[Scrubber_steve]

Originally Posted by elegance coral

You have no problem with the concept of algae migrating from the display to a device you call an ATS. But, for some unknown reason, you believe that any algae growing on this magical ATS loses it's evolutionary advantage and can no longer spread to other areas of the system. It can spread from place to place, all over the system, but the second it starts growing in an ATS, that's no longer possible??? There is no scientific or logical explanation to justify such a belief.

Firstly, I don’t consider a scrubber magical or mysterious in any way. It is very basic in fact. It is simply a device that provides an optimal environment to intentionally grow algae. Why do this? Because algae takes up inorganic nutrients as it grows, then the excess algae is removed from the system along with the nutrients it has assimilated. It is simply an effective and natural method of nutrient control.

Establishing this optimal environment & the algae within creates a regional competitor for algae growth outside of the display environment. But it provides assets to its environment that are far more advantageous for algae growth than what typically exists in the display, i.e. intense lighting utilising specific & advantageous light spectrums, a thin film of water flowing over the algae providing an air water interface allowing an infinite supply of co2, etc. It’s a competition for available resources and the optimal environment provided by a scrubber greatly reduces the potential for most other algae’s to grow in a less suitable / less advantageous environment – the display.

I’ll again point out the obvious flaw of the algae migration thread you linked. It was a chaeto fuge & chaeto did not migrate to the display. Hair algae is what appeared in the display, and barely at that, & just happened to also be in the fuge. The hair algae would have been an issue whether or not a chaeto fuge was in use.

Originally Posted by elegance coral

I don't see your point here??? In fact, what you're saying here supports what I've been saying.
So you had a tiny amount of ulva growing in your display. So small that you never even saw it. Yet, this tiny amount had the ability to spread to you ATS. Now, without the constant grazing of fish, and possibly other herbivorous, in the display, the ulva is able to grow into a large lush colony in your ATS. But for some reason you believe that now it has lost the ability to spread to other places??? It can spread from place to place on the screen inside you ATS, but for some reason its lost the ability to spread from the screen to other places within the system ????

No, I’m not supporting your hypothesis. The scrubber provided an environment that didn’t already exist. An optimal environment specifically for the ulva to grow rapidly. Yes, the fish could have grazed on any ulva appearing in the display & this is what takes place on a healthy natural reef. But I had other algae growing in the display prior to installing the scrubber, and the fish were grazing on it, yet it was still obvious to the eye. And for the reasons I posted out above, that other algae, & cyno, disappeared totally from the display after installing the scrubber, and never returned.

Originally Posted by elegance coral

What you're describing isn't all that uncommon. It's also how ATS's became so popular in the first place, and why it has become popular again after people forgot the tragedy of the first go around. The species of algae were talking about, and that are commonly cultured on ATS's, have the very efficient ability to spread from one place to another. This is how it ended up on your ATS in the first place.

Yes, the algae that naturally takes up existence on a scrubber screen has to be in the system in the first place. So the scrubber isn’t adding it to the system, it’s the other way round – the algae was already in the system.

In my system (& others I personally know of) this scrubber algae, even with its apparent limitless efficient ability to relentlessly spread from one place to another, hasn't in actuality spread to any other place in the system, full stop. Despite my best efforts to introduce it to the display (LOL) via feeding it to the fish, it is completely undetectable. The other algae’s & cyno that disappeared from the display after installing the scrubber have also failed to rematerialize. Both these instances disprove your argument.

Originally Posted by elegance coral

Early on, after the installation of an ATS, it's relatively easy to combat the spread of algae from the ATS. Things often seem to be working great. However, every second of every day, the algae in that scrubber is working to enrich the system and create areas suitable for its spread and expansion.

Yet again, this isn’t occurring in reality. It is only the very odd person, who typically argues relentlessly against algae filtration, who seem to suggest this is the case.
People reading the musings of elegance coral should contemplate the musings of Ortega Gasset instead – “create a concept & reality leaves the room.”

Originally Posted by elegance coral

Most hobbyists that keep the more delicate species have abandoned the ATS's. Why???? If this is the miracles working filtration method people like yourself claim it to be shouldn't it work those same miracles for acros and other delicate species?? Why is there a growing trend among these hobbyists to abandon ATS's??

Again, I don’t claim algae filtration performs any miracles. That’s a strawman you’ve invented to use against people in your many arguments against algae filtration.

And I don’t claim to be a coral guru, but I have healthy acros. I read of plenty of people that have great difficulty keeping acros & other coral, yet these people don’t use algae filtration.
Delicate species of acro are notoriously difficult to keep no matter the methods used. There are a multitude of reasons delicate species can struggle, & pinpointing the reason can be next to impossible.

And your assertion that “a growing trend among these hobbyists to abandon ATS's” is an unprovable assertion, again, suggested by the few who relentlessly argue against algae filtration.

What I personally believe, by reading these forums, is that algae filtration is actually being utilised by more & more people. The use of chaeto fuges is certainly increasing, as are chaeto reactors.

And then there is the TRITON method of which a macro algae fuge is the heart of the system.

Originally Posted by elegance coral

You have made no fundamental changes to Dr. Adey's ATS. Your new version still functions with the EXACT same chemistry and biology. You even use the same species of algae. Growing algae on a vertical surface does not change it's biology. I understand your desire to distance yourself and your ATS from the failure that was Dr. Adey's ATS, but you can't. You copied his theory. Your ATS functions exactly like Dr. Adey's ATS, both chemically and biologically.

Using your logic one can argue that there is no difference using Adey’s model & using a chaeto fuge. Water – light – nutrients – co2 - photosynthesis.
However; from what I understand, Adey seeded his screens with a slow to grow - to approximately 1 inch max, true turf algae, of various colors, exported over a period of months.
I grow a naturally occurring, emerald green species of ulva, already existing in the system, fast growing, exported weekly & very efficient at removing inorganic nutrients.

Adey cleaned his screens while still in the system, allowing discoloration of the water, &, phosphate to be released back into the system.
A modern scrubber has a removable screen that is cleaned while disconnected from the system. No discoloration or phosphate leakage.