• 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?

sciencefiction said:
I recall reading a good bit of time ago somewhere, possibly 3 years ago, about certain plants having a priority for certain nutrients. This was posted by an aquarist, not a scientist but apparently with long time background in growing aquatic plants for sale, but growing them underwater, not emersed, meaning he couldn't afford to have algae. I can't recall where I read it, I must try to find it but I remember the general idea he explained.

His method is basically to keep the tank to a state of near Green Spot Algae. In order to do that he first induces GSA by dosing just KNO3 which would deplete the PO4. Then he would start dosing PO4 a gram or so a day for a week until the GSA stops growing. On the day of the week that happens, he would calculate back the PO4 amount dosed up to that day, and that would be his weekly dose of PO4. If it doesn't happen on the first week. He'd do a 50% water change, clean GSA daily and then dose double the PO4 a day and monitor till it stops growing. The point being that he doesn't limit PO4, he only limits it to what the particular tank exactly needs, no more, no less.

In his words, some tanks need more phosphorous, some less due to the specific plants. Anubias and microsorums(and some other ones I can't remember) he says have a priority consumption for phosphorous for example and such tanks may need more phosphate.

The reason he "limits" PO4 this way, is to limit the CO2 demand. But he said he doesn't really limit the PO4. What he would limit or not overdose is potassium because extra potassium would drive nitrate to 0 at times which would cause algae.

He applied same method for other types of algae and other nutrients I can't remember about, first induce, then fix the algae.

He said that the BBA algae, the brush type growing on edges of leaves is caused by a lack of CO2 combined with high Ca and high Kh(this sounds just like all of my tanks) His solution was check Kh, use RO to reduce the Kh.

The other type of black algae, that grows like charcoal covering the entire leaves and is not hairy, he says is caused by too much PO4 in comparisson to NO3 and lack of CO2. His solution, stop adding phosphates, improve co2.

His method of injecting max amount of co2 is using the live stock as indicator. By monitoring the tank and increase CO2 injection each hour, until stock starts gasping. Then reduce co2 one step back when they weren't gasping and that's his daily max co2 amount.

His method is only applicable in high light, high co2 tanks so I haven't tried any of it. But here it goes for the sake or knowledge.
Click to expand...

While I agree with his method of using the fishes to determine the max amount of CO2 he can use for it is safer for the fishes,I cannot find merit with his method of trying to dose only what the plant's actually need.
Would not the plant mass increase daily/weekly (assuming they aren't dying) therefore precipitate the need for constant adjustment's with regards to how much of this or that nutrient might be needed?
With something as simple as EI , one could avoid much trouble from deficiency standpoint (start high and decrease till you see issues)
So long as the light does not drive the demand for more CO2/nutrient's than one can provide the EI method seem's to work well for the masses New hobbyist's and old alike.
EI can also be used for low tech NON CO2 tanks as well at much reduced levels but still non limiting for lower light NON CO2.
Most only want to grow healthy plant's with little or no algae and are not interested initially with testing to see how lean they might be able to run the tank and still achieve desired results, and many are not familiar with identifying this or that deficiency should one or more appear.
Am alway's reading,trying to learn like I suspect many are, but conflicting opinion's about This method or that method ,what this or that deficiency looks like, what nutrient should be added or decreased,what spectrum is best for growth (happily learned there ain't one)
how much light is too much,was all very confusing for me in the beginning as I suspect it is for other's perhap's new to the hobby.
It was suggested to me by a wise man,to choose someones advice who is achieving the same goals as your's to hang your hat on.
I chose to listen and follow the advice of those here with special thanks to Dr. Tom Barr .
Year's of fundamental mistakes/failures on my part were quickly sorted.
I have very liitle regard/time for personal attacks on other methods or fellow hobbyist's, for we only need to remind ourselves that there are many method's for growing weed's and not all methods are suitable for desired goals of individuals.
The same wise man I mentioned earlier also suggested to me to "choose a method" and learn it well, then choose another
It occurs to me that I am rambling so.....
 
roadmaster said:
While I agree with his method of using the fishes to determine the max amount of CO2 he can use for it is safer for the fishes,I cannot find merit with his method of trying to dose only what the plant's actually need.
Click to expand...

The reason for him doing that is because he says he's determined that when GSA proliferates other algae stops growing or die. Hence keeping the tank in near GSA stage is the key to no algae of any kind.
But mind you, he's not limiting phosphate to do that. The phosphate needed to be dosed could be higher than what EI suggests!!! He determines how much to dose via his "protocols". I think I might not have explained his thoughts correctly. It's best to read it yourself. .
 
Well I shall take on board everything I can and form a opinion of my own which seem to be as popular as Bar-B-Q recipe's.
I see the BBA in my own low tech NON CO2 tanks but it only grows in a tiny clump hgere or there on a rock.piece of wood,or possibly spray bar.
The method of reducing it for me,, is to keep the filters cleaned every three week's,remove the tufts of algae with scissor's,tweezer's, ensure good flow through out the tank ,reduce feeding's for I occasionally over feed when young fishes are developing.
When I change water each week or bi-weekly I use cotton ball and peroxide on the spray bar's while the tank is draining and spray bar's are exposed.I give the filter hoses a cleaning once a month.
It seem's to work well for me across three tanks.
I perform water changes during light's off, and haven't disturbed a plant in over two year with the exception of trimming them back.
I maybe see the stuff once or twice a year, a small clump here or there.
Other than this algae,,I have zero issues with other forms.
It must be this way for me, or I would long ago have abandoned the effort as I did previously when I wore a much younger man's clothes.
 
Last edited:
parotet said:
but even though you don't want to admit that there may be a different approach to planted tanks management.
Click to expand...

Parotet, Are you reading my posts? or just cryticizing with the flow? No worries nothing personal but I even recommended pps pro to the guy having problems. Please stop for a moment and read my posts and then speak.
 
Ill just stop being critical and asking questions here because it seems that if you are not a scientist you cant question things.

In this forum 90% of people have problems with EI method. So if someone comes around showing a couple of experiments and saying EI/T Barr is wrong everyone is going to fall for it whilst 90% dont understand it to begin with.

Its like offering water in the desert.

I will keep following Ardjuna because my goal is to be open minded and learn.
 
90 % of people insist on blasting the tank with their uber $$$ lighting.
I belong to several forums, and could not disagree more with the estimate that 90 % of people are having trouble with the EI method.(some /most suffer from self inflicted problems)
Theyr'e trouble begins and ends with the lighting which drives demand for everything else.
If they reduce light intensity first,,then ensure good CO2 diffusion,distribution, then algae has much more difficult time.
Hard to move folks off their lighting which would be far more helpful in getting rid of algae.
 
just two more things here:

1) Id still like to see people who have had success by adding high phosphates low co2 and high light. Please peolle who have seen this comment. Ardjuna, have I tried this? Yes I got stunted tips in many plants. Thats all I know and its in consonance with TB.

2) To Ardjuna, Ive never said that ei method will work in all tanks. It will work in all tanks that meat the specifications of EI. Like a certain co2 ppm for a certain ammount of light etc. So yes ei works every time as long as its ei. If its not working this means you are doing something different from EI Simple as that. How do I know since Im not a scientist? Because of all the tanks Ive seen done this way and also from my own experience in the tanks Ive done myself.

3) To Parotet: to be honest I dont care if the conversation becomes ciclical, because its all about the trip and many people are learning things in the way, including myself. Still, Ive said all I had to say (or maybe not:lol:).
 
Last edited:
Ardjuna any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks. Not just 1 small tank but all the tanks you have done so we can see your advice works.
I find in this hobby that many people claim to talk the talk and have all this great wisdom but in reality have very mediocre plant health themselves.

Show us you can walk the walk, otherwise its just all talk...
 
EI is not a scientific theory it is a method. If it works that is great but it doesn't explain anything about mechanisms or "required" amounts. Similarly, if I tell you to pot all of your houseplants in a 2m wide pot, you will find they happily grow unrestricted. However, this doesn't mean that a 2m pot is the required size for healthy houseplants.


This discussion is trapped in a circle: EI works ---> EI explains all--> but EI doesn't explain anything ---> but EI works, so it must explain--> but the science makes no sense --> but it works and so on UNTIL TIME ENDS or, people give up replying

its ridiculous, and tiring, to read
 
Well Rahms I think the conversation has opened at least one new front. Its Ardjunas theory that you dont need more than 15 ppm of co2 with high light. If EI doesnt work or has drawbacks, lets look for them and proof them.
 
Mark Green said:
Ardjuna any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks. Not just 1 small tank but all the tanks you have done so we can see your advice works.
Click to expand...
General reply: Tom Barr, any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks, not just 1 big tank but all the tanks you have done?
Personal reply: If you were really interested in seeing my tanks, you would find them on my website.
 
Is it no interesting? How come yours is one of the very very few tanks (if any) that needs low co2 with high light (@nd high nutrients of course). Ive never actually seen this before. How come most people fix their problems by adding more co2? How do you explain so many people having problems if all they need is 15 ppm of co2? It would be the easiest method if you find it possible to repeat this results Ardjuna. You might as well patent your findings or something. If I were you I would ask myself. Is this repeatable? Did I miss something? I you are able to repeat this findings then youll start to get there. But of course my words are wothless because I dont have numbers or a figure to show you.
 
Rahms said:
This discussion is trapped in a circle: EI works ---> EI explains all--> but EI doesn't explain anything ---> but EI works, so it must explain--> but the science makes no sense --> but it works and so on UNTIL TIME ENDS or, people give up replying.
Click to expand...
You seem to look at it from a wrong direction. Either we want to know how different things work in our tank (we pursue the truth), or we want to follow some method despite of whether it correctly explains things or not. My goal is not to show T.Barr is wrong in everything he says or does. My goal is to find out the truth (or at least to get as close to it as I can). I don't care if it's T.Barr or Clive or anybody else who will find out how different things work, but if someone seems to be using wrong (misleading) arguments, then I will try to point it out so that we can possibly correct our view and get closer to the correct picture of our tanks. If you want to blame me for not having such a beautiful and big tank as T.Barr, just go ahead (I just can't have a tank bigger then 60L at home because I have to use RO as we have 50-80 ppm NO3 in our tap water). If you think EI is the all-in-one universal most perfect and infalliable method in the world, it's your thing. And if you want some proofs of me, then in the first place prove that it's not possible to grow plants under high light, hight phosphates and low CO2! Until you do it, don't say I'm wrong. As I already said, either you are interested in finding the truth, or you just want to show all the world that your method is perfect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jose said:
Is it no interesting? How come yours is one of the very very few tanks (if any) that needs low co2 with high light (@nd high nutrients of course). Ive never actually seen this before. How come most people fix their problems by adding more co2? How do you explain so many people having problems if all they need is 15 ppm of co2? It would be the easiest method if you find it possible to repeat this results Ardjuna. You might as well patent your findings or something. If I were you I would ask myself. Is this repeatable? Did I miss something? I you are able to repeat this findings then youll start to get there. But of course my words are wothless because I dont have numbers or a figure to show you.
Click to expand...
I know that it is repeatable, and I can repeat it as many times as I like to. But it's not about me. It's about you. It's you who doesn't believe it's possible. So it's up to you to find out if you are able to repeat it in your tank. Again, either you are interested in finding out how it works, or you just want to stick with EI despite of where the truth may be.
 
Well Ardj6na I tried it and failed. This is why if you think you have a finding you should fight for it. Maybe you are doing something different to us that we could learn from. This isnt about EI or Ardjuna, its about isolating the info that takes the hobby forward and leave behind those who dont honestly seak the t ruth. Sorry for sounding a bit Hollywood:lol:.
 
PS: Don't consider me a scientists as I'm not. I may be wrong the same way as everybody else. As I said, I just try to find out how things work in our tanks. If someone (whoever) shows me better arguments or better data, I may admit he's right and I'm wrong. I have no problem admiting I'm wrong. But I would appreciate if we discuss this problem using some solid and reasonable arguments and not accuse one another.
 
ardjuna said:
General reply: Tom Barr, any chance of seeing all the pictures of your beautiful healthy tanks, not just 1 big tank but all the tanks you have done?
Personal reply: If you were really interested in seeing my tanks, you would find them on my website.
Click to expand...

So are you saying all the tanks on your site are your tanks???
If not which are yours? Please provide links to these tanks... Thx

Also I notice on your site the following information about
Foreign Internet forums
  1. The Barr Report →
    American forum dedicated to the whole issue of natural aquariums, founded by Thomas Barr (author fertilizing methods Estimative Index), which is also the most active users (threads: 12.000 number of comments:> 100,000). Although T.Barra really appreciate a lot of his contributions is undoubtedly very inspiring, I think that some of his views are controversial. Very valuable contributions here used to have a user Biollante, which, however, due to frequent disputes with worshipers T.Barra ceased to attend this forum (however it is still active on the forum The Planted Tank ).
  2. UK Aquatic Plant Society →
    British forum dedicated to the whole issue of natural aquariums (number of fibers:> 25,000 Number of posts:> 330.000). I would say that the most active users, there is strongly influenced by the views T.Barra (most active of all, there is ceg4048 → expert on everything).Although there i find very reasonable opinions unless they are confident that for most of the problems in your aquarium can CO 2rather not go here. If, in contrast with the views T.Barra identify yourself, you'll probably feel there like in paradise.
So i gather you don't take tom barr advice worth listening to and ceg4048 advise on co2 also not worth listening too. Wow these 2 people have a lot of experience and have helped many in the hobby achieve great looking tanks with good healthy plants.

On your site you go to great lengths to discredit tom barr... But say nothing about scientific data collected from 1938 or 1966. To be impartial to the hobbyist you certainly are not.. As science has improved a great deal since then, many myths have been proved incorrect since then also. And how data was collected back then has improved 10 fold today...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top