Location
Queens, NY
Rating - 100%
98   0   0
So I'm looking for something that will get into the tiny little places a tang can't get into. You know that tiny sprout of hair algae that forms just between the branches and the plug of the SPS? then it gets too long and starts to expand? Or that space between the frag and the plug, when you mount the frag horizontally instead of vertically? The gap is measurable in mm. So there are a bunch of snails, most of which are too big and bulky to get up into the little spaces. The trophus breeding (and making little snails) and regular cerith snails seem to be able to get into some spaces. So then I see there's the dwarf cerith, seems promising, breeds in the tank, but I remembered in my fresh water tank, Malyasian trumpet snails that took over the whole thank, they literally grew my sand bed into a gravel bed of shells. Got into all my pumps and impellers. I would scoop sand and it would probably be half trumpet snail shells.
Anyway thoughts on the dwarf cerith? Sounds like what I'm looking for in long term algae control, but at the cost of replacing my noisy impellers periodically? getting clogged spray bars? Unless they have a thinner/softer shell that would break down.
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Tough call on the new snails because you already have baby Trochus. (They seem to keep my frags spotless.) Only three things can happen with the new snails. It gets better, it gets worse or stays the same.

Let me throw a curve ball and ask about your lighting. When Reef Wholesale ran the CoralLab experiments they ran two identical tanks with the same DLI but different intensity. A low light long duration tank and a high light low duration tank. For the length of the test (3-4) months I think, both tanks were for all intents and purposes the same for coral growth, (few minor differences) however the high light low duration tank had significantly less algae.

Perhaps slightly anecdotal, on the other hand demonstrates other factors at play with regards to algae.

Indecently, my current system is hands down visually the cleanest tank I have ever ran, independent of nutrient levels. I also feed way more then previous systems. (Though I do run low level carbon dosing, about 1.5ml per 50gal a day at the moment. It's to feed the coral phosphate via bacteria, not specifically for algae control.)
The lighting on this system is broken down into three tiers, Blue LED for 12 hours, a single T5 for 6 hours and three more T5 for 3 hours.

My DLI is compressed into a peak at "noon", whereas previous tanks had either ON/OFF lights or relatively short ramping of LED in the morning and night, but otherwise full strength for >80% of the day.

I can't say its my light schedule conclusively, but it is one main variable that I am doing differently than my old systems which had nutrient levels lower (and higher at times) than my current system.

I can go a week or two without cleaning the glass. (Even at 2 weeks my glass is cleaner than my old system would be in 4 days) I only clean the front and the side. The back glass has never been cleaned and I can still see right through it. Sure it's littered with those little white filter feeders and bits of coralline algae, but it's not covered with any type of green algae. Aside from one small, tall patch of Bryopsis and the occasional bubble algae cluster, I don't do any algae removal or control anymore.

Check out the video, about 5 minutes in. Beyond PAR - Ecotech Marine CoralLab DLI with ReefWholesale
 
Location
Queens, NY
Rating - 100%
98   0   0
hmm, no matter high or low intensity, with different photo periods, if coral can grow, so will algae. Your reference suggest that coral can survive (and prosper) at a shorter photo period than algae. Which is definitely something I will switch to, (12 hours at the equator, vs 8 hours in the sub tropics). However if all other things were equal, there still needs to be an herbivore to pluck that new algae growth. It will establish itself eventually, as you have stated with your reduced glass cleaning schedule, and where does this new growth take hold? in the cracks and crevases.
 
Location
Queens, NY
Rating - 100%
98   0   0
p-874-DSCN9327.jpg
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I still have a 12 hour photoperiod, but it seems that my prime time algae growing peak is only 3 hours long. (Algae growth is for all intents and purposes exponential.)

Lets say a cell takes one hour to split.

Hour 1 = 2 cells
Hour 2 = 4 cells
Hour 3 = 8 cells.

Now lets double the photoperiod to 6 hours.

Hour 1 = 2 cells
Hour 2 = 4 cells
Hour 3 = 8 cells
Hour 4 = 16 cells
Hour 5 = 32 cells
Hour 6 = 64 cells

Now if we blast the tank with light for 12 hours,

Hour 1 = 2 cells
Hour 2 = 4 cells
Hour 3 = 8 cells
Hour 4 = 16 cells
Hour 5 = 32 cells
Hour 6 = 64 cells
Hour 7 = 128 cells
Hour 8 = 256 cells
Hour 9 = 512 cells
Hour 10 = 1024 cells
Hour 11 = 2048 cells
Hour 12 = 4096 cells

So a 12 hour sustained peak light would grow 512 times more algae in a day then a 12 hour duration with a 3 hour peak. Or you could say that a 3 hour peak scheduled only grows 0.002 percent of the algae.
These numbers are fast and loose but designed to demonstrate what we are up against. You can't fight growth like that with snails alone.

My snails are controlling the new algae that pops up, they keep it suppressed. I can now see that if I blast the tank with light, the algae will grow faster then the snails. My existing snails would be full/over burdened and the population of snails would grow in an attempt to overtake the algae again. This takes time and only increases the bioload of both snails and algae. It will likely never end because plants grow faster then snails. Plants have to grow before the snail can eat them, which indirectly means the more snails you want to keep, the greener your tank needs to be/will be. The nutrients are exported as poop in the skimmer, perhaps consumed by bacteria or removed as detritus in water changes, not stored in the bodies of additional snails.

Light equals yield with regards to algae. Light is literally algae food, not the nutrients. Plants are Autotrophic. (Too much light also limits algae) However it seems to be a non-linear comparison against growing coral. A bit too much light for coral is probably just right for algae.

It goes without saying that coral have evolved to grow well in "low" light. It's just a matter of finding that sweet spot that is a bit too dark for rampant algae growth. I am now learning there is more to it than X PAR for X hours.
 
Location
Queens, NY
Rating - 100%
98   0   0
Thanks, you made me click watch the video. Daily Light Index, that's the key phase. The corals growth pattern is similar to plants, growing tall and leggy or short and dense. Very similar dynamics, just backwards, with coral growing wide under lower lighting, and high with high lighting. So, the speaker specifically said 8 vs 12 hour photo period. That's an easy adjustment.
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I too thought that was interesting about the plating monti, although I get a slightly different interpretation.
The monti grows flat and wide to maximize light, or grows into a scroll pattern to limit it's light.

Picture of wild scrolls show them to generally be around a 45 degree angle. It is also interesting to note that the way the scrolls stack in the wild, they appear to shade themselves however this would also suggest they are collecting light from different locations and different times of the day. Or at the very least it suggests it can collect ambient light this way, reflecting it off the white underbelly of the plate above it.

I just googled "monti plate coral shading itself", all kinds of threads showed up with weird things like montis only growing downward. Flow is suggested as the usual suspect, from the video we see that light is also an accomplice.
 
Location
Queens, NY
Rating - 100%
98   0   0
what is your lighting cycle now? I've set by whites to turn on from noon till 8 PM, and the blue from noon till 8:30 PM. I'm not able to control intensity, I have simple on off timer. As for overall intensity, say I'm set at 50%, but that I've shorten the photo period from 12 to 8 hours, what higher intensity would you say I increase it to, in order to compensate for the shorter duration?
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I also use simple timers, I have three to control my light.

12:00 - 12:00 Blue diffuse LED. (This provides a 3 hour Dusk and a 3 hour Dawn, it stays on the whole 12 hours)
3:00 - 9:00 one actinic T5 is turned on. (This is the Sunrise/Sunset light. this runs for 6 hours)
4:30-7:30 three more T5 bulbs come on. (This is my Noon light that runs for 3 hours.)

As you can see I have all the timers centered around a "Noon" which for me is 6PM. I'm sure I can shift the Noon point around a bit, meaning it likely doesn't have to happen halfway through my 12 hour light cycle, as long as the duration is the same.

In your cause you could try the blue light for 12 hours and the white light for 4 hours. (Blue stays on the whole time) The white for 4 hour causes your over all pattern to have a short duration high intensity. This is a bit of speculating on my part because I don't know how much power is distributed to your white and blue channels, nor do I know the PAR of the fixture at a given height and spread.

As far as what intensity to set, I would base that off the previous performance of your light in it's current location. Meaning if the light fixture was set at 50% for 12 hours and I had issues, I might reduce the light to 8 hours and keep the intensity at 50%, assuming that 50% was already sufficient light.

I can control the intensity of my light by raising it up or down. For me I consider 150-200 PAR to be high light with regards to most things. The reality is going above 200 PAR will restrict growth in as many things then as it will help by causing photoinhibition.

Assuming the cost of electricity is not an issue, it might be preferable to run the same light fixture at 100% and raise it up to match whatever your desired PAR is with the light lower. The reason being is the zones of ideal PAR are larger and more gradual with a bigger light.

One day I came to the realization that if I try to match PAR on the sandbed with a small, low hung LED to that of a bigger, higher hung light, I would end up with dangerous peaks of light higher up in the tank. (Which could be exaggerated by cheap lenses and shimmering) IMO it's safer to set that same fixture to 100% and raise it up, this will give a larger, gentler usable zone of ideal PAR.

At it's core, a good starting point would be 150-200 PAR in the desired location in your tank for 3-5 hours with some supplemental lighting to fill out the day if desired. You can always increase this.
That is why even though my light is on for 12 hours, I consider it a "short duration-high intensity" light because my peak "noon" is only 3 hours long.

A lot of good growers don't even use PAR and 200 PAR is just my opinion of high light. However I do find it useful for comparisons such as this to at least have a starting point to work from that is independent of light technology. I do not recall if CoraLab mentioned the PAR level or not, but you will note how high the lights are above the waterline, so it's probably in the ballpark of 200PAR or less for the majority of the tank. I suspect almost half the tank by surface area measures in the 100-150 PAR range.
 

BloopFish

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Algae doesn't grow like that. The G phases will get altered after prolonged periods without the dark periods.

I have never had dwarf ceriths clog my equipment.

If you want something like the malaysian trumpet snail, don't look any further than... a malaysian trumpet snail. Why? Because Malaysian trumpet snails are euryhaline and can be acclimated to a wide range of salinity.

If you dislike how small they are, you can get florida cerith snails.
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The tank has 12 hours of darkness so maybe you misunderstood something.

If you are refering to the exponential growth of algae, there are lots of papers online from the biodiesel industry documenting this. The units can be substituted for whatever suits the species and time frame.

The time that it takes for algae to double is stated to be in the range of 10 to 70 hours. FWIW.

What is for certain is that the growth is not linear and is for all intents and purposes exponential (It does eventually level out makeing a "S" curve before it dies out, but by then who care because the tank is green) that means there is some cushion if you stay in the flat part of the curve.

The first stage they refer to as the "lag" or "induction" before it gets into the exponetial stage. I suspect that is what the high intensity-low duration does, it does not allow the algae to catch it's stride. Generally speaking of course.
 

BloopFish

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
You can't use biodiesel data to extrapolate this. Completely different data and type of algae. For example, benthic algae respond to nutrients (N and P) differently than planktonic algae. In addition, planktonic algae will compete very well against benthic algae, especially when nutrients are high. Also, there is active predation and competition in an aquarium environment - not only one strain is growing. 2 4 8... it's definitely not going to grow that fast unless the algae has 0 competition, infinite food and light source. In the case of the algae that snails eat... some will produce algaecides or other toxins to compete with eachother, others will try to grow on top of eachother, some may even try to eat eachother. From my experience with keeping a large number of snails is that my tank won't get to a nuisance level of algae even if I overfeed the tank by a lot because the snails and crabs never allow the algae to grow to a critical mass that would make the exponential growth actually visible.
What you're saying isn't actually wrong, I'm just saying you're not going to see even close to as good of a result as you are expecting. Also, from my observations and readings - it seems that most algae growth is more so limited/determined by P than N - N is in such excess proportionally compared to P even with something like a redfield ratio in mind. In addition, the algae with which snails highly prefer - diatoms - will need proper silica dosing to achieve large populations for long periods. Also, note that the N and P will not be completely returned into the tank in a cycle because the snail will use some for growth - you would only see all of the nutrients being added back once the snails date.
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My observations are different from yours. There is lots of non-biodiesel sources too. It is relevant because that industry specifically churns through all the different algae and parameters it takes to get good yield. They make large scale algae reactors.

You are diving into a worm hole of specifics I intentionally avoided because of strawman arguments.

Light=Yield.
All algae goes exponential, all algae doubles within 10 to 70 hours, why are you concerned with what percentage of the biomass is this algae or that algae?

Don't you think it's the slightest bit relevant that the algae used in these reactors is most efficient at 12 hours of light? Doesn't that make your display tank a pseudo algae reactor?

"it seems that most algae growth is more so limited/determined by P than N" - Which is it now, limited or determined? I'm not falling for this circular logic. I've personally endured phosphate levels that would absolutely shock you, I'm talking 20:1 dilution on the Hanna, yet according to you I should of had algae problems, yet I did not.

Silica? Diatoms? Using snails as live GFO? Nonsense.

Algae is autotrophic, coral are heterotrophs, they don't need as much light as you think they do.
 

BloopFish

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
My observations are different from yours. There is lots of non-biodiesel sources too. It is relevant because that industry specifically churns through all the different algae and parameters it takes to get good yield. They make large scale algae reactors.

You are diving into a worm hole of specifics I intentionally avoided because of strawman arguments.

Light=Yield.
All algae goes exponential, all algae doubles within 10 to 70 hours, why are you concerned with what percentage of the biomass is this algae or that algae?

Don't you think it's the slightest bit relevant that the algae used in these reactors is most efficient at 12 hours of light? Doesn't that make your display tank a pseudo algae reactor?

"it seems that most algae growth is more so limited/determined by P than N" - Which is it now, limited or determined? I'm not falling for this circular logic. I've personally endured phosphate levels that would absolutely shock you, I'm talking 20:1 dilution on the Hanna, yet according to you I should of had algae problems, yet I did not.

Silica? Diatoms? Using snails as live GFO? Nonsense.

Algae is autotrophic, coral are heterotrophs, they don't need as much light as you think they do.
1. "Algae is autotrophic, coral are heterotrophs, they don't need as much light as you think they do."
This has no relevance to what I was saying
2. "Silica? Diatoms? Using snails as live GFO? Nonsense."
Didn't even mention using snails as live GFO. Don't make stuff up. I was just mentioning the use of silica supplementation because most snails heavily prefer this, anecdotally, in addition, silica is essential for growth of most snails. I was also mentioning that all living organisms will take in at least a small amount of N and P and therefore the nutrients in the algae will not be all returned via poop - I know this is not a sufficient method of nutrient export, I never said it was.
3. "Which is it now, limited or determined? I'm not falling for this circular logic. I've personally endured phosphate levels that would absolutely shock you, I'm talking 20:1 dilution on the Hanna, yet according to you I should of had algae problems, yet I did not."
Not attacking your tank at all. Did not say that your tank should look like crap. I at one point had sky high nitrates and phosphates just like you, my tank had hardly any algae growth. I was simply stating this information because if you do want to have exponential growth like you mention, you may require phosphate supplementation because the foods we feed in the tank can be proportionally more N heavy than P heavy, especially if you feed frozen foods. Some of the higher source of P, such as fish bones, are lacking in frozen food (for example).
4. "My observations are different from yours. There is lots of non-biodiesel sources too. It is relevant because that industry specifically churns through all the different algae and parameters it takes to get good yield. They make large scale algae reactors."
I can believe you when you say this. But, that does not go against my main points.
#1. Not all of your algae growth will be desirable and edible by snails. Some of your population growth will inevitably be undesirables like cyano and dinos that will not be readily eliminated by your herbivores.
#2. Predation means that you will unfortunately not see as great of an exponential curve as you expect. You need to factor in death rate. In addition you will always have competition for space and resources. Your tank does not have infinite space. I'll give you this though, you will see exponential growth in the early stages - but not long term. These studies are likely in conditions where the competition for resources does not limit growth for the duration of the experiment. In order to maintain this exponential growth, they would need to do something such as collecting some of the algae. The Malthusian growth model will not maintain itself for infinite time, you will eventually see something that would be better described with a logistic growth model. Unless you have infinite resources, there will always be a finite carrying capacity.

Your main takeaway should be that last sentence.
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Your take away should be to not be so literal.

You haven't changed my mind in the slightest. You are missing the plot.

CoraLab did a test on DLI which had the outcome of the high light-low duration tank having "significantly less algae." So I suggest you tell them that their observations were wrong.

I specifically said my numbers were fast and loose and were just to visually demonstrate what an exponential curve is, to which you could substitute days, hours, pounds or square meters.

You are talking about hypotheticals in a thread that demonstrates that your theory is flawed. Right in the first post the OP (homegrowncichlid) says that he already has a breeding population Trochus snails. Those little 1mm and 2mm snails get every where.
The reason they are not keeping up and hence the new snail purchase is...too much light.

1. The irony. ;)
2. "Also, note that the N and P will not be completely returned into the tank in a cycle because the snail will use some for growth"
3. Is this something you have measured, or an assumption made based off the residuals measured in your tank after digestion through multiple forms of life? If I was to use the same criterion looking at my tank, I would see the opposite. I wouldn't however speculate that the nitrate and phosphate level in my tank is the same ratio as the food I feed. There are too many variables.
4. It wasn't to counter a point you made, it was in defense of a reference I made.

#1 Is irelevant because it doesn't change the fact that algae growth will go exponential, whatever rate that may be.
2# the death rate is an assumption as we are talking about the general sense. Specific chunks of algae may come and go, but again that is not the issue. The issue is that given enough light the algae is going to continue to grow until the limiting resource is found. Only then will the population of snails level out and over take the algae. It's a moot point though because the tank will look terrible and perhaps the coral are gone.

Light + water + co2 = sugar and oxygen. That is the only thing that matters in the photosynthesis equation with regards to yield. Cyano and Dino competition really has nothing to do with it, for all intents and purposes. That's like using aiptasia to get rid of blue clove polyps.

Now out of Light, Water and co2, which of the three is easiest for you to control and most likely to inadvertently be misused?
 

BloopFish

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Your take away should be to not be so literal.

You haven't changed my mind in the slightest. You are missing the plot.

CoraLab did a test on DLI which had the outcome of the high light-low duration tank having "significantly less algae." So I suggest you tell them that their observations were wrong.

I specifically said my numbers were fast and loose and were just to visually demonstrate what an exponential curve is, to which you could substitute days, hours, pounds or square meters.

You are talking about hypotheticals in a thread that demonstrates that your theory is flawed. Right in the first post the OP (homegrowncichlid) says that he already has a breeding population Trochus snails. Those little 1mm and 2mm snails get every where.
The reason they are not keeping up and hence the new snail purchase is...too much light.

1. The irony. ;)
2. "Also, note that the N and P will not be completely returned into the tank in a cycle because the snail will use some for growth"
3. Is this something you have measured, or an assumption made based off the residuals measured in your tank after digestion through multiple forms of life? If I was to use the same criterion looking at my tank, I would see the opposite. I wouldn't however speculate that the nitrate and phosphate level in my tank is the same ratio as the food I feed. There are too many variables.
4. It wasn't to counter a point you made, it was in defense of a reference I made.

#1 Is irelevant because it doesn't change the fact that algae growth will go exponential, whatever rate that may be.
2# the death rate is an assumption as we are talking about the general sense. Specific chunks of algae may come and go, but again that is not the issue. The issue is that given enough light the algae is going to continue to grow until the limiting resource is found. Only then will the population of snails level out and over take the algae. It's a moot point though because the tank will look terrible and perhaps the coral are gone.

Light + water + co2 = sugar and oxygen. That is the only thing that matters in the photosynthesis equation with regards to yield. Cyano and Dino competition really has nothing to do with it, for all intents and purposes. That's like using aiptasia to get rid of blue clove polyps.

Now out of Light, Water and co2, which of the three is easiest for you to control and most likely to inadvertently be misused?
Hey, if you just want to ignore everything I say and only cherry pick parts of a whole, then you should've just told me you aren't someone who wants to have a constructive discussion or want to learn at all. I completely understand some people are naturally hesitant when it comes to constructive conversations.
 

Actinic Atoll

Experienced Reefer
Location
..
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hey, if you just want to ignore everything I say and only cherry pick parts of a whole, then you should've just told me you aren't someone who wants to have a constructive discussion or want to learn at all. I completely understand some people are naturally hesitant when it comes to constructive conversations.

You know I wasn't even going to reply because I felt you were just sandbagging me.

Nonetheless I went through your post, literally point by point and you accuse me of cherry picking? Do you know I am trying to eat a chicken sandwich here?

I can see why you are hesitant, you should go with your gut next time. :) I would be hesitant too if I was going to brow-beat somebody with a bunch of myths and half truths just because they liked a video that showed that a lower duration of light grew less algae. Let this be a lesson to you. lol.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top