Chaeto put to the test: Going beyond our expectations! (Part 1)

randyBRS · Mar 17, 2017

Hey guys!

Today we're updating you on the Chaetomorpha test that we have been brewing for the last few weeks. What we found about fuge size and PAR really surprised us, so we couldn't just stop there!

As you can tell from the title, we are going to be changing it up with this test and will continue the investigation. So check out this first installment of the Chaeto test and let us know your thoughts!

-Randy

BiggieJohn · Mar 17, 2017

I have been using the hang on fuge with cheto for about 6 months now and have been very happy with the nutrient export and algae control.
20G display, 10G sump, I have no fish, and only lightly populated with soft corals, Euphyllia and a Goniopora, but everything seems to be doing well.

fsn77 · Mar 17, 2017

Thank you for investigating this! I found this one particularly interesting and look forward to seeing the results over time.

Ruminari · Mar 17, 2017

I'd be very interested to know the PAR output of the PAR38 bulb to perhaps match that to the number of CFL or even BR30 LEDs from a local hardware store.

Dapperjman · Mar 17, 2017

I agree that this test looks promising, definitely following.

I use a cheap LED bulb over my fuge and I see similar results to the cheap bulb tested. The statement about the fuge light having to compete with the often times high dollar, powerful DT lights makes sense. I'm considering upping my game on the fuge light to see what happens.

MIchael10101 · Mar 17, 2017

What about throwing a cheap pump at the end of the fuge that would pump water back to the beginning to effectively increase the contact time?

BSDS5000 · Mar 17, 2017

This is fantastic! Thank you for putting this together.

Apologies if I missed this but could we know how long the lights are being run for these test?

randyBRS · Mar 17, 2017

Ruminari said:
I'd be very interested to know the PAR output of the PAR38 bulb to perhaps match that to the number of CFL or even BR30 LEDs from a local hardware store.

Great point! I will run this by the investigation team (well, Aaron and Ryan

) and see if we can to a quick measurement for the next installment.

BSDS5000 said:
This is fantastic! Thank you for putting this together. Apologies if I missed this but could we know how long the lights are being run for these test?

These are on a 12hr light cycle.

-Randy

MaiReef · Mar 17, 2017

I think this is a great test. I am curious to Cheato die off on an established tank. I still have figured out why when the nutrients get really low for an amount of time the Cheato dies off. I have not completely figured out the complete cause as other filtration remains the same, but I do however have not had a full die off once I upped the par in the refugium.

randyBRS · Mar 17, 2017

MIchael10101 said:
What about throwing a cheap pump at the end of the fuge that would pump water back to the beginning to effectively increase the contact time?

Hmmm... I wonder if doing this would cause less DT turnover and if so, to what effect?

KingJason · Mar 17, 2017

Great information! Did you guys mention the lighting period?

SharkLaser · Mar 17, 2017

I like your new toy. Those reagents are going to be expensive though

I found it interesting that you've had such a low PO4 reading with higher par bulbs.
Many seem to be struggling with fuges cleaning out NO3 while PO4 is still slowing going up. I wonder now if it has anything to do with biological and mechanical filtration that also takes some NO3 out, but not PO4.

West1 · Mar 17, 2017

following...

Damon · Mar 17, 2017

Thanks for this test! As you guys know, many of us are already doing the same with some pretty powerful lighting.. And we hear constantly that it's a waste my naysayers.. I cracked up at the pH results as with powerful lighting, I've seen that myself also.. But.. What I did find interesting was your blending technique of the hair algea.. I'm going to try that on my tub as I upped the hours and recently got some hair algea in it.. Otherwise, I have never seen algea in the display with this setup.. Thank you again for the tests!

Mrx7899 · Mar 17, 2017

This makes me want to set my refugium back up again

ReefingwithO · Mar 17, 2017

I created an algae reactor and it's the main filtration on a 10 gallon nano and my results are in line with what BRS got. It keeps nitrates at under 5 (i can't test below that with my current test kit) and phosphate at .03 with the Hanna ULR.

It's working well for me -
I do water changes once a month mainly to maintain parameters.

Nirethell · Mar 17, 2017

This is fantastic! I just recently made a huge purchase through BRS and the Kessil was on my list to buy, I took it off last second thinking I might go with something else, but by judging by the preliminary results I see in that video, maybe I need to reconsider!

Arrecifero · Mar 17, 2017

It would be awesome if BRS also integrates Chaeto reactors to these tests and discussion since space is limited in many sumps and with other equipment already installed, a refugium is just not feasible. Would definitely love to see your results on these reactors' effectiveness as a nutrient export method.

rinckemd · Mar 17, 2017

KingJason said:
Great information! Did you guys mention the lighting period?

I want to know this also. I run the H380 on mine (Be sure to use grow mode and not bloom, it does not work as well), and my results are exactly like you've described so far. Hair algae included. I'm curious about the amount of time you are leaving the lights on.

Girish23 · Mar 17, 2017

I have tride two time to growing cheato in my sump Refugium both time my cheato get in dead 1 week of time period i have 36 watt pll 6500 k lights in it i use reverse cycle of light time period 8 hrs