Algae issues? Why dont more people use algae scrubbers?

[ScubaSkeets]

So for the sake of discussion, can we temporarily agree that some of us at least THINK we have less GHA in our display?

We can? Great.

Why would that be? I didn't add more herbivores. I didn't add more CUC. I didn't any chemicals. I didn't change my water change amount/frequency. I didn't decrease feeding so the fish had no other choice to eat all of the GHA. I didn't change lighting. Only change was the ATS.
(and I hope by now you know that when I call what I have an "ATS", it's really not. I call it my DIY "algae refugium thingy"...but I'm just gonna call it ATS from now on)

 

[Reefering1]

So for the sake of discussion, can we temporarily agree that some of us at least THINK we have less GHA in our display?

We can? Great.

Why would that be? I didn't add more herbivores. I didn't add more CUC. I didn't any chemicals. I didn't change my water change amount/frequency. I didn't decrease feeding so the fish had no other choice to eat all of the GHA. I didn't change lighting. Only change was the ATS.
(and I hope by now you know that when I call what I have an "ATS", it's really not. I call it my DIY "algae refugium thingy"...but I'm just gonna call it ATS from now on)

Of course it contributes. Nobody said its completely useless.. the debate is weather it can or will outcompete/stop display algea

 

[Reefering1]

Sometimes we believe we see a correlation between actions and results, that do not actually exist. This would call for an actual experiment. I think I get a red at every stop light, for example.

Ok, and how does this relate to what I posted?

 

[Reefering1]

I'm not making any claims to anyone's particular tank or what should or shouldn't happen. But the equations detail how algae in the fuge/display would compete with one another and what their relative fractions would be given certain comparative advantages!

But, hypothetically- off the record, would that be a valid simplified explanation to my question?

 

[mizimmer90]

But, hypothetically- off the record, would that be a valid simplified explanation to my question?

Lol I love the off the record request!

I truthfully can't say one way or another because the model has lots of parameters that are unidentified in this instance, but I'd say it could be consistent with the model! I.e. that particular explanation would not shock me!

 

[VintageReefer]

Here is more proof of the algae turf scrubber! Some pics over the course of a year of my reef from 10 years ago! No water changes ever performed on this system since getting the scrubber, it was my primary form of filtration for many years. And it’s the exact same algae turf scrubber I use today and the same sump I use today, same sand, powerhead, and some of the same rock. Now, I don’t have pictures but I did suffer from hair algae tufts growing on the rocks which was what led me to get the scrubber in the first place, and it cleaned up this tank and kept it algae free for many years! My corals thrived and grew from tiny frags into what you see!

The full tank shot with the red arrow, that was a yellow green Millie I grew from a 1” nub. Then I have a pic attached of the colony it later became, huge! That time span was approx 9 months.

I have never had any negative effects from my scrubber, it has always kept my display algae free, helped keep my corals healthy, and made my reefs nearly maintenance free!

 

[Reefering1]

Lol I love the off the record request!

I truthfully can't say one way or another because the model has lots of parameters that are unidentified in this instance, but I'd say it could be consistent with the model! I.e. that particular explanation would not shock me!

Lol. You could be a politician. Always leave some ambiguity.. I'm going to take that as a silent "pretty much"/ wink and head nod. (?) ;-)

 

[ScubaSkeets]

Of course it contributes. Nobody said its completely useless.. the debate is weather it can or will outcompete/stop display algea

"Contributes"?
Fair enough.
So my ATS contributes 90% of why I don't have GHA in my display. And everything else (of what I've done to my tank) collectively contributes the remaining 10%
Arbitrary, I know.
But even if it contributes 40, 50%, it still better than not having at all.

 

[Reefering1]

Here is more proof of the algae turf scrubber! Some pics over the course of a year of my reef from 10 years ago! No water changes ever performed on this system since getting the scrubber, it was my primary form of filtration for many years. And it’s the exact same algae turf scrubber I use today and the same sump I use today, same sand, powerhead, and some of the same rock. Now, I don’t have pictures but I did suffer from hair algae tufts growing on the rocks which was what led me to get the scrubber in the first place, and it cleaned up this tank and kept it algae free for many years! My corals thrived and grew from tiny frags into what you see!

The full tank shot with the red arrow, that was a yellow green Millie I grew from a 1” nub. Then I have a pic attached of the colony it later became, huge! That time span was approx 9 months.

I have never had any negative effects from my scrubber, it has always kept my display algae free, helped keep my corals healthy, and made my reefs nearly maintenance free!

Looks good!! How would you describe your bio load?

 

[mizimmer90]

Lol I love the off the record request!

I truthfully can't say one way or another because the model has lots of parameters that are unidentified in this instance, but I'd say it could be consistent with the model! I.e. that particular explanation would not shock me!

But, hypothetically- off the record, would that be a valid simplified explanation to my question?

I'd even go as far to say that the claims made in favor of ATSs working ar

Lol. You could be a politician. Always leave some ambiguity.. I'm going to take that as a silent "pretty much"/ wink and head nod. (?) ;-)

I've been trained to soften every position that has ambiguity lol. When dealing with science, you get burned pretty quickly if you dig your heels in the ground unless you have a REALLY solid footing.

For example, I'm firm on my mathematical proof that algae grown in one location CAN and DOES reduce/eliminate algae at another location, even with ATS/fuge sizes that are not unreasonable. Though I'm soft on the specific values/recommendations lol

 

[ingchr1]

Sounds like it’s working. What made you initially decide to turn it on, and what’s making you think you should turn it off ?

I decided to turn it back on to see what affect it would have on nitrate and phosphate, not for any type of algae control in the display. Why I'm considering turning it back off:

1. The nutrients that its removing, is that going to negatively affect the availability of nutrients needed for the display biome?
2. If it performs as advertised, will there now not be enough algae in the display for the algae grazers?
3. I have an AIO with my own homemade ATS (design changed a little along the way, including the light spectrum). It's a bit of pain to clean and algae ends up loose in the chamber. It would be a lot easier if I just did some form of carbon dosing instead. Which would also benefit bacteria.
4. I'm not really sure if I saw any net positive benefit from running it. It just created more tank maintenance. Not sure what I was expecting different this time.

This thread madebyou think turn it off? You like hair algae smothering your corals in the DT?

Yes, it has me considering turning it back off. My corals have never been smothered by hair algae, scrubber running or not. Why would turning the scrubber off cause that to happen?

 

[VintageReefer]

But, hypothetically- off the record, would that be a valid simplified explanation to my question?

Yes! I know what I am talking about! Look at my successful tanks and learn from my mistakes and experiences. Im not a biologist, but I’m a hobbiest and enthusiast and have been keeping tanks 23 years! Often 3 and 4 at a time.

In response to your situation, you are on a fine line of what is needed to control display algae if the situation you describe is true and reproducible. You would be an excellent candidate for a scrubber to tip the scale in your favor of growing algae only below the tank and not in the display.

 

[Reefering1]

"Contributes"?
Fair enough.
So my ATS contributes 90% of why I don't have GHA in my display. And everything else (of what I've done to my tank) collectively contributes the remaining 10%
Arbitrary, I know.
But even if it contributes 40, 50%, it still better than not having at all.

You do have gha in your display still, the ats may have contributed to a +/- 90% reduction of it though. No argument that it's a powerful tool. But that last 10% will require the next step. After that you may find you don't need the ats... potentially

 

[Reefering1]

Yes! I know what I am talking about! Look at my successful tanks and learn from my mistakes and experiences. Im not a biologist, but I’m a hobbiest and enthusiast and have been keeping tanks 23 years! Often 3 and 4 at a time.

In response to your situation, you are on a fine line of what is needed to control display algae if the situation you describe is true and reproducible. You would be an excellent candidate for a scrubber to tip the scale in your favor of growing algae only below the tank and not in the display.

It is very repeatable. However I seek to maintain/ control some in display for the fish. I could easily have it all gone but upping the vodka doses.. I believe algea is a valuable component of the reef, turning waste into food and contributing to ph at the same time...

 

[mizimmer90]

Yes! I know what I am talking about! Look at my successful tanks and learn from my mistakes and experiences. Im not a biologist, but I’m a hobbiest and enthusiast and have been keeping tanks 23 years! Often 3 and 4 at a time.

In response to your situation, you are on a fine line of what is needed to control display algae if the situation you describe is true and reproducible. You would be an excellent candidate for a scrubber to tip the scale in your favor of growing algae only below the tank and not in the display.

A true off the record account for me is that I have no reason to doubt testimonies like this because they seem plausible and I wasn't the one there observing it lol

It's crazy the number of times someone will discount another person's experience. I can understand if someone has reservations if they think somethings improbable, but confidently say something completely different? Never.

 

[VintageReefer]

Looks good!! How would you describe your bio load?

My bioload then was medium?
3 anthias
4 chromis
Fire fish
Full size Mono Argentenus
A wrasse i forget
Clownfish

 

[Reefering1]

Yes! I know what I am talking about! Look at my successful tanks and learn from my mistakes and experiences. Im not a biologist, but I’m a hobbiest and enthusiast and have been keeping tanks 23 years! Often 3 and 4 at a time.

In response to your situation, you are on a fine line of what is needed to control display algae if the situation you describe is true and reproducible. You would be an excellent candidate for a scrubber to tip the scale in your favor of growing algae only below the tank and not in the display.

It is a fine line. I'm close to maintaining nutrients by observation rather than testing. Almost there

 

[Reefering1]

You do have gha in your display still, the ats may have contributed to a +/- 90% reduction of it though. No argument that it's a powerful tool. But that last 10% will require the next step. After that you may find you don't need the ats... potentially

Next step could, just as likely, be fine tuning your ats to nutrient input/ maintenance

 

[Reefering1]

My bioload then was medium?
3 anthias
3 chromis
Fire fish
Full size Mono Argentenus
A wrasse i forget
Clownfish

In how many gallons?

 

[VintageReefer]

In how many gallons?

75 plus sump.

Daily feedings plus aminos with no water changes and the scrubber maintained phosphate steady at .06