Nitrate control devices

[srusso]

ATS= algae turf scrubber.

It is a filtering technique that we used back in the 80's and 90's. Then most of us figured out there were better, more efficient ways of controlling excessive nutrients, so ATS's largely became a thing of the past. Then some guy came online with a plan to make money with ATS's. He joined every site of this kind, and started threads making ridiculous claims regarding the magical abilities of ATS's. Now a sector of the hobby has taken a step backwards and ATS's are once again popular. I'm sure in time, as more people run them, and for longer periods of time, the problems we had back in the day will become more and more common. Problems like poor polyp extension, slow growth, and brown corals. Eventually, ATS's will once again become a thing of the past.

There are several methods of controlling excessive nutrients that have stood the test of time. Simply keeping the system clean is a huge step in the right direction. Skimming, water changes, absorption media, and mechanical filtration (changed out regularly) are all methods that have proven their worth. Carbon dosing is a newer method, but so far, seems to be effective with few side effects, if done properly.

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't employ any method that traps nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) within the system. I would use only enough live rock to support the biological load. Which typically isn't very much. Anything beyond that, and your just providing a place to trap more poo. I would use no DSB's (deep sand beds). They're just another place to collect poo. If I wanted sand in the display, I'd use a medium grain size to make it easy to vacuum the poo out when I did water changes. If you can do this, along with some of the proven techniques, you shouldn't have any problems with excessive nutrients.

All of the above is simply my opinion.
Peace
EC

Wow, you make it seem like the algae turf scrubber was invented by some dingbat, took this from his wiki... The algae scrubber was invented by Dr. Walter Adey, who in the late 1970s was Director of the Marine Systems Laboratory at the Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (Washington DC, USA).[4] His research of various types of algae led him to try to understand how the ocean "recycles" nutrients. He built a very successful public aquarium for display at the Smithsonian: "A 130 gallon (456 liter) coral reef microcosm, that after 8 years of closure [to the environment], had its chemical parameters controlled solely by an algal turf scrubber. This system, studied by a multidisciplinary team of biologists, demonstrated calcification [coral growth] rates equal to the best 4 percent of wild reefs, and at 543 identified species, and an estimated 800 species, ranked per unit area as the most biodiverse reef ever measured."

 

[KCombs]

Read back through some of the older literature for the hobby. ATS's were quite popular back in the day. Myself and many others ran them. As hobbyists gained a better understanding of biology, chemistry, and made advancements in technology, most ATS's found their way to the garbage heap. Now they are once again popular. To me, that's a step backwards.

if by ATS you mean in a narrow terms those fancy gadgets with lights, spraybars and screens (that grow the slimey "turf" algaes" erh ah....maybe
(disclaimer: IMO they probably work but I've never personally fully bought into the necessity for all that gadgetry hook, line & sinker)

...but a lot of hobbyist and I mean a lot of hobbyist have successfully used macro algaes to assist in water quality, and to that end and in broader terms (if macro algaes are included) "Algae scrubbers" work...it would be inaccurate to say otherwise....

 

[srusso]

I didn't say they were bad because one guy convinced a large following that ATS's are magic. They are once again popular because of what he did. It is the biology of the organisms that live on ATS's that make them "BAD".

Popular? What popularity? Its a literal skimmer "sword fight" at every turn of this hobby!

What method can ATS's "replace"? That sounds like more of the magic, voodoo stuff Mr. S. Monica was talking about. Like when he said ATS's replace protein skimmers.

Yep, speaking of popularity... Are you so narrow minded to believe your way is the only way to do this?

I wonder how nature cleans up after itself... are there magic little husbandry fairies, (like you) that go changing filters and vacuuming all that "poop" up?
:hb2:

Read back through some of the older literature for the hobby. ATS's were quite popular back in the day. Myself and many others ran them. As hobbyists gained a better understanding of biology, chemistry, and made advancements in technology, most ATS's found their way to the garbage heap. Now they are once again popular. To me, that's a step backwards.

That really interesting because, what you have just said there... sounds like your theory below. Right?! "We put rubber duckies in our tanks, we didn't know how to run them, so we tossed in the trash." You have rubber ducky science in your own post! :headwally:

No disrespect intended, but that shows us, or proves nothing. I call that rubber ducky science. If I float a rubber ducky in my tank, and the tank does well, should everyone run out and buy a rubber ducky because it worked so well in my system?????? That's ridiculous, right????? Well, it's no more ridiculous than saying a tank did well while running an ATS, so ATS's work well, and we should all run out and buy one. We should look to science to determine how something is going to effect our systems. Not someone else's system.

Peace
EC:thumbsup:

:hmm4:

 

[BeanAnimal]

I didn't say they were bad because one guy convinced a large following that ATS's are magic. They are once again popular because of what he did. It is the biology of the organisms that live on ATS's that make them "BAD".

You mean; It is your opinion that they are "bad", popular, sold as snake oil or not.

What method can ATS's "replace"? That sounds like more of the magic, voodoo stuff Mr. S. Monica was talking about. Like when he said ATS's replace protein skimmers.

I never said they replaced anything. I was not aware that they had to replace anything. They are a tool that can be used as part of a system of nutrient control.

As hobbyists gained a better understanding of biology, chemistry, and made advancements in technology, most ATS's found their way to the garbage heap. Now they are once again popular. To me, that's a step backwards.

(Again) your opinion. You keep talking of biology and chemistry and advancements, but with empty context and absolutely no evidence. Just because something is abandoned for another method does not mean it is destined for the junk heap. This hobby (any hobby, industry or social concept) goes through cycles of good and bad ideas, with many of the abandoned ideas being sound and effective but scrapped in favor of the latest fad or popular trend. Carried to the logical conclusion, your logic is circular.

The bottom line: An ATS system provides an effective means of nutrient export, mechanical filtration, PH control, gas exchange, and serves as a habitat for many beneficial organisms. It is a viable tool that can be used in a marine aquarium system.

No disrespect intended, but that shows us, or proves nothing. I call that rubber ducky science.

Respectfully your entire 5 paragraphs are exactly the "rubber ducky science" you describe.

Honestly, a healthy system with an ATS has nothing to do with the ATS? My system derived benefit because the ATS is BAD but not AS BAD as the refugium? If it looks like a duck...

I had a refugium on my system but was suffering very high nitrates and phosphates. Did the nitrate spike when it was removed? NO. I then put an ATS on my system (no other changes) and dropped my nitrate from deadly levels to ZERO and cut my phosphates significantly. Furhtermore, my PH is much more stable and my nuisance algae problem is starting to come under control. Water changes, a 6' tall skimmer and a refugium did not help.

IFurthermore, have seen (first hand, numerous times) several tanks that run ATS systems that are/were EASILY front cover/TOTM systems. Your scientific postulate is that the ATS had nothing to do with any of this. That burden is on your to prove EC. You have stated your opinion but I don't see a single supporting fact to back your claim. I can however present supporting facts to support my claim. If it looks like a duck...

What you're describing above indicates that, in your system, the ATS may not be as bad as the fuge you were running. It does not show that the ATS is beneficial to your system. What would happen if you took the ATS off line, removed the vast majority of rotting organic matter (detritus) from the system, carried out routine maintenance, and simply kept the system clean?

You using your rubber ducky science to draw another conclusion.

"Shop vacs are dumb and bad, but not as dumb and bad as the brooms they replaced. I submit to you that if you would not have tracked dirt in the house in the first place that you would not have dirt on your floor."

When you can present a valid scientific reason that ATS systems are bad, then we can continue this conversation. As yet, you have only provided your opinion with literaly no supporting facts or science. Do understant that the sole burden is on you, as I am happy with my ATS and have evidence and understanding (anecdotal and/or scientific) that they provide benefit.

 

[BeanAnimal]

How efficient can a filtering method be if we need to employ another filter to clean up the mess that it created? Wouldn't it be so much easier to simply not create the mess in the first place?

I fail to see your point. The ATS is part of a SYSTEM. If ANY system is broken down into pieces, the same logic could be applied to any component of that system. Your grasping at strawmen here my friend.

I will remind you again that I have not presented that ATS as "better" or "more efficient" than any other system. I have indicated that it is a viable tool, among other tools, some more and some less effective or efficient.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Ok where do I start with this thread. I suppose one would expect me to start shouting how it's all magic and you are non-believers, and here's some tasty algae flavored Kool-Aid, drink it! Drink it NOW!

I find this extremely humorous that someone would notice how there is a group of "followers" of some technique, and label them as a bunch of yahoos like this.

I run across this type of situation every now and again and I still have a hard time passing up on posting. it just irks me that someone would scoff at another group so easily.

you may have been reading some thread from a couple years ago, and you may have been reading a bunch of Santa Monica posts where he was jack slapping those who defied him then putting them on his "ignore" list. If that's all you read, then I understand where you're coming from. I read many of those too, found them humorous and yes in some cases offensive but I was still curious, and was able to read between the BS lines and flame wars and find out what this technique was really about.

Basically what is comes down to is this: you cannot compare any algae scrubber or any algae turf scrubber built any longer than about 4-1/2 years ago to one that is properly built and maintained using the current techniques. If you are, you are making a completely baseless comparison speaking from a purely scientific perspective.

Also you cannot compare the effectiveness of a dump-style or surge-style or for that matter any horizontal or slanted-angle algae scrubber to a vertical screen, double-lit waterfall scrubber constructed using current guidelines. There is no comparison. Sorry bean, yours may work well for what you need it for, and that's fine if that's the case, but I can assure you that I could design/make one that fits into a smaller space and works at least 5 if not 10x as efficiently (without even seeing what you're running). I can say that with confidence because the advances that have been made in scrubber design over the past 4 years blow any other previous methodology clear out of the water.

I'm not talking magic here, talking science. Almost every negative comment and connotation about algae scrubbers in this thread is based on experiences people had with old, outdated scrubber construction techniques. The comment about people taking a "step backward" to a technique from the 80s and 90s just shows how this technique is still absurdly misunderstood by some. Yeah we all figured that even though everyone came to a general consensus back then that the technique didn't work, everyone must have missed something, so we decided to try the exact same technique. Except this time, we sprinkled pixie dust in the tank and BAM it worked. In case you can't sense it, that's sarcasm.

Just because something didn't work quite right 30 years ago doesn't mean it didn't have a valid basis. Here's a short list of things that nobody tried before 5 years ago:

- high-flow vertical screen with lights on both sides
- closed-box scrubbers for encouraging 3D growth
- high-intensity fluorescent lighting (CFL and T5HO)
- algae growth spectrum specific color temperatures
- most recently, LEDs

it doesn't seem like much, but these simple advances in technology and implementation made all the difference in the world when it comes to the type of algae grown and rates of growth, both of which directly affect the efficiency and efficacy of algae scrubbers in general.

Everyone has the right to make assumptions about things they don't know everything about. I do that quite often, but I make an attempt to at least draw what I consider to be a logical conclusion, then I (usually) follow my conclusion with an statement stating to some effect that I may not have a clue what I am talking about. Perhaps some of you should follow this method before you make assumptions, such as several of the ones on here this thread that are presented as fact.

 

[keihi20]

Go turbo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Flyod,

Just so that there is no misunderstanding: I am 100% sure that my ATS is not the most efficient design out there and am 100% sure that advances have been made in methodology, understanding and materials. I also mean no disprespect to you or any other person friendly with the guy or his methods. In fact, it is nice to see so many people so enthusiastic about improving something.

Anyway, I will say that the party in question is 75% full of BS and tends to make things up as he goes, very often contradicting his own logic, advice and "science". I.E., Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that everything he has done or said is BS, as it is clearly not. In fact, he has certainly done a LOT of work improving his design and trying to help the hobby. I would imagine his cause is both noble and monetary (I have a problem with neither and in fact hope he makes a fortune).

I am however saying that much of his explanations, "science" and advice is comprised of a a hodge podge of facts, misapplied science, wishful conjecture, wild guesses and BS that he passes off as hard science to explain his observations.

I would not be so openly critical, but after spending hours reading his posts here and at his site, I am awestruck at how often he contradicts himself, sometimes even in the same thread just minutes apart. It is the tell of a BSer.

So... I do think ATS systems are a viable tool. I know they have improved and the BS and magical claims aside, the guy who is heavily promoting their use has helped them to gain acceptance and worked to improve their efficiency.

Will I be replacing my dump tray with a vertical screen? Not likely, but you never know. I will be replacing the lights with LEDs as an experiment. I prefer to grow the red turf as opposed to the GH, so am not sure how the LEDs will do with it.

 

[elegance coral]

I have a lot to reply to and not a lot of time, so here's a little rubber ducky science until I can find more time to post links regarding the negative effects of algae toxins and nutrient cycles in closed systems.

http://walteradey.com/ecosystems.php

In the link above you'll find photos of Dr. Adey's system. Do you see any acropora/SPS corals in those photos? You know..... The type of corals the OP of this thread is wanting to keep. I don't see any. What I see is a system infested with algae. If the ATS is working so great, why is there so much algae in his display????

Here's some pic's of Dr. Adey's ATS system at the Biosphere II in Arizona.

Beautiful ain't they???:crazy1:

If any of you have access to the first volume of Sprung and Delbeek's book, The Reef Aquarium, and you want references from me, start reading on page 148 where they cover ATS's. Here's a quote from page 150.

"In our opinion, the algae that are an essential component in the productivity of a reef ecosystem should not be relied on for its filtration. Although algal turf scrubber systems work quite well for the mangrove and estuarine microcosms we saw, the reef miicrocosms were not very good. The stony corals did not appear to grow much, and in some instances we saw what we believed was unacceptable mortality (at the Smithsonian 1988-1990, at Townsville in 1990, and at the Pittsburgh Aquazoo) Unfortunately little data has been published exhibiting the growth rates and survivability of coral in these systems."

 

[iced98lx]

To suggest that a method developed 30 years ago can never be relevant again in a hobby is a slap in the face of science, which it appears you're a fan of.

Understand, I'm not a biologist- I'm just marrying one who moonlights as a chemist, but I feel I share a mindset with you all as a software engineer / architect. So I won't argue with you the biology, I think the others here are doing a fine job discussing the science.

What I will say is that while you may not see the point in innovating in the hobby (Do you not have LED's? those had a rough start until the spectrum's were figured out as well) others are happy to use their tanks as "Science Projects". (with highest regard to their inhabitants, obviously).

My point is that if science never took a look at ideas that it had before and tried to determine if new technology could assist in making them more effective, where would we be?

We have jets that are Aero unstable- They 100% could not fly without computers constantly controlling things. This is based off old designs that would make them less radar aware. We've just recently (okay, 80's & 90's) gotten the technology to allow those to fly. Old idea, brought to life with technology.

Imagine the lighting difference between the photos you posted and now alone- lets not say that an ATS was the cause for lackluster tanks in the late 80's and early 90's.

ATS's can play a great role in our systems- Ammonia has to be nitrified, and eventually ends up as Nitrates. the algae grown on ATS's loves Nitrates. We mechanically export that when the ATS is cleaned. For the purpose of this OP's quest: a simple way to export Nitrates out of his system, that seems to work pretty dang well.

 

[BeanAnimal]

so here's a little rubber ducky science until I can find more time to post links regarding the negative effects of algae toxins and nutrient cycles in closed systems.

So, let me get this straight. A healthy SPS system running an ATS has nothing to do with the ATS and in fact, your position and logic point to the ATS as being a problem in that healthy system?

So you clearly DON'T accept that healthy system as evidence that the ATS is viable, and in fact have refered to it as "Rubber ducky science". At the same time you negate your own logic and back your opinion with photos (cherry picked) from a failed project (at many levels) and call it SCIENCE and proof that an ATS is bad. So when the example system does not fit your bias, it is rubber ducky science, but when it does fit your bias it is hard science? Sorry, but your duck does not float my friend

Moreover, and more importantly WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A CLOSED SYSTEM. The ATS in this context is being used as a TOOL in an open system, along side other tools.

You say the ATS guy is full of BS but you are using the same method of mixing facts, misinformation, and fiction to draw "scientific conclusions" based on your own bias.

If it quacks like a duck?




With regard to the Sprung and Delbeek observations:

• It was a circa 1994, SPS keeping was in its infancy, much of what is on that (and many other books circa that time) has changed, is outdated and/or has been revisited. According to your own logic posted earlier, it (the book) should be on the "junk heap" based on its age and the state of the hobby now and them. Yet, you use it as evidence. Not so oddly rubbery and qucky if you ask me.
• The systems in question IN NO WAY resemble the current SPS systems we keep. I am extremely familiar with the Pittsburgh setup and the problems with (at least this system) have really nothing to do with the ATS and everything to do with the overal system, methodology and husbandry.

I can post research information about Nitrate toxicity. Does that mean that a filtration tool that produces Nitrates is bad? No, it means that that tool must be used in conjunction with a tool that also removes nitrates. I will remind you again, a tool is PART of a system. A filter sock or other mechanical filter traps rotting material. That is, the byproduct of the filtration process produces has the potential to create a harmful result that must be managed. Does it mean they are bad? No, it means that they must be maintained by cleaning them or replacing them. At the same time, you are attempting to discredit another tool (an ATS) because it has the potential to create a harmful result if IT is not maintained. Your logic does not add up and in fact looks pretty rubbery.

 

[elegance coral]

To suggest that a method developed 30 years ago can never be relevant again in a hobby is a slap in the face of science, which it appears you're a fan of.

Understand, I'm not a biologist- I'm just marrying one who moonlights as a chemist, but I feel I share a mindset with you all as a software engineer / architect. So I won't argue with you the biology, I think the others here are doing a fine job discussing the science.

What I will say is that while you may not see the point in innovating in the hobby (Do you not have LED's? those had a rough start until the spectrum's were figured out as well) others are happy to use their tanks as "Science Projects". (with highest regard to their inhabitants, obviously).

My point is that if science never took a look at ideas that it had before and tried to determine if new technology could assist in making them more effective, where would we be?

We have jets that are Aero unstable- They 100% could not fly without computers constantly controlling things. This is based off old designs that would make them less radar aware. We've just recently (okay, 80's & 90's) gotten the technology to allow those to fly. Old idea, brought to life with technology.

Imagine the lighting difference between the photos you posted and now alone- lets not say that an ATS was the cause for lackluster tanks in the late 80's and early 90's.

ATS's can play a great role in our systems- Ammonia has to be nitrified, and eventually ends up as Nitrates. the algae grown on ATS's loves Nitrates. We mechanically export that when the ATS is cleaned. For the purpose of this OP's quest: a simple way to export Nitrates out of his system, that seems to work pretty dang well.

It doesn't matter how many bells and whistles we attach to an ATS. The biology of the organisms growing on them haven't changed, and isn't going to change any time soon. It is the biology of these organisms that makes ATS's inefficient. Not the hardware around them.

 

[srusso]

It doesn't matter how many bells and whistles we attach to an ATS. The biology of the organisms growing on them haven't changed, and isn't going to change any time soon. It is the biology of these organisms that makes ATS's inefficient. Not the hardware around them.

What hasn't changed? How do you know what has changed if you haven't been researching the developments for the community? We aren't even growing the same algae as was previously kept! Please show us more of your ducky science that supposedly clearly shows that the current methods used are dangerous or have this "bad biology" you speak of... I am happy to wait...

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

That's where you're wrong, again. The conclusion you draw that the biology is what makes Algae Scrubbers inefficient is based on Red Turf Algae as a mechanism, which is, again, the old method.

The algae grown on a modern algae scrubber can, depending on the specific tank and construction of the scrubber, be comprised of several different strains of algae. Some of this is tank/system dependent (to a lesser degree) and others are scrubber construction dependent (to a greater degree), the fact is that you can build a poor scrubber and grow algae poorly, and end up with less than ideal results. Specifically, algae grows in reaction to intense light. Very intense light, more intense that most people assume they need to be.

All algae produces DOCs. Most people hear that term and immediately think "BAD!!" again this is based on a generalization of this term to mean stuff that damages your system, but this is not necessarily the case as some are good and some are bad. I haven't studied this factor enough to give you all the explanation, but for purposes of this discussion I don't need to.

If you attempt to grow algae on an algae scrubber with too little light, the type of algae grown generally becomes darker, and this type of inadequate growth produces a higher level of DOC. It still absorbs DOC (N and P that we test for are in this category), but it doesn't as efficiently absorb other DOCs that we don't want in the system. This is the primary point of failure of all algae scrubber systems prior to around 2007. So don't go bringing up and system designed and constructed prior to this date or any conclusions drawn based on those devices (this almost completely rules out all prior studies on algae scrubbers on marine systems, of which there were never enough to draw a proper scientific conclusion in the first place) and try to use that as a sticking point to say that algae scrubbers don't work, because the point is completely baseless, as I previously stated and for the above reason.

When you provide algae with the proper spectrum and intensity level of light, along with proximity of light to growth substrate, screen material, roughness of screen material, and appropriate flow rate of system water over the screen, etc, the algae grows lush and green, and this type of algae does an excellent job of absorbing the harmful DOCs that are otherwise produced to a higher degree by algae that is not provided with these conditions.

Furthermore, I already know several of the studies you are referring to that speak of harmful compounds produced by algae, and they deal with red turf algae (which is not the kind grown on a vertical scrubber) that are in direct contact with corals. One study showed a detriment upon direct contact, but when a permeable membrane screen was used, there was no damage (i.e. "toxins" causing damage was not happening). I expect you will bring up "yellowing of the water" too, which was due to not being able to remove the screen from the system to clean and rinse (not a problem now).

Bean, thanks for you even-keeled responses in this thread - you saved me from an even longer response! And, I took no offense, and meant no disrespect towards you either. I was just saying that the horizontal scrubber is overall less efficient, but it sounds like you are fully aware of that. On that point, you are right the horizontal scrubber will have a tendency to grow red turf algae, but RTA grows slower and is less efficient than GHA, so is there a particular reason why you prefer to grow RTA? It grows as a result of conditions, mainly surging type flow and an overall lower flow rate, and lighting has to do with it somewhat. So I'm not too sure that you would grow more GHA just by changing the lighting, but I'd be interested to see if you could, just for sheer curiosity.

iced98lx - well put.

The bottom line? We need a study showing the efficiency and efficacy of the modern algae scrubber. Every other previous study and resulting conclusions are useless to a great extent...and I don't see that particular condition as an "out" to discount all other data (positive or negative), I actually see it as a hindrance, because I strongly feel that, if one were to perform a truly scientific experiment with the proper conditions and equipment, the modern algae scrubber would fare very well.

The problem? No one cares, because too many people do not take all of this into account, and immediately discount the algae scrubber citing reasons such as those cited by EC.

 

[srusso]

I have a lot to reply to and not a lot of time, so here's a little rubber ducky science until I can find more time to post links regarding the negative effects of algae toxins and nutrient cycles in closed systems.

http://walteradey.com/ecosystems.php

In the link above you'll find photos of Dr. Adey's system. Do you see any acropora/SPS corals in those photos? You know..... The type of corals the OP of this thread is wanting to keep. I don't see any. What I see is a system infested with algae. If the ATS is working so great, why is there so much algae in his display????

So you must have pictures of SPS from the same time growing in another tank? If not then... as Bean said, if you sounds like a duck.. AND far as I know keeping clean water is hardly enough to keep SPS alive... Food and Lighting have just as much if not more important for survival.

"In our opinion, the algae that are an essential component in the productivity of a reef ecosystem should not be relied on for its filtration. Although algal turf scrubber systems work quite well for the mangrove and estuarine microcosms we saw, the reef miicrocosms were not very good. The stony corals did not appear to grow much, and in some instances we saw what we believed was unacceptable mortality (at the Smithsonian 1988-1990, at Townsville in 1990, and at the Pittsburgh Aquazoo) Unfortunately little data has been published exhibiting the growth rates and survivability of coral in these systems."

I mean, look at the quote you posted!!

"The stony corals did not appear to grow much, and in some instances we saw what we believed was unacceptable mortality (at the Smithsonian 1988-1990, at Townsville in 1990, and at the Pittsburgh Aquazoo)"

Didn't grow much? Sounds like corals that didn't have enough proper light or food and managed to survive as long they could. But I know this all is the very same ducky logic you are using....

 

[iced98lx]

It doesn't matter how many bells and whistles we attach to an ATS. The biology of the organisms growing on them haven't changed, and isn't going to change any time soon. It is the biology of these organisms that makes ATS's inefficient. Not the hardware around them.

As Floyd has pointed out, this is the issue with your argument. Because of research, and more "bells and whistles" we're keeping different Algae on our ATS's than they did before.

If you refuse to accept that the one argument you've used is incorrect because we have in fact shifted to different species, then, I guess you'll continue to not use an ATS.

The only thing I ask is that you stop spreading incorrect information- there is no reason to suggest that findings 30 years ago hold true with ATS's of today: different methods, different Algae, different results. RC and other places online is making it easy to begin compiling new data from the new generation of ATS's. The ATS as it is known in the hobby is evolving quickly with the excellent work everyone is doing, there is no reason to get up in arms.



OP: ATS remains a viable way to manually export Nitrates from your system. It's one many ways.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Flyod,

I prefer to grow the red simply because that is what my current ATS is capable of growing. It is keeping my nitrates at 0 and is helping with my PH somewhat. It is quiet but I can hear the slight "bump" of the tray every 20 seconds or so and to be honest, with my "silent" system it is kind of soothing to hear something! It can't clog and overflow and it serves as a detritus trap that can be easily drained (it has a standing pool of several inches in the base). Also, being that it grows "slow", I don't have to maintain it as agressively as a more efficient model.

Yes, slow dumping, lower flow gives me the red, when I speed it up, I start to get GHA on parts of the screen.

I am not thrilled with the waterfall design from a maintenance standpoint (cleaning, noise, salt creep, adjustment, etc). The dump tray just keeps on ticking, thats all



Like I said, I have no plans to switch, but then again you never know.

 

[srusso]

Flyod,

I prefer to grow the red simply because that is what my current ATS is capable of growing. It is keeping my nitrates at 0 and is helping with my PH somewhat. It is quiet but I can hear the slight "bump" of the tray every 20 seconds or so and to be honest, with my "silent" system it is kind of soothing to hear something! It can't clog and overflow and it serves as a detritus trap that can be easily drained (it has a standing pool of several inches in the base). Also, being that it grows "slow", I don't have to maintain it as agressively as a more efficient model.

Yes, slow dumping, lower flow gives me the red, when I speed it up, I start to get GHA on parts of the screen.

I am not thrilled with the waterfall design from a maintenance standpoint (cleaning, noise, salt creep, adjustment, etc). The dump tray just keeps on ticking, thats all



Like I said, I have no plans to switch, but then again you never know.

The pitfalls you mentioned are all directly related to build design... Cleaning is helped with easily made PVC "C" rings, allowing you to easily remove the screen from the slot tube. Noise (at least on my system) is not an issue, a straight slot tube, measured flow rates to match slot length... yada yada. Salt creep fixed with plastic rap for open scrubbers and not an issue for closed designs.

If I could challenge you, to build one, see it for yourself.

 

[convict3]

Woot I love a good debate.

Update..with use of a skimmer Nd scrubber my tank water has never looked as good as it does now. Red slime is almost gone after 2weeks of scrubbing.bright green algae has started to grow.
Thxturbo and sm and every one esLe that has contributed to the new scrubbers.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The pitfalls you mentioned are all directly related to build design... Cleaning is helped with easily made PVC "C" rings, allowing you to easily remove the screen from the slot tube. Noise (at least on my system) is not an issue, a straight slot tube, measured flow rates to match slot length... yada yada. Salt creep fixed with plastic rap for open scrubbers and not an issue for closed designs.

If I could challenge you, to build one, see it for yourself.

I just have not seen a build that I am pleased with (again not taking away anything from the work of others). I have designed my own, but simply don't have the time or energy to fabricate the parts and have settled on my dump tray for now