There should be a "Defend the ATS in this other thread" forum.

[M I N I O N]

Personally, I think that an ATS and a protein skimmer complement each other very well. A skimmer only has the capability to remove organic waste as it is hydrophilic. Inorganic waste is hydrophobic and can't be skimmed. Inorganic phosphate is the real enemy in regards to reef keeping. With phosphate levels as low as are necessary for good SPS growth, the ATS is going to have some die-off which the skimmer can catch. I like to run a small amount of GFO in a reactor to keep phosphate as the limiter for growth rather than nitrate. I noticed that as my ATS matured, I started to get much less skimmate but the color got a lot darker. I can feed as much as I want and never register nitrate or phosphate on salifert test kits.

[kerry]

How do your corals go without being Hungary with a skimmer? Do you target feed them? If your scrubber is working as intended your skimmer should not have dark color as far as I know. Granted I have not had one in more then 4 years but when my scrubber started to grow I did not have much skim at all. A skimmer really just robs your corals of food.

[Ace25]

Personally, I think that an ATS and a protein skimmer complement each other very well. A skimmer only has the capability to remove organic waste as it is hydrophilic. Inorganic waste is hydrophobic and can't be skimmed. Inorganic phosphate is the real enemy in regards to reef keeping. With phosphate levels as low as are necessary for good SPS growth, the ATS is going to have some die-off which the skimmer can catch. I like to run a small amount of GFO in a reactor to keep phosphate as the limiter for growth rather than nitrate. I noticed that as my ATS matured, I started to get much less skimmate but the color got a lot darker. I can feed as much as I want and never register nitrate or phosphate on salifert test kits.

That is incorrect in regards to organic and inorganic material as both types have both properties, just depends on the specific element/particle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_skimmer

In addition to the proteins removed by skimming, there are a number of other organic and inorganic molecules that are typically removed. These include a variety of fats, fatty acids, carbohydrates, metals such as copper and trace elements such as iodine. Particulates and other detritus is also removed, along with phytoplankton and bacteria.

Where did you hear low phosphate levels are necessary for good SPS growth? This article below actually shows the higher the phosphate levels (to a point) equals faster growth with some SPS corals. SPS corals require phosphates for calcification.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog...opora-muricata

My tank, $150 DIY LED setup, scrubber only, phosphates above .5 on a Hanna Meter, nitrates 0. No issues growing SPS corals.

[Floyd R Turbo]

It is my opinion that extream attitudes in either direction are a bit counterproductive. I belive in the concept of the algae scrubber (hence my use of 2 of them) BUT!!!!!

There is still a good bit of "fine tuning" to be done on the concept! Examples: the questioning of "what is a cube", the recent changes in sizing for feeding rather than volume, "best" lighting practices.

I completely agree with the above 2 points. I think the lighting is getting closer and closer every day to what will work "perfectly" but for all of my units, the LED combination I am running seems to work very well. It would take some long-term dedicated testing setups to truly determine what works the absolute best, and why/how.

There are a few more I would add to this mix:

1) turnover rate. Downsizing scrubbers from the gallon guideline to the feeding guideline meant in most cases less overall flow required due to decreased overall size (and width) of the screen. This means less water per hour turning past the screen, meaning more time for nutrients to get taken up in the DT. Not sure how much this affects things, but it is my opinion that this has been vastly overlooked.

2) Potassium uptake. At least in a few cases, it has been rather conclusively shown that K is taken up by scrubbers. In one instance (spotter on RC, my e-shine scrubber customer) ran his for a while and dosed K. Then he shut the scrubber off for a few weeks as he had very little bio load due to other issues, and his K uptake stopped. Started scrubber up again, K started dropping.

3) "rule of PAR" as dubbed by srusso. iiluisii and i had a discussion about this today. He read on another forum that the horizontal crowd (at least one person) is kind of scoffing as the vertical scrubber because he thinks we have all missed the boat on this. He apparently has said that you need to match the light power of the scrubber and the display tank. While I would not 100% agree with this, as it comes from the perspective of the horizontal scrubber which is vastly less efficient thus needs more light by definition, Srusso tried to make this point a while back and it sort of fell on deaf ears. he keeps bending my ear about it and it does make sense in one aspect.

Bottom line is that I don't think saying "x sq in per cube of food per day fed" is the bottom line in defining what is the proper size scrubber for your tank. There are just way too many factors that truly contribute. Finding a way to keep it simple and understandable for everyone is of course desirable though, and this will simply get more people using them and finding out for themselves how well they work. That will drive them to realize that there is a lot of value in getting a commercial unit, which has taken all of these factors into account.

I have customers reporting to me on a regular basis about how well their scrubber has performed. I have other who have issues. I am definitely learning a lot from the relatively few customers of mine who contact me on a regular basis and keep me updated about how their tank and scrubber is doing.

[M I N I O N]

How do your corals go without being Hungary with a skimmer? Do you target feed them? If your scrubber is working as intended your skimmer should not have dark color as far as I know. Granted I have not had one in more then 4 years but when my scrubber started to grow I did not have much skim at all. A skimmer really just robs your corals of food.

SPS corals get most of their "food" through photosynthesis (from zooxenthallae). I do target feed my corals and broadcast feed the rest of the tank. The scrubber's function requires the food to break down and first make the inorganic nutrients available in the water column. In the "SPS game", inorganic phosphate is the enemy because it inhibits calcification. Some organic phosphates can also inhibit calcification but these types are not found in our tanks.

That is incorrect in regards to organic and inorganic material as both types have both properties, just depends on the specific element/particle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_skimmer


Where did you hear low phosphate levels are necessary for good SPS growth? This article below actually shows the higher the phosphate levels (to a point) equals faster growth with some SPS corals. SPS corals require phosphates for calcification.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog...opora-muricata

My tank, $150 DIY LED setup, scrubber only, phosphates above .5 on a Hanna Meter, nitrates 0. No issues growing SPS corals.

This greatly depends on the size of the particle and what is inside of it. The phosphates which bind to calcium and inhibit calcification do this on an ionic level. Molecules/clusters this small would be hydrophobic only and would not be able to be skimmed. A larger cluster of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic molecules would have the ability to be skimmed but the higher the concentration of hydrophobic molecules, the lesser the chance. What we mostly find in our tanks will be orthophosphate. The algae on the ATS can readily use orthophosphate in reproduction. Bacteria can also use orthophosphate for reproduction and survival.

Low orthophosphate levels are most certain necessary for good most SPS coral growth. This study was done on only one very specific type of acro. They chose a fast-growing species because it is speculated that they have the ability to block orthophosphate binding inside of the organic matrix by instead binding aortic acids to the aragonite crystals face. In this case, the populations of beneficial zooxenthallae algae will take off causing fas growth (and of course, brown corals). The corals which will most-likely experience this would be the staghorns which grow like weeds in the reefs. This growth pattern would be an evolutionary trait developed in order to create a habitat for other animals. The chain of animals bring the nutrients to the corals. A similar situation can be observed with the root structures of mangroves. Try this same experiment with bushy acropora corals and millipora corals and the results would be halted growth, STNing and death.

I am interested to hear more about the types of SPS you have and the growth rates/color. I have experienced slowed growth and browning with as little as 0.03ppm phosphate in the past.

[Ace25]

SPS corals get most of their "food" through photosynthesis (from zooxenthallae). I do target feed my corals and broadcast feed the rest of the tank. The scrubber's function requires the food to break down and first make the inorganic nutrients available in the water column. In the "SPS game", inorganic phosphate is the enemy because it inhibits calcification. Some organic phosphates can also inhibit calcification but these types are not found in our tanks.

This greatly depends on the size of the particle and what is inside of it. The phosphates which bind to calcium and inhibit calcification do this on an ionic level. Molecules/clusters this small would be hydrophobic only and would not be able to be skimmed. A larger cluster of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic molecules would have the ability to be skimmed but the higher the concentration of hydrophobic molecules, the lesser the chance. What we mostly find in our tanks will be orthophosphate. The algae on the ATS can readily use orthophosphate in reproduction. Bacteria can also use orthophosphate for reproduction and survival.

Low orthophosphate levels are most certain necessary for good most SPS coral growth. This study was done on only one very specific type of acro. They chose a fast-growing species because it is speculated that they have the ability to block orthophosphate binding inside of the organic matrix by instead binding aortic acids to the aragonite crystals face. In this case, the populations of beneficial zooxenthallae algae will take off causing fas growth (and of course, brown corals). The corals which will most-likely experience this would be the staghorns which grow like weeds in the reefs. This growth pattern would be an evolutionary trait developed in order to create a habitat for other animals. The chain of animals bring the nutrients to the corals. A similar situation can be observed with the root structures of mangroves. Try this same experiment with bushy acropora corals and millipora corals and the results would be halted growth, STNing and death.

I am interested to hear more about the types of SPS you have and the growth rates/color. I have experienced slowed growth and browning with as little as 0.03ppm phosphate in the past.

To answer you question, for SPS corals, I have Red Planet, Blue Milli, Crayola Acro, Hawkins Enchinata, Garf Bonsai, Green Slimer, Rainbow Stylophora, Poccilipora, few wild Acros, Spongodes Monti, Confusa Monti, rainbow monti, and sunset monti in the tank in the video. That tank was never supposed to become an 'SPS tank' but my other tank has gone through so many ups and downs and I lost a lot of corals in the process that I decided to frag them and move some to this tank, and to my surprise they all regained their health, color, and polyp extension when placed in this 'high phosphate' tank. Here are a couple pictures of the spongodes, first one is encrusting up the back wall now and it only took a few days to attach and start growing up the wall. Second picture is the colony on the left of the tank in the video, which gets under 80 PAR of lighting, and it looks and grows great. That is my litmus test for testing my tanks, do the corals look healthy? If so, it is doing good regardless of what the parameters are or what the experts say I have to keep parameters at.



SPS corals get most of their food from planktonic feeding, not photosynthesis. There is a reason SPS corals have so many polyps vs LPS corals, they eat a ton.

To one extent or another, corals do require a certain amount of light in order to survive. Some corals, however, depend less on light than they do nutrients extracted from the water column for their nutrition.

Most soft corals, zooanthids and gorgonians depend almost exclusively on phytoplankton, (small water-borne plants or algae) for their nutritional needs as well as floating plankton, detritus and slow moving invertebrate larvae, rather than zooplankton (which can actively propel itself).

The third important source of food for corals is bacterioplankton, which consists of free-living bacteria as well as the bacteria associated with various materials in the water (mucas, dead plant material, and other particulate matter) which are commonly called detritus or reef snow. Almost all corals feed heavily on bacterioplankton. Material which includes detritus, floating eggs and other material is also known as pseudoplankton.

The fourth category of food utilized by corals is Dissolved Organic Material (DOM) which is absorbed across cell membranes directly into the coral.

Many of the corals with larger polyps (i.e. Cynarina and Catalaphyllia) are capable of capturing and eating larger food items, including the occasional small fish. Many corals (particularly Gorgonians and soft corals) may select their food based more on the size of the plankton, than its composition.

In the past, it was believed that the large polyped corals, with their more efficient tentacle formations, obtained a large portion of their nutrition from active feeding on the food that floated by, rather than from their zooxanthellae algae. It has since been discovered that many of the small polyp corals are actually more aggressive feeders than their larger cousins.

The tank in the video, that was my 'free' tank, as in pretty much everything in it was free, including the tank, stand, and sump. I spent a few dollars making an ATS for it, filled it with water, and called it a day. I run 50w of LEDs over a 4' tank and grow acropora on the sandbed. I get much growth with little light, lots of feeding, and no skimming than I do on my other tank that has 2x the light and other filtration that removes food. I don't worry about parameters at all because I have chased that rabbit for years on my other tank, and today it looks much worse than the tank I just 'set it and forget it'. I have tested parameters out of curiosity, but I don't do anything to try and fix anything. As long as the tank looks healthy I let nature maintain the tank for me, ie. bacteria and algae.

In the comments in that article I linked you will see Stylophora corals were also tested in a previous study, and those are considered, like Acropora, to be one on the more difficult side when compared to easy SPS corals like montipora or poccilipora. This is not new information, it is just information the 'old school' reefers choose to ignore because it goes against what they were taught 20 years ago.

These conclusions are not entirely new. Similar ones include those from Godinot et al 2011 with regards to phosphate use by Stylophora (Journal of Experimental Biology 214)

[sklywag]

I'm proof ATS work. You guys are talking rocket science I have no idea about. Back when I built my first scrubber till I built my most recent one I haven't learned anymore about the technical side of it.
As ACE stated. Set it and forget it. I'm one still using 23 watt CFLs. It makes me think I need to test something sometimes but then I see everything looks good, so why? I do test my salinity because of top off and salt creep which I have little of. But it's the easiest of the test so I do it.
I don't even acclimate anything going into my tank anymore. I add water and all.

[M I N I O N]

To answer you question, for SPS corals, I have Red Planet, Blue Milli, Crayola Acro, Hawkins Enchinata, Garf Bonsai, Green Slimer, Rainbow Stylophora, Poccilipora, few wild Acros, Spongodes Monti, Confusa Monti, rainbow monti, and sunset monti in the tank in the video. That tank was never supposed to become an 'SPS tank' but my other tank has gone through so many ups and downs and I lost a lot of corals in the process that I decided to frag them and move some to this tank, and to my surprise they all regained their health, color, and polyp extension when placed in this 'high phosphate' tank. Here are a couple pictures of the spongodes, first one is encrusting up the back wall now and it only took a few days to attach and start growing up the wall. Second picture is the colony on the left of the tank in the video, which gets under 80 PAR of lighting, and it looks and grows great. That is my litmus test for testing my tanks, do the corals look healthy? If so, it is doing good regardless of what the parameters are or what the experts say I have to keep parameters at.



SPS corals get most of their food from planktonic feeding, not photosynthesis. There is a reason SPS corals have so many polyps vs LPS corals, they eat a ton.


The tank in the video, that was my 'free' tank, as in pretty much everything in it was free, including the tank, stand, and sump. I spent a few dollars making an ATS for it, filled it with water, and called it a day. I run 50w of LEDs over a 4' tank and grow acropora on the sandbed. I get better much growth with little light, lots of feeding, and no skimming than I do on my other tank that has 2x the light and other filtration that removes food. I don't worry about parameters at all because I have chased that rabbit for years on my other tank, and today it looks much worse than the tank I just 'set it and forget it'. I have tested parameters out of curiosity, but I don't do anything to try and fix anything. As long as the tank looks healthy I let nature maintain the tank for me, ie. bacteria and algae.

In the comments in that article I linked you will see Stylophora corals were also tested in a previous study, and those are considered, like Acropora, to be one on the more difficult side when compared to easy SPS corals like montipora or poccilipora. This is not new information, it is just information the 'old school' reefers choose to ignore because it goes against what they were taught 20 years ago.

I guess this is going to boil down to an issue of "agree to disagree" from personal experience. I'm sure there is a combination which can achieve success through processes which we do not know about; it's really hard to say. It is a well documented fact that orthophosphate readily binds to calcium. I used to hover right around the 0.03ppm level in my old tank and wild colonies would melt away while aqua cultured colonies would grow slowly, brown and sometimes STN at the bases. When I got phosphate under control (changed out the whole sand bed), growth exploded, wild colonies which were dying started coming back and color became amazing. It seams like you have some alright color but the bases and the polyps are very brown. I got into the hobby and SPS in specific because of my attraction to the beautiful colors. Here are some pictures to show you how well this set-up has been working for me:

All of these corals had gotten very brown after begin transferred into the 90 which I bought off of craigslist. The rocks in it were very saturated with phosphate and it took almost a month of carbon dosing to bring them back down:






This is an example of a coral which my cousin put in his tank which had 1ppm on phosphate:


This is the same coral a few weeks later:


Since that picture, the same coral is not bright blue with green, yellow, orange and red polyps (rainbow montipora).

This frag had begun to STN when I put it in this tank. When it went in, it was red and green and had begun to encrust to the rock:


After phosphate levels went down, here is the same frag only a few weeks later:


Here are some corals which you can see now in the first few pictures (the top-down ones). This is them only a couple weeks after being in the tank while bringing the phosphate down:




Here are some BEFORE shots. They were taken while corals were still in my 20g long:




I could show you pictures of all of the frags and colonies which I lost to the phosphate issue but that would just make me cry. :-(

I'll take some pictures soon and try to throw up some more comparisons.

[M I N I O N]

I also do realize that the pictures of the browning are lower quality (iPhone 5 camera). They really were as brown as portrayed. I didn't pull out the DSLR to take pictures back then because I wasn't proud of the state that they were in.

I also just found another brown picture. This is the bright blue bushy acro from a couple pictures up when phosphates were in the tank:


It has almost gotten back all of its color since but I need to upload pictures of it to share.

[Ace25]

Google 'Spongodes montipora', the polyps ARE brown. LOL. I used to think like you are thinking many years ago, then I learned better and stopped listening to the 'experts' and started listening to my tank.

Bottom line, corals adapt, but corals do NOT like big changes in anything. If I drop my phosphates from .5 down to .03, the corals will bleach out (due to not enough food), if I raise my phosphates from .03 to .5, my corals will brown out (due to too much food, making the zooxanthallae populations explode, which is what gives corals the brown color), if I let corals adapt over time to .5 phosphates, they color up and look fantastic. Zooxanthallae is algae, and algae eats N/P, right? It all comes down to finding a good balance in the tank, whatever methods a person decides to use. There is no right or wrong way to run a reef tank as long as whatever method you choose works.

This is what my 75G used to look like, running a skimmer, reactor, and caulerpa for filtration, before I got into ATS's.