Algae in my tank.

[kty]

Hi there.
I seem to have an algae problem since getting a new lighting system in my tank. I was posting a while ago about trouble with getting my plants to grow, well now they are doing fine but i have lots of red / brown algae on some of them. My new system is called Fluval Aquasky and comes with a remote control to ajust the levels (which im completly clueless about) how can i get rid of the Algae and keep it away. And which are the best Algae eating fish/critters. Im trying to upload pics but files are too big any help would be great. X

 

[kty]

 

[Byron]

As I was typing you posted hotos, so I can now advise that this is brush algae. It is technically a red algae, but it has more than one form, and it can appear to be black, dark brown, grey, very dark green/grey, and reddish-black.

Algae is natural and to be expected in any aquarium, but when we have plants we obviously need to keep the algae under control. Algae needs light and nutrients, so the goal is to balance the light and nutrient availability so the plants utilize them and algae is disadvantaged. Light intensity and spectrum are both involved, and once these are in sync, duration factors in. Among the nutrients, any plant additives plus fish load/feeding and source water GH are factors. A photo of the entire tank would help, to show us the plant species and numbers; plants have differing requirements when it comes to this balance.

As for algae eating fish, that depends upon the type of algae. Fish species that may help with one algae species will usually be useless with the others. Some of these fish also have specific requirements of their own as a species, such as numbers, their size, etc. Generally, acquiring any fish to deal with an algae problem rarely works and may cause even worse problems. From the photos, showing black brush algae, there are only two fish species that will eat this, to varying degrees. One is the Siamese Algae Eater, but this fish needs a shoal and grows to 5-6 inches so it needs a large tank and may have issues with some other species. The other species I cannot remember, but I know it is not suited anyway.

Now we need to know the light specs. I am not up on LED lighting, but others may be able to offer more once this is known. Also, are you adding any plant additives?

 

[fozziebear]

the faster growing plants look in good health and unaffected by the algae whereas the slower growing plants look deficient in nutrients and have an algae problem.

my advice would be to increase your plant biomass in the tank by adding some more fast growers, start dosing some sort of light fertiliser regime and maybe a liquid carbon product depending on if you have shrimp or not.

prune any leaves that are covered in algae already, they are past help and will just release more algal cells to reproduce the problem, the plant will grow new small green leaves if it is a rhizome based plant like crypts or java fern.

What is your lighting period? i would recommend no more than 8 hours, and usually drop it to 6 if you are having algae issues, doesn't matter if you are using high low or medium lighting.

 

[NickAu]

maybe a liquid carbon product

The active ingredients in Liquid carbon are potentially very toxic and care must be taken in its use. Glutaraldehyde will chemically burn skin, can damage your lungs if inhaled, and, if you somehow manage to get it in your eyes, can cause serious damage.


Adding this rubbish may solve your problems in the short term, but to solve it long term is not as simple as adding xx drops of some toxin to yy gallons of water.

 

[fozziebear]

i'm not the biggest fan of long term use of liquid carbon unless the tank is plants only, but it can be very useful to get the upper hand on the algae whilst things are coming to a balance, obviously the tank needs more plant biomass first and foremost, and probably decrease the interval between water changes.

 

[Byron]

Nick's warning on the use of so-called liquid carbon supplements, those containing glutaraldehyde (Seachem's Flourish Excell and API's CO2 Booster both do) is well made. With fish in the tank, this is not good husbandry.

We still need to know the lighting here, in order to effectively assess things. I have set up dozens, maybe hundreds, of tanks over more than 25 years, all having plants, and it is not all that difficult to get the balance. But without knowing all the components (lighting, plant load, fertilizers, fish, GH) we are just stumbling in the dark.

 

[fozziebear]

how is it not good husbandry? i would not recommend liquid carbon products with shrimp, but they have always been fine with my fish, and the fish have never shown any adverse effects, i always dosed lightly, never using the product too heavily, but i dosed it regularly on a nano tank with no problems.

 

[Byron]

how is it not good husbandry? i would not recommend liquid carbon products with shrimp, but they have always been fine with my fish, and the fish have never shown any adverse effects, i always dosed lightly, never using the product too heavily, but i dosed it regularly on a nano tank with no problems.

Unless one is a fish, or unless one is an ichthyologist who can dissect a fish and observe this or that...we cannot say with any level of certainty that adding chemicals like glutaraldehyde to the aquarium is not going to somehow harm the fish. The fact that fish live through this doesn't mean they are not being affected. This is the same for any additive that is not necessary.

The physiology of a fish means that any and all substances in the water get inside the fish, in its bloodstream and internal organs. At the very least, this is almost certainly adding stress; but it may go much farther than that. And even if not, stress does impact the fish's metabolism, weakens its immune system, and inevitably means a shorter than normal lifespan. Obviously if we are relying on external conditions, we cannot know any of this. But understanding the physiology tells us not to risk it.

Glutaraldehyde is a toxic disinfectant. It is used in hospitals to disinfect medical instruments, it is used in anti-freeze, in embalming fluid, and in ship ballasts to kill pathogens when the ship moves from one ocean to another. I realize this is using the chemical at a strength different from what would be in Excel or CO2 Booster, but it is still adding the same toxin to the aquarium.

The fact that these products will kill algae outright, and some plant species (Vallisneria and some mosses seem especially sensitive), and you yourself include shrimp as risks, even when used at the minimal recommended dosage, should tell us that they are very dangerous. I do not consider it good husbandry to use any such product in an aquarium with live fish. This is tantamount to saying it is OK to dump half a cup of bleach into the aquarium because it will be diluted and not cause harm, and I suspect the fish would live through this. I still do not advise it because the scientific evidence of how fish interact with their aquatic environment says different.

 

[fozziebear]

I see where your point from a animal husbandry and a "best of intentions" standpoint, but to compare the use of liquid carbon (which is extremely popular in the planted section of the fishkeeping community and many people have used it without ill effects) to bleach is a bit of a stretch, i would say it is more of a tool than a "fertiliser" per se, yes it may not be a natural substance to be putting into aquariums but is the SERA range exactly natural too? you see local fish shops recommened that crap on a daily basis.

I have 6 harlequins that were kept with liquid carbon dosing for over a year, and they are 4 years old now, it states their lifespan in the aquarium is anywhere between five to eight years, and they still look very healthy.

 

[Byron]

I see where your point from a animal husbandry and a "best of intentions" standpoint, but to compare the use of liquid carbon (which is extremely popular in the planted section of the fishkeeping community and many people have used it without ill effects) to bleach is a bit of a stretch, i would say it is more of a tool than a "fertiliser" per se, yes it may not be a natural substance to be putting into aquariums but is the SERA range exactly natural too? you see local fish shops recommened that crap on a daily basis.

I have 6 harlequins that were kept with liquid carbon dosing for over a year, and they are 4 years old now, it states their lifespan in the aquarium is anywhere between five to eight years, and they still look very healthy.

As I said, you cannot possibly use external appearance, especially when the issue has scientific evidence. And saying that others have used it "without ill effects" is misleading, because you simply cannot make such a statement. The fact is that the likelihood of there being problems for the fish is more a probability than not, whether or not you ever see them.

These toxins may be "extremely popular in the planted section of the fishkeeping community" but that is still not intelligent when it goes against the facts. Also, most planted tank aquarists who are in to plants in a major way care little about fish [and many such tanks are fishless]; I have come across this a lot on planted tank forums. I was advised by a highly reputable plant aquarist to not do water changes, regardless of the fish, because it was affecting the CO2 balance and the plants might be affected.

Another side of this should be kept in mind too. Diffused CO2 is far superior to these liquid toxic chemicals. If one has an aquatic garden, it will benefit more from diffused CO2. Though there are risks to the fish here too, very serious risks. Best to leave fish out of tanks if one intends adding any form of CO2.

Which brings me to the other factor, that except in these aquatic garden tanks, CO2 produced naturally primarily within the substrate will be sufficient in natural or low-tech method planted tanks where fish are the prime focus rather than plants.

I'm not familiar with the SERA products you mention. But plant additives in any form must be carefully considered and may not always be advisable. I learned this when trying to solve a problem in one tank a couple years ago, and my discussions with three professional biologists/microbiologists taught me a lot about additives and fish.

 

[fozziebear]

You seem a very intelligent guy byron, i appreciate the mental stimulation, much kudos to you.

I agree you cannot tell what is going on inside the fish from the outside, but over a longer period of observation of the fishes size, colouring, temperament and behaviours you can get some idea.

I agree many planted tank enthusiast care little about livestock, they care more about how their tank looks for photography or how the plants are looking, the livestock are there merely to compliment the aquascape for those people, however for me the livestock is the most important thing about keeping an aquarium, on the issue of changing water, i could not disagree more with whoever it is you talked to, heavy regular water changes (up to 50% twice a week in a mature tank) are vital for success when growing plants and trying to keep down algae in my experience, unless you are talking about super low tech or walstad method tanks which are different.

Diffused CO2 is definately preferable, agreed, but i would not say that having CO2 means don't have livestock, it is quite possible to get a good balance, although the PH variations have always bothered me, which is part of the reason i use no CO2 products or injection now, and just manually remove algal growth with regular water changes and maintenance, let the plants do the work for you.

In low tech or non CO2 aquariums, more important than CO2 released via the substrate is good surface agitation and a good gaseous exchange, that way you can introduce gasses from the atmosphere inside your home rather than from a pressurized bottle.

whereas in walstad method the most important thing is changing very little water, ensuring you capture as much CO2 from the substrate, which is sort of the cornerstone of a walstad tank, the substrate is very important.

The SERA range i'm talking about are all sorts of concoctions for forcing changes in your water parameters, which in my opinion lead to imbalance and a see-saw effect, but because they are a good profit margin most local fish shops will push sell them to people with problems. (ie. "oh you are worried your water is too high a PH? heres some SERA PH down for £11.99"

Thanks for the stimulating conversation, Regards, Gus.

 

[Byron]

Thank you too.

On the CO2, it is now evident that any form of added CO2 is likely to affect fish detrimentally. [And this is aside from fluctuations in pH, which themselves are not as critical provided they are not excessive. After all, natural waters in the fish's habitat tend to have diurnal fluctuations.] The more serious aspect is the poisoning that added CO2 will lead to; Nathan Hill deals with this subject quite well:
https/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/blog/articles/does-co2-injection-cause-disease?rq=carbon dioxide

Walstad method is not as beneficial as some might assume. Even she admits that after one year, any substrate of inert sand will have the benefit equal to soil; so that begs the question why risk the initial ammonia with soil, or do the six-month with no fish start just to have soil? And one must always keep in mind that she has minimal fish loads which is why she can minimize water changes. You cannot escape significant water changes with fish in the tank, unless they are very few and the plants are able to deal with the purification of the water. One writer described a well planted tank being self-sufficient (needing no water changes, only fish feeding) as nothing more than six tetras in a 55g planted tank. Any more fish in this volume and you are into the need for water changes because you are beyond the capability of the plants to deal with everything.

I never recommend additives for anything, beyond what is absolutely essential. They all get inside the fish. High-tech planted tanks are not good environments for any fish. There is the intense light that is detrimental over time, then the CO2, then the daily fertilizers. All bad for fishies.

 

[fozziebear]

Thanks for linking that article i will give it a read, my information is probably about 4 years out of date to be fair, always learning in this hobby no matter how much you know, you make some very valid points, what is "acceptable" or "survivable" for a fish may well not be in its best interest.

 

[Toney]

Plants need love to...

Before I had my first planted tank I didn't mind algae, kept the lights on 24 7, heck algae wasn't really a problem. I washed my plastic plants stirred and vacuumed the gravel and cleaned the glass.

My planted tanks have seen it all... I spent good money for those plants.


Tanks without simp get algae fix, tanks with shrimp get nuked with h2o2.

I have reduced my lights to 7 hours a day and feeding much less