# Phosguard destroyed my green hair/cladophora problem in less than 48 hours



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

What lighting do you have? Light drives algae growth just as it drives plant growth.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Most definitely, I had a terrible time with green dust when I first setup until I got the lighting under control with timers. My main light, a Finnex planted plus, is probably too big for my tank and definitely was an algae machine.

I like the brightness though so I kept it and reduced the time to a couple "full sun" blasts during the day and put in accent lights to let me see the tank other hours and to make a nice circadian transition for the critters. I intentionally used accent lights that were poorer choices for plants/photosynthesis (high K and red/rose color accents) as more interested in light transitions and visibility. Less interested in extreme plant growth.

Finnex 30" planted plus (21w) - 3 hrs/day (full sun)
Trulumen 12k/12k+rose light bars (9w total) - 5 hrs/day (partial sun + evening/morning)
Marineland all red accent (4w) - 2 hrs/day (sunrise/sunset)
Trulumen 12k+rose light bar (3w) - 2 hrs/day (twilight)
24x7 tiny moonlight

I've had no other algae issues with the above light hours and won't get rid of the Finnex and can't raise it. I just need to figure out the right balance of ferts, esp. phosphates to run these lights.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Im glad to hear this solved your problem, and you cant argue with direct experience...but Im finding it hard to believe stripping phosphates alone is the remedy. To put it another way, I dont think high phosphates were the direct cause to begin with.

You seem to have an awful lot of light and relatively low level of nutrients. It will be interesting to see if another form of algae pops up in the near future.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

No I think low CO2 was the cause. Reducing the phosphates probably slowed my plants down leaving more CO2. Conjecture anyway based on what I have been reading between Barr, MCI, PMDD, etc... 

I am convinced that the phosguard was 100% responsible for bringing about the conditions to nuke this algae so fast. Battling for weeks then it stops abruptly within 48 hours of stripping phosphates. I don't fert nitrates or add CO2 so getting a high dose of phosphates in my tap might be too high for my particular situation (whereas someone who does CO2 and ferts, it might not matter at all).

My guess is I may end up with other problems as a result of stripping the phosphates hence the need to do more homework and find the right balance. 

UPDATED: One point I forgot to mention. While phosphate stripping might not be a long term approach for growing plants, it is interesting that it might be useful as short term strategy to destroy certain kinds of algae instead of using chemicals, perhaps a gentler method. 


Here's some of the stuff I was reading for anyone reading this thread.

Method of Controlled Imbalances Summary
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/69737-method-controlled-imbalances-summary.html

PMDD - Poor Man's Dosing Drops
http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/PMDD.htm

Tom Barr's review of these
http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/estimative-index/6362-methods-algae-control-or-growing-plants

There's a lot of studies about Cladophora and phosphates in lakes where blooms can be a problem. It's not the same environment as an aquarium to be sure but I think there some applicable information in them. Some examples:

Causes, Consequences and Management of Nuisance Cladophora
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/publications/reports/cladophora.pdf

Phosphorus Provenance and Cladophora Growth in Lake Ontario
http://www.ajax.ca/en/livinginajax/resources/duffin-creek-wpcp/documents/Phosphorus_Provenance_Final_Report_24_Oct_2014.pdf


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

burr740 said:


> You seem to have an awful lot of light and relatively low level of nutrients. It will be interesting to see if another form of algae pops up in the near future.


It is a lot of light hours but the wattage is low albeit with quality LEDs. It's a good point and something I think about. I was hoping the poorer photosynthetic lights like the red accents won't contribute as much to plant or algae growth. Might be a crackpot theory. But things have been stable until this thread algae tried to take over.

In terms of nutrients, concentration is one thing I don't completely understand. I get 5ppm nitrates from my tap with frequent water changes and the critters make some so it is always present (never tested a 0). Will 20ppm make plants grow faster or better than 5ppm? Or is the higher ppm so you don't run out like if you are running a high performance system with CO2?


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Some good info there. Thanks. Like I said, cant argue with your direct result.



ahem said:


> In terms of nutrients, concentration is one thing I don't completely understand...... Will 20ppm make plants grow faster or better than 5ppm? Or is the higher ppm so you don't run out like if you are running a high performance system with CO2?


Maybe someone will come along and explain this because I dont fully understand it either. To me it would seem logical that, for example, as long as there is even 1 ppm nitrate present in the water column, that would indicate a leftover after plants have used all they can use. In other words nitrates are still non-limiting at this point.

But then you read things like X plant does better with 20 ppm, etc, and I can vouch for such instances through personal experience....how does that work? 

Fwiw my high tech does best with N in the 30 range, and P between 5 and 10. Any less P and GSA starts to appear. GDA/BBA if nitrates get really low, like under 10.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

It brings up an interesting hypothesis that some alga are easy to kill off just by a temporary and abrupt change in nutrients. Given alga are simple niche organisms, very permeable, and don't have a lot in the way of "stores" like plants do, they may quickly perish as soon as their niche conditions are no longer present. Whereas a plant can take days to show deficiencies and weeks to die from it, with alga its more like hours.

I could see two approaches
1. short term "fixes" where extreme changes like stripping phosphates are used to kill off a colony while the root problem gets resolved

2. longer term nutrient cycling where nutrient ratios are altered in some rhythm that makes it difficult for any one algae to take hold


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

Another issue to consider here... phosguard doesn't just remove phosphates....

Phosguard is activated alumina, which removes phosphate and silicates per Seachem, but also is known to remove other materials like flouride, arsenic, and selenium...

The silicates are, AFAIK, really only used by diatoms... 
Selenium however, seems to be associated with cladophora.. at least in a few sources...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22455319

Not saying I'm sure that's the issue, but it sure is food for thought...


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

It would be interesting to better understand the various metabolisms of the different alga we find in our tanks. I'm guessing it could be hundreds of species, many of which look alike which is why we have no such folio and our resources just lump them into groupings with names like GDA. If we had something like that and a way to lock down a colony to a particular species, there might more prescriptive ways to deal with algae like how a doc can prescribe a specific antibiotic for a specific bacterial infection.

In terms of the other nutrients you mention, I did this post a week ago (with no replies  ). Several studies found that B1, B7, and B12 vitamins have been implicated in algae blooms. The charts in the studies show exponential growth of algae vs control where the only difference was more B12. I've never heard B vitamins mentioned once here, yet there are studies that show they stimulate algae growth considerably. It is a good point to keep an open mind that there might be more at play.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=854153&highlight=

*Algae Need Their Vitamins†*
http://ec.asm.org/content/5/8/1175.full

*Most harmful algal bloom species are vitamin B1 and B12 auxotrophs*
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/48/20756.abstract

*The nutrition of Great Lakes Cladophora* see pages 18-24
http://books.google.com/books?id=hnQwDVvlQB0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

another link to the same paper
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20012PK2.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C00000009%5C20012PK2.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

To tie into that, activated alumina appears to be able to adsorb b12 too..

"... the alcoholic extract is passed through a column packed with activated alumina whereby the vitamin B12 is adsorbed by the alumina. "

http://www.google.com/patents/US2595499


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

mattinmd said:


> To tie into that, activated alumina appears to be able to adsorb b12 too..
> 
> "... the alcoholic extract is passed through a column packed with activated alumina whereby the vitamin B12 is adsorbed by the alumina. "
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents/US2595499


Good find on the doc, thanks!

The B1 & B12 thing was interesting because I would be certain those vitamins are in fish food. 

Whatever was the limiting nutrient for my Cladophora, phosguard sucked it right out of the water. I just went over the tank again in bright light and nary a green hair can be found. Clado had even started invading my latest clump of Java moss (had to ditch the last clump because of this), but all I see in there now are little clumps of whitish green hairs that look quite dead. I have the same comfortable amount of GSA and GDA as before putting in the phosguard so this appears to have been a targeted elimination of just the Clado. A few threads of what looks like black hair are still on the tips of my Anubius but that plant has never been healthy.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Your experience is interesting, but I think you would have to design a well controlled experiment to be able to credit the phosguard with stopping the algae. Generally you should aim to have the light be the only limit on how fast the plants grow. Restricting the growth by cutting back on a nutrient generally leads to less healthy plants, and more algae. That's why it is hard to accept that the phosguard is the cause of your success.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

Hoppy, I agree that this isn't a well controlled experiment, so hardly causal..

I also strongly hold that the nutrient-limiting approach to algae control doesn't work long-term for planted tanks, as it eventually kills the plants.

That said, I do think that short-term nutrient limiting may be a viable method for killing off some forms of algae. Let's face it, doing a 3-day blackout kills several forms of algae.. Algae are small, and lack food storage abilities and cannot survive long without light. Obviously you can't maintain a blackout for a month, as it would kill your plants.

I could see the argument that a short term nutrient deprivation might kill off algae. Again, algae lack the reserves that plants have... And again, doing it long term will just kill your plants off. (ie: this is not a viable control mechanism)

Of course, this still suggests at absolute best that nutrient limiting can act as a short-term "knockdown" type solution like algecides, h2o, etc... you eventually need to fix the causes or it will come back.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Hoppy said:


> Restricting the growth by cutting back on a nutrient generally leads to less healthy plants, and more algae. That's why it is hard to accept that the phosguard is the cause of your success.


There's two points mixed up:
1. Low phosphates as a good approach to growing plants - not making this assertion and agree that if too much phosphate is removed, plant health will suffer. Further phosguard only lasts a few days so this would be an expensive long term strategy.

2. The abrupt death of my Cladophora colony within 48 hours of phosphate stripping - I agree more experiments are required but at this point it is awfully suspicious after an unending month long struggle where nothing else was changed other than phosguard. I was literally watching Clado grow up until 3 days ago.

I'm not sure you can make the assertion that because a phosphate deficiency is bad for plants, it therefore cannot kill algae.

It's also rooted in some of the literature. The MCI/PMDD methodologies claim that reducing phosphates low will eliminate algae except GSA. The methods use that level as a baseline, then add "just enough" phosphates so there is healthy plant growth but no other algae growth. By extension it seems to be an interesting method to nuke nuisance algae, at least temporarily, just would not have guessed it would be this fast in action.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

Another side note on this after more thought...

One thing that mildly concerns me about using short-term nutrient deprivation for algae control is that it may cause the algae to form spores...

I have no algae specific knowledge here, but many members of the plant kingdom will push to reproduce when good growing conditions suddenly go bad.. This is a sensible behavior, as it ensures spread of the species in environments that are sporadically good and bad...

That would suggest this is a good time to make sure that conditions don't favor algae going forward, and possibly do a good filter cleaning too..


----------



## imcmaster (Jan 30, 2015)

I always appreciate when users post their experiences like this ... thank you.

I remain unconvinced that lowering phosphates was the direct cause for the algae death (or that higher CO2 was an indirect cause), but of course I could be wrong.

ahem - during the phosphate reduction process (2-3 days) - did you at any time treat the water with h2o2 or excel, etc, or could some have been lingering in the water?


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

I've been doing excel as directed for months now, and 1.5 daily for past few weeks hoping that would help but clado does not seem affected by it. Never spot treated excel as that seems like putting too much in the tank. I had been spot treating H2O2 daily for the past 3 weeks. The H2O2 did work on the areas treated, but the clado would just show up somewhere else the next day. I didn't spot treat my HOB intake sponges because I would just replace/clean them daily. There would be a monstrous amount of clado on them in just one day (I'm sure partly because the prior day cleaning would get new clado particles stuck in the sponges). Now nothing on the sponges. UPDATE EDIT: I spot treated H202 last the day I put phosguard in. No more treatments after. Continued excel.

If phosphate stripping does work, as the lake studies in the links offer some evidence, it is probably the least invasive and by far easiest way to get rid of Clado. No chemicals added, no manual labor. The worst is the plants have a phosphate deficiency for a few days. It's very low risk compared to one-two punch, algaefix, and the other methods. I probably spent 20 hours of labor this past month keeping this under control. Its exciting that I may have replaced all that with $10 and the work of tearing open an envelop and putting a pouch in my HOB. For anyone else with the clado problem, it's a cheap, very low risk experiment that might have a big upside.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

mattinmd said:


> Another side note on this after more thought...
> 
> One thing that mildly concerns me about using short-term nutrient deprivation for algae control is that it may cause the algae to form spores...
> 
> I have no algae specific knowledge here, but many members of the plant kingdom will push to reproduce when good growing conditions suddenly go bad.. This is a sensible behavior, as it ensures spread of the species in environments that are sporadically good and bad...


Valid concern. I have a couple UV's trying out that I am hoping will help eliminate spores. I know some people don't like them but I think they have a use as a crisis cleanup tool.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Sounds to me like classic case of too much light for CO2 available.
If one cannot increase the CO2,then reducing the light will create less demand from plant's for CO2 /nutrient's.
When plants are struggling for Carbon which comprises maybe 75 % of their mass while being bombarded with too much light,algae which need's much less of everything ,will thrive.
Hard to move folks off their high $$ lighting so they seem to alway's drift towards nutrient excess as being the source of their problem's.

Reducing the light as has been mentioned,double dosing Excel,spot treatment of affected areas with algae with every day use of peroxide for three week's all could have been responsible for the algae's slow demise.
With the lighting mentioned,, over roughly ten inches of water, and reducing same,,this alone could have brought relief over time.
Wondering how the tank has run for month's (as posted) without issues? and suddenly in last month there is "monstorous' clumps of clado ,thread algae.
If problem has persisted for month's,,then to expect overnight solution I think is unreasonable.
If problem suddenly became unmanageable,then I might wonder what has suddenly changed from month's before with no issues.


----------



## imcmaster (Jan 30, 2015)

ahem said:


> The H2O2 did work on the areas treated, but the clado would just show up somewhere else the next day. .... I spot treated H202 last the day I put phosguard in. No more treatments after. Continued excel.


This makes more sense to me now (that you killed the existing algae with H202). It did not make sense that simply reducing phosphates could kill existing algae (as algae can store phosphorus in the form of polyphosphate - volutin).

It also makes sense that reducing phosphates to trace amounts will stop new blooms. Most algae uptake orthophosphates (H2PO4- or HPO4--), and depending on the P concentration in the water, phosphorus can be anywhere from 0.1% to 10% of dry mass. In scarce conditions, some algae can uptake organic phosphates (using phosphatase). 
So phosguard has made a very hostile environment for algae to thrive (at least the types which prefer inorganic phosphate) in your tank.


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

I'm rather glad that it took me all this time to decide to try something out.
Now...if it takes a longer time than expected, I'll know why also.
But you have inspired me to try removing the KH2PO4 from my next dosing(done once a week) in one of my tanks.
I have had the same ongoing battle/w Clado in that one. I know exactly where it came from. Two T5 bulbs @ 12" from the sub/w no CO2 is where it came from.
Then they are in a fixture rated as being 100 PAR by the Hoppy chart @ that distance.
I took out one of the bulbs and it's now on 7.5 hrs.
The Hydrogen Peroxide thing works well on the bottom, but needs several doses on the walls/plants as it doesn't sit where you put it then but rather slides off down further
heading for the bottom of the tank.
Then when you have various decorations etc it seems never to be gone completely so like you said it just pops up elsewhere.
I don't think that with one bulb removed that I have 50 PAR. There is a symptom
in this tank of poor growing conditions because the tank has one weekly dose of regular EI ferts at the correct level for it. Has low plant mas. Has double Excel doses.
So that thing which mattinmd suggested that plants will start trying to send out new plants when the conditions are poor...I have a Water Sprite in there which grew well till it was about 5" tall. Now all it is growing are plantlets at the ends of each branch it has.
If the rest of the conditions are good, that suggest light. But it seems like it should be @ about 45-50 PAR in that fixture/w one bulb if the chart is correct about it having 100 PAR/w two bulbs. Still scratching my head on this one.
But I'm going to eliminate the KH2PO4 in the next dose for sure and perhaps in the next weeks dose also, but not beyond that. I'll let you know in this thread if/how well it worked on the Clado.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

I don't think reproduction should be considered a sign that conditions are bad... 

If conditions were good, but suddenly bad - plants will tend to sacrifice themselves and go to seed. 

However, this mechanism does not apply to plantlet-type reproduction... Seeds can lay dormant until conditions get better... plantlets cannot


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

Wasn't suggesting that reproduction is a sign of bad conditions.
You said..."but many members of the plant kingdom will push to reproduce when good growing conditions suddenly go bad.. This is a sensible behavior, as it ensures spread of the species in environments that are sporadically good and bad..."
Reproduction can be a sign that conditions are very good just as well as several other 
things it may indicate.
But I was merely suggesting that what you said may apply to my Water Sprite plant
which has stopped growing new stems and started growing new plantlets instead.
That is not the only plant showing strange symptoms in there. Some stems of Rotala have strange growth patterns also. Combining them, I was only allowing the possibility of bad conditions for these plants. Sporatic growth is the symptom on the Rotala.
Long but not full size leaves, and followed by short leaves and then back to the long leaves on the same stems. Also multiple sprouts near the top of each stem.
One should not conclude that because the plant is reproducing that it means poor growing conditions. Like I said, it is just an indication that it may be that way in my tank. It could just as likely be very good conditions causing excess growth compared to normal on that Water Sprite.
Either way, Ill try removing the KH2PO4 from the dosing next week to see if it has any effect on my Clado. Like the OP said, Excel doesn't seem to have much if any effect on it when dosed in the water.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

roadmaster said:


> Sounds to me like classic case of too much light for CO2 available.
> If one cannot increase the CO2,then reducing the light will create less demand from plant's for CO2 /nutrient's.
> When plants are struggling for Carbon which comprises maybe 75 % of their mass while being bombarded with too much light,algae which need's much less of everything ,will thrive.
> Hard to move folks off their high $$ lighting so they seem to alway's drift towards nutrient excess as being the source of their problem's.
> ...


I don't think you read my post completely. I use excel so the plants do have a carbon source. The Algae did not slowly die, it died suddenly, an entire colony of clado gone in less than 48 hours. I didn't expect an overnight solution but I got one. Also I did not suddenly get clado, I suspect it started because I had a slow growing small tuft of it months ago on my driftwood I thought looked good until it started growing fast. Then I got rid of it but I'm guessing too late and at some point it took hold and then really started to grow everywhere a month ago. Also I have had a fry explosion in past couple months so that may have altered the water chem.

I'm not going to reduce my light below the 3 hrs I have it on. That is conjecture that if I just bumped that light from the whopping 3 hrs (to what a 1/2hr a day maybe?) all this would have been prevented. And why would I do that and look at a dark tank if I can play with nutrient ratios to achieve the same goal?

I think people are uneasy about this because I may have found an easy way to kill an clado colony that was in fact an overnight solution and that threatens the popular memes such as algae = not using CO2 bottles and large amounts of ferts OR keeping your tank in the dark (apparently it has been decided those are our only choices to deal with algae). The phosphate clado connection has some scientific basis for which I posted links but which appears to be rejected by some of this community. 

Algae is much more nuanced than most give credit, evidenced by the fact that the algae section on this forum is so active. If it was settled science and an easy problem, it wouldn't have its own subforum. As such, I intend to challenge every meme applicable to a problem I'm having that doesn't have scientific studies behind it. The ironic thing is algae has loads of scientific studies, they are just ignored by the community for some reason.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Raymond S. said:


> But you have inspired me to try removing the KH2PO4 from my next dosing(done once a week) in one of my tanks.


If you are attempting it, this is a good resource to read. .

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/69737-method-controlled-imbalances-summary.html

Christian Rubilar apparently does/did tank maintenance and setup for a living and this was his methodology. PMDD appears to have some similarities. It does prescribe low phosphates to baseline and to kill algae, so you would have to be certain you are not getting them elsewhere besides your KH2PO4. Recommend the API phosphate test kit if you don't have one.

I like the MCI method because (1) it shows a way to kill algae with nutrient deficiency vs chemicals and (2) it attempts to baseline the tank to a known point of where GSA begins and other alga die, then backs slightly off that point. I like that certainty. Whether it is practical in the long run is a big question. EI seems less work. My difficulty with EI is while I understand the need for the 50% water changes, they are excessive for me because I like taking a gallon or so every day turkey basting my substrate to keep it clean of mulm.

Bump:


imcmaster said:


> This makes more sense to me now (that you killed the existing algae with H202). It did not make sense that simply reducing phosphates could kill existing algae (as algae can store phosphorus in the form of polyphosphate - volutin).
> 
> It also makes sense that reducing phosphates to trace amounts will stop new blooms. Most algae uptake orthophosphates (H2PO4- or HPO4--), and depending on the P concentration in the water, phosphorus can be anywhere from 0.1% to 10% of dry mass. In scarce conditions, some algae can uptake organic phosphates (using phosphatase).
> So phosguard has made a very hostile environment for algae to thrive (at least the types which prefer inorganic phosphate) in your tank.


My hypothesis, which is nothing more than that now, is that algae does NOT have significant stores of phosphate or anything else compared to plants and is thus far less resilient to nutrient changes than plants which can take days to show deficiency and weeks to die from it. Algae as a group of organisms are a highly adaptable, being able to quickly colonize just about every environment including extremes. My conjecture is that algae as a single organism is not highly adaptable and may be killed off quickly by altering its required niche conditions (e.g. low CO2, high phosphates, whatever it happens to like).


----------



## imcmaster (Jan 30, 2015)

ahem said:


> My hypothesis, which is nothing more than that now, is that algae does NOT have significant stores of phosphate or anything else compared to plants and is thus far less resilient to nutrient changes than plants which can take days to show deficiency and weeks to die from it. Algae as a group of organisms are a highly adaptable, being able to quickly colonize just about every environment including extremes. My conjecture is that algae as a single organism is not highly adaptable and may be killed off quickly by altering its required niche conditions (e.g. low CO2, high phosphates, whatever it happens to like).


I am trying to help you understand that phosguard alone (or the depletion of phosphates) will not kill algae in the short term.
There have been studies done where the resilience of algae has been tested in a phosphate depleted environment. The results show (see Fogg 1975) that algae DOES have sufficient phosphorus stores (as I stated earlier) to survive the next phase. The only two factors that I am aware of that make an immediate impact are light and temperature.

That said, I have agreed that you can create conditions in which algae will not thrive. This is the MCI approach (and not that it kills anything). It states a controlled balance of N, P and (K limiting), and Fe, Mg and Calcium in the presence of ample CO2 will create an environment which favours plants but not algae.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

The assertion is too broad as to not be that meaningful. All millions of algae species store phosphates? How long do they all store them for? Days, weeks, years? 

If I were to bet on a broad assertion it would that plants, and complex organisms in general, tend to have more surplus and can weather changes longer, and that an individual algae species is more quickly affected by a change in its ideal conditions than plants are. Now of course when the conditions are changed, a different algae species that likes the new conditions may rapidly colonize.

In my case it appears phosphate reduction had some affect on cladophora. Clado is a genus so in my case it may be limited to the species of Clado that was in my tank. There is a wealth of studies now that show phosphate stripping negatively affects Clado. It is valid to question whether:
1. Clado needs phosphates and thus reducing them impairs it in some way

and/or

2. That the stripping method may remove something else Clado needs like @mattinmd mentioned phosguard removes B12, a chemical that has studies (linked above) that show accelerate clado growth. 

and/or

3. That the removal of phosphates causes some other water parameter to change that is not conducive to Clado. Tom Barr has asserted his belief it may cause higher concentrations of CO2. I see some posters say they up their CO2 and have similar effect to what I had with the phosguard. They turn it up and the hair alga die off.

It also might be that I have done a one-two or even a one-two-three punch, blasting with H2O2, using excel, but somehow the phosphate reduction pushed it over the edge where maybe the excel killed it (there was no more H2O2 at that point). On the flip side there was someone on here recently who did an experiment with hair algae left in pure excel overnight that remarkably did not kill it. Can't find it but it had pictures and everything.


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

No matter how eloquent one says it works or doesn't work...the proof is in the doing.
That is why I am going to try this. I realize that what I'm doing is a bit different.
A true scientific experiment would have a control group. In this case that would be
about 100 empty aquariums filled/w distilled water and a Clado sample.
Then add light/nutrients till you got growth from the Clado and then use the Pho/guard.
I appreciate your suggesting that I get a test kit for that to see if it's coming in like from the tap water. That tank gets no flake fish food. But does get pellet type.
The two fish in there(Elassomas) eat only Daphnia and baby snails so any food I
put in is for the snails actually and it's very little yet almost each day.
I'm trying(hopefully) to confirm this removing the phosphates idea.
I will say that I realize the stuff you used works likely much quicker at removing the 
phosphates than letting the plants use it up like I'm trying.
But considering that 1/64 tsp is all that goes in there, it should work.
I'm open to any new way to deal/w algae...up to a point.
Which point ? I like GSA. I'd rather it stayed in there...LOL...
There are so many variables tank to tank. I think that rather than discuss what we think
will happen, that doing it in various ways to see what happens would realize more profit.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

ahem said:


> The assertion is too broad as to not be that meaningful. All millions of algae species store phosphates? How long do they all store them for? Days, weeks, years?
> 
> If I were to bet on a broad assertion it would that plants, and complex organisms in general, tend to have more surplus and can weather changes longer, and that an individual algae species is more quickly affected by a change in its ideal conditions than plants are. Now of course when the conditions are changed, a different algae species that likes the new conditions may rapidly colonize.
> 
> ...


 
Last paragraph is likely what happened.
Along with reducing the light from whatever it was before limiting it, to three hours
Seem's you are the one not reading closely.
All of the measures you have taken over a month's time had gradual, negative effect on the problem and as you say "one two three punch". The fact that the clado and or hair algae reported, "appeared" to leave overnight was most assuredly result of cumulative measures taken rather than phosphate reduction alone.(my opinion)
Cummulative effect also brought on the problem although these are hard for some to realize.
Use same lighting,same photoperiod as before ,and very likely to see same problem, phosphate reduction or not.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

ahem said:


> It is a lot of light hours but the wattage is low albeit with quality LEDs. It's a good point and something I think about. I was hoping the poorer photosynthetic lights like the red accents won't contribute as much to plant or algae growth. Might be a crackpot theory. But things have been stable until this thread algae tried to take over.
> 
> In terms of nutrients, concentration is one thing I don't completely understand. I get 5ppm nitrates from my tap with frequent water changes and the critters make some so it is always present (never tested a 0). Will 20ppm make plants grow faster or better than 5ppm? Or is the higher ppm so you don't run out like if you are running a high performance system with CO2?


 
Does not much matter what ppm from tap is for nitrates or phosphates but rather what is in the tank available for plant's by week's end.
Plant mass will use what it need's as per amount of light being used and number's of plant's 
Some plant's may use more than other's.
Fish waste provides some NO3 and fish foods contain PO4 but whether this is enough for your/my plant's varies from tank to tank due to variables like fish load, feeding amount's/frequency,plant mass,lighting,available CO2,slow grower's/fast grower's.
Is why some prefer EI type dosing scheme where they can be sure no deficiencies are likely, and they can tune it down or up as plant's demand .
Start at non limiting amount's of the fertz and can dial the fertz back each week until poor plant performance suggest's returning to previous amount.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

ahem said:


> Thought I would post this as I see many on this site struggling with the green hair menace.
> 
> For the past month I have kept ahead of a clado bloom but just barely. It's been a tiring marathon. Every single day I have spot treated H2O2, removed hunks from plants and objects, topped infested plants, and removed rocks where it was growing. All of this just to find new sprouts of it the next day. I have 2 HOBs with sponge pre-filters I was changing out everyday as they would have a clado colony on them within 24 hrs (most likely from pieces broken off as I removed it from the plants that would then be sucked into the filter -- and yes even with turning the currents off while working).
> 
> ...


 You say you "fert infrequently" with Seachem Flourish complete.
Do you mean with complete line of Seachem fertz NPK or flourish comprehensive?
Flourish comprehensive may not be enough for it is very lean on the NPK and more trace(micros )and water.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

imcmaster said:


> This makes more sense to me now (that you killed the existing algae with H202). It did not make sense that simply reducing phosphates could kill existing algae (as algae can store phosphorus in the form of polyphosphate - volutin).
> 
> It also makes sense that reducing phosphates to trace amounts will stop new blooms. Most algae uptake orthophosphates (H2PO4- or HPO4--), and depending on the P concentration in the water, phosphorus can be anywhere from 0.1% to 10% of dry mass. In scarce conditions, some algae can uptake organic phosphates (using phosphatase).
> So phosguard has made a very hostile environment for algae to thrive (at least the types which prefer inorganic phosphate) in your tank.


 Hostile environment for plant's as well = better conditions for that which need's much less to thrive ALGAE.
Not sayin you can't run a tank lean ,but takes fair amount of experience/observation to be able to recognize just how lean you can run the tank for particular plant mass and amount of light being used is a big factor.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

ahem said:


> I don't think you read my post completely. I use excel so the plants do have a carbon source. The Algae did not slowly die, it died suddenly, an entire colony of clado gone in less than 48 hours. I didn't expect an overnight solution but I got one. Also I did not suddenly get clado, I suspect it started because I had a slow growing small tuft of it months ago on my driftwood I thought looked good until it started growing fast. Then I got rid of it but I'm guessing too late and at some point it took hold and then really started to grow everywhere a month ago. Also I have had a fry explosion in past couple months so that may have altered the water chem.
> 
> I'm not going to reduce my light below the 3 hrs I have it on. That is conjecture that if I just bumped that light from the whopping 3 hrs (to what a 1/2hr a day maybe?) all this would have been prevented. And why would I do that and look at a dark tank if I can play with nutrient ratios to achieve the same goal?
> 
> ...


 
I did read everything carefully, including the notation that you had reduced light = good. Reduced from what?
Was prolly too much before reducing the intensity/duration.
Use of excel as carbon source which is used by the plant's through adsorption/transformation within the plant ,makes your tank more high tech = more nutrient's needed, and possibly more excel depending on how fast your HOB filter's may be off gassing what little CO2 may be available.
In any event,,the measures you have taken over a month combined,,,is likely cause for the problem to subside rather than PO4 limitation.
Do not think there aren't hundred's ,perhap's thousand's who haven't tried nutrient limitation while combating algae in all it's form's.
They are not often rewarded with this approach and most often the plant's begin to suffer = more algae.
Hundred's,perhap's thousand's also spoon in the PO4 2 to 5 ppm,KNO3 20 to 80ppm,K2SO4 not so much, two to three times a week under intense lighting, CO2 enriched tanks, and have no issues with algae. 
Why is this ?


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Roadmaster makes a good point but Im not sure too much light is the culprit. Indirectly, perhaps. I suspect a too low level of nutrients, weak plant mass, and/or possibly excess organic waste. Obviously reducing light will curb the issue, but I dont think it is the primary catalyst. There are too many tanks out there running uber lighting without issue.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

burr740 said:


> Roadmaster makes a good point but Im not sure too much light is the culprit. Indirectly, perhaps. I suspect a too low level of nutrients, weak plant mass, and/or possibly excess organic waste. Obviously reducing light will curb the issue, but I dont think it is the primary catalyst. There are too many tanks out there running uber lighting without issue.


 Yes,exactly.
Those who run uber lighting must also ensure enough nutrient's are readily available ,and more importantly enough CO2.
Is why the gurus are alway's suggesting the problem's those running high energy tanks have are in nearly all cases CO2 related. Poor flow/distribution,not as much CO2 being delivered as thought.
They are told rightly so I believe, to either increase the CO2,fix flow distribution,and or lower their lighting intensity which is the primary driver of demand for the CO2/fertz.
Low tech folks learn that with no way to increase the CO2 or supplement with Excel,glut,metricide, in NON CO2 injected tanks which can get expensive in large tank's,that their best hope is to reduce the light thereby reducing the demand for CO2/fertz.
That which bring's the algae is or can be ,many thing's working against our effort's at growing the weed's (many self inflicted),but reducing the light first, is alway's a good idea to slow thing's down till we can get a handle on the measures needed to correct the problem or problem's.
As you say plenty of folks running high energy tanks with high lighting,have no issues.
Plenty add lot's of nutrient's,and ensure good CO2 level's to pull it off.
Trying to run a tank lean in my view from nutrient standpoint ,is like trying to keep a small child in comfortable shoes.
Their feet's grow quickly not unlike plant's (we hope) ,and you are alway's buying them shoes and or in lean dosed tank's alway's will have to adjust for more growth so as not to run the tank too lean.
Much easier I think with EI method of dosing at least until such time as you know what you are seeing from deficiency standpoint.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Got called away before I could finish,,
Dr. Tom Barr recently tested with PAR meter some ADA tanks and found that there was not near the PAR values he expected but with good CO2/nutrient levels,the plant's/tank's were what we all aspire to.
The great Amano's tank's if you look at the photo's ,some of Tom's as well, have relatively high light, but the light's are often hung well above the tank's.
They don't need as much CO2/nutrient's for this reason ,and a lot less tinkering to maintain their awesome appearance.
Truly it is the light that drives the demand for everything from plant's perspective, and problems with tanks where folks are always told increase the CO2 are directly associated with the amount of light driving the demand.
These Gurus running uber lighting and injecting CO2 at 30 to 50 ppm into their tanks .the tanks always spotlessly clean.
They perform large water changes not so much to reduce or reset the nutrient values, but rather to remove the organic waste that fishes and plant's create as they poop or in the case of plant's that which they do not use for growth and respire.(proteins,enzymes,algae spores?)
They trim off poor looking leaves,top off leaves on other's so that flow is not hampered by excessive growth,they clean filter's frequently ,they keep diffuser's cleaned, glass cleaned drop checker's.
Everything is running at accelerated rate, and by taking the measures they do,,they have way fewer problem's over all.
This can work well with all tank's planted or otherwise (keep em clean)
It occur's to me I'm rambling so..
Maybe something here will help other's.


----------



## Beefy (Mar 6, 2015)

roadmaster said:


> Maybe something here will help other's.


Indeed. While I don't doubt that Tom is right when he says that phosphates don't cause algae, it is clear to me that under some specific circumstances, adding a phosphate remover can dramatically help the fight against algae.

You have to not fall into the 'enthusiast' trap where you continually recommend that everybody turn everything up to 11 - it just doesn't work for a lot of people. So for some, phosphate removers are a valid and possibly vital strategy...... it disappoints me that people are trying to poo-poo this thread so vigorously.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

roadmaster said:


> Last paragraph is likely what happened.
> Along with reducing the light from whatever it was before limiting it, to three hours
> Seem's you are the one not reading closely.
> All of the measures you have taken over a month's time had gradual, negative effect on the problem and as you say "one two three punch". The fact that the clado and or hair algae reported, "appeared" to leave overnight was most assuredly result of cumulative measures taken rather than phosphate reduction alone.(my opinion)
> ...


No that is incorrect. I didn't reducing lighting during this struggle. I reduced it months ago and no light schedule changes made recently. I'm not sure where are reading a "gradual" effect. I had clado, bad. If I didn't clean it, within a few days it would be entwined in half of plants. There was no gradual "lessening" of it, in fact it seemed to become more prevalent which might be because of my activity in cleaning it. I think when it breaks off during removal or otherwise messing with it, that can become new clumps of it once it settles. Anyway it was gone within 48 hrs. Last night I was watching white pieces of floating around my tank. Does't get much more sudden than that.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

burr740 said:


> Roadmaster makes a good point but Im not sure too much light is the culprit. Indirectly, perhaps. I suspect a too low level of nutrients, weak plant mass, and/or possibly excess organic waste. Obviously reducing light will curb the issue, but I dont think it is the primary catalyst. There are too many tanks out there running uber lighting without issue.


I think the catalyst with Clado is Clado. It gets introduced into your tank and it grows if it's conditions are favorable. A lot of anecdotes are that it is more "plant like" in terms of what it likes and why it is hard to get rid of. Light changes, excel, etc... appear to not have an affect on it like they do other algae. I think I just hit its weak point which is that it needs phosphates. 

I get that Tom Barr and others have done a test where they add lots of phosphates to his tank and voilla, no algae. It's a good test but it does not prove that reducing phosphates has no affect on certain genus/species of algae.

Further my assertion here is NOT that high phosphates cause Clado, just that stripping phosphates are kryptonite for this particular algae. I would guess the causes of Clado and other algae are more complicated than most think, e.g. it is never as simple as extra light = automatic algae.

But again, there are probably a dozen studies you could easily find googling and probably dozens more about how stripping phosphates is strongly correlated with reduction in clado mass. The thing I don't get is why scientific studies, real ones done by PhD's with controls and everything, don't seem accepted. Most of them are studies of lakes, is there an assertion that if it is a lake based study it has no validity in the tank? It isn't apples to apples for sure but it doesn't seem prudent to discount these studies on that basis.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

ahem said:


> I think the catalyst with Clado is Clado. It gets introduced into your tank and it grows if it's conditions are favorable. A lot of anecdotes are that it is more "plant like" in terms of what it likes and why it is hard to get rid of. Light changes, excel, etc... appear to not have an affect on it like they do other algae. I think I just hit its weak point which is that it needs phosphates.


... or something removed by phosguard... maybe.. unless there's a timing coincidence and it was a prior treatment and it just happened to finally collapse when you did the phosguard.

I still strongly suspect phosphate is not the issue, and I think it is way too easy to fall into the trap of thinking of phosguard as a phosphate-only remover. It does a lot more than the label says...

Regardless of the cause, I do think the results are interesting.. If my clado ever comes back (knock on wood it doesn't), I'm going to try phosguard for a couple days while simultaneously heavy-dosing phosphates to keep those up...


----------



## imcmaster (Jan 30, 2015)

I'll try one more time.
Phosphorus (Phosphates) is profoundly important to cells, and to algae, and to plants. Cellular activity, including the machine of energy - ATP - would not be possible without it. In other words, without phosphorus, new cellular life is over.
Despite your objections, it is a fact that algae has evolved to survive in very scarce phosphorus environments. Some algae even have adapted it's movement in water to scrounge P by changing elevations in the water. Because P is so vital, stores of P are found in CELL components like the cytoplasm (but other parts can store P as well). Does algae have cells? Does clado have cells? You can continue to deny that Clado has no store of P, but please do the research prior to making this statement.
P is so vital in the water, that if algae become starved of it, some will die just to release it, so that the population can continue to live in smaller numbers. How long can it store for? I have no clue, but I expect it is longer than 48 hours, and probably several weeks.

I have always agreed that starving the water of phosphates will stop the bloom of clado, or any other living algae/plant in your tank. The difference with plants is the mobile ability to take nutrients from old leaves to support new growth, and roots to pull from the substrate, etc. Algae can't do this (except as I described above).

The problem I have with your claims is the focus on how reducing P killed the existing algae (although you loosen this claim and throw in the 1-2-3 punch idea). Is it not more plausible to suggest that H2O2 and/or excel and/or mechanical removal had a larger part in the eradication of it, and that the continuation of new growth is no longer possible because P is too scarce?
I just don't want to have the idea that reducing P alone to very low concentrations will eradicate existing algae as quickly as 48 hours, without a controlled experiment where you do not use any chemical or mechanical removal, etc.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

mattinmd said:


> ... or something removed by phosguard... maybe.. unless there's a timing coincidence and it was a prior treatment and it just happened to finally collapse when you did the phosguard.
> 
> I still strongly suspect phosphate is not the issue, and I think it is way too easy to fall into the trap of thinking of phosguard as a phosphate-only remover. It does a lot more than the label says...
> 
> Regardless of the cause, I do think the results are interesting.. If my clado ever comes back (knock on wood it doesn't), I'm going to try phosguard for a couple days while simultaneously heavy-dosing phosphates to keep those up...


Agreed that it is an open question even if the scientific evidence available paints a phosphate clado connection. I'm sure I didn't use the same technique used in the lakes where they did these studies.

Got 4 2.5gs under my 20 so if it comes back I can do a better experiment . It likes to grow on my river rock so I'll put some rocks infested with it in both tanks, change some of the water with my main tank water each day and try to grow it so I know any death was not from moving. Then just float a phosguard pouch in one of the tanks for a couple days and see what happens.

It might come back too, I have to take the phosguard out and get a long term plan like one of the "methods". It might be my imagination but the some plants are looking less green. I'll start with the hypothesis I didn't have enough N and the N/PO ratio was out of whack.

Bump:


roadmaster said:


> You say you "fert infrequently" with Seachem Flourish complete.
> Do you mean with complete line of Seachem fertz NPK or flourish comprehensive?
> Flourish comprehensive may not be enough for it is very lean on the NPK and more trace(micros )and water.


Yes, I meant the one that just does trace. I intentionally was trying to fert the macros from tap water (5ppm N, 1-3ppm PO, ? ppm K) and the fish wastes. I have the seachem macros but have not used them much, experimented with them a few months ago.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Roadmaster makes a good point but Im not sure too much light is the culprit. Indirectly, perhaps. I suspect a too low level of nutrients, weak plant mass, and/or possibly excess organic waste. Obviously reducing light will curb the issue, but I dont think it is the primary catalyst. There are too many tanks out there running uber lighting without issue.


My main light has med-high par depending on who reviews it. Stem plants near the surface grow fast, I have to top them an inch a week almost. I cannot grow grass, nor do short plants, like if I put a topped stem down there, grow very fast. I think this means my light is not "high" and does not reach the lower levels very well even in my shallow tank. I have eco-complete with river rock topping so it isn't the substrate.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Raymond S. said:


> I'm trying(hopefully) to confirm this removing the phosphates idea.
> I will say that I realize the stuff you used works likely much quicker at removing the
> phosphates than letting the plants use it up like I'm trying.
> But considering that 1/64 tsp is all that goes in there, it should work.
> ...


It will be interesting to see the result with a different way of achieving although keep in mind phosguard is only $10-15 for a predone pouch you can just toss in the hob or possibly the tank with enough flow. I would just make sure you can reduce them quickly enough and not expose plants to nutrient deficiency too long. It's not based on any knowledge but I am guessing this can't be healthy and that within a week I would see effects to plants so for me, experiment over.

BUMP: Update: another difference to keep in mind is that phosguard actively removes phosphates (and likely other things) which is different than passively not putting as much in. If phosphates were generated from my tank (detritus, etc...) those were absorbed as well.


----------



## Brian Mc (Feb 9, 2012)

I think the focus is too much on phosphate here and you guys seem to be ignoring the significance of silica. I don't see what is so hard to understand here, a quick google search will show you that silicon is a required nutrient of clado. Phosguard removes silica. As ahem has been trying to say algae have very little nutrient stores. The "bloom and boom". Remove the silica, the clado dies.

1976 study shows silicon is required nutrient for clado and algal growth was inhibited by germanium dioxide (phosguard is aluminum oxide):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3434887/

I am thinking about running some Phosguard to remove silicates to get rid of my new tank diatoms. Wiki link here shows the importance of silicates for those and describes the "bloom and boom" cycle better. This is not to say the algae may not go dormant and return, but hey looks good don't it ahem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

:iamwithst


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Certainly does, I used phosguard to get rid of diatoms in a smaller tank because tested high silicates (sand tank). Did not know that clado needed those too. So phosguard removes phosphates, silicates, and possibly vitamin B12, all of which have real data that show direct proportional relationship with clado growth and mass.

Phosguard seems like a very useful and fast acting tool for the algae tool box for specific purposes, perhaps just with clado. 

Nothing happened to my GDA or GSA. I don't have a lot but there was no change in terms of growth or shrinkage.


----------



## Brian Mc (Feb 9, 2012)

Thiamine was also identified as a required nutrient for clado, dunno if phosguard might remove that also.
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=digitizedtheses


----------



## imcmaster (Jan 30, 2015)

Brian Mc said:


> I think the focus is too much on phosphate here and you guys seem to be ignoring the significance of silica. I don't see what is so hard to understand here, a quick google search will show you that silicon is a required nutrient of clado. Phosguard removes silica. As ahem has been trying to say algae have very little nutrient stores. The "bloom and boom". Remove the silica, the clado dies.
> 
> 1976 study shows silicon is required nutrient for clado and algal growth was inhibited by germanium dioxide (phosguard is aluminum oxide):
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3434887/
> ...


Respectfully, while you have provided a valuable clue of the importance of silicon to clado (I don't know why you felt it important to suggest this information was ignored), you have not shown how the clado would suddenly die by the removal of silica. For all we know, it was still the chemical treatment which was the final blow.
I also don't know why you mention that Phosguard is aluminum oxide (is this to compare it to germanium dioxide)?
The "bloom and doom" does not suggest any sudden death, it describes the adaptation to scarce conditions.
Phosguard works by removing inorganic ions via precipitation at the water interface; this would not be effective for organic compounds.
This is an interesting topic, and hopefully through controlled experiments we better understand what happened in ahem's tank. For now it is still not accurate to suggest that phosguard killed the clado.


----------



## Brian Mc (Feb 9, 2012)

imcmaster said:


> I also don't know why you mention that Phosguard is aluminum oxide (is this to compare it to germanium dioxide)?


I mentioned that because I didn't want anyone thinking that I was saying phosguard was germanium dioxide. As to the rest of what you said, OK. This isn't a controlled study, but when ahem says he tried everything and the clado kept growing and the phosguard cleared it in 48 hours...I believe him. That's all. When you are working on a problem like that you usually know what fixed it, lab or not.

That diatom links says "In the open ocean, the condition that typically causes diatom (spring) blooms to end is a lack of silicon." Silica is proven to be a requirement for clado, I don't see why it would be any different. Sounds like a pretty sudden death to me.


----------



## imcmaster (Jan 30, 2015)

In a forum I think it is important to have both sides represented. I am not trying to be argumentative. I remain skeptical until proven otherwise.

Ahem also said he used chemical treatment up to and including the first day of the Phosguard. Until phosguard alone eliminate clado, there is no proof of death by phosphate and/or silica removal (or whatever other magic you think phosguard is doing).
Please read your "bloom and doom" reference carefully. Did it ever say that diatoms died? They transitioned, and came back again when conditions change. Does this suggest that algae survives (using some kind of stores?) ... I think it does. Diatoms are very simple forms of algae, and they can sink individually. Can clado do the same? I don't know, but it is much more complex than a diatom and I don't think the "bloom and doom" analogy applies.

Perhaps anyone else who is also skeptical can help me out... lol... or if everyone is convinced I have no further interest trying to remain skeptical.
Cheers.

Bump: My final statement is that I have always suggested that the death was by chemical, and the bloom was stopped by the effect of phosguard (even more so now that the importance of silica is known)...


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Brian Mc said:


> I mentioned that because I didn't want anyone thinking that I was saying phosguard was germanium dioxide. As to the rest of what you said, OK. This isn't a controlled study, but when ahem says he tried everything and the clado kept growing and the phosguard cleared it in 48 hours...I believe him. That's all. When you are working on a problem like that you usually know what fixed it, lab or not.
> 
> That diatom links says "In the open ocean, the condition that typically causes diatom (spring) blooms to end is a lack of silicon." Silica is proven to be a requirement for clado, I don't see why it would be any different. Sounds like a pretty sudden death to me.


The little sand tank diatoms came back after the phosguard was stopped, hopefully clado doesn't.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

imcmaster said:


> In a forum I think it is important to have both sides represented. I am not trying to be argumentative. I remain skeptical until proven otherwise.
> 
> Ahem also said he used chemical treatment up to and including the first day of the Phosguard. Until phosguard alone eliminate clado, there is no proof of death by phosphate and/or silica removal (or whatever other magic you think phosguard is doing).
> Please read your "bloom and doom" reference carefully. Did it ever say that diatoms died? They transitioned, and came back again when conditions change. Does this suggest that algae survives (using some kind of stores?) ... I think it does. Diatoms are very simple forms of algae, and they can sink individually. Can clado do the same? I don't know, but it is much more complex than a diatom and I don't think the "bloom and doom" analogy applies.
> ...


It's trivial to argue what might have acted at this point since I didn't do a controlled study. The bigger picture is there was a significant change that coincided with putting it in, enough that I would try it again. More importantly it's a $15 gamble with no risk to the tank for 48 hrs to try it out for anyone having this problem with the upside of possibly eliminating their clado infestation. I hope someone else takes the gamble, even if they get a negative response that would be interesting as I would have to consider what else could have caused sudden death of an extremely healthy clado colony.


----------



## Brian Mc (Feb 9, 2012)

imcmaster said:


> Please read your "bloom and doom" reference carefully. Did it ever say that diatoms died? They transitioned, and came back again when conditions change.


I read it, that's why I said it might come back. When I said 'dead' I meant 'gone'. It is really hard to get most anything like that out of your tank completely without totally nuking it. I am linking diatoms and clado together because they are often found together in nature along with high silica levels. 

I know to not worry about algae, grow the plants and algae will take care of itself. Nutrient limiting doesn't work to kill algae, the plants use nutrients so you need them. But the fact is also that nutrient limiting is used to deal with nuisance algae in ecological situations, usually focused on...phosphates. Sure grow the plants, etc. but when things go wrong maybe there is a better way to get them back on track fast. Who knows?

I don't think anybody is arguing, I hope not. We don't know what caused ahems clado, we don't know what stopped it. We don't know a lot of things. But I don't want to see people discouraged from trying something that worked for someone else, enough people try it and maybe the factors can be figured out. BTW anybody fighting clado might want to check out that last link I posted, it is 152 pages all about clado with lots of info on what it likes and what it doesn't. I've never even had clado, don't know why I care lol.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Brian Mc said:


> Nutrient limiting doesn't work to kill algae, the plants use nutrients so you need them. But the fact is also that nutrient limiting is used to deal with nuisance algae in ecological situations, usually focused on...phosphates. Sure grow the plants, etc. but when things go wrong maybe there is a better way to get them
> I don't think anybody is arguing, I hope not. We don't know what caused ahems clado, we don't know what stopped it. We don't know a lot of things. But I don't want to see people discouraged from trying something that worked for someone else, enough people try it and maybe the factors can be figured out. BTW anybody fighting clado might want to check out that last link I posted, it is 152 pages all about clado with lots of info on what it likes and what it doesn't. I've never even had clado, don't know why I care lol.


Good summary of the point I have been trying to make unsuccessfully. Nutrient deficiencies are obviously not a way to grow plants, but they may be one tool in the arsenal, when done in short term, to kill certain algae species. Indeed the MCI feeding and care methodology, where I got the idea to try this, uses this very principle.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Will stand by me assertion that all the measures taken over a month's time brought the relief rather than magic bullet bringing sudden eradication.
Might have appeared to be sudden,but was mostly cumulative effect of everything done,and phosguard was final nail in the coffin.
Is not unlike those folks who try shotgun method when medicating fishes for unknown disease.
They try this med and that med often at same time, and if fishes recover,,they cannot know what med or combination of meds brought relief. Only conjecture.


----------



## AlgaeKeeper (Feb 13, 2020)

I am hoping to revive this interesting thread from 2015. A few weeks ago, I was battling a severe clado problem. I carefully read through this thread and ran phosguard in my tank for a week. All the clado turned gray and died within a matter of days. Even the stuff that was growing within my Java moss was gone. 

I think I am on the same water supply as the user “ahem”. I live in Washington DC and our water comes from the Potomac River. 

There are so many variables in this hobby so it’s hard to draw any conclusions, but it would be interesting to do some controlled experiments to see if there is a particular substance in our water that is helping this particularly nasty algae to grow. I wonder if seachem would be willing to be help with this. It could be a potential R&D opportunity for them.

I am no scientist but I do have access to a microscope to help identify algae species. Fortunately or unfortunately , since running the phosguard the clado has been completely eradicated from my tank, so I don’t have a sample to run any experiments. But if it ever reappears here’s what I’m thinking:

I will start with some water from my planted tank, run it through phosguard for a week, and then divide it between multiple cups. I would then reintroduce phosphate, silicate, b vitamins, and other things that the phosguard strips out, one substance per cup, and add samples of the clado. 

To be through I could also include cups of tap water and r.o water with the same substances added , and for a control I could do a cup of just plain tank water where phosguard hasn’t been run.

I could run these all for 3 days under Aquarium lighting and then at the end, desiccate and weigh the samples of clado .

I would welcome any thoughts here. I know it’s far from actual science but may at least help point us in the right direction to potentially discover something new in the hobby? Anyone think this is worth doing or have any criticism / notice any flaws in this plan?


----------



## EdWiser (Jul 14, 2015)

Nothing really this is common practice in saltwater to help with algae control. Lower phosphate will cause algae to die off. That’s why you use Ro/Di water to remove phosphate that comes in drinking water.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

AlgaeKeeper said:


> I am hoping to revive this interesting thread from 2015. A few weeks ago, I was battling a severe clado problem. I carefully read through this thread and ran phosguard in my tank for a week. All the clado turned gray and died within a matter of days. Even the stuff that was growing within my Java moss was gone.
> 
> I think I am on the same water supply as the user “ahem”. I live in Washington DC and our water comes from the Potomac River.
> 
> ...


Sorry to get back to this so late but it is an interesting phenomenon to see that same experience of clado disappearing that quickly after using phosgard. What hypothesis would be tested in this? I think one hypothesis is that some strain(s) of clado are hypersensitive to one or more of those nutrients stripped by phosguard (probably phosphates). Phosguard probably strips all of it. And it's a nutrient those strains of clado can't even live without for a day.

WSSC water, if that's where you get it, does seem to fluctuate. They have mentioned at times blasting phosphates and other chemicals as part of some pipe maintenance program. Also from doing hydroponics and using a truncheon and a Hanna probe, I would notice GH/PPM differences of our tap water from week to week. My hunch is when there is a lot of runoff from rain or melted they have to add extra chemicals or sometime that causes PPM diffs. Sometimes I would get as low as 250 and other times I would get as high as 450 which seemed to coincide with heavy runoff days. As well I recall seeing spikes on phosphates using the API phosphate test.

WSSC draws water from the Potomac and the Patuxent, they have a map where you can see which your water comes from. I understand the Patuxent source is softer.


----------



## freshdan (Dec 25, 2020)

Hi, I have a new tank which now have 4 months and clado has started spreading after my LFS gave me some plants... I’m going to try this, can you please tell me the dosage? The seachem suggested dosage for my 32 gallons is 4 tablespoon but after a couple of days in my canister filter I don’t see any difference..
What dosage have you guys used?
Thanks


----------



## EdWiser (Jul 14, 2015)

I would double the dosage to the package. I used one of the pads and it didn’t last long before the hair algae came back. I just changed out mine on my 120p today during a water change.


----------

