# Blue Green Algae and Diatoms?



## robfromdublin

Hi all,

I am making my first foray into keeping fish and have gone for a planted tank.  I've been doing a lot of reading around the subject but am confused by the problem I have at the moment.  I appear to have BGA caught up in my java moss and yet in another section of the tank have a brown, dust-like substance that look very much like diatoms.  I'm basing these algae identifications off James' Planted Tank website.  I also have some green algae that could be hair or oedogonium but relatively little of this and it doesn't really concern me.

Below is an overview of my setup.  I will add pictures but my attempts to take some clear ones before running out the door this morning failed. 

4ft tank (4'x1'x18") 2nd hand but running for 2 months 
2 38W T8 bulbs (Arcadia Freshwater & Tropical; ie one 'normal' and one for plant wavelenghts) on for 8 hours
Eheim 2215 filter
Sand substrate (came with tank, don't know composition but pH is 6.8 so probably not calciferous)
Dose Easylife Profito and EasyCarbo (2ml & 3ml per day, respectively)
No pressurised CO2 or macros
Fish: 6 Sterbai cories & 2 small bristlenoses (pretty light bioload for tank)

Plants:
   Elodea densa - initially did very poorly but doing better of late.  Still not growing quickly though (blame the easy carbo) and is lightly covered in what i think are diatoms
   Hygrophila polysperma (i think, based on pics) - growing quickly but some yellowing of leaves near surface
   Java Moss - has attached itself to bogwood but choked by BGA now
   Java Fern - growing very well
   Echinodorus Peruensis - 1 of 5 plants died. others not growing particularly well but have perked up in last fortnight since i put some potting compost under sand at their roots. 
   Dwarf Hairgrass - not growing quickly but not dying.  seeing signs of new leaves but at this rate will be a looong time before it carpets
   Duckweed & Amazon Frogbit - both growing very well

I would describe the tank as lightly planted.

Have tested nitrates and they appear to be zero.  Although the test kit also tested the tap water at zero which according to the water company generally has 3ppm. Nevertheless because of the BGA I have got some KNO3 and will experiment with it. 

So my questions are: given some of my heavy nitrate removers (duckweed, hygrophila) are doing well, as is the Java Fern which is easy, are my nitrates really zero?  Could something else be causing my algal problems?  From some reading today I realise my filter may not produce enough flow, but is that critical in a low-tech aquarium where growth is not that quick?

I will post up some photos when I can sort my camera out. 

R


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
   Welcome to the forum :!: 

If you are enriching your tank with Easycarbo then this counts as CO2 injection, therefore the tank no longer qualifies as "low tech". Any carbon enrichment drives the plants to uptake more nutrients than they would do otherwise. Therefore you need to supplement NPK more than you would if this were truly a low tech (non-CO2) tank.

BGA is typically caused by low NO3 so you just need to add the KNO3 and this issue will subside. You'll also need to dose PO4 so either a dry powder such as KH2PO4 or a commercial Phosphorous product is necessary.

The nitrate test kits are not consistently accurate so the number is unknown.

Adding NPK will address most of your issues. Your lighting is not over the top. Flow is always an issue so it's a good idea to follow the 10X rule whenever possible.

Cheers,


----------



## robfromdublin

Thanks ceg,

I was wondering about PO4 alright.  Given my tap water comes in at about 1ppm PO4, do I really need to dose it if I'm keeping up water changes?  By adding just NO3 I'll be bringing the tap water into line with Redfield.  This is my thinking anyway.  What are your thoughts on that?  I take it that potassium isn't a problem as I'll be dosing KNO3?  Also the profito has potassium in it so I think I'm covered there. 

Here are the photos anyway.  For those reading please feel free to point out any potential problems!
Tank:






BGA?:





Diatoms?:





Is this Hygrophila Polysperma and might the yellowing be nitrate deficiency?:


----------



## ceg4048

Well, I mean it only matters what your algae think. Rhizo thinks that you don't have enough nutrients/CO2. The BGA and those yellow leaves think that you don't have NO3. I never concern myself with what the tap supposedly has in it because the proof of the pudding is in those photos. The path is clear. Remove by hand as much as possible as much of the algae that you can. Implement large water changes 2X or 3X a week and start dosing macros along with your traces. In a few weeks you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

Cheers,


----------



## robfromdublin

Good point, thanks for your sage advice


----------



## robfromdublin

I've been dosing nitrate and doing large water changes but I still have a problem with some elements of BGA and loads of diatoms still caught up in the moss.  I've been holding off dosing phosphate as a cost-cutting measure but am starting to see some green spot algae now, so I will probably start with mono-potassium phosphate.

I think flow could be an issue.  I have an Eheim 2215 advertising 620l/h (so probably about half that) and 2 air stones.  The outflow for the filter is above the central java fern in the above pic, at the back and pointing away from the intake.  The first air stone is just above the intake and the second is just to the left of the java fern.  Some of the moss is moving in the flow from the air stone but it doesn't appear to be doing anything to get rid of the diatoms.  

Is there anything I can do with my existing setup to improve flow?  If I were to buy a powerhead, where would I put it?  Which is a more effective use of funds (PO4 dosing or powerhead)?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
   I would suggest that you stop using an airstone. These tend to drive off CO2 which may be counter-productive. If cost is an issue and a stronger filter is not feasible, then point the powerhead in the same direction that your filter outlet is pointing. Cost cutting PO4 only cuts your chances of success to nearly zero. Adding PO4 enables a higher Nitrate uptake.

Try a three day blackout. Cover th tank with black plastic bin liners. Stop the Easycarbo dosing but continue nitrte and PO4 dosing for the three days. Dose only at night so that no light gets in. At the end of the period do as large a water change as you can and then resume easycarbo and nutrient dosing.

If the BGA returns after this then it means you need more nitrate. 

Cheers,


----------



## robfromdublin

I actually have already done a 3 day blackout, although without dosing nutrients as I was away.  It killed the BGA but I've noticed the BGA is starting to creep back in.  I'll get myself some PO4 so.  

Surely the CO2 just equilibrates more quickly with the atmosphere if you use an airstone?  Which drives off CO2 if you inject it, but draws down CO2 if you don't and your plants are creating a pCO2 gradient?  That's why I figured it would be OK to use one.


----------



## sWozzAres

Personally, I would just have the airstones on for an hour or so, and go off right before the CO2 comes on. Assuming you are running good CO2 as the lights come on. You will lose some CO2, but so what, the extra O2 is always a welcome benefit to the fish especially as the CO2 is building up to maximum levels at the same time natural O2 is at it's lowest.


----------



## ceg4048

robfromdublin said:
			
		

> I actually have already done a 3 day blackout, although without dosing nutrients as I was away.  It killed the BGA but I've noticed the BGA is starting to creep back in.


OK, so this means you're either not dosing enough NO3 or your flow is weak, or both.



			
				robfromdublin said:
			
		

> Surely the CO2 just equilibrates more quickly with the atmosphere if you use an airstone?  Which drives off CO2 if you inject it, but draws down CO2 if you don't and your plants are creating a pCO2 gradient?  That's why I figured it would be OK to use one.


Think about what happens if you continually shake a coke bottle. The more you agitate the liquid the more CO2 escapes. Fish produce CO2 that would ordinarily help raise the level, but no, you're sending it right out the window with your bubbles. The only good bubbles are dead bubbles...or CO2 bubbles.

Cheers,


----------



## robfromdublin

Well that's only because CO2 is super-saturated in coke, and so agitation allows the CO2 travel along the concentration gradient, and outgas, more quickly.   I was speculating that the CO2 gradient in my tank was from the atmosphere to the tank, which would be the case if the production of CO2 by fish is less than the uptake of CO2 by the plants.  In that case, using an airstone would be advantageous.  Although now that I think about it, by using it in the early part of the photo period I'm driving off any CO2 that would be accumulated through respiration in the night.  So really there is only a case for doing it towards the end of the photoperiod, and only if the sink of CO2 from plants is greater than the source from fish.

I was dosing 1ppm nitrate per day as per PPS-Pro but today I've dumped in 5ppm and I'll keep that up for a while to see how it goes.  Monopotassium phosphate has also been ordered.  Payday on Friday so I'll look to get a powerhead then.  Is there any recommended makes?  I've already ticked Koralia but there seems quite a lot of other makes out there.

Thanks again ceg


----------



## ceg4048

CO2 is always being produced by everything that is alive in the tank, including the plants and some bacteria. That means the concentration gradient, if left alone will always be from water to air. We have a hard enough time preventing that. Adding more agitation speeds this escape up. The supersaturation of coke only explains the ferocity and speed of the outgasing. The principle is the same. Similarly, plants produce oxygen and oxygenate the water. There is therefore an oxygen concentration gradient from water to air. Bubbles accelerate the outgassing of this extra oxygen as well, so you're not doing yourself any favours at all with bubbles. Only when the O2 content of the water is low due to consumption, such as late night or early morning are bubbles advantageous in this respect.

Cheers,


----------



## robfromdublin

You're saying that bubbles help replenish oxygen at certain times because at those times O2 is being consumed, ie there is a net uptake of oxygen.  In exactly the same way, at certain times there _may_ be net uptake of CO2.  At those times it is possible that surface agitation would be a help.  I'm not saying this is definitely the case, there are a lot of other variables at play (eg the probability that a CO2 molecule gets outgassed after respiration, the probability that a CO2 molecule gets used in photosynthesis after respiration), but theoretically it is possible.  That is why, for example, the biological pump works in the oceans, drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere; at certain times there is a net uptake of CO2 in the upper ocean.  

On the balance of it I'd say that the chances of that happening are slim, and it would be extremely difficult to test, so I'll be turning off the airstone.  Hopefully the decrease in flow is made up for with the increase in CO2 at the beginning of the photoperiod.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I think you are right that the more surface turbulence there is the greater the surface for gas exchange, this is one of the reasons that the aerobic treatment of sewage uses trickle filters, there you have a very large surface area of bacteria holding media with a thin film of "water" flowing over it, the thinness of the film means that both CO2 can out gas and O2 diffuse in. In this case we can assume the tank water and inhabitants has a relatively low BOD, so we need to look a the solubilities of O2 and CO2 in relatively pure H2O. For the aquarium inhabitants there is also the "Bohr effect" to take into account : _"an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide will reduce the oxygen affinity of haemoglobin."_  If we have efficient gas exchange, either by water movement or filter design, as well as oxygen dissolving into the water, CO2 will dissolve out until it equilibrates with atmospheric CO2 levels (about 0.03% of the atmosphere). Unless we are physically adding CO2 to the water, water movement, and trickle filters, will add CO2 to the water when plants are actively photosynthesising (utilising CO2 and producing oxygen), and out-gas CO2 when levels in the water exceed those in the atmosphere. Typical CO2 levels in tank water are dependent upon temperature, pressure and the carbonate content of the water, but should be in the range of 1 â€“ 2ppm (this is not even close to the maximum amount of CO2 that plants can utilise, the 30ppm from earlier in the post is x60 the natural level).

Oygen is much less soluble than CO2, meaning that for an air pump the bubble size is also important, in that the smaller the bubble the greater its relative surface area is, and the more diffusion of gas into the water will occur. This means that an air pump needs to produce very fine bubbles (in the range of 10 â€“ 200 microns diameter), that have a long â€œresidence timeâ€ in the water column, if significant exchange of oxygen to the water is to occur. For maximum residence time and effect, unless you have a â€œwet and dryâ€ or bio-wheel filter it would be advantageous if the filter intake picks up both the bubbles and oxygenated water, and feeds them straight into the filter where they will provide much needed oxygen to the nitrification process.

Oxygen solubility (milligrams O2 per litre) at mean sea level & standard atmospheric pressure (STP) 1013millibars (mb) is 8.3 mg/l at 24oC and 7.3 mg/l at 32oC. Carbon dioxide solubility is quite a complicated equation (Henry's law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law> and the carbonic acid / carbonate equation both need to be taken into account) probably best shown graphically.



But as you can see the effect of rising temperature on solubility is quite striking.

cheers Darrel


----------



## robfromdublin

Blinded with science!  Nice post

One thing is that the %CO2 compared to atmosphere should be more like .3%?  If the 1-2ppm CO2 is roughly correct for the average tank (bearing in mind the large variance this could have due to carbonate hardness and temperature).  I was wondering about what that value was actually (concentration of CO2 in a freshwater tank without injection).  

Is there any info out there on equating liquid carbon like Easy Carbo to CO2 concentration in a tank in terms of photosynthetic ability?  ie 10ppm of easy carbo is the same as having 5ppm of CO2.  Would be interesting to figure that out although I don't actually know what is in easy carbo other than 'photosynthetic intermediates'.

As an aside, while it would be advantageous for a filter to pick up bubbles along with tank water (to provide oxygen for nitrification), this may affect the siphon action of your filter.  Mine gets very noisy whenever it does pick up a stray bubble


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> One thing is that the %CO2 compared to atmosphere should be more like .3%?


 No, it is right although it should have been 0.04% really, "As of April 2010 carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume, the pre-industrial level was about 280ppm." I think I got  the 1 - 2% CO2  levels for Aquaria from Brett, the "Skeptical Aquarist", but I don't know where he got them from. I cut and pasted them, in this thread, from here <http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829>.

You are definitely right about the trapped air bubbles being noisy, the best filters in terms efficiency in treating a large bioload are wet and dry trickle filters, but they are even noisier. You really need a good flow of  oxygenated water for canister filters to work  efficiently, so as long as the bubbles are small they should go through the  filter with out becoming trapped. 

I'm not sure that you would be able to equate any of the liquid carbon supplements with CO2 as a direct comparison. You would have to do it experimentally by constructing a CO2 standard graph (by measuring the mean yield and confidence interval for a number of replicate plants of any species grown along a CO2 concentration gradient), and then (leaving all other parameter the same)  substituting the CO2 for a carbon supplement, measuring yield and reading the equivalent CO2 value from the standard graph.



> Would be interesting to figure that out although I don't actually know what is in "easy carbo" other than 'photosynthetic intermediates'.


 it is glutaraldehyde, but I'm not sure any-one knows quite how it works yet.
There have been a few threads about it.

cheers Darrel


----------



## robfromdublin

Well I've been dosing EI and doing my water changes and still the algae persists.  Also the plants have started to show signs of potassium deficiency (put dwarf anubia in 10 days ago and a couple of holes are appearing in old leaves), which I was surprised at.  I've decided to try to remove the duckweed from the tank as I'm taking out handfuls of it and I think it might be starving the other plants.  Just gonna try to remove as much as I can each day and hopefully it'll disappear, or be more easily managed, before long. 

The other major factor is flow.  I measured it during a water change yesterday at ~150 l/h, which is a miserly 1x turnover.  So I'm thinking a powerhead would be a good investment.  Hydor Koralia 1 is rated at 1500 l/h and a shop near me sells it for <Â£30 so I'm gonna go with that I think.  Will be interesting to see if flow is the missing link in getting a nicely balanced tank, and indeed if it is the reason for apparent signs of deficiency in the plants.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





> I've decided to try to remove the duckweed from the tank as I'm taking out handfuls of it and I think it might be starving the other plants. Just gonna try to remove as much as I can each day and hopefully it'll disappear, or be more easily managed, before long.


 Duckweed is very efficient at converting nutrients into biomass, so as you remove it your fertiliser addition is being exported. Both _Lemna minor and L. gibba_ are widely used in the industrial scale treatment of nutrient rich effluents.  Here is a link to some of Diana Walstad's research. <http://www.aquabotanic.com/plants_and_biological_filtration.htm> and I've got a lot of papers, here is the abstract of some Dutch work:

Zimmo, O. _et al. _(2004). "_Nitrogen mass balance across pilot-scale algae and duckweed-based waste-water stabilisation ponds_" _Water Research_ *38:4*, pp. 913-920
*Abstract*
Nitrogen removal processes and nitrogen mass balances in algae-based ponds (ABPs) and duckweed (_Lemna gibba_)-based ponds (DBPs) were assessed during periods of 4 months, each under different operational conditions......... N uptake by duckweed corresponds to 30% of the influent nitrogen during the warm period......."

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
    You haven't really stated exactly how much of what you are dosing. Holes in leaves are typically due to poor CO2/flow, not low K. 

There is no point removing a plant because you think it is feeding more than others. The solution is to add more nutrients/CO2 or more flow. This is not to say that you should never remove a plant if there is a good reason, such as it's becoming invasive or that you simply don't like it, however your stated reason is definitely not a good one. 

It is much less likely that your duckweed is "stealing" nutrients from other plants and that it simply is a better feeder than the others. Is it at the surface? If so then it has access to much more CO2 than the other plants and can produce more carbohydrates than the other plants. When a plant produces high level of carbohydrates it can then make much better use of Nitrogen and other nutrients.

If you're still getting BGA and Rhizo then you need to clean the tank really well, including the substrate, while doing a large water change. Clean your filter, add more flow, add more EasyCarbo and add more nutrients.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> Is it at the surface? If so then it has access to much more CO2 than the other plants and can produce more carbohydrates than the other plants. When a plant produces high level of carbohydrates it can then make much better use of Nitrogen and other nutrients.


 That is a major reason for the efficiency of _Eichornia_ and _Lemna_ based biofilters, because these plants float, they have access to both aerial CO2 and maximal PAR and the turbidity/ depth of the "water" isn't an issue.

cheers Darrel


----------



## robfromdublin

Well I also want rid of the duckweed for reasons of aesthetics & to avoid getting a green arm every time i put my hand in the water, but nevertheless it has a competitive advantage over other plants in terms of its access to CO2, and therefore takes up more nutrients.  If I remove it there will be more nutrients available for other plants under the same dosing regime.  (of course, they may not be nutrient- or light-limited; in which case removing it will have little effect)

You're right I never actually said what I was dosing.  I'm now putting in 5ppm NO3 & .7ppm PO4, along with 2mls Easy-Life Profito and 5mls (double dosage) EasyCarbo.  This is done daily. 

Flow is the next issue to attack.  Once I have that in place I can look at doing a big clean.  Primarily the diatoms & BGA are caught up in the Java Moss, so I can remove the majority of them just by taking it out and giving it a good bath under tap water.  Rhizo isn't so much of an issue, but green spot algae is starting to be (given I've only just started dosing PO4, I wasn't expecting this to disappear straightaway).


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
    5ppm daily of NO3 and 0.7ppm daily PO4 is a lot so there's no way that you don't have enough. How are you determining these values and what product is being used? Removing the duckweed also allows more light in the tank thereby raising the uptake requirements of the other plants. This sounds more and more like a flow/distribution issue based on those numbers.

Cheers,


----------



## robfromdublin

Using KNO3 and KH2PO4 for both (dry powders purchased online, therefore unknown purity).  Calculated ppm values based on 100% purity assumption and on estimated volume of water (tank vol - hardscape).  Know that NO3 is roughly correct as tested shortly after first addition.  By tested I mean I tested tap water & tank water.  Both zero.  Then added 10ppm KNO3 to tank water and waited an hour for it to mix.  Tested 3 replicates, all roughly 10ppm after addition. 

Didn't test phosphate as don't have kit but calculations are correct.  Both PO4 & NO3 are mixed in the same bottle.

I agree that flow is the next major item to address.  Was surprised I was getting turnover of just once an hour as this is only ~30% of the max flow rate I believe.  The powerhead will then give me a turnover of 11x, which hopefully will be sufficient. 

I'm not sure where exactly to put the powerhead in the tank.  I have a 3D background glued internally to the back glass (was there when I bought it) which prevents attaching anything to the back.  I think I'll start with putting it on the front left pointing along the front of the tank.  The filter intake is visible in the pic on page 1 and the outlet is on the back just right of centre and pointing to the right.  This creates an eddy on the right of the tank but not much movement elsewhere.  Adding the powerhead on the left should create flow on the left side.  I chose the front because there is a large bit of wood which would dissipate the flow if I put it at the back.  My hope is that the powerhead is strong enough to travel the length of the tank and then down on top of the hairgrass & swords on the other side.  Maybe optimistic but seems logical for a first go.  What do you reckon?


----------



## ceg4048

Well, sorry, I don't trust any NO3 or PO4 test kit. I don't care how many times you measured. Can you tell me how many teaspoons or grams of powder you added to the tank? I strongly suggest you to abandon the technique of adding nutrient quantities based on measurements from a hobby grade test kit. The choice is yours, but Idi Amin "Dada" advises that this is bad Juju....very bad Juju....

Also, I've come to the conclusion that 3D backgrounds have a tendency to kill your flow/distribution. They are siliconed on and are a pain to remove, but well worth the effort in the long run. 
The energy of the flow tends to dissipate quite rapidly along the long axis so this is not good unless the powerhead is extremely strong. A much better solution long term is to get a bigger filter, but of course that costs more. The powerhead is much more effective when mounted against the back wall. Strike 2 for the 3D background.

Cheers,


----------



## robfromdublin

I don't estimate added NO3 & PO4 based on my NO3 test kit. I estimate them based on my calculations, which are correct (not being arrogant, it's my job to get calcs like this right).  I was testing the accuracy of the test kit as much as anything else, which was certainly sufficient in this instance (although more exhaustive tests would be needed to actually estimate how accurate it is overall).  The powders were measured with a balance, rather than teaspoons, but I would still say the concentrations added are only accurate to within 1ppm & .1ppm respectively.

Yeah on reflection I would have taken the background off when I bought the tank.  20/20 hindsight.   Still, with a bit of trial and error hopefully I'll be able to eliminate any deadspots.  Might be difficult in such a long thin tank and only one powerhead, but needs must.


----------



## mfcphil

I had BGA and after a blackout I was ok for a while, alas it started coming back, I have taken the timer off my CO2 ans have it running 24/7 at a slightly slowe rate....day by day the BGA started going away....its now gone completely

Think I will leave the timers off


----------



## CeeJay

Hi mfcphil

I had BGA in my low tech just after start up. This tank was being dosed with TPN+ at the time, as per manufacturers recommendations, which I now know was way off the mark (miles too low   )
I eventually upped the nitrates and it went away by itself in about 4 days. 
Now dosing dry powders once a week in this tank, and all is well  
So might I suggest you put your timers back on and save your CO2. Total waste in the dark.
All you need to do is up your nitrates


----------



## mfcphil

CeeJay said:
			
		

> Hi mfcphil
> 
> I had BGA in my low tech just after start up. This tank was being dosed with TPN+ at the time, as per manufacturers recommendations, which I now know was way off the mark (miles too low   )
> I eventually upped the nitrates and it went away by itself in about 4 days.
> Now dosing dry powders once a week in this tank, and all is well
> So might I suggest you put your timers back on and save your CO2. Total waste in the dark.
> All you need to do is up your nitrates




Been there done that....Nitrates are nearly treble what I started with, To be honest since I went 24/7 with the Co2 the tank has never looked better...I have 2 5kg f/e so I think I'll leave well alone for now.

Thanks though!!


----------



## CeeJay

OK mate.
Just sharing my experiences.
Personally, I would still be seeking the cause, as low CO2 does not cause BGA.
If you're happy to run with it, then leave it be.


----------



## mfcphil

Well the BGA is back yet again!

Tank 240l 
Eheim pro3 filter 
Co2 from 5kg Fire Ex going into my up atomizer through the 3ft spray bar along the back of the tank
2 hydor koralia water pumps (1 x size 1 & 1 x size 3)

Mix to 250ml water
KH2PO4 30g
KNO3     65g

Dosage 50ml Tuesday Thursday and Sunday after 50% water change  

  

Oh and my crypts have all recently started to melt


----------



## Burnleygaz

mfcphil said:
			
		

> Oh and my crypts have all recently started to melt



That would suggest CO2 i think, no clue as to why this may or may not of caused your BGA to come back tho


----------



## ceg4048

Phil, it looks like you have a flow distribution issue. All the numbers look OK so I have to suspect that you have to play with your pump orientation. Any photos?

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

Hi Clive

This is an image before the new outbreak....I move the wood in case that has caused the flow problem






and this is the with the outbreak


----------



## mfcphil

I have a 3ft spray bar which goes acroos the back

this is one of the pumps






This is the other


----------



## ceg4048

Phil,
      Have you tried moving that firs Koralia to the back wall? Both pumps should be on the back wall pointing straight ahead parallel to the flow of the sraybar. If that's 3 foot long then each pump should be place 1 foot in from the end walls and just under the bars. Imagine that the shape of the Koralias effluent is a cone. Having the pump pointing lengthwise influences the direction of flow from the spraybars such that the energy of the bars moves more to the left or right instead of straight forward. This reduces the efficiency of the jet streams from the bar. You want to amplify the jet streams from the spraybars, not divert or interfere with them.

It looks like you have stagnation points in the areas that the BGA has developed and in the areas where the melting crypts are. These a re classic areas of poor flow, i.e. at or near the substrate. I don't understand why everyone concocts these bizarre and exotic pump orientation configurations. It reminds me of soldiers taking up sniper position at the Battle of Stalingrad. Nature does not allow vacuums to develop. If you pump enough fluid in a single direction within a container the effluent will automatically find its way into areas of low pressure. So the idea is to maximize the flow rate in that single direction. If you distribute flow in opposite directions you cause incoherence, turbulence and destructive interference. There's no need to try and coerce the flow as if  herding sheep mate.  

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

ok I've placed the other pump on the back wall...I will remove as much of the BGA as I can by hand and probably do a couple of extra 50% water changes over the nexk week, then see how we go from there!

Co2 is on 24/7 now and lights are 8 hours a day


----------



## tobyonekenobi00

This worked for me.. Couple of caps of Flourish Excel a day and a dozen Amano shrimp


----------



## mfcphil

Clive after taking your advice I made some more adjustments.

I replaced the nano Koralia and the Koralia 1 with 2 x Koralia number 2's, I also shortened my spray bar which I believe has increased the flow of Co2


----------



## ceg4048

OK, looks better. I guess the proof is in the pudding. Can you see movement of the leaves on the lower crypts? Have things generally improved? It certainly looks like there are improvements.
It still looks like you have the Koralias pointed inwards and downwards as opposed to straight ahead. Is there a reason for this? Have you found that the flow/distribution works better than pointing them straight ahead?

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

Koralias are now pointed level and forwards 

Crypts are flowing nicely thanks Clive


----------



## mfcphil

Just to show everyone that if you keep at it and listen to the advice of other ....we will get there

progress report Clive


----------



## CeeJay

Hi mfcphil

Wow, what an improvement.
Glad to see you stuck at it, and got there in the end.
Plants are looking so much better. 
Now you can enjoy your tank instead of it giving you a headache   
Well done


----------



## ceg4048

Yeah, nice one Phil! The swords are starting to dominate though. Make sure they don't become hooligans!

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

do we suggest thinig them out?


----------



## ceg4048

Well, keeping the tank trimmed and groomed is a good idea generally as it keeps flow paths open and is nicer to look at. Even the background stems could do with a bit of trimming, if for no other reason to get them bushier (you can re-plant the tops that you cut off as well, or discard the bottoms and replace them with the tops). If the tank has a tendency to get algae on the front lawn then trimming helps to preserve good flow to the substrate. It's up to you and how you want to mange the tank/scape, really.

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

I like the sound of that, as the only problem area now seems to be the front centre of the tank where I'm getting the algae on top of the soil!


----------



## mfcphil

Well my nice algae free tank lasted for about two week.....the bottom is now covered yet again in the dreaded stuff

about to call it a day totally pi$$ed off with it


----------



## ceg4048

Don't blow you cool mate. Clean the algae out and increase the KNO3 some more. Give your filter a good clean out as well.

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

Update

I have two Koralia number 2 (new type) on the back wall facing forward.
I have replaced the Eheim Pro 3 2080 with 2 Eheim Pro 3 2075's

All the hair algae that was on the leaves and Koralia's has vanished    for now at least   

BUT....I am starting to get the BGA at the front of the tank just under the substrate line.

I am dosing as follows


Tank 240l 
Lights 8 hours per day
CO2 2hours before lights and off about an hour before they go off

500ml water....KH2PO4  30g   KNO3 90g (same bottle)
50ml 3 times per week

500ml water....Trace 20g
25ml 3 times per week

Any further help with the BGA would be very welcomed....

I'm guessing you are going to say FLOW!


----------



## ceg4048

Yeah, either that or light. Did you up the lighting at some point? You could play around some more with the Koralia. Do the spraybars run the entire length of the tank now? Maybe a few more pics are in order....

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

update on BGA at the front in patches..here is a new photo, I would like to fix this before any new plants go in.

CO2 (5kg F/E) and Light times 

CO2 - 9am until 9pm
Lights 2 sets of 2 x 39W
2x 39W 2pm â€“ 11pm
2x 39W 4.30pm â€“ 7.30pm







close up of one of the patches


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> I would like to fix this before any new plants go in


 I would put the plants in now, think you need a lot more plant mass in the tank until it stabilises. 
cheers Darrel


----------



## mfcphil

Ok as you see I have added extra plants.

I'm still getting a line of the BGA at the very front of the tank which keeps coming back, it would appear that I have ample flow.

Should I disturb the soil to get at it? Is there anything I'm missing?


----------



## ceg4048

Yeah, just push the sediment back and get in there with a sponge to clean it off. You do have a lot of light. Can you disable the front bulb for now? It also implies that there is ambient light hitting the front pane. You can try putting black tape across the bottom glass for a while to see if that helps. Flow ought to be good with two filters, and the KNO3 amount seems plenty.

Hang in there pal.

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

Thanks Clive....think I'm getting there, as it is now there is only one bulb at the front part of the lid and three at the back. I will give the black tape idea a go


----------



## mfcphil

Well I'm not sure which of the following done the job but all the BGA has gone and the BBA 

Alterations

from 4 x 39w of lighting to 1 x 39w & 1 x 28w
added another UP Atomizer so the co2 is getting shared between both spray bars.
Placed the EasyCarbo into one of those spray bottles and when the tank was half empty during water changes I sprayed the visible wood with it....hey presto all the BBA has vanished
replaced the 2 spray bar with fluval ones

Guessing the success at the moment (crossed fingers touch wood) may have a bit to do with all the changes.


----------



## ceg4048

Yeah mate, I'm pretty sure all of these had an effect. Hopefully it's not too dim in there for you...

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Yeah mate, I'm pretty sure all of these had an effect. Hopefully it's not too dim in there for you...
> 
> Cheers,




I was actually wondering if I have went too far the other way....my tank is about 240L or 62 gallons, is my now 67 wats of light enough???

As is been over three weeks since I've seen any sign of algae (great for my tank !!!) not really sure if I should/need to change anything....I do have more 39w bulbs which I could re-swap the 28w bulb with, although these are shorter in length

28w = 4ft approx
39w= 3ft approx

Should I be happy with slower growth and no algae (up to now)


----------



## ceg4048

Hi mate,
            Well you really don't _need_ to change anything if you have growth. The dichotomy of an injected tank is all about deciding where biological imperatives end and where ornamental aesthetics begin. I've often implemented strategies in the tank that I knew was good for the tank...until I couldn't stand it anymore because it fell too far outside the boundary of my personal realm of aesthetics. Often the tank just needed to stabilize before it was able to absorb the change I would implement. 

More importantly, there should be very little doubt now that excessive light is the root of all evil. Isn't it amazing how 1 WPG in this size tank is OK for these particular plant species and is detrimental to algae?

All the same, you can gingerly add a 28 W burst of energy, say an hour a day for a week, then for 2 hours over a similar period. Just work your way up and observe so that you can see where the trigger point is.

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

sounds like a good plan...thanks!!!


----------



## mfcphil

you know I've got to puy my hands up here in the hope that other people like myself will take things in a little quicker...

I have been given tons of advice on these forum pages, most: probably from Clive (ceg4048) and although I thought I was listening I was not really taking everything in, I'm not saying everything is hunky dorey in my 240l tank right now, but, I am getting there, Finally, I think!!

****The only issues I think I have is maybe a little too little light, which I'm scared to change and maybe a little too much KNO3 in my 500ml mix, this is due to me upping the ammount every time I got another outbreak of algae in the tank, its at 90 grams at the present

Guess what I'm trying to say is, this place is great for advice as long as you use it properly!


----------



## mfcphil

OMG 5 weeks no algae!!!! Changed the 28w back to a shorter 39w just to help the growth a little, first sign of the bad stuff coming back, its back to the trusted 28w


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Phil,
          Yeah, long term you should be able to get back to original lighting levels. The plants can adapt to slow, long term changes. Algae adapt better to quick, or transient conditions.

It's not clear to me why it was so pesky in your particular tank, especially with the two strong filters that you got. Did you select low flow on the flow control levers by any chance?

Cheers,


----------



## mfcphil

No Clive I had both the filters on max....I have removed one of the Koralia number 2's and have the one remaining on a timer, it comes on and goes off the same time as the Co2 running through the two Up Atomisers....Gives the fish a breather from the fast flow!!

I'm going to stick with the two 39w T5's for now as everything seems to be going well, I do have some slow growth and plants like the Rotala wallichii are not turning red, but I can live with that!


----------

