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

[Jimmyneptune]

I had an LG turf scrubber before never worked really well. The problem with the turf scrubber Was I a used algae fix and that stoped scrubber it never really would grow.
Now I have chaeto with a grow light and it's easy. There no cleaning, pumps getting clogged or problems in the chaeto grows a little bit too much I just throw some away.

 

[Turbo's Aquatics]

@chipmunkofdoom2 very well put. But the real question is, what happened to the original ("1") chipmunkofdoom?

 

[Scott Campbell]

I think the trouble with turf scrubbers is that we like to treat everything in this hobby as black and white. We like to boil things down to "yes this is the best and only filter you'll ever need" or "no this is the worst thing ever and it can't be your only filter." Scrubbers rely on algae to remove nutrients, and as a result they aren't as easy to control as a skimmer or GFO reactor. Biology and living organisms don't always do what we want or intend them to do. That doesn't mean that they can't be a functioning part of an effective nutrient removal strategy.

I had a small DIY scrubber on my tank before I started experimenting with organic carbon dosing, and very quickly the screen started to accumulate algae. I feel it made an appreciable dent in my display tank algae. But, this is just my experience. There's no guarantee that a scrubber will work for everyone. A good example of this is chaeto. There are some folks who are, for one reason or another, unable to grow chaeto. I'd imagine these people will have issues implementing an ATS as well, although I can't be sure. You're growing a separate colony of algae. Your tank may or may not have the macro and micronutrient profile these organisms need to survive and thrive. If one water parameter is off and that stunts the algae's growth you'll likely see diminished results. This, however, is the case with any biologically-driven nutrient reduction system, be it bacteria (fed by organic carbon), chaeto or turf algae. That doesn't meant that algae scrubbers don't work or can't work, just that they're not a silver bullet and that they may not work for everyone.

I like to think of each intervention in the hobby like medication. There is a desired outcome, but there are usually some side effects that come with the desired outcome. Protein skimming is a good example. I think it's pretty universally accepted that the pros for skimming far outweigh the potential side effects or cons. Sure, skimmers are expensive, the pump from the skimmer adds some heat to the water and needlewheel varieties should be cleaned periodically to avoid decreases in performance. Complexity, cost and maintenance aside, however, protein skimming is very effective at removing dissolved organics from the water. In other words, it's sort of a no-brainer because of how much the pros outweigh the cons. Turf scrubbers are not so black and white. They have the benefits associated with other algae-based nutrient reduction methods (CO2 consumption, elevated pH, lower P and N, more natural and potentially lower operating cost), but they also have some drawbacks. That doesn't mean they're inherently "good" or "bad," it just means there are more pros and cons to weigh before deciding to implement one.

Personally, I think the discussion around turf scrubbers should focus on the pros and cons. If your ATS didn't work or you just don't like them, that's fine. Everyone should share their opinion and experience. Every tank is different though. I feel our goal as informed hobbyists should be to share information that allows people to make their own educated decisions about what is best for their tank.

EDIT: What's stopping me from installing an ATS is space consideration and cost. I have a skimmer and dose organic carbon, so I don't need an ATS. I wouldn't be opposed to running one in the future though.

Excellent response.

I have grown algae as an export mechanism for 30+ years but eventually gave up on the ATS because it seemed as if the ATS was selecting for a very narrow range of algae and micro-fauna. The turf algae and certain copepods certainly grow extremely well. But I worried that it was stripping the water of nutrients specific to just that algae type. And that certain copepods were overwhelming other micro-fauna. With a refugium I can keep a wider range of algae and micro-fauna - more worms, mysis shrimp, micro stars, many different types of macro algae and so on. The refugium is not as robust at removing nitrate and phosphate as an ATS but it is more adaptive and flexible in dealing with imbalances, heavy metals and the vagaries of a reef aquarium. And there are other options to assist with nitrate and phosphate. As the Chipmunk of Doom notes - an ATS is not necessarily a slam dunk. An ATS is an attractive option because of its simplicity. But I have come to appreciate the benefits and stability that diversity and complexity offers.

 

[Picassoclown]

I'd really be interested in seeing that data. I just can't see it being a better invironment, but if it is, I'd like to see the data.

Hey @gcarroll The information that I read was from an independent study that I saw on google and a few case studies I found on algaescrubber.net/forums (on the bottome of the page)

 

[gcarroll]

Simple enough question really, so are you not convinced by them, too expensive, don't understand them, can't fit one or some other reason?

Quite simply answers like this.

Hey @gcarroll The information that I read was from an independent study that I saw on google and a few case studies I found on algaescrubber.net/forums (on the bottome of the page)

Like i'm going to read through 9 studies to answer a single question. This is the problem that I have always had with this method. If you are limited in space, algae scrubbers are great but I have seen nothing that I have seen that shows Chaeto is not a good alternative. Especially if you can afford the space for a larger refugium.

 

[TbyZ]

Scrubbers rely on algae to remove nutrients, and as a result they aren't as easy to control as a skimmer or GFO reactor.

A scrubber can be adjusted by waterflow volume, photo-period & photo-intensity, * size of screen.

They are excellent at phosphate removal, leaving the expence & hassel of GFO unnecessary.

They are excellent at removing nitrogen products, where as a skimmer removes none.

There's no guarantee that a scrubber will work for everyone. A good example of this is chaeto. There are some folks who are, for one reason or another, unable to grow chaeto. I'd imagine these people will have issues implementing an ATS as well, although I can't be sure.

An ATS provides a perfect environment for growing algae, so long as the correct lighting is used, it impossible for algae not to grow.

Your tank may or may not have the macro and micronutrient profile these organisms need to survive and thrive. If one water parameter is off and that stunts the algae's growth you'll likely see diminished results.

What does algae need to grow? co2 - water - light - nutrients.
If you feed your tank then you will have nutrients - phosphate & nitrogen - iron.

In all the time I have had an ATS I have never had trouble growing algae on the screen.

You don't have to use an ATS, but I wonder why you spend so much time & effort trying to imaginie up so many reasons why they might not work.

 

[TbyZ]

I'd really be interested in seeing that data. I just can't see it being a better invironment, but if it is, I'd like to see the data.

Do you use a skimmer?

I can provide data that shows skimmers are ineffective at removing organics & are not effective at removing bacteria.

would that convince you to stop using your skimmer?

 

[TbyZ]

Would a santa Monica drop .6 be effective on a jbj 45 gallon tank or would I need something different?

you should ask him for advice

 

[gcarroll]

Do you use a skimmer?

I can provide data that shows skimmers are ineffective at removing organics & are not effective at removing bacteria.

would that convince you to stop using your skimmer?

Can you answer my question regarding the pod production?

Yes I ran a skimmer on my last tank

No because the data is obviously irrelevant to whether or not my tank would be successful employing a skimmer instead of algae.

 

[TbyZ]

Can you answer my question regarding the pod production?

Yes I ran a skimmer on my last tank

No because the data is obviously irrelevant to whether or not my tank would be successful employing a skimmer instead of algae.

You want a reference to a study providing data to back up the anecdotal evidence that algae growing on a screen or in a refugium provides an optimum environment to enable the proliferation of pods?

There could be one, i don't know, i haven't searched for one.

It is the case, in my exprrience.

Perhaps you'd like to provide data suggesting why that environment wouldn't enhance pod production, seeing as you find it hard to believe?

 

[Picassoclown]

@gcarroll http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?65-ALGAE-SCRUBBER-FAQ & http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2405436 I cannot find the study on google as it was quite a while ago and as far as the case studies as I mentioned earlier, what I should have said was anecdotal evidence so I do apologize for that. The links provided are what people have experienced with their ATS. @TbyZ He is correct in everything he is saying, basically @gcarroll the ATS allows hair algae to grow, which grows a lot faster than chaeto does, which is why an ATS can kill off the macro in your refugium. ATS allows for faster nutrient export, which will allow bacteria to feed on phosphates, and other organic matter, which in turn fosters the growth of copepods. The beauty of this system is the speed of nutrient export and as a result is the very fast growth of copepods.

 

[atoll]

Scrubbers rely on algae to remove nutrients, and as a result they aren't as easy to control as a skimmer or GFO reactor.

Interesting, what makes you believe that as IME that is the opposite?

 

[atoll]

ATS allows hair algae to grow, which grows a lot faster than chaeto does, .

Currently, my Atlantis 2 is growing a couple of different types of algae on the screen inc at least 2 types of GHA maybe more. However, the predominant algae growing is Ulva intestinalis. Tis algae grows at a phenomenal rate, in fact,

a lot faster than GHA IME. I one week I grew 300grammes of the stuff from an amlost **** screen.

 

[Picassoclown]

Currently, my Atlantis 2 is growing a couple of different types of algae on the screen inc at least 2 types of GHA maybe more. However, the predominant algae growing is Ulva intestinalis. Tis algae grows at a phenomenal rate, in fact,

a lot faster than GHA IME. I one week I grew 300grammes of the stuff from an amlost **** screen.

@atoll Mhhh what a delicious bowl of salad...hahaha! That is insane man!! What is your copepod growth like and how is the colony in the tank?

 

[atoll]

@atoll Mhhh what a delicious bowl of salad...hahaha! That is insane man!! What is your copepod growth like and how is the colony in the tank?

No signs of copepods in the ulva as yet but early days and I prune back hard to the screen so I may never get a good population growing on it. I see few pods in my DT as I have many fish they prey on them but I do see the odd few at night.

This is how hard I prune the Ulva back and I still get amazing regrowth a week later, in fact it is 7 days to the day since my last harvest

and I will harvest again today

 

[atoll]

Just done another hard back to the screen harvest, last week I harvested exactly 300grammes this week yet another increase too 338 grammes. I will let the pic's speak for themselves, however, should you have any questions fire away.

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

You don't have to use an ATS, but I wonder why you spend so much time & effort trying to imaginie up so many reasons why they might not work.

I didn't "spend so much time and effort" thinking up reasons why scrubbers don't work. That reply took about 5 minutes to type. I've spent a lot of time learning about scrubbers because I find them interesting. There's no denying that there are lots of people out there for whom scrubbers have not worked. I don't know how many, and it may only be a small minority of the people who have tried scrubbers. But still, in every scrubber thread you have "that guy" who claims that their scrubber didn't work and it was a waste of time. You can't simply discount their experience because your scrubber works for you. It would be a lot more helpful for all hobbyists if there was an open dialog to attempt to figure out what factors contributed to the scrubber not performing adequately. I'd like to see a bit more discussion as to why instead of name-calling or blaming the hobbyist for inadequate setup. If a scrubber doesn't work, it's not because they don't work as a concept. There are plenty of reefers out there like you who have great success using them. If a scrubber doesn't work, there's a reason, and it would be good to discuss why.

Interesting, what makes you believe that as IME that is the opposite?

When I installed my scrubber, it took a week or so to start growing algae. When I installed my skimmer, it was pulling skimmate the second day. When I installed my GFO reactor, I decided exactly how much GFO to place in it and how much flow should go through it. Phosphate levels started dropping the very next day. This doesn't mean that scrubbers are less configurable and controllable for everyone simply because they don't reduce nutrients the second you install them. As you stated, you find your scrubber to be more controllable than a skimmer. And that is totally fine. But for me, a skimmer and GFO reactor seemed to offer a greater level of control for my specific tank and needs. Which is also totally fine.

I didn't come to this thread to bad-mouth scrubbers. I even stated that I had used one, and that I attribute a significant decrease in algae in my DT to that scrubber. All I was saying was that I think we need more rational discussion around scrubbers instead of the same old "yes they're the best" or "no they're the worst."

@chipmunkofdoom2 very well put. But the real question is, what happened to the original ("1") chipmunkofdoom?

LOL, I don't know what happened to the original chipmunkofdoom. Long ago in junior high school, my friend used to draw a cartoon character called the "Chipmunk of Doom." It was basically a skeletal rodent in a cloak weilding a scythe. I thought that was a cool name, so I tried to register it on AOL Instant Messenger, but "chipmunkofdoom" was taken. I added a "2" and it worked!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

ATS allows for faster nutrient export, which will allow bacteria to feed on phosphates, and other organic matter, which in turn fosters the growth of copepods. The beauty of this system is the speed of nutrient export and as a result is the very fast growth of copepods.

Can you clarify what you mean by bacteria feeding on phosphate and how an ATS encourages that?

The algae on an ATS consume phosphate, reducing it, and I'm not sure how bacteria get involved in the discussion.

 

[atoll]

When I installed my scrubber, it took a week or so to start growing algae. When I installed my skimmer, it was pulling skimmate the second day. When I installed my GFO reactor, I decided exactly how much GFO to place in it and how much flow should go through it. Phosphate levels started dropping the very next day. This doesn't mean that scrubbers are less configurable and controllable for everyone simply because they don't reduce nutrients the second you install them.

But that does not really answer my question as to why Quote "Scrubbers rely on algae to remove nutrients, and as a result they aren't as easy to control as a skimmer or GFO reactor."
IME They are and I have used pellets and continue to use a skimmer. I seeded my ATS and immediately it started to grow Ulva thereby reducing NO3. I can easily control how much NO3 is will remove. Many skimmers take some time as you know to break in and start working so for many they don't immediately work but for you, I accept yours did.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But that does not really answer my question as to why Quote "Scrubbers rely on algae to remove nutrients, and as a result they aren't as easy to control as a skimmer or GFO reactor."

While it wasn't my comment, using GFO certainly allows one to export phosphate without further reducing nitrate if nitrate is normal or already too low, which is reasonably common. Hence GFO might be described as allowing more control.

It also allows more control in a very high phosphate setting, where mixed export system such as ATS, macroalgae, or organic carbon dosing might not be up to the task, either in the time it requires, or the amount of nitrate that would be needed.