• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

What exactly causes BBA?

Another problem is that lots of us (including me) state this and that, but few of us (not me) have enough scientific background and/or reliable experimental data to support the statements. But wait... this is the internet, isn't it? :) just find a soapbox from where you can shout it loud

Now seriously, +1 for UKAPS and its technical level. You don't know how far from this are most of the forum I visit in my country

Jordi
 
Last edited:
parotet said:
Another problem is that lots of us (including me) state this and that, but few of us (not me) have enough scientific background and/or reliable experimental data to support the statements. But wait... this is the internet, isn't it? just find a soapbox from where you can shout it loud
Click to expand...

+1. This applys for 99% of people including myself. But then again you stop to think, Is there really any reliable info out there to explain algae behaviour? No, they are all theories for now. Nothing we know for sure. Probably the main source of knowledge is aquarists experiences.

I myself think that Tom Barr is one of the very very few who at least has taken the time to explain things. His theories seem to make a lot of sense. He has contributed the most to the hobby. But yet people seem to have something against him (not always), and I feel overwhelmed when I talk about him. People get personal and this and that.

I just dont get it.
 
Jose said:
Probably the main source of knowledge is aquarists experiences.
Click to expand...
Don't agree mate. There are plenty of algologists/water ecologists/biologists out there and they know very well what they talk about. We are just hobbyists that take their hobby very seriously but that's all.

Most of us have tanks to enjoy them and not for testing anything on them. Testing (at least from the scientific point of view) means have a control sample, several samples with different conditions, being able to repeat your results, being able to isolate what you want to test from other things, etc. We do not have batteries of aquaria for doing so (not all of us...).

Experience is great to be shared, it can be useful for helping other hobbyists but it is not necessarily science. My job is advising farmers regarding environmental issues and transferring knowledge. That's something I have to very careful explain each time a farmer stares at me thinking "what the hell this man is going to explain to me now? I have spent my whole life on the farm...!!!". But I just try to explain that, even if an agronomic practice has been implemented during the last decades (centuries) it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best one, or that this is the truth (and believe me, there are plenty of things that are very badly done...). You may be doing things wrong all your life, why not? I'm not there to tell people this (and that way of course), but to make them realize that if they are open minded: experience + scientific knowledge = more chances of success.

The same applies to the hobby. Don't try to make your experience science, just try to put both together.

Jordi
 
parotet said:
Don't agree mate. There are plenty of algologists/water ecologists/biologists out there and they know very well what they talk about. We are just hobbyists that take their hobby very seriously but that's all.
Most of us have tanks to enjoy them and not for testing anything on them. Testing (at least from the scientific point of view) means have a control sample, several samples with different conditions, being able to repeat your results, being able to isolate what you want to test from other things, etc. We do not have batteries of aquaria for doing so (not all of us...).
Click to expand...

Well Im sorry but if Im not a biologist working in this kind of field its pretty hard to find useful information IMHO. It might be there but you need to put loads of pieces together and it'll take some years to make up the picture.

Yet if someone has some links about:
phosphate limitation of co2 uptake Id love to read those.
Or gaseous CO2 being more available for plants as compared to dissolved CO2
Or algae causes that discard high nutrients
Or harder to keep plants growing in hard water vs soft water.
The levels of CO2 that most tropical fish can withstand at different o2 levels.
etc
Im honestly interested in all this.

How do we know how to act with regards to all the above? It really all comes from aquarists experiences.

Even EI comes from a hobbiest who had access to laboratory equipment.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link ourmanflint!

This is why Im asking ourmanflint. I would like specific things apliccable to the hobby, and these are very scarce. Thats whys maybe people who have gone through all these have found useful pieces of info.

There are some but not enough to explain all we take as common wisdom in the hobby. Just because its not scientific fact.
 
Last edited:
Jose, do you know Marcel's website? http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/
Some parts are in English but it is much better to use the website google translator option... Loads of good information to read. In my opinion one of the most reliable sources for planted aquaria on the internet.... and a huge personal effort kindly offered to the hobbyists

Jordi
 
parotet said:
Some parts are in English but it is much better to use the website google translator option... Loads of good information to read. In my opinion one of the most reliable sources for planted aquaria on the internet.... and a huge personal effort kindly offered to the hobbyists
Click to expand...

Yes I like this link.
 
Hi Zak Rafic,
My opinion, not knowledge, is that there is a complex combination of causes that allows algae to grow. Scientists don't yet fully understand the causes of harmful algae blooms (HAB's), so hobbyists' knowledge is as useful as any.
Although we talk about 10? different types they are actually composed of 1000s of slightly different species, so slight differences in a tank can allow different types to gain a foothold.

I've seen puddles and seeps next to each other; one with algae and one without, which to my eye appear identical, but something is going on.

I've never had an algae problem, (except T5 resting on cover glass caused green slime, cured by raising the light height), but I occasionally add water from water-troughs, ponds, etc, which most likely adds rotifers, copepods, etc which eat algal spores, so it's possible that people with new tanks, hardscape, etc suffer more due to lack of algal predators (algae spores are air-borne so can always get into a tank).

Not a lot of help, but I don't think there is a definitive answer.
cheers phil
 
Hi all,
Another Phil said:
I've never had an algae problem, (except T5 resting on cover glass caused green slime, cured by raising the light height), but I occasionally add water from watertroughs, ponds, etc, which most likely adds rotifers, copepods, etc which eat algal spores, so it's possible that people with new tanks, hardscape, etc suffer more due to lack of algal predators (algae spores are air-borne so can always get into a tank).
Click to expand...
I've found the same as "Another Phil", basically if you have a reasonable plant mass, and don't muck about with the tank too much, that after a couple of months you reach a state where you don't have much algae. I'd actually like a bit more in most of my tanks.

There is some more discussion in the <"Am I gassing...."> an excellent thread (with pictures), and if you want more: <"400 gallon..." >, <"A little bit of Algae....">, <"Algae question.."> & <"What is the best way">.

cheers Darrel
 
One of the major problem with anyt algea related studies will be that they are not artifically pumping CO2 into a tiny closed system like we do. Okay you get algea in low tech tanks as well but usually they are low light and so low demand for co2 and nutrients so it's not as extreme.

Confusion about EI and other myths

1. It was never meant to be applied rigidly.
2. It is a simple concept, provide non limiting nutrients without having to test to do so.
3. Adding non limiting nutrients provides the plants with optimal nuterients so folks can rule out deficiencies
4. Precise plant nutrient Deficiencies are not known for most every aquatic plant. This requires a high level of testing and things like fish food, sediments and other potential confounding factors come into play.
5. If you have lower growth, lower light, then you can make safe assumptions like using less nutrients, again, refer to #1.
6. Algae are not nutrient limited in aquariums with fish and plants. Argue this all you want, but you need to research and see what types of nutrient levels will limit algae. They are extremely low and any fish waste and plant decay, leaching etc is more than enough to supply algae with all they need.
7. 90-95% of all algae related issues are due to improper use of CO2.
8. 90-95% of all algae problems are related to improper use of CO2.
There is a good reason to repeat this because folks will forget and blame the nutrient dosing method(and this issue is not limited to just EI, every other dosing routine has the same issues).
9. Measuring CO2 carefully is not easy. It varies, it's influenced by circulation a great deal, it can change 10X in concentration in less than 30-45 minutes.
No other nutrient can change this rapidly, nor is critical to every other nutrient. Algae take advantage of this variation to germinate and establish.
Be very careful in assuming you are 110% positive you have enough, instead, rule out everythign else first, then go about tweaking CO2 and do so slowly, never rush or get impatient.
10. In general, less light is better than more for every method using CO2.
This reduces CO2 demand, if you use higher light, consider having methods to reduce it, control it if any issue come up.
11. EI rules out nutrient deficiencies. While this can rule them out, many find that after adding non limiting nutrients, they still have issues. EI is not solely about nutrients, if the CO2 demand was limited because there was not much PO4, now the CO2 demand is greatly increased. If the CO2 is not also increased to account for this change, then it can lead an aquarists to incorrectly assume that it is the PO4 that is causing the plant or algae issue. However, it is a secondary effect. If the CO2 was controlled correctly in the test, then the algae/plant issue would not have occurred. Such error/s in logic cam lead to false assumptions/conclusions.
 
I have several objections to the above stated:

1) kirk:
It Would be great if you shared the facts proof / info as I'd like to crank my light through the roof and save some co2 and also people can throw away there twinstars.
Click to expand...
I did it several times on several forums without any success (= without people taking it seriosly and thinking of it).
But here are two examples:
http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/img/2_voda/redox2_blau_4x24w_jn.jpg
The values here are µmol PAR.
http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/img/2_voda/redox2_2014-10-18_1.jpg
In this tank I use about 100-120 µmol PAR at the substrate level, and 400 µmol PAR at the water surface.

2) Julian:
I'd very much like to see these tanks, I think you should show everyone, so we might learn something constructive. Rather than listen to you boasting about your superior knowledge on the subject, and advising the OP to disregard all the users on this forum.
Click to expand...
I never said I have some superior knowledge myself. Instead, I said that if someone is seeking some serious knowledge he/she should go to experts. And according to my opinion the experts on algae are algologists, not hobbyists. Why? Because most hobbyist know nearly nothing about how to do some serious testing which can help them to find proper answers. Most EI worshipers, for example, repeat again and again, that "90-95% of all algae problems are related to improper use of CO2" (or to low CO2 concentration etc.). Why are they telling this? Because they never studied algae in detail. Otherwise they would never say such a nonsense. I myself am not an algologist, but I spoke with quite a few of them. You can try it also. Maybe they explain you some basics about algae ... if you listen (maybe you know the proverb: Cup which is full can not be filled).
BTW, I have quite a lot of (useful) information about algae on my website. Unfortunately, no article about algae is translated into english yet.

3) Jose:
Ardjunas cases of high light and low co2 w/o algae is explained because low phosphates is limitting co2 demmand.
Click to expand...
I just marvel how can you be so sure if you never saw my tanks in person? I did many experiments in my tanks. Once I used just very lean dosing schedule, but in other cases I used full EI with 5-7 ppm PO4. How do you explain that in both cases I had no visible algae? And what about Takashi Amano tanks? The ones where he used about 8-12 ppm CO2 with Rotala wallichii?

4) EnderUK:
What has sciene ever done for us?
Click to expand...
For the people who ignore it the science may seem to be useless. But for the ones who listen and love it the science is like fountain of knowledge.

5) Jose:
Probably the main source of knowledge is aquarists experiences.
Click to expand...
I would say that the main source of knowledge for aquarists who ignore science remains their own experience. But if you can combine your experiences with some scientific data (results of some good experiments) you can be much more closer to the final picture.

6) EnderUK:
EI rules out nutrient deficiencies.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Try to grow different kind of plants in EI soup, and watch how some of them will stagnate and some even die ... even under relatively high concentration of nutrients. Again, how did you get to this mantras? Did you have some serious data to confirm this theory? Or did you grow successfully couple of plants, and you conclude from this that all plants will do fine under EI? Did you do some controlled tests? Did you try it in aquariums with different types of substrates, and also in aquariums without any substrate?

PS: My intention here is not to be smarter then others. I just try to force you think of your mantras ... and not just repeat them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Ardjuna

Im open if you can show a high light tank with low co2 and no phosphate limitation, or any other nutrient limitaation for that matter.. One tank alone is not going to falsify Barr's theory but it can be the start. Always open to new evidence.

Amanos tanks have low(ish) light for a high tech. Around 40 PAR at substrate.

ADA does loads of work on their tanks very often.

Soft water. In softer water something is happening that we dont know, which makes many species grow better even under not so high co2 levels.

If you think youve found something others dont know about, then go ahead and proof your point. If youve proven the above then you can make your own theory and Barrs will be falsified. But its gonna be hard. You have be able to repeat the results over and over as he has.
 
Jose said:
Amanos tanks have low(ish) light for a high tech. Around 40 PAR at substrate.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is another of the mantras repeated again and again. Ask ADA mini M users (the ones that also bought the light). It's bright as hell, even experienced aquascapers say that it is too much light. And what about ADA AquaSky 361, 451, 601 or 601users... have you seen PAR values (for example in Marcel website)? Mate, this is really really high light. The fact that some Amano tanks designed for showrooms have low lights (obviously, even Amano plays safe sometimes) it does not mean that all ADA setups are low light.

Jordi
 
parotet said:
I'm sorry but this is another of the mantras repeated again and again. Ask ADA mini M users (the ones that also bought the light). It's bright as hell, even experienced aquascapers say that it is too much light. And what about ADA AquaSky 361, 451, 601 or 601users... have you seen PAR values (for example in Marcel website)? Mate, this is really really high light. The fact that some Amano tanks designed for showrooms have low lights (obviously, even Amano plays safe sometimes) it does not mean that all ADA setups are low light.
Click to expand...

Im talking about ADA gallery yes. And yes theyve been measured.
All this has been explained. It looks bright because of the ammount of green in them.
 
Although I still dont get it, some pieces are missing for me. How come with such a bad CO2 diffusion method as a diffuser they have such great tanks while we need a 1 ph drop with a light in the same region, and inline atomizers? How do they not get algae if co2 comes on at the same time as the lights? Most people here recommend turning on co2 some hours before lights on so that co2 levels build up. They have no surface ripple during the day either?

I think high maintenance and soft water make up for some of these. But it doesnt explain it completely.
 
Jose said:
You have be able to repeat the results over and over as he has.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you something: I have absolutely no interest in endlessly repeating something, so that it became a world-famous theory. I believe that people (at least some of them) are able to judge the arguments presented and decide for themselves. If someone want to believe that 95% of algae problems is associated with bad CO2 management, go ahead and believe it! My goal it to present some scientific data and results of my own findings so that we can have something solid which we can build our experiences upon. T.Barr says many things but for me these are just mantras. If he publish some details about how has he get to these "truths" that would be something I would appreciate. Maybe he's true when he says that 95% of algae problems are caused by bad CO2 management, but until he shows me some solid data I will question it. And as to his "disproving" argument I have already commented it here (under My objections to T.Barr).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I will just say that I believe Tom Barr because I can see his theories working in my tank. Thats all. If something he said didnt work Id question it much more.

If you bring up a theory I would be happy to try it.

But saying Tom Barr is wrong and not giving much more support means nothing. This said I would be perfectly happy if someone made another contribution to the hobby even if this meant T. Barr is wrong.
All I want is to have the easiest to keep, most beautiful tank of all;).
 
People for many centuries believed that the Earth is flat. And as long as they used just their eyes to check it, it seemed correct.
What I want to say by it is that to have a beautiful planted tank without visible algae is one thing, but the way he explains his success may be something totaly different. I mean, T.Barr has quite nice tanks (that's true), but the way he explains his success may be wrong. If you are not able to admit it ... then no arguments will convince you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top