Nitrate control devices

[BeanAnimal]

Again why do so many of these discussion take a left turn and have nothing to do with the original focus?

It occurs to me that in many cases, the most informative threads are ones where there is a back and forth that perpetuates an exchange of good informationl based on (or tangent to) the original post. In some cases a personal bias or refusal to participate in the context of a conversation cause the focus to blur so much that thread becomes derailed.

In this case, I think many of us have tried to keep this on track by pointing out (like you have) that the ATS is a "tool" that has been shown to be viable by example of those using it. Ohhh well

 

[KafudaFish]

I agree that the most informative threads, at least to me, are just as you stated, an exchange of information that discusses the original idea and others since everything we do is linked.

Some of the best threads I have ever read I found while searching (yes it works) for a different thread and came back to them once I had the original. This is probably why my post count is so low.

I did not mean that the discussion should be a linear one only and if we step off then the thread is a bad one. I like to ramble as much as the next person and enjoy those posts more than name this coral or what is the best x I can buy for y dollars though sometimes you simply need a simple answer now.

See.

I think my popcorn is finished.

 

[Sweeper65]

Floyd, just a quick question. I am getting more and more interested in these advanced algae scrubbers.
Do you currently run a skimmer or RDSB with your system or just the scrubber?
If it is just the scrubber how long have you been setup this way?
Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[elegance coral]

So, you are using the nitrogen cycle to explain why an ATS is bad?

No sir....... I haven't even mentioned the nitrogen cycle, so I can't see where you got that idea from.

2) algae grows, absorbing organics

This is one of the areas where you and Mr. Floyd R. Turbo need to do some more studying. Plants create organics. They do not deplete the environment of organics. They are the ones that fill the environments they live in with organics.

The result, TOTAL nutrient levels are lower then what is input. They can't "rise" as a result of the ATS or the algae would not have grown. Even if they release 99% of what they uptake (they don't) the net gain of nutrient levels in the system would be lower.

They can and absolutely do rise, and it happens in nature all the time.

Imagine this experiment. Take five individual acres of land and strip them of nutrients. Then install glass domes over each one. Install irrigation and drainage for each and pump in nutrient rich water. In acre number one, plant no trees, in acre number two plant one tree, in acre number three plant two trees, and so on. Assume that each tree can successfully produce one offspring per year. Come back in five years and analyze the nutrient content of each acre, subtracting the nutrient content of the original trees.

Acre number one will still have a relatively low nutrient level. With nothing inside that acre to trap and hold nutrients, the nutrients pumped in simply drained off. In acre number two there will now be six trees, and the leaf litter from six trees. All of this organic matter is loaded with nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus that the plants took from the water and held within the system. So, acre number two will now have a much higher nutrient content than acre number one. Acre number five, which started off with four trees, will now have twenty four trees and the leaf litter from those trees. The nutrient level in acre number five will be many many many times greater than those of acre number one.

Now..... If we sent in tree trimmers periodically throughout the experiment, and harvested the cuttings, (like we do in an ATS) we would be removing a portion of nutrients. Just like in an ATS, we wouldn't be harvesting enough plant matter to kill the plants, or stop them from reproducing. We would remove no nutrients from acre number one through this process because there's no trees to trim. We would remove more nutrients from acre number two, than acre number one, but acre number two will still have more nutrients left within it than acre number one. We would remove even more nutrients from acre number five than any of the others, but acre number five would still have many times the nutrient level of the others.

This is how nutrient levels rise in environments where we grow plants. It is a process that takes place throughout nature and all over the globe. We can not stop this process in our tiny glass boxes. Growing turf algae within a system increases the nutrient level of the system, even if we harvest a portion of the algae periodically.

If you think you are harvesting algae from your ATS at a rate that keeps it from causing nutrient levels within the system to rise, try this. Remove the substrate you grow algae on and sterilize it. Then place it back in the ATS. Algae will once again colonize the substrate. Where did this algae come from? Like you said, you didn't add it. It didn't just magically appear. These new algae are the offspring of the algae you grew on the substrate earlier. In order for this process to take place, the original algae had to be contributing nutrient rich organic matter to the system. What happens to the organic matter that isn't fortunate enough to make it back to the ATS to grow more algae? It accumulates within the system, raising the overall nutrient level, just as the leaf litter did in the experiment above. This is a never ending process that takes place as long as you are culturing turf algae within the system.

We are not adding algae to the system, we are growing it FROM nutrients already IN the system.

You are correct. You are not adding algae to the system. The algae itself is adding algae to the system. Just as the trees added trees to the experiment above.

Your logic is as circular as is the nitrogen cycle...

Yes......... That's why its called the "circle of life".:spin2: Nature is just one big cycle made up of many smaller cycles. The nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle, iron cycle, carbon cycle, oxygen cycle............ :spin1:

 

[BeanAnimal]

No sir....... I haven't even mentioned the nitrogen cycle, so I can't see where you got that idea from.

The "algae life cycle" follows the nitrogrn life cycle... It is a common theme in our filtration systems. We need to intervene in some point of the cycle to derive our desired result. We ADD material to the system and we MUST take material out of the sytem, as it is not capable of being a closed system.

Your logic fails becuase WE ARE EXPORTING organic material that would otherwise be recycled. The cycle is not complete.

This is one of the areas where you and Mr. Floyd R. Turbo need to do some more studying. Plants create organics. They do not deplete the environment of organics. They are the ones that fill the environments they live in with organics.

We are EXPORTING a large MASS of organic material that is CONSUMING (binding) ORGANIC material we are importing into our systems via food. :headwalls:

They can and absolutely do rise, and it happens in nature all the time.

:headwalls: Again, we are EXPORTING organic material that is grown (fed) with organic material that we already have imported to our system. The NET result is a LOSS of organics, not a gain.

Imagine this experiment. Take five individual acres of land and strip them of nutrients.

Your analogy is so flawed that I don't know where to begin and honestly I don't know how to respond much further without being insulting with regard to your understanding or logic. To be kind but frank, your points and arguments barely make sense due to a lack of applied context and logic and responding to them is almost impossible. In general:

1) Assuming the "Soil" is in your plot analagous to our "water" in our tanks our goal is to strip the soil of nutrients. The higher density plot will have stripped more nutrients from the soil. The root structures may be "organic" but they have sequestered the nutrients that would otherwise be free in the soil.

2) If you want to argue that a fully "stripped" soil was used to start, then FOOD needs to be added to grow the higher density plot. In your experiment the only way that plot will grow large is by adding enough food to make it grow. The entire premise is contrary to our design goal. I am not "feeding" my scubber to grow algae. I feed my tank enough to grow my fish and let the algae consume the byproduct of the wasted food and poop.

3) Again, nutrients are sequestered in the growing material. That material is being harvested and taken out of the system. The NET FREE origanic material is therefore being lowered. Not only is it being lowered, it is being consumed with an organic mass that is being exported instead of an organic mass that is visible in the display.

4) Your "plot" has no "display" or other area we are trying to keep nutrients from. Your analogy fails at every level. The ATS is a favorable place for growth compared to the display. If your "plot" was growing trees from sewage, and the trees were being harvested, then we are removing sewage from our bubble.

Sorry EC, this fails no matter how many ways you rehash it.

If you think you are harvesting algae from your ATS at a rate that keeps it from causing nutrient levels within the system to rise, try this. Remove the substrate you grow algae on and sterilize it. Then place it back in the ATS. Algae will once again colonize the substrate. Where did this algae come from? Like you said, you didn't add it. It didn't just magically appear.

There is a flaw in this logic as well.

It is part of the system with or without the scrubber. We import corals, fishes and substrate that bring the algae into the sytem. It is is going to grow unless the nutrients it consumes are removed from the system.

The idea (AGAIN) of the ATS is to create a place where these nutrients can be consumed and exported before they can be consumed in the display.

 

[Paul B]

I don't know how to respond much further without simply and directly insulting you.

This hobby was so easy when I was the only one in it. My theories were the only correct theories because I wrote them and I was the only one who read them.
When I disagreed with myself, I dosed Vodka, usually with orange juice.
Then they mistakenly invented the internet and all you guys came in and started tanks and had your own theories that for the most part disagreed with my theories and everyone elses.

I also remember when these kids started

Like Sprung and Delbeek said in their book

Life was so easy then. :beer:

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Floyd, just a quick question. I am getting more and more interested in these advanced algae scrubbers.
Do you currently run a skimmer or RDSB with your system or just the scrubber?
If it is just the scrubber how long have you been setup this way?
Thanks for your thoughts.

22 months with scrubber as primary filtration. Pulled skimmer and filter socks and installed scrubber on 10/10/10 (no choice - lack of room in sump) but was running a couple small bags of Purigen for a while, and recently running BRS Carbon but in nylon filter socks with the tops zip-tied and just laying in the sump (after a prolonged power outage). Never had an algae problem in the tank.

etc, etc

What Bean said. I had a similar but less though out response...but here's part of it.

I still don't understand why you think this causes algae to grow in the system, and if you are right, then why don't we have an outburst of people who have been running scrubbers complaining about algae in their DT, when in fact it is the opposite?

The exception to this is that some, after their hair algae is wiped out, get a temporary cyano outbreak. Lack of a good clean-up crew is usually the reason, and even without one, if the scrubber is strong enough, it is usually only temporary.

I don't disagree that running an algae scrubber can increase the nutrient level in a system, but from what I've seen, this mean an explosion of copepods, sponges, tube worms, and other small life in the system. The nutrient level increase ends up being beneficial on many levels. Again, from my observations and experiences, these excess nutrient are used within the system by a variety of it's inhabitants, and not used to primarily fuel algae growth anywhere away from the algae scrubber substrate itself.

Also, who says that extra nutrients (of certain types) in the system is a bad thing?

There was a fairly involved discussion on another site about the browning of corals on a tank running an algae scrubber. A lot of opinions and thoughts and theories were thrown around, one of them was related to the excess nutrients feeding the symbiotic zooxanthellae, and a theory was postulated that increasing the light level in the DT would allow the corals to use more of the nutrients provided by the zooxanthellae faster, reducing the browning and accelerating growth. I can't say that I fully understand the mechanism and I can't say that this is indeed the case though, because it was just a theory floated and I'm not sure if anyone has tried it and had success. But if it is the case, one could get even better growth with higher light than even the most highly illuminated tanks. Again, not making a fantastical claim here, I'm just saying there are possibilities that have not been fully explored that are well worth exploring that may not have been considered, or may have been considered, but not to the fullest and most proper extent given the current circumstances.

I had a long conversation with one long term and reputable reefer a few months back regarding such a situation where everyone though he was crazy to have as many fish in his tank as he had and how much he fed them, and how much light he had on the tank. Everyone said he was headed for a crash and a massive algae outbreak but it never happened and his coral growth was through the roof. He wasn't running a scrubber either so this whole theory above is not necessarily related to one particular form of filtration, it has to do with available food content of the water in proportion to light, flow, etc.

 

[srusso]

Floyd, just a quick question. I am getting more and more interested in these advanced algae scrubbers.
Do you currently run a skimmer or RDSB with your system or just the scrubber?
If it is just the scrubber how long have you been setup this way?
Thanks for your thoughts.

No skimmer or any other filter for that matter, scrubber only... The tank will be two years old in just a few days.

 

[BeanAnimal]

FWIW...

I got away with no skimmer for close to a year, then a crappy excalibur for another year or two. A skated by for another 4-5 with a BIG skimmer and minimal water changes. Everything was great (I thought) but at year 6 or so I began to see rising phosphates that I could NOT control....

 

[wildman926]

I ended up with a form a ATS, by accident! It was my skimmer box in my HOB overflow. I had noticed the water in the DT rising a tad, very slowly over a few days, and it set off my pumpstopper. Well, when I went to check out the overflow box to see if there were anything slowing the flow, I found the skimmer box FULL of hair algae. My LEDs were growing it like crazy in there. It explains why my cheato was not growing. LOL...

 

[Sweeper65]

So there is some sucess with ats skimmer less. Would a RDSB still be of benefit with an ats or will they just compete with each other decreasing the efficancy of both?
I have been reading through the ats post but can't seem to find if they would have a synergy or not.

 

[jwoyshnar]

I'm almost at 1000 posts now, does this mean I can be a know it all too and tell people they are wrong even though it is working for people?!!! Lol j/k of course. A lot of what is being said here is true on both sides. I run an algae scrubber and have run one for years now. It is the single best addition to my reef tank since starting this hobby/obsession. I feed more that you can possibly imagine. I have fish that are nice and plump. My clowns now are 8 years old and are laying eggs every two weeks.
I struggled for quite a long time with phosphates. I tried everything without much success. I learned about algae scrubbers from inland aquatics. I don't have any snails and I don't clean my glass more that twice a month. Those who say they don't work havent tried it or didn't do it properly. You can't just set it and forget it in the beginning. It takes some adjustment. All of the success stories can't be wrong.
On another note, I totally disagree with the "rules" of the new scrubber. You have to do what works on your system. I have two mesh screens 17x14. I clean the screens every 4 days which takes 5 minutes cause of the way I hooked it up. The smaller version wouldn't keep up with my tank. It could be used as a beginning guideline but you need to do what you need to do for your tank. Mine is set now perfectly for my tank.
One example of the success of my scrubber is my white bubble coral. I had it in my sons tank for 1 year. I thought it was thriving in there. It went from Smaller than a baseball to a softball size. I shut down the kids tank and put the bubble coral in my 180. The next morning it went from softball size to near basketball size overnight. It was just reaching and feeder tentacles are out 24/7 now. Same type of lights, same salt basically the same system just smaller.
One thing to take into consideration is how many times on here have you heard someone say they had hair algae in their tank but had no nitrates or phosphates. It's using the same concept with the algae consuming everything but just making sure they are contained in one area. I have never had yellow water or any of the issues listed.

 

[Gorgok]

For the land plant references, I got a question. Why do fertilizers exist, if nutrients simply multiply by plants growing?

I know better than to vacuum and bag my grass clippings because i will starve my grass of available nutrients in the soil sooner by doing so than letting them rot (something i don't let my ATS do) back into the soil. Even then, in a couple of weeks i will fertilize my lawn for the third time this summer. Without it, it would simply not grow.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The "land plant" analogy was flawed at so many levels that it is really almost not worth discussing and can in no way stand as an analog to the ATS used as en export tool with an aquarium.

 

[stevetcg]

Left side before: fuge with chaeto and skimmer.
After: no chaeto or skimmer, added ATS designed with current specs.
Total time involved: 10 weeks.
Total cost: $11.

Just sayin.

 

[jwoyshnar]

Left side before: fuge with chaeto and skimmer.
After: no chaeto or skimmer, added ATS designed with current specs.
Total time involved: 10 weeks.
Total cost: $11.

Just sayin.

Very good example of what a scrubber can do. If done properly this is what can be accomplished with a scrubber.

 

[Paul B]

I have fish that are nice and plump. My clowns now are 8 years old and are laying eggs every two weeks.

This is the most important sign of fish health.

 

[KerryL]

Where do you get this stuff from? What makes you think we were all growing "red turf algae" on our scrubbers back in the day???? We did the same thing you do today. We lit the ATS, blasted water through it, and what ever grew, grew. I may have been growing the exact same species you're growing today. My neighbor may have been growing a different species. Which is still true today. The algae growing on your ATS may be different that the algae growing on someone else's ATS. You have absolutely no basis to make claims that your algae is somehow superior to the algae we grew back in the day.



And this is different from older ATS's, how??? We were just as likely to grow "different strains of algae" as you are today.



We understood the importance of lighting to plant growth long before ATS's were thought of. Providing adequate lighting was never a problem.



So why are you admittedly making statements about things you have not studied??? Shouldn't you know what you're talking about before making such statements???



Please provide documentation to support this statement.

Plants require energy from light to produce organic carbon. Generally speaking, the more light/energy the plant has, the more organic carbon it can produce. Which is the complete opposite of what you just said.



Again...... This statement is not accurate. Please do your research, and have a basic understanding of the subject you're talking about, before making such statements. These statements only serve to mislead and confuse others. You are obviously making things up as you go along, and adding to the pool of misinformation in this hobby.



What are these "other DOCs" you're talking about?





We did this.



We did this.



We utilized many different rough substrates to grow algae.




We experimented with many different flow rates. There are so many variables associated with this that it's virtually impossible to come up with the appropriate flow rate. The conditions are simply to varied from system to system for such a determination.



We grew lush green algae. Getting the algae to grow was never a problem. Learning how to keep it from growing was a much larger challenge.



Again, I'll ask for documentation to back this up, and an explanation of what DOCs you're talking about.



There have been many, many, many studies that show marine algae can, and do, produce toxins. Toxins that can be effective, and even fatal, to a wide variety of organisms. Including humans. We can not dismiss the potential harm associated with culturing such organisms in a confined system with some of the most environmentally sensitive creatures on the planet. Like the SPS corals the OP is asking about.

And yes, the "yellowing of the water" is another problem associated with ATS's. It has nothing to do with an inability to clean the substrate the algae grows on though. Why would anyone design an ATS that you couldn't clean the substrate on???? That is the whole idea behind an ATS, and always has been. Grow algae and harvest it to remove nutrients. I've never heard of anyone designing, or running an ATS they could not clean the substrate on. That doesn't even make sense.:wildone:

I dont think algae takes up DOC, bacteria will take up DOC I think but not algae, am I wrong????

 

[BeanAnimal]

Kerry,

Algae consumes nitrogen based compounds, iron, phosphates, etc and turns them into lipids stored in the structure of algae. Different strains of algae will consume different ratios of compounds. Disolved organics are certainly taken up by the algae and consumed as food.

 

[elegance coral]

I dont think algae takes up DOC, bacteria will take up DOC I think but not algae, am I wrong????

For all intents and purposes your thinking is not wrong. It can get a little complicated, but basically you can think of it like this. Plants/photosynthesis creates all organic carbon on this planet. Including dissolved organic carbon or DOC. (Outside of the very few deep water thermal vent type microbes, artificially created carbon based molecules, or the rare carbon based molecules found in meteorites. None of which we need to worry about in our systems.) Then all other life like me, you, and yes microbes, utilize that organic carbon, created by plants, to fuel our biological processes. As we do, we break down these organics into their inorganic building blocks. like nitrogen, phosphorous, and CO2. Then plants take up these inorganic elements/molecules and through the aid of photosynthesis, create more organics to start the cycle all over again. This is why plants take in CO2 and release O2. They take the C, or carbon, from the CO2, produce organic carbon based molecules, and release the remaining O2. Plants create organic carbon, and we deplete organic carbon. Plants don't deplete organic carbon, and we don't create organic carbon.