# How Algae Can Save The Earth



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

My youngest daughter's science fair was this week and that was the title of her experiment. The project focused on demonstrating how algae could be used for carbon sequestration, lessening global warming. They encourage you to jazz up the title. 

Since we regularly discuss algae, I thought sharing some of the pics might be interesting.










The first thing we had to do was grow some algae (pic above). I was a bit worried about this since getting Diana's book has left me a little out of practice. There's a commercially available algae growing medium but it's $16 per gallon. As it turns out, growing algae is pretty easy. All you need is some macro-ferts, some micro-ferts, a small bag of dirt, some tank water and a pump to move the water around. The initial algae is from glass scrapings out of my 45g NPT.










The heart of the experiment was to compare the algae growth between CO2 injected water and water where there is no CO2 injection (the carbon sequestration aspect). Once the strings of bio-balls were sufficiently charged with algae, they were transfered to individual buckets, three of which got CO2 while one didn't.










Each bucket had it's own identical circulating pump which was required by the CO2 injection. Above is a close-up of the jet. Then a 19" length of 1/2" tubing was attached to the outlet to help the atomized CO2 dissolve completely. The pumps create a slow whirlpool in the buckets, however the water is circulating much faster than normal for a fish-occupied aquarium.










After about 10 days, the algae growth in the three CO2 injected buckets looks pretty much the same. Strings of filamentous green algae are too thick to see the bottom of the bucket and the surface is encrusted with an O2 bubble nest. When you remove the crust, you can actually see the algae pearling oxygen.










By contrast, the one bucket not getting additional CO2 shows only about half the algae growth. And that's about what it measured, too. At the end of the experiment, everything was dried and weighed with the CO2 buckets growing an average of 3.1 grams of dried algae and the control bucket only growing 1.5 grams.

Anyway, if any one reading this has kids who do science fairs, this is a pretty easy experiment to reproduce.

Jim


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

That is a really good way to show that plants (well, algae) needs carbon, even when it has all the ferts it needs, it won't grow well when something (the carbon) is missing. 

I hope your daughter got a prize for this!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I'd go a step farther and say that a test involving macrophyte growth would show even better results. If algae is limited by CO2 with its minimal requirements, then aquatic plants should do even better given their far higher dependence on it for structure.

In regards to global warming, I wonder what either would do after a year in such conditions. RuBisCO adaptation is getting attention right now.

Just wondering, what were your micro/macro solutions?


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

Philosophos said:


> I'd go a step farther and say that a test involving macrophyte growth would show even better results.


Exactly, that could be the next step. It would further emphasize the need/value of forests and trees.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Diana K said:


> I hope your daughter got a prize for this!


Nope, no prize. Both my daughters have learning disabilities. In the case of my youngest, it's called "Pre-teenitus" where major concerns revolve around makeup, fashion and boys. I suspect when the teacher asked her about the project she replied, "It's about algae and stuff, and about the Earth and saving it... and stuff." And because they were home while we shoveled ourselves out from under 3' of snow, I had an extra week to drill the particulars into her head. A wasted effort from all accounts. 

At least she's cute and should marry well. 

Jim


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> If algae is limited by CO2 with its minimal requirements, then aquatic plants should do even better given their far higher dependence on it for structure.


It's hard to say but the experiment was simple and could be easily adapted.



> Just wondering, what were your micro/macro solutions?


The macros were from some root tablets left over from my hi-tech days. They're mostly ammonium phosphate and potassium nitrate. The micros were from some Nutrafin Plant Gro which is high in chelated iron. The starter tank and buckets were each dosed once a week with a .6 g tablet and 5 ml of the Plant Gro plus whatever they derived from the tank water and bag of dirt.

Jim


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

f1ea said:


> It would further emphasize the need/value of forests and trees.


We actually took the conclusion in another direction, suggesting a sustainable cycle could be developed if a bio-fuel was derived from the algae. The combustion of the bio-fuel would yield more CO2 which would be captured and channeled into feeding more algae. Since mining and drilling aren't required, as they are now for coal and oil/gas, such a cycle has the potential for being far less costly... and stuff. 

Jim


----------



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

An interesting idea.

Ah, teenagers. Where do their brains go? For years my daughters thought my wife was an idiot then she became a genius.

Algae are very important to us and the oceans are very large. A lot of green stuff that, we as hobbyists struggle with, probably helps keep us alive. Any actual experiment concerning a form of algae helps increase our body of knowledge. Just as with microbes, that we cannot see without assistance, as our knowledge base grows we begin to realize how important they are to us as a species. We have evolved to take advantage of the world around us and we find that everything has a role to play it's just that at times we are not aware of somethings existence and importance.

As hobbyists, empiricism is as important as the Scientific Method and we are a small part of the increase in knowledge especially when we document it and pass it around on the NET.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

The ammonia probably did a good job driving algae in all buckets; I wonder how noticeable it would be if the quantity were changed in either direction.

Algae definitely something that's getting attention as a fuel source:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/08/54456

A few algae bioreactors have already been built.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Cliff Mayes said:


> Algae are very important to us and the oceans are very large. A lot of green stuff that, we as hobbyists struggle with, probably helps keep us alive. Any actual experiment concerning a form of algae helps increase our body of knowledge. Just as with microbes, that we cannot see without assistance, as our knowledge base grows we begin to realize how important they are to us as a species. We have evolved to take advantage of the world around us and we find that everything has a role to play it's just that at times we are not aware of somethings existence and importance.


I used to be snail snob in that I went to great lengths to keep snails out of my tanks. Diana's book changed that and now I have wonderful snail populations in each NPT. Along the same line, in the last year or so my attitude towards algae has been similarly changing. In one tank, on one large piece of sandstone, there are numerous tufts of slow-growing green hair algae resembling saw grass on a sand dune. Other than scarfing up a few nutrients, they seem completely harmless and certainly add to the aesthetic appeal of the aquascape. Just as not all plants are good for the aquarium, maybe not all algae are bad? Perhaps someday we'll value the cultivation of certain algae species right alongside our Anubias Frazeri and Cryptocoryne Wendtii?

Naaaah... 

Jim


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> The ammonia probably did a good job driving algae in all buckets; I wonder how noticeable it would be if the quantity were changed in either direction.


Algae likes Nitrogen as do plants. But aside from the dosing regimen, which could easily be altered during a new round of testing, I think the light levels played a significant role. Not counting the reflectivity of the white buckets, the algae were receiving upwards of 6 watts per gallon. Another adaptation of the experiment could tell us how light levels affected the algae growth. Anyone interested?

Jim


----------



## PeterE (Feb 9, 2010)

> Ah, teenagers. Where do their brains go?


I'M A TEENAGER!







Just kidding. My peers. Useless. That sounds like a pretty good science project! It also shows how much faster plants must utilize nutrients with CO2 to outcompete algae that grows twice as fast as well. CO2 makes a big difference. I did a science project last year, with something reasonably similar for a premise. I tested the growth rate of bean plants with RO water, softened tap water, and lake water. Our lake has a lot of farm runoff into it, which creates solid mats of hornwort and algae in the summer, and beans with that grew fastest. I think she should have won an award. She wasn't testing the absorbing powers of paper towels.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Dustymac said:


> Nope, no prize. Both my daughters have learning disabilities. In the case of my youngest, it's called "Pre-teenitus" where major concerns revolve around makeup, fashion and boys. I suspect when the teacher asked her about the project she replied, "It's about algae and stuff, and about the Earth and saving it... and stuff." And because they were home while we shoveled ourselves out from under 3' of snow, I had an extra week to drill the particulars into her head. A wasted effort from all accounts.
> 
> At least she's cute and should marry well.
> 
> Jim


Knowing about algae and stuff should make her a great wifey.

Cute helps, too.

Bill


----------



## Jane in Upton (Aug 10, 2005)

aquabillpers said:


> Knowing about algae and stuff should make her a great wifey.
> 
> Cute helps, too.
> 
> Bill


LOL!

Gosh, Jim, you should take her to a meeting at your local Aquarium Club! I've been amazed at the number of smart, earnest, and cute young men that attend our meetings. It might give her an incentive to recall all that Algae... and Stuff information in order to talk to boys, who outnumber the girls present in ratios upwards of 10:1! Perhaps I'm biased, being an "aquarium-head" myself, but I did recently look around one of the meetings and had the thought of 'Gee, why didn't I know about these kinds of clubs when I was in my teens?'.

Eh, I'm one of the Old Geezers now, but I must say, my hubby (of recent wedded bliss this fall) won major brownie points when he volunteered to help me with some aquarium maintenance, and showed a genuine interest in "our" group of Panda Cories!

Sounds like a great project - nicely executed! Measuring the dry biomass is a very easily observed outcome. Did you get her to do any reading about the use of plants for wastewater processing? Back when cities were just beginning to get large, there used to be some effluent run through the Sippewissett Salt Marsh, which made the grasses grow wonderfully fast, and the frugal New Englanders made use of the "Salt Marsh Hay" to feed their cows, recycling the nutrients.

-Jane


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Jane in Upton said:


> Gosh, Jim, you should take her to a meeting at your local Aquarium Club! I've been amazed at the number of smart, earnest, and cute young men that attend our meetings. It might give her an incentive to recall all that Algae... and Stuff information in order to talk to boys, who outnumber the girls present in ratios upwards of 10:1! Perhaps I'm biased, being an "aquarium-head" myself, but I did recently look around one of the meetings and had the thought of 'Gee, why didn't I know about these kinds of clubs when I was in my teens?'.


Sorry to say, Jane, she wouldn't be interested in anything as boring as an aquarium club. I took her to a "Sweetheart" dance not too long ago and from what I could see, she's the Queen of her fifth grade class. She's already told me her husband is going to be "Hot... really, really rich but really hot, too."

All is not lost, however. I have a niece who's the same age and appears to be a chip off the old uncle. For Christmas I set up a 10g NPT next to her bed with cuttings and fry from my tanks and she's talking about spending her allowance for a 20 gallon setup. When all the kids are here and I set up the microscope to display animacules extracted from one of my rectangular ponds, she's always the first in line and is never grossed out no matter how beastly they may be. I even snagged her a decent student microscope off Ebay for her upcoming birthday. I'm sure she'll be thrilled! 



> Eh, I'm one of the Old Geezers now, but I must say, my hubby (of recent wedded bliss this fall) won major brownie points when he volunteered to help me with some aquarium maintenance, and showed a genuine interest in "our" group of Panda Cories!


Speaking of Cories, I recently added a couple juveniles to a 30g NPT which had only housed Apple snails, Guppies and Angels. Within a couple days they have completely trashed the place, stirring up mulm in the substrate.

Kids!!! 

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Algae likes Nitrogen as do plants. But aside from the dosing regimen, which could easily be altered during a new round of testing, I think the light levels played a significant role. Not counting the reflectivity of the white buckets, the algae were receiving upwards of 6 watts per gallon. Another adaptation of the experiment could tell us how light levels affected the algae growth. Anyone interested?
> 
> Jim


Wow, 6wpg of anything save incandescent would definitely be enough to drive algae.

While not a formal experiment, I've found that reducing the light to about 2wpg (lets call it 50-100mmol PAR) with CO2 ranges around 30-45ppm doesn't turn up algae problems using high nutrient concentrations. Even barren substrate doesn't tend to develop algae.

Tom Barr has done piles of testing in regards to light, CO2 and nutrient levels inducing algae. You could probably ask him what his observations are if you want specifics. Most of his testing will have been done with equipment that is out of our reach.


----------



## Jane in Upton (Aug 10, 2005)

Dustymac said:


> Sorry to say, Jane, ...She's already told me her husband is going to be "Hot... really, really rich but really hot, too."


Oh my, my! I hope she'll at least get into a good college to get a better MRS degree, LOL!



Dustymac said:


> All is not lost, however. I have a niece who's the same age and appears to be a chip off the old uncle. For Christmas I set up a 10g NPT next to her bed with cuttings and fry from my tanks and she's talking about spending her allowance for a 20 gallon setup. When all the kids are here and I set up the microscope to display animacules extracted from one of my rectangular ponds, she's always the first in line and is never grossed out no matter how beastly they may be. I even snagged her a decent student microscope off Ebay for her upcoming birthday. I'm sure she'll be thrilled!


You sound like a Rockin' Uncle! A Microscope, eh? Woo! Woo! And... kudos to your niece! Actually, if I do say so myself, we "muckety-muck gals" (a term bestowed by my dear mother, who used to call out after me "Did you remember to wear lipstick?" (snort?!?) as I dashed off, buckets in tow, with my teenage male friends to go hunting tadpoles and other critters in the local waterways) well, we turn out pretty good after all, LOL!



Dustymac said:


> Speaking of Cories, I recently added a couple juveniles to a 30g NPT which had only housed Apple snails, Guppies and Angels. Within a couple days they have completely trashed the place, stirring up mulm in the substrate.
> 
> Kids!!!
> 
> Jim


Hey, they're like the raccoons of the fish world - anything new smelling MUST be explored! And if you do something to thwart them (like, a trash can lid, or some seriously heavy hardscape) they'll just see that as a challenge.  As soon as they get your tank re-scaped to THEIR liking, AND the novelty wears off, they'll settle down!

-Jane


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Wow, 6wpg of anything save incandescent would definitely be enough to drive algae.


 I wanted enough light so there would be no question that something else would be the limiting growth factor, and it's obvious from the conclusion that limitation was CO2. It should be noted, as shown in the first picture, the algae was growing very well while starting up in the aquarium under normal light levels.

Additionally, not all the CO2 injected into the buckets was properly atomized and absorbed. Imagine how much algae would've grown had the CO2 been pumped into the buckets via cylinder/regulator instead of the yeast/sugar generators. Although I didn't measure the CO2 levels, I suspect that a hi-tech rig would've raised CO2 levels more than twice as high as those of the DIY bottles, likely resulting in far more algae growth.



> While not a formal experiment, I've found that reducing the light to about 2wpg (lets call it 50-100mmol PAR) with CO2 ranges around 30-45ppm doesn't turn up algae problems using high nutrient concentrations. Even barren substrate doesn't tend to develop algae.


You know, algae is a funny thing. Sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't. One of the reasons I abandoned hi-tech was the inherent complexity of the ecosystems I was creating, and the relative impossibility of predicting what would happen in the long run. Simply put, adding CO2 and constant dosing increases variability, making it more difficult to draw conclusions anecdotally. Since I have all the stuff left over from the experiment, it's easy to make another run to see how light affects algae growth. It shouldn't take me more than a couple months. Stay tuned! 



> Tom Barr has done piles of testing in regards to light, CO2 and nutrient levels inducing algae. You could probably ask him what his observations are if you want specifics.


Great! Instead of handling such queries behind the scenes, perhaps you would like to submit some of his testing here? At one time you were going to tell us about spore signaling. Is that still a viable hypothesis? I, for one, would be most interested.



> Most of his testing will have been done with equipment that is out of our reach.


Considering we are superficially little more than screen names on the Internet, this is quite presumptuous, don't you think? As far as you know, I could have a Nobel prize in chemistry. 

However, to be perfectly honest, you're probably right. Although I am often literally surrounded by scientists and engineers, it's not proven I could get access to their tools or their assistance might not be appropriate. For instance, my son is just now finishing up his masters in aerospace engineering, but it's unlikely access to his school's wind tunnel would be helpful. The same is true of my brother-in-law and his wife. They work at the National Institutes of Health, but their specialty is so arcane, they probably couldn't help either. Then there is my father-in-law who once could make government-funded scientists bend over backwards or quiver in their boots, but since he retired as a director for the National Science Foundation, he just doesn't have the same clout.

Seriously, I probably have only two options for access to professional testing equipment. One is with my sister who has been a researcher (also at NIH) for more than 25 years. I've been in her lab many times and they have an electron microscope and a mass spectrometer and other goodies. I've never hit her up for any favors in this direction, and considering she won't even tell me good times to go dumpster diving, it's very possible she wouldn't or couldn't help.

The second option is with one of my best drinking buddies who is a chief engineer at a quality control lab at the nearby NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center. They test various components for durability in Space. Although they're more electrical/mechanical than biological/chemical, I'm sure they have all the tools. I'll feel out the potential when we go over there tonight for dinner. If I can get assistance from either my friend or my sister, what exactly is the equipment you think is needed to perform some real science?

TIA!
Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> You know, algae is a funny thing. Sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't. One of the reasons I abandoned hi-tech was the inherent complexity of the ecosystems I was creating, and the relative impossibility of predicting what would happen in the long run. Simply put, adding CO2 and constant dosing increases variability, making it more difficult to draw conclusions anecdotally.


I haven't found it to be all that complex in terms of stability. If there's something wrong, it's usually fairly easy to identify and fix. Most of the time it consists of "What's causing the BBA this time?" and the answer usually sits with lighting or co2, sometimes a dirty filter. To be honest though, it's taken 2-3 months of neglect on a 28 gallon tank to have any issues with BBA, and it's pretty fast to clean up. Keeping nutrients non-limiting to the point of purely luxury uptake makes for a stable base, and the weekly lows never head into that range.

IMO it's a little harder to tell what's going on in terms of pure ppm's when relying on potting soil and fish food, but it can still be stable for exactly the same reason. The issues with CO2 balancing would be even harder as well; with compressed I know what shade my drop checker will sit at any point in the day on a stable tank. Still, both work as a matter of how much you pad everything; lower light always makes life easier.



Dustymac said:


> Since I have all the stuff left over from the experiment, it's easy to make another run to see how light affects algae growth. It shouldn't take me more than a couple months. Stay tuned!


Sounds good. Do you have a scale? You could always dry the algae out and weigh it after.

You should try doing a test in around the 2wpg range (50-75mmol par?) with and without the DIY CO2. I think it'd be a nice early glance at germination signaling based on CO2 mentioned below.



Dustymac said:


> Great! Instead of handling such queries behind the scenes, perhaps you would like to submit some of his testing here? At one time you were going to tell us about spore signaling. Is that still a viable hypothesis? I, for one, would be most interested.


Tom doesn't post here for reasons ugly enough that you can no longer edit your posts after 48 hours throughout the whole forum. I think his site might be a better place to go. Spore signaling is his guess right now, and nothing has discredited the concept that I'm aware of. I'm more curious about immune systems myself; I'm not aware of a creature on this planet that is without active defense mechanisms of some kind.



Dustymac said:


> Considering we are superficially little more than screen names on the Internet, this is quite presumptuous, don't you think? As far as you know, I could have a Nobel prize in chemistry.


I'm pretty confident that less than 1 in 100 people in the hobby have access to his sort of equipment with knowledge specifically pertaining to macrophytes. He's headed for his doctorate this year in something or other related to the hobby; not sure what the specialty is. As such, he has access to lab equipment designed for testing the things that we're curious about. It's a pretty safe assumption IMO; I don't think NASA cares about myrophyllum that much


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Jane in Upton said:


> Hey, they're like the raccoons of the fish world - anything new smelling MUST be explored! And if you do something to thwart them (like, a trash can lid, or some seriously heavy hardscape) they'll just see that as a challenge.  As soon as they get your tank re-scaped to THEIR liking, AND the novelty wears off, they'll settle down!
> 
> -Jane


I have a few Green Cories who spawn every few days and I put some of their fry in a 10g NPT which housed only snails and a thriving population of Chaetogasters living in the substrate. These are microscopic worms which the fry evidently found pretty tasty. I did a brief survey this morning and I couldn't find one worm where a couple weeks ago there were thousands. 

Or maybe that's a good thing! 
Jim


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

Philosophos said:


> I'm pretty confident that less than 1 in 100 people in the hobby have access to his sort of equipment with knowledge specifically pertaining to macrophytes. He's headed for his doctorate this year in something or other related to the hobby; not sure what the specialty is. As such, he has access to lab equipment designed for testing the things that we're curious about. It's a pretty safe assumption IMO; I don't think NASA cares about myrophyllum that much


My father used to head an agronomical development lab... he's done/does tissue culture of terrestial plants and hydroponics projects. He still has good contact and can use facilities, HOWEVER he lives in another city from me... and we live in a different country from you guys. 

I remember the in-vitro plantlets were placed in a sterile and nutrient rich colloid substrate in which they grow out until they are full plants... i'm surprised noone has thought much about this for the planted tanks. The colloid locks all nutrients only for the plants to reach, while releasing nothing to the water column.

Still, your assumption is good... as even though they are quite knowledgeable about terrestial plants... they are pretty much in the dark re. aquatic plants + fish keeping.

So, what would be the equipment Dustymac would need for these experiments? there has to be some water quality or university labs somewhere near his area.... it wouldn't be free, but maybe not that expensive...


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Honestly? I don't have a clue what standard of spectrometer you'd need to make it meaningful, no clue what the details of procedure for the dry weight analysis is beyond "dry it out", etc.

I know Tom Barr said that it cost something like $500 to get analysis done by a major lab, his results didn't deviate from that more than about 0.1% or so. He's really the guy to go to in the hobby for testing procedures; he's more thorough than anyone else I've talked to.

Having decently meaningful results might be as much as simply scraping all the algae off and tossing it in a dehydrator (the type you use for dried fruit) then weighing what's left after a few days. You could probably also get some decent results regarding nutrient uptake. Just drop some of the extract in DI H2O then run some tests using a Hatch or Lamotte test kit. maybe test the water column it was grown in to see what's missing as well. It's not perfect, but IMO that'd be a nice way to do it without having to pay hundreds or thousands.

There's also some work being done on making cheap CO2 meters from pH meters using standard KH solutions and an osmotic membrane. The price tag looks like $300 for one last I heard, though I'm not sure if that's production cost or likely sale price. Once it's out, CO2 will become way more of a concrete thing. I believe the price for a CO2 meter now sits around $2500+

I think the colloid thing is essentially functioning on cation/ligand exchange, is it not? If this is the case, we're already doing just that with various clays.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Hey, guys,

This is very interesting and all, but I think people who are interested in the techniclia of planted aquarium keeping probably go to the "General" or "Equipment" sections of APC, to Tom's barrreport.com site, or post to APD. The latter, in particular, has a number of planted tank technologists who who regularly participate.

Your debates would get more readership and participation at those places.

Bill


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Okay Bill, we'll stop with the thread jacking.

It is a neat experiment though; very worth discussing.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Dustymac said:


> ... what exactly is the equipment you think is needed to perform some real science?


I really messed this one up, huh? This was a rhetorical question attempting some wit with a tinge of sarcasm. It should have been followed by a . My apologies.

Of course, you don't need special equipment to perform *real science*. Us humans have been performing real science for thousands of years. Ever since our earliest ancestors picked up a rock or thick branch and wondered if it could be used in the hunt for food, we've been doing real science. All real science starts with a question and ends with an answer; we perform real science all the time. When we take a different way to work to see if it will be faster, that's real science. When we stop eating a certain food to see if we'll have less heartburn, that's also real science.

And although some might not think so, the algae experiment is real science. It starts out with a question (How does CO2 affect algae growth?) and ends with a definite conclusion: CO2 makes algae grow faster. Plus, and this is the kicker, the experiment is published along with the complete procedure so it can be peer reviewed and verified or disproven. Anyone with a little time and a few bucks can perform the experiment to see if it is correct or not. This is the basis of *real science* and you can find lots of it in Diana's book, "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium", where all of her major conclusions are backed up by the published observations of others.

Another aspect of real science is limiting variability. When we experiment with different routes to work, it's either one way or the other and we can look at our watch to see which is quickest. When we want to see if a food is causing us heartburn, it doesn't help to stop eating two different foods simultaneously as we won't know which is causing the problems. This highlights a major weakness in diagnosing and accurately relating problems associated with keeping aquariums. There are lots of different variables which account for the health of our ecosystems and knowing which particular one is responsible for which specific characteristic can be problematic.

About Tom Barr, I have a lot of respect for him and appreciate his efforts to towards a doctorate. My wife has a PhD and I know how hard they are to get. I had all but given up hope of having a planted aquarium until I stumbled on Tom's report several years ago. Although my two hi-tech tanks crashed, that doesn't mean his methodology isn't sound and more probably I wasn't doing something correctly. Still, I don't remember ever seeing any real science on his site. All I've found is conjecture. I asked Dan (Philosophos) to bring some back for us to review and got some interesting excuses. What about it, Dan? Want to try again?

About water testing, any scientific conclusions which require *precise* water testing aren't likely to be useful to us aquarists. First of all, we all start with different water. I have dozens, if not hundreds of different chemicals in my tap water. So do all of you. Are any two of our starting waters the same? Unless you start out with distilled water, not a chance. Secondly, in no time we've altered the chemical makeup of the water in our tanks both with a particular substrate or the types of food/ferts we inject. The variability increases exponentially from there. If we can't get by with testing the general parameters the way we've always tested them, I really don't see the point.

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Still, I don't remember ever seeing any real science on his site. All I've found is conjecture. I asked Dan (Philosophos) to bring some back for us to review and got some interesting excuses. What about it, Dan? Want to try again?


Bill, I told you why I'm not going to repost his material on this site. You can't click the edit button on your post after 48 hours here because of the entire incident; go ask the staff about it if you like. If he wants his material here, I'm sure he's capable of putting it here. You're also capable of asking him questions; he's a very accessible person. You're also capable of linking to the discussion; we all have the same "HTML" button up top.

If you haven't seen science on TBR, you obviously didn't read through the newsletters (especially the testing methods in any ADA analysis), VaughnH's PAR meter results and discussions, building a DIY CO2 meter, and conversations about dozens of links to scientific journals. I guess you must be blanking on the stock solution threads too, where we all did simple experiments to check out things like solubility and precipitates. How about those threads dedicated to test kit calibration? Maybe the ones covering how to make your own 4KH solution? Does the entire Dry Start Method mean nothing to you? I'd think you'd count that if you're willing to call algae in a bucket a valid experiment. These are all threads that have happened just in this past year.

Just out of curiosity, did you break in your bulbs for a couple hundred hours first? Did you make sure that they weren't more than about 12-18 months old? Did you check to see if you were running magnetic start ballasts or electronic? Do you know the actual column concentrations of the nutrients you're using? Why would you use NH4 and NO3 when pure NO3 would've reduced your numbers of variables? Did you bother to put a lid over the buckets to prevent unnecessary contamination? Did you bother to check out what species, or at least phylum of algae you were using? Did you standardize the various types of algae if there were more than one?



> About water testing, any scientific conclusions which require *precise* water testing aren't likely to be useful to us aquarists. First of all, we all start with different water. I have dozens, if not hundreds of different chemicals in my tap water. So do all of you. Are any two of our starting waters the same? Unless you start out with distilled water, not a chance. Secondly, in no time we've altered the chemical makeup of the water in our tanks both with a particular substrate or the types of food/ferts we inject. The variability increases exponentially from there. If we can't get by with testing the general parameters the way we've always tested them, I really don't see the point.


What you're advocating is that there's no need for highly controlled ex-situ testing to understand certain aspects of an aquarium. Do you think the human body, the depths of the ocean or the vacuum of space are any different than the complexity you're describing in an aquarium? Why exclude an aquarium. Trying to argue against ex-situ testing isn't going to be very fruitful when the whole of botany relies on things like agar and hogueland stock solutions. I'd drop the argument while you're ahead.

Also, please don't tell me to shush about testing methods, just before going into a rant on them, after I've already agreed to drop the discussion. It's rude


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> If you haven't seen science on TBR, you obviously didn't read through the newsletters (especially the testing methods in any ADA analysis), VaughnH's PAR meter results and discussions, building a DIY CO2 meter, and conversations about dozens of links to scientific journals. I guess you must be blanking on the stock solution threads too, where we all did simple experiments to check out things like solubility and precipitates. How about those threads dedicated to test kit calibration? Maybe the ones covering how to make your own 4KH solution? Does the entire Dry Start Method mean nothing to you? I'd think you'd count that if you're willing to call algae in a bucket a valid experiment. These are all threads that have happened just in this past year.


Great! Then you shouldn't have any problem finding some real science to post here.



> Just out of curiosity, did you break in your bulbs for a couple hundred hours first? Did you make sure that they weren't more than about 12-18 months old? Did you check to see if you were running magnetic start ballasts or electronic? Do you know the actual column concentrations of the nutrients you're using?


Absolutely unnecessary to perform real science. All the buckets experienced the same light levels and nutrients. The only variable was three buckets received CO2 injection and one didn't.



> Why would you use NH4 and NO3 when pure NO3 would've reduced your numbers of variables?


Not pertinent to the question which was the effect of CO2 on algae growth. But we can fashion a question which looks at the various different nutrients popular among plant-growing aquarists. I started the light-effect experiment discussed above, and have switched the nutrient input to primarily NO3, so we can have some idea what to expect at it's conclusion.



> Did you bother to put a lid over the buckets to prevent unnecessary contamination?


You got me there. I didn't take into account hi-tech ninjas sneaking into the house at night and spiking the non-CO2 bucket. This won't be a problem with the light-effect experiment since the buckets are safely running in my locked home office. 



> Did you bother to check out what species, or at least phylum of algae you were using? Did you standardize the various types of algae if there were more than one?


I have a pretty exhaustive algae key and two microscopes, but I lack the expertise to definitely identify the exact species of algae growing in the buckets. That said, there were four species present representing three phyla and cursory examination showed they were growing in equal ratios in all four buckets. So... identifying the exact species doesn't seem to be pertinent as the CO2 injection augmented the growth of each species.

However, I am attempting to isolate two specific species (taxonomy unknown) for future experimentation. One is a staghorn algae (phylum Chlorophyta) and the other is a blue-green algae very similar to Oscillatoria (phylum Cyanophyta). I can get the latter OK but separating the former is proving a problem. BTW, the latter is very aggressive and unlike anything I've ever seen in an aquarium. The filaments are so thin you can't see them with the unaided eye and it seems to even grow well in water from my NPT2, a tank which exhibits absolutely no algal growth. Scary! :fear:



> What you're advocating is that there's no need for highly controlled ex-situ testing to understand certain aspects of an aquarium.


Absolutely not. All I'm saying is the results of such testing isn't likely to be applicable to the home aquarist who operates their hobby from a completely different baseline. At best we can only identify certain key facts, like CO2 augments algae growth, and provide insight into possible trends. Where that experimentation takes place is irrelevant providing the experiment limits independent variability.

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Great! Then you shouldn't have any problem finding some real science to post here.


Do I have to keep repeating myself? If you want the results from Tom, you can go to the site and ask; you can back-link the conversation to here if you like. TBR is not some magically inaccessible castle, there's a public section to the forum that sees the most posts by far and does not require a subscription. Since you want Tom's results, and his opinion in specific, you can ask him for them quite easily your self.

It's ridiculous that you asserted that there's no real science on the site at all. I have a feeling anyone who's spent time there and is reading this would be rolling their eyes about now. Here are already established threads all relating to experimentation with or discussion of studies relating to the science of SAM's:

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/5336-Some-Data-on-PC-Bulb-Life
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/6418-oxyguard-CO2-meter?p=42716#post42716
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/6418-oxyguard-CO2-meter?p=42716#post42716
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/6203-Fe-uptake-and-active-Fe-in-plants
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/6752-Need-high-light-for-red-plants-1-8W-gal-see-what-you-think
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php?t=2456
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php?t=6346
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php?t=3263
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php?t=6930

Now all of this is just what I got from searching "barrreport" in my favorites. This is what I have bookmarked from the site; there's piles more sitting there. I wish I could find even 1/2 of what has been posted on the topic of PAR and CO2 work. If you poke around some of the more recent threads, you'll find posts showing how to do properly controlled growth yield analysis.



Dustymac said:


> Absolutely unnecessary to perform real science. All the buckets experienced the same light levels and nutrients. The only variable was three buckets received CO2 injection and one didn't.


Unnecessary until you decide to use the same bulbs to repeat the experiment. Check out the very first link I posted, and it shows you some interesting bits on PAR and bulb life. As for the nutrients, if you don't know how much you're adding, how can you even say that light or CO2 is the limiting factor?



Dustymac said:


> Not pertinent to the question which was the effect of CO2 on algae growth. But we can fashion a question which looks at the various different nutrients popular among plant-growing aquarists. I started the light-effect experiment discussed above, and have switched the nutrient input to primarily NO3, so we can have some idea what to expect at it's conclusion.


Not pertinent until you try to compare to othjer experiments that examine the topic, then you've thrown in a nutrient that encourages algae growth. Lacking controls when you could have them and introducing unnecessary variables is not a great way to examine the topic. It gets worse when you're not even sure if what you were adding is enough.



Dustymac said:


> You got me there. I didn't take into account hi-tech ninjas sneaking into the house at night and spiking the non-CO2 bucket. This won't be a problem with the light-effect experiment since the buckets are safely running in my locked home office.


Yes, this is why agar cultures are left in the open-air to develop. It works every time 

Seriously though, you're aware that cyanobacteria (BGA) produces airborne spores, right? That's just one of the things it could be exposed to, and you might never know.



Dustymac said:


> I have a pretty exhaustive algae key and two microscopes, but I lack the expertise to definitely identify the exact species of algae growing in the buckets. That said, there were four species present representing three phyla and cursory examination showed they were growing in equal ratios in all four buckets. So... identifying the exact species doesn't seem to be pertinent as the CO2 injection augmented the growth of each species.


Precise algae ID is tricky, no doubt. It's good that you've observed this variable. Why you'd pay attention to this while skipping out on some other things has me a bit stumped.



Dustymac said:


> However, I am attempting to isolate two specific species (taxonomy unknown) for future experimentation. One is a staghorn algae (phylum Chlorophyta) and the other is a blue-green algae very similar to Oscillatoria (phylum Cyanophyta). I can get the latter OK but separating the former is proving a problem. BTW, the latter is very aggressive and unlike anything I've ever seen in an aquarium. The filaments are so thin you can't see them with the unaided eye and it seems to even grow well in water from my NPT2, a tank which exhibits absolutely no algal growth. Scary! :fear:


The nastier BGA sounds worth a look at. Was there much current in the buckets? Have you tried seeing if it's resistant to erythromyacin? I suspect based on practical experience that the NH4 did great things for encouraging it, try a test without.



Dustymac said:


> Absolutely not. All I'm saying is the results of such testing isn't likely to be applicable to the home aquarist who operates their hobby from a completely different baseline. At best we can only identify certain key facts, like CO2 augments algae growth, and provide insight into possible trends. Where that experimentation takes place is irrelevant providing the experiment limits independent variability.


I'm a home aquarist that appreciates the difference between 2ppm and 5ppm of PO4 in my column. I'd also appreciate the results a $4,000+ CO2 meter yields as I can't test non-compressed systems very accurately with my drop checker. I believe our last discussion involved the possibility of allelopathic compounds within reduced cuticles being able to make some species of plant resistant to algae; I want to be able to do precise dry weight analysis to hunt for those compounds. All of these results have big implications for the hobby as to what methods we use to keep our plants.

I have no problem with simple experiments, but I see no reason that we shouldn't strive for better. A lot of that is based on the tools and methods we have at hand.


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

I understand what Dan is trying to say... while you can be a succesful aquarist without much of the gear used for science; you still need some degree of accuracy/equipment and good methods to answer some of the questions simple aquarists face.

This is of course, not really relevant to the initial experiment... but we all got greedy and want more  

It is possible to do some real science using basic and simple equipment... but in the end you'd be left able to answer only the simpler questions. Going deeper into knowledge, you'll eventually need accurate equipment and good enough methods to answer more complex questions (or even the same question, but with other conditions). Its still real science...

Personally, I dont pay much attention to the exact values of parameters on my tanks; they dont mean more to me than the behaviour of fish, plants and algae... but I couldn't really say I am providing consistent nor reliable answers to some of the questions myself and others may have. I bet Tom Barr and Diana Walstad were successful aquarists long time ago.... has all the work they've done make them better aquarists? maybe. But they've sure answered a lot of questions.........



> You got me there. I didn't take into account hi-tech ninjas sneaking into the house at night and spiking the non-CO2 bucket. This won't be a problem with the light-effect experiment since the buckets are safely running in my locked home office.
> 
> Yes, this is why agar cultures are left in the open-air to develop. It works every time


:rofl:


----------

