film algae on glass ,,again..

[new2scrub]

this algae that grows on my glass is driving me nuts :!: It will cover the viewing panes in 24 hours. I have no other algae in the system(except for the scrubber screen of course!) any tips?

[Aydee]

How long has the scrubber been running?

Dave

[Green]

this algae that grows on my glass is driving me nuts :!: It will cover the viewing panes in 24 hours. I have no other algae in the system(except for the scrubber screen of course!) any tips?
What color is that algae? are you sure it is not Cyanobacteria?

[SantaMonica]

You have high nutrients in your water, due to a weak scrubber, relative to the amount of feeding you are doing. A scrubber that is strong, relative to the amount of feeding, will keep the glass-cleaning away for up to 2 weeks.

[Vannpytt]

Or there is too much C in the system.

[SantaMonica]

If you mean Carbon, then this would not be true. Algae consume Inorganic Nitrate and Inorganic Phosphate, not organic Carbon (which is just food).

[Vannpytt]

Bacteria does, i.e cyano

[SantaMonica]

Yes but he was talking about algae on the glass.

[new2scrub]

yes it is green film algae on the glass. some days it will cover the viewing panes in 12 hours and other times it takes 48 hours. I have noticed that my scrubber screen is growing some maroon colored algae lately. my bulbs are only 2 months old at worst. recomended action?

[Vannpytt]

I suspect he would not know the difference. Most tanks, normally with or without algae in the display, have a 4-7 days glass buildup with ~20 ppm nitrate and >0 phosphate.

I myself had "algae" buildup with not measurable either. (also relativly fast, 2-3 days between cleanings)

Do you have any cyano on the sand?

[SantaMonica]

Maroon growth on the screen sounds like cyano, which would mean very weak lights.

[34cygni]

Could be worth your time to read through this thread (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/algae/134713-can-we-get-bottom-gda-turns.html) over at The Planted Tank Forum. As others observed, this may be cyano.

[Vannpytt]

Maroon growth on the screen sounds like cyano, which would mean very weak lights.

Which in terms point out too much C as the parameter to watch. Organic Carbon. Try agressive GAC in a fluidized reactor and (not or) Skimming for a while. This would greatly reduce your dissolved organics relatively fast, along with some large water changes.

I'm quite sure someone has been down the road before, yet I'm not knowledgable enought, but I would speculate this:

With very low nutrients (P & N) in the water, the climate favors bacteria over algae, meaning, the consume will be C instead of P or N. Myself, I have a tank with not measurable either on high precision test kits. <0.2 ppm N and <0.02 ppm P. I got myself a TOC testkit which I'm going to be trying the coming weekend and see how it progresses from cleaning day (little C is extruded as energy into the water) to 5 days when my screens are fully green (lots of C is extruded during the anhydrase).

I'm fairly sure my kit won't detect any difference, as it's far from precise enough, but it's precise enough to monitor buildups over time.

Too much C is also considered a factor (look into the elevated carbon thread on this site) for accelerated bacteria growth, which again, might be killing the stony corals.

Point is: if your scrubber is "too strong", or you are having problems when nutrients are not detectable, your most likely facing problems from another energy source. (C). This is however, as SM states, not algae related.

Edit:

Also, increase feeding to the point where N & P is not limited or reduce the power of your scrubber, relative to the balance between the 3 major energy factors (besides light itself) C & N & P. I would presume there is a balancing point that the scrubber might skew towards N & P being limited, over a bacteria system where C is limited (Biopellets/Zeo). Also, the bacteria cultured from high TOC is also different for the specific type of DOC. (It's different to give bacteria a pen to grow in (a Zeo/Pellets reactor), than to mass release bacteria food (C) and let them grow all over the place)

[SantaMonica]

How much was this TOC test ? The cheapest I found was several thousand dollars.

[new2scrub]

It may be cyano,,,looks like cyano,,,,,but i have NO cyano in display? strange....well I changed bulbs today anyhow. The bulbs I have been using are the 23 watt 27000k ,,, santa should i try the 34 watt bulbs? the 23 watters seemed to work great for the last year....maybe it is because I lost power for 4 full days in the storm last week???

[new2scrub]

o yea: my screen is 16"x9" lit by 2 bulbs on each side with diy coffee can reflectors lined with mylar as the reflective surface I have a 750 gph pump at one foot head for flow and my tank is 55 gallons total volume with 9 small fish and corals. I feed one cube per day and one cube worth of liquid food per day .

[Vannpytt]

If your Glass was fine Prior to that, sure, but it still might be an increase in TOC.

Salifert produces a non precise kit for measuring TOC in the water. It's far from a thousand bucks, and does not measure in ppm, but rather from a sample/dillution test

[SantaMonica]

I was going to try that test, but it was not available in the U.S.

As for his TOC, an increase or decrease in anyone's dissolved or particulate carbon in meaningless by itself. Carbon is not limiting for algae; inorganics are. Carbon is only limiting for bacteria. Think of TOC as the "steak", and Inorganic Nitrate and Inorganic Phosphate as the "smoke". You want the most steak to feed the corals, but you want the least "smoke" which feeds the algae. If you just feed some liquid coral food (which is almost pure DOC), the water's TOC will jump up until the bacteria and corals eat it and bring the levels back down. This eating will produce inorganic waste, which then must be removed by either the algae in your scrubber or on your glass/rocks/sand. The idea is to have a strong enough scrubber that algae grows mostly there and not on your glass/rocks/sand. This will keep most of the "smoke" away (like opening the windows), while allowing the most "steak" for the corals.

High levels of TOC/DOC in the water are better for corals (more steak), although it's very hard to get high levels because the corals and bacterial eat it within minutes. As long as the inorganics (the smoke) are removed fast enough by your scrubber, you can try to put as much TOC/DOC/food into the water as possible. I recent got up to 25 cubes (equivalent) of food per day on my 90 gal, mostly from liquid food, which is 50 percent of what real reefs get. I was reaching the limit of my two scrubbers though, and have since reduced.

As tests have shown, our tanks have yet to get more TOC/DOC than real reefs (although they should have measured mine a few weeks ago). Our high stocking-levels of corals will absorb/eat/consume any TOC/DOC (steak) faster than you can put it in. But you can't keep feeding more and more, because you will reach the limit of your scrubber, and your inorganics (smoke) will start rising.

[Vannpytt]

Are you sure you don't mean POC as that's basically what corals and filter feeders eat, while DOC is what is left and accumulated in the water as there is few organisms bar bacteria who consume DOC? From my sources, POC is a fairly small % of TOC.

[new2scrub]

think I found one of my problems! just got my new test kit in and my magnesium is at 1800+!! magnesium has been shown to kill hair algae off at that level. I am going to do a small waterchange with cheap salt to bring it down...

[SantaMonica]

I mean TOC. Corals actually do consume DOC, especially softies.

[Vannpytt]

This is a fairly interesting read. SM, got any nice papers on TOC and Coral's ?

[new2scrub]

got any definitions of TOC or DOC? examples? never gave them a second thought after switching to a scrubber..

[SantaMonica]

First thing to remember is that amino's, vitamins, and liquid coral food (the things that reefers buy and feed their corals) are TOC/DOC. And also, bacteria (which feeds corals too) is part of TOC. But look here for more info:


Close coupling between release and uptake of dissolved free amino acids in seawater studied by an isotope dilution approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 1987
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/37/m037p045.pdf

Periphytonic and benthic microflora on the reef: biomass and metabolic rates. Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium, 1981:
http://www.reefbase.org/download/downlo ... docid=9422 (http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=9422)

Biomass, production and heterotrophic activity of bacterioplankton in the Great Astrolabe Reef lagoon (Fiji). Coral Reefs, 1999.
http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl ... 022033.pdf (http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_7/b_fdi_55-56/010022033.pdf)

Online photochemical oxidation and flow injection conductivity determination of Dissolved Organic Carbon [DOC] in estuarine and coastal waters. The University of the South Pacific Library, 1999.
http://www.reefbase.org/download/downlo ... 00004783_1 (http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=A0000004783_1)

Short-term variability of photosynthetic parameters and particulate and dissolved primary production in the Alboran Sea (SW Mediterranean). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 2001. (make special note of figure 7).
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/212/m212p053.pdf

Partitioning of phytoplanktonic organic carbon production and bacterial production along a coastal offshore gradient in the NE Atlantic during different hydrographic regimes. AQUATIC MICROBIAL ECOLOGY, 2002.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/ame2002/29/a029p239.pdf

Phytoplankton-bacteria interactions: an apparent paradox? Analysis of a model system with both competition and commensalism. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 1985
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/25/m025p023.pdf

Bacterioplankton carbon growth yield and DOC turnover in some coral reef lagoons. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, 1997.
http://www.reefbase.org/download/downlo ... 00001879_1 (http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=A0000001879_1)

Linkage of small-scale spatial variations in DOC, inorganic nutrients and bacterioplankton growth with different coral reef water types, Aquatic Microbial Ecology, march 2001
http://www.int-res.com/articles/ame/24/a024p017.pdf


Let's not forget CoralScience.org

And of course you can search others for yourself:

Easiest to understand:

http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center ... /main.aspx (http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/main.aspx)
http://Int-res.com/site-service/search

Other free ones:

http://data.aims.gov.au/extpubs/do/goto ... sSearch.do (http://data.aims.gov.au/extpubs/do/gotoExternalPubsSearch.do)
http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year (journal of plankton research)
http://tos.org/oceanography/issues/archive.html
http://aslo.org/lo/search.html
http://bioone.org/search/advanced
http://Escholarship.org
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/CREWS/

Paid ones:

http://bioone.org/loi/jnbs (N. American Benthological Assoc.)
http://jstor.org/action/showPublication ... merbentsoc (http://jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=jnortamerbentsoc) (N. American Benthological Ass.)
1986-2009
http://springerlink.com/content/100407 (Coral Reefs)
http://springerlink.com/content/100441 (Marine Biology)
http://www3.Interscience.wiley.com/search/allsearch
http://Sciencedirect.com
http://publish.csiro.au/nid/176/act/search_advanced.htm
http://esajournals.org/search/advanced
http://reference-global.com

[Vannpytt]

I still get growth on my glass every 2-3 days. I have unmeasurable N & P for a long time. The display is now clean, and mostly my SPS are happy after I restarted. There is a tiny patch of very short green algae on a rock, which is already receding, The screen is growing 50 cm long hairs in 5 days, (No really, I'm not joking. The grow from top of the screen and all the way down 20-30cm in the water), but the growth is "lighter" as in not dark deep green, than it used to be prior to the restart. The flow and light conditions are the same, only now I skim and use GAC 24/7.

My SPS are far more happy once I clean the screen. Why?

[SantaMonica]

More particles in the water.

[Vannpytt]

And the glass? I'm about to give up on this after a year of trying. Might be my scrubber is not strong enough, but then I would not be able to make a stronger one. Can't feed more as that would give algae in Dt

[SantaMonica]

Glass will always need cleaning; just less. If there is any growth on your rocks, then P is still coming out of the rocks and is keeping some P in the water which feeds the glass. After the P is low enough in the rocks, the glass will stay clean longer (unless you feed liquids).

[dtyharry]

Or it could mean the algae is releasing too much doc into the water just before the screen is cleaned because less of it's energy goes into growing. This has been shown to starve corals of oxygen due to increased microbial growth on the coral surface.
Maybe you should clean your screen more often to keep it more like a nicely trimmed lawn as on a reel reef. Sorry for the lawn analogy, it is a British obsession!

[Vannpytt]

Or it could mean the algae is releasing too much doc into the water just before the screen is cleaned because less of it's energy goes into growing. This has been shown to starve corals of oxygen due to increased microbial growth on the coral surface.
Maybe you should clean your screen more often to keep it more like a nicely trimmed lawn as on a reel reef. Sorry for the lawn analogy, it is a British obsession!

It does seem this is more viable since there has been the last week 0 zero algae growth on the rocks, and the glass looks more like a slime layer than algae layer. I currently clean the screen every 5th day, at wich point most of it is so full of long green strains that I feel it needs to be done.

[SantaMonica]

The "looks" of it do not mean anything. Algae do not consume DOC, so it makes no difference what the growth on the glass looks like. Algae consume Inorganic Nitrate and Inorganic Phosphate. The more there is, the darker algae grow.

Also, at 5 days, algae should still be in its max (exponential) growth phase; not it's reduced growth phase.

[Vannpytt]

In other words, I should leave it for 7 days?

I have never measured N or P on this tank. Not even the slightest detection on my kits, and I've tried several. I might go the Biopellet/skimmer route, or the Zeo route. All this time, my N and P has been undetectable, but I cannot fight against it anymore. My SPS growth is slow at best, and while after the restart, my system is alot better with polyps extending quite a bit, day and night, I'm all out of ideas to make this work for me, and I feel that 1 year is patient enough.

I'm not doubting algae, but it might not be for me or my tank. God knows.

I don't feed alot
I don't have new rocks
I don't have N or P
I use a decent skimmer
I use GAC in a fluidized reactor
I don't have algae in the DT
I have massive growth of algae on the screen
I change 15% water 1-2 times a month
I run a Calcium reactor

Why won't my friggin SPS grow and color out, while I see anorectic SPS tanks with the ZEO system, and also with pellets systems? Is it the bacteria? I read your thread on the Zeo forum. Might the bacterial diversity be lacking?

[SantaMonica]

I use a decent skimmer; I use GAC in a fluidized reactor; I don't feed alot

It's this. You are removing what little particle food (skimmer) and dissolved food (GAC) you do have, that is needed for growth. Since you have no nutrient/algae problems, you can be pumping in much more food per day, which will benefit more that just the sps. Also, by feeding more, your scrubber will grow darker (less "efficient" filtering), which will allow the DOC (and bacteria) to increase further. Lastly, increased feeding/DOC/N/P will allow softies/lps to grow, and maybe even nps if you have enough particles and flow. Try that in zeo/pellet tanks.

Skimmer/GAC is never a good combination with scrubbers, when it comes to stony growth. It defeats the very purpose of the algae, nutrition-wise. Zeo/pellet systems, when they are not bleaching corals, are providing lots of particles (bacteria). With scrubber-only systems, you can't bleach the corals (due to self-limiting algal growth), but you can remove too much of the DOC/particles supplied by the algae.

[new2scrub]

good news! i changed my scrubber bulbs and the algae on the glass is far less! there was still a little growing on the glass but my new snails are doing a great job with it.

[SantaMonica]

How old were they?

[Vannpytt]

I use a decent skimmer; I use GAC in a fluidized reactor; I don't feed alot

It's this. You are removing what little particle food (skimmer) and dissolved food (GAC) you do have, that is needed for growth. Since you have no nutrient/algae problems, you can be pumping in much more food per day, which will benefit more that just the sps. Also, by feeding more, your scrubber will grow darker (less "efficient" filtering), which will allow the DOC (and bacteria) to increase further. Lastly, increased feeding/DOC/N/P will allow softies/lps to grow, and maybe even nps if you have enough particles and flow. Try that in zeo/pellet tanks.

Skimmer/GAC is never a good combination with scrubbers, when it comes to stony growth. It defeats the very purpose of the algae, nutrition-wise. Zeo/pellet systems, when they are not bleaching corals, are providing lots of particles (bacteria). With scrubber-only systems, you can't bleach the corals (due to self-limiting algal growth), but you can remove too much of the DOC/particles supplied by the algae.


And the glasscleaning is an indicator of high nutrient levels? So, basically, to me, this seems like a paradox.

I don't got measurable nutrients, never hard. I don't have visible algae growth in DT. I have good growth, yet my glass becomes covered in algae quickly. Would using a product like "Seachem Matrix" to allow bacteria to populate help? (Basically just external liverock)

[jnad]

Vannpytt:

Maybe it is a little like this:

If you use a magnetic algae remover i think maybe it always will bee some inviseble algae left on the hole area of the glass, therfore the algae on the glass is coming back faster than other places in the DT.

Just a long shot trying to help: try too clean the glass in DT with a rasor blade, then you will get rid of more algae spores on the glass.

When i clean my glass with a rasor blade the DT looks a lot clearer than cleaned with a magnetic alga remover.

jnad

[Vannpytt]

Thanks Jnad, will try it!

[new2scrub]

my bulbs wear less than 2 months old,but i changed anyhow . they wear cheapo bulbs so maybe thats y?

and good points about the magnetic algae cleaner....much like cleaning a scrubber screen,,your not removing ALL the algae just enough to see thru......hummmmm

[Floyd R Turbo]

With scrubber-only systems, you can't bleach the corals (due to self-limiting algal growth), but you can remove too much of the DOC/particles supplied by the algae.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying the algae removes the DOC/particles supplied by itself?

[Vannpytt]

Simply saying they can be removed.

[jnad]

Hello!

If algae on the glass is the only alge in the display tank. Keep cleaning the glass with a rasor blade and hopefully after a while there will be growing some other alge feeding of the nutrients the algae on the glass earlier was cunsuming. And this algae is probably the algae in the scrubber.

jnad

[SantaMonica]

the glasscleaning is an indicator of high nutrient levels?

Not levels; but supply. Think of levels like water in a sink. Think of supply like water out of a hose. The sink "looks" like more water because you see it, but in only a few minutes the hose will have delivered more "supply". In ocean and lake studies, the terms are "standing stock" and "turnover".

You have a high supply (turnover) of nutrients, flowing from your food/waste to your scrubber. That's why the scrubber grows; it has a big supply of nutrients. And since the nutrients are flowing out of the display so fast, the "levels" (standing stock) stay low. But while they are flowing, they are touching your glass and delivering nutrients.

One way to reduce this is to reduce flow across the glass. Another is to feed live food. Another is to shade the glass. And of course you can always increase the throughput of your scrubber so that is processes water faster.

I have no idea about additives.


are you saying the algae removes the DOC/particles supplied by itself?

No, the skimmer/GAC do.

[Vannpytt]

So, remove gac and skimmer again?

[SantaMonica]

Yes, if the goal is coral growth.

[Vannpytt]

And if algae bloom and stn sets in due to removal of them?

[SantaMonica]

Then your scrubber is not strong enough.

[Vannpytt]

So it's either too efficient with skimmer+gac or too weak. My screen is 2x 85x25cm fed with 5500 lph and 234w (t5 39wx6). I feed mby 5 pinches flak and 1-2 cube of frozen. Then your estimates must be way off, or there is something else I'm missing? I really want to solve this with the scrubber, but if not I must change to something else.

Is there any coral feeder pump that would work for less than $500+?

[SantaMonica]

Well, GAC + skimmer is not efficient at remove nutrients, only organics. And if that's all the food you are feeding, then I can see why there is slow growth. I've seen it before too, and it was solved by feeding much much more.

Any cheap $100 dosing pump can feed blended food if you dilute the food enough; they dose as low as 1ml per hour, so you'd want to make the food like cake batter, and then add 10 X more water to make it thin. The storage and chilling take more space, but it's cheap.

A high-precision medical pump can dose 0.1 ml per hour, so you don't have to thin out the mix, and thus it only takes up small space, and can use a tiny chiller:

Pump:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=110&start=20#p4044 (http://www.algaescrubber.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=110&start=20#p4044)
Food:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1153&start=10#p12168 (http://www.algaescrubber.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1153&start=10#p12168)
Chiller:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1152 (http://www.algaescrubber.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1152)

[Reefaholic]

Hey Guys


Don't know if this has anything to do with it, but from late fall to early spring, when the sun is lower on the horizion, it shines right through my back window and on my tank. Thats when algae grows on my glass much faster. Is your tank getting any sunlight.

[new2scrub]

I am finding that if I change my bulbs every 2 months that the algae on the glass subsides quiet a bit....what does this mean,,,I havent a clue...but for now everything is looking good..& still lovin my scrubber

[Vannpytt]

Thats quite costly if you have 6x 39w T5HO to swap every 2 months. In such case alternatives like GFO GAC and BP would be far cheaper.

[Vannpytt]

Removed 50% (1 of 2 screen) of the scrubber, and voila. Windows stay clean. The whole tank looks overall better, corals included..

There might be a problem with DOC. I asked once if it was possible to over scrub. I think I have, and at the same time released too much DOC from the algae back to the aquarium for a massive accumulation of dissolved organics. I can't explain it any other way.

[SantaMonica]

You might almost have as much DOC (vitamins, amino's) as the ocean does now.

[kotlec]

Santa ,

Can you please put this long story short for medium IQ folks ? I feel like there is something to learn , but still too hard to understand completely . Why it is dangerous to overscrub and and have a lot of vitamins and other useful stuff in tank ?

[Vannpytt]

My scrubber is built to be very high power, a 240 gallon stand alone filtration unit, but I only have a 170g understocked with not very much feeding.

Problem having such a large scrubber is that I simply cannot feed, change bulbs or similar upkeep as it's not worth it. The DOC related to bacteria and coral health is not conclusive in any way, but I do feel that whatever it was in my system, causing film on glass and STN+bleaching from base on SPS, all have a common factor, low nutrients and high bacterial/DOC. (The tank had a more favorable climate for bacteria over algae, which is not good at all if you want anything bar your scrubber grow).

[dtyharry]

Too much fleshy algae will produce elevated levels of dissolved organic carbon. To my knowledge the levels have never been measured in aquaria but when I emailed forest rohwer, author of coral reefs in the microbial seas, he said they had several scrubber tanks and would endeavour to take measurements. Excess levels have been shown to cause coral reef mortality by stimulating the microbes on the coral surface to such an extent that they literally starve the corals of oxygen.
He also said that it seems this does not happen in aquaria because they are so efficient at removing nutrients like phosphate and nitrate that this prevents the microbes from growing.
On a real reef of course the availability of such nutrients is to a certain extent limitless, there will always be more being transferred in by ocean currents etc.
Another way in which our little boxes of water act differently to the real ocean!

[SantaMonica]

Why it is dangerous to overscrub and and have a lot of vitamins and other useful stuff in tank

It's not. It's the way the ocean works.


causing film on glass

...is caused by N and P, not DOC.


STN+bleaching from base on SPS

...is from lack of food, especially when at the base or inside the branches, where food (flow) has a harder time reaching.


low nutrients

Your nutrients are not that low if you have a lot of algae on the glass.


high bacterial/DOC.

You do not have high bacterial/doc, compared to the ocean. You would need much more algae in your system to match how much algae is in a cubic meter of ocean water.


(The tank had a more favorable climate for bacteria over algae, which is not good at all if you want anything bar your scrubber grow).

Tell that to the zeo people.


Too much fleshy algae will produce elevated levels of dissolved organic carbon

Let me know when you get "too much algae" in your system. A 100g tank would need a standing stock of 5 pounds of algae to match what is in one cubic meter of ocean water. And good luck if you can even get near how much DOC is in the ocean.


To my knowledge the levels have never been measured in aquaria

Come on... you saw the study just like I did.


Excess levels have been shown to cause coral reef mortality by stimulating the microbes on the coral surface to such an extent that they literally starve the corals of oxygen.

1. Excess "levels" are not the cause, any more than excess oxygen causes you to suffocate. The reef is a system with many components. If you installed an oxygen tank in your house, but it was so heavy that it broke the floor and you fell in and died, you would not say that "excess oxygen kills people".

2. There is no excess DOC. It's not even as high as natural levels.

3. Scrubber algae does not go un-grazed, like the "un-grazed" algae that you are transfixed on. Using your own belief/story/ideals, you say the un-grazed reef algae is the "cause" of the problem, but scrubber algae is completely removed every 7-14 days. It is not "un-grazed".

[kotlec]

If you will hear loud explosion sound - thats my poor brain ...

Is it right what I understood at this point : there is not overscrubbing problem. It rather is disbalance between scrubbing and feeding ?
I still not understand what is the right way to get rid of algae film from glass though.

[kerry]

Algae in the display can form even if you are scrubbing. Where my flow hits the display I always get algae, its not near as much since I started scrubbing though. Mine is usually the brown stringy/hairy type. It was all over the tank but now just a little builds up on the glass and its getting less all the time. You can not over scrub as far as I know. I have built ones that under scrubbed and did not do enough. If you have the right size screen for what you feed you will see your glass be free of algae for days if not a couple weeks or more. How long have you been scrubbing?

[dtyharry]

In that same study you mention Santa, it actually clearly showed that the levels of dissolved organic carbon in the unskimmed aquaria with no activated carbon were higher than on a natural reef so to say good luck in achieving it is a bit silly. Levels that are too high are not good.
For the record it was actually me who suggested that scrubbers are grazed by their owners on a weekly basis.
It is not my ideal and I am not transfixed by fleshy algae. With the greatest of respect I will take the opinion and years of work of a qualified microbiologist over an enthusiastic amateur any day. It is a bit like the people who find little tit bits of 'evidence' to say that humans are not the cause of the greenhouse effect.
Excess dissolved organic carbon on reefs caused by unglazed fleshy algae promotes microbial growth which starves the corals. Deny it as much as you like. When coral samples were subjected to excess levels of doc if they were also treated with antibiotics the death did not occur because the microbes were killed. Doc in itself is not the killer, but sets off the chain of events.
When i said doc levels had not been measured I meant for scrubbed tanks, maybe you can correct me on that.

[kotlec]

Im scrubbing from the very beggining. Its 10 month. Very small algae in tank that i have ever seen. But glass covers with thin film every day. Its ideally equal (not only where streams hits glass) and has small white strands. Most corals grow like crazy but arent very nice colored. Some are browned a little others are bleached a little. Nothing extreme , but I would like them having nicer colors. When I introduce new coral, it changes color in two-three days usually. Dont know if it means something.

[kerry]

Volcanoes are our biggest green house affect. Each time one goes off it sets our little dent of progress back several to dozens of decades back. So I guess we have to scrub out the pollution with algae, it works great for my tank. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vannpytt]

If a skimmed tank with measurable p and n has no film on glass for a week, how the heck can I have them without any measurable anything at all with several different tests?

You have to agree, there is something that you cannot explain here. I've run this scrubber without measurable nutrients in the system for 1 year. Very high power, regardless of how "weak" you would claim it is. I dare say, there is no one in this forum who has a more overbuilt and powerful scrubber compared to water volume. I've lost several corals and zoa.

I've tried several different suggestions, but for now I see clear and visible results from just 1 week @ 50% power. That's a pretty good indication that my system is not happy with that much algae? (And also like I said, it might be I need to run tube replacements every 2-3 months, but that will simply be like buying a new expensive skimmer every other year.)

Or I might be stupid and not capable of running a scrubber system. Not to be excluded from the list.

[kerry]

If you see improvements with 50% go that route for a while and see what happens. You are not to stupid to run a scrubber!!! When you said you run a 240G filter system what did you mean. Are you talking about your scrubber being large enough to handle 240G or do you have a separate 240G filter as well?

[Vannpytt]

It'd built to tackle 240G stand alone (as of SMs old specs). My system is 190G at best.

[kotlec]

If a skimmed tank with measurable p and n has no film on glass for a week, how the heck can I have them without any measurable anything at all with several different tests?


From what you just stated I can make only one conclusion. "Glass algae" ( or whatewer it is ) is feeding on something different but p and n that scrubber removes. It is feeding on something what skimmer removes. Proteins ? Hope somebody can clarify that difference ?

[SantaMonica]

Is it right what I understood at this point : there is not overscrubbing problem. It rather is disbalance between scrubbing and feeding?

Correct you cannot overscrub. If nutrients get too low, the scrubber just slows down. Not sure what you mean though by disbalance.


I still not understand what is the right way to get rid of algae film from glass though.

You will always need to clean the glass, especially if you feed liquid coral food. But the stronger your scrubber is, the less often you need to clean it (say, every 2 weeks).


it actually clearly showed that the levels of dissolved organic carbon in the unskimmed aquaria with no activated carbon were higher than on a natural reef

Post the quote, or the link.


Levels that are too high are not good.

Why do you assume this? Corals eat DOC, and bacteria, so you should assume that more is better, ESPECIALLY considering that zeo/pellet/etc tanks are PURPOSELY adding DOC and thus bacteria too. Not to mention that Vitamin C and Amino Acids are also DOC.


Excess dissolved organic carbon on reefs caused by unglazed fleshy algae promotes microbial growth which starves the corals.

But who cares what microbes do there. They don't do it here. If I dump a truckload of a copper compound into the water near a reef, the corals will die of copper. But who cares? If I could lower the pH on a certain reef by 1.0, the corals there would die. But who cares? If could cut off the food supply to a reef, the corals there would die. But who cares? And yes, if I were to remove most large fish from a reef, maybe (or maybe not) the corals would die, but who cares? We are not trying to protect reefs.


When coral samples were subjected to excess levels of doc if they were also treated with antibiotics the death did not occur because the microbes were killed.

Don't you realize that this is because there is no natural filter in place to eat the DOC? This is like adding a bunch of ammonia to a tank; it kills everything if there is no natural filter. But if ammonia is added gradually, as in cycling a tank or natural animal processes, the natural filters consume it. Same with DOC... in a functioning tank or ocean/lake, the flux of carbon is from DOC to bacteria/microbes; the bacteria/microbes are already in the water, eating DOC and thus producing more particulate food. But if you just add DOC out of the blue, and don't have an established natural filter already in the water, of course you are going to get a spike in bacteria on the corals. But so what? It's not how tanks/lakes/oceans operate. Tanks/lakes/oceans do not sit there without bacteria/microbes, waiting to be overdosed with a pulse of DOC, the way the test-tanks are overdosed. I'm surprised the analysts did not think of this.


When i said doc levels had not been measured I meant for scrubbed tanks

Correct, not that I know of. The analyzer is too expensive.


glass covers with thin film every day
and

Some corals are bowned

.... This is very clear that your scrubber is weak, and you have high nutrients in the water. Start looking at increase your scrubber power.


If a skimmed tank with measurable p and n has no film on glass for a week, how the heck can I have them without any measurable anything at all with several different tests?

The difference is in throughput. A skimmed tank has little food input, and little nutrient output (most nutrients stay in the food). A scrubbed tank has a very high throughput of nutrients from food to N/P to the algae. So you are actually passing much more nutrients, in the state of N and P, through your water per unit time than a skimmed tank is. As these nutrients pass your glass, they feed the growth there. But the focus is coral growth, and if yours if the one that grows better with reduced scrubbing, then by all means do it. I still say much more feeding is necessary, which by the way would produce the same results as scrubbing less, with the added benefit of providing more food.


I've run this scrubber without measurable nutrients in the system for 1 year.

Measureable = standing stock, not flux. If you could see the flux, it would be a river running from the food/waste to the scrubber. And the river is running into your glass. You really should start feeding about 5 times more. Again, I've seen this before, and feeding got the growth going.

[kotlec]

Things are starting to clear up . At least for me .

Scrubber system is a system with more food and vitamines and less wastes. That's the main difference ! Being able to feed more we can feed less instead ?

[kerry]

I feed em like crazy!!! I love it!!! I would say feed those corals of yours like crazy too!! The algae is made to soak up the bad stuff so let the algae do its job. Push the feed for a coupe weeks and see what your corals look like then. I was so scared to feed mine to much for fear of nutrients building up a killing them but, just the opposite happened. I feed a ton more and the nutrients are lower then ever and they look SO MUCH better. Now I have a lot more time on my hands because of no water changes that the little cleaning of the glass does not bother me. I have found that if I scrap it with a razor it stays cleaner longer. Someone suggested that here and it works. Do as I did, jump off the deep end and feed!!!!

[kotlec]

I feed a ton more and the nutrients are lower then ever

:? how

[Vannpytt]

I agree Santa, that I overscrub, and that Algae are the natural way. There is no question about this.

I have also spoken to Adey, Julian and several other "bigshots" and they all conclude that algae is a good way. That said, I cannot keep the system the way it is as I simply cannot get any growth bar on the scrubber which are solid harvests every week. After I restarted my system I do have coraline growing on the rocks again which is pleasant.

[kerry]

My nutrients (all the bad stuff like nitrates and phosphates) are lower with my scrubber compared to before without my scrubber. Before my nitrates would hit 40PPM in a week easy with regular feedings. Now with the scrubber I have increased my feeding to at least 4 times as much and have nitrates that do not go over 5PPM.

[dtyharry]

The article on dissolved organic carbon was advanced aquarist September 2008. Tanks that utilised granular activated carbon filtration had levels of doc close to that of natural reefs ie 1.1 +/- 0.4ppm. Whether a skimmer was used or not was irrelevant, we all know these have little effect on doc levels.
The tank that did not utilise granular activated filtration or a skimmer had doc levels of 5ppm, almost five times natural levels. This shows that despite santa's regular insistence that you will never have as much doc as the ocean, this is clearly not the case. Incidentally this tank had soft corals which did well. Try the same approach with sps and I am sure the story would be different.
This is not a scrubber skimmer debate, perish the thought, I would not have a skimmer. I just find statements such as you cannot have too much doc and similar things frustrating. Santa is denying outright that on reefs excess doc is a major contributor to coral mortality despite all the evidence to the contrary. It is almost as if he is concerned that it may scare people away from the scrubber philosophy which is a shame. He is right to say that reefs are not aquariums.

[kerry]

What type of corals are in the tanks tested??? And were these tests done at the same time and on the same light schedule and feeding schedule? Its accepted that coral such as Galaxy coral will spike the doc twice a day, Morning and night. In an aquarium situation it can spike to 4-20PPM of doc after being fed. This is released through the mucus and then quickly consumed by the bacteria in and on the coral but not from bacteria in the water column itself. This spike can last a couple to a few hours. However this does not happen in a tank with none of these corals. So if the test was during a spike this is sure possible but it will not last because the bacteria will consume it. Not trying to argue, just trying to understand. DOC is food so how can it stay very high for a long period of time?

[dtyharry]

The tests were carried out on various tanks ranging from 25 to 500 gallons and readings taken at various times up to 24 hours after feeding. Tanks ranged from no fish to soft corals to hard corals. More tests would have to be carried out on identical tanks as far as this is possible using different husbandry practices to be certain I guess. Maybe a scrubber only tank, skimmer only, no skimmer, some tanks to have granular activated carbon and others not.
Maybe santa will say doc is food which is obviously correct but too much of anything is not good for you, just look at all the kids eating sugary foods to excess and the damage that is doing to them. In those previously mentioned tests the tanks which had granular activated carbon all had levels of doc similar to healthy reefs showing that enough is left to feed the corals whilst preventing the levels getting too high.
It is also worth remembering that doc is only a proportion of a coral's diet, and I will endeavour to fond what proportion unless somebody here already knows.

[kerry]

DOC's in the ocean have been measured in some areas of reef up to almost 5ppm. I tried to find where I read this but could not find it. It was a big chart of various parts of ocean reefs measured for DOC, Many where 2+PPM, and many where under 1PPM.
Seeing that DOC in the ocean is about equal to the CO2 in the atmosphere, its seems there is an exchange there of some sort. So if we have a covered tank does this affect the DOC in the tank due to the CO2 trapped under the lid. The CO2 under the lid would be more then the open atmosphere I would think due to the gas exchange under the lid. So with more CO2 under the lid cause a raise in DOC in the tank water?
The DOC is food, its broken down into fuel by a living organism, it gets used up by something, it has to. Sure humans get fat and unhealthy from to much because they do not multiply or get bigger exponentially because they are bound my a skeleton that does not grow with it. Corals on the other had will expand, multiply and grow to meet the food that is present in the water column, so if there is an abundance would they just grow to meet their surrounding needs?
The level of DOC has to rise and fall due to it being created and eaten.
I am so confused!!!!
This is the stupid stuff I think about all the time. Most of the time I confuse myself LOL!!!

[dtyharry]

I think you are getting inorganic and organic carbon confused. The primary autotrophic producers, phytoplankton etc right at the bottom of the food chain can fix the carbon from dissolved carbon dioxide, much like plants do in the atmosphere. To all intents and purposes their supply of this carbon is limitless and so their growth is limited by other nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphate and very importantly iron. This is why you sometimes get algae blooms in polluted areas, the extra nutrients allow extra growth. Think I am correct so far.
For a substance to be termed organic it must contain both carbon atoms and hydrogen atoms. You will see on vodka dosing threads that an organic carbon source, ie alcohol, is dosed to provide heterotrophic bacteria with the carbon they believe is limiting their growth. During this growth they also consume nitrogen and phosphorous in the form of nitrates and phosphates and are then skimmed out or consumed by the corals.
So, if your brain was not spinning it probably is now! Heterotrophs cannot fix carbon dioxide directly and so the level of carbon dioxide under your lid will have no impact on the level of dissolved organic carbon in your water.

[kerry]

I have a very generic grasp on this I guess. I should have paid more attention in the 3 chemistry and 2 biology classes I took LOL! Its the DOC's that get me.?!.

[new2scrub]

WOW look what I started!!! great read!!!!

[SantaMonica]

I feed em like crazy!!! I love it!!! I would say feed those corals of yours like crazy too!! The algae is made to soak up the bad stuff so let the algae do its job. Push the feed for a coupe weeks and see what your corals look like then. I was so scared to feed mine to much for fear of nutrients building up a killing them but, just the opposite happened. I feed a ton more and the nutrients are lower then ever and they look SO MUCH better. Now I have a lot more time on my hands because of no water changes that the little cleaning of the glass does not bother me. I have found that if I scrap it with a razor it stays cleaner longer. Someone suggested that here and it works. Do as I did, jump off the deep end and feed!!!!

This sums up the difference of scrubber-tanks vs. skimmer-tanks, when it comes to corals.


I feed a ton more and the nutrients are lower then ever

Scrubbers removes nutrients, and leave food in the water.


I simply cannot get any growth, bar on the scrubber

Multiply your feeding by 5. You have to at least try it.


The tank that did not utilise granular activated filtration or a skimmer had doc levels of 5ppm, almost five times natural levels.

You mean the one that was set up for the experiment, and which was given no time for the bacteria/microbes to grow and do their natural filtering/consumption? Reef studies show that the turnover time of bacteria requires about 3 weeks; this means that any increase in doc requires about three weeks before the bacteria/microbes can catch up with it. Just like cycling rocks requires time.


Santa is denying outright that on reefs excess doc is a major contributor to coral mortality despite all the evidence to the contrary

DOC did not "cause" anything. Otherwise, there would never have been reefs in the first place. Guess what?... Fat "causes" heart problems. So if you have any "fat" at all, which we do, you and the rest of us are going to start having heart problem tomorrow. Yes tomorrow. It must happen, because fat "causes" heart problems. Wait a minute, you mean there are people with fat who don't have these heart problems? How? The definition is: Fat causes heart problems. Period. And, DOC "causes" coral mortality. So, using your own definition, all corals on all reefs (which all have doc) are all going to start dying tomorrow.


DOC is food so how can it stay very high for a long period of time?

Correct; it can't. That's why people dose it.


DOC's in the ocean have been measured in some areas of reef up to almost 5ppm

More than that. Here is one study; there are many others:

Online photochemical oxidation and flow injection conductivity determination of Dissolved Organic Carbon [DOC] in estuarine and coastal waters. The University of the South Pacific Library, 1999.
http://www.reefbase.org/download/downlo ... 00004783_1 (http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=A0000004783_1)
also here:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/OnlineP ... nOfDOC.pdf (http://www.radio-media.com/fish/OnlinePhotochemicalOxidationAndFlowInjectionConduc tivityDeterminationOfDOC.pdf)


"Carbon is the link between the inorganic environment, and the living organisms. The carbon cycle basically illustrates the interchange of carbon between the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and the lithosphere. The focus of this study is the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in natural waters, specifically marine and estuarine waters. In natural waters, the total organic carbon (TOC) is composed of particulate organic carbon (POC) and DOC. In most of these waters, the concentration of DOC is greater than the concentration of POC. For example, in the sea, the concentration of DOC surpasses POC by a factor of 50 to 100 percent.

DOC in natural waters is usually made up of fatty acids, carbohydrates, amino acids, hydrocarbons, hydrophilic acids, fulvic acids, humic acids, viruses and clay-humic-metal complexes.

In oceanic waters, DOC levels vary around 0.5 mg/L, but can also be as high as 20 mg/L in coastal waters, and at the continental shelf.

The total DOC in seawater is [estimated at] 0.7 mg C/L, and is a major reservoir of organic carbon. In coastal waters, because of increased phytoplankton activity and the input from land, DOC values can be as high as 20 mg/L.

The production of DOC is led by the phytoplankton, via exudation and
cell lysis. The role of phytoplankton in DOC production is also important in other natural water bodies like lakes, where such release is of ecological significance because the DOC released provides a source of energy to heterotrophic consumers and decomposers. The release of DOC by phytoplankton is also considered to be a functional response of individual cells to changes in environmental conditions. In addition to phytoplankton, planktonic grazers like copepods and protist grazers also contribute to DOC production via excretion. Other marine organisms also excrete DOC via their wastes, and the decomposition of their dead bodies by microorganisms like bacteria and fungi.

Carbohydrates are highly reactive, and they support heterotrophic metabolism.

DOC plays an important role in the bio-geochemistry of any aquatic system, because it is a component of the total carbon which is cycled through organisms, the water body, sediments and plants. Therefore the bulk analysis of water for DOC is essential for the overall understanding of the production-decomposition cycle, and the variability of DOC in an aquatic system.

The tissue of all plants and animals in the marine and estuarine waters have significant amounts of carbon. The carbon is taken primarily in the dissolved state [DOC] by the organisms. In other words, DOC in aquatic ecosystems provides energy and carbon for the metabolism of heterotrophic bacteria, plus some species of phytoplankton which can subsist heterotrophically on dissolved organics.

DOC, primarily in the form of humic and fulvic acids, binds organic pollutants such as phthalates and pesticides as in the case of heavy metals.

The ultimate fate of DOC in an aquatic system is its oxidation (to carbon dioxide) by bacteria, fungi, protozoan and animals present in water. "

[kerry]

Thank you Santa Monica!!! I see you used a couple of my posts as examples, thank you, that means a lot to me!! I am no expert on this info but I try hard to research and research again and then research again because of conflicting info out there. I do understand that DOC's are governed by bacteria and such other organisms that consume them just like the nitrogen cycle does to ammonia, nitrite and nitrate (nitrate is consumed in the presents of no oxygen, by this the nitrogen cycle it then complete, and you would not need a scrubber in a FW tank but this so hard to duplicate that its impossible by my trials and knowledge of such), once established. Of course the Scrubber put a HUGE dent in this but, I feel they work side by side to keep some kind of balance as I would assume. Finding a system that will take of all nutrients is just simply astounding to me!!! OK, let me stop rambling!! lol

[dtyharry]

You mean the one that was set up for the experiment, and which was given no time for the bacteria/microbes to grow and do their natural filtering/consumption? Reef studies show that the turnover time of bacteria requires about 3 weeks; this means that any increase in doc requires about three weeks before the bacteria/microbes can catch up with it. Just like cycling rocks requires time.

If you check the acknowledgments you will see that apart from the author's tank the water samples were provided my members of State College Aquarium Reef Society so to say that these were hastily set up experimental tanks is skirting the issue somewhat. Give the people who carried out these tests some credit.


DOC did not "cause" anything. Otherwise, there would never have been reefs in the first place. Guess what?... Fat "causes" heart problems. So if you have any "fat" at all, which we do, you and the rest of us are going to start having heart problem tomorrow. Yes tomorrow. It must happen, because fat "causes" heart problems. Wait a minute, you mean there are people with fat who don't have these heart problems? How? The definition is: Fat causes heart problems. Period. And, DOC "causes" coral mortality. So, using your own definition, all corals on all reefs (which all have doc) are all going to start dying tomorrow.

The important word which you have conveniently omitted from my post is EXCESS. Doc is the primary energy source, I think that is obvious now but an excess of most things will cause more harm than good. We all know of someone who says cigarettes have not harmed them and they have been smoking for 70 years. They are the exception not the rule.
I have never said that reefs with doc will all die. I have said that many studies have now shown that EXCESS doc stimulates EXCESS microbial growth of a more pathogenic kind, which causes an increase in coral mortality.
In my defence in case I am seen as a scrubber hater which I am not, it seems that in aquaria IF the scrubber is effective at keeping inorganic nutrients, ie phosphate and nitrate, at negligible levels, this excess microbial growth does not occur because there growth is limited by lack of these nutrients.
If, however, in the case of a poorly designed or inadequate scrubber, the inorganics were not kept at very low levels, in combination with the doc this could lead to an increase in microbial growth and coral mortality.


http://www.radio-media.com/fish/OnlinePhotochemicalOxidationAndFlowInjectionConduc tivityDeterminationOfDOC.pdf

Yes if you take doc measurements near sewage outlets and river estuaries you can expect elevated levels of doc beyond the 1.1ppm +-0.4ppm of a healthy reef.

[new2scrub]

wow my head hurts,,,great debate tho....

[dtyharry]

[quote:1ehe91ew]When coral samples were subjected to excess levels of doc if they were also treated with antibiotics the death did not occur because the microbes were killed.

Don't you realize that this is because there is no natural filter in place to eat the DOC? This is like adding a bunch of ammonia to a tank; it kills everything if there is no natural filter. But if ammonia is added gradually, as in cycling a tank or natural animal processes, the natural filters consume it. Same with DOC... in a functioning tank or ocean/lake, the flux of carbon is from DOC to bacteria/microbes; the bacteria/microbes are already in the water, eating DOC and thus producing more particulate food. But if you just add DOC out of the blue, and don't have an established natural filter already in the water, of course you are going to get a spike in bacteria on the corals. But so what? It's not how tanks/lakes/oceans operate. Tanks/lakes/oceans do not sit there without bacteria/microbes, waiting to be overdosed with a pulse of DOC, the way the test-tanks are overdosed. I'm surprised the analysts did not think of this.[/quote:1ehe91ew]

What i was trying to say by this was that it was not the excess doc that killed the coral by itself. If the water was treated with antibiotics to kill all the microbes and bacteria the corals suffered no damage whatsoever which presumably means that being in contact with excess doc in itself poses no problem. This different to ammonia of course which would kill the coral.
When excess doc, however, was used with no antibiotics, the corals died due to the vastly increased microbial growth on the coral surface.
So no, excess doc per se does no harm by itself, the chain of events it causes, however, does.