Articfox32

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for checking up on that. I always get confused about what exactly is ment by DOC's.

Phil

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.

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

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?

You got it, good, I thought it might be lost in translation.

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

Ahh, so I am way behind in this discussion but want to throw a new wrench in a few things. First off I would never rinse my frozen foods. I don't rinse them for a reason, I want all that nutrition to be in the water column for all the different types of feeders that inhabit our tanks. Filter feeders feed off of very small morsels and the oily substances in the water column, this is why a tank that is too clean is not good for corals and especially anemones. Most people have healthy anemones with out ever feeding them solid foods. This is also why new tanks take time to have healthy looking sessile inhabitants. Now please don't mistake this for saying yes to overfeeding, that is definitely a no no.

I also have about 6 different foods that I rotate through. Some are geared more for meat eaters, some are for herbivores, and some are for filter feeders. I have always heard that variety is the spice of life.

On to humor. Blakew, where do enemas fit in? Are they like super skimming?

Yep Micheal, appears the Advanced Aquarist article I linked above would back up you and Paul about rinsing foods. Another "wive's tale" type piece of information that I picked up early on in the hobby from one of the many forums on the net that I've now had to reconsider.

As to enemas, I don't know where they "fit in", don't remember ever having one... doesn't sound like a practice in which I'd like to participate. Yuck or ouch, which ever is more appropriate.