I believe I started at about 12 or 14 hours on and as it matured increased a couple hours at a time.

But this is a fully contained ATS so the rest of my "bio" zone of my sump is in darkness most of the time or ambient light.

Life in ATS doesn't seem to mind. In fact it would seem to thrive as I scrape it every 2 weeks.

 

[SantaMonica]

the top of the mat that tends to rise to the surface and brown out. GHA starts to grow all over the top. In fact, in my experience the core tends to be a darker green, whereas the outer layers are usually of a lighter shade

Makes a good point of large variable in the thickness. The middle is green because it's shaded from too much light; if the light could get there, it would grow more. The top is browning from too much light; if it could be shaded, it would be green.

Of course you can't do both; it's either shaded or it's not. And that's what the chaeto study shows, that just 2 cm of thickness causes major alterations in growth.

 

[Ryanbrs]

@Ryanbrs Hey Ryan, would you say that forcing the chaetomorpha to rotate improves the results? My experience is that when I do not rotate the chaetomorpha the top will start loosing color and dying off leading to GHA to grow over he chaetomorpha. I was wondering what others opinions on this are.

If possible I would say rotating it is ideal but that's not realistic for most people with normal flow rates and normal amounts of cheato. I guess with something like a Gyre it could be done in a large fuge. Someone should design a cheato rotisserie : )

I have run into the GHA issue before but just manually removing it for a few weeks while the cheato gets going normaly eliminates that issue for me. Might want to try just flipping it from time to time.

As to the cheato bleaching, with higher power lights I have seen it turn light green but not white. I'll also note that it often looks white in the purple light many lights put off but under a full spectrum light it looks green. Like any other photosynthetic organism, I would absolutely acclimate it if you intend on using high PAR lighting. Switching from 100 par to 1500 par over night is very likely to produce negative results in a variety of ways. If you are having issues raise the light up a bit.

Lastly, I personally had very poor luck with a 24 hour photoperiod. Cheato didn't grow and there was a ton of GHA. A 12 on/ 12 off cycle worked a lot better and once the cheato covered the entire surface there was no GHA.