# Algae - What's true, What's false?



## Craigthor (Sep 9, 2007)

5- Very true look at cases of BGA typically low nitrate levels

4- False as with everything else in excess you can control speed of growth via light

3- True

2- Never had a major ammonia spike cause algae. 

1- Pretty much false

Urea will almost always casue algae when used in large quantities in the tank. That is why most terrestrial fertilizers are not the best choice as most use Urea. I think it has to do more with the way it breaks down and converts to useable resources. No phosphates don't casue algae I know Tom has mentioned that many times over.


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

The most basic assumption is that if light/nutrients/CO2 are not in balance with each other, you will get algae.

This would already explain your proposed situations 1, 2, 3, and 5. If you have two of the three factors as "adequate", while the third factor is lacking, then another way to look at the first two factors is that they are in "surplus" (relative to the third factor).


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

> 5- Very true look at cases of BGA typically low nitrate levels


While this is true, what are the algae consuming? Low nitrates would leave plants with little nitrogen to grow and stop the growth of plants. What is still in the water column that allows BGA to grow, and why does it not grow when nitrate levels are high? Where is BGA getting it's nitrogen from?



> 3- True





> The most basic assumption is that if light/nutrients/CO2 are not in balance with each other, you will get algae


This is the advice we tend to give, and the advice we use to keep algae at bay, but why?

Why does algae grow when there is too much light relative to CO2 with adequate nutrients, but not grow when the light is 'balanced' relative to CO2 with adequate nutrients? Although it speaks volumes about what we can do to get algae under control, it doesn't say anything as to why.. 

What does too much light in our tanks do when we have low CO2 and adequate nutrients that allows algae to grow? The only thing I can think of is that the light penetrates further down to the bottom where detritus accumulates and allows the algae to find a food source and 'latch on' and still undergo photosynthesis. Whereas lower light will not allow such penetration and force the algae near the top of the water column limiting access to nutrients.

This still makes me wonder about alga's primary food source. If we consider nitrate to be the primary food source, then shouldn't algae grow whenever there is sufficient light, dosed ferts, and CO2? This is almost counterintuitive to what has been taught for years that excess nutrients causes algae, yet we dose enough ferts to provide excess for at least 2-3 days before we add more..we assume nutrient assimilation then reset our tanks with a water change to a supposed nutrient level and start again. We do this successfully and without algae taking over so something must be limiting algae growth. In our case, I don't think we can say we aren't dosing excess nutrients because we intend to do that very thing.. yet, algae doesn't take over.

So, my assumption (unless someone corrects me here) is that there is something else here at work. Either algae is getting it's nitrogen in another form (NH4), or there is some dynamic that is not yet understood....or at least understood by me.

Enlighten me folks


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

Lycosa said:


> While this is true, what are the algae consuming? Low nitrates would leave plants with little nitrogen to grow and stop the growth of plants. What is still in the water column that allows BGA to grow, and why does it not grow when nitrate levels are high? Where is BGA getting it's nitrogen from?


Cyanobacteria can fix atmospheric nitrogen, providing them with a nitrogen source, and allowing them to grow in low nitrate conditions. Adding back nitrates to the water will allow the plants to grow better, discouraging their growth once (manually) removed.



Lycosa said:


> This is the advice we tend to give, and the advice we use to keep algae at bay, but why?
> 
> Why does algae grow when there is too much light relative to CO2 with adequate nutrients, but not grow when the light is 'balanced' relative to CO2 with adequate nutrients? Although it speaks volumes about what we can do to get algae under control, it doesn't say anything as to why..


More light drives photosynthesis. The more photosynthesis you have, the more demand there is for carbon, and other nutrients required for growth. Plants do not really have a way to "turn off" photosynthesis, it just occurs in the chloroplasts. When the amount of light is balanced relative to the amount of CO2 and nutrients levels, then the plants will have "everything they require."



Lycosa said:


> What does too much light in our tanks do when we have low CO2 and adequate nutrients that allows algae to grow? The only thing I can think of is that the light penetrates further down to the bottom where detritus accumulates and allows the algae to find a food source and 'latch on' and still undergo photosynthesis. Whereas lower light will not allow such penetration and force the algae near the top of the water column limiting access to nutrients.


Algae, some being unicellular, while others being multicellular, have a much easier time obtaining nutrients (this is especially true for unicellular algae, when compared with multicellular higher plants). With high light, this gives them the necessary energy for photosynthesis. Adequate nutrients means they will have the necessary building blocks for growth. Finally, even with low CO2, diffusion occurs much more easily, readily and more efficiently in unicellular organisms, so CO2 is more easily accessible by algae.



Lycosa said:


> So, my assumption (unless someone corrects me here) is that there is something else here at work. Either algae is getting it's nitrogen in another form (NH4), or there is some dynamic that is not yet understood....or at least understood by me.


As I mentioned, some "algae" (more correctly, bacteria) can fix atmospheric nitrogen. 

However, when light, nutrients and CO2 are balanced in a planted tank, algae does not readily form due to it being out competed by plants. While we provide nutrients in excess, it does not cause algae. This could be potentially due to plant "hormones" (for lack of a better word). I believe Walstad covers this in great detail.


----------



## Oreo (May 6, 2008)

You say "out competed", explain to me this: Why is it that established algae on rocks and other hard-scape items tends to die off with proper nutrients, CO2, and light. Algae on the rocks don't have to compete with the plants since that algae has just as much access to nutrients in the water column as the plants do.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

My own experience has repeatedly suggested this:

There is a distinction between inorganic and organic nutrients.

Inorganic nutrients, such as the ones we add to our aquariums, can be used by algae but are weak algal growth triggers.

But some forms of organic nutrients, as produced by waste and decay, are strong algal growth triggers. Ammonia is a common example, though there are probably many others.

Plants consume both inorganic and organic nutrients forms. Adding too much _inorganic_ nutrients can indirectly cause algae, as it reduces plant uptake of _organic_ nutrients.

I think this is why Tom Barr can honestly claim that he is unable to induce algae with huge inorganic nutrient overdoses. He is indeed an expert at technique; his tanks are pristine, heavily planted, well thought-out and cleaned, and have low fish loads. The little organic nutrient is rapidly cleared.

I can easily duplicate his lighting, CO2, and ferts; but I'm not so good with optimally laying out a heavily planted tank, or cleaning, and I have much higher fish loads. I certainly have more organic nutrient than he does. I believe that is why when I try his experiment either deliberately, or by ignoring existing nutrient levels and blindly dosing excess through EI recommendations, I get algae _every single time_ in my tanks.

If light increases to the point that that any one nutrient becomes limited, then it can't utilize other nutrients effectively, so the other nutrients are now excess. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if plants in this situation actively remove those other nutrients from their tissue as organic waste, which would explain why excess light and nutrient limitation _together_ have such a dramatic effect on algae growth.


----------



## Elohim_Meth (May 8, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> There is a distinction between inorganic and organic nutrients.
> 
> Inorganic nutrients, such as the ones we add to our aquariums, can be used by algae but are weak algal growth triggers.
> 
> But some forms of organic nutrients, as produced by waste and decay, are strong algal growth triggers.


Agree.


DarkCobra said:


> Ammonia is a common example, though there are probably many others.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but ammonia is not organic matter. It is result of mineralization and can be consumed by plants (not so with organics).


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

Elohim_Meth said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but ammonia is not organic matter. It is result of mineralization and can be consumed by plants (not so with organics).


You're correct - technically it isn't organic, as it doesn't contain C-H bonds. I'm using "organic" as a layman's term to associate it with an organic source; since it's a component of organic waste, and also produced by mineralization of those wastes.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

I think the truth is that Algae can live and grow in all kinds of conditions, even ones that are 'optimal' for other plants. There are algaes that live in volcanic vents miles under the ocean in 1000 degree temps. There are algaes that live in small ponds in the high mountains in 35 degrees. Each algae is different and will thrive under different conditions. It might be better to research one kind of algae and find out what its vices are. I usually find that tanks contain 1-2 types of algae. Its the tanks thet explode with all kinds that something is 'wrong'... 

You are on the right track researching this stuff, but I dont think there is such thing as 'Algae only happens when'...

As a few others have stated above: Finding a balance in your tank is the best way to combat algae.

roud:


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

> Finally, even with low CO2, diffusion occurs much more easily, readily and more efficiently in unicellular organisms, so CO2 is more easily accessible by algae


This is news to me. I just learned something if this is true. So.. if my tank is at atmospheric CO2 conditions, algae will have access to the available CO2 better than they would at 30ppm? However, this doesn't explain why it requires hight light and low CO2. If low CO2 is the driving force in Algae growth, then common sense tells me that I would see much more of it in clear shallow ponds and slow moving streams where light is much higher than what we are likely to replicate in our tanks, and CO2 is at atmospheric levels. What is making the difference?

Everything else you wrote out for me, I have already read many times.. but I would have been as quick to repeat it except for the fact that algae can and will grow in low light given favorable conditions for growth so it seems that high light isn't a factor unless....there's something else at work.



> As I mentioned, some "algae" (more correctly, bacteria) can fix atmospheric nitrogen


I understand this as well, but (correct me if I'm wrong), there are but few that can accomplish this. Cyano is different all together because it is a bacteria and not an algae. I've had a tough time with it in reef tanks, but it doesn't seem to bother me in freshwater planted tanks..not that it couldn't, but hasn't so far. Cyanobacteria is special in this regard (as far as I know) in fixing atmospheric nitrogen and eradicating it can be very difficult once established. It's likely the #1 reason people give up on reef-keeping.




> But some forms of organic nutrients, as produced by waste and decay, are strong algal growth triggers. Ammonia is a common example, though there are probably many others.


This is the same conclusion I'm drawing, especially from my little experiment, but I'm hesitant to call it fact. Algae tends to thrive whenever and wherever ammonia is present. They grow on leaves when plants aren't growing because ammonia is leeched out of the leaf. They grow on the substrate because it is rich in detritus that produces ammonia. Algae grows on everything when cycling a tank because the water is full of it and ammonia isn't being turned into nitrite/nitrate because of the lack of an established bacteria colony. This makes sense to me that a mature tank, with a sensible bio-load, and mature bacteria colony, will be far more capable of turning ammonia over to nitrate so the plants can use it. It makes sense that algae aren't competing with plants for the same nitrogen.. if this is indeed true, then all the factors in the list can begin to make sense. Ammonia will be present if any of the above conditions are true. In other words, if I create conditions which are optimal for plant growth, then I have less plants not growing, less ammonia in the water and less algae.



> I think the truth is that Algae can live and grow in all kinds of conditions, even ones that are 'optimal' for other plants. There are algaes that live in volcanic vents miles under the ocean in 1000 degree temps. There are algaes that live in small ponds in the high mountains in 35 degrees. Each algae is different and will thrive under different conditions. It might be better to research one kind of algae and find out what its vices are. I usually find that tanks contain 1-2 types of algae. Its the tanks thet explode with all kinds that something is 'wrong'.


I do understand this, but while I am only concerned with the ones that grow in my tank, and there is after all something rather 'thematic' about when these algae explode in numbers. I'm rather just trying to find the common link (if one exists) between them all. What is odd is that many textbooks claim that nitrate is the cause of all algae, but nitrate doesn't seem to trigger algae at all in my tank (or experiment) but ammonia.. does. So what did I do wrong in my experiment, or is it true?

Perhaps there's more to allelopathy that we understand. Maybe plants are secreting algal killers when growing well. There's more to it than I think we understand, at least in the dynamics of it all... but what is the missing link?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I think it's important to look at algae more like weeds and annual plants.
So why are there well over 10,000 different species on diatoms?
Why are there so many species in the world?

Same for plants?
Do plants not compete with each other for CO2? 
Nutrients?
Light?

I think we can draw some conclusions based on 1/2 constants for uptake for algae. These tend to be on average for freshwater genera we have issues with, about 2 orders of magnitude lower than any plant.

I do not buy into the allelopathy hypothesis to explain aquarist observations with planted tanks, nor do any aquatic botanist I know, Ole and myself, nor any on the researchers I know buy into it.

Adding activated carbon, purigen etc removes it, and we do not see ANY signs of algae blooms when these algae suppressing chemicals chemicals are removed. And most plants allelopathic chemicals also harm other plants.........and we also do not see that observation either.

So we can conclude that "excess" or non limiting ppm's of nutrients for plants where the plants are growign and in good density does not induce any significant algal issues.

NH4, well, *I've falsified some of my own hypothesis here*, so have others.
It works to induce just green water, but you need high light(60-100micromol or more along the bottom) and destabilize the CO2 some. Also, if you add a sudden influx at high rate, then this can lead to it, but if you dose say, up to 0.8ppm as NH4, and ramp it up slowly........then the tank should be okay.

0.8ppm is enough to meet the demands for N solely even in a high light aquarium. So NH4 does not explain too much really. So, I have ruled that one out as a main factor. There's must be an alternative.

Light seems to be a big one, but algae can grow still, but not nearly as fast, at low light, while plants can do quite well. This is the main area of competition between algae and plants for resources.

1. There maybe interactions with the sediment/bacteria and plant roots that somehow induce algae.
2. Organic substance release, leaching has long be hypothesized going back to the APD days. A poorly growing plant does leach more into the water column. Adding sugars did not induce algae however.
3. Living with the unknown question.

We really know very little specifically about the species that infest our aquariums and virtually no good research has been done on the environment and ecology of each species.
Few aquarist can even identify a new species let alone know what to do for research studies on the physiology. I cannot answer many/most things about algae. 

Still, what about resolution with algae for the hobbyist? This is much simpler and easier goal to attain.

I think we can get at the root issues much more by focusing at the goal at hand, rather than focusing on algae. Our goal is a planted garden, so our focus should be on the plants, we are not really interested in algae ecology and growing them.............I might be, but I think I'm in the 1% or less minority.

When we focus on the plants, algae is really not an issue.
We know a number of things we can predict that will help plants grow and be much more stable while reducing the risk of algae.
Lower light, non limiting CO2/nutrients, sediment ferts in case you forget to dose, redundant back up sources of ferts, not assuming the CO2 is good when the plants are doing poor and you have ruled out nutrients, plenty of algae eaters, staying on top of things and caring for the tank, doing water changes etc.........



If the CO2 is slightly limiting, you might have some BBA other nagging algae..........and if you start to limit PO4 more than the CO2 is limiting, then the algae magically goes away, this leads people to conclude it's the nutrients. But when we go back and add enough CO2, then addign more PO4 does not induce any algae.

In both cases... the algae response was the plant's growth rates, health status, not the nutrients. You have to test both situations, and not just one. It also helps to try and confirm your hypothesis. In order to do that, you must make sure the other factor/s like CO2 are truly independent.

Many aquarist cannot/have not done this, then blame the nutrients.
This is the aquarist failure in their poor conclusion, not the dosing of nutrients. 

After all, logic would not support a situation where PO4 induce algae for hobbyists, and then not another. Some seem to want to argue that it does.
Non limiting nutrient/CO2/light are the basic tenant for testing nutrients. 

If you cannot do this, then your test will have errors and you cannot make a clear conclusion independent of other factors, in other words, you cannot isolate the true factor/s.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

> In both cases... the algae response was the plant's growth rates, health status, not the nutrients.


It's hard to think of limiting the light as a way for plants to out-compete algae for other resources. I understand the supposition, but it's rather counterintuitive unless it directly correlates to something else. By something else, I'm 'guesstimating' that if we have inadequate light for algae to grow at the bottom of our tank, then algae do not grow simply because they cannot follow the nutrients down and still undergo photosynthesis. In a well-oxygenated tank, some nutrients 'should' become heavier compounds that settle to the bottom. It's a theory.. could be a wrong theory, but something has to make sense. 

I was never a believer in excess nutrients being the cause. It seemed odd to me, but it has been told many times over in textbooks and forums like these.. especially in saltwater applications. But when you start to add them, and nothing happens, then it raises so many more questions. Either the algae aren't using one of more of the nutrients that we dose, limiting their growth, or there is a dynamic that prevents them from growing while plants are growing well. 



> Light seems to be a big one, but algae can grow still, but not nearly as fast, at low light, while plants can do quite well. This is the main area of competition between algae and plants for resources.


If you add high-light vs. low light then it really starts to add to the confusion.. unless we consider the amount of light that is required for algae to grow. Does anyone know of any experiments that have been done which test for the amount of light required for algae to begin photosynthesis? If we suppose the highest level of nutrients are near the bottom, that higher plants can utilize less light to begin photosynthesis, then lighting is the biggest contributing factor. I read an article you (Tom) posted a link to for someone else regarding the relationship of light and CO2 on aquatic plants and it would make sense if the tank had less than adequate lighting in the presence of adequate CO2, higher plants can still effectively begin photosynthesis and grow if the required nutrients are there _to_ grow.

I realize that I'm more into the philosophical realm than using actual scientific observation, but it's a start. I'm afraid I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole concerning this whole topic. It's getting harder and harder to take things for granted that something just 'works'. The question is, where do I go from here...


----------



## fooledyas (Feb 22, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> I think we can get at the root issues much more by focusing at the goal at hand, rather than focusing on algae. Our goal is a planted garden, so our focus should be on the plants, we are not really interested in algae ecology and growing them.............I might be, but I think I'm in the 1% or less minority.
> 
> When we focus on the plants, algae is really not an issue.
> We know a number of things we can predict that will help plants grow and be much more stable while reducing the risk of algae.
> Lower light, non limiting CO2/nutrients, sediment ferts in case you forget to dose, redundant back up sources of ferts, not assuming the CO2 is good when the plants are doing poor and you have ruled out nutrients, plenty of algae eaters, staying on top of things and caring for the tank, doing water changes etc.........


I think at least in my case that after years of believing that excess po4 and no3 were the cause of algae learning that its not the case leads myself and others to wonder what is the cause. It's probably why threads like this one keep popping up. It's not that we are not focused on plants it's just that what we thought was fact was proven wrong and we are looking for the new fact to replace it


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> After all, logic would not support a situation where PO4 induce algae for hobbyists, and then not another. Some seem to want to argue that it does.
> Non limiting nutrient/CO2/light are the basic tenant for testing nutrients.


CO2/nutrient limitation is easy enough to test. Crank up the CO2 until the fish gasp, then back down a bit. Double or triple the recommended EI dosage across the board. Make sure circulation is more than adequate to distribute the nutrients. Wait.

I am one of a small, but statistically significant group of people, for which this doesn't solve the problem; and who have found reduction of specific nutrients to be the only remedy.

Faced with this, logic tells me there are other factors which we haven't yet positively identified.

To suggest that logic does not support the possibility of other factors, when we can all agree that there are so many things we don't know about aquatic biology, is in itself not logical!


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

> To suggest that logic does not support the possibility of other factors, when we can all agree that there are so many things we don't know about aquatic biology, is in itself not logical!


..and that is the most aggravating part of it all. There is no magic bullet (yet). 

Although our practices to rid ourselves of algae can differ, we seem to all to have certain conditions that exist that are similar when algae grows.. why then is it so hard to nail down!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Lycosa said:


> It's hard to think of limiting the light as a way for plants to out-compete algae for other resources. I understand the supposition, but it's rather counterintuitive unless it directly correlates to something else.


Well, light is blocked to the algae below, the plant has a much larger surface area than the algae see much algae under a thick mat of plants? New growth piles on top of old growth covering the algae and blocking the light below.

If you have a layer of duckweed, this will cure algae issues as well.
Blocks the light. As this occurs, the CO2 demand go down in the water column since there's not much light to drive photosynthesis, this also applies to plant-plant competition.

Folks really seem to enjoy competition discussion with plants/algae, but seem to forget, plants compete with each other also.



> By something else, I'm 'guesstimating' that if we have inadequate light for algae to grow at the bottom of our tank, then algae do not grow simply because they cannot follow the nutrients down and still undergo photosynthesis. In a well-oxygenated tank, some nutrients 'should' become heavier compounds that settle to the bottom. It's a theory.. could be a wrong theory, but something has to make sense.


Algae are not limited by CO2 or nutrients, not even close...........but they are limited by light in our aquariums, quite a bit so. They are getting 1-5% of typical light ranges found in nature.



> I was never a believer in excess nutrients being the cause. It seemed odd to me, but it has been told many times over in textbooks and forums like these.. especially in saltwater applications. But when you start to add them, and nothing happens, then it raises so many more questions. Either the algae aren't using one of more of the nutrients that we dose, limiting their growth, or there is a dynamic that prevents them from growing while plants are growing well.


If you stop/prevent/understand germination of algae spores, then you target the key life history stage of algae. We do not have any different stages for plants, just clonal growth cuttings. One is sexual, the other is sexual.

Two very different things. Both methods can grow and stick around in the aquarium though.



> If you add high-light vs. low light then it really starts to add to the confusion.. unless we consider the amount of light that is required for algae to grow. Does anyone know of any experiments that have been done which test for the amount of light required for algae to begin photosynthesis?


Yes, there's the LCP for algae listed in a number of papers, same for CO2 constants. It's pretty low, but think about it........very slow algae growth and then fast plant growth, blockage of light, an aquatic gardener, algae eaters pestering the young tend slower growth algae.............

If there's very little light and something else is growing well........it's not a good time to keep growing, make spores and wait till there's high light.



> If we suppose the highest level of nutrients are near the bottom, that higher plants can utilize less light to begin photosynthesis, then lighting is the biggest contributing factor. I read an article you (Tom) posted a link to for someone else regarding the relationship of light and CO2 on aquatic plants and it would make sense if the tank had less than adequate lighting in the presence of adequate CO2, higher plants can still effectively begin photosynthesis and grow if the required nutrients are there _to_ grow.


Yep, they are interrelated.



> I realize that I'm more into the philosophical realm than using actual scientific observation, but it's a start. I'm afraid I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole concerning this whole topic. It's getting harder and harder to take things for granted that something just 'works'. The question is, where do I go from here...


Focus on plant growth, stop worrying about algae, that is the path to enlightenment. Amano says the same thing, most folks in the know do:wink:



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

DarkCobra said:


> CO2/nutrient limitation is easy enough to test. Crank up the CO2 until the fish gasp, then back down a bit.


No, this is a bad way to test and measure CO2.
Inhumane first off, second off it gives no quantification about CO2, nor test what we are more concerned with: plants and algae.

Respiration of fish is a poor choice here: respiration is both CO2 and O2.
I can gas fish without adding any CO2 by not providing much circulation.

I use a thermo couple, and then I also have used a slow progressive method to slowly raise and watch, not based on fish, rather, plants and algae.
Some used All RO water with baking soda a few times or dial in the CO2, then switch back to tap if the KH is messing with the pH/Kh chart. Some know what the tank and plants are suppose to look like and can dial it in without stressing fish at all. Slow careful tweaking with patience can achieve this.
Problem is, most of us lack patience.

I have some tanks that took longer to tweak than others, some have never had any issues, but in each case, it was always the CO2/circulation(which relates to O2/mixing etc)

Lower light PAR makes this balance much easier.

This all goes back to Liebig's law.



> Double or triple the recommended EI dosage across the board. Make sure circulation is more than adequate to distribute the nutrients. Wait.
> 
> I am one of a small, but statistically significant group of people, for which this doesn't solve the problem; and who have found reduction of specific nutrients to be the only remedy.


So you tried reduction of the light also? Or just assumed it's all about the nutrients? How else did you try adjusting the CO2? Perhaps this, and not the nutrients were the issue?
Can you rule that out?

Joe public is not the most careful critical bunch, so there's going to be some that fail adjusting CO2/O2/light.



> Faced with this, logic tells me there are other factors which we haven't yet positively identified.


Like your methods........light/CO2 measurement etc.
It's very easy to dial in a tank with light at 40micromols along the bottom, good needle wheel CO2 carefully adjusted. Rich sediment and/or water column dosing.

If you cannot tweak CO2 from there, then that's the user, not the method:icon_idea




> To suggest that logic does not support the possibility of other factors, when we can all agree that there are so many things we don't know about aquatic biology, is in itself not logical!


This is telling because it shows you cannot produce a tank independent of nutrients.........while many/most other folks can. 

Perhaps you are not measuring/adding CO2 correctly, assuming that is higher than it really is........perhaps the circulation is poor, perhaps the light is more intense than you think it is. Have you measured the light? If so, what is it? What's the filter cleaning routine? 

Unless you can actually confirm this stuff, you have no logical way of even *providing a control or a reference to begin with,* you cannot even make any conclusion because your methods are confounding your results.
You cannot reason why I, and many many others have no algae and can dose 3-4x non limiting levels and never get algae, not on just one or two tanks, but on hundreds, over decades, over the wide range of hobbyists.

But somehow, a small group does??? 

There's always going to be some folks that will have algae plagues, they cannot balance the light/CO2....whatever, there's 1001 ways to mess things up....you simply have no accounted for that and you seem to think you have.

That, is not logical.

If you lack the control to produce a planted tank free from any algae issues with non limiting nutrients, then this is NOT a reference control. You can say nothing about causes of test of the hypothesis. You must be able to provide a control independent of nutrients. You have not done that.

Can CO2 and light use efficacy be influenced by limiting nutrients?
Of course!!! That does not support your hypothesis that there's some secret unknown reason why you do not have algae however.

Liebig's Law of the minimum is all you have demonstrated.
Nutrient limitation has an indirect effect on CO2/light.

The plants cannot reach it's full growth potential unless the nutrients/CO2 are non limiting, then only light is the rate limiting growth step.

1. If I reduced the light, you would likely also experience the same result.
If you increased the CO2, you also would experience a similar result vs limiting a nutrient.

2. If CO2 is slightly limiting(but assumed it was "okay"), and you have non limiting nutrients, you likely would have some annoying algae. If you limited say PO4 strongly, then the PO4 would become more limiting than the CO2, this would provide slower, but better growth for the plants by switching a PO4 limited situation from a CO2 limited case.

This is precisely the reason why many had success with PMDD 15 years ago controlling algae. However, when a reference control tank was done and the CO2 was added to a higher level, and the PO4 was added to 1ppm or more, we get even better growth and less algae.

That falsifies the original premise and has done so many times over the last 15 or so years. Indirect factors like PO4 limiting CO2 demand by plants was not considered nor tested by Paul and Kevin, and you seem to have the same issue.

You are not going to use the same hypothesis that Paul and Kevin used and was falsified 15 years ago to argue that it's "logical" here are you? :tongue:

Regards, 
Tom Barr






Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Lycosa said:


> ..and that is the most aggravating part of it all. There is no magic bullet (yet).
> 
> Although our practices to rid ourselves of algae can differ, we seem to all to have certain conditions that exist that are similar when algae grows.. why then is it so hard to nail down!


Focus on the plants, then algae is not much of an issue.
There's the magic bullet. People and there assumptions have far more variation than the aquariums:icon_idea

I've been careful and tested my hypothesis, PMDD did not. Simply saying "there's so much we do not yet know" is a worthless statement, it offers nothing, it poses no new questions to test, it offers us no useful information.
This same statement is often used to sell diet pills, homeopathic supplements etc, and other snake oils/quackery.............

*no religious reference please*

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> No, this is a bad way to test and measure CO2.
> Inhumane first off, second off it gives no quantification about CO2, nor test what we are more concerned with: plants and algae.


We've been through this before.

I know it's a bad way, and would rather not have done it. Your continued insistence that I must be doing something wrong if my results don't match your model, is actually what compelled me to try it in order to rule out any possibility of low CO2.



plantbrain said:


> Respiration of fish is a poor choice here: respiration is both CO2 and O2.
> I can gas fish without adding any CO2 by not providing much circulation.


I can't measure O2 directly. However, my plants grow nicely and produce O2 bubbles. I have excellent circulation and some surface agitation, and I have a small airstone running when the lights are out. In the past I've asked you if despite this, you believed my tank was actually O2 deficient; but you didn't reply.



plantbrain said:


> Lower light PAR makes this balance much easier... So you tried reduction of the light also? Or just assumed it's all about the nutrients?


Again, I can't measure directly since I don't have a PAR meter. But I know I have 58W of T8, with cheap white plastic "reflectors", sitting on the somewhat mineral-etched glass top of a 46g bowfront. Do you believe this light level to be so high that my tank should be hard to balance? I personally think not.



plantbrain said:


> Perhaps you are not measuring/adding CO2 correctly, assuming that is higher than it really is........perhaps the circulation is poor, perhaps the light is more intense than you think it is. Have you measured the light? If so, what is it? What's the filter cleaning routine?
> 
> Unless you can actually confirm this stuff, you have no logical way of even *providing a control or a reference to begin with,* you cannot even make any conclusion because your methods are confounding your results.


We could go through the entire tank setup again if you desire. But as I said, we've done it before, and it has always ended the same.

You tell me I must be doing something wrong, but can't tell me what. You say my tests must be wrong, and that I can't accurately test because I don't have access to some particular high-dollar piece of equipment like you do.

You point at any possibility that I didn't explicitly mention in the message you're replying to. Even though sometimes I did mention it just hours before in my previous message, in the same thread, that you also replied to; which leads us in unproductive circles.

You direct me to papers written on topics such as pond eutrophication, which are little help because they're written in language that make them difficult to comprehend to anyone but career biologists.

You place the burden of proof on me to show that I am experiencing something not accounted for by current models, in such a way that any average hobbyist would be hard pressed to do; and discredit all proof I am able to provide without any apparent consideration.

I can accept all that, but this last one frustrates me far more. You post frequent replies whenever topics like this come up, which all contain info and advice I've already seen from you many times, and which is inapplicable and/or ineffective in my situation. While the desire to educate is commendable, the repetition and verbosity seems unnecessary. It can overwhelm the thread by sheer word count, exceeding that of all other participants; and that makes it difficult to discuss alternatives and new ideas. I find myself abruptly dropping out of some discussions which I previously found enjoyable and informative because of this. Other times I simply don't participate at all, even though I want to, as I know the topic is such that it will inevitably result in the bulk of my time being spent reading and replying to multiple thousand word posts from you. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.

That frustration is why I've gone off on a rant here, as I _was_ enjoying _this_ thread, and hearing some _fresh ideas from other people_ for a change. In doing so I guess I've derailed the thread further. Oh well, I've said what I have to say, and won't do it again.



plantbrain said:


> Simply saying "there's so much we do not yet know" is a worthless statement, it offers nothing, it poses no new questions to test, it offers us no useful information.
> This same statement is often used to sell diet pills, homeopathic supplements etc, and other snake oils/quackery.............


Admitting there are things we don't know isn't useless, it's a necessary prerequisite to experimentation and discovery.

I suggest you read a book on logical fallacies. You'll find many ideosyncrasies of your replies I've commented on above listed and named. They are the same methods of debate used by snake oil salesmen and quacks.

While I'm not explicitly calling you a quack, notice that you still get the impression I might be inferring it, simply by associating something you said with them. This is in fact another example of debate by logical fallacy. Just the same as you bringing up quacks in response to my comment, which is why I feel justified in using the same technique to demonstrate a point.


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

I see you practice Internet Kung-Fu.... 'fatality'...Plantbrain Wins. :hihi:

EDIT: Just so nobody gets confused, I directed the above comment at myself. I've been making a lot of assumptions regarding what's been going on in my tank. The cartoon that was removed was intended to 'poke fun' at how assumptions can lead to people thinking that, while sometimes logical, it isn't all together -fact- until proven. While I can't speak for Tom, the context in which it was used made light of that fact.

As long as the debate doesn't get ugly, some of the heated debates can be great ones and perhaps ones where much can be gained from reading. Makes intelligent folks like Plantbrain, DarkCobra, and others 'crack their knuckles' and get involved.. break out charts, and perhaps (hopefully) motivate people to participate and question their own methods, and raise new questions. I am thankful that people have taken the time to address the problem, offer their solution, and help to move this hobby forward.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

DarkCobra said:


> I am one of a small, but statistically significant group of people, for which this doesn't solve the problem; and who have found reduction of specific nutrients to be the only remedy.
> 
> Faced with this, logic tells me there are other factors which we haven't yet positively identified.
> 
> To suggest that logic does not support the possibility of other factors, when we can all agree that there are so many things we don't know about aquatic biology, is in itself not logical!


I totally agree with you. I have found limiting certain nutrients in my tank can do wonders for algae control. To boot, the plants grow with vigor. It's when I stop my method and trying cookie cutter approaches that I start having algae problems. Personally, I am finding out 'luxury consumption' is a pain and not necessary. And if limiting or reducing certain nutrients remedies the algae for your tank and you are happy with the plant growth, isn't this ultimately what matters? After all who are we trying to please with our tanks? 

For the moderating part - Let's keep the religious/scientific debating comics off the forum. No need for them, they just cause upset feelings.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

It's not a question of religion/belief, it's a question of preconcluding an idea, without supporting it a priori, basically you are just looking for any correlating facts to support an idea you already wanted to believe.

I can do this for most anything I wanna believe or debate, does not support what I say however.

Simply finding some correlation does not show support for the reason why, nor teaches you much of anything about what went wrong in the first place.
*You have not demonstrated why others can do it without fail, and without issues, nor have even attempted to explain it.*

I have and can demonstrate *both* your case, and my own icon_idea:wink: Until you can, you have not addressed the issue and the logic behind it. 

All you have is correlation, old school PMDD notions.
Which, in case you have not noticed, was resoundingly falsified 15 years ago.........and PMDD does indeed work.

It also works better as the light intensity as PAR is reduced. 
Same for less algae.

What occurs with nutrient limitations, slight/moderate, is not a strong reduction in growth, rather, a switch from CO2 limitation to say PO4 limitation(You can chose others, but this one tends to be the better choice due to plants response). If PO4 is more limiting, then the CO2 is now non limiting. You can go very intense limitation(A) where you have a strong reduction in growth and not good aesthetics also, but moderate limitation(B) to is fine.










You waste CO2/light in those cases however, instead of nutrients.
For decent growth to occur, you will waste something/have excess.

Any stress in terms of limitations of nutrients or CO2 lowers light use efficiency. 










Liebig does not have it wrong. Ole Claus, Troels, myself do not have this wrong. 

Now why do I and many others have such good growth and no algae without limiting nutrients? 

How come I can lard on as much as I want?? No algae, no issues, everyone here has little issue, but there's always going to one or two that cannot.

In a large club, we have the variation, we can go over and see the results in person, we can see them dump in the ferts, and see the growth, lack of algae, clean nice tanks. There's little doubt seen in person.

If you are having troubles, lowering light is one way to help, sediment ferts is another. Good current, and higher O2........then adding CO2 only during the day and with a well mixed efficient method to dissolve, diffuse it.

Now if you have done these things in conjunction with gaining more skill over time(most get better at the hobby over time), the plants increasing in biomass, and you also limit some nutrients, of course you will see better results.

But was it due to the nutrients? Or was it due to the light change?
Or sediment ferts(rules out forgetfulness of dosing)? Or indirect effects of switching from one limiting factor to another??

There are folks in the club(or any group) that have had much more issues than others........they overlooked something and we'd come over and go through the aquarium piece by piece. This is much easier process in person vs the web.

So fewer folks will have issues that way vs the web, *remotely trying to resolve something from a distance going to be much harder.. *
You agree? 

Ive caught simple things when I've gone over the help someone. But I would had missed it on the web.
Pics help, most are able to to tell after a many years what's going on without a test kit. 

----------------------------
This latter part is more likely what you are arguing in favor of:

A few folks will not be able to get something to work and then go to limiting PO4............most do not care why/how, only that it works for them *some way.*

Not everyone is going to be able to manage a method well, some cannot deal with CO2 at all, I have plenty of folks that have gone non CO2, they have no algae and do not dose much if anything. Plants still grow too. No algae either.
Some use low light + Excel for higher rates of growth, but similar results.

You can limit either the light or CO2 or nutrients more strongly than the other. One will always become the most limiting factor, and when that is done, then the others will automatically become non limiting by default.

This is what Liebig's law is all about and was the main idea behind PMDD and PO4 limitation.

While I can do this method and had done it for a few years, many/most did PMDD, most found they had better growth and better algae control when they added PO4. Some did not, these folks had CO2 issues in every case. Or they had such high light, that the CO2 demand could not be met, so limitation of PO4 was the only management method they could do. 
Some later went back and dosed more ferts after they lowered the light or adjusted the CO2.............and found no algae and excellent growth.

This does not mean it's the best method for a given goal, nor that they have control over CO2/light/current/O2 ........... only that was the only way for them, they could muster without algae and poor growth.

Most have frustration and hassle with algae at some point, but this is the case for every method. So PMDD does not offer everyone a solution either. Plenty of folks had bad algae using the PMDD method as well.
So was it the method or the people? Folks using PPS/PMDD have algae and issues also, even a few non CO2 folks. It cannot be the methods, rather, the one doing them. We know and have plenty of references/controls where the methods(each one) does very well. So the methods are valid, but not the user or their assumptions. Some will have trouble no matter what, whether they master it and resolve it, is up to them.
Some simply do not care about why and how, just make the algae go away and the plants grow.

If you do care, then you should try and master the method and not give up. Modify the light to a low level, measure it etc......., add sediment ferts, good O2/currents, improve the CO2 delivery.....etc etc....
Prove what you see to yourself. Do not assume.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

To each his own. I'll keep using my method and be happy with the end result. Whether or not it is based on old school thought is irrelevant. There are many ways to have a successfully planted tank and I think it is perfectly fine for someone to say "this method does not work for me." If I can share my experience with others and they are interested, great. If not, great. All the matters is whether or not the tank makes the owner happy at the end of the day. I say if H202 or another 'snake oil' makes a person pleased with their tank, go for it. Sometimes, it's the band-aids that keep us going and encourages us to learn more.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> It's not a question of religion/belief, it's a question of preconcluding an idea, without supporting it a priori, basically you are just looking for any correlating facts to support an idea you already wanted to believe.


Sure. You're right.

When something doesn't work, I try something else, and keep doing it until I find something that does. And since I'm of an inquisitive nature, I do look for correlating facts; in order to build a mental model that predicts effect.

Can I scientifically prove that model? No, I can't. But it doesn't mean the model is worthless.

For example, I read somewhere a hypothesis that Excel only provides part of the carbon in the photosynthetic process, and that the rest of the carbon still must come from CO2. Assume Excel can provide up to 50% of the carbon. In a low-light tank with no added CO2, Excel can therefore make the limited CO2 goes twice as far; and indeed, we see Excel works well in this situation. But doubling the lights and Excel does not provide twice the results, because the necessary CO2 is still a limited resource, and was _not_ doubled.

Now, is this scientifically correct? I have no idea. Yet it is a model that accurately predicts how well Excel will work in various conditions. And can be described in just a few concise sentences, so I use it to explain to people why they can't expect good results by upgrading lights and increasing Excel, in lieu of CO2 supplementation.

Would only telling people we have no idea why Excel works, benefit them more than an incorrect explanation that accurately predicts results? No.

Would providing a perfectly accurate scientific discourse of why Excel works benefit the average hobbyist more? No, it wouldn't; because few would read or understand it.

And if you had developed EI solely by amateur experimentation, with no benefit of scientific knowledge or research papers, would EI be any less useful?

No again? Then please stop holding everyone to ridiculously high scientific standards.

As for the rest of your post, it's really not worth commenting on. No one mentioned PMDD-style phosphate limitation, so I'm not sure why you launched into that whole argument.

I did however find this amusing:



plantbrain said:


> Liebig does not have it wrong. Ole Claus, Troels, myself do not have this wrong.


I've been around long enough that I've seen your answers and theories change over time, often conflicting with what you claimed earlier. What has remained constant is that you always represent yourself as infallible.

Even _Einstein_ admitted that a single experiment could invalidate all his theories.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Lycosa said:


> ..and that is the most aggravating part of it all. There is no magic bullet (yet).


There can be no Magic Bullet in practical terms anyway since all the variables in an aquarium work together. That is just too absolute. If you take away light completely yes then light is the Magic Bullet and you won't have algae but you won't have any plants either. Even a little light can cause algae under the right circumstances. 

If your looking for a Magic Bullet it's one's lifestyle and how it fits into taking care of one's aquarium. Most strive for a reasonable amount of time by limiting light, livestock, feeding and overall organic load and increasing co2, plant mass and water changes. If you have nothing else to do then increase light, increase organic load and spend more time taking care of your tank. It's again a Lifestyle Choice. 

Personally I think the central variable with algae is organic control and lighting is the break and gas in terms of speed of algae growth. I have never found a connection between the inorganic NPK I put in my tank and algae growth. Increase organics and light and you increase the time spent taking care of your tank and vice versa.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

DarkCobra said:


> But doubling the lights and Excel does not provide twice the results, because the necessary CO2 is still a limited resource, and was _not_ doubled.
> 
> Now, is this scientifically correct? I have no idea. Yet it is a model that accurately predicts how well Excel will work in various conditions. And can be described in just a few concise sentences, so I use it to explain to people why they can't expect good results by upgrading lights and increasing Excel, in lieu of CO2 supplementation. Would only telling people we have no idea why Excel works, benefit them more than an incorrect explanation that accurately predicts results? No.


The model you suggest is based on observations 1st..........then you made some conclusions based on those results, and they match well with decomposition of glutaraldahyde in aquatic systems and the dosage toxicity ranges. SeaChem introduced this product almost a decade ago and did some research on it. This was widely available. It also focuses on aquatic horticulture, growing plants, and less so about killing algae, but like copper, it's selective on killing some species of algae and few aquatic plants as well. 

Still, there's some support and these are testable under controlled conditions/test set ups.

No issues there. 



> Would providing a perfectly accurate scientific discourse of why Excel works benefit the average hobbyist more? No, it wouldn't; because few would read or understand it.


Some would read it though, and while many do not understand the CO2 KH buffer system......they can also still use CO2 with good results. Folks have killed plenty of fish with both Excel and with CO2 gas also. Does this imply those are not good methods? Is it the CO2/Excel or the user and their own assumptions and carelessness??

No need for a lot of Science, but most can see a simple dose response curve from a research paper and see that above 3-4ppm, it starts to kill invertebrates. Our typical dosing rates are 2ppm per day. 

...........but the fact remains and you, nor Sewingalot *have not shown why I or many others do not have any algae when we dose or lard on nutrients to the water column.*

You can avoid this question till the cows come home. Your method does not support your rational for algae. We can test it and see. The results do not support that algae is caused by excess nutrients. No Science background needed here. The reasoning is plain.

Folks add it, no algae results. Repeatable test.
A few folks, likely due to CO2, maybe light maybe 1001 ways to mess an aquarium up, cannot........ does not prove anything other than suggest the failures had issues with the light/CO2, etc etc.........poor controls, lack of independence etc. So, I have some possible reasons why some folks have failed. Now explain why I can add a lot of ferts and not have the same results as you?

Magic?

This is a two way street here, I answered why, now it's your turn to answer why many do not have these issues. What type of test would you set up to answer why? 

What would be a reference?
How might you get around dependency form things like CO2/light etc??



> And if you had developed EI solely by amateur experimentation, with no benefit of scientific knowledge or research papers, would EI be any less useful?


The experimentation itself (regardless of who and where it was done) questioned algae limitation and focused on plant horticulture, not algae.
It set up a simple test to see if non limiting PO4 induces algae.

It does not:










At 5ppm of PO4, 25ppm NO3, 3ppm of Fe added a week..........it's safe to say.......if the hypothesis was really true, then we should see most tanks get algae when we dose this, but...........we do not when light/CO2 are independent.

That is Science(testing the hypothesis), no research support/education, fancy schmancy talking is required. It's repeatable by a large majority of aquarist. If it was not true, then we'd all have, or pretty close to 100%, algae.



> No again? Then please stop holding everyone to ridiculously high scientific standards.


I think the average aquarist is smart enough to see that the tank example above has been dosed with plenty of nutrients, excess.............and yet lacks algae. There's no "holding everyone to ridiculously high scientific standards." Just asking what any reasonable person would also think if someone claims that excess PO4 = algae blooms when the results sugegst the opposite.

Now, instead of going after tangents to distract the real issue, why not answer my questions?

Why don't I and many others not have algae even though we dose like this?
Luck? Magic?

How would you answer this question???
I guess you will avoid this question, since you have thus far??



> As for the rest of your post, it's really not worth commenting on. No one mentioned PMDD-style phosphate limitation, so I'm not sure why you launched into that whole argument.


Errr.....it's called a simple test and also explains why folks get less algae sometimes with limiting nutrients due it indirect effects on CO2.
The logic of falsifying a hypothesis is quite useful. It showed that PMDD was not correct in its hypothesis, so we must look elsewhere for algae causes/blooms etc.

This leads to the next question: why did/do some folks see a reduction in algae when they limit nutrients like PO4, whereas other folks can lard the nutrients on without issues?

This suggest is something other than nutrients alone.
Which is the point:icon_idea



> I've been around long enough that I've seen your answers and theories change over time, often conflicting with what you claimed earlier. What has remained constant is that you always represent yourself as infallible.


You mean people can learn new thing and change over time?
No kidding???
Really???
Are you sure?
haha

Actually I have made LOTS of mistakes, and I'm actually quite willing to tell people about them. That is how I and others learn, change and grow. As I learn more, I change the answers, the notions over time. 

As Folks/myself test things, we learn more, so of course answers will change as we learn more. I have enough courage to make a mistake and then learn from it. I also can easily let it go if it's been falsified or does not appear valid.

So why not answer my questions about the topic? Try and stay focused on the topic, not me personally.

Regards, 
tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I have no desire to argue with you on the Estimative Index method or anything else for that matter. It does NOT work for me. If I am a *failure* in your eyes, so be it. Quite honestly, I could give you a valid reason why the method doesn't work for me. However, it appears you aren't interested in those who have a negative word about the EI method. We are always the failures and you cannot think it could possibly be the EI system. That's perfectly fine, and I commend you for having such passion. That's what makes this hobby so great. There is room for everyone!


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> ...........but the fact remains and you, nor Sewingalot *have not shown why I or many others do not have any algae when we dose or lard on nutrients to the water column.*


You ask why most people don't have problems with excessive PO4, and I ask why some do. To me, these are two sides of the same question.

However, you refuse to believe that the other side of the question exists, unless someone can also proceed straight through to the answer! That is backwards.

That myself and others have eliminated a problem when all else fails by limiting PO4, but not to the point of limitation as per Liebig's law, is in fact an experiment. Despite any flaws in its execution, it has been repeated enough times by different people to suggest that the other side of the question exists and is worthy of exploration.

I admit I cannot provide a definitive answer why our results differ, nor have I been able to formulate an experiment that might lead to an answer. However, I can speculate on possible reasons, based on logic applied to the facts and experiences available to me. While you argue that speculation is of no immediate value, it may inspire discussion, exploration, and experimentation by others more clever than I; hopefully leading to an answer.

Ironically, your inflexible and oft-stated opinion on this issue greatly increases my valuation of open speculation; as the minority who suffer from this issue are sometimes intimidated into silence.



plantbrain said:


> Try and stay focused on the topic, not me personally.


Believe me, I've tried.

You have extensive experience and knowledge of planted aquaria; more than most people and certainly more than I. You are a valuable resource to the community, and freely make yourself available as such.

In the past, I availed myself frequently of that resource, and I did learn a lot. For that I am grateful, but now we reach a point of contention.

Because in your posts, you seem to favor _quantity over quality_. As an example, I asked you directly in this thread for your opinion on the details of my lighting; as well as my O2 conditions, since that might infer an issue with my CO2. Furthermore, I mentioned that I'd asked those questions before, and that you'd previously failed to answer; hoping to draw your attention in order to elicit a useful response. But despite that, your lengthy reply again failed to address those questions.

Things like this occur frequently enough that it has precluded any meaningful discussion between you and I for a while now. You may have noticed I no longer call you explicitly into discussions as I used to; although you usually reply anyway, without invitation and without fail, when certain topics are discussed.

But whether you're speaking to me or someone else, there are those that feel your flaws in communication dilute the quality of this forum. That is why I feel compelled to point them out; in the hopes that you might take a lesson from it and aspire to a higher standard, so that your _positive_ influences might be less offset by your _negative_ ones.

There is no way to do that without making it personal. I try to provide specific examples and constructive criticism, rather than falling upon simple insults; though I often question my success. I also question whether you are receptive to constructive criticism, or capable of acting on it. Though privately, I am told increasingly as of late "thank you, I thought I was alone in this, and I'm not so afraid to post anymore". Perhaps that alone makes my effort worthwhile.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Not taking sides here, but I have setup numerous iwagumi-type scapes that were not densely planted. I never used additional stems or anything to bulk up the plant mass. One of these recent setups actually had just individual stem plantings of hairgrass and hc scattered around the tank. With all these setups I dosed a full EI-type dosing schedule just like my more densely planted tanks and I had zero algae issues. The algae that usually would crop up especially in this type of setup is curtailed by other organic control methods, but again these setups received the full EI treatment even with the tanks thinly planted and I did not have any visible algae issues. This is my own PERSONAL experience and multiple tanks under multiple conditions and not any scientific conjucture.


----------



## farmhand (Jun 25, 2009)

houseofcards said:


> ...were not densely planted. I never used additional stems or anything to bulk up the plant mass. One of these recent setups actually had just individual stem plantings of hairgrass and hc scattered around the tank. With all these setups I dosed a full EI-type dosing schedule just like my more densely planted tanks and I had zero algae issues.


Is there anyway of quantifying the mass of growth required to keep algae at bay? We know a full tank of healthy plants works. How about fewer? How much fewer?
Science is art that is documented and repeatable.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

farmhand said:


> Is there anyway of quantifying the mass of growth required to keep algae at bay?


Hmm, I feel an experiment coming on...

Now if I could only figure out where to set up tank #5. :hihi:


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Quite the interesting discussion going on here.
Subscribing to see further discussion 

I can honestly say that I have had much less algae since getting my dual stage regulator, and the CO2 is more constant as opposed to my old milwaukee reg. Lots of flow to mix the CO2/ O2 throughout the tank. The only mistake that I have experienced is when I increased light without increasing CO2 as well, which resulted in BBA on my wood.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

farmhand said:


> Is there anyway of quantifying the mass of growth required to keep algae at bay? We know a full tank of healthy plants works. How about fewer? How much fewer?
> Science is art that is documented and repeatable.


No not possible, way to many variables at play in each setup, not to mention the type of plants and growth patterns, etc. This would also go for acceptable levels of light, co2, organic load, etc. It would simply be different for every tank. I also treat the organic load first, to me that is the beast.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> No not possible, way to many variables at play in each setup, not to mention the type of plants and growth patterns, etc. This would also go for acceptable levels of light, co2, organic load, etc. It would simply be different for every tank. I also treat the organic load first, to me that is the beast.


Why couldn't you use the same species to start out and take the dry weight of them when you are at an algae free threshold? Then repeat several times to see if it can be duplicated. I'm no expert, though. We all know that. :tongue:


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> I also treat the organic load first, to me that is the beast.


Do you mean limiting fauna, tank cleaning, or something like organic adsorbents? What do you find is necessary to have an algae-free tank when there are few plants?


----------



## jlroar (Aug 19, 2007)

I am NO expert here and have little to add to this thread however T5's under a white plastic reflector is hardly considered decent lighting. T5's with individual reflectors would be. IMO you lack the Intensity of light.

I also do not know how to explain Intensity other than referencing T5's to PC. T5's of the same wattage work with my Anemone however the Anemone was dwindling under PC's because the lack of Intensity. Try buying a decent T5 setup or modify yours. Make sure your lights are not old IMO 6 months max.

I had a spout with Mr. Barr a few years ago and have slowly come to realize as much as I hate to admit it and I argued your point too that he is right.

This doesn't mean their is not a better way but means he is offering FACTS not opinions. When he asks you for your facts you give him opinions and not absolutes like he is offering you.

IMO anyone who takes away a scientific approach to doing something is nuts, ignorant or unable to step back from their own situation to see the difference. However suggesting a fact based on nothing more than observation is nothing more than a guess without facts. :eek5: I guess what I'm getting at is spend the money and prove your point or as Mr Barr is suggesting you are simply doing something wrong. The IE method after upgrading and such worked for me.

Don't forget a few hundred years ago it was a fact the Earth was Flat. Thank God someone was willing to use FACTS to prove them wrong even if they very well could have proved them right.

Best wishes,

James


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

*EDIT*

I do want to point out that I am not trying to moderate you, James. It may sound as though I am coming off in that manner, and I don't anyone to think they cannot speak their opinions. Actually, you have a valid point and I am glad you are participating in the conversation and not afraid to tell us we are wrong and why you believe it to be so. Actually, I appreciate your candid response and feel comfortable with all of you to respond with objections. I look forward to hearing your response because I am honestly enjoying the conversation. 



jlroar said:


> Don't forget a few hundred years ago it was a fact the Earth was Flat. Thank God someone was willing to use FACTS to prove them wrong even if they very well could have proved them right.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> James


When you use this as an argument, I have a hard time following anything else you say. A few hundred years ago it was a fact the Earth was Flat??? Yeah, I'm going to put stock in your words now. Perhaps you are misinformed on other things as well. People have known for centuries the Earth is not flat and putting fact in Washington Irving's biography of Columbus is misleading. If you know the author's work, he's known for his tongue-in-cheek style of writing. 

By the way, you should refrain from calling others words such as "nuts." Name calling just makes your point less valid as you are making it personal. When an individual has to go to the extent of explaining another's failure due to mental defect, it only reflects poorly on the person trying to invalidate claims.

There is no reason a person on this forum cannot argue why a method does or doesn't work for them. However, I ask that each of you remember to keep it on topic and avoid taking cheap shots.

Can I be wrong on this matter? ABSOLUTELY. More likely than not, I am. My goal is to find out why I have algae, why I failed; which I am doing with experiments that include keeping everything else constant and changing one variable at a time. It is very likely I will come to the same conclusion as people smarter than myself have done. I'd much rather know what I am doing wrong than just a simple blanket statement as "you failed."

That is the great thing about this hobby, there is not one right way of doing things. Everyone keeps assuming I failed but doesn't bother to ask why I failed. If you asked such questions, I could tell you what I have learned and many would be the benefit of newbies like myself. Quite honestly, that is my goal. To share what I've done wrong so others can either learn from it or laugh with me at my follies.

Some people like the easy route to California. Other's like to take the long, narrow twisted roads. Don't they both end up in California? My point is, the method doesn't matter, it is the end result.

There is one thing I have noticed on this forum. It is okay to say that the EI method works great for an individual and to praise it, but when a person shares that the method doesn't work for them, they are automatically 'failures.' Wouldn't it be better if the 'failures' were able to state the reasons they failed? Perhaps if we were listened to, you would see we are not blaming the method, but ourselves after all. No one likes to be told they are a failure. That is all I am trying to point out here.

Also, what makes opinions of those who say it works any more of a fact than those who say is doesn't work? Seems kind of like a double standard to me that you can claim it works and I am supposed to put more stock in your results than my own. It works for you, fantastic! I am happy for you. 

However, what I am concerned about is why doesn't it work for me and others. Perhaps we get lazy with water changes, filter maintenance, over cleaning, excessive light, too little co2, overfeeding, or we don't know the difference between a teaspoon and a tablespoon. Or maybe it is something that we haven't thought about yet. Without knowing our cause of failure, we are doomed to repeat the same errors over and over again. What would be *fantastic* is the ability to discuss with others our experiences so we could discover what we did wrong. Not everyone likes to be spoon-fed and actually enjoys the hunt.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

sewingalot said:


> When you use this as an argument, I have a hard time following anything else you say. A few hundred years ago it was a fact the Earth was Flat??? Yeah, I'm going to put stock in your words now. Perhaps you are misinformed on other things as well. People have known for centuries the Earth is not flat and putting fact in Washington Irving's biography of Columbus is misleading. If you know the author's work, he's known for his tongue-in-cheek style of writing.


I think that he was just saying that it was accepted as fact even though it wasn't.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

CL, it wasn't accepted as a fact that the earth was flat. People have shown in drawings dating back to BC era that the earth was round. The idea of the earth was flat didn't come until much later and only a group argued this. To say everyone believed to be fact is a misconception.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

sewingalot said:


> CL, it wasn't accepted as a fact that the earth was flat. People have shown in drawings dating back to BC era that the earth was round. The idea of the earth was flat didn't come until much later and only a group argued this. To say everyone believed to be fact is a misconception.


That's not what they taught us in 4th grade 
Stupid history books!


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Sadly, I was told the same. It wasn't until I got into higher classes that I learned this was a common error taught in schools. There is a lot of work done on the topic, if you are interested, pm me and I'll send you some links.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

I remember hearing that on the history channel or my dad telling me or something. I was just instinctively going with what I learned first.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

jlroar said:


> I am NO expert here and have little to add to this thread however T5's under a white plastic reflector is hardly considered decent lighting. T5's with individual reflectors would be. IMO you lack the Intensity of light.


Actually, it's T8's, which is even worse. 

_Thank you_ for offering your opinion on my lighting. You are the first person to suggest my lighting may be too low. I've never before gotten anything other than the standard response of "reduce lighting", which I never felt was applicable to my situation.

Thinking this through from both the viewpoint of others, and my own when it differs, it makes sense both ways. So I will upgrade!

May I also ask your opinion on whether 2x 39W T5HO's with Icecap reflectors will in general be sufficient for most plants in a 46g bowfront? I will be able to reduce intensity if needed.



jlroar said:


> I had a spout with Mr. Barr a few years ago and have slowly come to realize as much as I hate to admit it and I argued your point too that he is right.
> 
> This doesn't mean their is not a better way but means he is offering FACTS not opinions. When he asks you for your facts you give him opinions and not absolutes like he is offering you.


Conversations between me and Mr. Barr were not always this way. At first, I learned a lot from him. But as time went on, I learned more, and my questions got more specific. I found that when I asked such questions, based on facts and details of my tank, the responses I received were rambling and repetitive; they covered many different basic topics at length while often failing to address my questions at all.

_You_ spotted an issue with my light being too low, and _he_ did not; even though I've explicitly asked for his opinion on it twice. If my lighting is really that poor, I would expect a person of Mr. Barr's skill to have easily spotted the issue. Perhaps it was simply overlooked, but spending a little more time reading would have prevented that, and saved him a lot more time typing.

This ends up being hindrance rather than help. When such lengthy responses are provided as frequently as they are by Mr. Barr, some people tend not to read them fully; assuming that "the Brain has spoken, so the problem is solved." And some choose to remain silent, because they realize that Mr. Barr believes he provided an adequate answer when in fact he didn't; and they know from experience that providing a different answer will result in a useless debate with Mr. Barr, since he has a tendency to defend his answer rather than realize he failed to answer the question.

There are several long periods when I was one of the silent, dreading the tedium that results from posting either questions or answers in the presence of Mr. Barr. I guess that's given me a lot of time to come up with my own opinions, right or wrong, to explain when I see something that doesn't fit currently accepted models. I am always open to _intelligent, focused discussion_ on those opinions; and if I am in error, I would like to be corrected. Mr. Barr is _intelligent_, but rarely _focused_ enough for me to have an _intelligent discussion_ with.

Here's something I'd like to discuss: An abundance of healthy, rapidly growing plants tend to prevent algae. It is probably not because plants out-compete algae for the nutrients/CO2 we add, since they are freely available to both plants/algae in abundance. It is also probably not due to allelopathy, since I know that to be in scientific disfavor. So, is there scientific proof (or disproof) for the idea that it's because plants out-compete algae for certain chemicals that come from organic waste, that would otherwise act as triggers that tell algae to start growing? And if there is no scientific certainty, is it reasonable to assume this for the time being?

That is phrased concisely and in such a way that it can be accurately answered with a similarly concise answer, no more than a few paragraphs, including a _yes or no_, and maybe a link to a research paper.

Mr. Barr's typical 1,000+ word response includes many of the following: EI, Liebig's law, snake oil, PAR readings, CO2 misting, how many tanks he maintains, glamour shots of those tanks, lessons on logic and the scientific method, magic, telling you assumptions are useless, PMDD, and who knows what else.

What it will _not_ include is an _answer_, much less a _simple direct one including a yes or no_, unless you go to extraordinary lengths to call him out on that fact.

EDIT: Wow, I see I got multi-ninja'd. Just so folks know, I didn't take offense, or take it personally, regarding Jlroar's "nuts" comment.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

sewingalot said:


> Sadly, I was told the same. It wasn't until I got into higher classes that I learned this was a common error taught in schools. There is a lot of work done on the topic, if you are interested, pm me and I'll send you some links.


Sara, PM them to me, please. I'm always pleased to learn my ancestors were brighter than I thought they were  .


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

DarkCobra said:


> Here's something I'd like to discuss: An abundance of healthy, rapidly growing plants tend to prevent algae. It is probably not because plants out-compete algae for the nutrients/CO2 we add, since they are freely available to both plants/algae in abundance. It is also probably not due to allelopathy, since I know that to be in scientific disfavor. So, is there scientific proof (or disproof) for the idea that it's because plants out-compete algae for certain chemicals that come from organic waste, that would otherwise act as triggers that tell algae to start growing? And if there is no scientific certainty, is it reasonable to assume this for the time being?


Your idea is very reasonable. It makes since that the plants would find a way to steal every available source of energy to survive. One thing I have noticed plants have the advantage of is the root system. Put a tablet of fertilizer six inches from a crypt and no where else and I guarantee you'll see roots in that area soon. Great thinking, dark cobra.

I don't know if you are interested in my opinion, but I am giving it anyway. :wink: I've noticed the plants that have lived in my tank the longest are the most resistant to algae. They have a stronger root system, even when cut they are quick to recover and send out shoots that are thicker, healthier and more resilient to algae. Kind of like how if you want healthy long hair, you have to trim it to encourage growth. If you don't get it trimmed, you'll eventually end up with split ends. (Yes, I use a lot of real life analogies, it's the way I can process)

When I add a new stem to my tank, sometimes they go through a battle in acclimating. If something goes out of whack, this is the plant that is hit the hardest. Could it be that plants are so good at adjusting that I could think I am doing everything right when in fact the plants have just learned to live with an idiot? :icon_idea


----------



## farmhand (Jun 25, 2009)

sewingalot said:


> I've noticed the plants that have lived in my tank the longest are the most resistant to algae.


This idea might help explain new tank syndrome.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Farmhand, how do you think it may explain the new tank syndrome? I am intrigued to know what your thoughts are since I am currently going through a setup of a tank.


----------



## houstonhobby (Dec 12, 2008)

I think his logic is pretty obvious. In a new tank, _every _plant is a new plant.


----------



## farmhand (Jun 25, 2009)

sewingalot said:


> I've noticed the plants that have lived in my tank the longest are the most resistant to algae.





houstonhobby said:


> In a new tank, _every _plant is a new plant.


Just putting two and two together.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

houstonhobby said:


> I think his logic is pretty obvious. In a new tank, _every _plant is a new plant.





farmhand said:


> Just putting two and two together.


Actually, I new the logistics. Just trying to drag more than a sentence out of farmhand here, because I've noticed many intelligent one liners from this person and would love to hear more. Didn't work, just made me sound even more ignorant. :help:

Edit: So does spelling "knew" as "new." I give up. LOL.


----------



## farmhand (Jun 25, 2009)

sewingalot said:


> Just trying to drag more than a sentence out of farmhand


"Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut."


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

farmhand said:


> "Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut."


Love the quote! However, I still believe there is a very intelligent brain in that head of yours. By the way, I just changed my signature to reflect my own foolish behavior as of lately. :tongue:


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

I think allelopathy plays a little role in reducing algae growth on the plant's leaves but not to the extent that it kills off algae in the whole tank.


And yes, the ancient greeks worked out the math for a spherical earth and that it revolved around the sun. Some people choose not to believe in certain facts as truths. It's quite a complicated story of politics, religion and plain old education.


----------



## farmhand (Jun 25, 2009)

DarkCobra said:


> So, is there scientific proof (or disproof) for the idea that it's because plants out-compete algae for certain chemicals that come from organic waste, that would otherwise act as triggers that tell algae to start growing?


Waiting for someone to comment on this...


----------



## farmhand (Jun 25, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> I think allelopathy plays a little role in reducing algae...


Why?


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

farmhand said:


> Waiting for someone to comment on this...


x's 2. Anyone care to take a stab at it? Dark Cobra has a great theory here.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

farmhand said:


> Why?


Oh, just noticed algae growing on rocks, driftwood and glass but not on the leaves of crypts.

There are some studies from Diana Walstad I can pull up too but she leaves it open ended with nothing definite.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

mistergreen said:


> There are some studies from Diana Walstad I can pull up too but she leaves it open ended with nothing definite.


As do I and most.




> So, is there scientific proof (or disproof) for the idea that it's because plants out-compete algae for certain chemicals that come from organic waste, that would otherwise act as triggers that tell algae to start growing?


I think there is strong evidence that plants modify and dominate a system, much like a forest does as it established itself after....... say a fire....or some strong disturbance. Smaller annuals grow like mad in the disturbed sites, like most crops which have the same traits as many weeds.

If you take this analogy to the aquatic ecosystem, it's a bit easier to understand the ecology. Algae have a number of sexual stages and spores that are very tough, much like weed seeds. These spores wait till there's a strong disturbance, then bloom once there is some trigger or germination signal.

Well established old growth forest, or a well run dominate plant community have little weeds/algae issues.

do the weds and the trees compete or do their life cycles on the same temporal or spacial scales? Not even close, the same is true for aquatic ecosystems where there are lots of plants.

The best study that looks at algae/plant dynamics and nutrients is Bachmann's:

Techy:
http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty Pubs/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf

Less techy:
http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty Pubs/CanfieldPubs/Aquatics2004LR.pdf

Folks there know if you add more ferts, you get more weeds, the water stays gin clear. Remove the plants, then it's pea soup. Temps are about the same for aquariums as these semi tropical lakes, both are shallow, both have lots of plants etc.

Plants reduce current, increase sedimentation, increase snail populations, wider fish diversity and fish populations where the % coverage of aquatic weeds is managed well, less if not. We also have 100,000 or more FW species alone, each with their own niche.

I think what triggers germination si the key here.
What types of disturbances are required in an otherwise stable reference system? How much/what intensity of the disturbance? Which species are involved in response to the disturbance? What types of plant disturbances/growth rate changes can cause changes in dominance?

Finding answers to these is a lot more tricky and I see little research $$ going into such questions, mostly in regard to getting rid of algae and managing inputs coming into rivers and natural or semi natural systems, restoring the Everglades etc.

So I do not expect the questions to be answered anytime soon.
Some ways to see how the organic chemicals proceed through these systems: stable isotope labeling can be used. Then you can see "who gets what" as far the chemical of interest. That should narrow the choices down somewhat and rule out some suspects.

Most lulls in growth or stress of the forest/aquatic plant communities, removal, low % coverage => allows a good place for weeds/algae to gain a foot hold.

Perhaps the algae can sense this some how.
We know it's not just nutrients, or O2 or the more obvious things.
Current reduction? Light filtering from plant leaves?(See phytochrome and Red/Far Red responses, algae have these same systems and can tell when it' is a plant leaf vs say a rock or wood blocking the light, so can other plants).

Quite a few possible issues. Why does a weed germinate and grow where we do not want it? This same pest management and ecology can be applied to algae in aquariums.

There is a great deal not known, and even less being done to answer the questions or rule them out. 

Hobbyists can answer some of them, but others require more refined approaches or cost more/too much/other practical issues outside the aquarist ability.

Still, it's not much of an issue if the focus is good healthy plant growth.
that's true in lakes, rivers, many natural settings, and in non CO2 planted systems as well as higher light or CO2 enriched aquariums.

So there's not a huge interest here, killing the aquatic weeds is more an issue in practical matters. But they become weedy because they human induced issues as well 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I will say this idea of organic fractions of nutrients becomes more of an issue as the system is leaner, some plants are better than other plant species, likewise for algae. This can be intense in the water column for phytoplankton and in the ocean, not so much in shallow nutrient rich systems where there are lots of plants. Plants do not need to compete strongly in the water column if they are rooted, algae do, so this will always favor algae.

Still, very rich organic tannin laden water often lacks species of some algae, diatoms tend to be wide spread though. Diatoms in general make the better model for determining the ecology of natural systems, perhaps the planted tank might also be similar?

Lots of questions, we could go on and on all day, but little/few answers.
Less folks doing anything to answer it. Plenty of speculation and some trying to say a lot more than they really can. 

I speculated it was NH4 perhaps, but testing it, it only induced green water, few other species of algae and only under high light conditions. I also could induce more species of algae and more easily with reducing the CO2 and adding NH4.

With less light, better CO2, induction becomes much harder.
So NH4 alone is not it. I've added pure O2 gas, this did nothing as far Chl a levels on any leaves or glass slides.

I think this/these algae question/s will remain unanswered, but the focus here is more about plants. 


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Nate McFin (Mar 19, 2009)

Great response Tom. 
Algae really is an amazing plant. (70% of the worlds oxygen comes from algae!)
An interesting (albeit sometimes basic) vid about "The worlds most important plant"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB2XlpD-Ld4

We likely wont have answers to our questions for awhile. Science just isn't going to get funding to figure out to make algae stop for aquatic gardeners. Now they may stumble upon an answer while studying the use of algae for biofuels or medicines. 

OFF TOPIC- 
I would like to thank Tom for all he has given the hobby. I hope you continue to do so despite what others may have to say. 
I agree EI works and that if it isn't working something else is off, but I also find these types of threads interesting. 
An idea is where all science begins and we are all in this hobby for the same reasons. Lets act like it!


Back on topic- It seems as though my 20G went through phases of algae. 
Diatoms came and went as expected. Then GSA and GDA stopped in to annoy me for awhile. BBA (red and black) made an appearance. Cladophora as well and then cyano. These all seemed to come and go fairly quickly with some minor adjustments....like adding a little extra PO4 and adjusting the Co2. The thing that was interesting was that once they went away they never came back. It was like they were checking out the conditions. When it wasnt right for one the next one would try.
Everyone says it all the time. While it can be a vague and wishy - washy answer, it really is true...balance is the key. Its a fine line to walk with so many variables like light, co2, TDS, nutrients, etc. Especially for folks who like to mess with things alot. (guilty myself on occasion!) It does seem to help to let the tank find its own balance just give a nudge in the right direction.
The more we mess with them the more out of wack they get it seems!


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

sewingalot said:


> Why couldn't you use the same species to start out and take the dry weight of them when you are at an algae free threshold? Then repeat several times to see if it can be duplicated. I'm no expert, though. We all know that. :tongue:


I don't think it would be impossible to do that in a controlled setting with two tanks, but in applying the findings to one's tank here with so many different thinks to consider (fish load, lighting, feeding, maintenance, etc.) I just don't think it's practical.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

DarkCobra said:


> Do you mean limiting fauna, tank cleaning, or something like organic adsorbents? What do you find is necessary to have an algae-free tank when there are few plants?


Yes, exactly all those things and more. Obviously the less healthy plants growing the more important those items become as well as doubling up on them (i.e. Carbon, Purgien, Mulm). Why do so many have issues with new tanks in terms of algae. Immature bio-filter in terms of filter media and plants, The carbon, purigen, mulm, etc. fills the void until the biofilter can take over. Just like live rock in a a saltwater setup. If you do all these things plus limit your lighting duration, feeding, fish load, etc. I can 'almost' guarantee no real nuisance algae, but most don't do all these things they skip a few and ask what can I do to stop the algae, or it's the ferts we dump in or what's the ONE thing I can do. It's not one thing it's a system, but as I said the beast is the organic load and how you manage it.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

In a new aquarium, it did not matter much if the nutrients where high or low. 
ADA AS leaches, as well as power sand and you can measure sky high ppm's, but those tanks do well. 

ADA suggest plenty of water changes, at least 50% 2x a week or more..........for the first month or two.

This adds CO2.
Light is also low.
Peat and high tannin content *may* push the algae community towards diatoms and not the greens and BBA, but many ADA tanks have some BBA. If they keep up on the disc cleaning and filtration, this is much less an issue.

After 2-4 months, the tank's roots are well established and well as the lower redox conditions for the bacteria. I've wondered if that bacteria in the slightly reducing conditions plays some role and good healthy plant roots pumping O2 in there has some signaling effect on algae spore germination.

I've wondered this for a decade or more.

No idea.........just a curiosity.

We dosed sugars to stimulate the leaching from a shocked/stressed plant to see if bacteria/algae would react. Nope.

Maybe we had the wrong type for leachate from the plant? Maybe its indirect with bacteria? Maybe it's just the transit change that starts the process of a bloom, and then the algae hang on after conditions change?

Quite a few ideas right there, all of which are not easy to address.
If we/I/you cannot rule these out, then none of us know what causes algae in the entire spectrum.

Some good sized knowledge gaps there.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> I don't think it would be impossible to do that in a controlled setting with two tanks, but in applying the findings to one's tank here with so many different thinks to consider (fish load, lighting, feeding, maintenance, etc.) I just don't think it's practical.


Yeah, you're probably right for the hobbyist with all kinds of variables, but I was thinking if you started 2 tanks and did the exact same thing to each tank. But then you get fools like myself that love platy fish that breed a mile a minute or someone that gets only a few shrimp and the dynamics change. I tried an experiment last year with 20 gallon tanks set up to the very same specifications. I could definitely show a pattern and could repeat the scenario over and over as long as nothing was done differently to either tank but only one variable.

What I have noticed is each of my tanks need different things to sustain growth and keep algae at bay. And what is really cool is I know exactly what to do to each tank to cause algae. The problem is I don't know _why _this happens. I can speculate, but it is more conjecture and correlation than cause and effect.

However, with the more I read and knowledge I gain from tinkering, I am finding a way to keep myself from being bored. But would I ever recommend someone repeat my measuring and weighing and poking and prodding? It really depends on what there goal is. If he wants an easy tank, with minimal troubles follow other methods. If he wants to bang his head on the wall, but feel triumphant for a minute or three when a light bulb clicks on, follow my method of haphazardness.

So what is true about algae? As long as there are aquariums and bodies of water, there will be discussions on algae. That's all I have to say on the topic, and I am sure everyone is breathing a sigh of relief. :tongue:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Nate McFin said:


> We likely wont have answers to our questions for awhile. Science just isn't going to get funding to figure out to make algae stop for aquatic gardeners. While it can be a vague and wishy - washy answer, it really is true...balance is the key. Its a fine line to walk with so many variables like light, co2, TDS, nutrients, etc. Especially for folks who like to mess with things alot. (guilty myself on occasion!) It does seem to help to let the tank find its own balance just give a nudge in the right direction.
> The more we mess with them the more out of whack they get it seems!


I think we can identify some attributes of these balance that we can take home and really hold up and say some good generalizations about.

1. Light drives => CO2 demand/uptake rates= > which in turn drives nutrient demand/uptake. So lower light makes the management easier. CO2 prevents plant-plant competition. It goes a little bit slower, but much easier to care for, vs higher light. 

2. We are lazy and absent minded .....so sediment sources of ferts are a good idea and then there's less critical error with the water column.

3. We just want to solve the problem(algae/poor plant growth etc), but do not care how or why. So we often do several things at once and cannot isolate to rule things out stepwise. 

4. We have to have a reference/a control tank to test against in the first place. 

5. It helps a great deal if you have multiple tanks that get the same treatments(eg same sediment, water changes, dosing etc). CO2 rarely is the same tank to tank. Some are pesky, most are not. Many have a problem tank but a few that are really nice. 

6. We can measure PAR and learn a lot about light right now. We have the ability to rule out limiting nutrients as a dependent factor easily and cheaply.

7. CO2 is the fastest most variable changing parameter there is. Nutrients change over days, weeks, months, light over months to years. CO2 can go from 40ppm to 0.5ppm in 30-45 minutes and then back up again. Poor measurement of CO2, no references, poor accuracy, current, O2 , etc all play big roles.

8. CO2 has gotten me, it's gotten Amano, it's going to get you. Just be wise and realize it, rule the others out, then focus there.

Algae may sense the variation in CO2 or a plants response to a CO2 deficit.
This seems possible, maybe likely. It would make a "good signal" to germinate.

9. With Liebig's law, we can see we can bottle neck growth (make one nutrient more limiting than any other to growth) using another nutrient, say PO4 and this can increase the wiggle room with CO2(since PO4 is the rate limiting factor). If you cannot fix CO2, then this is an alternative method.
But.... so is less light and better CO2 management. and you get better efficacy out of the light and the CO2, eg less waste........using CO2/light optimally, which leads ultimately to better horticulture overall.

10. Time, our own abilities and improvements, we pay more attention etc when there's an issue, less when there's not. Also, time for the tank to get going and maybe the algae went away on it's own, nothing to do with what we did at all?

All these things could be happening.
How does one go about ruling these out in a logical manner?
How many failures do you/we/I have to have before giving up?
I spent over 2 years on BBA with several others. Several German aquarist came to the same conclusion independently. 

It's fairly well accepted a CO2 issue these days.
100% sure it's the cause? Never, but 95% sure? Generally, but CO2 is a more complex issue that adding more till you gas the fish.

There's a lot we do not know about CO2, but many assume they know everything about it. I'm guilty as anyone, so is Amano and any aquarist that's used it for some years. 

I got burnt with a pesky solenoid a month ago.
Sucker stuck closed for the first 1-2 hours, then opened, so the plants had CO2 deficiency for the 1st part of the day. I am gone, so when I come home, I see the CO2 flowing and thought that could not be it.
I looked for leaks, any off gassing in the sump etc etc. My other tanks where all fine and growing everything great, just this one tank out of the 5.

I tried 4 different diffusion methods, failed.
Increased and change current about 10 different ways, nothing.

I only caught the solenoid after redoing the reactor/disc one morning.
Then replacement etc, resolve it. there are many tricks and issues you can miss. Does not matter who you are, or if assume you know it all. You do not and can only say it is working if the tank is working well. Then you go back and test...... 

But, few folks want to induce algae or mess with it at that point.
But that's the only way you have a reference to start with:icon_idea 
I'm not scare of algae, most are and are not that interested in testing/seeing if the hypothesis hold true etc.




Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> Yes, exactly all those things and more.


Thanks, I was curious what methods you personally employed to have a lightly-planted, algae-free tank. Sounds like you use, or have used, every method available.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

Tom, those are some good posts. Credit where it is due.

May I ask if you feel you changed your normal style of posting for those, or is it strictly a matter of my perception?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> In a new aquarium, it did not matter much if the nutrients where high or low.
> ADA AS leaches, as well as power sand and you can measure sky high ppm's, but those tanks do well.
> 
> ADA suggest plenty of water changes, at least 50% 2x a week or more..........for the first month or two...
> ...


Yes, I agree they do well, but for the reasons you listed. I think most of us know what happens to someone inexperienced with AS and runs lights for long duration and maybe plays with the soil too much. Personallly almost any tank can do well if you maintenance it correctly. I don't think you can seperate some high risk setups from lifestyle and how much maintenance you want to do on the tank.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> ...
> 3. We just want to solve the problem(algae/poor plant growth etc), but do not care how or why. So we often do several things at once and cannot isolate to rule things out stepwise.
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


I am definitely guilty of number 3, but more on a proactive basis not a reactive one. I do all the preventive measures since I don't believe you can ever narrow it down to one variable with certaintly. Again for me it's organic control and whatever it takes (fast growing plants, less light, less livestock, more water changes). All these things are more or less based on setup. Why should it be so black and white?


----------

