- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 279
I'm not sure I would agree with that. If all of the bacteria had died off, the livestock would be suffering from ammonia poisoning at some point shortly after the large water changes had been completed. Plants, and I'm sure algae as well, are able to assimilate ammonia, but I do not think it is likely that the amount of algae in that tank is able to uptake all of the ammonia produced by that biomass, from feedings, and from the decay that was not able to be removed from the tank. I do not think the corals would be recovering and flourishing if the bacteria colony was wiped out. I believe the nutrients released from the large amount of die-off that occurred, is what is driving the algae outbreak.
I am not sure how the elevated potassium would effect the parameters that are driving the algae outbreak. I know it is essential for algae growth, but I am not sure how much it would put the algae into overdrive on its own. It is one of the macro nutrients that drives growth, but it is not usually talked about as most people do not measure it and it is in lower concentrations (normally) than nitrogen an potassium. I am sure it will have an effect, I just don't know to what extent.
You would need to feed the bacteria and pods in that bucket, otherwise they would starve along with the AEFW that may or may not be on/in the rock.
If it was to the point that you needed to treat the entire tank and risk all of the inhabitants and risk a potential tank crash, I think that removing a small portion of the rock is too big of a risk. By the time you have starved off any potential AEFW, the tank would be well on it's way to repopulating the bacterial colony. If you were concerned about bacteria immediately after the treatment, there are bottled products that have proven them selves in speeding up new tank cycles and you can get pods from places to replenish that population as well. It would be much cheaper and faster in the long run when compared to potentially having to repeat the treatment due to reintroducing AEFW.
I am not sure how the elevated potassium would effect the parameters that are driving the algae outbreak. I know it is essential for algae growth, but I am not sure how much it would put the algae into overdrive on its own. It is one of the macro nutrients that drives growth, but it is not usually talked about as most people do not measure it and it is in lower concentrations (normally) than nitrogen an potassium. I am sure it will have an effect, I just don't know to what extent.
You would need to feed the bacteria and pods in that bucket, otherwise they would starve along with the AEFW that may or may not be on/in the rock.
If it was to the point that you needed to treat the entire tank and risk all of the inhabitants and risk a potential tank crash, I think that removing a small portion of the rock is too big of a risk. By the time you have starved off any potential AEFW, the tank would be well on it's way to repopulating the bacterial colony. If you were concerned about bacteria immediately after the treatment, there are bottled products that have proven them selves in speeding up new tank cycles and you can get pods from places to replenish that population as well. It would be much cheaper and faster in the long run when compared to potentially having to repeat the treatment due to reintroducing AEFW.
Last edited: