Some more reading this afternoon and I'll, once again, have to revise my theory on which foods to feed my fish and whether to rinse frozen food or not. An article by Randy Holmes Farley in March of this year indicates (1) by far the largest contributor of phosphorous/phosphates to our aquariums is fish/coral food, (2) because dry foods are considered "concentrated nutrition" compared to "watered down" frozen foods, when comparing nutrient values of foods, some dry foods and some frozen foods are lower in the phosphorous/phosphate they contain while others are higher (net meaning, dry foods aren't necessarily higher in phosphate than frozen), (3) most of the phosphate in the food ends up in solution in the water, no matter if the fish eat all that's fed or not, (4) organic phosphorous compounds can be removed by a skimmer, inorganic phosphate compounds can not. Interesting reads if your still following after all this: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/3/chemistry Also here's an article about removing phosphorous and phosphates from our aquariums, because we have to feed our fish, so based on the above linked article, we will have phosphorous/phosphates in our aquariums that will need to be removed in order to keep nuisance algae at a minimum. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/index.php#13 Blakew
You got it, good, I thought it might be lost in translation.
Makes sence, so you are saying I should go to Starbucks and gain 100lbs while trying to remember my Army and high school days, Then run 5k while drinking a can of Rods food, while I am looking at an app on my phone to track my ATS which will stoke my internal furnace to make me and my reef healthier. I am going to start that today. Now where is my high school year book?
I'll try to make a quick analogy that I think, at least in my mind, ties together many of the concepts we've been discussing. I'm a little more than a little ashamed to admit it, but in the 20 years since leaving high school sports and the Marine Corps behind, I've gotten very out of shape. I was up to 280 lbs a few months ago, and I'm only 5'6" so I definitely qualify as obese. Let's make the analogy that I'm like a fish tank that has issues with nuisance algae. Whether the nuisance algae comes from overfeeding/overstocking (a direct analogy to me because I drank far too many venti starbucks coffees and ate lots of snacks in the evening) or the nuisance algae comes from a lack of enough beneficial bacteria to convert the nutrients and/or an efficient means of exporting the nutrient load (we'll make this analogous to exercise) or as I believe it's a combination of the above (and likely other things as well), the end result is like me the tank is out of shape. Now let's look at what happens both in the tank and to me specifically but all humans in general when it's decided that we're tired of our tanks or our bodies being out of shape. The first thing we do is begin reducing caloric intake. For myself, I switched to "skinny" starbucks drinks, diet pepsi, and cut out all snacking. I also got an app for my phone to track my caloric intake versus my caloric needs for a typical day. It's harder to determine nutrient needs of a fish tank, but we can reduce or eliminate feeding things like flakes which are known to be high in phosphates and wash/rinse frozen foods to remove as much of the preservatives as possible (which are also thought to be high in phosphate) or switch to Rod's Foods which claims not to use preservatives. So that's the first thing we can do to help ourselves (reduce caloric intake) and our tanks (reduce nutrient input). The next thing I specifically did was start exercising again. Being a person who has started and quit exercise routines many times in the past, I know I need goals to keep me going. In my case I signed up for a charity 5K run and plan to attempt a few sprint triathlons and the Seattle to Portland bike ride next year. The point is to put in place mechanisms that on top of reducing the amount of nutrients I put in, begin to use or export more of the nutrients that do go in. I think the same applies in a tank. Things like ATS, macro algae, removing nuisance algae, carbon dosing, wet skimming, biopellet reactors and periodically introducing new bacteria as well as possibly introducing critters that eat algae and resuspend nutrients so they can be removed through one of the other means, all accomplish an increase in nutrient export. So far we have reduced nutrient import and increased nutrient export. This works for humans trying to get back into shape, and I believe, it's also a viable course of action to improve our tanks. But what happens with time. We get into better and better shape, and our internal furnace begins to get more and more efficient at converting nutrients into energy to feed our exercise routine. We reach a state of equilibrium where the exercise we do (including things like desk jobs and sleeping) equals the nutrients we take in. At this point we won't have any more weight loss. We very likely will be healthier, but maybe not at the weight we want to be. So we must either again reduce nutrient intake or increase nutrient export. The same is true for our tanks. Eventually, our tanks and our bodies may reach a point where through biological diversity and nutrient export (increased exercise in humans or adding lots of nutrient export mechanisms in our tanks) that we begin to need to increase the nutrient intake to maintain health. Micheal Phelps was recently reported to eat 12,000 calories a day and many of the Tour de France riders eat many thousands of calories each day to keep up with the nutrients they burn during each days ride. Similarly, in tanks like PaulB's, which have very good biological diversity and good nutrient export, we may be able to feed without so much worry about nuisance algae. But if I ate 12,000 calories a day I'd turn into a blimp. My internal furnace just doesn't burn that many calories. Likewise if I feed heavily in my tank, hair algae would likely come back. My tank doesn't have the biological diversity or nutrient export mechanisms to cope with the higher nutrient loading. Anyway, I hope this analogy is useful. Blakew
I am sure skimmers remove plenty of algae nutrients because if you put the effluent in the light, algae grows almost immediately in it. Also seems to be some evidence to suggest that periodic introduction of new bacteria reduces or eliminates symptoms commonly referred to as "old tank syndrome". I also hope so as I have always added bacteria from the sea, my tank was started with kind of questionable water from the East River. There was no ASW at the time that I know of and that is all I had. There was also no corals in the hobby so if algae grew I just shut the lights for a week. Unfortunately now that is not possable. I am not sure why my reef now doesn't have much algae but I do have a large homemade skimmer with ozone and an algae "trough" or scrubber that grows algae much more than what grows in my tank itself which is what I designed it to do. My algae trough is above the surface of the water because I have no sump (they were not invented when I set up my tank) and I have no place to put it. I feel that if I, or anyone had room for a large enough algae scrubber, hair algae would be a thing of the past. I have learned over the years that is is easier to make friends with algae and try to get it to grow where I want it to grow rather than to try to eliminate it. As I said for many years my tank would occasionally become almost over run with hair algae, that was until I installed this Scrubber about 6 years ago. Since then I have not had one episode of HA even with nitrates of 40. They are now down to 20 due to a denitrificating coil I built and am experimenting with.
Thanks for checking up on that. I always get confused about what exactly is ment by DOC's. Phil
Hey Phil, had a chance to do a little more research and while your terminology was a little off (ie skimmers not removing DOC's) your theory seems to have been spot on. Seems most sources agree that skimming alone does not remove nitrates or phosphates from the water. Skimmers remove the DOC's before they convert to nitrates and phosphates. Once converted to nitrates and phosphates, they must attach to something that is then attracted to the air bubbles in the skimmer for them to be removed. Adding carbon sources which grow bacteria that either attach to, absorb or eat the nitrates and phosphates is one method (biopellets fall under this category). With this method the bacteria themselves or the stuff the bacteria converts the nitrates and phosphates into can then be removed from the water through foam fractionation. Blakew
Hey Phil, I'm a civil engineer myself, so also not a chemist. I got what you meant, but just wanted to say, based on what I've read, the job of foam fractionation is to remove dissolved organic compounds (DOC's). The organic counterpart to inorganic nitrate and phosphate is organic nitrogen compounds and organic phosphorous compound. Skimmers can remove the organics but not the inorganic compounds. I do think, as you stated, that's why some both run skimmers and add a carbon source. It kind of "doubles up" what the skimmer removes. I believe, I remember reading not to dose a carbon source unless you have a skimmer, and my skimmer isn't exactly what I'd call an extremely efficient skimmer, so my doses are still very small. Although, it seems to help reduce the phosphate levels, my tank (or atleast my test kits) have never registered very high nitrates. Certainly was an interesting discussion, I hope the OP was able to get something from it. :shrugs: Blakew
Foam fractionating or skimming does remove DOC's but only to a certain efficiency. blakew, thanks. I tried to sum up what I've learned as clearly as possible. I'm an engineer, not chemist myself, but I've seen nitrate and phosphate in our tanks referred to as inorganic nitrate and inorganic phosphate? I've no idea what the difference is, or how that relates to skimmer function. I'll check a couple of my books tonight. So, think we've totally confused and scared off arcticfox now? Phil
That is the reason I stated that I "think" bacteria plays a much more important roll in the occurance of hair algae than we originally thought. It is also the reason I add bacteria from the sea. Certainly agree that there is evidence that periodically introducing new bacteria strains/replenishing the bacteria that is or was in an aquarium is beneficial. Also seems to be some evidence to suggest that periodic introduction of new bacteria reduces or eliminates symptoms commonly referred to as "old tank syndrome". Blakew
I am sure that in the future we will know exactly how to eliminate nusience hair algae. Maybe with just a pill or an incantation. Said in jest, I suspect? Maybe? But I heard it said once that the only things that happen fast in an aquarium are bad things. Maybe that's overstated, but I certainly think that the factors leading to nuisance algae develop over time and it will take time to remedy nuisance algae. Unfortunately, no magic bullets. Blakew
The reason that carbon dosing (including biopellet reactors) is becoming popular, even though it isn't a new idea, is that hobbyist are seeing evidence in their tanks that the bacteria are more efficient than skimmers at removing DOC's (specifically nitrates and phosphates) from the water and the skimmer can remove the bacteria, as you said effectively doubling up on the amount of DOC's removed from the tank. That is the reason I stated that I "think" bacteria plays a much more important roll in the occurance of hair algae than we originally thought. It is also the reason I add bacteria from the sea.
Nice clearly stated post Phil. One point of contention. Foam fractionating or skimming does remove DOC's but only to a certain efficiency. This efficiency depends on all sorts of stuff like size of air bubbles, contact time and the size and charge (electrical attractiveness to an air bubble) of the organic compound. Dissolved organic compounds are simply the break down of organic matter into water soluble substances that are then held in suspension in a "dissolved" state in water until something removes those substances from the water. Either by plants or other living creatures removing them (which would include ATS, hair algae (and other algae) and bacteria), or until they are removed by mechanical means which would include foam fractionating or skimming. There are organic nitrogen and phosphorous compounds that foam fractionating (skimming) will remove, prior to them chemically changing to inorganic nitrate and phosphate compounds, which skimming will not remove. All that said, your main point that carbon dosing increases the efficiency of skimming lines up well with what I've read. The remainder of your post lines up well with my understanding of how ATS's, skimmers and carbon dosing (including biopellet reactors) work. The reason that carbon dosing (including biopellet reactors) is becoming popular, even though it isn't a new idea, is that hobbyist are seeing evidence in their tanks that the bacteria that feed on the carbon source also either absorb or convert nitrates and phosphates and the skimmer can then remove either the bacteria or the compounds they convert nitrates and phosphates into, as you said effectively doubling up on the amount of DOC's removed from the tank. Blakew
1) Install an algae turf scrubber (ATS) and let it take it's course. The algae that grows on the ATS absorbs/uses the excess nutrients and those nutrients are removed when you clean the algae from the ATS. My opinion exactly If you don't have room or don't have the appropriate set up to install an ATS: actively remove detritus from your system by routine thorough cleaning, skimming wet, and manually removing gobs of hair algae (which has absorbed nutrients and those nutrients leave your tank when the hair algae is removed). Also my opinion So you can add some "clean up crew critters" and at worse they have a zero net influence on nutrient export, while providing some interest. They may also put the nutrients back into suspension, so that your wet skimming can remove more of them True, I have all sorts of crabs and snails, I just like them, they are interesting, I think even more interesting than the fish. The effluent from a biopellet reactor will have a super saturation of bacteria in it I can't comment on that because I don't even know what they are Skimmers don't remove nutrients, they remove particles that will eventually break down into nutrients I use ozone in my skimmer and always have. I really don't know if it is a benefit being that I never ran my tank without it. Ozone doesn't really "remove" anything but it changes compounds into different, hopefuly better compounds. So we have come to the conclusion that there are things that can be done to "lessen" the ocurence of hair algae. I am sure that in the future we will know exactly how to eliminate nusience hair algae. Maybe with just a pill or an incantation.
An algae scrubber definitly worked for me. It can be a powerful nutrient absorber. In fact, Blakew, your post about run off and phosphate pollutants reminded me that ATS's were originally developed to filter agricultural run off and other large scale water treatment. However, it's only one method. I mentioned earlier that I feel some method of nutrient removal is needed. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what that means. Nutrients are disolved organic compounds, mainly nitrate and phosephate. Skimmers don't remove nutrients, they remove particles that will eventually break down into nutrients. But they can never remove everything. My understanding is that bio pellets, vodka dosing and sugar promote the growth of bacteria that absorb nutrients, and are then, themselves removed by the skimmer. Thus making the skimmer do double duty by removing particals before they become nutrients, and removing the bacteria that have absorbed nutrients. Refugiums sort of do double duty too, by growing easily removed macro algae to absorb nutrients, and provide a safe place for pods and other micro organizms to grow, which then provide food for the corals and fish. The problem I see with this approch is that the pods and microbes are herbivors and are feeding on the algae we're trying to grow, thereby pooping the nutrients back into the water. (I have a theory that having agressive predators, like wrasses in a tank can severely reduce micro organism populations and contribute to algae problesm, but I don't have any real evidence to support it yet.) Clean up crews remove algae from the display tank, saving us the trouble of picking and scrubbing it out ourselves. But they don't remove anything from the system. They poop it back out as particles that our skimmers can remove. And what the skimmer misses, breaks down into nutrients which need to be removed somehow. The trick is to have enough herbivors in the display to eat algae as fast as it can grow, and a method for removing the resulting nutrients as fast as they're produced. Either bio pellets, vodka dosing, macro algae, chemical absorbtion or algae scrubber (and probably a few others I've forgotten). In summary: 1. If you don't have enough herbivors, you get lots of nuisance algae in the tank, but no detectable nutrients. 2. If you have lots of herbivors, but insufficient nutrient removal, you get a clean looking tank with high nutrient levels. 3. The trick is to ballance herbivors with nutrient removal. Some do this with heavy skimming and filtration to prevent nutrients from forming, needing very few herbivors. Some (myself) use lots of herbivors and lots of nutrient removal. Or anywhere in between. Phil
Sorry Paul, I shouldn't be so sensitive. Just was trying to provide the OP with what I'll call " a more active approach". An approach that has worked for me. And shortly there after, I read a post seeming to suggest a more active approach is a waste of time. So if I may be so bold. I think a summary of the two opinions briefly stated is: 1) Install an algae turf scrubber (ATS) and let it take it's course. The algae that grows on the ATS absorbs/uses the excess nutrients and those nutrients are removed when you clean the algae from the ATS. Everything in #2 below may or may not help, but everything in #1 has worked in Paul's many years of experience (many more years of experience by multiples of 10 than I have in the hobby). 2) If you don't have room or don't have the appropriate set up to install an ATS: actively remove detritus from your system by routine thorough cleaning, skimming wet, and manually removing gobs of hair algae (which has absorbed nutrients and those nutrients leave your tank when the hair algae is removed). Biopellet reactors are another method of carbon dosing (I dose vodka) that also are suggested to increase the amount of nutrients your skimmer can pull from the water, especially if you're skimming wet. I simply suggested you direct your biopellet reactor effluent directly into your skimmer to get the maximum amount of nutrient removal. Some people have noticed bacterial blooms if over dosing carbon or if the effluent from a biopellet reactor (which essentially works by feeding bacteria that are thought to consume or aid in the removal of nitrates and phosphates) isn't skimmed prior to returning to the main tank. The effluent from a biopellet reactor will have a super saturation of bacteria in it. Those bacteria if not skimmed out will cause white (maybe other colors also) stringy stuff to grow in the tank/sump. So the idea is to create enough bacteria to reduce/eliminate nitrates and phosphates without creating so much that you cause a bacterial bloom in the tank. As with other sources of carbon dosing, biopellet reactors, require being able to notice evidence of corals/other tank inhabitants not being happy and making adjustments (reducing/skimming effluent or reducing dosages of the carbon source until the inhabitants are happy again). Clean up crews at worst take nutrients from the algae and put it back in the water through poop that then feeds the algae they eat. So you can add some "clean up crew critters" and at worse they have a zero net influence on nutrient export, while providing some interest. They may also put the nutrients back into suspension, so that your wet skimming can remove more of them. Studies, by actual biologist, have shown both light spectrum and phosphate lead to nuisance algae, both in our closed systems and in the wild (streams, rivers, lakes, Puget Sound, Oceans, etc). So in my humble opinion, changing light bulbs to keep the light being beamed into our tanks through our light fixtures in the spectrum which provides the best growth for corals and the least amount of spectrum that feeds nuisance algae and washing or changing foods to reduce the phosphorous put into the tank are cheap and easy ways to reduce (not eliminate) the things nuisance algae needs to grow. So I think, I've expressed both opinions. Both are equally appropriate. Both have worked in the past. Your choice of paths to follow or choose a mixture of both. What ever achieves the results you desire in your own little corner of salt water heaven is what you should do. Blakew
Okay, I give, PaulB wins, my opinion nor my experience isn't worthy of voice. Interestingly enough I tried to play nice and say there's multiple ways of doing things, but apparently those multiple ways are all wrong. Oh No, I went and ranted too much. I hate when I do that and of course your opinion matters. I said I am not an expert, I am an electrician so your opinion is just as important as mine is. None of us want hair algae on our corals, I don't thats for sure. I also didn't say not to remove detritus or add snails. I gave my "opinion" of a clean up crew and stated the reasons that they will not fix an algae outbreak. In my opinion. I did mention that IMO an algae scrubber is the best bet. Blakew, I was writing my post when you posted yours so I didn't read what you wrote when I posted mine. They are only 16 minutes apart and I read your post after mine posted or I would have commented and agreed with much of it. Sorry I didn't mean to imply that your opinion is not important. All we have here is opinions, none of us are experts.
By the way, as a civil engineer, I can absolutely without doubt, state that many, many studies have concluded that phosphorous/phosphates cause algae blooms in both fresh and marine environments. The algae blooms promoted by phosphorous/phosphates in stormwater runoff is considered unhealthy for fresh and marine environments. So much so that we as civil engineers have to jump through many hoops to ensure that phosphorous/phosphates don't leave our construction sites and that, in my area atleast, maintenance and management plans include the use of low/no phosphate fertilizers are used on lawns or in stormwater facilities unless phosphate removal is included as part of the stormwater plan for the site. So by all means, leave the detritus in your tank and let it break down into phosphates and then expect the algae to go away on its own. Too many studies suggest it won't happen. And I'm willing to bet, that if departments of ecology all over the world are beginning to include regulations against allowing stormwater containing phosphates to reach rivers, streams, lakes, Puget Sound or the oceans, that making efforts to keep them under control in our tanks isn't a bad thing. Blakew
Okay, I give, PaulB wins, my opinion nor my experience isn't worthy of voice. Interestingly enough I tried to play nice and say there's multiple ways of doing things, but apparently those multiple ways are all wrong. Leave your tank alone no matter how good or bad it looks. PS, I didn't start the hobby to grow algae, it's ugly and I will try to fix it. Maybe, the things I do have no impact and it would have fixed itself as PaulB says, BUT, there's ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that the things I did didn't help. So crabs and snails poop, okay, but you don't have to feed them so they aren't adding any extra nutrients to the tank, they're eating the algae, pooping which feeds the algae. At worst, they provide interest at no additional cost to tank pollution. That's a trade I'm willing to make. And this idea of not cleaning detritus out of the tank is the first I've ever heard of it. PaulB even says he runs an ATS to remove pollutants, and then says don't try to clean detritus out of the tank. What do you think the ATS does???? Do what ever you want as long as PaulB agrees. His is apparently the only opinion that matters. Blakew
I'm no expert, and in no way trying to be insulting I'm no expert either and you can also insult me but I didn't take it like that. (there are no experts in this as it is a hobby) As you mentioned you can have nitrates and phosphates out the roof and still have no algae or you can have algae growing up the walls with the same readings. If you have a bunch of algae your readings will most likely be zero because those nutrients are in the algae. Therefore, if you remove that algae, your tank will have a much better chance of having no algae for a while. The algae is also removing other things we don't test for or even know what to test for. It has been said for almost as long as I have been in the hobby that eliminating those nutrients will eliminate algae. I don't believe it although it will help. If you take a glass of RO/DI water and put it in sunlight, it will grow algae. Why? I don't know, maybe an ant walked in there and contributed enough nitrates to grow the stuff. The first thing virtually everyone does is change water. If that worked, no one would complain about this stuff. I have not changed any water in maybe 4 or 5 months and my fish are spawning so I overfeed. As I said I have very little algae. Even the lights on my algae trough burned out and I have not had a chance to fix it and I still have almost no algae. Why is that? According to popular opinion my tank should be covered in the stuff, but it is not, so there goes the theory. Tomorrow it may grow like crazy, even if I do nothing to cause it. Why? Still don't know. I do know that it comes and goes, by itself in cycles which is why there are so many remedies. People will change water every day for a year and then the algae will disappear so it must be water changes, or someone will add a sea hare and it will go away, so sea hares must be the cure, hermit crabs, snails, GFO etc. Any or all of those things will eliminate hair algae because it would have "most likely" subsided anyway. I am not saying it is hopeless, it can be eliminated from the tank just with an algae filter. Eventually it will disappear and maybe stay away for a few years. High nutrients will not cause it but it will make it greener and longer. Algae can not grow if there is no nitrates, phosphates or iron but these things will always be in our tanks. If we feed or have any animals in there it is just the nature of the beast. Corals also will not live in distilled water. They depend on those nutrients. A tank with a little algae growing is healthier (all things being equal) than a tank with virtually no algae. Of course we don't want our tanks to be a sewer and I don't want to give that impression. My reef is very healthy with fish aproaching 20 years old never having any disease issues and corals are growing faster than I can make room for. I also have no hospital or quarantine tank as I have no use for one. But my tank is old and I feel that bacteria plays a huge role in the health of the tank and the incidence of algae. I do add bacteria from the sea a few times during the year in the form of mud that I collect. Now there is a little cyano on the gravel, that does not bother me and it also will leave when it feels like or I can do all of those recommended things like change the lights, change the water, vacuum detritus and increase circulation and like algae, all of those things will work as well as none of them will work, the cyano will disappear as it has been for 4 decades. A healthy tank is not determined by how much algae or cyano we have, it is determined by the health of the inhabitants. The fish we keep almost all live over 15 years and should almost never get sick, corals should always expand and grow as should clams. I was just looking at my tank and noticed some pulsing zinia that I added a few weeks ago is spreading all over the tank, montiporas are slowly being taken over by frogspawn and hammar corals so it is growing in the opposite direction. All of my fish that can spawn, are spawning, only very healthy fish can spawn and if they are not spawning or showing spawning gestures, they are not as healthy as they should be. These are signs of health. The appearance of algae is in no way a sign of deteriation tank health or conditions although for some reason most people go nuts over it. Here in my tank now you can se some cycno on the gravel. Oh well. Have a great day. paul
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
