Tank cloudiness

[mcarroll]

3 hours ago, Justanotherfishguy said:

And when u said get ride of all that extra filtration do you mean the carbon and gfo so just keep the filter floss or all three and have nothing and have the live rock,sand and snails take care of everything

All you should need is a protein skimmer (which is optional, but helpful) and live rock.   

 

Having good flow everywhere in the tank "should" be able to keep food and detritus afloat until it gets eaten.  If you can't get flow "that right" then you need to pay more attention to feeding to avoid waste. 

 

Using some degree of mechanical filtration (eg Protein skimmer) is fine.  But if you opt against a skimmer, you have to be mindful about replacing your mechanical media as soon as it's loaded or you end up making a bio-filter out of it.  (You read about this as what's referred to as a "nitrate factory".) 

 

A skimmer is a bit more hands off, won't turn into a bio-filter, and doesn't require anything replaceable to go into the garbage.  Spend once, use "forever".

[Clown79]

49 minutes ago, Justanotherfishguy said:

I have not tested for that. I will when I do my next water change and I’ll let you no 

 

I only have the api master kit so when I have a chance I’ll buy one for NO3, PO4, Ca and Mg 

Get a good phosphate tester, not api.

 

The problem with determining cloudiness with lights out, is it's hard to see.

 

Just like algae. Often it appears to be gone with lights out but it's not gone.

 

Using activated carbon alone and not too much should not effect the tank negatively, it helps with polishing water and reduce toxin warfare.

 

Phos reducers, purigen on the other hand can reduce nutrients significantly. Those I wouldn't use unless necessary

[hinnenkm]

If it's getting cloudy after lights come on, it's a bacterial bloom or an algae bloom. Put some macro algae - cheato, caulerpa, flame algae.... and it will clear up.

[mcarroll]

18 minutes ago, hinnenkm said:

If it's getting cloudy after lights come on, it's a bacterial bloom or an algae bloom. Put some macro algae - cheato, caulerpa, flame algae.... and it will clear up.

That's logical, but...

 

Bacteria

Bacteria shouldn't be triggered by the lights, so I don't understand how that would be it.  Doesn't happen until light-on, apparently.

 

Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton (aka green water, algae) SHOULD be triggered by lights...

 

BUT that should appear to be green, not white.

 

Ammonia

Another angle -- either explanation "should" require an ammonia source...but why would the green hair algae growing around the tank not be sucking up the ammonia like crazy and spreading over the tank even more? 

 

And why, presuming this is the case, is ammonia spiking like this in the first place?

 

7 hours ago, Justanotherfishguy said:

@mcarroll

 that is correct saw it when the light first came on it was clear got some breakfast came back To feed the fish and it was starting to get cloudy by the time I left for work it was like the picture 

 

 

and this is probably the 4th time this has happend after water changes 

Nothing has changed with this so far has it?

 

Just to clarify: 

This doesn't happen immediately after a water change, right? 

It happens the next morning AFTER the water change....like 8 hours (or whatever) after the fact, when the lights kick on.

 

If so, we really need those other tests so we can have more evidence.

 

 

[Seadragon]

13 minutes ago, mcarroll said:

Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton (aka green water, algae) SHOULD be triggered by lights...

 

BUT that should appear to be green, not white.

 

I have to call you out on this only because I've had recent first hand experience.  Now, if I've NEVER experienced an algae bloom before, I too would say logically speaking, algae blooms would be green cloudy water and bacteria blooms would be white cloudy water.  That to me makes sense without actually going through it at all.

 

But, here's what my tank looked like on Day 0 of installing a UV Sterilizer:

Day 0

 

And here's Day 4:

Day 4

 

I can tell you, weeks before it turned to Green Water, it's been white cloudy water.  And then, it got this green tint to it.  And then, I got the UV Sterilizer, and after 4 days, it went back to the white cloudy water, and then of course now it is crystal clear water.

 

To me, whichever bloom it may be, Algae or Bacteria, a UV Sterilizer will help if the water is constantly cloudy.  Which, in this thread, it seems like it's only sometimes so it's kind of weird.

 

[Clown79]

21 minutes ago, Seadragon said:

 

I have to call you out on this only because I've had recent first hand experience.  Now, if I've NEVER experienced an algae bloom before, I too would say logically speaking, algae blooms would be green cloudy water and bacteria blooms would be white cloudy water.  That to me makes sense without actually going through it at all.

 

But, here's what my tank looked like on Day 0 of installing a UV Sterilizer:

Day 0

 

And here's Day 4:

Day 4

 

I can tell you, weeks before it turned to Green Water, it's been white cloudy water.  And then, it got this green tint to it.  And then, I got the UV Sterilizer, and after 4 days, it went back to the white cloudy water, and then of course now it is crystal clear water.

 

To me, whichever bloom it may be, Algae or Bacteria, a UV Sterilizer will help if the water is constantly cloudy.  Which, in this thread, it seems like it's only sometimes so it's kind of weird.

 

It may have changed colour because it may have started out as a bacterial bloom and then a phyto bloom.

 

Both quite common in newer systems.

 

[Seadragon]

10 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

It may have changed colour because it may have started out as a bacterial bloom and then a phyto bloom.

 

Both quite common in newer systems.

 

 

I was thinking that, but my current belief is... if I'd wait long enough, it would've been a dark green color like what we think of in the worst case scenario for the typical algae bloom.  And the reverse is also true, if it's an algae bloom in its infancy, then it will be a very light shade of green, but due to less density of algae, it appears as a whitish cloud and the green only becomes prevalent as you increase the density of the algae bloom.  If you get what I mean...

[Clown79]

5 minutes ago, Seadragon said:

 

I was thinking that, but my current belief is... if I'd wait long enough, it would've been a dark green color like what we think of in the worst case scenario for the typical algae bloom.  And the reverse is also true, if it's an algae bloom in its infancy, then it will be a very light shade of green, but due to less density of algae, it appears as a whitish cloud and the green only becomes prevalent as you increase the density of the algae bloom.  If you get what I mean...

I had a phyto bloom.

 

I did my regular weekly waterchanges, it goes away on it's own.

 

It the most common method of treatment and not much can be done for bacterial bloom.

 

These are stages that occur in maturing tanks.

[Seadragon]

3 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

I had a phyto bloom.

 

I did my regular weekly waterchanges, it goes away on it's own.

 

It the most common method of treatment and not much can be done for bacterial bloom.

 

These are stages that occur in maturing tanks.

 

I believe you.  I also read about 100 reviews for the Green Killing Machine (UV Sterilizer) on Amazon and there's many reviews that state they started with a water change, but the bloom kept coming back until they installed the UV Sterilizer.  Which to me also makes sense.  A water change is like band-aid since you didn't resolve the source of the problem which might be too much blue light spectrum or too long of a photoperiod or an infinite amount of other possibilities.

[Clown79]

3 hours ago, Seadragon said:

 

I believe you.  I also read about 100 reviews for the Green Killing Machine (UV Sterilizer) on Amazon and there's many reviews that state they started with a water change, but the bloom kept coming back until they installed the UV Sterilizer.  Which to me also makes sense.  A water change is like band-aid since you didn't resolve the source of the problem which might be too much blue light spectrum or too long of a photoperiod or an infinite amount of other possibilities.

I always attempt to identify the cause of a problem, it's something I highly recommend everyone do, with any problem.

 

A waterchange isn't really a bandaid, no more so than using a UV sterilizer which has negative aspects to it as well as positive. 

 

[Seadragon]

11 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

I always attempt to identify the cause of a problem, it's something I highly recommend everyone do, with any problem.

 

A waterchange isn't really a bandaid, no more so than using a UV sterilizer which has negative aspects to it as well as positive. 

 

 

I think it depends.  If you do large water changes (> 50%) fairly quickly like the majority of hobbyists (few do the drip method), there have been reported cases where livestock die due to not keeping the water parameters stable.  The instability is a shock to a lot of life.  Most of the time with a water change, the temperature/Ca/Alk/Salinity/other Params will not be the same as the tank water and if it's not done slowly with small amounts, it can have disastrous results.

 

I've never heard of any issues with keeping a UV Sterilizer on 24/7.  Can you give any examples of the negative aspects of a UV Sterilizer with some factual evidence?

[Clown79]

1 hour ago, Seadragon said:

 

I think it depends.  If you do large water changes (> 50%) fairly quickly like the majority of hobbyists (few do the drip method), there have been reported cases where livestock die due to not keeping the water parameters stable.  The instability is a shock to a lot of life.  Most of the time with a water change, the temperature/Ca/Alk/Salinity/other Params will not be the same as the tank water and if it's not done slowly with small amounts, it can have disastrous results.

 

I've never heard of any issues with keeping a UV Sterilizer on 24/7.  Can you give any examples of the negative aspects of a UV Sterilizer with some factual evidence?

Well I can say through testing my mixed saltwater, it mixes exactly to my tanks parameters.

 

That is what we are meant to achieve by maintaining our parameters through the week and then ensuring your newly mixed salt is consistent(testing it usually confirms this)

 

I and many others have done 10-100% waterchanges with no losses. It's done regularly by many.

 

Yes, one prime example is that UV use can kill bacteria and other things. 

Simple Google search will direct you to the right information.

[mcarroll]

7 hours ago, Seadragon said:

Can you give any examples of the negative aspects of a UV Sterilizer with some factual evidence?

Just consider what a reef is, how it matures and what a UV filter does.

 

Reefs are made up of many, many different microorganisms many of which spawn into the water as a means to spread their DNA.

 

If these microorganisms can't spread this way, or if they are hampered, then maturation of the reef will stop or be delayed.

 

A UV filter does exactly this -- it slows down or stops the spread of organisms via the water.

 

Not really desirable in general.  (And considering that nobody is even willing to wait for a natural cycle to happen anymore, who's going to volunteer to slow down their new tank's development just so they could run a UV filter?  😉)

 

Whether this slowing/delay is an actual problem for a given tank is still an open question. 

 

Is the tank brand new?  6 months old?  6 years old? 

 

Any real negative impact will be less and less as you go down that continuum of tank age, when most organisms would be more and more established and the tank overall would be already be more mature.

 

But generally speaking most use cases are on brand new tanks.

 

If you're running a new tank that's been (e.g.) overrun by dino's, a UV filter can make a lot of sense in the overall troubleshooting and repair efforts you'll be performing.

 

If you're suspicious of ich or another parasite being in the tank, then running a UV filter (or other extra options) can make a lot of sense in the same way.

 

I think a bacterial bloom is a little more of a borderline case just because I don't think bacterial blooms hurt anything (so patience might be a better option in some cases).  But that's still an example of a good use case IMO too.  I'd just shut down the UV when the bloom was gone.

 

However, I wouldn't routinely run a UV filter "just in case" or just because someone with a Tank Of The Month award did -- i.e. without a real reason.  (Which is the justification for most of the unnecessary filtration folks use on new tanks.  👍)

[Seadragon]

1 hour ago, mcarroll said:

Just consider what a reef is, how it matures and what a UV filter does.

 

Reefs are made up of many, many different microorganisms many of which spawn into the water as a means to spread their DNA.

 

If these microorganisms can't spread this way, or if they are hampered, then maturation of the reef will stop or be delayed.

 

A UV filter does exactly this -- it slows down or stops the spread of organisms via the water.

 

Not really desirable in general.  (And considering that nobody is even willing to wait for a natural cycle to happen anymore, who's going to volunteer to slow down their new tank's development just so they could run a UV filter?  😉)

 

Whether this slowing/delay is an actual problem for a given tank is still an open question. 

 

Is the tank brand new?  6 months old?  6 years old? 

 

Any real negative impact will be less and less as you go down that continuum of tank age, when most organisms would be more and more established and the tank overall would be already be more mature.

 

But generally speaking most use cases are on brand new tanks.

 

If you're running a new tank that's been (e.g.) overrun by dino's, a UV filter can make a lot of sense in the overall troubleshooting and repair efforts you'll be performing.

 

If you're suspicious of ich or another parasite being in the tank, then running a UV filter (or other extra options) can make a lot of sense in the same way.

 

I think a bacterial bloom is a little more of a borderline case just because I don't think bacterial blooms hurt anything (so patience might be a better option in some cases).  But that's still an example of a good use case IMO too.  I'd just shut down the UV when the bloom was gone.

 

However, I wouldn't routinely run a UV filter "just in case" or just because someone with a Tank Of The Month award did -- i.e. without a real reason.  (Which is the justification for most of the unnecessary filtration folks use on new tanks.  👍)

 

I personally wouldn't install a UV Sterilizer on a new tank that was mid-cycle.  In my case, I only installed it once a problem warranted it.  In saying that, after the Nitrogen cycle is complete and good bacteria has sufficiently populated the surface areas of the tank including the rocks, I see no problem with having a UV Sterilizer especially if there is any visible cloudiness that comes from either an algae bloom or a bacteria bloom.

 

I also just put my UV Sterilizer on a timer now (sync'd with my LED lights), now that the water is crystal clear.  For the UV bulb that I got, on average it only lasts about 6 months and can get pricey for replacements.  By having the timer, I can increase the life of the bulb by 33% (or an additional 2 months).  My UV Sterilizer also has a sponge filter in the intake so that may help keep larger, more beneficial, organisms out.  An excess of bacteria or algae within the water column is never good and I tend to lean more towards balance and moderation in everything.

[Clown79]

1 hour ago, Seadragon said:

 

I personally wouldn't install a UV Sterilizer on a new tank that was mid-cycle.  In my case, I only installed it once a problem warranted it.  In saying that, after the Nitrogen cycle is complete and good bacteria has sufficiently populated the surface areas of the tank including the rocks, I see no problem with having a UV Sterilizer especially if there is any visible cloudiness that comes from either an algae bloom or a bacteria bloom.

 

I also just put my UV Sterilizer on a timer now (sync'd with my LED lights), now that the water is crystal clear.  For the UV bulb that I got, on average it only lasts about 6 months and can get pricey for replacements.  By having the timer, I can increase the life of the bulb by 33% (or an additional 2 months).  My UV Sterilizer also has a sponge filter in the intake so that may help keep larger, more beneficial, organisms out.  An excess of bacteria or algae within the water column is never good and I tend to lean more towards balance and moderation in everything.

It's not just during a cycle, it takes years for a reef system to hit maturity.

 

It's really easy to deplete the system of biodiversity and sterile tanks do not mean its healthy but the opposite.

[Seadragon]

11 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

It's not just during a cycle, it takes years for a reef system to hit maturity.

 

It's really easy to deplete the system of biodiversity and sterile tanks do not mean its healthy but the opposite.

The majority of good bacteria is found on the surfaces of the objects within the tank and on the rocks.  That is why you cannot cycle a tank with just water from a mature system.  Having a UV Sterilizer will not kill off this good bacteria if that is what you think is going to happen.

 

UV light rays are effective in controlling free flowing bacteria, yeast, molds and other pathogens.  I believe it does more good than harm and it’s never going to eradicate 100% of anything beneficial.

[hinnenkm]

On 1/6/2020 at 8:46 PM, mcarroll said:

That's logical, but...

 

Bacteria

Bacteria shouldn't be triggered by the lights, so I don't understand how that would be it.  Doesn't happen until light-on, apparently.

 

Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton (aka green water, algae) SHOULD be triggered by lights...

 

BUT that should appear to be green, not white.

 

Ammonia

Another angle -- either explanation "should" require an ammonia source...but why would the green hair algae growing around the tank not be sucking up the ammonia like crazy and spreading over the tank even more? 

 

And why, presuming this is the case, is ammonia spiking like this in the first place?

 

Nothing has changed with this so far has it?

 

Just to clarify: 

This doesn't happen immediately after a water change, right? 

It happens the next morning AFTER the water change....like 8 hours (or whatever) after the fact, when the lights kick on.

 

If so, we really need those other tests so we can have more evidence.

 

 

It is logical and I've seen it many times, even bought a UV sterilizer at one point in time and it happened to be too big for the tank so I tried the macro algae route. It hasn't failed me yet and I've had several cloudy tanks. 

As far as lights not triggering it...

Autotrophic Bacteria: Bacteria capable of synthesizing its own food from inorganic substances, using light or chemical energy.

 

The owner of this tank has an easy option by choosing to put some caulerpa or chaeto in the tank and should be able to get his water cleared up relatively quickly. 

There's many reasons why bacterial and phyto blooms happen, but I believe what the owner is looking for is a way to get his tank looking better 🙂

[mcarroll]

16 hours ago, hinnenkm said:

It is logical and I've seen it many times, even bought a UV sterilizer at one point in time and it happened to be too big for the tank so I tried the macro algae route.

I think we're still missing a lot of evidence since we haven't heard back from the OP yet since the post below -- so no rush (yet). 

 

Yes a UV filter may help -- just trying to follow the evidence without jumping to conclusions too quickly.

 

What do you see as different about macro algae compared to the OP's nice growth of hair algae?

 

If macro "should work" then so should hair algae.

 

Something is up to keep that from happening, and I don't think we know what that something is yet.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 1:59 PM, Justanotherfishguy said:

I have not tested for that. I will when I do my next water change and I’ll let you no 

 

I only have the api master kit so when I have a chance I’ll buy one for NO3, PO4, Ca and Mg 

[Justanotherfishguy]

Sorry for the delay I really appreciate everything.  I couldn’t find anything at the poopy petco near me so ordered the test kits yesterday day and will be in tomorrow  

[mcarroll]

While we're waiting...

 

Does the hair algae seem to grow or spread?  (Hope I didn't already ask that.)

[Justanotherfishguy]

It spread just a little bit. But  now it’s just getting  longer. I was blowing the rocks and a couple chunks were coming off so I grab those so it didn’t get everywhere 

[mcarroll]

Mostly wondering because it should be growing, and pretty fast, if the tank really is pulsing dissolved ammonia like we're suspecting.

 

If you're still getting cloudy water every morning (as if nutrients are pulsing every day), then I'd also expect the algae to grow significantly every day.

 

I'm gonna guess that the answer will be "no", but any chance you did anything to treat the algae (e.g. Algae Fix or something else similar)?

 

Any chance of contaminants getting into the tank from (e.g.) candle burning, incense, essential oils, etc....anything like that going on in the house?

 

(Let us know those tests when you can...I know you're still waiting on them to arrive.)

[Justanotherfishguy]

 

 

No I’ve only been getting the cloudy water the day after water changes then it doesn’t happen until the next time I change the water that I no of. I’m doing a water change tomorrow Or tonight if I have time . I’ll see if it happens again (most likely will). The hair algae is getting longer but not at a alarming rate.

 

No I haven’t put anything thing in the tank to treat

 

Nothing above my tank for stuff to fall in 

 

Yea they came in today when I get home from work I’ll test and let you know.

 

so should I test the tank , the  water I use by itself, and when  I make the saltwater 

[Justanotherfishguy]

 water change water 

 

phosphate looks like 0.05  

ca 400

mg 1260

alk 9.6dhk

ph 8.2

[Clown79]

20 hours ago, Justanotherfishguy said:

 water change water 

 

phosphate looks like 0.05  

ca 400

mg 1260

alk 9.6dhk

ph 8.2

If you stir your sand, just a small test section, does it cause cloudiness.

 

Maybe stir a section and take a pic before stirring and then after for comparison.