Algae issues? Why dont more people use algae scrubbers?

[VintageReefer]

Various pictures I have from the last year

 

[Garf]

Various pictures I have from the last year

Nice algae, how about the display?

 

[VintageReefer]

Garf I don’t feel you can LOL at me or the scrubber as I am posting clear proof that the design works and I know because I have been running the same unit for 8 years and never had an issue with it being unable to grow algae, except when an air pump - the only source of circulation, died

You may feel the design is not ideal or whatever - but it actually does work and it works quite well as shown in my pictures

 

[VintageReefer]

Nice algae, how about the display?

I will attach again
The order is getting messed up but you can figure out what’s before / after the scrubber repair

 

[ScubaSkeets]

chill

When I get accused of something that isn't true, I'm going to respond

 

[Garf]

Garf I don’t feel you can LOL at me or the scrubber as I am posting clear proof that the design works and I know because I have been running the same unit for 8 years and never had an issue with it being unable to grow algae, except when an air pump - the only source of circulation, died

You may feel the design is not ideal or whatever - but it actually does work and it works quite well as shown in my pictures

Excellent, happy reefin.

When I get accused of something that isn't true, I'm going to respond

try flying RC helicopters (not the gps new stuff), reefin is a piece of cake, lol
Look at my build thread

 

[Mikeltee]

Dinos... all you need is a skimmer. If your nutrients are too high than your skimmer is undersized. Most of this junk they pawn off on us only causes problems. Guess who will sell you the solution to that problem? You guessed it... the same person that sold you the gadget that caused the problem.

 

[Garf]

Dinos... all you need is a skimmer. If your nutrients are too high than your skimmer is undersized. Most of this junk they pawn off on us only causes problems. Guess who will sell you the solution to that problem? You guessed it... the same person that sold you the gadget that caused the problem.

93.7% of all statistics are B.S., fact

 

[ScubaSkeets]

Excellent, happy reefin.

try flying RC helicopters (not the gps new stuff), reefin is a piece of cake, lol
Look at my build thread

I flew RC helicopters for years.
Started with a Nexus 30. Had a bunch of Thunder Tiger Raptor 30s. Align Trex 450s, etc. I now have a Goblin 700 and a Trex 600 that I don't fly anymore.
Yes. They are MUCH more difficult than reefing. Maybe that's why I'm so uptight...lol

 

[Garf]

I flew RC helicopters for years.
Started with a Nexus 30. Had a bunch of Thunder Tiger Raptor 30s. Align Trex 450s, etc. I now have a Goblin 700 and a Trex 600 that I don't fly anymore.
Yes. They are MUCH more difficult than reefing. Maybe that's why I'm so uptight...lol

With reefin you are hours away from disaster, with helis it’s microseconds, kudos I got some blades.

 

[ScubaSkeets]

With reefin you are hours away from disaster, with helis it’s microseconds, kudos I got some blades.

I have a couple OMP M1's. Small enough to fly in my front yard, but fly as good as the bigger ones. I also fly FPV quads...they are a blast!! and almost no stress!!

 

[mizimmer90]

With all due respect, there are some logical fallacies here that need to be corrected.

And the basis of my points in this thred regarding the topic - all you need to do to get rid of algae problems is add an ATS. This is what the current thread is about.

^^first, a bit of misrepresentation. The thread title is "Algae issues? Why dont more people use algae scrubbers?", not "all you need to do to get rid of algae problems is add an ATS".

And regardless of the title, our discussion was whether algae grown in one part of the tank can affect algae grown at another. It's not the case that anyone posting in a thread implicitly agrees with the title or has to be held accountable to this.

That seems like a simple but wrong answer given the number of tanks we see that run ATS and still have algae problems.

^^this is a base rate fallacy, where you are not taking into account the conditional distribution from which it is drawn. There are a lot of variables at play, as I and others have mentioned. So the mere existence of someone running an ATS and having algae does not prove that scrubbers do not work. In fact, that claim is the simple but wrong answer because it neglects the variables and dynamics at play for anyone's given tank. In order to assess the outcome, we must look at all the variables of someone's husbandry style and adjust accordingly. No simple answers here!

I aslo think that mind stories live in the theoretical, and we convince ourselves that actions have efficacy when they don't, or we don't know they really do, because they make sense in our minds.

^^ this is what my favorite spin-physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, would say is "not even wrong". It's effectively unfalsifiable and not really relevant to the conversation unless we are all trusting you as having the ultimate judgement.

However, efficacy in practice is another matter, and the list of ideas that make some sense theoretically but don't pan out practically in this hobby is long - ginger curing ich, the ecoaqualizer did what it was claimed to do, your fish get diseases from frozen food, etc. So, at some point, we need to leave the theoritical and look at the actual.

^^this is attacking a straw man. First there is a faulty equivalence between my claiming that there are comparative advantages / not all algae can grow where corals grows and the claim that ginger cures ich, frozen foods causing disease, and ecoaquilizer. Its obviously much easier to refute those claims than my points.

Also, if you let the algae in a tank grow without a check, it can grow in just about every spot in that tank, we see examples of this daily.

^^this is a false premise fallacy, or a nonsequitor where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise of our discussion. You start with 'if you let the algae grow in the tank without a check' which is not what we are talking about when we are specifically discussing whether nutrients taken up at one part of the tank has an affect at another location. Even with this, you still try to soften the claim with "just about" every spot. Is it every spot or isn't it? I have a new tank right now with diatoms growing only on the top of my rockwork. It's pretty clear that spatio/temporal differences in a tank lead to comparative advantages.

Yes that is all theoretical (except that nutrients fluctuate (they do in the wild as well), and what I think we need to get away from to determine if a particular methodology generates the results it claims to produce. In practice, I am not aware on someone running a tank with no herbivores beating an algae issue by growing algae in anothe part of the system.

^^this is a type of denying the antecedent. You claim that ATS + herbivores = clean tank. Therefore, No herbivores = no clean tank. It denies the possibility of factors other than herbivores for having clean tanks. Taken with the high probability that someone with an ATS has at least 1 snail, it's an easy way to throw out any positive examples of scrubbers/fuges working.

In practice, in the majority of our tanks, the amout of any nutrient that algae needs to live is much less than the amout our corals need to live.

^^this is just false. Algae is not some magical entity that can survive on nothing but hopes and dreams of growing. Ive already quoted a paper that sequences various algae genomes which identifies significantly higher iron based proteins/enzymes than coral zooxanthellae. Many corals can survive with significantly lower lighting for longer durations than most green algaes (hence why many try 3 day blackouts).

Also there's a bit of a modal fallacy, which I've identified previously as the difference between sufficient and necessary.

And practically, we see a million examples of tanks with ATS having algae all over the place in the system, which makes me squint a lot at the idea that making algae compete with itself in our systems makes practical sense.

^^ "millions" is obviously an exaggeration, but this is an example of cherry picking. You are selecting negative examples (without actually showing them), while neglecting that even 1 positive example will refute the claim that algae grown at one part of a tank can't influence another (and I believe there are at least a couple people on this thread willing to show you their tanks again ).

However, we know the universe of discourse and we know we are not talking about extreme examples of animals that require no light. We are talking about reef tanks in general, and the majority of them have corals that require light. My statement that anywhere corals can grow algae can grow is in that universe of dicourse.

And the tilting of the scales is what led me to my questions to you. Staying in the theoritical, the scales tilt very little, so move to the practical. You had written "This is not true. There are a ton of conditions (whether through lights or nutrients) where corals can grow well but algae cannot." In general reef tanks, what blue light grows the corals we keep, and grows them well, but algae cannot? If I am understainding you, the answer is none right?

^^the answer is not none. Despite the shifting goal post, it's still true that algae and corals have very different nutrients needs and metabolism. Without having to list out every ppm of every nutrient, I feel I have given some good responses on this already that haven't been addressed. Remember the simple but wrong vs complex distinction (there are unique methods for each tank husbandry practice that shift the scales) see below

Various Types of Corals and algae have different photosynthetic needs as well as metabolism of micro/macro nutrients. But this is the basis of the comparative advantage. I'm not trying to harp on iron (the original discussion is on how algae can grown in one place and not another, which is because of comparative advantages) but I'll continue with the iron example for now

Iron is necessary for both green algaes and zooxanthellae inside of corals. It's also extremely limited in ocean waters, often far scarcer than copper. fun facts: 1) many marine microbes have adapted to not use iron-based biochemistry, such as ammonia oxidizing archaea, which have a copper based biochemistry, 2) microbes that do use iron often have elaborate iron sequestering mechanisms, such as one of my faves, siderophores, which actually leave cells and grab necessary ions, then return them to the cell!! Needless to say, the competition strategies for iron (and other nutrients) can be elaborate and are still being understood. That said, iron is generally accepted to be more vital to green algaes evidenced by their genomes containing more iron-containing proteins and enzymes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296057/). Additionally there have been a number of studies that add iron to the ocean waters to observe the extent of algae blooms, which show that it is a limiting resource (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131669). I'm assuming there wasn't a coral bloom along with it lol. In fact, some zooxanthellae are able to survive in *extremely* low iron environments, like Symbiodinium necroappetens, which are even found in bleached corals!

But to the main point, iron deficiencies can hurt both coral and algae. The idea of comparative advantages is: which gets hurt more?? With sufficient iron, it appears that algae can outcompete corals. This might indicate that lowering iron to just above the threshold of corals dying would give you the best comparative advantage and largest coral/algae growth ratio (for clarification, if possible to even dial this in, I'm NOT suggesting to do this, just giving the extreme scenarios)

Again backing up to the actual discussion, as to why algae can grow in one place over another (it's not iron in this case), it's the advantage of light that is optimized for algae growth. Reiterating, if certain nutrients are scarce (i.e. iron or anything that is important for the organisms growth) the algae with the advantage will grow faster and preferably soak up those scarce nutrients. An important point is that we don't even need to know all the nutrients because the same type of algae is competing with itself in another location, almost guaranteeing that it is using the same necessary resources. This argument isn't even about biology, it's physical and deals with probabilistic landscapes. I'll also reiterate that there are a lot of factors at play in anyone's personal tank, but the above is a nice first order approximation (also just the basic idea of a refugium/ATS as a nutrient export lol).




And since we're throwing around credentials in this thread, I'll say that I have a Masters in biochemical engineering and a PhD in molecular biophysics (though if you ask me, this doesn't actually matter since it's the argument that should hold weight, not the credentials).

I'll start by saying that I always try my best to stick to the facts of the discussion and not to make any comments or opinions on people in the discussions. I also live by the mottos of never back people into corners and always give them a path out. Impartiality is the way to go!


Now, back to the science:

As the comic suggests, life is often more complicated than we give it credit, and simple solutions of the sort “set your [insert fav param here] to X ppm and all will be solved!” are rarely correct. So if you're looking for specific parameters that will cure your tank of algae, you won't find them here. Tank to tank, there are a lot of variables at play and things are very dynamic. But this is the basis of my point!

Saying something is/isn't practical is subjective; if someone uses it, it can be practical to them, and vice versa if they don't. It's not the main point of my discussion, but I also hope to convince you that thinking of things as dynamic processes with relative advantages is an intuitive framework for looking at how your tank operates and can lead to real actionable decisions.

First off, your initial question was why algae is able to grow in one place but not another. The answer is in relative advantages. Ever notice how certain algae/corals grow better in certain parts of your tank? It's because of the relative advantages of that spot. Maybe more lighting, maybe better flow, maybe nutrients/particulares seem to fall on that spot. Now if one spot has an advantage, things can grow faster there than at other spots and suck up all the nutrients available. I want to posit that our fish tanks are not so big that resources are infinite. We do in fact see measurable nutrients rise and fall (there is NOT an infinite pool of resources to replace any nutrient that gets taken in) so these fluctuations will have an impact on everything else in the tank depending on them. So, favoring a patch of algae in one place will have an effect on the growth of algae elsewhere in the tank. Also, as others have mentioned, nutrients are not just N and P but other micro/macro nutrients that we aren't even aware of, so it's nice that we can just make algae compete with itself! Notice, however, that I am not saying what the magnitude of this effect will be, as there are a lot of other factors at play that change with one's reefing practices. I'll leave sizing of refugiums/ATS (or even desire to use one at all) to people's experience, but not considering the comparative advantages of lights was a glaring omission in logic for a number of comments that I am trying to help out with.

As for my issue with the statement that any condition that grows corals can grow algae: I don't like this statement because it's an absolute statement, which is almost always wrong (notice what I did there? Lol). A single counter example negates the statement, trivial ones being non photosynthetic corals living in total darkness or extreme deep water corals that can grow at depths that algae cannot. But as the initial comic I posted suggests, things rarely have simple answers and of course the details of what we're talking about matter.

Among the spread of corals and algae, each has its own ecological niche, accompanied by unique nutrient requirements and acquisition. The benefit of thinking of things as dynamic processes with comparative advantages is that we can seek out what those conditions are for our tanks / husbandry practices. I can quote simple things like bluer lights or low iron but there is no general rule for every tank because we all have different goals. Maybe someone likes nems and the blue light is too detrimental to them. Maybe we like macro algaes in the tank so we regularly dose iron for them, or maybe we employ other algae removal techniques and up nutrients to bring out colors of corals. But the unifying framework here is that the creatures in these systems have varying nutrient requirements and using comparative advantages gives us knowledge to favor the things we like and disadvantage the things we don't. So, we can tilt the scales to favor our corals and disfavor algae (if that is our goal).

With that said, I'll try following my second motto at the top, I appreciate your experience and am always interested in hearing other people's strategies for reefing!

Fun discussion. Thanks!

thanks to you as well!

 

[Thales]

With all due respect, there are some logical fallacies here that need to be corrected.


^^first, a bit of misrepresentation. The thread title is "Algae issues? Why dont more people use algae scrubbers?", not "all you need to do to get rid of algae problems is add an ATS".

And regardless of the title, our discussion was whether algae grown in one part of the tank can affect algae grown at another. It's not the case that anyone posting in a thread implicitly agrees with the title or has to be held accountable to this.


^^this is a base rate fallacy, where you are not taking into account the conditional distribution from which it is drawn. There are a lot of variables at play, as I and others have mentioned. So the mere existence of someone running an ATS and having algae does not prove that scrubbers do not work. In fact, that claim is the simple but wrong answer because it neglects the variables and dynamics at play for anyone's given tank. In order to assess the outcome, we must look at all the variables of someone's husbandry style and adjust accordingly. No simple answers here!


^^ this is what my favorite spin-physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, would say is "not even wrong". It's effectively unfalsifiable and not really relevant to the conversation unless we are all trusting you as having the ultimate judgement.


^^this is attacking a straw man. First there is a faulty equivalence between my claiming that there are comparative advantages / not all algae can grow where corals grows and the claim that ginger cures ich, frozen foods causing disease, and ecoaquilizer. Its obviously much easier to refute those claims than my points.


^^this is a false premise fallacy, or a nonsequitor where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise of our discussion. You start with 'if you let the algae grow in the tank without a check' which is not what we are talking about when we are specifically discussing whether nutrients taken up at one part of the tank has an affect at another location. Even with this, you still try to soften the claim with "just about" every spot. Is it every spot or isn't it? I have a new tank right now with diatoms growing only on the top of my rockwork. It's pretty clear that spatio/temporal differences in a tank lead to comparative advantages.


^^this is a type of denying the antecedent. You claim that ATS + herbivores = clean tank. Therefore, No herbivores = no clean tank. It denies the possibility of factors other than herbivores for having clean tanks. Taken with the high probability that someone with an ATS has at least 1 snail, it's an easy way to throw out any positive examples of scrubbers/fuges working.


^^this is just false. Algae is not some magical entity that can survive on nothing but hopes and dreams of growing. Ive already quoted a paper that sequences various algae genomes which identifies significantly higher iron based proteins/enzymes than coral zooxanthellae. Many corals can survive with significantly lower lighting for longer durations than most green algaes (hence why many try 3 day blackouts).

Also there's a bit of a modal fallacy, which I've identified previously as the difference between sufficient and necessary.


^^ "millions" is obviously an exaggeration, but this is an example of cherry picking. You are selecting negative examples (without actually showing them), while neglecting that even 1 positive example will refute the claim that algae grown at one part of a tank can't influence another (and I believe there are at least a couple people on this thread willing to show you their tanks again ).



^^the answer is not none. Despite the shifting goal post, it's still true that algae and corals have very different nutrients needs and metabolism. Without having to list out every ppm of every nutrient, I feel I have given some good responses on this already that haven't been addressed. Remember the simple but wrong vs complex distinction (there are unique methods for each tank husbandry practice that shift the scales) see below







thanks to you as well!

I feel we are talking past each other. Have a good weekend.

 

[ScubaSkeets]

With all due respect, there are some logical fallacies here that need to be corrected.


^^first, a bit of misrepresentation. The thread title is "Algae issues? Why dont more people use algae scrubbers?", not "all you need to do to get rid of algae problems is add an ATS".

And regardless of the title, our discussion was whether algae grown in one part of the tank can affect algae grown at another. It's not the case that anyone posting in a thread implicitly agrees with the title or has to be held accountable to this.


^^this is a base rate fallacy, where you are not taking into account the conditional distribution from which it is drawn. There are a lot of variables at play, as I and others have mentioned. So the mere existence of someone running an ATS and having algae does not prove that scrubbers do not work. In fact, that claim is the simple but wrong answer because it neglects the variables and dynamics at play for anyone's given tank. In order to assess the outcome, we must look at all the variables of someone's husbandry style and adjust accordingly. No simple answers here!


^^ this is what my favorite spin-physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, would say is "not even wrong". It's effectively unfalsifiable and not really relevant to the conversation unless we are all trusting you as having the ultimate judgement.


^^this is attacking a straw man. First there is a faulty equivalence between my claiming that there are comparative advantages / not all algae can grow where corals grows and the claim that ginger cures ich, frozen foods causing disease, and ecoaquilizer. Its obviously much easier to refute those claims than my points.


^^this is a false premise fallacy, or a nonsequitor where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise of our discussion. You start with 'if you let the algae grow in the tank without a check' which is not what we are talking about when we are specifically discussing whether nutrients taken up at one part of the tank has an affect at another location. Even with this, you still try to soften the claim with "just about" every spot. Is it every spot or isn't it? I have a new tank right now with diatoms growing only on the top of my rockwork. It's pretty clear that spatio/temporal differences in a tank lead to comparative advantages.


^^this is a type of denying the antecedent. You claim that ATS + herbivores = clean tank. Therefore, No herbivores = no clean tank. It denies the possibility of factors other than herbivores for having clean tanks. Taken with the high probability that someone with an ATS has at least 1 snail, it's an easy way to throw out any positive examples of scrubbers/fuges working.


^^this is just false. Algae is not some magical entity that can survive on nothing but hopes and dreams of growing. Ive already quoted a paper that sequences various algae genomes which identifies significantly higher iron based proteins/enzymes than coral zooxanthellae. Many corals can survive with significantly lower lighting for longer durations than most green algaes (hence why many try 3 day blackouts).

Also there's a bit of a modal fallacy, which I've identified previously as the difference between sufficient and necessary.


^^ "millions" is obviously an exaggeration, but this is an example of cherry picking. You are selecting negative examples (without actually showing them), while neglecting that even 1 positive example will refute the claim that algae grown at one part of a tank can't influence another (and I believe there are at least a couple people on this thread willing to show you their tanks again ).



^^the answer is not none. Despite the shifting goal post, it's still true that algae and corals have very different nutrients needs and metabolism. Without having to list out every ppm of every nutrient, I feel I have given some good responses on this already that haven't been addressed. Remember the simple but wrong vs complex distinction (there are unique methods for each tank husbandry practice that shift the scales) see below

Thank you!! I love fallacy definitions/explanations!!

 

[ScubaSkeets]

I ran an algae scrubber on my 400 & I was happy with its performance. I was not happy with the maintenance, specifically it was mounted on top of my sump under the tank and it was a pain in the rear to disassemble, clean, and reassemble under the tank. If I ever move to a place where I have my dream tank (10 ft peninsula with fish room adjacent) I may reconsider an algae scrubber. Current tank has a refugium under tank in stand with Pom Pom macro happily tumbling along. The bit of hair algae growing in there is being taken care of by a clean up crew. Much easier to maintain than that algae scrubber was.

Now that i think about it, perhaps my claim that i made a DIY "algae scrubber" is inaccurate. I guess it is more of a DIY "algae refugium" that was initially not seeded/started with anything and algae eventually started growing on the plastic mesh. I'm not really sure what to call it. What really is the difference between what I describe and what most people define as a "refugium"? The existence of a piece of plastic mesh that I take out and scrape? No tumbling chaeto?
My apologies if that is what caused any confusion and/or bickering in which I am guilty of.
That being said, maintenance is extremely easy. I lift the plastic lid, pull out the mesh, scrape the excess algae off of it, place the mesh back, and I'm done. 2 minutes tops.

 

[mizimmer90]

I feel we are talking past each other. Have a good weekend.

Have a good weekend!

 

[jason2459]

...
That being said, maintenance is extremely easy
...

I agree and found the maintenance difficult comments to not be my experience. I know everyone's experience can be different. I have two different scrubbers now and find them both quick to harvest and put back into service.

It's probably about 5 minutes of my time once a week. From turning off the pump, disconnecting the feed line, dunk the screen in the sump a few times, taking the scrubber to a sink , removing the algae, then put it all back together and turn the pump back on.

 

[Reefering1]

I'm all for arguing my point but this thread is crazy to me. Some of the most helpful and highly regarded figures in the hobby are saying get your heads out the bucket, there's more going on there. But that falls on deaf ears... I don't understand. I don't need to walk around the earth to believe its round, I can build off the knowledge or people smarter and more experienced than myself. You all realize who you're arguing right? I'll bet my house on the fact that all 3 of them know more this than the rest of us combined

 

[Garf]

Now that i think about it, perhaps my claim that i made a DIY "algae scrubber" is inaccurate. I guess it is more of a DIY "algae refugium" that was initially not seeded/started with anything and algae eventually started growing on the plastic mesh. I'm not really sure what to call it. What really is the difference between what I describe and what most people define as a "refugium"? The existence of a piece of plastic mesh that I take out and scrape? No tumbling chaeto?
My apologies if that is what caused any confusion and/or bickering in which I am guilty of.
That being said, maintenance is extremely easy. I lift the plastic lid, pull out the mesh, scrape the excess algae off of it, place the mesh back, and I'm done. 2 minutes tops.

If your not forcefully causing a thin film of water to run over a lit rough surface, I think “scrubber” would be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Hot2na]

If more people used algae scrubber............. there would be no need to run these un- natural looking blue windex looking reef tanks...alot of that blue mentality stemmed from a need to control "in tank' algae..
a scrubber would allow use of a more natural and visually appealing spectrum closer to natural sunlight in our tanks...