Levels of Phosphates, Nitrates, Light, Algae- what am I missing guys?!!

[Aaronhome27]

I'll share my experience and see if it falls into your situation.

My tank is only 2 months old. It was a transfer from a smaller tank. I started it from the beginning with an ATS. IMO an ATS doesn't affect a cycle. I feel it just grows algae on the screen instead of in your display. My new system is 4x the size of the previous one. But my old tank was only 24 gallons. I also ran an ATS of the diy type in it. I had 6 fish and fed a cube to a cube and a half daily in it. Also fed coral food every other day. Never had even a spec of algae in the display while running that system with an ATS. Btw it was an AIO even.

Fast forward to the new system. I transferred all the old stuff from the 24 to it. Fired up the new scrubber on day one. By day 3 I had a minor diatom outbreak. It lasted 3 days. But when I got it I actually fed heavier. My nutrients were very low. 3 days of heavy feeding and diatom went away. I had 7 fish in the tank and about 40 small coral.

I made a huge mistake and bought qt'd fish from a local LFS that at one time was very trust worthy. Well day 2 I had velvet and a serious bacterial infection on this fish. With some help from humblefish I got a plan of attack and removed all fish to qt and started a 76 day fallow period. Day 2 of this fallow period and again heavy diatom outbreak. Nutrients again dropped very low right away with removing the bioload from the fish. I never did back off on feeding. I just fed the coral heavily. This time I decided to dose no3 and po4 back into the system. I use Hanna ULR Phosphate and salifert nitrate test and I was getting po4 or 0.01 to 0.02. No3 was 0.25 on salifert. My tank (and all tanks are different) like po4 of 0.03 to 0.05. And nitrates 3 to 5. If I go below this I get diatom almost immediately. If I go above I get the very fuzzy start of what might be algae. It's only there by late evening and my cuc has it spotless by morning. The only reason I know is that I played with numbers for a while to see where my tank liked to be. I actually have a range where I know what will happen in my tank.

Since going fallow I've now switched to a 300 micron mesh sock. It has helped a lot for the time being to keep my nutrients up a bit till fish come back. All 3 of my tanks have liked this range. If I get outside of it I see what I have mentioned above. Remeber my tank is young but some of the rock is well established. None the less it's still considered very young and I assume that's why I see diatom. On an older tank (I've helped a few friends with older tanks) this can spell out as other forms of algae. I know there is theory and lots of discussion on what balance of nutrient works in a tank. But I can tell you in a number of tanks I've found that once you find it you (may) control algae if everything else is in check. I stumbled on using algae years ago by accident. I've been in the hobby on and off since 1993. But I can tell you I won't have a tank without an ATS anymore. Yes in the beginning is can mean a few cleanings more often but it takes me about 2 minutes to clean my screens and then i go on to the frig for a beer as I watch the tank. I've not relied on adding anything like bacteria to my tank. Only thing I do if something is off is adjust my nutrients up or down.
As I stated I don't know if this helps. I rambled alot here but in the end I think there is a balance. Once you reach it, whether it takes time to get there, a tank can be controlled, IMO.

 

[LesPoissons]

Im not sure I understand what you are saying as to why I wouldnt have enough good bacteria? (I hope this doesnt read as snarky, Im trying to follow the same line of thought and I appreciate the help!) For 2 and a 1/2 years I had absolutely no gha at all. In that 2.5 years the tank was cycled and bacteria grew and broke down organic matter. Otherwise I would have had a huge ammonia problem? The gha is a 4-6 month issue I've been fightng with directly related to overfeeding. Overfeeding and GHA growth would not wipe out all the good bacteria? And bacteria actually prefer low/no light, so the reduction in light for the last month or so only would have helped it flourish as the gha decreased. A week ago I was down to almost no Gha and my nitrates and phos are still the same, and no detectable ammonia, so there has to be an abundance of bacteria bc otherwise 20+ fish in a tank would have caused an ammonia spike and health issues? Nothing has changed in the last month except the gha was almost gone, and then a week ago I turned the white lights back on to 1% and the algae came roaring back. Basically, Im saying the No3 and P04 levels do not seem to have anything to do with limiting algae growth and that the whole point of bacteria is to break down ammonia and nitrite into nitrates. I have 0 to 3 level of nitrates, and no ammonia, so the bacteria must be working well? The whole premise of carbon dosing is the same as an algae scrubber- tie up the excessive phos and nitrate (in bacteria or algae) and remove it (with skimming the extra bacteria or scraping the algae off the scrubber.) I dont have an abundance of phos or nitrate though- 0-0.05 and 0-3 (respectively), with or without gha. That is the most confusing part in all this. White light seems to be the only limiting factor and I cant make sense of it. Im missing something and I just cant figure my tank out.

I agree that many people are successful with algae scrubbers. It's ike a refugium but with gha instead of chaeto, or carbon dosing but using algae instead of bacteria. All of these function along the same lines and I think any of those approaches should be successful...except in my crazy tank apparently. The scrubber grows algae very well. It does not lessen the display algae, at all. Somehow, something is going on in my tank that test kits are not telling me and there are more than enough nutrients for algae to thrive, despite everything indicating it should be the opposite. So the scrubber just grows more algae. It doesn't out compete what is already there.

I really appreciate all the help and opening up new ideas and thought processes. At this point, Im waiting on new test kits (bc honestly, faulty kits would really make the most sense), shopping for an increase in cuc tomorrow, and researching using vibrant or another carbon dosing method to see if I get any different results than a bacterial bloom. More thoughts and ideas are welcome!!!

 

[BeejReef]

This is a very impressive exchange of ideas. Hard to believe that both your N and P kits would be bad at the same time. Wouldn't it be nice if it was simply a matter of lighting your refugium longer

I think your current predicament is simply pushing the boundaries of what is known in the hobby. Presumably, there has to be a sweet spot between ultra, ultra low N and P and levels high enough in N and P to sustain a growing nuisance algae problem. Just listening to MabuyaQ, something about what he's saying seems to make sense to me. I also concur with a lot of the sentiments you expressed in reply. Still, it fits the narrative as you laid it out. Something changed.

Your guess is overfeeding lead to algae really taking off and out competing other micro/macro organisms. He contends that this was made easier by your ultra low nutrient setup (fuge, gfo). I don't know if that's true or not, but I think he's clearly referring to multiple types of microfauna, not simply nitrifying (cycle) bacteria. We're starting to get into the "unknowable," but, certainly many thousands of micro-organisms have little turf battles for rockscape dominance. Clearly, at the moment, given any light at all, GHA wins.

A great point you make is "If GHA is the primary consumer, why, under only blues, and with negligible GHA growth, would my N and P not rise?" Perhaps it doesn't rise because you run GFO and an effective refugium? You've already concluded that you hit the jackpot and are hosting a strain of GHA that seems perfectly happy growing with minimal nutrients. MabuyaQ kind of likens your GHA to some hardy infantry, dug into position and not budging. Something you said early on piqued my interest. You said your chaeto seems to have little impact on your levels. Perhaps it's just surviving, but is there as a ready backup when either your GFO expires or the GHA uptake drops when you siphon it.

Sure, your levels may have spiked months ago, but they're back to very low now. That's a variation, not a change. The only thing that has fundamentally changed is that GHA is the dominant organism at the moment. Again, I agree with your thought process that a few weeks under blues should have provided these bacteria a chance to start to recuperate and regroup. Maybe it just wasn't long enough. It takes a month to minimally cycle a dry tank. A few weeks, no less a few weeks with very low N and P, might not have been long enough to restore balance.

It's not my tank, so this is just a thought exercise for me, but rejuvenating your bio-diversity with a nice hunk of live rock or a bacterial booster sounds lower risk.
Also, since you've established that further lowering nutrients is not feasible and unlikely to be efffective AND that just blues holds back the GHA, you might even consider letting your N and P rise to 10 and .05 respectively, continue under blue only, and try to revive your varied bacteria and tune your CUC for a month or two.

Since it is the 75 anniversary of D-Day, I think that's a good analogy. Control the air (blues only), land your troops (new live rock or bactarial booster and CUC), supply your troops (some levels of N and P), liberate France!

As an aside, hard to tell from the pics of your tank taken mostly under blues, but how much coraline coverage to you have? It doesn't really seem to be caked on the back glass or rocks that much?

 

[Aaronhome27]

I think William has kind of spoken to what I'm saying in my post. And very well laid out I might add. In a nut shell I'm basically echoing what he has stated. In our tanks there is a constant battle for nutrients. Once something gets hold of the nutrients they tend to tip the scales in thier way. I'm trying to recall all I have read to this point but it sounds like overfeeding we know was what sparked the whole episode possibly. Now keep in mind I'm not expert, rather I'm just laying out some food for continued discussion. This is a very common topic and this discussion has moved in a very good direction. Anyway, the battle for nutrients is always in out tanks. We use all kinds of supliments and additives to support the bacteria levels in our tanks to always be that top predator. But what can happen is that there is something that changes that provides more nutrients than the bacteria can handle. Then another player gets in the game. It becomes a more efficient player and begins to take that top spot and gets to grow. Buy then we have several players in the game. Nutrients are still there but they are locking up nutrients so it shows that we have close to or even an ultra low nutrient system. Once we take away nutrient source something has to concede. Which one is strong enough now to outlast the other? Well gha once in a tank can live for a very long time with little to no nutrients. It may not spread once it's getting starved but typically it can find just enough nutrients to stay alive. Meanwhile the bacteria slowly dwindles. The balance leans in the favor of the gha so it gets to stay. Now you mentioned vibrant. I can tell you that works very well. It will strip the tank down quick in most cases by adding a big blend of bacteria that's in a sense supercharged. But if you read into it you'll also see a side affect of vibrant is cyano if not careful. It strips everything down fast as stated. If overdosed or taken up too quick you end up with algae dying off quick. You also have a super load of bacteria that once the tank is stripped of nutrients something else is waiting to take over once the nutrients become available and there's nothing there in high enough numbers to consume it. Cyano is always waiting as is dino for this opportunity. In my tank as I mentioned earlier I actually has diatom start showing up first. When I start even seeing the slightest dusting I know my tank is low on po4. The trick is getting rid of the bad player while still making sure something good is waiting there to take over. Vibrant dose work well for this. But take it slow if you go that route. To many people try to do it all in one day and that doesn't give anything else time to establish and you end up with cyano, dino, or algae blooms.

 

[LesPoissons]

I really appreciate all these ideas and the various break downs of complicated information! So after reading all this, I agree and its def worth a try to re-boot my bacteria if that is a factor in allowing the gha to take over. Since it is the anniversary of D-day, lol and my dad is from France, I am going to implement the suggested tactics:

Ill stick with just blues for at least 2 months and see how thing go. I went out and got a 9# chunk of live rock as well as a bottle of beneficial bacteria, so that went in the tank. 10 more snails went in as well, which was all the turbos (7) and trochus (3) the lfs had somehow. I dont really know how many to add but i can go back when they have more stock. Upped the time on the refugium to 18hrs of light. Got a bottle of vodka (none of the lfs has vibrant) and dosed 1m so the bacteria have something to eat.

So. Trying this sparks questions:
Im now dosing w vodka to keep bacteria alive- Should I order and switch to No3Po4x or vibrant or sick with vodka dosing or dose nitrate instead?
Should I turn off my gfo/carbon reactor?
The goal is to get the gha gone- and then give the better bacteria time to become dominant- so shooting for 1 full month after all gha is gone- does this seem sufficient? Do i carbon dose that whole time?

Coraline algae- it grows on the back wall glass below the rock line and somewhat on the walls of the overflow compartments, but I wouldnt say I have an abundance of it. The back glass used to be covered with it, but I scraped it all down and it never came back much. I have 5 urchins too so they may help take care of it.

Thank you!!!

 

[LesPoissons]

Reading as much as I can- so it seems like I dont need to carbon dose? Just turn of gfo/carbon and add nitrates? +/- phos until it stabilizes. Is that correct?

 

[mcarroll]

Real reefs even in the wild will be grown over by algae if there are not enough herbivores.

For the size tank you have you have hardly any cleanup crew — in particular you have hardly any snails.

As long as you keep the cleanup crew like this most of the work will be up to you.

I would add five or 10 big new snails (turbo, trochus, crown top, whatever) every other week until you see them making a dent and then add batches every other month until you don't need to do very much work at all anymore.

In the meantime stop using GFO, stop messing with the lights.

Your corals are getting pale because of the lack of dissolved nutrients. Removing the GFO may be enough to reverse this for them. Give corals at least a few weeks without GFO before you make any other decisions but it's possible you may have to dose a little bit of phosphates if they don't turn around.

By the way do you see any Coraline algae growing? if not I would consider getting rid of the urchins. Coraline algae is like armor plating for your rocks against pest algae growth. (Urchins eat Coraline algae.)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

My values stand at 0 to maybe 0.05 phos, 0 to maybe 3 nitrates. Corals are growing but kinda pale in color, not a ton of polyp extension on the leather etc.

Too low of nitrate and phosphate are not a cause of green algae (but diatoms, perhaps, indirectly). At 0.05 and 3 ppm, there is plenty for algae to grow. At lower levels, algae may become limited, but often you do not really want it that low.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Reading as much as I can- so it seems like I dont need to carbon dose? Just turn of gfo/carbon and add nitrates? +/- phos until it stabilizes. Is that correct?

While there are reasons to carbon dose and add N and P at the same time (like converting the N and P into particulate organic food for filter feeders), it isn't generally done.

 

[MabuyaQ]

Sorry real life kept me away from internet. My approach to reefing is holostic and Darwinistic (is that a word?). What I indeed was trying to say is that no matter the environment we create in our aquarium there is always an organism that is going to try and outcompete the other organisms. And where changing one element in the environment can effect all organisms it can also effect no organism or any number inbetween. And the effect can be desirable and/or undesirable.

When running an aquarium you will always get an equilibrium between production and consumption and what isn't consumed in the end is what is measurable in the watercolumn with testkits. That is why testvalues are an indication of how an aquarium is doing but never tell the full story. For that you also have to look at the actual consumers and producers in an aquarium and the role they play in relation to a certain value we test for and to what extend we find these producers desirable or undesirable.

Back to what I think happened. Nitrates are the second last production output and last consumption input of the nitrogen cycle. Before you overfed the nitrogen cycle was working 'healthy' in relation to the your production (good equilibrium as you report no problems at that time) but when not cabon dosing at low measurable nutrient levels this often means low total numbers of bacteria in the nitrogen cycle, especially at the end of the nitrogen cycle (because everything else in your aquarium had a chance to strip carbon first and aquariums are relatively carbon deficient). So when you overfed there was a boost in nutrients (including carbon) but with low total number of bacteria to start (running low nutrients for extended periods) it is going to take longer to get sufficient numbers even with the reproductive rate of bacteria (and these nitrate reducers are the slowest to grow/develop in the nitrogen cycle, hence why we have to cycle new tanks). I don't think the extra food fixed the carbon deficiency I believe you actually already had before so there wasn't enough carbon added to even stimulate the full reduction of the produced extra nitrates into nitrogen gas (noticed by the increase in measured nitrates). And when you combine these factors and add some lingering GHA you suddenly created the perfect environment for a GHA outbreak because they don't care about a carbon deficiency as they produce their own by photosynthesis. And all of a sudden the other bacteria in the nitrogen cycle are no longer producing nitrates for the nitrate reducing bacteria but for GHA. You can stop the production of the extra nitrates by stopping to overfeed, but that doesn't fix the carbon deficiency and it won't stop the GHA from consuming the nitrates first. All that happens is that you get a new equilibrium where GHA has become one of the consumers and most likely the biggest consumer of nitrates at the expense of the previously biggest consumer (the nitrate consuming bacteria). And for whatever reason this new equilibrium with GHA resulted in similar testvalues where not all nitrate was consumed (something lacks in the environment for GHA to consume all nitrate, could be surface area, could be another element like iron, or..., but this is of no real importance because we don't want to grow any GHA.)

My strategy is therefore the reverse, make the environment as favourable for nitrate reducing bacteria (and less favourable for the GHA) and after enough time the bacteria will outcompete the GHA and become the biggest/only consumer of nitrates once again. Add life rock to increase growing area and additional numbers to start with or add bacteria directly from a bottle to add those numbers, add carbon to take this deficiency away, take away light from the algae to reduce their access to carbon, increase grasers (directly reducing the unwanted nitrate consumer and making nitrates available for the wanted nitrate consumer).

 

[Hyde2406]

I ran a scrubber for GHA but it took about 4 months to get rid of my GHA and I only had a 40 gallon tank, it was about 6 years old, similar situation no Algae then boom out of no where, but I'll never run a tank without a scrubber again. It created a great pod breeding area. But it will def kill off your refugium. I also helped kill stuff manually with peroxide 1x a month for a few months. Over a bucket then rinsed in old tank water then placed back in tank after a good shake... Good luck

 

[BeejReef]

Maya Ybry-Yagy

How's the algae battle going?