# Sorry -yet another question about BBA



## John P Coates (16 Aug 2014)

I am beginning to see what I have identified as BBA growing mostly on the leaf edges of my slow-growing plants, rocks and driftwood. There is none on the substrate (JBL Manado). From doing some research on this site and elsewhere, it seems that growth of BBA (Audouinella) is caused by an imbalance of lighting and CO2.

The lighting in my tank varies from 30 - 100 PAR, measured at the topmost leaves of the plants. The CO2 level varies from 5 - 15 ppm from morning to night. My suspicion is that the CO2 level is too low. The CO2 is switched off at night by means of a solenoid valve. The light is on for 11 hours per day.

I don't particularly want to increase CO2 concentration so I'm wondering if the answer to the BBA problem would be to reduce the light intensity and/or the photoperiod. Or, do not switch the CO2 off at night and keep it at around 15 ppm.

Any advice would be appreciated.

JPC


----------



## James O (16 Aug 2014)

11hrs is one hell of a photoperiod.  7 or 8 would be plenty


----------



## John P Coates (16 Aug 2014)

James O said:


> 11hrs is one hell of a photoperiod.  7 or 8 would be plenty


Thanks, James. Really appreciate the reply.

Somewhere in the past, I've had the figure of 10 - 12 hours in my head. Out of interest, do you define the photoperiod as the time the lights are on full, i.e. excluding ramp-up and ramp-down?

JPC


----------



## EnderUK (16 Aug 2014)

7-8 total, probably with 1-2 hours of ramp up and ramp down. If you are at 100 par at substrate then you probably want a longer ramp up time. 50 par at substrate is enough for most plants.


----------



## James O (16 Aug 2014)

All plants need a certain specific minimum amount of light to get going.  Once you hit that it's all good, but don't forget there's the variance according to available light as well.   

If your ramp up/down is not excessively long then I'd count it all.  7-8hrs is plenty.  Just run it when it suits your viewing time best


----------



## EdwinK (16 Aug 2014)

Algae, any kind, is a sign of imbalance between CO2 and light. In this case plants are not receiving enough one of the most important nutrient (carbon) to the given amount of light.


----------



## Henry (17 Aug 2014)

Is there any particular reason for not wanting to raise the CO2 levels? As I'm sure you've read, 30ppm is preferable.


----------



## Iain Sutherland (17 Aug 2014)

hey john, you are right in that BBA is caused by CO2 imbalance but saying that BBA is certainly more prone to appear when co2 is unstable.
I would suggest as the guys have said above...
Reduce the light, personally i like 6 when algae is around and that includes ramp up/down 
Start a process of scrubbing the tank regularly, keeping it clean with help a lot
Spot dose the BBA with liquid carbon during WC, it will never go away even once the issue is fixed.
Increase your co2, and here is the important bit with bba, it must be lime green at lights on and stay that way until lights off.
Adding an SAE will stop it from reappearing, no guarantee but very effective.

Simple things like not maintaining consistent water level will cause an outbreak, if you let it go up and down the amount of de-gassing from surface agitation will also change meaning unstable co2 levels. Also if using a reactor, changing the filter output will effect co2 dissolution.  whether that is cleaning a filter or turning it up down it makes a big difference.

Good luck


----------



## Spnl (17 Aug 2014)

I have had more experience of BBA than I have ever wanted, and would agree with everything above. I have never had it in a non CO2 tank.
The conventional wisdom is that it is triggered by varying CO2 levels. In my tanks it seems to have occurred at moderate CO2 levels, and not when I get the levels up where they should be.
Although it seems common sense that any additional CO2 must be helpful, it does seem to me that intermediate levels (10-20ppm sort of thing) predispose the tank to BBA. 
Maybe CO2 injection is all or nothing!

In addition to what others have suggested for treatment, if the BBA is widespread you could use the "1 2 Punch " treatment, which combines hydrogen peroxide and glutaraldehyde. It clears BBA from the whole tank very effectively and is safe to fish and shrimps (but not moss), but it does nothing about the underlying cause.


----------



## John P Coates (17 Aug 2014)

Henry said:


> Is there any particular reason for not wanting to raise the CO2 levels? As I'm sure you've read, 30ppm is preferable.


Hi Henry,

I could increase the CO2 concentration as I have an excellent diffuser (Bazooka) but if the CO2 is then switched off at night, that will give rise to bigger variations than if I opt for figures in the 10 - 15 ppm range. Plus, many of my plants are growing rapidly anway. I have an H. Guaniensis (sp?) that has tripled in size in just three months.

JPC[DOUBLEPOST=1408280528][/DOUBLEPOST]





Iain Sutherland said:


> BBA is certainly more prone to appear when co2 is unstable.
> 
> Spot dose the BBA with liquid carbon during WC, it will never go away even once the issue is fixed.



Hi Iain,

Thanks for the feedback.

Just want to pick up on your points above.

(1) How stable does CO2 need to be? Should it be switched off at night? You would appear to do just that.

(2) Today, I have ordered some Seachem Flourish Excel.

JPC


----------



## Iain Sutherland (17 Aug 2014)

Having it go off at night is a good idea because it saves money and there is a higher risk of gassing livestock at night when the plants also produce co2. 

Algae and plants will only photosynthesise when light is available.


----------



## John P Coates (17 Aug 2014)

James O said:


> All plants need a certain specific minimum amount of light to get going.


Hi again James,

Can you give me some guidance on a minimum light level to aim for? I realize that different plants have different lighting needs but it would be helpful to have a ballpark figure. In PAR terms, are we talking 30, 50, 100 or what?

JPC[DOUBLEPOST=1408281594][/DOUBLEPOST]





Iain Sutherland said:


> Having it go off at night is a good idea because it saves money and there is a higher risk of gassing livestock at night when the plants also produce co2.
> 
> Algae and plants will only photosynthesise when light is available.


Hi again Iain,

I am fully aware of the points you have made. So, what seems to be important is keeping CO2 stable when the lights are on. You'll have to forgive me. I am a physicist, not a biologist.

JPC


----------



## Iain Sutherland (17 Aug 2014)

We are all learning here john, ask away.
Most important time is the first hour or so. If co2 isn't available when the plants 'wake up' then like a wife they will be in a bad mood all day!


----------



## John P Coates (17 Aug 2014)

Iain Sutherland said:


> We are all learning here john, ask away.
> Most important time is the first hour or so. If co2 isn't available when the plants 'wake up' then like a wife they will be in a bad mood all day!


I love it!

I guess it's a bit like that all-important first cup of coffee in the morning when we awake.

JPC


----------



## James O (17 Aug 2014)

John P Coates said:


> Hi again James,
> 
> Can you give me some guidance on a minimum light level to aim for? I realize that different plants have different lighting needs but it would be helpful to have a ballpark figure. In PAR terms, are we talking 30, 50, 100 or what?
> 
> JPC



I learnt this in a conversation with ceg.  There is a minimum light a plant needs and it's measured in something other than PAR (which is a measure of light visible to us not plants). Maybe someone else can remember units?

The upshot of the conversation was that there are so many variables we simply can't accurately apply a comprehensive rule.  I know some plants are low/med/high light plants and place them accordingly.  Eg. an anubias might not do well 5cm from a monster led setup and a glosso carpet will struggle on deep shade - basically plant as in nature


----------



## Henry (17 Aug 2014)

John P Coates said:


> that will give rise to bigger variations than if I opt for figures in the 10 - 15 ppm range



What kind of variations are you concerned with? CO2 levels, or pH? Neither of them are of any consequence apart from the effect on algae levels (CO2 level variations).


----------



## John P Coates (17 Aug 2014)

James O said:


> There is a minimum light a plant needs and it's measured in something other than PAR (which is a measure of light visible to us not plants).


Hi James,

PAR is photosynthetically active radiation, i.e. 'visible' to plants.

JPC[DOUBLEPOST=1408306475][/DOUBLEPOST]





Henry said:


> What kind of variations are you concerned with? CO2 levels, or pH? Neither of them are of any consequence apart from the effect on algae levels (CO2 level variations).


Hi Henry,

Several people on this thread have commented that variations in CO2 concentration can contribute to BBA. And that's what I have discovered by trawling the internet. I don't believe anyone has mentioned pH. Your second sentence also supports the correlation between algae and CO2 fluctuations. When I was talking about variations, I was thinking more in terms of the variation in CO2 concentration between night and day but it makes sense to me now that this would possibly have no impact on the plants. This is well outside my area of expertise.

I feel that I now have the answers that I need to launch an attack on BBA.

JPC


----------



## Henry (17 Aug 2014)

I'm not questioning any of that. I'm referring to what you said about the variations that will arise once the CO2 is switched off. You expressed concern that the "variation" would be greater at lights off if you raised CO2 to levels higher than 10-15ppm.



John P Coates said:


> if the CO2 is then switched off at night, that will give rise to bigger variations than if I opt for figures in the 10 - 15 ppm range




What I'm asking is, where does your concern lie, and for what reason?


----------



## James O (17 Aug 2014)

John P Coates said:


> Hi James,
> 
> PAR is photosynthetically active radiation, i.e. 'visible' to plants.
> 
> JPC



Told you I wasn't reliable.  Getting myself confused again 

Here's what ceg said:

'Yes, it is a static figure, but it is a different figure for each plant. The minimum amount of light necessary for survival is a value called The Light Compensation Point (LCP). More info in the following threads:
LED Lighting | Page 2 | UK Aquatic Plant Society
Do t8 lights really degrade over time? | UK Aquatic Plant Society
Please look - good for plants ? | UK Aquatic Plant Society
Cheap ASDA Ikea etc light bulbs | UK Aquatic Plant Society
Cheers,'

LCP is what I was on about.  Got a little confused while posting earlier as we had guests (was getting evil looks from Mrs O )


----------



## John P Coates (17 Aug 2014)

Henry said:


> I'm not questioning any of that. I'm referring to what you said about the variations that will arise once the CO2 is switched off. You expressed concern that the "variation" would be greater at lights off if you raised CO2 to levels higher than 10-15ppm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too late in the day. Hope to reply tomorrow.


----------



## Edvet (18 Aug 2014)

As far as i know the importance of  stable high levels of CO2 lies in the beginning hours of the lighting period. If the levels are good in the beginning you don't need a lighting ramp up, keep CO2 levels high till 1 hour before lights out, it may decline then. During the night plants will produce CO2, thus increasing the dangers for fish if you keep CO2 on. Surface agitation will drive out CO2 and increase O2 uptake, there will be a balance between dissolving CO2 by means of  a diffusor and driving it out by means of surface agitation/using a sump. Ideally this balance should lie in the region of 30 ppm (no easy way to measure this).


----------



## John P Coates (18 Aug 2014)

Edvet said:


> As far as i know the importance of  stable high levels of CO2 lies in the beginning hours of the lighting period. If the levels are good in the beginning you don't need a lighting ramp up, keep CO2 levels high till 1 hour before lights out, it may decline then. During the night plants will produce CO2, thus increasing the dangers for fish if you keep CO2 on. Surface agitation will drive out CO2 and increase O2 uptake, there will be a balance between dissolving CO2 by means of  a diffusor and driving it out by means of surface agitation/using a sump. Ideally this balance should lie in the region of 30 ppm (no easy way to measure this).


Hi Edvet,

Thanks for your reply.

You are echoing what Iain was saying. I will provide a 30 minute lighting ramp-up and ramp-down for the benefit of the fish. CO2 solenoid valve timing will be adapted to suit the lighting profile. There is good surface agitation in the tank at all times. One of the reasons I run my tank at 15 ppm CO2 is that I have no intention of harming my precious fish.

JPC[DOUBLEPOST=1408349774][/DOUBLEPOST]





Henry said:


> I'm not questioning any of that. I'm referring to what you said about the variations that will arise once the CO2 is switched off. You expressed concern that the "variation" would be greater at lights off if you raised CO2 to levels higher than 10-15ppm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi Henry,

I'm not sure that I can answer your question adequately. I think I've lost my train of thought that led me to say what I did. But if I have a haha moment and it comes back to me, I'll let you know!

JPC[DOUBLEPOST=1408349926][/DOUBLEPOST]Just want to thank everyone else who replied to my question.

JPC


----------



## Edvet (18 Aug 2014)

John P Coates said:


> 15 ppm CO2 is that I have no intention of harming my precious fish.


15 ppm should be no problem, just adjust your lighting. Remember you'll still need adequate circulation/distribution.
Any pics? What fish are you caring for?


----------



## John P Coates (18 Aug 2014)

Edvet said:


> 15 ppm should be no problem, just adjust your lighting. Remember you'll still need adequate circulation/distribution.
> Any pics? What fish are you caring for?


Edvet,

There is pretty good circulation in my tank. It is 120 litres (nominal) but with substrate, rocks, etc., it is just over 100 litres and the filter is moving 800 litres per hour.

I have no decent quality pics but I'll try to get some together. The fish are a mixture of Dwarf Gouramis, Rosy Tetras, Odessa Barbs and Gold Rams. Plus some nice Corys and, of course, a few otos.

JPC


----------



## John P Coates (19 Aug 2014)

Iain Sutherland said:


> Spot dose the BBA with liquid carbon during WC...


Hi Iain,

With reference to your statement above, I would need to remove 90% of the aquarium water to spot dose some plants. So, my only practical option is to treat the whole tank. Yesterday, I added 2.5ml Flourish Excel to my 100 litres water column. This corresponds to the recommended daily dose for Excel. I will repeat this daily unless you (or anyone else) suggests otherwise. I haven't changed the CO2 injection rate yet because I want to see if the Excel alone will help to kill off the BBA. But, if you feel that I should increase CO2 now, I will.

I was also wondering if it is more effective to add the Excel when the tank lights are on or off.

JPC


----------



## Andy Thurston (19 Aug 2014)

Use a syringe to spot treat with the water in, just turn filters off while you do


----------



## John P Coates (19 Aug 2014)

Big clown said:


> Use a syringe to spot treat with the water in, just turn filters off while you do


I hope to try that tomorrow.

Thanks for that.

JPC


----------



## ceg4048 (20 Aug 2014)

John P Coates said:


> With reference to your statement above, I would need to remove 90% of the aquarium water...


Doing this frequently will be more beneficial, in the long run, than using Excel.

Cheers,


----------



## John P Coates (20 Aug 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Doing this frequently will be more beneficial, in the long run, than using Excel.
> 
> Cheers,


Weekly water changes are now the norm for me and 20% is workable. Anything more than this starts to become a problem. However, if necessity dictates, where there's a will, there's a way! I do not plan to use Excel long-term. Instead, I will increase CO2 injection rate.

JPC


----------



## ceg4048 (20 Aug 2014)

It's important to note that although Excel is toxic against BBA it comes right back if the conditions do not improve. It has been discussed ad nauseum that a pH profile check is one of the better ways to determine the the efficacy of the gas dissolution methods.

If the hobbyist determines that increased CO2 injection rate increase is not viable then efforts must be spent in ensuring that the light intensity is reduced, that the distribution techniques are adequate, that flow is sufficient and that the surface of the leaves are kept as clean as possible. Debris trapped in the biofilm coating the leaves is a substantial barrier to CO2 and nutrient uptake. This is one area that people don't pay enough attention to, and that's actually one of the primary goals of a water change.

Cheers,


----------



## John P Coates (20 Aug 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> It's important to note that although Excel is toxic against BBA it comes right back if the conditions do not improve. It has been discussed ad nauseum that a pH profile check is one of the better ways to determine the the efficacy of the gas dissolution methods.
> 
> If the hobbyist determines that increased CO2 injection rate increase is not viable then efforts must be spent in ensuring that the light intensity is reduced, that the distribution techniques are adequate, that flow is sufficient and that the surface of the leaves are kept as clean as possible. Debris trapped in the biofilm coating the leaves is a substantial barrier to CO2 and nutrient uptake. This is one area that people don't pay enough attention to, and that's actually one of the primary goals of a water change.
> 
> Cheers,


Hi Clive,

Thanks for the informative reply.

Please explain what is meant by the expression 'pH profile check'.

I'm interested in your comment about keeping the surface of the leaves as clean as possible. Is that both upper and lower surfaces? Does CO2 and O2 gas exchange take place on both surfaces? In my tank, I have a small army of Otocinclus fish that do an amazing job of fettling any surface they find, most of their attention being on plant leaves - both upper and lower surfaces. We tend to think of Otos as algae-eaters (which they are) but they are obviously finding other food forms on 'clean' surfaces.

JPC


----------



## Edvet (20 Aug 2014)

John P Coates said:


> 'pH profile check'.


Take a pH reading every 30 minutes with a pH measuring device. This way we can see how the pH reacts to the CO2 administration, this in turn gives a clue about the amount available (better and faster then a dropchecker or those charts) Start before you add CO2 and do till lights out



John P Coates said:


> leaves as clean as possible


rub leaves gently between the fingers thus removing scum/slime, best done while the tank is empty during a big waterchange, leaves will take up large amount of CO2 being in the air. So preferable before lights on.


----------



## John P Coates (20 Aug 2014)

Clive, Edvet,

OK, in that case I have a continuously running pH profile as I use a seneye device logging pH every 30 minutes 24/7. I will see if I can find a way of attaching the graph that it produces.

JPC


----------

