Can algae scrubbers outcompete algae?

[VintageReefer]

Glad this thread came up as I'm super interested.

Your comment about competitive advantage resonates with me. If we can make a zone more advantageous for algae to grow, that's less opportunity for algae to grow elsewhere. Possibly because the flow within the tank moving whatever nutrient or resource is the limiting agent - making it harder for algae to establish in less favorable areas.

It’s how they work. And it’s not instantaneous. It takes a few months. The display doesn’t lose the resources. They are just limited.

Phosphate and elements will naturally disperse evenly in the water. If you have one zone constantly up taking them, then more will be drawn from the display trying to “level out”

My scrubber is 1000 par of red 660nm led from a distance of 1”, 18 hours a day ln a reverse schedule, with oxygen pumped in from a high power air pump 24x7, and surface area ideal for algae to cling on and grow from. I grow turf algae - which we all have the spores for in our tank, but displays lack the conditions for It to grow. Other algaes sure. But not what grows in my scrubber. Once you introduce the right conditions, the scrubber will seed itself and grow a unique algae on its own. It dies if I remove it from the scrubber and put in the display. It can’t survive outside the scrubber

 

[rishma]

Other algaes sure. But not what grows in my scrubber.

Do find you have less film algae on the glass with a scrubber?

 

[rtparty]

Does growing grass in my backyard stop the grass from growing in my front yard?

If I grow frags in my sump, does that slow them in the display?

 

[VintageReefer]

I’m not sure on this point, but I’m not that knowledgeable about trace elements. People go to great lengths to provide all manner of trace for their corals. I dose some with my AFR. I don’t think we know what the impact is of many trace, despite the marketing BS about specific coral colors.

Manganese and iron are two things consumed by turf algae. Manganese I believe is important but it’s rapidly depleted. Most people testing are probably going to get a reading of zero. Yet their corals are fine. Some corals like Goni are found to benefit from manganese - I have 25+ Goni and agree. So I dose manganese daily.

But my point is; there are things that one organism can depend on; that others don’t really need. So if the scrubber is stripping that, then it can affect algae, without affecting corals.

I do believe more research is needed on how exactly they work. I don’t think it’s as simple as people try to generalize. I’m a first hand witness and believer in them

The photosynthesis process is also a natural form of carbon dosing, and many people use carbon dosing as a means of nutrient control. It’s a side effect (benefit) of the scrubber. It produces glucose

 

[VintageReefer]

Does growing grass in my backyard stop the grass from growing in my front yard?

It’s an irrelevant counter because the dirt in your backyard is not being constantly recirculated with the dirt in the front.

If I grow frags in my sump, does that slow them in the display?

It can “affect” the display. By consuming alk and calcium and thus causing you to need to supplement more

 

[rtparty]

It’s an irrelevant counter because the dirt in your backyard is not being constantly recirculated with the dirt in the front.

It can “affect” the display. By consuming alk and calcium and thus causing you to need to supplement more

Ok so I supplement more. Are the frags in the sump going to slow down the corals in the tank if the parameters are maintained?

 

[rishma]

But my point is; there are things that one organism can depend on; that others don’t really need. So if the scrubber is stripping that, then it can affect algae, without affecting corals.

Plausible, though I’m unsure if we can take that as a known attribute of scrubbers. It seems to me that algae could possibly compete with corals.

Not throwing shade on scrubbers, I don’t use them for my own reasons. I like bacteria to do the work for me and they consume trace too.

 

[VintageReefer]

Ok so I supplement more. Are the frags in the sump going to slow down the corals in the tank if the parameters are maintained?

No

And if the elements and nutrients consumed by the scrubber are supplemented in the display, the device will not give the desired results

 

[rtparty]

No

And if the elements and nutrients consumed by the scrubber are supplemented in the display, the device will not give the desired results

The water is moving around so quickly in our tank it doesn’t matter. If the scrubber is stripping the water of so much that algae can’t grow in the tank, it would start killing everything else in the display. It doesnt seem to do that though

 

[VintageReefer]

No

And if the elements and nutrients consumed by the scrubber are supplemented in the display, the device will not give the desired results

Ok so I supplement more. Are the frags in the sump going to slow down the corals in the tank if the parameters are maintained?

Adding on. This is also what happens when a scrubber is undersized. It can’t make enough of a difference to cause an effect

If your sump was low flow, and packed with full grown, thriving, fast growing acropora colonies, and had trace + aminos + alk/CA slow dripped in, it’s very possible that the display wouldn’t be as successful, because as water leaves the sump, it would have been stripped by the acro colonies

 

[rishma]

The water is moving around so quickly in our tank it doesn’t matter. If the scrubber is stripping the water of so much that algae can’t grow in the tank, it would start killing everything else in the display. It doesnt seem to do that though

Haha, I find myself arguing on the side of scrubbers and I don’t care for them. :)

Is it plausible that the favorable conditions in the scrubber allow growth at lower trace/nutrient levels than would be needed under the less favorable conditions in the display?

 

[Imrahilwjz]

Extending that thinking a bit…

ATS users are confident it can, but the answers are complicated.

It does not appear to do so by consuming nutrients to the point that display algae would be limited. A number of such claims came from folks with plenty of nutrients.

That leaves competition for trace elements as a possible explanation. If true, that implies that dosing sufficient trace elements would eliminate the effect. It also would limit the ability to use both a method like moonshine and an ats together, expecting it will outcompete algae in the display.

I’m a little unclear where the reality lies.

I really respect this answer. I wish there was a "tipping my hat to you" emoji.

 

[rtparty]

Haha, I find myself arguing on the side of scrubbers and I don’t care for them. :)

Is it plausible that the favorable conditions in the scrubber allow growth at lower trace/nutrient levels than would be needed under the less favorable conditions in the display?

I’ve used them multiple times and credit them for helping run successful systems. I see them as a tool and nothing more.

IF they work by stripping EVERYTHING from the water that GHA needs to grow in the display, I wonder what other damage they’re doing by removing that much

 

[VintageReefer]

The water is moving around so quickly in our tank it doesn’t matter. If the scrubber is stripping the water of so much that algae can’t grow in the tank, it would start killing everything else in the display. It doesnt seem to do that though

True. But my sump for example is 3-4x display turnover rate. And the water that goes in and out the scrubber, is even less. It’s a slow worker slowly chopping away at the elements and nutrients, constantly.

Scrubbers work different compared to other nutrient control methods.

Those using skimmers and water changes and filter socks - you are trying to prevent, or reduce the things that cause phosphates. Skimmers don’t remove phosphates and neither does water changes. Or socks. You are removing materials like fish excrement and detritus before it gets converted to phosphate, as a means to keep phosphate under control and limited

Think different with scrubbers. They allow these items to turn into phosphate, and then they remove phosphate directly from the water. The difference is it does this afterwards, which gives the corals a chance to get what they need before it’s removed. It’s a constant process as it’s constantly being created and constantly being pulled. And yes this gives display algae a chance to get it also, but the scrubber environment is designed to be ideal for algae. More so than the display tank. The display is designed for coral growth and algae typically tags along
The scrubber is designed for algae growth. The corals outcompete in the display and the scrubber outcompetes from the sump

 

[VintageReefer]

I’ve used them multiple times and credit them for helping run successful systems. I see them as a tool and nothing more.

IF they work by stripping EVERYTHING from the water that GHA needs to grow in the display, I wonder what other damage they’re doing by removing that much

I use one and it’s been my primary filtration on every tank I’ve run for the last 10 years. I don’t do water changes and I don’t run a skimmer or mech filtration

It doesn’t strip things completely. I do still get occasional gha in my display. But, it’s not out of control and you have to go out of your way to find it. The scrubber helps manage and limit it, but it’s not eliminated.

Week after week I have to pull handfuls of algae from my scrubber, and I have not had to remove algae from the display in months. It clearly grows faster in one area than the other. I keep a very small cleanup crew for a 75g so don’t go citing herbivores on me lol. They don’t touch the gha anyway.

 

[Gribbles]

True. But my sump for example is 3-4x display turnover rate. And the water that goes in and out the scrubber, is even less. It’s a slow worker slowly chopping away at the elements and nutrients, constantly.

Scrubbers work different compared to other nutrient control methods.

Those using skimmers and water changes and filter socks - you are trying to prevent, or reduce the things that cause phosphates. Skimmers don’t remove phosphates and neither does water changes. Or socks. You are removing materials like fish excrement and detritus before it gets converted to phosphate, as a means to keep phosphate under control and limited

Think different with scrubbers. They allow these items to turn into phosphate, and then they remove phosphate directly from the water. The difference is it does this afterwards, which gives the corals a chance to get what they need before it’s removed. It’s a constant process as it’s constantly being created and constantly being pulled. And yes this gives display algae a chance to get it also, but the scrubber environment is designed to be ideal for algae. More so than the display tank. The display is designed for coral growth and algae typically tags along
The scrubber is designed for algae growth. The corals outcompete in the display and the scrubber outcompetes from the sump

Water changes absolutely do remove phosphate from the water....

 

[VintageReefer]

for those wanting proof - and this has been repeatable for me over the years:
My tank went through a period of neglect, and I gave up on it for months. When I decided to reboot it, this is what I was facing

I reviewed and found that my scrubbers air pump was dead. I don’t know how long. Could have been weeks or months. I really wasn’t paying attention tot he tank except for adding some food daily for the couple fish in it.

I bought a new air pimp and got the scrubber back online. I made no other changes. This is the tank a month later

The scrubber went through 4 harvests

The display algae significantly reduced and eventually was virtually eliminated

The whole process took just under 3 months. Over the last 2.5 years, I’ve had the algae come back once. And upon review, the air pump (dual outlet) had one outlet not outputting air due to a damaged internal bladder. I replaced the air pump, and over a few weeks, the algae turned pale, disintegrated , and didn’t come back. I would say easily 90-95% reduction / elimination both times from no change other than fixing the scrubber.

 

[VintageReefer]

Water changes absolutely do remove phosphate from the water....

Ok correction. Water changes are an inefficient means to lower phosphate levels and seldom have any effect.

 

[VintageReefer]

And don’t cite herbivores on me please. The timing of those pics - the algae grew and grew despite the present cleanup crew. They allowed it to grow. I had no herbivorous fish and roughly 10 snails and 3-5 crabs in a 75g display. Nothing touches algae that long we all know this. Herbivores prefer short new growth. And it grew despite them. Getting the scrubber online was the only change that was made.

 

[rishma]

I’ve used them multiple times and credit them for helping run successful systems. I see them as a tool and nothing more.

IF they work by stripping EVERYTHING from the water that GHA needs to grow in the display, I wonder what other damage they’re doing by removing that much

I’m not saying stripping everything. I’m pondering the idea that perhaps GHA in the display needs higher levels of trace and nutrients in the water to grow than it does in the ATS because the ATS has better lighting, flow, substrate to grow on. I’m not certain that makes sense biologically. It’s just a theory that might explain why many ATS users like @Vintage reefer report the reduced algae in the display.