No Algae? How Is This Possible?
- Thread starter sundog101
- Start date
- Tagged users None
VJV
Valuable Member
Generally speaking they're reef safe, the smaller aquarium may have had something to do with it due to lack of grazing possibilities and perhaps a bad diet in general.
As a side statement, the euro to dollar conversion is pretty much the same these days.
He mentioned pounds, not euros. The exchange rate is not 1-1.
VJV
Valuable Member
To me this o e hits the nail on the head. If a reef tank packed full of corals still has high PO4 and NO3 than according to the common theory it SHOULD have algae.
Let's look at this another way: if some one created a post called "help, algae bloom" and than stated that it had high nutrients EVERYONE would gang bang about how to bring those down, feed less, GFO, water changes etc.
But than we have these tanks that have high nutrients but still no visible algae. Maybe it is because they are "mature" , which is another way of saying that we have no idea, or that there is a mysterious element missing that limits the growth of algae.
These tanks are proof that high nutrients do not necessarily mean algae bloom and the discussion should be elevated to try and analyze exactly why this is the case.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
Iron chelating organics will take it out of bioavailability, but I don't know how you'd control the amount needed without killing things you want to keep by iron starvation.
All reef tanks will have various algae species present, but in a mature system, as seen with these tanks, they are controlled and outcompeted to the extent that they are not readily visible to us. For example, if you were to look at my mature reef tank you'd only see a few strands of a particular species that is a low nutrient specialist and apparently not very appetizing to the tank's herbivores. However, if I reduce or eliminate my main herbivores and increase nutrients I'll start to see the more typical bubble algae, hair algae, cyanobacteria, etc.
My take is that one can have higher nutrients and no visible algae, but only when a tank is mature and effective controls are in place.
My take is that one can have higher nutrients and no visible algae, but only when a tank is mature and effective controls are in place.
mcarroll
10K Club member
I think there's a lot more to the equation than we're accounting for, on both sides of the equation – us on one side and the tank inhabitants on the other.
You also can't address every set of peculiar circumstances in one post, so I'll say that I think this piece of SunTzu is relevant:
1.3 Chapter III · Strategic Attack
知彼知己，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼，不知己，每戰必殆
There are a few folks in category one...very few. (More and more every day though!)
From reading the article, I think everyone featured is in category 2. This is why there were no real answers or revelations from the survey. A few others have observed on this as well.
The folks that are getting roped into this "zero nutrients" thing – many, many, many newbies, but "grown folks" too (been there) – appear for the most part to be in category three.
All algae requires nutrients, light, space and a disturbance of some kind.
The natures and extent of all those factors matters.
The "disturbance" for most tanks is the sudden and persistent influx of nutrients that begins with the tank's main fish bio-load – the tank's microfauna is overwhelmed and bloom-forming organisms predominate.
Then rather than cutting back the nutrient inputs (i.e. fish load) the bloom is starved....which kills everything except the bloom-forming super-competitors like bryopsis and dinoflagellates...many of which are also toxic.
Mostly folks only focus on "sopping up excess nutrients" as their husbandry method.
This focus seems to be a leading cause of even worse blooms.
Starving a tank of dissolved nutrients isn't a husbandry method*, it's a tank-wrecker.
All algae requires nutrients, light, space and a disturbance of some kind.
Think of how many ways you can influence those factors aside from GFO and carbon dosing, which target only a tiny facet of one factor, and with unintentional, unhelpful side-effects.
* Moderate use of the tools mentioned under high-nutrient situations are not covered by this post.
You also can't address every set of peculiar circumstances in one post, so I'll say that I think this piece of SunTzu is relevant:
1.3 Chapter III · Strategic Attack
知彼知己，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼，不知己，每戰必殆
- It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
There are a few folks in category one...very few. (More and more every day though!)
From reading the article, I think everyone featured is in category 2. This is why there were no real answers or revelations from the survey. A few others have observed on this as well.
The folks that are getting roped into this "zero nutrients" thing – many, many, many newbies, but "grown folks" too (been there) – appear for the most part to be in category three.
All algae requires nutrients, light, space and a disturbance of some kind.
The natures and extent of all those factors matters.
The "disturbance" for most tanks is the sudden and persistent influx of nutrients that begins with the tank's main fish bio-load – the tank's microfauna is overwhelmed and bloom-forming organisms predominate.
Then rather than cutting back the nutrient inputs (i.e. fish load) the bloom is starved....which kills everything except the bloom-forming super-competitors like bryopsis and dinoflagellates...many of which are also toxic.
Mostly folks only focus on "sopping up excess nutrients" as their husbandry method.
This focus seems to be a leading cause of even worse blooms.
Starving a tank of dissolved nutrients isn't a husbandry method*, it's a tank-wrecker.
All algae requires nutrients, light, space and a disturbance of some kind.
Think of how many ways you can influence those factors aside from GFO and carbon dosing, which target only a tiny facet of one factor, and with unintentional, unhelpful side-effects.
* Moderate use of the tools mentioned under high-nutrient situations are not covered by this post.
TbyZ
Well-Known Member
I had great success with a foxface dealing with a caulerpa infestation.
How was a caulerpa infestation possible in your aquarium?
What was your PO4 & NO3 values at the time?
Were you growing caulerpa in a refugium at the time?
OP
OP
sundog101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 994
- Reaction score
- 656
I think there's a lot more to the equation than we're accounting for, on both sides of the equation – us on one side and the tank inhabitants on the other.
You also can't address every set of peculiar circumstances in one post, so I'll say that I think this piece of SunTzu is relevant:
1.3 Chapter III · Strategic Attack
知彼知己，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼，不知己，每戰必殆
- It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
There are a few folks in category one...very few. (More and more every day though!)
From reading the article, I think everyone featured is in category 2. This is why there were no real answers or revelations from the survey. A few others have observed on this as well.
The folks that are getting roped into this "zero nutrients" thing – many, many, many newbies, but "grown folks" too (been there) – appear for the most part to be in category three.
All algae requires nutrients, light, space and a disturbance of some kind.
The natures and extent of all those factors matters.
The "disturbance" for most tanks is the sudden and persistent influx of nutrients that begins with the tank's main fish bio-load – the tank's microfauna is overwhelmed and bloom-forming organisms predominate.
Then rather than cutting back the nutrient inputs (i.e. fish load) the bloom is starved....which kills everything except the bloom-forming super-competitors like bryopsis and dinoflagellates...many of which are also toxic.
Mostly folks only focus on "sopping up excess nutrients" as their husbandry method.
This focus seems to be a leading cause of even worse blooms.
Starving a tank of dissolved nutrients isn't a husbandry method*, it's a tank-wrecker.
All algae requires nutrients, light, space and a disturbance of some kind.
Think of how many ways you can influence those factors aside from GFO and carbon dosing, which target only a tiny facet of one factor, and with unintentional, unhelpful side-effects.
* Moderate use of the tools mentioned under high-nutrient situations are not covered by this post.
Really informative post! What do you think would be effective steps to take other than starving the tank? Also could algae problems be the result of a microfauna unbalance?
Lonely reefer's
Well-Known Member
I'm no expert but My tank doesn't have algae and it next to the windows
Just 5-10g water change on the weekend
I'm not using GFO but 3 of my purple tangs are during their job
Just 5-10g water change on the weekend
I'm not using GFO but 3 of my purple tangs are during their job
mcarroll
10K Club member
I'm not sure what scenario we're discussing and specifics pretty much always matter...but in general, starving your tank in any way is a really bad idea.
And yes I think microfauna being out of balance is a big factor. (Carbon dosing can be a cause. P- or N-starvation can make it a real problem.)
If we're just generally talking about avoiding algae, then first we have to distinguish between "just algae" and an "algae bloom". One is an indication of a problem. "Just algae" around in a tank isn't a problem.
How to avoid algae blooms:
- Slowly increasing a tank's nutrient levels vs spiking them. For example, adding one or two fish to a tank at once vs adding five or twelve.
- Growing an amount of corals that's proportional to your fish load is another one I like. In fact, start your tank with corals instead of fish.
- Be consistent with feedings
- Don't over-do nutrient export
- Do not use chemical nutrient reduction tools or carbon dosing at the start of a new tank.
OP
OP
sundog101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 994
- Reaction score
- 656
Here's an example:
I think my 93g is more or less starved. P and N have always been undetectable and corals have been losing color.
I've slowly fed more and decreased nutrient export, but all I get is algae. No nutrients.
In this case should I keep increasing feeding even though I'm getting more and more algae? Will the algae keep growing as I try to raise nutrients?
I think my 93g is more or less starved. P and N have always been undetectable and corals have been losing color.
I've slowly fed more and decreased nutrient export, but all I get is algae. No nutrients.
In this case should I keep increasing feeding even though I'm getting more and more algae? Will the algae keep growing as I try to raise nutrients?
mcarroll
10K Club member
How's your cleanup crew and what kind of algae does your tank tend to grow? Can you post a pic?
Also, what food are you feeding and how much? What's the fish bio-load?
OP
OP
sundog101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 994
- Reaction score
- 656
Cleanup crew:
12 cerith snails, 1 tuxedo urchin, 1 starry bleny
Filtration:
Skimmer and ATS
Fish:
1 clownfish, 1 starry blenny, 1 flasher wrasse
I feed almost all frozen (mysis, clams, oysters) and have been slowly increasing feeding.
It seems like just normal hair algae and right now it's not too bad. However I don't want it to turn into an outbreak.
I would think though in a tank with such low nutrients algae would have a tough time growing.
12 cerith snails, 1 tuxedo urchin, 1 starry bleny
Filtration:
Skimmer and ATS
Fish:
1 clownfish, 1 starry blenny, 1 flasher wrasse
I feed almost all frozen (mysis, clams, oysters) and have been slowly increasing feeding.
It seems like just normal hair algae and right now it's not too bad. However I don't want it to turn into an outbreak.
I would think though in a tank with such low nutrients algae would have a tough time growing.
OP
OP
sundog101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 994
- Reaction score
- 656
I've been doing some research and found some really interesting information.
From Nutrients in the Biscayne Bay of Miami- Chapter 5:
"In general, the most important sources of total inorganic N for macroalgae are ammonium (NH4 + ) followed by the more abundantly available nitrate (NO3 - ) ions (Lüning 1990). Ammonium is usually taken up at a higher rate, and in many cases nitrate uptake is inhibited by the presence of ammonium (Hanisak 1983; Chapman et al. 1977, 1978), 138 because of feedback inhibition on enzymes responsible for nitrate reduction (Morris 1974; DeBoer 1981; Fujita et al. 1988)."
"Many algae can also readily use organic sources of N, such as amino acids, urea, and purines (Hanisak 1983; Morris 1974; Vymazal 1995; Fletcher 1996)."
"Many algae assimilate P as phosphate ions or from organic compounds through extracellular cleavage of phosphate moieties using the enzyme alkaline phosphatase (Vymazal 1995)."
"The rate at which algae take up nutrients depends largely on their nutritional history (D’Elia and DeBoer 1978; Hanisak 1983; Lobban and Harrison 1994), with nutrient-starved plants showing higher uptake rates than those plants that are not initially nutrient-limited (D’Elia and DeBoer 1978; Hanisak 1983). When grown under nutrient-saturated conditions, the uptake rate is equal to the growth rate (Vymazal 1995; Borchart 1996). When cells become nutrient-limited and then encounter a nutrient pulse, high uptake rates permit rapid replenishment of internal nutrient stores, a process known as luxury uptake (Dring 1982; Harrison 1988)."
I didn't know that algae were capable of luxury uptake.
From Nutrients in the Biscayne Bay of Miami- Chapter 5:
"In general, the most important sources of total inorganic N for macroalgae are ammonium (NH4 + ) followed by the more abundantly available nitrate (NO3 - ) ions (Lüning 1990). Ammonium is usually taken up at a higher rate, and in many cases nitrate uptake is inhibited by the presence of ammonium (Hanisak 1983; Chapman et al. 1977, 1978), 138 because of feedback inhibition on enzymes responsible for nitrate reduction (Morris 1974; DeBoer 1981; Fujita et al. 1988)."
"Many algae can also readily use organic sources of N, such as amino acids, urea, and purines (Hanisak 1983; Morris 1974; Vymazal 1995; Fletcher 1996)."
"Many algae assimilate P as phosphate ions or from organic compounds through extracellular cleavage of phosphate moieties using the enzyme alkaline phosphatase (Vymazal 1995)."
"The rate at which algae take up nutrients depends largely on their nutritional history (D’Elia and DeBoer 1978; Hanisak 1983; Lobban and Harrison 1994), with nutrient-starved plants showing higher uptake rates than those plants that are not initially nutrient-limited (D’Elia and DeBoer 1978; Hanisak 1983). When grown under nutrient-saturated conditions, the uptake rate is equal to the growth rate (Vymazal 1995; Borchart 1996). When cells become nutrient-limited and then encounter a nutrient pulse, high uptake rates permit rapid replenishment of internal nutrient stores, a process known as luxury uptake (Dring 1982; Harrison 1988)."
I didn't know that algae were capable of luxury uptake.
mcarroll
10K Club member
Dude....it's awesome. Everything I've learned in this hobby is like that though.
In Ostreopsis dino's they seem to work "luxury uptake" from a different angle....in survival. They apparently channel excess C into toxin production.
They can keep C reserves too though.
Algae can easily be limited by herbivores (such as rabbitfish), or by other limiting factors, such as low iron.
In my case, a foxface was able to take out all of the caulerpa that ran wild in my display.
I had a similar issue with a nuisance low growing Caulerpa. I bought a Foxface and it consumed the lot. I must admit Foxfaces are not one of my favourite fish but when it comes to getting stuck into nuisance Caulerpa there can be few fish that will get rid as well.
Neptune1707
Active Member
I have an office reef tank and take care of my bosses 30g reef tank...mainly softies and lps. Due to limitation, I have to use tap water to mix our Red Sea Pro coral salt. My bosses tank is about 3-4 years old. I do a monthly water change of 5 gallons....there are a handful of fish and snails/hermits. Phosphate is like .8 (no joke) and nitrate I haven't tested lately by prob in the 5-10ppm range. His tank has 0 algae growing and his softies and mushrooms are growing like they are on steroids. I don't dose/feed the tank any supplements, just rely on water changes. I have a similar tank in my office, but it newer like 6 months old and I'm going thru the uglies of dino's/algae etc but I'm also dosing NoPox (which I have stopped for the moment to rule out). My bosses tank also went thru this....but instead of tweaking I just left it alone to run its own course and I personally think that when a tank reaches "maturity" is when you see less nuisance algae and issues. Once the tank is mature it can handle the occasional temp swing, water parameters that should be lower that what it is now. These reef tanks are fickle things, but sometimes the best advice is to do nothing and follow good tank maintenance schedule. My home Red Sea tank went thru the dino stage too...it was a couple of months of this stringy crap on the back wall of the tank. Just stuck to my water change, sand vacuum etc, eventually went away. Just my amateur opinion.
I'm no master. In fact until recently my tank would bloom every week with enormous amounts of algae. Every time I did a test, I was getting all parameters normal. I finally added a home made ATS to the back of my nano tank and boom, algae blooms gone. All the ATS does is allow the algae to grow in a pre determined place. This also allows me to keep my water full of nutrients. I'm finally seeing great growth in my corals for the first time.
