# Dusko's Algae Guide



## George Farmer

Some of you may have seen this.

For those that haven't -

http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/


----------



## TDI-line

Many thanks George, that does explain alot of things.


----------



## ceg4048

EDIT: A note for historical purposes. This is to reflect the fact that Dusko has made the appropriate changes to his article following the discussion on this thread. The data on the Dusko link shown by George above is now consistent with the Barr principles. The text below in this post addresses the data that was on Dusko's website prior to his modifications on his webpage.
ceg4048


Err... Yes except there are some fundamental flaws which should be noted, primarily because the author bases his/her explanations on the premise that somehow nutrients are a root cause of algae, which I believe is preposterous. I'm not sure how the author could have studied Tom Barr's EI principles and yet still have conjured up this premise. That nutrients don't cause algae is a Barr principle Numero Uno.

Here are some examples of what I find objectionable. These are taken out of the context of the paragraph but are cited as an example of the premise:

"...Fast growing stem plants are very famous for keeping algae at bay for their ability to uptake nutrient in no-time. .."

This is not how fast growing stem plants combat algae. They do it by removing ammonia from the scene.


"...Since algae are nutrient scavengers and much simpler life form than plants, they will take an advantage in unbalanced systems..."

Algae don't "scavenge" for nutrients. That is not what triggers a bloom. They can survive with zero nutrients or with high nutrients. I agree that they do take advantage of unbalanced systems but it's not necessarily due to seeking nutrients.


"...Liquid iron will, if over dosed, favour Hair algae..."


Sorry, don't agree with this. While Fe may be used by hair algae when present there is no correlation between the presence of high levels of Fe and the appearance of hair algae. The hair algae will have been triggered by the presence of ammonia and will then feed on Fe. Hair algae can be induced with ZERO Fe in the water column.

"...It is very important performing 50% water change per week. This way we limit nutrient build-up..."

Nope, the _real _reason we do water changes is to limit ammonia build up.


"...The best fertilizing method so far is the Estimative Index method (by Tom Barr), where nutrients are dosed every 2-3 days instead of adding all nutrients at once giving algae chance to scavenge..."

Umm, OK I'll agree to the first half of the sentence but the second half is misguided. The whole "algae scavenging for nutrient" theme is off the mark and can subsequently lead to invalid analysis/conclusions.

"...When buying new plants, before planting, it's good to soak them into a weak household bleach solution for two minutes. 1 part of bleach (don't use bleach that has lemon, orange or any kind of scent) to 20 parts of water..."

No, this is definitely not good. Bleach will damage the plant as well as the algae, slowing it's transition to submersed state and giving algae a head start. Throw the plants directly  in the tank and forget about this recommendation, or just wash with water.

Other than these key points the article is very complete and is a good reference. He/She stress the importance of dosing nutrients and clearly explains the differences in application of low tech versus high tech.  There are also some nice pictures of algae to help identify.


Cheers,


----------



## Ray

> Nope, the _real _reason we do water changes is to limit ammonia build up.



Sorry to be splitting hairs a bit Clive but I think the reason for the water change is twofold - it puts a cap on nutrient levels before they get too high, resetting levels and removing the need for test kits _as well as _reducing levels of ammonia and algae spores.  If it was just ammonia then water changes would be obviated by putting purigen in your filter and perhaps dosing with one of those liquid zeolite products once per week.

Dusko, the author, runs a lovely blog - well worth checking out, I particularly enjoyed his reef blog since I know nothing at all about that side of things but there is also some nice stuff on his other experiences.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Ray,
           Yes I hear you mate, but if you wanted to put a cap on nutrient levels all you'd really have to do is to stop dosing for a few days. The problem in high tech tanks is that of organic waste which, when built up to sufficient levels starts to produce ammonia at a higher rate than can be pulled out of the water column by Purigen/Zeolite/Carbon - each of which Barr recommends by the way. Although...thinking about it I suppose you could add a super massive filter completely filled with zeolite/purigen. I'm going to have to check that out Ray. Good point! Barr suggests that substrate vendors start using zeolite in their substrate formulas.

In his initial studies it was unclear what  level of nutrients could be considered "too high" (toxic to fauna/flora.) He has since determined that very high levels can be in the tank without fear of toxicity or algae. 

You'll also note that he recommends multiple water changes per week for the initial few months of a tank startup. This has nothing at all to do with nutrient buildup and everything to do with ammonia removal.


Some time ago I tested this myself. I simulated nutrient buildup by adding 50-60ppm NO3 plus 6-9ppm KH2PO4 4x per week. The trace dosages were also multiplied accordingly. This test was performed over a period of 6 months to determine the short term toxic and algal effects of nutrient buildup. RO water change interval was 50% 1X per week, however immediately following the water change the high dosage was applied. Tank size 6ft x 2ft x 2ft (150 USG). Lighting was 1/2 kilowatt PC T5. Here are the results after 6 months. I apologize in advance for the poor photography.

If you can forgive the flare from the flash I include this photo to show they type of fish in the tank and their health indicated by their coloration. Note that there is some inevitable algae in the front gravel. It's hard to appreciate the scale here. From substrate to water surface is perhaps 20 inches.




Close up of various swords. Not a spec of algae. Some algae on the hardscape.




Aponogetons gone wild.




Here is an overall shot after a major trim and thinning, again not very artistic but illustrative. The right side gravel is infected but is easily turned over at water change time. On the left, even the Anubias, notorious for getting GSA is completely clean.




If you accept the premise that the extra dosing adequately simulates nutrient buildup, then these results show that nutrient buildup is not really a concern. In this tank Apistogramma Cacatuoides bred several times over that period and the pair lived for almost 3 years. Other than the right side foreground gravel ( a riddle I never solved) no algae was present and plant growth was unbelievable requiring an unacceptable level of maintenance i.e trimming etc.

The point I always try to make is that we need never really worry about nutrient build up at all. If we worry about high nutrient levels we'll miss the boat completely. We instead should always focus on organic waste  and spore removal. If we eliminate ammonia from the tank a nutrient buildup merely results in higher plant growth rate, which is a good problem. 

Cheers,


----------



## Dave Spencer

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> If you can forgive the flare from the flash ][/URL]



Never!!!!!  

The strange thing about this site is that it comes with Tom`s endorsement. I agree with everything you say on this thread, Clive, but never questioned the linked site when Tom first mentioned it.

I think I`ll stick to our own James` guide.

Dave.


----------



## Ray

How many 6' tanks do you have Clive?!    For months I've been thinking "this guy really knows his stuff, his plants must grow like crazy" so its nice to finally see that your tanks are super lush!



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> The problem in high tech tanks is that of organic waste which, when built up to sufficient levels starts to produce ammonia at a higher rate than can be pulled out of the water column by Purigen/Zeolite/Carbon - each of which Barr recommends by the way. Although...thinking about it I suppose you could add a super massive filter completely filled with zeolite/purigen. I'm going to have to check that out Ray. Good point! Barr suggests that substrate vendors start using zeolite in their substrate formulas.



This is a very interesting question.  I would think a filter chock full of purigen and zeolite would pull a lot more ammonia out of circulation than a water change.  For example, we have a tank with fish and even shrimp living in it meaning ammonia must barely be measureable.  Yet somehow a tiny unnoticeable (to our test kits) ammonia spike is enough to trigger an aglae outbreak.  How on earth can a 50% water change once per week help reduce the resident ammonia more than our biological filters, substrates and thriving plants are already doing?

It could be if you gravel vacuum and remove dead/dying leaves at the same time that this is the key factor - removing the sources of ammonia - not the water change itself (although that would help clear up after the disturbance)?

Could be that the key here is not the ammonia part but the organic part - that oraganic elements trigger the algae?

This maybe explains something that has been baffling me.  When I started out I cycled my fully planted tank with ammonia - I dosed 1ppm/day for 3 weeks until ammonia tested at 0, but I never had an algae outbreak, NB, this was not a high tech tank so that could be why I got away with it, also, it was brand new so only algae spores came in with the plants.  But note, my biological filtration was stripping 1ppm + backlog of ammonia from the system per day.  I'd hazzard a guess I could have upped the dose to 2 or 3ppm/day and the filter bacteria would still have handled it.  Does a high tech tank really produce more ammonia than 2 or 3ppm/day?


----------



## ceg4048

Ray said:
			
		

> How many 6' tanks do you have Clive?!    For months I've been thinking "this guy really knows his stuff, his plants must grow like crazy" so its nice to finally see that your tanks are super lush!




Hi Ray,
 I've had three at one time but the water changes got the better of me and now one is enough. The photos of the EI experiment above was done between 2003 and 2004, and that's the same and only tank I have now. The photos were taken with a borrowed primeval digital point-and-shoot. I don't think they had even invented the term megapixel when that camera was new (probably kilopixel).

Wouldn't it be great if it turned out that I didn't even have a tank and that I was just repeating stuff I had seen on the Discovery Channel? Or what about if I wasn't even a real person, just a program written by Matt running on his newly built computer to periodically submit obnoxious posts? What a great story line!

Well my aquascapes are really nothing special and the tank is more of a laboratory than a garden so I don't bother to post them. One things for sure though, I've run that tank at baseline EI, 2X EI and 3X EI. In my particular case I've found that 2X EI works better for me. Here is the same tank run at 2X EI started up last Aug:

Yes, I know, it won't win any contests , especially with those god-awful spray bars:




Again, algae on the hardscape is a riddle.




This is P. Stelleta from Tropica, only three weeks in the tank. No bleach, just plenty of CO2 and nutrients.




This is the same area a few months prior to adding the P. Stelleta. No scrounging algae can be found here.




This is the middle area of the tank. OK, so there is a bit of algae on the wood.




Here is the right hand side:




Alternanthera is plenty red for me. I don't need to limit nitrates.




This is Ludwigia ovalis. It's kind of reddish, but only as it approached the top.




Finally, the underside of a Java fern.




Never can anyone convince me that either nutrient limiting is a required policy or that "excess nutrients" is a problem. Now, strands of hair algae do appear. This is a signal that I should change some water, but I know why I should change it. Not because of excessive nutrients but because of excessive ammonia.

I think Ray that due to the amount of light, bacteria colonies cannot respond quickly enough if there are ammonia spikes. The higher the light, the more quickly the algae spores respond to the spike. Ammonia is constantly being produced at some baseline rate. The bacteria colony population is at a level to consume that nominal rate. To consume the spike the colony must increase it's population but it's response to generate a population increase is slower than the algae can sense and respond to the increased ammonia production rate.

I can only speculate that 3 billion years ago when algae were developing, perhaps the nitrogen content of the water was  found in ammonia so that became the trigger for their reproduction. In a low tech tank there can be a higher ammonia spike without a bloom because the light is much lower, so I guess this one of the keys. Algae are faster and more adept at responding to environmental changes.


Cheers,


----------



## JamesC

Wow clive I'm speechless. That is truely impressive and for anyone that says Estimative doesn't work, this is the proof it does.

Thanks for sharing
James


----------



## Ray

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be great if it turned out that I didn't even have a tank and that I was just repeating stuff I had seen on the Discovery Channel? Or what about if I wasn't even a real person, just a program written by Matt running on his newly built computer to periodically submit obnoxious posts? What a great story line!



That's OK we did wonder and to be honest I'm just a PEARL script re-posting the silliest questions I can find screen scraped from other aquatic forums!   



> Yes, I know, it won't win any contests , especially with those god-awful spray bars:



Actually a nice "Dutch" look (I'm not qualified to say if you follow all the Dutch rules, mind).  Incredibly lush - very nice indeed.



> I think Ray that due to the amount of light, bacteria colonies cannot respond quickly enough if there are ammonia spikes. The higher the light, the more quickly the algae spores respond to the spike. Ammonia is constantly being produced at some baseline rate. The bacteria colony population is at a level to consume that nominal rate. To consume the spike the colony must increase it's population but it's response to generate a population increase is slower than the algae can sense and respond to the increased ammonia production rate.



Fair enough, sounds plausible.



> I can only speculate that 3 billion years ago when algae were developing, perhaps the nitrogen content of the water was  found in ammonia so that became the trigger for their reproduction.



You don't need to speculate - see this quote from the Wikipedia entry on the earth's atmosphere which gives an idea of the kind of atmosphere the original algae evolved in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Evolution_on_Earth

_About 4.4 billion years ago, the surface had cooled enough to form a crust, still heavily populated with volcanoes which released steam, carbon dioxide, and ammonia... As oxygen was released, it reacted with ammonia to release nitrogen; in addition, bacteria would also convert ammonia into nitrogen. But most of the nitrogen currently present in the atmosphere results from sunlight-powered photolysis of ammonia released steadily over the aeons from volcanoes..._



> Now, strands of hair algae do appear. This is a signal that I should change some water, but I know why I should change it. Not because of excessive nutrients but because of excessive ammonia.



This still puzzles me - by the time you change the water the ammonia spike will be long gone.  The background ammonia level is handled by the biological filtration and plants (I expect there is a small spike every night as the plants stop uptake and the bacteria need to adjust).  So why do the water change?  I remain unconvinced that its necessary to get rid of the ammonia except in order to remove mulm and other debris.


----------



## nry

Water changes to remove ammonia?  If you get any build of ammonia in your tank then something is wrong that water changes alone will not combat.  Add more filtration, more plants, whatever, but any ammonia level is surely indicating something other than the need for changing water.

Oh, and if you class ammonia as a nutrient, which it is, then fast growing stem plants combat algae by taking up all ammonia - if they'd said that instead of 'all nutrients' then the paragraph is, imho, more accurate.


----------



## ceg4048

JamesC said:
			
		

> Wow clive I'm speechless. That is truely impressive and for anyone that says Estimative doesn't work, this is the proof it does.
> 
> Thanks for sharing
> James



Cheers James. Thanks for the compliment. I  firmly believe that the presence and availability of unlimited nutrients/CO2 allows plants to develop their ultimate expression of form and function. Don't look now but I  actually stole the general scape ideas from that 120cm on your web page  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> This still puzzles me - by the time you change the water the ammonia spike will be long gone. The background ammonia level is handled by the biological filtration and plants (I expect there is a small spike every night as the plants stop uptake and the bacteria need to adjust). So why do the water change? I remain unconvinced that its necessary to get rid of the ammonia except in order to remove mulm and other debris.



Hi Ray, Well, remember that the spike is a double edged sword. If you could take a reading, a snapshot in time you would see a spike in the ammonia concentration, but this also indicates a spike in ammonia _production_, which, given time would be attenuated by bacteria and plants certainly. As we discussed earlier though, this is a race - how quickly can the plants/bacteria respond to the change in ammonia production versus the trigger mechanism of algal spores. By the way, the debris you would be removing with the water change is a contributor to the increased ammonia production as it decays if left in the tank. Therefore removing water immediately reduces the ammonia content, removes the source of ammonia production and removes algal spores which attenuates _their_ response.

Hi nry,
         Ostensibly, your analysis is correct, except respectfully, there is a critical misconception. Hobby grade ammonia test kits are designed to indicate levels of ammonia toxic to fauna. Algae blooms are triggered by ammonia concentrations that are two to three orders of magnitude lower than what can be registered on the test kit. When the test kit reads zero that means it's safe for your fish - that's all. Ammonia is constantly being produced in the tank. It is never zero. If it were zero and if it stayed zero the bacteria in your filter would starve to death. Anything that dies or decays produces ammonia. Fish waste and food decay and cause ammonia. The buildup and ammonia spike we are talking about can never be registered on any hobby grade ammonia test kit.

In a high tech tank I would never class ammonia as a nutrient. It's a scourge and the bane of my existence. That's what it is.  The wise gardener attempts to eradicate it and it's source completely from his tank at all costs. Really that's just semantics though. Plants convert NO3 to ammonia internally before stripping the nitrogen. It is therefore the nitrogen that is the nutrient. Umm...yeah, that's another failure of the author in that article to miss that point. The nutrients are really N, P and K.

Cheers,


----------



## George Farmer

Hey Clive,

Did you know that the N source in Tropica+ liquid is NH4NO3?

Is that classed as dosing NH4?


----------



## Ed Seeley

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Hey Clive,
> 
> Did you know that the N source in Tropica+ liquid is NH4NO3?
> 
> Is that classed as dosing NH4?



Or you could class it as dosing explosive!  Ammonium Nitrate is very handy in that area too!


----------



## ceg4048

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Hey Clive,
> 
> Did you know that the N source in Tropica+ liquid is NH4NO3?
> 
> Is that classed as dosing NH4?



  Yeah, I know. That's how it reads in my book.  I'm  such a fanatic that I've decided to purge my stock :!:  TPN+ and Brighty are now on my UN Sanctions List...I've got 2 gallons of this stuff left. I'll trade for equal volume of TPN classic.  

Cheers,


----------



## Ray

So let me try to summarise:

- We have heard that very small, hard to measure ammonia spikes trigger algae spores in a high tech tank (is there a Barr report or somewhere where this is proven?).

- We have seen that water changes are helpful to reset nutrient levels but not necessary because, as Clive's experiments show, excess doses of nutrients are not a problem to plants or fish, nor do they cause algae.

- We have seen that water changes remove algae spores and combined with removal of mulm and decaying matter reduce ammonia production in the tank.  Since ammonia triggers algae spores this will reduce algae.

- We have not seen that water changes actually diminish ammonia directly since the tiny spikes that trigger algae can occur any time and a water change is only at one moment.

So far so good - are you in agreement?    I'd like to play devil's advocate and propose the following hypothesis:



> _Algae growth in a high tech planted tank fertilized according to EI methods will be identical whether the weekly water change is 20% or 50%._



If this is true then the big filter choc full of zeolite and purigen is the way to go.  I also suggest blowing your ammonia right down the tank to the filter inlet, triggering algae spores as it goes, is an error.   :idea: This is perhaps heresy, but I suspect the best way to feed your big filter (or perhaps a big sump) is through an undergravel filter that sucks the ammonia straight down into the substrate before it has any chance to trigger algae spores at all   !


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Ray, yes lets see where we are:



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> - We have heard that very small, hard to measure ammonia spikes trigger algae spores in a high tech tank (is there a Barr report or somewhere where this is proven?).



Yes,  the analysis and conclusions of his research are addressed in the fabulous Nitrogen Newsletter Dated June 2005.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> - We have seen that water changes are helpful to reset nutrient levels but not necessary because, as Clive's experiments show, excess doses of nutrients are not a problem to plants or fish, nor do they cause algae.



Check.8)



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> - We have seen that water changes remove algae spores and combined with removal of mulm and decaying matter reduce ammonia production in the tank.  Since ammonia triggers algae spores this will reduce algae.



Check.8)




			
				Ray said:
			
		

> - We have not seen that water changes actually diminish ammonia directly since the tiny spikes that trigger algae can occur any time and a water change is only at one moment.



Well, no, I guess I'll have to disagree. The ammonia production rate increase results in the spike. Your assumption is that the spike occurs and then is immediately abated by the consumers of ammonia in the tank (plants, bacteria, algae). At these low levels of ammonia and with the presence of NO3 in the tank the plant uptake of ammonia is not as efficient as that of algae. The bacteria colony also requires time to increase their population in response to the spike. Algae respond to the spike but it does not mean that they consume enough to completely attenuate the spike. Because there is a spike in the production, ammonia continues to enter the system at a higher rate than consumption. 

Neither production nor consumption is static and each has their own rules. So let's say the baseline ammonia content was 0.005ppm. This means that the ammonia production rate (milligrams per hour) minus the consumption rate (milligrams per hour) is almost zero. A fish dies and decays unnoticed in the corner. The production rate accelerates and the difference is higher. More milligrams of ammonia is dumped into the water column. If you could measure, let's say the reading is now 0.008ppm. The three contestants now respond to the increased concentration but the bacteria colony may take a week to increase their population and to consume the higher content. How long does it take to cycle a tank? 2-3 weeks and that's with a very high ammonia concentration. Meanwhile the dead fish is still pumping ammonia into the tank at a higher rate, while consumption only increases slowly. If we do a 50% water change right now the ammonia content drops from 0.008ppm to 0.004ppm which was less than the baseline. If we wait, the difference between the production and consumption might not equalize for days. It's during this period of imbalance plus high light that algae strike.

The example I use was a dead fish, which is easy to visualize, but this is an exception, not a rule. Here I have to give credit to the author of the article in that he/she states that poor dosing and subsequent nutrient deficient damages plant health. Cell structure breaks down and decays. Nutrients and ammonia held in the various chambers can then escape into the water column. Although the tanks overall ammonia concentration might not increase that much, locally, in the neighborhood of the leaf that is "bleeding" the concentration is high and algal spores already on the leaf and bloom and the strands will stay attached to the leaf feeding on the leaf contents like a vampire.

When you see algae on a leaf, it means that leaf is unfit and is bleeding. It is unfit due most likely to inadequate nutrients or inadequate CO2. That's why NO3, PO4 and even NH4 test kits are redundant. The algae _is_ your test kit. When it appears it means your nutrients/CO2 are too low, regardless of the kit readings.

Ammonia is also in the substrate in quite high concentrations. When you dig up plants or otherwise disturb the substrate you immediately dump the ammonia into the water column.

As George alluded to, some vendors use ammonia salts as their source of N, which I find completely astonishing. Probably the levels are low enough if dosed properly, but I don't see the point. I might be missing something so I want to study this some more.



> _Algae growth in a high tech planted tank fertilized according to EI methods will be identical whether the weekly water change is 20% or 50%._



Well, see the item above. The more water you remove the more ammonia, spores and detritus you remove.

Cheers,


----------



## George Farmer

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> As George alluded to, some vendors use ammonia salts as their source of N, which I find completely astonishing. Probably the levels are low enough if dosed properly, but I don't see the point. I might be missing something so I want to study this some more.



Let us know how you get on mate.  I read somewhere that plants have an 'easier' time using it for their N source than KNO3.  I'm no biochemistbotanist though...

But I know I don't get algae.


----------



## JamesC

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> As George alluded to, some vendors use ammonia salts as their source of N, which I find completely astonishing. Probably the levels are low enough if dosed properly, but I don't see the point. I might be missing something so I want to study this some more.


I looked at ammonia additions to tanks a while ago. A few notes for you.

Seachem Nitrogen uses guanidine and potassium nitrate as their source for N. Guanidine is similar to urea. I think I'm correct in believing that plants can utilise the Urea but algae can't - may need to check on this.

Tropica use ammonium nitrate but I think it is bound up somehow so it's not like adding ammonium salt - need to confirm this.

Some people have been exprerimenting using urea with good results, but others haven't.

A thread just started on APC might be of interest - http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...aquarium-plants-preference-ammonium-over.html. Follow Freemann's link to the Barr Report as well.

James


----------



## George Farmer

Nice one, James.  Always one step ahead, as usual, my friend.


----------



## Ray

Thanks for your patience and your answers Clive - you make a good case and well argued.   I will download the Tom Barr report and leave you in peace now    I still suspect the water change is a blunt instrument for combatting ammonia, but it may be the best we have.  Most people do weekly changes which means an ammonia spike 1 day after water change will have 6 days to trigger alage before it is cleared by another change.  Hmmm.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Ray,
             That's why Barr suggests 2 or 3 water changes per week the first few months of a new tank and especially when using some enriched substrates like ADA AS. :idea:  I've convinced myself that it works, and that it's the most effective combat tool.

I just went out last week and got about 5 liters of Fluval Zeo-Carb and chucked it in one of my filters. The jury is still out but the water seems a bit clearer at least. I'm still going to do my weekly changes though. There is only one thing in the world I hate more than water changes - and thats cleaning algae from a glass bathtub. 

Hey James, thanks for that bit of clarification. I remember trying Scott's terrestrial fertilizer which contained urea and ammonium nitrate. It worked well as long as I had a huge biomass, dosed small amounts and kept up the water changes, but it was living on the razors edge and any other mistakes I made seemed to be exacerbated by using the product. I was under the impression that urea broke down into other components including ammonia, but if urea is not available to algae then that might explain things. I'm very interested in understanding the mechanism of how TPN+ binds the ammonium nitrate. Can't argue with Georges success using it.   8) 

Cheers,


----------



## JamesC

As there seems some interest in dosing with ammonia and urea I've started a new thread specifically on this subject rather than possibly taking over this algae article thread.

*New thread : http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=925*

James


----------



## Ray

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> I just went out last week and got about 5 liters of Fluval Zeo-Carb and chucked it in one of my filters.


Oooo, keep us posted.  Tell me, when the zeolite bonds with the ammonia is that in a form that can still be broken down by the filter bacteria?  i.e. does the zeolite act as an ammonia capacitor aborbing ammonia spikes while allowing the filter bacteria to work at a constant rate?

EDIT

Found this link which seems to answer my question, (apparently Zeolite is popular with the reefkeeping crowd):

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/cav1i3/ze ... ilters.htm



> After a while, the Zeolite is exhausted and needs to be replaced. If the bacteria remove the ammonium from the minerals why doesn't the filter run forever?  First of all, the bacterial films will slowly clog up the pores, thereby reducing the adsorbing capacity, secondly other ions will also be adsorbed onto the Zeolite. As the bacteria do not remove these ions (at least not preferentially), they will slowly become enriched and therefore reduce the number of places available for adsorbing ammonium.


How long will your Zeolite last Clive?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Ray,
            Yes, the capacitor analogy is an excellent one. The ammonia is bound and after a while the bacteria can feed on the trapped ammonia. As your quote says though you get clogging and the zeolite should be replaced at the same interval as other biomedia (couple months or so - no freebies in life mate  ) However, Barr ssems to indicate that zeolite can be recharged by soaking it in brine.  I'm still looking into this as I'm not sure what sort of concentration or duration is required to recharge, or whether it's indefinitely rechargeable.

Cheers,


----------



## Ed Seeley

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Hi Ray,
> Yes, the capacitor analogy is an excellent one. The ammonia is bound and after a while the bacteria can feed on the trapped ammonia. As your quote says though you get clogging and the zeolite should be replaced at the same interval as other biomedia (couple months or so - no freebies in life mate  ) However, Barr ssems to indicate that zeolite can be recharged by soaking it in brine.  I'm still looking into this as I'm not sure what sort of concentration or duration is required to recharge, or whether it's indefinitely rechargeable.
> 
> Cheers,



Zeolite will dump ammonia if there are even small amounts of salt in the water.  Koi keepers have used Zeolite for years to help with bursts of ammonia and have then fallen foul of it when adding salt to treat diseases!

So it's not that's it's recharged, like a water softening ion exchange resin, but the contents are dumped in the prescence of salt.  When I've recharged it I've just left it overnight and I've only re0used the stuff about 5 times until it gets rather brown and then dumped it as it's so cheap to buy new stuff for the amounts I use.


----------



## ceg4048

Thanks Ed!   I bought brand name and it wasn't so cheap. Where do you get yours?

Cheers,


----------



## Ed Seeley

I got a bag of it from my LFS years ago and as I only use it in Killifish fry tubs and similar I'm only just getting to the end of it!  You might be able to pick up the stuff for koi ponds at very cheap prices, but that's usually large pieces.  As it's just a natural rock though it would be too hard to break it up I suppose!


----------



## ceg4048

eds said:
			
		

> As it's just a natural rock though it would be too hard to break it up I suppose!



No problems, I just use my head.   

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

As far as dosing NH4, thats a multifactorial thing.

Isolated, in a high light(one major massive factor), adding excess rates of NH4 will certainly induce algae repeatedly.

Try adding it it to a new tank also.

Now remove your filter and add it to the tank(this removes the filter bacteria, which as any aquarist knows.........oxidizes the NH4 to NO3.).

Then tell me what you see........

Add high light is you want to see fast responses also.

Are you simply adding some extra NH4 for the filter bacteria or are you really adding ferts for the plants?
The folks that have used NH4 in the past used very little and never much more than .4ppm or so and this amount fell rapidly to zero fast.

Why would it not?
The plants and sediment have lots of bacteria, so does the filter.

What about in a new aquarium? Say that first month?
Try dosing it there.

Also, try dosing NH4 and then shut off the CO2.

Don't just piece meal NH4 dosing and not add the various senarios that can obviously influence algae blooms.

Light is the first one, then CO2, and then the plant biomass fish load etc.

If you like to dose NH4, do so with fish.
We came to that conclusion many years ago after playing around with NH4Cl dosing, Jobes sticks and soil and shultz's violet food drops.

Anyways, NH4 is extremely toxic and dosing errors can cause far more issues with it than KNO3, which has massive range.

If you really think NH4 is so great, remove your filter and try dosing it for 4-8 weeks, then see.

Put your theory to the test and try and rule out the other factors.
It's not quite as simple and contradictory as many like to claim.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Ray

Clive - how is your Zeolite coming along?  Obviously since you only get hardscape algae anyway this will be hard to know. 

Plantbrain - your point is well made that we should not underestimate the power of filter bacteria to reduce NH4 to NO3.  What happens, particularly with regard to algae, if I cut down on the water changes in a high tech CO2 tank?

Thank you,

Ray


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Ray,
            Yes, it's a bit difficult to say. I think I have a little less GSA on the front glass, but the water is a bit clearer - that's probably because the Fluval product is a zeolite plus carbon so I reckon the increased clarity is due to the carbon. It also may be that I have a wider margin of error as I did have to change out my CO2 bottle last week and had to reset the injection rate. I had to play see-saw with the needle valve for a while but I saw only a very small appearance in hair down in the carpet. It could be that had I not used the zeolite I might have seen more.   Hard to say. I still do the water changes though so I would have to stop that in order to have a more accurate indication.

Cheers,


----------



## nry

Ray said:
			
		

> Plantbrain - your point is well made that we should not underestimate the power of filter bacteria to reduce NH4 to NO3.  What happens, particularly with regard to algae, if I cut down on the water changes in a high tech CO2 tank?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Ray



You know he'll say try it yourself don't you?!


----------



## plantbrain

You can easily cut down with water changes on a high tech high light CO2 tank and go no water changes for long time frames. You will need to balance things using test kits then and dose according to a set of parameters. PPS methods suggested this, but you need not use that, just the ferts, use the test kits correctly and consistently, that's not PPS, that's just maintaining residual levels of nutrients. Hardly PPS's proprietary "discovery". Folk's had been doing it and folks also suggested water changes to prevent any other errors and unknowns from causing issues as well.

When folks claim that they did it all and give no credit to folks that had done it and make no effort to see if someone else has already done the methods before hand, it's really a crappy way to promote your ego. That's my beef with it. 

However, there's no reason it will not work, I've never claimed that water changes are 100% absolute, however, they are very useful and much easier than doing test for many parameters for 99% of the hobbyists. EI derived everything from PMDD, it just make a different assumption about PO4 and made larger water changes, took into account higher light/CO2 effects. Add common sense and manipulate things with a control. About all I did, they set the ground work up. 

That can be done using test kits as well.

But folk's have different goals, some hate water changes and some hate test kits.
Actually, I've never met a single hobbyists that likes to test NO3 etc.

Have you?

Some hate both, but I can make water changes fast and simple/automate etc, I cannot for test kits.
So non CO2 methods work better there. 

Still, Dusko's article works well.

If you want to ask the questions, you need to do the work yourself, do not expect other folks to do it.
they might do it wrong like Paul did, he never tested his theory about PO4 causing algae, neither did ADA, Dupla and the entire bunch.

You do not want to get caught with your pants down.
So you should check yourself. 
Stop relying on others.
See if it makes sense to you.
Not me.

Remove the filter and swap in a powerhead instead.
Measure things closely over time. Freeze the samples daily at the same time(or 2-4x a day for the first 2 weeks etc)

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## LondonDragon

Another good article here:   http://www.guitarfish.org/algae


----------



## ceg4048

Hey Paulo,
                That website fails the reality check within the first couple of paragraphs with statements like;
 "...Cause:

Nutrient Imbalance â€“ potentially excess N, P, Fe..."

As you yourself have demonstrated excess nutrients can never be the cause of algae. EI prooves this because we dose excess and the result is the disappearance of algae. 


And also;

"...Cure:

Increase CO2 - This will stimulate plant growth, which should help the plants out-compete the algae for resources..."

While increased CO2 is the cure, the author's reasoning is faulty. Plants don't compete with algae for resources anymore than elephants compete with mice for resources. Each fills separate niches in the environmental food chain and each requires vastly different quantities of resources. This is why trying to starve algae fails as a policy. Algae require such vastly lower nutrient quantitites that if your were to starve them of nutrients the plants would have failed long before. In fact the only relevant demonstartion of competition is between algae and bacteria. Nitrifying bacteria remove huge quantities of NH4. If they didn't the fauna in our tanks would be in deep trouble. While healthy plants do remove some NH4 it is their relationship with bacteria that that enables the bacteria to out-compete the algae for this critical resource. Healthy plants provide the bacteria with increased oxygen and plants also convert the inorganic forms of nutrients like CO2, NO3 and PO4, and redistributes these nutrients in organic forms that the bacteria can digest such as sugars and proteins. Many people forget that bacteria need carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous too. Healthy plants provide an infrastructure upon which the bacteria colony can thrive and build. It is therefore the bacteria colony that do the competing with algae, not the plants. Poorly maintained filters, high organic waste, poor CO2 and poorly fed plants in the presence of high light conspire to ruin this infrastructure at which point algae then seize the opportunity for advancement.

Newly setup tanks lack this important bacterial infrastructure and that's why a tank is most vulerable to algal attacks during this period. This is also why high flow rates, proper distribution, water changes, proper CO2 levels and high nutrient availability are the keys to success in a planted tank. The contention that excess Fe or excess Si or excess N or P causes algae is absurd. Really, the only thing we need to worry about is excess NH4.

Cheers,


----------



## LondonDragon

Guess I should have gone through it properly then  Igore that one lol


----------



## gratts

I find it amazing that, having read this article, I took a Biology exam yesterday. The biggest exam board in the UK, and I had to write through gritted teeth that excess phosphates result in algae in aquatic environments.
That's all that's credited in mark schemes, absolutely zero mention of ammonia. Purely phosphates.

No wonder there's such misconception


----------



## Fred Dulley

gratts said:
			
		

> I find it amazing that, having read this article, I took a Biology exam yesterday. The biggest exam board in the UK, and I had to write through gritted teeth that excess phosphates result in algae in aquatic environments.
> That's all that's credited in mark schemes, absolutely zero mention of ammonia. Purely phosphates.
> 
> No wonder there's such misconception




I had to do that aswell.


----------



## Dusko

Hi all and BIG thanks to London Dragon for inviting me to this forum.
I am glad to see Tom Barr and George Farmer around UKAPS.org forum   

This thread will definitely move my lazy butt into re-editing this Algae ID article of mine which I didn't revise in a long time.
First of all this article was written by a person which has English as his second language so some things might sound very strange I believe  

Some of you might know me from Aqua Hobby (as a part of the AoA Mod Team), some from Barrreport.com and some even from PFK.



> Err... Yes except there are some fundamental flaws which should be noted, primarily because the author bases *his/her* explanations on the premise that somehow nutrients are a root cause of algae, which I believe is preposterous.



Just for future reference I am a bloke so *his *will do   
No I never stated (at lest that wasn't what I meant) that nutrients are the cause of algae but instead the unbalanced nutrient levels are (e.g. high PO4 but very low NO3, or fluctuating CO2 levels, low O2, etc...).
This article was originally written for Aqua Hobby beginner members which kept repeating that NO3 and PO4 are causing algae + for easy Algae ID-ing. 



> "...Fast growing stem plants are very famous for keeping algae at bay for their ability to uptake nutrient in no-time. .."


You see most newbies plant one Anubias and one Java Fern and call it a planted aquarium. They ask do they need ferts and others advise them to start dosing NPK+traces. Dosing methods are generally suggested for heavily planted tanks and overdosing might cause the system to become eutrophic again which might cause acidification of the system even this depending on tap water used (low GH/KH).
In this case I find it necessary to stress about using fast growing plants until the newbie gets the "green thumb feeling".

This article was not written for professionals like you, but beginners (of course everybody can feel free to read it, comment, critique, etc...).

Dusko wrote;


> "...It is very important performing 50% water change per week. This way we limit nutrient build-up..."


ceg4048 wrote;


> Nope, the real reason we do water changes is to limit ammonia build up.



I do 50% weekly WC in hi-tech tanks to prevent them from becoming eutrophic and not to remove NH4 (what NH4?).
How can I have NH4 issues if I maintain my aquarium properly;
Not overstocking, not overfeeding, plants pruned regularly, keeping filters clean, moderate surface agitation for good gas exchange (good Oxygen levels) and sufficient water circulation (good nutrient transport), light gravel vacuuming, good CO2 levels, EI dosing, good buffering capacity, using soil/clay substrate which has good nutrient (NH4) binding capacity and preparing the soils before flooding the tank (dry start method by Tom Barr).

Lots of people stress about CO2, NPK, traces but not many mention one which is as important, O2. 
Stating that NH4 caused algae is (for me) the same as stating that it started raining because of the clouds.
Where did those clouds come from? Something sure did bring them to life   

It is not the NH4 that caused the algae (sure it was) but "the reason causing the NH4 to spike". And water changes will not remove this reason which caused NH4 to spike.
We know that Nitrosomonas bacteria is involved in NH4 oxidation into NO3 (but first into NO2 by Nitrospira). This bacteria is aerobic and needs good O2 levels to be able to consume NH4.
If NH4 becomes an issue that means that:
- O2 levels decreased! Why?
Summer time causing higher temperatures, clogged filters decreasing circulation, overgrown plants, insuficiente surface agitation, etc...
- enough O2, good surface agitation, clean filters but still NH4 spiked! What now?
Very likely clogged substrate, one gets tired of performing light gravel vacuuming, or not enough shredders like shrimps, snails, which caused organic build-up clogging the substrate's Oxidising Microzone which if kept clean of mulm keeps nutrients locked in the substrate and oxidizes NH4 into NO3. Once clogged, aerobic bacteria will be reduced causing dead spots in the substrate from which nutrients can leak back into the water column (e.g. algae on Glosso).
Don't get me wrong, mulm is good when in the substrate, but not when it clog the entire surface of the substrate, and therefor it is essential to perform light substrate vacuuming at least once a month, IME.



> "...Liquid iron will, if over dosed, favour Hair algae..."



There must be a difference between low Fe levels and high Fe levels, if not then it is same dosing 5ppm of CO2 and 30ppm of CO2. I mean the CO2 is present right, even if it is only 5ppm?!
Hair algae usually strike in the newly started systems because of the unsettled substrate (all nutrients simply float around the water column making them available to Algae and Plants - FeOOH which is used up through Siderophores).
Once the substrate develop aerobic and anaerobic zones, and starts to accumulate mulm things get better.

Dusko wrote;


> "...The best fertilizing method so far is the Estimative Index method (by Tom Barr), where nutrients are dosed every 2-3 days instead of adding all nutrients at once giving algae chance to scavenge..."



You don't agree with this? Why? Are you suggesting that it is possible to dose yearly or monthly amount of ferts at once? That would be cool to be honest. I am a low maintenance kind of guy    and this would suit my life style BIG TIME!
As stated above this article was meant to help newbies, so they don't go crazy on fertilising.

Imagine a newbie getting algae and starting to dose every day the weekly recommended dose in a medium light Excel/Easy Carbo tank just to get rid of the algae that maybe appeared simply because he/she had no surface agitation at all and a weak circulation pump  :?   

There are some good things in that article of mine worth reading (for newbies especially) and I have a slight feeling you went hunting for mistakes only   
But I do respect you for all the critiques though, thanks to them I will take some time and update that blog (I have a very busy schedule but will do my best).
NOTE! I am no scientist just a simple hobbyist with lots of enthusiasm and with a will to help others. Sure I am not perfect.

Nice to be around here and once again thanks to London Dragon for the invite.

Kind regards, Dusko


----------



## LondonDragon

Nice to see you here Dusko  your article has helped many of us resolve their algae issue and identify what was wrong.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Dusko,
              Welcome to the forum.   

If you review my initial post on this item you'll note that I stated:


> Other than these key points the article is very complete and is a good reference. He/She stress the importance of dosing nutrients and clearly explains the differences in application of low tech versus high tech. There are also some nice pictures of algae to help identify.


I hardly think this qualifies as "hunting for mistakes only". In no way was I flogging your article, but we are on a mission to understand the truth. Of course I cannot expect you to be perfect, so please do not take offense, I was not attacking you personally. I always aspire to perfection in any articles however, because anything less than perfection results in misinterpretation and poor decision making by hobbyist who may not be aware of the nuances.

Where I felt the mistakes existed I noted that there were inconsistencies with the T. Barr premise which stipulates in no uncertain terms that nutrients cannot cause algae. The mechanism of algae trigger in our aquariums is based on the combination of lighting stimulus plus fluctuations (or availability) of NH4 within the water column. The higher the ambient light energy the less peak NH4 level is required for algal spores to germinate.

Now, many people have difficulty with this premise and reject it because it does not seem to be rational, yet it is very easy to test and I'm surprised more don't do it. Take two glasses of RO water. In the first, put some ammonia in, and in the second put some KPO4 and KNO3. Place the glasses under bright lighting in order to see which glass get algae formation first. You'll find that the water with ammonia will develop algae first. Now, clearly, both glasses will develop algae, and when this happens, the second glass will then experience accelerated algal growth because the algae that forms will then feed on the nutrients that you have placed in that glass. But there is a difference between algal formation and algal growth. Many people confuse the two, observe accelerated algal growth rates and blame the nutrients for everything. High light and NH4 and nutrients can be (and often are) present in the tank at the same time. It is an error however to attribute causality to the nutrients. This may seem like a trivial difference but it's actually critical and significant. I see this error in thinking all the time and I relentlessly try to argue against what I believe to be false correlation.

Now, lets think about newbies for a moment. We've read many beginner posts over the years essentially entitled "I have algae and I don't know why". I'll be willing to bet that if we study each case, many more times than not we'll see that, the cause of most cases is due to NOT ENOUGH nutrients being dosed for the level of lighting or not enough CO2. We observe that increasing the dosing or injection level solves the issue of poor growth and algae. If that is so how can anyone rationally maintain the philosophy that nutrients cause algae? 

Now lets address the issue of "unbalanced nutrient levels". I personally think this is an incorrect phrase within the context of EI. EI does not enforce any relative amounts so the term "balance" is irrelevant because it implies an amount of one nutrient relative to the amount of another. This is unnecessary because EI enforces minimum levels of nutrients. There is always some minimum level of required PO4 for the amount of light, for the amount of biomass in the tank and for the distribution efficiency of the tank (i.e flow/circulation). That minimum level is not related to the level of the other nutrients, and is difficult to quantify but it is very easy to see when the tank is below this level. The tank expresses itself as being below this minimum required level by exhibiting an outbreak of GSA. If there is a balance to speak of it is the balance between growth rate and nutrient levels. More nutrients mean more growth.

It also appears from your post that you have something against maintaining a eutrophic tank. In fact eutrophic aquatic environments are among the most productive water systems on the planet. The Grand Banks, The Marianas Trench, The Hawaii Island Chain, The Humbolt Current off the Western South American Coast and others have the highest diversity of life and support the highest populations of life of any other systems. Oligotrophic systems, or nutrient poor systems on the other hand are essentially sterile and in fact, studies indicate that in Oligotrophic systems more than 50% of the biomass withing those systems are algae. Algal blooms associated with Eutrophication of water systems is blamed on nutrients such as NO3 and PO4 when it is more likely that the causal factors are related to increased levels of ammonia such as in the content of sewage dumping and runoff of ammonia based fertilizers.

Barr has determined that under high light the levels of ammonia required to trigger blooms are lower than can be recorded by your ammonia test kit which is calibrated to register levels of ammonia toxic to fauna which is at least an order of magnitude above what can cause algae. This is another reason I felt your article was inconsistent with EI. I noticed that you mention in some of your posts that while dosing EI you neglected to perform the 50% water changes and you got algae. You then attributed the algal bloom to nutrient buildup caused by the lower percentage water change but again, I believe this observation to be a severe case of optical illusion. The organic waste production for high biomass/high growth rate systems is tremendous. This organic waste decays. The first product of decay is ammonia which is sensed by the algal spores.

We often see beginners list their tanks specs as something like: NH4=0, NO2=0. Of course this is never true, Ammonia in a tank is never zero because it is always being produced. Ammonia is all around us, in every living system. Do you have bad breath? Well, something in your mouth is decaying and the odor is caused by ammonia production of that decay. Do you have Body Odor? Well, that's caused by the decay of perspiration which results in ammonia. Urine? Feces? A dead cow in the field? It goes without saying, those horrible smells are all caused by ammonia as the product of decay. I feel it would be more productive to emphasize this fact than to talk about "balancing nutrients" or "nutrient buildup". We may someday realize that the role of algae in the environment is to actually clean it up as we are more likely to observe algae in systems that exhibit some form of decay. Again, having formed from spore to flagellate, yes, algae will then feed on any nutrient present but the metamorphosis from spore to flagellate is more related to light energy and the presence of ammonia.

O2 levels in the tank is augmented by the "waste" products of photosynthesis, which is O2. Photosynthesis is maximized by having high levels of CO2 and nutrients. Augmentation of O2 levels helps the nitrifying bacteria by supporting their populations and allowing them to use the O2 to use in the nitrifying equation NH4->NO2->NO3.

I have never observed any difference in hair algal formation between low and high Fe levels. I can easily induce hair algae by lowering my CO2. In fact the appearance of hair algae in my tank tells me immediately that my CO2 is lower than it was yesterday. This will be due to the fact that there is higher biomass in the tank due to growth and therefore high CO2 demand, or that my CO2 cylinder is getting low or that something else in the CO2 delivery mechanism is faulty. Increasing the injection rate always cure hair algae assuming all other nutrient levels are high. I dose 2-3 ppm per week of Fe therefore I have eliminated high Fe as a possible causal factor of hair algae while having very strong correlation between low CO2 levels and hair algae. Of this there can be very little doubt.

If you get a chance, re-read my disagreement statement:



> "...The best fertilizing method so far is the Estimative Index method (by Tom Barr), where nutrients are dosed every 2-3 days instead of adding all nutrients at once giving algae chance to scavenge..."
> 
> Umm, OK I'll agree to the first half of the sentence but the second half is misguided. The whole "algae scavenging for nutrient" theme is off the mark and can subsequently lead to invalid analysis/conclusions.


As you can see, the sentence in your article talks about scavenging algae. My disagreement has absolutely nothing to do with 2-3 day dosing regimen. My disagreement has everything to do with "algae scavenging nutrients." Algae can survive with nutrient levels of over 1000 times LOWER than can any other species of plant. It is totally misguided to think that somehow we can "starve" algae out of existence. This is the fundamental flaw in thinking as we see that algae can thrive in poor nutrient environments while Macrophytes fail very easily in those environments. So if we believe that  algae "scrounge" and that we can keep nutrients away from them, this can lead to the thinking that we can starve algae unilaterally. When anyone tries this it always fails because the plant suffers before the algae does. This philosophy is even more doomed to failure as the lighting level increases.

If a newbie gets algae due to poor circulation then the obvious solution is to add more circulation. That is why you will see many of our posts here ask the newbie about what pump/filter ratings they are using and so forth. However, if pump ratings are poor the second solution is to add more nutrients/CO2 to compensate for the poor circulation. It would be a disservice to advise them to lower the nutrient levels because that actually plays into the hands of the algae.

Dusko, the reason we have algae has more to do with what is in our minds, not what is in the tank. If we are afraid of nutrients, or if we think of nutrients as some kind of noxious chemicals we will be in deep trouble. It is a physiological impossibility for plants to sustain high growth rates under high lighting without these fundamental components. We need to think of nutrients in terms of food and not in the same way we view medicine or bleach. My tank maintains 60 ppm or more NO3, probably 90 ppm or more K+, over 10 ppm PO4, and at least 2.5 ppm Fe. That's just what I am dosing, I have no idea of the nutrient content of my tap water so some of these numbers could actually be high. I don't have algae. So this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that algae are not scrounging and that there is some other mechanism at play. Why hasn't algae ravaged my tank with these high levels of nutrients?

I do mercilessly comb the tank for any dead leaves every morning, I fluff the leaves vigorously to dislodge any particles and I am paranoid about organic waste. It is this waste in a high light tank that causes us problems because of the increased ammonia production. Algae could care less about nutrient levels. I even do 70% water changes but I immediately dose like crazy after the water changes so I always have extremely high levels of nutrients, but have very low levels of ammonia producing organic waste.

This is what a Eutrophic tank looks like if you maintain low levels of organic waste and high flow rates. My advice to anyone would be to stop worrying about nutrient buildup or scrounging algae and instead worry more about keeping it clean and having high flow rates. Life will be simpler:






Cheers,


----------



## aaronnorth

I dont think there is enough time left in the day to read that - blimey Clive   


Well better get started asap


----------



## Dave Spencer

One thing this thread highlights for me is how similar circumstances can trigger a different type of algae for someone else.

Clive, you associate hair algae with CO2, yet for me it is always BBA and staghorn. If I reduce CO2 today, these two will be booking a room in my tanks by Saturday.

The other type I can induce at the drop of a hat is Spirogyra. An over vigourous trim, followed by a lazy water change regimen to compensate for this, brings on Spirogyra every time.

Just to add further credence to growing algae in nutrient deficient environments, I have grown Cladophora using sunlight and a jar containig water at a purity of 0.02mS/cm.

Dave.


----------



## Dusko

Yes I agree, maintaining good plant "diet" (regular nutrient dosing), good hygiene (WC, vacuuming, removing dead/old leaves, introducing shredders like shrimps and snails to help in nutrient recycling, clean filters), good nutrient transport (sufficient water flow/circulation, pruning overgrown plants), good Oxygen levels (sufficient surface agitation) will lead to a balanced planted aquarium Eco-system.

What I don't agree with is that one advocates Eutrophic systems as something good. Yes maybe it is good for plants but not that good for fish and crustas IME. You see I also overdose some of my tanks (low and hi lights) and tanks which don't receive extra liquid/dry nutrients only via mulm or soils don't have any fish losses. My over dosed tanks do have issues with fish deaths (mostly Dwarf Guramies and Dwarf Cichlids, but not Tetras, Barbs nor Rasboras).
I have a need to draw a line between dosing nutrients and overdosing them. Also, dosing nutrients to just a few plants and heavily planted aquarium is not the same. Dosing lots of nutrients in a tank like yours with lots of tall stem plants will do but what with the beginners which plant mostly Anubias, Java Fern, Cryptos is another thing.
*
defdac* Moderator from Barrreport.com wrote to me once;


> There are a lot of NH4-sources in planted aquariums. Sad plants and rotting leaves produce NH4 and reduces oxygen levels. Uprooting large root systems will get you a really nice high NH4-boost and low oxygen levels. Overfeeding will cause rotting food leech NH4 as the protein breaks down. Dead forgotten fish. *PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes* etc etc etc..



He wrote "PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes". Interesting!
Note; PMDD here in Sweden (he is Swedish) includes PO4.
There must be a difference between eating a balanced diet and stuffing your self to death   
I don't agree with overdosing at least not with advising newbies to do so.

Another important thing is keeping a good buffering KH levels (4KH) especially in CO2 Hi-Tech tanks, but also in Low-Tech tanks which use very soft tap water like mine. Under very low pH (fluctuating pH) FeOOH becomes soluble which can cause Thread algae problems. I like to keep as much of the Fe in the substrate (clay or soil substrates which bind nutrints well) especially because I grow mostly easy to maintain plants like Cryptos, Aponogetons, Crinums... (rosette plants are heavy root feeders). Stem plants don't have much place in my busy life    too much work.

ceg4048 I find you to be very knowledgeable (looking forward to read your posts) and I thank you for the thorough reply.

Regards, Dusko


----------



## ceg4048

Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> One thing this thread highlights for me is how similar circumstances can trigger a different type of algae for someone else.
> 
> Clive, you associate hair algae with CO2, yet for me it is always BBA and staghorn. If I reduce CO2 today, these two will be booking a room in my tanks by Saturday.
> 
> The other type I can induce at the drop of a hat is Spirogyra. An over vigourous trim, followed by a lazy water change regimen to compensate for this, brings on Spirogyra every time.
> 
> Just to add further credence to growing algae in nutrient deficient environments, I have grown Cladophora using sunlight and a jar containig water at a purity of 0.02mS/cm.
> 
> Dave.


Hi Dave,
           Yeah this is still a mystery to me and it wouldn't surprise me if there is another layer of variability based on the type of plant (how that plant is able to respond to nutrient shortages), the lighting conditions and as well as the nutrient composition and other environmental conditions in the tank. The specific type of algae that is triggered could easily be a combination of these factors. I've never seen Spyrogyra, yet in my tanks the very first indication of even the slightest CO2 shortage is reflected in Hair. If I don't pay attention and allow the CO2 levels to drop further then Staghorn appears. If I were to allow even further drops in the CO2 I would then see BBA. This is a slow pattern of CO2 deficiency. If there were to be a sudden CO2 cutoff then the pattern would change. So I suspect there is another nuance, and that may be a difference between acute deficiency (a sudden drop in nutrient level) versus a chronic deficiency (a longer term steady state drop). 

Just like your experiments with the jar I've put RO water in jars out in the sunlight and very easily was able to grow green water and other types. It's undeniable evidence that the single most important factor is light. Algae are opportunists and will take whatever they can find. If anything it's the plants that inevitably are scrounging for nutrients and they are much less adept at it...



			
				Dusko said:
			
		

> What I don't agree with is that one advocates Eutrophic systems as something good. Yes maybe it is good for plants but not that good for fish and crustas IME. You see I also overdose some of my tanks (low and hi lights) and tanks which don't receive extra liquid/dry nutrients only via mulm or soils don't have any fish losses. My over dosed tanks do have issues with fish deaths (mostly Dwarf Guramies and Dwarf Cichlids, but not Tetras, Barbs nor Rasboras)


Well, I have bred and raised consecutive generations of A. caucatoides in an overdosed Eutrophic tank. These fish lived for several years in that tank. Now admittedly this is probably one of the easiest of dwarf chiclids so this is not that big of an achievement but it does indicate that inorganically dosed nutrients have little effect on fauna. I mean, how can you be so certain that the fish deaths were a result of these inorganic salts without having an autopsy? Why would you automatically attribute the deaths to nutrients and not to disease or even CO2 (if this occurred in an injected tank)? That would be implying that there are less unexpected fish losses in non-water column dosed tanks around the world.

Of course, there are practical limitations when breeding and rearing these sensitive species. But their sensitivity has more to do with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), not necessarily with nutrient cation/anion component. TDS needs to be low for breeding and may need to be "lowish" for peak health so adding our dosing salts/liquids raises these TDS levels - but it wouldn't matter if the TDS was raised by nutrients or by simple carbonates.



			
				Dusko said:
			
		

> I have a need to draw a line between dosing nutrients and overdosing them. Also, dosing nutrients to just a few plants and heavily planted aquarium is not the same. Dosing lots of nutrients in a tank like yours with lots of tall stem plants will do but what with the beginners which plant mostly Anubias, Java Fern, Cryptos is another thing.


Well, again this is a personal preference and many hobbyists elect to control the nutrient levels. Many like yourself produce excellent results. No argument there. What I am saying though is that I would advise to a beginner to avoid becoming mesmerized by the method of control. It doesn't matter if you overdose but it does matter if you underdose. Folks who fail with Anubias (and other slow growers) more times than not fail because of other factors like excessive light or poor maintenance. For example check George's Harlequins Heaven shown in this thread:=> Aquascaping discussion - fast, slow and styles in which it is demonstrated that by controlling the light Anubias can be used successfully.  I don't believe George overdosed this tank but I'm almost certain it is an EI dosed tank using liquid TPN+. What is clear is that he wasn't worried at all about dosing too much because he paid attention to all of the other procedures of plant husbandry such as flow, CO2, maintenance, etc. A beginner might fail at this but not just because of dosing but due to neglect and inattention to these other important factors.

I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion that defdac's comment regarding "PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes" is absurd. defdac produces excellent results and he is highly regarded, but the results of my testing and the growth seen in my tanks and others who dose EI/PMDD clearly disproves this statement. That filter bacteria are somehow intoxicated by high levels of PO4 and NO3 is inconceivable, I mean bleach, Hydrogen Peroxide? Yes - PO4? No. :? 

One more thing - There is no evidence on Planet Earth that overfeeding a plant ever results in it's stuffing to death. Plants want to rule the world and overfeeding plants only ever results in overgrowth, never stuffing to death. And this is what we see in our tanks. On the other hand I see lots of example of starving plants every day...  

Cheers mate,


----------



## defdac

> I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion that defdac's comment regarding "PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes" is absurd. defdac produces excellent results and he is highly regarded, but the results of my testing and the growth seen in my tanks and others who dose EI/PMDD clearly disproves this statement. That filter bacteria are somehow intoxicated by high levels of PO4 and NO3 is inconceivable, I mean bleach, Hydrogen Peroxide? Yes - PO4? No.


You guys in the UK seems to have gotten to the point of EI-revolution I was in about six years ago. 

I have since then learnt a few tricks because EI makes experimentation with rather exakt levels so easy. I use PMDD, so I use NO3 and PO4. The plants need them and six years ago I could easy see the difference in better plant health dosing them. Not to mention growth rates. Thumbs up. I dosed a weekly dose each day and every thing was cool.

I hope you all understand that I if anyone knows that you really can't overdose nutrients in planted tanks regarding plant health. So let's lay all that aside and come to the point with "PMDD-toxicated filters".

This is what I wrote to Dusko at the swedish forum http://www.plantswap.se. First his question:



> BTW, what did you mean by PMDD-toxicated biological filters will kill bacteria causing NH4 to spike??



It has nothing to do with NO3 or PO4 as ceg4048 and you seems to think. 

It has do with chelate denature because of high pH which causes the iron to precipitate inside the filter and/or on the substrate. As the kelates breaks the iron also might be more prone to bind with PO4, but as I said when I dissolved the rust with acid neither the NO3 nor the PO4-test did show anything. The iron test did spike though. 

In Sweden we often have somewhat wierd tap water: It has over pH 8 with a very low KH. Shake the pH 8/KH 2 water in a bottle and it reaches less than pH 7 in matter of seconds. 

By the time I had the rust precipitation I used "NutriSi" or "CSM+B". It mostly consists of EDTA that is unstable above pH 7. I also did water changes where I had two hoses and let the water change go for hours. The tank had over pH 8 when I was finished, and then I dosed the EDTA-based micro. It probably denatured and ended up as rust in the filter. 

And there you have a PMDD-toxicated biological filter. 

A dead or unstable filter without microbial activity and without exoenzymes breaking down POC and DOC might work fine as long as the plants are happy. You will have no second line of defense against NH4 if the plants for some reason will not take in anymore NH4. What happens if the plants don't get any iron because it ends up as rust in the filter and you have a dead inert gravel substrate that can't mineralize the rust? 

You might argue that bacteria and ecology is not important in planted tanks with EI-dosing, but as I have found out through years of EI-experimentation it sure helps. A lot. A nice working ecology in the filter and substrate will make the life of an aquascaper so much easier. 

Add som shredders ontop of a healthy filter and substrate (snails, shrimps, corys) and you will have one stable planted tank. 

Kill them (shredders, bacteria and microorganisms) with prolonged PMDD overdoses and you will for sure get NH4, low oxygen and.. algae.


----------



## defdac

This is how the PMDD-toxicated filter media looks like. As you can see it's not the usual brownish color. It's really deep rust red. Inside the orange bucket you can see the acid-treated Ehifimech/substrate and Biomax - their normal white color:


----------



## defdac

I forgot to mention. There was a really super easy way to circumvent the precipitation/denaturing of the chelates: Dose the next day after the wc when CO2 and circulation have worked it down to around 6.5...


----------



## Mark Evans

i checked out your blog and tank pics defdac. amazing scape

mark


----------



## ceg4048

defdac said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with NO3 or PO4 as ceg4048 and you seems to think.
> 
> It has do with chelate denature because of high pH which causes the iron to precipitate inside the filter and/or on the substrate. As the kelates breaks the iron also might be more prone to bind with PO4, but as I said when I dissolved the rust with acid neither the NO3 nor the PO4-test did show anything. The iron test did spike though.


Hi defdac,
                OK, now it's clear what you meant. I couldn't imagine that bacterial failure in the filter would have anything to do with macronutrients and this was what I was saying to Dusko, who evidently misinterpreted your statement as he presented it to me. I was beginning to think "wow there must be something special in that soft Swedish drinking water if these guys think that" 

I second saintly's comments - thrilling scape mate. 8) 

Cheers,


----------



## LondonDragon

Welcome aboard defdac, nice great debate here, loved reading the last posts on this thread 
defdac those scapes are great


----------



## Dusko

> Exactly, you should have asked that first perhaps =)
> 
> It has nothing to do with NO3 or PO4 as ceg4048 and you seems to think.



  No disrespect but PMDD includes so many nutrients   
I was 100% sure you referred to actual PMDD (all nutrients) over dose which might lead to toxicated biological filter. My bad! 
Maybe stating FeOOH-toxicated biological filters might avoid such misinterpretation in the future   

Any who, I did learn something new again so I thank you a lot!
I didn't know FeOOH can create such wreck in the filters. I knew it can form rust on the substrate surface but not in the filter.

I am a lot for dosing nutrients and always advise on the net or in the Zoo Shop I work in "Do not reduce nutrients, Dose them".
My planted aquarium customers don't have much if any algae issues thanks to my favorite product Tropica Plant Nutrition+ N&P which they all use.

I do have respect for people's experience and if your experience sais that nutrient over-dose can't hurt fish nor shrimps I will believe you and test for my self of course. I can't help but be concerned for the living creatures we all keep in our planted gardens    



> In Sweden we often have somewhat wierd tap water: It has over pH 8 with a very low KH. Shake the pH 8/KH 2 water in a bottle and it reaches less than pH 7 in matter of seconds.



I didn't know you can lower the tap water's pH in this fashion   another useful thing to know. Thanks a bunch defdac!

One more thing defdac; I can't find that thread over at plantswap.se (so I can't quote) where I said that it is good to dose more PO4 to minimise GSA. If I remember right (I might be wrong though) you said something that overdosing with PO4 might cause wrinkled leaves or weird looking leaves. (this is in context of overdosing vs. normal nutrient dosage EI)
Can you give us some info on this please? Thanks.

NOTE; I will post this reply on both forums ukaps.org and plantswap.se

Regards, Dusko


----------



## defdac

It seems the PO4-overdosing causing curly leaves (calcium deficiency symptoms) was actually NO3-overdosing, and it only seems to affect tanks with really low KH - even if you have really high calcium content (GH). Bluesboy.se have seen this also and kekon on plantedtank.net. Actually it was kekons experimentation that showed it probably was NO3, and not PO4 nor calcium. 

It seems to be mostly very "woody" plants like some Ludwigias and Althernanthera reineckii that is sensitive to NO3 above 10 ppm.

So ok. You actually can overdose PMDD (NO3 in this case) with respect to plant health, but it's under quite unique conditions and very few plants so I would like to round that off to say "you can't overdose PMDD regarding plant health".

But if you get curly leaves on L. glandulosa, L. arcuata and A. reineckii despite having good Ca-levels and you also have low KH, try lowering the NO3/KNO3-dosage to max 10 ppm between wc:s and check the response...


----------



## defdac

Oh and thanks for the nice words about my scapes. I thrive on such response, it really makes my day =)


----------



## aaronnorth

some great info there, thanks.


----------



## Dusko

OK time for an update all   
I edited my algae article and now it looks like this;
http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/

I didn't edit anything under the individual algae description but will come to that also.
So what say you?

Kind regards, Dusko


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Dusko,
              Yes it certainly appears now to be consistent with the Barr principles as well as with our collective experience. You might get a lot of mail from the Phosphate haters now though...  

Cheers,


----------



## Dusko

> You might get a lot of mail from the Phosphate haters now though..



  let them come   

I am definitely for dosing PO4. I have a few tanks where I dose Tropica Plant Nutrition+ and IMO it contains very little P (from tropicas declaration). When I dose TPN+ I also add a bit of KH2PO4 to spice things up 
I wrote about TPN+ not containing enough of P on Barrreport once.

Thanks!

Regards, Dusko


----------



## Lisa_Perry75

Very good scientific debate. Very interesting.

Ceg I am slightly sceptical about the point you made, that urine, faeces and dead bodies smell is ammonia based. Mammalian urine is urea based, as that is how we excrete our nitrogenous waste. The others I am not sure, but I do not believe them to be caused by ammonia. Could you expand upon this please? (I know it may not be of key importance to planted tanks).


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Lisa :!: 
          Nice to hear from you again. Hope you've been keeping well love.  

Urea is not constructed of ammonia. It merely degrades into ammonia by the action of the enzyme Urease. It's actually very important and relevant to planted tanks.

CO(NH2)2 + H2O => H2NCOONH4 => 2NH3 + CO2 

H2NCOONH4 (Ammonium Carbamate) is an unstable intermediate product that rapidly degrades to Ammonia and Carbon dioxide. Typically, because of the extreme rapidity of the reaction, the transformation of urea is normally written without Carbamate intermediate:

CO(NH2)2 + H2O => 2NH3 + CO2 

Similar transformations occur with the death any organic matter. The intermediates of decay may be different in each case. 

Sweat glands, for example cover most of the skin. They're especially dense on the forehead, face, palms, soles and armpits, and they secrete a slightly acidic, very dilute solutions of inorganic ions, mostly sodium, potassium, and chloride, as well as organic material such as lactic acid (CH3-CHOH-CO2H), some urea (CO(NH2)2) and glucose. The foul smell of body odor is due not only to the urea transformation to ammonia, but as well to secretions of the apocrine glands. The secretions themselves aren't foul but the bacteria that feed upon them degrade the contents of the apocrine fluids into foul-smelling products.

Microbiological decay of animal and plant protein, which are nitrogen based organic compounds, immediately results in ammonia. If you look at the construction of the amino acids that proteins are made up of, many have an NH2 subunit, which, during decay is easily turned into NH3. Many of the Amino Acids in plants are actually synthesized by adding NH3 to some organic acid. So the transformation from protein to NH3 is easy, and is an essential component of decay. The abundance of ammonia in combination of orther byproducts of decay causes the foul smells associated with decay at all levels, animal vegetable as well as microbial.

This is why it is so important from an algae standpoint to remove organic waste from a high light tank. Detritus, dead fish, proteins and even the sugars and other carbohydrates immediately attract the microbial decay which result in an increase in ammonia production. The ammonia production spike is one of the triggers, along with light energy used by algal spores.

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

Simply cleaning the filters and improved flow can help in 2 different respects(CO2 and waste/Urea, NH4, as well as O2 demand by bacteria vs fish use).

Dusko tries and upodates the blog as new issues come and new issues are resolved.
 He will never have the perfect solution, no one ever will will.
But as time moved forward, we get closer and closer, better and better.

That is how these things work.

I've been wrong and made some assumptions about light and CO2, later questioning them again. then finding better test methods that can answer such questions........or simply using N and P in sediments again, or going back to older methods like non CO2 I use to do decades ago..............Looking back and changing things, adding to them, at least things that make sense and logic, and abandoning those that lack merit is not part of an ego thing.......... it's about the pursuit of knowledge, the idea, the results.

I edit and hone what I write, am careful what and how I say things.

Still, Dusko's blog is one of the best out there.
I ain't got time to try and fry that one, but will at some point if I ever have enough time.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

The PMDD is a Fe preciptation event from hard water, bad chelator for the Kh of the tap etc...............
This can build up plaques on surfaces. We see this in wetland soils.

when this becomes covered, it reduces the surface area of the media and that can cause issues, also, when it sloughes off, or if you acidify the water, and it suddenly releases a large amount of Fe, this may cause issues.

This is sort of a rare situation I would think, I've never had it become an issue and it would also apply to flourite and Onyx sand sediments, anything with Fe...........

But there are  Fe and Mn cycling that could cause it.......I've never seen it in any aquarium where it causes any issues however. But it might for some folks..........

As far as Nh4 and inducing algae.........well, it did for Green water really well, but this was also with high light(4w/gal on a 20Gal tank). CO2 was also a factor, if I reduced CO2 down suddenly, I could reinduce it after it had been removed via UV.

Otherwise with good CO2, a UV treatment for 3-4 days, it would not come back unless I added NH4CL.

Urea and jobes sticks should do a similar effect. I added 2ppm of NH4 and one full jobes stick in each test, same response. There where no fish(high NH4= dead fish). Gw is a common issue in new tanks and where the aquarist does fish less cycling. 

CO2 is a factor as well as higher light intensity. Low light tanks may not get any response. The micmols where about 320 at the surface, quite high. This plays a role, as well as CO2, not just one factor.

There is no one thing that really solves all the issues. But starting with light= CO2 demand and finally nutrient demand, we can get a better more global view, still.............this does not address things like cleaning trhe filter, water changes, trimming/gardening care, something overlooked ...........

This is where folks helping one another to solve things and rule things out one at a time, knowing what to look for and helping the new people comes in. No article or method is going to replace that kind of interactive help. Suppose if the school and teaching was done that way?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

BTW, I have been dosing two tanks at 2:1 NO3 to PO4 ratio for the last 6 months. Great results.

2:1, yep...........

1 teaspoon of KNO3 = 1/2 teaspoon of KH2PO4.

Why not? See what happens. Nothing, plants are growing like mad, healthy Tonia, L pantanal etc.

So I decided to monkey with it, never happy with CO2 and always messing around after getting it to where I think I know that tank and CO2 method, I'll start something new.............

Switched from mazzei to disc................got BBA and a couple of other predictable algae. Tonia did poorly, so did many species. After tweaking and keeping them clean, no algae.However, the nutrients remained the same in each case.

I only changed the CO2.

Now I adjusted the light down, and stop using the HQI's on 3(other) tanks.
Less issues, excellent color and growth etc.

Nutrients can be all over the place, this baloney about ratios being important in any context outside of limiting/limitations is exactly just that, baloney. Actually it is worse, it's Spam  

I've run tanks in the past as did a few others running PO4 lean systems, we pulsed PO4 at 0.2ppm added 2x a week(it was gone in a few hours), plant growth was excellent also, NO3 was in the 10-15ppm range.

So this is a massive difference and fairly similar results based on ratios.
Bloom and Epstein are the two foremost mineral nutrition Plant Scientist, Bloom is here at Uc Davis, likely will give me my qualifying exam, he does not fall for it either and suggest it's not a large issue for plants, they will make do with a massive range of ratios. Experimental and observations alone tell you this, but if you are locked in your little world and think otherwise, then you might end up believing what you think, rather than what really makes sense.

Many get in that trap and do not compare, or try other methods, see/make sure if they did not over look something etc, often having dependent variables not included. If you cannot produce a nice well run aquarium and manipulate it and make sure everything else is independent, you cannot test anything.

You can say your tank is nice etc, but you cannot say much else.

Many try..........however.

Well it's 42C right now and I'm off for a MT bike ride along a nice Snow fed river to cool off and likely freeze the cojones off.

BTW, I have the wood sorted, I'll ship 2 boxes here shortly. I'll follow with 2 more later, maybe the next weekend.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## keymaker

plantbrain said:
			
		

> BTW, I have been dosing two tanks at 2:1 NO3 to PO4 ratio for the last 6 months. Great results.
> 
> 2:1, yep...........
> 
> 1 teaspoon of KNO3 = 1/2 teaspoon of KH2PO4.
> 
> Why not? See what happens. Nothing, plants are growing like mad, healthy Tonia, L pantanal etc.



Funny you shoud say that. I have been dosing decent quantitites of PO4 before, the level was 5-7ppm in the tank. Now I decreased the levels to around 3 and some green spot algae appeared immediately. I would say that based on my experience I would readily move the upper limit of the EI range for PO4 to 5.


----------



## Lisa_Perry75

Hi Ceg  keeping ok thanks. Nose in Biochemistry books 



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Urea is not constructed of ammonia



I knew this. Mammals break down proteins, and their amino acids, in the form of urea. Birds in the form of uric acid, (which is why it degrades paint work) and fish as ammonia. I've also heard of urease, but I hadn't heard of urea being broken down to ammonia on the skin. Is this something the bacteria do or the human?

I am still going to disagree that ammonia is the cause of the smell of sweat/decaying things.
Number one - one of the main components of protein breakdown is cadaverine. This contains two amine (ammonia) groups but has a hydrocarbon linker. This is partly responsible for the smell of bacteria breakdown products.
Number two - another main cause of smell is sulphur containing compounds, also a protein degradation product.
I think the smell is more to do with bacteria breakdown product such as those mentioned than above.

If you disagree or find faults in this please feel free to say so, that is what science is all about. That and managing not to get to fisticuffs about these things   

Thanks Ceg, always a pleasure...
-x-

PS I know this is off-topic, sorry, but its really interesting (to me)


----------



## Brenmuk

So to sum up ammonia is the cause of smelly algae infested tanks and smelly armpits!
That evil ammonia


----------



## a1Matt

keymaker said:
			
		

> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I have been dosing two tanks at 2:1 NO3 to PO4 ratio for the last 6 months. Great results.
> 
> 2:1, yep...........
> 
> 1 teaspoon of KNO3 = 1/2 teaspoon of KH2PO4.
> 
> Why not? See what happens. Nothing, plants are growing like mad, healthy Tonia, L pantanal etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you shoud say that. I have been dosing decent quantitites of PO4 before, the level was 5-7ppm in the tank. Now I decreased the levels to around 3 and some green spot algae appeared immediately. I would say that based on my experience I would readily move the upper limit of the EI range for PO4 to 5.
Click to expand...


I also dose at around 2:1 NO3 to PO4. Works well for me


----------



## donnaturner

Thank you for your wonderful information this are really Useful..


----------



## diloosh

Ya  this  is  useful  information ...............................


----------



## Edvet

Just tried to open the link mentioned in the OP, domain for sale.................


----------



## Dusko

Hi Edvert, I think I have fixed the issue. For some reason one of the apps on the page hijacked my page. By changing the template the issue disappeared ... and that app disappeared too  will have to change template on all the pages though.

Just to add;
I am not having any tanks anymore. I have entirely changed my life style and have moved away from busy city life into the country side where I  have an organic farm; keeping chicks, ducks and bees  I will keep the blog up though because it gets many visits and is a result of much observation, testing, spending money, hours of forum discussions, dead fish (those who where overdosed with CO2), my wife's patience and lack of home space because of all my tanks, etc ...


----------



## Edvet

Thx for all the good work, Sounds like an ideal place for an large lowtech shallow tank, ala Tom and Alastair, litle maintanance (or non even if you do it Tom selfsustaining style) en still nice views! Easy to come by all kind of living food even


----------



## Glenda Steel

I apologise for this rather basic question, but is there an article about removing simple green algae from the tank sealant and along the glass at substrate level?  My tank is in a rather bad way due to me using a sponge guard on the airline "vacuum" to avoid the new shrimplets and fry, the result is terrible debris build up with resulting algae/snail explosion.  The fish (Danio erythromicron) are so frightened of people that they will not come out from behind the plants when the food is put in the tank.  Combined with the Fluval Edge's filter sending it directly to the front floor of the tank I think a lot is going uneaten.  I use the Hikari micro pellets which do float a little longer than others I've tried.
I had also let the plants overtake the tank which is why I hadn't noticed the algae on build up on the back glass. I am now doing a water change every other day as well as slowly removing overgrown damaged plants. I use a magnetic glass cleaner due to the design of the Fluval Edge but am worried about disturbing the substrate as I have taken advice that gasses may be released. Lastly, if measures to "balance" an "unbalanced" tank are taken (CO2, nutrients, light etc) will the remaining algae on the foliage disappear?  I am a beginner aquarium-ist and always hated science at school (sorry!) so simple answers needed please!!! I am considering liquid carbon but have shrimp/Vallisneria

Tank specifications - Fluval Edge: 43 x 26 x 59.4 cms  46 litres 12 US gal.
Lighting - 42 high output LEDS 76000 k - Daily: morning 1 1/2 hours - evening: 4 hours.
CO2 - None.
Filtration - Edge clip on power filter/LPH rating?
Fertilisation routine - 1ml of Tropica Premium daily
Heating: E series Fluval heater
Normal weekly maintenance: 40% water change, vacuum substrate with airline tube, clean glass with magnetic "scrubby" thing, prune out dead/dying leaves, rinse/change filter media regularly (not all media together).  I keep the filter running (heater turned off) whilst performing the maintenance on the plants and glass/ substrate.  Filter is off for no longer that 5 minutes.

Plants:
Cryptocoryne beckettii
Cryptocoryne undalatus kasselman
Vallisneria (not sure which one)
Annubias barteri nana bonsai x 2 attached to the wood
cypress helfri
Microsorum pteropus narrow

Livestock:
5 x Danio erythromicron
20? x red cherry shrimp
6 x amano shrimp


----------



## ian_m

I remove algae at substrate level using a bit of filter floss, making sure I don't pick up any sand or gravel to scratch the glass.

As for removing from silicone, soak an area on a bit of kitchen towel in liquid carbon (or bleach or H2O2) and slide into the tank along the silicone. Can be done without lowering the water. Move slowly along the silicone pressing hard. Slowly remove. The BBA in my case went green'ish (using bleach) then white and was scoffed by the fish. Change water after doing this. Fish & plants didn't seem to mind though BBA algae was mightily pee'd off....


----------



## Glenda Steel

ian_m said:


> soak an area on a bit of kitchen towel in liquid carbon (or bleach


 Bleach really won't hurt the fish/shrimp?!!!!  


ian_m said:


> I remove algae at substrate level using a bit of filter floss


Great thanks Ian, is it ok to move the sand/gravel back a little to do this?


----------



## Glenda Steel

Dusko said:


> I edited my algae article and now it looks like this;
> http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/


Having just re-read Dusko's helpful article which states... "One should never allow them to grow to the surface. When this happen gas exchange becomes limited and low Oxygen levels might occur causing various issues e.g. algae, surface film, NH4/NO2 accumulation, stressed fish, etc...", could the Vallis in our tank which has now grown exceptionally well and now the leaves are up across the top of the Fluval Edge glass (for those not familiar it's basically a glass box with a small central hole!) be adding to the algae problem?  Should I totally remove the Vallis rather than pruning (it never looks great I've tried!) and perhaps replace with something like Ceratophyllum demersum and would that allow me to add liquid carbon?


----------



## ian_m

Glenda Steel said:


> Great thanks Ian, is it ok to move the sand/gravel back a little to do this?


I used to use a credit card stuck to a plastic stick to push the gravel/sand out the way before wiping with filter floss. Since my sick broke, just wipe/scrape carefully with filter floss.

I use filter floss, as a large sheet for pond use cost me £2, I use it in my Juwel internal filter as well. When it gets dirty tank cleaning I just throw it away.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Glenda Steel said:


> One should never allow them to grow to the surface. When this happen gas exchange becomes limited and low Oxygen levels might occur causing various issues e.g. algae, surface film, NH4/NO2 accumulation, stressed fish, etc..."


I wouldn't worry, as long as you have water movement then gas exchange shouldn't be a problem. If you cover the entire whole surface with a flat floating plant you might reduce oxygen exchange, but I can't see that the leaves of _Vallisneria_ would.

cheers Darrel


----------



## SandstoneSturgeon

This article and the subsequent thread has been THE single most helpful source of info I've found.  I'm a low tech/Walstad fan and want to know if the same principles of water changes and dosing apply for my three tanks.  I change monthly but have noticed brown algea and hair algea creeping into the: picture.  Plant growth has all but stopped. Can I resume weekly 50% WC and dose with sea hem flourish?  I know Walstad tanks are not supposed to need this, but I just don't have success without water changes. 

Sent from my Huawei-U8687 using Tapatalk


----------



## SandstoneSturgeon

SandstoneSturgeon said:


> This article and the subsequent thread has been THE single most helpful source of info I've found.  I'm a low tech/Walstad fan and want to know if the same principles of water changes and dosing apply for my three tanks.  I change monthly but have noticed brown algea and hair algea creeping into the: picture.  Plant growth has all but stopped. Can I resume weekly 50% WC and dose with sea hem flourish?  I know Walstad tanks are not supposed to need this, but I just don't have success without water changes.
> 
> Sent from my Huawei-U8687 using Tapatalk


*seachem*

Sent from my Huawei-U8687 using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





SandstoneSturgeon said:


> I'm a low tech/Walstad fan and want to know if the same principles of water changes and dosing apply for my three tanks. I change monthly but have noticed brown algea and hair algea creeping into the: picture. Plant growth has all but stopped.


Yes, change more water. I'm <"a great Diana Walstad fan">, but I like some water flow (mainly for improved gas exchange) and <"regular water changes">.  





SandstoneSturgeon said:


> and dose with sea hem flourish? I know Walstad tanks are not supposed to need this, but I just don't have success without water changes.


I would go with a complete fertiliser, rather than "Seachem Flourish". Plants need about x10 more nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) than they do phosphorus (P), and  more P than any of the other nutrients. 

You can either dose 1/10 EI, or you can use the <"Duckweed Index">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

I went to a local fish shop the weekend. Like Darrel sometimes says, it was growing gorilla fur from the substrate..very little lighting if any, high bioload, many sick fish...BBA everywhere.

What I also find interesting about BBA is that you can move a completely infested plant to a non-BBA tank and in a week no BBA is left on the plant. It magically falls off like it was never there. 

I think that whatever increases the bioload, unhealthy plants or too many fish, or dirty substrate, etc.. is the trigger and whatever balances that bioload out is the solution, which can be getting the plants healthy, adding more plants, feeding less, remove fish, clean up more, etc..


----------



## Tom Michael

Yes - however only on anubias, any other softer leaf plants you run the risk of damaging the leaf, which if so I would suggest immediate removal as if it rots in the water this will only contribute to the problem


----------



## Hughesy124

Hi there im new to this! Are inline uvs worthing purchasing to help or not ? 

Thanks


----------

