Cyano going to cause me to shut down my tank

[Potatohead]

Just a couple clarification points - my lighting setup is 18 months old but my bulbs are only about 8. I changed them at the 10-11 month mark, staggered two bulbs changed every week. I am due to start changing them again in the next month or two.

Two nights ago I tested phosphate when the cyano was bad, and got 8 ppm (.025). Then last night I did a really big clean, made the tank look perfect. I only dosed half carbon and phosphate last night that I had been dosing for a few weeks before and I fed the fish like normal. Tonight about 20% of the cyano is back. I couldn’t clean it out again from other events of the evening taking too much time but I plan to tomorrow. Anyway my corals are really looking worse so I checked my phosphate again and it is at 0 ppm. I have never seen that before. So I don’t know if the phosphate is zero from cyano growing back or if it being low kept it from growing back even more - lol.

Now Anthias above mentioned if I just dose phosphate I may deplete other minerals. Balling Light does have building block trace elements in it, but I don’t know if that helps the situation or not. I guess the only other way around this is consistent water changes?

For whatever reason my tank is decimating phosphate and I need to figure out how to raise it without feeding cyano which is proving to be a serious problem. I turned my refufium light down from 14 hours to ten, but I fear that won’t do much.

 

[Potatohead]

What about coral foods like Coral Frenzy? I have some on hand, should I start feeding those simply in the effort to try and raise phosphate? That may be more balanced than phosphate dosing alone.

 

[Jessesoto33]

RED SLIME

 

[Sallstrom]

Just a couple clarification points - my lighting setup is 18 months old but my bulbs are only about 8. I changed them at the 10-11 month mark, staggered two bulbs changed every week. I am due to start changing them again in the next month or two.

Two nights ago I tested phosphate when the cyano was bad, and got 8 ppm (.025). Then last night I did a really big clean, made the tank look perfect. I only dosed half carbon and phosphate last night that I had been dosing for a few weeks before and I fed the fish like normal. Tonight about 20% of the cyano is back. I couldn’t clean it out again from other events of the evening taking too much time but I plan to tomorrow. Anyway my corals are really looking worse so I checked my phosphate again and it is at 0 ppm. I have never seen that before. So I don’t know if the phosphate is zero from cyano growing back or if it being low kept it from growing back even more - lol.

Now Anthias above mentioned if I just dose phosphate I may deplete other minerals. Balling Light does have building block trace elements in it, but I don’t know if that helps the situation or not. I guess the only other way around this is consistent water changes?

For whatever reason my tank is decimating phosphate and I need to figure out how to raise it without feeding cyano which is proving to be a serious problem. I turned my refufium light down from 14 hours to ten, but I fear that won’t do much.

You have a "demand" for nutrients in your tank. You raise that "demand" when adding a carbon source. So when you add phosphate it will get used up quickly because the other building blocks are avalible(eg nitrate and carbon sorce). And the goal with the carbon source is to lower the nitrate, then you need to refill the phosphate in your case.

My advice is not to expect any visible progress with the cyano for a while. Tuning in the nutrients and tank to a state where the cyano doesn't thrive might take some time.

/ David

 

[Sallstrom]

What about coral foods like Coral Frenzy? I have some on hand, should I start feeding those simply in the effort to try and raise phosphate? That may be more balanced than phosphate dosing alone.

I prefer dosing phosphate with a dosing pump. Just to get a known amount and to be able to add it slowly over time.

I don't know if you can mix it with NoPox, probably not a good idea.

 

[Lasse]

@brandon429 No offence - I am used of reading scientific articles in English (not my native language) and understand them. However - your post 140 - I do not understand much of it.

What are you asking in the first sentence? Are you asking for prof that heterotroph bacteria (breakdown bacteria - bacteria that use organic carbon as carbon source - bacteria that is first levels consumers) consuming organic P and organic N - not inorganic P and N? If that is the question - i will not give a biological class here - just google heterotroph and autotroph organisms. For the book - NO3 and PO4 in the water column (as ions) is inorganic species of N and P. N and P bound in organic matter (detritus) is organic species of N and P. And also for the book - the mat building cyanobacteria lack heterocysts, hence can´t fix nitrogen from the air by them self. There is indications that the anaerobic environment below the mats can be a good environment for nitrogen fixing bacteria of other species and in that way provide the cyano with a nitrogen source (NH4/NH3)

But - honestly - it is not much I understand in your post 140.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[biophilia]

Another option: It's possible that regular addition of soluble silica will clear up your cyano problem -- providing your tank has some detectable nitrate and phosphate. Under those conditions, diatoms can out-compete cyano for available phosphorus and themselves be quickly consumed by herbivores in the system.

It's anecdotal, but I had a powerhead in my tank that was chronically covered in a thick layer of cyano no matter what I did for close to a year. After I started dosing silica for unrelated reasons, the cyano quickly disappeared and was replaced with coralline -- and has been that way for a few months now.

 

[brandon429]

Lasse

There isn't any barrier of communication we just disagree. You disagree with my attribution of events, I disagree with yours, and I'm reading your writing just fine. I'm still glad you are working here as that takes fortitude to stick with a challenge tank when it's noncompliant

Don't let my writing distract you from curing this tank with absolute finality.


Detritus doesn't just digest itself to liberate carbon and nitrogen and phosphate, bacterial digestion on the detritus does, though I'm not even sure it can liberate carbon into the water as bacteria on site will likely use it for nutrient as they crowd on the floc to further reduce it. The limited bacteria that can adhere to the surface of detritus gets the benefit, but none of the heterotrophs in the water column can use the benthic sludge for carbon like the whole tank can when alcohol in solution provides it.

I had described detritus digestion as very clearly as a months-long, slow procedure due to vital space limitations on the detritus particle itself vs liquid carbon dosing which is fast, available to all heterotrophs in suspension, actually gives usable carbon fast so that populations can boon then skimmed out.
We can't skim out bacteria that's stuck to detritus inside rock pores, under the sand etc


everybody is using vodka for the effect and nobody is using detritus for it and able to prove detritus is working in that manner. We've got ten thousand vodka dosers for the effect, and the only time I've seen detritus claimed as the same benefit is from you and Scott C

I'll sit back and watch you work this tank into compliance using your description of events. If by page eleven no reported cure, then I'll still disagree with your causatives writing though it was clear to me fully in what you meant.

I'm debating you and Scott that detritus is a helpful carbon source.

It's a helpful invasion support substrate however, which is why cyano doesn't grow on the glass in this tank where the problematic water touches all surfaces...it grows above the location of detritus accumulations and on the grippy surfaces that hold the invader and it's feed, on substrates...I'm betting.

not one single description here of anything is accurate if this tank isn't reported as fixed/uninvaded before the keeper is willing to start over. People want outcomes, they don't want open ended time frames so time is ticking for theories on cyano causes and cures.

these tenets of biology and causation should never be restated again to invaded tank owners until they can be stated in a thread where the actual cure occurred if this tank isn't saved right when the need exists. If no cure happens here, you and Scott cannot repeat this stuff on another thread in good conscience in my opinion, you must earn the proof here or change your stance on cyano in my opinion.


If you are unable to reverse course with this tank then you are unsure of the causes and cures to aquarium cyano invasions, simple as that. If he can demonstrate that -both- rocks and sand are cloudless-clean and white lighting is reduced while blue is increased, and I get a few pages of ceaseless adherence to hand cleaning like you all have for water tuning, and he still has cyano, then my system is failed just the same. We have equal stakes on the line here but I want my pages before the book is closed too. I'll give a timeframe, 40 days in my approach. Both rocks, and sand cloudless, and I get a current state picture emailed to meh

 

[Belgian Anthias]

There is a theory about using DOC in order to grow normal aerobic heterotrophs. These heterotrophs will take up (according to the theory) P and N (in form of PO4 and NO3 in the water column) and will be taken away by the skimmer (this in the theory about using DOC to promote bacteria growth in aquaria ) I´m not so convinced of this theory because I suspect that most aerobic heterotroph bacteria that can use DOC as a fast carbon source are benthic and will use detritus and hence organic P and N in order to build biomass.



Agree with that

Sincerely Lasse

yes! But only a very small part of these heterotrophs will be denitrifiers. Denitrifiers reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. What meant is assimilation into biomass, the production of protein, which is a complete different process. The vodka method?. This does not remove a thing from the system as the nitrogen and phosphate is stored until released back into the system.
Skimmers only remove a small selective part of this biomass and only +-30 % of TOC.
Dosing carbohydrates is based meanly on the growth of r-strategists in the water column. Of coarse dosing carbon will influence all bacterial growth, also of denitrifiers. Dosing carbon shifts the carrying capacity of the system, the ability to reduce ammonia, from nitrification to heterothropic assimilation which may cause the new tank syndrome when dosing is stopped after regular use as sufficient nitrification capacity may be lost. Users of carbon dosing must be aware of this.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Dosing carbon does influence cyano growth. I think that a lot of so called "red slime removers" are based on this principle. The use of such products is not without risk as it is not known how much carbohydrates are dosed.

 

[brandon429]

Belgian, you had lost me with what you wrote in the microbiology test thread with Dr Tim and Dr Reef last month, I'd resigned to permanent disagreement.

and then here you are impressing the heck out of me, I hope to make the same rebounds one day - am following what you are writing so far + nice supporting docs.


Clarify this for me if you will

In your opinion how does detritus factor, house, feed, or not factor here at all? as you see the big picture, does detritus factor here whatsoever or would a bare bottom system using only siporax as surface area still have a sustained invasion? I'm trying to locate right now on the reef forums any single example of a sustained invasion but barren QT hospital tank with PVC ornaments, no high intensity white lighting, and NO detritus. I can't find any, they're all uninvaded.

However, I can find thirty sustained cyano invasion posts for reef aquariums proper, with detritus and porosity etc. I'm forced to attribute everything to detritus, nothing else is standing out statistically as well.


It's ironic to think that if we just made Potatos tank into one big quarantine tank, kept the fish and frags, the invasion would go away. makes me wonder if removing all the reef substrates alone is causing that, or is it just that removing substrates removes waste and that is the real mechanism

To test that, I made a large thread where we keep putting back reef substrates, they're just free of waste after we rework them...after ten pages the sand rinse thread cemented the negative impacts of detritus in my mind.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I thought that detritus is the residue after mineralisation, that part that can not be mineralized in the present conditions, what is left over after bacteria brake down the organics, have consumed and used the usable organic carbon, transforming most of it to anorganic carbon. Feeding food from marine origin only will minimize detritus. I think that detritus can not be used as a carbon source directly but after been passed through the stomach and intestines of worms and/ or cucumbers it may become useful again.

 

[Lasse]

I still have the following definition of detritus as I get in 7th grade - and everything I have state - and will state according detritus has its base in this definition. And this definition is not only mine -- its even the definition of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Detritus, in ecology, matter composed of leaves and other plant parts, animal remains, waste products, and other organic debris that falls onto the soil or into bodies of water from surrounding terrestrial communities. Microorganisms (such as bacteria or fungi) break down detritus, and this microorganism-rich material is eaten by invertebrates, which are in turn eaten by vertebrates. Many freshwater streams have detritus rather than living plants as their energy base.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

though I'm not even sure it can liberate carbon into the water as bacteria on site will likely use it for nutrient

(My bold) Ever heard about the the Krebbs cycle? Or CO2 as a result of aerobic activities?

everybody is using vodka for the effect and nobody is using detritus for it and able to prove detritus is working in that manner. We've got ten thousand vodka dosers for the effect, and the only time I've seen detritus claimed as the same benefit is from you and Scott C

Ever heard about anaerobic hydrolysis and acid forming stage of anaerobic digestion ?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Sallstrom]

not one single description here of anything is accurate if this tank isn't reported as fixed/uninvaded before the keeper is willing to start over. People want outcomes, they don't want open ended time frames so time is ticking for theories on cyano causes and cures.

these tenets of biology and causation should never be restated again to invaded tank owners until they can be stated in a thread where the actual cure occurred if this tank isn't saved right when the need exists. If no cure happens here, you and Scott cannot repeat this stuff on another thread in good conscience in my opinion, you must earn the proof here or change your stance on cyano in my opinion.


If you are unable to reverse course with this tank then you are unsure of the causes and cures to aquarium cyano invasions, simple as that. If he can demonstrate that -both- rocks and sand are cloudless-clean and white lighting is reduced while blue is increased, and I get a few pages of ceaseless adherence to hand cleaning like you all have for water tuning, and he still has cyano, then my system is failed just the same. We have equal stakes on the line here but I want my pages before the book is closed too. I'll give a timeframe, 40 days in my approach. Both rocks, and sand cloudless, and I get a current state picture emailed to meh

Why should anyone need to prove anything to you?
Take it easy would you. We all doing what we believe is best for the animals and reef tank.

But this type of "challenge " you're talking about doesn't prove a thing. I'm not running this tank. I have written how I would had done if the tank was mine to run. But it's not. In the end it's all up the aquarist that run the tank. That's the person that know the tank the best, that sees the tank every day. I haven't even seen the tank, only read the thread and given some ideas on things I believe could be important.

You asked me to contribute to this thread and I started write because I wanted to give my idea. Maybe my ideas could help, maybe not. I can't promise anything. But getting comments like the one I cited makes me want to leave this thread..

If you want to know if someone's ideas work in practice, ask to see their tank. In their tanks they have had full control over the maintenance. Why shouldn't that count?! I don't understand..

Sorry @Potatohead for this off topic post. I'll take it away if you like.

/ David

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I still have the following definition of detritus as I get in 7th grade - and everything I have state - and will state according detritus has its base in this definition. And this definition is not only mine -- its even the definition of Encyclopaedia Britannica.



Sincerely Lasse

Ok! But in a closed aquarium system the definition of detritus present in the system will be close to the definition I gave , otherwise there is something seriously wrong with the carbon and nitrogen cycle in the system. Organic waste may be detritus in the Amazon delta but that is not what I call detritus present in a closed marine aquarium system. For me detritus is what is left over, what will not be mineralized in the conditions present. When detritus builds up in an aquarium this should not be a problem, if organic waste builds up there is a very big problem.

 

[brandon429]

Oceanic studies are what made everyone believe in denitrification by simply making a simple Berlin system. Paul uses an RUGF, because that which works in marine sediments has no application here, though on paper it seemed that way for standard sandbeds...some detritus might liberate tiny amnts of carbon the resident bacteria above it, in masses, haven't commanded but Im saying it not a measurable amnt of help.

people are using liquid carbon/vsv because that's consistently measurable help.

they report dropped nitrates, fast. consistently. nobody with detritus stores is consistently reporting dropped nitrates, wo the help of other factors.

*agreed some nnr can be accomplished in the old Berlin ways, but its not statistically very reliable or bare bottom/preventative stirring of sand/sand rinsing/invasion work/All the ways opposite of Berlin wouldn't be what it is today.


everyone is using liquid alcohol for the reasons I listed, if someone recommends detritus taking its place, then theres a huge industry to convince otherwise

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Another option: It's possible that regular addition of soluble silica will clear up your cyano problem -- providing your tank has some detectable nitrate and phosphate. Under those conditions, diatoms can out-compete cyano for available phosphorus and themselves be quickly consumed by herbivores in the system.

It's anecdotal, but I had a powerhead in my tank that was chronically covered in a thick layer of cyano no matter what I did for close to a year. After I started dosing silica for unrelated reasons, the cyano quickly disappeared and was replaced with coralline -- and has been that way for a few months now.

This is valuable and useful information! In line with normal good husbandry, creating diversity and competition. This diversity includes cyano's. They are the only ones which may bring nitrogen into the foodchain without adding food. Cyano's are not my enemy but a lot of reefkeepers think otherwise. Maintaining a measurable level of most nutrients and building materials, including silica, makes it possible to manage this diversity. The contribution supports the theory Cyano growth is influenced positively by flow and turbulence. As cyano's will show first in a turbulent environment makes it easy to make adjustments if necessary before it becomes a plague.

 

[Lasse]

Ok! But in a closed aquarium system the definition of detritus present in the system will be close to the definition I gave , otherwise there is something seriously wrong with the carbon and nitrogen cycle in the system. Organic waste may be detritus in the Amazon delta but that is not what I call detritus present in a closed marine aquarium system. For me detritus is what is left over, what will not be mineralized in the conditions present. When detritus builds up in an aquarium this should not be a problem, if organic waste builds up there is a very big problem.

The word detritus have a distinct biological and ecological meaning - you just can´t make another definition of a word that have a scientific definition in a discussion. I use the normal meaning of it - it is organic matter - nothing else. The endpoint of bacterial/fungal breakdown of detritus/organic matter will only be minerals and for the book - minerals do not consume oxygen or produce metabolites

Sincerely Lasse

Edit - change organic waste to organic matter

 

[Potatohead]

Another option: It's possible that regular addition of soluble silica will clear up your cyano problem -- providing your tank has some detectable nitrate and phosphate. Under those conditions, diatoms can out-compete cyano for available phosphorus and themselves be quickly consumed by herbivores in the system.

It's anecdotal, but I had a powerhead in my tank that was chronically covered in a thick layer of cyano no matter what I did for close to a year. After I started dosing silica for unrelated reasons, the cyano quickly disappeared and was replaced with coralline -- and has been that way for a few months now.

What did you use to dose silica?