Finer points of the cycle...

I think, unless there's some reason not to be aggressive with a particular piece of rock, I'd probably opt for manual removal. The grill lighter sounds good, lol.

If there's some reason not to pull the rock out (sponges/coral/etc) then I'd probably increase the aggression on skimming and maybe add an ats into the system and cut back on the light for a bit.

Are you including dinos and diatoms in the algae category?
 
what a great discussion. I do include them, its literally anything that can be found in a wrecked tank thread. since I didn't pay a grand to see mess on the tank walls or substrate I literally force it to look like what I paid for. if there are any days in the life of my tank I want it to look poor, ill leave them in. its all about preference the actual biology allows for lots of choices. in the end we all just want massive coral growth pretty much, and hand guiding facilitates that ergo hand guiding is not evil.

-I wouldn't use chems on those early tank invaders you mention- Id just rinse them off. it is always forced compliance with me, but the tools change. clean saltwater in that case.

I guide the substrate into colonizing what I want there, by rejecting what I don't and as the tank ages my work load drops tremendously to the point of no anti algae work, and I have no idea what my nitrates and po4 measures are, its not required to know. If a person disallows algae, its not allowed regardless. if its highly important to someone to use nutrients to prevent algae growth, then the myriad testers and dosers for nutrients are avail.





people always think that using guided removal or chemicals as spot treats becomes the requirement for ongoing care, that leap is made when considering nonstandard control method options. I see it differently, its an interval of critical action that can save your tank, nobody says we have to repeat anything. every angle I present comes down to disallowance in one way or another, and this works in my own tank. I just bought new frags; so deadly valonia algae creeped in. on the last page of my thread, I beat it out of my tank and will now go another ten years with no algae issues. compare that to the endless, constant stream of wrecked algae tanks seeking only nutrient causes.


crisis averted here via direct action, no nutrient measures
http://reef2reef.com/threads/please-help-id.234323/

he'll need to retreat again or get better with preventatives for having ever allowed it to build mass; but the action he just took was the first decisive step, and a sum total of those means no algae or invasion. Even tech m straight spot treatment outside of tank will work, doesn't have to be any particular chem. Whatever lyses plant cells will work
 
Last edited:
what a great discussion. I do include them, its literally anything that can be found in a wrecked tank thread. since I didn't pay a grand to see mess on the tank walls or substrate I literally force it to look like what I paid for. if there are any days in the life of my tank I want it to look poor, ill leave them in. its all about preference the actual biology allows for lots of choices. in the end we all just want massive coral growth pretty much, and hand guiding facilitates that ergo hand guiding is not evil.

-I wouldn't use chems on those early tank invaders you mention- Id just rinse them off. it is always forced compliance with me, but the tools change. clean saltwater in that case.

I guide the substrate into colonizing what I want there, by rejecting what I don't and as the tank ages my work load drops tremendously to the point of no anti algae work, and I have no idea what my nitrates and po4 measures are, its not required to know. If a person disallows algae, its not allowed regardless. if its highly important to someone to use nutrients to prevent algae growth, then the myriad testers and dosers for nutrients are avail.





people always think that using guided removal or chemicals as spot treats becomes the requirement for ongoing care, that leap is made when considering nonstandard control method options. I see it differently, its an interval of critical action that can save your tank, nobody says we have to repeat anything. every angle I present comes down to disallowance in one way or another, and this works in my own tank. I just bought new frags; so deadly valonia algae creeped in. on the last page of my thread, I beat it out of my tank and will now go another ten years with no algae issues. compare that to the endless, constant stream of wrecked algae tanks who follow the rules of nutrients only algae dealings :)
Lol, well you know that created more questions...

Everything I've read says to let diatoms run their course and once the silica is gone so to will they be. Are you saying you actively take measures to remove diatoms? Wouldn't it be better to let then use up the silica and then be done with them once and for all?

Softies, zoas, and some lps like water that is slightly "dirty". Doesn't that preclude the ability to run your tank so pristine as to be algae proof? Since algae is all about the nutrients and the light, and so are the corals I mentioned, doesn't it make it difficult to have one without the other?

I'm not versed in the treatment of dinos, but from memory I think increasing flow and cutting light deals with them. But since you need light for corals and I imagine it'll be hard to create perfect all encompassing flow, aren't reefers always at risk for dinos?

Thank you for your replies, I'm really learning a lot! Randy, thank you too, and everyone else who replies!
 
Your Valonia algae problem....Do you not qt corals?

Once the rock is in (very difficult to qt 380 lbs of rock) I plan on quarantining everything that goes into my tank. That's actually the secondary reason for leaving the tank with no livestock for 3 months. To give me time to observe my rock for problems, bad hitchhikers, etc... As well as allowing the good life on it to settle in without fish picking at it, or the bad life killing the fish. I also want the full cycle time+ for ich to run it's course, just in case any come in on the rocks.

But I digress, wouldn't the algae you just experienced have been mitigated by a qt period for the corals you introduced?
 
Sure, and something will have to remove it in the qt so it doesn't blow up there either :) but at least it wont be in the main tank. If you see valonia on rocks that are in QT, it still must be attacked so as not to further potentiate the rocks its on.

You hit the nail on the head though
hardly any of us do QT, and to do that is the finest preventative I know of. Everyone should be doing it and large tank keepers especially, valonia is a requisite hitchhiker and I just brought some in due to non QT.


I still wont be QT though, simply because of my documented work around. There was no harm to the reef in direct attack demo. Regarding the leaving of diatoms I totally agree you absolutely can do that. as to whether they will eventually exhaust, hopefully. Ill send you the greatest challenge thread Ive seen regarding two years of persistent diatoms after the initial setup. Rare, but again leaving X in is the primary requirement for X to persist.
 
Last edited:
Sure, and something will have to remove it in the qt so it doesn't blow up there either :) but at least it wont be in the main tank. If you see valonia on rocks that are in QT, it still must be attacked so as not to further potentiate the rocks its on.

You hit the nail on the head though
hardly any of us do QT, and to do that is the finest preventative I know of. Everyone should be doing it and large tank keepers especially, valonia is a requisite hitchhiker and I just brought some in due to non QT.


I still wont be QT though, simply because of my documented work around. There was no harm to me reef in direct attack inside the reef as well. Regarding the leaving of diatoms I totally agree you absolutely can do that. as to whether they will eventually exhaust, hopefully. Ill send you the greatest trainwreck thread Ive ever seen in reefing regarding two years of persistent diatoms after the initial setup.
Yes, I'd love to read that thread.
 
can be helpful to see tank invasions as optional... we should keep them in if they are wanted, or remove them if they aren't. Just because someone has persistent gha or diatoms doesn't mean you will, this is only about the option to remove or not, not about which is better. its about how in removing, you have taken no chance and how in leaving X in, a chance has been taken, that's all.
 
Last edited:
Gotcha, I understand. From seeing the extremes though you can learn the path that led there.

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, you know ;-)
 
Last edited:
I guarantee you after we are done trading ideas ill zip it to ya. tabling it for a sec wont change the outcome of your cycling thread for sure ill zip it over soon.

regarding the SI, what if letting something absorb it after we purposefully left it in, and make the tank look bad even for a couple weeks, was totally optional?
http://reef2reef.com/threads/the-of...ead-aka-one-against-many.230281/#post-2681445

whats your take on that premise above am curious
65092928c48a3653a065abcf88026c1f.jpg


I put 160 pounds of sand into it yesterday. Obviously I rinsed, lol. The first 40 pound bag I put in two weeks ago, without rinsing, and it took over a week to get all the crap out. I'll never not rinse again.

I just used tap water, drained it the best I could, and then dosed prime afterward to deal with any chlorine/chloramine from the tap water. With the sheer volume of water I had to use to rinse all that sand, I can't imagine using salt or rodi water. The cost of that would be astronomical and would take forever.

I read the entire thread you posted, but saw no mention of anything you could put into a tank to absorb SI. Regardless, my response would be I definitely would do it. If I can do something now to save myself pain and heartache later, I definitely would. If my tank had to be unsightly for a month, so be it. Small price to pay for years of beauty after.
 
*I wrote confusing above. By absorb silica I meant leaving diatoms in there to uptake not actual adsorbing media apologies I see how it read that way. Was remarking most people leave the early growths in place to uptake silica they could have pre rinsed out.

I believe removing only the ultra fine silt is sufficient and the regular grains aren't a big source for it just my take.

My stance is that removing communal support from a communal invader is literally enough in most cases but it's an against the grain claim granted...

am hinting that some old school reefing rules need updates or problem tanks wouldn't outnumber happy ones this is just one nerds claim it doesn't mean much in the end lol.


I approach every invader issue as not nutrient related and then arrive at the rare times it is. It would be a crazy claim were it not for the threads where we test the notion
 
Last edited:
It all boils down to this one fact; nuisance algae can exist and even thrive at extremely low nitrate and phosphate levels. Trying to kill them outright via nutrient reduction is well nigh impossible in a reef tank as the very low levels required would also end up weakening and/or killing the coral and it's zooxanthellae (coral's symbiotic algae). Of course, higher levels of nutrients can help algae to grow really fast, so nutrient control is essential as is the correct type and number of herbivors (as Brandon mentioned).

I'm perhaps a bit more tolerant of some algae than others as I consider it part of a natural biotope and I maintain a small 'pasture' of it in my nano tank. But I also physically remove undesireable patches that may spring up on a weekly basis so that it doesn't gain a foothold where I don't want it to (especially near coral colonies). In a large tank, this approach would be impractical and I'd opt for an efficient crew of herbivors to keep it mowed to where it's not noticeable. Any algae that the crew can't/won't handle would be a candidate for one of Brandon's hands-on destruction methods :)
 
Last edited:
When I used to scuba dive I saw wonderful corals in the Cayman Islands and some low-level algae growth, after all something had to feed the grazers. What I try to strive for in my aquarium is unnatural in every way, it's a coral focus goal.

just got to where I didn't want to take the chance any longer even with low level growth. If someone likes a balance of algae or even algae filters that's OK no prob, we just harness the exclusion method and review it's pros and cons

firmly believe one should try to design a system that never needs a cheat but don't factor one out totally, they can be tank savers.
 
Lol, well you know that created more questions...

Everything I've read says to let diatoms run their course and once the silica is gone so to will they be. Are you saying you actively take measures to remove diatoms? Wouldn't it be better to let then use up the silica and then be done with them once and for all?

Softies, zoas, and some lps like water that is slightly "dirty". Doesn't that preclude the ability to run your tank so pristine as to be algae proof? Since algae is all about the nutrients and the light, and so are the corals I mentioned, doesn't it make it difficult to have one without the other?

I'm not versed in the treatment of dinos, but from memory I think increasing flow and cutting light deals with them. But since you need light for corals and I imagine it'll be hard to create perfect all encompassing flow, aren't reefers always at risk for dinos?

Thank you for your replies, I'm really learning a lot! Randy, thank you too, and everyone else who replies!

In answer to your question regarding softies, zoas and lps that like "dirty" water is sort of, well, just inaccurate. Nothing "likes" dirty water, but some species can tolerate it, which is why people say that they like dirty water. Keeping all of the above in a low nutrient system, i.e., a system that has been cleaned of detritus and preventatively maintained through cleaning, vacuuming sand bed routinely, etc., will be fine and the corals will be completely fine in clean water. Without getting into the need of the zooxanthellae needing *some* levels of nitrates, phosphates and dissolved organics, a "dirty" tank is just a neglected tank in my opinion. So in conclusion for that question, the corals listed do not "prefer" to have high nitrates and phosphates, they can just tolerate it better than other species of corals, such as SPS. Keep your tank and water column as clean as you can.
In answer to the question about a tank being so pristine as to be algae proof, that will never happen. The coral reefs around the world are comprised of ~70% algae, so algae is a natural part of a reef system, and as Brandon pointed out earlier, onset of algae growth in our tanks is a foregone conclusion. Algae is about nutrients and light, but they can survive on other sources of energy for growth; where you find healthy coral is where you will also find algae. Now that being said, I am a huge proponent in what Brandon talks about in terms of forced tank compliance, manual removal of algae, etc., and I follow those practices in my tank. Every day I'll get the turkey baster and blast my rockwork to get detritus in the water column to be removed through surface skimming to the sump. Also turkey blast the sand bed every couple days, and when I do a WC, vacuum the sand bed super well to remove detritus that will definitively cause algal growth.
There are some other threads on keeping the proper balance of nitrates in one's system for health of corals, but that's another topic altogether. o_O

As @Nano sapiens pointed out, algae will exist in your system no matter what you do for nutrient reduction, so that's not an option for keeping water clean enough to keep algae away. If you want to have an algae free system, you will have to manually remove it, prevent it, force your tank to comply, and as nano pointed out, find the balance you are willing to live with. I must admit that my corals always look the best when algae is trying to create a foothold in my tank, and sometimes I just leave things be for a while since my corals are doing well, I don't care what the actual levels of NO3 and PO4 are. I use biopellets so I know that the levels aren't too high, and then I just rip clean the algae when I've had enough of it. The balancing act between nutrient levels (NO3 and PO4 the measurable nutrients) and coral health is a new topic that is catching fire right now, and you are actually learning some cool stuff from Randy, Brandon and Nano Sapiens, but that would require an entirely new thread. A great resource for learning about nitrate dosing is @twilliard , and I would recommend reading Todd's posts about it and asking him.

In conclusion to this enormously long [edited] personal post, my advice is to find the balance between planning your system to make prevention and removal of algae and other unwanted nasty growth easy on you. There is no such thing as corals that "like" a dirty system, only corals that possess a greater fault tolerance for lack of cleanliness. :D I'm a huge believer in removal of algae as Brandon has outlined, and while you can still do, it, plan your aquascape around first, what you like and what's beautiful to you, and a very close second, a design that allows you to maneuver in your tank to clean it.

OK, enough typing, hope that no one fell asleep reading that post. o_O
 
Last edited:
^^ lots of good info right there. Our tank maintenance philosophies appear to be quite similar, although I seldom can type that much all at once! :)

I have noticed a steadily growing awareness amongst reef aquarists regarding the need to proactively take charge of their systems and not just sit back and let them 'Do their thing', while hoping for the best. Good to see!
 
Last edited:
It is a lot of good info.

I was fully prepared to let things "do their thing". Actually had to psyche myself up to do it too, because I'm more of a proactive person than that normally.

I'd prefer to do it the hands on way, honestly.

Thank you for clearing up the corals liking dirty water myth for me. You're right, there are a lot of miles in between tolerating it and liking it.
 
We'll I'll just counter that I'm not in agreement that it is a myth that some corals "prefer" dirtier water than others.

All corals will have an optimum range for nutrient levels. Some aspects of them may have different optimal ranges (such as color vs growth rate vs other attributes like skeletal density, etc.).

I see no reason to think the optimal ranges are all the same, and many organisms seem to thrive in higher nutrient levels as well or better than at low levels.

Soft corals are among these, but folks are also beginning to discover that even many hard corals do not "prefer" very low inorganic nutrients (at least when their natural solid food such as phytoplankton are more limited, as in reef tanks compared to the ocean). 5 ppm nitrate and 0.02 ppm phosphate would be considered dirty water for the ocean, and yet many folks find SPS thrive in that better than lower levels in their aquaria. Soft corals seem to do very well at even higher levels.

One of the big problems is that at these elevated nutrient levels (aside from the browner colors many corals take on due to elevated zoox levels), algae and other pest growth is also faster and may require other interventions such as herbivores.
 
We'll I'll just counter that I'm not in agreement that it is a myth that some corals "prefer" dirtier water than others.

The definition of 'Dirty water' to one person may mean something quite different to another, so it's good to define the term.

I had the good fortune to spend a week directly observing the various coral supporting environments in Palau. While many types of corals existed in different environments, it was obvious which environments had a majority of one type or another. Acros were dominant in more open ocean water with non shaded sunlight and rigorous flow. LPS were dominant in coves with reduced sunlight (partially shaded by the rock islands themseves) and connected to outflows from mangrove swamps/other inland coves. Visibility was markedly reduced by organic and inorganic suspended particles.
 
Brandon249,
"signature link" ...

Edumacate me, please. What is one? Where do I find it? I'd like to read it.

He means the link at the bottom of his post, in his signature. :)
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top