# Red Algae/BBA - An Update



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

There have been a few recent threads dealing with BBA. So, I decided to do a bit of exploration. And, the following link is a real eye-opener, I think you'll agree:









						Hidden introductions of freshwater red algae via the aquarium trade exposed by DNA barcodes
					

By DNA barcoding ~200 specimens of freshwater red macroalgae from the field and aquaria with the applications of DNA-based algorithm species delimitation, this large-scale survey not only revealed th...




					onlinelibrary.wiley.com
				




Although the above article doesn't appear to mention Auoudinella (the family to which BBA belongs), I think it's self-evident how some BBA gets into our tanks. OK, so what to do about it? That's where the next article comes in useful:



			Control of Red Algae in the Freshwater Aquarium
		


Be sure to read the section entitled "Consider CO2." The author, Neil Frank, makes the comment "It seems that red algae may be among those algae and water plants that can only utilize _free CO2_" (my italics). But, he also points out that "On the other hand, some books suggest that adding CO2 will help eliminate red algae. Although this first appears to be a contradiction to my hypothesis, I believe this method is effective because CO2 injection helps to increase the rate of plant growth. As mentioned earlier, with a large density of plants and bright light, the plants will suck up dissolved nutrients and cause algae to subside".

And, finally, the author includes the section "Use Chemical controls". Please read this section _very carefully_. Also, note that this Krib* article was written 26 years ago. Nowadays, we are probably less likely to use 'chemicals' - for good reason.

* The Krib (Aquaria and Tropical Fish)

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

Is this topic really of little interest? Not a single reply. Perhaps BBA is a thing of the past! No worries as I'm not taking it personally - just surprised. 

JPC


----------



## Hufsa

It is of interest, I think maybe most of us dont feel like we have anything substantial or new to contribute with, aside from the loose theories that have already been discussed in previous threads.
I was actually just thinking of you @jaypeecee , I am on a journey through the internet (you know how one link will lead to another), and I found an interesting site. It has a section on BBA , I think most of it will be known to you but I was going to send you the link just in case.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hufsa said:


> It is of interest...


Hi @Hufsa 

Thanks for your reply.

One of the reasons I drew people's attention to the 'Hidden introductions' bit is because a good few people are possibly introducing BBA into their tanks unknowingly. And then they have the very difficult job of eliminating it. In other words, prevention is a lot better than cure. The other 'half' of my post concerned BBA and CO2. BBA, being a 'red algae' will have access to free CO2 at pH below 8. Estimates as follows:

pH 8.4  CO2  zero
pH 7.0  CO2  18%
pH 6.3  CO2  50%
pH 6.0  CO2  64%

The above figures are the percentage of DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon).

Therefore, in a tank with pH less than 7.0, there is an increased likelihood of BBA growth. That is, unless the tank is heavily planted in which case the plants will uptake the CO2. And the BBA lose out.

That's how I understand it. But, if I've got it wrong, someone please shout.

JPC


----------



## John q

jaypeecee said:


> Is this topic really of little interest?


Absolutely jpc, I find it interesting...so to combat bba we need to run our tanks Alkaline, yet most common thinking is plants uptake nutrients better at lower ph than this. What should we do???


----------



## Hufsa

I looked at that article, but I found myself disagreeing with the concept of algae being some sort of illness you can stop yourself from getting. As far as I understand, algae spores are everywhere, in the air and in our tapwater, and trying to prevent "infection" with something so ubiquitous would in my opinion be a pointless, almost sisyphean task.
I think people will be chasing around ghosts instead of focusing on the only thing we have found so far to be effective against BBA, good healthy plant growth.
I havent found many reputable plant experts to say that algae is something you can eliminate at all, most say that all tanks will contain some amount of algae. 
The reasonable goal must be to keep algae growth at a level that the aquarist finds acceptable.
Im sorry but I think CO2 and ph and all that is not really relevant for aquarists, people keep BBA "free" (read minimal) tanks at all ph and CO2 levels.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Hufsa 



Hufsa said:


> As far as I understand, algae spores are everywhere, in the air and in our tapwater...



Sitting alongside me right now, I have an open-topped cube illuminated tank. No signs of algae of any description. pH is 6.6 in this tank and I keep it this way 24/7 with minimal CO2 injection. It is home to Vietnamese Cardinal Minnows. I have one large Java Fern in this tank. So, even_ if_ algae spores are airborne, they don't necessarily 'take root' when in water.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> Absolutely jpc, I find it interesting...so to combat bba we need to run our tanks Alkaline, yet most common thinking is plants uptake nutrients better at lower ph than this. What should we do???


Hi @John q 

I'm not enough of an expert (by any means) to feel confident in telling anyone what to do and what not to do in the aquatics hobby. Instead, my approach is to try to pool together our collective knowledge in the hope of finding solutions to known problems. The more I read, the more I appreciate the sheer complexity of the aquatic environment. But, I'm a physicist at heart so I have a lot to learn in the aquatics hobby. Thus, in answer to your question "What should we do???", I'll quote Stephen Hawking "All we need to do is make sure we *keep* *talking*."

JPC


----------



## Konsa

John q said:


> Absolutely jpc, I find it interesting...so to combat bba we need to run our tanks Alkaline, yet most common thinking is plants uptake nutrients better at lower ph than this. What should we do???


Hi 
my past experience  tells me that BBA has no issues growing in alkaline water too.
Back in the day in my home town where  tap water is liquid rock with Ph 8+ due to comming from underground streams running through limestone had gorgeous mats of the damn thing too in multiple tanks.I was a silly teenager back in those days and had my tanks overstocked, overfed and underfiltered tho
Regards Konstantin


----------



## jaypeecee

Hufsa said:


> The reasonable goal must be to keep algae growth at a level that the aquarist finds acceptable.


Hi @Hufsa 

I agree 100%.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Konsa said:


> ...my past experience tells me that BBA has no issues growing in alkaline water too.


Hi @Konsa 

And, were your plants healthy and growing actively? Was/were the tank(s) heavily planted?

JPC


----------



## Yugang

Is there anyone with a high tech CO2 injected tank who has no black algae at all? I mean zero, nil, not even a bit, nowhere?


----------



## Konsa

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Konsa
> 
> And, were your plants healthy and growing actively? Was/were the tank(s) heavily planted?
> 
> JPC


Hi
yes some of  the tanks were planted with internal and sponge filters.  Very healthy Cryptocoryne sp, huge Amazon swords,Limnophila sessiliflora, Ludwigia sp (not sure which exact sp tho).All plants absolutely algae free.No ferts whatsoever and inert  fine sand substrate.The stems were allowed to overgrow and form  thick mats on the surface and everything was growing like crazy. I managed to support myself though high school selling plants and live bearing fish to my LFS.As lighting I was using two old school light bulbs(40 -60w depending on tank depth) only build in on the short sides in my DIY hoods  as my tanks were all arround 60 cm  wide 40 high max at the time.BBA in the planted tanks was minimal but still present on the hardscape and equipment. 
Later started using T8 lights as my tanks got bigger and plant health was not as good and BBA got worse.Water changes were about 25%monthly  too  if that as this was the time when older the tank water was considered the better. 
Regards Konstantin


----------



## erwin123

I have never had BGA in my tanks. GDA is my most common algae for some reason. 

For low tech, I have never had BBA, and I move plants from my high tech tank (which has BBA here and there) to my low tech tank all the time. 

So for BBA, I think there's some truth in BBA being triggered by organic waste and CO2 instability  - because I can look at the differences between my low tech (which has never had BBA), and my high tech. Both have similar water parameters and similar fertilisation regimes. My low tech tank has no CO2 instability problems and is also low energy/ 'shrimp only' tank so it generates less organic waste. So if you have a low tech tank but one that nevertheless generates a lot of organic waste (high fish load etc), then BBA might be present.

One might even argue that water changes disturb the substrate and release more organic waste into the water column - thus triggering BBA? This would happen if the water change doesn't remove the organic waste because so much waste has built up in the substrate (eg: high fish load etc).  In which case, it isn't the water change itself but the inability of a single water change to remove the organic waste that has been disturbed/released from the substrate, and the solution would be to adopt a more aggressive substrate cleaning schedule to make up for the lack of previous maintenance?


----------



## Yugang

erwin123 said:


> high tech tank (which has BBA here and there)


That's also my experience. 



Stan510 said:


> since I stopped making water changes in October,BGA has really gone down as a problem


I remember you have low tech, no CO2 injected. Seems a slightly different case than high tech and CO2, but still relevant of course.

As I do not want to hijack this thread, I opened a separate thread specifically for CO2 injected high tech tanks that are absolutely free of BBA. Hope for some shared learning from the real champion BBA fighters.


----------



## John q

jaypeecee said:


> "What should we do???", I'll quote Stephen Hawking "All we need to do is make sure we *keep* *talking*."


Wise words John.

My question above was intentionally probing. From my own observations the ph levels that most of us encounter in our tanks will have little effect towards bba reproduction/survival.

When my tank was low tech it had a rather large piece of texas holey rock in it, this would push the ph up to 7.6 on water change day, following a water change in returned to 7.4. The tank had small amounts of bba, mainly on the wood and on some slow growing leaf edges.

Same tank with the rock removed and C02 injection. Ph ranges from 7.2 to 6.4. I still get bba on the hardscape and slow growers, no better, no worse than before.

Obviously a lot of other parameters have changed other than ph, most notably light and fertiliser, so my findings are hardly scientific. It does however suggest that ph alone is not that important in our quest to understand the causes of bba.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hufsa said:


> It has a section on BBA , I think most of it will be known to you but I was going to send you the link just in case.


Hi @Hufsa 

I forgot to thank you yesterday evening for the link to the aquamax site, so - thank you!

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> It does however suggest that ph alone is not that important in our quest to understand the causes of bba.


Good morning, @John q 

Yes, it's rarely a case of one problem, one cause, isn't it? And that applies with so many things, not just aquatics.

The first part of my OP was looking at the relative ease with which BBA spores are able to hitch-hike a ride on plants, ornaments, etc. into our tanks. That being the case, it makes me wonder what precautions newcomers to the hobby take to mitigate this risk. For many years, I have given new plants a dip in potassium permanganate (KMnO4) solution before adding them to a tank. I have a small amount of KMnO4 crystals that were bought from a chemist/pharmacist years ago. I mix a few of these crystals in water to obtain a rosé wine coloured solution. Then, dip the plants, etc. in this solution for 5 - 10 minutes before adding to my tanks.

JPC


----------



## John q

Morning @jaypeecee 



jaypeecee said:


> The first part of my OP was looking at the relative ease with which BBA spores are able to hitch-hike a ride on plants, ornaments, etc. into our tanks. That being the case, it makes me wonder what precautions newcomers to the hobby take to mitigate this risk


Regards algae I don't think we can ever stop these spores getting into our tanks. I think Hufsas comment pretty much sums it up.


Hufsa said:


> As far as I understand, algae spores are everywhere, in the air and in our tapwater, and trying to prevent "infection" with something so ubiquitous would in my opinion be a pointless, almost sisyphean task.



Even if we sterilised everything that came into our tanks like water, plants and fish; we would still have to consider the ability of microalgae spores being airborne.


			https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/AEM.03333-15


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @John q 



John q said:


> Regards algae I don't think we can ever stop these spores getting into our tanks.



Yes, I agree that we clearly cannot prevent airborne spores getting into our tanks. But, as I said in post #7 above, when spores enter the aquarium water, they don't necessarily appear to grow. The $64,000 question is - why? These are difficult questions to answer, aren't they? But, anything we do to reduce the likelihood of algae outbreaks has got to be worth considering in my book. That's why a ten minute dip in potassium permanganate solution, for example, is a no-brainer.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

I want to add one other piece of information, which seems relevant to me. And this is that the BBA in our tanks appears to be epiphytic, i.e. it typically grows on the edges of leaves where it no doubt has access to a continuous nutrient supply. If the leaves of such plants, e.g. Anubias are not available, then, perhaps BBA is far less likely to grow? Just a thought.

JPC


----------



## Yugang

jaypeecee said:


> typically grows on the edges of leaves


Confirm this, e.g Amazon Swords. But also on the stems of plants with surface floating leaves, in high flow areas.

I really have no idea what could be the biological mechanism, but as a physicist it occurs to me it is mostly areas with higher water turbulence where I see BBA first. Edges of larger leaves, thin stems in flow, spray bars, gyro. I am not a biologist, and have no idea if this could make any sense at all


----------



## jaypeecee

Yugang said:


> I really have no idea what could be the biological mechanism, but as a physicist it occurs to me it is mostly areas with higher water turbulence where I see BBA first.


Hi @Yugang 

Seems like we have similar backgrounds.

Perhaps, higher turbulence ensures high, continuous oxygen supply?

JPC


----------



## Yugang

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Yugang
> 
> Seems like we have similar backgrounds.
> 
> Perhaps, higher turbulence ensures high, continuous oxygen supply?
> 
> JPC


Seems the logical thought, but why would turbulence be any different from a laminar flow? I hope you have the anwer, would clarify a lot to me about BBA.

Laminar flow seems to enhance tank health generally. I am a little "obsessed" with flow, infected by this forum (Besides that, mental health reasonable  ). Tried to perfect flow in my tank (5-10 cm/sec), and am now a strong believer that it is very beneficial. Yet the bad news is, still a bit of BBA. Turbulence however, is hard to tackle.


----------



## jaypeecee

Yugang said:


> I hope you have the anwer, would clarify a lot to me about BBA.


Hi @Yugang 

Unfortunately, I am unable to help you. Fluid dynamics is not my field. Sorry!

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> above article doesn't appear to mention Auoudinella (the family to which BBA belongs),


It is an interesting paper. I'm going to say it is _Compsopogon coeruleus _that is <"genetically very similar in all aquariums">, possibly referenced somewhere in the <"What causes BBA thread">.
The <"Aquamax page"> @Hufsa linked in looks a good summary, this is from the English translation. 


> ..... In experiments, ramshorn snails have shown that they are excellent beard algae killers. _From a stock of Riccia rhenana_ (?) heavily infested with Compsopogon, about 15 quite young ramshorn snails neatly removed all the algae in a few days without damaging the delicate plant......


For BBA reduction I'm personally a <"Ramshorn fan"> as well .


Hufsa said:


> Im sorry but I think CO2 and ph and all that is not really relevant for aquarists, people keep BBA "free" (read minimal) tanks at all ph and CO2 levels.





Konsa said:


> Back in the day in my home town where tap water is liquid rock with Ph 8+ due to comming from underground streams running through limestone had gorgeous mats of the damn thing


The best / worst BBA I've ever seen was in the pet shop in Corsham (where the water is very hard), it looked just like <"Gorilla fake fur">.


Yugang said:


> I really have no idea what could be the biological mechanism, but as a physicist it occurs to me it is mostly areas with higher water turbulence where I see BBA first.


It is really common in the tanks of those <"who keep rheophilic plecs">, these tanks are usually non-planted. You can see the amount of flow in the image from <"Repeat spawning of _Dekeyseria picta_ L052">.






cheers Darrel


----------



## Hufsa

jaypeecee said:


> ..But, anything we do to reduce the likelihood of algae outbreaks has got to be worth considering in my book.


I dont think I will be able to convince you (which is totally ok), but my point of view is that these algae "seeds" are everywhere. Instead of fighting for no seeds, make it inhospitable to growth. There wont be an outbreak if the triggering factors are not there. Whatever it may entail it seems that the seeds will be there, but wether or not they will take root is up to you. If you water them a lot and they find fertile ground then yes they will take over. I dont think we disagree on this. But then the PP dip is not really needed is it?
Finding out what constitutes fertile ground for the spores is what we all want to know. As i said I dont have any answers but people with really good plant health will at least not have it on their plants, but sometimes on hardscape. Thats a start I suppose 😅



jaypeecee said:


> That's why a ten minute dip in potassium permanganate solution, for example, is a no-brainer.


I think disinfection treatments also carries risks. You could damage the plant or kill it, what if the plant is rare, and you wouldn't be able to replace it? What about mosses and liverworts, do they tolerate the dip like a plant does? These are mostly retorical questions, you dont have to answer 



jaypeecee said:


> ..it typically grows on the edges of leaves where it no doubt has access to a continuous nutrient supply. If the leaves of such plants, e.g. Anubias are not available, then, perhaps BBA is far less likely to grow? Just a thought.


I read somewhere, I dont remember if it was on the aquamax website or somewhere else, that the edge of the leaf is where the plant will suffer first, and leak nutrients. Fertile ground eh?
I also suspect the question about why it likes flow so much might have a simple answer. Because flow brings access to rapid replenishment of nutrients. So it might not be that flow is "bad" and brings BBA, but that flow is inherently more fertile ground, as long as the organism growing there doesn't suffer mechanical damage from it.

I just want to finish the post with that I discuss this in good spirit and I hope I havent seemed confrontational 😊 I always get a bit nervous from discussions


----------



## Hufsa

@jaypeecee I came upon a thought, have you looked into what sort of natural habitats BBA is found, and in what habitats they are not found? Maybe some insight can be gathered from where it likes to grow in nature


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Hufsa

Thanks for your input. The short answer to your question is - yes.

My computer is out of action as of yesterday. So, I'm replying to you on my small Tablet. It's a challenge*, to say the least!

*Too much of a challenge! I'll read any further replies but please excuse my lack of response in the meantime.

JPC


----------



## Yugang

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Hufsa
> 
> Thanks for your input. The short answer to your question is - yes.
> 
> My computer is out of action as of yesterday. So, I'm replying to you on my small Tablet. It's a challenge, to say the least!
> 
> JPC


Natural streams, seems to correlate to BBA preference for fast flow in tank. Flow facilitates BBA uptake of nutrients, and helps BBA to outcompete others that are not adapted to the flow.


----------



## X3NiTH

Interestingly this application of Maracyn2 will be deleterious to Pseudomonas denitrificans which is an over producer of Cobalamin (Vitamin B12) which coincidentally has a high concentration in the tissues of Rhodophyta. Pseudomonas d. if present will be covering all surfaces in the tank including the plants and it will require a regular supply of Cobalt to over produce Cobalamin specifically in the unoxidised plant available Cobalt(II) form. If there is dissolved organic matter present this can be a larger source for the Cobalt than available in the water column but it will only move to the Cobalt(II) form in an exceptionally low oxygen environment which is exactly what you would get at the interface of thin films of aerobes (Pseudomonas denitrificans) growing on and feasting on dissolved organic matter either from detritus or leaking/decaying plant tissue. 

Kill one to starve the other! Unfortunately here in the UK you cannot use antibiotics in this manner but to reduce the incidence of BBA gaining a foothold it’s best to keep dissolved organic matter to a minimum by keeping the tank clean and free of detritus.


----------



## kayjo

I've been trying to find scientific data re freshwater BBA.  Not much out there.  

One thing I've come across in a few places (scientific papers) is that BBA prefers low light.  In the wild,  it is found in the shadows or at least that is where it thrives.

I found one study on BBA that defined "low light" as 65 mmoles and high light as 300 mmoles.  (Of course  Par 65 is not "low light" in an aquarium and is in fact in the range of many aquariums).  This study found increased growth rate at 65 mmoles when compared to 300 mmoles.


----------



## swyftfeet

So I have BBA appear in my relatively "sterile" tank.  There is no fish load in this tank, it is just starting.   I was completely winging it on my start up.   I added a couple squirts of MiracleGro and put half sticks of Jobes HousePlant sticks in the kitty litter.
I did have some urea based nitrogen in the miracleGro.   My ammonia was about 1.0ppm but has been steadily decreasing.

Some of the plants I bought submerged from LFS so who knows what they had on them, but the tanks there are usually immaculate.

But I have a reatively large rootball from an unkown species dead tree I gathered near a local stream.    The BBA is seems to grow only in the areas of high flow on the opposite surface of the wood of the high flow area of the current flow.   It has appeared on both the lighted and the unlighted side of the wood.

It has grown on none of the plants, but I have very low light due to the oddball tank height 22".  It has only appeared at a depth of 12" or less.

There is no cover on the tank.


----------



## jaypeecee

kayjo said:


> I've been trying to find scientific data re freshwater BBA. Not much out there.


Hi @kayjo 

There are a _lot_ of scientific papers and articles dealing with 'BBA'. What specifically are you looking for? As you are no doubt aware, BBA is an abbreviation/acronym for black brush/black beard algae. These fall into the category of red algae, the vast majority of which are native to marine habitats. A tiny proportion are to be found in freshwater. I suggest that you make a start by looking at the following:









						Red algae - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Then, come back for more!

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi All,

There seems to be three very common trigger scenarios for BBA, namely High light intensity, fluctuating CO2 levels and high levels of organic waste. The situation can be further aggravated by high or low levels of certain nutrients such as high levels of Fe, but only if the former deficiencies are in play it seems.

If you wish to cultivate BBA the recommended approach, by some, is in fact high light intensity for long hours, and deliberately fluctuating CO2 levels with high levels of Fe dosing... Cultivating BBA - I can definitely see how one could make a cool-looking scape with lots of BBA - any takers? 

In hindsight, after quite a bit of a struggle, getting rid of BBA in a low-tech environment turned out to be pretty straight forward in my experience. I've had outbreaks in both my tanks mainly on slow growers and hardscape. I lowered the light intensity a lot (but kept the 12h/day), added floating plants and I started to degas my weekly WC water in order to avoid CO2 fluctuations, by letting the water sit for 12-18 hours (the exact timing will vary depending on the amount of CO2 in the water etc. but when you stop seeing an upward trend in pH its a good indication that the CO2 level have reached the air-water equilibrium found in your low-tech tank). And of course, keeping your tank low on organic waste is an essential component as well - as organic waste can be another unhealthy source of erratic CO2 release and oxygen usage by aerobic bacteria. While it did take a while to work (BBA are stubborn as all heck), I have not seen a speck of BBA in either of my tanks for ages.


Hopefully NO ONE reading this thread starts pummeling their aquariums (including livestock) with prescription drugs against BBA - this is just flat out terrible if not animal cruelty, and the kind of advice that probably should get people banned - well, I don't set the rules and that is probably a good thing and fortunately the amount of reckless individuals here are fairly Infinitesimal.

Attempting to save plants that are suffering from coats of BBA algae in a responsible way is totally legitimate and there is one application of chemicals, that I have tried, that you can use which is 100% safe for your livestock:  You remove the badly infected plant from the tank - plants such as Anubias take this treatment fairly well, but its still somewhat of a hit or miss - let the plant dry for a bit and carefully brush the infected plant leaves with Excel or a similar Glutaraldehyde compound. Let it sit for a minute or two, rinse the plant carefully and put it back in the tank. Make sure the Glutaraldehyde DO NOT get in contact with the roots or rhizome as that will most likely kill the plant. Using a 1 cm wide (1/2 inch.) brush works well for the application. You may have to repeat the treatment a couple of times. Leaves that are beyond rescue are better removed from the plant right away - those leaves will just drag down the plant and postpone recovery.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## hypnogogia

MichaelJ said:


> brush the infected plant leaves with Excel or a similar Glutaraldehyde compound.


Alternatively, H2O2 can be used.


----------



## kayjo

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @kayjo
> 
> There are a _lot_ of scientific papers and articles dealing with 'BBA'. What specifically are you looking for? As you are no doubt aware, BBA is an abbreviation/acronym for black brush/black beard algae. These fall into the category of red algae, the vast majority of which are native to marine habitats. A tiny proportion are to be found in freshwater. I suggest that you make a start by looking at the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red algae - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, come back for more!
> 
> JPC


Thanks JCP.

I'm looking for anything pertaining to or relevant to BBA in aquariums.  There's plenty of research out there, but not much (I actually haven't found any) pertaining to it's occurrence in freshwater aquariums.  I can find many papers relating to red algae and freshwater BBA specifically, but I have found little info so far that I thought was transferabe to aquariums.  There are also plenty of articles that authoritatively state "facts" without citing sources, with many people quoting each other around and around, but never citing a source.  I did find a study that put BBA in complete darkness for 3 months and it was fine and started growing again when light was reintroduced.  I thought this was of interest because I've read that some people try to eliminate it by blocking the light to the aquarium for a few days.

If you search for Audouinella (BBA) on Wiki, you will see a sad page that contains the same "facts" we see in the hobby.   "It has been tested for germination and new growth using NO3 and PO4 fertilizers and such results came out negative for a decade's worth of observations.[_citation needed_] It has been shown to be inducible by limiting and varying the CO2 concentration in planted aquariums.[_citation needed_] While other possible inducement mechanisms may exists, this is the most consistent and has been shown in many test by aquarists.[_citation needed_]" 

So it's been tested, there's decades worth of testing, but you have no citation for the tests??  I've seen this quote on several web sites.  Seems like it's used by many.  Why has someone tested this for decades and then kept that research to themselves?  I think it's because there is tons of anecdotal information out there, but no actual research.

EDIT:  Here is an excellent link from The Barr Report:  https://barrreport.com/barr-report-resources/old-newsletters/BarrReportRedAlgae.pdf


----------



## Wookii

MichaelJ said:


> There seems to be three very common trigger scenarios for BBA, namely High light intensity, fluctuating CO2 levels and high levels of organic waste.



I personally think there is only one trigger for BBA, and that is the third item on your list, organic waste. The first and second are potential drivers of the third, and still relevant - fluctuating CO2 and excessively high light levels cause plant health issues which can cause them to release additional organic waste from tissue breakdown - but I personally think it is organic waste that BBA thrives on, which is why it seems undeterred by light levels or CO2 levels as other algae are.

For me, there are two keys to preventing BBA. The first is to prevent the build up of organic waste - primarily a) by employing a good water change regime, and b) maximising plant health (with everything that entails using the inputs we have available as aquarists).

The second is to eliminate new growth before it can take a hold. Biofilm grazers are incredible at this, and Ramshorn snails and Neocaridina shrimp would be my top picks. When their populations reach critical mass, they will cover every leaf and surface in an aquarium multiple times a day. Whether they intend to eat microscopic infant BBA (and other algae) growth whilst chowing down on the biofilm or not, I'm not sure, but I believe they are undoubtedly removing it with every pass, long before it ever becomes visible to the human eye. It can be no coincidence that literally the only place in my tanks that I see BBA grow, is on the filter outlet - the one single place the snails and shrimp can't get to.


----------



## X3NiTH

Decided to buy an extensive Tome on the subject because I’m really interested in having a thriving population of macroalgae in my marine aquariums that I can propagate when necessary, culturing freshwater algae though not always by intention will also be an interesting read especially when you consider that you have to add Cobalamin at 1g/L as feed stock!





Sorry I bought the last one on Amazon!


----------



## arcturus

Wookii said:


> I personally think there is only one trigger for BBA, and that is the third item on your list, organic waste. The first and second are potential drivers of the third, and still relevant - fluctuating CO2 and excessively high light levels cause plant health issues which can cause them to release additional organic waste from tissue breakdown - but I personally think it is organic waste that BBA thrives on, which is why it seems undeterred by light levels or CO2 levels as other algae are.


What about the role of the flow? That factor is not even mentioned in the article and corresponding video. BBA seems to thrive in high flow areas, often near filter outlets. Shouldn't this be one of the areas with a lower concentration of suspended matter and organic waste?


----------



## Wookii

arcturus said:


> What about the role of the flow? That factor is not even mentioned in the article and corresponding video. BBA seems to thrive in high flow areas, often near filter outlets. Shouldn't this be one of the areas with a lower concentration of suspended matter and organic waste?



Possibly, though in the past I've had BBA appear in many different areas of a tank, irrespective of flow, light or CO2 concentration. If flow is a factor, and the water column has a high level of organic waste - say due to insufficient water changes - it would be more likely to be providing a good continuous stream of that dissolved organic waste than slower flowing/static areas of the tank, perhaps favouring those locations.


----------



## X3NiTH

arcturus said:


> BBA seems to thrive in high flow areas, often near filter outlets. Shouldn't this be one of the areas with a lower concentration of suspended matter and organic waste?



They receive a constant replenishing stream of nutrition.


----------



## arcturus

X3NiTH said:


> They receive a constant replenishing stream of nutrition.


Correct. But not in the form of suspended organic waste but as dissolved nutrients (including CO2). This would mean that if those nutrients are available via other routes (e.g. fertilization), then the presence of organic waste would not be needed to trigger BBA.


----------



## X3NiTH

arcturus said:


> This would mean that if those nutrients are available via other routes (e.g. fertilization), then the presence of organic waste would not be needed to trigger BBA.



There’s surviving and then there’s thriving. It’s likely that BBA can survive on mineral nutrition alone but appears to thrive when the arriving nutrition is more complexed and at the most fundamental level that would be likely from the waste products of bacteria, but which waste product?


----------



## MichaelJ

X3NiTH said:


> Decided to buy an extensive Tome on the subject because I’m really interested in having a thriving population of macroalgae in my marine aquariums that I can propagate when necessary, culturing freshwater algae though not always by intention will also be an interesting read especially when you consider that you have to add Cobalamin at 1g/L as feed stock!
> 
> View attachment 181254
> 
> Sorry I bought the last one on Amazon!


Hi @X3NiTH  Nah.. you can still get on Amazon US  A little too far off my realm of interests... If I would be _reefer_ on the other hand.  



Wookii said:


> Possibly, though in the past I've had BBA appear in many different areas of a tank, irrespective of flow, light or CO2 concentration. If flow is a factor, and the water column has a high level of organic waste - say due to insufficient water changes - it would be more likely to be providing a good continuous stream of that dissolved organic waste than slower flowing/static areas of the tank, perhaps favouring those locations.


Hi @Wookii  I see what your saying...  In my case, the BBA did have a tendency to congregate in lower-flow - if not stale - areas where my slow growers would be - that would likely also have been the areas where I had a larger concentration of organic waste, so that makes sense.    High light intensity did have an impact for sure - but of course I was starving my plants by not meeting the CO2 demands (being low tech)  with my high light at that time, and likely giving the BBA a better chance to thrive. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## KirstyF

X3NiTH said:


> Sorry I bought the last one on Amazon!



That’s just greedy…..we now expect you to post 1 paragraph per night until it’s all done!! 😂


----------



## jaypeecee

kayjo said:


> I'm looking for anything pertaining to or relevant to BBA in aquariums. There's plenty of research out there, but not much (I actually haven't found any) pertaining to it's occurrence in freshwater aquariums. I can find many papers relating to red algae and freshwater BBA specifically, but I have found little info so far that I thought was transferabe to aquariums.


Hi @kayjo 

I have spent a large part of today digging for, and reading, scientific papers dealing with freshwater red algae. I know from many previous searches that it's generally a fruitless task searching for any related research/investigative work focussed on the aquarium environment. It's not at all surprising - research in any discipline is expensive so who's going to pay for it?

I'll still add some more reading material to your list. Tomorrow, hopefully.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

hypnogogia said:


> I agree.  Out of respect to the OP who’s read plenty and is seeking to develop insight and understanding,


Yes, I very much agree!  Sorry @jaypeecee! I was just mostly discussing my own experience with BBA and, in my case, cure. I believe your interest in this topic goes a bit further and deeper.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

I'm bursting to mention right now another factor that I've mentioned before and I have reason to think it may be important. This has been quickly dismissed on other threads but here it is....

Light Spectrum

Oh no! Not that old chestnut again!

JPC


----------



## Conort2

The only thing that triggers bba for me is fluctuating CO2. 

If I run out of CO2 and don’t change my fire extinguisher the same day or allow my water level to drop low enough that my water agitation gases off my CO2 bba appears pretty quickly. Spot treating with Glut gets rid of it quick enough if it does appear though.


----------



## KirstyF

Wookii said:


> I personally think there is only one trigger for BBA, and that is the third item on your list, organic waste. The first and second are potential drivers of the third, and still relevant - fluctuating CO2 and excessively high light levels cause plant health issues which can cause them to release additional organic waste from tissue breakdown - but I personally think it is organic waste that BBA thrives on, which is why it seems undeterred by light levels or CO2 levels as other algae are.
> 
> For me, there are two keys to preventing BBA. The first is to prevent the build up of organic waste - primarily a) by employing a good water change regime, and b) maximising plant health (with everything that entails using the inputs we have available as aquarists).
> 
> The second is to eliminate new growth before it can take a hold. Biofilm grazers are incredible at this, and Ramshorn snails and Neocaridina shrimp would be my top picks. When their populations reach critical mass, they will cover every leaf and surface in an aquarium multiple times a day. Whether they intend to eat microscopic infant BBA (and other algae) growth whilst chowing down on the biofilm or not, I'm not sure, but I believe they are undoubtedly removing it with every pass, long before it ever becomes visible to the human eye. It can be no coincidence that literally the only place in my tanks that I see BBA grow, is on the filter outlet - the one single place the snails and shrimp can't get to.



Some observations that may link in with some of the above and be of possible interest to the discussion.

Prior to my latest high tech beastie, I only ever ran a couple of low tech planted tanks. Maybe 4 years all in. (Can’t really include the new one as an example as it’s only 3 months old) 

Only ever used all in one ferts (as per the packet instruction) Fairly low light, easy carbo when I remembered, not very difficult plants. (Fast and slow growers) Only around 5 x flow. (Through rear spraybars)  

I’ve also never had BBA, in fact the only algae I ever suffered was some GSA on glass now and then and it wasn’t significant (Probably had a few diatoms early on but wouldn’t have known what they were at the time….and they went away) 

My tanks, however, were in a 12M long room, tucked in an alcove so a very gloomy spot with very little natural light (needed a room light on to read even in mid-summer) WC’s were weekly without fail, though at 25% for much of the time (50% RO due to V hard water) Stocking was low to medium but I never had a tank without both Amano’s and Otto’s. 

So low light (coming almost entirely from the artificial/controlled source) low organic waste (regular water change, low stock and plants not being pushed hard) Probably fairly steady Co2 (with only 25% water change, half of which would be ‘off gassed’ RO water) Enough nutrients to keep up with demand it would seem and ‘natural’ control through livestock. 

Virtually no algae of any kind and all entirely by luck rather than education I might add.

I wonder, however, if the story would be the same if pushed a little harder, with more demanding goals and a broader/more complex variety of planting? 

Perhaps the tenacious BBA takes advantage of those higher waste levels/additional stressors that we may inadvertently create when asking the plants to do more for us (and creating the systems to facilitate that) 

I’m inclined to feel that, grow healthy plants (with all that entails) maintain good hygiene and get some ‘critters’ to lend a hand, just as @Wookii says, might be the closest to a solution we can get and that bit of BBA that just won’t go away, might be the price we have to pay for all the other loveliness we made! 

Not much personal data behind that assumption mind you…..so I’ll reserve the right to shout back (and perhaps bemoan my BBA) after this rather more challenging tank has kicked my butt a few times and taught me an extra thing or two. 😊


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'm bursting to mention right now another factor that I've mentioned before and I have reason to think it may be important. This has been quickly dismissed on other threads but here it is....
> 
> Light Spectrum
> 
> Oh no! Not that old chestnut again!


Oh no! the can of worms!   ... but seriously, the red algae family, which BBA belongs to, is well known to absorb light in the blue end of the spectrum, so I certainly wouldn't rule it out as an exacerbating   factor, if you bombard your BBA with cool light,  and if all the other adverse conditions that promotes BBA are met... but by itself, I don't think it plays much of a role in our planted tanks... I've had cool light with BBA and warm light with BBA...  A clean, well nurtured tank with light intensity in prober balance with CO2 availability seems keep BBA (and other algae)  at bay regardless of the spectrum of choice.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## KirstyF

Having re-read my post, please don’t take this as dismissive @jaypeecee….like we can’t really fix it so let’s not try….I am catching up on your linked articles and deep delving is always a good thing. It’s great to get folks thinking and never say never! 👍😊


----------



## Yugang

Thank you all for research done and great sharing on this thread. Very interesting reading and learning.

I remember reading (believe t Barr but can't find the source and will continue searching) that BBA thrives in a range of CO2 ppm. If my memory serves me right 5-15 ppm, not so much below or above. Not sure if that rings a bell?


----------



## MichaelJ

Yugang said:


> Thank you all for research done and great sharing on this thread. Very interesting reading and learning.
> 
> I remember reading (believe t Barr but can't find the source and will continue searching) that BBA thrives in a range of CO2 ppm. If my memory serves me right 5-15 ppm, not so much below or above. Not sure if that rings a bell?


Hi @Yugang  Yes, I am not sure the absolute levels matter as much as the variation / fluctuations. On a side note:  Clive / @ceg4048 wrote a piece on it over a decade ago - worth the read.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang

Found the source...

"BBA grows in ranges of about 5-10-15ppm of CO2, that seems to be an optima" - Tom Barr on Barreport Sep 2 2013.

As source he mentioned authors Sheath and Wehr. Googling these name I find some really nice articles on algae, but am unable to find the particular information on CO2 range that Tom mentions.


----------



## Yugang

hypnogogia said:


> Alternatively, H2O2 can be used.


I've bought it for that purpose, but don't dare to use it as I worry for fish and shrimp if used in the tank. My go to is Excel, to be best of my knowledge safe.


----------



## hypnogogia

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'm bursting to mention right now another factor that I've mentioned before and I have reason to think it may be important. This has been quickly dismissed on other threads but here it is....
> 
> Light Spectrum
> 
> Oh no! Not that old chestnut again!
> 
> JPC


I think you may be right.  When I ran a high tech tank (a term not used at the time) with MH lights I never had BBA.  But I do get them with LED lights.  Those MH were like sun light.  Beautiful an warm and really brought out the colours of the fish.


----------



## arcturus

jaypeecee said:


> ...
> Light Spectrum



You probably know these papers already. Anyway, <this one in Nature> is a common reference in research into algae cultures. This <one in Cell> is also interesting. And then there is some info from the algae production industry (e.g. Lighting for Algae Cultures, Microalgae Growth Light Spectrum - Industrial Plankton)


----------



## X3NiTH

For those that may not have found it already here’s a direct link to the book ‘Algal Culturing TECHNIQUES’ on ResearchGate.

Chapters 2, and 4 are an interesting read, read 3 if you want to consider every water body.

I probably didn’t need to smash my wallet but it’s nice having a physical copy.

When we have all read up on these chapters we should discuss the contents. @jaypeecee suggestion to consider the role of light is not an outlandish one but its inverse relationship with iron requirement for algae is interesting.


----------



## MichaelJ

X3NiTH said:


> For those that may not have found it already here’s a direct link to the book ‘Algal Culturing TECHNIQUES’ on ResearchGate.
> 
> Chapters 2, and 4 are an interesting read, read 3 if you want to consider every water body.


Thats just great @X3NiTH Thanks for posting!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

I was really hoping to have pulled together quite a bit of information relating to BBA and lighting spectrum but, alas, I've been busy with a few other things. Anyway, here's some of my thoughts on this topic...

BBA (Audouinella) has at least one thing in common with Cyano and that is they each contain accessory pigments thus supporting the chlorophylls - a, b, etc. This is evident as they each have their own unique colour. BBA is red/black and Cyano is blue-green. What this means is that BBA is particularly sensitive to light in the green part of the spectrum and Cyano has a peak response in the red part of the spectrum. The accessory pigments responsible for this are phycoerythrin and phycocyanin, respectively.

I would therefore like to suggest that aquarium lighting with relatively high output centred around 565nm and 620nm may promote the growth of BBA and Cyano. Perhaps it's possible to tweak the green and red light brightness down a tad with recent LED lighting? What I have presented here is an unproven hypothesis so please feel free to challenge my assertion(s). But, please let's keep this civilized. We're all working towards the same objectives, I think.

Unless I'm barking up the wrong tree, wouldn't aquarium lighting be better if it had a _flatter_ response similar to that of daylight?

JPC

P.S. Please see spectra attached


----------



## Hufsa

The main issue I have with the whole lighting spectrum thing is that if it was a big factor in BBA growth, why arent we seeing some lightsources almost never getting BBA? 
If it was significant differences with spectrums there should have appeared some correlation at this point? Like "Oh are you also running "X" light and we both struggle with BBA, hmm"

I got a metric s**t-ton (thats 0.984207 imperial s**t-tons) of BBA when I just turned my light up to 100% (because I like playing with fire). 
Surely the spectrum on my light did not change so significantly just from an intensity increase?
Or are you suggesting that almost all lights on the market have the wrong spectrum, so to say?
Not trying to shoot you down @jaypeecee just trying to play devils advocate 😊


----------



## jaypeecee

X3NiTH said:


> ...but its inverse relationship with iron requirement for algae is interesting.


Hi @X3NiTH 

Very true.

JPC


----------



## arcturus

Hufsa said:


> The main issue I have with the whole lighting spectrum thing is that if it was a big factor in BBA growth, why arent we seeing some lightsources almost never getting BBA?


Because (1) light spectrum might not be a major factor for BBA growth, (2) most lights have a very similar spectrum, their difference being the intensity of specific wavelengths. If we run a tank with infra-red or ultra-violet light we might never get BBA - or any other plant  (but it seems that <cyanobacteria may not care>).



Hufsa said:


> I got a metric s**t-ton (thats 0.984207 imperial s**t-tons) of BBA when I just turned my light up to 100% (because I like playing with fire).
> Surely the spectrum on my light did not change so significantly just from an intensity increase?


Intensity ("brightness") and wavelength ("colour") are independent variables (any frequency/wavelength can have any amplitude/intensity). However, the overall intensity of lamp results from the combined intensity of all of its different wavelengths. The proportion of each wavelength is not necessarily the same. So, the combined spectrum can indeed vary when changing the intensity of a lamp. For example, in a WRGB LED light, the White channel can be used at lower intensities but all four W+RGB channels can be combined to increase overall intensity at higher levels.



Hufsa said:


> Or are you suggesting that almost all lights on the market have the wrong spectrum, so to say?
> Not trying to shoot you down @jaypeecee just trying to play devils advocate 😊
> Or are you suggesting that almost all lights on the market have the wrong spectrum, so to say?


The main problem are not the lights but the algae   Algae can photosynthesize in a wider spectrum than higher plants, and the spectrum used by higher plants overlaps with the spectrum used by algae. So, a light that is "wrong" for plants can be appropriate for algae. And it is not only about the spectrum. Higher plants need more energy and nutrients to photosynthesize than algae.

All of this basically means that if we are adding energy to the tank that is not useful to the higher plants, then we may be potentially benefitting algae.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hufsa said:


> Or are you suggesting that almost all lights on the market have the wrong spectrum, so to say?


Hi @Hufsa 

No, I am not suggesting that. In order for anyone to do that, they would have had to obtain data either from the manufacturer or have done an awful lot of testing products - presumably at their own expense. As I said at the outset, I am simply suggesting something that may need to be considered if we want to determine why BBA occurs in some tanks but not others. I'm OK with an hypothesis being _proven_ wrong. It means that we can then investigate other possible explanations for whatever problem we're trying to solve.

And I often have to pinch and remind myself that I shouldn't be looking for just one cause for a particular problem. It's often the case, isn't it, that only a combination of factors will yield a specific outcome?

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> I was really hoping to have pulled together quite a bit of information relating to BBA and lighting spectrum but, alas, I've been busy with a few other things. Anyway, here's some of my thoughts on this topic...
> 
> BBA (Audouinella) has at least one thing in common with Cyano and that is they each contain accessory pigments thus supporting the chlorophylls - a, b, etc. This is evident as they each have their own unique colour. BBA is red/black and Cyano is blue-green. What this means is that BBA is particularly sensitive to light in the green part of the spectrum and Cyano has a peak response in the red part of the spectrum. The accessory pigments responsible for this are phycoerythrin and phycocyanin, respectively.
> 
> I would therefore like to suggest that aquarium lighting with relatively high output centred around 565nm and 620nm may promote the growth of BBA and Cyano. Perhaps it's possible to tweak the green and red light brightness down a tad with recent LED lighting? What I have presented here is an unproven hypothesis so please feel free to challenge my assertion(s). But, please let's keep this civilized. We're all working towards the same objectives, I think.



Hi @jaypeecee  very interesting findings.  I do believe there might be a contributing factor there - all other things being equal in the sense that IF your struggling with algae that tend to have an affinity for certain wavelengths vs. others it might - just might - exacerbate the problem if your light source is particular strong around those wavelengths - that seems reasonably evident to me. However, and I know you're _not rushing in with any blanket statements here_ about cause and effect,  what I suggest is that the effect of the spectral distribution (within a meaningful range) is a drop in the ocean, so to speak, compared to the major factors we all know and agree about... such as balanced and consistent CO2 (regardless of CO2 injection or not) vs. overall light intensity (that is the main driver of nutrient demand), proper fertilization and _waste management._  As such, I would say the effect of the constituent of the light, while it may play a minor role, is not an issue worth worrying about up-front for practical aquarium keeping.  For cultivation of algae, where an extra say 10% yield would be a big deal, and purposes beyond the scope of our discussion, I certainly agree that the light matters as has been shown in various studies referred to in this thread.

Another way of putting it in my own layman's terms is, if I would have an algae problem (which I don't...) and thought I did everything right in terms of proper maintenance, light intensity, fertilization, nutrient distribution ( flow) and I would STILL see no positive progress after an extended period of time and still have an algae problem, I would conduct a serious look for other causes.

Avoiding high output in the 565 nm 620 nm area would be a pretty tall order - Not sure I would like the look of my tanks under such light  - Daylight for instance have a pretty big load of energy around those wavelengths - and it shouldn't be a surprise that nature made it so that certain (or most) algae thrive with light such as that.    Warm white LED even more.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Ria95

jaypeecee said:


> I am simply suggesting something that may need to be considered if we want to determine why BBA occurs in some tanks but not others. I'm OK with an hypothesis being _proven_ wrong. I


Well that is the issue though isn't it ...at one point someone people need to be responsible with the hypotheses they make public. I have said this both in public and in private conversations.

There have been a lot of half chewed hypotheses put out there with little empirical evidence that hurt humanity (limitations of civil liberties and even tragic death of groups). It should not be taken lightly. Coming back to the less serious aspects of aquarium keeping, I wonder how many plants melted and aquarists gave up the hobby because the hypothesis  "detectable phosphates *in the aquarium* = algae". We still have fertilizers with "contains no phosphates or nitrates"  and phosphate removing chemical media. From time to time someone still stumbles across a 30+ year old article and starts limiting their plant growing potential.

In the current scientific framework the people who put the hypothesis forward are the ones tasked to try and reject it_ / prove it wrong. _It's not on anybody else to work on gathering primary data for or against your ideas.  It's why  scientific research articles have data in there, not just a bullet point collection of interesting ideas that maybe, possibly, likely... Such an approach is still uncommon in the hobby so we should not wonder why we heard about antibiotic treatment against algae, specifically BBA. That user is also waiting for others to prove him wrong.

It's  likely true that there are a lot of factors* in the aquarium *determining if one experiences a BBA bloom or not. But we need to limit relevant factors for the planted aquarium. For example, not having any  water in your aquarium is a clear and definitive way not to get any BBA growth. It's also an irrelevant factor because we want plants and shrimp and fish.  pH above 9 relevant for planted aquariums? Lights, fertilizers , minerals seem to be liked both by algae and higher plants. Looking forward to see new ways of covering the needs of one and not the other, that's a way forward.  BBA seems to become visible in conditions with high organics and damaged plants , plant's don't need either... another approach. Hard to measure organic load and mix of dissolved organics  so in practice this means working on your aquarium and not many are keen on doing this.


----------



## jaypeecee

Ria95 said:


> Well that is the issue though isn't it ...at one point someone people need to be responsible with the hypotheses they make public.





Ria95 said:


> In the current scientific framework the people who put the hypothesis forward are the ones tasked to try and reject it_ / prove it wrong._


Hi @Ria95 

Are you suggesting that it is irresponsible for someone to propose an hypothesis if that person is unable to prove the hypothesis? If so, that would stifle creative thinking and prevent progress, wouldn't it? Or, am I misunderstanding you?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> Avoiding high output in the 565 nm 620 nm area would be a pretty tall order - Not sure I would like the look of my tanks under such light - Daylight for instance have a pretty big load of energy around those wavelengths - and it shouldn't be a surprise that nature made it so that certain (or most) algae thrive with light such as that. Warm white LED even more.


Hi @MichaelJ 

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I'm not suggesting that light at 565nm and 620nm be _removed_  from the overall lighting spectrum. Certainly not. No, I was just suggesting that light output at these wavelengths be equal to those of the rest of the spectrum. Basically, suppress the peaks. The daylight spectrum is shown attached in my previous post. Furthermore, suppressing the peak at 565nm may not be such a big deal - the plants don't need a lot of green light, which is why we perceive them as green leaves.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> Perhaps I should have been clearer. I'm not suggesting that light at 565nm and 620nm be _removed_  from the overall lighting spectrum. Certainly not. No, I was just suggesting that light output at these wavelengths be equal to those of the rest of the spectrum. Basically, suppress the peaks.


Hi @jaypeecee  Ok, I should have made it more clear what I meant... I think what your suggesting is light that not far off from what is commonly used in horticultural which have their large lumps in the blue (450-500nm range) and even more so in the red (~650-750 range)...  That kind of light would make our tanks look quite _funky_,  but sure, I hear you, there is definitely a compromise to be found there where you can suppress the ranges in question and still have perceptually pleasing light.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

Just want to link to a scientific paper that is relevant to the topic being discussed in this thread...









						(PDF) Effects of temperature, irradiance and photoperiod on growth and pigment content in some freshwater red algae in culture
					

PDF | SUMMARY The responses of relative growth rate (% day–1) and pigment content (chlorophyll a, phycocyanin and phycoerythrin) to temperature,... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				




JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

Me again! 

And here's another...



			https://www.scielo.br/j/bjpp/a/rHppXC9wzR36c4yGbjfW3hQ/?format=pdf&lang=en
		


I recommend reading the opening words in the _Introduction_ of this paper on page 24.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> I think what your suggesting is light that not far off from what is commonly used in horticultural which have their large lumps in the blue (450-500nm range) and even more so in the red (~650-750 range)...


Hi @MichaelJ 

No, I'm not suggesting horticultural lighting. I don't think many aquarists would be happy with a pink glow in their lounge, living room or anywhere else for that matter. I suspect the answer lies in LED lighting that replicates natural daylight. From my point of view, I see a problem with present-day LED lighting sold under the guise of - wait for it - full spectrum. Trouble is that each LED emits light at a given wavelength plus or minus a few nanometres. The result is lighting that is a collection of peaks and troughs.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's not quite what I was looking for - but it will hopefully illustrate (!) the point that I'm trying to make. Here we go:









						natural light versus artificial light
					

Natural light is full spectrum and dynamic.  Full spectrum means that light contains all the colors of the rainbow.  Dynamic means that the intensity and mix of colors changes with the time of day.   Natural light cycles from bright with a high blue content during the day, to […]




					www.sunlightinside.com
				




JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> No, I'm not suggesting horticultural lighting. I don't think many aquarists would be happy with a pink glow in their lounge, living room or anywhere else for that matter. I suspect the answer lies in LED lighting that replicates natural daylight. From my point of view, I see a problem with present-day LED lighting sold under the guise of - wait for it - full spectrum. Trouble is that each LED emits light at a given wavelength plus or minus a few nanometres. The result is lighting that is a collection of peaks and troughs.



Hi @jaypeecee   Yes, I like the uniformity of the power distribution of natural day light - perhaps with a slight coolness to it. Thats more or less what I aim for in my own tanks. I am not entirely sure if any affordable Aquarium lights can spectrally emulate that. You can certainly emulate the look of it, but it is still rather spiky. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

I'm in a quandary. I don't feel that we've brought this thread to a satisfactory conclusion yet. Does anyone agree with me? Or, is BBA a topic that needs no further discussion for the time being? I would value others' thoughts on this. For me, there are still some unanswered questions:

[1] Is water pH important?
[2] Is CO2 stability important?
[3] Which ferts, if any, are important?
[4] Is light spectrum important?
[5] Is DOC/DOM important?

Although we've already touched on the above, I don't think we've arrived at any definitive conclusions. And I, for one, would like to find time to take part in other topics.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary. I don't feel that we've brought this thread to a satisfactory conclusion yet. Does anyone agree with me? Or, is BBA a topic that needs no further discussion for the time being? I would value others' thoughts on this. For me, there are still some unanswered questions:



Hi @jaypeecee  This is my take - _NASA bullet point style:_



jaypeecee said:


> [1] Is water pH important?


* Within "limits" probably not. Very high pH have a tendency to hamper uptake of certain nutrients by plants thus weakening the plants, so ultimately High pH may exacerbate BBA if they already gained a foothold.


jaypeecee said:


> [2] Is CO2 stability important?


I would say, definitely.  CO2 Fluctuation and BBA ,  furthermore is one of recommendations if you deliberately wish to cultivate BBA!


jaypeecee said:


> [3] Which ferts, if any, are important?


Deficiencies of fertilizer (like the stuff we dose) that would weaken the plants and allow BBA to roam, yes.  Excess of in-organic fertilizers is probably not an issue as far as I can tell.



jaypeecee said:


> [4] Is light spectrum important?


It might be, if other favorable conditions for the BBA's are met, otherwise not.



jaypeecee said:


> [5] Is DOC/DOM important?


Dissolved Organic Carbon / Dissolved Organic Material such as waste? Definitely a major factor.

I added;

[6] Light intensity

As this drives CO2 and nutrient demand in general, I would say that is a major factor as well, if nutrients demands are not met an plants are weakened.   And this is also one of the recommendations if you deliberately wish to grow BBA.

--

I suppose BBA and algae in general will remain a super-open topic for discussion 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## sparkyweasel

jaypeecee said:


> The result is lighting that is a collection of peaks and troughs.


Known as a discontinuous spectrum.
I have always had the best results from incandescent bulbs, which have a _continuous _spectrum. Of course they are no longer available for domestic purposes.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @MichaelJ 

Thank you so much for your reply. It's very much appreciated. Tomorrow, I hope to add my replies to the questions posed. It will be interesting to see where we agree or disagree. One of the observations I've made about being the starter of a new thread is that I feel a sense of responsibility to bring the thread to a satisfactory conclusion. I don't like to leave things open-ended if at all possible. Now, that approach may be appropriate for a project manager with a team allocated to a particular task. But, in a forum setting, the team may change on a daily, nay, hourly basis. So, reaching consensus is invariably elusive, isn't it? Still, keeps us out of mischief! 

JPC


----------



## John q

jaypeecee said:


> I'm in a quandary. I don't feel that we've brought this thread to a satisfactory conclusion yet.


And we never will. What causes bba part 27....


jaypeecee said:


> [1] Is water pH important?
> [2] Is CO2 stability important?
> [3] Which ferts, if any, are important?
> [4] Is light spectrum important?
> [5] Is DOC/DOM important?


My quick answers  
1) No ph is irrelevant.
2) Yes
3) npk and trace elements for the plants. For algae the same.
4) No.
5) Yes.


----------



## jaypeecee

sparkyweasel said:


> Known as a discontinuous spectrum.
> I have always had the best results from incandescent bulbs, which have a _continuous _spectrum. Of course they are no longer available for domestic purposes.


Hi @sparkyweasel 

Great to hear from you and thanks for your reply. The more I look at the discontinuous spectrum of present-day LED  lighting for plants, it doesn't seem right.

I have made progress investigating some of the very latest LED technology and I'm cautiously excited with some companies. There are LEDs becoming available that very closely replicate daylight from 400nm - 700nm and a bit more below and above this range. And, there are no breaks in this spectrum. Furthermore, some companies obviously are interested in breaking into the aquatics market. One such company is:






						Aqurium Lighting | YUJILEDS
					

YUJILEDS® provide targeted lighting for aquatic plants and coral reef, imitate natural environment lighting to restore natural landscapes.




					www.yujiintl.com
				




You may need to be patient with their website taking time to load. 

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> Thank you so much for your reply. It's very much appreciated. Tomorrow, I hope to add my replies to the questions posed. It will be interesting to see where we agree or disagree. One of the observations I've made about being the starter of a new thread is that I feel a sense of responsibility to bring the thread to a satisfactory conclusion.I don't like to leave things open-ended if at all possible.


Hi @jaypeecee  I think that is putting too tall an order on yourself.  It's an important topic - just judging from the amount BBA related threads we have here on UKAPS  - and it's  been discussed for as long as I can remember being in this hobby - back in the dark ages everything was hearsay and anecdotal        I believe what I said earlier that the main factors being waste, stable CO2 and light intensity lack of ferts and stability thereof is the main-cause.... IF your struggling with BBA due to the aforementioned reasons, then spectrum and certain minerals in excess (such as Iron) may play a role, otherwise not....  Just to make it abundantly clear:  I do not believe spectrum, and the certain minerals that BBA thrive on such as  Iron, by itself will cause BBA, but if your cultivating BBA you can increase the yield by excess Iron and "optimizing" your spectrum for the BBA.  I hope that works    ...

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> And we never will. What causes bba part 27....


Hi @John q 

So, should we give up now and has this discussion all been a waste of time?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @jaypeecee I think that is putting too tall an order on yourself.


Hi @MichaelJ 

I very much appreciate your feedback. And it strikes a chord.

A big 'thank you', my friend.

JPC


----------



## John q

Absolutely not @jaypeecee .. the only way to find out the answers to these questions is by getting factual, tested answers. Most folks would rather quote some scientific papers or suggest dubious reasons why bba occurs. WE need to test these theory's otherwise threads like this are useless.  Is anyone prepared to test any of these hypothesis.. ? I suspect not.


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> ...the only way to find out the answers to these questions is by getting factual, tested answers. Most folks would rather quote some scientific papers or suggest dubious reasons why bba occurs. WE need to test these theory's otherwise threads like this are useless. Is anyone prepared to test any of these hypothesis.. ? I suspect not.


Hi @John q 

I simply don't get it. So, people would rather put up with getting BBA and all the inconvenience that it brings rather than take part in collective experiments to try to determine the root cause(s) of BBA. Am I the only aquarist that would rather do things the other way around? If that really is the case, then I think I'll take up embroidery or stamp-collecting. (No offence to these two hobbies - I bet the relaxation works wonders!).

FYI, I always have active experiments running 24/7. That includes right now. It's so rewarding making new discoveries. It's what gets me out of bed on a morning.

JPC


John q said:


> WE need to test these theory's otherwise threads like this are useless.


Hi again, @John q 

So, you really do think I/we have been wasting our time discussing BBA in this thread. Great!

JPC


----------



## John q

jaypeecee said:


> So, you really do think I/we have been wasting our time discussing BBA in this thread.


Not at all We (me and you) are prepared to test our theories. Discussing without testing is in my opinion a waste of time.


----------



## X3NiTH

I have been Cobalt limiting a tank for over 3 years and only one waterchange in two years (last waterchange a year ago was a change from remineralised RO/DI to remineralised 33TDS tapwater), EI fertilisation (own recipe) and 5x overdosing BioCO2 (Humic and Fulvic acids), CO2 @30ppm. There are no fish in the tank only an increasing number of bladder snail and the statement is not advocacy for keeping fish without waterchanges

It is a long term experiment with recent maintenance, I wiped the inside glass trimmed the Vallis and turned the stones, no waterchange and added a couple of Echinodorous Purparea, left the detritus in-situ.

Parameters are written on the tank.






Here’s the tank with Rhodophyta at its worst.





The tank became very dark due to the Vallis on the surface, this picture is taken with room lights off and shows how it appeared in person (maybe a little brighter, this is a personal comparison without light adjusted eyes in the dark after just turning off the room light and matching picture exposure to what I was seeing).





There’s a lot of plants on the top of the tank cutting the light.





This is how the Rhodophyta represents itself on hardscape.














Let’s look at the Crypts next.











How about the Anubias.

















There has been a lot of tissue loss in this tank with Buce and Schismatoglottis because on a few occasions the tank went without micro for a couple of weeks either because the dosing lines blocked or the dosing bag was empty.








Enough of that let’s have a look at the surviving Buce (not very firmly attached after two years on disintegrating bogwood).








This is the only tuft of BBA, this was a mistake as I accidentally spilled about a table spoon of marine water into this tank recently when doing maintenance on the tank above, technically the end of the experiment but I’ve shrugged my shoulders and continued with things and made changes to increase lighting by one third to test triggering BBA growth spread if I can (it’s technically way more than .

Tank before the Vallis trim. The explosion in growth was increase in light due to the plants above the aquarium being moved.








Here’s the Vallis out the tank before trimming.


----------



## hypnogogia

jaypeecee said:


> Am I the only aquarist that would rather do things the other way around?


I doubt it,  but some folks only have one aquarium and are not in a position to experiment as such.  We make changes when stuff appears not to work, and observe the results  of those changes, learning as we go along.


----------



## MichaelJ

X3NiTH said:


> I have been Cobalt limiting a tank for over 3 years and only one waterchange in two years (last waterchange a year ago was a change from remineralised RO/DI to remineralised 33TDS tapwater), EI fertilisation (own recipe) and 5x overdosing BioCO2 (Humic and Fulvic acids), CO2 @30ppm. There are no fish in the tank only an increasing number of bladder snail and the statement is not advocacy for keeping fish without waterchanges
> 
> It is a long term experiment with recent maintenance, I wiped the inside glass trimmed the Vallis and turned the stones, no waterchange and added a couple of Echinodorous Purparea, left the detritus in-situ.
> 
> Parameters are written on the tank.
> 
> View attachment 181652
> 
> Here’s the tank with Rhodophyta at its worst.
> 
> View attachment 181653
> 
> The tank became very dark due to the Vallis on the surface, this picture is taken with room lights off and shows how it appeared in person (maybe a little brighter, this is a personal comparison without light adjusted eyes in the dark after just turning off the room light and matching picture exposure to what I was seeing).
> 
> View attachment 181675
> 
> There’s a lot of plants on the top of the tank cutting the light.
> 
> View attachment 181674
> 
> This is how the Rhodophyta represents itself on hardscape.
> 
> View attachment 181655
> View attachment 181656
> View attachment 181658
> View attachment 181657
> 
> Let’s look at the Crypts next.
> 
> View attachment 181659
> View attachment 181660
> View attachment 181661
> 
> How about the Anubias.
> 
> View attachment 181662
> View attachment 181663
> View attachment 181664
> View attachment 181665
> View attachment 181666
> 
> There has been a lot of tissue loss in this tank with Buce and Schismatoglottis because on a few occasions the tank went without micro for a couple of weeks either because the dosing lines blocked or the dosing bag was empty.
> 
> View attachment 181667
> View attachment 181668
> 
> Enough of that let’s have a look at the surviving Buce (not very firmly attached after two years on disintegrating bogwood).
> 
> View attachment 181669
> View attachment 181670
> 
> This is the only tuft of BBA, this was a mistake as I accidentally spilled about a table spoon of marine water into this tank recently when doing maintenance on the tank above, technically the end of the experiment but I’ve shrugged my shoulders and continued with things and made changes to increase lighting by one third to test triggering BBA growth spread if I can (it’s technically way more than .
> 
> Tank before the Vallis trim. The explosion in growth was increase in light due to the plants above the aquarium being moved.
> 
> View attachment 181671
> View attachment 181672
> 
> Here’s the Vallis out the tank before trimming.
> 
> View attachment 181673


Wow that is wild... Those Vallis are long!   Is that a 100 ppm of NO3 written there?   ... Cobalt limiting you say? I dont even dose Cobalt   How much of that would/should we dose under "non-limited" conditions, if I may ask?


----------



## jaypeecee

X3NiTH said:


> I have been Cobalt limiting a tank for over 3 years...


Hi @X3NiTH 

Is this experiment the result of a discussion you and I had some time ago? Was it three years ago? Oh, how time flies when you're enjoying yourself!

Great to see those Vallisneria.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

hypnogogia said:


> I doubt it,  but some folks only have one aquarium and are not in a position to experiment as such.  We make changes when stuff appears not to work, and observe the results  of those changes, learning as we go along.


That's very true. In my own case I do have two very similar (almost identical) tanks and have had very similar positive and negative experiences along the way... Solutions to problems (such as BBA, GSA and plant health issues) that worked in one tank worked  just as well in the other tank...  So I consider my experiences a little bit more than just anecdotal, but by no means scientific which is a completely different and very rigid ballgame when it comes to establishing the facts of the matter...  However the process leading there to the facts,  is much more obscure and we have to be careful we don't dismiss discussions or musings about topics just because we don't have all the _scientific facts_ at hand... that would make up for a really boring conversion where very little progress can be made anyway... and also, scientist, at least the ones I work with in R&D, spend heaps of time questioning established _facts_ (within reason), asking questions and rambling about new ideas, solutions etc. most are dead ends, but then all of a sudden Bing! 💡there is something new to try out, a new intuition or perspective to pursue ... It's a messy process, often very much akin to throwing sh*t on the wall and see what sticks 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> Not at all We (me and you) are prepared to test our theories. Discussing without testing is in my opinion a waste of time.


Hi @John q 

Ah, we're both on the same wavelength! Phew! I was starting to feel a bit lonely. I can breathe again. 

To be fair, there are other UKAPS members who also run interesting experiments. The first name that comes to mind is @X3NiTH who is trying to grow the tallest/longest Vallis! 

Just to be clear on this. I'm not suggesting that we need to turn everyone into mad scientists like me. Good grief, no!

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

The following paper deals with a range of environmental variables and the effect they have on Rhodophyta (Red Algae). I hope people find it useful:









						(PDF) Photosynthetic performance of freshwater Rhodophyta in response to temperature, irradiance, pH and diurnal rhythm
					

PDF | Responses of net photosynthetic rates to temperature, irradiance, pH/inorganic carbon and diurnal rhythm were analyzed in 15 populations of eight... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				




JPC


----------



## hypnogogia

jaypeecee said:


> mad scientists like me











						Muahaha Evil GIF - Muahaha Evil Laugh - Discover & Share GIFs
					

Click to view the GIF




					tenor.com


----------



## jaypeecee

hypnogogia said:


> Muahaha Evil GIF - Muahaha Evil Laugh - Discover & Share GIFs
> 
> 
> Click to view the GIF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tenor.com


Hi @hypnogogia 

That's excellent!

I'll make use of it.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

hypnogogia said:


> ...some folks only have one aquarium and are not in a position to experiment as such.


Hi @hypnogogia 

Fair point entirely. And not everyone wants to run experiments. They just want a beautiful tank. But, even trial-and-error is a form of experimentation. 

JPC


----------



## John q

Lol my valls reach 6ft without cobalt limitation. Other than that interesting Post. 🤔


----------



## John q

jaypeecee said:


> Ah, we're both on the same wavelength! Phew! I was starting to feel a bit lonely. I can breathe again.


Breath deep jpc,  suspect we're on very similar wavelengths.


----------



## X3NiTH

MichaelJ said:


> Is that a 100 ppm of NO3 written there?



It is indeed, not sure of the accuracy though as I used a JBL dip strip for testing and these always report back more than there actually is (it read in excess so I ballparked the figure according to calibration testing I’ve done on these strips in the past, they usually over read by about 100%), there may be interference though from the possible excess metals in the water, GH and KH are both reading 2 points higher than original hardness, the extra hardness may have arisen due to the break down of plant material.



MichaelJ said:


> I dont even dose Cobalt  How much of that would/shouldwe dose under "non-limited" conditions, if I may ask?



Very low, probably about the same  amount you would dose Nickel, at least that’s what I would target.



jaypeecee said:


> Is this experiment the result of a discussion you and I had some time ago? Was it three years ago? Oh, how time flies when you're enjoying yourself!
> 
> Great to see those Vallisneria.



Yes indeed it is, one year of regular-ish water changes then two years of complete maintenance neglect. Never stopped dosing ferts. I have no idea of the metallicity of the water content, I need accurate ICP testing (or MP-AES  ) to determine what’s actually there, I can calculate everything that went in over three years (minus the few weeks where ferts ran out), I really want to see how the elements have equilibriated themselves in the water column, is it stupid numbers or sensible figures, no idea?

Cobalt limitation means fauna should struggle to produce Vitamin B12 (Cyanocobalamin), there’s no fish so no waste from fish food to consider, any waste in the tank is plant derived.

I should add that all chelates in use are biodegradable (Humic, Fulvic, Ascorbic, Gluconate and DTPA) there is and has been no EDTA used in the tank.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @X3NiTH 

Interesting stuff.

I recently discovered a water test lab group known as _H2Olabcheck_ and, for the last three or four weeks, I've been planning to submit a water sample to them. They have a very good range of water parameters that they can test. Although there are some off-the-shelf aquarium water tests, I would probably choose the 'Create your own' option. You may find the following interesting:









						Precise Aquarium Water Tests for Home and Commercial Fish Tanks - Freshwater Aquarium Water Quality- Laboratory testing & Online Results
					

Aquarium water testing is now easier than ever. Choose one of our testing kits to check ✓Home Aquarium or ✓Commercial Aquarium water quality and get the quickest laboratory results online. ➟ Free online assistance ➟ Fastest turnarounds ➟Promt results - Aquarium inhabitants are very sensitive to...




					www.h2olabcheck.com
				




You will note that Cobalt is included in the list.

JPC


----------



## hypnogogia

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @X3NiTH
> 
> Interesting stuff.
> 
> I recently discovered a water test lab group known as _H2Olabcheck_ and, for the last three or four weeks, I've been planning to submit a water sample to them. They have a very good range of water parameters that they can test. Although there are some off-the-shelf aquarium water tests, I would probably choose the 'Create your own' option. You may find the following interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precise Aquarium Water Tests for Home and Commercial Fish Tanks - Freshwater Aquarium Water Quality- Laboratory testing & Online Results
> 
> 
> Aquarium water testing is now easier than ever. Choose one of our testing kits to check ✓Home Aquarium or ✓Commercial Aquarium water quality and get the quickest laboratory results online. ➟ Free online assistance ➟ Fastest turnarounds ➟Promt results - Aquarium inhabitants are very sensitive to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.h2olabcheck.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will note that Cobalt is included in the list.
> 
> JPC


Interesting. Have you seen that they offer to  test the temperature of a water sample that you’ve posted to them for about £3? Given that it won’t be at the original temperature, I wonder what value they think that analysis will offer?


----------



## jaypeecee

hypnogogia said:


> Interesting. Have you seen that they offer to test the temperature of a water sample that you’ve posted to them for about £3? Given that it won’t be at the original temperature, I wonder what value they think that analysis will offer?


Hi @hypnogogia 

I hadn't spotted that. Perhaps it was written on April 1 one year? You could always contact them and ask the question.

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


hypnogogia said:


> Have you seen that they offer to test the temperature of a water sample that you’ve posted to them for about £3?


Now that is <"entrepreneurial">,  you could also guarantee accuracy when tested.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


hypnogogia said:


> Given that it won’t be at the original temperature, I wonder what value they think that analysis will offer?


It would allow you to standardise any electrical conductivity or dissolved gas readings, because these are two values that vary with temperature. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## X3NiTH

jaypeecee said:


> I recently discovered a water test lab group known as _H2Olabcheck_ and, for the last three or four weeks, I've been planning to submit a water sample to them. They have a very good range of water parameters that they can test. Although there are some off-the-shelf aquarium water tests, I would probably choose the 'Create your own' option.



Yeah hmm but the price! Think I broke an ankle falling out my chair!






For that price I’d want to know the chirality of the water, is it Left handed or Right handed?


----------



## hypnogogia

X3NiTH said:


> Yeah hmm but the price! Think I broke an ankle falling out my chair!
> 
> View attachment 182409
> 
> For that price I’d want to know the chirality of the water, is it Left handed or Right handed?


Yeah, but you forgot to add tempert sure for £3.


----------



## hypnogogia

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> It would allow you to standardise any electrical conductivity or dissolved gas readings, because these are two values that vary with temperature.
> 
> cheers Darrel


True, but given it varies with temp, would it be good practice to quote the temperature when measuring conductivity instead of asking the client to pay extra?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


hypnogogia said:


> would it be good practice to quote the temperature when measuring conductivity instead of asking the client to pay extra?


I'm not arguing with that, they are definitely trying it on. Especially as a lot of the kit , pH meters etc., will measure temperature anyway.

cheers Darrel


----------



## arcturus

hypnogogia said:


> Interesting. Have you seen that they offer to  test the temperature of a water sample that you’ve posted to them for about £3? Given that it won’t be at the original temperature, I wonder what value they think that analysis will offer?


Well, it gives them the £3...

I know lab tests are expensive, but this is a bit overboard...




The return policy is also... interesting.


----------



## jaypeecee

X3NiTH said:


> Yeah hmm but the price! Think I broke an ankle falling out my chair!


Hi @X3NiTH

Out of interest, have you compared this lab with others? I had previously done this for the parameters in which I was interested and came to the conclusion that _H2Olabcheck_ were no more expensive than other labs. You do have 17 water parameters on your list. So, at around £15 per parameter, that seems about right to me. If @dw1305 can persuade the powers that be at Bath Spa, they could be onto a good thing!

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

arcturus said:


> I know lab tests are expensive, but this is a bit overboard...


Hi @arcturus 

I see that you are in the EU. In your country of residence, may I ask what you would expect to pay for these tests? Are we in the UK being ripped off?

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> Out of interest, have you compared this lab with others?


I'd imagine that it isn't out of line with what you would pay in another lab. Some of the tests would require a microbiology lab. etc. The metals you could get via ICP.


jaypeecee said:


> If @dw1305 can persuade the powers that be at Bath Spa, they could be onto a good thing!


It might be possible to sneak a sample in if we were doing any water testing.  

Having had a look at the web site it looks like the labs they use are at UC Cork.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Yugang

X3NiTH said:


> Yeah hmm but the price! Think I broke an ankle falling out my chair!
> 
> View attachment 182409
> 
> For that price I’d want to know the chirality of the water, is it Left handed or Right handed?


Price would be OK if duckweed index was included


----------



## X3NiTH

jaypeecee said:


> Out of interest, have you compared this lab with others?



Nothing really beyond Triton-ICP but that’s really targeted for Sea Water and RO sample, no idea whether they will analyse a freshwater sample, they may test and see salinity out of range from expected and declare a null sample,  submitting it as an RO sample might trigger a null sample also because the conductivity would be way out of range for RO, they could assume I sent an accidental tap water sample, they may report the levels but could just respond that the sample is out of range and to service the RO unit and send a fresh sample, no idea?



dw1305 said:


> It might be possible to sneak a sample in if we were doing any water testing.



That would be sneaky but handy! What would the sample size need to be, 10ml, 100ml, 1L?  

The only thing of significance that needs to be tested for is the trace metals, all the other stuff like hardness and conductivity etc would be handy for accuracy but can be tested for conventionally to a reasonable degree of accuracy without too much issue. 

Total DOC testing from the Cork lab would be interesting to see what the effect overdosing Humic acids has on the water column but ouch £50 for that single test.


----------



## X3NiTH

You can’t put a price on the Duckweed Index because it’s priceless! It’s free but it’s still Priceless!


----------



## MichaelJ

X3NiTH said:


> You can’t put a price on the Duckweed Index because it’s priceless! It’s free but it’s still Priceless!


Well, knowing upfront that Darrels "duckweed index" was actually meant to be  "frogbit index" would have been helpful  ... I know, I know my duckweed actually came in unintentionally with some plants I bought last year... so I am not blaming Darrel (not officially at least  )for my weekly "war" against the  duckweed... I wish I had more armhair though   That said, the <Duckweed Index> works perfectly for me so far! ...and I am starting to think (likely erroneously) there is no such thing as not enough light for aquatic plants - within reason obviously!... at least the ones I keep (tons of different Crypts, Anubias, swords, ferns,  Bucephalandra,  Bolbitis etc. all the easy ones...)...  seems to thrive no matter how much duckweed, frogbit and pennywort is covering the surface... and how low my light intensity is (and it's low...  but +12 hours/day). Well, it is totally a conjecture at this stage, so don't take it as a general advice


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Yugang said:


> if duckweed index was included


The Duckweed Index is indeed free as <"the gift that keeps giving">, but I can see a <"business opportunity for a crack team of UKAPS consultants"> flown in on the <"full moon">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary. I don't feel that we've brought this thread to a satisfactory conclusion yet. Does anyone agree with me? Or, is BBA a topic that needs no further discussion for the time being? I would value others' thoughts on this. For me, there are still some unanswered questions:
> 
> [1] Is water pH important?
> [2] Is CO2 stability important?
> [3] Which ferts, if any, are important?
> [4] Is light spectrum important?
> [5] Is DOC/DOM important?
> 
> Although we've already touched on the above, I don't think we've arrived at any definitive conclusions. And I, for one, would like to find time to take part in other topics.
> 
> JPC



Hi Everyone,

It's exactly three weeks since I wrote the above. And, I'm pretty sure that I now have an answer to the question - what causes BBA? The _*main *_culprit appears to be - DOC/DOM*. So, now it's time for anyone interested to do some reading. It will almost certainly be necessary to read the following several times to understand what the authors are saying...






						Aquarium
					






					www.golias.net
				




And, here is a summary:

"The imperfect activity of mineralizing bacteria and the consequent accumulation of toxic organic substances in the water is therefore, in our opinion, the main reason for the appearance of algae in the aquarium!"

For 'mineralizing bacteria', I read 'heterotrophic bacteria'. And, note - the above statement applies to algae in general, not just BBA. It also seems logical (to me) to extend this to Cyano.

Now, that's all well and good but where's the proof? There is A N Other forum on which someone has successfully used a mixture of bacteria to consume a species of Red Algae.

*DOC/DOM - Dissolved Organic Carbon/Dissolved Organic Matter

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> It will almost certainly be necessary to read the following several times to understand what the authors are saying...


Marcel is always an <"interesting person to talk to">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> Marcel is always an <"interesting person to talk to">.


Yes, I'm sure he was - when he was on UKAPS. Shame he left. A couple of us on here have tried to contact Marcel in the last twelve months or so. He did reply to me at one point but seems to want to remain private. So be it. At least he's left a _lot of useful information_ on his website. So, let's make good use of it.

JPC


----------



## John q

Thanks for the invite ...


jaypeecee said:


> So, now it's time for anyone interested to do some reading


I've read that article before and numerous posts by Marcel on ukaps and they always excite the grey matter. 

Is Doc/Dom the main player that causes BBA? I honestly don't know but suspect it's one of several players. Keeping the water column clean of fish and plant waste is something we should aim for and will no doubt assist in controlling algal blooms.


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> Is Doc/Dom the main player that causes BBA?


Hi @John q

Let's probe deeper - cause and effect. In order to do this, it's worth re-visiting the following statement on Marcel's website*:

"The imperfect activity of mineralizing bacteria and the consequent accumulation of toxic organic substances in the water is therefore, in our opinion, the main reason for the appearance of algae in the aquarium!"

Perhaps we should try to establish why the mineralizing bacteria is seemingly not doing a thorough job of consuming waste? Insufficient aeration of the water column? Build-up of detritus/mulm in the substrate? Build-up of organics in the biological filter? Again, it's worth mentioning the section in Diana Walstad's book** entitled 'Decomposition by Heterotrophic Bacteria' on page 58. She also covers sediment decomposition. And, once again - no, I'm not on commission!

* Aquarium

** _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ Third Edition, page 58

JPC


----------



## John q

jaypeecee said:


> Let's probe deeper - cause and effect.


That's an easy one to recreate. Stop cleaning your tank and see what happens, if algae appears, brilliant. The next logical, scientific step would be to do lots of water changes and vacuum that gravel. If the algae disappears then your theory is correct. 

*We have to put these theory's to the test.  Otherwise our observations are, err, meaningless. *


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> That's an easy one to recreate. Stop cleaning your tank and see what happens, if algae appears, brilliant. The next logical, scientific step would be to do lots of water changes and vacuum that gravel. If the algae disappears then your theory is correct.
> 
> *We have to put these theory's to the test. Otherwise our observations are, err, meaningless.*


And that's where you come in, @John q!

If you really want answers to these questions in a timely manner, how about you run the tests above? I'm already working with others here on UKAPS on other projects and I have my own experiments under way. Please keep us updated.

JPC


----------



## John q

Unfortunately I also have "experiments" under way, which are fairly well documented on ukaps.

What experiments have you underway? 

And again I suggest the proposer of these theory's is the one that should provide proof. I belive the term innocent until proven guilty still carries weight in this day and age.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @John q 

Let's draw a line under this dialogue and forget it ever happened! If it's really that important to you, we can re-visit it when convenient.

JPC


----------



## X3NiTH

I think when discussing Dissolved Organic Matter (dead plant tissue, digested and undigested gut content, etc) we really mean Phytate, Organically bound Phosphate, plants only uptake Inorganic Phosphate and store it as Phytate. Phytate has chelatory properties and is able to bind metals, thus both the Phosphate and Chelated metals in the water column will be unavailable to plants. Many algae species (including Rhodophyta) can produce Phytase (enzyme capable of cleaving the Phytate molecule) thus gaining access to both Phosphate and a bound metal ion simultaneously, this is a massive advantage over plants.

DOM will feed bacteria and if it’s the right type of bacteria say for instance Pseudomonas Nitrificans then the waste byproduct produced is B Vitamins including Vitamin B12 (Cyanocobalamin), lots of algae species (looking at you Rhodophyta) have a nutritional requirement for B12.

Vitamin B1 and B12 uptake and cycling by plankton communities in coastal ecosystems​
*Harnessing the Phytase Production Potential of Soil-Borne Fungi from Wastewater Irrigated Fields Based on Eco-Cultural Optimization under Shake Flask Method*

It is interesting that Copper and Manganese inhibit Phytase activity as these are generally the Metals used in treatments and dosed in concentration to inhibit algae growth, definitely not a coincidence. Something else that piqued my interest is seeing EDTA on that list, I don’t think there’s anything mysterious in this as it’s a relatively strong Chelate but I’m wondering if other strong chelates like Tannic Acid would have the same function, I suspect they do.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @X3NiTH 

Thanks ever so much for your input as always. I'm going to take my time and absorb as much as I am able after what has been a very difficult day.

JPC


----------



## Happi

this was my hypothesis on BBA when I was doing Nutrient experiment, I follow this approach since then and BBA is the thing of the past since then.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Happi 

Thanks for your feedback. But something seems amiss.

In the above picture, I don't see any damaged leaves covered with BBA. I see what looks like a garden lawn with grass that needs cutting. Any suggestions?

JPC


----------



## Happi

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Happi
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. But something seems amiss.
> 
> In the above picture, I don't see any damaged leaves covered with BBA. I see what looks like a garden lawn with grass that needs cutting. Any suggestions?
> 
> JPC


There was plenty of damage, the grass was turning yellow and breaking away.


----------



## jaypeecee

X3NiTH said:


> I think when discussing Dissolved Organic Matter (dead plant tissue, digested and undigested gut content, etc) we really mean Phytate, Organically bound Phosphate...


Hi @X3NiTH 

Aquatic DOM includes many more compounds than organically-bound phosphate. But, the available information is all (?) from natural habitats - rivers, lakes, etc. So, to what extent it applies to the aquarium hobby is anybody's guess. Diana Walstad lists carbohydrates, carboxylic acids, amino acids and hydrocarbons as simple compounds. Add to this humic substances and, boy, my head spins!

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Happi said:


> There was plenty of damage, the grass was turning yellow and breaking away.


Hi @Happi 

I'm still confused. I don't see the connection with our aquariums. I must be missing something. 

JPC


----------



## Hanuman

As for this, I am not sure what they call Fe/Trace overdose. Providing a range would have been more scientifically credible. With EI we are already overdosing nutrients, traces and Fe included, Fe being in the range of 0.2-0.6ppm. Personally I have seen more low tech tanks with lower CO2 levels with loads of BBA than high tech tanks with loads of BBA. Emphasis on the word "load". I didn't say "without".
Personally I think the common denominators are high organics and CO2 fluctuations. But reality be told these are true for a wide range of algae. They are not specific to BBA. Although I would be inclined to think that lower/non optimized CO2 levels would promote BBA/algae development.
As for 20ppm of CO2 being an optimal range and high light/high CO2 being a "false theory" I don't buy that. Emmersed plants are exposed to ~400ppm of atmospheric CO2. Greenhouses push that sometimes to 1000ppm and plants grow more and better.  Limitation in submersed plants would be the acidity caused by such high CO2 levels (if that was even possible) but it is not uncommon to have tanks at 45/50 ppm of CO2 which are perfectly healthy with no BBA whatsover. Look at Tom Barr's tanks or Greggs. There are so many more examples that contradict that "false theory".


----------



## Happi

@Hanuman

like I said those were my hypothesis and I repeated these experiments several times and got the same result every time. not sure if you understood what I meant by "High Light and need for high CO2 theory" but this theory is false, it didn't hold up far as BBA goes. all am saying is that you will not get BBA if you have high light and lower co2 such as 15-20 ppm. I have seen BBA in both low and high co2 enriched tanks and I have seen it grow under both with fluctuating and stable co2.

on the forums, the most common solution to BBA is increase and stabilize the Co2, this is only partially correct. there is only some truth to it just like in the thread below:

Post# 103
Lean dosing pros and cons


----------



## Happi

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Happi
> 
> I'm still confused. I don't see the connection with our aquariums. I must be missing something.
> 
> JPC


which connection you are not seeing? everything I have written in there is all related to our aquarium.

1. BBA is strongly linked to Organics
2. BBA is strongly linked to Dying plants (Organic Buildup)
3. BBA is strongly linked to plant being damaged by several nutrients
4. BBA have a strong link with Organic Fertilizers 
5. BBA  love to grow in strong flow
6. BBA is linked to Bacteria that suppose to break down the Organics

if you create the above scenario in your aquarium, BBA will surely occur and you can put the best Co2 system in the world and it wont get rid of BBA, it will actually make it worse until you correct those scenarios first.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> I don't see the connection with our aquariums





jaypeecee said:


> In the above picture, I don't see any damaged leaves covered with BBA. I see what looks like a garden lawn with grass that needs cutting.


I'm wondering whether @jaypeecee was misled by the water clarity?  And thought this was a terrestrial lawn, rather than an aquatic one?

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> on the forums, the most common solution to BBA is increase and stabilize the Co2,


Not sure who suggested that the solution to BBA was to increase and stabilize the CO2 but that is definitely over-simplistic. If that was the solution it would be easy and we wouldn't have threads after thread and years of discussion on the subject. There is one thing that most people who run high tech tanks don't do often enough or underestimate, it's maintenance (filter cleaning etc etc),  and I think that most of the problems with algae in general, stems from that due to organics lingering around. To that you add CO2 instabilities (and usually not enough specially when you are starting in the hobby) and you get a good factory for algae, BBA included. But CO2 alone will definitely not explain or solve BBA, at least not in my experience.


----------



## jaypeecee

Happi said:


> which connection you are not seeing? everything I have written in there is all related to our aquarium.





dw1305 said:


> I'm wondering whether @jaypeecee was misled by the water clarity? And thought this was a terrestrial lawn, rather than an aquatic one?


Hi @Happi & @dw1305 

Yes, my mistake entirely! Darrel has hit the nail on the head. Try as I might, all that my eyes and brain were 'seeing' was a terrestrial lawn.  

JPC


----------



## Happi

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Happi & @dw1305
> 
> Yes, my mistake entirely! Darrel has hit the nail on the head. Try as I might, all that my eyes and brain were 'seeing' was a terrestrial lawn.
> 
> JPC


this is a good thing, because that mean my aquarium water must be crystal clear.  the ADA glass also adds to the confusion.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hanuman said:


> Not sure who suggested that the solution to BBA was to increase and stabilize the CO2 but that is definitely over-simplistic.


Hi @Hanuman 

In another post, I questioned this notion of stabilizing the CO2. I'm not sure to what extent this is possible. What happens at night and the following morning? Firstly, CO2 is switched OFF, then lights fade OFF. And then, the following morning, this is reversed. That's hardly stable CO2, is it? And, pH will also fluctuate in response to this. Or, am I overlooking something?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Happi

In Red Algae/BBA - An Update, (third paragraph) it talks about nitrifying bacteria not being able to break down organic matter. It's my understanding that nitrifying bacteria, being autotrophic, don't consume organic matter. This is a job for the heterotrophic bacteria, isn't it?

JPC


----------



## Hanuman

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Hanuman
> 
> In another post, I questioned this notion of stabilizing the CO2. I'm not sure to what extent this is possible. What happens at night and the following morning? Firstly, CO2 is switched OFF, then lights fade OFF. And then, the following morning, this is reversed. That's hardly stable CO2, is it? And, pH will also fluctuate in response to this. Or, am I overlooking something?
> 
> JPC


When we are talking about CO2 fluctuations we are more specifically referring to fluctuations within the photo period, not necessarily from one day to the other as plants/algae only use CO2 when lights are on. Obviously if CO2 fluctuates from one day to the other where CO2 content during the photo period differs from one day to the next then that is also not good as plants need to adapt and can't figure out what the deal is. If CO2 dips during photo period then goes up again, in other words CO2 content in water is not stable, plants also suffer and algae takes advantage of that situation. That's what fluctuation means to me.

One should focus on plant health and stability, short, medium and long term. Do that and algae becomes a dream of the past OR one can keep trying to find reasons to why this algae or the other is appearing and trying to find the solution, but at the end it will all end up in the same solution. Stability. This applies to CO2, light, organics, ferts etc etc. So CO2 stability is one big piece of the puzzle but it definitely isn't the only one when it comes to BBA. What I say sounds pretty general and basic but is not always easy to keep a system stable in a closed and small environment like a tank.

In my experience BBA proliferation can start at any stage of the tank life. If at the beginning then it means something is really out of wack. Most commonly though it starts becoming more prominent when the tank has a certain age and organics have had enough time to accumulate over time. That's why consistent maintenance will keep BBA away while keeping all other parameters in check and stable. CO2+organics = catalysts.

Here is a good explanation about CO2 stability/fluctuation:








						Surface agitation & gaseous exchange in CO2 injected tanks
					

Surface agitation in a planted aquarium - yes or not ? This page explores why having some surface agitation and turnover is actually useful in planted tanks and actually makes tuning CO2 to optimal levels more easy.




					www.2hraquarist.com


----------



## Hanuman

jaypeecee said:


> Try as I might, all that my eyes and brain were 'seeing' was a terrestrial lawn.


Age? Maybe bad day? Beer not cold enough? Often happens to me to not see what is in front of my nose 😅


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Hanuman



Hanuman said:


> When we are talking about CO2 fluctuations we are more specifically referring to fluctuations within the photo period, not necessarily from one day to the other as plants/algae only use CO2 when lights are on.


Obviously, I'm aware that plants/algae can only use DIC* for photosynthesis when lights are on. Is it aquatics hobbyists' experience that fluctuating CO2 levels _*do*_ contribute to the growth of BBA? Perhaps one of the root causes of BBA growth is not fluctuating CO2 levels per se but fluctuating pH? And if pH fluctuates, that may cause different forms of DIC* to be available in the water column, i.e. CO2/bicarbonate/carbonate. Dependent on BBA's preferred form of DIC*, perhaps pH is fluctuating around the pH8 mark? See below:



			https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ebrahim-Asghari-Kaljahi/publication/303849202/figure/fig5/AS:941224915636235@1601416915836/Relationship-between-equilibrium-CO2-bicarbonate-and-pH-Huang-et-al-2012.gif
		


* DIC = Dissolved Inorganic Carbon

JPC


----------



## Hanuman

jaypeecee said:


> Is it aquatics hobbyists' experience that fluctuating CO2 levels _*do*_ contribute to the growth of BBA?


I think it's not specifically addressed to BBA but to most problems that hobbyist experience. Fluctuating CO2 or whatever the parameters I guess is no bueno.



jaypeecee said:


> Perhaps one of the root causes of BBA growth is not fluctuating CO2 levels per se but fluctuating pH? And if pH fluctuates, that may cause different forms of DIC to be available in the water column, i.e. CO2/bicarbonate/carbonate. As BBA seems to prefer free CO2, perhaps pH is fluctuating around the pH8 mark?


Honestly, that's beyond my knowledge. The experts here can probably answer that. I was simply addressing the concept of fluctuation. It could very well be PH, although my instinct tells me it's the CO2 since that is the element that plants need, not PH. If the supply is constantly swinging plants can't properly function and start "degrading" and that is when algae see the opportunity. But again, just guessing.


----------



## jaypeecee

jaypeecee said:


> Dependent on BBA's preferred form of DIC*, perhaps pH is fluctuating around the pH8 mark?


Hi Folks,

The species _Audouinella_ is the most common in our tanks, according to the literature. In a copy of _The Barr Report*_, the author concludes "Results from pH experiments showed best photosynthetic performances under pH 8.5 or 6.5 for all but one species**, indicating higher affinity for inorganic carbon as bicarbonate or indistinct use of bicarbonate and free carbon dioxide". Thus, from a pH perspective, it looks as if any BBA in our tanks will grow most rapidly at a water column pH of around 8. As for pH fluctuations, the magnitude of these will depend on water alkalinity/KH and CO2 injection rate.

* Volume 3, Issue 3
** I think the exception may be Compsopogon (Staghorn)

JPC


----------



## Yugang

Over the past months I have been experimenting and learning about the CO2 Spray Bar, and accepted that my tank (not my fish or shrimps) would suffer to some extent. My tank has seen pH drops anywhere between 1.0 and 1.7  and has been quite the opposite of the CO2 stability that we usually aim for.

I almost deserve an outbreak of BBA. It did not come.

Understanding what causes BBA should be demonstrated by minimizing BBA while doing the right thing as well as creating a BBA farm doing the opposite. It makes me think if my assumptions (based on reading from experts) have been wrong.

One tank is not a scientific experiment, and I am an imperfect observer, but I share my own sense of what is happening in my virtually BBA free tank.

It is well known that plants need to adjust to CO2 levels (Rubisco), but in the tough testing conditions in my tank some plants suffer so much that old leaves die off and some plants only survive by fresh new growth.
Some plants seem more sensitive to CO2 instability than others. 90% of annubias leaves are in bad health, some new leaves hopefully save the plants. Wallichi stunts, only recovers through new side shoots. Higrophila Difformis and Staurogyne Repens seem more or less fine.
While I have been very rough on CO2, I kept a good maintenance with regular cleaning and removal of unhealthy plant material. Not too many fish for my tank size, 60% or more weekly WC, and good flow. My guess is that this has been the key to keeping BBA still under control.
This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, but it does raise the question whether it is CO2 instability that directly triggers BBA or rather the suffering plants, possibly releasing organics, that cause BBA in an indirect chain reaction. My experience also suggests that  when other conditions are favourable, one can get away with quite some CO2 instability before BBA breaks out.


----------

