Algae Turf Scrubbers

[Anonymous]

This weekend I attende the "Next Wave" conferece held by the DFWMAS at the Dallas World Aquarium.

One of the guest speakers was Morgan from Inland Aquatics. He gave a terrific presentation about what they were trying to accomplish and their methodologies. He spoke several times about the ability of the ATS (algae turf scrubber) to process tremendous volumes of food input. I am curious and would like to set up my own to see how they work on one of my growout systems.

Does anyone use one or have links to plans to set one up. I have had limited success finding any info.

Thanks in advance.

Zerah
Lawton, OK

 

[Anonymous]

I always wondered, but I've never found anyone who actually has used one, except for Morgan. They are, I believe, slightly tricky to build, just to get the dump bucket working properly but if you're handy you could do it I imagine. The most comprehensive discussion of them is in "Dynamic Aquaria" by Walter Adey and Karen Loveland. Morgan's are based upon Adey's (patented) design.

-Jim

 

[Anonymous]

Most ATS systems seem to be VERY yellow due to the lack of skimming. I encourage you to experiment though. Instead of the dump bucket which is prone to breaking or the Carlson surge device which is a pain to build and work right, try the Borneman surge device built with the 'toilet flush' mechanism.

Tom


------------------
Visit Tom's Reef
http://www.bit-net.com/~tjotoole/

proud to be an associate of

Inland Reef Aquaria, Nashua, NH
http://www.inlandreef.com/

 

[Anonymous]

With all deference to those two fine persons, the correct terms are autosiphon wavemakers and flapper-type wavemakers. The designs have been around for decades. I agree that autosiphons are difficult to get right, but once they are, they rule.

I have no problems running my algal turf scrubber, because I'm no purist and combine it with foam fractionation.

If you're looking to maintain a truly low-total-nutrient environment, then perhaps an ATS alone can be hard to adapt to the objective. But for the purpose of keeping phytoplankton feeders happy (and you would be surprised how many supposedly carnivorous corals pack their gut with phyto), stabilizing pH and maintaining good water quality in general an ATS moderated judiciously by fractionation is a solid combo for me.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys, I'm not looking to keep truely nutrient poor water. What I'm interested in is increased SPS growth. Morgan said they feed their systems seven times a day, can you imagine. He even talked about a automatic feeder that dumped two weeks of food in a system and the system just absorbed it. Since with the Berlin method food obvioulsy becomes the limiting factor of coral growth, ATS sounds appealing. Joshi also seem to contribute his rapid SPS growth rates to unusualy high volumes of food input. While a refugium would provide one with increased levels of plaktonic life, it would not provide the added ability to process high levels of dissolved organics while increasing the dissolved oxygen.

Dr. Ron Shimek also gave a presentation on the whole ecosystem approach and continuosly stresses how much food particles are available to coral on the natural reef. Increasing food addition along with more natural temperatures ~85f should greatly increase the corals ability to grow at a more natural rate.

My plans are to convert one of my stacked farming units to an ATS/with carbon, and obsereve the difference in coral growth from my other farming units (Berlin) in similar corals.

This also seems like a much more economical method of maintaining a closed system. The GAC should solve the yellow water problem while still allowing the ATS to process nutrients and provide plaktonic food stuffs.

Open to suggestions or ideas.

Zerah
Lawton, OK

[This message has been edited by Zqy (edited 15 February 2000).]

 

[Anonymous]

Zgy; I too have always been interested in scrubbers. My only problem is getting one to Canada at a decent cost, as it doubles by the time it gets here. If one figures out the cost of a skimmer, R/O unit, pumps,etc. the cost of the ATS is comparable.
I currently feed my tank several times per day. The growth in my corals is great. Different kinds of polyps that require food spread like weeds now. All that is required to do this is an efficient skimmer[ mine is a Euroreef], and a good active sandbed to consume the leftover food. An ATS is not requred to maintain a tank like this.
However, I feel the ATS is better for your system and all the creatures in it[ more natural IMO]. It provides a surge and night light cycle for improved ph and oxygen content. Mind you these can be accomplished other ways by using algae sumps, etc. Now thats my main problem! I have a stong dislike for sumps, overflows, big skimmers and especially big pumps. Remember this is my preference only.
Sometimes though this is the only way one can go due to different reasons. If for some reason I cant add an ATS to my new tank, I will get a 6ft. counter current skimmer from Rons and stand it behind my tank which is being built into a wall so its ok if its ugly

.

------------------
Doug Lowey

 

[Anonymous]

If coral growth rates are what you're looking to amp up, then an ATS alone mightn't do a complete job. Proteinaceous nutrition in the form of zooplankton can be supplied somewhat by a very active sandbed. Maybe even a refugium.

I'm generally leery of 'feeding' corals (in the interventionist, person-or-machine-will-introduce-food sense). Corals settle into growth rates and sizes that they seem to have difficulty sustaining or defending on just zooxanhtellar nutrition, when 'feeding' is withdrawn for whatever reason. A stable sandbed, in-tank microfauna/flora and an ATS can be less unpredictable than interventionist importation/feeding.

Sorry, just too many experiences with well fed corals suddenly succumbing after a break in the feeding schedule. I will now shut up

 

[Anonymous]

just curious.. how is an ATS able to process more DOC's than a refugium? i would think that a refugium would be better at nutrient export because it has caulerpa, liverock and/or deep sand bed: maybe even mangrooves. does the surge action in an ATS have that great of an effect on nutrient export? how about a surge refugium?

------------------
have a nice day
max spl

come and visit my page:
Reeftopia

 

[Anonymous]

From what I understand the ability of the ATS to process DOC's "better" than a standard refugium is just a matter of shear volumn. A refugium would have to be packed extremely densly with caluerpa and algaes to equal the number of algae's on a decent sized ATS screen. Granted to some extent the level of DOC's that would be processed would be relative to the amount that exisit and no more would be processed after exhaustion. However if an extremely "large" bio-load where maintained and very heavy feeding practices follwed an ATS should be more efficient. Granted this is all theory. I agree however that a packed refugium could process large quantities of DOC's and would produce sufficient DO and palktonic life to the system in much the same manner as a ATS. In this instance it may be more economical and considerably less maintance to set up a large refugium, like John Rice, than an ATS. Any input?

Zerah
Lawton, OK

 

[Anonymous]

The Berlin method (still think that sounds like a family planning issue) can handle heavy feeding, just utilize heavier skimming. I would also add in a nice refugium and sand/mud bed as well though, thus you kinda get away from the Berlin system, but why hang your hat on the same nail each day anyway?

ATS's are more efficient than refugiums because microalages are more efficient than macros due to growth rates.

I think the combined approach is probably, the ideal, the idea of 'purist' is BS to me as there is no *right* way, in fact the combination of the two methods Berlin/ATS might be the closest thing to a natural ecosystem possible. The Berlin purists fail to realize the importance the roll of algae plays in the ecosystem, while the ATS purists fail to realize the benefits of skimming and both fail to realize that the reef while DOC poor is food rich.

Tom


------------------
Visit Tom's Reef
http://www.bit-net.com/~tjotoole/

proud to be an associate of

Inland Reef Aquaria, Nashua, NH
http://www.inlandreef.com/

 

[Anonymous]

Zqy

You may also want to check out the thread "Plenum vs. Ecosystem" which talks about a different method of "algae" filtration.

I would also like to experiment with a ATS that is illuminated 24 HRS a day as opposed to the reverse day/night method.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Anonymous]

Hi,
I had a ATS for about 2 years.
It was for my 240g reef which has 1300w of VHO and MH lights, the scrubber was about 0.7 m2 surface area, lit with 3x175 w MH lights, on a 12+ hour RPP. It had a large paddle type wave maker and two power heads.

I would every week or two remove one half of the screens to scrap off the algae, mostly hair algae. It definitely (IMO) required the use of carbon to remove the yellowing. I really must say it was of little value other than “not having a skimmer,” which I now have. A DSB and a separate refugia seems to be far superior, unless one specifically wants a ATS for some esoteric reason(s).

 

[Anonymous]

Hi All,
I took the trip down to Terra Haute to check out the system for myself a few years ago.Awesome setup!What I didn't like about their tanks was they were all yellow like Alan stated.To me nothing looks worse than a yellow tank.I think they are doing some good research but I personally would not have a tank like that.Just an opinion,Bob

------------------
My reef album
http://communities.msn.com/BobsReefPictures

 

[Anonymous]

maxspl:

The way that Morgan described it to me was that the algae on a true turf scrubber grow much faster than the same algae in a refugium where they are not harvested in the same fashion.

For example, in a refugium there will likely be creatures that eat the algae. These creatures will release some of the nutrients back into the system.

Also, the turfs simply grow faster when close cropped in a high current area free from predation.

He also said not all algae were suitable, and that randomly starting a turf scrubber might result in predominate forms which do not grow as fast. He recommended getting a starter culture.

OTOH, I've never used a turf scrubber, but when my refugium was filled with macroalgae the testable nutrient levels were undetectable (nitrate and phosphate). Unfortunately, microalgae eventually predominated in my refugium, and I altered the setup to not be so heavy on the algae and the associated nutrient additives (iron/vitamins/etc.)

------------------
Randy Holmes-Farley