Backwards Idea

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

fish_4_all

Aquarium Advice Addict
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
1,864
Location
Aberdeen, WA
Well this is going to sound weird but with all the algae problems I have seen in my own and in the tanks of others I have to ask.

Is there any way to encourage a specific algae to grow over others?
Obviously not BBA as nothing eats it but the other ones that certain fish we like will eat and be happy for it.
 
I've read that the Europeans encourage soft green algae to grow in their tank & it acts as a source of fish food and supresses other undesirable algae. I've yet to find out the secret of acheiving this (all I get is BBA :( ).

If any one know I would love to try it.
 
Of coarse there is. BBA likes CO2 variations, GSA likes low PO4's, GW likes low NO3's, BGA likes low flow and low NO3's. and of coarse you can just add NH3 and have yourself a shindig of hairalgae and GW.
 
rkilling1, I've never heard of GW developing due to low nitrAte, do you have any sources? Generally GW is due to an ammonia spike from recent death or stirring up the substrate (or killing your biofilter), but I've never read low nitrAtes are to blame. Low nitrAtes AFAIK are only attributed to BGA as they are nitrogen fixers (GW is not).

I've also heard about culturing the soft green algae (looks great when attached to driftwood), but I think its something you need to have established first (ie procure some from someone), because the same thing that grows all true algae types will grow others, that is ammonia/CO2/light, its just what first causes the algae to become established that is different. Personally I think the least amount of algae possible is the best since that means your plant level and biofilter is adequate to quickly absorb the ammonia the fish/inverts produce.

I have thought about feeding schedules in relation to algae issues in otherwise properly setup planted tanks (ie proper nutrients and lighting) and have some thoughts on why certain tanks experience algae problems. One is the amount of feedings and at what time the fish are fed. Fish have very short digestive systems (as seen by them pooping while still eating!), and as such the majority of the ammonia production in both solid and liquid waste occurs shortly after feeding. One way to limit/prevent algae in my hypothetical scenarios was to feed only right before lights out. At night this is easy (I feed about 5min before the lights turn off for the night), its the morning/afternoon feeding that is trickier. I have a siesta period from 10:30am until 1:30pm, and could see the first feeding of the day coming at 10:25am. But I'm not home during this time, and I don't know if I trust my wife to properly feed them (and regularly) :).

In an otherwise properly setup tank, this is the ONLY time I can see algae gaining a foothold, or hanging around. Ammonia will readily be in the water with high CO2 (if injecting), and light, and as mentioned these are the key causes in almost all situations.

Feeding right before lights out eliminates the time when ammonia will be at its highest levels before being converted to nitrAte or used by the plants (which is not usable by most/all? algae). Algae is much easier to control/avoid in planted tanks with no other inhabitants (just nitrAte dosing). This is because IMO there is no constant steady supply of ammonia for the algae to feed on (only chances here are plant leaves decaying and/or microscopic critters, or snails).

Just my 2 cents..
 
7Enigma said:
rkilling1, I've never heard of GW developing due to low nitrAte, do you have any sources? Generally GW is due to an ammonia spike from recent death or stirring up the substrate (or killing your biofilter), but I've never read low nitrAtes are to blame. Low nitrAtes AFAIK are only attributed to BGA as they are nitrogen fixers (GW is not).

That list was just a quick response, not a whole list. The GW should have had a NO3 to PO4 mismatch instead of just low NO3.

from the krib:

"Okay... I must bite at this one (again).

I wasn't thinking too straight when I replied to Steves post originally,
but let me straighten things out now. I first need to agree with
Roger. Green water is related to iron, but only as all plants need iron
for growth. Right there is where I must differ in opinion.

Green water seems to grow, but only when the conditions favor it over
other plants. In aquariums where nitrate is the limiting nutrient, and
phosphate is in excess, green water (unicellular algae) does great.
Both can be un-measurable by test kits, and here is why: With nitrate
being limiting, this asserts that everything else is present in larger
quantities. Phosphates only need to be in slightly higher quantities.
They can still be below test-kit range be being used up as soon as
nitrate becomes present, even in the most minute amount. In addition to
a constant presence (however low) of phosphates, the depletion of
Nitrates puts the higher plants at a disadvantage. Higher plants are
better at competing when nutrient levels are more "balanced".

So now knowing that having nitrate being a limiting nutrient supports
green water growth, it is easy to eliminate it without filters,
additives, medications, etc. Just add nitrates to the tank (KNO3 works
well). By SUSTAINING a low level of nitrates (3-5ppm) in the tank, you
force the nutrient balance to shift. This will cause phosphates to
become limiting. Given time, this will cause the plants to thrive and
green water to fail. Be patient, as it does normally take a little
bit. A lot does depend on how turbid the green water is, how many
plants you have in the tank, how much you fertilize (and what you
fertilize with), and the bioload of the tank.

This would also explain why some tanks just seem to "automatically fix
themselves." Here I would suggest that the biomass has contributed to
rising levels of nitrates, causing the balance shift I talked about."

read the whole article here:

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Algae/green-water.html

FWIW, this is not the only source I have read this from.
 
Most no longer believe that a ratio of nitrAte to phosphate will cause any form of algae, just that you need adequate amounts of both to be present to avoid a deficiency. That post you quoted was from Wed, 26 Nov 1997, so current beliefs might be different now.

If no nitrAte is present in the tank you are in danger of BGA much moreso than GW. BGA is one of the few types of algae that can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere (ie dissolved N2 in the water). Most other plants/animals require it to be complexed in another form such as ammonia or nitrAte.

The only way I can see you having a GW problem with no nitrAtes and high phosphates is when you ALSO have a deficiency in another fert (such as iron or potassium, or in very soft water Ca and Mg). In this situation any ammonia generated from decaying matter/fish/inverts now has NO competetion except for the nitrifying bacteria. This is probably how the ratio theories began to become prevalent (especially since we cannot measure traces/potassium). This is the correlation/causation fallacy that is common in most fields.

I can attest to this theory as my phosphate to nitrAte ratio is far lower than normally recommended (normally ~20-40nitrAte and if I believe my phosphate test its normally over 5ppm). I have some phosphate in my tap water and my food gives a good amount, but I was still seeing GSA on my plants and surfaces until I started dosing small amounts every other day. All I kept reading about was 1:20 phosphate to nitrAte is optimal, don't go lower than 1:10, and 1:5 was just asking for algae problems. Nope!
 
Not long ago I also thought the ratio was important and it drove me crazy! I was still seeing phosphate deficient symptoms, but my ratios were in order. Instead of feeling wrong, feel glad, you now have 1 less thing to worry about! Just keep the levels up and be happy! :wink:
 
fish_4_all said:
Obviously not BBA as nothing eats it but the other ones that certain fish we like will eat and be happy for it.

Actually, Scats will mow BBA. I put two in my tank and the decimated a pretty heavy BBA infestation in less than a week. They are still in my tank and I haven't seen a spot of BBA since.


scats.jpg
 
rkilling1 said:
That list was just a quick response, not a whole list. The GW should have had a NO3 to PO4 mismatch instead of just low NO3.

I've never been able to do this with every sort of PO4/NO3 ratio.......ever, nor have a dozen others.........
This has been going on for well over 10 year..............

I think it's safe to say this can ruled out............
I see no controls, few aquarist ever do controls or attempt to show causation, ....merely correlation at best without controls.............

There might be a few aquarist out that do, but I've not met many, I think I can count them on one hand.

Green water is related to iron, but only as all plants need iron
for growth. Right there is where I must differ in opinion.

Please entertain me on your "iron theory" here.
I've been extremely liberal with Fe for well over 15 years now.....never have I again, ever been able to show this nutrient plays any role in a tank with plants that relates to algae of any sort, much less GW.
I've used ETDA, DTPH, Gluconate chelators etc

I think based on your theory, I've been adding perhaps 2-20x as much as you suggest for nearly 15 years on clients, my own personal and other folks' tanks.

Where is my GW?

Why cannot I not show any GW for all my hard work?

Green water seems to grow, but only when the conditions favor it over
other plants. In aquariums where nitrate is the limiting nutrient, and
phosphate is in excess, green water (unicellular algae) does great.

The question is what causes a GW bloom, not where it does great.
It'll do great in many situations once you have bloom(That does not tell you much).

Both can be un-measurable by test kits, and here is why: With nitrate
being limiting, this asserts that everything else is present in larger
quantities. Phosphates only need to be in slightly higher quantities.
They can still be below test-kit range be being used up as soon as
nitrate becomes present, even in the most minute amount. In addition to
a constant presence (however low) of phosphates, the depletion of
Nitrates puts the higher plants at a disadvantage. Higher plants are
better at competing when nutrient levels are more "balanced".

Do mice and elephants compete for food in Africa?
Both are herbivores.

The Alga, this one in particular is about 2-3 microns across, very motile, can live on less than 3-8ppb PO4(The best reslution has an error of +/- 5ppb.

A plant?
Huge, billions of cells, often has roots, has much more defined boundary layers for diffusion, much much higher nutrient demand.
Even the best low PO4 plant can only handle 20-50ppb possible removal range.

That's as good as you are ever going to get with a plant.

Sorry, you are comparing two organisms that exists in vastly different scales both in time, sexual reproductive cycles and simply put, size.

It's like comparing one person to a contienent of people.
These two organisms are in two entirely different ecological niches.

The plants clearly need far more PO4, NO3, Fe to survive than GW ever does.

You need to ask a better question that is much more likely:
What induces the growth in the presence of plants that are otherwise doing well?

Add high light(faster response times)
Add NH4 over a wide range
Add progressively more and more fish
Add urea over a wide range
Lower /vary CO2 in conjuction

So now knowing that having nitrate being a limiting nutrient supports
green water growth, it is easy to eliminate it without filters,
additives, medications, etc. Just add nitrates to the tank (KNO3 works
well). By SUSTAINING a low level of nitrates (3-5ppm) in the tank, you
force the nutrient balance to shift. This will cause phosphates to
become limiting. Given time, this will cause the plants to thrive and
green water to fail. Be patient, as it does normally take a little
bit.

2 months?
6 months?
No one has solved it with this method I've ever met.
Nor has anyone induced it this way I've ever met.

A lot does depend on how turbid the green water is, how many
plants you have in the tank, how much you fertilize (and what you
fertilize with), and the bioload of the tank.

This would also explain why some tanks just seem to "automatically fix
themselves." Here I would suggest that the biomass has contributed to
rising levels of nitrates, causing the balance shift I talked about."

read the whole article here:

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Algae/green-water.html

FWIW, this is not the only source I have read this from.

That's some "old stuff". :roll:

Lower light tanks seldom have GW issues, higher light tanks cannot get rid of it for months without UV/diatoms filters etc, many have tried, and failed. Daphnia works well in low light tanks also, so do blackouts.

But those levels teeter on the light levels for GW to grow, the rate of growth is much lower, at higher levels, the GW is far more agressive, at poor CO2 levels, the GW is also much more agressive.

I've gone through and made sure that PO4, NO3, K, Fe etc did not cause/induce spores to bloom.

NH4 was added and this induced a bloom in 30 hours, pea soup in 48-72 hours at .5ppm at 4w/gal.

10 ghost shrimp per gallon also had the same intensity.

As did similar urea dosing.

The same tank was limited with Fe/K/PO4/NO3 individually with no impact at all on GW, large water changes, no impact either, higher fertilization: no impact.

Still have never been able to induce GW with any combination of NO3/PO4.

So if that causes it as you suggest, where's in my GW bloom?

I know I can repeatedly induce GW with the above methods, but cannot with the suggestions here.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
Very interesting. Ok, here is what I have gotten so far.

No PO4 dosing leads to Green spot algae
Adding NH4 will cause green water
PO4 shortage can also cause hair algae, I think
Low NO3 or bottoming out NO3 can cause hair (any others?)

As for the algae eating fish, I was really refering to those that need it as a food source but Scats looks like a cool fish anyway. BBA is not a standard herbivorous fish need, not that I have found anyway.

Is there any other algae, specifically soft types that fish like and need that can be intentionally induced at a rate that is fast enough to feed 2-3 BN pleco in a 35 or 10-20 otos in a 20 gallon? This being done while avoiding green water at all costs for the fishes sake, that and I want to be able to see into the tanks. :)
 
Plantbrain said:
That's some "old stuff".

Yes it is. Thanks for the response.

If you like that, I have some stuff from Tom Barr, where he suggests using test kits to measure your levels. Man those where the days before EI. " Testing helps you from shooting in the dark. It's worth the money and time to test. You'll pay for it if you don't, lord knows I have." I don't think you'll hear Tom saying that anymore do ya plantbrain? LOL I'll pay for it if I don't test. LOL. As was pointed out, things change.

Of coarse you are the one who did all the testing for us. :)

http://www.sfbaaps.com/articles/barr_02.html
 
fish_4_all said:
Very interesting. Ok, here is what I have gotten so far.

No PO4 dosing leads to Green spot algae

Also, if the PO4 dosing is good, poor CO2.

[/quote]

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
Karen Randall made that point a few days ago when we went to Marin on the field trip.

Many seem to think I must hold all my statements forever as "truths".
After not shooting in the dark, given the death of testinjg at any real level within the hobby, I went after it, so I would not have to test in the future.

I hate testing as much as anyone but I also realize that it has uses and has limitations as well.

I did some work so I'd not have to keep doing it and have to get everyone else to do it as well.

Some whine and complain I suggest folks not to test, but I did and no one did it:)

So I am practical. :idea:

hehe
I suppose some suggest EI is a "sledge hammer", or "wildly overdosing", "adding pollutants" and other cockamainey.

Then when I say not to test, then they cry and moan that we should test.
Funny how that works:)

Regards,
Tom Barr







rkilling1 said:
Plantbrain said:
That's some "old stuff".

Yes it is. Thanks for the response.

If you like that, I have some stuff from Tom Barr, where he suggests using test kits to measure your levels. Man those where the days before EI. " Testing helps you from shooting in the dark. It's worth the money and time to test. You'll pay for it if you don't, lord knows I have." I don't think you'll hear Tom saying that anymore do ya plantbrain? LOL I'll pay for it if I don't test. LOL. As was pointed out, things change.

Of coarse you are the one who did all the testing for us. :)

http://www.sfbaaps.com/articles/barr_02.html
 
Back
Top Bottom