Algae Scrubber Basics

[Floyd R Turbo]

I don't think I recall this ever being addressed over on the other board. The only thing that I recall being discussed regarding tank light levels, and only recently, is regarding systems running sole scrubber filtration and primarily SPS containing an extremely high amount of food (like continuous liquid feeding systems). The theory being that such a system could take on much, much more light in the DT because there could be a correlation between available food, light, and growth, and if there is a lot of food but not enough light, growth may not be maximized or may actually be hindered (because it's out of balance). Adding more light to a high-food system would re-balance it. Again, only theory.

However what you are suggesting makes sense initially. A high light DT would make that the preferential place to grow if your scrubber was not powerful enough. However I wonder if the bryopsis infestation is a factor in this at all. I have no experience with that so I don't know...

 

[srusso]

I don't think I recall this ever being addressed over on the other board. The only thing that I recall being discussed regarding tank light levels, and only recently, is regarding systems running sole scrubber filtration and primarily SPS containing an extremely high amount of food (like continuous liquid feeding systems). The theory being that such a system could take on much, much more light in the DT because there could be a correlation between available food, light, and growth, and if there is a lot of food but not enough light, growth may not be maximized or may actually be hindered (because it's out of balance). Adding more light to a high-food system would re-balance it. Again, only theory.

However what you are suggesting makes sense initially. A high light DT would make that the preferential place to grow if your scrubber was not powerful enough. However I wonder if the bryopsis infestation is a factor in this at all. I have no experience with that so I don't know...

I have been meaning to mention this, that this rule only really applies to scrubber only systems.

I agree on the SPS part b/c of the requirement of high light/food, but with a lot of people are finding leather corals like just as much light as SPS. (Different topic entirely though...)

 

[JohnnyB in SD]

The slowness of the RC site makes it difficult to avoid 2xposting.

 

[JohnnyB in SD]

PAR and PUR are not necessarily directly comparable.
Wouldn't the wavelength differences of the 20000K MH PAR targeted towards SPS symbiotic algae and the 2700k CFLs for the plant based algae in the ATS be somewhat of a mitigating factor?

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Yes, I agree. My golf game is not comparable to my cat. LOL.

Good point there. I have mixed thoughts on PAR based on conversations with my hort guy. What you care about it the radiation in the specifically desired band. So while a 6500K lamp may have a lot of PAR, it may be completely useless for the application you need it for if the wavelength isn't right.

This is the driving factor behind LED right now, "tuning out" the useless wavelengths. Less PAR but more PUR as you put it. So more birdies & eagles, and happier cats.

 

[JohnnyB in SD]

I'd be satisfied with consistently bogey gawf.

 

[srusso]

PAR and PUR are not necessarily directly comparable.
Wouldn't the wavelength differences of the 20000K MH PAR targeted towards SPS symbiotic algae and the 2700k CFLs for the plant based algae in the ATS be somewhat of a mitigating factor?

Yes, however just b/c 20K is attempting to "target" a type of algae, doesn't mean others cant use some or most of it...

The 2,700K is in this case "targeting" HA

 

[Amphiprion]

Yes, I agree. My golf game is not comparable to my cat. LOL.

Good point there. I have mixed thoughts on PAR based on conversations with my hort guy. What you care about it the radiation in the specifically desired band. So while a 6500K lamp may have a lot of PAR, it may be completely useless for the application you need it for if the wavelength isn't right.

This is the driving factor behind LED right now, "tuning out" the useless wavelengths. Less PAR but more PUR as you put it. So more birdies & eagles, and happier cats.

But with all the variances in accessory pigments and the adaptations the organisms have gone through to come to utilize them (and our narrow knowledge of them), how much of those supposedly "useless" wavelengths are truly as useless as we may want to believe? Obviously all of this varies pretty substantially depending on the species, among other factors, but just a thought.

 

[JohnnyB in SD]

But there is usually a difference between useless and optimum.

So it sounds like in srusso's case 1500 PAR units of less than optimum light beats 400 of supposedly optimum for growing algae?

 

[Amphiprion]

But there is usually a difference between useless and optimum.

So it sounds like in srusso's case 1500 PAR units of less than optimum light beats 400 of supposedly optimum for growing algae?

But there is still yet a difference in terms of quantity vs optimal and sub-optimal (the latter was what I was hinting at), as you've observed. What many deem useless may be usable to organisms in some manner or another thanks to other pigments. The bottom line is that if you can get enough of it, along with optimal spectra, it makes a difference vs. optimal alone.

 

[BluScrnOdeth]

I dont think that the algae scrubber is the end all be all solution. There needs to be a way to extact nutrients 24/7 i think personally like cheato, but also a good cleaning crew like a Sea Hare, luttuce Nudibranch, crabs and some fish can usually keep the algae down to the minimum. The algae Scrubber needs to stay efficient on power consumption. If it requires as much power as your DT's lighting, its going to scare people off.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

CUC may eat the algae and keep it at bay in the DT but they don't solve the nutrient problem. It's a closed system and something needs to extract the nutrients eventually. Whether that be a system involving a skimmer, GFO, carbon, filter sock/media, bio-pellets, zeovit, scrubber, etc, something has to remove it external to the system and be exported physically, in most cases. There always is the rare case where a system is completely self-sufficient, but that's generally the exception not the rule.

I admit I haven't had experience with every filtration solution, but I've tried enough to be of the opinion that the algae scrubber is superior in most aspects.

 

[parrotchute]

I dont think that the algae scrubber is the end all be all solution. There needs to be a way to extact nutrients 24/7 i think personally like cheato, but also a good cleaning crew like a Sea Hare, luttuce Nudibranch, crabs and some fish can usually keep the algae down to the minimum. The algae Scrubber needs to stay efficient on power consumption. If it requires as much power as your DT's lighting, its going to scare people off.

Well, the scrubber is working 24/7 even if the lights are off - as long as flow is going over the algae, the algae should be extracting nutrients. The value of the CuC is that it can help get that waste to the nutrient exporters faster by breaking them down into smaller or more simple compounds that are exported more easily.

Srusso isn't arguing that it requires as much power as the DT's lighting. He's just saying it needs to outcompete the DT with more TOTAL energy hitting it- which is possible with a less efficient light than over your DT, because it's focused, has almost no water to penetrate, and is on for a longe period.

 

[parrotchute]

CUC may eat the algae and keep it at bay in the DT but they don't solve the nutrient problem. It's a closed system and something needs to extract the nutrients eventually. Whether that be a system involving a skimmer, GFO, carbon, filter sock/media, bio-pellets, zeovit, scrubber, etc, something has to remove it external to the system and be exported physically, in most cases. There always is the rare case where a system is completely self-sufficient, but that's generally the exception not the rule.

I admit I haven't had experience with every filtration solution, but I've tried enough to be of the opinion that the algae scrubber is superior in most aspects.

Ninja'd!

 

[Amphiprion]

I dont think that the algae scrubber is the end all be all solution. There needs to be a way to extact nutrients 24/7 i think personally like cheato, but also a good cleaning crew like a Sea Hare, luttuce Nudibranch, crabs and some fish can usually keep the algae down to the minimum. The algae Scrubber needs to stay efficient on power consumption. If it requires as much power as your DT's lighting, its going to scare people off.

I don't disagree at all. The next time I set up a scrubber, it will utilize led lighting. I won't be using red and blue diodes, but NW leds. I've seen better results side-by-side with them. Another way to confront this is light proximity, which you should be able to use to your advantage with a scrubber.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Amp, several have tried white LEDs and red alone blows them away. I would highly advise against using any white spectrum LEDs. Check the advanced thread for much discussion on this issue.

 

[BluScrnOdeth]

i know no one is arguing that. I'm arguing that point. If its going to end up usning a considerable amount of energy compared to alternative solutions, then this path may be reaching a hault. And you say that it should consume nutrients 24/7, yes, you are correct, but how effective with the lights off??? Thats what i was getting at. It's all still a trial as this solution is prob still a couple years from being nailed down as an ultimate filtering system. I still feel that with the current systems we have today, that they are very effective, esp to those using LEDs for DT lighting. But there are those other types, and soon to be plasma within the next 5-10 years as another alternative.

I do agree with Srusso, it makes sense. BUt i fortunately dont have that issue as the LEDs i use CW/RB dont allow much algaee to grow anyways. I have a couple small patches of bubble, but thats it.

And i was refering to using natural methods of algae control to keep the nutrients floating in the system for the scrubber to get because i dont think that the algae, esp with using flourescents, always performs at it's optimal. But i cant say that for sure because i have no way of testing it. After time, the flourescents lose their strength/color shift which is why we replace them, but when you throw in some new bulbs, there will be that excess nutrients in the water that hopefully it can extract. This is just a theory, it makes sense to me, maybe im not fully explaining it well. But also by not allowing it to grow well in the DT, gives the ATS a better chance of extracting those nutrients because as the algae on the ATS grown, thats more surface area of algae to absorb light, extract nutrients, etc compared to the DT thats beeing groomed daily.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Algae in the ocean that performs filtration doesn't get light for half of the day, so why should an Algae Scrubber? Yes, filtration is not very effective during the lights-off time but it is necessary and it is a minimal amount of time, nutrients would not build up to dangerous levels in that time frame even if you took the scrubber completely offline for 6 hours.

The lighting on the scrubber does NOT have to be equal in power to the DT lights. This is definitely not the case, and has never been the case for any of the hundreds of scrubbers currently running. A typical 100 gallon system might have as much as 300-400W of T5HO lighting in the DT or a couple of 250W MHs, etc, but only 100W on the scrubber (old design) or less if using the feeding method of sizing.

The point is that the scrubber needs to be powerful enough, w/r to lighting intensity, to out-compete whatever is in the display. Some may need more powerful lighting that others, and maybe only temporarily, but unless you're feeding a ton or continuous liquid coral food or something like that, you shouldn't hit the point of matching DT lighting wattage, or even come close.

As far as lamps losing strength, the filtering still occurs but the efficiency simply drops a bit. you may start to notice nutrients starting to rise but this would happen after your green growth dropped off significantly, but it depends on your system. If you were reliant on green growth and lack of it cause a N and P rise, then you would have excess nutrients that would be wiped out in a few days after lamp replacement.

On my scrubber, I haven't had a week of solid green growth in months but my N and P are still in great shape. Fluorescent lamps do a very excellent job of performing. Or am I confusing what area you are referring to as far as fluorescent lamps growing algae??

 

[BluScrnOdeth]

when i said flourescents i was refering to the tubes and CFL's. I have always used CFL myslef and had great results. And sorry i mad ea confusing statement when i said the lights for the scrubber equalliung the DT lighting, should have said intensity, but was comparing the energy required to run the scrubber vs other methods that have been used for many more years. I'm thinking that if we start to cross the 2x energy barrier, people may not be attracted to this, thats all i was stressing. But we have to figure in what all the ATS is replacing. It could replace many things, but i think generally, a basic setup, form what i have seen maintenancing tanks is cheato and a skimmer, so collectively, as of right now, the scrubber is more efficient in my setup as it replaced all that with about 150 cfl watts for 18hrs vs my 300g rated skimmer (forget what the power rating is but i think it was over or close to 100w) and the 3 CFL lights i had growing cheato (75w cfl actual). Didnt beat it by much, but got rid of a lot of junk and performed better from what i concluded.

 

[BluScrnOdeth]

Algae in the ocean that performs filtration doesn't get light for half of the day, so why should an Algae Scrubber?

But i think we are forgetting that the sun shines on the world 24/7, just on about 50% of it at a time.