Jake,
What do you think would be a good estimate for space/volume to set aside for the macro.
-----------------------------------
Ok, I am going hit the questions and responses, ramble a little bit and then at the end I will sum up some thoughts. It seems like this is a complex enough issue that the first thing to do is to get the information out, and then to try to make a decision, and everyone is bringing up good points.
I agree that square footage is king, a rough number for my setup on an average product is that a sf of tank space is worth about $280/year at full operation. When you consider that i will need 18 skimmers and associated equipment for my setup that will produce no sellable result at all that is quite a bit of space (but not tank space) and money lost as well (in equipment and energy). Understand also that there is alot of "extra space" that things could be "put". This extra space is where the skimmers will be. So it is hard to say what the skimmers are costing as far as space. When you put an ATS in a tank, that space is absolutely lost space for frags because it is space that would otherwise be used for frags.
I may well be expecting to need an excessive amount of space for the Macro's. I can't find anything concrete discussing the amount of space a macro colony needs to clean a given volume of water, so I guess I am expecting to need way to much rather than not enough. In addition the macros that seem most sellable (Chaeto/Red Grac) are the slowest growing kinds anyway. If I were putting a number on it, it seems to me that I will need atleast 20% of the space to be used for Macros. The only other thing that seems plausible is to put the macros at the bottom of the tanks under the fragracks. This has been the most promising idea and gives the best of both worlds. Especially since the two macros I am looing at grow in clumps that will not spread too quickly.
I am looking to do specimen rocks but I am a bit leary of putting macros on them directly (Caulerpas mostly, I might be okay with Grac). I know that I prefer not to have them on the rocks when I am buying a new piece, but I am not sure if this is the majority or the minority. I agree it is more aesthetically pleasing but those that have had them may run away. The bottom line is I may do both and see what I see. I definitely wouldn't disagree with what has been working at Tropicorium, and I am more in favor of the Algae scrubbers the more I learn about them. My point was more about doing less lifting of water. That requires much more in the way of energy than just moving water around within the same volume. The only exception would be that the lateral space may make it worth it cost wise to add a pump to lift the water from underneath.
The hyacinth system is much more of an ecosystem than any of us are considering creating. It has huge volumes and plenty of space for sediment reduction/deposition as well as many other natural processes, so it is much more than just an ATS. If you look up some articles on it some people are saying it should not even be considered an ATS and that they are simply using the name to create awareness of the concept, and for marketing/news purposes. Once again this is what I have been reading and I have no first hand knowledge.
-----------------------------------
Well this has turned out to be a pretty interesting topic. I spent the better part of last night putting down ideas and working them through scenarios and I must say it is almost a dead heat between a strictly controlled system, a true ATS, and a plant scrubbing system, especially if I can make the macros work from the bottom of the tank. I didn't post any results yet because there was much more to this than I first anticipated. Here are the points that I have not come to a conclusion on.
The algae metabolites (yellow water) are a much more difficult issue to understand than they seem at first. The issue arises from the idea that this is still a somewhat controlled environment and will not have all of the aspects of a truly natural ecosystem. If we take this as an ecosystem and apply the concept of things just don't disappear, and have to be consumed and/or broken down, the metabolites could be an issue. I must admit I have not finished Dynamic Aquaria and have not seen this covered so I am guessing at best. It seems that the metabolites have to be consumed and further broken, but the question is what does this, and will this part exist in my planned system. I am starting to think that we cannot pick and choose what parts of the ecosystem we want to replicate and expect it to function properly. This seems to be especially true when talking about a propogation first system. If your goal is create an ecosystem only, this is doable, but for a system whose goal is product it is much more of an issue. When you also consider I will not be doing as much water volume changing as most the buildup issue concerns me.
What is the growth rate/uptake of both Chaetomorpha and Red Gracilaria. I feel that both of these aspects are very important in considering whether they are viable candidates for use in a plant scrubber. My experience with Chaeto is mostly as a pod harbour. I would keep just enough of it to make sure there were pods everywhere in my fuges and give away the rest. As this was the case I never really looked at the growth rate on a large scale, nor did I think about what it was doing to clean my system.
Red Gracilaria on the other hand I did measure growth but still never thought of it as a cleaning mechanism. The Grac was very slow growing at first but seemed to start exploding once it reached a good size. If I were to guess I would put it on par with what I am hearing about Chaeto once fully established. There is much less overgrowth/crash risk with these than other macros.
UPTAKE. This was the interesting part. From what I can find they are nicely suited to each other as far as what they take from the system. Each needs slightly different elements and shouldn't fight over anything but the basic compounds like fertilizer and such (phosphates, nitrates CO2 etc). They both also seem to produce less waste materials (metabolites) and have more complete cycles than other macros.
What are the other benefits of using these. Well a chaeto/pod ball should be easy to sell, both as a wholesale and possibly as a packaged product. I think I could get in the range of $2 a ball. Red Grac on the other hand would be a significant product. It grows well and once established and stable is very hard to screw up. It is less finicky than Chaeto and does not need to tumble, so can be grown out on rocks that can be harvested (much like the ATS screen). I would go with just Grac except that there is a large portion of waste products that it does not handle, and is not as pod friendly. Grac is also a very good profit mechanism, as tang food. If I am correct I should be able to sell an oz. (weight) Grac for about $6-8 which is almost 60% the $/sq. ft numbers of the corals themselves, although the growout time is a bit longer for the Grac. This could also be done wholesale or dried out as a packaged product.
With very limited information it would seem that if I could get a good bunch of each growing that it would grow fast enough to clean the limited systems I am planning. I will more than likely still need some skimming but it seems to me that I can rotate skimmers between stations (1 skimmer for three stations) rather than dedicated (2 skimmers per station).
To muddy the waters even more I am still considering a true ATS as well using the turf mix.
The ATS discussion goes as follows: Proven system with calculable (is this a word
, it should be) numbers and yeild. A true ATS system is easily planned, prepared for, and there are many that can provide guidance on it. It is a proven way to acheive a given goal. It has a diverse population that will take care of the entire spectrum of waste materials and can adapt much quicker to changes in the environment in the initial stages (less so once a certain algae takes over the growth). This is the reason that I will use this on the first test system. It is much more of a known factor than putting all of my eggs into a plant scrubber. The down side is that there is no salable product at the end of the process, and with the efficiency concerns I foresee I need to squeeze as much as possible out of the total system. If the Plant scrubbers work out according to plan I am looking at an increased margin by about 8% (given my standard rate of 60% salable with a 17% production cost). The ATS will do little more than about 3% and that is only if I can completely remove skimmers from the system.
The last thing that I am considering is the pioneering aspect of it. I am still interested in making new things work and developing reproducible procedures for it. I understand the fine line between R&D and play/waste and how small businesses have little room for even R&D let alone company sponsored play, but this is one of the reasons that I am starting this project in the first place.
So unless I am far offbase with my comments aboce I am looking to start with a Xenia/Anthelia tank using a true ATS system and then once I have gotten that running I will look to convert another tank (most likely a ricordea) to a plant scrubber and see what happens from there.
