Turf Scrubber or Protein Skimmer. Which is more beneficial to the aquarium.
- Thread starter kiefers
- Start date
kiefers
Active Member
Hey Shawn, long time no see.... Lol. Whats the joke ? And I didn't realize the thread had been moved. I am learning alot and yey very suprised the kids are being good. I also believe that both skimmer and scrubber is a tad over kill. One states it removes the food from the system and the other stated it feeds the coral and algea, but why run skimmer if it's going to suck all the good stuff anf then the scrubber to feed it? Are you getting this?
I scholar googled and reading that is just like reading this forum. I'm confused. Should just run a deep sand bed bucket like the one I read in coral magazine. Lol
Kief(i have to stop using Spanko's bacon covered glasses)ers!!
I scholar googled and reading that is just like reading this forum. I'm confused. Should just run a deep sand bed bucket like the one I read in coral magazine. Lol
Kief(i have to stop using Spanko's bacon covered glasses)ers!!
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/387985/turf-scrubber-or-protein-skimmer-which-is-more-beneficial-to-the-aquarium/80#post_3419016
Hey Shawn, long time no see.... Lol. Whats the joke ? And I didn't realize the thread had been moved. I am learning alot and yey very suprised the kids are being good. I also believe that both skimmer and scrubber is a tad over kill. One states it removes the food from the system and the other stated it feeds the coral and algea, but why run skimmer if it's going to suck all the good stuff anf then the scrubber to feed it? Are you getting this?
I scholar googled and reading that is just like reading this forum. I'm confused. Should just run a deep sand bed bucket like the one I read in coral magazine. Lol
Kief(i have to stop using Spanko's bacon covered glasses)ers!!
Save that bacon grease Keif, we can use that to fry us up some fajita's.
Nitrates and Phosphates. Uncontrolable ones would probably be the main reason for running both. There is a guy on another site who was running a beautiful sps dominant tank with nothing but a scrubber. And it did great. But eventually he increased his bio load dramatically with the addition of some large fish. Eventually he got to the point where his scrubber was maxed out. He didn't want to build a bigger scrubber so decided to add a skimmer to help out. He feeds the tank very heavy for the SPS, the skimmers pulls out alot of the excess, and the scrubber mops up what the skimmer doesn't catch.
Also, scrubbers don't handle rapid change very well on their own. The more I'm reading, the more I think it would be beneficial to have both on a sps tank with a medium to heavy bio load. If you're running a softy tank, or fish only, you may be fine with one or the other. That is of corse you have nuesence algae issues.
But you could run what ever you like, as the saying goes...many ways to skin a kitty.
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/387985/turf-scrubber-or-protein-skimmer-which-is-more-beneficial-to-the-aquarium/80#post_3419016
Hey Shawn, long time no see.... Lol. Whats the joke ? And I didn't realize the thread had been moved. I am learning alot and yey very suprised the kids are being good. I also believe that both skimmer and scrubber is a tad over kill. One states it removes the food from the system and the other stated it feeds the coral and algea, but why run skimmer if it's going to suck all the good stuff anf then the scrubber to feed it? Are you getting this?
I scholar googled and reading that is just like reading this forum. I'm confused. Should just run a deep sand bed bucket like the one I read in coral magazine. Lol
Kief(i have to stop using Spanko's bacon covered glasses)ers!!
Save that bacon grease Keif, we can use that to fry us up some fajita's.
Nitrates and Phosphates. Uncontrolable ones would probably be the main reason for running both. There is a guy on another site who was running a beautiful sps dominant tank with nothing but a scrubber. And it did great. But eventually he increased his bio load dramatically with the addition of some large fish. Eventually he got to the point where his scrubber was maxed out. He didn't want to build a bigger scrubber so decided to add a skimmer to help out. He feeds the tank very heavy for the SPS, the skimmers pulls out alot of the excess, and the scrubber mops up what the skimmer doesn't catch.
Also, scrubbers don't handle rapid change very well on their own. The more I'm reading, the more I think it would be beneficial to have both on a sps tank with a medium to heavy bio load. If you're running a softy tank, or fish only, you may be fine with one or the other. That is of corse you have nuesence algae issues.
But you could run what ever you like, as the saying goes...many ways to skin a kitty.
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27
(notice they have to actually check the hyperlink...
) But hopefully they won't get too mad about it...Well I ain't gonna tell em.
Oh I don't remember what the specs were. Flow was my entire overflow, probably around 500 gph. (That tank hasn't been up for a while) I was running a PC light, probably in the 7-10k range, "comparable to the 100 watt bulb". Santa Monica claims 1 sq inch per gallon. That was a 58 gallon tank, and that was a 14 x 8 ish piece of mat. I'm not going to wait a months to see if something might work...You were good on screen size and flow. But your lighting was under the minimum for medium scrubber filtering capabilities, especially with that much flow. When using compact bulbs the recommendation is to go by actual watts not equivalent watts. For full filtering capabilities by today's standards you should have been running a minumum of 58 actual watts. I believe you had a single 23w bulb. And the wrong spectrum at that. Just sayin. Sayin that it looked like an algae bomb went off in your tank lol.
It did help stabilize the levels in the tank (but as with the bountiful algae in the tank, that was never an issue), lowered the temps (always an issue), and algae did recede in the tank. (I did continue running a skimmer). The water clarity was never an issue. But as far as filtration no one has shown anything showing that it is more effective than a fuge, with chaeto or some other floating algae. I think it would have to be significantly ramped up. 3-4 mats something more enclosed, (salt creep was a mess) plus I'd have to figure out a better way to spray water on the mats. I'm leaning towards the idea that your scrubber never really got half the chance to prove what it could have been capable of.
IMO has the same place as a fluidized sand bend, in a filtration system. It does pull crap out of the water. But it is a bugger to mess with... I think there are easier ways, but having the space to do so is an issue for a lot of folks it seems.
Another thing, and most importantly I'm not convinced that it won't spread to the rest of the tank. You stick an algae mat that every drop of water flows through, why is it going to only stay on that mat? What is keeping that algae there? Not a dang thing... I haven't seen this happen yet. And if it does, it will probably just die off. Need to make sure you rough up that screen real good from what I understand, good maintenance and it won't be an issue. Just my thoughts. Remember, I'm not expert...I'm just here talking trash. :/
yeah dude, after Ike, that thing exploded, lots of people's tanks in the area did. I'm not sure why. I hadn't had any issues up to that point. Really bizzare. One of the reasons I think that it was too little, was the surface area of algae in my tank. That rock I was taking pictures of, was 18 inches long, and by it self probably 30 pounds. And it was completely covered. There was another pile of LR that was equally as heavy and equally as coated. Unless that algae on the scrubber is 5x as voratious of a nutrient consumer, I'd needed a whole lot more flow, more lighting, and more sheets to duplicate the surface growing area of the tank.
As for lighting, i used the same light that was in the fuge. If one needed to ramp up the lighting, then it wasn't an apples to apples comparison. (now during that time, my chaeto did die... Making me think that it was more robust, and effective than chaeto.. But there could have been other more likely reasons.
If I were to try again, I'd go about it completely different. (for that 58 gallon) It would be a dedicated tank, I'm thinking something acrylic, in the 20 gallon range, with 4-5 mats, and a water distribution system. I'm not sure if a 500 gph return pump would be enough flow for it, so I'd have to set up some sort of sump just to fuel that. I'm still not conviced that the aglae won't spread to other areas of the tank. so I'd put a micron sock somewhere between that mat tank and the dt.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
(notice they have to actually check the hyperlink...
Oh I don't remember what the specs were. Flow was my entire overflow, probably around 500 gph. (That tank hasn't been up for a while) I was running a PC light, probably in the 7-10k range, "comparable to the 100 watt bulb". Santa Monica claims 1 sq inch per gallon. That was a 58 gallon tank, and that was a 14 x 8 ish piece of mat. I'm not going to wait a months to see if something might work...You were good on screen size and flow. But your lighting was under the minimum for medium scrubber filtering capabilities, especially with that much flow. When using compact bulbs the recommendation is to go by actual watts not equivalent watts. For full filtering capabilities by today's standards you should have been running a minumum of 58 actual watts. I believe you had a single 23w bulb. And the wrong spectrum at that. Just sayin. Sayin that it looked like an algae bomb went off in your tank lol.
It did help stabilize the levels in the tank (but as with the bountiful algae in the tank, that was never an issue), lowered the temps (always an issue), and algae did recede in the tank. (I did continue running a skimmer). The water clarity was never an issue. But as far as filtration no one has shown anything showing that it is more effective than a fuge, with chaeto or some other floating algae. I think it would have to be significantly ramped up. 3-4 mats something more enclosed, (salt creep was a mess) plus I'd have to figure out a better way to spray water on the mats. I'm leaning towards the idea that your scrubber never really got half the chance to prove what it could have been capable of.
IMO has the same place as a fluidized sand bend, in a filtration system. It does pull crap out of the water. But it is a bugger to mess with... I think there are easier ways, but having the space to do so is an issue for a lot of folks it seems.
Another thing, and most importantly I'm not convinced that it won't spread to the rest of the tank. You stick an algae mat that every drop of water flows through, why is it going to only stay on that mat? What is keeping that algae there? Not a dang thing... I haven't seen this happen yet. And if it does, it will probably just die off. Need to make sure you rough up that screen real good from what I understand, good maintenance and it won't be an issue. Just my thoughts. Remember, I'm not expert...I'm just here talking trash. :/
yeah dude, after Ike, that thing exploded, lots of people's tanks in the area did. I'm not sure why. I hadn't had any issues up to that point. Really bizzare. One of the reasons I think that it was too little, was the surface area of algae in my tank. That rock I was taking pictures of, was 18 inches long, and by it self probably 30 pounds. And it was completely covered. There was another pile of LR that was equally as heavy and equally as coated. Unless that algae on the scrubber is 5x as voratious of a nutrient consumer, I'd needed a whole lot more flow, more lighting, and more sheets to duplicate the surface growing area of the tank.
As for lighting, i used the same light that was in the fuge. If one needed to ramp up the lighting, then it wasn't an apples to apples comparison. (now during that time, my chaeto did die... Making me think that it was more robust, and effective than chaeto.. But there could have been other more likely reasons.
If I were to try again, I'd go about it completely different. (for that 58 gallon) It would be a dedicated tank, I'm thinking something acrylic, in the 20 gallon range, with 4-5 mats, and a water distribution system. I'm not sure if a 500 gph return pump would be enough flow for it, so I'd have to set up some sort of sump just to fuel that. I'm still not conviced that the aglae won't spread to other areas of the tank. so I'd put a micron sock somewhere between that mat tank and the dt.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
I'm late to the dance here so apologize first for covering anything already covered.
first impression is we are still having the same old discussions.
My 55g ran from 2003-2009 with many fish including two tangs and a mix of non sps type corals.
It had an in tank refugium which was just a partition 3" in front of the back glass and a couple of shop lights behind the tank pointing forward.
Plus a small sump/refugium with a wastbasket full of crushed oyster shells.
we also had a 29g with just a sump with seperate refugium with a couple of clowns and many corals. It ran for about 3 years.
I spot fed the corals cylopeeze plus live phyto (micro algae and rotivers). I did harvested macros from time to time.
The 55g gallon used tap water the 29g ro/di.
the 55g had no live rock and I used landscape rocks.
I used the diy two part on both tanks. and a little kalk in the top off as well.
Nitrates and phosphates were unmeasurable in both tanks. Phosphates with the salifert test kit and it had not the slightest hint of red or any other color. And it did measure phosphates in our tap water so the kit was fine.
I also dosed iron and for a little while calcium nitrate. Nitrate would bounce up to 5-10 then be 0 a week later.
Neither tank had any water changes for the years they were in operation.
So from that experience plus my fw planted expereience to me the single most important thing in aquarum operation is to balance out the tank with plant life (plants in Fw algae in marine) and then basically let it maintain itself.
The Algae Turf scrubber is just a particular implemantation of that basic idea. and I can see how having thne light very close to the algae cuts down electrical bills and helps control cyano as well.
Exporting is important but not nearly as important as skimmer/filter/water change methods. the exporting in a plant life based system to me is not to export nitrates and phosphates but the nasties like copper they bioaccumulate.
basically for nitrates/phosphates all you are doing is recycling fish wastes into fish food.
I am also certain the for more delicate corals like sps you need the higher lights plus you have to replace stuff bio accumulated by the algae as well.
In addition, the water changes will limit but not prevent buildups and depletions in the system. for instance, if something (nitrates) increase 10ppm between water changes a 10% water change will result in 100ppm of something just before the water changes. then down to 90 and back up to 100 just before the next water change.
Finally say something goes bump in the night cauing ammonia to spike. What happens is the algae prefers to consume that ammonia over nitrates. So there is no ammonia spike and a possible nitrate spike. Preventing dangerous spikes and system crashes. So the system is much more stable and forgiving of operator error.
In terms of operation I used the diy 2 part, fed the fish and corals, replace evaporative water, and every week or so removed some macros. Every 6 months or so I did rinse out the crushed ouster shells in the 55g also.
When I would be gone for a week I would turn off the sumps and just leave. Top off when I returned and restart the sumps.
But that's just my thoughts which are worth at most
.02
first impression is we are still having the same old discussions.
My 55g ran from 2003-2009 with many fish including two tangs and a mix of non sps type corals.
It had an in tank refugium which was just a partition 3" in front of the back glass and a couple of shop lights behind the tank pointing forward.
Plus a small sump/refugium with a wastbasket full of crushed oyster shells.
we also had a 29g with just a sump with seperate refugium with a couple of clowns and many corals. It ran for about 3 years.
I spot fed the corals cylopeeze plus live phyto (micro algae and rotivers). I did harvested macros from time to time.
The 55g gallon used tap water the 29g ro/di.
the 55g had no live rock and I used landscape rocks.
I used the diy two part on both tanks. and a little kalk in the top off as well.
Nitrates and phosphates were unmeasurable in both tanks. Phosphates with the salifert test kit and it had not the slightest hint of red or any other color. And it did measure phosphates in our tap water so the kit was fine.
I also dosed iron and for a little while calcium nitrate. Nitrate would bounce up to 5-10 then be 0 a week later.
Neither tank had any water changes for the years they were in operation.
So from that experience plus my fw planted expereience to me the single most important thing in aquarum operation is to balance out the tank with plant life (plants in Fw algae in marine) and then basically let it maintain itself.
The Algae Turf scrubber is just a particular implemantation of that basic idea. and I can see how having thne light very close to the algae cuts down electrical bills and helps control cyano as well.
Exporting is important but not nearly as important as skimmer/filter/water change methods. the exporting in a plant life based system to me is not to export nitrates and phosphates but the nasties like copper they bioaccumulate.
basically for nitrates/phosphates all you are doing is recycling fish wastes into fish food.
I am also certain the for more delicate corals like sps you need the higher lights plus you have to replace stuff bio accumulated by the algae as well.
In addition, the water changes will limit but not prevent buildups and depletions in the system. for instance, if something (nitrates) increase 10ppm between water changes a 10% water change will result in 100ppm of something just before the water changes. then down to 90 and back up to 100 just before the next water change.
Finally say something goes bump in the night cauing ammonia to spike. What happens is the algae prefers to consume that ammonia over nitrates. So there is no ammonia spike and a possible nitrate spike. Preventing dangerous spikes and system crashes. So the system is much more stable and forgiving of operator error.
In terms of operation I used the diy 2 part, fed the fish and corals, replace evaporative water, and every week or so removed some macros. Every 6 months or so I did rinse out the crushed ouster shells in the 55g also.
When I would be gone for a week I would turn off the sumps and just leave. Top off when I returned and restart the sumps.
But that's just my thoughts which are worth at most
.02