All sorts of algae recently popping up?

[chrissu]

What evidence do you have to support that 10-50x? That seems unlikely to me.

We're really getting off topic here. The member who started the thread titled it "All sorts of algae recently popping up?"

Trying running a modern, well designed, and properly sized ATS and test the algae production for yourself. I have, and I am telling you from experience that the evidence is very credible and easily confirmable by yourself - if you have the right ATS. In other words, not all ATS are the same. Just as all skimmers are not the same. Some skimmers produce much more skimate than others and some ATS produce much more algae than others. The one thing all of these devices have is they all have to be properly designed and sized for the individual aquarium. If you haven't this experience, you just don't know what you don't know.

With an efficient ATS, your algae problems will go away. The algae growing in your sump will out compete every last bit of algae growing in your display tank. I have all this algae in my sump - I never have any algae in my display tank. Not a bit. :dance:

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Trying running a modern, well designed, and properly sized ATS and test the algae production for yourself.

That's not really much of an answer to my question of what evidence you have that it is 10-50 x more effective.

In truth, such numbers are probably irrelevant if they focus on space used, even if they are accurate. A well run macroalgae refugium can certainly take out more than 50% of the excess nutrients in a reef tank, so no system of any type could possibly be more than twice as effective overall.

 

[tmz]

Gee, I don't use an ats at this time and have no algae in my display either. How could that be? Glad you are enjoying your ats experience. Hope it contiues to work for you.

Suggesting various methods to help the original poster solve the algae problem including the ats is positve.
However, hyping one technique with unsubstantiated claims including: false numbers, lack of costs when it can be quite expensive, claims to a permanent solution and even magic at the expense of other valid techniques demonstrates a biased myopic tunneled view of things which is not helpful even if it springs from genuine enthusiasm. There is already a good thread on this technique for those who are interested in it and it has been cited.

If something is stated as a fact , 10 to 50x more effective for example, it clearly implies some measure was made. If it was not measured and it appears it wasn't than stating it that way is misleading.
BTW as for moving off topic , ats posts usually wind up in hijacked threads turning into ats testimonials . They usually start with over statements about the efficacy of this technique.When challenged ,a questioner is ultimately told they must use one to have a bonifide opinion . A blitz of technical detail ,relevant or not ,making an effort at an illusion of science or other hocus pocus usually follows. Next comes if it didn't work, you didn't use the right one or your technique was somehow flawed. Sometimes it even turns into a sales pitch for a particular product and there have been some folks shilling and misrepresenting equipment and ats paraphernelia they were selling on RC in the past.

 

[chrissu]

Ah, but my friend, if you look back you have replaced my references to the term "volume" with your own term of "effective". Those are two very different things as you well know.

My experiences measuring well strained cheato export vs well strained micro algae export during a given time period are my own granted and while 10x is conservatively what I have realized, I probably overstated the 50x so I'll give you that.

Dr. Walter Adey from the Smithsonian is the scientist that proved the natural methods of ATS use, not I. No, I don't have an agenda, and it is usually some LFS employee that throws out the negative comments because they do have an agenda to protect the products that they do sell. If you haven't read up you can learn more about Dr Adey's work at the Smithsonian at http://walteradey.com.

Both Macro and Micro algae are able to take out more than 50% of excess nutrients. We're both are on the same team here and my hope is that others benefit from such good hearted discussions among fellow reefers.

 

[bertoni]

Algae scrubbers can be effective; I think we've all heard about Dr Adey's systems. There are other approaches that get the job done, though. I haven't seen any cost estimates for running all the various options, which IMO is important. Also, some implementations of algae scrubbers are noisy and large, which has been an issue.

 

[srusso]

Also, some implementations of algae scrubbers are noisy and large, which has been an issue.

That is a very uninformed comment, especially coming from a moderator.
Bad design effects any product... Well built algae scrubbers aren't noisy and aren't large. In fact if you know anything about algae scrubbers you would know a 5" inch x 5" inch screen is capable of filtering a 50 gallon tank...

I am so sick of the miss-information around algae scrubber!

And as for cost... do some research, your wrong again... I build my scrubber for less then $25...

 

[HighlandReefer]

In fact if you know anything about algae scrubbers you would know a 5" inch x 5" inch screen is capable of filtering a 50 gallon tank...

First I have no experience with algae scrubbers but have heard good things about them.

Your statement above has little meaning as far as the amount of nitrate/phosphate and other wastes that an algae scrubber can remove. Are you saying that a 50 gallon tank with over 100 ppm nitrate can be quickly reduced in say about 90 days, using that size algae scrubber and then maintained at the proper level without other interactions? You have proof of this?

 

[srusso]

First I have no experience with algae scrubbers but have heard good things about them.

Your statement above has little meaning as far as the amount of nitrate/phosphate and other wastes that an algae scrubber can remove. Are you saying that a 50 gallon tank with over 100 ppm nitrate can be quickly reduced in say about 90 days, using that size algae scrubber and then maintained at the proper level without other interactions? You have proof of this?

The statement was only referring to size (when he says "large")

The short answer is yes, build an algae scrubber and see for yourself. As for proof, its out there. I will start to gather a little of it for you later today. I am just about to leave and pickup a free 30 gallon tank and a hippo tang!! Cant wait!!!

An algae scrubber will not only remove it but it will bring it down to undetectable levels. But before you go and build one, Do your research.
I cant force you to believe me, and believing will only come with your fare share of studying. So hit the books, and when your done I know you will be converted. Once you go ATS you realize how hard everyone else is working and you don't have too...

What still not convinced... How about this FACT... A tank with a properly built Algae Scrubber will never need water changes when it comes to doing water changes to lower N and P.


Skimmers work by removing food from the water column before they can become nitrate and phosphates. What about the stuff thats already converted? You need the live rock for that, you need water chages for that...

Algae Scrubbers work by consuming nitrates and phosphates as they are made available.

See why water changes are needed for Skimmers and not for Algae Scrubbers?

This makes a lot of manufactures very mad... less salt needed, less need for expensive plastic cones... less need for chemicals, for bio balls, filter sock, and the like...
Which in turn makes them less money, and more angry... :headwalls:

I will leave some of the other major surprises up to you to find. :inlove:

 

[HighlandReefer]

I do admit I have not researched much on algae scrubbers but the idea does interest me. Any links or info as examples would be appreciated.

Natural biological filtration does have its advantages.

One thing when you claim that water changes are not necessary & perhaps not running GAC that bothers me is the fact that algae & other possible bacteria, dinos, cyanobacteria.....etc, entrapped within the algae scrubber do produce some nasty toxins. Whether or not the algae scrubber completely reduces all the toxins involved concerns me to the point where I would not recommend no water changes or not running GAC. Also water changes do maintain other factors like micro-nutrients that may be important in maintain not only a reef tank but higher levels of algae in the scrubber. Iron levels come to mind as one important micro-nutrient for algae which may need to be dosed to maintain higher algae populations.

 

[tmz]

Nonsense.

 

[tmz]

Not your post Cliff, the one above it.

 

[Steve Wright2]

Nonsense.

Not you Cliff



Steve

I think Jon Bertoni's post has been misinterpretted

Jon made the point that he had never seen any cost analysis for any of the typically used methods , so he was making the point from a financial perspective, Thus for example would Bio pellets, or Vodka or GFO or algae scrubbers be the most cost efficient means of achieving the N and P reduction?

Jons point was that in some cases algae scrubbers have been large and noisy, not that they all are

Steve

 

[HighlandReefer]

FWIW, one can roughly calculate the amount of nitrate and phosphate an algae scrubber can remove by weighing the dry weight of the algae removed. The Redfield Ratio will provide an approximate answer.

If you compare the weight of macro-algae removed in a Refugium to an algae scrubber the amount removed should be fairly close. There are some species of macro-algae that are very efficient (Calerpa) and there are some specific species of micro-algae that may be more effective, but you would have to develop the specific micro-alge species.

IMO, the amount of nitrate/phosphate removed should be close when comparing the macro refugium to an algae scrubber given normal species are used.

 

[HighlandReefer]

I might add, perhaps when nitrate and phosphate are undetectable, micro-algae may be able to out-compete macro-algae in this situation, especially when using macroalgae that don't do well at these very low nutrient levels. Calerpa does seem to do well in low nutrent systems where as macro like Chaetomorpha don't do very well in low nutrient systems.

 

[Steve Wright2]

Specs of my tank, 130 liter sumpless

Resun 2000 lph
SunSun 3000 lph

1) Not enough flow - SunSun 23 turnover - Resun 15 turnover
The Resun is a tiny power head so I don't think its doing 2000 lph comparing it to the SunSun ph. The SunSun PH was more than enough in my 60 lt.


Please Any help and advise on what I should do and possibly buy?

Thanks

although I do not believe its related to the algae issue - if you have cyno then that may be more attributable to the flow issue

I have experience of both models of wavemaker you are using

The Sunsun units - very good IMHO , they generate a lot of water movement
and whilst I have not tested them, I would be inclined to believe the claims on flow rate

The Resun on the other hand

I have 4 tanks each 18 x 15 x 12 set up and started with the Resun2000 in all 4 of them
hardly produced a ripple on any of the 4 tanks to be honest

so I upgraded to the larger size resun, supposedly 4000lph - not much better IMHO

I then tried a single Sumsum in one of the tanks - 3000 lph model - and the difference was amazing (To powerful for my needs, but at least it proved something to me

If I had only had one of them - I could dismiss it as a poor one
but I had 4 of them and they all performed equally terribly

Steve

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What still not convinced... How about this FACT... A tank with a properly built Algae Scrubber will never need water changes when it comes to doing water changes to lower N and P.

Good. Except that isn't ever why I recommend water changes. That system, like many others, will suffer from every other reason to do such changes.

I'm not going to get into a debate over algae scrubbing, but I think some of the claims are potentially misleading.

 

[bertoni]

I am so sick of the miss-information around algae scrubber!

I agree, which is why I have to point out that your posts are wrong. There are definitely large and loud scrubbers out there, and the cost of building is only a tiny part of the cost of running a scrubber. The lighting likely is the dominant cost over time. I believe Adey's scrubbers used the dump bucket approach, which is definitely noisy.

I think algae scrubbers are interesting, but there are a lot of other designs that seem to work well, too.

 

[srusso]

I agree, which is why I have to point out that your posts are wrong. There are definitely large and loud scrubbers out there, and the cost of building is only a tiny part of the cost of running a scrubber. The lighting likely is the dominant cost over time. I believe Adey's scrubbers used the dump bucket approach, which is definitely noisy.

I think algae scrubbers are interesting, but there are a lot of other designs that seem to work well, too.

The dump bucket style algae scrubbers are very load and very large... However this style was invented in the 70's and by no means considered a modern scrubber. Please consider looking into the modern approach. In the end people will try what they will.

 

[HighlandReefer]

Removing nitrate/phosphate is one thing, but removing or breaking down dissolved organics is another thing, in a reef tank. Usually bacteria are better (than algae) at breaking down the dissolved organics from the research I have read for waste water management. It is difficult (if not impossible) to test for all the various dissolved organics in a reef tank and the content is basically unknown. It is possible that some algae can better remove some of the dissolved organics.

Perhaps a better solution to use for waste management in a reef tank is to combine different techniques developed like using an algae scrubber or refugium with macro-algae with carbon dosing to promote greater bacterial populations. This also includes a good skimmer, water changes and running GAC IMO. Usually combinations of methods work best at things when you look at research and equipment used and tested in the past.

FWIW, combinations of techniques is what many hobbyists like Randy use, as do I. The unknown factors are greater than the known factors in reef aquariums.

 

[HighlandReefer]

Another thing to keep in mind is if your phosphate level is quite high, then using micro-algae or macro-algae will not be able to reduce phosphate well. This is due to the fact that algae use quite a bit less phosphate than they do nitrate to grow. You will need to use GFO or some other means of reducing high phosphate levels. The phosphate is constantly added by fish foods in large amounts, so if a hobbyist feeds quite a bit, they may need to use a GFO type product to keep phosphate in line.

There are a lot of hobbyists and as many different ways of maintaining a reef tank. On solution is not going to work for all.