Reef filter roller or algae scrubber ?

[leon.1980]

It depends on your goal they are two different pieces of equipment that remove two different things from your system.
rollermat : removes organically out of the water column
Algae scrubber: removes inorganic such as nitrilates and phosphates from your system.

 

[atoll]

There are people entrenched in their own preferred methods and overstating or understaing their simplicity, worth, effectiveness and so on. Each to their own but as said more than one way to skin a cat. Any method is only as good as the results. Like we should stand by them.

 

[Turbo's Aquatics Verified Sponsor]

I've tested all manner of major name brand ATS and built plenty of my own. The all have the same cons and I'd still take liquid carbon dosing over them any day of the week. They're just not my thing. Way too much maintenance and overfeeding the tank to sustain it IMO. Been there, done that, never again.

Just out of curiosity, did you try/test one of mine?

 

[atoll]

Just out of curiosity, did you try/test one of mine?

Obviously not as yours don't have all the cons of many of the others Bud.

 

[HBtank]

If your goal is to lower nutrient levels, a roller mat is the obvious choice between the two. Removing organics before they break down into residual inorganic nitrate/phosphate will almost always be superior, if that is your main goal. If you have a roller mat (or use socks correctly), still fighting nutrient levels, and already have a solid skimmer, then consider an ATS. I personally would look at carbon dosing in that instance though.

 

[Crustaceon]

Just out of curiosity, did you try/test one of mine?

I have not tested your product out yet. I have no doubt it grows algae perfectly fine, but I'd be curious to hear if/how it differs from other ATS products from a maintenance perspective and how your product would ideally be ran at nutrient levels under 5ppm nitrates and .04ppm phosphates without risk of bottoming out those parameters.

 

[Crustaceon]

Obviously not as yours don't have all the cons of many of the others Bud.

Please list the cons other ATS have vs. Turbo's.

 

[Chris Spaulding]

I was running a Roller Aquamaxx AF-1 ,the Icecap pro med turf and a protein skimmer. I wound up ditching the the turf scrubber. Yes the scrubber works and Could possibly ditch the skimmer BUT I wanted the advantage of the higher Ph that my skimmer provided. So for me Roller and Skimmer.

 

[Turbo's Aquatics Verified Sponsor]

Please list the cons other ATS have vs. Turbo's.

Removable growth chamber with dual bottom drains (primary and secondary/emergency)
Tuned siphon on primary so it runs dead silent (mine sits on top of my sumpless 120, the fans on my lights are louder)
Dimmable LEDs so you can adjust both intensity and duration to match your tank needs - IMO intensity adjustability is a magnitude of order more important that photoperiod

Many other differences, but these are really the main ones

 

[atoll]

I have not tested your product out yet. I have no doubt it grows algae perfectly fine, but I'd be curious to hear if/how it differs from other ATS products from a maintenance perspective and how your product would ideally be ran at nutrient levels under 5ppm nitrates and .04ppm phosphates without risk of bottoming out those parameters.

Then how can you say they ALL have the same cons?That's like saying alights have all the same cons.
There are so many sweeping statements on this thread, exaggerations and untruths along with bias.

Some facts based on personal use of using ATSs.

1/ my ATS takes 4 minutes a week to maintain.
2/ my nuitrents are easily controlled via my lighting cycle.
3/ my ATS takes up on space in the sump apart from a drain pipe.
4/ Easy to maintain.
5/ I don't have to replace anything for years.
6/ my ATS doesn't strip food from the water.
7/ My ATS gives me food for tangs etc.
8/ I don't have to dose anything to maintain bacteria.
9/ my ATS helps maintain a balanced PH by taking up CO2.
Am sure there is a number 10 I have forgotten.

 

[atoll]

Please list the cons other ATS have vs. Turbo's.

Buds done it for me. Perhaps you could list the cons rather than just making a blanket statement " theyv all have the same cons"

 

[HBtank]

Arguing that an ATS provides food (or doesn’t remove food) is contradictory to the goal of nutrient export. If that is your goal, a refugium is a better choice.

 

[atoll]

Arguing that an ATS provides food (or doesn’t remove food) is contradictory to the goal of nutrient export. If that is your goal, a refugium is a better choice.

It's not the goal, we'll not minemanyway
My goal as with any method of filtration is to remove or reduce what you don't want, leave what you do, maybe add to the food chain while giving us the best water quality for the animals we keep in a balanced way. The judge of that are the animals we keep not a test kit.

 

[HBtank]

It's not the goal, we'll not minemanyway
My goal as with any method of filtration is to remove or reduce what you don't want, leave what you do, maybe add to the food chain while giving us the best water quality for the animals we keep in a balanced way. The judge of that are the animals we keep not a test kit.

Just saying that choices should reflect goals. ATS is a good choice for removing inorganic nitrate/phosphate. There are better choices if you have other goals.

 

[Crustaceon]

Buds done it for me. Perhaps you could list the cons rather than just making a blanket statement " theyv all have the same cons"

I already have listed the cons which if an ATS has a screen that requires periodic algae harvesting and relies on the careful timing of lighting to prevent stripping the tank of nutrients, it's ALWAYS going to have the same cons, regardless of brand. And it was YOU who said this particular ATS LACKS some of the cons. Which ones does it lack? Again, please explain.

 

[atoll]

I already have listed the cons which if an ATS has a screen that requires periodic algae harvesting and relies on the careful timing of lighting to prevent stripping the tank of nutrients, it's ALWAYS going to have the same cons, regardless of brand. And it was YOU who said this particular ATS LACKS some of the cons. Which ones does it lack? Again, please explain.

Sorry you said they all have the same cons. That is clearly not true. Your making a blanket statement that all ATS have the same cons.
Your by your own admittance you are not familiar with all brands of ATSs. Some have to sit the the sump while some don't as a simple example. Bud has already give you some of the differences and I have listed what my ATS does from experience of using it. I understand you choose to use a roller filter over an ATS,your choice. Not all ATS were created equal same with roller mats.

 

[Crustaceon]

Sorry you said they all have the same cons. That is clearly not true. Your making a blanket statement that all ATS have the same cons.
Your by your own admittance you are not familiar with all brands of ATSs. Some have to sit the the sump while some don't as a simple example. Bud has already give you some of the differences and I have listed what my ATS does from experience of using it. I understand you choose to use a roller filter over an ATS,your choice. Not all ATS were created equal same with roller mats.

Again, ALL ATS use a screen and lighting to grow algae. They ALL require periodic "harvesting" of that algae from the screen to "export" nutrients out of the system. They also require adjustment of the on-time of the lighting especially as nutrient levels drop to extremely low levels. Is this incorrect? This is the "blanket statement" I'm making. If you know of an ATS that doesn't use screens that require periodic harvesting or lighting that needs to be adjusted to regulate algae growth and in turn, nutrient reduction, please name it. PS. I'm not comparing ATS to ATS. I'm comparing the inherent downfalls of EVERY ATS, regardless of brand to other nutrient reduction methods. Not once did I say everything about an ATS is a con.

 

[atoll]

Again, ALL ATS use a screen and lighting to grow algae. They ALL require periodic "harvesting" of that algae from the screen to "export" nutrients out of the system. They also require adjustment of the on-time of the lighting especially as nutrient levels drop to extremely low levels. Is this incorrect? This is the "blanket statement" I'm making. If you know of an ATS that doesn't use screens that require periodic harvesting or lighting that needs to be adjusted to regulate algae growth and in turn, nutrient reduction, please name it. PS. I'm not comparing ATS to ATS. I'm comparing the inherent downfalls of EVERY ATS, regardless of brand to other nutrient reduction methods. Not once did I say everything about an ATS is a con.

Am not asking you what they use I know what they use. Your blanket statement was that they all have the same cons which simply isn't true. Some have cons others don't have as explained by Bud that you refuse to acknowledge. My ATS was easy enough to tune I never hit rock bottom nuitrents and you won't if you take a little time to dial it in. You make it sound so difficult when it isn't. I accept it was difficult for you for whatever reason. What you term downfalls are nothing but trivialities to me and many. Don't roller mats have downfalls or are they trivialities. If you think cleaning a screen that takes 4 minutes a week a downfall then so be it, I and many more don't. Everything needs some maintenance and has its pluses and minuses it's what the individual considers to be so. You, as an example have to change the rolls on a roller filter is that a con as it must be given your analogy. We will just have to disagree but the truth of the pudding is what matters in the end and one person's chore is another person's little at all. Had enough of this now. Happy reefkeeping and may the reefkeeping god go with you.

 

[Crustaceon]

Am not asking you what they use I know what they use. Your blanket statement was that they all have the same cons which simply isn't true. Some have cons others don't have as explained by Bud that you refuse to acknowledge. My ATS was easy enough to tune I never hit rock bottom nuitrents and you won't if you take a little time to dial it in. You make it sound so difficult when it isn't. I accept it was difficult for you for whatever reason. What you term downfalls are nothing but trivialities to me and many. Don't roller mats have downfalls or are they trivialities. If you think cleaning a screen that takes 4 minutes a week a downfall then so be it, I and many more don't. Everything needs some maintenance and has its pluses and minuses it's what the individual considers to be so. You, as an example have to change the rolls on a roller filter is that a con as it must be given your analogy. We will just have to disagree but the truth of the pudding is what matters in the end and one person's chore is another person's little at all. Had enough of this now. Happy reefkeeping and may the reefkeeping god go with you.

I'm not complaining about having to clean a screen because as I noted, it's not much more of a hassle as changing a filter sock-roll, or filling up a gallon of vinegar/vodka mix. That's not my point AT ALL. There is no learning curve to removing algae from a screen. There IS a learning curve and much understanding required though to understand how much to remove and what certain algae colorations mean. This is a CON, especially in systems that don't have chronically high nutrient levels requiring an ATS running "full blast" in order to keep up with demand. Having to clear a screen and guessing how much to remove is going to be enough to keep a healthy population of algae that won't strip out nutrients = Same CON with every ATS in systems that don't need "full blast" nutrient reduction, which in reality is most systems once they get out of crazy high nutrients land. Having to adjust lighting (including setting off times) to slow the runaway freight train that is EVERY ATS and hoping to find any semblance of balance especially at nitrate levels nearing 2.5ppm = CON with every ATS. This is the same level of "tuning" that any nutrient reduction aside from water changes has. Again, they're by no means set-it-and-forget it methods as you're implying. I would know, I've literally done it and made it work for years on end. I've built numerous ATS over the last decades and implemented them on my systems and they ALL literally have the exact same basic methodology of operation and maintenance requirements when it comes to balancing nutrient control. The problem is you can't tell people they're easy when in reality, you're careful to remove maybe 1/2 to 1/4 of the screen volume on each cleanout. I would know this is probably the case because you're looking at a full week of near-zero nutrient reduction from the ATS from a fully cleaned screen, which is counterproductive. So how much does someone remove? Oh you have to regularly test nitrates to find out. Do most people know that going in? No. Because they're not simple products and like carbon dosing, have their drawbacks. But go ahead and ignore what I've wrote. I'm done with this too.

 

[Crustaceon]

Removable growth chamber with dual bottom drains (primary and secondary/emergency)
Tuned siphon on primary so it runs dead silent (mine sits on top of my sumpless 120, the fans on my lights are louder)
Dimmable LEDs so you can adjust both intensity and duration to match your tank needs - IMO intensity adjustability is a magnitude of order more important that photoperiod

Many other differences, but these are really the main ones

Nice features. No one likes a waterfall in their cabinet.