Noobie reefer looking for advise with persistent algae & poor coral health

[reefer5076]

About a year ago I made the mistake of buying a problem tank off Craigslist because it was a good deal (no extra charge for the algae). I’ve been fighting it on and off since. I’ve had bubble, hair, dino(I think) and most recently a red/purple one (red slime?) Also, my coral is clearly not thriving and I’ve had a few additions die by bleaching out or getting overtaken by alage. I’ve managed the issue in the past with microbactor7, clean, and vibrant. However, alage keeps coming back and it’s clear at the point that I’m not addressing the cause. Looking for a long term solution that will address this and general advise on water chemistry.

I’ve attached apex screen shots for water parameters and history, any advise on those would be appreciated and well as a plan moving forward.

I’m aware that my apex salt reading is not accurate, I test with refractometer at 1.024-1.026. Ive only ever tested phos at the fish store and I believe it was .04 (phos and nitrate test kits are on the way) and I was told to “not worry about it”. I’m thinking about dosing pho’s/nitrate per test results. Any thoughts ?

Thanks in advance for
your help

 

[itsken37]

Feed your fish a lot less. Helped me. I am starting to use Vibrant now. How did Vibrant work for you?

 

[Adamantium]

How’s your filtration set up?

Also, if that’s your salinity in PPT, it’s WAY too high. You want it around 35 PPT.

I can’t imagine that being the sole issue, but that’s a glaring issue.

 

[92Miata]

What are you doing for dosing? Your alkalinity is kind of all over the place in that graph.


I disagree with the idea of reducing feeding - reef tanks run way better with high food input and high export than trying to limit food - corals need nutrients and they do much better with raw ammonia/etc than with nitrates.

What do you have for equipment in the tank? Skimmer? Flow? How big is it?

 

[Dkmoo]

Also whats ur no3 and pho lvl? Sry not familiar with Apex if the result is already shown somewhere there...

Massive algae and poor coral growth tend to point to a balance issue instead of a "too much nutrient" issue. Algae is not the "cause" for your coral dying, its the result. Meaning, something in your tank is not condusive to coral growth so available nutrient is being soaked up by algae, thus the imbalance. Once algae is out of cobtrol, it will outcompwte the nutrient from your coral, causing a downward spiral.

Focus on keeping your parameters in line (salinity way too high) and stable (dose or autodose to avoid the swings) + manual removal first. Also check your lighting is appropriate. If all stabilizes then you can start gradually introducing additional nutrient control measures. Too often do I see people focus only on nutrient export with massive skimmers, fuge, and then separely overfeed and dose nutrient to keep things balance bx their nutrient is too low.

Algae is a natural part of the marine ecosystem. A focus on complete elimination IMO is unnatural and counter to the overall stability and balance of the tank.

 

[reefer5076]

Thanks for the replies. I forgot to mention I just tested with refractometer and it’s 1.024/ 33ppt, so I don’t think that’s an issue. I do not use the apex reading, always test with refractometer.
I have the full apex package, it’s like a $2500 setup on a $50 tank... I refuse to get a more expensive tank until I can get this one under control lol.
I’m doing BRS 2 part soda ash& cal chloride with the dos. I do not have a fuge as there’s no room in the sump. 55 gal tank so I believe if anything my skimmer is oversized (I forget the model-pic below)
Typically my ALK swings between 8.5 and 9.5 depending on what time of day it is. Is this too high of a daily swing? Ph also swings with it, typically between 7.9-8.2. If it’s an issue I can tune my dos better, I currently have it on trident controlled dosing. As for feeding, I do
2x daily about as much as the fish can eat in a minute.
no3 and pO4 test kits are on the way, I do not have readings for those but I’ll be focusing on that moving forward.
vibrant clearly makes the tank more .... vibrant and has worked well with manual removal to get rid of algae in the past over time. Based on the reading I’ve done, I’m going to focus on no3 and po4 once I get the kits, as well as dosing aminos. Thanks again for the thoughts

 

[Dkmoo]

Np -.

1dkh swing isn't too bad.

For PH - i'm of the camp that believes that for reefs, maintaining it as stable as possible to 8.3 is the best for coral growth. So, IME ph stability is more important that Alk. BRSTV did a treat video on it that you can check out.

The coral struggles may be related to the PH swing as well as possibly no3/po4 depending on what your tests come back with. Lastly check your lighting too - is it too strong? not strong enough? the right spectrums? I'm guessing one or more the above is causing your system imbalance that the corals has been struggling and have poor health. Since algaes are generally hardier they are winning the war in terms of competition for resources in your tank.

As for algae control - the exact biological mechanisms and interactions of nutrient management that controls algae are actually quite complex so I made this flow chart below to help you see the big picture and target the treatment that could be most effective based on what your tank is doing. The chart should be pretty intuitive if you just follow the arrows - The relative "girth" of the arrow is my approximation of how much nutrient goes thru that particular process. if you want to reduce nuisance algae - do one or more of the below:
a) decrease the stuff it needs (trace the arrows that go into it) -
b) increase the competition for other stuff that need the same thing as the algae (trace the arrow for the other stuff that come out of a)
c) increase the stuff comes after it (trace the arrows that going out of it)

From the chart - you can see the various common nutrient controls and how it affects the system - the closer to the "algae" box, the more effective at directly controlling algae w/o negatively impacting other good things. From this you can conclude a few things:
1) a skimmer could be effective but also may not do exactly what you think it does - b/c it doesn't take out no3/po4 directly (the stuff that algae needs), instead it takes out primarily biological waste, but also it takes out food and proteins that your corals need. So, if you have a situation where your corals are unhealthy due to other conditions, then it does not affectively absorb the food and proteins in your water, in that case, most of what it needs is actually being either skimmed away, or absorbed by the bacteria to turn into no3/po4 that algae needs.
2) corals only compete with algae in a small way in its direct absorption of no3 - most of that is from the zooxanthellae absorbing them. since zoox growth has to be in proportion to coral growth, it cannot grow "out of control" to absorb excess no3.

Thus, IME, the most effective methods of controling algae you have to look at the direct arrows coming in and out of the algae box. Thus, using the same a/b/c model as above. the most direct and affective ways to get rid of algae are:
a) decrease the stuff it needs - reduce No3/Po4 - the ultimate goal would to making sure the "upstream" process are healthy and balanced so that the "waste" that go into the bacteria box is reduced. GFO is also very effective here but the warning is that it only removes PO4 which will stop algae growth, however, leaving No3 that could accumulate to dangerous levels (as you can see, w/o algae absorbing no3, there's only very limited methods of removing no3 - water change and small coral absorption))
b) increase competition - probably the best corrective methods - refugium or algae scrubber. which is later physically removed.
c) increase the stuff after it - more CUC and algae eating fish - but that just recirculates the nutrient into you system. The idea here is that it gives the nutrients one more run in the cycle to let the other stuff catch it and remove it. Other methods would be increase w/c and manual removal.

This will take a while to correct so be patient and good luck!

 

[reefer5076]

Thanks so much for the advise and chart. Ill need awhile to digest all the info here and I'm thinking it will leave me with more questions than answers in the short-term. Just a quick question at first glance here.......

According to the chart, the ONLY thing you have feeding the algae is NO3 and P04. If this is correct, would it be a good idea get those parameters to as close to zero as possible until the algae goes away with frequent & larger water changes and manual removal? I'm thinking the coral will survive longer than the algae at 0, and I only have a few in the tank to compete with the algae anyway, which may be the cause of the imbalance... There is another camp advising to dose NO3 and P04, but I'm thinking with the state of my tank that may be a bad idea at this time, especially since coral consumption appears to take much less of these nutrients than algae. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Adamantium]

First you need to know what your NO3 and PO4 numbers are. I keep a close tab on mine to keep them around 5 and .04 respectively. You shouldn’t do any dosing/water changes before you know those.

 

[Dkmoo]

Thanks so much for the advise and chart. Ill need awhile to digest all the info here and I'm thinking it will leave me with more questions than answers in the short-term. Just a quick question at first glance here.......

According to the chart, the ONLY thing you have feeding the algae is NO3 and P04. If this is correct, would it be a good idea get those parameters to as close to zero as possible until the algae goes away with frequent & larger water changes and manual removal? I'm thinking the coral will survive longer than the algae at 0, and I only have a few in the tank to compete with the algae anyway, which may be the cause of the imbalance... There is another camp advising to dose NO3 and P04, but I'm thinking with the state of my tank that may be a bad idea at this time, especially since coral consumption appears to take much less of these nutrients than algae. Thoughts anyone?

I wouldn't say that no3/po4 is the ONLY thing algae needs - the chart only lists out the most common biomechanism and its not 100% inclusive. ie - there are bacteria that "eats no3/po4" and others that even produce organics that corals "eat". If i were to add all those arrows then the chart will get too crazy.... I'm sure a marine biologist can tell you everything algae needs but for our hobby grade purposes in terms of algae control i think focusing on No3/po4 will get u what you want.

like what adamatium said - get those numbers first before doing anything drastic.

my thoughts on your plan of attack:
1) I would caution against "getting them to zero" because remember coral's zoox needs them too. The risk here is that if your corals are already in bad health that "starving" them may be the final blow that kills them. and when they die the will release all those nutients from the tissue melting/rotting that will fuel more algae growth. Again, is is dependent on where your NO3/Po4 is. If it's something like 30ppm/.1ppm then yeah reducing it will help. Like what Adamantium said, 5ppm and .03ppm is where my tank is at and it it seems to the "sweet spot". This is the main reason for the camp that says to dose no3/po4. you gotta find that goldilocks level. But even in those camps, they always also say that you gotta increase your nutrient export methods to make sure that whatever corals don't use isn't gonna be used by algae to fuel growth.
2) if you want to give your corals a fighting chance - try directly feeding them a bit and see if there is a feeding response - by this i mean placing food directly by its mouth and see if it eats it. This would make sure you maximize the amount of food that corals absorb and not get into your water for the bateria and subsequently algae to eat. Do this slowly if you want to try.
3) you mentioned that your corals bleach then die - what's happening is that the corals are expelling its zoox, which happens in one of two main causes - a) too much light causing the zoox to produce too much o2 for the coral. b) other environmental factors (ie, unstable or unfavorable water parameters) causing coral stress, which then expells zoox as a natural biological reaction. Ie, the great barrier reef coral bleach is caused by global warming and ocean acidification, meaning it's more of an water condition issue rather than a nutrient issue. Too much nutrient tend to result in coral browning (as more zoox is produced - brown is its natural color) instead of bleaching. In this regard - frequent and large water changes may not be ideal either b/c it makes for an unstable water parameters
4) manual removal is great - i know it sucks and tedious, but really thats one of the only ways w/o negatively impacting other mechanisms
5) I would still think that a fuge/algae scrubber will be your best bet b/c whatever your current system is actually doing, having a fuge/algae scrubber simply means that for every strand of algae growing in there is 1 less algae that's growing in your DT. This doesn't upset your tanks current equilibrium as drastically. If your sump space is really an issue to adding fuge, then check out some external algae scrubber reactors - they are usually more compact and do not always have to sit inside a sump.

So long story short - first get your no3/po4 numbers, then try to get all of your parameters (no3/po4/ph/temp/ca/alk/mg/lighting) as close to "ideal" and as stable as you can going forward. Couple that with good manual removal and husbandry (and maybe a fuge/algae scrubber, if you can somehow add one) then you should slowly see improvements. remember that this problem is probably caused by months if not years of "something being off" esp since this is an old tank, so it will take just as long to reverse course and correct. Just be patient my friend, and it will improve.

 

[reefer5076]

Happy holidays everyone. Just wanted to update and get some more valuable opinions. Since I posted I did get my phosphate/ nitrate tested with my new Hanna checkers =}

initial results are phos= .06 and nitrate =13.1

2 days and a water change later (with manual algae removal) results are:

.04 / 12.2

my immediate concern is nitrate is wayy too high in relation to phosphate. Everyone would agree getting nitrate down is the right way to balance it, rather than bringing up phos so it’s closer to 1:16 ratio? And is my math correct (12.2 / 0.04 = 305) that what should be a 1:16 ratio is 1:305 in my tank? And should this be considered most likely the cause of my algae? And do these results change any of the good advise above ? I’ve attached some pics to compare, things are getting better but I think it’s coming back again if I don’t do something different. All my other parameters are as close to ideal and stable as I can get them so how do I go about in lowering these pesky nitrates ?
Thanks for the advise

 

[Dkmoo]

Happy holidays everyone. Just wanted to update and get some more valuable opinions. Since I posted I did get my phosphate/ nitrate tested with my new Hanna checkers =}

initial results are phos= .06 and nitrate =13.1

2 days and a water change later (with manual algae removal) results are:

.04 / 12.2

my immediate concern is nitrate is wayy too high in relation to phosphate. Everyone would agree getting nitrate down is the right way to balance it, rather than bringing up phos so it’s closer to 1:16 ratio? And is my math correct (12.2 / 0.04 = 305) that what should be a 1:16 ratio is 1:305 in my tank? And should this be considered most likely the cause of my algae? And do these results change any of the good advise above ? I’ve attached some pics to compare, things are getting better but I think it’s coming back again if I don’t do something different. All my other parameters are as close to ideal and stable as I can get them so how do I go about in lowering these pesky nitrates ?
Thanks for the advise

Ahh - the (in)famous Redfield Ratio. I'll try to not complicate things...but i'm gonna complicate it...

but first - TLDR: don't worry about it, keep doing what your are doing.

The Long Version:

The Redfield Ratio was first discovered as the ratio of Carbon/Nitrogen/Phosperous uptake in marine planktons, and while that has since serve as an important benchmark, later studies have found important deviations to this ratio depending on the organism. Since our reef tanks only represent a tiny fraction in terms of representations to Marine biomass, we have to take the RR with a grain of salt on how it should be applied to reef aquariums. This is specifically important considering how we measure N/P and what we typically equate it to. There was an indepth discussion on this topic by the gurus of R2R here. It's a bit dated but is still relevant. Below is my takeaway from that thread as well as my own research:

1) RR is only the avg for planktons, what "ratio" our tanks need could vary a lot depending on what we have. Some are visible, like corals, some are not, like bacteria, so we can't even guestimate what's a "right" ratio even if we try. For ex:

Redfield ratio 106:16:1 (phytoplankton)
bacterioplankton 32:6:1
coral tissue 155:24:1
zooxantellae in coral 365:21:1
copepoda (zooplankton) 30:3:1
Anchovy (fish) 20:5:1
You and me 18:3:1

2) Keep in mind that how we measure N and P in our tank is by checking how much NO3 and PO4 is REMAINING in the water column, NOT how much is being uptaken. so your reading above does not mean that your 300:1 is approx 20x worse than the goal of 16:1. For example. Assume you put in 16000 of N and 1000 of P in a "perfect" coral food source that is 100% plankton that perfectly matches RR. Your tanks biomass uptakes 15700 N and 999P - still relatively close to RR, but your ending result from testing gives you the 300:1. Alternatively, even if your tank uptakes the "perfect" RR, if your coral food contains impurities or other additives, for ex - 16300N and 1001P, you'd still get 300:1 in your No3/Po4 test reading. In either case, the test reading does not give you a complete picture

3) the RR's "N" refers to Nitrogen, not Nitrate - There's many forms of N - Amino acids, proteins, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate. Most forms of that is either not measured in the water, or are absorbed/converted so quickly that it doesn't show up the water. comparing the NO3/PO4 ratio to the RR is really comparing apples to oranges.

So, going back to your question - while it's true that higher nitrates and "excess nutrient" tend to lead to more algae growth b/c algae needs more N than P compared to RR, but that again is a function of how much "uptake" you put into the system, not how much is remaining. "bring down Nitrate" vs "bring up Phosphate" really cannot be correctly determined without ACTUALLY knowing the full uptake picture and could lead to hit or miss results - that's why you see see so many different advice that swears by doing one or the other. For ex - do you reduce feed? if so, how much "less" should you feed? Also, since your putting in coral food, not NO3, how much of that nutrient is absorbed by corals and how much reduction is safe w/o negatively impacting corals in order to reduce No3? Further complicating thing is if your tank has nutrient pump/batteries such that now much No3 is release in your system isn't completely due to how much you feed at the time. So.. then do you bring up phosphate? Again, how much is that uptake going to corals? how much is going to algae? Or, is it really an "nutrient availability" issue that you can fix but either adding something or taking away something, or is it a "nutrient absorption" issue caused by other factors?

Assuming you are not going to turn your tank into some kind of laboratory experiment, my suggestion is to just not worry about it. 13PPM NO3 by itself is not terrible to corals directly (i'm running at 10PPM and .1 phos myself) - it can lead to more algae but as long as you are removing the algae to reduce competition, it should be fine. If you are putting in high quality fish/coral food that's close to 16:1. the "high nitrate" ratio could just be that your current biomass is leaning more towards high bacteria since bacteria uptakes more P relatively so you got more N left over. That's actually common in newer tanks that have yet to fully mature in terms of bio diversity. So i would just wait it out and just keep up with algae removal, keep params stable, and target feed corals, to give ur corals the best fighting chance to thrive. Eventually your coral's N uptake will catch up and balance everything out.

A couple final food for thought:
1) Since both coral and algae absorb no3 and po4 at a fixed ratio, if po4 is near zero that could actually be the limiting growth factor so dosing Po4 would help. That's why some reefers swear by it b/c they see the amazing growth results but that's only b/c 1) they've monitored their tanks a very long time and has a good handle on all the uptakes and a mature tank with a lot of corals so that the Po4 "enabled" most of the leftover No3 to be absorbed by corals. or 2) they got lucky. I would recommend dosing po4 only in systems with a fuge/algae scrubber set up b/c if the coral uptake large, then great, you've converted most of the leftover NO3 into useful coral growth by dosing po4. But if algae uptake is large, then at least that results in chaeto growth in your fuge that you can easily pull out, thereby exporting the no3 waste.
2) I know I said "i try not to complicate things...but...." - ... the Redfield Ratio is Carbon - Nitrogen - Phospherous. We didn't even touch Carbon yet - that's a WHOLLLLLLE other topic. So, even if you manage to get N/P to the perfect 16:1 everywhere, if your Carbon is off ur corals are still not gonna grow. So.. not trying to add to more headache, but that's also part of the fun in this hobby right? lol...

Oh, and finally - Happy New Year!