Red Algae Growing On Chaeto?

[Tommy Gun]

If one ever hopes to keep anemones and many stony corals in with softies, carbon is highly recommended if not necessary

I think there is some opinion to this statement as it is not completely fact....to be honest, I have been told the exact opposite advice and hence, never run any carbon media on my reef tank - which, I must add, contains an anemone, soft corals, and some stony corals which are known to produce this toxin - without seeing any negative effects from doing so.

when the lights went on I could hardly believe my eyes. The water was sparkling clear and a shade of light blue

Perhaps this was an effect created somewhat by coincidence since carbon is not going to remove every single thing from water....and if your water was so grossly tinted that carbon could make such a huge difference overnight, you may want to look at other areas of your maintenance in order to see if you can reduce the problem from its source. Granted, I realize that over time, even the most pure water can become discolored in an aquarium, however, I think a change as large as this one sounds like it was implies something much larger than time.

Which brings me to my main point here.....

NEVER NEVER NEVER add a large amount of carbon to an aquarium that has not been subjected to this form of chemical filtration before!!!! While I am sure Lynden is either over-exaggerating the results from suddenly adding carbon to his tank, or will not admit that his livestock suffered to at least some degree after doing so, this type of rapid change can literally remove so much DOC that you risk shocking your fish just like you might if you brought one home and simply plopped it in your tank. These are the warnings that I feel we should always elaborate on.

Additionally, while there is no real gauge for most of us to know when to change carbon filter media, we should do so relatively often....or at least replace at least a portion of the carbon often (again, to avoid shock and/or removing too many nitrifying bacteria...in some cases) since this filter media works on the principles that it is trapping certain substances (read: certain, not all) within the pourous carbon - hence, when it is full, it is nothing more than glorified biofilter media and you no longer gain the benifits from the carbon itself.

If anything you should increase it to about 23-24 hours a day. This will help the algae compete with the cyano.

I agree with this, but would warn you that this can also lead to mixed results in that this could also prove to help the cyano out compete the algae. Keep in mind that cyanobacteria is just what the name implies....bacteria, which can multiply with increadible speed in a lot of cases - case in point; you could go to sleep at night without any sign of the stuff in your tank and wake up to find the substrate covered in it. This also adds a certain benifit though -- when I added macroalgae to my own sump a few months back, I did so just after dropping a very small amount of antibiotic to my tank so that the cyano population was being reduced, giving the algae time to gain a foothold on the nutrients. This is certainly not a practice I would suggest performing on a regular basis, however, I think it is a viable option for those who are adding a refugium to deal with a current problem versus those who are adding one simply to avoid problems like this one in the future. Be sure to use an antibiotic which treats for gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Maracyn -- not Maracyn 2) since this should not place your benificial bacteria in great harm.

I also operate a rotation system whereby some of the chaeto algae in the sump is swapped with some of the algae in the tank

I thought that I had read about you having a mandarin AK77....and I used to do the exact same thing myself. Just wanted to point that out for anyone who might find themselves in need of copepods since chaeto is a great place to harbor and/or increase a population of them.

 

[Lynden]

Perhaps this was an effect created somewhat by coincidence since carbon is not going to remove every single thing from water....and if your water was so grossly tinted that carbon could make such a huge difference overnight, you may want to look at other areas of your maintenance in order to see if you can reduce the problem from its source. Granted, I realize that over time, even the most pure water can become discolored in an aquarium, however, I think a change as large as this one sounds like it was implies something much larger than time.

I have been on this forum for years and therefore "suffered it's numbing effects" but still take this as an insult. The tank was new, only set up for a few months, and had an oversized skimmer, but had soft corals growing in it from the get go, with water changes bi-weekly. The soft corals (and all other anthozoans) secrete allelopathic toxins, and these combined with the light which was 10 000k and thus not very blue, turned the water slightly yellow. Any reef tank with coral growth (but no carbon) can be expected to have a slight yellow tinge. This of course arises from the allelopathic toxins, which you, like a stereotypical beginner (not implying you are one - just saying that's what they tend to do) have appeared to completely ignore. Similar to avoiding water changes on a freshwater tank, this may not have any noticeable negative effects for years - but it almost always catches up with the person (and his corals) eventually. Generous water changes can probably serve the purpose of carbon, but it's always nice to have a bigger margin for error. I personally wouldn't want my nem to die just 'cause I forgot a water change one time.

Lastly, notice how I said "highly recommended"...

NEVER NEVER NEVER add a large amount of carbon to an aquarium that has not been subjected to this form of chemical filtration before!!!! While I am sure Lynden is either over-exaggerating the results from suddenly adding carbon to his tank, or will not admit that his livestock suffered to at least some degree after doing so, this type of rapid change can literally remove so much DOC that you risk shocking your fish just like you might if you brought one home and simply plopped it in your tank. These are the warnings that I feel we should always elaborate on.

In all honesty, they corals may have taken longer to open that day (followed by an upward trend in growth rates lasting to the present day), but nothing past that was noticed. All of my animals are hardy, and I agree with you that caution should be taken, but there is such a thing as being too careful. Also 'fish' is a terrible example because with a few exceptions they can adjust their internal water chemistry VERY quickly - and indeed I would go so far as to say that most people take way too long to acclimate fish. Two or three hours is more than adequate for converting euryhaline fish from fresh to salt, let alone "acclimatizing" a salt water fish to... salt water. Just to illustrate how hardy fish are.

Additionally, while there is no real gauge for most of us to know when to change carbon filter media, we should do so relatively often....or at least replace at least a portion of the carbon often (again, to avoid shock and/or removing too many nitrifying bacteria...in some cases) since this filter media works on the principles that it is trapping certain substances (read: certain, not all) within the pourous carbon - hence, when it is full, it is nothing more than glorified biofilter media and you no longer gain the benifits from the carbon itself.

Once or twice (with heavy coral stock) a month is perfectly adequate for nearly all uses. Doesn't take a genius to see that one. Again, it is not impossible to be too careful with this subject.

I agree with this, but would warn you that this can also lead to mixed results in that this could also prove to help the cyano out compete the algae. Keep in mind that cyanobacteria is just what the name implies....bacteria, which can multiply with increadible speed in a lot of cases - case in point; you could go to sleep at night without any sign of the stuff in your tank and wake up to find the substrate covered in it. This also adds a certain benifit though -- when I added macroalgae to my own sump a few months back, I did so just after dropping a very small amount of antibiotic to my tank so that the cyano population was being reduced, giving the algae time to gain a foothold on the nutrients. This is certainly not a practice I would suggest performing on a regular basis, however, I think it is a viable option for those who are adding a refugium to deal with a current problem versus those who are adding one simply to avoid problems like this one in the future. Be sure to use an antibiotic which treats for gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Maracyn -- not Maracyn 2) since this should not place your benificial bacteria in great harm.

Cyanobacteria is also very primitive compared to algae, and the algae produce antibiotic substances (amoung others). Cyanobacteria's main advantage is it's adaptability, while the algae's is that it is better at competing. Given plenty of energy for photosynthesis the algae will out compete the cyano, unless there is an excess of nutrients. Antibiotics to fight cyano is never a good idea, as they will never completely eradicate it, and there is also the risk - especially when using it at the low levels you are - that it could create a resistant strain, on top of the fact that it can harm the tank's biological filtration.

Also, check this out...
<a href="http/www.fishforums.net/content/Saltwater-Hardware/204671/Activated-Carbon/" target="_blank">http/www.fishforums.net/content/Saltwate...tivated-Carbon/</a>

 

[Tommy Gun]

I have been on this forum for years and therefore "suffered it's numbing effects" but still take this as an insult.

First, I don't really understand what comment I made in my second paragraph since my intent was only to point this out because, even though carbon has worked for you in this manner, this doesn't mean everybody will see the same results in his/her own tank(s) --- which I thought was an important point, hence I only elaborated on your thoughts; or at least hoped to do that.

I also don't really see what you having spent years on this forum has to do with this conversation....unless you are trying to imply that this makes your advice more valuable that others who are new to the forum or because you have spent this long here, it is safe to assume that you are 100% correct, 100% of the time. Additionally, while I am new to this forum, you should not assume that I am completely new to this environment, nor that I must be a 'newbie' since both are inaccurate. My point being - I don't feel as though I should refrain from replying to a thread because you, or other long-term members, have already added input even though I am sure I can help with the conversation. Or is that what I should be doing?

Any reef tank with coral growth (but no carbon) can be expected to have a slight yellow tinge

First, a 10,000k bulb is relatively blue in comparison to most of the bulbs we use over our tank(s)....in fact, since I can turn off my actinic lighting separately, I can't say I have noticed that the water all of a sudden looks terrible. However, I believe that the type of lighting you are using itself can cause water to appear discolored and perhaps more discolored than it truly is. For example, I once found the water in a FW tank to be cloudy with a slightly yellow tint, but when I took some of that water and looked at it under my kitchen and natural sunlight and it was definitely green, not yellow.

In any case, like I said, I have quite a few corals in my reef right now and do not use carbon, and yet, the water isn't yellow. Out of curiosity, if you were to trust me when I say that I have spent copious amounts of time on other forums, can you tell me why I have yet to hear about this problem if, as you suggest, it is all that big of a deal?

Lastly, notice how I said "highly recommended"...

Don't worry, I noticed that right away. However, don't forget the rest of that sentence - if not necessary - which is the part that I am in dispute with.

I would go so far as to say that most people take way too long to acclimate fish. Two or three hours is more than adequate for converting euryhaline fish from fresh to salt, let alone "acclimatizing" a salt water fish to... salt water

If you are speaking of FW fish, then I would be slightly more in agreement with you, however, with a few exceptions, saltwater fish do not have the same ability, or at least not to the same extent. Why? Simply because these fish are accustomed to a more specific and/or invariable water chemistry. Besides, pH and salinity are definitely not the only things fish need to acclimate themselves to...the first thing that comes to mind is the differences in DOC between two tanks.

And for the record, I am now absolutely sure that, until now, I have never once come across anyone or any resource which suggests that some acclimation procedures are a waste of time. And no, I don't believe that we can be too careful in this hobby since, as a great friend of mine has stated millions of times, "the only thing that happens fast in saltwater tanks is failure.

Once or twice (with heavy coral stock) a month is perfectly adequate for nearly all uses. Doesn't take a genius to see that one. Again, it is not impossible to be too careful with this subject.

It also shouldn't take a genius to know that every one of us is operating under unique circumstances and hence, it is somewhat fooling to make great big "blanket", or as I like to call them, "concrete" statements - meaning those which do not allow for any exceptions. To be honest, my main concern with some of the comments you make once are just that; they do not allow for exceptions when there are a great deal of exceptions that can occur. For example, if I was to add one tablespoon of activated carbon to my tank, or if I added 10 pounds of carbon, would your advice still apply?

Again, I don't feel that being too careful in saltwater tanks is neither all that common, nor a bad thing when, in a lot of cases, we are dealing with hundreds, even thousands of dollars worth of livestock.

Cyanobacteria is also very primitive compared to algae

Right....but if, by primitive, you are suggesting that they are less complex, I would say that could be a disadvantage for algae. I mean, this stuff has only been around for millions upon millions of years, so it must be pretty darn tough.

Cyanobacteria's main advantage is it's adaptability, while the algae's is that it is better at competing. Given plenty of energy for photosynthesis the algae will out compete the cyano, unless there is an excess of nutrients.

Isn't it a contradiction to say that algae will 'win out' over cyano if there is enough light for photosynthesis to occur....unless there is an over abundance of nutrients? I mean, the main benefit from running a refugium and/or adding macro algae to our tank is that the algae will use these nutrients? Obviously it doesn't take a genius to know that photosynthesis requires more than light alone. Additionally, my reasoning for pointing out that increasing the photo-period of a refugium or aquarium can end in mixed results is because cyanobacteria is photosynthetic itself....so, it too can benefit from that extra light.

Antibiotics to fight cyano is never a good idea, as they will never completely eradicate it, and there is also the risk - especially when using it at the low levels you are - that it could create a resistant strain, on top of the fact that it can harm the tank's biological filtration.

You may want to go back and read my comments on this again since you would see that you need to change the word 'using' to 'used' because I only did it once, just before or slightly after adding a refugium (of sorts). I also point out that using antibiotics in the manner I am suggesting is not a good idea for the same reason you point out....although I should have expanded upon that thought. Lastly, I also brought up the fact that all antibiotics are not created equally (e.g. broad spectrum and narrow spectrum), and it is possible to use one which will not harm beneficial bacteria, or at least not to a very significant extent. However, I was wrong on that....I believe the antibiotic that should be used is a gram-positive version, not gram-negative - sorry about that.

 

[Musho3210]

oooo i love these arguments.... I didnt really like them when i was a part in them, but watching

 

[Lynden]

I don't know what more I can say here as once again we are misunderstanding each other. I will try to elaborate to the fullest next time, but really, it gets pretty boring after a while.

Cyanobacteria evolved on Earth between 2.5 and 3.5 billion years ago and is thought responsible for the conversion of Earth's atmosphere to an oxygen-dominated one. For hundreds of millions of years it remained the most abundant life form on Earth, largely marginalizing the formerly "dominant" Archaea until eukaryotes came along, at which point the cyanobacteria were marginalized themselves by the more competitive eukaryotes. When the conditions in lakes, et cetera become poor, cyanobacteria will again become prevalent in those environments.

In an artificial setting, with unfavourable lighting and an excess of nutrients, cyanobacteria rises again, but if the aquarium is managed properly and it's levels are brought towards those of natural sea water, it will be marginalized. One thing that helps the eukarotes along is a large amount of light, and indeed in a large aquarium placed near a window, cyanobacteria will tend to disappear in the summer (in the northern hemisphere when summer daylight is longer), but may reappear in winter. It never goes away completely, and I have read that there is enough spores in the air to inoculate an aquarium.

 

[Tommy Gun]

oooo i love these arguments.... I didnt really like them when i was a part in them, but watching

I am starting to realize that I must be coming from a different school of thought, but I assure you, I am not arguing with anyone...perhaps 'debating', but not arguing.

I don't know what more I can say here as once again we are misunderstanding each other. I will try to elaborate to the fullest next time, but really, it gets pretty boring after a while.

Perhaps...it is a bad habit we are forming, isn't it? Anyways, if it "gets pretty boring after a while", I don't understand the logic behind posting then. Again, perhaps I am not used to this forum's environment.

Enough said on this issue I suppose....I can see now that you and I are on a similar page regarding light and cyano.

 

[Lynden]

Anyways, if it "gets pretty boring after a while", I don't understand the logic behind posting then.

Well, 'boring' was the wrong word... most of the people on this forum will testify that I can't really resist an argument/discussion...

 

[Tommy Gun]

I noticed! But perhaps argument is too harsh of a word...I prefer debate.