Help between refugium or turf scrubber for my setup

VintageReefer

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
10,774
Reaction score
17,565
Location
USA
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Here's the thread;


Show me the proof please.
Show me the concession
 

mizimmer90

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Messages
438
Reaction score
319
Location
St. Louis
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The conclusion was that it's very "possible" that an ATS or fuge can influence (reduce) algae in the display tank.

The math shows that given a limiting nutrient situation (i.e. possibly a trace element like iron), a sufficiently powerful fuge/ATS can decrease display algae, even to zero. I make no claims as to a practical size or necessary lighting/flow, and leave it up to people experience for that part. Other factors like CUC and good maintenance will also tip the scales in favor of ATS/fuges.
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,837
Reaction score
6,790
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

mizimmer90

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Messages
438
Reaction score
319
Location
St. Louis
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

I don't see any concession. Especially not any comments from you about incorrect assumptions in the model. Fanciful rewriting of history!!

Read all 38 pages of that thread and try and find where I say that *any* sized fuge/ATS will always prevent algae in the display tank. Was never said. You're trying to set up a straw man here! Lol
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,837
Reaction score
6,790
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't see any concession. Especially not any comments from you about incorrect assumptions in the model. Fanciful rewriting of history!!

Read all 38 pages of that thread and try and find where I say that *any* sized fuge/ATS will always prevent algae in the display tank. Was never said. You're trying to set up a straw man here! Lol
It's certainly possible I imagined certain facets of the thread, that's why things are written down, lol. My issue is not with you at all. It's the claim that scrubbers stop algae growth in the display. According to your own model this only applies to growth that's 100 x the display volume, maybe 10 x, maybe 1/2? Then this tank is not fed, or supplied with nutrients in the form of traces? There is certainly not evidence I remember that indicates a few grammes of algae growth in a separate container can control algae in a display tank. I really am not gonna search through to find the post where you didn't realise scrubber growth was discarded, unless I imagined that bit (always possible, but I don't think so).

Cheers
 

VintageReefer

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
10,774
Reaction score
17,565
Location
USA
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
keeping scrubbers harvested more often yields stronger results than harvesting less often. You would think more algae in the scrubber = more nutrient consumption but it’s false! Young algae grows faster and consumes more nutrients. Discarding the algae removes the nutrients from the system completely and makes the scrubber more effective
 

mizimmer90

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Messages
438
Reaction score
319
Location
St. Louis
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It's certainly possible I imagined certain facets of the thread, that's why things are written down, lol. My issue is not with you at all. It's the claim that scrubbers stop algae growth in the display. According to your own model this only applies to growth that's 100 x the display volume, maybe 10 x, maybe 1/2? Then this tank is not fed, or supplied with nutrients in the form of traces? There is certainly not evidence I remember that indicates a few grammes of algae growth in a separate container can control algae in a display tank. I really am not gonna search through to find the post where you didn't realise scrubber growth was discarded, unless I imagined that bit (always possible, but I don't think so).

Cheers

I would not read into the exact values since we'd need to know precise measures of relative algae growth rates for each region. The important parts of the model are the trends, i.e. that algae grown in one region can reduce the rate in another, which will have a predictable form.

As for pulling algae out, this was intentionally neglected in the model so that I could have an analytic solution, but it would actually make the model favor ATS/refugiums even more since you can keep growing without consideration of a volume cap.
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,837
Reaction score
6,790
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I would not read into the exact values since we'd need to know precise measures of relative algae growth rates for each region. The important parts of the model are the trends, i.e. that algae grown in one region can reduce the rate in another, which will have a predictable form.

As for pulling algae out, this was intentionally neglected in the model so that I could have an analytic solution, but it would actually make the model favor ATS/refugiums even more since you can keep growing without consideration of a volume cap.
Here’s my old scrubber. I was easily able to set up algae growth anywhere in my system, even with this at fulll production;

 

mizimmer90

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Messages
438
Reaction score
319
Location
St. Louis
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Here’s my old scrubber. I was easily able to set up algae growth anywhere in my system, even with this at fulll production;


I'm not the right person to help you with it, but the model would suggest that either you weren't in a nutrient limited environment or your scrubbers advantage was not sufficiently competitive (for a myriad of reasons).
 

mizimmer90

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Messages
438
Reaction score
319
Location
St. Louis
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Also, I feel bad for us hijacking OPs thread to continue an older discussion!

Picture of my conch (and I'm sure everyone else reading this discussion lol)

20241023_165811.jpg
 

VintageReefer

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
10,774
Reaction score
17,565
Location
USA
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Here’s my old scrubber. I was easily able to set up algae growth anywhere in my system, even with this at fulll production;

All you are growing is slime algae which indicates your system is extremely nutrient dense. The slime algae prevents turf algae from growing.

Slime algae needs to be removed from the screen daily. Screen cleaned to remove any film. And repeat until the nutrients are lowered and slime is not forming, then turf algae can root and begin to grow.

Sounds to me like your scrubber was working but not sized large enough for your system. Might have needed two. Might have needed a change in design. Clearly it’s pulling nutrients but I don’t see any evidence your scrubber ever started growing anything but slime algae
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,837
Reaction score
6,790
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
All you are growing is slime algae which indicates your system is extremely nutrient dense. The slime algae prevents turf algae from growing.

Slime algae needs to be removed from the screen daily. Screen cleaned to remove any film. And repeat until the nutrients are lowered and slime is not forming, then turf algae can root and begin to grow.

Sounds to me like your scrubber was working but not sized large enough for your system. Might have needed two. Might have needed a change in design. Clearly it’s pulling nutrients but I don’t see any evidence your scrubber ever started growing anything but slime algae
Lol, read the thread, that's 99.99% GHA. About 800 grammes every 10 days when I added CO2 to it, 500 grammes every ten days without.
 

VintageReefer

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
10,774
Reaction score
17,565
Location
USA
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Lol, read the thread, that's 99.99% GHA. About 800 grammes every 10 days when I added CO2 to it, 500 grammes every ten days without.
I read. Looks like slime algae in the pics. Slime. Hair. Doesn’t matter. It’s not the right algae so something was wrong with your design or methods regardless if you agree or not. Turf scrubbers are not intended to grow slime or hair algae. And you shouldn’t need to add co2. So. Soemthing was flawed in your design or methods

Or possibly you had TONS of phosphate bound up in sand and rock and needed a much larger unit.
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,837
Reaction score
6,790
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I read. Looks like slime algae in the pics. Slime. Hair. Doesn’t matter. It’s not the right algae so something was wrong with your design or methods regardless if you agree or not. Turf scrubbers are not intended to grow slime or hair algae. And you shouldn’t need to add co2. So. Soemthing was flawed in your design or methods

Or possibly you had TONS of phosphate bound up in sand and rock and needed a much larger unit.
Indeed, not nutrient limited, that would be a mistake in my opinion. "Flawed" in my design? Lol.
 

Peanut

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,761
Reaction score
1,405
Location
Miami Beach, Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
keeping scrubbers harvested more often yields stronger results than harvesting less often. You would think more algae in the scrubber = more nutrient consumption but it’s false! Young algae grows faster and consumes more nutrients. Discarding the algae removes the nutrients from the system completely and makes the scrubber more effective

How often do you harvest?
 

VintageReefer

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
10,774
Reaction score
17,565
Location
USA
Rating - 100%
2   0   0

Great <irrelevant> video. It’s not a response to anything that’s been said, and the points made are talking about algae taking over natural reefs, not macro algae being grown in a refugium / scrubber as a means for nutrient control.

Sidestep and attempt to change topics or deflect all you want. Have someone else speak for you about something else. Not going to work here. I will say again what you refuse to accept. Your scrubber didn’t work for you because there was a flaw in your design, methods, or system. If you can’t look back, and realize that if you only grew hair algae then something was wrong, then you also have a flaw in your personality. Your scrubber grew algae very well, but not the right kind, or maybe not enough of it. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for others
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,837
Reaction score
6,790
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Great <irrelevant> video. It’s not a response to anything that’s been said, and the points made are talking about algae taking over natural reefs, not macro algae being grown in a refugium / scrubber as a means for nutrient control.

Sidestep and attempt to change topics or deflect all you want. Have someone else speak for you about something else. Not going to work here. I will say again what you refuse to accept. Your scrubber didn’t work for you because there was a flaw in your design, methods, or system. If you can’t look back, and realize that if you only grew hair algae then something was wrong, then you also have a flaw in your personality. Your scrubber grew algae very well, but not the right kind, or maybe not enough of it. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for others
Turf scrubbers are designed to grow hair algae or turf, as mine did. Although folk can call their particular macro algae growing devices such as tiny refugiums "scrubbers" if they wish. My 500 grammes harvest removed about 1.5 to 2 ppm nitrate in a 500 litre tank per week. So that's just 0.5 ppm ammonia a week, as far as I can tell. Happy to be corrected though.

Edit - dry weight was 5% of wet weight, harvest 10 days (upto 14)
 
Last edited:

TOP 10 Trending Threads

SHOULD MANDARIN GOBIES BE LEFT FOR MORE EXPERIENCED HOBBYISTS? WHY OR WHY NOT?

  • Yes, they are difficult to care for & should be left for more experienced reefers.

    Votes: 21 34.4%
  • They can be challenging to care for, but I think successful care is possible for a new reefer.

    Votes: 26 42.6%
  • No, they are not too difficult to care for & most reefers can successfully care for them.

    Votes: 9 14.8%
  • No, they are not difficult to care for & I believe any level reefer can be successful with them.

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 1 1.6%
Back
Top