Mega-powerful Nitrate And Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium
- Thread starter SantaMonica
- Start date
psycho-killer
Fish Crazy
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 281
- Reaction score
- 0
Use a nice big DSB problem solved hehe
im with musho here.. to much work and there are easier ways..
im with musho here.. to much work and there are easier ways..
SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
skifletch: A fuge/macro is "OK" for export, it's just that those macros are not very high on the list of heavy nutrient uptakers... turf is #1, seagrass is #2... details and numbers are on the technical post on RC.
johnny.t.: Well the idea was to give a beginner, who has never worked with plastic, a decent chance at building one. That is, until a manufacturer makes one. The sump versions are simpler, however. And I'm just finishing up a test on a 5 gal nano with great results, and will post it in a few days. Yes a small size seems odd, but that's because turf is the highest uptake of any macro, including in the ocean. Matter of fact, my 12 X 12 screen for my 100 gal is currently only operating at one-fourth capacity because I mistakenly scraped an entire side bare, and the other side is only half filled with turf; yet my N and P are zero. Your size will be more than enough, with enough light, and PROPER scrubbing (weekly), and eventually proper scraping (monthly). The "replace carbon" is for when the carbon is used to reduce N and P. The fan is mostly for when you do the on-off-on wavemaker pump option, to simulate the air that real turf gets between waves; You are correct that it does not do as much good with a constant water flow (does help cooling, though).
cageUK: In order to hide it you'd have to do one of the sump versions, in which case it takes up no additional space, and needs no tubes.
Musho: For copepods, i'm not sure a fuge would do better. Maybe for larger pods, but in my setup the copepods are swarming in the display and the little damsels are chasing and eating them all day. I tried filtering them with a 25 micron overflow sock for a week, but they are just coming in to fast from the turf, so I can't stop them. For waterchanges, they are often recommended to folks when they just can't get the nutrients down no matter what they do; so they change water. For these people, a tank full of green algae is their biggest problem. These are the folks that even have hair algae growing on their snails and hermits, and it looks like little green bushes moving around. The angle of the post was indeed meant for beginners, using a bit more excitement, and less numbers. I'm in promotion, so this part is easy. And yes, McDonalds is known for the most effective promotion in the world. So the more folks that try turf, the more feedback we will have on how it can help us. SPS: Correct, I don't work with them, but Morgan at Inland Aquatics does and uses only turf.
And if anyone really wants a "sleek" or "presentable" unit to sit outside the tank, then you can build the original version: An all acrylic vertical waterfall, detailed on the RC post.
psycho-killer: DSB only does N, what about P? Also, a DSB in the display requires the whole tank to be designed around it. Even in a fuge, it still collects waste and causes some the the very N problems you are trying to erase. As for less "work", my nano test setup took 5 minutes from start to finish, and nutrients went from N=50 and P=.5 to almost zero. I'll be posting it in a few days.
johnny.t.: Well the idea was to give a beginner, who has never worked with plastic, a decent chance at building one. That is, until a manufacturer makes one. The sump versions are simpler, however. And I'm just finishing up a test on a 5 gal nano with great results, and will post it in a few days. Yes a small size seems odd, but that's because turf is the highest uptake of any macro, including in the ocean. Matter of fact, my 12 X 12 screen for my 100 gal is currently only operating at one-fourth capacity because I mistakenly scraped an entire side bare, and the other side is only half filled with turf; yet my N and P are zero. Your size will be more than enough, with enough light, and PROPER scrubbing (weekly), and eventually proper scraping (monthly). The "replace carbon" is for when the carbon is used to reduce N and P. The fan is mostly for when you do the on-off-on wavemaker pump option, to simulate the air that real turf gets between waves; You are correct that it does not do as much good with a constant water flow (does help cooling, though).
cageUK: In order to hide it you'd have to do one of the sump versions, in which case it takes up no additional space, and needs no tubes.
Musho: For copepods, i'm not sure a fuge would do better. Maybe for larger pods, but in my setup the copepods are swarming in the display and the little damsels are chasing and eating them all day. I tried filtering them with a 25 micron overflow sock for a week, but they are just coming in to fast from the turf, so I can't stop them. For waterchanges, they are often recommended to folks when they just can't get the nutrients down no matter what they do; so they change water. For these people, a tank full of green algae is their biggest problem. These are the folks that even have hair algae growing on their snails and hermits, and it looks like little green bushes moving around. The angle of the post was indeed meant for beginners, using a bit more excitement, and less numbers. I'm in promotion, so this part is easy. And yes, McDonalds is known for the most effective promotion in the world. So the more folks that try turf, the more feedback we will have on how it can help us. SPS: Correct, I don't work with them, but Morgan at Inland Aquatics does and uses only turf.
And if anyone really wants a "sleek" or "presentable" unit to sit outside the tank, then you can build the original version: An all acrylic vertical waterfall, detailed on the RC post.
psycho-killer: DSB only does N, what about P? Also, a DSB in the display requires the whole tank to be designed around it. Even in a fuge, it still collects waste and causes some the the very N problems you are trying to erase. As for less "work", my nano test setup took 5 minutes from start to finish, and nutrients went from N=50 and P=.5 to almost zero. I'll be posting it in a few days.
@ombomb
Fish Gatherer
i dunno... i've seen pics of tank with pink gravel and plastic skulls
i'd love to try one of these, they've been a round years and are tried and tested, but have to agree that i have no way of concealing it
perhaps in a few years and i have a whole room devoted to the back of the 600 gallon reef i''ll try it out
The whole do water changes to fix everything advice died out a while ago. When someone says "i have very high nitrates" the first thing people ask about is the source water, is it pure or is it tap. Water changes is more of a cover up, say you have high nitrates because you overfeed, no matter how many water changes, you will still overfeed, which means you will still have high nitrates, you are just covering it up.
As for the turf is #1, seagrass is #2... Its more throwing out random stuff, most refugiums dont even use seagrass, infact, seagrass isnt recommended, neither is caulerpa, its cheato that is mostly used, and those export a lot due to their large "meaty" size. Im sure if you have two identical tanks, one using turf, the other using cheato, and in a month dry out all the turf and all the cheato, there would be more dry weight in cheato, which means more nutrient export. Turf and cheato dont make it dissapear, they just use it to grow.
As for the turf is #1, seagrass is #2... Its more throwing out random stuff, most refugiums dont even use seagrass, infact, seagrass isnt recommended, neither is caulerpa, its cheato that is mostly used, and those export a lot due to their large "meaty" size. Im sure if you have two identical tanks, one using turf, the other using cheato, and in a month dry out all the turf and all the cheato, there would be more dry weight in cheato, which means more nutrient export. Turf and cheato dont make it dissapear, they just use it to grow.
johnnyjtaylor
Fishaholic
Who uses carbon to reduce nitrate(I assume you mean nitrate by N and not nitrogen which is of course a gas) and phosphate(again I assume you mean phosphate by P and not phosphorus). I have heard of carbon leaching phosphates into water(the opposite to reducing) and I think I have read in the past carbon in huge quantities(bucket fulls) can remove nitrate from a home aquarium but I've not heard of anyone doing so, which makes that a rather odd statement by you.
Surely the fan would do even less with an on/off pump as opposed to a continuous flow pump as when its off the turf would be exposed to air anyway?
I personally currently use a skimmer and a HOB refugium with chaeto backed up with a phosphate binder(rowaphos) and a small bag of activated carbon(not for NO3 or PO4 but to get rid of any nasties that might find their way in).My nitrates are 0 and my phosphates are 0.
Now if your turf screen does work as well as you say in the sizes you give that would certainly be of great interest but its hard to see how a piece of 9"x5" screen would replace all the stuff I've put above(in my 45gallon). I agree with Musho that the chaeto grows a large mass very quickly(visible nutrient export you can hold in your hand) for instance I half my cheato in my refugium every two weeks, if I put this onto a screen of the size you suggest it would be about 6" deep on it, that would seem to be much more physical mass of algea than on your turf screen and I'm still removing a cupfull of skimate a week(which ultimately you say your turf will also deal with).
I'm not saying your method in the sizes you give won't work but it seems a tall order for something so physically small that can only hold a certain amount of your 'turf' algea. It would be interesting to see the results of one made by someone on here and to see whether or not they get to throw away skimmers etc..(didn't Skifletch say he might build one
)SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
@ombom: Then use a sump version then; no extra space, and it's already concealed.
Musho: Changes are still recommend everyday in different forums, so I respond to them. As for macros, I talk about what has the most pull, not what is used by the most people. Research and numbers are in the the technical post on RC. Turf has the most pull per unit size, meaning that for a given square inch of sump space, turf would pull the most N and P.
johnny: Some people who think in terms of "skimmers reducing N and P" (which they don't) also think in terms of carbon reducing N and P (which it doesn't). So I have to present to them in the way that they currently think. Just like with water changes. And for the fan, if you watch one of these thing work, you'll see that with the water flowing, the screen is covered by water and cannot get air. With a wave timer, the "off" time lets the water flow off, and at that point the fan helps blows off the last remaining boundary layers of water, just like waves and wind in the ocean.
That's the true power of turf: It's the most nutrient absorbing macro in the ocean, PER UNIT SPACE. That's why it's called "turf": Surely you have felt astroturf on a field... rough tough stuff. That's exactly how real red/brown turf feels; not soft, bendable and water logged like chaeto or caulerpa. Matter of fact, when you "scrub" a screen with your fingernails to remove green hair/slime, the green comes right off (it has no strength in it's body) but the red/brown turf will NOT leg go. You need a razor blade to get it off. It packs so many nutrients in such a small space that a screen full of real turf could bring a N=50 and P=.5 laden 100 gal tank down to zero and you wouldn't even notice the extra growth. The green macros just can't do this. Green algaes "appears" to grow fast because they are mostly water. Turf lives at the surface, in air half the time, and has little water in it. Your 45 gal tank needs just a 2 gal bucket with a 7 X 7 inch screen and two full-spectum 23W CFL bulbs; will be more than enough. And there's no risk trying it.
Musho: Changes are still recommend everyday in different forums, so I respond to them. As for macros, I talk about what has the most pull, not what is used by the most people. Research and numbers are in the the technical post on RC. Turf has the most pull per unit size, meaning that for a given square inch of sump space, turf would pull the most N and P.
johnny: Some people who think in terms of "skimmers reducing N and P" (which they don't) also think in terms of carbon reducing N and P (which it doesn't). So I have to present to them in the way that they currently think. Just like with water changes. And for the fan, if you watch one of these thing work, you'll see that with the water flowing, the screen is covered by water and cannot get air. With a wave timer, the "off" time lets the water flow off, and at that point the fan helps blows off the last remaining boundary layers of water, just like waves and wind in the ocean.
That's the true power of turf: It's the most nutrient absorbing macro in the ocean, PER UNIT SPACE. That's why it's called "turf": Surely you have felt astroturf on a field... rough tough stuff. That's exactly how real red/brown turf feels; not soft, bendable and water logged like chaeto or caulerpa. Matter of fact, when you "scrub" a screen with your fingernails to remove green hair/slime, the green comes right off (it has no strength in it's body) but the red/brown turf will NOT leg go. You need a razor blade to get it off. It packs so many nutrients in such a small space that a screen full of real turf could bring a N=50 and P=.5 laden 100 gal tank down to zero and you wouldn't even notice the extra growth. The green macros just can't do this. Green algaes "appears" to grow fast because they are mostly water. Turf lives at the surface, in air half the time, and has little water in it. Your 45 gal tank needs just a 2 gal bucket with a 7 X 7 inch screen and two full-spectum 23W CFL bulbs; will be more than enough. And there's no risk trying it.
You haven't been a member here long enough to be able to say what we think about everything, the last thing anyone here would say (short of you) here is that carbon removes N and P, don't assume that from us, and stop manipulating our newer members into thinking that Carbon and Water Changes are mainly for N and P removal, you know that isn't true, so don't feed lies to other people.
And get the info here, no one wants to read through 8 pages. If you are so certain about the things like "skimmers remove 50% food" or "Turf is #1 and seagrass is #2" then prove us all wrong here, in olympic fashion.
And get the info here, no one wants to read through 8 pages. If you are so certain about the things like "skimmers remove 50% food" or "Turf is #1 and seagrass is #2" then prove us all wrong here, in olympic fashion.
johnnyjtaylor
Fishaholic
That is seriously flawed logic and a bit weird. You seem to be saying that if someone thinks something that is wrong, you should then say that their right and uphold their misguided belief?(or did you just not know it yourself?)
My, it must be nice to be so superior to others that you can lower yourself to their level of poor understanding and low intellect
Not being picky but again you mean NO3 and PO4,N and P are not the same thing and you may add more confusion to those who don't know what you mean.
Sorry but that doesn't wash, after your apparent 'mistruths' above, how can we take your word for it? Have you proven any of this exprimentally? All plant life is mostly water.Maybe if you weighed the turf on a screen , weighed the amount of chaeto normally in a refugium for the same size tank ,ran both in the same tank for say 2 weeks then removed by weight the extra that has grown, dry both samples with a dehumidifier then re-weigh them you could prove what you are saying(providing the dry turf was heavier).
It still looks like a fairly good idea but posting in the way you are(mistruths and a seeming belief that others must know much less than yourself or are not intellectually capable of understanding simple chemistry) dosen't really help to get your point across. I still hope someone on this forum builds one and lets us know how it how well it performs.
Lets clear a little somethings up here before this gets out of hand. Lord knows I don't want to have to close a thread with some good ideas cause it breaks down into flames...
Protein skimmers are what are known in industrial circles as "foam fractionators". They operate by using microbubbles to remove bipolar Dissolved Organic Compounds (most often proteins) from the water column. These DOC's are usually the byproduct of fish waste and uneaten food. If allowed to sit in the water column, they can be broken down by bacteria and ultimately lead to the buildup of Nitrate and Phosphate. So by removing DOC's, the skimmer removes the POTENTIAL for Nitrate and Phosphate BEFORE they can enter the water column.
A "traditional" Chaetomorpha or Culerpa refugium functions by encouraging the growth of these algaes. When plants grow they consume Nitrate and Phosphate, thus removing them from the water column. When the algae gets too large it is pruned, thus completing nutrient export.
Activated Carbon DOES NOT significantly remove Nitrate and Phosphate. Some very high quality versions may remove SOME phosphate, but not to the level that is significantly cost effective for 99% of aquarists out there to use as a filtration method.
Granular Ferric Oxide commonly used in "Phosphate Reactors" is a good method of removing phosphate. It can however be overwhelmed by explosive algal growth, especially if not properly operated.
Proving the worth between two different competing photosynthetic based filters (green algaes vs red algae) is in fact exceptionally difficult. As johnny mentioned, the only way to do it is to compare dry weights, which is by no means easy. Arguing the merits of each is a little pointless.
To the OP, I'm glad to hear your experience with this Turf Algae filter type has been fruitful. Posting in a tone of your oppinion will always garner one more support as opposed to posting oppinion as unproven or hard to prove facts which will tend to merely create controversy and criticism. I do hope it continues to work for you.
Protein skimmers are what are known in industrial circles as "foam fractionators". They operate by using microbubbles to remove bipolar Dissolved Organic Compounds (most often proteins) from the water column. These DOC's are usually the byproduct of fish waste and uneaten food. If allowed to sit in the water column, they can be broken down by bacteria and ultimately lead to the buildup of Nitrate and Phosphate. So by removing DOC's, the skimmer removes the POTENTIAL for Nitrate and Phosphate BEFORE they can enter the water column.
A "traditional" Chaetomorpha or Culerpa refugium functions by encouraging the growth of these algaes. When plants grow they consume Nitrate and Phosphate, thus removing them from the water column. When the algae gets too large it is pruned, thus completing nutrient export.
Activated Carbon DOES NOT significantly remove Nitrate and Phosphate. Some very high quality versions may remove SOME phosphate, but not to the level that is significantly cost effective for 99% of aquarists out there to use as a filtration method.
Granular Ferric Oxide commonly used in "Phosphate Reactors" is a good method of removing phosphate. It can however be overwhelmed by explosive algal growth, especially if not properly operated.
Proving the worth between two different competing photosynthetic based filters (green algaes vs red algae) is in fact exceptionally difficult. As johnny mentioned, the only way to do it is to compare dry weights, which is by no means easy. Arguing the merits of each is a little pointless.
To the OP, I'm glad to hear your experience with this Turf Algae filter type has been fruitful. Posting in a tone of your oppinion will always garner one more support as opposed to posting oppinion as unproven or hard to prove facts which will tend to merely create controversy and criticism. I do hope it continues to work for you.
johnnyjtaylor
Fishaholic
Dude,I think everyone who has posted on this thread understands the above information
Its just annoying when people claim to knowingly post false information as they assume thats what others think or won't be able to comprehend whats actually happening.Its very bad for a forum where people come to learn . Its a shame because as I said it still does seem to be a good idea. Don't worry I for one aren't looking for a fight with the OP, I was just showing how it was comming over(in my own sarcastic little way).
Its just annoying when people claim to knowingly post false information as they assume thats what others think or won't be able to comprehend whats actually happening.Its very bad for a forum where people come to learn . Its a shame because as I said it still does seem to be a good idea. Don't worry I for one aren't looking for a fight with the OP, I was just showing how it was comming over(in my own sarcastic little way).
No worries Johnny, I'm just writing about the general tone of the entire thread, just happened to be that I posted after you
SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
mosho: I was at the lfs today, and asked him what's up, and he said he's busy doing a water change to bring down nitrate "because nothing else works". He advises his customers to do the same.
johhny: It's the job of marketing to talk to people in a way that they can relate to. And I'm not asking anyone to belive me. Yes the research has been done, it's posted in the RC post, and on the web. Mostly from the 60's to the '90's.
ski: In the said research, yes they have done the drying and weighing, and also have done same for skimmate. That is the reason that only an algae turf scrubber (trademarked "ATS" ) was chosen and patented to stop anyone else from making and selling them. Unfortunately the guy who owns the patent also decided that he would not make or sell them himself. Kinda like if nobody made skimmers, who would use them?
johhny: It's the job of marketing to talk to people in a way that they can relate to. And I'm not asking anyone to belive me. Yes the research has been done, it's posted in the RC post, and on the web. Mostly from the 60's to the '90's.
ski: In the said research, yes they have done the drying and weighing, and also have done same for skimmate. That is the reason that only an algae turf scrubber (trademarked "ATS" ) was chosen and patented to stop anyone else from making and selling them. Unfortunately the guy who owns the patent also decided that he would not make or sell them himself. Kinda like if nobody made skimmers, who would use them?
SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
Here's an interesting one that someone just built... said it took him just a few minutes:
johnnyjtaylor
Fishaholic
SantaMonica, this is a fish forum for giving/getting advice and sharing ideas, not a place to practice marketing skills. Your not trying to sell us a product(not yet anyway, prehaps thats comming in a few posts time
) you are simply sharing your(or somebodies) DIY project idea. When posting on a site like this theres little point in trying to promote your idea by not telling the truth as people are just as clever as you and know just as much(maybe more) than you do yourself. The result of which is the inncorrect bits of your statements get pointed out and as a result people disregard everything else you say as they now know you don't mind lying to them(made even worse by how you keep trying to justify giving false information), thats the bottom line here. Marketing that uses lies ultimately fails. For example we've all been to a LFS where they give awful advice just to try to sell us stuff and once we learn more ourselves we either avoid that establishment or atleast disregard anything they say to us.Its a pity because it does look like a good idea and your way of 'pushing' it puts people off.
Another little thing that should of come to me before but didn't about your claims of the red algea over green is of course the very well known fact that red plants contain much less chlorophyll than green ones do , meaning green plants can process more light, grow much faster and therefore should be better at using up nutrients.
If this dry weight research has been done in the way I suggested a post or two above this, i.e with a turf screen of your recommended size against the 'usual amount' of chaeto in a refugium(not starting with a weight for weight of each but with the amounts of each you would expect to use normally i.e fairly) and it shows the turf is much better(gains more dry weight), reproduce those results and no one will be able to disagree.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
473 -
324 -
235 -
221 -
212 -
180 -
171 -
161 -
143 -
133 -
129 -
112 -
101 -
93 -
78