Zeovit system vs. Algae scrubber
- Thread starter JOSHUAB
- Start date
jedimasterben
LED world domination!
So you're trying to compare essentially stripping the water of ammonia (before it can convert to nitrate) to help create a very nutrient poor system to algae using up a lot of N&P but not coming anywhere near ULN. They achieve two different things.
spamreefnew
New member
If we knew there would be no more need for reef central.
Reefvet
New member
Oh but we do know. The answer is both.
Either can achieve a great looking reef tank. They're just 2 very different approaches.
infusionluke
New member
Yep
Yep
I would say try them both and let us know! :bounce3:
Yep
I would say try them both and let us know! :bounce3:
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Having followed many of these comparisons, the overall very general long term results are that zeo-only can be a bit (unnaturally) bright/pale but still grow well, while scrubber-only can be more natural colored but also still grow well. This is assuming that the zeo does not bleach out. Bleaching does not happen with scrubbers because there is lots of food, carbs, vitamin C, etc put into the water to feed the corals.
Operational cost and maintenance, however, is a big difference.
Operational cost and maintenance, however, is a big difference.
so what you're saying zeovit tank is good as long as it is heavily fed....whereas an algae scrubber tank is constantly feeding corals to produce color....is this correct? So an algae scrubber tank is much less expensive to run versus zeovit then correct?
these are assumptions based off of what I've heard so far trying to learn more to make an educated decision going forward.
these are assumptions based off of what I've heard so far trying to learn more to make an educated decision going forward.
apcoleman
New member
Zeovit is a very good system if you have the patience and dedication to the system. I would start reading the Zeovit guide to see if it is something you want to tackle.
https://www.korallen-zucht.de/cms/files/zeoguide_103_english-1.pdf
Zeovit done right can be very rewarding. Zeovit done wrong can easily nuke a tank.
https://www.korallen-zucht.de/cms/files/zeoguide_103_english-1.pdf
Zeovit done right can be very rewarding. Zeovit done wrong can easily nuke a tank.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Pretty much correct. Since a scrubber-only tank, especially if no water changes, has lots of food particles, carbs, vitamin C, etc in the water like a natural reef does, the corals are more evolved to stay alive than with unnaturally low nutrients and low food. The scrubber(s) must be done correctly however or you won't remove enough nutrients. Fortunately, you cannot nuke a tank with a scrubber.
Once set up, there is only the cost of electricity for the LEDs of the scrubber.
Once set up, there is only the cost of electricity for the LEDs of the scrubber.
Alexraptor
New member
Personall I never understood all the fuss about Zeovit.
The only real benefit I can see is brighter pastel colors, which i guess is cool if you like that sort of thing.(personally i find it jarringly unnatural.)
But my view of technology and aquariums has always been that its there to make our lives easier and our tanks healthier. To me it seems kind of counterproductive to use a complex system that takes "more" time and effort to work out, especially when the consequences for a foul up could be disastrous.
But thats just me.
The only real benefit I can see is brighter pastel colors, which i guess is cool if you like that sort of thing.(personally i find it jarringly unnatural.)
But my view of technology and aquariums has always been that its there to make our lives easier and our tanks healthier. To me it seems kind of counterproductive to use a complex system that takes "more" time and effort to work out, especially when the consequences for a foul up could be disastrous.
But thats just me.
So if I got this right, an algae scrubber system is much more natural, however the colours are not as bright as a zeovit system, where a Zeovit system is much more likely to crash however the colors are more eye-popping and growth between them both is just as equal between the two.... is this a fair statement?
Grandlotus
Member
I heard that the algae scrubber reduces nitrates.
elegance coral
They call me EC
No. I would not say that a zeovit system is more likely to crash than an ats system. Here's the results of the ATS system at the Smithsonian Institute.
jedimasterben
LED world domination!
Is that the result of the algae scrubber or a lack of due diligence to ensure that filtration is up to snuff?
elegance coral
They call me EC
You could ask the same question of Zeovit systems that don't do well, or any other system.
There's a reason why the vast majority of public aquariums around the world have stopped using ATS.....
jedimasterben
LED world domination!
Of course - but there is no reason to say that the algae scrubber is what caused it. If the staff didn't know what the limitations are the ATS, or relied on it as their only method of filtration then that is not quite reason to pin it on the ATS itself.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Check out the SPS forum. You'll find that most successful systems are run pretty simple. Maybe filter socks, a good reactor or two, and a good skimmer. The systems are designed and maintained so that they stay clean. The emphasis is on growing stony corals. Not bugs, worms, and algae.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Yes scrubbers reduce nitrates; and nitrite, phosphate, ammonia, and CO2. Algae is the natural filter of all oceans and lakes. Also the natural food producer.
The Smithsonian tank is a closed ecosystem experiment; the pics I saw many years ago, at that time, had already gone 8 years with no intervention. The goal was/is to see how water parameters are kept in check, and they stayed better than parameters of real reefs. As for public aquariums:
Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
Many people say how the Great Barrier Reef aquarium (or other public tanks) was a scrubber "failure" because the corals did poorly. Apparently these people have not done much reading. In the early days of that aquarium, the scrubber was doing it's job great:
1988:
Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=10506
"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants."
But, did you know that they did not add calcium? That's right, in 1988 they did not know that calcium needed to be added to a reef tank. Even five years after that, the Pittsburgh Zoo was just starting to test a "mesocosm" scrubber reef tank to see if calcium levels would drop:
1993:
An Introduction to the Biogeochemical Cycling of Calcium and Substitutive Strontium in Living Coral Reef Mesocosms
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zoo.1430120505/abstract
"It was hypothesized that Ca2+ and the substitutive elements Sr2+ and Mg2+ might [!] have reduced concentrations in a coral reef microcosm due to continuous reuse of the same seawater as a consequence of the recycling process inherent in the coral reef mesocosm."
"The scleractinians (Montastrea, Madracis, Porites, Diploria, and Acropora) and calcareous alga (Halimeda and others) present in the coral reef mesocosm are the most likely organisms responsible for the significant reduction in concentration of the Ca2+ and Sr2+ cations."
"Ca is not normally a biolimiting element [in the ocean!], and strontium is never a biolimiting element; HCO3 [alk] can be. It appears that, because of a minor [!] limitation in the design parameters of the mesocosm, these elements and compounds may have become limiting factors. [...] It is surprising that the organisms could deplete the thousands of gallons of seawater (three to six thousand) of these elements even within two or more years [!!].
"The calcification processes are little understood."
So then, in the late 90's, the Barrier Reef aquarium start using up it's supply of calcium, and the folks there said "the corals grew poorly". Really. No calcium, and the corals grew poorly. So they "removed the scrubbers" and "experimented with the addition of calcium" sometime after 1998. Then in 2004 it "definitely improved a lot". Really.
Talks about calcium was not added to the Barrier aquarium:
http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com/wiki/Reef_HQ_-_Great_Barrier_Reef_Aquarium
The Smithsonian tank is a closed ecosystem experiment; the pics I saw many years ago, at that time, had already gone 8 years with no intervention. The goal was/is to see how water parameters are kept in check, and they stayed better than parameters of real reefs. As for public aquariums:
Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
Many people say how the Great Barrier Reef aquarium (or other public tanks) was a scrubber "failure" because the corals did poorly. Apparently these people have not done much reading. In the early days of that aquarium, the scrubber was doing it's job great:
1988:
Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=10506
"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants."
But, did you know that they did not add calcium? That's right, in 1988 they did not know that calcium needed to be added to a reef tank. Even five years after that, the Pittsburgh Zoo was just starting to test a "mesocosm" scrubber reef tank to see if calcium levels would drop:
1993:
An Introduction to the Biogeochemical Cycling of Calcium and Substitutive Strontium in Living Coral Reef Mesocosms
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zoo.1430120505/abstract
"It was hypothesized that Ca2+ and the substitutive elements Sr2+ and Mg2+ might [!] have reduced concentrations in a coral reef microcosm due to continuous reuse of the same seawater as a consequence of the recycling process inherent in the coral reef mesocosm."
"The scleractinians (Montastrea, Madracis, Porites, Diploria, and Acropora) and calcareous alga (Halimeda and others) present in the coral reef mesocosm are the most likely organisms responsible for the significant reduction in concentration of the Ca2+ and Sr2+ cations."
"Ca is not normally a biolimiting element [in the ocean!], and strontium is never a biolimiting element; HCO3 [alk] can be. It appears that, because of a minor [!] limitation in the design parameters of the mesocosm, these elements and compounds may have become limiting factors. [...] It is surprising that the organisms could deplete the thousands of gallons of seawater (three to six thousand) of these elements even within two or more years [!!].
"The calcification processes are little understood."
So then, in the late 90's, the Barrier Reef aquarium start using up it's supply of calcium, and the folks there said "the corals grew poorly". Really. No calcium, and the corals grew poorly. So they "removed the scrubbers" and "experimented with the addition of calcium" sometime after 1998. Then in 2004 it "definitely improved a lot". Really.
Talks about calcium was not added to the Barrier aquarium:
http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com/wiki/Reef_HQ_-_Great_Barrier_Reef_Aquarium
Similar threads
