# what am I doing wrong!



## cichlidlover (26 Apr 2011)

hi all,
well, after having my 240ltr tank set up 6 weeks I am getting loads of green spot algae on all the plants and glass and its getting worse!
I am using co2 at 3BPS through a JBL telifun reactor and it is defusing the gas ok (I have a DC with 4DKH at the other end of the tank showing lime green) I dose TPN at 5ml every other day, and 5ml iron once a week. I do a 50% water change once a week. The tank is 80% planted with mostly hygrophilia and ludwigia with a few swords, and I have a tropica plant subsrate with a quartz sand topping. The tank is filtered by a fluval 405 and I have a korillia evo 2800 at the other end of the tank to help move the water back up the tank, and there is good movement through the plants. The only dead spot as I can tell is behind the internal inlet/outlet pipes. the lighting is 2x40W T8.
I dont use nitrate/ phosphate ferts as the tank is heavely stocked and I have a reading of 10ppm nitrate using a liquid test. my other stats are ammonia 0ppm, nitrite 0ppm, nitrate 10ppm, kh 4, gh 7, ph 6.6.
I know it looks like i am doing everything right so what could be causing this outbreak.
thanks

mark


----------



## bigmatt (26 Apr 2011)

I'm no expert (and i'm sure of them will pitch in with some more definitive help!) but it sound like your fert dosing is off to me.  You don't mention how long your lights are on for but you have reasonable lighting and supplemental CO2, and as such you NEED to be dosing EI or a comprehensive proprietary fert (such as TPN+ instead of TPN) that deals with all your plant's nutrient needs.  Your present dosing regime is probably a little short on micro (and possibly macro) ferts.  I can't link to James' Planted Tank website from this stupid work computer but if you google it then look at his algae ID guide it should let you know what the root cause is and how to deal with it.  
Hope this helps!
Matt


----------



## Tom (26 Apr 2011)

cichlidlover said:
			
		

> I dont use nitrate/ *phosphate* ferts as the tank is heavely stocked and I have a reading of 10ppm nitrate using a liquid test.



Here's your problem I would say. GSA supposedly points to low PO4, and you're not dosing any. I would advise either switching to TPN+ or getting hold of some KNO3 (for extra N and K) and KPO4 (for extra P and K) and see how you get on. Get rid of as much GSA as you can, sort out the P dosing in particular, and then see if it returns   

Tom


----------



## cichlidlover (26 Apr 2011)

due to me having lots of fish (and fish food!) I thought i would not have to add any phosphate, but  I have noticed that the lower leaves on the hygro are starting to rot!
forgot to say that my lights are on 10 hours a day and my c02 is swiched on 2 hours before light on and swiched off 1 hour before lights off.

mark


----------



## Tom (26 Apr 2011)

cichlidlover said:
			
		

> due to me having lots of fish (and fish food!) I thought i would not have to add any phosphate, but  I have noticed that the lower leaves on the hygro are starting to rot!



That's probably to do with your lights - 2x T8 over a 240 liter isn't much. If the lower leaves are shaded by higher ones then they probably will rot. 

Is the tank heavily planted? Also, is the algae only in certain areas, or throughout the tank? How much filtraton/flow/turnover do you have?


----------



## bigmatt (26 Apr 2011)

That's a lot of light!  Overdosed ferts (within sensible limits, obviously!) rarely harm fish, but underdosed tanks cause massive problems for plant health leading to ammonia release which opens the door for algae, and light compunds the problem.  I'd drop the light to 6 hours per day and move to EI dosing (try site sponsors FluidSensorOnline or Aquarium Plant Food UK for a pre-mixed all-in-one EI mix if you don't fancy mixing up your own).  I mention EI because if you use proprietary ferts such as TPN+ you'll mainly be paying for diluted EI mixes anyway - and who wants to pay more for water!  Combined with good tank cleaning you should soon start to see a difference in plant health and thus the algae!
Hope this helps mate - post pics and let us know how you're getting on
Matt


----------



## cichlidlover (26 Apr 2011)

hi tom,
its all in my origional post!
I planted the hygro and such as they are supposed to be easy plants to grow in low light, I cannot afford high lighting at the moment.

mark


----------



## ceg4048 (26 Apr 2011)

cichlidlover said:
			
		

> hi all,
> well, after having my 240ltr tank set up 6 weeks I am getting loads of green spot algae on all the plants and glass and its getting worse!
> I am using co2 at 3BPS through a JBL telifun reactor and it is defusing the gas ok (I have a DC with 4DKH at the other end of the tank showing lime green) I dose TPN at 5ml every other day, and 5ml iron once a week. I do a 50% water change once a week.
> 
> ...


Hi Mark,
    It doesn't look like you're doing everything right to me. Green Spot Algae is caused by any combination of low CO2 and low PO4. This duality often makes it a difficult algae to troubleshoot, so we have to look for other signs in the tank in order to isolate the cause. Proper fault isolation procedures strongly depend on  an ability to read the other signs of the tank.

If you are suffering poor PO4 then you'd expect to see other symptoms of PO4 deficiency, such as slow growth, stunting and sometimes spindly growth. You might even see other types of algae caused by nutrient deficiency.

If you are suffering poor CO2 then you'd expect to see other symptoms such as surface scum, deformed growth, loss of tissue and/or other structural flaws. AGAIN< you might even see other types of CO2 related algae such as hair or thread.



			
				cichlidlover said:
			
		

> due to me having lots of fish (and fish food!) I thought i would not have to add any phosphate, but I have noticed that the lower leaves on the hygro are starting to rot!


OK, well, poor PO4 can never result in rotting. The reason plants rot is because they are constructed 40% by weight of Carbon. An inability to obtain sufficient levels of Carbon means that the plant must cannibalize it's own structure to re-allocate the Carbon elsewhere. The combination therefore of GSA and tissue loss indicates a high probability that the tank is suffering poor CO2. Since hygo is a fast growing species, it requires easy access to CO2 and therefore is one of the first to show carbon deficiency. In a way therefore it is an indicator plant.

If you are certain that your flow is adequate, that your distribution techniques are sufficient and that your method of dissolving the CO2 is efficient, then the most logical factor remaining is the gas injection rate. 

I can guarantee you that the absolute last thing on this planet that you need is more light. I would run, not walk, away from advice regarding more light. You obviously have enough light to grow algae therefore there is no future in that path.

Cheers,


----------



## Tom (26 Apr 2011)

cichlidlover said:
			
		

> hi tom,
> its all in my origional post!
> I planted the hygro and such as they are supposed to be easy plants to grow in low light, I cannot afford high lighting at the moment.
> 
> mark



Sorry, missed that somehow!!!


----------



## cichlidlover (26 Apr 2011)

thanksa ceg,
The reason I have not gone above 3 bps is that i am scared of gassing my fish (well my other half is scared i will gas the fish!) I tried the co2 at 5ps but had my girlfriend ringing me (I work away) saying the fish were acting funny, but to be honest I think she is a little paranoid since reading co2 can kill! I have seen my fish breath a little heavy when I first used co2 but they have never benn gassping at the surface.

mark


----------



## ceg4048 (26 Apr 2011)

Hi,
   Well you and your partner need to get well beyond optical illusions and self hypnosis. As your plants grow the increased mass requires more of everything, but most important is CO2. You have six weeks of growth, so it's a cinch that there is more mass in the tank than six weeks ago. One alternative way of keeping things in check is to prune heavily and consistently. 

When you increase the injection rate, the fish often experience discomfort for about an hour or two. That's about how long they need to make the adjustments to the new CO2 level. After that they are fine. Although there is no standard bubble size 5bps does not sound like a huge amount of injection for a 240L tank so if the fish were in fact having trouble adjusting, then  you would have to suspect that your distribution and or dissolving methods are inefficient.

Another alternative to injection rate increase is to use Excel or equivalent. This is a more expensive option for this size tank but well worth it if you fear to tread the bubble rate tight rope.

If you can produce a picture of your setup, we might be able to tweak the filter/pump arrangement or advise better injection methods which would facilitate a non-lethal injection rate increase.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305 (27 Apr 2011)

Hi all,


> The reason I have not gone above 3 bps is that i am scared of gassing my fish (well my other half is scared i will gas the fish!).


 This is why I don't use CO2, even at sub-lethal levels it can stress your fish, and may limit their life span. I can find quite enough ways of accidentally killing my fish, why would I want to add another one? If you are adding CO2 you need to make sure your water is fully oxygenated (due to the Bohr effect on haemaglobin in the blood), which means filter maintenance needs to be very thorough. It also depends a little bit on the fish, some fish, like Anabantanoids, have the ability to obtain atmospheric oxygen and are hard to asphyxiate, but others, particularly rheophilic fish like _Hypancistrus_ or "Surge Zone" Cichlids may show distress at even low CO2 levels. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## cichlidlover (27 Apr 2011)

Thanks ceg, Darrel,
Darrel, I do have very good surface movement with the 405 and the 2800LPH pump but I do know where you are coming from...I lost three of my rare plecs a few weeks ago in one night (the others have been fine since) and we still don't know what happened, just looked like they died in their sleep!
ceg, could my distribution of CO2 still be out even with all that water movement and the DC still showing green at the other end of the tank? I have no picture at moment, sorry, but I have been told that the JBL REACTOR is rubbish and most of the gas will disperse to the atmosphere instead of dissolving in the water (though the bubbles seem to be dissolving fine to me) and I thought I had bought top quality gear!

mark


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Apr 2011)

Hi Mark,
             Yes, you see there are four very different issues when it comes to CO2 injection: 
The first, and most obvious is the injection rate. 
The second is, as you might have discovered, is the dissolving method. 
The third is the total flow energy being input by the pumps. 
The fourth is the most arcane and least understood, and that is the way in which that energy is distributed throughout the tank.

A weakness in any of these has to be compensated for by an improvement in the others. So just having a high pump throughput does not automatically solve your problems. That throughput must be relatively free of distortion and is most effective when the flow pattern is uniform and coherent. Have you ever studied waves on a shore? Have ever watched as the incoming wave meets the outgoing rip tide? They tend to cancel each other out so that the water appears to be stationary. The incoming wave dwindles to almost nothing and fails to advance onto the shore.

When the energy of your pumps/filters is inadequate, or when the distribution is chaotic, the concentration of CO2 varies wildly across the tank so that it can be very high where the dropchecker is, or where the fish are swimming, but can be low where the plant leaves are. This results in the incongruity we observe where the plants suffer carbon starvation yet the fish suffer hypercapnia. Because people fail to understand the phenomenon of wave interaction and flow distribution they see the fish suffer and automatically conclude that their plant problems can't possibly be due to poor CO2 because the fish are suffering CO2 toxicity.

The most important subplot of an injected tank therefore is the way in which the CO2 is injected and manner in which flow distribution is implemented. Inattentiveness to these details is precisely why most tanks fail, and because of the paradox regarding fish toxicity, many refuse to blame their own poor CO2 technique for the failure. That is why so many automatically assume that leaves are falling off due to poor lighting, for example, or that leaves falling off must be a nutrient issue. Until one fully grasps the significance of Carbon to the economy of plants, failure will continue to be blamed on seemingly logical, but actually irrelevant causal factors.

Now, Darrel certainly has a valid argument, i.e. why would one seek to add a toxic substance to the tank. The counter argument however is easy. Once cannot achieve the level of beauty and growth rates without CO2. It can also be easily argued that of all tanks in the world, by far, the most prevalent cause of fish deaths is actually water pollution due to overfeeding combined with poor water changing habits. Naturally, it would be absurd to decide to completely eliminate feeding because of this danger. The solution to this danger is to learn and to understand that fish don't need half the amount of food that we tend to dump into the tank. Once this is understood, and once the importance of water changing is accepted, then the risks decrease. Similarly, with CO2, instead of banishing it, we have to learn and understand how to reduce the risks and how to implement an injection scheme that will provide the performance we desire but will not annihilate the inhabitants of the tank.

Cheers,


----------



## faizal (29 Apr 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> If you are suffering poor PO4 then you'd expect to see other symptoms of PO4 deficiency, such as slow growth, stunting and sometimes spindly growth. You might even see other types of algae caused by nutrient deficiency.
> 
> If you are suffering poor CO2 then you'd expect to see other symptoms such as surface scum, deformed growth, loss of tissue and/or other structural flaws. AGAIN< you might even see other types of CO2 related algae such as hair or thread.



 I am sorry for the hijack,..but assuming one is dosing twice the EI levels ,.....then would there be any chance for a PO4 or any other nutrient deficiency to arise? Sorry if this is an extremely dumb question.   

For a 20 Gallon tank,..EI suggests 1/4 teaspoon KNO3 & 1/16 KH2PO4,...assuming one doses 1/2  teaspoon KHNO3 BUT ALMOST 1/4 KH2PO4 ( which is more than twice EI Levels) ,....would this imbalance the dosing regime?

Faizal


----------



## ceg4048 (29 Apr 2011)

Well, generally, there ought not to be a need to even dose twice EI levels of PO4, especially in a small tank such as 20G, but various combinations of excessive lighting and/or poor flow can result in poor UPTAKE of nutrients/CO2 by the plants.

Cheers,


----------



## roadmaster (29 Apr 2011)

I believe were it me,, I would see that plant's were receiving all macros and micronutient's and observe the plant's for a couple weeks before increasing CO2,flow. In this way One could be reasonably certain as to what one thing made improvement or not.If you provide all nutrient's in non limiting fashion and after a couple weeks there was no improvement, then  I would consider that CO2 increase might be needed ever so slowly.
By adjusting two or three variables at once, a newbie like me, can only guess as to what made the improvement. 
Could very well be  everything needs tweaked but for myself,, I would rather start with seeing that nutrient's needed are there, and they can then be eliminated as possible source of problem.(not withstanding proper CO2 diffusion)
I disagree that plant's cannot be as lovely, or enjoyed as much without CO2 injection. Growth is slower, and some plant's perhaps can't perform as well as with CO2 injection, but I am pleased with some of the low tech NON CO2 tanks I have seen, as well as my own. Just my two cents. :silent:


----------



## ceg4048 (29 Apr 2011)

roadmaster said:
			
		

> ...By adjusting two or three variables at once, a newbie like me, can only guess as to what made the improvement.


Well, what I'm saying is that there is no need to guess. Guessing makes the troubleshooting more difficult than necessary. We already know what the causal factors for GSA are: Any combination of poor PO4 and poor CO2. If you're still having trouble remembering what deficiencies cause what algae then it's best to thoroughly study JamesC's Algae Guide

Then you will see that the only nutrient to worry about when troubleshooting GSA is PO4. The other factor is CO2 and, as I tried to explain, if both are confirmed to be high then the fault lies in flow/distribution. One can always solve a GSA problem with this knowledge.



			
				roadmaster said:
			
		

> I disagree that plant's cannot be as lovely, or enjoyed as much without CO2 injection. Growth is slower, and some plant's perhaps can't perform as well as with CO2 injection, but I am pleased with some of the low tech NON CO2 tanks I have seen, as well as my own. Just my two cents. :silent:


I did not say that one cannot enjoy as much without CO2. These are subjective issues. If you examine the statistics you will find that the tanks that win or place the highest in the world's planted tank beauty contests are consistently CO2 injected tanks. That means that more people determine that CO2 injection achieves their aesthetic goals more easily and certainly more quickly. This has nothing to do with what someone else can enjoy, and it does not mean that a beautiful tank cannot also be achieved via low tech, but the evidence is undeniable; growth rates, plant health and the subjective qualities we ascribe to a planted tank are absolutely best facilitated by CO2 injection. 

This fact makes CO2 injection a worthwhile pursuit. That the technique brings with it a higher degree of complication and an irrefutable higher degree of danger are factors that must be weighed by each individual, however I have not pre-judged or dismissed the possibility that others may not wish to employ the risk or that others can enjoy the non-injected tank. What I am saying is that if one does choose to employ the risks, the aesthetic rewards are potentially higher, but that the techniques should be learned and executed properly to minimize those risks. This last point is true of whatever risky endeavor one pursues, whether that be as thrilling as hang gliding, or as mundane as driving a car on the motorway.

Cheers,


----------



## roadmaster (30 Apr 2011)

Ceg,
 My apologies  If I appear dense or (daft) at times, I struggle  to remember much, due to a form of ADD .
Medications help some ,and I  have less trouble in the A.M after meds, than later in the day.
Have read JamesC's algae guide several times,is excellent info.
I pay little homage to statistic's for they can be easily manipulated to suit ones agenda, but would agree that for world beauty contest's,,the CO2 injection planted tank would easily outperform the NON CO2 planted tank if that is ones aim.
Not all aspire to win competition's is all I am saying.
Perhaps in the future I too will try the GAS but for now,, I am doing as was suggested by Mr. Barr, Attempting to learn the NON CO2 method and learn it  well, before venturing to much more advanced CO2 injection method.
Still stand by my response to original poster and perhaps trying to increase macronutrient's which may be lacking before increasing, or adjusting, other variables. Just my two cents.


----------



## cichlidlover (30 Apr 2011)

hi guys,
just a small update,
since the middle of the week I have slowly upped the co2 to 6BPS and the plants seem to be picking up...it might be my eyes, but the GSA seems to be going too


----------

