What do you feel is the best method of nutrient export that does not involve carbon dosing or water changes?

[Miller535]

What do you feel is the best method of reducing nutrients that is NOT carbon dosing or water changes. Water changes are a given, I am looking for export beyond that.

A little back story, I have a 125 gallon fowler tank (soon to be reef) that is about 7 years old. A few years ago NO3 and PO4 were getting high. I mean I think NO3 was like around 40 and PO4 was I think like 4, not .4 but 4. Had horrible algae issues. Started using biopellet reactor and gfo and stripped the tank of all nutrients and our little friends dinos and cyano creeped in. I think I finally just about beat the dinos. I am keeping NO3 around 10-13ppm and PO4 varies, I am still having to dose it to keep it detectable. Eventually that will level out. I actually have few fish for the size of my tank because over the last 2 or 3 years that I was having these issues, the few dish that died (that all were actually fairly old) I did not bother to replace them. Current stocking is 1 yellow tang that i would say is maybe 6" (he's about 7 years old). 1 male percula who is also about 7 years old. A pair of spotocintus clowns. And 1 coral beauty. So while I am stable at the moment, once I start adding some more fish, nutrients will go back up. I am considering setting up an old 29 gallon tank next to my 125, drilling the 29 gallon and plumbing it to my sump, and using it as a refugium.

Ok, now you know my back story. What is everyone's preferred method of nutrient export that is NOT carbon dosing, I want nothing to do with that again. And I do not want to rely just on water changes. So, algae scrubber, fuge, I want to hear them. And about the system you run them on, your bioload, and what your parameters are. Thank you

 

[sfairtx]

I like my algae scrubber. I have a 120 DT mixed reef 2 years old with 12 fish and a bunch of inverts. I feed 3-4 times a day and broadcast feed corals a few times a week. I try to keep both my nitrates and phosphates low. With the algae scrubber if they are getting too low (almost bottoming out) I can change the amount and duration of the light to slow down growth in the scrubber. Like anything else, tuning in to what you want/need it to do takes a bit but I have been running the scrubber now for over a year and really like it.

 

[Miller535]

I like my algae scrubber. I have a 120 DT mixed reef 2 years old with 12 fish and a bunch of inverts. I feed 3-4 times a day and broadcast feed corals a few times a week. I try to keep both my nitrates and phosphates low. With the algae scrubber if they are getting too low (almost bottoming out) I can change the amount and duration of the light to slow down growth in the scrubber. Like anything else, tuning in to what you want/need it to do takes a bit but I have been running the scrubber now for over a year and really like it.

Which scrubber to you have? Or do you have a DIY?

 

[Reefer1978]

I like my scrubber also. 302 aquatics - company went belly up and was involved in some scams, but it's on the system and works.

 

[Cwentz758]

With the extra tank I’d try the fuge. Scrubbers seem expensive when I fuge can be relatively inexpensive and do just as well

 

[sfairtx]

Which scrubber to you have? Or do you have a DIY?

I have the Rain2. It fits well into my sump. That was also a big factor for me.

 

[ReefGeezer]

Any method can bottom out N & P. You have to control and adjust the export to maintain a reasonable nutrient level regardless of the method chosen.

You might still get some algae in your display tank if you keep nutrient levels that are detectable with hobby grade kits. FOWLR system often have a lot of fish in them that limit clean crew possibilities. You might find you still need to control algae in the display. Using a method that reduces the algae itself rather than its nutrient source might also be beneficial. Products like Vibrant can do that. They work, but have some drawbacks. One is that they are not very compatible with fuges and ATS systems. Another is that it increases the likelihood of getting some Cyano in the early phases. This passes, but is still a concern for some.

You could use controllable methods like a Sulfur Denitrator for N & Lanthanum Chloride dosing for P. Both have a capacity to remove large quantities of nutrients. Both are advanced techniques and can be risky if not properly operated.

A large enough Cheato fuge will work but it might be more like a 40 breeder or larger for your system once it is fully stocked. A properly sized ATS will work too. IMO, they are expensive and higher maintenance though. Changing flow and lighting in can provide some control in either of these systems. There is little downside. They do take up a lot of space, produce some heat, and limit the use of products like Vibrant. If you're going to light a fuge anyway, a bunch of soft corals like toadstools, Xenia, and leather corals can work also.

FWIW, if the bioellet reactor was your only carbon dosing experience, you may be ruling out an effective and inexpensive option unnecessarily. Biopellet systems lack control capability and just suck in general. However, vinegar, vodka, or other carbon rich substances are pretty easy to administer and control... Reduce the dose if nutrients start getting too low & increase it up if nutrients start to rise.

 

[Indytraveler83]

For me a refugium has been the ultimate addition to my system. I use the biggest section of about a 25 gallon sump to grow caulipura (wish I went cheap) on a 90 gallon lps system. I fill a gallon bucket monthly with caulipura I remove, and it's kept my system stable.

It's also a very cheap way to go. Used a $15 led grow light and just have to export regularly.

 

[NS Mike D]

Cheato fuge hands down. ATS a very close second. I agree about proper sizing, but that is true of any method. What I like about both Cheato and ATS is they are self regulating. Nutrients drift up, the growth picks up. Nutrients drop low, they slow down. If they are too efficient, you can cut back you light schedule and of course running the lights reverse that the DT lights has additional benefits.

The only reason I would pick a cheato fuge over an ATS, is the benefit of the pods and other beneficial creatures that grow in the fuge.



One more point, I think the other methods do have their value in specific situations, My choice of macro algae is my long term stability preference (along with water changes, but the OP said no )

 

[KrisReef]

Protein Skimmer for my main display. Reef Octopus external.

 

[Indytraveler83]

Cheato fuge hands down. ATS a very close second. I agree about proper sizing, but that is true of any method. What I like about both Cheato and ATS is they are self regulating. Nutrients drift up, the growth picks up. Nutrients drop low, they slow down. If they are too efficient, you can cut back you light schedule and of course running the lights reverse that the DT lights has additional benefits.

The only reason I would pick a cheato fuge over an ATS, is the benefit of the pods and other beneficial creatures that grow in the fuge.



One more point, I think the other methods do have their value in specific situations, My choice of macro algae is my long term stability preference (along with water changes, but the OP said no )

You said it much better than me.

+1 on long term stability and being self regulating.

 

[Nathan Milender]

Not sure how you define good, but effective and cheap I would say a light in your fuge and a good skimmer which I assume you have. I have been running with that and my main issue is keeping nitrate and phosphate detectable. I have had to turn my skimmer off for a few hours a day. Another problem with this I have seen is as I have experimented with trying to increase nutrients I have had issues with algae explosions.

Vibrant has also been effective but I go back and forth trying to maintain nitrate and phos to prevent bleaching while not having algae issues.

If I was starting with a fish only high nitrate setup I would get the fuge algae going and harvest as needed. Algae scrubbers do the same but are just more expensive. If you do not have a fuge or room in yours, the scrubber would likely be cheaper than re-plumbing your entire setup. I would let that stabilize low and then add livestock slowing seeing how it accumulates. You will also want to at least get a daily replacement for alkalinity if you are thinking about coral. I am not entirely sure how, but algae explosions tend to consume a lot of bicarb in my system when they happen. If you settle this before coral the diatoms etc are not a big deal, just turn off your display lights for a few days.

 

[chefjpaul]

Macro algae

 

[NS Mike D]

There is an interesting thread in the chem forum that I think compliments this thread.

When we speak of nutrient export methods, I think it's important to discern between export to maintain a balance, versus export to fix a perceived imbalance.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying you should change you parameters. I'm saying that when you do decide they are suboptimal, changing them requires knowledge about how to do so, and if you have the appropriate knowledge and an appropriate target level, "chasing" that target is not going to cause problems.

How many times have you read an algae thread where by the end of the thread, between what the OP had already done and the recommendations of well intending members every method has been mentioned.

 

[ReefGeezer]

...How many times have you read an algae thread where by the end of the thread, between what the OP had already done and the recommendations of well intending members every method has been mentioned.

That's because every method works... for someone. Figuring out which will work to get parameters in line and then which will keep them there in a particular system is system's owner's (OP) job. Replies to the OP's question provide possibilities and maybe some insight as to strengths and weaknesses as we see them. The OP can pursue the options presented & ask more questions, or ignore them.

 

[Miller535]

Any method can bottom out N & P. You have to control and adjust the export to maintain a reasonable nutrient level regardless of the method chosen.

You might still get some algae in your display tank if you keep nutrient levels that are detectable with hobby grade kits. FOWLR system often have a lot of fish in them that limit clean crew possibilities. You might find you still need to control algae in the display. Using a method that reduces the algae itself rather than its nutrient source might also be beneficial. Products like Vibrant can do that. They work, but have some drawbacks. One is that they are not very compatible with fuges and ATS systems. Another is that it increases the likelihood of getting some Cyano in the early phases. This passes, but is still a concern for some.

You could use controllable methods like a Sulfur Denitrator for N & Lanthanum Chloride dosing for P. Both have a capacity to remove large quantities of nutrients. Both are advanced techniques and can be risky if not properly operated.

A large enough Cheato fuge will work but it might be more like a 40 breeder or larger for your system once it is fully stocked. A properly sized ATS will work too. IMO, they are expensive and higher maintenance though. Changing flow and lighting in can provide some control in either of these systems. There is little downside. They do take up a lot of space, produce some heat, and limit the use of products like Vibrant. If you're going to light a fuge anyway, a bunch of soft corals like toadstools, Xenia, and leather corals can work also.

FWIW, if the bioellet reactor was your only carbon dosing experience, you may be ruling out an effective and inexpensive option unnecessarily. Biopellet systems lack control capability and just suck in general. However, vinegar, vodka, or other carbon rich substances are pretty easy to administer and control... Reduce the dose if nutrients start getting too low & increase it up if nutrients start to rise.

You make some valid points

 

[Miller535]

So I guess to clarify, I do water changes, and will continue to do so. I do 20% every other week. But I expect that eventually that alone will not keep up. Definitely looks like algae scrubber or refugium are the best contenders.

Someone back a few comments said the 29 gallon wasn't big enough. I thought the Triton method so many people swear by claimed 25% of tank volume was needed. So a 29 gallon would be at 23% pretty close. Am I wrong on the percentage that works?

 

[ReefGeezer]

...Am I wrong on the percentage that works?

It was my comment. You aren't wrong about being pretty close to the Triton recommendation. I should have said bigger would be better. FOWLR tanks are often stocked way higher than reefs where the Triton Method is being employed.

 

[Miller535]

It was my comment. You aren't wrong about being pretty close to the Triton recommendation. I should have said bigger would be better. FOWLR tanks are often stocked way higher than reefs where the Triton Method is being employed.

Ok. I was considering the 29 just because I already have it and a stand for it. And like I said I'm pretty lightly stocked. And I only intend to add a few more fish. I had a red lined wrasse for years that I loved. I'd like to get another. And maybe a couple Anthias, as possibly another blenny

 

[BayouReefer]

I highly recommend the Algae scrubber. I have a 125 gallon mixed reef display tank with a 40 gallon sump. I bought the Clearwater algae scrubber this thing works great I hit the feed button on it, pull the screen scrape it then put it back in every 2 weeks. It has lowered my Nitrates and phosphates at 8 and .3 respectively. I also run a skimmer and a Calcium Reactor. I do not dose anything. Good luck with your decision. Research all and pick what works best for you.