+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Scrub with cheato?

  1. #41
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    10,565
    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.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    286
    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?

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    pennsylvania, usa
    Posts
    406
    I would say yes, but you would need 100 times the surface area that your scrubber has.

  4. #44
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    10,565
    Probably a lot more light too... to cover the large chaeto

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by SantaMonica View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SantaMonica View Post
    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.



    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.

  6. #46
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    10,565
    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).

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Uk! England
    Posts
    1,212
    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.

  8. #48
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    10,565
    All algae, especially bloom-forming algae such as Ulva etc, store nutrients from pulses.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts