# Algae problems, large tank (long)



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

A little history is in order and hopefully interesting. I have a large tank which holds about 500 gallons of water, 900 including the filter system. The tank is 92" long, 36" wide and 48" high. When I first set this up with a variety of plants, a couple of years ago, it was a complete failure regarding the plants. This is how it first looked when first planted.

















I had injected CO2, fertilizing using PMDD and a little over 1000 watts of CF lighting. 4, 4 bulb corallife freshwater aqualights. Most of the plants died. A couple of anubias and a crypt wendti became dormant but survived. One stem plant, green Myrio grew and took over the tank.

I left it that way until recently and decided to try again. I believed that the problem was inadequate lighting and that seems to be correct. I added 3 400 watt metal halides. 6700K and replanted with a few new plants and plants that I had been growing in low tech tanks, 125's. No ferts no CO2 just flourite gravel, light and fish. These are all rooted mostly slow growers. No stem plants. I have a bunch of different swords, different anubias and crypts. The additional lighting kept the plants alive and actually growing this time. Even the dormant crypts and small anubias from the original planting have started to grow. When the metal halides are on I get abundant oxygen production which stops shortly after they go out leaving just the CF lights on.
When I first set it up this is the way it looked.


















After a couple of months algae has been growing and growing. I have green spot algae on the sides and front which I guess is to be expected but the green thread type algae on the gravel, background and plants is overtaking the tank. It grows in clumps with threads one half to three quartes of an inch long. A couple of pictures below.



















I just added 7 SAE's which are constantly eating but I think I might need 100 or so to get ahead of this mess. They have definately cleaned up some of the plants which were much worse before adding them. A bunch of olive nerites are also helping with the GSA especially near the gravel line which is good as I have already caused enough scratches down there trying to clean it. There are also about 10 bristlenose plecos which are always looking for food but do not seem to lke these types of algae.

Tank parameters in next post.
Thanks for any help,
Stuart


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

OMG...is that all algae on the gravel?!?!?! You have all slow low light plants in that tank. the lights are way way to high without CO2 and ferts IMHO. deficiencies all over the place.

You need about 200 amano shrimp, a dozen or so SAEs and about 30 ottos to even begin to think about keeping the algae at bay with that setup.


Lets back up... tank size is crazy. Love it. the backgroud = AWESOME. Plnt selection is great, just need a better regime or light schedule.

Give us full plant list and all specs. but i think you are going to get your arms wet and rip out almost everything in there to get rid of the algae you have.

Did yo make that background? Would love to see the step by step DIY on that one~!!!!!!


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

Tank Parameters:
Carib sea Eco-Complete gravel, at least three inches.
Lighting ~1000 watts of CF lighting from 9 to 9. The three 400 watt metal halides come on at 10:30 to 1:30 then on again from 3:30 to 7:30. 7 hours total. The two hour "cloudy" period has been set for the last three weeks or so. "The CF lighting alone allowed most of the plants to die, and no algae issues."
CO2 probably between 20-25 using a 4Kh drop checker. Calculations also give this number. Hard to get higher without using a 20 pound tank per week. With the overflow and filter system the way it is I get a lot of out gassing of the CO2.
NO3 8-12
PO4 .6 - 1.2 
This is with double the amount in the fert mix and often a little extra with weekley water changes.
Gh 70 - 80 ppm
Kh 70 - 84
Ca 15 - 22.5
Mg calculated 7.5
Ph 6.7
My water is very soft with low alkalinity. 15 ppm Ca from the tap.
Each week I change 150 gallons of water with 20 grams of CaSO4 added sometimes more if the level is low and 32 grams of bicarb.

My No3, Po4, hardness, and alkalinity are Lamotte kits and the PO4 and NO3 were verified using standard solutions.

Fertilizing is ussing PPS pro solutions with double the PO4 at 30cc per day.

Any help would be appreciated.
Stuart


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I was writing it up as you replied


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

The SAE's look promising but not sure how many would really be needed to really help. They have been in there for just a week. They are not always avaialble.I have not seen Otos lately. I tried a few Amano shrimp but they dissappeared. I suspect the congo tetras or Botia striata. 

If you would like to see the tank setup here are three threads I did back then on "The Angelfish Forum 2"

http://www.angelfish.net/yabbse/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=1334

http://www.angelfish.net/yabbse/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=2775

http://www.angelfish.net/yabbse/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=5178

Stuart


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Well, to put it simply, you need more plant mass I think...in particular, fast growers to compete with the algae. From what I can see, you have very low demanding plants (ypts, anubia and java ferns) that really don't need much to grow.

I see your doing the "siesta" lighting schedule...this may help you in the long run, but you have tons of algae in there. Manual removal is almost a must here.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I am avoiding the stem plants as pruning is not a welcome chore in this sized tank. The green Myrio got totally out of hand the first time around.
Using the pps pro method of daily dosing my nutrients stay pretty much constant and none seems to be out of control. How would more plant mass or faster growers help if I would still need to keep the nutrients at a similar point. My tank is 500 gallons or so with 900 gallons of total water yet I am only dosing for a 300 gallon tank based on the lower density of plants.

Stuart


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

I agree with the sentiment that manual removal is a must if you wish to gain any ground in this algae war. 

If you have a diatom filter you can attach a small gravel vacuum to it, particularly one with a grating (as it will be absolutely unforgiving if you catch a fish). I used this method in my battle against the hair algae and it was extremely helpful. Standard gravel vacuuming would have required several 100% water changes. One of those Marineland behemoth filters, that I can't think of the name, with the impeller on the bottom would work well for this task too.


----------



## KurtG (Dec 10, 2007)

You seemed to have moved in opposite directions at the same time. You upped the lighting with the MHs but no longer have the fast growers and plant mass that needed the increased lighting and ferts. 

I agree that you need a manual overhaul on the algae to bother trying to get the nutrients in check (I think you OD'd- and yo are not seeing it in the test because it is assimilated in the algae) and it won't be easy in such a deep tank. I don't think there is enough plant mass to try to outcompete your existing algae through CO2 and dosing.

I am also wondering if you have enough circulation as an artifact of the deep tank. Do you regularly siphon the gravel? I suspect that type of deep tank also needs some deep water plumbing rather than relying on an overflow. There looks to be a disconnect from your bottom and surface with respect to detritus. There's no way all the waste is going to make it up to an overflow. That sure would explain all the algae on the bottom.

Frankly, with such a deep tank, I'd probably have gone hard bottom with a central drain (like a koi pond). You might need to search that arena for a technical fix to your tank. I'm not sure it will be easy to get there merely balancing light/CO2 and nutrients. 

If I had to guess, I'd expect you need to go more low tech and lower the light back a notch and dose less with the appropriate plants. I think your tank may be too deep to maintain hi-tech. I'm almost sure your filtration is useless w/ respect to what the bottom is seeing. It sure is a nice tank, but just way too deep.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I was planning on siphoning off the algae from the bottom. Should not be too hard although some gravel will have to come with it. It is just a pain to do right now as it has to be done from the front and the temp sheetrock above and below the tank has to be removed. I do have a siphon setup with a drain to the sink accessable from below the tank. Getting the algae off the background is more of a problem.

In regards to circulation all of the filtered water enters from the bottom of the tank through 6 openings beneath the drift wood. I am not sure that draining water from the bottom is the answer (or not)










I did have several swords and crypts with the low light (1000 watts) system but they all either died or did not grow.

I have read that high PO4 is a help to get rid of algae, not that that makes any sense to me. I have tried to keep it higher along with the CO2 but that has not seemed to help.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Sorry it took me a while to get back to this threadbut it seems that indi and kurt hit the nail on the head. Too much of one thing, not enough of another and the pps dosing regime can be good and bad at the same time.

Upping your phosphates is not going to do anything here, the algae growth is just to much. 

If you are totally against getting in there to remove it (because it doesn't look like an easy chore), may I reccomend another, unorthodoxed, plan...

african cichlids. with enough diversity in species, they may chomp that algae down to nothing in no time. but you would have to remove your angels and sae's for a while...if you have spare tank to keep them that is. The beauty of the africans, you could get by with just feeding them just a little a day, and I am almost certain they would just harvest that tank to a nice state...at least enough for you to turn that tank back around.

So I had reccomended stems and thats a no go, but you need some nutrient suckers in there, big time. So, another option is some floaters. Most floaters are just "sponges" and usually are the most competitive with algae for two reasons... 
1. they shade light to the tank, which in this case is no big deal since the plant selectionyou have are not really high light dependent. 
2. they soak up the excess nutrients that the slow growers may not utilize efficiently enough to keep algae at bay.

I may be back with more rants when i wake up more... lol.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

Did you ever try to catch a school of rummynose tetras in a tank 4 feet deep and almost 8 foot long  Besides the angels there are multiple species of tetras, espeis rasboras, glass cats, 4 botia striata, cories, and 5 hatchets. Pulling out the fish would require drainage and pulling up everything anyway, so that is not an option. I will probably try to get the gravel algae siphoned off after work today or tomorrow.

I am still a bit confused on what the tank really needs to be successful. Are my photoperiods too long? Should I stop ther fertilizing?, CO2? Logically should it make a difference if my parameters are fairly constant (NO3, PO4 etc) if there are more plants or less plants as far as the algae is concerned? The algae do not wait till the big plants are finished feeding and eat the scraps. Algae is seeing the same conditions that the plants are seeing. Algae has no idea that there is any other plant in there. It just grows when conditions are right. What condition/nutrients in my tank are allowing the algae to grow so well  What do I have to change even when I manually get rid of as much as I can?

Remmeber I alredy know that without the MH lighting most of what is in there will die or become dormant. Just not enough light. Floating plants will not work due to the overflow drain design. They would just clog it up.

Also regarding a bottom drain, that would just be too dangerous. What happens when the power goes out or if the pump develops an air lock? I would have 500 gallons of water draining into a filter system that cannot handle that. I may have to call FEMA

Thanks for everyones advice,
Stuart


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Ok, back up one second. I agree with your algae comment but this is the situation... Algae can be out-competed so to speak. 99% of the people on this forum would agree with me. You can't 100% say that algae is never present, but you certainly can minimize it.

Now, here is where the troubleshooting has to start with YOU. You have changed the lighting and you changed the photoperiod. For all we know, the change in your photoperiod may be the panacea here, but the algae is already so far along, that you wouldn't see adequate results.

Basically what I am saying here (and I don't mean this offensively at all!), you've let the algae go to long without trying to fix it. Small adjustments over time need to be made to acclimate a system. Just letting things go and then asking for advise to fix it in the 12th hour is not going to get you anywhere.

I am trying to help you and you continue to rebuke everything I have tried to give you suggestions for. Ok, you can't do the africans, fine. You don't want stems because of the excess trimming, no problem. You don't want floaters because it will clog the intakes of your overflow, no problem (but this could be solved too if you set up floating rings of airline tubing to keep them away from the intakes)...

So...here is my final suggestion. Start over. 

1. Remove algae
2. Start off again with shorter photoperiod (maybe 5 to 6 hours then slowly creep up to what you want
3. keep with the pps dosing regime, but you need some type of fast growing stems (or whatever) in the initial phase of the setup to equalize the setup. (if you look through alot of the journals, you will notice that alot of people overload there tanks in the beginning, then slowly remove plant mass, this is the algae competition fighting for nutrients to keep algae from getting a hold on it).
4. Make SMALL changes over time. Stay on top of it. watch the plants, and certainly watch for algae. If you see it, treat it or get it out of there. Don't do too many things at once. If you think the CO2 is to high and the lights are on to long, don't change both! Do one, watch the reaction in the tank for a while, then do the other. this way you can monitor and diagnose if drastic things happen!

good luck.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

Please do not take offense to my responses. More than anything I want to know why! Removing the bulk of the algae makes sense, right now I need a lawn mower instead of the typical algae crew and I doubt they have enough of an appetite to get it under control. But why would fast growing plants make a difference? If nitrates are kept at 10-20 with fast growing plants or one slow growing plant, what is the difference? I know there are many other nutrients but the same would apply to them as well. If heavy plant growth really does work then is there some other factor that we are not measuring? Do growing plants release a chemical that inhibits algae? (If so we need to bottle it)

So right now it seems that "my" best options are to remove as much algae as possible. The gravel should be easy but the background will be difficult. I do not think that it can be siphoned off and scrubbing would likely damage the background. Reduce the duration of MH lighting. What is the minimum photoperiod that makes sense? I do not want to kill the plants that are in there. 

Thanks again,
Stuart


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Nah, no offense taken. Your asking good questions, and your "why" is the crutch of this hobby IMO.

But, here is my take on what i think is going on right now. You are dosing very lean, the plants you DO have are slow growers, probably barely even using close to what you are dosing. So, the excess that is being used each day (and then subsequently what you are dosing the next day to maintain the same levels) is being used by the algae.

Plants use the same nutrients (for the most part) that plants use to grow. But algae is faster to react to change.

Here is my football analogy:

You have Randy Moss. Fast and quick to react. He is the algae (LMAO). So how do you defend him. Right now, you have the smallest and slowest guy on the team trying to cover him. So its half time, and its time to make adjustments... what do you do? Put your fastest cover guy on him, perhaps even have your free and strong safety Key on him...now you have taken him out of play. He is still in the game, but over time, he just becomes obsolete. Eventually, you won't need the safetys anymore because he is so tired of trying to get open, that you just keep him at bay.

how was that?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sc204 said:


> I am avoiding the stem plants as pruning is not a welcome chore in this sized tank. The green Myrio got totally out of hand the first time around.
> Using the pps pro method of daily dosing my nutrients stay pretty much constant and none seems to be out of control. How would more plant mass or faster growers help if I would still need to keep the nutrients at a similar point. My tank is 500 gallons or so with 900 gallons of total water yet I am only dosing for a 300 gallon tank based on the lower density of plants.
> 
> Stuart


Nutrients are not the problem, at PPS levels or EI levels........it matters not.
Only a clueless person would tell you that.

Do you honestly believe that algae are limited at 0.5 ppm of PO4 vs 2 ppm?
Or at 2ppm or higher of NO3?

No, not one bit.
I know of no species that is...........

Lower/higher density of plants........look, they are not growing much if at all.
So you may as well have virtually none in here.
They grew okay for a month or two because they have reserves.

You have too much light and not enough CO2.
Should have stuck with the PC's if you wanted to go non CO2, that and do not dose fertilizer except once every 1-2 weeks at most.

Add about 500 Amano shrimp, 100 Otto's, 20 SAE's.
Vacuum up the sediment algae.
Yep, take the sediment that's got it attached along with the algae.

Algae will define the system if you do not have well growing plants.
That is not defined by the nutrients in this case.

It is defined by CO2 and light.
Light drives the CO2 uptake. Wide variations and you will get algae under high light. 10 gallons or 1000 gallons, makes little difference. 

You have a massive tank and deep sucker at that.
So screw ups are gonna cost you a lot of labor and/or an ugly tank that you have invested lots of time and resources in.

I'd get a few 4 liter jugs of Excel also(see Big Al's on line).
You'll need it when you have trouble..and you will, you are learning from the sounds of it.... and a large tank is not something you want to learn on.

You really need a light meter to say much about the lighting.
No one in the plant hobby uses them other than maybe myself.
The Apogee brand is decent for $.
If you have about 25-35 at the bottom tops of the plants, then you are okay.

I'm not sure how your CO2 was, but looks like it was loused up.
On large tanks, good mixing of CO2 is critical, actually it is a must to mix it correctly.

You need good circulation.
Most folks cannot turn over a tank this size 5x-10x an hour. 

That's about 5000-10000 gph.
2000-3500 gph is likely the most a tank this size might get.
Still, using a mazzei venturi might be the best method to add CO2, along with better flow patterns. As there are no plants in the upper reaches, you need to direct the return water with CO2 down to the plants.

If you use MH's and PC's, use them both.
Like 96Wx8 for 10 hours.
Then 3 hours of MH's.
Keep things low light, not high light.

I'd suggest swords over Anubias, more Crypts, taller grassy plants, C spiralis, Vals, most any larger sword plant, Java ferns etc.

This tank I did has less light than you FYI:










Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Also, I'd up the water changes, like 300 Gallons a week at a min, maybe 2x a week, I hope you have that process automated somewhat.

If not, do that.

Low tech non CO2 can work, but it'll require a lot more patience at this scale and more control. Ultimately though, no water changes and no wet/dry is par for the course with that method, but at this scale, not doing water changes makes life much more difficult.

I'd focus a lot more on the basics, light/CO2 and water changes rather than test kits, you waste too much time doing that and do not get down to the real aspects of keeping aquariums and gardening. You lose your sights with that and no longer focus on the big picture.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## JHipkin (Dec 18, 2004)

According to you initial post if I understood it correctly you have a 500 gal tank w/ a 400 gallon sump for a total of 900 gallons. A sump that size sound more like a refugium. Would it be possible to put some lights over the sump and fill it up w/ fast growing stem plants? If you could do this they would suck up some of the excess nutrients. The saltwater folks do this all the time. As has been said already, it's about getting the light. CO2 and nutrients into balance. Good luck.


----------



## garuf (May 30, 2007)

Completely off topic but, how on earth do you maintain a tank that's 2 feet deeper than your arms are long?


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

You get inside of it yourself.  

The refugium is (or at least seems like) a great idea, btw.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

gmccreedy said:


> But, here is my take on what i think is going on right now. You are dosing very lean, the plants you DO have are slow growers, probably barely even using close to what you are dosing. So, the excess that is being used each day (and then subsequently what you are dosing the next day to maintain the same levels) is being used by the algae.
> 
> Plants use the same nutrients (for the most part) that plants use to grow. But algae is faster to react to change.


So it seems that the concensus is that there is still too much fert for the plant mass. Makes sense to me as obvioulsy the algae is using a good bit of it and probably growing quicker than the plants.
Should I stop ther ferts for a period of time or just reduce the daily dosing? I am guessing that I can stop it all together for a few weeks without hurting the plants.

I will cut back the MH lighting to a few hours a day. I know from before that most of the plants will not live with the PC lighting alone.



> Do you honestly believe that algae are limited at 0.5 ppm of PO4 vs 2 ppm?
> Or at 2ppm or higher of NO3?


Not really but many places quote higher PO4 as helping with some algae. I do not know if that is fact or fiction, but most web sources on algae control will mention it along with higher CO2. 



> You have too much light and not enough CO2.
> Should have stuck with the PC's if you wanted to go non CO2, that and do not dose fertilizer except once every 1-2 weeks at most........
> I'm not sure how your CO2 was, but looks like it was loused up.
> On large tanks, good mixing of CO2 is critical, actually it is a must to mix it correctly.


My CO2 is between 20 and 25. It is dificult to keep it at 30. Co2 is bubbled into 2 reactors in a counter current fashion to dissolve the CO2. Only a portion of the filtered water goes through the reactors, enough to dissolve the CO2 and not just suck it into the tank. It flows in with the incoming filtered water at the bottom of the tank at the base of the plants. 

Water changes can be increased to 300 gallons a week without too much difficulty. The filter system has 2 150 gallon vats. Each one can be bypassed and drained to change water without shutting the system or lowering tank levels.










Very nice picture Tom, nice altums. Do you have more details on that tank or pictures somewhere?

Thanks to all for the suggestions so far.
Stuart


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

garuf said:


> Completely off topic but, how on earth do you maintain a tank that's 2 feet deeper than your arms are long?


Total overhaul requires draining and just gettin in 
I have 36" tongs, a 48" cutter, and a homemade siphon that i can hold in front of the tank to control its position. Think of a big PVC upside down U. One end in the tank the other attached to drainage. A bit tough to control but usable. The front acrylic is cleaned with the largest Mag-float cleaner. Acrylic is 1 1/4" thick

Stuart


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

I wish I had a photo of the gigantic aquarium in the bookstore next to and maintained by the National Aquarium in Baltimore. It was mostly full of seriously gigantic Angelfish, Rummy Noses, and Cardinals. It was pretty dimly lit, but quite full of also seriously gigantic sword plants, anubias, and the like. It is so very impressive, probably better than most of the actual exhibits. 

I'm sure you could do something very similar with this, once a dent has been made in the algae situation. Carpeting the substrate with non-dwarf sag would be really nice, would help reduce the apparent depth, grow pretty quickly and be fairly low maintenance. Just a thought.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Dude.... that filter system is banging.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

The Filter system is in my basement in the furnace/water heater area right below the tank. Tank water drains from the tank via a corner overflow and durso drain. It gets quite aerated as seen on the left side of the following picture. This filter chamber is filled with three progressively finer grades of Matala filter pads.










Water drains from the right side of this chamber into the round black vat which holds about 50 gallons. It is filled with several cubic feet of polyethylene beads. Raw polyethylene often used in pond bead fiters. This is my bio filter. I have tried several different ways of having the water enter this chamber to keep the beads moving. I settled on the design shown in the picture. What you don't see is a medium sized Mag-pump that keeps the beads moving around the vat and prevents detritus from being caught in the bead mass. Before this if you stirred up the beads a cloud of dirt would be released.










Water drains out of the bottom of this vat into the first of two 150 gallon tanks. Water enters at the bottom periphery of the tank creating a vortex, depositing detritis at the bottom center. Water is pulled off from the top and enters the second large tank in the same manner before being pulled off the upper third to be pumped back to the tank. All 4 chambers can be drained to waste from their respective bottoms. Waste water is automatically pumped out to the septic tank or dry well (my choice).

Each of the two large tanks can be bypassed by the use of two three way pool style valves without having to shut the system. That way 150 gallon water changes can easily be made.










In addition I have a small Hayward pool DE filter that I run most of the time to polish the water.










Water returning to the tank first passes through an Aqua UV 120 watt unit and then through the heater. The heater is a stainless steel heat exchanger that is heated via my house hot water heater. It works just like a zone in your house's heating system. Instead of heating a radiator, the hot water heats the heat exchanger.











Water enters the tank via two lines that return from under the driftwood as shown in a prior picture. CO2 is injected via 2 reactors that are located in a bypass loop of each of the two returns. By adjusting the ball valves I can alter the flow through the reactor (flow is downward) to dissolve the CO2. An additional return all the way to the left provides fresh water behind the background. The background has a significant space behind it due to its design and I wanted to prevent the water from becoming stagnant behind their.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

ummm...wow. Holy #@$%!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

garuf said:


> Completely off topic but, how on earth do you maintain a tank that's 2 feet deeper than your arms are long?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sc204 said:


> Not really but many places quote higher PO4 as helping with some algae. I do not know if that is fact or fiction, but most web sources on algae control will mention it along with higher CO2.


Well then perhaps this will convince you:










Where's the algae at 3ppm of PO4?
If what they claim is true, then how can this be?

Here's yet another example and I have plenty of examples going back 15 years that explicitly prove that is baloney and has been with respect to planted tanks. So do many, if not most other folks.
Myth and dogma are what those sites are suggesting, not fact, haha, not even remotely close.










There is a lot of research that supports my observations as well, I'd be happy to list some.



> My CO2 is between 20 and 25. It is dificult to keep it at 30.


This is what I stated prior was the issue. 
It still is.



> Co2 is bubbled into 2 reactors in a counter current fashion to dissolve the CO2. Only a portion of the filtered water goes through the reactors, enough to dissolve the CO2 and not just suck it into the tank. It flows in with the incoming filtered water at the bottom of the tank at the base of the plants.


You need a better solution here.
You need more flow through the CO2 injection method and more mixing in the tank.

You'll never get it with this system at present. 



> Water changes can be increased to 300 gallons a week without too much difficulty. The filter system has 2 150 gallon vats. Each one can be bypassed and drained to change water without shutting the system or lowering tank levels.


I'd think to clean and work on the tank at 48" deep, I'd want to change the tank itself, 2ft of water is still deep enough to be onerous.
That's why I drain the tank on large systems. 



> Very nice picture Tom, nice altums. Do you have more details on that tank or pictures somewhere?
> 
> Thanks to all for the suggestions so far.
> Stuart


Yep, I do. 
Search the "Behemoth" here or at my site.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Another look a those reactors and flows going through them, no wonder you have algae and issues with CO2.

Folks can rattle on all day about the nutrients, but the bottom line is CO2 stability, then you can talk about nutrients only after the CO2/light issue is addressed.

You put the sock on before the shoe.

I'd rework that entire part.

I'd drive some mazzei venturis, a pair of them, 3/4", running about 600 gph through them each.

They will knock the pH and get your CO2 to 30ppm in about 30-40 minutes.
Then just good mixing inside the tank.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Preeths (Jan 29, 2008)

what you need are some hungry turtles that eat algae.....enquire at the pet store.....


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

sc204 said:


>


This could be a source of the problem! You are outgasing alot of CO2 here! You also have open tops on all of your filters, and with just some slight turbulence can also outgas CO2. So, you may not be achieving adequate levels here.

Just an observation.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

gmccreedy said:


> This could be a source of the problem! You are outgasing alot of CO2 here! You also have open tops on all of your filters, and with just some slight turbulence can also outgas CO2. So, you may not be achieving adequate levels here.
> 
> Just an observation.


There is no question I am losing a lot of CO2 as the water leaves the tank. The corner overflow is like a small waterfall and the "durso drain" sucks in air with the water which then mixes as it falls to the filter a floor below. That was why I mentioned it. Is there another way to do a corner tank overflow that doesn't do this?

Stuart


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

> You need a better solution here.
> You need more flow through the CO2 injection method and more mixing in the tank.
> 
> You'll never get it with this system at present.


Does an increase in CO2 to 30 ppm retard algae growth by itself or is this just to increase the plants uptake of other nutrients so they are unavailable to the algae?

Tom you also showed your tank and mentioned 3 ppm of PO4. The info I was quoting was saying a higher level of PO4 retards green spot algae, not low levels. Just like I do not know why or how a high CO2 level helps or works, why this would work either. If there are optimal levels of mutrients, micro, macro, CO2, and light that we should try to maintain at all times as we add each daily, what is it that growing plants do to stop algae growth? (I am having a hard time trying to understand why algae is there or not.)

So far I have reduced the amount of additional MH lighting to just 2 hours a day, stopped the fertilizing for the moment (micro and macro). I will test NO3 and PO4 to see where they are going. I siphoned the algae off the bottom of the tank (along with 5 pounds of gravel  ) and have added 4 more SAE's 11 total. That was all I could find. The only Otos I could find were 1" or less and would end up being picked on by the angels or congo tetras at that size. I am looking for more.

Thanks again for the help,
Stuart


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

I think the proper way to look at this, and Tom correct me if I am wrong here,
plants will dominate algae with regards to nutrients, thus starving the algae over time.

However, algae is quicker to react than the plants. You can make the argument that since we target dosing to a certain level that there is "always nutrients available" for the algae to utilize. Perhaps Tom can elaborate on this further, (since honestly, that has perplexed me for a long time and just gave up trying to analyze it, but rather embrassed it as a given). Chalk it up to the wonders of the world.

Now, achieving optimal levels of CO2 is absolutly necessary in your case, since your growth is being driven by your lights. The ferts and CO2 are supplemental factors that the plants need to utilize the lighting for growth. So lack of one thing, causes defiecies. Your lack of CO2 is probably the major issue here.

As far as reducing the CO2 outgasing, for one thing, I would cover all the filter boxes and containers. This is at least a start. As far as the overflow (which has got to be loud), there are ways people have reduced this turbulence by installing plumbing in such a manner as to reduce this turbulence. Now I am not sure what your overflow box discharges with, but most I have seen have a PVC riser or some sort as the water level control. Some people have used a "goose neck" fitting on the top of this riser so water is not falling (or weiiring) into the riser, rather its being dragged into the riser from the bottom to minimize the "gurgle" and turbulence.

Not sure if you followed this, but I did the best I could...lol. I am still on my first cup of coffee...


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

My overflow has a durso drain. The hole in the cap can be adjusted to adjust flow. The water level stays constant in the overflow box and doesn't make much noise. Without it it is very noisy. Without the air hole it acts like a toilet, repeatedly flushing


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

plantbrain said:


> Another look a those reactors and flows going through them, no wonder you have algae and issues with CO2.
> 
> Folks can rattle on all day about the nutrients, but the bottom line is CO2 stability, then you can talk about nutrients only after the CO2/light issue is addressed.
> 
> ...


Looks like that should not be hard to do. If I am reading this correctly (I still have lots of threads to peruse regarding larger tanks and veturis) I will be replacing my reactors with the venturis in basically the same position in the plumbing. I suspect that I will still need to bypass some of my filtered water as the total flow would be more than the venturi can handle. 

Stuart


----------



## Gbbudd (Apr 25, 2007)

The recomended levels of ferts that tom and others have mentioned are for heavily planted tanks and high light. you do not have the required plants not even close for a tank that size. someone did mention a algae scrubber such as reef tanks use. Thats an avenue i think you should seriously look into if you were to remove all those flter pads except maybe two of them increase your sump size so that the water barely flows through that area and add some millfoil a very fast indestructable plant use that to remove nutrients. as the plants grow rip out hand fulls and you have removed algae nutrients.the milfoil will act as a live filter floss. The bottom of this area will need to be cleaned to remove the excessive denitrous sediment. all the co2 and ferts won't help too much if no one is there to absorb them. milfoil is cheapppppp and it is a noxous weed but i think i'ts exactly what you need. if by some chance a peice of milfoil makes itway to thetank it'seasy to remove, unlike xmass moss.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I had definately been thinking of adding fast growing plants to that tank as well. The Matala filter material does not seem to do too much anyway. Not sure if I could slow down the flow enough to make it work. I would have to make sure that if the plants got plastered up against the filter material that the container would not overflow.
Thanks for the input,
Stuart


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

sc204 said:


> I am avoiding the stem plants as pruning is not a welcome chore in this sized tank.
> Stuart





sc204 said:


> I had definately been thinking of adding fast growing plants to that tank as well.


LOL...you need to make up your mind...


----------



## loachlady5 (Dec 9, 2007)

gmccreedy said:


> Here is my football analogy:
> 
> You have Randy Moss. Fast and quick to react. He is the algae (LMAO). So how do you defend him. Right now, you have the smallest and slowest guy on the team trying to cover him. So its half time, and its time to make adjustments... what do you do? Put your fastest cover guy on him, perhaps even have your free and strong safety Key on him...now you have taken him out of play. He is still in the game, but over time, he just becomes obsolete. Eventually, you won't need the safetys anymore because he is so tired of trying to get open, that you just keep him at bay.
> 
> how was that?


Perfect analogy - I have found this to be very true. I was getting obsessed with completely eliminating algae and focusing on the algae and not tank parameters/plant health. After getting so much advice from people here, I focused on setting conditions that would favor the plants and fish. Now the algae is receding on its own. In fact, my green water "spontaneously" went away. My BBA is still visible but not growing, and most can be clipped away at the next trimming.


----------



## captain_bu (Oct 20, 2007)

loachlady5 said:


> I was getting obsessed with completely eliminating algae and focusing on the algae and not tank parameters/plant health. After getting so much advice from people here, I focused on setting conditions that would favor the plants and fish. Now the algae is receding on its own. In fact, my green water "spontaneously" went away. My BBA is still visible but not growing, and most can be clipped away at the next trimming.


Good to hear your tank is coming around. Must be very satisfying to suddenly see your green water disappear and know you are on the right track. You are probably discovering that along with setting conditions that favor the plants and fish you need to give yourself a big dose of patience. So easy to fall into the trap of changing tank parameters frequently and haphazardly out of desperation which makes things worse in the short term and increases your frustration level. Even the experts have to wait for a new tank to cycle and develop into a balanced ecosystem.


----------



## sick lid (Jan 13, 2008)

gmccreedy said:


> LOL...you need to make up your mind...


I think he meant adding them to the filter tank. JMO, tho.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Ahh. My bad.

In that case.... why not some floaters!!! Put a light on that filter and in no time, those suckers will most definetly help the cause!


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

gmccreedy said:


> LOL...you need to make up your mind...


Yes, the suggestion was to place them in my first filter chamber which I would consider. The filter material in there does little. I still question why this would work assuming nutrient levels are kept constant by adjusting the amount of fertilizing, but I am not opposed to doing it as for whatever reason more plants in the system seems to reduce algae. Any suggestions besides myrio on the best plant to try in this situation? Floating would work.

I have found a few more SAE's and a few Otos large enough not to be eaten. Grtavel has been vacuumed, lighting and ferts have been reduced. CO2 has been increased and mazzei injectors ordered to try. I have ordered some excel to try as well. Hopefully I can get ahead of this without bleaching the tank 

Stuart


----------



## Gbbudd (Apr 25, 2007)

sc. do changes SLOWLY one step at a time that way you'll know whats works and what doesn't. i wouldn't make drastic changes but more then one a month. if you know something not working like co2 well yeah and maybe something else small in nature but take your time don't rush it. Litsten to what tom has to say the man knows what he's doing. Though he was impressed with my tank with a water fall. im trying his method this time around.


----------



## KurtG (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't get it either (plant harvesting suggestions). Either you are controlling nutrients or you're not. The EI method seems to advocate making sure that there are no limiting nutrients. If you have algae, you have to reset (get rid of the algae before you pump the nutrients back up).

I'm not an EI believer, but there are many routes to get where you are going. You need to find one that works for you. I don't tear down or rest my tanks once they are up, nor do I use chemical controls (excel, H2O2, etc).


----------



## @[email protected] (Oct 24, 2007)

find out how much of which nutrients your plants need and give exactly that, then put in a bunch of hornwort (to suck up any leftowver nutrients before algae does) and possibly by a few algae eaters to speed up the process (stunting algal growth is good, getting rid of the existing growth helps a lot).


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

I read this thread in absolutely amazement! And I remember the question of why. Why adding more plants reduce algae? I think I stumbled into the answer while trying to read a thread written by Tom Barr regarding non-CO2 tanks.

Quoting from here: http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-index/2817-non-co2-methods.html



> If we added more light then the CO2 would start becoming a more limiting factor and allow algae to grow better (algae need higher light to grow well in non CO2 enriched systems wereas the plants are much more limited without CO2).


Before I go further, let me make it very clear that I am a beginner! That's why I was reading Tom's thread. So what I am about to say could be VERY WRONG. And if it is, I am certain those here with more knowledge and experience will correct me.

A second disclaimer. What I'm about to say will not be true for ALL algae nor for ALL plants. It's a very elementary concept of why adding more plants to an algae prone environment will help prevent algae. It also shows how CO2, light and nutrients react together in terms of plants and algae. Again, this is extremely elementary and cannot fit all algae or all plants.

Okay, if I understood the sentence I quoted, then that would mean (in basic terms):

• Plants have a higher requirement for CO2 than the algae. 
• Algae has a higher requirement for light than plants.
• Both use all the other nutrients.

If you increase the light without making any other changes, it will encourage algae to grow. Here's why. By increasing the light (which benefits algae) without making a balanced increase of CO2 (which benefits plants), the balance has shifted to the algae. As the plants attempt to grow, they are stopped by the lack of CO2. Algae doesn't need CO2 so it's not stopped. Bingo, algae makes itself at home while plants lose out.

The third part of the equation are the other nutrients in the water table that both, plants and algae, use. It appears (here, I am guessing) that plants can use those nutrients faster than algae. So the only way algae can get those nutrients, which it must have to grow, is if the plants have taken all the nutrients they can while still leaving a lot of nutrients in the water. This way, algae can take those "left over" nutrients and grow.

If you add enough plants to use up all of the nutrients, there aren't any nutrients left for the algae. It starves to death. (However, it seems once algae gets a foothold in the tank, it's hard to starve it out. Physical removal, by definition, greatly hastens the full/complete removal of algae.)

This is where the balance comes in. The light, CO2 and nutrients _MUST BE BALANCED_ in order for the plants to grow and to prevent getting algae. If any one of those three things are out of balance, then you're going to get algae.

Unfortunately, there's no table to look up that says for X amount of water, use X CO2 and X ferts and X light with X number of plants (don't we wish!). So we are truly going blind in some ways. This is where knowledge and experience help out greatly because what worked before can be carried over to make things work again. But because there's no look up table, when things are obviously not in balance, it's very important to make only a few changes at a time and wait to see what that change did. The results of that change will give a clue as to what's either in excess or missing in the balance. If you are changing too many things at once, it's impossible to determine which change caused the results.


So in the end, by physically removing the algae, adding a whole bunch of plants to ensure the nutrients are all used (there are nutrients in the water even if you aren't adding ferts), lowering the light AND/OR raising the CO2 would work to put things back into balance. And while there are some changes that are known to be needed by those who have experience in those areas, when it comes to fine tuning, you have to be patient, tweaking the parts one by one until you finally get it balanced.

Whew! I sure hope I'm not totally wrong on this! Somebody who KNOWS the answer, PLEASE say what's right (if anything) and what's wrong. It not only helps to answer the question of "why" asked in this thread, but it teaches us all.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Complexity said:


> If you add enough plants to use up all of the nutrients, there aren't any nutrients left for the algae. It starves to death.


I'm going to already say that I know this part isn't right. The EI dosing method disputes this, obviously. So it's not that the algae is staved, there's something else going on. I don't know what, though.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Complexity said:


> Before I go further, let me make it very clear that I am a beginner! That's why I was reading Tom's thread. So what I am about to say could be VERY WRONG. And if it is, I am certain those here with more knowledge and experience will correct me.
> 
> A second disclaimer. What I'm about to say will not be true for ALL algae nor for ALL plants. It's a very elementary concept of why adding more plants to an algae prone environment will help prevent algae. It also shows how CO2, light and nutrients react together in terms of plants and algae. Again, this is extremely elementary and cannot fit all algae or all plants.



LOL. thats very PC of you. But well done. Good dissertation, good supporting documentation, etc.

But your second post brings us to the same point. There are excess nutrients in the tank, no matter how you really dose. There are these reccomended "target levels" that all types of dosing methods ultimatly strive for.

Like I said earlier, this is one of those weird nuances that is just way over my head (even if I stand on a chair).


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Add Complexity's disclaimer to this statement too... don't take the following statement as fact, it's just a supposition. 

Algae needs a trigger, that's why having non-limiting levels of all necessary nutrients allows the plants to grow (without algae) while still having an excess of nutrients. If you limit one of those nutrients the algae can become aware of that and be triggered into growing. The algae will consume the plants' table scraps, as with the plants being limited they'll no longer be using the other nutrients either, at least not in the quantities prior to the limiting. 

The algae is just a whole lot less picky about nutrients and thus will work with what they have, whereas the plants are very picky and will just stop growing well once they've been limited.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Tom stresses in his post not just the number of plants, but the number of _healthy_ plants. There has to be something the plants are doing that is disadvantageous to the algae.

At one point, he talks about adding all kinds of nutrients without causing algae, but the moment ammonia is added, then the algae arrives. Plants use ammonia. However, in a cycled tank ammonia shouldn't even be a consideration.

I have heard that hornwart (I think that's the right plant) actually secretes something into the water base that resist algae. I realize this is a very highly complex question in which I am completely over my head, but it just seems the plants have to be doing something to prevent the algae. If they all secreted substances to stop algae, it would be well known so that's not it.

Other than this one part, am I pretty much in the ballpark on the rest? I realize I'm presenting an extremely basic view of something which is far more complicated, but I'd like to know if I'm getting any of this down correctly or not.

Oh, and the PC part is because I don't want anyone thinking that I'm right when I know I may be completely and totally wrong. It's kind of a "reader beware" warning than being PC.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

indiboi said:


> Add Complexity's disclaimer to this statement too... don't take the following statement as fact, it's just a supposition.
> 
> Algae needs a trigger, that's why having non-limiting levels of all necessary nutrients allows the plants to grow (without algae) while still having an excess of nutrients. If you limit one of those nutrients the algae can become aware of that and be triggered into growing. The algae will consume the plants' table scraps, as with the plants being limited they'll no longer be using the other nutrients either, at least not in the quantities prior to the limiting.


Okay, but what then happens after the algae has already been triggered. Is the trigger required for each algae cell? So if you correct the imbalance, at least no more algae is triggered?


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

indiboi said:


> The algae is just a whole lot less picky about nutrients and thus will work with what they have, whereas the plants are very picky and will just stop growing well once they've been limited.


If algae can be kept at bay while there is an unlimited supply of nutrients, then nutrients can't be the answer. A _lack_ of a nutrient, maybe. Perhaps algae does not do well if X nutrient is plentiful, but grows abundantly when it's missing? But it can't be the presence of the nutrients or it would not be possible that a tank with excess nutrients to keep algae at bay.

This does not include any other element that we don't typically consider for plants, but I would think if it was that simple, there would be a plethora of products to bind/absorb/adsorb/whatever that/those other elements OR add what's missing. So I can't see that as being it either.

I wish we could know precisely what triggered algae. Not in general terms, but in scientific terms. Obviously, that would go a long ways into preventing it and getting rid of once it's in the tank.


----------



## KurtG (Dec 10, 2007)

:biggrin: around and around we go


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

That's what I mean, a lack of a particular nutrient will disrupt a plant's normal growth while at the same time triggering algae to take advantage of that deficiency (eating the table scraps). If the trigger of the deficiency/limitation didn't occur, then the algae would stay dormant, because without plants being limited, it'd think that competition was too... aggressive, even if in reality there'd be plenty to go around.

The same can be said of ammonia, once there's a spike in ammonia algae will see that as a trigger to grow, even if the logic there seems a bit inverted. Perhaps with ammonia the algae determines there are plenty of nutrients to go around. 

I'm personifying algae, but only for the sake of discussion, I don't actually believe algae "thinks" ...lol.

Like I said, it's all supposition from me on this topic, but I'm comfortable with the logic, even if I'm wrong.  Since keeping non-limiting levels has shown itself to be viable working method for me, I'll not question it too much.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Looks like I'm traveling down the same road as others before me. What you said above is the only conclusion I can arrive at given what little I know about how it all works together.

It sure does show how important it is to get the balance right, and if something begins to go wrong, catch it quickly while also not making too many changes all at once.

I fully intend to stuff my 75g full of plants when I finally fire up the lights and CO2. With that setup, things that will go wrong will do so in a hurry.


----------



## KurtG (Dec 10, 2007)

Just remember, the faster you drive, the bigger the wreck.


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Complexity said:


> Okay, but what then happens after the algae has already been triggered. Is the trigger required for each algae cell? So if you correct the imbalance, at least no more algae is triggered?


Sorry, I missed this post. I think the answer to that is yes; once the situation has been corrected new algae stops developing, but you are left with that already in place. That'd be why dosing Excel to function as an algaecide along with manual removal works to conquer the problem -- once nutrients are no longer limiting and that includes CO2.

I can say for near certainty that is the case, as I had a horrific hair algae problem. I fixed my CO2 and dosing, manually removed as much as possible (over the course of several cleanings) and did the Excel treatment (though not quite so overdosing as some recommend). While I have a tiny bit of lingering algae on plants that I haven't been able to adequately clean, the vast majority of it is gone and new algae is not growing in its place. In this case the limitation was CO2, at least that's my thinking, because otherwise my dosing was okay, though inconsistent (finally turned on the autodosing pumps to solve that problem). I had inadvertently contaminated my drop checker solution, it was reading as green when it should have been blue, yellow when it should have been green. 

Again, disclaimer, just supposition, ignore those respect blocks.... heh.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Oh, yes, same concerns here with the respect blocks. They don't mean I know a lot about the subject, but that some have shown appreciation for some of my posts. In this particular area, I'm such a baby that I'm thrilled to see that I might be getting the concept down a bit. It helps reduce the fear of jumping into a high-tech tank without knowing what the heck I'm doing.

As sc204 kept asking questions, I was sitting here wondering the very same things. All of us need to have some basic understanding of how this works or we won't be able to spot problems and make somewhat educated guesses on what to do. Or, perhaps even better, know what to do to minimize problems to begin with.


----------



## KurtG (Dec 10, 2007)

There are a lot of different philosophies intermixed in these forums. The best advice I can give is stick to advice that is consistent with the philosophy you've adopted. 

If you're dosing excess nutrients and someone is harvesting plants or managing the level or ratio of nutrients, those two philosophies might not be a good match. You need to think about what each method is balancing or driving.

There were several different methods suggested to the OP, but they were not all agreeable with each other. He needs to decide which avenue he agrees with and is most easy to modify his system toward.


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

I agree, best advice is to pick a system/method to follow and stick with it (at least long enough to really see if it's the right one for you, a couple of months at minimum).


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Gbbudd said:


> The recomended levels of ferts that tom and others have mentioned are for heavily planted tanks and high light. you do not have the required plants not even close for a tank that size. someone did mention a algae scrubber such as reef tanks use. Thats an avenue i think you should seriously look into if you were to remove all those flter pads except maybe two of them increase your sump size so that the water barely flows through that area and add some millfoil a very fast indestructable plant use that to remove nutrients. as the plants grow rip out hand fulls and you have removed algae nutrients.the milfoil will act as a live filter floss. The bottom of this area will need to be cleaned to remove the excessive denitrous sediment. all the co2 and ferts won't help too much if no one is there to absorb them. milfoil is cheapppppp and it is a noxous weed but i think i'ts exactly what you need. if by some chance a peice of milfoil makes itway to thetank it'seasy to remove, unlike xmass moss.


Only one problem, virtually anyone can and have shown , well, for decades now, that algae are not limited, nor does "excess" nutrients cause algae.

So that hypothesis is well falsified and rejected.
Like it or, not, those are the results.

You need to be specific if you discuss nutrients.
NH4, CO2 variation seems to be the main variables here.

Not PO4, not NO3, not Fe, and the others folks claimed causes all their headaches.

If I have less light, the algae are not going grow any better, actually worse, so the light is only relevant in one direction, more light.

High plant density is fairly obvious.
More plants=> less algae.
Something is going to grow there, we have a choice of what that is.

If you focus on taking care of the plants, then this whole algae business is not an issue.

I'm not sure why so many obsess with plant algae competition.
You are wasting your time truth be told.

Go do a water change, clean the tank, prune, add more plants, tweak the CO2, clean you filters etc.

Keep up on that.

Then you do not have algae and have a nice looking plant tank which was the original goal.

Like a weed problem, it takes a lot more work once the weeds establish to get rid of them than prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
If you work the garden well, then you have few weeds.

The plants grow well, and you drive the growth based on the limiting factor, light. This also holds the algae back as well.

Light is about the only thing algae and plants really compete for.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

KurtG said:


> There are a lot of different philosophies intermixed in these forums. The best advice I can give is stick to advice that is consistent with the philosophy you've adopted.


I agree that I need to select a fertilization program of my own choosing; that's not what I was looking for. I wanted to comprehend _how_ light, CO2, plants and algae interact together.

I don't want to just do the mechanics. To follow the recipe. To have everyone else pull me out of a jam because I'm too ignorant on the subject to know which end is up. I want to learn so I can do my own tweaking. So I'll know what to look for, should a problem arise, and perhaps have a solution without having everyone do it for me.

By actually comprehending how it works, even if only on a basic scale, I can then juggle the variables around on my own. I can then determine cause/effect on my own. This gives me a whole lot more flexibility and, for me, greatly adds to my enjoyment of the hobby.



plantbrain said:


> Like a weed problem, it takes a lot more work once the weeds establish to get rid of them than prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


Exactly!

Come this Monday, I'll have all my new gear to go high-tech while my brain doesn't have all the information it needs to handle all that gear. That is _not_ a good combination!  :icon_lol:

I'm trying my best to learn what I can, even if only on a very basic level at this juncture. Since no one jumped out to make major corrections on my proposed understanding, I'll consider that to say I'm at least in the ballpark.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

KurtG said:


> I don't get it either (plant harvesting suggestions). Either you are controlling nutrients or you're not. The EI method seems to advocate making sure that there are no limiting nutrients. If you have algae, you have to reset (get rid of the algae before you pump the nutrients back up).


No, you re set the conditions that you messed up.
Say the CO2, or you forgot to dose, neglect basically.

The algae can be removed once you correct what you where doing wrong(afterwards). Otherwise all the labor used to remove the algae that's there will be for nothing, the algae will grow right back again.

Just correct the issue before hand, then you prune the algae out/away etc.
The goal is stopping the new algae growth. This also provides good conditions for the plants which is the real goal.



> I'm not an EI believer,


EI is not based on _belief_.
It was tested and critically evaluated by thousand of folks.
Has been for over a decade.

How can anyone set up a control for a test if they cannot even produce a control tank to begin with?

You can't.
Response variables like NO3, CO2, PO4, Fe, K+, Ca, Mg etc.................

You down, one at a time and test them using a control tank in excellent health.

Yes, this is a lot of work.
And it took years..........
But little by little you solve the issues.

If you failed with EI, that's not the method's fault, clearly it does work.
ADA, PMDD, Dupla etc, non CO2, etc, they all clearly work. But not everyone has success with each method either. 

So it's the user, not the method's fault.
Some methods are easier than others, some more hands on, some more expensive etc. Sometimes a hobbyists just gets lucky and they have success with EI, or ADA etc. No issues. Sometimes they keep doing something wrong no matter which method they pick.
Sometimes they learn after 1-2 years of messing up and by luck, they fix something and do not even realize it, then attribute it to the method when it might had been good CO2, or simply caring for the tank more often etc.



> but there are many routes to get where you are going. You need to find one that works for you. I don't tear down or rest my tanks once they are up, nor do I use chemical controls (excel, H2O2, etc).


What you like might not be what Amano likes nor what Granny Hoodoo likes.
I can say many things about my non CO2 tanks. I do not need to do much at all, no water changes, no dosing, just add enough water to make up for evaporation, feed fish, clean filter once a month or so, plants grow fine, tank looks good. In another tank, I want faster growth. So the goals change tank to tank as well.

Light is where it all starts, that drives CO2 demand (which drives the nutrient uptake and assimilation), so if you have less light, you have less CO2 demand and likely will have a higher chance of providing good ample CO2 vs a high light tank.

You also have less nutrient issues and if something does go wrong, it's not that bad and takes longer. This is not based on belief either....it's basic plant physiology 101 course work. So if you want to increase the odds that someone will do better and have an easier time, you'd suggest lower light.

Does not matter what method you chose there, it'll be easier. Less light will also mean less growth, but that's not a bad trade off in this case.

If you limit PO4 severely, you will reduce the CO2 demand as well. Plants do not need much CO2 if they are strongly PO4 limited. However, they also do not grow very well/fast. Some folks like slower growth. That's fine.
However, if you add PO4 to this tank, the limitation quickly moves from PO4 limitation, to CO2 limitation if the CO2 was low and limiting PO4 seemed to "cure" the issue.

You can test this and prove this to yourself.

That's why Paul Sears hypothesis was incorrect and rejected.
Not because of belief, rather, testing to see if it worked under controlled conditions. Folks limited everything but PO4, that was the rage back 15 years ago. Adding PO4 should have caused algae based on that, but folks added PO4, and no algae appeared.

So that cause was ruled out for algae inducement/control as a direct causal relationship. A similar approach was used to rule out NO3, Fe , K, etc.
The math aspect in EI of partial dilutions and infinite series has been around for several decades in the hobby as well. You do not have to believe in math either. 

Test kits and using calibration solutions to see if the NO3 test kit is accurate has been a nagging point of mind going back over 10 years.
Again, no belief there either.

Lots of testing though.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

A couple of thoughts based mostly on others experience and a little bit on my own. 
If we started with a plantless tank, lighting would be the driving force behind the amount of algae. The more light, the more algae. Obviously some nutrients are required to support the algae.
Low light tanks with plants that tolerate the low light are less likely to develop algae than higher light tanks. 
Higher light levels increase plant growth increasing the need for nutrients, CO2, macros and micros. 
From other peoples observations if the density of plants is high in a high light situation you are less likely to have algae problems. (assuming the plants are healthy and growing – proper CO2, nutrients etc..)

I will accept the possibility (I’d like to see proof) that certain nutrients increase algae growth. Ammonia for example, when NO3 and PO4 is available etc.
I will accept the possibility that certain nutrients in excess may suppress algae growth. PO4 has been mentioned for GSA. Tom frequently mentions higher CO2 levels and stability. 
The only way to prove any of this is to take two equally algae covered tanks (no plants) and change the PO4, CO2 etc in one to see if there is a significant difference in the algae population.

It has been pretty well accepted that Flourish Excel inhibits algae. Not surprising as glutaraldehyde is a disinfectant. Higher levels will kill everything. Lower life forms are affected first. I would wonder about the “good” bacteria in the tank with higher levels of Excel.

The thought that plants limit the nutrients (that we are supplying) so that the algae can’t have any is ludicrous. EI dosing makes sure that nutrients are available in abundance at all times. 

What are we left with? 
1) Lower lighting limits algae (not great for many plants). I couldn’t grow much of anything in my 4 foot high tank except for Myrio with 1000+ watts of CF. The Myrio grew too well (I also didn’t have any algae problems except when water changes were not done for long periods of time and the myrio would start to die. (I assume it became nutrient limited in something that my tap water was providing.)
2) Higher plant density as long as they are healthy limits algae. I think this strongly suggests that growing healthy plants produce an algae inhibitor. There is some discussion in the second half of this thread. http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/pps-analysis-feedback/47217-adjusting-pps-pro.html I am sure it has been discussed here as well. Unless simply high steady CO2 suppresses algae, this makes the most sense as to why heavily planted tanks would have fewer algae issues.


My tank:
I have removed as much of the algae as possible from the gravel, reduced the high light period to just 2 hours for now, added SAE’s and a few Otos, and reduced adding additional fertilizers for now. I think the algae is starting to lessen, thin and not look as healthy in some areas. I love the look of a heavily planted tank but I also do not want to do as much trimming as that would likely require. I also like being able to see my background (I spent enough for it J ) I will still add a few more plants and maybe try to give an area in the front of the tank a lawn effect, but not to the extent of the really heavy planted tank. I do like the idea as suggested of an algae scrubber tank as it goes along with theory 2 above and I am planning to convert my first filter section, an 18x30x18” tank into one. I was planning to fit a mesh cage inside of the tank so the plants stay put. Add a quick grower like myrio with 110 watts of CF lighting above it.

If you disagree with any of my thoughts, no problem, I always were flame proof underwear J
Stuart


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

> EI is not based on _belief_.
> It was tested and critically evaluated by thousand of folks.
> Has been for over a decade.


Over a decade? The first time you wrote the EI paper wasn't over a decade ago. That would be 1998. First time anyone ever heard of EI was when you posted it on the San francisco plant club WEB site.. 2002 I think it was right?

Vicki seems to be deperately reaching out to understand whats going on and everyone else seems to be banging their heads too. For something that works so well, why does it have to be such a challenge to understand?



> Add a quick grower like myrio with 110 watts of CF lighting above it.


But Tom said not to try and out compete algae... but he also said more plant mass out competes algae... :icon_eek:


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Thanks, Robert. My question has nothing to do with who's fert plan is better. Like so many other things in life, we're all different and we find our own ways to accomplish the same goal (enjoying your aquarium).

What I'm looking for is the science behind it all. I'm getting some of it from Tom's posts, but nothing seems nailed down. Well, not nothing. But the entire picture isn't nailed. Pieces are known, but the full picture is not there yet.

Is it possible, then, that the true mechanics that drives some (or all) of the various fert programs to work are not scientifically understood, but known to work simply by observation? There are many medicines being used that have been proven to work without anyone actually knowing _why_ it works. Is that the same situation we have here?


----------



## KurtG (Dec 10, 2007)

"Only one problem, virtually anyone can and have shown , well, for decades now, that algae are not limited, nor does "excess" nutrients cause algae."

You need to define the system. If you want to restrict that discussion to tanks, then you have to define your system, and there is a large variation on how people set up and manage their tanks. 

We both know that algae can be controlled through nutrient limitation. It has been the main underlying principle for increasing SAV acreage; manage nutrients >> increase water clarity (less phytoplankton and epiphytes) >> increase SAV coverage. Now, the SAV was light limited, but the control is to get there by managing nutrients to limit algae.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

Just a few things. 

With EI or any other method for that matter, the method can be tailored to fit the individual tank variations. In fact, if I am not mistaken, Tom has gone on record as stating that EI does not have to be rigid and people can dose less frequently or more frequently with the end goal of having a slightly excess that the plants can use and then doing the 50 % weekly water changes to remove the excess nutrients and reset the tank. Even if excess nutrients, for argument sake cause algae, it does not usually happen overnight. The other issue at play, may be Eutrophication which leads to algae. When you flood your tank with excess nutrients and you don't have adequeate c02, plant mass,and lighting to match, don't be surprised to see huge algae blooms. This has nothing to do with EI method or any other method although people are quick to blame the method rather than track down and address the root cause. The only way you will have a 100% algae free tank is to go low light, with a tank packed with low light plants.

I set up a 10 gallon experimental tank http://azdhan.googlepages.com/thelostworld and as per water parameters tested monthly with calibrated nitrate and phosphate test kits and phophate and nitrate levels being through the roof from day one, I have yet to see any signs of huge algae blooms.

Getting back on topic.

When I did things wrong in setting up my 40 gallon and ended up with an algae farm. The following steps helped resolve this and it took almost 3 months to see results.

(1) Water changes 2 times a week with 3x regular dose of excel with every water change and a double dose of excel daily.

(2) Manual removal of as much algae as possible

(3) Addition of cardamine floating plant

(4)Estimative Index Fertilization with reduced phosphate amounts as my calibrated phosphate test kit indicated high tap water phosphate levels.

(5)Noon-burst lighting with the 2 55 watt AH supply kit for a total of 8 hours. Tubes set on seperate timers. One tube set to come on for 4 hours with the other kicking in after 4 hours, so both tubes would burn for 4 hours and one only for 4 hours.

(6) 30 ppm c02 pressurized. Consistent as tested with c02 drop checker.

***Edit: I forgot to mention that the Siamese Algae Eater, Albino Bristlenose pleco and Otocats that I added to contain the problem made a real dent in the existing algae.

The tank is far from perfect, but the Alagae is all gone, which I consider half the battle.


----------



## Tonyd (Jan 22, 2004)

Stuart,
Hello. I hope your tank is starting to come around, it looks like you really have a lot of potential with that set up. I had a problem very similar to yours a few years ago. I had a very "fast" setup with CO2 injection, high lighting, lots of fertilizers, and lots of plant growth. I also grew tired of constant plant trimming and still had algae problems despite my best efforts. I have since set up a tank with lower light and slower growing plants (mostly crypts and anubias) and have given up on the CO2 and specific ferts and I no longer have an algae problem and I enjoy my tank much more. The thread and advice so far has been great and while I don't have as much experience or knowledge as many around here I just wanted to try to help with a few specific things I would consider if I were in your shoes.

I would get rid of your zebra loaches and any other fish you have which prey on snails. I used to have 3 of those in my tank and they certainly kept the snail population down but I now feel that is counter productive to having a clean tank. Since removing those fish my snail population has grown and while the MTS can be annoying at times they keep dead leaves and debris to a minimum and I also have other ramshorn and pond type snails which do great work on algea, the ramshorns even cleaned BBA off some infested plants I placed in the tank.

Consider adding some more crypts or whatever type of plants you like to give you a jump start on growth. They are slow growing and will take a long time to fill in on their own and with a new order of plants you will probably get some beneficial snails as well in case your loaches have already cleaned them all out of your tank.

As previously suggested I think some floating plants would be helpful both nutrient wise and for shading until you get things under control. Maybe some wisteria or water sprite? Sounds like you may put some in your sump which would likely be just as good.

I would turn down the lighting as much as possible. As you know crypts and such are lower light plants but I think you may be suprised with relatively how little light they can get by with. This made a huge difference for me with the algae. This does slow down growth even more so again consider filling in with new plants right from the start. On the other hand, I don't mind the slow growth as it means less trimming and rearranging.

Lots of water changes. Hard (impossible?) to do too many or too much as long as your source water is decent.

I hope some or any of this is helpful to you. I hope your tank works out, I know how frustrating it can be to put a lot of work and money into your aquarium and then not be happy with how it looks.

Best of Luck,
Tony


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

Thanks for the added advice. The loaches did take care of a pond snail explosion when I first got the original plants. They really do not do much for the MTS. Luckily they are most active after lights out so I only see a few during the day. At night they are all over the place. I purchased some olive nerites and have thrown in some adult ramshorn snails. I think they have killed a few of the ramshorn snails but not the olive nerites (a trap door snail). I could probably use more of the nerites. So far the SAE's and few otos that I have found have also helped. Some of the anubia plant leaves are showing less algae. I am not really seeing any improvement in the hair algae on the background and it is starting to return on the gravel. I have still not been happy with CO2 levels even though I exchanged a reactor for a Mazzei injector. Only when I relaly crank it up and have micro bubbles through half the tank does it seem to be effectice. I can't say I really like the micro bubbles. I am going to make a large (3 foot or so ) reactor and try that instead. I did re-arrange water flow so it is markedly increased and water is now drained from both the top corner and bottom of the tank. There is definately more flow through the tank.

I have reduced lighting and so far things are still OK. Always in the back of my mind is the fact that almost everything died with just the PC lighting. The additional couple of hours of MH lighting seems to be enough for now. I did make a cage to go in my first box of the filter system to put quick growing stem plants in (myrio) I just need to find some and I will add that as well.

I did buy some Excel but am still holding off on resorting to that. Testing with 2cc/10 gallons in a 10 gallon tank with a good bit of algae has not shown dramatic results. 

Thanks,
Stuart


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I fianlly have the CO2 up to where I want it. I tried a mazzei injector and didn't like the fine bubbles that were present when CO2 was high enough. I replaced this with a home made reactor about 3 feet tall. Now I can disolve any amount of CO2 I want  Drop checker is now a light green. I have also started excell at 2cc/10 gallons each day. I'll see how this combination does in week or two.

Stuart


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Yay for DIY CO2 reactors.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

*Time for an update*

I have been negligent in posting an update. Luckily after a few changes and following various pieces of advice the tank is looking much better. Not the show piece of planted tanks as some seem to produce but I am pretty happy with it.

Below is a picture of the CO2 reactor that I made. I wasn't happy with the strewam of bubbles from the mazzei injectors so I just made a tall reactor where lots of CO2 could be disolved. It works pretty well.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I also rerouted flow through the tank. Before all of the water came in through the bottom of the tank in 6 different spots and flowed out through the right top corner overflow. Reccomendations were to pull some water from lower down in the tank. My concern was that if there was a power outage my basement would get flooded and I would need to call FEMA. My solution was to add a solenoid valve on the line from the bottom return. Without electricity it closes. What I did was take one of the two tank return lines and switch that to a drain. So one of the original returns now handles all of the flow which I was able to increase as the tank drain will handle a higher volume. The tank now drains from the corner overflow and half of the original tank return spigots under the driftwood. 
The only problem was the small snails were getting stuck in the solenoid valve and holding it open so I now have an inline filter (sprikler system type) just before the solenoid valve that catches any snails.

In addition I have a float switch in line with the valve so that if my filter tanks fill too much for some reason (pump failure without an electric failure) the solenoid valve will also close.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I was never happy with the Matala filter material in the first filter chamber. It was hard to clean and I didn't think it was doing that much for me. A suggestion was made to turn part of the filter system into a planted area for quick growing plants. I thought that was worth a try as well so I built a PVC frame that fit in the filter box and covered it with plastic mesh to give the plants a place to grow into and keep the plants from going through the fiter into the tank. I have put some red and green myrio and cabomba in there with a CF light above. The plants are doing well in there but not growing too quickly. I haven't had to harvest them yet. Although they are doing fine in there I doubt they have had any impact on the tank algae.


----------



## sc204 (Nov 27, 2007)

I also cut back on the metal halide lighting to 1 or 2 hours per day and just powered the center light. I siphoned off as much algae (and a couple of pounds of gravel) as I could. I ended up doing this twice. I added about 18 SAE's total and about 20 Ottos. I did lose a few SAE's and now have about 12 or so. Not sure about the ottos. I tried overdosing with Excell. Spot treatment killed the algae but whole tank treatment did little. I couldn't spot treat anything except part of the background withn arms reach. The SAE's I think did the most good. They eventually got the algae issue under control. You could see different areas improving. First the background, then the driftwood and finally the gravel.
There are still a few tufts hear and there but you have to look for it. I was able to resume the metal halide lighting (looks much better) for about 6 hours during the middle of the lighting period. The CF are on before and after that. Some of the plants are doing real well. The large anubias still have some GSA on them but much less than before, They continue to grow. Most of the swords and crypts are doing well except for the crypt balanase which started well but now looks a little weak. I had a couple of mad lace bulbs that were growing well untill the tank got a little warmer as winter is ending. Now their leaves still grow but turn brown. An Apo ulvaceous is doing well and slowly making its way up the back of the tank as well as sending up flower stalks. (anyone know how to get them to fertilize). A second one has stayed small and mostly hidden beneath a crypt, but also sends up flower stalks which easily make it to the top of the 48" tank.

So thank you all for the advice it is working the tank is a pleasure to view.


----------

