Algae Scrubber Basics

[Floyd R Turbo]

That's good. I would bump the intensity up a bit, and reduce the photoperiod to 9 hours/day.

18 hrs/day of even medium intensity LED light (for a fixture that strong, especially) on a screen that does not have a good solid base of growth is too long. Even if you didn't have dimming ability, 9 hours/day to start, 12 max

Consider this point re-starting, but with a bit of a base

Also, if you have only slime and maybe some fine brown algae that is hair-like, rinse the screen well (room temp tap water, medium flow rate, not blasting) to get rid of the slime while rubbing with your palm of you hand or your fingertips. You want to get rid of the slime, but keep any hair-like algae.

Then put it back in action and leave it alone for 10 days at 9 hrs/day 20%, after 5 days if you see some growth under white light (flashlight) then go to 30% but don't exceed 30% for at least 2 weeks. If you keep seeing growth progress, increase hours by just a few hours at a time (add 2 hours, go one growth cycle)

Ramp it up slow. Don't force it. and definitely do not over-clean. You should not scrape or really remove any GHA that you can get growing for at least a month - only rub & rinse to clear off the loose growth

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

edited post above a bit

 

[karimwassef]

And feed.

 

[buddah001]

Thanks, I'll give it a try and let you know how it works.

 

[buddah001]

So I may have found part of the problem. Since the start of this tank I was using HW Reefer salt from BRS. prior to that in my nano I was using Tropic Marin and everything was great. But this tank has been nothing but issues. No K or I2 in the water at all. Always had to supplement to get those levels up. Called BRS and they stated there were some issues with that salt and bad batches. Gave me a credit and I bought Brightwell aquatics salt in place of it. Have done three 40g water changes since and I finally am seeing some turnaround on frags from the old tank. Cup coral is extending polyps again. Monticello's,s are coloring back up. I thought I was going with the best salt but guess not. Finally after 4 months starting to see some coralline specs growing.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Not to derail the discussion too much, but our local club had a slew of people having problems with inconsistent parameters on one particular brand of salt. It wasn't HW but I won't mention it by name, just will note that several people switched to Aquaforest and/or went back to the long-term standby brands they had been using and have had tanks turn back around again.

I want to be careful to not let this discussion go off on a tangent about salt brands, because anyone who has gotten into that discussion knows there are all kinds of opinions on that. I have very little opinion, maybe that's because I really have been slacking on doing any water changes for a while....I'm not a huge proponent of scrubber + no water changes, but I also don't have time to do them very often, so it just happens to be that way. Hence, I don't use much salt.

 

[buddah001]

Not to derail the discussion too much, but our local club had a slew of people having problems with inconsistent parameters on one particular brand of salt. It wasn't HW but I won't mention it by name, just will note that several people switched to Aquaforest and/or went back to the long-term standby brands they had been using and have had tanks turn back around again.

I want to be careful to not let this discussion go off on a tangent about salt brands, because anyone who has gotten into that discussion knows there are all kinds of opinions on that. I have very little opinion, maybe that's because I really have been slacking on doing any water changes for a while....I'm not a huge proponent of scrubber + no water changes, but I also don't have time to do them very often, so it just happens to be that way. Hence, I don't use much salt.

I do not want to derail anything either. Just hoping to share a finding if in fact it is true. Time will tell

 

[homer1475]

I think you'll find at one point or another all mass produced salts have inconsistencies. It's like the wild west for these companies, there is no federal regulations or testing from batch to batch. It all comes down to how much testing is done at the manufacturing level. Obviously some do more testing then others.

 

[SantaMonica]

I get the screen is big but it would at least start growing some GHA on it, wouldn't it?

No, there won't be enough nutrients in the water too build the algal ladder strands that need to reach out past the slime into the flow, so the slime will dominate.

 

[karimwassef]

You need to feed enough to cultivate your algae base. That base will both sequester waste and generate food back for the tank. You need to feed and maintain strong flow. The algae will come.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

maintain strong flow.

Strong flow is really only required when you A) need it and B) have a solid base of growth

Generally speaking, if you have the ability to dim or shade the lights, reducing the flow on start-up just to the point where you have even coverage will get your initial growth going well. After that, you can increase flow a bit, along with lighting intensity incrementally based on results.

Once you get a strong base of growth, if you have the nutrient density available in the water column, you can increase flow and lighting further.

But I've backed off on the more-flow-is-always-better philosophy, because it doesn't seem to fit all cases. The right flow is more accurate, which adds another moving target actually

 

[karimwassef]

If there's sufficient food, flow brings more of it under the light.

Flow is also algae friendly, and goo/slime/bacteria unfriendly.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

I guess the definition of "strong flow" could be the thing we are debating here - karimwassef what is your definition of "strong flow"....25 GPH/in? 30? 35? More? Less?

 

[karimwassef]

4000gph over a 2' x 3' screen. 2' wide and 3' long.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

That's an insane amount of flow - 166 GPH/in. I found that going over 50 GPH/in hits diminishing returns. I've seen some cases where growth is better at a lower flow rate.

I think your setup is a bit of an exception, JMO

 

[karimwassef]

But you've seen my algae growth rate. Even in my new setup, I recycle a 3 gallon bucket weekly. Of course there's three gallons of food going in that cycle too... and three gallons of poo.. that turn into three gallons of algae (full of pods and worms) every week.

If there's food, the algae will grow. The faster flow against the surface air will be preferential to the algae vs. bacteria.

I agree that you need to give them time to anchor in though. But once you have the fuzz, faster and more food makes algae go nuts!

 

[jason2459]

Plus some Iron.


Though I do agree with Bud your setup is an outlier. And others should find their sweet spot. Most likely it will be less flow. Mine was. To much flow and my scrubber grew less.

 

[karimwassef]

Iron? I considered adding iron but never did

 

[karimwassef]

Hmm... I wish I could show it graphically.

The only real limitation I've found is food. Light and flow only serve algae, but they seem excessive when the algae runs out of food. The more food, the more flow and light contribute directly to the growth rate.

There likely is a limit, by nothing our systems can easily generate - and I have tried very hard.

The only thing that hurt my scrubbers has been lack of food.

 

[jason2459]

Hmm... I wish I could show it graphically.

The only real limitation I've found is food. Light and flow only serve algae, but they seem excessive when the algae runs out of food. The more food, the more flow and light contribute directly to the growth rate.

There likely is a limit, by nothing our systems can easily generate - and I have tried very hard.

The only thing that hurt my scrubbers has been lack of food.

If you don't currently dose iron, outside of anything in new salt and foods fed, I bet your algae could create a nuclear fallout.

You can google search
DIY the DIY FE++ Ferrous citrate supplement

for what I've done and made based on Randy's formula.