NH3/NH4+

[Vannpytt]

I've been reading on the subject for a bit, and was wondering where the information regarding ammonia/ammonium absorbtion in alge can be found. I want to learn more about it, due to a discussion on our national saltwater aquarium forum. I have found lots of papers on NH3 absorbtion, scientific ones, but want more on the context.

Also seeing my own aquarium, newly started with no curing period has no measurable quantities of either, nor phosphates and nitrites/nitrates and I want to learn more about why this happens.

[Vannpytt]

Next question, does a scrubber deal with toxins from coral warfare? How would you propose that this be done without waterchanges, or how do you suggest to deal with this?

[SantaMonica]

You don't want to deal with the toxins; they are just dissolved organics, which are eaten by bacteria, and which then feed the corals more more. Only in extreme cases, like a big leather almost touching a stoney, are the toxins a problem. Other than that, algae has no interaction with them.

For detailed purchased studies, use the search box here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journ...29-8817/issues

For more general studies that are free, go here:
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center ... /main.aspx
...get a free account, click the advanced search option, click the "Show only online/downloadable documents", and search for words in the TITLE.

[Vannpytt]

Wich is all good and fine. The discussion is on what needs to be imported and how to accomplish this. Also, how to export toxins like I said.

Refreshing water in the aquarium is beneficial, or so is said. I don't see any numbers nor valid arguments towards this, then again, I don't have a Ph.D in marine biology either, so I would not know if the water needs to be replenished within regular periods to encourage coral growth.

Lastly, will the algae over time absorb and use up some metals and other elements while other will be accumulated if one does not aquire correct coexcisting spiecies and balance between these?

[SantaMonica]

And like I said, you don't want to export "toxins". They are food for bacteria, which are food for corals. And you did not ask about importing anything.

"Refreshing" water, if you mean waterchanges, are only "beneficial" for some things, but they hurt other things. As per above, they are not needed to remove "toxins". See the faq for more: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=68

Yes metals are absorbed. No nothing is accumulated. Algae causes the system to run with the same chemistry that the ocean has, because algae controls the chemistry of the ocean. See the faq for more.

[Vannpytt]

Like I said in my design thread, my rocks (dry baserock) is getting some slight green growth on the lit sides. I cannot measure any nitrate, fosfate, ammonia or nitrites in my water, but something is feeding the algae on the rocks. My fear is that it's leaking out too much for my scrubber to handle.

My scrubber is made to deal with 240gallons (flow, light 234w T5HO surface), but since I didn't cycle or cure rocks at all, and this system is only 4 weeks I'm mostly sure it's due to nothing competing with the algae, but they are still eating something.

I was thinking of running RowaPhos even if I can't measure phosphates (beeing the limiting factor in aquariums for algae growth). If I can accumulate nitrates by killing the growth on stones I get my answer regarding if they are leaching phosphates, then again, I might kill my growth on the screen.

Would less feeding be better, or should I let it run without any interferance, and in that case, how long should I let it run before adding more filtration?

Like SM posted in my design thread, I can't increase flow sufficiently. Should I reduce lightperiod from 18 to 17 hours and see if it grows greener?

[SantaMonica]

The p04 is coming out of the rocks. You don't need to do or change anything. After a few weeks it will be all gone, and the algae on the rocks will go away. If there is a lot of p04, it may take a few months.

[Vannpytt]

http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/aquari ... -long.html

Also, in response to the algae ability for dosing amino and vitamins. The ones in the study are planktonic, but are these also viable for the gha?

In addition, I was speaking to a renowed aquarist this weekend at a seminar, who knew Dr. Adey. He indeed also said that a scrubber / refugia would, given enought size do what this community says. At the same time though, there was a lecture on the GBR aquarium from yet another marine veteran from the mid 70's and he said that the GBR aquarium, wich he had visited on several occasions crashed due to the scrubber, but did no mentioning of the calcium addition after switching to skimmers and had not heard mention of this fact.

Also what I noticed while reading about the "failures" with the GBR scrubber is the amount of flow and seemingly contradictionary information out of the place in general. At one point they claim there is nutrient spikes followed by SPS death, but what they also mention is that these corals would indeed die of from the other events occuring there. One excample would be at some point the temperature was >30 degrees, wich is above critical level for SPS, and while installing the chiller the scrubber was on hold. This lead to water not beeing filtered and accumulating nutrients untill the chiller was in place. There are so many events wich would lead to coral death with or without the scrubber so I must admit I'm very sceptical to all sorts of information.

Futher, I do not see any mentioning of harvesting properly from this scrubber, and alteast not removing it and running a bypass RO/DI cleanup on the turf itself. Another well known and already pointed out fact was the lack of adding minerals like calcium, strontium, magnesium etc. You cannot compare two systems based on different input when measuring output capability. A scrubber, nor a skimmer would add calcium beeing bound up by invertebrates and corals sufficiently that is to say.

Lastly, the scrubber in the GBR circulated the water over a 80m^2 screen. The waterflow was 4 million liters a day, 1 tank cycle a day. This is hardly enought in any system. The whole thing smells and this is where I have to admit the whole thing is very suspicious. Why would they change to skimmers without adding calcium to the scrubber system first. They knew about the calcium need way before this, so why didn't Dr. Adey dose calcium ++ in this tank? Surley they are doing it now, and surely there are no specific needs to do it when running a scrubber?

[SantaMonica]

in response to the algae ability for dosing amino and vitamins. The ones in the study are planktonic, but are these also viable for the gha?

The exact vitamins, aminos and sugars vary by alga species, but all algae give them off because... that's what algae do. They are the primary producers of food on the earth; they have to make food out of sunlight and minerals (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc). The food they make is their own bodies, plus the vitamins, aminos and sugars. All of this is then consumed by other organisms, which convert it back into nitrogen and phosphorus etc.

but did not mentioning of the calcium addition after switching to skimmers and had not heard mention of this fact.

That would be an important fact to know about. Indeed, not a single person on any forum anywhere in the world knew about it, until I posted it. People just need to read more studies. Wait.. actually, there are a group of people who do read tons of studies, and these people are the researchers and biologists. Almost none of them are on the forums, however.

There are so many events wich would lead to coral death [at GBR] with or without the scrubber so I must admit I'm very sceptical to all sorts of information.

Yes, and anti-scrubber folks only mention the scrubber part, which was probably the only part that was actually working correctly.

Futher, I do not see any mentioning of harvesting properly from this [BGR] scrubber

Correct, I read that sometimes they went a whole year without cleaning. Why not, if they can go 5 years with no calcium additions.

Why would they change to skimmers without adding calcium to the scrubber system first.

Because they did not know that calcium was needed. Look back at the GBR scrubber post I made... the studies of the need for calcium additions were being discovered AFTER they were having sps trouble at the GBR.

They knew about the calcium need way before this

Not according to the timeline that I was reading.

why didn't Dr. Adey dose calcium ++ in this tank?

This is an interesting question, because the career focus of Adey was not hair algae, it was coralline algae. So you think he would have known of the amount of calcium that a growing reef would consume and remove from the water. But when reading the studies, you see that even these researchers (not Adey) said that they were surprised that the calcium levels fell so fast.

Surley they are doing it now, and surely there are no specific needs to do it when running a scrubber?

If you mean dosing calcium at public aquariums, sure. As for with-scrubbers, they are not really correlated; hair algae does not remove or use calcium... only coralline algae does (big time).

[Vannpytt]

Wich timeline would that be?

They where, as I said, used in german systems way before the GBR Aquarium. This fact elludes me. It seems they are ignoring this fact totaly, with or without knowledge. However, the information was there, the method was described and used in these early german aquariums keeping SPS + other invertebrates way before these issues.

Yes, biologists don't care much for forums, neither do other people who could be regarded as significant and would be able to give very precies and probably correct answers.

http://www.masa.asn.au/masawiki/index.php/Kalkwasser

Kalkwasser was used early 70's with waterchanges and skimmers. I just don't get how they could "forget" to dose this very important factor (Also Strontium, but seldom Magnesium as the limiting factor).

I read that they did indeed harvest the GBR scrubber and got a nutrient spike, but that was also connected to another colliding event wich would by itself kill SPS and reduce growth.

All in all, I do not find any argumentation that would be usefull except this scrubberforum and similar sites wich promote the use of these devices (and I use one for myself, while I do have nothing measurable as I said in my setup thread, I do have a algae problem in regression), and this makes it even more exciting and confusing to use these. There are simply no negative effects documented and verifiably assigned to the scrubbing method.

So, what is the bad part about scrubbing? I think most of the scrubbing debate falls on the fact there there are no known negative effects except for keeping xenias without extreme feeding. If it's too good to be true, it usually is, and this also kills the positives. Just notice how little negative effects a skimmer is assigned and how widely it is applauded.