# BBA immune to Excel?



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I have been noticing that the BBA in my tank seems to take longer to die when squirted with excel then it used to when I first started dosing excel. The BBA went from turning red the next day after application to requiring 2 applications to turn red.

Has anyone else noticed this in their tanks?

Does anyone think this might be a problem in the future? I haven't found anything else that really kills BBA off like excel (CO2 doesn't kill the tuft, spikey, dark green kind in my tank), so I wouldn't know what to do if it becomes resistant.


----------



## bosmahe1 (May 14, 2005)

I've used double what is recommended by Seachem for months and it doesn't seem to inhibit growth of BBA for me. Manual removal during water changes is the only thing that I have been able to do for BBA control.


----------



## LAKA (Feb 11, 2007)

I have heard from my local fish shop seachem has recently changed the formulation of Excel. Something to do with their Product Disclosure Statement i believe. Any feedback?

LAKA


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Hmm... I just recently bought 4 liters of excel about 2 weeks ago. Maybe the new excel is less potent then the old excel?


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Zapins said:


> Hmm... I just recently bought 4 liters of excel about 2 weeks ago. Maybe the new excel is less potent then the old excel?


Why don't you query Seachem directly from our sponsor group forum. In the past they have been very helpful and informative, though I'm sure they won't disclose composition of their stuff.


----------



## yildirim (Nov 25, 2004)

Composition of excel really seems to be a secret. I believe there are some ingredients acting as an algicide. By time excel becomes less effective and should be consumed in 2-3 months according to my experiences.


----------



## cbwmn (Dec 18, 2007)

I use 3% H2O2 full strength as a plant dip for algae (including BBA) During WC's I uproot the affected plant and dip the leaves only for a couple of minutes.
Replant and the next day the algae are pink/orange in color. A couple of days later it's gone.
H2O2 used in moderation is safe for fish.
I've tried injecting 2 ml/gallon over the affected plant but it doesn't work for me like the full strength plant dip does.
I buy H2O2 at a local dollar store @ .50 a bottle.
Charles


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

I just put 80ml every other day for two weeks into my 180g tank. It had no noticeable effect on BBA whatsoever. The Excel was a new 2l bottle I just purchased. Overall, it was like dosing water as far as I could tell.


----------



## yildirim (Nov 25, 2004)

Spot or regional treatment with a syringe is much succesful. I applied 25 ml everyother day for one of the show tanks, a 100 g. In each aplication with the above method I targeted a different location of the tank and in two weeks no sign of algea since a month. During this two weeks period I applied 30 % WC twice a week (instead of one 50 % in regular) and everything else was the same (dosing, lights, CO2).


----------



## Rick778 (Dec 14, 2005)

Some people seem to have success adding it to the water column. I find squirting it directly on the BBA works best. My Excel is well over one year old and still effective.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I agree, the best way to kill BBA is to use a syringe directly over the BBA. If you wanted to water dose, you would need to add 2x initial dose, and at least 3x the daily recommended dose to get the same effects as with a syringe.

The new batch of excel smells less volatile then the old batch does.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Seachem recently upped the price of Excel. It is now retailing for $30+ thru FosterSmith and ThatPet Place. I hope its not less potent for more $$$.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

I noticed with the bottle I just got that it doesn't smell as strong and doesn't give that "wavy-strong-chemical-being-added-to-water-look" that the old excel used to give.

As far as being algecidal, my opinion is that the active ingredient is gluteraldehyde (splelling? ) or something similar that acts like formaldehyde. Adding it directly to the water column gives the chemical a chance to spread out and become 'harmless' and then break down into CO2 + whatever else. When squirted directly on algae, the chemical binds the protiens of the thin-cell-walled algae and kills it.

Before anyone thinks I know what I'm talking about, I'll qualify the above by saying I have no idea how this stuff works, but I've read many, many comments from people who seem to have some "good smarts".

-Dave


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

My guess is that Seachem finally realized how dangerous gluteraldehyde is and modified their formula!
If you want the old stuff just buy gluteraldehyde! 

My compliments to Seachem for doing the right thing!


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

There is, at present, a rumor that SeaChem changed formula of Excel. Until we hear it from them or get some verification, I'd leave this firmly in the "rumor" category.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I started a thread in the Seachem forum and asked if the formulation and or the strength has changed recently.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Yep, I subscribed to the thread Newt  I'm interested in hearing the answer from them.

davemonkey - I think you are correct. Excel is used quite often in botany and other areas of research to bind proteins, and even to "fix," or "cross-link" DNA. I don't think it works well on normal plants because they have somewhat more resistant epithelial cells than algae does. This is probably why plants like riccia can't handle excel.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Seachems response to: Has Excel changed. See link below.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/seachem/59506-excel.html#post449407


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Newt said:


> Seachems response to: Has Excel changed. See link below.
> 
> http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/seachem/59506-excel.html#post449407


Maybe you didn't ask the right question?

Has anything been done to reduce the level of gluteraldehyde impurities in the product?

A new batch of polygluXXX (whatever it is) may have less gluteraldehyde as an impurity than pervious batches.

I had an old bottle that I threw away a few weeks ago. If I still had it I might be able to do an HPLC and compare it to the new stuff.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Hmm. Still, something might have changed. Perhaps the algae has simply developed a resistance and been spread around from person to person... or maybe it was just the conditions in my tank that made it seem like the algae was more resistant and in fact, it is still as susceptible as it has always been...


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

ray-the-pilot said:


> Maybe you didn't ask the right question?
> 
> Has anything been done to reduce the level of gluteraldehyde impurities in the product?
> 
> ...


Well if you dont think I covered all the bases in my query then why dont you post in that thread and ask them.

Perhaps the BBA is becoming immune to the excel.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Ah, I think the SeaChem guys mean what they say.

There are literally thousands of varieties of algae. Not all BBA varieties are created equal. It's pretty easy to imagine strains that are more susceptible than others.

Excel's algicidal properties aren't those that an organism could develop resistance to any easier than an organism could develop resistance to acid or fire. Glutaraldehyde is inherently *toxic!*


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

BryceM I agree with what you say about not all BBA being equal and perhaps that is why the BBA is being more difficult to kill off. Do you know if BBA sexually reproduces? Or does it just fragment and reattach in some way?

But, organisms most certainly can become resistant to disinfectants like gluteraldehyde! If the excel isn't applied in adequate concentrations to fully kill off the BBA then more resistant strains can survive and refine their resistance over time.

Currently there is a lot of research going into bacterial resistance to disinfectants since it is of huge concern in hospitals. But the same is true of algae in our aquariums and virtually any other living creature.



Innovations Report said:


> The scientists discovered that different bacteria and different strains of the same bacteria have different levels of resistance to disinfectants and antiseptics. The researchers have found genes in some strains of MRSA which allow the bacteria to make pumps in their cells which remove the disinfectants from the cell to avoid damage.


Some extra links 
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/medizin_gesundheit/bericht-33230.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00868.htm


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Organisms have developed resistance to acid water with pH values at 2 or less and other organisms thriving in boiling water at volcanic vents on the sea bed.


----------



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

Any organism that reproduces quickly and or in large quantity has more of an ability to shift genetically. There are a very small number of mutations, of various sorts that very naturally occur but in a large population of young (sometimes literally millions) it is relatively easy to have a changed organism show up, especially if situations are controlled to allow a new and interesting form to survive.

It is not likely that we are breeding a resistant strain of Algae but it is certainly possible.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Yes, there are organisms that thrive in a low pH, but I'm not sure that one would describe that ability as an acquired resistance. Those same organisms would die very quickly in another environment. What they have is more an adaptation to their respective niche.

I'll guess where there may be some wiggle room here is in a dilute concentration of glutaraldehyde. In a strong glutaraldehyde solution any living cell or bacterium will be killed almost immediately. The stuff indiscriminately cross-links proteins and wreaks all sorts of bio-molecular havoc. In contrast, penicillin-resistant bacteria can live perfectly well in enormously high concentrations of the stuff. The specific mechanisms of toxicity are different. Antibiotics (on which models of drug resistance are based) are fairly discrete in their mechanism of action. Almost all of them work to inhibit a single biochemical process. Most antiseptics are rather crude in comparison, destroying or denaturing proteins willy-nilly (to use the technical term).

In a dilute solution environment, like at typical aquarium doses, it's easy to imagine a scenario where the susceptible species of BBA were killed off and more difficult-to-eradicate species have taken over. That isn't so much a matter of acquired resistance as it is one of species selection.

Who knows.

I'm actually inclined to believe that what we're talking about here are a series of unrelated anecdotal experiences. The 100 people for whom glutaraldehyde have been working remain quiet while the other 6 speak up and get a thread moving. Scientifically proving anything with these sort of "studies" just isn't going to happen.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

BryceM said:


> In a dilute solution environment, like at typical aquarium doses, it's easy to imagine a scenario where the susceptible species of BBA were killed off and more difficult-to-eradicate species have taken over. That isn't so much a matter of acquired resistance as it is one of species selection.


True, true... I am inclined to believe something along these lines as well.



BryceM said:


> I'm actually inclined to believe that what we're talking about here are a series of unrelated anecdotal experiences. The 100 people for whom glutaraldehyde have been working remain quiet while the other 6 speak up and get a thread moving. Scientifically proving anything with these sort of "studies" just isn't going to happen.


Ahh so true... what a pity anecdotal experiences aren't very useful. Still though, there is some use in them. After all psychology is based off them.

I wonder if at some point in the future it might become possible to organize some research on aquatic plant issues between serious hobbyists. Perhaps some kind of collaboration on a few of the most important problems.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

> I wonder if at some point in the future it might become possible to organize some research on aquatic plant issues between serious hobbyists. Perhaps some kind of collaboration on a few of the most important problems.


The problem with this is most of us aren't willing to sacrifice our manicured tanks to run any experiments. Doing it right would entail exact conditions for all tested tanks (water, lighting, ferts, fish, etc), then throw in the variable you're testing and appropriate controls - you're talking a minimum of 2 tanks per tested variable. Unless you work in a lab, not feasible for most folks.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Wouldn't it be great though to create a lab just for the purpose. Imagine 50 or 60 identical 50g tanks, all set up with identical systems of lighting, plumbing, filtration, etc. It would be a simple matter to change and observe a single variable over relatively short amounts of time. Add to this some lab-quality light meters, nutrient level monitors and precision metering equipment.

That would shed some light on a few issues in short order. In 10 minutes I could probably come up with enough experiments to last five years.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Hehe it would be great! I have too many 10 gal tanks that aren't being used at the moment and a plethora of extra equipment. I'd be willing to set up a test or two if someone else wants to as well. 

Maybe we can start a new forum for members who want to set up controlled experiments and title it "Advancement of Aquatic Issues" or AAI for short.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Zapins said:


> Hehe it would be great! I have too many 10 gal tanks that aren't being used at the moment and a plethora of extra equipment. I'd be willing to set up a test or two if someone else wants to as well.
> 
> Maybe we can start a new forum for members who want to set up controlled experiments and title it "Advancement of Aquatic Issues" or AAI for short.


Actually if you do that they beat you up because they don't want to hear what you say!


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Actually, has anyone tried using gluteraldehyde to kill their "resistant" algae. If Cidex doesn't kill it, that would be a confirmation that the algae is resistant to gluteraldehyde.

Good science is like good detective work. The more evidence you have from different experiments, the more certain you are that you are correct.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

CIDEX is a 0.55% solution of ortho-phthaldehyde and is not glutaraldehyde. Just another in the aldehyde family.

Flourish Excel is a polymerized isomer of glutaraldehyde known as polycycloglutaracetal.


----------



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

Anecdotal evidence (one time or a few setups don't prove nuthin.)

Almost everyone misuses the term "theory" when they actually mean hypothesis at best.

Experiments are very expensive and a couple dozen tanks or whatever do not prove much. Science, the best methodology we have at the moment, does not attack a particular problem head on at times. Being wrong is something that all Scientists and Technicians have had experience with, so sometimes the amateurs or just plain Hobbiests have answers to questions and sometimes they are Witch Doctors who just convince almost everyone they have answers.

Interesting discussion from a lot of angles.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

Cliff Mayes said:


> Witch Doctors who just convince almost everyone they have answers.


Sound familiar...

Doing a controlled experiment with replicates and reporting statistcally significant results is one way to show why something happened, while doing one experiment in _one _ tank while not providing any good statistical evidence and trying to say you have proven something is another case.

IMO, I don't think BBA has *recently* developed some resistance to Excel. I would think it is more likely that some have always been more resistant to begin with (this is a hypothesis). This isn't like we are spraying a million acres of corn with roundup and finding resistant weeds. Using excel on BBA is aquariums such a small, small bit of the many species of BBA out there. There really is no way to prove any of this until someone invests tens of thousands of dollars...any takers? Maybe a sponsor would like to support the work


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Newt said:


> CIDEX is a 0.55% solution of ortho-phthaldehyde and is not glutaraldehyde. Just another in the aldehyde family.
> 
> Flourish Excel is a polymerized isomer of glutaraldehyde known as polycycloglutaracetal.


I was using the term Cidex generically. Specifically you need to try Cidex plus 28 day solution. It is a 3.4% alkaline glutaraldehyde solution.

The hypothesis about Excel's algae killing properties is that it contains glutaraldehyde, which, is the only thing listed on its MSDS.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Cliff Mayes said:


> Anecdotal evidence (one time or a few setups don't prove nuthin.)


The basis of a scientific experiment is not how many times you do something but how reproducible it is when done by other people. 
A scientific experiment is not anecdotal even if it is done only once. In fact most experiments are done only once; since, it is usually a waste of time repeating it. 
For example: if you carefully describe how you put a solution of beach in your tank and that the fish die and you do it in a way that anyone else can duplicate your work; you have direct evidence that beach is toxic to fish. You do not have to do it 100 times to prove you are right.

During peer review someone may say that you only used neon tetras in your test. It may be that other fish are not affected by bleach. Some one else checks out your result with two or three other fish and they die as well. 
Evidence mounts but still you haven't tried every fish but by now people are pretty convinced that bleach kills fish. 
But here is the point with science, you can never be 100% sure of your theory!

Has anyone done anything in this thread that we all can reproduce if we follow their directions?


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Anecdote:

Hey, I have an aquiarum with xyz. I added Q and guess what? On that same day W happened. Therefore I'm convinced that Q is the reason that W happened and I'm sure that I'll be able to treat all xyz's in the future with a simple application of Q. I'm starting a crusade to convince others that Q is THE best possible treatment for xyz.

Experiment:

Hey, I have an aquarium and I've carefully defined and controlled for variations in x, y, and z. Under this set of known conditions I added a known value of Q and monitored a variety of parameters. I observed W and measured it carefully. I hypothesize therefore that W happened because of Q - at least with this particular set of x, y, and z. I'm going to do some additional checking to see if adding Q results in W in other conditions too. By the way, I'd be interested to know if anyone else sees any potential problems with the way I've set up the study. I'd love to look at this from as many angles as possible.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

helgymatt said:


> Sound familiar...
> 
> Doing a controlled experiment with replicates and reporting statistcally significant results is one way to show why something happened, while doing one experiment in _one _ tank while not providing any good statistical evidence and trying to say you have proven something is another case.
> 
> IMO, I don't think BBA has *recently* developed some resistance to Excel. I would think it is more likely that some have always been more resistant to begin with (this is a hypothesis). This isn't like we are spraying a million acres of corn with roundup and finding resistant weeds. Using excel on BBA is aquariums such a small, small bit of the many species of BBA out there. There really is no way to prove any of this until someone invests tens of thousands of dollars...any takers? Maybe a sponsor would like to support the work


My comments above were in reference to resistance. Somone had said that maybe the algae are developing resistance to excel through its continued use in aquariums. To determine whether algae is developing resistance is not as simple as adding excel to the tank and seeing if algae die. Just because algae do not die, does not mean it is a newly devloped "resistant" strain. It could be that that it is a strain has always been resistant to excel, just like many of the other types of algae. Determining whether a algae has _recently_ developed resistances is a very difficult question to answer. I don't know a lot about it, but I'm sure it would require lots of genetic and DNA testing, which would require a LOT of money. I'm just trying to clear up a little confusion about what I was saying and I think everyone understands this now.

Also, dying BBA would depend on several things...concentrations, treatment time, extent of infestation, etc..


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

helgymatt said:


> My comments above were in reference to resistance. Somone had said that maybe the algae are developing resistance to excel through its continued use in aquariums. To determine whether algae is developing resistance is not as simple as adding excel to the tank and seeing if algae die. Just because algae do not die, does not mean it is a newly devloped "resistant" strain. It could be that that it is a strain has always been resistant to excel, just like many of the other types of algae. Determining whether a algae has _recently_ developed resistances is a very difficult question to answer. I don't know a lot about it, but I'm sure it would require lots of genetic and DNA testing, which would require a LOT of money. I'm just trying to clear up a little confusion about what I was saying and I think everyone understands this now.
> 
> Also, dying BBA would depend on several things...concentrations, treatment time, extent of infestation, etc..


In the labs that I worked at, they determined if bacteria were resistant to a particular antibiotic by growing them on an agar plate. 
They took small dots of filter paper and impregnated the dot with a known amount of antibiotic. They put the dots on the agar plates. If the bacteria were affected by the antibiotic there would be a zone of inhibited growth around the dot. You could measure the effectiveness of the antibiotic with a ruler. The more effective the antibiotic, the bigger the circle. The test cost maybe five bucks.

Good science doesn't have to be expensive just imaginative.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

BryceM said:


> Anecdote:
> 
> Hey, I have an aquiarum with xyz. I added Q and guess what? On that same day W happened. Therefore I'm convinced that Q is the reason that W happened and I'm sure that I'll be able to treat all xyz's in the future with a simple application of Q. I'm starting a crusade to convince others that Q is THE best possible treatment for xyz.
> 
> ...


Actually, in neither case have you done an experiment. Both cases are only observations. Observations are important in science but they are not experiments.

To do an experiment you have to start with a hypothesis. Like "W causes Q."

Now you make a prediction:
If "W causes Q" then you will also see J.
Now you set up your experiment very carefully; so, that everyone can reproduce it and look for J.
If J happens that is good evidence that "W causes Q" but does not prove it. 
Other people will look at the "W causes Q" problem and make different predictions. 
If "W causes Q" then P will be found. Then look for P.
Eventually people accept that "W causes Q" and stop trying to verify it. 
This still does not prove that "W causes Q" but it's probably 99.9999% certain. In science you have to accept that even after all the experiments it is possible that "W does not cause Q."


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

"I *hypothesize* therefore that W happened because of Q - at least with this particular set of x, y, and z. *I'm going to do some additional checking* ..."

Whatever.

It seems that the discussion is going in circles at this point.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

Please no more J
s Zs
Y's Q's and W's 



ray-the-pilot said:


> In the labs that I worked at, they determined if bacteria were resistant to a particular antibiotic by growing them on an agar plate.
> They took small dots of filter paper and impregnated the dot with a known amount of antibiotic. They put the dots on the agar plates. If the bacteria were affected by the antibiotic there would be a zone of inhibited growth around the dot. You could measure the effectiveness of the antibiotic with a ruler. The more effective the antibiotic, the bigger the circle. The test cost maybe five bucks.
> 
> Good science doesn't have to be expensive just imaginative.


And this will not tell you if they *Recently* developed resistance. Please tell me how you would do that with agar plates? You can't.

Ring around the rosy, ring around the rosy.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Ray, your bleach-in-the-tank explanation had me laughing my a_ _ off!

Anyway, what about this BBA that Zapins is having trouble getting rid of now? (Sorry if this was covered an I missed it. ) 

I noticed I had some good/healthy BBA on some drift wood. I also have alot of Anubias and Java Fern that I didn't want to stress too badly with the 20:1 water:bleach method, but I wanted to use something besides excel to see if something else could be done.

What I wound up doing was diluting th bleach further, using 40 parts water and 1 part bleach. I dunked the wood in the sink (where my mixture was made...very large chunk of wood) and sloshed it around for a few minutes (maybe 5? ), using a toothbrush to get GSA off the anubias and not scrubbing the BBA.

I rinsed well, filled the sink back with fresh water and dechlorinator, sloshed around in that for a little bit, and tossed the wood back in the tank. It's now 3 days later and all the BBA is dead, my anubias look great, the java fern looks like it was affected to some degree by even this diluted bleach, but is pearling away and growing new leaves.

-Dave


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

davemonkey said:


> Ray, your bleach-in-the-tank explanation had me laughing my a_ _ off!
> 
> Anyway, what about this BBA that Zapins is having trouble getting rid of now? (Sorry if this was covered an I missed it. )
> 
> ...


I could be wrong about this. (And I am often wrong) but isn't this what you are supposed to do with your plants before you put them in a new tank? Isn't BBA transmitted from one tank to another by contaminated plants?


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

ray-the-pilot said:


> I could be wrong about this. (And I am often wrong) but isn't this what you are supposed to do with your plants before you put them in a new tank? Isn't BBA transmitted from one tank to another by contaminated plants?


I've never done it, but if I knew plants were infected or if I thought they were I probably would treat them. I don't know about BBA transmitting from tank to tank _only_ on infected plants. Can BBA algae spores just populuate on their own in a clean (if thats such a thing) tank if the conditions are right?


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I suppose how it spreads depends on how it reproduces.

I wonder if BBA even makes spores. I have never seen any fruiting bodies on BBA, though it is entirely possible the sporocarps are too small to see. I have heard tom barr mention BBA spores being inhibited by CO2, but I have never seen any actual documentation of it producing spores from any other source, and no pictures either.

Has anyone looked at BBA under a microscope? Does it reproduce vegetatively or through spores?


----------



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

Spontaneous Generation does not happen. Algae is probably similar to the "common cold". The initial devices, usually cells in one form or another already exist but whenever conditions are right the creature becomes evident so any methodology that helps restrain the creature is helpful in keeping the appearance out of sight.

The comment about "Is there a clean tank?" is a good one because that is probably what it would take to have a Algae free tank. Providing for a clean tank would be difficult and probably not worth the effort but providing a situation whereby Algae could not thrive is probably doable even though I have never been able to do it. Some folks say that they have been able to do this.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

I cannot for the life of me imagine how it is possible to have a 'clean tank', if by clean you mean *completely* algae free. Algae will ALWAYS present in the tank. People who have 'algae free' tanks, have tanks below a certain threshold which either - (A) cannot be seen by the human eye; or (B) is low enough they consider themselves algae free - and each of us will probably have a different threshold for this.

To have a completely algae free tank, is to have a sterile tank, and you won't have plants, fish or any other living thing.

As has been stated by others, the healthier the plants the less likelihood of having algae running rampant. But I guarantee that in the healthiest, most beautiful looking tanks you would be able to culture algae from if you went looking for it.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Some algae types are actually desirable. Thread algae in small quantities is a wonderful food source for many of the fish & shrimp I keep. I also depend on a certain quantity of soft algae to keep my otos happy. Over time there is a patina that forms on rock and driftwood surfaces that makes the aquairum feel more natural.

What we all hate is out-of-control algae that spoils the view or smothers the plants.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

BryceM said:


> Over time there is a patina that forms on rock and driftwood surfaces that makes the aquairum feel more natural.


Couldn't agree more! Turned my bright looking rock into something natural and fitting.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I would love it if BBA only grew on rocks, or only where I want it to grow. Wouldn't it be great if we could figure out how to grow a specific species of algae and only grow it exactly where we want? Then algae wouldn't be such a plague to the hobby.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Zapins said:


> I would love it if BBA only grew on rocks, or only where I want it to grow. Wouldn't it be great if we could figure out how to grow a specific species of algae and only grow it exactly where we want? Then algae wouldn't be such a plague to the hobby.


This may be more luck than skill but from the very beginning of my plunge into planted aquarium I expected that there would be algae in my tank. After some evolution, my tank stabilized with a very pleasant (at least for me) level of GSA. The algae grows on my plants, driftwood and glass. I only remove it from the front glass every other week when it starts to ruin the view. The GSA on the plants and driftwood seems to go through a cycle. When it becomes thick enough, it just falls of the plants and driftwood where it is eaten by my Oto cats or I suck it away when I do water changes.

The effect on my tank is really very natural and interesting especially on the driftwood. I like algae!


----------



## Supercoley1 (May 28, 2007)

Ray - if you up your phosphate dosing, stabilise good CO2 levels and improve circulation the algae you have will disappear.

The types of algae you have are classic signs of unstable CO2 and low phosphates coupled with poor circulation.

then again if you like algae no problems 


In answer to the OP question - Yes Excel will kill BBA. It will turn it red. Turn off circulation and syringe the recommended amount onto the affected area. Leave 10 minutes and then turn circulation back on. No need to overdose the excel. The BBA will turn red, then grey, then white and then disappear. Otos/shrimp/Corys/plecs will eat it once it gets to the grey stage. BBA is the most common algae to get with poor CO2/circulation issues. Often on hardscape items where flow is not as easy to achieve, hence why many of us use very high flow in out tank (I have 17x turnover per hour)

AC


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Supercoley1 said:


> Ray - if you up your phosphate dosing, stabilise good CO2 levels and improve circulation the algae you have will disappear.
> 
> AC


+1 on the increased phosphates to help with GSA. I also noticed that excess iron can feed GSA. I still noticed some (though much less than before) after upping phos. So, I stopped adding the extra iron (since I found out CSM+B has iron already) and, **POOF**, no more GSA.

-Dave


----------



## Chris. (Dec 22, 2008)

I just pour some excel on the BBA during water changes. Leave the filter off for about 15 minutes during the water change, so the excel can really do it's job. Tried it for the first time last Sunday and all the BBA I did this with has turned red. Now I just gotta get something in there to eat the red stuff...


----------

