Waterfall Turf Algea Filter: CHEAP and EASY to build

[Rngrdave]

I had the same problem with my screen. After 7 days there was not much at all on it except for a brown haze. I moved my lights until they were about 2 inches from the screen and then 5 days later I had so much algae that you couldn't even see the screen.

How far away are your lights? What color temperature are they?

 

[Mike O'Brien]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13394566#post13394566 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by yeniraki
Skimmers do not, can not skim nitrate or phosphate; they skim food, before they turn to nitrate and phosphate, and that is why they cause starvation on many systems nowadays. ATS may be the answer for such problems; preserving the food, freely holding in the water but removing their toxic products.
Yet we will have to discover the long term results and complications it may have.

That's an assumption and it's wrong.

from
What is Skimming?
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

In general, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate will not be directly skimmed out of seawater because they do not adsorb onto air water interfaces. Nitrogen and phosphorus are, however, readily removed as parts of organic molecules that are skimmed out. Analyses of skimmate, as mentioned above, are fairly limited in scope, but one published study shows a substantial elevation in total phosphorus (on the order of a thousand-fold) and total nitrogen (on the order of a hundred-fold) relative to ions not selectively skimmed out (say, magnesium or sodium) when compared to the ratio of the same ions in seawater or reef aquarium water.

Please post some proof of a skimmer causing starvation ! that's another wrong assumption.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

So what is the difference between using a modest ATS together with a skimmer, as opposed to a macroalgae filled refugium?

The claim is that you don't need a skimmer and that they are a detriment to the system. Using one with a skimmer as well is what most of us with refugiums do. Most just choose a multipronged approach because we know that removing as much waste from the system as possible is the way to go.

 

[yeniraki]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13394669#post13394669 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rngrdave
I had the same problem with my screen. After 7 days there was not much at all on it except for a brown haze. I moved my lights until they were about 2 inches from the screen and then 5 days later I had so much algae that you couldn't even see the screen.

How far away are your lights? What color temperature are they?

36 watts PC 2700K x 2 and both are 2" from the screen.

 

[skimmy]

hey everyone!! i got an idea,
mabye if i took a crap in this algae wonderbucket, algae will grow on it, and then i can throw out my skimmer, because i'll know it's worthless!

oh, yeah, and:

 

[yeniraki]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13394939#post13394939 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mike O'Brien
That's an assumption and it's wrong.

from
What is Skimming?
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php




Please post some proof of a skimmer causing starvation ! that's another wrong assumption.

I dont think my statements are wrong.
Do you have any proof for your assumptions?
Do you really believe any skimmer can skim plain Nitrate and PO4 molecule?
Do you really know what skimmate is microscopically consist of?
Do you know the concentration of planctons in a tank with skimmer and without a skimmer?
What happens to your skimmer after you feed your livestock?
Why do you think people turn of their skimmers when they feed their corals with plancton and other coral food?
Why do you think KZ and Schuran skimmers are planctons friendly comparing the NW or meshwheel ones?

 

[Mike O'Brien]

Why don't you read the link again. It clearly states that inorganic N and P don't get skimmed directly out. But yet there is still vastly more N and P in skimmate than in the tank.

I don't care about the rest of your questions because like many others, I don't feed the corals specifically and don't add plankton in any form to my tank. My skimmer never gets turned off. When I add food, if any makes it to the sump, it gets skimmed out. Exactly what it's supposed to do.

Skimmers are not as efficient as you think. They certainly don't remove everything from the water. Even if they did, that would still be a good thing. It's not going to starve anything because the corals have their own environment right around them. The nutrient poor water around that area acts as a buffer if the bacterial growth gets out of control. If the surrounding waters are not nutrient poor, that system no longer works and the corals suffer.

 

[skimmy]

rrriiinnnggg rrriiinnnggg,
the 90's called....they want their methodology back!

seriously folks, if you actually believe your skimmer is a detriment to your system, then your not staying fluid with modern methodology or taking advantage of modern products.
everything benificial that a skimmer might remove,
CAN BE REPLACED AS NEEDED

what a novel thought....

 

[yeniraki]

Dont get me wrong. I am using a large skimmer in my system, I dont think there is a better method yet. However I believe skimmers have their side effects. Together with the advances in captive reef keeping, like better lighting, better understanding the reef chemistry, dosing pumps, better monitoring of the variables, Ca RX etc, I think algae filter may work. That is why I am giving it a try. 10 days already since I started, no miracle yet.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

As said, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I use banded Trochus snails in my tank. They are self sustainable for me. I take a few babies a month out of the sump to add to the tank. They are broadcast spawners, and even with the skimmer running some make it. Sure more would probably make it without a skimmer. As far as other filter feeders, I have plenty. IMO the thing with them is just keeping the water movement high enough so detritus stays in suspension for them to feed on.

 

[yeniraki]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13395660#post13395660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mike O'Brien
Why don't you read the link again. It clearly states that inorganic N and P don't get skimmed directly out. But yet there is still vastly more N and P in skimmate than in the tank.

Inorganic N and P are the ones we dont want, organic N and P are the ones we want cause they are the food.
Living creatures in our planet are mainly composed of C,H,N,P including planctons, cyclopeze, mysis, aa, bacteria and the rest.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

I know that. And your point is what ?

 

[Mike O'Brien]

There are more things going on, but for one. Bacteria use inorganic P, and are skimmed out of the tank. That is a form of removal of inorganic P. Just because the skimmer doesn't remove it directly means nothing. It's still being removed.

 

[Northside Reef]

Mike,

what kind of system do you keep?

Is it safe to assume it's a mostly SPS tank with a ton of flow and a BB?

My old system was a mixed tank SPS and LPS. I had to turn flow back because some of the LPS could not handle it.

If you don’t keep all of the uneaten food suspended so the skimmer can grab it, you’re going to get inorganic P (I know you know this I am just stating it for record).
In that instance I used a large refugium is to grow macro algae to remove it for me and then cultivated the macro algae to remove the inorganic N and P in the form of algae.

I never had a problem with algae in the main tank using this method.

An ATS should help in the same way.

I’m not too sure about turning off the skimmer, even in a system as large as the one I am building now, I would think over time I could never keep up.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

I have a mixed tank with a bit of everything. I have maybe a cup of sand in the display, and a 3 sq/ft DSB in my refugium. Chaeto spinning in a bucket. Yes, high flow in the display.

 

[matt & pam]

If you believe Adey, turf algae is supposed to be more effective at nutrient removal compared to other algae.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

Actually part of that was because the turf was horizontal with a wave action across it. The turf was moving back and forth which allowed light to get to both sides of it while alternating shade as well. That stopped photoinhibition that happened when the water was flowing in only one direction. With this vertical mat, that's not going to happen.

 

[tmz]

I think an ATS may be a decent adjunct.Any algal exudates would likely be offset by growth and export of the algae and the N and P they take up and would probably not be much different from a macroalgae refugium unless there is something about specific turf aglaes that enhance or diminish their effectivenes in this process. If there is, it has not been articualted much less explained. I have kept caulerpa and chaetomorpha both have exudates,single cell vs. multi structures aside.Both absorb N and P at varying levels.
I do not think an ATS will on it's own, especially on a small scale,obviate the need for a skimmer or even other export methods such as gfo and certainly not carbon .Just as, in my opinion a macroalgae refugia of reasonable size won't.. The need for multiple methods will vary from system to system based on the amount of feeding that is necessary to support fish and invert populations. and the level of nutrient desired depending on the types of corals being kept.There is no one size fits all in nutrient export or for that matter in desired nutrient levels.
I do not believe that excess organic phosphate is helpful or wanted and removal via skimmer is a plus. The skimmer will also remove some metals those bacteria take up and may actually help with some alleopathic compunds although I think carbon is a better bert for those.
So why can't we just talk about the ATS in terms of optimal designs and most efficient N and P exporting algaes for folks who wan't to try one out without all of the grandiose claims and vitriol. It doesn't have to make a skimmer unecessary to be useful.

 

[crazzy]

"So why can't we just talk about the ATS in terms of optimal designs and most efficient N and P exporting algaes for folks who wan't to try one out without all of the grandiose claims and vitriol. It doesn't have to make a skimmer unecessary to be useful."

I second that!

 

[piercho]

So why can't we just talk about the ATS in terms of optimal designs and most efficient N and P exporting algaes for folks who wan't to try one out without all of the grandiose claims and vitriol. It doesn't have to make a skimmer unecessary to be useful

It is curious what becomes emotionally charged on the boards. And the people who are most passionate when it comes to methodology tend to be the ones with no pictures in their gallery, or only pictures of gear and not of their tank!?

With respect to optimal turf filter design, this was my experience:
Higher flow rates than what Adey used worked better for me with my turf scrubber. I was cycling 10GPM through the filter for a 65G display. My notion is that high cycle rates gives the algae filter an improved opportunity to compete with algae in the tank.

My light level was relatively high compared to the PC-illuminated algae filters shown so far in this thread. I was using 250W 6500K SE at a few inches. I later switched to 150W 5000K DE in a PFO mini-pendant because it focused the light more tightly onto the filter with 100W less power. The algae you are trying to get to grow do not become limited by increased light intensity, according to Adey. My notion is that the bulk of the algae growing in the system will tend to grow where conditions are best for uptake, so I gave my filter higher flow and light levels than I did the tank.

Unlike Adey, I don't trying to model an ecosystem, and am not concerned with the diversity of plankton. I just try to grow coral, keep fish, and minimize nuisance algae in the tank. I used a skimmer and a GAC filter in parallel with the turf filter, and I made large (>50%) water exchanges a 3 or 4 times a year using NSW from Puget Sound. I kept Tridacna and Pacific stony coral and Atlantic photosynthetic gorgonians with almost no mortality using this husbandry. The plan for my next tank uses the same basic husbandry. I don't understand why people get hung up that using any kind of "natural" mediation of tank parameters is an all-or-nothing proposition. So if you use a turf filter you are required by law to throw out your skimmer? Not me.

My opinion is that you should not select a particular algae, or set or alga, for a turf filter. With live rock and sand or a diverse "seed" screen the turf community is self-selecting and will change over time as the tank conditions change. It's been stongly implied that turf algae are leaky or noxious by some posters. I don't have any evidence, but don't agree that turf algae are 'leakier" or more toxic than macroalgae. What grew in my turf filter was prefered graze for my fish, which is an indication to me that it is was not noxious. On the other hand, Caulerpa and Chaetomorpha were not prefered graze.