# Can low light for algae control affect plant health and promote algae



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

The answer depends a lot on what plants you are referring to. Anubias and ferns are going to react differently from how HC and most reddish plants react. Once you settle on a light intensity you can optimize the CO2 and other nutrients by slightly reducing one at a time and watching for an adverse effect on plant growth. If you were to set the CO2 and other nutrients at a level where you think they should be, I suppose you could then optimize the light intensity the same way, but until recently it wasn't easy to make small reductions in light intensity. I suspect this method of optimizing will be much more effective with individual nutrients.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Hoppy said:


> The answer depends a lot on what plants you are referring to. Anubias and ferns are going to react differently from how HC and most reddish plants react. Once you settle on a light intensity you can optimize the CO2 and other nutrients by slightly reducing one at a time and watching for an adverse effect on plant growth. If you were to set the CO2 and other nutrients at a level where you think they should be, I suppose you could then optimize the light intensity the same way, but until recently it wasn't easy to make small reductions in light intensity. I suspect this method of optimizing will be much more effective with individual nutrients.


Thanks Hoppy.

I am at a "do nothing" state. I have done just about everything I can think of to balance things.

My only other approach is to continue pruning BBA infected leaves, siphon out rhizoclonium and clean the tank as best as I can. I did a light gravel vac in the less planted areas to try and reduce mulm as I thought maybe my tank maintenance was lacking. I also re-introduced a small powerhead to add more circulation, but my tank is only 17 gallons and I cant imagine my Eheim 2215 is not sufficient.

Basically I am trying to address the smaller aspects I may have overlooked.

In terms of PAR and my plants, I have monte carlo, fissidens fontanus, mini pellia, s. Repens, Limnophila Aromatica and anacharis for added plant mass.

At the moment I am testing how fast my LA stems grow to guage where I am at in terms of speed of growth. Everything seems to be very slow to grow.

iso


----------



## Django (Jun 13, 2012)

Are you using ferts at the correct dose? Ferts (I use IE/4) for a low-tech tank (10 gal.) help the plants grow with appropriate light.

You might try lowering the light a bit and see if the plants grow better. I think that once your tank has good conditions, the algae will die and not return. My opinion only - never read this anywhere. At that point it might help to take out whatever algae you can to remove excess nutrients. Who knows, a 50% water change might do something at that point too.

Good luck. I had terrible algae when I first started and my only action was to remove as much algae as possible. Didn't work very well.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Just an update.

I have run 40 PAR from 1/4/16 – 2/13/16.

My rhizoclonium has slowed down and has gotten much better.

But the BBA has not stopped growing.

As a test, on 2/13/16 I planted some new s. Repens and reduced my PAR to 30.

On 2/25/16 I noticed fine traces of BBA forming on the leaf edges of the NEW s. repens. You can see that faint sign of black edging appearing.

So I just reduced my PAR to 20. I may just run it without any light...LOL

I am really getting agitated. 

I can only think of 3 things occurring.

1. Lowering light intensity does not inhibit BBA growth.

2. The RGBW adjustments and resulting PAR on the sat plus pro are inaccurate. As an example, Current told me over the phone at 12" in height and RGBW set at 70 across all channels the resulting PAR equals 70. So set at 30 across all channels would equal 30 PAR and so on. Maybe it's much higher than what they estimate/tested.

3. Too low of a PAR inhibits the speed of certain plant growth and allows BBA to flourish.


iso


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

isonychia said:


> ...
> 
> I am at a "do nothing" state. I have done just about everything I can think of to balance things


What have you tried.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> What have you tried.


I have tried the following over the past 4 months. All changes were done one at a time with only a few exceptions.



Increased my CO2 as much as possible just below fish distress.
Increased lead time of CO2 from 1 hour to 2 hours before lights on.
Different variations of powerhead placements and surface agitation.
Changed from ceramic diffuser to a cerges reactor.
Reduced PAR amounts
cleaned filter (did not disturb beneficial bacteria) and did a light gravel vacuum to reduce possible excess mulm as possible culprit
Dosing EI with 50% water change
Tried reducing EI amounts slightly
Multiple water changes
Added excess plants (anacharis) to increase healthy plant mass
tested KH/PH change to measure CO2 concentrations, numbers showed approximate 1 point drop in PH.
Added more surface agitation and increased CO2 amount by one tick mark on the needle valve. I gassed my fish by doing this. (my fault because I didn't monitor water level and added too much thus reducing O2 addition and spiked CO2 amounts) Thus I reduce back down one tick mark on needle valve, so I know I have plenty of CO2 in the water. I am not sure how I could be wrong on the sufficient CO2 amounts.
My tank is 17 gallons and I am running an Eheim 2215 with a spray bar so my CO2 distribution must be effective.
Keep trimming as much BBA infected stems and leaves as possible

I think that may be it.


When I said I was at a do nothing state, I was trying to allow the tank to just keep running as is with the reduced PAR as I felt I tried everything else.


I was hoping reducing the PAR to what I read was considered LOW LIGHT would be the missing piece, even though I thought 30 PAR was too little for monte carlo, s repens, blyxa japonica, fissidens fontanus, mini pellia and limnophilia aromatica. The plants didn't die but the BBA still persists.


20 PAR, if Current USA is right on their settings, seems very low for the plants I have. Everything I have read tells me, that low of a PAR amount, is best to grow low tech plants that don't require high light. So how can that low of a PAR be benefiting to the plants I have. It just seems rather extreme to go that low on the light setting.


iso


----------



## Django (Jun 13, 2012)

"Just wondering if slowed growth is considered an unhealthy aspect of plants that results in the flourishing of algae?
"

You've got it.


----------



## easternlethal (Feb 13, 2016)

isonychia said:


> [*]Dosing EI with 50% water change


What is your plant mass? At 20 or even 30 PAR EI levels of dosing could be introducing far too many nutrients if you don't have a healthy level of plant mass (at least 40% of the tank). I had a similar problem with clado I just couldn't get rid off and tried everything. Eventually I reduced ferts and increased my lighting which seemed to help, because I think it a healthy and high concentration of plants is what was needed.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

easternlethal said:


> What is your plant mass? At 20 or even 30 PAR EI levels of dosing could be introducing far too many nutrients if you don't have a healthy level of plant mass (at least 40% of the tank). I had a similar problem with clado I just couldn't get rid off and tried everything. Eventually I reduced ferts and increased my lighting which seemed to help, because I think it a healthy and high concentration of plants is what was needed.


Here is a FTS.

The bunch of plants on the right are anacharis. They now also have BBA on some of the stems. I am thinking I should remove them as I feel like all they do is collect debris, block out light and reduce flow. I have not seen a dramatic positive influence by keeping them in the tank anyway.










I read a lot of posts talking about excess nutrients, fertilizers, mulm etc. But I also read excess nutrients (I consider mulm a nutrient) does not cause algae. Yet people say try cleaning your filters, do more water changes, do a slight gravel vac. I have tried all those things. There is definitely a lot of conflicting info. My guess is a lot of it is too complicated to explain fully or not understood fully, so it often gets presented in different ways and sounds conflicting. For instance I always read this "add a lot of fast growers to absorb excess nutrients" That makes no sense when EI dosing gives more than needed and yet it works. 

I am NOT judging anyone. I am far from understanding all this and am grateful for the help people provide. I'm just giving my thoughts based on the research I have done. I don't have the experience to back it up so I follow the paths other have paved until I decide to stray based on my own experience.

I have modified (reduced) EI in the past 3 weeks as I read it is MEANT to be followed loosely based on plant mass. I am simply not dosing as much. My nitrates are always about 20-40ppm, and my phosphates are always about 5ppm. I calibrated my Nitrate test kit so I feel a little more confident the numbers are right. My phosphate results could be skewed as I have not calibrated that. I still dose micros, but cut it in half. I try not to get too concerned with EI amounts and test results as I always read it was created so there is always enough. There should be no problems in having too much with a 50% WC every week. But I still decided to reduce the amounts as I figured I didn't have anything to lose based on my test kit results showing I had plenty even after skipping doses.


iso


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

There is something about thriving healthy plants that drives away algae. The more the better. 

Im not sure anyone can explain why, alleopathy is one hypothesis but the jury is definitely still out. But you are right, for whatever reason it has little to do with "out competing algae for nutrients" as so often gets stated. 

Any condition that is unfavorable for plants can encourage algae. That includes not having enough light for whatever species.

Just like nutrients, it is impossible to "starve algae" by reducing light past the point that it becomes unhealthy for the plants. Algae doesnt need a lot of light (or nutrients) in the first place. 

A tank full of high light plants struggling to grow under 25 PAR can get algae just as easy as a tank full of low light plants under 150.



isonychia said:


> (I consider mulm a nutrient)


In a high tech set up, decaying matter and dirty conditions promote algae. Clean conditions deter it. Frequent water changes are a formidable weapon. Plants love it and algae hates it. General good tank husbandry should be the first thing addressed when facing algae issues. One of the main causes of algae is neglect. Not saying yours is neglected, just making a point.


Instead of looking at it like a battle against algae, focus on what the plants need to be at their best, and the algae problem will usually take care of itself.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I pretty much agree with Burr. 

Don't starve the plants of light and nutrients, co2. Focus on growing the plants and keeping the tank really clean. You might be over thinking it. One that size tank, the 2215 is plenty, you don't need anything else to help with flow. instead of reducing intensity try reducing the photo period (if you haven't done it) to 4-5 hrs or run low light and then a short high-light burst 1-2 hours. I've been pretty much able to grow any plant using those methods. I would be redundant and keep up with consistent water changes, put carbon and/or purigen in the filter. Cut back on feeding, keep pruning dying or non-growing leaves. And dose within ranges.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Thanks for the info guys.

So how do I go about deciding on a PAR level that will help my plants. I understand you are not simply suggesting light is the answer. I will continue what I am doing and continue working to keep things as clean as possible. That includes, cleaning the filter more frequently, a deeper gravel vac in places I can do that and removing any mulm that settles on lower plants leaves, fissidens, monte carlo etc.

As a reference point, the problem that started all this was too high light in the beginning. I misunderstood the RGBW adjustments on the sat plus pro. I thought I was running 35 par (I figured a safe starting point) but was actually at 83!!

So as instructed (start low and gradually increase) I kept upping the PAR slowly for 1.5 months at these intervals 35>40>55>70. It probably would have made sense if those were true PAR values, but in reality I was at these amounts: 83>85>88>92

So I was working with PAR numbers that were much higher than I realized. Instead of starting low, then ramping up over time, I started very high and went higher. By the time I realized the error, I had BBA and Rhizoclonium. I tried fixing things by going to 50 PAR and going lower and lower until BBA subsided. But as I noticed it wasn't helping.

My photo period is 8 hours. 1pm-9pm. I have never changed the photo period. It has been at 8 hours since October.
I don't think I have the option of fluctuating light intensity with the sat plus pro. I think I can only keep it set at a single intensity through the photo period. 

Should I try increasing the PAR and keep the photo period at 8 or increasing PAR and reducing the photo period to 6?

Thanks,
iso


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

If it was my tank I'd run good light for 5-6 hours tops, EI Dose within ranges, keep up with water changes on regular basis. Add Purigen and/or Carbon to the filter. I will trim the back wall of plants and try to get it nice and thick.


----------



## easternlethal (Feb 13, 2016)

isonychia said:


> So how do I go about deciding on a PAR level that will help my plants.
> Thanks,
> iso


Here's a suggestion. Base PAR off how much growth you want in your tank. If you are still growing things out and want to increase plant mass then keep increasing until you stop seeing significant growth or you get algae. 

If you are already happy with your plant mass then you want to keep everything as low as possible in order to avoid unnecessary trimming (~20 - 30 PAR).

For length if things are good there's usually no difference between 7-10 hours. 

But for fun, I usually try to match the natural conditions of the plant (most are found on the equator), which is around 7-8 hrs of strong daylight followed by 1-2 hours of sunrise/sunset on either side and cloud cover in between. However if your light is static and you can't adjust for sunrise/sunset and cloud cover then I'd go for 8hrs strong light with 1-2hr rest in between.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Basics, can you get your city water analysis report? Is there house water softener?


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> If it was my tank I'd run good light for 5-6 hours tops, EI Dose within ranges, keep up with water changes on regular basis. Add Purigen and/or Carbon to the filter. I will trim the back wall of plants and try to get it nice and thick.


Thanks houseofcards,

I reduced my photo period to 7 hours and decided 60 PAR was a good number to go with. Not sure if that is a wise choice.

I will keep up with the maintenance and get some Purigen.

I do keep trying to trim and replant the tops (to increase density) of the Limnophila Aromatica, but SOME stems get infected by BBA near the newer growth at the top. So I don't always have a lot to work with. I was hoping the lower PAR would keep BBA stagnant long enough to get good growth, so I can replant the tops and discard the lower BBA infected stems. Some stems I can do that with, others have more BBA near the top.

Not sure this means much, as I don't have any past experience, but I kept track of my LA stem plant growth. I am getting about .75" of growth in 5 days. My one stem grew about 3" in 19 days. I don't know if that tells me anything. I guess everyone's tanks differ, but I would expect faster growth in a high tech tank. I thought that may give some insight into my PAR settings, too little, and how my plants are reacting in terms of growth etc

iso


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Edward said:


> Basics, can you get your city water analysis report? Is there house water softener?


Edward, I do not have a water softener.

Here is my water report. My supply is on page 3 of the PDF, (Ridgewood).

I had to call concerning the Calcium and Magnesium, it was:
Calcium: 54ppm
Magnesium: 35ppm
dKH: 11
dGH: 24
PH: 7-7.6

iso


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

isonychia said:


> Edward, I do not have a water softener.
> 
> Here is my water report. My supply is on page 3 of the PDF, (Ridgewood).
> 
> ...


Even though these numbers don’t add up, we can still see the problem. The dGH and dKH levels look like water from Dolomite caves. You can grow only hard water plants in water like this. For soft water stem plants you would need RO unit.

Did you test your tap for NO3 and PO4? Hard waters sometimes contain those and Fe as well.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Edward, I forgot to add the water quality report.

Here it is. It's the Ridgewood report on page 3.

http://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/water/Ridgewood2015CCR.pdf

I don't know what you mean by things don't add up.

The report should show the Nitrates, not sure about phosphates and I don't remember if I tested them out of the tap. From EI dosing I get about 5ppm phosphates and about 40ppm Nitrates.

I think out of the tap the Nitrates are about 5ppm.

I did a lot of research on hard water and if it was a detriment to keeping a planted tank. From that research I did not get the feeling I needed RO water. I read people had harder water than me and never used RO water and had success with all types of plants. I think there were only a few plants mentioned that needed softer water, of which I am not keeping, Tonina etc.

I am NOT negating your opinion. I just don't know what to think of the varying info.

I am open to doing more research. I just didn't want to pursue RO water if it was not necessary. I believe another member here suggested my water was the problem and I should use RO water.

iso


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

The thing is that when we talk about water being too soft or too hard we actually mean dKH carbonate hardness. I should have been more specific. It is the dKH part of hardness that is not allowing us to grow “soft water plants”.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

So you are suggesting my dKH11 is too high (hard) to grow some of these plants that I keep?

Limnophila Aromatica, Monte Carlo, Blyxa Japonica, S Repens, Fissidens Fontanus, mini pellia

Is there a reason a high KH inhibits these plants from growing well?

I just did another round of search for "high KH" on this site and others and don't see the trend that it can be problematic. Maybe my water parameters show you something else that I am missing when I try and do the research?


iso


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Sorry, I forgot to mention the massive Mg concentration. If the water didn’t have so much Mg then it may work. High Carbonate hardness and high Mg is what “soft water plants” don’t like.

But maybe this is irrelevant as I don’t see any of these numbers mentioned in the attached document.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

I posted my calcium and magnesium concentrations. Does that help clarify things? 

Iso


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

isonychia said:


> Edward, I do not have a water softener.
> 
> Here is my water report. My supply is on page 3 of the PDF, (Ridgewood).
> 
> ...


It doesn't look like the calcium and magnesium numbers correlate to the GH reading you have. You would need a lot of potassium to get to that GH reading. But, sometimes calcium is reported in ppm of a calcium compound, not just calcium. And, the same for magnesium. 24 dGH would be around 430 ppm of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and ?.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Hoppy said:


> It doesn't look like the calcium and magnesium numbers correlate to the GH reading you have. You would need a lot of potassium to get to that GH reading. But, sometimes calcium is reported in ppm of a calcium compound, not just calcium. And, the same for magnesium. 24 dGH would be around 430 ppm of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and ?.


This is mentioned on the water site, but I don't know how it relates to KH/GH.

"Water hardness in our service area is 14 grains or 250ppm"

When I did the tests, it took 24 drops to get the color to change for the GH and 11-13 drops for the KH.

iso


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Were plants ever growing well to begin with, before the troubles started? If so, then KH/GH isnt likely to be the problem. 

It seems you do have very hard water though. My understanding is that too high KH will interfere with plants being able to uptake/utilize CO2 and maybe some other nutrients. Adding more gas/nutrients wont help. Someone else can explain the exact science better than me.

And of course it varies from species to species. Many many plants will do fine up into a 12-14 KH range. That's why I asked if things were ever good to begin with, because the KH didnt all of a sudden become intolerable if things were happy in the beginning.



isonychia said:


> My concern is I am chasing the notion that a tank with algae, once balanced, will display a complete halt of any further algae growth. I cant help but think, once algae is in a tank it will continue to spread unless completely removed. I am not yet confident that a balanced tank will stop algae from progressing.


Once plants become healthy bba and other algae tends to disappear on it's own. That is why the focus should always be on seeing to the plants first. 

This obviously assumes the tank is relatively "balanced" to begin with - heavy plant mass, good CO2 and ferts, appropriate lighting, clean conditions, etc

Make plants the focus and the algae will take care of itself. In the mean time keep harassing the algae with frequent water changes, clean conditions, manual removal, pruning dead or really bad leaves, etc etc


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

burr740 said:


> Were plants ever growing well to begin with, before the troubles started? If so, then KH/GH isnt likely to be the problem.
> 
> It seems you do have very hard water though. My understanding is that too high KH will interfere with plants being able to uptake/utilize CO2 and maybe some other nutrients. Adding more gas/nutrients wont help. Someone else can explain the exact science better than me.
> 
> ...



I did have decent growth for a while. Not super fast, but what I assume to be decent. Now if I get 15% new growth, I am trimming 10% BBA infected leaves. So it feels like it's become stagnant in terms of increasing the healthy plant mass of the tank.

I am going to try the 60PAR setting and try and do some extra smaller water changes, mostly concentrating on gravel vac-ing the substrate where I can.

Maybe a more thorough removal of mulm near the substrate will make a difference.

I would be interested to read any info that points to high KH as affecting the ability of plants to uptake nutrients.

iso


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

In the full tank shot on 2/26. How long were the plants in there at that point.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> In the full tank shot on 2/26. How long were the plants in there at that point.


houseofcards, I assume you are asking about the stem plants, Limnophila Aromatica. I removed the anacharis on the right side.

The Limnophila Aromatica vary in length. Some are tops I replanted ranging from 3" to 6". Some are the original plants I received from members here that are 10".

Here is a closeup of what the BBA does. ( I will post more closeups tomorrow) You can see this particular photo has probably some stems where the top 3" are clear of BBA but the rest of the leaves below have BBA. I feel like these particular stems are worthless as there is nothing I can salvage. I don't think planting 3" tops will do well. I feel like it needs about 4" to replant and survive. I could be wrong.









iso


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

isonychia sorry i should have been clearer in my post. I meant how long have those plants been growing in the tank? BTW I think 3" from the top would be fine. Just remove the leaves toward the bottom.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> isonychia sorry i should have been clearer in my post. I meant how long have those plants been growing in the tank? BTW I think 3" from the top would be fine. Just remove the leaves toward the bottom.


Yeah that was my fault. I read it wrong. The plants have been in the tank since about October. Some are newer that I planted from my emersed grow out tanks. Some of the LA stems are from November or December. 

Iso


----------



## Willcooper (May 31, 2015)

With my ludwiga needle leaf I could plant literally a 1" stem with two leaves and it would grow into a huge plant. I did this fighting the exact problems you are having. What I am trying now is what several people have told me about trimming stem plants; trim very often and trim the plants very low and replant the tops in such a way that you will have plants mass and possibly more important you have a lot of growth. I was under the thinking that plant mass alone would do the trick so as a test I let my ludwiga take my tank over only to see that once it fully took over and growth slowed I immediately starting getting algae. Based on the pic I saw you have pretty good coverage but not really much in the way of mass. I think someone suggested 40% plant volume and yours looks lower than that. I'm not sure of your scaling goals but trimming and replanting and doing so often will hopefully help. I'll update this when I know if the method im trying now works


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Willcooper said:


> With my ludwiga needle leaf I could plant literally a 1" stem with two leaves and it would grow into a huge plant. I did this fighting the exact problems you are having. What I am trying now is what several people have told me about trimming stem plants; trim very often and trim the plants very low and replant the tops in such a way that you will have plants mass and possibly more important you have a lot of growth. I was under the thinking that plant mass alone would do the trick so as a test I let my ludwiga take my tank over only to see that once it fully took over and growth slowed I immediately starting getting algae. Based on the pic I saw you have pretty good coverage but not really much in the way of mass. I think someone suggested 40% plant volume and yours looks lower than that. I'm not sure of your scaling goals but trimming and replanting and doing so often will hopefully help. I'll update this when I know if the method im trying now works


Will, thanks.

I was attempting to add to my plant mass by trimming the stems. I would replant the tops and then the trimmed stems would sprout multiple side shoots. The problem is they do not grow fast enough so I can do it a second time. By the time the new side shoots get about 3"-4" long they already get BBA on them. Some of them are unaffected and I CAN replant those. But it's way too slow of a process to gain any momentum. Maybe I should discard the older original stems and just replant the 3" stems in their place instead of waiting for them to get longer.

Here is a pic of some original stems from a member here, that I trimmed a while ago and now have new growth. (You can also see where I had to trim the individual leaves on the lower stems to reduce BBA.) They are right at the 4" mark, so maybe it's time I just trim those and discard the bottoms.
I guess I am hesitant to discard the bottoms because they are a source of new stems and add to the plant mass.










I am always in their trimming BBA infected individual leaves off the Limnophila Aromatica and the S Repens and Blyxa. But again, the BBA out competes the speed of new growth.

I am always on the lookout for new stems on the for sale forum here. I always try and purchase some if the person is somewhat close to me. I just recently purchased a few from Bartohog.

I am going to continue doing gravel vacs in the spots that I can get to and try and vac up as much mulm as possible, clean the filter again and keep the PAR at 60 hoping it will speed up growth. I am gong to try the purigen as well. I don't know if this will work or just cause more BBA. I know lowering the PAR has not helped.

If the more aggressive cleaning works, then great. I thought I was doing a good job of it. I thought mulm in the gravel was ok and a planted tank didn't need to have the gravel vac-ed. Maybe for some that is the case or maybe it's only ok to a certain amount. I guess if all my gravel was covered in monte carlo and s repens a deep gravel vac would not be needed. BTW, I feed my fish VERY sparingly and sometimes skip a day here and there. I learned the hard way what overfeeding does to the snail population...LOL

iso


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

BBA will survive extended black water conditions.
I would rather use a commercial algaecide on it. It is just not worth the endless frustration trying to make it go extinct in a tank.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Nordic said:


> BBA will survive extended black water conditions.
> I would rather use a commercial algaecide on it. It is just not worth the endless frustration trying to make it go extinct in a tank.


What is "extended black water conditions" ?

Iso


----------



## Blacktetra (Mar 19, 2015)

Any further updates?


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

Blacktetra said:


> Any further updates?


In terms of the BBA on the plants? The BBA has mostly gone away. Maybe I get a little on some rotala leaves here and there.

But my struggles with growing certain plants continues. I have another thread on it. It has been going on for a long time and I have not been able to fix things. Mostly certain plants just are stunted and don't really grow, or they lose the bottom leaves, get some bba and are stunted. Overall I just cant get a lot of growth or fast growth from a lot of my plants. I get maybe 1/2" of growth on the problematic plants in 2-3 weeks.

Some do ok: mini pellia, fissidens fontanus, monte carlo, anubias nan petite, bacopa monnieri, star grass. 
Some types of rotala do ok, not great, but ok.

These will not flourish in my tank: Limnophila Aromatica, HC, fine needle leaf rotalas, Mayaca Fluviatilis, S. Repens, blyxa japonica.


iso


----------



## Blacktetra (Mar 19, 2015)

No definitive conclusion as to the cause of your struggles then. 
A shame given the number of things you've tried.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

I've been there, still am with some plants.
Some things I've learned help.
Waterchanges with chlorinated water, add the dechlorinator after - do this infrequently and only if small fish load - hurts algae bad
Throw away drop checker and get the co2 really high, watch the fish only
Load up on plants that grow healthy with no algae, you may have to try and maintain just a little bit of each plant you're struggling with but if most of the plants are healthy and no algae you'll do great


----------

