Mega-powerful Nitrate And Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium

[SantaMonica]

Here is the first screen builder ("varga" from another thread) to reach the cleaning stage:

Some comments from him along the way:

"Mine has very little growth on it, its been 4 days......more light?" (Which he then did)

"The light now is right on the screen, almost touching it"

"I'll have to reach in my tank to take out HA [for seeding] which is not easy! (Which he then did)

"We've now had a burst of growth in the last 24 hours; Here it is on day 6."

"We had another major burst of growth in the last 24 hours! its a redish/brownish stuff, Im guessing this is turf?" (No, it was brown diatoms)

"This thing is a great chiller!! forgot to turn the fan off last night, woke up to a 73 degree tank!"

 

[SantaMonica]

In a classic case of "not doing research", some anti-turf folks on another site have ended up helping out the turf scene. They are constantly accusing pro-turf or pro-algae folks, and especially anti-skimmer folks, of not having research. So they post a research video from the College of Marine Science (U of S. FL, St. Petersburg) on that site, which is supposed to prove with research that algae, especially turf, kills corals. Yes. Then they
follow it up with "So I guess you didn't watch the video, right?"

Well. I took the time to watch it (one hour). But, I guess they did NOT. The video starts out appearing to make the point of "algae kills corals", and if you stopped watching after fifteen minutes, that's what you'd think. But the first part of that presentation is just a setup for the presenter's further explanations, and is not the point itself.

It's a similar situation to a presentation for beginners about how rock, sand, and the nitrogen cycle works: You would start by saying "If I have a fish in a bucket of water, and I pour in ammonia, the fish will die." This is true, but it's only used to set up later explanations of how rock and sand come into the picture to stop the death of the fish.

So it turns out that if you watch the whole research video, the presenter/researcher not only makes the point of pro-algae folks, and counters the point of the people who posted it (as their evidence), but it also counters the entire group of people who say no-skimmers and high-DOC's are bad. I've been saying that my focus never was skimmer or no-skimmer; instead my focus was reducing N and P cheaply, quickly, and with no risk. But since these people made this video/research available, I'll use it:

The presenter is trying to show how "algae that kills coral" would SEEM to occur, so later he can show you what they really found in their research. The crux of his presentation is basically: "We thought higher DOC's were the cause of coral death; We were wrong. Lower DOC's are" (these are my words).

So here is the video, with rough quotes of what the video says, along with the minutes and seconds into the video where you can see it for yourself:

http/www.marine.usf.edu/videos/2007-01-26.wmv

23:30 "Bulk DOC does not correlate with coral decline; higher DOC areas have healthier corals; lower DOC areas have weaker corals. The opposite of what we predicted".

24:40 "The DOC to DIN ratio's are higher on healthy reefs, and lower on less-healthy reefs".

25:45 "Microbial numbers are elevated with a lower DOC to DIN ratio" (!) (even I got that one wrong).

34:00 "Christmas Island, with the really low DOC, has the highest pathogens, while Kingman Island, with the highest DOC, has the lowest pathogens."

37:00 "On Kingman Island you have high hard-coral coverage and the lowest disease [and highest DOC]. That's weird! What you SHOULD find is that as hard-coral coverage reduces, it should be harder for the pathogens to find hosts, so you should see a pathogen decrease. But we're not seeing that, which means there is SOMETHING ELSE going on."

49:20 "The DOC definitely always goes down, in the really bad coral areas".

52:39 "You can actually put the corals where the nutrients are really high, and the corals are not dying; in some cases they tend to grow better, which is also true in our [???].

So I submit to them, using their own evidence, that not using a skimmer, with the resultant increase in DOC's (and now apparent decrease in microbes), is not in-itself a coral killer. Something else is. And this explains why some people using algal-only filtration can grow great sps.

 

[SantaMonica]

Wow. There's so much to post that I don't know which should be first. Today I'll cover max inputs that's I've been able to achieve.

I've been experimenting with how much I can feed my 90g, with only my 144 square inch turf screen doing the filtering. I'd add more food for a few days, then the Salifert N test would start showing a tiny bit of pink (about a .2 reading). Then I'd cut the food in half, until the reading went clear (zero N measured). Interestingly, P never increased. Ever. Only N. So after a few tries, here's the max I've been able feed the tank while just barely getting an N increase:


Max Feeding:

Liquid Life Marine Plankton with Cyclopeeze: 3 pumps a day
Liquid Life Bio Plankton (live phyto): 2 pumps a day
Frozone mysis: 2 cubes a day, unwashed, thawed in 4 oz tap water.
Silversides: 1 per week (for the eel)


Tank:

90 Display, BB
20 Sump
150 pounds LR
60 inches fish
40 corals, all softie and lps
6000 gph circulation
Carbon now used once a month for allelpathics


I'm now settling in on a lesser amount:

1 pump phyto
1-2 pumps plankton
2 cubes mysis, unwashed, thawed in 4 oz tap water.
Silversides: 1 per week (for the eel)

 

[SantaMonica]

Here is the screen from the person who bought pre-grown turf from Inland Aquatics, after growing on the tank for one week, and then after cleaning:

 

[SantaMonica]

Here's a rather ingenious screen-in-a-trashcan that someone just built. This type of design will eliminate evaporation (and cooling), if that's what you want. One thing I might change would be the distance of the bulb to the screen; it should be so close that it almost touches it. In all the builds I've seen so far, the ones that have slow growth always have the bulb too far away, or too small a wattage.

 

[SantaMonica]

Here is an example of a screen that I wish were done better. He's using the skimmer output and dropping it right down on the screen at an angle, so that most of it goes through the screen. I'd rather see the water spread out across the screen. Also, the light is too far away. Thus, he got very little growth in the first seven days:

 

[SantaMonica]

Today I thought I'd show what's up with my screen. I'm back to using just my main original bucket (that started with pre-grown screen), since the 2nd bucket that I used for the build thread is on loan to the lfs. I'll be posting progress pics of that soon. But for my tank/screen, N and P are zero of course. I check every day unless I forget. The main development has been true green turf, i.e, not green hair or slime. Now, hair and slime are always there (they grow right over everything else), but I started noticing that after regular cleanings there were still some green remaining. I thought I was just rushing and missing it, but it got to be too much green. So on the next cleaning I used the camera, and when cleaning I found for the first time true green turf. I also let it grow more than I normally would, so the pics would show more:

Here is the screen just before cleaning, looking down into the bucket (both sides looked about the same).

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenBefo...ing08-27-08.jpg


Here is the screen pulled out (still not cleaned):

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenBefo...ved08-27-08.jpg


Here is the screen after a regular cleaning (scrubbing) with fingernails and toothbrush. Note that tons of green remains:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenAfte...ing08-27-08.jpg


Here is the screen after scraping with a razor blade:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenAfte...ing08-27-08.jpg


Note how most of the green turf is on the top half of the screen, near the lights. The flow is the same; only the light is stronger near the top (the very top is only one inch from the lights). It had been exactly on one month since I'd used a razor before this. It took that long for the real turf to grow (both red/brown and green). Real turf takes so long because it is very tightly packed and strong, with very little water. It looks like the green turf grows a bit faster than the red/brown, however, and is not quite as strong; it grows longer too. However I still could not scrub it off with my fingernails or a toothbrush, no matter how hard I tried. Only the razor could get it off. Took about 5 minutes; not bad for a month of growing.

Anyways, intrigued by this green turf, I went down to the beach with a camera so I could search for what I've been wanting for a while: Pics of how real turf lives. Sure enough I found it on the pylings of the pier at Paradise Cove (just north of Malibu):

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/TurfBeach.jpg

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/TurfBeachCloseup.jpg


It's exacty what was on my screen. The white specs you see are sand. In order to get the second (closup) pic, I had to pinch the turf very hard and pull it out... like pulling out plant roots; then I held it up for the pic. Note also that it's low tide, which means that the turf holds its color and stays alive for many hours in direct sunlight with no water. Further down the beach I found the same turf on rocks that were 100 feet away from the water.

So, like I said before, real turf is used to living out of the water, and that's why I say that to simulate this (as Aday's machine does) you need some type of on-off-on pulsed flow, and the easiest way I could think to do this was a wavemaker timer (although, as I'll post soon, other folks are coming up with ingenious ways too.)

And again, the importance of light is clearly apparent with this green turf, since it grew no more that 6" away from the lights at the top. And lastly, it does look like some of the red/brown is being replaced by the green, which makes sense since the original red/brown came from IA with their different nutrients and lighting.

 

[andywg]

If light is the issue then I would have though that the best way to grow on a vertical screen would be a T5HO tub running the length of the screen with waterproof endcaps.

As for on-off-on, you could always have the drain system flow into a bucket that tips when filled to a certain level which feeds a funnell into the pipes that go over the screen. This way you keep the current delivery of water to the actual screen, but should have some form of cycle with the flow.

 

[SantaMonica]

As for the surge, some people are already building surge buckets to connect to their overflows.

 

[SantaMonica]

Reader Hits Zero!

'Gone Postal' who is on the RS site, becomes the first homebuilt screen user to reach zero nitrate. No pics from him yet, but he says, "My trates hit 0 for the first time in the 5 months that my tank has been up. The lowest i had ever gotten them to was 5. I built my setup [9 days ago]. I have some growth, but nothing too spectacular. The screen is completely covered in brown, but it seems as if it's just surface algae - not really hair algae, etc like I'd originally expected. Comes off really easy. If I just wipe my finger across, the screen is clear again."

And here's a second person below, with the build-of-the-day. He says "I am currently running this system, and I'm hoping to reduce my nitrates from a steady 20 down to zero. Here's my set up on the 2nd week. (water is supplied from the output of my UV filter)". Note that he drilled his pipe, instead of cutting a slot in it; he said he did not have a rotary cutting tool, and thus he had to make it only one-sided:

 

[TylerFerretLord]

This seems like a great nutrient export, but I wouldn't say that it can replace a refugium. A 'fuge is a refuge(hence the name) where pods and other little critter can reproduce without getting eaten by the fish. The high flow and cleaning of the screen will make it difficult for them to stay on the screen.

Still, great idea and I plan to make one when I start up my tank. I might even add one to my shrimp tank once I get it up and running because I have a habit of missing water changes.

 

[SantaMonica]

Tyler, the "replace refugium" only applies in the context of reducing N and P. So in the case of comparing turf to a refugium to reduce N and P, then yes it would replace it.

As for pods, if you mean copepods, there are so many coming from the turf that they are swarming around my tank and being chased and eaten by the small damsels. I even tried to filter them with a 25 micron sock for a week, but they were coming out of the turf so fast, I couldn't. Matter of fact when you do you weekly scrubbing of turf, you're supposed to use tap water so you'll kill the pods (pods will eat the turf). Of course they re-populate in just a few days. Amphipods are supposed to grow also, but I have not seen them. Anything larger than that, and you will indeed need a dsb/rubble/fuge.

 

[SantaMonica]

2 Weeks Overload At the LFS!


One day I was in my LFS, and he was complaining of N and P being "crazy high" in one of his FO retail displays. I looked at what he was currently doing for filtration... G4 skimmer, bio balls, Phosban reactor, 2 Ocean Clear mechanical filters, and a UV on a 300 gal FO display, and he is feeding 16 cubes a day. He is currently building a custom acrylic waterfall box turf filter like I outlined in the first page of my RC post, but it's not finished yet. He says he has to keep N and P under control by changing 100g every two weeks. The bio balls seem mostly under water; to me, that would reduce their power. Also he thinks he might need to remove the mechanical filters.

Since my bucket-build thread was done, and since I completed the pics of it for the first week, I thought it was wasting its potential trying to filter my 90 since my 90 also has the original pre-grown turf bucket already working. So I asked the LFS guy if he'd like to borrow my bucket. He said yes, so I went right away to get it, and told him to measure N and P meanwhile. I had to wrap the screen in wet towels to keep it from drying out, but otherwise the whole bucket was light and easy to carry in the car. When I got there he showed me his test (Red Sea, I think), and they were deep dark colors. But I wanted to use Salifert so they'd correspond with my tank, so I used my kits to measure: N = 50, P = Off the chart (very deep dark blue). His main goal was to stop the daily rise in N and P, especially N, which had been rising an average of 1 per day.

So we set the bucket on top of his sump so it would just drain down, and hooked up one of his pumps to the waterfall pipe (no wavemaker timer), and hooked up the lights to one of his timers (18 hours on), and away it went. Here are the day-by-day measurements:


....................N...........P.............Comment
.
day 1..........50...........1.5+............
day 2..........50...........1.5+............
day 3..........50...........1.5+............
day 4..........50...........1.5+.........Cleaned; Iron added
day 5..........*............*...............Not measured; Original diatoms gone
day 6..........*............*...............Not measured; Waiting for WC
day 7..........*............*...............Not measured; he did 100g WC
day 8..........50...........1.5+.........WC did almost nothing, N and P same
day 9..........45?..........1.5+.........Screen about 75% full
day 10.........45...........1.5+.........Screen about 80% full
day 11..........*............*..............Store Closed Labor Day
day 12..........*............*..............Store Closed
day 13.........40?..........1.5+........95% full; bottom completely full
day 14.........35!..........1.5+........Starting to develop spots; Cleaned


And here are the pics. Note that the in-bucket pics were done with the water still flowing, since after crawling under wooden beams to get to the bucket, I had forgotten to unplug the pump; so thereafter all pics needed the pump running so they would match:

First, here is the left half of the display, and the right half (all are one system connected together):

. . . .

Here's the bio balls in the sump; Note high water level:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSbioBalls.jpg


His G4 skimmer and Phosban reactor:

His mechanical filters:

Here's the bucket as delivered, with screen wrapped to stay wet:

The bucket was put behind the wood shelves, on top of the sump, between the tanks:

Day 0: This is the screen as delivered, after the one-week test thread was finished:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay00.jpg


Day 1, Cleaned bottom of bucket:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay01.jpg


Day 2:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay02.jpg


Day 3:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay03.jpg


Day 3, Removed:

(hi-res was blurry)


Day 3, Cleaned:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay03cleaned.jpg


Day 4:

http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay04.jpg


Day 5: Skip
Day 6: Skip

Day 7:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay07.jpg


Day 8:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay08.jpg


Day 9:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay09.jpg


Day 10:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay10.jpg


Day 11: Skip
Day 12: Skip

Day 13:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay13.jpg


Day 14:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14.jpg


Day 14, Removed (flash); Removed (no-Flash):

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14removed.jpg


Day 14, Closeup of spots:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14closeup.jpg


Day 14, Cleaning:

http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14cleaning.jpg


Day 14, Cleaned:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14cleaned.jpg


Day 14, reinstalled:

Hi-Res: http/www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenD...reinstalled.jpg


Results:

Now, this bucket is way undersized for this application. It's only 144 sq in, with just average CFL lights, and the lights are not right-up-next to the screen (due to bucket design) the way they should be for optimum performance. His tank is 300 gallons, highly fed, with no rock and no sand. But the idea is not to see if N and P can be reduced; instead it's to see how fast a screen can grow with basically unlimited nutrients. Secondarily, yes, I'd like to see how much of a dent an undersized screen can make in N and P, as long as it is cleaned properly. (The acrylic box he's building is 300 sq in, and is only 4 inches thick... he's going to place several 150 watts along the vertical walls.)

P was always off the scale, although it was indeed getting to be a lighter blue. But since blue blocks a lot of light, you cannot tell how much off the scale it is because it starts looking gray.

In the first few days of the bucket test, there was major green growth. And the growth was in clumps, as opposed to how it grew in my system, which was more of an even film of brown and green. My guess is that since nutrients are so high in his tank, once a single spot of green starts on the screen, that algae is no longer limited by trying to attach itself; it now is only limited by how fast it can multiply (which with unlimited nutrients, is astronomically fast). I can only imagine if the bucket had proper lighting (like his new acrylic box will), how fast/much it would grow.

His main objective (not mine) was indeed N and P reduction. So on day 3, I figured I'd clean the screen even though it still had bare spots on it (it had only had a week to grow on my tank). The screen is not his only filter, so I did not have to clean just one side. Pulling out the screen, it was apparent that the stronger growth was on the upper part, near the light, showing once again the importance of strong light. I cleaned both sides and put it back; for some reason it cleaned all the way down to the bare screen, not leaving much behind. I used a toothbrush, but didn't scrub that hard. We also added some iron for the first time ever in this tank.

Disappointment on Day 5. Hardly any growth. I think what happend was the the base-growth that was on the screen when I brought it was from the one-week test on my 90, which means it would be a certain type of algae (diatoms, I believe). However his tank has different chemistry and as you saw in the pics started off with green hair clumps right away. So the base of brown diatoms died, and thus the screen basically went back to brand new in his tank.

This being the case, he could not wait any longer and said he needs to change water to get the numbers down. He did a 100 gal change (on 300 total volume) on Day 6, and I came back on Day 7 to measure: Almost no change! I think he's got detritus in the bio balls or the mechanical filter, or somewhere. Nevertheless, it's still a good nutrient source for my growth test.

Growth is solid again by Day 8. Have not seen this type of growth before... big clumps of dark brown slimey stuff, right next to areas of empty screen. Mine had always filled in evenly, but this is doing it in clumps. Almost looks like someone threw mud on the screen. Regardless, the flow goes right over the clumps with no problem. This time, I'm going to let the screen fill up before I clean it, otherwise only the same areas will start growing. Only after previously-grown areas fill up will the empty areas start growing.

By Day 13, the bottom of the screen was packed, and the top had only a few empty places left. The N test looked like it was coming down, but I did not really expect it too since the tank was so heavily loaded. I wanted to clean the screen that day, but the LFS guy was impressed that the N was not rising like it usually does, and even possibly dropping. Day 14, the end of two weeks, the N actually tested about 35. He was amazed, since it normally goes up every day. He wanted to keep it as-is, but I could see some spots developing on the screen from the pods, so I said we better clean it now.

After pulling the screen out, it was easy to see the spots. It had been 10 days since cleaning; way overdue. Definitely time to clean under tap water. The feel of the algae was amazing... like tar spilled on the beach that had been drying for a while. The screen seemed to weigh a full pound. I put it in the sink and just pushed the algae off the screen with my fingers (not fingernails). This was not turf, but it was thick and heavy. There is no timer on this setup, just constant flow, so I'm not really expecting turf to develop anyway.

So I put it back into operation. He's still waiting on his custom acrylic box to be delivered, so until then this bucket will have to work alone.

 

[SantaMonica]

Today's screen of the day is the simplest one so far, complete with postitive test results. He says:

"After 4 days running, i has a green hair algae growth around 3-4 cm... and i didn't see any brown diatom algae. i use OSRAM 23W tornado day light. in the picture...this is 6 days result... the algae is a brown color... but the real is a green hair algae.... and this is just a test... so i use a small screen.. but i already see the result here. i didn't rub the algae to start... just has 24/7 lightning time. i just check my N yesterday [Day 10]... it's down greatly.. from 50 ppm become 35 ppm... and my P remover has work slower.... i always change the P remover once a week.... but it's already 2 weeks i didn't changed."

 

[SantaMonica]

Another Reader Hits A New Low!

Jski711 on the RS site give us his report today, after a trip back from the LFS for testing. Here are the dates and activities that led up to today:

8/19: "i was going to order [a pre-grown screen] from inland but i've never seen these sheets before and don't know how rigid they are and how to "hang" one. any ideas would be great. I have a 75g, 36g sump and a 15g plumbed into that same system. I have a mag 12 return pump."

8/20: "it literally took all of 45 minutes [to build it] once i had the materials. i bought 65w equivelant pc bulbs but they are 2700k"

8/21: "i can't believe how well this diy thing worked out. i have notied my ph raise up about .15 in a few hours since this has been on. The piece [of pre-grown turf from IA] i got i cut in half and is 2 sided now, thanks to some tie wraps. i also bought 2 100w cf [equivalent] lights to replace the ones i had."

8/23: "i notice that some red algae seems to be growing pretty fast. it doesn't look like the turf but thats just an observation."

8/27: "first cleaning. i just used my fingernails"

9/3: "well i just finished my 2nd cleaning today. i have noticed that in my main display that i haven't had to use my scraper to scrape off the glass, i usually had to do this every few days because i'd get that green algae begining to grow. i've also notice that the turf that was on the screen in the first place seems to continue to spread over the screen."

9/7: "To my surprise i had my water tested at the lfs for phosphates and nitrates. they use the hanna photometer or whatever its called for phosphate. my phosphates were at .03!!!!!! my nitrates were barely detectable, a very slight pink came out on the test. so IMO this scrubber is working like CRAZY!!! I honestly didn't think that this was going to work as well as it does but to all the people that thought this was some sort of a gimmick i challenge you to give this a try, you won't be dissapointed!!!! thanks to santamonica for posting this up and thanks to inland for the "pregrown" screen!! i can say i've been feeding heavily and this is the lowest i've ever seen my phosphates!!!"