Very new to crystal red shrimp!

[Jkeating8]

Just to clear this up guys, excess nutrients do not cause algae or diatoms. I run my tanks at 80ppm + of nitrate, 10ppm+ of phosphate, and all other levels are off the board. Not a speck of algae. Diatoms need a sufficient source of silica to reproduce. This eventually goes away in a tank , which is why diatoms die off. I have found that excess light tends to reduce diatoms. I'm not sure why, but I noticed this.

 

[Wy Renegade]

Plants are also photosynthetic, lack of light cause less plant growth. The Diatoms are out competing the plants for nutritents. Thus stunned plants, mass spread of diatoms.

Alglae is caused by nutrient imbalance, which can be caused by all of the things you listed. High light, more plant growth, but not enough co2 and fert? imbalance = algae bloom.

To aviod aglae everything needs to be balanced. too little light = aglae, too much light = algae.

I have seen diatoms smother out plants, algaes, and corals - but I don't know that I agree that they are outcompeting them. In other words stunted plants doesn't cause a mass spread of diatoms, but a mass spread of diatoms can result in stunted plants.

Diatoms are a type of algae.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

Just to clear this up guys, excess nutrients do not cause algae or diatoms. I run my tanks at 80ppm + of nitrate, 10ppm+ of phosphate, and all other levels are off the board. Not a speck of algae. Diatoms need a sufficient source of silica to reproduce. This eventually goes away in a tank , which is why diatoms die off. I have found that excess light tends to reduce diatoms. I'm not sure why, but I noticed this.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. Algae blooms in water systems due to excess nutrients are very well documented in the scientific world. Excess nutrients do cause algae to grow, and diatoms are a type of algae. Secondly, a phosphate level of anything over .025ppm (detectable as zero on most aquarium grade test kits) is know to promote the growth of plants and algae. I find it hard to believe that you are running phosphates levels of 10ppm without significant algae growth. I've never seen phospate levels of 10 recommended for anything, even a heavily planted tank. You may have a very heavily planted tank, in which case the plants are using these nutrients up and therefore they are not available for algae growth, but to say that excess nutrients do not cause algae or diatoms is absolutely incorrect, and if anyone tries it in a nonplanted or sparsely planted tank they are going to learn that fairly quickly. It does take a level of 30ppm nitrates to cause an algae bloom, so you may not have a bloom going on, but I'm willing to bet a whole lot of money that if you send me a water sample, I can find microscopic algae growing in your tank. Algae is "seeded" by microscopic airborn spores, and its present in almost every water environment on the planet, including your tank.

 

[Jkeating8]

I have seen diatoms smother out plants, algaes, and corals - but I don't know that I agree that they are outcompeting them. In other words stunted plants doesn't cause a mass spread of diatoms, but a mass spread of diatoms can result in stunted plants. Diatoms are a type of algae. Not really sure what you are trying to say here. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. Algae blooms in water systems due to excess nutrients are very well documented in the scientific world. Excess nutrients do cause algae to grow, and diatoms are a type of algae. Secondly, a phosphate level of anything over .025ppm (detectable as zero on most aquarium grade test kits) is know to promote the growth of plants and algae. I find it hard to believe that you are running phosphates levels of 10ppm without significant algae growth. I've never seen phospate levels of 10 recommended for anything, even a heavily planted tank. You may have a very heavily planted tank, in which case the plants are using these nutrients up and therefore they are not available for algae growth, but to say that excess nutrients do not cause algae or diatoms is absolutely incorrect, and if anyone tries it in a nonplanted or sparsely planted tank they are going to learn that fairly quickly. It does take a level of 30ppm nitrates to cause an algae bloom, so you may not have a bloom going on, but I'm willing to bet a whole lot of money that if you send me a water sample, I can find microscopic algae growing in your tank. Algae is "seeded" by microscopic airborn spores, and its present in almost every water environment on the planet, including your tank.

Sure, Algae blooms in the environment are caused by excess nutrients. Much with runoff from farms and fertilizers. Excess phosphates commonly cause algae in water systems. As does excess waste. I do not disagree with that aspect at all, but I should have specified. In Planted Aquariums, excess nutrients do not cause algae blooms. Tom Barr, who has a Ph. D in plant physiology, has tested this many times. He runs tanks with levels extremely similar to mine...We both have zero algae. I'm well aware of air born spores, as well. But, algae in a PLANTED AQUARIUM is not caused by algae. Show me my algae problems, I assure you I have none. You can look in my album at my 17g tank. Not a speck. Ill even test my water right now, just for you.

 

[Wy Renegade]

Sure, Algae blooms in the environment are caused by excess nutrients. Much with runoff from farms and fertilizers. Excess phosphates commonly cause algae in water systems. As does excess waste. I do not disagree with that aspect at all, but I should have specified. In Planted Aquariums, excess nutrients do not cause algae blooms. Tom Barr, who has a Ph. D in plant physiology, has tested this many times. He runs tanks with levels extremely similar to mine...We both have zero algae. I'm well aware of air born spores, as well. But, algae in a PLANTED AQUARIUM is not caused by algae. Show me my algae problems, I assure you I have none. You can look in my album at my 17g tank. Not a speck. Ill even test my water right now, just for you.

Algae is not caused by algae? You may not have algae problems, you obviously have a heathy, heavily planted tank ~ that system functions very different from a system that is not heavily planted and is not healthy. So, for you to promote what you are doing to someone who doesn't have the same type of set-up is incorrect. Bottom line is that excess nutrients do promote algae growth and in a system such as is being discussed in this thread, they are a source of algae growth. So your statement in this case is incorrect.

 

[Jkeating8]

Algae is not caused by algae? You may not have algae problems, you obviously have a heathy, heavily planted tank ~ that system functions very different from a system that is not heavily planted and is not healthy. So, for you to promote what you are doing to someone who doesn't have the same type of set-up is incorrect. Bottom line is that excess nutrients do promote algae growth and in a system such as is being discussed in this thread, they are a source of algae growth. So your statement in this case is incorrect.

Typo. My apologies. I understand how my system functions differently, but I have had low tech tanks before and I have dosed near similar levels. I have had my phosphates 5ppm in low tech tanks. All with no algae. In my low tech, which has since been taken down for another high tech tank, I dosed EI full 3 times a week. No algae either, other than the occasional GSP that accumulates on old Anubias leaves.

 

[aqua_chem]

I'm in full agreement with Jkeating on this one. High levels of fertilizers like the levels previously described have been demonstrated repeatedly to not cause algae in FW aquariums. The entire basis for the Estimative Index method is the idea that you can supply fertilizers well in excess of what is required without algae. Over the last month I've been abusing EI, putting in a weeks worth of macros all at once (no fish in the tank). In fact, we've found that the VAST majority of algae issue come from too few nutrients rather than too many. I've personally ran phosphate levels of 10+ and nitrate of 80+ for long periods of time without excessive algae growth. Algae will be present in all conditions, but we're primarily concerned with 'blooms'.

In aquaria, the idea of 'too much xxx causing algae' is unfortunately another oft-repeated adage from the olden days (along with the Inch/gallon, watts/gallon, and salt to promote fish health). With the advent of accurate test kits, we've seen very little correlation between any levels and algae, but the myths live on. In ecology, we certainly see problems with nitrate and phosphate levels related to eutrophication, but a normal, lightly stocked aquarium will reach levels of nitrate and phosphate seldom seen in nature; the FW aquarium systems simply aren't as comparable to their natural counterpart as SW are.

 

[Wy Renegade]

I'm in full agreement with Jkeating on this one. High levels of fertilizers like the levels previously described have been demonstrated repeatedly to not cause algae in FW aquariums. The entire basis for the Estimative Index method is the idea that you can supply fertilizers well in excess of what is required without algae. Over the last month I've been abusing EI, putting in a weeks worth of macros all at once (no fish in the tank). In fact, we've found that the VAST majority of algae issue come from too few nutrients rather than too many. I've personally ran phosphate levels of 10+ and nitrate of 80+ for long periods of time without excessive algae growth. Algae will be present in all conditions, but we're primarily concerned with 'blooms'.

In aquaria, the idea of 'too much xxx causing algae' is unfortunately another oft-repeated adage from the olden days (along with the Inch/gallon, watts/gallon, and salt to promote fish health). With the advent of accurate test kits, we've seen very little correlation between any levels and algae, but the myths live on. In ecology, we certainly see problems with nitrate and phosphate levels related to eutrophication, but a normal, lightly stocked aquarium will reach levels of nitrate and phosphate seldom seen in nature; the FW aquarium systems simply aren't as comparable to their natural counterpart as SW are.

Interesting, so what does cause algae blooms in aquariums then. The notion of inbalance is interesting, but IMO just a symatic. If the nutrient in the inbalance wasn't in excess, then it also wouldn't be in an inbalance. If it works in a glass box, it should also hold true in nature, so what are the thoughts about why the glass box functions differently?

 

[aqua_chem]

Interesting, so what does cause algae blooms in aquariums then. The notion of inbalance is interesting, but IMO just a symatic. If the nutrient in the inbalance wasn't in excess, then it also wouldn't be in an inbalance. If it works in a glass box, it should also hold true in nature, so what are the thoughts about why the glass box functions differently?

This is a situation where the results we hypothesize do not lineup with our results. Thus, we must conclude that the original hypothesis is flawed.

Imbalance is a crap term that has, unfortunately, caught on within the hobby. It all comes down to Liebig's Law. Essentially, the only nutrients that matter are the ones that are two low, and hence limiting to the system. For instances, if I need to make a widget and need 20 of part A, 5 of B, and 1 of C, and I have 1000 of A, 1000 of B, and 5 of C, then I can only make 5 widgets. The number of A and B ultimately don't matter. If, however, I have 1000 of A, 100 of b, and 100 of C, B is now limiting. As I understand it, in nature, phosphates are often the most limiting factor, hence why phosphate releases often cause massive algae blooms. In aquariums though, phosphate are usually is excess because our aquariums are stocked at levels many times that of an actual lake. Thus, they are fundamentally different than the systems studied in limnology. It hasn't been as well studied academically, but if I had to guess, I would say that the limiting factors in aquariums are either CO2 or light, depending on the setup.

PMDD is an outdated dosing method that tries to recreate this. It's more modern version is PPS.

 

[Wy Renegade]

This is a situation where the results we hypothesize do not lineup with our results. Thus, we must conclude that the original hypothesis is flawed.

Imbalance is a crap term that has, unfortunately, caught on within the hobby. It all comes down to Liebig's Law. Essentially, the only nutrients that matter are the ones that are two low, and hence limiting to the system. For instances, if I need to make a widget and need 20 of part A, 5 of B, and 1 of C, and I have 1000 of A, 1000 of B, and 5 of C, then I can only make 5 widgets. The number of A and B ultimately don't matter. If, however, I have 1000 of A, 100 of b, and 100 of C, B is now limiting. As I understand it, in nature, phosphates are often the most limiting factor, hence why phosphate releases often cause massive algae blooms. In aquariums though, phosphate are usually is excess because our aquariums are stocked at levels many times that of an actual lake. Thus, they are fundamentally different than the systems studied in limnology. It hasn't been as well studied academically, but if I had to guess, I would say that the limiting factors in aquariums are either CO2 or light, depending on the setup.

PMDD is an outdated dosing method that tries to recreate this. It's more modern version is PPS.

Interesting. Definitely a different way of looking at things ~ just goes to show that even an old dog can learn new tricks. So if I'm understanding your points correctly, you are saying the difference in whether we get plants vs. algae to grow is lighting and CO2, assuming that all the nutrients are present in the proper ammounts (i.e. nitrogen, phosphate, iron, etc.)? So if I have algae I need to up CO2 and/or light. What about the planted tank that suddently gets overrun with algae, but lighting and CO2 levels haven't changed?