Let's Talk About ~Algae Control~

[wave98]

I was actually quite serious in my post and find it quite funny how you thought I was playing and how you get so offensive when anything you think is right is contradicted. If you kept good conditions in your tank from the start and did everything right in the beginning, then you wouldn't need useless critters to do the work for you which you failed to do in the beginning! If cyno etc are controlled from the get go they why add critters? Obviously something went wrong in your system why you rely on them so much. Listen, I live near the water and observe the reefs endlessly. You don't see crabs and snails everywhere if ever. The only place you see them (if ever you want to collect them) is on the side of rocks at low tide. The sand has no algae and the reefs have no nuicance algae...Why? Definately not because of the critters. Critters were probably introduced to the hobby to help people keep nuicance algae less visible for people who don't know a thing about nutrient export. I don't know much about saltwater systems as I am still learning, but I definatley ain't stupid and look at what is imitated right before my eyes in nature...Try it sometimes...You'll be surprised!

You don't pay any attention at all Krish, I got extra critters because of a shipping mistake, before there was ever the first diatom bloom, and I have not ever had any algae problem to correct! Not much else to correct either, the system has been fine since dat one!

 

[Krish]

I have a lot of things meaningful to say that is why I offer my opinions which don't necessarily have to be right (because like I've said before..I'm still learning) It is really hard to learn anything here though when you have people stuck to their own theories and instead of explaining things nicely, they want to impress the "Big Dogs" with their knowledge. I am one to never accept what is told to me without finding out everything myself. This is supposed to be a friendly forum setup for everyone to learn and not be made fun of for not being as knowledgeable as others. If you haven't noticed, this thread is in the general section for the expert as well as the novice to post and if you feel like the less experienced shouldn't be allowed to offer their own opinions here, then maybe this thread should have been redirected to the Advanced topics section where people like myself dare never to really post because of lack of expert knowledge. I think you ought to re-think the harsh things you say sometimes Wave, because it would be a terrible thing to do to drive someone away from posting here when all they are trying to do is offer their own opinions and trying to learn.

 

[MtnDewMan]

This thread has good discussion from all sides. That is what it is here for. Great discussion on different ways to prevent algae and have controls on algae. No need for bantering at each other back and forth. That is not very constructive. Let's keep this topic going with constructive discussion.

 

[chris&barb]

Hi folks. sorry to jump in here after 9 pages.i've just read thru this and a few things that come to mind are,
wave 98, you never had an algae problem before the addition of the critters,(shipping mistake)how many did you add to your,what is it 40,45g? then you had the problem right? yes snails will uptake excess nutrients but the uptake remains in the tank until the ,snail/crab is removed from the tank,and to think that any skimmer will remove everything in suspension isn't a good idea.if you are doing water changes and really controlling your nutrient import then the levels should be dropping. to break down the substrate you would need to drop the ph much more then sea water will alow without,say CO2.

my point is that i think that you are not exporting enough(water changes/algae removal)or importing to much(feeding/makeup water)

 

[Kensn]

Yes I was a little confused why the critters were ordered by Wave98 in the first place if there was no algae problem....

 

[wrightme43]

Its all good Krish, Sometimes I meet people who dont have very good manners. Not alot I can do about it. Algae is a interesting issue. It can be very hard to deal with. I try to think this way. It needs water, co2, light of the right spectrum, nitrate and/or phosphate.
I cant remove the water.
I can somewhat control the amount of co2 in the system by using lots of surface agitation. I will never ever get it lower than the natural ratio in the air, and that is enough for plants to thrive. I can however, limit its build up in my tanks and keep that one element from being any more conductive to plant growth than possible.
I can control the light spectum and time the system is recieving light. Away from red/yellow and towards blueish white seems to help alot.
I can control the nitrate level, water changes, proper live rock system, quality skimmer, not over stocking the tank, using clams, export and binding in live animal and plant flesh.
Phospate I can control, low import, and more export than input with phosban or rowaphos.
I know most algae doesnt like high flow so I have some control there.
I can grow chaeto under my tank in a 24 hour lighted system so I dont get a build up of co2 overnight, and I am also getting the benifit of nutrient export when I throw the growth away.
My tank measures 0 phos and 0 nitrate with salifert kits. AND GUESS WHAT I STILL GET SOME ALGAE. Imagine that.....LOL
Lets see I have to clean the glass with a magfloat every 3 days and I have a few pieces of valonia. Fish tanks with bright lights will grow algae. I can put in 300 snails and 300 hermits and grow algae from thier rotting corpses when more than half starve to death from competion. LOL
I believe that it is a matter of the right kind of algae and the right amount. I dont mind a bit having to clean my glass. I truely believe that it feeds my corals and filter feeders, and then my skimmer sucks it up. they poop it out -5 to 10% turned into energy for growth and life.
I think that if I have a reef tank and I am growing corals, not just buy replacements for the dead every few months I am obviously doing something right.
I dont really let other peoples opinions effect my tank. I mean I poured blood in my tank just to see what happened. I used to remove part of my sand bed and clean it with a powerhead and a quickfilter. Some people thought I was batty, but guess what. It worked. clean sandbed and thriving corals clam anemone and pod population in a 44 gallon hex with PC lights. Hmmmm How did that happen? LOL
You do what works for you, I will do what works for me. I know just for me when someone tries to tell me what to do it just pisses me off, when someone says this is what I did, this is why I did it, and this is the result I got because of it. I look at it, and if I want that result, I do what they did. Pretty simple really.
Well that is enough of my ranting. LOL
Steve

 

[Krish]

This thread has good discussion from all sides. That is what it is here for. Great discussion on different ways to prevent algae and have controls on algae. No need for bantering at each other back and forth. That is not very constructive. Let's keep this topic going with constructive discussion.

I'm sorry Chuck for any confusion I may have caused by my remarks...It was not intentional...Just my thoughts and opinions, but nonetheless not worthy of an argument. I will think twice in the future before dis-regarding someone elses ideas (if that is what was conveyed here even though it wasn't my intentions). All is good, life goes on, and we all still have algae regardless of what you think is working for you because it is impossible to immitate nature no matter how much we debate it here. Once again...I'm truely sorry to any and everyone I may have offended or inconvenienced here...It won't happen again. I just plan on tagging along here to read the posts to gain a little more personal knowledge.

 

[clayswim]

You guys were in an argument without me? I'm hurt...

Although I didn't read the entire thread (who would? lol), I did read the last couple of pages. It's obviously been pointed out already, but algae control is an extremely complicated subject with very few definitive answers. There are a few things, however, that we do know.

1. They eat; but how much of each food requirement isn't really known. Nitrogen and phosphates are two staples that are most often talked about; especially phosphates. Limit their introduction, try to soak up what's in the water, and remove them by siphoning out junk are all good ways to lower the level. Will this bring that level down to where algae can't take over? Nope, not a chance. What does that mean for our tanks? Nobody really knows. Not exactly the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's the way it is. Next is nitrogen. The easiest form of nitrogen for all plants to use is ammonia, then nitrates. In fact if ammonia is present plants and algae will consume very little, if any nitrates. Instead of seconds or minutes, it can take hours or days to even begin using nitrates. This is one of the many reasons why algae grows best near collected junk; since the rotting junk is creating ammonia which hasn't yet been converted by the biological bacteria. The other reasons for algae growing near junk are other nutrients and of course the lack of water flow. Any area that collects junk has little flow, and therefore is easier to grow in if you happen to be algae.

2. Numerous life forms eat it. Fish, crabs, pods, worms, snails, slugs; even corals eat the microscopic algae in the water column. Does this help in any way to preventing it? Nope again. MikeS is right on when he pointed out that snails are mostly for looks. Almost all of what a snail takes in goes right back out to be eaten by more algae. This helps the looks of a tank a great deal if you have a properly balanced tank, but doesn't really solve the algae problem itself. Personally I've had tanks with lots of snails that had horrible amounts of algae, and tanks with no snails with virtually no algae; the reasons why are unknown to me; and apparently to everyone else as well.

There is one method of controlling algae that in theory should work perfectly, but often doesn't; and that's the use of algae scrubbers. What better way to remove the nutrients algae grows off of then to use algae? What's often found to be the case though is that algae requires such a small amount of nutrients to cause a problem that you can never really remove that much from the system. Algae aren't the only organism that uses phosphates for example; all life forms use it. If we could somehow remove enough of it to stop algae from growing we would literally kill everything else in the tank. Not exactly a perfect cure.

In both saltwater and freshwater tanks I've often found that the key to algae control is stability. In nature algae grows where water parameters are in constant flux; conditions that hinder most forms of life. Being an opportunistic creature though, algae thrive in such conditions. In tanks we see the same thing. A mature tank that stays stable in every way we know to check usually has little trouble with algae growth. When a tank is first cycling we usually see massive algae growth once we turn the lights on; which of course causes us to examine the parameters to see "what's wrong". Often you'll find very similar parameters to tanks with no algae. That doesn't stop us from spending an almost unlimited amount of money on gadgets like phosphate reactors, UV sterilizers and ozone generators; all of which may do nothing to curb the ongoing algae growth. Eventually it will likely go away though, and all is fine; once the system balances. It's my personal belief that refugiums help a great deal; not because the macro algae removes nitrates and phosphates, but because it creates a better balance to the system. Some nutrient export happens, our fish and inverts are fed a more natural diet which means we don't add as much to the system, and it's added water volume which helps stabilize parameters.

Wow, this has gotten long. I'm done for now, lol

Clayton

 

[NaH2O]

pondguy - I still am not sure why your fish are dying? Are you still hanging in there? Do you think you could take some of the rock out and scrub it? You might benefit a bit to literally boil a few pieces outside for a couple of hours. The rock will be white, but you will kill anything on it. Then it will repopulate with bacteria pretty fast once put back in the tank. You don't want to do this to all the rock, but scrub a few pieces and boil a few, and see what happens. Some folks cook their rock by sticking it in a dark tub with water, heater (if needed), and powerhead for several weeks. The rock gets a chance to shed a lot of detritus during that time, and the lack of light kills the algae. You said your water parameters were fine, can you post them, for kicks? . Also, how often are you changing out your carbon? Oh, how is your flow in the tank?

Whew! I have a lot of reading to catch up on. Thanks for getting the thread back on topic. This is supposed to be informative for everyone to add their input.

 

[mojoreef]

Krish you just keep posting I do enjoy your point of view. Alot of good post from all involved, good stuff.

Alot of what has been mentioned here is correct even though at times it conflicts with each other. You have to give the eco system a little more credit and look at it a little more dynamically. Your reef tanks are a small version of a limited ecosystem skewed a little to the eurthrophic side (sp?its early lol)
Let me go through a few comments. Low nutrients/lighting/flow does not really mean no algae. When you measure these nutrients P/N you are just measuring them in an inorganic form, they do however come in many forms, But most of all they are always in a state of flux, its this state of flux that must be controlled. Heres an example: you feed your fish, when doing so you are introducing P/NA in an inorganic form, the food is quickly eaten thus making the P/N organic as it is now bound to an organic form, the fish poops, now you have several forms of P/N (particulate/dissolved and so on). So now the mass portion of the original Inorganic P/N is now back in the water and semi available, some is measurable (soluble) and some is not (particulate). Both soluble and particulate will be attacked by bacteria first (which is case will create a bloom). soluble forms are usually reduced quickly by bacteria, particulate take alot longer. Here is where algae plays its role, it will jump on the particulate as it is available the longest and then prey of the bacteria as it recedes from lack of food source (once the food has been reduced). So when looking at controlling algae from a stand point of input, the most effective way would be to allow the bacteria to reduce the soluable forms and then try as best as one can to eliminate the particulate forms. AND/OR try to keep the input constant (in both amount and times feed) this will help control the degree of flux in the ecosystem.
The argument of Snails/crabs/other things that eat algae:
This also is a double edged sword, trying to remove all the particulate and thus all algae is pretty tough to do. Their will always be a crevice or simular where it will land and the algae take hold. This is not such a bad thing as you are once again binding it (into algae this time) using snails and such to get to these forms is a good choice. BUT it also comes with a price, As wave mentioned above it does take the bound up N/HP that is locked in algae and re-releases it into the water column for hopeful removal via the overflow. But this pays no attention to the algaes multiple strategies for staying alive. Although a simple life form it has many stratages to stay alive, the main form that comes into play when using things that eat it is sporing. Algaes (from corraline to hair) will spore (or simular) when attacked and then the spores just come out in the poop and spread all over the tank. This can be counter productive to trying to control algae. BUT Their are ways to combat that, A snail is very small (crabs to) because of this the algae spends very little time in the gut and is released almost on a constant basis. Now if you use larger organisms to eat the algae the algae will spend more time in the gut being digested (broken down) and thus less is released. So larger critters should be used to truly compete with algae for control. Critters such as urchins, conches, cukes and fish would represent this group. But in the same breathe smaller critters (to a degree) such as crabs ad snails do have a nitch.

ok need to do a coffee run, lol


Mike

 

[wave98]

Hi folks. sorry to jump in here after 9 pages.i've just read thru this and a few things that come to mind are,
wave 98, you never had an algae problem before the addition of the critters,(shipping mistake)how many did you add to your,what is it 40,45g? then you had the problem right? yes snails will uptake excess nutrients but the uptake remains in the tank until the ,snail/crab is removed from the tank,and to think that any skimmer will remove everything in suspension isn't a good idea.if you are doing water changes and really controlling your nutrient import then the levels should be dropping. to break down the substrate you would need to drop the ph much more then sea water will alow without,say CO2.

my point is that i think that you are not exporting enough(water changes/algae removal)or importing to much(feeding/makeup water)

Read post #25 on page 1 > Wave98

And #26 and #28, if you want to see some "manners"

 

[chris&barb]

Read post #25 on page 1 > Wave98

And #26 and #28, if you want to see some "manners"

Ahh, What?

 

[NaH2O]

Low nutrients/lighting/flow does not really mean no algae.

How true that is....look at my tank. However, properly placed flow will help in keeping the detritus in suspension, and (hopefully) get used by corals and/or skimmed out, right (in theory anyway)? Too high of flow, then you get the algaes that are a little more tough (I see this in my own tank), then the critters can't get in there to eat it, as they are getting blown on by flow. When I had the rabbitfish, it wouldn't go to those areas of high flow and pick at the algae....it would wait for the ball valve to switch to the other side, then go in and eat it (or eat my SPS instead ).

Mike you mentioned about the sporing out of algaes. Wouldn't the use of a UV help combat that? I know it wouldn't be a 100% thing, as the spores have to pass through the unit and the flow needs to be slow enough, but I think it would provide a little help with the spore issue.

 

[aquariumdebacle]

Takin' down the mightey Mojo!

Everyone here thinks you have all the answers Mikey! I know you are too humble to allow such a deception, so it is my turn. You are wrong on your perception that snails and such critters do not impact a nutrient export. First of all while it is in the gut of said crab, snail, cuke, etc., etc. the nutrients are NOT available to the algae. Unless you have figured out a way to shine MH up there... You downplay the importance of this collective export as you well should but in fact it is an export and the more animals you have the more nutrients that remain bound up in digestive tracts. Oh, let's not forget Mr. Newton's contribution however much it is downplayed. Animals do export and bind nutrients while consuming them. That is is a basic fact of biology. The fact that the uh, poop comes out mostly insoluble is another situation you ignore. The fact that it comes out a turd means that your awsome $100000000 skimmer has a chance to remove it once again before it dissolves.

Shall we take on the nutrient export of a DSB? Come on Mikey I wanna fight! I have come to the conclusion that the substrate should absolutely not take on any importance to the aspect of nutrient control. If you don't put it in the substrate, it won't have to be composted (your words.) I am in the process of setting up a system that has the best of all possible worlds: a trickle filter (for gas exchange), a Deep Sand Bed (for nitrate control), heavy protein skimming, ya still with me Mikey?, and the coupes de faux grau (drum roll please!) HIGH VOLUME WATER MOVEMENT! Ta Da! Doing everything wrong!

I have never bought in to your (counter) argument that nutrients fill up a sand bed. Now before all you empirical evidence people start gettin' fumed up (Chuck?) let me say that

I have come to the conclusion that the substrate should absolutely not take on any importance to the aspect of nutrient control.

With a high volume flow properly designed the nutrients should be exported just as in a bare bottom system. Remember that the idea behind a bare bottom system is that you keep the "goo" in suspension until your (preferably) protein skimmer can remove it. The protein skimmer is the only filter that actually removes material (excluding the phosphate reactors and nitrate reactors.) Keep the water moving and the junk doesn't settle regardless of what is on the bottom of the tank.

Hope you liked my rant :lol: I will prove you wrong with empirical evidence of my own! That is not a threat, I have a job now and intend to carry out my accusations and borrow your digital camera to prove you wrong.

 

[dgasmd]

I just skimmed through the entire 9 pages. Lots and lots of valid points. I am amazed, however, nobody has mentioned urchins as algae control as a single urchin will process far more in one hour than 300 crabs in a week!! These things are true lawn mowers, and althought they will not all eat each type of algae, they do consume most. There are several nice articles in this last edition of Coral Magazine addressing these creatures. I would highly encourage everyone, even those with no algae problems to look into them. They are pretty cool creatures in themselves and add a lot of variety to the reef tank as well. Other choices for control like certain fish are in the grand scheme very poor choices for most of us as fish consume a lot, but they also produce a lot of waste becoming just part of the vicious cycle.

As far as the debate of flow, nitrogen, phosphates, lights, sand or no sand, well...................

One thing that plagues this hobby is learning something based on what someone told you rather than what you read as scientific evidence. You should not take what anybody tells you as gospel, nor do you need to trip 97 times over the same rock that everybody else has tripped over to realize that rock will make you trip. READ!!! That does not mean either that someone's observation and educated opinion is not valid, important or even very helpful but it is simply a good place to start. So, rather than make vilans out of people trying to help others that may have a different educated opinion than yours, why not just ask for references, investigate them, read, and come back with valid arguments as to why you think they do not explain something???

If yo want to read about algae and their possible sources as well as possible ways to control it, let me suggest you get a copy of Sprung's "Algae: A Problem Sover Guide". Also, there are very good chapters in this subject in the Delbek and Sprung series of books and the Fossa and Nielsen series also. Actually, just about every half decent aquarium book has a chapter on this.

 

[wrightme43]

Hey Dan! Hadnt seen you in a while.
Now correct me if I am wrong. You would agree that all bacteria carry out biological process. You would agree that all living things have a less than 100% use of all items they use as food. You would agree that bacteria live in a sand bed. How are the waste products supposed to get out of the sand bed? In my mind they have 5 walls holding them in and one open surface (tank water) that they have to beat gravity to get to and then reach the skimmer.
Now if the sand bed is in the tank, and the flow is high enough to keep anything from landing on it, exactly what will your bacteria eat? Also in my experince high flow and sand bed causes a lot of sand movement. Wouldnt that cause a constant change in the o2 level of the sand bed effecting the aerobic, and anoxic layer?
I am not knocking you. I want to know what your plan is to deal with these issues. I know you are a smart guy.
On the crab/snail issue, if we were to never feed our tanks, and just put in a clean up crew with no fish and let survival of the fittest take its course. I agree that the nutrients would be locked up in flesh or skimed out. If we have fish, and feed them, and corals and feed them, and the net result in my mind is a system that has more import than export, with out water changes.
My thought is that the planet has a life cycle, everything feeds everything else. Think about this, if the hermits and the snails were able to lock up the nutrients that cause algae growth completely, wouldnt they of all starved to death in the last million years or so?

 

[DonW]

I totally agree with the use of urchins. They will clean a rock down to the bare rock very quickly almost overnight. I added one in hopes that it would help populate my rock with coraline. My one complaint is their waste. I have two spots (corners) that collect detritus. Before the addition of the urchin I would collect a quarter sized pile monthly. Now Its about a quarter of a cup or more weekly. Their waste is a very heavy round pellet that does not float and is very hard to get into a overflow. For me it works out ok since I have only two corners to vacuum but if you lack flow under the rockwork they may cause problems. I guess that just takes us back to having well designed flow.

Don

 

[aquariumdebacle]

On the snail issue; I am trying to get the point across that the nutrients are bound while in the living tissue, either in the gut or absorbed and used for energy conversion. It might be minimal with respect to overall nutrient export but is significant to visual appeal as evidenced by the urchin coments. I am not trying to advocate this as the main method of nutrient export; which should be protein skimming and water changes, in that order of importance, but I am saying is that the clean-up crew is an important addition to the system and their value should not be underestimated. Treat them as consumables and add them every few months, especially the snails and cukes.

The five-wall myth assumes that there is a downward pressure forcing nutrients into the system. I say that does not exist in a properly designed system. It does not exist in a bare-bottom tank so why would it be created in any other system? The flow I am talking about is laminar across the bottom surface. The flow above should be the same as in other systems with a disruptive pattern to eliminate dead spots. If you point the effluent correctly the "sand-storm" is gone as well. If you don't move nutrients into the sand bed they won't have to be processed there. Keep them in suspension just like a bare bottom system. The sand bed cannot export significant amount of nutrients on the scale we are dealing with in our systems. If you exclude it from the export/import equation it cancels itself out and can export about as much as is imported. This means that you must rely on other means of exporting nutrients such as a skimmer and water changes. Sand beds should be used for visual appeal and as an enviroment for organisms that thrive in sand. An algae scrubber, unless properly designed and maintained, is not an effective exporter of nutrients either. They usually end up putting other unwanted elements into the system like proteins. They are not exported until they are physically removed. My plan to deal with these issues is not something I want to advocate. It is something I am working on and the results remain to be seen. I have another thread where I discuss this and other issues.

I am actually not contradicting Mojo but backing him up on what is actually going on in the system. If it goes into the tank, eventually it has to come out. I take a confrontational tone just to bust him down a notch and keep him and the rest of us humble and we tend to have, how should I say? "lively discussions" to put it politely. None of us knows everything and if we just follow what others tells us innovation and learning cease. Empirical evidence is just as valid as any other data. We just need to make sure that our asumptions are not based on arrogance or faulty logic.

 

[Krish]

You guys have a very good discussion going on here now. A lot of great points and a lot being learned by myself. So many different points of views with so many positive outcomes which goes back to what I've always said...No two systems are the same regardless of how much you think your setup resembles someone elses...Both can have different results. I have nothing really to add here because like I've also said before, I'm just learning and have a lot to learn. I am guilty of saying snails, hermits, or whatever cleanup crew you chooses to use are useless and are only good for making your tank look pretty for your friends. They do a great job at keeping a tank looking good, but IMO, I'd rather have stability in a tank where they aren't needed (which seems to be kind of hard thing for me to accomplish thus far). Some people just don't like the look of 100 turbo snails and hermits in their display tank while others don't mind it at all and find it quite appealing. I would much rather have personally, maybe a fuge setup out of sight to keep the un-sightly things to me out of plain view to do their job there (rather than in my display), but that is just what works for my liking. Once again...I think you guys have a great discussion going on here. I hope it continues because I'm really digging it!

 

[pondguy]

Hey NaH20
Thanks for writting back, it seems like everyone is fighting over crabs, snails and urchins oh my, but my main concern was why my fish were dying. I have since performed another water change and algae harvest so to speak with possitive results. No fish deaths, thats good. I just tested my parameters before the water change and were as follows. Phos- 0.00, Nitrate- 0.01, Nitrite- 0.01, Calcium 380, pH- 8.2, alk- 11, I have 4-96w Pc 2-96w actinic and 2-65w actinic on the tank. I believe my water flow is low, but it seems that the algae grows even where the flow is the highest in the tank. So, I know that a balanced tank is a clean tank and that is what I am trying to accomplish, but in doing so I am loosing fish, and some very nice fish at that. Does anyone have any ideas, (a lot of you seem to have all the answers) as to why doing a water change or physical removal of algae would kill my fish. I was thinking of up grading to 3-400w MH lights and keep a couple of the actinic that I have as well as add a couple of closed loops for more flow. But from what I am reading, this might not have any effect on the algae problem that I have. Would doing a 10% water change a week as well as suck out the detritus from the rocks be more beneficial then adding stronger lighting and more flow. Help!!