What exactly causes BBA?

[roadmaster]

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

To me EI is a tool, that eliminates one part of the equation with regards to plant growth by ensuring non limiting nutrient's.
Does not ensure no algae, nor does any other method if ...lighting is driving demand past available CO2.
Lighting is a tool that drives demand for CO2 and nutrient's.(reduce light and you reduce demand)
Folks that insist on driving demand with too much light for available CO2 will have problems with ANY method.
90% of people believe they have enough CO2 and good distribution of same to allow for often very high lighting.

I have low tech tanks .
I know the CO2 is what it is in my tanks without CO2 injection,excel,glut,metracide,etc.
The CO2 in my tanks is a result of bacterial processes and by-product of fish respiration.
I also know that I am adding un limiting nutrient's judging from the growth I see.(modified EI)
So long as I don't try to use too much light for the little amount of CO2 that I have,,the plant's grow and algae is not a problem.
Yes the growth is slower but consistent.
The few times I have increased the intensity of my lighting by lowering the fixture,quickly brought hair algae to tops of plants and leaves of crypt's/anubias.
Raise the light back up an inch or two,,and the algae leaves within a few day's to maybe a week.
The difference I think is.. I know I have low levels of CO2 where other's running high tech injected tanks are sure they have plenty of CO2 and maybe they do or don't depending on faulty methods of measuring,distribution issues,poor maint,poor flow.
But heaven forbid you suggest to most of them that reducing the light for a few weeks(not hours/day's) may ease their worries.

 

[Marcel G]

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...

Some information published on my website present my own opinions. I hope I'm allowed to express my opinion on different things, even on Thomas Barr of Clive Greene. I did so because I am aware of many people just worship them. So in case of T.Barr I wanted to point out some of his mistakes (things I consider a mistakes or misinterpretations of scientific data). On the other hand I admit he has a beautiful tank and is able to grow plants very well. But it's true (and I'm not hiding it) that I don't like the way T.Barr and Clive explain their experiences ... that they hide their opinions behind some quasi-scientific data. If you think that my arguments against T.Barr on my site are wrong, just feel free to oppose me. Or does it mean than if someone became famous it's forbidden to question his/her opinions?

 

[Marcel G]

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

What about clicking on the small picture of my tank in the top left corner of the site?

 

[Jose]

Its hard to leave Personal opinions on the side for everyone. This doesnt really matter to me. Thats why you should look at the facTs.

Also I dont really think that low co2 will necessarilly cause alage In every case. I do think that plants get stunted though. Specially harder plants.

 

[Jose]

So I think both might be right. I think at low co2 levels plants can suffer (T Barr). I also think that algae may or may not appear due to mainly water changes. How many wAter changes did you do in those tanks Ardjuna.I mean how often?

 

[Marcel G]

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...

Another note: If you did some kind of growth experiments in 1966 you should get the same (or similar) results in 2015 also. The time interval does not play any role here. On the other hand, if you insist on saying that the data from 1938 or 1966 are not correct today, please, would you be so kind and present me the new valid data? Or what exactly is wrong with these "old" data?

Also, if you read one of my central articles on nutrient consumption, you must know that I admited that T.Barr is probably correct when he claims that EI method suggests non-limiting amounts of nutrients, as according to my experiments the nutrient content in dry matter was really high under EI recommended concentration of nutrients (4.6% N, 0.6% P, 8.3% K). According to Gerloff and Krombholz the critical value should be 1.3% for N => if there is more nitrogen in the dry matter it would suggest that the plants were growing in non-limiting environment. In my test under EI fertilizing regime I had 4.6% of N. Is this not a great manifestation of appreciation to T.Barr? You may consider me an enemy of Barr, but still I'm able to admit if he is right and me wrong. That's because I don't insist on being right or wrong ... I only insist on finding the truth.

 

[Mark Green]

Very much of topic,

On your site it states for par levels you need the following...

Lighting is one of the most important things for the proper functioning aquarium and optimum plant growth. Aquarists often pay a lot of attention fertilization and algae, while forgetting the importance of proper lighting. To be sure that you most aquatic plants grow well, you need illumination, at least 50 umol PAR (some demanding plant species will, however, when such lighting will grow very slowly). It is ideal to use lighting in the range of 50-100 micromol PAR (measured at the substrate) and the upper limit (100 umol PAR) has a relatively strong lighting, in which you will grow relatively quickly even the toughest plants.When lighting is low (30-50 micromol PAR) will do well only stínomilným species of plants (mosses, ferns, Anubias and some other plant species). Heliophile plants in low light pull the heights, tend to have large gaps between levels of leaves, or shed their lower leaves. In some serious cases may even start rot.

However that bloke you take time out to discredit on your site found the following to be true( did a test with a par meter on a ada tank in store)

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...-aqua-forest-and-nice-low-par-values-who-knew

Only 30-40 par for a hc carpet.........Your thoughts????

 

[roadmaster]

Its hard to leave Personal opinions on the side for everyone. This doesnt really matter to me. Thats why you should look at the facTs.

Also I dont really think that low co2 will necessarilly cause alage In every case. I do think that plants get stunted though. Specially harder plants.

Low CO2 will bring the algae if lighting is far exceeding the CO2/nutrient's available and it happens with frightening quickness in high tech tanks.

 

[Marcel G]

How many wAter changes did you do in those tanks Ardjuna.I mean how often?

Once a week 50-70%. I do this in all my tanks (without any vacuuming).

 

[Jose]

Low CO2 will bring the algae if lighting is far exceeding the CO2/nutrient's available and it happens with frightening quickness in high tech tanks.

Not necessarily at least not with low co2 IME. And not always. Its normally the case but sometimes filtration, high flow and big water changes can make this algae not appear. Even though the plant isnt in good condition. There are many tanks with stunted tips and no algae.

 

[Marcel G]

On your site it states for par levels you need the following...

Please, can you give me the link where did you find that? It seems the paragraph was translated by Google so I would like to read it in the context.

 

[sciencefiction]

But heaven forbid you suggest to most of them that reducing the light for a few weeks(not hours/day's) may ease their worries.

In low tech tanks modifying the light is the best method to achieve algae or not to achieve algae by just adjusting the light intensity and duration to amount don't promote algae. Its no secret. The point you are not including here is that we may not just need to "reduce light" in a tank to achieve healthy plant life. The intensity of light matters even in a low tech in order to achieve healthy growth for all plants, not just the ones that survive the adjustment. For me it works best if I reduce or increase the intensity rather than working with light duration. Higher intensity, shorter period produces better plants visually and supports more type of plants than lower intensity, longer duration and especially not same short duration as when using higher intensity. In the latter example, some light loving plants just melt and die. In this case who cares if you have algae or not, if you can't grow what you want and end up with crypts, anubias and swords only. When I decreased the light intensity by 40% in my low tech, hydrophila pinnatifida, glosso, aponogetons, another couple of bulb plants I can't remember the name off, Mexican leaf, and others all melted and died. Now I have just crypts, swords, anubias and microsorum. Their growth almost stopped to nothing and my only move was to increase the duration instead. What that move achieved is to keep the low light tolerant plants happy and steadily growing, no other plants adjusted to lower intensity and even valis melts and dies if it gets slightly overshadowed from emersed plants. So I am at the lower limit. This happened when my lights failed, so I had no choice but it caused a mass melt within 2-3 weeks of the light being reduced, certain species disappeared for good.
So there's are boundaries for light, lower and upper, not just upper. I had no algae with the higher amount of light, just happy and healthy growing plants. I did not need to control algae as it wasn't visible. I couldn't see it. Now I have not so happy low light tolerating plants. I still have no algae. But I do agree some maybe hitting the upper light limit instead.

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.

Jose, even T.Barr and Clive will admit that what you've concluded from trying "high phosphates and lower Co2" is inconclusive. You could have run out of nitrogen at the same time causing stunted growth, or some other micro nutrient. This doesn't necessarily mean that you needed more CO2, even though it doesn't rule it out either.

 

[roadmaster]

Not necessarily at least not with low co2 IME. And not always. Its normally the case but sometimes filtration, high flow and big water changes can make this algae not appear. Even though the plant isnt in good condition. There are many tanks with stunted tips and no algae.

Yes good maint trimming ,cleaning of filters regularly,water changes, are all something we signed on for or should have but if lighting is too much ,,then it just is for the amount of CO2 you can provide.
Some folks can't increase the CO2 that they have without gassing the fish.
What are they to do?
They can maybe increase the surface ripple which would let them maybe inject a little more CO2 (use it more quickly also) but reducing the light should be in my view be the first thing to try.

 

[Jose]

No sciencefiction. This is totally the opposite to what Barr and ceg say. If using EI, and your plants get stunted tips then its always a co2 issue. This is what they say.

 

[Marcel G]

However that bloke you take time out to discredit on your site found the following to be true( did a test with a par meter on a ada tank in store) ... Only 30-40 par for a hc carpet.........Your thoughts????

You obviously have a problem with me and my arguments. I understand that. But I really don't understand what you want from me? Do you seek some way to discredit me (as I did T.Barr)? If so it would be maybe better for you to write an article where you can put your arguments against me. And if you use a good arguments maybe I will finally appologize to T.Barr and you. I'm open to that.

But in case you just want to know if it's possible to grow some light demanding plants under 30-40 µmol PAR, I have to say I don't know (at least from the long term view). I myself am inclined to believe that most fast growing plants would need at least 50 µmol PAR at the substrate to hardly grow. But some of them may grow at lower values as each plant species has different light compensation point. But most aquatic plants will grow at their maximum growth rate under 500-1000 µmol PAR. So supplying them with just 50 µmol PAR is not much (this will for sure lead to relatively slow growth). I myself saw once Anubias and Egeria surviving under barely detectable PAR levels (about 5 µmol PAR) but they were doing really poorly. So I would recommend 25-50 µmol PAR for slow-growing undemanding species, and 50-100 µmol PAR for fast-growing demanding species. That said, many mosses do well even under 500 µmol PAR in my tank.

 

[Marcel G]

If using EI, and your plants get stunted tips then its always a co2 issue.

And what if you just pour the concentrated fertilizer into the water column too close to some plants? I did it many many times (as I have quite small tank), and it resulted in stunted tips. So concentrated liquid fertilizer can do this quite easily also.

 

[Jose]

Ardjuna your argument about PAR is incomplete IMO. Because you are not taking co2 into account. The compensation point is not X. It is X for a Y level of co2. So for cuba it might be 40 PAR at 30 ppm of co2 but it might be 80 at 5/10ppm.

 

[Jose]

Oh thats very interesting! Concentrated nutrients stunting plants? Ive gotta try this one.

 

[roadmaster]

YES,YES,intensity is far more important than duration.
Don't much matter if you reduce duration the light's are on if it's too much for CO2 available.
Four hours or fourteen hours will still be too much .
I do believe if one want's to grow more demanding plant's,that low tech may not be their cup of tea. and it goes back to what I said previously above,,"choose a method and learn it well"

 

[sciencefiction]

No sciencefiction. This is totally the opposite to what Barr and ceg say. If using EI, and your plants get stunted tips then its always a co2 issue. This is what they say.

And how did they conclude that if I may ask without being disrespectful. I haven't read any article where it explains the deficiency signs on aquatic plants caused by lack of CO2. There are none. There is a lot of info about nutrients but not about CO2 deficiency. There are a lot people that attribute certain things to CO2 when in fact the cause its something else.
And then on another hand what you are claiming is that when you used high phosphate, CO2 of 15ppm, you got stunted tips. So shall we presume a CO2 of 15ppm causes stunted tips. And a CO2 of 30ppm doesn't.
Well that doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying that NO3 of 15ppm causes stunted tips. NO3 of 30ppm doesn't. To me, a nutrient of any kind is either present or is not present. When it's not present, it causes deficiencies. When it's present, regardless of amount as long as it doesn't hit 0, it causes no deficiencies of any kind.