A Reefaholic's 1000+ Gallon Mixed Reef System Build

[SPotter]

What are you saying.....man......:uhoh2:

Algae Truf Scrubbers in not good for SPS tank. you made me worry. I planned and design my plumbing to feed ATS..... I hope you don't mind and with your permission I will quote your post on my thread, want to know more about ATS. will it good for my new system...

I tell you what. In my previous 300Gallong Mixed reef Tank. I keep open 80W 6500K bulb on sump for 24/7. to doing this, it grow a lot of different algae in the sump, all Cyno moved on the area which was receiving strong light all the time. DT was quite clean. no single sign of Cyno and algae on the sand and rocks.

After looking your thread I made plan to make algae scrubber, but I got confuse.....:crazy1:

any other suggestion?

I think its difficult to judge to the effectiveness of a scrubber on a new system or one that does not have a lot of bio load to it. Keep in mind that one of the main ingredients to a succesful scrubber is feeding the tank which in turn feeds the scrubber. If you are not feeding the tank at all or enough you wont get the results that others get with their scrubbers. My LED scrubber has been running now for about 6 weeks on a very new system. I am just now starting to see good growth on the screens as my feeding has increased with the addition of more corals and fish. I had success with my first scrubber and keeping sps but that scrubber was only running for a short period of time before I upgraded my tank so I dont have long term feed back on the effectiveness of scrubbers and sps dominant tanks.

I will say that in my new tank my sps are flourishing but will not say that its solely because of the scrubber. A succesful sps tank is the combination of many things...proper lighting, excellent water quality, flow..etc. I will NEVER decommission my skimmer as some of the reefers in the scrubber community have done. As Dustin has stated a few times here....the scrubber is a piece of equipment that is an alternative to running media reactors. I do believe that a properly constructed, sized and fed scrubber over time will produce excellent results in a tank.

 

[Dustin1300]

Completely agree with all of Steve's statements above. Long term success is going to be the key and just think many are not willing to be a guinneau pig in the SPS community. A good article that makes you wonder about the effectiveness of algae for nutrient export can be found at the following link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/11/1108628108.full.pdf

This is not something exclusive to an ATS either, it's just about the affect of algae on reef corals.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

I skimmed that article, and I recall reading another one like it, and also a video on YouTube at some point that mentioned the same thing that was dealing with red turf algae. This article applies to algae that is in direct contact with algae. Admittedly I did not have time to read the whole article in depth, but the terms "direct contact" and "abrasion" were quite frequent. IIRC the video I mentioned also had a secondary part that showed that when a barrier was placed between the coral and the algae, there were no such bleaching or detrimental effects. I remember this specifically because early on in some scrubber threads, people posted that video as the "gotcha" but neglected to watch the whole thing to find out that it wasn't the algae, but the proximity/direct contact that mattered.

So not to go way off topic here, but just wanted to point out that this study has it's validity but not when applied to the algae scrubber. The purpose of the algae scrubber is to grow algae remote from the coral colonies in order to improve water quality and this also reduces/eliminates the growth of algae occurring in damaging proximity to the corals. The presence of algae somewhere in the system does not correlate to damage/bleaching of corals, only when it is in direct contact as the study repeatedly states.

As far as a lack of people running a scrubber-only SPS tank, I think you are right, the mindset when someone is going for a heavy SPS tank is to do what everyone else has done which has been proven to work because they don't want to be the guinea pig, and no one who has a successful heavy-SPS tank wishes to try something new if nothing is wrong, so there you are.

I'm sure that over time there will be more scrubber-based SPS tanks. Really if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense, leave all the food in the water for as long as possible and let the scrubber just take out the waste. Food density in the ocean is extremely high, in heavily skimmed tanks it is low, yet both work. Scrubber is in between the two, operated correctly you can feed more and keep everything in check. Keeping the water pristine and chemical levels right is the key and heavy feeding in a closed system makes this difficult.

 

[Dustin1300]

Bud, I appreciate the response and would say the article is not exclusively stating that the coral/algae have to be in direct contact. Quoting from the article:

Recent field studies suggest that macroalgae may
damage corals by (i) shading and abrasion (15), (ii) vectoring of
coral disease (16), (iii) release of water-soluble compounds that
stimulate harmful, coral-associated microbes (17), or (iv) transfer
of hydrophobic allelochemicals by direct contact

Of the above four damaging "theories", one referenced is not in relation to the direct contact but the other three were as Bud stated. Whether the release of these "water-soluble compounds that stimulate harmful coral-associated microbes" have an effect on the whole system or if this theory is true is an unknown. So many factors, arguments, and opinions exists in this hobby.....Developing your own un-biased theory based on research and as much evidence of published articles is of the utmost importance. We'll just say that our little slice of the ocean is one big science experiment, we're all geeks here and it's fascinating to try to keep these beautiful specimens in our households:twitch:

Whether this article is accurate or not, I'm not sure but is something that got my wheels turning. I'd just say that it's another factor to consider but how long have you seen beautiful LPS, Softies, Zoanthid, and SPS reefs that have macroalgaes growing in a remote fuge? More often than not, you see them and see them often so that's why I can say I don't fully agree/support the article.

As I said earlier, not many SPS dominated tanks exists in the hobby which run an ATS but they do exist, just check out the TOTM from March where the member ran an ATS. He also runs skimmers and other means of filtration. No single piece of equipment produces a perfect reef as it takes several different components and a good deal of husbandry from the reefkeeper Happy Reefing!

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

I think we're pretty much on the same page. I don't think any formal study has been done examining the Algae Scrubber on a reef system, IMO it has a particular set of circumstances that differs enough to invalidate most assumptions and conclusions of other similar studies. If I ever come across some quit-your-job money and get bored I would like to develop such a study, I don't think anyone else is going to do it 'cause there's no $ in it LOL.

That TOTM scrubber has so many things wrong with the design that I just have to hold my tongue. Not a good example of an efficient system, which is why all the other stuff is needed, but it is a good example of using all facets of filtration to achieve and end goal.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Here's a good one to look at

Study shows that corals prefer to grow touching turf

Note: Scrubbers are supposed to grow green hair, which is not covered in this study. But many people still think that scrubbers grow turf, and this study does include the amount of microbes related to turf. Brackets "[ ]" added.


"Microbial to reef scale interactions between the reef-building coral Montastraea annularis and benthic algae", Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, Nov 2011

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/11/15/rspb.2011.2155.short

Page 2, Col 1, (a)

"This study was conducted on the island of Curacao, former Netherlands Antilles"

Page 4, Col 2, (b)...

The [...] coral-associated bacterial communities increased in tissues near [coralline] and [dictyota], but decreased for coral tissue adjacent to [halimeda] or turf algae.

Page 5, Col 1...

We found [anaerobic microbes] present in coral tissue near or at interfaces with three of the four groups of algae: 8.5 percent relative abundance at [coralline] interfaces; 2.2 percent relative abundance near [dictyota] interfaces, 2 percent relative abundance near [halimeda] interfaces; but absent near and at interfaces with turf algae.

Page 5, Col 2, (c)...

Every coral colony observed [on the natural Curacao reef] was interacting with at least one type of alga, with an average of 61 to 80 percent of the coral perimeter involved in any type of algal interaction. Interactions with turf algae were the most abundant, accounting for 32 to 58 percent of the coral edge. [In other words, the corals grew this way, touching the algae, naturally. And more of them grew and reproduced while actually touching turf algae, than grew anywhere else.]

Page 7, Col 1...

This study is the first to identify the types of bacteria present along coral-algal interactions, and we find that bacterial stress response pathways were reduced at coral interfaces with [coralline], [dictyota] and turf algae.

 

[Dustin1300]

That TOTM scrubber has so many things wrong with the design that I just have to hold my tongue. Not a good example of an efficient system, which is why all the other stuff is needed, but it is a good example of using all facets of filtration to achieve and end goal.

It is quite off the mark but would be nice to harness the power of the sun to provide some nearly free filtration outside of pump purchase/running costs. While the design of the ATS is not great, I agree with the philosophy of using the ATS as a supplemental filtration in my system in the future. To keep SPS and more delicate corals, it would be a challenge to keep a high bioload and low nitrate/phosphate tank.

For me the goal of the ATS is as follows:
- Come up with design which is enclosed using a 3d ats and LEDs to drive down the running costs and bulb replacement. (When buying everything for my system, I'm trying to ensure I always consider running cost)
- Be able to feed tank heavily while keeping nitrates at acceptable levels
- Eliminate the need to purchase GFO
- Eliminate some water changes, not skip water changes as I believe many trace elements and PWCs are beneficial to a system.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

I don't think you have to come up with a design, I can point you to a dozen of these. You just have to build one. If you know anything about acrylic (which I know you do) it's pretty simple. I'm building 3 waterfall scrubbers for tanks I maintain (box is almost identical to the UAS I built for testing that concept out), black acrylic box with oversized heat sinks so no active cooling and they also block the rest of the light from the LEDs, if you needed one bigger you just expand the dimensions to match a larger heat sink.

As for reducing N, N have never ever been a problem for me.

P however is a different story, this has to do with the redfield ratio. What myself and others have encountered is that since there is naturally occurring denitrification in a system, and the food you feed has N and P at the redfield ratio, which is the same ratio at which algae absorbs N and P, if something else is taking N, then the scrubber will pull down N to zero (unless the tank is over-fed) and then P will cease to get absorbed. Now you would think that P would then spin out of control, but in my experience, it doesn't quite do that. When I moved the tank contents and had the scrubber offline for a week, when I installed it, N and P quickly dropped to zero, then over time P crept up but it wasn't a straight-line curve, it levelled off and doesn't seem to budge past a certain point, but won't get pulled down below a certain point either.

So the solution is to either add Nitrate (plant fert, Calcium Nitrate) or run a very small amount of GFO. Very small, and not for long, maybe an hour a day, or once every couple days or once a week, etc, for just long enough to pull it down to zero, you want P to drop out but not to the point there when food is added it gets taken down to zero leaving the N to now rise because there's no P to go with the N to let the algae grow. you always want some N and P.

All that said, some people have N=0 and P=0 but I think they're not testing with a Hanna Checker or anything, just API or even Salifert both of which are worthless for P<0.25 IMO.

+1 on PWCs for trace, I've flip flopped either way on this, feed a high-quality DIY food and you get all your trace, but PWCs might give something else, who really knows so whatever works best for you, go with it. I don't do them but mainly because I don't have the time and everything looks good so I don't touch it.

But everything you are saying a scrubber can do, and it has been proven over and over. High bioload, low N, low P, if these are the main criteria you are using, it's a slam dunk except for the potential of the rising P issue which is easily solved.

So I'm curious as to why you think it is a goal that needs to be attained?

 

[Dustin1300]

So I'm curious as to why you think it is a goal that needs to be attained?

I don't think it's a goal, but some need to use an ATS from square one and show the effectiveness of an ATS in a SPS tank. I know from my research on the topic, I had a hard time finding ATSs on SPS tanks.

The goals I earlier outlined are goals that I want the ATS to meet. I scrapped my first design of the ATS because 1) I'm not feeding enough, 2) was too big/obstructive/maintenance was not easy and 3) it was overkill for the system that is currently up and running. I'd like to design a scalable design that I can put in place for now and when I add the big tank in the next ~6 months it can handle the bioload.

 

[Dustin1300]

PAR Meter Time!

PAR Meter Time!

I picked up the PAR Meter from INDMAS club member yesterday and am starting to play with it tonight. I did some quick tests but I've got other things to do for the rest of the week and will likely do full testing with pictures and the PAR numbers graphed out this Sunday. PAR Meter is an Apogee QMSW-SS and I'm using electric mode.

First off, I did some quick testing of the Orphek DIF-50 which is mounted 12.5" above the water surface. It is 100% as this particular unit is ON/OFF:

Surface - 370
6" below water surface - 170
13.5" below water surface on egg crate - 110

18 Watt Ecoxotic Par38 LED with Red/White/Blue which is mounted 10.5" above my water surface of Frag QT:

Surface - 690
6" below water surface - 240
12" below water surface on egg crate - 130

Apollo SolarBlast Dimable which is currently mounted 10.5" above water surface (Below one is dimmed and other is 100%):

Apollo at 50% Whites and 60% Blues/UVs
Surface - 700
6" below water surface - Forgot and now my RAMP program is running...
13.5" below water surface on egg crate - 200

Apollo at 100% on Whites/Blues/UVs
Surface - 1210
6" below water surface - 550
13.5" below water surface on egg crate - 390

I'm really satisfied with the PAR readings I'm getting from the Apollo. At this point I don't think I'll ever need to have them at 100% on my frag tank and if I end up going that route on the DT, I might just have to play with the mounting height. This was just quick testing and I will get a full test posted with pictures and detailed results within the week:bounce1:

 

[drummereef]

Man, those results are great. The Apollo just went BOOM on the competition. Not exactly direct competition I suppose but still, the Apollo's PAR results are impressive indeed.

 

[Dustin1300]

Man, those results are great. The Apollo just went BOOM on the competition. Not exactly direct competition I suppose but still, the Apollo's PAR results are impressive indeed.

Agreed, either one is direct competition. The DIF 50 is not as bright as the DIF 100 so I'm not signing it off. As far as the Apollo, I can't wait until I have a good amount of time to document all the PAR readings and take pics so others can see. I did not do a lot of testing on spread but visually it seems like the PAR readings are going to be pretty descent 30"X30" I'd say.

 

[Dustin1300]

This weekend was much busier than I expected and this week I'll be in and out of office at a conference....Hopefully one night I'll be home and can actually do some measurements

 

[Dustin1300]

Last night I found some time to do some of my testing. I did tests of a 24"X36" area at surface, 6" down, and at the egg crate which is ~13" down. I am doing a grid of tests at 25 different sample points for all three depths and just got 150 samples last night between the 8" and 10" mounting height. Tonight I hope to do 12" and 14" testing and then I'll have a good sample of data so I can write up a full review of the Apollo. I'll likely make another posting in the equipment forums as I feel this fixture is not getting as much recognition as it should. I'm thoroughly impressed with the build quality and numbers I'm getting so far. For a $400 it is a PAR monster and has quite a good spread.

 

[Newbie Aquarist]

Nice pickups you have Dustin. Will be watching on how those Apollos are doing. Great job. I am addicted to Euphyllias as well.

 

[Dustin1300]

Thanks! I got the other 150 PAR tests completed last night. The next few days I will compile the data and build up some graphs rather than 300 PAR readings on a spreadsheet

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[Newbie Aquarist]

Thanks! I got the other 150 PAR tests completed last night. The next few days I will compile the data and build up some graphs rather than 300 PAR readings on a spreadsheet

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Will that include the height above the water for the desired par readings depending on what type of reef the hobbyist wants or is that to much work?

 

[Dustin1300]

Will that include the height above the water for the desired par readings depending on what type of reef the hobbyist wants or is that to much work?

I did 75 PAR readings over a 36"X24" area and at mounting heights of 8", 10", 12", and 14" above the water surface. (Apollo recommends 8-14" above water so was not going to do readings every inch)

 

[SPotter]

I did 75 PAR readings over a 36"X24" area and at mounting heights of 8", 10", 12", and 14" above the water surface. (Apollo recommends 8-14" above water so was not going to do readings every inch)

Come on....I think if this is going to be a thorough study you need to take readings every inch :uzi:

 

[Dustin1300]

Come on....I think if this is going to be a thorough study you need to take readings every inch :uzi:

I'll do that if you really want. :thumbdown