# [Wet Thumb Forum]-At what point should I give up ?



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

My 250 gal. tank has been set up a little over a year now and I have yet to achieve any kinda of a balance. I've fought every species of algae known to man and one that I've yet to identify. I've spared no expense on this tank and I'm rewarded with an unsightly mess.









I've just about earned a chemistry degree working on this thing but still, a balance eludes me.

I've come to the conclusion that there is quite a bit of difference in the dynamics of a large tank and a not so large tank. I also have a heavily planted 75 gal. tank that has been going beautifully for about 2 years now. I also have a planted 29 gal. that is also doing great so I don't think my skills are entirely at fault here.

If there is anyone out there that has experience in larger planted tanks I'd appreciate any words of wisdom you may care to offer.

Thanks

Lighting - 1000 watts MH 4 fixtures
Pressurized CO2 - PH maintained at 6.7 to 6.8 kh =5
Substrate = 100% Flourite

I've dosed in every conceivable ratio, the following:

Plantex CSM w/Boron
K2S04
KN03
Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salt)
Phosphate (Fleet Enema)
Occasionally - Seachem Flourish in place of Plantex.

A note about the lighting:

I know that 1000 watts sounds like a lot but it really isn't. Between the water stained glass covers, outbreaks of Duckweed (God, I hate this stuff) and some plants that grow to cover the surface, a lot is filtered out but just eyeballing it, it looks about right based on the "look" of my other tanks. Of course, I could be wrong about this.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

My 250 gal. tank has been set up a little over a year now and I have yet to achieve any kinda of a balance. I've fought every species of algae known to man and one that I've yet to identify. I've spared no expense on this tank and I'm rewarded with an unsightly mess.









I've just about earned a chemistry degree working on this thing but still, a balance eludes me.

I've come to the conclusion that there is quite a bit of difference in the dynamics of a large tank and a not so large tank. I also have a heavily planted 75 gal. tank that has been going beautifully for about 2 years now. I also have a planted 29 gal. that is also doing great so I don't think my skills are entirely at fault here.

If there is anyone out there that has experience in larger planted tanks I'd appreciate any words of wisdom you may care to offer.

Thanks

Lighting - 1000 watts MH 4 fixtures
Pressurized CO2 - PH maintained at 6.7 to 6.8 kh =5
Substrate = 100% Flourite

I've dosed in every conceivable ratio, the following:

Plantex CSM w/Boron
K2S04
KN03
Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salt)
Phosphate (Fleet Enema)
Occasionally - Seachem Flourish in place of Plantex.

A note about the lighting:

I know that 1000 watts sounds like a lot but it really isn't. Between the water stained glass covers, outbreaks of Duckweed (God, I hate this stuff) and some plants that grow to cover the surface, a lot is filtered out but just eyeballing it, it looks about right based on the "look" of my other tanks. Of course, I could be wrong about this.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## imported_timlawyer (Jul 14, 2003)

What is the color spectrum of your MH lights? What photoperiod do you use? Are you adding Fe?


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

6700k. 10 hours per day.


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

We have a 220G planted display at work. It has 440W of light. That is only the real difference between what you have and what we have, other then the dosing.


----------



## MarcinB (Apr 16, 2004)

1000W is a lot for such tank. The rule is simple, more light = more troubles. So don't give up and keep trying. I have the same problem with my tank, but after 15 months I finally see the light at the end of the tunnel







In my case micronutrients were the key.

150L (40G) planted tank
click here for photo
Rate my tank!


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

I just unplugged the two outboard lights for the umteenth time.

I've been mostly using Plantex CSM for my micros as per Rex's instructions.


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Personally I would never use CSM. It's absurdly high in FE, and would never add so much to my tank.

Try switching micronutrients, maybe Kent's Botanica line, Micro + grow will be good, or Tropica Master grow. Either would be much easier to balance a tank with, and since you have spared no cost up to this point, why stop now?


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Thanks Justin. I've got some Tropica Master Grow. Haven't used it. I'll give it a try.


----------



## Jay Reeves (Jan 26, 2004)

I like the advice of Tom Barr. Make changes one at a time. Carefully observe and take some notes. Then proceed to a second change if need be.



> quote:
> 
> I've been mostly using Plantex CSM for my micros as per Rex's instructions.


I don't know what Rex's instructions are, how much are you dosing? Do you test for Fe? What kind of test kit?

Justin wrote -


> quote:
> 
> Personally I would never use CSM. It's absurdly high in FE, and would never add so much to my tank.


I don't understand what you are saying here. I thought the idea with any trace was to dose to desired Fe level. I have used TMG, Liquid Gold, and CSM. If one of these is better than another I really couldn't tell you. Got good results from each. And I find it hard to imagine that one of these traces could be the problem unless it is dosed inappropiately.

I really am just trying to understand what you are saying and if I am missing something here.

Regards,
Jay Reeves


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Jay,

Let me delve into detail. This is all based on observations in my own tanks. 

The day I added my trace mix, I would also add Fe. That same day, there would be a small growth of thread algae. After testing the water, with a RedSea Fe test kit, I found the water column was actually down to 0 within 2 days of my dose. At this time my algae would stop growing, and hopefully the algae crew would be all over it. However this was not the case, as my Oto's and SAE's won't touch the stuff. So it would sit there mostly unchanged.

I then questioned my dosing method. Not once had I seen chlorosis in my tank, or any other sign of Fe deficiency. I was simply dosing it because I thought my tank needed it. I also was dosing triple Tropica's reccomended dose of micros. This was on the recomendation of someone we all consider to be very knowledgable in this feild.

So I then stopped dosing FE to see if I would get chlorosis, or if the algae would still grow. Turns out, there is not difference in measurable Fe levels if I dose it or not. 

The Fe levels still drop at the same rate, and I still got thread algae growth. So I cut down my TMG dose by 30%. Still the Fe levels would do exactly what they did before, no chlorosis and still thread algae.

I read Diana Walstads book (by the way, it is excellent) and her section on Fe was amazing. It was very enlightening for me. 

She describes how plants will take up far more nutrients then they need and store them. If levels are too high, you reach the point of metal toxicity. She also describes the prefered method of uptake of many nutrients. 

She also gets into how many algae species will be very small in quantity in many bodies of water with Fe levels as low as I believe 0.005ppm. If these levels are increased only slightly, algae can thrive. Clearly lower levels then I can measure can cause algae, but not benefit the plants.

She goes so far as to say in her opinion one should not dose anything unless there is a severe defficiency present. 

There are MANY other little gems in there supporting my theroy, but I won't list them all here.

So I came to the conclusion that I had too much Iron in my system, even though I thought I was not dosing nearly enough by man peoples standards. So where is all this Iron comming from??

Flourite. My 75G tank has 8 bags of Flourite and 3 bags of Onyx. I believe it adds more then enough Iron then the plants need, down in the roots where they take it up. Also, this is where the algae can't get at it.

I came to the conclusion, when dosing the column, there is more Fe then they can take up before the algae gets at it. Hence the thread algae. 

So now came the new question, how to dose my micros without FE in the water column? 

Giancarlo(sp.?) had previously mentioned his love for Seachem's Flourish Tabs, which contain a vast array of micros. I began adding these to my heavy root feeders, Echonoderms ect and noticed and I see positive results almost immediately. 

I now dose the reccomended trace dose, still see no deficiencies and still get a bit of thread algae when I do dose them. I will soon stop dosing all together, and note any changes. 

So why no CSM, it has something like 10 times the FE that TMG has, and TMG is already too much if you have a fertile substrate.

There is much more, but this should be enough to explain my thoughts. 

Did I clear up my statement?


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Doomer,

I would agree that large tanks have a very different dynamic from smaller tanks. I can throw together a 10 gallon tank in a few hours and inside a week it is stable and humming; I can make changes and see the final result in a week. It took 6 months for my 150 to stabilize; when I make a change I can wait a month to see the result.

I have tanks ranging from 10 gallons through 150 gallons and the trend is pretty well established. The bigger the tank the more inertia it has. With big tanks you have to be careful about the changes you make and you have to wait a long time to be sure that you see the end effect of your changes. Setup and tuning are slow processes.

Is it possible with your 250 that you are making too many changes, too frequently and not really seeing the effect from one change before you launch another? Stability would be hard to find that way.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## Booswalia (May 15, 2003)

I'm no expert here but I did have problem with my plants getting too much iron.

I discovered that Flourish TRACE does not contain ANY IRON and I'm using it now along with much smaller amount of Flourish Iron.

And finally found balance.....


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Is it possible with your 250 that you are making too many changes, too frequently and not really seeing the effect from one change before you launch another? Stability would be hard to find that way.


No doubt this is part of the problem. I've paniced more than once and probaly screwed up big time. several times I've posted about this growth that looks like dirt and nobody seems to know what it is. This has been a major and consistant problem. If I could overcome this I'd feel a lot better.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Doomer,

As you assumed there is a large difference between large tanks and not-so-large tanks. Mostly it's the fact that the height of the tank becomes more constant and just the length and depth changes as you move up the scale. So with these tanks, even spread is more of a concern than WPG. Dropping to 2WPG or even lower should give you sufficient lighting to grow anything. How tall is the tank and how far above the water are the lights?

I use CSM+B in my daily doser however I use Flourish and TMG for water changes. And of course, many flourish tabs









Hope that helps
Giancarlo Podio


----------



## imported_Svennovitch (Feb 1, 2003)

Doomer,

I agree with Giancarlo Podio. You have too much light!

When you follow this link, you can calculate how much light Amano would put above your tank:
Amano comparison

You can see that Amano has a lot of light for the smaller tanks (up to 6 wpg), but the big tanks all have around 1.5 wpg. And he should know what he is doing.

Sven


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Thanks.

I'm running on just the 2 inboard lights starting this morning and plan to alternate with the outboards every other day. Also, this morning I dosed Miracle Grow and K2S04. 

I ran with just 2 lights (500 watts) for about 8 months then added the other 2 because I thought this dirt looking stuff was the diatoms that plague under lit tanks. The addition of the 2 extra lights didn't seem to affect anything. At least not short term anyway.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Doomer,

Why are you dosing with Miracle Grow? That seems like asking for trouble.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Miracle Grow? ....you mean Master Grow?


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

LOL. Panic attack. Just made me dig the empty jug out of the trash. It's Master Grow, not Miracle Grow. My bad.

I vaguely remember Miracle grow being that turquoise sugar looking stuff for house plants. Don't think I'd even consider using that.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Jan 22, 2004)

Once again I am forced from retirement to correct some glaring problems.

Justin,

I'm sure you meant well. But your introduction of the Walstad book into this discussion was about as worthwhile as teats on a boar hog and about as helpful as a water balloon in a wildfire. While I agree that Walstad has good ideas she uses natural substrates which Doomer is not, she uses lower light levels which Doomer is not, she doesn't use CO2 injection which Doomer is. About the only things that a Walstad tank and Dormer's tank have in common is water and plants. And you speak of iron test kits. Well iron test kits are about as useful as a noisy wet fart in church. I don't know of many advanced aquatic gardeners who place in faith in them at all much less use them.

You also don't seem to be aware of the idea of balance in a high tech planted aquarium. Maybe you should study a bit more. In a high tech aquarium we dose the water column to nourish the plants and help them out compete the algae. I don't have problems with my high tech tank unless I let the nutrient levels get out of whack. While the Walstad method is a great way to have a low tech slow growing tank is it far and away a totally different approach and concept than that which Doomer is asking about.










American by birth, Marine by the grace of God! This post spell checked with IESpell available at http://www.iespell.com

See my Profile for tank details.

See my planted tank FAQ at http://members.dsl-only.net/~rex/


----------



## Rex Grigg (Jan 22, 2004)

Doomer I agree that you have too much light. Remember the rule of thumb breaks down on larger tanks. Also I have found that diatom algae will also occur on high light tanks. It has happened in the last three that I have set up. In one tank it happened in three days in the other it was several weeks. But it did happen.










American by birth, Marine by the grace of God! This post spell checked with IESpell available at http://www.iespell.com

See my Profile for tank details.

See my planted tank FAQ at http://members.dsl-only.net/~rex/


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Rex,

In my experiance, "high-tech" is a relative term. Can I ask you a couple Q's? 

You said Doomer is not using a natural substrate?

What would you call fractured clay? I call it natural and Seachem calls it Flourite.

Walstad uses low light? I thought she uses a couple NO bulbs along with Sunlight. Sometimes direct westward facing window Sunlight. Why on earth would you call Sunlight low light?

She does not use C02 injection, but she uses natural C02 production. This is still a form of adding C02. That is why she said plain gravel is a poor plant substrate. What does this have to do with anything I said?

Have you even read her book?

Why are FE test kits so useless? Explain

As far as my awareness of balance in a high tech aquarium, what do you call high tech? Why don't you give me a list of what you have equiptment wise that makes up your most high-tech tank.

As far as Walstads ideas on plants, only being able to relate to low tech, what makes you say that?

I find it strange that you would relate my post to low light tanks, as lots of the info from Walstad is taken from natural waterways, which would have light exposure far above anything we provide.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Getting past some of the very colorful descriptions here, I think you guys are getting a little hung up on symantics. Walstads book focuses on the use of soils which people often refer to as a natural substrate. Her book also is basicaly a regimented system and approach to growing plants that is often reffered to as low tech. The use of natural sunlight augmented with a little fluorescent light would be not only considered "low light" but inadequate light by many hobbyists. See the current discussion in the El natural forum. This is definetly not the approach Doomer is following.

I have no idea if one ferilizer has too high a level of iron as opposed to another or not, but if you do not test for iron I would think it would be real easy to have too much iron in your system, which can definetly cause problems. I think it is much more important to get the macros in balance first. Iron is a trace element that may be available in different forms already...in your water, in your substrate and in your trace mix.

I have read countless accounts that very high light levels make achieving a balance much more difficult. This would certainly be the first thing to address since it is obvious that Doomers light level is very high.

Robert
King admin
www.aquabotanic.com


----------



## Rex Grigg (Jan 22, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> You said Doomer is not using a natural substrate?
> 
> What would you call fractured clay? I call it natural and Seachem calls it Flourite.


 I would call Flourite a high tech substrate. Natural substrate is soil which Walstad uses. Flourite in the form we use it doesn't exist in nature.



> quote:
> 
> Walstad uses low light? I thought she uses a couple NO bulbs along with Sunlight. Sometimes direct westward facing window Sunlight. Why on earth would you call Sunlight low light?


 A couple of NO bulbs would be 80 watts over a 55 gallon tank. That's very low light at 1.45 wpg. A little sun light would help but it would only be for a short time in a west facing window.



> quote:
> 
> She does not use CO2 injection, but she uses natural CO2 production. This is still a form of adding CO2. That is why she said plain gravel is a poor plant substrate. What does this have to do with anything I said?


 Natural CO2 production will yield very low levels of CO2. Most high tech tanks will run CO2 in the range of 15-25 ppm which natural production will never reach. And it points out how different a Walstad tank is from the tank Doomer is trying to reach a balance in.



> quote:
> 
> Why are FE test kits so useless? Explain


Consumer grade and even many semi-professional grade iron test kits are notoriously unreliable at the levels of iron we test for. I can dose a jug of water and test it a few hours later and get a 0 ppm reading. What happens is the iron goes through many complex reactions with the water, and the light this makes the test kits unreliable. If one was using a natural, read soil, substrate iron would not be such a necessity. But in a high light, high tech tank, even with iron rich substrates such as Flourite you have to dose iron to keep the tank balance.

I call a high tech aquarium one with 3 or more watts per gallon (on a 20 gallon or larger tank) and with CO2 injection. My 55 gallon tank has 220 watts of 9325k bulbs with AH Supply reflectors. I have manual CO2 injection which normally runs in the 15-25 ppm range. One can also add gadgets to a high tech tank as well as a low tech tank. I choose not to add the gadgets.

I have not read nor do I own the Walstad book. But I have read enough on the web to know that even in her book she does a poor job of backing up her "science" and constantly contradicts her own "science".



> quote:
> 
> As far as Walstads ideas on plants, only being able to relate to low tech, what makes you say that?


 Well I doubt that Walstad is growing many high light plants in her tanks. Plants such Ricca fluitans, Rotala macrandra,Rotala wallichii, Glossostigma elatinoides or Eusteralis stellata. Most people can grow Java moss or Java ferns with few problems. But when you start wanting to try more challenging plants you need to change your tactics.



> quote:
> 
> I find it strange that you would relate my post to low light tanks, as lots of the info from Walstad is taken from natural waterways, which would have light exposure far above anything we provide.


 The title of her book is the Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, not the natural lake or the natural stream. Conditions in natural water is much different than that which we can provide. I will ask if you have read Aquarium Plants by Christel Kasselmann? There is a lot of detail in there about the natural conditions in which plants are found. The tables on nutrient levels are very eye opening. But if we attempted to grow plants at those water conditions we would have a disaster. An aquarium is a closed system and as such has very little in common with a natural body of water other than being wet.

In chapter V of the Walstad book she discusses Plant nutrition and comes to the conclusion that and I quote


> quote:
> 
> Chapter V compares three potential sources of plant nutrients in aquariums- fish food, a soil substrate, and tapwater. I use a model aquarium to quantify the theoretical contribution from each source. I show that fishfood contains all elements that plants require and that soil abundantly supplies most micronutrients. I compare hardwater versus softwater as a nutrient source. In the final analysis, I discuss which of the three sources best provides each nutrient.


 Try using nothing but fish food for plant nutrients in a high light tank. You will have more problems than you will know what to do with.

Also on the idea of CO2 in a planted tank. This quote from the Walstad book 


> quote:
> 
> Lakes and rivers almost always have more CO2 than one would expect from just equilibration with air [9]. The extra CO2 is generated by decomposition (see pages 58-60). This CO2 can be considerable, especially since natural waters contain lots of dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Much of this DOC is in the process of decay, and therefore, is a potential CO2 source.


 is correct. But do you want decomposition in your tank? Most of us don't. And high levels of DOC are harmful to fish. In an open environment plants have a lot more water to work with. Aquariums are closed systems and are much more subject to problems.

If you have any more questions I will do my best to answer them.










American by birth, Marine by the grace of God! This post spell checked with IESpell available at http://www.iespell.com

See my Profile for tank details.

See my planted tank FAQ at http://members.dsl-only.net/~rex/


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

I've been thinking about the light situation. My 75 gal. has a jungle theme to it. When I thin it out it rapidly grows back to a jungle. I decided a while back that this was it's natural state and left it like that. I occassionally thin it out a bit but I no longer worry about the look as long as the plants are healthy. Anyway, the surface stays pretty much covered and only a fraction of the light actually reaches the bottom of the tank. but still, a balance is maintained and the plants are healthy. Bottom line is, this tank isn't nearly as well lighted as it should be but yet plant growth is great and there is no algae (except for BBA







)
I think that my problem may very well be too much light. Time will tell.

Here's a pic of my jungle. notice the green.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Doomer,

If the big boy gets too much for you let me know and I'll come and relieve you of your frusteration.


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

just out of curiosity, but does/did amano use effiecent reflectors at all? I can't think of why he wouldn't now, but I don't know if he did then (where much of the data there probably came from)

(with respect to this post)


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

I would argue that many people who add a mulm layer to the bottom of thier flourite are seeking to gain a bit of natural push for thier subsrate. This mulm addition happens naturally over time because of the accumulation of the processed fish waste, plant debris as such. I do agree that Flourite is a High-tech substrate, but I disagree that flourite substrate is not natural. Any substrate including quartz gravel will become quite natural if given the right amount of time and mulm. Doomers tank has been up over a year, and I bet he has quite a mulm layer in the bottom of his flourite.

Many people have algae problems when Sunlight hits thier tanks. Algae at best can only use roughly 10% of natural sunlight. I would venture to guess that even a bit of sunlight is more then algae would need to grow, and ofcourse enough to encourage many plants.

Some of the high light plants you speak of are not even natural, and are grown under artificial condiotions that could never be replicated in the natural enviroment. 

Doomer is not really using that much light. Perhaps photoreduction of Iron is a problem for him. 

I use just over 400W over a 75G. I would venture to say with half an algae crew, I get maybe the algae accumulation of the size of a small fish food pellet in a week. I would say taht is ballanced.

Now Fe test kits. The kind of Iron most test kits WILL find is free iron, mostly Fe+2 and some even Fe+3. Free iron in the water column would defanately contribute to algae. It would be stupid to say it does not. 

Perhaps many people with high tech tanks who think they have a ballance just have a whole lot of algae eaters. Ever consider that? If you remove your algae eaters, and still have no algae, then I would say your system is very balanced. But then, if your system keeps a small army of strictly algae eaters alive, your tanks grows enough algae to support them, hence it's nutrient levels are not all that ballanced.

Again my tank has just over 400W on a 75G, 12 hours photoperiod. My algae crew is 2 1"SAE, 4 Otos, 5 japonica shrimp. Once a week I clean algae. If I gathered up all the algae, made it into a little ball, it would be the size of a pellet of fish food. I would venture to say my tank is fairly well balanced. Maybe you can add Fe to your water colum without getting algae you see, maybe you have enourmous algae crews that can handle it and a little less light. 

Using methods taken from Walstad, this tank is doing very well in it's 3rd month. No filter either.

Your right in that she is not growning many high light plants, but it would be closed minded to say that nothing she spoke about contributes to a high tech plant tank. Perhaps you should reserve your judgement untill you have read the book yourself. I defanately would not count on the opinions of others.

I do not have the Kasselmann book yet. It's on it's way.

She does say fish food will provide enough nutrients in her type of tank, but what does that have to do with anything we discussed?

On her C02 level , why would you say you do not want decomposition in your tank. What do you think the Nutrient cycle is? It is a cycle of decomposition. Fish waste, plant debris all rotting away, feeding bacteria, generating NH3 ect...

Ack, I must leave for work without a proof read.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Justin Fournier:
> I would argue that many people who add a mulm layer to the bottom of thier flourite are seeking to gain a bit of natural push for thier subsrate. This mulm addition happens naturally over time because of the accumulation of the processed fish waste, plant debris as such.


This is why an aged substrate is better than a sterile new substrate. Adding mulm to a new setup can save you a lot of time instead of having to wait for it to happen naturally. Also why many of us don't vacum theit gravel any more than a light hover on rare occasions. While soil substrates do deplete over time, gravel substrates with fertilizers added at a regular interval seem to get better and better with age. There's nothing worse than having to change a substrate IMO, it's so much work, smelly and messy!

Natural or not, most people refer to "natural" substrates as being composed mostly of soil. Flourite is a baked natural medium, such as clay, however it's not something you would find in a natural environment such as a stream. You do however find clay based soils and layers where iron and other nutrients are plentiful. It's really just a term we use, very little about any aquarium is "natural", regardless of the substrate used.

Regarding FE levels, I do own a kit but have to admit I don't use it much at all. I did at first to see what levels were working for me however I find FE levels easy enough to guess by looking at the plants. When my FE levels are slightly over my ideal amount, I get a lot of dust algae and green spot on the glass, this is my biggest indicator. BTW this is with my high light tank, which is obviously very different than low light setups. In my low light tanks, I don't test for anything.

Doomer: How much light do you have over the 75 gallon? I found BBA stopped growing once my CO2 levels were high enough and stable. It wouldn't surprise me if you cleared it up by either dropping the lights slightly (intensity or duration) or increasing CO2 levels. You can also try Flourish Excel. What is your nitrate reading?

Giancarlo Podio


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Doomer,

I wanted to add, I love the Jungle. It's a nice natural tank!

Giancarlo,

I completely agree with what your saying. The term can losely be applied but that does not effect the vaildity of my original statement. 

The essence of my point was excess free Iron in the water column will contribute to algae. I only went further when Rex so strongly disagreed.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

The 75 gal. has 220 watts (4 x 55). I learned the hard way about dosing iron. I had a massive outbreak of green spot algae caused by Flourish Iron. I have used it in any of my tanks in a long time. I feel that the traces (especially the Plantex) contain all the iron I need.

As for the mulim, I should have more than enough.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Here's a couple of pics of the troubled tank. Dunno if the pics do it justice but it looks bad.


----------



## Jay Reeves (Jan 26, 2004)

Doomer,
After seeing the pic of your 75 have no doubt that you will be the master of the 250! You are running that tank (the 75) with a respectable (hefty) lighting program and it looks great. Although I have never set up a 250 and have never used MH lighting I do have some observations. 

1. Could you post a pic of the tank that includes the lighting setup? It might offer some clues.

2. I moved the pics of the 250 you posted to Photoshop and tried to adjust to get a closer look, but mostly not enough pixel info to get a better view. What is the dark stuff on the gravel? Beard algae? Also, when the full tank pic was brightened it struck me as having a relatively high fish load. What is the fish load and feeding schedule? Assuming you are using digital you could email me a couple of pics in as large size as your camera allows - or I could retrieve them from a web page and see if more info could be obtained. Let me know if you want to try that. 

3. How do you measure pH and KH? Are you confident of these measurements?

4. You mention a glass top. Are your lights in a hood or hanging? If hanging would you consider going to open top? It might give a more consistent lighting as changes in crusties on the glass would not be an issue. I am curious how far your lights are from the top.

5. This might be a biggie. Is the full tank pic of the 250 representative of a typical plant load? It strikes me as being light on fast growing stem plants (FGSP'S) FGSP's can be very helpful when trying to get any tank to a balanced state. Gradually changing over to slower growing plants can be accomplished later when things are humming along. If the plant on the left side is water sprite that will do nicely. Keep planting all around the tank for a while. My favorite for this is Egeria najas since it can be used as a stem plant and also as a floater. It is fairly fast growing and will do a good job of sucking up nutrients. Compare the plant load of the 75 to the 250. At least from the pics it looks as if the 75 has more plants.

Hope some of this helps,

Jay Reeves


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

The black stuff in the tank photo looks to me like black brush algae. I usually associate BBA with underlit tanks.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Roger,

Though one would usually associate BBA with underlit tanks, it also seems to appear in very high light tanks as well. 

When I first set my tank up, I got some BBA on wood from a friend, and it grew somewhat despite being in 5.2WPG. Over time it has died off, but I am sure it would have been fine had I not had 2 small SAE's in there, and gained more control over the free Fe in the water column.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

The black stuff isn't BBA. It's soft and mushy and easialy vacummed up. With both lights running, the area in the pic is flooded with light so it's not a low light issue.

Jay, I'll email you the full res photo's. My ISP limits pics to 150k which doesn't give much to work with. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Something is happening. For the past four days the tanks been eating NO3. My test kit ran out about 3 weeks ago and I just got a replacement.

I dose the tank to bring NO3 up to 20ppm and the next day it's unmeasurable. This morning I gave it a double dose and will see what happens.

I've always dosed KNO3 to 20ppm as per Chuck's calc. twice a week.

Could I maybe have been under dosing NO3 ??????


----------



## GulfCoastAquarian (Feb 3, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Doomer:
> Could I maybe have been under dosing NO3 ??????


Very possible. I had an old NO3 kit that I continued to use for a year, fighting BBH algae and some cyano. When I replaced the kit, I found my N-P ratio was more like 1:1 or 2:1 rather than 10:1. I upped the NO3 dosage and the plants flourished and the algae withered.

I am finding more and more that reliable N and P test kits are an absolute must when troubleshooting algae in a planted tank. It's one of the first things I now suspect.

-Sam P, BSME
My Website


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

I've been using the Seachem Nitrite/Nitrate kit. I haven't had any reason to suspect that they aren't acurate but you never know.

I bought some of the test strips but they aren't accurate enough to suit me. The Seachem kit has always appeared to work.

I'll be testing in the morning and evening for the next week to determine exactly how much NO3 the tank is actually consuming. At this point it looks like way more than I would have guessed. Hope this is the problem. I've got lots of KNO3 on hand.


----------



## Jay Reeves (Jan 26, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> I've always dosed KNO3 to 20ppm as per Chuck's calc. twice a week.
> 
> Could I maybe have been under dosing NO3 ??????


Or could it be an overdose of N? Do you add KNO3 dry? As I recall the tank has a moderatley high fish load so you are producing some N as you go. And judging form the photo the tank is not grown in with nutient sucking plants. Is that correct? Does anyone else have a tank that eats 40+ ppm of N per week? I have added 30 ppm N per week in a lightly populated / fast growing tank and found it to balance well, however, does run to 0 between doses as I never dose more than 10ppm at a time. How many ppm per week do you add to your 75?

In the past there has been some discussion on the reliability of N test kits on the APD. *If* I recall correctly the general feeling was that Lamotte may be the only kit that gives consistent accurate results. What kind of measuremant do you get right after dosing? Is it consistent with what was indicated on Chuck's calculator?

Jay Reeves


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

If your plants are consuming that much NO3 then there should be an equivalent large plant growth. If not, then something else must account for the loss of NO3.

There are bacteria that use nitrate in the place of oxygen. Under the right conditions they can use large amounts of nitrate quickly.

Roger Miller

------------
_"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein_


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> If your plants are consuming that much NO3 then there should be an equivalent large plant growth. If not, then something else must account for the loss of NO3.
> 
> There are bacteria that use nitrate in the place of oxygen. Under the right conditions they can use large amounts of nitrate quickly.


Oh no, something else to worry about.









I have noticed new plant growth since I upped the NO3. Nothing spectacular at this point but definately noticable. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Just an update.

The tank has been in nuclear winter for almost a month now. No Ferts, No CO2, Half Light. It appears that the "dirt" algae is slowly but surely disappearing. Very slowly. Plant growth is very minimal as is to be expected. The dirt is still too thick to vacumn but I've been netting all I can. It really makes a mess when I stir it up.

I tried to rig up a pump to suck the stuff out of the tank but even it got clogged. I'm hoping It'll just disappear like a bad dream.


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Stick with it, I am sure it will work out in the end. You don't regularily use anything alcohol based in your house do you?


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> You don't regularily use anything alcohol based in your house do you?


Only if it's fit for human consumption.

On the positive side, the fish are doing great. I've got a dozen Clown Loaches in there that are a joy to behold as they school together. I've also got a full grown Angel and a Bala Shark that are the best of friends and are seldom apart.


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

lol.

Keep us updated!

How does keeping the corrrect amount of nutrients in the water column effect the algae?

What's your plant density like now?


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

right now the plants are mostly covered in "dirt" with some green starting to show through which I find encouraging.

I think what may have happened is that I went overboard in the beginning and over fertilized. This killer "dirt" algae got a strong foot hold and never let go. The plants never had a change to get established because this "dirt" was sucking up the nutrients faster than the plants could. At least that's the way it appears to me.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Here's a couple of pics. The first one is a powerhead.


----------



## Shane A smith (Jun 15, 2003)

Sorry your having this problem. That is plain ol ridiculas. Something has to be seriously seriously out of whack there did you ask your city for a water report?

50gal 160watts PC 6500k Clay Substrate.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Nope, the problem is not in the water. I have 2 other planted tanks that are doing beautifully.


----------



## Shane A smith (Jun 15, 2003)

Well if i were you i would have given up by now and created a new tank outta that. Maybe try a diff substrate or something. WHat fixed my algae problem that was pretty nasty with hairalgae was actyually just dosing a bunch of fertilizer. 3ppm PO4 20ppm NO3 and tripled FLourish dosage and algae backed off... I still have some though but i can pull whatever else is there out in half a second. Ever thought of keeping snakes?

50gal 160watts PC 6500k Clay Substrate.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Ever thought of keeping snakes?


LOL, my wife would not allow that.









I did try massive dosing of ferts and it made it worst. at this point I believe the situation is improving. the "dirt appears to be slowly disappearing. I intend to let it be until it's all gone. Won't be adding anything to the tank except fish food.


----------



## Shane A smith (Jun 15, 2003)

good luck. Hope it turns out.

50gal 160watts PC 6500k Clay Substrate.


----------



## Doomer (Feb 2, 2003)

Thanks Shane. The situation is definitely improving. No doubt that the stuff is dying off. I'm starting to see green all over the tank. It's amazing that the plants have been able to survive while being covered by this stuff.


----------

