Algae Scrubber Basics

Based on that, I would say that you can reduce your screen size now. This will increase your flow rate per inch on the screen, probably to 6" wide, which will better match your lighting.

This may help now to reduce the smell, but I am of the opinion that this smell will pass.

On another note, in looking at your pics (first one, of the full sump shot) it doesn't look like you are using 1" hose. That looks like 3/4" ID pushed over the pump outlet, which on a Mag 9.5, 12, and 18 is 3/4". You wouldn't be able to push 1" ID over the pump outlet and have it stay, at all. Check this - I think you're using 3/4" ID which is 1" OD. If that is the case, then reducing the screen to 6" wide will help with flow coverage.
 
That growth cretainly looks better than these previous pics below:



If I had to guess, I would say that the white growth is because of too much light in relation to nutrients delivered. White is the extreme end of this issue. I get this on one of my "test" units in front of the LEDs when I let it grow way too long and the flow gets really stagnant.

How long are you waiting between cleanings?

When you clean, how vigorously do you scrape?

Is there anything left in the holes when you are done cleaning or does is all come out?

The algae turns white as soon as I clean the screen, immediately after cleaning it and putting it the tank(minutes).

I usually clean the screen between 5-7 days depending on the growth.

I just scrape most of the algae off.

All the holes are still filled when I'm done cleaning the screen. The only time it was pulled out was when I cleaned it with my fingers and when I let the screen grow to thick.
 
That's only the second time I've heard of "quick-white"...to coin a term. I know of one other person that has their screen turn white so quickly and I was never able to figure out why that happened. Does it happen every time you clean the screen? Very odd
 
That's only the second time I've heard of "quick-white"...to coin a term. I know of one other person that has their screen turn white so quickly and I was never able to figure out why that happened. Does it happen every time you clean the screen? Very odd

It has happened the last 4-6 times Ive cleaned it.
 
Algae Scrubber Basics

I had to look these up!



VSV = Vodka Sugar Vinegar



NOPOX = Red Sea NO3:PO4 x


Sorry Bud :)

I only mention it because;

1). I got large growths of white filamentous stuff when adding CO2 to the scrubber. When I stopped the CO2, these growths disappeared also. I'm not sure if it was the CO2 directly causing it or whether the enhanced growth (by weight) was causing extra exudate production (sugars) to be released from the scrubber. Many years ago I dabbled with adding vodka and also had these white growths, as many folk do.

2). I used to get white on the waterfall (on the screen under 20mm of growth) when leaving to grow for 4 weeks, so I'm presuming the white is just the cellulose sheath that remains after the internal photosynthetic apparatus has died through lack of light or something else.

45405fa10a6acb43b6d02783f3cd614c_zpse490d0ad.jpg
 
May sound like a silly question but are you dosing carbon, either VSV, NOPOX or have you got a chronically low pH.

I would say no, the last time I dosed vinegar was over a few months ago. 4-6 months ago.

I dont test my ph ever, but Id imagine it would be fine since I run a skimmer, and I run my lights opposite to each other.

I tested it just now and it's at 8-8.2
 
Seems SM has lost the plot. What are these new guidelines about? I know there's a saying about any publicity is good publicity but please
 
Algae Scrubber Basics

Perhaps it's just me? Anyway, here's the quote I find strange. It seems to say scrubbers are only half as effective as previously touted in most cases. If you combine that with a reduction of the "cube" size from 3ml to 1ml, then you may see my concern;

Being the only filter, the problem is when you clean it you have no filter for a few days. So having two units fixes this.

The basic guidelines for algae scrubbers is based on how much you feed each day: 1 cube a day, 2 cubes a day, etc. However these are just starting points; a lot of your tank filtering is based on your rocks, so their condition plays a part too in what model(s) scrubbers to get or make, as well as what type of feeding you are doing, and what other filters you will be using.

REEF:

1) If you are building a reef tank which is new, meaning that the rocks are coming from the ocean or from a low-nutrient tank, and if you will just be feeding the fish sparingly, and if you DO want to have other filters and water changes, then you can just use the cube-feeding recommended sizes of the scrubbers.

2) If you are building a reef tank which is new as in #1 above, but you DON'T want any other filters or water changes, then double the recommended scrubbing amount in #1. This will supply the corals and small fish with the most amounts of food particles. You don't need to start the tank with all the scrubbers; one is fine for a few months. Add the others later.

3) If you are building a reef tank which is new as in #1 or #2 above, but the rocks are coming from a nutrient-problem tank which had measurable phosphate or hair algae problems, then the rocks will be soaked with phosphate and this will supply more phosphate to your new tanks than the feeding will. So double the recommend scrubbing amount. And if it is a new reef tank with problem rocks AND you don't want other filters or water changes, you would need four times the scrubbing in order to handle the problem rocks and the other filters.

4) If you are adding a scrubber to an existing reef tank, and the tank has no measurable phosphate and no nuisance algae, and if you have other filters and water changes and you DO want to keep them, then you can just use the cube-feeding sizes of the scrubbers.

5) If you are adding a scrubber to an existing reef tank as in #4 above but you DON'T want to continue using the other filters or water changes, then double the scrubber amount recommend in #4.

6) If you are adding a scrubber to an existing reef tank that has measurable phosphate and green hair nuisance algae on the rocks, and you DO want to continue using other filters and water changes, then you can just use the recommended cube-feeding sizes of the scrubbers. Use stronger light if possible because the higher phosphate in the water needs brighter light to make the scrubber grow green. And if you double the amount of scrubbing (two scrubbers instead of one), the problems will clear up twice as fast because there will be twice the amount of algae absorbing the nutrients out of the water.

7) If you are adding a scrubber to an existing reef tank that has measurable phosphate and green hair nuisance algae on the rocks as in #6 above, and you DON'T want to continue using other filters and water changes, then double the amount of scrubbing recommended in #6.

8) If you are adding a scrubber to an existing reef tank that has NO measurable phosphate, but has LOTS of green hair nuisance algae on the rocks, then you need the strongest lights possible (for your scrubber size) because the rocks are already full of phosphate, and the algae on the rocks is absorbing this phosphate, meaning you need the strongest scrubbing possible in order to out-compete the algae on the rocks. This is the hardest situation to fix, so you should use as much scrubbing as possible with the strongest light available (for the scrubber size), and use as many other filters and water changes as possible too, until the algae on the rocks turns yellow and lets go. At this point coralline will start to cover the rocks, and you could consider selling some of the extra scrubbers, or removing the other filters or water changes.
 
I found this on his site late last night after recovering from a long work day. While there may be some logic behind this (probably based on anecdotal evidence) this just seems to confuse the matter.

First of all, there need be only 4 rules. 1x, 2x, 4x, and "maximum". All of these above instances could be combined. So I'm guessing this is a first draft. This might just be following up with the revised feeding guideline, because what was observed back when the scrubbers were volume-based was that they would grow gangbusters and then slowly would diminish growth and turn lighter, sometimes yellow slime/goo, and upon reducing size they would "green up" again.

But the guideline, when revised was meant to be for stand-alone filtration. There was no secondary statement made regarding presence or absence of other filtration. So to me, this is backtracking, big time.

Seems to me this guideline is a blanket-statement that does not take into account the type of scrubber, or maybe it is written for one particular style of scrubber.

I know from experience and feedback that if you start a waterfall scrubber and allow the screen to mature, you can increase the filtration capacity by increasing the flow rate and lighting photoperiod and/or intensity. So if your scrubber is built to be able to allow such changes, all you need to do is tweak lighting and flow to get the right growth for your tank. Growing algae and using it to filter is all about nutrient delivery, and while increasing the physical size is definitely one way to accomplish this, it's also definitely not the only way.

For a horizontal/raceway type scrubber, you can only push so much flow across it before the water depth gets too much and you end up with total bypass. For a surge scrubber, you might be able to increase the frequency but only to a point.

For UAS type scrubbers, SM has already proven that (at least for floating style units) that more air flow does not mean more growth. At best, the sweet spot has not been found, if there is one.

To me, there are just too many construction factors to lay out a blanket guideline. I understand the idea, make it simple, but this is just going to throw a wrench in the works of anyone reading this stuff and trying to figure out how big their unit should be.

The good news is that anyone can build a lackluster scrubber and get decent results. So it's not the end of the world.

Second, did I miss the memo where 1 cube = 1cc vs 3cc for sure now? I know there was a fair amount of debate on this back a year or so ago when he posted somewhere (can't recall what thread it was) that a cube was 1cc. I think that was actually in one of his patent applications so it might have been before the "official" guideline came out. The standard "cube" has, IMO, always been based on the "ocean nutrition" type cube, which usually measures about 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.25 cm or about 3cc. My opinion on the cube based feeding guideline is that it is always relative to the brand or form of food and this is very difficult to quantify, so there is a LOT of leeway here. For instance, I feed a DIY food that is very nutrient dense, and probably falls into the very high end of the "cube" definition.

Third, the whole phosphate leeching out of rocks is a theory that appears to fit the situation at best. There are all kinds of holes in that argument, the main one falling under the bus is the fact that chemically bound phosphate need low pH to be unbound. The mechanism for this might be bacterial cleaving, indicating a bacteria-algae symbiotic type of effect, but not much info on this. Also, as I understand it, this is a slow process because the bacterial coating would cause a locally low pH environment, but as soon as the cleaving process starts, that localized environment is changed to high pH. There is likely another explanation, but without that, no one can claim to know exactly what is happening. Clearly experimentation is needed. I know that SM has claimed to have performed various experiments like artificially saturating rocks with phosphate and then seeing how long it takes for the algae to go away, or throwing a handful of reef salt into the tank and watching how the tank recovers after it kills a bunch of the periphyton/etc, but I haven't seen any kind of observed results posted.

Well time to actually do real work for the rest of the day. Ciao.
 
...
Third, the whole phosphate leeching out of rocks is a theory that appears to fit the situation at best. There are all kinds of holes in that argument, the main one falling under the bus is the fact that chemically bound phosphate need low pH to be unbound. The mechanism for this might be bacterial cleaving, indicating a bacteria-algae symbiotic type of effect, but not much info on this. Also, as I understand it, this is a slow process because the bacterial coating would cause a locally low pH environment, but as soon as the cleaving process starts, that localized environment is changed to high pH. There is likely another explanation, but without that, no one can claim to know exactly what is happening. Clearly experimentation is needed. I know that SM has claimed to have performed various experiments like artificially saturating rocks with phosphate and then seeing how long it takes for the algae to go away, or throwing a handful of reef salt into the tank and watching how the tank recovers after it kills a bunch of the periphyton/etc, but I haven't seen any kind of observed results posted.
...

I don't know if you guys have had time to follow it, but there is a deep sand bed thread in this same forum that has degenerated into a fairly interesting and related phosphorus/phosphate discussion:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2268433

They cover some of these same phosphate bonding vs. absorption vs. embedded detritus theories.
 
I'm giving a scrubber a 2nd shot after trying carbon dosing the past 6 months. The problem with dosing is that I keep chasing levels and in turn getting cloudy bacterial blooms due to excess vinegar. The corals also never really did well during the dosing period.

My question.....my scrubber will be 13 inches long by 5 inches tall. Would I gain anymore stability in my system if I had (2) 6.5" screens that were cleaned on an alternating schedule instead of 1 long screen cleaned all at once every week? I can also arrange the led lighting so that one screen is always lit.....is the effort to do this worth it?
 
Last edited:
A dual screen (side by side, not 2 layers) will generally be more stable because you always have a screen in the middle of the growth cycle, worst case. You can do this a couple ways, the simplest would be to just slice the screen in half, but you could also just take the screen out and clean half of it. The only drawback, if they are on the same pump, is that the cleaned screen might get more flow because the growing screen might need some more head pressure to supply it. This can be fixed by scrubbing the top edge of both screens with each cleaning. So you might clean on a 14 day cycle, and every 7 days you clean one screen and scrub the top edge of the other one.
 
I don't know if you guys have had time to follow it, but there is a deep sand bed thread in this same forum that has degenerated into a fairly interesting and related phosphorus/phosphate discussion:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2268433

They cover some of these same phosphate bonding vs. absorption vs. embedded detritus theories.

This is a fantastic thread for looking at this topic. I would recommend using this link that highlights certain key words. In particular the posts from Randy Holmes-Farley and TMZ provide some of the best insight to this.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/s...hate+phosphates+soluble+bacteria+solubilizing
 
...and of course, in this thread where I asked this very specific question.


Personally I currently think "phosphate leaching" is related to detritus and the way algae can re-structure the micro environment. Reading the recent stuff RHF has posted, then 70ish percent of phosphate in fish crud, leaches within 24hrs of production and I suppose a lot of poo produced by smaller things is similar. If you could see the amount of crud that my scrubber traps, you may agree that algal presence increases detrital entrapment. However, surely this is only relevant in systems without detectable N, P or both, or another limiting trace element, iron or something;

https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncw/f/masonb2004-3.pdf
 
Back
Top