OK so what is stopping you installing an Algae Turf Scrubber on your system?

[d2mini]

As per my illustration of efficiency a couple fo posts back I am waiting for answers on or not as people chose.

Ah I see now you edited your post with more info.

We need someone like BRS to do a test between the two to see if there is a significant difference between the two (or three if we include the new cheato reactors) methods.
I definitely see advantages to both but at this time wouldn't say there is a clear advantage to using one over the other until some publishes some clear data.
Until then I believe it just depends on your needs and personal preferences. It's already been proven that either will make a substantial dent in your nutrients if setup and run correctly.

 

[atoll]

Perhaps the main issue with growing any form of green algae in a sump or ATS is maximising the amount of light getting to it = efficiency. This a waterfall ATS does better than any other form of algae filtration I know of used with aquariums. It goes without saying a relatively thin layer of say GHA will receive more light than a very thick layer of say cheato or indeed GHA. This alone makes a waterfall ATS very efficient compared to other forms of algae filtration I know of.

 

[Cory]

Perhaps the main issue with growing any form of green algae in a sump or ATS is maximising the amount of light getting to it = efficiency. This a waterfall ATS does better than any other form of algae filtration I know of used with aquariums. It goes without saying a relatively thin layer of say GHA will receive more light than a very thick layer of say cheato or indeed GHA. This alone makes a waterfall ATS very efficient compared to other forms of algae filtration I know of.

Yeah and if you need a 20 gallon full of chaeto to have the same processing power as a 12x12" screen of hair algae, youll also need more light than a ats because chaeto will block the chaeto below it.

 

[d2mini]

Yep, i can wrap my head around the idea of an ATS taking up less space to remove the same amount of nutrients.
I'm more interested in claims that its removing a larger variety of things from the water or creating other benefits in regards to water quality.

 

[atoll]

I run an ATS and it seems to work very well (maybe a little too well). The only complaint I have is that it's more difficult to fine tune to your tank's nutrient load. With carbon dosing you can just increase or decrease the dose.

Just increase or decrease the light on an ATS or failing that the duration which may be even easier to do.

 

[Gil03]

Do you use anything to control nutrients? Like live rock, skimmer, DBS, NoPox, denitrification, carbon dosing, vinegar, vodka etc etc?

I have a good sized reactor full of Matrix as well as some in a sock in a chamber in the sump along with a good amount of LR in the DT. On top of this I dose seed/remediation once a week and 1ml of NoPox daily. This enables me to maintain zero nitrates and under .03 phosphates with once a month WC's. This works for my system and it's important for me to emphasize the My System part.

 

[atoll]

I have a good sized reactor full of Matrix as well as some in a sock in a chamber in the sump along with a good amount of LR in the DT. On top of this I dose seed/remediation once a week and 1ml of NoPox daily. This enables me to maintain zero nitrates and under .03 phosphates with once a month WC's. This works for my system and it's important for me to emphasize the My System part.

So you use nutrient export as I thought just different method well combination of different methods and an ATS is just one method and once bought you don't have to keep buying.

 

[hart24601]

It's fun to guess about what amount of ATS = chaeto but without testing it's pretty hard to say 1" of screen is = to x amount of chaeto (and is that free floating ball or reactor). I had a scrubber one that didn't grow anything but chaeto did grow, so for my experience the chaeto would appear to be vastly more efficient even though it most likely isn't.

It seems like scrubbers take a while to get going, not always the case of course, but it can be based off posts I have seen. I have seen far more hit and miss results with a scrubber then simple macro algae, not that I think one is inherently better than the other - I use neither.

 

[atoll]

It's fun to guess about what amount of ATS = chaeto but without testing it's pretty hard to say 1" of screen is = to x amount of chaeto (and is that free floating ball or reactor). I had a scrubber one that didn't grow anything but chaeto did grow, so for my experience the chaeto would appear to be vastly more efficient even though it most likely isn't.

It seems like scrubbers take a while to get going, not always the case of course, but it can be based off posts I have seen. I have seen far more hit and miss results with a scrubber then simple macro algae, not that I think one is inherently better than the other - I use neither.

For reasons not fully understood an ATS or cheato may not work as well as some may hope. There are so many influencing factors as to why one system might work while another might not or not work as good as the next. I can only speak from y own experiences using various forms of algae filtration over 30 years. I know what works best for me and that is what matters most to me rather than the whys and what fors. I have used Nopox and sure it brought my NO3 and PO4 down but I don't want to keep dosing the stuff along with the cost involved. When people ask for scientific papers and the like I don't write them I only write about my observations I leave the writing of scientific papers for those better able to. Whatever works best for people is fine but unless you have tried the various methods then you will never know what suits you or your system best. However, I understand people may not want to try all the methods available to reduce nutrients.

 

[DBR_Reef]

The reason why ats are more efficient than caulerpa or chaeto i posted back there. Its because rapid water flow forces nutrients into the cells of algae. And per unit of area there is more algae density than a unit area of chaeto or other macroalgae.

I really doubt this is the reason- it doesn't make sense biologically or thermodynamically. Nutrients have to be actively transported across the cell boundary- very few things passively diffuse across cell boundaries (gasses, water (kind-of), some very small molecules), and the nutrients we are talking about are not one of them. They definitely cannot be forced into the cell, unless the cell wall is being breached, which would kill the cell. If you were using "forced" as a kind of short hand for nutrients being moved to the cell boundary more quickly than in other circumstances, you would need an extremely stagnant body of water to get even some diffusion limited nutrient transport.

There is probably a difference in efficiency between macro algae and green hair algae, but beyond that if there is any efficiency difference, my guess is it is derived from better access to light and possibly better gas exchange. I'd bet a lot of the difference hobbyist see is due to increased quality and intensity of light when switching to a ats (ie switching from a 23w cfl lighting a fuge to a 120w led grow light).

 

[atoll]

I'd bet a lot of the difference hobbyist see is due to increased quality and intensity of light when switching to a ats (ie switching from a 23w cfl lighting a fuge to a 120w led grow light).

But you have to get the light to the algae efficiently I think you will agree. 120w of LED grow light on say a cheato fuge as opposed to 48w of LED's in an ATS with the vast majority of that light getting to the algae on the ATS with far less light shading.

 

[DBR_Reef]

But you have to get the light to the algae efficiently I think you will agree. 120w of LED grow light on say a cheato fuge as opposed to 48w of LED's in an ATS with the vast majority of that light getting to the algae on the ATS with far less light shading.

Yes, I definitely agree, efficient light delivery is easier with a ats. Although a tumbling ball of cheato is probably not too much worse

 

[Cory]

I really doubt this is the reason- it doesn't make sense biologically or thermodynamically. Nutrients have to be actively transported across the cell boundary- very few things passively diffuse across cell boundaries (gasses, water (kind-of), some very small molecules), and the nutrients we are talking about are not one of them. They definitely cannot be forced into the cell, unless the cell wall is being breached, which would kill the cell. If you were using "forced" as a kind of short hand for nutrients being moved to the cell boundary more quickly than in other circumstances, you would need an extremely stagnant body of water to get even some diffusion limited nutrient transport.

There is probably a difference in efficiency between macro algae and green hair algae, but beyond that if there is any efficiency difference, my guess is it is derived from better access to light and possibly better gas exchange. I'd bet a lot of the difference hobbyist see is due to increased quality and intensity of light when switching to a ats (ie switching from a 23w cfl lighting a fuge to a 120w led grow light).

Well thats what Dr Adey wrote on his web page. Hes the inventor of the ats.

 

[atoll]

Although a tumbling ball of cheato is probably not too much worse

I hear of people having problems of one sort for another with that as well

 

[DBR_Reef]

Well thats what Dr Adey wrote on his web page. Hes the inventor of the ats.

OK, I found what you were refering to-
"Given strong current, surge or wave action, sunlight and regular grazing, or harvest, algal turfs can be highly efficient at capturing solar energy. Most individual cells of algal turfs are photosynthetic; however, the high level of efficiency of algal turfs is also partly the result of mixing: flowing water, forced against cells by surge, greatly increases chemical exchange. Photosynthesis in most higher plant and planktonic algal cells is biochemically inhibited in full sunlight, especially at high temperatures. Algal turfs in ATS systems are not photo or temperature inhibited.
Because of the back and forth swashing of filaments in wave surge, individual cells in an ATS receive flashing light and no cells are fully shaded by others. The typical problem of terrestrial plants: water loss, stomata closure and CO2 cut off does not occur. As measured by oxygen release, there is no inhibition in ATS even in full tropical summer sun at mid day. A very high proportion of light energy captured is transferred to chemical storage as added biomass."

His wording is slightly confusing, but he's saying that the water is forced against the cell wall, not into it. The chemical exchange that he is talking about is in reference to gas exchange, particularly CO2, not the nutrients we talk about. I doubt there is a significant difference is CO2 availability between most ATS and fuge setups, but it is possible, like I said before, that gas exchange is improved.

 

[luke33]

But again, he is talking about Turf Algae. Most of these "ATS" systems used today are just GHA, not Turf. Like Turbo's, his is a AS system as he recognizes this.

 

[atoll]

Just ordered the first edition of Dr Ady's book, an oldie but a goaldie.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272654782791?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

 

[atoll]

But again, he is talking about Turf Algae. Most of these "ATS" systems used today are just GHA, not Turf. Like Turbo's, his is a AS system as he recognizes this.

So then just what is classed as "turf"?

 

[luke33]

Turf is a thick mat of algae. Kind of reminds me of moss vs weed. Weed just grows quickly all over the place in patches and moss has a form to it and mat.

Turf algae has always been said to have different absorption properties vs macro and GHA. That's why I keep mentioning ATS vs AS as these are not the same. Nearly every hobbyist "ATS" is just an algae scrubber, not a turf scrubber. Inland aquatics is the only one out there I know that sells true turf scrubbers. They are large and bulky, but work well.

 

[atoll]

Turf is a thick mat of algae. Kind of reminds me of moss vs weed.

That sounds exactly like the algae I grew in my Seabreeze. I never got long light green hair algae just this thick dark compact algae growing on the screen. The pic above it of 2 weeks growth. I increased the LED grow lighting considerably and got faster the turf like algae but never GHA. Having said that there is probably many different species of turf algae of which the type above may just be one.