green hair algae
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Joined
·
175 Posts
I'm not sure just using excel is going to solve your hair algae problem.
I've tried it with some success but until I got the ferts, lights and water circulation under control it continued to come back.
26 watts is not a lot of light over a 10 gallon. You may want to consider leaving them on for a longer period of time. I've found that because my lighting is marginal on most of my tanks that following the general instructions to cut back light when algae would break out actually made the problem worse.
I've tried it with some success but until I got the ferts, lights and water circulation under control it continued to come back.
26 watts is not a lot of light over a 10 gallon. You may want to consider leaving them on for a longer period of time. I've found that because my lighting is marginal on most of my tanks that following the general instructions to cut back light when algae would break out actually made the problem worse.
Joined
·
175 Posts
Hair algae is a funny thing when it comes to getting rid of it. I had a 5.5 el natural tank in the garage for a long time and I would only get hair algae in one spot. Right at the base of a watersprite plant.
I really don't think it is being caused by too much light. You may want to consider not enough nitrates as being a contributing factor. There again a lot of people will tell you to throw in some really fast growing stems and if your nitrates are bottoming out you make the problem worse by sucking up what's left of the nutrients.
Then the plants suffer and the hair algae picks up again.
Do you dose the tank at all?
Steven
I really don't think it is being caused by too much light. You may want to consider not enough nitrates as being a contributing factor. There again a lot of people will tell you to throw in some really fast growing stems and if your nitrates are bottoming out you make the problem worse by sucking up what's left of the nutrients.
Then the plants suffer and the hair algae picks up again.
Do you dose the tank at all?
Steven
Joined
·
398 Posts
Strange suggestion there. The guy has algae so lets up the lights???
2.6WPG is a lot I use 1.25WPG LED now and used to use 1.5WPG before with pressurised CO2!!!! Massive growth (see sig)
Your problem is quite obviously 2.6WPG with unstable CO2 and/or poor circulation.
Nutrient defficiencies are easy to erradicate. Dose EI and that rules out the possiblity of nutrient and then you just have CO2 and flow left. Get these sorted out and then you can move onto a lower dosing ferts regime if wished.
You need IMO to either reduce light or improve CO2. either way you need to have good flow (I have 17.6x)
Give each change a month or so to see improvements or not. Going EI most likely won't improve the situation but it will rule out the possibility of defficiency while you sort out the cause of the problems
AC
2.6WPG is a lot I use 1.25WPG LED now and used to use 1.5WPG before with pressurised CO2!!!! Massive growth (see sig)
Your problem is quite obviously 2.6WPG with unstable CO2 and/or poor circulation.
Nutrient defficiencies are easy to erradicate. Dose EI and that rules out the possiblity of nutrient and then you just have CO2 and flow left. Get these sorted out and then you can move onto a lower dosing ferts regime if wished.
You need IMO to either reduce light or improve CO2. either way you need to have good flow (I have 17.6x)
Give each change a month or so to see improvements or not. Going EI most likely won't improve the situation but it will rule out the possibility of defficiency while you sort out the cause of the problems
AC
Joined
·
4,333 Posts
Asking for algae advice always brings out a number of responses. Unfortunately you're usually left to sort through multiple pieces of conflicting advice. Be wary of anyone who offers their ideas as the ideal solution for each and every situation.
As a general rule, I stick with one or two ideas. When all else fails, focus on taking care of the plants. 2.6 wpg over a 10g tank isn't the same as 2.6wpg of light over a 75g tank. In general, it takes a bit more wattage to achieve the same intensity with small tanks. It's also useless to compare 2.6 wpg of fluorescent to anything illuminated by LED's.
Is 2.6 wpg enough? That depends on what you're trying to grow. For crypts, ferns, and easier stem plants, that should be more than plenty. DIY CO2 should also be just fine for a 10g tank assuming it's reasonably consistent. If you're trying to grow more demanding species, it might be on the low side. Most likely, light intensity isn't your problem. Leaving an insufficient quantity of light on for more hours per day won't help anything but the algae.
Excel is a reasonable supplement to what might be insufficient CO2, but it won't have much direct effect on thread algae - almost zero in my experience.
In my own tanks, I have the biggest issues with hair or thread algae when phosphate levels are relatively high and nitrate levels are relatively low. There is more than one type of thread algae though.
It would help if you provide some additional information on what plants you keep, what fertilizers you use, and what equipment you're using.
As a general rule, I stick with one or two ideas. When all else fails, focus on taking care of the plants. 2.6 wpg over a 10g tank isn't the same as 2.6wpg of light over a 75g tank. In general, it takes a bit more wattage to achieve the same intensity with small tanks. It's also useless to compare 2.6 wpg of fluorescent to anything illuminated by LED's.
Is 2.6 wpg enough? That depends on what you're trying to grow. For crypts, ferns, and easier stem plants, that should be more than plenty. DIY CO2 should also be just fine for a 10g tank assuming it's reasonably consistent. If you're trying to grow more demanding species, it might be on the low side. Most likely, light intensity isn't your problem. Leaving an insufficient quantity of light on for more hours per day won't help anything but the algae.
Excel is a reasonable supplement to what might be insufficient CO2, but it won't have much direct effect on thread algae - almost zero in my experience.
In my own tanks, I have the biggest issues with hair or thread algae when phosphate levels are relatively high and nitrate levels are relatively low. There is more than one type of thread algae though.
It would help if you provide some additional information on what plants you keep, what fertilizers you use, and what equipment you're using.
Joined
·
398 Posts
I will just say that I was actually comparing 2.6WPG against the 1.5WPG of fluoros I had before not the 1.25WPG of LEDs I now have!!!
I stick to what I said. This is not a 5G Nano tank and although smaller tanks do need more light I don't think this applies to this size tank. It's basically in the average tank range.
Therefore high light and DIY CO2 makes a nasty mess. I'll leave it there because I don't want to get involved in an argument. I have put my ideas up above already
AC
I stick to what I said. This is not a 5G Nano tank and although smaller tanks do need more light I don't think this applies to this size tank. It's basically in the average tank range.
Therefore high light and DIY CO2 makes a nasty mess. I'll leave it there because I don't want to get involved in an argument. I have put my ideas up above already
AC
Joined
·
175 Posts
Yeah algae advice is somewhat similar to having a backache, you get more advice than what you need.
I understand what everyone is saying about lights and all but I have found that usually hair algae is a nutrient issue. I think that true for most every algae.
In instances where I have had algae problems in tanks with low light cutting the photo period and adding stems to outcompete the algae has only made things worse. That seems to be the standard advice.
My recent tank I put ferns from a neglected tank coverd in beard algae started an EI dosing routine and kept the light on 24 hours a day for about three weeks. The plants got stronger from the ferts and I believe the lights being on helped the plants more than the algae.
I don't believe that will work in a tank with high light though I've never tried it. The reason I decided to try it was because most of the algae fixes from high light tank keepers fall into the, add CO2 and ferts which I believe is just putting the plants in a postion to grow like crazy and healthy plants most of the time mean little algae. I don't have high light or CO2 so that's why I recomend extending the photo period along with the ferts. It's worked for me.
I understand what everyone is saying about lights and all but I have found that usually hair algae is a nutrient issue. I think that true for most every algae.
In instances where I have had algae problems in tanks with low light cutting the photo period and adding stems to outcompete the algae has only made things worse. That seems to be the standard advice.
My recent tank I put ferns from a neglected tank coverd in beard algae started an EI dosing routine and kept the light on 24 hours a day for about three weeks. The plants got stronger from the ferts and I believe the lights being on helped the plants more than the algae.
I don't believe that will work in a tank with high light though I've never tried it. The reason I decided to try it was because most of the algae fixes from high light tank keepers fall into the, add CO2 and ferts which I believe is just putting the plants in a postion to grow like crazy and healthy plants most of the time mean little algae. I don't have high light or CO2 so that's why I recomend extending the photo period along with the ferts. It's worked for me.
Joined
·
4,333 Posts
Here's an intersting article about usual the lighting intensity that Amano uses. It certainly isn't the final word on light intensity, but it does provide some interesting food for thought. Using Amano's setups as a baseline, the author came up with a formula which fits the data fairly well. This does not take into account the type of setup he was trying to create. Java fern and anubias tanks will be set up differently than demanding stem plants.
Using the formula you'd need:
65 watts for a 10g aquarium (6.5 wpg)
137 watts for a 50g aquairum (2.7 wpg)
247 watts for a 180g aquairum (1.4 wpg)
Now, this isn't written in stone, but it should give you some idea that the watts/gallon "rule" doesn't apply that well to big (>75g) or small (<20g) tanks.
It's also important to note that 26W of T-8 lighting with no reflectors and old bulbs is not the same thing as 26W of T5 lighting with quality reflectors. The difference in usable light can be enormous.
Using the formula you'd need:
65 watts for a 10g aquarium (6.5 wpg)
137 watts for a 50g aquairum (2.7 wpg)
247 watts for a 180g aquairum (1.4 wpg)
Now, this isn't written in stone, but it should give you some idea that the watts/gallon "rule" doesn't apply that well to big (>75g) or small (<20g) tanks.
It's also important to note that 26W of T-8 lighting with no reflectors and old bulbs is not the same thing as 26W of T5 lighting with quality reflectors. The difference in usable light can be enormous.
Joined
·
3,373 Posts
As you said Bryce not the final word but I think it throws out good benchmarks for most situations.
One thing I'll say is there are alot of variables to deal with in terms of light. The original thread starter gave very little information so it would be almost impossible to pinpoint the root (no pun) of his/her algae problems. For example, 26 watts of 10g is not alot of light in most situations, but on one extreme if I fill up a 10g and run 26 watts of light on it for 10-12hrs per day, guess what your getting algae in there over time and in order to minimize this you would clearly have to reduce the lighting. On the hand if I take the same tank and give it consistent co2, fill it with plants one would probably look to increase lighting, ferts so the plants can grow well and remove the niche the algae has found. Algae doesn't need alot of light to grow if nothing is competing with it. So gettiing back to the original thread starter it's not surprising that the guidance is going in different directions.
One other thing I would add is there is a huge difference between intensity and duration. Many plant species actually curl up their leaves after 7 to 9 hours of receiving light. They are done working for the day, so it would stand to reason that anything longer in duration would only be helping algae.
One thing I'll say is there are alot of variables to deal with in terms of light. The original thread starter gave very little information so it would be almost impossible to pinpoint the root (no pun) of his/her algae problems. For example, 26 watts of 10g is not alot of light in most situations, but on one extreme if I fill up a 10g and run 26 watts of light on it for 10-12hrs per day, guess what your getting algae in there over time and in order to minimize this you would clearly have to reduce the lighting. On the hand if I take the same tank and give it consistent co2, fill it with plants one would probably look to increase lighting, ferts so the plants can grow well and remove the niche the algae has found. Algae doesn't need alot of light to grow if nothing is competing with it. So gettiing back to the original thread starter it's not surprising that the guidance is going in different directions.
One other thing I would add is there is a huge difference between intensity and duration. Many plant species actually curl up their leaves after 7 to 9 hours of receiving light. They are done working for the day, so it would stand to reason that anything longer in duration would only be helping algae.
Joined
·
398 Posts
Bryce. That fitch one is one of my favourite chuckles. lol Amano doesn't use that amount of light himself anymore and I won't go into using W for it. lol That calculator suggests even more W than the WPG rule which we know is well out of date and with todays improved more efficient lights then the old low light wattage can be today's high light wattage!!! You can't supply suggestions from a 13 year old article when technology is involved!!!
As an example if I type my tank size in it comes up with 113W. You must be kidding. 60W is the max I've ever used and that was darned bright. The tank you see below in the sig is bright enough with 48W. Not the brightest by far but 113W. Thats beyond a joke. they must be calculated
ADAs own lighting units seem to be lowlight units diguised!!!
Check out the thread!!!:
http://www.barrreport.com/general-p...aqua-forest-nice-low-par-values-who-knew.html
AC
As an example if I type my tank size in it comes up with 113W. You must be kidding. 60W is the max I've ever used and that was darned bright. The tank you see below in the sig is bright enough with 48W. Not the brightest by far but 113W. Thats beyond a joke. they must be calculated
ADAs own lighting units seem to be lowlight units diguised!!!
Check out the thread!!!:
http://www.barrreport.com/general-p...aqua-forest-nice-low-par-values-who-knew.html
AC
Joined
·
3,373 Posts
Supercoley I'm a little confused by your statement. The big tank your linking to in the Barr report looks like it's running in the range of 3 to 4 wpg. The Mini S light that ADA sells is 27watts for around 4g or 6.75wpg. These are pretty much in the range of Bryce's chart.
Your tank in your link is a lowlight setup with Crypts and Ferns so the lighting chart wouldn't apply anyway. Sorry if I misunderstood, but I'm not getting where your coming from .
Joined
·
4,333 Posts
Super,
I find the tone of your relply to be a bit brash and unfriendly. If your intent here is to simply be insulting, please send me an insulting PM. At least that way others won't need to view it.
What I find to be interesting about this particular article isn't so much the suggested mangitude of the light, but the differences in the needs of small and large tanks. Of course the quality of the lights makes a difference. The watt/aquarium size relationship will hold true no matter what type of light source you're using. The issue is fairly complex. Refraction, dispersion, reflection, wavelength, reflectors, bulb geometry........ it all comes into play. Tank size is simply one variable - and one that doesn't fit the wpg "rule" very well.
BTW, I've looked through your journal and your tank certainly is nice. It's populated almost exclusively with low-light, undemanding species. I would expect it to do marvelously well with the light you describe. You describe it yourself as a low-light, low-maintenence tank.
I'm simply trying to make the point that one person's demands are not the same as anothers. Comments like
I find the tone of your relply to be a bit brash and unfriendly. If your intent here is to simply be insulting, please send me an insulting PM. At least that way others won't need to view it.
What I find to be interesting about this particular article isn't so much the suggested mangitude of the light, but the differences in the needs of small and large tanks. Of course the quality of the lights makes a difference. The watt/aquarium size relationship will hold true no matter what type of light source you're using. The issue is fairly complex. Refraction, dispersion, reflection, wavelength, reflectors, bulb geometry........ it all comes into play. Tank size is simply one variable - and one that doesn't fit the wpg "rule" very well.
BTW, I've looked through your journal and your tank certainly is nice. It's populated almost exclusively with low-light, undemanding species. I would expect it to do marvelously well with the light you describe. You describe it yourself as a low-light, low-maintenence tank.
I'm simply trying to make the point that one person's demands are not the same as anothers. Comments like
are narrow-minded. The OP's problem certainly isn't obvious to those who have experience with a wide variety of setups.
Joined
·
175 Posts
I disagree with the duration on low light tanks only because my experience with them suggests that 10-12 hours of lower light levels will not necessarily produce algae over time if the tank is properly fed and cared for.
I think most of the advice out there is from people using high light overdriven tank setups. In that case I would agree the 8 hours would be fine.
In a low light/low tech tank with plants that aren't that demanding I just don't think that is enough sometimes to keep the plants healthy enough.
I think most of the advice out there is from people using high light overdriven tank setups. In that case I would agree the 8 hours would be fine.
In a low light/low tech tank with plants that aren't that demanding I just don't think that is enough sometimes to keep the plants healthy enough.
Joined
·
398 Posts
I'm going to leave this thread alone after this post as I said before. it was just the 13 year old paper that got me replying earlier.
HOUSE of Cards - That chart is 13 years old and uses T12,T10,T8 and CF. Doesn't take into account that even with T8s for example advances have been made since then to prolong life, maintain intensity for longer etc.
The barrreport thread is measuring the PAR intensities within the tanks and then asking the question 'How are these PAR ratings so low when the lighting units used are supposed to be pretty high light (wattage wise!!!) That's what I was linking to it for.
I have said on other threads that I don't believe in high light/low light plants. There is no such thing as a 'low light plant'. I know you didn't mean it that way but any plant can grow in high light so it can't be described as low light then. there are plants that don't grow well until a certain level is reached but I question the amount that a lot of people seem to think it is and I also question wether it is the high light or the high levels of CO2 that go with the high light actually making the leap from failure to success!!.
Bryce - I'm sorry you see my reply as brash and unfriendly and feel it is insulting. Maybe rushed but not meant in an unfriendly or insulting way. Many apologies.
I understand what you are saying about lower light over smaller tanks but then I don't think a 10gal is small. I was just trying to say as I have put above that with today's advances even in the quality of T8s that we can't use charts of that age for wattage. We shall have to agree to disagree on that one
You've looked through my journal and seen me describing it as low light low maintenance so that others understand what I was aiming at. As you can see it proved anything but low maintenance. I have to prune handfuls out of it weekly from these supposed 'low light, slow growing' plants
I agree one persons demands are different to others and really should consider it a little more and not make assumptions I suppose.
The OP said they had 26W over 10USG which in my eyes even with T8/T10 is high light. I naturally assume that from being on a planted forum the user will have reflectors.
However if my assumptions (that I admit are assumptions) are true then I stand by my suggestion that it is a CO2/flow issue. It is definately not poor light unless the lights are very poor quality with no reflectors and attached into the ceiling!! <----Intended as a joke
So on reflection yes maybeI rushed into assumptions but offer constructive advice. I apologise if I seem rude or insulting but it is not meant that way in the slightest.
Again I offer my aoplogies.
AC
HOUSE of Cards - That chart is 13 years old and uses T12,T10,T8 and CF. Doesn't take into account that even with T8s for example advances have been made since then to prolong life, maintain intensity for longer etc.
The barrreport thread is measuring the PAR intensities within the tanks and then asking the question 'How are these PAR ratings so low when the lighting units used are supposed to be pretty high light (wattage wise!!!) That's what I was linking to it for.
I have said on other threads that I don't believe in high light/low light plants. There is no such thing as a 'low light plant'. I know you didn't mean it that way but any plant can grow in high light so it can't be described as low light then. there are plants that don't grow well until a certain level is reached but I question the amount that a lot of people seem to think it is and I also question wether it is the high light or the high levels of CO2 that go with the high light actually making the leap from failure to success!!.
Bryce - I'm sorry you see my reply as brash and unfriendly and feel it is insulting. Maybe rushed but not meant in an unfriendly or insulting way. Many apologies.
I understand what you are saying about lower light over smaller tanks but then I don't think a 10gal is small. I was just trying to say as I have put above that with today's advances even in the quality of T8s that we can't use charts of that age for wattage. We shall have to agree to disagree on that one
You've looked through my journal and seen me describing it as low light low maintenance so that others understand what I was aiming at. As you can see it proved anything but low maintenance. I have to prune handfuls out of it weekly from these supposed 'low light, slow growing' plants
I agree one persons demands are different to others and really should consider it a little more and not make assumptions I suppose.
The OP said they had 26W over 10USG which in my eyes even with T8/T10 is high light. I naturally assume that from being on a planted forum the user will have reflectors.
However if my assumptions (that I admit are assumptions) are true then I stand by my suggestion that it is a CO2/flow issue. It is definately not poor light unless the lights are very poor quality with no reflectors and attached into the ceiling!! <----Intended as a joke
So on reflection yes maybeI rushed into assumptions but offer constructive advice. I apologise if I seem rude or insulting but it is not meant that way in the slightest.
Again I offer my aoplogies.
AC
Joined
·
4,333 Posts
No problem.
To get back to the OP's question, I think that Excel isn't likely to be the only answer to the problem. Hair/thread algae formation is influenced by nutrients and light levels. Excel is OK, and if you want to use it with shrimp, I'd stick to the dosage on the bottle or maybe just a tad more. The solution to your algae issues will probably require a change to your regular routine, depending on the specifics of your setup.
To get back to the OP's question, I think that Excel isn't likely to be the only answer to the problem. Hair/thread algae formation is influenced by nutrients and light levels. Excel is OK, and if you want to use it with shrimp, I'd stick to the dosage on the bottle or maybe just a tad more. The solution to your algae issues will probably require a change to your regular routine, depending on the specifics of your setup.
wow, didn't expect so much info on this thread.
I manage to lower the hair algae in my tank by:
turn the driftwood up-side down.
get 5 ottos from my other plant tank over to help.
dose 1/2 the recommended excel daily.
I am not sure which one help but get rid of 50%+ of the algae.
FYI,
I fertilized using the EI method in this thread
The DIY CO2 supply is very constant to the best that I can.
I'm trying to get the pressurize system for my big tank and probably hook up too.
Thank all for your help.
I manage to lower the hair algae in my tank by:
turn the driftwood up-side down.
get 5 ottos from my other plant tank over to help.
dose 1/2 the recommended excel daily.
I am not sure which one help but get rid of 50%+ of the algae.
FYI,
I fertilized using the EI method in this thread
The DIY CO2 supply is very constant to the best that I can.
I'm trying to get the pressurize system for my big tank and probably hook up too.
Thank all for your help.
It is helpful for me. Now I know different ways people are trying to control the algae. There are many factors to consider, just try different ways to see which one work best. That doesn't mean other methods doens't work, it just doens't work for this specific setting.
That doesn't mean other methods doens't work, it just doens't work for this specific setting.1 - 20 of 21 Posts
