Pulling my hair out with hair algae - Is this a Phosphate issue?
- Thread starter McPikie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
Unfortunately I dont think this is true - depending on the balance of N and P in the tank among other things, green algae can outcompete Coraline algae
rock scrubbing without a kill step is mowing, that's what grazers do and it never stops algae production. they rasp the top, holdfasts stay, grow again, ad infinitum given supporting conditions which typically favor plants at any old time on a reef anyway.
rock scrubbing with an algaecide=comprises about 100 pages of posted controls
all this algae battling is cyclic, various keepers simply get longer service intervals the better they get
for anyone unlucky, or taming a reef that doesn't listen, you can simply force it to be algae free and full of coralline and coral by killing out the invaders if the accessibility portion is there, then the regrowth stops a long time or at least long enough to allow better balances to be attained in prevention.
rock scrubbing with an algaecide=comprises about 100 pages of posted controls
all this algae battling is cyclic, various keepers simply get longer service intervals the better they get
for anyone unlucky, or taming a reef that doesn't listen, you can simply force it to be algae free and full of coralline and coral by killing out the invaders if the accessibility portion is there, then the regrowth stops a long time or at least long enough to allow better balances to be attained in prevention.
Last edited:
Dragon52
2500 Club Member
Changing Tangs isn't going to help you, I have 4 different kinds in my tank & they never touched the Hair Algae when I had. Following the advice from above helps, also there are some CUC's that will help.
McPikie
Active Member
So I spent 2 hours lastnight ripping out as much as I could by hand (whilst avoiding bites from my clowns and being swiped by my purple tangs tail). The tank looked so much better and I felt good about it. As I picked it off, I let it go down the drain to my filter sock and once finished, I swapped this out for a fresh one. My cheato seems to be growing as well, which I hope now starts to compete with the algae in the display tank. I will continue with the rowa, changing out every week, but do we think 180ml is too much for a 225l tank, or is it a case of battering it until the algae is down to a low level, then lowering the rowa to suit?
Picking up some 6% peroxide of a hairdresser friend tonight which I will dilute down to 3% with RO/DI and I have a lose piece of rock I can take out to try it on in the air, rather than dosing to the tank.
Picking up some 6% peroxide of a hairdresser friend tonight which I will dilute down to 3% with RO/DI and I have a lose piece of rock I can take out to try it on in the air, rather than dosing to the tank.
bobbyM
Well-Known Member
Peroxide and sps is a bad combination.. Just on the rocks? Ok, be careful.
McPikie
Active Member
Everything I have read about peroxide dosing at 3% suggests no coral or fish fatalities
it all revolves around using max dilutions of one mil per ten gallons of tank water if someone is dosing to the topwater, which I don't like. that was the random dosage amnt early oxidizers guessed at, tested heavily across thousands of tanks, analyzed feedback and found that nothing we keep shy of lysmata and fireworms die from that concentration.
super weakened corals might, those heavily invaded or in tissue recession and especially high alk/high light systems (don't dose topwater to +10 systems w bright whites/bleach recipe) you never get those details in loss reports its always just a tie back to a given doser or action. patterns though from moderate alk and light systems, not in distress just invaded show it to be safe.
direct application takes care of all those confounds. we don't care what the po4 is, or the alk, or anything else, if the target is simply accessible.
we don't dose it to tank water because that's again a secondary, work less, hands off, indirect method of algae control and that behavior well above nutrient issues is the cause of all algae problems. its better to direct apply and be decisive.
algae and other sustained invasions are human behavior traits before biological ones, that's an opinion that w take me at least another decade to outbound sell but its coming.
dosing topwater is caveman peroxiding lol
If you took your rocks and sat them on any reef, they'd have the same algae until animals cleaned it off, and until coral and coralline (excluders) took over. that's why I never ask about nutrients on our algae threads, we just focus on creating ideal takeover conditions we never starve anything. that's why there's no coral bleaching in all those pages, they'd drum us out of town for just one.
but a GFO thread? heck they'll take 25 bleached out tanks and call it a day. bio elitists heh
guess how many people posted for peroxide customization after running the entire gamut of GFO options
hundreds, its in the threads ~
Peroxide beats GFO for algae maintenance without collateral loss, says megadata as interpreted by moi
super weakened corals might, those heavily invaded or in tissue recession and especially high alk/high light systems (don't dose topwater to +10 systems w bright whites/bleach recipe) you never get those details in loss reports its always just a tie back to a given doser or action. patterns though from moderate alk and light systems, not in distress just invaded show it to be safe.
direct application takes care of all those confounds. we don't care what the po4 is, or the alk, or anything else, if the target is simply accessible.
we don't dose it to tank water because that's again a secondary, work less, hands off, indirect method of algae control and that behavior well above nutrient issues is the cause of all algae problems. its better to direct apply and be decisive.
algae and other sustained invasions are human behavior traits before biological ones, that's an opinion that w take me at least another decade to outbound sell but its coming.
dosing topwater is caveman peroxiding lol
If you took your rocks and sat them on any reef, they'd have the same algae until animals cleaned it off, and until coral and coralline (excluders) took over. that's why I never ask about nutrients on our algae threads, we just focus on creating ideal takeover conditions we never starve anything. that's why there's no coral bleaching in all those pages, they'd drum us out of town for just one.
but a GFO thread? heck they'll take 25 bleached out tanks and call it a day. bio elitists heh
guess how many people posted for peroxide customization after running the entire gamut of GFO options
hundreds, its in the threads ~
Peroxide beats GFO for algae maintenance without collateral loss, says megadata as interpreted by moi
Last edited:
bobbyM
Well-Known Member
Ill get strait to the point.
Algae will grow. Sea urchins is how the reef controls most alae. Ive got two in a 200 gallon and the rocks are white.
If your nutrients are high then it will grow faster. But more sea urchins will get rid of it just as quick as it grows. In fact i feed mine sinking algae pellets because algae is scarce.
Reefs control algae with herbivores mainly sea urchins. Get a few!
Algae will grow. Sea urchins is how the reef controls most alae. Ive got two in a 200 gallon and the rocks are white.
If your nutrients are high then it will grow faster. But more sea urchins will get rid of it just as quick as it grows. In fact i feed mine sinking algae pellets because algae is scarce.
Reefs control algae with herbivores mainly sea urchins. Get a few!
McPikie
Active Member
I have a tuxedo urchin in there at the moment. Finally got my hands on the liquid peroxide, but 6%, so will dilute that down to 3% with RO. Had a busy weekend and trying to keep my hands out the tank as much as possible, which is hard with hair algae, lol. Maintenance night tonight though, so rip out as much as I can by hand again, 20 a 20l water change and swap filter socks over
I prefer Diadema setosum or similar species in my aquariums. I also have a lot of hermits (different species) and snails (as many different species as possible).
Totally agree !! There has been a lot of studies showing that reefs without grazers - no corals - only algae!!! Most microalgae are specialist in using very low level of inorganic nutrients in the water column - you can´t starve them out without starving your photosynthetic corals. If you chose the road of nutrient starving - you need to give your corals the opportunity to get prey - bacteria, phytoplankton and zooplankton. Most ULS system have the feeding of corals as a primary goal.
However - if you do not want to balance on a tiny wire between two skyscrapers - construct a system of both algae growth and grazers that eat the produced microalgae. The secret - if you chose this path - is to introduce your grazers in an early stage. Before you are able to see any micro algae with your own eyes. they are there - even if you can´t see them - and the grazer will hold them down as soon they grow. Its very seldom you will succeed to starve your grazers into death. Remember - even a large GHA has been small and eatable. In your present situation - if there is no fish eating the grown up algae - try to reduce them mechanically, introduce some Diadema urchins or a sea hare and get a large and variable clean up crew of hermits and snails.
Sincerely Lasse
Totally agree !! There has been a lot of studies showing that reefs without grazers - no corals - only algae!!! Most microalgae are specialist in using very low level of inorganic nutrients in the water column - you can´t starve them out without starving your photosynthetic corals. If you chose the road of nutrient starving - you need to give your corals the opportunity to get prey - bacteria, phytoplankton and zooplankton. Most ULS system have the feeding of corals as a primary goal.
However - if you do not want to balance on a tiny wire between two skyscrapers - construct a system of both algae growth and grazers that eat the produced microalgae. The secret - if you chose this path - is to introduce your grazers in an early stage. Before you are able to see any micro algae with your own eyes. they are there - even if you can´t see them - and the grazer will hold them down as soon they grow. Its very seldom you will succeed to starve your grazers into death. Remember - even a large GHA has been small and eatable. In your present situation - if there is no fish eating the grown up algae - try to reduce them mechanically, introduce some Diadema urchins or a sea hare and get a large and variable clean up crew of hermits and snails.
Sincerely Lasse
Quote:
"
The Algal Take-over
The long spined black sea urchin is responsible for grazing 45% of the food (mainly algae) on coral reefs, which is huge when you think of the number of different fishes and invertebrates living in and around coral reefs. Immediately after the urchin die off, herbivorous fishes seemed to be rejoicing, for now there was 45% more food for them! The abundance of food even had some species producing offspring at higher rate.
Unfortunately, even the greediest of fish haven’t been able to keep up with the rate at which urchins can graze, and thus, coral reefs are now being overgrown with macroalgae. Not only are these macroalgae weeds ugly to look at, but they are suffocating any new coral polyp forming, which limits total growth for corals. Without the diversity of a coral structure, the reef community crumbles. Algal communities start to replace the coral communities and in consequence have been proving to be quite the nuisance. Fishes that rely on coral for nutrients are suffering, invertebrates that clean and live in corals are suffering, and fishes that use corals as an escape from bigger predators are suffering. Additionally, all those soft and hard corals that need oxygen and sunlight to grow are being strangled by the vast amounts of algal biomass."
https://oceanbites.org/the-importance-of-sea-urchins/
"
The Algal Take-over
The long spined black sea urchin is responsible for grazing 45% of the food (mainly algae) on coral reefs, which is huge when you think of the number of different fishes and invertebrates living in and around coral reefs. Immediately after the urchin die off, herbivorous fishes seemed to be rejoicing, for now there was 45% more food for them! The abundance of food even had some species producing offspring at higher rate.
Unfortunately, even the greediest of fish haven’t been able to keep up with the rate at which urchins can graze, and thus, coral reefs are now being overgrown with macroalgae. Not only are these macroalgae weeds ugly to look at, but they are suffocating any new coral polyp forming, which limits total growth for corals. Without the diversity of a coral structure, the reef community crumbles. Algal communities start to replace the coral communities and in consequence have been proving to be quite the nuisance. Fishes that rely on coral for nutrients are suffering, invertebrates that clean and live in corals are suffering, and fishes that use corals as an escape from bigger predators are suffering. Additionally, all those soft and hard corals that need oxygen and sunlight to grow are being strangled by the vast amounts of algal biomass."
https://oceanbites.org/the-importance-of-sea-urchins/
Here is another
ABSTRACT: The ecological role of the sea urchins Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula was exam ined in shallow subtidal reefs on the west coast of Italy from December 1994 to July 1996. The density of sea urchlns was manipulated experimentally in patches of vertical substrata without erect algae. The following propositions were examined: (1) that sea urchins were responsible for the persistence of patches of bare rock and encrusting coralhnes in shallow subtidal habitats, (2) that their effects were density dependent, and (3) that these effects were consistent in time. The experimental manipulations consisted of 3 replicate patches randomly assigned to one of the following treatments: (l) Ox (total ren~ovals), (2) 0 5x (50% of the average density found in untouched patches), (3) lx (untouched patches), and (4) 2x (200% of the average density found in the untouched patches). The removal of sea urchins significantly increased the coverage of the filamentous and fleshy algae in permanent plots, and these effects were consistent over time. In contrast, grazing had no effect on the encrusting corralines, Peyssonnella spp. and invertebrates (barnacles, bryozoans and limpets) The response of the filamentous algae was proportional to the density of sea urchins, with percent cover values In the 0 5x treatment being intermediate to those observed in the Ox and lx treatments. Conversely, the response of the fleshy algae was non-linear: only when sea urchins were totally removed d~d the coverage of these plants lncrease significantly. Doubling the density of sea urchins significantly increased the ero- sion of the margins of the patches, while their removal caused no change along the perimeter. In gen- eral, there was considerable variability from patch to patch in the abundance of most of the response vanables analysed, while temporal changes were less important. The results show that sea urchins can have significant but variable effects on vertical patches of barren habitat; alternative explanations are suggested to account for the persistence of these patches despite the removal of grazers.
ABSTRACT: The ecological role of the sea urchins Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula was exam ined in shallow subtidal reefs on the west coast of Italy from December 1994 to July 1996. The density of sea urchlns was manipulated experimentally in patches of vertical substrata without erect algae. The following propositions were examined: (1) that sea urchins were responsible for the persistence of patches of bare rock and encrusting coralhnes in shallow subtidal habitats, (2) that their effects were density dependent, and (3) that these effects were consistent in time. The experimental manipulations consisted of 3 replicate patches randomly assigned to one of the following treatments: (l) Ox (total ren~ovals), (2) 0 5x (50% of the average density found in untouched patches), (3) lx (untouched patches), and (4) 2x (200% of the average density found in the untouched patches). The removal of sea urchins significantly increased the coverage of the filamentous and fleshy algae in permanent plots, and these effects were consistent over time. In contrast, grazing had no effect on the encrusting corralines, Peyssonnella spp. and invertebrates (barnacles, bryozoans and limpets) The response of the filamentous algae was proportional to the density of sea urchins, with percent cover values In the 0 5x treatment being intermediate to those observed in the Ox and lx treatments. Conversely, the response of the fleshy algae was non-linear: only when sea urchins were totally removed d~d the coverage of these plants lncrease significantly. Doubling the density of sea urchins significantly increased the ero- sion of the margins of the patches, while their removal caused no change along the perimeter. In gen- eral, there was considerable variability from patch to patch in the abundance of most of the response vanables analysed, while temporal changes were less important. The results show that sea urchins can have significant but variable effects on vertical patches of barren habitat; alternative explanations are suggested to account for the persistence of these patches despite the removal of grazers.
an ideal ordering of operations:
and this is no judgment of grazers I too claim they're #1 reef controller, agreed.
but a human eval~
if ones goal is to head off an invasion and save your tank literally, then never react to an invasion by adding an animal that might and likely could. Fix your invasion on your own, independent of all external hopefully's, internal locus of control for once, and then add the grazers after as growback prevention only. number them accordingly, only one is needed first and if no growback occurs to feed him, then directly feed him or get rid. saving a tank from invasion and experimenting with attaining nature balances in our tank are two different options and behavioral modes for reefing imo
adding a CUC to a system that has been hand-cleaned of the invasion is a totally opposite move, and destiny, compared to the 25-yr documented action of waiting until invasion, then adding some snails n crabs. the variability from doing that has beget every other algae control method known to man, meaning it should be the last consulted option
its not the grazers that are the issue, its the purposeful farming intially. algae is seen, and allowed to grow name the reason why but they're there
only hesitation is required to produce a tank invasion, not a nutrient issue, ergo undoing hesitation undoes invaded reef tanks. Given a boost in iron, Id not be invaded Id just be working more and then seeking out a cheat for iron binding to offset eventually.
Grazers come primary on experimental reefs, and secondary on guaranteed reefs/handy way of ordering operations for sure. it allows one to literally make their tanks never invaded if they choose to, most seem to feel an invasion is required and then only the lucky wrestle free.
no, 100% not invaded is available says every pico reef on nr.com. we farmed a bunch of direct actors there, naturally the tanks followed suit.
Eventually I want to move away from linking ocean studies to reef tank claims. And peer reviewed stuff too...
That's guided lots of big arguments over the years, for sure.
We need references from the strange and non diluted boxes we actually work in.
some of the advice that comes from oceanic studies literally has no translation into a reef tank given the dilutions, they leave that out tho
and this is no judgment of grazers I too claim they're #1 reef controller, agreed.
but a human eval~
if ones goal is to head off an invasion and save your tank literally, then never react to an invasion by adding an animal that might and likely could. Fix your invasion on your own, independent of all external hopefully's, internal locus of control for once, and then add the grazers after as growback prevention only. number them accordingly, only one is needed first and if no growback occurs to feed him, then directly feed him or get rid. saving a tank from invasion and experimenting with attaining nature balances in our tank are two different options and behavioral modes for reefing imo
adding a CUC to a system that has been hand-cleaned of the invasion is a totally opposite move, and destiny, compared to the 25-yr documented action of waiting until invasion, then adding some snails n crabs. the variability from doing that has beget every other algae control method known to man, meaning it should be the last consulted option
its not the grazers that are the issue, its the purposeful farming intially. algae is seen, and allowed to grow name the reason why but they're there
only hesitation is required to produce a tank invasion, not a nutrient issue, ergo undoing hesitation undoes invaded reef tanks. Given a boost in iron, Id not be invaded Id just be working more and then seeking out a cheat for iron binding to offset eventually.
Grazers come primary on experimental reefs, and secondary on guaranteed reefs/handy way of ordering operations for sure. it allows one to literally make their tanks never invaded if they choose to, most seem to feel an invasion is required and then only the lucky wrestle free.
no, 100% not invaded is available says every pico reef on nr.com. we farmed a bunch of direct actors there, naturally the tanks followed suit.
Eventually I want to move away from linking ocean studies to reef tank claims. And peer reviewed stuff too...
That's guided lots of big arguments over the years, for sure.
We need references from the strange and non diluted boxes we actually work in.
some of the advice that comes from oceanic studies literally has no translation into a reef tank given the dilutions, they leave that out tho
Last edited:
All tanks I have set up with a lot of different grazers added week 1 or 2 has ended up without any algae invasion. A micro algae can produce its own weight in 24 hours or less - its means that they dubble their biomass every day. If they are allowed to grow without any grazers - they will take over directly. The secret is to add the grazer rather fast before the algae biomass has been to large. In a start I also ad LS without any cleaning of algae or other organisms - my clean-up crew will graze a lot on this in the beginning too. I never try to control the nutrients the first 2 - 3 months. I often add som NO3 in the start too.
Why I mention natural reef is because there will be algae invasions in those if the grazers will go away - in spit of the fact that there is natural levels of nutrients - levels that we try to reach in our tanks and look at as low.
Sincerely Lasse
Why I mention natural reef is because there will be algae invasions in those if the grazers will go away - in spit of the fact that there is natural levels of nutrients - levels that we try to reach in our tanks and look at as low.
Sincerely Lasse
Similar threads
