# Algae frustration



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

I seem to be in the neverending cycle of algae. I almost never make changes to my tank, which has been setup for about 2 years. I've dosed consistently, kept the same lighting and only occasionally tweak my CO2 to try and fix my problems. I just can't ever seem to reach stability. 

It always starts with an outbreak of algae. It slowly grows until it's completely out of control and it takes me a month or so to get rid of it. Things seem normal for 2-3 weeks before yet another reincarnation of BBA, BGA, Rhizoclonium or INSERT NEW AND IMPROVED FORM OF ALGAE HERE starts appearing again. I don't understand why I can't reach the point that everyone else seems to where they have occasional outbreaks on such a smaller scale than I do. 

Am I the only one that has this problem? There are so many times I think of just giving up and selling everything but, then come those 2-3 weeks of hassle-free beauty. Sorry for the rant, I just felt like venting. I don't honestly think there's a solution to my problems, I've tried everything except giving someone with an aquatic green thumb full control of my tank. :icon_sad:


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Do you pay as much attention to the tank during the 2-3 weeks of 'beauty' as you do when the tank is in disaster mode?


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

Unfortunately, that's what makes it so annoying! I rarely make changes, always making sure to dose and change the water religiously. Maybe I'm giving off a pro-algae vibe. :icon_conf


----------



## Spiritwind (Feb 2, 2008)

I am not the expert on this at all, but you are going to have to change some things. Are you changing your dosages, lighting or anything at the end of each outbreak? I mean if you do the exact same thing algae should come again. How bout a list of what you have, your water change schedule and your dosing regime?


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

I apologize for not providing more information. Ok, I realized I have made some changes here and there in an attempt to get rid of each outbreak so, I'll try and run through what I have as far as equipment and also the changes I've made.

-55 gallon tank, light to moderate bioload

Lighting:
- 2, 96 watt Coralife fixtures and a 30w fixture that came with the tank
- 30w fixture is on 12 hours a day, the other two are on for 8. This has been a fairly recent change in a failed attempt to get rid of my BBA and rhizoclonium outbreak. 

Pressurized CO2, limewood airstone diffuser, about 30ppm.

I dose 1 tsp KNO3 every other day, 1/8 tsp Plantex CSM-B on the opposite days. I doubled my KNO3 dose along with the lighting change for problems with BBA. Occasional use of Excel, which, of course, works temporarily but doesn't fix the problem. 

I do 50% - 60% water changes once a week.


I guess I've made quite a few changes. I don't know why I got it into my head that I haven't changed anything. Perhaps more accurately I should state that none of my changes have ever been successful long-term.


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

What sort of flowrate do you have in there? I suspect that it may not be enough when the plants are filled in. Do you have any areas of the tank where detritus builds up?

The lighting looks reasonable from both wattage and duration perspectives.

That is _a lot_ of KNO3 though, I add about half that ppm to my 75. Too much nitrate isn't likely a cause for any of the problems though. How much phosphate and potassium are you dosing? Any calcium or magnesium? Water hard or soft? 

There's probably some nutrient that is lacking in the system. I figure you probably do some more harsh pruning when you have an algae situation, then things improve until the plants start to fill in again. Is that right, or am I off here? The increased flow and lower overall nutrient demand allows the tank to prosper for a while and then you reach that tipping point and things run down hill again. 

...at least I've seen that happen in my tank. It did take me a good bit of flailing about to finally realize that I needed to up my filtration and stabilize my dosing.


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

I have a Fluval 305, which is about 168 gph and a Maxi-jet 600 powerhead just for extra circulation, which I added after my Cyperus helferi grew in so thick that the surface around those leaves were just thick with gunk. 

I no longer dose anything else other than KNO3 and Plantex CSM-B. I used to dose phosphates but, my tap water was so high to begin with, my phosphate was through the roof. I guessed, rather than knew, that the potassium in the KNO3 would be enough for my tank so, I haven't done that either. Also, my water is very soft.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the massive pruning to get rid of algae and then the surge when everything grows back in. I suppose I have also noticed quite a bit of detrius build up in most areas of the tank.

So, do you think it would be worthwhile to upgrade my filter? Do you think the ferts I'm not adding would be of assistance? 

Thanks again for the all the help Indiboi!


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

I think upping the filtration would be a big plus. I have 7X turnover per hour for my tank, but thats with Eheim specs... which supposedly are with media. I know that my 2217 is doing about 90GPH actual, measuring the outflow after the CO2 Reactor & UVS (which is a dramatic decrease from specs!). My 2028 does 160GPH actual -- it's supposed to be ~280GPH!. :icon_cry: 

Since I upgraded from my ecco to the 2217 and ditched my spray bar (now just use straight outflows) my own detritus problem vanished. Gunk was collecting underneath the spray bar before that change.

With your soft water (same here) I think it would be wise to add some GH Builder/Equilibrium, about 3/4 tsp at water change. That'll give you some Ca, Mg, and a good bit of K. Now, with the double KNO3 dose low potassium isn't all that likely, but I'd really cut that back in half (to the more normal ~8ppm per 3X weeky dose).

You might want to check your PO4 test kit by mixing up a known PO4 solution, it might be leading you astray too. I tested PO4 in my tap, but I still add some, about 1/2 the normal EI dose. I've had it up to 5ppm in my tank without issue.

I hope that helps, but please keep in mind it's all really sort of an educated guess.


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

I just happen to have a brand new Marineland C-360 canister filter sitting around which claims a flow rate of 360 GPH so, hopefully that should make difference in the level of detrius.

I'll also give the GH booster a try...I've really ignored Ca and Mg, assuming they weren't really necessary but, I suppose every element is essential for plant health. 

Like I said, I doubled my KNO3 dose to combat BGA but, I also read somewhere that it was the right dosage to increase my nitrates to somewhere near 20ppm. At my original half dose, I was barely reaching 10ppm but, that, of course, could bring into question the accuracy of my nitrate test. Is there anything specific that you think the large KNO3 dose might be affecting? I'm a little afraid to make so many large changes at once...any one you might do first?

Thanks again for the assistance. I think all of your suggestions seem very valid and from what I've read elsewhere on the forum, you really know your stuff.


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Of all the suggestions/changes, I'd probably start the GH Builder/Equilibrium first. 

I think increasing the flow/filtration will help curb the BGA problem, provided everything else is in check, so I would probably do that second or in conjunction with the GH Builder. Whenever I had BGA it was in more stagnant areas where detritus built up.

Once all that seems under control I'd look at the KNO3 & KH2PO4 dosing. In my experience the KNO3 & KH2PO4 were the least of my problems, algae seemed more spurred on by poor circulation and insufficient CO2.

In the meantime checking the test kits would probably be a good idea.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

yeah, Ca &Mg and S are actually macro nutrients.. you definitely need them.

and you need to lower your lights (wattage & period) until you resolve the issue.


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Oh, yes, good point Mistergreen. Lowering the intensity and longevity of the photoperiod can give a comfortable bit of leeway when trying to solve problems, the tank isn't moving so fast, if you will.


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

Yes, after reading Mistergreen's post, I immediately went and turned off one of my 96 watts. I think I'll leave it off for a week or so and see how it goes. Do you think it's necessary to reduce the photoperiod as well? At this point, I will have the 30 watt running for 12 hours and the other 96 watt running for 8.


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

I run a high amount of light over my 29 gallon, and my photo period is critical with respect to algae growth. Right now, I haven't had any major algae issues for about 5 months. I am on a tight 8 hour photoperiod. Anything more and all hell breaks loose. I am also running slightly more CO2 at about 40 ppm.

One thing I have noticed about BGA is that once you have it, it isn't as simple as counter acting whatever caused the problem to eradicate it. If your nitrates bottomed out, adding more nitrates is probably not going to get rid of it. I tried this approach and it did not get rid of the algae/bacteria. Many people blame its formation on water current or lack thereof as well as the nitrates bottoming out. I tend to agree with the nitrates bottoming out. I tried a 3 day blackout and it worked for about 5 - 7 days and then the BGA started to creep back in. I then did a 3 month blackout with the same result. I was so fed up with it that I was willing to sacrifice my plants to get rid of it. The end result was the same. The BGA came back within a week or two.

I then dosed the tank with Erythromycin (EM) as a last ditch effort to get rid of the BGA. Within 5 to 6 days, the BGA was starting to disappear and by the end of the prescribed dosage it was completely gone. I have not seen it since. The treatment had no effect on any of my fish or shrimp, but it did seem to knock back my MTS population. To date, everyone that I have talked to has said that there were no ill effects with going the EM route. The bottom line is that you need to keep your nitrate levels up as you are treating the BGA.

BBA is another beast to itself. I have found that if CO2 levels are optimal, BGA will disappear on its own (very slowly). If you want to speed the process up, you can dose Excel into the tank, preferably with a tippet or syringe (spot treating) just above the algae. If you use this method, you will want to shut off your lights and filter during the treatment (20 to 30 minutes). Just be aware that you can affect some plants and shrimp by dosing Excel into your tank.

In any event, the Excel will help, but it doesn't solve the problem. My guess would be that your CO2 might be a little lower than what you think.

I would probably run all of the lights the same as you have been running them, but I would reduce the photoperiod for all of them down to a lower number. Then work your way up until you start seeing a problem. Once you see a problem, back it back down just below the problematic threshold.

Lastly, like others have said, I would start looking into dosing potassium and phosphates seperately. I know you said you tested your phosphate levels and you said that they were high out of the tap. This might be the case, but was your test kit calibrated? Do you have any problems with GSA? GSA is a good indication of a lack of PO4.


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

> I run a high amount of light over my 29 gallon, and my photo period is critical with respect to algae growth. Right now, I haven't had any major algae issues for about 5 months. I am on a tight 8 hour photoperiod. Anything more and all hell breaks loose. I am also running slightly more CO2 at about 40 ppm.


Have you had any issues with plant growth or coloration with an 8 hour photoperiod? Since I've had non-stop issues with BBA, perhaps a permanent lowering of my photoperiod is in order.

GSA is problem the only algae I really haven't dealt with. I think I may have experienced a small amount of it a year or two ago but, it disappeared pretty quickly. Regardless, I think it's time to test my test kits and if they are inaccurate, invest in something better.

Thanks for all the helpful advice everyone!


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

Digsy said:


> Have you had any issues with plant growth or coloration with an 8 hour photoperiod? Since I've had non-stop issues with BBA, perhaps a permanent lowering of my photoperiod is in order.
> 
> GSA is problem the only algae I really haven't dealt with. I think I may have experienced a small amount of it a year or two ago but, it disappeared pretty quickly. Regardless, I think it's time to test my test kits and if they are inaccurate, invest in something better.
> 
> Thanks for all the helpful advice everyone!


No I haven't. Growth and color are exactly the same as they were on a longer photoperiod. Just less algae.


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Same here regarding a shorter photoperiod. I went down from 12 to 10, now I'm at 8.5 hours. If anything the plants grow better, but I figure that's more because they're no longer constantly covered with all sorts of algae.


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

Digsy said:


> GSA is problem the only algae I really haven't dealt with. I think I may have experienced a small amount of it a year or two ago but, it disappeared pretty quickly. Regardless, I think it's time to test my test kits and if they are inaccurate, invest in something better.


If you don't have a problem with GSA your phosphates are probably at good levels. This seems to be one area where I have problems. I use RO/DI water so I have to use phosphates for the plants. If I dose too much, some of my plants yellow a bit and start to wilt. If I don't use enough, the BGA starts to creep on the glass and on certain plants like anubias.

Sounds like you atleast have GSA beat for now. 

You just need to tweak things a bit to control the BBA. I have spot treated BBA in my tank a couple of times and boosted my CO2 a bit. It was enough to make it stop growing new tufts and slowly disappear. I like that method rather than trying to nuke it and get it to die off asap.


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm actually excited about dropping the lighting down to 8 hours now that you both have said that plant growth is the same...I'm hoping it will make it so much easier to keep the CO2 level up! :thumbsup: I suppose the longer the photoperiod, the more you have to compensate with CO2 and nutrients, probably making it incredibly easy to get everything all out of whack!


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

Something I perhaps should have asked earlier...should I stop dosing ferts now that I've gone to such low lighting? Also, how long can my somewhat high light plants survive such low lighting?

I've been running my 30w 7 hours a day and nothing else for just over a week. I've noticed very little difference, so far and am now kicking myself for not considering whether or not to stop ferts.


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

Keeping the fert levels up with that amount of light is probably excess, but I have yet to see where the ferts actually add to an algae problem. I would turn your main lights on for a 7 to 8 hour photoperiod and possibly increase the CO2 rate. I personally think that your CO2 rate along with a shorter photo period is the biggest key to your algae issues.

Here is a good calculator to determine your CO2 in ppm (parts per million):

http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_co2chart.htm

I would track this the first day about 1/2 way through your photo period and then at the end of your photo period. You should aim for about 30 to 40 ppm with either all your lights on or with at least one of the 96W bulbs running. Personally, I would run whatever lights you want to run for the long term. Once you determine what your CO2 levels are, you can adjust a little and retest the next day to see if levels have been increased. Make minor adjustments rather than larger ones. Also, keep an eye on your fish. If you see anything out of the ordinary, back off a bit on the CO2. I would also be prepared to do an emergency waterchange if necessary. 

Once you get a handle on CO2, then you should see the algae cease to spread. At this time you can do things such as use the Excell spot treatment method to try to eradicate the remaining algae. I wouldn't be too agressive with this as your boosted CO2 will have a long term impact that should make the algae recede on its own.

One big question that I have is what type of filtration are you running? If you are running a canister, it might be advantageous to build an inline reactor for your CO2. I have found this to be more efficient than using a diffuser. If you are using HOB (hang on back) filters, then this could explain a lower CO2 level. HOB filters have a tendancy to help dissolve more O2 into the water column which makes dissolving CO2 into the water column more difficult. O2 dissolves better than CO2. People call this outgassing, degassing, etc. I have run a HOB filter with CO2, and it does cause the problem I just mentioned above. Once I switched to a canister, my CO2 ppm increased sugnifigantly.

Keep us informed and if you don't understand anything, ask for clarification.


----------



## Digsy (Mar 4, 2006)

Thanks again for the response, BiscuitSlayer. I will go ahead and add my other lights back to the mix but, should I bump it all the way back to a 7-8 hour photoperiod if I still have some algae (though it doesn't appear to be spreading anymore) or will it be acceptable to run for that long as long as CO2 levels are kept up? I planned on building back up to 7 or 8 once I noticed visible improvement to my algae problems but, if you don't think it will add to the problem, I'd rather have the slightly longer photoperiod anyhow. 

I do have a canister filter, which I plan on upgrading soon so, that would probably be the best time to add an inline reactor. In your experience, what is it about the reactor that has been more effective than a diffuser?


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

I'm a little behind on chiming in here, but I second all that which biscuitslayer has said. I also have a 29 gallon tank with 110 watts of light. If I ran a 9 hour photoperiod, regardless of CO2 and ferts algae would flourish. I run a 7 to 8 hour photoperiod now on that tank and a 6 hour photoperiod on my other tank and algae is much more subdued. 

The inline reactors are simply more efficient at putting more CO2 into your water. I still use limewood in my 10 gallon, but will probably be building a reactor for it in the near future as well, mostly for aesthetics, but in hopes to get just a bit more CO2 dissolved into the tank.

Good luck with yours


----------

