# Surface agitation in a planted tank...



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

Is it really needed? This is my first canister setup, am used to HOB's. Surface agitation has never been a choice for me. I am injecting CO2. I can create a nice vortex with my lily pipe just below the surface of the water, but this does not really go anything in terms of gas exchange. Is this sufficient for once I put critters in? I've found threads that go both ways. To raise the lily pipe high enough for a good amount of agitation, I need to lower the water level or the top suction cup is half affixed which makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

im a big supporter of agitation. i inject tons of c02 though. it will never hurt your tank to do it

also on my 10 gallon shrimp tak my lily is half affixed. it works fine that way. it has come loose twice and fallen on the rim but otherwise no harm was done. my tubing is rather rigid and pretty much holds it in place anyways

if u have a powerhead u can always do surface agitation that way


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

I'm with Blazingwolf. I don't think you can overdo it with surface agitation as long as you don't have water splashing out of the tank. The benefits of well oxygenated water are many. It gives you more leeway with CO2 levels, bacteria like it, etc. See post #1137 in this thread. http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/tank-journals/149265-120-gallon-ada-like-ditched-dutch-76.html


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

I try to get the whole surface moving without actually breaking it, ie. no white water.


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

Thanks guy. So no issue with keeping one of the lily pipe suction cups only half affixed? It makes me nervous, but if it's okay then I will do it. That's the only way I am going to get agitation at all. Well, I could drop the water level even lower than it is. 

edit -- Tested it out. Popped both suction cups to see what would happen and it just slowly fell. The way the pipe is hooked, and the tension from the hose, there is no way the water is going anywhere but in the tank.


----------



## Eastbound&Down (Mar 28, 2009)

I keep good surface aggitation with a spraybar. I inject co2 and my plants still pearl like crazy. Theyre right. As long as there's no splashing you can have as much aggitation as possible.


----------



## Dmckmc (Jan 22, 2012)

If I recall, there was a previous thread I started called (I think) "Surface Movement." In this thread, several members posted videos of their tanks surface and provided a lot of information. The thread may have been two or three pages long and I certainly learned a lot. It may be worth a search.

Good luck.


----------



## sketch804 (Mar 2, 2011)

I am with HD..I am for surface agitation..however I did have my tank running for a month or so with no surface agitation with not really any draw backs..but now a days I use a small nano powerhead to give me a bit, and I turn on a bubble stone at nite..pretty much the only thing that benefits from CO2 is the plants so I try to strike a balance with my co2 almost the highest level I can use with out gasing out my fish and the agitation allows me to turn the co2 up a bit more but also keeps O2 in the water as well as a healthy gas exchange without losing too much CO2..I would say go for it!


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

Glad i am, to see all the work and frustration i put into spreading the good news about agitation is finally comming back to me


----------



## sketch804 (Mar 2, 2011)

ha ya HD i remember I was talking randomly on a thread and you yelled at me about having no surface agitation  haha..but all in good spirits..but it works so I use it and I have seen other tanks use it (in person) so I am a believer regardless..

PS: what kinda fish or oto is that in your sig???


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

Parotocinclus maculicauda or red finned oto.. cool little bugger! that's actually a google search image of one.

yeah sorry if i got all fired up atcha.. it's not my intent to be hateful or disrespectful. every once in a while emotions get in the way


----------



## sketch804 (Mar 2, 2011)

haha no harm no foul..I prolly shouldnt have said yelled but hey its all good..
Oh really, hmmm i gota try to find that fish, looks like my green oto! Thnx for the info

Sorry this is off topic..


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

I was a one time no surface agitation guy...... Just ask Jeff5614..... LOL... Then I learned the benefits of having it. Now all my tanks have surface agitation. Very beneficial.


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

I went back a year or so looking at threads. Found a post by Tom Barr on this subject specifically. He said a good ripple, but not enough to break the surface, is fine. I am able to achieve a ripple, so I will try it out this way. I see a lot of guys with lily pipes well below the surface with, apparently, no issues.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1413265-post15.html


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

Aquaticfan said:


> I was a one time no surface agitation guy...... Just ask Jeff5614..... LOL... Then I learned the benefits of having it. Now all my tanks have surface agitation. Very beneficial.


i probably yelled at you too then


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Aquaticfan said:


> I was a one time no surface agitation guy...... Just ask Jeff5614..... LOL... Then I learned the benefits of having it. Now all my tanks have surface agitation. Very beneficial.


We all have our obsessions  .


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

HD Blazingwolf said:


> i probably yelled at you too then


Hahaha. Probably. It's all good though cause even old dogs like myself who have been in the hobby for 33+ years still need to expand and learn. Not anyone of us all will know everything and even at that as the hobby continues new things and ideas come about.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Jeff5614 said:


> We all have our obsessions  .


Well then let me say thanks for helping this ole dog learn.


----------



## Retroactive (Jan 13, 2012)

HD Blazingwolf said:


> im a big supporter of agitation. i inject tons of c02 though. it will never hurt your tank to do it
> 
> also on my 10 gallon shrimp tak my lily is half affixed. it works fine that way. it has come loose twice and fallen on the rim but otherwise no harm was done. my tubing is rather rigid and pretty much holds it in place anyways
> 
> if u have a powerhead u can always do surface agitation that way


Guys I'm wondering this as well. I heard the ripples will actually dissapate the Co2 and lately I'm cycling a new filter with the old HOB still in and the plants are looking droopy and I'm wondering if the added surface agitation is dissapating too much Co2 for O2? 

I have a planted 10 gallon with 10 small fish,fry,2 moss balls (one synthetic with resin for phosphate control) and about 6 plants, Moneywort, Lemon Moneywort, Hornwort, Anacharis, Red Ludwigia. I think I have a good balance of Co2>o2 with just the fish and the plants so would I need surface aggetation (light-medium ripples) all day long throughout the tank to disappate Co2 or would that rob the plants too much of the CO2 ? Once I remove the HOB, and as long as I keep my powerhead circulating under water, would I be ok to have no ripples or would the no surface aggetation cause to much Co2 and kill fish, bad nitrate and nitrite lvls or stagnate water ? I think the number of fish and plants I have may be a good balance but I do see the benefit of having some agitation just not to much that it robs the tank of Co2. 

I went to the powerhead/UW canister filter to help keep good circulation to help prevent BGA I just delt with. The filter is actually an all-round utopia unit for functionaltiy IMO. It's an older Aqueal Aqua Thrust that has an underwate powerhead with water flow and air bubble flow control, external bio sponge ( great for fry tanks because no forceful suction or goodbye fry  lol ) and a small canister that I turned into a mini 4 stage with aquarium cotton,bio ceramics,carbon/zeolight and phosphate resin . It's a little unsightly to some but I think it looks si-fi and does everything but make me coffee. http://www.frogpondaquatics.com/pro...st-Powerhead-Internal-Filter-Kit-100-gph.html

Levels are fine, just did some tank fertilizer 2 days ago and light is really good (plants loved it before) so I'm wondering why the droopy plants? It's been 1 week since I started running both filters to cycle the new one and the Anacharis and the Red Ludwigia have moderate droop and some wilt on the Red Ludgia. My only guess is too much surface agitation is depleating a lot of CO2 because as it was explaned to me the ripples cause the CO2 to leave the tank.

Pictures attached, yes the plants are skinny, they just survived a bad BGA outbreak!
Please advise  :bounce:


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Can you get a paintball cylinder filled with compressed air? 
I think it would be cool to run a second inline atomizer with compressed air or maybe even o2, but that sounds dangerous.


----------



## Retroactive (Jan 13, 2012)

Chlorophile said:


> Can you get a paintball cylinder filled with compressed air?
> I think it would be cool to run a second inline atomizer with compressed air or maybe even o2, but that sounds dangerous.


 Not so much concerned with the O2 as I am with not depleating C02. From what I understand, the ripples (surface agitation) causes Co2 in the water to exchange from the tank to the air. I' don't want to have too much surface agitation that it depleats most the Co2 in the tank that feeds the plants. 

those products sound cool but beyond my knowledge or interest atm. What are they or what do they do ? The power head and sponge (black and in the corner) in this inline atimizer video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GIpizpX2fM) looks exactly like an Aquael PaT Mini powerhead UW filter with bio-sponge which I would love for Nanos but unfortunately it's availble only in Europe and not offered in US. Bill at www.frogpondaquatics.com (Brown wholesale distributors) got me the Aquael Aqua Thrust because he bought Aquael's left over stock in America. He told me Aquael keeps asking him when is he going to buy newer shippments from Europe, they want to sell to him again and he's big enough to distribute in US; but, he's not talked with them seriously about it yet. I think it would be awesome to get AQuael back in the US. Their Nano Reef, EBI/planted nanos and Pat Mini Nano powerhead with bio-sponge rock! If you agree go to frogpondaquatics.com and send him an email  I may create a thread for it this weekend.


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

I would remove the zeolite and phosphate resin. These are just robbing the plants of fertilizer. 

A gentle ripple is usually a good compromise between no water movement and too much. 
Keeps the water circulating so the nutrients (including the CO2 and oxygen) are present at all levels of the tank. Allows the water to pick up CO2 and oxygen from the air, in case the fish and plants are removing it all (or most) from the water.

I do not run bubblers in my tanks unless I want more water movement, for example on hot summer days, the better water movement helps keep the tank a bit cooler.


----------



## Retroactive (Jan 13, 2012)

Diana said:


> I would remove the zeolite and phosphate resin. These are just robbing the plants of fertilizer.
> 
> A gentle ripple is usually a good compromise between no water movement and too much.
> Keeps the water circulating so the nutrients (including the CO2 and oxygen) are present at all levels of the tank. Allows the water to pick up CO2 and oxygen from the air, in case the fish and plants are removing it all (or most) from the water.
> ...


Have to keep some resin to reduce the phosphates the BGA was feeding on. Phosphate levels where at 5.0-8.0 and feeding the Blue Green Algae. I may remove it from the canister chamber once the levls get to .5-1.0 but will keep some in the artifical moss ball. I run my powerhead bubbler on a slow trickle (it's adjustable ) only at night when plants aren't in their resperation cycle and not pulling the Co2 from tank. I don't want the fish to choke on Co2 at night but with this amount of plants not likely so I only do a small bubble trickle through the powerhead, as a percaution, at night only. I was told (by Posh LFS) the bubbles don't actually add o2 to the tank but they do cause surface Co2 to leave the tank on surface agitation. 

Also, I don't think the Zeolite is the culprit as it's been in the tank for over 2 years and the last 6 months prior to the BGA the plants were growing like wild fire. I do have a 3 layer substrate with a small bottom layer of sand (for roots to dig to and grab) a middle layer of plant substrate (crushed up clay pots and minieral rocks/soils) and a top layer or river rock so the plants get decent nutrients/fertilization through the substrate alone so the addition of Zeolite is not a problem IMO. I also keep Zeolite with the carbon because it's an amonia store and if you use Zeolite you can pack the tank with fish  which helps with breeder tanks ... it's really good at keeping amonia and as long as you change it reguraly it won't spike the nitrates. I orginally started using it because a specific brand (I can no longer find or remember ) had an undisclosed side effect that it would kill snails in days. It could be the resin though, especially since Anacharis are sensitive to nutrients and regular fertilization. 

Agreed on the ripples. I'll keep a small ripple from the powerhead once the HOB is removed. It's just right now I have both filters going and somethings causing droopy Anacharis and I was suspecting too much Co2 leakage from added surface ripples. It's even worse today, I noticed way more droop when I first woke up. The leave color looks fine and it's not wilting it's just droopy as crap. I relocated to a place of less flow and may test the phosphates tonight and pull the resin from the canister. I figured the extra two filter ripples may be the culprit because more Co2 is leaving the tank with more ripples. On the + side it's been over a week and no more BGA after manual clean and resin :thumbsup: 

 thanks


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Is it possible the plants are getting pushed over by the extra flow from the second filter? If so, it's not really harmful to the plants since it's temporary, but if you can reduce the flow, it would be helpful.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Sorry but where did you see that BGA feeds off of phosphates? I would have to disagree. Removing nutrients will only make the plants have issues while the BGA thrives. Plants will actually use ammonia as food even before nitrates. Using the zeolite is robbing anything the plants would consume

BGA is a bacterial slime. It's a cynobacteria. Causes of BGA can be due to low nitrates, poor circulation, high organics, And poor lighting useage. Never seen an issue if high phosphate create it or feed it. I run my phosphate around 3 to 5 and some get higher. But never an issue with BGA due to it. 


Your ripples at the surface will let off a little co2 but nothing crazy. Just bump your co2 rate up a hair to fix the issue.


----------



## Retroactive (Jan 13, 2012)

Update: 

I moved the plants, lessend surface agitation from one of the filters, and changed to a versa top and the Anacharis bounced back 70%. I did remove the phosgaurd from the canister but kept an artifical moss ball with phosgaurd resin in it but the phosphates are back up between 5-10. I'll probably remove that AMB and add just a table spoon of phosgaurd to the filter. 



Aquaticfan said:


> Sorry but where did you see that BGA feeds off of phosphates? I would have to disagree. Removing nutrients will only make the plants have issues while the BGA thrives. Plants will actually use ammonia as food even before nitrates. Using the zeolite is robbing anything the plants would consume
> 
> BGA is a bacterial slime. It's a cynobacteria. Causes of BGA can be due to low nitrates, poor circulation, high organics, And poor lighting useage. Never seen an issue if high phosphate create it or feed it. I run my phosphate around 3 to 5 and some get higher. But never an issue with BGA due to it.
> 
> ...


 http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/maintenance1/p/algaebluegreen.htm 

Sited from first paragraph under causes: " Overgrowth of this organism generally occurs when there are high levels of dissolved wastes and nutrients in the water, such as nitrates and phosphates. *Phosphates in particular, are a prime contributor to overgrowth of Blue-Green Algae*" 

That was not the original site I used because that link is on another pc and can't seem to find article atm. The link above is just a first hit from google searching "Blue green alage in aquairum" at this moment as currently I am at work and do not have the original links I used with me. Also, I actually saw several articles about BGA with phosphates listed as a cause (online 5-3 weeks ago) aswell as it resonated from all the employees at the high end local fish store. In fact, the owner and several long time employees told me not even to worry about lighting or anything else as a cause and just told me to use phosgaurd at first. I still made up my own mind though and increased circulation flow, proper lighting and less feeding on my own. 

Also, to clarify Just because someone has high phosphates doesn't mean they'll automatically have BGA and I don't believe I said that (don't have time to check previous posts at work) but maybe that's how it read since you said your phosphates are at 3-5 and you don't have BGA therefore assuming there must be no correlation. That would be an incorrect assumption IMO because it doesn't mean phosphates can't add to the cause of BGA in a tank with several other contributing/causing factors. According to various sites I've read there are several factors that can cause it including, as you mentioned, poor circulation but also incorrect light, over feeding, nitrate and phosphate levels or the wrong kind of lighting/too much lighting. *I do agree with you on the poor circulation; although, it seems that the circulation has more to do with the BGA grabbing hold in the tank and less to do with it's creation or waste conditions feeding it like the phosphates do.* In my case it was probably the combination of very poor circulation, high phosphates (they were at 8 see link above for sited article) and too much light. All of which were in exsistance at time of outbreak. I'll look for the other links when I get at home. The other site I'm thinking of also said you could use peroixde to kill it and things like that and I did use the peroxide on the filter. In the end, the BGA has already been treated with manual clean, black box out, increasing circulation, timing lights better, buying larger flaked food reducing finite flake waste, feeding less and lowering phosphates. It's been over 3 weeks and tanks looking good with no signs of returning BGA  

If you don't use Zeolite, that's fine but I do and like it. As I have mentioned above I like it especially for packed or fry tanks. For instance I had one 20 Long packed with over 70 1-2inch jewels (fry form a breeding pair) for over 1 year with carbon and zeolite mixture and no deaths then traded them to another local fish store. I've used different brands of Zeolite for over 8 years (one of which that had the glorious side effect of killing snails overnight but can't remember it's name) and never had a problem with it. Zeloite also helps to keep the "smelly tank smell" away. Also, All my plants were growing really well,even before the BGA with the Zeolite in the tank so I doubt Zeolite is the cause for "the droop" in the single species of Anacharis. Infact, currently with Zeolite, when I moved the plants after BGA I had about 6 stems under an inch with only a couple leaves and now are all between 2-4 inches with about 50% more folage. We'll see though when I add the phosgaurd back in if that's the cause because the plants will droop drastically again if removing the phosphates were the cause. Also, Anacharis benefits from a good amount of fertilization so I've been adding liquid fertilizer weekly in small amounts. Personally I think it was the over agitation from two filters defusing the Co2 rapidly in 02 exchange at surface level and lack of Co2 injections in the tank, just a hunch. I'm trying to see if I can strike a natrual balance with number of fish creating Co2, low Co2 requiring plants, and amount of plants without having to inject Co2 through mechanical means. 

 have a good day.
Sorry for wall of text and grammar/spelling checks criting for 50K.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

if you don't then you are likely to see fish gasping most of the time and reducing your good bacteria in filter.


----------



## JasonG75 (Mar 1, 2011)

jcgd said:


> I try to get the whole surface moving without actually breaking it, ie. no white water.


 
same here.


----------



## Retroactive (Jan 13, 2012)

Complexity said:


> Is it possible the plants are getting pushed over by the extra flow from the second filter? If so, it's not really harmful to the plants since it's temporary, but if you can reduce the flow, it would be helpful.


Thanks complexity  
I did do some moving around and adjusted the filter and seems like (compared to the picture) every plant bounced back so I bet that had something to do with it as well. The Hornwort in particular seems to be growing nice and tall like a Pine tree almost now. 

thanks for the advice. :thumbsup:


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Retroactive said:


> Update:
> 
> I moved the plants, lessend surface agitation from one of the filters, and changed to a versa top and the Anacharis bounced back 70%. I did remove the phosgaurd from the canister but kept an artifical moss ball with phosgaurd resin in it but the phosphates are back up between 5-10. I'll probably remove that AMB and add just a table spoon of phosgaurd to the filter.
> 
> ...





Let me give you 3 different links that lots of folks here and other places use as Great Algae guides. These were written with study into just Algae, Causes and cures. 

http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm
http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/
http://www.guitarfish.org/algae#bga

Not any one of them mentions Phosphates as an issue. They do mention decaying organics such as leaves and excess food and other such items. 

If you look at the causes of most all Algae Light is always one of the number one thing. Then the next for each different one.. Lack of Co2 causes issues with BBA, Lack of nitrates can cause issues with BGA. 

If Excess Phosphates, Nitrates were a cause then how does Estimative Index dosing of ferts work without causing Algae in all gases?

Personally I think your LFS is giving you wrong advice.. I used to work for one of these high end Mom and pop LFS not a big chain and know it can happen. Not arguing with you, Just trying to get you to see more then the direction your looking. in some various Conversations with others on Algae subjects Normally Nutrients are never a main cause or are a low level contributing factor when it comes to having to much. Lacking is a different story.


----------



## Retroactive (Jan 13, 2012)

Aquaticfan said:


> Let me give you 3 different links that lots of folks here and other places use as Great Algae guides. These were written with study into just Algae, Causes and cures.
> 
> http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm
> http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/
> ...


http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-Management/Water-quality/Algal-information/What-causes-algal-blooms/What-causes-algal-blooms/default.aspx 
That links is a both a GOVERNMENT WATER MANAGEMENT site and a first hit in google for "causes of blue green alage" 
Quote from the very first sentence under in the very first paragraph under causes before anything of light is mentioned on the entire subject in that article. 

"Nutrients encourage the growth of blue–green algae. The process of nutrient enrichment in a waterway is called eutrophication. The main nutrients contributing to eutrophication are *phosphorus *and nitrogen." 

I'm not arguing with you just trying for you to see the correct factual direction/light as well. If you can try to prove your facts to me then surely I'm allowed to rebulte and provide links and documention proving you are incorrect no ?


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Retroactive said:


> http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-Management/Water-quality/Algal-information/What-causes-algal-blooms/What-causes-algal-blooms/default.aspx


Very interesting link. It offers a number of elements that encourage and discourage the growth of BGA:

Encourage:

Nutrients – phosphorus and nitrogen are the main nutrients in run-off areas, especially in low oxygen situations. However, BGA is known to also occur in low nutrient conditions as well.
Warmer temperatures — 25°C (77°F) is optimal, giving BGA a competitive edge over other algae.
Light – intermittent exposure to high light intensities is optimal. BGA can adapt to a variety of light conditions.
Flow – BGA prefers low flow and minimal disturbance.
Discourage:

Cooler temperatures.
Light – long periods of high light intensity diminish BGA populations.
Turbidity left out because it seemed to not be a direct factor, but an indirect one that created other factors that encouraged or discouraged BGA growth (such as low turbidity allowed more light to shine through).

It would also seem reasonable that the opposite of anything that encourages BGA growth would discourage it and visa versa. For example, if low flow encourages BGA growth, then high flow should discourage it.

What I find interesting in this list is the complete lack of discussion regarding oxygen rates in the water (except the small mention of low oxygen as a cause for nutrient release). I remember running across an article discussing the role of low oxygen in BGA which is why anything that helps to oxygenate the water also helps get rid of BGA. I remember finding this when researching whether H2O2 would kill BGA (it does). Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I bookmarked the link so I'll have to search for it.

Nevertheless, the point is that there is no single cause for BGA. As with all algae (yes, I know BGA is not an algae), there are multiple causes, and multiple conditions are usually present when something like this takes over our tanks.

We attempt to simplify these complex events because we're not looking to study these events in their entirety, but to find a simple solution to rid them from our tanks. Therefore, we find ourselves oversimplifying the entire subject.

"BGA is caused by X."

"No, BGA is caused by Y."

The truth is *BOTH* statements have validity because they are both _parts_ of the _whole_.


----------



## jgb77 (Dec 13, 2006)

The problem I have with the article is it doesn't have any mention of one thing we have in our tanks....plants
What changes when many plants are involved in the equation?
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty big deal?
John


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

jgb77 said:


> The problem I have with the article is it doesn't have any mention of one thing we have in our tanks....plants
> What changes when many plants are involved in the equation?
> Wouldn't that seem like a pretty big deal?
> John



This.......


The issue with the link provided dosnt discuss what the situation is in our enviroment. A controled planted tank is a different.

One of the people Id love to hear from on this topic Is Tom Barr...


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

jgb77 said:


> The problem I have with the article is it doesn't have any mention of one thing we have in our tanks....plants
> What changes when many plants are involved in the equation?
> Wouldn't that seem like a pretty big deal?


I would expect there were plants in the bodies of water they studied, but there's no mention of which plants or how many plants, leaving that part of the equation completely uncontrolled.

Which is why I said... this is a complex subject that we are trying to oversimplify. It's just not that easy.

However, if the goal is to rid an aquarium of BGA, we should have enough information to offer a whole gambit of suggestions. I may suggest water changes, increased flow, and increased oxygen. Someone else may talk about the light. Someone else may get specific about the nutrients. *All* these suggestions are potential solutions to the problem, and it is up to the person experiencing the problem to decide how they want to use the suggestions. As long as it works and the owner of the tank in question is happy, then it doesn't matter _how_ they did it. It only matters that they are happy with the results.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Retroactive said:


> http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-Management/Water-quality/Algal-information/What-causes-algal-blooms/What-causes-algal-blooms/default.aspx
> That links is a both a GOVERNMENT WATER MANAGEMENT site and a first hit in google for "causes of blue green alage"
> Quote from the very first sentence under in the very first paragraph under causes before anything of light is mentioned on the entire subject in that article.
> 
> ...


Try not to take things in a personal matter.... None are being ment. Ive seen your posts and have them recorded in my emails via notification and dont think resorting to name calling, anger and the like is called for. This isnt your thread to begin with but it is a discussion. Its what Forums are for and what makes TPT a good place is people can share their opinions, thoughts and facts to help educate each other. But we all have to have open minds as such. Im not home right now.. But Id be glad to discuss this as I find it interesting and Algae is the one thing that we all as planted tank owners dread. Tom barr has a saying Ive always liked Its grow plants well. Thats what I try to do. When im home Id be glad to share documentation. Id love to hear input from others just besides yourself and myself. Im all for learning, As well as sharing.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Aquaticfan said:


> One of the people Id love to hear from on this topic Is Tom Barr...


For what purpose? Do you think there is not yet sufficient information to resolve the initial problem? Or is there a need to prove something? If there's something to be proven, it won't come from yet another person's post. Unless Tom Barr has ran experiments and/or studies that have been published in a peer review publication, all he can do is toss in his two cents like the rest of us. There is a difference between scientific "proof" and opinion (regardless of the basis of that opinion).

And I say "proof" in quotes because in a true scientific environment, there is no such thing as proof. What is discovered in experiments and studies is not proof, but either support for or against a certain hypothesis. It is very clearly stated that there is no such thing as proof in the scientific world. This is because it is very clearly understood that there are too many variables involved to make such a definitive statement as "this proves that."

So there is no proof either way. The best that can be offered is support for or against a certain statement. If Tom Barr has conducted experiments or studies on the subject that have passed peer review, then we don't need him here to comment. Instead, we could simply look up his study in the journal from which he was published as it is done with all similar scientific findings.

However, is the goal is simply to argue... then... what's really the point of that? No one's giving out brownie points to the winner (if it's possible to even have a "winner").


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Complexity said:


> For what purpose? Do you think there is not yet sufficient information to resolve the initial problem? Or is there a need to prove something? If there's something to be proven, it won't come from yet another person's post. Unless Tom Barr has ran experiments and/or studies that have been published in a peer review publication, all he can do is toss in his two cents like the rest of us. There is a difference between scientific "proof" and opinion (regardless of the basis of that opinion).
> 
> And I say "proof" in quotes because in a true scientific environment, there is no such thing as proof. What is discovered in experiments and studies is not proof, but either support for or against a certain hypothesis. It is very clearly stated that there is no such thing as proof in the scientific world. This is because it is very clearly understood that there are too many variables involved to make such a definitive statement as "this proves that."
> 
> ...


It's not anything to do with an argument or winning or losing. It's about the further of education and sharing information that allows us to grow and learn more. 

Why do I want to hear Tom's input? He has vast knowledge and information that has validity to this issue. Are you opposed to having people with that knowledge sharing or giving logical input or to provide info that's factual that we can all learn from? 

For all I know I'm wrong in what i believe/opinion is based on. If Tom shares even more to show that I'm learning and expanding my knowledge. I thought that was the true reason were here and share info? Its not about pounding ones chest and getting no where. I'm always open to full discussion from anyone with knowledge. Even in my more then 33 years in aquatic hobby I learn stuff.

I hope were all here to learn and share. 

I was asking for Tom's view as i thought I had read some info he posted in past discussion with info from various resources. I don't remember them all nor do i remember where I saw the discussion at the moment. Just thought it might help shed light on an on going topic that plauges us all from time to time.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Aquaticfan said:


> Why do I want to hear Tom's input? He has vast knowledge and information that has validity to this issue.


I was not aware that Tom had "vast knowledge and information" on the very specific subject of the causes of BGA. But I'm not informed of all his studies so perhaps he has done research on this topic. If so, that would be great.



> Are you opposed to having people with that knowledge sharing or giving logical input or to provide info that's factual that we can all learn from?


I thought I had made my stance abundantly clear on this before, but in case it was missed, I always welcome the sharing of knowledge.

I even welcome dissenting opinions. :smile:


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

Looks like the agitation has come to the surface----------------

I have a 10g tank in my basement with dwarf sag in it. It has a dirt/sand substrate and a 36 w coralife ho light on it, albeit an old bulb. There is about 6 inches of water. There is no water movement at all. It has been this way for about a year. I never even changed the water. I don’t think I ever added any either. The dwarf sag has thrived, filling the tank, and algae has never been a real problem at all. 

I tend to think water movement has more to do with fish than plants. FWIW.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Nevermind. LOL. :smile:


----------



## livingword26 (Oct 28, 2010)

I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who has cured Cynobacteria by removing phosphates. It is pretty common knowledge that a nitrate shortage is a common cause for this kind of bacteria, at least in the planted aquarium world. Also listed are low oxygen, and to high of light. I have often dosed 2 - 4 ppm phosphates with no outbreaks of BGA.

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/5290-co2-and-cyanobacteria
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/5171-cyanobacteria-nasty?
http://www.aquariumslife.com/algae-control/blue-green-algae/
http://www.aquascapingworld.com/algaepedia/full_view_algae.php?item_id=40&algae=Cyanobacteria
http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com/showpost.php?p=39033&postcount=2

I personally have had this BGA flourish when I had low nitrates in high light.

As to surface agitation, I definitely believe that low oxygen can add to many problems. I have a Fluval surface skimmer that runs on the intake to my cannister. But at night I run a small HOB to aerate the tank better.


----------



## livingword26 (Oct 28, 2010)

Retroactive said:


> Guys I'm wondering this as well. I heard the ripples will actually dissapate the Co2 and lately I'm cycling a new filter with the old HOB still in and the plants are looking droopy and I'm wondering if the added surface agitation is dissapating too much Co2 for O2?
> 
> I have a planted 10 gallon with 10 small fish,fry,2 moss balls (one synthetic with resin for phosphate control) and about 6 plants, Moneywort, Lemon Moneywort, Hornwort, Anacharis, Red Ludwigia. I think I have a good balance of Co2>o2 with just the fish and the plants so would I need surface aggetation (light-medium ripples) all day long throughout the tank to disappate Co2 or would that rob the plants too much of the CO2 ? Once I remove the HOB, and as long as I keep my powerhead circulating under water, would I be ok to have no ripples or would the no surface aggetation cause to much Co2 and kill fish, bad nitrate and nitrite lvls or stagnate water ? I think the number of fish and plants I have may be a good balance but I do see the benefit of having some agitation just not to much that it robs the tank of Co2.
> 
> ...


I know you can't always tell by the picture, but it seems that the light in your tank is very bright. I also am not sure, but I haven't found anywhere that says you are injecting co2? What kind of lighting do you have. If you have high light and no co2 then surface agitation is a moot point as far as keeping co2 in the water.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Yens know better than to Trust Tom Barr:icon_cool

BGA or specifically _Oscillatoria_ (I'd guess splendens but I cannot be sure) is one of the easiest alga/cyanobacteria to get rid of because there are 3-4 methods that all seem to work well.

It's inducible as well, fairly consistently.

As Complexity states(I'm paraphrasing here)...........there is little proof of cause.......but we can prove what something is not with a very high likelihood of being correct.

No way we can be certain of 1001 possible scenarios.

The only test/proofs I do for aquariums are falsification test.
So I only figure out what something *is not.*

This is much easier than saying/trying to figure out what something is.
Now while low NO3 might induce BGA consistently, there may be a dozen or more other signals that cause BGA to bloom.

We can say there is a strong correlation between low NO3 and BGA issues, we cannot say we know why BGA is present in all cases. The distinction is important and the two are very different.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> Yens know better than to Trust Tom Barr:icon_cool
> 
> BGA or specifically _Oscillatoria_ (I'd guess splendens but I cannot be sure) is one of the easiest alga/cyanobacteria to get rid of because there are 3-4 methods that all seem to work well.
> 
> ...


Tom, 

After reading the gov. Link posted above about phosphates being what they called a major contribution to BGA blooms, I'm curious as to why i along with so many others that run high phosphates in their tanks don't have issues with BGA? I've hot several tanks and phosphate levels are 3.0 and some higher. But i don't have any algae issues in those tanks. 

Is it that our situation of a aquarium stuff makes a difference? 

I guess this is why i believe phosphates aren't our issues with this as I've seen none and all the guides I've read on identifying, cause and cure don't list it as the cause. At least not in the links for planted tanks that I've got. 

If there is more to this I'm curious as to what to look at further.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Aquaticfan said:


> Tom,
> 
> After reading the gov. Link posted above about phosphates being what they called a major contribution to BGA blooms, I'm curious as to why i along with so many others that run high phosphates in their tanks don't have issues with BGA? I've hot several tanks and phosphate levels are 3.0 and some higher. But i don't have any algae issues in those tanks.
> 
> ...


The best research I've found, which is as close to planted tanks as I have also found, seems to corroborate my hypothesis as well: when submersed plant density/biomass exceeds 30-50% coverage of a lake/aquarium, the plants define the system.........not nutrients.

Top down vs bottom up control. Plants active link bacteria in the sediments, reduce light, reduce currents etc(the topic of this thread).

If the goal is to grow healthy nice plants, then focus there, then the algae are not much of an issue. Name one person in this hobby that got into it ...because they wanted to learn 1001 ways to limit algae growth, kill algae 1001 ways etc?

Never met one yet, so the algae thing is a distraction from growing plants.
Got algae? Likely a basic care issue with plants. I've seen nothing in my decades that suggest otherwise. ADa hammers this home but many are more concerned about soem trickery or micromanagement.

Obsession with ppm's of nutrients is a sure sign that they do not have a fricking clue. :icon_cool

Also, that report is true..........but they do not offer any ppm's of what that PO4 or NO3 etc is........the devil is in the details.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Excellent research paper on plants algae and correlation in natural systems,

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf

Another good one about correlation and cause an effect and he makes it very clear:

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/LimitFact.pdf

I asked around at the lab years ago about CO2 as a possible reason why some lakes had plants, others did not instead of the nutrients, a few years later, this paper came out:

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/BACHMANN/CO2_FL_lakes.pdf


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> The best research I've found, which is as close to planted tanks as I have also found, seems to corroborate my hypothesis as well: when submersed plant density/biomass exceeds 30-50% coverage of a lake/aquarium, the plants define the system.........not nutrients.
> 
> Top down vs bottom up control. Plants active link bacteria in the sediments, reduce light, reduce currents etc(the topic of this thread).
> 
> ...



Cool.. Ive always agreed with and liked your saying Grow plants well.. 

I think its to easy for us to get distracted with Algae growth as its the "Demon" so to speak that we all wish to avoid. So It gets us going even long before we ever have the issue. 

Id be very curious to know how high the amounts of Phosphates were in those areas where BGA was so much an issue. Just for curious sakes of course. 

So it sounds to me as though the Key is we are in control, Not nutrients with how it works out and if we work to grow plants well enough to not have the issues with Algae. Proper management of not just nutrients but light, Current, O2, Co2 and other influencing factors. I assume that is because Algae is such an opportunistic organism as It seems to wait till something is not right in your ecosystem of your tank for plants..


----------



## livingword26 (Oct 28, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> Another good one about correlation and cause an effect and he makes it very clear:
> 
> http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/LimitFact.pdf


A lot of this is a bit much for my old mind to grasp, but I did find this statement, from the above link telling:

"Hydrogen and Oxygen are present in great abundance in water molecules, and Carbon Dioxide is usually present in non-limiting amounts, however, every 100 grams of carbon used by plants, requires about 7 grams of nitrogen, and 1 gram of Phosporus."

To me that explains why jacking up the co2 can be so healthy for the aquatic flora. And at the same time, why limiting fertilizers can cause algae problems by weakening the plants. I have come to believe, first through my understanding of what you have shared, and then by my experience, that problem algae only occurs on plants if they are dying or weakened.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

I believe there are numerous variables involved, many which are interrelated. So while we may often focus on one variable of a problem, that does not necessarily mean that is the only variable of that problem. It merely means that experience has taught us that there is a correlation between the one variable we mention and the problem at hand. And we usually focus on that one particular correlation because it's what commonly comes up with our hobby.

However, that does not mean that particular variable is the causal factor of the problem. It might not even be the main causal factor. If we were to explore all the variables, it's very possible we could find all kinds of factors that can cause the same problem.

The point is that you cannot use a _correlation_ in an attempt to determine _causality_. They are two completely different things.

For example. Did you know that there are more murders conducted on days in which more ice cream is sold? Does that mean that selling ice cream causes murders? Or do murders cause people to buy ice cream? Or is there another variable that's causing them both (possibly hot weather)?

So that report noted a correlation between high phosphates and BGA. That does not mean high phosphates cause BGA. It does not mean BGA causes high phosphates. It's very possible there is a third variable causing them both.

Therefore, it is quite possibly true that there is a _correlation_ between phosphates and BGA while it is simultaneously true that phosphates do not _cause_ BGA. Thus, both can be true at the same time.


----------



## fplata (May 20, 2012)

Chlorophile said:


> Can you get a paintball cylinder filled with compressed air?
> I think it would be cool to run a second inline atomizer with compressed air or maybe even o2, but that sounds dangerous.


You can not, you need a compressed air tank for that. They are much more expensive.


----------



## livingword26 (Oct 28, 2010)

nevermind


----------



## livingword26 (Oct 28, 2010)

Nevermind again


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Omg! This is so much fun to read! Lol! 
I had my own phosphate/co2 wonderings in the past. I think it's part of the process for all of us at some point.

Now, can we all have a virtual group hug? 










Peace out bros!


----------



## mrduna01 (Nov 27, 2011)

Is he gone yet? Thank god. Lol 

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Sorry guys. We are having a little pest problem. I'm closing this down for a little while so that we can try and eradicate the little guy. I'll open it back up after I have a chance to talk with the others about the situation.


Added:

Also, if any of you get a private message from this guy under a new name with the same rhetoric, please notify us immediately.


----------

