Help between refugium or turf scrubber for my setup

[ScottD]

This thread is singing my song lol!

I have previously been in touch with @VintageReefer who recommended the Santa Monica Surf2 Algae scrubber. I am loving VR's approach and results; very much in-line with what I've been planning for my next build.

@exnisstech - I'd love your help too, if you don't mind!

And now @PharmrJohn wants one of these turf scrubbers....

It's hard to ignore the advice of that motley crew ;-) (Just joking guys, of course!)

Quickly, without trying to cross-post over the OP's thread, I am leaning towards a large sump loaded with live rock a la VintageReefer, exnisstech, etc. I want a dark/cryptic section, and I'd like to have this ATS. Seems like a great setup

Thanks guys!

It’s singing my song too.
I’ve reached out to vintage and ex as well about them and plan on pulling the trigger here shortly on one.

 

[BetteMidler]

In a fuge, you might see Cheato break down and vanish sometimes. The key is finding the right balance of bioload to keep the fuge running smoothly. Now, I haven't tried scrubbers myself, but they seem like a good option. I'd be curious to see if a scrubber offers more flexibility than a fuge. Seems to be the simpler more effective option for the nutrient export.

I do like how my fuge is setup, it is the last line of my return that is pushed back to the tank. Pods get caught up in the return flow back into the display. I'm using one of those Tunze external reactors.

 

[UMALUM]

I don't find it a coincidence that around week 4 with my surf the valonia in my display started disappearing. I'm pretty sure that would fall into the category of being outcompeted.

 

[nate167]

thanks everyone for the info and even the different views. I decided to order a surf 4 for my tank based off the reviews from those that have it here and I submitted a form to sm filtration and just spent an hour on the phone with them going through my setup, where I’m at now, and where I want to be in the future. The amount of knowledge he provided was amazing and great insight into looking down the road for my tank.

 

[VintageReefer]

thanks everyone for the info and even the different views. I decided to order a surf 4 for my tank based off the reviews from those that have it here and I submitted a form to sm filtration and just spent an hour on the phone with them going through my setup, where I’m at now, and where I want to be in the future. The amount of knowledge he provided was amazing and great insight into looking down the road for my tank.

When it comes to algae he knows what to do. Sometimes the advice he gives seems logical and sometimes counterintuitive…but I will tell you this, it always works. He knows his stuff and his products well.

 

[nate167]

When it comes to algae he knows what to do. Sometimes the advice he gives seems logical and sometimes counterintuitive…but I will tell you this, it always works. He knows his stuff and his products well.

I didn’t even think about using the algae it produces to feed tangs when I get them down the road. I was really impressed with the time he took and the information he provided.

 

[VintageReefer]

I didn’t even think about using the algae it produces to feed tangs when I get them down the road. I was really impressed with the time he took and the information he provided.

A cool thing is…the algae the scrubber grows can only survive in the scrubber. So algae you feed the tangs..any that gets missed and uneaten dies off on its own

 

[Seansea]

I dont see how the idea of algae growing in a preferred zone over a non preferable zone baffles so many people. If you go in the ocean anywhere your gonna see nasty algae growing in the marina on the piles that you won't see out on the reefs. The 55k lights with red and green blasting on a screen with 1/16" deep water running over it from 2" is away is always gonna be the preferred spot for spores to grow than in your display with blue lights mounted 10+ inches above the water. I have 20 fish in a 75g aquarium and feed very heavy and no algae in display ever. If I didn't have scrubber tank would be covered in it

 

[VintageReefer]

I dont see how the idea of algae growing in a preferred zone over a non preferable zone baffles so many people. If you go in the ocean anywhere your gonna see nasty algae growing in the marina on the piles that you won't see out on the reefs. The 55k lights with red and green blasting on a screen with 1/16" deep water running over it from 2" is away is always gonna be the preferred spot for spores to grow than in your display with blue lights mounted 10+ inches above the water. I have 20 fish in a 75g aquarium and feed very heavy and no algae in display ever. If I didn't have scrubber tank would be covered in it

Broken scrubber

Replaced air pump + 17 day wait

My results were faster than a new user would get because my scrubber had a full algae colony inside it that was established. My air pump broke so I wasn’t getting any circulation through the scrubber. Once I replaced the air pump the water started being filtered again and all that hair algae died off in 17 days

It took another week or so for the remaining algae to die off.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I dont see how the idea of algae growing in a preferred zone over a non preferable zone baffles so many people.

Im not sure this is the place for such a discussion, but I’m happy to provide details of why it perplexes me. It’s not that I don’t understand the conditions in the scrubber, it’s the question of what happens in the display that prevents algae growth there.

What do you believe the scrubber does to the conditions in the display tank that limit algae there?

 

[Garf]

I don't find it a coincidence that around week 4 with my surf the valonia in my display started disappearing. I'm pretty sure that would fall into the category of being outcompeted.

How long have you had your four 6 inch tangs?

I dont see how the idea of algae growing in a preferred zone over a non preferable zone baffles so many people. If you go in the ocean anywhere your gonna see nasty algae growing in the marina on the piles that you won't see out on the reefs. The 55k lights with red and green blasting on a screen with 1/16" deep water running over it from 2" is away is always gonna be the preferred spot for spores to grow than in your display with blue lights mounted 10+ inches above the water. I have 20 fish in a 75g aquarium and feed very heavy and no algae in display ever. If I didn't have scrubber tank would be covered in it

How long have you had your massive tangs?

 

[mizimmer90]

Im not sure this is the place for such a discussion, but I’m happy to provide details of why it perplexes me. It’s not that I don’t understand the conditions in the scrubber, it’s the question of what happens in the display that prevents algae growth there.

What do you believe the scrubber does to the conditions in the display tank that limit algae there?

In the regime where the growth of algae is a function of the concentration of a limiting nutrient (could be any nutrient that is not in excess), the scrubber would compete with display algae by reducing the supply of the limiting nutrient. I.e. if the nutrient concentration drops, the growth of algae drops too. If the scrubber has a sufficient competitive advantage it's rapid growth will be at the expense of rapid growth in display algae.

As a continued caveat, I'm making no claims on the necessary size or specifics of a scrubber but contributing a model for *how* a scrubber can work.

That said, I'll anecdotally add that I've had good success growing algae in my refugium and not in my display. Also, it seems totally plausible to me that the needs of certain algae can be different than the needs of coral and other algaes (a human can't survive indefinitely on a cracker a day but a mouse might be able to).

 

[VintageReefer]

Im not sure this is the place for such a discussion, but I’m happy to provide details of why it perplexes me. It’s not that I don’t understand the conditions in the scrubber, it’s the question of what happens in the display that prevents algae growth there.

What do you believe the scrubber does to the conditions in the display tank that limit algae there?

Do you feel phosphate can travel, by being drawn or attracted somehow to areas more in demand if it?

Example if one area was extremely low in phosphate, would loose phosphate in other areas seep to that low area somehow?

If water was very high in phosphate and new rock was put in, the phosphate would flow to the rock and build up

If rock was very high in phospate and put in clean water, the phosphate would unbind or flow back into the water

This happens until there is equilibrium. But what if one spot was a bottomless pit?

So is it possible the rapid uptake of phosphate from a scrubber is slowly but constantly pulling all loose and available phosphate into it, making conditions advantageous for algae growth in the scrubber vs the display ? An area void of phosphate, or extremely low level due to constant uptake, causing an imbalance, and on some level, naturally, phosphate is drawn to this area?

That combined with the fact that some scrubbers are emitting 1000 par of 440nm red light, from a distance of less than an inch, while being supplemented with oxygen…fuels the rapid growth and with that, the continuous intake of phosphate

With the docks example, the post with the best conditions will grow the most algae.

So what is it doing to the display? Constantly leaching phosphate away from it before it gets a chance (or reduces the chance) to develop / feed algae in that location

I say phosphate but it could also be a combination of things including trace elements

Scrubbers also don’t instantly achieve these results. It takes weeks and possibly months. Your display algae doesn’t just die instantly like a chemical was added. It starves out over time, diminishing in health until it is pale and withers away.

Also, many people starting scrubber use see a phenomenon. They see algae start growing more than ever. It’s a phase. As the water is stripped more and more, phosphate is released from the spots binding it heavily, and as it becomes exposed to current and light and surface attachment points, algae develops. And then it dies. Or is harvested/consumed. And then it comes back. And it’s a process that one day…stops and then the algae doesn’t return.

Some of the concept is theory, but the results are what happens to people with properly sized and properly operating scrubbers

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In the regime where the growth of algae is a function of the concentration of a limiting nutrient (could be any nutrient that is not in excess), the scrubber would compete with display algae by reducing the supply of the limiting nutrient. I.e. if the nutrient concentration drops, the growth of algae drops too. If the scrubber has a sufficient competitive advantage it's rapid growth will be at the expense of rapid growth in display algae.

As a continued caveat, I'm making no claims on the necessary size or specifics of a scrubber but contributing a model for *how* a scrubber can work.

That said, I'll anecdotally add that I've had good success growing algae in my refugium and not in my display. Also, it seems totally plausible to me that the needs of certain algae can be different than the needs of coral and other algaes (a human can't survive indefinitely on a cracker a day but a mouse might be able to).

Yes, that’s a fine theory, the question is whether it is true, and if so, what nutrient or trace element.

As to nitrate and phosphate, those can and have been reduced in many different ways, and very often folks find they cannot reduce them low enough to limit algae in the display without simultaneously hurting corals from low nutrients.

Assuming those folks experienceds are as valid as the folks claiming effects here, how do these two ideas peacefully coexist?

Do you believe that ATS users drive N or P so low that algae cannot thrive in the display? Do folks have measurements to support that hypothesis?

One alternate way is the limiting nutrient is not N or P, but a trace element that corals can attain more readily than algae.

If the latter is the explanation some or all of the time, it has a bearing on husbandry methods, since dosing too much of that element could lead to failure.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Do you feel phosphate can travel, by being drawn or attracted somehow to areas more in demand if it?

Example if one area was extremely low in phosphate, would loose phosphate in other areas seep to that low area somehow?

If water was very high in phosphate and new rock was put in, the phosphate would flow to the rock and build up

If rock was very high in phospate and put in clean water, the phosphate would unbind or flow back into the water

This happens until there is equilibrium. But what if one spot was a bottomless pit?

So is it possible the rapid uptake of phosphate from a scrubber is slowly but constantly pulling all loose and available phosphate into it, making conditions advantageous for algae growth in the scrubber vs the display ? An area void of phosphate, or extremely low level due to constant uptake, causing an imbalance, and on some level, naturally, phosphate is drawn to this area?

That combined with the fact that some scrubbers are emitting 1000 par of 440nm red light, from a distance of less than an inch, while being supplemented with oxygen…fuels the rapid growth and with that, the continuous intake of phosphate

With the docks example, the post with the best conditions will grow the most algae.

So what is it doing to the display? Constantly leaching phosphate away from it before it gets a chance (or reduces the chance) to develop / feed algae in that location

I say phosphate but it could also be a combination of things including trace elements

Scrubbers also don’t instantly achieve these results. It takes weeks and possibly months. Your display algae doesn’t just die instantly like a chemical was added. It starves out over time, diminishing in health until it is pale and withers away.

Also, many people starting scrubber use see a phenomenon. They see algae start growing more than ever. It’s a phase. As the water is stripped more and more, phosphate is released from the spots binding it heavily, and as it becomes exposed to current and light and surface attachment points, algae develops. And then it dies. Or is harvested/consumed. And then it comes back. And it’s a process that one day…stops and then the algae doesn’t return.

Some of the concept is theory, but the results are what happens to people with properly sized and properly operating scrubbers

Not sure what you are asking by that first question, but of course it can. Any element will diffuse from areas of high concentration to low.

By this means, phosphate can be lowered everywhere by means such as GFO, aluminum oxide, or lanthanum.

But such methods often fail to deter algae in the main tank before corals also appear to suffer. Not all people do that instantly, so I don’t accept that the difference is the slowness of the approach. But if that were the difference, it would be important to know since folks might attain the algae reduction benefit if an ats in other, perhaps less expensive or space consuming ways.

Slow is easy to accomplish.

 

[mizimmer90]

Yes, that’s a fine theory, the question is whether it is true, and if so, what nutrient or trace element.

As to nitrate and phosphate, those can and have been reduced in many different ways, and very often folks find they cannot reduce them low enough to limit algae in the display without simultaneously hurting corals from low nutrients.

Assuming those folks experienceds are as valid as the folks claiming effects here, how do these two ideas peacefully coexist?

Do you believe that ATS users drive N or P so low that algae cannot thrive in the display? Do folks have measurements to support that hypothesis?

One alternate way is the limiting nutrient is not N or P, but a trace element that corals can attain more readily than algae.

If the latter is the explanation some or all of the time, it has a bearing on husbandry methods, since dosing too much of that element could lead to failure.

For sure! I'm also skeptical that N or P are the limiting nutrients. A bit of conjecture, but my money is on iron! There have been a number of controlled iron enrichment experiments in oceans that lead to large algae blooms, suggesting most natural reefs are limited by iron. This doesn't necessarily have to translate to our home reefs but it feels intuitive.

As for corals, their growth may not be as hindered by iron (or maybe a different nutrient) as common algaes. This is a matter of necessary vs sufficient, i.e. it is necessary that both algae and coral need iron, but X amount of iron per day may be sufficient for corals and not algae. (My cracker example above was an attempt to illustrate that an organisms requirements for survival may be different haha).

Some more anecdote: I dose N and P in my tank to keep them elevated but don't often see excessive algae in my display. When I overfeed my tank with food, there will be a noticeable increase in algae for the next few days, despite N and P being reasonably stable from testing. I take this to be consistent that there is some other nutrient that is rate limiting and fueling the growth.

I'm tempted to want to look for ICP tests of people with scrubbers but these are just snapshots. It's possible that everyone has 0 iron (or other rate limiting nutrient) in their tank at time of testing, but that the transient spikes from feeding/dosing are sufficient for differential outcomes in people's tanks.

 

[VintageReefer]

Not sure what you are asking by that first question, but of course it can. Any element will diffuse from areas of high concentration to low.

By this means, phosphate can be lowered everywhere by means such as GFO, aluminum oxide, or lanthanum.

But such methods often fail to deter algae in the main tank before corals also appear to suffer. Not all people do that instantly, so I don’t accept that the difference is the slowness of the approach. But if that were the difference, it would be important to know since folks might attain the algae reduction benefit if an ats in other, perhaps less expensive or space consuming ways.

Slow is easy to accomplish.

I can tell you this. They work and phosphate isn’t the only thing at play here

 

[VintageReefer]

But such methods often fail to deter algae in the main tank before corals also appear to suffer.

Perhaps while reducing phosphate, the scrubber is also consuming 1 or 2 elements, while gfo is absorbing 10+

So scrubbers can drive things low enough to impact algae but not coral, while the same method with gfo would cause different results

 

[Seansea]

How long have you had your four 6 inch tangs?

How long have you had your massive tangs?

I've had tangs that were 10" long in a tank that was over run with hair algae. They did nothing.

What do you believe the scrubber does to the conditions in the display tank that limit algae there?

Spores that spawn algae growth fly thru tank and land back in algae scrubber always preferring those conditions to tank conditions.

 

[Garf]

How long have you had your massive tangs?

I've had tangs that were 10" long in a tank that was over run with hair algae. They did nothing.

Ok, nonetheless, currently you have large herbivores in your display and not in your algae scrubber. You can see how this may cast doubt on the apparent communication / nutrient limitation between algae in your display and scrubber. Do you feed nori or other algae based feeds? Thanks for replying.