Hair Algae?

Trinny

Member
Hi, I'm hoping you guys could help me ID this and suggest ways to fix it. I imagine it to be hair algae but all the hair algae appears to reference green hair algae.

I have been trying to manage this for almost two months now since going on a holiday and having the auto feeder over feeding. What I have done to date is more regular water changes (20% each change on Saturday and Sunday), dosing nopox, cutting the light down (and off) and then brushing the stuff off the rocks a few times with a toothbrush.

Nitrates until this weekend was around 25ppm but now down to about 5ppm.

image.jpeg
 

DaveK

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's cyano. That tends to form sheets of "algae" over everything.

Noe that you have nitrates more or less under control, you should be ok there. If your not doing it, I would add a bag of GFO to the filtration system. A reactor is better, but just using a bag of the stuff will work. The commercial product is Phosban but it's expensive compared to the bulk GFO sold by BRS.

Once your sure both of these are under control, about all you need to do is remove the algae as you see it and wait. It will slowly starve to death.
 

Trinny

Member
I only have two strombus snails, a few small hitchhiker snails, a small star fish and an urchin so not too much that can take care of the rocks. I thought about getting more clean up crew but worried they'll start knocking over rocks and corals
 

DaveK

Well-Known Member
I just ordered some CPE and Purigen, hopefully that will help.

The Chemipure Elite will do some good because it contains some GFO. Purigen is also a good media but I consider it more for keeping the water from turning yellow.

In my opinion Chemipure blue is more or less a waste of time in SW.

In the future, do yourself a favor and get the bulk media from someone like BRS. You'll save a lot of money, and in some cases get better quality media.

On clean up crews. On a new tank you usually want a large clean up crew. It's not unusual for people to use 1 snail and 1 hermit crab per gallon of water. I think this is way too many, but with only a few snails, you have way too few. I'd start with about 1 snail per 5 gal of water and about 1 hermit crab for about 10 gal of water. See how you make out and if you still have a problem add more. As an example a Red Sea C250 is about 66 gal, so I'd add 11 snails of various species and about 6 hermit crabs. You can leave the hermit crabs out and use more snails if you don't like hermits.

Small snails should not cause you any problems with knocking stuff over. Avoid those large turbo snails. If the corals and rocks are getting knocked down. you need yo construct a more sturdy structure or glue pieces together with super glue gel .
 

Salty150

Active Member
The Chemipure Elite will do some good because it contains some GFO. Purigen is also a good media but I consider it more for keeping the water from turning yellow.

In my opinion Chemipure blue is more or less a waste of time in SW.

I was told the complete opposite from Boyd Enterprises.

Here is the email:

Hi,

Blue does treat a larger volume of water than the Elite and it is also a completely different formula as well as different ingredients, not strictly speaking better but different and is more geared towards correcting imbalances in an aquarium more efficiently and effectively than does the elite.

The Elite still has its place as it is more of a maintenance media for aquariums that are well maintained with appropriate aquarium parameters. So, if your aquarium is at all around proper pH, ammonia, nitrites, nitrates and phosphate levels are very low to nonexistent, we would recommend you stay with the elite.

The blue is used more so with aquariums having major high phosphate levels, nuisance algae's that can't be controlled, heavy bio loads, aquariums that are constantly being overfed or major predator tanks with big messy feeders etc.

So, to say it's better wouldn't be accurate. It really depends on the aquarium setting it's being used in. If you have any other questions please feel free to let me know.

Thanks,

Sean Berner
General Sales
Manager
Boyd Enterprises
4801 Johnson Rd. Ste. 10
Coconut Creek, FL. 33073
855-655-2100 Office
954-596-2444 Fax
sberner@chemipure.com
www.chemi-pure.com
 

Trinny

Member
Thanks guys, I'm open all suggestions that will help me get this tank back on track. I'll look into GFO and CP Blue. I think GFO might be a little scarce here in Australia...
 

nanoreefing4fun

Well-Known Member
RS STAFF
if i remember right... all gfo comes from Germany... several products use it & it has been around & used to export phosphate for years...

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/

Phosphate Export Using Binding Media: Granular Ferric Oxide/Hydroxide

In the past few years iron-based phosphate binding materials have become very popular among reef aquarists. These materials have been used commercially to treat drinking water (to remove arsenic, for example) and to treat wastewater (to remove a wide range of pollutants, including phosphate). They are sold to aquarists under a variety of different brand names, including PhosBan®, Phosphate Killer™, and ROWA®phos. These materials all range in color from reddish brown to nearly black. In aprevious article I detailed how they function as well as some of the concerns that aquarists have had when using this material.

Even though the commercial materials appear to be reasonably large particles (Salifert claims 0.2 - 2 mm on its product label), they actually have a high internal surface area, somewhat similar to activated carbon. Consequently, apparent particle size is an unreliable means by which to gauge available surface area (though it is reliable for nonporous solids such as table salt). I have seen no measures of accessible surface area for the commercial granular ferric oxide (GFO) sold to aquarists. Warner Marine has recently released a type of GFO (called PHOSaR) that has larger particles than most other brands of GFO, making it potentially more amenable to use in a typical media bag without as much concern for releasing fine particulates to the aquarium. I've not tested it myself.

Phosphate bound to GFO surfaces is still available to the water column by exchange, so the sequestering is temporary rather than permanent. This fact is known in the literature3, and can be shown experimentally. I will show the detail in upcoming articles, but it can easily be demonstrated by adsorbing phosphate onto GFO, and adding enough so that a detectable concentration of phosphate (say, 0.1 to 1 ppm) is in equilibrium with the solids. Then remove the solid GFO and add it to seawater with no detectable phosphate. The now-detectable phosphate in the new seawater shows that the phosphate can be released from the GFO media when the aquarium's phosphate concentration drops low enough.

One concern when using GFO is that it may add soluble iron to the system. This iron will likely benefit growing macroalgae, and I recommend adding soluble iron to systems that grow macroalgae. However, low bioavailability of iron may limit undesirable algae growth in some aquaria (it can in parts of the ocean), so adding iron might contribute to an algae problem. In general, however, most aquarists find that the use of GFO causes a decline in algae, with the reduction in phosphate being more important to decreasing algae growth than the added iron is to promoting it.

A second concern with using GFO is that some aquarists find extensive precipitation of calcium carbonate near or on the GFO itself. It turns out that soluble iron can cause the precipitation of calcium carbonate. Such precipitation can turn bags of GFO into solid clumps, and may contribute to clogging pumps, but in general the effect, if noticed at all, is limited to objects very near the GFO. The extent of this effect may well depend on the degree to which calcium carbonate is supersaturated in the aquarium, as well as on the levels of magnesium and organics (both of which usually reduce the likelihood of calcium carbonate precipitation).

Finally, be sure to rinse these materials in fresh or saltwater before adding them to the aquarium, as fine particles may get loose in the aquarium, clouding and coloring the water, and possibly creating other problems. There is no efficiency drawback to this rinsing. Aquarists using the GFO in a fluidized bed reactor or canister filter can just run some fresh or salt water on it for a few minutes before putting it into the aquarium. A media bag of GFO can simply be rinsed with saltwater or RO/DI water a few times before adding it to the aquarium. Do not squeeze the GFO inside the bag when rinsing it, as that may break the particles into smaller bits that can escape the bag.

The bottom line: Would I use GFO to export phosphate? The answer is yes, and I often do so by adding some into a canister filter that also contains activated carbon.
 

DaveK

Well-Known Member
I was told the complete opposite from Boyd Enterprises.

Here is the email:

...

I'm sure you were told this. On their own web, site according to Boyd Enterprises own web pages. You can read their own description here (offsite) - http://boyd--enterprises.com/chemipure-blue/

Note that they specifically mention ion exchange resins. Due to the various salts in SW, ion exchange resins quickly load up with various salt ions and are not generally effective.

What this all comes down to is who do you want to believe, the manufacturer who is trying to sell your their product? I got to say I'm a bit of a skeptic here. Also, if the product is so great, why don't we see similar products by other vendors? Makes me wonder, but that's me.
 

Salty150

Active Member
I'm sure you were told this. On their own web, site according to Boyd Enterprises own web pages. You can read their own description here (offsite) - http://boyd--enterprises.com/chemipure-blue/

Note that they specifically mention ion exchange resins. Due to the various salts in SW, ion exchange resins quickly load up with various salt ions and are not generally effective.

What this all comes down to is who do you want to believe, the manufacturer who is trying to sell your their product? I got to say I'm a bit of a skeptic here. Also, if the product is so great, why don't we see similar products by other vendors? Makes me wonder, but that's me.

Everyone that uses it seems to like it... :)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JE5UWB4/?tag=reefsanc-20

http://www.marinedepot.com/Boyd_Che...rprises_(Chemi_Pure)-BE16752-FIFMCHRM-vi.html
 

nanoreefing4fun

Well-Known Member
RS STAFF
100's if not 1000's of RSM tanks have run the CPE (carbon & gfo) for many years... it works, though expensive as compared to like brs gfo & carbon (mix your own) which is better, just not as convenient to use.

The blue has been out a year of so now... not seen many change to it, have seen a few.

Give it a go & see how you like it, there is more than one way to export phosphate, the cp blue is one.

hope this helps !
 

mike1970

Active Member
I have done both 2 CPE and 1 purigen worked ok 1 chemipure-blue not as good but did work. nothing worked better for me than BRS ROX 0.8 carbon and high capacity GFO in a reactor. cleared my hair algae outbreak in a week now that's all I use, I change it every 2 weeks like clock work
 

MatroxD

Active Member
I agree with Mike and the others.. I used both blue and elite in the past.. Not so much for phosphate control, but for polishing.. The elite did have a much greater effect on the phosphate for some reason, though they said in the beginning that it(the blue) was more efficient for higher levels..

I personally think and believe it's more of a competitor to purigen than gfo, etc. As gfo alone(another staunch brs user) does impact phosphorus more efficiently "in my experience" than the chemipure.. And also, I think ever competing with purigen, at least in my system, the chemi isn't as effective for polishing the water, and doesn't last as long.. But I haven't used the Boyd media products in a couple years, so they, like seachem may have altered their formula..

As goofy as it sounds, and contradictory to what most like, I use this combination:

Purigen- I use the smallest bag in a flowing area of my filter sock box(passive) in my 180 for clearing the water and keeping all yellows out.. Purigen is excellent for that..

Gfo-in a media reactor tumbling extremely slow as probably everyone else uses it..

Phosguard-this is the controversial one. I use a small amount also in my media reactor(which basically a 4 to 1 ratio).. What this does, is basically gets and keeps the levels down to .03, then, the gfo takes care of the rest to basically eliminate the rest, our at least to undetectable levels.. And then,I don't have to even think about gfo changes for a few months.. Makes it much more stable as far as phosphorus, maintaining extremely low levels.. And, Phosguard is CHEAP! Compared to gfo(especially the high capacity that I use), it costs absolutely nothing..

I fought with phosphate for honestly decades, and it wasn't until I started tinkering around, that I came upon this little combination.. I could get the levels low, but then it would always rebound back up to about .06(lol,I feed heavy as I love fat fish..) after about 2 weeks or so.. Now, I don't even think about it and it took me from measuring a couple times a week to maybe now, once a week if I'm being good, but more than likely with life and it's daily things, once a month, unless the coral starts to look funny(like polyps aren't fully extended) or,I have to clean the glass more than once a week... I haven't had any issues with the build-up or using the combination in the reactor, I think because the Phosguard sinks to the bottom and doesn't tumble, along with I use a very small amount. But I always keep my eyes open for anything..

I know that's a ton more information than you asked about, but hopefully it will save you some time and money..


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

Salty150

Active Member
As far as the ChemiPure Blue/Elite/Purigen, etc... vs. GFO in a reactor, etc...

One of the main reasons, if not THE reason people spend $2,000 for a 55 gallon tank (Max C-250) is because it is an all-in-one system.

Very few people, except for the experts on here :) add sumps, etc. or want to use a reactor, etc.

That is where the ChemiPure and Purigen come in - just add them to your media rack, etc.
 

DaveK

Well-Known Member
As far as the ChemiPure Blue/Elite/Purigen, etc... vs. GFO in a reactor, etc...

One of the main reasons, if not THE reason people spend $2,000 for a 55 gallon tank (Max C-250) is because it is an all-in-one system.

Very few people, except for the experts on here :) add sumps, etc. or want to use a reactor, etc.

That is where the ChemiPure and Purigen come in - just add them to your media rack, etc.

I have to say that I am in total disagreement with your post.

System like a RSM Max C-250 are all in one systems. However in order to be able to sell them various compromises must be made to the design. In the end you have a good over all design, but you don't necessarily have a perfect one, or even an optimum design for what any individual is trying to do.

This is why you see all the add on products for filtration, lighting, and so on. It is also why you see all the various user mods done to many of the all in one systems.

There is certainly no sin in adding a reactor or other equipment to do a better job of maintaining your system.

There is also an additional factor, ChemiPure and Purigen and similar media are very expensive for what you get. This is why I recommend buying the bulk products and using them. If you don't want a reactor, you can use a media bag and add them the exact same way you mention to the system. You also have the additional advantages of being able to do a custom mix or being able to use a different media in different media bags so you can change them as needed. This means you only need to replace what you actually use.
 

MatroxD

Active Member
As far as the ChemiPure Blue/Elite/Purigen, etc... vs. GFO in a reactor, etc...

One of the main reasons, if not THE reason people spend $2,000 for a 55 gallon tank (Max C-250) is because it is an all-in-one system.

Very few people, except for the experts on here :) add sumps, etc. or want to use a reactor, etc.

That is where the ChemiPure and Purigen come in - just add them to your media rack, etc.
I'm gonna wade in on this one with personal experience(at least mine).. Nothing against anyone, but hence, is the shortcoming of a system of this nature, unless your willing to do some things that will make the tank "not look so pretty"..

The all in one design is fine, but, in saltwater, in more often I would say it's somewhat inefficient.. Simply because of some of the things you "will" sooner or later run into, that, while you may not want to use a media reactor and just use media baskets, it will limit what you can and cannot run, and that media's effectiveness.. That's, if you decide to run media..

Note, whether or not I would spend that on a 55 gallon tank is neither here nor there.. But, that tank is an odd configuration for saltwater. Most people do run sumps, and that system has one, it's just on the back of the tank, versus underneath(the major percentage of people that run sump under versus on the back is pretty standard and not just expert at all).. Hence, why you really only see a few reputable and efficient products sold in "nice and tidy little packages", versus more bulk things designed to effectively run in media reactor, etc, that are sold to "most" saltwater enthusiasts.. And hence why you would have problems finding equipment that will run in that sump(once again, it may, may be able to fit, but then your all in one design is all for not) versus a standard configuration under the tank sump..

That's kind of basic..

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Top