Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
papagimp
COMAS Rocks!
Had to remake the slot tube section due to the slot being slightly too long and dribbling water outside of the splash guard. I thought my last slot was 'good enough' but now this thing has a beautiful "sheet" of water right down the entire thing. Big improvement, only difference was I didn't measure the thing, just sortof eyeballed a straight line and now this lol. Already see every inch of roughed up screen covered in a brown/green color already, very light but noticeable. I'm looking at the screen like I do my frags now... it's like a new level of nerdom.
srusso
Active member
Allow me some time to go and collect my research, I have a family and a full time job, cant drop everything I am doing for your post. I am not doing anything to spread misinformation, I like you do my research. Also the debate of trace elements is not one sided, I assure you, google it. Even though I AGREE with you, trace elements are needed. I just disagree with the current standard method of delivering, said trace elements.
Also I was not saying the algae scrubber will some how create trace elements, feeding high quality food will supply all living creatures in the tank with the trace elements needed. Something we scrubber folk can do a lot of...
Please don't be the person jumping on the thread, accusing people you don't know of being buck hungry, or that I am spreading false info. You could ask me in a polite way, "why do you feel that wc are not needed?" but that's not what you typed...
And if you want to have a skimmer and a scrubber... What the heck do I care?! Go ahead!
But really what proof do you have that algae scrubbers don't work as a sole filtration?
"your friends tank, that crashed..." come on!
Barfly
Custom User Title
LOL, I never asked you to drop anything for my post. I asked you a couple of questions. And btw, the persons whose tank crashed was a big contributor to this thread and preached all the things that most "chemists" and "marine biologists" warned against. IMO, his tank crashed because he no longer did water changes, took his skimmer offline (he was very proud of this), and he ridiculously overfed. Oh, and btw, he owned a SM100.
Most people who know the whole story from the beginning are of the opinion SM had commercial intentions. Be that as it may...
Back to the subject a hand. From my understanding of your reply, your saying that you replenish trace elements using the food supply. Ok, let's assume that's even possible.
How are you testing for these trace elements to be sure you are not overdosing one or more?
What kind of food or additives are you using to replace these trace elements?
Last edited:
srusso
Active member
Please do share this persons name... Maybe he/she made a mistake, an SM100 needs a lot of flow. Maybe the problem was not related to his scrubber... Nothing factual from this story, other then a tank that had an algae scrubber crashed.
I would love to know how you test for trace elements... it is widely known that most people cant test this... So how is that any different? WC or Food? How do you know how much water needs changing if you cant test? Heck how do you even know that salt mix your buying even contains the amount of "trace elements" in the mix it advertises? You can't... But we do have one fact... salt mixes are notorious for having lower cal, alk or mag than advertised. So if they cant get the basic elements we CAN test for... who know about the ones we cant... However we are talking about "trace" minerals here, are you sure the scoop you take from your bucket of salt contains the right mixture?
Lets apply logic here, if a living creature needs trace elements, is it more likely to obtain this from a random molecule drifting in the water that they just happen to take in... OR from the food they so diligently seek out and require to survive?
It is called a "FOOD CHAIN".... isnt it?
Last edited:
JohnnyB in SD
New member
I respect srusso and the work he's done to help myself & others implement ATS filtration.
He's never once told anyone to stop doing water changes and turn their skimmers off that I know of.
I wish him the best with his overall strategy and hope it works out well for him.
I'm very satisfied with the results of ATS filtration. My choice is to continue water changes and skimming in a reduced capacity.
He's never once told anyone to stop doing water changes and turn their skimmers off that I know of.
I wish him the best with his overall strategy and hope it works out well for him.
I'm very satisfied with the results of ATS filtration. My choice is to continue water changes and skimming in a reduced capacity.
Barfly
Custom User Title
Such a long post to not even answer my questions.
BTW, most reputable synthetic salt makers can and do test for the trace elements that we hobbyists can't afford to. I use the esv 4 part salt mix so I am not concerned that my levels of trace elements are correct. There are also plenty of salt mixes that have more than adequate ca and mg levels.
Again I ask, how do you know you are not overdosing certain elements?
You alluded to the fact that you replace your needed trace elements through high quality foods. What is this high quality trace element replacing food that you are using?
And to be clear, I am not against the implementation of an ATS as a component of the filtration system, just some of the misinformation found throughout this thread.
SPotter
Active member
JohnnyB in SD
New member
I think debates about trace elements belong in the Advanced ATS thread or PM's, not here.
barfly,
you seem to be knowledgeable of the bad effects of using an ATS as sole filtration, can you please point me to a scientific study that discusses this?
I want to read and learn about it since ATS is my only form of filtration, i would certainly like to prevent my tank from crashing.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
you seem to be knowledgeable of the bad effects of using an ATS as sole filtration, can you please point me to a scientific study that discusses this?
I want to read and learn about it since ATS is my only form of filtration, i would certainly like to prevent my tank from crashing.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
srusso
Active member
Lets have a look at this...
2004 Advanced Aquarist Feature Article: A Chemical Analysis of Select Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater
By Timothy A. Hovanec, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Coshland
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/9/aafeature
"Eight commercially available synthetic sea salts (SSS), Instant Ocean (IO), BioSea Marine Mix (BSMM), Crystal Seas Marine Mix Bioassay (CSMMB), Coralife (CL), Tropic Marin (TM), Reef Crystals (RC), Red Sea (RS) and Oceanic Sea Salt (OSS), and two natural seawater samples Catalina Water Company (CWC) and unfiltered seawater (NSW-M) collected from Malibu State Beach, CA, were analyzed via ICP-MS for eleven trace elements and by ICP-MS/DRC for four other trace elements. The majority of the SSS examined had trace element concentrations at values equal to or below those for natural seawater. The trace elements beryllium, cobalt and copper were below the limit of detection for all samples. Silver and Thallium were detected only in OSS. CSMMB was the only SSS with a detectable level of aluminum (10 ppb) but NSW had the largest amount (20 ppb). Cadmium was detected in only two samples: TM (0.31 ppb) and BSMM (0.24 ppb). Zinc was found in four samples: CWC with the highest value (21 ppb) followed by RS (5 ppb), TM (4.1 ppb) and CL (2.9 ppb). Vanadium was detected in four SSS (TM, RC, OSS and CSMMB) but the levels were lower than NSW at 2.0 ppb. Trace amounts (<1 ppb) of chromium were found in five SSS (IO, RC, OSS, RS, and CSMMB) but a sixth (BSMM) contained 27 ppb. Lead was found in six SSS (TM, OSS, RS, CL, CSMMB and BSMM) at various levels below 2 ppb, however, CWC had concentration of 39 ppb. The remaining trace elements (antimony, manganese, molybdenum and nickel) were detected in all the samples at levels generally at or below that of NSW-M except for one SSS. BSMM had significantly higher concentrations of all these trace elements: (Sb-3.5 ppb; Mn-135 ppb, Mo-87 ppb and Ni-108 ppb) compared to all other samples tested. In terms of the total amount of trace elements detected, three SSS (TM, IO and RC) formed a group with levels below 33 ppb while another three (OSS, RS and CL) had a total concentration near 40 ppb. These two groups of SSS had lower total levels of trace elements than NSW-M and CWC. Of the remaining SSS, CSMMB (58.21 ppb) was higher than NSW-M (44.68 ppb) but lower than CWC (73.78 ppb). The last SSS, BSMM, had a total trace element concentration of over 361 ppb. "
Seems to me that we have some variation from brand to brand, and from NSW... but I guess a little should be expected... lets read on
"However, some elements may fall into two of the three classifications above. For instance, depending upon water depth, copper and iron are both recycled and scavenged (Kremling et. al. 1999). These two elements are depleted in surface waters due to the high productivity associated with this zone of maximum sunlight penetration, and so algae growth, but then their concentrations increase with depth as they are recycled from the decay of marine snow."
So trace elements are found to be "depleted" in some depths and not in deeper depths... interesting... what depth level of trace elements is your salt mix set for? What depth is your tank simulating?
So lets have a look at this picture of a coral lagoon... these corals seems to be growing well, in what should be considered a "depleted" zone...
And the best quote yet, we read...
"Unfortunately, no research exists on the potentially positive or negative effects of low amounts of various trace elements in aquaria. Indeed, for many years several manufacturers of synthetic sea salts, in order to provide a complete formula, added or separately provided trace elements to their basic formula (Anonymous 1985, 1990). In recent years, however, this practice has nearly stopped as it was realized that many trace elements are naturally present in low quantities in the major chemical compounds, such as sodium chloride, magnesium chloride and sodium sulfate, used to make synthetic sea salts."
.
.
.
.
.
.
:dance:
2004 Advanced Aquarist Feature Article: A Chemical Analysis of Select Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater
By Timothy A. Hovanec, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Coshland
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/9/aafeature
"Eight commercially available synthetic sea salts (SSS), Instant Ocean (IO), BioSea Marine Mix (BSMM), Crystal Seas Marine Mix Bioassay (CSMMB), Coralife (CL), Tropic Marin (TM), Reef Crystals (RC), Red Sea (RS) and Oceanic Sea Salt (OSS), and two natural seawater samples Catalina Water Company (CWC) and unfiltered seawater (NSW-M) collected from Malibu State Beach, CA, were analyzed via ICP-MS for eleven trace elements and by ICP-MS/DRC for four other trace elements. The majority of the SSS examined had trace element concentrations at values equal to or below those for natural seawater. The trace elements beryllium, cobalt and copper were below the limit of detection for all samples. Silver and Thallium were detected only in OSS. CSMMB was the only SSS with a detectable level of aluminum (10 ppb) but NSW had the largest amount (20 ppb). Cadmium was detected in only two samples: TM (0.31 ppb) and BSMM (0.24 ppb). Zinc was found in four samples: CWC with the highest value (21 ppb) followed by RS (5 ppb), TM (4.1 ppb) and CL (2.9 ppb). Vanadium was detected in four SSS (TM, RC, OSS and CSMMB) but the levels were lower than NSW at 2.0 ppb. Trace amounts (<1 ppb) of chromium were found in five SSS (IO, RC, OSS, RS, and CSMMB) but a sixth (BSMM) contained 27 ppb. Lead was found in six SSS (TM, OSS, RS, CL, CSMMB and BSMM) at various levels below 2 ppb, however, CWC had concentration of 39 ppb. The remaining trace elements (antimony, manganese, molybdenum and nickel) were detected in all the samples at levels generally at or below that of NSW-M except for one SSS. BSMM had significantly higher concentrations of all these trace elements: (Sb-3.5 ppb; Mn-135 ppb, Mo-87 ppb and Ni-108 ppb) compared to all other samples tested. In terms of the total amount of trace elements detected, three SSS (TM, IO and RC) formed a group with levels below 33 ppb while another three (OSS, RS and CL) had a total concentration near 40 ppb. These two groups of SSS had lower total levels of trace elements than NSW-M and CWC. Of the remaining SSS, CSMMB (58.21 ppb) was higher than NSW-M (44.68 ppb) but lower than CWC (73.78 ppb). The last SSS, BSMM, had a total trace element concentration of over 361 ppb. "
Seems to me that we have some variation from brand to brand, and from NSW... but I guess a little should be expected... lets read on
"However, some elements may fall into two of the three classifications above. For instance, depending upon water depth, copper and iron are both recycled and scavenged (Kremling et. al. 1999). These two elements are depleted in surface waters due to the high productivity associated with this zone of maximum sunlight penetration, and so algae growth, but then their concentrations increase with depth as they are recycled from the decay of marine snow."
So trace elements are found to be "depleted" in some depths and not in deeper depths... interesting... what depth level of trace elements is your salt mix set for? What depth is your tank simulating?
So lets have a look at this picture of a coral lagoon... these corals seems to be growing well, in what should be considered a "depleted" zone...
And the best quote yet, we read...
"Unfortunately, no research exists on the potentially positive or negative effects of low amounts of various trace elements in aquaria. Indeed, for many years several manufacturers of synthetic sea salts, in order to provide a complete formula, added or separately provided trace elements to their basic formula (Anonymous 1985, 1990). In recent years, however, this practice has nearly stopped as it was realized that many trace elements are naturally present in low quantities in the major chemical compounds, such as sodium chloride, magnesium chloride and sodium sulfate, used to make synthetic sea salts."
.
.
.
.
.
.
:dance:
Last edited:
srusso
Active member
I am answering your question, with a question... How do you know?
High quality food naturally contains the trace elements... we can discuss this off line in PM or in a different thread, start one and send me the link. we can go into great lengths how good quality food has changed this industry. In most cases being the driving factor in making it even possible to start producing sustainable fish breeding efforts.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
The food I feed is a DIY food that contains several different types of raw seafood, such as shrimp, scallops, octopus, squid, cod, and blended oysters, as well as frozen prepared food such as mysis shrimp, spirulina brine shrimp, bloodworms, cyclopeeze, and krill, and then has several coral additives such as Reef Chili, ZoPlan, PhytoPlan, and Coral Frenzy, as well as Nori. Then it also contains Selcon, Marine C, and Garlic. From what I've read about these products, this type of food supply much if not all of the nutrients and corals need to thrive, as well as many trace elements.
It is known (and has been known for quite a long time) that algae does provide a wide array of various compounds that are beneficial to aquatic life.
As far as studies go, I have to say that there have been few to no scientific studies about the positive or negative effects of algae scrubbers on marine or freshwater environments. I would say none that I know of. It's one of the reasons why I hesitate to tell someone flat out to do this of that. Only you know your system best.
However, on the flipside of the "study" coin, while there may be many studies on the effects of other forms of filtration, many of them are inconsistent at best and some are highly conflicting. Some techniques work great on one tank and epically fail on another. Many of these failures can be attributed to a lack of understanding of the basic principles behind a system and what to look for if something should start to go awry. So when someone's tank crashes, it's really hard to say what caused it in most cases, since the marine aquaria can be a very complex system.
I know of one example where someone moved a tank that was running multiple scrubbers, and everything was fine until a few weeks after the move, and then everything took a nose dive. Corals started dying, nuisance algae showed up, to no avail. Simply re-arranging your rock in your tank or moving powerheads around to change a long-term established flow pattern can result in a die-off of life colonies that relied of their relative position in the system. Corals can initial chemical warfare that brings about a cascade response and take an entire system down. Those are things that most people don't take into consideration. Blaming one part of a complex system is like blaming cholesterol for hardened arteries, when it's really just doing it's job, and a symptom of somethings else that is out of whack. Not the best comparison, but hopefully you get my point.
For the average aquarist, a combination of filtration techniques is usually the best route. Finding the right combination that works for you is an individual choice.
As far as water changes go, many people consider a 5%-10% PWC a month enough to replace trace elements. And maybe they like to clean up the sand a bit. That's fair enough, and I'm not going to try to convince anyone otherwise. My position on PWCs with an algae scrubber system is that they are not needed to reduce N and P as long as N and P are within your preferred tolerance range (that is, if the algae scrubber is doing it's job).
As for me, I've done a couple 15-20% PWCs in the last year, but mainly as a 'last resort' to try and solve an issue, or during a tank move (which I had to do twice in 3 days on the current system).
By the way MACNA is totally frickin' awesome. I met Brett from Tanked and talked to him for on and off for about an hour, then sat down with the LA FishGuys after his presentation for about an hour, and sat with them during the reception tonight. They're are all exactly like they are on TV/YouTube.
A big thanks to Reef Central for sponsoring the reception! The wife is mad that I stayed so late!
It is known (and has been known for quite a long time) that algae does provide a wide array of various compounds that are beneficial to aquatic life.
As far as studies go, I have to say that there have been few to no scientific studies about the positive or negative effects of algae scrubbers on marine or freshwater environments. I would say none that I know of. It's one of the reasons why I hesitate to tell someone flat out to do this of that. Only you know your system best.
However, on the flipside of the "study" coin, while there may be many studies on the effects of other forms of filtration, many of them are inconsistent at best and some are highly conflicting. Some techniques work great on one tank and epically fail on another. Many of these failures can be attributed to a lack of understanding of the basic principles behind a system and what to look for if something should start to go awry. So when someone's tank crashes, it's really hard to say what caused it in most cases, since the marine aquaria can be a very complex system.
I know of one example where someone moved a tank that was running multiple scrubbers, and everything was fine until a few weeks after the move, and then everything took a nose dive. Corals started dying, nuisance algae showed up, to no avail. Simply re-arranging your rock in your tank or moving powerheads around to change a long-term established flow pattern can result in a die-off of life colonies that relied of their relative position in the system. Corals can initial chemical warfare that brings about a cascade response and take an entire system down. Those are things that most people don't take into consideration. Blaming one part of a complex system is like blaming cholesterol for hardened arteries, when it's really just doing it's job, and a symptom of somethings else that is out of whack. Not the best comparison, but hopefully you get my point.
For the average aquarist, a combination of filtration techniques is usually the best route. Finding the right combination that works for you is an individual choice.
As far as water changes go, many people consider a 5%-10% PWC a month enough to replace trace elements. And maybe they like to clean up the sand a bit. That's fair enough, and I'm not going to try to convince anyone otherwise. My position on PWCs with an algae scrubber system is that they are not needed to reduce N and P as long as N and P are within your preferred tolerance range (that is, if the algae scrubber is doing it's job).
As for me, I've done a couple 15-20% PWCs in the last year, but mainly as a 'last resort' to try and solve an issue, or during a tank move (which I had to do twice in 3 days on the current system).
By the way MACNA is totally frickin' awesome. I met Brett from Tanked and talked to him for on and off for about an hour, then sat down with the LA FishGuys after his presentation for about an hour, and sat with them during the reception tonight. They're are all exactly like they are on TV/YouTube.
A big thanks to Reef Central for sponsoring the reception! The wife is mad that I stayed so late!
Thatgrimguy
New member
You mentioned earlier that you are still doing water changes. You are at no risk. Don't worry. It's the people who stop all other forms of export, if anyone that crash. That said, SantaMonica has gone like 5 years with nothing but a scrubber and inland aquatics is at like 19 years with no water changes....
IMO, as long as you keep doing some water changes or other form of export you are decreasing the chances of a crash. Diversity and redundancy are great things in this hobby. A scrubber it's self does nothing negative to your tank. It's hobbyists that make mistakes and look for a place to point the blame that are having these types of crashes. A scrubber is a a great sole filtration method, just don't make it your only form of export. Same as a skimmer, it works fine but it shouldn't be your only line of defense. In your case a water change every couple months will probably be more than you even need!
Barfly doesn't have a link like you asked for. Because no such anecdotal evidence exists. You will see FloydRTurbo and Srusso throw up real research much quicker. Algae scrubbers aren't the problem, overzealous hobbyists that don't fully understand and properly implement new concepts are.
Rabidgoose
New member
srusso;
The above post is in response to your advise to use T5's. It got missed and I am hoping for another option with lighting other than purchasing T5's.
thanks......chuck
JohnnyB in SD
New member
The best way to use CFL's is sideways like srusso has them in Post#2. But enhance the drop light with some reflective material.
A clever person could probably fabricate side reflectors instead of going out to buy some. I think some guys have posted such some where within the 2300 odd ones in this thread.
But IMO T5's are the way to go if you can. I'm doing mine with used retro parts I've picked up through local selling forums.
A clever person could probably fabricate side reflectors instead of going out to buy some. I think some guys have posted such some where within the 2300 odd ones in this thread.
But IMO T5's are the way to go if you can. I'm doing mine with used retro parts I've picked up through local selling forums.
Similar threads
