algae scrubber vs wet/dry

ALL coral need NO3, every last one of them. But in excess it will cause a brownout in some corals due to an increase in the green red zooxanthallae that are more able to utilize the nitrate...

Algae that are harmful to coral? Bryposis, Derbesia, and Valonia can all overtake corals. Dinoflagellates (not algae but are increased with NO3) produce toxins that can kill sensitive invertebrates, usually snails and crabs.

A small level isn't bad, but better growth and coloration have been observed in many corals in immeasurable NO3 tanks. Please read Nitrate in the reef aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley, there is a wealth of information there.

Higher NO3 also lowers ORP.

Guru you said that you dose sugar, I believe that will have an effect on your NO3 levels... Could be skewing things...

But I agree... People see their tank reading 10-20ppm of NO3 and freak out. There isn't really any reason to do so, unless they just did an 80% water change, and THEN tested 10-20 ppm NO3.

 

the sugar used is mixed with the coral food, shouldnt be a factor.

 

All Caulerpas release varying degrees of terpenes all day long which are known growth inhibitors. The same poreousness of the thallus that allows it to absorb Nitrates also allows toxins to leak out. One in particular is really bad. C taxifolia releases large quantities of Caulerpenyne. If the Caulerpenyne is released as a secondary metabolite vs minor leaking, it can kill SPS if you are not running GAC.

 

Sugar added is sugar added. Its a carbon source, and fuel for bacteria and will lower/eliminate nitrates. Not sure how when you add it or what you add it with makes any difference?

 

Er maybe something I want to try

HI,
I have stopped using all filter canisters and reduced my filter pads in my penguins,
my mainfilters are a large fluidized bed filter , a dsb sump with small reforguim and lots of water movement and alot of live rock in the main tank and the smaller tank, both share the reforguim the 55 has a external skimmer ,the sump has a large skimmer.
Things have been going well so far, phos us a little up to.5 and down to
-.1 ,I use kalk to kill the phos, and this seems to help the skimmer extract any nox .
Its been a while since a water change maybe amonth.
Doug

 

inwall:
c taxifolia is wipping out miles of reef's world wide, there trying to control it.

j2:
everything in moderation, not all corals feed off of NO3 hence the NO3 dilema, ammonia and nitrites are worse than NO3, sugar wont skew the results: they lower them.

djnzlab:
most filter media will harbor bacteria that may grow good and bad. i dont use any at all.

so with the correct algae in place will a scrubber produce better results than a wet/dry?

 

Guru: From Dr. Borneman on the subject of Nitrogen uptake by Corals specific to Xenids in a refugium:

"Corals are all capable of taking up dissolved nitrogen... Xenia just can't capture prey"

"A tank full of corals can pull a lot of nitrogen - not just Xenia"

Exactly! Making your hypothesis invalid that anything OTHER than the sugar is giving you 0 nitrates. Which is the control, the sugar, or any of your other nitrate reducing techniques?

 

j2:

im not going back and forth with you and having this thread shut down like the other one. this thread isnt about sugar. i only commented on it since you brought it up.

everyone else:
if an algae scrubber is to be used in this hobby. would it benefit certain types of tanks ( i.e. fish only, fwlr, reef, and so on ) better than a wet/dry?

 

Thats fine, I was just bringing it up to form a complete picture. We are after all discussing algae scrubbers, and they would naturally be used for NO3 removal... No need to get upset Guru... I don't think that I had much to do with any threads getting closed.

I think that the maintenance of an algae scrubber would be less than a wet dry would it not? I've never owned an algae scrubber, but cleaning sponges, bio balls or floss seems more work intensive... Not too sure about the wet dry, although I am new to using them in a reef setting, I still don't think that they would rival the ability of rapidly growing algae to uptake NO3. My understanding is that the strength of a wet dry is in housing nitrosomonas, and nitrabacter and therefore metabolizing NH3 & NH4 into NO2. Although I could be wrong, I have read that a certain amount of NO3 IS metabolized in aerobic conditions, how much is in debate...

So to sum up, my thought is that both are used for different things, so a scrubber wouldn't replace a wet dry if thats what you use... I personally haven't used a wet dry at all in YEARS... But if I did, it would be to facilitate a faster nitrogen cycle i.e. get ammonia to nitrite, and rely on the scrubber, or refugium to metabolize the NO3 into nitrogen gas N2.

 

both basically have no maintenance and both basically do the same thing. both aerate the water to start the chemical process to break down nutrients.

you dont clean the scrubber like the sponges since the algae is needed. the sediment that is cleaned off of the sponges would fuel the scrubber. wet/dry's rarely need attention.

j2:
since you dont use a wet/dry, how is your system set up?

not upset, never said you did. enough said