# Need help with a guide I'm writing



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

Have you done a search? This was covered in great detail quite recently, I believe.

Though, I am curious why you are writing a beginner's FAQ if you are not sure of the answers yourself...

Regarding the order in which increases should be made; if anything, lights should be the last thing to be increased. CO2 should be the first, then fertilizers, and finally lights.

This is because CO2 is usually the hardest to increase (i.e. especially if you are using DIY CO2).


----------



## Swan900 (Apr 27, 2010)

Just incase as you admit you know little about algae please dont state that plants compete for nutrients with algae. Many people belive this and cause their plants to suffer because of it. Plants do not compete with algae for nutrients any more than elephants compete with mice for food. If the water column is rich in nutrients all the time then that means algae have access to the same nutrients all the time. Algae are quicker, more efficient feeders, less complicated and have access to nutrients before any plant does. Nutrients must pass by algae before they cross the plant cell wall boundary, so this idea of competition is fantasy. It was invented by people who thought that nutrients cause algae. So if you adopt the principles of a dosing method such as EI then this competition idea is a contradiction and should be terminated.

Ive put a link below for you on how algae is caused. Its the 8th post down. Its quite alot to take in, especially as you said you dont know much. But I wish you well and hope your guide goes well. Good luck.

http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1372&start=10

Swan


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

I feel comfortable enough with my knowledge to help newcomers but it's important to me as an author to be able not only to give advice, but to understand the science behind it. There's no need to be condescending. Why am *I* writing to guide? Because newbies are intimidated by this site and stay away because of how they are treated here--and the responses to this thread are an example of why they do. 

I want everyone to have a planted tank but I also want them to have the right information because there is so much garbage out there. And instead of help, I got sarcasm. If you don't want to help, that's fine, but why bother to take the time to write a snarky post? I was hesitant to start this thread because I was afraid of getting the snarky comments. And now I regret starting it.

So, if anyone else would like to help, I would be very grateful for your input; if you want to be condescending because I don't know everything, keep in mind that you were once where I am.

-Lisa


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

Actually it's a complicated issue. The term 'algae' covers a lot of species and some that aren't even technically algae like cynobacteria. So one remedy won't work on all algae. Algae is everywhere, in the water, in the air, on the plants, in the fish. It's only a problem when they 'bloom' where the environment is right for triggering their explosive growth... I recommend checking out wikipedia for the basic information and other websites for their presence in the aquarium.


----------



## thrak76 (Aug 3, 2009)

Kunsthure said:


> _[...]_ Because newbies are intimidated by this site and stay away because of how they are treated here--and the responses to this thread are an example of why they do.
> _[...]_
> So, if anyone else would like to help, I would be very grateful for your input; if you want to be condescending because I don't know everything, keep in mind that you were once where I am.
> 
> -Lisa


I've found the majority of posters here to be very polite. I sensed no condescension in the replies here. Swan was adding to the discussion with the "algae-is-no-competition" concept, and Darkblade was succinct.


----------



## Dave-H (Jul 29, 2010)

I am a newbie and I've been asking some pretty dumb questions since I arrive here 3 months ago. People are pretty supportive and polite, and I think newbies are well treated.

Granted, if you put forth an unpopular opinion you'll be challenged on it. But that's because this is a big forum that is popular with intelligent adults who frequently have quite a bit of knowledge. That's what makes this a great forum.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Kunsthure said:


> I feel comfortable enough with my knowledge to help newcomers but it's important to me as an author to be able not only to give advice, but to understand the science behind it. There's no need to be condescending. Why am *I* writing to guide? Because newbies are intimidated by this site and stay away because of how they are treated here--and the responses to this thread are an example of why they do.
> 
> I want everyone to have a planted tank but I also want them to have the right information because there is so much garbage out there. And instead of help, I got sarcasm. If you don't want to help, that's fine, but why bother to take the time to write a snarky post? I was hesitant to start this thread because I was afraid of getting the snarky comments. And now I regret starting it.
> 
> ...


People shouldn't feel uncomfortable to visit this forum. We are all newbies in the beginning and when a person gets to the point they sound 'condescending,' it's because they forgot how it feels to be new in the hobby.

Unfortunately, you are asking a question many on this forum do not want to answer because they believe the answer to all algae woes is to throw in fertilizers, get the co2 going well and use less light.

Here is my opinion for what it is worth: Algae is caused solely by the introduction of algae into a tank. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to prevent this, as the fish store may have it in there tanks and the net you use to remove the fish from the bag to the tank may have enough spores to get it started. Plus, fish may have ingested algae, the plants you purchased were contaminated by algae, or something like this. 

So technically, algae is NOT caused by any fertilizers, co2 and light. However, if this ratio is not balanced properly, the algae present in the tank will flourish and take off. I have found I controlling nutrients can help curb the amount of algae due to limiting it's supply of food, but this can also hurt the plants if done in excess.

A lot of people on this forum use less light to curb algae. This is because light drives the need for co2 and nutrients (as mistergreen pointed out to me). Less light, less need for co2 and nutrients. More light, more need for co2 and nutrients.

Also, co2 seems to be a key to algae problems. Too much, you gas your fish, too little, you let the 'lower life form' algae get a better hold on the tank. I think of algae and plants on two levels. Algae is like growing wildflowers/weeds and plants are like grow burmuda grass. Anyone can grow weeds by neglect alone since this is their nature. It takes a little more work to grow grass in its place. Also, if you let crab grass get in your lawn, it will overtake it without maintenance.

Therefore, my idea is lack of maintenance is the number one reason that algae gets a foothold in many tanks. It the tanks I have ignored, neglected and gotten too stubborn to find the perfect combination of co2 to light to nutrients, I allowed the algae to take over.

Makes sense to me and I am proving this by my latest experiment on my tank which I have turned into an algae experimental tank. Unfortunately, your question is a great one, but the answer isn't completely cut and dry.

I suspect this is because many just want to drink the kool-aid and not question the why. I am like you. I want to know the why. Unfortunately, being a relative 'newbie' makes it difficult to find the answers sometimes. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get answers even if you have to find them on your own like I did.


----------



## Swan900 (Apr 27, 2010)

I have no idea where you thought I was trying to be condesending or sarcastic? I was genuinly helping you out on the main fall-point of newcomers where they belive algae is caused by added/excess nutrients. If I didnt want to help I wouldnt have gone through the trouble of searching my UKAPS account to find that usefull information. Darkblades post was also trying to help and stated some other key facts that you requested on algae.

You obviously read our posts in the wrong mind frame, we were trying to help you out.

Swan


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

sewingalot said:


> Therefore, my idea is lack of maintenance is the number one reason that algae gets a foothold in many tanks. It the tanks I have ignored, neglected and gotten too stubborn to find the perfect combination of co2 to light to nutrients, I allowed the algae to take over.


Hate to throw a wrench into this sewingalot 
But.... My algae tank is the one I do most maintenance on :flick:
The ones that get little to no algae is the lowtech tanks where I touch maybe once a month if that.

To be honest, a lot of the 'experts' won't admit they don't know too much about the 'why's of algae. You are right I think, a lot of the people claiming on why algae is in the tank is a lot of bunk like, 'You're low on NO3, that's why BGA is growing'. It could be a simple algae introduction explanation.


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

Swan900 said:


> I have no idea where you thought I was trying to be condesending or sarcastic? I was genuinly helping you out on the main fall-point of newcomers where they belive algae is caused by added/excess nutrients. If I didnt want to help I wouldnt have gone through the trouble of searching my UKAPS account to find that usefull information. Darkblades post was also trying to help and stated some other key facts that you requested on algae.
> 
> You obviously read our posts in the wrong mind frame, we were trying to help you out.
> 
> Swan


You weren't condescending and I appreciated the link. Unfortunately I couldn't see it unless I registered. People on my fish forum do believe that excess nutrients cause algae, and they have a lot of other old school ideas that I'm trying to change by writing the guide. I did some searching here but wasn't finding what I needed. I didn't realize that there was no clear cut answer. 

-Lisa


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Let's try to stay on topic folks. The problem with the internet is many times, we don't know the intent behind messages and we inflict our own feelings into them. I've been guilty of this. Let's all remember we were new once, and sometimes our statements can sound a little harsh when we tell people to do a search because the topic has already been discussed. That's the name of forums, the same topics will come up again and again. If all we did was direct people to 'search' for past results, there wouldn't be much activity. :biggrin: This was a reminder from your friendly moderator, lol.

On topic, mistergreen, you have proven my point in the fact there is no clear cut answer to algae woes. If there was, this subsection wouldn't be needed, right? I should have said many of "my" tanks. I really think it is different for the individual. Probably the best solution would be to say no tank is alike and therefore, each tank will need a little tweaking to keep algae from getting a foothold.

Goes to show when you try to make a blanket statement, there is always one to prove you wrong. *cough* mistergreen *cough* I stand firm behind my analogy of algae is better at adapting than plants to imbalances and will often take advantage of these opportunities.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I agree Blanket Statements are almost always refuted. There are very few things I have found in planted aquaria that are absolute. 

I've seen successful tanks 'algae-wise' with:

low light and high light
low flow and high flow
low co2 and high co2
low etc and high etc

There are simply too many variables that would exclude one of these from working. For me personally the most important factor that curbs algae is the level of organic content in the water. If these are called 'nutrients' then yes excess nutrients cause algae. I have never had a tank that didn't benefit from water changes and filter maintenance that reduced the organic content in one's tank. That's not to say in a low tech tank with low dosing, low stock you have to do water changes, but at the other extreme it's a must.


----------



## captain_bu (Oct 20, 2007)

sewingalot said:


> Here is my opinion for what it is worth: Algae is caused solely by the introduction of algae into a tank. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to prevent this, as the fish store may have it in there tanks and the net you use to remove the fish from the bag to the tank may have enough spores to get it started. Plus, fish may have ingested algae, the plants you purchased were contaminated by algae, or something like this.
> 
> 
> Makes sense to me and I am proving this by my latest experiment on my tank which I have turned into an algae experimental tank. Unfortunately, your question is a great one, but the answer isn't completely cut and dry.


I would go beyond "almost impossible" to state impossible. Algae spores are also airborne so it is virtually impossible to prevent them getting into the tank.

That is part of the reason that using lower light plus balanced nutrients and CO2 works so well... it tips the odds in your favor that you will have less problems since you can't totally prevent inoculation of your tank with algae spores.

Maintenance is also an important part of the equation as you rightly point out. Balanced nutrients, low light and adequate CO2 only go so far in a tank with dirty filters, plants that don't get trimmed regularly, no water changes etc...

Your idea to experiment with growing algae is a good one. Tom Barr has written any number of posts about his experiments with learning what will induce specific types of algae to grow and then subsequently "fixing" the problem. He maintains that learning to grow a specific form of algae is a great way to learn how not to grow it.

If I were writing a FAQ for newbies one of the things I would stress is that patience is an extremely good quality to cultivate if you want to be successful with this hobby, that and the fact that there is a lifelong learning curve. Nobody has all the answers and as the type of equipment, plants, fish etc. available for the hobby change over time the questions and subsequent answers change too... 

Two years ago everyone seemed to be on a quest for high light, you saw very few posts suggesting lower light worked well for anything except the Walstead "natural" aquarium approach. 

The advent of widely available T5HO fixtures and subsequent problems people found in controlling algae using high light levels led to a lot of experimentation and the realization that high light in and of itself was not the answer to successfully growing plants. We are all still learning...


----------



## Nate McFin (Mar 19, 2009)

Nice post Captain bu...
I like the patience thing in particular.


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

And just think, we'll have a whole new set of obstacles to conquer when LEDs finally become readily available and inexpensive enough for the average person to buy. That's *really* going to mess up the WPG calculation.  

It's as fascinating as it is frustrating that we really don't have an answer to the why's about algae even now. 

-Lisa


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Captain bu pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. If I ever had to write an article on algae, my advice would be to not worry about it, and think about your plants first. It would be a short article.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

> If I ever had to write an article on algae, my advice would be to not worry about it, and think about your plants first. It would be a short article.


That's the best advice one could possibly give. It's also the most difficult to follow.


----------



## MrMoneybags (Apr 13, 2010)

..but can we honestly ignore nutrients in the tank??

high nitrogen and phosphorous in water DOES cause algae blooms...everything ive read (academic published works and what not) claim that the trick is to keep those two in the proper ratio to avoid algae blooms (but never discussed that ratio)


...a little off topic

the most important things to add into your guide is

1. when you think youre ready to start...read 3 more articles

2. wait 2wks before buying ANYTHING...the learning curve here is mean and expensive

3. always buy THE BEST option you can afford

4. PATIENCE is key

...hopefully when all is said an done tho...you can post your guide so that the community can help


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

MrMoneybags said:


> ..but can we honestly ignore nutrients in the tank??
> 
> high nitrogen and phosphorous in water DOES cause algae blooms...everything ive read (academic published works and what not) claim that the trick is to keep those two in the proper ratio to avoid algae blooms (but never discussed that ratio)


You better hope Tom Barr doesn't read this. :icon_mrgr


----------



## MrMoneybags (Apr 13, 2010)

^^not particularly worried

..when Tom shows me his Doctorate or Ph D...Ill reconsider


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

I think there's a difference between organic waste that are high in phosphate & nitrogen and the PO4 & NO3 salts we put in our tank.... It doesn't seem to trigger algae. And the farm fertilizers are ammonia based.

Yes, the human and animal wastes and farm ferts we dump into the water does cause algae blooms.


----------



## MrMoneybags (Apr 13, 2010)

^^last off topic comment from me

but since Im studying for an Environmental Engineering degree i THINK you have a bit of a misconception...its actually wrong to think of organic vs inorganic chemicals as one being process based and the other being organism based (its an over simplification but thats another point altogether)

also, it doesnt matter that farmer ferts are urea --> ammonia based...nitrogen is nitrogen is nitrogen

plants and bacteria dont care if its organic or inorganic...they honestly cant tell the difference...the "chemical" that drives the reactions is not nitrogen, its available carbon (available carbon is the "determining" factor as to whether a company can label it as organic vs inorganic fert..they usually use inorganic nitrogen and mix it with something high in carbon (poop and grass clippings for example) or urea because it just barely squeaks by with a C:N ration of ~.5:1 )

waste that has a high C:N ratio breaks down slowly...because of that...the bacteria pull carbon, oxygen and if necessary nitrogen from teh surroundings depleting soil levels and stunting plant growth

organic chemicals are easier to break down...but the bacteria and plants dont care and if they have to...theyll pull whatever they need from their surroundings

...bacteria get first crack at (favorable) nutrients in the soil...plants get 2nd

so there isnt particularly a big difference in the ferts added in our tanks and the ferts added to a farm because our tanks have sufficient oxygen and carbon (in the form of CO2) to keep our bacteria happy and working

its the proper ratio (range) of carbonhosphorus:nitrogenotassium (macros, never noticed that before) that keep algae in check though I couldnt tell you what it is

which would probably explain why you hear stories of people getting on fert regimens to combat algae blooms...also, it would explain why you can have methods such as the EI where everything is done in excess...but since the ratio is right (or close enough) tanks dont explode with algae even tho theyre hiigh tech and also why they DO explode when people mess up the regimen


...honestly, I think the best solution for any algae outbreak would be to leave the tank alone and do periodic water changes...the tank will always balance itself eventually


----------



## Nate McFin (Mar 19, 2009)

This should get interesting now....where did I put my popcorn??:icon_mrgr


----------



## urbguy (Sep 24, 2009)

Dave-H said:


> I am a newbie and I've been asking some pretty dumb questions since I arrive here 3 months ago. People are pretty supportive and polite, and I think newbies are well treated.
> 
> Granted, if you put forth an unpopular opinion you'll be challenged on it. But that's because this is a big forum that is popular with intelligent adults who frequently have quite a bit of knowledge. That's what makes this a great forum.


Wise words . I feel like that still and it's true this place is such a supportive forum.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

MrMoneybags said:


> ...honestly, I think the best solution for any algae outbreak would be to leave the tank alone and do periodic water changes...the tank will always balance itself eventually


What do you mean by leaving it alone?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

MrMoneybags said:


> ^^not particularly worried
> 
> ..when Tom shows me his Doctorate or Ph D...Ill reconsider


I do not need creds to dispute anyone's logic....if you have to use such degrees to "lord over" other folks....or attack the person....those are strong signs/tactics your logic cannot carry the muster on it's own.

Attack the topic, never the person.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

MrMoneybags said:


> ..but can we honestly ignore nutrients in the tank??
> 
> high nitrogen and phosphorous in water DOES cause algae blooms...everything ive read (academic published works and what not) claim that the trick is to keep those two in the proper ratio to avoid algae blooms (but never discussed that ratio)


Well, explain this then:
See any correlation between specifically Aquatic plants(any type) and algae biomass and nutrients?

http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty Pubs/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf

You are discussing things without any citations for support.
Thought you stated you where all smart and stuff with them big degrees and all?

Let's approach it yet another way/manner:
Aquariums:
This tank has 15ppm of NO3 as KNO3 added 3x a week, or 45ppm total a week, and have rich sediment as well, but lacks N. It also holds 350 fish and they are well fed, adding about 0.5-0.8 ppm of NH4 a day to this N pool.
PO4 is dosed at 5ppm 3x a week.

So the ratios do not matter if the range is above the critical value for plant nutrient demand. I suppose if you get way way outside these ratios, you might get some salt stress or some imbalance eventually.......but no one has ever show this in an aquarium with typical dosing, even if they really really mess things up....which as aquarist, often some of us really have messed it up good.

Critical value means adding more will not yield any more growth, or Liebig's law of the minimum has been met for that nutrient, same deal for modified Hoagland's solution, N and P are pretty high and plants are fine. Many hydroponic growers use it and virtually all hort research uses it as a non limiting nutrient reference to make nutrients indpendent so they can study the dependent variables......say CO2 or light or something else other than nutrients.










Concentration in DM or substrate in the water.........same thing and relationship. Also similar curve for CO2 and light.

Tank of reference:








Another:












> 1. when you think youre ready to start...read 3 more articles
> 2. wait 2wks before buying ANYTHING...the learning curve here is mean and expensive
> 3. always buy THE BEST option you can afford
> 4. PATIENCE is key


No issues with this advice. I agree.



> ...hopefully when all is said an done tho...you can post your guide so that the community can help


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

mistergreen said:


> I think there's a difference between organic waste that are high in phosphate & nitrogen and the PO4 & NO3 salts we put in our tank.... It doesn't seem to trigger algae. And the farm fertilizers are ammonia based.
> 
> Yes, the human and animal wastes and farm ferts we dump into the water does cause algae blooms.


High NH4 kills everything.........including plants, they even use it to kill weeds in pre fertilization prior to seeding fields to kill any residual weed issues.

Burns the heck out of the weeds, kills all fauna......wrecks havoc.

This is one reason/s to mineralize the soil, or boil it, DSM(same as mineralize), or do good sized water changes frequency in the start up phase of a new tank. Removes and transforms the NH4 to NO3 and/or exports it.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

MrMoneybags said:


> ...its actually wrong to think of organic vs inorganic chemicals as one being process based and the other being organism based (its an over simplification but thats another point altogether)


I agree.



> also, it doesnt matter that farmer ferts are urea --> ammonia based...nitrogen is nitrogen is nitrogen


Well, just do not include NO3 in there, they behave very differently and have very different toxicities to both plants, fish and invertebrates as well as transformations.

KNO3 adds NO3, not the same as adding NH4 from say (NH4)2 SO4 etc. 
These are very different, but are often lumped together.

See Caramago et al 2005 for more on NO3.



> plants and bacteria dont care if its organic or inorganic...they honestly cant tell the difference...the "chemical" that drives the reactions is not nitrogen, its available carbon (available carbon is the "determining" factor as to whether a company can label it as organic vs inorganic fert..they usually use inorganic nitrogen and mix it with something high in carbon (poop and grass clippings for example) or urea because it just barely squeaks by with a C:N ration of ~.5:1 )


In general, inorganic much more bioavailable than the other....organic.... and typically consumes less O2 out of the system per mole fixed into tissues. 
Takes some work to nip off the organic bond and use the nutrient, in some cases the plant can further utilize the products, so there are a few exceptions I can think of.

Pick up a copy of Blooms and Epstein's mineral nutrition of higher plants 3rd edition etc. 



> waste that has a high C:N ratio breaks down slowly...because of that...the bacteria pull carbon, oxygen and if necessary nitrogen from teh surroundings depleting soil levels and stunting plant growth


Well, there's less N.......but if the plants are not limited by N...this really does not apply, this is not biogeochemical cycling, this is horticulture.
The goal is not to allow the soil or water column for rooted aquatic plants since they take in nutrients from either location. 
In the system you illustrate.........it might be a wetland that's N limited and high in C, sure, the bacteria would be limited. Most natural peaty bog wetlands are often limited in N. NO3=> denitrification as N2 gas.
Not much left, so they have few choices, go carnivorous or conserve N, or reply on bacterial decomposition pools or all 3.

This is very different than horticulture in aquariums.
You are well meaning, but have gotten off track.



> organic chemicals are easier to break down...but the bacteria and plants dont care and if they have to...theyll pull whatever they need from their surroundings...bacteria get first crack at (favorable) nutrients in the soil...plants get 2nd.


And if there are no soils with any nutrients?
Then what? Folks use plain old sand and do quite well.

What if the nutrients are inorganic to begin with?
Remember, this is horticulture, we can add and control every variable if we chose.

Not so easy to control say CO2 or light in a wetland however........... so nutrient management, transformation cycling, sequestration are some of the few tools we have for management in wetlands.

A good text for you would be Reddy's/DeLaune Biogeochemical of Wetlands if you are honestly interested. Reddy is about the top person in the world on the subject. He's at UF in Gainesville.



> so there isnt particularly a big difference in the ferts added in our tanks and the ferts added to a farm because our tanks have sufficient oxygen and carbon (in the form of CO2) to keep our bacteria happy and working
> 
> 
> > So bacteria can use CO2 as a carbon source under the typical redox values found in an aquarium?
> ...


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Kunsthure said:


> I'm writing a *beginner's* FAQ about planted tanks for my fish forum...


Something tells me if your using information from this thread for your FAQ your going to have to do quite a bit of editing for your audience.


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

This thread has been very interesting and informative.



> A simple rule: when the plants grow well, the algae do not.


But why? Or is that question going back to the idea that no one really knows? I'm currently trying to answer "Does fertilizer cause algae?" and it's clear that it doesn't, but I want to give a better answer than, "No."  A Google search of TPT turns up this thread first when I searched for algae+excess+nutrients. Gee, thanks for the help, Google. :icon_roll

-Lisa


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> Something tells me if your using information from this thread for your FAQ your going to have to do quite a bit of editing for your audience.


:icon_mrgr

-Lisa


----------



## MrMoneybags (Apr 13, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> I do not need creds to dispute anyone's logic....if you have to use such degrees to "lord over" other folks....or attack the person....those are strong signs/tactics your logic cannot carry the muster on it's own.
> 
> *Attack the topic, never the person.*
> 
> ...




**sigh**
though I dont feel that I was attacking you personally (like you seem to have done to me)i apologize

i dont have the degrees...i just turn to experts (who dedicate their life to study these topics) to give me advice (much like you have done by citing ACADEMIC sources). Im not "lording" anything over anyone

i wasnt attacking anyone...I will read into some of the ACADEMIC journals and articles and such that you CITE tho because some of the stuff IS interestingroud:


http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty%...macrophyte.pdf
looking only at the abstract here tho...dont have the time to read the paper just yet

dont they say theres a storng positive correlation between total nitrogen and phosphorus and plankton...and at the absolute higest levels of nitrogen and phosphorus the lakes are algae dominated?


on topic tho...Tom makes a good point! a good source would be academic journals and textbooks...go to the library and ask someone to point you in the direction


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Now, now. Let's play nice and stay on topic. No need to take it to a personal level. We hate to have to close threads due to such reasons. I am giving you all another chance to get back there.


----------



## Swan900 (Apr 27, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> Now, now. Let's play nice and stay on topic. No need to take it to a personal level. We hate to have to close threads due to such reasons. I am giving you all another chance to get back there.


Please dont close this thread. Some very useful info on this one 

Swan


----------



## captain_bu (Oct 20, 2007)

MrMoneybags said:


> on topic tho...Tom makes a good point!


The current problem with this thread is that it veered off topic with your first post...

The discussion between you and Tom is interesting and valid but should really be in its own thread.

Sewingalot
Any way to move it so this thread can remain dedicated to the beginner's guide?


----------



## Nate McFin (Mar 19, 2009)

I think this very much pertains to the question. Its up to the write to make the answer sound good in a beginners article. 
Nice info Tom.


----------



## Dave-H (Jul 29, 2010)

I agree, this thread is actually fitting for a nebulous subject such as algae.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

captain_bu said:


> The current problem with this thread is that it veered off topic with your first post...
> 
> The discussion between you and Tom is interesting and valid but should really be in its own thread.
> 
> ...


As long as the OP doesn't mind and the topic stays on algae and not personal attributes, I'll leave it here unless it gets too far off course.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Kunsthure said:


> This thread has been very interesting and informative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do weeds not grow well when crops do?

I do not think folks have the answer as to why, but many think they know, therein lies the problem. I don't, all I can do is test hypothesis and see if I can falsify them.

Some things do seem to cause algae, but they are related to poor plant growth.

What causes algae spores to germinate is a key issue in their life cycle.
Weeds and forest trees are a similar type of system, but we know little about germination of algae. So you will not get any real answers to a large degree in general, only specifics for some algae as to the cause of germination.

See Dusko's web site, that's a good info for algae in general.
I focus on plants, so algae are really not an issue for me.

I suggest others, so does Tropica and Amano.....to do the same.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> As long as the OP doesn't mind and the topic stays on algae and not personal attributes, I'll leave it here unless it gets too far off course.


I don't mind as long as someone tells me how to explain to a newbie that "too much" fertilizer won't cause algae. :flick:

-Lisa


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

MrMoneybags said:


> **sigh**
> though I dont feel that I was attacking you personally (like you seem to have done to me)i apologize
> 
> i dont have the degrees...i just turn to experts (who dedicate their life to study these topics) to give me advice (much like you have done by citing ACADEMIC sources). Im not "lording" anything over anyone
> ...


Good intent impressesroud:



> http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty%...macrophyte.pdf
> looking only at the abstract here tho...dont have the time to read the paper just yet


Give it a good read, see the methods and the results.
Consider what the questions they had where, the systems where: warm shallow lakes, lots of them too! over 300.........lakes with aquatic plants, they separated them by group, floating, submersed, algae, etc.

So you can look for correlation by group. 

Several papers have also looked at epiphytic algae matrix.
There's even a periphyton study group for the Everglades.

Crisman is still very active.
Bachmann is now pretty old.


You need to see if they have rooted submersed plants 1st(like us), warmer temps(like us, very few tropical and subtropical lake studies are done, most in Florida for the most part), plenty of lakes for comparative analysis etc.

This paper has all of that, few others I've ever seen, do.



> dont they say theres a storng positive correlation between total nitrogen and phosphorus and plankton...and at the absolute higest levels of nitrogen and phosphorus the lakes are algae dominated?
> on topic tho...Tom makes a good point! a good source would be academic journals and textbooks...go to the library and ask someone to point you in the direction


Well, I knew this was true in aquariums already..........I falsified this stuff about 15 years ago much to my own well held myths and surprise, I was scratching my own head.

When I was at UF, I found a whole group that agreed with me and looked at natural systems where they found no relationship btw nutrients/trophic status and submersed plants/algal dominance.

Another paper you'll have to dig a bit for was by Phillips et al, 1976? 
Methods issue. they did not include the P and N tied up in algae their analysis but they did for the plants..........Alison Fox pointed this out to me/us. When it was included, there's little difference.

We all make mistakes, believe one thing, only to wise up later on
I've made plenty.

BTW, I'm _still_ working on a PhD, passed candidacy etc.......just gotta get some more data and write the sucker up. These degrees are endurance test(UC Davis just doesn't give em away for free), not any thing to do with brains. I got tenacity and passion, and that is all it takes to get good at anything. Plenty of red tape along the way. 5-7 years is typical, I shoud be done in another 1 year(hope).

I've seen plenty of mistakes and rethinking by prof's, myself and other grad students along the way. 

Question everything. And.......do not believe everything you think.
Confirm the assumptions you make, or falsify and reject them, seek more opinions etc........

And no need to apologize to me, I still like ya:redface:

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Kunsthure said:


> I don't mind as long as someone tells me how to explain to a newbie that "too much" fertilizer won't cause algae. :flick:
> 
> -Lisa


I think eventually, too much of anything is a bad thing. If you didn't have plants in your tank and added a bunch of fertilizers, you'd be bound to see algae thrive quite nicely. Since nutrients help plants grow and algae is a plant, it is logical that added nutrients to water with algae spores present will help it grow and flourish. But I still think it is easier to say, algae isn't *caused* by anything but algae. Nutrients just help it grow.

But of course, I don't have any expertise in this field, so it's pure speculation on my end. :tongue:


----------



## MarkMc (Apr 27, 2007)

Are there any studies on plants natural ability to prevent or repel algae from growing on them? Seems that available real estate is a factor too. For instance, algae often grows on the top of that rock in your foreground but not on the carpet plants surrounding it. Sorry if this is too far off topic.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

MarkMc said:


> Are there any studies on plants natural ability to prevent or repel algae from growing on them? Seems that available real estate is a factor too. For instance, algae often grows on the top of that rock in your foreground but not on the carpet plants surrounding it. Sorry if this is too far off topic.


Nothing in situ, or in a real aquatic system.

Aquatic plants out compete algae mostly by rapid rates of vertical growth and light, as they grow, the new leaves that have not had enough time for algae to colonize. These older leaves are now shaded and act as storage for the plants perhaps. In shallow system, where most aquatic plants exist, they bolt for the surface, where they block the algae below for light.

They get more light and plenty of CO2 once they hit the surface.

So light mostly is where the algae/plant competition occurs, but......these two groups are very different ecologically and temporally, thus the competition is not as intense as one might like to think or believe based on the rattling on we hear on the web.

They are not even in the same niche really, no more than mice and elephants are both herbivores competing for the same resources.

Some algae, like Chara behave far more like plants than algae, and some plants, like Wolffia or duckweeds.....act more like pond scum.

*While it might be nice to think of a chemical defense*, I see little reason to have one or even invest in such a defense. Plants are modular, they can afford to lose or leave a part behind to get and grow into a better place. Most aquatics and clonal species do this by forming new ramets.

Allelopathy is interesting, but most occurrences are found in the soil, not the water or air column. Activated carbon(AC) will remove most allelopathic chemical if you wanna test for a "control". Plenty of aquarist folks use AC without any algae however...........so..........not a likely candidate. 

Careful not to believe everything you think, want/wish to believe.
Observe, think, test, falsify(or try to), look for a good reference where those conditions are not present(eg AC to aquariums, or a nice planted scape with high N ratios and then another with very low N ratios or high vs low water column ferts etc etc)

If you did things right, you should have more questions than answers:tongue:
Wasn't it easier living with the myths and fantasy?


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

> If you did things right, you should have more questions than answers


I guess I did things right because I still have more questions. 



> Wasn't it easier living with the myths and fantasy?


Yes. I miss being able to think about lighting in WPG, it was so easy. 

-Lisa


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

You will never get complete agreement on any algae guide, especially here, LOL. There are just too many different parameters that work for people. High light, low light, low flow, high flow, low dosing, high dosing. Most of these parameters are tied to one's lifestyle, what they want to grow and how much work they want to put into the tank. Experience and experimenting on your own are much more important than whether you have a degree or a deep understanding of every raw process that happens in a tank. 

There's a guy who is very successful in planted aquaria, he came from an artistic background and not a scientific one. I think his name is Takashi Amano.


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> There's a guy who is very successful in planted aquaria, he came from an artistic background and not a scientific one. I think his name is Takashi Amano.


You mean my shrimp? I didn't know my shrimp was a famous! Maybe that's why he never eats algae, he's too busy aquascaping other aquaria. :hihi:

I don't know why I haven't learned that nothing about fishkeeping or planted tanks is straightforward and easily answered in a sentence or two. We need a banging-head-against-a-wall or a pulling-out-hair smiley. :iamwithst <-- he's with me.

I thank you all for your time and this has been a very interesting discussion. I like how it's evolved and I'm glad sewingalot didn't close it even though we've gone off-topic several times. :biggrin:

-Lisa


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Oh, I don't close for going off topic. I close when people start using personal attacks to prove their points (which, proves only something negative about the attacker). Stay to arguing topics, I am more than fine with that. Sometimes great ideas come from the spirited debates. In fact, this girl loves to argue. :biggrin:

Lisa, couldn't find one that does both, but here you go:


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Well answers like this are never simple, but I do feel the simplicity of controlling algae lies in the way we deal with the organic levels in the tank. This would apply to any tank. As long as the organics are controlled to the necessary degree based on light, plant mass, fish load, etc the tank will remain algae free. 

Although I agree that lower light gives one more wiggle room with all the other variables in the tank, it’s not necessarily feasible to go with low light on every tank based on dimension and preferred layout and species.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

houseofcards said:


> You will never get complete agreement on any algae guide, especially here, LOL. There are just too many different parameters that work for people. High light, low light, low flow, high flow, low dosing, high dosing. Most of these parameters are tied to one's lifestyle, what they want to grow and how much work they want to put into the tank. Experience and experimenting on your own are much more important than whether you have a degree or a deep understanding of every raw process that happens in a tank.
> 
> There's a guy who is very successful in planted aquaria, he came from an artistic background and not a scientific one. I think his name is Takashi Amano.


He'll not try to answer such questions however.........ask him what is power sand.........."Power" was his response.
Not much help.........

Just buy my stuff type of attitude is mostly what I got.
Like most artist, self promotion/marketing is the name of the game.

I'm quite a different animal.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

houseofcards said:


> Well answers like this are never simple, but I do feel the simplicity of controlling algae lies in the way we deal with the organic levels in the tank. This would apply to any tank. As long as the organics are controlled to the necessary degree based on light, plant mass, fish load, etc the tank will remain algae free.
> 
> Although I agree that lower light gives one more wiggle room with all the other variables in the tank, it’s not necessarily feasible to go with low light on every tank based on dimension and preferred layout and species.


Then simply adding activated carbon would cure all that ails thee.
Or if you believe allelopathy has any effect, adding AC would induce algae, depends on your assumption and question being asked.

Not likely to both eh?

Why does this hypothesis apply to non CO2 tanks that get no water changes or much export for months, years even?

I do not think algae is something we can generalize broadly other than to say the plants. Algae are very specific.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> He'll not try to answer such questions however.........ask him what is power sand.........."Power" was his response.
> Not much help.........
> 
> Just buy my stuff type of attitude is mostly what I got.
> ...


Well yes, a marketer, an artist, and he can grow plants, so I think we agree that you don't have to be a scientist to be successful in this hobby, not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> Then simply adding activated carbon would cure all that ails thee.
> Or if you believe allelopathy has any effect, adding AC would induce algae, depends on your assumption and question being asked.
> 
> Not likely to both eh?
> ...


If you take a tank at startup. I don't think it's any secret that AC plays a part in keeping the water clean before the biofilter and plants get going. In the end whether it's AC, water changes, plants, mulm. It's all about clean water, no. How many people actually do all these things at startup. I bet it's a minority. I don't claim to know how much of a role the AC plays, but when I startup a tank, I hit it with all these organic removal tools and it works. I've started tanks with pretty good light and pretty much no vegetation and they started algae free. 

The other big algae hit is usually when the tank is putting on some age. For me this is where the buildup of organics reaches a critical mass. There's always a build up over time regardless of filter/plants, but add to it the human element (laziness and procrastination) in which we slack off on cleaning the filter and doing water changes.

BTW I'm not denying a tank can work with no water changes, etc, but isn't a tighter set of parameters then if you do the water changes, etc.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Ah, but don't forget that some brands of AC add phosphates to the water. Just throwing this out there to confuse myself further.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

houseofcards said:


> If you take a tank at startup. I don't think it's any secret that AC plays a part in keeping the water clean before the biofilter and plants get going. In the end whether it's AC, water changes, plants, mulm. It's all about clean water, no. How many people actually do all these things at startup. I bet it's a minority. I don't claim to know how much of a role the AC plays, but when I startup a tank, I hit it with all these organic removal tools and it works. I've started tanks with pretty good light and pretty much no vegetation and they started algae free.
> 
> The other big algae hit is usually when the tank is putting on some age. For me this is where the buildup of organics reaches a critical mass. There's always a build up over time regardless of filter/plants, but add to it the human element (laziness and procrastination) in which we slack off on cleaning the filter and doing water changes.
> 
> BTW I'm not denying a tank can work with no water changes, etc, but isn't a tighter set of parameters then if you do the water changes, etc.


So why does adding AC to a non CO2 not induce algae and why do non CO2 tanks not get algae when AC is added or.......not? Not that it "can work", that's not specific, but that there is no algae blooms/algae presence that detract from the aquarium? Or that you can notice or see?

This cannot be correct because plenty of folks have not done any water changes on both CO2 as well as non CO2 systems for months at a time, the results are good and at the above criteria.

Ask around, maybe you have not been able to do this.........but plenty of others most certainly have and do. Simply because I or you cannot do it/have not mastered it.........does not imply it cannot be done.

I do not buy this rational for dissolved organics => algae. These can be tested and have been unintentionally already. Observational evidence is already strongly against this hypothesis.

What else ya got?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

There is also the counter to this, plenty of folks do many , even daily water changes......without success to control algae. No lazy neglect there.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> ...This cannot be correct because plenty of folks have not done any water changes on both CO2 as well as non CO2 systems for months at a time, the results are good and at the above criteria...





plantbrain said:


> I do not buy this rational for dissolved organics => algae. These can be tested and have been unintentionally already. Observational evidence is already strongly against this hypothesis.




It does work! As I stated this is not a black/white thing. I've said before you can have a pristine tank without water changes and adding these other organic removal mechanisms, but I personally feel the variables for that to work are more limited. 



plantbrain said:


> What else ya got?




Some very nice pristine tanks. 




So why do new setups have so many algae issues?


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Okay, I am intrigued by this organics versus inorganic ferts causing algae. Care to elaborate more on what made you draw these conclusions and can you repeat them every time? I'm asking because I love experiments and I've been finding gravel vacuuming my substrate along the front has help tons in getting rid of my BBA.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

sewingalot said:


> Okay, I am intrigued by this organics versus inorganic ferts causing algae. Care to elaborate more on what made you draw these conclusions and can you repeat them every time? I'm asking because I love experiments and I've been finding gravel vacuuming my substrate along the front has help tons in getting rid of my BBA.


 
If we are defining:

Organics: Any decaying matter (plants, animals, waste, etc.)
Inorganics: NPK most of us add to aquarium via EI dosing, etc.

I have never had a tank that didn't benefit algae-wise by removing the organics as long as the inorganics are added in so there is no shortfall.

For me this is the ultimate algae control, not light since it works for all tanks regardless of parameters. You will still have algae in a tank with very dim lighting if the organics are out of control. I've seen this in indoor ponds full of goldfish. No direct lighting at all, but algae everywhere. The worst case is an outdoor pond with endless light, high organic load. 

I'm convinced that the inorganics don't cause algae since I dose high-end even in tanks with very little plant mass and don't have any problems.

Your BBA is a good example. Your removing organic matter before it breaksdown. One would also ask, why does good co2 reduce algae in most setups?


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

According to the definition of organic compounds, they're molecules with carbon in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

And when we talk about algae, we should be specific like BBA, or BGA. I think different environments and chemicals triggers different types of algae. The organic compounds that triggers certain algae can be very specific too.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> According to the definition of organic compounds, they're molecules with carbon in it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound
> 
> And when we talk about algae, we should be specific like BBA, or BGA. I think different environments and chemicals triggers different types of algae. The organic compounds that triggers certain algae can be very specific too.


I don't disagree, but in this case I'm trying to simply divide the two and simply as much as possible since it's suppose to be for a Beginners Guide. 

The main point I'm making is whether it's BBA or BGA, the tank from my experience improves when you remove organic content. When you startup a tank, whether it's a water change, carbon/purgien addition, heavy plant mass you are in effect removing organic content before Ammonia is released in the water column. For example, if one says BBA is caused by low or fluctating co2, why? Isn't the high co2 simply making the plants utilize more of organic content? So for me it all goes back to the amount of organics remaining in the tank.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

I think you still will get Green spot algae and brown diatom algae even in a 'clean' tank.

And I think NH4/NH3 is considered an inorganic compound.



> For example, if one says BBA is caused by low or fluctating co2, why? Isn't the high co2 simply making the plants utilize more of organic content?


I agree this thought is misleading.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> I think you still will get Green spot algae and brown diatom algae even in a 'clean' tank.
> 
> And I think NH4/NH3 is considered an inorganic compound.
> 
> ...


OK, I'm simply trying to separate the organic materials that breakdown versus the inorganic ones that we typically put into our tanks. This is something any beginner would understand. I don't feel it's necessary to understand every raw process to control algae. Whether nh4/nh3 is inorganic is irrelevant to the context I'm writing this in. I've defined in my opening paragraph what 'I' was defining as organic or inorganic for the purpose of the discussion. The nh3/nh4 is still derived from organic material so in certain circles it can actually be defined as 'organic'. Again I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm trying to simplify as much as possible. When you remove the organic content from the water column it helps with algae control. The more you remove the more dramatic the elimination is. It's not black and white, but to what degree.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

This is a long, but interesting discussion! I enjoyed it. My two cents worth follows:

Amano is beyond a doubt a great aquascaper and businessman. If he were to have serious algae problems, like so many of us, you can be sure that his photos of his tanks would not show any signs of algae. If they did, his expertise as a businessman would be questionable.

About a year or so ago, in one of Amano's articles in a magazine, probably the AGA magazine, he commented about the difficulty in keeping algae cleaned off of his rocks. He went into some detail about cleaning those rocks when doing routine maintenance. From that I could only assume that the laws of nature have not been suspended for Amano.

But, because he is an aquascaper, a photographer, and a businessman, not a planted tank advice dispenser I'm not surprised that we never see long articles written by him about algae control, fighting algae, preventing algae, identifying algae, etc. I think it is safe to say that because he has planted tanks, he also has algae problems to overcome. His experience probably minimizes those problems, but I don't believe it eliminates them.

Back to the basic topic - the what and why of algae - I'm still trying to learn that too. Meanwhile, like many of us I have opinions on the subject, not data.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

houseofcards said:


> OK, I'm simply trying to separate the organic materials that breakdown versus the inorganic ones that we typically put into our tanks. This is something any beginner would understand. I don't feel it's necessary to understand every raw process to control algae. Whether nh4/nh3 is inorganic is irrelevant to the context I'm writing this in. I've defined in my opening paragraph what 'I' was defining as organic or inorganic for the purpose of the discussion. The nh3/nh4 is still derived from organic material so in certain circles it can actually be defined as 'organic'. Again I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm trying to simplify as much as possible. When you remove the organic content from the water column it helps with algae control. The more you remove the more dramatic the elimination is. It's not black and white, but to what degree.


I agree but to simplify a complex issue might mislead or distort the information. Einstein said something about making things as simple as possible but not simpler.



Hoppy said:


> Back to the basic topic - the what and why of algae - I'm still trying to learn that too. Meanwhile, like many of us I have opinions on the subject, not data.


Agree, let's interview a phycologist (somebody who studies algae). I don't think anybody here is an expert on this issue. I'll look around my local University for one.



****
no luck in finding a biologist who studies algae.. I did find an interesting book though.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gf...Robert Edward Lee"&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

What I really like about this forum is that you have students, teachers, scientists, artists, engineers and they all come on board with their different opinions and approaches to the issue. Most of the 'scientists' here try to neatly define things and come up a solution or a 'number' to fix something. They want real data. I am clearly outnumbered on this site based on the responses in this thread. Hoppy wants data and Mistergreen wants to consult a phycologist and I haven’t even gotten into what plantbrain wants LOL. 

Honestly I don't think it is possible in the confines of our planted boxes since one can have the same tank with the same parameters, but the differences in one's lifestyle will also dictate to a certain degree with happens inside the tank. This is one reason why the 'answers' allude us. How does a biologist put this into his/her analysis? 

Using a UV is a perfect example. Many will put a UV on their tank and enjoy the crystal clear water that follows never really getting the answer to why they couldn't rid their tank of GW, others will never use one since they feel the tank has 'no balance' and will suffer with GW for a long time. So neither person has the 'answers' but one is enjoying his tank.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but like the UV if I reduce organics it rids or greatly reduces the tank of algae issues, regardless of the setup. I don’t need to know all the processes that are happening as a result of it. 

Even Amano with all his glamour and visual appeal through his artistic abilities does concern himself with the COD levels in his tanks?


----------

