Seahorses and Algae Turf Scrubbers

[johnarky]

So I posted this on another site but I didn't get a lot of feedback. Thought I'd try here as well..
I'm curious if anyone here has experience in using an Algae Turf Scrubber in conjunction with Seahorses?
I'm using an ATS on my mixed reef right now and it "seems" like it would be great for a horse tank... I love it on my tank, keeps nitrates at 0 even with a ridiculous amount of feeding, sustains a very large amount of pods in the tank, removes ammonia, stabilizes ph, keeps water temp down (especially if you add a fan blowing across the screen), the list goes on and on.
Seems like it would work great. Anyone out there in the seahorse world "off the skimmer"?

 

[TamiW]

I've started one just recently in my grow-out system. I think it sounds really promising, but its too new as if right now for me to see if it will work as "advertised". I think it would be a great addition to a seahorse tank, and possibly avoid the whole skimmer debate all together. The pods it produces probably won't feed the seahorses, but aside from that, it sounds just about perfect. I'd say go for it.

 

[chrissu]

I own a Santa Monica 100 model ATS and I can't any reason why it wouldn't work. You can't beat an ATS for great water quality!

 

[johnarky]

Ya, it seems ideal for a horse tank.
I've been using the scrubber for 6 weeks now and water quality is great. I turned off the skimmer and removed the sock over a week ago and everything is still good.
I think I'll continue in this way for another month or so and if everything goes well I'll start the transformation into a SH tank.
But im still open for opinions if anyone else has advice on this?

 

[DanU]

On a seahorse tank, I would continue with the skimmer in conjunction with the algae scrubber. Seahorse tanks typically have a lot of suspended and dissolved solids from all the food, the type and the incomplete digestion of the food.

Dan

 

[Allmost]

ATS works.

but not as advertised ! specially with seahorses. the algae releases alot of organic carbon into the water which will promote growth of bactreria (both good and bad) and hence higher chance of bacteria infection for seahorses.

Skimmer will remove those bacteria to lower the risk.;

I would use both together, and after running ATS you should notice an INCREASE in skim-mate.opposite of what santa monica claims !! which he later on learned about ..

 

[johnarky]

Allmost, that's an interesting take on bacteria. Do you have experience with bacteria infections in seahorses when running an ATS and not using a skimmer? Or is this just in theory?
I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, it's a genuine question. Just curious if bacteria is in issue when using an ATS why it doesn't seem to effect non-sh tanks? I guess the simple answer would be that SH's are more prone to bacterial infection but I'm not sure if that's the correct answer or not.
Thanks again for all the input guys, it's appreciated.

 

[wdt2000]

ATS works.

the algae releases alot of organic carbon into the water
.

'
I thought the point of running a ATS was to remove organics.

That said it does not appear that skimmers work very well at doing that anyways.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature/view?searchterm=

 

[aninjaatemyshoe]

There are a few problems with applying that study to evaluate the overall efficacy of skimming as a means for removing organic material from a reef tank:

1) They collected the skimmate over 7 days, during which it just sat in the skimmer. A good portion of the carbon present within skimmate may gas off as CO2, methane, and other volatile organic compounds while it sits and decays within the skimmer collection cup. Bacteria is going to reside within skimmate and will continue metabolizing organic material.

2) Furthermore, they vacuum-dried and heated the sample at 110C, which would further remove any volatile organic species, eg. phenols, aldehydes, etc. Who knows how much organic carbon is removed in all of this.

3) This study essentially comprises a sample size of 1: 1 particular reef tank, 1 particular skimmer, 1 period of testing, and 1 sample evaluated.

I'm not saying this is a bad study. It provides more information than any of us, as hobbiests, would be able to obtain. However, I would definitely not cite this article as proof that skimmers are poor for removing organic carbon. This study is not capable of coming to that conclusion. Far more compelling, IMO, is the thousands of people, myself included, who have observed the beneficial effects of skimming for maintaining water quality.

 

[pwhitby]

If you would like to know what a skimmer is removing, observe the skimmate under a microscope. We did this at a recent club meeting and I can assure, you would not believe the life of life in that gunk. It is absolutely teeming with diatoms, worms, bacteria, plankton etc. All of these are organic and all are deriving nutrient for the organic components of the skimmate. The very fact that skimmate is green shows the amounts of organics being removed. Remember organics also includes proteins.

Another beauty of a skimmer is the increase in dissolved oxygen and off gassing of C02 in the system. While not necessarily a major issue with SH tanks due to a lower bioload, it does help maintain overall water chemistry/pH. many people forget that algae also respire and do indeed give of CO2- especially when in a dark period.

I see no reason why ATS and Skimmers would be mutually exclusive. My only concern lies in a potential crash of the ATS, which has been known to happen. When skimmers stop they stop removing things. When ATS stops it actively begins adding all manner of unwanted metabolic biproducts.

The take home is, do what works best for you, with what you have, but keep an open mind and be aware of the potential for something to go wrong.

Regards,

Paul.

 

[namxas]

Paul,

As Dan mentioned, SH aren't exactly what I'd call a "low bioload". They're actually pretty hard on water quality due to the amount of food present in the tank, the amount they eat, and the waste produced due to their rudimentary GI tracts.

Just clarifying...

 

[Allmost]

'
I thought the point of running a ATS was to remove organics.

That said it does not appear that skimmers work very well at doing that anyways.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature/view?searchterm=

skimmers do remove Organic material, the bubbles attract surface active organics and that's how they get removed. but only organics with active surface, which accounts for 20-30% of all TOC.

ATS does remove nutritions in water, but the algae releases Organic carbon to water, which is like dosing vodka, so you would expect an increase in skimmate production (bacteria being produced more and bacteria being pulled out, not the carbon itself )

although this is what I think, so could be wrong

Allmost, that's an interesting take on bacteria. Do you have experience with bacteria infections in seahorses when running an ATS and not using a skimmer? Or is this just in theory?
I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, it's a genuine question. Just curious if bacteria is in issue when using an ATS why it doesn't seem to effect non-sh tanks? I guess the simple answer would be that SH's are more prone to bacterial infection but I'm not sure if that's the correct answer or not.
Thanks again for all the input guys, it's appreciated.

no first hand experience just what I think

bacteria in none seahorse tank with ATS and no skimmer ? I think it does ! as the algae releases carbon to water, it gives raise to the population of bacteria, which can deplete oxygen. so a skimmer would be useful in at least providing oxygen so co2 and o2 concentrations can balance off. also, you want to have some sort of control on the biomass of bacteria being populated in your tank, and I skimmer does that well (corals and sponges also consume bacteria though)

just my thought /

 

[wdt2000]

There are a few problems with applying that study to evaluate the overall efficacy of skimming as a means for removing organic material from a reef tank:

1) They collected the skimmate over 7 days, during which it just sat in the skimmer. A good portion of the carbon present within skimmate may gas off as CO2, methane, and other volatile organic compounds while it sits and decays within the skimmer collection cup. Bacteria is going to reside within skimmate and will continue metabolizing organic material.

2) Furthermore, they vacuum-dried and heated the sample at 110C, which would further remove any volatile organic species, eg. phenols, aldehydes, etc. Who knows how much organic carbon is removed in all of this.

3) This study essentially comprises a sample size of 1: 1 particular reef tank, 1 particular skimmer, 1 period of testing, and 1 sample evaluated.

I'm not saying this is a bad study. It provides more information than any of us, as hobbiests, would be able to obtain. However, I would definitely not cite this article as proof that skimmers are poor for removing organic carbon. This study is not capable of coming to that conclusion. Far more compelling, IMO, is the thousands of people, myself included, who have observed the beneficial effects of skimming for maintaining water quality.

Check this one out.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature#h6

I was not trying to suggest that a skimmer was not beneficial. Instead I was suggesting that they may not do as good a job as some people think at removing organics.

 

[Allmost]

Check this one out.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature#h6

I was not trying to suggest that a skimmer was not beneficial. Instead I was suggesting that they may not do as good a job as some people think at removing organics.

hello,

that article is VERY misleading IF you dont read it VERY carefully.

it does say 20-30% of DOCS are removed, BUT 100% surface active DOCS are removed which it doesnt show .

furthermore, the skimmer removes the Bi product of DOCs, SMALL ORGANISMS and bacteria