# Green hair algea



## Martty (7 May 2018)

Hello,

I have probem with green hair algea. I dont know where is problem. What can I do? Check a photo.

*TANK SETUP*
- 8 weeks old scape
- 60x30x36cm (60 liters)
- bottom ADA Power sand Special + ADA Amazonia (6l Normal + 3l Powder)
- lighting Twinstar 600S (50% intensity and 8 hours period)
- filter Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2036) with original media (+ Seachem Matrix and Purigen 100ml)
- CO2 bottle 2l + EMG valve + Aquario Neo Diffusor Mini + Dropchecker (Lime Green), starting and ending with light
- external heater to 24°C
- no day light from outside
- glass skimmer 

*PLANTS*
Alternanthera reineckii 'Mini'
Anubias barteri var. nana 'Mini' 
Cryptocoryne parva 
Cryptocoryne wendtii
Fissidens fontanus
Glossostigma elatinoides 
Helanthium bolivianum 'Isthmicus' 
Hygrophila pinnatifida 
Lobelia cardinalis 'mini' 
Ludwigia palustris 
Ludwigia sp. 'Mini Super Red' 
Micranthemum callitrichoides 'Cuba'  
Microsorum pteropus 'Trident'  
Pogostemon stellatus  
Rotala indica 
Rotala rotundifolia 
Staurogyne repens

*FISH*
Puntius titteya 6x
Caridina multidentata (Amano Shrimp) 3x (was 10x, but they are dyed at filter) 

*FERTS*
- Seachem Flourish 1ml/week (dosing daily)
- Seachem Nitrogen 2ml/week (dosing daily)
- Seachem Excel 1ml/day (4ml after waterchange)
- Seachem Stability 4ml/after waterchange

*WATER*
pH: 6,5
GH 8 °dH
KH 10 °dH
NO3 10mg/l (with no Seachem Nitrogen)
NO2 0mg/l
Cl2 0mg/l

before maintanance



 

after maintanance


----------



## papa_c (7 May 2018)

Matty,

Sorry no solution but I'll be watching this thread like a hawk, same problem it with a different method.

I use EI dosed by pumps and never missed. CO2 is at 1 point drop before lights....just can't get a handle on what the cause is....


----------



## Tim Harrison (7 May 2018)

Too much light, and maybe too high an organic conc. Reduce photoperiod to 6hrs and maybe try reduce the intensity as well...I'd try 40% for a while., at least until your plants establish and grow in. Make sure your filter is clean, and cary out a few water changes of at least 50%. Thereafter, make sure you keep up regular an substantial water changes, at least 50% once a week.


----------



## Martty (7 May 2018)

Tim Harrison said:


> Too much light, and maybe too high an organic conc. Reduce photoperiod to 6hrs and maybe try reduce the intensity as well...I'd try 40% for a while., at least until your plants establish and grow in. Make sure your filter is clean, and cary out a few water changes of at least 50%. Thereafter, make sure you keep up regular an substantial water changes, at least 50% once a week.


Yes, Im doing 50-70% waterchanges per week
Im cleaning pre-filter every weak, biological media per month

I dont know about light. If I reduce intensity and photoperiod .. so I reduce plant grow too. But I need plant grow for reducing algea grow, right? So, Im confused


----------



## ceg4048 (7 May 2018)

Martty said:


> I dont know about light. If I reduce intensity and photoperiod .. so I reduce plant grow too. But I need plant grow for reducing algea grow, right?


Wrong.
The plants need to be healthy to avoid algae. Right now they are unhealthy due to poor implementation of CO2.
The immediate fix is to reduce intensity as much as possible and examine your CO2/flow/distribution.

Cheers,


----------



## Martty (7 May 2018)

ceg4048 said:


> Wrong.
> The immediate fix is to reduce intensity as much as possible and examine your CO2/flow/distribution.
> ,


Ok. So, 40% and 6 hours per day?
CO2 flow is good. Filtr out flow is strong and distribution in this small tank is good. Leaves are moving. Water circulation is enough.

Should I cut off all algea leaves? But some plants are infected by algea over 70%.


----------



## Zeus. (7 May 2018)

Cut the light down to 25% and hours max, how many WC a week have you been doing and how much? Need quite few a week for first few weeks with ADA AS once established 50% weekly. Would be better of using EI ferts with macros one day then micros next works out cheap with a starter kit from aquarium plant foods UK easy toix too. Filter should be up to the job but removing some of the ceramic media as well as the finest foam will help improve the filters output which will also help. Also adding some more stem plants will help short term or floating plants to increase the plant bio mass.
When did you add the livestock? ADA AS releases alot of nutrients in the first few weeks which renders the tank unsuitable for livestock until the tank has cycled which i think has happen to the amanos tank wasn't ready

Tim and Clive got in first and there more knowable than me

But that light is powerful even at 50%


----------



## Zeus. (7 May 2018)

Does the pH remain stable once the lights have come on and remain stable for 4 to 5 hours.

Mine was stable till I increased the light intensity then it wasn't then I got algea till I sorted it


----------



## Martty (7 May 2018)

Zeus. said:


> how many WC a week have you been doing and how much?
> When did you add the livestock?


50-70% waterchange per week
I have followed the ADA recommendations on water exchanges
Fishes and shrimps jump in at 6 week (no one shrimp escape out of tank, 7 out of 10 amanos came into filter and died)

ok, I try 30% intensity and 6 hour per day

morning pH before CO2 injection and lighting is 7.0-7.2
evening pH after CO2 infection and lighting off is 6.5


----------



## Konsa (7 May 2018)

Hi
Defo too much light and insufficient nutrients.
It seems quite  bad atm and is not only hair algae in there too.
Don't quite get your fert dosing regime.
With Flourish are U dosing 1 ml per week spliting it on daily doses or is 1ml every day?Same for the other nutrients.
The Excel wont do anything to the green algae unfortunately.
Your CO2 should start an hour or 2 before your lights so your water is saturated with it  and your dropchecker is lime green when the light kick in.
What I will suggest is after adjusting your CO2 to start earlier to do a full tank blackout for 5 days. No peeping whatsoever.When that is done clean tank(trim plants and scrub surfaces )  and filter followed by a massive waterchange.After that start with lower light for no more  than 6 hours.Aquasoil is nutrient rich but is lacking K and micros make sure U dose them in sufficient ammount daily.
Regards Konsa


----------



## Martty (7 May 2018)

Konsa said:


> Hi
> Defo too much light and insufficient nutrients.
> It seems quite  bad atm and is not only hair algae in there too.
> Don't quite get your fert dosing regime.
> ...


1ml per week (dose recommended by Seachem), but diluted and dosed daily (Nitrogen same)
Do you think, that is it not enough? Should I dose more then recommendation of Seachem?

I had shifted CO2 about 3 hours before lights, but local aquascape guru and proffesional aquascaper told me, that CO2/light with same time is better due to pH or somethink . So, Im doing it.


----------



## Konsa (7 May 2018)

Hi
The dosages on bottle of branded fertilisers are just a guide wich is aimed towards the general user.U have CO2 and high light them 2 increase the demand for other nutrients.Your tank is quite well planted too so yes I dont think you are dosing enough.I will dose sth like 3ml daily.
Its well worth to have a thought about getting yourself some complete fertiliser like TCN complete or The Aquascaper from Evolution Aqua or even EI starter pack from APF and mix your own solutions this way U wont have to buy so many different bottles and U will know U have all ferts covered.
Regards Konsa


----------



## Martty (7 May 2018)

Konsa said:


> Hi
> The dosages on bottle of branded fertilisers are just a guide wich is aimed towards the general user.U have CO2 and high light them 2 increase the demand for other nutrients.Your tank is quite well planted too so yes I dont think you are dosing enough.I will dose sth like 3ml daily.
> Regards Konsa


Ok...so, I do maintanace tomorow and waterchange 50%, cut all algea leaves and blackout tank for 5 days. Then I set up Twinstar to 30% intensity and 6 hours per day and I start dosing Flourish 2ml per week (+100% recomm.dose)


----------



## Konsa (7 May 2018)

Hi 
I will do maintenance and waterchange after the blackout as then will be more needed.
Regards Konsa


----------



## Zeus. (8 May 2018)

Have you done a pH profile? Eg take pH before CO2 comes on then every 30mins for till the lights go off. This will give a good indication of how stable your [CO2] is. Ideally it should max at lights on then remain stable till CO2 off. The reason for this is the plants adjust there internal growth mechanisms to suit the [CO2]. So doing a pH profile is a great way to check the relative [CO2].
When the light intensity is changed it affects the CO2 uptake of the plants so the pH profile needs to be checked again and BPS adjusted accordingly.
I use Flourish on one of my low tech tanks 20l I dose about 0.5ml a week or twice weekly. I wouldn't use it on my 500l tank for two reasons 1. Cost 2. Better ferts available more suited for high tech tanks.
Son has a 60l aqua nano he has been using the EI Starter kit from APFUK for well over a year, never bought any more salts in that time. No aglea.

In a high tech tank plant growth and toxin production is up to X10 of low tech tanks.
If there isn't enough nutrients to match the light plants suffer produce toxins and aglea thrives.

Clive was dosing X3 to x4 the recommended EI dose in his tank. Plants looked amazing. High light and High CO2. Not sure what is WC regiume was at the time!

Not sure if your baby tears are strong enough to survive a blackout and recover!


----------



## Martty (8 May 2018)

Zeus. said:


> Have you done a pH profile? Eg take pH before CO2 comes on then every 30mins for till the lights go off. This will give a good indication of how stable your [CO2] is. Ideally it should max at lights on then remain stable till CO2 off. The reason for this is the plants adjust there internal growth mechanisms to suit the [CO2]. So doing a pH profile is a great way to check the relative [CO2].
> When the light intensity is changed it affects the CO2 uptake of the plants so the pH profile needs to be checked again and BPS adjusted accordingly.


No, profile must do. Thanks. 



Zeus. said:


> I use Flourish on one of my low tech tanks 20l I dose about 0.5ml a week or twice weekly. I wouldn't use it on my 500l tank for two reasons 1. Cost 2. Better ferts available more suited for high tech tanks.
> Son has a 60l aqua nano he has been using the EI Starter kit from APFUK for well over a year, never bought any more salts in that time. No aglea.
> 
> In a high tech tank plant growth and toxin production is up to X10 of low tech tanks.
> ...


yea, it seems, that I can dose more then seachem recomend.



Zeus. said:


> Not sure if your baby tears are strong enough to survive a blackout and recover!


Good point. What do you think? Maybe only 3 days blackout? Or reducing light to 30% only. No blackout. ??


----------



## Barbara Turner (8 May 2018)

Zeus. said:


> Clive was dosing X3 to x4 the recommended EI dose in his tank.



I'm not sure why you would ever need 3 to 4 x the dose, EI is worked out to be the maximum that a heavily planted tank could ever use and ensure that you always have excess. 
Spot dosing with flourish excel works well to reduce algae but takes a while,  

Agree completely with decreasing the light, big clean followed big water change. 
Increasing circulation can also help ensure you get the co2 around the tank.


----------



## Zeus. (8 May 2018)

Martty said:


> No, profile must do. Thanks.
> 
> 
> yea, it seems, that I can dose more then seachem recomend.
> ...



Regards the baby tears and blackout, judgement call. If I was doing the blackout I would go for 5 days as even with 3 days the baby tears may not make it. They will put all there energy in trying to reach the light so will grow long stems. Just worth bearing in mind so you have a backup plan.



Barbara Turner said:


> I'm not sure why you would ever need 3 to 4 x the dose, EI is worked out to be the maximum that a heavily planted tank could ever use and ensure that you always have excess.
> Spot dosing with flourish excel works well to reduce algae but takes a while,
> 
> Agree completely with decreasing the light, big clean followed big water change.
> Increasing circulation can also help ensure you get the co2 around the tank.



Well Clive is our CO2 guru and nutritional expert on here so it wasn't done without a good reason. His plants did look great on it.

As to the EI dose being the maximum dose I disagree it's the dose advised as a good starting point for high tech tanks. Dependant on your lights intensity, [CO2] with sufficient turnover and stable [CO2] you may need less but you also may need more also depends on which AS you use and how old the AS is. Obviously if using an inert substrate your dosing ferts and WC need to be better as there's no AS buffering the ferts and toxins


----------



## ceg4048 (8 May 2018)

Folks,
            Filamentous algae is strictly a CO2 related issue. There is no nutritional problems at the moment. 
If the OP is using new Amazonia then he is meeting the nutritional requirement. There is no need to change that right now.
Simple water changes and reduction of light is all that is needed to fix this problem. 
I suggest no more than 20% power for the moment and that the injection rate should be adjusted so that the pH is dropped to 6.0-6.2 BEFORE the light is turned on, based on the OP's report :


Martty said:


> morning pH before CO2 injection and lighting is 7.0-7.2



That is all he needs to adjust. The basic problem is that the OP followed the advice of so called Aquascaping gurus, who advised him to turn the lights on at the same time that the gas is turned on. This is a basic flaw in the CO2 administration.

Fix these simple things and carry on.

Brand new ADA Aquasoil is fortified to approximately 100X EI concentration levels, so there is no need to adjust the dosing for now.
When someone has a CO2 proble, and especially when they encounter hair algae, please do not advise them to stop Excel dosing.
Excel = CO2, so it cannot be a mistake to add Excel. The Excel is a good thing as it supplements the gas injection and should be added at or prior to lights on.

When someone has a nutritional problem they will see nutritionally related symptoms and we can advise them to adjust their dosing scheme.
As far as I can see in the photo, the predominant fault being displayed is filamentous algae, which is ONLY EVER caused by CO2 related issues.

Do not therefore apply nutritional related fault resolution to a CO2 related symptom, as this only causes confusion for the OP and others with similar symptoms who read the thread.

Concentrate on the fundamental problem of excessive light and poor CO2, remove as much algae and get on with it.

Cheers,


----------



## Konsa (8 May 2018)

Hi
Agree with light reduction and CO2 adjustment 100%.But dont think that
with that much algae present simple tank maintenance will cut it as while U are able to trim some leaves on some  plants there will be more U will not in carpet for example.All plants are stunted by the  algae atm.And will be difficult for them  to take over the algae. If U do the 5 day blackout this will kill a lot of the  algae  and while some weaked pants might not make it and will have to be removed most will and will have better chance against the algae.If U are worried about the HC or other plant U can always replant some fresh once the tank is in good shape
Regards Konsa


----------



## X3NiTH (8 May 2018)

I have a tank that grows filamentous algae like this and it's due to too much light and not enough CO₂ (not adding any). I would also add that this tank gets next to no traces added (maybe every couple of weeks maybe longer, it's a neglected tank, although macro nutrients are front loaded on the weekly water change (32ppm Ca, 14ppm Mg, 33ppm K, 10ppm NO₃, 5ppm PO₄). It's a10L bare bottomed tank with duckweed on the surface (showing iron deficiencies) that has Fissidens floating just under the surface which is smothered in filamentous algae, there's also Java fern looking very poorly with brown spots all over it, no fish only a few pond snails.

My Buce filled tank gets the same water as above (remineralised RO/DI, which is near identical to yours in GH and KH), gets as much CO₂ as the fish can handle (apple green dropchecker, drop pH7.6 - pH6.1), too much light (maybe not as much as the above tank) the PAR at and around an inch or two below the surface is enough to fry Buce, but there's enough light to turn my Crypt Balansae bronze while draping itself across the water surface (all 2ft of it in a 12" tall tank), inert gravel substrate. Zero filamentous algae in this tank, only gets BBA on unhappy Buce.

Don't know if there's enough traces in your soil, but I'm dosing Flourish Comprehensive, Flourish Trace and Fe DTPA with some added MnSO4 to target Fe@0.15ppm daily (Comp Fe 0.1ppm, Fe DTPA 0.05ppm, Fe:Mn ratio 3:1). Very positive results from my Buce that get around 50PAR (no holes and leaf melt, yay). If I just dose Fe Gluconate (Flourish Comprehensive) the Fe is gone in one day, I need to add the FeDTPA to have a little residual next day before more gets added. Using the JBL Fe titration test after dosing it clearly indicates iron present, at the end of the photoperiod definite decrease of Fe indicated, the next day before dosing the test barely indicates Fe present. 

In agreement with everyone else above, decrease the light and increase the CO₂ (not more than the fish can handle though obviously) but I would also up the traces.


----------



## Martty (9 May 2018)

Thank you all for replays and here is plan. I take a risk. I will make 3 days blackout. I really need kill most of algea for first. Then I can start with fresh new begining. New light setup (20%/6hours), new ferts doses (2x rec.dose Flourish, 1xNitrogen, 1xExcel). If any plant dont make it...I will must replant it with new invitro plants. Its all my fault...I've hurried from the beginning. Too much light, maybe not enough ferts. So, we will see. I'll keep you informed.


----------



## Martty (13 May 2018)

Update info:
- 4 days of blackout are behind me. Part of green algea has disappeared. And plants are in good condition. So, now I must wait and hope, that plants get into good shape and start grow right.

Current setting:
- Light: Twinstar 600S at 20% of power and 6hour per day
- Flourish/Nitrogen/Excel (Seachem recommend. dose)
- lime green CO2 (ON at 2hours before lights and OFF 2hours before lights off)

So, now I will increase the light very carefully. This week keep 20% of total power. Next week try 30% if algea not begin grow back again.


----------



## Konsa (14 May 2018)

Hi
Don't rush with the light increase.Give the plants few weeks first.Keep trimming and removing bad leaves and algae U see.
Regards Konsa


----------



## Martty (14 May 2018)

Konsa said:


> Hi
> Don't rush with the light increase.Give the plants few weeks first.Keep trimming and removing bad leaves and algae U see.
> Regards Konsa


Ok, man. I try to dont rush again  thank you.


----------



## Konsa (14 May 2018)

Martty said:


> Ok, man. I try to dont rush again  thank you.



Thats the spirit.
In planted tank only algae happens fast.It will be roughly 3-4 weeks for your plants to register any changes U do.
Strict maintenance and patiens atm.
Regards Konsa


----------



## Martty (21 May 2018)

10.week update info:

- routine maintenance
- green hair algea is growing a bit, but not too much
- lighting still on 20%/6hours per day


----------



## Martty (26 May 2018)

I found interesting information about Seachem Flourish at FAQ page of Seachem website: http://www.seachem.com/flourish-iron.php

and they write there, I quote: "*Daily dosing with Flourish can lead to unwanted algae growth*".

Can be this my problem with green hair algea? I'm dosing Flourish daily diluted with destilated water. 

What do you think?


----------



## ceg4048 (30 May 2018)

Martty said:


> I found interesting information about Seachem Flourish at FAQ page of Seachem website: http://www.seachem.com/flourish-iron.php
> 
> and they write there, I quote: "*Daily dosing with Flourish can lead to unwanted algae growth*".
> 
> ...


No.

Hair algae is caused by poor CO2 and has nothing to do with iron or with any other nutrient...

You'll need to fix your CO2 implementation or your flow/distribution.

Cheers,


----------



## Martty (30 May 2018)

ceg4048 said:


> No.
> 
> Hair algae is caused by poor CO2 and has nothing to do with iron or with any other nutrient...
> 
> ...


I think, that I have good flow at my tank. I have Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2036). Strong filter for 60 liters with good flow. I have lily pipes. I have skimmer. I have Aquario Neo diffuser. Lime green dropchecker.


----------



## Edvet (31 May 2018)

Sadly having the correct volume of flow doesn't mean having the correct distribution of flow, you might have to play around with the hardware


----------



## dw1305 (31 May 2018)

Hi all,





Martty said:


> I quote: "*Daily dosing with Flourish can lead to unwanted algae growth*".


Seachem's web-site is a brilliant example of how you can add two and two together and make five. They are incredibly good at implying things (that may not be entirely true), without actually writing anything that is demonstrably false. 

In nearly all situations plant growth is limited by the level of one of the essential nutrients (C, N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Ca, Mn, Mo, Cu, Bo, Zn, etc), (this is <"Liebig's law of the minimum">). Adding iron (Fe) in a plant available form can only lead to increased algae growth *if iron was deficient before*. Have a look at <"Rotala rotundifolia growth ...."> for a more complete discussion, but the issue is that the "green algae" don't have the secondary thickening, vascular tissue etc. and they can show a very quick response to nutrients. 





Martty said:


> I think, that I have good flow at my tank. I have Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2036). Strong filter for 60 liters with good flow. I have lily pipes. I have skimmer. I have Aquario Neo diffuser. Lime green dropchecker.


I'm not a CO2 user, and I can't really help with your issue, but if you create ideal growing conditions for the plants you want, you also create ideal growing conditions for the ones you don't. All the green plants (those that possess chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b) are identical in terms of their basic photosynthetic physiology. They form a monophyletic clade (<"the Chlorobionta or Viridiplantae">), with a single common ancestor. 

The "green plants" are all the plants we want to grow (mosses, ferns and higher plants), plus some we don't, and we call these ones "green algae".

I have very heavily planted tanks and I also have <"very little biofilm"> of any description, we don't know exactly why heavy planting reduces algal growth, but it does. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Matt Havens (31 May 2018)

Hi Martty,

I had the same trouble in my 130L, here is the link to the video and I will post the link to the discussion as well, you may find some answers, hints or tips from there as I had the same issues.


----------



## Matt Havens (31 May 2018)

link to my thread - https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/critique-my-hardscape.51361/

Hopefully it will help you also.

Thanks,

Matt


----------



## ceg4048 (31 May 2018)

Martty said:


> I think, that I have good flow at my tank. I have Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2036). Strong filter for 60 liters with good flow. I have lily pipes. I have skimmer. I have Aquario Neo diffuser. Lime green dropchecker.


Everybody thinks they have good this or good that. Only the plants know what things you have that are good or not good, and in this case they know that your CO2 is not good.

Since they cannot speak, we have to determine, based on inference where things have gone wrong.
There are five main things that will stifle CO2 uptake:
1. Too much light intensity.
2.Poor injection technique.
3. Poor injection rate or poor timing of injection.
4. Poor flow rate.
5. Poor distribution of flow.

For item 1., few hobbyists have a clue about what level of lighting they have - unless they have a PAR meter. We have, through experience  figured out the typical values when using fluorescent lighting, but LED are still an unknown due to varying specifications of the diodes. Typically, when a CO2 related algae blooms with this type of lighting, we suggest to reduce the intensity to no more than about 20% max.

For item 2. the type of diffuser or reactor can be a factor in the inability to saturate the water properly with CO2. The larger the tank the more difficult it is , but smaller tanks are not immune. If an in tank diffuser is used the location of the diffuser can be an issue, especially if the injection rate is marginal or poor. CO2 is a gas that rapidly exits the tank. That's why we have to keep pumping it in all day. If the disk is placed far away from the filter output then the bubbles tend to immediately fly up and out of the tank. Sometimes it's better to have them cloer to the water effluent so that the current can carry them downwards. The best idea for these is to place the disk directly under or very near the filter intake so that the bubbles will enter the filter. Some filters object to this and can result in gurgling and spitting, but if the filter only does this occasionally then this is the best way to dissolve the gas.
For larger tanks, the best solution is to use an in-line reactor.

For item 3. injection rate may need to be adjusted. The Dropchecker can be used as a guide, but it is not quick enough to determine instantaneous values when problems arise. It's best to have a pH pen and to take repetitive readings every 30 minutes or every hour, from gas on until lights off. The goal is to drop the pH from it's initial value at gas on 1 unit by lights on. The minimum pH value should be reached at lights on ideally. If you find that the minimum value is attained late in the day then this tells you that you have to play with the gas on start time as well as with the injection rate until you are able to achieve this goal. There is no point having a minimum pH late in the day. The first half of the photoperiod, and specifically the lights on time is the most critical time in the day for CO2. The plants don't really care that much about CO2 in the second half. Most CO2 problems in tanks actually happen at lights on when the hobbyists pummel their plants with light but the CO2 concentration levels cannot yet support the intensity.

For Item 4. if your filter flow rating is at or near 10 times the tank volume per hour then this is usually a good thing, however, we note that habbyists, especially those coming from fish-only background tend to stuff their filter to the gills with flow sucking media such as noodles, which are specifically designed to kill the flow rate so that the larger particles will fall out of solution and be trapped. In planted tank, it is not really necessary to use so much media. The filter should be no more than 50% filled with media and the noodles should be replaced by coarse to medium foam if possible. Planted tanks produce a LOT of detritus so the filters ought to be cleaned much more often than in a fish only tank. All of this helps to deter some forms of algae and helps to maintain precious flow rate. 

For item 5. as Edvert mentions, the placement of your filter output may not be in the best location. A good indication of good distribution is to observe the plants gently rocking in the "breeze" and this tells us that the flow is actually reaching the leaves. You may need to experiment with the location of your pipe to achieve this.

So it's better to have a look at all of these factors because it could easily be any combination of these that are contributing to the problem.

Cheers,


----------



## alto (31 May 2018)

You might find this video from Filipe Oliveira interesting 


(tank with lovely filamentous green algae - or something like  )


----------



## Zeus. (31 May 2018)

alto said:


> You might find this video from Filipe Oliveira interesting
> 
> 
> (tank with lovely filamentous green algae - or something like  )



Watch it only the other day, classically demonstrates how a small change in flow can cause a problem with CO2


----------



## alto (31 May 2018)

Especially important on this rather large tank (in the linked video) which really has quite low CO2 injection ... and only a week after planting 

My experience with this type of green filament algae is the window tanks - loads of (sun)light, minimal flow, no added CO2, minimal water changes, lean nutrient dosing
If I do the once (or rarely twice) weekly water changes & maintain filter flow (& trim the plants), the high light, minimal CO2 dont seem sufficient to grow this algae in easily visible amounts 

Interestingly I've never had visible BBA in these low tech tanks

Green dust algae on the glass is common (& easily tidied away) ... it's not a given, but is the most common algae I see which in these window tanks

My experiences just don't follow the *paradigm of lots of flow, lots of CO2, lots of nutrients, LOW light necessary to obtain a minimal algae, healthy plants tank* 

Of course I also don't shoot any photos of the tanks I have, so I could be spinning tales


----------



## Martty (1 Jun 2018)

Thank you guys for your replays. I try to change flow in tank and position of diffusor.


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Jun 2018)

alto said:


> My experiences just don't follow the *paradigm of lots of flow, lots of CO2, lots of nutrients, LOW light necessary to obtain a minimal algae, healthy plants tank*


My experiences just don't follow the paradigm of  green filament algae is the window tanks - loads of (sun)light, minimal flow, no added CO2, minimal water changes, lean nutrient dosing.

I have no reason to doubt your statements. We know for example that there are many ways to skin the cat and that those skins only seem like different skins because we fail to look at the various scenarios wholistically.

So for example, you claim that sunlight causes filamentous algae, where I claim that there is no direct correlation between sunlight, per se, and any kind of algae unless other factors, such as CO2 and flow distribution, which you dismiss as being irrelevant, are also poor.

Here is a tank "by the window". The photo was taken in the late afternoon.
This tank sat in the conservatory until dismantled after 3 years and never suffered any kind of algal bloom, filamentous or otherwise. So this example refutes your claim of filamentous algae being associated with tanks by windows. This also refutes your claim that GDA is "common".
None of these algal types are common or expected unless flow/distribution and CO2 are marginal to poor.
Now, do many people with window tanks suffer these algal types? Well, yes, because they are not paying attention to flow/distribution and CO2.
Do the blooms occur in low tech tanks? Well, yes, because these tanks do not have the benefit of enriched CO2.

Can sunlight trigger algal blooms generally? Well, yes. Sunlight in this regard is no different than artificial light. Sunlight will trigger algal blooms if it is excessive and if it cannot be compensated for by CO2/flow/distribution, and this is exactly the same for artificial light.

So you claim that you use high light and that there is no correlation between your high light and the blooms. What is your definition of high light?
The problem here is that there are no measurements and when you tell other people that their light is moderate to low, you actually have no idea whatsoever what that persons light out put really is. No PAR data is available or is reported. The problem in the hobby is that what we know is excessive lighting,  hobbyists, especially newbies, think is moderate to low lighting. Then they get into trouble and they never suspect that a simple light reduction will solve or avoid their problems. In the tank shown below I experimented by deliberately triggering hair algae. All I had to do was to reduce the injection rate and hair algae would start to occur within a day or two. Restoring the injection rate eliminated the hair algae within a few days afterwards. I did this repeatedly in order to verify that the occurrence and disappearance was not merely coincidence.

In order to draw conclusions about what are causal factors, or to eliminate conjecture about what may be causes, one has to first, be able to grow an algae free tank and then one has to not be afraid to destroy the harmony of the tank. If one's assumptions are correct regarding cause and effect then one can be confident of how to solve these problems. Not only do these paradigms work for me, but they work for others who suffer algal blooms because of having the tank configured in precisely the way you describe as having worked for you. 

Neither have I seen any report from you stating that you have actually tried our methods to either confirm or refute the methods efficacy. So I'm not quite sure whether your intent is to simply promote dogmatic principles or whether you have tried this method and failed at it. What I am absolutely sure of is that "lots of nutrients, lots of flow/distribution and lots of CO2" works and can handle any scenario. The method can also be adjusted downward to make life less hectic.

I agree with you that if flow/distribution is excellent one can then reduce the injection rate because the gas that is being injected will be much more effective.



 


Look Ma, no algae!



 

Cheers,


----------



## alto (2 Jun 2018)

ceg4048 said:


> So for example, you claim that sunlight causes filamentous algae, where I claim that there is no direct correlation between sunlight, per se, and any kind of algae unless other factors, such as CO2 and flow distribution, which you dismiss as being irrelevant, are also poor.


Did I *claim* that 
When does an _observation_ that these are the only tanks I observe such algae, a "claim" make???

Did I actually dismiss anything???

I believe you are the one who insists that
"poor CO2 = algae" - whether in concentration or distribution, which then segues into your next
"lack of 10x tank volume flow/hour = algae"
"limited nutrients" promotes algae (though this plays out a bit more ambiguous)

My perspective is that there are many successful planted tanks with much lower flow than the 10x "rule" you promote so strongly - good flow distribution does not equal high flow
(to clarify -  as you seem so keen to misinterpret  - I consider flow rates of 10x tank volume/hour to be "high flow")

My perspective is that there are successful planted tanks with no CO2 ("enrichment") or much lower CO2 levels than that which you promote

Stunning tank in your photos but not one I'd consider comparable to my "window" tanks - which have sunlight streaming  directly through (& above - as the day progresses), and limited light from the sides (physical constraint of window)

In contrast the pictured tank appears to have a solid background blocking any sunlight from directly streaming through the tank, a canopy which again appears to drastically limit sunlight angling into the tank from above, and even darkened sides (though this may be photo artefact) ...
Rather it looks to be a fairly typical aquarium with overhead fluorescent etc lighting (which serves as the main light source for the plants) that happens to be in an area with good ambient lighting 




ceg4048 said:


> So this example refutes your claim of filamentous algae being associated with tanks by windows. This also refutes your claim that GDA is "common".




You seem to willfully ignore the leading phrase "*My experience*" ... at least I thought it was a phrase which would clearly indicate that the following discussion pertained to ... well, *MY* EXPERIENCE ...
I thought this _somewhat of a hint/indication_ that others may not observe the same

My actual statement:


alto said:


> Green dust algae on the glass is common (& easily tidied away) ... it's not a given, but is the most common algae I see which in these window tanks



Where do I state, in what is a personal observation of my personal tank, that anyone else will experience
the same event 
(admittedly statement clarity is not helped by the wordplay snuck in by Apple )



ceg4048 said:


> In the tank shown below I experimented by deliberately triggering hair algae. All I had to do was to reduce the injection rate and hair algae would start to occur within a day or two. Restoring the injection rate eliminated the hair algae within a few days afterwards. I did this repeatedly in order to verify that the occurrence and disappearance was not merely coincidence.


I can't discredit your observation - nor do I wish to
I believe this was your experience

My experience differs somewhat - I run fairly slow growth tanks (again that ambiguity - what constitutes "fairly slow growth" ) but as an example
90 x 45 x 53cm H (internal dimensions as Oceanic was so proud to state )
Kessil A160 x 2, 100% power, photoperiod 6-8hours, or 12+hours if I'm delayed (no controller & the last timer decided it was no longer counting time in this dimension)
Direct sunlight streams through this tank during spring, summer, then wanes through autumn

Tropica Nano CO2 kit (as I got a deal & I've been waiting on GLA mini system & reasonable $ conversion ... & really, I'm an astounding procrastinator) that runs very arbitrarily 1- 2 - 3 bps as measured by Tropica kit diffuser (ie really quite crap CO2 for those tank dimensions, never mind the erratic running thereof)

Filter Eheim Pro 350 - upgraded from the Pro 250 ... not a lot of change in the tank to be honest, though there's obviously better flow distribution
Oh and the filter is jammed with the media it came with: mech, bio, coarse sponge, fines pad AND I rarely open the filter - it's been several months now 

Tropica fertilizers randomly added, though I usually manage 1-2 doses/week ... & definitely on water change days 

Back to "growth rate", under these conditions, from tank startup, 10-12 weeks for M "Monte Carlo" to carpet (ie soil barely visible, if at all .... I split a single in vitro cup into ~ 40 sections, so each plantlet needs to grow considerably to fill in)

There is little visible algae in this tank - though I'm sure it exists - despite occasionally running out of CO2, certainly erratic CO2 levels (especially as the disposable cylinders empty, replaced 4-6 weeks, depending), un-routine photoperiod, water changes done without regard to CO2 status, etc, etc

No algae "trigger" I've observed
(Except the long ago incident with a RIO 125 - stock filter, twin HOT5 + reflectors - & CO2 solenoid stuck closed & lights stuck on for several weeks - _that_ worked a treat  )

I obviously don't encourage others to be so lackadaisical in their approach to aquaria
But I also don't believe that's it's as simple as add lots of flow, lots of CO2, limit light, unlimited nutrients and you will have NO visible algae
 - almost every Algae Woe tank I see posted (on ukaps) has so much more consistent care & "better" flow & CO2 parameters (than my own experiences suggest is needed - & I defiantly err on the side of more light - I can't imagine running any LED at 20%)
I seldom directly oppose any suggestions you offer in these threads, but you seem to take any alternative suggestions or observations I might make, as a direct challenge to your veracity(?), rather than a "this is my experience" paradigm

I'm still  why my observations are so _bootless_ compared to your own


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Jun 2018)

alto said:


> Stunning tank in your photos but not one I'd consider comparable to my "window" tanks - which have sunlight streaming directly through (& above - as the day progresses), and limited light from the sides (physical constraint of window)
> 
> In contrast the pictured tank appears to have a solid background blocking any sunlight from directly streaming through the tank, a canopy which again appears to drastically limit sunlight angling into the tank from above, and even darkened sides (though this may be photo artefact) ...
> Rather it looks to be a fairly typical aquarium with overhead fluorescent etc lighting (which serves as the main light source for the plants) that happens to be in an area with good ambient lighting


Yes the tank has a hood but Sunlight is streaming through the front and side panes throughout the day.  PAR reading throughout day and night verified that sunlight reached all areas of the tank. Daytime PAR levels were 3-4 times of that during the night with artificial lights alone.


alto said:


> Where do I state, in what is a personal observation of my personal tank, that anyone else will experience
> the same event
> (admittedly statement clarity is not helped by the wordplay snuck in by Apple )


Yes, correct. There is lack of clarity here as the statement "Green dust algae on the glass...is the most common algae I see which in these window tanks..." is generic, is pluralized and implies it is observed in third persons' tanks. I apologize for the assumption.
Nevertheless, my contention is still that the GSA and other common algae you personally experience is a result of excessive lighting via sun or via artificial light. This is consistent with what others report, so it turns out to not be limited to your experience only. I maintain that the fact that the light intensity is excessive is much more important than the fact that it's property is that it is sunlight, as others experience GSA and other common algae at a similar stage of the tanks development even when the tank is lit by artificial light only.



alto said:


> My perspective is that there are many successful planted tanks with much lower flow than the 10x "rule" you promote so strongly - good flow distribution does not equal high flow
> (to clarify - as you seem so keen to misinterpret  - I consider flow rates of 10x tank volume/hour to be "high flow")


Yes, again, we have never stated that this is an impossibility. The 10X rule is a rule of thumb to help mitigate mistakes that are often made by newbies. We see consistently that it helps to offset many problems. If you like, we can use your preferred word in that our _observation _is that adhering to the 10X rule works better and solves a LOT more problems than adhering to a philosophy of strong lighting.

It's always very difficult to compare tanks or to compare reports of success/failure because we do not always receive reliable facts. So we do not know, for example, in the case where someone reports success with low CO2 and strong lighting, what the actual levels were. So any claim can be made without verification. Someone can state that they never add nutrients to the tank and yet the plants grow fine without algae, thereby refuting the claim that adding nutrition is necessary. It can easily be, however that the sediment and/or water supply was high in nutrients.

Obviously, there are many successful low tech tanks, so CO2/nutrient enrichment is not a necessity. In fact, poor CO2 is as prevalent in enriched tanks as it is in low tech tanks. It is also the case that the more CO2 a plant receives, the more susceptible it is to minor variations in gas delivery and the less CO2 it receives, the more robust it is against gas shortfalls. This is another idiosyncrasy that is difficult to sum up in a few rules but which explains some of the apparent inconsistency in our experiences.

It's exactly as you mention about experience, which is the key to my points and advice. An experienced hobbyist can get away with a lot of "rule breaking", but we do a disservice if we offer lackadaisical approach as advice. So like the rules of the road, our rules have helped to consistently solve problems for many folks.

So I find it odd that you would never consider running your lights at 20% when we often solve algae problems while sacrificing only some growth rate in tanks where we suggested dimming the lights to no more than 20%.

University of Copenhagen's Dr. Ole Pedersen has written a lot of papers on the effects of submersion of plants, both terrestrial and wetland varieties. He consistently emphasizes that gas exchange (CO2/O2) is the most important factor in the plants survival after submersion. He states that only "moderate lighting" is necessary and goes on to discuss the many different strategies plants have of adapting to the poor gas exchange imposed by submersion.

So this is not my idea, but it is my focus based on his data as well as on Tom Barr's data.
That is is possible to produce good gas exchange without strong filtration techniques is not surprising - if one has the experience to execute it.
The nature of my opposition therefore is that advising inexperienced hobbyists to add more light and to ignore some (of our) basic principles can lead to out-of-context misunderstandings. They are already getting advice in other forums to add more light. I think if you look closely at the woe threads you will see that the tanks have woes primarily because of having too much light. When the light intensity is reduced, the problems get solved more quickly, especially if the poster implements better flow techniques.

Cheers,


----------



## Martty (9 Jun 2018)

*- 13.week update -*

so, plants are better. Algea almost disappears. I *moved skimmer* to lelf back corner and outflou lily pipe better distribute CO2 from difusor. I have increased the power of *light to 30%* (+10%). I have *changed my dosing* schedule according to the original Seachem Dosing Calendar with my fertilizers:

*Day 1*
- waterchange 50%
- Seachem Flourish 1,25ml
- Seachem Excel 5ml
- Seachem Nitrogen 1ml

*Day 2*
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml

*Day 3*
- K2SO4 4ml
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml

*Day 4*
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Seachem Nitrogen 1ml
- Seachem Flourish 1,25ml

*Day 5*
- K2SO4 4ml
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml
- Seachem Flourish 1,25ml

*Day 6*
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml

*Day 7*
- no fertilizer
-------------------------------------
*I have also made pH profile: *

7.06 pH - 9hod.
7.03 pH - 10a.m. (CO2 ON)
6.91 pH - 11a.m.
6.71 pH - 12a.m. (Lighting ON)
6.62 pH - 1p.m.
6.53 pH - 2p.m.
6.49 pH - 3p.m.
6.51 pH - 4p.m. (CO2 OFF)
6.48 pH - 5p.m.
6.63 pH - 6p.m. (Lighting OFF)
6.69 pH - 7p.m.
6.76 pH - 8p.m.
6.82 pH - 9p.m.
6.89 pH - 10p.m.
6.97 pH - 11p.m.
7.05 pH - 12p.m.


----------



## PARAGUAY (10 Jun 2018)

Aquarium is looking great


----------

