lighting vs cyano

The question is do these bac' naturally grow in our systems or would you have to buy a culture somewhere?
I´m feeding my acuarium with freeze-dried microalgae. I use 3 diferent kinds of algae: Nannochoropsis gaditana, Tetraselmis chuii, and Phaeodactylum tricornutum.
The proportions are:
1 part Nanno (proteins-carbohidrates)
2 parts Tetra (acid fatts, non esential aminoacids Serina-Aspartic promotes detoxification amonia, nitrites and heavy metals for corals and it´s cyanobacteria inhibitor)
1 part Phaeo ( promotes inmunitary sistem for corals and fishes)
I use 100 mg. (dry wheigt) mix combination per 700 liters ( my total sistem acuarium) a day
 
OK,So your saying that by feeding the bac' a proper diet they will out compete the CB.Thats kinda what I was getting at with the "bac' prefer" part.
Thanks for the tip,I'll look into finding some dried microalge.
 
did he type phytoplankton? I think that is what he typed. Would live phytoplankton be acceptable? I was growing my own for a while and adding it to the tank. It seemed to help the overall health.

I have had some cyno for quite a few months now after I moved my tank.
 
That is true, and often overlooked. There are Zeovit and Prodobio bacteria additives designed/made to deal with cyano. Perhaps the biological approach would be a god idea before monkeying with too much.
 
pjpeels
Yes, i´m talking about phytoplankton. But make atention because some phyto species are inhibitor for cyano, and others can promote.
Live phyto, is perfect iff you have right fertillyzer (Walne mediun) and good conditions for culture.
Feeding with phyto (Tetraselmis) and RDSB is a very good option.
Many times we are blind about nutrients 0, but we only achieve bad conditions for macroalgaes, another strong competitor with cyano. The balance is difficult, but not impossible.
 
thanks joanxavier, and to everybody,
You know, back a couple years ago when I did not know what I was doing, things seemed to be great in my tank. It was in its prime. Lots of coral and it all grew fast. No real algae problems. I never measured that well when I dumped in my chemicals. A little turbo cal. here, a little buffer there. Dump some food in. My skimmer was a piece of junk. Pods everywhere. My tank is not awful now, but I find that people are just trying to hard sometimes, including myself. I played it more by how things looked. How were my inhabitants responding to my water quality. I think yall know what I mean. There is nothing at all wrong with hard work and dedication, but sometimes people can do a lot of the wrong thing or not the right thing, with the best intentions in mind.

-By the way don't ever let a girl name a fish, UNLESS it is their tank. It is a death sentence for the fish.

Later,
Price
 
Well I dosed the second time with the same product as before (only this time at the full dose 3 days ago) and the problem seems to be going away-actually I was pretty amazed how thouroughly this product has killed the CB. There is still some remaining but it seems to be on the decline as well. I also dosed a bacterial-booster product on day 2 to help re establish my denitri bacteria, as recommended. I turned my skimmer back on tonight and it is going nuts. In fact, I had to turn the suction down as low as possible just to keep the cup from filling in about 2 minutes. Also, the skimmer is creating obscene amounts of micro bubbles in display and my corals don't like it much. Any more adivice on this? By the way I got a new test kit and nitrates are 40-50. Also thinking about setting up either refugium or RDSB, or both. Trying to take this one day at a time at this point. BB
 
I'm not familiar with Red slime control,but most med's have you do a water change after a couple of days.A water change should help with the skimmer going nut's and microbubbles.Say a 25% WC.Since you have killed off most of the CB,the nutrients that they stored are now in the water.If you don't do a WC it will start all over.
 
Ninong stated

Phosphate has nothing to do with it. Cyanobacteria feeds on nitrogen, carbon dioxide and dissolved organic compounds. It is nitrogen limited.

If this is true then what is the best course of action.

Thanks.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8100110#post8100110 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by azgard
Ninong stated

Phosphate has nothing to do with it. Cyanobacteria feeds on nitrogen, carbon dioxide and dissolved organic compounds. It is nitrogen limited.

If this is true then what is the best course of action.

Thanks.

I have already retracted the sentence "Phosphate has nothing to do with it" because indirectly it can under certain circumstances.

Here is what I posted on page 2 of this thread:

OK, I think I need to retract my previous comments about phosphate because they were improperly worded.

Nitrogen is the major limiting nutrient but phosphorus can be a limiting nutrient in the sense that nitrogen fixation can be limited by phosphorus availability. In fact, even iron can be a limiting factor since iron is a major component of ferredoxin, one of the primary constituents of Photosystem I, which provides energy for N2 fixation.

So eliminating phosphorus can indirectly limit cyanobacteria.
 
I did read and understood "eliminating phosphorus can indirectly limit cyanobacteria". But I had the impression that you also felt that other things could be done.

What are your thoughts in that regard?

Thanks
 
'eliminating phosphorus can indirectly limit cyanobacteria"

thats as accurate as saying, "reef keeping can indirectly limit your social skills"...lol.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8101124#post8101124 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by azgard
I did read and understood "eliminating phosphorus can indirectly limit cyanobacteria". But I had the impression that you also felt that other things could be done.

What are your thoughts in that regard?

Thanks

I can tell you what I have done that has proved successful for me:

(1) Maintain calcium at approx. 475 ppm and alkalinity between 10-12 dKH. (I am convinced that maintaining alkalinity at least 10 dKH is important.)

(2) Change lighting before it degrades too far and shifts spectrum. In my case that meant changing my Ushio/BLV 250w 10,000K HQI DE lamps approximately every 12 months and changing the 55w PC actinics approximately every 15 months. It's important to not let the halides shift too far to the red.

(3) Maintaining adequate water current across the surface of the sandbed. I was running about 1200 gph through two 3/4" SeaSwirls and that proved adequate for my 120-gal tank. I tried to add a Tunze Stream but gave up on that idea because of the 6" Southdown DSB.

(4) Maintaining NO3 as low as possible. In my case that usually meant around 5 ppm.

(5) Maintaining PO4 at undetectable using Salifert's test kit. I'm not convinced that testing for PO4 is a worthwhile exercise but I bought the stupid test kit on a whim one day. I also dripped Kalkwasser (Mrs. Wages pickling lime) every night and I am convinced that this helps control PO4.

The only times I have ever had any cyanobacteria at all were times when I went on vacation for a couple of weeks and left my brother-in-law in charge of caring for my tank. Actually this only happened once and the cyanobacteria cleared up all by itself within two weeks after I returned. And in that instance it could have been partly my fault because the metal halides were at the 15 month mark and overdo for being replaced.

:D

P.S. -- I didn't mention anything about watching how much you feed because I fed my tank heavily and depended on the DSB to take care of things, and it did. I had to take down the tank a couple of months ago due to a move and the guys who purchased the live rock and live sand were surprised that the sand had no foul odor at all. None! Not even at the bottom of the sandbed. The buyer gave some of the live sand to his two helpers. It was full of life because I had spent more than $600 on "critters & such" during the three years the tank was running.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8101290#post8101290 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
'eliminating phosphorus can indirectly limit cyanobacteria"

thats as accurate as saying, "reef keeping can indirectly limit your social skills"...lol.

Phosphorus can be limiting in the sense that a lack of it can interfere with nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria.
 
Ninong,

Thank you for expanding on your thoughts. I find your experience and information to be very helpful.

best regards.
 
Ninong. Did your information on phosphate limitation come directly from a scientific paper? Did it give any indication at what levels of phosphate limitation started?

Fred
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8118551#post8118551 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fredfish
Ninong. Did your information on phosphate limitation come directly from a scientific paper? Did it give any indication at what levels of phosphate limitation started?

Fred

You might say it came from you. :lol:

In a previous post you mentioned the Redfield ratio and that got me to thinking that if P is lacking, nitrogen fixation will be retarded. When nutrients are not limiting, the molar element ratio C:N:P is 106:16:1 -- the Redfield ratio. I don't recall this being mentioned in the article that I read some five or six years ago, so I did an online search and came up with the following.

Abstract:

A compilation of data on the elemental composition of marine phytoplankton from published studies was used to determine the range of C:N:P. The N:P ratio of algae and cyanobacteria is very plastic in nutrient-limited cells, ranging from <5 mol N:mol P when phosphate is available greatly in excess of nitrate or ammonium to <100 mol N:mol P when inorganic N is present greatly in excess of P. Under optimal nutrient-replete growth conditions, the cellular N:P ratio is somewhat more constrained, ranging from 5 to 19 mol N:mol P, with most observations below the Redfield ratio of 16. Limited data indicate that the critical N:P that marks the transition between N- and P-limitation of phytoplankton growth lies in the range 20-50 mol N:mol P, considerably in excess of the Redfield ratio. Biochemical composition can be used to constrain the critical N:P. Although the biochemical data do not preclude the critical N:P from being as high as 50, the typical biochemical composition of nutrient-replete algae and cyanobacteria suggests that the critical N:P is more likely to lie in the range between 15 and 30. Despite the observation that the overall average N:P composition of marine particulate matter closely approximates the Redfield ratio of 16, there are significant local variations with a range from 5 to 34. Consistent with the culture studies, lowest values of N:P are associated with nitrate- and phosphate-replete conditions. The highest values of N:P are observed in oligotrophic waters and are within the range of critical N:P observed in cultures, but are not so high as to necessarily invoke P-limitation. The C:N ratio is also plastic. The average C:N ratios of nutrientreplete phytoplankton cultures, oceanic particulate matter and inorganic N and C draw-down are slightly greater than the Redfield ratio of 6.6. Neither the analysis of laboratory C:N:P data nor a more theoretical approach based on the relative abundance of the major biochemical molecules in the phytoplankton can support the contention that the Redfield N:P reflects a physiological or biochemical constraint on the elemental composition of primary production.



That leads me to believe that at N:P ratios well in excess of the Redfield ratio, P-limitation may take over. That was something I hadn't considered previously, before reading your post. I believe the reason I overlooked it was because P-limitation is extremely rare in marine ecosystems. Virtually all marine ecosystems are N-limited. Freshwater ecosystems are typically P-limited.

If the N:P ratio is high enough, N-fixation would be impacted. In that sense, P could be limiting. While this may not be something you would come across in a natural ecosystem, it could be the basis for claims that P reduction in a captive marine aquarium could help to control cyanobacteria.
 
Too funny! :lol:

Nice find on that article. I had never seen anything refering to the n: p ratio as being so plastic.

I think the redfield ratio is of limited value in determining how to completely (or even mostly) stop cyano from growing in our tanks. What would be really interesting is absolute numbers below which cyano can grow.

As mentioned earlier, I have seen studies on single celled algae in the open ocean (a very long time ago) but never on cyano. In those studies, nitrates were limiting at the .00xx mg/l levels: very low indeed.

Getting back to cyano, if you had .2mg/l of nitrate in your tank, using rhe 16:1 ratio you would only need .0125mg/l of phosphate. I am not aware of any hobby kit that could measure such a low level. If you can't measure it, you can never know if you are getting phosphate levels low enough to limit cyano growth.

In my tank, at unmeasurable nitrate and phosphate levels, I can still get vigorous cyano growth. If my test kits are truely accurate, and thats a big if, nitrates will be less than .1 mg/l and phosphates will be less than .00625mg/l.

At a ratio of 30:1 the phosphate requirement drops to .0033... and at 50:1 it drops to .002mg/l. Can we get phosphates lower than that?

What I know is that, in my tank, when the macro algaes are growing well, cyano is practically non-existant. For all we know, it could have something to do with alleopathy. After all, it is well known that some fresh water plants release anti biotics.

People want strait forward solutions like changing bulbs or using a phosphate sponge. Practical experience suggests its just not that strait forward.

Fred
 
Back
Top