Too Much Chaeto?

[Krish]

the larger the plant the larger the demand

Exactly! If your tank can't meet it's demand to supply a big ball with food, then it will die-off which is why I said it would probably be a much safer bet to go with a smaller ball and have it continuously grow fast and be trimmed, then to go with a huge ball and not be able to meet it's needs and have it die-off and add nutrients back into the water. Remember we are trying to get rid of excess nutrients in our systems not add them to our system. Just my 2 cents

 

[Jobiwan]

Golly gumdrops, who would have thought chaeto could generate so much energy??? :lol:

 

[DonW]

:lol:Just do more maintenance or get a better skimmer starve off that chaeto. No chaeto to debate over, problem solved.

Don

 

[Jobiwan]

A picture is worth a thousand words (or is it a thousand posts???) Here's a photo of my fuge on my new system when the chaeto was added about 3 weeks ago. The volume is about 60 gal, lighting is 2 x 96w PC's. The only nutrient source for the chaeto should be the byproducts from the 800 lbs of live rock (which should be considerable since I can't afford a good skimmer), my nitrates/phosphates have stayed at 0, presumably the chaeto is sucking it up..
.
.

.
.
.
And here's what it looks like after about 3 weeks give or take, anyone want some free chaeto? BTW Curt, friends don't let friends set up fuges with caulerpa or halimeda:lol:.
.
.

 

[csababubbles]

Exactly! If your tank can't meet it's demand to supply a big ball with food, then it will die-off which is why I said it would probably be a much safer bet to go with a smaller ball and have it continuously grow fast and be trimmed, then to go with a huge ball and not be able to meet it's needs and have it die-off and add nutrients back into the water. Remember we are trying to get rid of excess nutrients in our systems not add them to our system. Just my 2 cents

I would assume that in our tanks excess nutrients is the norm. I would think it would be very difficult to have a tank with fish, live rock, clean up crews, regular feedings etc. and be worried about NOT have enough enough nutrients for a ball of macro algae.

 

[DonW]

I can't afford a good skimmer

:lol:Time to get some taller boots.


Don

 

[DonW]

I would assume that in our tanks excess nutrients is the norm. I would think it would be very difficult to have a tank with fish, live rock, clean up crews, regular feedings etc. and be worried about NOT have enough enough nutrients for a ball of macro algae.

In the past this was true. With todays technology its fairly simple to have a system with low enough nutrient to starve of chaeto.

Don

 

[Krish]

I would assume that in our tanks excess nutrients is the norm. I would think it would be very difficult to have a tank with fish, live rock, clean up crews, regular feedings etc. and be worried about NOT have enough enough nutrients for a ball of macro algae.

Read Don's post #47 and my earlier one...Like I mentioned before, I ran a tank with un-detectable nitrates etc for a very long time without using any form of an algae for nutrient export. Adding chaeto to my tank would only just die do to starvataion and cause me problems if it weren't able to compete with my live rock for any excess nutrients. Many people keep un-detectable nitrates etc without a macro algae by just simply practicising good husbandry, not over stocking or overfeeding, skimming and so forth.

 

[Jobiwan]

I don't think you would ever see chaeto die off from lack of nutrients, but you might see it's growth rate drop way off. In this situation (a good one to be in, BTW, nothing beats good husbandry) the primary role of the chaeto could be to serve as a matrix for pod production, there are none better, and it could serve a secondary role as a backup safety net to suck up any nitrate production and as a canary in the proverbial coal mine, a surge in growth could clue one in to break out the test kits for those of us who are lazy/complacent about testing (yeah, I'm guilty...)

 

[Krish]

I don't think you would ever see chaeto die off from lack of nutrients, but you might see it's growth rate drop way off. In this situation (a good one to be in, BTW, nothing beats good husbandry) the primary role of the chaeto could be to serve as a matrix for pod production, there are none better, and it could serve a secondary role as a backup safety net to suck up any nitrate production and as a canary in the proverbial coal mine, a surge in growth could clue one in to break out the test kits for those of us who are lazy/complacent about testing (yeah, I'm guilty...)

Makes sense man and I, at one time, thought about adding chaeto just as backup in case my tank ever needed the extra help which I was going to get from Steve (wrightme43) but heard stories about chaeto dying off and didn't want to add something to my system that would potentially die-off as well and cause me problems. Besides, I thought hard about it and figured why add something in my case that wasn't needed. Obviously my rock was able to process any nitrates all by it's own (along with any removed via water changes, help from skimming etc) so I left it alone as was fine. Some people on the otherhand need chaeto or another macro to aid them which is fine as well. Whatever works for you is all that matters. If it ever came to a point that I needed chaeto or some other macro to help me out, then by all means I would have added it. I think reflecting back on the thread, it is obvious there are many ways to go about using chaeto (small ball tumbling vs larger mass) and have it work for you. Which method is better??? Well we may never know...

BTW...You have nice growth in your fuge man! Looks healthy as well!

 

[Jobiwan]

Thanks Krish, I hope I can get to the stability of your system, when that happens I will eliminate the chaeto and replace it with seagrass, shifting the fuge purpose from nutrient uptake to epiphyte production, I'll PM some questions to you

 

[Krish]

No prob!

 

[csababubbles]

krish, algae use a lot more nutrients from the water then only nitrates. just because your nitrates are zero does not mean the algaes will be starved and begin a die-off.

 

[DonW]

krish, algae use a lot more nutrients from the water then only nitrates. just because your nitrates are zero does not mean the algaes will be starved and begin a die-off.

Starving off chaeto is a very simple but long term process of obsevation and using it as a tool to tweek maintenance and equipment until youve achieved low nutrients.

The small rolling ball vs the large mass are two completly different subsystems design to achieve two different results. Confusing the two causes problems. Learning the differences between the two will help net the desired results.


Don

 

[Jobiwan]

Hi Don, I'm here to learn Just to clarify things, what would you define as the two different purposes of the two subsystems? In my mind (correct me if I'm missing something) the rolling ball serves primarily, perhaps solely, as a nutrient export system, whereas the static mass provides this benefit in addition to classic fuge benefits i.e. pod production, in my mind you therefor get more benefit from the static mass, my own experience seems to bear this out, what is your take on it?

 

[jedimike]

I think biodiversity and pod production is more important than nutrient export, so I'll continue with my block of chaeto approach even if it may not be as effective at nutrient export.

 

[Krish]

krish, algae use a lot more nutrients from the water then only nitrates. just because your nitrates are zero does not mean the algaes will be starved and begin a die-off.

Of course algae usues alot more than just nitrates...They also use phosphates etc, but my point is, if I couldn't even get nuicance algae to grow, then how would chaeto which is also an algae?? When I first started cycling my tank, I harvested algae in my sump and made the conditions more favorable for it to grow there rather than my tank. Every week, I siphoned it out and it continued growing back until eventually, when my tank stabilized and got to where I'd considered it matured, nothing ever grew back. So my point is, why would chaeto grow in my system when regular hair algae etc wouldn't? If there is nothing to feed it, then obviously it can't grow...Just my 2 cents

 

[DonW]

Hi Don, I'm here to learn Just to clarify things, what would you define as the two different purposes of the two subsystems? In my mind (correct me if I'm missing something) the rolling ball serves primarily, perhaps solely, as a nutrient export system, whereas the static mass provides this benefit in addition to classic fuge benefits i.e. pod production, in my mind you therefor get more benefit from the static mass, my own experience seems to bear this out, what is your take on it?

Exactly we have two different subsystem designed to accomplish two different things.

The rolling ball needs alot of flow. This keeps the ball clean and all the turbidity in suspension so that it can be removed before it rots. The ball keeps the holding area floor swept so to speak, lifting any crud that may settle.

The other is the fuge. That is exactly what it is, a refugium/safe haven what ever you want to call it. Its a low flow area, so it collects tubidity. This is used by the critters or rots either way its broken down within the fuge. After its broken down it gets used by the macro. The bigger the mass the more it collects and the more crud there is to break down.
There will become a point when the area is basicly self reliant and does not need any nutrients from the incomming water. This is how you are able to grow such a large mass and keep it alive. Your giving it everything it needs, it no longer needs to struggle sucking nutrients just from the tank alone.

There will also come a point where the collection area gets so full that it produces more nutrients than the macro needs. This is the point at which the refugium becomes a problem, so obviously this needs to be prevented by manual removal. But lets assume you managed some sort of magical equalibrium. Even if that were possible, you would be doing nothing for the incomming water column.

So basicly its one or the other you cant have the best of both unless you install one of each.

Don

 

[Jobiwan]

OK Don, I see where you are coming from. There seems to be an underlying assumption then that chaeto is not removed from the static system, and that detritus/waste products are allowed to build up until a potentially problematic nutrient sink is allowed to develop. This can be avoided with a minimal amount of maintainance, by removing 1/2 the chaeto on a monthly basis (roughly speaking), nutrients are exported and the remailing chaeto stays clean and pristeen, crud just doesn't appear, so no tumbling is necessary to keep it clean. The water coming into the fuge has been prefiltered and skimmed, so there is no systemic turbidity/crud to keep in suspension, and nothing that needs to be kept in suspension to avoid "rotting". Detritus does slowly accumulate as a byproduct of the fuge critters since I do put a small amount of food in the fuge every few days for their benefit, this is easily removed with a bit of siphoning as necessary, not something that needs to be done very often though. Your premise would be spot on if one were to set up a static chaeto system with the intention of walking away from it and leaving it alone for months, but to my mind that would just be negligent husbandry, it only takes a small amount of effort to prevent the development of a nutrient sink, aka "a ticking time bomb".

Maybe I'm confused about the idea of the rolling ball keeping things in suspension, are we maybe talking about a setup where the water into the fuge comes directly out of the tank without benefit of prefiltering or skimming? If that were the case I could see where crud accumulation would be a problem, but it seems to me that that sort a of a setup would be a flawed design. The whole point of keepings things in suspension is to allow more effective mechanical filtration and removal of same, unless I'm missing something, so it seems to me that the extra step of flushing detritus through the rolling fuge should be avoided by prefiltering/skimming first. Dense that I am I keep coming back to the same conclusion that the static system provides all the benefits that the rolling ball setup does, which to me is nutrient export, I can't make sense out of the whole waste suspension business because to me that suspended waste should be removed before it ever gets to the fuge, plus you get the added benefit of fuge critters with the static system. I'm still not clear on the two different goals thing I'm afraid...

 

[DonW]

I guess alot would depend on how it was plumbed. Alot of folks split their drains so the fuge gets fed dirty tank water. But in reality you can just look at the sand in your fuge. This alone tells you that you have a nutrient sink and the detritus is rotting in the refug area. Now if you had a load of flow and just glass there would be nothing, depending on how it was plumbed it would either be skimmed or returned to the tank for a second try at getting it out.
But of course the way it is plumbed depends on what you are trying to achieve refug or nutrient removal.

Does that make any sense?

Don