Protein skimmer vs. fuge, Literally

farsight32

farsight32

Member
About two weeks ago my protein skimmer died. Now I bought it used, and reconditioned it originally, so it's not like I was sad about the value lost. Instead of just buying a new one, I decided to build my own. Now the one I created is pretty stone age, but that is not the point.
I also have a refugium with chaeto. My algae was growing very slowly in the month I had it, form the size of my fist it just about doubled. In the week and a half I had no skimmer running, it went from the size of two of my fists to a bowling ball. Now the rapid growth happened right after I upgraded my sump light from a clip-on LED to a clip-on with an incandescent bulb above.
Is the rapid growth due to the new lighting?
I ask because in all of my research (note I am still pretty new at this), the skimmer and the macro algae perform the same function. They both remove nitrates and other bad stuff from your water, and from my understanding, the macro algae actually feeds off of them in a way. So it seems to me that the skimmer is actually competing with the macro algae. This is only me thinking out loud, but to me, the novice, that the skimmer is not necessary under the right conditions. Mainly, a refugium with adequate lighting and space for the macro algae to grow. After noticing how well my chaeto grew with no skimmer, I am considering going skimmerless.
Is there another benefit that a protein skimmer has that macro algae does not? Will the extra growth of my macro algae be a benefit, and if so does that benefit outweigh the cost of not having a skimmer?
I am in no rush to undertake this experiment, I just wanted to hear what everyone thinks, or if I am completely wrong in my hypothesis.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
The functions of a skimmer and an algae scrubber are not the same although they overlap quite a bit. I say algae scrubber instead of refugium because not all refugiums have algae.
In my opinion the new rate of algae growth you are experiencing is a combination of more light and more food in the water due to not having a skimmer.
 
farsight32

farsight32

Member
Not all refugiums are algae scrubbers? I had never heard that.
I am only wondering because it seems counter intuitive to me. It seems like the skimmer, while adding benefit, is also inhibiting my algae growth, and removing good and the bad. The good being pods I have growing and any additives I am dosing. I am I completely off base there? I have heard some people swear the skimmer doesn't affect pods, and some say it decimates them? Any personal opinions? Do you guys all run skimmers?
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
A refugium is an area connected to your system that is protected. You could set up a DSB to protect sand bed infauna from sand sifters, you could grow pods protected from fish, etc. Macroalgae is just one possibility out of many. I've even heard of hobbiests keeping Giant Clams in a refugium to filter the water away from predators in the display tank.
In my opinion skimmers do not hinder pods. If the skimmer is fed by a powerhead then that can be a problem. Powerheads are a lot rougher on pods that a full sized waterpump.
I personally would not setup a reef system without a skimmer.
 
acrylic51

acrylic51

Active Member
I pretty much agree with Bang.....I can't see any major impact on pod population from running a skimmer....You might loose a few, but it's minuscule in the scheme of things......
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
Since I'm the polar opposite of skimmers I'll throw in my .02
I've been running a turf scrubber for over 2 years now and am extremely pleased with the results.
You being someone who apparently likes to build things would probably enjoy making one of these for yourself. Much easier and I'm guessing cheaper than building a skimmer.
Let me start by saying that I had a skimmer for the first 8 months of my tank and I have nothing against skimmers. Whatever floats your boat and keeps your livestock alive is good.
When I had my skimmer running I fed very little once a day sometimes once every other day. I did religious water changes 10% a week every friday afternoon.
Yet for whatever reason I could never get my phosphates to 0 and always had nitrates in the 40 or so range. I will grant you I had a big lionfish (my only fish in a 90 gallon tank) and they are pretty messy poopers. Always had a pretty nasty green hair algea problem.
I put my 90 in the wall of my garage and added a 55g sump with cheato. Still running the skimmer. No change.
When I upgraded to my 120g I made my first turf scrubber. Actually the same one I still use today. Ive built many now for friends, family and club members.
I ran the scrubber and the skimmer for about 2 months together. It took about 8 weeks for the screen to grow in because it was competing for food that the skimmer was taking out and the GHA in my DT was eating before it even got to the sump.
Once the screen grew in my Cheato died (too much competition) my phos and trates went to 0 never to come back up, my PH is very stable and I made loads upon loads of copepods. And all the GHA in my DT died.
I decided to try and take the skimmer offline and the parameters stayed perfect so I never put it back in.
I now feed as much or as little as I want. I've never been able to exceed the scrubbers limit,
One of the main differences in the skimmer and the algae is the algae eats all the stuff we test for that we consider bad and you dispose of it once a week, gone out of the system. skimmers take poop, leftover fish food, things that can break down and become coral food out of the water before it has a chance to break down into these bad things.
I guess what I'm trying to say is while bang says he would never run a tank without a skimmer, I feel the exact same way about my turf scrubber.
Like I said, i've used both, and IMO there is no comparison.
There are a few drawbacks to the scrubber though.
1.) you have to clean one side of the screen every week, takes about 5 minutes, and it's a little bit smelly just like skimate in your collection cup.
2.) you have to replace the bulbs on the scrubber every 4 months to grow great algae, the bulbs come in a 2 pack for 5 bucks at wal-mart
3.) if you're not real good about cleaning the screen or you don't rough the screen up correctly the algae can climb into the slot in the pipe and cause some spray. I use a plexi glass plate that the light shines through now just in case.
4.) its more noisy than a scrubber in alot of cases, water running down the screen. Mine is in a separate room all its own so this is fine for me, you could take measures to prevent that though.
5.) More water evaporation than without it.
IMO the downsides in most cases are far less than the upsides
just my .02 and it's not for everybody :)
 
farsight32

farsight32

Member
Ok, i like the idea of the turf scrubber but it does sound alot like a refugium. From what I understand, it performs the same function as cheato. Is it more effective than chaeto? Will I have to remove my chaeto if I make one? If it is more effective than a refugium with chaeto, what makes it more effective? The water flow, the large surface area, the type of algae?
Jstdv8, you have definitely got me interested. I just want to make sure I completely understand what one is, what purpose it serves, and how that fits into my system before I go and make one.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by farsight32 http:///t/393405/protein-skimmer-vs-fuge-literally#post_3500329
Ok, i like the idea of the turf scrubber but it does sound alot like a refugium. From what I understand, it performs the same function as cheato. Is it more effective than chaeto? Will I have to remove my chaeto if I make one? If it is more effective than a refugium with chaeto, what makes it more effective? The water flow, the large surface area, the type of algae?
Jstdv8, you have definitely got me interested. I just want to make sure I completely understand what one is, what purpose it serves, and how that fits into my system before I go and make one.
If you are space limited then a Turf Scrubber is a lot more effective than a refugium with Chaeto algae. Inch for inch it's probably in the range of 4X more effective. The type of algae grows faster than macro algae in terms of mass, maybe not in terms of volume.
 
farsight32

farsight32

Member
Quote:
Once the screen grew in my Cheato died (too much competition) my phos and trates went to 0 never to come back up, my PH is very stable and I made loads upon loads of copepods
So the scrubber is more effective at maintaining a copepod population than a refugium?
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
well, you can go to google and look up algae scrubbers it ends in a dot net (i can't post links on this forum)
Basically what it amounts to is that the water runs down this roughed up plastic screen (the kind you use for knitting from a hobby store)
you have a light on both sides (you can do one sided lights but the surface area of the screen has to be twice as large)
the reason it works is that the lights do not have to penetrate the water to get to the algae, so much like algae that grows on rocks, posts and other shoreline things in the ocean, this algae grows thick on the screen. The screen provides a rough surface to grow on (unlike glass and other smooth items that are usually found at the top of fish tanks) You also run the scrubber on the opposite timer of the DT lights so it helps keep PH up all day/night long. Lights on the screen for 18 hours, off for 6.
You need a particular amount of square inches of screen (based on the volume of water you are trying to scrub)
and you need a particular amout of GPH coming down the screen from a pump or from your overflow
and you need a particular amount of light
when these all jive it does wonders.
All the instructions, pictures, specs and everything are on the site. you can also look back in the archives here for a poster named santamonica. he is the one that really made these DIY systems big time.
Like I mentioned in my first post my cheato died off once my screen grew in, as did all of the GHA in my DT. I had it on my rocks, growing on the glass and powerheads, everywhere.
It works similar to the cheato except its just a ton more powerful and the best part imo is that since you harvest it on a regular basis (once side of the screen per week) you remove all that algae and with it goes all the crud that it pulled from the system. Down the drain. (or in the garbage actually)
Cheato is generally submerged in water and you usually don't have a real good light source on it and it's only getting hit from the top.
It does make a really nice place for the pods to hang out and eat and grow big, but I believe you will find that for whatever reason the scrubber will grow millions of pods. they are much smaller that the normal pods you see crawling around, but they seem to feed my fish :) As a matter of fact that is one of the main reasons you need to clean the screen once a week is because the pods will grow so plentiful on the screen that they will eat holes in your nice thick mat of algae hair and cause some of it to fall in the water. Which isn't a big deal in itself except that it takes away from some of your filtration power if you have holes not growing algae.
You may look into LED lights that grow that type of algae, at the time I built mine SantaMonica said he wasn't aware of LED's that had the correct spectrum or something to properly grow the GHA, but now I think he makes little nano screens with LED lights on them. LED would be the way to go so you don't have to change the bulbs so often and of course less wattage used. I'm running 2x 27 watt CFL's on mine with great sucess. but i wouldn't mind trying some LED's if I could find the right ones.
Let me know if you have any other questions. There are a few others on this board that have built scrubbers and had good success as well. I know Al is one, can't think of who else was playing with them.
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
Skimmers and refugiums/scrubbers both serve two different purposes. Skimmers remove waste before it is broken down into nitrate and phosphates. Macroalgae/hair algae filter out nitrate and phosphates after then are broken down. Algae is beneficial in that it does regulate/stabilize pH and limits the growth of algae in the display tank. Protein skimmers are great if you are typically a heavy feeder - or if you have corals that like a lot of food. Algae and skimmers, however, do not remove detritus - which is a source of nitrates and phosphates - detritus still has to be removed from deposits in the sandbed and in the sump through stirring it up before water changes - and letting mechanical filtration catch the rest - or a deep sand bed in a refugium. It can be argued as well that skimmers also increase pH because the massive amount of gas exchange that occurs in the reaction chamber.
Everything has it's place, and one is not better than the other - they simply use two different methods for controlling waste buildup.
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
Snake I agree with most of that.
It seems to me that the scrubber is the better system for heavy feeders, since it doesnt matter if the unit catches it all or not. Also, if you are a heavy coral feeder or just like to have your corals get more without feeding coral food the scrubber would be the better system due to the amount of small stuff that is left in the water column. This is all coral food.
I didn't have good luck with my skimmer in this area.
Other than the scrubber itself, no other mechanical filtration is wanted as this will limit the amount of coral food left in the water. No filter socks, no bio balls, no nothing that might take out extra stuff that the corals could eat.
One thing the skimmer does do much better is clean the water. If you want absolutely crystal clear water the skimmer is far superior.
I've noticed that when you watch the dives on TV that the ocean is full of stuff just floating around in the water. Usually much larger than in my tank though. Of course thats just what can bee seen through a camera lense, I've never been diving myself.
The skimmer is also much prettier and easy to use. if you want plug and play and you want to spend a lot of money on something fancy to hang on your tank, the skimmer is your product.
I personally get a kick out of building things myself, and when they work this well I really have a good time :)
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
I should also mention in fairness that the protein skimmer I had was a coralife super skimmer. Which I understand are less than spectacular. It was a 220g rated on a 90 gallon tank though.
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
Preaching to the choir, bud. I already know all the benefits etc. I have used scrubbers for a while and even on clients tanks. Ive seen good results and i have seen some "wonky" parameters as well. Dr. Adey would be proud of you though.
There is, however, more than one way to skin a cat. Not saying your completely wrong for supporting scrubbers so much (as i did in the past) just saying that you should recognize that there are many different ways to accomplish the same results - and the result that we are all looking for is a happy, healthy, active and growing saltwater aquarium. Regardless of how you get there, thats the goal.
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
who's Dr Adey?
Not really preaching to you. more for anyone else that happens to read this including the OP.
When you say wonky parameters what did you get?
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
I looked up Adey, I've seen his stuff before.
It was my understanding that his work was pretty awesome but generally failed because it had no way to clean the screens and dispose of the algae.
Which in turn gave turf scrubbers a bad name for quite some time.
I don't know if all this is true, just what I heard.
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///t/393405/protein-skimmer-vs-fuge-literally#post_3500467
who's Dr Adey?
Not really preaching to you. more for anyone else that happens to read this including the OP.
When you say wonky parameters what did you get?
Calcium and alkalinity issues, mainly.
Also, if your scrubber is too efficient, it can suck too much nitrate and phosphate out of the water column and cause bleaching/death in some corals. Keep in mind that the scrubber works better the more you feed..... and so if you are trying to get some phosphate in to your tank, the hair algae will always be in constant competition with your corals for food. Corals don't just use particulate organic matter - they use phosphorilization as well as calcium and alkalinity to build their skeletons and tissues. If it's all tied up in algae production, corals will not thrive. Protein skimmers, more or less, leave some food in the tank and don't strip the water of nitrate and phosphate like algae scrubbers do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///t/393405/protein-skimmer-vs-fuge-literally#post_3500471
I looked up Adey, I've seen his stuff before.
It was my understanding that his work was pretty awesome but generally failed because it had no way to clean the screens and dispose of the algae.
Which in turn gave turf scrubbers a bad name for quite some time.
I don't know if all this is true, just what I heard.
He was just the original designer of a turf algae scrubber - and by you continuing his work and giving support to his concept, he would be proud of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top