Turf Scrubber or Protein Skimmer. Which is more beneficial to the aquarium.

[2quills]

Henry coming in and laying the smack down lol. Just wait till I get home buddy, I got something for ya in regards to ATS and ulns which a skimmer cannot achieve on its own. What you claim as being able to achieve would be pointless with a scrubber id say is already being done.

 

[spanko]

Look forward to it Quills.

 

[2quills]

Smarty pants lol. BTW something about ulns levels have been bugging me. If nutrient levels in the ocean are so low how is it that sps and macro are able to occupy some of the same realestate in reefs?

 

[spanko]

If you really take a look at some SPS dominant reef pictures you will see a lot of them with very little algae growth. Where it does exist I would guess that the nutrient is being used by the algae first before it becomes a source of problem to the SPS coral.
Please don't get me wrong here, there is a need for nutrient to support SPS coral. In the ULNS's this is achieved by heavier feeding.
I do believe that in aquariums there is also a certain amount of aesthetics involved here. Those SPS masters just don't like the look of algae screwing with the SPS and want it gone.
Here are some from the Great Barrier.
http://www.google.com/search?q=great+barrier+reef+pictures&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=v6N&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=LrR4TtazFpCFsgKfnt2tDQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=605#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=06N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=underwater+great+barrier+reef+pictures&pbx=1&oq=underwater+great+barrier+reef+pictures&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=13583l18104l0l18439l15l14l1l0l0l0l179l1641l3.10l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9b3ecec70d16257&biw=1280&bih=605
And some from the Phillipines.
http://www.google.com/search?q=great+barrier+reef+pictures&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=v6N&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=LrR4TtazFpCFsgKfnt2tDQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=605#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=dmi&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=underwater+phillipines+reef+pictures&oq=underwater+phillipines+reef+pictures&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=66438l70756l0l72100l13l13l0l0l0l2l288l2178l3.7.3l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9b3ecec70d16257&biw=1280&bih=605

 

[2quills]

Henry, Sir. I believe that of which you're describing is the very same thing that a scrubber is capable of doing. Providing a low nutrient invornment in the tank while being able to feed heavy. That's why nuesence algae dissapers and why you get to a point where you virtually have to feed heavy to keep the scrubber growing well. Excellent growth and extension has been reported by folks with just scrubbers in regards to sps. The fact that they produce organic carbon is similar to carbon dosing giving you virtually the same effect while also creating plenty of dissolved oxygen.
Also in a case of fish only tanks. Plenty of folks run Skimmers and try as they may still have nuesence algea problems. Scrubbers can be effective there as well.

 

[spanko]

So why isn't a regular refugium used instead? No screen cleaning and really the same results no?
But again, in some of the worlds SPS dominant reef systems there is little to no algae growth, and this is in the wild, makes one wonder what is going on there.

 

[2quills]

I think it falls in line with what you mentioned before. Nutrients are consumed at a rate that they can't build up fast enough to become an issue. Scrubber design and type of growth that you are trying to achieve is what typically makes them far more effective than your average fuge with macro. Green hair algae from what I understand assimilates nutriens faster than other macros. So again I ask if you can keep an sps dominant reef with chaeto or caulerpa then why not with a scrubber?

 

[tur4k]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///t/387985/turf-scrubber-or-protein-skimmer-which-is-more-beneficial-to-the-aquarium/20#post_3418412
Oh yeah and this....................

http://www.natureisawesome.net/crazy-ocean-foam/
My thoughts exactly. Beaches are the oceans skimmer cup.

 

[2quills]

I wonder if that kid realizes what he's playing in.
Some interesting info.
http://www.geology.iupui.edu/classes/g130/reefs/EO.htm
"Coral reefs actually contain up to three times as much plant as animal biomass. The zooxanthellae account for less than 5 percent of the reef's plant mass; most of the rest is filamentous green algae. However, zooxanthellae account for up to 75 percent of the biomass of reef-building corals and provide the coral with up to 90 percent of its nutrition". """"
This would indicate to me that algae can and do thrive in reefs right along side SPS and other corals. Much of which can be in forms that we don't necissary see, like plankton, zooxanthellae etc. Infact, I need to double check the facts but I've heard that upto 90% of all the bio mass in the oceans are forms of algae.. That leaves 10% to make up the rest, fish, whales, corals...etc. I've seen it stated the algae in the worlds oceans are where the vast majority of all filtering is being done, not by bacteria. And not so much by foam fractionation from ocean waves. If this is true then what is it that we are missing in the idea that nutrient levels in the ocean are kept so low that algae in all it's form thrives so much? There's something fishy going on here.

 

[kiefers]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/387985/turf-scrubber-or-protein-skimmer-which-is-more-beneficial-to-the-aquarium/40#post_3418458
I wonder if that kid realizes what he's playing in.
Some interesting info.
http://www.geology.iupui.edu/classes/g130/reefs/EO.htm
"Coral reefs actually contain up to three times as much plant as animal biomass. The zooxanthellae account for less than 5 percent of the reef's plant mass; most of the rest is filamentous green algae. However, zooxanthellae account for up to 75 percent of the biomass of reef-building corals and provide the coral with up to 90 percent of its nutrition". """"
This would indicate to me that algae can and do thrive in reefs right along side SPS and other corals. Much of which can be in forms that we don't necissary see, like plankton, zooxanthellae etc. Infact, I need to double check the facts but I've heard that upto 90% of all the bio mass in the oceans are forms of algae.. That leaves 10% to make up the rest, fish, whales, corals...etc. I've seen it stated the algae in the worlds oceans are where the vast majority of all filtering is being done, not by bacteria. And not so much by foam fractionation from ocean waves. If this is true then what is it that we are missing in the idea that nutrient levels in the ocean are kept so low that algae in all it's form thrives so much? There's something fishy going on here.
We have to keep in mind that the oceans mass is quite larger than our closed systems. In the ocean things such as algae may be so diluted, like ich that it may rarely come in contact with a fish...
algae on the other hand is more than likely the same In little areas mostly closer to the surface where there may be more movement or aggitation. If not so, there are more critters that thrive on the algae and hense less amounts.
I do however diagree with the fact the ocean is rich in nutrients. Some say more some say less.Just my thoughts

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/387985/turf-scrubber-or-protein-skimmer-which-is-more-beneficial-to-the-aquarium/40#post_3418462
We have to keep in mind that the oceans mass is quite larger than our closed systems. Much like ich in our tanks, in the ocean it is so diluted that it may rarely come in contact with a fish...
algae on the other hand is more than likely the same In little areas mostly closer to the surface where there may be more movement or aggitation. If not so, there are more critters that thrive on the algae and hense less amounts.
I do however diagree with the fact the ocean is rich in nutrients. Some say more some say less, in any case it may be rich in photosynthesis where most corals do thrive. Just my thoughts
Keith, zooanthelae algae that lives within the coral tissue is what requires photosynthesis. 75% infact if you can believe the published artical above. They are what require the nutrients. This however doesn't mean that some areas in the ocean are not higher in nutrients than others. Obviously mostly sps dominant reefs are in areas that have lower nutrient waters than those of softer corals. But that fact that reefs are close to shores would leave me to believe that those areas in particular are higher in nutrients than say the middle of the atlantic. I could run down to the beach right now and snap a pic of the masses of washed up algae on the beaches that run for miles and miles. Ofcorse it's the stuff that grows right off shore.

 

[snakeblitz33]

I wish I was at my home computer. Ugh! This is killing me. Go 2quills! Lol

 

[spanko]

IN tune with what Keif said, coral reefs are only found in tropical and subtropical waters around the world.And they make up less than 4% of the sea floor.

 

[2quills]

Point being?

 

[spanko]

Point on the statement that 90% of the biomass of the ocean are forms of algae. They have a considerable amount of real estate to work in. I wonder what percentage of the actual reef is comprised of algae, and then would you include phytoplankton in the calculation as it would seem that the macro algae are what most try to keep out of their display. Does either of both the scrubber and or skimmer remove phtyo?
I don't know, "I'm not an expert with either, I'm just here talking trash."

 

[2quills]

I suppose it would vary a bit from reef to reef but the study that I posted above mentioned that reefs contain three times the plant mass to animal mass. Makes some sense as both require nutrients. Some more than others. We don't realy see algae or corals (photosynthetics) in the deep oceans. Just having a hard time seeing how ocean volume makes a difference in the tropical or sub tropical areas where both are present.

 

[spanko]

I believe there are many ways to skin a cat in this hobby. Is a scrubber better than a skimmer? Depends on you and what you are trying to accomplish and how you are going to get there. Debating which is better is IMO non-productive. The discussion should be here are the good and bad about both and your decision to use either or neither is your decision.
However the developement of the protein skimmer has allowed aquarists and aquaria the ability to keep coral. Scrubbers have been around a lot longer than skimmers just for the record.
Skimmers require less energy. Skimmers and refugiums require less maintenance.
From the aesthetics side of things a skimmer is purdier! Also a well stocked refugium is better looking and has harvestable materials that can be sold for a profit.

 

[spanko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/387985/turf-scrubber-or-protein-skimmer-which-is-more-beneficial-to-the-aquarium/40#post_3418482
I suppose it would vary a bit from reef to reef but the study that I posted above mentioned that reefs contain three times the plant mass to animal mass. Makes some sense as both require nutrients. Some more than others. We don't realy see algae or corals (photosynthetics) in the deep oceans. Just having a hard time seeing how ocean volume makes a difference in the tropical or sub tropical areas where both are present.
Then I misunderstood. Thought your quote was based on total ocean volume, not just the reefs.
Henry (let me get this bacon grease off my glasses) spanko

 

[spanko]

And besides with all that sump space used for an ATS, you could just get an internal skimmer and remove DOCs before they even turn into nitrates and phosphates...
I'm sorry folks, I gotta stop. Peace out.

 

[snakeblitz33]

I've been hanging around some European forums lately, and half of them don't even use skimmers or scrubbers.... I don't think that it was the development of protein skimmers that allowed us to keep corals, but a better understanding of water flow dynamics, nutrient export, aquatic chemistry, and lighting requirements.
To me a screen full of algae is pretty! Algae screens can potentially be sold for profit. Should the more lazy of the techniques be the better choice?
So, to sum it all up,... This is my conclusion, others may draw a different perspective.
Scrubbers and skimmers do the same job. They both are nutrient control and export devices. Both come in handy when dealing with nutrient problems in a system. They both have their benefits, and they both have their problems. Protein skimmers are easy to clean, easy to set up, easy to manage and can be easily store bought and use less energy depending on the situation. Protein skimmers remove protein from the water column, including good and bad substances, they (arguably) add oxygen to the water column and can be very helpful in exporting nutrients in well stocked aquariums, they also take up less space depending on the situation. Protein skimmers remove food from the water column before it has a chance to be fed to corals and other filter feeders, and before food has a chance to break down into nitrate and phosphate. Algae scrubbers are a natural means of controlling nitrate and phosphate, they add oxygen to the water by natural means of photosynthesis, they stabilize pH, grow copious amounts of seven day old copepods, remove toxins, remove heavy metals, only remove "bad" substances/chemicals from the aquarium (not coral food) and can be built cost effectively. Algae scrubbers, if not properly maintained, can cause yellowing of the water and if the pump is shut down for more than six hours and being out of water, the screen may die and have to be restarted. It is arguable that it is a bit more of a hassle to take the screen off and put it in the sink and clean algae off of it, and you have to do it without fail. They use a bit more electricity than a protein skimmer because it takes a pump and at minimum two lights in order to run.
The point is, they both have their benefits, and their problems. It depends on what you, the aquarist, wants to deal with, clean, and maintain. They accomplish the same goal: controlling and exporting waste. One is a natural filter, and one is a mechanical filter. In my humble opinion, I would rather clean algae off of a screen once a week than fish waste and decomposing zooplankton out of a cup once a week. I feel like algae scrubbers have more pros then cons. I do not see why, if you have a heavily stocked, heavily fed system, why you can not run both a skimmer periodically and a scrubber.