# Regular Excel Dosing For BBA



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Ahh, the ever annoying BBA. What are you doing for CO2 besides excel? and what's this ratio you speak about? Visual ratio? Sure can't be a bio-load ratio as Amanos practically contribute none. BBA remedies usually require more analysis in your CO2 delivery or help from your cleanup critters or both.

But, you asked mainly about excel, so let me get back to that one. I've never been able to rid my BBA by plain daily dosing. I, have, however, been able to squirt excel and/or hydrogen peroxide directly on the during weekly water changes to kill grown BBA. But this will come back each time surely until you really figure it out. If you don't want to or can't figure out how to stop the BBA from regrowing and you're willing to do this weekly maintenance, it's probably a decent way to go about life.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealing w/ somewhat the same situation right now in my 55gal..
Metricide at 2-3ml/ day is ineffective..

Actually met at 4-5ml was pretty ineffective.
Switched back to Excel as a test and dosing 7-8ml /55 gal..

Awaiting results..

That said, further research on "LD" dose of Met..



> 0.25 mL / gallon / day: Amano/cherry Shrimp, community tank fish; No livestock deaths or Plant melts
> 0.34 mL / gallon / day: Unable to introduce invertebrates despite several attempts, Current livestock showed no signs of stress; No plant melts. Changing regime back to 0.25 in prep for shrimp introduction. -added June 12th, 2011
> 0.4 mL / gallon / day: a couple shrimp deaths, plants were fine, dropped back down to 0.25 soon after.
> 1.0 mL / gallon / day: Shrimp deaths. Used to kill a BBA outbreak over the course of 2 weeks.
> ...


Note .25mL/gal = 13.75ml Met per day = 1.73 x 13.75 = 23.8 mL/Day for 55 gal.. 

USING that logic (YMMV) .25 x 14(slight substrate deduction) x 1.73 = 6ml/day.. 3.46 Met14..

Glut breaks down rapidly (some say 12 hrs or so. )

Due to the fact the 55gal has my wifes fish.. I'm not personally inclined to try it.. 
So.. Proceed w/ caution.
What do you dose for metricide?

Addendum:


> 1) Excel Dosing
> -Tank outbreak, 1.5ml per gallon every second day, over a period of 10-14 days. Dose before Lights out, so it doesn't break down from light (some say 2.5 ml, but you risk your shrimpies). Some do 2.5ml first day and 1.5ml from then on.
> -Spot treating, 1.5ml per gallon in a container (prevents over dosing the tank), and syringe/baster it on affected areas. I recommend filter being off 30 minutes
> -misting, 1.5ml/gallon in the spray bottle, drain out tank to needed level, or remove piece you are spraying, and spray away, finish you water change.
> ...


http://www.bcaquaria.com/forum/plan...lic-enemy-1-black-brush-algae-how-fight-2286/

Note also that you need to be aware that glut will kill your beneficial bacteria in the wrong concentration.

Well to add to this confusion and speculation..
IF you are using Excel as a carbon substitute probably best to add it right before lights on.
IF you are using it as an algae-cide probably best at lights out..

Oh and if you dose and your water gets cloudy, you probably damaged your biofilter bacteria colonies..

mostly food for thought..


----------



## aubie98 (Apr 22, 2017)

I'm also battling BBA in my 4 gallon and regular dosing of Excel was not affecting the BBA. I switched to spot-treating and it's been extraordinarily effective. One day after treating a leaf for BBA, the algae is turning pink and is dead within 2-3 days. 

Of course, I guess it's easier to spot treat a 4 gallon tank vs. a 15 gallon one.


----------



## Teebo (Jul 15, 2015)

No Co2. Visual ratio it will throw the look off even being transparent, and I really hate housing one with RCS. I find Amanos to be rough on my RCS and compete for food to well. Since I use no Co2 besides Excel I am looking at other factors, nothing to my knowledge eats it in my tank although some claim if you stop feeding your RCS they will eat the BBA. I did get brighter lights recently but have been keeping my nitrates lower, maybe nitrates are not the nutrient its eating. The BBA in my dwarf baby tears has really taken a hold since I got brighter lights. 

Great info here, I can see how dosing before lights out would keep it in the column without photosynthesis helping it work on the BBA! I have been dosing at peak lighting, I only light it for 6 hours a day and lately I am not around until it has been lit for 2-3 hours already. I will be very careful regarding the beneficial bacteria good call! 

Can anyone weigh in on what it is cut with as in what they suspend their product in? Some sort of carrier oil? I use a few other products by Seachem and have wondered where the cut/oil goes after the ferts are consumed in a mostly Walstad tank that you do minimal water changes in once a month?


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Teebo said:


> No Co2. .[snipped for relevancy]... The BBA in my dwarf baby tears has really taken a hold since I got brighter lights.


I believe that your own words highlight the root of your problem.

First, I must applaud your will to even attempt an iwagumi without CO2  But, it seems like you're slipping down that slope to high tech with that light upgrade. You can over-analyze all the small things you're doing, but current schools of plantedtank thought is that you'll be outgrowing your low tech methods of co2 and fertilizer delivery. Staying on your path will be increasingly hard. If that challenge is what you relish in this hobby, then it'll probably be a great experience. I noticed that you like to use floaters in your past tanks.. maybe they're needed here again to filter some of that light? But, then it's going to rob the dwarf baby tears of what they need. I don't know what fixture you got, but is there any way to ramp it from low light to higher light? That way, you can probably do 2-3 hours of max light and all the other lighting period at, say, 30% light. Hrrm, so many decisions. I hope you find that balance you're looking for. Good luck!


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

> I did get brighter lights recently but have been keeping my nitrates lower,


Most recommend increasing nutrients w/ increasing lighting..You want to "supercharge" the plants so as to be efficient competitors
CO2/Light/Nutrients must be in balance..



> Can anyone weigh in on what it is cut with as in what they suspend their product in?


would be surprised if it wasn't water..


----------



## Teebo (Jul 15, 2015)

Great feedback here, I really was encouraged to go without CO2 on this Iwagumi due to videos I have seen of dwarf baby tears thriving under high light with no CO2. I do have an aluminum CO2 tank with electric valve and reactor but I backed out on complicating my tank with CO2 since it also feeds the algae unlike Excel. The lights I use are just 18W LED bulbs from China I bought off eBay if you want more detail I can try to cover them in depth. The problem I see with increasing CO2 WITH the light is your not only supercharging your plants your supercharging your algae too. 

I know you brought up floaters and that would also reduce the need for my refugium moss sump, but again like the Amanos it will throw the look of the tank off...I am super picky about sticking to my looks. If I have any floaters it will break the rimless infinite look I am after since I keep my water level so high that it drips over every time I fart near my tank. 

I realize you can use brighter lights to speed up photosynthesis therefor consuming nutrients faster but if your adding more nutrients with the lighting it seems counter intuitive. From my understanding all you need is a free 2-5ppm of almost anything and that is enough but that can be consumed within hours depending on plant load so people do a roller coaster swing from high to low then back to high. My lighting is not rampable that is a great idea though! There are a lot of solutions here and I think the most natural since everything else seems great including green algae would be an Amano or algae eating fish but neither are an option for me here with the odd size of the tank. I don't know, I am not happy with a few other things I did with the hardscape including too steep of an incline in the front so I have rollover problems and the list goes on. It was my first attempt so when I move down the coast next month I will not attempt to move it I will start over. However the incline may be too steep for me to dial in with this particular setup regarding the BBA, the RCS eat green and string algae so that is never a problem, the Nerite snails keep the glass clean although I noticed they hate this tank they hide from the light at all expense....they do not however always do a great job on hard green spot algae so that is a minimal second to the BBA. 

In conclusion I think I am going to convert this into a saltwater system and go back to a smaller low tech shrimp tank just to keep me in the freshwater hobby at all. If I am going to go through tons of dialing work on a highly specialized setup those efforts have a much greater payoff in saltwater (sorry TPT) such as a planted SW tank which is a skill very few reefers have. I have put some serious thought into this Iwagumi experience I have had, and imo ya they look really cool at first but then you realize how un-natural such a tank really is to realistically see that in the majority of natural settings it becomes a bit of a perfection of nature; playing god. My fish hate it, my snails hate it, my shrimp no longer have access to the surface, etc. This has made me really think a lot about the days I had a Walstad Riparium, nothing but dose ferts and sit back. 

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic but here is my mostly Walstad non-CO2 tank we are discussing. I had actually lightened the bioload since this photo from 18 to 7 Embers, and the dwarf baby tears have doubled in size and been trimmed down already since this photo.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Teebo said:


> Great feedback here, I really was encouraged to go without CO2 on this Iwagumi due to videos I have seen of dwarf baby tears thriving under high light with no CO2. I do have an aluminum CO2 tank with electric valve and reactor but I backed out on complicating my tank with CO2 since it also feeds the algae unlike Excel. The lights I use are just 18W LED bulbs from China I bought off eBay if you want more detail I can try to cover them in depth. The problem I see with increasing CO2 WITH the light is your not only supercharging your plants your supercharging your algae too.
> 
> [snipped for relevancy]
> 
> ...


Well, your tank is certainly beautiful despite you being your harshest critic. And your algae problems are not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Will be sad to see it go. 

That being said, I'd like to politely disagree with CO2 supercharging your algae. Whether or not the algae takes advantage of it directly, I can't argue, but I'll argue that the results of people pumping mass amounts CO2 properly (note, I said properly) is clearly not an algae outbreak.

In addition, without CO2, you'll probably have a decently hard time to get your carpet going. That's why some people resort to dry starting, but then you might get melt without CO2. Algae gladly takes blank space in a tank since its requirements to grow are the least.

As for the roller coaster of nutrients, I believe that's what the whole estimative index method is trying to address. Yes, we do have a roller coaster of nutrients after each water change, BUT, the important thing is that the "least" level of nutrients never goes below what your plant mass needs. Unlike saltwater, it's been somewhat agreed upon that there's a decent amount of wiggle room on what constitutes an 'excess' of nutrients where it becomes counterproductive to your plant's growth or brings out algae. There's hardly any argument against excesses of macro nutrients, but there's been some thought lately on excess of micro nutrients so you may want to pay attention there.

I'm not a biologist and I can't get too deep into the science of it all, but the current trains of thought I believe are all dedicated to growing the plant(s). Based on your light level, provide in excess of nutrients and CO2 so the plant never wants and suffers. When that happens, the algae tends to fade away. Some say allelopathy. Some say good plant growing habits reduce conditions for algae growth. Whatever it is, it seems to work. So I live in the corollary and always suggest people to dim their lights because it's usually the easiest thing to do. If you're not going to or can't adjust the nutrients to meet the light, then bring the light down to meet what you have. 

When I get stumped and I can't figure my way out, I sometimes find inspiration in the journals section. Just seeing some creative ways of how some of the more successful members implement their solutions to their tanks have kept me entertained and on track. 

Here's a guy who has done both low tech and high tech amazingly and may help with your non CO2 endeavors
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-3ft-high-tech-low-tech-nano-experiments.html

Here's a guy who has somewhat of an iwagumi (but I guess not truly) bookshelf, but on CO2
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...1-monte-carlo-mountains-12g-bookshelf-11.html
He couldn't dim his light, so he resorted to raising it. 

And of course, here's the famous burr tank who's definitely not lacking in CO2 or nutrients .. in case you decide to go a different path from an iwagumi
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-gal-dutchy-freestyle-now-50%-more-dutch.html

Seeya around! and if I decide to delve into saltwater, I'll probably need the favor of your advice in return!


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Teebo said:


> ..Anyway, sorry for getting off topic but here is my mostly Walstad non-CO2 tank we are discussing. I had actually lightened the bioload since this photo from 18 to 7 Embers, and the dwarf baby tears have doubled in size and been trimmed down already since this photo.
> [/IMG]


Do you have a current pic?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Current thinking points to Algae taking advantage of Ammonia formed by decaying/damaged/leaky upper plants.

This allows spore germination which will then shift from ammonia dependent to other N sources dependent.

At this point (visible growth per se) both plants/algae need and compete for the same nutrients..

Best to stop reproduction by whole plant health............. 



> I'm not a biologist and I can't get too deep into the science of it all, but the current trains of thought I believe are all dedicated to growing the plant(s). Based on your light level, provide in excess of nutrients and CO2 so the plant never wants and suffers. When that happens, the algae tends to fade away.


consistant w/ the above.. Add mulm removal and basic hygiene to this..


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Agree on spore germination. Last Spring, I looked at preventing the spores from developing and the final post from the thread was this:



Deanna said:


> I think the Brits have my answer. Take a look at this link:
> 
> When Tom was referring to evolutionary cues, he may have been summarizing studies he found that are similar to the many details found in this link. One of the overall takeaways, from this post, seems to be that spore germination is cued when an imbalance develops. Ammonia being, perhaps, an early indicator to spores that something is going wrong in the aquarium and it’s time to take advantage of it. One particularly interesting study (shown in this link) is that spore germination was inhibited by high concentrations of nitrate and phosphate. Maybe that’s one of the reasons we see less algae with the high EI doses. The poster that quoted that study has the paper available to members of the UK Aquatic Plant Society. If anyone here is a member, would you please obtain a copy and make it available to us?
> 
> So, although I will conduct my experiments in my bowls (out of curiosity), it seems that a rise in ammonia (WARNING: system unbalanced!) is one of the signals to a spore to germinate, as well as being a food once they do. Maybe that still means that my thought of constantly ensuring zero or low ammonia levels will keep the spores from being alerted. As Tom mentioned, he found few outbreaks when ammonia is below a certain ppm.


The "Tom", referenced above, is Tom Barr and the link I found is this: https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/...l-algae.36510/

Since then, I have completely removed my bio-media and chemical media from my filter in order to give plants early access to NH3, rather than allowing the beneficial bacteria and algae spores full access. While NH3 may read zero on our crude test kits, it will always be available in sufficient levels for algae spores so, according to one theory, it's about preventing the evolutionary cue that activates the germination of the spore. You can see the method I used to wean the tank off of the bio-media here: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/1163465-biofilter-removal-possible.html

I've always had a UVS going at night to kill of many of the spores. However, I'm a light junkie. I have two 61 PAR GroBeam 600's over a 29 gal tank and run it 13 hours a day! I like seeing my fish. CO2 is around 30-35ppm, N is ~ 25, P is ~ 5 and K ~25. When I moved to no bio-media, my dwarf sag exploded - I have to trim it weekly now. I'm guessing that much of the BB output now being in the substrate affected it.

However, with as much light as I have, no amount of healthy plants are going to completely inhibit various hair algae. While I saw a reduction by moving to no bio-media, it still appeared sporadically, but not out of control. So, I played with Metricide dosing and, since early Summer have been dosing - prepare yourself - 1.1 ml /gal! I only do this once a week, the day after my WC. Haven't had more than a brief appearance of any algae ever since. Fish and amano's don't seem to care at all.

This dosage of Metricide and the thought of no bio-media in a filter is almost heresy, so proceed at your own risk.


----------



## natemcnutty (May 26, 2016)

Deanna said:


> So, I played with Metricide dosing and, since early Summer have been dosing - prepare yourself - 1.1 ml /gal


I've heard of the one-two punch, but that's like dropping a nuclear bomb - holy cow. Pretty sure my shrimp would all be dead, and any that managed to survive would have like three tails or something [emoji14]

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Deanna said:


> Agree on spore germination. Last Spring, I looked at preventing the spores from developing and the final post from the thread was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might I ask how many gal of metricide you have used since summer?
I use metricide at 15 ml in 75 gal of water daily and at 20 ml shrimp begin dying and fishes head for the surface.

OOPS my bad,I see where you are only using Metricide once a week.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

roadmaster said:


> Might I ask how many gal of metricide you have used since summer?
> I use metricide at 15 ml in 75 gal of water daily and at 20 ml shrimp begin dying and fishes head for the surface.
> 
> OOPS my bad,I see where you are only using Metricide once a week.


Yes: the once per week is the key. I think that the fauna can easily handle such a load once a week. However, I think fledgling algae can't survive the blast and I've found that, with everything else right in the system, algae can't get a foothold in less than a week.

Assuming your setup is high tech and your system is stable and working well, try a higher dose than 15 ml after your next WC, but stop the daily dosing. Watch your fauna that day and the algae that week. If good, increase it each week until you reach the point where algae is rare. Excel is recommended at 37.5 ml following a WC, in 75 gal of water. That's considered safe by Seachem. That is the equivalent of 22 ml of Metricide (.3 ml / gal). So, you can easily go above that. The question is: by how much. I would suggest adding 10 ml to the previous weeks' dose every week. It is believed to degrade within 12 hours (assuming no UVS is employed), but plant loading will affect the speed of reduction.

If you decide to do it, please report the results. My experience can only be considered anecdotal since I am only one test.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Deanna said:


> Yes: the once per week is the key. I think that the fauna can easily handle such a load once a week. However, I think fledgling algae can't survive the blast and I've found that, with everything else right in the system, algae can't get a foothold in less than a week.
> 
> Assuming your setup is high tech and your system is stable and working well, try a higher dose than 15 ml after your next WC, but stop the daily dosing. Watch your fauna that day and the algae that week. If good, increase it each week until you reach the point where algae is rare. Excel is recommended at 37.5 ml following a WC, in 75 gal of water. That's considered safe by Seachem. That is the equivalent of 22 ml of Metricide (.3 ml / gal). So, you can easily go above that. The question is: by how much. I would suggest adding 10 ml to the previous weeks' dose every week. It is believed to degrade within 12 hours (assuming no UVS is employed), but plant loading will affect the speed of reduction.
> 
> If you decide to do it, please report the results. My experience can only be considered anecdotal since I am only one test.


My tanks are all low tech, and I use the Metricide 14 as stated full strength, at 15 ml in 80 gal tank daily that prolly holds closer to 75 gal.
Dosing at once a week considering how long the stuff remains available to plant's would provide no benefit for plant's.
Since starting with the Metricide last year, I have noted better overall health /color of plant's, and very little algae at all.
Mostly small tufts of BBA that I pluck off the wood/rocks with small hemostat's.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

roadmaster said:


> My tanks are all low tech, and I use the Metricide 14 as stated full strength, at 15 ml in 80 gal tank daily that prolly holds closer to 75 gal.
> Dosing at once a week considering how long the stuff remains available to plant's would provide no benefit for plant's.
> Since starting with the Metricide last year, I have noted better overall health /color of plant's, and very little algae at all.
> Mostly small tufts of BBA that I pluck off the wood/rocks with small hemostat's.


Agree, given the low tech aspect. I ran a low tech for many years on daily Excel and it makes a big difference. However, you can and, according to Seachem, would benefit from a much larger dose after each WC.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Well,the Metricide is nearly twice the strength of Seachems Excel according to data(half the price) and at 20 ml in my 80 gal, the cherry shrimp begin to flit about as if in distress.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

roadmaster said:


> Well,the Metricide is nearly twice the strength of Seachems Excel according to data(half the price) and at 20 ml in my 80 gal, the cherry shrimp begin to flit about as if in distress.


Yes, I took the ~57% differential into account for the dosages I spoke about. I'm curious; do your cherry shrimp react that way immediately following the 20 ml dose, or is it after several days of the dosage? I'm not familiar with what appears to be ultra-sensitivity of cherry shrimp. My amanos have no reaction to the single 1.1 ml / gal single dose.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Deanna said:


> Yes, I took the ~57% differential into account for the dosages I spoke about. I'm curious; do your cherry shrimp react that way immediately following the 20 ml dose, or is it after several days of the dosage? I'm not familiar with what appears to be ultra-sensitivity of cherry shrimp. My amanos have no reaction to the single 1.1 ml / gal single dose.


Any data on Nerites (part. Olives)?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> Any data on Nerites (part. Olives)?


No. The only snails I have are the pond-type hitchhikers and they have been unaffected.

Bump:


roadmaster said:


> Well,the Metricide is nearly twice the strength of Seachems Excel according to data(half the price) and at 20 ml in my 80 gal, the cherry shrimp begin to flit about as if in distress.


Just found this reference to cherry shrimp and Excel



roostertech said:


> Not sure about CBS I usually double dose Excel my tank and my cherries are still breeding like mad.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Deanna said:


> Yes, I took the ~57% differential into account for the dosages I spoke about. I'm curious; do your cherry shrimp react that way immediately following the 20 ml dose, or is it after several days of the dosage? I'm not familiar with what appears to be ultra-sensitivity of cherry shrimp. My amanos have no reaction to the single 1.1 ml / gal single dose.


The cherry shrimp and painted fire red shrimp I keep react as mentioned immediately.
Tried two or three times to increase from 15ml a day to 20 ml a day in the 80 gal (75 gal actual volume).
The rainbow's,swordtail's,cory's,seem unfazed by increase.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

roadmaster said:


> The cherry shrimp and painted fire red shrimp I keep react as mentioned immediately.
> Tried two or three times to increase from 15ml a day to 20 ml a day in the 80 gal (75 gal actual volume).
> The rainbow's,swordtail's,cory's,seem unfazed by increase.


I wonder what would happen if you stopped dosing for 3-4 days, to give the shrimp a rest, and then did a single dose of 20-30 ml. I'm thinking that maybe your shrimp are already sensitized by the daily presence and a slight increase pushes them over the edge.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Deanna said:


> I wonder what would happen if you stopped dosing for 3-4 days, to give the shrimp a rest, and then did a single dose of 20-30 ml. I'm thinking that maybe your shrimp are already sensitized by the daily presence and a slight increase pushes them over the edge.


Well,water change day is today, so I think I might try it.
Then maybe every other day try 20 ml.


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

Plants require C02 for the energy production and all forms of life processes. Without getting into specifics it will always be the limiting factor in our tanks. It is not possible to reach the C02 concentrations obtained through diffusion with gluteraldehyde although when it reacts with the mild concentration of protons in H20 it does produce C02. As in ALL aldehyde structures gluteraldehyde will inhibit some of the more basic prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. You can have all the light and ferts in the world and it will not make a bit of difference once the available C02 has been utilized.
Glut is COMPLETELY reacted within 12 hours. There are 2 factors in glut usage. C02 formation and inhibition in cellular respiration in some less complex intermediary mechanisms. This stuff is explained in tremendous detail in graduate level cell bio courses. I'm not saying you need to take the class, but one of the older texts would make aquarium keeping much less convoluted.


----------



## Chaz D (May 14, 2016)

My bba miracle cure has always been calcium montmorillonite clay (koi clay). Don't know why but it works it always works. BBA will be gone in a week or two. 1/4 teaspoon per 25 gallons + at water change. I know it's not scientific or anything but I love this stuff in planted tanks. Water is always gin clear, fish just look better. I've also seen the spot algae on my anubias disappear after using the clay. Local planted tank guru here in Houston put me on to this stuff.


----------



## max88 (Jun 22, 2013)

Just to contribute a data point on Excel's effect on beneficial bacteria. 56G tank. Did 55% water change yesterday (Oct 8th). Tap water is treated with Seachem safe (0.5g for 30G new water). Dozed 28ml Excel. Water started to become cloudy in a few hours. Still cloudy at 22 hour mark today (Oct 9th). Not terrible, just noticeable. Tested water, ammonia @ 0.5ppm, NO2 (nitrite) @ 0.0ppm. Sure enough 28ml Excel did cause damage to beneficial bacteria population.

Other notes:
NO3 (nitrate) was at 0.0ppm before and after water change. This was a surprise, as NO3 had been 20~60ppm, without dozing, over the last few months. I did up lighting strength from 55% to 70%, and stopped testing water, about a month ago. The lack of NO3 was probably the cause of plants doing poorly. I dozed KNO3 to bring NO3 to 20ppm (this should not be the cause of cloudy water), plus Seachem Equilibrium and K2SO4 to add a combined 20ppm K+.

New water from tap has 0.5~1.0ppm ammonia. This should be consumed by BB shortly in a fully cycled tank. It should not be the cause of cloudy water, as tank has never been cloudy just after water change. Tank water occasionally becomes cloudy if filter is overly cleaned.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

max88 said:


> Just to contribute a data point on Excel's effect on beneficial bacteria. 56G tank. Did 55% water change yesterday (Oct 8th). Tap water is treated with Seachem safe (0.5g for 30G new water). Dozed 28ml Excel. Water started to become cloudy in a few hours. Still cloudy at 22 hour mark today (Oct 9th). Not terrible, just noticeable. Tested water, ammonia @ 0.5ppm, NO2 (nitrite) @ 0.0ppm. Sure enough 28ml Excel did cause damage to beneficial bacteria population.
> 
> Other notes:
> NO3 (nitrate) was at 0.0ppm before and after water change. This was a surprise, as NO3 had been 20~60ppm, without dozing, over the last few months. I did up lighting strength from 55% to 70%, and stopped testing water, about a month ago. The lack of NO3 was probably the cause of plants doing poorly. I dozed KNO3 to bring NO3 to 20ppm (this should not be the cause of cloudy water), plus Seachem Equilibrium and K2SO4 to add a combined 20ppm K+.
> ...


28ml of Excel is the max recommended dose by Seachem. That shouldn't affect the BB (according to Seachem's studies). Without knowing anything about your CO2 or fert dosing regimen, I'd guess that your plants chewed up all of the NO3 and other nutrients (they also eat NH3), i.e.; the increased light (with high CO2?) may be starving your plants for ferts. Do you dose according to EI?


----------



## max88 (Jun 22, 2013)

56G tank (30"x18"x24"H)
Fluval 306 canister
Light 1: 24" Fluval Fresh Water Plant LED 25W. On dimmer before @55%=14Watts, now @70%=18Watts
Light 2: 30" EVO Dual 60W. On dimmer before @2/7=18Watts, now @3/7= 27Watts
(Lights combined [email protected], [email protected] Light has always been limiting factor, or so I thought)
Water change every 2~3 weeks.
CO2 @ 1 bps, feeds into power head intake, broken into micro bubbles (mist) by impeller. There are micro bubbles throughout the tank.
60lb Flourite Black.
K+: 1ppm daily via K2SO4 (most days) and Equilibrium (twice a week).
PO4 @2ppm from tap water, none added
Ca @30+ppm, Mg @8+ppm from tap water. plus as Equilibrium above.
Fe @0.002 daily as CSM+B, in addition to Fe @0.05ppm per doze as EQ above. (0.025ppm per week)
Other micros as CSM+B above.
NO3 had always been 20~60ppm, by feeding, without dozing. It dropped to 0ppm before most recent water change

Added 20ppm NO3 as KNO3 (after testing 0ppm).
Added 28ml Excel

Have noticeable plant growth over the last 48 hours.

Anyone sees imbalance in the parameters? Up CO2? Or just follow EI (and do weekly water change)?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

max88 said:


> 56G tank (30"x18"x24"H)Anyone sees imbalance in the parameters? Up CO2? Or just follow EI (and do weekly water change)?


First: We may be hijacking this thread by addressing your issue, so I suggest that you simply post your concern as a new posting. You will then get several good suggestions. 

When you post, info I would ask to see would be:
- What is the PAR value (wattage is not useful) for your lights and what is the photo period?
- What is your CO2 ppm level (bps is not a useful measure) and is it maintained throughout the photo period?
- Post your nutrients (N,P,K and micros) as above, but leave out Ca and Mg. Instead, post your GH and KH values.

An off-the-cuff reaction, from me, is that you may have high light, but not enough CO2 or nutrients, but I'd really need a little more back-and-forth to hone in on your situation. If you want to bring me in, then quote me and I'll see the notice.


----------



## max88 (Jun 22, 2013)

BBA is diminishing in my tank, this is definitely attributed to 5x Excel. There is still significant BBA. Will do another round, and make this a routine if needed.

Plants are doing much better, after the one time 20ppm NO3 doze, slightly increased CO2 @1.5bps, plus the nutrients that are otherwise consumed by the disappeared BBA.

Will edit this post to include link to my own thread when created. Thanks Deanna for the suggestion.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

max88 said:


> BBA is diminishing in my tank, this is definitely attributed to 5x Excel. There is still significant BBA. Will do another round, and make this a routine if needed.
> 
> Plants are doing much better, after the one time 20ppm NO3 doze, slightly increased CO2 @1.5bps, plus the nutrients that are otherwise consumed by the disappeared BBA.
> 
> Will edit this post to include link to my own thread when created. Thanks Deanna for the suggestion.


Glad it helped.

I view the glut weekly knockdown as a preventative. In your case, you’re trying to eradicate an infestation, which is fine. You may also want to consider solving the long-term issue that is causing the problem. 

Don’t worry about controlling nitrates and phosphates. They do NOT cause algae and, if you “control” them, you may starve your plants. Nitrates above 15ppm are no problem. I’d only be concerned a little if they move beyond 40-50. Algae will utilize nutrients at levels you can’t even measure. Ultimately, the theory (which I subscribe to) is that a stable and healthy plant system inhibits algae. Throw the system out of balance and you get algae and deteriorating plant health.

Algae and plants are most affected by light and CO2. You have a low tech setup (no injected CO2). Ideally, your light levels should be set to match that. If your light is too high, your plants will be driven to grow, but won’t have the carbon (CO2) necessary to grow. So, they begin to starve from lack of CO2. The glut will help add the carbon plants need, but not nearly as effectively as injected CO2. Watts/gal of light is not a good measure (almost useless with LED’s). Use PAR values. For your setup, you should try not to have more than 40 PAR at the substrate. The lighting manufacturer should have PAR values for your light.

From what you posted, my guess is that your light is way too high (but I don’t know for sure) pushing your plants into overdrive and, therefore starving them for carbon. This hurts their health and makes perfect ground for algae.

Concerning ferts, I’d use the EI method, but reduced dosing to match your low CO2 levels (like the 1/3 you mentioned). No matter what type of planted setup you have, it is always best to have all of the ferts (N, P, K and micros) available in the water so that they are never short. It looks like you’re dosing N, K and micros, but no P. It is possible that your fauna will supply enough N and P, but your fauna load looks like it might be too small to do that. Fortunately, you can test for nitrates and phosphates, cheaply, to monitor them.


----------



## max88 (Jun 22, 2013)

Water last night: Ammonia @0.25ppm, NO2 @0ppm, NO3 @20ppm, PO4 @2.5ppm. Not sure how ammonia is detected.
Dosed 25ml Excel for estimate 50G water (account for substrate).
Water 15 hours later: Ammonia @0.25ppm, NO2 @0ppm. Surprised that no increase in ammonia, was expecting 0.5ppm due to beneficial bacteria reduction. Seems slightly lower 25ml Excel did not affect BB that much.

Plants are doing better. BBA has decreased but not completely died. Will make Excel dosing a weekly routine.

While I should make my own thread about my tank as suggested, I'd include its parameters here for reference, if OP doesn't mind.
Without dimmer, Fluval = 43PAR, EVO = 58PAR, 23" from light to substrate. These numbers were obtained 1 year (maybe 2) ago with borrowed PAR reader.
With dimmer, Fluval = 43*70% = 30PAR, EVO = 58*3/7 = 24PAR, if dimming is linear. Combined @ 54PAR at most where the coverage overlaps.

New numbers
Test results: gH=11, kH=5, NO3=20ppm, PO4=2.5ppm
Dosing: K=10ppm/week as K2SO4 and Seachem EQ
Fe=0.035ppm/week as CSM+B (dose daily)
Fe=0.010ppm/week as Seachem EQ
CO2=1.5bps. I know bps isn't a good way to measure, I have not been able to reliably test it in ppm. I've tried comparing pH of water 24 hours apart with air pump, pH values are the same.
Water change 2~3weeks (to ensure micros don't get too high)


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

max88 said:


> While I should make my own thread about my tank as suggested, I'd include its parameters here for reference, if OP doesn't mind.
> Without dimmer, Fluval = 43PAR, EVO = 58PAR, 23" from light to substrate. These numbers were obtained 1 year (maybe 2) ago with borrowed PAR reader.
> With dimmer, Fluval = 43*70% = 30PAR, EVO = 58*3/7 = 24PAR, if dimming is linear. Combined @ 54PAR at most where the coverage overlaps.
> 
> ...


Some of the comments in my last reply were confused as I mistook you for the OP (might be a good idea to post your issues). Yours is a high tech setup, unlike OP.

Briefly: Your light is probably ok at full strength. Get a drop checker to measure CO2, but be sure to use the correct indicator solution. You have to be sure that you are maintaining ~30 ppm. Use Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator to determine fert dosing schedules and change 50% of your water weekly.


----------

