Scrub with cheato?

[MorganAtlanta]

I'm wondering how much cheato I would have to harvest to account for a cube of food input, and how much space I would need to grow and harvest that much.

The reason is that I'm thinking of setting up another tank, a 25 gallon cube, but I'll have the space in the cabinet for a 20 long sump, or maybe even a 30 breeder. Given that much space for a "fuge", I'm wondering if I could grow enough cheato to "scrub" the system clean of N and P. I've got plenty of LEDs and heatsinks for 100+ watts of grow light I could put on it. Any thoughts? One cube a day of scrubbing power should be plenty for what I plan to have in the display tank.

[Garf]

From personal experience - I used to grow cheato in my sump, both in an immature system and in a mature set-up. I fear that the illusion of cheato reducing N + P is widespread, especially in newish set ups. It is widely accepted that cheato will reduce nutrients but I think the effect is minimal, compared to a waterfall scrubber at least. It is understandable that this illusion is so widespread because new set ups often have undetectable nutrients for a while ( contributed to cheato ), but it is actually just a very low waste organics load. When a system such as mine is fully mature it is quite evident that cheato cannot keep up. This is witnessed by oxygen production through photosynthesis. In a cheato ball, very little oxygen is developed, whereas a fully operation waterfall evolves oxygen at very noticeable rates. I would estimate that ( in my system at least ), photosynthetic growth from cheato was in the region of 5% of that I get from my waterfall.

[MorganAtlanta]

5% might be okay, since I'm only looking for a one-cube-per-day scrubber. I could probably dedicate a 12"x18" area to it (maybe more) with 100W+ of LED light.

Do you think adding a powerhead with a venturi to provide strong flow and oxygen could improve the growth rate? Kind of a UAS, but with cheato and no screen.

[Garf]

You'll need good flow to keep it tumbling to expose as much of the cheato to light as possible anyway. Not sure about using a mass of bubbles personally because a hell of a lot of light gets diffracted away from the target. Just a question because I feel nosey, why aren't you building a waterfall ?

[MorganAtlanta]

1. Just thought I'd try something different
2. I'd like a source of full grown pods
3. If it worked, it would be simpler than a waterfall, super easy to maintain (just trim, no removing a screen and scraping), absolutely quiet (no extra drains).

[Garf]

1. Just thought I'd try something different
2. I'd like a source of full grown pods
3. If it worked, it would be simpler than a waterfall, super easy to maintain (just trim, no removing a screen and scraping), absolutely quiet (no extra drains).

1). Excellent. Doing something different often yields unforeseen benefits.
2). I have loads of copepods in my sump, and mysids and bristle worms and amphipods and Asterina. They all seem to "hang out" on an almost unlit screen that I have in my sump from a previous pod growing experiment.
3). I find maintenance of the screen very quick. Suppose it's just how you build it. My waterfall is in my sump and is silent.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I know that Chrissu modded his SM100 before he got out of the hobby and turned it into a chaeto scrubber and it grew like mad. Not sure how well it filtered, but it's definitely possible with a closed-box scrubber.

[MorganAtlanta]

I really don't have very many pods in my current system. Not sure why. The only filtration I have is the scrubber, and I've got a sump full of rock rubble for things to grow in.

[RkyRickstr]

In order too see an impact i ran a 30g tank full of cheato to the top.. i had to run powerheads to keep it tumbling andit was a pain to remove and trim.
Cheato, IMO is useless. Tried culerpa and grape algae too, as well as mangroves, the water fall is a completely diferent ball.game. dont waste your time... Scrubber takes a whole 5mins to clean dude.

[MorganAtlanta]

Excellent. That's the feedback I was looking for. Since you've already tried it, I don't have to. I'm thinking a super simple one sided waterfall instead.


In order too see an impact i ran a 30g tank full of cheato to the top.. i had to run powerheads to keep it tumbling andit was a pain to remove and trim.
Cheato, IMO is useless. Tried culerpa and grape algae too, as well as mangroves, the water fall is a completely diferent ball.game. dont waste your time... Scrubber takes a whole 5mins to clean dude.

[RkyRickstr]

You wont be disapointed. Just the fact that i havent done a waterchange in months is worth it for me. Never was able to do that while i was running the huge fuge. My Po4 was never less than .15. With the waterfall they are at .01 (hanna).

Btw, i have proven that in my tank running double watts for half the time works best and gives me better filtering. Hope it helps.

[NorthSide Reef]

From personal experience - I used to grow cheato in my sump, both in an immature system and in a mature set-up. I fear that the illusion of cheato reducing N + P is widespread, especially in newish set ups. It is widely accepted that cheato will reduce nutrients but I think the effect is minimal, compared to a waterfall scrubber at least. It is understandable that this illusion is so widespread because new set ups often have undetectable nutrients for a while ( contributed to cheato ), but it is actually just a very low waste organics load. When a system such as mine is fully mature it is quite evident that cheato cannot keep up. This is witnessed by oxygen production through photosynthesis. In a cheato ball, very little oxygen is developed, whereas a fully operation waterfall evolves oxygen at very noticeable rates. I would estimate that ( in my system at least ), photosynthetic growth from cheato was in the region of 5% of that I get from my waterfall.

I would have to say my experience is quite the opposite.

well before ATS were ever even a thing I used cheato to scrub my 125.

I ran a 58 gallon tank off to the side that was lit by nothing more than the fluorescent bulbs that came with the hood. Sorry for the bad pic but as I said it was years ago and this is the only one I have, but for some reason I still happen to have it up on PhotoBucket.

The cheato did not have to "tumble" at all it was a couple power heads blasting at it from either side, but the growth was so dense there was no way for it to tumble at all. I would throw full grocery store paper bags of this stuff away every couple of weeks. I once sent Marc (aka Melev) Levenson a full 5 gallon pail of it when he was setting up his 280. I think the one draw back is the space it takes to grow that much cheato vs the area a ATS takes up. However, cheato most certainly can be used as a scruber.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/frnorth/macro.jpg

My tank never had algae. Ever.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/frnorth/Tankshotright.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/frnorth/e2a4c8f6.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/frnorth/a6962790.jpg

[SantaMonica]

The difference in filtering power really comes when you increase feeding. The limitations of chaeto will start showing then. A strong scrubber will kill off chaeto as if it were nuisance algae (which it is, as far as the scrubber is concerned).

[RkyRickstr]

Not to mention it takes 1/8th of the space.

[Garf]

Northside - Reef. We sort of agree then. Obviously if you grow a swimming pool full of the stuff, then my 5% estimation could be converted into 100%. If you grew 250 ltrs of cheato, yeah, I'm not surprised it could keep up. Probably not very efficient though.

[NorthSide Reef]

Northside - Reef. We sort of agree then. Obviously if you grow a swimming pool full of the stuff, then my 5% estimation could be converted into 100%. If you grew 250 ltrs of cheato, yeah, I'm not surprised it could keep up. Probably not very efficient though.

that tank ran for a couple of years before a halide meltdown cooked it. as far as efficiency? it was nothing more than a 58 gallon tank fed off the main sump were the overflow returned the water back to the sump. a simple fluorescent bulb that came with the 58 provided the lighting and two powerheads moved the water through the cheato. Once it was set up I would take a scissors and cut out huge chunks of cheato every few weeks. I doubt it could really be any easier.

I think the pics are pretty self explanatory there is no algae in that tank except at the overflow right next to the light source. It is just another way to do it lads, nothing more. as far as feedings go I always made my own food and fed as much as the fish could eat. I never even gave it a second thought, let alone try to come up with some formula I could try to quantify.

The question by the OP was could Cheato suffice as a ATS? The answer is absolutely. I however do not know of any formula how much cheato per gallon of display, I had the 58, I figured "why not?" and it worked well before the meltdown.

Now as I already said above "I think the one draw back is the space it takes to grow that much cheato vs the area a ATS takes up". Space is an issue only if space is an issue, if you have the room there is no reason cheato will not work.

[Garf]

that tank ran for a couple of years before a halide meltdown cooked it. as far as efficiency? it was nothing more than a 58 gallon tank fed off the main sump were the overflow returned the water back to the sump. a simple fluorescent bulb that came with the 58 provided the lighting and two powerheads moved the water through the cheato. Once it was set up I would take a scissors and cut out huge chunks of cheato every few weeks. I doubt it could really be any easier.

I think the pics are pretty self explanatory there is no algae in that tank except at the overflow right next to the light source. It is just another way to do it lads, nothing more. as far as feedings go I always made my own food and fed as much as the fish could eat. I never even gave it a second thought, let alone try to come up with some formula I could try to quantify.

The question by the OP was could Cheato suffice as a ATS? The answer is absolutely. I however do not know of any formula how much cheato per gallon of display, I had the 58, I figured "why not?" and it worked well before the meltdown.

Now as I already said above "I think the one draw back is the space it takes to grow that much cheato vs the area a ATS takes up". Space is an issue only if space is an issue, if you have the room there is no reason cheato will not work.

But have you done the Cheato on a mature system, say 7 or 8 years old ? Not gonna try and work out your Cheato to display ratio, but not sure that Morgan Atlanta has that much room to play with (original question).

[RkyRickstr]

I agree thats why i said my 30g full to the top worked.. but not nearly as effective as the scrubber.. and it certaintly did not eliminate watr changes. You cannot compare.

[NorthSide Reef]

But have you done the Cheato on a mature system, say 7 or 8 years old ? Not gonna try and work out your Cheato to display ratio, but not sure that Morgan Atlanta has that much room to play with (original question).

yes it was just dumb luck, or should I say dumb opportunity I used the ratio I used. 125 display 58 cheato tank so roughly about half the size of the display. The OP on the other hand is discussing roughly a 1:1 ratio give or take about 5 gallons, a 25 gallon tank with a 20-30 gallon fuge. Will that work? It did for me. All I can do is let him know my experience and show him my results.

More water volume is not a bad thing. But I do agree a ATS of the type normally discussed here does take up less room, and my reason for looking at this forum today is to investigate these units. However I do have a couple years of successful experience regarding the OP's question and I thought I would share that with him.


I agree thats why i said my 30g full to the top worked.. but not nearly as effective as the scrubber.. and it certaintly did not eliminate watr changes. You cannot compare.

I don't think eliminating water changes is a particularly good idea. There are a lot of trace elements replenished by regular water changes.

[Garf]

Ahhh. I see, you were waterchanging and a DSB and cheato. Lots of good stuff on here for you to read. With any luck someone will post some handy links.

I'll start off with a diagram of what is replaced by waterchanges.

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/681f0c41f8e308417f3f92819940d423.jpg (http://http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/681f0c41f8e308417f3f92819940d423.jpg)

[NorthSide Reef]

yes Garf, it's called good husbandry, and yes I have been around this hobby enough to have seen many of the debates that will take place on those links, and what you'll always find is failure is always chalked up to something "not my fault" when in fact short cuts and believing one to be bullet proof is always the problem.

Take care.

[Garf]

I always take care, thanks for your concern. Everything I do is researched thoroughly, as some on here may confirm.

[Ace25]

You'll need good flow to keep it tumbling to expose as much of the cheato to light as possible anyway.

I used to think that way until I was shown otherwise a few weeks ago. A friend of mine started with a softball size peice of cheato.. stuck it in his 100G sump and forgot about it. No light.. no real flow (certainly not tumbling).. and after 6 months his 100G sump on his 240G display was STUFFED full of healthy green cheato (about the size of 2 LARGE beach balls). Even the bottom of the cheato, 12"+ deep in the sump and never saw any light, was green and healthy. It appears it doesn't need light or flow to grow good, it just needs nutrients. Still, even with that much healthy cheato his tank still crashed, which from his and my personal experience it appears cheato really doesn't do much in terms of helping filtration.

[NorthSide Reef]

That much cheato just like an unchecked ATS will result in nutrients being released back into the system. Again it's about the husbandry not the magic band aid. You have to harvest both.

[Garf]

yes Garf, it's called good husbandry, and yes I have been around this hobby enough to have seen many of the debates that will take place on those links, and what you'll always find is failure is always chalked up to something "not my fault" when in fact short cuts and believing one to be bullet proof is always the problem.

Take care.

Failure !! Not seen much of that on here. What I don't understand is the claim that Cheato can effectively filter a tank, considering DSB, protein skimmers, waterchanges and Cheato are all employed on the same system in a tank thats just a couple of years old.

[NorthSide Reef]

Failure !! Not seen much of that on here. What I don't understand is the claim that Cheato can effectively filter a tank, considering DSB, protein skimmers, waterchanges and Cheato are all employed on the same system in a tank thats just a couple of years old.

I do not understand your militant stance, nor what appears to be an attempt to insinuate I was doing something wrong.

I used a protein, You used a protein skimmer stopped, and then for some reason felt you needed to start again.

I had a DSB, you use a DSB.

I did water changes, You did water changes, and even though you claim my two year sample size is too small you yourself are using a 5 month sample size (the length of time you stopped doing water changes) to proclaim success.

I used cheato to export nutrients (that's what you're doing BTW when you cut huge chunks of cheato out of your system and throw it away. I would think that would have been obvious but I now feel it needs to pointed out to you), you use a ATS to export nutrients.

We ran the same system using different methods, I find your assertion that your way is any better than how I did it appalling considering I showed you my results. It's too bad you're more interested in promoting one idea over another when both methods will work. If you are growing large amounts of cheato, or if you are growing algae on a screen, as long as you are harvesting that growth and removing it you are exporting nutrients out of the system. This is fact not conjecture. Shame on you for derailing a thread to try and prove a point that is already positively irrefutable based on the simple logic of "what is nutrient export?"



http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/27733e1205d1e1930b03ecdc032667df.jpg (http://http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/27733e1205d1e1930b03ecdc032667df.jpg)

[Garf]

What a strange response, you've obviously got no idea how to quantify the apparent success of a cheato system. I never suggested DSB, waterchanges, skimming etc was wrong, just that it may have skewed the illusion of success with cheato, as it did with me 8 years ago. I have only ever seen this type of aggressive rubbish once before and that was on RC by EC.

And FYI, I have also re-employed minimal waterchange procedures. It's my tank I am interested in, not one filtration method or methodology.

[RkyRickstr]

Well Garf it probably did help a bit... If it grew it was taking some nutrients.. but comparing it to an ats is just Ludacris!!!!.. lol

[Garf]

Well Garf it probably did help a bit... If it grew it was taking some nutrients.. but comparing it to an ats is just Ludacris!!!!.. lol

Bet SM would like me to be as compliant as EC2 thinks I am.

[NorthSide Reef]

What a strange response, you've obviously got no idea how to quantify the apparent success of a cheato system. I never suggested DSB, waterchanges, skimming etc was wrong, just that it may have skewed the illusion of success with cheato, as it did with me 8 years ago. I have only ever seen this type of aggressive rubbish once before and that was on RC by EC.

And FYI, I have also re-employed minimal waterchange procedures. It's my tank I am interested in, not one filtration method or methodology.

So you use all of the methods I did right down to the water changes, and even though I showed a picture of my system with absolutely no algae growth in it the cheato was a non factor. But your system which also looks free of algae owes all of it's success to the ATS. I ran my system for 2+ years. How long have you been running a ATS?

Do you even see how incredibly narrow minded that looks to someone not emotionally invested in one method over the other?

Exporting nutrients whether it be via a ATS or growing macro algae is exporting nutrients. I just don't know how else to say it other than Good Luck. I think anyone reading this with an open mind can see how incredibly closed yours is and this is just a never ending debate considering you are locked on to the notion that only one method works even though you are truly wrong.

[Garf]

No, my system has never had algae in the display, where on earth did you get that from !?!

[RkyRickstr]

Northside the diference is that ats has been proven to work with no other filtration. I run an ats and a heater in my sump. I would never dare run chaeto only, ever. The true test woupd be to do actually do that.. and i dont think that you, me or anyone else would dare. Untill chqeto proves to handle all the filtering with no help, it will still be considered suplementary and not efficient.

[NorthSide Reef]

No, my system has never had algae in the display, where on earth did you get that from !?!

I have no idea what you're talking about, I think you misread something.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Ok, let's all take a breath here. People are reading posts too quickly and reacting the wrong way.

The title of this thread is "scrub with cheato" so yes, this does suggest as does Morgan's OP that he was curious of the capability of Chaeto to act as a stand-alone filtration system. It is obvious that this has not been tried. It seems that no one has really tried to push chaeto as a stand-alone method of filtration, rather a part of a more all-encompassing system.

I have to agree with RkyRickstr here though that the ATS has been proven (in hundreds of instances) that it is indeed capable of stand-alone filtration, and when I say that, I mean that in the sense that most people have a fair amount of LR in their DT, and many have some kind of sand bed, if only SSB (<2"). Many of these people perform no water changes. There are arguments on both sides of the fence regarding the need for PWCs.

I do also agree that comparing a stand-alone scrubber to a system than employs multiple forms is not apples to apples. This is a difficult discussion to shed any insight on since to my knowledge no one has tried and tested the filtering capacity of chaeto, or gathered any significant anecdotal evidence.

So maybe we should just all agree that this is a general unknown and leave it at that.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I have no idea what you're talking about, I think you misread something.

Yes, he misread your statement in which you stated there was no algae in his tank.

[Garf]

Not really sure how I could misread;

"But your system which also looks free of algae owes all of it's success to the ATS."

I have never claimed this.

[Floyd R Turbo]

...But your system which also looks free of algae owes all of it's success to the ATS...


No, my system has never had algae in the display, where on earth did you get that from !?!


Not really sure how I could misread;

"But your system which also looks free of algae owes all of it's success to the ATS."

I have never claimed this.

he said your system was free of algae. He never said it had algae in the display. But I get it now. NSR's statement implies that there was once algae in the display which the scrubber removed. You are saying there never was or has been algae in the display, and therefore your use of the scrubber just is part of an overall system & techniques that you use to keep it that way.

So are we all on the same page now so we can maybe put a halt to the bickering and name calling? Please?

[RkyRickstr]

Floyd i dont think its unknown.. i ran a 30g full of it. No skimmer (always hated them) and it did NOT eliminate the need for water changes. Did it reduce nitrate and phosphate?.. absolutely. But not enough to eliminate pwcs. Not to mention i could not fit it in my stand.

IME comparing chaeto to ATS is like comparing my companys 25yr old servers to my tablet... Haha.. best i could thi.k of

[Floyd R Turbo]

Fair enough RR, you do have one good example.

...and sometimes those 25 yr old servers can still do some things better LOL...

[NorthSide Reef]

he said your system was free of algae. He never said it had algae in the display. But I get it now. NSR's statement implies that there was once algae in the display which the scrubber removed. You are saying there never was or has been algae in the display, and therefore your use of the scrubber just is part of an overall system & techniques that you use to keep it that way.

So are we all on the same page now so we can maybe put a halt to the bickering and name calling? Please?

What I was trying to say is that Garf's system was setup exactly the same as mine. Skimmer, DSB, Water changes, nutrient export via algae removal (he uses an ATS I used macro algae)

Neither Display has any algae growth in it. Pretty much the same results. It also appears as though Garf stopped using a skimmer and doing water changes that he obviously found reason to go back to even though on several occasions he pointed at my use of that husbandry as reasoning that nutrient export via macro algae removal was somehow inferior to his method.

Would I use macro algae removal as my only means to maintain my tank? No, I use all of the tools in my tool belt, including the increased water volume to maintain that macro algae. That to me (as in this is my opinion) is responsible reef keeping. If that was the question by the OP I guess it was something I missed myself.

I appreciate your insight into this method of nutrient export, I believe it is a absolutely innovative addition to maintaining our reefs.

[SantaMonica]

Exporting nutrients whether it be via a ATS or growing macro algae is exporting nutrients.

The difference is photosynthesizing power, which is filtering power. Self-shading is the reason that algae don't stay in the exponential growth mode for long, and scrubbers help keep this mode the longest.

You'll see the difference when you really need high filtering power.

[MorganAtlanta]

As the OP... The thing I was trying to get at was whether someone had run a system with growing/harvesting cheato as the main nutrient management method, similar to how a number of people here run their waterfall scrubbers. No skimmer, no purigen, no GFO, chemipure, etc, and no water changes for purposes of removing excess nutrients. Water changes to "balance" levels of alk, calc, mag, K, etc, would be another matter, the necessity for which is a debate I don't want to get into on this thread.

From a volume perspective, I'd be looking virtually 1:1 between the display and the "chaeto tank/sump" at about 20-30 gallons each. The display would be a softy/lps nano reef with a few firefish, gobies, shrimp and such, a bonsai-style live rock tower and shallow sand bed. Planning for one cube a day of food, but that might be overkill.

Ideally, the tank would have a single return pump in the sump as the only mechanical component. Lights would be about 75 or so watts of LED for the display, and whatever was needed for the cheato, could be up to 100 watts or more. Aside from a heater w/ controller, I'd want to avoid any other equipment.

I wouldn't hesitate to put such a system together using a small waterfall scrubber on the drain line to the sump, but my question was, would the same thing work, but with a big wad of cheato instead of a waterfall scrubber. Could you grow and harvest enough to export the equivalent of one cube of food a day?

[RkyRickstr]

I would say yes, but you would need 100 times the surface area that your scrubber has.

[SantaMonica]

Probably a lot more light too... to cover the large chaeto

[NorthSide Reef]

The difference is photosynthesizing power, which is filtering power. Self-shading is the reason that algae don't stay in the exponential growth mode for long, and scrubbers help keep this mode the longest.

You'll see the difference when you really need high filtering power.


Probably a lot more light too... to cover the large chaeto

it's really too bad this is such a crummy picture. But two things about it that are pretty hard to see. The light source is a nothing but the fluorescent fixture that came with the tank. The growth goes nearly to the bottom of the tank.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/frnorth/macro.jpg

When you're throwing away a garbage bag full of the stuff trust me you've exported some nutrients. Now to the OP I have to admit when I read your post I did not understand you meant Macro algae as the only means of filtration on your system, to be honest the thought never occurred to me. I personally believe no one should limit their maintenance to just one method. I reiterate that is my view. Seeing the number of beautiful tanks that have crashed over the years I just don't think it's worth it.

[SantaMonica]

Problem with the other filtering methods, which probably means skimmers, is that it does not remove nutrients. Only food.

And ironically, the non-macroalgae tank that have crashed have probably done so because of nutrients (ammonia, or maybe metals).

[Garf]

Had a look into this and strangely there may me a case for cheato use in systems that find thereselves phosphate limited ( don't happen very often I know ). Cheato has evolved particularly to outcompete other algaes in phosphate limited and nitrate rich environments which enables it to grow faster than other algaes in extremely low phosphate waters. The upshot of this is that cheato can achieve an 80:1 n/p ratio, removing relatively more nitrate than phos achieved in other algaes. In a standard tank this n/p ratio may suggest that GFO or other means of phos removal may be required if cheato is the sole means of export. Cheato also seems to benefit if nutrient levels are pulsed, instead of the relatively steady nutrient levels obtained in most tanks, due to its luxury uptake abilities.

Ulva lactuca is another high ratio algae at 75:1.

[SantaMonica]

All algae, especially bloom-forming algae such as Ulva etc, store nutrients from pulses.