# Here's My Issue With BBA



## AverageWhiteBloke (5 Jul 2010)

My fight with BBA continues which I am still learning about but there's still a couple of things that are niggling me if anyone can explain.
Firstly I have been learning about how co2 levels and poor distribution have an effect on BBA so have addressed those issues first. I now have stopped being a miser and with my CO2 and concentrate on having a yellow DC from lights on time to lights off and have added a 1600lph Koralia to improve circulation to all dead spots in the tank. My issue is that the BBA increases in the areas nearest to the outflow of the Koralia. Considering that the diffuser is directly under it then I would have assumed this would be the last place the BBA would want to be in the best circulated most co2 rich part?
I have read somewhere that fast moving oxygen rich water oxidises iron which makes it inaccessible to plants but certain algae thrive on it, not sure how true or relevant that is.

Secondly I also dose easy carbo the recommended dosage daily to affected areas, now there are people in here that dose only EC and don't bother with co2 with good results so that begs the question, if I don't actually need co2 but I keep it as target as I can is that better or worse than not adding it at all? Does poor flow poor co2 distribution cause BBA even when EC is added?

I have 70watts of T8 over 155ltrs contemplating lowering the light but as I'm moderately lit to start with not sure if I will benefit. Some of the brighter lit loving species don't fair well to start with. The likes of the hair grass spread towards the lights with plantlets rather than bush out at the base.


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Jul 2010)

Hi,
    BBA is mostly a CO2 stability issue so the things you've done will help that. But you still have to kill the BBA that is there because BBA loves CO2 as well. You can do a 2X or 3X overdose the Easycarbo as well as physical removal and within a week or so the BBA should start turning red and weaken.

More CO2 means more growth. Its as simple as that. So the question of better or worse really doesn't apply. The people dosing only EC do not achieve as much growth as those that use gas, but if you are using gas then it should be used correctly, such as the adjustments you've made (timing, injection rate, and so on).

The so-called brighter light loving species are really higher CO2 loving species as you cannot successfully have the first without supplying the second. This is another misconception. When one of these plants suffer, it normally not because you don't have enough light. It's because you don't have enough CO2 for the level of lighting that you are providing. The plants do fine in lower light, but they don't grow nearly as quickly as when high CO2/light is provided.

Straggly growth and spreading upwards has nothing to do with the light. This is yet another optical illusion that we have been under for years. Plants grown in air have a specific physiology which includes a distribution network of tubing. This tubing network allows for gas exchange and gas transportation throughout the plant. So for example gaseous Oxygen needs to be transported to the roots from the upper region of the plant. CO2 needs to move from the underside of the leaf to the reaction chambers on the upper side. There is another important gas called ethylene (C2H4) that is present inside the tissues in very small concentration. As it turns out, this gas is actually a hormone and it's used to regulate plant growth and also to regulate cell death.

There are lots of environmental conditions under which the plant needs to change it's growth rate. This normally happens under environmental stress. When the plant is under these stress the concentration of ethylene rises and various mechanisms respond to the concentration rise. One of the most extreme environmental stresses a plant can face is that of being flooded. Flooding the plant traps gasses, prevents their movement and causes buildup. In general, gasses are about 10,000X less soluble in water than in air. That's why CO2 uptake is such an acute problem for aquatic plants. When the plant is flooded ethylene is trapped and it's concentration build. The reaction of the plant is to immediately grow upwards to reach the surface where there is air and where access to atmospheric gasses are in greater abundance. In effect, the plant is building a snorkel by having straggly growth.

There are a couple of ways that we fight the straggly growth. One way is to simply cut the growth. The new leaves that grow are submerged leaves and they are better adapted to a flooded environment, so they tend to grow less straggly. The penalty though is that cut leaves do not produce food, so recovery is slow. Another way is to have better flow. More flow across the leaf means better diffusion of gasses so ethylene can be removed more quickly and CO2 and O2 also have better movement.

Carpet plants such as HC, grasses, P. helferi, Glosso and so forth are real victims of this optical illusion. "I need more light" is a famous battle cry when most see upwards growth. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. Better that you have more flow, more CO2 which then produces more O2. This improves the gas exchange, lowers the ethylene concentration buildup and relaxes the plant to grow more horizontal instead of desperately grasping for air.

People are so hypnotized by light it's incredible. Every problem that occurs must be because they need more light...

Cheers,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (6 Jul 2010)

Thank you yet again you have jumped in and blew apart more of my misconceptions   I would do well on QI if that gets over your way.
So although I have probably improved the situation for my plants the resident algae quite like it as well, makes sense. I'm doing a manual removal and large WC this Saturday so I'll scale up my dosing to 2x or 3x then I just need to check how sensitive my Amano shrimp are to this sort of dosing. So I guess that the standard dose of EC will only create a better environment for plants by making up shortfalls in co2 with a mild algaecide that's not enough to kill it off just making it more uncomfortable.

I did think that the hair grass was stretching for light now it turns out its was stretching for gas, another misconception well and truly blew out the water surely there can't be any left? I'm sure I'll come out with a few more before I get this tank looking good   

Re-think time, I was aiming for making the plants so happy that the algae gave up and went away which obviously isn't going to happen, in fact making where the algae was thriving even worse by pointing co2 rich well circulated water towards it   
New plan get the BBA out first then re-apply all these principles to prevent it wanting to come back again. 

Thank you again m8


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Jul 2010)

Yeah, be careful with your inverts. Some people report that extreme Excel dosing has a negative effect on them. If they could be re-housed that might be the best. BBA is tenacious and once triggered hangs on with vice grips. In a way it's sort of like the story of Pandora's Box. Frequent water changes and scrubbing will help. I'm assuming that it's all on the hardscape right? During a water change, take out as much water as needed to expose the surface (or remove the object from the tank if possible) and blast it with full strength Excel while scrubbing.

Cheers,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (6 Jul 2010)

Actually surprisingly my hard scape items are OK, they were covered badly to start with but some direct dosing cleaned them up and touch wood never came back. The shrimp seem to keep on top of it on hard scape before it can get a good hold.
My main affected area are some crypts around the front and some small ground level spreading plants that I'm unsure of all towards the front though as well as the gravel. I do get it slightly on the edges of some Amazons but they get a good clip out weekly to help with circulation so between trimming times I'm usually dealing with some fairly new leaves the BBA hasn't had time to get a hold of yet.

That's what prompted my now answered question has I had pointed the Koralia spitting out co2 from a diffuser into these areas and the problem was getting worse I now know why  I also dose my EC into the flow so the BBA Was getting attacked on two fronts.

The BBA seems to start at the base of plants and spread upwards with the new leaves so new growth is doomed. I have considered also biting the bullet and removing all affected plants from these areas but worry that removing this many in one go could cause a major imbalance compounding the problem further.

I'll check out invert section of the board and see what other peoples experiences were with dosing and inverts see what the warning signs are. I don't think I could get hold of them to get them out the tank.


----------



## ghostsword (6 Jul 2010)

*By Ceg4048*


> Carpet plants such as HC, grasses, P. helferi, Glosso and so forth are real victims of this optical illusion. "I need more light" is a famous battle cry when most see upwards growth. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. Better that you have more flow, more CO2 which then produces more O2. This improves the gas exchange, lowers the ethylene concentration buildup and relaxes the plant to grow more horizontal instead of desperately grasping for air.



Thanks for providing the explanation above. I should print out of your replies to posts and compile a guide to deal with algae, flow, CO2 and gas transfer. 

I got bba on my tank, and although I have halved the light output, increased the CO2, I am still struggling to keep it stable, and the plants seem to take a while to adapt. 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## andyh (6 Jul 2010)

Top knotch question and answer!

Really useful, i actually learnt something!


----------



## geoffbark (12 Jul 2010)

True SAE's are good for BBA, i got a mild case of it when i started my tank 2years ago. The SAE's cleared the lot in two weeks. And they are great fish to watch. Just ensure that they are SAE's and not flying fox


----------



## Anonymous (13 Jul 2010)

As ceg stated BBA is a matter of CO2 stability but it doesn't regard only folks who use pressurized CO2, it can also occur in non-CO2 tanks. Under hard water BBA uses biogenic decalcification to build his calcium skeleton and that's why they ar so hard to scrape off or eaten by SAE so dosing more CO2 could prevent this. I also recommend to dose more N/P to get your plants healthy so the BBA can't attach on them. EC could help a lot but you need good CO2 levels (I explained above why).

----------------

*Biogenic decalcification*
When there is a carbon dioxide deficiencey in the water, plants can derive CO2 from the hardening constituents of the carbonate hardness. First they split the hydrogen carbonates into CO2 and carbonates. This causes the pH to rise about one step and the largely insoluable carbonates precipitate and form rough deposits on the leaves and substrate. Some plants such as Vallisneria can even destroy the carbonates and obtain CO2 from them. This raises the pH again by another step. Biogenic decalcification thus causes the water to be 10 to 100 times more alkaline than it was previous. In the dark, the process reverses and the pH drops considerably. Thus these continous large pH swings can pose a significant risk to the well being of fish and animals. The solution is to add enough CO2 to the water and have a significant carbonate level to act as a buffer.

http://www.aquabotanic.com/glossary.htm


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (13 Jul 2010)

Thanks I am working hard on co2 and its distribution at the moment as well as 2xdosing EC with some good results.
I don't have a solenoid for the co2 so I'm trying to be as consistent with it manually. Having 2bps when I leave for work in the morning then turning it up a little when I get home from work seems to keep me in target with two DC's I have strategically placed in potential poor flow areas of the tank.

Another question I have though is does co2 fluctuations affect the tank through the lights off period? Reason I ask is because I knock my co2 off through the night but as my trickle filter is quite effective at de-gassing co2 my DC's are dark green in the morning.
This is probably opposite to what happens in most peoples tank, having a touch too much co2 in the morning and just enough just before lights off. My co2 levels actually increase as the day goes on. Does anyone think I should keep it running a touch through the night?


----------



## ceg4048 (13 Jul 2010)

No, CO2 is completely irrelevant during non-photoperiod times. The balance of gas exchange is actually reversed in the dark because Oxygen production is zero, but all cells still use Oxygen and produce CO2. 

The mechanism of CO2 failure has to do with the chain of Reduction-Oxidation (Redox) reactions of photosynthesis. The energy of the light triggers the initial oxidation (electron ejection) of the chlorophyll. There is then a steady stream of electrons along this path and CO2 is used at the end of the chain. Inadequate CO2 causes the electron flow to "back up" which results in electrons being scattered and attracted to whatever molecules or ions that happen to be nearby. This creates some very damaging molecules called "Radicals", some of the most toxic Radicals are actually ionized Oxygen molecules called "SuperOxides". A famous Superoxide is H202, otherwise known as Hydrogen Peroxide and it is extremely toxic because it damages cell walls by pummelling them with the very same electrons it just gained.

This is THE reason CO2 failures cause such havoc, because the plant is unable to produce enough "Anti-Oxidants" to neutralize these free radicals. This is why you see holes in plants, disintegration and meltdown/mushiness when there is insufficient CO2. The plant is being poisoned from within by free radical formation caused by the over-abundance and loss of control of electrons. This is also why turning down the light helps. Less light causes less electron production.

When CO2 levels fluctuate you can see that the free radical formation is cyclic, so first there is an electron "back-up" then the back-up is relieved then it occurs again in a cycle. BBA spores possibly can detect the fluctuations and they possibly can sense the damage to plants if the internal free radical damage causes intermittent cell rupture and ejection of plant material into the water column.

None of this can happen in the dark because there is no electron flow.

Cheers,


----------



## Anonymous (13 Jul 2010)

I think you have a magic hat where you keep all the good stuff ceg


----------



## ghostsword (13 Jul 2010)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> BBA spores possibly can detect the fluctuations and they possibly can sense the damage to plants if the internal free radical damage causes intermittent cell rupture and ejection of plant material into the water column.



This would be quite amazing if it could be proven. A algae so advanced that would sense weakness on plants. It is a major leap forward to think about plants and algae as living organisms that sense failure on others. However it makes sense, as when a plant is struggling it will release into the water column proteins and amino acids. But how to prove it? Or has it been studied already?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (13 Jul 2010)

CO2 staying off at night then cheers again Clive.


----------



## ceg4048 (14 Jul 2010)

ghostsword said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, algae are not advanced. They are primordial, but their initial design was so successful that there was little need for dramatic change, only for basic adaptation. The sensing mechanisms don't really need to be sophisticated. Simple summing mechanisms or "difference engines" can tell them all they need to know about the environment. Algae are adapted to dynamic environments. Higher plants are billions of years more advanced but they are so complicated by comparison that their adaptations effectively are  related to very stable environments. This is why it's very easy to trigger algal blooms in our tanks, because we are not very good at keeping things stable. In addition, our water volumes are extremely small, so things change rapidly in such small volumes. All the circumstances in our tanks are stacked in favour of algae, not plants. Algal spores sit right on top of plants living within a thin film of ooze that covers every submerged surface, waiting for the chemical signals of negative circumstances. This is called the biofilm, and in some ecosystems, algae comprise a majority of the biomass in that system just within the film. It's very easy for them to determine the health status of plants and to combine that data with environmental data such as PAR/CO2.

Cheers,


----------



## arty (14 Jul 2010)

AverageWhiteBloke said:
			
		

> Thanks I am working hard on co2 and its distribution at the moment as well as 2xdosing EC with some good results.
> I don't have a solenoid for the co2 so I'm trying to be as consistent with it manually. Having 2bps when I leave for work in the morning then turning it up a little when I get home from work seems to keep me in target with two DC's I have strategically placed in potential poor flow areas of the tank.
> 
> Another question I have though is does co2 fluctuations affect the tank through the lights off period? Reason I ask is because I knock my co2 off through the night but as my trickle filter is quite effective at de-gassing co2 my DC's are dark green in the morning.
> This is probably opposite to what happens in most peoples tank, having a touch too much co2 in the morning and just enough just before lights off. My co2 levels actually increase as the day goes on. Does anyone think I should keep it running a touch through the night?




 I'm not sure about night co2. I had last time 24/7 co2 around 30ppm and some fishes distressed. Now will try go back on night off but only will switch on 3-4 hours before lights on(1-2hr not enough for good level when lights on) or simply if i'l setup 1-2hr before then i need increase co2 in result less efficient disolving and after some daylight time co2 levels can increase out of safety barier, also depend on light-plant uptake, i think if light is over 1.5wpg then can 1-2hr before and increase co2. But all depend from many factors, also size of tank,light, flow, surface movement, ...
I think best middle way need find every one induvidualy. Ph meter and proper dropchecker + br. blue and  kh4 solutution good thing on proper setup. With ph meter can control swings but dropchecker as sucifient co2 indicator. Without ph meter is hard to test swing because dropchecker can show with same color even ph 6.9 or 6.8, but difference in co2 in half or simply standard eye with bussy daily routine don't recognize if there is color-tonality small change, personaly tested on my tank

Best Regards,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (14 Jul 2010)

I know that test kits are often the bone of contention in here but I bought the full Hagen set   bit of an impulse buy really   I was only going to get a KH/GH test which I use for testing for buffer on my DE-IO water and making 4dkh mixes. It was on offer for Â£30 and came with tests for NO3,NO4,Ammonia,PO4,calcium,GH, KH,Chelated iron and PH high and low. Considering the GH/KH test was Â£10 alone it was worth getting,  I also realised that the PH low was Bromo-blue which was a bonus as I was due some shortly. Unfortunately the PH high range was a mixture of indicators so not sure if that would be any use in a drop checker. Anybody got a marine tank I can do you the Calcium, high PH and Ammonia tests cheap unopened.   

Anyway tested my water and was surprised at the results, I'm not taking these results as gospel or trying to work out if I have 25 or 30ml of nitrate just really looking for extremes and that's what I found   My Nitrates,PO4 and chelated iron were through the roof. In fact the colour was so dark it didn't even fit on the coloured scale.

I did a 10 gall in a 35 gall water change with my tapwater which got things down a bit at least onto the scale, checking my tap water that also has 0 nitrate and 2mgl of PO4 in so the po4 still up there at about 5mgl in the tank. I've stopped using my NPK mix and just been adding the NK and mag dry.   

My di-io resin should be here this week so I'll do another big water change to reset things in the tank, I know these tests are not the best but I think with the tank being well stocked, the co2 not being up to scratch previously and me over estimating the amount of ferts to add (to be on the safe side) may have caused a massive build up and maybe explain the recent demise of my female Blue Ram.

I guess that tests do have some place in the hobby, often when using our plants as indicators of how well things are going we forget that there's fish in there as well.


----------



## dw1305 (14 Jul 2010)

Hi all,


> I know that test kits are often the bone of contention in here


 I'd just buy a conductivity meter, that way you can test the tap water  going into the tank, and the conductivity of the tank water before and after your water changes. If you do a 100% water change, and add your EI ferts. you have a datum value to measure any changes against.

If the conductivity is creeping up over time, despite your "EI" water change, you need to change more water. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048 (14 Jul 2010)

Oh-oh, this is my stop. This is where I get off...  

Cheers,


----------



## chris1004 (14 Jul 2010)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Oh-oh, this is my stop. This is where I get off...
> 
> Cheers,



Hi,

     



Averagewhitebloke,

Nutrients don't cause algae!! Reducing them however will.

Home test kits especially nitrate ones are totally unreliable, best put into the bin.

Regards, Chris.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (14 Jul 2010)

WWWhhhooaaaa there I knew it was a bone of contention   I'm not going down the route of testing for nutrients to fathom out my dosing regime. 
The tests were Â£29.99, I use the gh/kh for checking my water for re-mineralising de-io water and making 4dkh solution and this was Â£10 quid and some bromo for my DC is Â£8.99 plus Â£3.50 delivery which was in the kit in the form of a PH test.
So as useless as the other tests are I got them all and a nice case for keeping my stuff in for as well as the ammonia kit for testing newly set up tanks for its presence at least. Â£7.50 Bargain as I needed the others anyway.
I think it's fair to say that the hardness tests are accurate enough for what we are doing and I can't afford a conductivity tester.

You will notice that I posted I had not stopped any dosing other than the PO4 after the tests, the only reason I cut it out for a while was to experiment with my tank. PO4 is notorious where I live, I have talked at length with LFS owners and breeders from my area and all are agreed as well as the water board results that PO4 is extremely high. They all talk about their different ways of eradicating it. So why not see if limiting po4 in my tank makes any difference nothing to loose I guess. I was only doing it to the next water change then starting again at my regular doses. My macros had po4 in so just added the others at same as usual dry.

The nitrate test I did out of curiosity but had some relevance, my German blue Ram died of unknown cause. I have kept many of these fish and the german as oppose asian versions are susceptible to nitrates. The fish darken heavy breathe and eventually go. This has happened to me many times especially with very young fish so I can't put it always down to coincidence. That fact that it happened again and an inaccurate test showed v high nitrates hints that might have been the case. 
Perhaps if I had done the inaccurate test earlier I might have saved the fish. Who knows.

Don't worry though I haven't took my eye of the ball   I might add though that it's not a simple case of resetting the water with a big weekly change. Depending on my work commitments sometimes my tank needs to wait a while.

Am I forgiven?


----------



## ceg4048 (15 Jul 2010)

Well, here's the thing mate:

Not the greatest of photos, but this is a female ram guarding a clutch of eggs buried deep in the P. steletta on the left. She's keeping a golden ram at bay. This tank was dosed at over 3X EI values which means that NO3 was dosed at higher than 60ppm. PO4 at around 10ppm. Typical conductivity was around 680-750 microsiemens. Now, OK fair enough,  eggs never made it to hatching. They were either eaten/lost, these were terrible parents, so I can't say whether the extreme conditions would have affected hatching.









Here's the male. This male was super aggressive and attacked and killed all the other rams in the tank. Could that have been nitrate induced aggression? Possibly, I can't say. I can say that none of the fish ever experienced the symptoms you described, which easily could have been NH3 or NO2 symptoms. It's entirely possible that you were doing something or not doing something which coincided with high NO3 levels. If you were making the same mistake then you would have similar results. That NO3 test kit tells you nothing. Were you aware that some NO3 kits actually convert NO2 to NO3 as well, so that your measurement is actually NO2+NO3? That's how bogus they are. I mean, you even mentioned that you sometimes skip water changes. Is it possible that the fish died of some other form of pollution? Could it have been due to CO2 toxicity? What are the symptoms of PO4 poisoning? Does anyone even know? People throw toxic rubbish into their tanks like pH buffers, they find any possible excuse to not change water and then when fish die, it's because of some totally wacko NO3/PO4 test kit reading. If you are using RO water, then you know absolutely how much NO3 you are adding to the tank on a weekly basis. Organic NO3 from the nitrogen cycle is more or less cancelled by plant uptake, so how could the NO3 value be off the chart? If you decide that you have to skip a water change then you should lower the dosing, not because you are trying to have less NO3 buildup, but because you want to reduce the organic waste in the tank. People go on and on and on about how Amazonian fish require this Ph, or that conductivity, or some fancy black water extract, but somehow no one ever gets around to the fact that Amazonian waters are pristine and unpolluted, and that maybe the fish have evolved a low tolerance for dirty water. Maybe if we were as maniacal about water changes and reduction of waste as we are about nutrient buildup, we might see dramatically better results.








Cheers,


----------



## dw1305 (16 Jul 2010)

Hi all,
The water companies add orthophosphate's ("for control of plumbosolvency") to drinking water and these combine with any lead (Pb) in the tap water and precipitates the lead out of solution as insoluble, pH stable, lead phosphate compounds. If you want the technical term it is - PIMS -"phosphate induced metal stabilisation". Wessex Water add phosphate to our water even though it is straight out of a limestone aquifer and almost infinitely buffered, softer water they buffer up to increase the pH.

I've tested some water from the NW of England (on the AAS), and it had so much phosphate in it we had to re-calibrate with a new set of standards even after we had diluted it x1000, so I would imagine you don't need to add any.

If you are interested in a conductivity meter Hanna do some fairly cheap good ones. We use "Waterproof TDS / Conductivity Tester - Low Range - Hanna HI-98311" as our ones for field work etc., but even a Â£25 one from Ebay will give you a moderately accurate reading, you just need to make sure it is a "low range meter".

cheers Darrel


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (16 Jul 2010)

> It's entirely possible that you were doing something or not doing something which coincided with high NO3 levels


Possibly, the size of my water changes are not generally too big. The excess build up if there is one! I can imagine being the case. I think from the start I may have over estimated the amount of ferts being needed, my tank is not too brightly lit and I don't change a lot of water but I started at the top end of dosing gradually reducing this down by 1ml monthly to look for a negative response from the plants but you once said not to do that as more ferts encourages the plants to uptake more so I went back to the full dose. If had been doing bigger changes it would have probably been ok.
That doesn't explain the death of the ram solely on the nitrate I'm just adding it into possible suspects list   Po4 deaths have never been heard of AFAIK and I think I can rule out co2 poisoning, it was the only fish effected and I don't really push my co2 to extremes.



> these were terrible parents


They are notoriously bad parents, even getting the eggs off them before they have chance to eat them is hard work.  


> they find any possible excuse to not change water


Not in my case   I look for an excuse too change water, unfortunately I often work away from home monday to friday, Sunday I go to my parents and Saturday night is family night with my daughter so I get a four hour window on saturday afternoon to do as much as I can. Now that would be ok unless my missus goes into the "you don't spend enough time with your daughter all your bothered about is that fish tank" mode     So it gets neglected for the sake of keeping her sweet so she'll put my co2 on and add the ferts I leave her. 
I think that why I've steered away from EI dosing and more the PMDD+PO4 method trying add what it needs a day rather than a little excess relying on a water change at some point. I often get a random water change in at some point by pure fluke so that would blow my mind about where I was with EI dosing on certain days of the week.



> I've tested some water from the NW of England (on the AAS), and it had so much phosphate in it we had to re-calibrate with a new set of standards


That seems to be the general census of opinion round these here parts, I did come across it in an earlier fishkeeping life but in them fish only tanks I used chemical media to remove all nasties. Everybody who asks me how my tanks coming on gives the same advice to get the po4 out of the water round here it is apparently the scurge responsible for many a algea ridden tank but they are mainly fish only stuff so things apply different to what I'm trying to do.

At least I now have my de-io back again   which means I'm dealing with a blank canvas and dealing with known quantities in my tank (other than obviously natural waste from fish and food)

So back to square one I guess and it has to be said the BBA is clearing a little with the 2xEC dosing hopefully if it goes I can keep it in check.

BTW just on the point of the measuring nitrate I was aware the the kit did convert NO3 to NO2 to measure it, I did check for no2 to start with which came up as Zero so there was no need to subtract that from the results. I don't want to get back into test kits though and stray away from this topic of killing BBA   
ALTHOUGH! I found a bit of stuff on calibrating test kits by using a known solution using de-io and kno3 which I have so might have a little experiment, even though the results will be invalid due to so many other factors I'll just feel clever for the day  

Looking at the TDS on Ebay cheers for that.


----------



## plantbrain (16 Jul 2010)

FYI, there are no toxicity levels for PO4 for the EPA on critters.
This is more likely a salinity issue which means you need far beyond 100ppm, same for K+.
I'd even say this is true for most species of warm water fish and N03.

Fry are different matter, shrimp are hyper sensitive compared to fish however.
 RCS, Fires, and CRS all bred for me well.

So I see little risk here nutrient wise.

CO2?

Much harder to measure and test and monitor, nutrients do not move around much, easy to test and dose. 
CO2? Much more difficult.

You cannot rule that out without calibration and confirmation, so do not assume you can  
That is a very bad assumption.

It's far more toxic than any of these nutrients other than NH4/NO2/some trace metals etc.
But those are not high anyway and can be measured reasonably cheap.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (16 Jul 2010)

The problem I have found with Rams particularly is they are a hard fish to diagnose any problems with as they can randomly die without any visual symptoms. I have kept and bred them for a long while although the ones in my current tank are just for show. I have had fish from different places and kept them in different environments from a general low maintenance tank to super clean monitored growing on and breeding tanks. If ones gonna go its gonna go   I know some Discus breeders who have had no luck in keeping them at all. It's fair to say that Asian versions are much hardier than European versions but they are often treated with hormones to get more colourful males or longer fins which I don't really care for.

Most information on NO3 and fish health mostly relates to long term problems if kept constantly in high levels but again that's up for debate. There are a lot of posts on various boards about the same symptoms as mine, fish darkening, fast breathing and hiding away a lot get put down to nitrates so I wasn't ignoring the possibility especially when cross referenced with a V high nitrate reading from the test.

As for the PO4 it seems a shame that my water company adds it, I live 7 mile from the reservoir where the water comes from and often visit. The area is mainly moss and granite which results in V soft water so I guess that why they add it. Using RO water again gives me back some control of what ends up in the tank. In fact I would probably get better water than in my tap by just getting it straight from the reservoir    

So the BIG question I guess is I know an imbalance of either or can promote algae by weakening the plant giving the algae the upper hand but at what point will the excess nutrients promote it in even a healthy tank? Are we saying that if the plants and everything else are right no amount will cause algae? That's a question I have always wanted to know and there's no more qualified to answer that than right here


----------



## Dave Spencer (16 Jul 2010)

AverageWhiteBloke said:
			
		

> ....at what point will the excess nutrients promote it in even a healthy tank? Are we saying that if the plants and everything else are right no amount will cause algae?



Pretty much, in my experience. I would guess this the point where Tom would say the plants are defining the system. 

Dave.


----------



## ceg4048 (17 Jul 2010)

That's right. The fundamental principle is that in our tanks, an excess of nutrients cannot trigger algae. Algae are triggered by something else and then after it's triggered they will feed on the nutrient content. So as Tom says, a eutrophic dosing regime will expose any weaknesses in your technique. You'll find a ton of posts where the OP states that he/she recently started EI dosing and then got algae, but what really happens is that the dosing program is only one fraction of keeping plants. Your BBA is not triggered by nutrients. We know it's a CO2 issue, so BBA will appear in any type of dosing regime. In an EI tank the BBA may grow faster than perhaps it would in a less eutrophic regime, all other factors being equal. But BBA doesn't care. If your CO2 technique is very poor then the blooms will be massive and tenacious. End of story. Lowering your PO4 may lower the BBA's growth rate but it will also lower the plants growth rate, and if your PO4 test kit has lied to you, and you've withheld PO4 in response to their readings then your plants will suffer secondary stages of PO4 deficiency while the BBA will just carry on.

As I've said, it's a Catch-22. Reducing the nutrient loading will reduce the growth rates of everything, but you'd better solve the fundamental problem, otherwise you'll induce more problems than you'll ever solve.

If your municipal water supplier has pumped more PO4 into the water then, as Darrel mentions, this might indicate a the possibility of high lead content either due to environmental pollution or due to the lead in the pipework. So maybe your fish are dying of lead poisoning if they are in tap. Since everyone's tap water is different it might explain why some people have no issues using tap while others report problems. But since few people consider heavy metal poisoning or herbicides and so forth, it's much easier to blame PO4/NO3 or GH.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305 (18 Jul 2010)

Hi all, 





> If your municipal water supplier has pumped more PO4 into the water then, as Darrel mentions, this might indicate a the possibility of high lead content either due to environmental pollution or due to the lead in the pipework.


 there probably wasn't ever much lead in the water supply, the water companies are adding it as a "belt and braces approach" to new, tougher environmental legislation. I assume the cost is a fairly minor factor as they add it to our tap water (at about 18dKH, pH 7.8 & straight out of a limestone aquifer) even though the chance of it dissolving any lead from pipework must be less than nil.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantbrain (19 Jul 2010)

AverageWhiteBloke said:
			
		

> The problem I have found with Rams particularly is they are a hard fish to diagnose any problems with as they can randomly die without any visual symptoms. I have kept and bred them for a long while although the ones in my current tank are just for show. I have had fish from different places and kept them in different environments from a general low maintenance tank to super clean monitored growing on and breeding tanks. If ones gonna go its gonna go   I know some Discus breeders who have had no luck in keeping them at all. It's fair to say that Asian versions are much hardier than European versions but they are often treated with hormones to get more colourful males or longer fins which I don't really care for.
> 
> So the BIG question I guess is I know an imbalance of either or can promote algae by weakening the plant giving the algae the upper hand but at what point will the excess nutrients promote it in even a healthy tank? Are we saying that if the plants and everything else are right no amount will cause algae? That's a question I have always wanted to know and there's no more qualified to answer that than right here




Well, plenty of forums have folks killing fish all the time without any plants, fert dosing or CO2.
Plant folks rarely do replacement test to see which factor added to planted tanks cause the observations/killing fish or sick etc.

All I need to do is show a few cases where I add those ferts, CO2 etc.....=> no dead fish. 
Dead fish? Then my results are simply put; inconclusive, I cannot say why the fish died, only why they did not in the 1st case there.

"Imbalance" is not a good adjective, it's not specific. Non limiting vs limiting are more specific. Liebig's law applies very well for our systems . Imbalance might imply a "ratio/s" but I've done plenty of wide manipulation with ratios and found not evidence they cause issues as long as the individual nutrients do not become limiting.

These same Liebig's laws applies to algae also.
What are limiting values and non limiting values for algae then?





Concentrations in the dry matter or the "uptake rates" or concentration in the media/water are equivalent.
So if you are above the C range for algae, then addign more, no matter what, will not increase growth or encourage algae.

A non limiting ppm/concentration of fertilizer is *defined* by this concept.
Thus adding more cannot encourage algae growth more than this.

So..........what ranges are limiting for algae that bug us?
They tend to be about 10 to 1000X less than the non limiting levels for FW plants.

CO2? About 100x less.

PO4? Not too clear, but for plants, down in the 50ppb ranges for weedy species and the algae periphyton, less than 10ppb. Lower than any test kit or method available, even top research places cannot good consistent measurement from field samples at these ranges with decent accuracy. We know this from the Everglades restoration project in the USA, lots of funding and money are spent for management there. 

Algae are used as indexes, mostly diatoms, for good biological health monitoring since they are far more ubiquitous than plants in aquatic systems.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Dave Spencer (19 Jul 2010)

plantbrain said:
			
		

> AverageWhiteBloke said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have never liked the use of balance/imbalance when it comes to fertilising planted tanks. As long as my plants have enough of everything on their plate to eat, the ratio becomes largely irrelevant. They take what they want, and the rest goes to waste.

That is why it is good idea to gradually back off the dosing figures given in EI, as Tom often says, so that a point is found where the plants have access to all they need, and there isn`t too much left over being scraped from the dinner plate in to the bin (garbage).

I find that the better I nail the flow around the tank, too, the further less ferts are required. 

There is no balancing involved. Just make sure your plants have enough of everything, but minimise the waste, so that less money on ferts is going down the drain.

Dave.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (19 Jul 2010)

Wow all good information. I was having a think about what everyone here has said and it crossed my mind, without knowing what I know now I attempted to increase the conditions for growth by turning up the ferts and the co2 thinking that the BBA would be beaten off by the plants. This it turns out is not the case as improving growth in plants also accelerated the algae growth. 
So is there an argument for reducing ferts, lighting but not the co2 in a bid to slow growth while in the period of over dosing EC? I can remember Clive saying that higher nutrient levels force higher uptake rates for the plants. I'm thinking here while the EC is doing its job by killing off the algae are we also giving the BBA it's best fighting chance by creating better growth conditions for them both.  

Would there be any point in keeping the plants just short of being deficient, while your killing the BBA? I suppose that would be dangerous though as it would be too easy to misjudge it and under dose the plants tipping it back in the BBA favour.

I feel that there may be some sense in there somewhere   but that goes against the grain of not reducing ferts to clear algae but I suppose the reduction in lighting will accommodate that. Its a sort of taking the tank gradually back to low tech while killing off the Algae then gradually bringing it back to its full growth potential. 

Just some thoughts no facts to back that up.


----------



## Burnleygaz (19 Jul 2010)

If it was me i`d reduce the lighting (time + intensity)but keep the ferts+CO2 the same whilst nuking the algae daily with EC/excel and manually removing as much as i could each day


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (19 Jul 2010)

Yeah that's pretty much what I'm doing, just thinking if increased ferts=increased plant uptake and growth with everything in order then by default does that mean the algae is also increasing uptake and growth so it would be an option to reduce the ferts to a point of slow growth while your blitzing the algae with EC which I'm assuming doesn't do any harm to the plants.

I don't know


----------



## plantbrain (19 Jul 2010)

Good flow helps with mixing, but also with good O2 for the fish.
Since respiration is both CO2 and O2 exchange, fish are better off with good flow, so are plants.

While we can use more and more CO2 at higher light PAR, lower PAR gives us much more wiggle room.
If you subscribe to "less is better" "Sustainable" and better management for errors humans make, then it should certainly start with less light wattage.

Then apply the light => drives CO2=> drives nutrients.

While I promote EI or modified EI dosing, I also strongly promote sediment ferts as well, wormstrates, DIY soils, ADA AS and other similar items on the market.

This offers better management with water column dosing as well,.
It's also very easy once set up.

As you can likely see, this is a lot about plants, management and little about cures for algae, but that's indirect, through good plant health, BBA will not bug you and if so, not much at all. If it does......then you look at CO2 and the myrid of different issues that surround CO2 variation.

CO2 is no easy fix for many.
Slow methodical adjustments and careful watching.

Worked for me, works for most that are patient.

This plus good light management, ruling out ferts......then you can really do well and rarely have algae issues, then it becomes what your old goal once was: gardening and scaping.

Remember that goal?
 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (19 Jul 2010)

> Remember that goal?


  Vaguely, just trying my best to understand what's happening in the tank.


----------



## dw1305 (21 Jul 2010)

Hi all,


> So..........what ranges are limiting for algae that bug us? They tend to be about 10 to 1000X less than the non limiting levels for FW plants". & "Algae are used as indexes, mostly diatoms, for good biological health monitoring since they are far more ubiquitous than plants in aquatic systems."


 This reminds me of the lab when we used to use distilled water rather than de-ionised. About every 6 months or so we had to clean out the storage aspirators as they would grow a very fine fuzz of green algae (Chlorophyta). The de-ionised water doesn't have this problem, and really is H2O, rather than a dilute solution of salts.

It was a very fine fuzz of algae because we were in a situation where the nutrient component of the light - C02 - nutrient triangle was at a very low level (and probably for the limiting nutrient in the ppb range).  

cheers Darrel


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (21 Jul 2010)

> If you subscribe to "less is better" "Sustainable" and better management for errors humans make, then it should certainly start with less light wattage.


I have turned duration down for now and see how I get on, I have 70 watts made up of of 3 t8 tubes so I also have the option of reducing the watts if needs be. 
Conditions seem to be improving at the moment with the changes I have made to distribution of co2 and movement in general. I have removed any BBA from plants with plenty of spare leaves by clipping off the affected leaves and sprayed the EC directly at any affected ones that were not growing so well hoping to build them up a bit.
I don't think the 2x dose is actually killing off existing stuff unless directly sprayed but it is definitely having an effect on new BBA growth.  8) 
It's early days in the battle though only time will tell, I have plenty of patience and time it's just EC I'm running out of   

I hope no one thinks I'm ignoring or not taking notice of any advice in here, I just find that at times I try something for a while then read a post that says I should have been doing something else so If I can get as much info as possible I'll stick to what's improving my set up. I guess no two systems are the same, no one fix will sort everybody's problems as making one alteration will affect so many other factors.


----------



## greenink (17 Apr 2012)

This is a seriously useful thread. Love these "here's the science bit" ones. 

What does 'unstable' CO2 actually mean?

a) concentration varying in both lights on and off
b) concentration varying during lights on
c) concentration dipping below a certain level during lights on

Assume it's (b) which would explain why we aim for CO2 to reach a 'plateau' level at lights on by starting it early, and don't care about switching it off early, as long as the level doesn't drop significantly by lights off. 

So the trick is setting a bubble rate that exactly matches CO2 drop off through evaporation and plant uptake, and starting it early enough to get it up to optimum levels before lights go on. And not varying it day by day too much as you search for the optimum rate.  Easier said than done.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (17 Apr 2012)

Its more usefull to me now than it was when I started it  makes a lot more sense now I understand a bit of the lingo.
Its been really good reading back through an old post some things I didn't fully at the time make more sense when I have tried them and seen the improvements they made. In fact now would be a good time to put a picture of the tank then and now (I know there is already a post for this)


----------

