# possible clearer algaue info.



## chilled84 (30 Oct 2009)

http://www.fish-keeper.net/Forum/index.php?/topic/7318-aquarium-algae/



Edit: Fixed that horrid URL  
-SteveUK.


----------



## ceg4048 (30 Oct 2009)

Dude,
         Forget it. The wheels fell off that article during the first sentence. One doesn't need to read any more of that. Have we not explained on this site what you need to do to have a successful planted tank? Is this not good enough? Why comb the web slaking a thirst for self delusional propaganda?

Cheers,


----------



## Midnight (31 Oct 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Why comb the web slaking a thirst for self delusional propaganda?



Maybe to get the views of others?


----------



## ceg4048 (31 Oct 2009)

Which is fine, but have you noticed that those with the "other views" are the ones who constantly have algae? I mean, tell me truly, do you really think that excess NO3/PO4 causes algae? Do you feel that view has value just so that we can raise the flag of democracy? So our members read these other views and get confused as a direct result of conflicting data. I would prefer that we first become adept at the principles of plant growth first, then to demonstrate them to yourself by direct application of those principles in your tank. Sure, there are many views, but there is only one truth. Learn the truth first. It will protect you from being deceived and confused by the "other views".

Cheers,


----------



## chris1004 (1 Nov 2009)

Hi 

Because I was bored I actually read the whole article and I think your a bit harsh when judging it there Clive. Ok the first paragraph is slightly flawed but is only in referance to non planted tanks and generally very good advice for that type of tank. The rest of the article is preaching exactly the same ethos as is advised on here.

Regards, Chris.


----------



## Jack middleton (1 Nov 2009)

chris1004 said:
			
		

> Hi
> 
> Because I was bored I actually read the whole article and I think your a bit harsh when judging it there Clive. Ok the first paragraph is slightly flawed but is only in referance to non planted tanks and generally very good advice for that type of tank. The rest of the article is preaching exactly the same ethos as is advised on here.
> 
> Regards, Chris.



Whether its a planted tank or not is irrelevant, nitrates and phosphates do not cause algal growth


----------



## JamesC (1 Nov 2009)

Jack middleton said:
			
		

> Whether its a planted tank or not is irrelevant, nitrates and phosphates do not cause algal growth


Actually it makes a massive difference. Have high NO3 and PO4 in a fish tank with no plants and with lots of light can cause massive algae problems. Limiting PO4 and NO3 along with excellent filtering are the way to reduce the algae. Also light makes a large difference. Planted tanks on the other hand need PO4 and NO3 to reduce algae.

I only briefly skimmed the above mentioned article but found it very good.

James


----------



## AdAndrews (1 Nov 2009)

JamesC said:
			
		

> Planted tanks on the other hand need PO4 and NO3 to reduce algae.
> James




At what point does a tank become a planted tank? how much plant mass is needed?


----------



## Midnight (1 Nov 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Which is fine, but have you noticed that those with the "other views" are the ones who constantly have algae?



Does it say somewhere that Niko has algae problems? 



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> I mean, tell me truly, do you really think that excess NO3/PO4 causes algae?
> Cheers,



Actually, I have no idea but It just could be that ithose principles work for Niko. If they do, then I'm open-minded on the subject. I have read similar views elsewhere so presumably these have been formulated out of experience too.

Some of us mere mortals of the aquatic following do listen to what you have to say but don't neccesarily wish to become blind followers of your faith. Every situation is different so different views should be respected, even by gods!


----------



## Jack middleton (1 Nov 2009)

JamesC said:
			
		

> Jack middleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The NO3 and PO4 aren't the trigger though, its the excessive light


----------



## chilled84 (1 Nov 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Which is fine, but have you noticed that those with the "other views" are the ones who constantly have algaue quote]
> actually,. I have not noticed.


----------



## baron von bubba (1 Nov 2009)

Midnight said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



how can ppl who have constantly tried to keep nitrates and phosphates low (and still get algae) say high levels cause algae?
these ppl that still believe NO3 and PO4 cause algae will have tried dosing extra to test this out?
obviously not, otherwise they would then know it to be not true and not continue to spread this "myth"
many ppl on here (and many other forums) dose fairly liberally and do not get algae, that's how we can say it dose not cause algae!
surely this "fact" is no longer worth debating!


----------



## JamesC (1 Nov 2009)

The article was talking about NON PLANTED TANKS.

James


----------



## baron von bubba (1 Nov 2009)

JamesC said:
			
		

> The article was talking about NON PLANTED TANKS.
> 
> James



you are right, the first paragraph that mentioned nitrates and phosphates are not desired was indeed about non planted...........


----------



## plantbrain (1 Nov 2009)

I think I know that guy that wrote it, Malta is not a big place, but they are fairly tight knit group and know the basics pretty good.

Seems reasonable to me.
Not sure why someone would put lots of light on a non planted tank though
I use to and had very high aerated flow across rocks for algae cultivation for Tropheus, Labiobarbus, plecos etc etc.

I like Pithophora, gorgeous bright green furry alga.

Nice bright green easy to grow food source that made the rocks/wood look very natural.

More about prespective and attitude than anything, a weed is simply a plant/algae that is somewhere you do not want it.
In other cases, you might want a nice coat of algae.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Nov 2009)

Midnight said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, OK, I guess I'm suffering from hair trigger response syndrome (HTRS). In any case, I can absolutely guarantee that at no point would I ever have said that anyone should be blind. Actually I would say that I preach just the opposite. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority have been blindly following the faith being preached that nutrients are a causality of algae. What we are saying here is to break that faith by realizing, and by learning the truth. And we can demonstrate breaking that particular blind faith consistently and repeatedly results in healthier plants. Algae control in the planted tank used to be a very speculative affair (and still is in some circles), but now we understand the basics a bit better. The difficulty arises in that there are a multitude of optical illusions which one may easily interpret as a different situation, perhaps requiring a different approach, however, the same principles are at work. Additionally, algae has a variety of causes. So it's very easy for someone to claim that unilateral limiting of nutrients prevents algae and to have it appear to be true. The idea of nutrient limiting _seems_ so intuitive, while the unlimited concept _seems_ counter intuitive. Without understanding and committing to the fundamental principles though, we stray further from the path.



			
				JamesC said:
			
		

> The article was talking about NON PLANTED TANKS.


Thanks for clearing that up mate. HTRS is a killer...

Cheers,


----------

