# Persistent old leaf problems.



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

Hi all,

I have been having a long standing problem with brown edges/BBA on only OLD leaves in my tank. I have read a huge number of posts regarding the subject, but still cant seem to get to the root of the problem.

Tank Specs:

1) 128L tank (capacity without substrate etc)
2) 2 x 54W arcadia luminaire
3) ADA Powersand special + Amazonia 2.
4) Lighting period 6hrs.
5) C02 injection, FE method, UP atomizer 3 hours before lights on, 2 hours before lights off. Drop checker is emerald at lights on, very light green 2 hrs into lighting period.
6) Filter turnover >10x
7) Spraybar configuration, bubbles can clearly be seen in all areas
8) Dosing EI (currently at 1.5x) using Calculator on James planted tank.

Before going into the details of the problem, I want to be clear as to my approach, over the past 4-months, I have tried a number of different things, all done in isolation (1 variable at a time) and leaving for 3-4 weeks before re-assesing.

Symptoms:

1) New growth is healthy and quick
2) Older growth begins to get brown edges
3) If left brown edges form BBA, leaving me with bare stems and a healthy tip.
4) Old leaf tips also tend to have damage after a while, across multiple plant types (mainly reneickii pink, and zostefolia)
5) Reneickii Pink does not get brown edges (that i can see) but does have BBA form on the older leaves
6) Bacopa australis in central location with good flow around it has curled up leaves on all growth( may be same root cause?)

That is the main symptoms, now the things I have tried:

1) Increased dosing from Standard EI, now at 1.5X EI
2) Single and Multiple Powerheads, in many orientations, the result of which was BBA in high flow areas. ( The distance from the back to the front of the tank is quite short, which meant the flow was extremely quick, and also caused a horizontal motion when contacting the glass causing disruptions in the flow...)Currently just the spraybar, which gives me a good flow around almost all areas of the tank, when viewed from the side there is flow front to back across the bottom of the rear stem plants
3)Reducing lighting period from 8hrs to 6hrs.
4) Adjusting the c02 injection rate, to max (for fish), also attempted lime green throughout (emerald at lights on).
5) Addition of magnesium to macro dosing.
6) Addition of Iron to Micro dosing.
7) confirmed even distribution of flow with drop checker moved to multiple locations and monitored for a few days at each point.

At this point I am now stuck. After reviewing many, many posts on algae, C02 and dosing, I have found only one other post with the same symptoms, (looking at the photos) unfortunately this never really got answered completely, and the final point suggested it was diatoms of some kind. I am not sure if diatoms would trigger BBA at the same location?

So in summary, I have reduced my lighting, increased my C02, achieved what I am pretty confident is good flow, (this is where I have spent the majority of my time, leading to severe cross eyes trying to follow the damn bubbles around. and am now dosing 1.5x EI with Additional magnesium, and a very small amount of extra iron. With no improvement. Now I am sure it has something to with one of those three, but what am I missing here?!  

Apologies for the long post, I just wanted to give as clear a picture as possible, and pre-empt the more obvious things to try, (I have tried sooo many different things).

Hope someone can shed some light on this...

Chris


----------



## Ady34 (5 Mar 2012)

Hi,
2 x 54w over 128l seems quite high to me. With higher light comes more demand for c02. I noticed you reduced your photoperiod but have you tried reducing the intensity, maybe to one tube for a while? (or raising the luminaire, glass covers, fine mesh or floating plants) Maybe with the higher light intensity the plants arnt getting enough c02 even with lime green/yellow dc and cant 'beat' the algae. Basically the high lighting is putting more demands on the plants for c02 which arnt being met = algae wins.
Someone more senior may want to elaborate, or shoot my theory down.
Just a thought.
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## Ady34 (5 Mar 2012)

Also as an afterthought, add liquid carbon as a boost to c02 demands, also will act as an algaecide!


----------



## GHNelson (5 Mar 2012)

Hi CrispyCod
Whats your water change regime.
hoggie


----------



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

Hi Ady,

Yes I understand what you are saying, reducing the light would reduce the demand for C02, and nutrients etc. However the problem existed before I changed the lighting from 78W to 108W to reach areas of the tank. (I am aware of this not being the best idea for the algae issue, hence reducing the lighting period)

However running a tank at this light intensity is far from impossible (a large number of people do have great success like this) IF you meet the demand levels required, and I would rather treat the cause of the problems, (light isn't strictly the cause in this case, you suggest  that lack of sufficient C02 for this light intensity is the cause, so increasing should address it).

However the symptoms of my tank do not seem to reflect this, I do not have new growth problems, or melting of any kind. And the problem appears only on old leaves, I had thought this was due to a nutrient problem (lack of a mobile nutrient) hence adjusting potassium, adding magnesium, and upping the trace at seperate times... but no luck so far on that tack.

I had also understood from the C02 article on here that C02 demand under VERY high light conditions was no greater than approx 30ppm, seen as a lime green drop checker, so assuming that my flow is good  (a big assumption I know) I should have sufficient levels of C02 in the tank. also the problem does not only appear in some areas, but ALL, which does support your theory, but with the drop checker showing lime green, it suggests enough C02 somewhere in the tank, so back to square 1. I have also tried with massive levels of C02 (into the yellow at lights on, and very yellow at lights off, with no noticeable change in the symptoms observed).

Some of the plants do grow very quickly (zostefolia) and this reaches the surface every week. Could this be 'hogging' the available C02, thus creating the lack of C02 you suggested above?

any ideas on the curly leafed Bacopa?

Also I forgot to mention that most of the plants do seem to pearl on a daily basis, 2-3 hours into the photoperiod, if that helps at all!

just saw your second post, yes I have been dosing easy carbo, as an algaecide, but my Vallis seemed to melt after using it regularly. 

I have worked very hard on the C02 side of things, and my feeling is that there is something wrong with my dosing..but please feel free to correct me, I fully expect Ceg to give me a rollicking, but I have tried my best to take his excellent advice, I swear!

Cheers all,

Chris


----------



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

Hi Hoggie,

50% water change, weekly, up until the last 2 weeks, where I have been changing as frequently as possible (every other day as a minimum, and at least 30-40%), also constant pruning to remove affected leaves, such that I now have a very sorry set of plants, with lovely new leaves, and long bare stems!

dosing is the standard Mon,Wed, Fri Macro, Tue, Thurs, Micro, 2 days rest.

I have just this week (end of three week testing period since last parameter change) upped dosing to 2x EI...

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## GHNelson (5 Mar 2012)

Hi CrispyCod
You've got me stumped....can you post a picture?
Can you check your fertilizing regime with the fliudsensor calculator
 :arrow: http://blog.fluidsensoronline.com/calcu ... ive-index/
Cheers
hoggie


----------



## Ady34 (5 Mar 2012)

Hi again,
you seem to be crossing the t's and dotting the i's, so im stumped too!
Mind you, 78w over 128l is still quite high in itself.
Hopefully someone could shed some light on this.
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## Ady34 (5 Mar 2012)

Also if your plants are growing that much in a week it could be down to fluctuating c02 due to flow/distribution issues with the increased plant mass... but again i dont know to what degree we are talking regarding this as a possible reason. You do seem to have plenty of circulation.
Maybe the plants are putting all their energy into new growth.
How serious an issue is this, as hoggie said a photo may help?
If your anything like me the tiniest bit of algae freaks me out!
Cheerio again,
Ady.


----------



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

Hi Hoggie,

As you suggested I have checked the calculations with Fluid Sensor, I have compared this dosing to mine and it matches closely if I dosed at standard EI.

I am Currently at EI x 2 (ish):

Dissolved in 500ml water, dosing 40ml 3 x a week for macro

6.5 tsp Kn03 = 15ppm /nitrate added per dose, 9.5ppm Potassium per dose
2 tsp Kh2P04 = 5.9ppm Phospate added per dose, 2ppm Potassium per dose

So in a week a total of 45ppm nitrate, 36 ppm potassium, and 17.7 phospate. Which should easily be enough to ensure 'unlimited' nutrients. I also add 8tsp Magnesium, as I thought this may have been missing.

The main thing is the browning of the leaf edges, this has been consistent throughout the last 4 months. This, if left leads to the BBA. I will try and dig out the post with pics that looks identical to mine...

From my notes from almost a year ago, the best growth with minimum algae problems was TPN+ with a power head at the front top left, pointing down to front bottom right over a metre away. This goes against the accepted wisdom however, and also looked ugly at the front, I may well bite the bullet and go back to that, despite it looking like good distribution everywhere at the moment, both visually and via the drop checker

Thanks again for the responses, keep 'em coming.

Will try on the picture, may have to wait a day or two, as I stripped the bad 'uns away at waterchange yesterday. Wont take long though...  

Chris


----------



## GHNelson (5 Mar 2012)

Hi
Is this correct 2 x 54W arcadia luminaire..108 watts.
Someone mentioned 78watt.
hoggie


----------



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

Natch cant keep up, (note to self, shorter posts required).

It is quite serious, because I am unable to maintain a lush tank, and I end up with stem plants with no leaves except a couple of young ones at the top, it is constanlty in a state of algae or repair, so I cannot enjoy the tank. And also I cant stand having a problem and not knowing what is wrong, or being able to address it. This should be something that can be solved, it is just something I am missing!

My girlfriend is really into the gorgeous aquascapes seen on here and in competitions etc, and I got interested as I am an engineer, and a statistician, so it suits me down to the ground as an engineering project, ( I also like the result when it is right!)

I keep swinging between it being a nutrient problem (but how with almost 2 x EI!) and a C02 problem, but cant see how that is wrong either! Although the bubble rate is low (20 bpm) these are larger bubbles through an Calaqua counter, and the drop checker (with three different batches of reference solution!) always comes out green. 
(although six months ago I got sent the reference solution and wondered why it never changed colour!) And no, I am not using tank water before you ask...  

There must be a solution, dag nabbit.

Hoggie, in response to your last question, it used to a 78W but I had VERY dark sides on the tank, as it did not reach by a long way, so to get the lamp across most of the length, I went up to the next size luminaire, and subsequently increased wattage. This is why I immediately reduced lighting period.

Chris


----------



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

All,

Found the link to the article with similar symptoms...

http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15727

Although, for me it gets worse and leads to BBA...Is it really Diatoms?!

Chris


----------



## GHNelson (5 Mar 2012)

Hi Chris
I had a 200 litre 4 footer and Co2 but I only had 2 t8 24 watt tubes and never had much problems with algae.
hoggie


----------



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

Hoggie,

Yes I get what you are saying, reduce the light which decreases the demand.
However  It is not impossible to have a healthy tank with this level of light, it shouldnt really be too difficult if you can meet the demands...the question becomes what demand is not being met? Nutrients or C02?

To put it another way, at this point we are saying the high light causes brown edges and BBA. Which is not strictly correct. As you most certainly already know, High light drives demand for nutrients and C02, and a lack thereof will cause failure of the plants, in this case brown edges. So which am I most likely to be lacking?

Please bear in mind as well the problem with the Bacopa, which has very curled leaves, do you think that is due to high light as well?

Am I missing some trace nutrient?
Do I have an unusual interaction due to the balance of nutrients in the tank?
Am I not adding enough C02, which then affects all the plants?
Is the available C02 being 'hogged' by a particular plant?
Am I not distributing it well enough?
Is it fluctuating due to poor equipment?
Is it in fact not possible to have a healthy tank with 3WPG?

Thanks again, I will continue to trial until I resolve it, if you could let me know if you think of anything else, that would be much appreciated.


Chris


----------



## GHNelson (5 Mar 2012)

Hi Chris
Just a last note...ever though it could be some sort of fert reaction with high light resulting in burning of the edges of the leaves.
I would do a bit of deforestation and lop the tops off your stems pull the old ones out and re-plant.
Don't let them get to high in height...just a thought.
hoggie


----------



## CrispyCod (5 Mar 2012)

Hey Hoggie,

Thought of that, but it only affects the older leaves (lower down on the stem) and even the HC,so unlikely to be that.

Good idea though.

I am going to persist with the increased ferts for a few weeks and see what happens, after that I will look at the C02 rate, and as mentioned addition of easy carbo, if fish cant take it. Also look at the addition of another filter with a second spray bar to see if it is distribution related. 

If those dont fix, I will go with the lowering of light through removal of a lamp.

Cheers for the help...

If anyone else can suggest something, feel free to comment, Ceg? Tom? (who had the similar problem a while back)

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Mar 2012)

Yes,
      Reduce you light. All these problems are a result of CO2 deficiency caused by too much light. It doesn't matter if other people have success with that much light. Other people are not you, and their tanks are not this tank. For every person who has success with this much light there are a hundred who fail miserably because their problems just get worse.

Not all plants have the same ability to feed efficiently, so that under this level of stress some plants can do well and others won't. I suppose you could see which plants are doing well and fill the tank with those while discarding the rest, but that's not a very good solution either. The best way is to cater to the plants that are the least able to defend themselves.

Adding more nutrients cannot fix this problem, and it's entirely possible that you will need toxic levels of CO2 to make the problem go away.

You can also add a lot more flow and more liquid carbon, but you have to return the plants to better health first, and the best way is to reduce the light intensity first, then build the infrastructure of the tank and then add more light.

Cheers,


----------



## clonitza (7 Mar 2012)

Hi Chris,

Unfortunately for the height of your tank (~30cm) more than 1xt5 (without reflector) is overkill, sadly no article says that, all the calculations are done for volume without taking into account that height plays a bigger role, I struggled myself with the same issue (even with yellow drop checker) until I dropped one T5 and now everything's fine.

This graph explains better what I'm saying:





http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/light ... pc-25.html

Mike


----------



## CrispyCod (7 Mar 2012)

Hi,

Thanks to you both for the response. It makes more sense now due to the clarification that the height has a massive impact and that the WPG is only a guideline. Basically my actual PAR is much higher than the WPG calculation would suggest, due to the shallowness of my tank.

I am a little unsure where my system falls on the chart, are we suggesting that with the 2 T5Ho lamps(without reflectors) can be classed as Other PC? Based on that I have a PAR of approx 150? And that reducing to 1 lamp would put me in the 75ish range, as medium/high light? Or should I regard it as 200x2 = 400 par?

I will admit I had a raised eyebrow form your comment Ceg regarding people who have success are 'not you, and not your tank'. This implies that only certain people are able to achieve great results, due to some magical ability or some other thing not discussed, whereas for me the principles are the same for everyone, and as long as the person applies the principles correctly great results can be achieved.

With the additional information from Clonitza, suggesting that my effective PAR is far too high, it shows clearly that it is not down to my lack of 'green fingers' but instead a misunderstanding/misapplication of the principles.

Thankyou again for the clarification, lamp removal is imminent.

Chris


----------



## clonitza (7 Mar 2012)

I don't think you'll get accurate results without a PAR meter or without someone having the same lamp telling you the PAR readings. Anyway I think with a single lamp without reflector you'll be in the 50-75 range which is really fine for any plant. You can also try and hang your luminaire and raise it 30-40cm more.

Algae issues won't go away very soon but with a little bit of patience, tweaking your flow and CO2 distribution you'll get your tank stable.

Mike


----------



## ceg4048 (7 Mar 2012)

Golly, it would never occur to me to imply that some are anointed with supernatural plant growing powers while others are simply hapless bozos intent on self destruction. I do apologize if that's how it was interpreted. We all start any hobby by having limited knowledge, and our success depends on how much we learn and how we are able to implement the principles that we learn. Undeniably, there is some degree of luck as well as some innate ability involved as well, but as you quite rightly mention, it is the application of the principles that has the greatest impact. Hobbyists suffered algal blooms for many years thinking that nutrients in the water column were the root cause, until it was discovered that the truth was actually just the opposite. Many who continue to fear nutrients and who try to eradicate them from the water often meet with failure, while those who learn that nutrients are essential often have better fortune. It's a similar story for flow/distribution, CO2, lighting and cleanliness. While there are many ways to skin the cat, as long as the basic principles are adhered to the hobbyist will have a better chance of success. I'm probably one of the worst offenders of the excessive PAR rule, but I also have a firm grip on how to mitigate the dangers. As I mentioned, significantly improving all the other items on the list first, and bringing the plants back to a state of good health, will then enable you to increase the energy levels.

The chart shown can be used as a guide. The curves drawn are for single bulbs. PC refers to Power Compact bulbs. So if you have two of these bulbs, then 12 inches down from the surface of the bulbs the PAR is approximately 2 x 50 = 100 micromoles. You really should aim for a total of about 40-50 micromoles. Now that's only at the substrate level. Higher up in the tank, since the distance from the bulb is shorter, the PAR levels rise adding even more stress.

Here is L. glandulosa under a 4 PC fixture approximately 20 inches from the bulb surface. No problems. The leaves are flat and clean.



 

This is the same specimen after it had grown to within 6 inches of the bulbs. You can see how the leaves are crinkled and distorted. Under this lighting stress, the amount of CO2 necessary to flatten the leaves out again was simply uneconomical.


 

The only real way of knowing what the PAR levels are is to directly measure them with a PAR meter. As you deduced, this illustrates that X wpg in one tank is rarely the same as X wpg in another tank, because there are some influential variables. The wpg rule totally breaks down in very small and very large tanks because the energy levels are a partial function of distance from the bulb. Having total control of lighting, as well as of flow/distribution/CO2 is in a way a sort of Holy Grail.

Cheers,


----------



## CrispyCod (7 Mar 2012)

Hi Ceg,

Thanks for that, very informative images as well, it is clear that i need to reduce my PAR, and that the results achieved by others at 3WPG, likely had a significant difference in PAR to myself, that was the point I missed and thanks for setting me straight. 

Just a comment, it is interesting to note that the tutorials on here regarding EI and C02 discuss the lighting aspect in WPG, And state the tests were conducted at a maximum level of 5-6WPG. That can be misleading (it was for me!) What was that in PAR? Quoting it in PAR, and in conjunction with the chart above, could be a much more useful way of gauging levels within a system?

Hope that makes some kind of sense!

Just to clarify, I have an Arcadia Luminaire with 2 T5Ho at 54Watts each, so probably higher than the 100 level (oops, highly ridiculous levels, now  that I know.)   

Thanks

Chris


----------



## ceg4048 (7 Mar 2012)

Hi Chris,
              Tom Barr did the experiments and he hasn't supplied any PAR data. That's a good question though and I'll have to see if he recorded the data. The thing to remember though is that Tom was already an expert at growing plants. Understanding the physiology of plants is his vocation, so in the  tanks he would have already implemented the very same principles of high flow good distribution and excellent CO2, so that light would not have been that much of an impediment. He made the flow, and \co2 adjustments as he increased the intensity levels. In fact, in my tutorial, near the bottom, I alluded to this by inserting the following paragraph:

 Won't all these nutrients cause algae?
It's important to be aware that there are a variety of factors that can bring the onset of algal blooms which are not related to the dosing scheme. The following are typical causal factors:
1.    Poor CO2 injection methods
2.    Poor flow distribution within the tank.
3.    Poor tank maintenance, i.e. not cleaning filters or detritus buildup in tank.
4.    Overfeeding.
5.    Excessive disturbance of the substrate.

The object lesson was that the nutrient dosing program can never save you from all the other mishaps of poor plant husbandry, and that these issues can occur regardless of the lighting or the nutrient dosing. EI only addresses plant health issues due to nutrient defficiency, so that was the focus of article. It's difficult to cover every single aspect of plant husbandry in any one article, so lighting has it's own article, as does pruning, tank setup and CO2 application.

Again, remember that we are not saying that you can't successfully implement a 150 micromole tank, only that you need to rigorously address the flow and CO2. The EI tank used in the article had half a Kilowatt of T5 PC over 150 USG, and the tank was in almost full sunlight sitting in a conservatory that had daytime air temperatures exceeding 40 degrees C, which added even more energy, but I did not start the tank out that way. I started with low energy, got the plants super healthy, maximized the flow/distribution and CO2 and then ramped the lighting up when I knew the tank could handle the excessive lighting stress.


Cheers,


----------

