Zeovit & hair algae

[lduncan]

Interesting that the people I know in ChCh and wasp disagrees.

How much algae was on the rocks when you removed it?

[wasp]

Wouldn't say I dissagree. If Pies says that's what happened, then that's what happened. Simply indicates that the rock used for his experiment was already very "clean", or free of built up nutrients.

In my case when I went BB my rock was thoroughly clogged from several years in a high nutrient tank and shed quite a bit of crud. Not for 6 months though it slowed right down in around 3 months.

[wasp]

Hi Duke thanks for the phone call. I did a "drip test" with my start 2 dripper, and with mine it took 25 drops for one ml. Not sure if every dripper is the same, but if so, your current 6 drops daily will not be enough.

Here's what I think you should do. (after you send me the water sample)

Put 3/4 litre zeovit rock in the reactor and put a timer on it so it's 3 hours on, 3 hours off. Endevour to get flow rate at around 280 litres an hour (give or take 50 or so litres is OK)

Then dosing should be as follows -

first 3 days 3 drops bac, 20 drops start, and 2 drops food daily.

Then the rest of the fortnight do this every 2nd day, but the 20 drops start every day.

Then for a further 4 weeks dose twice weekly, but the start daily.

This will make 6 weeks and it's time to change the zeo rock, depending how it's going may be able to go back to 1/2 litre of rock.

This may seem like a high dose of start but with your current situation I believe you will be safe. If you start getting a lot more of that brown slimey stuff on the glass may need to reduce. Make sure to pump the rocks one or more times daily.

The 2nd part of the equation is food, I have mailed the low phosphate food, it may look like a small bottle but if it does not last quite a few weeks at least, you are feeding too much. It is a complete food your fish can eat that and nothing else for many months.

I think your trigger is to a degree the villain, he has you over a barrel if you don't feed him heaps he will kill your coral banded! I'd be inclined to, if possible, remove either the trigger, or the shrimp, to the sump for a while. If the trigger is gone from the tank you will likely be surprised how little the rest of the fish eat!

In any case, just feed them enough once a day so it's all gone in about 30 seconds and don't feed any other kind of food. The fish will act starving and beg you at the glass, but only increase food if they get visibly thin. In this way can probably reduce phosphate input to the tank to about 1/4 of current levels.

The fish food container I sent, if you can send me a similar size bottle of water once a fortnight so we can track how phosphate is going & adjust dosing accordingly.

[JoeBlog]

Just be aware that if you do go BB, then you should setup the flow so that most detritus doesn't settle. It's not a quick process once you remove sand, the rock sheds a LOT for months before it slows down. And because the sand doesn't trap and hold the nutrients, if detritus is left sitting on the bottom of the tank, it's going to cause nitrate and phosphate to rise.

This is so true. There are HEAPS of people on RC that complain that going BB actually made their tanks worse (i.e. “explosion" of nitrates, etc…) but they also typically had piss all flow, didn't cook their ages old rock, have a way undersized skimmer and/or poor husbandry (i.e. didn't blow off their shedding rock, hardly ever siphoned out the detritus piles, etc...). I didn’t cook my rock and going BB has been more work than when I had my SB. I’m just looking at it now as time/effort invested for when my tank finally finds equilibrium, and I (hopefully!!!!) have a stable tank with awesome color for little effort! (and of course, the piece of mind that I have minimized the potential for unforeseen disasters)

Hair algae can also be hard to get rid of because the hairs just trap more floating detritus which feeds growth, so if you put the affected rocks into a high flow area then that can help clear it up faster.

Because of the HA creating its own detritus trap, you should get an old toothbrush and scrub the hell out of that area to not only physically remove the HA, but also aerate the area as best as possible to allow the phosphate to be released from the rock. The high flow will keep any more detritus from being absorbed.

It's a long battle, but I think I am finally getting the upper hand on my problem spots.

[Pies]

Interesting that the people I know in ChCh and wasp disagrees.

? Dissagree all you like, its a fact. Just because it differs from your own experance does't make it un-true. I wasn't saying you were lieing or being decietfull, just saying that what I have seen hasn't been as spectacular as I thought it was going to be (given how vocal you have been about what a huge amount of gunk comes out).

How much algae was on the rocks when you removed it?

Its rock from my own tank, you've seen the photos (and commented on the poor state of my rock), to me looks like normal rock, you described it as typical for a DSB tank, the ticking time bomb...

My tank has moderate/high flow, moderate skimming BUT it also has DSB. You've all seen my tank, in photos and on-line. I'm not keeping many secerets. I'm stocked low for the water (16 fish for 2500 litres of volume). I feed sparingly, but only because the tank seems self sufficient from a food perspective.

Pie

[lduncan]

Its rock from my own tank, you've seen the photos (and commented on the poor state of my rock), to me looks like normal rock, you described it as typical for a DSB tank, the ticking time bomb...

That's probably the problem with your experiment then. The algae is getting the phosphorous so you won't see as much detritus being produced. The point of cooking rock out of the tank is to starve the algae of light, so that bacteria alone are using the phosphate within the rock and pushing it out. Algae slows that process down.

My tank has moderate/high flow, moderate skimming BUT it also has DSB. You've all seen my tank, in photos and on-line. I'm not keeping many secerets. I'm stocked low for the water (16 fish for 2500 litres of volume). I feed sparingly, but only because the tank seems self sufficient from a food perspective.

All that means is that it will take longer for it to fill up and cause problems. It's not like a time bomb which will explode and kill everything in your tank overnight. It's more like a progression of increased algae, having algae you never had before just pop up, maybe recession from the base in acros. Some people refer to it as old tank syndrome.

You know when you hear about nutrient upwellings in the ocean? Guess what that's from. It's from the sediments doing what they naturally do, storing and releasing nutrients such as phosphorous and metals, which feed phytoplankton, which feeds the ocean.

The fact that your rock looks the way it does (from photo's i've seen) is proof that your sand bed is working like every other sediment, ie cycling nutrients.

I'm not saying sand beds are all bad, they have their place. By understanding what they do, you can aviod the problems with them, and determine whether the problems are truely problems for the sort of tank you want to run.

So relating this all back to the algae topic, sandbeds can have a large impact on the rocks in your tank, and can be responsible for algae problems even when water parameters appear fine.

Layton

[reef]

In terms of hair algae I had the same problems when using zeovit and products similar to zeovit.

My hair algae went nuts in my sump. Not sure of the cause but I had very low PO4 and it was still growing,

If you are over feeding the fish they will be producing more waste like ammonium and this is getting used by the hair algae.

What are the colours of the acropora looking like since the hair algae is growing??

What type of skimmer are you using ? as to get good results when using zeovit you have to have a good skimmer so it can remove the waste fast enough.

Got a friend, who is doing ammonium chloride to increase his nitrates as they are zero,

The results have been surprising as the caulerpa algae is going nuts and is a very nice green and the coralline algae which was sort of faded red is a beautiful red colour,

So I would say that the algaes are using the ammonium like fertiliser .

Will try and use some this week to see the results on my tank as I need to increase my nitrates.

[Pies]

Layton - I don't quite follow? So are you saying my rock isn't a good candidate because it has algae on it? And if my rock was clean (no algae) then this algae wouldn't competer for the p04 so then the bacterria can do the job of consuming it?

I would have thought that given the il-effect of the DSB on my rock, my rock would have been the perfect candidate for cooking?

Man am I confused now, doesn't look like I can win either way.

Pie

[Pies]

You know when you hear about nutrient upwellings in the ocean? Guess what that's from. It's from the sediments doing what they naturally do, storing and releasing nutrients such as phosphorous and metals, which feed phytoplankton, which feeds the ocean.

Yeah but in my closed system, surley any nutrients that are released will be skimmed out as soon as they are in the water colum?

I'm not saying sand beds are all bad, they have their place.

They have their place in healty looking SPS dominated display tanks.

Pie

[lduncan]

No, your rock is the perfect candadite. What I mean is, is that the shedding will be in full swing once the algae has disappeared, and the bacterial is the only process pushing the phosphorous out.

The rock will not shed as much while there is algae on it, because the algae is using that phosphorous. That's why rock cooking should be done in total darkness, the algae can't survive, and the bacterial is the only process.

It's not a fast process. It takes a long time, several months.

Layton

[lduncan]

Yeah but in my closed system, surley any nutrients that are released will be skimmed out as soon as they are in the water colum?

So why do you use phosphorous remover if your skimmer deals to it? It's hard to skim orthophosphate.

They have their place in healty looking SPS dominated display tanks.

I disagree there. Sure they will work fine for a while, but eventually you get phosphorous absorbed up into the rock from the sand bed, creating algae on the rock. The phosphorous is absorbed into coral skeletons where boring algae can attack and kill corals from the inside out, resulting in TN from the base. Phosphorous kills SPS type corals.

DSB's are fine in tanks where the inhabitants can tolerate cycling of nutrients. Most SPS don't like it. Soft corals aren't as picky.

Layton

[Pies]

So why do you use phosphorous remover if your skimmer deals to it? It's hard to skim orthophosphate.

You've mentioned this before, it always has puzzeled me. My phosphate test at 0, in fact i've never seen a reading with all 3 of the Salifert kits iv'e owned nor with the colourmeter or a redsea kit. The reason I use phosphate media, is simply because I belive that it will help if any is present. I recently put a KG in my tank, this replaced 1KG that i've had running since I set this tank up, back November last year.

So its not because I have p04 or even think I have p04 problems. But I do belive that its a bit of a back stop for me. I see no harm in running it, it costs me so little I am not fussed about the cost.

No conspiracy there. Infact I am confident I could just take it out and not notice any difference.

And as for my rock, it doesn't look particually algae ridden to me, no different to my glass. It looks shiney and new after a snail has zoomed over it though.

I disagree there.

An arguement that will never be settled. It is a FACT the DSBs work in SPS dominated tanks, it worked for years, it will continue to work for years to come. Its a cop-out saying 'it will cause problems in the future', scare mongering for the most part, a weak way of putting in an unknown. If they didn't work as you state time and again, why are there so many great tanks out there using them? Perhapps the DSB works *gasp*, thats right...

DSB's are fine in tanks where the inhabitants can tolerate cycling of nutrients. Most SPS don't like it. Soft corals aren't as picky.

Again, the reality of this does not ring true, i'd point you at this months (probably last months now), TOTM on RC. Doesn't look like he's got to many of these problems, ohhh wait thats right, its going to crash, one day... *yawn*

DSBs are fine if you want an aesthetically pleasing looking tank with stunning SPS growth and colour. This isn't to say you can't achive this with the BB, because you can (just without the aesthiticly please bit

Pieman

[lduncan]

Well that just went right over your head.

I'm saying all DSB's work the same way. It's they way hundreds of scientist have observed and studied them. It's the way which is consistent with hobbyist observation. The thing is not that they don't work at all. It's how they work and the processes which are going on.

The fact is is that the processes going on in the sand bed can cause algae problems, and can cause death of sps corals. The fact that your rock is covered in high nutrient algae (from the photos i've seen) is evidence that your sand bed is working, cycling nutrients, just like hundreds of scientists have written.

Sand beds work by cycling nutrients and this can lead to algae problems which appear to be independent of water parameters. It can lead to tissue necrosis from the base in SPS through boring algaes, it provides food sources for flatworms and other undesirable critters. Just like they do in nature.

Layton

[wasp]

Guys there is going to be so much arguing crap on this thread that the useful information re running zeovit will be lost among it. I have therefore started a new thread to continue the sand argument and pasted the last post from this thread to it.

The thread is here http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/viewto ... 720#104720

[lduncan]

The thread isn't about zeovit. It's about a hair algae problem.

I don't think it it really related to zeovit use. Not the root cause anyway.

Layton

[Feelers]

The guy who started this thread (duke) hasnt said anything after his intial post. 8) lol

[wasp]

Hi Duke thanks for the water sample it tested at 0.31 mg/l, which is not too bad (there's worse)

Quite a common scenario when there is a lot of hair algae in a tank it will use phosphate as it is available and keep water levels looking OK'ish even though the tank overall has too much.

So for now how about send me another sample in 2 weeks?

Hows it all looking? probably too early for any changes but lets know if anything happens. Also if the food is running low let me know I'll send some more.

[chimera]

wasp i really need to come over and test my water on your colorimeter. irrelevant of orthophosphates being tested or not, at least its going to give me some indication of my nutrients. will try and make it this weekend if you're around?

[wasp]

Yes call me 479 5446. Won't be hear Sunday though have to go kick some scuzzball non rent paying tenants out of my renter in Taumaranui.

Saturday, or any day this week is fine.

[chimera]

cher

[Brianemone]

stop in on the way down if you want wasp

[wasp]

Good thought Brian, can you pm me your phone number?

Just depends how I go for time, if it's a fast job I'll catch you on the way back, I'll call you either way early afternoon let you know how it's going.

[Duke]

Ok I have reduce feeding heaps and will continue to monitor.

Thanks Wasp for the food, I am feeding a little frozen every second day and a little of your food night and morning.

Shrimp is still alive but looking a little worried. Not sure how you can tell when a shrimp is looking worried but if I was him I would be worried.

Thanks for testing my water but those numbers don't mean a lot. How does that compare to your tank?

I will send another water sample in 2 weeks.

Thanks

[wasp]

My own tank tests at around 0.02, so your levels are around 15 x higher, however as Layton correctly stated the total levels counting what's saturated into the rock etc. will probably be even higher.

No worries, just decrease Po4 input and increase export via increased start dosing to assist bacteria, should be able to turn things around.

From reading zeovit.com it does appear most people take a few months before Po4 really starts moving to where they want it.

[chimera]

From reading zeovit.com it does appear most people take a few months before Po4 really starts moving to where they want it

from my own experience with zeovit so far, I would suggest the same. only now are 80% of my corals starting to show colouration (the other 20% i expect are just brown acro's) only at the tips to start but colour is slowly down to the base - definate signs finally! i dont put this purely down to zeovit though, i think the new lights (or more specifically lights much closer to the waters surface) has made a huge improvement (cheers for the tip pies ). i still havent add the 4 x T5's to my tank yet but when i do i would expect to see faster colouration still.