# Algae on front and back of tank



## tubamanandy (27 Sep 2013)

Is it normal to have a light covering (small intermittent patches) of algae on the frnt and rear panes of my tank 

I was wondering if it was caused by some natural light hitting the tank when lights are off but not really sure.


----------



## ian_m (27 Sep 2013)

Yes. I just wipe front and sometimes back with an off cut of filter floss at water change each week.


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Sep 2013)

I never suffer this symptom in my CO2 enriched tanks and they face plenty of sunlight.

This might mean therefore that there is some fundamental flaw in technique.






Cheers,


----------



## tubamanandy (27 Sep 2013)

Gosh that looks good !!!!!!  You you give me a few pointers as to what may be the issue ? I'm happy with my dosing, light & CO2 levels although I dont always manage weekly water changes.


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Sep 2013)

Well, I mean, it's more than likely that the electric light is too much.

People are always in denial about their lighting, so when they get algae, the possibility that they are using too much light disappears as a causal factor, and then they blame the light coming from the window, which is normally at a much lower intensity than the light mounted on the tank.

So really, although _you_ might be happy with your light and CO2, the appearance of algae indicates that the tank is not happy with the light and CO2.

You have to identify the algal species, and that will tell you a lot. If the algae is GDA then it tells you right away that light intensity, or photoperiod length, is too much, and that CO2/flow is only marginal.

Of course, if you are running a CO2 injected tank, water changes are critical, so that needs attention as well.

Cheers,


----------



## tubamanandy (28 Sep 2013)

I've now dropped my photoperiod from 8hrs to 7hrs in the hope it will work. To be fair, I'm not really sure what the photoperiod should actually be.


----------



## Jack12 (28 Sep 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> I never suffer this symptom in my CO2 enriched tanks and they face plenty of sunlight.
> 
> This might mean therefore that there is some fundamental flaw in technique.
> Cheers,


 

Tom, you are saying you rarely (or never) have algae growing on front and back sides of aquarium? I am not sure I am reading the post correctly?

I do have plenty growing each week... maybe I need to reduce lights again

Thanks


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Sep 2013)

tubamanandy said:


> I've now dropped my photoperiod from 8hrs to 7hrs in the hope it will work. To be fair, I'm not really sure what the photoperiod should actually be.


It should be whatever is necessary to eliminate problems. Again, intensity is more important than duration. Having said that, plants do not require more than about 8 hours of light and any more than that feeds algae.



Jack12 said:


> you are saying you rarely (or never) have algae growing on front and back sides of aquarium? I am not sure I am reading the post correctly?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. During the startup period, when the tank is unstable, the biofilm buildup on the glass sometimes occurs. When the lighting is pushed to high intensity then some buildup occurs on the hardscape. By reducing the intensity and by keeping CO2/flow/distribution high you can eliminate this entirely. When the tank becomes stable, which takes a couple of months, these issues should disappear. If they don't disappear then you haven't paid enough attention to light and flow. Your choice is either to live with having to clean glass/hardscape all the time, or to address the cause and to eliminate the symptoms by improving plant health.

Although one might have to accept a dimmer tank, whose visual appeal may not be as satisfying as Hollywood lighting levels, there is a net improvement in health and there is less maintenance to remove the algae.

Cheers,


----------



## Jack12 (28 Sep 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying


 
This is very insightful Tom.

When I purchased 90P 45cm set up together with recommended Grand Solar One, following ADA book instructions for a full 8 hours period, I eventually had to throw away all the plants after 6 months battle - despite having a plenty of CO2 and flow (30 times tank turnover and almost yellow drop checker at vapours locations in the tank and EI regime). I was indeed thinking that reducing the lights will hurt plants haha  it turns out nobody warned that u need to start with quite low lights for a couple of months...

This time, I will be putting pics up soon, I have turned off HQI and used fluorescent lights for the first month - difference is striking indeed, no weeds and plants growing well. I did turn HQI back on for 3 hours per day and rocks got covered in green and algae started growing on the glass requiring weekly scrubbing, luckily no algae on the plants yet.

I definitely believe what you are saying, would you suggest:
a. I cut down to 1 hour per day of HQI (lamp suspended 42cm from the tank) or should I turn it off completely and keep fluorescent lights on on Grand Solar 1 for another month or two?
b. should I keep HQI for 4 hours a day and fluorescent lights off?

Thanks a lot Tom


----------



## Jack12 (28 Sep 2013)

Clive, I keep calling you Tom. sorry


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Sep 2013)

Hi mate,
			 No worries, I've been called worse.

Anyway, you don't really need the HQI at all. Or, if you use the HQI then you don't really need the T5s either. I'm really not sure why they came up with this combination unless it's an issue with spread or if it's some kind of aesthetic issue. If you use both, then it would be better to raise the fixture higher above the tank.

Have a look at this chart in zanguli's Dymax thread => Dymax Tropical 36 watt | Page 4 | UK Aquatic Plant Society

The HQI has a much higher PAR output and so it's much easier to kill your plants with HQI than it is to kill them with T5s You can see the HQI curve on the far right. So it really complicates things when you use them.

What I now try to convince folks is to forget about wpg and to pay more close attention to that chart.
Keep in mind that you really need to stay in the blue zone on that chart for at least the first month or two of the tank setup. Multiply the number of bulbs you have and note the distance of the bulbs to the substrate. If your calculations reveal that you are in the pink or yellow zone this means a higher risk of melting and algal blooms.

That Solar 1 is a beautiful machine, but it's completely over the top for a young immature tank.

Down the road, when the tank has matured and when the plants have bulked up substantially, more elements can be turned on. If you stay in the blue, then it doesn't really matter what photoperiod length you use. That's the other trick that people really need to understand. Photoperiod length is only relevant within the context of intensity.

Imagine your lighting fixture to be a tap, and the light streaming out of it to be water. More bulbs mean more water per second. If you only open the tap a little bit, you can keep the tap open for a long time, but when you have if blasting fully open, your bucket fills pretty quickly and overflows. That's when you get into trouble. By staying in the blue zone of the chart you can keep the tap open for as long as you want without penalty.

Cheers,


----------



## Jack12 (1 Oct 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> you really need to stay in the blue zone on that chart


 
Clive, quick question about PAR output chart and Grand Solar 1.
The distance from the substrate to the lights is 31 inches thus if I am using two 38W twin fluorescent lights (I assume ADA is T5HO?) I should be getting 2 bulbs times 10 PAR or 20 PAR reading at the substrate which puts it comfortably in the blue zone as you suggested am I correct Clive?

Also, GS1 twin-fluorescent bulb is rather short = 14.5 inch does size matter ? 

its P90 tank with 90x45x45

...maybe I should invest in PAR, there is cheaper alternative seneye and I am not sure how reliable it is in comparison to much more expensive meters.

I've also noticed that with HQI on for 2 hours a day plants that sit right underneath the bulb growing substantially slower then those on the side of the tank. I think I will kill HQI for a good 2-3 month...

Thanks again Clive! much appreciate your time and help


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Oct 2013)

Hi Jack,
           Looking at the layout for this unit, correct me if I'm wrong, but these are power compact (PC) bulbs, are they not?




So when I go to the chart would look at the curve labeled "Other PC", not T5HO, which would apply to linear single tube bulbs which have double prong terminal at both ends. Still, the numbers are similar since you'd be at the bottom of the chart. That takes into account the lengths.

So really, the good news is that if you disable the HQI, you can drop the fixture down to about 18-20 inches. Go up to about the middle of the grey curve and that gives you about 15-20 micromoles per bulb. So you get about 30-40 micromoles roughly, which is still in the blue. This will give you fair, if not amazing growth rates.

Here's the trick. Many people want fast growth when the tank is young, but after the tank fills in, then the fast growth rates places heavy demands on maintenance. You can progressively raise the fixture as time goes on and that will eliminate algae from the glass and even from the hardscape if you go high enough. Just play with the distances and see how you get along, because now you have pretty reliable data.

On the other hand if you're into sports, after a few months you can raise the fixture and engage the Warp Drive HQI.

As I mentioned to Zanguli somewhere in that same thread, I really can't recommend a PAR meter (even though I do have one) because of pricing. They are for a niche market and are not yet commonplace enough to have lower prices, or to be available on flea-bay regularly. If you do get one I would suggest the Apogee meter. Search the forum and you'll find various threads on this model. They are definitely cheaper in USA (by probably about 30%). In any case, the chart is fine and works well.

Cheers,


----------



## Jack12 (1 Oct 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> You can progressively raise the fixture as time goes on and that will eliminate algae from the glass and even from the hardscape if you go high enough. Just play with the distances and see how you get along, because now you have pretty reliable data.


 
Thanks once again Clive. I would assume they are just other PC?! have no idea. I have lowered fixture to 20 inch from substrate and shut down HQI. On my first scape attempt I had fixture at 25 Inches with both HQI and PC on for 8 hours a day... lool no wonder I ended up with such a mess.

You are suggesting I raise the fixture as time goes by (PC lights only turned on) as plan mass builds up correct? but wouldn't it lower PR down to very low light?

here is the pic with lights lowered: I did notice that sides of the tank became darker.


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Oct 2013)

Yeah, that's a problem with the shorter distances. Your spread won't be as good. Of course, raising them to get better spread isn't a problem, so you can play with that without any issues. Might be an optical illusion but the photo looks like the fixture is not mounted in the middle. It looks as if it's shifted more to the left.

When I mentioned about raising the fixture as time goes on, what I meant was that when you have plenty of plant mass and want to reduce the growth rates so that you don't have to trim as often then raising the fixture will lower the intensity and will lower the growth rates.

I'm sure that "Other PC" is the best curve to use. The AHS PC is some other configuration, possibly an over-driven Power Compact assembly. YOur's is just a regular Power Compact and they output less light than the linear tubes which, on that chart, is the T5HO.

Cheers,


----------



## Jack12 (1 Oct 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> Yeah, that's a problem with the shorter distances. Your spread won't be as good. Of course, raising them to get better spread isn't a problem, so you can play with that without any issues. Might be an optical illusion but the photo looks like the fixture is not mounted in the middle. It looks as if it's shifted more to the left.


 
You have an eagle eye Clive, yes its slightly shifted but picture exaggerates it quite a bit. I will keep lights height as you suggested and I have a good feeling about it  Much appreciate.


----------

