# Beginning of algaes after doubling light



## Angelo Kostakis (29 Dec 2014)

Hi all,

I have an aquarium of 200 liters and a height of 65cm.
Light = 4 x T5 28W.

I use the estimative index for natrium, PO4 and potassium.
For the Micro elements i use Easy life Profito as well as Easy life ferro.

I change every week 50 procent of my water.
This morning i tested the water before my lights went on and i had these values:

KH = 12
PH = 6,5  
NO3 = 25mg/l  
PO4 = 1,5mg/l
Potassium = 20mg/l
Fe = 0,5mg/L

I have a lot of brown algae on my substrate but it can be because i have small stones in my substrate that contain a lot of silicate 

Now blue algae begins to appear so i will do a total black out next week.

I also have green algae, since 2 weeks.  Before i had 2x T5 and now 4 x T5 so maybe because of to much light? 

Possible solutions ?

the Moss and riccia start to pearl but the Monte carlo doesn't grow very good.  I have a lot of new leaves but they stay small and after a while they die.


Can someone help me please ? 
Tanks a lot 

Greets 
Angelo


----------



## Angelo Kostakis (29 Dec 2014)

Ps the tank is two months old  and the lights are 8hours a day on


----------



## pepedopolous (29 Dec 2014)

Too much light since you doubled it. 

Do you have CO2? EI dosing and high light requires pressurised CO2. Without it you will be farming algae.

P


----------



## Angelo Kostakis (29 Dec 2014)

yes i have pressurised CO2 and i also use a aquamedic 1000 reactor to fully solve the CO2


----------



## pepedopolous (29 Dec 2014)

That's great but yeah the algae means you have too much light for the amount of CO2 you are adding. So decrease the light and look at your CO2. 

From the moment CO2 comes on you need to get about a 1 point drop in pH before the lights come on (2 hours or so). If you have good surface rippling, the pH will settle at more or less the same level until it is turned off. This way it shouldn't increase to dangerous levels for fish/shrimp. Nonetheless you've really gotta have some time to increase the CO2 and watch the pH and fish behaviour.

P


----------



## Martin in Holland (30 Dec 2014)

I would also say, to much light, not enough CO2 and or distribution. A reactor will reduce your pump's turnover by atleast 40%


----------



## Paulo Soares (30 Dec 2014)

What about the KH? With that amount of KH how can he drop down 1 PPm in the PH? 
For instance in my case:. I have a Kh of 10. Before my lights went on i have a PH of 7.6 and no matter how much ammount do i inject in the 2 howrs before the lights went on, i can never get the target of 6.6 on PH .
Only 6.8... and i think that it´s a result of the KH value. The KH works as a valve. At a certain point it doesn´t matter the ammount of Co2 you are injecting cause you´ll never get a drop of 1 ppm in the PH cause of that valve the KH is itself. 

So, he will have this issue and i don´t think he´s gonna get a 1 ppm drop down in the PH.. so propably he´ll have to reajust the light. Maybe put it in higher level and not so close to the water. 

Don´t you think so?

Best regards


----------



## Paulo Soares (30 Dec 2014)

And other thing to he should pay attention.. 
Another example: 
(i have a photoperiod of 8 hours) 
If i do regulate the Co2 to inject an ammount in order to drop the Ph from 7.6 to 6.8 in that couple of hours before the lights went on after 4 hours (half of the photoperiod) the fish are all at the top of the water trying to breath... so i can´t (probably he will not to) continue to pump these amount od co2.. to all eight hours.. the fish can not stand it.! 

So i had to decrease the amount of Co2 in those couple of hours and let it get the drop down in the PH further before along the the eight hours photoperiod. By the end of the photoperiod i got 6.8 of Ph.. This is the only way my fish can handle it. 

So.. what now? 
I could drop KH. But how? With "Amtra Torf".but the water will look like "tea".. 
This is a damn issue... im struggling in with ít for quit a while.. 
To damn hard to balance Co2 and Light with this levels of Kh..


----------



## Paulo Soares (30 Dec 2014)

And things get worst .. prety nasty if you don´t have a GREAT CO2 diffuser or great diffusion with that reactor. . Cause if you don´t, most of the co2 you are injecting is not being absorved.
In my case i had to buy a ADA 40 mm to guarantee that BREAKS  the bubbles almost to look like dust in the tank...otherwise.. "Houston! I have a problem!"  
It improves a lot cause i achieve the 6.8 PH more faster than with other Diffusers mas it stoped there.. never reach 6.6. cause of the KH. (i think)


----------



## pepedopolous (30 Dec 2014)

I think with higher KH you can get away with a smaller pH decrease. My KH is only 4 and I had to add something to make it that high. I get just over a 1 pH decrease in 2 hours and it stays that way until the CO2 goes off 6 hours later. I think the pH can remain stable because I have lots of surface agitation from a surface skimmer and a Koralia flow pump.

Watching my fish, they are often at the surface in the last few hours of CO2 injection, even though the pH has been stable. I think that where I place the pH meter is an area of low CO2 so I don't get a representative reading.  I will reduce the CO2 a little and it should still be OK for plants and fish.

I use an Up in-line atomiser which creates a mist all over the aquarium which doesn't look that nice. I'm also not sure if the fish find the low pH a problem or just that they don't like all the tiny bubbles.  In any case if you really have too much CO2 the fish and shrimp react more seriously e.g the shrimp jump out or lie still at the bottom. 

I have only tried in-tank diffusers for a little while and I could never get good CO2 levels with them. So much seems to be wasted.

So overall, if you reduce your light it can only help as the plants will then not need so much CO2...

P


----------



## Paulo Soares (30 Dec 2014)

pepedopolous said:


> Watching my fish, they are often at the surface in the last few hours of CO2 injection



Precisely what hapens in my tank.
And i don´t quite like the risk...


----------



## Marcel G (30 Dec 2014)

Paulo, why do you want for your pH do drop to 6.8 if it causes your fish to have problems? With KH 10 and pH 6.8 you must have around 50 ppm CO2 at 25°C which is way too high. At pH 7.0 you would have 30 ppm CO2, and at pH 7.2 you would have 20 ppm CO2. I think no aquatic plants need more then 20 ppm CO2 for good and healthy growth, although at low pH (around 6) most green/red algae and cyanobacteria are inhibited or die. So keeping low pH may be good for eliminating some troublesome algae species, but for plants such a high CO2 levels are not needed.

You can look at the tank of my friend who has around 15 ppm CO2 in his high light tank (the values on the picture are for light intensity measured in µmol PAR):




Do you still believe the myth that high light (100-500 µmol PAR) and low CO2 (15 ppm) mean algae?


----------



## Paulo Soares (30 Dec 2014)

Hello Ardjuna, 

Thanks for replying. I simple did that a few months ago according to what was sugested here in this forum by a member. A respectable member. And what i´ve said upwords it was a description of what happens. They told me exactly as Pepedopoulos said to Angelo:



> From the moment CO2 comes on you need to get about a 1 point drop in pH before the lights come on (2 hours or so).



And in my case happen what i described.

Now.. tell me please how do you find the figures you mentioned?
Cause i´ve seen a lot of tables  (KH versus PH = Co2 levels) and i couldn´t find the numbers you reffering. 

Do you agree if i use this table ?


----------



## Paulo Soares (30 Dec 2014)

For what i can see in this table i should regulate the injection till get 7.0 or 7.1 of Ph with my KH in 10.
Isn´t that so?

Do you find this table to Angelo follow to? With his 12  Kh he shold achiev 7.1 or 7.2 of Ph.


----------



## pepedopolous (30 Dec 2014)

Guys,

I don't think KH/pH tables work when you just take one 'snapshot' of water and assume that the pH is only due to CO2 and carbonates (KH). 

If you observe the changes in pH as you add CO2 over the course of a few hours, you then know that the pH decrease is 99.9% due to the CO2 added and nothing else.

My KH is 4 and with CO2 injection, the pH decreases from ~6.7 to to ~5.6. 

According to that table above, even at pH6, I have 120PPM CO2!

Even before I've turned the CO2 on, according to that table I've got 30PPM CO2 at pH6.7! That just isn't possible! At pH6.7 the CO2 in my case is at equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 and that isn't enough to grow semi-aquatic plants!


P


----------



## Paulo Soares (30 Dec 2014)

(...)


----------



## Marcel G (30 Dec 2014)

The data in the table above are based on the assumption that all alkalinity (mistakenly refered to as "KH") is made by bicarbonates (HCO3). This may not be true in all tanks, although in most tanks this assumption is probably correct. Alkalinity could be raised not only by HCO3 [NaHCO3, KHCO3, Ca(HCO3)2, Mg(HCO3)2 etc.], but also by fulvic acids, citric acid and some other acids. If this is the case in your tank, then the pH-alkalinity-CO2 table will give you wrong (usually higher) numbers. The best (easy) way to know how much CO2 do you have in your tank, is to use this table together with a dropchecker. Still, you need some quality pH meter and quality KH test to give you reliable numbers. So to answer your question (whether you should try to aim for pH 7.0), I would do the same. I don't see any good on lowering your pH to 6.8 by supplying some extremely high CO2 levels. As I said, I'm convinced that for most aquatic plants 15-20 ppm CO2 is more then enough. I know that Tom Barr or Clive (ceg4048) are recommending much higher CO2 levels (for example, Tom Barr has 50-70 ppm CO2 in his main tank), but I don't see any good on these extremes. As you can see from the beautiful tank of my friend, even with 15 ppm CO2 you can have a nice growing plants and tank without visible algae. Also, I have quite a number of scientific papers which say that for most aquatic plants the CO2 saturation point is somewhere around 20-40 ppm, so at this concentration the plants will grow at maximum rate. But I don't want them to grow at maximum speed. I can make do with 80-90% ... for which 10-15 ppm CO2 is more then sufficient.


----------



## pepedopolous (30 Dec 2014)

Ardjuna,

I live in Prague and you're welcome to visit and test my aquarium(s). I don't consider myself an expert but since re-starting my current main tank, I'm using low light (20-30 PAR according to a Seneye), EI ferts and high CO2 (according to my fish, I've reduced it a bit since). So far I've got healthy plants, steady growth and no algae. It's the best start I've had for any set up.

I don't care who is wrong or right. I'm also well aware that there have been and still are many myths about fishkeeping (e.g Old Tank Syndrome and pH crashes, nutrients = algae). In my experience the closer I manage to replicate what Tom Barr et al recommend, the better I do. I'm not gonna risk upsetting my current set up by turning up the light right now.

Nonetheless, I really think we need more people like you who are ready and able to do some scientific tests and share the results, whatever they may be. It's a damn shame that manufacturers who benefit from hobbyists' money aren't doing or supporting more research.

P


----------



## ceg4048 (30 Dec 2014)

ardjuna said:


> As I said, I'm convinced that for most aquatic plants 15-20 ppm CO2 is more then enough. I know that Tom Barr or Clive (ceg4048) are recommending much higher CO2 levels (for example, Tom Barr has 50-70 ppm CO2 in his main tank), but I don't see any good on these extremes


The reason you don't see any benefit is because you are either miscalculating something, misreading something or not taking some other factor into account.



ardjuna said:


> Do you still believe the myth that high light (100-500 µmol PAR) and low CO2 (15 ppm) mean algae?


Yes. Clearly, you have misunderstood the fundamental argument. High CO2 does not just mean that you are injecting high levels of CO2. High CO2 is within the context of high uptake of CO2. If flow and distribution are good, if timing of the injection is good, if temperatures are not high and if plants are clean and in good health then the uptake rate of a lesser injected tank can be higher than that of a tank with greater injection rate, but which has poor distribution and so forth. We see this all the time where the injection rate is undermined by poor flow and distribution and poor timing of the injection. Additionally, there is a wide range of acceptable CO2 values and if plants are healthy they can adapt to stress.

Additionally, the CO2 in a tank is never homogeneous, and is never static. At different locations in the tank the CO2 will always be different. It c an be 10X lower within the plant beds than at the surface or mid level. If you have a CO2 meter then it is likely that a correct CO2 concentration value can be obtained. If the values are being calculated from charts or graphs then it is only a general estimate.

It's folly to draw a conclusion based on a single parameter when it has been clearly demonstrated that there are many factors involved in a behavior.




ardjuna said:


> most green/red algae and cyanobacteria are inhibited or die. So keeping low pH may be good for eliminating some troublesome algae species, but for plants such a high CO2 levels are not needed.


This is not true at all. Algae do not care how much the pH is and they do not care how much CO2 is in the water. I can easily induce algal blooms at any pH and at any CO2 level.

This is another fundamental misinterpretation of the facts and data. IN an tank, algae respond and change their behavior as a result of the presence of other organisms. The presence of plants affects the behavior of algae and the presence of algae affect the behavior of plants. There is a predatory relationship between algae and plants and blooms are related to the health of the plants. It never matters what the CO2 or nutrient levels are if the plants are failing in health due to an inability to take advantage of available CO2 and nutrients.

Cheers,


----------



## pepedopolous (31 Dec 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Additionally, the CO2 in a tank is never homogeneous, and is never static


This makes pH profiles problematic if like me you poke a pH meter in the surface water somewhere. I've found that pushing the pH meter a little deeper shows a lower pH and that pH is also lower if I place the meter directly in the water outflow (even when in-line CO2 injection is off).

Recently, I've noticed my fish staying at surface (gasping a little) during the last few hours of CO2 injection, even though my readings from the surface are stable. If I have OK CO2 distribution, where should I expect the most CO2- higher or lower in the water column?

Thanks,

P


----------



## ceg4048 (31 Dec 2014)

CO2 is generally highest at the top because that's where it is escaping. That's one of the reasons carpet plants are notoriously difficult, because they are at the bottom where flow, distribution and gas levels are typically poorest.

The best that we can do without a direct meter is to use the values we measure as a proxy for the other locations, recognizing that there are no absolute values and that we are getting only a general number.

If your fish are suffering hypercapnia then you need to look more closely at the flow/distribution or timing, which are always suspect, especially as the plant mass increases. You can turn the gas off earlier as only the first few half of the photoperiod are critical for CO2.

Cheers,


----------



## pepedopolous (31 Dec 2014)

Thanks Ceg!

My pH profile: -
pH profile 29-12 by pepedopolous, on Flickr

I can turn off the CO2 earlier but I think I might have relatively high degassing as you can see from the graph when the CO2 goes off. The fish were at the surface from as early as 16:00.
You notice that I 'only' have a drop of just over 1 pH unit and that the pH is pretty much stable, so I was surprised to see the unhappy fish. KH = 4.
I thought that this might be explained by the fact that in general the CO2 might be higher lower down in the water column than where I put the pH meter.
Anyway, I've actually lowered the CO2 bubble count to keep the fish happy. I'll have to see if the plants respond negatively...

P


----------



## ceg4048 (31 Dec 2014)

Ok, that can work as well. There are a few ways to skin the cat. It's also possible to increase the rate and reduce the injection period (or start earlier), so either can work.

Cheers,


----------



## pepedopolous (31 Dec 2014)

Thanks again Ceg. No problems with plants or algae so far but I can't let the fish suffer. Fingers crossed!

P


----------



## Marcel G (31 Dec 2014)

Clive (ceg4048), please, can you explain me in more detail what factor am I not taking into account in saying that 15-20 ppm CO2 should be enough for growing most of our aquatic plants?

Also, you can believe that high light and low CO2 induce algae, but without any solid data it's only your belief. So if you have any data, please share them with us. I would be the first to change my opinion, and admit I (and many scientists) was wrong.

When you speak about high uptake, according to many scientific papers (which EI people don't like to read), for majority of aquatic plants the CO2 saturation point at full sunlight (1500-2000 µmol PAR), and non-limiting nutrients (Hoagland's solution) is 0.5 to 1.0 mM = 22-44 ppm (mg/L). As you probably know, at lower light levels (50-400 µmol PAR in our tanks) the nutrient uptake rate would be much, much slower! So if at non-limiting conditions the majority of aquatic plants are able to uptake 20-40 ppm CO2 at most, then at light limiting conditions the 15-20 ppm CO2 could be their maximum they can uptake (at these lower light levels). I don't know how to say it more clearly.

Also, when you speak of different conditions in different parts of our tanks, then when you recommend some CO2 values to other people, why don't you tell them what part of the tank your recommendation is meant for? If at plant beds the pH/CO2 values are so dramatically lower then in the middle of the tank, then where this 35 ppm (or 50 ppm) is meant to be?

As to the algae, and low pH causing their inhibition or even death, it's very easy to say, "This is not true at all", without giving us any solid data again. I have some scientific papers which say that each algae species has some pH tolerance range, and for Audouinella species (BBA) this range is somewhere around pH 6.5 to 8.5, and that some cyanobacteria species are greatly inhibited at pH 6.5, and at pH 6 or lower they just die off. If you say it's a nonsense, then please give me some other data. Or did you test different algae species in a closed system (eliminating all other factors) at different pH yourself? Again, why don't you share your data with us? To base our belief on our experience only can be misleading, as our own observations can lead us to wrong conclusions. Often we overlook some important factors, unlike many scientists. For example, you belief that high levels of nutrient don't pose any risk as to the algae, but at the same time you seem to overlook many inhibitory factors which may play a role at your tank in this regard. So if you have a loads of nutrients and high light in your tank, but at the same time you have many algae-eaters (algivores), you do regular water changes, have a good filtration, and don't give your algae any time to develop, but each week you reset their environment ... then at these conditions and inhibitory factors, you may have no problem with algae. But this doesn't proove that high nutrient level pose no risk, or that high nutrient level + high light don't lead to algae. No! This means and proves just nothing more then you have some factors in your tank which suppress algae or prevent them from developing. Remove these factors, and leave only high nutrient levels + high light there ... and see what happens.

So if I fundamentally misinterpret the facts and data, please, can you show me the correct data? I do my best to find out some correct data on these topics at ScienceDirect, Scopus, ProQuest, Whiley and other databases. So I would welcome if you can give me some links to relevant articles or research results.

Marcel


----------



## pepedopolous (31 Dec 2014)

Just some comments from an EI-using hobbyist- not a scientist.

I think Ardjuna has a point about water changes. Both EI (high nutrient) and ADA (low nutrient) methods require weekly 50% water changes which must remove a lot of nutrients/waste, and algae/spores. I know that EI proponents state that the water change is needed to remove 'plant waste products' but what are these products? *Wouldn't these be quickly broken down into basically the same nutrients that we add as fertiliser (nitrates...) ?* Isn't this contradicting the very idea that nutrients don't cause algae? 

OK, perhaps it is ammonia that builds up first but 1) plant's as well as algae can use ammonia as a nutrient, 2) at low pH (<8) free ammonia isn't so toxic right? I know Ceg talks about ammonia signalling dormant 'predator' algae to 'wake up' so perhaps that is the point... 

Secondly, Tom Barr uses Wet/Dry filters with surface-skimming overflows, even though they cause a lot of degassing. ADA recommend aeration overnight. Degassing seem to be really important for stable CO2 and O2 yet how many hobbyists actually use a Wet/Dry filter, air stones or even raise their filter outlets at night as recommended by ADA? As water evaporates and the water level drops, surface disturbance from lily pipes/spraybars increases so many aquariums must be inconsistent in this aspect which will have an effect on CO2 levels.

I'm not a scientist but I know that only science can explain the successes and failures we have. There is no authority in science, just hypotheses and data which support or doesn't support them. In our hobby we have plenty of hobbyist hypotheses but next to no data from controlled experiments where only one variable is examined at a time. Anyway, let's keep this scientific and not personal. 

P


----------



## Marcel G (31 Dec 2014)

I don't believe ammonia itself or ammonia spikes are responsible for algae infestations. Even T.Barr doesn't believe it anymore:


> "I suggested some years ago that NH4 was a cause for GW blooms, and other algae perhaps. This seems false, but the increasing fish loading sure seems to cause algae in every test I've done or seen."


 => see the first post here. Plants are able to remove ammonia very quickly from the water, as they prefer NH4 before NO3. Also me and my friend, we both have 0.2 to 0.3 ppm NH4 in our tank water (= laboratory analysis), and we don't have any algae problems. And beside this, according to algologists most algae in natural water as well as in aquariums are in vegetative state, and not in the form of spores (in dormant state) as some people try to convince us. I analyzed water samples from different tanks many times, and we never found any algae spores ... but we always found many algae cells. What does it mean? That all kinds of algae are already present in our tanks as vegetative cells, just waiting for some coincidence of conditions (enough nutrients, light, time ... no inhibiting factors) to grow.


----------



## Chris Jackson (31 Dec 2014)

I'd like to suggest that doing something such as doubling light intensity or period is always likely to lead to troubles because you're then asking the plants to make an immediate massive adjustment to conditions. If this hobby teaches us anything then perhaps firstly it should be patience because plants respond so slowly to changes so always make slow gradual changes like increasing light very gradually over a week to 10 days.

Could it be that CO2 levels etc. were already very close to what was required but that the added light was simply too much stress for the plants to adapt to quickly enough and so the algae cried whoopeeee?


----------



## Paulo Soares (2 Jan 2015)

Good  morning,
Well, i read all your coments. I think this Co2 issue will never end..
This is what i´m going to do:


I have the Co2 drop cheker coming to a green/yellow only by the end of the day (wich i suposed to be the readings for a couple of hours before as the reagent is not instantaneous).
So I think it´s not enough but ím almost at the point. I think we should get this level (colour of the drop) at list around half of the photoperiod. My lights turn on at 14 hours so i should get that colour at list around 18 hours Pm. Four hours after wich corresponds to the readings of two before.
Now, as we are in the weekend, this morning i increase a bit the co2. Just a little little bit. A single touch in the valve.
By the time i got home i´m going to check the fish. If they are "swimming" at the top of the water then i know i had it right before (wich i doubt). If they doesn´t i´m going to increase a little bit more. And Saturday by the end of the day check again the fish. Repeating this procedure till i find them in the top of the water looking for 02 
By this procedure i will achive maximum level of co2 i can inject. *This should give a unique yellow colour in the drop. No signs of green what so ever.*
By the time this happen i should reduce what i´ve increased before in the morning cause i overcross the maximum level right? But still in this point i´m at the maximum cause i only reduce what i´ve increased in the morning wich is the excess. 
So i will reduce (returning the valve) the same amount corresponding the two days before wich is near the maximum level but not max. it´s almost there. And then check the colour of the drop. If it´s still total yellow than i know i can decrease a bit more. But that is a matter of choice and risk.
As we can´t get an understanding on Co2 and i´m on this fight for quite a long time now, .. I´m going to take the cance, prefer being near the maximum level because by this way i know there will never be less co2 in the tank. I´m giving the most i can.

Do you understand ? Confusing? It´s quite simple, but i don´t know if i write it right to you.

Then i will see if the DIATOMS apeear again.
Big hug


----------



## pepedopolous (2 Jan 2015)

It seems that your pH decreases gradually all through the day. If you have a lot of surface agitation (e.g. from an Eheim Skim 350), then you can add l lot of CO2 but after about 2 hours the pH doesn't increase any more as the injection and surface agitation cause a state of equilibrium. You waste more CO2 but the level is more stable and you also get more O2 to keep the fish happy.

P


----------



## Marcel G (2 Jan 2015)

Paulo, look at this picture:



 
The first chart represents the CO2 levels during 2 days if no aeration is being done.
The second chart represents the CO2 levels during 2 days when I do ripple the surface by spray bars.
As you can see, if your aeration (surface rippling) is not sufficient, then your CO2 concentration will increase slowly, and finally reaches some dangerous levels (80 ppm CO2 in my case at the end of the photoperiod). But if I use surface rippling, part of my CO2 degass, BUT as a result I have very stable CO2 levels during whole photoperiod (see the second chart) => in this case the CO2 concentration remains at 35 ppm during whole photoperiod ... no problems with too high CO2 levels, no problems with my fish.

So if you want a constant CO2 level, then you NEED to use some kind of aeration in your tank! According to my tests, the air stones don't have any measurable impact on CO2 levels, so it is best to use spray bars for the aeration or wet/dry filters.


----------



## Julian (2 Jan 2015)

pepedopolous said:


> It seems that your pH decreases gradually all through the day. If you have a lot of surface agitation , then you can add l lot of CO2 but after about 2 hours the pH doesn't increase any more as the injection and surface agitation cause a state of equilibrium. You waste more CO2 but the level is more stable and you also get more O2 to keep the fish happy.






ardjuna said:


> Paulo, look at this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with this also. My experience has always been that adding CO2 causes my pH to drop indefinitely, it would never stop dropping and was impossible to keep it at a set level.

It took a long time for me to figure out that my surface agitation (although present) was not enough. Now I am using a spray bar just below the water level, my CO2 drops from 8 to 7 and stays there until CO2 turns off, before it would drop as low as 6.2 (200ppm).


----------



## Angelo Kostakis (5 Jan 2015)

thanks guys for the reply. I just ordered ADA aquasoil to handle the high KH and GH. I adjusted the light to 7,5 hours a day and let the CO2 the same way. 
I removed a lot of dead leafs and cut the monte carlo. they start to pearl at the last 2 hours of the day. 

But I'm going to change the substrate because the substrate that i have now contains a lot of silicate. 
Im putting 3a4 bps of CO2 and have a nice rimpling of the surface due to the spray bar. So the fish aren't on the surface of the end of the day.

I will keep you posting and in the meanwhile I'm reading a lot of the forum here   so thanks everyone


----------



## Paulo Soares (8 Jan 2015)

Hi guys, 
Fisrt of all in my name and Angelo´s thanks for reply. 
After all i have writen and said i made that with the co2.. Is on a level that i can´t push more. 
Still, cause of the 9 KH and as i also told before the pH didn´t drop a 1 Ppm . 

Angelo: It drops from 7.6 to 6.8. 
But this doesn´t worry me at all brother, cause with this Kh i (we) wont have to much flutuation in the ph.
The drop is a lime green. Even with this Kh we can reach high levels of co2. *The problem is the time to get it there and how...*

My conclusion after a good looking to the tank: Diffuser!
To get this Co2 level i really need to open the "mouth" of the valve cause my diffuser is a pretty good blahblahblahblah.. . and i can´t increase more flow to the tank cause i dont´want to see the plants doing the mambo dance inside. And yes the Outflow does move the water doing aeration also. 

So Angelo: as regarding the Co2 and flow my opinion is the same i allready give to other friends of us.

If i don´t buy a very good difuser/reactor to really break the co2 i or we wont´t get there.Cause if you have large bubbles coming from your difuser you will have losses of co2 and hard time to dissolve it in the tank. 
The more the bubbles are break inside the difuser the best. Like dust coming out is perfect, cause than yes the co2 is imediately dissolved and become as part integrated of the water, as soon as he comes out of the difuser, and few losses (almost zero) to the surface. As few losses to the surface of Co2 than you wont have to worry of geting high levels of flow at the surface creating more o2 to fight the co2 coming to the top. 
As of course with Co2 being pretty well integrated as soon he comes out of the difuser, than is in the water itself. And then we wont need an amount of circulation. Just enough to see plants moving a little bit. Just a little bit.

I look at this otherwise: 

The more big bubbles of co2 i have coming of the difuser, the more time i need to force them ciuculating in the botom so they can explode under before getting the surface. And as most people have this issue what they do? 
More flow! To force them being in the bottom cause they need more time to explode/dissolve.... 

This is my opinion. And this is what i will change The Diffuser!. I allready bought 4 diffuser in the past year..(Aquagro + Gush + Aquaeden + Rhinoxx 5000) and none of them makes what i see in a ADA... 

There we go to a certain lesson i allready have very well presented in my mind..... in this hobby trying to "Save money" is worst then spent imediately.. lesson learned. ADA on it´s way...

Many thanks to all and i will retrive you news.


----------



## GillesF (12 Jan 2015)

Hi all

Interesting discussion 

@ardjuna : do you have a link to that research paper regarding pH and algae? Just out of interest.
And how did you determine that your friend has 15ppm of CO2 in his tank?


----------

