Mega Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover - DIY!

[pauline]

i think you may prefer to run the scrubber out of tank (if possible) as from your thread it seems like you have not much usable space to run a scrubber at the alternate timing with your main lightings...

my scrubber is not up yet.. still trying to source for a suitable light source... anyway will be posting it in my thread once it's setup so do check it out.. =]

will let you know nontheless...

http://www.sgreefclub.com/forum/index.php?...c=72975&hl=

ok , have to steal some idea from u once u update in your thread...haha.... run my scrubber out of the tank?? but who?? can give me some idea cos i'm poor in technical...lolx

thank

[raydiative]

ok , have to steal some idea from u once u update in your thread...haha.... run my scrubber out of the tank?? but who?? can give me some idea cos i'm poor in technical...lolx

thank

can can.. no problem at all... you can actually place the mesh at your output of the prizm and filter... the last time i use the prizm, always got algae growth at the output flow there... =]

[pauline]

can can.. no problem at all... you can actually place the mesh at your output of the prizm and filter... the last time i use the prizm, always got algae growth at the output flow there... =]

hmmm... ya hor, haha... never thought of that. but if i place in on the output, means i have to on the light 4 longer time?? then will it cause any stress to the corals or fishes?? they actually need time to rest right??

[raydiative]

hmmm... ya hor, haha... never thought of that. but if i place in on the output, means i have to on the light 4 longer time?? then will it cause any stress to the corals or fishes?? they actually need time to rest right??

hmmm... i think no need to have the light on longer... should be sufficient but prob not as effective...

then again... if u place it there, the scrubber is not hidden and can be quite unsightly... u reduce the algae in the main tank to shift it to just above the main tank... hahaha

[pauline]

hmmm... i think no need to have the light on longer... should be sufficient but prob not as effective...

then again... if u place it there, the scrubber is not hidden and can be quite unsightly... u reduce the algae in the main tank to shift it to just above the main tank... hahaha

oh ok, really apperection the info n advice... will try out hanging on the mouth of the filter.... will update the result also...

thank

[wilsontantw]

hmmm... ya hor, haha... never thought of that. but if i place in on the output, means i have to on the light 4 longer time?? then will it cause any stress to the corals or fishes?? they actually need time to rest right??

it's always good to run reverse photoperiod. Apparently, it kinda stabilises the pH. (read somewhere...)

[SantaMonica]

pauline: Only one compartment is needed at back of tank. If you want out-of-tank, try this:

snapper: 3 inch is good. Wattage just depends on screen size. If the screen is only a few inches wide, then a 9 or 11 watt bulb might work. But, anytime you use less watts, you get less filtering.

ray: You have a lot of NPS corals now How are they doing?

[pauline]

it's always good to run reverse photoperiod. Apparently, it kinda stabilises the pH. (read somewhere...)

so am i right to say that, switch on the scrubber light during night time when i off my main tank light??

best regards

[pauline]

pauline: Only one compartment is needed at back of tank. If you want out-of-tank, try this:

wow!! this is great!! i already got the picture how my scrubber going to be..... thank 4 the advice

[raydiative]

ray: You have a lot of NPS corals now How are they doing?

hi SM,

all corals are doing great... except for 2 of my us zoas which are not fully open yet... however, am facing some irritating cyano issues currently...

am considering to use another wavemaker other then scrubber to improve the flow.. =]

[raydiative]

so am i right to say that, switch on the scrubber light during night time when i off my main tank light??

best regards

yes thats right.. the photoperiod does helps with stabalizing PH..

so the scrubber lights comes on after the main tank lights goes off...

[raydiative]

wow!! this is great!! i already got the picture how my scrubber going to be..... thank 4 the advice

pauline,

just one note.. if you intend to put a pump in your main tank, do consider some factors:

1) will any of your fishes can suck into the pump?

2) if you are using gravity for the return of the scrubber to the main tank, in times where there is power cut, you tank may overflow..

just my 2 cents as i used to have a sumpless 2ft and i faced with the desire to use sump/refug but i couldnt due to these factors..

[wilsontantw]

yes thats right.. the photoperiod does helps with stabalizing PH..

so the scrubber lights comes on after the main tank lights goes off...

hehe... thanx for the reply bro!

i've yet to post latest pix of my scrubber... not time to take care of that currently.

[pauline]

yes thats right.. the photoperiod does helps with stabalizing PH..

so the scrubber lights comes on after the main tank lights goes off...

ok... thanks MR RAY!!!! sorry for all the trouble to answer my nood question!! anyway thank 4 all the info provide by the sis n bro here...

all the best

[raydiative]

hehe... thanx for the reply bro!

i've yet to post latest pix of my scrubber... not time to take care of that currently.

no problem man..

[pauline]

pauline,

just one note.. if you intend to put a pump in your main tank, do consider some factors:

1) will any of your fishes can suck into the pump?

2) if you are using gravity for the return of the scrubber to the main tank, in times where there is power cut, you tank may overflow..

just my 2 cents as i used to have a sumpless 2ft and i faced with the desire to use sump/refug but i couldnt due to these factors..

ok, note taken!! thank alot

[Creetin]

day 19 update. getting black stuff and not the green yet. will clean the screen later...

from observation it seems like if theres something growing on the portion already, the algae comes quickly. replenishes quickly too, even after cleaning the screen.

[SantaMonica]

Looks good! An easy way to clean is just to spray water through it.

[Creetin]

Looks good! An easy way to clean is just to spray water through it.

thats what i did the previous round! lazy way to do it... i also am afraid to scrub too hard, and lose e growth and it will be down time for the 1st day or so for my tank...

[SantaMonica]

"Kcress" on the algae scrubber site has just finished his version of a G2 LED scrubber, for testing. A G2 is a self-contained scrubber, but the LEDs themselves are not the screen, like they are with a G3. Anyways, for testing purposes, he only has LED's on one side of the screen, and he only used low-power LEDs to avoid heat issues:

[snaper]

Cool design...very nice

[Creetin]

"Kcress" on the algae scrubber site has just finished his version of a G2 LED scrubber, for testing. A G2 is a self-contained scrubber, but the LEDs themselves are not the screen, like they are with a G3. Anyways, for testing purposes, he only has LED's on one side of the screen, and he only used low-power LEDs to avoid heat issues:

really slick looking! looks like a billboard!

[SantaMonica]

Part 4 of 7:

Taken from "The Food of Reefs, Part 4: Zooplankton" by Eric Borneman

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/eb/index.php

[Note: "Zooplankton" are tiny animals (food) floating in the water]

"Copepods comprise by far the largest fraction of total zooplankton - more than all the other groups combined.

"Zooxanthellate corals (many diverse species) could survive "indefinitely" if provided with adequate zooplankton, even if totally deprived of light. In contrast, corals provided light and deprived of zooplankton did not survive.

"One of the greatest myths among reefkeepers is that "SPS" corals depend mostly on light, and require less food than "LPS" corals. This is entirely untrue. As an example, consider the data from [pic not shown]. This graph shows the capture rate of an equivalent biomass of two corals, the large-polyped Montastraea cavernosa and the very small-polyped Madracis mirabilis. For those unfamiliar with Madracis, it is related to and somewhat resembles Pocillopora and Stylophora. The capture rate of the small polyped coral was 36 times greater than the large-polyped coral! Furthermore, M. cavernosa has been shown in other studies to be a voracious zooplanktivore.

"Many other studies confirm the predatory [feeding] abilities and requirements of "SPS" corals. It should not be surprising, given the fast growth rate and fecundity of many small polyped species. In other words, more growth and reproduction requires more energy, especially nitrogen for tissue growth. The difference, if one exists between "SPS" and "LPS" corals, lies primarily in the size of the food captured. Most of the prey of small polyped corals may just be too small to see. Aquarists have a tendency to be strongly visual, and so if gross observations don't indicate that a coral is consuming food offered to it, they wrongfully assume the coral must not need to be fed.

"Some species rely more on zooplankton than others, and if anything, the "SPS" corals feed on zooplankton a lot. In fact, most corals show linear feeding saturation dynamics under all but extremely high particle concentrations. What this means is that corals have a hard time "getting full." They continue to capture prey, and do not get satiated until prey densities become so great that such levels are almost never possible. To put it another way, even if you were to pour a pound of food per day into an average sized reef aquarium, the corals would still "be hungry."

"In a September 2002 coral reef conference in Cambridge, several papers were presented that should give an idea of not only the very latest information, but also emphasize what is written above.

"Many years ago, one of the only [food studies] for a coral was done for what might be considered the ultimate shallow-water "SPS" coral, Acropora palmata (Bythell 1988, 1990). The study showed, basically, that 70% of this coral's nitrogen needs were met by feeding, and that 91% of its carbon needs were met by light. [in 2002] three more corals, the larger polyped Montastraea cavernosa, M. annularis and Menadrina meandrites [were studied, and the researchers found] zooplankton to provide 20-80 times the carbon and 112-460 times the nitrogen previously shown for Acropora palmata. Finally [in 2002, researchers studied] the role of zooplankton consumption on the metabolism of the small-polyped coral, Stylophora pistillata under 3 different conditions of light (80, 200, 300 µmoles m-2 s-1) and 2 feeding regimes (Artemia and natural plankton). They found that regardless of light, fed corals had higher chlorophyll-A concentrations, higher protein levels, and had photosynthesis rates 2-10 times higher than those deprived of food. This group also measured calcification rates, both in the dark and in light, and found that calcification, as is well known to be the case, is enhanced by light. However, for the first time it was shown that feeding results in calcification rates 50-75% higher than in control corals (not fed). It was also found that feeding does not affect the light-enhancement process of photosynthesis on calcification. To make these results completely understandable, if corals can feed on zooplankton, they will calcify 50-75% faster irrespective of light levels provided.

"Of all the many things that can potentially increase respiration, photosynthesis, and calcification -- and have been shown again and again to do so absolutely -- feeding and water flow are the major players. Light, of course, is critically important as well, but aquarists by and large can and do provide enough quantity and quality of light for corals. Period. Phytoplankton, while a very beneficial addition to aquaria, does not feed most corals (Borneman 2002). Something as significant as zooplankton to both coral and coral reefs would seem worthy of the highest efforts in trying to produce, add, grow, substitute or in some way provide to tanks. I cannot think of a single greater accomplishment and advance for aquarists than to provide by whatever means (higher export and higher input, larger refugia, purchase, plankton tow, culture, etc.) significantly greater levels of zooplankton or zooplankton substitutes to their corals. I hope I am being dramatic enough by writing this, for this is among the most important steps that must be made to realize the majority of those lofty goals and ideals that are so often stated and desired by those keeping corals in aquariums.

[skimmers remove zooplankton; Scrubbers add zooplankton]

.

[SantaMonica]

Part 4 of 7:

Taken from "The Food of Reefs, Part 4: Zooplankton" by Eric Borneman

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/eb/index.php

[Note: "Zooplankton" are tiny animals (food) floating in the water]

"Copepods comprise by far the largest fraction of total zooplankton - more than all the other groups combined.

"Zooxanthellate corals (many diverse species) could survive "indefinitely" if provided with adequate zooplankton, even if totally deprived of light. In contrast, corals provided light and deprived of zooplankton did not survive.

"One of the greatest myths among reefkeepers is that "SPS" corals depend mostly on light, and require less food than "LPS" corals. This is entirely untrue. As an example, consider the data from [pic not shown]. This graph shows the capture rate of an equivalent biomass of two corals, the large-polyped Montastraea cavernosa and the very small-polyped Madracis mirabilis. For those unfamiliar with Madracis, it is related to and somewhat resembles Pocillopora and Stylophora. The capture rate of the small polyped coral was 36 times greater than the large-polyped coral! Furthermore, M. cavernosa has been shown in other studies to be a voracious zooplanktivore.

"Many other studies confirm the predatory [feeding] abilities and requirements of "SPS" corals. It should not be surprising, given the fast growth rate and fecundity of many small polyped species. In other words, more growth and reproduction requires more energy, especially nitrogen for tissue growth. The difference, if one exists between "SPS" and "LPS" corals, lies primarily in the size of the food captured. Most of the prey of small polyped corals may just be too small to see. Aquarists have a tendency to be strongly visual, and so if gross observations don't indicate that a coral is consuming food offered to it, they wrongfully assume the coral must not need to be fed.

"Some species rely more on zooplankton than others, and if anything, the "SPS" corals feed on zooplankton a lot. In fact, most corals show linear feeding saturation dynamics under all but extremely high particle concentrations. What this means is that corals have a hard time "getting full." They continue to capture prey, and do not get satiated until prey densities become so great that such levels are almost never possible. To put it another way, even if you were to pour a pound of food per day into an average sized reef aquarium, the corals would still "be hungry."

"In a September 2002 coral reef conference in Cambridge, several papers were presented that should give an idea of not only the very latest information, but also emphasize what is written above.

"Many years ago, one of the only [food studies] for a coral was done for what might be considered the ultimate shallow-water "SPS" coral, Acropora palmata (Bythell 1988, 1990). The study showed, basically, that 70% of this coral's nitrogen needs were met by feeding, and that 91% of its carbon needs were met by light. [in 2002] three more corals, the larger polyped Montastraea cavernosa, M. annularis and Menadrina meandrites [were studied, and the researchers found] zooplankton to provide 20-80 times the carbon and 112-460 times the nitrogen previously shown for Acropora palmata. Finally [in 2002, researchers studied] the role of zooplankton consumption on the metabolism of the small-polyped coral, Stylophora pistillata under 3 different conditions of light (80, 200, 300 µmoles m-2 s-1) and 2 feeding regimes (Artemia and natural plankton). They found that regardless of light, fed corals had higher chlorophyll-A concentrations, higher protein levels, and had photosynthesis rates 2-10 times higher than those deprived of food. This group also measured calcification rates, both in the dark and in light, and found that calcification, as is well known to be the case, is enhanced by light. However, for the first time it was shown that feeding results in calcification rates 50-75% higher than in control corals (not fed). It was also found that feeding does not affect the light-enhancement process of photosynthesis on calcification. To make these results completely understandable, if corals can feed on zooplankton, they will calcify 50-75% faster irrespective of light levels provided.

"Of all the many things that can potentially increase respiration, photosynthesis, and calcification -- and have been shown again and again to do so absolutely -- feeding and water flow are the major players. Light, of course, is critically important as well, but aquarists by and large can and do provide enough quantity and quality of light for corals. Period. Phytoplankton, while a very beneficial addition to aquaria, does not feed most corals (Borneman 2002). Something as significant as zooplankton to both coral and coral reefs would seem worthy of the highest efforts in trying to produce, add, grow, substitute or in some way provide to tanks. I cannot think of a single greater accomplishment and advance for aquarists than to provide by whatever means (higher export and higher input, larger refugia, purchase, plankton tow, culture, etc.) significantly greater levels of zooplankton or zooplankton substitutes to their corals. I hope I am being dramatic enough by writing this, for this is among the most important steps that must be made to realize the majority of those lofty goals and ideals that are so often stated and desired by those keeping corals in aquariums.

[skimmers remove zooplankton; Scrubbers add zooplankton]

.

[SantaMonica]

Update: Pod Size

All the talk of how a scrubber "grows pods" has given some folks the idea of trying to catch the pods in a net. I think they might be expecting large pods like they see crawling around their sand and rocks at night. But actually what grows in scrubbers is the microscopic baby pod, which look like a spec of dust. This is because the weekly scrubber cleaning (in FW) kills most of the pods before they can eat too much of the algae. While this makes the scrubber work really good at removing nutrients (since the pods will not have a chance to eat the algae and put it back into the water), it also limits the growth period of the pods to 7 days. So what you get are millions of tiny white pod specs that fall off the scrubber and float through the water; if you have good circulation, the water might even look "dusty". This is exactly what you want: Large numbers of live zooplankton (baby pods) floating through the water, feeding your corals and small fish. Just like a real reef.