Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/387985/turf-scrubber-or-protein-skimmer-which-is-more-beneficial-to-the-aquarium/20#post_3418396
Regardless of the equipment you use, you feed your fish, you feed your corals, there is going to be some phosphate in the system regardless of your filtration methods. The difference is how you filter it out. Protein skimmers pull waste out of the system before it has a chance to be fed and break down into nitrate and phosphate. Scrubbers wait for the material to be fed, and whatever is left over from feeding, waste, etc. is then cleaned from the system by algae taking it up into their tissues.
In completely stripped and nutrient deficient systems, some corals can not survive. Xenia, for example, has to live in a nutrient dense system in order to survive and regularly uptakes nitrate/phosphate into their tissues. Other corals, such as Acropora, need high lighting conditions, yet still need to have a sufficient amount of zoo plankton in the system in order to feed.
Algae is the absolute most natural way for the ocean to clean itself - that is the way it has been done for millions of years, and that's the way it will continue to do. Algae makes use of all of the elements, nitrates and phosphates in our system that we don't want, so that we can export it from our system (clean the screen). To think that a tank without any algae is healthy is preposterous. Last time I checked, I haven't heard of anyone finding a giant protein skimmer in the middle of the ocean...
Agree here. However it all depends on what and how you want to run your system. An ULNS without the availability of nutrient for the growth of algae would be a waste of time adding an ATS. Many of the SPS dominant systems do use the ULNS philosophy to develop the growth, color and PE that are the beauty in their SPS. That said they do require feeding. The idea behind, as I am sure you know, the UNLS is to provide a system where increased feeding to the coral can be achieved without the increase in phosphates and other nutrients that would allow the growth of nuisance algae. I guess what I am saying is that the ATS does work, but not in a system designed for it not to work. Hee Hee.
As for algae being the natural way for the ocean to clean itself of course. However in a closed system where there are other methods available, foam fractionizers, other mechanical and chemical filtration means, just because they are used and the system is free of algae does not mean the system is not healthy. Depending on your choice of definition subsets healthy does mean prosperous, flourishing. I would say that many of the ULNSs are both of those things.
IMO if you are chasing a system that mimics the ocean you are chasing something outside of your ability to provide. If you say that anything outside of that quest is wrong, I challenge your assumptions. The hobby is one in which there are many ways to achieve the ends you wish to achieve and your end is your end.
I am not saying that either way is "better" than the other. I am saying one may have more advantages depending on what it is you want your end game to be. IMO strong arguments for or against either way do a disservice to newcomers in that it taints there thought process and does not allow for the environment where ideas - experimentation are able to grow.
The original question was....................
Turf Scrubber or Protein Skimmer. Which is more beneficial to the aquarium.
The answer to me lies in what type of aquarium system is it OP wants to maintain, the amount of work, money, space, DIY skills, etc. etc, the OP has to work with.
Fun stuff Snake,
and learning experience.
