Bob replies...

Dear Danny,

Hair algae is a major problem when it gets a foothold. Even though your present water parameters appear fine, unforeseen conditions when you first set up this aquarium and on-going questionable husbandry practices are now beginning to manifest themselves in the form of unwanted algae. Do I have a magic cure? No. Can it be overcome? Yes, but you have to be willing and able to apply the labor needed to overcome the problem.

Let me explain where the turns in the road lie in many of these cases so those that may also read this don't make the same mistakes.

Whatever the system, fish-only or reef, its on-going health and water quality have a lot to do with those bacteria that live in the dark reaches of the system. Too many aquarists give only the nitrification process some thought and surmise that if ammonia is oxidized to nitrite, then nitrate, that takes care of the hazardous animal wastes. And many establishing reef aquariums are still being lead to believe lots of live rock will rid the aquarium of the end product of that nitrification cycle - nitrate. Nevertheless, many years of research has shown there is more to it and if what has now been learned is not applied, unwanted forms of algae can possibly gain a foothold and ruin a perfectly nice looking system somewhere down the line.

Keep in mind almost anyone can have a successful tank if they spend the time and money on it to keep it looking good! However, one successful tank does not make a 'guru!' If your dealer had fifty years of experience and a continuous chain of successful client systems, I would be at his door wanting to checkout his method. And, if I were to sell products from my home, my home aquarium would always be at its best no matter how much time and money it took to do so. (I'm just saying here don't judge his expertise by one aquarium. Evaluate his recommendations before jumping in so to speak.)

Anyway, the goal in setting up a new system is often impacted by what the system should 'look' like and how fast it can be accomplished. Understandable, but somewhat misguided in my opinion as it's putting the cart in front of the horse. Unless more thought is first given to the things we can't generally see, such as microbial efficiency/natural pathways, closed systems can not continue to operate as does Mother Nature in the wild, at least not without much additional cost in time and money. It may look great for a while, but Mother Nature can be seriously irritated once her pathways become dead ends.

There is now scientific evidence that more forethought needs to be applied to the microbial processes taking place in closed systems. If we better understand how, why and where certain type of bacteria perform, its very possible the closed system will be more 'natural-like' in the long run. One of the many things discussed in my CD book 'The New Wave' is the fact that if the 'area' that houses inefficient bacteria (such as found in the depths of a deep sandbed directly on the aquarium bottom and inside that of live rock) become greater in volume than the area housing efficient bacteria, the system 'will' become nutrient rich. That's just plain commonsense, but it took about six years of research to gather the facts and evaluate. And, its only one part of many interesting new views discussed in the CD. And I should note that Martin Moe Jr. and Dr. Jean Jaubert were impressed with the CD's content!

Anyway, when these inefficient areas produce more nitrogen based products than what can be used by those bacteria in efficient areas or exported, the aquarium will suffer a war with algae sooner or later! And, very efficient skimmers and water changes are not going to cure the problem. They may postpone it or reduce the intensity of the problem, but they don't cure the root cause.

Research has shown that anaerobic areas generate an ample supply of ammonium, which is the favorite algae nutrient. Remember, nitrate is only reduced to ammonium, no further in anaerobic areas. Yes, nitrate is reduced and when the bulk water is tested, low nitrate levels appear to be under control because of the denitrification process in deep sand and inside rock. But that can be somewhat misleading because in anaerobic areas, nitrate is only reduced to ammonium (a nitrogen compound), no further. Fact, not fiction! However, in anoxic areas, nitrate is fully broken down/oxidized. Therefore, anything much over an inch or two of sand and/or the over abundance of live rock is the perfect breeding ground for the ideal alga nutrient. And, this production of ammonium is not visible on our test kits, so the average aquarist doesn't see it. But the formation of algae in the aquarium is in part the result of this ammonium production, as algae is the physical incorporation of nitrogen compounds! Many aquarists also fail to adequately control phosphate. So it should be clear that minimizing anaerobic areas in the aquarium and the on-going control from the start of the aquarium where phosphate is concerned, is essential in preventing unwanted growths of algae somewhere down the line.

Even though you say zero phosphate, I doubt that very much. Anything over 0.015 mg/l is sufficient to get an algae spore growing. Unfortunately almost all aquarium test kits only go as low as 0.05 mg/l, and even that is doubtful because aquarium reagents are not very accurate. Only the Merck Phosphate Test kit #1.14445.00001 goes to 0.015 and below, and that kit is difficult to get besides costing about $65. But if you're serious about this hobby, that kit is well worth the money!

And, unfortunately, many aquarists don't bother with phosphate removing compounds until they either see algae growing or until they see a significant reading on a test kit. That's like closing the barn doors after the horses have fled! Phosphate production is a normal microbial process and its abundance depends upon many factors. But it's inescapable and actually a needed process if anything in the aquarium is going to live. It's the over abundance of the compound that needs our attention. That means using a quality phosphate removing product from the get-go and keeping it replaced often, as its our cheapest anti-algae insurance! Furthermore, it's the 'iron' based phosphate removing products that you want to concentrate on using, such as the Marc Weiss Phosphate+Silicate Magnet, or the new ROWAphos product from the U.K. There are also some iron impregnated filter pads which are also excellent.

As for adding dozens of hermit crabs, which do not export their wastes, they simply make aquarium keeping unnecessarily more expensive and do not resolve the root cause! I had ten hermits in my past 180 gallon system and considered that about five too many! The use, or should I say the misuse of hermit crabs is also discussed in my CD book.

Pyramids or walls of rock, or covering more than 25% of the sandbed surface with rock is also a negative as it provides places for detritus to collect or sandbed areas that can't be cleaned/vacuumed. Somewhere down the line this adds unwanted nutrients/breeding ground for parameters that distract from the wellbeing of the environment as a whole. Now think about your powerheads, they are near some detritus filled substrate (how deep that is I don't know) where ammonium from the nearby rock and substrate is very possibly leaching into the surrounding water and being pulled towards the powerheads. A perfect place for hair algae to grow. And once growing, this cyanobacteria (yes hair algae is a cyanobacteria) needs little or no light! So why cut back on lighting? That's another subject covered in the CD.

Keep in mind ammonium is the key plant nutrient and phosphate supplies the energy to get it going. Those two ingredients are your root problem. As for ridding the aquarium of hair algae at this stage with herbivores, it's not out of the question if growth has not proceeded too far. Yet, hermit crabs would not generally be part of that solution as they are not going to consume tree-like growths. The common sea hare 'Aplysia ,dactylomela' feeds on algae of all types. Also the Florida Sea Slug/Lettuce Slug, Tridacia crispata, is fond of Bryopsis, a bushy form of hair algae. Yet their waste products need to be accessible/vacuumed out so it doesn't degrade and become a source of nutrients. As for weekly water changes, it has no bearing on this situation, so that's a total waste of money.

You're at a stage where an honest assessment of the present system is needed. Do anaerobic areas in the system have a greater volume than anoxic areas? If so, how best can that be resolved? - Redistribute some rock, remove some rock and sand, vacuum more often, and/or have a greater sandbed surface that is reachable for maintenance. Also, reassess the use of certain additives, use a quality brand phosphate remover and change it often, hand remove 'any' hair algae seen as often as needed. Keep using the skimmer, however, stop the flow of fine bubbles entering the aquarium. Contact the maker and resolve the problem. Maybe the skimmer effluent could be flowed through a sponge or enter some kind of diffuser area where the bubbles have a chance of surfacing before the water flows into the aquarium. And, don't change your lighting photoperiod, as the animals needing light have become use to that time period.

And I should add, you say you had the ORP analyzed. Actually 340 is not shabby, and if a water sample was removed and taken to a store, it would have lost some of its oxygen content and would be lower than what was in your aquarium. Also, don't use any of those algae killing additives, as 'some' algae types in the system is a sign of a very healthy system and quite beneficial. And remember, zooxanthellae are alga cells! These so-called algae eliminating additives are not in the best interest of aquarists!

I also don't know why some people think some corals are starving if they temporary shrink. Sometimes the opposite is true. They shrink because they no longer need to extend to capture more light or foodstuffs as what they have currently are sufficient. Sometimes shrinking is a normal procedure, especially for leather corals that use the process to remove algae/slime that has collected on their surfaces. When the coral resumes its original shape/size, the coating of slime/algae flakes off and is washed away by wave action. I think its far too early to assume the two corals mention have a problem. And, those two corals do not prefer direct metal halide light, as the Elegance comes from turbid waters and the yellow leather seems to prefer somewhat indirect, yet strong lighting.

Also, once algae begin growing on the coral skeleton, the coral animal (tissue) often recedes, as it can't compete with the intruding/spreading algae. Since the animal can not move to another clean site it often wastes away and the algae uses the nutrients from the decaying animal tissue as a food source.

I keep preaching the commonsense associated with microbially balanced aquariums. I'm not saying this always guarantees a perfect aquarium environment, however, it does give Mother Nature a fighting chance to be in control of her own destiny. And, I must add that I find microbes more predicable than infauna, therefore I rely more heavily upon bacteria than infauna to provide system balance. The problem with infauna is that it's impossible to tell what worms and/or crustaceans are accomplishing in the sandbed - simply guesswork! But not so with bacteria! And if the system is constructed with this in mind, Mother Nature usually does an admirable job. Hope this helps,

Bob