Algae Scrubber???

[Scrubber_steve]

Sure there are those who make these & promote sales .

Ksturg wants to 'build' his own ATS. So I'd like to point out, in regards to elegance coral defaming people who sell ATS, that the two most well known -Santa Monica & Turbo have provided more than enough info online for people to know how to 'build' their own. They both go to great lengths to help others 'build' their own as well.

 

[cracker]

I have no prob with that at all. I made my own & they worked well. I'm "old school" so hard to change. I wish You & Turbo the best really . It's a different & new design , that's all.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I wish You & Turbo the best really .

?

I don't sell scrubbers

 

[cracker]

Oh ! good Lord I blew that one . Hey I wish You the best anyway ! .... really LOL

 

[Elegance Coral]

@Elegance Coral, because you have repeatedly posted this exact same junk on various internet forums over the years, & persistently ignore everyone who attempts to correct your misplaced assertions, it is obvious you are, as usual, just looking for an argument, & therefore I believe I can accurately & rightly call you a troll.

When you have to abandon the facts of your argument, and resort to petty name calling, you've already lost the debate.
I ignore no one. As I'm not ignoring you now. You completely fabricated that vague and baseless statement.

You claim to have “no real dog in this fight”. This is a lie, proven by the same old passionate rant.

My tanks do fine. Those that I mentor, have tanks that do fine. I personally don't stand to gain one way or the other if people run ATS's or not. IMHO, that means I have no dog in this fight.
I post in threads like this because I care about the animals we keep. I've spent most of my life trying to learning how to better care for these animals and sharing what I've learned. I volunteer much of my free time to helping others care for these animals. Last week I was asked out to the county nature preserve to critique their aquariums so they could better care for the animals they keep. They took notes and are now implementing those changes. If you want to say that my "passion" for helping others care for these animals, means that I have a dog in this fight, then fine. I have a dog in this fight.

Why target Algae scrubbers (ATS) rather than using the term “Algae filtration” ?
Why not mention of Chaeto Refugiums, or Macro Algae Reactors ?
Seems >>ATS << is stuck in your conscience.

For two reasons.
1. The OP didn't ask about "algae filtration". The OP asked specifically about ATS's.
2. They are different subjects. "Algae" is a very broad term used to describe many, many, many, different types, or species. Different species that can have very different strategies to spread and conquer new territory, and have a very different influence on the environment around them. We can't take the characteristics of one form, or species, and impose those characteristics on "algae" in general.

Julian Sprung is someone worth listening to on the matter folks

I like Julian Sprung. I remember when his articles, "Reef Notes", first showed up in FAMA magazine way back in the day, and I read them religiously. I own all 3 of his coral reef books. Even got them signed.
He and Delbeek had it right in the first volume. Dr. Adey may have been having problems in the early days with calcium carbonate additions, but that doesn't explain his continued failures. One would have a hard time connecting low calcium and carbonate concentrations to the steady invasion of turf algae and the horribly discolored water of his system. Then the theory that low calcium and carbonate concentrations was the reason for Adey's failures falls apart even further with the fact that his method continued to have the same problems long after the calcium carbonate issue had been fixed.

This is a sign posted by the Smithsonian Institute right outside Adey's aquarium from a few years back. Loooong after the calcium carbonate issue has been solved.

Peace
EC

 

[Elegance Coral]

Do you feel the same way about fuges? I have always been skeptical about ATS, however it's more from an additional equipment viewpoint as I like using a chaeto/ulva fuge. Perhaps part of my bias was at least a while back people thought of a fuge as more a component in nutrient export, but many ATS advocates would say a scrubber was all you needed and was superior to all else, but I never saw many top tier SPS tanks running scrubber only, sometimes they would have one but was supplemental or recently added.

The term "fuge" can mean soooo many different things. People run them in many different ways, and ask, or expect, many different things from them. This makes it hard to lump them all together and form an opinion. In the strictest sense, as a place of "refuge", for organisms that we don't want in the display, or those that wouldn't coexist well with the inhabitants of the display, they can be very interesting additions to a system. I think people run into problems when they start expecting unrealistic benefits to the system as a whole. The effects that a fuge will have on a system, either positive or negative, can vary greatly, depending on many factors like, the size of the fuge, flow through it, what's in it?????

Peace
EC

 

[hart24601]

The term "fuge" can mean soooo many different things. People run them in many different ways, and ask, or expect, many different things from them. This makes it hard to lump them all together and form an opinion. In the strictest sense, as a place of "refuge", for organisms that we don't want in the display, or those that wouldn't coexist well with the inhabitants of the display, they can be very interesting additions to a system. I think people run into problems when they start expecting unrealistic benefits to the system as a whole. The effects that a fuge will have on a system, either positive or negative, can vary greatly, depending on many factors like, the size of the fuge, flow through it, what's in it?????

Peace
EC

Appreciate the response! Been reading your posts for many years. Cheers!

 

[theMeat]

While many things vary, tank size, bio load, etc.

A scrubber is like a fuge on steroids, as far as macro/nutrient export.

If the fuge can be big enough for your needs imo and ime a big fuge has more benefits

A scrubber can accomplish more nutrient export in a smaller space, but at a cost. No safe harbor for pods. Les total water volume in system. More noise, and probably more evap, smells bad, and the biggy, much more frequent cleaning.

 

[Tft12]

There's a BRS investigates video looking into effects of chaeto on nitrate and phosphate. It might be worth watching. I thought it was good info. I would expect the effect of an ATS to be similar depending on scale. In one of Richard Ross' MACNA talks be briefly shows a slide of what happened in his very high nitrate/phosphate system when he added on an ATS from Inland Aquatics (large reduction in nitrate, little change in phosphate if I recall correctly).

https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/video/view/brstv-investigates-do-refugiums-work/


I've used both, ATS and chaeto fuge, quite a bit over the years. I've liked both because I feed my fish much much more than standard and I feel like the fuge or ATS helps prevent my nitrate and phosphate from getting too crazy (though those results say probably not phosphate). That said, my current nitrate and phosphate levels happen to be outrageous so I might be making some changes to my system.

I've absolutely seen show stopper ROTM looking systems with and without algae filtration so I absolutely wouldn't call them required or disastrous.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

When you have to abandon the facts of your argument, and resort to petty name calling, you've already lost the debate.
I ignore no one. As I'm not ignoring you now. You completely fabricated that vague and baseless statement.

Its not name calling to describe your post here as trolling. Its a fact!
I'm not abandoning any facts, ?
This is one other example of your trolling, & relentless attack, specifically on >>> ATS <<<! I answered your arguments then, but you continue with your copy n paste, ready to use, baseless arguments here again.

I personally don't stand to gain one way or the other if people run ATS's or not. IMHO, that means I have no dog in this fight.

LOL, yeh sure, I can tell you're not interested, at all. LOL

On targeting ATS specifically?
For two reasons.
1. The OP didn't ask about "algae filtration". The OP asked specifically about ATS's.
2. They are different subjects. "Algae" is a very broad term used to describe many, many, many, different types, or species. Different species that can have very different strategies to spread and conquer new territory, and have a very different influence on the environment around them. We can't take the characteristics of one form, or species, and impose those characteristics on "algae" in general.

They are not different subjects, what rubbish. You don't conceal your bias well. Growing algae, whether in an ATS, or Macroalgae reactor or refugium is exactly the same thing, & all of your baseless assertions would apply to each.

I like Julian Sprung. He and Delbeek had it right in the first volume.

Whatever that was it is only your opinion, & Julian must have changed his mind quite obviously!

Dr. Adey may have been having problems in the early days with calcium carbonate additions, but that doesn't explain his continued failures. One would have a hard time connecting low calcium and carbonate concentrations to the steady invasion of turf algae and the horribly discolored water of his system. Then the theory that low calcium and carbonate concentrations was the reason for Adey's failures falls apart even further with the fact that his method continued to have the same problems long after the calcium carbonate issue had been fixed.

I know little of the Smithsonian, but I do know quite a bit about the Coral Reef Exhibit at Townsville Aquarium (CRE) which used an Adey 'Algae Turf Farm'.
I know that the CRE's switch from “Oceanic Water period” (pre-2002) to the “Estuarine Water period” (2002 to present) increased coral survival rate from only 20% to 30%, to 70% to 80% , probably higher now.
What changes did the CRE make to achieve this turn around?

1. The switch from using priori ultra-clean oceanic water, collected offshore by barge, to using ‘less pure’ estuarine water collected on the incoming tide from the Ross Creek to increase nutrients and provide an external source of plankton.

2. The removal of all internal mechanical filtration (three large sand filters). This improved overall tank health by avoiding ‘over stripping’ the water column of particulates and encouraging plankton production, greater food availability, and larval settlement, especially during spawning periods

3. Internal circulation was increased.

4. The use of calcium chloride to raise average calcium levels (~ 250 mg Ca2+.L-1, to 420 mg Ca2+.L-1)

YES, the Algae Turf Farm (ATF) was also removed during this period, but not due to any negative effects it had on water quality. To suggest so would be utterly ridiculous because the ATF made up only 0.5% of the systems total algae biomass. Removing the ATF left behind 99.5% of the systems algae biomass. This fact makes it obvious as to why, the 70, 2 meter x 1 meter scrubbers were removed.

This is a sign posted by the Smithsonian Institute right outside Adey's aquarium from a few years back. Loooong after the calcium carbonate issue has been solved.

I know this sign is some type of proof to you, but to any unbiased observer it says nothing more than they had a crash, they don't know what the cause was, (could be anything) and quite naturally algae grows where the coral was.

.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

They claim that the algae can't, or won't, migrate from the scrubber to the tank

Yes, I’ll claim “it doesn’t”, & more. The opposite is true.
And when making such a claim you should consider that many tanks without algae filtration regularly get algae blooms in their displays.

They pick and choose the science that supports their cause, while ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that doesn't

The science of photosynthesis is basic. Inorganic nitrogen & phosphate are assimilated from the water as a fertilizer. And CO2 is converted to O2

They say that ATS's provide "organic food" to the display. While ignoring the fact that this "organic food" is the same stuff that turns your water yellow, increases the overall nutrient content of our glass boxes, and enables the algae to spread and conquer new territory.

Every aquarium will get yellow/brown discolouration if not maintained properly. Decomposing animal waste & uneaten food are the main cause. This is very obvious as shown by the colour of the skimmate produced on systems not using algae filtration.

To claim this “increases the overall nutrient content of our glass boxes” is ridiculous. Normal tank maintenance removes the organics.

They claim that we can use GAC, mechanical filtration, and protein skimmers to remove allelopathic chemicals, dies, and solid organic particle produced by the ATS. IMHO, if we have to employ real filtration to clean up the mess produced by the ATS, maybe the ATS isn't quite as efficient as they claim it to be.

Ok, so what you’ve said, is, systems that Do Not use algae filtration don’t need to use GAC, mechanical filtration, and protein skimmers. This is just a bizarre suggestion, but understandable from someone with a bias.

And when making such a claim you should consider that most organisms exude organics, including softies & even acropora, that can be detrimental to some other organisms.

With things like this, where people are intentionally, or simply through being misinformed, promoting bad science, it's typically those of us that keep the most delicate species that see the negative effects first

What proof do you have of the cause of these negative effects? None! Its call an assumption.

What delicate species do you have?

You are the only one here misinforming others, by the way!

This latest ATS craze has been out for a while now, and the negative effects have started to show themselves despite the loud voices of those who support, and make money from ATS's.

Besides this statement being nothing more than a figment of your imagination, the craze is to chaeto refugiums & macroalgae reactors. Why aren’t you targeting those specific methods ? Because you have a barrow to push against ATS specifically. This is quite obvious.

At first, many different types of hobbyists jumped on the bandwagon and installed ATS's. Everyone from SPS keepers to FO. Now, we can go to the SPS section of any forum board like this and see that ATS's have fallen out of favor with these hobbyists.

Another baseless statement, & the opposite is true. More & more people are using algae filtration.

.

 

[theMeat]

There's a BRS investigates video looking into effects of chaeto on nitrate and phosphate. It might be worth watching. I thought it was good info. I would expect the effect of an ATS to be similar depending on scale. In one of Richard Ross' MACNA talks be briefly shows a slide of what happened in his very high nitrate/phosphate system when he added on an ATS from Inland Aquatics (large reduction in nitrate, little change in phosphate if I recall correctly).

https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/video/view/brstv-investigates-do-refugiums-work/


I've used both, ATS and chaeto fuge, quite a bit over the years. I've liked both because I feed my fish much much more than standard and I feel like the fuge or ATS helps prevent my nitrate and phosphate from getting too crazy (though those results say probably not phosphate). That said, my current nitrate and phosphate levels happen to be outrageous so I might be making some changes to my system.

I've absolutely seen show stopper ROTM looking systems with and without algae filtration so I absolutely wouldn't call them required or disastrous.

Good point.
Always learned macro consumes more nitrate to phosphate around 4 to 1 or so. Now newer thinking is much more, like 20 to 80 times more. Ime would guess around 6 to one with fuge, 10 to one with scrubber

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Good point.
Always learned macro consumes more nitrate to phosphate around 4 to 1 or so. Now newer thinking is much more, like 20 to 80 times more. Ime would guess around 6 to one with fuge, 10 to one with scrubber

The uptake ratio varies & depends on the species of algae.
My PO4 never varies - 0.03ppm. I have a species of ulva (not lettuce ulva) growing on my screen.

 

[theMeat]

The uptake ratio varies & depends on the species of algae.
My PO4 never varies - 0.03ppm. I have a species of ulva (not lettuce ulva) growing on my screen.

So what estimate ratios would you speculate?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

So what estimate ratios would you speculate?

Impossible to say without researching ulva in particular. And then it also depends somewhat on the specific environment the algae exists in - water temperature, light spectrum, available elements.
I can say that I can control my level of NO3 by varying the length of the photo period, but PO4 stays rock steady on 0.03ppm

 

[Elegance Coral]

Its not name calling to describe your post here as trolling. Its a fact!
I'm not abandoning any facts, ?
This is one other example of your trolling, & relentless attack, specifically on >>> ATS <<<! I answered your arguments then, but you continue with your copy n paste, ready to use, baseless arguments here again.

Never, not once, have I ever read one of your many factually inaccurate posts, copied it, then had a temper tantrum because I don't agree with you. That's never happened. I ignore you until you speak to me directly. You see factually accurate posts from me, copy them, then lose your mind in an absurd childish temper tantrum, because you view what I say as blasphemy. For you, this is about religion, or belief. It has NOTHING to do with fact, reality, or science. You BELIEVE in ATS's, so anyone that would speak negatively of them must be attacked. And you call me the troll??????????????????

They are not different subjects, what rubbish. You don't conceal your bias well. Growing algae, whether in an ATS, or Macroalgae reactor or refugium is exactly the same thing, & all of your baseless assertions would apply to each.

You seriously need to do some studying before coming online and posting as if you have a clue about the subject being discussed. Even among people that run ATS's, there's many that prefer one species of algae over another, because they understand that all algae are not "exactly the same", as you believe. Your belief is absurd and has no basis in fact or reality.
There are many different species that live in many different places around the planet, they bloom under different conditions, at different times of the year, and have different effects on the environment around them. To "believe" otherwise is just ludicrous.
I have two different algae growing in my clownfish system. C. racemosa and hair algae. C. racemosa I had to deliberately place there, or it simply wouldn't be there. I have no idea how the hair algae originally got into the system, but I'm not surprised by it's appearance, because it's different that C. racemosa. The C. racemosa grows in one section of the system, the section I placed it in, and has never left that section. Hair algae grows in many areas of the system, because it's different than C. racemosa. Only a person that has blind faith in something, and a total disregard for science and reality, could believe that these two algae are "exactly the same thing".

I know little of the Smithsonian, .............................

I know this sign is some type of proof to you, but to any unbiased observer it says nothing more than they had a crash, they don't know what the cause was, (could be anything) and quite naturally algae grows where the coral was.
.

The sign represents only one of many crashes this system has had over the years. They have repeatedly done the same thing, with the same results, while expecting different results. Don't they say that's the definition of insanity???? They stock the tank with coral, and crank up the ATS. The algae migrates from the scrubber to the display as corals die. In time, the coral is dead and they have an algae garden on display. They shut it down, clean up the mess, and start it back up, only to kill more coral. I hate the idea of coral needlessly dying like this, so I speak out against it. To you, this makes me a troll. Ridiculous!!!

 

[Elegance Coral]

Yes, I’ll claim “it doesn’t”, & more. The opposite is true.

You have nothing, no logical explanation, for such a ridiculous belief. You have no problem with the fact that algae can migrate from the filter area of the system to the display, if we call that filter area a refuge. You have no problem admitting that algae migrates from the display to the ATS. You have no problem with algae migrating from one place to another within the four corners of an ATS. But, for some strange, unknown reason, you have this deep, irrational, "belief", that algae can't migrate from the confines of the ATS to other areas of the system.

Every aquarium will get yellow/brown discolouration if not maintained properly. Decomposing animal waste & uneaten food are the main cause. This is very obvious as shown by the colour of the skimmate produced on systems not using algae filtration.

And we all understand the importance of removing decomposing animal waste and uneaten food to the health of our pets. That doesn't change the fact that large amounts of algae growth produces yellow/brown discoloration of the water. The fact that you can point to other aspects of a system that can produce similar unwanted effects, doesn't change the fact that your ATS still produces those unwanted effects.

To claim this “increases the overall nutrient content of our glass boxes” is ridiculous. Normal tank maintenance removes the organics.

Yes. We can do maintenance and employ real filtration to clean up the mess produced by your ATS. The question is, why? Why employ a method like an ATS that increases the load on our maintenance and filtration equipment???? Why not just scrap the ATS, along with all the rotting organic matter that it produces, and alleviate that burden on our maintenance and filtration????

Ok, so what you’ve said, is, systems that Do Not use algae filtration don’t need to use GAC, mechanical filtration, and protein skimmers. This is just a bizarre suggestion, but understandable from someone with a bias.

LOL........ No........ That's not what I said.
Why burn through more GAC, clog up more mechanical filtration, and invest in a larger/more efficient skimmer, all to compensate for the organic mess produced by an ATS??? GAC would last longer, mechanical filtration wouldn't clog as fast, and we wouldn't have to ask as much from our skimmers, if we didn't have a large factory constantly producing organics, that you call an ATS.

And when making such a claim you should consider that most organisms exude organics, including softies & even acropora, that can be detrimental to some other organisms.

And those are our pets!!! We keep them in the "display" and show them off to our friends. Those organisms are the reason most people have a tank. Compensating for the mess they make is understandable. I do that for my dog, and we do that for every pet we keep. Compensating for the mess produced by an organism you hide out of sight, inside a cabinet, beneath the tank, is a different subject.

What delicate species do you have?

I've got to head off to work, so I gotta cut this short, but here's a couple of videos to give you an idea of the types of creatures I keep. One's my tank, and one's a friends.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChfzNKzfO0PnUQ5jY6TvhOw

 

[ReefWithCare]

The uptake ratio varies & depends on the species of algae.
My PO4 never varies - 0.03ppm. I have a species of ulva (not lettuce ulva) growing on my screen.

I wish that Ulva species was available in the US. I've looked all over :'-(.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Never, not once, have I ever read one of your many factually inaccurate posts, copied it, then had a temper tantrum because I don't agree with you. That's never happened. I ignore you until you speak to me directly. You see factually accurate posts from me, copy them, then lose your mind in an absurd childish temper tantrum, because you view what I say as blasphemy. For you, this is about religion, or belief. It has NOTHING to do with fact, reality, or science. You BELIEVE in ATS's, so anyone that would speak negatively of them must be attacked. And you call me the troll??????????????????




You seriously need to do some studying before coming online and posting as if you have a clue about the subject being discussed. Even among people that run ATS's, there's many that prefer one species of algae over another, because they understand that all algae are not "exactly the same", as you believe. Your belief is absurd and has no basis in fact or reality.
There are many different species that live in many different places around the planet, they bloom under different conditions, at different times of the year, and have different effects on the environment around them. To "believe" otherwise is just ludicrous.
I have two different algae growing in my clownfish system. C. racemosa and hair algae. C. racemosa I had to deliberately place there, or it simply wouldn't be there. I have no idea how the hair algae originally got into the system, but I'm not surprised by it's appearance, because it's different that C. racemosa. The C. racemosa grows in one section of the system, the section I placed it in, and has never left that section. Hair algae grows in many areas of the system, because it's different than C. racemosa. Only a person that has blind faith in something, and a total disregard for science and reality, could believe that these two algae are "exactly the same thing".



The sign represents only one of many crashes this system has had over the years. They have repeatedly done the same thing, with the same results, while expecting different results. Don't they say that's the definition of insanity???? They stock the tank with coral, and crank up the ATS. The algae migrates from the scrubber to the display as corals die. In time, the coral is dead and they have an algae garden on display. They shut it down, clean up the mess, and start it back up, only to kill more coral. I hate the idea of coral needlessly dying like this, so I speak out against it. To you, this makes me a troll. Ridiculous!!!

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Here's a photo of my tank.
Its plainly obvious that its a horrible yellow & brown tainted mess with algae growing all over everything because I use an ATS.
I don't use a skimmer, & only a little GAC that I change every 4 weeks or so, & I rarely do a water change.
I guess If I change all those things my tank may be a little closer to OK.

I just can't keep an sps alive

and a shot of this problem algae growing all over my bare bottom & everything else (dam coralline)