# What exactly causes BBA? Part 2 - Bacterial imbalance



## AndyMcD

Following on from the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread, I've been reading some of the scientific literature around the subject and I'd like to make a radical proposal of an alternative cause of outbreaks of black beard algae (audouinella) in planted aquariums. I have listed some of the sources of information at the end of this post.

I believe that the root cause of an outbreak of BBA is due to an imbalance in the bacteria in the aquarium.

There are two major groups of bacteria in aquariums.

The autotrophic, nitrifying bacteria, that convert ammonia to nitrites then nitrates. When a tank is cycled, it is a population of this type of bacteria that need to build up. Autotrophic bacteria convert carbon dioxide into the organic carbon molecules they need to grow. It requires a lot of the energy they generate to do this, meaning that they can only grow and reproduce very slowly.

There are also the heterotrophic bacteria that feed on the waste, converting proteins to amino acids then ammonia. Converting the organic carbon molecules they consume into the molecules they need to grow and reproduce requires much less energy, meaning that their populations can grow much more rapidly than the autotrophic bacteria.

These two types of bacteria compete for oxygen and a surface to populate. In a well maintained aquarium the two types of bacteria are in equilibrium.

Many of the perceived triggers of BBA are similar to the conditions that favour the heterotrophic bacteria and the conditions that inhibit the autotrophic bacteria.

The conditions in the aquarium begin to favour the heterotrophic bacteria if the dissolved organic compounds begin to accumulate (excess food, dead plants, fish waste etc). As with a compost heap, a higher carbon to nitrogen ratio favours the heterotrophic bacteria. Driftwood has a very C/N ratio.

The factors that inhibit autotrophic bacteria include:
- Ammonia and nitrite availability
- Dissolved oxygen levels (with low surface agitation, indirectly this will be most affected by CO2 levels, high plant biomass and fast growing plants. Surface agitation at night may help ensure oxygen always available)
- Bicarbonate availability (formed when CO2 or calcium carbonate (limestone, e.g. ADA Seiryu) dissolves in water. Also affected by CO2 availability. 24 hour low level would ensure bicarbonate always available)
- pH (Nitrifying bacteria prefer a pH range between 7.3 and 8.0. Nitrification will cease if pH drops below 6.0. Addition of limestone may raise the pH, but enable a 1 pH drop and remain above pH 6.0)
- Temperature (optimum range is 25 to 30 deg C. Growth rate decrease by 50% at 18 deg C. Sub-tropical tanks may be more susceptible to BBA. Reason why coldwater tanks can support fewer fish)
- Light (sensitive to blue and ultraviolet light when in the water column)
- Inhibitory chemicals (chlorine and chloramine)
- Nutrients (require phosphates to create the organic carbon molecule ATP via the Calvin cycle)

If any of these factors inhibit the nitrification carried out by the autotrophic bacteria, the level of ammonia / urea in the aquarium will begin to rise.

Studies have been performed that show that some species of algae and heterotrophic bacteria produce organic compounds for the other organism's benefit.

Algae convert CO2 into organic molecules (e.g. ATP) which the heterotrophic bacteria consume.

In return, heterotrophic bacteria create organic compounds that the algae require to grow and re-produce, for example, vitamin B12.

Once vitamin B12 and ammonia / urea are available to the algae, they are able to create the compounds they require to grow and reproduce (orthinine - spermine - spermidine) via know metabolic pathways (the urea cycle and citric acid cycle). See page 13 of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476827/

My suggestion is that:
- As C/N ratios rise, the population of the heterotrophic bacteria begin to rise
- If the conditions in the aquarium favour the heterotrophic bacteria, they begin to produce compounds such as vitamin B12
- However, if the conditions in the aquarium act to inhibit the autotrophic bacteria, the concentration of ammonia increases. For example, a reduction in CO2 means, less bicarbonates and indirectly less oxygen to function
- Once the algae are able to consume vitamin B12 and ammonia, they are able to create the organic compounds they require to grow and reproduce

Sources of information:
1. http://www.oscarfish.com/article-home/water/72-heterotrophic-bacteria.html

2. http://www.oscarfish.com/water/71-autotrophic-bacteria-manifesto.html

3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531165714.htm

4. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Severin_Sasso/publication/230547610_Mutualistic_interactions_between_vitamin_B12dependent_algae_and_heterotrophic_bacteria_exhibit_regulation/links/0fcfd509536dcb94d6000000.pdf

5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476827/

6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860600216X


----------



## Guest

If this is true, then the reason we see a correlation between fluctuating CO2 levels and BBA is actually due to low O2 levels which inhibits growth of autotrophic bacteria/microbes.

Low CO2 => decreased photosynthesis => low O2 => inhibited autotrophic microbes =>  increase heterotrophic microbes => production of specific nutrients => BBA growth

(On a related note, fungi are also heterotrophic organisms.  I've noticed a correlation between adding glutaraldehyde and the re-appearance of fungus on wood.  The fungus was present for several months, much longer than was expected.  Then it suddenly disappeared after glut treatment was ceased and remained for several months.  Recently, a week after full glut treatment, the fungus came back in full swing.  I interpret that the glutaraldehyde killed off the microbes that colonized the wood and allowed the nutrients to leach out which the fungus feasted on.  If true, then this supports the idea that glutaraldehyde is nothing more than a biocide even at such low levels, reducing the numbers of the periphyton on plant leaves which allow them less restricted access to CO2 which results in increased growth rate.)

So if the low O2 hypothesis is correct, then one way to induce BBA is to
1) increase O2 levels
2) suddenly decrease O2 levels
3) observe any effects

Does anyone have an O2 tank that they can artificially inject into the water column?
Warning: O2 levels at ~20ppm will kill fish.  Equilibrium O2 concentration is only around 8-9ppm.  The O2 added by photosynthesis may result in 10-12ppm, or even higher O2 saturation.


----------



## AndyMcD

Autotrophic bacteria require oxygen and bicarbonate HCO3- to convert ammonia to nitrites/nitrates. The largest source of oxygen in a planted tank is the photosynthesising plants. Bicarbonate ions are formed when CO2 dissolves in water (carbonic acid). Therefore, the population of autotrophic is dependent upon the supply of CO2.

A high, steady supply of CO2 (with a source of ammonia) would lead to a large population of autotrophic bacteria, converting the ammonia to nitrites / nitrates.

If the CO2 supply is reduced, the autotrophic bacteria may be starved of oxygen and become dormant or die. The heterotrophic bacteria can grow and re-produce with less oxygen and so their population continues to increase.

Some heterotrophic bacteria are able to function without oxygen, de-nitrifying nitrites and nitrates to nitrogen gas, which would escape from the tank (which would increase the C/N ratio favouring the heterotrophic bacteria).

Even if the CO2 is brought back to its previous level, it would take time for the autotrophic bacteria to re-gain it's original population size (frustratingly long time to cycle a tank).

Providing there is sufficient organic carbon, the heterotrophic bacteria could take advantage of the increased oxygen supply.

It is estimated that it takes the following time for the population size to double:
- Autotrophic bacteria (ammonia to nitrite) - 7 hours
- Autotrophic bacteria (nitrite to nitrate) - 13 hours
- Heterotrophic bacteria - 20 minutes

Also, if the autotrophic bacteria are not functioning the ammonia /urea concentration would have increased.

Happy heterotrophic bacteria producing vitamin B12 and unhappy autotrophic bacteria not converting ammonia leads to happy BBA, is what I am proposing.

This would suggest that a water change and a clean up should be performed before increasing CO2 after a drop, to remove organic carbon first. CO2 should be increased slowly to give the autotrophic bacteria time to respond.

Glutaraldehyde is used as a bacteriacide in hospitals.


----------



## AndyMcD

Also, this ties in with the recommendation that you should start with a large number of plants to avoid algae, including fast growing ones.

More photosynthesising plants, more oxygen.

Also, fast growing plants must be converting more carbon dioxide to organic carbon (new plant cells) and releasing more oxygen.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
It is an interesting argument. I think the problem is that nobody on this forum (and possibly no-body anywhere else) is really qualified to comment.

I'll cover both the <"Red Algae"> (Rhodophyta) that we get in the aquarium.
*
Staghorn*
My gut feeling is that you may be right for Staghorn algae (_Compsopogon_ spp.). I've found that its appearance is definitely preceded by some form of organic pollution, and "organic pollution" is really just another way of saying increased "Biochemical Oxygen Demand" (BOD). A larger BOD would lead to both lower oxygen levels, and higher levels of CO2. 

I've recently found a very interesting paper on Staghorn Algae <"Global sampling reveals low genetic diversity within _Compsopogon_ (Compsopogonales, Rhodophyta)">, which suggests that all "staghorn" is genetically similar, and its success is due to its tolerance of a wide range of conditions. 





> The ubiquitous distribution of _Compsopogon_ in tropical/subtropical regions and its low genetic variation are probably facilitated by the alga's ability to tolerate a wide range of stream conditions and its propagation via asexual spores. Given the findings of previous culture-based studies, morphometric research and field observations, coupled with the results of our study, we conclude there is only a single monospecific genus worldwide and that the species is correctly called _C. caeruleus_


 *BBA*
Again this is purely anecdotally, but I only tend to get a small amount of  BBA on the filter outflow, and on the filter intake sponges. I don't have any proof, but my suspicion is that these are areas where the Ramshorn snails can't graze.

I'm pretty sure the water is fully oxygenated at the filter outflow, they are at the waters surface and a venturi is running, CO2 levels should also be fairly consistent (and close to equilibrium with atmospheric levels). 

I don't tend to have a lot of algae of any description in the tanks (they are all heavily planted and have been set-up for more than a year), but this may-be because of grazing by _Asellus_ and snails. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Guest

I only get staghorn on the margins of certain plant leaves (Hygrophila pinnatifida) when they are deficient in potassium.  Once I add potassium, it quickly goes a way.  I've never had staghorn until I started keeping H. pinnatifida.


----------



## AndyMcD

Before going on holiday, I dripped neat Easycarbo (glutaraldehyde) onto Anubia leaves to kill the BBA. 

When I got back, the BBA was thriving. It was worst where the leaves had been burned by the Easycarbo and had begun to disintegrate, where sunshine was hitting the tank (which only happens in the middle of summer).

It made me start to think about whether the bacteria consuming the stressed plant leaves could be linked with the growth of the BBA.

Heterotrophic bacteria will multiply on leaves that are stressed or are dying, breaking them down. They stick to the surface by creating a sticky biofilm. This may be thickest at the leaf edges due to turbulent flow and / or being grazed least at the edges. 

When I started to look for scientific papers that discussed relationships between algae and heterotrophic bacteria, there is evidence that this happens.

I now think that:
- the heterotrophic bacteria population was increasing as it consumed the stressed leaves
- the BBA spore had germinated in the biofilm
- the BBA was growing rapidly in the bright sunshine, fixing an excess of carbon dioxide and releasing organic carbon molecules to benefit the heterotrophic bacteria
- in return, the heterotrophic bacteria was producing and releasing the organic compounds the BBA needed to reproduce (e.g. Vitamin B12)

I wonder if a lack of nutrients (potassium) is putting the plant under stress and the heterotrophic bacteria are beginning to accumulate...


----------



## Guest

K deficiency definitely causes a lot of tissue damage in the older leaves which results in algae colonizing these leaves.


----------



## AndyMcD

A diagram to help explain the process I'm proposing.


----------



## AndyMcD

One more point about my BBA holiday experience, while I was away I wasn't able to give the aquarium its daily dose of glutaraldehyde, so reduced the CO2 input (affected availability of O2) and stopped dosing a bacteriacide.


----------



## Guest

Glut kills BBA, which may be the reason for it's sudden appearance when it was no longer dosed.


----------



## AndyMcD

True, particularly when spot dosed at higher concentrations, but daily dosing at low doesn't seem to have as big an effect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

Even suggested dosing concentrations reduces the amount of BBA.


----------



## AndyMcD

True


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zozo

I got the impresion it was the algea parasiting on the leaves and causing the melt.. but it seems to be other way around, indeed very intersting..  I only can confirm since i'm still running on the edge with Staghorn and clado. Got it somewhat under control for the most part, but its constantly lurking to hit back and im still not 100% clean. (Never will i guess). Most of the time when i find it, it always around plants melting somewhere.. F.e. had some large patches of floating Ricia smothered by the duckweed,turning white and melting and after closer inspection found the melt deep inside and also hair algae with it. 

Also still strugling a bit to get the Potamogeton Gaiy astablishing in my tank. This plant is very delicate, melts very quick for what ever reason, staghorn is always on it's meting tips. Glut doesn't help because this plants hates it and start to melt even faster if glut is used. Staghorn gone but more melt from the glut. 

Mini Bolbitis is a plant i just can't get going into a proper transiton in my tank, replaced it for the 3th time with new ones. Old leaves start melting after e few days and turning black, staghorn feasting on it. AFter all old leaves are gone tiny new ones apear, but are so slow it's hard to keep the stag off of it.


----------



## AndyMcD

What I am suggesting is that too much or too little of something is causing the leaf to melt, but once it starts, the heterotrophic bacteria will start to consume it and multiply. The algae in turn is then able to benefit from the heterotrophic bacteria doing well. 

This may have a wider impact in the aquarium. Melting leaves disintegrate and add to the supply of organic carbon molecules in the water column and / or in the filter, supplying the heterotrophic bacteria with food. A water change / filter clean would help to reduce this.

JBL recommend in their aquascaping leaflet cutting the leaves off crypts in a new aquarium.

Once a leaf begins to melt it may be best to cut it off as soon as possible to reduce the organic carbon in the water column.

Many more experienced people on this forum have recommended this type of maintenance. All I'm suggesting is that this is helping to minimise the heterotrophic bacteria population that are supplying nutrients to the algae.


----------



## Guest

zozo said:


> Mini Bolbitis is a plant i just can't get going into a proper transiton in my tank, replaced it for the 3th time with new ones. Old leaves start melting after e few days and turning black, staghorn feasting on it. AFter all old leaves are gone tiny new ones apear, but are so slow it's hard to keep the stag off of it.


Staghorn on leaves?  Probably potassium deficiency.  Also, mini bolbitis has very very small submerged leaves, under 2" long.


----------



## AndyMcD

Darrel,



dw1305 said:


> It is an interesting argument. I think the problem is that nobody on this forum (and possibly no-body anywhere else) is really qualified to comment.



I read the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread with interest. The argument for experiments to  definitively prove the causes was strong. However, I think that the number of potential causes suggested meant that any experiment would have a huge number of variables, requiring a massive investment of time and money. Also, any results may be far too specific - only valid for one species of fish, one species of plant etc.

Also, although there appeared to be a lot of anecdotal evidence of what triggered an outbreak, very few mechanisms were suggested.

Before starting designing an experiment, I thought it was recommended that you should look into what others had discovered, to try and focus on the critical potential causes.

Although experiments haven't been performed to study the growth of algae in aquariums, quite a few studies have been carried out in other applications: shrimp farming; biofuels and the capture of carbon by marine algae to reduce greenhouse gases.

Try typing "rhodophyta vitamin b12" into Google. 

Over the past couple of months I've read around the subject quite a bit, to the point where I felt I could propose an alternative mechanism, which seemed to fit well enough to throw it open to the forum to see if others felt the theory held water. A bit of blue sky, thinking outside the tank!

I didn't expect a definitive answer to this proposed argument. I just wondered what others thought and whether they felt it was a good or bad fit to their personal experience.


----------



## AndyMcD

If you try the following three Google searches, you can see the headlines of the scientific work that has been done:
- Rhodophyta vitamin b12 (shows red algae such as BBA need vitamin B12)
- pseudomonas denitrificans vitamin b12 (shows that a type of heterotrophic bacteria produces vitamin b12)
- pseudomonas denitrificans aquarium (shows the pseudomonas family of bacteria are commonly found in aquariums)


----------



## zozo

Guest said:


> Staghorn on leaves?  Probably potassium deficiency.  Also, mini bolbitis has very very small submerged leaves, under 2" long.



I'm not quite sure what your pointing at!? You mean melting old emersed leaves or slow growth is probably potassium deficiency? Or staghorn on it leaves is potash deficiency?

Anyway if staghorn is establashing for whatever reason my slow growers are the first to show.. In my case the Anubias, all 3 kinds of bolbitis and Buce, after that it attacks older parts of more established plants in particular the old stems of the Nympaes floaters once they have stoped growing.  

Al plants grow very good, steady and need regular trimming.. I dose with a mix of Profito and tropica PG for extra macro's. The Mini bolbitis doesn't care, if i put it in old leaves turn black and melt away.. After weeks it shows new growth, very tiny leaves. And i indeed found staghorn on some of them. A spot triet with h2o2 does a perfect job to get them clean again. I'm afraid i'm exaggerating when i say they grow maybe 2 millimeters a month..  But they grow.

I noticed it's roots grow faster then it's leaves, but actualy i see al epiphytes in my tank do that.

I was more thinking of, it's soft water it doesn't like.. Got another smaller tank, only planted, gets higher dosage, same story mini bolbitis melts old leaves.


----------



## Guest

Potassium deficiency allows staghorn to colonize leaves.  K deficiency also causes necrosis.


----------



## Guest

RE: Vitamin B12

One way to test the hypothesis is to add B12 directly into the aquarium.  So if anyone has vitamin B12 supplements in their cupboard, adding a pill into the water can easily test this.  What's the worst that can happen?  A huge BBA outbreak of epic proportions?


----------



## AndyMcD

I suspect ammonia / urea would need to be present too. The triggers for outbreaks appear to be a poorly maintained tank / plants under stress AND a trigger leading to an ammonia spike. Heterotrophic doing well. Autotrophic suffering.

I can't pretend to understand all the science, but there appear to be two well understood mechanisms (the urea cycle and citric acid or LCA cycle) that organisms use to convert organic carbon molecules into increasingly complex molecules, leading to those required for algae to reproduce (search for methionine to spermicide), which ammonia / urea appears to be a key compound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

So in addition to adding vitamin B12, relieve yourself into the aquarium to supply the urea.  Who's willing to do this experiment?


----------



## zozo

Guest said:


> Potassium deficiency allows staghorn to colonize leaves.  K deficiency also causes necrosis.



 Thanks, ill keep an eye on it.... Never seen the brown necrotic spots on it as mainly discribed caused K deficiency on any plants. The mini Bolbitis just goes slowly black from the edges of its leaves and melts away. New leaves stay green till now, not show spots nor any necrotic growth, stay green in color but grows extremly slow, which is characteristic for this bolbitis..

My suspicion with soft water invironment goes down the drain in this topic i found. 
Black leaves on Bolbitis

Could be what  you say  but other plants do not show any deficiencies at all. My tank is only running since april this year, so still maturing and developing.. I'll wait a while before to decide adding any extra's only for this little bugger and see how it develops the rest of the year. Can live without it, if it doesn't want to be in there while the rest is ok.  Got enough in there to make up for it..


----------



## AndyMcD

I'll consider doing this. I mean adding vitamin b12. I'll perhaps add too much fish food. Don't think the wife and kids would believe me if they caught me!

I'm about to upgrade, so I'd consider trying to create an outbreak.

I should be the one to test the argument.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Also, previous post should read:

(Search methionine to spermidine)

Not

... Spermicide)

Bl**dy spell checker!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zozo

Growing algae is actualy a growing industry for lots of purposes. Even red algae genus which BBA is, as staghorn also seems to be is cultivated for food industry.
I read articles where marine tank keepers want to grow particular red algae on rock because it's food for sertain tank inhabitants. They use a special algae fertilizer for it called F/2 fertilizer specialy developed by algae cultivator industries. I guess, whit an extensive search there must be a datasheet to be found with the contents of F/2 fertilizer or affiliates. Ive found already fert regimes to grow certain kind of beneficial algae just not the red one..  but there are industries that grow them.


For the little bits i found about "Growing Algae" instead of preventing it.. It seems that red algae spieces also thrive on the blue light spectrum. That's why this algae is to find in deeper waters, because the blue light penetrates the deepest of all light colors.

Maybe we should also look at our light spectrums above our tanks. And take also this in consideration.


----------



## AndyMcD

In the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread, ourmanflint added a blue light filter and reported that the rate of algae growth reduced. When he removed the filter, it speeded up again.

In my Google searches, I found reference to the proteins in red algae and Cyanobacteria, responsible for capturing light - phycobillisome (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycobilisome).

Also, Biocon labs made reference to autotrophic bacteria being more sensitive to blue/uv light.


----------



## ghostsword

What I have been doing to avoid algae, an air pump running at night.. from when lights go off till morning.. no more algae.. maybe this is the reason.. 

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Autotrophic bacteria thrive in filters, where there is no light - no night and day. I wondered if the nitrifying bacteria are carrying out a 24 hour process, converting ammonia to nitrates, keeping the ammonia concentration down. In which case, there will be a 24 hour demand for oxygen and bicarbonate (carbon dioxide dissolved in water or from limestone).

There have been several references to people running an airstone at night or running a lower level of CO2 24 hours a day.

I think ADA made reference to raising lily pipes at night to increase surface agitation and prevent oxygen being depleted. However, this would be for the benefit of the fish, crustaceans and plants using oxygen to respire over night.

However, increasing aeration may help to prevent oxygen depletion, which may help keep the autotrophic bacteria functioning and avoid an ammonia spike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

AndyMcD said:


> In the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread, ourmanflint added a blue light filter and reported that the rate of algae growth reduced. When he removed the filter, it speeded up again.
> 
> In my Google searches, I found reference to the proteins in red algae and Cyanobacteria, responsible for capturing light - phycobillisome (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycobilisome).
> 
> Also, Biocon labs made reference to autotrophic bacteria being more sensitive to blue/uv light.



The filter reduces overall light intensity, not just the blue spectra.  Therefore, the conclusion that reducing blue spectra reduces algae cannot be determined because it's just as likely that reduced light intensity reduces algae.


----------



## oviparous

Guest said:


> So in addition to adding vitamin B12, relieve yourself into the aquarium to supply the urea.  Who's willing to do this experiment?



I've been dosing urea with great results, some plants really liked it. The downside is that if dosed too much, BBA started to appear. And that was a planted tank where growth, maintinance, dosing, CO2,... was  excellent.
Never dosed vit. B12 though.

In the past i did use capsules with nitrifying bacteria in the substrate where BGA started to appear, with great succes.


----------



## AndyMcD

oviparous said:


> I've been dosing urea with great results, some plants really liked it. The downside is that if dosed too much, BBA started to appear. And that was a planted tank where growth, maintinance, dosing, CO2,... was excellent.
> Never dosed vit. B12 though.



I'm suggesting that if you have a healthy population of nitrifying (autotrophic) bacteria in the aquarium, they will convert the urea to nitrates, which the plants will use for photosynthesis.

If you increased the dosage of urea suddenly, the autotrophic bacteria may be slow to respond (population doubling in 10+ hours) meaning an increase in urea concentration, as there isn't a big enough population to convert the excess urea.

However, if you hadn't maintained the tank well, a population of heterotrophic bacteria would have increased in size and begun to release the organic compounds they create and the algae needs to multiply, e.g. Vitamin B12.

Please don't dose vitamin B12.

I'm suggesting that both excess ammonia/urea and vitamin B12 are required, to cause a BBA outbreak.


----------



## oviparous

Urea is dosed daily, as an alternative N source. 
It's very difficult  to calculate what the uptake of urea is, and how much (if any) gets converted by archaea and bacteria to ammonium, nitrite and nitrate.


----------



## AndyMcD

You mentioned that if you increased the dose of urea, BBA seemed to appear.

I was just making the point that if you were to increase the dosage significantly, the nitrifying bacteria population may not respond quickly enough to prevent a temporary increase in the concentration of urea.

I'm proposing here that BBA requires a higher concentration of  urea/ammonia as its nitrogen source, with other compounds such as vitamin B12 to create the compounds it needs to reproduce.

I'm suggesting that if you did want to increase the urea dosage, it should be done gradually. Aquarium cycling takes weeks as the nitrifying bacteria populations grow slowly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





AndyMcD said:


> I'm proposing here that BBA requires a higher concentration of urea/ammonia as its nitrogen source, with other compounds such as vitamin B12 to create the compounds it needs to reproduce.


 I think there could be "legs" in this, but it is going to be very difficult to prove. 

On the plus side :

The suggestion is that Red Algae, with a vitamin B12 requirement, get their fix via bacterial symbiosis (<"Algae acquire Vitamin B12.....">).
Heterotrophic bacteria are involved: (<"Mutualistic interactions between vitamin B12-dependent algae and heterotrophic bacteria ......">).

Nitrogen availability increases growth in some Red Algae (<"Effects of initial enrichment of nitrogen and phosphorus on _Bostrychia_ and _Caloglossa_ (Ceramiales, Rhodophyta) growth">) 
For some marine Red Algae, from nutrient poor conditions, small pulsed increases in nutrient levels are reflected in increased growth ("<_GRACILARIA EDULIS_ (RHODOPHYTA) AS A BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR OF PULSED NUTRIENTS IN OLIGOTROPHIC WATERS">)

On the less positive side:

We don't know exactly which specie(s) of Rhodophyta we have in the aquarium.
_Audouinella _spp. etc all show alternation of generation, and the gametophyte and sporophyte generations may be stimulated by different conditions.
Most Rhodophyta grew in very nutrient poor conditions (including the freshwater ones we have data for).
Most symbiotic, or mutualistic bacteria, are specialists rather than opportunists.
cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> We don't know exactly which specie(s) of Rhodophyta we have in the aquarium.



Here are a few Fresh water spec. 
http://www.dr-ralf-wagner.de/Rotalgen.html

I definitely (still) got this going on..  ..  Compsopogon spec. Epiphytic on Clado.


----------



## AndyMcD

Darrel,

Thank you very much for replying that the argument MAY have legs. It's very much appreciated.

Also, I fully understand that it would be extremely difficult to prove definitively.

This is more of a theory, which I think helps to explain how the various reported triggers may fit together. 

However, as you correctly point out, the actual species in our aquariums may differ significantly from those in the experiments.

This is based on scientific literature. I may continue to post information, as it may help others draw other conclusions.


----------



## AndyMcD

dw1305 said:


> Most symbiotic, or mutualistic bacteria, are specialists rather than opportunists.


Darrel,

In the interests of scientific debate (hope you don't mind), I've found the following paper 'Isolation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other bacterial species from ornamental aquarium plants' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169867/.

In this paper, the scientists bought 92 aquatic plants from 33 shops in Canada, then tested them to see what heterotrophic bacteria they could find and how frequently they occurred (isolates).

I've compared this list with the list of heterotrophic bacteria known to produce vitamin B12 (on Wikipedia) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12

Of the 26 types of bacteria identified on the aquatic plants, 8 are on the list that produce vitamin B12 (31%).

However, of the 361 isolates measured from the aquatic plants, 230 isolated were from bacteria on the list that produce vitamin B12 (64%).

My point is that many of the types of the heterotrophic bacteria that are introduced into our aquariums (and possibly the more popular ones), exist to consume organic carbon molecules (and happen to create vitamin B12 as a by product). 

Vitamin B12 production does not appear to be limited to a few specialist species.

The Wikipedia entry also states that Pseudomonas Denitrificans is used for the industrial production of Vitamin B12.

Andy


----------



## AndyMcD

dw1305 said:


> We don't know exactly which specie(s) of Rhodophyta we have in the aquarium



Also, the paper "Algae need their vitamins" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539151/#!po=35.0467 includes the following statement:

"More than half of all microalgae surveyed (Table(Table1;1; see Table S1 in the supplemental material) (11) have an obligate requirement for exogenous vitamin B12, leading to the remarkable conclusion that auxotrophy is the norm rather than the exception in the algal kingdom, despite the fact that these organisms are photosynthetic."

I.e. More than half of the micro algae species must obtain vitamin B12 from another organism.

In table 1, it states that of the 13 Rhodophyta (red algae - the family we suspect BBA belongs to) species surveyed, 12/13 required vitamin B12 (cobalamin) from other organisms.

My point is, it may not matter which exact species of Rhodophyta algae BBA is, it is likely it will require an external source of vitamin B12 to grow.


----------



## Guest

So how can we get rid of B12?

I just read that plants don't make B12.  They can only get it from bacteria.  That would explain why 90% of vegetarians have noticeable nutrient deficiencies visible in the condition of their skin.


----------



## AndyMcD

I've just read that non-vegetarian humans get their vitamin B12 from sheep and cattle. It's produced by micro-organisms in their gut. For vegans this can be a real problem, and they need to make sure they eat certain foods containing vitamin B12 supplements.

I'm suggesting that under the right conditions, the heterotrophic bacteria is producing enough vitamin B12 for the algae to flourish. This may be if it is able to consume enough organic carbon. 

I've been re-reading a couple of papers since you posted about the blue filter dropping the light intensity. One experiment involved putting just a very simple type of algae and heterotrophic bacteria in a flask to see what happened at different light intensities. They found that above a certain light intensity, the algae produced an excess of organic carbon molecules, which it excreted and the heterotrophic bacteria consumed. They knew this because this was the only way the bacteria could carbon to grow.

Organic carbon levels generally increasing in the tank, may provide the heterotrophic bacteria with the food they need (excess food, failing plant leaves, rotting driftwood with a high C/N ratio).

Also, I need to re-read this in the "Algae need their vitamins" paper, but I think it made reference to several studies that had shown that certain algae won't grow if vitamin B12 is below a certain concentration.

So what do we need to do? You already know the answer:
- Gravel vac, cut off dead leaves, don't feed excess food, keep amano shrimp etc - to remove or reduce the carbon available to the heterotrophic bacteria
- Perform water changes - to reduce the concentration of organic carbon and vitamin B12 in the water column
- Clean your filter - to prevent a build up of organic carbon in your filter medium

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit further:

- Watch out for light intensity - the algae may be photosynthesising more and producing more organic carbon by fixing inorganic CO2 for the bacteria, which in turn enables the bacteria to produce vitamin B12, enabling the algae to grow.

- Make sure you have sufficient flow - to transport gases to the good bacteria (O2, CO2, bicarbonate), to transport organic carbon back to the filter and to mix the water and help prevent the conditions becoming favourable in any spot. 

For example, a bit of excess food enables a population of bacteria to grow, which creates a high enough concentration of organic carbon in an area out of the flow, so bacteria produces a high local concentration of vitamin B12 ... I think the BBA is worse in my tank where micro granules of food get caught in leaves or in a hole in a rock, just out of the flow.

However, it could also be the case that in the flow, more molecules are passing for the algae to grab.

The point is, the cure seems to be things that the experts advise us to do. I'm suggesting that another reason why they are a good idea is that they help to control the population of heterotrophic bacteria and in turn the algae.


----------



## AndyMcD

In my previous post I made reference to an amount of vitamin B12 required for certain algae to grow:

"Several studies have shown that different vitamin B12-dependent algae require at least 10 ng/liter cobalamin (vitamin B12) in order to grow (50)."

From the paper "Algae Need Their Vitamins" by Martin T Croft et al

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539151/#!po=35.0467

Where:
50. *Provasoli, L., and A. F. Carlucci.* 1974. Vitamins and growth regulators, p. 741-787. _In_W. D. P. Stewart (ed.), Algal physiology and biochemistry. Blackwell Scientific Publications.


----------



## Guest

Just to add: the relationship between B12-producing bacteria and BBA also extends to other kinds of algae such as GDA and GSA.  That's why antibiotics, such as erythromycin, can get rid of GDA because it kills the B12-producing bacteria.  This also explains the characteristic circular growth of GSA as the bacteria multiply outward.

Do we know if these bacteria are obligate aerobes?  I suspect they also survive in anaerobic conditions, possibly producing more B12 under anaerobic conditions than aerobic ones.  But that's just a guess.

That may also explain how the Twinstar works to control algae growth: it oxidizes bacteria.  It also explains why algae never grows on heaters: it gets too hot for anything to survive.

Also, I wonder if cyanobacteria evolved after a bacterium engulfed an alga, but instead of breaking the alga down for nutrients, it somehow survived and provided nutrients for the bacteria.

A UV sterilizer should work to kill off some of the free-floating bacteria which should reduce the formation of algae.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> the relationship between B12-producing bacteria and BBA also extends to other kinds of algae such as GDA and GSA.


This is very interesting! I'm trying to focus on  strengthening the case for BBA outbreaks only, but if this argument could extend to other species of algae, that would add a lot more value.

The autotrophic bacteria are obligate aerobes (they must have oxygen to function). 

I think some of the heterotrophic bacteria are not obligate aerobes. I've read that in the absence of oxygen, some heterotrophic bacteria can de-nitrify nitrites and nitrates back to nitrogen gas (completing the nitrogen cycle). I think one of the Biocon labs URLs in my first post describes how you could set up a deep sand system in a marine tank to do just this.

The following paper shows how heterotrophic bacteria can create vitamin B12 via an aerobic pathway (Pseudomonas Denitrificans) and an anaerobic pathway (Bacillus Megaterium) MetaCyc adenosylcobalamin biosynthesis I (anaerobic)

As you say this is a guess, but I wondered about more B12 being produced in anaerobic conditions. 

If CO2 were high, then dropped, the plants may produce less O2 meaning that a large population of heterotrophic bacteria may deplete the oxygen. Some of the aerobic heterotrophic bacteria may die but this may allow the anaerobic bacteria population to increase and they may produce more vitamin B12. I wondered if this could be the link between a drop in CO2 triggering a B12 (and hence BBA) increase. However, I thought the fish would show obvious signs of distress if oxygen were depleted to this level.

Instead, I wonder if a drop in oxygen would switch off the autotrophic bacteria meaning an increase in ammonia / urea. The heterotrophic bacteria require less oxygen and without competition may be more able to produce vitamin B12. Algae are able to use ammonia as their nitrogen source rather nitrates. I wondered if the carbon molecules the algae excrete may be different when using ammonia/urea instead of nitrates, more likely to promote the bacteria to synthesise B12.

Regarding Twinstar releasing ozone, I read on Wikipedia that (Ozone - Wikipedia )

ozone cracks carbon - carbon bonds (it may break down the Vitamin B12 to smaller molecules)
ozone is used to kill bacteria
ozone oxidises ammonia to ammonium nitrate
ozone breaks down urea entirely

Ozone may slow down but not reverse the growth of BBA.

Thank you. Interesting comments!


----------



## Guest

So after some reading, it turns out that UV sterilizers do work to prevent algae.  Users report that they don't get algae as often on the glass.  It doesn't prevent it entirely, however; cleaning still must be performed once every three weeks instead of every week.

About the CO2 drop, it's unlikely that O2 would deplete so quickly that fish would be distressed.  There should still be a lot of oxygen exchange occurring at the surface.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with O2.  Is it possible that bacterial growth is inhibited by high levels of CO2?  And that a drop from this level makes it much easier for bacteria to colonize?

This reminds me of something I observed in one of my tanks a couple of years ago: there was a very short type of fuzz algae, very dense like a golf course, growing on some rocks.  But what was strange was that there were circular areas without this algae and it was expanding, as if some kind of bacteria was colonizing and preventing the algae from adhering to the rocks.  Here's a picture of it:

The short green fuzz used to cover most of the rock surface.  You can see all the areas where the fuzz is disappearing in a very peculiar pattern and it is not being eaten by any shrimp or animal.  Eventually, all the fuzz disappeared as the circular empty parts expanded.  So perhaps, there is a bacterium that prevents algae from forming...


----------



## sciencefiction

Interesting discussion Andy. I have a few things to add.

A lot of heterotrophic bacteria is facultative. They can live under aerobic or anaerobic conditions. They can "feed" on different things depending on the conditions.
Take for example a bacterial bloom that causes cloudy water. This is caused by heterotrophic bacteria that normally lives in the substrate in anaerobic conditions. But when released in the water column, they switch to oxidation mode, start multiplying like rabbits every couple of hours(as opposed to 24-48 hours which is the rate for nitrifying bacteria). Thus they overtake the tank surfaces, outcompeting nitrifying bacteria for space and oxygen and leading to an ammonia spike because although they oxidize ammonia, they are about one million times less efficient than nitrifying bacteria. This will affect the inhabitants in two ways, ammonia and low oxygen. Because we are talking about billions of bacteria outcompeting nitrifying bacteria and fish.

Also, for example when one sets up a tank with soil. The amount of high organics in the soil literally sucks up all oxygen from the tank, faster than it can be produced if one hasn't supplied a good amount via other means. Some people setting up low tech tanks thing that the less surface agitation, the less carbon dioxide will escape and promote good plant growth but actually the opposite happens. The decomposing bacteria needs oxygen. Once they've drained the oxygen, they'll keep decomposing via other means. The substrate will become anoxic and full of toxic substances like ammonia, hydrogen sulphate and methane, which kills plant roots, then kills the plants, then this leading to less oxygen and from there it gets bad for everything in the tank.  

The good heterotrophs that one wants are the same ones that use oxygen to decompose organics. But too high organics at any one time can be a problem in many ways.  But in any way, you want to promote high oxygen levels in the water column and in the substrate to support nitrifying bacteria and decomposing bacteria respectively, but such decomposing bacteria that uses carbon and oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, not one that produces methane and hydrogen sulphide.

I would presume that high organics will shift the balance to more heterotrophs of different types, invading not just the substrate but other surfaces, competing with nitrifying bacteria, and also more B12 in turn as suggested. Whether this is the cause or not, it's pretty obvious that in high organics tanks algae and especially BBA loves it for one or another reason.

When we disturb the substrate, a lot of bad things can happen, the minimum an ammonia spike but one is essentially releasing all good and bad bi-products of bacteria and facultative heterotrophic bacteria escapes in the water column where you don't want it.

Heterotrophs are also an essential part of the food chain. Some of them are enemies of protozoa and other pathogenic bacteria. They keep a tank "healthy"

Also, when you add antibiotics or medicine in the tank, you are essentially killing certain bacteria on a mass scale. You may kill the pathogenic bacteria causing the fish's to get sick or the ones that promote algae growth but at the same time you may kill the enemies of other pathogens in the tank which until then were kept in check, thus causing a different imbalance and this is left to the fish to deal with. The ones with good immune system may fight it off, the ones with bad one(possibly subjected to imbalanced tank for a long time) will start randomly getting sick.

A tank with fish that randomly get sick is an imbalanced tank from many perspectives. That's why when I see a big algae outbreak, I think we talk about imbalance and not necessarily just bad aesthetics, but other bad bugs multiplying out of proportion in the invisible to us fish tank world, which we can't comprehend easily.
The algae itself is not the bad guy, but the reason for it to flourish is not necessarily a good thing.


----------



## AndyMcD

Thank you very much for this response. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

As you say, UV is used, in ponds, for example to control algae, which could be very appropriate.

Some of the reported triggers of an outbreak of BBA (e.g. sensitivity to blue / UV light) are also similar to the factors that inhibit autotrophic bacteria from functioning.

As well as killing the algae, it may also be killing the autotrophic (nitrifying) bacteria in the water column, preventing it from colonising new sites.

Also, the autotrophic bacteria require a lot of oxygen to convert ammonia to nitrates (75 molecules of O2 are required to create one molecule of organic carbon C5H7O2N).

My argument is that ammonia / urea are compounds that BBA requires to grow / reproduce. Therefore, you need to protect the autotrophic bacteria to keep it converting ammonia / urea to nitrite / nitrate. To do this, you should ensure the autotrophic bacteria has a good supply of oxygen and avoid other inhibiting factors (e.g. UV lights possibly).

The following is why I think there is a link between ammonia / urea plus vitamin B12 and BBA reproduction.

In the paper "Influence of vitamin B auxotrophy on nitrogen metabolism in eukaryotic phytoplankton" by Bertrand and Allen (
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00375/full), they include the following diagram:



 

The Urea and TCA (The Citric Acid) cycles are common pathways for a lot of organisms.

I think this diagram shows:
- how ammonia and urea feed into the urea cycle, which begins the overall process
- where vitamin B12 and ammonia are required to complete the process
- that spermidine is eventually produced by this process, which feeds into the production of polyamines (e.g. Spermine).

On Wikipedia, in the entry for Spermidine, it states (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermidine):
Spermidine is synthesized from putrescine and is a precursor of spermine.

On Wikipedia, in the entry for Red Algae, under the section for Fetilisation it states that when fertilisation takes place:
The polyamine spermine is produced, which triggers carpospore production.

Wikipedia defines: 
A *carpospore* is a diploidspore produced by red algae. After fertilization, the alga's carpogonium subdivides into carpospores, and generally the largest type of spore (larger than bispores, which are larger again than tetraspores).[1] The wall of the carpogonium then breaks down, releasing the spores into the environment.[2]

My argument is that an increase in ammonia / urea plus vitamin B12 feeds into the process that eventually leads to the BBA reproducing.


----------



## AndyMcD

Sciencefiction,

Thank you very much for writing such a detailed response.

A couple of points to reinforce what you have said.

The TGM website http://www.thegreenmachineonline.com/blog/filter-media-introduction/ says the following about ADA NA Carbon product:

"It is therefore particularly useful in the first 6-8 weeks of an aquascape’s lifespan, when the beneficial bacteria are still colonising the filter and the impurity levels tend to be quite high. ADA NA Carbon will reach its absorptive peak after about 8 weeks, when it is best to remove it and replace it with ADA Bio Rio or ADA Bamboo Charcoal."

I'm interpreting this to mean that you should take steps to filter out organic carbon and starve the heterotrophic bacteria while the nitrifying bacteria populations are growing (ammonia release from Aquasoil initially high), but once the organic carbon has collected on the activated carbon, you should remove it to prevent it from becoming a food store for the heterotrophic bacteria.

I agree that the heterotrophic bacteria are carrying out a very important role in the aquarium. 

As you have said, I'm suggesting that if there is an imbalance in the populations of the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria, this is when BBA may flourish.

However, one last bit of Heterotrophic bacteria bashing!

Oscarfish.com has an article on Heterotrophic bacteria, which includes the statement:
"Heterotrophic bacteria in our tanks are generally from the genera Pseudomonas and Bacillus. It is important to note that some species of Pseudomonas bacteria are believed to be the cause of some bacterial ulcerations in our fish."

There are various reasons for preventing heterotrophic bacteria from getting out of control and possibly creating an unhealthy aquarium.


----------



## Edvet

AndyMcD said:


> Heterotrophic bacteria in our tanks are generally from the genera Pseudomonas and Bacillus. It is important to note that some species of Pseudomonas bacteria are believed to be the cause of some bacterial ulcerations in our fish


This i find a dangerous conclusion. There are a lot of Pseudomonas spp, not all are pathogens for our fish. And most often there are pathogens in our environment which are oportunistic (only become dangerous when the conditions are "right" or "wrong")
Just finding a species doesn't mean these are the cause of disease.


----------



## AndyMcD

Edvet said:


> This i find a dangerous conclusion. There are a lot of Pseudomonas spp, not all are pathogens for our fish. And most often there are pathogens in our environment which are oportunistic (only become dangerous when the conditions are "right" or "wrong")
> Just finding a species doesn't mean these are the cause of disease.



Edvet, I'm guilty of repeating the information from the Oscarfish website.

You're of course correct. It is a dangerous conclusion to imply that all Pseudomonas bacteria are pathogens to fish.

There are some which can cause infection in organisms.

For example, in the paper I mentioned previously (the Canadian scientists who bought lots of plants from aquatic shops and swabbed them for bacteria), they were looking for Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, which apparently could cause infections in humans (the unwell and old).

Isolation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other bacterial species from ornamental aquarium plants' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169867/.

The point I was trying to make (in support of Sciencefiction) was that an imbalanced population of bacteria may not be good for lots of reasons (other than it potentially contributing to algae outbreaks). 

However, as you say, SOME of the bacteria may only become a threat if the conditions go wrong.

I haven't really got anything against heterotrophic bacteria. Honest.


----------



## Guest

So what information don't we know to understand this complex process?

If the growth of these kinds of algae are due to the symbiotic relationship with B12-producing microorganisms, then possible solutions are:
1) prevent these microbes from growing
2) remove B12 from water
3) introduce non-B12-producing bacteria
4) something else entirely

If it's a bacterial imbalance, how can it be balanced and with what?


----------



## AndyMcD

Thanks for asking these questions. Unfortunately I've got to go to work. I'll respond later today. Many of the answers are what the experts already recommend that we should do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Yo-han

Aaah, I missed these kind of discussion on UKAPS. I love it when people search for causes instead of 'dose more ferts and algae goes away'.

I've had quite a topic about this on another forum a few years ago: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/87902-cause-solution-bba.html

The reason I started looking for it is because a tank can run fine without algae and simply by feeding more I can get BBA. More food is more ammonia -> I tested this and daily add urea and ammonia now, and my tank is free of BBA...

My findings are* that the more oxygen I get in the tank the less BBA I've. The more organics are present the more BBA.
*
Organics from dying leaves, food whatever seems to promote BBA. If I add more oxygen (aeration at night a la Amano, or overflow like Barr) is less algae. But my hypothesis is totally different so I wonder what you think about that. 
_
*I simply think organics trigger BBA to grow.*
_
About filtration and bacteria, I translated a Dutch article for APC a few years ago and for those that are not familiar with terms like heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...1-biological-filtration-translated-dutch.html

Heterotrophic bacteria break down organics. They need loads of oxygen for this. When either heterotropic bacteria or oxygen is low, organics aren't broken down and BBA uses the high organics. When pH is low 24/7 due to 24/7 CO2, bacteria work less efficient compared to high pH and organics aren't broken down (aeration at night raises pH as well, double effect!) When plants are dying because of low CO2 or low ferts, they release organics that promote BBA, so ferts and CO2 is part of the equation, but not the only part.

So IME autotrophics have little to do with BBA. In fact, although autotrophics are very efficient, I think they play a very small role in our planted tanks. Plants do most part and archaea do more than bacteria in converting ammonia. (can't find the article right now).

Just my two cents, and looking forward to your thought about it!


PS. I hope linking to another forum isn't a problem...


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-Han, thank you for the response.

Beginning to really wish I wasn't in work today!

I'll try and give you my thoughts this evening.


----------



## Edvet

Indeed i think the key might be in the oxygen. Oxygen radicals perhaps even.


----------



## AndyMcD




----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> So what information don't we know to understand this complex process?
> 
> If the growth of these kinds of algae are due to the symbiotic relationship with B12-producing microorganisms, then possible solutions are:
> 1) prevent these microbes from growing
> 2) remove B12 from water
> 3) introduce non-B12-producing bacteria
> 4) something else entirely
> 
> If it's a bacterial imbalance, how can it be balanced and with what?



Guest,

So what information don't we know to understand this complex process?
- How does light fit in? Does this species of algae require more light energy to grow and reproduce?

Possible solutions are:
1) Prevent these microbes from growing
Heterotrophic bacteria consume the organic carbon in the aquarium (excess food, fish waste, stressed or dying leaves, melted leaves, decaying driftwood). To prevent them from multiplying, you can minimise the food available to them by keeping on top of maintaining the aquarium:

Water changes to reduce dissolved organic carbon in the water column
Remove dead and dying leaves
Provide nutrients to keep the plants healthy. Stressed leaves may begin to release organics.
Provide good flow to ensure that CO2 and nitrates are reaching the leaves
Include a clean up crew to eat the organics before the bacteria can
Gravel vac to remove waste
Provide good flow to prevent localised issues with organic carbon accumulating
This is the standard advice for maintaining the aquarium, which has the effect of controlling the population of heterotrophic bacteria

2) Remove B12 from the water
By controlling the population of heterotrophic bacteria, you may prevent the concentration of vitamin B12 reaching the point where the algae can begin to benefit. The concentration of vitamin B12 can be reduced by carrying out water changes.
This would appear to be standard advice for maintaining your aquarium. Once BBA begins to appear, water changes may help to reduce the impact.

3) introduce non-B12-producing bacteria
ADA's Bacter 100 is recommended to create a healthy bacteria population in the substrate. Bacteria will be introduced into the aquarium via the substrate, plants, fish, water changes etc. The population of the different species of bacteria in the aquarium will rise and fall depending upon changes within the aquarium. It is unrealistic to believe that we can control which species of bacteria live and thrive in the aquarium.

4) Something else entirely

Use activated carbon for no more than 6 to 8 weeks if you have a BBA outbreak. Starve the bacteria.
Twinstar - Use ozone to crack long chain molecules into shorter ones and oxidise ammonia / urea

If it's a bacterial imbalance, how can it be balanced and with what?
My suggestion is that BBA flourishes when the conditions in the aquarium change to favour the heterotrophic bacteria (vitamin B12 concentration increases) and inhibit the autotrophic, nitrifying bacteria (ammonia / urea concentration increases). The two populations of bacteria can be brought back into balance by taking the steps listed above.

In this thread I'm proposing an alternative cause of outbreaks of BBA that I think fits well with the reported evidence of perceived triggers and effective controls.


----------



## BruceF

This is a great thread!


I’ve long been a fan of the Simply Discus article.

The problem I am having here is I don’t really see why any of these processes would advantage BBA over any other type of alga.  Is there something specific about the relationship of b12 and BBA?


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-han said:


> But my hypothesis is totally different so I wonder what you think about that.
> _
> *I simply think organics trigger BBA to grow.*_



Johan,

Thank you for your reply. These are my thoughts.

Please see the diagram I added earlier this evening, which may help explain what I'm trying to describe.

My suggestion is that ammonia/urea AND vitamin B12 (from Heterotrophic bacteria) cause BBA to grow and reproduce.

I assume that you are adding ammonia / urea, which are converted to nitrates, for the benefit of your plants.

Autotrophic bacteria are much more efficient than heterotrophic bacteria at converting ammonia to nitrates, about a million times more efficient. From what I have read, it is my understanding that each individual autotrophic bacteria requires a great deal more oxygen than a heterotrophic bacteria. However, the heterotrophic bacteria can multiply much more quickly and their entire population will consume much more oxygen. The heterotrophic bacteria compete with the autotrophic bacteria for oxygen and if not controlled can prevent the autotrophic bacteria from functioning.

Failing CO2 is frequently stated as being a cause of an outbreak of BBA. My suggestion is:
- CO2 fails
- Plants unable to convert CO2 to O2
- Drop in the CO2 dissolved in the water, so less carbonic acid converted to bicarbonates
- Insufficient O2 and bicarbonates to support autotrophic bacteria
- Heterotrophic bacteria able to out compete autotrophic bacteria for oxygen (and are even able to function anaerobically)
- Autotrophic bacteria stop converting ammonia to nitrates. Heterotrophic bacteria begin to dominate
- Algae receives the concentration of ammonia / urea it requires to grow and multiply

In your aquarium, with a high source of ammonium / urea, oxygen and carbon dioxide (providing bicarbonates and oxygen due to plants photosynthesising), I would say that you have a healthy population of autotrophic bacteria. In which case, the ammonia and urea that you are adding may be converted to nitrates, preventing concentrations reaching the point where a BBA outbreak would happen. However, you may have sufficiently high concentration of ammonia / urea, but insufficient vitamin B12.

My suggestion is that if the organics in your aquarium rise, this begins to favour the heterotrophic bacteria, which can result in an increase in their population. The heterotrophic bacteria may then produce sufficient vitamin B12 to cause an outbreak in your aquarium.

My suggestion is that there may be sufficient ammonia in your aquarium to cause an outbreak, but insufficient vitamin B12. However, if there is an increase in the organics in your aquarium, this provides the heterotrophic bacteria with the food they need to multiply and produce sufficient vitamin B12 to cause an outbreak.


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF,
"The problem I am having here is I don’t really see why any of these processes would advantage BBA over any other type of alga. Is there something specific about the relationship of b12 and BBA?"
It might be that this argument could be broadened out to other types of algae, that also need to get vitamin B12 from other organisms (vitamin B12 auxotrophy). However, for now, I'm just trying to build a convincing enough argument for BBA outbreaks only.


----------



## rebel

Hi guys, this is an interesting discussion indeed. I have two noob questions.

1. Can anyone here reliably grow BBA ( this also gives an insight as to how much we understand it's needs) (cheap is good if possible - I am considering using this to feed my SAE, which at 6cm are still voracious BBA eaters! )
2. What experiment could/should be done to falsify the theory of B12 etc?

Apologies as this might be be OT.


----------



## Yo-han

AndyMcD said:


> Johan,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. These are my thoughts.
> 
> Please see the diagram I added earlier this evening, which may help explain what I'm trying to describe.
> 
> My suggestion is that ammonia/urea AND vitamin B12 (from Heterotrophic bacteria) cause BBA to grow and reproduce.
> 
> I assume that you are adding ammonia / urea, which are converted to nitrates, for the benefit of your plants.
> 
> Autotrophic bacteria are much more efficient than heterotrophic bacteria at converting ammonia to nitrates, about a million times more efficient. From what I have read, it is my understanding that each individual autotrophic bacteria requires a great deal more oxygen than a heterotrophic bacteria. However, the heterotrophic bacteria can multiply much more quickly and their entire population will consume much more oxygen. The heterotrophic bacteria compete with the autotrophic bacteria for oxygen and if not controlled can prevent the autotrophic bacteria from functioning.
> 
> Failing CO2 is frequently stated as being a cause of an outbreak of BBA. My suggestion is:
> - CO2 fails
> - Plants unable to convert CO2 to O2
> - Drop in the CO2 dissolved in the water, so less carbonic acid converted to bicarbonates
> - Insufficient O2 and bicarbonates to support autotrophic bacteria
> - Heterotrophic bacteria able to out compete autotrophic bacteria for oxygen (and are even able to function anaerobically)
> - Autotrophic bacteria stop converting ammonia to nitrates. Heterotrophic bacteria begin to dominate
> - Algae receives the concentration of ammonia / urea it requires to grow and multiply
> 
> In your aquarium, with a high source of ammonium / urea, oxygen and carbon dioxide (providing bicarbonates and oxygen due to plants photosynthesising), I would say that you have a healthy population of autotrophic bacteria. In which case, the ammonia and urea that you are adding may be converted to nitrates, preventing concentrations reaching the point where a BBA outbreak would happen. However, you may have sufficiently high concentration of ammonia / urea, but insufficient vitamin B12.
> 
> My suggestion is that if the organics in your aquarium rise, this begins to favour the heterotrophic bacteria, which can result in an increase in their population. The heterotrophic bacteria may then produce sufficient vitamin B12 to cause an outbreak in your aquarium.
> 
> My suggestion is that there may be sufficient ammonia in your aquarium to cause an outbreak, but insufficient vitamin B12. However, if there is an increase in the organics in your aquarium, this provides the heterotrophic bacteria with the food they need to multiply and produce sufficient vitamin B12 to cause an outbreak.


In that case, by simply adding B12 I would get a BBA outbreak... Send me some and I'll test!


----------



## Yo-han

Umzz... I don't know what concentration we are talking about, but I 'm adding Microlift Vitamins to my aquarium already, which contains B12...


----------



## AndyMcD

I think I should be the one to test this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-Han, I agree with you when you say that an increase in organics triggers a BBA outbreak.

I'm going one step further and saying that an increase in organics gets processed by the heterotrophic bacteria and converted into compounds that the algae needs to grow and re-produce (e.g. Vitamin B12 - please Google Rhodophyta vitamin B12 autotrophy).

Please do search this. You'll find lots of scientific articles / text books / experiments that have shown this is the case.

I'm reading through the links you added. I thought it was interesting concerning an increase in C/N ratio (I.e. More organic carbon) stopping the nitrifying process (I.e. Inhibiting the autotrophic bacteria). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lindy

That would make sense to me as I get it in my low ph tank that doesn't have much surface movement so probably low ph combined with lower o2. I don't get bba in my breeding tanks that have low ph but do have airdriven sponge filters.


----------



## Yo-han

But still, without organics and only by adding ammonia/urea and B12 do you think BBA will grow?


----------



## Guest

Try it and find out.  Since no one has done this before, it's the necessary experiment.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> Try it and find out.  Since no one has done this before, it's the necessary experiment.



The link between algal growth and vitamin B12 has been proved previously, for example (Mutualistic Interaction Between Vitamin B12 Dependent Algae and Heterotrophic Bacteria Exhibit Regulation
Mutualistic interactions between vitamin B12 -dependent algae and heterotrophic bacteria exhibit regulation | Request PDF


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-han said:


> But still, without organics and only by adding ammonia/urea and B12 do you think BBA will grow?



In RO water, zero organics, ammonia/urea and B12, do I think BBA would grow? No.

Like plants, there are many other nutrients required, e.g. Phosphates. CO2 will be essential for photosynthesis. Nitrates or ammonia will be required as a Nitrogen source.

The heterotrophic bacteria will break down the proteins in the organics to amino acids and ammonia. The algae may be able to consume these amino acids also.

However, there is scientific evidence of a vitamin B12 dependency of algae which it can get from the heterotrophic bacteria.

I'm arguing that this is the link between an increase in organics and algae growth.


----------



## AndyMcD

ldcgroomer said:


> That would make sense to me as I get it in my low ph tank that doesn't have much surface movement so probably low ph combined with lower o2. I don't get bba in my breeding tanks that have low ph but do have airdriven sponge filters.



Thanks ldcgroomer.

Based on what I'm proposing:

- Perhaps Increased organics due to Catappa leaves to drop pH, means heterotrophic bacteria population

- Autotrophic bacteria inhibited due to low pH and low O2. Please see the Biocon website (link below) for info on effect on nitrifying bacteria of low pH and low O2:

*pH*
The optimum pH range for Nitrosomonas is between 7.8-8.0.

The optimum pH range for Nitrobacter is between 7.3-7.5

Nitrobacter will grow more slowly at the high pH levels typical of marine aquaria and preferred by African Rift Lake Cichlids. Initial high nitrite concentrations may exist. At pH levels below 7.0, Nitrosomonas will grow more slowly and increases in ammonia may become evident. Nitrosomonas growth is inhibited at a pH of 6.5. All nitrification is inhibited if the pH drops to 6.0 or less. Care must be taken to monitor ammonia if the pH begins to drop close to 6.5. At this pH almost all of the ammonia present in the water will be in the mildly toxic, ionized NH3+ state.

*Dissolved Oxygen*
Maximum nitrification rates will exist if dissolved oxygen (DO) levels exceed 80% saturation. Nitrification will not occur if DO concentrations drop to 2.0 mg/l (ppm) or less. Nitrobacter is more strongly affected by low DO than NITROSOMONAS.


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-han said:


> Umzz... I don't know what concentration we are talking about, but I 'm adding Microlift Vitamins to my aquarium already, which contains B12...



Several studies have shown that different vitamin B12-dependent algae require at least 10 ng/liter cobalamin (vitamin B12) in order to grow (50)."

From the paper "Algae Need Their Vitamins" by Martin T Croft et al

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539151/#!po=35.0467


----------



## Yo-han

Thanks for the detailed answers!  I don't have the time to read this papers next week but certainly will soon.

Looking at the molecule it contains quite some nitrogen, so purigen should have a high affinity for B12. I see a boost in purigen sales, where is my part of the money?


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-Han, thank you. I'm investing in activated carbon filters and Twinstar!


----------



## Guest

AndyMcD said:


> Care must be taken to monitor ammonia if the pH begins to drop close to 6.5. At this pH almost all of the ammonia present in the water will be in the mildly toxic, ionized NH3+ state.


It should be ammonium, NH4, not ammonia, at such a low pH.

My interest is to reduce the frequency of water changes since it's wasteful to dump so much water each week.  If there are ways to prevent it, that would be great, especially because we are having a historical drought which is very likely to get worse in the coming years.


----------



## Edvet

How can we explain this?? (no fluctuating CO2 so no BBA? Or so much oxygen that there are no algea?:
Full sun and no CO2


----------



## Yo-han

And as far as I understand the subtitles, no filtration as well. And with goldfish! :O respect!


----------



## Guest

I suspect that it's the sunlight's UV rays that induce the production of phenolic and other compounds which inhibit algae and mold.  That's one of the functions of UV light on plants.  So the LED makers stating that UV light is wasted are complete BS.


----------



## AndyMcD

Sorry guys, at work now. Definitely will look at your responses tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## flygja

The explanation is... WITCHCRAFT!!  That goes against everything we do in an indoor high-tech planted tank. No CO2, no filtration, no flow.. what else? No fertilisation? 

I've read these threads with interest, and I think it does partly explain what's happening in one of my tanks, at least symptomatically. I do notice that in my 60L tank, BBA can be under control, not completely BBA-free, and then within a few weeks, it can start sprouting on hardscape and filter equipment. CO2, fertilisation, temperature (chiller) did not change. So its either the filter's getting dirty, or the tank itself is getting dirty or I did some trimming and there would be some amount of melt which all leads to the high organics theory. Usually a big clean - filter, pipes, substrate level, etc will bring BBA to a manageable level.


----------



## Guest

Goldfish respire a lot and produce a lot of CO2.  How much?  I don't know.

But, the lack of CO2 is not the cause of the lack of algae.


----------



## AndyMcD

I have hillstream loaches (Gastromyzon). They graze on algae on rocks in very fast moving streams.

This is another extreme example that I should consider.

Not all algae is the same so the proposed model may be irrelevant.

Perhaps biofilm plays a much bigger role.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Edvet

About the video: there are lots of small fish and then 2 goldfish. I believe there is talk about fertilising in the subtitles, but my spanish/portugese isn't up to it. (I don't think the excrements of the fish will be plenty as ferts in this tank.)
No filtering, at least a few hours of full sunshine a day. There will be a lot  of oxygen production in this tank during the day.
.



Guest said:


> lack of CO2 is not the cause of the lack of algae


Non consistent CO2 is mentioned as a contributing factor to BBA though


----------



## rebel

via Imgflip Meme Maker


----------



## sciencefiction

By my observations, overstocking->high organics does lead to BBA in particular. So I see the point of Andy here, BBA being dependent on B12 to grow surely relies on heterotrophic bacteria for production and high organics lead to more heterotrophs. That's what they do, "eat" organics for energy. Same as if you overfeed a shrimp tank, you get an explosion of shrimp/snails.  I'd imagine heterotrophs could explode in numbers if there's lack of oxygen. As they are going to take over the surfaces previously inhabited by autotrophic bacteria, who in turn in low oxygen conditions would be dying in high numbers because of the inhabitable conditions, leading to more organics.  So anything that shifts the balance towards high amount of heterotrophs could be an issue.
The most common is low oxygen and high organics.

With my limited knowledge I somehow thought BBA can utilize the organics, or rather the excessive ammonia which is the result of it, but it's the symbiosis with the heterotrophs perhaps that makes the connection between the two. And as Andy says, it's been proven. Most algae can't produce B12 and B12 is essential for their survival. So heterotrophic bacteria producing the B12 for the algae is a key for the survival of algae.

Diatoms, which aren't algae, are similar to heterotrophs in a way that they can live in the substrate doing other stuff but explode in numbers in high organic environment, and change their "functionality".

As for that tank without filtration and sunlight doing just fine free of algae, it's been done by people all the time. I think the sunlight is the key. As literature says, the higher light lowers the co2 compensation point and that works pretty well in low tech tanks. If you have low light and low CO2, worse scenario for the plants.  Plants can get by well with lower co2 as long as they can get their energy from light.
 Algae on another hand may not be as competitive in these conditions.

As for the fluctuating CO2 causing BBA. I don't think so. I think it's more about what dropping CO2 is doing to the plants when they are used to 30ppm +. They need to adjust all over again when you system or your flow isn't up to scratch and not distributing that CO2, thus plants suffer, leading to higher organics, lower oxygen levels while they do so.
In my low tech tanks, huge water changes with water saturated with CO2 has never triggered BBA. So I can't believe the argument of fluctuating CO2 triggering BBA.

Imagine if you are a human that's overweight due to overeating. One day if you stop feeding yourself 10 chickens a day, you are going to struggle and not feel well even if it's normal to actually not eat that much, even if you can perfectly function for life on 1 chicken a day. One day, after a long struggle, you'll eventually function just fine on 1 chicken a day.

So when you start pumping that high amount of co2, you are essentially getting the plants used to live on such amount whether it's optimal for them or not.

Anyway, that's my view. It may not be correct of course. It's just one of many views on the issue.


----------



## AndyMcD

Sciencefiction,

Thank you very much.


----------



## sciencefiction

To add to the above, the problem I see with people not being able to keep plants in low tech tanks is that they follow the "low light" advice........ to avoid algae. Stock the tank with what they were told are "easy" plants such as anubias, moss and java fern. They plant too few plants, just scattered here and there, thinking it's lots.
They don't put any nutrient rich substrate as they "don't need" it for "easy" plants that are not even planted in the substrate. The tank gets overridden with algae, or plants just struggle. The first thing one is told is, to inject CO2, lower the light and do EI. That works of course, but it's not the only way and it's the hard way.

What actually happens is, plants like these are very slow growers. They can't stabilize a tank. They've got no roots in the substrate to provide medium for healthy oxygenated substrate which would develop a good balance of bacteria otherwise. And the substrate is probably the most important "filter" in a healthy system. As long as there are lots of plants in it, and the layer is not very thick to get anaerobic. it becomes one massive biological filter which no external or internal filter can match. It's way more stable because it doesn't rely on mechanics to pump water through it, loss of flow, etc.. And it doesn't get "clogged" as long as the bacterial load is balanced to keep things turned.
Also, more light in certain scenarios is not necessarily a negative and can be actually necessary in tanks with high biomass. And certain substrate types provide a massive advantage over others, even if just because of the properties of the particles they are made off. A natural soil substrate "holds" nutrients for the plants until they need them and is a better medium for "good bacteria".
We spend so much money buying fancy filter media and fancy filters but ignore the properties of the substrate itself as if it doesn't matter, thinking you can dose all you need in the water column. But you can't balance a tank by dosing the water column. The picture is bigger than that. It's bigger than just co2, light and nutrients.  Starting from heterotrophic bacteria, autotrophs and all other organisms that make up the chain.

The tank above in the link is the opposite of all that "common" low tech tank scenario and is successful for that same reason.

Edit: My apologies for the long reply and swaying away from the topic.


----------



## AndyMcD

Sciencefiction, thank you very much. Very helpful.


----------



## AndyMcD

This paper talks about the effect of reducing oxygen to increase the vitamin B12 output from an industrial process.

In a 120,000L fermenter, the dissolved oxygen level was reduced from 10% to 8% (20 to 48 hours), 5% to 2% (49 to 106 hours) and below 2%, by gradually reducing the rate of aeration and agitation. The concentration of vitamin B12 obtained (198mg/L) was significantly higher than one stage dissolved oxygen control.

They state that the low dissolved oxygen was favourable for vitamin B12 biosynthesis, but it would have a negative effect on cell growth. A multi-stage dissolved oxygen strategy could increase biomass but also improve vitamin B12 biosynthesis.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jctb.3804/abstract

This MAY provide evidence (weak) to support:
- reduction in oxygen due to overnight respiration or a bacteria bloom MAY lead to an increase in B12 production.
- oxygen is required for cell growth, but a reduction in oxygen favours B12 production
- does this imply that aeration inhibits B12 production


----------



## Guest

If it's the gradual decrease in O2 that aids in the production of B12, then wouldn't having a longer photoperiod allow for higher DO concentrations for longer periods of time?


----------



## AndyMcD

This paper deals with controlling CO2 concentration in an industrial process using Pseudomonas Denitrificans and its impact on vitamin B12 production.

I've converted CO2 concentration in mmol/L to ppm by multiplying by 44 (i.e. 1mmol/L = 44ppm). Hope this is correct.

CO2 concentration resulted in vitamin B12:
CO2 0.001 mmol/L (0.044ppm) = 1,522 ug/L/h
CO2 1.16 mmol/L (51.04ppm) = 2,164 ug/L/h
CO2 3.05 mmol/L (134.2ppm) = 2,279 ug/L/h
CO2 4.81 mmol/L (211.6ppm) = 750 ug/L/h

This would suggest that increasing CO2 concentration in an aquarium may increase vitamin B12 production. The optimum (peak) CO2 concentration would not be reached.

http://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc...duction-by-fermentation-2155-9821.1000159.pdf


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> My interest is to reduce the frequency of water changes since it's wasteful to dump so much water each week. If there are ways to prevent it, that would be great



In addition to all the great advice you get on this website, perhaps the following may help:

- Pay particular attention to remove all leaves that look stressed or damaged. Feed the fish less quantity. Buy shrimp. Scrub old driftwood. In general, take steps to remove organics that the heterotrophic bacteria can use as a food source

- Perhaps try running activated carbon for no more than 6-8 weeks, to remove organics from the water. Remove to prevent it becoming a food source for the heterotrophic bacteria.

- While I'm carrying out my water change, I've started putting my anubias on stones in a litre container with 3ml of Easycarbo and dechlorinated water (for about 15 minutes). This seems to be strong enough to effect the BBA, but not concentrated enough to burn the leaves. Remove all other infected BBA leaves to prevent spores being released

- Aerate at night. A few people feel this has a positive effect. In my opinion, this could be helpful to the autrophic bacteria (less ammonia) and may inhibit B12 production.

- Thinking back, this may be obvious. I used to have my lights timed to come on in the evening, so I could enjoy the aquarium when I came home from work. However, because the room my aquarium is in has a big window, I was effectively extending the photoperiod. I've set the time to be during daylight hours now.

- In mid summer, the sun swings far enough around that it hits the tank. I used to get worse BBA where the light was brightest. I now rest a piece of black card against the side of the tank, to mask out the excess light. ADA gallery has few windows. Difficult (unpopular) to achieve at home.


I wonder if limestone based rocks which slightly raise pH (e.g. ADA Seiryu or Ryuoh) may be serving a useful purpose (see Biocon Labs website):
Autotrophic bacteria prefer a pH higher than 7
Starting from a pH of 7 and adding CO2, which will drop pH, could put the aquarium in the autotrophic danger zone of 6.5 to 6.0.
The limestone can help to buffer the water


----------



## AndyMcD

I realise that for most of the people on this forum, the above is basic advice, but you asked Guest what I thought you could consider without performing large water changes.

One more point about plant choice and placement, ADA in their videos suggest if you are going to use anubias petite (plant prone to BBA), to put it in a shaded spot. Also, fast growing plants convert more CO2 to plant cells and release more oxygen than slow growing plants. If O2 is beneficial to autotrophic bacteria and may inhibit B12 production, then highly oxygenating plants may help (providing you provide sufficient CO2 and nutrients to support the rapid growth).


----------



## Guest

I've also noted that BBA is associated with potassium deficiency.  This has occurred numerous times that I think it's not a coincidence.  K deficiency may set in motion a chain of events which ultimately leads to BBA on Anubias (and possibly Bolbitis) leaves.  It doesn't affect plants such as Rotala's and Ludwigia's, so perhaps Anubias and ferns require much more potassium than stem plants to be healthy.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> I've also noted that BBA is associated with potassium deficiency.  This has occurred numerous times that I think it's not a coincidence.  K deficiency may set in motion a chain of events which ultimately leads to BBA on Anubias (and possibly Bolbitis) leaves.  It doesn't affect plants such as Rotala's and Ludwigia's, so perhaps Anubias and ferns require much more potassium than stem plants to be healthy.



I think you are correct when you say that a deficiency sets in motion a chain of events which ultimately leads to BBA. K deficiency would be one cause, put other people have reported resolving other deficiencies that have reduced a BBA problem.

I'd like to know more about how plants react if they are deficient in a nutrient and/or they are supplied with less CO2 (exposed to the same level of light).

Do they start to release specific organics (e.g. Cellulose or ATP) which the heterotrophic bacteria can use as a food source?

In the papers I've referenced previously, they've shown that algae secretes organics which the heterotrophic bacteria can feed off.

Plants releasing organics when exposed to high light and insufficient CO2 and enabling the heterotrophic bacteria to grow may be the link between high light and BBA outbreaks.

Perhaps anubias constantly secrete organics if exposed to bright light. Heterotrophic bacteria get a continuous food source. Thick bacterial biofilm pushed to the edges by turbulence. BBA spore sticks in biofilm. BBA close to source of B12. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Yo-han

Guest said:


> I've also noted that BBA is associated with potassium deficiency.  This has occurred numerous times that I think it's not a coincidence.  K deficiency may set in motion a chain of events which ultimately leads to BBA on Anubias (and possibly Bolbitis) leaves.  It doesn't affect plants such as Rotala's and Ludwigia's, so perhaps Anubias and ferns require much more potassium than stem plants to be healthy.


I can second this. I always wondered why full ADA tanks never had BBA on Anubias. I think the large filter and the potassium makes all the difference.


----------



## sciencefiction

Deficiencies have a big role to play on anubias and whether it's covered in algae or not. At least I think so. It's not just potassium. Mine struggled for iron in one tank when left to get it from the water column. That tank was riddled with BBA at some stage.  It's irrelevant which nutrient the plant is deficient in. It's got similar response whether it's iron, other micros, nitrogen or potassium, Co2, etc..., at least in my opinion. Severe deficiencies all cause "ugly" growth or stunted growth and the plant may get covered in algae as a response to releasing organics perhaps, and not being able to function correctly.

I've got a lot of anubias in two of my soil tanks. One is right next to a window. The window has white curtains so it gets day light and 6hrs a day artificial light.  The anubias in it has overtaken the tank almost and it's got no BBA on any leaves despite that I've had it for years.
The trick I've found is planting the roots in the soil(rhizome) above. The anubias grows really well this way.
In my other tank the anubias is shaded and again planted in the soil. It's been years without BBA or GSA on them.
I don't dose nutrients often but I've dosed micros and some macros occasionally when needed. Deficiencies are noticed in the fast growing plants first so when I see, I dose what I think it is, and it's been working just fine. I don't have a potassium dedicated fert but I've dosed KNO3 sometimes and extra of it if I think it's a potassium issue.


----------



## BruceF

I think there is some process in the leaves of healthy  plants that involves h202 and therefore keeps algae at bay.  I've read about this but I am not sure of all the details.


----------



## rebel

Has anyone with the know-how started an experiment that can falsify the initial OPs hypothesis? I am guessing that you only need two tanks? One with and one without available B12.

Can anyone reliably grow BBA though?

Or am I way off the mark here?


----------



## Guest

Add ammonium and B12.  If true, then a BBA outbreak should occur.


----------



## AndyMcD

rebel said:


> Has anyone with the know-how started an experiment that can falsify the initial OPs hypothesis? I am guessing that you only need two tanks? One with and one without available B12.



Throughout this thread I've provided links to published papers (that must have been through a peer review process). Please take a look at the following abstract:
- Title speaks for itself
- Published in Nature - Well known scientific publication
- Written by University of Cambridge and University of Kent
- Published in 2005 (i.e. 10 years to disprove)

Algae acquire vitamin B12 through a symbiotic relationship with bacteria
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7064/full/nature04056.html

Before starting any experiment, it's recommended to determine what others have proved to narrow down what you are looking at. In the 'What exactly causes BBA?' thread there was discussion about a series of experiments to prove the causes of BBA outbreaks. However, there were so many suggested causes (apparently unrelated) that a properly controlled experiment would have been massive, requiring a big investment in time and money. 

What I'd hope to do in this thread is propose a model based upon published scientific information, that seemed to fit the reported causes / suggested controls.

At some point I'll try and pull together an experiment to test this. However, I'm sure Cambridge University have done a better job than I ever could. If they're convinced enough to publish this, I'm not sure how you would go about disproving it!

However, if I was going to try growing BBA, I think I would:
- seed the tank with BBA algae
- add mature aquarium water / gravel / pebbles to transfer in heterotrophic bacteria. Alternatively, organics from the mechanical filter
- dechlorinate the water. Don't use glutaraldehyde
- provide a substrate to grow on with a high Carbon/Nitrogen ratio (C/N ratio), e.g. driftwood, damaged slow growing leaves, melting crypts.
- add a source of carbohydrate. There are shrimp farmers who cultivate heterotrophic bacteria for the shrimp to eat, who add carbohydrates to the water as an energy source for the bacteria (I think molasses was mentioned). They aimed for a C/N ratio > 10
- provide O2, CO2 (bicarbonates) and ammonia to feed the bacteria and grow the size of the population
- add vitamin B12 and / or switch off O2 for periods to stimulate B12 production
- provide CO2, ammonium and phosphate for algae growth
- add nutrients, to ensure no deficiencies 
- consider adding limestone to buffer water, provide bicarbonate to prevent pH dropping too low
- keep temperature between 20 and 25 deg C
- provide light at between 50 and 70 PAR for 12 hours (found a paper, but still trying to figure what the results mean, but suggestion is that algae prefer lower light for longer)


----------



## AndyMcD

sciencefiction said:


> It's irrelevant which nutrient the plant is deficient in. It's got similar response whether it's iron, other micros, nitrogen or potassium, Co2, etc...,



Sciencefiction, I agree with this. 

I suspect that this leads to the plants releasing organics, which feeds the heterotrophic bacteria.

I wonder if this increases with light intensity, with insufficient CO2.

I can't find much evidence that algae likes high light intensity. Autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria don't need light.


----------



## NC10

No scientific reply from me, but I had BBA in my heavily fed but heavily filtered tank, in low light and in high light areas. Only thing in common with where the BBA grew was that it was a high flow area.

I either scraped the wood to remove it, or dosed the rocks with easycarbo to kill it and just reduced the flow significantly. A month on and no reappearance, job done.


----------



## Yo-han

High flow or close to the filter where B12 was produced


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> I think there is some process in the leaves of healthy plants that involves h202 and therefore keeps algae at bay. I've read about this but I am not sure of all the details.



This paper discusses the role of H2O2 in plants, including when under stress "
The role of hydrogen peroxide in regulation of plant metabolism and cellular signalling in response to environmental stresses"

http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/1_2007/39.pdf


----------



## BruceF

I can’t say I understand all this but my limited understanding is that healthy plants have a number of defense mechanisms against algae. (PH is another one I believe)  The point being that healthy plants don’t host algae.

I suspect that it is the o2 levels that affect the bacteria colonies and alter that balance that are the catalysts for most if not all algae problems. (More decay, less o2 perhaps more b12. )


The key thing being orp or redox or some other chemistry I don’t understand. 

(I take large doses of b12 all the time for an anemia problem I have. So I have a ready supply. )


----------



## sciencefiction

AndyMcD said:


> I wonder if this increases with light intensity, with insufficient CO2



If we're talking about anubias, it obviously doesn't like high light. But it surely doesn't care about high CO2 much. And a tank never runs out of CO2 completely. Plus higher light doesn't always mean the plants run out of CO2. Higher light lowers the CO2 compensation point in some plants. Higher CO2 lowers the light compensation point. But neither can do anything about compensating for a nutrient deficiency.  

Experience wise, when the sun starts blazing at my small tank next to the window(in the summer this happens until 10pm in the evening as it's still bright here at 11ppm on the longest days), I keep getting nitrogen deficiency on my stem plants and I also got green spot algae this summer on a few anubias leaves, which went away with a few generous feedings of actual fish food as I've got no phosphate. I've never got BBA in there. There isn't much stock in the tank, just shrimp and they aren't fed every day so the tank is low in organics as well I suppose. But for the most year the tank is spotless clean of any algae as it is right now. I just snapped off the green spot on the anubias leaves and haven't seen that algae since. What I am trying to say is that light doesn't trigger BBA, but more likely other nutrient related algae.

Green dust is also one of those that tends to appear when light is a bit too much but I think it's one of those algae types that likes higher nutrient content.  I once put two containers on the window sill with floating plants(salvinia). I dosed one with all sorts of ferts and left the other with just tank water. In a few weeks the one with the ferts was covered in green dust algae and the one without had no algae at all but the floating plants in it weren't looking as good.


----------



## AndyMcD

Sciencefiction, thanks for the reply. 

I went away on holiday and came back to some of my anubias covered in BBA. 

Only in mid summer does the sun swing around far enough to shine on the tank. I'd had a little bit of a BBA issue before I went away, in the sunniest spot. 

Before going away I'd applied neat Easycarbo, but didn't realise that I had burnt the leaves. It was the affected spots on the leaves where the BBA was worse. This made me wonder if the bacteria breaking down the damaged leaves could have a relationship with the growth of the algae.

However, I don't understand why brighter light causes algae issues, especially on anubias.

According to this paper, Rhodophyta algae prefer lower light intensities (65 vs 300 PAR), but longer photoperiods (16 hours vs 8 hours) and warmer temperatures (20 to 25 deg C).

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...in_culture/links/555ca06208ae6f4dcc8bc9a2.pdf

In mid summer, the uncontrolled light due to a brighter room could effectively be making the photoperiod a lot longer, which may help the photosynthesising algae. 

The autotrophic bacteria on the leaves may not have liked the blue light / UV from the direct sunlight. If the autotrophic bacteria have become dormant or died, then the heterotrophic bacteria could have gained the surface area.

The heterotrophic bacteria doesn't care about light.

If the conditions were ideal for the algae, could they be creating more organics for the H. bacteria with the correct building blocks it needs to create vitamins. The sunlight may provide more energy to make this possible.

Sunlight may warm the water, which may be helping the algae grow. Henry's law may mean that the water can support less oxygen, favouring the H. bacteria and inhibiting the A. bacteria. A drop in oxygen may mean that the H. bacteria begun to act anaerobically and produced more vitamin B12.

However, what has any of this got to do with anubias leaves in particular? Why do anubias have to be in the shade? Why does the algae grow on the leaves and not the rocks?

As you say, anubias aren't massively dependent on CO2. They aren't fast growing.

I wondered if slow growing plants are more susceptible as biofilm is able to build up on them more easily, a fast growing expanding leaf stretches the biofilm.

Or do anubias leaves release organic carbons which the H. bacteria thrive on when they are stressed? Could the leaves be the perfect C/ N ratio for the H. Bacteria?


----------



## sciencefiction

AndyMcD said:


> However, what has any of this got to do with anubias leaves in particular? Why do anubias have to be in the shade? Why does the algae grow on the leaves and not the rocks?



I've got anubias with leaves that are probably 5 years old, as old as the plant.  I'd presume that although they may seem fine to me visibly, they need to be removed because of being organic factory bombs. I am not sure why anubias does better in lower light. Perhaps it's not the light the problem but a combination of things. To keep several years old leaves healthy looking is a challenge, bigger than growing stem plants in a co2 injected tank. Because once anubias get riddled with algae, you need to wait all over again for ages for it to regrow even if you fix the cause. So it's just safer having it in a shaded place.


----------



## sciencefiction

Here's a picture of an anubias plant I've had for 5-6 years. It's in the tank next to the window. For an anubias plant, it gets enough light where the tank is, plus artificial.  I chopped off half of it last year because it took over the entire substrate surface and my stem plants couldn't go through when I trimmed them. It absolutely started flourishing a couple of years back when I put soil underneath the sand. It has "wear and tear" but no algae, no BBA and the tank only has snails and shrimp as inhabitants so I doubt it there's much organics. On another hand another tank of mine at the same time for the same period of time had anubias riddled with BBA, overstocked tank as well, plus inert sand and anubias hanging from driftwood and stones and not planted in the substrate, except for one bunch. No direct sunlight there.


----------



## AndyMcD

sciencefiction said:


> I've got anubias with leaves that are probably 5 years old, as old as the plant.  I'd presume that although they may seem fine to me visibly, they need to be removed because of being organic factory bombs.



This makes sense. Either:

- the leaves begin to signal (hormones / enzymes) that they're getting old (although they look fine) and the heterotrophic bacteria respond by building up a population on them. Keeping them shaded prevents this becoming an algae issue also, as there is less light energy for the algae spores to germinate and grow. Grazing clean up crew may keep the biofilm down and remove ungerminated spores 

OR

- the leaves are able to stay on the plant longer because they're able to continuously replace the cells (this brush is ten years old - I've only replaced the head three times and the handle twice!), continually shedding old cells and replacing with new. The heterotrophic bacteria feed on the ejected old cells and respond by building up a population on them ... (as above).

There is definitely something fundamentally different about old leaves in comparison to new that the BBA responds to. I have crypts where one older leaf (but still OK looking) is riddled but new leaves are fine. As the heterotrophic bacteria are the organisms that break down the leaves eventually, are they just getting in early or do dying leaves just do a good impression of looking OK for a while. Maybe to keep on top of BBA, a ruthless attitude to pruning is essential. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> The point being that healthy plants don’t host algae.
> 
> I suspect that it is the o2 levels that affect the bacteria colonies and alter that balance that are the catalysts for most if not all algae problems. (More decay, less o2 perhaps more b12. )
> 
> (I take large doses of b12 all the time for an anemia problem I have. So I have a ready supply. )



BruceF,

I agree with the points you made.

Since starting read about B12, I've become much more aware of how important to our health it is too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

NC10 said:


> I had BBA in my heavily fed but heavily filtered tank, in low light and in high light areas. Only thing in common with where the BBA grew was that it was a high flow area.



NC10,

In terms of BBA, flow seems to have the potential to be both a good and a bad thing.

In a clean and healthy tank, flow and distribution are essential for getting the CO2 and the nutrients in the water column to the plants. However, it may also be playing a role in terms of getting O2, ammonia, nitrite, bicarbonate to the autotrophic bacteria, not only in the filter but also on the surfaces and in the substrate.

However, I've also read on the forum that flow stirring up the substrate can cause issues. 

The filter plays a role in capturing organics, which if they aren't removed by regular cleaning could mean that your filter becomes a heterotrophic bacteria factory. Yo-Han's suggested reading talks about this. As Yo-Han points out, particularly if the filter became clogged with organics, overwhelmed with heterotrophic bacteria and was becoming anaerobic, it could be spraying out vitamin B12 etc for the BBA to grow.

I can't quite remember, but I'm sure in one of the papers about producing vitamin B12 using Pseudomonas Denitrificans bacteria, they were mixing at 450 RPM.

The point is, if your water column is full of organics and oxygen (from photosynthesising plants) flow may also enable the heterotrophic bacteria population to flourish. 

BBA in a high flow area has access to a greater quantity of passing nutrients.

Excessive flow may also damage plants.

Perhaps flow is an accelerator pedal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Temperature could be another accelerator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

So one thing I've observed is that when CO2 drops, non-filamentous algae grows on leaves of certain plants.  If it's an issue with bacterial imbalance, why would this occur?  Does this suggest that it's an issue with lower O2 levels?  And why doesn't algae grow when plants are in a non-CO2-added tank?


----------



## zozo

Guest said:


> If it's an issue with bacterial imbalance, why would this occur?



If its an imballance is debatable  but from what i understand of the whole story for short is: If there is to much or an excess of detritus (plant melt) there will be more bacteria pressent feasting on this. These bacteria secrete a stuff enzyme/vitamine which is a fert for algae.. I also observe that plant melt seems to induce algae growth.. I see algae on melting leaftips. I especialy noticed this on the potamogeton, first melt and than staghorn developing on those tips if not emediati;ly removed.  SO it looks like there's something to the story..


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> So one thing I've observed is that when CO2 drops, non-filamentous algae grows


This model is suggested for BBA. I don't think it will apply to all algae (although it may apply to some others). One of the papers referring to vitamin B12 dependency stated that it only applied to about 50% of the species of algae they had investigated.



Guest said:


> algae grows on leaves of certain plants



Please read on as I've read another paper which I think may be of interest.



Guest said:


> And why doesn't algae grow when plants are in a non-CO2-added tank?



I think it can, can't it? One of my tanks has a goldfish in it. I frequently buy it Elodea to munch on. I used to have active carbon in the filter, which I changed infrequently. I was getting BBA growing on the driftwood, particularly where the sun hit the driftwood at certain times of the day. I keep a spray bar rippling the surface at all times. High organics (decaying plant matter / clogged active carbon), high C/N ratio (driftwood), high(ish) ammonia (due to goldfish), high light (for short periods), O2 & CO2 (due to surface ripple). Since I replaced the active carbon with filter media, paid more attention to cleaning the filter foam, scrubbed the driftwood, the BBA has reduced.



zozo said:


> If its an imballance is debatable



To fit all the anecdotal evidence, it seems necessary for the nitrifying bacteria to suffer (e.g. increased ammonia). To create the compounds (spermine / spermidine) that red algae need to reproduce, the Urea cycle seems to be the start of the process. If the nitrifying bacteria are working at full capacity, ammonia / urea should be converted to nitrates and there may be insufficient concentration for the algae to reproduce.



zozo said:


> from what i understand of the whole story for short is: If there is to much or an excess of detritus (plant melt) there will be more bacteria pressent feasting on this. These bacteria secrete a stuff enzyme/vitamine which is a fert for algae.



Yes, that's about it.



zozo said:


> I also observe that plant melt seems to induce algae growth.. I see algae on melting leaftips. I especialy noticed this on the potamogeton, first melt and than staghorn developing on those tips if not emediati;ly removed.



Please read on. Potamogeton is relevant.

Previously, I was discussing with ScienceFiction why anubias leaves are more susceptible to algae, especially in bright light. I did another Google search and found this paper, which I think is quite interesting:
"Photosynthetic HCO3- Utilization and OH- Excretion in Aquatic Angiosperms (Light-Induced pH Changes At The Leaf Surface)" http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/66/5/818.full.pdf

I hope the following sketch may help explain what they measured:


 

They measured what happened to the leaves of Potamogeton lucens, Elodea densa and Elodea Canadensis when light was shone onto them. These plants are able to use negatively charged bicarbonate ions (HCO3-) as their carbon source, splitting them into CO2 and an OH- ion (a negatively charged ion responsible for increasing pH).

They found that when the lights were on, there was a higher concentration of OH- ions released from / accumulating on the upper surface of the leaf, increasing the pH (+2.5 pH) and also creating a negative charge. On the under side of the leaf, there was a corresponding drop in the pH. This effect was most significant in Potamogeton lucens.

These effects were reversed when the lights were switched off.

I think this is of real interest in this discussion for the following reasons:

1. This effect would be greatest in plants that are able to utilise bicarbonate as well as CO2 as their carbon source (plants from hardwater environments). This effect would be greatest for those plants where there is a distance in the leaf between where the bicarbonate is drawn in and the OH- ions flow out. This would provide a fundamental difference between types of plants (as some are less able to utilise bicarbonate), which may mean some are more susceptible than others.

2. A separate paper stated that plants typically prefer to use CO2 rather than bicarbonate as their carbon source, as it requires less energy to fix the carbon. Therefore, when there is an excess of CO2 available in the water, this effect may be less (no OH- ions therefore no increase in pH or charge with CO2). However, if CO2 is reduced, these plants may go to the next best thing and absorb bicarbonates, causing this effect to occur.

3. This effect is dependant on light intensity. Increase the light and (providing there is sufficient bicarbonate available) this effect will increase. The following paper suggests that Audouinella Pygmaea and Audouinella Hermannii both prefer longer photoperiods (16 hours) and lower light (65 PAR), which suggests increasing the light intensity won't necessarily be optimum for the algae. Could this increase in light intensity effect the bacteria in some way?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1835.2001.00230.x/abstract

4. The Wikipedia entry for Nitrosomonas (autotrophic bacteria) states that the optimum pH range is between a pH of 6.0 and 9.0. In this experiment, the pH on the Potamogeton leaves reached a pH of almost 11.0. Could such an increase lead to the autotrophic bacteria becoming dormant / stop nitrifying / being overrun by the heterotrophic bacteria? The autotrophic bacteria are a million times more efficient at producing nitrites and nitrates than the heterotrophic bacteria. On the microscopic scale, does this production of a high concentration of nitrites / nitrates provide a defence mechanism, allowing the autotrophic bacteria to defend a surface and stop themselves from being overrun by the heterotrophic bacteria? If the light intensity increased and hence the pH on certain types of leaves increased and pushed the autotrophic bacteria beyond their upper limit, could they be overrun? Even if the pH exceeded the upper limit for both types of bacteria, the heterotrophic bacteria are more able to re-colonise as their populations can increase in size much more quickly. Once they have colonised the surface, are they then better able to support the BBA?

5. A potential difference in charge was measured between the upper and lower surfaces of the leaf, with the upper surface being more negative. Does this imply that charged ions close to the surface of the leaf would experience a potential difference gradient. Would negatively charged ions (e.g. HCO3-, HPO4 2-) flow across the upper surface towards the edge? Would positively charged ions (e.g. NH4+) flow across the lower surface of the leaf towards the edge? Could the charged particles be accumulating at the edge of the leaf ... where algae grows the best?

I could not find evidence of similar experiments performed on anubias leaves. Could this effect be the reason why anubias leaves should be grown in the shade to avoid algae? They may be better able to utilise bicarbonates. Their leaves are thick and may offer a spatial separation between the upper and lower surfaces.


----------



## BruceF

Good job Andy.  I can tell you I recently redid a tank and increased the light intensity which caused the anubias to melt at an alarming rate. Within a week almost all the leaves on four rhizomes each at least 6 inches long melted.  The only surviving leaves were new.  I since moved it all and I have begun regrowing it in another tank.  I might note that in that time I saw no algae on the leaves. fwiw.


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF, sorry to hear that. As the plants were new, this could be due to them having been grown emersed (out of the water) and the change in being kept under water. That is certainly the case with Crypts.

Also, you may not yet have been infected by BBA. My planted tank didn't have BBA (it had everything else) until I received a plant that had been grown on (for a while) in a store. I didn't realise, put the plant, still in the pot, into my aquarium and wondered what it could be growing on the plant. Never been rid of some BBA ever since.

Hopefully if the rhizomes have survived, they will make a full recovery.

Thanks for the support. Andy


----------



## zozo

AndyMcD said:


> which I think is quite interesting:
> "Photosynthetic HCO3- Utilization and OH- Excretion in Aquatic Angiosperms (Light-Induced pH Changes At The Leaf Surface)"


It is. 
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/white-fungus-like-dots-on-anubias-making-my-fish-sick.37756/


----------



## BruceF

Oh no the plants were not new. I had grown all that out over the years from a single cutting,  I just moved them from one tank to another and made a mistake with the light. My point was simply about the plants reaction to the new light.  I've found the easiest way to clean up an anubias is to take it out of the tank and spray it with h202 and clean it with a soft toothbrush.


----------



## AndyMcD

zozo said:


> It is.
> http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/white-fungus-like-dots-on-anubias-making-my-fish-sick.37756/



That's really interesting!

The alternative proposed here is that it is the bright light, the plant photosynthesising using HCO3- as its carbon source, an accumulation of OH- ions accumulating on the leaf which is attracting the Ca+ ions to accumulate on the surface (perhaps re-combining and depositing as CaCO3).

Great to see this effect on anubias.

Much appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> Oh no the plants were not new. I had grown all that out over the years from a single cutting,  I just moved them from one tank to another and made a mistake with the light. My point was simply about the plants reaction to the new light.  I've found the easiest way to clean up an anubias is to take it out of the tank and spray it with h202 and clean it with a soft toothbrush.



BruceF,

Apologies.

It just seemed to be a stronger reaction to light than I was thinking. Zozo's thread seemed more in line with what I was expecting. 

I've chemically burned anubias and caused then to melt by dripping on neat Easycarbo and leaving it on for too long. Might it have been too much H2O2 that caused the melt? 

What is working for me at the moment is lifting the anubias tied to stones out of the aquarium when I do a water change and putting them in a one litre box with 3ml of Easycarbo for about 15 minutes. However, H2O2 sounds really good too.

Andy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zozo

AndyMcD said:


> That's really interesting!
> 
> The alternative proposed here is that it is the bright light, the plant photosynthesising using HCO3- as its carbon source, an accumulation of OH- ions accumulating on the leaf which is attracting the Ca+ ions to accumulate on the surface (perhaps re-combining and depositing as CaCO3).
> 
> Great to see this effect on anubias.
> 
> Much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



So who needs a PAR meter??  We all should plant a Potamogeton..   Sorry......


----------



## AndyMcD

That's funny !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Yo-han

AndyMcD said:


> The Wikipedia entry for Nitrosomonas (autotrophic bacteria) states that the optimum pH range is between a pH of 6.0 and 9.0. In this experiment, the pH on the Potamogeton leaves reached a pH of almost 11.0. Could such an increase lead to the autotrophic bacteria becoming dormant / stop nitrifying / being overrun by the heterotrophic bacteria? The autotrophic bacteria are a million times more efficient at producing nitrites and nitrates than the heterotrophic bacteria. On the microscopic scale, does this production of a high concentration of nitrites / nitrates provide a defence mechanism, allowing the autotrophic bacteria to defend a surface and stop themselves from being overrun by the heterotrophic bacteria? If the light intensity increased and hence the pH on certain types of leaves increased and pushed the autotrophic bacteria beyond their upper limit, could they be overrun? Even if the pH exceeded the upper limit for both types of bacteria, the heterotrophic bacteria are more able to re-colonise as their populations can increase in size much more quickly. Once they have colonised the surface, are they then better able to support the BBA?



If this is the case, than more flow should help to even out the pH issue and thus less BBA would grow... The ever recommended 10x flow isn't a bad idea in that case.


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-Han, good point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceF

Biofilms are pretty complicated things.  As a biofilm builds up it can create its own anaerobic conditions within the layers.  Besides bacteria there can be fungi and yeasts and I don’t know what else. It is very complicated stuff and after a while all I can say is aufwuchs.


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF, I think you're spot on, biofilms do appear to be really complicated. 

I realise that I've ignored huge amounts of biology and chemistry in this proposal, but in my mind it seems to fit quite well as a framework, if you start to consider the impact the bacteria may be having and how they relate to the anecdotal evidence.

I wondered whether the maturity / thickness of biofilms has a role to play in algae growth too. Biofilms are secreted by bacteria (and other organisms), therefore the bigger the population on a surface, the more biofilm there may be. Do algae spores first attach to sticky biofilm before they put down roots? New leaves wouldn't have had time for biofilm to build up. Old leaves have. Is this part of the reason why older leaves are more effected? Does a fast growing leaf stretch the biofilm? Does the depth not reach a critical depth to let algae take off? Regarding the OH- ions, does the biofilm create a non or semi-conducting surface, allowing charge to build up or flow to the edges, but not completely disperse?

Not at all sure. As you say, very complicated when you start looking at them.


----------



## BruceF

Not that I understand it but…………….

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/28022/1/gupea_2077_28022_1.pdf



Microcolony growth

One of the inherent properties of nitrifying bacteria in biofilms is their ability to

form microcolonies of varying size, shape and density (eg Schramm et al., 1996,

Schramm et al., 1999, Gieseke et al., 2003, Okabe et al., 2004, Hallin et al., 2005,

Papers I-IV, Fig. 6). These microcolonies are often structurally stable and difficult

to disintegrate without killing the bacteria (Larsen et al., 2008, Frank Persson,

persson-al communication) and it was recently shown that production of

extracellular DNA (eDNA) provides structural strength to the microcolonies which

contained high amounts of these molecules (Dominiak et al., 2011). Okabe et al.,

(2004) measured how nitrifier microcolony average size varied with depth and

organic carbon availability in the medium. They observed that AOB microcolony

size was rather constant throughout the biofilm when organic carbon was not

added. In contrast, size distribution was significantly stratified in the biofilm

39

residing in a reactor with a C/N ratio of 1, probably an effect of heterotrophic

bacteria outcompeting autotrophic nitrifiers in the surface layers of the biofilm,

where AOB microcolony size was the smallest. Gieseke et al., (2003) also observed

hetereogenous size distribution of AOB microcolonies and reported that

Nitrosococcus mobilis microcolonies were smaller in less densely populated biofilm

regions, whereas larger ones were often found together with AOB from the

Nitrosomonas europaea/eutropha lineage (cluster 7). In addition, Okabe et al., (2004)

observed that microcolonies of two different groups of AOB, belonging to

Nitrosomonas and Nitrosospira respectively, differed in their areal cell density and it

was speculated that the looser colonies of Nitrosospira would facilitate oxygen and

ammonium diffusion which could partly compensate for a lower growth rate. Such

loose microcolony structures have also been observed in Nitrosococcus mobilis

(Gieseke et al., 2003) and Nitrospira (Daims et al., 2001a). Microcolony

disintegration in Nitrospira has been reported as an effect of nitrate accumulation in

the system (Spieck et al., 2006). Spieck and colleagues (2006) hypothesized that

switching from microcolony to planctonic growth would be a straightforward way

of escaping detrimental changes in environmental conditions. Furthermore, it was

shown for the AOB N. europaea that NO gas functions as a signal for switching

between planctonic and biofilm growth (Schmidt et al., 2004a). Thus, several

observations indicate that nitrifier microcolony size distribution and density reflects

the ecophysiology of the organisms and the conditions prevailing in their

environment. Further discussion on this topic is found in the “Conclusions and


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> They observed that AOB microcolony
> size was rather constant throughout the biofilm when organic carbon was not
> added. In contrast, size distribution was significantly stratified in the biofilm
> residing in a reactor with a C/N ratio of 1, probably an effect of heterotrophic bacteria outcompeting autotrophic nitrifiers in the surface layers of the biofilm, where AOB microcolony size was the smallest.



BruceF, thank you very much. The few sentences above really leapt out at me. Does this confirm that with a rising Organic Carbon / Nitrogen (C/N) ratio, the autotrophic bacteria are being out competed by the heterotrophic bacteria? 

A figure of C/N > 1 is also mentioned in the following paper. This paper talks about how best to utilise nitrogen compounds in an intensive shrimp farming business, using autotrophic bacteria, heterotrophic bacteria or algae. They found that autotrophic bacteria functions best when C/N ratio < 1. Once the C/N ratio exceeds this, the heterotrophic bacteria begin to dominate.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860600216X


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF,

Just a few more things I'd like to highlight from your last post:



BruceF said:


> These microcolonies are often structurally stable and difficult to disintegrate without killing the bacteria (Larsen et al., 2008, Frank Persson,



Clean up crew (e.g. Otocinclus) grazing on the biofilm may break up the biofilm.



BruceF said:


> Nitrosomonas and Nitrosospira respectively, differed in their areal cell density and it was speculated that the looser colonies of Nitrosospira would facilitate oxygen and ammonium diffusion which could partly compensate for a lower growth rate.



Nitrosomonas (ammonia to nitrite) has the supply of the ammonium and oxygen it requires facilitated by Nitrospira (nitrite to nitrate). Interesting that they grow close together and help each other out.


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> Furthermore, it was shown for the AOB N. europaea that NO gas functions as a signal for switching between planctonic and biofilm growth (Schmidt et al., 2004a). Thus, several
> observations indicate that nitrifier microcolony size distribution and density reflects the ecophysiology of the organisms and the conditions prevailing in their environment



If heterotrophic bacteria function anaerobically, they can convert nitrites / nitrates to NO and then Nitrogen, completing the nitrogen cycle. 

NO may signal to the AOB that a large population of Heterotrophic bacteria exists that has insufficient oxygen to function aerobically. Their response is to build up biofilm to protect themselves.


----------



## BruceF

{ASIDE} 
The story of the mysterious red alga that I wrote about a couple of weeks ago (see “More than just an insignificant dot?”) has taken another intriguing turn.  Having decided that the alga was probably _Audouinella pygmaea_, I was shown a paper from 2011 by Orlando Necchi and Marianna Oliveira in which they consider the affinities of _Audouinella_ species and came to the conclusion that _Audouinella pygmaea_ only really exists in the imaginations of people who write identification guides. I’ve written before about the complicated life history of red algae (see “The schizophrenic life of red algae …”) and commented that it can be hard to differentiate between simple red algae such as _Audouinella_ and stages in the life history of more complicated red algae.
https://microscopesandmonsters.wordpress.com/tag/audouinella/


----------



## fablau

Thank you Andy for creating this thread, I have read  it with extreme attention, and your theory fits perfectly my own experience. My tank suffers of BBA, pretty much constantly. It is the only algae that once In a while gives me real trouble. It gets stronger when I mess with substrate too much, and appears mostly on old Anubia leaves or on melting/old Valisnerias leaves. Valisnerias leaves that get BBA do have your mentioned biofilm!!

Here are some questions for you:

1. Considering that during the photoperiod (7-8 hours) my PH is always under 6.5 (6.2 exactly) due to Co2 injection, does that mean that autotrophic bacteria are likely to be dormant during that time? If so, how to solve this problem with Co2 injection?

2. I am wondering if liquid ammonia reducers can help to solve BBA issues. I have a bottle of that stuff, and added some of it to my tank after the last water change, yesterday, after reading this thread... I will let you know if it sorts any positive effect.

3. I am wondering what are the effects of adding bacterial additives.... Which bacteria are added by using generic bacteria additives? Can they help increasing the autotrophic population in some way? Or can that be detrimental because heterotrophic could accumulate even more? Is there ad additive that adds just autotrophic bacteria?

I am trying to find a practical way to apply your theory when BBA is present in the tank. I am eager to know your thoughts on all this. Thank you!


----------



## BruceF

Maybe I am a little off track here but since we are talking about what I assume is a form of red algae


I don’t know how one copies from this link but see if you can get to page 448 and read the summary.

This is from the summary and relates to freshwater red algae.

“In general all morphological forms can be found in low PO4 concentrations ….”  That along with neutral to acid ph and lots of light.

https://books.google.com/books?id=F...q=periphyton and fresh water red alga&f=false


----------



## AndyMcD

Fablau, I'm really pleased to hear that you think that this theory has a good fit with your experience with BBA. 

Like you, I'm struggling with BBA. I suspect that once you have it, the best we can hope to do is manage it. 

There are many more people on this forum who are far more experienced and better able to advise you. 

Unlike most, I've probably spent more time reading around this hobby rather than actually doing. This theory seemed to fit well with others experiences and recognised controls (backed up by scientific data).

The better you understand a problem, the more you can do to control it.

Based on this theory, I'll give you my thoughts. They're mostly controls others have found to work. However, I'll propose other reasons why they may work.

1. According to the Biocon Labs website autotrophic bacteria function less well at around a pH of 6.5 and stop functioning at about 6.0. 

Having said that I have read elsewhere that there are a variety of species of Autotrophic bacteria, some of which may be able to cope with pH levels outside this range. 

Therefore, you may see an increase in ammonia at your highest concentration of CO2, lowest pH, if the autotrophic bacteria are switching off.

Practically, limestone in an aquascape (e.g. ADA Seiryu or Ryouh) will lead to an increase in initial pH. If your aquascape would allow it, you could perhaps add some additional limestone rock to help buffer the water, perhaps preventing the pH dropping as low.

2. Ammonia is the main compound required by the nitrifying bacteria, as well as being a potential compound required by the BBA. 

Managing the concentration of ammonia, rather than eliminating it would seem to be correct to me. 

Ammonia is produced through fish waste and heterotrophic bacteria breaking down proteins and amino acids in organic carbons.

Practically, removing waste and a water change would help to reduce the source and concentration of ammonia. This will help to starve the heterotrophic bacteria of organic carbon.

Consider cleaning your filter to remove organics, to remove the heterotrophic bacteria's food source and improve the conditions for the autotrophic bacteria. The Autotrophic bacteria will be better able to compete, converting ammonia to nitrates.

Adding a liquid ammonia remover may help, but it may be a short term fix. It may not remove the source of ammonia (too many organics) and if used to excess it may limit the ammonia available to the nitrifying bacteria. Perhaps use with caution.

3. ADA produce Bacter 100 to help create the correct bacterial populations in the substrate.

The Biocon website suggests that you should take care in terms of the bacteria products that you can add http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html

Once bacteria is in your aquarium (which you'll struggle to avoid) the population size will vary significantly with the environmental conditions. The population of the heterotrophic bacteria are able to respond much more quickly than the autotrophic bacteria to changes in the environment. 

Therefore, minimising the organic carbon waste in your aquarium to constrain the population of heterotrophic bacteria enables the autotrophic bacteria to be better able to compete for surface area and oxygen.


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> “In general all morphological forms can be found in low PO4 concentrations ….” That along with neutral to acid ph and lots of light.



I think the real weakness with this theory is that it doesn't explain why you get a worse algae outbreak in bright light.

For algae, as a photosynthesising organism, light equates to energy for growth. 

However, I've quoted an experiment previously which found that in terms of growth, red algae grew most in lower light intensity (65 PAR vs 300 PAR).

PO4 is essential to photosynthesising plants and algae. It is used in the Calvin cycle to produce the compound ATP, which organisms use to store energy.

When heterotrophic bacteria break down organics, such as plant material, they release PO4 into the water column, which is re-absorbed by other organisms.

PO4 can frequently be a limiting nutrient. An increase in organics, may mean an increase in heterotrophic bacteria and hence an increase in released phosphates in the water column. 

Removal of a PO4 limitation due to a heterotrophic bacteria outbreak may lead to algae being able to store more energy through photosynthesis, which it in turn means it may be able to release organic carbon for the benefit of the heterotrophic bacteria.

However, as your quote says, red algae can be found in PO4 limited environments.

Low pH may affect the autotrophic bacteria, leading to an increase in ammonia concentration.


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> 1. According to the Biocon Labs website autotrophic bacteria function less well at around a pH of 6.5 and stop functioning at about 6.0.
> 
> Having said that I have read elsewhere that there are a variety of species of Autotrophic bacteria, some of which may be able to cope with pH levels outside this range.
> 
> Therefore, you may see an increase in ammonia at your highest concentration of CO2, lowest pH, if the autotrophic bacteria are switching off.
> 
> Practically, limestone in an aquascape (e.g. ADA Seiryu or Ryouh) will lead to an increase in initial pH. If your aquascape would allow it, you could perhaps add some additional limestone rock to help buffer the water, perhaps preventing the pH dropping as low.



This might be a good idea... Even though my water is a already pretty hard (GH 13, KH 7). Thanks for the tip!



AndyMcD said:


> 2. Ammonia is the main compound required by the nitrifying bacteria, as well as being a potential compound required by the BBA.
> 
> Managing the concentration of ammonia, rather than eliminating it would seem to be correct to me.
> 
> Ammonia is produced through fish waste and heterotrophic bacteria breaking down proteins and amino acids in organic carbons.
> 
> Practically, removing waste and a water change would help to reduce the source and concentration of ammonia. This will help to starve the heterotrophic bacteria of organic carbon.
> 
> Consider cleaning your filter to remove organics, to remove the heterotrophic bacteria's food source and improve the conditions for the autotrophic bacteria. The Autotrophic bacteria will be better able to compete, converting ammonia to nitrates.
> 
> Adding a liquid ammonia remover may help, but it may be a short term fix. It may not remove the source of ammonia (too many organics) and if used to excess it may limit the ammonia available to the nitrifying bacteria. Perhaps use with caution.



Yes, of course my idea of using ammonia reducers would be just a temporary solution or, better, a preventive help "whenever needed". For example, whenever we mess with the substrate, we could add some of that stuff after the water change, just to reduce ammonia spikes. 



AndyMcD said:


> 3. ADA produce Bacter 100 to help create the correct bacterial populations in the substrate.
> 
> The Biocon website suggests that you should take care in terms of the bacteria products that you can add http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html
> 
> Once bacteria is in your aquarium (which you'll struggle to avoid) the population size will vary significantly with the environmental conditions. The population of the heterotrophic bacteria are able to respond much more quickly than the autotrophic bacteria to changes in the environment.
> 
> Therefore, minimising the organic carbon waste in your aquarium to constrain the population of heterotrophic bacteria enables the autotrophic bacteria to be better able to compete for surface area and oxygen.



Hmm... Thank for the link, my concerns were founded then. In a ideal world, we should know what strains of bacteria are inside any bacteria additive. Unfortunately most commercial products don't even state the name of the included bacteria, making difficult to understand the possible consequences once introduced in the tank. Would be cool if we could have an additive with just autotrophic bacteria in it 

Anyhow, thank you for your detail reply, appreciated!


----------



## BruceF

I think anubias is a plant that doesn't do well without enough phosphate in the first place. Also it seems to be a plant that doesn't prefer to be in high light. So I am thinking more about what is causing the defense mechanisms within the plant to fail to prevent the algae from growing on it in the first place. That suggests to me that less light and more phosphate might have prevented this problem in the first place.  Though I would be the first to admit that I am simply speculating.


----------



## Guest

Anubias needs higher concentrations of phosphate to grow well, as do many ferns.


----------



## fablau

I wish I could edit what I posted above,  it looks like with Tapatalk I can't. After reading this very interesting article suggested by Andy above:

http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html

I have found listed, at the end, the name of some commercial products with nitrifying (autotrophic) bacteria inside (!!) I am sorry I missed those at first. Thank you Andy!


----------



## fablau

BruceF said:


> I think anubias is a plant that doesn't do well without enough phosphate in the first place. Also it seems to be a plant that doesn't prefer to be in high light. So I am thinking more about what is causing the defense mechanisms within the plant to fail to prevent the algae from growing on it in the first place. That suggests to me that less light and more phosphate might have prevented this problem in the first place.  Though I would be the first to admit that I am simply speculating.




Bruce, I have plenty of Po4 in my water, and my Anubias sometimes suffer of BBA no matter if they are under light or not. Actually the worse affected leaves are the ones more in shadow!

I guess, at least in my case, I need to look at the amount of Co2 I inject (a lot, maybe too much?), oxygen level and PH level, all important elements to consider for autotrophic bacteria to correctly do their job, as we have been discussing so far.


----------



## AndyMcD

Fablau, do you have many fast growing, oxygenating plants, converting the CO2 to oxygen?


----------



## BruceF

One other thing is to clean your filters.


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> Fablau, do you have many fast growing, oxygenating plants, converting the CO2 to oxygen?



Yes, I Do. I have fast growers like Hygros, Ambulias and Miriophillum. Hygros are real weeds. All fast growers are doing excellently.


----------



## fablau

BruceF said:


> One other thing is to clean your filters.



I have a wet/dry filter. I clean the pre-filter regularly, but I don't touch much the bio filter. Am I doing it right?


----------



## BruceF

Oh I just meant that as a general observation.  I’ve never used a wet dry filter.  The point really is to keep up the water flow and prevent the media from clogging up to keep the bacteria healthy.  I took apart one of my own canisters last week after a few months and there was a lot of brown gunk in there. 

I think the ADA people like to pump air into their tanks at night.  I assume that is to keep the o2 levels as high as possible.


----------



## fablau

BruceF said:


> Oh I just meant that as a general observation.  I’ve never used a wet dry filter.  The point really is to keep up the water flow and prevent the media from clogging up to keep the bacteria healthy.  I took apart one of my own canisters last week after a few months and there was a lot of brown gunk in there.
> 
> I think the ADA people like to pump air into their tanks at night.  I assume that is to keep the o2 levels as high as possible.



Yes, canister filters may really clog easily. Wet drys can clog too in the prefilter section, that's why I clean my pre filter every 2 weeks before water change.

ADA is right, mostly if you have a canister filter. Wet drys add a lot of oxygen by itself already.


----------



## BruceF

Why then would you have a bacterial problem?


----------



## AndyMcD

As BruceF has said, if you have a canister filter, it can capture lots of organics over time and rather than being a great home for nitrifying bacteria, it can become an ideal home for the heterotrophic bacteria.

The autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria are competing for surface area and oxygen. Providing the heterotrophic have a supply of carbon, their population size can increase even if oxygen begins to run out. Although a reduction in oxygen is a major issue for the nitrifying bacteria, for the heterotrophic bacteria they're not only able to survive, but may be able to produce other compounds more readily (Industrial production of vitamin B12 discussed previously). As Yo-Han pointed out previously, your filter may start pushing out vitamin B12 and unprocessed ammonia into your aquarium.

The wet/dry filter provides a surface area and oxygen. Do you think you're providing a good home for the nitrifying bacteria? Do you think the bio filter could be full of organics? Does the pre-filter take it all out? You mentioned you were considering using ammonia reducers.

I guess the other question is sufficient flow. Is there enough movement to get the dissolved gases to where they need to be? Is there sufficient movement to prevent build up of organics in any places?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fablau

I may likely have a bacterial problem simply because of this: my tank is 6 years old, I find myself often to uproot plants and just messing up with the substrate which causes high amount of organics to be released in the water column, hence possible ammonia and B12 spikes. It is pretty typical in my tank to have a BBA outbreak right a week after I mess with the substrate in some way. 

Also, very important, despite I have a wet filter, I pump a lot of Co2, and not only oxygen could become low during photoperiod, but PH is also very low (6.2). After reading this thread 3 days ago, I have opened my wet/dry pre filter section a little more to better oxygenate water and raise the PH a little bit. Just experimenting for now, but I wanna see if these strains of BBA are going to disappear in the coming weeks with these measures. I will keep you posted.

As for the ammonia reducer, I have added it as directed to the last water change (3 days ago), with the intent to help autotrophic bacteria a little bit until they have multiplied enough to work what the heterotrophic ones have produced after I have messed up with the substrate a couple of weeks ago (everything makes sense Andy!)

My tank circulation is excellent though, plants grow well, here are some pictures of it taken just now, the last picture below shows you some BBA on my Anubias:


----------



## AndyMcD

Fablau, your aquarium is incredible.

 Sciencefiction, I think, highlighted that large colonies of bacteria live in the substrate and disturbing the substrate can lead to bacteria outbreaks. If your water becomes cloudy within several hours of disturbing the substrate, this could be a heterotrophic bacteria population increase. Releasing organics at this time may provide the food source. This may lead to an ammonia / B12 spike.

With high CO2, I think you'll oxygenate the water most through photosynthesis. I understood that wet/dry filters have a high gas exchange. If you open up the filter section, you may lose more CO2 too. The concentration of CO2 and O2 can both be high. O2 may be lowest before your lights switch on. A wet/dry filter may mean that your lowest O2 is higher than if you had a canister filter and low surface agitation.


----------



## AndyMcD

In the summer time only, the sun moves around in the sky far enough that the lights hits a corner of my aquarium.

Could you be getting more light / a longer photoperiod in one corner of your aquarium?


----------



## BruceF

Great tank Fablau.


----------



## Guest

So for a couple of weeks, I used less CO2 (15-25ppm) than before (30-45ppm).  BBA started growing at rates never seen, especially on the wood where it would get covered, and on some slow growing plants such as Bolbitis and Anubias.  So does the lowered CO2 concentration result in lowered O2 concentration, which results in BBA establishing and growing out of control on the wood and on some plants?

Another question regarding CO2 adaptation of plants: do plants adapt to certain levels of CO2?  If they go from high to low, will they struggle at the lower concentration?  Is this due to the increased RuBisCo enzymes and other carbon fixation pathways when grown in lower CO2 levels?  But if they go from low to high, will they thrive because of the increased CO2 fixation pathways and are able to utilize CO2 more efficiently?

If it really is an O2 issue, then shouldn't we inject O2 into our tanks?


----------



## BruceF

If you lower the co2 you lower the growth rate of the plants and thereby you lower the o2 production.  Of course you also lower the nutrient requirements of the plants and often cause a bit of dieback. 

Co2 acts just like any other nutrient. 

Lots of people inject air into their tanks at night,  Plants inject o2 into the tanks during the day.


----------



## Guest

The lowered O2 levels is to be expected, but how much lower and does this actually contribute to algae growth?

If aerating at night, wouldn't that actually lower O2 levels because it's speeding up equilibrium?


----------



## xim

Guest said:


> ...
> If it really is an O2 issue, then shouldn't we inject O2 into our tanks?



Tom Barr tried injecting pure O2 to see if it stopped algae. It didn't.
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200504/msg00021.html
I don't remember other threads where he described how he tested.

Probably a few factors combined. B12 is interesting, thanks for raising it up.


----------



## BruceF

I forget the actual numbers and times but essentially O2 levels in ponds peak about 2 in the afternoon.  I think the whole point of night time aeration is simply to prevent the co2 levels from getting too high.


----------



## Guest

But it's not the O2 that directly stops algae; it's the increase in bacteria, archaea, and other microbes.


----------



## AndyMcD

According to this theory ... a reduction in CO2 reduces the O2 produced through photosynthesis and plant growth, which means that the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria must compete for oxygen. 

When the oxygen levels reduce, the autotrophic bacteria are less able to compete and become dormant or die. Autotrophic bacteria convert CO2 as their carbon source, which requires a great deal more energy and oxygen than the heterotrophic bacteria to grow and reproduce (and function).

Heterotrophic bacteria use organic carbon molecules as their carbon source. As they consume organics, they break down proteins to release amino acids and ammonia. They also release phosphates, which photosynthesising plants and algae require (to create ATP in the Calvin cycle). Phosphates can be a limiting nutrient.

This means the nitrifying bacteria are converting less ammonia to nitrates, meaning an increase in ammonia concentration and less nitrates for the plants.

Industrial production processes have shown that a reducing oxygen concentration can increase the vitamin B12 production of certain Pseudomonas bacteria, a type of heterotrophic bacteria. A certain concentration of vitamin B12 and ammonia / urea are required by certain rhodophyta algae to produce compounds such as spermidine / spermine, which they need to reproduce.

Heterotrophic bacteria populations increase with an increasing C/N ratio. Driftwood has a high C/N ratio.

A reduction in gaseous CO2 means plants such as anubias may make greater use of dissolved bicarbonate ions as its carbon source. This leads to a concentration of OH- ions on the top surface of the leaf, which increases pH, attracts positive ions (e.g. Ca) and leads to a potential difference with the bottom of the leaf (which may mean that charged ions are drawn to the edge of the leaf). The increase in pH may go higher than the limit  which the autotrophic bacteria can function at.

BruceF, concerning your comment concerning reducing CO2 reducing plant nutrient requirements and causing dieback is interesting. If reducing CO2 lead to the plants releasing organics before dying back, this would provide a food source for the heterotrophic bacteria.

ADA raise their lily pipes at night to increase oxygen. Oxygen output of photosynthesising plants greater than surface agitation (Henry's Law) will produce.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> But it's not the O2 that directly stops algae; it's the increase in bacteria, archaea, and other microbes.



It's the oxygen feeding the autotrophic bacteria (plus keeping organic carbon levels low), that stops the ammonia / B12 concentrations getting to the point that BBA can flourish.


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> I think the whole point of night time aeration is simply to prevent the co2 levels from getting too high.



CO2 and O2 concentrations are independent of each other. True, more organisms will be respiring, taking in O2 and producing CO2 overnight, but CO2 levels will be less than injecting during the day. I think surface agitation at night stops O2 levels dropping too low, rather than CO2 levels getting too high.


----------



## BruceF

I suppose you're right.


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> Fablau, your aquarium is incredible.



Thank you Andy. Appreciated!


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> In the summer time only, the sun moves around in the sky far enough that the lights hits a corner of my aquarium.
> 
> Could you be getting more light / a longer photoperiod in one corner of your aquarium?



My tank doesn't actually get any direct Sunlight.


----------



## fablau

BruceF said:


> Great tank Fablau.



Thank you Bruce. Trying my best!


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> If aerating at night, wouldn't that actually lower O2 levels because it's speeding up equilibrium?



Guest, what do you mean exactly? Isn't aeration increasing O2 anyway?


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> ADA raise their lily pipes at night to increase oxygen. Oxygen output of photosynthesising plants greater than surface agitation (Henry's Law) will produce.



Andy, were you meaning that oxygen produced by photosynthesis is greater than oxygen produced by surface agitation?

Also, I was thinking: if more Co2 increases O2 production, increased Light must also increase O2 production... Which makes me think the opposite is also true: if Co2 decreases, less oxygen, if light decreases, less oxygen... Possibly then more plant matter dying for adapting to the new, lower light or lower co2 conditions, then more organic matter around, more heterotrophic bacteria, then possibly more BBA.

That's actually what happened to me a few months ago: I was tired to trim plants every week, so I reduced light and correspondingly Co2 a little to let plants grow less... Some plants begun to die, BBA appeared after 2-3 weeks or so.

Does this make sense to you guys?


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> Guest, what do you mean exactly? Isn't aeration increasing O2 anyway?


The O2 concentrations during photoperiod will be much higher than equilibrium so surface agitation will outgas excess O2.



fablau said:


> That's actually what happened to me a few months ago: I was tired to trim plants every week, so I reduced light and correspondingly Co2 a little to let plants grow less... Some plants begun to die, BBA appeared after 2-3 weeks or so.
> 
> Does this make sense to you guys?



I found that reducing CO2 was what initiated a BBA outbreak over the course of a couple of weeks.  I also got GDA.


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> The O2 concentrations during photoperiod will be much higher than equilibrium so surface agitation will outgas excess O2.



Ok, what about agitating surface to increase O2 for fish that otherwise would suffer? I mean, how do you know if surface agitation is increasing O2 or it is decreasing it?


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> I found that reducing CO2 was what initiated a BBA outbreak over the course of a couple of weeks.  I also got GDA.



Exactly what I was saying, I agree with you. Did you happen to notice more dead matter around because of reduced Co2?


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> Ok, what about agitating surface to increase O2 for fish that otherwise would suffer? I mean, how do you know if surface agitation is increasing O2 or it is decreasing it?


Agitation only accelerates gaseous equilibrium.
If O2 is 10ppm, agitation will accelerate equilibrium down to 8ppm.  O2 concentration drops faster.
If O2 is 6ppm, agitation will accelerate equilibrium to 8ppm.  O2 concentration increases.



fablau said:


> Exactly what I was saying, I agree with you. Did you happen to notice more dead matter around because of reduced Co2?


No, but I didn't reduce light which caused plants to die.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> If aerating at night, wouldn't that actually lower O2 levels because it's speeding up equilibrium?



Immediately after the photoperiod it may reduce oxygen concentration to the equilibrium it can achieve through surface agitation alone more quickly.

However, overnight all organisms are consuming oxygen (plants, fish, algae, bacteria). Surface agitation means that you're keeping it at the lower level, better able to keep in equilibrium with atmosphere.

If you don't have surface agitation, the tank may be consuming oxygen with no generation until lights on.

Nitrifying bacteria would suffer.


----------



## AndyMcD

fablau said:


> Andy, were you meaning that oxygen produced by photosynthesis is greater than oxygen produced by surface agitation?



Yes, with enough CO2, light and plants.


----------



## AndyMcD

fablau said:


> Also, I was thinking: if more Co2 increases O2 production, increased Light must also increase O2 production... Which makes me think the opposite is also true: if Co2 decreases, less oxygen, if light decreases, less oxygen... Possibly then more plant matter dying for adapting to the new, lower light or lower co2 conditions, then more organic matter around, more heterotrophic bacteria, then possibly more BBA.



If this is true, I think this very important.

If plants release organic carbon when either CO2 and/or light reduce, more organic carbon would be available at the same time less oxygen is available, which is what the heterotrophic bacteria want, but the autotrophic bacteria are unable to cope with.

I tried searching for this on the Internet but couldn't find any references to this happening. It makes sense to me.


----------



## AndyMcD

fablau said:


> months ago: I was tired to trim plants every week, so I reduced light and correspondingly Co2 a little to let plants grow less... Some plants begun to die, BBA appeared after 2-3 weeks or so.



Makes sense to me. Dying plants means an increase in organics for the heterotrophic bacteria to feed on. Less O2 as well as less light and CO2. Observed an increase in BBA.

It would be so interesting to know if suffering (but not dying) plants released organics too.


----------



## Guest

AndyMcD said:


> It would be so interesting to know if suffering (but not dying) plants released organics too.


This is probably true.  When plants are moved to tanks with lower light, below the threshold for life, they begin to die. Reducing CO2 but not reducing light should prevent this.  Plants are able to grow fine under much lower CO2 levels in nature.


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> Agitation only accelerates gaseous equilibrium.
> If O2 is 10ppm, agitation will accelerate equilibrium down to 8ppm.  O2 concentration drops faster.
> If O2 is 6ppm, agitation will accelerate equilibrium to 8ppm.  O2 concentration increases.
> 
> 
> No, but I didn't reduce light which caused plants to die.



All this makes sense, thank you Guest. Is 8ppm the absolute/typical O2 concentration of equilibrium?


----------



## Guest

AndyMcD said:


> However, overnight all organisms are consuming oxygen (plants, fish, algae, bacteria). Surface agitation means that you're keeping it at the lower level, better able to keep in equilibrium with atmosphere.


But plant leaves can hold onto O2 bubbles for a long time.  They don't suddenly rise to the surface but stay under/on the leaves until they dissolve.  In my tank, Bolbitis will have some gas bubbles under the leaves that didn't completely dissolve overnight.



fablau said:


> All this makes sense, thank you Guest. Is 8ppm the absolute/typical O2 concentration of equilibrium?


Yes, approximately, but it's directly related to temperature as well.  Higher temps = low gas concentrations.  Lower temps = higher gas concentrations.


----------



## fablau

Thank you for confirming Guest. All this discussion on Co2 concentration, light and plants potentially suffering because of low light, makes me think that having stronger light is probably better than too low light for preventing BBA. Of course Co2 must be proportionally high. Thoughts?


----------



## AndyMcD

fablau said:


> Thank you for confirming Guest. All this discussion on Co2 concentration, light and plants potentially suffering because of low light, makes me think that having stronger light is probably better than too low light for preventing BBA. Of course Co2 must be proportionally high. Thoughts?



This is the opposite of what people report. People typically report that high light plus less CO2 means more BBA.

If plants released organics when light was high and CO2 reduced below the level the plants were used to, I'd understand why you'd get more BBA. 

I couldn't find any evidence this was true.


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> Thank you for confirming Guest. All this discussion on Co2 concentration, light and plants potentially suffering because of low light, makes me think that having stronger light is probably better than too low light for preventing BBA. Of course Co2 must be proportionally high. Thoughts?


I get BBA growing in low light tanks so light isn't a limiting factor for BBA growth.  Higher light levels increase the speed at which they grow.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> Reducing CO2 but not reducing light should prevent this. Plants are able to grow fine under much lower CO2 levels in nature.



If you reduce any nutrient dramatically (e.g. CO2) from the levels the plant was expecting, would it suffer. If plants in nature have always grown under a low level of CO2 (probably slowly due to availability of carbon), they aren't seeing an extreme change. However, if you suddenly halve the CO2 supply, wouldn't the plant respond to such a significant environmental change?


----------



## Guest

AndyMcD said:


> However, if you suddenly halve the CO2 supply, wouldn't the plant respond to such a significant environmental change?


This is my previous question.  I don't know the answer.  If the answer is yes, that would explain a lot of the algal growth on leaves in such conditions.  If no, then that raises a whole lot more questions.  I do like the idea of using half the CO2 - slower growth and less maintenance - at the same light intensity.

That would also explain the CO2 deficiency  with the twisted, stunted growth, if it is indeed a CO2 deficiency.

Also, in non-supplied CO2 tanks, certain plants tend to grow better in appearance.  I don't know why that's the case.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> So for a couple of weeks, I used less CO2 (15-25ppm) than before (30-45ppm). BBA started growing at rates never seen



Isn't this the experiment that you have just performed and found that if you halve the CO2 supply (same light intensity?) you do get an increase in BBA?


----------



## Guest

AndyMcD said:


> Isn't this the experiment that you have just performed and found that if you halve the CO2 supply (same light intensity?) you do get an increase in BBA?


Yes, but I don't know if that's true in all instances.  Also, I actually increased the light intensity slightly by lowering the fixture during those weeks so it's not carefully controlled at all.

I remember reading a post by someone (I think on TPT) who said that they got perpetual BBA for a long time and nothing he did got rid of it.  Until he increased light intensity.  Then all of a sudden, BBA disappeared from just that one change.  Two possible reasons for this outcome: 1)increased light intensity improved plant health, or 2)increased light intensity increased O2 concentrations.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





AndyMcD said:


> CO2 and O2 concentrations are independent of each other. True, more organisms will be respiring, taking in O2 and producing CO2 overnight, but CO2 levels will be less than injecting during the day. I think surface agitation at night stops O2 levels dropping too low, rather than CO2 levels getting too high.


I think that is what is happening at a gas exchange level. If you have a lot of water turn over etc. all gas levels are going to be closer to equilibrium with atmospheric gas levels.

Having a large "gas exchange surface area" is definitely an advantage in terms of oxygenation. As an example you can counteract the effect of high levels of organic pollution in reed beds for sewage treatment etc. by <"forced aeration">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## BruceF

I think it is time to revisit this whole limitation concept.  Liebig's law of the minimum has to do with scarceness i.e. not enough of something.  All aquariums are limited to some degree. The light in an aquarium almost needs to be limited.  It is nearly impossible to manage an aquarium in sunlight for example.  


What you need in aquarium is enough.  You need a ‘balance’.  I am not sure of the correct word but perhaps it is equilibrium.  When you have a deficiency that means you don’t have enough of nutrient x in the tank to keep plant A growing happily in the context of the rest of the ecosystem in the tank.  (I hope that makes sense)  What ei does is attempt to provide just a bit more than enough.  It works on a sort of average need basis and attempts to exceed it.  


Notice that we never suggest that the hardness of a tank should not be limited.  We know that there are plants that need soft water and there are plants that need harder water.  Plants are not universal in their needs.  They are all adapted to their environment.  Their needs differ.


Co2 is no different.  It needs to be limited.  Anyone who has suffered an end of tank dump knows that non limited co2 is a catastrophe. At the other end of the spectrum it doesn’t ‘need’ to be injected in a tank.  Many of us run perfectly fine planted aquariums without injecting co2.  Again, plants are not universal in their needs some of them can grow quite happily without additional co2.  What you need is enough co2 to provide for the needs of your particular plants in the context of the rest of the chemistry of the system you are running.


Ei is not non-limiting.  (It is always good to end on a double negative!)

Or something like that……………


----------



## Guest

BruceF said:


> It is nearly impossible to manage an aquarium in sunlight for example.


Then how do aquatic plants survive growing submerged in lakes and rivers receiving sunlight for several hours each day without being infested with algae?  This has always confounded me and I've not read any explanation for this phenomenon.


----------



## sciencefiction

Guest said:


> Then how do aquatic plants survive growing submerged in lakes and rivers receiving sunlight for several hours each day without being infested with algae?  This has always confounded me and I've not read any explanation for this phenomenon.



You can grow plants under sunlight without algae. Try a glass bowl with some soil to provide nutrients and lots of plants on the window sill or outside somewhere. It won't get algae in most cases. Don't dose nutrients in the water column though. Or setup two pots, one being dosed, the other not dosed and you'll see that green dust will soon coat the sides of the dosed one, perhaps other algae. I am not saying the problem is nutrients. I am saying the problem is nutrients in the water column, as they are easily salvaged by algae which doesn't have roots in the substrate and can't otherwise survive for long unless the water column is polluted on consistent basis.
Same in natural systems I think like rivers and lakes. As long the waters are not polluted, they don't get algae outbreaks. I don't think light is a trigger. It can be an accelerator when other factors are not in check but on it's own it won't trigger anything. Light is a an energy source, not the enemy.


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> This is the opposite of what people report. People typically report that high light plus less CO2 means more BBA.
> 
> If plants released organics when light was high and CO2 reduced below the level the plants were used to, I'd understand why you'd get more BBA.
> 
> I couldn't find any evidence this was true.



Andy, I am afraid you missed the last part of my posting there: "Of course Co2 must be proportionally high".

What Guest posted above really makes me think something more specific, here is what Guest posted:



> I remember reading a post by someone (I think on TPT) who said that they got perpetual BBA for a long time and nothing he did got rid of it. Until he increased light intensity. Then all of a sudden, BBA disappeared from just that one change. Two possible reasons for this outcome: 1)increased light intensity improved plant health, or 2)increased light intensity increased O2 concentrations.



Well... what about having too much Co2 compared with the amount of light? Can "too much Co2" being the problem? Just throwing thoughts out there guys... Could that give us an explanation of such an effect? I mean, I pump a lot of Co2 in my tank (80ml per minute in a 75gl tank!), because I want to prevent BBA, but it is actually always around anyway! And my light is not that powerful (40-50 PAR at the substrate). I am wondering if increasing light could even things out??!!


----------



## fablau

BruceF said:


> It is nearly impossible to manage an aquarium in sunlight for example.



Bruce, watch this again:



Also, I have seen ponds with crystal clear water, no algae, and any sort of plants inside (not only water lilies, but Ceratophillum, Elodea and other submersed plants) under full sun. Of course I have also seen a lot of ponds with bad algae inside... but as scienscefinction said, I don't think it's the sun to blame. It is, there as well, an imbalance of some sort (nutrients? bacterial?)


----------



## BruceF

Yes I have seen that.  I would guess it is in a courtyard and in shadow much of the time.  I did say 'nearly'.  I think almost no submerged plants live in open water.  Still a pond is not an aquarium. 

I live at almost 6 thousand feet and the sunlight is very strong here. I swim a lot and in most of the lakes I can't see my own hand in the water.


----------



## Manuel Arias

As mentioned by some other people, invasive algae are the result of a mix of nutrients availability plus the right conditions of light and CO2. In oceans, algae bloom happen when nutrients are available as non-limiting factors and the temperature and light increase from colder waters to warmer, which also helps the growth. The increment of light allows also the algae to proliferate faster, but the light is not really the cause of it, just an additional factor. 
In freshwater, especially in closed pools like lakes are steady rivers, the algae bloom is related to the eutrophy, which is also spammed by a combination of excess of nutrients in non-limiting circumstances plus light and low levels of CO2.

Heavy planted plants are less likely to suffer algae because the consuming rate of nutrients is higher, so the water depletes faster than recovers them, which avoids the problem, so far CO2 levels are right so the plants can do the proper photosynthesis. Without the right levels of CO2, the plants lose efficiency so nutrients start to accumulate allowing the growth of algae. 
Less hours of light works because algae are more dependent on light to survive than plants (in general). By cutting light to the tank, the algae cannot grow. However, it does not help at all if you do not solve the issue why they appear, which is the combination of light + nutrients.
Cleaning the tank and removing wastes helps because of the mentioned bacteria in this thread: If enough dissolved and particle organic matter exists in the tank, the natural cycling of matter done by bacteria will become it into nutrients that sum up to the fertilizers and soils, leading to the mentioned statement of non-limiting nutrients.
Reducing temperature also helps, because the dissolution of gases in water depends strongly on that, which helps to have better CO2 levels in the tank. It also affect to the speed of metabolism of plants and algae, and when the last ones are having some control in the tank, a reduction of a couple of degrees can help.

In summary, under my criteria, we can split between actual solution, palliative solutions and radical solutions:

*Actual solutions:*

1. Control of nutrient levels: Water changes and control of the dosage of fertilizers (as done in ADA system during the first two weeks, basically).
2. Balance the nutrient levels: Check what you are adding to the tank and frequency to see if your parameters are under control. Sometimes the problem comes from deficiencies in iron or trace elements respect to the concentration in the macronutrients, so the real point here is not the amount of nutrients but the proportions between them, and here there is no magic answers as strongly depends on the amounts and type of plants, as well as light spectrum and temperature or soil characteristics, so it can be achieved only via experience and behavior of each tank.
3. Improve CO2 levels: By adding more CO2 or adjusting kH, or both.If CO2 is not a limiting factor under light conditions, then plants can get maximum efficiency in productivity.
4. Clean-up of filter media and mechanical removal of wastes and damaged leaves, so heterotrophic and remineralizing bacteria cannot make the day for the algae.

*Palliative solutions:*

1. Reduce the photoperiod of your tank to avoid or reduce the algae population in the tank.
2. Mechanical removal of algae when possible.
3. Addition of species that eat the algae.
4. Adjustment of temperature to increment CO2 levels and reduce metabolism speed of the algae.

*Radical solutions:*

1. Blackout: Some people have succeed cutting off algae populations with a black-out for several days. This will harm also the plants, so it is not very helpful, as the algae will come back, and probably even worse than before, if you do not manage to solve the problem that caused them in first place. Spring blooms in ocean over polar areas can help to understand what happens when you turn off the light some days, the bacteria degrade the wastes increasing the nutrients, and you turn on later the light.
2. Glutaraldehyde dosage: Apart from the fact the product is really toxic and dangerous, it can be very harmful for your tank if you do not control properly the dosage.
3. H2O2 dosage: The same as above when goes to the tank's health. As mentioned also, H2O2 will help to attack punctual spots of algae. It is bad idea to provide this to the tank as "normal" solution to prevent algae.
4. Rest the tanks: Which only will work if you learnt something about what caused the problem in the tank, so you do not make the same mistakes.

In general, the only way to really avoid algae pass by the actual solutions; palliative solutions are OK when you already have it and as a first approach to the problem; radical solutions should be only applied when all the other methods did not work or the algae already damaged your plants at such a level that you can risk them.

Of course, this is just my opinion about this topic, and there will be many specific cases requiring something else, or specific algae coming for different reasons.


----------



## Guest

sciencefiction said:


> I don't think light is a trigger. It can be an accelerator when other factors are not in check but on it's own it won't trigger anything. Light is a an energy source, not the enemy.


So under sunlight, the plants are most likely carbon-limited, as well as nutrient-limited.  Can this be replicated in our aquariums?  Is it these limitations that prevent such growth in our tanks or is it something else?



> You can grow plants under sunlight without algae.


I've done this with Lilaeopsis mauritiana and no dosing.  No algae and the plant pearled in sunlight.  Which makes me think: if the plants use up the CO2, there will be a equilibrium differential between the water and the atmosphere.  This would cause CO2 to rapidly dissolve into the water due to low concentration.  Hmmm....


----------



## Guest

Manuel Arias said:


> 1. Control of nutrient levels: Water changes and control of the dosage of fertilizers (as done in ADA system during the first two weeks, basically).


ADA no longer recommends this.  They dose the necessary nutrients such as potassium and micronutrients to improve growth and plant health during the transition period.


----------



## Manuel Arias

Guest said:


> ADA no longer recommends this.  They dose the necessary nutrients such as potassium and micronutrients to improve growth and plant health during the transition period.



But I am quite sure you have to stick to water changes during the period and reduced amount of light, otherwise you get your algae, anyway.


----------



## xim

sciencefiction said:


> You can grow plants under sunlight without algae. Try a glass bowl with some soil to provide nutrients and lots of plants on the window sill or outside somewhere. It won't get algae in most cases. Don't dose nutrients in the water column though. Or setup two pots, one being dosed, the other not dosed and you'll see that green dust will soon coat the sides of the dosed one, perhaps other algae. I am not saying the problem is nutrients. I am saying the problem is nutrients in the water column, as they are easily salvaged by algae which doesn't have roots in the substrate and can't otherwise survive for long unless the water column is polluted on consistent basis.
> Same in natural systems I think like rivers and lakes. As long the waters are not polluted, they don't get algae outbreaks. I don't think light is a trigger. It can be an accelerator when other factors are not in check but on it's own it won't trigger anything. Light is a an energy source, not the enemy.



An old photo of my outdoor hairgrass belem propagation box.
It was so bright that the surroundings were blown out.
Plain gravel, water column ferts + DIY CO2. And yep some GDA, but overall the plants were clean.


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> I remember reading a post by someone (I think on TPT) who said that they got perpetual BBA for a long time and nothing he did got rid of it. Until he increased light intensity. Then all of a sudden, BBA disappeared from just that one change. Two possible reasons for this outcome: 1)increased light intensity improved plant health, or 2)increased light intensity increased O2 concentrations.



Agree with 1 & 2, but also ...

3) Too much dissolved CO2 would reduce the pH below 6, switching off autotrophic bacteria. Additional light may increase the CO2 demand from the plants, effectively increasing the pH.


----------



## pepedopolous

Are all autotrophic bacteria badly affected by low pH? My aquarium water is pH7.0 at equilibrium and I target pH5.8 adding CO2. I have a few tufts of BBA on hardscape but not bad at all really...

P


----------



## AndyMcD

pepedopolous said:


> Are all autotrophic bacteria badly affected by low pH? My aquarium water is pH7.0 at equilibrium and I target pH5.8 adding CO2. I have a few tufts of BBA on hardscape but not bad at all really...



Possibly not. There are a number of different types of autotrophic bacteria and populations may increase (slowly) to deal with lower pH environments.

However, please see attached paper for relative activity of Nitrobacter (which seems to be quoted most frequently as the main autotrophic, nitrifying bacteria) as a function of pH.



 
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ce432/blackburne-wer-2007.pdf


----------



## AndyMcD

fablau said:


> Well... what about having too much Co2 compared with the amount of light? Can "too much Co2" being the problem?



Fablau, apologies for misunderstanding regarding your comment concerning more light (and proportionally more CO2).

Too much CO2 may cause an issue with pH drop (see previous post).

Algae and plants use CO2 as their carbon source. Therefore, you might expect more growth of algae with increasing CO2, but the opposite is frequently reported. Why would this be? My suggestion is that you look for an organism that is better able to compete if CO2 (or oxygen) reduces - heterotrophic bacteria.


----------



## pepedopolous

But in our planted freshwater aquariums, is this valid? The sheer number of hobbyists with successful aquariums and low pH during CO2 addition doesn't make sense... Unless _Nitrobacter _adapts in these environments or is in fact unimportant with other bacteria taking over nitrogen fixing...

P


----------



## Guest

Archaea also fix nitrogen so it isn't just bacteria.


----------



## Manuel Arias

pepedopolous said:


> But in our planted freshwater aquariums, is this valid? The sheer number of hobbyists with successful aquariums and low pH during CO2 addition doesn't make sense... Unless _Nitrobacter _adapts in these environments or is in fact unimportant with other bacteria taking over nitrogen fixing...



They are not incompatible factors, for a reason we should consider: The big numbers of the bacteria population, and one of the reasons why planted aquariums have considerable more media than the traditional fish tank. Even if the efficiency of a single bacteria is reduced significantly because of the pH stress, their numbers allow the to keep coping with the ammonia levels to become them into nitrites and after in nitrates. That is the simplest explanation that brings together both aspects of the problem and then, there is no paradox about it.




AndyMcD said:


> Algae and plants use CO2 as their carbon source. Therefore, you might expect more growth of algae with increasing CO2, but the opposite is frequently reported



With good reasons. Otherwise the world would be dominated by bacteria and multicellular organisms never would have been thriving in the Earth!  The advantage of plants is how competent are using the resources. Bacteria, unicelullar and simple organismes usually have a faster response to stimulus in the environment they live. This means that their populations grow much faster when is possible. However, microorganisms/simple organism face more difficulties when there is a lack of nutrients/food available, and the populations tend to die also quick once there are no resources. By adding CO2, we are feeding also the algae, yes, but we are also allowing the plants to have an intake of the nutrients that the algae are using. As the consume of nutrients grow by the plants, there is less available for the algae, so their populations are forced to be reduced. That is why some methods like ADA is using play by limiting growing by a given factor, so once is depleted, algae cannot thrive. Note that algae are composed by a single type of cell in all their body and they lack totally of the complex structures of the vascular plants we usually employ. That complexity ensures survival when the conditions are harder.


----------



## BruceF

I think algae prefer a higher ph 7-9 or something.  So a low ph is going to inhibit growth of algae to some extent.  I'd love to find someone doing a study of alga and ph.


----------



## AndyMcD

pepedopolous said:


> But in our planted freshwater aquariums, is this valid? The sheer number of hobbyists with successful aquariums and low pH during CO2 addition doesn't make sense... Unless _Nitrobacter _adapts in these environments or is in fact unimportant with other bacteria taking over nitrogen fixing...



LowER pH during CO2 addition, but many have added limestone (Seiryu or Ryouh for example) or may begin with hard water.

Large numbers of people in the hobby suffer from BBA.

Ammonia has frequently been mentioned as a potential cause of BBA. Ammonia  is required in the production of the compounds BBA needs to reproduce. Environmental changes inhibiting nitrifying bacteria functioning would explain an increase in ammonia.


----------



## Yo-han

I agree with a lot of observations from everyone, bus can anyone induce BBA by simple adding ammonia? I can't... I add ammoniumnitraat and urea daily. Never noticed any difference. Feeding more -> BBA. But is this due to ammonia, I don't believe it. Many commercial ferts got ammonia in it. Would they risk people getting BBA? 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn E6653 met Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-han said:


> can anyone induce BBA by simple adding ammonia?



Ammonia frequently gets mentioned as a potential cause of BBA. Concentrations of ammonia would probably need to exceed a certain level to become an issue.

If you have a healthy population of autotrophic they will convert to nitrates. 

The following diagram shows the metabolic, beginning with ammonia and urea (as part of the urea cycle) which leads to the production of spermidine and polyamines (e.g. Spermine) which BBA requires to reproduce.

Also, vitamin B12 is another contributing compound. Not just ammonia required to stimulate BBA growth.


----------



## BruceF

Results: The microalgae Chlorella vulgaris and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii exclusively utilize ammonium when both ammonium and nitrate are provided during growth on excess CO2. The resulting proton imbalance from preferential ammonium utilization causes the pH to drop too low to sustain further growth when ammonium was only 9% of the total nitrogen (0.027 gN-NH4 + /L). However, providing smaller amounts of ammonium sequentially in the presence of nitrate maintained the pH of a Chlorella vulgaris culture for improved growth on 0.3 gN/L to 5 gDW/L under 5% CO2 gas-phase supplementation. Bioreactor pH dynamics are shown to be predictable based on simple nitrogen assimilation as long as there is sufficient CO2 availability.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6750-13-39.pdf


----------



## sciencefiction

Yo-han said:


> I agree with a lot of observations from everyone, bus can anyone induce BBA by simple adding ammonia? I can't... I add ammoniumnitraat and urea daily. Never noticed any difference. Feeding more -> BBA. But is this due to ammonia, I don't believe it. Many commercial ferts got ammonia in it. Would they risk people getting BBA?
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn E6653 met Tapatalk



To answer your question in practical terms, I managed to trigger BBA recently enough. I've got a tank where I throw fry every so often. A few months back I kept a bunch in it that I fed daily with lots of frozen foods. I was spoiling the fry literally. This went on for about 2 months.  I did daily water changes but the tank was getting dirtier and dirtier looking. At that stage it had some minor diatoms. I removed the fish out to a bigger tank, left a couple of fish only. But the tank was getting worse algae wise. The tank exploded in algae outbreaks. I had diatoms, cyano bacteria and BBA all in one. BBA was the last one appearing on the scene. It was very bad. Like a delayed reaction to all the organic build up over the previous two months. My crypt leaves were coated in 3 types of algae literally. It seems the cyano loved to eat on the diatoms that had previously covered the leaves and BBA was covering the edges at the same time.

To cut the long story short, it destroyed my plants but the algae outbreak ran its peak and then totally stalled.  Right now it's back to normal, clean plants(they finally started regrowing) and clean glass. It has a new crew of fish but they are adults so they don't get fed that often.

I think when you add ammonia, it's easily consumed by the plants directly. But when you add organics, that are first due a conversion process by all sorts of bacteria and organisms that start multiplying to cope with the load, affecting water chemistry in the process, oxygen levels, etc...., the picture becomes more messy, i.e algae


----------



## AndyMcD

sciencefiction said:


> I think when you add ammonia, it's easily consumed by the plants directly. But when you add organics, that are first due a conversion process by all sorts of bacteria and organisms that start multiplying to cope with the load, affecting water chemistry in the process, oxygen levels, etc...., the picture becomes more messy, i.e algae



Thanks Sciencefiction. This makes sense to me.

To me this highlights a fundamental difference between algae (some types) and plants. 

The algae are able to benefit indirectly from additional organics being added to the aquarium (the frozen food). There is a delayed reaction while the initial form of the organics is converted to something different which the algae can use to its advantage. Ammonia with other organic compounds are likely to be involved.

Stop the source of organics and eventually this intermediate process will stop and this additional nutrient supply will end and the algae will fail.

The plants in the mean time have suffered. If the plants and algae were competing for exactly the same nutrients, wouldn't the plants have benefited too from this increase in nutrients? I can't find a reference to back this up, but haven't studies been done to show that algae have very low nutrient requirements. Some of these nutrient requirements are the same as plants (e.g. CO2 and phosphates) and some are not (e.g. Vitamin B12).

I even suspect BBA and Cyanobacteria would compete with each other for some of these non-plant benefitting nutrients.

This is why I don't buy into the argument that plants and algae are competing for exactly the same nutrients, that the plants will out compete and starve the algae. Sciencefiction's example shows that algae flourish in a different type of environment. Algae are dependant on a different set of nutrients.

I do agree that keeping your plants healthy helps to prevent algae outbreaks. I think the nitrifying bacteria and healthy plants thrive in a similar environment.


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> Results: The microalgae Chlorella vulgaris and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii exclusively utilize ammonium when both ammonium and nitrate are provided during growth on excess CO2.



To me this says that two species of algae prefer to use ammonium ions (NH4+ -> NH3 + H+) rather than Nitrate, if there is an excess of CO2.

However, if the algae use too much of the Ammonia NH3, too many H+ ions are released, meaning the the pH will drop.

If the pH drops too low, growth of the algae stops.

I wonder if some of these H+ ions can re-combine with OH- ions on the surface of the bicarbonate photosynthesising, brightly lit anubias leaves, allowing the algae to keep preferentially using ammonium?

I read somewhere that Nitrogen is important in protein production, that algae have a higher proportion of protein than plants. An important protein to BBA like algae are phycobiliproteins, which perform a similar function to chlorophyll, but absorb at different wavelengths.


----------



## BruceF

More and more people are doing research into algae as a potential carbon sink and or a potential fuel and such.   I keep hoping we can learn from this work.  Still, I can find almost nothing about work being done on BBA.


----------



## sciencefiction

Further to Yo-Han's comment about adding ammonia. I want to mention that I used to cycle my tanks fishlessly years ago by adding ammonia, many times. I had plants at the same time and added ammonia to 2-3ppm at a time for 2-3-4 weeks to cycle a tank. I've never had an algae outbreak while doing so with light on 7-8hrs a day as normal. To be honest I never even knew at the time about ammonia causing algae outbreaks until I read it on forums, particularly here.

However, I am pretty certain that there's a correlation between diatoms, ammonia and organics the least. I've had it so many times when: I overfeed or add more fish to an established tank or stir the substrate or don't have enough filtration for the bioload to start with. Hence I am obsessed with filtration, even in a planted tank. The more filtration and oxygen I have, the better my fish( I don't care that much about plants)

There maybe something else behind my logic that I can't see as ammonia from a bottle doesn't create an algae bloom. Perhaps because I had plants at the same time. So I get where Yo-hun is coming from.  But big bioload does lead to algae and does lead to BBA in particular from all algae types. I've never had any other problems with algae bar BBA, diatoms and  only a few times cyano bacteria. I've had the occasional green spot and green dust, that's about it.  And as I mentioned, it's always been related to overstocking, big bioload when I had algae in a tank so whoever tries to tell me it's not that causing it, I can't believe them. It becomes pretty obvious when you run multiple tanks and only the overfed/overstocked tank gets algae, whatever the type.

In the previous BBA thread I explained about my overstocked tank being the only one with BBA consistently for years. I reduced the bioload while trying to solve the issue and the BBA was almost completely gone. It was disappearing right in front of my eyes when I moved out 20 fish from the tank(platies) I took pictures of it to prove it.  But the tank cracked so I couldn't continue the experiment and I was also adding more micro nutrients so I can't be certain.
It is worth saying that the ex BBA covered anubias which had recovered just about when the tank cracked, went to one of my other tanks and is yet to grow BBA on it.  So it all depends on the conditions.


----------



## AndyMcD

This website deals with how ammonia is released in an aquarium. Perhaps it is the presence of the intermediate amino acids that are utilised by other organisms:

http://www.thinkport.org/ad8a172c-5a94-484d-bd73-8b0884783e9c.asset

Ammonification
This process involves the degradation of proteins from dead plant and animal tissue and the release of ammonia into the environment. The process starts with the release of proteolytic enzymes from bacteria that hydrolyze proteins of plant and animal origin into amino acids. The amino acids are subsequently deaminated accompanied by the release of ammonia.

                                   proteolysis
Plant! Animal protein -----------------polypeptides

                       deamination
amino acids------------------------ ammonia (NH3)


----------



## fablau

This is very interesting guys... I think the main elements involved in "BBA production" are: organic matter, oxygen. In my experience, I don't think light is a factor for BBA. I have BBA on many of my Anubias leaves, no matter if they are under strong light or completely in the dark. I do notice though that BBA appear more where organic matter deposits (i.e. where fish food may deposit when I feed the fish, where mud accumulates after up-rooting plants, messing with the substrate, etc).

Also, I get BBA stronger and bushy in my Co2 tank than in my low-tech, non-co2 tank. Actually, I am not even sure that what I get in my low-tech tank is actually BBA. In my low-tech tank, I have some sort of BBA on my very old Anubia leaves. That stuff looks definitively dark, similarly to BBA, but it is "flat" and not "bushy" like the BBA I get in my Co2 tank. That's very important to consider. Why most low-tech tanks don't have BBA? I remember Tom Barr writing, somewhere, that he has never found BBA in non-Co2, low-tech tanks. I think, if that's the case, the only explanation is the correlation of Co2 with O2, or it is just Co2 that gives something more to water quality which favorites BBA... in some way.

What are your thoughts on that?


----------



## Guest

I get BBA in my non-CO2, low-light tanks all the time and have the Anubias, Bolbitis, and Java ferns covered in BBA to prove it.  What does appear to prevent it from growing in these tanks are regular fertilizing of potassium and micros.


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> I get BBA in my non-CO2, low-light tanks all the time and have the Anubias, Bolbitis, and Java ferns covered in BBA to prove it.  What does appear to prevent it from growing in these tanks are regular fertilizing of potassium and micros.



That's very interesting... Guest, does that mean that if you add more K and traces BBA goes away or get reduced? I also have seen BBA reduced if I dose more traces in my Co2 tank.


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> That's very interesting... Guest, does that mean that if you add more K and traces BBA goes away or get reduced? I also have seen BBA reduced if I dose more traces in my Co2 tank.


Yeah, it gradually disappears.   Even the BBA that grows on the walls of the tank disappear and I don't even touch it.


----------



## Manuel Arias

Guest said:


> What does appear to prevent it from growing in these tanks are regular fertilizing of potassium and micros.



This also coincide with my observations respect to BBA.

I have also a comment about the light. Curiously, I have some _Anubias barterii nana_ in my tank, and I noticed that the ones that are more exposed to light suffer slightly from BBA in the old leaves. However, I have some under less light with have no symptoms  of BBA at all. Of course, algae have requirement of light as the plants have also, but I have the feeling that BBA is in fact a combination of factors, triggered by a lack of certain nutrients and an excess of light. So I am not telling anything new, but just what I observe in my tank, which it seems to me coincide with what more people are telling.


----------



## Yo-han

I've a very low light paludarium water part which does grow BBA. I feed quite a lot because I've Sewellia in it breeding. I do dose micro's but no (extra) potassium. I've noticed that I can grow Anubias in full light in an ADA tank (which does receive daily potassium) and not in this tank. I've never mind the BBA in this tank, but I do wonder whether I can get rid of it with only adding potassium. Perhaps potassium has something to do with the vitamine B12 production... 

About less light less BBA on Anubias. I think this is called a deficiency Plants receiving more light need more nutrients, when they don't get them they start dying cell by cell and these cells produce organics which lead to BBA. 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn E6653 met Tapatalk


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> Yeah, it gradually disappears.   Even the BBA that grows on the walls of the tank disappear and I don't even touch it.



Wow, that's great to know. I wanna try to increase K and traces and see what happens in both my tanks. When you say "gradually disappears" does that mean even on old leaves where it was present for a long time?


----------



## fablau

Manuel Arias said:


> This also coincide with my observations respect to BBA.
> 
> I have also a comment about the light. Curiously, I have some _Anubias barterii nana_ in my tank, and I noticed that the ones that are more exposed to light suffer slightly from BBA in the old leaves. However, I have some under less light with have no symptoms  of BBA at all. Of course, algae have requirement of light as the plants have also, but I have the feeling that BBA is in fact a combination of factors, triggered by a lack of certain nutrients and an excess of light. So I am not telling anything new, but just what I observe in my tank, which it seems to me coincide with what more people are telling.



As I wrote earlier, I get BBA on Anubia leaves no matter if they are under light or in complete shadow. I don't see light that much of a factor for me, unless I have such low K levels that affect leaves under very-low-light as well (!!) but I doubt that since I am dosing with the EI. But I can definitively try to double K for a while and see what happens. That won't hurt anyway!


----------



## Manuel Arias

fablau said:


> But I can definitively try to double K for a while and see what happens. That won't hurt anyway!



Totally true. If you do not mind, it would be great if you can monitor the evolution of your test and report here. Maybe there is a potential solution there, especially if that is verified by third people.


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> Wow, that's great to know. I wanna try to increase K and traces and see what happens in both my tanks. When you say "gradually disappears" does that mean even on old leaves where it was present for a long time?


 BBA occurs mostly on K-deficient plants even though there are very few plants in the tank.  Something about potassium deficiency results in BBA growing all over.  However, the plants that have been infected will still have BBA.  I can't get rid of it unless I remove the affected leaves.


----------



## AndyMcD

Addition of Potassium (K+) may be linked to the ratio of ammonium (NH4+) to nitrate (NO3-) in the water.

Algae have a higher proportion of protein to carbohydrate molecules than plants (see Wikipedia entry for Carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, due to algae having no cellulose (C6H10O5) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-to-nitrogen_ratio).

For example, rhodophyta algae use phycobiliproteins as well as chlorophyll to capture light for photosynthesis. The algae can alter the mix of chlorophyll and the phycobiliproteins to take advantage of different peaks in wavelength. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycobilisome

Plants and algae need to absorb nitrogen compounds (NH4+ or NO3-) to create amino acids and then proteins.

However, if plants used ammonium (NH4+), they use an ammonia (NH3) molecule and release a H+ ion. This acts to drop the pH. http://www.smart-fertilizer.com/articles/ammonium-nitrate-ratio

The accumulation and release of the H+ ions also makes it more difficult for plants to absorb positive ions, such as K+, Ca2+, Mg2+. Therefore, an increase in ammonium may conicide with K+ and micro-nutrient deficiency.

However, if plants use nitrate (NO3-), this charge issue doesn't occur.

When heterotrophic bacteria break down organics, they break down proteins to amino acids and then ammonia.

In response to Sciencefiction and Yo-Han's point, I searched to see if there were reports that algae absorb amino acids. This may explain why a peak in ammonia (which may coincide with a peak in amino acids) created in the aquarium may be different to the addition of synthetically (pure) produced ammonia. However, I couldn't find evidence of algae absorbing amino acids. Breaking down amino acids may also release other nutrients which may help organisms create amino acids from ammonia.

If the concentration of ammonia increases due to an increase in heterotrophic bacteria breaking down organics, particularly if there is drop in pH, there will be an increase in ammonium ions (NH4+).

If the autotrophic (nitrifying) bacteria are not functioning, the conversion of ammonia to nitrates will reduce. This would also act to increase the ratio of ammonium to nitrate ions.

The optimum ratio of ammonium to nitrate varies between different types of plants. It may be that algae have a preference for ammonium.


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-han said:


> I've noticed that I can grow Anubias in full light in an ADA tank (which does receive daily potassium) and not in this tank.



Earlier in this thread, information was presented about plants that use bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions as their carbon source, can accumulate OH- ions on the upper surface of their leaves. This effect would increase with increasing light intensity. 

Positively charged K+ ions would be attracted to the negatively charged upper surface of the leaf. Images of Calcium (Ca2+) accumulated on a leaf was shown.


----------



## fablau

fablau said:


> As I wrote earlier, I get BBA on Anubia leaves no matter if they are under light or in complete shadow. I don't see light that much of a factor for me.





Manuel Arias said:


> Totally true. If you do not mind, it would be great if you can monitor the evolution of your test and report here. Maybe there is a potential solution there, especially if that is verified by third people.



I will, definitively. If we can actually find a practical solution to at least control BBA, would be great!


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> The accumulation and release of the H+ ions also makes it more difficult for plants to absorb positive ions, such as K+, Ca2+, Mg2+. Therefore, an increase in ammonium may conicide with K+ and micro-nutrient deficiency.


Andy, this really might be the key! And could also explain why Co2 injected tanks are more prone to get BBA, where H+ ions are more present. Am I right?


----------



## Yo-han

Plants grow faster with CO2, so the effect is stronger.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn E6653 met Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Fablau and Yo-Han, I agree. More light, more CO2, faster growth, more protein production from ammonium, more H+ ions. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fablau

Ok, let's see if increasing K and traces will make any difference for me in the coming days. I will keep you posted guys.


----------



## Guest

Just a warning: I just had my water tested and even though I was dosing EI daily, it showed that even at these levels, I was massively overdosing micros.  Copper was ridiculously high as was iron.  Rates of uptake are far lower than was assumed.  Someone else also had the water tested and it showed the same thing, but his water was even worse than mine at EI levels.


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> Just a warning: I just had my water tested and even though I was dosing EI daily, it showed that even at these levels, I was massively overdosing micros.  Copper was ridiculously high as was iron.  Rates of uptake are far lower than was assumed.  Someone else also had the water tested and it showed the same thing, but his water was even worse than mine at EI levels.



What did you do then?

I assume that if a "lack of traces" is contributing to BBA, that means that they are well below toxic levels. Otherwise they are overruled.


----------



## Manuel Arias

fablau said:


> I assume that if a "lack of traces" is contributing to BBA, that means that they are well below toxic levels. Otherwise they are overruled.



We cannot monitor all the trace elements using tests, so even if Copper and Iron are OK, it might be possible other trace elements in deficiency. But this is also interesting: Copper, in fact, is an inhibitor of algae growth. In most of swimming pools some amounts of CuS04 are provided to avoid the appearance of algae. It might be possible that Guest, by having high levels of Cu, impacted in this point.

This link is explicitly devoted for this type of treatment and it is a brilliant reading for algae fighting techniques:

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/48968/ISWSMP-111.pdf?sequence=2

And this link, for example, explains the impact of Copper in algae evolution in freshwater reservoirs:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01866913

However, there are reason for not to use Copper sulphate but Copper chelates instead:

http://www.aquaticbiologists.com/aquatic-chemicals/herbicides/copper-sulfate

So some careful thinking should be carried out about this.

I knew about that, but long time forgotten, so just when Guest mentioned it, the idea came back to my mind. So probably, behind the extra addition of micronutrients comes this side effect of adding Cu, which makes the life of algae more difficult.


----------



## BruceF

Ummmm..............
*Algae are Diverse*
Algae will do whatever it takes to survive. Maybe that is why they are one of the oldest forms of life on earth. Autotrophic species are photosynthetic like plants. Heterotrophic species get their energy from organic carbon compounds in much the same way as yeast, bacteria and animals. Mixotrophic species can use sunlight or organic carbon, whatever they can get.

*Heterotrophic and Autotrophic Algae*
Alltech Algae, our new plant in Winchester, Kentucky, is designed to produce heterotrophic algae. These algae are grown in large stainless steel tanks in a mixture of water, sugar and other nutrients. But, we are also growing autotrophic algae in clear plastic water-filled tubes as part of a pilot project with East Kentucky Power Cooperative. These algae live on sunlight, nutrients and CO2 that is produced by the co-ops coal-fired power plant. Exhaust from the plant is bubbled through the tubes and the algae consume some of the CO2 and NOx in the process.

*One Algae's Waste is Another Algae's Food*
It is pretty remarkable that algae are so diverse. This offers an opportunity to create a cyclical system in which waste from one process is used as a resource in the next process. Autotrophic algae could be grown on sunlight and CO2. If they were harvested for oil then the remaining biomass (carbohydrates and proteins) could be used to feed a batch of heterotrophic algae, who would return the favor by producing CO2 for the autotrophic algae.
http://www.alltech.com/blog/posts/algae-autotrophic-heterotrophic-mixotrophic-whatever-it-takes


----------



## BruceF

for instance..............
*Abstract*
This study sought to investigate the growth rate and organic carbon and nutrient removal efficiency of Chlorella sorokiniana under autotrophic, heterotrophic and mixotrophic conditions. Growth rates of the microalgae were 0.24 d(-1), 0.53 d(-1) and 0.44 d(-1) in autotrophic, heterotrophic and mixotrophic conditions, respectively. The growth rate of C. sorokiniana was significantly higher for that grown under heterotrophic conditions. The nitrogen removal rates were 13.1 mg-N/L/day, 23.9 mg-N/L/day and 19.4 mg-N/L/day, respectively. The phosphorus removal rates reached to 3.4 mg-P/L/day, 5.6 mg-P/L/day and 5.1 mg-P/L/day, respectively. Heterotrophic conditions were superior in terms of the microalgae growth and removal of nitrogen and phosphorus compared to autotrophic and mixotrophic conditions, suggesting that microalgae cultured under this condition would be most useful for application in wastewater treatment systems.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23850820


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> Autotrophic species are photosynthetic like plants. ]



Sorry, but I think this is referring to Photoautotrophic bacteria.

Nitrifying (autotrophic) bacteria wouldn't last long in the pitch black of a canister filter if they produced energy through photosynthesis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceF

2.3.1. Assimilation of ammonium
 Ammonium is the most preferred nitrogen source for algae. It is also the most energetically efficient source, since less energy is required for its uptake

http://bashanfoundation.org/gmaweb/pdfs/heterotrophicmetabol.pdf


----------



## BruceF

Andy this refers to algae not bacteria. Or I think that  is what it does.


----------



## AndyMcD

Bruce, I think this is really interesting as it suggests algae prefer ammonium (heterotrophic bacteria dominant) rather than nitrate (autotrophic bacteria dominant) as their nitrogen source, which is key for their production of protein (higher C/N ratio than plants as consist of a higher proportion of protein)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceF

Most of this is way over my head Andy.  I am simply trying to pull out some information that might be useful. 
But yeah..........


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> Andy this refers to algae not bacteria. Or I think that  is what it does.



Bruce, I'm very sorry. I replied before when I was at work and was skim reading. I'll re-read again properly.


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> What did you do then?
> I assume that if a "lack of traces" is contributing to BBA, that means that they are well below toxic levels. Otherwise they are overruled.


I've stopped dosing traces until it gets down to acceptable levels.  Certain plants are much more tolerant of high micronutrients, such as ferns and Anubias.  Others, such as Rotalas, are not.  However, even though ferns and Anubias are more tolerant, fish and shrimp are not and have died or appear to have developed chronic health issues.  I only mention this so that you don't overdose and harm your plants and animals, which seems really easy to do at EI levels.  Rates of Fe uptake are far lower than the suggested amounts, almost none, which indicates that it really isn't necessary to dose much for plants to get all they need.


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> I've stopped dosing traces until it gets down to acceptable levels.  Certain plants are much more tolerant of high micronutrients, such as ferns and Anubias.  Others, such as Rotalas, are not.  However, even though ferns and Anubias are more tolerant, fish and shrimp are not and have died or appear to have developed chronic health issues.  I only mention this so that you don't overdose and harm your plants and animals, which seems really easy to do at EI levels.  Rates of Fe uptake are far lower than the suggested amounts, almost none, which indicates that it really isn't necessary to dose much for plants to get all they need.



Ok, thanks for clarifying. So, why do you think increasing traces can benefit Anubias, for example, in combating BBA?


----------



## Guest

I don't think that.


fablau said:


> Ok, thanks for clarifying. So, why do you think increasing traces can benefit Anubias, for example, in combating BBA?


If they are deficient in micros, then that affects growth.  If they aren't deficient, then it's not an issue.  I was only referring to plants that are deficient.  So if you've been dosing traces, then it's not likely necessary to increase dosing.


----------



## fablau

Ok, got it. I have mostly increased potassium, and a little bit more of traces. I am currently watching my plants and BBA situation. I will give an update soon. Thank you again.


----------



## Scapefu

Hi everyone,

Interesting read and thought-provoking.

Here are my thoughts:

The study of symbiosis between algae and bacteria is still evolving.
There are about 200 different species of freshwater algae in the division Rhodophyta 
There may be many species of Black Beard or Brush Algae (BBA) that are commonly found in freshwater aquariums
BBA is typically introduced invasively through acquired plants or even the guts of fish.

Studies have found that some algae *require* exogenous vitamin B12 for growth. Others, don't. For example, one study found that out of 326 algal species surveyed, 171 species required exogenous vitamin B12.
Heterotrophic bacteria use dissolved organics to grow and can reproduce much faster than the nitrifying bacteria we are used to.
Without massive testing, you don't know whether the species of BBA you have in your aquarium is one of the ones that require B12.
CO2 fluctuations or deficiency is not *THE* cause of BBA. It may be a reason for BBA (and any other algae) to grow if present in the aquarium.
I doubt we will find a single reason why BBA outbreaks happen. And, that's _OK_.
Do's and One Don't

Do follow the golden equilibrium of Light-CO2-Fertilizer for your particular setup
Do be consistent
Do large water changes weekly
Do vacuum the substrate
Do clean your canister filter (often)
Do keep maintenance crew that may include SAEs
Do test your water for GH and KH and keep them steady
Do give your new plants a sterilizing bath or quarantine unless they are tissue cultured
Do quarantine fish
Don't acquire plants from unknown sources or big box stores


----------



## Manuel Arias

Allow me some humour here, Scapefu, but I am feeling just exhausted after reading the list of "Do´s". Even doing that, you can get algae for multitude of other reasons:



Scapefu said:


> Do follow the golden equilibrium of Light-CO2-Fertilizer for your particular setup



This can be quite tricky. Of course, it is the goal of any planted aquarium, but it takes time and not always easy to get, as it depends of a big amount of factors: Density and type of plants, type of soils, size of the filter, flow in the tank, exchange of gases between atmosphere and water, temperature of the room, intensity of your light, distance from light to substrate level, amount of fishes, kind of food of the fishes, brand of fertilizers you use, your tap water quality and composition... and those are just a few of the factors.



Scapefu said:


> Do large water changes weekly



It depends. In a well balanced aquarium, you do not need this. It is recommended, but not the reason to have algae, if you for instance replace the evaporation with RO water. I change water all the weeks, but not a large amount. I try to balance my nutrients in the water, so I test to check the amounts of fertilizers I have to add. And as always: Observing the plants and learning how they behave under what conditions.If you are an EI guy, then water change is mandatory, but that is one of the reasons I do not like EI system.



Scapefu said:


> Do give your new plants a sterilizing bath or quarantine unless they are tissue cultured
> 
> Do quarantine fish
> 
> Don't acquire plants from unknown sources or big box stores



The assumption than algae problem can be introduced by "foreign patogens" coming with your plants/fishes is wrong. It is totally impossible to avoid algae "seeds" entering in your tank. Especially if afterwards you use tap water to fill the tank up. If you think that water treatment can kill algae, just take some water from your tap, put in a closed flask at the sun, and see what happens within the time...

For the rest of items, well, the usual stuff when mantaining a tank.

Lack of maintenance is an adjuvant factor of algae problem, but usually, they appear for a combination of factors, many of them not easy to control, and the only way to go is correct the problem when happens. Even expert people running tanks for many years have suffered sudden problems with algae with no apparent reason.

There is no magic solution/technique for this problem, I am afraid.


----------



## fablau

Scapefu said:


> Do give your new plants a sterilizing bath or quarantine unless they are tissue cultured
> 
> Do quarantine fish
> 
> Don't acquire plants from unknown sources or big box stores



I have some doubts on these to "prevent" BBA or any other type of algae. Algae spores are going to be in your tank anyway. We all know about people putting plants "covered" of BBA into their tanks, and after a few days or weeks getting clean, just because the environment wasn't right for BBA.

In other words, we all know that despite the above are "good general rules", they are not "key" to prevent any algal outbreak.

I don't think the above rules should be weighted at the same level of other clearly possible causes contributing to BBA infestations such as: not right supplied Co2, high organics, etc. and then water changes, keep consistent Co2, etc. Those are key to prevent BBA. Not quarantine fish or plants.

What I mean, is that I think we should focus here on what really matters to prevent and combat BBA in the aquarium.


----------



## fablau

Scapefu said:


> CO2 fluctuations or deficiency is not *THE* cause of BBA. It may be a reason for BBA (and any other algae) to grow if present in the aquarium.



This statement also is deceiving... as I said earlier, algal spores are going to be in your tank anyway, no matter if you quarantine or not fish, plants, rocks, whatever. Is like if you think to avoid introducing bacteria in your tank: you are going to have them anyway! You say then: Co2 is not THE cause of BBA? May be the reason for BBA to grow? I'd say: may be "one" of the reasons. That's why we are discussing here other possible causes such as vitamin B12, ammonia, etc. All this may be confusing otherwise.


----------



## Manuel Arias

To be honest, it os going to be rather difficult to indetify the "cause". However, we potentially can identify a treatment or mitigation to the problem by experience. My main hopes here are really to find how to fight them once they appear...because it is quite probably that we will never really learn why the start to grow...or maybe yes, but I doubt that topic can be really covered in this forum.


----------



## fablau

I agree Manuel, that why I wrote "possible causes"


----------



## Scapefu

Guys, while I appreciate your remarks, I'm scratching my head because it seems to me you have taken my comments out of context in your replies. 

In fact, I think we are saying the same thing, right? Maintaining good water/fertilizer/light/CO2 parameters is key. My simple point is that inconsistent CO2 is not THE reason for BBA. Unfortunately, there are many people that say that this is THE cause of BBA.

Are you saying that available B12 in the aquarium with ammonium leads specifically to BBA? Alternatively, minimizing B12 in your aquarium would result in BBA being eliminated? I don't think this will prove correct. I believe there is not a single culprit that leads to BBA.

A recent study found that caffeine caused a significant growth in an algae species. Are we going to test for caffeine as the culprit for BBA? When do we stop going after every possible root cause for algae growth?

Also, while we do have algae spores in our aquariums, we don't all have BBA spores in our aquariums or in our air. Otherwise, we would have every species of algae known to man growing in our tanks.

Why would you not take steps to prevent BBA from getting into your aquarium by cleaning plants of it or purchasing from a place that you know doesn't have BBA?


----------



## sciencefiction

Scapefu said:


> Why would you not take steps to prevent BBA from getting into your aquarium by cleaning plants of it or purchasing from a place that you know doesn't have BBA?



I understand your point scapefu.
But many of us already have BBA in our tanks. If your statement is true, then we need to boil the tanks to 60C or similar to get rid of the current "spores"
Now another thing is as fablau already stated that BBA stops growing and disappears on plants transferred to non-BBA tanks. This must mean something in terms of conditions triggering BBA.
I agree and it is also my opinion that CO2 fluctuations don't trigger BBA. So what does....once you have the spores? Having the spores doesn't equal BBA because I certainly have "spores" in all my tanks from transferring plants but don't have BBA in all my tanks. In fact right now I've got BBA in none of them. They all have had BBA or have had plants "infected" with BBA transferred to them at some point in time.


----------



## Scapefu

SF,  thanks for reply. 

How did you arrive at boiling your aquarium from my words?? I didn't say that.

My point is simply 1) minimize chances of BBA getting into your aquarium and 2) maintaining your water parameters and golden equilibrium will result in any algae going away.

It is true that algae will grow in one aquarium and not another. The reason is that one has conditions that favor growth and the other doesn't. Why do you discount the possibility that one aquarium is properly dialed in and the other is imbalanced?

In my experience, cyano died when I moved plants from one of my aquariums to another.  One tank was a long standing, mature aquarium that was dialed in. The other was relatively new and I had not found the right balance for it yet.


----------



## sciencefiction

Scapefu said:


> How did you arrive at boiling your aquarium from my words?? I didn't say that.



I was simply responding to your previous statement below. Sorry for the confusion.



Scapefu said:


> BBA is typically introduced invasively through acquired plants or even the guts of fish.



I've had tanks for quite a few years now, so I was only kidding about the boiling part but it's too late for me to prevent possible "spores". Plus who can check fish's guts if it were through they can introduce it that way in one's aquariums.



Scapefu said:


> The reason is that one has conditions that favor growth and the other doesn't.



I think that's the question. Why does it prosper in some tanks and not at all in others. I've transferred BBA infected plants numerous times to non-BBA tanks and the BBA ends up dying and disappearing from that same plant. I've done that with anubias a few times.  I've also transferred completely healthy plants into a BBA tank and they got "infected" with BBA almost within days.


----------



## AndyMcD

sciencefiction said:


> Plus who can check fish's guts if it were through they can introduce it that way in one's aquariums.



If you search long enough on the Internet you can find most things. 

I didn't keep the link but I did find studies performed by scientists who were studying how algae could move upstream. 

Analysis of fish gut contents to try to find algae spores in full gory detail. 

Riveting read.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Scapefu said:


> One tank was a long standing, mature aquarium that was dialed in. The other was relatively new and I had not found the right balance for it yet.


I think that is an answer, it doesn't tell us why, but if you have some plant growth and you just wait most algae goes away of its own accord. I say "goes away" but it is still there, just not as obvious visible "out-breaks". 

I've looked at a lot of  "clean" plant leaves and stems under the microscope, and there has always been algal filaments and diatoms present. 





sciencefiction said:


> I think that's the question. Why does it prosper in some tanks and not at all in others. I've transferred BBA infected plants numerous times to non-BBA tanks and the BBA ends up dying and disappearing from that same plant. I've done that with anubias a few times. I've also transferred completely healthy plants into a BBA tank and they got "infected" with BBA almost within days.


 Which is back to where we started. The problem would be all the parameters we would like to measure vitamin B12, BOD etc are really out of reach

I've noticed that I've got some small circular colonies of a red algae growing in one of containers I store the rain-water in over-night before a water change. The water in these will always have been fairly clean and low BOD (based on a conductivity of ~100 microS), and there must have been times when they've been exposed to atmospheric gases for several days at a time.

I'll try and get a photo when I'm in University tomorrow.

cheers Darrel


----------



## AndyMcD

Scapefu said:


> My simple point is that inconsistent CO2 is not THE reason for BBA. Unfortunately, there are many people that say that this is THE cause of BBA.
> 
> Are you saying that available B12 in the aquarium with ammonium leads specifically to BBA? Alternatively, minimizing B12 in your aquarium would result in BBA being eliminated? I don't think this will prove correct. I believe there is not a single culprit that leads to BBA.



Algae photosynthesises using CO2 as its carbon source. Like plants, it would make sense that algae growth should increase with CO2 concentration. 

However, many very experienced aquarists report that BBA outbreaks are caused by inconsistent CO2.

Similarly, there are many reports that BBA outbreaks occur in aquariums with a higher concentration of organic carbon. Algae is unable to utilise organic carbon as its main source for growth.

As algae is unable to directly take advantage of these changes in the environment, how could BBA indirectly be benefiting from them?

What changes occur in the aquarium if CO2 reduces and organic carbon increases? What organisms that exist in our aquariums would benefit from these changes in the environment?

There is less CO2 for plants to convert to O2.

In our aquariums, autotrophic (nitrifying) bacteria and heterotrophic bacteria compete for  oxygen and surface area. As it requires less energy (and oxygen) for heterotrophic bacteria to convert organic rather than inorganic carbon to building blocks for growth, they are able to multiply and take advantage of environmental changes. Some species are even able to function in very low concentrations of O2.

Therefore, with a higher level of organic carbon, the heterotrophic bacteria have a source of food to be able to multiply. 

Plants suffering due to a deficiency may add to the available organic carbon levels. 

A reducing level of O2 and a rising C/N ratio worsens the conditions for the autotrophic bacteria, meaning they are less able to compete for surface area. 

As the population of heterotrophic bacteria increases the availability of oxygen will reduce, meaning the autotrophic bacteria may cease to function, converting less ammonia to nitrates. Also, heterotrophic bacteria break down proteins to amino acids and then ammonia. Both of these effects lead to an increase in the ammonia (ammonium) concentration in the aquarium.

Overstocking fish leads to an increase in ammonia and organic carbon waste.

Is there a link between the heterotrophic bacteria succeeding and algae benefiting?

Some heterotrophic bacteria produce vitamin B12. A paper quoted earlier in this thread describes the use of Pseudomonas Denitrificans to industrially produce B12. Also, it describes how reducing the concentration of O2 helps to maximise the yield of B12. As a heterotrophic bacteria population peaks, it may lead to a reducing concentration of available O2.

Vitamin B12 autotrophy in some species of algae is well known. Papers quoted earlier in this thread show how externally sourced vitamin B12 is required by some algae to produce the amino acids and proteins it requires to reproduce. To create protein, organisms need a source of nitrogen, in the form of nitrates, nitrites or ammonia (ammonium). 

Algae has a higher proportion of protein than plants. BruceF made reference to a paper which described algae as having a preference for ammonia (ammonium) as its nitrogen source.

Therefore, it is a combination of ammonia (ammonium) and vitamin B12 in sufficient concentrations that is required to stimulate a BBA outbreak.

By carrying out standard maintenance techniques, you will be acting to minimise this effect:
- Water changes reduce concentration of ammonia and B12
- Regular maintenance keeps organic carbon levels low
- Sufficient CO2 and high plant mass helps ensure high levels of oxygen
- Sufficient nutrients helps ensure there is low levels of organic carbon for heterotrophic bacteria to feed on
- Filter cleaning helps maximise surface area for autotrophic bacteria

In my opinion, this model captures many of the reported causes of BBA outbreaks and helps to explain why known controls may be effective.


----------



## AndyMcD

dw1305 said:


> I've noticed that I've got some small circular colonies of a red algae growing in one of containers I store the rain-water in over-night before a water change. The water in these will always have been fairly clean and low BOD (based on a conductivity of ~100 microS), and there must have been times when they've been exposed to atmospheric gases for several days at a time.



Darrel, 

you may find this paper interesting. 

In this paper they tried to isolate one type of algae and bacteria.

It talks about how heterotrophic bacteria can benefit from the organic carbon algae produces through photosynthesis, in return the algae benefits from the production of B12.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...regulation/links/0fcfd509536dcb94d6000000.pdf


----------



## AndyMcD

AndyMcD said:


> Vitamin B12 autotrophy in some species of algae is well known.



Sorry, this should be "Vitamin B12 auxotrophy in some species of algae is well known".

On the other hand, "Vitamin B12 autotrophy" has never been heard of!

Bl**dy spell checker!


----------



## BruceF

So does that suggest that the treatment might be antibiotics?


----------



## AndyMcD

Antibiotics would probably kill both heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria. Not good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceF

Yes.  But would the bba die?


----------



## AndyMcD

Yes, but fish may also die due to increased ammonia (uncycled tank).

If you could selectively kill off the heterotrophic bacteria, it could help reduce BBA. However, I think antibiotics may be too blunt an instrument.

Keeping organics low may be more effective at starving heterotrophic bacteria (water change, gravel clean, remove dead leaves, clean filter, activated carbon for less than two months).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sciencefiction

Antibiotics are an extremely "blunt instrument" as Andy put it. They will shift your tank's balance into the unknown and most likely ruin any "balance" there ever was or is going to happen for a good while.....Try it on yourself first...

If we are talking heterotrophic bacteria vs most organisms. Heterotrophic bactaria wins. We humans are heterotrophs.


----------



## AndyMcD

In this thread we have tried to identify a process that occurs when light intensity increases and CO2 concentration reduces. 

The process of Photorespiration does just this and leads to the release of CO2 and ammonia. Although the majority of the CO2 and NH3 may be re-assimilated internally within the plant, while the plant is photorespiring strongly, the plant may have less demand for nitrates / ammonium from outside the plant, meaning under these conditions the plant may compete less with the algae for ammonia.


The process of photosynthesis is explained by the Calvin cycle. During one step in the Calvin cycle, the preferred route is for the enzyme RuBisCO to add CO2 to the molecule RuBP (carboxylation). However, about 25% of these reactions take the non-preferred route of adding O2 to the molecule RuBP (oxygenation), but this rate can vary with environmental conditions.

Photorespiration effects the efficiency of photosynthesis of C3 plants (approximately 95% of plants are C3 by biomass). 

The addition of O2 to RuBP is wasteful to the plant in terms of energy, carbon and nitrogen. Therefore, excess photorespiration acts to weaken the plant.

The reaction leads to CO2 and ammonia being released, however these are likely to be re-assimilated by the plant, although it requires additional energy to do this.

Photorespiration occurs at higher rates under the following conditions:
- low levels of CO2
- high levels of O2
- high light intensity
- higher temperature (leading to a greater lowering of CO2 concentration in comparison to O2)

Certain species of algae and plants use carbon concentrating mechanisms to increase the concentration of CO2 near to the RuBisCO. For example, in some species of algae, the pyrenoid increased the concentration of CO2 in the chloroplasts, to reduce the effects of photorespiration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorespiration

http://rubisco.ugr.es/fisiofar/pagwebinmalcb/contenidos/Tema08/fotorresp.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrenoid


----------



## BruceF

That's great stuff Andy.  Thanks for all this. 

I just want to throw this in here.  I have this pet theory about c4 plants which involves me in trying to understand why certain plants seem to do fine in aquariums without  CO2 supplementation.   I don't really have the education to comprehend all this.  


In water with low free [CO2] a common strategy of submersed plants is to use HCO 3 − , but some species utilize a C4 photosynthetic system that surprisingly lacks the Kranz dual-cell compartmentation of most terrestrial C4 plants. Instead, the C4 and C3 cycles are in the same cell, with phospho_enol_pyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) and ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase–oxygenase (rubisco) sequestered in the cytosol and chloroplasts, respectively. Malate decarboxylation by NADP malic enzyme (NADP-ME) in the chloroplasts produces a chloroplastic CO2 concentrating mechanism (CCM). It occurs in the submersed monocots _Hydrilla verticillata_ and _Egeria densa_(Hydrocharitaceae), and in these species it is facultative because low [CO2] induces a metabolic shift in the leaves from C3 to single-cell C4 photosynthesis. Submersed leaves of other species also perform single-cell C4 photosynthesis, including _Sagittaria subulata_ (Alismataceae), the grasses_Orcuttia californica_ and _O. viscida_ (Poaceae), and the sedge _Eleocharis acicularis_. A marine macroalga (_Udotea flabellum_, Chlorophyta) and a diatom (_Thalassiosira weissflogii_) likewise show evidence of its occurrence, so it is not restricted to higher plants. The change from C3 to C4photosynthetic gas exchange and pulse-chase characteristics is well documented in _Hydrilla_, along with enzyme kinetics and localization; high internal [CO2], and improved growth. Multiple isoforms of PEPC, NADP-ME and pyruvate orthophosphate dikinase (PPDK) exist in _Hydrilla_ and _Egeria_, but specific forms, including _hvpepc4_, _hvme1_ and _hvppdk1_are up-regulated in the C4 leaves of _Hydrilla_and encode proteins with C4 photosynthetic characteristics. Interestingly, the photosynthetic_hvpepc4_ differs from its terrestrial C4 counterparts in lacking a “C4-signature” serine near the carboxy terminus. The C3 leaf must maximize CO2 conductance to rubisco, but as the C4 system is induced, chloroplast conductance is probably minimized to reduce leakage from the CCM. Further study of the facultative system of _Hydrilla_ could determine if down-regulation of chloroplast-envelope aquaporins is involved in reducing CO2 conductance. _Hydrilla_ and _Egeria_ are in the ancient Hydrocharitaceae family, and can give insights into early C4 photosynthesis, which likely originated in water prior to its advent on land.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-9407-0_5


----------



## AndyMcD

BruceF said:


> I just want to throw this in here. I have this pet theory about c4 plants which involves me in trying to understand why certain plants seem to do fine in aquariums without CO2 supplementation. I don't really have the education to comprehend all this.



BruceF, I don't have the education to comprehend all this either! However, I keep feeling if you look at the science in just a little bit more depth, a lot of the observations that people report here may be explained by science that people have investigated already.

From what I've read C4, CAM and pyrenoids in algae are all carbon concentrating mechanisms, that help to store and concentrate CO2 (via intermediate compounds) around the chloroplasts / rubisco, to help them photosynthesise even when CO2 levels are lower. 

I think I read somewhere that Vallisneria is able to concentrate CO2, using an alternative mechanism.

Just a thought - brainstormed idea - I wonder if carbon concentrating mechanisms in certain plants may be the cause of incompatibility with liquid carbon ( glutaraldehyde)

As you say, not all plants are C3 plants and would suffer from this photorespiration process to the same extent. However, I think this process may explain why under bright lights with insufficient CO2 some plants may suffer. 

Ammonia and CO2 being released from this reaction seemed to tie in with the hypothesis that ammonia with B12 leads to an increase in BBA growth. However, it would appear that the majority of NH3 maybe re-assimilated. Still with an excess of NH3 to be re-assimilated, it may be that the plants absorb less ammonia from the water and compete less with the algae.


----------



## RisingSun

Interesting read.



AndyMcD said:


> Therefore, it is a combination of ammonia (ammonium) and vitamin B12 in sufficient concentrations that is required to stimulate a BBA outbreak.



Isn't this easy to test? Just get a vitamin B12 pill from the drug store and ammonia and put it in a tank, see if BBA appears?


----------



## AndyMcD

I've just started an upgrade to a bigger tank, but once I've done this I'll have all the bits I need to set up a test tank. I've plenty of samples of BBA to seed the test tank with 

I've bought a 30cm cube and heater from a local fish shop, second hand on sale. I'll need to add surface movement using a small power head I already have, to provide O2 (bacteria) and CO2 (algae). I'll also need a light source (algae) - the days are getting quite short where I am now.

I could then test either:
- Add vitamin B12 and ammonia to the tank only (both manufactured synthetically). This would narrowly test the effect of just these two 'nutrients'.
- Add B12, ammonia, molasses, melting crypt, excess fish food, to feed the bacteria and the algae. This would help the heterotrophic bacteria to grow, in case they are providing another vital nutrient required, e.g. Phosphate.


----------



## AndyMcD

I may need to add CO2, to ensure algae not carbon limited. Less O2 may be a better test of this suggestion.


----------



## RisingSun

Awesome, interested in hearing the results of your test!

Also, many sources say that a large, healthy, biomass is _sufficient_ to prevent BBA.  If I'm not mistaken, your theory explains this phenomenon by saying 

_healthy plants -> high O2 -> healthy autotrophic bacteria colony = no BBA.  _

But if this is really the causal chain, then why doesn't this work (someone mentioned Tom tried this):

_                           high O2 -> healthy autotrophic bacteria colony = no BBA_

I'm sure one can inject more O2 into one's tank using a CO2 cannister than plants could produce.


----------



## Yo-han

I think you miss one thing. Healthy plants is not only high O2. It's also low organics. When O2 is high but plants unhealthy, there will still be loads of organics -> a lot of heterotrophic bacteria -> B12 & ammonia formation -> BBA.


----------



## hard determinist

The best way to study BBA growth demands is to study the _*BBA growth media *_composition.
Do a Google search for "Audouinella medium". To grow BBA in lab they use vitamin B1 (biotin), B12 (cyanocobalamin), and H (thiamine) + peat moss extract, and other basic nutrients. Also they recommend to use 30-60 µmol PAR (lower light intensity), 20°C + long photoperiod. In planted aquarium a huge number of factors may interfere.


----------



## BruceF

hard determinist said:


> "Audouinella medium".


That's great stuff.


----------



## ajm83

Yo-han said:


> I think you miss one thing. Healthy plants is not only high O2. It's also low organics. When O2 is high but plants unhealthy, there will still be loads of organics -> a lot of heterotrophic bacteria -> B12 & ammonia formation -> BBA.



So I wonder then, would running activated carbon help by adsorbing the DOC? (I assume this is what is meant by organics).


----------



## Yo-han

IME, it does. And theoratical op should bind vitamins as well. If not, something live purigen should.


----------



## AndyMcD

RisingSun said:


> Also, many sources say that a large, healthy, biomass is _sufficient_ to prevent BBA. If I'm not mistaken, your theory explains this phenomenon by saying
> 
> _healthy plants -> high O2 -> healthy autotrophic bacteria colony = no BBA. _
> 
> But if this is really the causal chain, then why doesn't this work (someone mentioned Tom tried this):
> 
> _ high O2 -> healthy autotrophic bacteria colony = no BBA_



RisingSun, as Yo-Han says, the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria are competing for surface area and oxygen. If organics are high and O2 increases, the heterotrophic bacteria would respond quicker and win. The autotrophic bacteria may only benefit from increased O2 if organics are very low.

Also, I think the effect of photorespiration may be important here. Instead of absorbing CO2 and photosynthesising, some of the reactions lead to the plant absorbing O2 and photorespiring instead.

Photorespiration increases if O2 levels increase or CO2 levels reduce.

The outputs of photorespiration include CO2 and NH3, which is wasteful for the plant in terms of loss of carbon and nitrogen. The plant will try to re-assimilate these products, but the reactions are wasteful of energy.

All this means that too much O2 or too little CO2 (particularly in bright light) makes photorespiration harmful to the plant.

Also, if the plant's nitrogen needs are being met by its own internal reactions, it may absorb less ammonia from the water column.

This means that the addition of O2 may mean that the plant may absorb less NH3, an increase which the relatively static population of autotrophic bacteria cannot respond to, meaning an increase in ammonia available to the algae.


----------



## AndyMcD

ajm83 said:


> So I wonder then, would running activated carbon help by adsorbing the DOC? (I assume this is what is meant by organics)



AJM83, ADA recommend using activated carbon for the first 6-8 weeks after setting up a new tank (while ADA Aquasoil is releasing ammonia).

Activated carbon may remove organics from the water column, but it is important to remove to prevent it from becoming a food source for the heterotrophic bacteria.


----------



## AndyMcD

hard determinist said:


> Do a Google search for "Audouinella medium". To grow BBA in lab they use vitamin B1 (biotin), B12 (cyanocobalamin), and H (thiamine) + peat moss extract, and other basic nutrients. Also they recommend to use 30-60 µmol PAR (lower light intensity), 20°C + long photoperiod. In planted aquarium a huge number of factors may interfere.



Hard determinist, this is really helpful information. Thank you.

Previously in this thread, we've discussed the following paper, which includes this diagram, which shows how vitamins B12 and B1 play a role in the growth and re-production of algae.
"Influence of vitamin B auxotrophy on nitrogen metabolism in eukaryotic phytoplankton" by Bertrand and Allen (
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00375/full):



 

This paper also ties in with the lower light intensity / longer photoperiod for achieving greater growth in algae:

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...freshwater_red_algae_in_culture._Phycolog_Res

In this thread, the proposal is that the huge number of factors that can interfere can be better explained if you consider the impact on the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria and in particular the impact on the concentration of Vitamin B12 and ammonia (ammonium).


----------



## rebel

Looks like the more we know, the more we are confused?? 

Has anyone been sciency enough to run a few tests under lab conditions? I am intensely interested if anyone can replicate consistent BBA growth with a specific formula ie X light, Y ferts etc. Once you grow it, then you can practice killing it.


----------



## RisingSun

AndyMcD said:


> RisingSun, as Yo-Han says, the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria are competing for surface area and oxygen. If organics are high and O2 increases, the heterotrophic bacteria would respond quicker and win. The autotrophic bacteria may only benefit from increased O2 if organics are very low.



Oh ok, that's reasonable. Thanks


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> AJM83, ADA recommend using activated carbon for the first 6-8 weeks after setting up a new tank (while ADA Aquasoil is releasing ammonia).
> 
> Activated carbon may remove organics from the water column, but it is important to remove to prevent it from becoming a food source for the heterotrophic bacteria.



Has anyone tried to combat BBA with activated carbon or Purigen? Any results?


----------



## hard determinist

rebel said:


> Has anyone been sciency enough to run a few tests under lab conditions? I am intensely interested if anyone can replicate consistent BBA growth with a specific formula ie X light, Y ferts etc. Once you grow it, then you can practice killing it.


To grow BBA in lab conditions is easy as in the lab you use sterile conditions, and precise growth media composition with all the needed nutrients. You just buy the algae sample, the growth media (Audouinella medium), put the algae into the nutritious medium and put it under light (in a room with proper temperature). That's all. This way you can grow the algae for ages. The problem is to grow the algae in our tanks where the conditions are not sterile, and where there are so many other factors comming into play. However, it may be of interest for us to study how different kinds of bacteria affect the BBA growth.


----------



## rebel

hard determinist said:


> To grow BBA in lab conditions is easy as in the lab you use sterile conditions, and precise growth media composition with all the needed nutrients. You just buy the algae sample, the growth media (Audouinella medium), put the algae into the nutritious medium and put it under light (in a room with proper temperature). That's all. This way you can grow the algae for ages. The problem is to grow the algae in our tanks where the conditions are not sterile, and where there are so many other factors comming into play. However, it may be of interest for us to study how different kinds of bacteria affect the BBA growth.


Thanks for this answer. Is it then possible to limit B12 etc in those conditions to see whether there is a difference in growth? ie Once you have a few culture plates, then treat them with predefined conditions ie low light, high B12 etc and see?

[disclaimer I don't know science; just thinking out loud]


----------



## RisingSun

fablau said:


> Has anyone tried to combat BBA with activated carbon or Purigen? Any results?



I run purigen and API Bio-Chem in my cannister.  2 weeks ago, I got a BBA outbreak without changing anything with the tank and I realized it had been 5 months since I changed my chemical media.  Manufacture recommendation is 3-6 months.  I'm going to change out the chem media every 4 months this time, I'll let you know if I get another BBA outbreak.


----------



## AndyMcD

RisingSun, I've just done a Google search on Purigen and Zeolite.

Someone on the UKAPS forum pointed out that if the Purigen has a large store of ammonia it is likely to have a large population of nitrifying bacteria.

I'm sure you'll have done this, but to avoid throwing out a large proportion of your nitrifying bacteria, it may make sense to gradually change your media.


----------



## AndyMcD

fablau said:


> Has anyone tried to combat BBA with activated carbon or Purigen? Any results?



Fablau, have you read the 'Good Algae Article' at the top of the Algae section?

I found it really interesting what was said about keeping ammonia and organics low to battle algae.

Sorry, I haven't tested this yet (but it's interesting that we're considering this as alternative ways of battling BBA).


----------



## AndyMcD

rebel said:


> Thanks for this answer. Is it then possible to limit B12 etc in those conditions to see whether there is a difference in growth? ie Once you have a few culture plates, then treat them with predefined conditions ie low light, high B12 etc and see?
> 
> [disclaimer I don't know science; just thinking out loud]



Rebel, hard determinist's link to Audouinella Medium shows that the best way to grow algae in a lab is to grow it on a substrate which includes vitamin B12. This must have been found through properly controlled experiments.

If heterotrophic bacteria produce B12, you'd have to make sure everything was sterile before accurately testing for low levels of B12. The environment would have to be clean, correct temperature, correctly lit etc. How would you be 100% you could prevent bacteria getting into the system in a home? Better done in a lab.

If this has been carried out previously in a lab and been shown to be true (published scientific paper), can we accept this?

In which case, hard determinist's post gives us the ideal conditions (and therefore what to avoid) to grow algae.


----------



## hard determinist

AndyMcD said:


> hard determinist's post gives us the ideal conditions (and therefore what to avoid) to grow algae


Read what Gerloff says in his paper on _*Nutritional Ecology of Nuisance Aquatic Plants*_ (page 5):
_"The nutritional requirements of most autotrophic plants, including fresh-water algae and macrophytes, are relatively simple. In the absence of toxic conditions, green plants make normal growth upon exposure to suitable temperature, adequate light, water, and inorganic nutrients. External supplies of vitamins, amino acids, and an organic energy source need not be provided."_

The last two sentences are meant for the plants only (not algae), as we already know that some algae need vitamines or other organics to grow and multiply well. Still, it is clear that to grow plants and algae is a relatively simple task. There are some people (hobbyists) who say that they are able to grow every aquatic plant in their tanks, and flaunt it. But in fact, it's easy if you give them what they need, and at the same time avoid the toxic (or otherwise unfavourable) conditions. We all have suitable temperature in our tanks, adequate light (in most cases), some water in there, and quite good load of (in)organic nutrients. So why our plants don't grow well, or why algae grow too much? I think that's mainly because we don't understand how different parts in our tank work, and what's their share in the whole. So if we have adequate light, suitable temperature, water, and a good load of nutrients in our tank, but our plants don't grow too well, then we must have some other factors working against all this. The same applies for algae: If we have all they need in our tank, and still they don't grow, then we must have some other factors working against them (e.g. plants shading, too high oxygen levels, radicals, shrimps or other algae eaters, frequent water changes, glass cleaning, substrate vacuuming, filters with special media, non-optimal pH ... etc.). If you remove all these "anti-factors", you get what is inevitable = good growth (whether of plants or algae). Growing plants (or algae) in the lab is a really easy task, because the scientists use perfectly controlled environment without the "toxic/unfavourable" part (or they use the toxic part to study how it negatively affects the growth, but that's another story). But this easy task can become quite complicated in the field of our tanks, where there are dozens of "uncontrolled (anti)factors" comming into play. And because you don't know all these factors and their share in the whole, you are shifting to the realm of speculation. So I don't believe that without proper testing/experimenting we can get to any valid results.


----------



## AndyMcD

hard determinist said:


> ...And because you don't know all these factors and their share in the whole, you are shifting to the realm of speculation. So I don't believe that without proper testing/experimenting we can get to any valid results.



I feel a rant coming on! Hard determinist, this is most definitely not aimed in your direction! I think the posts you've made have been really interesting. I respect your opinion. However, gonna have to get this off my chest ...

In the field of Physics there are experimental physicists and theoretical physicists. The experimental physicists make observations which the theoretical physicists try to explain and create new theories of their own, which the experimental physicists then test ... And so science moves forward.

I read the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread with interest. There are a large number of aquarists who through their own observations have identified potential causes and controls. However, there was also a large amount of frustration regarding how these potential causes were connected and could lead to a BBA outbreak (e.g. Why should increasing CO2 prevent BBA). The conclusion seemed to be that only through experiments to determine the significance or not of each proposed cause could you determine why.

Ultimately, this is true. Only through experiment will you ultimately prove beyond doubt the cause(s).

However, we need to be realistic about the money and time we have available to carry out such a large scale experiment with so many possible variables. Also, few of us have a lab in our homes to be able to meaningfully carry out such experiments. Once you had drawn your conclusions, you'd then be faced with relating this to the real life ecosystems in our aquariums (... But I don't have these plants / soil / fish etc).

In my opinion, a better approach is the one that the majority of people in this hobby seemed to be taking of varying something within this complex system and observing the effect it has.  In this way, you determine whether varying something has an effect and if so how does this fit with other observations.

At the start of my career, I worked in R&D for a few years. Before beginning an experiment we were taught to carry out a review of the current scientific thinking so as to focus attention where it was most needed.

Just because science has been proved in a lab rather than an aquarium, doesn't make it less relevant. We accept photosynthesis happens even though it wasn't found in an aquarium first. Therefore, I think it is valid (and much cheaper) to look at published scientific papers to find out what scientists (with proper labs) have found.

After the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread, I thought I'd read a little deeper into the subject. 

This isn't an area of science I have studied, but if you begin to ask:

- what organisms benefit (and suffer) from the changes in the environment that are reported to happen before an outbreak

- how these organisms doing well may benefit the BBA

I think it is possible to construct a fairly credible argument that bacteria are involved, which can be supported by scientific data (carried out by scientists in labs with white coats and everything).

Is this shifting to the realm of speculation? Yes. Does this proposed theory really hold water? I don't know. However, if this thread has helped to move this issue forward and focus the experimental aquarists attention where it may help defeat BBA, I'd be happy.


----------



## BruceF

Lets try and keep things in perspective. 
Vitaminb12 was first isolated by Dorothy Hodgkin, contributing to her Nobel Prize in 1964.

Nutritional ecology of nuisance aquatic plants  By Gerald C. Gerloff was published in 1975.


----------



## fablau

RisingSun said:


> I run purigen and API Bio-Chem in my cannister.  2 weeks ago, I got a BBA outbreak without changing anything with the tank and I realized it had been 5 months since I changed my chemical media.  Manufacture recommendation is 3-6 months.  I'm going to change out the chem media every 4 months this time, I'll let you know if I get another BBA outbreak.



Yes, please, let me know. I have never used carbon nor Purigen for longer than a few days, in rare circumstances, because I am afraid they can remove nutrients (traces) for plants, but maybe I have been mistaken on that... Do you think carbon or Purigen can be used on a regular basis without issues for plants? I mean, without removing too much nutrients from water?


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> Fablau, have you read the 'Good Algae Article' at the top of the Algae section?
> 
> I found it really interesting what was said about keeping ammonia and organics low to battle algae.
> 
> Sorry, I haven't tested this yet (but it's interesting that we're considering this as alternative ways of battling BBA).



Yes, I read that several times, and it's true our tanks need to have low organically. Especially old tanks like mine, over 5 years old... If we can actually use either carbon or Purigen to help reducing DOC (without affecting nutrients for plants though), that would be worth trying.


----------



## rebel

AndyMcD said:


> Rebel, hard determinist's link to Audouinella Medium shows that the best way to grow algae in a lab is to grow it on a substrate which includes vitamin B12. This must have been found through properly controlled experiments.
> 
> If heterotrophic bacteria produce B12, you'd have to make sure everything was sterile before accurately testing for low levels of B12. The environment would have to be clean, correct temperature, correctly lit etc. How would you be 100% you could prevent bacteria getting into the system in a home? Better done in a lab.
> 
> If this has been carried out previously in a lab and been shown to be true (published scientific paper), can we accept this?
> 
> In which case, hard determinist's post gives us the ideal conditions (and therefore what to avoid) to grow algae.


Thanks Andy for your answer. I've read the abstract. Will read the whole thing tonight.

In this case, how do people view Seachem ENVY (yeah I know.... magic potion etc etc) which has guess what? B12... among others...



			
				http://www.aquavitro.com/products/envy.html said:
			
		

> envy™ is a comprehensive carbohydrate, vitamin, amino acid, and polyunsaturated fatty acid supplement that addresses the micro and trace nutritional requirements of plants. envy™ contains ascorbic acid in a base of chlorella that contains a rich assortment of amino acids and vitamins.
> 
> Chlorella is a unique algae that grows in fresh water. It is extremely high in enzymes, vitamins and minerals, including the full vitamin-B Complex. It is over-flowing with unsaturated fatty acids, amino acids, and proteins. There are also vitamins found in Chlorella including: Vitamin C, pro-vitamin A (B-carotene), thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), pyridoxine (B6), niacin, pantothenic acid, folic acid, Vitamin B12, biotin, choline, Vitamin K, lipoic acid, and inositol. Minerals in Chlorella include: phosphorus, calcium, zinc, iodine, magnesium, iron, and copper. It contains a higher level of amino acids than spirulina and is FDA approved for use with ornamental fish.


----------



## fablau

rebel said:


> Thanks Andy for your answer. I've read the abstract. Will read the whole thing tonight.
> 
> In this case, how do people view Seachem ENVY (yeah I know.... magic potion etc etc) which has guess what? B12... among others...



You brought up a very interesting question about Envy... It includes vitamin B12, among others as you said. I am wondering: how can plants use that stuff?? Never heard of plants feeding on vitamins or other similar compounds... Unless that solution is going to feed specific bacteria or something else which could potentially benefit plants indirectly.... But, what an irony the fact we have been discussing about the possible positive effects of vitamin B12 on BBA, and they are selling a product which includes vitamin B12 which is supposed to improve plants growth??!


----------



## RisingSun

AndyMcD said:


> I don't know. However, if this thread has helped to move this issue forward and focus the experimental aquarists attention where it may help defeat BBA, I'd be happy.



I'm not much of a scientist, all I really want is a nice algae-free aquarium.  If you can demonstrate, in a reasonably controlled scientific experiment, that certain maintenance routines (like keeping organics low) actually impact BBA, I think you'll add a lot of value to the community.  The _why _(bacteria imbalance), although interesting to read about, is slightly less important to me than figuring out _what _to do to reduce BBA.

The overwhelming theory on this board is that organics => BBA, but I haven't really seen anyone do a controlled experiment on it.  I think the closest thing to real data was a compilation of various water samples vs algae that someone put together, but they abandoned the project and the experiment was inconclusive.  There is, however, abundant anecdotal evidence from many people saying that they've observed organics => BBA. For me, that's enough evidence to put in 60% effort in reducing organics.  I'm not going to go 100% effort on limiting organics until someone (maybe AndyMcD?) proves it in a controlled experiment.  For many years there was abundant anecdotal evidence that phosphate/nitrate => algae too.  Look how true that theory turned out to be.

The nice thing about the organics => BBA theory is that proponents say organics are _sufficient_ to induce BBA.  This should make it very easy to at least _disprove _this theory - all you have to do is show one tank that has no BBA and high organics.  That is enough to prove that organics may be _necessary_ but not _sufficient._


----------



## hard determinist

RisingSun said:


> The nice thing about the organics => BBA theory is that proponents say organics are _sufficient_ to induce BBA. This should make it very easy to at least _disprove _this theory - all you have to do is show one tank that has no BBA and high organics. That is enough to prove that organics may be _necessary_ but not _sufficient._


Please, don't provoke me with such a weak conclusions!
One tank that has no BBA and high organics won't disprove this theory. That's another myth out there in the forums realm. I know you may disagree with me on that but for me the assertion that high phosphate/nitrate levels have no correlation to algae infestation is another myth, and many leading scientists investigating this topic will confirm this (if you ask them). It is similar to the law of gravity. When I take a book into my hand and stretch the hand out with the book in it ... does it mean that the law of gravity is not valid (because the book is not falling to the ground)? Absolutely not! Although my strength can temporarily overcome the law of gravity, and thus the book in my hand won't fall to the ground, no one doubts the law of gravity acts upon the book, and finally will defeat my strength and win (and the book falls down). According to the same principle, high levels of phosphates and/or nitrates are encouraging the algae growth, but there may be some "strength" working against this law. So, having a tank that has no BBA and high organics at the same time, don't prove some theory is false. As it was proven so many times that there is a strong correlation between P and N levels and algae, then the absence of algae in a tank which is full of nutrients proves only that there is "something" that works against the inevitable = algae infestation. So even if high organics would prove to be the reason for BBA appearance, I can have many tanks with high organics and no BBA => what about tanks with high BBA together with a high number of BBA-eaters (like SAE)? Or what about high organics accompanied with a low pH (like pH 4 to 5)? Or high organics with lower temperature? Or high organics without some specific amino acid (which the BBA may need to grow and multiply)? Don't you think that similar things won't have any negative effect on BBA growth? As I already pointed out, if you want to know what works against some algae, it may help to know the ideal growth (culture) conditions ... and then you should avoid such a conditions (as much as possible). I think that the BBA may be combatted from many sides. If it prefers a temperature range of 25 to 28°C, we can combat it by keeping the temperature below 25°C or above 28°C; if it prefers high flow, we can combat it by low flow; if it prefers a pH range of 6.5 to 7.5 we can combat it by keeping the pH below 6.5 or above 7.5; if it needs vitamin B12 to grow, we can try to remove it from our tanks by special filter media or frequent water changes ... etc. Some of these techniques may be more effective than others. But for sure there are many ways to combat it, because there are many optimal parameters which it needs to grow well. So focus and target the optimal parameters for its growth. The "elimination of vitamin B12" technique may be very effective in combatting this algae, but you must first fine some way how to put this technique into practice => how do you remove the vitamin B12 (or B1 or H) from your tank (how do you remove all its sources)?


----------



## RisingSun

hard determinist said:


> I know you may disagree with me on that but for me the assertion that high phosphate/nitrate levels have no correlation to algae infestation is another myth, and many leading scientists investigating this topic will confirm this (if you ask them).



Hi, I do not disagree with you on this . I think we're both on the same page, but I may need to clarify my word choice.  The following two statements are similar, but logically very different:

1. nitrate/phosphate is _sufficient_ to induce algae in a planted aquarium
2. nitrate/phosphate encourages algae growth when X, Y conditions are met

I can agree with #2 and still disagree with #1.  #1 can be dispproven by a simple counter example.  #2 requires a controlled experiment controlling for X, Y among other factors.

Many people back in the day asserted the #1 case, which was definitively proven false. Circling back to BBA, which one of the following is true:

1. organics is _sufficient_ to induce BBA in a planted aquarium
2. organics encourages BBA growth when X, Y conditions are met

1 is powerful in that if it's true, we need only focus 100% of our efforts on a single factor.  2 is less powerful, but also more likely to be true.  It's less powerful because _even if_ it were true, we would need to find out what percent organics plays in the equation. is it 25 % organics + 25% X + 25% Y + 25 Z = BBA?  The formula would require a massive undertaking to experimentally prove, and also a lot of work to implement once proven.  I think the most practical and feasible experiment is if someone could prove that 70% organics + 25% misc = BBA.  That way, if we devote 100% of our time to organics, we have no/little BBA 70% of the time.


----------



## AndyMcD

I'm going to propose that we bring this thread to a conclusion. I'll update a diagram to capture what has been discussed. However, as various people have said, without experiment now we'll struggle to prove that this theory is true. As a model, I think it does match a lot of the proposed causes and effective controls. It has had a lot more views / interest than I expected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Yo-han

AndyMcD said:


> However, we need to be realistic about the money and time we have available to carry out such a large scale experiment with so many possible variables. Also, few of us have a lab in our homes to be able to meaningfully carry out such experiments. Once you had drawn your conclusions, you'd then be faced with relating this to the real life ecosystems in our aquariums (... But I don't have these plants / soil / fish etc).



Someone at APC forum once tried. He collected samples from hobbyists to see whether there was a correlation between organics and BBA/algae:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/89126-organics-analysis.html


----------



## ian_m

fablau said:


> because I am afraid they can remove nutrients (traces) for plants, but maybe I have been mistaken on that...


Purigen removes nitrogenous organic compounds not inorganics like EI salts. I have run for ages with Purigen and not had any plant issues or algae issues, and have nice crystal clear water.


----------



## Yo-han

I agree, the only thing it could theoratically remove is chelators. But I've never found this to be a problemen running purigen and carbon 24/7.


----------



## rebel

RisingSun said:


> The nice thing about the organics => BBA theory is that proponents say organics are _sufficient_ to induce BBA.  This should make it very easy to at least _disprove _this theory - all you have to do is show *one tank* that has no BBA and high organics.  That is enough to prove that organics may be _necessary_ but not _sufficient._


RisingSun, I hope you were making a throw away comment with "one tank". As you would know, one experiment would be a pilot or hypothesis generation. You'd need consilience of evidence before it became and accepted theory.

Have a look here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Sorry OT.


----------



## fablau

ian_m said:


> Purigen removes nitrogenous organic compounds not inorganics like EI salts. I have run for ages with Purigen and not had any plant issues or algae issues, and have nice crystal clear water.



Is activated carbon doing the same? I mean, taking just organic compounds? What about traces? Just asking, because I am thinking to add Purigen and/or carbon to see if it is actually making any difference to my tank which is still infested of BBA after several weeks of cleaning and adding nitrifying bacteria, improving oxygen, etc. yes, any action toward favoring autotrophic bacteria haven't gotten any better result so far


----------



## hard determinist

fablau said:


> Is activated carbon doing the same?


_*Activated carbon effectivity of removal:*_


----------



## fablau

Thank you for the table, very informative. I think I will try with Purigen.


----------



## AndyMcD

Fablau, sorry to hear the theory isn't working out for you.

Purigen would help to reduce ammonia levels.

Activated carbon would help reduce organics.

May want to try both?


----------



## sciencefiction

I don't want to discourage you but purigen didn't work out for me. I think you need a ton of it to make a change when organics are out of hand produced 24/7. But yes, the water seemed clearer. I could see my pleco's poop clearer too 
Cleaning the tank, media and water changes didn't help either. I've always been pretty consistent about it as I am dealing with live beings. The only thing that helped and seemed to help within weeks of the change was offload some fish from the tank.


----------



## Guest

Guest said:


> Potassium deficiency allows staghorn to colonize leaves.  K deficiency also causes necrosis.





> Staghorn on leaves? Probably potassium deficiency. Also, mini bolbitis has very very small submerged leaves, under 2" long.





> I've also noted that BBA is associated with potassium deficiency. This has occurred numerous times that I think it's not a coincidence. K deficiency may set in motion a chain of events which ultimately leads to BBA on Anubias (and possibly Bolbitis) leaves. It doesn't affect plants such as Rotala's and Ludwigia's, so perhaps Anubias and ferns require much more potassium than stem plants to be healthy.


This is incorrect.  Potassium deficiency does not necessarily cause staghorn to grow on leaves.  What I thought was a potassium deficiency was actually a micronutrient toxicity.  Thus, it's a micronutrient toxicity that damage leaf margins which results in staghorn and BBA.  Adding extra potassium is one way to offset this symptom of toxicity. However, this does not eliminate the toxicity.


----------



## fablau

AndyMcD said:


> Fablau, sorry to hear the theory isn't working out for you.
> 
> Purigen would help to reduce ammonia levels.
> 
> Activated carbon would help reduce organics.
> 
> May want to try both?



I will definitively try both Purigen and carbon. I will keep you posted


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> This is incorrect.  Potassium deficiency does not necessarily cause staghorn to grow on leaves.  What I thought was a potassium deficiency was actually a micronutrient toxicity.  Thus, it's a micronutrient toxicity that damage leaf margins which results in staghorn and BBA.  Adding extra potassium is one way to offset this symptom of toxicity. However, this does not eliminate the toxicity.



Guest, I am beginning to think about a possible toxicity in my tank. I have just measured my Fe and it is almost at 3ppm (2.94ppm). I dose CSM plus DTPA, but I also have high KH (7) and GH (15-18) which should mitigate any possible toxicity of CSM.

I am following this thread as well:

CSM+B Toxicity Experiment


And what you observed above (damaged leaves margins, BBA, etc) are the exact symptoms I have in my tank. Despite I pump a ton of Co2 (80ml/minute, over 1.5 PH drop with KH 7!!!), BBA is always there, mostly on slow growers, mostly on the edges of older Anubia leaves.... My Valisnerias also get regularly fuzz or BBA on the edges of leaves... And so Alternantheras. Could that be really related to a toxicity??! Maybe we are here thinking about wrong Co2 or lack of autotrophic bacteria, when instead is just overdosing of traces??!


----------



## Yo-han

Could it be both? Damaged leaves release organics, whether it's from too much op too little nutrients.


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> Guest, I am beginning to think about a possible toxicity in my tank. I have just measured my Fe and it is almost at 3ppm (2.94ppm). I dose CSM plus DTPA, but I also have high KH (7) and GH (15-18) which should mitigate any possible toxicity of CSM.



Should but it may not actually do so.  The only way to find out is to reset the tank by dosing multiple massive WCs and then wait and observe the plants for deficiencies.  Then dose and observe but only in minute concentrations.  Currently, I'm dosing 0.3ppm of Fe/week from FeDTPA:CSM+B at a 2:1 ratio.  This is enough to prevent deficiencies so far.  Need further testing.



> And what you observed above (damaged leaves margins, BBA, etc) are the exact symptoms I have in my tank. Despite I pump a ton of Co2 (80ml/minute, over 1.5 PH drop with KH 7!!!), BBA is always there, mostly on slow growers, mostly on the edges of older Anubia leaves.... My Valisnerias also get regularly fuzz or BBA on the edges of leaves... And so Alternantheras. Could that be really related to a toxicity??! Maybe we are here thinking about wrong Co2 or lack of autotrophic bacteria, when instead is just overdosing of traces??!


The algae on the plants grow on the affected leaves, not healthy leaves.  This tends to be the older leaves since it's exposed to higher concentrations for longer periods of time.

And a 1.5pH drop?  That's insane.  I ruled out CO2 deficiency as a source of algae outbreaks a short while ago.  There really isn't any need to dose so much.  Even ADA doesn't dose very much nor do they turn on CO2 an hour or two before lights on; they turn them on simultaneously.  So why the correlation between low CO2 and algae?  Because of toxicity.  Low CO2 results in slower nutrient uptake which results in higher metal concentrations in the water column which leads to toxicity.

The paradigm that I've been using these past couple of years has been wrong.  It's actually quite amazing that all the problems I've had since I started in this hobby were actually the result of trace element toxicities.  It wasn't CO2, GH, NPK, WCs, flow, light, etc, but toxicities.  Now we just need to figure out which nutrients are causing them and associate them to the signs.


----------



## Guest

http://plantstress.com/Articles/toxicity_i/Metal_toxicity.pdf

Also, according to this paper regarding metal toxicities in plants, specifically Mn, Zn, and Cu, it describes the symptoms of manganese toxicities on plants such as damaged leaf margins, necrosis, and tissue damage of older leaves.  Sound similar to the pinhole issue in Hygros?  And why do BBA and staghorn tend to grow on the leaf margins of plants?  Is this a sign of Mn toxicity?


----------



## AndyMcD

What kicked me off on this whole thread was dosing neat liquid carbon and chemically burning leaves, which then became covered in BBA. 

As Yo-Han points out, heterotrophic bacteria break down dead, dying and damaged leaves. They break break down proteins in organics to amino acids, then ammonia. High organics can lead to high ammonia. An available organic food source means an increase in the population of heterotrophic bacteria.

As Sciencefiction says, lots of Purigen may be needed to remove ammonia, but you could attempt to remove the sources of the ammonia, using activated carbon to remove organics from the water column or reducing the number of fish which are excreting ammonia and organics.

As Yo-Han points out, toxicity could well be the root cause of your leaves being damaged, but that also means heterotrophic bacteria may then be feeding off the organics released.

Also, I do think this effect of photorespiration could be quite important. 

This affect occurs when CO2 is low or O2 is high (lots of O2 produced by too much CO2?). 

If CO2 is low the plants uses more of the O2 available instead,  while it is trying to photosynthesise. This is wasteful of energy and it releases CO2 and ammonia. It may re-absorb the CO2 and ammonia it generates, but I can't believe the plant can be absorbing as much ammonia from the water column while this is going on. There is an energy cost relating to re-absorbing CO2 and ammonia in this way, which long term may lead to the plant becoming unhealthy. This is what people observe, bright lights, low CO2, unhealthy plants, BBA.

If the plant is absorbing less ammonia, could it slow the nutrient uptake rate (speculation).

If you were to increase surface agitation while the lights were on to benefit the bacteria, you'd add more O2 but also drive off injected CO2 lowering the concentration, which in turn could lead to more photorespiration. 

While the lights are, it may be more beneficial for the bacteria to receive O2 indirectly through healthy plants photosynthesising due to an excess (by a little) of CO2, rather than increasing surface agitation (or pumping in O2) to provide more O2 to the bacteria, but at the same time making the plants unhealthy.

Once the lights are off, photorespiration would be less of an issue and increasing surface agitation to prevent O2 levels dropping too low, would make sense to me. This ties in with successful people increasing aeration at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Guest said:


> Also, according to this paper regarding metal toxicities in plants, specifically Mn, Zn, and Cu, it describes the symptoms of manganese toxicities on plants such as damaged leaf margins, necrosis, and tissue damage of older leaves. Sound similar to the pinhole issue in Hygros? And why do BBA and staghorn tend to grow on the leaf margins of plants? Is this a sign of Mn toxicity?



Also, earlier in this thread, we discuss plants that use bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions as their source of carbon, lead to an excess of OH- ions accumulating on their leaves.




 
This affect will lead to more positively charged metal ions being attracted to the leaf. An amazing image was added of calcium deposits on the top of anubias leaves.


----------



## BruceF

Let's not forget scissors. Plant leaves do not repair themselves.  (no running!)


----------



## fablau

Ok guys, I wanna try to do this: tomorrow big water change, adding carbon and Purigen to filter, then lower Co2 injection to more "human" levels (1.2 max drop) and try to stop dosing for a few days by monitoring all levels (No3, Po4 and Fe) and see what's gonna happen.

I have been amazed by this Dutch tank, very beautiful, which claim to use reduced EI but very low Co2 (0.7 PH drop) and no algae at all:

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/aquascaping/14668-a-dutch-style

I want to find out from that guy "how much" he has reduced EI dosing.

Also, I almost forgot: I tried to increase both K and traces for a few days the past week, but I didn't notice any BBA regression. Actually... Situation got worse right after I tried double CSM dose!! I thought it was just an unfortunate case.... I can guess now.!??!


----------



## fablau

Guest said:


> Currently, I'm dosing 0.3ppm of Fe/week from FeDTPA:CSM+B at a 2:1 ratio.  This is enough to prevent deficiencies so far.  Need further testing.


Guest, does that mean you dose 0.1ppm each dose, x3 times a week which gives you a total of 0.3ppm?

Also, important: do you know your max level of Fe in your water in ppm? I mean, whats your max accumulation with your current dosing?


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> Guest, does that mean you dose 0.1ppm each dose, x3 times a week which gives you a total of 0.3ppm?
> 
> Also, important: do you know your max level of Fe in your water in ppm? I mean, whats your max accumulation with your current dosing?


Yes, 0.1ppm x2-3 per week.  Since I dose when I see chlorosis, then Fe is probably taken up almost completely before I dose again.  I have no iron test to confirm but the concentration should not be more than 0.2ppm on any given day of the week.


----------



## fablau

Ok, sounds good. I just got one of those cheap (but seem accurate) Hanna Fe colorimeters, so I will measure actual Fe concentrations and let you know. Thanks!


----------



## rebel

fablau said:


> Ok, sounds good. I just got one of those cheap (but seem accurate) Hanna Fe colorimeters, so I will measure actual Fe concentrations and let you know. Thanks!


Is this the one?

http://www.amazon.com/Hanna-Instruments-HI721-Handheld-Colorimeter/dp/B003IKNJKM


----------



## Guest

fablau said:


> Also, I almost forgot: I tried to increase both K and traces for a few days the past week, but I didn't notice any BBA regression. Actually... Situation got worse right after I tried double CSM dose!! I thought it was just an unfortunate case.... I can guess now.!??!


When I dosed K, I dosed because I thought there was a deficiency/low concentration.  It was only after a few weeks that BBA started gradually disappearing off the walls.  I have no idea why this occurred but the only thing different was the single potassium dosage.

Another thing to mention, it seems like BBA infests plant tissue that has been damaged by micronutrient toxicity.  For example, I've never had BBA grow on H. pinnatifida but have had staghorn grow on leaf margins.  When I reduced CSM+B dosages recently, BBA suddenly infested the older leaves along the margins that staghorn usually infests.  This is why I think that BBA infesting plant leaves is likely attaching onto damaged tissue.


----------



## fablau

Well, after weeks of experiments, my conclusion is that, in my case, the problem of BBA was micro nutrient toxicity as discussed on this thread:

CSM+B Toxicity Experiment
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=853001

After 2 weeks of no CSM dosing, BBA is slowing disappearing. If anyone has BBA and has tried everything else, should try the new "micro detox" procedure and post their results. Thanks for discussing!


----------



## fablau

Guys, I wanted to share with you this thread I just opened on TPT that could explain why many of us get BBA and could suggest a simple way to either combat it or prevent it besides the "traditional" method of just increasing Co2, water flow, low organic load, etc:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...trace-toxicity-=-plant-enzyme-inhibition.html


----------



## AndyMcD

Fablau, first of all congratulations on reducing the BBA in your aquarium!

This is an interesting direction of thought.

Please can I make a couple of suggestions?

Could a common theme be that the enzyme Rubisco is being affected, which is key to photosynthesis?

Please take a look at this abstract, which builds upon your suggestion that metal ion concentrations may impact on enzymes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17968513/?i=3&from=/23112176/related

"_Mg2+ in various concentrations was added to purified Rubisco in vitro to gain insight into the mechanism of molecular interactions between Mg2+ and Rubisco. The enzyme activity assays showed that the reaction between Rubisco and Mg2+ was two order, which means that the enhancement of Rubisco activity was accelerated by low concentration of Mg2+ and slowed by high concentration of Mg2+."_

However, please can you also read this regarding photorespiration from a Wikipedia? 

We discussed photorespiration earlier in this thread. This happens when O2 instead of CO2 is used in photosynthesis reactions, when light is bright and CO2 is low (or O2 is high).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorespiration

_"Photorespiration (also known as the oxidative photosynthetic carbon cycle, or C2 photosynthesis) is a process in plant metabolism which attempts to reduce the consequences of a wasteful oxygenation reaction by the enzyme RuBisCO."_

Could there be a common theme? I'm trying to suggest that in both cases, high metal concentration or bright light + low CO2, the enzyme Rubisco that is critical for photosynthesis becomes less efficient.


----------



## Yo-han

Sounds very plausible Andy! Man will we laugh about this thread in 50 year when we know more


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-Han, I'm even considering funding a BBA university study if I won big on the lottery! Perhaps I wouldn't mention this at the press conference when I collect my winnings.


----------



## fablau

That's hilarious Andy! And of course, I think you are right, the correlations you put together make sense. Truth is: I still have some BBA in my tank, but what I see is a gradual die off in a natural way. I need to wait a few more weeks to see if actually it is going to disappear completely, but have a look at the two pictures below, they show the same bunch of Anubias. The first picture is taken 3 weeks ago, before the traces "detox" cure, and the second one has been taken today after almost 3 weeks with very low traces.









As you can notice, leaves still have some BBA but greatly reduced, and leaves look much healthier. Also, notice trumpet snails cleaning up what remains of the dead BBA... Isn't nature amazing?

Here are some more Anubia leaves after the detox cure:





They were pretty much all covered of fine BBA before.

I am doing the same experiment in a low-tech tank and I am taking pictures of the progress. I will share everything once finished.


----------



## AndyMcD

Fablau, that's an amazing and very definite improvement! You must be really pleased.


----------



## flygja

I don't have much to add, but I do remember reading that overdosing on iron causes BBA and red algae. I can at least confirm that with red algae in my tank when I was dosing about 4x more traces than EI when I was trying out PPS-Pro. But my tank isn't the healthiest so it's just purely my own observation.


----------



## roadmaster

I recall when I first began keeping fishes(forty yrs ago) which were large South American cichlid's.(Oscar's,Dempsey's,etc)
No plant's,no nutrient dosing in these tank's ,very low lighting but left on 24 /7.
The BBA thrived in these tanks .(other kind's too)
I over stocked,over fed,and seldom cleaned the filter's .Changed water maybe once a month or two.
As my tank husbandry improved,I lost fewer fishes ,and seldom had any algae or cyno.
Led me to believe that organic matter was big contributer. 
I ain't sure nutrient's alone are the boogey man.


----------



## BruceF

I think we have to consider that the anubias may simply be recovering.


----------



## AndyMcD

roadmaster said:


> As my tank husbandry improved,I lost fewer fishes ,and seldom had any algae or cyno.
> Led me to believe that organic matter was big contributer.
> I ain't sure nutrient's alone are the boogey man.



In this thread, the original suggestion was that heterotrophic bacteria breaking down organic matter was producing ammonia and substances needed for the BBA to thrive (e.g. Vitamin B12).

Roadmaster, I don't disagree with your comment.

What I would really love to understand now is whether unhealthy aquatic plants release organic carbon molecules into the water?  

I don't think anyone on this forum would disagree that if you shine too much light onto an aquatic plant with too low CO2, you'll have trouble.

I'd love to understand what happens to the plant when the environment is no longer ideal for it. For example, does it begin to release molecules it can no longer use, to change and match the new conditions in its environment. Autumn leaves change colour due to the break down of chlorophyll as the plant adjusts to the shorter day length / lower intensity.

Rubisco is thought to be one of the most common enzymes in the world, as it is critical to photosynthesis in plants. 

What I found interesting in what Fablau was saying was that too high a concentration of metal ions may be toxic to the enzymes in plants.

If high concentrations of metal ions (e.g. Mg) and bright light / low CO2 (photorespiration) can both cause the enzyme Rubisco to become inefficient, can this lead to aquatic plants releasing organic carbon molecules which the bacteria and BBA benefit from?


----------



## AndyMcD

This is a strange twist. 

Apparently, autotrophic nitrifying bacteria also use the enzyme Rubisco to utilise CO2 for growth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11751824/


----------



## roadmaster

Believe I read where plant's respire protein's,enzymes, and perhaps struggling plant's would respire more of everything, than plant's in optimum condition's.
As for the link to the study, I fear it was/is way above my pay grade .


----------



## oviparous

Read the whole topic, and didn't find one mention about ammonia oxidizing archaea (AOA).
According to the 2 papers below, it are AOA rather than ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) who are responsible for the oxidation of ammonia.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113515
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023281


----------



## AndyMcD

oviparous said:


> Read the whole topic, and didn't find one mention about ammonia oxidizing archaea (AOA).
> According to the 2 papers below, it are AOA rather than ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) who are responsible for the oxidation of ammonia.



Oviparous, you're correct. I'd not appreciated what a large role AOA play in comparison to AOB.

However, the question is then, do AOA and AOB respond differently to changes in the environment / aquarium?

I found this paper from Princeton University, which discusses current thinking on the nitrogen cycle. 

https://www.princeton.edu/nitrogen/publications/pdfs/Ward_2015_Nitrification.pdf

In particular, I thought the following paragraphs from the section titled Environmental Factors that Affect Nitrification were relevant. This relates to both AOA and AOB:

"Several environmental factors that might control nitrification in various ecosystems have already been mentioned. They include the kinds of things that affect biological processes in general, as well as those particular to the metabolism of nitrifiers: temperature, salinity, light, organic matter concentrations, substrate (ammonium and nitrite) concentrations, pH, and oxygen concentration."

"All of the nitrifying microorganisms are predominantly autotrophs, that is, they fix their own carbon from CO2, and thus do not rely on a supply of organic matter for nutrition. This means that they are not in competition with heterotrophs for the utilization of organic substrates, but rather that they exploit a different niche. This niche involves certain ‘sacrifices’, in terms of slower growth rates (see Units of Selection). These forms of autotrophic growth are also quite inefficient, due to the low energy yield of the transformations involved. Thus nitrifiers process large amounts of nitrogen in order to obtain the energy required for CO2 fixation."

To me, this implies that similar environmental changes affect AOA and AOB and that due to the energy require to fix carbon from CO2 populations of AOA and AOB are only able to increase at a rate much slower than the heterotrophic bacteria.


----------



## roadmaster

Wondering out loud about low temp's, but maybe lower lighting and ability of cooler water to hold more O2. Metabolisim's driven more by higher lighting, and maybe too warm of water temp's for some species of the aquatic weed's.?
Lowering both, while maintaining nutrient supply/CO2 might be an interesting expieriment to retard growth of algae species but still have healthy albeit slower growing plant's.
Instead of running everything at eleven,maybe nine is optimal or lower?


----------



## oviparous

The plot thickens...
http://www.ru.nl/english/news-agenda/vm/nature-environment/2015/nitrification/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature16459.html#tables

Through the years i had some BBA on some spiderwood, but ONLY on little pieces where there was some bark left.
Guess the bark acts like some kind of medium?


----------



## AndyMcD

Oviparous, you may find this link that dw1305 recently posted on a thread in the filtration section. In this study, the author found only Nitrospira but no evidence of the Ammonia Oxidising Bacteria (e.g. Nitrosomonas) they were expecting to find.

Wood has a high C/N (carbon/nitrogen) ratio, liked by heterotrophic bacteria. Good source of food for bacteria, so BBA benefits from by products?


----------



## AndyMcD

roadmaster said:


> Wondering out loud about low temp's, but maybe lower lighting and ability of cooler water to hold more O2. Metabolisim's driven more by higher lighting, and maybe too warm of water temp's for some species of the aquatic weed's.?
> Lowering both, while maintaining nutrient supply/CO2 might be an interesting expieriment to retard growth of algae species but still have healthy albeit slower growing plant's.
> Instead of running everything at eleven,maybe nine is optimal or lower?



Roadmaster, I think I have read somewhere that CO2 concentration in water decreases more quickly with increasing temperature than O2. Therefore, keeping temperatures lower may help to keep O2 and CO2 in the water. 

However, reducing temperature may impact on metabolism of plants and affect their health. Also, I've read that some Audouinella algae can grow equally well at low temp / low light as they can grow at high temp / high light. You may just end up with unhealthy plants, dormant bacteria and more algae if you go much below 20 deg C.

Does your aquarium go all the way to 11? Mine only goes to 10. Spinal Tap?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





AndyMcD said:


> Wood has a high C/N (carbon/nitrogen) ratio, liked by heterotrophic bacteria. Good source of food for bacteria, so BBA benefits from by products?





oviparous said:


> Through the years i had some BBA on some spiderwood, but ONLY on little pieces where there was some bark left.
> Guess the bark acts like some kind of medium?


I can answer this one. You can largely ignore dead wood as a source of nutrients, it has a very high carbon:nitrogen ratio, and the carbon is in the form of structural carbohydrates ("lignocellulosic" compounds) which are very resistant to bacterial decomposition (some fungi can degrade lignin, when added nitrogen is available).

My suspicion would be that the growth on the bark is either because of lack of grazing (I get BBA on exposed filter sponges, where I don't have any Ramshorn snail grazing), or an attachment issue, with the rough surface allowing initial attachment. (the same may apply to the sponge surface).





AndyMcD said:


> Roadmaster, I think I have read somewhere that CO2 concentration in water decreases more quickly with increasing temperature than O2.


 






That is right, but I think the differences are negligible in the 20oC - 30oC range. What the charts show is that CO2 is a lot more soluble than oxygen, and it is only the low levels in the atmosphere (400ppm against 21% for O2) which lead to low CO2 levels in water.

cheers Darrel


----------



## aaron.c

Fablau, how are your plants now? Have you continued to see improvement in plants and reduction BBA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fablau

aaron.c said:


> Fablau, how are your plants now? Have you continued to see improvement in plants and reduction BBA?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Good question, thank you! Well, BBA almost disappeared on my Anubias when I started detoxing CSM+B:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...ameters/853001-csm-b-toxicity-experiment.html

Whereas it actually increased on some wood and some substrate gravel. Someone suggested that was due to toxic stuff leaching out from the wood "feeding" bacteria, hence BBA.

Now I am still in the process to completely detox my tank from overdosing of traces, and I see it is taking some time. I will keep you posted on that. BBA situation isn't changed that much in the past 2 weeks.

But what I have learned so far is this:

1. BBA attaches to old leaves such as old Anubia leaves because something is wrong within the plant. I have observed some of my oldest Anubia leaves recover in a matter of days, changing from being almost completely covered of BBA to be perfectly clean.

2. I would add to the causes of BBA a lack "enzymes" in plants. From what I have observed and read around, toxicities, as well probably deficiencies, hinder the production of enzymes that help plants to defend themselves from pathogens such as algae.

3. Lack of Co2 is not cause of BBA, but increasing it could help plants to recover by stimulating the production of enzymes.

As I said, I am still in the process of this detox method, and I will give you a new update in a few weeks.

Thanks again for reminding me!


----------



## aaron.c

Encouraging to hear! thanks for the update.

I am embarking on a similar detox with my tank.  I think I made the classic mistake of seeing plants struggle, and chucking more ferts in.

The plants didn't respond well, so suspect micro levels have soarted.

Will report back to this thread in a few weeks.


----------



## fablau

aaron.c said:


> Encouraging to hear! thanks for the update.
> 
> I am embarking on a similar detox with my tank.  I think I made the classic mistake of seeing plants struggle, and chucking more ferts in.
> 
> The plants didn't respond well, so suspect micro levels have soarted.
> 
> Will report back to this thread in a few weeks.



Sounds good! Please, keep us posted.


----------



## Yo-han

I got pure B12! Does anybody know what concentrations we're talking about?


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-Han, I got this from a study - see image below (can't remember which one right now but sure I could find it).

All other building blocks would have to be in place for it to be a fair test. Algae has a higher proportion of protein to plants. Nitrogen is important to make proteins, therefore need some ammonia / ammonium as a basic building block. Other nutrients, e.g. Phosphate, may also be required if growth isn't going to be blocked by lack of another nutrient (like EI).


----------



## Yo-han

0-100 ng/L, and I bought 2 gram pills  

I know also wonder how much is in normal fish food...

All other building blocks will be no problem. Just talking water from one of my tanks.


----------



## AndyMcD

Yo-Han, certain species of heterotrophic bacteria produce Vitamin B12. The bigger the population of these species of heterotrophic bacteria, the more B12 may be produced. The more waste organics, the bigger the population of heterotrophic bacteria, breaking down proteins to make ammonia, for algae to convert to protein. The more heterotrophic bacteria using up oxygen, the less there is available in the water. Chinese manufacturers of B12 have found that if they reduce oxygen concentration, heterotrophic bacteria produce more B12.

You are certainly going to be able over dose in terms of the amount of B12 the algae will need.

Not sure if I should wish you good luck in creating a BBA outbreak!!!


----------



## Manuel Arias

AndyMcD said:


> Yo-Han, certain species of heterotrophic bacteria produce Vitamin B12. The bigger the population of these species of heterotrophic bacteria, the more B12 may be produced. The more waste organics, the bigger the population of heterotrophic bacteria, breaking down proteins to make ammonia, for algae to convert to protein. The more heterotrophic bacteria using up oxygen, the less there is available in the water. Chinese manufacturers of B12 have found that if they reduce oxygen concentration, heterotrophic bacteria produce more B12.
> 
> You are certainly going to be able over dose in terms of the amount of B12 the algae will need.
> 
> Not sure if I should wish you good luck in creating a BBA outbreak!!!



Yeast are one of the main sources of B12 available easily in the market. Not sure if this could help, but...the data is there. 

Cheers,


----------



## AndyMcD

In this thread, I've tried to argue that there is a link between what the heterotrophic bacteria produce and what the BBA consume.

Please see the following from Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-to-nitrogen_ratio

"C/N ratios in the range 4-10:1 are usually from marine sources, whereas higher ratios are likely to come from a terrestrial source.[3][4] Vascular plants from terrestrial sources tend to have C/N ratios greater than 20. [5][6] The lack of cellulose, which has a chemical formula of (C6H10O5)n, and greater amount of proteins in algae versus vascular plants causes this significant difference in the C/N ratio. [7][8][9]"

Proteins have a higher proportion of nitrogen to carbon.

Heterotrophic bacteria consume proteins, breaking them down to release amino acids and ammonia.

Plants / algae predominantly consume nitrogen as ammonia (ammonium) and/or nitrates.

Algae needs to create a higher proportion of protein in comparison to plants. For example, as well as chlorophyll, BBA uses phycobiliproteins (emphasis on protein) to convert light to energy.

Heterotrophic bacteria also release phosphorus back into the environment (see phosphorous cycle).

My point is, heterotrophic bacteria release (ammonia and phosphorous) and produce (Vitamin B12) a number of products which algae needs to consume to thrive and reproduce.

The link between heterotrophic bacteria and BBA may not just be about vitamin B12. 

However, there is scientific data to support the link between vitamin B12 produced by heterotrophic bacteria and BBA growth and reproduction. 

It is much more difficult to find scientific data to support the argument that proteins broken down and released from plants form the building blocks used in the production of proteins in BBA.


----------



## Manuel Arias

I think is worth to try. If your theory is correct, then BBA would be linked to lack of cleaning in the tank, i.e. the organic wastes being available for the heterotrophic bacteria for a start, which would mean, once again, that cleaning is a key element to have the plants just right.

Apart from that, a few comments:

1. The article mentions the ratio C/N 4-10:1 in marine environments being higher than in terrestrial environments (20:1) mainly due to the presence of algae with higher levels of proteins and less cellulose. Meanwhile this is correct, in freshwater environments the C/N ratio would be expected to be between both of them. Algae has much less weight in terms of biomass in freshwater environments, which also contain much more vascular plants (most aquatic plants are vascular plants). In fact, I did a small research which support this idea:

a. A study over Superior Lake, which could be considered a freshwater sea (https://www.fba.org.uk/journals/index.php/IW/article/view/365/252), so it is not a standard freshwater environment. Still, the researchers report a C/N ratio of 13-14:1 which falls exactly between the two ones reported by the article you cited and matching my comment.

b. A general study of marine and freshwater environments (http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_38/issue_4/0709.pdf). The study shows that ratio it is not the same in the particles in suspension than in sediments. This is, of course, because the population of organisms is not the same, as well as sediments tend to accumulate particulate organic carbon. Apart from that, they analyze the ratios for rivers and lakes, with average result of 11.4-13.0:1, which again is in the mid-range between terrestrial environments and marine ones.

c. A specific study about marine algae CNP ratios (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1017/S0967026201003456), which basically says marine algae has a C/N ratio between 6-8:1​2. B12 vitamin is mainly produced in anoxic conditions, i.e. in a tank will happen mainly in the biofilms associated to elements of the filter, and perhaps in some areas of the soil. However, water moves slowly within the soil (which allows this anoxia) so the rates of production, if any, at such a level, will be very low in comparison of those in the filter. Reducing oxygenation will incentivize anoxic conditions, but this is also something to consider in your reasoning: If no oxygen, heterotrophic bacteria will have also difficulties to break the organic matter into elemental pieces, and hence, the production of ammonium will be reduced, as well as the conversion into NO2- and NO3-. Reducing oxygen will then alter the proportions favoured by the algae. Note that there are specific conditions of optimal growth in each species. This study (http://goo.gl/R1i5pX) shows how an algae of the same group as BBA only achieves optimal growth to specific ratios, i.e. an excess of N/P ratio will produce deficient growth.

3. B12 vitamin is intaken by all living beings in the aquarium, favouring not only algae growth but also plant growth, so increasing B12 vitamin maybe is not linked at all with the appearing of BBA, which seems to me more related to the provision of the optimal C/N/P to these algae (i.e. CO2 injection, N production and ferts, P production and ferts) rathern than a specific cycle in the tank. This is supported by the idea that most algae have a symbiosis with some bacteria to intake B12 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7064/full/nature04056.html), which has been identified as an exchange of fixed carbon by B12 vitamin (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22463064), in a type of interespecific mutualism. This seems true also for the group of rhodophyta, to which BBA pertains (http://ec.asm.org/content/5/8/1175.full), so BBA will not require B12 in the water to grow (as its symbiotic bacteria will produce it). On the other hand, increasing the organic matter in suspension will favour it, as the symbiotic bacteria are heterotrophic.

In any case, as I said first, I think the experiment is worth to try. However, the reading of the results has to be properly done. Appearance of BBA when increasing B12 and reducing O2 levels could be more related to changes in the Redfield ratios rather than by covering a potential metabolic deficiency, which many algae can supply by symbiotic relationships.

Cheers,

Manuel


----------



## sciencefiction

Well guys....did you sort out the BBA issue? 
I am currently the proud owner of another BBA tank. Some may remember that one of my tanks cracked last year and I had to move all inhabitants to another, overstocking it in the process. Two months down the line BBA started growing in the tank. The tank had never had any algae since I set it up a few years back so from my point of view, I have no doubts what the trigger is, excessive bioload. The BBA is most prominent under the spraybars. There's BBA growing out the spraybar holes and I have a crinum calamistratum planted right under the flow, with leaves as long as half the tank, and they are all bba covered. The opposite side of the tank is not as affected.   So BBA needs "food" to trigger it and high flow to flourish. I've both in that tank, lots of fish and lots of filtration and flow.

I think we should start seeing a tank as a whole, not just as a bunch of plants that need co2 and nutrients. I presume you all keep fish in your tanks and you feed your fish so I'd look into the bioload as a whole and what could be triggering high bioload which the tank is unable to cope with.
I am pretty confident that when I reduce the bioload the BBA in that tank will die off.

 I believe I sorted out the BBA issue in my previous tank by reducing the bioload. I had ran the tank overstocked for years and weeks after I removed a bunch of fish to another tank, the BBA stopped growing completely within weeks!....after having it for a long time... 

 And I also caused it in my small tank last year when overfeeding a bunch of fry and a baby clown loach. Once I removed the fry and started feeding a lot less, the diatoms, cyano, green algae on the glass and eventually BBA mass outbreak died off completely. The rampant algae outbreak was so bad that it destroyed the plants almost completely. I was admiring the crypt leaves, first covered in diatoms to the point of looking dark brown, with cyano overtaking on top of the diatoms, and BBA on all outer edges, as much as I could see through a brown/green coated glass....That's how they looked in the end.  But the fact is, the appearance and disappearance of algae got nothing to do with co2, light or lack of nutrients or damaged plants in my case(s). Once I removed the fry and stocked with just a few fish to keep the filters going, all forms of algae stopped appearing.  The plants took a good while to regrow but they did without any further input and without any algae. The BBA seems persistent only in overstocked tanks in which the root cause for high bioload isn't removed.

Out of curiosity, would those that battle BBA state the size of tanks, amount and types of fish they keep, the type and amount of food given to the fish? Perhaps we can establish a connection. Perhaps Andy is right about B12 and heterotrophic bacteria as a root cause following high organic load.

If you want an experiment that will yield results, setup a planted tank. Stock it with a good bunch of fry, e.g. guppy fry will do. Feed them as fry should be fed several times a day with high protein food. Do daily water changes if you want.  Do this for at least 2 months.  You'll get yourselves a lovely algae outbreak and BBA will follow eventually, perhaps after other hints like persistent diatoms.



RisingSun said:


> The nice thing about the organics => BBA theory is that proponents say organics are _sufficient_ to induce BBA. This should make it very easy to at least _disprove _this theory - all you have to do is show one tank that has no BBA and high organics. That is enough to prove that organics may be _necessary_ but not _sufficient._



Show me one overstocked tank that hasn't got BBA eventually providing the overstocking is maintained.  I'd be very curious to know how the owner managed it because each overstocked tank I ran got BBA early or later.


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Well guys....did you sort out the BBA issue?
> I am currently the proud owner of another BBA tank. Some may remember that one of my tanks cracked last year and I had to move all inhabitants to another, overstocking it in the process. Two months down the line BBA started growing in the tank. The tank had never had any algae since I set it up a few years back so from my point of view, I have no doubts what the trigger is, excessive bioload. The BBA is most prominent under the spraybars. There's BBA growing out the spraybar holes and I have a crinum calamistratum planted right under the flow, with leaves as long as half the tank, and they are all bba covered. The opposite side of the tank is not as affected.   So BBA needs "food" to trigger it and high flow to flourish. I've both in that tank, lots of fish and lots of filtration and flow.
> 
> I think we should start seeing a tank as a whole, not just as a bunch of plants that need co2 and nutrients. I presume you all keep fish in your tanks and you feed your fish so I'd look into the bioload as a whole and what could be triggering high bioload which the tank is unable to cope with.
> I am pretty confident that when I reduce the bioload the BBA in that tank will die off.
> 
> I believe I sorted out the BBA issue in my previous tank by reducing the bioload. I had ran the tank overstocked for years and weeks after I removed a bunch of fish to another tank, the BBA stopped growing completely within weeks!....after having it for a long time...
> 
> And I also caused it in my small tank last year when overfeeding a bunch of fry and a baby clown loach. Once I removed the fry and started feeding a lot less, the diatoms, cyano, green algae on the glass and eventually BBA mass outbreak died off completely. The rampant algae outbreak was so bad that it destroyed the plants almost completely. I was admiring the crypt leaves, first covered in diatoms to the point of looking dark brown, with cyano overtaking on top of the diatoms, and BBA on all outer edges, as much as I could see through a brown/green coated glass....That's how they looked in the end.  But the fact is, the appearance and disappearance of algae got nothing to do with co2, light or lack of nutrients or damaged plants in my case(s). Once I removed the fry and stocked with just a few fish to keep the filters going, all forms of algae stopped appearing.  The plants took a good while to regrow but they did without any further input and without any algae. The BBA seems persistent only in overstocked tanks in which the root cause for high bioload isn't removed.
> 
> Out of curiosity, would those that battle BBA state the size of tanks, amount and types of fish they keep, the type and amount of food given to the fish? Perhaps we can establish a connection. Perhaps Andy is right about B12 and heterotrophic bacteria as a root cause following high organic load.
> 
> If you want an experiment that will yield results, setup a planted tank. Stock it with a good bunch of fry, e.g. guppy fry will do. Feed them as fry should be fed several times a day with high protein food. Do daily water changes if you want.  Do this for at least 2 months.  You'll get yourselves a lovely algae outbreak and BBA will follow eventually, perhaps after other hints like persistent diatoms.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me one overstocked tank that hasn't got BBA eventually providing the overstocking is maintained.  I'd be very curious to know how the owner managed it because each overstocked tank I ran got BBA early or later.



I will be happy to participate, I just need to gather all my tank data. Just a couple of points:

1. I'd suggest adding to the data fertilization regime, water change regime, light and Co2 level.

2. When do you consider a tank "oversized"?


Thanks.


----------



## aaron.c

The overstocking argument is interesting. I have high amount of BBA and I would say my tank is quite overstocked which I thought I could get away with given oversized filter and plants eating up the ammonia. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sciencefiction

Yeah, you can get away with overstocking with very high filtration and decent water changes. But you won't get away with algae unless you keep the fish in a bare tank and wipe everything down daily.



fablau said:


> 2. When do you consider a tank "oversized"?



Too many fish  I consider a 20G tank with 20 small fish overstocked.

My large tank with the BBA is way worse.  I joined the bioload of two tanks into one because of my other tank leaking. It's a 5f tank, but roughly just 340 litres as it's not filled to the top( this tank leaked 2 years ago and I've been afraid to fill it up to the top since I fixed it)
The inhabitants are 7 clown loaches, a common pleco, an ancistrus pleco, 30-ish corydoras and 15-ish platies. Crazy, I know. There are also a bunch of cherry shrimp, lol but the clowns ate all the snails....

It's got 5 filters, 3 external and 2 internals, both internals have a flow of 1000l/h each and the externals of 5000l/h combined, so flow is 20x.  With that amount of fish I've got to have high filtration.  And it's quite the washing machine inside.....Perhaps the BBA thinks it's back in the river lol. The flow goes from left to right.
I do weekly 50%-ish water changes without a fail. I clean the pre-filter sponges twice a week. I keep the filters clean and I've been feeding relatively lightly considering I have a few quite large fish in there( the common pleco and two of the loaches). Thankfully all fish seem to be doing ok so far, hopefully until I can get them out of there.

Light is currently super low, just 15x3W=45W LEDs and the damn BBA still grows, not so much the plants.
Ferts, just occasional micros.
No injected CO2, it has always been a low tech.

Now guys, it's your turn to confess in crime


----------



## fablau

Wow, I feel guilty already! If that's what you consider "overstocking" and you perform daily water changes, I deserve to be put in jail right away!

Here is my setup:

75 gl tank
Wet/dry oversized filter (around 15 gl size)
Eheim compact 2000 (not too strong flow)
EI dosing with weekly water changes
8 years old setup, substrate is Eco complete mixed with gravel
Co2 injection with PH drop over 1.2
GH 13
KH 7
Light: combination of T8 and Led which gives me around 40-50 PAR at the substrate, 7 hours a day

Heavily planted.

Livestock (get ready....)

Over 40 tetra neons,
Over 30 rummy nose tetras
10 black mollies
5 red platies
2 bushy nose plecos
8 otocinculus
20 Amano shrimp
50-60 red cherry shrimp
Hundreds of trumpet snails


Did I forget anything? I don't think so.... Well, my BBA situation is not too bad, but bad enough to bother me, appearing on old leaves of almost all plants.

I agree with the theory of high organic load ---> BBA, but I have tried to increase WC, add carbon, resins, everything you can think of to reduce organics, but no avail.

Bottom line is: my plants are suffering and I can see that because they are not growing as they used to, hence BBA or any other algae I get. Some people get GDA, or GBA, or fuzzy algae. and never BBA. I get mostly BBA... Go figure! But I am sure that if my plants were growing at full throttle, BBA wouldn't be around.


----------



## sWozzAres

sciencefiction said:


> There's BBA growing out the spraybar holes...



I've had this, I reckon it grows in the filter pipes, detaches and then get's stuck in a spraybar hole. Despite this, it's never grown in the tank even when most of the spraybar holes were blocked up with it. I stopped using a spraybar a week ago and yesterday I saw a big clump of BBA just floating around in the tank! It must have come from the filter pipes.


----------



## aaron.c

I am very overstocked but have not noticed problems with livestock - I guess because of the 60/70% water changes once a week and large filter capacity.

I have;
9 Dwarf Neon Rainbows
12 Harlequin Rasboras
10 Panda Coryodras
4 Ottocinclus
12-15 Amano Shrimps (hard to count)

This in a Rio 125 with JBL e1501 filter.

I might need to get rid of my harlequins.  Sure I can rehome them.


----------



## ShawnMac

I'm stocked very low. 48 gallons with not even 20 small fish. I had a little BBA pop up on hardscape. This occurred because light and CO2 timer were off. Over time the digital timers lose the correct time. This is a very long thread so pardon me not reading it all. I've found the conditions that cause BBA to be quite predictable and the appropriate response remedies it. This to me signals there is no need for a radical rethinking and we too often overcomplicate the hobby.

sent from tapatalk on my phone so auto correct and other errors are bound to happen


----------



## sciencefiction

aaron.c said:


> I am very overstocked but have not noticed problems with livestock - I guess because of the 60/70% water changes once a week and large filter capacity.
> 
> I have;
> 9 Dwarf Neon Rainbows
> 12 Harlequin Rasboras
> 10 Panda Coryodras
> 4 Ottocinclus
> 12-15 Amano Shrimps (hard to count)
> 
> This in a Rio 125 with JBL e1501 filter.
> 
> I might need to get rid of my harlequins.  Sure I can rehome them.




Removing 20-ish platies from my now cracked tank made a difference to the BBA within weeks. I could notice it in a week actually because it stopped growing. Platies are very "poopy" fish.  So it's worth trying if you are willing to part with some fish. Otherwise my fish were unaffected either. All original inhabitants bar some guppies from that tank(some lived to 4 years) are still alive and half are 6 years old now. I never missed a water change and overfiltered heavily. So it can be done but the damn BBA was always there.




ShawnMac said:


> I'm stocked very low. 48 gallons with not even 20 small fish. I had a little BBA pop up on hardscape. This occurred because light and CO2 timer were off. Over time the digital timers lose the correct time. This is a very long thread so pardon me not reading it all. I've found the conditions that cause BBA to be quite predictable and the appropriate response remedies it. This to me signals there is no need for a radical rethinking and we too often overcomplicate the hobby.
> 
> sent from tapatalk on my phone so auto correct and other errors are bound to happen



Hey Shawn. Some of us have low tech tanks, CO2 was never a controlled variable. It's possible in yours a reduction of CO2 and light affected the plants, thus disturbing the "balance", e.g. organics from the plants if you are heavily planted, temporarily until you got back on track.  As for my low tech, it had never had algae, even when my plants got out of whack due to failed lighting. Now, 2 months after overstocking, I got BBA.

There's another issue, not all of us have the same BBA species or at least visibly it's not the same. I've never ever had "tuffs" on any driftwood ever. My BBA is jet black looking, charcoal like, with extremely short hairs, and attaches only to plastic outlets, airstones and plants. Looking at pictures here, same as fablau's pictures a few pages back. But I've never ever seen it look like "fluffy" grey or greenish tuffs, which is the "good looking" type of BBA 
Mine is ugly  Perhaps it needs injected CO2 to look good, lol..


----------



## sWozzAres

sciencefiction said:


> There's another issue, not all of us have the same BBA species or at least visibly it's not the same. I've never ever had "tuffs" on any driftwood ever. My BBA is jet black looking, charcoal like, with extremely short hairs, and attaches only to plastic outlets, airstones and plants. Looking at pictures here, same as fablau's pictures a few pages back. But I've never ever seen it look like "fluffy" grey or greenish tuffs, which is the "good looking" type of BBA
> Mine is ugly  Perhaps it needs injected CO2 to look good, lol..



The black/brown stuff is probably Audouinella Heterospora because this guy seems to have induced it's gametophyte Thorea Hispida.

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/is-this-algae.37322/

The green stuff isn't Audouinella, I suspect it's Batrachosporum Macrosporum.

Distinguishing Audouinella from chantransia stages is almost impossible visually because there are many chantransia that look alike, the only way is by genetic analysis or by getting it to produce the corresponding gametophyte.


----------



## zozo

sciencefiction said:


> not all of us have the same BBA species



Where i come from we do not have a house hold name for Staghorn nor BBA  All of them are simply clasified under Beard Algea..


----------



## sciencefiction

sWozzAres said:


> Distinguishing Audouinella from chantransia stages is almost impossible visually because there are many chantransia that look alike, the only way is by genetic analysis or by getting it to produce the corresponding gametophyte.



Yes. We came to the same conclusion on the first BBA thread.  Darrel investigated at the time with a colleague based on the microscopic pictures we took but you can't apparently tell by that as certain red algae in chantransia stage look like audouinella. So it's a mystery whether we're dealing with the same "black beard" algae in our tanks or not. As a result, it's possible that the conditions under which algae appears could differ too, hence all the different experience and opinions about it too.


----------



## fablau

Hey guys, I wanted to give you an update about my BBA and traces toxicity experiments, after 3 months of experiments I have posted my results and conclusions on this thread below:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...csm-b-toxicity-experiment-42.html#post8967746

And I think I can confirm one more time that enzymes play a big role in BBA development and inhibition, as I discussed on this other thread:

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...xicity-plant-enzyme-inhibition-persistent-bba


----------



## ShawnMac

Unfortunately, your account hardly qualifies as an experiment. It is an anecdote at best. What also bothers me is the language commonly associated with other pseudoscience: "detox" and "believe" or "belief". 

An experiment would contain tight control over other variables in order to prevent confounding explanation. It would also include a control tank and some degree of replication. In addition you entered the project with an assumption of your conclusion which has heavily biased your interpretation of observations. 

We have no proof that these levels are toxic or create growth issues as you present nothing to support it other than your own heavily biased anecdote. There are many examples that would indicate otherwise. 

I simply cannot see how the case example presented provides enough quality evidence to somehow change the discussion away from good management and horticultural practices to some ill defined trace nutrient dosing range as a catch all explanation for any type of algae or growth issues. 

sent from tapatalk on my phone so auto correct and other errors are bound to happen


----------



## fablau

Ok, whatever... I explained on my posting mentioned above that there is not any scientific data and my results are just from testing and observing. But of course what your are bringing out here is NOT the point of my intent nor the point of this thread. The point here is to find a way to combat BBA, and in my case, I have found it 

If you think that what I wrote has no value, just ignore it, but please, don't lecture me on what's an experiment or not. Just ignore what I wrote, maybe someone else will find it useful.


----------



## AndyMcD

Shawnmac, have you heard of the Higgs Boson particle? Theoretical physicists had hypothesised the existence of a particle that may help to explain mass in the 1960s. Only very recently, after huge amounts of money have been spent on a particle collider at CERN has this been proved by experimental physicists. Due to theoretical physicists, the experimental physicists knew where to look.

Having studied science, I appreciate exactly where you are coming from. However, realistically, it is highly unlikely that anyone will invest the resources to prove the cause of outbreaks of BBA through experiment alone.

I admire Fablau for hypothesising a potential cause of BBA outbreaks. I'm aware that Fablau has read published scientific literature to help support his hypothesis. 

Realistically, to move forward in this hobby, we'll need to focus resource where it is most likely to lead to a definite result.

Personally, I admire Fablau for investing his time and having the courage to publish his hypothesis. Maybe his thinking will help us all to get closer to a cause.

Having said this, I agree with you that only through scientific experiment will we prove or disprove a hypothesis.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





sciencefiction said:


> Darrel investigated at the time with a colleague based on the microscopic pictures we took but you can't apparently tell by that as certain red algae in chantransia stage look like audouinella.


I asked <"Prof. Juliet Brodie at the NHM">, she is a former colleague.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ShawnMac

I do not take issue with the sharing of the experience, but it shouldn't be given a pass as a scientific approach and if presented in that way it should stand up to scrutiny. So if you want to call it an experiment cite a single article behind a pay wall and aggrandize the conclusions, expect a little skepticism. It's probably good. It's not a personal attack. Even a hypothesis has to stand on some legs. The conclusions need much more. Even as hobbyists we should demand solid evidence and reasoning otherwise we will find ourselves chasing every new idea to come along or trying to replicate every anecdote...this is not a good approach. Sorry for not handing out a pat on the back, but I didn't feel it was actually constructive. Maybe the thread should be renamed random ideas and experiences on BBA in order to prevent folks like me from getting confused. 

sent from tapatalk on my phone so auto correct and other errors are bound to happen


----------



## AndyMcD

Shawnmac, please take a look at the following paper (at the end of this post) which talks about how too high a concentration of Magnesium ions affects the efficiency of the enzyme Rubisco, which is a critical enzyme in plant photosynthesis.

I think Fablau is onto something because I've also read about how the effect of photorespiration also affects the efficiency of Rubisco, when plants are exposed to too much light when there is insufficient CO2 (or too much O2). I'm sure you'll agree that there is plenty of anecdotal information about plants becoming unhealthy and algae outbreaks when they are exposed to too much light / insufficient CO2.

I'd love to investigate further whether environmental changes can impact on a plant's ability to photosynthesise. If inefficient, do they become unhealthy, leaching organics and minerals, which algae can utilise (perhaps indirectly through bacteria).

I don't think Fablau claimed that he had designed an experiment to scientifically prove a hypothesis. He carried out a personal experiment to test an idea. 

This thread may be about random ideas, but some of us are trying to dig a little deeper and come up with some new ideas to help tackle a problem which is causing a lot of people in the hobby a lot grief. If you want proof through experiment, be realistic, you won't get it. The resources aren't there. At best, we can analyse what scientists have published and create the best argument we can, to fit the anecdotal evidence of people in the hobby.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17968513/?i=3&from=/23112176/related

"Mg2+ in various concentrations was added to purified Rubisco in vitro to gain insight into the mechanism of molecular interactions between Mg2+ and Rubisco. The enzyme activity assays showed that the reaction between Rubisco and Mg2+ was two order, which means that the enhancement of Rubisco activity was accelerated by low concentration of Mg2+ and slowed by high concentration of Mg2+."


----------



## fablau

Thanks Andy for supporting the idea that both toxicities and deficiencies may lead to enzymes inhibition. I think that is a key point of our discussion here.

As I already said, my contribution to this thread as well as on other forums is not scientifically proven, and I have no scientific data, everyone should read that on my thread mentioned above:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...csm-b-toxicity-experiment-42.html#post8967746

I have never claimed to have scientific data in my hands proving my conclusions, I stated exactly the opposite. And of course, I used the word "experiment" in its most general meaning, as the dictionary states:

Experiment: a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.


I hope this clarifies everything 

Shownmac: no pat is necessary, thank you for your concern


----------



## ShawnMac

Is Mg actively or passively transported into plants? The paper is in vitro so if plants can actively control Mg uptake then I do not see how this would be an  important citation as plants would avoid Mg levels that negatively effected health. Were the investigators looking at toxicity induced by environmental factors or how Mg impacts certain metabolic pathways? Important considerations, IMO. 

sent from tapatalk on my phone so auto correct and other errors are bound to happen


----------



## AndyMcD

ShawnMac said:


> Is Mg actively or passively transported into plants? The paper is in vitro so if plants can actively control Mg uptake then I do not see how this would be an  important citation as plants would avoid Mg levels that negatively effected health. Were the investigators looking at toxicity induced by environmental factors or how Mg impacts certain metabolic pathways? Important considerations, IMO.



Important considerations, I agree. 

'Luxury uptake' in plants would suggest that they take in more than their needs for future use, but whether this excess makes it as far as the cells carrying out photosynthesis, don't know.

You're correct. This may irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyMcD

Shawnmac, the following two links to Wikipedia describe how magnesium deficiency and photorespiration both effect the photosynthetic efficiency of plants and may ultimately impact on the health of plants.

There is lots of anecdotal evidence of insufficient CO2 causing on outbreak of BBA. There is lots of discussion about other potential causes too. Why should a reduction in CO2 directly benefit an organism that uses photosynthesis to produce energy and grow? Other indirect mechanisms must be at work, that the aquarist may be controlling. What could these be?

This information on Wikipedia seemed relevant:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_in_biology#Plant_physiology_of_magnesium

In animals, it has been shown that different cell types maintain different concentrations of magnesium.[6][7][8][9] It seems likely that the same is true for plants.[10][11] This suggests that different cell types may regulate influx and efflux of magnesium in different ways based on their unique metabolic needs. Interstitial and systemic concentrations of free magnesium must be delicately maintained by the combined processes of buffering (binding of ions to proteins and other molecules) and muffling (the transport of ions to storage or extracellular spaces[12]).

In plants, and more recently in animals, magnesium has been recognized as an important signaling ion, both activating and mediating many biochemical reactions. The best example of this is perhaps the regulation of carbon fixation in chloroplasts in the Calvin cycle.[13][14]

Magnesium is very important in cellular function. Deficiency of the nutrient causes disease of the affected organism. In single-cell organisms such as bacteria and yeast, low levels of magnesium manifests in greatly reduced growth rates. In magnesium transport knockout strains of bacteria, healthy rates are maintained only with exposure to very high external concentrations of the ion.[15][16] In yeast, mitochondrial magnesium deficiency also leads to disease.[17]

Plants deficient in magnesium show stress responses. The first observable signs of both magnesium starvation and overexposure in plants is a decrease in the rate of photosynthesis. This is due to the central position of the Mg2+ ion in the chlorophyllmolecule. The later effects of magnesium deficiency on plants are a significant reduction in growth and reproductive viability.[3] Magnesium can also be toxic to plants, although this is typically seen only in drought conditions.[18][19]

Also, the following appears to be relevant concerning the effects of a deficiency of magnesium:

Magnesium has an important role in photosynthesis because it forms the central atom of chlorophyll.[1] Therefore, without sufficient amounts of magnesium, plants begin to degrade the chlorophyll in the old leaves. This causes the main symptom of magnesium deficiency, chlorosis, or yellowing between leaf veins, which stay green, giving the leaves a marbled appearance. Due to magnesium’s mobile nature, the plant will first break down chlorophyll in older leaves and transport the Mg to younger leaves which have greater photosynthetic needs. Therefore, the first sign of magnesium deficiency is the chlorosis of old leaves which progresses to the young leaves as the deficiency continues.[4] Magnesium also is a necessary activator for many critical enzymes, including ribulosbiphosphate carboxylase (RuBisCO) and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC), both essential enzymes in carbon fixation. Thus low amounts of Mg lead to a decrease in photosynthetic and enzymatic activity within the plants. Magnesium is also crucial in stabilizing ribosome structures, hence, a lack of magnesium causes depolymerization of ribosomes leading to pre-mature aging of the plant.[1] After prolonged magnesium deficiency, necrosis and dropping of older leaves occurs. Plants deficient in magnesium also produce smaller, woodier fruits.

The following relates to photorespiration:

*Photorespiration* (also known as the *oxidative photosynthetic carbon cycle*, or *C2 photosynthesis*) refers to a process in plant metabolism where the enzyme RuBisCOoxygenates RuBP, causing some of the energy produced by photosynthesis to be wasted. The desired reaction is the addition of carbon dioxide to RuBP (carboxylation), a key step in the Calvin–Benson cycle, however approximately 25% of reactions by RuBisCO instead add oxygen to RuBP (oxygenation), creating a product that cannot be used within the Calvin–Benson cycle. This process reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, potentially reducing photosynthetic output by 25% in C3plants.[1] Photorespiration involves a complex network of enzyme reactions that exchange metabolites between chloroplasts, leaf peroxisomes and mitochondria.

The oxygenation reaction of RuBisCO is a wasteful process because 3-Phosphoglycerateis created at a reduced rate and higher metabolic cost compared with RuBP carboxylase activity. While photorespiratory carbon cycling results in the formation of G3P eventually, there is still a net loss of carbon (around 25% of carbon fixed by photosynthesis is re-released as CO2)[2] and nitrogen, as ammonia. Ammonia must be detoxified at a substantial cost to the cell. Photorespiration also incurs a direct cost of one ATP and one NAD(P)H.


----------



## Soilwork

I'd like to offer my experiences if I may. I was running a 46 gallon bowfront with little success using live plants although I never remembered having an algae problem.  Perhaps a little GSA on the back glass.  I was running 3 large tanks at the time and water changes were becoming difficult for me.  I had heard about naturally planted tanks that could be accomplished using soil and fish food.  I became I Walstad fanboy and researched her methods heavily.  I couldn't add the soil to my 46 bowfront straight away but I thought It might have been a good idea to adopt some of her other methods in preparation so I stopped doing water changes and decided I would let the plants do the filtering.  I introduced a siesta period and decreased surface agitation and stopped gravel vacuuming.
At this time I was running 2 x 25w t8 tubes with a black gravel substrate and fluval 205 filter.  Within a couple of months the only plants that survived were jungle val, Anubis and a crypt.  My ph was 7.5 and always had been.  The black gravel and driftwood were covered in BBA.  This tank was a messy swamp. 

Dirt would fix this I thought.  I finally set my dirt substrate up with added clay and crushed coral.  I even added coral to the filter with all the same parameters.  I added lots of new plants because this time they were going to survive right? Wrong.  All my plants began to die except the ever resilient crypts and Anubis.  BBA algae did not go away. 

During this time I had set up a 19litre Walstad tank that would house shrimp. The soil in this tank has been mineralised and the layer was only an inch think if that.  I stuffed this tank full of plants. I did not get any Algae. I didn't feed the shrimp often and they were fine. Only problem was two of the Amazon swords in this tank outcompeted the other plants and that's all I was left with. 

My small Betta tank in my bedroom was not a Walstad but again I thought it would be a good idea to adopt her methods. Less water changes, more plants etc. My Betta died.  It contracted an unstoppable case of finrot.  This tank hardly even had a flow because the Betta could not handle it which made it even worse. The surface was thick with scum most of the time. I feel so bad about how I had kept that Betta but I just didn't understand at the time. 

Back to the 46...I started to get heavily in to carbon limitation and convinced myself that starving the plants of co2 was pointless. I became obsessed with it.  I decided to clean up my act having failed with the Walstad approach.  I cleaned the filter religiously, added activated carbon and a second filter with a uv light (Ich problem another story) to increase flow. I manually removed all the BBA. Just sucked the infected gravel up and took the driftwood out completely. I started adding easy carbo. I had added the juwel high lite fixture too by this point with reflectors.  The tank was spottless and the plants looked great! BBA never returned. I started to get GSA on nearly every single leaf.  When I took my readings I found that I now had 0 nitrate or phosphates so I began adding EI.  GSA went away on new leaves.  I got to the stage of injecting carbon. But I removed the coral I don't know why (didn't want the co2 to be in bicarbonates form?). (Tap water Kh of 3 dkh)  Still soil substrate capped with gravel all this time.  I dialled in about 1 bubble per second and watched my tank turn in to a jungle. After a while I decided to have a go at a proper aquascape now I had mastered co2.  I removed probably two thirds of the plants. When I uprooted I kicked up a lot of the substrate.  Shortly after I had made these changes I noticed my swordtail acting strange.  Very skittish and observed some fin fraying on my cardinals.  The shrimp stayed under the bogwood and the ottos moved to the side of the tank opposite the diffuser.  I noted my ph to be yellow probably 6.0 or lower.  I had my co2 to come in 3 hours before lights to ensure full co2 saturation at lights on as advised by ceg0408. The night after I had kicked up the gravel my tank went very cloudy for a few days. BBA has now come back accompanied by BGA although that did begin growing with high co2 along the front at substrate level. Over the last couple of days I turned co2 off completely and increased surface agitation and flow immensely and now im cleaning filters whenever I can.  Since the co2 has gone off the shrimp are out and about and the sword has gone back to normal and so have the ottos.  The BBA and BGA are still there (BGA in small quantities) but they haven't grown much. Now after reading threads about Walstad admitting her tanks have been struggling for oxygen and threads such as this one I am really wanting to go back to low tech which focuses heavily on supporting autotrophic bacteria colonies and reducing BOD.  

Would running purigen and activated carbon help remove dissolved organics in the water column thus preventing feeding hetero bacteria? What about ammonia adsorbing medias? How can I increase oxygen in my canister? Is floss a good idea to have in a canister as it gets so horribly dirty?

Hope you could follow my story I have probably left a few things out but that is pretty much how it has Gone over the last 3 years. 

Thanks


----------



## ShawnMac

The information still does not address the ideas I had contested, which was this concept if micro nutrient toxicity. The information pertains to deficiency which also negates an organisms methods of transporting or storing the nutrient as a deficiency in the environment ensures an intracelluar deficiency. If plants, and I do not know the answer, can actively regulate uptake and or store surpluses, then there is a mechanism to prevent detrimental effects from excess in the environment. Since plants cannot move and must deal with a range of conditions I would wager many are capable of this for many nutrients. Toxic effects would be extra cellular, in areas where the plant meets the environment, not intracellular.

sent from tapatalk on my phone so auto correct and other errors are bound to happen


----------



## Soilwork

Since BBA has resurfaced I have somehow managed to cultivate nearly every single algae going in my tank. I have BBA, BGA, GSA, green hair and staghorn algae. 

If you want, I can make step by step changes to my tank to try and eridacate them all.  Preferably leaving glut addition till last.  I can tell you everything about my tank and we can go from there. I can also provide pictures.


----------



## zozo

What interesting turns topics can have..  How about science is the new religion??  And in a very broad perspective this is so very true..

Religion the art of believing so to speak and science the art of knowing. Both like a couple being in love, can't live with or without eachother, fighting over their first born child called Confundo.

No matter how hard you try both still based on believing you know what's behind the big black hole.

A Rabbit??


----------



## AndyMcD

Soilwork, I'm struggling with a hair algae outbreak at the moment, which I thought I had beat, but I'm not so sure. I don't feel at the moment that I can advise anyone what to do. However, I'll give you some feedback based on this proposed theory (which is unproven).

I'll also repeat tips recommended by others.

I have had some improvement with a 3 day blackout, on hair algae and spots of BGA. It's not a permanent solution. Need to find the cause. In my case, probably excess fertilisers in a new tank / insufficient water changes. It may help you reset your tank. You could start here.

Before and after a blackout, a deep clean to remove as much algae and waste / organics is recommended. Large percentage water changes before and after. Make sure to clean out filters.

In general, extra CO2 and better flow / distribution is recommended and reducing light intensity while you figure out what may be happening.

Listening to Scapefu and reading this forum, phosphate may help with GSA.

BGA may be a sign of filters (or pipe work needing a clean?). Blackout helped to get rid. Add cardboard strip on outside of tank to prevent daylight getting to affected areas.

Back to the theory.



Soilwork said:


> tank that would house shrimp. The soil in this tank has been mineralised and the layer was only an inch think if that. I stuffed this tank full of plants. I did not get any Algae. I didn't feed the shrimp often and they were fine.



Soil was mineralised (less organics?). Less of it.  Effective and hungry clean up crew feeding on emergent algae. Healthier plants? Lots of plants producing oxygen to help A bacteria.



Soilwork said:


> My Betta died. It contracted an unstoppable case of finrot. This tank hardly even had a flow because the Betta could not handle it which made it even worse. The surface was thick with scum most of the time.



Sorry not to soften this next quote from Wikipedia

 "Fin rot can be the result of a bacterial infection (_Pseudomonas fluorescens_, which causes a ragged rotting of the fin), or as a fungalinfection (which rots the fin more evenly and is more likely to produce a white 'edge'). Sometimes, both types of infection are seen together. Infection is commonly brought on by bad water conditions, injury, poor diet, or as a secondary infection in a fish which is already stressed by other disease."

Pseudomonas Fluorescens is a type of heterotrophic bacteria. This link also suggests it is a producer of vitamin B12, which BBA needs from other organisms to re-produce (vitamin auxotrophy) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8060790/

Uprooting plants has possibly released bacteria, organics (new adjusting or unhealthy plants) and ammonia into the water column, leading to a bacteria bloom. This may be why the tank went cloudy.

When your lights are on, I think you should have the CO2 on and keep surface agitation low. Let healthy plants produce oxygen. If livestock suffering, turn down CO2 rate. When lights are off, increase surface agitation. Air pump on a timer or raise your filter outlets to the surface. This will help to get oxygen into your filter.

Purigen will help remove ammonia, I think. However, where is the source of organics / waste leading to the ammonia?

Carbon filters may help to reduce organics, but change after 3 months. If they are accumulating organics, could become food for H bacteria?

Not sure if this is much help. Only a suggestion as to possibly why. Many more experienced people on this forum who can provide better advice.


----------



## AndyMcD

ShawnMac said:


> The information still does not address the ideas I had contested, which was this concept if micro nutrient toxicity.



If plants receive too much (or too little) micro nutrients through the water column, does this lead to them being unhealthy? For example, does an excess (or too little) affect their ability to photosynthesise? Too little means they are unable to produce chlorophyll. If unhealthy, do they leach organics?

There is another thread in the algae section asking why EI helps to prevent algae. You might want to raise this point there?


----------



## sciencefiction

Soilwork said:


> Would running purigen and activated carbon help remove dissolved organics in the water column thus preventing feeding hetero bacteria? What about ammonia adsorbing medias? How can I increase oxygen in my canister? Is floss a good idea to have in a canister as it gets so horribly dirty?



Hey Soilwork.
Purigen does help prevent organic build up. Water changes even more so. I've always done large weekly water changes in my low tech tanks, for the sake of the fish but perhaps its what helps with algae too. Do not use ammonia absorbing material. A tank should enough filtration, plants and water changes to cope with the bioload, providing the bioload isn't excessive. Ammonia absorbing material will starve both your filters and plants and when you forget to change it on time, there'll be trouble in the tank.
The only way to increase oxygen is to provide enough surface agitation. That's where oxygen exchange occurs. Without any surface agitation, and especially if the plants aren't doing well, there will be lack of oxygen in the tank, which affects the entire mini eco-system.

I do not use floss in the filters. Coarse to medium sponges work extremely well with water clarity. I have not seen "dirty" water since I started using them in my filters. They don't clogg and slow the flow like floss does. Also consider using prefilter sponges on the intake which you can wash more often. Shrimp love them.

Diana Walstad method is fine except for her advise not to use filtration and surface agitation. I believe she subsequently revised her opinion on that part. In a low tech tank the bacteria in the soil that produces CO2 relies on oxygen to do so. Without oxygen, different types of bacteria flourish that produce methane, hydrogen sulphate and other harmful gasses instead. You need to cultivate a balance, with the right type of micro-organisms flourishing to have a healthy tank, by providing what they need.  If you limit the oxygen, then everything from nitrogen cycle, to plants and fish severely suffer. The tank will turn into a dump. Oxygen and flow should be sufficient to reach the substrate where the bacteria needs it. Plants with big root system help deliver it better around the substrate. Snails like MTS help prevent detritus buildup in the substrate that can affect oxygen delivery, so do shrimp which are great shredders.

In my experience lack of micronutrients does severely affect the plants to the point of killing them but isn't necessarily a trigger for algae.  Plants just aren't healthy, that's all.  However, in a tank that relies solely on plants for filtration, the story is different as there's no back up for ammonia build up. Most types of algae are related to excessive ammonia production and organic build up.

I can produce tens of pictures from my tanks with plants that suffer deficiencies and not a sign of algae. Here is one taken a few years back. The tank has sand substrate and is still running though with more plants and bit healthier looking. It was my quarantine tank so I never paid much attention to it. The only time it has had algae, and severe at that, was when growing fry and overfeeding. It was overrun by algae then
 The pictures below is an example of severely nutrient deficient tank without algae. Filtration is 15x in this tank, although via two small filters and I've always done 50% water changes. My point is, deficient plants don't trigger algae in a low tech tank. I can't speak about high tech tanks but I would assume algae doesn't change it's food habits.


----------



## AndyMcD

Sciencefiction, thank you for your detailed response. Good to hear from someone more experienced. Andy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Soilwork

Thanks Andy.  I have already kind of thought of a step by step action plan to try and figure the cause of these algae's. They are have all appeared an live together so there must be some causal that they all have in common.

I understand where you are going with the black out but I am reluctant to do this. Like you said, this does not address the cause of the issue and a black out may lead to plant decay which could further increase the problem?

The Betta tank only got green spot algae.  It was a small 5 gallon. The Betta would surface regularly and his dorsal fin would contact the biofilm. This is where the finrot started.  It did not attack any other fin.  After I noticed this I tried everything to stop it. I even moved him to the shrimp tank. But he eventually had to be euthanised.  Interestingly enough the Betta tank with the biofilm did not get much algae at all.  

I honestly believe I destroyed the bacteria with such a low ph. I know that the co2 chart is based on a scientific calculation that does not hold much degree of accuracy in an aquarium due to other effects of acidity but a ph of 6 and a dkh of 3 indictes a co2 level of 90ppm it couldn't have been anywhere near that level in my tank surely? The drop checker only ever turned dark green.

Anyway since I destroyed the bacteria? Heterotrophic bacteria may have reproduced quickest and taken over the tank?

My first port of call is going to be manual removal of all algae, cleaning of the filter media (which may upset the autotrophs?) huge water change.  I am going to then continue with EI dosing and leave co2/o2 levels at equilibrium.  I will keep up with this heavy maintenance schedule and gas exchange rate and if algae returns then we can then move on to. Something else.  Another algae reset and increased co2.

The last time I reset the algae. I added carbon to my filter and dosed easy carbo.  The BBA did not returned.  The problem is that if glut is destroying the bacteria it does not reveal the cause and so I would like to use this strategy last if possible.

I will probably remove the floss from the filters as the gunk they collect is rapid and heavy. It would be better that the gunk dissolve in the water column where is can be removed via water changes.

The BGA started to show with the addition of higher lighting and co2 if I remember rightly. The ribbed fluval 205 tubing is a nightmare for collecting gunk. And even though I cleaned it thoroughly before adding co2 just short of a moth ago it looks like it has grown back.  Stopping the fluval then switching it back on forces lots of detritus back in to the water column.

As for co2 injection if it does get switched back on. I'm going to have it come on with the lights so that it is being removed by the plants as it is being injected. This should help prevent ph falling so much?

Thanks

Edit: I meant glut is destroying the algae


----------



## sciencefiction

Thanks Andy.

@Soilwork

Have a look at this thread below. It's a great example of a low tech soil tank. I set up mine in exactly the same way and it produces consistent outcome.

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/my-120l-soil-tank.37693/#post-410940


----------



## zozo

Sorry wrong topic..


----------



## Soilwork

Sciencefiction thank you very much for this.  Everything you describe is the reason i have posted here. Between this thread and daryls (sorry spelling) explanation of why surface agitation is important in various other threads (of which I believe you were involved in) I have managed to attribute some of my failings to low oxygen.  Especially in the Walstad tanks. 

The problem I had in my Betta tank was that with a pump or air stone he would hide in his cave because of the flow and because of the design of the aquanano 40 you couldn't really do much adaptation surrounding the filtration. He was only happy when the flow was switched off.  Actually now I removed his cave suffered from hair algae because the last water change I did before I tore this tank down caused a major crash.  I don't know whether or not this was caused by something in the tap water but the tank went very cloudy and all the hair algae died and turned white overnight.  It was the strangest thing.  

I'm not covering myself in glory as an aquarist here am I haha but I can assure you other than the co2 problems I have had the majority of my fish alive for the past 3 years even through all the alterations and each alteration I made was ultimately thought to benefit the fish. 

Ok so no ammonia removing material (the starving of plants and bacteria dos cross my mind here) I could add carbon next if the increased cleaning does not work.  Then purigen etc. Then move on to co2 addition. I never dose micros because I figured there was plenty in the soil.  I have clay in the soil so plenty of iron.  Walstad has a large section on how controlling iron can control algae, perhaps this needs some more attention although BBA is not isolated to myself the majority of it is growing on my gravel. 

Also the BBA, BGA is only growing in the section where large plants are not shading. It's in the open section at the front. It has engulfed my downoi although the downoi seems to be growing ok still, I need to do this clean but I am getting ready to go for a day trip so may be late on when I can do it.


----------



## Soilwork

Andy thanks for the link.  I had browsed this before and was in awe of the tank.

Sometimes I feel at a disadvantage here because the tap water is so soft. I believe that harder tap waters help a lot when it comes to uptake of carbon.

I believe that is why my jungle val outcompeted everything in the 46 before I switched to walstad, because it was thriving on the bicarbonates from the addition of the crushed coral.  Walstad stats that half of the aquatic plant species studied can use bicarbonates. Evidently they must not have been the ones I had in my tank haha. Of course there would have been many reasons my other plants failed.  The sheer size of the tank is also a challenge.


----------



## sciencefiction

Soilwork said:


> Also the BBA, BGA is only growing in the section where large plants are not shading. It's in the open section at the front.



I think this conclusion is a matter of perception. Plants and in turn algae will grow faster in areas with higher light. You know why the plants are in the tank...You've got to figure why the algae is in there too....
When I tank has lost it's "balance" it's due to consistent mistreatment for long enough period of time. So resolving this also takes time, especially when one doesn't know what caused it in the first place. And even if you know why....For example I knew the excessive overfeeding was the culprit in one of my tanks, it still took 2-3 months for the tank to clear of algae. I actually did nothing bar reducing the bioload..... Algae just withered slowly in the following weeks and disappeared...If algae is persistent, you haven't removed the cause...


----------



## Soilwork

Thanks.  I'm going to solve the issue but agree it will take time.


----------



## sciencefiction

Soilwork said:


> I believe that is why my jungle val outcompeted everything in the 46 before I switched to walstad, because it was thriving on the bicarbonates from the addition of the crushed coral. Walstad stats that half of the aquatic plant species studied can use bicarbonates. Evidently they must not have been the ones I had in my tank haha. Of course there would have been many reasons my other plants failed. The sheer size of the tank is also a challenge.



Kh plays part in the nitrogen cycle. As a result, in a tank where it's not replaced via water changes or other means, it eventually drops to 0. In nature, fish that live in very acidic water are not affected by this because the conditions of the water still remain extremely stable. In fish tanks a Kh of 0 will affect not just micro-organisms but can cause a multitude of issues: fish gasping at the surface,  bacterial infections, mass deaths, etc... Low tech tanks subjected to lack of water changes, loaded with extremely soft water is a bad idea for the sake of fish...This may not necessarily have any effect on plants.  Even in a low tech tank plants should not be forced to use just bicarbonates. One should aim at arriving at the right conditions, so CO2 is produced in the soil. I honestly don't think your soft water was the culprit for the plants failure. Lack of calcium and magnesium ions on another hand is.
There's enough evidence to suggest that soft water on it's own can't be an issue with plants, even in a low tech tank.


----------



## Soilwork

Perhaps it is rather that the algae is the cure to the imbalance rather than the result.  From the ecosystems point of view.  If oxygen is low and there is a risk of life ceasing.  The balance favours the heterotrophs who can survive in low oxygen levels to coexist and with aid the production of algae.  If algae grows in enough quantities it is then able to produce enough oxygen to support autotrophic bacteria which in turn reduce the ammount of ammonia production thus slowing the accumulation of algae until the balance is achieved.  Animals that would otherwise have died graze on the algae reducing its numbers but the organic waste released as a result equals more ammonia for bacteria and algae restoring balance. Just a thought.


----------



## Soilwork

sciencefiction said:


> Kh plays part in the nitrogen cycle. As a result, in a tank where it's not replaced via water changes or other means, it eventually drops to 0. In nature, fish that live in very acidic water are not affected by this because the conditions of the water still remain extremely stable. In fish tanks a Kh of 0 will affect not just micro-organisms but can cause a multitude of issues: fish gasping at the surface,  bacterial infections, mass deaths, etc... Low tech tanks subjected to lack of water changes, loaded with extremely soft water is a bad idea for the sake of fish...This may not necessarily have any effect on plants.  Even in a low tech tank plants should not be forced to use just bicarbonates. One should aim at arriving at the right conditions, so CO2 is produced in the soil. I honestly don't think your soft water was the culprit for the plants failure. Lack of calcium and magnesium ions on another hand is.
> There's enough evidence to suggest that soft water on it's own can't be an issue with plants, even in a low tech tank.



I had crushed coral in the filter at this time which raised the kh from 3 to 8dkh. Calcium should not have been an issue nor should there have been an issue with bacteria or microorganism.  I'm just putting my plant failures down to the fact there wash little gas exchange and no soil at this time so minimal co2 production. This is why I believe the jungle val was able to sustain itself better in this conditions. I'll upload some pictures of my tank thoughout these changes giving a brief description of each. Not wanting to tank away from the main discussion of this thread I could start another if you would prefer? Andy?


----------



## AndyMcD

Soilwork said:


> I understand where you are going with the black out but I am reluctant to do this. Like you said, this does not address the cause of the issue and a black out may lead to plant decay which could further increase the problem?



I was very concerned about this too, until someone pointed out that plants posted to you can be in the dark for 3 days and arrive OK.

In my experience, the plants grew in the three days, but a bit more leggy. The leaves came out with less algae on them, so were better able to compete. Effective at knocking back BGA.


----------



## AndyMcD

Soilwork said:


> Not wanting to tank away from the main discussion of this thread I could start another if you would prefer? Andy?



Please go ahead. What you are saying seems relevant to the original thread.


----------



## Soilwork

AndyMcD said:


> I was very concerned about this too, until someone pointed out that plants posted to you can be in the dark for 3 days and arrive OK.
> 
> In my experience, the plants grew in the three days, but a bit more leggy. The leaves came out with less algae on them, so were better able to compete. Effective at knocking back BGA.



That is a good point.  With the changes the plants have had to endure recently as well as the fish I think I'm just going to manually remove the algae.  Will try to add cardboard on the outside of the tank as suggested.  Just about to start the 'cleanse' I will tank pictures to highlight the issues and post them when I can get to my desktop (doesn't seem to work on the phone).


----------



## Soilwork

So just a visual perspective of the journey so far.  The first picture is pre soil but using other Walstad methods such as no gravel vac, no surface agitation, split photo period etc.  Tank had 2 x t8 tubes at 25w a piece ph of 7.5, kh of 8dkh, GH of 6 temp of 25 degrees.  You can the jungle val taking over and lots of BBA on gravel.  You can also see the remnants of the less fortunate plants at the surface.



 The next picture is after soil addition and full replant.  All these plants died.



The picture underneath is after full clean, AC addition and easy carbo. There is little to no algae.


 Next photo is after carbon addition and another replant.  No algae.



Next is how it was before I culled.  Now that I had gotten used to carbon injection I wanted to rescape.  Still no BBA but this is where BGA comes in along the front.



The next picture is after my cull and when things started to go pear shaped.  PH drop and algae outbreak.



The next pictures are of the algae as it stood before the final clean.



























and the last two are me cleaning and removing things.










This is how it stands.  The remaining BBA I spot treated with Easy carbo.  Should I add a venture to my filter to further increase oxygen?  I'm going to put a sponge on the intake of the fluval 205 and next clean add some bio rings.


----------



## AndyMcD

Soilwork, I've got a Venturi running overnight on a timer, set to switch on and off when CO2 isn't on. Having it running during lights on will lead to CO2 out gassing. I think it will be beneficial for bacteria, fish, plants to have more O2 in the dark. Andy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sciencefiction

Hey soilwork. It's nice that you posted pictures of the progress.
Looking at the tank my guess is your substrate had been or is still anaerobic and the BGA is just an indicator of it.
Out of curiosity, what type of soil do you have underneath that gravel?


----------



## Soilwork

AndyMcD said:


> Soilwork, I've got a Venturi running overnight on a timer, set to switch on and off when CO2 isn't on. Having it running during lights on will lead to CO2 out gassing. I think it will be beneficial for bacteria, fish, plants to have more O2 in the dark. Andy
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Thanks Andy.  I have just put my Venturi on.  It's built in to the top of my internal filter so it's just a tube off of that. Having it on a timer would mean turning the pump off over night. I'm going to leave it running day and night. My 205 outlet is disturbing the water column as aggressively as possible anyway so I should be at equilibrium with atmosphere. Unfortunately I'm on a training course now as of tomorrow till Friday so won't be able to monitor the tank.  Feeding is in the hands of my other half so fingers crossed.


----------



## Soilwork

sciencefiction said:


> Hey soilwork. It's nice that you posted pictures of the progress.
> Looking at the tank my guess is your substrate had been or is still anaerobic and the BGA is just an indicator of it.
> Out of curiosity, what type of soil do you have underneath that gravel?



Thanks SF. You might be right.  When I siphoned the infected gravel out it made it uneven.  I have an unused potato masher to flatten the substrate out again.  Lots of bubbles came up when I did this but no rotten smells.  I know this doesn't mean the substrate isn't struggling for oxygen.  Can one get a redox meter for this? The soil is John innes number 3. Unmineralised. I notice soil is very common in this forum.  This is not the case on the other forum I frequent.  I wrote an article on there to try and persuade more people to give it a go.  Lots of Walstad references etc but here is the link. http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/the-soil-substrate-explained-343789.html
I just wish I'd have written it after my experiences.


----------



## sciencefiction

You've just been unlucky with soil. I wouldn't write it off yet.  The issues are more likely because the soil was unmineralized and the tank didn't have enough oxygen to break down the organics when it needed to do so.


----------



## sciencefiction

Soilwork said:


> Perhaps it is rather that the algae is the cure to the imbalance rather than the result.



I overlooked this sentence the first time. But yes, I believe that's what happens.


----------



## Soilwork

sciencefiction said:


> You've just been unlucky with soil. I wouldn't write it off yet.  The issues are more likely because the soil was unmineralized and the tank didn't have enough oxygen to break down the organics when it needed to do so.



Thanks for the vote of confidence.  I do really regret not mineralising the soil first. Diana stopped doing this also so I figured I could get away with it too. The water was really cloudy this morning after the clean.  Does not bode well for the autotrophs?


----------



## sciencefiction

Cloudy water, apart from green water algae, is a booming explosion of heterotrophic bacteria.  You may have released them from the substrate. Heterotrophic bacteria can be facultative, in the substrate they live in anaerobic conditions breaking down organics but when released in the water column they become chemotrophs and start breaking down ammonia with the help of oxygen. The problem is they aren't very efficient in doing it, so they suck up the oxygen and displace proper nitrogen bacteria affecting the balance. They multiply by the hour, hence the cloudy water one normally sees.
I'd just make sure there is plenty of surface agitation.


----------



## Soilwork

Hi I'm back from my trip.  Literally. Looking at the tank the algae is still doing pretty well.  I left it with a 50% water change. Double filter clean, removing all floss.  Oxygenation and flow is best I'm going to get it with the current set up. Fish are fine.  Surprisingly plants are not that bad. BBA is growing back on the gravel and some leaves are growing BBA but general plant colour is ok but not massive amounts of growth.  Downoi has probably done the best. Bare in mind I haven't dosed any fertilisers during this week. Just fish food. For the next week I could do a 50% water change and either a) dose EI for the week and observe changes b) add purigen and carbon to the filter and observe changes or c) both.

At this stage I am almost convinced the soil is 95% the cause of the algae.


----------



## sciencefiction

If the soil is the issue, it may take a while until is resolved but it eventually should with some patience and care.  If you fancy speeding it up, I'd get some cheap fast grower like hydrophila corymbosa.  It grows fast and grows large roots, you can replant cuttings fairly easily.  More plants in the substrate should help. Your tank has lots of room for more planting and what you have won't manage anytime soon.  I'd even plant the front, temporarily, all with robust plants that you can one day throw away without regret. I'd say instead of aesthetics, more important now is balance the tank and sort the soil in the process. The current plants don't look too shabby so you may sort it out easier than anticipated.
It's only a suggestion of course.


----------



## Soilwork

I've had hygro before. It's a fast grower for sure.  I've had this soil down for 4 months. I might just take it out altogether and try soil some other time, mineralising any future soil substrates.  Perhaps I could just do sand and stick with the high flow/surface agitation method. I could just knock the co2 on and increase it gradually.  It shouldn't cause any problems now the ph has stabilised.


----------



## Soilwork

Ok so I was having a think and I really want to get to the bottom of this algae issue.  From my observations it seems the algae is still growing but not as fast.  My plants do look a little worse for wear but my plan is as follows.

1) I've ordered some activated carbon, a mesh bag and some purigen.  I'm going to add these to the canister.

2) I'm then going to start adding EI ferts maybe twice a week since without co2 they won't be required as heavily.

3) carry on with water changes but reduced volume for stability maybe 30%.

4) then I'm going to just leave the tank to try and work itself out.  No disturbing of the substrate etc.  Will pick out dead leaves etc.

I'm hoping that the plants will re-adapt their co2 uptake mechanisms to lower consistent co2 levels over time.  If I have destroyed the majority of my nitrifying bacteria by disturbing the substrate I'm going to give it some time to stabilise, perhaps another month, that should account for a new fully efficient cycle. 

If this doesn't change anything then I'll be injecting co2 again to see if that has an effect on the algae. 

Does this sound reasonable? How long would you expect the soil to break break down most of the organics? I put quite a lot in.  Walstad says 16 weeks to stabilise.  That's about four months which is where I'm approaching now.


----------



## Soilwork

Hi all.

So basically the algae was living it up in my tank.  I couldn't bare looking at it so I removed it all (again).  I've also put my t8 fixture back on without reflectors and gone back to 'low light' plants.  I bought some driftwood and tied some Anubis to it but the wood is just floating at the moment. It will sink in time. The plants I salvaged seem to be managing the lower light well and I am dosing liquid carbon.  No additional ferts yet as I'm just going to see how the plants fare.  All seems good at the moment.  The wood is blocking some light and flow but when it sinks we should be ok. Will probably continue to do water changes weekly but maybe 20%.  Oh I also added purigen to the filter. 

So to get the topic back on track I have been wondering. Articles suggest that nitrifying Bacteria thrive in ph ranges from mid to high 7s.  They also suggest that nitrosomonas growth is inhibited at ph 6.5 and all nitrification is inhibited at 6.0.  If this is the case one might assume that bacterial colonise are small in a co2 injected tank where ph ranges are low <6.5 since the growth of bacteria is inhibited. If that includes inhibitation of heterotrophic bacteria also then ammonia production via fish will be taken up primarily by heavy photosynthesis and that breakdown of organic matter occurs more slowly.  Even if this does not include inhibitation of heterotrophs then ammonia production by heterotrophic breakdown of organic matter should still be being controlled by heavy plant mass and photosynthetic rates providing light is not excessively high and the plants ammonia uptake rates match the rate of production.  If we still believe the high light + high ammonia production is a factor in algae trigger then we can see how plant trimming/culling poor growth could allow temporary accumulation of ammonia that would trigger an algae bloom. Perhaps algae sense low co2/ph and use excess ammonia plus light as a trigger. 

In my case I switched co2 injection off since I believed that the co2 was less than 6.  Co2 on 3 hours before lights in a <3dkh tank is not a good idea. Then when I suddenly ceased injection due to fish distress my ph went back to its fairly stable level of 7.8 (ph pen) this would have enable rapid production of heterotrophic bacteria (white cloudy water) and subsequent rapid production  of ammonia through breakdown of organic matter (soil substrate) then because nitrifiers are depleted and take time to grow and plant mass has been significantly reduced (which it was) excess ammonia was produced which led to a rapid (and I mean rapid) production of at least four types of algae that covered all plants, gravel and glass.  Any thoughts?


----------



## AndyMcD

Soilwork,

I think this is a really clever hypothesis:

- High CO2 lowers pH and (in tanks where pH is not initially very high) leads to inhibition of all types of bacteria growth as pH below minimum. Increasing CO2 means a bigger pH drop, which may mean it is a more effective control.

- High CO2, high light, high (healthy) plant mass leads to high absorption of ammonia/ammonium, preventing algae from benefitting. 

- Reduce CO2 injection and the pH won't go as low, meaning that the heterotrophic bacteria can grow, at a faster rate than the autotrophic bacteria (particularly if heterotrophic bacteria were less sensitive to low pH levels).

- Reduce plant mass (trimming) and you reduce the amount of ammonia being absorbed by the plants, meaning less competition and enabling algae to benefit.

- Increasing O2 overnight, drives off CO2 (increasing pH) and provides O2 for bacteria to grow. Providing organics not too high, heterotrophic may help clear up overnight. Ammonia released provides food source for autotrophic bacteria to multiply. With sufficient CO2 at lights on, plants absorb ammonia, helping to prevent algae from growing excessively.

Andy


----------



## sciencefiction

There is logic in what you are saying.

The main reason, I think, why nitrification is inhibited at low ph(6.5 and below) is because there's very little ammonia at that ph. Nitrifying bacteria uses ammonia and not ammonium for nitrification. When there's none or little, their population dwindles to match availability.   Plants on the contrary are benefited because they prefer ammonium as a nitrogen source even though they can take up ammonia too. On another hand high ammonium and low plant mass/damaged plants may trigger algae outbreaks as you suggest....Most people that have planted and co2 injected tanks are "allergic" to off the shelf tests so they've got no idea whether they have measurable ammonium on and off that possibly triggered the algae outbreak in the first place....
Why would one test if their fish are just fine...ammonium is almost non-toxic to fish as long as it stays in that state. However, I can't believe that a person that pokes the substrate every so often to re-arrange their aquascape doesn't have some mini ammonia spike(0.25ppm and the likes) which is enough to trigger diatoms at least which is a sure sign of a sudden rise in ammonia/ammonium.

If you switched the CO2 off, the ph went up meaning that depending on temperature and other factors, that ammonium converted back to ammonia. If at that moment nitrifying bacteria and oxygen are not enough to consume the available ammonia, other organisms will take advantage, be it fast reproducing facultative heterotrophic bacteria(white bacteria bloom) or algae species of some sort. Even plants need time to switch from one type of nitrogen source to another and use energy to do so.  When the nitrifying bacteria and/or plants catch up, the organisms that initially multiplied to handle that same issue will dwindle as nitrifying bacteria and plants are more competitive, providing there's enough oxygen, co2 and nutrients for them to do so.


----------



## Soilwork

Thanks to you both.  Andy,  you said what I wanted to say much more tidily haha and SC, that is a great point about ammonia/ammonium ratio at lower ph I forgot about that fact.  So I'm kind of thinking that high pressurised co2 users are relying heavily on plants, to back up the system and when something goes wrong the nitrifiers are not there in large enough numbers to help reduce ammonia levels which would otherwise be detrimental to the ecosystem...enter mr algae...it is not a predator but a saviour, a protector of the ecosystem. It will remove harmful ammonia because of its rapid reproduction rate and provide oxygen to support life.  Good old mr algae.  There at the beginning, be there at the end.


----------



## Soilwork

SC I re-read your post and that is definitely the gist of what I meant. Particularly the second paragraph however, it is still just a hypothesis. 

The funny thing is, there is a member on another forum I frequent where this exact same thing seems to have happened.  Basically he/she had a low light tank with pressurised co2 that was balanced well with a thriving carpet.  Water changes are minimal and no need for much ferts.

Their co2 ran out and it took them a week to notice.  Major algae outbreak.  The co2 is back up and running now but they have a ph around the mid 6's. And a Kh of 2.5. 

Here is the link. 

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f24/algae-problems-55g-346816.html


----------



## sciencefiction

Perhaps because of that high pressurised co2 user's tanks are quite more sensitive to algae outbreaks for that same reason you suggested soilwork, because the accidental drop in co2 brings the ph back up which in turn triggers a chain of events including algae.... Maybe these issues are not  due to reduction in co2 but the ph going back up every so often.

There was a very knowledgeable forum member here that proposed the idea(supported by a ton of scientific papers) that the most co2 concentration plants need is at level between 6ppm-14ppm depending on species(something in that range). He claimed that 20ppm is the level of co2 which plants would consume at unlimited light!! and nutrients of course! But no-one uses unlimited light in an aquarium, unless you put the tank in the garden..


----------



## Soilwork

sciencefiction said:


> Perhaps because of that high pressurised co2 user's tanks are quite more sensitive to algae outbreaks for that same reason you suggested soilwork, because the accidental drop in co2 brings the ph back up which in turn triggers a chain of events including algae.... Maybe these issues are not  due to reduction in co2 but the ph going back up every so often.
> 
> There was a very knowledgeable forum member here that proposed the idea(supported by a ton of scientific papers) that the most co2 concentration plants need is at level between 6ppm-14ppm depending on species(something in that range). He claimed that 20ppm is the level of co2 which plants would consume at unlimited light!! and nutrients of course! But no-one uses unlimited light in an aquarium, unless you put the tank in the garden..



Ph going back up. Nail on the head.  In that link I posted.  It does show you again how quickly Everyone pounces on nutrients.


----------



## AndyMcD

sciencefiction said:


> the most co2 concentration plants need is at level between 6ppm-14ppm depending on species(something in that range). He claimed that 20ppm is the level of co2 which plants would consume at unlimited light!! and nutrients of course!



Perhaps the importance of the 30ppm concentration is the 1 pH drop it induces? Using a pH drop to prevent the multiplication of the heterotrophic bacteria, reduces the release of ammonia while the lights are on, meaning less nitrogen compounds for the algae to create proteins and grow.


----------



## sciencefiction

AndyMcD said:


> Perhaps the importance of the 30ppm concentration is the 1 pH drop it induces? Using a pH drop to prevent the multiplication of the heterotrophic bacteria, reduces the release of ammonia while the lights are on, meaning less nitrogen compounds for the algae to create proteins and grow.



Yes, I agree Andy. CO injected tanks are different. But sometimes what one thinks is helping is actually masking the main issue and making it worse.
There's no issues with heterotrophic bacteria in any tank as long as the tank is balanced and it isn't the only functioning bacteria.  Heterotrophic bacteria releases ammonia, co2 and other gasses due to the present organics in the tank. They are the ones that produce inorganic nutrients from organic substances, for the plants to handle. In a high tech tank one doesn't care for that because one doses "unlimited nutrients" via EI and injects co2 hence heterotrophic bacterial decomposition is not a needed process.   That's how it works for people. Wipe clean the tank, large water changes and rapid plant growth. You mess with any of these and you get yourself algae because there's no back up bar your own hands and free time.

That's why I think Co2 injected tanks are a very unstable system.   When you drop the co2, the issues that arise may not be due to a "co2 deficiency" as most here express themselves but due to the slower ammonia/ammonium consumption by plants. In addition, with consistent low ph levels one disrupts the healthy balance of nitrifying and heterotrophic bacteria or at least the type of bacteria that are most capable of being a back up for inefficient "plant bio-filter.

If you don't play around with your tank trimming too much at once or if not relying on very high level of co2 to produce a certain level of plant growth which in turns consumes a certain level of ammonia that your fish and tank produce, then you are fine. Meaning that a low tech tank with consistent low ph that never varies, and high plants mass is a lot more stable than the same tank with injected co2 because everything in it is stable, from plant growth to ph, etc.. Plus certain species of plants have different consumption levels. Changing the species in a tank(new aquascape) changes the consumption rate altogether...Low tech tank keepers tend to just let the same plants grow and regrow for years..

I keep my tanks in hard water with rock solid ph of 7.4. I can leave my plants die of nutrient starvation to the point they start falling apart(I've got issues with iron availability in my hard water and nitrogen due to the large water changes I do and I forget to dose nutrients) and I still get no algae of any sort when that happens. The reason is because I have heavy filtration, ton of surface agitation to support it via oxygen, etc.. and suitable conditions for nitrifying bacteria. The only times I get algae is via overfeeding/overstocking/lack of water changes,  when my plants and filtration are insufficient in handling the bioload.

At the same time I've destroyed perfectly healthy and non-deficient plants by overfeeding my fish consistently,  resulting in diatom, blue green algae and black beard algae outbreak in the same order, suffocating them to the point of complete destruction...It is a certain thing when I raise fry and feed too much....Plant health and algae appearance in my opinion are unrelated unless there are other factors out of whack in the tank. Algae destroys plants but algae is not triggered by poor plant health in otherwise well established system in which the bacterial population is intact and not shocked on regular basis.  One can also argue that high co2 in itself have a bearing on beneficial organisms in a tank, considering the small scale of eco system that is.

So in my opinion, high pressurised co2 systems are the most artificial and unsustainable method of keeping fish tanks. If one doesn't need very high co2 levels to keep plants at optimum condition, then it's worth exploring different methods. Diana Walstad mentioned in her book that low tech soil tanks produce an average of around 6-7ppm co2. I've seen the fast and healthy plant growth that such tank produces. I can't understand why one wants more than that. I grew a carpet of glosso in my soil tank at one point and every plant that I put grew well in it. Why would I want 30ppm of co2 and a tank I need to clean every other day..
I read that some fancy plants need high levels of co2 to be healthy. At the same time I read that the co2 compensation point can be increased by more light. A lot of low tech tanks can't grow plants despite the soil substrate because people are told to go very low on light, and so they do resulting in just anubias and crypts surviving.  In my 5 foot tank while all my lights were working,  I experimented by moving plants that didn't do so well at first by moving them from the shadier spot to high light spot. They immediately improved. I remember hydrophila pinnatifida was specifically benefited by that. My glosso carpet died two weeks after two of my led strips failed, i.e directly related to lower light. In fact majority of my plants melted after that. I've kept the tank in low light since and now I've got just anubias and crypts, from well over 20 species of plants 

Sorry for the rant...


----------



## sciencefiction

I've posted these before but here is some glosso and bacopa carpet pictures from a low tech.  I ripped the bacopa out because it grew like weed and decided it wants to grow horizontally.  It wasn't supposed to do that, it creeped from the middle part of the tank to the front where it got itself more light, lol.



 


And the glosso. It grew slower than the bacopa but steady and completely horizontally. 






 

So go argue tanks need 30ppm of co2 to grow most plants well and reduction of co2 to below that level means the demise of plants and algae...


----------



## AndyMcD

Sciencefiction, I agree with everything you've said! Andy


----------



## Soilwork

+1 although my thoughts are a little more open in the fact that if people want to use high light and high co2 that is their prerogative and each to their own.  Also people who do this also want to grow and support a variety of species with different needs and uptake rates en masse and very quickly at that.  Therefore I would explain to those people the risks of using high light/high co2 then leave them be to make up their own mind.

Perhaps this is why people correlate algae with fluctuating co2 when rather it is long term fluctuation of ph that is often heavily influenced by carbonic acid. In my case this is really the only thing I could think of.


----------



## Soilwork

Another thought on the topic.  If our hypothesis holds value then we could assume that once algae as a whole has been given the green light to grow the type of algae is then defined by the components of the system.  For example.  Algal trigger + low phosphate = GSA,  algal trigger + low nitrate/high organics = BGA, algae trigger + low organics = GWA, algal trigger + low dissolved oxygen + organic matter = BBA or in my case I had the components available to support several types of algae.


----------



## AndyMcD

Adding vinegar (acetic acid) to your aquarium would act to reduce pH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Soilwork

AndyMcD said:


> Adding vinegar (acetic acid) to your aquarium would act to reduce pH.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi Andy did you mean to post in this thread?


----------



## AndyMcD

Scapefu did a podcast recently concerning adding vinegar to his aquarium and it having a positive impact on how healthy his tank appeared. The podcast spoke about various reasons why he believed this was. I think it being a carbon source was one hypothesis.

I was just throwing it out there that adding vinegar would also have the effect of reducing pH, in the same way that adding CO2 would. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Soilwork

Or perhaps the reduction in ph shifts the carbon/bi-carbonate ratio more towards carbon which is a more efficient means of carbon uptake for the plants?


----------



## sciencefiction

After talking about soil substrates here I finally re-did one of my "tanks". It's not a tank, it's a plastic 80l container I've been using as a fish tank since last year to house some cories due to a tank breaking. It had no substrate as I literally dumped the plants, fish and an old filter in it. Almost all my anubias landed in there, lots of it. I of course didn't dose anything afterwards and the anubias is sorry looking, deficient and discoloured leaves....But not a sign of any algae.
Last weekend I put a soil substrate covered with plain sand and I planted the majority of the anubias in the substrate. The soil is mineralized as I did it more than 1.5 years ago but never got to use it.  I can't believe how excited I am to stare at a plastic bucket... The corys are happier too with the substrate. The problem is they twice unearthed some soil making a cloud in the tank....little devils...They love digging and it's the first time I use very fine sand over soil....May not work...
It will be also tough to balance a tank that is planted 80% with anubias.  There are a couple of crypts, a couple of echinodorus plants and a stalk of hydrophila and there's no room left for planting anymore, lol.  I currently don't own any floaters.....I am going to have to see how that combo of plants fairs. I hope quantity will compensate for the slow growth.  Light is low but on 12hrs a day  I've been doing this with the same light over my other small tank without algae issues and very healthy plants.. so we'll see. So far the echnodorus grew a couple of leaves and a few new leaves of the anubias look healthy. I am going to have to regrow all these anubias again..


----------



## Soilwork

Aww man where's the pic? Lol.  When you say low light.  How low exactly? What is the ph of your tanks again? Btw does anyone know why I can't upload pictures straight from my mobile? Also please excuse me for not liking any posts. I really don't know what I'm doing here yet, still finding my feet.


----------



## Soilwork

Just reintroduced carbon injection to my tank and will ween off the easy carbo. The bubble rate is very low and the mist is slow.  I've got good surface ripple from both filters to but I'm thinking if I can create low consistent co2 without dropping ph too much it should still work with my low lighting.  Also the co2 comes on with the lights so no chance to drop ph. The plants should have some natural carbon to draw on until the co2 gets going.  I will be monitoring ph closely.


----------



## sciencefiction

Soilwork said:


> Aww man where's the pic? Lol. When you say low light. How low exactly? What is the ph of your tanks again? Btw does anyone know why I can't upload pictures straight from my mobile? Also please excuse me for not liking any posts. I really don't know what I'm doing here yet, still finding my feet.



Do you mean picture of my plastic container?  I am not sure I want to upload one.  The ph of my water is 7.4. The light is arcadia stretch led 18W. It just barely illuminates it, lol but for the type of plants it may do. The corys made a mud bath again...I can't figure out from where because I put plenty of sand on top.


----------



## niko123

I apologize for not reading through the entire 23 pages (so far). Maybe, if there are such posts in this thread, someone will point me to the page that talks about how to get rid of BBA, not what causes it.

The topic of getting rid of BBA (not what causes it) has been of interest to me for some years.  I have found a solution that works every time.  BBA disintegrates in a very short time - from 3 hours to 20-30 days.  Guaranteed. BBA is by far not the worst algae a tank can get, not even close, but for the modern enthusiasts the planted tank hobby is a fog of commercial and personal biases so BBA is considered pretty much a plague 

Anyway - how do you get rid of BBA?  Or rather - How do you never get BBA? There are no chemicals or anything to add.  It is not a question of low or high CO2 and no, not a question of fertilizers. Yes, it is a question of microbiology. Which species of microorganisms is not important because what is more important is the answer to the  question "How do I setup the tank so the proper microorganisms establish themselves?". I like to call that "properly established planted tank". Knowing exactly what kinds of microorganisms you need to have a BBA-free tank you will still have to answer the same question. And honestly, it is easier to answer that question than to figure out which microorganisms are crucial.  Note that I avoid the word "bacteria" because that is not the end of the story. 

So, yes I do have a way to setup a "properly established planted tank".  It's extremely simple and logical. I'm not the only one that can do that. No, I won't share it on a plate. In America we like to stand above the crowd, be #1, champions, leaders, whatever to make ourselves feel important so here I am if you want to take it that way . And yes, I do have pictures showing BBA disintegrating in a matter of hours or weeks but this post comes across as cocky to the average reader as it is so enough of it.  If anything - it'd be wise to start discussing ways to properly setup and establish a planted tank.  Otherwise this will be the best most informative thread on what causes BBA but not how to never get BBA. Like many others in the last 15 years. Meaning that it would be wise to get away from the "modern" "methods" of doing it.

If my post makes you feel a little annoyed ignore it.  But I seldom write my posts hollow like most people do. Here it is - a minute hint to a path you must not overlook: A good place to start looking for information - flowgrow.de. You find what is of relevance to this BBA thread.  No, all the information is not there black on white but that's the best starting point on the internet full of misleading information.  And if you read Russian I'd suggest another link, but hey, why would one read something in yet another language

Good luck.

--Nikolay


----------



## zozo

Actualy never realy gave it a thought..  but since i'm rebuilding my little pond again as i do every year and regularly see this thread beeing revived.. I never ever have seen any BBA in the pond, tho it gets full sunshine.
It sometimes has green algae and diatoms, but never BBA..I know i have it spores in my tanks and swap plants from tank to pond, it just doesn't grow in there.


----------



## fablau

niko123 said:


> I apologize for not reading through the entire 23 pages (so far). Maybe, if there are such posts in this thread, someone will point me to the page that talks about how to get rid of BBA, not what causes it.
> 
> The topic of getting rid of BBA (not what causes it) has been of interest to me for some years.  I have found a solution that works every time.  BBA disintegrates in a very short time - from 3 hours to 20-30 days.  Guaranteed. BBA is by far not the worst algae a tank can get, not even close, but for the modern enthusiasts the planted tank hobby is a fog of commercial and personal biases so BBA is considered pretty much a plague
> 
> Anyway - how do you get rid of BBA?  Or rather - How do you never get BBA? There are no chemicals or anything to add.  It is not a question of low or high CO2 and no, not a question of fertilizers. Yes, it is a question of microbiology. Which species of microorganisms is not important because what is more important is the answer to the  question "How do I setup the tank so the proper microorganisms establish themselves?". I like to call that "properly established planted tank". Knowing exactly what kinds of microorganisms you need to have a BBA-free tank you will still have to answer the same question. And honestly, it is easier to answer that question than to figure out which microorganisms are crucial.  Note that I avoid the word "bacteria" because that is not the end of the story.
> 
> So, yes I do have a way to setup a "properly established planted tank".  It's extremely simple and logical. I'm not the only one that can do that. No, I won't share it on a plate. In America we like to stand above the crowd, be #1, champions, leaders, whatever to make ourselves feel important so here I am if you want to take it that way . And yes, I do have pictures showing BBA disintegrating in a matter of hours or weeks but this post comes across as cocky to the average reader as it is so enough of it.  If anything - it'd be wise to start discussing ways to properly setup and establish a planted tank.  Otherwise this will be the best most informative thread on what causes BBA but not how to never get BBA. Like many others in the last 15 years. Meaning that it would be wise to get away from the "modern" "methods" of doing it.
> 
> If my post makes you feel a little annoyed ignore it.  But I seldom write my posts hollow like most people do. Here it is - a minute hint to a path you must not overlook: A good place to start looking for information - flowgrow.de. You find what is of relevance to this BBA thread.  No, all the information is not there black on white but that's the best starting point on the internet full of misleading information.  And if you read Russian I'd suggest another link, but hey, why would one read something in yet another language
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> --Nikolay



I am sorry, but where is your solution to get rid of BBA?


----------



## rebel

Has anyone figured out a way of growing BBA reliably. Perhaps the answer may lay there.


----------



## roadmaster

I decided some year's back to consult with an expert.
I asked a wise, old algae/moss backed snapping turtle,"what exactly causes the moss and algae to grow upon your shell old timer"?
He begged that I place my ear a bit closer ,that he might whisper this secret to me but I balked out of fear that my fishing hat would no longer set right upon my head with but one ear.
I had hoped upon finding the answer, but I guess I shall remain ignorant as to the true cause(s).
Judging from post's/thread's here, and on other forum's,, I feel I am in some fine company.


----------



## rebel

roadmaster said:


> I decided some year's back to consult with an expert.
> I asked a wise, old algae/moss backed snapping turtle,"what exactly causes the moss and algae to grow upon your shell old timer"?
> He begged that I place my ear a bit closer ,that he might whisper this secret to me but I balked out of fear that my fishing hat would no longer set right upon my head with but one ear.
> I had hoped upon finding the answer, but I guess I shall remain ignorant as to the true cause(s).
> Judging from post's/thread's here, and on other forum's,, I feel I am in some fine company.


LMAO!  You playing into hands of troll?


----------



## Lindy

niko123 said:


> whatever to make ourselves feel important


Well I hope you are feeling REALLY important now after your post! Thank you for not contributing anything just to bolster your flagging ego. Must be too early in the morning for me


----------



## hard determinist

fablau said:


> I am sorry, but where is your solution to get rid of BBA?


Fablau, look here: http://www.flowgrow.de/kein-thema-wenig-regeln/die-pflege-der-mikroflora-oder-t17365.html (use Google Translate; it's in German). As I know you, you can find it very interesting reading. In the linked thread there are other links in the first post. For most people here it will be waste of time.

PS: niko123 is the "niko" from APC.com, so he deserves more respect.


----------



## Chris Jackson

PS: niko123 is the "[URL='http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/members/niko.html' said:
			
		

> niko[/URL]" from APC.com, so he deserves more respect.



Respect has to be earned and Niko123 isn't doing too well on that front so far....


----------



## Yo-han

Haha, he just want to make you think instead of spoon feeding you. I always like his posts on APC, but I guess they're not meant for everybody...


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





rebel said:


> Has anyone figured out a way of growing BBA reliably.


The Piranha tank in the Princess of Wales Pavilion at RGB Kew is pretty impressive. (<"Piranha III alga hunter"l> from earlier in the thread).




The best I've seen is in our local pet shop, (where they must kill more fish than they sell), there it covers the substrate like Gorilla fake fur.

cheers Darrel


----------



## rebel

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,The Piranha tank in the Princess of Wales Pavilion at RGB Kew is pretty impressive. (<"Piranha III alga hunter"l> from earlier in the thread).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best I've seen is in our local pet shop, (where they must kill more fish than they sell), there it covers the substrate like Gorilla fake fur.
> 
> cheers Darrel


That is indeed bordering on looking really nice!!!


----------



## rebel

hard determinist said:


> Fablau, look here: http://www.flowgrow.de/kein-thema-wenig-regeln/die-pflege-der-mikroflora-oder-t17365.html (use Google Translate; it's in German). As I know you, you can find it very interesting reading. In the linked thread there are other links in the first post. For most people here it will be waste of time.
> 
> PS: niko123 is the "niko" from APC.com, so he deserves more respect.





I don't speak German so I asked google translate....hilarious translation!!



> *Why microflora care or what the goal is:*
> A 100% he is not, it may not be, but now I put my pelvis and in my environment quite safe and with good quality. Now I'll provoke and wait for the hopefully upcoming debate whether the "quality" of a basin.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





hard determinist said:


> use Google Translate; it's in German





rebel said:


> I don't speak German so I asked google translate....hilarious translation





niko123 said:


> Yes, it is a question of microbiology. Which species of microorganisms is not important because what is more important is the answer to the question "How do I setup the tank so the proper microorganisms establish themselves?". I like to call that "properly established planted tank".


It doesn't translate very well, but I think his thinking is a long the same lines as Dr Stephan Tanner's in <"Aquarium Biofiltration">.

I'm a "_properly established planted tank_" fan as well, and I'm sure a lot of the reasons why long-established planted tanks don't tend to have algal "outbreaks" is microbiological stability.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

dw1305 said:


> there it covers the substrate like Gorilla fake fur.


----------



## Lindy

Sorry but I have some of the best although is has got so long I'm not sure it is BBA anymore? Might be a record breaker! 



.


Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## Lindy

I probably can't achieve bacterial balance due to my ph being 5.5 but as long as my fish are happy I find I don't stress too much about it. It did get a lot worse with our prolonged moving saga where water changes were sparse but hey ho


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> I'm a "_properly established planted tank_" fan as well, and I'm sure a lot of the reasons why long-established planted tanks don't tend to have algal "outbreaks" is microbiological stability.



I like this nutshell very much and how it explains certain aspects of how plants get around.. This is not typicaly aimed towards aquatics, but i'm sure they ain't so different, after all 95% aint tru aquatic what we grow.
http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/Biobk/BioBookPLANTHORM.html

Scroll down to the part
*Mycorrhizae, bacteria, and minerals*


> Many plants have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria growing in their roots



There probably is much more to it then he explaines here.. Yet not found any data online going much deeper into the subject than this.. But it's very intresting.


----------



## BruceF

Darrel 
I am not against keeping an aquariun clean but his claims seem to lack any real correlation. 

"Algae blooms or infusoria explosions are usually the result of excess phosphates in an aquatic system."


----------



## zozo

BruceF said:


> Darrel
> I am not against keeping an aquariun clean but his claims seem to lack any real correlation.
> 
> "Algae blooms or infusoria explosions are usually the result of excess phosphates in an aquatic system."



There are articles enough to find with people claiming contrary, having a high phosphate but still no BBA..  IMHO there is much more to it then meets the eye or drop test. If you measure an excess of something while having algae it is very easy to get to the assumption that this should be the cause. Might be, could be, but what's the cause if it all doesn't fit anymore.. Was it the high phosphate? Or was it high phosphate and something else triggering it? Where the phosphate just plays a minor role as excelerator in the algae growth?

It probably isn't even about keeping your tank clean.. A friend of mine and i refuse to call him an aquarium hobbyist because if you ask me he's far from it he's a bungler with a transparent bucket of water with green glass all the time, throwing food in the tank like the mayor throws candies around during the anual parade.. Constantly plants melting and occasionaly fish dying. But i'm realy impressed to see he never has BBA in his bucket.  Sometimes i feel like asking him how he does that.  He has a Labeo Bicolor already for years the only fish which survived it all. Actualy it is sad but what can i do, he likes it that way and thinks i'm a nagging nerd when i start ranting about it..


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





BruceF said:


> Darrel, I am not against keeping an aquariun clean but his claims seem to lack any real correlation.


I agree, I'm not a very "house-proud" aquarist. I don't do any substrate cleaning, but I have tanks with _Asellus_ and snails, which degrade larger bits of organic waste (dead leaves etc).

This was from a thread about Whip-tails 





dw1305 said:


> ....... "_Bright and clean_" actually worries me a lot, slightly fuzzy and tannin stained might be better for long term survival, for any of these types of fish. I like some dead leaves and biofilm in the tank. One advantage of some tannins in the water is that they will complex any heavy metals in the water, which could be an issue in soft water. The late Bob Marklew (macvsog23 in the linked post), a fantastic Loricariid keeper & breeder, was successful with fish like <"_Lamontichthys llanero">, _I'm sure part of the reason was that he kept mulmy tanks, but with very clean water and high levels of oxygenation......





BruceF said:


> "Algae blooms or infusoria explosions are usually the result of excess phosphates in an aquatic system."


Certainly true of blooms of the "Green Algae", and Cyanobacteria. In natural situations, PO4--- and NO3- are the twin markers of eutrophication. 

As well as amounts of algae what is important is the assemblage of species. <"Diatoms assemblages are used a lot in biotic indices">, mainly because they have persistent silica skeleton (frustule), which mean that you can compare the living assemblage of diatoms with the assemblage of frustules from the sediment. 

Also have a look at <"Nutrients and Eutrophication">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





ldcgroomer said:


> I'm not sure it is BBA anymore?


Definitely is, but still not quite in "Gorilla fake fur" territory.

Do you know the TDS of the tank Lindy? I know it is low pH, and I wonder if it has low TDS as well? 

I have a small amount of BBS, on filter sponges etc. in some of the tanks. I haven't measured the PO4---, but the TDS is ~100ppm or less, so there isn't a lot of any nutrient present. 

My suspicion would be that your BBS will start declining of its own accord fairly soon.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Lindy

dw1305 said:


> still not quite in "Gorilla fake fur" territory.


The Muppet Animal maybe?

Tds is 120.


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> but I have tanks with _Asellus_


That's actualy intresting..  Did you catch them? Can't imagine they are in the trade somewhere.. Recently i had a stray Asselus ending up in the tank, i don't believe it was a aquatic sp. it was dead and a shrimp was feesting on it..


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





ldcgroomer said:


> Tds is 120.


Ok, so I think we would be safe in saying that there aren't a huge amount of nutrients of any description. 





zozo said:


> Did you catch them? Can't imagine they are in the trade somewhere


I got them out of a pond, but you can <"buy them for scientific purposes">, because they use them as bio-assay organisms in water testing.

Where I've sent _<"Riccia_ or moss"> to people they have often found _Asellus_ in their tanks afterwards, presumably due to juvenile hitch-hikers hiding in the moss.

They are basically really tough shrimps, but with less good PR. Most fish ignore them, but cichlids etc will eat them.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

Thanks Darrel  I'll ask the local water laboratory, they might kow an address or probably have some themselfs.. Maybe i find them after the summer in my own garden in teh wine barrel..  If i ever get my hands on them i definitely introduce them to the tanks..


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





zozo said:


> I'll ask the local water laboratory, they might kow an address or probably have some themselfs..


If you can't find any PM and I'll try sending some. I haven't had a very good record with sending the larger individuals, but small ones in damp moss looks a viable method.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,If you can't find any PM and I'll try sending some. I haven't had a very good record with sending the larger individuals, but small ones in damp moss looks a viable method.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Thanks for the offer..  I'll certainly do that if i can't find them locally..


----------



## Soilwork

Can't believe email hadn't notified me of more posts on this subject. 

Going back to a hypothesis I presented on page 20 and keeping along the theme of microbiological stability keeping algae at bay I was just wondering.  This may be a silly question though so go easy.

If I am injecting enough co2 to deplete my carbonate buffer and force ph to fall, does that mean our microbes can no longer draw on alkalinity to aid in nitrification and ultimately stop them from reproducing?


----------



## AndyMcD

Hi Soilwork,

This paper discusses large scale shrimp production and what needs to be added to ensure that the system remains in balance. This includes a section on autotrophic bacteria.

The paper provides chemical equations for Nitrification by autotrophic bacteria, which consumes HCO3:



 

The point is made that unless alkalinity is added to the system, the pH will drop:

"Using this stoichiometric relationship (Eq. (14)), for every g of ammonia–nitrogen converted to nitrate–nitrogen, 4.18 g of dissolved oxygen, and 7.05 g of alkalinity (1.69 g inorganic carbon) are consumed and 0.20 g of microbial biomass (0.105 g organic carbon) and 5.85 g of CO2, (1.59 g inorganic carbon) are produced"

Also:

*"4.3 Autotrophic bacteria — impact on water quality*
In the autotrophic nitrification process as opposed to heterotrophic processes ... Also there is a significant amount of alkalinity consumed (7.05 g (as CaCO3)/g N) and high levels of carbon dioxide produced (5.85 g CO2/g TAN). For water with low initial alkalinity this can be a significant problem, requiring the addition of alkalinity, in the form of sodium bicarbonate, lime, sodium hydroxide, to maintain an adequate concentration (100 to 150 mg/L as CaCO3), especially for systems with limited water exchange. If alkalinity consumption is not compensated for by supplementation, the system pH will drop. Lowering pH will result in an inorganic carbon species shift from bicarbonate to dissolved carbon dioxide, and this increase in dissolved carbon dioxide could affect some aquaculture species..."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860600216X

Building on the point you have made, this suggests that if the autotrophic bacteria consume the available HCO3, the pH can drop, which may inhibit growth of autotrophic bacteria at low pH.


----------



## AndyMcD

This image has been presented previously in this thread:


----------



## Soilwork

Great stuff AndyD.

so we know that low ph directly disrupts our familiar species of nitrifying bacteria.  Whether this includes heterotrophs as well remains to be seen.  You have provided good info on the requirements of bacteria with regards to alkalinity also. This was never in question but relevant nonetheless.  I have read many times that bacteria use 7.14ppm of alkalinity per 1ppm ammonia converted to nitrate. Darrel might have more information on this as I believe this statement came from a wastewater treatment page.

My question is:

At the moment that ph begins to fall do bacteria no longer have access to it in order to carry out nitrification?

If the answer is no then in would seem that co2 injected tanks where a 1 point ph drop is the goal are pretty hostile towards beneficial bacteria.  Not only in some cases does ph drop less than their desirable range, the no longer have alkalinity to draw on.  This would mean that the main function of ammonia uptake in a heavily planted co2 injected tank where all other parameters are sufficient is by the plants. Are we ok with this?

I mean if one can ensure that conditions remain favourable to the plants despite increasing plant mass etc then algae should not have a say in the matter if we believe Ammonia is the algae trigger.  Why would ammonia (very harmful to living organisms) not be the trigger?

In a tank that is so precariously balanced such as the one described above, any simple change that may slow the plants ability to uptake nutrients (including ammonia) would lead to a temporary excess.  Lowering lighting, reducing co2, altering flow pattern, shortage of nutrients, heaving trimming etc would ultimately lead to a reduced ammonia uptake efficiency.  With a small bacterial colony now in equilibrium with plant uptake rate any sudden ammonia accumulate would overwhelm these also.  How else could nature ensure ammonia does not destroy the system? It needs something that can grow almost instantly as if by magic that draws on this toxic element....algae.  It makes sense to me that ammonia is the trigger. The type of algae then may depend on the ammount of ammonia and other nutrient ratios within the system.  Low PO4, Low NO3, low co2, low o2, etc

If we could grow plants whilst also favouring our bacterial colonies would this help to reduce the likelihood of a sudden algae bloom? Perhaps small tinkerings that result in slow steady rate ammonia rise are easily dealt with but larger rapid accumulations are not.  

Also is it the way in they ammonia is produced that is the key.  Decaying organic matter as opposed to ammonium chloride for example.

This may not be the most elaborate test ever conducted but a couple of months back I tore down my 19 litre walstad tank because it was a disaster. I flung it in the back yard with the soil still in the bottom. Eventually the rain filled it and I began waiting and wondering what lifeforms would appear.  After about 4 weeks there was nothing but soil, rainwater and a large dead leaf in there.  The water was crystal clear.  I would imagine that some form of bacteria would have been eating away at the leaf and creating some kind of nitrogen cycle? Anyway, this is where the experiment gets complicated.  My girlfriend was using the bathroom and I needed to pee.  I went out in to the backyard as I was desperate and started peeing.  I saw the tank and decided to pee in to it.  About half a pint.  Two days later I came out to put the rubbish out and the tank was full of Green water algae.  Now it is like green snotty slime everywhere and I can see little creatures swimming about. Now other than completely disgusted, how do we feel about that?


----------



## roadmaster

I believe I would have peed in the sink while she wasn't looking.


----------



## Dantrasy

This is why I insisted on a house with two bathrooms. 

What had you been drinking? 'little creatures' is actually a name of a beer where I'm from.


----------



## AndyMcD

Dantrasy said:


> What had you been drinking?



Ale-gae?


----------



## Soilwork

AndyMcD said:


> Ale-gae?



Nice


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Soilwork said:


> You have provided good info on the requirements of bacteria with regards to alkalinity also. This was never in question but relevant nonetheless. I have read many times that bacteria use 7.14ppm of alkalinity per 1ppm ammonia converted to nitrate. Darrel might have more information on this as I believe this statement came from a wastewater treatment page.


<"Yes, that is it">.

You've gone from three hydrogen (H) atoms in NH3, to three oxygen atoms (O) in NO3, which is why nitrification is both acidifying and has a high oxygen demand. If you think about acids and bases (alkali) as "H+ ion donors" (acids) and "H+ ion acceptors" (bases) it simplifies things, in this case you can see that oxygen is the base in O-H, and that it has removed an H+ ion from solution.

If you have substances which are really acidic (like apple pomace from cider making, mine waste with a lot of iron pyrites ( FeS2) in it, or the water from steel making etc) you need to neutralize the excess of H+ ions before you can treat it. These days they often add <"magnesium hydroxide"> (Mg(OH)2) as the base, partially because it will precipitate out a lot of metals etc. and is much less caustic than NaOH etc.





Soilwork said:


> If the answer is no then in would seem that co2 injected tanks where a 1 point ph drop is the goal are pretty hostile towards beneficial bacteria.


<"No, not really"> the carbon is still there, you haven't altered the total amount of it, you've just changed the H2CO3 ~ HCO3- equilibrium point. Because you have more H2CO3 (from the dissolution of a small proportion of the added CO2) you have added H+ ions (via the extra H from H2CO3) and this alters the pH (the ration of H+:OH- ions). Scientists tend to talk about DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) to describe the total amount of  H2CO3 and HCO3-.

My suspicion would be that the only situations where nitrification is compromised in aquaria are where the levels of dissolved oxygen are low (again my suspicion would be this is much more common than most keepers of non-planted tanks realise) and in very nutrient poor "blackwater" tanks, where there is no initial carbonate buffering, or a total absence of water changes has led to the initial buffering being consumed by nitrification  ("old tank syndrome").

It was the requirement for a KH buffer that led Diana Walstad to specify adding dolmite etc to the substrate in her "soil based, no water change" tanks. If you change a reasonable amount of water you can ignore old tank syndrome, unless your water change water is entirely carbonate free.

I don't think many people try and keep real black-water fish unless they have some understanding of the nitrogen cycle, and I also think "old tank syndrome" is probably now pretty rare.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

Looks like another "how to get rid of BBA" thread is dead with no outcome 

I just came across some very interesting videos by Rachel O'Leary.

This below is her BBA tank which took years to grow apparently. I think the BBA looks amazing....



And this is a follow up below. She explains how she accidentally made all the BBA die off...


----------



## alto

I'll put my money on some chemical applied to the growing medium of that "new cultivar" she added rather than just the plant itself upsetting the (in)delicate balance 

Shame though, the tank really was lovely with all the flowing algae


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





alto said:


> I'll put my money on some chemical applied to the growing medium of that "new cultivar" she added rather than just the plant itself upsetting the (in)delicate balance  Shame though, the tank really was lovely with all the flowing algae


 I don't think it was the _Epipremnum_ either. I'm a fan of the "BBA" tank as well.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

alto said:


> I'll put my money on some chemical applied to the growing medium of that "new cultivar" she added rather than just the plant itself upsetting the (in)delicate balance
> 
> Shame though, the tank really was lovely with all the flowing algae



Now if we figure what chemical was used, such that didn't affect her livestock, then we'll all be BBA free 

I doubt that this is the case though. From watching this lady's videos, she looks after fish for a living and is quite knowledgeable.


----------



## Chris Jackson

Ummm the BBA agenda....continues 

I've no idea what causes it but in my tank it just went away after about 9 months without me really changing anything. 
I think what we maybe struggling with as hobbyists is wanting instant results in a few weeks or months whereas for nature such time frames are nout but a blink of the eye. 
I've had very few algae issues ever with long established tanks with highly mature filters and substrates, it's been the new setups that have given me the grief...


----------



## zozo

Wonderfull creepy tank she had there.. 

I think it is probably for the biggest part related to light.. In my early days i never had BBA in any of my tanks it was mainly clado and green spot on the glas and green algae on wood and rocks which took rather a long term to grow, but never had BBA.. But thinking back the light quality back then was far less when it comes to lumen per watt out put.. I remember having 4 tubes of 35 watt above a 50 cm high 250 litre aquarium it and still in the low light range..

And now i have 2 tanks with relative high (LED) light if i go on full power and the first algae i see appear is BBA or Stag.. The high tech tank 45 watt LED is the only tank which runs full power for almost the whole cycle and this tank is the only one where BBA keeps comming back near the surface in the high flow arae..
The low tech is sligtly bigger tank which has 50 watt LED it only runs full power for 3 hours in the 12 hour cycle, to prevent getting BBA..

Got a little 3th tank which is lit with 5 watt LED extremely low light, it's lit 14 hours a day and it never ever grew any BBA i even can throw BBA infested plants in it, it just dies..

If you ask me, i think Rachel didn't think of that. her light quality probably went down over the years and didn't change the tubes on time, maybe still has the same today..



That's my theory about it and what my observations are telling me...


----------



## sciencefiction

Lowering the light or running a tank on low light has never prevented BBA for me. The light is not the trigger, it just drives everything to go faster. My guess is you already had the BBA in your tank lingering...Eventually, if you don't remove the BBA in a tank like that, and don't remove the "trigger", it spreads slowly but surely. The light just makes that happen faster.

A high light/co2 tank accumulates way more organics than a low tech tank. It may not be the higher light but the load to the entire system that plays an effect. That's my theory I've seen it way too often recently how an overstocked tank starts blooming with BBA. Look at Rachel's stocking for that tank...She's got the bioload I had in 5 tanks into the one tank only...

So here we go with different theories again


----------



## Tim Harrison

Whatever the theory I think there is a common underlying philosophy...
In nature change is often about thresholds and tipping points...in that even a slight difference in variables can lead to catastrophic change, this is especially the case in delicately balanced systems.
I also think that in a sense scale can play a role; in effect determining how quickly we perceive change occurring.
For instance, the scale of the biosphere we perhaps perceive change to be gradual when in relative terms it's very rapid.
An example, on the scale of the biosphere is the increase in freak weather events. These are often attributed to global warming, but I think continental drift has also played a significant role.
Continents may only drift or move a few centimetres a year but eventually a tipping point maybe reached that could have a drastic impact on global circulation patterns which in turn will influence weather.
What this has to do with BBA I've absolutely no idea...I just felt like commenting anyway
Other than I suppose it could have been any number of factors working alone or in synergy that caused her algae to disappear, and they don't necessarily have to have been what we would ordinarily consider significant

P.S. It could even have been allelopathy...alkaloids from the new cultivar.


----------



## Soilwork

High had small tufts of BBA under T5HO 35w with reflectors.  I don't know which category of light that falls under in a juwel vision 180.  Probably medium lighting. 

I was preparing for a rescape and soni stopped injecting carbon and dosing EI.  The rescape took longer thank anticipated and I stated to see the makings of hair algae forming on the substrate and a couple of toughs of BBA near the glass (although it was green in colour) my driftwood which had always had 2-3 tufts of BBA attached quickly became plagued with it.  Light didn't change in this case but co2, EI and water change frequency did.  Plant growth probably took a hit and maybe leaves were shedding/dying which increased organics coupled with a lack of water changes. 

I think what Tim alluded to with regards to balance is once of the driving factors in my opinion.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Chris Jackson said:


> I've had very few algae issues ever with long established tanks with highly mature filters and substrates, it's been the new setups that have given me the grief...


I've found <"the same">. 

There is further discussion is Chris's <"Is this hobby losing ...."> and the <"low tech. questions"> threads.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

sciencefiction said:


> Lowering the light or running a tank on low light has never prevented BBA for me. The light is not the trigger, it just drives everything to go faster. My guess is you already had the BBA in your tank lingering...Eventually, if you don't remove the BBA in a tank like that, and don't remove the "trigger", it spreads slowly but surely. The light just makes that happen faster.
> 
> A high light/co2 tank accumulates way more organics than a low tech tank. It may not be the higher light but the load to the entire system that plays an effect. That's my theory I've seen it way too often recently how an overstocked tank starts blooming with BBA. Look at Rachel's stocking for that tank...She's got the bioload I had in 5 tanks into the one tank only...
> 
> So here we go with different theories again



Spores are ever present in any body of water, hence they fly through the air, if African dessert sand can travel 1000nds of miles into the atmosphere jetstream, smaller spores can probably go even further and maybe can travel 5 times around the globe before they land in someones tank.. 

In my observation it is always light which is indeed the factor to speed the bloom up or slow it down.. It certailny is a number of factors triggering it which most likely never has a constant.. What ever one experiences every conclussion will for ever be a theory, mine is light is one main factor..



Tim Harrison said:


> P.S. It could even have been allelopathy...alkaloids from the new cultivar.


Yes i believe to that this still is a very underestimated or maybe better to say unknown property of many plant sp.. As you say minute changes can trigger a lot and a biosphere has many so variables and we can only look at the things we think to know.


----------



## iunknown

Soilwork,
Haven't read the whole thread, and this is off topic.  My question is, would it be better to run Co2 24/7, or to turn it off at night?  From what I'm reading it seems like some bacteria utilize Co2?  So does turning it off at night kill bacteria?  Or does the increase in ph stimulate them to grow more (but then kill then off when the ph goes back down)?


----------



## sciencefiction

Spotted that tank on youtube while surfing for videos.....

There, it seems the tank either gets too much light or does not have enough CO2  but either way, BBA seems to be thriving...



P.S. I hope the owner doesn't mind. Its full of happy fish besides happy BBA in extremely low light conditions


----------



## sciencefiction

And there's another tank on the opposite scale....too little light (joking again ) It just seems to me BBA thrives in any light conditions....


----------



## AndreiD

After having BBA in the tank for almost 1 year (reading 100000 articles about it) i figured out  that BBA starts to grow more and more if the plants in the aquarium are not growing well .


----------



## rebel

It seems like we can only grow BBA inadvertently. I tried to grow it but lost interest as my SAE jumped out of my tank; he was also probably looking for ways of growing BBA.


----------



## zozo

AndreiD said:


> After having BBA in the tank for almost 1 year (reading 100000 articles about it) i figured out  that BBA starts to grow more and more if the plants in the aquarium are not growing well .



In my experience in all 3 tanks it is a combination where light always is the main factor.. And if light is ample and plants are not realy healthy BBA will firstly attack the unhealthy plant parts. Unhealthy plants mainly caused by nutrient insufficiencies or just older leaves dying off..

If light is more than ample BBA will even attack hardscape.

For me this theory works in every case, got a little 25 litre tank i use as plantbin.. It is super low tech, no filter nor flow, very low light less than 9 watt led light, if i have to guess maybe 700 lumen maybe less. No ferts, no foods, very low on co2.. only cramped with plants and shrimps.. Gets a weekly 50% water change. There is a lot of melting going on in this tank but never ever grows BBA, the only algae growing in this tank is diatoms.. Even if i throw in a plant from one of my other tanks containing BBA it dies off.. So if light is low enough than the TT doesn't hold ground, than bba even doesn't grow on the unhealthy parts of a plant.

So just only saying plants not growing well is not the correct approach.. For example putting a Java fern in a very bright lit tank or any other slow grower.
It grows well and maybe even relatively fast for a java, but gets to much light and there for most likely also will start grow BBA. This algae attaches deeply into the plant cells, the longer it is on it the deeper it will eat itself into it..At one point it will start feeding off the host and make it unhealthy..

So if you think of it, it is a combination of several variables.. Light, health (ferts/co2) plant sp. with different grow characteristics put together. Next to that flow can be a additional variable with distributing ferts/co2 around..

Actualy it is very simple.. If light is ample you need ample co2 and ample ferts to make the plant do something with this light.. Next to that you need plant sp. that have grow characteristics meeting these variables. For example you can not make a Java fern grow as fast as a Rotala, if you try you are just wasting ferts, co2 and light. Maybe having a nice rotala and bba on the java fern.. When it comes to the flow variable, you might take into consideration and ask the question whats wrong here... Is it the flow or is it the wrong plant sp. in the wrong place? As light and shading in a scape is an equaly important variable here.

What makes this whole subject so illusive and dificult is because we are talking variables here. There isn't a constant number to give.. Plants grow in mass, more mass can take more of everything. Lights are expressed in watts and lumen, but still it's just an illusive number not saying very much it still is different for each tank even with the same numbers given.

Keep up the ferts and co2 and play with your ligh intensity is where you need to start.. But it takes time and patience.. Lower it with 10 or 20 % or more and prolong the period if necessary and wait several weeks maybe 2 months it's a variable and impossible to give a number.. But wait and see what happens.. You will see less BBA..  and probably more plantmass. 

If you do it right you might come to a point where BBA is gone.. From there you might have enough plantmass gathered to go up again with the lights.. And again go easy on it and wait and see.. Go up and down like that till you find your sweetspot..


----------



## AndreiD

Actually what you say about the light/BBA balance its true


----------



## sciencefiction

Light and BBA correlation in terms of trigger or cure has never held true. On one of my tanks which was around 100g I reduced the light to oneT5 of 32W for over a year and BBA grew as happily as ever. On my other latest 5f tank the light had been 45w led for probably a year before BBA appeared(at the same time as overstocking my tank)Bba is unaffected by low light....


----------



## zozo

For me it is and it works every time i see BBA grow.. And the only tank i have the most (often) BBA is the high tech tank with the strongest lights. And 1 low tech with very low light has non and never had, the other low tech relatively high light for this category has little BBA.. It had more of it in the first months when plantmass was still rather low. Going down with intensity and patiently wait for plant mass to grow did it again.. All my tanks have 10 + hours of light. 

Think of what makes plants grow, that's light and ferts.. Than it actualy only can work counter productive to give plants a short 6 hour periode of high light and a lot of ferts.. Not saying it doesn't work, many do it also with succes, but it is definitively not maximizing the plants life cycle. Over the day that would be 6 hours of growing time and 18 hours of doing nothing. And doing nothing is also not helping to get all into transition. If you want more plantmass in a shorter time span, than lower the intensity and double the periode.. Makes your plants grow bit slower but it will make them grow 6 hours longer. In the end you will have a lot more mass and a much larger and healthier developed rootsystem. 

In here again is a variable  and this one is what if i grow only High light demanding plants and you want them to grow compact and colorfull from the start. Than you are doomed to go with a high intensity short periode.. Tho here goes the same, the other variable is a minimum of light and a maximum of light needed, than go down in intensity to a minimum and prolong the period to a maximum and grow your needed mass. It might begin with a bit less compact, but it will be very good rooted healthy less compact mass of submersed growth. A less compact plant is not per definition an unhealthy plant as long as minimum requirments are met.. Once you have the mass, go up in intensity and shorten the periode again. And trim everything leggy back with patience and it grows back compact from a healthy large rootsystem. All plants need to go through that transition from emersed to submersed. Doing this in a short high light period is asking for and running on the edge of a BBA problem.. Which you actualy do not need to get at all..

That's my take on BBA.. 

Hows it's said in english... 'The sun is not hurried by early risers '?


----------



## roadmaster

Believe an aquarium is the only place that plant's see 10 + hour's of midday lighting be it low or high light day in ,day out..
In nature, the sun provides the light and it moves across the sky throughout the day.
Many of the plant's due to shading by other plant's,tree canopy over head,or several day's/week's of overcast skies,may only see three or four hour's of bright,midday lighting in a single day before sun moves away rather than 10 + hour's.
I can run four 54 watt T5's over my low tech for no more than eight hour's and lighting hung ten inches above the surface of the water in 300 litre tank lest algae become problematic.
I can run four 32 watt T8's for ten hour's with no issues and the bulb's re cheaper/easier to find locally.


----------



## zozo

roadmaster said:


> Believe an aquarium is the only place that plant's see 10 + hour's of midday lighting be it low or high light day in ,day out..
> In nature, the sun provides the light and it moves across the sky throughout the day.
> Many of the plant's due to shading by other plant's,tree canopy over head,or several day's/week's of overcast skies,may only see three or four hour's of bright,midday lighting in a single day before sun moves away rather than 10 + hour's.
> I can run four 54 watt T5's over my low tech for no more than eight hour's and lighting hung ten inches above the surface of the water in 300 litre tank lest algae become problematic.
> I can run four 32 watt T8's for ten hour's with no issues and the bulb's re cheaper/easier to find locally.


Don't forget to mention, the majority of plants we grow do not grow submersed in nature. Rather marginal and only submersed in the rainy seasons. If a plant grows submersed in nature it is mainly in places where it is unchaded in rather clear waters.. Like i see where the Calitriche grows in the local streams near my place. Where we have in summer season a few weeks of 18 hours daylight.. In a brightness our tanks lights do not come close too.
I also see this in my garden pond which gets very little shade. SO this also highly depends on where on earth you are..

Above my tanks i also do not have a full 100% for the whole periode.. It gradualy goes up and down with about 3 hours 50%, 4 hours 80% and 5 hours 100%. That's in total 12 hours of which i guess fall into the compensation point of the plants. There are a few hours more but probably to low for the plants. But my lights are burning from 8 am to after 10 pm.


----------



## zozo

Also as a reminder because i remember it mentioned before in this BBA conclave.. It is a collectivum of several species of Rodophytha.. How many of us do know which one is in our tank? Not far fetched to think not all require the same approach..  The one lurking in my tanks till now is highly light sensitive.. Just as advice, you have to start somewhere..


----------



## sciencefiction

zozo said:


> It is a collectivum of several species of Rodophytha.. How many of us do know which one is in our tank? Not far fetched to think not all require the same approach..



Well, I definitely have the type of BBA that grows in shade as well as in good light....Lowering the light surely doesn't work for me. As I said in my last tank the BBA appeared when the light was already quite low, below the compensation point for almost any plants, even the emersed peace lilies didn't grow and were slowly dying because the tank got no natural light at all....Most of the anubias which was majorly affected didn't even get direct tank light..It was in the shadow of driftwood at the bottom but this didn't stop the BBA from spreading on it...
And for me shorter period with higher intensity as opposed to long period with low intensity works better in terms of any type of algae. Either way, no approach has magically cleared bba outbreak so far. Shoot if you have a clear method with a rough time period and not just the general thinking we've read and tried numerous times..
.... I do not do drastic measures like dosing liquid carbon and removing all affected plants anymore.....I stopped that in order to figure this BBA one day....somehow....so I need to monitor it....When I set up my round "plastic bucket" recently I did not clean the plants I moved from my previous tank that were already covered in BBA on purpose....I think I am the only person that hangs on to their BBA ridden plants for experimental purposes ....especially in a new tank...

And so far, for the last couple of months of this tank being setup,  without doing anything major the BBA that was already on the leaves has not grown one bit. I saw a lot of "tuffs" falling off in the first few weeks....All I've changed with the move is very low bioload for a way bigger water volume and if I am right about organics and BBA having a direct correlation, my BBA should eventually completely die off, light or no light...as long as I keep the bioload relatively low and manage the growth of the plants well by covering their necessities...
I've seen it happen once when in one of my previous tanks and I hope to see it happen again if I am on the right track...For the last couple of weeks these same plants are receiving more light than they did in the last couple of years. Having tried the low light approach for an extensive period of time I am going in the opposite direction from what is generally advised as far as light is and BBA is concerned....


----------



## zozo

Kinda reminds me of that Rachel O Reily video, with that tank full with BBA and those monster fish. She grew it by accident as she killed it all by accident. Not knowing or beter to say not reporting how she grew it, probably just happend, took advantage of it and one day without knowing how she managed it, killed it all again... This also looked like a tank with rather low light.. But she grew it and killed it.. Funny stuff..


----------



## fablau

zozo said:


> In my experience in all 3 tanks it is a combination where light always is the main factor.. And if light is ample and plants are not realy healthy BBA will firstly attack the unhealthy plant parts. Unhealthy plants mainly caused by nutrient insufficiencies or just older leaves dying off..
> 
> If light is more than ample BBA will even attack hardscape.
> 
> For me this theory works in every case, got a little 25 litre tank i use as plantbin.. It is super low tech, no filter nor flow, very low light less than 9 watt led light, if i have to guess maybe 700 lumen maybe less. No ferts, no foods, very low on co2.. only cramped with plants and shrimps.. Gets a weekly 50% water change. There is a lot of melting going on in this tank but never ever grows BBA, the only algae growing in this tank is diatoms.. Even if i throw in a plant from one of my other tanks containing BBA it dies off.. So if light is low enough than the TT doesn't hold ground, than bba even doesn't grow on the unhealthy parts of a plant.
> 
> So just only saying plants not growing well is not the correct approach.. For example putting a Java fern in a very bright lit tank or any other slow grower.
> It grows well and maybe even relatively fast for a java, but gets to much light and there for most likely also will start grow BBA. This algae attaches deeply into the plant cells, the longer it is on it the deeper it will eat itself into it..At one point it will start feeding off the host and make it unhealthy..
> 
> So if you think of it, it is a combination of several variables.. Light, health (ferts/co2) plant sp. with different grow characteristics put together. Next to that flow can be a additional variable with distributing ferts/co2 around..
> 
> Actualy it is very simple.. If light is ample you need ample co2 and ample ferts to make the plant do something with this light.. Next to that you need plant sp. that have grow characteristics meeting these variables. For example you can not make a Java fern grow as fast as a Rotala, if you try you are just wasting ferts, co2 and light. Maybe having a nice rotala and bba on the java fern.. When it comes to the flow variable, you might take into consideration and ask the question whats wrong here... Is it the flow or is it the wrong plant sp. in the wrong place? As light and shading in a scape is an equaly important variable here.
> 
> What makes this whole subject so illusive and dificult is because we are talking variables here. There isn't a constant number to give.. Plants grow in mass, more mass can take more of everything. Lights are expressed in watts and lumen, but still it's just an illusive number not saying very much it still is different for each tank even with the same numbers given.
> 
> Keep up the ferts and co2 and play with your ligh intensity is where you need to start.. But it takes time and patience.. Lower it with 10 or 20 % or more and prolong the period if necessary and wait several weeks maybe 2 months it's a variable and impossible to give a number.. But wait and see what happens.. You will see less BBA..  and probably more plantmass.
> 
> If you do it right you might come to a point where BBA is gone.. From there you might have enough plantmass gathered to go up again with the lights.. And again go easy on it and wait and see.. Go up and down like that till you find your sweetspot..



This is a very interesting and different approach. I will try what you have suggested with the hope to get rid of the last strand of BBA I have in my tanks. Thank you!


----------



## zozo

sciencefiction said:


> And for me shorter period with higher intensity as opposed to long period with low intensity works better in terms of any type of algae. Either way, no approach has magically cleared bba outbreak so far. Shoot if you have a clear method with a rough time period and not just the general thinking we've read and tried numerous times..



Interesting to read you have completely opposite experience.. Algae can be realy mysterious lifeform.. I have no idea what is going on in your tank, till now i've never met this type of bba.. For me personaly and the plants i grow the lower intensity and longer periode works like a charm with a good fert regime. As well in the high tech as low tech.. And also stopped using glut and rarely use peroxide only spray some in hard to reach corners during a water change. But as said it all hangs together with many different variables and it's certainly the type of plants you grow wil determine the light intensity you need to get the required healthy plantmass. I do not grow anything realy advanced so i have no need for a bomshell of light above the tank.. And can only say as said above in the 3 tanks i have the 1 tank with the lowest light is absolutely bba free, the other 2 have it.. And i switch plants around constantly and just can't get bba in that 1 tank even if i put it in there it goes away.

I have the same issue right now with some clado, it was growing and carpeting on several pieces of hardscape in the low tech and i kinda liked it. And though just let it grow.. And for what ever reason i've seen it dissapear again and have very little left.. And i have no clue what has changed to make it go away..

Here they are happily together, some BBA and Clado.  That's all the clado i have left..


----------



## AndyMcD

sciencefiction said:


> Looks like another "how to get rid of BBA" thread is dead with no outcome



14 months after posting this suggestion, I'm still convinced that preventing an increased and established population of heterotrophic bacteria is the way to control BBA. 

However, without a lottery win there is no way to prove through experiments that this is the cause. 

I do have something else to add to support this idea - quorum sensing. We should perhaps be adding garlic and ginseng to aquariums.

I think we all agree that heterotrophic bacteria play a role in the nitrogen cycle, breaking down proteins into amino acids and ammonia. Note well, algae contains a higher proportion of protein (Nitrogen) to plants, meaning that the C/N ratio is much lower for algae vs plants, due to algae's higher nitrogen content. Algae has more to benefit from free nitrogen compounds than plants.

Unlike plants, Algae (rhodophytes) make use of phycobiliproteins, to convert light energy through photosynthesis. A mix of these different types of light sensitive proteins may help to explain why there is a difference in BBA's response to light, in comparison to plants and different species of BBA.

Heterotrophic bacteria also play a role in the phosphorous cycle, releasing phosphorous compounds back into the environment, essential for photosynthesis (ATP).

In addition to nitrogen and phosphorous compounds, heterotrophic bacteria also provide some algae with vitamins that they are unable to produce themselves (vitamin allelopathy), e.g. Vitamin B12 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975015300586). There is a proven symbiotic link between bacteria and some types of algae, vitamins are provided in return for fixed carbon.

What has been lacking from this proposal is how a definite triggered response could happen due to changes in the environment. If there is an increase in organics, why is there a sudden outbreak of BBA? Not only could an increasing population of heterotrophic bacteria improve the environment for the BBA, the bacteria may also be able to signal to the algae that the conditions have improved that may trigger a response.

It has been found that bacteria release pheromones or autoinducers to signal to each other once the population reaches a certain density. This is quorum sensing. In this way, populations of bacteria can act together, in response to changes in the environment. Also, it has been found that other species can sense these autoinducers and pheromones. Once an established population density of bacteria begins to act in unison, this may stimulate a response from the algae (e.g. spore germination) and the start of a bacteria / algae symbiotic relationship (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667375/).

Quorum sensing (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_sensing) "*Quorum sensing* is a system of stimuli and response correlated to population density. Many species of bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate gene expression according to the density of their local population." 

Garlic and ginseng experimentally block quorum sensing in _Pseudomonas aeruginosa (_https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_sensing). Pseudomonas Denitrificans (closely related?) is used in the production of Vitamin B12. Perhaps, garlic and ginseng could help block quorum sensing in an aquarium. Two plus two equals five?

For conspiracy theorists, are ADA adding garlic to their Suikei food for the benefit of the fish's appetite?

Some of the techniques people use now to control BBA will have an impact on the bacteria population density.

Water changes may remove bacteria and pheromones / autoinducers, reducing population density and perhaps reducing quorum sensing.

Removing organics will remove the bacteria's main source of food, meaning a smaller population can be supported.

Unhealthy plants may be a source of decaying plant material. Healthy plants are not and also may be better able to absorb ammonia and other nutrients, which algae need to thrive.

Glutaraldehyde (e.g. Easycarbo) is used by scientists to fix bacteria and by hospitals to kill bacteria. Addition of Glutaraldehyde, particularly in worst affected areas, could act to slow growth or kill populations of heterotrophic bacteria.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





AndyMcD said:


> Note well, algae contains a higher proportion of protein (Nitrogen) to plants, meaning that the C/N ratio is much lower for algae vs plants, due to algae's higher nitrogen content. Algae has more to benefit from free nitrogen compounds than plants.


I'm not sure that is really a physiological difference, higher plants need to build a structural support system, and that is based on structural carbohydrates, like cellulose etc. 

If you ignore that there won't be much difference between the carbon:nitrogen ratio of green algae and higher plants. Obligate aquatic plants will have a lower proportion of structural carbohydrates than land plants, because they are supported by a much denser medium (the water). 





AndyMcD said:


> Perhaps, garlic and ginseng could help block quorum sensing in an aquarium.....For conspiracy theorists, are ADA adding garlic to their Suikei food for the benefit of the fish's appetite?


I don't know about Ginseng, but Garlic is stuffed full of <"anti-microbial sulphur compounds">, but they are fairly short lived. Allicin is formed when the <"plant is damaged">, but has a short half-life. 





AndyMcD said:


> Glutaraldehyde (e.g. Easycarbo) is used by scientists to fix bacteria and by hospitals to kill bacteria. Addition of Glutaraldehyde, particularly in worst affected areas, could act to slow growth or kill populations of heterotrophic bacteria


Glutaraldehyde is definitely anti-microbial. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## alto

AndyMcD said:


> Glutaraldehyde is used by scientists to fix bacteria and by hospitals to kill bacteria




Can you expand upon this?


Re garlic use in aquaria & fish foods, I'm somewhat sceptical re garlic induced hemolytic anemia in cats, dogs & horses (of course this doesn't stop pet food manufacturers from advocating garlic laced foods/treats/medicants for cats, dogs & horses  )


----------



## AndyMcD

alto said:


> Can you expand upon this?



Sure. According to Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutaraldehyde
"A glutaraldehyde solution of 0.1% to 1.0% concentration may be used as a biocide for system disinfection and as a preservative for long term storage."

"It kills cells quickly by crosslinking their proteins and is usually employed alone or mixed with formaldehyde[7] as the first of two fixative processes to stabilize specimens such as bacteria, plant material, and human cells."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(histology)
"Another popular aldehyde for fixation is glutaraldehyde. It operates in a similar way to formaldehyde by causing deformation of the alpha-helix structures in proteins...

One of the advantages of glutaraldehyde fixation is that it may offer a more rigid or tightly linked fixed product—its greater length and two aldehyde groups allow it to 'bridge' and link more distant pairs of protein molecules. 

It causes rapid and irreversible changes, fixes quickly, is well suited for electron microscopy, fixes well at 4 oC, and gives best overall cytoplasmic and nuclear detail..."

Also,

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-115/
"Glutaraldehyde is used as a cold sterilant to disinfect and clean heat-sensitive equipment such as dialysis instruments, surgical instruments, suction bottles, bronchoscopes, endoscopes, and ear, nose, and throat instruments. 

This chemical is also used as a tissue fixative in histology and pathology labs and as a hardening agent in the development of x-rays. Glutaraldehyde is a colorless, oily liquid with a pungent odor. Hospital workers use it most often in a diluted form mixed with water. 

The strength of glutaraldehyde and water solutions typically ranges from 1% to 50%, but other formulations are available."

I'm also sceptical of the use of garlic. Pseudomonas Aeruginosa is a cause of infections which is why it is studied frequently, but I'm assuming is from the same family and may behave similarly to Pseudomonas Denitrificans, which is used for vitamin B12 production:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690052/#!po=30.2083
"There are also other higher plants such as vegetables that are found to possess anti-QS properties [17]. The examples include carrot, chamomile, and water lily as well as an array of peppers that have been proven to have anti-QS activity against the luxI-gfp reporter strain. Previous research has reported that metabolites such as disulphides and trisulphides which are extracted from garlic can inhibit LuxR-based QSI in _P. aeruginosa_ [59]. Rosmarinic acid extracted from sweet basil can decrease the expression of the elastase and protease, as well as biofilm formation in _P. aeruginosa_ [60]."


----------



## AndyMcD

Due mostly to the following paragraph, I emailed Glen Wheeler at The Marine Biological Association for his opinion on this discussion, but he didn't respond:

https://www.mba.ac.uk/fellows/gwheeler/

"Many important marine algae require vitamin B12 for growth. Eukaryotes cannot synthesise vitamin B12 and this co-factor must therefore be obtained from bacterial sources. However, only 50% of algal species require B12 and it appears B12dependence has arisen independently in many different lineages
throughout evolution. In collaboration with Prof Alison Smith (University of Cambridge), we are examining the cellular mechanisms responsible and the nature of the interaction between algae and bacteria. We have discovered that several algae species have recently lost the B12-independent isoform of methionine synthase leading to dependence on exogenous sources vitamin B12 (Helliwell et al, 2011)."


----------



## Sweded

In my experience is BBA strongly correlated to high organics. 
I base that on 60 low tech aquariums of different flora and fauna. Dirty substrate and filter is the most common trigger. Too many fish, not enough water changes and gravel vac. 
I can trigger BBA in a low tech aquarium with medium organics by dosing/overdosing NO3 / PMDD+P04 as well. 

BBA can grow in literally the most shaded area in the tank but I have found a correlation between too much light and BBA. 

Best way to combat this algae is to feed less food, clean your filters and gravel vac more often, lower light duration/intensity and buy a school of siamese algae eaters. Nothing like those fish for removing this algae.


----------



## neil frank

This is a FANTASTIC thread!  Congratulations to the major contributors.


----------



## Westyggx

I've had a long battle with bad BBA outbreak i left un-attended for some time, im finally beating it by spot dosing, filter maintenance more regular and two SAE's. I'm now keeping it at bay!


----------



## AndyMcD

neil frank said:


> This is a FANTASTIC thread!  Congratulations to the major contributors.



Hi Neil,

Thank you for your comment.

This thread prompted The Aquatic Gardener magazine to make contact and propose an article, which was included in the Jan-Mar 2017 (vol 30) publication.


----------



## neil frank

Andy,
Your TAG article is also great!  I fully subscribe to your thesis regarding assimilation of organic carbon (OC).  Appearance of BBA in my aquaria is always a reminder that I need to clean filter sponges or remove accumulation in an old substrate.  Related to  your important point about greater B12 production (needed for BBA)   with lower dissolved oxygen (DO) ...may similarly be increased OC assimilation and NH4 production by heterotrophs. With healthy leaves,  local NH4 would be lower and O2 would be higher, partricularly when O2 saturation exits from pearling. Then BBA is not seen!  I have previously reported that  BBA doesn't like high DO.  From your work, it seems this may be a direct consequence of the connections to OC assimilation!


----------



## rebel

Boys, any thoughts about lower temperature tanks vs BBA? Would the slower growth of plants also allow the algae to take over?


----------



## Edvet

Not as long as they are healthy.


----------



## zozo

I have 3 indoor aqauriums, 2 are heated, tho only set to 23°C.. Meaning if ambient temp is higher they are not heated, these 2 have fish etc. as life stock, both get fertilized and both had growing a degree of BBA regardless the temp i see no difference other than more BBA at debri collecting hotspots at the substrate. Cleaning out these hotspots declines BBA growth at these places. What baffles me most is 1 little 25 litre tank only stocked with shrimps and snails never fertilezed standing for a few years periods heated and periods not heated, it stands beside a window and has only natural light. It never even grew a spot of BBA, if i throw BBA infested plants in there they come out clean weeks later. At one time i also thought it might be temp related and BBA might be kinda tropical algae spp. And aLso all my outdoor setups i never find a speck BBA in it. But this temp idea went down the drain again after heating the small shrimp tank for a longer time than a few months. It still doesn't grow BBA, never fertilize it, never clean it, don't feed it it only gets a large water change and a panel rub about every 2 weeks.. It's completely mind boggling to my why the tanks getting the most maintenance attention grow BBA and the one neglected to the max doesn't and never did it even kills it..

The only thing that crossed my mind is the shrimp tank has a vast population of ostracods, codepods and nematodes etc. in it, because it doesn't get hunted. 1ml aquarium water under the microscope reveales a rather large number of micro fuana. Multiplying that 1ml to 25 litre it most be in the 1000nds in there..I see it with the naked eye..

The fish stocked setups have way less, undetectable with the naked eye at least. I guess it's eaten for the biggest part.. Dunno, but it might just add up the high numbers of micro fauna keeping algae growth at bay.


----------



## rebel

Thanka @Edvet  and @zozo for the detailed response. 

Its true that a single algae can predominate in certain setups. 

The relationship of bba to light is complex as stated above. It can virtually linger and grow in the dark IME. 

I am tweaking temperature in my tank to see how it affects it. Will report back .


----------



## zozo

rebel said:


> It can virtually linger and grow in the dark IME.



It certainly can.. In my larger low tech i have a truckload of wood with caves and shaded overhangs, lots a difficult to reach nooks and crannies overgrown with small Anubias. This tank has a lot of dead spots accumulating debri in the substrate under teh wood and its surrounding edges.. It shows as a light brown particle stacking up on the black substrate. BBA grows on the wood surrounded by this accumulation at the shaded caves entrance. Lowest light there is, substrate level in the shade. It explodes if i do not clean out the debri than it spreads over the substrate as well. It has a mixed substrate, gravel with smaller chunks of black crushed lava rock
, goes around as fuji sand. BBa loves to grow on porous lava and wood. Sometimes hard to see on blacj substrate, but i regularly syphon out gravel covered with bba, looking at it, its alway lava. This tank also has Caloglossa sp. as sneak in, also a rodophyta same as BBA. This algae sp. prefers dark shaded spots.. I have it all over the tank but always have search and dig into the dense planting bellow the anubias to find it. When i see it popping out at first glance i know there will be a lot down under hiding in the dark. It's easy to control, very brittle and easily syphoned out, but impossible to erradicate. Funny stuff rarely see it, but i know its there..


----------



## tiger15

zozo said:


> What baffles me most is 1 little 25 litre tank only stocked with shrimps and snails never fertilezed standing for a few years periods heated and periods not heated, it stands beside a window and has only natural light. It never even grew a spot of BBA, if i throw BBA infested plants in there they come out clean weeks later.



I have similar experience as yours.  I have a one gal planted shrimp bowl by the window (in the avatar) that has no heater, no filter, and no artificial light, just receiving 4 hour direct sunlight daily.  The plants are lush with no trace of BBA from day one I set it up.  I transferred some BBA infested plants from my big fish tank, and the BBA are  gone in few weeks.  I do not fertilize or do water change, except I top it with dirty water from my big fish tank regularly.   Nitrate is always detected near zero.  Occasionally I do negative WC by replacing a few ounze of clean water in the bowl with dirty water from my big fish tank.  

The shrimp are rarely fed, and live on dead plant tissues, algae that I can't see, and biofilm.  There are snails and variety of tinny critters crawling around. The bowl is totally free of algae of any sort that I can see.   Is it  UV from direct sunlight or insignificant bio load that keep BBA out.


----------



## zozo

tiger15 said:


> Is it UV from direct sunlight



Likely not, glass filters the majority of daylights harmfull UV,  that's why we do not get a burn nor a tan from sitting in the sun behind glass, we only get hot. For the rest conserning UV lights as used in aqaurium and ponds it can kill free floating 1 cell organisme in the water column such as germs and free floating algae cells causing green water. Only if there is sufficient intensity and exposure time.. If both are not met it smiles and waves and swims by back to the tank.


----------



## rebel

The tiny ostracods etc could have a significant effect though. I've heard of them destroying GSA in some tanks. 

Any ideas on 'flipping' the tanks to another equilibrium and perhaps into a domination of algae that can be easily controlled such as GDA etc?


----------



## tiger15

zozo said:


> Likely not, glass filters the majority of daylights harmfull UV,  that's why we do not get a burn nor a tan from sitting in the sun behind glass, we only get hot.



That isn’t true.  Truck drivers who are exposed to glass filtered sunlight on one side have uneven tanning  that has been demonstrated by X-ray of excessive skin damage on one side of the face.

Outdoor tubs also don’t get bba, but green water and other nasty algae.  So there is suggestion that UV may have something to do with it.



rebel said:


> The tiny ostracods etc could have a significant effect though. I've heard of them destroying GSA in some tanks.
> ?



ostracods can certainly take out GSA, but not bba as many bba infested tanks have ostracods too.


----------



## Edvet

tiger15 said:


> Truck drivers who are exposed to glass filtered sunlight on one side


Aren't they driving with their windows down? ( you see that in warmer climates like Australia)


----------



## zozo

There is UVA and UVB, glass filters about all UV-B and a part of the UV-A.. You wont get a tan nor a burn behind a window.. All tho, very long intensive sun exposure behind glass still bombards your skin with UV-A and can indeed lead to skin damage in te long run. UV-B is the most intensive an damaging wave length of UV light.

If it has a limiting effect on certain algae growth i can't say. As you say it's a suggestion. Who knows?... At least it doesn't always on green algae, because many outdoor pond owners still install an UV light to kill off green algae bloom in their ponds.. Obviously the sunlights UV only doesn't do the job in certain scenarios. But i wouldn't know, i never ever experienced green algae bloom in any of my setups, not outdoor not indoor. Maybe its the UV in combination with??..


----------



## ian_m

Normal glass basically does not pass UV. Which is why UV equipment uses quartz glass.

This is why the halogen desk lamps (and all halogen lamps) have a single glass sheet in front of the quartz halogen bulb. There were issues, years ago with cheap imported halogen desk lamps with no glass and people suffered sunburn on back of their hands as well as paperwork being bleached.


----------

