DSB+cheeto or ALGEE scrubber ???????

[markm3]

oky first these are my data base :

Water parameters
Ammonia 0
Nitrite 0
Nitrate 50
Calcium 500
Alk 4
SG 1.26
Temperature 25 c

System parameters
Tank size 180 x 55 x75 cm
Lighting 2x150 , 1x250 all 14000 k + 2 pc actinic
Filtration 4x consister ehime filter
Skimmer tunza 9010 upgraded to schuran 150
Amount of live rock/live sand LR about 40 kilo and 10cm DSB
and its about one year old

my stock is insane

3 yellow tang
2 large blond naso
1 coral beuty
24 green dumsel
5 anethies
4 blue devil damsel
9 diffrent small dumsel
1 juvnille imprator
1 6 line wrasses
4 fred money
2 baby blue tang new
1 fox face
1 flaveram
10 diffrent gobys and blennys
1 cleaner shrimp
1 banded shrimp
4 turbo snails
40 hermit crabs
1 purple lobster

corals
6 medium clam
3 fuge leather
1 large red anemone
3 medium brains
1 green\purple anemone
2 sea apple
50 ++ muschroom diffrent colour and size

sorry for not writting the names for the fish and corals..but i hope that you notice that i have huge stock .

i wish that i didnt forget to write somthing in my 180 gallon and now you know why i have high level of nitrates ((overload live stock + 4 consister ehime fillters)),,one of the filter is wet\dry

and i am runing korali denitrator , uv, phosphate remover ,ozone controled by AC3 and my regular readings is

(6 am PH 7.9)( 6 pm PH 8.2) bad..
orp 290-340
other r stable as writen below

i feed twice a day diffrent types of food
water change 25% every 2 weeks
do my tests every month

all my live stock is doing fine they r 8 month old and some of them r older from my old tank buttttttttttt i am making a sump now about 40 gal, insted of the consister filtes to elminate nitrates and i am confusing about algee scruber or DSB + cheato ,,,,,,,,,?????
please help .

 

[DaveK]

If I'm doing my math correctly, you have about a 200 gal tank, with about 60 fish in it. In my opinion, unless you added a massive scrubber or refugium, you will not see too much improvement. You already have a DSB in the tank. On your specific question, you could go either way. Both methods do give good results.

However, I would also consider your tank way above normal stocking limits. I think you'd get far better results removing about 1/3 to 1/2 of the fish.

One dead give away. Your ORP reading is only 290 - 340, even with the use of ozone. In a normally stocked system, you normally can maintain this ORP level without ozone, and a fairly simple filtration system.

Other than the overstocking, your system looks fine, and everything else seems to be good.

 

[markm3]

If I'm doing my math correctly, you have about a 200 gal tank, with about 60 fish in it. In my opinion, unless you added a massive scrubber or refugium, you will not see too much improvement. You already have a DSB in the tank. On your specific question, you could go either way. Both methods do give good results.

However, I would also consider your tank way above normal stocking limits. I think you'd get far better results removing about 1/3 to 1/2 of the fish.

One dead give away. Your ORP reading is only 290 - 340, even with the use of ozone. In a normally stocked system, you normally can maintain this ORP level without ozone, and a fairly simple filtration system.

Other than the overstocking, your system looks fine, and everything else seems to be good.

thanks for your great reply ...well....but what most you would do in my situation,, i can lower my stock level..but which better shall i go for the scrubber ???????? the thread in RC for the mega...........people say its working better than DSB and chetto ... i need all your suggesstion
thanks man

 

[jenglish]

an ATS has faster growing algaes than a fuge and will result in faster uptake given nearly the same amount of space. I think that even if you can get N and P under control you may have troubles as the fish reach maturity based on that stock level. A vertical waterfall ATS takes up very little horizontal space and there is no reason you can't do both

 

[yungreefer2410]

yea you can do both but first you need to find a new home for 1/3 to 1/2 of your fish. thats just too many. i would do both as ats can take up very little

 

[DaveK]

thanks for your great reply ...well....but what most you would do in my situation,, i can lower my stock level..but which better shall i go for the scrubber ???????? the thread in RC for the mega...........people say its working better than DSB and chetto ... i need all your suggesstion
thanks man

My first choice would be to lower the stock level.

No doubt you have read part or all of the thread "Mega-Powerful Nitrate ...". See the thread here - http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums...ver-replaces-skimmer-refugium-everything.html

In the thread, the major contributor to it makes many claims about algae turf scrubbing, to the point where I find some of the claims "rather hard to believe". You'll also find that this thread exists on many other reef areas.

Yes, algae turf scrubbing does work. And in some applications it can work well. Like any other type of filtration system it's got advantages and disadvantages. Basically, you are growing algae on one form of material or another, and the growth of algae will remove nitrates and phosphates.

In a typical refugium, you can grow macro algae to do the same thing. You also may choose to have a DSB in the refugium to remove nitrates and phosphates by bacteria processes. You could use the DSB in place of the algae, although my personal choice would be to go with both algae and a DSB.

If you want to read up on algae turf scrubbing, I recommend the book Dynamic Aquaria by Walter Adey and Karen Loveland. As I recall, the book is rather expensive, so try to get it from your local library and read it first, before you buy.

I mention the book because Adey did design the coral reef microcosm that was in the Smithsonian for many years. In this system he had algae turf scrubbers, a refugium (used mostly to hold corals damaged by livestock, until they could be returned to the main tank), and a lagoon (used more or less like we use a macro algae refugium today). In other word he used both methods.

In my opinion, algae turf scrubbing and a refugium work equally well, and can be used together, although I never tried both together.

I don't see any clear advantages of one over the other. I do speak from some experience. I used algae turf scrubbing for quite a few years. It was the primary filtration system. I did find that for best results I still needed a skimmer.

In either case I'd supply the scrubber or refugium with water from your return pump. In other words you want the water going into the scrubber or refugium to be as clean as possible first. This prevents the creation of a dirt trap.

My personal choice would be for the refugium, only because you can place some interesting livestock in there. You could even run it as sort of an additional tank run off the main system. Obviously you don't want to put fish in it, but it could be a nice place for shrimp and so on.

 

[markm3]

My first choice would be to lower the stock level.

No doubt you have read part or all of the thread "Mega-Powerful Nitrate ...". See the thread here - http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums...ver-replaces-skimmer-refugium-everything.html

In the thread, the major contributor to it makes many claims about algae turf scrubbing, to the point where I find some of the claims "rather hard to believe". You'll also find that this thread exists on many other reef areas.

Yes, algae turf scrubbing does work. And in some applications it can work well. Like any other type of filtration system it's got advantages and disadvantages. Basically, you are growing algae on one form of material or another, and the growth of algae will remove nitrates and phosphates.

In a typical refugium, you can grow macro algae to do the same thing. You also may choose to have a DSB in the refugium to remove nitrates and phosphates by bacteria processes. You could use the DSB in place of the algae, although my personal choice would be to go with both algae and a DSB.

If you want to read up on algae turf scrubbing, I recommend the book Dynamic Aquaria by Walter Adey and Karen Loveland. As I recall, the book is rather expensive, so try to get it from your local library and read it first, before you buy.

I mention the book because Adey did design the coral reef microcosm that was in the Smithsonian for many years. In this system he had algae turf scrubbers, a refugium (used mostly to hold corals damaged by livestock, until they could be returned to the main tank), and a lagoon (used more or less like we use a macro algae refugium today). In other word he used both methods.

In my opinion, algae turf scrubbing and a refugium work equally well, and can be used together, although I never tried both together.

I don't see any clear advantages of one over the other. I do speak from some experience. I used algae turf scrubbing for quite a few years. It was the primary filtration system. I did find that for best results I still needed a skimmer.

In either case I'd supply the scrubber or refugium with water from your return pump. In other words you want the water going into the scrubber or refugium to be as clean as possible first. This prevents the creation of a dirt trap.

My personal choice would be for the refugium, only because you can place some interesting livestock in there. You could even run it as sort of an additional tank run off the main system. Obviously you don't want to put fish in it, but it could be a nice place for shrimp and so on.

i really like both methods and may be refugium is easier couse you dont need to clean and scrubb it weekly ,,,,,,,,,but you forget that i have in my display 4 inch DSB which if i did it in my 40 gal sump woudnt be addition and will not work quikly as the ATS and i write below that i need somthing to switched with my 4 ehime consister filters ..,,
WELL i think that both methods have advantages and disadvantages .
thanks for the great reply
cheers

 

[dmyers557]

Way to many fish imho.