I run both ATS and chaeto refugium. May mean my ATS is undersized, of course, but both grow well (though I do have to dose iron). I did build an experimental chaeto reactor, with LED rope light wrapped around the exterior. Performed no better than my sump refugium. Though I do use the without-peer Kessil H380 on said refugium and my sump is elevated so I also can light from underneath.
Yes the more sides you can illuminate from, the better any algae is going to grow. The best is no-dark-sides at all all.
I would love to know how well scrubbers work removing, ammonia, iron and any other common water contaminants also do Chaeto reactors remove contaminates as well
That is what algae eat: Ammonia, iron, etc. Ammonia is algae's favorite food; this is why you can't measure ammonia in the open ocean... algae consume it immediately.
You say a fuge can’t compete with an ATS or a chaeto reactor. I also have to disagree. It would take an aweful big scrubber or reactor to keep up with the three gallons of calurpa I pull out of my 55 gallon refugium monthly. It seems like a very general statement to me, to say that a fuge can’t compete. How about a 100 gallon fuge?
3 gallons is a large space, and a month is a slow time, and the middle of it is dying because it's dark. The main idea, is that a smaller device can do the same nutrient reduction in less space, and in a shorter time. That is what is usually called more efficient. But of course if you already have and use it, and it works, then why change.
this 2.5 weeks growth for my tiny fuge didn't get the message?
Nice that it's working for you. This is similar to the previous reply.
I don't want to sound like a total butt hole, but we're 6 weeks into this thread... I'd love to see the pros and cons of these covered.
Sorry for the delay, will try to get them posted more often.
Only have ATS, skimmer and a small amount of rox. Feeding so much my tangs won't touch nori much
That's sort of the goal here, fish-wise. And coral-wise, the goal is giant amounts of food particles in the water at all times, especially at night. And with very low nutrients. Just like reefs.
When algae grows, what happen to the nitrate and phosphate being absorbed?
The nitrogen and phosphorus are used to build algal cells, which make the structure of the algae. Just like your body does.
If nitrate and phosphate content can be measured from the algae, somebody should conduct a study which one contains more, weight to weight comparison.
The nitrogen and phosphorus can indeed be measured, but that's not important. Just like the depth of a stream can be measured with a stick, but that does not tell you how fast it will fill a lake. More important, is the rate of absorption of the N and P into the algae, just like the rate of flow of the stream is what's important when it come to filling a lake. A stream with little flow will not fill a like any time soon.
I was growing cheato just perfectly fine in my fuge with a cheap simple bulb from amazon ... but algae in the display was still growing a bit due to my heavy feeding.
Great example of the chaeto not absorbing nutrients fast enough.
The weight percentage N and P in the algae itself is not really very important as a measure of their ability to remove N and P from the water.
Correct. Rate of absorption is the important part. And, the ability to keep them absorbed.
I'm curious with a turf scrubber if it releases spores or micro algae into the tank.
Yes all algae put spores/cells into the water; that's how algae propagates to areas with good growing conditions. And it's how many inverts get food.
Those that grows faster, denser and heavier is more effective at this moment.
You might be surprized to find that dense and heavy work in the opposite direction. Fast is good though.
I was under the impression that Ulva was a macro algae and was the lettuce type of algae that didn't adhere to surfaces?
Ulva often does grow on rocks at the beach.
"I don't believe algae scrubbers grow micro algae." -- Really? My scrubber grows at least 3 types of algae Ulva and GHA plus what I can only describe as an unidentified short compact dark moss type algae.
Ulva and GHA are macro, not micro. You cannot see micro algae without a scope; you can only see the resulting color.
Could you turn a reactor into a turf scrubber by rolling a screen into a tube shape and place it in the reactor and add air to the intake?
Yes, this just becomes and upflow scrubber. Needs light, of course.
I tried some time back to find out if-
1. all mature scrubbers naturally grew the same algae type
No, the environment determines what grows, which is mostly Light, Attachment, and Air/Water turbulent interface.
And I believe filamentous is the usual description of what grows naturally on a scrubber screen.
In lower nutrient water, and with good attachement and air/water turbulent interface, yes, But with high nutrients, especially combined with low attachment, you get slime.
