# Algae Problems



## Ben M (3 Jan 2011)

Hi, I am having a couple of algae problems in my tank. The tank is 210l, with 1.25wpg of t8 lighting. I dose EI ferts, but no CO2. The filter is a rena filstar xp2, which has a flow rate of 1050lph.

The first type of algae is black/brown looking spots about 1mm diameter:






The second is what I believe to be GDA, as it is made up of thousands of tiny green dots. On websites I've looked at it suggests this is due to low CO2 and nutrient levels, so should I increase my EI dosing?

and the final algae is a blackish film growing on some of the leaves of my Limnophila sessiliflora. I have no idea what this one is:




I'd appreciate some help to identify and hopefully remove this algae, as it is very unsightly.

cheers


----------



## Dolly Sprint 16v (3 Jan 2011)

Hi Pesty

happy new year to you.

Could you advise as to "how long you lights are on for" as excessive or long periods of lighting will switch on the algea, are you adding any liquid carbon and I think you'll have to invest in a Co2 kit.

Regards
paul.


----------



## Ben M (3 Jan 2011)

Happy new year to you too.  

I have a 8.5 hour photo period, and no liquid carbon or CO2 injection. Liquid carbon or pressurised C02 isn't an option, the liquid carbon because of price, and the pressurised because my parents think it's going to explode.  

Is there anything else I can do?


----------



## Anonymous (3 Jan 2011)

Cut the photo period until you get the right amount build up co2 during the dark period. You can start from a 5h period and raise it weekly by an hour and stop if you start to see deficiencies. You should also minimize surface movement so more CO2 stays in the tank. This is the usual things I do when I calibrate a low-tech aquarium.

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Jan 2011)

Hi,
    This tank clearly has too much light. These symptoms are all a result of CO2 starvation. You need to lower the intensity somehow, either by removing a bulb, shading the top of the tank, or removing reflectors. Also why are you dosing standard CO2 EI levels of nutrients in a non-CO2 tank? Adding high nutrient levels causes a need for more CO2.

Barr's non-CO2 method suggests a baseline dosage of  about 1/8 teaspoon of KNO3 and 1/32 teaspoon of KH2PO4 per 20 US Gallon once a week or two. 

For a 50G tank this means roughly 1/3 teaspoon (2 grams) KNO3 and about 1/10 teaspoon (1/2 gram) KH2PO4 once a week or twice a month.

So you are driving the tank over the cliff by commanding high growth rate and then not supplying enough CO2 to satisfy that growth rate.

If you are not permitted the use of liquid carbon or a gas cylinder then the next best thing is a yeast based system, however, the non-CO2 approach is a valid one. You just need to stop treating it as if it were a CO2 injected tank.

Cheers,


----------



## Dolly Sprint 16v (3 Jan 2011)

Hi Pesty

Thx for the reply - i would turn your lighting period right down - 5 hrs max, as for the pressurised issue why dont you do a DIY mix - yeast, suger etc in a pop bottle, it wont be as good as a pressurised system, but at (yeast oop's) least your add some co2 gas to the water column. You're seen picyies of my tank and my lighting period is only 7 hours but I add liquid carbon and co2 gas.

Regards
Paul.


----------



## Garuf (3 Jan 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Also why are you dosing standard CO2 EI levels of nutrients in a non-CO2 tank? Adding high nutrient levels causes a need for more CO2.
> 
> So you are driving the tank over the cliff by commanding high growth rate and then not supplying enough CO2 to satisfy that growth rate.



So should we take from this that an access of nutrients can cause your tank to need more co2 and make things worse? This would mean that when people like me double or even triple dose EI we're driving our demand for co2 higher than can be provided? Should I be going back down to standard EI levels?
 Would this mean that running leaner levels of ferts would mean that co2 demand would be reduced or mean that levels would provide more growth? 
I understand light drives the demand for co2 and co2 consumption inturn drives fert demand but the way you mention it here it makes it sound like lean dosing would infact be the driving reason for co2 demand and therefore growth levels? Or have I entirely got the wrong end of the stick?


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Jan 2011)

Hi Gareth,
               No, your reasoning is sound. Nutrients and CO2 are interrelated. As one goes up, so must the other. They both relate to growth rate so if you are dosing high levels of one then you need high levels of the other. Remember though that we are dealing with a laundry list of variables. Flow/distribution is one of these variables. Sometimes, if flow is poor, we need to increase the dosing just so that the plants have access to the baseline values. Naturally, if you have both poor flow and excessive light this situation is made even worse, so dosing above baseline values is often called for, especially in a large tank.

On the other hand, the condition being experienced by the OP shows that one ought not to just double or treble the dosing willy nilly. You should have a good reason for dosing above baseline. Naturally, if your CO2/flow/distribution is "excellent to awesome", then none of this is an issue. Dosing excessive nutrient levels in that case will simply yield excessive growth.

All of our problems happen when we have a limitation of one or more of the growth variables. When a tank experiences a limitation then there are a multitude of possible failure modes that can occur as a direct or indirect result of that limitation. Only when everything is unlimited can the tank system transcend these issues. If we fail to recognize a tanks limitation then we get into serious trouble.

I think people still have trouble recognizing or distinguishing between a CO2 failure and a nutrient failure. I often see where people just throw more nutrients at a CO2 failure. Holes in leaves is a classic blunder. This is a CO2/flow issue but I wish I had a penny for every time someone thinks that throwing more Potassium at the tank will solve that problem. How many times have you seen where a plant suffers yellow leaves and the OP throws more Fe at the tank, when really he/she ought to be throwing more Nitrogen at it? So we make our problems worse as a direct result of failed limit recognition.

Cheers,


----------



## Garuf (5 Jan 2011)

Thanks for the post Ceg. 
Would this inturn explain ADA's low levels of co2 and ppms in their ferts? We know their lights are low light so this would mean they can afford to be ran pretty lean?

Does this also mean that lower levels of growth can be achieved by limiting co2 AND ferts but maintaining high levels of light? I often look at the tropica stats and theirs loads of light but not much in the way of flow. How are they doing this? I'm guessing they're dosing lean and co2 limited but I don't see how they can and not run into failure. :S


----------



## nry (5 Jan 2011)

CO2 is nothing more than a fire extinguisher - I suspect your parents would be happy to have one of those in the house!

Going for e.g. the AquaEssentials liquid carbon wouldn't work out too expensive if you get the lighting levels right, and dropping your EI dosing as suggested above may well save you enough to warrant the carbon.

Only issue with the carbon is that it may well melt the vallis...


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Jan 2011)

Garuf said:
			
		

> Thanks for the post Ceg.
> Would this inturn explain ADA's low levels of co2 and ppms in their ferts? We know their lights are low light so this would mean they can afford to be ran pretty lean?
> 
> Does this also mean that lower levels of growth can be achieved by limiting co2 AND ferts but maintaining high levels of light? I often look at the tropica stats and theirs loads of light but not much in the way of flow. How are they doing this? I'm guessing they're dosing lean and co2 limited but I don't see how they can and not run into failure. :S


Generally, the combination of limited CO2/nutrients and high light causes problems. Physiologically, the flow diagram is;
Light==>CO2==>Macronutrients==>Micronutrients

This is a simplification because there are feedback loops. But Lighting drives everything downstream. Plants have some ability to protect themselves from too much light. They produce pigments that reflect harmful wavelengths such as UV or excessive PAR within the visible spectrum.

The idea that those tanks are using the combination of high light and low CO2/nutrients is an illusion.

As you indicated Barr's measurement indicates that in those ADA display tanks the light energy reaching the plants were actually quite low. There are a couple of factors. Just like those energy saving bulbs we buy at Tesco the spectrum of the bulbs have a high green content. Since the human visual cortex responds most strongly to green, the light appears to be bright to our eyes but are lower in PAR output. If there is sufficient green content in the bulb being supplied, one can have a low light tank while giving the illusion that it is a highly lit tank. The object lesson here is that when shopping for light - get a lower wattage ballast with high green content so that the tank will look brighter to you but will have a less impact on growth demand and will cause less algae due to lower PAR.

The impact and significance of PAR is the reason the WPG rule can only ever be a rule of thumb. We cannot tell precisely what PAR will be delivered as a result of the wattage (or the even more illusionary Lumens), so some people report that a certain tank size with a certain WPG did not cause algae while someone else uses the same WPG on a similar tank and has problems. The PAR, flow or CO2 might be different even though the WPG was the same.

With suspended lighting, all one has to do is to raise the light assembly high enough that the PAR entering the tank is reduced. Doubling the distance that the light is from the tank cuts the PAR to a quarter of its original value so even if the bulbs are high PAR the energy entering the tank can be managed in this way.

Once you reduce the spectral energy you have a lot more breathing room, and the plants have a lot more tolerance --- even for limiting conditions because they have an ability to make the physiological adjustments to become more efficient CO2 feeders if the tank is CO2 or flow limited, or more efficient nutrient gatherers if the tank is nutrient limited. When the lighting is beyond their threshold for adjustment then they start to cannibalize their own tissues just to survive.

Cheers,


----------



## Ben M (5 Jan 2011)

nry said:
			
		

> CO2 is nothing more than a fire extinguisher - I suspect your parents would be happy to have one of those in the house!



Well, that's the problem, they wouldn't lol.

They are a bit frustrating like that. They won't try anything new. When I ask why, I get 1 of 3 answers. 

1). 'Because I don't want it'.
2).  'because I don't understand it'.
or their personal favourite reason 'I don't have to have a reason.'

(the 'I' being my parents in each case).

I've tried explaining loads of times, but all they say is 'why do you want to mess about with CO2 anyway, your tanks always look a mess. Why have you got algae and holes in those leaves?' 

Aaaarg  

I am really stuck as to what to do now. I would keep pushing for pressurised, but it might just be a waster of time, because they probably won't let me. and I don't really have any money to spend on liquid carbon long term - being 15.

cheers


----------



## Garuf (5 Jan 2011)

Thanks again, Ceg.
I think I'm starting to get it! You know when the penny just drops? 
With regards to ferts would an inbalance prove damaging, say if phosphate levels were double the ratio compared to nitrate would that pose an issue? I'm assuming the ppm levels aren't arbitary, they're in a specific ratio because that's the order in which they're most needed for stability/best health of plants?

Also, Pest.
The trick is to never tell your parents anything, I've been doing it since I was tiny, that way you get results.


----------



## ghostsword (6 Jan 2011)

@ pest control, it seems that unless you can come with a suitable explanation to your parents for the reason to have a CO2 filled tank you are stuck. 

Parents are like that, at least you got to have a tank. 

Check low tech, I am sure that you can have an amazing tank with just crypts, anubias and ferns, or look at emersed setup, check one tank that Tom Barr did, emersed growth and empty on the aquatic area, looks very good. 

Having CO2 is not the end of algae problems .


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Jan 2011)

Maybe the parents should be encouraged to read the forum. :idea: 

In any case, there is really no such thing as balance. The Matrix uses this word to deceive via subliminal methods. When you hear the word "Balance" you automatically think in terms of ratios and in terms of minima/maxima. The EI methodology does not have this word in it's lexicon because the concept of balance is not within our ability to measure and ratios are irrelevant.

If you examine a low tech tank that is stable an mature you will find that the plants have adapted to a non-enriched environment. As I mentioned, plants have low speed and high speed adaptations. In a way, you can think of it as gears on a transmission. Under a low nutrient/CO2 environment they invoke certain chemical pathways for uptake. There is a low Nitrogen system which allows them to gather Nitrogen very efficiently. There is a mechanism where they are able to gather CO2 more efficiently. Again, there is a "high spectral energy" mechanism which allows them to reflect or fluoresce damaging energy. Each species has a different ability depending on it's origins. If these systems are invoked simultaneously it is possible to have a combination of environmental parameters that appear to  be "unbalanced" yet to observe plants that are not under duress. In a way, these plants can be thought of as being very athletic, like Spartans. It doesn't happen overnight but it is this ability that enable plants to survive drought, hurricanes, heat waves, flooding and so forth. The most athletic specimens survive and pass on this ability genetically. This is why you'll see examples of tanks where the nutrient loads input to the system by the hobbyist is minimal. But the price paid for these systems is that the rate of growth is severely retarded and the plants may not appear to be the prettiest. You'll hear reports of how the hobbyist completely ignored the tank and it did well, algae free. The plants adapted by invoking their low nutrient gear. I always think of those amazing Kenyan long distance runners when I think of a low tech tank. Lean, fit and able to endure hardship over the long haul.

In a high tech fuel injected tank, there is no need for athleticism. The plants shut down their high efficiency mechanisms and become fat and lazy. There is plenty of CO2, plenty of nutrients, so why bother to be efficient? But what happens when you suddenly ask a fat, lazy person to run the quarter mile? They're huffing and puffing and are unable to adapt to new conditions until they shift into their efficiency gear. This is the analogy to turning up the light, or lowering the CO2, or forgetting to dose. The plants get sick in a hurry because they cannot adapt overnight to suddenly stringent conditions, their uptake systems being employed is slow and lethargic and they start to fall apart. 

This decline has absolutely nothing to do with balance, or ratios. It has only to do with an inefficient machine huffing and gurgling in the same way that your filter impeller would cough and sputter if the inlet pipe was pulled out of the water and was suddenly sucking air. So when you present the plant with unlimited conditions and their systems become inefficient, you have to keep it that way. Once you let the conditions become limited the plants stumble immediately because they cannot invoke their high efficiency systems immediately.

I can use any ratio I want as long as the system is unlimited. Even here though there are adaptations. There is a range of nutrient values and a range of CO2 that will work, but moving from one set of values to another always causes problems during the transition unless managed properly. If I want to lower my maintenance requirements because of excessive growth rates I need to lower the light first, then lower everything else flowing the flow diagram I listed above. If you start to lower the components in the middle of the flow diagram instead of starting with the light you'll have problems.

So forget about ratios, because first of all who thinks they can measure them? The makers of Nitrate test kits? I don't think so. Second of all, the uptakes rates are not the same as what you dose, so two hours after you dose a certain ratio you'll have a different ratio. Thirdly, every species would have a different uptake rate and therefore a different ratio, but you can only have one ratio in the tank at a time. Fourthly, the WAY in which each nutrient element is used in a plant are completely different. Carbon is consumed rapidly. It is ubiquitous, is stored as food and forms the basis for just about every molecule in the plant, however Phosphorous is fundamentally a recyclable product internally because it is too precious and rare a commodity to waste, so even though the Phosphorous content of a plant may be high, the amount that it is taken up in a plant is not that high. In nature it is not readily available. Very small increases in PO4 availability is like a bonanza and has huge benefits, whereas Carbon is readily available and is used everywhere, so the plant needs a lot of it to make any headway. Anyone can calculate a ratio but does that have any meaning in terms of uptake requirement? Not really.


Cheers,


----------



## Anonymous (6 Jan 2011)

There's no need to rush into CO2 mate if you can't, I know that seeing others doing it with great results may be appealing but you should first understand how plants grow then take it to the next level. I've been doing low tech setups for a while with great results and I moved recently to high tech that's still a pain in the ass for me , I know the reasons but that's another story.

Why don't you go the "lean dosing, highly stocked" route, it can be accomplished really easy with spectacular results.

This is one example:





45w t8 *5hours* / 60l with plenty of fish, dosing po4 5ml/week, trace 5ml/week, ferropol 24h 2drops daily and that's about it, no CO2 addition, lean flow using a JBL e700. (nitrates comes from fish so there's no need to add it). The tank needs a good trim and water change (30%) once at 3 weeks.

The same setup a year ago .. not very pretty but plants were doing ok as you can see:













Cheers,
Mike


----------



## ghostsword (6 Jan 2011)

This one of my nanos, no CO2, just tap water top up, as the cat drinks from it:







Regarding light? From 1800 to 2300, two led lights of 1.5w each.


----------



## Ben M (6 Jan 2011)

I've spoken with my parents again today, but they will not allow pressurised, so I'm going to go down the crypt route. I will lower the ferts, and keep the photo period down (maybe increase slowly to 7 hours once everything is sorted). I'm hoping that this way I won't suffer from any CO2 problems. Thanks for all of the advice.


----------



## angelah (6 Jan 2011)

pest control said:
			
		

> I've spoken with my parents again today, but they will not allow pressurised, so I'm going to go down the crypt route. I will lower the ferts, and keep the photo period down (maybe increase slowly to 7 hours once everything is sorted). I'm hoping that this way I won't suffer from any CO2 problems. Thanks for all of the advice.



You are a sensible young man. Good luck with your decision.

Angela


----------

