Well, I was doing some searches and came across a tank using an algae scrubber. I've never heard of one so I was curious and busted out ole Google. Very interesting. So I was wondering, has anyone personally used one? Pros or cons on them? DIY or ordered? What differences did you notice (besides electricity cost increase lol) in using one? Pix if possible.:beer:
Quik Z06
Used it. Loved it. Doing it again.
Using a scrubber was what got me more interested into the water change-less methods to reef keeping. My scrubber was DIY and only ran for a few months before a kalk overdose wiped the screen clean. Unfortunately, the hair algae which grows on a scrubber trapped the kalk paste in its fibers and the localized PH increase killed it all off. I was forced to go to chaeto until I had the time to get one running again. My scrubber was poorly designed but did its job well. My next one is going to be LED and will be built into an acrylic box like most of the ones that you can order online.
Pros
When set up properly, it will pull nitrate and phosphate to levels undetectable with hobbyist test kits.
You get a clean slate every single week and all of the inorganic nutrients pulled from the tank get thrown in the trashcan.
Detritus cannot accumulate inside of a scrubber like it can in a refugium.
Helps minimize nightly PH swings.
Introduces pods into the tank like you would not believe. (scrubber = happy mandarins)
Removes heavy metals like iron and copper from the water.
Can tip you off to something else being wrong in the tank by its growth rate.
Cons
The algae stinks.
Requires basic knowledge of scrubbers to "read" your algae every week and make adjustments.
The screen has to mature before it works the way it is supposed to.
You will be less popular. :agree:
Using a scrubber was what got me more interested into the water change-less methods to reef keeping. My scrubber was DIY and only ran for a few months before a kalk overdose wiped the screen clean. Unfortunately, the hair algae which grows on a scrubber trapped the kalk paste in its fibers and the localized PH increase killed it all off. I was forced to go to chaeto until I had the time to get one running again. My scrubber was poorly designed but did its job well. My next one is going to be LED and will be built into an acrylic box like most of the ones that you can order online.
Pros
When set up properly, it will pull nitrate and phosphate to levels undetectable with hobbyist test kits.
You get a clean slate every single week and all of the inorganic nutrients pulled from the tank get thrown in the trashcan.
Detritus cannot accumulate inside of a scrubber like it can in a refugium.
Helps minimize nightly PH swings.
Introduces pods into the tank like you would not believe. (scrubber = happy mandarins)
Removes heavy metals like iron and copper from the water.
Can tip you off to something else being wrong in the tank by its growth rate.
Cons
The algae stinks.
Requires basic knowledge of scrubbers to "read" your algae every week and make adjustments.
The screen has to mature before it works the way it is supposed to.
You will be less popular. :agree:
How does it make me less popular? Lol. I'm liking the sounds of this. Would seeding algae on the screen help a bit? I really don't have algae blooms and that like in my tank. I've read it's good for phosphates and nitrates which I'm battling with. Considering I might have issues with the phosphates leeched in the rocks over years. I've got some Chaeto ATM in my tank (in a critter cage to keep the foxes from devouring it, but under the Kessils for growth). Tomorrow is 2 weeks since added so I want to test the water and see the results.
Being fully enclosed will do nothing to the smell as it is only present when you clean it every week. to clean, you scrape away the algae with a credit card and then run some water over it. The screen must ver very roughed up because of this. You want a tight bond to the screen so that the roots don't come up. The advantage to the closed units is that they don't bleed light under your tank at night and they cane be mounted anywhere, even above the tank.
The search function of this site doesn't return much info that is easily identifiable as being of use for a DIY model of an ATS.
I know some people in the past swore by scrubbers. I wonder how it would work for me if I used the 40B for a scrubber tank before the sump.
I know some people in the past swore by scrubbers. I wonder how it would work for me if I used the 40B for a scrubber tank before the sump.
Perhaps I will just do the settling tank and get back into the housekeeping routine that I was in when my tank was thriving. After a few months if I am still battling phosphates I may try the ATS in addition to housekeeping and skimming. Luckily the mowing season is almost over for me.
I got obessed with algae, as it is a rather complex organism in the grand scheme of things. Such as it never seems to out compete itself and aka eat it self out of house and home. Also why many issues have risen from tanks dedicated to algae export methods.
I think the more we understand and figure out about algae, the better we can tailor our uses, and improve. But sadly digging into how it works, tends to shed a bad light on some of its "greatest" advertised perks which causes uproar in the algae user world. Nothing is as simple as "toss in tank tada its better" This is what all the bottles in the LFS say on them, which we know are bad products. I find that Softy tank with some LPS can really gain some benefits. Just know how and why it works, so when you have it going you can see its cause and effects better and adjust as needed.
Here is a thread I tried to dig through the mess of what makes it tick if your curious.
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f77/algae-whats-under-the-hood-how-does-it-do-and-what-cant-it-do-198321.html
I think the more we understand and figure out about algae, the better we can tailor our uses, and improve. But sadly digging into how it works, tends to shed a bad light on some of its "greatest" advertised perks which causes uproar in the algae user world. Nothing is as simple as "toss in tank tada its better" This is what all the bottles in the LFS say on them, which we know are bad products. I find that Softy tank with some LPS can really gain some benefits. Just know how and why it works, so when you have it going you can see its cause and effects better and adjust as needed.
Here is a thread I tried to dig through the mess of what makes it tick if your curious.
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f77/algae-whats-under-the-hood-how-does-it-do-and-what-cant-it-do-198321.html
I read part of that thread last week. Way over my head! I know that the easy answers don't normally work but it sure would be nice if there were cliffs notes of the hard stuff.
I ran an algae scrubber for a couple months. Here is my build:http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6/contours-reef-175868-263.html?highlight=contours+reef
The scrubber did what it was supposed to do. It eliminated any nuisance algae I had from my display, including cyano. I took it down because I did not design it with enough flow going over the screen. It smelled pretty rank and my wife complained...
If I had more room for one, I'd do one again. For now I'm just using chaeto.
This is where I got my set up info from.
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/
The scrubber did what it was supposed to do. It eliminated any nuisance algae I had from my display, including cyano. I took it down because I did not design it with enough flow going over the screen. It smelled pretty rank and my wife complained...
If I had more room for one, I'd do one again. For now I'm just using chaeto.
This is where I got my set up info from.
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/
Okay...... Were do I begin?????
Lets start with a little history.
Back in the 80's and early 90's many of us ran ATS's. It took us years to figure out what they were really doing, and how they effected a system. In time, as our understanding grew, ATS's fell out of popular use, and for good reason. Then, not long ago, some guy, seeing an opportunity to make some money, came on forums like this making ridiculous claims about the magical abilities of ATS's. After a while he managed to get himself kicked off of most sites. He even got kicked off one site, twice. Despite the fact that his claims could not stand up to scientific scrutiny, many people fell for his sales pitches. Then those people jumped on the bandwagon and started telling their friends about this magical "new" technique. Now ATS's are once again relatively popular.
There was a time when most of the large public aquariums around the world used ATS's on their reef systems. Those days are, for the most part, gone. Kinda makes you wander why places like the Monico aquarium would abandon this technique on their reef tanks, if it worked the miracles claimed of it. As it turns out, it's really not such a mystery. The tanks crashed, the caretakers learned their lesson, and moved on to techniques that actually work.
To the best of my knowledge, the longest running ATS is on the reef display at the Smithsonian institute. They have/or had an ATS on the roof. Over the years, this tank has been plagued with failure. They stock it, kill everything off, then restock to do it all over again. You would think at some point they'd stop doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Here's a thread FutureDoc posted on one of the Smithsonian tank crashes.
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200199&highlight=Smithsonian+institute
Lets start with a little history.
Back in the 80's and early 90's many of us ran ATS's. It took us years to figure out what they were really doing, and how they effected a system. In time, as our understanding grew, ATS's fell out of popular use, and for good reason. Then, not long ago, some guy, seeing an opportunity to make some money, came on forums like this making ridiculous claims about the magical abilities of ATS's. After a while he managed to get himself kicked off of most sites. He even got kicked off one site, twice. Despite the fact that his claims could not stand up to scientific scrutiny, many people fell for his sales pitches. Then those people jumped on the bandwagon and started telling their friends about this magical "new" technique. Now ATS's are once again relatively popular.
There was a time when most of the large public aquariums around the world used ATS's on their reef systems. Those days are, for the most part, gone. Kinda makes you wander why places like the Monico aquarium would abandon this technique on their reef tanks, if it worked the miracles claimed of it. As it turns out, it's really not such a mystery. The tanks crashed, the caretakers learned their lesson, and moved on to techniques that actually work.
To the best of my knowledge, the longest running ATS is on the reef display at the Smithsonian institute. They have/or had an ATS on the roof. Over the years, this tank has been plagued with failure. They stock it, kill everything off, then restock to do it all over again. You would think at some point they'd stop doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Here's a thread FutureDoc posted on one of the Smithsonian tank crashes.
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200199&highlight=Smithsonian+institute
The Smithsonian really should have known better but their "expert" was a ATS proponent. I think he is on the right track for using it for biofuel but the ecology does not support it in our tanks.
The major downfall to ATS (and piggy-backing on Invic some) is that the act of growing algae is counter productive. Algae is not a end progressions for nutrients, rather, algae is a nutrient merchant. Anyway, algae is a great bio-indicator of nutrient enrichment, eutrophication. Thus the act of growing algae (increasing its biomass), tells us that the system has ample nutrients available. If algae's biomass is static, then the system is in equilibrium (to a point) and if the biomass is decreasing, then the nutrients are limited and the algae is re-adjusting its biomass accordingly. Actually the ATS "screen" or mat would be a wonderful test-kit as increasing growth would indicate an increased need to export nutrients. An ATS that takes 2 weeks to grow is in a system with more available nutrients than one that takes 4 weeks. Thus the ATS is more of a nutrient barometer if anything.
In the end, I like to make this analogy: ATS (or algae cultivation in general) is kinda like relying on regularly scheduled liposuction for keeping healthy. You can take the "fat" out to become "skinny" but if your diet is still horrible and you get lipo every few weeks, then there is something seriously wrong. In addition, you are only worrying about the excess "fat" in the skin and not addressing issues from the fat/bad diet in other places... such as plaque in the arteries, high sugars, etc... Surprise, sometimes exercise (with a siphon/WC) is needed.
^^^ Definition of insanity right?
The major downfall to ATS (and piggy-backing on Invic some) is that the act of growing algae is counter productive. Algae is not a end progressions for nutrients, rather, algae is a nutrient merchant. Anyway, algae is a great bio-indicator of nutrient enrichment, eutrophication. Thus the act of growing algae (increasing its biomass), tells us that the system has ample nutrients available. If algae's biomass is static, then the system is in equilibrium (to a point) and if the biomass is decreasing, then the nutrients are limited and the algae is re-adjusting its biomass accordingly. Actually the ATS "screen" or mat would be a wonderful test-kit as increasing growth would indicate an increased need to export nutrients. An ATS that takes 2 weeks to grow is in a system with more available nutrients than one that takes 4 weeks. Thus the ATS is more of a nutrient barometer if anything.
In the end, I like to make this analogy: ATS (or algae cultivation in general) is kinda like relying on regularly scheduled liposuction for keeping healthy. You can take the "fat" out to become "skinny" but if your diet is still horrible and you get lipo every few weeks, then there is something seriously wrong. In addition, you are only worrying about the excess "fat" in the skin and not addressing issues from the fat/bad diet in other places... such as plaque in the arteries, high sugars, etc... Surprise, sometimes exercise (with a siphon/WC) is needed.
Lets look at what "turf" algae is, and how it functions.
All "turf" works basically the same way. Be it the grass in your yard, or the turf algae in a polluted lagoon. When turf, or grass, first evolved, it exploded. It showed up on nearly every continent, virtually at the same time, and took over vast stretches of land. It was able to accomplish this, not because all the land was perfectly suited to its needs, but because of its ability to change the world around it, to suit its needs. Many of the places it took over were deserts where plant life didn't do well at all. They do this by turning baron, nutrient poor, environments into very fertile areas.
Here's a pic to show how this works.
It's obvious that at one point there was a clean, brand new, street running through this field. Plant life flourishes in fertile areas. blacktop is not a fertile area, and doesn't support plant life very well. The "turf" in the photo is changing all that. As the turf invades the blacktop, it changes that environment from very nutrient poor, to very nutrient rich. In a few years time, you won't be able to see the street at all. It will be completely covered in a layer of soil, rich in nutrients like phosphate, nitrogen, and heavy metals like iron. On top of this soil will be bright green turf, like you see on either side of the street.
Turf algae works the exact same way. It converts nutrient poor environments into nutrient rich environments so it can flourish. It does not reduce nutrient levels where it lives. This would be detrimental to these organisms, and they simply never would have evolved into what they are today.
Turf algae, like most plant life, can not obtain nutrients from solid matter. They rely on other organisms like worms, bugs, and microbes, to break down solid matter, and release the nutrients it contains into liquid form. At that point, the plant life can take up the liquid, and utilize the nutrients it contains.
Anyone that's ever had a hair algae outbreak has watched what I'm trying to explain, take place in front of their eyes. At first a little clump of turf algae pops up somewhere in the tank. Most people don't give this much thought. Then it pops up somewhere else. So how did it get to the new spot? Turf algae release spores and fragments that can drift off and start new colonies. These spores and fragments must land in a suitable area, or they simply will not survive. But, for the survival of the species, this isn't such a big deal. Remember, solid organic matter breaks down and releases liquid fertilizer. So, if a fragment of algae lands in a clean pore of a rock, it's likely to die and decompose. There's simply no fertilizer here for it to utilize. While it is decomposing, the original colony is still spitting out spores and fragments. More of this tiny organic material lands in the pore with the first one. In time, it slowly begins to build up. Eventually, there's enough material in the pore releasing fertilizer, to support one of these fragments, and a new colony is born. As the colony grows, the strands of algae act as a mechanical filter, trapping more solid particles that rot and fuel more growth. Individual strands die, fall down into the colony, and fuel more growth. So....... These organisms produce their own turf. Their own soil. Their own fertilizer. We try to combat this explosion by running GFO, increasing water changes, or improved filtration. These methods rarely have a significant impact on turf algae, because they aren't as dependent on dissolved nutrients in the open water as some other algae.
So...... What happens when we run an ATS? Well, at first it seems to be "working". Algae grows on the scrubber, but no where else. Phosphate levels in the open water seem to be low, and everything seems to be going great. When hobbyists see this in their own tanks, another ATS believer is born. What's not seen, is the tiny particles of organic material migrating through the system. These particles build up in areas we can't easily access. Eventually, there's enough for a new colony to take root and the downhill spiral has begun. This can clearly be seen in the photos FutureDoc posted in the thread I linked.
The bottom line is simple. ATS's do not work the way the supports say they do. They help to trap nutrients within our systems, not remove nutrients from our systems. Turf algae is a menace to our systems, regardless of where it's growing.
Peace
EC
All "turf" works basically the same way. Be it the grass in your yard, or the turf algae in a polluted lagoon. When turf, or grass, first evolved, it exploded. It showed up on nearly every continent, virtually at the same time, and took over vast stretches of land. It was able to accomplish this, not because all the land was perfectly suited to its needs, but because of its ability to change the world around it, to suit its needs. Many of the places it took over were deserts where plant life didn't do well at all. They do this by turning baron, nutrient poor, environments into very fertile areas.
Here's a pic to show how this works.
It's obvious that at one point there was a clean, brand new, street running through this field. Plant life flourishes in fertile areas. blacktop is not a fertile area, and doesn't support plant life very well. The "turf" in the photo is changing all that. As the turf invades the blacktop, it changes that environment from very nutrient poor, to very nutrient rich. In a few years time, you won't be able to see the street at all. It will be completely covered in a layer of soil, rich in nutrients like phosphate, nitrogen, and heavy metals like iron. On top of this soil will be bright green turf, like you see on either side of the street.
Turf algae works the exact same way. It converts nutrient poor environments into nutrient rich environments so it can flourish. It does not reduce nutrient levels where it lives. This would be detrimental to these organisms, and they simply never would have evolved into what they are today.
Turf algae, like most plant life, can not obtain nutrients from solid matter. They rely on other organisms like worms, bugs, and microbes, to break down solid matter, and release the nutrients it contains into liquid form. At that point, the plant life can take up the liquid, and utilize the nutrients it contains.
Anyone that's ever had a hair algae outbreak has watched what I'm trying to explain, take place in front of their eyes. At first a little clump of turf algae pops up somewhere in the tank. Most people don't give this much thought. Then it pops up somewhere else. So how did it get to the new spot? Turf algae release spores and fragments that can drift off and start new colonies. These spores and fragments must land in a suitable area, or they simply will not survive. But, for the survival of the species, this isn't such a big deal. Remember, solid organic matter breaks down and releases liquid fertilizer. So, if a fragment of algae lands in a clean pore of a rock, it's likely to die and decompose. There's simply no fertilizer here for it to utilize. While it is decomposing, the original colony is still spitting out spores and fragments. More of this tiny organic material lands in the pore with the first one. In time, it slowly begins to build up. Eventually, there's enough material in the pore releasing fertilizer, to support one of these fragments, and a new colony is born. As the colony grows, the strands of algae act as a mechanical filter, trapping more solid particles that rot and fuel more growth. Individual strands die, fall down into the colony, and fuel more growth. So....... These organisms produce their own turf. Their own soil. Their own fertilizer. We try to combat this explosion by running GFO, increasing water changes, or improved filtration. These methods rarely have a significant impact on turf algae, because they aren't as dependent on dissolved nutrients in the open water as some other algae.
So...... What happens when we run an ATS? Well, at first it seems to be "working". Algae grows on the scrubber, but no where else. Phosphate levels in the open water seem to be low, and everything seems to be going great. When hobbyists see this in their own tanks, another ATS believer is born. What's not seen, is the tiny particles of organic material migrating through the system. These particles build up in areas we can't easily access. Eventually, there's enough for a new colony to take root and the downhill spiral has begun. This can clearly be seen in the photos FutureDoc posted in the thread I linked.
The bottom line is simple. ATS's do not work the way the supports say they do. They help to trap nutrients within our systems, not remove nutrients from our systems. Turf algae is a menace to our systems, regardless of where it's growing.
Peace
EC
Let me dust off some notebooks and cover a few things to set a frame of reference. Wasn't going to go into detail discussion but its been awhile and I could use the refresher course for myself.
Organic Phosphates are converted to Inorganic phosphates at a rapid pace, this is done through pods but mostly through bacterial processing. Some pods are able to process inorganic phosphates as well as Organic, their waste is Inorganic. Now the rate of uptake (as in rate these materials can be pulled in and used) Algae's uptake rate of phosphates is slower then that of bacteria, where as pods are feeding directly from algae, as well as from the detritus created by bacteria and other living organisms in the tank.
Also consider that phosphates can be taken up by any organism it passes by, in the case of Calcium carbonate (our rocks in our tank) its literally a instant bound when it comes in contact with a opening site. This is the same material corals create, and is the same material their skeleton is made from. So you have more Phosphates in the system being pass back and forth the more likely the coral is going to get to many in the form of "food" (Which throws off the symbiotic balance the coral has with Zoox it contains) Also this increases the chance for the skeletons to bind to bind to many phosphates on their skeleton and becoming saturated. (Another bad situation for the coral)
Also to note Algae, releases Organic Phosphates, but also a few inorganic. But rather importantly algae is releasing Sucrose, Sugars ect. These are easy to access forms of Carbon. Much like carbon dosing, this triggers a faster rate of bacteria population growth. Coupled with the release of Organic phosphates food for the bacteria, its like throwing gas on a fire, but in this case its bacteria populations. While this seems okay, as populations climb and are in essence "nursing" off of Algae. They are more then likely neglecting their role in removing phosphates that end up binding to the Calcium Carbonate (Rocks, and Corals) simply since their is a buffet spread cranking out food and fuel for them aka algae. So if the rocks are not being purged of phosphates you slowly build up until they become hot spots for Algae to move into that spot, or worse.
So while the idea of more bacteria is better, its a slippery slope. The more you have the more "nutrients" they contain. Thus the more nutrients your system contains. So you have this building pile of nutrients trapped in organisms in your tank, most of which you cannot see. Now the life span of these organisms is rather short, so they die they break down and become detritus. So instead of managing a city of 2 million citizens you have 10 million thanks to algae. Now their lives are short so 10% die every day and new ones are born. So you from 200,000 dead hippy bacteria on your lawn day to day, to 1,000,000 Dead hippy bacteria on your lawn. Now consider If the food supply drops well they start to starve very fast so more and more start dying, well remember your weekly reducing the amount of algae in the system so the inorganic converter in this cycle has less conversion. Well now you have a food shortage, less organics and less carbon. More dead hippy bacteria start to die off.
Organic Phosphates are converted to Inorganic phosphates at a rapid pace, this is done through pods but mostly through bacterial processing. Some pods are able to process inorganic phosphates as well as Organic, their waste is Inorganic. Now the rate of uptake (as in rate these materials can be pulled in and used) Algae's uptake rate of phosphates is slower then that of bacteria, where as pods are feeding directly from algae, as well as from the detritus created by bacteria and other living organisms in the tank.
Also consider that phosphates can be taken up by any organism it passes by, in the case of Calcium carbonate (our rocks in our tank) its literally a instant bound when it comes in contact with a opening site. This is the same material corals create, and is the same material their skeleton is made from. So you have more Phosphates in the system being pass back and forth the more likely the coral is going to get to many in the form of "food" (Which throws off the symbiotic balance the coral has with Zoox it contains) Also this increases the chance for the skeletons to bind to bind to many phosphates on their skeleton and becoming saturated. (Another bad situation for the coral)
Also to note Algae, releases Organic Phosphates, but also a few inorganic. But rather importantly algae is releasing Sucrose, Sugars ect. These are easy to access forms of Carbon. Much like carbon dosing, this triggers a faster rate of bacteria population growth. Coupled with the release of Organic phosphates food for the bacteria, its like throwing gas on a fire, but in this case its bacteria populations. While this seems okay, as populations climb and are in essence "nursing" off of Algae. They are more then likely neglecting their role in removing phosphates that end up binding to the Calcium Carbonate (Rocks, and Corals) simply since their is a buffet spread cranking out food and fuel for them aka algae. So if the rocks are not being purged of phosphates you slowly build up until they become hot spots for Algae to move into that spot, or worse.
So while the idea of more bacteria is better, its a slippery slope. The more you have the more "nutrients" they contain. Thus the more nutrients your system contains. So you have this building pile of nutrients trapped in organisms in your tank, most of which you cannot see. Now the life span of these organisms is rather short, so they die they break down and become detritus. So instead of managing a city of 2 million citizens you have 10 million thanks to algae. Now their lives are short so 10% die every day and new ones are born. So you from 200,000 dead hippy bacteria on your lawn day to day, to 1,000,000 Dead hippy bacteria on your lawn. Now consider If the food supply drops well they start to starve very fast so more and more start dying, well remember your weekly reducing the amount of algae in the system so the inorganic converter in this cycle has less conversion. Well now you have a food shortage, less organics and less carbon. More dead hippy bacteria start to die off.
I know you try not to, but you tend to leave some pretty large open ended "Pros" and tend to omit any really important "Cons" to watch out for. You more interested in saying "you will be unpopular"
As I have said I am not totally against them, in fact I try to help folks improve ones they choose to build. What I don't like is when things are left off the pro and cons, and when some leaps of faith like "Algae will get all the Inorganic Phosphates" Those are blind leaps, simply since its not possible for them to get them all, let alone the science and limits of which it will actually take in and use them.
Its the wide claims that I try to correct, and since I am always having to fill the holes in the leaps of faith areas, I am the bad guy. Honestly I would much rather spend my time typing working on improvements and fine tuning setups, with and without algae. Instead I am stuck often trying to keep the known information from being distorted, which makes it harder to actually find better methods and setups.
I am sorry you feel I am always after ya, but honestly I don't care if you or anyone has an ATS, just that understand how they "really" work and not how we "perceive" them to work.
Lol can we just link all the threads this same discussion has been repeated over and over 
Honestly it will save us a lot of typing.
Basically
Minion says it can do a lot of things, with other husbandry help
Others say science shows its not working quite how minion thinks.
Some other others have found some use for it and things work out most of the time.
Me I just want to know how it works and make sure folks understand as well.
Honestly it will save us a lot of typing.
Basically
Minion says it can do a lot of things, with other husbandry help
Others say science shows its not working quite how minion thinks.
Some other others have found some use for it and things work out most of the time.
Me I just want to know how it works and make sure folks understand as well.
Toss this in here as, people probably will read this later and the conversions can get confusing. Probably more helpful for folks then our walls of text.
This is simplified but shows the basic phosphate cycle. It leaves out some of the critical problems we face such as phosphate binding on rocks, ect.
![Image]()
Here's a link to a Thread that goes into detail on algae mechanics. It has a great deal of good info in it for understanding some of the weird stuff algae does and why. But don't worry it has a small bit of drama as well lmao.http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f77/algae-whats-under-the-hood-how-does-it-do-and-what-cant-it-do-198321.html
This is simplified but shows the basic phosphate cycle. It leaves out some of the critical problems we face such as phosphate binding on rocks, ect.
Here's a link to a Thread that goes into detail on algae mechanics. It has a great deal of good info in it for understanding some of the weird stuff algae does and why. But don't worry it has a small bit of drama as well lmao.http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f77/algae-whats-under-the-hood-how-does-it-do-and-what-cant-it-do-198321.html
I do not think anyone is claiming a scrubber to be an end-all magical solution. It is just another tool a hobbyist has at his/her disposal. I personally, wouldn't think about ditching my skimmer or stop doing water changes in place of any technique out there. I do not see anything wrong with a scrubber or a ball of chaeto as a supplement to a good cleaning routine.
It feels like I've been here before
It feels like I've been here before
Ya that's better but I went with simple first lol.
Just noticed its missing two connections sorta. Organic detritus to animal and bacteria. They have a line for it basically just not labelled clearly. But really it's hard to lay out the map as it were. Inorganic phosphates are a hot commodity in reef tanks algae is just one contender fighting for them.
Just noticed its missing two connections sorta. Organic detritus to animal and bacteria. They have a line for it basically just not labelled clearly. But really it's hard to lay out the map as it were. Inorganic phosphates are a hot commodity in reef tanks algae is just one contender fighting for them.
I couldn't figure out how to quote just part of the above post.
...........If you're doing your regular maintenance and you install a turf scrubber in addition to the skimming, syphoning and water changes, where is this magic nutrient problem going to come from which everybody is so afraid of? The only difference is a piece of plastic.. and that somehow makes your tank a nutrient sink ready to crash? Nope, the worst that could happen is you pull out some excess nutrients.........
How does just adding a scrubber in addition to all the other things that a reefkeeper should be doing negatively affect the tank? I am going back to reread some of the early posts about negative affects on pH and ??
...........If you're doing your regular maintenance and you install a turf scrubber in addition to the skimming, syphoning and water changes, where is this magic nutrient problem going to come from which everybody is so afraid of? The only difference is a piece of plastic.. and that somehow makes your tank a nutrient sink ready to crash? Nope, the worst that could happen is you pull out some excess nutrients.........
How does just adding a scrubber in addition to all the other things that a reefkeeper should be doing negatively affect the tank? I am going back to reread some of the early posts about negative affects on pH and ??
Mostly yes and some no. Skimmers help. Here is the trick, we are adding organic material (food) so it has to go from organic to inorganic first. See bacteria. Anyway, the goal is not to have a 100% in 100% out every week, there is going to be 90/110 or 110/90. It will always be imperfect based on the weekly time-frame... that is the reason why your 100% claim kinda works. However, we are not on "weekly" time-frames. It is months, years, (decades for Paul), so the trick is that you want the WC to create a plateau. So over time, the tank reaches a threshold where all additions and continuous build-up is capped via a water change.
Here is a simplified graph I used as an example for my 1%. I used a "mythical" organic number but the principle remains the same
Even in the first few time-frames (days in the graph) it is a run-away nutrient increase (think that the uglies are also around this time)... and this is "ok" because over time, the WC become more effective so that even small amounts of dilution become remarkably effective .
We need to think about less short-term net increase/decreases because to remove that algae, there is a short term net decrease in organics... but there is a long-term net increase to get to that point. (I am going to C and V later for the last comment
)Yes they change form... but they change form back and forth. If it is high organic load, it is high. High is fine in a system designed around "high" nutrient level organisms... but are SPS high organic loving organisms? Show me a softie tank and I am a lot more comfortable with the approach... to a degree.
Still, the nutrient in its organic vs inorganic form is kinda a missed point. It will change and the reason why I vs O is important is because of our flawed test kits. Just because the bacteria and algae are trading as fast as the plot changes in "Layer Cake" (one of my fav movies, sorry), does not mean that there is not a underlying issue with eutrophication. You are doing a lot (equipment wise with GFO, skimmer, etc) to fight eutrophication but it is becoming a bigger and bigger "challenge" with less room for error so that small (and I would say it was more of a moderate hichup at least) can send a tank into a problematic state. With more and more biomass (algae, bacteria, etc) more and more issues. I would expect you to have less glass algae, big skimmer, BB, lots of GFO, etc but is cultivating algae anywhere else not a sign of increased nutrients regardless of location?
C and V
We need to think about less short-term net increase/decreases because to remove that algae, there is a short term net decrease in organics... but there is a long-term net increase to get to that point. :lol: That build up was not truly solved by the removal of algae because you would have a likewise increase in bacteria that are feeding to and feeding on algae. So it is not 100%... combined that with P added to the rocks, well you still have a long-term net increase. Because the algae keeps growing, that plateau-point becomes a lot tougher until "old tank" sets in.
If this were true, then why have the skimmer, why have a reactor running? You have stated the algae somehow gobbles up every phosphate, and the other phosphate consumers/binders somehow are not able to get them, because the algae is in all places and at all times, and jumps in front of the phosphate before it ends up anywhere else. Again you have so much "faith" in the algae you cannot fathom it not being the #1 contender for everything.
So if I make the Ideal conditions to grow and ATS on a Healthy stony reef, it will grow. Sure but it will very soon become NOT a healthy reef. The conditions of a healthy stony reef are so devoid of nutrients the algae cannot survive. "better par lighting, more flow and gas exchange" Well at the top of a Stony reef crest the lighting is PERFECT for algae, very shallow maximum spectrum for algae chlorophyll A. Also the top of a reef has great flow and currents usually with great gas exchange.
So a Healthy reef, has Better lighting then your ATS, also it has better Gas exchange (not subject to city air pollutants ect) But its lacking one key element Nutrients. Which is what the Stony corals prefer to live in. So you create the same situation in a ATS, but you promote it in a closed system, to grow it you have to push the nutrient levels higher. Thus growth.
Ever wonder why it takes a few weeks to get a ATS screen to "establish" as you mention? It has to be "broken in" or "mature" What is happening it you created better conditions and a small bit grew, that small amount pushes the nutrient levels in the tank higher, so more can grow, then higher so even more grows. Then after you have built up the nutrients in the tank to allow for lots of growth, you have successfully nutrient loaded the system. To think that you are now " controlling the nutrients" is a fallacy unless you mean increasing the nutrient level in the system.
The increase in algae biomass is a increase in bacteria biomass and a increase in pod biomass. So you now have a far higher volume of nutrients in the system. While their all trading Phosphates Organic and Inorganic back and forth rapidly, You still have FAR more in the system. Why does this matter? They all seem to play well and the phosphates may be tucked under the rug while contained within organisms (algae, pods, bacteria) But this also means any slight mishap in the tank can bring all those nutrients back into the water column in a matter of an hour. Its like building a house of cards. The taller you make the more devastating the collapse can be, when the wind blows the wrong way one day. Much like the bacterial carpet you had take over the tank, you made a mistake and it upset that house of cards, the nutrients came home to roost. Luckily and thankfully you were able to get ahead of that problem and stem the tide of the sudden nutrient imbalance. You have a considerable nutrient load far higher with Algae in the tank. Its just raises the stakes on when something bad happens its going to be amplified.
This is untrue, its function and conversion as well as its release of carbon, does boost Pod, and more importantly bacteria populations above the Pre ATS levels. Those organisms are feeding like pigs from the Algae's by products. The higher levels of both phosphate types are bound up in a ton of extra organisms. So YES a ATS does facilitate the banking of Nutrients within a system. See above as well. It is the direct cause for increased biomass in the tank, it does not have to "physically" contain them to say its creating higher levels.
Also keep in mind, a algae cell in a saturated environment of nutrients will contain and decent amount of nutrients, in a reef tank namely a stony coral tank, the maximum threshold for nutrients for the corals is FAR FAR lower and to survive. (Disrupts the corals symbiotic relationship with zoox) So in the Realm of corals surviving the algae cells within those systems contain far less nutrients. Simply as Algae cells will only contain nutrient levels proportional to the surrounding environment. So since we are operating far lower their contained nutrients are far lower. This is basic info from Algae farming research. (Keep in mind algae farms look to drive nutrients super high to get more from each harvest, we are actually working on the other end of the spectrum the low side and trying to drive them lower) So that feeling of your getting a ton of nutrients per harvest is FAR less then you think.
Btw a ton of research you labeled as "its ocean science not tank science" Its actually lab tested and most of the research comes from tanks and systems not the ocean. So please read before you make more assumptions.
When I set up my scrubber it was an attempt to remove GHA and cyano from the DT. I was not very interested in lowering my NO3 or PO4 readings. My corals were growing fine and fish were healthy. Just for fun I started testing nitrates before and after the scrubber. I was getting readings of 20-25 ppm pre-scrubber. Post-scrubber, I was seeing 5-10ppm.
There was a lot more algae growing on my screen than was ever growing in my DT. Could there have been more nutrients in the system because the mass of GHA on my screen was growing? I suppose. I'm thinking all of the extra nutrients were being stuck or passed around in the algae I was growing as opposed to the water column.
There was a lot more algae growing on my screen than was ever growing in my DT. Could there have been more nutrients in the system because the mass of GHA on my screen was growing? I suppose. I'm thinking all of the extra nutrients were being stuck or passed around in the algae I was growing as opposed to the water column.
This is the best point. Algae to fight algae is the key difference. It is just moving it from one location to another... that is fine.
First "Dirty"s tank is a "dirty" tank. Mostly softies with a few stony corals. I remember Leathers, Zoas, Xenia, and many a Bubble/Frogspawn correct? This is very different from MINION's SPS dominated tank. Using an algae-fighting algae based method is tolerable in naturally-higher nutrient load "back-reef" system where the corals benefit from the extra organic load. If you are already running higher nutrients, then the impact of algae is not really going to increase the "nutrient plateau" but if you are trying for that low nutrient (SPS habitat) then the addition of algae is going to raise that nutrient plateau.
One of the best "examples" with ATS is the reports about skimmer function. Many, including MINION report increase skimmer activity after the ATS matures (correct?). However, we know that skimmers only capture a percentage of available organics. So if the skimmer is skimming more that means there is more material in the water. More material in the water flies in the face that algae is capturing and holding the "extra" organics between WC. This is one of the best "easy to observe" impacts of why ATS or algae export methods don't work. If there was less nutrients in the water, the skimmer would skim less.
If you want to use algae to limit algae elsewhere... well that is fine for some systems, particularly those geared towards softies and other near-shore lagoon style tanks.
First "Dirty"s tank is a "dirty" tank. Mostly softies with a few stony corals. I remember Leathers, Zoas, Xenia, and many a Bubble/Frogspawn correct? This is very different from MINION's SPS dominated tank. Using an algae-fighting algae based method is tolerable in naturally-higher nutrient load "back-reef" system where the corals benefit from the extra organic load. If you are already running higher nutrients, then the impact of algae is not really going to increase the "nutrient plateau" but if you are trying for that low nutrient (SPS habitat) then the addition of algae is going to raise that nutrient plateau.
One of the best "examples" with ATS is the reports about skimmer function. Many, including MINION report increase skimmer activity after the ATS matures (correct?). However, we know that skimmers only capture a percentage of available organics. So if the skimmer is skimming more that means there is more material in the water. More material in the water flies in the face that algae is capturing and holding the "extra" organics between WC. This is one of the best "easy to observe" impacts of why ATS or algae export methods don't work. If there was less nutrients in the water, the skimmer would skim less.
If you want to use algae to limit algae elsewhere... well that is fine for some systems, particularly those geared towards softies and other near-shore lagoon style tanks.
For those reading this thread and thinking about adding an ATS, here's some simple facts that can't be disputed.
All ATS's, old and new, function with the exact same biology and chemistry. There is nothing fundamentally different from one ATS to another. Make them larger or smaller, change the spectrum of light, change the intensity of light, change the flow rate, change the material the algae grows on, and you've made no fundamental changes to the way these devices function. To make any significant changes to the way these devices function, you must change the biology and chemistry involved. To date, that hasn't happened. And if it did, the device would be called something other than an ATS.
What do these devices accomplish? They crash tanks. Even when they are maintained by some of the most educated people in this field. It's repeatedly happened at the Smithsonian Institute. It's happened at the Monaco Aquarium, The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, The Biosphere II, and many others.
Here's some pic's of the reef aquarium at the Biosphere II
Beautiful ain't they?
You know..... I was really starting to feel good about the future of this hobby, when I saw the popularity of DSB's falling apart. Then, ATS's reappeared to take its place. The bad thing is that we've already been through these dark ages, learned our lessons, and moved on. Now, it looks like we have to do it all over again.:doh: Myself, and many others like me, watched the death and destruction these devices cause. It was a rough pill to swallow, and it took us quite a bit of time, but we had to face the fact that ATS's are not what we BELIEVED them to be. Now a new generation will have to swallow that same pill some day. Unfortunately, it will be the pets we keep that pay the ultimate price.
Peace
EC
All ATS's, old and new, function with the exact same biology and chemistry. There is nothing fundamentally different from one ATS to another. Make them larger or smaller, change the spectrum of light, change the intensity of light, change the flow rate, change the material the algae grows on, and you've made no fundamental changes to the way these devices function. To make any significant changes to the way these devices function, you must change the biology and chemistry involved. To date, that hasn't happened. And if it did, the device would be called something other than an ATS.
What do these devices accomplish? They crash tanks. Even when they are maintained by some of the most educated people in this field. It's repeatedly happened at the Smithsonian Institute. It's happened at the Monaco Aquarium, The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, The Biosphere II, and many others.
Here's some pic's of the reef aquarium at the Biosphere II
Beautiful ain't they?
You know..... I was really starting to feel good about the future of this hobby, when I saw the popularity of DSB's falling apart. Then, ATS's reappeared to take its place. The bad thing is that we've already been through these dark ages, learned our lessons, and moved on. Now, it looks like we have to do it all over again.:doh: Myself, and many others like me, watched the death and destruction these devices cause. It was a rough pill to swallow, and it took us quite a bit of time, but we had to face the fact that ATS's are not what we BELIEVED them to be. Now a new generation will have to swallow that same pill some day. Unfortunately, it will be the pets we keep that pay the ultimate price.
Peace
EC
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
