# Kill your stubborn BBA



## brainwavepc.com

I've tried everything I could find to kill bba. changed lights and photo period, added more or less co2, h2o2, excel, you name it. my 125g was trashed with bba, this fixed it in less than two weeks at double the amount per instructions, with no effect on plants.

http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/PhosGuard.html

your welcome


----------



## OVT

Interesting and thank you.

Do you know what levels of phosphate and silicate you had before and after? Did BBA died off or you removed it by hand and it has not come back?

In short, more details would be much appreciated.

v2


----------



## xxshabsxx

Yes, when I went into the local aquarium shop the other day to re-plant my tank (to which I also had a terrible BBA prloblem, fixed now). The owner of the shop told me about the PhosGuard that he uses on his saltwater tanks. BBA apparently thrives (or needs) Phosphate to survive, and so removing that in the tank kills off the BBA entirely. The reason why a lot of people don't use this method (or so he said) is that many people think that plants needs phosphates to live, or live better, but infact phosphates almost have no corrolation with the growth of plants.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I was told yesterday. And it seems you've also had the same success.


----------



## jpappy789

xxshabsxx said:


> Yes, when I went into the local aquarium shop the other day to re-plant my tank (to which I also had a terrible BBA prloblem, fixed now). The owner of the shop told me about the PhosGuard that he uses on his saltwater tanks. BBA apparently thrives (or needs) Phosphate to survive, and so removing that in the tank kills off the BBA entirely. *The reason why a lot of people don't use this method (or so he said) is that many people think that plants needs phosphates to live, or live better, but infact phosphates almost have no corrolation with the growth of plants.*
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I was told yesterday. And it seems you've also had the same success.


Say what?! You cannot just find elemental P floating around...it's mainly found in the phosphate form in soils and water. ATP, DNA/RNA...just a few important biomolecules that NEED phosphorus to be assembled.


----------



## xxshabsxx

jpappy789 said:


> Say what?! You cannot just find elemental P floating around...it's mainly found in the phosphate form in soils and water. ATP, DNA/RNA...just a few important biomolecules that NEED phosphorus to be assembled.


No, I know that phosphate in it's elemental state isn't just floating around. As you said, various proteins that contain phosphate are omnipresent in a fishtank and are used by various organisms to produce biomolecules.

I don't understand everything that the man told me. But from what I could make out, he said that phosphates aren't as important as people think in aquariums, and although removing it all entirely would be detrimental to the plants and fish, having lower levels than what was previously recommended both keeps algae at bay and your aquarium happy...

Although, that's what he was saying, and he could be crazy.


----------



## ua hua

This is interesting to me because I have some of this left over from my reefing days and I did use it on my planted tank about 6 years ago or so and I never had any BBA back then but then I was concerned about it removing all of the phosphate in my tank so quit using it. I have had BBA several times since then and my co2 is running as much as possible without killing fish so I might try this again to see the results. I'm sure you will get many people saying that you don't want to remove all the phosphates but we will have to see.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

I do not know the levels beforehand. but I can say the bba was growing on glass and everything else and the only thing I changed in the past month was adding the phos guard

it's a dirted tank, mts from plain cheap topsoil. before trying this I manually removed bba almost daily and it grew back fast. after adding the phos guard I removed some of it but it was still completely covering all my wood and rocks. it's falling off by itself now and my plans are still growing super fast. 

so far I've changed the phos guard once after a week and and a half. the bba is disappearing at a pretty quick rate.




OVT said:


> Interesting and thank you.
> 
> Do you know what levels of phosphate and silicate you had before and after? Did BBA died off or you removed it by hand and it has not come back?
> 
> In short, more details would be much appreciated.
> 
> v2


I just went and looked and my decimated micro sword that amost all died off because of the bba has put out three new sprouts, woohoo!


----------



## crice8

Just ordered some! We shall see if it gets rid of this pesky BBA!


----------



## norbot

Wow, back to the old "phosphate causes algae" idea? I surely can't comment on what exactly initiates algae to grow, I can say I've been dumping *lots* of phosphate in my tanks without issue for 8 months.

If phosguard removes the bba, then that seems like the end of discussion for me and I will go buy some phosguard. :smile:

As a guess, I wonder if the difference in the _type_ of phosphate has something to do with it? Please see here and here

Again, not doubting you, but I am skeptical. NPK has long been understood to be crucial for plants, phosphorus is an essential element plants need to grow


----------



## Jeff5614

So, by removing phosphorous from your aquarium you've greatly reduced the ability of your plants to utilize carbon and nitrogen. Does the elimination of P also cause BBA not to be able to use carbon and nitrogen? We know that plants are able to store nutrients and then draw on those stores when they're no longer available in the environment. Does algae store nutrients or does it die back quickly when there are no nutrients available? Would plants continue to flourish for a while until their store of nutrients are exhausted and then begin to decline while algae would decline much faster?

I've completely stopped dosing my tank in the past and the tank looked great for 3 weeks. The small amount of nuisance algae completely died off after a week or so and everything seemed fine then plants start to yellow, lose leaves and wither. You're living on borrowed time .

Here's a good discussion on algae and nutrients.
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/why-dont-nutrients-cause-algae.3217/


----------



## plantbrain

Here we go again.

17 years, that's how long we have known on line within the web community that PO4 (elevated levels) do not induce BBA or any number of algae.

This is not a question, this is a fact. 
If you use basic logic, I'm talking the exact same type used in Science, we should be able to add PO4 and get BBA(or any algae that many claim).

You made the hypothesis, now try and test this.

There are many potential causes. 
But.......all it takes are few cases where we KNOW we add plenty of PO4 and do not get BBA, that this hypothesis is falsified.

I really wish history would not repeat itself and that each new cohort of planted hobbyists seems to have to go through this all over again and again _ad aduseum_.

If the hypothesis is true, then where is my BBA?






I dose 10 ppm a week and feed fish.
I sell gobs of Starougyne, Red pantanal, mini butterfly, Rare Cryptds, a mix of both slow and fast growers. Check out the feedback if you have even a little doubt. So that's one aspect totally falsified multiple times for going on 2 decades.

So what is going on then?
Same deal as way back then when Kevin and Paul suggested it.
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html

The hobby is about growing plants, not limiting algae. 
Never was about limiting algae, it's still not.

Liebig's law applies:

What you have done however is limit the plant growth itself.
Instead of CO2 being the MOST limiting factor, now you have switched to PO4 being the MOST limiting factor.

A decent image of the concept:

http://goose.ycp.edu/~kkleiner/ecology/lectureimages/Abioticfactors/liebigslaw.jpg

Now if you could/can manage CO2 correctly, and have enough control with CO2, then BBA is not an issue. I've never once seen otherwise. Not in some 20 years.

So when you limit PO4, now your CO2 issue went away(and thus the BBA goes away, as if by magic? I think not, I have always linked BBA to the poorly managed CO2 levels(bobbing between say 5-15 ppm etc for some/all of the lighting period).

This also confirms that CO2 is likely the inducer of BBA. There may be other factors involved with BBA, but I;'ve not seen any that are testable other than CO2.

You never limited BBA with PO4 remover, that much is clear. You reduced the demand for CO2 by the plants. Plants can tolerate PO4 limitation much better than they can CO2 limitation.

So it goes back to plant growth and Liebig.
You will not escape that.

To have a good understanding and horticultural ability, good usage of CO2 is key. Now if you cannot use CO2 well, too impatient, not enough/too much current, have poor equipment, assume test kits are correct and do not pay more attention to the plants, algae and fish properly, well..........then you might need a crutch like PO4 limitation.

It works but fails to grow plants really well and fails to teach the hobbyists how to manage CO2 correctly.

Now if you also add a lot of light, then you'd expect you'd also require more CO2, and many folks seem to have that vs low light, good CO2 and ferts.

This article discusses light and CO2 demand independent of nutrients:
http://www.tropica.com/en/tropica-abc/basic-knowledge/co2-and-light.aspx

1 st thing they discuss: Liebig, go figure.

There are thousands of aquariums with non limiting PO4 out there that are free of BBA, a number of folks going "me too" does not suggest much other than poor CO2 management frankly. Sounds harsh? It should. It was clearly shown to be FALSE decades ago. We can never know with absolution what causes something(say BBA), but we can say what something is not.

Explain why my tanks do not have BBA.
You cannot with that hypothesis.


----------



## plantbrain

Jeff5614 said:


> So, by removing phosphorous from your aquarium you've greatly reduced the ability of your plants to utilize carbon and nitrogen. Does the elimination of P also cause BBA not to be able to use carbon and nitrogen? We know that plants are able to store nutrients and then draw on those stores when they're no longer available in the environment. Does algae store nutrients or does it die back quickly when there are no nutrients available? Would plants continue to flourish for a while until their store of nutrients are exhausted and then begin to decline while algae would decline much faster?
> 
> I've completely stopped dosing my tank in the past and the tank looked great for 3 weeks. The small amount of nuisance algae completely died off after a week or so and everything seemed fine then plants start to yellow, lose leaves and wither. You're living on borrowed time .
> 
> Here's a good discussion on algae and nutrients.
> http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/why-dont-nutrients-cause-algae.3217/


If you have a source of PO4 in the sediment, then this can be alright, particularly if the sediment is new, and has ample N still, older sediments still possess all the other nutrients(likely for 5-10 years or so, maybe more) just lacks N over time.

But the algae are not limited in any cases.
This is all about Liebig's law and plant demand.


----------



## ua hua

Here's another read on this topic, you will have to translate from German:

http://www.deters-ing.de/Gastbeitraege/Phosphat1.htm


http://www.altwasser-aquarium.de/beitraege/gastbeitrag_gerd.php


----------



## brainwavepc.com

lol... this wasn't a post to discuss "science" behind your theories, this is just me telling people what worked for me after all else failed.

If your info was so well known I don't think you would have to so valiantly defend it.

I got the idea from a guy who makes a living with fish and plants, and has been doing planted tanks for 20 or so years. 

you shouldn't make a blanket hypothesis when you don't know all the info. for example my tank might have 10x the amount of po4 your tank does, therefore causing the bba to thrive in my tank. plants don't need massive amounts of po4 and I seriously doubt the phos guard is removing 100% of it from the tank or my plants would be dying after a few weeks, which is exactly the opposite of what's happening. 

Noone has all the anwsers and you really should be less critical and negative about things Tom, makes you look like an old grouch.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

norbot said:


> Wow, back to the old "phosphate causes algae" idea? I surely can't comment on what exactly initiates algae to grow, I can say I've been dumping *lots* of phosphate in my tanks without issue for 8 months.
> 
> If phosguard removes the bba, then that seems like the end of discussion for me and I will go buy some phosguard. :smile:
> 
> As a guess, I wonder if the difference in the _type_ of phosphate has something to do with it? Please see here and here
> 
> Again, not doubting you, but I am skeptical. NPK has long been understood to be crucial for plants, phosphorus is an essential element plants need to grow


I never said phosphate causes algae... just the abundance of it is allowing it to thrive in my tank. obviously reducing po4 levels is working, so what's the problem.


----------



## FlyingHellFish

Interesting, thanks for the idea. I think I going to reduce my P04 and see what happens. I could never get rid of BBA, only could control it by manual cleaning.


----------



## norbot

brainwavepc.com said:


> this is just me telling people what worked for me after all else failed.


Oh hey that's cool, there's no problem.. I thought you wanted discussion about it, and you're right you didn't say phosphates cause algae, it was just the only conclusion _I_ could draw.

It's like I said, if it works I'll try it :smile:, I don't care a whole lot about theory as long as the plants grow and algae doesn't, even though I do find it more interesting the more I know about it.

Even though you didn't want discussion about science in your thread, I learned alot from the links and posts, so thank you for posting.

I am interested in seeing how it works for you as time goes by, so if you feel like it, please keep us updated. And forgive me for assuming you were saying "phosphate cause algae" :icon_smil

btw.. what's "a" welcome and why is it mine?.........jk:smile:


----------



## houseofcards

The problem with threads like this and I'm not picking on the OP, but everyone with BBA will think this is a good fix for them. It's possible something is going on in your tank that this is having a positive effect on the situation. Same goes with co2, it's not always a fix for BBA and so many here that is the first thing they recommend increasing even before seeing the affected tank. I don't know but for some reason I see a rep from Seachem reading this thread and ROTFL.


----------



## BruceF

+100% house............


----------



## Mizuhuman

Interesting. I've been battling bba for a year in my 75g. I'm willing to try anything to get rid of it.


----------



## plantbrain

brainwavepc.com said:


> lol... this wasn't a post to discuss "science" behind your theories, this is just me telling people what worked for me after all else failed.


And this was just me telling folks the idea has been on the web, for like nearly 20 years now.
I even cited the link:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/

Did you even bother to read it?




> If your info was so well known I don't think you would have to so valiantly defend it.


Whether the information is known or not does not in any way, discredit it.
I offer support for my statements.

EI and many of the articles I have written have been read and are easily accessible on line. Excess PO4 is a good myth and like all good myths, it is hard to kill. 



> I got the idea from a guy who makes a living with fish and plants, and has been doing planted tanks for 20 or so years.


Well, I have curiously also have same credits:icon_roll
It is now a pee contest? Is this how you "valiantly" defend *your *position?

I offered clear examples that falsify this claim, many of the people on TPT have been to my home, seen my tanks over many years. You have not addressed how my tanks and those of many others do quite well and lack algae(BBA or others) at very high PO4 values.

Simple question, one which you have avoided. Perhaps you should ask yourself the question. Investigate, see if you can learn more. This path will make you a better aquatic gardener.



> you shouldn't make a blanket hypothesis when you don't know all the info. for example my tank might have 10x the amount of po4 your tank does, therefore causing the bba to thrive in my tank.


Your tank has 100 ppm PO4?
I'm extremely safe in my position when I made such statements. 
I've demonstrated 1000X of times that excess PO4 cannot be a cause of algae *independent of other factors.*

*If you have dependencies, well, then, it's a poorly designed test.*
You cannot say much about why you had those results. There are 1001 ways to mess something up.

All it takes is for a few people to show a nicely done planted tank without algae issues and high PO4 to falsify your claim. 

My position is one of falsification, yours is not. My methods are rather clear in the fact I do not have dependent factors. Yours MUST have dependencies. 
If that is not true, then "magic" must be invoked for my tanks to exist.

In order to find the cause of something, you need to falsify each likely hypothesis, you narrow the choices down by falsifying each tested hypothesis. When you are left with 1-2 etc, then you go back and see if you can confirm it. You still cannot ever be 100% certain as to cause, but can be certain about falsification. 




> plants don't need massive amounts of po4 and I seriously doubt the phos guard is removing 100% of it from the tank or my plants would be dying after a few weeks, which is exactly the opposite of what's happening.


So did you even bother to test to confirm the PO4 is gone or at some low residual or is it a guess? I'm not so confident as to debate such a topic without covering my bases. I'm not so sure we can say the same for your methods. 

Absolute removal is one issue, but a low limiting level does not imply 100% removal from the water column, it only suggest that one nutrient is now more limiting than another. So plant demand for CO2 drops because the most limiting factor is now PO4.

Liebigs law accurately predicts this, this is not a "causal" theory, this is more than a strong Science based theory, it's a law.

If you added more CO2, then added the PO4 back, then you would see that this is true. Whether you believe me is not my point, the evidence is there and you owe it to yourself to investigate that this is the case.

Maybe I've been lying to everyone for 20 years?:redface:
Not likely.



> Noone has all the anwsers and you really should be less critical and negative about things Tom, makes you look like an old grouch.


Hehe, really? Name calling are we? I attack the topic, not the person. 
An idea should stand on it's own merits, not because someone is a nice guy. Used car salesmen are nice guys, but we do not believe everything they say either. 

Prove what I say is true, to yourself. 
Then you will know.
Right now, you don't.


----------



## FlyingHellFish

plantbrain said:


> And this was just me telling folks the idea has been on the web, for like nearly 20 years now.
> I even cited the link:
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/
> 
> Did you even bother to read it?


Did they ever figure out why reducing the phosphate gave them less algae? I read through it quickly and one of the case studies claim low algae by having P as the limiting factor.

There is a lot of conflicting information on that site, an article says to keep Nitrate and Phosphate as low as possible. I'm confused.


----------



## ua hua

What about the fact that phosphate is always measured as PO4 but when it's dissolved in water as dihydrogen phosphate H2PO4 1- and as as hydrogen phosphate HPO 4 2 -. The equilibrium is completely pH dependent. For example a pH of 7.2 it would be 1:1 but at a pH of 6.2 it's 10:1.

What one person might think is a acceptable level of phosphate might be a excessive amount in another tank with different pH levels?

Reading through some of this stuff makes my brain hurt but I try the best that I can to understand without feeling like I'm back in school.


----------



## FlyingHellFish

^ That the first time I ever heard of this, interesting point. 

Are you saying that the lower the PH value, the higher the concentration or availability is to plants?


----------



## ua hua

FlyingHellFish said:


> ^ That the first time I ever heard of this, interesting point.
> 
> Are you saying that the lower the PH value, the higher the concentration or availability is to plants?


Take a look at those two links I posted. You will have to translate from German but interesting info nonetheless.


----------



## happi

ok lets see if i understand this correctly, correct me if am wrong, *We always give the measured phosphate as PO4, even though the dissolved in the aquarium water as dihydrogen phosphate, H 2 PO4 1 -. Than hydrogen phosphate and HPO4 2 - present At pH 7.2, the ratio of 1:1, at pH 6.2 it is 10: 1, at pH 8.2 it is 1:10,* i have Ph of 6.0 and it could go down to 5.0 during co2, i use 100% Ro water and 0 KH. that mean adding 1ppm of Po4 is actually 10ppm of phosphors?

the goggle translation isn't translating things very well.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

Yes Tom I measured the phos after having the stuff in there for a few days and the test showed no detectable phosphate, with this test kit.

http://www.petco.com/product/112545/API-Aquarium-Phosphate-Test-Kit.aspx

nothing in my tank has changed in the past three months and the algae was growing like crazy until I added the phos guard. despite what should be happening, this works for me.


regardless of the opinions in this thread, this works for me when nothing else did, and hopefully helps someone else out down the road. I will be removing the phos guard once all the visible bba is gone and will post my results.


----------



## happi

i cannot 100% confirm that reducing PO4 would solve this algae issue, but let me share something with you guys, i will only share the results i found during my experiments. i was dosing 1ppm of Po4 3x week and i was seeing BBA growing all over the tank, first i thought it was co2, tried everything to get rid of it but nothing happened, for last couple of weeks i reduced the po4 dose to 0.5ppm 3x week and BBA was going away slowly. now on the other hand when i had very fast growing stem plants i was dosing the 1ppm of po4 3x week without seeing any BBA or any other algae. i would also like to mention that i use aqua soil which absorb high amount of po4, plant can store po4 as well, we can dose small amount of PO4 everyday which can be quickly absorbed by plants so nothing stays behind. dosing more than plants could absorb simply stays in water and algae will use it or substrate like aqua soil will absorb it. i would also like to talk about my fert recipe in my signature, when someone else used it who doesn't use aqua soil they had BBA issue, while i used Aqua soil and i did not see any BBA using the same fert. my last test confirmed that aqua soil and plants can absorb 0.5 -1ppm of po4 per day, but this test does not guarantee anything, simply because i don't know weather aqua soil is absorbing more po4 or plants are.

on the other hand my brother tank is full of BBA, he doesn't dose anymore fert and week later BBA is less but at the same time plant growth is reduced. i would also like to mention when ever he trimmed the plants BBA was exploding, when you trim the plants, plant can release PO4 back into the water if i understand this correctly.* if anyone is interested i can do a test on BBA and post my final results and then for sure we will know if BBA is caused by excess PO4.*

if anyone is interested reading my GDA algae thread, they might find it intersing, here is the link: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=374505&highlight= 

here is a video of tank with 3ppm of po4 per week:


----------



## OVT

houseofcards said:


> I don't know but for some reason I see a rep from Seachem reading this thread and ROTFL.


I'd pay to see that on YouTube 

v2


----------



## FlyingHellFish

@ happi

That would be great, how would the test be set up?

How did you contribute the AquaSoil to absorbing the P and not the plants?


----------



## happi

FlyingHellFish said:


> @ happi
> 
> That would be great, how would the test be set up?
> 
> How did you contribute the AquaSoil to absorbing the P and not the plants?


i have said they both absorb the po4, but am not sure which one absorb more or less, plant will grab whatever they can first and then aqua soil will take care of the rest, my API test kit showed 1ppm of PO4 once i added into the tank and tested it by end of the day and it was showing 0.2ppm, keep in mind plant will be fine without adding any po4 for few days before they show any issue, simply because they can store it and use it and algae cannot store it. this explain why ADA tanks are so successful, fish and fish food provide enough PO4 for the plant growth in their case, but in my case i would still add some po4, i add it enough so plant can store it and not leave it into the water for long period of time for algae.

the test would be to not dose any po4 at all for the first 2 weeks and then dose it in excess amount for the next 2 weeks, so i will need one month to complete the test. i will measure the po4, plant growth, algae growth.


----------



## jpappy789

ua hua said:


> What about the fact that phosphate is always measured as PO4 but when it's dissolved in water as dihydrogen phosphate H2PO4 1- and as as hydrogen phosphate HPO 4 2 -. The equilibrium is completely pH dependent. For example a pH of 7.2 it would be 1:1 but at a pH of 6.2 it's 10:1.
> 
> What one person might think is a acceptable level of phosphate might be a excessive amount in another tank with different pH levels.
> 
> Reading through some of this stuff makes my brain hurt but I try the best that I can to understand without feeling like I'm back in school.



As far as I can tell most hobby grade PO4 test kits use an adaptation of the ascorbic acid method. This tests for orthophosphate/SRP, which I believe is going to include the dissociated forms as well. 

Unless you have the means to measure _total_ P (which is going to be unavailable to plants/algae anyways without any form of digestion) then I don't see why any other method is needed for our understanding...trust me, it isn't exactly fun running time consuming calibration curves either


----------



## houseofcards

So is this the new one two punch? Excel and then Phosgard. Who would've thunk it! 

At least it shouldn't kill your fish.


----------



## JeffyFunk

ua hua said:


> What about the fact that phosphate is always measured as PO4 but when it's dissolved in water as dihydrogen phosphate H2PO4 1- and as as hydrogen phosphate HPO 4 2 -. The equilibrium is completely pH dependent. For example a pH of 7.2 it would be 1:1 but at a pH of 6.2 it's 10:1.
> 
> What one person might think is a acceptable level of phosphate might be a excessive amount in another tank with different pH levels.
> 
> Reading through some of this stuff makes my brain hurt but I try the best that I can to understand without feeling like I'm back in school.


While it is well understood that orthophosphate exists in an equilibrium of several different species that is pH dependent, as far as i can tell, there is no way for the average person to actually quantify the different phosphate species in solution. Furthermore, i'd go so far as to say it's not necessary because most, if not all common analytical methods for the determination of phosphates or anions are not done at the actual pH of the aquarium, but rather adjust the pH of the solution for the analytical method. 

In the ascorbic acid method (which is what most test kits are based upon), orthophosphate will react with Mo & Sb in an ACIDIC medium to form a phosphomolybdic acid species. When that species is reduced by ascorbic acid, an intense blue color is formed. The reagents used are acidic to begin with... 

In either of the most common chromatography methods (ion chromatography or capillary ion electrophoresis), the samples are injected onto a column and eluted with buffered solutions. In either of these two chromatography techniques, a BASIC buffer solution is used to separate the components in solution... 

In both of these cases, the pH of the sample is changed to suit the analytical methods. 

That said... Does the pH of the solution (i.e. aquarium water) affect the actual species of phosphate in solution? Yes... 

Does the pH of the solution (i.e. aquarium water) affect how the plants utilize the phosphate species? Maybe, but without solid analytical data on what actual phosphate species are present, it's anyone's guess and unanswerable as far as i can tell... 

Does the pH of the solution (i.e. aquarium water) affect the amount of phosphate we dose? No.


----------



## ua hua

JeffyFunk said:


> While it is well understood that orthophosphate exists in an equilibrium of several different species that is pH dependent, as far as i can tell, there is no way for the average person to actually quantify the different phosphate species in solution. Furthermore, i'd go so far as to say it's not necessary because most, if not all common analytical methods for the determination of phosphates or anions are not done at the actual pH of the aquarium, but rather adjust the pH of the solution for the analytical method.
> 
> In the ascorbic acid method (which is what most test kits are based upon), orthophosphate will react with Mo & Sb in an ACIDIC medium to form a phosphomolybdic acid species. When that species is reduced by ascorbic acid, an intense blue color is formed. The reagents used are acidic to begin with...
> 
> In either of the most common chromatography methods (ion chromatography or capillary ion electrophoresis), the samples are injected onto a column and eluted with buffered solutions. In either of these two chromatography techniques, a BASIC buffer solution is used to separate the components in solution...
> 
> In both of these cases, the pH of the sample is changed to suit the analytical methods.
> 
> That said... Does the pH of the solution (i.e. aquarium water) affect the actual species of phosphate in solution? Yes...
> 
> Does the pH of the solution (i.e. aquarium water) affect how the plants utilize the phosphate species? Maybe, but without solid analytical data on what actual phosphate species are present, it's anyone's guess and unanswerable as far as i can tell...
> 
> Does the pH of the solution (i.e. aquarium water) affect the amount of phosphate we dose? No.



While most of your response is completely over my head I do appreciate you trying to explain it. So what I gather is it doesn't make a difference how much phosphate we dose regardless of the pH of our water but the pH of our water might affect how the plants utilize the different forms of phosphate?


----------



## JeffyFunk

ua hua said:


> While most of your response is completely over my head I do appreciate you trying to explain it. So what I gather is it doesn't make a difference how much phosphate we dose regardless of the pH of our water but the pH of our water might affect how the plants utilize the different forms of phosphate?


I think it's best to really emphasize the word "MIGHT" because, as far as i can tell, there is no general method available to determine the exact phosphate species in the water as a function of pH. If you can't determine the exact phosphate species, how can you say one species vs another makes a difference to how plants grow? 

Not trying to pick on you exactly, but to me, this is just one of those examples of bad chemistry hand waving that people do in order to raise alarm about something (in this case, that pH will affect your phosphate dosing. pH will affect the equilibrium of the phosphate species in solution, but it will **NOT** effect how much you dose).

The more important point is to match your phosphate dosing to how much phosphate your plants are actually using... and check your CO2!


----------



## ua hua

JeffyFunk said:


> I think it's best to really emphasize the word "MIGHT" because, as far as i can tell, there is no general method available to determine the exact phosphate species in the water as a function of pH. If you can't determine the exact phosphate species, how can you say one species vs another makes a difference to how plants grow?
> 
> Not trying to pick on you exactly, but to me, this is just one of those examples of bad chemistry hand waving that people do in order to raise alarm about something (in this case, that pH will affect your phosphate dosing. pH will affect the equilibrium of the phosphate species in solution, but it will **NOT** effect how much you dose).
> 
> The more important point is to match your phosphate dosing to how much phosphate your plants are actually using... and check your CO2!


I wasn't meaning for my post to come across as trying to alarm people that their pH would affect your phosphate dosing it was meant more as a question in order to learn more about a subject I admit I know very little about. The only way to learn is to ask questions so maybe I should have worded my post a little differently. I have always dosed my phosphates according to EI and never really put much thought into it which is the way I like it. I don't want my hobby to turn into a science experiment where I have to test every little variable but at the same time I would like to understand a little of the science behind it.


----------



## Jeff5614

houseofcards said:


> So is this the new one two punch? Excel and then Phosgard. Who would've thunk it!
> 
> At least it shouldn't kill your fish.


:thumbsup:  ( no disrespect intended to the originator of the original one two punch )


----------



## Mizuhuman

Happi, I am also interested. bba have been running rampant in my tank for far too long. I am tired of killing them off only to find them growing all over again.
I'm definitely subscribing to this thread.


----------



## acitydweller

Mizuhuman said:


> Happi, I am also interested. bba have been running rampant in my tank for far too long. I am tired of killing them off only to find them growing all over again.
> I'm definitely subscribing to this thread.


As am I. Loving this topic!


----------



## happi

one more thing i would like to share, when i was using hard water i was dosing 1/4 tsp of po4 3x week in 50g, now this is more than what EI suggested and there was no sign BBA. maybe PH does have an effect on po4, but at the same time we should consider po4 being reacted in hard water quite easily than it would in soft water.


----------



## happi

Mizuhuman said:


> Happi, I am also interested. bba have been running rampant in my tank for far too long. I am tired of killing them off only to find them growing all over again.
> I'm definitely subscribing to this thread.


if anyone is interested then i will need someone who have hard water to carry the test, i can only test on soft water. 

what are your water parameter??


----------



## jpappy789

ua hua said:


> While most of your response is completely over my head I do appreciate you trying to explain it. So what I gather is it doesn't make a difference how much phosphate we dose regardless of the pH of our water but the pH of our water might affect how the plants utilize the different forms of phosphate?


Plants use H2PO4 and HPO4 in solution. At the pH we experience in aquariums these two ions are going to make up the majority of the total orthophosphate anyways. No issues there.

Not sure if the translation was off from the German site or what but just seemed like the correct chemistry applied in a poor manner.


----------



## @[email protected]

ua hua said:


> What about the fact that phosphate is always measured as PO4 but when it's dissolved in water as dihydrogen phosphate H2PO4 1- and as as hydrogen phosphate HPO 4 2 -. The equilibrium is completely pH dependent. For example a pH of 7.2 it would be 1:1 but at a pH of 6.2 it's 10:1.
> 
> What one person might think is a acceptable level of phosphate might be a excessive amount in another tank with different pH levels?
> 
> Reading through some of this stuff makes my brain hurt but I try the best that I can to understand without feeling like I'm back in school.


irrelevant due to Le Chatlier's Principle. meaning that a system in dynamic equilibrium will reestablish equilibrium as change occurs. 
so lets say a test measure phosphate by binding to ONLY PO4--, and lets say that at a given time 25% of the phosphate is PO4--, 25% is H2PO4, and 50% is HPO4-. 
so you add your indicator to the test tube and all the PO4-- is bound up. now since the ions are in equilibrium, some HPO4- dissociates into PO4--, and some H2PO4 dissociates into HPO4-. the newly made PO4-- is bound. some HPO4- dissociates... until all the phosphate is bound.
it works the same way if you replace "test indicator" with plant/algae enzyme.


----------



## ua hua

jpappy789 said:


> Plants use H2PO4 and HPO4 in solution. At the pH we experience in aquariums these two ions are going to make up the majority of the total orthophosphate anyways. No issues there.
> 
> Not sure if the translation was off from the German site or what but just seemed like the correct chemistry applied in a poor manner.





@[email protected] said:


> irrelevant due to Le Chatlier's Principle. meaning that a system in dynamic equilibrium will reestablish equilibrium as change occurs.
> so lets say a test measure phosphate by binding to ONLY PO4--, and lets say that at a given time 25% of the phosphate is PO4--, 25% is H2PO4, and 50% is HPO4-.
> so you add your indicator to the test tube and all the PO4-- is bound up. now since the ions are in equilibrium, some HPO4- dissociates into PO4--, and some H2PO4 dissociates into HPO4-. the newly made PO4-- is bound. some HPO4- dissociates... until all the phosphate is bound.
> it works the same way if you replace "test indicator" with plant/algae enzyme.


I guess your guys experience way surpasses mine as I ended up getting a chemistry lesson from your responses. Maybe just me over thinking and over analyzing something as simple as dosing some phosphate into my big box of water with weeds in it.


----------



## Mizuhuman

happi said:


> if anyone is interested then i will need someone who have hard water to carry the test, i can only test on soft water.
> 
> what are your water parameter??


according to my api test kit, my ph is 7.4 -7.6


----------



## brainwavepc.com

my ph is running 6.8 in my tank. after the long weekend my tank is nearly bba free. it's sticking on some of the rocks and wood but all the plants, equipment, and glass is clear. my dwarf hairgrass is finally coming back and my micro sword is showing some new sprouts. my saggitaria is still spreading like weeds.


----------



## King of Hyrule

Algae like many things in life isn't a straight forward problem. What work for some people won't necessary work for others. 

The cure for my BBA, was remove my CO2 system, and stop all fertilizers. My plants are still growing, my fish are happy and my tank looks good. Proof enough I solve the problem correctly. Other would disagree, in fact other have disagreed - claiming that life in my tank would end, my plants would turn brown and die, etc. Life abounds in my tank. 

But what worked for might not work for you, or you and most defiantly not for you... But it will work for you and you and absolute for you. 

Its nice to know there are other solutions out there. Next time if there is a next time. I'll try this method.


----------



## houseofcards

brainwavepc.com said:


> I've tried everything I could find to kill bba. changed lights and photo period, added more or less co2, h2o2, excel, you name it. my 125g was *trashed with bba*, this fixed it in less than two weeks at double the amount per instructions, with no effect on plants.


Why do your feel your tank got trashed with BBA to begin with? Were you dosing P or did it accumulate from organic breakdown.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

houseofcards said:


> Why do your feel your tank got trashed with BBA to begin with? Were you dosing P or did it accumulate from organic breakdown.


because I'm using mts I assume. I dose nothing. I got a plant from the wet spot that started this whole thing.


----------



## Dugsul808

Try spot treating with h202


----------



## brainwavepc.com

Dugsul808 said:


> Try spot treating with h202


I couldn't do this, it was on everything. all my driftwood, equipment, rocks and even the glass


----------



## 12redblue

Being new to planted tanks and (BTW I am able to grow 4 types of algae so far in 1 tank and 2 tanks clear of algae) it seems either method or combination of methods can work CO2 or Phosphate limitation. If Algae requires 1) light 2) CO2 3) Nitrogen & Phosphorous or common form Phosphates to grow. Its finding the balance for your water parameters, your tank size, your light intensity & duration and available nutrients N & P to the plants can outpace the algae without leaving enough CO2 and N & P for the algae to live - Plants and algae require the same ingredients to grow. Right??

In swimming pools which is same type of water chemistry balancing act - algae is controlled by Phosphate binders like PhosGuard and chlorine. Perhaps trying the PhosGuard is a quick way to gain initial control of algae growth but then the balance of light, CO2 and nutrients needs to be found again.


----------



## Jeff5614

brainwavepc.com said:


> I couldn't do this, it was on everything. all my driftwood, equipment, rocks and even the glass


You should have started dealing with it when it first appeared. It's not going to disappear on its own once established.


----------



## kubalik

Just want to share what happened in my tank after putting phosguard in the filter(4 days now):
-All surface biofilm disappeared , never seen the surface so clear
-Ph went up by .3 from steady 6.8 to 7.1 , upped the co2 from 1 bps to 1.5 bps , 
PH steady at 7.1 
-BBA slowly backing off ...


----------



## Mizuhuman

kubalik said:


> Just want to share what happened in my tank after putting phosguard in the filter(4 days now):
> -All surface biofilm disappeared , never seen the surface so clear
> -Ph went up by .3 from steady 6.8 to 7.1 , upped the co2 from 1 bps to 1.5 bps ,
> PH steady at 7.1
> -BBA slowly backing off ...


That's encouraging. I just might try it on my tank and see what happens. I have nothing to lose. muhahha


----------



## aluka

I totally got some today, lets see how it goes!


----------



## jfynyson

12redblue said:


> Being new to planted tanks and (BTW I am able to grow 4 types of algae so far in 1 tank and 2 tanks clear of algae) it seems either method or combination of methods can work CO2 or Phosphate limitation. If Algae requires 1) light 2) CO2 3) Nitrogen & Phosphorous or common form Phosphates to grow. Its finding the balance for your water parameters, your tank size, your light intensity & duration and available nutrients N & P to the plants can outpace the algae without leaving enough CO2 and N & P for the algae to live - Plants and algae require the same ingredients to grow. Right??
> 
> In swimming pools which is same type of water chemistry balancing act - algae is controlled by Phosphate binders like PhosGuard and chlorine. Perhaps trying the PhosGuard is a quick way to gain initial control of algae growth but then the balance of light, CO2 and nutrients needs to be found again.


Or just forget the plants & fish & use the chloine. I hypothesize that algae won't grow ! In fact, 7 out of 10 clinical studies showed algae remission while others noticed no affect or an increase in algae take over. Disclaimer: side effects may include but are not limited dead animals, dead plants, head aches, blood clots, certain forms of cancer, loss of limb, hair removal, COPD, feeling tired & lazy, and bleeding from the eyes & lungs. If you experience diarreah, excessive vomitting or feeling of drunkeness call your doctor (or lawyer) as these side effects may be danergous and abnormal. Check your water to make sure it's not contaminated with dihydrogen monoxide as this can increase the risk of algae. If you feel Phosgaurd is right for you, call your LFS.


----------



## OVT

Too bad that fishless tanks are known to cause cancer in the state of California.

v3


----------



## houseofcards

brainwavepc.com said:


> because I'm using mts I assume. I dose nothing. I got a plant from the wet spot that started this whole thing.


It's almost impossible to guard your tank against BBA spores, etc. If the conditions are right it will grow, if not it won't. I can put a BBA covered piece of driftwood in my tank and the BBA will die. It has no where to go. Soil is very dangerous. If your levels of P are that high without dosing than something is leeching into the water column pretty bad. I've never meet BBA, BGA that didn't respond to increasing the organic removal in your tank. Via more mechanical, chemical, bio filtration or reducing feeding/livestock, increasing plant mass/growth. Don't try to fiqure out just cover all the bases. The algae thrives where the bio-filter is usually insufficient to handle the organic breakdown.


----------



## OVT

+1

v3


----------



## brainwavepc.com

Jeff5614 said:


> You should have started dealing with it when it first appeared. It's not going to disappear on its own once established.


I've been "dealing with it" since it first appeared in my tank, with no luck, hence my making this thread.


----------



## oliver77

brainwavepc.com said:


> I couldn't do this, it was on everything. all my driftwood, equipment, rocks and even the glass


Hey bro I feel u.

My tank is now covered with this algae. I am also "dealing" with it since I first saw it on my powerhead. It becomes my monthly routine to trim leaves that have bba on them and taking out rocks to brush them out.

The bba is everywhere in my tank. 

ps. i have no-CO2 setup, monthly liquid fert regime and low light.


----------



## m00se

(head down embarrassed look here) Let me jump on the BBA bandwagon with my experience. I accepted a gift of some plants from a guy tearing his tank down and boy have I regretted it ever since. I run pressurized CO2 through a closed loop cerges reactor to spraybar at about 3 bps (40b). Dosed EI or a revised version for over a year. Lots of stems and explosive growth using three 26w CFLs in domes over an open top. I have been fighting BBA ever since that fateful day. Plenty of circulation (FX5 spraybar), no dead spots. Here's the kicker: The BBA likes to thrive on the holes of the CO2 spraybar and on the plants closest to it. On the CO2 spraybar holes!! I also find it predominantly on anything I've used Fusion spray paint on. This has baffled me. Lights and CO2 on timers. Drop checker's green/yellow on opposite side of tank from spraybar. It takes a two months before the parts come out and get bleached because the algae becomes unslightly. I dose .35 g of KH2PO4 two, three times a week and do a 75% WC once a week. 1 gram of NO3 and 2 grams of K2SO4 same frequency.

I'm willing to try anything to finally get this under control. I believe Tom Barr. I also believe my eyes. Something is allowing this algae to thrive though, and it ain't lack of CO2....


----------



## JoraaÑ

Op should have posted Before and after picture...To see is to believe...Myth or Mystery??


----------



## houseofcards

Well, you know co2 is NOT an algaecide in itself. The idea is that if you have good growing plants it will rid the tank of organics that would have otherwise aided BBA and other algae. The ability for the plants to do this is different in every setup.

Your tank probably still isn't 'clean enough' for the given setup you have. There is no other reason to have such BBA problems. In the right setup you could drop a BBA invested piece of driftwood in the tank and it does nothing but slowly die.


----------



## levian

Here's my experience with BBA for anyone interested (Like me when I browsed countless threads about BBA )

Some info: 70gal, EI dosing, 50% weekly WC, pressurized CO2 (7am-10:30pm), photoperiod (9am-5pm and 7pm-10:30pm), Fluval 306, dual 54w T5 HO

Last month or so, I started getting BBA in my tank slowly, but surely. Whenever I trimmed my plants, I noticed that BBA would appear the next week during water change/maintenance. So eventually, I figured I could use that as a good indicator (compared to my drop checkers which were always lime/yellow). What I did the following weeks was slightly increase the CO2, but more importantly (I think?), fixed the CO2 fluctuation. If you noticed, I have a "siesta" period during which I used to stop the CO2 injection. Now, I just let it run from 7am to 10:30pm without interruption.

My glass top cover also got pretty dirty, so maybe that helped reduce light intensity a little bit (I wouldn’t dare to clean it knowing what could happen if I do!).. and my plant mass also increased alot compared to when I first flooded my tank.

..So after that, each week during WC/maintenance I would check if there's BBA where I trimmed my plants last time. If there was, I would trim the plant again where it's affected, slightly increase CO2, then wait until next week. Eventually, BBA stopped appearing whenever I trimmed my plants. (I truly believe that CO2 fluctuation was my real problem)

I do still have some remaining BBA on my driftwood, rocks and damaged plants, but they're so small that I don't mind. Besides, they don't seem to spread anymore. (I'd spot treat with excel on the more badly affected areas and the BBA would die during the next few days)

As some people said, watch your plants, as they're the best indicator if something’s wrong (or something like that). Works for me!


----------



## tetra73

Yawn....I thought I am reading something new. The best way to kill BBA is to prevent it by maintaining consistent CO2 level at 30ppm+. It took me 2 years to accomplish this.  Unhealthy plants would tend to attract BBA more. And never make ferts as the limiting factors. 

I use Phoslock, even better than the Seachem version, for pretreating my water before WC. Then, I dose about 15ml of phosphate, about 5ppm to 10ppm per dosing on my 40g tank. For the OP, you may want to make sure you aren't using additives for your tank water that may contain phosphate (ie, seachem neutral ph regulator...)


----------



## tetra73

levian said:


> Here's my experience with BBA for anyone interested (Like me when I browsed countless threads about BBA )
> 
> Some info: 70gal, EI dosing, 50% weekly WC, pressurized CO2 (7am-10:30pm), photoperiod (9am-5pm and 7pm-10:30pm), Fluval 306, dual 54w T5 HO
> 
> Last month or so, I started getting BBA in my tank slowly, but surely. Whenever I trimmed my plants, I noticed that BBA would appear the next week during water change/maintenance. So eventually, I figured I could use that as a good indicator (compared to my drop checkers which were always lime/yellow). What I did the following weeks was slightly increase the CO2, but more importantly (I think?), fixed the CO2 fluctuation. If you noticed, I have a "siesta" period during which I used to stop the CO2 injection. Now, I just let it run from 7am to 10:30pm without interruption.
> 
> My glass top cover also got pretty dirty, so maybe that helped reduce light intensity a little bit (I wouldn’t dare to clean it knowing what could happen if I do!).. and my plant mass also increased alot compared to when I first flooded my tank.
> 
> ..So after that, each week during WC/maintenance I would check if there's BBA where I trimmed my plants last time. If there was, I would trim the plant again where it's affected, slightly increase CO2, then wait until next week. Eventually, BBA stopped appearing whenever I trimmed my plants. (I truly believe that CO2 fluctuation was my real problem)
> 
> I do still have some remaining BBA on my driftwood, rocks and damaged plants, but they're so small that I don't mind. Besides, they don't seem to spread anymore. (I'd spot treat with excel on the more badly affected areas and the BBA would die during the next few days)
> 
> As some people said, watch your plants, as they're the best indicator if something’s wrong (or something like that). Works for me!



Yeah, that's about right. For the CO2 level, try the ph/kh chart. I don't get BBA anymore after knowing how to use the chart.  I also prolong my CO2 for an additional 3 hours. From 5:30am to 3:30pm. 10 hours total but with only 7 hours of light. I set the CO2 to turn on 3 hours before the light. This is to ensure that my CO2 level is high and stable enough before the light comes on. In the past, I set it to one hour. It was impossible for my CO2 to reach to 30ppm in one hour.


----------



## oliverpool

I posted in a new thread about my recent experience. Basically I had BBA in my tank in the background. Always there and if I look at it wrong, it will just cover my plants. Adjusted CO2 till my fishes were at the top, changed flow, reduced flow, lowered light, increased light, lowered ferts, increased ferts, even tried excel for 2 weeks killing quite a few of my malayan shrimps. But BBA did not really stop growing. At most, it stop growing but if I miss just one water change or trimming, it would grow in strength.

5 days ago, a couple of my fish contracted ich. I decided to start using Seachem paraguard. Today is day 5 and I suddenly noticed that my BBA are all dieing! All! red patches are seen on my buce and anubias and more on the driftwood where my thai moss are located. These 3 locations are the most troublesome but they are all pink or red and seems to be falling off. Could it be Paraguard kills more then ich? Anyone else experience something similar?


----------



## WendyF

brainwavepc.com said:


> I do not know the levels beforehand. but I can say the bba was growing on glass and everything else and the only thing I changed in the past month was adding the phos guard
> 
> it's a dirted tank, mts from plain cheap topsoil. before trying this I manually removed bba almost daily and it grew back fast. after adding the phos guard I removed some of it but it was still completely covering all my wood and rocks. it's falling off by itself now and my plans are still growing super fast.
> 
> so far I've changed the phos guard once after a week and and a half. the bba is disappearing at a pretty quick rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just went and looked and my decimated micro sword that amost all died off because of the bba has put out three new sprouts, woohoo!


I just want to thank you for posting what has helped you. I want to make sure I understand correctly...You have been running the phos guard for about 2 weeks now? I'd really love to keep getting at least weekly updates on the condition of your plants if you don't mind. I have been unhappy with excel spot treatment results & am looking for alternatives.


----------



## plantbrain

brainwavepc.com said:


> I've been "dealing with it" since it first appeared in my tank, with no luck, hence my making this thread.


In the meantime, my tank:














Now............there is some tiny amount of BBA in this tank, but you really have to look for it and it is only on a few pieces of the wood in the current, not really anywhere else. I suppose if I wanted, I could really go after it more, but there's little point, it's not a nuisance. 

Let's look at another tank:










This is pretty much opposite of the above tank, it's a Buce tank, full of slow growing Anubias like plants. About 25% of the light of the tank above. Same but even slower minor BBA on wood only.

I can kill it with H2O2 every 2-3 months, never an issue. I dose less to this tank, the demand from the plants is low, so there's no need to lard it on.

And then there's this tank:










Maybe 6 months ago:











Maybe 2-3 years ago?








It has BBA here and there over the years, but like the above tanks, tiny bit perhaps here and there on the wood, not the plants. But the last year or so, I've been unable to see any nor cleaned the wood.

Tanks all end up with about the same ppm's residuals over time.
All have a lot of shrimp, some snails, plecos, wet/dry filters, good general care.

Client tanks:



























These are F2's and the angels are F3's. 









My non CO2 tanks have never gotten BBA.










All these tanks have PO4, a lot.
BBA on the hardscape is no different to me than any algae on the hardscape. When it gets on the plants or quickly covers things, there's a CO2 issue.
CO2 is not a simple thing, this is what gets intermediate and new folks.
High light also plays a role with algae woes. It all go back to simple stuff: good plant growth/care and good general maintenance.

No magic, no tricks. I go to the ADA store here in SF(AFA), and I see BBA on most of their tanks also. Sometimes on plants, sometimes just here and there on rocks or wood. They fix it or it sometimes nags them.
With clients, I cannot allow any algae on the glass or plants. 
But some folks, myself included, need to learn through experience.
I did not believe my own advice today.....when I was growing plants 20-30 years ago:redface:

There are just some folks that will suffer and have to learn the hard way, other folks seem to get lucky, but is the typical bell curve distribution with most being pretty successful in the middle, and then the tails being really really good, or poor to really bad.

I suffered 3 years in the late 1980's-1990's with BBA, Amano said he suffered about 10 years. So that's some perspective on the pain and time frame in the past. 

Client tanks provided good test since they often would run out of CO2 and then call me.....to fix the issue. Name the algae, they had it. BBA and on plants and the hardscape occurred after several days of no CO2. Not once, but every time for 5 different clients and myself. I've had many clients that are one or two time services to fix their issues, mostly BBA. Maybe 20 or so? CO2 every stinking time. 

You might read the other thread I posted on with CO2, has a couple of graphs and the idea about flux and Fick's 1st law of diffusion.


http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=447481

Should help.


----------



## frenchie1001

i have just started to develop this on my non co2 tank, happened as soon as i started dosing excel.


----------



## Canuck

If I can make some observations...

The first mistake people make is to believe there is some silver bullet to eliminate algae from your tank. If there was, there wouldn't be an algae forum here or anywhere else on planted tank forums. That said many experienced people are able to set up planted tank systems that minimize and control algae growth. They tend to use some well known system. Pick one of those and stick with it.

There is a difference between an anecdote and data (or scientific evidence). An anecdote is a random observation that may or may not hold any validity. A large number of similar random observations probably points to some underlying principle BUT then one has to be able to differentiate between correlation and causation. The best illustration of this I've heard is that ice cream consumption causes drowning. We know this isn't true but if graphed they correlate perfectly. But obviously if ice cream consumption is limited or eliminated it will have no affect on drowning deaths. Point here is read every cause (or cure) critically.

Use logic. If 10 tanks have high PO4 and BBA, 10 tanks have high PO4 and have no algae, 10 tanks with low PO4 are algae free, and 10 tanks with low nutrient levels have algae, what can we deduce from this? I do have a tendency to believe the tank observations of people and I know all these tanks exist. A lot of people, it would seem, want to believe the other tanks don't exist. Look for the common factors in tanks.

Be prepared for the unknown. A lot of random events are happening specifically in new tanks. Ignore them. You have wisely chosen a proven existing system to manage your tank. Stick with it. Experienced people have a tendency to believe they understand these things. They know there is a break in period where random types of algae find your tank. They don't get overly excited and start changing things up.

Just so we are clear, if you want to believe phosguard prevents algae, or excel causes it, I have no problem with that. Be happy. I only posted this in the hope that it would help someone.

Good luck.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

lets see its been almost two months now and my tank is 95% bba free.



Tom, you have your opinions and we have ours, please stop polluting this thread with your useless smug inputs.

I have seven other tanks with 0 bba that I don't need phos guard, that use the same water, mts, plants from the affected tank, equipment, and everything else and they have 0 bba. this one did and phos guard was the solution so get over it already and go troll a different thread.


to everyone else, try it out if you have the same problems I had, it works great! my fish and plants are doing better than ever! my dhg is finally growing again too. so happy!


----------



## m00se

Could it maybe be silicates, since phosguard also removes them?


----------



## danielt

It's not his only tank but it happens only in this one.

Phosguard solution made me chuckle. There is no PO4 in the water if you use RO which I did. Means the only way to get PO4 in my tank was if I put it there. Weekly 50% water changes fueled it more even if I wasn't dosing any PO4.

Sorry, but you will have to look more for the explanation of why phosguard works (if indeed works) to convince me this is a solution to a BBA infestation.


----------



## waterfaller1

brainwavepc.com said:


> Yes Tom I measured the phos after having the stuff in there for a few days and the test showed no detectable phosphate, with this test kit.
> 
> http://www.petco.com/product/112545/API-Aquarium-Phosphate-Test-Kit.aspx


Unless things have changed in the last couple years..ask any sw hobbyist, and they will tell you PO4 test kits are extremely inaccurate.


----------



## roadmaster

Canuck said:


> If I can make some observations...
> 
> The first mistake people make is to believe there is some silver bullet to eliminate algae from your tank. If there was, there wouldn't be an algae forum here or anywhere else on planted tank forums. That said many experienced people are able to set up planted tank systems that minimize and control algae growth. They tend to use some well known system. Pick one of those and stick with it.
> 
> There is a difference between an anecdote and data (or scientific evidence). An anecdote is a random observation that may or may not hold any validity. A large number of similar random observations probably points to some underlying principle BUT then one has to be able to differentiate between correlation and causation. The best illustration of this I've heard is that ice cream consumption causes drowning. We know this isn't true but if graphed they correlate perfectly. But obviously if ice cream consumption is limited or eliminated it will have no affect on drowning deaths. Point here is read every cause (or cure) critically.
> 
> Use logic. If 10 tanks have high PO4 and BBA, 10 tanks have high PO4 and have no algae, 10 tanks with low PO4 are algae free, and 10 tanks with low nutrient levels have algae, what can we deduce from this? I do have a tendency to believe the tank observations of people and I know all these tanks exist. A lot of people, it would seem, want to believe the other tanks don't exist. Look for the common factors in tanks.
> 
> Be prepared for the unknown. A lot of random events are happening specifically in new tanks. Ignore them. You have wisely chosen a proven existing system to manage your tank. Stick with it. Experienced people have a tendency to believe they understand these things. They know there is a break in period where random types of algae find your tank. They don't get overly excited and start changing things up.
> 
> Just so we are clear, if you want to believe phosguard prevents algae, or excel causes it, I have no problem with that. Be happy. I only posted this in the hope that it would help someone.
> 
> Good luck.


Is sound logic in my view.


----------



## roadmaster

brainwavepc.com said:


> I've tried everything I could find to kill bba. changed lights and photo period, added more or less co2, h2o2, excel, you name it. my 125g was trashed with bba, this fixed it in less than two weeks at double the amount per instructions, with no effect on plants.
> 
> http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/PhosGuard.html
> 
> your welcome


What type of lighting was used,? How long was photo period? How much CO2? Same level's now? 
What was dosing before? what nutrient's in what anount's? what was plant mass (low,moderate,heavy?) How long did you reduce lighting before trying other remedie's?
What was maint routine? water changes? fish load? how much food containing phosphate's? (many do).
What type of CO2 dispersion ? Flow?
These variables all come into play, and many have been able to retard algae growth by simply adjusting one or more of said variables.
What conclusion could be reached if i give the phosgaurd a go at double,triple the dose,and yet my tank still suffer's.


----------



## roadmaster

brainwavepc.com said:


> lets see its been almost two months now and my tank is 95% bba free.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom, you have your opinions and we have ours, please stop polluting this thread with your useless smug inputs.
> 
> I have seven other tanks with 0 bba that I don't need phos guard, that use the same water, mts, plants from the affected tank, equipment, and everything else and they have 0 bba. this one did and phos guard was the solution so get over it already and go troll a different thread.
> 
> 
> to everyone else, try it out if you have the same problems I had, it works great! my fish and plants are doing better than ever! my dhg is finally growing again too. so happy![/QUOTE
> 
> 
> No such thing as useless info/input in these type of thread's where opinion's differ, and result's vary wildly. Measured opinion's are a good thing.
> Product you suggest is based on your expieriences,and other's may or may not get same result's.What then?
> Other's report that ppm of phosphate's cause no issues for them even at high level's.
> Could be your result's were cumulative effect from various attempt's in addition to the phosgaurd .?


----------



## brainwavepc.com

if you would read my posts, you would see nothing else changed except adding phos guard.

you would also see I dose nothing in this tank. the lights were changed with my other 125g with no change, the hours went from 12 hours to 10 then 8, down to 7 hours and I tried half the light and adding more light. nothing changed the bba growth until phos guard. I tried different food, only live food, feeding half as often, the list goes on. 30% water change weekly, I tried doing a few 80% or more changes with no luck. I cranked the co2 where my checker was bright yellow, down to barely yellow, then green and I tried no co2. it didnt seem to make a difference. 

same tap water, same additives, same plants, same fish, same filter, same food, same everything.


I didn't do anything different at all in the weeks leading up to adding phos guard and I had to remove bba daily from glass. i was about to tear it all down and scrap everything. the phos guard added to filter and hanging in the tank in front of power head stopped the growth almost immediately. 


I never said this is the CURE ALL to bba, I'm saying this worked for me when all else failed. 

A few people in this thread sound offended that OMG something they don't believe in might have worked so they feel they must prove it wrong, just get over it already. we get it, you don't think this is the answer, ok ok ok.




roadmaster said:


> What type of lighting was used,? How long was photo period? How much CO2? Same level's now?
> What was dosing before? what nutrient's in what anount's? what was plant mass (low,moderate,heavy?) How long did you reduce lighting before trying other remedie's?
> What was maint routine? water changes? fish load? how much food containing phosphate's? (many do).
> What type of CO2 dispersion ? Flow?
> These variables all come into play, and many have been able to retard algae growth by simply adjusting one or more of said variables.
> What conclusion could be reached if i give the phosgaurd a go at double,triple the dose,and yet my tank still suffer's.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

maybe phos guard adds something into the water that is harmless, except to bba. for 6$ from amazon why even bother arguing, go buy it and see if it works.

maybe it absorbs the spores, or removing the silicates is causing the bba to die, who knows.

like I've said, I made the thread to inform others that may have my problem, not to discuss the science behind it.


----------



## danielt

Not discussing the science behind it lead to this algae still being a problem in 2013. 

Don't you think that threads like this one fueled this lack of actual knowledge about why this algae shows up in the first place? Why it spreads? Why it dies?

You don't provide any actual data about the tank, you just say everything is the same. And keep repeating phosguard works. For you.

I'm no Tom, I did battle this algae to best of my knowledge and abilities. In the end I drew a different conclusion as to why it thrives. And believe me, it's not PO4. If it's silicates, that I did not took out of the water but still managed to get rid of the algae.

See why you need an experiment like method to see what works or why phosguard works?

Oh, and waiting for a couple of days for a method to work is not enough. I also suspect the algae was in retreat because of other factors.

It still amuses me that no params of the water were posted. I doubt you know what your tap water contains so you can dose accordingly.

If your tap is high on Nitrates or CO2 then good luck with that one.

Everyone has a different story regarding on how it shows up, what feeds it and what kills it. I've read quite a lot to see if I can find a common denominator but threads like this one makes such an investigation difficult.


----------



## houseofcards

Ah, the old debate science vs. user experience. Both arguments have their downfall. A home aquarium is probably the worst ‘laboratory’ to use for science. It has no control, too many changing variables, user habits/lifestyles will all pollute any results and make any definite conclusion impossible. It’s the old garbage in, garbage out. The user experience has holes in it as well. Nothing occurs in a vacuum and the remedy is probably tainted by other factors known and unknown in the aquarium. 

It’s not one size fits all, it just doesn’t work and that’s the reason results vary wildly from tank to tank here. 

Take the co2 argument. Yes, it does correct BBA sometimes, it’s far from a universal fix since every tank is different, every tank has a different level of light, plants stock, tolerance to organic load, etc. It doesn’t work in a vacuum some tanks are still going to have to either have more plants, be kept cleaner in addition to the co2. If I walked into a LFS and convinced the owner to put co2 on all their tanks buried in BBA and the only thing in the tank was one banana plant, what is co2 going to do? How would co2 get rid of the BBA, it’s not an algaecide. 

Phosgard absorbs other things in addition to the phosphate, so it could be a combination of factors that’s helping the OP’s tank. We really don’t know for sure because home aquariums aren’t laboratories….. IMO of course!


----------



## danielt

I would disagree with the statement that each aquarium is unique. All of them are governed by laws. They will behave according to them whether we like it or not.

Problem is that these laws are not known or discovered completely, because "each aquarium is unique". That's why there are people like Tom Barr, he experimented until some of these laws became known to him. Part of them were already known before, like Liebig's law for example.

Most people want an aquarium like the ones in the pictures, I surely longed for that. In the mean time I noticed that I like the challenge of reaching that picture rather than the picture itself. Have I gained anything out of it? Yes.

That's why it annoys me when threads like this one show up. We're not discussing on how the algae proliferates, what makes it tick. How one goes about getting to a pictured aquarium without even knowing the water's params. 

We're discussing about magic or Santa Claus. As you know, there's no magic or Santa.


----------



## waterfaller1

danielt said:


> We're discussing about magic or Santa Claus. As you know, there's no magic or Santa.


Really?:icon_eek:
:icon_cry::icon_cry::icon_cry:


----------



## houseofcards

There might be common laws governing each tank, but to know for example, where BBA will develop from one tank to the next is impossible. 



danielt said:


> ...Most people want an aquarium like the ones in the pictures, I surely longed for that. In the mean time I noticed that I like the challenge of reaching that picture rather than the picture itself. Have I gained anything out of it? Yes.
> 
> ... How one goes about getting to a pictured aquarium without even knowing the water's params...
> .


Your statements are proved wrong a million times over. I never test anything and I mean anything. And I have setup and maintained algae free tanks for about 10 years.


----------



## ua hua

houseofcards said:


> Ah, the old debate science vs. user experience. Both arguments have their downfall. A home aquarium is probably the worst ‘laboratory’ to use for science. It has no control, too many changing variables, user habits/lifestyles will all pollute any results and make any definite conclusion impossible. It’s the old garbage in, garbage out. The user experience has holes in it as well. Nothing occurs in a vacuum and the remedy is probably tainted by other factors known and unknown in the aquarium.
> 
> It’s not one size fits all, it just doesn’t work and that’s the reason results vary wildly from tank to tank here.
> 
> Take the co2 argument. Yes, it does correct BBA sometimes, it’s far from a universal fix since every tank is different, every tank has a different level of light, plants stock, tolerance to organic load, etc. It doesn’t work in a vacuum some tanks are still going to have to either have more plants, be kept cleaner in addition to the co2. If I walked into a LFS and convinced the owner to put co2 on all their tanks buried in BBA and the only thing in the tank was one banana plant, what is co2 going to do? How would co2 get rid of the BBA, it’s not an algaecide.
> 
> Phosgard absorbs other things in addition to the phosphate, so it could be a combination of factors that’s helping the OP’s tank. We really don’t know for sure because home aquariums aren’t laboratories….. IMO of course!


Thank you for making a post with some rational thought behind it. I have been trying to say in this thread and any other BBA thread that there is so much more to the cause of BBA showing its ugly head than the same thing that gets parroted for a response on all of these threads, that you need more Co2. While it may be true that most of the cases are where Co2 is not at ideal levels its not always the case for everyone. I still think that organics plays a big role in BBA. It doesn't mean that Co2 can't be an issue also but we need to think about other causes for it. Not everyone wants to turn their hobby into a science experiment where they have to test every little variable so there is nothing wrong with listening to what other people have from firsthand experience. You don't have to agree with there results but others may wish to try something for themselves to see if it works for them or not.


----------



## danielt

houseofcards said:


> There might be common laws governing each tank, but to know for example, where BBA will develop from one tank to the next is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Your statements are proved wrong a million times over. I never test anything and I mean anything. And I have setup and maintained algae free tanks for about 10 years.


It's impossible, you can't predict the future... or? You know enough to just not make the mistakes people do and get disappointed.

Sorry if I sound harsh. Keeping aquariums for over 10 years and not looking at the params doesn't make an expert. I personally know people keeping aquariums for years that never knew about Nitrates until I asked them about it. Or that didn't made any difference between pH and gH.

They had a routine, stuck with it and couldn't care less of anything else. Did they know much? No. They had just a routine which worked for them. They wanted plants like in the pictures, that's where the routine hit it's limit.

Do you need to be an expert? Surely no. It helps? Most of the time it does.

Opening threads making statements about a solution that worked in your case when all you know is just a routine makes no good. There might be people that appreciate this kind of initiative and there are people like myself looking days on end for details that matter. 

My statements are proven wrong a million times over. Which ones? The ones were I say PO4 has nothing to do with this algae? The ones were I say organic buildup doesn't have anything to do with this algae? Or my opinions that are not mainstream and sound like a bad note in a carefully orchestrated symphony?

What I'm saying is that removing PO4 it's not the whole story. Is phosguard doing something else that helps? Maybe, but we don't have any data to check. Who am I to say PO4 doesn't have anything to do with BBA? I'm someone like OP which observed something in it's aquarium and started a thread about it.

If it helps anyone, I found that plants doing overall better will pound BBA to the ground better than phosguard anytime. How to get plants to do better? Follow the laws


----------



## ua hua

How do you explain a situation such as mine. I have excellent plant growth with the co2 as high as you can without harming livestock yet I still have little tufts of BBA on pieces of driftwood. It's by no means a nuisance in my tank but its there. It's not on any plants anywhere but still having it anywhere is annoying to me. If you can tell me that my Co2 is the cause of it I would have to disagree. If you want to see the plant growth I've had in the last month look at the pictures in my journal. If healthy plants keep it away then why do I still have it? There has to be some correlation with the organics in a system that can cause BBA to appear and you can disagree with me if you so choose but I know my system and routines.


----------



## danielt

The fact it doesn't spread tells you something. It tells you the algae has nowhere to go but the driftwood.

Why it doesn't die? It has a supply of nutrients from the driftwood that it cannot get from anywhere else. So it stays there waiting for an opportunity.

Little is known about how this algae is constructed. Looking at the red siblings of it since it's a red algae although it looks green, it has a calcium deposit like "root" which uses it to stick to things. This is the base of the suspicion that silicates are feeding it. Since in the SW business, red algae proliferates with high silicates which are removed by using phosphate removers. The difference is that silicates have a downward tendency in the freshwater aquarium since there is no other source than the water introduced with water changes. 

It will not go away after it's death that quickly. I still have it on driftwood like you in my shrimp tank. It's not going anywhere and the Amano shrimp ate it until it remained as tiny speckles. It's not gone, I'm sure that once I start cranking CO2 in the tank it will come back but I'm not and the low nutrient intake of the tank doesn't allow it to spread or grow.

A correlation between silicates and this algae has not been made. Not that I know of. Could be real or could be that others which battled the algae didn't won by removing silicates. I for one, didn't removed silicates. If the algae is similar to diatoms we see at the start of each aquarium, a simple water change schedule of once per month should take a toll on it as it will consume the silicates and run out of fuel.

Might be a patience game between the algae running out of fuel and the guy on the other side of the glass


----------



## Finalplay10

Just performed a 60% WC after dosing 5x Excel dose at one time and all of my BBA has turned a nice deathly pink. I let the excel sit for 10 minutes with the filter off and powerheads moving the water. Any longer and I fear the fauna would have suffered. After the WC everybody is find except for the BBA. Hoping it's completely gone in a few days. Just in time for my Serrasalmus sanchezi "Ruby Red" to show up. Excited this method actually worked as well as advertised.


----------



## houseofcards

danielt said:


> ...
> Sorry if I sound harsh. Keeping aquariums for over 10 years and not looking at the params doesn't make an expert..


First of all I'm a *Planted Tank Guru* your *Planted Tank Obsessed* so I know more than you. :hihi:

Seriously, though no one said I never tested parameters. It eventually became a waste of time. How many people come on here in the algae forum and show there parameters are all perfect and can't understand why they have algae? The whole point of my statement is that there are too many posts about simple one dimension issues when our tanks have so many layers. If I run algae free tanks and have setup in my spare time algae free tanks for businesses then yes I consider myself a sort of expert in this area. 

At the end of the day it's results. I don't have any of these algae issues. So I'm I an expert if I try to do all the science that again can't really be done correctly in someone's home aquarium and I still get algae? I'd take the former. 

I know all about the things that influence algae, but most of it is though experience. By the way some of the most famous aquascaping professionals in the industry learned this way. Amano, Oliver Knott these people are artists, not scientists.

Testing every parameter gets old pretty fast. Not to mention the erroneous readings. If it was necessary I would've stopped the hobby a long time ago as probably many have.


----------



## houseofcards

ua hua said:


> Thank you for making a post with some rational thought behind it. I have been trying to say in this thread and any other BBA thread that there is so much more to the cause of BBA showing its ugly head than the same thing that gets parroted for a response on all of these threads, that you need more Co2. While it may be true that most of the cases are where Co2 is not at ideal levels its not always the case for everyone. *I still think that organics plays a big role in BBA. *It doesn't mean that Co2 can't be an issue also but we need to think about other causes for it. Not everyone wants to turn their hobby into a science experiment where they have to test every little variable so there is nothing wrong with listening to what other people have from firsthand experience. You don't have to agree with there results but others may wish to try something for themselves to see if it works for them or not.


Well someone had to do it. roud:

Anyway I'll take your organics statement, even further that if there is a magic bullet, it would be the organic load and how the system deals with it. Co2 is not in every tank nor is it always deficient, but why is co2 many times successful. Isn't it just driving more plant growth, which drives uptake of nutrients including the organics breaking down in the tank, which of course includes Ammonia, Nitrate. Increasing co2 if there are enough plants/growth is really no different IMO from doing extra water changes, removing organics before they break down. If you don't have the plant/mass growth then the water changes/organic removal media becomes that much more important. Everything to me ties back to the level of organics, or if you want to look at the COD levels in an aquarium, but measuring this isn't easy and simply unnecessary when you could just have a good routine of removing organics or keeping them low. Obviously that's why the best setups are high plant mass, low stock, regular water changes, purigen/carbon and regular dosing to make sure nothing runs out. You don't necessarily need the purigen or carbon, what the heck, why not use it. * E*I is *E*stimative it's not a bulls-eye.


----------



## roadmaster

Light drives everything. IMHO I don't run CO2,I DO add phosphates,nitrogen,Mag.
I don't have BBA
People see algae quickly sometimes in high light,and want it gone quickly.
They are often told,and maybe rightly so,,that CO2 is the culprit .Either poor CO2 distribution, Fluctuating CO2, ETC .
Hard to move folk's off their lighting ,but if CO2 is this difficult to dial in,,then lowering lighting while tinkering would be logical in my view.
But those who want quick growth,high light,want result's now.They may or may not give lower lighting time to make difference amd keep injectingCO2 at moderate to lethal level's,start second guessing Fertilizer routine and decrease level's out of misplaced fear that Fertz are the problem,perform numerous water changes possibly adding to fluctuating CO2,begin dumping algaecides,and or chemical media to remove that which plant's feed on. 
All of this lead's to poor performing plant's due to unstable enviornment.
Add to this,, same lighting as they began with,,and result's are in my view predictable.
Reduced lighting is seldom what folk's with high$$ fixtures want to hear,so they seldom try it for more than a few day's but want immediate ,favorable response. 
I learned a long time ago on Forum's... Believe what you wish ,but don't trust everything you read with regard's to info presented for help.Some hang around long enough to see what level's should be,, and post that their tank's are within these ranges.
Other's post parameter's as fine,good,normal,SAME,etc and can't get anything to provide desired result's until..."Magic potion". 
OP say's that they never said Phosgaurd was "cure all" but title of thread say's different.
Press them for more info,,and they fold up.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

I will say one thing, you guys sure know how to beat a dead horse.

Just because you add it, and don't get BBA, doesn't mean that removing it won't get rid of a BBA infestation.

Obviously you add it because your tank NEEDED it, my tank obviously had TOO MUCH. Hence why removing it has caused eradication of algae.


----------



## danielt

houseofcards said:


> First of all I'm a *Planted Tank Guru* your *Planted Tank Obsessed* so I know more than you. :hihi:
> 
> Seriously, though no one said I never tested parameters. It eventually became a waste of time. How many people come on here in the algae forum and show there parameters are all perfect and can't understand why they have algae? The whole point of my statement is that there are too many posts about simple one dimension issues when our tanks have so many layers. If I run algae free tanks and have setup in my spare time algae free tanks for businesses then yes I consider myself a sort of expert in this area.
> 
> At the end of the day it's results. I don't have any of these algae issues. So I'm I an expert if I try to do all the science that again can't really be done correctly in someone's home aquarium and I still get algae? I'd take the former.
> 
> I know all about the things that influence algae, but most of it is though experience. By the way some of the most famous aquascaping professionals in the industry learned this way. Amano, Oliver Knott these people are artists, not scientists.
> 
> Testing every parameter gets old pretty fast. Not to mention the erroneous readings. If it was necessary I would've stopped the hobby a long time ago as probably many have.


On a forum, seems you are indeed the expert 

Why are we discussing so much about this and we don't have an applicable solution yet? Surely, you're not the only expert. And if you are curious enough you can get quickly to a point you know pretty much what an expert knows. It's not that complicated. You just need to experiment, experiment, oh and did I said it already? Experiment!

10 years helps? Sure! Building several hundred aquariums also. Finding answers does not take that much. Once you start putting things together tests are useless. Algae is a nuisance and see it all grow a pleasure.

What I'm saying is that you can grow anything in whatever if you know the rules. Unfortunately, many of those rules are not common sense. Can you summarize something as complex as light (wavelengths, PAR, PUR, wattage, distance from the water, tanks tallness, type of lamp/bulb) in a few sentences that can put someone just starting in the hobby on the right track? No? Why? Isn't there a simple rule that some of you, experts, can put together so that dumb questions go away?

Why does everyone need to read tons of material to just move the lamps 3 inches higher to stop that annoying green algae to appear?

There are no layers. You might want to complicate things but there is no uniqueness in what we do. Tom proved that with the EI. Is someone denying EI works or is someone doing something wrong or not using the technique correctly?

And there are other examples of non-uniqueness out there. Why phosguard sounds preposterous? It's not something people do in their aquariums that was proven to be working against BBA or other algae for that fact. Don't read the label as the manufacturer will tell you that PO4 causes algae


----------



## crice8

I made an interesting observation over the last few weeks. On several occasions I have seen scuds eating the little BBA that is left on my plants! There is actually less and less BBA each week! Here is one caught in the act:


----------



## danielt

Haven't tried those. SAE and Amano shrimp eat it if its weak or dying. You sure they feed on the living stuff? 

Not saying they don't eat the living stuff but would be good news if they did.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

100th post! just wanted to say thanks for everyone's input. so far it's been about a week with no phos guard and no bba regrowing. so far so good.


----------



## Dantrasy

brainwavepc.com said:


> 100th post! just wanted to say thanks for everyone's input. so far it's been about a week with no phos guard and no bba regrowing. so far so good.


That's great news!


----------



## Julianzh

My friend used Phosguard and it killed the bba on her tank and now it's my turn to try it out. Will see in a week or so.


----------



## m00se

Please make sure you come back to this thread and update us.


----------



## Hoppy

Assume BBA is a consequence of plants growing, or being driven to grow faster than can be supported by the carbon available to the plants. Then, if you do something that causes the plants to not grow or be forced to grow at such a fast rate, but with the same amount of carbon available to the plants, that should remove the cause of the BBA occurring. You can do that by reducing the light intensity, and you can do it by limiting the growth rate of the plants by reducing the availability of N, P, K or some trace element. So, if Phosguard reduces the available P, that might be enough to remove the cause of the BBA.

If the plants continue to grow at a rate that satisfies you even though the Phosguard is reducing the P available to the plants, that seems to me to be one way to tackle BBA. But, if you find that the plants are not doing as well as you wish, it wouldn't be an acceptable way, in your opinion.

Similarly, if you can increase the amount of carbon available to the plants, without touching the amount of P available to them, that could also be a way to tackle BBA. And, if you could decrease the light intensity enough to reduce the amount of carbon needed by the plants, that, too, could be a way to tackle BBA.

Is all of that correct?

I have a low light tank, rarely ever dose any fertilizers, no CO2, but I use ADA Aquasoil, so some nutrients are available to the plants. I also have a lot of BBA. Perhaps Phosguard would help in my case - if I have excessive phosphates from plant food, etc. I may decide to try it to see what happens.

I wish life were simple enough that the #1 cause of BBA could be determined, and a simple one step correction of that cause could be found. But, I suspect that life will never be that simple.


----------



## m00se

If only... I agree, Hoppy. I also have a bad case of BBA introduced with some plants someone gave me and I didn't treat them. I have tried everything, and the only way I have found to slow it down (not stop it) is to keep trimming leaves that it grows on. Like you say the leaves of slow growing plants are usually the ones that are infested with the stuff. I hear the mantra CO2 CO2 CO2 constantly, and I can look over and see BBA growing out of the holes on the CO2 spraybar (it actually thrives best there!) that I have to bleach once a month to knock it back. My estimate is at about 30 ppm in solution.

Very frustrating, and although I *do* dose PO4, I am willing to entertain the notion of nutrient limiting if that will kill this stuff once and for all, and then I can go back to a "normal" dosing regimen.

2 other tanks, and no signs of BBA - and that's with plants stolen from the big "high tech" tank. These other tanks are bog stock "kit" tanks from BigPetStore.

I have also wondered whether there may be some ingredient in Fusion spray paint that BBA likes because it sure does attract it to those parts I've used it on...


----------



## Fiftymeatballs

I have a few questions on this topic, more of a poll. I'm trying to rule things out. 

Does anyone who has C02 shut off at night on a controller not have BBA? 

Does anyone using un-aged/un-gassed off tap water for large 50% WC's due to EI dosing not have BBA?


----------



## m00se

CO2 at night is off.
Tap water directly into tank with a python.


----------



## Hoppy

Fiftymeatballs said:


> I have a few questions on this topic, more of a poll. I'm trying to rule things out.
> 
> Does anyone who has C02 shut off at night on a controller not have BBA?
> 
> Does anyone using un-aged/un-gassed off tap water for large 50% WC's due to EI dosing not have BBA?


So, if some people who do not shut off the CO2 at night or do not use un-aged/un-gassed off tap water for large WC's, and do have BBA, that would indicate what? Or, much better, if some people who do the above, don't have BBA, doesn't that falsify any proposition that doing those things does cause BBA? I know Tom Barr does shut off his CO2 at night, and he does use un-aged/un-outgassed tap water for big water changes. He has very minimal BBA, near zero. So, that falsifies the proposition?


----------



## Fiftymeatballs

Not trying to indicate anything, just curious what others results are. I use tap and turn off c02 at night. Since my appistos spawned I've been neglecting tank maintenance to let the fry develop and my BBA exploded. I still do water changes as frequently, just much less cleaning/trimming. 

My only argument for gasses in tap is that my tap is different than yours and different than Toms etc. What I do know is that my tank looks like soda on water change and my ph drops from c02 in the tap. I think I'm going to try aging to keep c02 levels more stable and see what my results are.


----------



## shift

So oh swings aka to much co2 on an off can also cause bba? Is there certain nutrients that promote its growth(phosphate?)

And is there any issue wig treating it withy hydrogen peroxide? Is there any negative effect on fish or inverts?


----------



## jfynyson

Fiftymeatballs said:


> I have a few questions on this topic, more of a poll. I'm trying to rule things out.
> 
> Does anyone who has C02 shut off at night on a controller not have BBA?
> 
> Does anyone using un-aged/un-gassed off tap water for large 50% WC's due to EI dosing not have BBA?


I shut off my CO2 at night via timer, I have high light (100PAR at substrate), using pH controller, and use well water striaght from the tap (un-aged/un-gassed per your terminology) for weekly 50-75% WC in my 135gal, I dose EI. 

I had BBA in the past but killed it back to virtually non-existing (I couldn't find any) using H2O2 soaks, spot treatments, then what really did the trick was the 1-2 Punch in this thread (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=203684); Afterwards I received some plants that had minor BBA, after putting them in my tank the BBA didn't grow any further (this was a test) and eventually I decided to clip/trash those leaves

I had gone months w/o any signs of BBA and last week out power went out at 1am and didn't cut back on until 11am. The lights were on a battery back up power supply so they kicked back on at 11am while the CO2 was on a timer and kicked on with the power and turned off as usual but the timer I forgot to reset that night; so I had all of my ferts & full lighting but limited my CO2 and in one day I noticed BBA popped up on that same old plant as well as the ones I received in with BBA; It took only 24hrs w/ CO2 being the only fluctuating variable and it only popped up on slow growing plants no where else and it's not spread since I re-dialed in my CO2 timer; I'll simply clip those leaves and and once again be virtually BBA free as simple as that; I wish it were that simple for all....just my scientific observations / real data


----------



## plantbrain

Hoppy said:


> So, if some people who do not shut off the CO2 at night or do not use un-aged/un-gassed off tap water for large WC's, and do have BBA, that would indicate what? Or, much better, if some people who do the above, don't have BBA, doesn't that falsify any proposition that doing those things does cause BBA? I know Tom Barr does shut off his CO2 at night, and he does use un-aged/un-outgassed tap water for big water changes. He has very minimal BBA, near zero. So, that falsifies the proposition?


Maybe........roud:

I think the main issue is to kill/beat the BBA back if they see it asap.
Generally CO2, water changes, picking and cleaning, spot treatment, whatever exports it out. Small to large blooms occur from time to time.
I do not think my "cure" has changed since the mid 1990's however.

Same old thing.

Root causes always seem to be CO2 related. Sometimes new tanks after 2-4 months start getting touches of it, poor CO2, degassing too much etc etc, many ways to go wrong there......tend to be the reasons in every case I've seen and cured in person.

Once you start getting it, it needs addressed asap.
Good gardening skills are useful here. But a bad bloom you cannot keep up with because the plants are not growing fast enough to keep up with new BBA colonization. Healthy leaves tend to be much more resistant.


----------



## plantbrain

jfynyson said:


> I shut off my CO2 at night via timer, I have high light (100PAR at substrate), using pH controller, and use well water striaght from the tap (un-aged/un-gassed per your terminology) for weekly 50-75% WC in my 135gal, I dose EI.
> 
> I had BBA in the past but killed it back to virtually non-existing (I couldn't find any) using H2O2 soaks, spot treatments, then what really did the trick was the 1-2 Punch in this thread (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=203684); Afterwards I received some plants that had minor BBA, after putting them in my tank the BBA didn't grow any further (this was a test) and eventually I decided to clip/trash those leaves
> 
> I had gone months w/o any signs of BBA and last week out power went out at 1am and didn't cut back on until 11am. The lights were on a battery back up power supply so they kicked back on at 11am while the CO2 was on a timer and kicked on with the power and turned off as usual but the timer I forgot to reset that night; so I had all of my ferts & full lighting but limited my CO2 and in one day I noticed BBA popped up on that same old plant as well as the ones I received in with BBA; It took only 24hrs w/ CO2 being the only fluctuating variable and it only popped up on slow growing plants no where else and it's not spread since I re-dialed in my CO2 timer; I'll simply clip those leaves and and once again be virtually BBA free as simple as that; I wish it were that simple for all....just my scientific observations / real data


Many folks have done this same path and observation set, myself included, if you have not mucked up the CO2.....well......wait.........you will at some point, everyone, and I mean everyone, does.


Attacking it with everything you got and good CO2 thereafter= often the cure for many. Main thing is to grow plants well => CO2 and then remove the BBA. 
If plants are not growing so well and the BBA is still doing good, then there's no gain of the issue.

So bleach dips, H2O2, Excel etc, these are only useful over time if you address the underlying issue: CO2.


----------



## plantbrain

shift said:


> So oh swings aka to much co2 on an off can also cause bba? Is there certain nutrients that promote its growth(phosphate?)
> 
> And is there any issue wig treating it withy hydrogen peroxide? Is there any negative effect on fish or inverts?


There's no direct relationship with ferts and PO4 and algae.
There are indirect effects. Since BBA is mostly a CO2 related issue, and you can limit plant growth via PO4 limitation, if you have just a little bit under some threshold for BBA and have semi poor plant growth, limiting PO4, which plants can handle much easier than CO2 limitation for a given light intensity, will improve the growth by making CO2 non limiting.

So the CO2 is say 15 ppm and the light is 100 umols and PO4 is 5 ppm. You have BBA. You limit PO4 to under 0.05 ppm. Your plants start to grow and the BBA stops growing. Liebigs law predicts this and we can test this and verify liebig's law.

You just traded one limitation for another is all.

But, if you learned how to dial in CO2, then you'd not need to fuss with that and you'd much better growth rates, thus better aquatic gardening.
Which was likely your goal to start with, was it not? Having a problem with one issue, only to create another.........I'm not so sure that's good horticulture. It's like not wiping the butt, and using anti monkey butt paste to control the rash. Just learn to use the CO2 correctly, you'll get much farther along.


Killing and hacking back to the algae(I liken them to weeds in a garden) is also part of the game for sure, but.......


----------



## sdylanh

Thats one of the best analogies I've ever heard.


----------



## happi

ua hua said:


> How do you explain a situation such as mine. I have excellent plant growth with the co2 as high as you can without harming livestock yet I still have little tufts of BBA on pieces of driftwood. It's by no means a nuisance in my tank but its there. It's not on any plants anywhere but still having it anywhere is annoying to me. If you can tell me that my Co2 is the cause of it I would have to disagree. If you want to see the plant growth I've had in the last month look at the pictures in my journal. If healthy plants keep it away then why do I still have it? There has to be some correlation with the organics in a system that can cause BBA to appear and you can disagree with me if you so choose but I know my system and routines.



100% agreed, i have done much observation on my tank and i do not think Co2 is the only cause behind BBA, i had excess co2 and it was stable enough and it should prevent the BBA but instead under excess co2 it only grew like a wild fire, fast plant growth couldn't fix the issue either. 

Organic fertilizer such as Urea couldn't be the reason either, because i have used it successfully with no sign of algae, Seachem uses this as well. organic buildup is a another story, i have seen algae can get worse when you have too much organic buildup in the filter, substrate etc, if you see lots of debris siting on the substrate, vacuum them up. 

IMO Po4 isn't the main reason behind BBA, however, it can help to increase the BBA, just like it will help the plant growth. but again the cause of BBA is coming from somewhere else, po4 only increases it further.


----------



## xNiNELiVES

plantbrain said:


> If you have a source of PO4 in the sediment, then this can be alright, particularly if the sediment is new, and has ample N still, older sediments still possess all the other nutrients(likely for 5-10 years or so, maybe more) just lacks N over time.
> 
> But the algae are not limited in any cases.
> This is all about Liebig's law and plant demand.


Wait a second, you're Tom Barr. The creator of the EI dosing style?


----------



## ua hua

For those that have inquiring minds and an hour or so of spare time might enjoy looking through this thread.


http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/89126-organics-analysis.html


----------



## HUNTER

So, are we on the phosgurad bandwagon


----------



## plantbrain

HUNTER said:


> So, are we on the phosgurad bandwagon


I've added PO4 for a couple of decades now, I seem to manage okay.........as Hoppy, Ebi, Antbug and other locals who have stopped by have stated. 
I dose 5 ppm 2-3x a week as KH2PO4. 


This was yesterday after trimming:



Another tank:




Does not matter what anyone wants to believe or say, *PO4 is not a direct cause any more than light is a cause of algae.*
This is not about belief.

That said, I've yet to find a single aquarium with BBA that was not cured of the BBA problem without some CO2 related element. Ever. Not once. 
This is a huge number of planted tanks.

More than most, so the stat's seem pretty consistent.
I'm not opposed to another potential cause, agent that helps it along mind you........but the person making that claim NEEDS to show methods that others can induce the BBA consistently.
No one has done that.

German's (I guess) back in 1993 realized the link between CO2 and BBA. 
Reference: pg 166, Baensch Aquarium Atlas volume 2. 

BBA will grow in high CO2 ppm water also. But plants will grow better and eventually folks can turn the tide and their spot dosing, manual removal, algae eaters, excel etc.
If you have a full on bloom, it's not going to stop. If you only have a minor tuft every so often, not a big deal. 

I've long stated this, so has Amano and anyone worth their salt, this hobby is about growing plants, so focus there.
Then algae is not such a big issue. And I've said this over and over, many folks have.... but folks with algae issues seem to want to find some trick way around it. 
The answer is deceptively simple.


----------



## houseofcards

plantbrain said:


> ...
> That said, I've yet to find a single aquarium with BBA that was not cured of the BBA problem without some CO2 related element. Ever. Not once.
> This is a huge number of planted tanks.


That sounds like a Magic Bullet. I think you would have to introduce some minimum plant mass/growth rate per gallon to really have that ring true. 



plantbrain said:


> I've long stated this, so has Amano and anyone worth their salt, this hobby is about growing plants, so focus there.
> Then algae is not such a big issue. And I've said this over and over, many folks have.... but folks with algae issues seem to want to find some trick way around it.
> The answer is deceptively simple.


Speaking of Amano, you've seen IAPLC tanks. Not a lot of plants in many. In lightly planted tanks BBA control is more about light and controlling organic content before it breaks down. Co2 is not an algaecide, it's effectiveness is based on mass/growth, but organic control works in every tank assuming the plants have what the need.


----------



## puopg

Dat analogy


----------



## DarkCobra

plantbrain said:


> Since BBA is mostly a CO2 related issue, and you can limit plant growth via PO4 limitation, if you have just a little bit under some threshold for BBA and have semi poor plant growth, limiting PO4, which plants can handle much easier than CO2 limitation for a given light intensity, will improve the growth by making CO2 non limiting.


Plants in any well-fertilized tank _always_ experience an increase in growth when CO2 is added. Without a single exception. Doesn't matter if it's a low light tank, or if Excel is used, or the substrate produces a few ppm CO2.

Therefore, if CO2 isn't added, it's _always_ a limiting factor.

And if plants cannot easily handle CO2 limitation as you say, then an obvious majority of tanks without CO2 should be a mess. Which is clearly not true.

In fact I'd say quite the opposite - plants can handle reasonable CO2 limitation as well as, if not better than, any other nutrient. Without sufficient CO2, they cannot perform photosynthesis with some of the light they are given, so the net effect on plants is reduced chemical energy to grow. In most aspects, the result is the same as if you'd simply provided less light. Which may cause _slower_ growth, but that is more acceptable than the _unhealthy_ growth caused by lack of any other nutrient.



plantbrain said:


> So the CO2 is say 15 ppm and the light is 100 umols and PO4 is 5 ppm. You have BBA. You limit PO4 to under 0.05 ppm. *Your plants start to grow* and the BBA stops growing. Liebigs law predicts this and we can test this and verify liebig's law.


Now hold on just a minute. Liebig's law, in a nutshell, courtesy of Wikipedia:

_"...states that growth is controlled not by the total amount of resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor)."_

And you are actually claiming that causing a new limitation, severe enough that a preexisting one becomes irrelevant, causes plants to grow _faster_? Liebig is probably turning over in his grave to have his name associated with such a claim.

Also, I just happen to have a tank matching your example nicely. About 15ppm CO2 and 5ppm PO4, plus high light. _But no BBA._ Plant growth is slower than it was at 30ppm, they are clearly CO2 limited, yet still beautiful and healthy. And all nuisance algae are _gone_. Seriously. At 30ppm if I let a plant grow too close to the light, or worn old growth remain too long between trims, or I slipped on any regular maintenance at all, I could expect a little staghorn or BBA to show up. But at 15ppm, this is no longer happening. Even the BBA on outflows, which was always there at 30ppm CO2, has vanished without cleaning.

Why? Perhaps the plants, not being "spoiled" to such an overabundance as they would have at 30ppm, are no longer sensitive to the slightest hair trigger event. (In scientific terms, they're not so drastically downregulating their production of catalase, and are therefore not affected by trivial CO2 fluctuations.) At least that's how I explain it to myself, but I don't know for sure.

CO2 is indeed a powerful variable, but increasing it is not the "magic bullet". There is no such thing. What may work for most does not work for all, because not I, or you, or anyone else fully understands all the interactions in a tank. That much I can at least say with absolute certainty.

If Phosguard works for some, then I'm glad it's working for them, and I applaud those that have shared their experiences with it. In fact I encourage others who have been so far unable to solve their problems by other means to try it. If it works for them too, then great, I'm sure it will be a very welcome reprieve. Of course I also encourage eventually trying to solve the problem without relying on a relatively expensive consumable, but folks can do that IF and WHEN they are ready; and if for a few that is NEVER, then that's their choice and is ok by me.

Here's one experiment I'd really like a few to try - treat the replacement tapwater with Phosguard, without actually placing the adsorbent in the tank or taking other measures to limit tank PO4 levels, and see if it produces the same result. I already know of at least two people who found this worked just as well, so it's worth further looking into.

And for those who have responded with hostility, sarcasm, and ridicule - or even outright stated that Phosguard users should keep quiet lest others try it - you really should be ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately I know you aren't.


----------



## Aqguy

plantbrain said:


> I've added PO4 for a couple of decades now, I seem to manage okay.........as Hoppy, Ebi, Antbug and other locals who have stopped by have stated.
> I dose 5 ppm 2-3x a week as KH2PO4.
> 
> 
> This was yesterday after trimming:
> 
> 
> 
> Another tank:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not matter what anyone wants to believe or say, *PO4 is not a direct cause any more than light is a cause of algae.*
> This is not about belief.
> 
> That said, I've yet to find a single aquarium with BBA that was not cured of the BBA problem without some CO2 related element. Ever. Not once.
> This is a huge number of planted tanks.
> 
> More than most, so the stat's seem pretty consistent.
> I'm not opposed to another potential cause, agent that helps it along mind you........but the person making that claim NEEDS to show methods that others can induce the BBA consistently.
> No one has done that.
> 
> German's (I guess) back in 1993 realized the link between CO2 and BBA.
> Reference: pg 166, Baensch Aquarium Atlas volume 2.
> 
> BBA will grow in high CO2 ppm water also. But plants will grow better and eventually folks can turn the tide and their spot dosing, manual removal, algae eaters, excel etc.
> If you have a full on bloom, it's not going to stop. If you only have a minor tuft every so often, not a big deal.
> 
> I've long stated this, so has Amano and anyone worth their salt, this hobby is about growing plants, so focus there.
> Then algae is not such a big issue. And I've said this over and over, many folks have.... but folks with algae issues seem to want to find some trick way around it.
> The answer is deceptively simple.


Living art work very impressive


----------



## penpal

I'm gonna give phosguard a try. I've been battling BBA in one of my old tank for 3 years now. Whilst all my other tanks are spotless. I tried upping/lowering co2, ferts, light. Apart from completely changing the substrate which I suspect might be a culprit, and starting from scratch I'm all out of ideas.


----------



## plantbrain

houseofcards said:


> That sounds like a Magic Bullet. I think you would have to introduce some minimum plant mass/growth rate per gallon to really have that ring true.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Amano, you've seen IAPLC tanks. Not a lot of plants in many. In lightly planted tanks BBA control is more about light and controlling organic content before it breaks down. Co2 is not an algaecide, it's effectiveness is based on mass/growth, but organic control works in every tank assuming the plants have what the need.


That's false, a non CO2 planted tanks have high organics and lack algae.
I have 4 out in the garage, I can take the most BBA covered plant, in 2 months, it'll be clean and nice.

I'm afraid controlling organics is the basic aquarium keeping issue, not an algae specific or plant growing specific issue. The rate of organic loading is the key to that, not the presence, absence necessarily.

The Buce tank has higher DOC than any of my tanks, and has no BBA, same with virtually any well run non CO2 planted tank, they go months without water changes. The key is they load the organics at a much slower rate/s.
You also have to separate the issue between organic loading and plant decay sources vs say driftwood, or fish, from the dying/poorly growing plants.
They are not equivalent nor are the algal response/s. 

New aquariums have issues, the plants are not established, the plants added often have some die back, the CO2 is not always dialed in well, etc. But very frequent good sized water changes and good care, cleaning takes care of this. 

I assume folks are doing some of the basics of good aquarium care from the start, if not, in the course of the discussion, might takes 1-2-3-4 post, but it does come out at some point. No one is ever going to tell you every possible potential issue they might have in the 1st post. 

Still, I'm hardly opposed to say algae will grow/bloom if you have high loading, semi poor plant growth, lulls in growth, a few scraggy plants in a large tank etc, we all make various assumptions about folk' s set ups. Most of the time, the advice does solve the issue, in a smaller percentage, it does not. No one here has ever once batted 100%. Too many things that get over looked.
We try and catch most things. 

Might be something like teflon tape caught in their solenoid that causes CO2 not to be pumped in for the 1st 1-2 hours.........of being on. 1001 ways to screw things up. But that's a CO2 issue, the other stuff is still what I would consider good basic aquarium care, stuff like, you know, water changes.

Non CO2 advice tends to focus strongly on not adding whatever light you want, not doing those water changes, not loading a lot of fish in there/overfeed them etc. You can get away with more things using the CO2, but this presents issues as well.

Still, I've not seen a case yet where I could not fix with CO2. Perhaps more water changes and other basics where also included, but that's easy stuff to rule out if the person is made aware, many hate water changes and doing this also, so.......but........oh well.


----------



## plantbrain

DarkCobra said:


> Plants in any well-fertilized tank _always_ experience an increase in growth when CO2 is added. Without a single exception. Doesn't matter if it's a low light tank, or if Excel is used, or the substrate produces a few ppm CO2.
> 
> Therefore, if CO2 isn't added, it's _always_ a limiting factor.


I disagree. So would Liebig too.
A few examples; floating plants.
Plants at low light will have very low CO2 demand and uptake.
CO2 can be a limiting factor in most cases if plant density is high, if not, then not so much.
But you can limit PO4 quite a bit, whereas is much hard to limit CO2 entirely.
If the PO4 is under say 10 parts per Billion and there's no PO4 in the sediments, this will pretty much stop all plant growth. Even emergent growth. when that happens,m the CO2 will have little effect.



> And if plants cannot easily handle CO2 limitation as you say, then an obvious majority of tanks without CO2 should be a mess. Which is clearly not true.


SOME plants can and some are very aggressive, others, not so much.
Depends on the light also which drives CO2 demand and competition for CO2 between and within species. 

Try this at high vs low light, you will note different responses and different rates of growth to additions of the SAME CO2 content. 
http://www.tropica.com/en/tropica-abc/basic-knowledge/co2-and-light.aspx

But like in the post above, we cannot know what every last plant and the number of stems they might have in every poster's tank, if you have egeria, no issues, if you have all Buce and Erios, well.........

In the past, I think I've addressed your general issue with suggesting that stable CO2 levels, or even more CO2 in the AM, the start of the light cycle is the key there, yes, plants can and do adapt to CO2 limitation, but they also do the SAME for PO4 limitation which is common in many aquatic plant systems in the tropics and subtropics. Plants cannot run away really, so they have to grin and bear whatever happens. Well, even that's not true for aquatic, water lettuce can wander downstream just fine, others can autofragment in response to CO2/PO4 related issues, macro algae also. 

Non CO2 planted tanks are good example to compare with, those plants adapt to low limiting levels of CO2, but often have high PO4 and low N.
the CO2 drops pretty fast after the lights come on, so the plants grow, but only for a hour or two.

So growth is much slower.

If you add some CO2 or non limiting CO2, you still will see a lot more growth.
Below is an example, this could be for PO4 or for CO2.
Even moderately limiting the CO2 will still yield a fair amount of growth(say B).

But that's a narrow range and hard to manage.
If you are at the A range, well, then the growth is really reduced, if you bob between those A, B and C ranges daily, well, I think algae is in your future.







> In fact I'd say quite the opposite - plants can handle reasonable CO2 limitation as well as, if not better than, any other nutrient. Without sufficient CO2, they cannot perform photosynthesis with some of the light they are given, so the net effect on plants is reduced chemical energy to grow. In most aspects, the result is the same as if you'd simply provided less light. Which may cause _slower_ growth, but that is more acceptable than the _unhealthy_ growth caused by lack of any other nutrient.


I'd say they are better at adapting to PO4 limitation.
They can recycle that pool, not so well with the CO2 if the rates vary a great deal. 

If you have low stable CO2, then they can adapt well.
If you move between low and high amounts, then you'll get issues, this confuses the plant's enzymatic machinery, they make more/less enzymes to take up CO2 based on the external concentration, same for ferts as well.
So a stable CO2 rate is a key thing, but this is not so easy to do, so targeting the D range, which is a much wider target is better management for most.

Same for Ferts.



> Now hold on just a minute. Liebig's law, in a nutshell, courtesy of Wikipedia:
> 
> _"...states that growth is controlled not by the total amount of resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor)."_
> 
> And you are actually claiming that causing a new limitation, severe enough that a preexisting one becomes irrelevant, causes plants to grow _faster_? Liebig is probably turning over in his grave to have his name associated with such a claim.


No, I never said that plants would grow faster as a result of doing this.
They will and do grow slower. Liebig's law states that clearly.

I knew this long ago since I had high PO4, and at the time, everyone was all about limiting PO4. My plants grew great, the others folks did pretty well, but not like what I was doing with the same cuttings. Those that did better tended to have more PO4 in their tap water.

So PO4 limitation fell out of favor as a method for algae control, but it does work well. Plants still grow etc. Some that poorly managed CO2 found it useful. Others that adjusted the CO2 up no longer had any issues.




> Also, I just happen to have a tank matching your example nicely. About 15ppm CO2 and 5ppm PO4, plus high light. _But no BBA._ Plant growth is slower than it was at 30ppm, they are clearly CO2 limited, yet still beautiful and healthy. And all nuisance algae are _gone_. Seriously. At 30ppm if I let a plant grow too close to the light, or worn old growth remain too long between trims, or I slipped on any regular maintenance at all, I could expect a little staghorn or BBA to show up. But at 15ppm, this is no longer happening. Even the BBA on outflows, which was always there at 30ppm CO2, has vanished without cleaning.
> [/qupote]
> 
> How did you measure the CO2?
> Heck, it's tough for me to measure it.
> Is it stable 15ppm the entire day? No one's ever is
> Same for O2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Perhaps the plants, not being "spoiled" to such an overabundance as they would have at 30ppm, are no longer sensitive to the slightest hair trigger event. (In scientific terms, they're not so drastically downregulating their production of catalase, and are therefore not affected by trivial CO2 fluctuations.) At least that's how I explain it to myself, but I don't know for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you added more stable CO2 and not boom or bust? Perhaps your dosing management was easier? Could be. If what you claim is true, why do I and many others not have the hair trigger like issues you suggest?
> What was your light? Fert routine, water changes etc etc?
> Those need ruled out and compared, as a high light tank will much more issue with your claim than say a moderate or low light tank.
> 
> Let's see your tank also.:thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CO2 is indeed a powerful variable, but increasing it is not the "magic bullet". There is no such thing. What may work for most does not work for all, because not I, or you, or anyone else fully understands all the interactions in a tank. That much I can at least say with absolute certainty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have not said it's a magic bullet ever, but it's the biggest issue that plagues hobbyists, no one worth salt will disagree.
> 
> I fully agree with the latter, but I've yet to encounter such an issue in person, not once, I'm talking 100's of tanks now. EVERY tank. Yes, they had other issues, but in person, you can catch those, look at plants and make other assessments/changes. Maybe they needed more water changes, less fish, more algae eaters, maybe they had crazy high, too high CO2(rare, but possible).
> 
> On line, such issues are much more difficult to catch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Phosguard works for some, then I'm glad it's working for them, and I applaud those that have shared their experiences with it. In fact I encourage others who have been so far unable to solve their problems by other means to try it. If it works for them too, then great, I'm sure it will be a very welcome reprieve. Of course I also encourage eventually trying to solve the problem without relying on a relatively expensive consumable, but folks can do that IF and WHEN they are ready; and if for a few that is NEVER, then that's their choice and is ok by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fully agreed here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one experiment I'd really like a few to try - treat the replacement tapwater with Phosguard, without actually placing the adsorbent in the tank or taking other measures to limit tank PO4 levels, and see if it produces the same result. I already know of at least two people who found this worked just as well, so it's worth further looking into.
> 
> And for those who have responded with hostility, sarcasm, and ridicule - or even outright stated that Phosguard users should keep quiet lest others try it - you really should be ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately I know you aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tap water pretreatment might be a good idea; here's why:
> Removes(perhaps) the polyphosphates that screw with your KH measurements.
> 
> I think a good explanatory hypothesis for folks reducing the CO2 is along the lines of difference enzymatic types being utilized for different external concentrations. The key parts are stable external concentrations for a given light intensity.
> 
> This is actually from a lab at UC Davis who works on K+ channels.
> But this should certainly apply to CO2, if not by different types of Rubsico, by much more efficient usage or shear increases or lowering the numbers of enzyme molecules available for uptake. Recycling and shuttling of CO2 and the enzymes to the specific sites inside the cells also play roles there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the High affinity(HA) system at 10 uM works well at low concentrations, but require more energy. But since the limitation is stronger, the plant cannot afford to be too lazy about it. At higher concentrations, they can use a higher intake volume and lazier enzyme or one that requires less energy etc.
> While you might get more efficient usage, you also limit growth.
> 
> Same deal with adding say 15 ppm vs 45 ppm of CO2. You will get less growth. My tanks do best at 45-65 ppm, not 30 ppm, but I have more light.
> At lower light, I can certainly use LESS CO2.
Click to expand...


----------



## plantbrain

penpal said:


> I'm gonna give phosguard a try. I've been battling BBA in one of my old tank for 3 years now. Whilst all my other tanks are spotless. I tried upping/lowering co2, ferts, light. Apart from completely changing the substrate which I suspect might be a culprit, and starting from scratch I'm all out of ideas.


It took me 3 years to beat BBA, but I needed to add more CO2.
My tap had plenty of PO4.

I did not realize it, and once I did, I was blown away, we all were, but the BBA was not there and I had awesome plant growth. Still, you need to figure out how to better manage CO2. Rule out everything else that you can 1st, then tackle it.

You'll get better at the hobby this way.


----------



## shift

Is po4 in theory one of the big contributors to bba? What other nutrients cause algae in general?

I'm thinking if picking up some more test kits to try and figure out actual causes


----------



## Dantrasy

I've always assumed (dangerous, I know) that 'stable co2' means stable during photo time. Is that right? It's not supposed to be 24/7 is it?

Also, Tom, do you adjust Co2 down as your tubes age? Or is the relationship not that sensitive?


----------



## houseofcards

plantbrain said:


> That's false, a non CO2 planted tanks have high organics and lack algae.
> I have 4 out in the garage, I can take the most BBA covered plant, in 2 months, it'll be clean and nice.


I’m lost, I don’t understand what the above has to do with my statement. If your saying there’s no algae on your tanks without co2 in your garage than yeah I could see that, especially if they are low light. But that is not what we are talking about when we talk on the forum about controlling algae.



plantbrain said:


> I'm afraid controlling organics is the basic aquarium keeping issue, not an algae specific or plant growing specific issue. The rate of organic loading is the key to that, not the presence, absence necessarily.


Yes I agree, of course it’s a basic issue for most since it leads to unsightly algae among other things. What’s the difference the organics is a catalyst for algae. The rate of loading. If it’s removed it’s not loading.



plantbrain said:


> Still, I've not seen a case yet where I could not fix with CO2. Perhaps more water changes and other basics where also included, but that's easy stuff to rule out if the person is made aware, many hate water changes and doing this also, so.......but........oh well.


I’m not disagreeing with you here, because you actually admit it’s more than just co2. When you say you've never seen a case, is that with the tanks that you setup and maintain? Ones that you designed and populate with plants. Why can’t you come out and say the co2 benefit in controlling BBA is directly related to plant growth and mass. Isn’t this all about uptake and removing certain wastes from the water via the plants. If the plant mass isn’t there, what possible major benefit can more co2 have. There are many on this forum that think their tanks are generously planted and have a few stems in there. Upping co2 even more, maybe some marginal benefit, but increasing organic removal huge benefit from my experience.


----------



## plantbrain

Dantrasy said:


> I've always assumed (dangerous, I know) that 'stable co2' means stable during photo time. Is that right? It's not supposed to be 24/7 is it?
> 
> Also, Tom, do you adjust Co2 down as your tubes age? Or is the relationship not that sensitive?


Yes, only during the light cycle, algae nor plants use CO2 at night.
No, I leave it be.

Fish are the upper metric for me. 
I've kept fish for pushing almost 40 years since I was little, so I know behaviors well.

You should have a lot more wiggle room than many seem to suggest.
Light(less, not more), good water changes, stable sediments/root systems(do not rip up too much at one time), good plant growth(who knew? hehe), not overloading the tank too much and if you do, clean a lot more.
Wet/drys seem to help for the O2 side, but some mods need to be made for the CO2. But once in place, this works better than canisters IME.
Then CO2, not such an issue.

Nor any type of algae, not just BBA.
Otherwise many chase their tail with one type of algae to the next.
Many have been there and done that.


----------



## plantbrain

houseofcards said:


> I’m lost, I don’t understand what the above has to do with my statement. If your saying there’s no algae on your tanks without co2 in your garage than yeah I could see that, especially if they are low light. But that is not what we are talking about when we talk on the forum about controlling algae.


Why not?
They are filled with plants.
Plants grow slower, but they grow nice and fill in over time.

It's the opposite end of the observations like my 120 Gallon above.
Both tanks grow plants and do it well, but lack any algae issues.
What's the difference? The rate of growth mostly.
It's wise to look at the entire spectrum of growing conditions, because then most folks fall somewhere in between.



> Yes I agree, of course it’s a basic issue for most since it leads to unsightly algae among other things. What’s the difference the organics is a catalyst for algae. The rate of loading. If it’s removed it’s not loading.


Yep



> I’m not disagreeing with you here, because you actually admit it’s more than just co2. When you say you've never seen a case, is that with the tanks that you setup and maintain? Ones that you designed and populate with plants. Why can’t you come out and say the co2 benefit in controlling BBA is directly related to plant growth and mass.


Because I'm not so sure I can support that.
The non CO2 tanks are excellent examples as to why.
They have very low CO2 ppm's.

My non CO2 tanks in the garage? They do not have sediments.
so that's not source either(as oppose to Walstad's methods with soils).

Most folks with BBA issues have tried water changes etc, a few are lazy and have a filthy tank :redface: Some of my non CO2 tanks are filthy, but lack BBA or any other algae.

But it gets back to that loading rate.
That's the key, as well as the rates of plant growth.
They seem to be linked.
Bacteria seems to be the link also.



> Isn’t this all about uptake and removing certain wastes from the water via the plants.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, in some tanks where the loading rates are high for organics, water changes will mitigate that, example: my 120 Gallon.
> I'm always in there mucking around, making a godawful mess.
> Cutting and pulling up roots 2x a week. Netting out dead leaves etc.
> Bacteria and shrimp etc, microinverts can only handle so much loading.
> Plants provide them with a nice habitat.
> 
> But at some point, we end up needing to do water changes, that can export it. Then we no longer need to rely so much on plants, inverts and bacteria.
> 
> Same with doing frequent water changes when there are issues, this almost always seems to help if there's a CO2 issue curiously. Loading rate might be one of the causes of algae issues, but few hobbyists can measure that rate.
> and what rates and types of organics are good/bad, cause X, Y and Z algae?
> No one really knows those answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the plant mass isn’t there, what possible major benefit can more co2 have.
> 
> 
> 
> Faster growth for the few weeds that are there? The basic advice for starting a planted tank involved well planted from the start if you use the CO2, heck, even if you do not. This advice has been around since the mid 1980's.
> If you have only a few plants, well, algae is going to be more likely IME.
> 30-50% sediment,surface coverage is a good minimum amount.
> 
> Otherwise, I'd not bother with CO2. You also have a lot more loading in such tanks and few plants to mitigate the issue.
> Example: a 90 Gallon Discus tank with a few BBA covered Anubias?
> This is not really a CO2 issue. This would be a loading issue, lack of plant biomass.
> 
> I've fixed a few of these type of tanks.
> I added more plants, had them increase water changes to 2x a week or more, adjusted the CO2.............Added some floating plants etc if they wanted a non CO2 approach(cuts the CO2 demand, removes NH4, cuts the light).
> Such tanks are often plagued with BBA and other algae. CO2 or not.
> 
> So if you use a non CO2 approach, CO2 is not really an issue, too much light/loading rates etc, so in those cases, it's not a CO2 issue. But we are not using CO2 gas either :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many on this forum that think their tanks are generously planted and have a few stems in there. Upping co2 even more, maybe some marginal benefit, but increasing organic removal huge benefit from my experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally agree 100000%!
> 
> But we figure out what they have and help them try and fix that, these are not folks that have looked into things deeply and struggle for years with fully planted BBA covered tanks. Folks with long on going algae issues have certainly looked around for solutions. Those are the folks that are truly desperate and are considering given up. Those are the tanks I tend to get asked to fix.
> 
> A newbie with a few plants in a 55 Gallon and is scare of CO2 gas? Not so much, but I'd be glad to help them. Non CO2 methods are very good.
> I'm curious why more have not brought up that in this discussion.
> It fits the bill for many folk's goals with plants, including the hard core CO2 users.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## plantbrain

Regarding loading rates of organic matter and bacterial links:

http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_algaeTOC

This is a good article.
Presents some ideas and issues, and we can formulate why frequent water changes helps planted tanks and helps algal issues in some aquariums(but not all). If you include the loading rates of organics,, then perhaps most all aquariums with plants and algae.

The correlation is there. But there's a lot of unknown as Jeffery suggest: what is a good/bad TOC? What types of organics are okay, good or bad? 

What loading rates?

I do not think hobbyists will EVER have a good handle on measuring these parameters directly, rather, they can mitigate them via water changes, good general care, cleaning their tanks well, cleaning filters, good trimming and weed control, lots of algae eaters, etc.

If you want LESS labor, well, non CO2 plant tank methods are about as good as that will get. If CO2 is chosen: Less light(to some min amount), fewer fish, more algae eaters, well designed wet/dry filters(adds more O2 for the bacteria and microinverts-handles higher loadign rates and provides fish with better O2 levels). Minimize the uprooting/rearrangement of plants, stable root systems, good plant health/care over the long term, sediment ferts/some water column ferts etc.

We have several management tools to meet most goals here without algae and without allowing the loading rates to get too high.

I did test loading rates in 1999. I progressively added more and more minnows to a 25 Gallon tank till I got algae.

1st: Green water
2 nd: BBA
3 rd: Staghorn.
4th: some green algae on the glass.


I thought it was too much NH4 loading back then, that was false.
Then I thought, well, maybe not enough O2. Again, false.
But there was some relations and correlation between the two.

I would agree with the article mostly however.
It links why good frequent water changes helps higher energy light tanks and why lower energy non CO2 or CO2 enriched but lower light planted tanks do well with fewer water changes etc.


----------



## plantbrain

I think I will concede that good cleaning and frequent water changes will address SOME BBA issues if you do not do those things to begin with(which is not really the basic advice for keeping planted tanks with CO2, gardening etc), but these are management methods anyone should be doing if they have algae issues to begin with. Water changes seem to mitigate CO2 issues also, so if you do them very often, it'll prevent a lot of issues. Not just BBA, but most algae.

If that does not fix it, which for most of you it will NOT, then you are left with CO2.


I spent a good 3 years screwing with it. We tried many nutrient schemes. CO2 was the keep to stopping new growth. We did lots of water changes. We even took the BBA covered rocks out and let them dry for a few months, then return them to the tanks, the stuff came back alive. Steve did that and we were all shocked. 

Once folks do good basic care, then learn to adjust CO2 correctly, this stuff goes away. Sometimes poor O2 or lack of current is an issue for some. Sometimes folks have too much current also.


----------



## FlyingHellFish

Wouldn't the issue of Co2 be put to rest if someone just set up a 10 gallon, and blast Co2 to see?

Surely someone has try that out at one point? 

Dose a lot of fertilizers and run Co2 really high, what would the results be?


----------



## happi

FlyingHellFish said:


> Wouldn't the issue of Co2 be put to rest if someone just set up a 10 gallon, and blast Co2 to see?
> 
> Surely someone has try that out at one point?
> 
> Dose a lot of fertilizers and run Co2 really high, what would the results be?



blasted the tank for few months, not only one tank but 2 of them with same issue, both did not respond to the excess co2, like i said before BBA only got worse in too much co2. 

at the APC there is a serious discussion going on about the BBA, this time they will carry a multiple tests and provide all the data once they get it done, we will know for sure what really causes BBA. as of right now IMO BBA grow when you have too much organic buildup in substrate and filter, cleaning up the organic buildup and increasing the surface agitation is the key here, reason to increase the surface agitation is to keep the bacteria happy on the substrate to break down the organics and to keep them happy surface agitation is important.


----------



## houseofcards

plantbrain said:


> *I think I will concede that good cleaning and frequent water changes will address SOME BBA issues if you do not do those things to begin with(which is not really the basic advice for keeping planted tanks with CO2, gardening etc), but these are management methods anyone should be doing if they have algae issues to begin with. *Water changes seem to mitigate CO2 issues also, so if you do them very often, it'll prevent a lot of issues. Not just BBA, but most algae.
> 
> If that does not fix it, which for most of you it will NOT, then you are left with CO2.
> 
> 
> I spent a good 3 years screwing with it. We tried many nutrient schemes. CO2 was the keep to stopping new growth. We did lots of water changes. We even took the BBA covered rocks out and let them dry for a few months, then return them to the tanks, the stuff came back alive. Steve did that and we were all shocked.
> 
> Once folks do good basic care, then learn to adjust CO2 correctly, this stuff goes away. Sometimes poor O2 or lack of current is an issue for some. Sometimes folks have too much current also.


I read your other posts and I agree with much of it. I just think there's a mis-understanding on the forum (again based on what some thing is a generously planted tank about what co2 will do for them.) 

The other major issue I see is that most folks have a reactive approach to algae and I have a preventive one. I think it's good medicine. I don't wait to see if algae is going to take hold and then reduce light, up co2, increase water changes. I just do it from the start. I throw everything but the kitchen sink at the tank from the getgo. That means the usual seeded filter, mulm, carbon, purigen, short light cycle, etc. etc, etc. It's much easier to control algae before it hits then to get rid of it after it's got a foothold. Most don't bother with all these things. They say things like carbon isn't necessary it's planted tank. That doesn't cover a lot of setups. If you take all these precautions your greatly increasing your chance of success. I know Amano always recommended carbon at setup and I remember the boys at ADG used always use carbon/purgien since they didn't want to chance an algae outbreak at a client. This isn't really pushing carbon, but I'm using an example of multiple waste removal that can only help. 

Redundant preventive waste removal will get you far as opposed to waiting for algae to hit and then trying to determine whether it's co2, light, waste, whatever. It's very hard if not impossible to pinpoint what ails one's setup. There's a human factor involved that makes every tank somewhat different.


----------



## ua hua

plantbrain said:


> Regarding loading rates of organic matter and bacterial links:
> 
> http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_algaeTOC
> 
> This is a good article.
> Presents some ideas and issues, and we can formulate why frequent water changes helps planted tanks and helps algal issues in some aquariums(but not all). If you include the loading rates of organics,, then perhaps most all aquariums with plants and algae.
> 
> The correlation is there. But there's a lot of unknown as Jeffery suggest: what is a good/bad TOC? What types of organics are okay, good or bad?
> 
> What loading rates?
> 
> I do not think hobbyists will EVER have a good handle on measuring these parameters directly, rather, they can mitigate them via water changes, good general care, cleaning their tanks well, cleaning filters, good trimming and weed control, lots of algae eaters, etc.
> 
> If you want LESS labor, well, non CO2 plant tank methods are about as good as that will get. If CO2 is chosen: Less light(to some min amount), fewer fish, more algae eaters, well designed wet/dry filters(adds more O2 for the bacteria and microinverts-handles higher loadign rates and provides fish with better O2 levels). Minimize the uprooting/rearrangement of plants, stable root systems, good plant health/care over the long term, sediment ferts/some water column ferts etc.
> 
> We have several management tools to meet most goals here without algae and without allowing the loading rates to get too high.
> 
> I did test loading rates in 1999. I progressively added more and more minnows to a 25 Gallon tank till I got algae.
> 
> 1st: Green water
> 2 nd: BBA
> 3 rd: Staghorn.
> 4th: some green algae on the glass.
> 
> 
> I thought it was too much NH4 loading back then, that was false.
> Then I thought, well, maybe not enough O2. Again, false.
> But there was some relations and correlation between the two.
> 
> I would agree with the article mostly however.
> It links why good frequent water changes helps higher energy light tanks and why lower energy non CO2 or CO2 enriched but lower light planted tanks do well with fewer water changes etc.


Thank you for posting that link Tom. It's a lot easier to read the table on that site than when Jeffrey posted it on APC. It has the same information that I posted of the thread from APC without the few people that would rather ridicule a certain person like they have some personal vendetta instead of having an open discussion about the topic at hand. (I think you know exactly who I'm talking about):thumbsup:

What's very insightful is the last section of that article, which states:
So how to limit algae in aquarium? It is a five aspects of aquarium management:

Biological filtering and the optimal amount of fish
Proper water change schedule
Proper care for plants
Algae-eaters
Chemical fight

I myself have tried to follow all these and has helped tremendously. But I still seem to get the few tufts of BBA showing up on my hardscape. Mind you this is nothing like I have had on some of my first planted tanks in the past but just seeing one little tuft is enough to drive me bat [email protected] crazy. I feel like I'm teetering on the verge of a full blown outbreak and the spot treating follows.

I have one particular piece of driftwood which it likes to grow on and even after I spot treat it with H2O2 a few days after it all turns pink and dies off I can still see little bumps. Sometimes these just stay as little bumps and never turn into the tufts(or devils beard) that we usually see as BBA. The spot treatment shows very little effect on these bumps as they remain on the wood. Is it actually embedded in the wood just waiting for the right conditions to bloom out of control?

I find it interesting that Aaron T. tank that has a really high TOC has no BBA but I also find it curious that the levels of Fe in his tank is substantially higher than others that were tested as well as K being more than double of the others. 

The tanks that I see with algae problems have poor plant growth and very low plant mass. I on the other hand have great plant growth and tons of plant mass yet still find BBA on hardscape but not any plants. I have a few species that I don't really care for that much but keep them because they grow at light speed and keep my plant mass up even after a massive trim. I try to remind myself of the thing that you always tell everyone and that is to focus on the plants growth rather than trying to fight the algae but I dread having my tank overtaken with BBA like some of my first tanks. I wish that the few tufts of BBA were not there but it may just be a pipe dream to think that my tank would be completely BBA free and I may just have to accept it and be thankful that it's very minimal and only in a couple of places.





houseofcards said:


> I read your other posts and I agree with much of it. I just think there's a mis-understanding on the forum (again based on what some thing is a generously planted tank about what co2 will do for them.)
> 
> The other major issue I see is that most folks have a reactive approach to algae and I have a preventive one. I think it's good medicine. I don't wait to see if algae is going to take hold and then reduce light, up co2, increase water changes. I just do it from the start. I throw everything but the kitchen sink at the tank from the getgo. That means the usual seeded filter, mulm, carbon, purigen, short light cycle, etc. etc, etc. It's much easier to control algae before it hits then to get rid of it after it's got a foothold. Most don't bother with all these things. They say things like carbon isn't necessary it's planted tank. That doesn't cover a lot of setups. If you take all these precautions your greatly increasing your chance of success. I know Amano always recommended carbon at setup and I remember the boys at ADG used always use carbon/purgien since they didn't want to chance an algae outbreak at a client. This isn't really pushing carbon, but I'm using an example of multiple waste removal that can only help.
> 
> Redundant preventive waste removal will get you far as opposed to waiting for algae to hit and then trying to determine whether it's co2, light, waste, whatever. It's very hard if not impossible to pinpoint what ails one's setup. There's a human factor involved that makes every tank somewhat different.


I agree with everything you said. I have tried to be more than diligent with this most recent tank and have to admit I have had better success than in the past. I'm curious if you just use carbon during the initial setup phase or if you continue to use carbon in your tanks. I used to use it in my planted tanks quite a few years ago but stopped and now I'm curious if it would be a good idea to put carbon in my filter every so often to help remove some unwanted waste.


----------



## DarkCobra

DarkCobra said:


> Plants in any well-fertilized tank _always_ experience an increase in growth when CO2 is added. Without a single exception. Doesn't matter if it's a low light tank, or if Excel is used, or the substrate produces a few ppm CO2.
> 
> Therefore, if CO2 isn't added, it's _always_ a limiting factor.





plantbrain said:


> I disagree. So would Liebig too.
> A few examples; floating plants.


Hehe, you got me. I should have known better to say without exception. There are always exceptions.

Emersed/floating plants have access to a less restrictive gas exchange system. Still, the point I'm trying to make is (or should be) clear. And pointing out an example that obviously exists partially outside the environment we're discussing, _the water_, is about as relevant in this context as saying plastic plants won't grow more with CO2 either. 



plantbrain said:


> Plants at low light will have very low CO2 demand and uptake.
> CO2 can be a limiting factor in most cases if plant density is high, if not, then not so much...
> Try this at high vs low light, you will note different responses and different rates of growth to additions of the SAME CO2 content.


Agreed. But even in a low light tank, if you add CO2 instead of relying on natural sources, don't the plants grow at least a bit faster? Sure they do. And this shows that plant growth was at least partially CO2 limited. CO2 is typically discussed as if any limitation is harmful to plant health, and must always be avoided. That I view as a myth needs dispelling.



plantbrain said:


> SOME plants can and some are very aggressive, others, not so much.
> Depends on the light also which drives CO2 demand and competition for CO2 between and within species.


Agree here too. Some plants do seem to need a bit more CO2 just to be healthy. Adding a bit of supplemental CO2 - even a few ppm - over what exists naturally greatly benefits them, even though they are still technically limited and could use much more.



plantbrain said:


> ...yes, plants can and do adapt to CO2 limitation, but they also do the SAME for PO4 limitation which is common in many aquatic plant systems in the tropics and subtropics.


Though I haven't seen any documentation that there's an adaptation to low PO4 levels, I wouldn't be surprised to find one exists. However, I am familiar with this:



plantbrain said:


> I'd say they are better at adapting to PO4 limitation.
> They can recycle that pool, not so well with the CO2 if the rates vary a great deal.


"Recycling" meaning of course that it self-cannibalizes older growth for the missing nutrient, at which point that growth is no longer healthy and invites algae.

To avoid this algae, you must trim away the unhealthy growth. But in doing so, you're actually taking away a portion of the plant's recycling pool. And if it is a stem plant and the top is replanted, then you've also disrupted the root system, limiting its access to that nutrient in the substrate. Both of which make the deficiency worse.

Therefore, I cannot in principle consider plants to be so well adapted to limited PO4. At least not for our goals, of selectively growing plants while excluding most algae.



plantbrain said:


> No, I never said that plants would grow faster as a result of doing this.
> They will and do grow slower. Liebig's law states that clearly.


Well, you did say:



plantbrain said:


> So the CO2 is say 15 ppm and the light is 100 umols and PO4 is 5 ppm. You have BBA. You limit PO4 to under 0.05 ppm. Your plants start to grow and the BBA stops growing.


Sure sounds like you suggested the plants would grow faster to me. Bad wording perhaps? At any rate, it's cleared up now. 



plantbrain said:


> How did you measure the CO2?
> Heck, it's tough for me to measure it.
> Is it stable 15ppm the entire day? No one's ever is
> Perhaps you added more stable CO2 and not boom or bust?


Now we're getting to the *meat* of this discussion. Yum.

Measured using a drop checker with 2°KH solution.

Which means it's not exactly 15ppm, just somewhere in a very large ballpark. And it's anything but stable, as I'm getting it from a single DIY bottle, which I run for three weeks. Yes, I'm doing it "wrong", and completely on purpose.



plantbrain said:


> If what you claim is true, why do I and many others not have the hair trigger like issues you suggest?


You run at least 30ppm, or more typically 45-60ppm as stated. As long as you maintain what you have determined appears to be an optimal level, with good stability, and keep up with trimming and other maintenance, you get minimal algae. But if you do not, you get an algae outbreak, correct? That is what I'm referring to as "hair trigger issues".

I could do it your way, and I have in the past.

But instead, now I'm running _somewhere_ near 15ppm, it is clearly a _limitation_, can let it _fluctuate_ all over the place, and am still _algae-free_. I don't need a CO2 meter, pH controller, pressurized system, or even much attention or periodic adjustments to do it.



plantbrain said:


> What was your light? Fert routine, water changes etc etc?
> Those need ruled out and compared, as a high light tank will much more issue with your claim than say a moderate or low light tank.
> 
> Let's see your tank also.:thumbsup:


Light is 2x39W T5HO DD Giesemanns, recently replaced, and sitting directly on top of a 46G bowfront with a clean acrylic splash shield. Water is crystal clear. I do not have a PAR meter so I cannot report the exact intensity, but others have directly measured virtually identical setups as firmly within high light category. Modified EI, reduced dosing, but all nutrients still believed (or tested when possible) to be in excess. 50% weekly WC. Magnum 350 canister with floss sleeve and river rocks (don't ask why rocks, that's a whole 'nother story, hehe). ~15ppm CO2 from a single 1G DIY bottle, changed every three weeks, and run directly into the canister. Koralia Nano. Heavy fish load.

Before you continue, read that, and take mental note of how many issues you see that _should_ predispose my tank to algae. And then add to that list when you see...

A pic, as requested. This is not a "glamor" shot, this is exactly how it looks as of a few minutes ago. Maintenance is overdue, as we're fighting the flu, and just can't be bothered with it. Or trying to figure out why the camera white balance isn't working today, the reds are muted over real life. I like the jungle look, but this is too much even for me, and normally I'd be embarrassed to even post this:










Overgrown. Some plants too close to the light, others shadowed and overcrowded. Adequate flow is disrupted. Lots of old growth. Some plants really need to be moved. I see clear signs that plants are not in peak health as a result, especially compared to the nice photo I posted a few weeks ago in my journal.

I have run this tank with 30ppm or more of well-regulated, pressurized CO2 in the past, and when the tank reaches this level of neglect, algae has already gotten well established.

But now, no algae. As I said before, not even on the outflow and powerhead, and that is a new feat which I have _never_ achieved in this tank when running at 30ppm+.

Compare to one of yours:



plantbrain said:


>


Plants are well trimmed, not overgrown, shadowed, old, or too close to the light. Plenty of clear space for flow. All disadvantages to algae. And I think, even accounting for differences in taste, most would consider yours better looking at the moment.

But here is the important question. If we _both_ have no algae, in which tank is that the _greater and more unexpected_ accomplishment? Here I would say that my tank clearly wins. :thumbsup:

And it's my CO2 level that's somehow doing it.

You may attempt to explain this by thinking that I am avoiding some other, more harmful nutrient limitation by limiting CO2. I don't believe this is the case. It's easy to rule out, just crank up stable CO2, and all other nutrients simultaneously. I've certainly done so in the past. As well as methodically trying every other permutation that might be considered useful.

Only in recent months have I been exploring parameters that would not be predicted to be useful, like mid-range, limited CO2 levels. Boy, did I get a nice surprise! Prior to this I've never seen the resistance to algae in this tank I'm seeing now, or in the two others running alongside it.

Or maybe most everyone who has BBA has CO2 stability issues. Ok, if so, then adequately stable CO2 must be challenging to achieve; look how often BBA comes up for discussion, we haven't really collectively mastered it. Some even have voiced suspect in this thread of CO2 transients from _tapwater_ of all things! But what if this only occurs at the extremes, of virtually no CO2 or 30ppm+? And stability becomes a non-issue when a tank is kept at _medium_ CO2 levels? Sure looks like that may be the case, and if so, then that's _great_ news.


----------



## Jeffww

So um is the conclusion that phosguard in theory would work and that as with everything in this hobby "your results will vary"?


----------



## ced281

Jeffww said:


> So um is the conclusion that phosguard in theory would work and that as with everything in this hobby "your results will vary"?


I think the conclusion is that phosguard *might* work for you, but is not guaranteed to work.

Much of the debate has been around what the actual cause of BBA is.

From what I can glean, BBA growth is multifactorial. No one has been able to conclusively identify the single cause in the growth of BBA (because there are probably multiple factors). Using phosguard will work if making P the limiting factor for BBA growth will stunt its growth (due to competition for other nutrients from other sources e.g. plants).


----------



## roadmaster

Can increase/decrease CO2,fertz,employ chemical media,but light is the driving force followed by organic's and their removal. IMHO


----------



## xev11

If i may I would like to include my current experience. First the situation in my tank, Planted+ over a 16G, so roughly low/med, no CO2. The tank is covered with stems that have uprooted and i haven't had the time to replant. I assume this reduces the overall plant nutrient need as only the floating layer of plants get enough light to grow and thus need the nutrients. Many of them and some stems that remained plants have experienced typical phosphate deficiency (holes, falling off) so I have been adding 1-2 ml of Seachem Phosphorus every several days. That is all i have done, no water changes. I think that this has reduced the amount of falling leaves, yet has increased the visible BBA in the tank. It is now present on my HOB outflow and sponge filter outflow. I understand that I have an imbalance and will do a large WC to try to level out the nutrients. 

I have multiple other issues including high nitrates and high mulm amounts in the substrate, but all of those things remaining the same and just by adding P, the BBA has increased.

Would reducing photo period have an effect on the reduction of BBA development?


----------



## FishFinatic

:icon_eek::drool::drool: Very interesting debate. I am listening intently....


----------



## houseofcards

ua hua said:


> I agree with everything you said. I have tried to be more than diligent with this most recent tank and have to admit I have had better success than in the past. I'm curious if you just use carbon during the initial setup phase or if you continue to use carbon in your tanks. I used to use it in my planted tanks quite a few years ago but stopped and now I'm curious if it would be a good idea to put carbon in my filter every so often to help remove some unwanted waste.


As practice I've use carbon for around the first three months. I could continue to use it, but usually don't, but if it's needed I wouldn't attempt to put it back in. Usually the preventive of 3 months or so is enough in most setups I've encountered as they are going pretty well be then.


----------



## houseofcards

Jeffww said:


> So um is the conclusion that phosguard in theory would work and that as* with everything in this hobby "your results will vary"*?


Of course!

Unfortunately far too many here treat home aquariums as a controlled environment and try to impart rigid scientific theory. 

How many tanks on this forum are pretty much the same. Lights, substrate, filter, etc but their results differ wildly. There's always a human element involved (dedication level, discipline, lifestyle, stocking, feeding, kids, etc.) that will cause one tank to succeed and the other one to fail.

That's why to me you can't target precisely what ails one's tank. The preventive redundant approach is much more effective then simply upping co2, decreasing lights, etc. When you do the things from the getgo your alllowed much more wiggle room with lights, co2.


----------



## Hoppy

plantbrain said:


> I think I will concede that good cleaning and frequent water changes ...., but these are management methods anyone should be doing.......


Sorry to cut so much out of your reply, but it struck me that one thing we lack in this hobby is a consensus about what "management methods", or maintenance methods should be done by everyone who wants a really nice, and algae free tank. There are lots of "how to set up a planted tank" articles available, and they even agree about much of what they recommend, but I don't think there is a comprehensive, but brief list of the essential ingredients for a successful algae free tank, that we can all agree about, and point to when people ask for advice.

Such a list could be a table with new critical items added as the amount of light is increased. Or, it could just assume that what is essential for a high light tank is still recommended for a low light tank.

Who wants to tackle this????? We could label it the "gold standard" for planted tanks?


----------



## STS_1OO

My 2 cents: 

BBA first appeared in my Fluval Spec V after I introduced a higher light source (Fugeray 16") which sitting at 12" from the substrate was putting out in excess of 30 Par (@ substrate). The tank had no CO2 injection, no ferts, and largely slow growing plants (windelove java fern, needle leave java fern, parva). 

BBA struck and it resulted in me having to throw away/heavily prune most of my tank. 

Changes I made since that disaster in the order I first made them: 
- Began injecting CO2 hard...basically up to my fauna's limit. 
- Introduced faster growing plants (s. repens, blyxia japonica, and ludwiga Red) Are they fast enough growers /shrug
- BUT also starting full EI dosing
- Built a custom light stand to raise the Fugeray to 13.5" inches from substrate. 

So here's the status of the BBA in my tank now. 

- It's still there
- However, it's only present on the slowest of growers - my Windelov java fern, needle leaf java fern and old leaves of my wendtti red that are no longer really growing
- It is largely held at bay...I can keep up with removing it and spot dosing H2O2 and it no longer threatens my tank like it used to

Empirical stuff I have learned with how my BBA behaves:

- It grows on the slowest growers only. This includes plant leaves that have stopped growing. My fastest growers show little to no signs of BBA.
- Even with considerably more nutrients and organics in the water, BBA's spread has been slowed with lower intensity of light and the introduction of CO2
- Raising the light was last thing I did. CO2 definitely cut BBA's growth rate down but BBA still persisted. Raising the light set it back quite a bit to very manageable state.
- Much of my BBA has always persisted on my gravel and much of my spot treating still happens at the gravel.

Unless I don't have the right mix of plants, I'm effectively stuck...if I lower my lights, I know i'll get more BBA and my CO2 is already driven to my fauna's limit. Clearly, at least in my case, it's not as simple as balancing CO2 and light....but also plant-type and nutrients/organics must be involved.


----------



## roadmaster

xev11 said:


> If i may I would like to include my current experience. First the situation in my tank, Planted+ over a 16G, so roughly low/med, no CO2. The tank is covered with stems that have uprooted and i haven't had the time to replant. I assume this reduces the overall plant nutrient need as only the floating layer of plants get enough light to grow and thus need the nutrients. Many of them and some stems that remained plants have experienced typical phosphate deficiency (holes, falling off) so I have been adding 1-2 ml of Seachem Phosphorus every several days. That is all i have done, no water changes. I think that this has reduced the amount of falling leaves, yet has increased the visible BBA in the tank. It is now present on my HOB outflow and sponge filter outflow. I understand that I have an imbalance and will do a large WC to try to level out the nutrients.
> 
> I have multiple other issues including high nitrates and high mulm amounts in the substrate, but all of those things remaining the same and just by adding P, the BBA has increased.
> 
> Would reducing photo period have an effect on the reduction of BBA development?


Yes would have effect of slowing down new algae growth,plant growth,for they utilize same thing's for development.
Reducing light would not make what algae is there already,, go away.
This I believe,would require some harrassment ,removal on your part.
Would start with removing mulm from substrate to the degree allowed,and also keeping filter cleaned .
I clean my canister's(Eheim,Rena) once every month,hoses every two month's, in soil based tank's with heavy plant mass,moderate fish load.
If tank is new,, plant's are new,,then plant's may need time to adapt to lower CO2 level's than they were receiving while growing possibly emmersed at nursery,puchase place,(root's below water,leaves above the water) to submerged.
If tank isn't new,,then I might wonder what is causing the stem plant's you spoke of to become uprooted? (fishes,current's)?? and take measure's to reduce damage to possibly new,struggling,plant's or possibly wrong plant's for non CO2 tank's with low to moderate light.
Some plant's that require more CO2, might possibly begin to grow anew albeit slowly in low light,low tech,low energy tank's, but some really do better with CO2 application.(Most will) 
If one decides on low tech ,then they would in my view be better off selecting plant's that perform well in low light NON CO2 enviornment.
With low tech,,You could in my view,, get by with waste from fish food,and all in one fertilizer like Flourish Comprehensive by Seachem while researching or asking other's about what fert routine's they employ. 

Even those who run high tech,high energy tank's with CO2 injection,uber lighting, have found that they can retard growth of algae by reducing their lighting ,rather than dialing CO2 up or down over day's week's,to get it dialed in precisely.
They perform weekly water changes,keep their tank's meticulously clean, including filter's.
This can be done in any aquarium, with no harm to plant's,or fishes,just need to try a little bit.
Is what I finally tried after a few year's,, and suddenly found myself researching more about plan'ts ,trimming plant's,studying fishes and their behaivor's,than constantly fighting with near every kind of algae with my previous effort's.( largely due to too much light for method chosen).
Was about this time also,, that I realized that dry fertilizer's,, Macro,micro nutrient mineral salt's,could be bought way cheaper than the liquid's and last way longer(month's) .(lot's of folk's do this )
Began to see better growth in my low tech affair's and fishes,shrimp's,thrived as well as the plant's.
I change water each week, next day feed the fishes and plant's and repeat.
Hope some of this gives cause to ponder.

Please excuse any poor spelling cause I ain't goin back and fixin it.:red_mouth


----------



## STS_1OO

Excuse me if I'm being ignorant here but what exactly is there to dial when it comes to CO2. Why shouldn't everyone just max out co2 until "the drop checker is a line green" as they say?

I could be completely wrong but I have figured that lighting drove co2 and dosing, not co2 driving light. 

I ask this bc I keep reading about balancing light and co2 being the difficult task, but I haven't understood what exactly needs to be balanced on the co2 end.


----------



## roadmaster

STS_1OO said:


> Excuse me if I'm being ignorant here but what exactly is there to dial when it comes to CO2. Why shouldn't everyone just max out co2 until "the drop checker is a line green" as they say?
> 
> I could be completely wrong but I have figured that lighting drove co2 and dosing, not co2 driving light.
> 
> I ask this bc I keep reading about balancing light and co2 being the difficult task, but I haven't understood what exactly needs to be balanced on the co2 end.


 
Well,I do not use CO2, but have spoken with many who do, and is someting I want to try at some point.
Dialing in CO2 in my view, has to do with amount of light being used (more light= more demand for CO2,nutrient's),,Good even flow of water throughout the tank to help disperse CO2 to all area's, and good diffusion of CO2 via inline distribution,diffuser,powerhead's,all the while taking care not to accidentally gass the fishes,shrimp's etc.
In plant only tank,,one could dial up CO2 to max without harm to fishes but most also like to keep fishes in their planted tank.


----------



## ipkiss

Ahh, the elusive part is how do you "max out" your co2. Achieving this can be trickier than you think and is varied depending on your tank and your co2 delivery method.

Roadmaster mentioned most of the problems of "dialing in" co2. It doesn't sound like much but each of those items are quite daunting in practice. 

Getting the right flow can possibly make the difference between patches of BBA in some areas vs none in other areas. How do you "see" the flow of water? It's not like you can add coloring and watch it. There's various eddies, dead spots, and streams within the tank based on what kind of filter, powerheads, circulators, plant densities that you have. They show up over time with accumulation of mulm and worse, algae, but it takes time. So you reorganize and wait and waiting is hard.

The other problem is that the drop checker is not always accurate. It's slow to respond and if you've got a bad 4dkh solution (or made slightly off) you'll get "lime green" before you should and falsely think you have enough co2. Or you get the lime green after you should and start gassing your fish because you have too much. You can alleviate this problem by agitating the surface of your water to give yourself a better cushion but then you may disrupt the proper flow of co2 enriched water or degas too much and now you have to increase your co2. Let's not forget about the flow problems. What if you put your drop checker in a spot with no flow? Then you can possibly get a different measurement of co2 vs the spot with more flow. Some people have resorted to multiple drop checkers to figure this out. Some move it around over time. 

So next you look at your diffuser or reactor and you wonder if it's efficient enough because you suspect that you're not achieving your "max" or you're wondering if you're wasting your co2. So you play with different reactors or diffusers and possibly have to readjust the co2 all over again. 

If you were using DIY co2, then you'd have to contend with re-concocting your yeast solutions or finding the best recipe for it.

See? All this while, you have to make sure the fish are okay so this whole process can end up taking days, if not weeks. Let's not mention the possibility of co2 leaks along the way --that's a whole other can of worms.


----------



## manlyfan76

Has anyone ever tested the relationship between ORP and Algae? 
Or Iron and Algae
Or Copper and Algae?
i'd love to read about it if they had a link.


----------



## puopg

Came back from vacation to one tank fine, the other with BBA everywhere. Why is it when im here, and i barely touch anything things are fine, the moment i leave, something goes wrong and algae explodes. Sigh, time to fight. #BBARuinMyLief


----------



## larams67

puopg said:


> Came back from vacation to one tank fine, the other with BBA everywhere. Why is it when im here, and i barely touch anything things are fine, the moment i leave, something goes wrong and algae explodes. Sigh, time to fight. #BBARuinMyLief



Haha, I would say I have the complete opposite happen. If I leave things alone they do pretty good. The minute I start tinkering. That's when things go south in a hurry.


----------



## longgonedaddy

I've had an outbreak for the past few months after a couple of weeks of light and fert mismanagement. I have a "mid tech" tank, mid level light, medium planted with swords and stems, heavy fish load. using Seachem plant products, including excel. I don't use CO2. After about two weeks of stabilizing things, I noticed that the BBA stopped spreading, and now, after some more fine tuning, it is steadily dying back.


----------



## Hardstuff

This may help some: I have 2 tanks. Both CO2 driven with similar substrates & I dose EI . 
Tank #1 which was my first set up recently now is 16 months old. Its a mid tech with medium high lighting. Fairly high bio mass . The tank had a really hard start. Normal algae issues early on. Then it took off , I did regular water changes , & this tank had great plant growth & the fish were healthy. I thought I could do nothing wrong. That lasted 5 months then I started slacking on the water changes & not following EI dosing & running tests. I let the CO2 bounce around & I knew it. 
I then developed a pretty bad case of BBA! I have since been battling the stuff improving my CO 2 delivery & dosing EI better. I have seen better response & even pushing BBA back a lot but relied on excel to help. 
Recently I decided to pull some substrate out in the front of the tank. I knew I was looking for trouble. I used gassed off R/O water remineralized after removing some of the substrate. I noticed massive amounts of what looked like organic matter but could have been some clay mixed in as well during the water change. 
The next day I had a massive BBA bloom! Now was it from the organics, NH3 from the substrate, & or the out gassed R/O water that was used during the water change or a combination , I can only guess but Im leaning towards it was the outgassed R/O water throwing off my CO2 levels.

NOW TANK #2 : Has a better substrate with a higher CEC but non nutrient rich but does contain some laterite. That tank had a BBA issue but is younger . It is about 1 year old now & has not had fish in it for at least 10-12 months. 
This tank has a much higher bio mass & for some reason the DIY reactor runs better than tank #1? But both tanks are pressurized But tank # 2 the BBA problem has pulled back to the point where you can hardly find it anywhere. I know its sleeping ready to grow but my high bio mass & high CO2 has all but killed it off. This tank is almost totally filled with stems & a few anubias plants but hardly any room for fish. Thats my point , (high bio mass of healthy growing plants with a good substrate with a high CEC, EI dosing & stable CO2. The organic level is unknown in this tank , but I suspect its very high. I even cut back & only do water changes 1 time a month now on this tank yet tank #1 which gets weekly water changes has the BBA!!

I plan on going back to doing water changes with non aged water . Just add my GH booster & trace , mix with hand for 1/2 hour gently & be done with it! 
I will see where that goes? 
Now is the fact that Tank #2 is doing better because it has NO fish , but more neglect on water changes but higher CO2 better diffusion, the reason its doing better? My 3 top picks are higher bio mass of plants & better more stable CO2, & a better CEC substrate!!!!! Both tanks are the same size with same lighting & similar softish water Gh5 kh4! Tank #2 even grows plants well all the way at the bottom where there is hardly any lighting.
At the moment Tank #2 is crushing the BBA!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hoppy

Hardstuff said:


> .....
> 
> NOW TANK #2 : Has ....* not had fish in it for at least 10-12 months.*
> .... only do water changes 1 time a month now on this tank yet tank #1 which gets weekly water changes has the BBA!!
> 
> ......
> At the moment Tank #2 is crushing the BBA!!!!!!!!!!


Isn't this evidence that the build-up of organic waste in the other tank may be the most significant difference? And, this is in spite of the weekly water changes?


----------



## MERSF559

ithink im going to become a botanist or a biologist with a focus on plant life lol so interesting


----------



## Hardstuff

Hoppy I am not convinced its more of an organic problem in tank#1. 
That tank has almost always had fish but a low bio load. Yes I did notice a lot of organics coming from the substrate but how much is organics verse how much is clay is hard to tell. Remember I used some DIY clay root tabs in both tanks so when I suck up from the bottom doing wc I know some of the stuff coming up is clay as well as organics.
That being said I see a lot of clay/ organics come up from the bottom whenever I do water changes on tank#2 which seems more stable between the two. As said that tank's CO2 level gets enriched more. Often the ph is held down for days below 6.5 at a KH of 4 sometimes a Kh of 5! Very little surface agitation.
The internal reactor works well in that tank. 
I just completed my first pruning in a long time , maybe 5 weeks or more. I chopped down about 50% of the bio mass opening it up more, but the flow in this tank is pretty poor. I only noticed a tiny amount on 1 microsium leaf , but they do not grow well in this tank anyway. I also noticed a small amount of new BBA growing on the powerhead itself & 1 tiny little patch about 3mm in length on the back glass. 
No BBA was growing anywhere on the substrate or any other glass panels! 
The only BBA growing on any leaves were dead or dying leaves low on some stems but it was an extremely small amount. I would consider the tank relatively clean from BBA at the moment but if things become unstable I am sure it will come back fast! 
Meanwhile back in tank # 1 I said I just got a fresh bloom of BBA 2 days ago , but even that tank looks better after pushing the CO2 down more. You see in that tank I have had a hard time in judging how far I can push the CO2 because it has fish in it. So 2 days ago I decided to push .2, .4 more down with the CO2 & as of yesterday the new bloom on the plants looked weaker & stopped spreading. I double checked my NO3, & PO4 to make sure I was not crashing. All levels look good & the tank looks better now. I am trying to hold my light cycle ph down more , more like 6.2 on the regency which usually is lower by .2 on average when comparing to a calibrated digital meter.
Its dark in the tank I will see what the tank looks like in the morning I know I have my work cut out for me.
I have been experimenting with adding a mini cycle of 3 hours of CO2 during the night to help keep the ph more stable. The fish are showing no signs of stress & my ph is more stable now than before. Also if my Ph is lower in the morning than my reactor will have more time to enrich the water column before lights on. I check my ph about 10 times a day!
I forgot to mention , I do believe the main reason I picked up a fresh bloom in the tank was not because of an organic load from the substrate but adding a large water change with OUT GASSED CO2! This threw my CO2 level off instantly triggering a bloom. Just my theory. Could organic loading into the water column contribute as well??? Maybe, I just don't know?
If this tank settles down in a few days & looks better I may throw some Fe at it & see if I can get some new BBA to grow? Sometimes I feel after dosing Fe I get some new growth as well, but I still need more time on that idea.
For now I plan on going heavy on stable CO2 & see If I can get both tanks to stay clear for a while. That would prove that CO2 fluctuations is still the main reason we get BBA in our tanks provided that other nutrients are not limiting.
I have also noted that without a controller , for me its really, really hard to hold CO2 at stable enriched levels without either having CO2 levels drop off some or gassing fish! I have not gassed a single fish, nor do I plan to!


----------



## Hoppy

I don't think it is any one thing alone that is the major cause of BBA outbreaks, but a combination of things, including unstable CO2 and water loaded with organic compounds from the fish. It is clear that unstable or too low CO2 vs the light intensity will almost always lead to BBA, but it isn't clear to me that CO2 is the only cause. It is also obvious that unhealthy plants attract BBA, so having a tank filled with healthy plants is a good barrier to BBA. Hardstuff, your experience with two tanks having roughly the same light intensity made it look like organics could be a major contributor, but that is probably just another illusion.


----------



## brainwavepc.com

Just a quick update, about 4.5 months now without phosguard and not a speck of bba, I even unknowing added some to the tank on a power head and it died off in about a week. So far my lights co2 have remained constant and still adding 0 ferts. Plants looking great!


----------



## MantisX

Phosgard has eliminated every bit of bba in my 20 gallon. I'll know what to do if it ever shows up in my larger tank. I don't know why this works, but it does. No signs of plants slowing down either.


----------



## m00se

Hoppy said:


> I don't think it is any one thing alone that is the major cause of BBA outbreaks, but a combination of things, including unstable CO2 and water loaded with organic compounds from the fish. It is clear that unstable or too low CO2 vs the light intensity will almost always lead to BBA, but it isn't clear to me that CO2 is the only cause. It is also obvious that unhealthy plants attract BBA, so having a tank filled with healthy plants is a good barrier to BBA. Hardstuff, your experience with two tanks having roughly the same light intensity made it look like organics could be a major contributor, but that is probably just another illusion.


I'm not about to present a hypothesis either, Hoppy. But I'll tell you unequivocally that once I stopped dosing any PO4 my stubborn, pervasive BBA reduced itself to nothing. I was amazed. It's still gone and I'm still avoiding dosing, despite what the consensus may be.


----------



## Severum Snape

Old thread but my battle with BBA has lead me here:

For what it is worth, here in Illinois, we recently outlawed Phosphates in lawn fertilizers. It runs off into bodies of water causing Algea and Toxic algae blooms. 

Here is a nice article: 
http://turfgator.com/phosphorus-ban-in-fertilizers/


----------



## ChrisX

brainwavepc.com said:


> I've tried everything I could find to kill bba. changed lights and photo period, added more or less co2, h2o2, excel, you name it. my 125g was trashed with bba, this fixed it in less than two weeks at double the amount per instructions, with no effect on plants.
> 
> Seachem - PhosGuard
> 
> your welcome


Lol, I was just going to suggest that. Phosguard also absorbs silicates which will kill diatoms.


----------



## houseofcards

Severum Snape said:


> Old thread but my battle with BBA has lead me here:
> 
> For what it is worth, here in Illinois, we recently outlawed Phosphates in lawn fertilizers. It runs off into bodies of water causing Algea and Toxic algae blooms.
> 
> Here is a nice article:
> Illinois Phosphorus Ban in Fertilizers for Lawns | TurfGator


So your saying there's no P in fertilizer in IL?


----------



## devisissy

I tried this. Didn't work. I used enough for 50 gallons in my 29 and stopped ferts. No difference at all. Currently trying the one two punch. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## benstatic

came to this thread, saw it was 12 pages and got depressed.
Then I became amused after seeing Tom Barr hammer on someone for what he deemed a silly question.

I have BBA, its a slow creeper.
I have a feeling part of it is because of my sickly Anubia Barteri is acting like a disease vector. I just don't feel like parting with this plant - it is recovering now, but its edges and leaf stems are coated in the stuff.

Is it due to bad CO2 management? yes, in my tank its likely. It wasn't until I started monkeying around with injected CO2 that I got this BBA stuff really growing. 
Monkeying around with it further stresses me out- I gassed my fish a month or two back and lost maybe half of them. I would rather not do it again.

The truth here is that my fish tank looks better than it has (with the BBA) than it has in a long while.









I probably should tear out that barteri, its too high light there for that plant anyways.


----------



## ipkiss

@benstatic, 

If you have an extra tank, here's a trick I did that I learned from one of Tom's stories.. not sure if it was this one and don't feel like verifying. I took my BBA infested anubias and java fern windelov ( you definitely can't scrub those leaves! ) and just unceremoniously dumped it into a low tech, low light, no co2, barely dosed tank. I don't even recall planting it. Neither of them cares too much if they're not rooted. Like you, I was ready to throw it out, but figured what do I have to lose. Ignored it for months (Tom's story was that he left his plant in an ignored tank in the garage) and just like that, when I cared to check up on it, the BBA faded away. Prior to this, in my main tank, I had peroxided it repeatedly, watched in glee as the BBA turned red, and cursed in frustration as I broke out the peroxide again as it cycled through to a new generation. 

Does this help your main tank? I dunno. I can speculate about it and I probably have before, but I'm sure you're aware of the generalities and seem a little burnt out so you need a break. If this works, maybe it'll give you a small taste of success, and give you the confidence to fight it again. If nothing else, it'll give you an excuse not to throw your plant out or an excuse to start another tank! 

Be warned though, don't just throw it in a bucket of water. These things sort of melt if there's no water movement. In a different situation, I unintentionally melted a ton of java fern that way.


----------



## allexx46

*165 show tank*

Adding to my own thread. I am not new to fish but am new to plants. My 165 gal tank is full of big fish with tremendous bio load. I have a great sump that gets rid of all the nitrates. Before I planted the tank It needed a water change once a month and a gravel scrub once every 3 months. I run an Apex so I guess I have a hybrid tank because I am not using CO2 but have have all the other technology. I got by with few water changes because I controlled pH with Sea Chem pH 7 buffer and coral. Sea Chem pH 7 buffer has phosphates in it. After my first dose with 25% of recommended dose of ThriveC I Instantly I have BBA on a plant that has been clean for 2 months. But for the fist time I see growth in other plants that were just sitting there. I am looking at CO2 which I can control with my Apex and pH. 

Here is my first question: How can I control CO2 with pH when I have buffers and coral maintaining the pH? 

Second Question: If I chose to not use CO2 it seems I am left with dosing Excel to control the algae. Is this the case? 

If answers are on other Threads please help me find them. Most threads including this one are on tanks set up as planted tanks where they carefully add fish. Mine is a tank set up as a community tank using large South American fish that do not eat plants. I am carefully adding plants....


----------

