I'm not suggesting that the elimination of nutrients will solve the problem.
Based on the information presented here in the thread, it seems to me the root cause is elevated nutrients, not the presence of.
Any solutions to hair algae that won't go away?
- Thread starter Midasblen
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I'm not suggesting that the elimination of nutrients will solve the problem.
Based on the information presented here in the thread, it seems to me the root cause is elevated nutrients, not the presence of.
Closphates isn't even a word, is it? Astatine is apparently radioactive. Whatever, they are not usually associated with algae nutrient limitations that I'm aware of. Where did you read this, on Santa Monica's site?
Last edited:
This might be getting crazier than I thought was possible.
Two dudes: growing algae in one spot can keep it from growing in others. It is like magic. Everybody else: growing algae can lower some building blocks and some people are happy about this. Two dudes: See! this proves our point. Everybody else: ummm?
One dude: a element from the earths crust that is depleted in about a day is the secret. If this was even a necessary part to growing algae, then some wizard with a magic wand only allowed it to enter a scrubber and not the rest of the tank or a fuge or algae reactor. This is in basic Algaeology 101 taught in Hogwarts.
FWIW - astatine has no known biological role and is radioactive and VERY unstable. I hope that this was a joke, but if it isn't the case can be closed on what is happening here - I had to look again to see if this was not a Borat post. I would ask you to engage the recognized expert chemist Dr. RHF for his take on Astatine (Astatine-210 is the most stable), but since you don't believe his take that algae growing in one spot does not keep it from growing in others, then maybe the rest of the rational thinking world can do it... or just a simple internet search can do the same.
Two dudes: growing algae in one spot can keep it from growing in others. It is like magic. Everybody else: growing algae can lower some building blocks and some people are happy about this. Two dudes: See! this proves our point. Everybody else: ummm?
One dude: a element from the earths crust that is depleted in about a day is the secret. If this was even a necessary part to growing algae, then some wizard with a magic wand only allowed it to enter a scrubber and not the rest of the tank or a fuge or algae reactor. This is in basic Algaeology 101 taught in Hogwarts.
FWIW - astatine has no known biological role and is radioactive and VERY unstable. I hope that this was a joke, but if it isn't the case can be closed on what is happening here - I had to look again to see if this was not a Borat post. I would ask you to engage the recognized expert chemist Dr. RHF for his take on Astatine (Astatine-210 is the most stable), but since you don't believe his take that algae growing in one spot does not keep it from growing in others, then maybe the rest of the rational thinking world can do it... or just a simple internet search can do the same.
Miami Reef
Clam Fanatic
That’s foolish. May I ask how low you expect him to have his nutrients? His numbers in the first post are fantastic:
I expect you don’t have much knowledge in this subject as you propose you do. The algae will persist unless you find something to outcompete it (coralline, corals, bacteria etc) or something to continuously remove it (manually removal, herbivores).
Phosphates from 0.03-0.10ppm
Nitrates: 2-10ppm
Those ranges can grow algae just as well as PO4 0.50ppm and NO3 50ppm
ScubaSkeets
Well-Known Member
One dude thinks he's an expert (his words, not mine) because he has a 10K badge, but has a may have selective reading impairment. I'll post again in case you missed it:
(Im not sure if all the quotes are getting quoted again so you may have to look at the original one)
In case you missed this (I'm thinking it was more likely ignored). Not one "expert" explanation.
I suspect that his nutrient numbers may be higher than the OP is getting testing.
Also, his "fantastic" numbers are relative to what you have in the tank. A calcium level of 350 is terrible in a reef tank, but in a FOWLR, its fine.
Miami Reef
Clam Fanatic
That’s confirmation bias. A person believes algae can only grow in high nutrient, so he/she tries to find explanations that aligns with beliefs, such as assuming test kits showing a false low reading without evidence.
I want to know what numbers you believe to be good in stopping hair algae that is already growing and in the tank.
I may be misinterpreting what stance you are taking, but when I read this:
It seems like you are suggesting that the cause of the algae is higher nutrients.
Do you have a specific number you want him to achieve? Is it even worth getting to that number if the algae still persists, but the forum users will just say that the kit is false-low, anyway?
Where do we draw the line about accepting that maybe algae can grow despite nutrients testing low? There are many forms of nutrients that we cannot test for, like ammonia/ammonium and organic phosphate. These sources come from the daily feedings to fish. They eventually break down to the testable forms, but the algae will have some form of nutrients to consume.
That is why I propose that nutrient control is not the solution for hair algae. It’s an unachievable goal. Assuming a person can achieve it, would they even want to? Would their corals continue to thrive in those starvation conditions?
I think it’s important to note that algae can scavenge nutrients in depleted waters better than corals can. If you get the nutrients too low, you can starve the corals and encourage a new type of “algae:” Dinos.
At the end, the corals will either starve or struggle in toxic Dino conditions.
Last edited:
Miami Reef
Clam Fanatic
But low nutrients are terrible in reef tanks without adequate feedings, which becomes the algae-nutrient-paradox.
There will always be some form of nutrient in the tank. If you can get the nutrient levels low, you will need to supplement the tank with nutrients (from food, amino acids etc) that the corals can consume, thus the algae continues to thrive.
Let’s not forget that there are other algae (dinos) that can survive in very low nutrient waters.
Corals struggle without enough nutrients.
Miami Reef
Clam Fanatic
“The experiment consisted of three treatments: full exclusion cages; half cage procedural controls; and uncaged control plates, each with small O. faveolata colonies. We found that herbivorous fish exclusion had a substantial impact on both macroalgal cover and coral growth.”
“Fleshy macroalgae reached 50% cover within some exclusion cages, but were almost absent from uncaged control plates. Critically, O. faveolatacalcification rates were suppressed by almost half within exclusion cages, with monthly coral growth negatively related to overgrowth by fleshy macroalgae. These findings highlight the importance of herbivorous fishes for coral growth and the detrimental impact of macroalgal proliferation in the Caribbean.”
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
“Fleshy macroalgae reached 50% cover within some exclusion cages, but were almost absent from uncaged control plates. Critically, O. faveolatacalcification rates were suppressed by almost half within exclusion cages, with monthly coral growth negatively related to overgrowth by fleshy macroalgae. These findings highlight the importance of herbivorous fishes for coral growth and the detrimental impact of macroalgal proliferation in the Caribbean.”
Herbivory facilitates growth of a key reef‐building Caribbean coral
The decline of reef‐building corals in conjunction with shifts to short‐lived opportunistic species has prompted concerns that Caribbean reef framework‐building capacity has substantially diminished. Restoring herbivore populations ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Clearly, you have an advanced degree of some kind. I'm not in a position to debate things with you as my knowledge on these subjects comes only from what I've learned here.
All that you need to know is that algae does not need any measurable no3 and po4 since in can get all that it needs from other sources of nitrogen and phosphorous that we cannot test for. Rich Ross covers this in his MACNA talk on algae quite well, or it is all over the internet if you wish to read. No advance degrees are required.
Hobbyists think that more no3 and po4 make algae grow faster, but you if you have, say, 1 no3, then 20 does make any more available for the algae, kinda like having 20 cheesecakes will not get you a slice any better than one will. Hobbyists on the internet have gotten this wrong for a long time.
Algae grows quite well in the ocean where things are not around to eat it. There is barely a trace of po4 and no3 in these areas, but there are other forms of phosphorous and nitrogen.
14 minutes, or so... but the whole talk is good and worth a watch. The duck (algae) is going to get it before the cat (corals), so you cannot starve algae without your corals suffering first.
Reefering1
Valuable Member
Please be respectful. @jda doesn't claim to be a expert because he has 10k. He is considered a expert by others because he grows the crap out of coral And has for a long time. You on the other hand, have "tried everything" but didn't know what pom pom is..
. Like a dog with a bone, Trying to force your "revelation" onto everyone with no discretion to application. It's tiring, surely you can have something to say that isn't ats propaganda. Even this thread. Op tried your suggestion and how is that going? Did't fix anything did it. Open your mind to other possibilities
Reefering1
Valuable Member
As a demonstration of patience, I will take the time to explain one possibility... you seemed receptive our last conversation, let's see how open your mind is...
You been having gha issue for a "long time". Nutrients test low. You manually removed twice and it grew back. Then a 3rd time and added the scrubber, and hasn't returned since(in problematic scale anyway).
So we all agree that gha will consume nutrients fast enough for them to test low/undetectable, even though there is plenty. when you remove it all, it grows back because it isn't there to consume the nutrients. If you were to clean the rocks and leave it on back glass, most regrowth will favor established gha zone- stucking those nutrients out the water before new growth explodes on the rocks that you just cleaned. When people suggest manual removal, it's a continuing effort for several(many) months while available real estate fills in- not removing it 2 times during a "long time" period. Herbivores are instrumental,all they do is "manual removal". So you removed a bunch of algea and scrubber mopped up the liberated nutrients, slowing regrowth. This would be similar to me removing algea and giving a extra dose of vodka or performing water change, or adding corals/ consumers. Did the scrubber fix the problem? I say no, it was a tool used in conjunction with manual removal to get a handle on things. There are many tools.It's not gone, just under control. What do you think will happen if you start missing water change, add several fish, or overfeed for months to curb aggression? It will regrow in full force. This is why I like vodka, there is no capacity limit. Add 10 fish at once and feed like a madman, up dose preemptively- tank doesn't blink. That is my preferred tool but I don't push it on people. If they are serious, they will do the research and find their way. Not willing to research/ give effort? They will fail, with acropora anyways. Patience and perseverance will prevail
VintageReefer
2500 Club Member
I read this as - after the manual removal, the scrubber is then keeping the display algae under control/at a minimum going forward because it is growing, and thriving, in its established zone.
So, what are we debating here? That’s what we have been saying all along.
Your vodka dosing does not fix anything, it keeps things under control. If you stop, the algae will come back. Same with the scrubber, and I have tested this numerous times (not voluntarily) on my tank. Scrubber offline, algae returns. Scrubber online, algae is significantly reduced and controlled
Similar threads
