Hair Algea, Help!

Hi tertas....We kinda need more information here. Algae is usually considered a product of too much nutrient in the tank, combined (usually) with too much light, either too bright or on too long/day. It's all about balance between nutrients in (food), nutrients consumed (livestock), and nutrients returned to the tank (poop).

Tell us what critters you keep--species, plus sizes and numbers of each--and any additives such as ferts, and also what plants you have and how many of them. More plants are good in the Eternal Battle Against Algae, as they suck up nutrients. Algae lives off the leftovers.

Also any water tests you have, and how you obtained them (dip sticks, liquid tests, or taking water sample to a store) would be helpful. The nitrate, nitrite and ammonia balance is all important. An excess in any category would help determine what is driving your algae issue.

It sounds like your tank has not been set up for very long. Algae issues are more common in the early days, and we're talking the first year or so, of a tank's life. After that they tend to settle down, unless there is a disruptive event. More frequent water changes, like once a week of 20 percent or so, are often helpful especially in the early stages of tank development. /sorry.

If your fixture has 1 actinic and 1 18,000k then you need to replace both those for 6500k daylight bulbs. The bulbs you have are great for a reef but will do little for plants. My guess is that with the plants not getting the right spectrum of light and your long period between water changes that the algae is better able to compete against the plants.

Change the light and change at least 25% water each week, 50% might be better for a couple weeks. I think you will start to see results or at least stop the rapid growth of the algae.

you need nutrients...

co2
N, P, K + csm+b

water changes may or may not be a major necessity for your tank... depends.

check this out too... http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm

How long is your photoperiod. Agree that those bulbs are not good for plants. This may just be "new tank". I usually have this happen to me everytime. I would change the bulbs out to give your plants a better shot at competeing for nutrients. You could also put more plants in. Manually pick out as much as you can with each water change. I would usually do 2 a week, taking out as much algae as I possibly could each time. Good luck!! It can be frustrating. I think changing bulbs, limiting your photoperiod and manual removal are the first steps. I personally would do those before adding a bunch of ferts etc.

That looks like a great bulb Slappy. Slightly lower on the kelvin range should bring out lots of color and look a little warmer. I might have to try one when I change bulbs next.

nitrates bottom out... cyano
lack of nutrients... hair algae
lack of light... plant degradation and eventually algeas of all kinds
excess light... harder to keep algae at bay... but doable with a weathered hand... although there'll still probably be times
inefficient co2... just about all of the above with several added signs of deficiency in plants

the mentioned fixture appears it'd be too much light (for many folks/without co2). even if we assume the 18000k and actinics are putting out less usable light, they're still fluoros and their spectrum can only be limited/narrowed so much. sooooo... too much lumens coupled with possibly horrible par in a useful spectrum for the plants... might just be equaling everything out. there has been some beautiful planted tanks running horribly high k ratings in the past. i suspect we'll see more even in the future. remember... k is a temperature of a black carbon object at which it glows a specific color as determined by the human eye... means squat to plants. i'd be hard pressed to believe the plants were being burned by the light under water, too.

if this tank is non-co2 i'd definitely agree that this may just be "new-tank" setting in. however, if there were STABLE co2 on this tank, w/this light, i believe the tank as a whole would have better chances and either minimize or altogether avoid "new tank".

co2... doesn't necessarily have to be gas... if that's the impression i gave...

i don't disagree that 6500k or 10000k might just put out better light for the plants in general (depending on the bulbs)... but with deficiencies either in co2 or ferts (seems both is likely here, ime) i certainly would not suggest a better light... that you'd only have to subdue to get the same results (plants wise).

from what i understand that 18000k isn't a bad bulb for plants as it is. if you do a couple searches you will find folks who use, and swear by them just like any other bulb... more for looks than anything... just like any other bulbs. however, when time comes up... those geisemanns would be a great investment.

i, personally would get rid of the reef lighting... but i'm not convinced it's a necessity. if i could only afford one bulb, i would definitely replace the actinic with a nice 6500k-6700k bulb... mostly for color, though.

just in case;

how'd you cycle the tank?
what are your ammo, trite and trate readings?