Cant fight algae in dt

[kotlec]

Story began 5 month ago. After returning from one week vacation out of town I found big bloom of algae in dt. Some macro algae also appeared from nowhere and "feeling good". My son told that all was as usuall during that time, but who knows. Anyway I has fight nuisance by all methods I knew for last 5 months. Nitrates at 3-5 and phos at 0.02-0.04. Usual readings for my tank.
Cant understand why nuisance algae is not receding at such low nutrients. Why ATS is not out competing it ? Actually my screen is never growing very well at such low readings , instead algae in dt feels very "healthy" . I even reduced on feeding. That not seems to help as well. filter sponge exchanged every day.
Dont thing "rocks leaching phos" explanation is valid after 5 month fight. I even added real skimmer. Needles to say with zero effect on pests.

Nearly ready to give up.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3804/9190682783_1cf929e13d_b.jpg

[Devs]

Firstly, your first post on this thread is Number 666 which is not a good sign, hehe just kidding :)

[Devs]

I'm sure the big boys on here will be along soon to correct me if I'm wrong but...

It is the algae in the dt that is consuming whatever nutrients there are and therefore keeping your params ok.

You mention a filter sponge, where abouts is this in your system ?

[kotlec]

It sits after ATS and before return pump. I am sumpless. All toys in back chamber


666 is gone now :)

[SantaMonica]

Looks exactly like phosphate coming out of rocks. Can go on for a year.

How often do you need to clean the glass?

[kotlec]

I clean glass once per week.
But how it can be phos in rocks ? Tank was clean and in a week something happened and now P leaching for 5 month ???

[SantaMonica]

P does not start coming out until P in the water is low. Once P starts coming out, it takes longer if your scrubber is weaker.

[kotlec]

My scrubber was able to keep
n=4
p=0.02
at all times
Would not call it week.

[SantaMonica]

Low P has nothing to do with flow of P from rocks to scrubber. You could have a river of P flowing.

Anyway, it should get better over weeks.

[kotlec]

Hope so . But last 4 month picture is not changing whatever I do. Corals already starved to death. :( Dont know how long they able to stand that state anymore... Algae already started to attack birdsnest killing it from bottom and climbing up.

One thing that I dont understand is how rocks collected so much P in a week that is able to feed nuisance algae for months. Nothing has changed at any other time except that week when I wasn't at home.

Another thing that I dont understand is P concentration. I read alot of SPS forums and there is general rule that P should be in 0.02 - 0.08 range for healthy corals. More - they get brown. Less they get bleached- pale. How these guys stay clean of algae with those numbers, even not using ATS ? I run ATS , my P is usually 0-0.02 range . Corals cant grow , but algae is thriving. What I am missing here ?

How long should I be waiting if 5 months is not enough ? I'll wait if this is the only way.

[kotlec]

Just rechecked to be sure :

No3 - 1.5 Salifert (good for SPS)
Po4 - 0.00 Hanna (deadly for SPS)

[Floyd R Turbo]

This "P coming from rocks" is just a guess that fits the situation nicely. There is no hard science or definitive proof either way (proving or disproving) the "P leeching" concept. So let's set that straight first.

For chemically deposited phosphate, which precipitates out of the water at pH above 8.0 and best at 8.4, this P is chemically bonded and not dissolved just because the P in the water is brought down (let's be clear, this is not a chemical possibility), you would have to lower pH to 7.0 or less for this P to dissolve back out, chemically speaking. The other possibility is that there is some kind of symbiosis between bacteria and algae that is creating a localized low pH at the rock surface that creates the ability to access this bound P, but in the process of releasing the P this raises the pH locally, so this would have to be a rather slow mechanism, if it even exists.

For "sludge" deposits, or top-layer detritus, etc, this is likely more soluble and can become a source of nutrients for algae, but should be short lived if you had a large algal outbreak.

What is more likely is that your P is coming from the food you feed, as P is in the cells of almost everything, and when the food is processed/digested, this P is released into the water. Your rocks will adsorb this P through the previously mentioned precipitation in a high pH environment, until the rocks become saturated and this process slows, resulting in a slow rise of P in the water column that is available for algal uptake. This may be what you are seeing - your scrubber is able to uptake much of the P, but not all of it.

Again, that is just a theory that could potentially explain what is going on, but there's so little research into this and each tank is so specific, there could be multiple explanations. It could just be a temporary cycle, it could be a bacterial colony crash (and the effects you are seeing would be much worse if you didn't have a scrubber), etc.

Have you changed anything at all? lighting? Food? Livestock? Rearrange tank? Add rock? Remove rock? anything?

[kotlec]

I did not move even a piece of sand in tank when all this happened. The worst thing what comes to my head is that my son during my wacation could forget to feed fish several days and then dump 2 or 3 day dose in a hit. But that is also not likely.

Folowing the idea of saturated rock one thing comes to my head is that i never had phosphates higher than 0.04. OK you will say that was a result of rocks absorbing P, but why then now, when rocks are saturated and not absorbing anymore , my P is still at 0.00 ? It should have rocketed since reached saturation point.
Another important factor is that I keep my tank semi starved as my corals didnt have nice colors. I believed that reason was phosphates. But now I thing that it is more likely lack of phosphates and not excess.

Bacteria colony crash looks most realistic to me. I do not understand this mechanisms at all , but it sounds to me very trustworthy.
Bacteria or any other micro life inside rocks crash and initiates algae to grow on its leftovers. I believe this even can replace " P leaching from rocks " theory.

[SantaMonica]

Because their P is already out of the rocks.

Screen pics would help, but I'm pretty sure even without them.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Low P has nothing to do with flow of P from rocks to scrubber. You could have a river of P flowing.


Because their P is already out of the rocks.

I am totally confused.

[kotlec]

Screen growth very well coresponds P measurings.

P= 0.04 screen grow nicely
P= 0.02 screen grow somehow
P= 0.00 screen grows alien algae, or stops growing at all. (Today's situation)

Never had higher P to extend this list.

[Mason Dixon]

I've got the same problem with a DT covered in algae, but my ATS is growing it great as well. I'm thinking the flow from my return pump is not cycling the water through the DT fast enough and, as a result, the fish waste is becoming algae food before it can get to my skimmer/ATS. I will be upgrading pumps this next week(300gph to a 1000gph in a 135g tank).

[SantaMonica]

Flow has nothing to do with it. If your scrubber is growing good, then it's working well.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I completely disagree given the facts. He has a 135 with 300 GPH through the filtration. Even without a scrubber, his filtration system is on a crutch due to this.

[cdm2012]

I came across this article entitled: "Nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4) don’t cause algae. Ammonia does!! (http://aquarium-fertilizer.com/nitrate-no3-and-phosphate-po4-dont-cause-algae-ammonia-does)"

Here are some quotes:


There is this myth, that nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4) cause algae which is spread like a wildfire...algae lives in two stages. First stage is an algae spore and second one is common algae...Algae spores are invisible and they are present in each aquarium... they need for their growth ammonia (NH4) and energy – light...algae spores want ammonia (NH4)...Ammonia comes from...waste of fish and from feed...

and I'm sure any dead, decaying thing in the aquarium will produce ammonia. Including dead bacteria.

And of course the article then tells us what we already know about algae:


...algae eats nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4)...

Could this be what is leeching out of live rock? Perhaps, dead creatures, including bacteria, inside the live rock is slowing decaying and causing a ammonia to slowly leak out. This would give food to the ever present algae spores causing it to produce algae and then the newly grown algae consumes the surrounding nitrate and phosphate in the water. And I'm sure this phenomenon would continue until the decaying process ends.

Could it perhaps be ammonia causing the problem?!?

[kotlec]

I would vote for this theory day and night.

What best way to control ammonia ?
Possibly two dead snails caused ammonia spike and started all that carousel . On the other hand ammonia spike should be over long ago and my N and P are always low.

[cdm2012]

I would vote for this theory day and night.

What best way to control ammonia ?
Possibly two dead snails caused ammonia spike and started all that carousel . On the other hand ammonia spike should be over long ago and my N and P are always low.

Any spike in ammonia is deadly. When it spikes I'm sure it could kill off something else you can see or can't see, and this could cause more spikes, causing a carousel, as you put nicely. N and P would be low if algae is growing, either on the screen, or in the dt. It could be camouflaging what's really going on. But it is only a theory

[kotlec]

Randys take on subject :


Many organisms take up ammonia directly for use in making the proteins and other biomolecules they need to build tissues. Algae, both micro and macro, for example, readily use ammonia from the water. In cases where they are exposed to both nitrate and ammonia as nitrogen sources, many preferentially take up ammonia.6 When using nitrate, many of the pertinent biochemical pathways require the organism to reduce nitrate to ammonia before using it, so taking up ammonia makes sense.6 It has not been established in a reef aquarium setting, however, what portion of the macroalgae's nitrogen uptake is ammonia and what fraction is nitrate.

[cdm2012]

What best way to control ammonia ?

Vinegar is known to neutralize ammonia (vinegar has low ph, ammonia has extremely high). If the ammonia theory proves to be viable, dosing a small amount of vinegar might gradually do the trick.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Vinegar is known to neutralize ammonia (vinegar has low ph, ammonia has extremely high). If the ammonia theory proves to be viable, dosing a small amount of vinegar might gradually do the trick.

Oh wow, you learn something new every day. This may be the reason why people who do vinegar dosing see a drop in scrubber growth production.

Granted that this effect would not be consistent throughout the day, because the vinegar would have to be there when the ammonia was produced (either in a single event i.e. urine, or consistently throughout the day via digestion) but that may explain a few things

[cdm2012]

Oh wow, you learn something new every day. This may be the reason why people who do vinegar dosing see a drop in scrubber growth production.

Granted that this effect would not be consistent throughout the day, because the vinegar would have to be there when the ammonia was produced (either in a single event i.e. urine, or consistently throughout the day via digestion) but that may explain a few things

This also may explain what SantaMonica says about algae build up on the glass of the aquarium. Ammonia is hitting it and this is activating the algae spores in the water and they are attaching themselves to the glass becoming common algae. (Just a thought I guess)

A nice experiment might be, remove an area of algae that is on a piece of live rock. Take a turkey baster with a very small amount of distilled white vinegar and blast that area where the algae was. And if there is any traces of ammonia leaking out it would be neutralized and the vinegar would then serve as a carbon source for some new bacteria that could then colonize in that area, and maybe it would start working on whatever is still decaying in the rock in that area.

I certainly would NOT recommend doing an entire piece of live rock at one time though, nor should you dose it on a regular basis. I believe too much vinegar would affect the algae scrubber adversely. But if this works, you could do this same process again in another area at another time. Again, only theory!!

[kotlec]

What are vinegar dosing guidelines ?

[cdm2012]

What are vinegar dosing guidelines ?

If you have an algae scrubber I wouldn't recommend dosing with vinegar on a regular basis. As Floyd pointed out this has shown to slow algae growth on the scrubber itself. But, perhaps small amounts directed at the algae in the dt may prove to be beneficial at ridding nuisance algae.

However, there are guidelines available for dosing such as: Vinegar Dosing Methodology for the Marine Aquarium (http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index.php/current-issue/article/116-vinegar-dosing-methodology-for-the-marine-aquarium)

[kotlec]

There I see two scenarios.
1. Vinegar destroys algae food and it stops growing. But that is why we keep it in first place - remove nutrients and not to farm algae.
2. Vinegar interacts with some algae growing mechanisms directly and algae stops uptaking nutrients and stops growing. That's what we would like to avoid happening to our screens (good for DT though).

Now hard part - to determine is it #1 or #2.
If Randy Holmes is right and algae prefer amonia to nitrates :

In cases where they are exposed to both nitrate and ammonia as nitrogen sources, many preferentially take up ammonia.

then it is more likely #1

Your thoughts

[cdm2012]

There I see two scenarios.
1. Vinegar destroys algae food and it stops growing. But that is why we keep it in first place - remove nutrients and not to farm algae.
2. Vinegar interacts with some algae growing mechanisms directly and algae stops uptaking nutrients and stops growing. That's what we would like to avoid happening to our screens (good for DT though).

Now hard part - to determine is it #1 or #2.
If Randy Holmes is right and algae prefer amonia to nitrates :


then it is more likely #1

Your thoughts

From my research, algae AND algae spores prefer ammonia but your first concern is the algae spores. The spores have to have ammonia to form. So, then you would want to eliminate the ammonia. Regular algae can survive on N and P if it doesn't have ammonia to consume.

[cdm2012]

Something else to consider: if you put in too much vinegar in it will create a large bacterial bloom that will quickly consume the N and P in the water. So it should be in small amounts and directed exactly where you want it to go.

[natureAddict]

by large i have stayed away from vinegar, sugar, or vodka dosing cus once u start, there is no ending - like a junkie :)

I hope u have a large segment of ceramic rings or life rocks to nitrify the ammonia. Recently i had about 50 odd yumas wh melted away. i throw them away but kept them in the tank to save it. i guess the N and P went sky high, but ammonia was ok cus of the ceremic rings n life rocks

[kotlec]

I am afraid to have opposite situation. I need more control over ammonia and less for N+P .

Measured total ammonia today using Salifert test and found it at 0.3
Is it very bad ?
Randy Holmes advices to shout alarm if ammonia rises above 0.1 , but Salifert test scale dont even have that low marking. 0.25 being the lowest.
I feel like there is kind of confusion between ammonia NH3 and total ammonia (ammonia NH3 plus ammonium NH4+). Other salifert test kits has instructions and recommendations on it. But not the ammonia one.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Any measureable ammonia is an indicator of a problem. It should always ready dead on 0.0, so yes, something could be wrong. I personally don't much care for Salifert's ammonia scale, I would use API if you can get it, or another kit besides Salifert. You are probably at 0.

TAN (total ammonia nitrogen) is a as you stated, NH3 / NH4+ and concentration is a function of pH.

http://www.aquaworldaquarium.com/Articles/TonyGriffitts/Ammonia.htm

[Brent1128]

I'm surprised more people arent agreeing with Santamonica. Think your live rock as a P sponge. Once it cant absorb anymore, you get algae in the DT. Your readings are always low because the algae growing consumes the P (and before since it was bound in the rock). P level cant get high if its constantly being food for algae.

Now to find the source of the P!

[kotlec]

I'm surprised more people arent agreeing with Santamonica. Think your live rock as a P sponge. Once it cant absorb anymore, you get algae in the DT. Your readings are always low because the algae growing consumes the P (and before since it was bound in the rock). P level cant get high if its constantly being food for algae.

Now to find the source of the P!

1. I am ready to agree with any theory that helps solve or avoid problem . I use RO/DI water. My fish and corals are starved to death, because I feed them only 1/4 what they able to eat in hopes to get rid of algae. Dosing lab grade two part.
2. I never has high P that could be soaked in rocks. If there is 0.00 P in aquaria - how can it deposit somewhere. There was no algae in DT as well.
3. Now per your theory , wehen rocks are saturated I still have same 0.00 P. Why it is not elevated ?
4. How someone can start looking P source as a problem in system when getting constant reading of low or undetectable P ?
5. Recommended P for SPS is 0.04 (never had that high-that's why my corals dont look the way they have to) How many algae one should then have in DT ? Usually I dont see too mush nuisance in nice SPS tanks.
6. Soaking-leaching was explored in another topic. For me its hardly believable those things happening on the 0.00 bacground.

[jaddis18]

hello,
just to highlight a few things here :) dont shoot me, just trying to help. i might be wrong so please ignore me if i am.

"Story began 5 month ago." = SM stated that "Looks exactly like phosphate coming out of rocks. Can go on for a year.", "it takes longer if your scrubber is weaker."
"Nitrates at 3-5 and phos at 0.02-0.04. Usual readings for my tank." = seems your scrubber is weak
"My scrubber was able to keep
n=4
p=0.02
at all times" = i read alot of people's SW here running at 0.0 "P level cant get high if its constantly being food for algae."
"Measured total ammonia today using Salifert test and found it at 0.3" = "filter sponge exchanged every day." u have no Beneficial Bacteria to convert your ammonia to nitrate but your scrubber should do the trick, since it absorbs it primarily.
"If there is 0.00 P in aquaria - how can it deposit somewhere. There was no algae in DT as well." = "Think your live rock as a P sponge. Once it cant absorb anymore, you get algae in the DT."

what is your screen size and feeding? :)

[kotlec]

I understand where you go . But how it can be p=0.00 , when my sponge (rocks) cant take P anymore ? It should have been rocketed to the milky way. But no - it droped from 0.02 to 0.00. You probably will say that algae now is consuming all P , but then algae should be growing more and more everyday. It is receding every day instead. But not at the rate I would like to see. It will take another year to disappear finally at this tempo. But it took only one week to appear !

I feed 0.3gr (weighted on jewelers weights to be sure) daily and my screen is roughly 20sq inch one sided . It grows algae nicely only when I double or triple on feeding and P rises to 0.04. But I has done it only few times to check what effect it will have(It was year ago as I can recall). At the moment screen looks very week and it has weakening tendencies over last few month.

My scrubber parameters are unchanged and feeding is unchanged. Before I didnt have algae in DT. Only few occasional patches that were removed manually.

Lastly - SPS require some P to be present . Guys that tell you their P is zero dont have SPS or they use test instead of Hanna meter. If they really had 0.00 phosphate their corals would be extremely pale or dead. Mine are really pale and dont look the way I want them. There I make conclusion that I dont have excess P and my problem probably is ammonia related. Sure I can be wrong.

Check out this guys reef.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2301583
He is DOSING phosphates to keep them stable at 0.04-0.08 !!! Mine imagination is not that powerfull to see how my tank would look with 0.08. Most probably it would look like one big sink floating scrubber if P is reason for algae bloom. So how ones dont have algae problems with high P and I have with zero. P flow ? Or however its called. Why that guy dont have P flowing , when his meter is constantly shows 0.04-0.08 ? Othervice he urgently doses P to reach that reading. And his tank is awesome - I would like one like his.

I would like to hear practical advises at some point . Theoretical brain exercises are nice but its time for action.

[SantaMonica]

Try feeding more again.

[kotlec]

Ok , I will .

Would be interesting what theory I will be trying to examine this way ?

[hart24601]

I have a non scrubber biocube loaded with SPS that is almost always at 0.00ppm PO4 (hanna colorimeter keeping in mind there is 0.04ppm accuracy range) and 0-2ppm NO3 (salifert), I just have to feed them quite a bit. If I miss a feeding (every few days) they don't look as healthy. You can test 0 phosphate but feeding still adds it, the coral/bacteria/algae utilizes it before or shortly after it enters the water column so you can't see it with tests. My cube isn’t really a ULNS, but it's still amazing to me to see SPS grow like weeds by my LPS growth has really slowed from when I had higher nutrients even with spot feeding them. My shrooms and zoas have not grown much, if any, in the past 4-6 months with the lower nutrients. Point being that you can have decent phosphate in the system but it appears undetectable via test kits.

I fear that I don’t have a good theory about why your tank is having such a large bloom, but I can say the most nitrogen utilizing organisms prefer ammonia to nitrate, the oxidation of nitrate isn’t even all that well known from a molecular mechanism point of view.

[kotlec]

Last few days I see some improvement, if onlt its not my wishful thinking,
Algae decreased on the gravel and some rocks are showing bald spots too.
What I did last days :
1. Dosed more trace minerals than usual, after measuring them and finding Iron, Iodine, Strontium and Potassium too low.
2. Leave only blue lights on for few days. Now whites are back on , but I thing may be I should repeat that action.
3. Dosed some vinegar , but really not much.

[SantaMonica]

bald spots on the rocks is the key indicator.

[kotlec]

:D

[M I N I O N]

I understand where you go . But how it can be p=0.00 , when my sponge (rocks) cant take P anymore ? It should have been rocketed to the milky way. But no - it droped from 0.02 to 0.00. You probably will say that algae now is consuming all P , but then algae should be growing more and more everyday. It is receding every day instead. But not at the rate I would like to see. It will take another year to disappear finally at this tempo. But it took only one week to appear !

I feed 0.3gr (weighted on jewelers weights to be sure) daily and my screen is roughly 20sq inch one sided . It grows algae nicely only when I double or triple on feeding and P rises to 0.04. But I has done it only few times to check what effect it will have(It was year ago as I can recall). At the moment screen looks very week and it has weakening tendencies over last few month.

My scrubber parameters are unchanged and feeding is unchanged. Before I didnt have algae in DT. Only few occasional patches that were removed manually.

Lastly - SPS require some P to be present . Guys that tell you their P is zero dont have SPS or they use test instead of Hanna meter. If they really had 0.00 phosphate their corals would be extremely pale or dead. Mine are really pale and dont look the way I want them. There I make conclusion that I dont have excess P and my problem probably is ammonia related. Sure I can be wrong.

Check out this guys reef.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2301583
He is DOSING phosphates to keep them stable at 0.04-0.08 !!! Mine imagination is not that powerfull to see how my tank would look with 0.08. Most probably it would look like one big sink floating scrubber if P is reason for algae bloom. So how ones dont have algae problems with high P and I have with zero. P flow ? Or however its called. Why that guy dont have P flowing , when his meter is constantly shows 0.04-0.08 ? Othervice he urgently doses P to reach that reading. And his tank is awesome - I would like one like his.

I would like to hear practical advises at some point . Theoretical brain exercises are nice but its time for action.

0.00ppm phosphate here:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/998631_10153219655395595_1003102397_n.jpg

You have to remember that phosphate has both an inorganic and an organic state which it can be found in. When we measure phosphate with out test kits, we measure for inorganic phosphate. Inorganic phosphate binds to calcium ions and inhibits calcification. The tissue of corals needs organic phosphate to grow. In nature, organic and inorganic phosphate go hand-in hand. In our controlled systems, that doesn't have to be the case. The exchange of organic to inorganic phosphate and back to organic can be lightning fast. It is going to be there but constantly changing stages. Our goal should be to maintain an average available inorganic phosphate level which is undetectable by any hobbyist test kit while maintaining as much available organic phosphate as possible.

When you have a situation where inorganic phosphate has already bound to your live rock, it can be extremely hard to take care of. The reason for this is that you must maintain those undetectable phosphate levels while phosphates continue to pour out of the rock. The process which phosphate comes out of the rock is a documented phenomenon which we refer to as bacterial cleaving. It can take a very long time for this to conclude because there is a constant import into the tank and a constant export which coincides with the redfield ratio, the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus utilization with photosynthesis. As phosphate is bound to the rock, the correlating amount of ammonia becomes nitrite and nitrate. In areas of the tank depleted of oxygen, anaerobic bacteria are at work converting nitrate into nitrogen gas which bubbles away into the air causing an imbalance between nitrate and phosphate in the tank in regards to the redfield ratio; the phosphate is trapped, the nitrate is gone.

Your problem is phosphate. As the algae dies, it becomes more inorganic phosphate and nitrate for the remaining algae to feed off of. This is the reason why scrubbers work so well to rid a tank of an algae problem but it may not resolve the imbalance of nutrients. I like to run a small amount of GFO with my system to keep the balance of nutrients leaning towards phosphate limitation rather than the normal nitrate limitation. Nitrate limitation is probably the main reason why your algae bloom started. You can have phosphate saturating you rock without a bloom. When nitrate becomes available, it takes off and won't go away until the original problem is gone.

Your job in using a scrubber is to created the most absolutely ideal conditions possible for algae to thrive on the screen so that is starves out potential algae anywhere else in the tank, not by having first access to the nutrients but rather by ensuring that the nutrients which do become available are such minute in concentration that only the algae on your screen can utilize them. This means optimizing your ATS. Post it up with details so that people can help you determine where its faults are. Be proactive with detritus removal in your tank so that nutrients don't get stored in live rock. To beat the current imbalance utilizing the ATS, you may have to dose nitrate. The more logical solution would be to use GFO for the time being.

Hope that helps.

[SantaMonica]

Bacterial Cleavage was the term I was looking for a few month ago. Darn marketing, taking months away from the fun stuff :)

[M I N I O N]

Bacterial Cleavage was the term I was looking for a few month ago. Darn marketing, taking months away from the fun stuff :)

Bacterial cleavage, huh? Sounds sexy.;)

[Floyd R Turbo]

Minion, can you please expand on the concept of bacterial cleaving and how that process relates to the release of bound phosphate? I've asked this question in reef chemistry forums and gotten nowhere. This is the first time I've heard anything remotely concrete regarding this phenomenon

[M I N I O N]

Minion, can you please expand on the concept of bacterial cleaving and how that process relates to the release of bound phosphate? I've asked this question in reef chemistry forums and gotten nowhere. This is the first time I've heard anything remotely concrete regarding this phenomenon

I've done a lot of research on bacterial cleaving, both theoretical and proven. Unfortunately, for the most part, the factual evidence of this is usually not directly related to the marine aquaria hobby but rather the medical field, where calcium carbonate is used to bind phosphate in the human body to lower phosphate levels in dialysis patients and the botany field, where phosphate binders are used in fertilizers and bacteria are added to slowly release bound phosphate over time to maintain plant growth, though I have found a few very helpful marine-specific studies. This research in particular points to the conclusion that the localized PH theory is actually true. An extremely thin film of bacteria will produce organic acids and phosphatase enzymes to make the insoluble bonds soluble again. Turgor pressure amongst living bacteria would push dead bacteria out and away until it can be picked up into the water column where it would break down and become available as inorganic phosphate again.

"Bacterial cleaving" is a term coined by Boomer on RC so researching it by this name will only yield you results amongst hobbyist rather than researchers. In the existing fields of study, these bacterium are more prominently know as inorganic phosphate solubilizing bacteria (often called IPSB or PSB for short). The six genera of IPSB isolates identified by one study which I have found in a coral reef are Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, Flavomonas and Micrococcus. Researching these bacterium in specific may help to expand definitive results for you if you wish to learn more.

[kotlec]

M I N I O N ,

Thanks a lot for your explanations. I found it very useful . Many more reef keepers will read it and will educate. All that ideas and unanswered questions were floating in air for some time already , but you put them together finally.

BTW what should I be looking for, while staring at your picture ?

[M I N I O N]

M I N I O N ,

Thanks a lot for your explanations. I found it very useful . Many more reef keepers will read it and will educate. All that ideas and unanswered questions were floating in air for some time already , but you put them together finally.

BTW what should I be looking for, while staring at your picture ?

You're quite welcome.

You aren't supposed to notice anything from the picture other than the fact that my acros are extremely colorful with unmeasurably low inorganic phosphate levels. I have bottomed out phosphate test kits from salifert, red sea and hanna. The growth has been out of control even with 16 well-fed fish and without doing a single water change in the last 6 months. This would be anecdotal/observational evidence that you don't need 0.04ppm of inorganic phosphate in order to maintain healthy corals. The growth process uses organic phosphate to build tissue and inorganic phosphate actually slows or completely inhibits skeletal growth. A greater concentration of life in the tank will mean for a greater concentration of the microfauna and bacteria which corals consume to promote tissue growth. Dosing inorganic phosphate would be an artificial means to stimulate lower levels of life only with both positive and negative effects. Personally, I'd rather just have more fish.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Thanks so very much for the info. What is interesting about this is that this builds upon the theory that algae and bacteria have a symbiotic relationship. My customers that run biopellets or Reef Actif have noticed that in a well maintained system (low N and P), algae scrubber growth goes through the roof. So quite possibly, the combination of the two filtration techniques allows more access to something that allows algae to grow faster or differently (more volumous).

What this could mean is that for those with phosphate-soaked rocks, the stand-alone algae scrubber may not be the quickest solution. IMO it's the best long-term solution, but perhaps a temporary regimen of carbon dosing in certain forms can accelerate the removal of phosphate from the rock. The downside is that this removal process results in a bloom of algae from the rocks.

So now the big question is, how to cause this removal process without the resultant coral-choking algal bloom. Of perhaps it is possible to make it a short enough process so that one just needs to "power through" it.

[M I N I O N]

Thanks so very much for the info. What is interesting about this is that this builds upon the theory that algae and bacteria have a symbiotic relationship. My customers that run biopellets or Reef Actif have noticed that in a well maintained system (low N and P), algae scrubber growth goes through the roof. So quite possibly, the combination of the two filtration techniques allows more access to something that allows algae to grow faster or differently (more volumous).

What this could mean is that for those with phosphate-soaked rocks, the stand-alone algae scrubber may not be the quickest solution. IMO it's the best long-term solution, but perhaps a temporary regimen of carbon dosing in certain forms can accelerate the removal of phosphate from the rock. The downside is that this removal process results in a bloom of algae from the rocks.

So now the big question is, how to cause this removal process without the resultant coral-choking algal bloom. Of perhaps it is possible to make it a short enough process so that one just needs to "power through" it.

I think that you are correct about combining filtration techniques as each may perform functions which make up for the other's shortcomings. Unfortunately, people usually only find the answer which they are looking for. One of the anti-algae activists will take the same posts which I wrote and conclude something completely different from it. I like to think that people such as yourself and I are just more open-minded but the reality may be that we too are just searching for the answer which best fits our hypotheses. There are so many biological processes going on in our tanks that we may never know what is really going on.

The fastest way to take care of hair algae is always going to be a combination attack. I think that GFO is very important to this process to make up for the imbalance between nitrate and phosphate. Sometimes GFO is literally all it takes to rid the tank of the problem. Adding a scrubber and three days of "lights out" per week to the mix would probably wipe it out even faster. Start carbon dosing and skimming heavy and you may be able to rid the tank of phosphate in a matter of a couple weeks. Each method does something which only it can do so combining them should work extremely well.

[rleahaines]

So skimming heavily, using GFO, using a powerful enough algae scrubber [which I wonder how powerful is enough if you have algae blooms?] carbon dosing, 3 days lights out ... and

I think my head is exploding here.

[SantaMonica]

I prefer scrubbing-only. No work, no water change, no buying things, no changing things, and no nuisance algae. Just need a strong enough scrubber. Natural too.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I think the simplest combination is a scrubber (perhaps a temporarily oversized one) and a modest amount of GFO - even if only in a media bag in the path of flow - you don't want to drop out P completely.

I don't know that I fully agree with any lights-out period. There are just too many things that cutting off the light completely can affect. I consider that a last-ditch effort, and it's a band-aid patch, it doesn't solve the problem, it just addresses the symptom.

[M I N I O N]

I thought that we were discussi f the fastest way possible. To make it fast, you need to starve out the hair algae. When it dies, both organic and inorganic matter will be released. Which the scrubber and skimmer can handle rather quickly. Lights-out periods will kill the algae in the display faster. Carbon dosing would allow the rocks to purge faster. GFO would take care of the imbalance in how the nutrients are being released. Removing the substrate pulls a huge phosphate sink out and keeps detritus from accumulating from dying algae.

This would work increadibly fast if that is your only goal. Personally, I'd rather just not put myself in the position where nutrients can be stashed. For this reason, I run a BB tank with a huge skimmer and 100x flow. My controlled algae growth only has to handle nutrients as they become available so that I don't have to do regular water changes.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I thought about recommending a high flow in the tank during the lights out period, the only thing that held me back was that when you change the flow patterns in a tank, you can cause a cycle to occur as the bacteria and sponges growth pockets set up according to the flow patterns. But I suppose if you are purging your tank of built-up phosphate, you're going to need to do SOMETHING that will throw it out of whack, at least temporarily.

[M I N I O N]

I honestly feel that almost all cases of display algae outbreaks and old tank syndrome are due to detritus accumulation. It you don't have good flow, you at least need a power head which you can periodically use to blow out the rocks and then stir up the substrate and filter out everything in the water column. PaulB does this a few times a year and has run his tank for over 40 years.

If you're proactive about detrital removal, you never have to worry about cycling events, nutrient-fueled crashes or algae outbreaks. The anti-algae folks preach about the big nasty nutrient sink which you get from an ATS, not taking into consideration that the screen is cleaned weekly. When approached, the nutrient sink becomes your live rock because ATSs "release nutrients too", not taking into consideration that any nutrients released were already there before they became algae and later detritus again... While the argument against an ATS has more holes in it than a box of Cheerios, the notation of the nutrient sink is very real. Truth is, everything in your tank creates detritus, algae is the only thing which creates detritus while absorbing inorganic phosphate and nitrate from the water. Detritus is going to be organic on the top layers and break down to inorganic phosphate and nitrate on the inner layers. This is how you wind up with a tank crash from nutrients. All it takes is a disturbance in the layers. Remove the detritus before it becomes a sink and you stop a potential problem before it happens. I believe that a scrubber has its place and that is to pull inorganic P and N from the water column as they become available to avoid water changes. I don't think that a scrubber should be a replacement for detritus removal and the notion that it does (even if wrongly implied) is the reason they aren't as widely accepted.

[SantaMonica]

Just stop feeding detritus.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Great point Minion. There was another thread on here regarding why or why not to occasionally blow away detritus, this ties in with that discussion very well. A lot of people claim that the use of wavemakers that have a "cleanup" mode (which can stir up the detritus and direct it to the sump / filtration) helps to maintain the health of their system.

I have tanks that get detritus buildup more than others but I haven't looked into any particular connections. I might start paying a little closer attention.

[sabbath]

Just stop feeding detritus.

What does these mean?

[SantaMonica]

Means that the food you put in, and the stuff collecting, is the same.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Just stop feeding detritus.


Means that the food you put in, and the stuff collecting, is the same.

So you're saying stop feeding. Sorry I gotta call you out on this. The answer to everyone's problems is not growing algae and feeding it back to the tank. It may work right now in your particular circumstance but this does not automatically expand to cover everyone. This is exactly how you isolate yourself from the rest of the reef community, by making outlandish blanket statements like this. Only now it's not fuel for the anti-scrubber crowd (because that crowd has for the most part accepted defeat) it's fuel for the anti-SantaMonica crowd - you say things like this, and it doesn't matter how much info you post with solid evidence backing it up, it'll all come back to "well yeah but he also said you should stop feeding your tank to rid it of detritus, so are you really going to listen to anything else he says?" Not helping man, not helping.

Algae scrubbers are a powerful tool and absolutely have their place, and after my experience at MACNA is it still at the ground floor with plenty of room to move upward. There are people who I met who used them 25 years ago all the way to the people who literally said "so you grow algae here, and it doesn't grow in your tank. And that works?" <-- that is a direct quote from an attendee and my wife was there to witness it!! You know who you are man :)

[SantaMonica]

Not really interested in what people think. Only interested in getting them to understand how natural systems work.

[M I N I O N]

Great point Minion. There was another thread on here regarding why or why not to occasionally blow away detritus, this ties in with that discussion very well. A lot of people claim that the use of wavemakers that have a "cleanup" mode (which can stir up the detritus and direct it to the sump / filtration) helps to maintain the health of their system.

I have tanks that get detritus buildup more than others but I haven't looked into any particular connections. I might start paying a little closer attention.

A tank which doesn't have any means of detritus removal will eventually break it all down and "get rid of it" if you are stocked lightly, how often does that happen though? I personally believe that having a lot of fish is better for a reef tank because the coral are basically fed 24/7 by fish pooping. I read somewhere that only 10% of what the fish consumes is actually processed and turned into energy, the rest would simply wind up as a waste product.

I would say that even the most lightly stocked tanks need to blow away detritus occasionally, even if only once or twice a year. The two major contributors to old tank syndrome, orthophosphate and hydrogen sulfide, both rely on the build up of detritus to wipe out your tank.

I have found that detritus build up is directly related to your flow pattern and rock placement. Everything was designed around detritus removal in my 90 gallons SPS reef and I barely get any accumulation. Actually, the only place detritus is able to accumulate is between the pours in the rock. I clean this out at least once a month.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Not really interested in what people think. Only interested in getting them to understand how natural systems work.

That would be fine if an aquarium was a natural system or could even come remotely close, but it's not, and I seriously doubt it ever will be.

[M I N I O N]

So you're saying stop feeding. Sorry I gotta call you out on this. The answer to everyone's problems is not growing algae and feeding it back to the tank. It may work right now in your particular circumstance but this does not automatically expand to cover everyone. This is exactly how you isolate yourself from the rest of the reef community, by making outlandish blanket statements like this. Only now it's not fuel for the anti-scrubber crowd (because that crowd has for the most part accepted defeat) it's fuel for the anti-SantaMonica crowd - you say things like this, and it doesn't matter how much info you post with solid evidence backing it up, it'll all come back to "well yeah but he also said you should stop feeding your tank to rid it of detritus, so are you really going to listen to anything else he says?" Not helping man, not helping.

Algae scrubbers are a powerful tool and absolutely have their place, and after my experience at MACNA is it still at the ground floor with plenty of room to move upward. There are people who I met who used them 25 years ago all the way to the people who literally said "so you grow algae here, and it doesn't grow in your tank. And that works?" <-- that is a direct quote from an attendee and my wife was there to witness it!! You know who you are man :)

I have to agree with you. I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times the word "magical" has been used in arguments to belittle turf scrubbers by those who are against them. Sadly, I feel like some people actually do think that they are the answer to all of their problems. I feel that the biggest disconnect between those who are in favor of turf scrubbers and those who are against them is in the average level of inorganic phosphate which must be present in the aquarium in order for the algae to still grow under the ideal conditions which we give them. If we could give a number, I think it would settle all debates assuming that it was an appeasingly low figure. My personal guess would be that orthophosphate limitation doesn't begin until around 0.005ppm. I'm sure if you asked an anti-algae guy the same question, they would guess around 0.06ppm and tell you that your test kit is wrong.

[SantaMonica]

Detritus does not last long; is consumed by bacteria within weeks. So it does not build up. It is possible however to add it more quickly that it is consumed. One thing about relying on high-fish-counts to do the coral feeding, is that the large amount of urea/ammonia produced by the fish will hit the corals before it ever hits a filter.

A tank is a totally natural system.

Metal buildup is also a major contributor to OTS, in non-scrubber tank. Fortunately algae consumes metals.

[Floyd R Turbo]

An aquarium is not a natural system. An algae scrubber is not a natural system either, it is a magnification of a natural process used as a means to an end.

[SantaMonica]

It is indeed very natural.

[Ace25]

An aquarium is as close to mimicking the ocean as all those 'naturally' flavored fruit drinks you see at fast food places are to real fruit juice.. you know, the ones that state 'Contains 0% real fruit juice'.

Very little is comparable between a box of water and the ocean. It isn't possible to mimic the ocean with what we know (mankind knows more about our galaxy than our oceans) and what equipment we have available today. We can't make super deep sand beds or shore lines (huge part of the oceans filtration system), we can't create currents to pull stuff away from the reef (we recirculate the water in hopes that various artificial filtration methods can do a fraction of what currents do naturally), we can't create vastly different oxygen zones to have the diversity of life, nor can we even recreate the diversity of life on a patch of reef, we can't recreate cold water/fresh water streams in a box of water like the ocean does. I can go on for days about how different a box of water is compared to the ocean. For those that believe otherwise, like always, back up your statements with some type of study.. of course that will never happen though. Anytime I ask for someone to back something up that sounds ludicrous they just yell louder how right they are but never producing any bit of evidence. So.. let's see if someone can post a study proving a box of water = the ocean.

(5+ years later and still fighting algae in the display, never had that issue before I switched to an ATS. Not saying all ATS's are bad, just not a miracle worker like some people claim they are).

[rleahaines]

As I gain more and more experience with keeping a reef tank I find out more and more. I am sold on the use of ATS as a way to export nitrates and phosphates from the system. Seems also to work fairly well as a filter system to filter out other things. I have not been sold on skimmers, having had poor experiences with them. I like the idea of being as natural as possible, so the ATS fits that.

The hobby has come a long way from the undergravel filters used when I first started back in the 1970's.

[greenmachine]

this is the part where someone jumps in and makes the claim that skimmers are more natural because they mimic wave action that washes foam up on the beach. IMO this thinking does not hold water (pun). If you think about the size of your skimmer in relation to the size of your tank then you take that ratio and scale it up to the size of the ocean you would need to cover every beach on earth with 20 feet of foam everyday and remove all of it every day. This does not happen, and the foam that is made is mostly washed back into the sea by the same waves that made it.

[tebo]

Well I'm going for three years and using a ats, and really is an excellent method of filtering, but you doubt my tank has had some incredible amount of detritos, which is not very pleasant

I think the ats must be coupled with filter media or any other method of removal of detritos to enjoy a good system

regards

[SantaMonica]

In addition, a "beach skimmer", like a real skimmer, does not remove any urea/ammonia at all. None.

Worse, any food particles "up on the beach" rot, and put more nutrients into the water, which then washes back into the reef.

Besides, it's already proven and tested many times by marine biologists that reef filtering is done 100% by benthic and pelagic photoautotrophs.

All the chemistry is the same, between reef and tank, until you add GFO etc.

[kotlec]

Suddenly algae in my display started to die rapidly. And at the moment it is may be 25% left only. Filter floss is collecting loads of greenish brown stuff everyday. I bought tomini tang and black sailfin blenny recently to help with alga problem and they are tearing down leftovers like mad. I will need to feed them additionally soon if algae will diminish at the same rate.
I dont know exactly what was reason for such a positive changes. On my side I just tested and replenished trace elements. Mostly Iron, Jodine, Strontium. Also elevated Mg as it was kept at lower end. Reduced lights by ~20%. Now thinking to push it back.
Skimmer is working only 8 hours a day ,but pulling mostly light tea consistency stuff. Im thinking to reduce its activity to every second day probably or to reduce hours even more to keep aeration effect.
I did not change a bit in my scrubber. So I have proof that ATS strength has nothing to do here. Algae appeared and disappearing with the same scrubber and same N and P readings.

[Greenchaos]

Been reading through some of your recent troubles and it was mentioned somewhere that you need algae eaters. Perhaps that is the only difference. Good news in any case.

[kotlec]

Eaters came a bit late - after algae started decline rapidly. Better late than never.

[kotlec]

Good things never last long.
My SPS corals started to STN. No idea why. Can it be too low P and N ?

[SantaMonica]

No, too fast. There is some other problem.

[kotlec]

how can I find it ?

[SantaMonica]

Well I'm no expert in corals; as long as your nutrients are low then I'm happy :)

However if you want to test your low-nutrient idea, then just start feeding some liquid coral food.

[tebo]

If your kh exceeds 8, and your nutrients are really low, it is common to have rtn or stn if on the other hand a kh is below 8, then starvation

regards

[kotlec]

kh=9.8

[tebo]

If indeed your no3 is below 1 ppm and your po4 is below 0.08ppm, and these are stable in these measures, then undoubtedly your aquarium is considered LNS or ULNS, leaving your kh without dudad should be positioned below 8, any value above 8 will result rtn or stn


regards

[kotlec]

Thanks - useful information.

[M I N I O N]

It is not too low nitrate or phosphate. It's possible that the dying algae has initiated a miniature cycle. Test for ammonia and nitrite. Also test for phosphate with a low range kit. Algae may be dying due to a limitation initiated by low nitrate levels alone. If this is the case, phosphate levels will become elevated. When multiple acropora corals begin to STN, it is usually an indicator that something is wrong in the water column and can usually be figured out with a good arsenal of test kits and knowledge of the signs your corals give you. To an extent, you can read your corals by judging the nature of the STNing event to get a broad idea of what you should be testing for. Because I can't see your corals and time is of the essence, I'll give you a short list of possibilities:

Phosphate - STNing due to phosphate will start from the base and work its way up. Tissue will go rather slowly and the corals will lose a lot of color leading up to this; they will begin to brown out. Most corals can handle a fair deal of phosphate concentration before finally "going". There is ample time to reverse the loss of color but phosphate will kill a coral rather quickly once it does start to go.

Ammonia - An acropora coral exposed to ammonia, even in small concentrations is going to lose tissue rather rapidly. The tissue will look like it is falling off the coral in blankets and wave in the current as though the real reason were too much flow. The tissue loss can begin anywhere on the coral and there is little time (if any) to reverse it.

Low or high alkalinity - There are many things which can throw off your alkalinity levels; a high bacterial presence can increase it, a high algae presence can decrease it, etc... Excessive alkalinity will be see from acros "burning" or bleaching from the tips. They will lose tissue from the tips and may show signs of inflamed tissue all over. Low alkalinity can cause tissue recession from the tips or the base. I have found that this is extremely dependent on the intensity of the light on that particular coral. In high light, the brightest areas of the coral tend to go first. Alkalinity is an extremely important element for you to be keeping track of. Rapid fluctuations, even within the general acceptable range, will cause tissue necrosis. Test your alkalinity and calcium levels weekly and magnesium at least monthly. These three elements must be in balance. I only list this third because it can take days for alkalinity to kill your corals rather than hours. It is likely the cause of your problem.

Stray voltage - Sometimes a powerhead or a heater can fail at random and leak voltage into the tank. A grounding probe can save you and the corals but this equipment should ultimately be replaced as soon as possible. Losing a coral due to stray voltage will seam a lot like losing it to ammonia, only it doesn't have to be quite as rapid. Stressed fish will be an early warning sign of stray voltage.

Copper or elemental poisoning - Copper contamination of your water will cause the tissue to recede very rapidly. Copper can come from a torn power cord, intentional or accidental poisoning (IE: a spiteful ex-girlfriend or a child throwing a penny into the tank), or dosing without reading or measuring. You mentioned dosing iron, strontium and Jodine. What supplements were you using? Often times, supplements will be packaged together with "trace" elements. Once you use that supplement to increase on portion of that supplement, you may be loading the tank with much higher than normal levels of another element. For example, Red Sea coral colors C (sold as an iron supplement) contains copper, cobalt, aluminum, zinc, chrome and nickel. All of these elements are toxic in concentration; iron is not. Likewise, not testing for levels of strontium before dosing can also lead to poisoning as it too ca be toxic at concentrations above natural sea level concentrations of 8ppm. Most salts already have elevated levels nearly double natural sea water and it does not deplete at any appreciable rate. Poisoning by most elements would lead to base-up tissue recession with very "loose" appearing flesh. Test for everything you can and perform large water changes to correct a poisoning issue. Make sure you spend the time to allow the salt to fully mix and match the temperature to your tank to avoid further stress.

Other elemental deficiencies - When discussing elemental deficiencies, potassium comes to mind. Because I am a "color hunter", I test for potassium weekly and dose it on a dosing pump. Potassium plays a role in tissue building rather than skeleton formation. A potassium deficiency will first show its face in the loss of pocillopra and stylophora corals. Montipora corals will grow very slowly and may lose their once vibrant colors. Acropora corals of blue and purple varieties will seam pale in appearance. Red corals will being to pick up a grey appearance to them. Advanced potassium deficiency will lead to dry appearing flesh and loss of tissue from the tips-down.

[kotlec]

as long as your nutrients are low then I'm happy :)

Actually I never struggled to keep nutrients low as I run ATS from day 1 !

[kotlec]

MINION,

Thanks for such in detail article !
I only dose what is in deficiency, and I only dose after testing. I dont thing there is a case of overdosing .
Only acroporas are affected noticeably. Tissue is not separated . It has bleached to death in several spots yet. Big spots in the middle and not bottom or tips as you mentioned. First was green acro. In a week same happened to blue , but in a bigger content. Most corals have poor polyp extension. Even those who were famous for PE. All corals has mostly pale color.

Ill try to picture it. Also will go testing all possible parameters.

[kotlec]

Blue with white spots

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4790&d=1380014450

Green acro single spot in the middle. As you can see birdsnest also has bad PE

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4791&d=1380014455

Spoted , but dont know if its dead spots or just polyps retracted. Not so obvious

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4794&d=1380014471

Green still has small PE at the top :

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4792&d=1380014460

Semi retracted :

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4793&d=1380014465

This look good, just pale as usual :

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4795&d=1380014476

[Floyd R Turbo]

Other elemental deficiencies - When discussing elemental deficiencies, potassium comes to mind. Because I am a "color hunter", I test for potassium weekly and dose it on a dosing pump. Potassium plays a role in tissue building rather than skeleton formation. A potassium deficiency will first show its face in the loss of pocillopra and stylophora corals. Montipora corals will grow very slowly and may lose their once vibrant colors. Acropora corals of blue and purple varieties will seam pale in appearance. Red corals will being to pick up a grey appearance to them. Advanced potassium deficiency will lead to dry appearing flesh and loss of tissue from the tips-down.

This one I find particularly informative. I also feel that this is a key element that needs to be dosed in tanks that run algae scrubbers long term. N-P-K = plant growth.

[kotlec]

Found mine at 360, when I tested for first time. Now have it at 390.

[M I N I O N]

This one I find particularly informative. I also feel that this is a key element that needs to be dosed in tanks that run algae scrubbers long term. N-P-K = plant growth.

This is very true. Anybody who is dosing a carbon source or harvesting macro algae as a replacement to water changes needs to be dosing potassium. I would even recommend running higher than natural sea water levels of potassium in these situations. This is one of those elements which in normal conditions, does not get depleted but rather "passed around" in a sense. It is used in the formation of coral tissue but but not at an appreciable rate where you may find depletion. In the case of harvesting bacteria or algae to reduce nutrients, you are directly pulling potassium out of the system with the algae or bacteria.

[M I N I O N]

Kotlec, looking at your pictures, I would be testing for stray voltage.

[kotlec]

How to test it ?

[M I N I O N]

If you have a grounding probe, take it out. Stick the ground probe of a multimeter in the ground pin (the bottom on) of a surge protector strip plugged into the wall. Stick the positive into the display tank. You'll want to test it on both AC and DC voltage settings. If you register voltage, unplug the components of your tank one at a time until you see it drop.

I don't recommend doing the "wet feet and a hand in the tank" method because a bad voltage leak can kill you.

[greenmachine]

If you have your system running on a GFCI there is no stray voltage. You can not just test the water for voltage ,there will always be something there due to the ions in the water. Don't believe me? Try testing a bucket of mixed salt water with no power in it...

[kotlec]

Measured water to ground.

DC =0
AC = 0.1-0.2 V. If I touch tank glass with a finger voltage jumps to 0.7V

Does it means something ?

Edit: After some more reading , I thing what I am measuring is induced voltage and not stray .

[M I N I O N]

I don't think you have enough induced voltage to cause problems, though it could be introduced at random and wasn't present at the time. It would still be a good idea to put a ground probe on the tank. The next thing I would do in your shoes would be to perform a few large water changes with a high quality salt mix. I prefer Kent because it has elevated levels of minor ions such as potassium which will regularly get pulled out. After doing this, inspect your corals very well for pests.

[kotlec]

The only device comes to my mind that is acting randomly is heater, and I tested it.
Potassium is tested and replenished. WC would not hurt at least.

[greenmachine]

Just wondering what you used to test and replenish k? Also I have read that many shelll fish contain large amounts of k so if you feed some shellfish would you have to dose??

[SantaMonica]

I've tested mine a few times and it's about nsw values.

[M I N I O N]

If you are scrubbing, you should be testing. I use a salifert kit and dose 30ml per day of Thrive potassium. This supplement isn't very concentrated which is why I got it, for use on a dosing pump. Kent's product would work just as well. Do not dose potassium iodide to try and raise potassium levels. I shoot for 410-430 ppm to enhance acro color.

[M I N I O N]

Santamonica, aren't you feeding your scrubber algae back to the animals?

[Floyd R Turbo]

I also use the Salifert test kit, but most liquid supplements are waaaaaay too expensive (you pay mostly for water in a bottle) I prefer Brightwell Potasion-P which is powdered and you mix to strength, and you can also put this in a doser.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Also remember that comparing your tank to another tank and what they do is completely irrelevant. You need to test YOUR tank and dose what is required for YOUR tank.

[SantaMonica]

Yes I've been feeding back about a handful per day.

[kotlec]

I am using salifert kit too.
This K solution isnt concentrated but isnt expensive as well.
http://www.zoocentras.lt/images/AquaLight_Kalium_Solution.jpg

P.S. tested for stray voltage at different times of day to be sure. Interestingly highest voltage was ~3 VAC in the late evening when all lights come off and wortex MP-10 come to night(slow) mode too.

[kotlec]

Update here. And new problem too.

All algae is gone by the time (good news) , except one (bad news). The one left is "Caulerpa verticillata" and I have no idea how to kill it. Actually it is slowly spreading around. My tang and blenny doesn't look interested in it at all looking for other types of algae instead. Emerald crab is very shy , so is not providing any pleasure to watch him tearing that particular algae too.
Magnesium stays still high after I raised it trying to kill other algae, but this is not bothering Verticillata at all.

Are there known methods of dealing with Caulerpa verticillata ?
Looks like that :

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p189/cmador/macro2.jpg

[SantaMonica]

Looks like it's clustered in one area, so maybe P coming out of the rock there. Would explain other algae going away, and this one growing.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I don't think that's his tank, that's a stock photo

[kotlec]

I don't think that's his tank, that's a stock photo

Youp

[kotlec]

I of course am very happy that nobody has (had) this bad pest in their tanks.
Alone in the battlefield (not so happy).

[C-Horse]

You are not alone. On reef central there is thread devoted to getting rid of this algae.

One process involves wrapping the affected rock with plastic sheet and then injecting a small amount of 3% hydrogen peroxide into the
wrapped rock. Turn off all circulation pumps when doing this. The plastic sheet is to concentrate the peroxide on the algae.

You can also just remove the rocks and put in it a tank with some peroxide added to the water.



I of course am very happy that nobody has (had) this bad pest in their tanks.
Alone in the battlefield (not so happy).

[kotlec]

But there are some corals on the rocks. How much peroxide they will stand ?

[C-Horse]

Here is the link on reef central for you to read for more detail.

Another thing to try. Take the affected rock out and add a few drops on the algae, and rinse it with salt water then return to tank.

If you have a lysmata cleaner shrimp this is the only recommended method. The original poster said
"just enough drops to saturate the algae. if its a small tuft use one or two drops. let sit on the target for 2 to 3 mins (when treating I regularly leave my pico with 15 genera of mixed stony and soft corals emersed for 5 or more 2 to 3 is a safe zone)"

Link (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19622234#post19622234)


But there are some corals on the rocks. How much peroxide they will stand ?