algea scrubber
- Thread starter jimmyrow
- Start date
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
Your scrubber is ending up to be much like mine in results. My dump bucket fills up to get 3D light and water contact, much like yours, with just about the same volume of growth and the same kind of algae. I have 3 inches of water in the deep end and there is less room for growth at the other end.
What I like about that king of algae is that if you don't feel like scraping the screen that week, you can simply grab a hand full from either side and export is complete. Of course scrapping is better, particularly when you are starting out.
After a long time, that type of algae started growing on the smooth bottom of the tray so I stopped using the screen at all. I just grabbed hands full of the stuff and I was done. It tears away very nicely.
What I like about that king of algae is that if you don't feel like scraping the screen that week, you can simply grab a hand full from either side and export is complete. Of course scrapping is better, particularly when you are starting out.
After a long time, that type of algae started growing on the smooth bottom of the tray so I stopped using the screen at all. I just grabbed hands full of the stuff and I was done. It tears away very nicely.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
No ...not in my case. When I yank it out, the pods come with it. The ones that stay don't do noticeable damage. Perhaps it is the particular type of algae (long and stringy like Easter basket cellophane grass).
What I grow in not typical turf algae so perhaps that pods don't attach the root, they eat evenly. I'm not really sure.
What I grow in not typical turf algae so perhaps that pods don't attach the root, they eat evenly. I'm not really sure.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
You can fine this video of the dump bucket,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRoKX8AjEbI
on my website, along with another video of the splash and some articles that were publish when I made my last reef tank in the 90's. It also has some of what I am doing now. Take a look at it:
http://asaherring.com
Before you look at the video, look back at my dump bucket graphic as a review or see it on my web site. You will be able to pick out what is what a little better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRoKX8AjEbI
on my website, along with another video of the splash and some articles that were publish when I made my last reef tank in the 90's. It also has some of what I am doing now. Take a look at it:
http://asaherring.com
Before you look at the video, look back at my dump bucket graphic as a review or see it on my web site. You will be able to pick out what is what a little better.
shrimphead
New member
Hi i've got some questions for all you ATS heads out there,
i was at one point thinking of doing an ATS but was put off because of the maintenance seems more practical to me to just utilise a skimmer and some macro but this thread has been making me think otherwise but i've got some questions.
what do you do if you go on holiday, from what i read it is very important it is cleaned every week or 2 at most.
do you get much evaporation?
how do you stop it from entering your display or sump?
from that last post from kcress why do you have to grow the hair algae on a screen why not grow it submerged in dedicated a tank.
i was at one point thinking of doing an ATS but was put off because of the maintenance seems more practical to me to just utilise a skimmer and some macro but this thread has been making me think otherwise but i've got some questions.
what do you do if you go on holiday, from what i read it is very important it is cleaned every week or 2 at most.
do you get much evaporation?
how do you stop it from entering your display or sump?
from that last post from kcress why do you have to grow the hair algae on a screen why not grow it submerged in dedicated a tank.
kcress
New member
The subject appears to be changing. A classic ATS has some evaporation. And should be cleaned and freshwater rinsed once a week. The really new FATS can go for weeks before maintenance.
The light in the TS is so bright that the algae preferentially grows only in the TS. The result is very low to no nitrates in the Display, so there is no fuel for algae in the DT and the light is too weak.
The new FATS may allow you to avoid a screen. I'll try doing this without a screen.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
If the subject is changing a little so be it. There doesn't seem to be "œanyone here but use chickens".
I guess that a dump bucket is a FATS unit as well so I will chime in. One of the good things about agitation and/or turbulence is that you can go a lot longer without harvesting the algae because it doesn't get matted.
On the other have, dump buckets are very hard to design in the first place and you can't buy them, as far as I can tell.
As far as Kcress's FATS, in a worst case, if a small amount of the algae died during a long vacation, I would think that the massive growth would just take up or re-absorb anything that you might think of as bad.
In any case, with any good ATS design, if you really neglect the maintenance, what are the penalties that the detractors complain about? "¦Yellow water? "¦So what? Not dead corals!
I left my ATS unattended for 3 months with no yellow water and healthy corals at the end of that period.
I still don't think that an ATS is any better that a skimmer. It's just different. "¦but it does work and work well. I like it because I can keep food suspended longer. "¦and harvesting algae is much less gross than messing around with skimmate. I just wish that people had more inexpensive choices of ATS designs and manufacturers. I'm a designer with access to a machine shop but most people have to use a "œscrubber in a bucket" which works great if that is an acceptable shape for your tank set up.
I guess that a dump bucket is a FATS unit as well so I will chime in. One of the good things about agitation and/or turbulence is that you can go a lot longer without harvesting the algae because it doesn't get matted.
On the other have, dump buckets are very hard to design in the first place and you can't buy them, as far as I can tell.
As far as Kcress's FATS, in a worst case, if a small amount of the algae died during a long vacation, I would think that the massive growth would just take up or re-absorb anything that you might think of as bad.
In any case, with any good ATS design, if you really neglect the maintenance, what are the penalties that the detractors complain about? "¦Yellow water? "¦So what? Not dead corals!
I left my ATS unattended for 3 months with no yellow water and healthy corals at the end of that period.
I still don't think that an ATS is any better that a skimmer. It's just different. "¦but it does work and work well. I like it because I can keep food suspended longer. "¦and harvesting algae is much less gross than messing around with skimmate. I just wish that people had more inexpensive choices of ATS designs and manufacturers. I'm a designer with access to a machine shop but most people have to use a "œscrubber in a bucket" which works great if that is an acceptable shape for your tank set up.
PowermanKW
New member
So I have been doing some reading..... and I have a few questions too. Seems to me the this versus that is of no real use. The ATS setups I have seen seem unuser friendly and high maintenance. And no I am not bagging on them. Also seems like some of the criticizing of skimmers are not quite true. But my point is why not maximize what both do well?
From what I can tell the benefits of algae are in wide use today though macros in fuges. Albeit not near as efficient as a scrubber with powerful lighting. We all know the benefits achieved by letting nature do the work and using algae to clean the tank. Yet there seems to be some problems.
With a ATS harvesting needs to be done weekly because the algae will die underneath in the majority of GHA ATS. So it seems that the maximum depth of GHA is only so much and that has to be harvested. Am I correct.
Also the screen needs to be cleaned to kill pods because they eat the algae. Yet in a fuge that is sort of what you want. You want the algae to support pods yet at the end of the month or week you have a net export of nutrients. Sure the pods eat then get eaten then waste is put back into the water and those nutrients are not removed. But with removal of algae their is a net export.
So what I am really wondering is this..... have there been any experiments done with specific algae better suited for what we want.... meaning can grow more without dieing underneath so maintenance can be prolonged?
With common cheato fuges seems that a ball is just dumped in... have there been any attempts to grow cheato more efficiently scrubber style and exporting more nutrients than what is done now? Seems cheato might be better suited since more light can penetrate into the mass.
I still feel skimmers are good and needed. They are much more powerful now and most folks love over sizing them. My thinking is more like running the scrubber 16 hours on and skimming when it is off. Put the skimmer on during the day time and run the scrubber over night time when corals feed and ph drops. I guess I just wondering how to best compliment each other instead of a either or thing.
I tried looking up FATS which is why I'm on this tangent but could not find anything.
From what I can tell the benefits of algae are in wide use today though macros in fuges. Albeit not near as efficient as a scrubber with powerful lighting. We all know the benefits achieved by letting nature do the work and using algae to clean the tank. Yet there seems to be some problems.
With a ATS harvesting needs to be done weekly because the algae will die underneath in the majority of GHA ATS. So it seems that the maximum depth of GHA is only so much and that has to be harvested. Am I correct.
Also the screen needs to be cleaned to kill pods because they eat the algae. Yet in a fuge that is sort of what you want. You want the algae to support pods yet at the end of the month or week you have a net export of nutrients. Sure the pods eat then get eaten then waste is put back into the water and those nutrients are not removed. But with removal of algae their is a net export.
So what I am really wondering is this..... have there been any experiments done with specific algae better suited for what we want.... meaning can grow more without dieing underneath so maintenance can be prolonged?
With common cheato fuges seems that a ball is just dumped in... have there been any attempts to grow cheato more efficiently scrubber style and exporting more nutrients than what is done now? Seems cheato might be better suited since more light can penetrate into the mass.
I still feel skimmers are good and needed. They are much more powerful now and most folks love over sizing them. My thinking is more like running the scrubber 16 hours on and skimming when it is off. Put the skimmer on during the day time and run the scrubber over night time when corals feed and ph drops. I guess I just wondering how to best compliment each other instead of a either or thing.
I tried looking up FATS which is why I'm on this tangent but could not find anything.
kcress
New member
I just coined the term FATS in this string, from the FloodedAgalTurfScrubber that was brought up in this same thread. Hence you won't find anything on it yet. LOL
If you start up a good ATS in a system with cheato the cheato will shrivel up and die. It's flat out-competed by the ATS.
Best algae? It turns out that the best algae is the one that takes over and flourishes in your system. You cannot bring a particular one to the party and demand that It grows. On most systems the ATS will actually transition thru a few different species before the terminal resulting algae settles in. This all happens because the tank will actually change in certain nutritional ways as the ATS starts removing the nutrients.
It's really very cool and interesting and is a product of our complex systems. There are all these little micro zones that allow a large library of algae to exist in our tanks. When some condition changes one of them is naturally selected that will flourish. However as it kicks into gear it changes the tanks condition such that a different library species will be selected and then it flourishes. Ultimately when phosphates and nitrates bottom out the tank chemistry settles and the last selected algae is the final result. Over time it may shift itself from being, say, dark green to light green, but will remain the same species.
As for a skimmer and ATS, I considered that myself, then I see that most people end up ditching their skimmers once their ATS is running well. It probably doesn't make sense to run both and maintain both if you don't need to.
If you start up a good ATS in a system with cheato the cheato will shrivel up and die. It's flat out-competed by the ATS.
Best algae? It turns out that the best algae is the one that takes over and flourishes in your system. You cannot bring a particular one to the party and demand that It grows. On most systems the ATS will actually transition thru a few different species before the terminal resulting algae settles in. This all happens because the tank will actually change in certain nutritional ways as the ATS starts removing the nutrients.
It's really very cool and interesting and is a product of our complex systems. There are all these little micro zones that allow a large library of algae to exist in our tanks. When some condition changes one of them is naturally selected that will flourish. However as it kicks into gear it changes the tanks condition such that a different library species will be selected and then it flourishes. Ultimately when phosphates and nitrates bottom out the tank chemistry settles and the last selected algae is the final result. Over time it may shift itself from being, say, dark green to light green, but will remain the same species.
As for a skimmer and ATS, I considered that myself, then I see that most people end up ditching their skimmers once their ATS is running well. It probably doesn't make sense to run both and maintain both if you don't need to.
chrissu
Member
I run a FATS full time and I run my skimmer from time to time. The FATS keeps the water quality in check in spite of heavy feedings plus it keeps algae growth in the display tank at zero. The skimmer is definitely optional but I own it already and I don't run a sock so I crank up the skimmer to pull out any trace particles of food that may be floating around. For example, if we are having company over, guests want to see crystal clear water. I feel that the two devices complement each other.
PowermanKW
New member
But what about it is flooded? I was thinking of the velocities with the scrubber. 35 GPH per inch at only about 1/2 inch thick. To get the same velocity with a deeper tray/trough type setup would require substantial flow.
Out competed by more aggressive algae or out competed because it has superior lighting and flow? I mean we know Cheato is an aggressive invasive growing algae. Yet all we do is dump it in a container and put a spot light on it. If it had the same attention as the GHA gets in a ATS would it be choked out so easily? Probably, because GHA will grow underground
, but you get my point.sounds quite reasonable. Why go against Nature instead of just flowing with it.
Well the skimmer being a way to remove waste before it is broke down and reduce the load on the "system". Yet reading about ATS is that the algae will just pick up the slack. I can live with that but it is also not my goal to simply harvest vast amounts of algae for the trash can. Skimmers are easy to maintain as well. But if I buy the argument that protein skimmers remove food, well then perhaps aggressively over skimming the tank as seems to be the fad these days is not as productive.
What most people don't realize is that when we get fuges and big powerful skimmers going we HAVE to feed more... I argue the whole point in doing it is so we CAN feed more and more often. But ya... what is the point to increase food supply 10 fold if we just filter out half of it right off the bat. By the same token, what is the point of feeding more in a algae driven system if all we do is just grow more algae?
So perhaps relying more on a algae driven system than has been the case and having a skimmer compliment conditions instead of it being the heart of the system would be good. I mean today fuges are pretty wide spread today. Some feel the point is for macro, but fuges are for pod production. A ball of cheato thrown in is almost an after thought. If that part of the system was given more prominence then really we would sort of be talking about the same thing.
I had very low nitrates and phosphates in my system before I added a fuge. I had no nuisance algae in my display tank. I wanted a fuge for pods and micro fauna and looked at cheato growth as secondary. Just part of the habitat for pods. I wanted the cheato to mop up what ever was left over. In fact, my cheato hardly grew. It would take a grapefruit size ball two months to double in size. But I didn't care because it was not my intention to be a cheato farmer. However, perhaps I could have had a better balanced system if I skimmed less aggressively and relied more on the algae. Then at least food particles could have stayed in the water column longer and been utilized more by my corals. That's where I'm coming from. See what I mean?
PowermanKW
New member
Seems reasonable... So them what about your "ATS" is "F"looded? How is yours different than traditional ATS?
PowermanKW
New member
Sorry chrissu, I got caught up on what you were talking about.
Thast was sort of what I was envisioning. If you put cheato on on end and left the other, the GHA would probably win out. Yet that was what I was thinking about providing better conditions for cheato. Not that cheato is all that, but that it does allow deeper light penetration to the inside, and it does not clog drains and allows more flow. So if Cheato was grown in such a fasion, would it be a better way?
You mentioned you have twice the growth you need, so it would be ok if the cheato did not grow "as much" as the GHA.
Although, I concede to what kcress mentioned above... you can put in there what you want, but if GHA is going to take over the box, then there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Thast was sort of what I was envisioning. If you put cheato on on end and left the other, the GHA would probably win out. Yet that was what I was thinking about providing better conditions for cheato. Not that cheato is all that, but that it does allow deeper light penetration to the inside, and it does not clog drains and allows more flow. So if Cheato was grown in such a fasion, would it be a better way?
You mentioned you have twice the growth you need, so it would be ok if the cheato did not grow "as much" as the GHA.
Although, I concede to what kcress mentioned above... you can put in there what you want, but if GHA is going to take over the box, then there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Nice Herring. I constantly toy with the idea of a dump type TS.
jstdv8; I made a box as you seem to be describing.
I had a lot of problems with splashing getting on the optical faces and growing light blocking algae.
This is really sweet looking. How is it going?
widmer
Drug Enthusiast
Out competed by more aggressive algae or out competed because it has superior lighting and flow? I mean we know Cheato is an aggressive invasive growing algae. Yet all we do is dump it in a container and put a spot light on it. If it had the same attention as the GHA gets in a ATS would it be choked out so easily? Probably, because GHA will grow underground
I was under the impression that the reason chaeto is so trendy now is because it is considered very uninvasive, as compared to previously-common macros like caulerpa, and of course even less prolific than so many of the "problem" microalgaes.
Two tanks ago, my chaeto was growing great, but then the last tank there was simply nothing I could do to prevent a pesky microalgae from growing all over it and choking it out.
By nature of their simplicity, it appears that microalgaes will always be more dynamic and prolific than macroalgaes, and I would be very surprised if an ATS device could ever be converted to somehow harbor chaeto or any other macroalgae for a better effect.
kcress
New member
A "standard" ATS has a hanging surface and water runs down it. You have to do fresh water washing weekly or the PODs will cut the underside which drops lots of the turf into the water stream.
A FATS is set up so the hanging surface is sitting in several inches of water. The T starts everywhere but since it's flooded and supported by the water column at the bottom the growth will come outward from the hanging surface until it fills the entire flooded volume. At that point it starts building upward into upper space. As that happens the flooded area grows upward.
Because of this three dimensional grow the pods can eat where they will and any cut-free algae will just remain hung up in the matrix. Hence, the reason you don't have to rinse to kill the pods. The pods become a 'don't care'. Velocity even, becomes a less detailed value. Bright light becomes more important so it can punch thru the 3D growth to keep it all growing.
Out competed by more aggressive algae or out competed because it has superior lighting and flow? I mean we know Cheato is an aggressive invasive growing algae. Yet all we do is dump it in a container and put a spot light on it. If it had the same attention as the GHA gets in a ATS would it be choked out so easily? Probably, because GHA will grow underground
Out competed 1)because you can't reasonably light cheato since it's a relatively large and self-obscuring structure. 2) Because it doesn't have billions of growth origins to work from - being a macro means it has to grow just where the structure allows. 3) Again, due to its structure it has less surface area available for nutrient take-up as compared to a filamentous hair algae.
As for being an "algae harvester", I love it. It all goes out in my compost pile or under selected plants - to continue the 'cycle of life'. It beats hell outta skimmate games. (eeeeu)
Similar threads
