# Algae Eaters



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

I have posted this on another forum but just wanted to see what you guys thought. So basically I just wanted some opinions about which is the best overall algae eater especially for BBA: SAE or olive nerite snails?


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

I think the only algea eater that is necessary in a healthy planted tank are Otocinclus Affinis. GDA is a by product of a high light system and they seem to do a good job at eating a little of it.

BBA is a CO2 difficency. No matter how may nerites or SAE's you get the problem will still be there.


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

Yeah I currently have some Otocinclus Affinis, I dont have pressurized co2 but I do dose with excel and have diy co2 from two 3-liter bottles until I can buy a pressurized co2 setup.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

bsmith782 said:


> I think the only algea eater that is necessary in a healthy planted tank are Otocinclus Affinis. GDA is a by product of a high light system and they seem to do a good job at eating a little of it.
> 
> BBA is a CO2 difficency. No matter how may nerites or SAE's you get the problem will still be there.


I don't care if the problems are there as long as the symptoms aren't. Between nerities, amanos, and Excel, I don't have algae problems, except for some minor GSA which I've only just started to try to fix. Some people prefer to deal with the cause. Some like me, prefer to just deal with the symptoms with algae eaters and not have to think about it much.

It's interesting that you find algae eaters acceptable to the extent that you can't control the cause (Otos for GSA). It seems that algae eaters get a bad rap by those prefer to tinker with balancing their tank just right to avoid algae. That's fine if that's what you enjoy doing. I've lost count of the number of times I've read about algae explosions in these balanced tanks when they temporarily go out of balance. With algae eaters in place, that is very unlikely.

I think the only algae I'll have to worry about controlling are GSA and GW. My current GSA problems are very minor, and I'm hoping will go away with some more phosphate. I haven't had GW yet.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

The problem with your view on algea is that the algeas you are "treating" with algea eaters show up when there is a defficency somewhere and where there are defficencies there are unhealthy plants. They simply should not be there is you have a balanced tank. GDA is a cause of simply having high light and with out high light I cannot enjoy some of the species of plants that I do. There will always be GDA in my tank.

Whay would I want to put more livestock in my tank I really dont care for when all I have to do is dose alittle more potassium and keep my Co2 levels constant? Seems easier to me.



cjp999 said:


> I don't care if the problems are there as long as the symptoms aren't. Between nerities, amanos, and Excel, I don't have algae problems, except for some minor GSA which I've only just started to try to fix. Some people prefer to deal with the cause. Some like me, prefer to just deal with the symptoms with algae eaters and not have to think about it much.
> 
> It's interesting that you find algae eaters acceptable to the extent that you can't control the cause (Otos for GSA). It seems that algae eaters get a bad rap by those prefer to tinker with balancing their tank just right to avoid algae. That's fine if that's what you enjoy doing. I've lost count of the number of times I've read about algae explosions in these balanced tanks when they temporarily go out of balance. With algae eaters in place, that is very unlikely.
> 
> I think the only algae I'll have to worry about controlling are GSA and GW. My current GSA problems are very minor, and I'm hoping will go away with some more phosphate. I haven't had GW yet.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

bsmith782 said:


> The problem with your view on algea is that the algeas you are "treating" with algea eaters show up when there is a defficency somewhere and where there are defficencies there are unhealthy plants. They simply should not be there is you have a balanced tank. GDA is a cause of simply having high light and with out high light I cannot enjoy some of the species of plants that I do. There will always be GDA in my tank.
> 
> Whay would I want to put more livestock in my tank I really dont care for when all I have to do is dose alittle more potassium and keep my Co2 levels constant? Seems easier to me.


Algae isn't necessarily due to a deficiency. For example:



I don't use injected CO2 and only have DIY CO2 in 1 of my tanks. Thus I'm susceptible to BBA, Cladophora, GSA, and Staghorn due to low CO2 (this according the the algae chart). I haven't actually experienced them except for a bit of GSA. I don't consider it a deficiency that I don't have much CO2. It's a choice I've made, and it just means that I don't get the growth I would with injected CO2.
My tap has 50ppm nitrates, therefore I'm susceptible to the "excess nutrients" algae (hair algae, string algae).
Diatoms appear in low light tanks with excess silicates, and I don't even know how you control silicates in your tank.
GDA isn't listed as having any cause, thus it can always appear, although you say high light causes it, which may be true.
GSA is the only listed algae I could get (even without the presence of algae eaters) that could be due to a deficiency (phosphate). I'm using a reduced EI, but maybe a bit too reduced. Phosphate kit is on order, so I'll start testing once I get it.

So, am I to all of the following?


start using R/O water to lower my nitrates. Besides being major pain, it also means risking other types of algae (BGA) if it goes too low.
inject CO2 (more work and more cost, plus more growth than I really need or want)
Hope for no GDA
Or just do the "least thinking and worrying" approach that I currently use.

BTW, I think shrimp and snails are pretty cool, especially the fancier nerites. I'd have them even if they weren't useful for algae.

Also, I'll admit that I'm still somewhat new to this. But thus far I've been happy with the results.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

The lack of co2 is perhaps the largest deficiency you could possibly have. Please, do some research. Just because you choose to have low/unstable co2 doesnt make it any different. It's still defficient.

Just because you have excess Nitrates doesnt mean hair/thread algea. It depends on lighting, lighting schedule, your water tons of things.

Diatoms are usually found in new tanks, I had them now they are gone.

If you have GSA dose more phosphates. In two weeks it will be hardly visible.

I (and the vast majority of successful aquatic gardeners) choose to control what we can so we know what were dealing with. Maybe it is more trouble but it's what gets the results we desire.

Please do what you feel then when that doesnt work try to conform alittle your not going to re-invent the wheel, this is all a science.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

x2. cjp999, CO2, for one, will not increase your growth, unless you're pairing it w/ higher light. CO2 by itself will just give you healthier growth, when combined w/ the proper nutrients.

Back to the original question, I don't see SAEs, nerites, nor amano shrimp ever making much of a dent in BBA. It's nasty stuff that no organisms seem to like, unless it's the last thing in the tank. Fix it w/ better CO2.


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

brohawk said:


> x2. cjp999, CO2, for one, will not increase your growth, unless you're pairing it w/ higher light. CO2 by itself will just give you healthier growth, when combined w/ the proper nutrients.
> 
> Back to the original question, I don't see SAEs, nerites, nor amano shrimp ever making much of a dent in BBA. It's nasty stuff that no organisms seem to like, unless it's the last thing in the tank. Fix it w/ better CO2.


What else can I do besides what I already have been? I dont have any money for pressurized co2 yet so what are my options?


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

You can do a DIY co2 method. Just make sure to not over expose the lights. Look up posts by a member named plantbrain you will learn alot about co2's relationship with plants in a planted tank.:thumbsup:



JL15219 said:


> What else can I do besides what I already have been? I dont have any money for pressurized co2 yet so what are my opinions?


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

Yeah thast what I am doing know I use excel and two 3-liter bottles for the diy and its in the stand in the dark


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Then if you want less algea cut the lights to a lesser wattage.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

bsmith782 said:


> The lack of co2 is perhaps the largest deficiency you could possibly have. Please, do some research. Just because you choose to have low/unstable co2 doesnt make it any different. It's still defficient.


Let me restate. I fully understand that CO2 is just one of many things required to maximize plant grow. However, pressurized CO2 is not required for some plant growth. I prefer not to go the pressurized CO2 route and settle for slower plant growth. Thus I need to find other ways of dealing with the types of algae that turn up in low CO2 tanks.



bsmith782 said:


> Just because you have excess Nitrates doesnt mean hair/thread algea. It depends on lighting, lighting schedule, your water tons of things.


Also, understood. My point is that with the right algae eaters, I don't need to worry about those "tons of things" that might also contribute to the problem.



bsmith782 said:


> Diatoms are usually found in new tanks, I had them now they are gone.


So far I have not been able to diagnoss diatoms for certain. I have brown stuff that grows on pretty much everthing like you see in the puffer ornament in my first post above. This even grows in low light, unplanted, established tanks. I'm not sure if it is diatoms or some sort of brown algae I don't know about. In any case, the snails and amanos love it, and I don't have any in the tanks that contain them.

[EDIT] Sorry, that was picture was in a post in a different thread:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/s...w-many-nerite-snails-should-i.html#post783528



bsmith782 said:


> If you have GSA dose more phosphates. In two weeks it will be hardly visible.


Yep, I already know that. I dose KH2PO4 already, but probably not enough. Just waiting for my phosphate test kit so I can confirm.



bsmith782 said:


> I (and the vast majority of successful aquatic gardeners) choose to control what we can so we know what were dealing with. Maybe it is more trouble but it's what gets the results we desire.
> 
> Please do what you feel then when that doesn't work try to conform alittle your not going to re-invent the wheel, this is all a science.


I'm certainly not disagreeing with your approach. I just don't have the time or money for it. I think algae eaters provide an option for those of that want to do less, pay less, and will settle for less than maximum growth.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> Back to the original question, I don't see SAEs, nerites, nor amano shrimp ever making much of a dent in BBA. It's nasty stuff that no organisms seem to like, unless it's the last thing in the tank. Fix it w/ better CO2.


What about Excel? I see you can spot treat BBA with Excel. Does keeping your tank dosed with Excel prevent it from appearing.


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

bsmith782 said:


> Then if you want less algea cut the lights to a lesser wattage.


Okay let me back up before I had a planted tank..it was a african cichlid tank and I had about 1.5 wpg on a 60 gal tank...the problem started then...since I upgraded my light(on for 8hrs),started using EI dosing,excel(spot treatment) and more plants the algae has been reduced but has not gone away completely.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

cjp999 said:


> What about Excel? I see you can spot treat BBA with Excel. Does keeping your tank dosed with Excel prevent it from appearing.


Personally I don't use Excel, as I keep vals and other plants that melt from it. But many users here dose it regularly, to bump up their CO2 to a more consistent and/or higher level, but it's got its limitations too. If you're blasting 4 wpg into a tank w/o CO2, Excel won't save you. But it can work in low light setups on its own, and w/ DIY CO2 in medium light tanks. But in the end, Excel doesn't prevent algae; it increases your plants' growth, which starves the algae. Get it?


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> Personally I don't use Excel, as I keep vals and other plants that melt from it. But many users here dose it regularly, to bump up their CO2 to a more consistent and/or higher level, but it's got its limitations too. If you're blasting 4 wpg into a tank w/o CO2, Excel won't save you. But it can work in low light setups on its own, and w/ DIY CO2 in medium light tanks. But in the end, Excel doesn't prevent algae; it increases your plants' growth, which starves the algae. Get it?


That's the first I've heard anyone claim that Excel's algae prevention properties are in fact due to increased plant growth. I've always heard it explained as being due to the polycycloglutaracetal directly killing the algae or preventing its growth, and for this reason it is harmful to plants and fish in large doses. I think it can probably kill just about anything living in a large enough concentration. Vals are more sensitive to it than other plants, and not because they don't like the extra CO2 source. Otherwise they would melt with injected CO2 also.

Staghorn and hair algae are listed as being controllable by Excel, but are not listed as being due to low CO2. Also, why would spot treatment of BBA with Excel be beneficial if the Excel was not directly killing the BBA. Both of these are further evidence that it is not the CO2 properties of Excel that are preventing the algae.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Not true. Many things kill BBA when overdosed directly on it. I.e. H2O2, KNO3, etc. Excel is made and sold as a carbon source for plant growth, not an algae killer, and is meant to be dosed to the whole tank. Vals prefer to uptake carbon in dissolved gas form, thus why they don't like Excel.

You're still thinking about treating the symptoms, not the cause. The fact that Excel kills BBA in high concentration is NOT further evidence of an algae preventer, but merely a correlation that you are mistakenly making. As an example, KNO3 is a fertilizer for plants, yet when OD'ed directly on BBA, staghorn, etc., it kills it. Are you going to say that KNO3 is also just an algae killer, and not a plant grower?

As Tom Barr has said many times on here and other sites, stop trying to kill algae and start growing plants.


----------



## Kaylee Skylyn (Oct 17, 2005)

I would say Amano Shrimp and some Otos.


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

I have some otos already...but they dont eat BBA well I dont think they do....


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

As bsmith782 said, lowering your light intensity, and/or duration will be your best best.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> Not true. Many things kill BBA when overdosed directly on it. I.e. H2O2, KNO3, etc. Excel is made and sold as a carbon source for plant growth, not an algae killer, and is meant to be dosed to the whole tank. Vals prefer to uptake carbon in dissolved gas form, thus why they don't like Excel.
> 
> You're still thinking about treating the symptoms, not the cause.


I totally realize and accept this. And I also accept that in some cases I will need to deal more with the cause (like low phosphates causing GSA). I just think with algae eaters and excel, I have a lot less to deal with. There's nothing wrong with dealing with the symptom if it is easier than dealing with the cause, and you are not ignoring some underlying issue that is causing other problems in your tank.



brohawk said:


> The fact that Excel kills BBA in high concentration is NOT further evidence of an algae preventer,


Yes it is. I never said it was conclusive evidence, but it is evidence none the less. Accumulation of evidence is used to draw conclusions. I didn't draw any conclusions, but only suggested a possible explanation supported by the evidence.



brohawk said:


> but merely a correlation that you are mistakenly making. As an example, KNO3 is a fertilizer for plants, yet when OD'ed directly on BBA, staghorn, etc., it kills it. Are you going to say that KNO3 is also just an algae killer, and not a plant grower?


Yes, and you just stated it is. Of course it probably is not a very useful broad spectrum (meaning tank wide) algae killer because I'm guessing concentrations would need to be too high.

If one didn't know anything more about KNO3 other than it killed some algae when directly applied in large concentrations, then it would be worth further investigation. You should ask yourself, at what levels is it still an effective algaecide or algae preventative, and are there any drawbacks to using it at these levels.


brohawk said:


> As Tom Barr has said many times on here and other sites, stop trying to kill algae and start growing plants.


Yes, and I have a lot of respect for Tom. However, there's the perfectionist approach and then there's the "I just want something reasonable without much effort" approach. I'm actually more of the former in most aspects of my life. However, with my tank I don't feel that way.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

A normal amount of daily dosing of KNO3 to the tank, when combined w/ the other necessary nutrients/light, helps prevent algae BECAUSE it's helping the plants, NOT b/c it's an algae preventer/killer. It's a flipping nutrient. That's it. KNO3 provides nitrogen, and excel, carbon.

A normal dose of KNO3 for the tank's size, when applied in concentration directly on BBA, will kill it. Same goes for Excel, yes. OD'oing many different nutrients directly on algae will kill it. Go to Seachem's site, first question, among others. http://www.seachem.com/support/FAQs/FlourishExcel.html But dosing the recommended amount of Excel to the water column doesn't kill algae. Saying it prevents algae is the same as saying adding CO2 prevents algae. Semantics, yes. I bet if you dosed soda water directly on BBA, it too would kill it. But I wouldn't call it an algaecide nor an algae preventer.

Fine that you have close to enough balance in your tank, that algae eaters take care of the rest for you. It's just not a good idea to parrot these products as algae preventers based on your own conclusions, so that someone else w/ a greatly imbalanced tank takes your advice only to fail. Spot dosing things on algae are great tools to have, ONCE you've corrected or at least improved the underlying problem. Having to do it twice a week to kill off new algae growth isn't so cool. The OP needs to decrease light intensity/duration and/or increase CO2 in order to get to a lesser imbalance like you have in your tank, or better.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> A normal amount of daily dosing of KNO3 to the tank, when combined w/ the other necessary nutrients/light, helps prevent algae BECAUSE it's helping the plants, NOT b/c it's an algae preventer/killer. It's a flipping nutrient. That's it. KNO3 provides nitrogen, and excel, carbon.


You just told me that KNO3 will kill some types of algae when spot dosing. This to me indicates that the KNO3 at that high of a level is directly killing the algae, and it is not dying because the plants are growing better due to having more KNO3 available. I understand that dosing KNO3 (if needed) can also prevent algae by better balancing tank nutrients, but I doubt if it does a quick kill in this case, and this is a lot different than getting a quick kill with spot dosing.

To say that excel is just a nutrient that provides carbon is far too simplistic. It is a *source* of carbon found in a complex chemical that actually acts as a disinfectant in concentrated amounts. Many times I've seen this mentioned as the probable reason that Excel helps prevent many types of algae, and kills some algae quickly when spot dosing. I see nothing on the Seachem link below to indicate otherwise or support your statement that it reduces algae because it is promoting better plant growth.

There are many cases where things are poisonous at high levels and beneficial at low levels (like Excel). There are also many cases where at low enough levels the substance remains poisonous for some and beneficial for others. How do you know this is not the case with Excel. If I overdose a plant (and I'm not just talking about aquarium plants here) with too much of pretty much any fertilizer, the plant will die. So saying that KNO3 is just a nutrient is also too simplistic. It's a chemical that will affect different things in different ways when applied in different amounts. Same goes for Excel.



brohawk said:


> A normal dose of KNO3 for the tank's size, when applied in concentration directly on BBA, will kill it. Same goes for Excel, yes. OD'oing many different nutrients directly on algae will kill it. Go to Seachem's site, first question, among others. http://www.seachem.com/support/FAQs/FlourishExcel.html But dosing the recommended amount of Excel to the water column doesn't kill algae. Saying it prevents algae is the same as saying adding CO2 prevents algae. Semantics, yes. I bet if you dosed soda water directly on BBA, it too would kill it. But I wouldn't call it an algaecide nor an algae preventer.
> 
> Fine that you have close to enough balance in your tank, that algae eaters take care of the rest for you. It's just not a good idea to parrot these products as algae preventers based on your own conclusions, so that someone else w/ a greatly imbalanced tank takes your advice only to fail. Spot dosing things on algae are great tools to have, ONCE you've corrected or at least improved the underlying problem. Having to do it twice a week to kill off new algae growth isn't so cool. The OP needs to decrease light intensity/duration and/or increase CO2 in order to get to a lesser imbalance like you have in your tank, or better.


Fair enough, but this all started with the OP just asking which algae eater works best. Actually I just reviewed his posts and I don't see any details on his tank nor algae problem, so I don't see how you've managed to diagnose the problem. Maybe I missed something.

Also, far too often I've seen what are probably some of the brightest on this forum with the nicest tanks quickly tell a noob with algae problems they need injected CO2. They forget what it is like starting off in the hobby. They forget how long it took to balance their own tank. They forget that it took years of experience to learn how to balance a tank properly and quickly recognize imbalances. They forget that inject CO2 is very intimidating from both a price standpoint and a complexity standpoint.

So yes, telling someone with algae to get algae eaters is too simplistic. I was never trying to tell anyone that is all they have to do to get a happy tank. It *might* be ok in some cases depending on the current tank balance. I think algae eaters are very useful for addressing algae problems that don't have to do with tank balance issues that aren't affecting plant growth (taking into account your preferred approach to CO2). I would not tell someone with 110 watts over their 40g with no CO2, no Excel, and no ferts to get rid of the algae with algae eaters.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Re: the OP, first suggestion was lower the light intensity. If they couldn't do so, add'l CO2/carbon was suggested as the next step. The balancing act is far simpler w/ lower light, thus those suggestions in that order, for a noob or someone more experienced.

I think you're so determined to be correct, that you're not really reading my posts, nor the Seachem site. Seachem sells their product as a carbon source for plant growth--read the answer to question #5. When dosed into the whole tank per the recommended amount, it too does not kill algae. I.e. it's just a nutrient, same as KNO3, that helps to grow plants. You have been applying the advantages of OD'ing to Excel's general use properties. I have never seen BBA turn red and die after dosing my tank per the instructions on the bottle. And in this case, we are talking about BBA, as that's the poll question in this thread, and thus the OP's algae issue. The only cause of BBA is low CO2/carbon for the amount of light provided.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> Re: the OP, first suggestion was lower the light intensity. If they couldn't do so, add'l CO2/carbon was suggested as the next step. The balancing act is far simpler w/ lower light, thus those suggestions in that order, for a noob or someone more experienced.


The low light suggestion was made *before* the OP made the following post:


> Okay let me back up before I had a planted tank..it was a african cichlid tank and I had about 1.5 wpg on a 60 gal tank...the problem started then...since I upgraded my light(on for 8hrs),started using EI dosing,excel(spot treatment) and more plants the algae has been reduced but has not gone away completely.


So I just was just wondering how you could make a "lower the light" suggestion without first knowing anything about his tank. There was no mention of WPG or EI before this point, only a mention BBA being one concern.


brohawk said:


> I think you're so determined to be correct, that you're not really reading my posts, nor the Seachem site. Seachem sells their product as a carbon source for plant growth--read the answer to question #5. When dosed into the whole tank per the recommended amount, it too does not kill algae. I.e. it's just a nutrient, same as KNO3, that helps to grow plants. You have been applying the advantages of OD'ing to Excel's general use properties. I have never seen BBA turn red and die after dosing my tank per the instructions on the bottle. And in this case, we are talking about BBA, as that's the poll question in this thread, and thus the OP's algae issue. The only cause of BBA is low CO2/carbon for the amount of light provided.


I was never talking specifically about BBA. I was talking about Excel being useful for preventing some types of algae. I understand that Excel seems to only affect BBA when spot dosing. Hair algae seems to be one that stays under control with reasonable doses. I'm not sure if just the recommended does is enough, but it does not need sport treatment to control.

If you look at my replies you'll see I'm pretty much replying point-by-point to everything you say, so I'm not sure why you are saying I'm am not reading your posts. Regarding the Seachem site, you said:



brohawk said:


> Go to Seachem's site, first question, among others. http://www.seachem.com/support/FAQs/FlourishExcel.html But dosing the recommended amount of Excel to the water column doesn't kill algae. Saying it prevents algae is the same as saying adding CO2 prevents algae.


Now, I'll admit I read this a bit too fast and saw "first question", but not "among others". I did read the first question, and it said nothing to dispute that Excel may in fact work as an algaecide. Actually it provides evidence that it may. The next 2 questions after that were unrelated to algae, so I stopped reading. I've now gone back and read question #5 as you point out. All it does is talk about Excel's role as a carbon source. That by no means is evidence that it could not also be an algaecide. Question #4 says "...this product is not sold as an algaecide". This also does not mean it is not an algaecide. It just means that Seachem cannot sell it as one, and many times I've seen the reason given being that it does not have government approval to.

Just because a product is sold for one purpose does not mean it also doesn't have other legitimate uses. Anyone out there with a nylon stocking on their filter intake? You've repeatedly stated that Excel is sold as a carbon source. Very true. That does not mean it cannot also be an effective algaecide. You've repeatedly have said that its algae preventative properties come from its role as a carbon source, providing balance to the aquarium, which in turn prevents algae. I have yet to see this stated anywhere else, yet I repeatedly see references to Excel acting as an algaecide due to its disinfectant properties. I'll admit, I have yet to see evidence of a study proving this. But I have not seen you give any evidence of a study proving your point either. So I continue to ask, might Excel be acting as an algaecide and not just reducing algae for the same reason injected CO2 does.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Sorry for not being clearer, but I have been talking primarily about BBA the entire thread, as that was the poll question, and thus a safe assumption that that was the OP's problem in his tank. Even if not, that's the subject of this thread. And the broader subject obviously being, how to get rid of it. SAE's and nerites don't do much control on BBA. It's been proven over and over that low CO2 is the root cause of BBA. You can then talk about flow, but it's still related to how efficiently you're dispersing that CO2. Lower light is the easiest solution as plants then demand less CO2.

We've hijacked this thread enough as it is by not actually talking about snails and fish. Talking about other algaes instead of BBA would be even worse. Probably the main reason Seachem doesn't sell it as an algaecide is that the chemical is well known to cause harm to fish/inverts in larger doses, and even normal doses in some cases.

Might it be an algaecide b/c of its chemical properties? Well let's see. We know BBA, hair algae, staghorn and clado are caused by low CO2. So if those go away after dosing Excel, you also cannot prove it's b/c of it's algaecide properties.

Diatoms, some other types of fuzz algaes and GW are caused by ammonia spikes. So again, if you dose Excel and it goes away, you can't prove it's acting as an algaecide, b/c really you supplied the plants w/ add'l carbon so that they could absorb that ammonia and deplete the spike.

BGA, I won't discuss as it's not a true algae.

GSA can be low PO4 levels, but also low CO2. Fact is, you said you have GSA in your tank, you dose Excel, and it's still there, correct? Wouldn't that prove my point then?

And for the record, why you haven't seen Excel mentioned as an add'l carbon source should not be the reason why you're arguing w/ me. It's been suggested time and again on this site and many, many others, to those that are having trouble keeping their CO2 at consistent and high enough levels.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> Sorry for not being clearer, but I have been talking primarily about BBA the entire thread, as that was the poll question, and thus a safe assumption that that was the OP's problem in his tank. Even if not, that's the subject of this thread. And the broader subject obviously being, how to get rid of it. SAE's and nerites don't do much control on BBA. It's been proven over and over that low CO2 is the root cause of BBA. You can then talk about flow, but it's still related to how efficiently you're dispersing that CO2. Lower light is the easiest solution as plants then demand less CO2.


Ok. I've mostly been addressing whether there is benefit to algae eaters (initially) and eventually how Excel affects algae. I was never saying that daily dosing of Excel helps control BBA.



brohawk said:


> We've hijacked this thread enough as it is by not actually talking about snails and fish. Talking about other algaes instead of BBA would be even worse. Probably the main reason Seachem doesn't sell it as an algaecide is that the chemical is well known to cause harm to fish/inverts in larger doses, and even normal doses in some cases.
> 
> Might it be an algaecide b/c of its chemical properties? Well let's see. We know BBA, hair algae, staghorn and clado are caused by low CO2. So if those go away after dosing Excel, you also cannot prove it's b/c of it's algaecide properties.
> 
> Diatoms, some other types of fuzz algaes and GW are caused by ammonia spikes. So again, if you dose Excel and it goes away, you can't prove it's acting as an algaecide, b/c really you supplied the plants w/ add'l carbon so that they could absorb that ammonia and deplete the spike.


Yep. That's the difference between evidence and proof. I've seen little proof of anything on this thread, and I haven't claimed any proof of Excel being an algaecide, only that there is some evidence. However, in your very last statement you've made a conclusion that cannot definitively be made based on your previous evidence. It's a possible reason (supported by the evidence), as it the algaecide argument.

BGA, I won't discuss as it's not a true algae.



brohawk said:


> GSA can be low PO4 levels, but also low CO2. Fact is, you said you have GSA in your tank, you dose Excel, and it's still there, correct? Wouldn't that prove my point then?


I would never claim any algaecide would be effective against all algae. I know that from my pool algae experience. With pools, sometimes you have to shell out money for the copper. Most of the time you can get away with the cheap stuff.



brohawk said:


> And for the record, why you haven't seen Excel mentioned as an add'l carbon source should not be the reason why you're arguing w/ me. It's been suggested time and again on this site and many, many others, to those that are having trouble keeping their CO2 at consistent and high enough levels.


I'm not sure what you are saying in your first sentence. I have seen it mentioned as a carbon source and I know it is a carbon source. It's just that I have not seen that given as the reason it seems to prevent some types of algae (due the carbon source balancing out the tank). I've googled a few times. I'm sure you can find references somewhere. I just haven't seen them.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

You are free to keep staring at the chicken and ignoring the egg. There have been many studies showing the relationship of carbon levels and algae growth. Low CO2 = more algae. I've googled them before and even read some of them. Feel free to do the same. Seachem admits that the active ingredient polycycloglutaracetal provides organic carbon to plants. They don't admit much more b/c it's a trade secret. We know it's an isomer of glutaraldehyde, a strong disinfectant, but we don't know whether or not polycyclogultaracetal has the same properties. You can go and assume it does if you like. I don't care to assume one way or the other. We know for a fact that plants need carbon. We also know for a fact that BBA and many other algaes don't like high levels of carbon. We've already discussed OD'ing many different substances to kill algae. But we also don't see true die off of algae when using Excel as directed--nor do we see that when increasing CO2. That's b/c algae just stops growing when its ideal conditions aren't met.

Point being, I'm sure the only microscopic study on Excel and algae has been done by Seachem. Calling it an algaecide COULD be a false claim. Calling it a carbon source that improves plant growth at the expense of algae isn't. High carbon and plant growth and low algae growth has been scientifically proven.

Bigger point being, you've never experienced the algae that is the subject of this thread (most likely b/c you have a very different, lower light set up than the OP's), yet you've chimed in w/ your advice to them nonetheless. If you'd wanted to discuss proving/disproving Excel's algaecidal properties, it should have been done in a separate thread IMO. Feel free to reply, but no offense, I'm done here.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> You are free to keep staring at the chicken and ignoring the egg. There have been many studies showing the relationship of carbon levels and algae growth. Low CO2 = more algae. I've googled them before and even read some of them. Feel free to do the same. Seachem admits that the active ingredient polycycloglutaracetal provides organic carbon to plants. They don't admit much more b/c it's a trade secret. We know it's an isomer of glutaraldehyde, a strong disinfectant, but we don't know whether or not polycyclogultaracetal has the same properties. You can go and assume it does if you like. I don't care to assume one way or the other. We know for a fact that plants need carbon. We also know for a fact that BBA and many other algaes don't like high levels of carbon. We've already discussed OD'ing many different substances to kill algae. But we also don't see true die off of algae when using Excel as directed--nor do we see that when increasing CO2. That's b/c algae just stops growing when its ideal conditions aren't met.
> 
> Point being, I'm sure the only microscopic study on Excel and algae has been done by Seachem. Calling it an algaecide COULD be a false claim. Calling it a carbon source that improves plant growth at the expense of algae isn't. High carbon and plant growth and low algae growth has been scientifically proven.
> 
> Bigger point being, you've never experienced the algae that is the subject of this thread (most likely b/c you have a very different, lower light set up than the OP's), yet you've chimed in w/ your advice to them nonetheless. If you'd wanted to discuss proving/disproving Excel's algaecidal properties, it should have been done in a separate thread IMO. Feel free to reply, but no offense, I'm done here.


Sigh. I've been doing my best not to be confrontational here and learn more about how Excel works, and hoped to get to a *conclusive* understanding about how it can prevent algae. I'm sorry to see you've felt the need to make comments like "You are free to keep staring at the chicken and ignoring the egg". You've also accused me of things I have not said, and repeatedly misrepresented my comments. Below is just a sampling from your previous post:


I have not claimed Excel is an algaecide. I've merely discussed the possibility, and have asked you to show me how you know it is not, and how you know that it is indeed the tank balancing aspect of Excel that helps keep algae at bay as CO2 does. You haven't done this. You just keep on repeating that Excel is a carbon source, that adding carbon helps balanced the tank, and balanced tanks are much less likely to have algae problems. While that may all be true, it does not mean that Excel cannot also be acting as an algaecide.
You've basically accused me of giving ill advised recommendations to others. I don't believe I've given any advice in this thread. I've stated that I use nerites and amanos, and they have been great at getting rid of existing algae (except GSA). I said I also use Excel and don't experience algae problems (except GSA) when combined with the nerites and amanos. I also said "Also, I'll admit that I'm still somewhat new to this. But thus far I've been happy with the results." So anything that I said that could be construed as advice should have been taken with this in mind.
You've assumed I have a low light tank. I have 3 planted tanks, basically planted for about 7 weeks now. One is medium/high (79w T5's on 46g). One was low (15w on 10g), but now has a 2nd 15w fixture on about 4 hours a day (medium/low?), but only for a couple of weeks now. Another is 7w on 6g, with filtered sunlight all day long and an hour or two of direct sunlight at sunset. All get normal daily Excel dosing plus EI (1/4 to 1/2 normal amount). The 46g is just now finally getting some DIY CO2. None have had any algae once algae eaters and Excel were in place, except for GSA (which we've discussed is probably due to low phosphates). I know, 7 weeks isn't very long, which is why I gave the caveat I did in the previous bullet.
Yes, this discussion should have been done on another thread. No offense taken that you are done. I might start another thread, although I have a slightly different but related topic in mind.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Well. I'm biting. Fact was that mine and bsmith's first post was to be helpful to the OP. I've poured SAEs, amanos and nerites into my tank when I first met the BBA. They probably helped w/ some minor types of algae in the tank, but had no chance of controlling BBA. It wasn't until I messed w/ my light and CO2 that I got it under control.

Sorry for a lack of patience on my end. There are so many algae posts (particularly BBA) on here, and almost always the actual, and correct solution is as simple as "increase CO2". As noobs, we all are here wanting to grow plants so we buy the high lights. Then the bad stuff comes a couple/few months later. Re: the algaecidal properties of Excel, here's the best that I can put it, if we assume ferts/light are ample:
C = P - A.
C = E + X.
C + E = P - A.
E = P - A.

All known facts, and/or results.

But there's no proof that E helped any differently than C, as we don't know if X = 0 or has some value. Really, we will never know unless Seachem comes out w/ it, or some scientist w/ money to burn does a study of his own. Spot dosing is a whole other story, and I think we've already proven that Excel's possible algaecidal properties cannot be confirmed in this way, as KNO3 and other good things for plants yield the same effect on algae (and plants for that matter) when dosed in concentration.

Re: your tanks, yes as you said, they are young still. I've only been doing this a couple/three years, but I've also been doing it long enough to run into many of the major issues planted tanks run into, and have slowly learned how to resolve them. 7 weeks just isn't enough time to see if your system of doing things really works. You might run into algae in the coming months w/ your current lighting on the 46g, and maybe even the 10, though I personally think you've got an OK light schedule on that one if you keep up on the Excel. The 6g b/c of the sunlight, but that's unrelated. There are times people break the rules w/ high light/low CO2 tanks w/ no problems, but for that 1, there are probably 1,000 others dealing w/ massive algae w/ the same setup. I'm not accusing you of giving bad advice on this thread, but rather, advice that doesn't belong in a thread about BBA issues. You've stated that SAEs, etc. are helping you maintain your algaes' growth, but you don't have BBA in the tank anyway. I also first gave advice to you b/c you were showing a lack of understanding about how CO2 and other nutrients work. CO2 helps plants stay healthy and under the right amount of light, does not increase growth, just health, and at the expense of algae. I think you're going to find healthier growth (so long as the algae stays at bay) in your 46g now that you're using Excel + CO2, and you might not have to trim any more often than before. Also, excess nitrates in your tap water don't cause hair algae if CO2/light/and the remaining ferts thresholds are also met. I hope that gets us to some understanding.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> Well. I'm biting. Fact was that mine and bsmith's first post was to be helpful to the OP. I've poured SAEs, amanos and nerites into my tank when I first met the BBA. They probably helped w/ some minor types of algae in the tank, but had no chance of controlling BBA. It wasn't until I messed w/ my light and CO2 that I got it under control.
> 
> Sorry for a lack of patience on my end. There are so many algae posts (particularly BBA) on here, and almost always the actual, and correct solution is as simple as "increase CO2". As noobs, we all are here wanting to grow plants so we buy the high lights. Then the bad stuff comes a couple/few months later.


Sure, and I've acknowledged this in a post already. Yes, I see all algae posts with high lights, no CO2, and only micro fert dosing (mistaking it for general purpose ferts). Algae eaters and Excel are not the answer. Most times they are responded to properly with a brief and proper explanation of balancing light, CO2, and ferts, often followed by a bit more explaining of possible low light, medium light, and high light approaches they could take. However, I also see the one liners "Inject CO2 + ferts", which no noob wants to hear. They are already frustrated enough, and this doesn't help. 



brohawk said:


> Re: the algaecidal properties of Excel, here's the best that I can put it, if we assume ferts/light are ample:
> C = P - A.
> C = E + X.
> C + E = P - A.
> ...


Sorry, but I have no idea what P, A, and X are. I assume C is CO2 and E is Excel. However, I still see a problem with your equations. Maybe it was just a typo on your part. For example:

C + E = P - A
E = P - A

Substitue P - A for E and you get

C + P - A = P - A

Which means C = 0. Since C = 0, E = 0, since both C and E equal P - A. This means X = 0, and is also means P = A. I'm pretty sure you intended something else, so please clarify.


brohawk said:


> But there's no proof that E helped any differently than C, as we don't know if X = 0 or has some value. Really, we will never know unless Seachem comes out w/ it, or some scientist w/ money to burn does a study of his own. Spot dosing is a whole other story, and I think we've already proven that Excel's possible algaecidal properties cannot be confirmed in this way, as KNO3 and other good things for plants yield the same effect on algae (and plants for that matter) when dosed in concentration.


I agree, but in general if you get results with high doses (and I mean a high a dose of anything trying to accomplish just about anything), it's at least worth investigating lower doses and their affect.

As an example, chlorine I believe kills pretty much everything at high enough doses (including people). At low doses it is useful for killing things we don't like (germs) while not harming things we like (swimmers). However, the reason it kills germs at low doses is exactly the same as the reason it is deadly to people at high doses. People just tolerate low levels of chlorine much better than germs.

So, maybe spot dosing and normal dosing of Excel both affect algae for the same reason, but the extent of the affect depends on how sensitive the algae is to Excel. BBA obviously is not affected at low dosages, but that does not mean the reason it dies at high doses (spot treatment) is not the same as the reason hair algae dies at lower doses. I'm not saying this is fact. I'm just saying it is a possibility.



brohawk said:


> Re: your tanks, yes as you said, they are young still. I've only been doing this a couple/three years, but I've also been doing it long enough to run into many of the major issues planted tanks run into, and have slowly learned how to resolve them. 7 weeks just isn't enough time to see if your system of doing things really works. You might run into algae in the coming months w/ your current lighting on the 46g, and maybe even the 10, though I personally think you've got an OK light schedule on that one if you keep up on the Excel. The 6g b/c of the sunlight, but that's unrelated. There are times people break the rules w/ high light/low CO2 tanks w/ no problems, but for that 1, there are probably 1,000 others dealing w/ massive algae w/ the same setup. I'm not accusing you of giving bad advice on this thread, but rather, advice that doesn't belong in a thread about BBA issues. You've stated that SAEs, etc. are helping you maintain your algaes' growth, but you don't have BBA in the tank anyway. I also first gave advice to you b/c you were showing a lack of understanding about how CO2 and other nutrients work. CO2 helps plants stay healthy and under the right amount of light, does not increase growth, just health, and at the expense of algae. I think you're going to find healthier growth (so long as the algae stays at bay) in your 46g now that you're using Excel + CO2, and you might not have to trim any more often than before. Also, excess nitrates in your tap water don't cause hair algae if CO2/light/and the remaining ferts thresholds are also met. I hope that gets us to some understanding.


All the reason I clearly stated that I haven't been at this very long. Early on, I was just relating the results of my approach to date, and acknowledging that it's too early to say for sure how things will turn out. You may be right. I might suffer algae nightmares in the future because of my approach to algae control. That still won't answer the question as to whether or not Excel can act as an algaecide, since there are plenty of types of algae I don't expect Excel to control (thus the algae eaters). In fact, I consider Excel a very minor part of my attempt of algae control. Looking at the algae chart, it looks like hair algae and staghorn may be the only ones it will help. The rest will all have to come from other means such as nerites, shrimp, and yes, in some cases better balance (as I've accepted for the GSA).

Also, I understood the light + CO2 (or Excel) + fertz equation before this thread started, thus the advice you gave wasn't anything I didn't already know. I think the misunderstanding was on your part when I said I don't consider low CO2 a deficiency. I never meant that plants can get good growth without adequate CO2. I meant that I had no aspirations or plans for a high CO2 tank. Thus if CO2 is deficient relative to light or fertz, then my problem is the light or fertz, not the CO2. With the fertz I mostly plan on letting plant growth be my guide as to what is needed. For the light, if it is too high and that creates algae, so what as long as my algae control measures are working. But like we've both agreed on, it's too early to tell if they will.

BTW, I don't have SAEs. If I get GDA and my algae eaters don't deal with it, then now I know what to buy, so you did teach me something.


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)




----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Sorry, to clarify: C = CO2, E = Excel's carbon benefits, X = Excel's unknown value of algaecidal benefits, P = plant growth, and A = algae. You could get more in depth and value the below equations w/ 10C and 6 or 7E, but you'd have to do the same w/ P and A which Seachem hasn't publicized, and I haven't seen anyone ever test themselves.

Here's hopefully a more accurate representation, again assuming high light and ample ferts:
2C = 2P + 1/2A, so then
C = P + A

We also get similar results w/:
C + E + X = 2P + 1/2A, so then
E + X = P + A, and C = E + X.

Not much we can do about finding the value of X, but we do know for sure that E has a value > 0, as Seachem has stated so. We can already explain the plant/algae relationship w/ carbon, but the value of X is complicated b/c every time we discuss Excel's benefits against algae in this forum, plants and their growth are involved.

I assume the only way to to prove/refute the algaecide argument is to throw high light in an empty tank of water and wait for algae. Then do the recommended daily dosing and see what happens. If you've got the time, I'd like to hear about the results.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Lol. Ninja'd, and way too true.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> Sorry, to clarify: C = CO2, E = Excel's carbon benefits, X = Excel's unknown value of algaecidal benefits, P = plant growth, and A = algae. You could get more in depth and value the below equations w/ 10C and 6 or 7E, but you'd have to do the same w/ P and A which Seachem hasn't publicized, and I haven't seen anyone ever test themselves.
> 
> Here's hopefully a more accurate representation, again assuming high light and ample ferts:
> 2C = 2P + 1/2A, so then
> C = P + A


C = P + 1/4A, but I see what you are trying to say. Increase C and you increase P and decrease A. Same goes for when you increase E. I don't think that can be expressed with the equations as you are giving them, but the point it understood. I think what you want is something like

C = 2P
C = 1/A
2P = 1/A
2PA = 0

This shows algae going down as plant growth goes up. It also shows plant growth going up with more CO2 and algae growth going down with more CO2. Of course I doubt it actually linear like this, but that's not really important.



brohawk said:


> Let's say C is some specified unit of CO2 and P is the number of inches per week some plant will grow. A is some volume of algae growth per week. The first equations shows that more CO2 gives you more plant growth. The second shows that more CO2 gives you less algae. The last shows that the more plant growth you get the less algae you get.
> 
> We also get similar results w/:
> C + E + X = 2P + 1/2A, so then
> ...


Well I'm speechless now. You've just agreed with what I've been saying all along. We don't know if Excel prevents some algaes because it is acting like an algaecide. It is possible.

Yes, the test you proposed is a good idea. I'd need the right kind of algae, probably hair algae would be best, to run this test. Unfortunately the one (plantless) tank that I frequently intentionally grow algae in (an old 5g hex I've used recently to quarantine shrimp and nerities), only grows GSA and a mix of brown and green slimey stuff, none of which is known to be affected by Excel. Once I get it empty again (currently has some berried ghost shrimp), I'll try high doses of Excel. Maybe it will kill these algaes at something like 10x dosing, which I doubt anyone would typically try because of the risk to plants and fish. It would also be interesting to know if BBA is affected by Excel dosing that is a lot less than you get with spot treatment, but more than the 5X that some people have attempted in planted tanks.


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

BBA would be best, as it's the only algae that has no other known causes besides CO2 deficiency. I'd try normal dosing for a couple weeks first, before trying any OD'ing to the water column. Try as high light as you can, regular fert dosing, and maybe you can get your hands on some BBA via an LFS' tank.

Meantime, I'm still calling Excel an algae suppressant and not an algaecide.


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

imeridian said:


>


 lol


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

Man you guys are really in to is...I have not read it all because its alot but are you guys part of a debate team? LOL Just wondering no offense or anything


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Don't let anyone tell you differently. Flame wars are cool.

Make any progress w/ your light reduction / CO2?


----------



## JL15219 (Nov 10, 2008)

nope


----------



## brohawk (May 19, 2008)

Cool. Keep up the good work!


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

brohawk said:


> BBA would be best, as it's the only algae that has no other known causes besides CO2 deficiency. I'd try normal dosing for a couple weeks first, before trying any OD'ing to the water column. Try as high light as you can, regular fert dosing, and maybe you can get your hands on some BBA via an LFS' tank.


Ya know, I just assume not bring an algae into my house that I haven't seen before. Many (most?) algaes turn up readily because the spores are everywhere just waiting for the right conditions. I think a few types of algae do not have spores always present, so you won't see them unless you expose your tank to them. I'm not sure which category BBA is in, but if it turns up on its own, I'll probably attempt the experiment. In the meantime, I'll try things out on GSA and the brown/green slime if I can ever vacate the residents of my 5g hex.


----------

