# A Fresh Look At Preventing Algae?



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone!

I have just posted on a cyanobacteria/BGA thread but felt it would possibly be useful to also mention it here as the subject matter is of relevance to algae. That way, there are two separate threads. One dealing with cyanobacteria/BGA (the other one) and this one (the one you are now reading) dealing with the _prevention_ of algae. The link to the other thread/post is here:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/cyanobacteria-identification-at-last.60496/page-4#post-607135

The essence of this new thread (the one you are now reading) is the importance of getting the optimum ratio of nitrate to phosphate in order to _prevent_ outbreaks of _algae_. I hope the following will be useful:

https://buddendo.home.xs4all.nl/aquarium/redfield_eng.htm

I hope what I've said above makes sense. In a nutshell, I just thought it would be easier to keep cyanobacteria/BGA and true algae separate - a thread for each.

JPC


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

Interesting! I'm in the process of experimenting with precisely this:  the ratio of NO₃ and PO₄ in my fert dosage. I've constructed a table below that summarises the history of the ratios I've been trying.

You can see below that the one time so far that I’ve allowed the ratio to go down to 5:1 I started getting tiny pockets of BGA, by which I mean a few square millimetres that spread really slowly. I think I was on the verge of entering the conditions that make BGA's existence possible.

I have now tried lowering my nitrate again to the same 5:1 ratio, but with lower overall amounts. I will be keen to see if the BGA tries to come back!

Note that I don't have a phosphate test kit, and my test strips only give a fairly crude indication of nitrate (0-20 ppm is its lowest measuring range). So I can't really tell what levels are actually in my water column, but I can accurately say exactly what's in my dosage. So the numbers in the table below relate to my dosage, rather than the content of my water column. However, it seems likely that after a week or two of dosing the water column probably starts approaching the same ratios as the dosage.

My results so far might be providing support for the notion that BGA capitalises on a low ratio of nitrate to phosphate, with 5:1 being close to the boundary condition. A ratio of 7.5:1 caused the BGA to pack its bags and disappear.

I have often seen it said that BGA is _"caused by low nitrates"_ (and I may have said so myself), and I'm sure I've also read that it can be _"caused by excess phosphate"_. My suspicion is that neither statement is truly correct, and that it's the balance of the two that is key.

Edit 15/09/2020:  I’ve been dosing 10ppm per week of NO₃ and 2ppm per week of PO₄ for some weeks now, which is the same 5:1 ratio that gave me tiny amounts of BGA previously. The result? No BGA. So the result is a bit inconclusive. I’ve updated the table below accordingly.


NO₃ (ppm per week)PO₄ (ppm per week)NO₃ / PO₄ ratioBGA outcomeTNC Complete - triple dose20​1.8​11:1​No BGATNC Complete - "double-triple" dose40​3.6​11:1​No BGADIY salts15​3.0​5:1​Tiny pockets of BGADIY salts15​2.0​7.5:1​No BGADIY salts10​2.0​5:1​No BGA


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Dr Mike Oxgreen 

Apologies! The Redfield ratio is actually the N-P ratio, not the NO₃-PO₄ ratio. The table in the Buddendorf article threw me. If you look at the NO₃=10mg/l column and its intersection with the PO₄ = 1.5mg/l row, the number presented is 10. But, the actual ratio of 10 to 1.5 = 6.7. So, we need to add another column to your table above showing the N/P ratio. Sorry about that.

It's unfortunate that you don't have a phosphate test kit. I use the JBL PO4 Sensitive kit. It measures from <0.02 to 1.8 mg/l in nine increments. You can get one for £11.99 and possibly cheaper. I also use the JBL NO3 test kit.

And, finally, a bit more bedtime reading:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-010-9380-z

JPC


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

I’m not necessarily chasing the Redfield ratio; I’m just investigating what appears to me to be a link between Cyanobacteria and the NO₃ / PO₄ ratio in my fertiliser mix.

And it doesn’t really matter whether it’s expressed as N / P or as NO₃ / PO₄ in my view. If there is a magic N : P ratio then there will be a corresponding NO₃ : PO₄ ratio.


----------



## kilnakorr

Interesting....
I must say I'm not really being this.
Over the years I've had many tanks, with very different setups, and with various amount of knowlegde. I've also experienced a wide varity of algae but not once have I had BGA.
I doubt I've been lucky and hit a magic ratio 20 times, no matter what I changed or added to tank.


----------



## Nick72

This may be hard to prove, but I'm following with interest.


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

kilnakorr said:


> Interesting....
> I must say I'm not really being this.
> Over the years I've had many tanks, with very different setups, and with various amount of knowlegde. I've also experienced a wide varity of algae but not once have I had BGA.
> I doubt I've been lucky and hit a magic ratio 20 times, no matter what I changed or added to tank.


I don't believe it's a case of hitting an exact magic ratio; rather I think it's a case of avoiding certain ranges of very nitrate-lean ratios.

I have only experienced tiny amounts of BGA when I changed my ratio by quite a long way, so I suspect the allowable "BGA-free" range of ratios is quite wide. I think it's only when you get down to quite a low nitrate-phosphate ratio that you'd start getting BGA.

I haven't yet experimented with very nitrate-rich ratios (my aim in all of this was to try out some nitrate-lean mixes to make my _Rotala wallichii_ go a bit redder). But I suspect you can go as nitrate-rich as you like and you'll never see BGA.

Therefore my suspicion is that any nitrate-phosphate ratio will preclude BGA, except the very nitrate-lean ratios.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

Anyone and everyone can contribute to this experiment. Simply provide the data that @Dr Mike Oxgreen has done. And it would be a big advantage if you own nitrate and phosphate test kits in order to include actual measurements of these water parameters. Then we can calculate the nitrate/phosphate and nitrogen/phosphorus ratios.

JPC


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

I have ordered the PO₄ test kit you suggested, @jaypeecee . So I should shortly know what my water column PO₄ level is. NO₃ is 20ppm or maybe somewhat less; that’s the best accuracy I have.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Dr Mike Oxgreen 


Dr Mike Oxgreen said:


> I have ordered the PO₄ test kit you suggested, @jaypeecee . So I should shortly know what my water column PO₄ level is. NO₃ is 20ppm or maybe somewhat less; that’s the best accuracy I have.



That's great. I'm really pleased to hear this. Will be good to see what your measurements reveal.

JPC


----------



## kilnakorr

@jaypeecee  You just want NO3 and PO4 test results and maybe presence of BGA?


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Just my two scents to chuck in the mix, but Cyanobacteria succeeds in anaerobic environments. It’s how it changed the earth’s atmospheric composition by outcompeting anaerobic forms of life. Is there any way you can create an extremely low oxygenated environment and control the N and P ratios whilst maintaining consistency of other nutrients to ascertain the validity of the ratios?

This would mean:

-  Outside of a tank for any reasonable levels of consistency
-  Fixed lighting intensity/duration/depth or alternatively sealed jars all exposed to the same level of sunlight
- Controlled water at source for dissolved oxygen readings
- Controlled additions of N and P to a fixed volume to ascertain any difference in result between varying ratios

If you have access to Cyanobacteria in your tank, carefully dividing up whatever variant you have between the jars increasing the chance you’re dealing with the same photosynthetic bacteria and having them properly sealed would allow for nitrogen fixing varieties of Cyanobacteria having fixed amounts of nitrogen gas available if you don’t have a controlled and currently identified species.

The most pertinent question I can really ask before going through with the above is has this research already been carried out? Never a point worth overlooking.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Just my two scents



Cents... darn autocorrect!


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @kilnakorr


kilnakorr said:


> You just want NO3 and PO4 test results and maybe presence of BGA?



Yes, that's right. Please also include any (green/red/black) algae that you may have. You could also include the manufacturer's name of the test kits - JBL, API, Sera, Salifert, etc.

Please ensure that the nitrate test kit reports the results as NO3. Some kits, e.g. NT Labs report the results as NO3-N. If so, it's a simple matter of multiplying the test result by 4.43 to get the actual NO3 figure.

JPC


----------



## kilnakorr

@jaypeecee 

Ok. Since I do have some algae and changing / upping ferts it might be relevant, but changes take time 🙂
I'm also very unsure about the accuracy of the tests as they do rely on my eyes reading the color right.
Currently my tests shows 15 ppm NO3(Tetra drop test) and 0.4 ppm PO4 (Hanna instruments digital reader, HI 706).
I don't trust the digital reader much, and tests are expensive.😕


----------



## kilnakorr

Forgot about algae.
I have a little GSA,some staghorn and no BGA.


----------



## kilnakorr

kilnakorr said:


> 0.4 ppm PO4 (Hanna instruments digital reader, HI 706).


Just noticed the digital reader is phosphorous not phosphate. So I have 1.2 ppm PO4.
Think I need to make a known solution and check accuracy of the device.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @kilnakorr

_Many_ thanks for your figures...



kilnakorr said:


> Currently my tests shows 15 ppm NO3(Tetra drop test)...





kilnakorr said:


> Just noticed the digital reader is phosphorous not phosphate. So I have 1.2 ppm PO4.





kilnakorr said:


> Hanna instruments digital reader, HI 706



So, the nitrate-phosphate ratio is 12.5. Referring to the table included in the link below, your nitrogen-phosphorus ratio is 20.

https://buddendo.home.xs4all.nl/aquarium/redfield_eng.htm

This puts you right on the border between 'little chance of algae' and 'chance of green algae' but no chance of BGA. This is consistent with your comment that:



kilnakorr said:


> I have a little GSA,some staghorn and no BGA.



This is starting to look very interesting.

Please let me know if anyone spots any errors in what I've stated above.

JPC


----------



## kilnakorr

jaypeecee said:


> This puts you right on the border between 'little chance of algae' and 'chance of green algae' but no chance of BGA. This is consistent with your comment that:


True. But my phosphate levels was much lower until recently.
2 days ago I did a large water change, 60% or so, and dosed to 1.5 ppm phosphate. Been doing twice a week water changes, and forgot to add back ferts, which I believe triggered the GSA and staghorn.
So at the moment I'm upping the ferts, but GSA and phosphate relation isn't a new thing, so not sure my situation is helpful in this experiment. Unless, I get rid of all algae and find myself in the 'magic' ratio


----------



## Siege

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Just my two scents to chuck in the mix, but Cyanobacteria succeeds in anaerobic environments. It’s how it changed the earth’s atmospheric composition by outcompeting anaerobic forms of life. Is there any way you can create an extremely low oxygenated environment and control the N and P ratios whilst maintaining consistency of other nutrients to ascertain the validity of the ratios?
> 
> This would mean:
> 
> -  Outside of a tank for any reasonable levels of consistency
> -  Fixed lighting intensity/duration/depth or alternatively sealed jars all exposed to the same level of sunlight
> - Controlled water at source for dissolved oxygen readings
> - Controlled additions of N and P to a fixed volume to ascertain any difference in result between varying ratios
> 
> If you have access to Cyanobacteria in your tank, carefully dividing up whatever variant you have between the jars increasing the chance you’re dealing with the same photosynthetic bacteria and having them properly sealed would allow for nitrogen fixing varieties of Cyanobacteria having fixed amounts of nitrogen gas available if you don’t have a controlled and currently identified species.
> 
> The most pertinent question I can really ask before going through with the above is has this research already been carried out? Never a point worth overlooking.



Guys, read the above. You can only test it if all tanks are exactly the same. There are soooo many variables.


It is an interesting theory - BUT there is I think a massive flaw in the idea.
Someone who is experimenting adjusting ferts to minimise algae is also probably paying much more attention to their tank than before, manually removing algae and increasing waste removal.

What other changes are they doing? We donot know.

Unless you have the r&d facilities of ADA, Seachem etc, it‘ll be a minefield.

You can tailor make your own ferts but what works on one tank may not work in someone else’s .   For example I am increasingly finding my version of heavily planted is very different from other peoples.


----------



## hypnogogia

For a lab study this would of course be right.  It could also be looked at as applied research and data is collected on many more variables, e.g make of light, lighting period, water parameters, water changes and then they can be controlled for statistically.


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all,

I like this conversation.

It seems that we are grounded in the Redfield ratio; I found < Tom Barr's thoughts on the matter >. 

I think the crux of the ratio has to do with the plants (obviously right?). I am not sure how terrestrial thoughts apply to aquatic thoughts - nonetheless, they are thoughts that could potentially lead somewhere. 

I don't have < this paper >, but I read the abstract  - this was neat:
Four conditions lake water, water and algae, water and sediments, and three objects together were conducted to investigate the effects of cyanobacteria growth on the migration and transformation of phosphorus. *Results showed a persistent correlation between the development of cyanobacterial blooms and the increase of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) in the lake water under the condition of three objects together.  *

Again, < no paper > , but here is part of the abstract: 

1) Phosphorus deficiency often limits the plant productivity because of its low mobility in soil and the root system. Its low mobility may retard the ability of a plant to acquire this nutrient.  

2) Application of phosphorus in soil not only promoted its mobility into the plant system but also increased the plant growth significantly.

3) Leaf area and leaf area ratio were also increased. 

Ok, that paper is about radish, so let's not make crazy conclusions; however, this may frame a concept as to why my ludwigia and my rotala < look like they are on steroids >. 

I've been thinking more about nutrients lately and it seems that phosphate has this ability to increase nutrient demand immensely. I don't know why (but would love to know!). 

The cyano link seems to be, perhaps, that the excess phosphates (throwing the ratio) bottoms all nutrients (including CO2) and nitrates (low nitrates and cyano?) - bringing on deficiencies. Those deficiencies brood an unhealthy system ... and algae blooms. So keeping your phosphates low can reduce your overall demand of nutrients (in particular CO2). If you don't have the light to drive phosphate uptake, then I suspect that, so long as nitrates do not bottom out and are still accessible, you won't get cyano (and if everything else is set, you won't get algae). Or if every hour, you dosed .5 ppm of nitrates (or whatever), it would be fine.  I also wouldn't be surprised if Cyano can utilize phosphates in a way that plants cannot. 

This does give credence to the connection that fertilizer run-off in lakes gives rise to algae. If we could inject CO2 into lakes, those ferts wouldn't cause any issues. But many local lakes experience algae blooms after intense run off - because perhaps phosphate is more powerful than CO2!?!?! 

There is definitely something with the idea and the link to cyano: 

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/lo...ontrol-in-lakes-is-key-to-reduce-algal-blooms 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/blue-green-algae-alberta-lakes-1.4255904
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/3e8...b5f-4c92-a455-2407ff5233ed/download/090-4.pdf

Some thoughts for now! 

Josh


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

The ecological validity of a controlled environment, like a jar test, is questionable. Would suspect all you would find is that greater inorganic fertilisation (concentration) in general leads to a larger bacterial colony of BGA without anything else competing for resources in a controlled environment. 



As for in tank you would expect BGA to appear in lower oxygen environments; against the glass in the substrate, very low flow areas, amongst thick rooting of carpeting plants or in a lowly planted tank like a moss only scape. It’s niche area in an aquarium is low oxygen areas with low flow. Not sure anyone is really debating this point who has run enough aquarium’s in their time.



Porous rock as a base layer in the substrate may help increase flow to circumvent this, as might avoiding planting right against the glass so roots don’t choke the area against the glass in the soil where there’s an abundance of light and lower o2.



With regards to an aquarium system, in agreement with Tom Barr in that concentration rather than ratios, light intensity and availability of Co2 all marry to create the potential growth capability of the plants in that system. 



A reasonable prediction of altering N and P concentrations in general, regardless of ratios, is that what you’re observing with regards to BGA progression/regression in a tank, is the relationship between the concentration of fertiliser to the amount of dissolved oxygen created in that system by the plants photosynthesising, not a relationship between fertilisation and BGA. A high level of dissolved oxygen, as a byproduct of lots of photosynthesis, creates a hostile environment for BGA in an aquarium. This is evidenced by healthy high tech systems that run long term with BGA in the substrate along the glass, but not from the substrate to surface.


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

Geoffrey Rea said:


> As for in tank you would expect BGA to appear in lower oxygen environments; against the glass in the substrate, very low flow areas, amongst thick rooting of carpeting plants or in a lowly planted tank like a moss only scape.


The tiny pockets of BGA that I got were all within an inch of the surface, directly in the spray bar outflow and directly underneath the area of most vigorous surface agitation!


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I'll start by saying I have absolutely no idea why EI works (it was developed by @plantbrain), but I'm willing to accept that it does. Before I joined this forum if some-one had described EI to me and then asked if I thought it would work, I would have told them that it had a "_Snowball in Hell's_" chance.  The same applies to <"GSA and raising PO4--- levels">, I don't know why it works, but I'm willing to accept that it does.

If you want my best guess the reason why any of <"these, widely differing approaches"> "work", it is the <"oxygen one"> alluded to by @Geoffrey Rea.

I would tend to agree with @hypnogogia,  @Siege  and @Geoffrey Rea. I think there are <"just too many variables"> to be able to quantify exactly what makes a tank "successful".  You not only have plants that are adapted to a wide range of <"nutrient and light levels">, but you also <"have algal"> assemblages that reflect <"differing nutrient levels">.

If someone really did want to have a go at answering the question (@jaypeecee, @Dr Mike Oxgreen )? If you could find sufficient scientific studies that quantify plant health, algal growth, dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels you could use a <"data-mining approach"> to attempt to isolate the important factor(s) using <"bayesian metadata analysis">.

As for the <"redfield ratio">, my guess is that it has some relevance for marine phytoplankton blooms, but after that things are a lot less clear.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

The words chosen were selected carefully.



Geoffrey Rea said:


> you would expect BGA to appear



It will appear in low oxygen/flow areas first. However, if the whole system is being run sub-optimally for plant growth continually, then with time there’s nowhere it won’t colonise as long as there’s light:






Photo credit: AQUAdesign

If you can afford to and you can tolerate the smell it’s worth letting it collapse a planted tank without livestock just to see how it behaves across time. It isn’t just progressing, it’s adapting the whole system to its preference.




dw1305 said:


> If someone really did want to have a go at answering the question (@jaypeecee, @Dr Mike Oxgreen )? If you could find sufficient scientific studies that quantify plant health, algal growth, dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels you could use a <"data-mining approach"> to attempt to isolate the important factor(s) using <"bayesian metadata analysis">.



This would be a really nice meta-analysis project @dw1305


----------



## hypnogogia

Geoffrey Rea said:


> This would be a really nice meta-analysis project @dw1305


With a large enough sample size and carefully chosen variables, I think we could build a predictive model of BGA development.


----------



## Ray

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Photo credit: AQUAdesign


That photo gives me the screaming heebie jeebies! If I can get PTSD from BGA then that photo triggers it!


----------



## kilnakorr

Well, I found my NO3 test to be non working.
This only proves, once again, that these tests shouldn't be used solely.
I've been having some issues with my tank and lost track of ferts when upping the waterchanges, and used the test just to make sure I didn't go to low (making sure issues wasn't fert related).

Well, here are the tests:



Above image is RO water showing around 12-15ppm (picture is a little darker than it really is).




Above picture showing unknown but VERY high NO3 solution (500+ppm), reading just below 25 ppm.

Completely worthless tests!

I went out and purchased som new tests, as I was curious:




Much better! RO to the left, showing less than 0.5 pp. Unknown solution to the right showing above 240ppm.

But what about my tank? I was already thinking N was low, so last night I dosed 8 ppm dry KNO3 in the tank, and the ussual dosing of 3ppm was dosed during the night. The test:




Around 5ppm!

Reasons to add all of thid in this thread?
If the Redfield ratio had some truth in it, I would be swimming in BGA.
I have had 0-5ppm NO3 for weeks, but been dosing PO4 back to 1.5 ppm with waterchanges along with the usual dosing.

I haven't tested PO4 yet, as my digital reader seems to be decent (+/÷10).


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> The same applies to <"GSA and raising PO4--- levels">, I don't know why it works, but I'm willing to accept that it does.



I think you nail it in < this post >; certainly without extensive testing, we cannot say for sure. However, after my experience with extremely < out-proportioned potassium >, I have to say that I have accepted cation interference - which is all grounded in concentration gradients of nutrients. Every post I read that has GSA is from EI users. When I dropped potassium, my GSA on the glass didn't come back, nor did it continue to get worse on my unhealthy buce 🤔.

If we follow Mulders (and I chose to add the one below fro MSU, though I see some different ones - which is unclear to me - where the antagonism are not the same):




Zinc, Copper, Iron, Potassium all inhibit phosphate. Think of the EI trace dose - I've got no numbers - but it's well over what the tank needs (as it should be in the spirit of EI).

note:
1) We can discuss here ion exchange INTO the substrate.
2) We can also discuss source water.
3) Light - HIGH light means more nutrients (including CO2) are being absorbed).

Is it possible that the micro nutrient accumulation (and in every tank is different due to 1 and 2 and 3) over a period of time inhibits phosphates. It is certainly not day 1 or 10 or 30 that gave rise to GSA (at least not in any tank I have ever had  - albeit not that many - or in posts that I have read from a variety of forums) ... it is later. It is only after a period of time that the higher phosphate dose is needed. We know nutrient accumulation with consistent water changes will plateau after several weeks ... that plateau is the baseline and it is at that point we see GSA pop up ... as a result, we need more phosphate to overcome the baseline of nutrient accumulation (I am not talking toxicity).

The deficiency of phosphate in the plant is not SO large that it is demonstrating dying leaves but it is large enough that pockets can have GSA. I mentioned in that excess potassium post that:

Interesting note the excess potassium did not allow algae to attack my fast growing plants - even Ludwigia (which is slower then rotala), s repens, etc. However, my unhealthy buce was having a persistent issue - it seems that the leaves look like they are getting better ... I wonder if that tiny micro nutrient (forced) deficiency was enough when compounded with slow growing to make the plant weak enough for algal attack. Interesting.

Then, < here> ,  we see that @tiger15 said, "Even healthy plants apparently free of algae have micro algae if examined by a microscope. "

And to what extent that algal concentration is, is likely a barometer for how "close" we are to meeting the "perfect" ratio.



Geoffrey Rea said:


> With regards to an aquarium system, in agreement with Tom Barr in that concentration rather than ratios, light intensity and availability of Co2 all marry to create the potential growth capability of the plants in that system.



I am quite interested as to what is the difference between concentration rather than ratio.  I am seeing ratio as relative concentrations.

Further, I think we are discussing water column concentrations, which are independent of substrate - if you use inert substrate, then your WC is a true indicator of what you have; however, we cannot say that the plant decides to use the water column over their roots at a particular moment in time - though I would love to sit down and drink coffee with Rotala to discuss the choices he/she makes.

What we can say is that higher nutrient column fertilization compounded with flow increases the probability that the plant will be able to come in contact with a nutrient - hence higher concentrations of everything "ensure" that the plant will come in contact with what it needs --- that means higher concentrations in water and/or substrate. This movement happens with concentrations (I have no link, but it must) and necessarily charges - hence too much of one HAS to inhibit something else ... leading us to relative concentrations (which is ratios).

I like what Tom said,  "If you I have a ratio of 0.01 PO4 and NO3 of 0.16, I can promise you, plants will not do well," but I think it is a probability game now instead of actual nutrient availability. If you took a plant and over each leaf you had a probe with an injector that maintained this ratio NO MATTER WHAT (i.e. a response to trigger a dose when the probe reading changes) - it would have to grow as you are not limiting anything. 



Back to GSA, I think we see tiny pockets of phosphate deficiency (as long as CO2 is good - remember too much phosphate increases to nutrient requirement of everything and as a result can give rise to CO2 deficiency) that GSA inhabit - why GSA ... beats me, but they must be able to uptake a particular nutrient easier than other types of algae. Why it's tiny pocket - because there aren't too many traces .

Please note that I have not changed my traces in my post above only potassium (which is in much higher concentration than the traces that I just suggested) and I saw a huge decrease in GSA.

These are all my thoughts and I have no evidence, but my intuition says that somewhere in here, we have a thread to why GSA and low phosphates correlate.


Josh


----------



## Witcher

9ppm NO3/6-7.5ppm PO4 weekly gives me approximately 1.5:1 to 1.2:1 NO3 : PO4 ratio with absolutely no sign of BGA, some GSA scattered here and there on older leaves of slower growing plants (and to my notes GSA appears only when my PO4 level is lowering) plus random alone hairs of green thread algae which I'm 100% sure appeared after experiments with different Fe chelates.

It's not the ratio which is important but presence of all necessary nutrients in the water column allowing plants to be fed, *actively growing and producing oxygen* - which I believe is most important in keeping BGA at bay.

I think in terms of ferts this topic is missing another key ingredient which is Fe (responsible for new growth and in the effect active growth of plants in general), and in terms of general environment, it's missing oxygen (or its production caused by correctly fertilised plants).


----------



## JoshP12

JoshP12 said:


> And to what extent that algal concentration is, is likely a barometer for how "close" we are to meeting the "perfect" ratio.



I misspoke here.

What I should say that it is likely a barometer for how "close" we are to delivering nutrients via flow distribution to every single cell while at the same time NOT inhibiting nutrient uptake via obeying the "perfect" ratio - which is grounded in the unique requirements for each individual plant.

Also, the ratio itself should be expressed as a range. I cannot convince myself that:

if the toxic value for "pick your favorite nutrient" is a value* t ppm*, and you add *t-1 ppm*, that you will not have issues with plant growth. The toxic value also has to defined for each individual tank as the substrate, light, etc, all needs to be accounted for - because these are the systems ability to buffer against nutrient accumulation. 

Josh


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Geoffrey Rea


Geoffrey Rea said:


> The most pertinent question I can really ask before going through with the above is has this research already been carried out? Never a point worth overlooking.



There is a huge amount of research that has been carried out on cyanobacteria, as you can imagine. But, off-hand, I know of none that have been conducted on aquaria. And, rest assured, I've looked! This is relevant as there are thousands of different species of cyanobacteria. There is one paper* that concluded "the critical Nmin-SRP mass ratios in both lakes are around 20". SRP is soluble reactive phosphorus.

But, if you already measure nitrate and phosphate in your tanks, then you've got the data that's needed. It's no big deal. @Dr Mike Oxgreen has already demonstrated, albeit on a small scale, that adjustment of N-P ratios can make a difference regarding cyano. It would be good to extend this to other hobbyists' tanks.

* https://moritz.botany.ut.ee/~olli/eutrsem/Noges08.pdf

JPC


----------



## Nick72

It's interesting to see how this thread is evolving.

If I'm reading it correctly there is general agreement:

Excess of nutrients, either individual or groups, do not cause algae growth.

Having a sub optimal level of any one of the key nutrients (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,Fe), will lead to deficient plant growth / health and potentially cause an algae outbreak.

(Ie. The thinking behind EI)

Excess of an individual nutrient may inhibit uptake of one or more alternative nutrients causing a plant deficiency of a nutrient that is otherwise readily available in the aquarium.

(Ie. Mulder's Chart)

This makes a lot of sense to me, but the issue I have with using this information in any practical way is that Mulder's Chart does not provide any range values for nutrient levels to inhibit their counterparts.

This I assume is why we are now asking whether it is ratios between nutrients or fixed concentrations (ppm values) that trigger inhibition.

This is what I find the most interesting.  Can we assign a fixed ratio or better still a fixed ppm value of a certain nutrient that will be the start of inhibition of a counterpart nutrient?

I'm suprised this research has not already taken place, or should I say I suspect the answer may he more complicated.

Perhaps nutrient X inhibits nutrient Y at 25ppm only if nutrient Z is present at >15ppm, or only if dGH is <8.

I would love to have the answers.


----------



## kilnakorr

jaypeecee said:


> @Dr Mike Oxgreen has already demonstrated, albeit on a small scale, that adjustment of N-P ratios can make a difference regarding cyano.



I find it interesting. Not if the ratio causes BGA, but if BGA is already present, will targeting this ratio help with getting rid of it?

I'm starting to consider setting up a spare tank, and get some BGA and make it thrive outside the sweet spot and then change the ratio to see if it has any effect.


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

Right, I now have my PO₄ test kit, and I’ve done a test.

I should highlight a couple of caveats. Firstly, I’ve only been dosing my current fert mixture (10 ppm/week NO₃ and 2.0 ppm/week PO₄) for a few days. Secondly, I am currently doing daily 25% water changes because one of my ember tetras seems to have some kind of white nodule/lesion on its lower jaw. I am, however, compensating by dosing 20% more of my fertilisers.

The PO₄ reading I've just got, interpolating between two colours, is *1.5 ppm* - quite high!

I only know my NO₃ level fairly crudely from the API 5-in-1 test strips that I use, and it’s in the region of 20 ppm, or maybe a little lower. The pink colour is definitely there but incredibly faint, maybe a little fainter than the pink that indicates 20 ppm.

So if we assume that my NO₃ is somewhere between 15 to 20 ppm, that means my NO₃ : PO₄ ratio in the water column is somewhere between 10:1 to 13:1. At the moment I have no Cyanobacteria, and no appreciable amount of any other algae.

Interestingly, the blurb that comes with the test kit says that PO₄ should be 0.4 ppm or less for a freshwater tank. But they’re talking about reducing PO₄ to combat algae, which seems too simplistic.

What does seem to be the case is that I could significantly drop the PO₄ in my water column - 1.5 ppm is a lot of phosphate, and probably way more than the plants need. Which means I could probably also drop the NO₃ level as well without getting into trouble.

I wonder if I need a better NO₃ test. Which one do you use, @jaypeecee ?


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Geoffrey Rea


Geoffrey Rea said:


> It’s niche area in an aquarium is low oxygen areas with low flow.



I don't think growth of cyano necessarily correlates with low oxygen. I have had BGA/cyano growing on a filter outlet pipe where the water was turbulent because the outlet pipe was less than a centimetre from the water surface. Low flow is almost certainly relevant because of the way in which cyano gets a 'foothold' in our tanks, particularly with the filamentous cyano such as _Oscillatoria_, this being what I identified in one of my tanks. Exactly which species of _Oscillatoria_ I had, I don't know.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

It seems that some cyano are of the planktonic variety where they occupy the water column. Some, like the filamentous types, take up residence on the substrate or other surfaces. The first of these seems to be a perfect candidate for annihilation using a UV-C sterilizer. Chemical-free.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Dr Mike Oxgreen 


Dr Mike Oxgreen said:


> I wonder if I need a better NO₃ test. Which one do you use, @jaypeecee ?



No prizes for guessing - I use the JBL NO₃ test kit.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

jaypeecee said:


> No prizes for guessing - I use the JBL NO₃ test kit.



I can't say for certain that the company, Macherey-Nagel, supplies JBL with the JBL-branded product but, take a look at the following and there is more than a passing resemblance between the two:

https://www.mn-net.com/water-analysis/visual-test-kits/

The block comparator system and the colour chart are almost identical.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Nick72 


Nick72 said:


> I would love to have the answers.



And that's why I spend each and every day glued to my computer!

I thrive on making new discoveries.

JPC


----------



## Siege

I have super hard Anglian water and dosed my EA Aquascaper 900 with its usual daily 25ml of TNC Complete.

wednesday was water Change day so dosed with ADA Green Gain and ECA also.

Should be tonnes of BGA on the chart (I haven’t looked at the chart much!) but none. Only minimal BBA on a windelov fern caused by me playing with my eheim skim to test flow over the last few days.
This has had a knock on effect of co2 distribution (I believe! ).








I think a large plant mass, clean filter and near on 100% water change, removing waste at the same time makes the massive difference.

These and good oxygen levels in balance with light are the most important for BGA. I didn’t read a theory I just maintained lots of tanks.

The chart is interesting if you are into science and testing and establishing theories, another interesting side to the hobby.

However I believe most  hobbyist  will learn and enjoy more by ignoring the  charts and theories, look at the plants and crack on! 👍😃


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Siege


Siege said:


> Should be tonnes of BGA on the chart (I haven’t looked at the chart much!) but none.



In order for you to draw the above conclusion, you must have measured the nitrate and phosphate in the water column? I don't think you can go by what you're dosing because, at any moment in time, some of what you have dosed will have been taken up by the plants, won't it? The daily/hourly variation in nutrient levels will obviously depend on the frequency of dosing.

JPC


----------



## Siege

very true. 

My tap nitrate is through the roof as is phosphates, that plus what I add in plant food. They must be very hungry plants! 

I used to test but just can’t be bothered with the testing millarky. A decent test kit will buy a lot of plants that’ll serve me better!

Now it’s look at the plants, week on week, Chuck the ferts in (modify if need be) and happy days! 😂


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Siege


Siege said:


> However I believe most hobbyist will learn and enjoy more by ignoring the charts and theories, look at the plants and crack on!



What spurred me on to start this thread was the huge problems newcomers have to our hobby. They don't have the experience that you, for example, will have accumulated over the years. Any guidance for people starting out in aquatics has got to be a good thing. If that means doing a few simple tests, isn't that time well spent? And understanding some of the science behind water chemistry can be a major advantage. Every person will decide for themselves when they've had their fill of science and just want to sit back and admire their fish and plants. But, not if the tank's covered in BGA or some other unwelcome guest.

JPC


----------



## Siege

Yes, test for ammonia and nitrite to ensure the tank is safe for fish, but here is a typical thread recently - 

OP - 

I have algae.
My tank is at 26-28 degrees.
lighting is on 10 hours a day.
I change maybe 50% water a week on a brand new tank.
My co2 comes on 10 minutes before the lights.
I have 1 and a half plants.

Next post - 

Thats a shame, have you tested for XYZ?


OP tested for everything under the sun, gave up and bought plastic plants. Is not happy with their planted tank experience and is never seen on the ukaps forum again.


Don’t get me wrong testing is interesting and can be part of the the hobby but it is not the be all and end all. Often the OP will end up down a rabbit warren of testing and chasing water parameters when the answer was much easier and to solve to begin with.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Siege


Siege said:


> Don’t get me wrong testing is interesting and can be part of the the hobby but it is not the be all and end all. Often the OP will end up down a rabbit warren of testing and chasing water parameters when the answer was much easier and to solve to begin with.



I am not in favour of indiscriminate testing. It has to be based on sound reasoning. And that's where a basic understanding of aquarium science comes in very handy.

I think we've gone as far as we can for now. Have a nice evening!

JPC


----------



## Witcher

jaypeecee said:


> What spurred me on to start this thread was the huge problems newcomers have to our hobby.


I'm afraid that especially for newcomers sticking to the certain ratio between for example NO3 and PO4 will be highly misleading because of far more variables taking part in healthy plant growth. Not to mention that "widely acclaimed" NO3/PO4 ratios make people scared of Phosphates. Vast majority of plant keepers I know think that high Phosphates may cause algae, which is not true - In NPK this is a second most important fert for plant growth.


Siege said:


> the answer was much easier and to solve to begin with.


Let me guess: keeping high plant mass and most of the problems will resolve for themselves (assuming we are feeding our plants).


----------



## Siege

Witcher said:


> Let me guess: keeping high plant mass and most of the problems will resolve for themselves (assuming we are feeding our plants).



That and adjusting everything else in my exaggerated example 😂

apologies to @jaypeecee for hijacking his thread. I agree testing has its place to solve an issue. I believe it should be the last resort not the 1st 😃

Believe it or not I am interested in the study that started the thread, Just donot believe that it is easily provable. There are just so many variables that’ll solve the issue easier than testing and altering ferts.


----------



## sparkyweasel

jaypeecee said:


> I am not in favour of indiscriminate testing. It has to be based on sound reasoning. And that's where a basic understanding of aquarium science comes in very handy.


I think you've hit the nail on the head there, with _indiscriminate _testing. That's very different to what you are doing in trying to understand what's happening in your tank and investigating a particular issue.
I don't like newcomers getting told they _must _test once a week for pH, DH, KH, NO2, NO3, NH3, SiO4 PO4 and whatever else. That gets expensive and time-consuming; and, for many people, not very useful.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

It's time to mention iron. And I'm now drawing on what Diana Walstad* has to say about this. Plants can obtain iron from both a suitable substrate and the water column. But, algae depend on availability of iron in the water column. Although this iron may be chelated or bound to DOC**, it can briefly be made available as a result of something called the 'photoreduction of iron'. The released ferrous iron can then be absorbed by algae. This effect is known as photoreduction, whereby UV, violet and blue light have the greatest effect.

Experiments have been carried out clearly demonstrating that wavelengths below 520nm released iron from its bond to DOC**.  I find it interesting that a lot of aquarium lighting emits a high proportion of its output at the blue end of the spectrum. That's because a lot of the individual LED components naturally emit blue light but this is then 'converted' to white light by the use of phosphors inside the device itself. White LEDs are blue LEDs with the appropriate phosphor applied, be that 'cool white' or 'warm white', for example.

To be continued after a spot of (late) lunch...!

* _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_

** DOC = Dissolved Organic Carbon

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

What I don't understand is that some wavelengths below 520nm are necessary for both plants and algae. So, it's not just a case of eliminating all light below 520nm. It would be interesting to adjust the intensity of light in the band from 400nm to 520nm to see if algae growth could be minimized/eliminated whilst not affecting plant growth. But what it would look like is not easy to imagine. A simpler approach might be to supply iron by root fertilization only but would that work? It should have an impact on algae growth - shouldn't it? But what about epiphytes?

JPC


----------



## kilnakorr

jaypeecee said:


> It should have an impact on algae growth - shouldn't it?


Are we still talking about BGA or algae in general?


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @kilnakorr


kilnakorr said:


> Are we still talking about BGA or algae in general?



I was referring specifically to algae as the photosynthetic response of cyanobacteria/BGA is somewhat different to plants and algae.

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





jaypeecee said:


> Plants can obtain iron from both a suitable substrate and the water column. But, algae depend on availability of iron in the water column.


They do,  have a look at , <"From Reef to...">.  An issue for me would be that I like ferns, mosses, epiphytic Aroids and floating plants, which means that I need some iron (Fe) in the water column. Also iron availability within the substrate is <"entirely straightforward"> and introduces a lot more <"shades of grey">. 





jaypeecee said:


> Any guidance for people starting out in aquatics has got to be a good thing. If that means doing a few simple tests, isn't that time well spent?


That is the heart of the matter for me. I agree, but with the proviso that it only helps if you have <"test results you rely on">.

I'm honestly of the opinion that the only test kits, or meters, that  fulfills the cheap, easy to use and reliable criteria are a <"conductivity meter"> and a <"spirit thermometer">.





Siege said:


> .......OP tested for everything under the sun, gave up and bought plastic plants. Is not happy with their planted tank experience and is never seen on the ukaps forum again. Don’t get me wrong testing is interesting and can be part of the the hobby but it is not the be all and end all. Often the OP will end up down a rabbit warren of testing and chasing water parameters when the answer was much easier and to solve to begin with.....





Witcher said:


> Let me guess: keeping high plant mass and most of the problems will resolve for themselves (assuming we are feeding our plants).


It honestly <"is the answer">.  Watch the plants, have plenty of plants, some with the <"aerial advantage">, have <"plenty of dissolved oxygen">.It is back to a <"picture being worth a thousand words">.





dw1305 said:


> ....I usually start any data exploration with <"ggplot2">. Not very aquatic plant related, but I like <"Palmer Penguins"> as a start, have a look at the graphing options it just makes visualising multifactorial data so much easier, you can just slice and dice the data visualization with ggplot2 .


Substitute "penguins" and "ggplot2" for the duckweed index and that is the data visualization of the nutrient status of the tank.

I now realise that my football coach (when I was younger) was not only a truly horrible man, but also a philosopher, who taught me two great lessons:

Drink a lot of water, because "_Yellow p*ss is for losers_" and
"_You can only be a good footballer if you can see the whole picture_"
I could see the pictures, unfortunately I wasn't quick enough to actually get in many of them.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @hypnogogia 


hypnogogia said:


> With a large enough sample size and carefully chosen variables, I think we could build a predictive model of BGA development.



How would you envisage doing that? Which variables would you suggest? I'm definitely interested in your idea but the practical implementation of producing a predictive model is going to need some serious statistics, isn't it? I'd rather we just throw a few ideas around, which is what I hoped this thread and the thread below would kick-start:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/cyanobacteria-identification-at-last.60496/

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

Are we making progress? We started out discussing the nitrate : phosphate ratio and some people are gathering data, which may, or may not yield useful results. We've touched on iron and a little bit of stuff on lighting. But, to be fair, that was me going off at a tangent. At the outset of this thread, I commented:


jaypeecee said:


> The essence of this new thread (the one you are now reading) is the importance of getting the optimum ratio of nitrate to phosphate in order to _prevent_ outbreaks of _algae_.



I've just had a thought - if the plants are absorbing ammonia and nitrite, where is the nitrate coming from? Is it purely from the filter? If it's the latter, is biological filtration inside a filter such a good idea? I guess heterotrophic bacteria consuming organic waste (detritus) on the substrate produce ammonia but isn't this taken up by the plants just like ammonia excreted by fish? I'm overlooking the obvious, presumably?

JPC


----------



## mrhoyo

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> Are we making progress? We started out discussing the nitrate : phosphate ratio and some people are gathering data, which may, or may not yield useful results. We've touched on iron and a little bit of stuff on lighting. But, to be fair, that was me going off at a tangent. At the outset of this thread, I commented:
> 
> 
> I've just had a thought - if the plants are absorbing ammonia and nitrite, where is the nitrate coming from? Is it purely from the filter? If it's the latter, is biological filtration inside a filter such a good idea? I guess heterotrophic bacteria consuming organic waste (detritus) on the substrate produce ammonia but isn't this taken up by the plants just like ammonia excreted by fish? I'm overlooking the obvious, presumably?
> 
> JPC


It's a bit vague but I have the BGA and I've measured:
Phosphate 0.05-0.1 on JBL
Nitrate 10 API


----------



## hypnogogia

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @hypnogogia
> 
> 
> How would you envisage doing that? Which variables would you suggest? I'm definitely interested in your idea but the practical implementation of producing a predictive model is going to need some serious statistics, isn't it? I'd rather we just throw a few ideas around, which is what I hoped this thread and the thread below would kick-start:
> 
> https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/cyanobacteria-identification-at-last.60496/
> 
> JPC


You’d form some hypotheses, drawing on the variables that we know influence algae development.  I’d say that’s the easy part.  Harder will be to quantify some of them.  How, for example, do quantify different amounts of red,  blue and white light into one variable?  The stats would be a predictive model using something like logistic regression of DFA.  Sample size is usually between 15-20 X number of variables being examined in the model - so sizeable.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @mrhoyo


mrhoyo said:


> It's a bit vague but I have the BGA and I've measured:
> Phosphate 0.05-0.1 on JBL
> Nitrate 10 API



As you will see from the link provided in post #1, your figures above would put you in the 'chance of green algae' zone. But, you say you have BGA. So, something doesn't tally. I am aware that the API Nitrate kit has had its fair share of criticism but I don't think it's likely to be reading 1000X too high (nitrate would have to be 0.01 mg/l to bring it into the blue zone).

JPC


----------



## mrhoyo

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @mrhoyo
> 
> 
> As you will see from the link provided in post #1, your figures above would put you in the 'chance of green algae' zone. But, you say you have BGA. So, something doesn't tally. I am aware that the API Nitrate kit has had its fair share of criticism but I don't think it's likely to be reading 1000X too high (nitrate would have to be 0.01 mg/l to bring it into the blue zone).
> 
> JPC


That's what I thought. I pretty much just have this algae now which I'm fairly sure is BGA as nothing is eating it and you know, it's blue green in color.


----------



## Nick72

Yes that's BGA.


----------



## Witcher

And yes, @mrhoyo needs to regularly add more PO4.


----------



## mrhoyo

Witcher said:


> And yes, @mrhoyo needs to regularly add more PO4.


Will the TNC cover that?


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

I did some measurements on my only tank at the moment that actually has inhabitants - fish, shrimp and snails. (JBL) nitrate is 30ppm and, wait for it, (JBL) phosphate is 4.8ppm! I had to do a quadruple dilution with distilled water as the maximum reading on the JBL Sensitive kit is 1.8ppm. No cyano/BGA in this tank. And no algae either. The tank is in a well-lit room and illuminated using a cheap Nicrew affair that allows me to adjust the spectrum. But, I never have it such that we humans would consider it to be bright. The spectrum (rough-and-ready) is 1 : 0 : 3 (R : G : B)*. BTW, the figures above translate to N = 7.5ppm and P = 1.6ppm. The Redfield Ratio calculator at https://buddendo.home.xs4all.nl/aquarium/redfield_eng.htm predicts a 'Blue algae risk'.

I've spent a large part of today digging into lighting, iron and cyano. I will report back - probably on the cyano thread**.

* Using _Color Picker_ - see https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/free-lighting-tool.60842/
** https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/cyanobacteria-identification-at-last.60496/

JPC


----------



## hypnogogia

jaypeecee said:


> I had to do a quadruple dilution with distilled water as the maximum reading on the JBL Sensitive kit is 1.8ppm


Presumably you diluted your sample water with deionised water.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @hypnogogia


hypnogogia said:


> Presumably you diluted your sample water with deionised water.



No, I used distilled water* as stated in my post that you have quoted.

* conductivity = 0 microS/cm

JPC


----------



## Witcher

mrhoyo said:


> Will the TNC cover that?


It should, but I'm suspecting that probably Fe is reacting in your tank with Phosphorus, precipitating both to some extent and making some of P unavailable for plants (assuming tests are reliable). Or simply your phosphates are so low because your plants ma be hungry of them. 

Maybe not related directly with your tank but I'm sure that lots of red plants have higher demand for Phosphates, especially with strong light.


----------



## hypnogogia

@jaypeecee  Sorry, the focus of my statement  was on the whether you diluted  the sample water, not on the specifics of deionised vs distilled water.


----------



## mrhoyo

Witcher said:


> It should, but I'm suspecting that probably Fe is reacting in your tank with Phosphorus, precipitating both to some extent and making some of P unavailable for plants (assuming tests are reliable). Or simply your phosphates are so low because your plants ma be hungry of them.
> 
> Maybe not related directly with your tank but I'm sure that lots of red plants have higher demand for Phosphates, especially with strong light.


Oh heck, this is getting confusing now.
So should I be making a custom mix of salts now or can I increase the TNC?


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @hypnogogia


hypnogogia said:


> @jaypeecee Sorry, the focus of my statement was on the whether you diluted the sample water, not on the specifics of deionised vs distilled water.



This is what I said originally and I've emphasized the key word in italics:


jaypeecee said:


> I had to do a quadruple _dilution_ with distilled water as the maximum reading on the JBL Sensitive kit is 1.8ppm.



JPC


----------



## Witcher

mrhoyo said:


> Oh heck, this is getting confusing now.
> So should I be making a custom mix of salts now or can I increase the TNC?


You know how it is... there is no "should" but I think having nutrients separated from each other (in form of salts, liquids or whatever you want) gives you far more possibilities than having "one for all" solution. What if you have two or three plants where one is extremely K sensitive (for example h. pinnatifida, reacting to low revels of K with stunting and dying leaves), while another one loves tonnes of Phosphorus (for example r. macrandra or p. sao paulo)? You won't be able to please them three using ready made mix which has x amount of K but 1/50 x amount of P for example. That's where separate salts/liquids have an advantage.

If you'll increase TNC as "all in one", you'll obviously increase levels of N - to utilise higher amounts of N you'll need very likely higher amounts of C (CO2) and Mg - as these three are needed to create chlorophyll cells. Now - increased amount of chlorophyll (which is creating energy from light) means you'll need more Phosphorus responsible for transporting that energy. There is a chance that ready made mixes may not contain enough of one of these ingredients (and I think it will be very likely P) and that's where plant growth fails - and we are coming back to advantage of having separate nutrients.

I'm not saying "all in one" solutions are bad, but quite often there is something missing in them if you keep plants which are more hungry for certain ferts than the others.


----------



## Ruskie

Not wanting to derail this thread but having watched and read the responses it’s opened my eyes to how incredibly fickle and difficult this hobby can be.

Plant your plants, add some ferts and you too can have a tank similar to the photos you’ve seen.

Nope, sorry, don’t work like that.

Maybe as a newbie I’ve been blind to see what’s blatantly obvious to others but @Witcher post above has been somewhat of a lightbulb moment. It’s made me realise how little I know and how far I have to go before I stand a cat in hells chance of having the tank I desire


----------



## Melll

Ruskie said:


> Not wanting to derail this thread but having watched and read the responses it’s opened my eyes to how incredibly fickle and difficult this hobby can be.
> 
> Plant your plants, add some ferts and you too can have a tank similar to the photos you’ve seen.
> 
> Nope, sorry, don’t work like that.
> 
> Maybe as a newbie I’ve been blind to see what’s blatantly obvious to others but @Witcher post above has been somewhat of a lightbulb moment. It’s made me realise how little I know and how far I have to go before I stand a cat in hells chance of having the tank I desire




Same here.


----------



## hypnogogia

I think one of the challenges is that many people now come into the hobby and start with a high tech tank straight away, whereas mayor the really knowledgeable, experienced guys on this forum have been in the hobby since before high tech.  I think of it as the difference between driving a road car and an F1 car.  
it’s actually possible to run a tank with medium light, and lower doses of CO2.  Plants grow nicely, more slowly and the margins of error are greater than on turbocharged high tech tanks.


----------



## Ray

Its worth noting that @Ruskie, @mrhoyo and myself are all currently struggling with BGA in low tech tanks.  I’ve a feeling this is because the plants have more trouble out competing the BGA without CO2 and hence I’ve now gone big on stems to see if that will tip the balance.  I’m dosing Tropica all in one BTW.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Ruskie


Ruskie said:


> It’s made me realise how little I know and how far I have to go before I stand a cat in hells chance of having the tank I desire



In my case, I was getting on pretty well with my fish (and other species) tanks. Then, I introduced live plants. That's when the fun (!) started.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

I have been helped a great deal in this hobby by Diana Walstad's book*, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_. But, I have a scientific background, albeit not in the so-called 'Life Sciences'. _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium _may be a bit over-scientific for some people. There are also some good resources on the internet but you have to 'shop around'. Perhaps we should start a new thread listing recommended resources - or perhaps it already exists here on UKAPS and I just haven't found it yet?

* I am not on commission!

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Ruskie said:


> somewhat of a lightbulb moment. It’s made me realise how little I know and how far I have to go before I stand a cat in hells chance of having the tank I desire.





hypnogogia said:


> I think of it as the difference between driving a road car and an F1 car. it’s actually possible to run a tank with medium light, and lower doses of CO2. Plants grow nicely, more slowly and the margins of error are greater than on turbocharged high tech tanks.


That would definitely be <"where I'm coming from">.  Have a look at <"A record of my low tech.....">.

One of the advantages of the <"Duckweed Index"> is that it uses a floating plant, which takes both CO2 and light intensity out of the equation. 





jaypeecee said:


> I have been helped a great deal in this hobby by Diana Walstad's book*, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_.





PARAGUAY said:


> It just goes to show a well respected person like Diana Walstad can prove that despite the science,experience etc that nothing is permanent and it's truly refreshing to validate us all from experts to hobbyists to question things,try things and learn more ,Everything is always evolving


It is still a <"fantastic resource">, if I only owned one book on aquariums it would be this one.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Ray

I should perhaps point out that the tank to which I referred in post #65 above has no CO2 injection. Indeed, no additional carbon of any kind. Just dissolved atmospheric CO2 and excreted CO2 from the fish. The plants are Anubias varieties and there are three lush green moss balls. It would be interesting to do an experiment one day with moss balls. They're so undemanding, aren't they? They grow in low light and don't need special ferts. Of course, they are not a moss - they're a compressed ball of filamentous green algae. Perhaps this means they should mop up excess nutrients? Just thinking out loud.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

I can't resist throwing this in - for both information and amusement, courtesy of Tom Barr, Karen Randall et al...

https://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Algae/cladophora.html

Although moss balls used to be classified as 'cladophora', they're now known as 'Aegagropila linnaei'.

JPC


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

Well, I’ve been dosing 10ppm per week of NO₃ and 2ppm per week of PO₄ for some weeks now, which is the same 5:1 ratio that gave me tiny amounts of BGA previously. The result? No BGA. So the result is a bit inconclusive. I can’t say this experiment supports the idea that BGA is caused by the NO₃ : PO₄ ratio.


----------



## castle

I had BGA in my tank but lots of water changes, consistent syphoning and 1ml of eacycarbo a day seem to have put a stop to it..


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

I have more to add to this thread when I get a moment. Tomorrow, perhaps?

JPC


----------

