# green dust algae :(



## Nick16 (17 Jul 2009)

hi guys i have a problem with this and was wondering how to get rid?

i have read....

Description Forms on the glass creating a dusty appearance across the glass. Sometimes so bad you can't see into the tank. 
Cause Low CO2. Low nutrients. Quite common on new setups. 
Removal Easily removed with a magnetic glass scraper or similar. Often reappears very quickly. Allow the algae to run its full cycle by leaving it well alone for 3 weeks. It may become unsightly but just bear with it. Then scrape it all off and do a large water change. Sometimes requires a second treatment to fully clear and leaving it for 4 weeks. Recommended to slightly reduce dosing during treatment. 

....from jamesC's 'The planted tank' 

i think my co2 is fine, i might be able to dose fert regularly, but would cutting down lighting help?


----------



## aaronnorth (17 Jul 2009)

try raising the PO4, but yes, cutting the photperiod helps.
what are you currently fdosing at the minute?


----------



## plantbrain (17 Jul 2009)

I do not think anyone has found any nutrient correlations with GDA, more CO2, and general vigor.
Obviously there are some indirect effects on nutrients on CO2............

So some claim the nutrients are everything, while others have a wide range of nutrients and no reoccurances etc.
I let the algae run it's cource, but I really have not ever had it except in some so so CO2 ppm aquariums.
Those with good CO2 never get it even when inoculated.

Others could get it easily however. The dosing and sediments where identical, light intensity similar as well, but generally higher in two tanks that had GDA. So the CO2 was exacerbated by that likely.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Nick16 (17 Jul 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> try raising the PO4, but yes, cutting the photperiod helps.
> what are you currently fdosing at the minute?



im currently dosing about 4 ml of tpn every other day.
i do have amacro and micro solution mixed up in the cupboard. - do you recommend i dose some of this as well? - if so which?


----------



## aaronnorth (18 Jul 2009)

i would be tempted to raise that slightly, i used to dose 3ml on my 60l daily!
Or you can just dose some of the macro you have,


----------



## Nick16 (18 Jul 2009)

right, okey dokey cheers for the help, so i will dose 3ml a day and maybe up it over time, i dont want to overload it suddenly.


----------



## ch_rubilar (24 Sep 2009)

I disagree with TB.
GDA is related to an imbalance between Po4 and Ca. If you modify your fertilizing about this two macros you will solve your problem in long terms. 

You can read more about this approach in English in this post about GDA at APC:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...html#post495774

Regards


----------



## baron von bubba (24 Sep 2009)

ch_rubilar said:
			
		

> I disagree with TB.
> GDA is related to an imbalance between Po4 and Ca. If you modify your fertilizing about this two macros you will solve your problem in long terms.
> 
> You can read more about this approach in English in this post about GDA at APC:
> ...



link not work!
thats a bold claim to make! 
so all the ppl who dont get GDA just happen to have randomly got their Po4 and Ca balance correct, considering many ppls only source of Ca would be what ever is in the tap water therefore not controlled in the slightest, this seems very unlikely to me.


----------



## JamesC (24 Sep 2009)

I read the links a few weeks ago and found it quite interesting. For many using tap water it would be quite hard to control as calcium levels are already quite high and can't be altered easily.

You have to leave the 'EI bubble' for it to make any sense.

James


----------



## George Farmer (24 Sep 2009)

ch_rubilar said:
			
		

> I disagree with TB.
> GDA is related to an imbalance between Po4 and Ca. If you modify your fertilizing about this two macros you will solve your problem in long terms.
> 
> You can read more about this approach in English in this post about GDA at APC:
> ...


The link does not work, as it does not include the full URL.


----------



## George Farmer (24 Sep 2009)

Found it...

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/foru ... s-gda.html


----------



## ceg4048 (24 Sep 2009)

Agreed. The claim regarding PO4 vs Ca is absurd. Secondly, Ca is not a macronutrient, it's a micronutrient. Poor CO2 is a fundamentally cause of GDA.
I mean lets get real for a moment: Is anyone seriously considering the authors claim of "generic protocol of the Kno3"? If so, one might as well consider uttering incantations of the Druids of Stonehenge. This so-called protocol may explain why his followers have various algae problems in the first place. Any protocol based on limiting nutrients invites disaster.


			
				aaronnorth said:
			
		

> ...try raising the PO4...


This works sometimes with GSA but not with GDA.

Cheers,


----------



## ch_rubilar (24 Sep 2009)

Sorry about that.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/foru ... s-gda.html

Regards


----------



## ch_rubilar (24 Sep 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Agreed. The claim regarding PO4 vs Ca is absurd


Well, there seems to be a misunderstanding. There is not Ca vsus Po4, I suggest an imbalance related to Ca plus Po4, too much of both relating to No3 and Mg. Before TB excess was a common word used to describe algae cause. TB discovers that to talk about excess is wrong and he propose that the lack of nutrients is the cause of algae. I believe that both concepts, lack or excess are incomplete. At the MDC (MCI) I explain why we should talk about imbalances. Sometimes there is a lack, other times is an excess but not in absolute terms but relative, they are related to another macro/micro: Ca:Mg; No3o4, etc.
At the MDC I have identify certain algae with certain imbalances. The solution I propose had been used succesfully in reality instead of simple speculation.
If my assert is absurd for you, I think that you need more than a claim of one sentence to explain why. I intrigued.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Secondly, Ca is not a macronutrient, it's a micronutrient



That's irrelevant in this debate but, if you like, you can correct my typos mistakes too.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Poor CO2 is a fundamentally cause of GDA.



Interesting claim. Primitive but interesting. If you read the MDC, you will find that proper amount of Co2 is identify as a pre rrequisite. Proper amount of Co2 for me is just a little bit before shrimp became to be disturb.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> I mean lets get real for a moment: Is anyone seriously considering the authors claim of "generic protocol of the Kno3"? If so, one might as well consider uttering incantations of the Druids of Stonehenge. This so-called protocol may explain why his followers have various algae problems in the first place. Any protocol based on limiting nutrients invites disaster.



Mmmmmmm, as an argumentation is quite low, cheap and false.
Lets see, everybody can read the thread at APC and take they own idea. At Dr.pez we were using this method for several years with positive feedback. The positive feedback at APC show that there is no the "disastre" you claim.  



			
				aaronnorth said:
			
		

> ...try raising the PO4...This works sometimes with GSA but not with GDA.


Here we agree.

Regards


----------



## ch_rubilar (24 Sep 2009)

baron von bubba said:
			
		

> ch_rubilar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I answer tomorrow, I have to go.


----------



## plantbrain (24 Sep 2009)

ch_rubilar said:
			
		

> Well, there seems to be a misunderstanding. There is not Ca vsus Po4, I suggest an imbalance related to Ca plus Po4, too much of both relating to No3 and Mg. Before TB excess was a common word used to describe algae cause. TB discovers that to talk about excess is wrong and he propose that the lack of nutrients is the cause of algae. I believe that both concepts, lack or excess are incomplete. At the MDC (MCI) I explain why we should talk about imbalances.



Imbalanced with respect to plants, or algae?
Algae appears for 2 reasons near as I can tell, an inducement, say poor plant growth(limited CO2/carbon balance), maybe NH4 spike etc, too much light and imbalanced there with the general growth model of aquatic plants. Or introduction(say Cladophora added).

Imbalance with respect to plants, I agree.



> Sometimes there is a lack, other times is an excess but not in absolute terms but relative, they are related to another macro/micro: Ca:Mg; No3o4, etc.



You are leaving out Carbon, CO2.
You should treat it as a nutrient, the plant cannot utilize the other nutrients if the Carbon is limited.
also, if you strongly limit PO4, then there is a strong dependency effect on CO2.
You trade one limitation for another, basically going from a strong CO2 limitation to a stronger PO4 limitation.

Plants are fine if they good CO2/carbon supply relative to the most limiting factor.

This is nothing new and goes back to Liebig's law of limiting factors, this is true for submsered aquatic plants also, just we have the added huge factor of Carbon added that is not present with terrestrial plants.
As most all aquatic species are amphibious and grow out of water as well , we can test this easily with hydroponics and different nutrient solutions independent of CO2 since the exchange rates are 10,000X faster(eg, no CO2 limitation).

Have you done this over a wide range for nutrients and measured biomass?
I have.

Without a reference aquarium control, you have nothing to compare inducement of algae or suggest possibles causes for algae. You have to have a control and the control in the first place to even do the test.

Plant growth issues are dependent for an algae bloom.
So many already have some issue there(light, CO2, maintenance, nutrients).
Put another way, plants define the system, not nutrients or algae.
This might help you think about what is occurring better and how to test better to answer your questions.



> At the MDC I have identify certain algae with certain imbalances. The solution I propose had been used succesfully in reality instead of simple speculation.
> If my assert is absurd for you, I think that you need more than a claim of one sentence to explain why. I intrigued.



I think I understand what you are saying here.
Using algae and specific species as Bioindicators of problems in gross terms.
BBA= poor CO2, GSA= low PO4 or CO2(or both, there may be more than one cause) and so on.........

I think many do this and have for a long time.
Algae does not lie and test what many are having issues with.

I think, I may be wrong, that what you suggest is pushing the nutrients to provide a strongly limiting PO4 situation over time. This leads to a GSA state in the aquarium which is relatively easy to get rid of. This method cures the present issue of various algae.

The reason why this works is indirect on algae however, it directly affects CO2 in plants by going from a strong/mild CO2 limitation to a more stable CO2/carbon demand since the PO4 now is the limiting factor, see Liebig's limiting factor the reference to this. If you treat CO2 as a nutrient, then it makes sense.

It also explains all of the observed patterns on aquariums that are non limiting, as well as why we see algae come and go when PO4 is limited and perhaps other nutrients.

Still, algae are not limited in either case, low PO4 or high.
I think many make that mistake.

This is not an algae effect, they are secondary effect of poor plant growth status with respect to Carbon.
So it's really an issue of plant growth, not algae.

Algae spores and vegetative cells will respond to various stimuli and environment cues, poor plant growth seems to be the largest one near as I can tell and the most universal. I've ruled out nutrients. Light and CO2 seem to be the larger players.




> Interesting claim. Primitive but interesting. If you read the MDC, you will find that proper amount of Co2 is identify as a pre rrequisite. Proper amount of Co2 for me is just a little bit before shrimp became to be disturb.



Well, if good CO2 is part of it, how might we ensure that it is?
How do we measure such an elusive macro nutrient that is required for pretty much everything?
Drop checker?
pH/KH/CO2 charts?
Riccia pearling?

The last one seems best and is in line with what you are after I think.
Most methods do not tell you what the CO2 is really doing at a precise level.
I have a 3000$ CO2 meter, it data logs as well.
Here's a typical 1 day level:





CO2 is not added at night.

Various plants also have different CO2 compensation points, with 300+ species, this can have large effects on what might be good CO2 for some tanks/plants and what is not for another.

Not so simple.

I've never been able to sustain and induce GDA with a good reference planted tank.
Never.
Not once.

If I inoculated the tank and then reduced the CO2 and increased the light, viola.
Algae.

It took longer to eradicate the algae(2-3 weeks) after the bloom occured and the CO2 was returned to the higher rate and the light was reduced. Once the algae took hold, it will hang on and the balance requires more energy/effort to get back to the prior state.

This is true in restoration ecology as well.
Fixing aquariums algae issues is a lot like restoration Ecology.  




			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> I mean lets get real for a moment: Is anyone seriously considering the authors claim of "generic protocol of the Kno3"? If so, one might as well consider uttering incantations of the Druids of Stonehenge. This so-called protocol may explain why his followers have various algae problems in the first place. Any protocol based on limiting nutrients invites disaster.



No, not really.
What about light?
PO4?

Sure we get GSA, but we can up the CO2, or add more PO4 later.

I agree that the method works to rid more noxious algae species.
I'm not sure it addresses plant growth correctly and Carbon demand however.
Still, as long as those are addressed at some point, then the path to getting there matters less.

I prefer less light to reduce Carbon demand and algae growth.
It works no matter what method of nutrients you chose.

PMDD was based on this same type of idea, but the method Chrubilar is suggesting is more radical. It is far less conservative than PMDD and suggest ramping up the KNO3 dosing much more to induce a strong PO4 limitation.
That in effect causes a downstream effect on CO2 demand.




> At Dr.pez we were using this method for several years with positive feedback. The positive feedback at APC show that there is no the "disastre" you claim.



Agreed.
PMDD also showed good results for algae control as well and has a long history, so does PPS....however, why they claim it works is quite another matter. Like this method, GSA is the common end result.
They all drive PO4 limitation in plants, not algae.
That has downstream effects on Carbon and all the other nutrients.

These hypothesis as to why can be tested and falsified.
That is the issue I have with them. Not whether or not that they "work". Understanding why they work is of much more usefulness and interest to me and the aquarium hobby at large.

You have to test you claim and reason why to verify it, other wise you are only looking at one side of the coin, situation.
That leaves yourself open for mistakes.

When I do these test, I often find that the person making the claim has little knowledge of how to even do such test.
Little idea about the methods, and often does not test their claims. Paul Sears left himself wide open, but he admitted it and said it was a good idea based on what was known at the time.
And it was, just turned out to be wrong.
So why does EI and PMDD both work to varying degrees?

That's an interesting question and CO2 and light play a huge role.



> "Aaron said:...try raising the PO4...This works sometimes with GSA but not with GDA.
> Here we agree.
> 
> Regards



Ditto

Hopefully this clarifies some things about what Chrubilar is saying here.
I might have some of it wrong etc in the general idea.

I do not buy the issues with Ca and Mg etc, the effects of limiting NO3 or PO4 or both are well known on CO2 and carbon allocation demand in plants.

Gerloff's(1966) paper is a good place to read for NO3.
EI is what they basically came up with(30 years before me) for the nutrient mix.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (24 Sep 2009)

Folks, Chrubilar is trying to help and the method may help a person get rid of the GDA for some, others might be able to use less light, others might be able to use better CO2 management.

Nutrient management can offer some respite, but we should realize that manipulative dosing will affect other parameters such as light use, and CO2 demand and allocation when doing so.

Many aquarist cannot manage CO2 for the life of them.
Some are unwilling to reduce their light.

Some try but still cannot get it right, these are human issues however.
The methods do not fail, we do.
Left with few options, having more tools available can save a few folks.
Using another tool to do that is welcomed.
Why that tool works is much more prickly question and we can and should test and debate those types of issues.

Answering that leads to better understanding of plants, algae and why things work.
This in turn, leads to better management no matter what goal or method is done.
If we know the basis of the algae, plant growth etc, then we can plan and test much more and more focus on the issues that we have.

I start with light, then go to CO2. I measure and test both carefully.
I read and look for evidence both in aquariums and in research.
"What can I know and say about some topic?"

I started with nutrients years ago, but my view on light and CO2 was simplistic then.
I ADDED more because I have 2x the light Paul Sears and Steve had.
Common sense reasoning.

But now I know more, I see that algae are never limited.
So why do they grow then?
Maybe it's more a plant issue and perhaps light, rather than CO2/nutrients is the limiting factor.
All the evidence I've ever read suggest this.

Light drives <=> CO2 demand <=> drives nutrient demand.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## George Farmer (24 Sep 2009)

Phew!  Thank goodness I don't get algae...    

Seriously though, interesting topic guys.  Thanks for contributing.  I look forward to following this, as I'm sure Mr Rubilar will reply soon enough.


----------



## Nick16 (24 Sep 2009)

i would just like to nip in here and say that i did manage to get my GDA sorted through cuting down of lighting and a slight upping of ferts and co2. 
about a week or two after it cleared up i sold the tank to make way for my new project.... 

you may resume now     its really interesting, cheers guys


----------



## plantbrain (24 Sep 2009)

You will also note, a global view of algae and plant growth gives you far more tools to manage algae.
I also try some rather simple concepts when dealing with algae issues.

GDA: 
1. Ecology life history view, allowing it to complete it's life history as a zoospore before trying to control it has proven effective if the CO2 issue was corrected. Some reported regrowth, after 2-3 cycles, virtually none did.

2. Blackout for 3 days, followed by 2 days or lights+ good CO2, followed by BO for 3 days, followed by 2-3 days to lights + CO2, followed by another 3 day blackout etc(can be repeated many times). This allows for plants to survive, and the algae to just start to regrow again before being killed repeated by lack of light. This works particularly well for green algae.

3. Less light, cut in 1/2. cures many algae issues alone.

4. Up the CO2, clean good, run UV.

All these methods haved worked well.

Strongly limiting P? I see no reason why it might not work specifically for green algae.
Green algae tend to grow in high nutrients much like plants.
Most other species die off when more PO4 is added.
See here, (specifically 22, 24, 25 slides)
http://www.fiu.edu/~algae/resources/per ... nglish.pdf

To be biligual:
http://www.fiu.edu/~algae/resources/per ... spanol.pdf 

GSA is the exception within the green algae. It does not appear to like higher PO4 but that is CO2 dependent also.
Cladophora will grow nicely at high nutrient levels however.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (24 Sep 2009)

ceg4048,

I still have a serious issue with the Ca balance PO4 baloney.

This is not about EI vs this method or any method, this is about the basics of plant growth.
This is not "new", the principles applied to terrestrial and aquatics have not changed.
Nor have test or protocols to assess growth.

Liebig's law seems lost and the interaction between limiting a nutrient and that affect on CO2.
I KNOW folks have troubles measuring and ensuring CO2 is correct.

So it's hard at best to say much without knowing the CO2 status.
You can fiddle with nutrients all day and find some correlation, but it does not prove what you claim.
It just says there is some relationship, correlation does not imply cause.

If we mess with PO4 and Ca, which I have over enormous ranges, far more than I have even seem anyone else do on line after 15 years, why does the algae not appear?

Same type of thing with folks that claim low PO4 = no algae, algae are limited etc, and yet the other side is to test your hypothesis by trying to FALSIFY IT.

Chrubilar, you have not tried to falsify this near as I can tell anywhere.
If you have, please detail what you did to try and induce a negative response?

I want some hard ppm numbers for this range and some pictures of the tanks tested.
Not anything else.

I have gone from 4ppm Ca and 6ppm PO4, to 140ppm Ca and -0.4ppm of PO4, a ratio difference of PO4 to Ca 1:1.5 to  1:350, over 500x the range of PO4 to Ca.

I think that covers most common Ca levels  in aquariums.
PO4 we can move around, but as it becomes limiting(or Ca), the effects on CO2 become more problematic and dependent.

Do you have a protocol to ensure and verify CO2 is non limiting in both situations?
I've not read anything that suggest you do or measured light.

These are strongly dependent factors.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## CeeJay (24 Sep 2009)

Hi Tom
That's what I love about this place, people like yourself who have gathered evidence over many years and are willing to take the time to share it with people like myself, who are fairly new to the planted tank hobby.
It's certainly helping me out no end, by not making mistakes that were made by many in years gone by.
Thanks for your input.
Much appreciated. 


Chris.


----------



## ceg4048 (25 Sep 2009)

plantbrain said:
			
		

> ceg4048,
> 
> I still have a serious issue with the Ca balance PO4 baloney.
> 
> ...


Exactly. I too have gone from low Ca to high Ca relative to PO4 and have never had a problem as long as CO2 and the rest of the nutrients were unlimited (to the best of my ability to keep it so). I agree that it's not about EI versus some other method, but about basic physiology versus speculative analysis. As you point out, most of us have trouble controlling the myriad of environmental variables enough to isolate specific causal factors with any degree of consistency. And I won't even go into the issue of the measurement technology because this is a can of worms. 

I won't argue with methods which are opposed to or are inconsistent with EI, but I will argue with the reasons of those methods when they clearly violate the standard physiological principles of plant growth.



			
				ch_rubilar said:
			
		

> There is not Ca vsus Po4, I suggest an imbalance related to Ca plus Po4, too much of both relating to No3 and Mg.... If my assert is absurd for you, I think that you need more than a claim of one sentence to explain why. I intrigued.


Here is the reason why it's absurd: As I mentioned before (when I use the word versus I am implying ratio, or "balance" as you call it, so that PO4 vs Ca implies the ratio of PO4 to Ca) I have already demonstrated that that I can have as much Ca or PO4 as I want in relation to NO3 without any adverse effect. So this isn't a matter of a one sentence claim - it's a matter of the empirical evidence growing plants. So as Barr says, you need to explain why an algae free tank can be grown even when exceeding the limits of your protocol. I can hold the dosing of all other nutrients constant and vary the PO4. By doing so, the only way in which algae appears in the tank is if I fall below some minimum value. And guess what? The algae that does appear won't be GDA.



			
				ch_rubilar said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the most primitive of assertions: Ascribing the minimum level of CO2 for a plant based on the CO2 toxicity level of an animal. I mean, do you really think that the plant cares about the fish/shrimp? Have you ever considered that for some lighting conditions, the level of CO2 required for undisturbed plant growth might be higher than what certain fauna can tolerate? So, unilaterally defining "proper" levels of CO2 based on shrimp is further evidence of Druid philosophy.



			
				ch_rubilar said:
			
		

> Lets see, everybody can read the thread at APC and take they own idea. At Dr.pez we were using this method for several years with positive feedback. The positive feedback at APC show that there is no the "disastre" you claim.


Many people claim to have great success not dosing nutrients for example. If you understand the fundamental biology of plants you'll know that zero nutrients cannot possibly work, just as zero breakfasts, lunches, or dinners can't possibly help your tissues to grow.  So the answer seems clear; we know that test kits are inaccurate and we know that tap water is frequently full of nutrients. Have you considered that when someone reports measuring 3ppm NO3 that they may actually have 20ppm and not know it? Is it possible that the sediment might have nutrients as well? Plant growth and health must come from somewhere and it does not come from starvation. Lowering the light has immediate effects in nutrient demand and uptake, water changes always helps by removing organic waste and algal spores. So it would be very easy to have the illusion that limiting nutrients somehow did the trick. What you have yet to explain is why the reverse procedure i.e. unlimiting nutrients while violating your balancing concept has no detrimental effects.


Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain (25 Sep 2009)

In other words, look at both sides of the coin, test your own hypothesis and see if it holds true with a reference planted aquarium.

If you are willing to do that, then you really cannot test much of anything and verify it.
All you can say is that there appears to be a relationship, without saying why in your conclusion.
It could be for a dozen reasons, without going back to induce the algae, you have no way of knowing cause(s).

You can go on and on, but without being willing to induce the algae of interest, there's little that can be said.
Many methods like to tell aquarist what they want to hear, but that does not imply they are correct in their conclusions and rational.

Most often some cure all for algae.
I can say the same thing about EI "curing algae" and state for the record it cured many aquariums for decades now.

However, it never cured algae.
I've been smart enough to never say that.

It focused on plant growth only.
And because it is a higher level for all nutrients, it runs into conflict when folks limit one thing and have dependency on other factors.

The test is NOT independent.
Without independence, you cannot conclude much as to causes or why, only that there seems to be a relationship. 
From a management perspective, it might work, PMDD worked fine also, but for the wrong reasons.
Plenty of folks used that method, some still do and are happy as well.

It was better than the prior method.

EI is much more a simple reference, much like Hoagland's solution is for hydroponic studies looking at a non limiting reference. It's about 1/5th in strength, which is what Gerloff and Paul K stated here:

http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_11/issue_4/0529.pdf

As far algae, not one aquarist I've met or read seems to know much about anything to do with nutrient limitation methods and chemostats, nor what life history phase is appropriate for testing contro methods, let alone how to identify various species.

I've not met many willing to trash and induce algae into a reference planted tanks either.
 I am. So we have a bunch of folks just trying to maintain their tanks, but unwilling to do any real testing and use methods that are used in research to answer the basic questions.

This leads to huge knowledge gaps between researchers and hobbyists.

I cannot answer why or the cause of inducement for algae with one simple test, it takes many test for each specific potential "cause". Each time I falsify one hypothesis, I get a little bit closer to the real cause or causes.

I've been doing that for 15 years.
 Many folks also have tried various ppm's of this and that.
Not hard to tell if there is something to it or not, often, as is the case for most things, you bark up the wrong tree, but then at least know what not to look for.

So that is good information. Most of the contention with EI and other methods tends to come from my falsifying their claims.

They do not like that and poo poo me for that.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## GreenNeedle (25 Sep 2009)

Just to add.  I have not had GDA on the glass since my early days of unstable CO2.  This is with EI but higher PO4 dosing.  I have no control over Ca as being in Lincolnshire my water is liquid Ca.  Each week I have to quite literally use a window scraper to remove a pretty hard 'chalklike' line from the perimeter of the tank.

So my tank has excess everything with even more PO4 and more Ca than is needed.

I have tiny amounts of GSA on some Anubias but nowhere else.  There are no other species of algae visible in the tank as Saintly can vouch for 

I will se what happens now that I have converted to non CO2.  The tank will now be getting no water changes and therefore no added Ca apart from top ups.  Hopefully that no water changes means hardly any Ca being added the chalk lines will reduce because I scrape them into the tank water and therefore I assume the Ca will eventually get used up. 

Dosing is now:
10% EI KNO3
20% EI KH2PO4
5% EI traces.

AC


----------



## ch_rubilar (26 Sep 2009)

I apologize but I will have some free time for answering on monday. Regads


----------

