# What exactly causes BBA?



## Zak Rafik

The more I read about BBA, the more I'm getting lost.
It seemed that BBA was a result of not enough Co2 or fluctuating levels of Co2, at least that's what I have read here many many times in this forum.

But I cam across this info at http://www.gwapa.org/articles/algae/ and it states this about BBA :

_Black brush, or BBA, algae can be one of a number of specific genera of “red” algae in the Rhodophyta family. Most of the algae in this family are actually marine, but a few freshwater species exist that particularly target our planted aquariums. This algae may be black, brown, red, or green in coloration, and can quickly coat your plants and hardscape if not kept in check.
_
*Cause:*


_Nutrient Imbalance - *potentially excess N, P, Fe. Strive for the following nutrient levels: N (10-20ppm), P (0.5-2ppm), K (10-20ppm), Ca (10-30ppm), Mg (2-5ppm), Fe (.1ppm).*_
_Low pH - Neil Frank observes that African Rift tanks never have BBA. It’s believed that BBA thrives in acidic environments, which is unfortunately what most plants prefer._
*Cure:*


_Increase CO2 - This will stimulate plant growth, which should help the plants out-compete the algae for resources._
_Excel/H202 treatment - Use a syringe to spot treat problem areas. Then manually remove when BBA turns grey/white._
_Manual removal - Use toothbrush to remove as much as possible._
_Bleach treatment - Dip affected hardscape items/hardy plants in a bleach/water solution using a 1:20 ratio of bleach to water. Before putting them back into the tank, make sure the item is free of bleach odor._
_OxiClean treatment - Dip affected hardscape items in a OxiClean solution, making sure you only use the original OxiClean with no other additives._
_Maintain proper water change/dosing schedule - weekly / bi-weekly changes._
_Algae Crew - Siamese Algae Eaters (SAE) and Amano shrimp are known to eat this algae._
_Copper (not recommended) - There are commercial algaecides containing copper that will kill BBA, but they will mostly likely also kill your plants._

From the above, am I right to say that the advice to up the levels of Co2 in the tank is basically to boost the growth of plants so that they can overtake the algae in nutrient uptake? 
Its not the low Co2 but excess nutrients in the tank that actually promotes BBA?

Anyone?


----------



## Julian

BBA is caused by too much light and fluctuating CO2 levels in my own experience.


----------



## karla

The nutrient imbalance theory is likely to start an argument, in my experience. Lol.


----------



## kirk

karla said:


> The nutrient imbalance theory is likely to start an argument, in my experience. Lol.


      I disagree


----------



## Andy Thurston




----------



## Colinlp

kirk said:


> I disagree


Complete and utter rubbish!


----------



## Andy Thurston




----------



## kirk

Colinlp said:


> Complete and utter rubbish!


----------



## Zak Rafik

guys what's happening here. I just see smilies.


----------



## Andy Thurston

English humour


----------



## Marcel G

If you want to know anything serious about algae, then don't ask on the aquatic forums but ask the experts (algologists) who specialize on algae. I must laugh whenever I read the matra "BBA is caused by too much light and fluctuating (or low) CO2 levels". It's nothing more than pure belief => religious belief based on no scientific data. I could show you several tanks with high light levels (100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate) and low CO2 levels (10-15 ppm), yet without any visible algae.
_BTW, BBA prefers a pH in the range of 8.5 to 6.5, so it's not true that it prefers acidic water._


----------



## kirk

ardjuna said:


> If you want to know anything serious about algae, then don't ask on the aquatic forums but ask the experts (algologists) who specialize on algae. I must laugh whenever I read the matra "BBA is caused by too much light and fluctuating (or low) CO2 levels". It's nothing more than pure belief => religious belief based on no scientific data. I could show you several tanks with high light levels (100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate) and low CO2 levels (10-15 ppm), yet without any visible algae.
> _BTW, BBA prefers a pH in the range of 8.5 to 6.5, so it's not true that it prefers acidic water._


   that's interesting, what did you learn from the algologist?  or am I mistaken and you are one? It Would be great if you shared the facts proof / info as I'd like to crank my light through the roof and save some co2 and also people can throw away there twinstars.

What is causing my algae when I turn my lights up.?


----------



## Julian

ardjuna said:


> If you want to know anything serious about algae, then don't ask on the aquatic forums but ask the experts (algologists) who specialize on algae. I must laugh whenever I read the matra "BBA is caused by too much light and fluctuating (or low) CO2 levels". It's nothing more than pure belief => religious belief based on no scientific data. I could show you several tanks with high light levels (100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate) and low CO2 levels (10-15 ppm), yet without any visible algae.
> _BTW, BBA prefers a pH in the range of 8.5 to 6.5, so it's not true that it prefers acidic water._


I'd very much like to see these tanks, I think you should show everyone, so we might learn something constructive. Rather than listen to you boasting about your superior knowledge on the subject, and advising the OP to disregard all the users on this forum.


----------



## karla

I warned you...... Here it comes.


----------



## Andy Thurston

ardjuna said:


> BTW, BBA prefers a pH in the range of 8.5 to 6.5, so it's not true that it prefers acidic water.


 strange I'm starting to get it at ph 5.5/5.6, i just put it down to poor maintenance on my part when i keep my tank clean and topped up I dont get it but when I let the water level fall and dont add nutrients it comes out in force. is this going to be another  low phosphates argument
personally I think its a combination of a few factors that cause it


----------



## parotet

Big clown said:


> personally I think its a combination of a few factors that cause it


Completely agree... But also with Marcel (aka Ardjuna), in my opinion it's more complex than just the canned answer 'too much light and poor co2'. I recognize that most of the times this fact may be behind the problem, but other management/chemistry aspect are closely related.

Jordi


----------



## ourmanflint

I did an experiment a while back on one of my tanks that suffers from BBA and GBA, I read in Diane Walstads book about blue light reducing iron in substrates so made available to nasty algae. To test this I placed a colour correcting gel from Lee Filters above the tank, which cut out about 98% of blue spectrum light. The algae growth slowed significantly, and to normalise the test I removed the gel about a month ago and growth went back to previous. ie out of control.
Cheers
Rod


----------



## Jose

Ardjunas cases of high light and low co2 w/o algae is explained because low phosphates is limitting co2 demmand. If you limit growth via phosphate limititation, then the co2 demand from the plant is also very low. So the plant doesnt suffer too much at high light and algae doesnt appear.

Yet high nutrients isnt the cause either due to the many EI tanks there are as proof for this.

Probably low co2, non limitting phosphates (thus not limitting co2 uptake indirectly), and high light for the co2 level seems to add up as a cause, simply because this damages the plant.

I agree with Ardjuna on one thing though. This isnt probably the place where youll find the answer for this.


----------



## Zak Rafik

ourmanflint said:


> I did an experiment a while back on one of my tanks that suffers from BBA and GBA, I read in Diane Walstads book about blue light reducing iron in substrates so made available to nasty algae. To test this I placed a colour correcting gel from Lee Filters above the tank, which cut out about 98% of blue spectrum light. The algae growth slowed significantly, and to normalise the test I removed the gel about a month ago and growth went back to previous. ie out of control.
> Cheers
> Rod


That's what many here tell too about bluish light encouraging algae but then again it 50% saying YES and the other 50% saying NO. Each have their valid arguments. Then its back to square one.


----------



## EnderUK

pfft what has sciene ever done for us?


----------



## parotet

Another problem is that lots of us (including me) state this and that, but few of us (not me) have enough scientific background and/or reliable experimental data to support the statements. But wait... this is the internet, isn't it?  just find a soapbox from where you can shout it loud

Now seriously, +1 for UKAPS and its technical level. You don't know how far from this are most of the forum I visit in my country

Jordi


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> Another problem is that lots of us (including me) state this and that, but few of us (not me) have enough scientific background and/or reliable experimental data to support the statements. But wait... this is the internet, isn't it?  just find a soapbox from where you can shout it loud



+1. This applys for 99% of people including myself. But then again you stop to think, Is there really any reliable info out there to explain algae behaviour? No, they are all theories for now. Nothing we know for sure. Probably the main source of knowledge is aquarists experiences.

I myself think that Tom Barr is one of the very very few who at least has taken the time to explain things. His theories seem to make a lot of sense. He has contributed the most to the hobby. But yet people seem to have something against him (not always), and I feel overwhelmed when I talk about him. People get personal and this and that.

I just dont get it.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> Probably the main source of knowledge is aquarists experiences.


Don't agree mate. There are plenty of algologists/water ecologists/biologists out there and they know very well what they talk about. We are just hobbyists that take their hobby very seriously but that's all.

Most of us have tanks to enjoy them and not for testing anything on them. Testing (at least from the scientific point of view) means have a control sample, several samples with different conditions, being able to repeat your results, being able to isolate what you want to test from other things, etc. We do not have batteries of aquaria for doing so (not all of us...).

Experience is great to be shared, it can be useful for helping other hobbyists but it is not necessarily science. My job is advising farmers regarding environmental issues and transferring knowledge. That's something I have to very careful explain each time a farmer stares at me thinking "what the hell this man is going to explain to me now? I have spent my whole life on the farm...!!!". But I just try to explain that, even if an agronomic practice has been implemented during the last decades (centuries) it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best one, or that this is the truth (and believe me, there are plenty of things that are very badly done...). You may be doing things wrong all your life, why not? I'm not there to tell people this (and that way of course), but to make them realize that if they are open minded: experience + scientific knowledge = more chances of success.

The same applies to the hobby. Don't try to make your experience science, just try to put both together.

Jordi


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> Don't agree mate. There are plenty of algologists/water ecologists/biologists out there and they know very well what they talk about. We are just hobbyists that take their hobby very seriously but that's all.
> Most of us have tanks to enjoy them and not for testing anything on them. Testing (at least from the scientific point of view) means have a control sample, several samples with different conditions, being able to repeat your results, being able to isolate what you want to test from other things, etc. We do not have batteries of aquaria for doing so (not all of us...).



Well Im sorry but if Im not a biologist working in this kind of field its pretty hard to find useful information IMHO. It might be there but you need to put loads of pieces together and it'll take some years to make up the picture.

Yet if someone has some links about:
phosphate limitation of co2 uptake Id love to read those.
Or gaseous CO2 being more available for plants as compared to dissolved CO2
Or algae causes that discard high nutrients
Or harder to keep plants growing in hard water vs soft water.
The levels of CO2 that most tropical fish can withstand at different o2 levels.
etc
Im honestly interested in all this.

How do we know how to act with regards to all the above? It really all comes from aquarists experiences.

Even EI comes from a hobbiest who had access to laboratory equipment.


----------



## ourmanflint

Jose, just look in Google Scholars search and if you use the right terms you will find everything. Search terms should be keyword specific not general questions.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/


----------



## Jose

Thanks for the link ourmanflint!

This is why Im asking ourmanflint. I would like specific things apliccable to the hobby, and these are very scarce. Thats whys maybe people who have gone through all these have found useful pieces of info.

There are some but not enough to explain all we take as common wisdom in the hobby. Just because its not scientific fact.


----------



## parotet

Jose, do you know Marcel's website?  http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/
Some parts are in English but it is much better to use the website google translator option... Loads of good information to read. In my opinion one of the most reliable sources for planted aquaria on the internet.... and a huge personal effort kindly offered to the hobbyists

Jordi


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> Some parts are in English but it is much better to use the website google translator option... Loads of good information to read. In my opinion one of the most reliable sources for planted aquaria on the internet.... and a huge personal effort kindly offered to the hobbyists



Yes I like this link.


----------



## Another Phil

Hi Zak Rafic,
My opinion, not knowledge, is that there is a complex combination of causes that allows algae to grow. Scientists don't yet fully understand the causes of harmful algae blooms (HAB's), so hobbyists' knowledge is as useful as any.
Although we talk about 10? different types they are actually composed of 1000s of slightly different species, so slight differences in a tank can allow different types to gain a foothold.

I've seen puddles and seeps next to each other; one with algae and one without, which to my eye appear identical, but something is going on.

I've never had an algae problem, (except T5 resting on cover glass caused green slime, cured by raising the light height), but I occasionally add water from water-troughs, ponds, etc, which most likely adds rotifers, copepods, etc which eat algal spores, so it's possible that people with new tanks, hardscape, etc suffer more due to lack of algal predators (algae spores are air-borne so can always get into a tank).

Not a lot of help, but I don't think there is a definitive answer.
cheers phil


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Another Phil said:


> I've never had an algae problem, (except T5 resting on cover glass caused green slime, cured by raising the light height), but I occasionally add water from watertroughs, ponds, etc, which most likely adds rotifers, copepods, etc which eat algal spores, so it's possible that people with new tanks, hardscape, etc suffer more due to lack of algal predators (algae spores are air-borne so can always get into a tank).


I've found the same as "Another Phil", basically if you have a reasonable plant mass, and don't muck about with the tank too much, that after a couple of months you reach a state where you don't have much algae. I'd actually like a bit more in most of my tanks.

There is some more discussion in the <"Am I gassing...."> an excellent thread (with pictures), and if you want more: <"400 gallon..." >, <"A little bit of Algae....">, <"Algae question.."> & <"What is the best way">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## EnderUK

One of the major problem with anyt algea related studies will be that they are not artifically pumping CO2 into a tiny closed system like we do. Okay you get algea in low tech tanks as well but usually they are low light and so low demand for co2 and nutrients so it's not as extreme.

Confusion about EI and other myths

*1. It was never meant to be applied rigidly.*
2. It is a simple concept, provide non limiting nutrients without having to test to do so.
3. Adding non limiting nutrients provides the plants with optimal nuterients so folks can rule out deficiencies
4. Precise plant nutrient Deficiencies are not known for most every aquatic plant. This requires a high level of testing and things like fish food, sediments and other potential confounding factors come into play.
5. If you have lower growth, lower light, then you can make safe assumptions like using less nutrients, again, refer to #1.
*6. Algae are not nutrient limited in aquariums with fish and plants. Argue this all you want, but you need to research and see what types of nutrient levels will limit algae. They are extremely low and any fish waste and plant decay, leaching etc is more than enough to supply algae with all they need.
7. 90-95% of all algae related issues are due to improper use of CO2.
8. 90-95% of all algae problems are related to improper use of CO2.*
There is a good reason to repeat this because folks will forget and blame the nutrient dosing method(and this issue is not limited to just EI, every other dosing routine has the same issues).
*9. Measuring CO2 carefully is not easy. It varies, it's influenced by circulation a great deal, it can change 10X in concentration in less than 30-45 minutes. 
No other nutrient can change this rapidly, nor is critical to every other nutrient. Algae take advantage of this variation to germinate and establish. 
Be very careful in assuming you are 110% positive you have enough, instead, rule out everythign else first, then go about tweaking CO2 and do so slowly, never rush or get impatient.
10. In general, less light is better than more for every method using CO2. 
This reduces CO2 demand, if you use higher light, consider having methods to reduce it, control it if any issue come up.*
11. EI rules out nutrient deficiencies. While this can rule them out, many find that after adding non limiting nutrients, they still have issues. EI is not solely about nutrients, if the CO2 demand was limited because there was not much PO4, now the CO2 demand is greatly increased. If the CO2 is not also increased to account for this change, then it can lead an aquarists to incorrectly assume that it is the PO4 that is causing the plant or algae issue. However, it is a secondary effect. If the CO2 was controlled correctly in the test, then the algae/plant issue would not have occurred. Such error/s in logic cam lead to false assumptions/conclusions.


----------



## Marcel G

I have several objections to the above stated:

1) kirk: 





> It Would be great if you shared the facts proof / info as I'd like to crank my light through the roof and save some co2 and also people can throw away there twinstars.


I did it several times on several forums without any success (= without people taking it seriosly and thinking of it).
But here are two examples:
http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/img/2_voda/redox2_blau_4x24w_jn.jpg
_The values here are µmol PAR._
http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/img/2_voda/redox2_2014-10-18_1.jpg
_In this tank I use about 100-120 µmol PAR at the substrate level, and 400 µmol PAR at the water surface._

2) Julian: 





> I'd very much like to see these tanks, I think you should show everyone, so we might learn something constructive. Rather than listen to you boasting about your superior knowledge on the subject, and advising the OP to disregard all the users on this forum.


I never said I have some superior knowledge myself. Instead, I said that if someone is seeking some serious knowledge he/she should go to experts. And according to my opinion the experts on algae are algologists, not hobbyists. Why? Because most hobbyist know nearly nothing about how to do some serious testing which can help them to find proper answers. Most EI worshipers, for example, repeat again and again, that "90-95% of all algae problems are related to improper use of CO2" (or to low CO2 concentration etc.). Why are they telling this? Because they never studied algae in detail. Otherwise they would never say such a nonsense. I myself am not an algologist, but I spoke with quite a few of them. You can try it also. Maybe they explain you some basics about algae ... if you listen (maybe you know the proverb: Cup which is full can not be filled).
BTW, I have quite a lot of (useful) information about algae on my website. Unfortunately, no article about algae is translated into english yet.

3) Jose: 





> Ardjunas cases of high light and low co2 w/o algae is explained because low phosphates is limitting co2 demmand.


I just marvel how can you be so sure if you never saw my tanks in person? I did many experiments in my tanks. Once I used just very lean dosing schedule, but in other cases I used full EI with 5-7 ppm PO4. How do you explain that in both cases I had no visible algae? And what about Takashi Amano tanks? The ones where he used about 8-12 ppm CO2 with Rotala wallichii?

4) EnderUK: 





> What has sciene ever done for us?


For the people who ignore it the science may seem to be useless. But for the ones who listen and love it the science is like fountain of knowledge.

5) Jose: 





> Probably the main source of knowledge is aquarists experiences.


I would say that the main source of knowledge for aquarists who ignore science remains their own experience. But if you can combine your experiences with some scientific data (results of some good experiments) you can be much more closer to the final picture.

6) EnderUK: 





> EI rules out nutrient deficiencies.


That's not true. Try to grow different kind of plants in EI soup, and watch how some of them will stagnate and some even die ... even under relatively high concentration of nutrients. Again, how did you get to this mantras? Did you have some serious data to confirm this theory? Or did you grow successfully couple of plants, and you conclude from this that all plants will do fine under EI? Did you do some controlled tests? Did you try it in aquariums with different types of substrates, and also in aquariums without any substrate?

PS: My intention here is not to be smarter then others. I just try to force you think of your mantras ... and not just repeat them.


----------



## Jose

Hi Ardjuna

Im open if you can show a high light tank with low co2 and no phosphate limitation, or any other nutrient limitaation for that matter.. One tank alone is not going to falsify Barr's theory but it can be the start. Always open to new evidence.

Amanos tanks have low(ish) light for a high tech. Around 40 PAR at substrate.

ADA does loads of work on their tanks very often.

Soft water. In softer water something is happening that we dont know, which makes many species grow better even under not so high co2 levels.

If you think youve found something others dont know about, then go ahead and proof your point. If youve proven the above then you can make your own theory and Barrs will be falsified. But its gonna be hard. You have be able to repeat the results over and over as he has.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> Amanos tanks have low(ish) light for a high tech. Around 40 PAR at substrate.


I'm sorry but this is another of the mantras repeated again and again. Ask ADA mini M users (the ones that also bought the light). It's bright as hell, even experienced aquascapers say that it is too much light. And what about ADA AquaSky 361, 451, 601 or 601users... have you seen PAR values (for example in Marcel website)? Mate, this is really really high light. The fact that some Amano tanks designed for showrooms have low lights (obviously, even Amano plays safe sometimes) it does not mean that all ADA setups are low light.

Jordi


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> I'm sorry but this is another of the mantras repeated again and again. Ask ADA mini M users (the ones that also bought the light). It's bright as hell, even experienced aquascapers say that it is too much light. And what about ADA AquaSky 361, 451, 601 or 601users... have you seen PAR values (for example in Marcel website)? Mate, this is really really high light. The fact that some Amano tanks designed for showrooms have low lights (obviously, even Amano plays safe sometimes) it does not mean that all ADA setups are low light.



Im talking about ADA gallery yes. And yes theyve been measured.
All this has been explained. It looks bright because of the ammount of green in them.


----------



## Jose

Although I still dont get it, some pieces are missing for me. How come with such a bad CO2 diffusion method as a diffuser they have such great tanks while we need a 1 ph drop with a light in the same region, and inline atomizers? How do they not get algae if co2 comes on at the same time as the lights? Most people here recommend turning on co2 some hours before lights on so that co2 levels build up. They have no surface ripple during the day either?

I think high maintenance and soft water make up for some of these. But it doesnt explain it completely.


----------



## Jose

Im only 100% sure of someone who was 100% right. And that was Karla.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> You have be able to repeat the results over and over as he has.


I'll tell you something: I have absolutely no interest in endlessly repeating something, so that it became a world-famous theory. I believe that people (at least some of them) are able to judge the arguments presented and decide for themselves. If someone want to believe that 95% of algae problems is associated with bad CO2 management, go ahead and believe it! My goal it to present some scientific data and results of my own findings so that we can have something solid which we can build our experiences upon. T.Barr says many things but for me these are just mantras. If he publish some details about how has he get to these "truths" that would be something I would appreciate. Maybe he's true when he says that 95% of algae problems are caused by bad CO2 management, but until he shows me some solid data I will question it. And as to his "disproving" argument I have already commented it here (under _*My objections to T.Barr*_).


----------



## Jose

Well I will just say that I believe Tom Barr because I can see his theories working in my tank. Thats all. If something he said didnt work Id question it much more. 

If you bring up a theory I would be happy to try it. 

But saying Tom Barr is wrong and not giving much more support means nothing. This said I would be perfectly happy if someone made another contribution to the hobby even if this meant T. Barr is wrong.
All I want is to have the easiest to keep, most beautiful tank of all.


----------



## Marcel G

People for many centuries believed that the Earth is flat. And as long as they used just their eyes to check it, it seemed correct.
What I want to say by it is that to have a beautiful planted tank without visible algae is one thing, but the way he explains his success may be something totaly different. I mean, T.Barr has quite nice tanks (that's true), but the way he explains his success may be wrong. If you are not able to admit it ... then no arguments will convince you.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> What I want to say by it is that to have a beautiful planted tank without visible algae is one thing, but the way he explains his success may be something totaly different. I mean, T.Barr has quite nice tanks (that's true), but the way he explains his success may be wrong. If you are not able to admit it ... then no arguments will convince you.



I totally agree! He might be wrong. And so might the next theory that comes around.

But what people think are wrong theories in this case is just that they dont fully understand them which is a totally different thing. This has been the case 100% of times since nothing has been falsified. Maybe I should say 99.9%.


----------



## Rahms

Jose said:


> But saying Tom Barr is wrong and not giving much more support means nothing.



he gave you a link...


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> I totally agree! He might be wrong. And so might the next theory that comes around.


I don't understand your standpoint. It seems like you decided to believe Barr for some reason (unknown to me). Please, are you able to tell me why 95% of algae problems are caused by wrong CO2 management? Do you have any arguments for it ... except for telling me that you just believe it? Are you able to critically think of it? What exactly happens when you lower the CO2 levels which causes algae to interfere? And why the algae don't bloom also at high CO2 levels? Barr has 50-70 ppm CO2 in his main tank. Do you know what CO2 concentrations algae love the most? Do you think light is the only parameter which helds algae at check? There are so many questions, but just one universal mantra for all: "raise the CO2 level". Why? "Just do it". Sorry, but I don't buy it.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





ardjuna said:


> If someone want to believe that 95% of algae problems is associated with bad CO2 management, go ahead and believe it!


 I'm with "ardjuna" on this one, I'm not convinced. Although with the proviso that I don't have any scientific data to back it up with, and I've never run a high tech. tank. 

Before I joined this forum I wouldn't have believed that EI could work, but it soon became obvious that there was "sweet spot" of light where high tech. gave you fantastic results.   

I still struggle with a mechanism for why you don't get a huge growth of "Green Algae" (Chlorophyta), as they are very similar to all the other green plants (they all in the clade "Viridiplantae" ) in terms of their physiology.   

There is a thread (I can't find it) with a good discussion, but it is the one which this chart came from which :



 
cheers Darrel


----------



## ourmanflint

One thing I would like to say in all these discussions is that tanks without fish in them or few fish, will behave very differently to tanks with fish, especially when you feed them reasonable well.


----------



## Jose

Ill try to answer all your questions.



ardjuna said:


> Please, are you able to tell me why 95% of algae problems are caused by wrong CO2 management?


I dont necessarily believe it has to be 95% of cases. But in most cases if using EI co2 problems come from poor co2 management which includes many things. Problems can come from many more things yes.




ardjuna said:


> What exactly happens when you lower the CO2 levels which causes algae to interfere?


I dont know what happens and neither do you or T Barr. Hes theory is that if plants suffer (even if we dont realize it) then algae can sense it. It sounds possible to me. Can you offer another theory? Can you prove him wrong? Why should I think this might be wrong?




ardjuna said:


> And why the algae don't bloom also at high CO2 levels? Barr has 50-70 ppm CO2 in his main tank. Do you know what CO2 concentrations algae love the most?



Not sure what you want to know from me here. I dont know any of this because I dont know a thing about algae. Why? Well because in theory (and IME) if you keep healthy plants you wont get algae.



ardjuna said:


> Do you think light is the only parameter which helds algae at check?


Its the main one. As mentioned before its not the only way. You can manage by light limitation or phosphates limitting mainly.

I think you have to be quite open minded for all this to make sense at first. If you start off with a biased theory then youll never get there. Not saying its impossible for Tom Barr to be wrong (obviously not).


----------



## Jose

dw1305 said:


> If someone want to believe that 95% of algae problems is associated with bad CO2 management, go ahead and believe it!



Darrel:
I really see a huge difference between a CO2 injected tank a non CO2 one. Why? I think that in a CO2 injected tank plants need to adapt because CO2 is not even near constant. Even a small change in flow changes CO2 levels. This is a big problem for plants since they have a really hard time adapting. Its really hard to isolate the co2 variable when its the hardest one to keep constant.


----------



## EnderUK

ardjuna said:


> I have several objections to the above stated:
> 4) EnderUK:
> For the people who ignore it the science may seem to be useless. But for the ones who listen and love it the science is like fountain of knowledge.



That was tongue in cheek, I'm not really sure many people on this forum ignore science, me I don't really know much about chemistry or biology but when it all comes down to it they're just a branch of physics anyways . However you can't really review a study on algae growing in a massive lake too that of tiny environment pumped with artificial light, co2 and nutrients. Tom Barr's studies, and he has done studies, show that if you have unlimited CO2 and nutrients and you can get the CO2 and nutrients to where the plant needs them through water flow then you can control growth via light intensity as shown by Darrel's very nice graphs. He even says that most high tech tanks only require about 3/4 of what he has as an estimate. Does this really explain why tanks that get the balance right don't grow algae? No not really. 

Maybe your tanks are just below the critical point in the balance. You have plenty of flow in those tanks so maybe that's why your tanks require less ppm of everything. Beautiful tanks btw.


----------



## Marcel G

EnderUK said:


> Tom Barr's studies, and he has done studies, show that ...


Please, do you have any of these studies available for me to read? (I mean it sincerely. I'm not lucky enough to find any, except Barr reports which are actually not Barr's studies but rather excerpts from some textbooks.)


----------



## Andy Thurston

I'm just going to throw this in the mix and perhaps I should add ardjuna to the experts. heres a quote I posted in another thread


> I wasn't trying to cause an argument in my earlier posts but trying to point out that each tank is different and require different methods to achieve results.
> Tom Barr and Clive are both experts in planted tanks and if you do things slightly different to them then people start throwing quotes around from their posts. if you were to email Jim from the green machine I'm certain that you would find his approach was more like Amano's than Clive or tom, would you say they are not experts in their field? Clive, Tom, Jim, Amano all use different methods Who is right?... All of them, so learn from all of them! The right way to grow plants is the way that works best for you and your tank. Hope that makes sense


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Can you offer another theory? Can you prove him wrong? Why should I think this might be wrong?


I have already mentioned this "another theory", although I'm not sure how it can help you in your quest for "easy maintenance tank". This theory says that algae in our tanks have everything they need to grow => especially in EI tanks (high nutrients level, high light, good distribution). So why don't they grow? Based on what I read, found out myself and heard from the algologists, I think that the main reason why algae don't grow well in our tanks is that there are some strong factors which inhibit them → like algae-eaters, frequent water changes, maintenance, relatively short photoperiod, huge amount of plants [+ fast growth means algae don't attach to plants so easily] and small amount of critters etc. You can compare it to the physical laws: law of the gravity vs. law of the "human strength". If you take an apple and stretch your hand, your strength will overcome the force of gravity initially. But finally the gravity will win and the small apply will make your hand get down. In a similar way, I see it with algae in our tanks. Under normal conditions (laws) the algae should win (like the law of gravity). But due to our frequent water changes, good filtration, careful maintenance, lot of algae-eaters, short photoperiod etc. the strength of these factors overcomes the algae. As long as you have this "power" in your tank and this power is strong enough to hinder algae, you have an algae-free tank. But in every moment you are at the risk of some bigger and more powerful law to come in and rein ... the law of gravity (algae). I say it just for you to know that I'm not someone who only criticise others. But I don't want you to blindly believe it.

Once I tried to gather all the opinions on what can suppress algae (http://web.archive.org/web/20140827...-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_algaeSuppress). It is quite good collection of arguments which can help you in your quest for finding truth (in case you are interested in finding truth rather then finding some easy way to success in the planted aquaria hobby). Each argument has it's counter-argument. It seems like nothing is so easy.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





dw1305 said:


> There is a thread (I can't find it) with a good discussion, but it is the one which this chart came from


 Found it via <Edvet's - 2013 post in "unlimited nutrients....."> (also a thread worth reading ). 

It originally came from: <"has anyone read this? (sears-conlin article on algae)">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jose

Hi Ardjuna. I totally agree with your so called theory. I even dare to say that Tom will agree with you in that all you mentioned has an impact on algae. So? This is pretty common sense IMO.

Algae eaters
Photoperiod
water changes
etc all help reduce the algae.

I think you say without all these algae will come. Yes, but this will happen with whichever theory you choose or make for a high tech tank. This doesnt explain anything new. 

Now I can also say that:
w/o water changes or algae eaters algae can still not appear in a low tech.

You havent really said anything new IMO. 

Are you saying that for T Barrs theories to be acceptable then he should eliminate all these variables? So, he must have a tank w/o water changes, 14 hour photoperiod,  and no circulation? Well I can tell you thats not gonna work whoever does it.


----------



## EnderUK

ardjuna said:


> Please, do you have any of these studies available for me to read? (I mean it sincerely. I'm not lucky enough to find any, except Barr reports which are actually not Barr's studies but rather excerpts from some textbooks.)



Oh you mean papers? Well I don't think he's written any papers, have you read some of his stuff? His grammar is almost as bad as mine.


----------



## alto

Jose said:


> w/o water changes or algae eaters algae can still not appear in a low tech.


Some of the most extraordinary algae I've ever seen was in a low tech soil based tank (run by someone that was very outspoken (& knowledgeable) in that style of tank), algae crew included japonica shrimps (what they were called at the time ) & otocinclus & SAE (proper) - zero water changes since tank set up, open tank so water level was topped up as needed ... tanks ranged from 6 months to a couple years post setup - I decided then & there I'd never attempt that sort of soil based tank


----------



## Jose

I never liked those either Alto. But there are many more options now.


----------



## Jaap

So no answer on whay exactly causes bba? Bummer!


----------



## sciencefiction

Zak Rafik said:


> Low pH - Neil Frank observes that African Rift tanks never have BBA. It’s believed that BBA thrives in acidic environments, which is unfortunately what most plants prefer.



I have somewhat hard water, ph 7.4, Gh around 12-13, Kh about 8. I've only had BBA on and off in just one tank and it's my overstocked low tech tank mostly because of poopy type fish, common plec, clown loaches, etc..And I have 4 other tanks with exactly the same stats. And all tanks get 50% water  change weekly with water that comes out loaded with CO2, like a soda pop, and that must be changing the co2 levels in my non-co2 tanks each week for a day but was never a cause for any algae including bba. Many used to claim that not changing the water in a low tech BBA tank will stop the BBA, or changing water will cause BBa due to changing co2 levels,  which is a lot of bollix.

Only my overstocked tank ever got BBA and my theory is organic load. For the same reason high tech tanks suffer more BBA because of the high light/co2/nutrients and fast plant growth cause high organic load. When the organic load is high, normally the KH drops too and thus the Ph as well eventually. So there maybe a correlation and African Rift Lake tanks have to be kept with high Ph and KH.  But I just think it's most to do with organics and acidification that follows in an overloaded tank.



EnderUK said:


> Algae are not nutrient limited in aquariums with fish and plants. Argue this all you want, but you need to research and see what types of nutrient levels will limit algae. They are extremely low and any fish waste and plant decay, leaching etc is more than enough to supply algae with all they need.



Well I've seen it with my own eyes...green spot algae starved off for iron. My plants were bleached too at the same time though  I have hard water and have to add lots of iron to make it available for the plants otherwise they just go white. When I add the iron, the ugly green spots wake up too  But my soil tanks with mixed red clay have no such issue and green spot is too never existent as there's no iron in the water column for too long for some reason.


----------



## Jose

Jaap said:


> So no answer on whay exactly causes bba? Bummer!



Because plants are suffering (even if we cant see it) due to its co2 demand not being met. I also agre that organics playing a role.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Because plants are suffering (even if we cant see it) due to its co2 demand not being met.


I just don't understand how can it happen in planted tank with CO2 supply that the CO2 demand of our plants not being met? Do you know that in many areas of amazonia there is about 10 ppm CO2 in water and the aquatic vegetation is just marvelous? So how can it be that our aquatic plants (many of them being from amazonia) need more that this to grow well? It seems to me that you constantly juggle with arguments according to how it suits you best. Try to explain how can plant grow well under 10 ppm of CO2, 1500-2000 µmol PAR and huge quantity of nutrients which constantly supply the plants with all they need.
BTW, just from the curiosity I would like to know, if you think there can be plants which are perfectly healthy, yet infested by algea? I see a lot of such cases, so I would like to know how do you explain it (if you even admit that somethink like healthy plant covered by algae can exist).


----------



## Marcel G

One more thing as to the CO2 concentration: In one of my articles I try to show that for aquatic plants to grow well they don't need to reach 100% growth rate, but they can grow at 30 or 50% and be in very good condition also. If you look at the _"Dependency chart of external nutrient concentration on the growth rate of plants"_ in this article, you'll see that if we apply it to CO2, then for plants to grow at 100% they would need 26 ppm of CO2 (this number is just fictional), but for them to grow at 90% they need only 11 ppm of CO2, and for them to grow at 50% they will be just fine with 4 ppm of CO2. So tell me, please, what growth rate is "bad" according to you ... 30%, 50%, 70%? When do the plants suffer? If plants grow at 50% of the maximum growth rate do they already suffer? Do all the plants need to grow at 100% to be perfectly healthy? Or can they be healthy at 50% growth rate also? The answer to this question is crucial. Because if plants can be perfectly healthy at 50% growth rate, then they don't need as much CO2 as you may think! And did you know that most aquatic plants grow at 100% under 40 ppm of CO2? In other words, 40 ppm of CO2 is maximum they are able to utilize. If you read the article you will find out that once the concentration of free CO2 in water exceeds the critical limit of ~40 ppm, an immediate and quite dramatic inhibition of photosynthesis (growth) comes about. So do you still think that there is such a thing as suffering of our plants due to low CO2 in planted tanks where the CO2 concentration is higher then 10 ppm?


----------



## parotet

I think the two last posts from Marcel point in a very interesting direction. The concept of "Nature Aquarium" may be very attractive but it is just a fallacy, nothing is more artificial than what we do. Trying to compare nature/tank conditions or how our plants behave in nature/tanks is nothing but a nonsense, at least if we go into details (of course plants are plants, and molecules are molecules). Some of the "slight" differences of our "Nature Aquarium" and nature:

- most of the plants we use spend part of the time emersed, but we keep them most of the times (or always) submerged. And you know what? Truly submerged plants are really easy to grow!
- they grow in nature under much higher PAR values
- they grow with a flow that would be unachievable in our tanks
- they grow with much lower CO2 levels
- we want them to grow without algae (please have a look to any river, pond, etc.... algae DO live with macrophytes!)
- we want to grow in a tiny cube plenty of different species (most of the times only a few species live together in nature, the most adapted to the micro conditions)
- we want to grow them nice of course (good shape, good color, etc.) but plants in nature look quite poor sometimes (but even though they multiply, so this "bad shape" has nothing to do with biological success)
... and probably a lot more differences 

We are just finding the conditions to make this "miracle happen", and of course it is obvious (at least to me) that to grow this "Unnatural aquarium" there are several options. 

Another example: farmers grow edible plants. All these plants come from nature of course. Do farmers copy the conditions in which the wild relatives of these cultivated species grow? Of course, not. Because their objective is to maximize the yields, therefore they focus on that. They create conditions that are really different for meeting this objective.
Are our "Nature Aquarium" so different. Not at all... Nature Aquarium is a good marketing argument (you know "contact with nature", "a piece of nature at home", etc.) but the truth is that we have an objective that is very close to farmers, we also try "to maximize our yield"... yes, we want to trim plants, we want to obtain tones of algae-free plants. That is what is considered successful when you have a high-tech planted tank... but this is not nature, so let's focus on this.

(sorry, a bit out of topic I guess... )

Jordi


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> I just don't understand how can it happen in planted tank with CO2 supply that the CO2 demand of our plants not being met? Do you know that in many areas of amazonia there is about 10 ppm CO2 in water and the aquatic vegetation is just marvelous? So how can it be that our aquatic plants (many of them being from amazonia) need more that this to grow well? It seems to me that you constantly juggle with arguments according to how it suits you best. Try to explain how can plant grow well under 10 ppm of CO2, 1500-2000 µmol PAR and huge quantity of nutrients which constantly supply the plants with all they need.



Because co2 levels are not stable in our tanks. If levels were stable enough then most plants can be grown with 10 ppm of co2. Also if dosing EI then we dont have limitting nutrients. So, please look at all variables of the ecosystem so that you can understand it.




ardjuna said:


> BTW, just from the curiosity I would like to know, if you think there can be plants which are perfectly healthy, yet infested by algea? I see a lot of such cases, so I would like to know how do you explain it (if you even admit that somethink like healthy plant covered by algae can exist).



Yes plants can be covered in algae and still look healthy. Because there is the time variable. Something might have happened before to spike the algae. Once algae is there it will just grow. Plus suffering plants is probably not the only cause. Also dirty water for example can spike algae. The theory of suffering plants is mostly for when you have a well maintained tank not limitted by nutrients.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> One more thing as to the CO2 concentration: In one of my articles I try to show that for aquatic plants to grow well they don't need to reach 100% growth rate, but they can grow at 30 or 50% and be in very good condition also. If you look at the "Dependency chart of external nutrient concentration on the growth rate of plants" in this article, you'll see that if we apply it to CO2, then for plants to grow at 100% they would need 26 ppm of CO2 (this number is just fictional), but for them to grow at 90% they need only 11 ppm of CO2, and for them to grow at 50% they will be just fine with 4 ppm of CO2. So tell me, please, what growth rate is "bad" according to you ... 30%, 50%, 70%? When do the plants suffer? If plants grow at 50% of the maximum growth rate do they already suffer? Do all the plants need to grow at 100% to be perfectly healthy? Or can they be healthy at 50% growth rate also? The answer to this question is crucial. Because if plants can be perfectly healthy at 50% growth rate, then they don't need as much CO2 as you may think! And did you know that most aquatic plants grow at 100% under 40 ppm of CO2? In other words, 40 ppm of CO2 is maximum they are able to utilize. If you read the article you will find out that once the concentration of free CO2 in water exceeds the critical limit of ~40 ppm, an immediate and quite dramatic inhibition of photosynthesis (growth) comes about. So do you still think that there is such a thing as suffering of our plants due to low CO2 in planted tanks where the CO2 concentration is higher then 10 ppm?



I think the co2 level depends on how much light you have. Demand from plants can be 10 ppm yes or 80 ppm depends on quite  a few things. Many can even adapt to 1 ppm. But we also have plants in our tanks that are not found underwater for a long time.

What you say about 40 ppm inhibitting photosynthesis just does not stand. Otherwise people wouldnt see such an obvious increase of growth at those levels. Im going to read the article because this is just not true if you have non limitting nutrients. You have to once again look at the whole picture and how the experiment was carried out. You are arriving at wrong conclusions. Ask yourself...was everything else independant? enough nutrients? enough oxygen at night? You are missing something.


----------



## EnderUK

ardjuna said:


> So tell me, please, what growth rate is "bad" according to you ... 30%, 50%, 70%? When do the plants suffer?


 
I don't know my growth rate as and I don't try to measure it, I have no idea what my CO2 is, as you say there's not really a reliable hobby measurement but I know it's lower then what is EI recommended. My flow is around x 6-8 turn over and I dose around 2/3s of EI when I'm dosing EI but about x2 the amount when dosing PPS-PRO. This would be a complete disaster if I did one thing, up my light intensity or had an incredbly long photo period. My understanding is that light is main cause of algae when you can not get the neutrients including that CO2 to your plants quick enough. You seem to have gotten around the high CO2 needed by most by increasing the flow ensuring that there is a constant supply of niutrients.

The only algae I seem to get is GSA on my anubias.

I'm pretty sure it's been brought up many times on this forum that what we do in our tank is not natural. I brought it up in this very thread but not as in depth as Jordi.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Because co2 levels are not stable in our tanks. If levels were stable enough then most plants can be grown with 10 ppm of co2. Also if dosing EI then we dont have limitting nutrients. So, please look at all variables of the ecosystem so that you can understand it.


Jose, look at all the variables yourself in the first place! I am perfectly able to keep stable CO2 levels in my tank. Besides, there is a lot of people who use non-stop CO2 supply in their tanks which means they have very stable CO2 level. It really seems you use whatever argument to prove that 10 ppm and healthy plants is not possible in our tanks. I gave you already some arguments, but you seem to ignore them ... trying to "explain them out". Once you understand how CO2 behaves in your tank, it's very easy to keep it stable. Again, look at this article.
From your post it seems also that you think that plants in a river are somehow nutrient limited. But nothing could be farther from the truth. In rivers plants have tons of nutrients available (especially in amazonia).
Again, again, again: Try to speak with some experts on aquatic plants, and ask them how much CO2 is non-limiting for most of them under full sunlight. I did it, and present the results of their research and practical experiences in field. Dr. Adamec is one of them, and he recommended me to use 0.2-0.3 mM CO2 (which corresponds to 9-13 ppm of CO2) for a good growth of aquatic plants in our tanks. These values should be enough for most plants to grow at 70-90% of their maximum growth rate (according to him). He specializes on studying bladderworts (strict CO2 users which are not able to use carbon from bicarbonates).


----------



## Jose

You dont get it Ardjuna. Its very simple. You are right because you are testing "easy" aquatic plants. We in the hobby grow much harder species which grow better the more co2 you put in. Because they live semi emmersed most of the time.

Ill tell you something and this is asking you a favour:

Maybe for the future we  (you or me) can try an experiment. We can get the hardest plants that we can think of and try to grow them at very high light (maybe around 100 PAR) whilst supplying EI nutrients or more if you want. We can try keeping co2 at 10 ppm. Will they grow fine in your opinion?

If you have just one hard plant in your tank you have to get conditions as good as possible for that plant, even if the rest can grow at much lower values.

By the way. Most experts on this topic are biased and havent contributed very much to it. They are mostly old school and still think that high nutrients cause algae. They cant really make for any useful breakthroughs because they are just outdated. It will take some time for new theories to catch up. Until researchers in universities start realising this.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> Maybe for the future we (you or me) can try an experiment. We can get the hardest plants that we can think of and try to grow them at very high light (maybe around 100 PAR) whilst supplying EI nutrients or more if you want. We can try keeping co2 at 10 ppm. Will they grow fine in your opinion?


I guess he has already done this... while most of us have done nothing but to chat. Look for another loooong thread about EI/Tom Barr/etc he began some months ago, also in his website. Amazingly, and despite the personal effort done, money spent and sharing, people still dare to criticize. Yup, most of us do not read scientific papers about the topic, we do not spend our spare time talking to experts, we do not spend our time making experiments... but it's really easy to post and give our opinion which is just a mantra we have well learnt.

I did it in the mentioned thread, but once again I reiterate my thanks to someone that does this. I would not venture to say "you're wrong" to Marcel, Clive, Darrel, Tom Barr or anyone else. I am not able to even scratch the surface (what's my experience? Am I a pro? what's my field of expertise? How many tanks have I runt?). This is why I just try to understand them... when I can . l am actually happy to encounter contradictions in what I know/read from them, that means that I don't really know that much!

Jordi


----------



## sciencefiction

Well if the question is about BBA, then how would low CO2 levels be causing that, or poor plant health. Having kept low tech tanks I have had both scenarios and poor plant health does not equal algae and specifically not BBA. You can have perfectly stuggling plants and not one bit of any algae, at least in a low tech tank.  I don't think CO2 and BBA are correlated at all. Poor plant health leading to high organic load as in a high tech tank, maybe.

Has anyone tried to trigger BBA or remembers the sequence of events prior to getting BBA?



EnderUK said:


> My understanding is that light is main cause of algae when you can not get the neutrients including that CO2 to your plants quick enough.


 
I remember Darrel stating somewhere that nutrients dissolve in water equally, meaning flow has no effect on nutrients. CO2 and oxygen are a totally different story, as they are not so easily dissolvable. So as long as one doses nutrients in the tank, there shouldn't be any nutrient deficiency regardless of flow.

And then if you've got 10ppm of co2 at any given time then how would there be CO2 issues or defficiencies in the tank? If you need to pump 30ppm maybe that means most of it is going out the surface and never gets to the plants. It doesn't make sense that if you have a constant supply of co2 regardless of the total value and never running at 0 at any given time, then plants are getting co2 theoretically all the time, whether the water has a concentration of 30ppm, 10ppm or 5ppm


----------



## Another Phil

Hi all,
I think one of the problems with the scientific method is that it relies on replicable results, and all our tanks are so different it is near impossible to precisely replicate someone else's results, so therefore we all holler when results are different.
Currently we appear to be at the level of Sir Isaac Newton, his physics is accurate 99% of the time, but there were still discrepancies which were partially resolved by Einstein and relativity, then by quantum mechanics, and now there are as many theories about dark matter/dark energy/string theory/multiverses as there are physicists

I think of  algae as opportunists, so there could easily be 4-5 triggers which have to coincide before they bloom. We don't even know if GSA in our different tanks are the same species in the same genus, so each similar species could react differently.

cheers phil
ps. EnderUK was ref'ing Monty Python - made me laugh.


----------



## Jose

Its funny I dare all people who coincide with Ardjuna to go ahead and keep a high tech with highish light at 10 ppm CO2 and come back and post. Do you not think that the 30 ppm of co2 came by through experience and trial and error? Of course it did.Come on. They didnt come to the 30 ppm number by looking at rivers or asking algologists.

To Parotet. I do apreciate all the effort Ardjuna has gone through to get all his data. But the main thing is you have to be critical. And for that you have to understand first. All this effort doesnt make something right.


----------



## Jose

This is from Ardjunas link:

At pH 8, even at the extremely high alkalinity 28°dKH, there's only 8.5 ppm of free CO2 in water. Therefore, there's no growth inhibition → _see the upper left portion of the chart._
At pH 7.0, the photosynthesis (growth) rate reaches its maximum (critical level) at a concentration of 26.4 ppm of free CO2 (which corresponds to alkalinity of 8.6°dKH).
At pH 6.5, the photosynthesis rate reaches its maximum at a concentration of 41.8 ppm of free CO2 (which corresponds to alkalinity of 4.3°dKH) → _see the bottom left portion of the chart._
At pH 6.0, the photosynthesis rate reaches its maximum at a concentration of 41.8 ppm of free CO2 (which corresponds to alkalinity of 1.4°dKH) → _see the lower right portion of the chart._

Why is KH changing here? This experiment should be done at the same KH, adding artificial CO2 (and measuring it). CO2 does not change KH. I dont get it.
Your charts show total inorganic carbon. This include carbonates (?). So they are upping co2 by breaking up carbonates?

towards the middle of the page.
http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/rostlinyNaroky


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> I remember Darrel stating somewhere that nutrients dissolve in water equally, meaning flow has no effect on nutrients.


 Flow does have some effect, particularly if you add the fertiliser as a dry salt, you can think of it like stirring your tea. 

If you have perfectly still water it will take much longer for the salt to go into solution as ions, and there will be a circular concentration gradient around the site where the salt was added. In still water the salty water will be dense than the fresh water, and will pool at the bottom of the container (tank), which will also slow down the rate that mixing occurs.

Once the salt has fully disassociated  (and some salts will go into solution more quickly than others), it will be spread fairly evenly through the water column, even with very low flow rates. Once salts are in solution they will usually remain in solution, until they are taken up by a plant etc..

Dissolved gases are slightly different in that they are in part of a dynamic equilibrium with atmospheric gas levels, and they can enter and leave the tank dependent upon the diffusion gradient between tank water and the atmosphere. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jose

Ive got a side question. Does anyone know why Plantbrain doesnt post here anymore?


----------



## pepedopolous

The plot thickens...

I'm gonna set aside the time to read Marcel's new articles properly.

Tom Barr wanted to relieve hobbyists of the need to repeatedly measure nutrient levels with (inaccurate) test kits. The flip side is that many hobbyists struggle to provide enough CO2/flow/magic fairy dust.

I wonder if somehow the 'lean ferts approach' of ADA means that while CO2 has to be 'good', it doesn't have to 'perfect' (unattainable to some), as seems to be the case with EI.

P


----------



## Jose

pepedopolous said:


> I wonder if somehow the 'lean ferts approach' of ADA means that while CO2 has to be 'good', it doesn't have to 'perfect' (unattainable to some), as seems to be the case with EI.



I ask myself this question too. Tom Barrs EI method doesnt necessarily have to be the easiest but it is the most complete for a high tech. Ive had bad results when limitting nutrients before but Im still open to the idea of limitting via phosphates.


----------



## Another Phil

dw1305 said:


> If you have perfectly still water it will take much longer for the salt to go into solution as ions


 
I assume also that if the water is perfectly still the plants use CO2 and that leaves a deficit of CO2 next to the plant leaves, so they have to rely on CO2 diffusion through the water, hence there could be a slow uptake of CO2 in what appears to be high CO2 water and that's why high flow helps?
cheers phil


----------



## Rahms

Another Phil said:


> I assume also that if the water is perfectly still the plants use CO2 and that leaves a deficit of CO2 next to the plant leaves, so they have to rely on CO2 diffusion through the water, hence there could be a slow uptake of CO2 in what appears to be high CO2 water and that's why high flow helps?
> cheers phil



Potentially, but I think its more the fact that if a high concentration of CO2 is poorly mixed in the tank, it will rise and gas off at the surface faster.  Rather than it being there, the plant using it up and then it not being replaced (as in your example), it's simply never there to begin with.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Another Phil said:


> I assume also that if the water is perfectly still the plants use CO2 and that leaves a deficit of CO2 next to the plant leaves, so they have to rely on CO2 diffusion through the water, hence there could be a slow uptake of CO2 in what appears to be high CO2 water and that's why high flow helps?


 I think so, the other advantage of high flow is that it increases the residence time of the CO2 bubbles, meaning that more CO2 will go into solution.

I'm not a CO2 user, but if I was I would want a system (Bazooka Atomizer Diffuser or similar) that produced a CO2 bubble "mist" to allow me to see where the flow went. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Rahms said:


> Potentially, but I think its more the fact that if a high concentration of CO2 is poorly mixed in the tank, it will rise and gas off at the surface faster.


Certainly will.  If you don't have much flow the bubbles will  just rise straight to the surface and be lost. Because of the area to volume ratio you want very small bubbles with a very long residence time. 

Even then, in water the uptake of CO2 is limited by slow diffusion through the plant cell wall (obligate aquatic plants don't have stomata). The diffusion of gasses in water is several orders of magnitude slower than it is in air.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jose

And to add to this keep in mind that CO2 in the form of microbubbles is more efficient for most plants. So even if you have say 10 ppm of co2 and a bit of mist (bubbles) this will be more effective than 100% dissolution in water as obtained via a reactor for example.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> You are right because you are testing "easy" aquatic plants. We in the hobby grow much harder species which grow better the more co2 you put in. Because they live semi emmersed most of the time. Maybe for the future we  (you or me) can try an experiment. We can get the hardest plants that we can think of and try to grow them at very high light (maybe around 100 PAR) whilst supplying EI nutrients or more if you want. We can try keeping co2 at 10 ppm. Will they grow fine in your opinion?


Oh, so many new posts! Jose, I have a question on you: Please, _*can you give me a list of the "hard to grow" aquarium plants*_? I plan to do some experiment with the growth rate at different nutrient levels, so I may put them on my list also.


----------



## oviparous

Another Phil said:


> I assume also that if the water is perfectly still the plants use CO2 and that leaves a deficit of CO2 next to the plant leaves, so they have to rely on CO2 diffusion through the water, hence there could be a slow uptake of CO2 in what appears to be high CO2 water and that's why high flow helps?
> cheers phil



High flow helps because it decreases the boundary layer on the leaf, thus making it more effective to take up CO2.
I've seen figures that indicate that without flow, but with the same CO2 concentration, plants grew a few times slower.

Submerged leafs are much more effective than immerse leaves at CO2 uptake. That's why submerged leaves don't need the same CO2 concentration as in the air to have good growth.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Do you not think that the 30 ppm of co2 came by through experience and trial and error? Of course it did.


Do you know anyone by name who did try to grow different kinds of plants at different CO2 levels through trial and error, and found out that 30 ppm is best? And does he or she documented it for us to see if he or she did it in the right way? How should I know that 30 ppm is best concentration for my plants? If someone found that out, why do you believe him/her? Did _*you*_ try to grow different plants under different CO2 levels? And in case you did, how should we know that your failure (I suppose you were not successful in that because otherwise you won't opose me in saying that it's absolutely possible to grow healthy plants under low CO2 levels and high light) was caused by low CO2 alone and not some other factors?
I know that T.Barr said once that 20-30 ppm of CO2 should be non-limiting concentration for our plants. The problem is that I don't know how did he get to these values. Why he's not willing to "uncover" his methodology? Does he hide something? Did he do his experiments in the right way? You say, Jose, that you need to be critical to me; but are you critical to T.Barr also? Did you know what are all his theories based on? Did you, for example, know that his EI method was based on misinterpretation of scientific data by Gerloff and Krombholz? I'm glad if you discuss with me about things we both love. But I would be much more glad if you discuss it in the same (critical) way with T.Barr and others also.


----------



## Colinlp

karla said:


> The nutrient imbalance theory is likely to start an argument, in my experience. Lol.


See, wrong again!!!


----------



## Marcel G

oviparous said:


> High flow helps because it decreases the boundary layer on the leaf, thus making it more effective to take up CO2 ... Submerged leafs are much more effective than immerse leaves at CO2 uptake. That's why submerged leaves don't need the same CO2 concentration as in the air to have good growth.


Exactly! Once I thought that there are "true" aquatic plants, and some "false" aquatic plants which are not adapted to live underwater all their life. But this seems to be a nonsense. There are no true vs. false aquatic plants. There are plants with aquatic (submersed) leaves and plants with aerial (emersed) leaves. Plants with aquatic leaves have very thin cuticle (and sometimes the cuticle is missing completely) and are well adapted for life and for effective nutrient uptake underwater. Plants with aerial leaves are well adapted for life above water, so they have thick cuticle and other terrestrial adaptations (like pores). If you put a plant with aerial leaves underwater, it's hard for it to effectively uptake nutrients. For this kind of plants much higher nutrient concentration are needed to ensure good growth. But once these plants transform their leaves into well adapted aquatic versions, the nutrient uptake efficiency will equal (match) to the nutrient uptake efficiency of other aquatic (submersed) plants. There are very small differences in cuticle thickness between stricktly submersed plants (the ones that are not able to live outside water) and aquatic versions of terrestrial plants.

So I would really like to know what are these "hard to grow species" which would require extreme concentrations of nutrients to grow well (and which are not able to grow well under low CO2). I know of plants which are not able to uptake bicarbonates, but instead they can only utilize carbon in the form of free CO2 (some plants can utilize bicarbonates also, so if free CO2 runs out, they can still get carbon from bicarbonates). But I don't know of any plants which would require some extreme concentrations to grow well. I hope Jose will give me the list.


----------



## pepedopolous

http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/experimenty

I want answers. Donated. 

P


----------



## karla

Colinlp said:


> See, wrong again!!!


Hi, the arguments are all great fun. The best looking tanks I ever did myself were all super high light about 6-7 watts per gallon and obscene amounts of co2 . Most want quick growth big plants and rich Color all the methods I've tried, only with high co2 and loads of light came anywhere near of this goal. Excuse poor English very tired and phone is a pain to use.


----------



## Jose

Hi Ardjuna
well I know this is very unfair from my side to ask someone else to do something but I really havent got the resources, space or anything to do this tests.

Here is tropicas list of harder plants. Could you consider trying out the ones under Pogostemon estellata. Also didiplis diandra is a good one and also any red plant that you want.
If you do this experiment and document it and plants grow well at around 10 ppm of co2 without nutrient limitation, then youll have me with you because this would be a great breakthrough not needing 30ppm of co2.

Whatever I can help with I will.


----------



## Jose

It would be great to be able to follow the process in a thread or something. Would definately be something different.


----------



## Rahms

Jose said:


> Hi Ardjuna
> well I know this is very unfair from my side to ask someone else to do something but I really havent got the resources, space or anything to do this tests.
> 
> Here is tropicas list of harder plants. Could you consider trying out the ones under Pogostemon estellata. Also didiplis diandra is a good one and also any red plant that you want.
> If you do this experiment and document it and plants grow well at around 10 ppm of co2 without nutrient limitation, then youll have me with you because this would be a great breakthrough not needing 30ppm of co2.
> 
> Whatever I can help with I will.



did you miss this?

http://tropica.com/en/plants/search/?mode=search&sew=&dif=Advanced&pgr=&ori=&use=



I've just bought some wallichii for my tank..... oops


----------



## sciencefiction

karla said:


> Hi, the arguments are all great fun. The best looking tanks I ever did myself were all super high light about 6-7 watts per gallon and obscene amounts of co2 . Most want quick growth big plants and rich Color all the methods I've tried, only with high co2 and loads of light came anywhere near of this goal. Excuse poor English very tired and phone is a pain to use.



I read it and it still doesn't mean much to me. Even my low tech tanks do better with more light contrary to what I read around and plants suffer if the light is reduced so it's not just co2 that plays a role in those "best looking tanks". So the way I read it is that if you put 6-7 watts per gallon(of what type of light) you need to pump obscene amounts of CO2(how much exactly and how did you measure the dissolved co2 that is indeed available to plants?) and you get the best looking tanks that's you've done(about which I won't argue, they probably are)


From all those "arguments" to me it seems that the biggest problem is that it's hard to dissolve and distribute the co2 in a way so that most if not all of that pumped co2 doesn't just pass by and out the door before the plants have got a glimpse at it. Most people just presume on given tables and ph profiles what the co2 level is but in fairness no one knows for sure or do we? And then again we argue that higher than this or lower than that is best. Maybe the 30ppm you pump in actually gives you a stable 10ppm? 

Is there a way to measure for sure the amount of dissolved co2 in water that is available to plants in a particular aquarium near a particular plant?


----------



## Marcel G

sciencefiction said:


> From all those "arguments" to me it seems that the biggest problem is that it's hard to dissolve and distribute the co2 in a way so that most if not all of that pumped co2 doesn't just pass by and out the door before the plants have got a glimpse at it. Most people just presume on given tables and ph profiles what the co2 level is but in fairness no one knows for sure or do we? And then again we argue that higher than this or lower than that is best. Maybe the 30ppm you pump in actually gives you a stable 10ppm? Is there a way to measure for sure the amount of dissolved co2 in water that is available to plants in a particular aquarium near a particular plant?


That's good point. Of course, there can be some differences in the CO2 concentration throughout the tank. As T.Barr already pointed out in barrreport.com, at filter outlet the CO2 concentration is much higher then in other parts of the tank. And in plant beds it may be even lower, as the water is hardly moving there. But that's the case even in the natural rivers. So if in some rivers with lush plant vegetation the CO2 concentration is 10 ppm in the main flow, then at the plant beds the concentration will be much lower.
Besides, right now I have Rotala wallichii in one of my tanks, where I use about 15 ppm CO2. Amano also did grow Rotala wallichii under 9-12 ppm CO2 (according to his _Nature Aquarium World_ books). Jason Baliban also did grow many plants under 10 ppm CO2 and low nutrient levels in water column (with nutrient rich substrates). So it's perfectly possible to grow even the most demanding plants under relatively low CO2 concentration. Of course, if you want maximum growth rate (100%) you are better to use 30-40 ppm CO2, but if you are fine with 50-90%, then your plants may need only 10-15 ppm. I think there's not much difference between 10-15 ppm vs. 30-40 ppm. Personally, I don't prefer all my plants to grow like mad, so that I need to trim them each week or two. I feel better when my plants grow rather slowly, and I don't need to care of them so often. Most aquascapers would prefer slower growth ... once all plants are in the desired shape. Most plant sellers (e.g. T.Barr) prefer faster growth to sell more plants and make more money.
Maybe, one day I'll do the tests myself so that we can know for sure... But right now I focus on other nutrients' (not CO2) impact on the growth rate.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> That's good point. Of course, there can be some differences in the CO2 concentration throughout the tank. As T.Barr already pointed out in barrreport.com, at filter outlet the CO2 concentration is much higher then in other parts of the tank. And in plant beds it may be even lower, as the water is hardly moving there. But that's the case even in the natural rivers. So if in some rivers with lush plant vegetation the CO2 concentration is 10 ppm in the main flow, then at the plant beds the concentration will be much lower.
> Besides, right now I have Rotala wallichii in one of my tanks, where I use about 15 ppm CO2. Amano also did grow Rotala wallichii under 9-12 ppm CO2 (according to his Nature Aquarium World books). Jason Baliban also did grow many plants under 10 ppm CO2 and low nutrient levels in water column (with nutrient rich substrates). So it's perfectly possible to grow even the most demanding plants under relatively low CO2 concentration. Of course, if you want maximum growth rate (100%) you are better to use 30-40 ppm CO2, but if you are fine with 50-90%, then your plants may need only 10-15 ppm. I think there's not much difference between 10-15 ppm vs. 30-40 ppm. Personally, I don't prefer all my plants to grow like mad, so that I need to trim them each week or two. I feel better when my plants grow rather slowly, and I don't need to care of them so often. Most aquascapers would prefer slower growth ... once all plants are in the desired shape. Most plant sellers (e.g. T.Barr) prefer faster growth to sell more plants and make more money.



-But how can we explain the so called CO2 defficiencies we see so often then Ardjuna? We know CO2 fixes them.

-Also Amano uses co2 bubbles which again leads to another of Barrs theories. CO2 bubbles can be utilized better by plants than dissolved CO2.

-I think softwater is more important here than most experts say.

- If you ever get to do this experiment it would be nice to do one more thing: Once your plants are growing perfectly well under 10 ppm co2, then we change your water for very hard water (say 18 dKH) and see if this affects the plant CO2 wise.



Rahms said:


> did you miss this?


Thanks Rahms hehe.


----------



## Jose

Ardjuna: How are your experiments on nutrients coming along? Are they anywhere near EI?


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Ardjuna: How are your experiments on nutrients coming along? Are they anywhere near EI?


I have all the information on my website. Also I plan to make a special website for the contributors (donators) with up to date info, pictures, charts, videos etc. After I finish this experiment (5 months? => I plan 1 month for each plant species test, and 5 plant species in total). I'll publish a summarizing article on my website. I consult the test with prof. Cizkova from the University of South Bohemia (she's expert on aquatic plants). I plan to use 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 ppm NO3 in each tank (with proportional amount of other nutrients). First, I have to try it with couple of plant species to see if these concentrations are OK. If I found that there is no difference in growth rate between 30 and 60 ppm NO3, then I can lower the concentrations to, say, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 ppm NO3, or in some similar way. So first, I need to find the upper boundary (limit) at which the plants will grow at their maximum growth rate. Also, I don't know if algae won't be a problem at high nutrient concentrations.
Here's a picture of my setup:




I have 200-250 µmol PAR at the bottom of each tank and 1000 µmol PAR at the water surface. But I plan to lower the light intensity a bit to 100 µmol PAR at the bottom (I use 10W LED chips with a dimmer so its no problem for me). Also I already tried the CO2 dissolving efficiency, and it seems very good (I can have deep yellow dropchecker in there => still I plan to use about 30 ppm CO2 during my experiment). The setup on the picture is not complete yet (I'll use a black divider between the tanks so that the light from the adjacent tanks does not affect the light intensity in each tank).


----------



## Jose

One word: WOW!

Im sure you know about this trick. I turn off my lights for the day if I spot a change in co2 or if you change your bps during photoperiod. Ive seen slight fluctuations cause algae.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> I don't know if algae won't be a problem at high nutrient concentrations.


Me neither because of one thing. Im not sure 30 ppm co2 is enough for 100 micromoles of light.


----------



## Marcel G

I'll use non-stop CO2 supply in there because in such a small tanks (20*20*40cm = 8*8*16in) it would be hard to keep a stable CO2 if I turn it off at night.

PS: I use 120 µmol PAR in my other tank with 10-15 ppm CO2, and I see no algae there (all my plants are in excellent condition). I don't even add any nutrients into the water column (except some Ca + Mg + PO4 as I use RO water). But I use ADA Amazonia in that tank.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> PS: I use 120 µmol PAR in my other tank with 10-15 ppm CO2, and I see no algae there (all my plants are in excellent condition). I don't even add any nutrients into the water column (except some Ca + Mg + PO4 as I use RO water). But I use ADA Amazonia in that tank.



How do you know this plants arent phosphate limitted? even if you add some phosphates its still possible. Dont you think?


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> How do you know this plants arent phosphate limitted? even if you add some phosphates its still possible. Dont you think?


I'm quite sure they _*are*_ phoshate limited. And not only by phosphate. It's possible that they are limited by more then one nutrient. But why should I care ... if all the plants are in excellent condition with no visible algae? That's maybe the difference between us: You think that whenever plants are limited, they suffer and algae get upper hand. I think that whenever plants are limited, they just slow down (adjust) their growth to the amount of nutrients available to them. I don't believe that at lower nutrient level the plants must suffer and begin to leach something into the water which attracts algae etc.
I believe the nutrient uptake and growth follow this chart (in principle):





So you can add 90 ppm NO3 + 9 ppm PO4 to reach the full growth potencial of your plants ... *OR* you can add less, and enjoy your plants growing at say 50%, or 70% or 90%. Why should I want for my plants to grow at 100%? What do I gain by it (except frequent trimming and much more work required on my side)?
According to some studies, some plants require 9 ppm PO4 to experience non-limited growth. So even under EI these plants will be PO4 limited. So what's the point?


----------



## Marcel G

_PS: If there is any admin watching, it may be better if he/she can make a different thread from our "CO2 conversation" as I'm sure we are a way off-topic already._


----------



## Jose

Nope Im not saying limitting phosphates is a bad thing. I also consider it myself. Im just saying that for the experiment we were talking about you cant really limit anything otherwise you wont see the effect of co2.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





ardjuna said:


> You think that whenever plants are limited, they suffer and algae get upper hand. I think that whenever plants are limited, they just slow down (adjust) their growth to the amount of nutrients available to them. I don't believe that at lower nutrient level the plants must suffer and begin to leach something into the water which attracts algae e


 I think this is right as well. 

All my tanks are nutrient limited, some of them have a lot of light, they all have a 12 hour photoperiod and I have very little algae. 

There are certain provisos, I have "low tech" plants, all my tanks are jungles, I change some water every day, the fish mainly get live food and they've all been set up for  while.

My aim is to keep the plants growing slowly. As long as they are in some growth I don't feed them, or do any tank maintenance other than the removal of dead leaves. I monitor the growth of a floating plant (not CO2 limited), and when the new leaves are small and yellow I feed. I started with Duckweed (_Lemna minor_) as my floater (hence the <"Duckweed Index">), but eventually I found the perfect "duckweed" was Amazon Frogbit (_Limnobium laevigatum_). It is perfect because it will grow over a large range of water parameters, and shows a quick greening and growth response to nutrients.

I don't monitor any parameters, other than an occasional dip with the conductivity meter, if the tank water falls outside of the 50 - 150 microS range I adjust it with our (hard) tap water or RO water back into the required range. There was nothing scientific about the choice of the conductivity range, it was just the range of values that our rain-water has (lower in the winter, higher in the summer).

cheers Darrel


----------



## Marcel G

In the upcoming experiment I don't focus on CO2. The CO2 will remain the same throughout the whole experiment. What will be different is the minerals content (mainly NPK+Fe). I would like to find out three things:
1) what is the concentration of nutrients needed for plants to hardly survive (we would say "stagnate")
2) what is the concentration of nutrients needed for plants to grow at the highest possible growth rates (100%)
3) what is the concentration of nutrients needed for plants to grow at 50% of these highest possible growth rates

So in the experiment I will add two plants (from the same kind) into each tank, and watch how long it will take for them to double their biomass (or to grow up to the water surface level). I estimate it can take a month for the plants in the first tank (the one with the lowest concentration of nutrients) to double their biomass ... and maybe they even stay the same for the whole month (may stagnate => the die off = new growth). Then I'll put this data into the chart similiar to the one I showed you in the post #101. It's basic scientific test where just one variable at a time may change (and that be the nutrient concentration). Light, CO2, temperature, flow, water parameters etc. will remain the same during the experiment. After I finish this experiment, I may do another one where CO2 will be the variable. But that would be a different experiment.


----------



## Andy D

Hey Ardjuna,

Sorry if I have missed this somewhere else (and I have not been on your site yet) but what do you believe causes algae?

Edit - just in general. I am not expecting you to detail the cause of every type of algae.


----------



## Jose

Hi Ardjuna,
But its not enough for CO2 to be constant. It has to be non limitting, otherwise your conclusions arent going to be based on nutrients only. Youll have to say in your conclusions: This are the nutrient levels........needed for (whatever your experiment)......but only for a certain co2 ppm. So if CO2 is limitting you wont get to the right answer.


----------



## Marcel G

Andy D said:


> Sorry if I have missed this somewhere else (and I have not been on your site yet) but what do you believe causes algae? ... in general.


If your question means "What causes ever present algae in our tanks to get out of control?" Then I have to say "I don't know what's the trigger mechanism(s)". But I know that it's quite easy and straightforward to grow algae in laboratories. You just put some algae in vegetative state into the petri dish, add the specified nutrient solution (anorganic nutrients, organic ones, vitamines etc.), and put it under light. After couple of weeks ... violá ... you have your algae! So growing algae is as easy as growing plants. Why do your plants grow like mad? What "causes" them to grow well? It's no magic. It's enough light + enough nutrients + time + friendly environment (incl. good water parameters). But our planted tanks are not always so friendly to algae, and the algae usually don't have enough time there to do their "growing". We have lot of algae-eaters there, frequent water changes, efficient filtration, the algae are often deprived of light by big number of plants, quite short photoperiod etc. So many factors are working against algae in our tanks. If you give them light + nutrients + time + safety environment, then you can expect them to prosper. That's how I see it ... in general.


----------



## Mark Green

In my tank its usually a build up of organics that cause BBA, so cleaning the filter plus a good clean up in the tank like syphon soil, clean all dead plant matter seems to stop more growth.


Also I found a quote by Yo-Han which I thought was very interesting....



> some experiments I did....
> 
> I used my Vietnamese biotope as a test subject. This aquariumhas an overkill filter (Fluval U4) on an 10-12 gallon. I barely feed this tank and I do weekly 50% water changes. Almost no plants, and fertilizer whenever I feel like it. This means, plants are doing great sometimes, other times not so good. The tank is mainly filled with rocks and quite some flow (20x the tank volume). I can keep all these things constant and am able to induce BBA and stop it from growing by one simple change... oxygen!
> 
> When I aerate the tank 24/7, no BBA at all. When I stop aerating, BBA pops up. Aerate again and it stops growing (it doesn't die). Not sure whether it is the direct effect of the high oxygen, or the fact that all organics are broken down easier. But with the mass overcapacity of the filter and low organics due to little dying plants and littlefish food, I almost expect the direct effect.
> 
> In my other tank I use CO2, but by keeping the tank clean, I reduced the oxygen demand of the organics, and thus raised the amount of oxygen as well. When people use more CO2 and conquer BBA, they raise the amount of O2 as well, by making their plants produce more.


----------



## Jose

I dont think his conclusion is totally right though. I think it might have something to do with the algae detecting a certain substance/es. This substance might come from organics or maybe from suffering plants as well. So by upping O2 maybe what Johan was doing was making his filter work more efficiently to reduce this substance. In other words: o2 isnt the cause/solution directly. I think this way because in other tanks adding more O2 doesnt fix the BBA.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Jose said:


> CO2 has to be non limitting, otherwise your conclusions arent going to be based on nutrients only


 That was why I chose a floater, it took CO2 out of the equation. 

Cheers Darrel


----------



## Another Phil

ardjuna said:


> You just put some algae in vegetative state into the petri dish


Hi Ardjuna,
Is it as easy to grow it from spores in that situation? Or is it possible they need a different mechanism to grow  activate ?
I ask because;
   some folks set up a new tank, 'scape, etc and get algae problems (presumably from spores) and other folks don't,
   some folks have algae and get rid of it easily, others don't.
So there are possibly 2 separate problems; a dormancy trigger mechanism and an active continuance.
I hope that makes sense..

Good luck with the experiments, I can see with all the permutations it will be a lot of work.
cheers phil
edit - changed 'grow' to 'activate'


----------



## karla

sciencefiction said:


> I read it and it still doesn't mean much to me. Even my low tech tanks do better with more light contrary to what I read around and plants suffer if the light is reduced so it's not just co2 that plays a role in those "best looking tanks". So the way I read it is that if you put 6-7 watts per gallon(of what type of light) you need to pump obscene amounts of CO2(how much exactly and how did you measure the dissolved co2 that is indeed available to plants?) and you get the best looking tanks that's you've done(about which I won't argue, they probably are)
> 
> 
> From all those "arguments" to me it seems that the biggest problem is that it's hard to dissolve and distribute the co2 in a way so that most if not all of that pumped co2 doesn't just pass by and out the door before the plants have got a glimpse at it. Most people just presume on given tables and ph profiles what the co2 level is but in fairness no one knows for sure or do we? And then again we argue that higher than this or lower than that is best. Maybe the 30ppm you pump in actually gives you a stable 10ppm?
> 
> Is there a way to measure for sure the amount of dissolved co2 in water that is available to plants in a particular aquarium near a particular plant?



I never have used a drop checker or ph meter. In the tanks I mention, they were not great but were the best I did myself.
I think titration is the only method economically viable, but probably not relevant to our needs.
You maybe right about actual ppm values it is very difficult to economically evaluate, but plant growth and health is best indicator. Light, High co2 and low light has always failed for me, usually resulting in cyanobacteria, diatomic algae and rotting stems, this does not mean it fail for everyone else though. Replicating conditions which gave success in the past seems to be very difficult at times. I have no answers I am sorry to say, just having fun trying different things.
Sometimes walking away and not looking at the tank for 3-4 days improves them a lot!  
Fishes and shrimp make people to walk on a knife edge with co2, I do not personally keep fishes in experimental tanks or high co2 tanks, but many do, with good success.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> I dont think his conclusion is totally right though. I think it might have something to do with the algae detecting a certain substance/es. This substance might come from organics or maybe from suffering plants as well. So by upping O2 maybe what Johan was doing was making his filter work more efficiently to reduce this substance. In other words: o2 isnt the cause/solution directly. I think this way because in other tanks adding more O2 doesnt fix the BBA.



What substance do you have in mind that the filter bacteria in conjuction with oxygen actually reduces? All I can think of is ammonia. By increasing oxygen, the nitrifying bacteria will oxidise the ammonia produced faster, thus not leaving it available to algae which loves ammonia.  This should be the job of the plants too, but if they are suffering at that moment and actually produce more organics than ammonia they can consume/oxygen they can produce,  then good filtration and extra high oxygen via other means is the redundancy mechanism.
When you increase oxygen, the organics also break up faster by other type of bacteria responsible for that.  The organics probably break up into many different forms like ammonia, even nitrite, CO2, other minerals and substances, etc.. and from there they are picked up again by other things like nitrifying bacteria, plants etc..  The algae on another hand, maybe capable of extracting its food directly from organics before they are broken down by bacteria,  unlike plants that need them in a different form, so when organics are reduced by high oxygenation, algae has less food to thrive on. It's the rule I follow in my low tech tanks and it works against algae. From 5 tanks, I've only battled algae in one in years, and as I mentioned before, it's an overstocked tank so I can't help it unless some fish die off(hopefully not)  But it hasn't had algae in about 6 months now, since which time I added an airstone, never even thought about it till today to be honest. It could be a coincidence. My tanks are low tech, high surface movement, overfiltered, large weekly water changes, moderate light the least if not even high, all unlike the typical low tech tank. And that doesn't produce algae at all if stocked accordingly.

And I've actually experienced what Yo-han says above. I had a brief encounter with BBA in one tank years ago, on the dwarf grass on the bottom, soon after setup. I started it with one sponge filter which tended to clog and barely move water in and out.  I added a 2nd filter and an air stone, cut off the bba affected grass and I never saw bba again in this tank.
What he says makes sense to me.


----------



## Zak Rafik

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, That was why I chose a floater, it took CO2 out of the equation.
> Cheers Darrel


Hi Darrel,
I remember a post by you on how to use floaters to check for Co2 but I've seem to have lost it. Can you please repost or provide the link?
Thanks.
Cheers.


----------



## Marcel G

Another Phil said:


> there are possibly 2 separate problems: a dormancy trigger mechanism and an active continuance.


That's the "spores vs. vegetative cells" controversy.

T.Barr says that in our tanks there is a great number of algae spores which are just waiting for some trigger mechanism(s) to "activate" [germinate] them, and then they start to grow like mad. If you want to know what may be the trigger to germinate _*algae spores*_, look at this article.

I myself tried to analyse more than hundred water samples from different aquriums under the microscope, and to be honest I was not lucky enough to find any one single algae spore. I'm not saying we don't have algae spores in our tanks, but in my opinion 99.9% of algae present in our tanks are in the form of _*vegetative cells*_. For algae to go into the dormant state (spore) it needs to experience some extremely unfriendly conditions ... otherwise it's just keeps to grow and multiply.

So the whole fight for finding out what "triggers" algae is useless according to me. As if most algae are in vegetative form, then they don't need to be "triggered" to grow. They just need a few things for them to multiply enough. So why they don't bloom in our tanks if they are ready to do so? I think that the main reason are the "inhibiting factors" which hinders them (low pH, algae-eaters, frequent water changes, low organics, efficient filtration, relatively low light intensity, big amount of plants, high levels of oxygen, high redox, good maintenance, low fish load etc.). This all may contribute to keeping algae at check. If you watch carefully your algae-eaters, you'll see that on all plants and decorations (= just everywhere) there are actually algae growing, and the shrimps and other algae-eaters are constantly eating them. If there were no algae growing, our algae-eaters would probably die. So don't think that in your (or anyone else's) tank there are not any algae. The algae are always present and growing. But if the conditions are not opportune then the growth is very slow. The same is true with our plants. Some aquarists have problems growing aquatic plants. This means that they don't understand what the plants really need and how to provide it to them. Once they provide their plants with everything they need, they'll just grow fine (and sometimes even they'll grow like mad). The "only" problem which makes it hard for us to grow our plants (and sometimes easy for algae to grow like mad) is that aquarium is quite complicated ecosystem with a lot of variables and different factors which sometimes we are just not able to control very well (mainly because we just don't know how they relate with each other ... we are not enough educated or use strange equipment, water, substrates etc.). I would recommend each aquarist who want to learn grow plants, to first start with growing terrestrial plants. This is very good for aquiring the basics (what plants need, which soil, how many nutrients in water, how much light etc.). The terrestrial plants (houseplants) are quite easy to grow as they require just very few things (good soil, rather mild watering, and good light). With aquatic plants it's harder as you have more factors coming into play underwater (mainly different water parameters, bad soils we sometimes use, bad filtration, unbalanced nutrition, algae etc.). As we often don't see the correlation between nutrients, light, algae, water parameters, soil ... we are then often experiencing so many problems.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Zak Rafik said:


> Hi Darrel,
> I remember a post by you on how to use floaters to check for Co2 but I've seem to have lost it. Can you please repost or provide the link?


Probably this one <"Low maintenance long term substrate...">., although a search for <"Duckweed Index"> should bring up plenty more.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Edvet

ardjuna said:


> tried to analyse more than hundred water samples


 Which volume? did you use a centrifuge?


----------



## Another Phil

ardjuna said:


> If you want to know what may be the trigger to germinate algae spores, look at this article.


 Hi Ardjuna,
Interesting article and thanks for the detailed reply.
cheers phil


----------



## Marcel G

Edvet said:


> Which volume? did you use a centrifuge?


I did not use any laboratory methods of analysis, so I did not used a centrifuge as I don't have access to any. I just sampled algae from different places in different tanks, and look at them under microscope. But I discussed this matter also with several algologists who confirmed that it's very rare to find out any spores under normal circumstances (like the ones in our tanks).


----------



## chandler

dw1305 said:


> Probably this one <"Low maintenance long term substrate...">., although a search for <"Duckweed Index"> should bring up plenty more.



Hi Darrel, in the first link above you stated that the floaters had at least one deficiency. Maybe the knowledge level has advanced since, but I remember Zapins over at the APC saying that a plant can have only one deficiency at a time. Found that interesting so I made a mental note to myself.... Any thoughts on that?

I have not made any efforts finding the thread yet, but I will try to find a link.

Cheers, Chandler


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





chandler said:


> in the first link above you stated that the floaters had at least one deficiency. Maybe the knowledge level has advanced since, but I remember Zapins over at the APC saying that a plant can have only one deficiency at a time. Found that interesting so I made a mental note to myself.... Any thoughts on that?


 Yes, there is a difference between which element is limiting, and which elements are stopping optimal growth.

*Liebig's law of the minimum*
At any one point only one element is limiting plant growth, this is described in <"Liebig's law of the minimum">. 





> _It states that growth is controlled not by the total amount of resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor)._


 You can think of it like an assembly line, the speed of the whole assembly line can't go quicker than the slowest process, if you speed up all the other parts of the assembly line you don't get any more production. However if you speed up the slowest process, more units will be assembled, but another process (the new slowest) will then govern the the productivity of the whole assembly line.

It is just the same with plant growth, it is an assembly line. What governs the potential productivity is the amount of light (PAR -
Photosynthetically Active Radiation), because light drives photosynthesis.

For that full potential to be utilised all other nutrients need to be non-limiting. If you have low levels of plant nutrients one will be limiting (usually one of carbon (C), nitrogen (N) or potassium (K), because they are the nutrients that plants need most of).  If you add more CO2, the plants can only utilise it if they have access to non-limiting levels of N, P, K etc.

If you add more nitrogen, but potassium levels are limiting growth, you don't get any more growth.  To get more growth you need to add more potassium etc.

Because my tanks have low levels of all nutrients, one nutrient will be the limiting factor, but nearly all the others will be deficient as well.

cheers Darrel


----------



## chandler

What a great answer Darrel, thank you -- it is crystal clear now


----------



## fablau

Ardjuna, I have read most of your articles, and I found them fascinating. I have 4 questions for you: 

1. How do you measure precisely Co2 concentration? In your Co2 article you mentioned the KH/ph correlation, but how you calculate that?

2. What about flow? What's your opinion on water flow and how that can affect plants as well as Co2 distribution and stability? What's your recommended water flow compared to tank size?

3. Always in your Co2 article, you found out that to have stable Co2, we need aeration via surface rippling or other similar way, but what if the surface rippling is to much? Can that cause a disruption of Co2 stability and create a negative effect?

4. Back to BBA, do you think Co2 fluctuations could really contribute to BBA, and maybe flow, degassing and rippling could play a role in that?

Thanks.

Fab.


----------



## Sacha

Jose said:


> Although I still dont get it, some pieces are missing for me. How come with such a bad CO2 diffusion method as a diffuser they have such great tanks while we need a 1 ph drop with a light in the same region, and inline atomizers? How do they not get algae if co2 comes on at the same time as the lights? Most people here recommend turning on co2 some hours before lights on so that co2 levels build up. They have no surface ripple during the day either?
> 
> I think high maintenance and soft water make up for some of these. But it doesnt explain it completely.




I don't understand it at all. My dream tank (at Aquatic Design Centre) is set up like this: 

High light 
Single glass diffuser (bubbles floating straight up to the surface) 
Single Eheim outflow at opposite side of tank to the diffuser 
Low flow, no surface agitation 
Loads of beautiful healthy plants
No algae 

How does this work?


----------



## Sacha

Just to add my experience. 

The first year of owning my tank, I had no idea what I was doing. Basic plants (swords and crypts), 14 hours of light every day, no Co2, no ferts, low flow, 20% weekly water changes. 

No BBA. 

Now: 
Loads of plants, 7 hours of light, high Co2, massive flow, 50% weekly water changes.

BBA all over both of my spray bars (nowhere else).


----------



## Jose

Hi Sacha, the tank you describe sounds like and ADA style tank. Maybe its maintained in the same way. I really recommend having a read ove at the barrreport.com. You might not like the theories but he explains most cases. The rest is really just myth and religion.

I believe softwater, high maintenance at the beginning and maybe phosphate limitation of plant growth is making all the difference  in the tank you mention. Basically if you can ask the owner if he doses phosphates and how much, it would break down the magic he is doing. ALso is he keeping really hard plants?


----------



## Jose

You could argue.......why should we believe him? Well.....why should we use EI then? You dont need to believe, you can of course run your own experiments but they have to be done in the right way and not intended to just disprove him but intended to find the truth for yourself. And 99.99% of cases wont have enough knowledge/resources/time/experience to get to a good answer. So you can just look at your tank and see the evidence and be critical. If it didnt work why could it be etc.


----------



## Jose

To be honest i never recall getting BBA, at least not in important ammounts, never. I always use very low light though. I do get brown dust algae when I play around with co2. Thats the only algae I get. I think in my case its all about fluctuating co2.


----------



## BruceF

Good read there.  One thing. 
under the right conditions high levels of co2 cause high levels of o2 we call this pearling. 
 Make that two things. 
I never see bba in my low tech tanks.


----------



## Jose

So all this points to Tom Barr being right. High light +not being able to meet co2 demmands seems to be calling for algae. This looks sensible to me and no one else has given an alternative theory that I know of. They only argue this or that tank doesnt fall into the theory without showing real data on the tank. Or it normally 4urns out they were limitting phosphates and indirectly co2 demmand.


----------



## fablau

Sacha said:


> Just to add my experience.
> 
> The first year of owning my tank, I had no idea what I was doing. Basic plants (swords and crypts), 14 hours of light every day, no Co2, no ferts, low flow, 20% weekly water changes.
> 
> No BBA.
> 
> Now:
> Loads of plants, 7 hours of light, high Co2, massive flow, 50% weekly water changes.
> 
> BBA all over both of my spray bars (nowhere else).



 I had a similar experience, when I set up my 75gl tank 5 years ago, for the first 2 years I used to add just 3bps of co2/sec, 8 Hours light a day (about 50PAR at substrate), the only fertilization was Seachem Comprehensive once a week, wet/dry filter and slow flow (200gl/hr), substrate just Eco Complete (virtually without nutrients), water change every 2 weeks: plants used to grow great, I used to trash buckets of trimmings every 2 weeks, and no algae at all. Then, after 2 years, I begun getting GDA and some green algae around, then I begun playing with ferts, without better results... Then 1 year ago started using EI, increased Co2 a big deal as well as flow (900gl/hr)l plants now look great and grow like crazy, but BBA appeared 6 month ago and it is a continual battle that seems to never end. BBA is the only algae I have now, but it is very annoying and looks like there is now way to get rid of it. So... I'd really like to get back to my tank first 2 years!! 

What then is causing this damn BBA in my tank? I have "unlimited" ferts, strong flow, strong surface agitation, wet/dry filter, tons of Co2 (drop checker yellow all the time!!)... I am beginning to think Ardjuna is correct in his concepts, and I'd like to know from him if too strong flow and surface agitation can play a role in BBA besides possible to many nutrients in the water column. I am willing to test!


----------



## Jose

A dropchecker doesnt really tell you anything. Measure ph and there should be at least a 1 unit ph drop.

One option besides upping co2/flow is lowring your light.

Another option is to try pps pro or alike to limit co2 demand. That was probably the case in the first stage of your tank.

What do you believe from Ardjuna? That plants only need 10 ppm of co2 when nutrients are non limitting? If so then your tank should be doing fine. Dont you think?

limitting ferts is nothing new, its actually the oldest there is.


----------



## Jose

People think that Tom Barrs philosophy is all about EI, but it is actually the only theory that explains all methods. He recommends EI but he explains why/how the rest works. This is true because he understands how plants work and isnt just trying to find a method that works for him.


----------



## Sacha

Jose, all joking aside, are you actually in love with this man? 

I'd be interested to hear if anybody has any ideas as to why I get BBA on my spray bars, but nowhere else in the tank.


----------



## Jose

Have you got something against him/me ? Because you always end up saying something personal man.  Are you jealous of something? Why dont you open your mind to new ideas? Have you got better source for this type of knowledge?

last time you were wrong, you ended up with the same sort of crap.  I dont to speak with people like you because they dont make any useful contributions.

Ardjunas thoughts are very different to mine but Im happy to debate with him whatever necessary because hes got arguments. You are all about personal ignorance which I dont really vare about.

its funny how the most ignorant are the ones who get personal.


----------



## Andy Thurston

Sacha said:


> Jose, all joking aside, are you actually in love with this man?
> 
> I'd be interested to hear if anybody has any ideas as to why I get BBA on my spray bars, but nowhere else in the tank.


 there's more people in love with amano
who cares if that's the only place you get it just clean them and keep them clean. I personally think dirt has big part to play where bba is concerned. I only see bba when I get sloppy with maintenance
I wonder how many people lie about what maintenance they do/don't do


----------



## Jose

Exactly and Amano doesnt explain nothing. But this is really about Sacha. I dont know what he has against Tom Barr and I dont really care, because it obviously isnt about science.


----------



## Sacha

Looks like I hit a nerve there. 

I didn't realise that you have such strong feelings for the man, I won't make any comments about it in future.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> So all this points to Tom Barr being right ... no one else has given an alternative theory ... showing real data on the tank. Or it normally 4urns out they were limitting phosphates and indirectly co2 demmand.


Sorry to say that, but it seems to me, Jose, that you do exactly what you criticise. I did not see any serious data by you or T.Barr ... ever! Barr says that he did a lot of testing and come to the conclusion that most aquatic plants need XY amount of nutrients to be not limited by nutrients. But he never ever showed any solid data to support his strange theories. Nor did you. But despite this you still defend him and his theories like you know for sure they're the only true. This is a clear sign of sectarianism. I told you already that according to scientists there are (at least) some plants that need 9 ppm of PO4 to experience non-limiting growth. So why the hell are you still saying that EI is non-limiting?! Open your eyes and see that 3 ppm of PO4 (= EI) is *not* non-limiting!!! So when you're saying that all people except T.Barr use probably limiting amount of phosphates, then be sure that T.Barr's IE method uses limiting amount of phosphates *as well* ... all the time since it was invented!!! So what does it mean? That probably all the aquarists uses limiting amount of phosphates in their tanks ... there's probably no such tank which is trully non-limiting. So your theory of non-limiting nutrients in our tank has some serious faults. Also, *please*, read the article by Gerloff and Krombholz about the growth of aquatic plants. Maybe you'll get to know (finally) that for some plants even *90 ppm of NO3* may not be non-limiting!!! So if you want to show me that T.Barr's theory is correct, then what about to show me some data first? Why do you believe T.Barr is true? What do you base your faith upon? I can give you several cases where T.Barr misinterpreted scientific data, which is why I don't trust him. But that's my personal view. But if you show me some results of your/his experiments (together with the methodology), then I can think of it. Until this happens your arguments will be mostly just speculations for me (without any solid ground).


----------



## Marcel G

Also, please, do me a favor and ask some true experts on growing aquatic plants (not T.Barr). Ask them what nutrient concentration they usually use for growing non-rooted aquatic plants. I'm absolutely sure they will recommend you *much* higher nutrient levels then EI recommends. Then ask yourselves why is this? Why they use several times higher nutrient concentration if T.Barr showed us that IE is already non-limiting? ... Oh, sorry, I know what you'll say ... that *all* these scientists are just old-school and they're lying to themselves (and other) for all their life. I'm sorry I'm so sarcastic, but I just don't like your way of criticising others while you did not show me any solid data yet.


----------



## fablau

Jose said:


> A dropchecker doesnt really tell you anything. Measure ph and there should be at least a 1 unit ph drop.



My PH drop is 1.4 (from 7.6 to 6.2). Is that enough?? I think so! Not only I measure PH drop, but I measure how much actual Co2 inject: 80ml per minute. I Think that's a lot. Diffusion method? Reactor with needle wheel pump.


----------



## Jose

Ardjuna, I agree with you that non limiting can be a lot higher than EI. But you yourself have shown how the growth figure for all plants looks like. After a certain value it can be considered non limitting even though plants can still grow faster at higher levels.

This non limitting arguement only draws attention from the important stuff. If you run the experiments at your non limitting levels your conclusions will be pretty much the same.

Having more nutrients to the water will only up the demand for co2.

Im sorry if you feel offended by my lack of data. Well Im no scientist and I dont have such thing. I never intended to have this data since ive always been clear about my situation and lack of resources. I only have a small tank atm. But still having more  numbers doesnt prove a thing. And if data is needed we can all stop debating all this.


----------



## Jose

To Fablau: if you have everything spot on as you say, what would you say the problem is? Ardjuna, how would explain his problems/algae? I would like to see alternatives from thos who think Tom Barr is wrong.
Ardjuna, so what if EI is not strictly non limitting? How does this affect anything? It just doesnt.


----------



## Jose

To Ardjuna, the main thing here is that i dont pay much attention to the numbers unlike you but  I look into the theory and how it explains things. So what if 3 isnt non limitting for most and maybe 5 or 7 is?  This isnt really the questions we have to ask IMO.
Plus this isnt explaining anything algae wise or is it? I cant see the relationship between algae and this non limitting values. If we achieve higher non limitting levels, what effect is this going to have? Less algae? More algae?

In the end its all about semantics. Non limitting. What does this mean? The levels so that plants grow at a maximum speed? Well then this values are very high yes. But it can also be considered non limitting when a plant grows maybe at 90% its maximum potential. The difference can be 5ppm of phosphates yes but growthwise its pretty mucch the same. Even you yourself have mentioned this before.


----------



## Jose

I recall you having this conversation with T Barr. I think the consensus was a bit like: OK, EI isnt strictly speaking non limiting but its the most non limitting method out there, and good luck trying to convince people to dose more than EI.

Another thing: the article you posted is all about very weedy plants like vallisneria, ceratophylum, elodea etc, which will obviously uptake loads of nutrients.

Im not saying 3 ppm of phosphates is ideal.  I dont know this, nor do I know if Tom Barrs numbers are exactly right. But I do know this exact numbers wont make much of a difference In the overall philosophy which is what Im interested in.

I once prepared a 2 ppm solution and got green spot algae, so what did I do?just doubled it up, and problem fixed.


----------



## Andy Thurston

Jose said:


> I recall you having this conversation with T Barr. I think the consensus was a bit like: OK, EI isnt strictly speaking non limiting but its the most non limitting method out there, and good luck trying to convince people to dose more than EI.


he doesn't need to threes plenty people dosing extra phosphates to combat gsa.
EI estimative index is a starting point and should be adjusted up or down according to your needs. At one point I was dosing 2.5X basic ei just to see if it made any difference to plant growth and i didn't see much if any improvement so reduced the dose back down I am still dosing 2x phosphates though


----------



## Jose

Me too Big Clown. Im not saying he needs to. Its just what Barr said. Keep in mind all the trouble hes gone through to convince people about EI levels not being dangerous. So imagine recommending more.


----------



## Andy D

ardjuna said:


> Also, please, do me a favor and ask some true experts on growing aquatic plants (not T.Barr).



To be fair, he doesn't seem to be too bad at it! 










How about a little friendly competition. Let's put it to the test. Ardjuna Vs Tom. Who can produce the most varied, healthiest planted tank?

(Just messing with you a little Ardjuna. I do like reading your posts. )


----------



## Jose

Well if it were about nice tanks whatever Amano said would be gospel.


----------



## Rahms

Jose I don't think its semantics.  I think its accepting that the explanations that are presented aren't necessarily correct.  You repeatedly state that you have no numbers or proof and that you aren't a scientist, but you also repeatedly disagree with people. It exposes a pretty strong bias which is frustrating to read. Haven't seen you once accept a point! Even in the face of EI being limiting (i.e. directly opposed to the science justifying it), you are dismissing ardjuna's point that the science is poor

I've come at this with a very similar experience to you, in that the methods proposed by tom barr clearly work.  But the articles linked by ardjuna _do _show flaws in the explanations backing it up. Its similar to broscience in the gym: you can hear some outright BS come from the mouths of big fellas. Clearly they get results, but it might not be because they drink a shot of olive oil when they wake up (...thats a thing). Making theories to fit limited data is really rather easy, which is why stating anything with certainty is pretty useless at this point. Ardjuna is trying to understand the science, TB is trying to provide a "formula" for success. The reason they clash is because TB is using allegedly flawed science to bolster his claims. This is peer review at work, yay science. TB can propose methods and a theory.  The method may work brilliantly but this doesn't prevent the theory being a load of toss!


----------



## Andy Thurston

It would seem that much more scientific research is required, more specifically, where planted tanks are concerned. Unfortunately we aquarists have not got the funds available to research it properly, so we have to rely on interpretations of papers that aren't really relevant to planted aquaria and hobbyists anecdotal data.
I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion, experiments, or even peer reviewed papers just saying they may not be very accurate. unless we spend millions on research on scientific research all we have is a "best guess" situation
It is still an interesting discussion though 
I wonder what Clive's thoughts are on the matter.


----------



## candymancan

Nice tank, but those picture look edited to me.. increase color saturation isn't hard to do to a picture... but still a extremely impressive tank


----------



## fablau

Jose said:


> To Fablau: if you have everything spot on as you say, what would you say the problem is? Ardjuna, how would explain his problems/algae? I would like to see alternatives from thos who think Tom Barr is wrong.
> Ardjuna, so what if EI is not strictly non limitting? How does this affect anything? It just doesnt.



No idea! That's why I am asking you guys. The only answer I got is: pump more Co2 or make it more stable, but I don't think I need more Co2 and I think it is stable unless something else is going on as I was asking (degas, flow, rippling... What else??)


----------



## Andy D

candymancan said:


> Nice tank, but those picture look edited to me.. increase color saturation isn't hard to do to a picture... but still a extremely impressive tank



Maybe. Check out the video -


----------



## dougstar

I'm no expert Andy D but have to agree pics look doctored to me


----------



## Andy D

dougstar said:


> I'm no expert Andy D but have to agree pics look doctored to me



Maybe. I don't know. My photography skills begin and end with my phone. 

The video is quite clear though so this will give you a true image.


----------



## Jose

Its a very interesting conversation. Still I dont see any alternative explanations, even though some studies have been linked etc.

Ardjunas points have been:

-10 ppm co2 is enough with high nutrient levels. Well many tanks show this isnt true and you need more co2.

-EI is not strictly non limitting. I admitted this as true in many cases. But how does it affect everything else? This does not affect anything in my opinion.

So when people agree with Ardjuna can they say exactly in what. Because then you can try a high light tank with 10 ppm co2 and 9 ppms of phosphate And 100 par. We shall see what the result is.

p.s: I think T B uses some lights with a red/purple hue to achieve this colours. I dont really think they are photoshopped. He is very critical of this, but Im not sure. 

To those who say I dont admit anything: I admitted Ardjunas last argument to being right, but I also explained why it is taken a bit out of context and Im still wondering how this proves TB is wrong or how it disproves anything.

Weve been shown a lot of data but nothing really that says something new. I do appreciate all the info thats been added and its been quite interesting for me. The thing is that people think Im going to believe TB even if he is wrong. Well I want to know the truth and I dont care if its from Mr Ardjuna or Mr Barr.


----------



## sciencefiction

I don't think there's just one cause for BBA. I  think several different causes or combination of them can lead to the same thing, favourable conditions for BBA.
.


Andy D said:


> Maybe. Check out the video -




The tank looks great, no doubt. But the first time I watched it ages ago I remember seeing the thick green algae on the glass when he removed plants to the very left, around 14:00 min into the video. It looks like it has been previously scrabbed to the very bottom but someone missed that spot.  Maybe it was old left overs.


----------



## Jose

Saying 9 ppm of phosphates is strictly non limitting for some weed doesnt mean that 3 ppm isnt mostly non limitting for most of our tanks. See the context here? See why you need to be critical with the info? Look at the growth figure for aquatic plants. There are different areas in the figure. Ei might not be in the highest but its still over the limitting values. Ok so its not 100% non limitting but maybe 80% depending on the plant. So?


----------



## sciencefiction

I don't get where this conversation is going.
To me it seems clear that despite using one concept or another, people battle algae.
So why is there algae if people know so well how to grow the plants best?
Is the concept applied incorrectly or is the concept incorrect itself?


----------



## Jose

Well look at Tom Barrs tanks. Does the concept work? Yes. Is it totally right? Only time will tell. IS it the easiest? I dont think so. Is it the most complete? I think so for now.

Many people struggle with EI. Why is this? I think because its hard to get co2 right. But there are many other things that can go wrong as well. So all this people will think the method doesnt work.


----------



## Andy Thurston

the choice of lighting over toms tank will help bring out the colours


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Well look at Tom Barrs tanks. Does the concept work? Yes.


This is what I try to point out _["I don't get where this conversation is going." - sciencefiction]_.
Many people think that Barr's EI works in all cases which just isn't true. Yes, it works in Barr's tank. Yes, it works in other tanks. But there are many tanks where it doesn't work. Why? Because, according to me, Barr's way of explaining the universally working method of EI is just wrong. He has beautiful tanks (no doubt!), but it doesn't mean that they are beautiful exactly because of what he states as the reasons. In other words, he has beautiful tanks, and he thinks that it's because he uses extremely high and stable CO2 together with high nutrients levels. I try to provoke you (by my posts) into thinking about the arguments he (Barr) uses. Are they really correct? For example, Barr says that whenever he lowers his 50-70 ppm concentration of CO2, he gets algae. So he thinks that the algae are "triggered" by low CO2 levels. I just try to show you that the way he explains his success may be wrong. How did he come to the conclusion that low CO2 levels are "causing" algae in his tanks? Did he do any scientific (i.e. correct and well documented) experiments? No! He just says this, and many people indiscriminately believe him. I tried to show you many times (using many different arguments and links) that his way of explaining how things work in our tanks seems to be rather misinterpretations in many cases. He never published detailed methodology of his experiments. Of course, he doesn't need to publish anything, but in that case I just don't believe he's right because he says so. I know many cases of tanks using EI with terrible results. And whenever I confront you with these examples, you just explain it out (too low CO2, phoshates limitation, unstable CO2 levels). So every " enemies' " arguments are just examples of wrong EI use ... you are just not able to accept they may be true. So whenever I show you a tank with low CO2, high PO4, high light and no algae, you explain to me that it's just not possible ... I'm lying ... Barr is right ... and I should do many more experiments to prove I'm right. On the other hand, you never ask Barr to prove that low CO2 really "triggers" algae, that plants are not able to grow well under low CO2 levels etc. In my case you require more experiments results, evidences etc. (although I showed you two tanks - one of mine and one of my friend). In case of T.Barr you seems to content with him saying that his success has to do something with high and stable CO2 levels (without the need of any data). I can not shake the feeling that you like his tank so much that you are just accepting everything he says (regardless of whether it's true or not). Or did you tried to grow plants under low CO2 levels (10-15 ppm), high phosphates (3-7 ppm), and high light (100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate) yourself? I did.


----------



## Andy Thurston

heres an example of an ei tank that went wrong and is recovering nicely under a different regime
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/the-full-monty-one-year-on-update-with-photos.33594/


----------



## naughtymoose

My 240L, medium light (apparently) well-filtered, good-flow. quite-well-planted tank has started getting BBA. No CO2, but 6ml of Glute and 3ml of Profito each day.

What should I do PLEASE???




 (Borrowed from the interweb)


----------



## sciencefiction

naughtymoose said:


> My 240L, medium light (apparently) well-filtered, good-flow. quite-well-planted tank has started getting BBA. No CO2, but 6ml of Glute and 3ml of Profito each day.
> What should I do PLEASE???



See that's the problem. We don't see the tank as a whole. What's your filtration exactly? What's your stocking? What do you feed them, how much, how often?  How much and how often do you do water changes? How fast do you remove the damaged by algae plants? Or do you let them stay in there till the maintenance day?  Besides algae, are there any other visible plant deficiencies, signs they are not growing as they should?
Although if you really have adequate filtration to the size of the bioload, do water changes weekly, even with suffering plants you won't get algae in a low tech.
What type of plants do you have? Do you have enough fast growing plants or are they all just the typical low tech slow growers like crypts, anubias, java fern....recipe for disaster.
Once the plants are damaged by algae, it's a snowball effect because the plants become bioload too instead of filtering the water and then again, if your filtration is not that good, there's nothing to help bar mechanical removal and large water changes.



> What should I do PLEASE


Get ramshorn snails 

Dose more glute.

Dose macro ferts too.

Don't dose glute at all.


Plenty of choices


----------



## pepedopolous

naughtymoose said:


> What should I do PLEASE???


I'm no expert but I think the following can help. BBA can grow on hardscape and perfectly healthy plants. People get it in high flow areas and low flow dead spots. I think dirt and too much light can give it a chance to get hold. Then you have to kill it, remove it and see if it comes back...

1) Clean your substrate, any dead spots where detritus collects, filter, pipes and tubes.
2) Reduce light by raising lamps, adding floating plants, or if you have an LED controller- turn them down!
3) Do big water changes and apply glute directly to BBA.

No. 3 will kill the BBA for sure but 1 and 2 hopefully will stop it coming back again.

P


----------



## Jose

Hi Ardjuna. I Will stop being a pain after this

1) If a hobiist is not getting good results with ei, this only means he is not applying it correctlY. PLEASE READ ON....

2) Ardjuna, If you have a tank with high phosphates, high light and co2, could you give all the info you can about  it Please. I  would love to look into this further. Maybe plants can adapt to whichever ppm of co2 just like they do in a low tech. this is not what Ive seen but I havent had very high light tanks either.


----------



## Marcel G

I don't want to repeat myself as I already said what I wanted to. In my previous posts there's everything one needs to know to judge if there is something on it.

Right now I'm running my tank with lean fertilizing regime, but a few months ago I dosed 3-7 ppm of PO4 together with a full EI recommended values for other nutrients. My friend did not used any liquid macro fertilizer in his tank, but he used DIY substrate with a huge amount of macronutrients in it (using three different garden fertilizers => and if you were there when he loaded the substrate with the fertilizer you would probably say to him that he's really crazy as the amount of fertilizer was just huge!; so no doubt there was a huge amount of NPK for plants in the substrate). So both of us used quite big amounts of nutrients in our tanks, so I would say that plants have nearly non-limiting environment for their growth. You can look at the parameters here under "1. test" and "2. test" (although at that time I used lean fertilizing regime, but you can just substitute the low nutrient values with high nutrient values as couple of months ago I used EI method in this tank with the same results ... only my plants grew faster), and also here under "Method #1". I did quite a few tests with different fertilizing regimes (different nutrient levels + different CO2 levels) with the same tank. I never got algae in there despite the fertilizing regime (except when I raised the light level from 70 to 120 µmol PAR for the first time, but after 10 days the GDA was gone). In most cases I used very high light levels (~100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate, 400-500 µmol PAR at the surface). As I said, I see no correlation between low CO2 levels (10-15 ppm) and algae. If you get algae under 10-15 ppm of CO2, then there are probably some other factors in play.

PS: Please, read the section "Plant responses to limited resources of nutrients" also to see that the Liebig's "law of the minimum" is not the only rule that governs the nutrient uptake in our plants. Maybe you'll finally rethink the concept of nutrient uptake by aquatic plants.


----------



## roadmaster

Jose said:


> I ask myself this question too. Tom Barrs EI method doesnt necessarily have to be the easiest but it is the most complete for a high tech. Ive had bad results when limitting nutrients before but Im still open to the idea of limitting via phosphates.



And why would you be open to limiting phosphates?


----------



## roadmaster

Is it not the light that drives the demand for everything the plant's/algae use for growth?
Does anyone think temperature's play a role in metabolisim's of plant's and maybe  algae and it's proliferation?
Is there more than one way to grow aquatic plant's?
What makes one an expert?
Why do low tech tanks seem more  stable? less problems?
How many folks I wonder, grew plant's in bowls, tubs, long before the advent of fluorescent lights and CO2 injection and or EI or other dosing schemes.?


----------



## Jose

To roadmaster, because this way co2 can be easier to manage. Its not easy to get higher co2 levels in some tanks. If I was to keep discus just as an example.


----------



## fablau

I'd really appreciate an answer from Ardjuna to my questions in post #124. After this long debate about what Tom Barr says and what Ardjuna says, we haven't tackled what this thread was created for: What exactly causes BBA?


----------



## dougstar

Hahahahahah 


fablau said:


> I'd really appreciate an answer from Ardjuna to my questions in post #124. After this long debate about what Tom Barr says and what Ardjuna says, we haven't tackled what this thread was created for: What exactly causes BBA?


 so close yet so far Hahahahahah


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> 1) If a hobiist is not getting good results with ei, this only means he is not applying it correctlY. PLEASE READ ON....


Jose, I don't want to be impolite, but in this thread as well as in previous threads, you have admitted not having a scientific background, not having a long experience on planted tanks, not having read scientific literature about this topic, not having done your own experiments, not having worked with high lights, having problems with different algae... nothing wrong with all this (most of us are actually in that same situation), but even though you don't want to admit that there may be a different approach to planted tanks management.

As mentioned by Fablau


fablau said:


> After this long debate about what Tom Barr says and what Ardjuna says, we haven't tackled what this thread was created for: What exactly causes BBA?


we don't know what exactly causes BBA, because it is probably a combination of different issues difficult to be assessed in our tanks (and that some of us think that goes beyond the very simplistic answer "too much light and/or poor CO2". How important are these other factors, how important is CO2 fluctuations, etc.? We don't know... most of us keep planted tanks as a hobby, we do not have tanks for comparing things or controlling parameters, and honestly I don't feel bad for this. I can keep on enjoying my tanks and I keep on enjoying good threads about this topic in which people with lots of experience, scientific background, experiments done, etc. try to look for new answers.

I'm sorry guys but lately there has been some threads like this one in which the discussion becomes cyclical... don't you think so?

Jordi


----------



## sciencefiction

roadmaster said:


> And why would you be open to limiting phosphates?



I recall reading a good bit of time ago somewhere, possibly 3 years ago, about certain plants having a priority for certain nutrients. This was posted by an aquarist, not a scientist but apparently with long time background in growing aquatic plants for sale, but growing them underwater, not emersed, meaning he couldn't afford to have algae.  I can't recall where I read it, I must try to find it but I remember the general idea he explained.

His method is basically to keep the tank to a state of near Green Spot Algae. In order to do that he first induces GSA by dosing just KNO3 which would deplete the PO4. Then he would start dosing PO4 a gram or so a day for a week until the GSA stops growing. On the day of the week that happens, he would calculate back the PO4 amount dosed up to that day, and that would be his weekly dose of PO4. If it doesn't happen on the first week. He'd do a 50% water change, clean GSA daily and then dose double the PO4 a day and monitor till it stops growing. The point being that he doesn't limit PO4, he only limits it to what the particular tank exactly needs, no more, no less.

In his words, some tanks need more phosphorous, some less due to the specific plants.  Anubias and microsorums(and some other ones I can't remember) he says have a priority consumption for phosphorous for example and such tanks may need more phosphate.

The reason he "limits" PO4 this way, is to limit the CO2 demand. But he said he doesn't really limit the PO4. What he would limit or not overdose is potassium because extra potassium would drive nitrate to 0 at times which would cause algae.

He applied same method for other types of algae and other nutrients I can't remember about, first induce, then fix the algae.

He said that the BBA algae, the brush type growing on edges of leaves is caused by a lack of CO2 combined with high Ca and high Kh(this sounds just like all of my tanks) His solution was check Kh,  use RO to reduce the Kh.

The other type of black algae, that grows like charcoal covering the entire leaves and is not hairy, he says is caused by too much PO4 in comparisson to NO3 and lack of CO2.  His solution, stop adding phosphates, improve co2.

His method of injecting max amount of co2 is using the live stock as indicator. By monitoring the tank and increase CO2 injection each hour, until stock starts gasping. Then reduce co2 one step back when they weren't gasping and that's his daily max co2 amount.

His method is only applicable in high light, high co2 tanks so I haven't tried any of it. But here it goes for the sake or knowledge.


----------



## Marcel G

fablau said:


> I have 4 questions for you:


_*1. How do you measure precisely Co2 concentration? In your Co2 article you mentioned the KH/ph correlation, but how you calculate that?*_
a) I measure the pH, alkalinity and temperature (sometimes myself, sometimes in the lab), and based on these data I calculate the CO2 concentration using the CO2 calculator on my site.
b) I use a dropchecker to check if I am somewhere near to the calculated numbers.
I don't have a CO2 meter, yet I believe that the calculated data are quite close to the real values in my tank.

_*2. What about flow? What's your opinion on water flow and how that can affect plants as well as Co2 distribution and stability? What's your recommended water flow compared to tank size?*_
Flow is quite important in my opinion, as for all the nutrients (incl. CO2) to get into our plants they need to overcome some bariers => boundary layer, cuticle, cell membranes etc. The bigger the boundary layer or the thicker the cuticle, the slower is the diffusion of nutrients into the plant leaves. And flow can substantially reduce the thickness of the boundary layer. So in the tank with a good flow, the nutrient uptake by plants is much faster (more effective) than in tanks with slow or no flow. As to my recommendation, I think that the flow should be as fast as possible, BUT not as fast so that the plants won't be able to keep their leaves in a proper position toward the light source (in other words, plant leaves need to be directed toward the sun, so if the flow is too strong and the leaves are ripped by the current, that's already too much. So higher flow means usually better nutient uptake rates.

_*3. Always in your Co2 article, you found out that to have stable Co2, we need aeration via surface rippling or other similar way, but what if the surface rippling is to much? Can that cause a disruption of Co2 stability and create a negative effect?*_
I think that too much surface rippling won't lead to CO2 unstability but rather to lower yet stable CO2 levels. The more rippling, the more degassing will take place. If you add CO2 into your tank, its concentration will *constantly *increase under normal conditions (why? because the amount we usually add into our tanks is quite big, and the degassing rate is too slow to compensate it). So if you add (say) 4 bubbles per second into 60L tank, the CO2 concentration may rise up to 80 ppm. And the CO2 concentration will keep increasing until you turn the CO2 supply off (and the evening). Then it will began to *slowly *decrease. In case you add rippling into this equation, the CO2 will degass much faster, but the result won't be fluctuating CO2 levels but rather perfectly stable CO2 levels. The CO2 will degass in a constant rate, so as soon as the CO2 level reaches some equilibrium point (say) 25 ppm, it won't increase any further but rather stays the same for the whole day. All this is clearly visible in my charts. So by rippling you definitely lose some CO2 from water, but in exchange for it you'll gain much stable levels. BTW, if you use wet/dry filter you probably don't need surface rippling as this kind of filter would have probably same effect on the degassing as rippling.

_*4. Back to BBA, do you think Co2 fluctuations could really contribute to BBA, and maybe flow, degassing and rippling could play a role in that?*_
I can't imagine such CO2 fluctuations which may play some role in algae infestations. I believe that the CO2 (or pH) fluctuations in our tanks are just natural and are not so dramatic. In nature the CO2 fluctuations during the day are much "worse" (yet it doesn't imply that algae are everywhere). So my personal belief is that plants will be happy with whather CO2 we supply them. Of course, there are some adaptive mechanisms in play in nutrient uptake, but I don't believe that higher or lower (fluctuating) nutrient concentrations may have some really negative impact on plants. T.Barr tries his best to keep perfectly stable CO2 levels, but he doesn't care for keeping perfectly stable levels of other nutrients. Why? The CO2 is also a nutrient. Why should plants need stable CO2 level, but other nutrients may be dosed once a week. When we add KNO3 into the water once a week, then its concentration in water constantly decreases during the week. How is it possible that this fluctuation does not matter to plants? The uptake of all the nutrients is in close relation, so if plants really need stable CO2 levels, then they really need stable supply of other nutrients also! That's the reason I don't believe we really need a stable CO2 levels. We need enough nutrients for our plants to grow well. And I believe that low CO2 levels (10-15 ppm) are enough for our plants to grow very well. So back to BBA (genus Audouinella), I think that most algae need nutrients, light, time and undisturbed environment with reasonable parameters to multiply. In nature BBA is often present in very clear waters with higher flow (they are sometimes used as indicators of clean environment). As they live in quite clean waters (which are usually low in nutrients) I would suppose that may be the reason for them to need higher flow, as with higher flow they get higher supply of nutrients. As I know also, BBA doesn't need strong light to grow (low light is also fine for it). Sometimes we also make a wrong conclusions when speaking of "nutrients". For algae "nutrients" mean not only unorganic but organic as well (together with vitamines and other organic substances). So if you give your algae in your tank all the nutrients needed, and give them enough time to settle down and multiply (without any disturbances like water changes, algae-eaters, plants stealing them light and nutrients etc.), then you will get algae for sure. But if you have enough "disturbing" factors in your tank, the algea may have hard time to take hold and grow well. Some scientists say also that BBA doesn't like too low pH (under 6.5) => it usually live in the range of 6.5 to 8.5. As I know, T.Barr has 5.9 in his main tank, which may contribute to the fact he doesn't have any problems with this kind of algae.


----------



## Marcel G

sciencefiction said:


> I recall reading a good bit of time ago somewhere, possibly 3 years ago, about certain plants having a priority for certain nutrients. This was posted by an aquarist, not a scientist but apparently with long time background in growing aquatic plants for sale, but growing them underwater, not emersed, meaning he couldn't afford to have algae.  I can't recall where I read it, I must try to find it but I remember the general idea he explained.


You mean probably the Method of Controlled Imbalances (MCI) by Christian Rubilar.


----------



## sciencefiction

ardjuna said:


> You mean probably the Method of Controlled Imbalances (MCI) by Christian Rubilar.



Yes, that's the name!!! Thanks. I am gonna go back and read it again, now that I am hopefully wiser


----------



## sciencefiction

Have you tried reproducing his methods ardjuna?


----------



## Marcel G

No.


----------



## roadmaster

sciencefiction said:


> I recall reading a good bit of time ago somewhere, possibly 3 years ago, about certain plants having a priority for certain nutrients. This was posted by an aquarist, not a scientist but apparently with long time background in growing aquatic plants for sale, but growing them underwater, not emersed, meaning he couldn't afford to have algae.  I can't recall where I read it, I must try to find it but I remember the general idea he explained.
> 
> His method is basically to keep the tank to a state of near Green Spot Algae. In order to do that he first induces GSA by dosing just KNO3 which would deplete the PO4. Then he would start dosing PO4 a gram or so a day for a week until the GSA stops growing. On the day of the week that happens, he would calculate back the PO4 amount dosed up to that day, and that would be his weekly dose of PO4. If it doesn't happen on the first week. He'd do a 50% water change, clean GSA daily and then dose double the PO4 a day and monitor till it stops growing. The point being that he doesn't limit PO4, he only limits it to what the particular tank exactly needs, no more, no less.
> 
> In his words, some tanks need more phosphorous, some less due to the specific plants.  Anubias and microsorums(and some other ones I can't remember) he says have a priority consumption for phosphorous for example and such tanks may need more phosphate.
> 
> The reason he "limits" PO4 this way, is to limit the CO2 demand. But he said he doesn't really limit the PO4. What he would limit or not overdose is potassium because extra potassium would drive nitrate to 0 at times which would cause algae.
> 
> He applied same method for other types of algae and other nutrients I can't remember about, first induce, then fix the algae.
> 
> He said that the BBA algae, the brush type growing on edges of leaves is caused by a lack of CO2 combined with high Ca and high Kh(this sounds just like all of my tanks) His solution was check Kh,  use RO to reduce the Kh.
> 
> The other type of black algae, that grows like charcoal covering the entire leaves and is not hairy, he says is caused by too much PO4 in comparisson to NO3 and lack of CO2.  His solution, stop adding phosphates, improve co2.
> 
> His method of injecting max amount of co2 is using the live stock as indicator. By monitoring the tank and increase CO2 injection each hour, until stock starts gasping. Then reduce co2 one step back when they weren't gasping and that's his daily max co2 amount.
> 
> His method is only applicable in high light, high co2 tanks so I haven't tried any of it. But here it goes for the sake or knowledge.



While I agree with his method of using the fishes to determine the max amount of CO2 he can use for it is safer for the fishes,I cannot find merit with his method of trying to dose only what the plant's actually need.
Would not the plant mass increase daily/weekly (assuming they aren't dying) therefore precipitate the need for constant adjustment's with regards to how much of this or that nutrient might be needed?
With something as simple as EI , one could avoid much trouble from deficiency standpoint (start high and decrease till you see issues)
So long as the light does not drive the demand for more CO2/nutrient's than one can provide the EI method seem's to work well for the masses  New hobbyist's and old alike.
EI can also be used for low tech NON CO2 tanks as well at much reduced levels but still non limiting for lower light NON CO2.
Most only want to grow healthy plant's with little or no algae and are not interested initially with testing to see how lean they might be able to run the tank and still achieve desired results, and many are not familiar with identifying this or that deficiency should one or more appear.
Am alway's reading,trying to learn like I suspect many are, but conflicting opinion's about This method or that method ,what this or that deficiency looks like, what nutrient should be added or decreased,what spectrum is best for growth (happily learned there ain't one)
how much light is too much,was all very confusing for me in the beginning as I suspect it is for other's perhap's new to the hobby.
It was suggested to me by a wise man,to choose someones advice who is achieving the same goals as your's  to hang your hat on.
I chose to listen and follow the advice of those here with special thanks to Dr. Tom Barr .
Year's of fundamental mistakes/failures on my part were quickly sorted.
I have very liitle regard/time for personal attacks on other methods or fellow hobbyist's, for we only need to remind ourselves that there are many method's for growing weed's and not all methods are suitable for desired goals of individuals.
The same wise man I mentioned earlier also suggested to me to "choose a method" and learn it well, then choose another
It occurs to me that I am rambling so.....


----------



## sciencefiction

roadmaster said:


> While I agree with his method of using the fishes to determine the max amount of CO2 he can use for it is safer for the fishes,I cannot find merit with his method of trying to dose only what the plant's actually need.



The reason for him doing that is because he says he's determined that when GSA proliferates other algae stops growing or die. Hence keeping the tank in near GSA stage is the key to no algae of any kind.
But mind you, he's not limiting phosphate to do that. The phosphate needed to be dosed could be higher than what EI suggests!!! He determines how much to dose via his "protocols".  I think I might not have explained his thoughts correctly. It's best to read it yourself. .


----------



## sciencefiction

roadmaster said:


> Is there more than one way to grow aquatic plant's?


 
Maybe there are many ways to grow plants. But growing plants without algae is a totally different story.


----------



## roadmaster

Well I shall take on board everything I can and form a opinion of my own which seem to be as popular as Bar-B-Q recipe's.
I see the BBA in my own low tech NON CO2 tanks but it only grows in a tiny clump hgere or there on a rock.piece of wood,or possibly spray bar.
The method of reducing it for me,, is to keep the filters cleaned every three week's,remove the tufts of algae with scissor's,tweezer's, ensure good flow through out the tank ,reduce feeding's for I occasionally over feed when young fishes are developing.
When I change water each week or bi-weekly I use cotton ball and peroxide on the spray bar's while the tank is draining and spray bar's are exposed.I give the filter hoses a cleaning once a month.
It seem's to work well for me across three tanks.
I perform water changes during light's off, and haven't disturbed a plant in over two year with the exception of trimming them back.
I maybe see the stuff once or twice a year, a small clump here or there.
Other than this algae,,I have zero issues with other forms.
It must be this way for me, or I would long ago have abandoned the effort as I did previously when I wore a much younger man's clothes.


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> but even though you don't want to admit that there may be a different approach to planted tanks management.



Parotet, Are you reading my posts? or just cryticizing with the flow? No worries nothing personal but I even recommended pps pro to the guy having problems. Please stop for a moment and read my posts and then speak.


----------



## Jose

Ill just stop being critical and asking questions here because it seems that if you are not a scientist you cant question things. 

In this forum 90% of people have problems with EI method. So if someone comes around showing a couple of experiments and saying EI/T Barr is wrong everyone is going to fall for it whilst 90% dont understand it to begin with.

Its like offering water in the desert.

I will keep following Ardjuna because my goal is to be open minded and learn.


----------



## roadmaster

90 % of people insist on blasting the tank with their uber $$$ lighting.
I belong to several forums, and could not disagree more with the estimate that 90 % of people are having trouble with the EI method.(some /most suffer from self inflicted problems)
Theyr'e trouble begins and ends with the lighting which drives demand for everything else.
If they reduce light intensity first,,then ensure good CO2 diffusion,distribution, then algae has much more difficult time.
Hard to move folks off their lighting which would be far more helpful in getting rid of algae.


----------



## Jose

just two more things here:

1) Id still like to see people who have had success by adding high phosphates low co2 and high light. Please peolle who have seen this comment. Ardjuna, have I tried this? Yes I got stunted tips in many plants. Thats all I know and its in consonance with TB.

2) To Ardjuna, Ive never said that ei method will work in all tanks. It will work in all tanks that meat the specifications of EI. Like a certain co2 ppm for a certain ammount of light etc. So yes ei works every time as long as its ei. If its not working this means you are doing something different from EI Simple as that. How do I know since Im not a scientist? Because of all the tanks Ive seen done this way and also from my own experience in the tanks Ive done myself.

3) To Parotet: to be honest I dont care if the conversation becomes ciclical, because its all about the trip and many people are learning things in the way, including myself. Still, Ive said all I had to say (or maybe not).


----------



## Mark Green

Ardjuna any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks.  Not just 1 small tank but all the tanks you have done so we can see your advice works.
I find in this hobby that many people claim to talk the talk and have all this great wisdom but in reality have very mediocre plant health themselves.

Show us you can walk the walk, otherwise its just all talk...


----------



## Rahms

EI is not a scientific theory it is a method.  If it works that is great but it doesn't explain anything about mechanisms or "required" amounts.  Similarly, if I tell you to pot all of your houseplants in a 2m wide pot, you will find they happily grow unrestricted.  However, this doesn't mean that a 2m pot is the required size for healthy houseplants.


This discussion is trapped in a circle: EI works ---> EI explains all--> but EI doesn't explain anything ---> but EI works, so it must explain--> but the science makes no sense --> but it works and so on UNTIL TIME ENDS or, people give up replying

its ridiculous, and tiring, to read


----------



## Jose

Well Rahms I think the conversation has opened at least one new front. Its Ardjunas theory that you dont need more than 15 ppm of co2 with high light. If EI doesnt work or has drawbacks, lets look for them and proof them.


----------



## Marcel G

Mark Green said:


> Ardjuna any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks.  Not just 1 small tank but all the tanks you have done so we can see your advice works.


General reply: Tom Barr, any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks, not just 1 big tank but all the tanks you have done?
Personal reply: If you were really interested in seeing my tanks, you would find them on my website.


----------



## Jose

Is it no interesting? How come yours is one of the very very few tanks (if any) that needs low co2 with high light (@nd high nutrients of course). Ive never actually seen this before. How come most people fix their problems by adding more co2? How do you explain so many people having problems if all they need is 15 ppm of co2? It would be the easiest method if you find it possible to repeat this results Ardjuna. You might as well patent your findings or something. If I were you I would ask myself. Is this repeatable? Did I miss something? I you are able to repeat this findings then youll start to get there. But of course my words are wothless because I dont have numbers or a figure to show you.


----------



## Marcel G

Rahms said:


> This discussion is trapped in a circle: EI works ---> EI explains all--> but EI doesn't explain anything ---> but EI works, so it must explain--> but the science makes no sense --> but it works and so on UNTIL TIME ENDS or, people give up replying.


You seem to look at it from a wrong direction. Either we want to know how different things work in our tank (we pursue the truth), or we want to follow some method despite of whether it correctly explains things or not. My goal is not to show T.Barr is wrong in everything he says or does. My goal is to find out the truth (or at least to get as close to it as I can). I don't care if it's T.Barr or Clive or anybody else who will find out how different things work, but if someone seems to be using wrong (misleading) arguments, then I will try to point it out so that we can possibly correct our view and get closer to the correct picture of our tanks. If you want to blame me for not having such a beautiful and big tank as T.Barr, just go ahead (I just can't have a tank bigger then 60L at home because I have to use RO as we have 50-80 ppm NO3 in our tap water). If you think EI is the all-in-one universal most perfect and infalliable method in the world, it's your thing. And if you want some proofs of me, then in the first place prove that it's not possible to grow plants under high light, hight phosphates and low CO2! Until you do it, don't say I'm wrong. As I already said, either you are interested in finding the truth, or you just want to show all the world that your method is perfect.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Is it no interesting? How come yours is one of the very very few tanks (if any) that needs low co2 with high light (@nd high nutrients of course). Ive never actually seen this before. How come most people fix their problems by adding more co2? How do you explain so many people having problems if all they need is 15 ppm of co2? It would be the easiest method if you find it possible to repeat this results Ardjuna. You might as well patent your findings or something. If I were you I would ask myself. Is this repeatable? Did I miss something? I you are able to repeat this findings then youll start to get there. But of course my words are wothless because I dont have numbers or a figure to show you.


I know that it is repeatable, and I can repeat it as many times as I like to. But it's not about me. It's about you. It's you who doesn't believe it's possible. So it's up to you to find out if you are able to repeat it in your tank. Again, either you are interested in finding out how it works, or you just want to stick with EI despite of where the truth may be.


----------



## Jose

Well Ardj6na I tried it and failed. This is why if you think you have a finding you should fight for it. Maybe you are doing something different to us that we could learn from. This isnt about EI or Ardjuna, its about isolating the info that takes the hobby forward and leave behind those who dont honestly seak the t ruth. Sorry for sounding a bit Hollywood.


----------



## Marcel G

PS: Don't consider me a scientists as I'm not. I may be wrong the same way as everybody else. As I said, I just try to find out how things work in our tanks. If someone (whoever) shows me better arguments or better data, I may admit he's right and I'm wrong. I have no problem admiting I'm wrong. But I would appreciate if we discuss this problem using some solid and reasonable arguments and not accuse one another.


----------



## Mark Green

ardjuna said:


> General reply: Tom Barr, any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks, not just 1 big tank but all the tanks you have done?
> Personal reply: If you were really interested in seeing my tanks, you would find them on my website.



So are you saying all the tanks on your site are your tanks???
If not which are yours? Please provide links to these tanks... Thx

Also I notice on your site the following information about
*Foreign Internet forums*

The Barr Report → 


American forum dedicated to the whole issue of natural aquariums, founded by Thomas Barr (author fertilizing methods Estimative Index), which is also the most active users (threads: 12.000 number of comments:> 100,000). Although T.Barra really appreciate a lot of his contributions is undoubtedly very inspiring, I think that some of his views are controversial. Very valuable contributions here used to have a user _Biollante,_ which, however, due to frequent disputes with worshipers T.Barra ceased to attend this forum (however it is still active on the forum _The Planted Tank_ ).

UK Aquatic Plant Society → 


British forum dedicated to the whole issue of natural aquariums (number of fibers:> 25,000 Number of posts:> 330.000). I would say that the most active users, there is strongly influenced by the views T.Barra (most active of all, there is _ceg4048_ → expert on everything).Although there i find very reasonable opinions unless they are confident that for most of the problems in your aquarium can CO 2rather not go here. If, in contrast with the views T.Barra identify yourself, you'll probably feel there like in paradise.
So i gather you don't take tom barr advice worth listening to and ceg4048 advise on co2 also not worth listening too. Wow these 2 people have a lot of experience and have helped many in the hobby achieve great looking tanks with good healthy plants.

On your site you go to great lengths to discredit tom barr... But say nothing about scientific data collected from 1938 or 1966. To be impartial to the hobbyist you certainly are not.. As science has improved a great deal since then,  many myths have been proved incorrect since then also. And how data was collected back then has improved 10 fold today...


----------



## roadmaster

Rahms said:


> EI is not a scientific theory it is a method.  If it works that is great but it doesn't explain anything about mechanisms or "required" amounts.  Similarly, if I tell you to pot all of your houseplants in a 2m wide pot, you will find they happily grow unrestricted.  However, this doesn't mean that a 2m pot is the required size for healthy houseplants.
> 
> 
> This discussion is trapped in a circle: EI works ---> EI explains all--> but EI doesn't explain anything ---> but EI works, so it must explain--> but the science makes no sense --> but it works and so on UNTIL TIME ENDS or, people give up replying
> 
> its ridiculous, and tiring, to read



To me EI is a tool, that eliminates one part of the equation with regards to plant  growth by ensuring non limiting nutrient's.
Does not ensure no algae, nor does any other method if ...lighting is driving demand past available CO2.
Lighting is a tool that drives demand for CO2 and nutrient's.(reduce light and you reduce demand)
Folks that insist on driving demand with too much light for available CO2  will have problems with ANY method.
90% of people believe they have enough CO2  and good distribution of same to allow for often very high lighting.

I have low tech tanks .
I know the CO2 is what it is in my tanks without CO2 injection,excel,glut,metracide,etc.
The CO2 in my tanks is a result of bacterial processes and by-product of fish respiration.
I also know that I am adding un limiting nutrient's judging from the growth I see.(modified EI)
So long as I don't try to use too much light for the little amount of CO2 that I have,,the plant's grow  and algae is not a problem.
Yes the growth is slower but consistent.
The few times I have increased the intensity of my lighting by lowering the fixture,quickly brought hair algae to tops of plants  and leaves of crypt's/anubias.
Raise the light back up an inch or two,,and the algae leaves within a few day's to maybe a week.
The difference I think is.. I know I have low levels of CO2 where other's running high tech injected tanks are sure they have plenty of CO2  and maybe they do or don't depending on faulty methods of measuring,distribution issues,poor maint,poor flow.
But heaven forbid you suggest to most of them that reducing the light for a few weeks(not hours/day's) may ease their worries.


----------



## Marcel G

Mark Green said:


> On your site you go to great lengths to discredit tom barr... But say nothing about scientific data collected from 1938 or 1966. To be impartial to the hobbyist you certainly are not.. As science has improved a great deal since then,  many myths have been proved incorrect since then also. And how data was collected back then has improved 10 fold today...


Some information published on my website present my own opinions. I hope I'm allowed to express my opinion on different things, even on Thomas Barr of Clive Greene. I did so because I am aware of many people just worship them. So in case of T.Barr I wanted to point out some of his mistakes (things I consider a mistakes or misinterpretations of scientific data). On the other hand I admit he has a beautiful tank and is able to grow plants very well. But it's true (and I'm not hiding it) that I don't like the way T.Barr and Clive explain their experiences ... that they hide their opinions behind some quasi-scientific data. If you think that my arguments against T.Barr on my site are wrong, just feel free to oppose me. Or does it mean than if someone became famous it's forbidden to question his/her opinions?


----------



## Marcel G

Mark Green said:


> So are you saying all the tanks on your site are your tanks???
> If not which are yours? Please provide links to these tanks... Thx


What about clicking on the small picture of my tank in the top left corner of the site?


----------



## Jose

Its hard to leave Personal opinions on the side for everyone. This doesnt really matter to me. Thats why you should look at the facTs.

Also I dont really think that low co2 will necessarilly cause alage  In every case. I do think that plants get stunted though. Specially harder plants.


----------



## Jose

So I think both might be right. I think at low co2 levels plants can suffer (T Barr). I also think that algae may or may not appear due to mainly water changes. How many wAter changes did you do in those tanks Ardjuna.I mean how often?


----------



## Marcel G

Mark Green said:


> On your site you go to great lengths to discredit tom barr... But say nothing about scientific data collected from 1938 or 1966. To be impartial to the hobbyist you certainly are not.. As science has improved a great deal since then,  many myths have been proved incorrect since then also. And how data was collected back then has improved 10 fold today...


Another note: If you did some kind of growth experiments in 1966 you should get the same (or similar) results in 2015 also. The time interval does not play any role here. On the other hand, if you insist on saying that the data from 1938 or 1966 are not correct today, please, would you be so kind and present me the new valid data? Or what exactly is wrong with these "old" data?

Also, if you read one of my central articles on nutrient consumption, you must know that I admited that T.Barr is probably correct when he claims that EI method suggests non-limiting amounts of nutrients, as according to my experiments the nutrient content in dry matter was really high under EI recommended concentration of nutrients (4.6% N, 0.6% P, 8.3% K). According to Gerloff and Krombholz the critical value should be 1.3% for N => if there is more nitrogen in the dry matter it would suggest that the plants were growing in non-limiting environment. In my test under EI fertilizing regime I had 4.6% of N. Is this not a great manifestation of appreciation to T.Barr? You may consider me an enemy of Barr, but still I'm able to admit if he is right and me wrong. That's because I don't insist on being right or wrong ... I only insist on finding the truth.


----------



## Mark Green

Very much of topic, 

On your site it states for par levels you need the following...



> Lighting is one of the most important things for the proper functioning aquarium and optimum plant growth. Aquarists often pay a lot of attention fertilization and algae, while forgetting the importance of proper lighting. To be sure that you most aquatic plants grow well, you need illumination, at least 50 umol PAR (some demanding plant species will, however, when such lighting will grow very slowly). It is ideal to use lighting in the range of 50-100 micromol PAR (measured at the substrate) and the upper limit (100 umol PAR) has a relatively strong lighting, in which you will grow relatively quickly even the toughest plants.When lighting is low (30-50 micromol PAR) will do well only stínomilným species of plants (mosses, ferns, Anubias and some other plant species). Heliophile plants in low light pull the heights, tend to have large gaps between levels of leaves, or shed their lower leaves. In some serious cases may even start rot.




However that bloke you take time out to discredit on your site found the following to be true( did a test with a par meter on a ada tank in store)

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...-aqua-forest-and-nice-low-par-values-who-knew

Only 30-40 par for a hc carpet.........Your thoughts????


----------



## roadmaster

Jose said:


> Its hard to leave Personal opinions on the side for everyone. This doesnt really matter to me. Thats why you should look at the facTs.
> 
> Also I dont really think that low co2 will necessarilly cause alage  In every case. I do think that plants get stunted though. Specially harder plants.



Low CO2 will bring the algae if lighting is far exceeding the CO2/nutrient's available and it happens with frightening quickness in high tech tanks.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> How many wAter changes did you do in those tanks Ardjuna.I mean how often?


Once a week 50-70%. I do this in all my tanks (without any vacuuming).


----------



## Jose

roadmaster said:


> Low CO2 will bring the algae if lighting is far exceeding the CO2/nutrient's available and it happens with frightening quickness in high tech tanks.



Not necessarily at least not with low co2 IME. And not always. Its normally the case but sometimes filtration, high flow and big water changes can make this algae not appear. Even though the plant isnt in good condition. There are many tanks with stunted tips and no algae.


----------



## Marcel G

Mark Green said:


> On your site it states for par levels you need the following...


Please, can you give me the link where did you find that? It seems the paragraph was translated by Google so I would like to read it in the context.


----------



## sciencefiction

roadmaster said:


> But heaven forbid you suggest to most of them that reducing the light for a few weeks(not hours/day's) may ease their worries.



In low tech tanks modifying the light is the best method to achieve algae or not to achieve algae by just adjusting the light  intensity and duration to amount don't promote algae. Its no secret.   The point you are not including here is that we may not just need to "reduce light" in a tank to achieve healthy plant life.  The intensity of light matters even in a low tech in order to achieve healthy growth for all plants, not just the ones that survive the adjustment.  For me it works best if I reduce or increase the intensity rather than working with light duration. Higher intensity, shorter period produces better plants visually and supports more type of plants than lower intensity, longer duration and especially not same short duration as when using higher intensity.  In the latter example, some light loving plants just melt and die. In this case who cares if you have algae or not, if you can't grow what you want and end up with crypts, anubias and swords only.  When I decreased the light intensity by 40% in my low tech, hydrophila pinnatifida, glosso, aponogetons, another couple of bulb plants I can't remember the name off, Mexican leaf, and others all melted and died. Now I have just crypts, swords, anubias and microsorum. Their growth almost stopped to nothing and my only move was to increase the duration instead. What that move achieved is to keep the low light tolerant plants happy and steadily growing, no other plants adjusted to lower intensity and even valis melts and dies if it gets slightly overshadowed from emersed plants. So I am at the lower limit.   This happened when my lights failed, so I had no choice but it caused a mass melt within 2-3 weeks of the light being reduced, certain species disappeared for good.
So there's are boundaries for light, lower and upper, not just upper.    I had no algae with the higher amount of light, just happy and healthy growing plants. I did not need to control algae as it wasn't visible. I couldn't see it.  Now I have not so happy low light tolerating plants. I still have no algae.  But I do agree some maybe hitting the upper light limit instead.



Jose said:


> Id still like to see people who have had success by adding high phosphates low co2 and high light. Please peolle who have seen this comment. Ardjuna, have I tried this? Yes I got stunted tips in many plants. Thats all I know and its in consonance with TB.



Jose, even T.Barr and Clive will admit  that what you've concluded from trying "high phosphates and lower Co2" is inconclusive. You could have run out of nitrogen at the same time causing stunted growth, or some other micro nutrient. This doesn't necessarily mean that you needed more CO2, even though it doesn't rule it out either.


----------



## roadmaster

Jose said:


> Not necessarily at least not with low co2 IME. And not always. Its normally the case but sometimes filtration, high flow and big water changes can make this algae not appear. Even though the plant isnt in good condition. There are many tanks with stunted tips and no algae.


 
Yes good maint  trimming ,cleaning of filters regularly,water changes, are all something we signed on for or should have but if lighting is too much ,,then it just is for the amount of CO2 you can provide.
Some folks can't increase the CO2 that they have without gassing the fish.
What are they to do?
They can maybe increase the surface ripple which would let them maybe inject a little more CO2 (use it more quickly also) but reducing the light should be in my view  be the first thing to try.


----------



## Jose

No sciencefiction. This is totally the opposite to what Barr and ceg say. If using EI, and your plants get stunted tips then its always a co2 issue. This is what they say.


----------



## Marcel G

Mark Green said:


> However that bloke you take time out to discredit on your site found the following to be true( did a test with a par meter on a ada tank in store) ... Only 30-40 par for a hc carpet.........Your thoughts????


You obviously have a problem with me and my arguments. I understand that. But I really don't understand what you want from me? Do you seek some way to discredit me (as I did T.Barr)? If so it would be maybe better for you to write an article where you can put your arguments against me. And if you use a good arguments maybe I will finally appologize to T.Barr and you. I'm open to that.

But in case you just want to know if it's possible to grow some light demanding plants under 30-40 µmol PAR, I have to say I don't know (at least from the long term view). I myself am inclined to believe that most fast growing plants would need at least 50 µmol PAR at the substrate to hardly grow. But some of them may grow at lower values as each plant species has different light compensation point. But most aquatic plants will grow at their maximum growth rate under 500-1000 µmol PAR. So supplying them with just 50 µmol PAR is not much (this will for sure lead to relatively slow growth). I myself saw once Anubias and Egeria surviving under barely detectable PAR levels (about 5 µmol PAR) but they were doing really poorly. So I would recommend 25-50 µmol PAR for slow-growing undemanding species, and 50-100 µmol PAR for fast-growing demanding species. That said, many mosses do well even under 500 µmol PAR in my tank.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> If using EI, and your plants get stunted tips then its always a co2 issue.


And what if you just pour the concentrated fertilizer into the water column too close to some plants? I did it many many times (as I have quite small tank), and it resulted in stunted tips. So concentrated liquid fertilizer can do this quite easily also.


----------



## Jose

Ardjuna your argument about PAR is incomplete IMO. Because you are not taking co2 into account. The compensation point is not X. It is X for a Y level of co2. So for cuba it might be 40 PAR at 30 ppm of co2 but it might be 80 at 5/10ppm.


----------



## Jose

Oh thats very interesting! Concentrated nutrients stunting plants? Ive gotta try this one.


----------



## roadmaster

YES,YES,intensity is far more important than duration.
Don't much matter if you reduce duration the light's are on if it's too much for CO2 available.
Four hours or fourteen hours will still be too much .
I do believe if one want's to grow more demanding plant's,that low tech may not be their cup of tea. and it goes back to what I said previously above,,"choose a method and learn it well"


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> No sciencefiction. This is totally the opposite to what Barr and ceg say. If using EI, and your plants get stunted tips then its always a co2 issue. This is what they say.



And how did they conclude that if I may ask without being disrespectful. I haven't read any article where it explains the deficiency signs on aquatic plants caused by lack of CO2. There are none. There is a lot of info about nutrients but not about CO2 deficiency. There are a lot people that attribute certain things to CO2 when in fact the cause its something else. 
 And then on another hand what you are claiming is that when you used high phosphate, CO2 of 15ppm, you got stunted tips. So shall we presume a CO2 of 15ppm causes stunted tips. And a CO2 of 30ppm doesn't.
Well that doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying that NO3 of 15ppm causes stunted tips. NO3 of 30ppm doesn't. To me, a nutrient of any kind is either present or is not present. When it's not present, it causes deficiencies. When it's present, regardless of amount as long as it doesn't hit 0, it causes no deficiencies of any kind.


----------



## sciencefiction

roadmaster said:


> I do believe if one want's to grow more demanding plant's,that low tech may not be their cup of tea. and it goes back to what I said previously above,,"choose a method and learn it well"



I grew a glosso carpet in my low tech, compact and none of it leggy as I've seen in some CO2 injected tanks You are underestimating what you can do in a low tech.


----------



## Jose

Well sciencefiction, CO2 doesnt really work that way because different plants need different ammounts of co2. Its not just enough for it to be present, because all plants didnt evolve in the same way and many are used to getting the co2 from atmosphere.

You can search for: co2 defficiency ukaps on google. There should be a bit of info on this.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Ardjuna your argument about PAR is incomplete IMO. Because you are not taking co2 into account. The compensation point is not X. It is X for a Y level of co2. So for cuba it might be 40 PAR at 30 ppm of co2 but it might be 80 at 5/10ppm.


I don't believe the photosynthetic activity (I mean the point where the plant starts to have some net growth) depends on external nutrient concentration, but I may be wrong.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Well sciencefiction, CO2 doesnt really work that way because different plants need different ammounts of co2. Its not just enough for it to be present, because all plants didnt evolve in the same way and many are used to getting the co2 from atmosphere.



As far as I know plants that evolved using atmospheric CO2, would consume higher CO2 and even they adjust to lower CO2 levels when submerged. In the same sense light intensity is important and some plants would prefer higher, some plants don't tolerate lower. Some plants use more NO3 and some less, some plants use more PO4, some less. But as long as it's there when they need an uptake, they don't care. I may be wrong. But I'll be glad to read the scientific paper and experiments where what you are saying has been proved, or even explored to an extent.


----------



## sciencefiction

@Jose. The argument you are trying to prove is that an X amount of any sort/species of plants need at least 30ppm of CO2 to grow reasonably. What ardjuna is trying to say is that is unproven. It's been taken for granted and applied to in high light co2 injected tanks, that's about it for now.
The deficiencies you are speaking about, have never been scientifically proven.   There's no paper yet out there I have found. I'll be delighted to read. it. We form opinions based on personal experience and the information we read but our opinions and conclusions may be wrong or incomplete or even misleading. 

Clive, Tom Barr and Ardjuna have a vast experience with plants and knowledge on the subject. They have presented their conclusions for out benefit. We shouldn't turn this into a war who's right and who's wrong. All of them could be right to an extent and all of them wrong to an extent.  We are only humans. And we should seek the real truth, not lose another couple of decades following the one belief only.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> As far as I know plants that evolved using atmospheric CO2, would consume higher CO2 and even they adjust to lower CO2 levels when submerged. In the same sense light intensity is important and some plants would prefer higher, some plants don't tolerate lower. Some plants use more NO3 and some less, some plants use more PO4, some less. But as long as it's there when they need an uptake, they don't care. I may be wrong. But I'll be glad to read the scientific paper and experiments where what you are saying has been proved, or even explored to an extent.




Please people Stop asking for scientific papers and experiments on this. There are none. This is hypocritical. Ask yourself this question. How much of what I yhink I know and apply in my tank is scientifically proven? Maybe 3%? Most of what we know comes from observation, from Tom Barr, from Aquascapers a couple of Plant companies and nany many hobbiests. But yet people want scientific proof. Well if you want proof then you can stop adding nutrients to your tank because they cause algae, and you can just keep a couple of plants that have been tested. You can also put your tank on a window so that its more natural (like the experiments) etc.


----------



## roadmaster

sciencefiction said:


> I grew a glosso carpet in my low tech, compact and none of it leggy as I've seen in some CO2 injected tanks You are underestimating what you can do in a low tech.



I certainly hope so.
Currently I have red ludwigia that is copper colored on top of leaves and red on underside.
It is all along the back glass and to the surface.
Problem I have is that I began the tank two years ago as low tech and all of the other plant's don't like too much light Crypt balansae,maybe thirty anubia,vals,needle leaf java fern, which have since grown from the wood pieces to near the top of 80 Us gallon tank.
As soon as I lower the four 54 watt T5 bulbs from ten inches above the water's surface to eightor nine,  to get the top side of the ludwigia leaves to turn red,,the alage attacks the light hating anubias,crypt's java ferns.
Am going to move all of the plant's out save the ludwigia and try some more demanding plant's in the future so we shall see what happens.
In any event,,I will most assuredly reduce the light intensity for the first few week's and slowly try to increase it as plant mass increases or doesn't.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Well if you want proof then you can stop adding nutrients to your tank because they cause algae



By the way, this is no comparison. There are papers on what sort of nutrients plants need and the importance of phosphate for example, etc.....There are papers on the deficiencies it causes in plants and how they look like.  My point is CO2 now. You seem to know a lot about the importance of 30ppm of CO2 to be specific. You seem to know about what CO2 deficiencies look like  Where did you read about it from besides on forums? I'd be glad even to hear your own conclusions on what to look at my plants to identify a CO2 deficiency(which in your words means the CO2 is less than the optimal amount of 30ppm) and not necessarily deficient.
The only clear sign of CO2 deficiency that I know about is decalcification on leaves.



Jose said:


> This is hypocritical.


How is it hypocritical. You are presenting your point as if its the ultimate truth and if you were right I'd be growing stones, not plants in my tanks as I am certain I've never had a CO2 concentration of 30ppm, and I'd be overrun by algae and all of the plants would have stunted tips.


----------



## Marcel G

sciencefiction said:


> As far as I know plants that evolved using atmospheric CO2, would consume higher CO2 and even they adjust to lower CO2 levels when submerged. In the same sense light intensity is important and some plants would prefer higher, some plants don't tolerate lower. Some plants use more NO3 and some less, some plants use more PO4, some less. But as long as it's there when they need an uptake, they don't care. I may be wrong. But I'll be glad to read the scientific paper and experiments where what you are saying has been proved, or even explored to an extent.


It's not that straightforward as you may think. As far as the nutrient uptake is concerned it all depends on the external concentration of nutrients (in water or in substrate). Recently I had a discussion about it with one man and it seems hard to explain it well. If you will have (say) 30 ppm of NO3 + 3 ppm of PO4 in the water, your plants may produce 2 grams of fresh weigh per week on the area of 4x4". But if you will have 10 ppm of NO3 + 1 ppm of PO4 (permanent concentration in water, not just the amount in one dose!) in the water, your plants may produce just 1 gram of FW per week. So I would say that plants uptake nutrients from the environment proportionally. This means that the more nutrients you have in the water (or substrate) the faster your plants will grow. So if you find out that your plants consume just 10 ppm of NO3 and 1 ppm of PO4 per week under EI regime, and you would supply them with this amount of nutrients the other week, they would probably uptake just part of it. You can picture it as if you have a soup before you, but you were not allowed to eat it using a spoon but rather a straw. The more soup you'll have in front of you the bigger straw you'll be given, and the more soup you will be able to uptake.


----------



## Jose

Ive never once said 30 ppm is the ideal co2 ppm. Why? Because this depends on the light demand that you have and the plant in question.  I have a tank that runs perfectly at around 15-20 ppms of co2, with low light.

The problem here is that people (some not all of course) take it as if I invented this theory. No its not mine obviously you dont need to trust me. If ceg said what im saying he wouldnt have so many people debating arguing this theories. People would just take them. So the problem here is the messenger once again not the message. You need a trustworthy source and I know Im not one.


----------



## sciencefiction

roadmaster said:


> As soon as I lower the four 54 watt T5 bulbs from ten inches above the water's surface to eightor nine,  to get the top side of the ludwigia leaves to turn red,,the alage attacks the light hating anubias,crypt's java ferns.


 I planted all anubias and microsorums on one side of the tank, the anubias under the wood with the roots only(not the rhizome) in the substrate. I learned the hard way they can't be near light so the wood provided further shade.  Then I reduced the surface movement on that side and put floating plants to block the light more,the floaters would gather there because of the lack of surface agitation. Then all the light loving plants and fast growers were on the other side with the surface agitation keeping clear skies, the plants getting the light intensity they need. The plant layout certainly matters in a low tech a lot as you need different intensity for different plants.


----------



## sciencefiction

ardjuna said:


> It's not that straightforward as you may think. As far as the nutrient uptake is concerned it all depends on the external concentration of nutrients (in water or in substrate). Recently I had a discussion about it with one man and it seems hard to explain it well. If you will have (say) 30 ppm of NO3 + 3 ppm of PO4 in the water, your plants may produce 2 grams of fresh weigh per week on the area of 4x4". But if you will have 10 ppm of NO3 + 1 ppm of PO4 (permanent concentration in water, not just the amount in one dose!) in the water, your plants may produce just 1 gram of FW per week. So I would say that plants uptake nutrients from the environment proportionally. This means that the more nutrients you have in the water (or substrate) the faster your plants will grow. So if you find out that your plants consume just 10 ppm of NO3 and 1 ppm of PO4 per week under EI regime, and you would supply them with this amount of nutrients the other week, they would probably uptake just part of it. You can picture it as if you have a soup before you, but you were not allowed to eat it using a spoon but rather a straw. The more soup you'll have in front of you the bigger straw you'll be given, and the more soup you will be able to uptake.



Thanks. Yes, I understand that. The point is that they'll grow and not be deficient as long as the amount is there...Or is that not true. I understand the growth rate would be affected, which is only logical.


----------



## Jose

Deficiency doesnt mean there isnt that nutrient in the water, it means the plant is not getting enough of it as to keep up with the growth. So its limitting growth even though there is this nutrient available.


----------



## Mark Green

ardjuna said:


> Please, can you give me the link where did you find that? It seems the paragraph was translated by Google so I would like to read it in the context.


The page is. http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/praxeZalozeni1

Under setting up a aquarium,  number 5..... Lighting..




ardjuna said:


> What about clicking on the small picture of my tank in the top left corner of the site?



Some good growth on tanks.... 1 - 2 and 4  all have nutrition based Soils (which means you can be less frequent on fertilization.  You have high light which am sure is pushing growth as the main factor. And your dosing near to Ei levels of fertilisation, po4 dosing less as the only thingthat sticks out.  I would say most people on ukaps do this also... And get the same results....  
And with high co2 with 20-30mg /l......... 

Any examples of good growth on your concept


----------



## Rahms

Jose said:


> Well Rahms I think the conversation has opened at least one new front. Its Ardjunas theory that you dont need more than 15 ppm of co2 with high light. If EI doesnt work or has drawbacks, lets look for them and proof them.



Yeah, ardjuna mentioned low CO2 in his tanks 10 pages back, and since then the posts have gone in the circle I alluded to.




ardjuna said:


> Rahms said: ↑
> This discussion is trapped in a circle: EI works ---> EI explains all--> but EI doesn't explain anything ---> but EI works, so it must explain--> but the science makes no sense --> but it works and so on UNTIL TIME ENDS or, people give up replying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to look at it from a wrong direction. Either we want to know how different things work in our tank (we pursue the truth), or we want to follow some method despite of whether it correctly explains things or not. My goal is not to show T.Barr is wrong in everything he says or does. My goal is to find out the truth (or at least to get as close to it as I can). I don't care if it's T.Barr or Clive or anybody else who will find out how different things work, but if someone seems to be using wrong (misleading) arguments, then I will try to point it out so that we can possibly correct our view and get closer to the correct picture of our tanks. If you want to blame me for not having such a beautiful and big tank as T.Barr, just go ahead (I just can't have a tank bigger then 60L at home because I have to use RO as we have 50-80 ppm NO3 in our tap water). If you think EI is the all-in-one universal most perfect and infalliable method in the world, it's your thing. And if you want some proofs of me, then in the first place prove that it's not possible to grow plants under high light, hight phosphates and low CO2! Until you do it, don't say I'm wrong. As I already said, either you are interested in finding the truth, or you just want to show all the world that your method is perfect.
Click to expand...


You're saying the same thing as me, so I'm not sure how I'm looking at it wrong! lol.  I'm literally trying to point out that this "discussion" is basically an endless loop of you saying "30ppm CO2 isn't needed, EI isn't unlimited nutrients" and others (mainly Jose) replying "30ppm works, EI works" despite the fact that the two aren't mutually exclusive and hence _can both be true_. They're two parallel arguments, which is why everyone is right. asdfg


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Deficiency doesnt mean there isnt that nutrient in the water, it means the plant is not getting enough of it as to keep up with the growth. So its limitting growth even though there is this nutrient available.



Well, yes, the plant can't get to it because for example the specific nutrient is in a form the plant can't actually use.  But that's different. We know plants need nutrients in certain form in order to use them, otherwise why inject CO2 and not use a substitute. What do you  mean by "the plant is not getting enough of it as to keep up with the growth" ?

a lack or shortage.
"*deficiencies in* material resources"
synonyms:insufficiency, lack, shortage, want, dearth, inadequacy, deficit, shortfall;More
scarcity, scarceness, scantiness, paucity, absence, undersupply, sparseness, deprivation, meagreness, shortness;
_rare_exiguity, exiguousness
"she has a vitamin deficiency in her diet"
antonyms:surplus

a failing or shortcoming.
"for all its deficiencies it remains his most powerful play"
synonyms:defect, fault, flaw, imperfection, weakness, weak spot/point, inadequacy, shortcoming, limitation, failing
"the team's big deficiency was in the front five"
antonyms:strength
the amount by which something, especially revenue, falls short; a deficit.
"a budget deficiency of $96 billion"


----------



## Marcel G

Strictly speaking (in agronomy), the plant is defficient whenever it doesn't grow at 100% (at the maximum growth rate).
In this sense, even EI may lead to plants experiencing deficiencies = limiting growth (at least in some cases).





Rozpětí deficience = deficiency range
Rozpětí dostatku = sufficiency range
Rozpětí toxicity = toxicity range
Rychlost růstu a zdraví rostlin = growth rate and plant health
Množství dostupné živiny = amount of nutrient available


----------



## Jose

Yes, But not strictly speaking a deficiency is when plants stop growing, or grow very slow, or show problems in the tissue etc. So if a plant is growing at maybe 70-90% then its mainly non limitted. If its growing around 30-70% it might be slightly limitted. If its growing at 0-30% this can be considered limitting. This is just an example to show that things are not just black or white. Numbers are not meant to be exact of course.


----------



## oviparous

ardjuna said:


> I don't believe the photosynthetic activity (I mean the point where the plant starts to have some net growth) depends on external nutrient concentration, but I may be wrong.



You can lower the LCP by adding more CO2. This method can be used for growing vegetables in greenhouses during winter. 
You can also lower the LCP by gradually lowering the light.


----------



## Jose

oviparous said:


> You can lower the LCP by adding more CO2. This method can be used for growing vegetables in greenhouses during winter.


You mean by adding more nutrients? or do you mean by adding co2?Can you elaborate a bit?


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Yes, But not strictly speaking a deficiency is when plants stop growing, or grow very slow, or show problems in the tissue etc. So if a plant is growing at maybe 70-90% then its mainly non limitted. If its growing around 30-70% it might be slightly limitted. If its growing at 0-30% this can be considered limitting. This is just an example to show that things are not just black or white. Numbers are not meant to be exact of course.



Ok, so what I am getting from you guys is that the definition of "plant deficiency" is that a deficiency happens when the nutrients required by the plants fall below optimum levels causing growth retardation and other unwanted physiological and structural damage. Well that could be true. How would I know otherwise. I always presumed stuff gets depleted. I probably presumed wrong. My bad.

And this very much supports "my" totally unproven unscientific light theory, meaning there's a bottom light limit too and it's not as low as most think. And it does affect not just growth but causes visible physical damage and retardation that looks similar to nutrient deficiencies of other kinds, including stuff attributed to lack of CO2.

And see I am not a dosing guru. I don't know much about ppms of this or that. I totally don't care about this stuff at this stage of my aquatic life.  If I see my plants not doing well, yellowing leaf here or stunted growth there, I observe and come to a conclusion which may be right or wrong. There are my tanks, my experiment.  Then I use the big spoon to scoop ferts for the big tanks and the small spoon for the small tanks. I don't worry how much I added as long as I think I put enough scoops and I dose it right over the affected plants. Next week I may try more scoops if no improvement.  If It doesn't improve in two weeks. I try other ferts. I do one at a time in order to learn myself.  And that kind of works.
Due to the low levels of CO2, I aim at optimum growth and health for the conditions I provide without inducing algae. I am happy with that. If I have to show off or sell plants. Then may be my methods and knowledge will adapt to that too.


----------



## fablau

Thank you Ardjuna for your extensive answers, really appreciated! Ok, so, according to your explained concepts, the only parameter that in my tank could cause BBA are excessive nutrients in the water column. I dose EI, but I also perform water change every two weeks, so could be that nutrients builds up too much... Co2 is enough, stable, degas is ok so as flow. Nutrients could be the only thing to work on, I will try to reduce them a little and see. Thanks.


----------



## Sacha

How did we get to this conclusion... The cause of BBA is excess nutrients?? *bangs head against wall*


----------



## Sacha

Just to give you guys some perspective. 

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/is-it-just-random-luck.36795/

There's no BBA in this tank.


----------



## Jose

We are back where it all started.


----------



## Sacha

So, 245 posts later- what have we learned?


----------



## Rahms

Sacha said:


> So, 245 posts later- what have we learned?



well to quote myself a few pages back...



Rahms said:


> Making theories to fit limited data is really rather easy, which is why stating anything with certainty is pretty useless at this point


----------



## Jose

Well I think whoever was open minded will go ahead and try for himself a couple of things and see how it all makes sense really. There are others who will still be like; we dont know anything about this because there isnt scientific data so magic is the way to explain it. Lets go buy some ADA products .


----------



## roadmaster

Reduce light intensity,increase CO2 a little bit,remove manually that BBA that you can,keep filters clean which will help reduce excess organic content trapped In/on filter material,continue with EI dosing scheme.
That's what I took from the rather nauseating thread and I am struck stupid by the OP's take on the matter so I shall refrain from any further effort.


----------



## Jose

I think EI is not for everyone.

Why? Cause some people cant/dont want to lower light more and cant/dont want to up co2. Not everyone has got very efficient co2 systems. In that case I would recommend yoju choose a method that limits Phosphates. But most "new schoolers" arent flexible enough to recommend this. EI is the only option for them.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> There are others who will still be like; we dont know anything about this because there isnt scientific data so magic is the way to explain it.


 
You rather like taking things out of context. Ok, I won't ask about scientific data.  Back on the matter of your "CO2" deficiencies you've experienced in the presence of high phosphates and when limiting CO2 to 15ppm, can you supply us with at least a picture of your "stunted tips" results or of any picture that shows a CO2 deficiency of any kind whatsoever, with the background of how you applied the fix, etc...




fablau said:


> Thank you Ardjuna for your extensive answers, really appreciated! Ok, so, according to your explained concepts, the only parameter that in my tank could cause BBA are excessive nutrients in the water column. I dose EI, but I also perform water change every two weeks, so could be that nutrients builds up too much... Co2 is enough, stable, degas is ok so as flow. Nutrients could be the only thing to work on, I will try to reduce them a little and see. Thanks.



This thread must have been rather confusing. As mentioned above no one really said nutrients cause BBA.
Organics may based on empirical evidence. Additionally to what roadmaster adviced  up the water changes frequency and amount and keep the tank and filters clean. Reduce feedings for a while.


----------



## Jose

Sciencefiction:

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/alternanthera-reineckii-dying.34859/page-4

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...-topics/6214-macrandra-defiency-maybe-calcium

Quite clear cases of CO2 defficiencies. I dont think I have pics of my own atm. Ill search for them.

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...pics/14598-rotala-new-growth-tiny-and-twisted
Quite a nice clear pic in this last link. Basically plants seem to get smaller at the tips and curl.

This cases appear in UKAPs almost daily.


----------



## sciencefiction

The first link is about iron deficiency.

 The 2nd link, response from OP: "
_ERRR Ok hahaha Soooooo I fixed the problem by cutting down the light by half. I now use 2 T5's instead of 4, run for 8 hours. Since then, i've also switched to EI dosing, following 
1/2 kno3, 1/8 po4 3x a week, 10 ML's TMG 3x a week and dosing ECA 6 drops a week with GH booster at the water change"_
So it looks like he hadn't even dosed nutrients appropriately. I don't know how you concluded CO2 was the culprit for the deficiency.

As for the third link you posted, the OP hasn't come back to confirm whether he solved the issue or not and how. I don't know how you take these as CO2 deficiencies when you are not the owner of the tank and don't know how it was solved.

When I have deficiencies, I take pictures, before and after, and I know what I've done in between. So at least I can conclude something as I have a result.


----------



## Jose

That is because the Ops in those threads dont really know what co2 defficiency is so they look for other causes. Read Tom Barrs and Cegs answers. Dont believe them if you dont want but they have the most experience.

Also lowering light also lowers co2 demand, so its another way to solve the co2 defficiency.


----------



## fablau

Ok folks, to clarify: I know very well that nobody said that excessive nutrients may be cause of BBA (I hope to have computed words correctly), and I never believed that, but I am pretty desperate and don't know what else think. You should understand my conclusions after so many different concepts discussed here as well as my own experiments on this issue. If I overrule Co2 (I have tons of co2, 1.4-1.5 PH drop, 80ml/minute for a 75gl tank), its stability (co2 is stable for the whole photoperiod, I am sure of that, I use a co2 reactor, pressurized Co2 with high quality regulator, and Apex controller), I also overrule degassing (I have a wet/dry as well as strong surface agitation) therefore I overrule lack of oxygen, then flow (900gl/hr for a 75gl tank), just 7 hours light a day, 50 PAR at the substrate, and EI fertilization.... What am I left thinking? Why do I have BBA all the time?? If it is not due to excessive nutrients of some sort (hint: any sort of toxicity??), shoot your thoughts please.


----------



## Rahms

fablau said:


> (co2 is stable for the whole photoperiod, I am sure of that, I use a co2 reactor, pressurized Co2 with high quality regulator, *and Apex controller*)



From what I've read around here, pH controllers are a poor way of regulating CO2 as there is a lag time between pH change and CO2 injection, so you just end up with it cycling on and off. Grasping at straws but it's worth a try sacking it off. The only way I'd use a pH controller for my CO2 is to cut-off if pH drops far below what I expect, due to some sort of failure (eg. if I expect 6.4 pH, I'd set it to cut off at 6)


----------



## parotet

fablau said:


> What am I left thinking? Why do I have BBA all the time??


That's pretty common I guess, plenty of threads over here... and this is why hobbyist try to look for other possible explanations (like it was intended initially in this thread). As far as I know you are not a newbie and you probably know already what is good flow, low-medium-light, you know how to deliver good CO2, you've done your pH drops, you got good filtering and good tank husbandry. And like you there are many others. This is why I believe that the answer cannot be: "less light, more CO2" "it looks ok but you must be doing something wrong". What really amazes me is that EI is in theory an easy approach (no testing, no accuracy, flexible with different setups, lights, etc.) but it looks that in certain conditions it is not so easy. Do we always have to blame the hobbyist? My guess is that, of course there are newbies that fail, but in other cases I have seen over the last 2 years here, it simply does not work, and the interesting about all this is trying to understand when and why it does not work (instead thinking that the different methods -EI or any other- are absolute truths).

Personally I can grow nice plants in very hard water and moderate light with the EI method (rich substrate, spraybar, inline reactor, DC yellow, +1 ph drop) (only some BBA when plant density is very high, restricted to some bottom leaves in the background), but when I use a lean fertilization method in this same setup, the presence of BBA decreases significantly. Additionally my conductivity goes from 1200 to 900 and the plants once trimmed do regrow much better. Is it this? No idea. Is it due to more phosphates promoting more plant growth that I cannot manage it properly (flow, CO2)? No idea.
Lately I have tried to grow the same plants but with softer water (500 microsiemens), my flow rate is also very good, but I don't use spraybar, no surface rippling, lights are more powerful, my DC is blue at lights on, I don't dose macros (but rich substrate) and... surprise, no algae at all (for the moment ).... and this is also pretty common I guess.

Jordi


----------



## GreenNeedle

Sacha said:


> So, 245 posts later- what have we learned?


To be honest after reading through all those pages (and I wish I hadn't bothered) is that one person with a website is trying to discredit another person with a website whilst continually promoting the aforementioned website which will give him very pleasing hit count numbers 

I respect Tom Barr a great deal.  I think its hard not to and he has helped many just as others with different ideas have helped many, but I don't use EI.  I have in the past with no problems though.

I use only 700lph filtration on a 144 litre tank so that is under 5x turnover.  Allied to that I have an inline heater and inline CO2 atomiser slowing the flow.

CO2 is circa 30ppm (lightish green) and I don't bother moving the DC.

I do roughly 30% water change on average bi-weekly (sometimes weekly, sometimes 3 weekly.)

I try and clean the filter and pipes thoroughly at least every 2 months.

I dose an all in one fertiliser daily if I get round to it but sometimes it can be a few days with no dosing.

Light used at the moment is 36W LED.  Was 54W till a few weeks ago but growth was too fast.

The only algae I have in this whole tank is an area on the front glass, directly opposite the outflow Lily where there are a few tufts of BBA on a bit of driftwood and GSA on the anubia leaves in this section.  No GSA on any other anubias in the rest of the tank, just this front right corner.

My guess is that a lot of detritus is forced into this corner because it is directly opposite the Lily and thus when the filter force hits that glass it is pushed down.

Any other conclusions?  Not really.  If I maintained properly I guess I wouldn't have any algae at all to ignore 

And feel free to visit my website   I'm getting jealous.


----------



## fablau

Rahms said:


> From what I've read around here, pH controllers are a poor way of regulating CO2 as there is a lag time between pH change and CO2 injection, so you just end up with it cycling on and off. Grasping at straws but it's worth a try sacking it off. The only way I'd use a pH controller for my CO2 is to cut-off if pH drops far below what I expect, due to some sort of failure (eg. if I expect 6.4 pH, I'd set it to cut off at 6)



Of course I don't use the controller to turn on/of Co2 injection! I use it for logging purposes and for turning it off if anything goes wrong and PH drops too much. Thanks for your concern.


----------



## fablau

parotet said:


> That's pretty common I guess, plenty of threads over here... and this is why hobbyist try to look for other possible explanations (like it was intended initially in this thread). As far as I know you are not a newbie and you probably know already what is good flow, low-medium-light, you know how to deliver good CO2, you've done your pH drops, you got good filtering and good tank husbandry. And like you there are many others. This is why I believe that the answer cannot be: "less light, more CO2" "it looks ok but you must be doing something wrong". What really amazes me is that EI is in theory an easy approach (no testing, no accuracy, flexible with different setups, lights, etc.) but it looks that in certain conditions it is not so easy. Do we always have to blame the hobbyist? My guess is that, of course there are newbies that fail, but in other cases I have seen over the last 2 years here, it simply does not work, and the interesting about all this is trying to understand when and why it does not work (instead thinking that the different methods -EI or any other- are absolute truths).
> 
> Personally I can grow nice plants in very hard water and moderate light with the EI method (rich substrate, spraybar, inline reactor, DC yellow, +1 ph drop) (only some BBA when plant density is very high, restricted to some bottom leaves in the background), but when I use a lean fertilization method in this same setup, the presence of BBA decreases significantly. Additionally my conductivity goes from 1200 to 900 and the plants once trimmed do regrow much better. Is it this? No idea. Is it due to more phosphates promoting more plant growth that I cannot manage it properly (flow, CO2)? No idea.
> Lately I have tried to grow the same plants but with softer water (500 microsiemens), my flow rate is also very good, but I don't use spraybar, no surface rippling, lights are more powerful, my DC is blue at lights on, I don't dose macros (but rich substrate) and... surprise, no algae at all (for the moment ).... and this is also pretty common I guess.
> 
> Jordi



So nice to know I am not the only one having these problems! And, yes, I am not a newbie, I have been playing with planted tanks since 1985.... Here is my tank, right now:










I can't complain, as I said, plants grow great, but BBA is always around...


----------



## fablau

SuperColey1 said:


> The only algae I have in this whole tank is an area on the front glass, directly opposite the outflow Lily where there are a few tufts of BBA on a bit of driftwood and GSA on the anubia leaves in this section.  No GSA on any other anubias in the rest of the tank, just this front right corner.
> 
> My guess is that a lot of detritus is forced into this corner because it is directly opposite the Lily and thus when the filter force hits that glass it is pushed down..



Me also, similarly to you, I get BBA mostly where flow is highest. Why!?


----------



## parotet

fablau said:


> I have been playing with planted tanks since 1985.... Here is my tank, right now:





fablau said:


> I can't complain, as I said, plants grow great, but BBA is always around...



That's exactly what I mean (wow, beautiful tank...). I mean, we all can see tanks in the forums, very poor tanks (let's say BBA tanks, not really planted tanks) in which a serious and very basic "technical" improvement is needed. But in some others BBA, despite not being a serious problem, is always around. I would not say that these people do not know what they are doing... Do other method users have BBA problems? Of course they have it. This is not really the point being discussed here... no method is perfect, but there may probably be several conditions in which some do better than others.

Assuming the risk of being shot down in flames  (and TBH fearing to re-open a million posts more) 
(please read: no scientific data, just observations in my tanks, in others, lots of reading, comments from experienced aquatic plant growers in this forum and others...) 
I have noticed/lots of experienced people say that: 

1) in soft water "things are easier" (don't want to mention names but the most of the "best ones" here have admitted it any time, however it is difficult most of the times to really get a clear explanation about it), 
2) with high light, relying on a rich substrate and/or lean dosing (instead of dosing heavily in the water column) makes your life easier (again, lots of very experienced aquascapers here do not dose that much, but end up with leaner methods than EI such as reduced EI, PPS-Pro, Tropica, ADA, etc.)

Jordi


----------



## roadmaster

OCD comes to mind.
Wish my tanks were as problematic.


----------



## parotet

roadmaster said:


> OCD comes to mind.


What about redox?... I may be completely wrong, just read about it these last weeks. It looks like soft waters tend to have higher redox and low amounts of organic compounds dissolved in the water column (lean dosing, moderate growth) can also make easier to be on the "suitable" redox parameters (oxidizing ambient).

Jordi


----------



## fablau

Yes, too many organics could be the curse then. This is a 6 years old tank, so... That can be easily the case. Does that mean that unless I tear down everything and start from scratch, there is no way for me to tackle the problem? Headache coming...


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> Does that mean that unless I tear down everything and start from scratch, there is no way for me to tackle the problem? Headache coming...



Can you elaborate more on the problematic BBA covered areas? Is it all over the tank or just certain places? Is it happening on all species of plants or some are more succeptible?

What sort of fish do you have, what is the feeding schedule? What is your water change schedule although to be honest in a lightly stocked tank with or without water changes, with or without cleaning filters, etc... I haven't been able to cause BBA and I've tried  although unintentionally...

In my case I think the BBA is caused because of overstocking(common pleco, 6 clown loaches and a bunch of small fish in that tank) but my plants only get covered in BBA when I slack on dosing. I have a problem that in my non dirted tanks I have a battle with iron deficiency. My  water is very hard and the iron doesn't stay in solution in the water column. For an almost unplanted tank that has 5 large stalks of hydrophila and a couple of anubias , I need to dose iron 3-4 times a week to about 0.6-0.8 ppm of iron in total to get them properly growing. That's a non-co2 tank.  When I slack on dosing iron, obviously my plants bleach out within a week or two and BBA loves finishing the business by destroying them. When I dose, they seem way more resistant and BBA doesn't over take them the slightest. All the healthy growth stays clear of BBA. I wish I was more consistent with dosing but one forgets.

So I think the cause is not necessarily the reason for the outcome but you can control the outcome if you can't remove the cause.

I mean, in other words you have BBA in that tank for a plant unrelated reason and you are not sure what's causing it. But the reason it is affecting the plants is something to do with the plants themselves. Whether it's a deficiency or toxicity or lack of CO2 or whatever, something is weakening them and they get susceptible to the BBA already present. Even lack of light in certain areas of the tank or too much light in certain areas.
That's why some contribute BBA to CO2, others to overstocking or bad plant health, or what not...etc....Because I think BBA is opportunistic and spreads where it gets more food. But the cause for it being present in the tank in the first place could be unrelated to the plants, as it's the case in so many non planted tanks.


----------



## GreenNeedle

I think I will say what I was going to say last night in answer to some of the questions I read.

How did TB come to the 30ppm figure?  Simple really.  Trying to get as close to unlimiting CO2 without causing distress to the livestock.  I dare say Tom would suggest higher but then he would be made the hate figure of animal lovers when others don't quite control the CO2 very well so better safe with 30ppm with the caveat than say push it to 50 you'll be OK 

So with that in mind he isn't saying you need all the ppms of anything in the tank.  Not nutrients and not CO2.  He is trying to give ample supply and negate defficiencies.

The more unlimited things are the less likely flow will cause a massive problem.  i.e. if you dose 10pm with poor circulation you may have very low areass that are basically still @ equilibrium.  Saying that is equilibrium 3? is it 8?  If it is the latter which I think I read earlier by someone then why bother trying to add 2ppm more?

If you add 30ppm then you may well get 10ppm down at the substrate.

Ample CO2 also allows the plant to utilise the light supply better, therefore you don't need as much light over the tank.  Something to do with Rubisco.

You have to read through Tom Barr's site to see his position on things.  He suggests the non CO2 tank with low energy, low light is the best way to go.  EI is just and adpated version of other methods.  He always says he doesn't take credit for it.

His argument is not that you should dose more nutrients.  It is that you shouldn't be scared to do so.

So I don't really get the antipathy towards Tom or EI.  Maybe it is lost in translation a little?  To me it is quite simply eradicate the problem of nutrient defficiency and then you know it isn't nutrients and then can focus on finding a problem elsewhere.  It's more for beginners or those who aren't really interested in nailing down a leaner dosing regime.  Tom purely dismisses the 'Nutrients cause algae' statements, he doesn't say you should overdose.

The above post really interested me because he also says that heavily stocked tanks have more problems.  Now that isn't to say they all will but I remember many posts by him where he pushed the stocking and things got harder.  Indeed I myself have had problems in tanks where I have pushed the stocking and I mean way more than any * inches per gallon rule.  Those tanks would get all sorts of algae appearing in different places.

That comes back to the 'algae trigger' which is another of Tom's 'mantras'.  Organic waste (Organic ammonia in essence) is the trigger for algae.  When people start talking about using urea in their solutions he says that they are risking algae and fish deaths going that route.

So in our tanks especially if it is heavily stocked it makes sense that if it is heavily planted it will fare better than a more lightly planted tank as the plants will make a large dent in that organic waste.  The heavy water changes of EI will also reduce organic wastes.  The high dosing is irrellevant to the equation there.  You are just adding inorganic nutrients whilst removing organic nutrients.

Sciencefiction - If you are struggling with iron on a 'weekly dosed' tank then get some DTPA iron chelate.  It lasts much longer in harder water than standard EDTA chelate.  Its pretty cheap.  There is some on ebay at the moment in 50g pouches that should last for a good while.


----------



## sciencefiction

SuperColey1 said:


> Sciencefiction - If you are struggling with iron on a 'weekly dosed' tank then get some DTPA iron chelate.


 
Thanks SC1. I definately will buy the DTPA type.   I am not dosing iron weekly. I dose it every second day. Otherwise it's like I never dosed.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Hi guys,
There has so much useful and healthy discussion here and the odd thing is that I did not receive any email alerts at all. 
I've missed out so much.


----------



## karla

Great thread Zak, I am enjoying it a lot.

I just wanted to say, maybe we could start a thread with just experimental tanks?
Say a fixed time period, arbitrary number of months, with set parameters maybe at extremes and post results. Not journals as such but just one off posts with before and after FTS and what was done.
Say pick, high light low co2 low light etc ferts in varying amounts. 
My current tank is a bit of an experiment and its last incarnation was as well, lets just honestly post our own findings. 
I don't think we need scientific data to make our own decisions after all successful hobbyists find a good set of parameters for the chosen plants and tend to stick within those to help ensure success on their next project.

Is this workable?


----------



## Andy Thurston

probably workable but not scientifically accurate. there's loads of things you can do to see what suits you and your tank best. low light, lots of plants, daily water changes, loads of co2 and nutrients is a good place to start, then when the tank is stable then you can experiment with higher light, lower co2 and lower ferts just to see what happens. i think its also g good idea to use plants that like the same conditions ie dont put anubias with Rotala macrandraunless its shaded by higher plants. why make things hard for yourself


----------



## Zak Rafik

karla said:


> Great thread Zak, I am enjoying it a lot.


Hi Karla
Thanks for your kind comment but I don't deserve any credit for starting this thread. I genuinely was and still am very frustrated with BBA. I have been able to keep under control algae like GSA, BGA and thread algae all due to the most valuable pointers from fellow members here in this forum. I just can't seem to understand BBA. There are lots of very wrong info out there, including doe very reputable forums. I just want an answer or at least some guidance. Hope we can have more open opinions so that we can all grow stronger. 
Cheers


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





fablau said:


> Me also, similarly to you, I get BBA mostly where flow is highest. Why!?


 I usually have a small amount right by the filter outlet (venturi), and on the filter intake sponges. I haven't got any on the plants. My suspicion is that, in my case, it is because these are areas where the Ramshorn snails can't graze.

The "best" tanks for BBA that I've seen are:
1. In our local pet shop, where it cover the gravel like gorilla fake fur. I don't the water parameters of their tanks, but I would assume the water is hard and the nutrients sky high.
2. The Piranha tank in the Princess of Wales pavilion at RBG Kew.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## Andy Thurston

dw1305 said:


> The "best" tanks for BBA that I've seen are:
> 1. In our local pet shop, where it cover the gravel like gorilla fake fur. I don't the water parameters of their tanks, but I would assume the water is hard and the nutrients sky high.


 funny you should say that! the water round these parts is pretty soft and I've only seen bba in a couple of shop tanks, both shops were poorly maintained and I wouldn't dream of buying livestock from either. That said one of them has a new aquatics manager and he has improved things


----------



## Jose

karla said:


> Great thread Zak, I am enjoying it a lot.
> I just wanted to say, maybe we could start a thread with just experimental tanks?
> Say a fixed time period, arbitrary number of months, with set parameters maybe at extremes and post results. Not journals as such but just one off posts with before and after FTS and what was done.
> Say pick, high light low co2 low light etc ferts in varying amounts.
> My current tank is a bit of an experiment and its last incarnation was as well, lets just honestly post our own findings.
> I don't think we need scientific data to make our own decisions after all successful hobbyists find a good set of parameters for the chosen plants and tend to stick within those to help ensure success on their next project.
> Is this workable?




I really like this idea. Im currently running a tank in the way of a small experiment for my self. Im trying to grow plants well in very hard water (KH 18). Once I get those plants growing well I will switch to half RO so aprox 9 KH and see the effect. After this I might even go lower KH. Light will be quite low and co2 around 20 ppm. I am not willing to try the experiment that Karla says though for now. Because I tryed it before and just got stunted tips. Things take quite long to recover for me after this. I might make a thread but first plants have to grow perfectly in hard water so that you start off with a stable tank and can see the effects.
Maybe when I get tyred of having a stable tank I can try Karlas idea. So basically we need someone with a stable tank.


----------



## tmiravent

Very nice topic!
I had the same question about BBA, look where mine grows...
Not very big but is there! [sorry for the poor image] 



 
(iIf you watch carefuly there are two different in the image)


----------



## GreenNeedle

I think its purely a detritus /  dir thing.  It probably grows on dirt that has got caught around the holes on spraybars or at the end of filter pipes.  Looking in some of my other tanks although they are non CO2 and mosses / Fissidens which are detritus traps have some bits on them.


----------



## karla

I am, very sorry that I cant answer your question relating to bba zak. I have only had bba once in a very low light tank with no added co2. It grew very slowly on the leaves of crypts for a couple of weeks. I removed the infected leaves and it did not come back. I was doing water changes weekly at the time and I put it down to the fluctuating co2, so stopped doing changes and it never came back. I know some really struggle with this algae but I can not make it occur in my tanks and I am sure I have hard water. My terror algae has always been bga and diatoms, I do not need to try hard to make either appear.

Hi Jose,
I thought it was an Idea that we could use to maybe establish some standard parameters that are proven to work under certain conditions, I do not think it has to be overly scientific either. Just as much data about the parameters as possible and stick to one regime for a set period of time then post results. It could also be used to disprove other theories if enough people attempted the same experiment. These could be extreme experimental tanks or normal setups but the point is not to tweak when things start going wrong because then the data gets skewed. People can then make their own assumptions and try to emulate the method, if it does not work then there was insufficient data but these results could be added to the post.  Unfortunately, I think we would end up with two identical seeming posts one of which succeeds and one which fails. But, maybe not.


----------



## Andy Thurston

SuperColey1 said:


> I think its purely a detritus /  dir thing.  It probably grows on dirt that has got caught around the holes on spraybars or at the end of filter pipes.  Looking in some of my other tanks although they are non CO2 and mosses / Fissidens which are detritus traps have some bits on them.


I'm starting to think that too. I think dirt triggers it and all the other factors, unstable co2, poor nutrient management etc., feed it.
cleaning seems the best way to get rid of it, just my opinion no scientific back up though


----------



## sciencefiction

I found an interesting article.

I took out just bits and pieces but there is way more in the link below if anyone is interested. I got tired of retyping it as one can't copy from there.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=IikPwCt1ioEC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=audouinella food&source=bl&ots=hMY4BDZiSg&sig=Jk-1GqavCmwZ1-uIDeXsxFMzzco&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SrUpVY2SL47vasucgIAI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=audouinella food&f=false

Here are some extracts word for word that somewhat describe different species of freshwater red algae.

_In general, freshwater red algae are localized in reasonably unpolluted waters and are infrequent to absent in streams and rivers that are organically enriched, greatly silted, or very high in inorganic nutrients(Sheath and Hambrook, 1990)
Fresh water algae are found in a wide range of oxygen concentrations but there tends to be an increase in frequency of occurence with higher conentrations(Sheath and Hambrook 1990)
94% of fresh water red algae is found in rivers and streams.
The interaction between the Ph and the form of inorganic carbon can greatly influence the productivity and distribution of Rhodophyta(Sheath and Hambrook 1990)
Although wide spread species are found in a wide range of Ph values, the majority occur in mildly acidic waters between ph 6 and  7. However, there are exceptions to this pattern, including Bangia, Chroadactylon, Thoreales and Ceramiales which maybe considered alkalophilers(Sheath 1987)
The effect of Ph can be attributed to the form of inorganic carbon available, some taxa such as Lemanea mamillosa have been shown to use only free CO2 as a carbon source for photosynthesis which is the predominant form in mildly acidic ph values(e.g Raven et al., 199f)
Above ph 8, the proportion of free CO2 drops below 2-5% and species occuring in these waters would require flow replenishment or use of alternative sources of inorganic carbon(Sheath and Hambrook, 1990)
One species commonly distributed in high Ph waters is the crustose Hilden brandia rivularis, which also utilizes CO2 as a carbon source but may also use HCO3-, although this possibility has not been confirmed (Raven et al, 1994)

Freshwater rhodophytes occur in a broad range of nutrient values, but they are more typically found in low to moderate regimes(e.g., PO4*3- below detection to 100mg/l-1)
The common occurence of red algae at low nutrient levels is partually due to flow replenishment and reduction of the boundary layer of depletion riverine systems. In addition, many species form colorless hair cells that may be produced in response to nutrient deficiency, as is the case for some green algal filaments. 
Some researches have employed rhodophytes for classification of streams. For example in Austria Hildenbrandia is typical of lowland rivers with relatively high nutrients, wheres Lemanea is regarded as indicative of high altitude streams with low nutrients.

_


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Can you elaborate more on the problematic BBA covered areas? Is it all over the tank or just certain places? Is it happening on all species of plants or some are more succeptible?
> 
> What sort of fish do you have, what is the feeding schedule? What is your water change schedule although to be honest in a lightly stocked tank with or without water changes, with or without cleaning filters, etc... I haven't been able to cause BBA and I've tried  although unintentionally...
> .



I get BBA only on slow growing plants like Anubias, Java Moss and Micro Swords. Also, on the outlet tubing as well as on driftwood. One thing in common: BBA appears only where the flow is strongest.

My livestock consists of tetra neon, rummy nose, bristle nose plecos, black mollies, and a lot of shrimp (Amano and Red Cherry). I feed them daily with flakes and micro pellets. Just once a day.

I am now testing by reducing micros a little bit, because I have noticed that some plants got worse lately and I might have given them too much of that. Maybe I have caused a toxicity of some sort? I will found out in 1-2 weeks... Hard to know though.


----------



## sciencefiction

If you caused a toxicity with certain micro elements then I would think it will look like a deficiency on more plants than just the slow growers.  Java moss collects detritus, anubias and slow groing swords may have leaves that are too old and damaged leaking organics...........
Have you tried just doing lots of water changes one after the other to flush the current water and replace with new? That is to rule out any nutrient and organic build up. And then start dosing from scratch.

I think it's no doubt that BBA loves the flow. Mine grew where a strong powerhead was blowing. All plants in line with the flow were affected.  I mostly thought it's not just because of the flow but because the plants were getting physical damage and the BBA is quite adapted to high flow unlike the plants. But I had that powerhead blowing like that for a year prior to getting BBA.   The BBA appeared for some other reasons.  I also have a filter in another non-BBA tank which is blowing right at one of my swords quite badly, causing it to bend.  The flow does damage the leaves all the time, literally tearing it apart but there's no BBA in the tank anywhere to be seen. I have tons of anubias in there.


----------



## fablau

You are probably right about the toxicity, but here is what plants show me: as I said, slow growers such as Anubias, Microswords and Java Moss get BBA. But that's not all. Java Moss is almost stuck, I have no real growth. I have Higrophilas Polysperma and Sunset, and whereas the Polysperma grows great, the Sunset is a little bit stunted. I also have Alternanthera Reiniki, and this is the key of my "toxicity" hypothesis: this plant used to grow great when I had a much leaner fertilization regime 2 years ago, and much less Co2. Then I moved into EI, increased Co2 and got stuck for a long time (for more than one year). Then I tried to increase micro, and it got back into pretty good shape, therefore I thought "must have been a lack of micros." Then, a month ago, the same AR slowed down growing, mostly at the tips. Rotalas also stopped growing a little bit at the tip, and some little algae (BBA) begun to appear on some Rotalas too, on the ones in front of the flow outlet. Some BBA on Valisnerias also, as well as on some big Sword leaves (the oldest ones).

I compared the look of my AR and Rotala tips with some pictures online showing plant toxicity, and they were very close. All other plants I have (Miriophillum, Ambulia, Cabomba Furcata, Star Grass) look great and grow great. No algae at all. Then I decided to rethink my fert schedule 2 weeks ago, and now I give less of everything, macros and micros. co2 is still the same. I have also reduced flow, changing pump from a 12x turnover pump to a 8x turnover. When I made the change, I have changed water a big deal, in order to be sure to reset nutrients in the water column to virtually zero. Now I'll keep my usual schedule of WC every 2 weeks.

I think that there might be some truth in the fact that if you apply traditional EI dosing, you should have WC every week, otherwise you risk too much build-up which, possibly, could halt plant growth. In my case, I can't keep up with WC every week, then I am gonna try a leaner version of EI (consider also my light, which is a medium-low light, 50 PAR at the substrate).

Do you think there is some truth in what I have just stated above?


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> Do you think there is some truth in what I have just stated above?


 
Possibly yes. When one does EI dosing and max CO2, the plants are pushed to grow to the limit, and thus too producing organics. So it's not just that nutrients can build up but organics can too without the large weekly water changes. If you are keeping it at slower growth via leaner dosing with less water changes, you may strike a sufficient balance that suits your time and needs.
Toxicity is probably not very common but in a 6 year old tank who knows, that's years and years of dosing.

When making changes, try doing one at a time.  Take pictures of the affected plants before and after and look how the new growth is going or whether it's going at all.  If no results, then it's possibly not that and move on to the next solution you feel feasible to try.  It's the best way to figure out what's going on as one gets confused if they do tons of things at a time and forget what the issue was originally.


----------



## Sacha

sciencefiction said:


> When one does EI dosing and max CO2, the plants are pushed to grow to the limit, and thus too producing organics. So it's not just that nutrients can build up but organics can too without the large weekly water changes.



Sorry to be pedantic, but what do we mean when we say "organics"?


----------



## sciencefiction

Sacha said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, but what do we mean when we say "organics"?



I suppose you can google for a proper definition 


*Organic matter* (or *organic material*, *natural organic matter, NOM*) is matter composed of organic compounds that has come from the remains of organisms such as plants and animals and their waste products in the environment.[1] Organic molecules can also be made by chemical reactions that don't involve life.[2] Basic structures are created from cellulose, tannin, cutin, and lignin, along with other various proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates.

*An organic compound is any member of a large class of **gaseous**, **liquid**, or **solid* *chemical compounds** whose **molecules** contain **carbon**.*


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Toxicity is probably not very common but in a 6 year old tank who knows, that's years and years of dosing.



 My tank is 6 years old, but I begun EI dosing just 1 year ago... I am not actually sure it is that hard to cause a toxicity if micros build-up in some way over even just a few months.... Am I wrong?


----------



## sciencefiction

Yes, I really doubt it. I'd try something else first rather than chasing toxicity.


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Yes, I really doubt it. I'd try something else first rather than chasing toxicity.



What else? As I said, I have tried everything (see above...)


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> What else? As I said, I have tried everything (see above...)



Well, according to the scientific info I posted earlier, BBA likes high flow, high oxygen, and is almost non existent in  places with high organics and high inorganic nutrient content. It predominantly uses free CO2 as a carbon source! Interesting!......Where do we start from there?



sciencefiction said:


> Freshwater rhodophytes occur in a broad range of nutrient values, but they are more typically found in low to moderate regimes(e.g., PO4*3- below detection to 100mg/l-1)



Do any of these scientific conclusions make sense to your tank in reality or does it sound like scientific gibberish?

Or to anyone else in here?


----------



## Jose

What about light hittting the tank when co2 is off? from the windows. When I get algae its due to this. Are you guys turning co2 on and off? or is it on all the time?


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Well, according to the scientific info I posted earlier, BBA likes high flow, high oxygen, and is almost non existent in  places with high organics and high inorganic nutrient content. It predominantly uses free CO2 as a carbon source! Interesting!......Where do we start from there?



This sounds exactly the opposite I have read and tried: increased the flow to improve nutrient transport, increase oxygen via surface agitation or other means.... And isn't "high organics" one of the possible causes of BBA?? Confused here 




sciencefiction said:


> Do any of these scientific conclusions make sense to your tank in reality or does it sound like scientific gibberish?
> 
> No really, not to me... Where did you find this info?
> 
> Or to anyone else in here?


----------



## fablau

Jose said:


> What about light hittting the tank when co2 is off? from the windows. When I get algae its due to this. Are you guys turning co2 on and off? or is it on all the time?



I have no direct light to my tank, just indirect in the morning and not much.

Co2 is on only during photoperiod (4 hours before until 1 hour before end).


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> This sounds exactly the opposite I have read and tried: increased the flow to improve nutrient transport, increase oxygen via surface agitation or other means.... And isn't "high organics" one of the possible causes of BBA?? Confused here



Yes, I know.I thought that myself, but maybe not.  It's confusing. We probably need to know exactly what species of red algae is the BBA that we have in our tanks. Maybe someone here knows? Or do we have different species in different tanks... That article was summarising them all in one but generally it does look that the environment we provide in our tanks is possibly very friendly to BBA for one or another reason.
And yes, it says red algae for the most part hates high organic and high inorganic nutrients. But then what does it feed on exactly?


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> No really, not to me... Where did you find this info?


 
From a book I found online:
*Freshwater Algae of North America: Ecology and Classification*
 By John D. Wehr

Link to the online part
https://books.google.ie/books?id=Ii...ir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=audouinella food&f=false


----------



## fablau

Thanks for the article, the fact is that actually I get more BBA where my flow is strongest... So that's true. It is also true that since I have added aeration at night, it got worse... So, after thinking, I have decided to make a test and removing aeration at night. I will post my results in a few days. Thanks!


----------



## Jose

fablau said:


> Thanks for the article, the fact is that actually I get more BBA where my flow is strongest...



Darrel has already pointed out the possible reason for this. Maybe algae eaters cannot get to the high flow area.



fablau said:


> It is also true that since I have added aeration at night, it got worse...


Of course you can run your test but high oxygen at night does not promote bba.
One possibility is: If aeration is on at night then youre off gassing all co2 that was in the tank from the photoperiod. If light (even indirect) hits the tank during this "no CO2" period then youll get algae IME. Every time light hits the tank co2 must be constant. This is a big problem for me. Big aquascapers also promote closing the windows when co2 is off.
Another possibility is that with oxygenation you are driving off co2 and the levels you get at the start of the photoperiod are lower compared to no oxygenation .


----------



## Sacha

In response to Jose: 

1) in my opinion, algae eaters are nothing to do with BBA in high flow areas. The only algae eaters that eat BBA are Siamese algae eaters. Ottos etc don't touch it. 

2) too much light? I never, ever had BBA in the years when I had no Co2 and kept my lights on for 12 hours a day. Care to explain why?


----------



## Jose

Sacha said:


> 1) in my opinion, algae eaters are nothing to do with BBA in high flow areas. The only algae eaters that eat BBA are Siamese algae eaters. Ottos etc don't touch it.



What about snails, Amanos etc? Even microscopic algae eaters?
Maybe in his case its something else, but this is a possibility.



Sacha said:


> 2) too much light? I never, ever had BBA in the years when I had no Co2 and kept my lights on for 12 hours a day. Care to explain why?



I never had algae in my low tech tanks either. Because co2 stays low and constant (please notice this isnt the only factor). By the way I never said too much light. I said different co2 levels when light hits the tank.


----------



## sciencefiction

Well, that book does say BBA likes CO2 and can't feed on other source of carbon.  But I am reluctant to believe the theory about changing co2 levels.
Someone around here still repeats large water changes in low tech tanks cause BBA. Now I've tested that theory for years in my tanks. Water comes out of the tap nearly 1point lower in Ph before the CO2 outgasses. My plants pearl after a water change, my tanks get micro bubbled.  This has never triggered or caused BBA. I think that changing CO2 levels theory is a lot of.....you know what. Are the plants weakened because they need to adapt and re-adapt to changing CO2 levels....I don't know....maybe the fluctuations in a CO2 injected tank are way more often, it's every day and night from what I can see. But isn't it the same in nature?

As for oxygen, in my opinion the more, the better, especially in an algae ridden tank even with BBA. Oxygen on its own is not a trigger for anything at all, can't be. It's important for a healthy tank.

I am more inclined to believe about competition on microscopic level. The book did mention BBA has to compete with other algae like brown diatoms and such and other rhodophyta species too until one prevails.  Red ramshorn snails and true Siamese algae eaters do eat BBA.
I've seen it in another person's tank. The Siamese algae eaters put an end to the growing BBA quite fast.

The same theory applies to pathogenic organisms in tanks. They are kept under control by other microbes.  When you disturb the balance one way or another, the pathogens take over and affect the fish.

I don't know about your experience, but I've noticed BBA and GSA don't go hand in hand. It's either one or the other. Brown diatoms are normally the only type of algae while they explode. Then a green dust algae appears. Then it subsides on its own and the tank clears up eventually itself. This has happened to me 3 times.
I've never had other algae besides BGA in very small amounts which lives in conjunction with BBA. So that's why I think the BBA can use some sort of organic nutrients, same as BGA fixing its own nitrogen, during which time the plants starve from the lack of something and get "infected" with BBA.

Also, even though that book says BBA doesn't live in places with high organics and high inorganic nutrients, that doesn't necessarily say it's inhibited when those levels are high. Maybe BBA has the ability to feed out of the environment on something else. Meaning that BBA may prefer waters low on other nutrients because it doesn't have to compete with other plants and organisms that like high nutrient content, and has a mechanism to feed itself on scarce sources of nutrients. What exactly does it consume to survive, I can't find yet from scientific info but maybe we will one day.

However, what the book does say is that BBA is inhibited in lower CO2 levels, hence low techs are not so prone to BBA.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> I don't know about your experience, but I've noticed BBA and GSA don't go hand in hand. It's either one or the other.


Exactly. So, what is this telling you? Think about it. How can we induce GSA?



sciencefiction said:


> Also, even though that book says BBA doesn't live in places with high organics and high inorganic nutrients, that doesn't necessarily say it's inhibited when those levels are high. Maybe BBA has the ability to feed out of the environment on something else. Meaning that BBA may prefer waters low on other nutrients because it doesn't have to compete with other plants and organisms that like high nutrient content, and has a mechanism to feed itself on scarce sources of nutrients. What exactly does it consume to survive, I can't find yet from scientific info but maybe we will one day.


I like this thinking!


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Exactly. So, what is this telling you? Think about it. How can we induce GSA?


 
Well, the obvious option is low phosphates which induces GSA. But I've got to think about it more. It can't be just that.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> Well, the obvious option is low phosphates which induces GSA. But I've got to think about it more. It can't be just that.


Yes but think about it a bit more. All important variables. Light, CO2 and the interactions with phosphates.


----------



## sciencefiction

OK. I am thinking  But you must have something in mind that would save time if you share 
Phosphates have an impact on photosynthesis, meaning low phosphate can slow it down,  also can limit CO2 consumption, etc..


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> Phosphates have an impact on photosynthesis, meaning low phosphate can slow it down, also can limit CO2 consumption, etc..


There you are....so if you get GSA due to low P this means photosynthesis is slow, so the plant doesnt need as much CO2. Now if you dont get GSA, this means photosynthesis is not being slowed down by phosphates so you need more CO2 for the plants. If you dont provide that level of co2, then you get BBA. This is why you dont normally get BBA together with GSA. I know some one will now say, " I do get both GSA and BBA at the same time. Well this only means you are probably going from one side of the coin to the other in a short time frame..
Tom Barr has been able to induce BBA many times by just lowering co2. And it all boils down to the theory that healthy plants and clean water prevent BBA.
Why does Tom or anyone else who knows this still get algae? Because CO2 is hard to dial in for anyone no matter what you know.
But beware! I might just be trying to abduct you into my imaginary theory w/o scientific proof.


----------



## sciencefiction

Yes, I am quite certain healthy plants are not prone to BBA. But you forget BBA can overtake a totally non-planted tank.
BBA appears for reasons unrelated to plant health or plants but seems to "infect" unhealthy plants which is only normal, it finds suitable surface to attach, that's all.

If a heavily planted tank with healthy growing plants outcompetes BBA completely, then we may start talking allelopathy theories in a second.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> Yes, I am quite certain healthy plants are not prone to BBA. But you forget BBA can overtake a totally non-planted tank.
> BBA appears for reasons unrelated to plant health but seems to "infect" unhealthy plants which is only normal, it finds suitable surface to attach, that's all.



Yes this only means whatever might cause it is not only in a planted tank. This does not mean healthy plants dont prevent it.
What about instead of thinking what is causing it, why not start thinking what the best conditions are to prevent it from appearing? The result is an algae free tank, which is what we want.

Think of it this way. If you have a plantless tank, then the most oportunistic organism will leave there. If we introduce plants to start off with and they stay healthy, then maybe algae dont want to show up. Maybe algae sense the presence of plants and their health.


----------



## Jose

BBA appears for reasons unrelated to plant health but seems to "infect" unhealthy plants which is only normal, it finds suitable surface to attach, that's all.[/quote]

We dont know. It might be a chemical signal and not just a suitable surface. Look at the facts:
Healthy plants+ clean water prevents it. Why is this or how it works I dont know. Why do some people still get BBA in a planted tank if they say their plants look good. Well maybe they are suffering very slightly (CO2 demand) but this is enough to trigger the algae. Also BBA seems to appear maybe 2 weeks after the trigger happened. So this confuses people as well.


----------



## sciencefiction

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. It sounds like thinking about outcompeting the BBA one way or another is the better approach than thinking about eliminating the cause which we can't be sure about.
It's obvious that we can't eliminate the environmental factors promoting BBA as we need to eliminate fish, plants and bin the tank too.....
Outcompeting it may mean a planted tank with high plant mass and healthy plants plus BBA eating fish/snails and possibly microbes that also compete with BBA, and allelopathy, so BBA is hit hard.

  But why can some achieve that and others can't? Are those that can't all in the wrong? Because the moment one has BBA, they are told their CO2 is not high enough.Well, wait a second, we just found out BBA loves CO2.....So in a planted tank plants struggling for CO2 weakens the plants and just provides more surfaces for BBA to feed on. But it doesn't mean that CO2 deficiency is the only factor. It means that any factor that weakens the plants like low nutrients, etc.. can promote spreading of BBA, at least in my opinion.

Edit:
I've got ramshorn snails in my tanks. Maybe they ate all my BBA  My clown loach/BBA tank has no snails


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> But why can some achieve that and others can't? Are those that can't all in the wrong? Because the moment one has BBA, they are told their CO2 is not high enough.Well, wait a second, we just found out BBA loves CO2.....So in a planted tank plants struggling for CO2 weakens the plants and just provides more surfaces for BBA to feed on. But it doesn't mean that CO2 deficiency is the only factor. It means that any factor that weakens the plants like low nutrients, etc.. can promote spreading of BBA, at least in my opinion.



Yes. So in the end happy plants (not just visually) mean no algae.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> Outcompeting it may mean a planted tank with high plant mass and healthy plants plus BBA eating fish/snails and possibly microbes that also compete with BBA, and allelopathy, so BBA is hit hard.


I would say the first part is a must (healthy plants), but not the rest (BBA eating fish/snails and possibly microbes that also compete with BBA, and allelopathy). Although you do need a stable environment with a good biological filtration.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Yes. So in the end happy plants (not just visually) mean no algae.



Well, the point is, one only speculates when saying one's plants are not healthy, hence the BBA,  although they may appear healthy.  That's been used as an excuse so one is tight handed and can't object on the theory. The other point being used is lack of CO2 or fluctuating co2.

From my experience, when plants are not happy they are visually not happy. And even if not happy visually, BBA does not overtake the tank neither it is visually present.  So how about that point of view? I can show you my fry tank, iron deficient plants,, etc..not a spot of algae.



Jose said:


> I would say the first part is a must (healthy plants),



Yes, it's a must because unhealthy plants provide extra friendly environment and surfaces for algae, especially the type like BBA that likes attaching to such surfaces. Now leave the tank bare, no substrate, no plants, just glass. Where will the BBA attach, the most to the outlets. It doesn't grow on glass unlike some other sorts of algae.


----------



## DanielC03

[Quote =] "José, post: 397047, Miembro: 12573"] Sí. Así Que en los episodios finales felices Las Plantas (pecar visualmente Solo) SIGNIFICA Que No Algas heno. [/ Quote]

alelopatía?


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> I can show you my fry tank, iron deficient plants,, etc..not a spot of algae.



Yes youre right. I dont think algae appears if iron is too low. What I mean of plants not being happy applies mainly to N and CO2. Also to the lesser with P and Iron. With low K you just get holes. 
You might not get algae with low Fe, but this doesnt mean your plant is healthy.

Maybe I should just specify. Plants not being happy (if dosing EI) means not enough co2 to keep up with plant growth. But people say this is not true even though it has been shown over and over (specially by Tom Barr).


----------



## sciencefiction

I don't get your logic. Low iron doesn't cause problems only low CO2 does?  You obviously haven't seen what low iron does to a plant. Most species melt and die. The hardy ones like hydrophila stop growing,  meaning it takes it a year to reach a height of 60cm where it takes no more than 2 months in normal conditions. All growth is bleached. The leaves are thin, super soft and fall apart shortly. The stem is soft and bends down, the plant can't withstand the flow. Basically, it's destroyed physically right in front of your eyes.  

I've had iron deficient plants in the BBA tank and iron deficient plants in non-algae tanks. It means nothing on its own. All are non-co2 enriched.

I feel you are trying to fit everything into your theory but from where I sit it doesn't fit. Any deficiency can destroy plants, be it iron, N, P, K, whatever. Chlorosis, necrosis, etc.. CO2, phosphate and light are the 3 that are hard to hit a 0 level in a tank, as the first two are produced in the fish's environment, sediment, the latter is normally always present sufficiently enough as we keep our tanks lit.

So most deficiencies we see are caused by all other nutrients but are attributed to lack of CO2 and high light instead.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> So most deficiencies we see are caused by all other nutrients but are attributed to lack of CO2 and high light instead.



This is the problem here. What are we talking about? a non co2 tank or a co2 enriched tank dosed with EI levels of ferts?

In an EI dosed tank the "defficiencies" are due to co2 and not nutrients. Because you can fix them with co2 and not by adding any more of other nutrients. Please notice EI dosed tank.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> In an EI dosed tank the "defficiencies" are due to co2 and not nutrients. Because you can fix them with co2 and not by adding any more of other nutrients. Please notice EI dosed tank.



Yes, I noticed the "EI dosed" tank. My 5 hydrophila stalks and a couple of anubias need more than the EI dose of iron right now. I don't want to imagine what the tank would need had it been heavily planted and pushed to grow with injected CO2.....algae factory as iron will be limiting unless I heavily overdose on it, and dose the right type.

I am sure other nutrients are affected by chemical reactions too and don't stay available to plants all the time depending on one's water chemistry.
EI tells you enriched substrate is not needed. All is well via the water column. Well that's not true because in my case the only way my plants grow well is with iron enriched substrate which I presume provides more acidic conditions for the iron to stay available to plants.

So what does EI tell me? Nothing. EI is not comprehensive. It's a theory that doesn't always produce the right result and again all is blamed on CO2 and high light.


----------



## Jose

There is obviously no method that suits everyone. I think you also have a point. In my case I have very hard water. I had to dose more phosphates but not iron. I just dose iron more frequently but same weekly ammount.


----------



## sciencefiction

Do you want to see light deficiency? I've shown these before. It's from my emersed plant setup.

Ludwiga stalk growing shaded(or should I say not growing at all...by the way it died eventually)







Now same plant a few cm to the left of this one, but growing unshaded and planted 3 months later than the above one.





Aponogeton plant growing shaded in the corner under my emersed plants. Take a note at the visual poor structure




Now below is it's brother aponogeton, picture taken same day and plant is planted a few cm further but gets full light, both plants went into the tank on the same day.




My 3 sword plants when they had enough of light before my lights failed




Now look at the exact same 3 swords and plants with 40% decrease in light, notice plants have disappeared....No other change done in the tank.




Iron deficiency in hydrophila. Can you notice the small BBA tuffs?  The bottom leaves had more BBA.




Then here is the same plant in the same tank a few weeks later with regular iron dosing




And here you can see the transition in between not dosing and after the first week of dosing, tops started growing bigger and green.




Now here is another one you may find interesting. To the right is the older growth, to the left the newer growth
The change was caused by a dose of KNO3




KNO3 mild deficiency, smaller leaves, shorter distance between nodes. High deficiency of K causes holes and melt in bottom leaves of this ludwiga so I think it's more lack of NO3.




After I dosed KNO3 for the first time the same plant converted into this form, redder leaves, longer distance between leave nodes and started growing rapidly.


----------



## sciencefiction

And here is my glosso carpet I had for a while.  When I first posted this picture here ages ago, consensus was that the glosso is growing ok in my low tech because of some sort of hormone my high flow is not letting build up, hence the perfect horizontal growth. Now let me tell you the glosso carpet got doomed not more than 2 weeks after my lights failed. It was a gonner, disappeared without a trace. It just couldn't last in lower light. Algae was no issue with more light. Algae is no issue with lower light but lower light is a huge issue to my plants in my low tech non co2 enriched tank.
So I can't believe any of you when saying decrease your lights, add CO2 and all is sorted out like magic. There's more to it.

Here are a couple of pictures I had taken before the big doom, meaning light reduction


----------



## fablau

Jose said:


> .One possibility is: If aeration is on at night then youre off gassing all co2 that was in the tank from the photoperiod. If light (even indirect) hits the tank during this "no CO2" period then youll get algae IME. Every time light hits the tank co2 must be constant. This is a big problem for me. Big aquascapers also promote closing the windows when co2 is off.
> Another possibility is that with oxygenation you are driving off co2 and the levels you get at the start of the photoperiod are lower compared to no oxygenation .



Yes, that makes sense... Still too early for me to say, but so far so good (after 1 week since stopped aeration at night, reduced flow and other adjustments I will discuss in detail if this experiment is really working).

Thanks.


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> I don't know about your experience, but I've noticed BBA and GSA don't go hand in hand.



Sorry guys, but a few weeks ago I had some GSA with BBA in my tank...


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> Sorry guys, but a few weeks ago I had some GSA with BBA in my tank...



Is the GSA active when the BBA is spreading?


----------



## Jose

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...gy/7493-battling-bga-and-bba-at-the-same-time
http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...opics/12686-bba-collection-of-knowledge/page2
Just some info I find interesting.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...gy/7493-battling-bga-and-bba-at-the-same-time
> http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...opics/12686-bba-collection-of-knowledge/page2
> Just some info I find interesting.




A quote from Tom Barr from one of your links Jose



> I've seen BBA in plenty of high CO2 tanks, but never on the plants.
> New growth is absent or very very slow growing.





> BBA grows in ranges of about 5-10-15ppm of CO2, that seems to be an optima.(See Sheath and Wehr)
> So non CO2= not good.
> High CO2, also not good, but it will grow, but not very well.
> Folks adding CO2, but doing so poorly?
> Loads of BBA.



I downloaded that book and can't see any such statement at all(10-15ppm being optima to BBA growth) Does anyone know which page? This is the same book I referenced earlier.

He is suggesting that increasing the CO2 range above the optima will get rid of BBA or lowering it to the "BBA optima" will trigger BBA.

The point he's making is a bit not logical.  He says high/stable CO2 in the ranges of 30ppm which is above the otpima for BBA will get rid of BBA but basically just on the plants, meaning they'll be resistant to new growth of BBA on them. Well, that's to do with plant health and not providing new surfaces for BBA to attach to as we've all noticed how much BBA loves itself some "dirty" surface.
But as he says himself, he's seen plenty of "high CO2 tanks with BBA, but never on the plants....", meaning you don't get rid of BBA with CO2 and high CO2 has no direct effect on the BBA but has on plant health in an unhealthy planted tank.....At least that's how I read it.

But I see why one can have unhealthy plants when injecting CO2 when they can't keep the CO2 stable as he says a sudden increase of CO2 is also no good to plants, it's better to do an incremental increase.

So causing unhealthy plant health by not knowing how to inject CO2 correctly/efficiently has nothing to do with BBA but if you have BBA it will spread on to your plants too  These are my thoughts.


----------



## Jose

Did you read the parts where he says he has fixed most algae problems includiong BBA with co2 manipulation? And that he can continually induce BBA by dropping CO2?



sciencefiction said:


> I've seen BBA in plenty of high CO2 tanks, but never on the plants.
> New growth is absent or very very slow growing.



What he means is that algae can be there on the surfaces from before but not on the part of the plant thats growing healthily at that point in time. So if you look back in time youd have suffering plants or something else combined that triggered the algae which grew on plants and other surfaces. After this the person fixes the problem and trims the ugly plants and algae stays on the aquarium surfaces but it does not regrow on the new healthy plant..


----------



## sciencefiction

sciencefiction said:


> I downloaded that book and can't see any such statement at all(10-15ppm being optima to BBA growth) Does anyone know which page? This is the same book I referenced earlier.





Well I found his own answer to my question within the same thread, quoted below.



> I recall seeing the citation for 5-10 ppm for optimal growth ranges for BBA.
> I cannot locate it right now though


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Did you read the parts where he says he has fixed most algae problems includiong BBA with co2 manipulation? And that he can continually induce BBA by dropping CO2?



Yes, he says dropping the CO2 in a co2 injected tank induces BBA. But that doesn't mean it has a direct effect on BBA. If he means that, he's making very poor conclusions. It most likely means it has a negative effect on the plants themselves, they can't handle the drop. It's known that plants need to adjust to the given CO2 levels... Hence the keep it stable thing.
He is referring to certain concentration of CO2 being inducing/non-inducing BBA and I don't see where he gets that from besides making conclusions on scarce evidence.

And from the info provided I fail to see the direct link between higher CO2 and elimination of BBA.  All he's figured is his own method of growing healthy plants which in turn are resistant to BBA attaching, which method he may have perfected for himself but it seems hard to explain the method well enough to others so everyone gets it.   It reminds of a quote:

"_*If you can't explain*_ it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert _*Einstein *_

That's it as if I were to say that I read somewhere, "can't remember where" that 30 ramshorn snails in ppm will eradicate BBA. If you still have BBA, then something must be eating your snails, you didn't add 30 snails, or you added them too fast or too slow, or your snails are walking out on you.  BBA grows best when the snails are around 5-10-15, when kept at constant 30 snails, BBA is eradicated. However, if the count fluctuates, it's the reason for the algae, so please count your snails daily and make sure their count is at 30 at all times.......

Well the above was a joke...I couldn't resist 




Jose said:


> After this the person fixes the problem and trims the ugly plants and algae stays on the aquarium surfaces but it does not regrow on the new healthy plant..



Yes, algae uses weak plants as a suitable surface to attach. The more surfaces you provide for algae, the more it will spread. This is similar to many micro organisms, including the famous nitrifying bacteria.
Unhealthy plants=more BBA friendly surfaces leads to BBA outbreak in most cases but not all.


----------



## tigertim

Do theese people who advocate CO2 in the range of 30ppm have shares in selling CO2 cannisters?

i only use easy carbo yet have proper excellent plant growth and no algae in a high light tank.......one thing that hasn't being touched on much in this thread is the quality of Algae eating fish people are keeping.....my Farlowella does an excellent job in this regard without which i may well end up with a algae problem...


----------



## BruceF

I saw Tom Barr speak last weekend. ardjuna, you are just plain wrong in your assumptions about him.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose, if you are convinced that dropping the CO2 level triggers BBA and increasing it back eradicates it, why not try it in your own tank first?
But don't drop the CO2 level suddenly, drop it incrementally so the plants don't stress out during that period.

Also, I recall an article someone posted here once.
It was basically saying that plants can compensate for poor CO2 with better light. That basically CO2 are not just directly related but interchangeable in a way due to the way they work for plants.

And it says, that best growth is achieved with high light and high CO2. Worst growth is achieved by high CO2 and low light. And medium growth is achieved by high light and low CO2.

People talk about limiting the demand of CO2 by plants by lowering the light but what may actually be happening is limiting both energy sources available to the plants, and thus for example letting the plants do with less nutrients which may be the ones that have been limiting. I am just speculating saying that but one can conclude like this too if in the mood today....


----------



## Andy Thurston

tigertim said:


> Do theese people who advocate CO2 in the range of 30ppm have shares in selling CO2 cannisters?
> 
> i only use easy carbo yet have proper excellent plant growth and no algae in a high light tank.......one thing that hasn't being touched on much in this thread is the quality of Algae eating fish people are keeping.....my Farlowella does an excellent job in this regard without which i may well end up with a algae problem...


 liquid carbon is a known algaecide, thats why people use it for spot treating algae


----------



## OllieNZ

sciencefiction said:


> Jose, if you are convinced that dropping the CO2 level triggers BBA and increasing it back eradicates it, why not try it in your own tank first?
> But don't drop the CO2 level suddenly, drop it incrementally so the plants don't stress out during that period.
> 
> Also, I recall an article someone posted here once.
> It was basically saying that plants can compensate for poor CO2 with better light. That basically CO2 are not just directly related but interchangeable in a way due to the way they work for plants.
> 
> And it says, that best growth is achieved with high light and high CO2. Worst growth is achieved by high CO2 and low light. And medium growth is achieved by high light and low CO2.
> 
> People talk about limiting the demand of CO2 by plants by lowering the light but what may actually be happening is limiting both energy sources available to the plants, and thus for example letting the plants do with less nutrients which may be the ones that have been limiting. I am just speculating saying that but one can conclude like this too if in the mood today....


Not quite correct, addition of co2 lowers the light compensation point of the plants allowing them to grow with less light.


----------



## sciencefiction

OllieNZ said:


> Not quite correct, addition of co2 lowers the light compensation point of the plants allowing them to grow with less light.



Yes, but addition of light lowers the co2 compensation point too, allowing them to grow with less CO2. It's not one sided.


----------



## sciencefiction

Big clown said:


> liquid carbon is a known algaecide, thats why people use it for spot treating algae



Yes, but dosing treble the recommended dose of liquid carbon in a non-co2 BBA ridden tank wont' stop nor eradicate the growth of BBA. I tried that myself, couldn't go any higher because my pleco started running to the surface. Then I spot dosed, but very stupidly I spot dosed outside the water which killed the BBA on the plant and the plant itself, both went purple  What a fool


----------



## OllieNZ

sciencefiction said:


> Yes, but addition of light lowers the co2 compensation point too, allowing them to grow with less CO2. It's not one sided.


Not my understanding of it sorry. Light is always the accelerator, plants have a coping mechanism for dealing with lower levels of co2 and adding more light will just get you closer to the point where the plants won't cope but just before you get there your plants will grow well. Adding co2 changes the way the plant works internally so needs to be treated differently.


----------



## sciencefiction

OllieNZ said:


> Not my understanding of it sorry. Light is always the accelerator, plants have a coping mechanism for dealing with lower levels of co2 and adding more light will just get you closer to the point where the plants won't cope but just before you get there your plants will grow well. Adding co2 changes the way the plant works internally so needs to be treated differently.



Quote:

_High light availability may also allow aquatic plants to lower CO2 compensation point (Maberly 1983; Maberly 1985)

This may be particularly advantageous of matforming photoautothrophs in shallow water. In such systems, the light is often abundant, whereas concentration of CO2 inside the mat are low due to low intra-mat water exchange. Here, the interactions between light and CO2 may allow the photosynthetizing organisms to extract CO2 more efficiently, resulting in a lowered CO2 compensation point._

Source link, one of the many:
http://www.bio-web.dk/ole_pedersen/pdf/PlantedAquaria_2001_2_22.pdf


----------



## sciencefiction

That's the graph they gave on growth at different light/co2 levels using riccia fluitans


----------



## Andy Thurston

sciencefiction said:


> Yes, but dosing treble the recommended dose of liquid carbon in a non-co2 BBA ridden tank wont' stop nor eradicate the growth of BBA. I tried that myself, couldn't go any higher because my pleco started running to the surface. Then I spot dosed, but very stupidly I spot dosed outside the water which killed the BBA on the plant and the plant itself, both went purple  What a fool


liquid carbon is also known to use/remove o2 from the water. i was dosing 3.5x in my shrimp tank without problems and it did reduce the bba to almost non existent levels. I daren't add more lc so started with pressurised as well which finished the job nicely then I just used the normal dose to keep the hardscape bba free


----------



## OllieNZ

sciencefiction said:


> Quote:
> 
> _High light availability may also allow aquatic plants to lower CO2 compensation point (Maberly 1983; Maberly 1985)
> 
> This may be particularly advantageous of matforming photoautothrophs in shallow water. In such systems, the light is often abundant, whereas concentration of CO2 inside the mat are low due to low intra-mat water exchange. Here, the interactions between light and CO2 may allow the photosynthetizing organisms to extract CO2 more efficiently, resulting in a lowered CO2 compensation point._
> 
> Source link, one of the many:
> http://www.bio-web.dk/ole_pedersen/pdf/PlantedAquaria_2001_2_22.pdf


Keyword.... May. Also it seems to suggest it's limited to certain species of plants. Assuming it's possible(I'm not say it isn't), I don't see why this would be a desirable condition to attempt to achieve in the aquarium as it would result in too little wiggle room.


----------



## Andy Thurston

OllieNZ said:


> Keyword.... May. Also it seems to suggest it's limited to certain species of plants. Assuming it's possible(I'm not say it isn't), I don't see why this would be a desirable condition to attempt to achieve in the aquarium as it would result in too little wiggle room.


isnt high light no co2 limited nutrients how darrel works


----------



## sciencefiction

OllieNZ said:


> Keyword.... May. Also it seems to suggest it's limited to certain species of plants. Assuming it's possible(I'm not say it isn't), I don't see why this would be a desirable condition to attempt to achieve in the aquarium as it would result in too little wiggle room.



A bit more to it from the same article on being limited to "riccia"

_We believe that our findings for Riccia can be extrapolated to most aquatic plants. The last decade has brought more scientific evidence supporting this idea. There have been experiments with Elodea canadensis and Callitriche sp. showing the same tendency( Andersen, Madsen and Sand-Jenssen) suggesting that resource limitation is not as simple as Liebig suggested. Many resources are able to substitue for each other or at least reduce the symptoms of limitation._


----------



## OllieNZ

Big clown said:


> isnt high light no co2 limited nutrients how darrel works


I'll let him answer for himself but from what I've seen he uses alot of floating plants and very thick growth to keep the light levels low for his fish and is accepting of a certain amount of algae.


----------



## OllieNZ

sciencefiction said:


> A bit more to it from the same article on being limited to "riccia"
> 
> _We believe that our findings for Riccia can be extrapolated to most aquatic plants. The last decade has brought more scientific evidence supporting this idea. There have been experiments with Elodea canadensis and Callitriche sp. showing the same tendency( Andersen, Madsen and Sand-Jenssen) suggesting that resource limitation is not as simple as Liebig suggested. Many resources are able to substitue for each other or at least reduce the symptoms of limitation._


They didn't attempt to lower the co2 compensation point, they found the minimum of both light and co2 and increased them from there. I'm not saying high co2 and low light will give you better growth than low co2 and higher light. Their  experiment shows it doesn't. They don't state about any type of algal growth, their only interest is in the growth rates of their ricca.


----------



## sciencefiction

Big clown said:


> isnt high light no co2 limited nutrients how darrel works



Yes, my tank worked great on the same principle as Darrel's from what I understand from his posts.



OllieNZ said:


> They didn't attempt to lower the co2 compensation point



No, they didn't. The part about lowering the CO2 compensation point with extra light is from a different scientific paper which they have referenced as _Maberly 1983; Maberly 1985_



OllieNZ said:


> Their  experiment shows it doesn't. They don't state about any type of algal growth, their only interest is in the growth rates of their ricca.



It is your belief that a low tech tank with high light will lead to an algae factory. It is my experience it doesn't if you have a high healthy plant mass, and that mass keeps needing more light.
I know you'll say co2 injected tanks are different. Well, of course they are. If you are driving the car faster, the crash will be detrimental to the passengers. But you can crash in a low tech too, and badly too, and without much light too. There are many variables that can lead to algae. But consistent condition that promote it's growt


----------



## OllieNZ

sciencefiction said:


> Yes, my tank worked great on the same principle as Darrel's from what I understand from his posts.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. The part about lowering the CO2 compensation point with extra light is from a different scientific paper which they have referenced as _Maberly 1983; Maberly 1985_
> 
> 
> 
> It is your belief that a low tech tank with high light will lead to an algae factory. It is my experience it doesn't if you have a high healthy plant mass.
> I know you'll say co2 injected tanks are different. Well, of course they are. If you are driving the car faster, the crash will be detrimental to the passengers. But you can crash in a low tech too, and badly too.


First of all please define high light(our opinions may differ). If you can please post par values from your tank. Also I'd like to see some pictures of the tank. (I'm a low tech guy too and love to see others work)


----------



## sciencefiction

Do you know the difference I see from brief browsing between a Tom Barr fish tank and an Amano setup?

Tom Barr uses high plant mass with a mixture of not just slow growing but fast growing plants. He uses high CO2 and unlimited nutrients.

Amano's initial famous setups were just a bit of "grass" and rocks, which is low plant mass and not many fast growers. This is a lot more difficult to keep stable, hence he probably limits the water column from nutrients. And generally his tanks have a lot of slow growing plants.



OllieNZ said:


> First of all please define high light(our opinions may differ). If you can please post par values from your tank. Also I'd like to see some pictures of the tank. (I'm a low tech guy too and love to see others work)



Yes,  I will pull out the par meter from my drawer, lol. Do you have a par meter? We mortals don't. I couldn't even afford fixing the lights when they failed. Well, at least not with the ones I want.

Tank 5f long, 50cm tall, light 50cm above the water surface which was LEDs 45x3W=135W.

Here before the lights failed


----------



## sciencefiction

I forgot, light was on 8 or 8.5 hrs a day. I can't quite remember which one.


----------



## Andy Thurston

sciencefiction said:


> Do you know the difference I see from brief browsing between a Tom Barr fish tank and an Amano setup?
> 
> Tom Barr uses high plant mass with a mixture of not just slow growing but fast growing plants. He uses high CO2 and unlimited nutrients.
> 
> Amano's initial famous setups were just a bit of "grass" and rocks, which is low plant mass and not many fast growers. This is a lot more difficult to keep stable, hence he probably limits the water column from nutrients. And generally his tanks have a lot of slow growing plants.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,  I will pull out the par meter from my drawer, lol. Do you have a par meter? We mortals don't. I couldn't even afford fixing the lights when they failed. Well, at least not with the ones I want.
> 
> Tank 5f long, 50cm tall, light 50cm above the water surface which was LEDs 45x3W=135W.
> 
> Here before the lights failed



if those LED's were at full power i would say that is pretty high light.
I believe Darrel uses 2 x t5 lights in some of his tanks, which i would also say is pretty high light.
I wouldn't say either were megawatt lighting though
my little tank had 24w t5 lighting 35cms from substrate, 30l with just liquid carbon and very little algae and that's fairly high but still not what I consider megawatt light either


----------



## sciencefiction

Big clown said:


> if those LED's were at full power i would say that is pretty high light.



Yes Big Clown, full power, no money for dimmers and the drivers were not dimmable.

However, I did play with the light up and down until I decided where to leave it.
The LEDs burnt any leaf of the emersed plants within 3-5cm distance so I couldn't go any lower and I wanted to.


----------



## sciencefiction

Big clown said:


> I wouldn't say either were megawatt lighting though


 
I suppose, it's a low tech in the end of the day. You can't go megawatt but pretty high is sometimes what's needed actually.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





OllieNZ said:


> I'll let him answer for himself but from what I've seen he uses alot of floating plants and very thick growth to keep the light levels low for his fish and is accepting of a certain amount of algae.


Yes, on both counts, although I don't aim for any particular amount of plant growth, I just let the amount of light govern how much plant biomass I have. 





sciencefiction said:


> It is my experience it doesn't if you have a high healthy plant mass, and that mass keeps needing more light.


  I thin the plants out a bit in the autumn as light levels falls. In spring I just let them fill out a bit.





Big clown said:


> I believe Darrel uses 2 x t5 lights in some of his tanks, which i would also say is pretty high light.


 The larger lab. tank  in N. facing window and has 2 x 24W T5. The smaller one has an 11W PL2 lamp.




 

From above


 

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

dw1305 said:


> I thin the plants out a bit in the autumn as light levels falls. In spring I just let them fill out a bit.





Big clown said:


> liquid carbon is also known to use/remove o2 from the water. i was dosing 3.5x in my shrimp tank without problems and it did reduce the bba to almost non existent levels. I daren't add more lc so started with pressurised as well which finished the job nicely then I just used the normal dose to keep the hardscape bba free



The full story is, that I did a water change and when the plants were outside of the water, I spot dosed them as I thought I should do, reading posts online halfway through.......  I had done a multi dose of liquid carbon in the morning as usual.  After I spot dosed when the water level was low, I filled the tank with water, all my fish were at the surface gasping, meaning, all of them,  it was a scary moment. I added an air pump, raised the outlet of a filter and they got fine in a couple of hours. So maybe liquid carbon does lower the O2, I didn't read on it anymore but a big dose would send those fish to heaven.
The plant I dosed was my large anubias barteri, grown to the surface of 60+cm, used to be beautiful and algae free early days.  I had to cut it down to a few leaves...I so much regretted I "spot dosed" it the way I did.

Double/tripled dosed for ages in my BBA tank, nothing at all. I suppose if you have a smaller tank it may work better but not in a 90-100G tank where it may get lost in action.

There are many approaches to achieve a stable planted tank. So I don't doubt it adding injecting CO2 is one of them. To me this is not an option. Anything that can help me accidentally kill fish is not an option. I keep the tanks because of fish, not because of plants and I don't need help killing fish. I've killed my share over the years in the most ridiculous ways.

The fact still remains that I have just one algae prone/BBA tank out of 5 and none are CO2 enriched, so how is CO2 a solution to my algae problems.


----------



## Andy Thurston

sciencefiction said:


> There are many approaches to achieve a stable planted tank. So I don't doubt it adding injecting CO2 is one of them. To me this is not an option. Anything that can help me accidentally kill fish is not an option. I keep the tanks because of fish, not because of plants and I don't need help killing fish. I've killed my share over the years in the most ridiculous ways.


  I think most of us have probably killed livestock through our own stupidity



sciencefiction said:


> The fact still remains that I have just one algae prone/BBA tank out of 5 and none are CO2 enriched, so how is CO2 a solution to my algae problems.


 So what are you doing differently with that one?
and I never said co2 was the magical answer



sciencefiction said:


> Double/tripled dosed for ages in my BBA tank, nothing at all. I suppose if you have a smaller tank it may work better but not in a 90-100G tank where it may get lost in action.


I think the trickle filter in that tank helped a lot with the extra liquid carbon i was dosing. I gave up when i stopped dosing/ran out of liquid carbon because I couldn't keep enough co2 gas in the tank.
pressurised seems to work better in the cube. as long as i keep up with water changes and cleaning I dont get bba except on the hardscape and filter pipework


----------



## sciencefiction

Big clown said:


> So what are you doing differently with that one?
> and I never said co2 was the magical answer



Honestly, I don't know right now. If one day I figure out a way for it to clear up, I'll be shouting loud. I always thought it's because of overstocking and possibly abundance of nitrogen in the form of ammonia, or other organic source.

I moved an anubias from this tank, infested with BBA to my other tank as in the videos above. The BBA didn't just stop growing, it disappeared from the leaves in not long time, a few weeks.  Which tells me, the other tank is uninhabitable for BBA and one doesn't easily spread it from tank to tank like a disease...



Big clown said:


> I think the trickle filter in that tank helped a lot with the extra liquid carbon i was dosing.



I have a trickle filter in that same tank I was talking about. There are two large external filters as well.


----------



## OllieNZ

I do recall the tank and very nice it was, sorry to hear about the light unit failure. How ever I would still suggest that both your tank and Darrel's are med-low light despite the actual intensity being provided due to the use of floating plants and in the case of your led unit the height above the substrate. I don't have a par meter either but I know some people do have access to them.
Would you mind posting some more details and a couple of pictures of the affected tank (apologies if you've already done this). I also agree shouting "CO2" at someone who does not have it or want to add it is maddeningly unhelpful.......


----------



## sciencefiction

OllieNZ said:


> I do recall the tank and very nice it was, sorry to hear about the light unit failure. How ever I would still suggest that both your tank and Darrel's are med-low light despite the actual intensity being provided due to the use of floating plants and in the case of your led unit the height above the substrate. I don't have a par meter either but I know some people do have access to them.
> Would you mind posting some more details and a couple of pictures of the affected tank (apologies if you've already done this). I also agree shouting "CO2" at someone who does not have it or want to add it is maddeningly unhelpful.......



I can't argue about the light amount in that tank as I haven't tested it. I normally go by bright, not so bright  Mine was very bright. I took those floaters away afterwards. I didn't have them all the time.

Oddly, I  haven't taken a  proper picture when I had a proper BBA bloom. I suppose I didn't enjoy seeing it. It used to then cover everything.   Right now, it's confined to anubias, older leaves.   Before it grew on the new leaves of hydrophila, now it doesn't affect the hydrophila.

Here is the best I can find right now, see the anubias edges and tips... Sorry about the hose obstructing the nice view  It's the typical dirty looking tank one associates with algae ridden tanks. What details about the tank do you need?


----------



## OllieNZ

Just the basics: Size, lighting, filtration, wc schedule, stocking etc. If you're no longer getting new bba growth something you've done must be working. Also an FTS would be nice.


----------



## sciencefiction

Tank is about 90G
6 clown loaches, the biggest is the one on the pic. It was a rescue,  the others are younger and smaller, a large common pleco, about 11 corys, 4 ottos, about 10 platies right now.

Filtration is 12x in two large externals and a trickle filter. The externals have spraybar outlets blowing from left to right along the length of the tank. There used to be a 4th filter but got moved to my other tank.

Water changes, 50%-60% weekly. I feed once a day.

Light for only the last 6 months is 3xT5 tubes. It used to be running on two tubes before while I had the big algae outbreaks so it makes no difference. Maybe I should've reduced to 1 tube.  Tank is 65cm deep.


OllieNZ said:


> If you're no longer getting new bba growth something you've done must be working.


 
The initial huge outbreak, I can't tell you what stopped it. One day I gave up and stopped dosing excel and any nutrients whatsoever.  I removed a large power head which was bumping the flow to 20x+. These changes resulted in most of my plants packing bags except for hydrophila and anubias.
The BBA reduced itself too along the disappearing plants proportionally.

I've been dosing iron regularly for not that long, sometime last year.  This does help the plants and the hydrophila is no longer prone to BBA but at that time the BBA was minimal anyway to start with. I had it way worse.  I also dose KNO3. If I skip dosing iron for a week or forget a dose or two, plant growth bleaches out straight away. Prior to any algae outbreak years ago, most plants were bleached out and weak from iron deficiency. 
BBA stays on the equipment though but doesn't grow fast right now. It could be old as well as I don't bother cleaning it out anymore. 

What I think I should do, is dump all old plants, clean the BBA from everywhere and start with healthy plants and increase the plant mass, also put dirt underneath the sand.
And reduce the stocking which will happen in due time but the plan is to remove two of my tanks and replace with an 8-10footer.
Right now, I am in college for the 2nd time,  mature student full time for the last 3 years, money is tight as I am not working so I've got to bear with what I have.

What would you do if this was your tank?


----------



## sciencefiction

OllieNZ said:


> Also an FTS would be nice.



He, he, here is a glorious picture as requested  It's a bit embarrassing...


----------



## Jose

What would I do?

1) keep any healthy plants in the tank. Buy some  more to have a nice ammount of biomass. Clean all bba you can see from tank. This you know.
2) Lots of water changes (2 a week min). Dose ferts right after. Let the water rest to offgas co2 and do the wc at the end of photoperiod. I know people wont agree here, but just try it.
3) Start dosing 1/5th of EI doses. You can go down to 1/10th after sometime. Use dry ferts or whatever you have laying around.
4) Youd probably need to lower light or add some floaters.
5) keep good oxygen. You probably already do.

You can do all this on a tight budget. You dont need co2.
If you are going to use soil do many water changes or youll get algae in the beginning.


----------



## OllieNZ

sciencefiction said:


> What I think I should do, is dump all old plants, clean the BBA from everywhere and start with healthy plants and increase the plant mass, also put dirt underneath the sand.
> And reduce the stocking which will happen in due time but the plan is to remove two of my tanks and replace with an 8-10footer.
> Right now, I am in college for the 2nd time,  mature student full time for the last 3 years, money is tight as I am not working so I've got to bear with what I have.
> What would you do if this was your tank?


Exactly the above. I know it will be some serious work (been there got the T-Shirt) but bulking it out with some fast growing plants and adding soil will definitely help. I think with the size of the tank and given sufficient plant mass two tubes would be acceptable.



This was single t5 no co2 soil and ferts when I remembered, If I ran 2x t5 plant growth didn't really increase but algae exploded almost instantly.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> 1) keep any healthy plants in the tank. Buy some  more to have a nice ammount of biomass. Clean all bba you can see from tank.
> 2) Lots of water changes (2 a week min). Let the water rest to offgas co2 and do the wc at the end of photoperiod. I know people wont agree here, but just try it.
> 3) Start dosing 1/5th of EI doses. You can go down to 1/10th after sometime. Use dry ferts or whatever you have laying around.
> 4) Youd probably need to lower light or add some floaters.
> 5) keep good oxygen. You probably already do.



Jose, point N 2, 3, 4 have been tried for a period of 1-2 years in the past. Light was lower for years, though I haven't tried it on one T5 only.  I've done water changes way more often than just one 50% weekly while I was playing with the tank, especially during the summer period.   Dose was full EI of nutrients for a period, treble excel, though I haven't tried without the excel.
Point 1 has been tried numerous times by moving very healthy plants from my other tanks, they just got covered in BBA, withered and died. I just stopped bothering.
Point 5-two large externals blowing at the surface, trickle filter in there too, air stone since last summer maybe. That powerhead has not been on for a very long time though, it's for emergency.


----------



## Jose

Excel can kill many plants too. Have you tried letting the water to offgas co2 before wc?


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Excel can kill many plants too. Have you tried letting the water to offgas co2 before wc?


 
No actually.  I don't have containers nor space for it. However, why is the CO2 in the water having an impact on just one tank? I do 50% weekly on my other tanks too in exactly the same way,  no BBA.
Yes, I may try larger nutrient doses without the excel. I don't think it was helping out. But while I dosed it didn't kill the plants. The algae killed them.


----------



## sciencefiction

> If you are going to use soil do many water changes or youll get algae in the beginning.



I've got 2 soil tanks, one is the tank from the videos. I use mineralized soil and no algae whatsoever at any stage. I've done just one weekly water change at the start and after, tank is 3 years old or so.


----------



## Jose

Maybe this tank has more light. Or simply if plants cant start off well algae will get hold. Time is an important variable we normally dont consider. So many things could be different.
Yes you keep comparing tanks. You dont really know half the things going on in there. Maybe youve done 1 wc a week in the beginning and got away with it. It doesnt mean it will work all the time. It also depends on the type of soil, the ammount of it etc. You can open your mind and try new things or just do the same as you do with the other tanks.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> Maybe this tank has more light. Or simply if plants cant start off well algae will get hold. Time is an important variable we normally dont consider. So many things could be different.



I don't know really. Maybe it does. First thing I ever did was decrease the light as advised on forums although the tank ran just fine for the first year or longer on full blast.

Here is an older video before the algae outbreak. My anubias grew very large and nice.


----------



## sciencefiction

sciencefiction said:


> Here is an older video before the algae outbreak. My anubias grew very large and nice.



After that I added the clown loaches, so hence I think it's overstocking mainly.

And don't forget the growing common pleco which was last time I measured 12 inches and he keeps growing. At the time of the above video, he was quite small,  though not a baby as I already had him for a while.


----------



## OllieNZ

sciencefiction said:


> No actually.  I don't have containers nor space for it. However, why is the CO2 in the water having an impact on just one tank? I do 50% weekly on my other tanks too in exactly the same way,  no BBA.


I don't bother either, syphon into the back garden and fill up straight from the hose. The theory is that unstable co2 = BBA. I'm not sure I agree with this in a low tech tank mainly due the fact the plants aren't adapted to higher co2 so the fluctuation caused by a water change has nil effect on plant heath. Where as in a high tech the plants adapt to the higher levels co2 and when this is not kept at a stable level they suffer ill health allowing algae to creep in.


sciencefiction said:


> I've got 2 soil tanks, one is the tank from the videos. I use mineralized soil and no algae whatsoever at any stage. I've done just one weekly water change at the start and after, tank is 3 years old or so.


I've never mineralised the soil I've used and not had any major algae issues, even used fresh soil while modifying existing scapes without harming fish/shrimp etc..


----------



## Andy Thurston

OllieNZ said:


> I've never mineralised the soil I've used and not had any major algae issues, even used fresh soil while modifying existing scapes without harming fish/shrimp etc..


I've done this in a friends hi tech. mixed a bag of ji3 with existing substrate, then scaped the tank and chucked all the fish and shrimp straight back in when we were finished. no deaths whatsoever. we only did 1 x 50% water change weekly too


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Is the GSA active when the BBA is spreading?



Yes, even though it wasn't much, but still actively regenerating,

You guys discuss too fast here, I can't keep-up! Beautiful tanks though, and very interesting thoughts and facts. Worth reading


----------



## OllieNZ

fablau said:


> Yes, even though it wasn't much, but still actively regenerating,
> 
> You guys discuss too fast here, I can't keep-up! Beautiful tanks though, and very interesting thoughts and facts. Worth reading


Try upping your phosphate dosing a touch, that should take care of the gsa.


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> Yes, even though it wasn't much, but still actively regenerating,
> 
> You guys discuss too fast here, I can't keep-up! Beautiful tanks though, and very interesting thoughts and facts. Worth reading



I suppose we should get back to the topic. How are you getting on with your BBA


----------



## fablau

OllieNZ said:


> Try upping your phosphate dosing a touch, that should take care of the gsa.



Yes, that's exactly what I did and GSA disappeared


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> I suppose we should get back to the topic. How are you getting on with your BBA



Sure, here is an update for you:

Things are going better, less BBA around since I made these changes to my setup:

1. Reduced flow by using a different pump, before was using Eheim 3000 (12x turnover) and now using Eheim 2000 (8x turnover)

2. Unsealed my wet/dry filter, so that oxygen is added to water column and degassing is compared to the higher flow given by the Eheim 3000.

3. Removed night aeration via micro pore air stone which degassed completely during night.

I think both too strong flow and too much degassing was cause of BBA. It is still around, but I's say 80% reduced. Maybe it is going to disappear? I will give you an additional update in a couple of weeks.


----------



## sciencefiction

One step at a time and wait 
I would remove as much BBA as possible. Then take a few pictures of the plants that get affected the most. Then compare in two weeks. This way you'll know if it keeps growing or not.


----------



## Andy Thurston

fablau said:


> 1. Reduced flow by using a different pump, before was using Eheim 3000 (12x turnover) and now using Eheim 2000 (8x turnover)


Clive would say more flow is better, but hey! whatever works best for you



fablau said:


> 3. Removed night aeration via micro pore air stone which degassed completely during night.


Some people swear by night time aeration when balancing co2 but its never worked for me either



sciencefiction said:


> One step at a time and wait
> I would remove as much BBA as possible. Then take a few pictures of the plants that get affected the most. Then compare in two weeks. This way you'll know if it keeps growing or not.


Good advice
You'll also learn what works and what doesn't


----------



## sciencefiction

Here is one more article on BBA, specifically a type(_Compsopogon coeruleus)_ that invades fresh water aquariums. Apparently, it loves the flow as all of us have already noticed.

http://www.academia.edu/10906960/Fi...albis_Montagne_Rhodophyta_in_Flanders_Belgium_

*Compsopogon 
coeruleus*
clearly preferred strong current. The species seemed unable to initiate a successful colonization in slow current or standing-water conditions. It could however endure such conditions for relatively long periods. This preference for stronger currents was confirmed from the other aquaria in Belgium from which it was reported. Therefore, in our opinion, changes in the current velocity could be used for controlling of the growth of this alga and even for its elimination from aquaria. This approach in combination with efficient grazers, such as
Ameca splendens may prove to be quite successful.

Generally,the species was reported to be attached to the surface of the leaves of
_Vallisneria spiralis but could also be found on other aquatic macrophytes with strong leaves (e.g. Hydrocotyle spp.,  Anubias  spp.)._
Initial colonisation mostly started on the edges of the host leaves andincreased inward onto the leaf surface. In the majority of the cases it developed epiphytically in Amazone aquaria with pH 6-6.5 (relatively rarer 6.5-7.5), at water temperatures from 24-27°C and always preferred hosts exposed to increased water current. This was mostly near the outlet of the filtering apparatus with maximum output between 1892 and 1900 liters per hour. After decreasing the current velocity by more than 60% a degradation of cells and their content was observed


----------



## sciencefiction

And a bit more about this same type of BBA species called _Compsopogon coeruleus._
The below is a study on its ability to use organic carbon as a source and according to that study it's quite capable of taking HCO3- directly without the need to convert to CO2, unlike other species of red algae who have a preference for CO2.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j...PsgZAD&usg=AFQjCNGZ8wq6pm7qBToS4bTuLBJ31F32SQ

A few paragraphs of the article.

Results on measurements of environmental variables (Table 1) revealed that C.coeruleus in this study inhabits a clear, nearly neutral, warm and nutrient moderate aquatie environment. These results concur with previous reports on the algae in the genus.
Compsopogon prefers warmer, nearly neutral or more alkaline and slightly pollutant habitat
(Sheath and Hambrook, 1990; Wehr and Sheath, 2003; Liu and Wang, 2004).

These results indicate that C. _coeruleus _has a higher affinity for an inorganic carbon source ......

In addition, the present study was the first to demonstrate that C. _coeruleus _can
directly uptake bicarbonate without the aid of extemal CA-mediated conversion of HC03- to
CO2• This more efficient means of HC03 - utilization may be an adaptation for highly-unstable
aquatic environments (Axelsson _et al., _1995).


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> One step at a time and wait
> I would remove as much BBA as possible. Then take a few pictures of the plants that get affected the most. Then compare in two weeks. This way you'll know if it keeps growing or not.



Yes, I already can compare with before: whereas before I had to remove leaves infested with new appearing BBA every day, Now I am doing that every 2-3 days... Hopefully that will fade to nothing... I will definitively keep you posted guys. Thanks!


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Here is one more article on BBA, specifically a type(_Compsopogon coeruleus)_ that invades fresh water aquariums. Apparently, it loves the flow as all of us have already noticed.
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/10906960/Fi...albis_Montagne_Rhodophyta_in_Flanders_Belgium_
> 
> *Compsopogon
> coeruleus*
> clearly preferred strong current. The species seemed unable to initiate a successful colonization in slow current or standing-water conditions. It could however endure such conditions for relatively long periods. This preference for stronger currents was confirmed from the other aquaria in Belgium from which it was reported. Therefore, in our opinion, changes in the current velocity could be used for controlling of the growth of this alga and even for its elimination from aquaria. This approach in combination with efficient grazers, such as
> Ameca splendens may prove to be quite successful.
> 
> Generally,the species was reported to be attached to the surface of the leaves of
> _Vallisneria spiralis but could also be found on other aquatic macrophytes with strong leaves (e.g. Hydrocotyle spp.,  Anubias  spp.)._
> Initial colonisation mostly started on the edges of the host leaves andincreased inward onto the leaf surface. In the majority of the cases it developed epiphytically in Amazone aquaria with pH 6-6.5 (relatively rarer 6.5-7.5), at water temperatures from 24-27°C and always preferred hosts exposed to increased water current. This was mostly near the outlet of the filtering apparatus with maximum output between 1892 and 1900 liters per hour. After decreasing the current velocity by more than 60% a degradation of cells and their content was observed



This article is great and confirms exactly my experience. The slower pump I have now is rated 2000 liters per hour... The one used before was 3000 liters per hour. I am wondering if an even slower pump could help even more! Just wondering...

Thanks for such useful information.


----------



## Jose

fablau said:


> This article is great and confirms exactly my experience. The slower pump I have now is rated 2000 liters per hour... The one used before was 3000 liters per hour. I am wondering if an even slower pump could help even more! Just wondering...


High flow might help the BBA once you have it, but this doesnt mean it triggers it to appear. A bit like saying phosphates cause algae, no it doesnt it just feeds it. So is one solution to lower the flow? Well you might get worse plant growth in some cases depending on many factors, and this can actually end up being counter productive. Just becareful with your conclusions.

Nice pieces of info Sciencefiction. Ill have a read and give my thoughts later on.


----------



## sciencefiction

Flow in terms of delivery to plants is about getting the distribution right, not about how high the flow is. So if you are able to efficiently distribute lower flow, understand linear flow and such,  then plants won't suffer, just BBA. At least that's the idea I suppose. There are plenty of unconventional co2 tanks with lower flow doing great. The article is talking about degradation of cells when the flow is withdrawn from the BBA, which sounds significant enough even though not as easy to employ in tanks as we need the flow for filters at least.

So now we've got a few variables, it loves high flow, it has affinity to organic carbon as a source. It loves clear waters, slightly polluted, etc.. I think I am going to the shop to buy some redbush tea to stain the water in my tank with tannins for a while.
If someone else finds something else about it, we may eventually see the whole picture. There could be a variable that inhibits the BBA significantly which we could employ. We just must find it. The info is out there and in our tanks in front of our own eyes.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> There are plenty of unconventional co2 tanks with lower flow doing great.



There are also many tanks doing great with high flow and no BBA. So while it could be an option once you have BBA,  I dont see the need if your tank doesnt have it. But then how much flow is enough?, because flow is very important for co2 distribution. So if you have high light and reduce the flow you could get into trouble.  It depends on the light ammount and the co2 method you use and a few other things. Maybe you are just better off picking it out by hand or spot dosing with glut. I doubt the flow reduction is going to make a huge difference basically because plants in a high tech also need a minimum flow.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> There are also many tanks doing great with high flow and no BBA. So while it could be an option once you have BBA


 
Yes, including my other low tech tanks, all 10x flow and no BBA. I don't say high flow is the only variable, but it may provide a favourable environment at the same time when you have the BBA already. We've all seen it...I've seen it at least.

And you can have as much flow as you want in your tank, but if you set it up in a way so your flow devices counteract each other, then you'll still have dead spots. Isn't that the biggest problem.... with CO2 distribution... people still set up their freshwater planted tanks as if they are marine tanks with powerheads sticking out from every corner, blowing in all possible directions. Or they tend to put their outlets just in front of the bunch of wood or bunch of tall plants, etc.. not planning the aquascape correctly for the flow to be able to reach the other side and bounce back from where it started in the same direction, at the same time, reaching all areas of the tank...

However, when we treat BBA, we must change tactics. When we don't have BBA, we do nothing.
There's a difference between the two. Once you "cure" the algae, you can tweak things further.
You don't spot dose your plants with excel pro-actively as to prevent BBA. You spot dose when they already have BBA.....if you know what I am trying to say.


----------



## Jose

So the only way to know if reducing  flow could be an alternative is if someone with BBA tries it for us. Maybe people can try this:
1) Lower temp to 22/23 degrees.
2) Remove any extra flow/pumps that you have.
Keep everything else the same for some time.
If you change many more things youll never really know what made a difference and this is generally the case.
I cant do this experiment because I dont get BBA. I keep my tank at 22 degrees.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 
Paper is interesting, one word of caution would be that _Compsopogon coeruleus_ is likely to be a "Stag Horn" rather than a "Black Brush" Algae. 

From <"http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curat...0&GenusName=Trachelomonas&SpeciesName=hispida">.



 

and from <http://university.uog.edu/botany/474/fw/compsopogon.htm>.


 

Black Brush Algae is most likely to be _Audouinella_ spp. <"http://algalweb.net/rhodo.htm">
 

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

Well that's one step further 

Have you tested BBA under the microscope to see what species of BBA we may have Darrel?


----------



## sciencefiction

sciencefiction said:


> Well that's one step further
> 
> Have you tested BBA under the microscope to see what species of BBA we may have Darrel?



I mean, there are hundreds of species of Audouinella, it would be handy for a start to know which species is BBA.

I may find a way to check mine and see


----------



## sciencefiction

dw1305 said:


> Black Brush Algae is most likely to be Audouinella spp. <"http://algalweb.net/rhodo.htm">



I found some info accidentally browsing. It's from yahoo but the source of the info is John Kinross, his website being the link you provided above.

_There are between 2,500 and 6,000 species of Rhodophyta or red algae. They are an ancient group of organisms; fossil records place them in the mid-proterozoic. It is believed that Rhodophyta were among the first multicellular organisms. 
Red algae are red because of the presence of the pigment phycoerythrin; this pigment reflects red light and absorbs blue light. Because blue light penetrates water to a greater depth than light of longer wavelengths, these pigments allow red algae to photosynthesize and live at somewhat greater depths than most other "algae". Some rhodophytes have very little phycoerythrin, and may appear green or bluish from the chlorophyll and other pigments present in them. 
There are four common species of freshwater Rhodophyta- Batrachospermum, Lemanea, Audouinella (=Rhodochorton ) and Audouinella (green). Typically, they are found in cold, fast-moving streams. 
Batrachospermum species are filamentous red algae, which branch repeatedly in a characteristic fashion. There is a multiseriate main axis of elongated, fasciated cells, which may branch several times. Along the main axis and branches, whorls of short filaments all of a similar length arise. The plant is large enough to be visible with the naked eye, but a microscope is necessary to examine the details. 
The whole plant is enveloped in a slippery mucilage, which together with its beaded appearance has given rise to the name: "Batrachospermum" means "frog-spawn alga", though it better resembles toad spawn. *In the aquarium hobby, this algae is known as BBA,* black beard algae or just beard algae. It can be seen clinging tenaciously to plant leaves and stems. 
The colour of the plant is not in fact red, but may be a range of colours from brown to green or olive-green. It grows attached to stable surfaces 
Lemanea This is another Rhodophyte which is not red: it is usually greyish, and has rather a coarse, wiry feel. Characteristically, it grows in moderate to fast currents; it branches rather sparsely, and the whole plant is quite streamlined in appearance. It can grow to 10 cm. or more. *This type is commonly referred to as black brush algae, BBA or just brush algae.* 
Audouinella is a rather small plant, which forms a reddish or brownish turf on stones or on other algae. The most common form is a pinkish hue when seen under the microscope, but there is also a variety which is a greenish-grey colour. It branches repeatedly, the branches often running almost parallel to the main branch. 
_
*Sources: John Kinross, School of Life Sciences, Napier University, Edinburgh*
John is a technician within the School of Life Sciences, currently focussed on research into the ecotoxicology of nanomaterials in algae and invertebrates. John's interests lie in aquatic sciences and in particular, algae (see www.algalweb.net), with experience of water quality assessment through chemical and biological testing (BOD, COD, GC-MS, nutrient assay, sediment characterisation, microbiology, chlorophyll assay, dissolved oxygen, invertebrate indicators, algal biodiversity).
.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> The plant is large enough to be visible with the naked eye, but a microscope is necessary to examine the details.
> The whole plant is enveloped in a slippery mucilage, which together with its beaded appearance has given rise to the name: "Batrachospermum" means "frog-spawn alga", though it better resembles toad spawn. In the aquarium hobby, this algae is known as BBA, black beard algae or just beard algae. It can be seen clinging tenaciously to plant leaves and stems.





sciencefiction said:


> Lemanea This is another Rhodophyte which is not red: it is usually greyish, and has rather a coarse, wiry feel. Characteristically, it grows in moderate to fast currents; it branches rather sparsely, and the whole plant is quite streamlined in appearance. It can grow to 10 cm. or more. This type is commonly referred to as black brush algae, BBA or just brush algae.


Now that is very useful. 

I'm not in work this week, but next week I'll get some microscope pictures of the BBA in my tank, By the look of it _Batrachospermum, Lemanea & Audouinella syn. (Rhodochorton) _are different enough to get an ID. _Rhodochorton_ would be my guess.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

Thanks Darrel. At least if we have an ID on the BBA, we can research the exact species and narrow down the info 

Is that  below _Audouinella syn. (Rhodochorton) as in the below picture link? It's just that it looks quite different than what I have. _

http://www.freshwaterlife.org/imagearchive/main.php?g2_itemId=10900


----------



## sciencefiction

And this is a freshwater _Batrachospermum_ sp., jet black like the stuff I have. I think a microscope is best. There are thousands of microscope pics online to try and compare. Maybe some of us have totally different species.

http://www.picsearch.com/imageDetai...yzzHEuSA-hZmD4x7MqU&start=1&q=batrachospermum algae


----------



## sciencefiction

And this is _Batrachospermum cf. moniliforme. _They are all pictured in fast currents anyway
_


 _


----------



## Zak Rafik

I'm getting BBA on my carpet plants now. First time since the tank was set up 8 months ago. I'm having BBA frow on my glass panel also. I read some articles on the Tom Barr website about BBA and I'm none the wiser.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


dw1305 said:


> _I'm not in work this week, but next week I'll get some microscope pictures of the BBA in my tank, By the look of it Batrachospermum, Lemanea & Audouinella syn. (Rhodochorton) are different enough to get an ID. Rhodochorton would be my guess_.


 I've taken some microscope pictures of the BBA from one of my fish tanks (both at x100).



 

In the image below, you can see filaments in the haploid phase with bundles of carpogosporangia on short side branches


 
Looking at <"_Audouinella_ | microscopes.....">, and it looks like _Audouinella_ is the correct ID. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Sacha

Looks like aliens to me.


----------



## sciencefiction

Oh, nice.....Thanks Darrel. I am going to get a microscopic picture of mine.

Just a paragraph about it from the book I downloaded:

_Audouinella _Bory de St. Vincent (Figs. 2F–J and 3A)
_*Audouinella *_is composed of short, branched,
uniaxial filaments, which typically grow in dense tufts,
usually less than 1 cm in diameter but up to 2–3 cm.
The filaments may be composed of erect and prostrate
axes. Apices of erect axes often terminate with colorless
hair cells. Cells contain either reddish or bluish,
parietal, ribbon-like chloroplasts. The cell diameter is
6–26 μm. Filaments occur most commonly with monosporangia
(5–38 μm in diameter) at the branch tips.
Only reddish species have been observed to be sexual
or tetrasporic. Colorless spermatangia (4–5 μm in diameter)
occur in clusters at the branch tips; carpogonia
have a cylindrical base and thin trichogyne (30 μm in
length). Carposporophytes are spherical, compact mass
of short gonimoblast filaments; carposporangia are
obovoid (10 13 μm). Tetrasporangia are also formed
at the branch tips (9 μm in diameter).
_
Audouinella _is a widespread genus in streams,
ranging from the North Slope of Alaska to Costa Rica
(Necchi _et al_., 1993a, b). _A. hermannii_, the most common
species in North America, tends to occur in cool
waters (11°C), with a low ion content (104 μS cm–1)
and mildly alkaline pH (7.5). _A. eugenea _and _A. pygmaea_
are typical of warm streams of high ion content


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





dw1305 said:


> 2. The Piranha tank in the Princess of Wales pavilion at RBG Kew.


 I've found an identity for the BBA in the RBG Kew tank via <"Piranha III - algal hunter" >.





cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

Yes, I read in that book that _Audouinella _can look similar to Chantransia which is some sort of a life stage of _Batrachospermum _species but they differ in colour and the two have often been confused.
To be honest, I don't know enough to distinguish them under a microscope but I'll take a picture of my BBA for the sake of it to see if it looks the same way.
The reason I ruled out mine being Audoinella is because mine is not red, not even the slightest tint or hue and I've seen reddish BBA in tanks different than mine. Mine is black/greyish/greenish type of red algae.

Audoinella is visibly red and Chantransia of Batrachospermum is black/grey. The book I read says for now that's the only reasonable way to distinguish Audoinella from Chantransia, by the colour.

BBA species probably differ from tank to tank.
Also Audoinella may grow on top of Lemanea as an epiphyte and both are red algae forms.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> The reason I ruled out mine being Audoinella is because mine is not red, not even the slightest tint or hue and I've seen reddish BBA in tanks different than mine. Mine is black/greyish/greenish type of red algae.


 The bit I took out of the tank was the standard dark BBA colour. The images came out red, but it wasn't obvious in the living plant, and that  may have been to do with the colour temperature of the microscope lamp.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

The microscopic images online I can find for Audoinella and that look similar to the images you posted are for Audionella hermaninni. It doesn't look at all like what I have but maybe they have different life stages changing their appearance or depending on conditions... How would I know anyway.... _A. eugenea _and _A. pygmaea _are the others that thrive in warmer waters but I can't find much about them or their microscopic images.  Apparently Audionella is a marine mostly species with just a few fresh water representatives where Batrachospermum species are strictly freshwater.
I'll post my images here as soon as I get them and then start researching more.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
Best images I've found were from <"Dr Ralf Wagner - Rotalgen"> (scroll down to the "Red Algae" link from the left menu (it is a frame set)).

Also <"http://diatom.huxley.wwu.edu/algae_images/Red_Algae/Audouinella">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

Here are some of the Chantransia

http://dbmuseblade.colorado.edu/DiatomTwo/sbsac_site/genus.php?g=Chantransia


----------



## sciencefiction

sciencefiction said:


> Here are some of the Chantransia
> 
> http://dbmuseblade.colorado.edu/DiatomTwo/sbsac_site/genus.php?g=Chantransia



And some extracts about Audoinella and Chantransia.

_The sequence data clearly show these specimens to be chantransia stages of Batrachospermum taxa.
Recently, other described freshwater Audouinella taxa have also been shown to be chantransia stages._

_The blue-colored
Audouinella species have not been observed to contain
gametangia, carposporophytes, or tetrasporangia in 34
collections in North America (Necchi et al., 1993b).
This finding may indicate that they are not, in fact, true
Audouinella species, but rather one of the life history
stages of the Batrachospermales, the “chantransia” (see
below). Further substantiating this possibility, Pueschel
et al. (2000) have demonstrated that isolates formerly
classified as the blue-colored Audouinella macrospora
were positioned in an 18S rRNA gene tree with samples
of Batrachospermum and not with the freshwater
red-colored Audouinella hermannii. In addition, the
pit plugs of A. macrospora were also like those of the
Batrachospermales._


----------



## sciencefiction

This is an image of Chantransia macrospora






source: http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2009/AI_2009_4_4_Kato_etal.pdf


And this is an image of Audouinella





Source: http://www.dr-ralf-wagner.de/index-englisch.htm




Personally, with my uneducated eye, I can't make the difference at all.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> The sequence data clearly show these specimens to be chantransia stages of Batrachospermum taxa.


 I think you've got it, it could well be that the "Black Brush Algae" and "Black Beard Algae", are just the alternation of generations of one species (and presumably really a _Chantransia sp._).

I used to work with a <"famous phycologist"> who works with Rhodophyta. I'll send her an email and hopefully she will be able to add to comment. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

Ok guys, so I finally got a microscopic picture of my BBA. That's the best I could get....Here it is:



 

And some close ups


----------



## sciencefiction

@Darrel. Do you have any idea what type mine is looking at the above images?
I haven't change any brightness on contrast on them. I suppose I could have but wanted them unaltered so I can identify this if anyone has an idea...

Here is another pic we took. All pictures are from the edges of an anubias leaf basically. The BBA I have is short and quite black in "real mode".  I'll take a picture tomorrow of how it looks normally.


----------



## sciencefiction

And these is the same as the first but I altered the brightness and contrast.


----------



## sciencefiction

Since the BBA "I breed"  is black/green type, definitely not red, is it safe to go by the below in order to identify it?....

_Plant colour is proposed as the only vegetative character

that can be unequivocally applied to distinguish Audouinella from ‘Chantransia’, bluegreenish
representing “Chantransia” stages and reddish applying to true Audouinella
species (also forming reproductive structures other than monosporangia, e.g. tetrasporangia).

Some isolates of A. pygmaea were proven to be unequivocally ‘Chantransia” stages
owing either to production of juvenile gametophytes or to derivation from carpospores. No

association of the morphology of A. pygmaea was found with any particular species, thus it
should be regarded as a complex involving many species of the Batrachospermales sensu
lato, as is also the case with A. macrospora.*We therefore recommend that all blue-greenish
acrochaetioid algae in freshwater habitats be considered as “Chantransia” stages of members

of the Batrachospermales*

source: http://www.dzb.ibilce.unesp.br/~orlando/MorphAcroch(Proof).pdf_


----------



## sciencefiction

And the real thing  Since we've got 21 pages without a picture of BBA in it's most beautiful form...


----------



## Andy Thurston

my turn


----------



## sciencefiction

See, yours looks rather pinkish and mine is black and never gets that "teddy bear" fluffy look. I am extremely jealous


----------



## Andy Thurston

it could be because its in the high tech form. I can send you some if you like


----------



## sciencefiction

Big clown said:


> it could be because its in the high tech form. I can send you some if you like



That would be great. I can pay via paypal 
Maybe they are territorial species and will kill each other to death


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> See, yours looks rather pinkish and mine is black and never gets that "teddy bear" fluffy look. I am extremely jealous


 So am I, that looks great. I think the <"aesthetic appeal"> of Algae is under-rated.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

I observe that this BB algea and also hair algea work a litlle parasitic. F.e since the start the Utricularia graminifolia has problems and i noticed 1 patch of this plant being the most infested wuth hair alge. Now i bought also some Lilaepsis Brasiliensis which was the first to show BB i guess it came with it from the shop. Pruned all away.. But lately i added Potamogeton gayi which is rather slow in feeling at home and takes time to astablish from what i read here. Now also show signs of BB since 2 days.. The rest of the plants which all grow ok and are rooting nicely are clean. Like the Enchinidorus showd a bit the first week but is totaly clean since it is rooting and growing. Is that true that algea attack plants in distress earlier then healthy established plants? or is it just a observation by chance i have here?.


----------



## sciencefiction

I think BBA definitely affects weaker plants/leaves. It can live as an Epiphyte on both plants and other algae including different species from BBA.


----------



## zozo

In every shop where i bought came with some kind of algea on it.. Exept from sponsor FLowgrow and co they where spot on clean.. From wath i can see i have a few. Hair, bg, bb and now i'm using medication for the fish i see bacto bloom as well.

The green ones love that bloom, the wood is getting greener.. Older leaves i see first comming with bb.. The balance is the cirkel and the cause.. I think the people with scapes with lesser plants will do lesser pruning and have more chances getting out off balance..

I have now

Eleocharis acicularis 'Mini'
Hemianthus callitrichoides Cuba
Pogostemon helferi
Anubias Nana Petit
Riccardia chamedryfolia- Mini Pelia
Vesicularia dubyana Santa Claus
Fissidens fontanus
Utricularia graminifolia
Rotala Mexicana Goias
Bucephalandra
Bolbitis heudelotii
Rotala mini type 2
Bolbitis heteroclita difformis
Bolbitis sp. 'Buea' (Didymoglossum erosum)
Pygmea Nymphea Rosennymphe Bonsai
Lilaepsis Brasiliensis
Drepanocladus aduncus (Sneak in)
Potamogeton gayi
Rotala Indica 'Bonsai'
cabomba
echinodorus dschungelstar nr 2 kleiner bär

in litlle more than 40 liters of water .. My basic thought is  "energy" fight it off with pruning and only keeping the young ones, they want energy the most. Keeping old ones slows young ones down. I have a lot to prune and can prune a lot without ruining my scape. That's just a style remedy against the cause.. Working like fruit growers like making old ones more beautiful we need an other style by pruning the lesser developed young ones tho make bigger old ones. But still the balance is energy.. I make my plants work, not let the plant do the work for me by looking at them grow (algea).  Actualy, what i want to say to the algea growers, is look at your plants at closer detail then you do now.. Thats difficult when it gets bushy and at the point where you like it the most and change it the less.. But still there is the key, the impossible constant energy. Thats wath i think and til now im pretty sure of myself. Find the balance in pruning and amount of plants. The seinctific numbers i don't have a answer for, thats a interesting reason also to read UKAPS..


----------



## zozo

Yesterday i got i perfect example for myself which i overlooked about make your plants work don't let them work.. Forgot to take pictures, but share my experience anyway.
The Lilaepsis Brasiliensis i bought, i saw it had a little BBA on it when i came home..Did cut it all away, but the spores are still there can't see but can't just get around that. So that's the cause in the first place for everyboddy i guess. Introduction. 

Did put some of that Lilaepsis at the base of the Echinodorus Dschungelstar, to create some feathering contrast with with the Big leaves of the Echinodorus. And that plant is a perfect example for possible cause of BBA to get a foothold. I did put my Enchi almost in front of the filter outlet, it gets about the best stream provided in the whole tank. And still this plant was making it's own dead spots for himself. A plant like that can easily shield some of it's own leaves from decent flow. Just a small leave supresed in the corner and shielded and hidden by it's own 2 big brothers. I only noticed it, to realy dig into the plant and pull leaves a side with the tweezers for inspection. And there the little culprit was covered in long strains of BBA ready to infect the rest (of the tank). I f waited a week longer with diggin trough Enchi i guess i had to do a lot more cutting then i did now.. 

Incuficient flow, as so often suggested as cause doesn't always say your pump is''t strong enough. Maybe your choice of plant(s) in that particular spot isn't right, in the way you want it to grow there.

If you spot some tiny patch of BBA in your tank and you heavily planted, it's time to put on this song

and start digging and you might find the nest, before it is (almost) to late..


----------



## DanielC03

[Quote = "zozo, post: 402634, miembro de: 13.448"] Ayer me dieron ejemplo perfecto yo por mí mismo que pasé por alto acerca de hacer que sus plantas funcionan no dejes que trabajan .. olvidé de tomar fotos, pero compartir mi experiencia de todos modos. Pero las esporas Siguen Ahí no puedo ver, Pero No puedo CONSEGUIR Alrededor de eso. .. [/ quote]

Amigo: esporas están en todas partes. Crecerá cuando las condiciones son buenas -. Sólo eso.


----------



## zozo

Yo lo se.. Just saying.. Gracias.


----------



## xim

BBA can grow on areas with very strong flow, even on the opening of the outflow pipe.
The idea of getting good flow to prevent algae doesn't mean algae can't grow in strong flow area.
But to promote good CO2, ferts, and waste circulation for better plant growth.

I mean you shouldn't think that the area (right in front of the outlet) has not enough flow.


----------



## zozo

I know  it can be all over your tank.. But in my case it nested first at a quite obvious spot, that might not be as obvious at all for everybody.,
I noticed first in the Myriophyllum Brasiliensis which is next to the Enchinodorus also in the highflow corner of the tank. And its a typical plant that catches everything browsing around, specialy in a high flow corner. And i'm looking closly everyday, and all of a sudden i see a few quite long strangs of BBA hanging and waving in the Myriophyllum Brasiliensis, actualy was hard to see this stuff has a verry good camouflage in this plant. Such long strains, it cant grow in 12 hours , so i looked 360 degrees around in my tank and at first glans i couldnt find anything more. So i started diggin around, because it had to came frome somewhere. The Enchinodorus was growing very good lately and became quite large. I pulled it apart and found the nest between 2 rather large leaves, a younger leafe growing hiden in between looking like Evil Raspoetine and came to the ponit of loosing a lot of long strains BBA.  That leave was so well hidden i overlook it all this time, i do not know how long it was there growing this stuff.. I realy should heve taken pictures of it.

I guess a lot of people fighting a pest of BBA have also overlooked the first nest for even longer till it gets out of hand.. Where it's everywhere where you look and dig..

I know how i got it, i had my co2 fluctuating the first 3 weeks. And soem infected fish, did a lot of water changes, twice to three times a week, the infection is gone, think and hope got it right now..


----------



## fablau

I have been able to remove completely BBA from my tank. Here is what I have done to make it disappear from my tank for the past month:

1. Got back to regular EI schedule by daily alternating macros with micros. Dosing 1/3 less than the recommended EI, just because I perform water change every 2 weeks.

2. Four weeks ago, after water change, I added recommended dose of Excel (the high dosage recommended after water change). That destroyed completely all BBA I had, but also damaged some of my Vals (too bad!) that have now recovered 

3. Raised Co2 a little until I could see pearling on plants (tanks Tom for the tip I read on another thread somewhere!). As a reference, I raised Co2 to reach 80ml per minute. And I'll keep it that way from now on!

So... this has been my recipe to get rid of BBA after 8 months of struggling!

I think the following points helped a big deal:

1. Excel helped to get rid of everything bad was out right at that moment (BBA)

2. Raising Co2.

3. Getting back into regular fert routine without being afraid of "toxicities". I mean, all my plants got better, Alternathera Reinikii included which was struggling in a long time! In particular I think the increase of micros helped the most.


I hope my experience could be useful for other people. I'll keep watching my tank to see if that damn BBA will ever come back, but so far so good! Thanks again to anyone on this forum for the help given.

Best,
Fab.


----------



## Zak Rafik

fablau said:


> I have been able to remove completely BBA from my tank. Here is what I have done to make it disappear from my tank for the past month:
> 1. Got back to regular EI schedule by daily alternating macros with micros. Dosing 1/3 less than the recommended EI, just because I perform water change every 2 weeks.
> 2. Four weeks ago, after water change, I added recommended dose of Excel (the high dosage recommended after water change). That destroyed completely all BBA I had, but also damaged some of my Vals (too bad!) that have now recovered
> 3. Raised Co2 a little until I could see pearling on plants (tanks Tom for the tip I read on another thread somewhere!). As a reference, I raised Co2 to reach 80ml per minute. And I'll keep it that way from now on!
> So... this has been my recipe to get rid of BBA after 8 months of struggling!
> I think the following points helped a big deal:
> 1. Excel helped to get rid of everything bad was out right at that moment (BBA)
> 2. Raising Co2.
> 3. Getting back into regular fert routine without being afraid of "toxicities". I mean, all my plants got better, Alternathera Reinikii included which was struggling in a long time! In particular I think the increase of micros helped the most.
> I hope my experience could be useful for other people. I'll keep watching my tank to see if that damn BBA will ever come back, but so far so good! Thanks again to anyone on this forum for the help given.
> Best,Fab.



Hi Fab,
First of all, congrats on the good news. 
Have you been able to find out what exactly triggered the BBA in the first place?
I'm very interested in learning more about your dosing of less fertz and doing PWC every 2 weeks. Sounds sweet
Can you share your doing regium by private msg. I don't want to derail this post about BBA.

Did you manage to get some before and after treatment photos? If so, please share them here.
Thanks


----------



## fablau

Zak Rafik said:


> Hi Fab,
> First of all, congrats on the good news.
> Have you been able to find out what exactly triggered the BBA in the first place?
> I'm very interested in learning more about your dosing of less fertz and doing PWC every 2 weeks. Sounds sweet
> Can you share your doing regium by private msg. I don't want to derail this post about BBA.
> 
> Did you manage to get some before and after treatment photos? If so, please share them here.
> Thanks



Thanks! Of course, I can post my dosing regime here since I think it could help other folks to understand what could have actually triggered BBA... At least in my tank. Which I think was both lack of Co2 and micro nutrients.

Before I changed my regime a month ago, I was dosing a pretty light version of EI, just because I thought what I was dosing was enough by measuring No3 and Po4 regularly and performing water change every 2 weeks... But my regime was probably too light:

For my 75gl tank I used to dose the following, in alternating days:

- Macros: No3: 1/4 tsp, Po4: 1/16 tsp, K: 1/16 tsp
- Micros: 20ml of a solution made of 40gr of CSM+B in 1 liter of distiller water plus 1/32 tsp of DTPA Fe.

As you can see, my regime was too light, and some plants were suffering because of that, mostly Althernantera Reinikii and other slow growing plants.

Co2 was pretty high instead, but less of what I am giving now. I was pumping the equivalent of 60ml per minute, but I also tried to pump more up to 90ml per minute, but no avail... I guess because of the lack of micros, my plants couldn't recover, and BBA persisted.

So, 4 weeks ago I changed my regime to the following (basically by doubling all dosing), always with water change every 2 weeks:

- Macros: No3: 2/4 tsp, Po4: 1/8, K: 1/8
- Micros: 40ml of the same solution as above plus the same amount of DTPA (1/32 tsp)

Also, cranked Co2 to 80ml per minute.

These are the changes I have made, and now, after 4 weeks, still no BBA!

Here are some pictures of some of my plants and affected leaves before the cure:

















And here are the same plants right now (recovered):






















I had BBA mostly on my slow growers. Now it is completely disappeared and not returned ever since.

I hope this can help other people because I have suffered so much without finding a solution for a long time. But as I said, I think the lack of micros was the main cause, in my case. I was too afraid to cause some sort of "toxicity" by adding too many micros, but I was clearly mistaken.

Other actions that could have contributed to the recovery:

1. Cleaning very well all tubings and plumbing fittings.

2. Using some of those pond "sludge removers" regularly every week.This could have helped to reduce organics and help with the eradication of BBA  since my tank is over 4 years old.

Thoughts are welcome!


----------



## Zak Rafik

fablau said:


> I thought what I was dosing was enough by measuring No3 and Po4 regularly


Yup, I made the same mistake of using those @#$!* test kits a few months back for Po4. The reading was always showing as 5ppm and above but clearly my tank was telling me a different story. GSA took over the tank in a big way. But it was also affecting the plants. Now I just use the method which Clive had told me once and the plants are recovering very well.



fablau said:


> For my 75gl tank I used to dose the following, in alternating days:


Good news for me. My tank is a 80gal. Maybe I can replicate your dosing method to my tank but of course making some adjustments along the way.
May I know what's your lighting like, T5HO or LED and photo period? Thanks.



fablau said:


> mostly Althernantera Reinikii


I have this plant in my tank too and your photo of the damaged leaves look exactly like mine.



fablau said:


> tried to pump more up to 90ml per minute,


How did you manage to measure Co2 in ml?



fablau said:


> always with water change every 2 weeks:
> - Macros: No3: 2/4 tsp, Po4: 1/8, K: 1/8
> - Micros: 40ml of the same solution as above plus the same amount of DTPA (1/32 tsp)


So you're not doing MgSO4 (Magnesium sulfate)?
I guess you're able to do PWC once every 2 week due to your lights and fertilizers. I'm also looking into this. PWC of 50% for a 300 litre tank every week is a chore especially after 1 year of having a heavily planted tank.



fablau said:


> 1. Cleaning very well all tubings and plumbing fittings.
> 2. Using some of those pond "sludge removers" regularly every week.This could have helped to reduce organics and help with the eradication of BBA  since my tank is over 4 years old.


Might I add this:Change the prefilter and all sponge materials in the filter after taking care of BBA. Just to make sure there are no hidden algae spores hiding inside the filter material.

Yours plants look in tip top condition. I'm happy for you.
http://



 
Google image.


----------



## fablau

Zak Rafik said:


> Yup, I made the same mistake of using those @#$!* test kits a few months back for Po4. The reading was always showing as 5ppm and above but clearly my tank was telling me a different story. GSA took over the tank in a big way. But it was also affecting the plants. Now I just use the method which Clive had told me once and the plants are recovering very well.



Well, looks like I made the same kind of mistake. Despite I had no GSA, probably I didn't have enough anyway!



Zak Rafik said:


> Good news for me. My tank is a 80gal. Maybe I can replicate your dosing method to my tank but of course making some adjustments along the way.
> May I know what's your lighting like, T5HO or LED and photo period? Thanks.



Great! Sure, I use 4 T8 lights (around 50 PAR at the substrate), but they don't turn on all at the same time. 3 lights run for 7 hours, whereas the 4th light, on the front, turns on only for 3 and 1/2 hours. Maybe I could turn the 4th light on for the same photoperiod, but since everything is going so well now, I don't want to disrupt anything 



Zak Rafik said:


> I have this plant in my tank too and your photo of the damaged leaves look exactly like mine.



If you are talking about Alternanthera, that's the one that mostly benefited by the increase of micros. Maybe you have the same kind of deficiency?



Zak Rafik said:


> How did you manage to measure Co2 in ml?



Very simple: you get 2 measured containers, one bigger and one smaller (actually, just the smaller container needs to be measured, in ml). You put water in the bigger container, and then put the smaller one inside the big one, upside down. Then pump Co2 inside that smaller container and measure how much gas you pump by using a stopwatch. That way the water inside the smaller container will get displaced with the Co2, and you'll now exactly how much Co2 you pump into your tank per minute. That's it! Thanks to Tom Barr for this tip 



Zak Rafik said:


> So you're not doing MgSO4 (Magnesium sulfate)?



No, my water is very hard (KH 7, GH 13), so I guess I have enough of that! I use only tap water, and from my water company reports, I have enough Magnesium.



Zak Rafik said:


> I guess you're able to do PWC once every 2 week due to your lights and fertilizers. I'm also looking into this. PWC of 50% for a 300 litre tank every week is a chore especially after 1 year of having a heavily planted tank.



Probably... even though at the end of the 2 weeks, my tank looks like a Jungle... but at least gives me half maintenance!



Zak Rafik said:


> Might I add this:Change the prefilter and all sponge materials in the filter after taking care of BBA. Just to make sure there are no hidden algae spores hiding inside the filter material.
> Yours plants look in tip top condition. I'm happy for you.



Good tip. I clean the pre-filter every 2 weeks, but I could actually replace it. Thanks!


----------



## Zak Rafik

fablau said:


> Maybe I could turn the 4th light on for the same photoperiod, but since everything is going so well now, I don't want to disrupt anything


Your plants are doing well and furthermore your have just taken care of BBA. IMO it would best to let your tank stabilize even further before you do any changes.



fablau said:


> If you are talking about Alternanthera, that's the one that mostly benefited by the increase of micros. Maybe you have the same kind of deficiency?


Yes, that what I think to. Since my tank is almost heavily planted as yours, maybe the uptake of traces by the plants is more.



fablau said:


> Very simple: you get 2 measured containers, one bigger and one smaller (actually, just the smaller container needs to be measured, in ml). You put water in the bigger container, and then put the smaller one inside the big one, upside down. Then pump Co2 inside that smaller container and measure how much gas you pump by using a stopwatch. That way the water inside the smaller container will get displaced with the Co2, and you'll now exactly how much Co2 you pump into your tank per minute. That's it! Thanks to Tom Barr for this tip


Thanks for tip. Once I've measure the Co2 using the above method, is there a guide on how much ml of Co2 is ideal ( to reach 30 ppm) for a given size of tank?


----------



## fablau

Zak Rafik said:


> Thanks for tip. Once I've measure the Co2 using the above method, is there a guide on how much ml of Co2 is ideal ( to reach 30 ppm) for a given size of tank?



 You are welcome. Unfortunately there isn't a sure way to measure the relationship of amount of Co2 used and amount of Co2, that may vary too much due to degassing, kind of filter, etc. for example, in my case, I have a wet/dry filter and surface agitation, therefore I need probably more Co2 of a tank with a canister filter and less surface agitation. I'd suggest measuring what you are using now, and then possibly increase Co2 slowly watching your fish, and then measure again, and so on...


----------



## Zak Rafik

fablau said:


> You are welcome. Unfortunately there isn't a sure way to measure the relationship of amount of Co2 used and amount of Co2, that may vary too much due to degassing, kind of filter, etc. for example, in my case, I have a wet/dry filter and surface agitation, therefore I need probably more Co2 of a tank with a canister filter and less surface agitation. I'd suggest measuring what you are using now, and then possibly increase Co2 slowly watching your fish, and then measure again, and so on...


Fantastic tip.
Thanks.


----------



## Jose

fablau said:


> You are welcome. Unfortunately there isn't a sure way to measure the relationship of amount of Co2 used and amount of Co2, that may vary too much due to degassing, kind of filter, etc. for example, in my case, I have a wet/dry filter and surface agitation, therefore I need probably more Co2 of a tank with a canister filter and less surface agitation. I'd suggest measuring what you are using now, and then possibly increase Co2 slowly watching your fish, and then measure again, and so on...



This is why normally people measure pH change which is related to co2 concentration in water. You can also measure pH and KH but KH is quite hard to measure accurately.

In the end there is a lot of evidence that links co2 and BBA in a high tech but still people dont want to assume it for some reason. If youre dosing EI and you get BBA, then look at your co2. Thats the most common cause. But people dont like being told that since co2 is the hardest nutrient to add correctly/control. This has all been said in the first pages of this thread and its also at thebarrreport.com and anywhere where you do a search for BBA+Tom Barr.


----------



## Jose

To Fablau: It seems as if you made the following conclusion (maybe Im wrong): The main thing you did to solve your BBA situation was dosing more micros (this is what I understand from your words)? How can you get to this conclusion if you changed other things in the way (co2 specifically). This is how this debate will keep going and going for a long time. People make wrong conclusions and then others believe them etc. Probably everything that you did helped get rid of BBA, but the main was co2. Actually if you had only chosen to change co2, chances are that youd have had same results.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> To Fablau: It seems as if you made the following conclusion (maybe Im wrong): The main thing you did to solve your BBA situation was dosing more micros (this is what I understand from your words)? How can you get to this conclusion if you changed other things in the way (co2 specifically). This is how this debate will keep going and going for a long time. People make wrong conclusions and then others believe them etc. Probably everything that you did helped get rid of BBA, but the main was co2. Actually if you had only chosen to change co2, chances are that youd have had same results.



I must agree with Jose here. Too many things were changed at one time to have any conclusions made.
For example my opinion is that all the things you did, co2, micros, sludge removers, cleaning pipes led to a better nitrogenous waste uptake and removal of organics. So here is that for a third opinion


----------



## Jose

There is one way to find out. Keep dosing as you are now and lower your co2 to the levels that were there before. Something tells me you wont. 
By the way I think this experience is more telling for any of us than any study on algae. This doesnt mean we shouldnt read them just that they arent normally specific to our conditions where the main aim is to keep healthy plants. Thanks Fablau for being honest and reporting your results this is what we need IMHO.


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> There is one way to find out. Keep dosing as you are now and lower your co2 to the levels that were there before. Something tells me you wont.
> By the way I think this experience is more telling for any of us than any study on algae. This doesnt mean we shouldnt read them just that they arent normally specific to our conditions where the main aim is to keep healthy plants. Thanks Fablau for being honest and reporting your results this is what we need IMHO.



This is not a good way to find out the truth Jose. It's like taking the drug away from a drug addict. The only way was in due course, do everything else bar increasing the CO2.

I hope Zak will take a step by step approach. Maybe just improve the CO2 without doing anything else.

I've done some changes in my tank. I will report later. I'll take a picture of the exact same BBA infested anubias which I haven't cleaned or cut the leaves of but I've improved the water quality/less organics.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> This is not a good way to find out the truth Jose. It's like taking the drug away from a drug addict. The only way was in due course, do everything else bar increasing the CO2.


What about decreasing co2 very very slowly? Otherwise unless you have two identical tanks there is no way to find out is there?


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> What about decreasing co2 very very slowly? Otherwise unless you have two identical tanks there is no way to find out is there?



Why not do it in your own tank and tell us the results.
It's hard to expect fablau deliberately harming his plants after months of efforts to do the opposite.
I'd say Zak is our hope now


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> Why not do it in your own tank and tell us the results.
> It's hard to expect fablau deliberately harming his plants after months of efforts to do the opposite.
> I'd say Zak is our hope now


I dont expect him to. I was just wondering. I would do it if I had the personal interest, i.e not being convinced that its a co2 issue.


----------



## zozo

I also did to manny changes in a to short periode of time and i guess since it happend in that periode gave the algea a chance to outbreak on me.  And once it is growing it's growing and spreading rapidly, you realy have to stay on top and watch your plants realy closely and you'll see it grow. 

Sometimes i have to look at the same plant plant 4 times over again to find it, this stuff is so nasty, that when you see it at first sight with your nacked eye, there allready is a lot in the tank you've havent seen or looked at for a long time..

Here is an expample with that Myriophyllum Brasiliensis.. At first look, nothing wrong, healthy steady growing plant. 





Then i go digging and look realy closly, run the tweezers trough and inspect every inch of every stem. 
Bang!! Headshot! AAArghhh!!! Healty steady growing.. Hanibal Rising




IMHO this is a lot and will grow an let loose float around, catch another nice plant, attach and bingo, nest number 2 is rising.
I did put it under the microscope and in fact this a combination of 3 different spiecies of algae. I found Cladophora and the other 2 i didn't realy got fully identified by now. I guess the 2nd one i believe is strains of BBA. It looks like a branching black worm under the micro and at 40x there comes a very dark green/blue color trough. It looks like it grows something like sea urchin like flowers at some places. The 3th just bright green and and almost square looking cells stacking.

These first 2 are realy nasty, especialy the Cladophora, this one is so well addapted and plant like, you'll see it make oxygen bubbles on top of the leaves where it attaches, that's a hard one to fight. It seems to like the same conditions the plants like. It's hard to find the balance where the plant likes to grow faster than the vampire, so you finaly just can cut it out. This takes some time, you can't make it disapair over night.. Change one thing at a time and let it ballance out to see the effect, mean while find nests and use sciccors and h2o2 spot treatment.


----------



## zozo

Just for the fun of it, at least i find it interesting  to look at the matter from another perspective. Growing it, instead. Maybe can give you an other insight on the matter..
http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/3/6/b/32cb2aa6-5357-40d2-a598-999fe964cb41_groeimedium PWS.pdf

This is a data sheet from a Dutch University where they study with growing sertain spieces of for us beneficial algae. This is a datasheet for creating the perfect grow medium for it.
Never mind the dutch language, the numbers and abbriviations are international.


----------



## sciencefiction

Ok, so here is my progress in pictures:

4.5 weeks ago I posted this picture showing the BBA on my anubias




Exact same anubias and leaves picture taken today. The BBA is like frozen in time....Non-growing....See the healthy new leaves..




As you can see the BBA has not grown one bit. I haven't removed the old leaves on purpose. I haven't tried nuking it with Excel or adding any CO2.
I did clean the air stone which was covered in BBA and none have regrown on it yet. I used boiling water to clean it.

All the changes I did for the last two months or more is 60-70% water changes twice a week, planted my trickle filter and put clay pebbles as media in it to counteract my iron deficiency issues. Last week I removed all my livebearers from the tank too..


----------



## sciencefiction

Jose said:


> I dont expect him to. I was just wondering. I would do it if I had the personal interest, i.e not being convinced that its a co2 issue.



Of course it could be a CO2 issue, but not in every tank. If the plants in someone's tank demand an "X" amount of co2, they won't be healthy with any less. Unhealthy plants in a high tech full of plants as you know yourself leads to even higher organic build up....So see where I am going with that? Fablau improved the health of his plants(fixed his Althernantera Reinikii issue for example) and started maintaining a regime that keeps organics low(sludge remover)...


----------



## zozo

sciencefiction said:


> Ok, so here is my progress in pictures:
> 
> 4.5 weeks ago I posted this picture showing the BBA on my anubias
> 
> 
> Exact same anubias and leaves picture taken today. The BBA is like frozen in time....Non-growing....See the healthy new leaves..
> 
> 
> As you can see the BBA has not grown one bit. I haven't removed the old leaves on purpose. I haven't tried nuking it with Excel or adding any CO2.
> I did clean the air stone which was covered in BBA and none have regrown on it yet. I used boiling water to clean it.
> 
> All the changes I did for the last two months or more is 60-70% water changes twice a week, planted my trickle filter and put clay pebbles as media in it to counteract my iron deficiency issues. Last week I removed all my livebearers from the tank too..



As what i've red in some anti algae articals and i believe its logical in my case. They stated that fluctuating co2 levels hold up the plants, they can not addapt that fast and will there for algae will be in favor because of their fatser adaptebility to changes. Water Changes are a cause of fluctuating co2 level in the tank. I did lot's of water changes in a few weeks old not fully matured tank, because of a parasite infection. And i was quite in control of all algae before that, during those water changes i triggerd the algae bloom i guess. Or it most be just a coincidence these things adding up and i saw it bloom and boom during that time.. I was still freaking with my bubble count and doing lots of water changes at the same time.


----------



## fablau

Jose said:


> To Fablau: It seems as if you made the following conclusion (maybe Im wrong): The main thing you did to solve your BBA situation was dosing more micros (this is what I understand from your words)? How can you get to this conclusion if you changed other things in the way (co2 specifically). This is how this debate will keep going and going for a long time. People make wrong conclusions and then others believe them etc. Probably everything that you did helped get rid of BBA, but the main was co2. Actually if you had only chosen to change co2, chances are that youd have had same results.



Jose, I am not sure to have already written this, but I tried several times to raise Co2 to combat BBA, without success. I tried to pump it up to 140ml per minute (insane, isn't it?!?!), but I saw no benefits! And some of my plants were anyway struggling (Alternathera first). That's why I strongly think most of my success in fighting BBA has been the increase of micros and, in some measure, of macros as well, coupled with high, constant Co2, of course. Sludge removers and cleaning pipes was also something I already tried before, and that alone didn't cause any clear positive change. Maybe all these things together have helped plants and the environment to spur more plants growth and less algae spread. Does this make sense?


----------



## pepedopolous

<In my aquarium> too much light relative to CO2 = BBA. If I increase light intensity I get BBA within a week or two. If I reduce the light it remains but doesn't grow. </In my aquarium>

P


----------



## Iain Sutherland

Algae and specifically BBA is a pain in the ass.  The thing to remember is that all types of algae are in your tank at all times, they are in the air around you, in new substrate, on new plants and even in your tap water.  You cant get rid of algae, fact!
So the key is to manage the algae when it shows up, first and best line of defence is a good clean up crew.  Very rarely will  BBA take hold if you have SAE's in the tank from the start, same with most other algae with adequate amano shrimp.

When BBA does appear just blitz it with direct dose of liquid carbon, clean your filter, impeller and pipes to ensure you have optimum water movement and good organics removal, Purigen certainly helps while fighting algae.  Have a bloody good trim of the tank, most people experience BBA with mature tanks as the plant growth has effected water movement.  Continue dosing liquid carbon daily and check your co2 isnt running low.

Being vigilant at checking your tank daily will mean you never let algae get a foot hold, the reality is that we all have lives though and life gets in the way.
The success of algae is reliant on your inability to dedicate the time and energy to keep it in check.

So stop fiddling, make a plan, be religious with that plan, keep liquid carbon on hand at all times and go kick some algae ass!!


----------



## Marcel G

zozo said:


> Here is an expample with that Myriophyllum Brasiliensis..


The branched algae on the picture is definitely not _*BBA *_(lat. Audouinella), but rather _*Staghorn *_(lat. Compsopogon)*.*
You can compare it with my microscopic pictures here: http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/rasyAtlas


----------



## zozo

ardjuna said:


> The branched algae on the picture is definitely not _*BBA *_(lat. Audouinella), but rather _*Staghorn *_(lat. Compsopogon)*.*
> You can compare it with my microscopic pictures here: http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/rasyAtlas



Thanks Marcel, that was what i was looking for could't find anything like with discriptions what the foto was showing. You seem to know them well 
It indeed could be this one it looks very simular, but have to find me a new fresh piece to compare, the sample from the above picture is to old now, dry and dying can t make up anything decent anymore.





Looked for staghorn before bud couldn't find the right microscopic picture..

Nice collection you got there..


----------



## Zak Rafik

Iain Sutherland said:


> So stop fiddling, make a plan, be religious with that plan, keep liquid carbon on hand at all times and go kick some algae ass!!



Hi lian,
Kick some #@! like this?


Google image


----------



## Zak Rafik

Hi guys
Just an update. Here we are talking great lengths about BBA this and BBA that but sometimes, it all boils down to the very basic.
*Make sure your equipments are working right.*
This morning, I did the good old soapy water test on my solenoid, Co2 tank connects, bubble counters, hose connects, diffuser connection, check valves.......humm did I miss anything else?
*AND* I found* NOT ONE BUT TWO * major leaks on the Co2 hose connection with the check valves. The soapy water was hissing like mad.
Now I ask myself, since when has this been happening? A week, a month or month*s*.......?

Here I was counting the bubbles per second, fixated with the DC colour change, flow in the tank, surface agitation and tearing my hair off about EI dosing.....etc BUT I was simply losing the very basic of ingredients for a nice planted tank into the air!

I vividly remember a senior member here once telling me to do this test on all the connections but did I listen? Oh no!


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





dw1305 said:


> I used to work with a <"famous phycologist"> who works with Rhodophyta. I'll send her an email and hopefully she will be able to add to comment.


 I've had a reply from Juliet at the NHM. It doesn't get us any further on. 





> It will either be an _Audouinella_ or chantransia phase of _Batrachospermum_.  If it came from an aquarium then it would probably be impossible to tell without DNA work.


cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,  I've had a reply from Juliet at the NHM. It doesn't get us any further on.
> cheers Darrel



_Batrachospermum  those forms are the urchin like flowers i saw im my sample under the micro whit that piece in the photo above. Looked very simular. So i saw 4 different species of algae in_ that sample. Definitily saw some little tuffs of BBA on a rock in my tank. Interesting to see they kinda cling togheter, like teaming up against the plant.
http://195.113.57.24/algo/praktika/13.html

Also found a cladophora wiki listing 1045 different species of it.. Amazing!!


----------



## Jose

Zak Rafik said:


> Hi guys
> Just an update. Here we are talking great lengths about BBA this and BBA that but sometimes, it all boils down to the very basic.
> *Make sure your equipments are working right.*
> This morning, I did the good old soapy water test on my solenoid, Co2 tank connects, bubble counters, hose connects, diffuser connection, check valves.......humm did I miss anything else?
> *AND* I found* NOT ONE BUT TWO * major leaks on the Co2 hose connection with the check valves. The soapy water was hissing like mad.
> Now I ask myself, since when has this been happening? A week, a month or month*s*.......?
> 
> Here I was counting the bubbles per second, fixated with the DC colour change, flow in the tank, surface agitation and tearing my hair off about EI dosing.....etc BUT I was simply losing the very basic of ingredients for a nice planted tank into the air!
> 
> I vividly remember a senior member here once telling me to do this test on all the connections but did I listen? Oh no!




This is why I use only this tupe of connection in my co2 setup:

http://www.co2art.co.uk/collections...ucts/push-on-tubing-fitting-with-1-8-npt-male

This and also polyurathane tubing. Im very happy for now. Remember your co2 system is just as secure as your weakest point.


----------



## zozo

Jose said:


> This is why I use only this tupe of connection in my co2 setup:
> 
> http://www.co2art.co.uk/collections...ucts/push-on-tubing-fitting-with-1-8-npt-male
> 
> This and also polyurathane tubing. Im very happy for now. Remember your co2 system is just as secure as your weakest point.



That's why you always should keep an eye out to find a PH controller to control the co2 flow..  Just patiently keep in mind the Milwaukee SMS serie and put some money a side for it over time.. They are known to be very good quality, already very long time in production. I found one lately for a rather very cheap price, the old owner discarted his hobby years ago and had the thing still laying around, lost the power supply and had no more electrode. So he even couldn't check if the thing still was working, so i took the chance bought it for €15. Still had an electrode of an older Hannah (non smart) controler. And a 12 volt power supply is easy. Thing works like a charme. It gets your Co2 on top level with in an hour and keeps it rock steady.  As long as you keep checking the calibration on time you can't go wrong.. Still around for sale "new" and cost around € 180. But sometimes they come around maybe 10 to 15 years old even older, the old ones are almost unbreakable..

I guess the older models will even be better then the new ones. because doesnt matter what you buy new these days. An equivalent quality of the same product from 20 years ago is never comming back again. Now all you can buy are time bombs made to last 4 maybe 5 years and the rest of it is share luck and it can say poof any given day after that!


----------



## Zak Rafik

Jose said:


> This is why I use only this tupe of connection in my co2 setup:
> 
> http://www.co2art.co.uk/collections...ucts/push-on-tubing-fitting-with-1-8-npt-male
> 
> This and also polyurathane tubing. Im very happy for now. Remember your co2 system is just as secure as your weakest point.


Thanks for the tip. BTW co2art make some fine products. Luv their range of products.


----------



## Jose

Zak Rafik said:


> Thanks for the tip. BTW co2art make some fine products. Luv their range of products.



All co2 equipment I have is from them. Im normally very happy with them. The only thing is theyr needle valves are sometimes hard to tune in or a bit unstable. But theyve also got a solution for that which I´ll be trying out this week.

http://www.co2art.co.uk/collections/splitters-manifolds-valves/products/advance-co2-flow-controller

Anyone using these atm


----------



## ajm83

Jose said:


> All co2 equipment I have is from them. Im normally very happy with them. The only thing is theyr needle valves are sometimes hard to tune in or a bit unstable. But theyve also got a solution for that which I´ll be trying out this week.
> 
> http://www.co2art.co.uk/collections/splitters-manifolds-valves/products/advance-co2-flow-controller
> 
> Anyone using these atm



I have one, it's the best I've used so far. Prefer it to the 'precision' one they sell.


----------



## pepedopolous

With the SMC 'precision' needle valve I find that getting a high bubble count is mainly dependent on the regulator working pressure, and that adjusting the needle valve itself has little effect.

P


----------



## Andy Thurston

used the camozzi, not a bad valve but I prefer the smc for my 60l tank, and the build quality of the smc is far superior to the camozzi


----------



## zozo

pepedopolous said:


> With the SMC 'precision' needle valve I find that getting a high bubble count is mainly dependent on the regulator working pressure, and that adjusting the needle valve itself has little effect.
> 
> P



Yup i'm totaly with that  The needle valve has a static opening, it cant close nor open by itself. So it must be unstable presure in front of the valve creating a deviant bubblecount. Co2 is very temperature sensitive as well. To get a much more stable bubblecount you could put the bottle in a cabin under or next to the tank. Isolate the cabin sides with tempex. Buy a cheap Banggood $ 3,- 12 volt elektronic thermostat (they are very accurate to a 0.1 degree c) and a 12 volt 30 to 60 watt lightbulb or a 12 volt 10 watt heater pad. Put it in the cabin run it with the thermostat  and the temperature will always be constant in there. Your bubble count stability will be better.


----------



## ajm83

zozo said:


> Yup i'm totaly with that  The needle valve has a static opening, it cant close nor open by itself. So it must be unstable presure in front of the valve creating a deviant bubblecount.



I had that line of thinking myself, and replaced almost every co2 component trying to sort out my fluctuating BPS. Swapped it for the camozzi and since then it's been rock solid.

Can't understand it myself either, my only guess is that there is somehow movement (upper end of allowed tolerances in the threads or something) inside the valve, or a small leak under some circumstances.


----------



## Jose

ajm83 said:


> I had that line of thinking myself, and replaced almost every co2 component trying to sort out my fluctuating BPS. Swapped it for the camozzi and since then it's been rock solid.



Really glad to hear this. I got my new camozzi yesterday and set up was a charm. Will see if it stays constant throughout the days. Ive noticed that valves are not great for dialling in the co2. But the camozzi is a flow controller which makes sense really. Sorry to have thrown the thread in this direction. Hopefully we'll keep it about BBA.


----------



## zozo

I would like to open that thing and look. My only guess as somebody with a technical background and seeing that Cammazoni outside construction is that it possibly something like a springvalve/membrane.  Then i could function as a extra 2th stage mini low presure regulator. (about the same as the big one on the bottle works)
The spindel pushes the sprig the spring pushes the valve and regulates the gass counterpressure. 

Just a pointed needle on a spindle in a hole is static and regulates nothing just creates a bottle neck.


----------



## pepedopolous

ajm83 said:


> I had that line of thinking myself, and replaced almost every co2 component trying to sort out my fluctuating BPS. Swapped it for the camozzi and since then it's been rock solid.
> 
> Can't understand it myself either, my only guess is that there is somehow movement (upper end of allowed tolerances in the threads or something) inside the valve, or a small leak under some circumstances.




Hi, I didn't mean that my bubble count is fluctuating- only that turning the needle valve doesn't seem to have much effect. I have to increase the regulator working pressure to increase the BPS and vice versa.

P


----------



## zozo

pepedopolous said:


> Hi, I didn't mean that my bubble count is fluctuating- only that turning the needle valve doesn't seem to have much effect. I have to increase the regulator working pressure to increase the BPS and vice versa.
> 
> P



What's your starting point work pressure? That might be to high. I'm using around 0.5 bar / 7 psi with over 5bps and still can go higher if i fully open it the water bubbles out of the tank.. I only have to look at my needle valve to change the bps so to speak..


----------



## pepedopolous

zozo said:


> What's your starting point work pressure? That might be to high. I'm using around 0.5 bar / 7 psi with over 5bps and still can go higher if i fully open it the water bubbles out of the tank.. I only have to look at my needle valve to change the bps so to speak..



I'm using 2-2.5 bar as I have an inline atomiser. If I completely shut off the needle valve, I can stop the bubbles entirely, open it a bit and I can get 1 BPS, however, a few more turns and it's 3+BPS. If I need more than this I need to increase the working pressure, even opening the needle valve fully, doesn't achieve a higher BPS.

P


----------



## zozo

Sounds like the wrong needle valve for such a high working pressure. I was thinking about going in line but solved it like this, it's behind the plants anyway.. No bubble is reaching the surface all goes in line now into the filter. 
I haven't seen any algea growing on the leaves anymore since my last trimming party last week.. Hope it stays that way.


----------



## Jose

pepedopolous said:


> I'm using 2-2.5 bar as I have an inline atomiser. If I completely shut off the needle valve, I can stop the bubbles entirely, open it a bit and I can get 1 BPS, however, a few more turns and it's 3+BPS. If I need more than this I need to increase the working pressure, even opening the needle valve fully, doesn't achieve a higher BPS.



You need to say if you have a double gauge regulator and if its output preassure can be adjusted. Sounds like youve achieved the maximum flow and that you have a fixed output preassure on your regulator. That BPS is probably as high as it goes.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Jose said:


> All co2 equipment I have is from them. Im normally very happy with them. The only thing is theyr needle valves are sometimes hard to tune in or a bit unstable. But theyve also got a solution for that which I´ll be trying out this week.
> http://www.co2art.co.uk/collections/splitters-manifolds-valves/products/advance-co2-flow-controller
> Anyone using these atm



How do you connect this? I've got a co2art regulator which is well built. I need to split to 2 diffusers. So do I need 2 of these flow controllers?


----------



## Jose

Zak Rafik said:


> How do you connect this? I've got a co2art regulator which is well built. I need to split to 2 diffusers. So do I need 2 of these flow controllers?



I would think so if  you really want to fine tune both of them separately. Dont have experience with this really.


----------



## pepedopolous

Jose said:


> You need to say if you have a double gauge regulator and if its output preassure can be adjusted. Sounds like youve achieved the maximum flow and that you have a fixed output preassure on your regulator. That BPS is probably as high as it goes.


Nope, it's the dual stage. I can fully adjust the working pressure.

P


----------



## zozo

ardjuna said:


> The branched algae on the picture is definitely not _*BBA *_(lat. Audouinella), but rather _*Staghorn *_(lat. Compsopogon)*.*
> You can compare it with my microscopic pictures here: http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/rasyAtlas


It definitily is this one..  also  find the spherical spores (i guess that is)




In early development it suspicously looks like BBA..


----------



## sciencefiction

I thought those "spherical spores" are actually air bubbles.


----------



## zozo

sciencefiction said:


> I thought those "spherical spores" are actually air bubbles.


I mean the thik one in the mid right side of the pic.. If you look closer (more mag) you see cellular structure.. So i guess they are spores or something else. But i found several of them always around the algae and not in other samples.. I look again..  Nope definitily not an air bubble.. The skin has a structure and there is something in it containing different bodies.  Nice such a microscope, you could get scared of your own aquarium. Saw a creeper as well..


----------



## sciencefiction

Hey guys. Time for my BBA update for those who've read enough(too much) of this thread 
My BBA is not just not growing anymore, it's disappearing and it's hardly seen around.  My anubias is flourishing compared to before and maybe it will reach adulthood again(60cm)   I think my problem was definitely overstocking and lack of micros, specifically iron(and possibly too much organic macros). Good luck on your BBA journeys......


----------



## zozo

sciencefiction said:


> Hey guys. Time for my BBA update for those who've read enough(too much) of this thread
> My BBA is not just not growing anymore, it's disappearing and it's hardly seen around.  My anubias is flourishing compared to before and maybe it will reach adulthood again(60cm)   I think my problem was definitely overstocking and lack of micros, specifically iron(and possibly too much organic macros). Good luck on your BBA journeys......



Congrats!

The same for me, the Staghorn is gone.. What only confused me a bit is there's no name for Staghorn in Dutch, it falls under the category (Red) Beard Algea. That's how i ended up in this topic with that one, but it isn't black even if it looks like it. I did fight it off with h2o2 treatment to kill the hotspots, trimming like a gardener on steroids, a more steady co2 supply a better mix of firts (profito, tropica pg and a pinch of rizhotonic). Letting the surface vegitation of duckweed and salvina take over the game to lower the light intensity and did reduced the day time period for 2 hours. added 10 more shrimps in there did also helped a lot. Not only the staghorn, but also the clado and the regular green algae on the hardware is gone for over 90% with in 3 weeks time. Even the algae on the glass stoped growing. It melted as snow in the sun and the plants are rocking and rolling again. Nice feeling to finaly scape trim and replant instead of algae trim and dispose..


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Hey guys. Time for my BBA update for those who've read enough(too much) of this thread
> My BBA is not just not growing anymore, it's disappearing and it's hardly seen around.  My anubias is flourishing compared to before and maybe it will reach adulthood again(60cm)   I think my problem was definitely overstocking and lack of micros, specifically iron(and possibly too much organic macros). Good luck on your BBA journeys......



Congrats! This is very similar to my own experience. The increase of micros was definitively one of the factors helping BBA to disappear for me as well.


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> Congrats! This is very similar to my own experience. The increase of micros was definitively one of the factors helping BBA to disappear for me as well.



Thanks fablau. This tank just started leaking today and is now empty!!! I am sitting wiping off my tears as I've crammed all my fish into one tank this moment.

Back on topic, I had to take out all the plants while emptying the tank.  My anubias are lovely and green and BBA was definitely gone completely.


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Thanks fablau. This tank just started leaking today and is now empty!!! I am sitting wiping off my tears as I've crammed all my fish into one tank this moment.
> 
> Back on topic, I had to take out all the plants while emptying the tank.  My anubias are lovely and green and BBA was definitely gone completely.



Ouch! So sorry about that! Glad to know BBA was completely gone though! Are you going to start a new tank?


----------



## Zak Rafik

sciencefiction said:


> Thanks fablau. This tank just started leaking today and is now empty!!! I am sitting wiping off my tears as I've crammed all my fish into one tank this moment.
> Back on topic, I had to take out all the plants while emptying the tank.  My anubias are lovely and green and BBA was definitely gone completely.



First of all congrats on your attempt to get rid of BBA.
But sad to see your tank leaked. Such a waste as this happens after solving your BBA issue. 
Which part of the tank started to leak?


----------



## Zak Rafik

Is there such thing as BBA completely out of the tank? Once BBA is out of the tank, can it reappear? Are the algae spores still present in the tank and awaiting the next imbalance to trigger it to bloom?


----------



## zozo

Algae is everywere and always around where water is, in any tank any pond and pool of water, it's even in the tap water. and if the conditions get in favor of the algae they will grow and show. Even if you just fill a bucket with tap watter and put it in the sun, it wont take that long for algae to grow in there.

Not seeing it or just very little is as good enough as completely out. But it's still in there without giving any problems the live stock keeps it under control as long as the balance is healthy. 

You can introduce algae in your tank by getting a spore or cell under your fingernail after handling a bouquet of flowers you gave your mam for mothersday. Or working in the garden and sticking your hand i a pudlle of mud.


----------



## sciencefiction

Zak Rafik said:


> But sad to see your tank leaked. Such a waste as this happens after solving your BBA issue.
> Which part of the tank started to leak?



The bottom back corner. the seal seems to be somehow damaged there. It's a 5 year old tank.



fablau said:


> Are you going to start a new tank?



I think I might have to try resealing the entire tank myself as I can't buy a new one right now. If I manage, I'll be putting a soil substrate.



zozo said:


> Not seeing it or just very little is as good enough as completely out.


The algae is probably always around as you say but it seems once you shift the conditions against it, it just doesn't grow anymore. It just slowly but surely withered and I didn't even bother cleaning much of it, just the worst bits.


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> Congrats! This is very similar to my own experience. The increase of micros was definitively one of the factors helping BBA to disappear for me as well.



I think that was a major factor myself if I have to be honest because I saw a visual response from the plants.  I upped all micros, not just iron but I did put clay pebbles as media in all baskets of the trickle filter and the filter has huge amount of media storage.  I hadn't seen my plants doing so well for years until now. It was nothing to do with CO2 at all in my case.


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> I think that was a major factor myself if I have to be honest because I saw a visual response from the plants.  I upped all micros, not just iron but I did put clay pebbles as media in all baskets of the trickle filter and the filter has huge amount of media storage.  I hadn't seen my plants doing so well for years until now. It was nothing to do with CO2 at all in my case.



Very interesting! Do you mean that you increased micros by adding media to the filter such as clay pebbles? Do they help that way? Please, tell us more!


----------



## sciencefiction

No fablau, I dosed extra dry micro ferts.


----------



## Jose

sciencefiction said:


> I think that was a major factor myself if I have to be honest because I saw a visual response from the plants. I upped all micros, not just iron but I did put clay pebbles as media in all baskets of the trickle filter and the filter has huge amount of media storage. I hadn't seen my plants doing so well for years until now. It was nothing to do with CO2 at all in my case.



Was upping the micros the only thing you did? Did you touch co2? Did you clean everything? Maybe did a trim?


----------



## sciencefiction

No, it wasn't the only thing I did. I posted in earlier posts what I did. I upped the water changes(but then went back again to one large a week), reduced the stock, put clay pebbles in the trickle filter. I did plant the trickle filter but without dedicated light they withered so they played no positive part. And I upped the micro ferts. That's all I did. I did not clean anything bar the air stone. I left the plants with the BBA on. It withered and died in not such a long time at all, in the space of weeks.

It's only a guess what did the trick or all things helped. I can't intentionally vary the CO2 in a low tech so I have no idea what levels there are and how they were affected by the changes I did.


----------



## tmiravent

Hi, the amazing BBA also visited me!  
Actually she's still there...
Made a huge mistake and increased (by accident) the macros 10x more...
When i saw my cory's swimming back down i tested and...
Now the levels are as used to be for macros (still waiting for micros test) but she's is very well installed!  (maybe need to increase micros again...)

Here is the image,


 
Nice topic! here is my small contribution,
cheers


----------



## sciencefiction

Nice picture! The shrimp don't mind I see


----------



## zozo

That's a nice Moustache.. I'm jealous..


----------



## Zak Rafik

Ok a question related to BBA....well sort of.
A friend of mine had recently given me some stones and filter media from his decommissioned tank. But he did inform me that his tank had a bad case of BBA.

I soaked the stones in a pail mixed with normal bleach for a few hours and then managed to scrub off as much dirt and algae as possible. After soaking several times in fresh water and drying the stones under direct sunlight, almost 98% of all algae stains were removed.
But I noticed some small spots of alage deep inside the crevices of the stones and refused to come off.

As for the filter media, the only thing I did was to rinse in fresh water several times and have it sun dried for 2 days.

Now my question is, if these décor stones and filter media are reused in another tank, can it have BBA?
Does the drying and bleach water soaking treatment kill BBA and its spore completely?


----------



## Dantrasy

I remember Tom Barr saying he tried the sun method ... it didn't work. 

Bleach, on the other hand, should kill the bba on the rocks. But, as mentioned above, filling with tap water will put bba back in (microscopic, but it has the potential to grow).


----------



## Zak Rafik

Dantrasy said:


> I remember Tom Barr saying he tried the sun method ... it didn't work.
> 
> Bleach, on the other hand, should kill the bba on the rocks. But, as mentioned above, filling with tap water will put bba back in (microscopic, but it has the potential to grow).


Even if the media or the rock are not used for say a month or longer? Can the BBA be brought back to life after so long?


----------



## Jose

BBA can appear in any tank. Just toss the stones in and keep co2 constant and high enough, enough ferts, water changes and it wont appear.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Jose said:


> BBA can appear in any tank. Just toss the stones in and keep co2 constant and high enough, enough ferts, water changes and it wont appear.


Yes your're right about BBA appearing in any tank but why introduce it with the knowledge that there might be trouble in the near future?
Is there a way to completely get rid of these BBA spots? Maybe soak in high strength bleach?

How about if these stones were used in a low tech planted tank where there's no dosing of any Co2? What then?

Cheers.


----------



## scottward

I use Hydrogen Peroxide myself.  I just brush it on, let it sizzle away for 5 minutes, then straight back in the tank.  Cheap, easy, won't hurt the fish.


----------



## Andy Thurston

i got green water after using h2o2


----------



## flygja

If anyone's getting lazy (like me) and wanna get rid of BBA by just pouring chemicals into a tank (not even spot-dosing), you can try Ocean Free 0 Algae: http://www.rakuten.com.my/shop/acestoryaquatic/product/MD229/. I've been dosing it for about 2 weeks and BBA and some minor staghorn is almost completely gone. Doesn't seem to have any effect on red algae (a different form of BBA), which was my initial intention of using this.


----------



## Zak Rafik

flygja said:


> If anyone's getting lazy (like me) and wanna get rid of BBA by just pouring chemicals into a tank (not even spot-dosing), you can try Ocean Free 0 Algae: http://www.rakuten.com.my/shop/acestoryaquatic/product/MD229/. I've been dosing it for about 2 weeks and BBA and some minor staghorn is almost completely gone. Doesn't seem to have any effect on red algae (a different form of BBA), which was my initial intention of using this.



I tried EasyLife's AlgaExit for more than 4 months but it did not make an iota of difference on BBA. I even tried over dosing since I didn't have any shrimps in my tank but NOPE! Nothing happened!
But it was very effective for thread algae.

Now whenever I see those huge patches of BBA in my tank I get reminded of this->>


----------



## Lindy

I've just found BBA in a tank that gets no direct light.



The divided section on the right has a pair of betta channoides, no plants and just wood sand and some leaves. There is a mahooosive tufft of bba (I'm assuming ) on the wood. In the left section there are channoides fry and plants inc floaters.  This section is lit by a allpondsolutions 32 led light. The tanks share water by water being taken up by sponge filter in the fry section and the outlet goes through to the left section. Water passes from left to right via sponge in the divider.




Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## nicpapa

Bba is from low co2 , and not stable co2...


----------



## Andy Thurston

nikos said:


> Bba is from low co2 , and not stable co2...


Have you read the rest of this thread? people don't think its that simple. the only place I get bba is on my hardscape and equipment and that's not dying and causing unwanted algae problems


----------



## nicpapa

Big clown said:


> Have you read the rest of this thread? people don't think its that simple. the only place I get bba is on my hardscape and equipment and that's not dying and causing unwanted algae problems



In all my tank and i run 10 planted tanks , the bba apear when the co2 is lower when i adjust it , it disapear.
This working for me.


----------



## Andy Thurston

In my tank co2 is very stable 1.2 ph drop with good flow. unstable co2/high light are contributing factor but not the whole story. You tried adding extra ferts to get did of your gda


----------



## sciencefiction

Well maybe it's time to resurrect the thread 
I've got this highly overstocked, low tech, very well planted tank. It's been overstocked for quite a few weeks/couple of months because of unfortunate circumstances. I am waiting for BBA to appear as I thought overstocking/high organics are the culprit, but maybe not....at least not so far.  This tanks has not got a shred of algae in years prior to me overstocking it and still so let's see what happens long term(besides that I am worried about my fish)

I've been dosing just micro ferts in it because it should have plenty of nitrogen. Right now it gest a large water change once a week. There's no algae still of any kind.


----------



## Zak Rafik

[QUOTE="sciencefiction, post: 413346, member: 9767" I am waiting for BBA to appear.[/QUOTE]

Did I hear right? You're waiting for BBA?
My advice: count your blessings.

Cheers


----------



## sciencefiction

He, he, yes,. Why not wait for it and be prepared


----------



## zozo

I know somebody with a heavily over stocked low tech tank.. Never seen beard algae in it. Only lazyness green on the glass and melting plants. 

Not yet found an other tank, SF?


----------



## NC10

I've got some on my rocks where they hit the substrate in the centre of the tank, 33 inch from the light.

In the lowest flow area of the tank, directly in front of the weir, there is no sign of it on the rocks. This gets the same amount of light as the right hand side too, where there is BBA, and also high flow like the middle of the tank.

My conclusion, high flow. 

I reduced the flow last weekend and I'll give it a blast with some liquid carbon today, see if it comes back. If it does then it's back to the drawing board


----------



## Jose

ldcgroomer said:


> I've just found BBA in a tank that gets no direct light.
> 
> 
> 
> The divided section on the right has a pair of betta channoides, no plants and just wood sand and some leaves. There is a mahooosive tufft of bba (I'm assuming ) on the wood. In the left section there are channoides fry and plants inc floaters. This section is lit by a allpondsolutions 32 led light. The tanks share water by water being taken up by sponge filter in the fry section and the outlet goes through to the left section. Water passes from left to right via sponge in the divider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk



It doesnt look like BBA to me. I had this also and I beleive its due to substances being leached from the driftwood. It might be some sort of fungus.


----------



## Lindy

This wood doesn't leach anything anymore as it is quite old. Maybe you are right that it is fungus.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zak Rafik

ldcgroomer said:


> This wood doesn't leach anything anymore as it is quite old. Maybe you are right that it is fungus.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk



Just out of curiosity, can a drift that is of not so good quality release organic waste when slowly rotting away and in turn be feeding BBA to bloom?


----------



## Jose

Zak Rafik said:


> Just out of curiosity, can a drift that is of not so good quality release organic waste when slowly rotting away and in turn be feeding BBA to bloom?


I think it can hence the reason why we sometimes see BBA exagerated on the driftwood. If its not that then the driftwood makes for a great attachment surface.


----------



## Lindy

I think you are right. I scrubbed a lot of my wood in the big tank and took the soft stuff from the outside and so far none has come back.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zak Rafik

ldcgroomer said:


> I think you are right. I scrubbed a lot of my wood in the big tank and took the soft stuff from the outside and so far none has come back.


Can the spores of BBA get into the tiny cracks in the wood and be impossible to get rid off? Then the spore are just waiting for the right conditions to bloom again?



Jose said:


> I think it can hence the reason why we sometimes see BBA exagerated on the driftwood. If its not that then the driftwood makes for a great attachment surface.


In my tank, BBA made its appearance on the wood first and when the bloom was in advance stage, then only did it appear on the stones.

BTW what type of wood is less likely to rot easily in a tank?

I had a very nice and big tree like centerpiece wood in my tank but the branches started to snap off very easily within 5 months. It also started to develop cracks. Since the wood was a big sized one, I had always suspected it off releasing organic waste into the tank.

Cheers to all.


----------



## sciencefiction

zozo said:


> I know somebody with a heavily over stocked low tech tank.. Never seen beard algae in it. Only lazyness green on the glass and melting plants.
> 
> Not yet found an other tank, SF?



No Zozo, not yet, but I won't be for a long while. I am getting by as it is.

In terms of BBA, I haven't looked yet properly in that newly overstocked tank of mine. But it seems BBA hasn't spread it's paws yet.  I had some micro deficiencies that I had to sort out and they were a sore to the eye, fairly obvious.

Someone above mentioned decomposing driftwood. The one I took out from my BBA tank wasn't looking good. Parts of it fell off as it's pretty old, but there was not one bit of BBA on the driftwood ever that I saw. However, I think the organic waste it releases in a tank is pretty insignificant in the big scheme of things.  Plus mine was a heaven for all my fish as a retreat.


----------



## Straight Shooter

Be warned: 80% of this thread is as useless as mudguards on a tortoise. Learn who the imbeciles are early and completely skip over their posts or you'll end up severely agitated by the end. 27 pages could have been shortened to 10 pages easily.

RE: Tom Barr. No one starting bashing Hoagland for the influence of his diluted solutions in this thread, no one tore pieces out of Sears and Conlin for PMDD ............. or "Edward" for PPS... in fact in CO2 terms, PPS recommends 20ppm in medium-high light because "Exceeding levels of 30 ppm doesn’t allow much of a safety margin." https://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/co2-injection

But no, it's all Tom Barr's fault.......... So damn boring to read over and over and over and over. Thanks kindly to those who stayed on topic, particularly the experienced guys who checked in occasionally and pushed things back on track.

*A very basic summary for the people just joining this thread (after wasting significant time reading this thread myself):*

_- BBA is a pain. Even the tanks of expert level guys running well-oiled machines attract some BBA (even if only a small amount, and only occasionally). A few like Tom Barr etc seem to have defeated it through whatever unique environment they maintain in their setups.

- BBA spores are everywhere, air, water, new substrate. It's useless trying to avoid introducing it.

- Nobody could come to a definite decision on nutrient levels, including CO2. Different approaches work, but there are too many variables in aquariums to say that this CO2/nutrient level will prevent BBA in every case. CO2 mismanagement is different... anything that causes inconsistency or irregularity like leaks etc can definitely bring it on, but CO2 is not an algaecide, just another nutrient that needs to be provided adequately in line with your preference for setup (ADA, EI, PPS, MCL, Marcel G method.... whatever). CO2 won't kill BBA, but its correct application for your setup will prevent it.

- Constantly annoy BBA. Trim, scrape, hit with Glut / H2O2...... whatever suits your routine. Just do it regularly in small amounts to avoid it establishing and to make maintenance seem easier. With good maintenance and a well balanced setup it should only ever be a minor annoyance.

- Only one commonly available algae eater feeds on BBA, the Siamese Algae Eater. Other pickers like shrimp and ottos help to prevent it by disturbing surfaces, but won't eat it.

- BBA loves flow. In nature it prefers fast flowing creeks and streams. You'll most likely find it in fast flow areas of the tank, but sometimes it'll also chill-out in the slow flow areas.

- There seems to be some link with levels of dissolved organics, ammonia and BBA. No exact set levels for managing BBA, just that we should minimise the concentration of these two where possible with good maintenance and adequate stocking levels. Heavy feeding may be another factor here, so watch that also.....

- BBA grows in high light and low light. If anything low light seems to reduce it's occurance, provided the tank is run well. It's unclear why exactly adding light or CO2 or both increases its occurance.

- BBA looks cool under a microscope. Very alien._

Apologies if I've forgotten anything. Now I'm planning to read BBA sticky number 2 and learn about bacterial imbalances. I sincerely hope the same imbeciles haven't ruined that thread too.


----------



## sciencefiction

Straight Shooter said:


> Be warned: 80% of this thread is as useless as mudguards on a tortoise. Learn who the imbeciles are early and completely skip over their posts or you'll end up severely agitated by the end. 27 pages could have been shortened to 10 pages easily.



You read 27 pages of it, discarded it as "mudguards on a tortoise" and yet, your contribution to it is a summary of the thread. You seem to be underestimating the knowledge of people that have posted here, as what you said above is already painfully known and discussed over and over.The thread is about finding the missing link we don't know about. Obviously no one has been able to provide a consistent way of preventing BBA so I'll agree that at this point the thread is useless. Nothing new has been discovered.


----------



## Straight Shooter

My summary is for people who don't want to read the entire thread. The summary came from the 20% that's actually relevant to BBA. 

Many of your contributions were good Sciencefiction, no love lost for you after reading the thread. I just wish you didn't encourage a certain imbecile by responding to their rubbish.......


----------



## rebel

Some of the concepts discussed here would take a pHD project to sort out properly. This thread could be used as a hypothesis generator for further testing...... Well some of it.


----------



## burr740

Neglect is a main cause. Shying away from the grunt work like pruning, cleaning and water changes. Big mistake to go round in circles arguing nutrients and CO2 when sub par conditions and/or poor plant health can explain 90% of algae troubles.


----------



## maboleth

burr740 said:


> Neglect is a main cause. Shying away from the grunt work like pruning, cleaning and water changes. Big mistake to go round in circles arguing nutrients and CO2 when sub par conditions and/or poor plant health can explain 90% of algae troubles.



I agree. Even if that's not the main cause of BBA, neglect increases like 300% of BBA in the tank. Proper tank maintenance and EasyCarbo keep this dreadful algae at bay.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Hi guys,

When I first started this post on 29th March 2015, I was battling BBA infestation all over my tank. It was growing/spreading like mad especially on my large drift wood which also happened to be my center piece in my tank.

Soon it started to appear on rocks. Many rocks starting to be covered by BBA.
During this period, I was doing 50 to 60% water changes twice a week on my 300 liters / 80 US gal tank which was not fun (I kid you not).
I was dosing Co2 like there's no tomorrow (drop checker showing *yellow* within 2 hours of lights on / uncountable bubble rates / fish gasping by the end of the photoperiod for the plants.

During water changes, I would scrape off as much BBA from the wood and rock, snip off any leaves that could be hindering flow and used Hydrogen Peroxide for spot treatment.

I started to lose interest in fish keeping and stopped enjoying this awesome hobby.
Instead I got “trapped” in the *wrong *pursuit of getting the drop checker green and focusing only on algae issues. It got to point where I really loathed looking at my tank.

The last straw that made want to attempt anything in my battle against BBA was when some of plants although "healthy" looking started to have BBA on them. (see photo below)

Anyway that’s when I chanced upon the post titled *The "One-Two Punch" Whole Tank Algae Treatment *on plantedtank.net. I read from page to page (a total of 29 pages but as of today it has grown to 32 pages) and was very intrigued by the process.
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/2...treatment.html#/forumsite/20495/topics/203684

(Just to make it clear, the above treatment does work *BUT* it's NO silver bullet. DO NOT expect miracles to happen. The ONE and ONLY target is to get the plants healthy which I believe Tom Barr would alway emphasis and I learnt it the hard way.)

Honestly, I used to be skeptical of Tom Barr's posts when I first started into this hobby but that man was right on target all the while)

Anyway after reading and re-reading the "*One-Two Punch" post, *I said to myself “what the hack, let’s just do it”.

And so I set out on the battle to fight BBA armed with all the things mentioned on that post.

Guess who won? 

Although I would love to finish this post, my Significant Other is breathing down my neck to switch of the computer. They always have the last say...don't they?
So good bye and cheers.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Hi everyone,

You can refer to the post for the exact procedure for *The "One-Two Punch" Whole Tank Algae Treatment *on plantedtank.net. The only extra step which I did which was not mentioned in the post was that I had the filters running throughout the treatment period. I did this with the hope that the hydrogen peroxide would kill the BBA and other algae related spores in the filter media. Now on hindsight I realized that was a big no-no. I found out that later much to my dismay.

Anyway, the whole tank looked like freshly popped soda water bottle during the 1st treatment. There were tons oxygen bubbles coming from all over the tank, even from the substrate. It was quite a scary sight at first as I thought the fish and shrimps might jump out of the tank any moment. But luckily none did. In fact they did not even look the least agitated or concerned.

The next day the tank looked awesome. The plants were pearling like mad. Over the next few days I saw a very dramatic change in the growth of plants. Plants that were struggling for weeks, were putting out new leaves. It was quite a sight. All BBA were turning whitish or pinkish. The next few days, on some wood and rock, there were hardly any BBA. All signs of BGA were also gone.

For 3 days, I checked my water parameters and all was A OK. There was no fish, shrimp or snail casualties at all.


----------



## Zak Rafik

However luck was not on my side.
One of my Co2 check valves was badly leaking and I noticed this only after a week. So although the bubble count was as usual, the amount of Co2 getting into the tank was less.
Although the plants were looking “great”, I saw something on the driftwood which made my heart sank.
And as you might have guessed, yup, it was back!! BBA was back!!!

Interesting I would always notice BBA making its appearance on the drift wood first and then it would spread to the rocks and finally to the plants.

I thought since the first treatment went well, why not try again? And so I redid the treatment after 3 weeks from the 1st treatment. Now this what I should not have done so soon. After this everything was just downhill…..
Again using the same amount of Hydrogen Peroxide and the same period of time, everything was proceeding as per the previous treatment BUT when I switched on the Eheim 2080 filter, there was this huge burst of air bubble that rushed out from the outlet lily pipes. I knew something was wrong but not what it was.

The scene the next morning was not a nice sight.
All of my 50+ red cherry shrimps, 4 nitrate snails were nowhere to be seen. That evening I saw many dead Neon tetras floating. Now I know that I have completely eradicated all the beneficial bacteria in my Eheim 2080 filter during the second attempt. It was like I was starting a brand new tank (a new nitrogen cycle in the tank)

The over the next few days there were more dead fish. The tank water became cloudier by the day, Diatoms were found all over the tank, BGA started to take over the substrate. The tank started to look more and more pitiful. No amount of water change would help.

And that’s when I decided I have had enough. 
I gave away the remaining fish and shut down the tank. It was not a nice feeling.

So there you have it. BBA won!


----------



## Zak Rafik

I just want to sell off everything and have nothing to do with planted tank but that's when I chanced upon the most helpful Podcast (Scapefu) by Art Pennom.

From here, I got to know of some awesome & helpful guys like Jurijs mit JS and Jeff Miotke. After listening to Art Pennom, the passion to restart my planted tank was reignited.
It’s such a pity that Podcast is no more.

But there is one more Podcast channel which is just as awesome.

http://aquascapingpodcast.com/

For now I’m slowly gathering all the necessary info to restart my tank.

The new journey begins…………..


----------



## AndreiD

Rafik , you lost the bacteria because you didn't remove the filter media from your Eheim filter . 

This treatment should be done without media filter and after water change you should put the media back in the filter .


----------



## Zak Rafik

AndreiD said:


> Rafik , you lost the bacteria because you didn't remove the filter media from your Eheim filter .
> 
> This treatment should be done without media filter and after water change you should put the media back in the filter .



Hi AndreiD 
You're right. The original post does mention that but I took the advice of a member from another forum to leave the media inside so that the spores would be destroyed.
Anyway I have learnt a lot since then and still learning.
Now on hindsight, I'm glad this incident did take place. After a few weeks,I hurt my right wrist badly so much that I couldn't lift anything. So in a way there was a blessing in all this.

Cheers.


----------



## aquamad

All the above has got me really confused .......but I do have a serious infestation which I am fighting.
It is a 260ltr tank. Temperature is +/- 21c, lights 7 hours daily, CO2 7 hours but on/off 2 hours ahead of lights. One Daylight bulb and one nature bulb. I change 25% water weekly. I removed everything, chucked plants away, renewed substrate and gave thorough clean. restocked with super plants from Aquarium Gardens in Huntigdon but it is back so I really need to find the cause.
I have now switched all lights and CO2 off for a few days and dosed with Eheim Algozid.
I really don't know what has caused or how to get rid. Any simple experience steps would be welcome.
I have kept tropicals for over 30 years and never had this problem before.


----------



## roadmaster

sciencefiction said:


> You read 27 pages of it, discarded it as "mudguards on a tortoise" and yet, your contribution to it is a summary of the thread. You seem to be underestimating the knowledge of people that have posted here, as what you said above is already painfully known and discussed over and over.The thread is about finding the missing link we don't know about. Obviously no one has been able to provide a consistent way of preventing BBA so I'll agree that at this point the thread is useless. Nothing new has been discovered.



Is new stuff for those new to it.
I view this as gob's of info for the thoughtful mind, and best of all,, it's free.
Pick and sort what may apply to me, and save the rest for future pondering's I might explore more thoroughly.
Fought many a brave battle with all manner of algae for many year's when there weren't no internet, and scarce book's on aquatic gardening period.
Not so new as I once was, and have found the knowledge here to have made all the difference.
I can sift through that which does not apply to me or particular topic, but just think ,,what if none of it was to be found ? (I remember)


----------



## Sweded

burr740 said:


> Neglect is a main cause. Shying away from the grunt work like pruning, cleaning and water changes. Big mistake to go round in circles arguing nutrients and CO2 when sub par conditions and/or poor plant health can explain 90% of algae troubles.



The reason neglect causes BBA is high organics build up in substrate and filter which subsequently effects many lines of biochemistry in the tank.


----------



## craig mason

i have bba i plan to take out all my rocks wood and plants give tank a good clean and add fresh plants will this get rid of bba ???


----------



## kadoxu

craig mason said:


> i have bba i plan to take out all my rocks wood and plants give tank a good clean and add fresh plants will this get rid of bba ???


Probably not... you need to find out what you're doing wrong.


----------



## fablau

craig mason said:


> i have bba i plan to take out all my rocks wood and plants give tank a good clean and add fresh plants will this get rid of bba ???



That depends... If the main cause of BBA in your tank is neglect, organics or other "dirt" related issue, that might.... But if it is an imbalance of nutrients preventing your plants to grow well, it will reappear. I could make appear and disappear BBA several times back and forth by just adjusting my trace dosing. What kind of fertilizers are you using? How much do you dose?


----------



## rebel

fablau said:


> That depends... If the main cause of BBA in your tank is neglect, organics or other "dirt" related issue, that might.... But if it is an imbalance of nutrients preventing your plants to grow well, it will reappear. I could make appear and disappear BBA several times back and forth by just adjusting my trace dosing. What kind of fertilizers are you using? How much do you dose?


Which trace?


----------



## sciencefiction

Let's revive this thread 

It is not an "imbalance" of nutrients or any sort of fancy term that causes BBA. It is a constant stream of organics, be it in the form of a tank full of unhealthy plants for one or another reason, or simply some wood with bark left on it that slowly decomposes, substrate issues, overstocked tanks, uneaten food, any instance of those or a combination,...etc...etc....
Add to that some good flow(it loves flow) and some extra light for it to grow...But the first trigger is organics and BBA will appear in quite the low light..and flow if it attaches to something it can feed on...or the water provides the same source of organics....

To sum it up, think of where the source of organics might be coming from in your particular tank


----------



## fablau

rebel said:


> Which trace?



Traces = micros. Any. In other words, for me BBA appears only when my plants are unhappy due to some missing nutrient or unbalance.


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Let's revive this thread
> 
> It is not an "imbalance" of nutrients or any sort of fancy term that causes BBA. It is a constant stream of organics, be it in the form of a tank full of unhealthy plants for one or another reason, or simply some wood with bark left on it that slowly decomposes, substrate issues, overstocked tanks, uneaten food, any instance of those or a combination,...etc...etc....
> Add to that some good flow(it loves flow) and some extra light for it to grow...But the first trigger is organics and BBA will appear in quite the low light..and flow if it attaches to something it can feed on...or the water provides the same source of organics....
> 
> To sum it up, think of where the source of organics might be coming from in your particular tank



Sorry to contradict you, but as I wrote earlier, for me BBA appears only when I have nutrient issues. Nothing about organics for me. I am saying this for those folks that, like myself, tried everything either Co2 side or organics side with no luck for years, to find out that BBA on their Anubias was caused only by the lack of some nutrients and imbalanced nutrients (i.e. CSM+B with inert substrates and high pH, and similar issues).

In other words: it is true that bad distributed, fluctuating, or low Co2 can cause BBA. It is also true that high organics can cause BBA. But it is also true that unhappy plants due to nutrients issues can cause BBA as well.


----------



## sciencefiction

fablau said:


> Sorry to contradict you, but as I wrote earlier, for me BBA appears only when I have nutrient issues



Unhappy plants leach organics from the damaged tissue to which the BBA is attracted to. The damage is not always visible to the naked eye. Why the plants are unhappy is a variable. It could be anything, from too little to too much light, to nutrient deficiencies and CO2 issues, etc...At the same time the source of organics could be something else and not the plants, hence unplanted tanks can have a BBA outbreak.


----------



## fablau

sciencefiction said:


> Unhappy plants leach organics from the damaged tissue to which the BBA is attracted to. The damage is not always visible to the naked eye. Why the plants are unhappy is a variable. It could be anything, from too little to too much light, to nutrient deficiencies and CO2 issues, etc...At the same time the source of organics could be something else and not the plants, hence unplanted tanks can have a BBA outbreak.



Thank you for clarifying what you meant, I agree with you 100%. It is important to understand the difference between having organics being the primary cause, and having organics being the secondary cause. As you explained very well above. Thank you again.


----------



## Zeus.

Was chatting with Tim Harrison about his Return of the Shallow and his fert regime. He doses a 'Luxury' dose as he finds it gets better growth, not that his tank was suffering from BBA, but by the same rule it's also what Clive and T Barr in a way advise with EI dosing ie.Nutrents in excess at non toxic levels gets the optimum plants growth, don't fight aglea aim for healthy plant growth and aglea isn't a problem.
Hence I am in the Luxury EI dosing ATM also, or would be if I wasn't on holiday.


----------



## Jacob Coleman

Hopefully I can solve my BBA issues now


----------



## tiger15

I believe in allelopathy.  Before I had plants, I had to struggle with bba on rock and hard surfaces in my fish only tank.  I had to take rock out to cleanse bba with bleach from time to time.  I had bba even on gravel that I couldn’t do anything about.  After I introduced plants and balanced out with healthy plant mass, bba disappeared in plants, rock and all hard surfaces despite higher nutrients and light intensity.  So there must be agents released by healthy plants  to inhibit bba attachment on plants and the environment.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

Firstly, I realize that this thread was started almost five years ago but I want to throw in my two penn'orth.

I don't think there is one single cause of BBA but I'd like to point to the thread below in which I have offered some of my thoughts on this topic:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/is-algae-worse-with-led-lighting.56212/

JPC


----------



## ruairimcq

Found this forum and thought I'll get some info on treating black hair and green hair algae but it's a minefield in here with all the different ideas. 

Had some problems with hair algae in my first planted tank. Pulled out most of the plants and started again with a new light. The Fluval Planted Bluetooth one. Currently using a tropica plant growth system which I hope to upgrade to solenoid based set up soon. I'm trying to carpet with elocharis parvula and seeing some growth and runners but, only on this plant at the fore of the tank I'm getting hair algae. Substrate is tropica aquasoil. I intend to try spot treating with liquid carbon during water changes once per week but the hair algae is still developing. Until now I've not been adding nutrients because I felt it was not helping. Now I intend to add a very small amount every other day. I'll feed one fish one day and plants the other. My next plan is to start trimming back the carpet that had hair algae attached if this doesn't show down soon. 

There are snails but no shrimp in this 100 litre set up as I've got an apisto in there. 

Any tips going? 

Cheers

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ruairimcq

Added a wave maker a few days ago to help circulation. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## sparkyweasel

ruairimcq said:


> I've not been adding nutrients


But you have CO2 and a fancy light; your plants need nutrients to thrive and compete with the algae, and the light, nutrients and CO2 need to be balanced. Algae are adaptable and can thrive when they  are not so well-balanced.
Some more tank details would help, as in this Link


----------



## lilirose

My recent experience with BBA: 
I have a low tech, low flow jungle tank with a little BBA growing among the moss- not really a big deal in that particular tank. 

A few weeks ago I took some moss trimmings from that tank and moved them to a new tank which has very high flow. At the time, I had no CO2. The BBA went insane in the new tank, and did not respond to dosing with Easylife Carbo. It died back a little when I dosed the tank with H2O2, but so did the Monte Carlo I was trying to carpet the tank with. 

I added a bio CO2 kit which basically did nothing, then I added pressurized CO2 about a fortnight ago. The BBA appears to be gone. It was starting to overgrow some anubias "pangolino" and I was afraid I'd ruined the whole tank but CO2 did the trick for me- I didn't even have to remove any leaves from the anubias in the end.


----------



## ruairimcq

Thanks. 

Tank is an Aquaone nano 60. 600mm with built in filter at the back. 
See pics for light, Fluval Planted 3.0
Substrate is tropica aquasoil only
Using a tropica plant growth system that puts in 22 bubbles per minute continuously. I know this needs upgraded to solenoid based system. 
Using seachem Flourish but only recently. Water change once every 5 to 7 days.
I didn't record plant names, hopefully the pic can show. The names I do know are elocharis parvula, bacopa
Stock is one apistogramma, neons, galaxy raspbora and a small rainbow I forget the name of. Batman snails x 3 and devil's thorn snails.










Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone!

In my opinion, @sparkyweasel has summarized planted tanks in a nutshell:


sparkyweasel said:


> ...your plants need nutrients to thrive and compete with the algae, and the light, nutrients and CO2 need to be balanced. Algae are adaptable and can thrive when they are not so well-balanced.



That's the challenge and no two tanks are the same. And the challenge is (a lot) greater with so-called 'high tech' tanks - IMHO. Lighting calls the shots.

JPC


----------



## eminor

As i said in another topic, i had a tank which i did the minimum with it, i had diy co2, only sand, i used easy life profito a bit once a month or every two month. I did extra cold water change, the co2 was really inconsistent, the filter was so small, i even removed filter media in it for months, it should've crashed, nope, strongest tank i ever had, now i act like the tank is a baby and i'm having lots of trouble with algae,i never had BBA until i tried really high tech stuff


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> As i said in another topic, i had a tank which i did the minimum with it, i had diy co2, only sand, i used easy life profito a bit once a month or every two month. I did extra cold water change, the co2 was really inconsistent, the filter was so small, i even removed filter media in it for months, it should've crashed, nope, strongest tank i ever had, now i act like the tank is a baby and i'm having lots of trouble with algae,i never had BBA until i tried really high tech stuff


based on your current journal, you are growing mainly difficult/advanced level plants in your new tank.   In your older tank, I doubt you were growing Furcata, Tuberculatum, Wallichii,  etc with DIY CO2 so maybe you need to factor this in to explain why your new tank is more challenging than your old tank.


----------



## eminor

erwin123 said:


> based on your current journal, you are growing mainly difficult/advanced level plants in your new tank.   In your older tank, I doubt you were growing Furcata, Tuberculatum, Wallichii,  etc with DIY CO2 so maybe you need to factor this in to explain why your new tank is more challenging than your old tank.


true, the hardest was hemianthus cuba in my older tank. but still, i have fast growing easy plant in my new, i don't understand why i never got bba in the older


----------



## Wolf6

Reviving an old thread because I am noticing something odd. In 4 out of 5 tanks in this house, bba is appearing over the last 2 weeks. 2 of the tanks had some already but negligible and the other 2 had  none and developed some. All tanks have their own dosing pump and I use 2 different all in ones. 2 out of 4 tanks use co2 (no changes) and 2 don't. The only thing I can think of is daylight lengthening, but 2 tanks hardly get any direct light, or something changed in the tap water. It has rained an awful lot lately, so this is my prime suspect, but... what to measure for in tapwater that affects bba?
I am spot dosing to resolve it and it seems to be working already, but I was just wondering what could cause this outbreak in these tanks that share no relation save the tapwater.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Wolf6 

Ah, how interesting! 



Wolf6 said:


> It has rained an awful lot lately, so this is my prime suspect, but... what to measure for in tapwater that affects bba?



Perhaps you could explain why the recent heavy rain is your "prime suspect". And, for what reason do you think the rain could affect your tap water?



Wolf6 said:


> The only thing I can think of is daylight lengthening, but 2 tanks hardly get any direct light...



As I've learned very recently, there is a possible connection here but it would help to first get answers to my two questions above.

JPC


----------



## Wolf6

jaypeecee said:


> Perhaps you could explain why the recent heavy rain is your "prime suspect". And, for what reason do you think the rain could affect your tap water?


Mostly by proces of elimination, ruling out ferts, co2, and making light unlikely due to the tanks positions. That really just leaves tapwater and plain old coincidence of course.
The tapwater here is pumped up from a nearby field at the bottom of the hills, at a depth of 30 to 60 meters. I'm reading conflicting information about how long it takes for the rainwater to reach those depths. It's all sand here, no other caps above pits the water is wun. But if the rainwater can't affect the tapwater, what else could cause a change in it? And if it didn't, what other causes could there be?


----------



## Yugang

Well water can contain up to 50 ppm CO2. Can you rule that out as cause?


----------



## Wolf6

Yugang said:


> Well water can contain up to 50 ppm CO2. Can you rule that out as cause?


The numbers for last year have co2 at average less then 1, max 2.2 mg/l for 2021. No info on last month but it would be very strange if that was suddenly very different. How could I rule it out though? Moment of water changes differs per tank too. One tank is right before lights off, one tank is right before co2 turns on (which is 3 hours before lights come on), one tank is after co2 turns off but lights remain on for another 2 hours (here it could cause some due to co2 fluctuations), and one tank has its water changes just before lights come on.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Wolf6 said:


> It has rained an awful lot lately, so this is my prime suspect, but... what to measure for in tapwater that affects bba?





jaypeecee said:


> Perhaps you could explain why the recent heavy rain is your "prime suspect". And, for what reason do you think the rain could affect your tap water?


It is likely to be  a lot softer, due to the influx of naturally distilled rain water. If your tap water is surface water (or shallow aquifer) derived it is likely to show a lot of annual variation dependent upon the weather. If it comes from a deep aquifer? It is much less influenced by weather and is pretty similar all year around.


Wolf6 said:


> . I'm reading conflicting information about how long it takes for the rainwater to reach those depths. It's all sand here,


Fairly quickly through the sand.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Wolf6

Just to let you know that I will reply later today - probably before 5:00 pm.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Wolf6 



Wolf6 said:


> The numbers for last year have co2 at average less then 1, max 2.2 mg/l for 2021. No info on last month but it would be very strange if that was suddenly very different. How could I rule it out though?



Are you able to measure water pH? This may be the critical parameter, which may have lowered as a result of the deluge of rain water. In order for what I'm saying to make any sense, please take a look at this important scientific paper:









						(PDF) Photosynthetic performance of freshwater Rhodophyta in response to temperature, irradiance, pH and diurnal rhythm
					

PDF | Responses of net photosynthetic rates to temperature, irradiance, pH/inorganic carbon and diurnal rhythm were analyzed in 15 populations of eight... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				




I suggest you refer to the second paragraph on page 306 where it says "The interaction between pH and the form of inorganic carbon can greatly influence productivity and distribution of freshwater macroalgae (Sheath 1984)".

From the title of the above document, you will note that it covers a range of variables/parameters.

Hope you find it interesting.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> It is likely to be  a lot softer, due to the influx of naturally distilled rain water. If your tap water is surface water (or shallow aquifer) derived it is likely to show a lot of annual variation dependent upon the weather. If it comes from a deep aquifer? It is much less influenced by weather and is pretty similar all year around.
> 
> Fairly quickly through the sand.
> 
> cheers Darrel


I like this explanation. Fluctuating _water parameters _appears to be a BBA _enhancer_.

It's a good idea to keep track of the TDS and pH (indirectly to pick up CO2 flux) of your tap water over time.

Both my tanks are low tech, and I always (mostly)  let my WC water degas the CO2 for a day or so before adding it.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

And this is the Sheath document referenced above in post #566:









						(PDF) Seasonally of phytoplankton in northern tundra ponds
					

PDF | Thermokarst ponds are the most abundant type of water body in the arctic tundra, with millions occurring in the coastal plains of Alaska,... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				




JPC


----------



## X3NiTH

OP is from the Netherlands where most hills are Moraine piles, so fairly rapid percolation. This document should tell you everything you need to know about your subsurface geology with regards to groundwaters.

Groundwater - Geology of the Netherlands, J.J. de Vries


----------



## Yugang

The Netherlands has intensive agriculture, so the rainwater as an innitial source may be  polluted as a result. Apart from the heavy rain, perhaps the farmers in your area went out to inject their soil with some brown stuff, or fertilisers for next year's crop?



			https://www.researchgate.net/profile/C-Beek/publication/241617257_The_effects_of_manure_spreading_and_acid_deposition_upon_groundwater_quality_at_Vierlingsbeek_the_Netherlands/links/561f8f0c08ae70315b54fbf5/The-effects-of-manure-spreading-and-acid-deposition-upon-groundwater-quality-at-Vierlingsbeek-the-Netherlands.pdf
		


Interesting reference, mapping ground water in The Netherlands. 






						A wealth of information on groundwater pollution in the Netherlands is now open to the public - Innovation Origins
					

The Geological Survey of the Netherlands (GDN) has collected data on pollution deep under Dutch ground and is making it open to the public this week.




					innovationorigins.com


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> I like this explanation. Fluctuating _water parameters _appears to be a BBA _enhancer_.


Hi @MichaelJ 

Hobbyists for some time have homed in on the need to avoid fluctuating CO2 to prevent BBA. The papers cited above lead me to think that the underlying issue is the fluctuating pH. So, the water alkalinity (KH) is also important.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

The following paragraph on page 311* also makes for very interesting reading:

"Photosynthesis and pH/inorganic carbon

Rates of photosynthesis in response to pH exhibited three distinct patterns (Fig. 5): (i) significantly higher rates (F= 6.1–28.4) with an evident increasing trend towards pH 8.5, suggesting higher affinity for inorganic carbon in the form of bicarbonate, as observed in C. coeruleus, A. hermannii, A. pygmaea, B. ambiguum and one population of ‘Chantransia’ (1); (ii) rates not significantly different under the three pH values with higher values under pH 4.0 or 6.5, suggesting affinity for (or indistinct use of) both carbon dioxide or bicarbonate, as found in populations of B. delicatulum,  T. hispida and one population of ‘Chantransia’ (13); and (iii) significantly higher rates (F= 5.1–22.8) with an evident increasing trend towards pH 4.0, suggesting higher affinity for inorganic carbon as carbon dioxide, as seen in B. vogesiacum".

It is generally accepted that the BBA in our tanks is Audouinella. The above list includes A. hermannii and A. pygmaea. This would suggest that the BBA in our tanks is most likely to grow in alkaline water, i.e. pH in the range 7.0 to 8.5. I think it would be very worthwhile asking anyone with BBA in their tank(s) to measure pH and KH. As pH doesn't need to be measured super accurately, a narrow range pH test kit*^ should suffice.

I see this as a golden opportunity to delve deeper into the question - "What exactly causes BBA?"

*  see link at What exactly causes BBA?

** e.g. JBL ProAquaTest

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> The papers cited above lead me to think that the underlying issue is the fluctuating pH.


I'm going to speculate that <"pH and CO2 levels are both pretty constant"> in <"Eric Thomas's L052 breeding tank">. 






cheers Darrel


----------



## John q

jaypeecee said:


> This would suggest that the BBA in our tanks is most likely to grow in alkaline water, i.e. pH in the range 7.0 to 8.5. I think it would be very worthwhile asking anyone with BBA in their tank(s) to measure pH and KH


Here's my parameters jpc.

Tank 1: Minimal amount of bba Ph 7.5 ~ 6.5. Kh 1. Same tank just before an increased bba outbreak ph 7.5 ~ 6.4 (1.1 ph drop corrected within 2 days.) Kh 1.
Tank 2: Minimal amount of bba Ph 7.3 ~ 6.4. Kh 1. Same tank just before an increased bba outbreak Ph 7.3 ~ 6.2 (1.1 ph corrected within 2 days.) Kh 1


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Guys,

My bwain hurts!*

It needs a break. Back later.

JPC 

* courtesy of Monty Python!


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> Tank 1: Minimal amount of bba Ph 7.5 ~ 6.5. Kh 1. Same tank just before an increased bba outbreak ph 7.5 ~ 6.4 (1.1 ph drop corrected within 2 days.) Kh 1.
> Tank 2: Minimal amount of bba Ph 7.3 ~ 6.4. Kh 1. Same tank just before an increased bba outbreak Ph 7.3 ~ 6.2 (1.1 ph corrected within 2 days.) Kh 1


Hi @John q

Thanks for your data.

I just want to make sure that I understand your figures. Referring to Tank 1, why is there a _range_ of pH values (from 7.5 to 6.5)? What does the ~ symbol denote in this instance? I use this symbol to mean 'approximately'.



jaypeecee said:


> This would suggest that the BBA in our tanks is most likely to grow in alkaline water, i.e. pH in the range 7.0 to 8.5.



If I'm understanding your data correctly for both tanks, then this would dismiss my suggestion above. Is that how you see it?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> I'm going to speculate that <"pH and CO2 levels are both pretty constant"> in <"Eric Thomas's L052 breeding tank">.



Hi @dw1305 

How does <"Eric Thomas's L052 breeding tank"> relate to what is being discussed here? I guess it's the conclusion that <"pH and CO2 levels are both pretty constant">. Is that correct?

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> How does <"Eric Thomas's L052 breeding tank"> relate to what is being discussed here? I guess it's the conclusion that <"pH and CO2 levels are both pretty constant">. Is that correct?


Yes, I've noticed that a lot of the high flow tanks for rheophilic plecs have BBA.  Normally they don't have plants (or often lights), but some must receive enough ambient light for BBA to grow.  Because they have massive water turn over the level of dissolved gases should remain pretty constant and with it pH.

If these tanks have BBA it would strongly suggest (to me) that fluctuation in pH and or oxygen/CO2 are unlikely to be the only factors in BBA growth. The best BBA growth I've ever seen was in the gruesome, and now defunct, <"pet shop in Corsham">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @dw1305 

Thanks for your reply.

Right now, I'm not sure what to make of this BBA conundrum. But, I will persist. Do you have any thoughts on where to go from here? I really want to get back to t'other conundrum - 'Big C' where C = Cyanobacteria. It's so frustrating seeing people repeatedly running into these problems.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> The best BBA growth I've ever seen


The picture in this article takes the cake for me.  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

Hi John.


jaypeecee said:


> What does the ~ symbol denote in this instance? I use this symbol to mean 'approximately'.


I should have been more clear. I use CO2 so the ph drops between these levels. From x ~ to y.


jaypeecee said:


> If I'm understanding your data correctly for both tanks, then this would dismiss my suggestion above. Is that how you see it?


I wouldn't say dismiss your suggestion. We're all Gumbys John; seeking answers.

Truth is I've had bba in low tech tanks, for me fluctuating parameters as mentioned above by @MichaelJ  were the desisive factors and excessive light. In high tech tanks the above are still true but the tanks are more resilient to changes. 

I've pretty much resolved a bba outbreak by lowering light intensity and adding stability to the tank, can't categorically say the opposite of this "causes" bba but quite happy to say lowering light intensity and stability will "Cure" it.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> The picture in this article takes the cake for me


That is Rachel O'Leary's, it gets a mention on UKAPS, mainly I think because all the BBA detached for some unknown reason. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> I've pretty much resolved a bba outbreak by lowering light intensity and adding stability to the tank, can't categorically say the opposite of this "causes" bba but quite happy to say lowering light intensity and stability will "Cure" it.


Hi John, I'd say your analysis of the situation is likely spot on!  Lots of BBA issues, and a lot of other problems we are struggling with,  boils down to lack of _stability_ and not so much about absolutes in terms of specific (meaningful) water parameters.  We have to look for conditions that induces instability (excess light intensity, waste buildup etc. induces instability  as much as fluctuating nutrients levels).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

There are other avenues possibly worth pursuing, one of them being "Diurnal changes in photosynthesis", which gets a mention in the scientific paper to which I've been referring. I am aware that plants and even Cyanobacteria exhibit circadian rhythms, which is mind-boggling. For anyone interested and you will not be disappointed, search for articles that explain how circadian rhythms were first discovered in the plant, Mimosa Pudica.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

Here it is:









						Plant Circadian Rhythms
					






					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Everyone,

Somewhere in one of my recent posts, I referred to the fact that freshwater red algae (e.g. BBA) contain a light-absorbing accessory pigment known as phycoerythrin. So, this means that red algae are particularly sensitive to light in the green part of the spectrum. In the _European Journal of Phycology*_ almost thirty years ago, they reported that "The minimum light requirements were lowest in green light for all red algae investigated...". I plan to delve deeper into this.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.

* (PDF) Minimum spectral light requirements and maximum light levels for long-term germling growth of several red algae from different water depths and a green alga

JPC


----------



## PARAGUAY

Looks like we turned this on its head @MichaelJ


MichaelJ said:


> The picture in this article takes the cake for me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

jaypeecee said:


> I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.


Anyone?

JPC


----------



## Wolf6

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Wolf6
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to measure water pH? This may be the critical parameter, which may have lowered as a result of the deluge of rain water. In order for what I'm saying to make any sense, please take a look at this important scientific paper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PDF) Photosynthetic performance of freshwater Rhodophyta in response to temperature, irradiance, pH and diurnal rhythm
> 
> 
> PDF | Responses of net photosynthetic rates to temperature, irradiance, pH/inorganic carbon and diurnal rhythm were analyzed in 15 populations of eight... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.researchgate.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you refer to the second paragraph on page 306 where it says "The interaction between pH and the form of inorganic carbon can greatly influence productivity and distribution of freshwater macroalgae (Sheath 1984)".
> 
> From the title of the above document, you will note that it covers a range of variables/parameters.
> 
> Hope you find it interesting.
> 
> JPC


I have drop tests, and tested most of the tanks and tap water today during water changes. Tap PH is currently about 8, maximum is 9 and lowest 7.5 according to the water reports. In my tanks after water changes the PH is 7.5  (hillstream and shrimp) and 6.5 (main tank). Didnt get round to measuring the fourth affected tank. Its quite possible that normally tap PH is a bit higher. I'll measure the tap water more often coming weeks. I'll test the tanks again on friday to see what ph in the tanks is on average to see if the water changes cause great PH shifts or not. 
I've also measured KH (around 4 in all tanks) and GH (7 in main planted tank with soil, 10 in the other tanks). Didnt measure it in the tap water. Not quite sure if it is relevant to the BBA. I've never really concerned myself with it, as I've never had an issue this sudden appear in multiple tanks.


----------



## Snowstreams

Here is my bba story. I have two tanks. One is High tech with co2 injection & I monitor it’s ph tds etc with digital probes. 
Lately this tank has become very bad with bba. So much so that some plants like rotala rotundifola have died despite micro nutrients & nitrate being high enough. 
My other tank is a basic tank & it never gets any algae. 
My ph in the main tank goes from 6.8 in the day to 7.7 at night. Though the water is about ph 8.1 when fully degassed because it has a high gh about 20. 
My main tank is very overstocked with baby platys so I assumed all the extra food was raising the phosphate levels too much. Nitrate stays around 15-30 with 50% water changes. 
But I just measured phosphate there today & it was basically 0. 
I dose tropica specialised nutrition after water changes & then phosphate was still only 0.3 
Could the lack of phosphate be encouraging bba?


----------



## Ghettofarmulous

Snowstreams said:


> Here is my bba story. I have two tanks. One is High tech with co2 injection & I monitor it’s ph tds etc with digital probes.
> Lately this tank has become very bad with bba. So much so that some plants like rotala rotundifola have died despite micro nutrients & nitrate being high enough.
> My other tank is a basic tank & it never gets any algae.


my experience with low tech is similar 
I have a 57 liter that developed issues with BBA after a time. It was very stable, lovely growth then BBA started to suddenly take hold. My Co2 ran out and after a while the BBA disappeared.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Ghettofarmulous said:


> I have a 57 liter that developed issues with BBA after a time. It was very stable, lovely growth then BBA started to suddenly take hold. My Co2 ran out and after a while the BBA disappeared.


I don't know if the CO2 running out was related (I'm not a CO2 user), but I've found that you tend to <"get cycles of growth"> with Black Brush Algae (BBA) (_Audouinella_), possibly related to the <"alternation of generations"> in the Rhodophyta. 

What normally happens is that it grows for a bit and then mysteriously all detaches for no apparent reason. 
<BBA carpet> .

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> We're all Gumbys John...


Hi @John q 

Despite having been an ardent fan of Monty P since they first burst onto our screens, I have just discovered that the 'my bwain hurts' characters were known as Gumbys! 

JPC


----------



## Witcher

jaypeecee said:


> Despite having been an ardent fan of Monty P since they first burst onto our screens, I have just discovered that the 'my bwain hurts' characters were known as Gumbys!
> 
> JPC


And now for something completely different:



I just love this song with all of my heart.


----------

