# Sticky  Organics Analysis



## JeffyFunk

The purpose of this thread is to (1) try to gather samples and data on the amount of organic pollution (i.e. Demand) that people have in their aquarium and (2) see if there is a correlation between the amount of organics measured (as TOC) and algae growth, specifically BBA.

The topic of 'organics' in the aquarium as a pollutant has always been very vague ... Often times, people talk about 'organics' as a problem in the aquarium but if you ask them about specific values of organics that cause problems or are acceptable or ask for specific articles about organic pollution level studies, most people are not able to provide any values or specifics. Instead they just wave their hands in the air and mumble generalizations like 'organics are bad and need to be as low as possible'.... how low is good? how high is bad? What are the average concentration values? Is there actually a correlation at all? That is the goal of this thread - to try to put generate analytical data on organic pollution (as TOC) and see if there is indeed a correlation between TOC concentrations and algae.

According to the Standard Methods Handbook, there are many ways to measure 'aggregated organic constituents' or 'organic pollution'. COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) is the most common method of measurement and is defined as the amount of a specified oxidant that reacts with the sample under controlled conditions. Other methods of organic pollution analysis include BOD (Biologcial oxygen demand), TOC (total organic carbon) and TOD (total oxygen demand).

I would like to gather and analyse samples for organic analysis for their TOC content in order to see if there is indeed a correlation between the TOC of a particular aquarium and the presence of algae, specifically BBA. I work for an environmental laboratory, one of the instruments we have is a TOC analyzer (total organic carbon). This is a machine that measures the carbon containing compounds in your water by converting the carbon to CO2 and measuring the CO2 via an IR detector. Basically, there are two steps. In the first step, the sample is acidified. This converts all the inorganic carbon (HCO3- and CO3--) to CO2 and the amount of CO2 is determined. This portion is the TIC (total inorganic carbon). In the second step, an oxidant is added to the sample to decompose all of the organic carbon to CO2 and, again, the CO2 is detected. This portion is the TOC (total organic carbon).

If you are interested in participating and sending me samples for analysis, I ask that you collect and label your samples with the following information:

*Name, Date of Collection, Aquarium Name (if you have multiple aquariums, usually the size), BBA present or not, CO2 injection or not, Water change frequency (and when your sample was collected with regards to them)*

Also, be sure to include a sample of your source water (tap, RO water, RO water reconstituted).

For convenience sake, please collect samples in a *DOUBLE SEALED* ziplock sandwich sized bag, ~1/4 to ~1/2 full. Remove as much air as possible from the bags and seal the opening with packaging tape (or any other heavy duty tape like duct (or duck) tape, not scotch tape). Place all of the water samples into a larger gallon size ziplock bag for extra protection in case the bags leak. If you need or want to collect multiple samples over time, please refrigerate all samples for storage in order to minimize the amount of TOC degredation. Please PM me for shipping information.

I will analyze the samples and organize the results into a table format so we can then all analyze the data. If you would like your data to be presented as anonymous, please just include a note with your samples and i will report them on this forum as anonymous (but i need to know the actual name in order make sure i receive your samples and for proper sample tracking.)

*Disclaimer. This analysis is for personal use only and all results may not be used for compliance testing and monitoring or legal use. I will not be held responsible for sample shipping, sample contamination and any loses that may occur.*


----------



## Zapins

Can't wait to find out. I've got a tank with a BBA issue. And another one with hair/clado. Will send you samples soon.

This time with tracking...


----------



## Yo-han

Great idea! Subscribed! I would love to have my tanks tested, they would be great for comparison. I've 1 BBA tank, 1 clean and 1 always balancing at the edge. Unfortunate, I live in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, I hope lots of people send you samples. For all people sending in a BBA infested tank sample, make sure it is still growing. BBA can remain in a tank very long even when the water is clean IME.


----------



## BriDroid

I've got one with GDA and GSA, but no BBA. I could send you a sample if you want.


----------



## Zapins

It would be interesting to see the differences between tanks and what type of algae. Perhaps you can post a close up photo of the algae as well then we can match up the water test records to each photo and really build a substantial database.


----------



## niko

I got a tank which has only fish, sand, and water. No plants. There is always Cladophora growing on the substrate. Over the last 2 years I have been able to run the tank in two very different modes. It is perfectly predictable and I think that the predictablity makes it a great candidate for the "organics" experiment. Here are the two states:

A. If I do big water changes (50-65%) every two days the Clado stops growing but does not disappear. The N and P stabilize - N is about 5 and the P is about 0.4. Interesting to note that this is a perfect Redfield ratio. After a few days (3 days more or less) BBA gets easily removed (unlike healthy BBA which is almost impossible to scrape) and eventually disintegrates by itself if I don't bother scraping it.
One visual change is the clarity of the water. In this state a day after the water change the water is perfectly clear despite the fact that in both big filters I have only coarse lava rock which is by no means a mechanical filter. There is no other filters on that tank. At times, but not every day if you look through the tank from the side (through 6' of water) it looks like the fish are suspended in thin air.

B. If I stop the water changes the Clado starts to grow and eventually BBA appears (about 3-4 weeks after I stop water changes). Through water changes I have stopped the growth of both algae through water changes countless times. But I have not tested the N and P in that dirty state. Only one time I tested for N and P and found that P was way more than the N - in the ranges of P=3 and N=2.
In that state the water is clean but it has a lot of small particles floating in the water. Looked from the side through 6' of water the water looks a bit opalescent as if you dropped a few drops of milk in it so the lack of perfect clarity is not only due only to the visible floating particles.

I described the above situations as A and B because I want to hear if it makes sense to send you samples from both tank states or we should do something else. Just taking a snapshot of only state A or state B will not tell us much in my opinion. What do you think?

Another aspect would be to look at the impact of the fish food. I refuse to believe that it all boils down to N and P. There has got to be something else too: If I feed frozen blood worms the Clado grows the fastest. It grows a bit slower if I feed ground hamburger meat. Even slower with frozen brine shrimp. Slowest growth is with dry flake food (brine shrimp only flakes).

Right now the tank is in A state - super clean. Should I send you a sample to start with and then I let it go to state B and send you another sample? I will continue feeding the same kind of food and keep the same light and lighting schedule so at least those factors should be consistent. I guess I should also measure the amount of food I'm giving - I got a scale for that.

Another factor to maybe consider is the season. In the past people have noticed that BBA tends to show up right about now - in autumn (and I think in spring) - in tanks all over the US. Not sure if that's an easily accountable factor but I think we should keep it in mind.


----------



## JeffyFunk

niko said:


> I got a tank which has only fish, sand, and water .... It is perfectly predictable and I think that the predictablity makes it a great candidate for the "organics" experiment. Here are the two states:
> 
> A. [Blah Blah Blah - Good aquarium state because i do regular maintenance] ....
> 
> B. [Blah Blah Blah - Bad aquarium state because i'm a slacker and/or like to feed my fish unhealthy snacks like doritos, tofu, velveeta and hot dogs] ....


I think this is a fine example of when samples should be taken and analyzed. Now, this is also a good example of where some "Guru" will chime in and in their infinite wisdom (probably from TPT) say something along the lines of "Of course you have algae - you stopped loving and maintaining your tank. Love is equivalent to water changes and little organics (waves hands in the air)."

My response to this "Guru" will be "Fine - please send me samples so i can measure how much 'love' your tanks have (or don't have) so we can help establish a baseline for organics in aquariums as measured by TOC".

I can analyze samples for TOC analysis for any experiment you want as long as you send me samples that are clearly collected, labeled and stored so that anyone looking at the table of results can also interpret the results.


----------



## niko

I don't see where is a guru going to jump out of because this hobby has no gurus any more. In the last decade it had a few idols and that was it. I've said it before - we need an American "Amano". But I don't see any candidates. And we are all sick of impostors so the situation is indeed new. And the situation in other countries is not better. UK is a bright example of trying to create gurus but all it is is a regurgitation of the past with a lot of moves meant to look stylish using imagery dated circa 2005.

We better realize something very valuable: We are on our own. That's a great thing no matter who you think "we" are or I think "we" are. Look what happened when a guru of the past skillfully implanted in our heads the idea that there are 3 ways to make an aquascape look good. We have arrived at nothing. Well, you copy and don't understand - you arrive at nothing, what else? It looks like that journey was a necessary step in the bubbling stinky-aromatic mix of a hobby and internet where everybody is an expert, has six pack abs, and a perfectly balanced real life full of cute cats, wonderful food, one-liner insights, and amazing aquariums.

Now tell my why use ziplock bags and not plastic jars? Contamination of some sort? Postal service suspicious of jars?
Also - why isn't this topic in the "Filtration" section. It is about how clean and how dirty a tank is, isn't it?

Bla-bla, allright. This topic is VERY exciting. Something truly new and interesting. A rare thing in the world of miniature trees, hills, and passages made of white sand. And exagerated fake perspectives.


----------



## Zapins

I think APC is the one and only "guru" out there. This website really is on the cutting edge of the hobby. Other people do not share their research or findings, even Amano does not share any info he has learned by research. He shares his products for a price, but not the raw useful information. Which makes me wonder if he hasn't just happened on a formula that works but has no idea why it works.

I think this topic is fine in the algae section because we really want to get to the bottom of why algae grows.

Amanda has a few interesting tanks. They are all 2.5 gallon tanks on a shelf under the same light, but in each tank there is a different species of algae that dominates. I believe she even has the same substrate in each tank. I wonder what the differences are between each of her tanks. That would be really interesting.


----------



## JeffyFunk

niko said:


> I don't see where is a guru going to jump out of because this hobby has no gurus any more.


Have u ever tried to read any of the posts on TPT or Barrreport? God forbid u try to say anything wrong or question conventional wisdom there - otherwise some wanna be guru will leap out of his desk to give u the smack down because u have less posts than they do. It doesn't matter how much experience u have - u r clearly less edumacated than they r and will never reach their state of planted aquarium enlightenment...



niko said:


> Now tell my why use ziplock bags and not plastic jars? Contamination of some sort? Postal service suspicious of jars?
> 
> Also - why isn't this topic in the "Filtration" section. It is about how clean and how dirty a tank is, isn't it?


Because bags r flexible and easily available, I suggest them. You can use jars but I just think bags are easier up ship.

I thought about putting this in the filtration section, but that's not what this post is about. This post is ultimately about collecting data on an unwanted parameter and how it may relate to algae. That is all. There's no discussion of bio media, flow patterns or flow volumes. There will be no discussion of whether or not BBA is caused by organics or insuffient CO2 - there r other threads to discuss that. I just want to invite people to collect samples for analysis and see if we can find an actual correlation.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Excellent thread. We might be missing some info from the samples in my thread, but that's probably a good start.


----------



## Cavan Allen

BriDroid said:


> I've got one with GDA and GSA, but no BBA. I could send you a sample if you want.


Getting samples of water from tanks with no BBA is certainly just as valuable as getting samples from tanks infested with it.


----------



## rjordan393

I too will participate in this study. Usually I get bba and what appears to be black spot algae which cannot be rubbed off. So I trim the leaves when it appears. I think I see more of both starting to reappear. I too suspect a buildup of organics in the substrate which I believe is caused by the substrate dissolving into mud. This mud interferes with the transport of oxygen throughout the gravel. (Just my opinion). I have Eco-Complete ordered and will be breaking down my tank in a few weeks and I hope this gravel does not dissolved like the Flourite that I have. I'll be taking samples before I do.
But this time, I won't have a 4 inch substrate in the rear that's tapered to the front to 1 inch. The new setup will be 2 inches in the rear to 1 inch in the front. The reason for this is experimental. I want to be able to syphon the bottom of the tank, especially in the rear; whereas trying to dig down to 4 inches is difficult. Many say not to syphon the bottom as it disturbs the nitrification in the bed. I think we need not worry about that if we have plants. I am hoping the results over time will be positive.
This reminds me of the time I had a deep sand bed in a reef tank with fish, live rock and corals. Over time, I had a problem with hydrogen sulfide building up in the sand and one can always tell when it is released.


----------



## Phil Edwards

niko said:


> where everybody is an expert, has six pack abs, and a perfectly balanced real life full of cute cats, wonderful food, one-liner insights, and amazing aquariums.


Just because I'm getting older and am getting a little soft in the middle doesn't mean you need to be mean to me *Niko*. 

*Jeff*,

This is a great idea! Why don't we go ahead and include TOC in the stuff we've talked about already? We can certainly use my new tank as a baseline "brand new/fresh start" system and see what happens along the way.

You know what? Screw the "gurus"; if you think you're right about something or have an idea that hasn't been talked about in-depth, go for it! You've got the academic and professional credentials to speak authoritatively on certain subjects. DO IT! ****, look at how many posts I've got here and at TPT; a miniscule amount for the amount of time I've been a member on each site. Yet, for some reason that I'm not quite sure of, most people don't come laying the smack down on me. You've got just as much right to speak up and present your ideas as any of us. I'm willing to bet you've got a sound hypothesis/observations and I know you've got the chem background to back up your thoughts. If they lay the proverbial smack down on you, whack 'em back!

As much as I respect Tom for what he's brought to the hobby, I've got no issues questioning or contradicting him and his cronies. You shouldn't worry either. Yeah, what he's said works and I've used his methods before with great success. That hasn't stopped me from asking for detailed reasons why he espouses certain practices. For as much as he's said he's tested, I haven't seen his results. Guess you've got to be a paying subscriber on his site to get "in the know". BAH! It's time people with the knowhow and access to the hardware got together and took a good analytical look at the things we have questions about...and then shared that info openly.


----------



## Zapins

Well said Phil.

Not convinced his group actually has all the answers. Without peer review and additional experiments by people outside of his group it is hard to believe his results are 100% accurate. .


----------



## rjordan393

I agree. This study and data collected by Jeff may just give us a clue as to why bba appears dispite the best efforts by aquarist's with years of experience. If one reads all the threads on this subject on other forums, then one will notice that bba can occur in high flow areas and low flow or no flow areas as well. This is what make me think that we have to take a look at the substrate. Could it be that we keep the depth of the substrate too high? Is oxygen having a difficult time moving through the substrate. What occurs if this happens? Is there something percolating under the substrate and gets released to cause bba? I think the subject of substrates as to size and depth needs to be examined.


----------



## Yo-han

It does happen in tanks with no substrate at all too


----------



## rjordan393

What type of tanks would these be? Water changes? How often? How much? Did these tanks have plants?
I have not noticed any bba in dealer holding tanks. I'll look closer on my next visit.
Which still brings us back to this analysis. Is there a specific level of DOC or DIC that favors bba?


----------



## Yo-han

Dealer holding tank hopefully get lots of large water changes and are not likely to get it. Our lfs has WC's automated, never seen much BBA since. But before, the upper row with discus tanks where no substrate was, did get some BBA when the bottoms were not cleaned and they were fed too much. This is how I started to believe in BBA and organics/rotting.


----------



## rjordan393

It appears we are on the same page. For instance; when fish waste and uneaten food works its way down into the gravel, then it become difficult to syphon it all out, especially in deep gravel. Unless one digs down into it which some aquarist's say not to do and to just vacuum the surface. I have to disagree. Disturbing the gravel does not harm the nitrifying bacteria. they demand oxygen to break down this waste. The same thing happens in bare bottom tanks that are not cleaned. problems can develop.
Many do not want to dig into the gravel because it clouds up the tank and may take a day or more before the water clears up. This clouding effect is mostly from the gravel breaking down into fine particles. Seachems Flourite is one that constantly breaks down. The solution is to find a gravel that does not break down into dust and is easily syphoned without picking up the gravel.


----------



## JeffyFunk

rjordan393 said:


> .... This is what make me think that we have to take a look at the substrate. Could it be that we keep the depth of the substrate too high? Is oxygen having a difficult time moving through the substrate. What occurs if this happens? Is there something percolating under the substrate and gets released to cause bba? I think the subject of substrates as to size and depth needs to be examined.


The topic of substrate chemistry is **WAY** beyond the scope of this forum post. When you start talking about substrate chemistry, you can't just have people collect a sample of water from the top of the aquarium and have them analyzed. Instead, you need to start collecting data on substrate depth and their corresponding chemical analysis as well as REDOX potential. REDOX potential is not something you can just sample and have sent to a laboratory; Instead, you have to bring the REDOX probe to the aquarium and test it in situ. That's not happening. I don't have the time to run to everyone's house to make REDOX measurements and i'm sure you won't want to pay the bill for me to drive over to your place anyways...

As for specific chemicals being released, that type of analysis is also beyond the scope of this study. If you know anyone with an HPLC or UHPLC system that can isolate and quantify individual organic compounds, please let us all know (I highly doubt that any of the organic compounds would be volatile enough for analysis by GC...).

Another comment. Tanks w/ bare bottoms, like in fish stores, also typically have much less light on them than planted aquariums. Aquarium stores are usually just trying to showcase the fish in the tanks and not have anything else to distract from the sale of those fish, like algae. What is the minimum amount of light that can grow BBA? I have no idea... But i doubt that the plants we like to grow would prosper under those meager PAR values...

I'm not trying to discourage you from collecting samples from those tanks, but only to make you realize that the lighting conditions in those tanks (and people that don't have planted aquariums in general) is probably much different than what planted aquariums have.


----------



## Michael

This is fascinating. When work slows down a little, I will send you samples from some of my Walstad tanks.


----------



## niko

And I have to get rid of either plecos or a bunch of sword plants I just put in the tank. The plecos eat the leaves and there would be no point to check for "organics" when I have a bunch of plants bleeding what not in the water.

Anyone local wants 3 small bushy nose plecos for free?


----------



## rjordan393

Jeff,
The substrate is no problem for me as I been planning to do some experimentation using less substrate and hoping to get a positive result over time.
PM me with a shipping address so I can send you a water sample.


----------



## rjordan393

Jeff,
The organic carbon concentration in my tap water was 1.7 ppm. I take this to mean an average as I requested this information about 18 months ago. I believe you need to take this into account in addition to what our tanks produce. So other aquarist's may have different kevels of it in their water supply.


----------



## rjordan393

Jeff,
My water samples will be shipped today. Will PM you with tracking number.


----------



## Zapins

JeffyFunk said:


> Big update ... Just in time to relax and get ready for Aquafest 2013! Here are analysis results for samples from Cavan Allen (CA), Tim Gross (TG), Zapins (MT). For clarity sake, results below my reporting limit of 0.01 ppm in the micro nutrients table will be reported as "<" (less than the detection limit). B results are not available (n/a).
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> | Sample               | Al  | B   | Ba  | Co  | Cu  | Fe  | Mn  | Mo  | Ni  | Sr  | V   | Zn  |
> 
> | CA Tank 10/2/13      | 0.06| n/a | 0.03|  <  |  <  | 0.03|  <  | 0.01|  <  | 0.14|  <  | 0.03|
> | MT Old Home Tap 10/8 |  <  | n/a |  <  |  <  | 0.01|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  | 0.10|  <  |  <  |
> | MT Home Tap 10/8/13  |  <  | n/a | 0.07|  <  | 0.01|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  | 0.06|  <  |  <  |
> | MT Apt Tap 10/8/13   |  <  | n/a |  <  |  <  | 0.06|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  | 0.24|  <  | 0.10|
> | MT 90g Apt Aq 10/7/13|  <  | n/a | 0.04|  <  | 0.04| 0.14|  <  |  <  |  <  | 0.27|  <  | 0.18|
> | MT 90g Home Aq 10/7  |  <  | n/a | 0.05|  <  | 0.26| 0.01| 0.01|  <  |  <  | 0.06| 0.01| 0.03|
> | TG Tap 10/12/13      | 0.02| n/a | 0.04|  <  | 0.01|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  | 0.27|  <  | 0.19|
> | TG 20g Aq 10/12/13   |  <  | n/a | 0.02|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  | 0.01|  <  | 0.26|  <  | 0.02|
> | TG 40g Aq 10/12/13   |  <  | n/a | 0.02|  <  |  <  | 0.03|  <  | 0.01|  <  | 0.25|  <  |  <  |
> 
> | Sample               | K   | Ca  | Mg  | Na  | TIC | TOC |Gen. Hard. (dGH) | CO3 Hard. (dKH)|
> 
> | CA Tank 10/2/13      | 33.0| 26.4|  7.1| 19.6| 11.2| 10.6|  95.0 ( 5.3 dGH)| 93.3 ( 5.2 dKH)|
> | MT Old Home Tap 10/8 |  1.9| 39.1|  9.2| 28.5| 20.1|  1.5|   136 ( 7.6 dGH)|  168 ( 9.4 dkH)|
> | MT Home Tap 10/8/13  | <1.0| 20.2|  7.8|  6.7| 14.9|  1.3|  82.3 ( 4.6 dGH)|  125 ( 7.0 dKH)|
> | MT Apt Tap 10/8/13   |  6.7| 58.8| 19.3| 48.0| 22.6|  2.5|   226 (12.7 dGH)|  188 (10.6 dKH)|
> | MT 90g Apt Aq 10/7/13| <1.0| 20.0|  7.4|  8.3| 16.5|  4.2|  80.5 ( 4.5 dGH)|  131 ( 7.3 dKH)|
> | MT 90g Home Aq 10/7  | 23.2| 54.1| 19.3| 55.4| 15.7|  5.6|   215 (12.0 dGH)|  138 ( 7.7 dKH)|
> | TG Tap 10/12/13      |  3.3| 41.3| 11.3| 49.3| 12.7|  1.7|   150 ( 8.4 dGH)|  106 ( 5.9 dKH)|
> | TG 20g Aq 10/12/13   | 57.1| 35.3| 10.3| 46.5|  8.9|  1.6|   133 ( 7.5 dGH)| 74.3 ( 4.2 dKH)|
> | TG 40g Aq 10/12/13   | 70.1| 39.1| 10.9| 49.3| 11.5|  3.3|   143 ( 8.0 dGH)| 96.2 ( 5.4 dKH)|
> 
> All results are in units of mg/L (ppm). Metal analysis results were analyzed by ICP-OES. TIC & TOC analysis results were analyzed by method SM 3510 C - Heated-Persulfate Oxidation. General Hardness & Carbonate Hardness are in units of ppm CaCO3 eq (calculated). Carbonate Hardness (KH) were calculated from TIC, not a titration (so they may not be equivalent... i still have to test them to see). Please note - Limited QA/QC solutions were run on these samples and these analysis results are for personal use only. These results may not be used for regulatory reporting purposes or compliance testing. If anyone else would like their water tested, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.


I wonder if this algae has to do with the TOC level or if it has more to do with the toxic levels of copper in my tank water. I'd guess the copper, but we'll let the data pile up.

My 90g home tank when I took the water sample:









Same tank before:


----------



## Yo-han

Zapins said:


> I wonder if this algae has to do with the TOC level or if it has more to do with the toxic levels of copper in my tank water. I'd guess the copper, but we'll let the data pile up.


Although your copper is quite high, I can't believe that to be the case, simple because algae has a lower toxicity level for copper compared to plants. You can easily kill algae with copper, ask any pond owner... And to answer your next question right away: why isn't it killing the algae? I think the reason is because there are a lot of chelators in your aquarium. Coming from fertilizers and decaying plant matter. This way the copper isn't nearly as toxic (luckily for you!)

That being said, high TOC (low oxygen), seems to be in line with the results...

PS. I wished I had someone to test for TOC over here. I did have all the other parameters checked once (I ended up with 28 ppm NO2, so not sure how trustworthy these result were because all my fish did fine, we blamed anaerobic bacteria in the water sample) but no TOC or anything like it. Keep up the good work Jeff! And for anyone sending him water, perhaps include a few stems of the rarest or most beautiful plant you own, I think Jeff would like that!


----------



## JeffyFunk

Yo-han said:


> That being said, high TOC (low oxygen), seems to be in line with the results...


I'm not sure you can necessarily correlate TOC and [O]. If you want to measure [O], you really need an oxygen sensor...

I'll try to gather up all the data I have so far (w/out all of the extra metal analysis) and post it into a nice table (data is nice, but lots of data can be confusing to look at ...) ... supposedly i'm to be getting some more samples, but have not yet. Also, i have another sample from Zapins to include in the organic analysis table that i didn't put in Cavan's post. The analysis results seemed... odd. Everything in the sample was very low... (I figured it would be better to discuss those samples results here, rather than i Cavan's post...)


----------



## Zapins

I'm dying to know what the results were for my 180g (please post the full details in Cavan's thread as well!). That tank uses straight uncut RO water only with no re-mineralization. I have it connected to my automatic water change system so it gets daily new RO water. It also has a stupid amount of organics in it. There are literally pounds of moss (decaying moss as well) all over the bottom and then cabomba growing over the top shading out everything, so there is very little algae (except some BBA near the top). I honestly don't understand why I haven't seen deficiencies in that tank yet since I never add micros or macros or even Ca/Mg.

As for the copper in my tank. I'm not sure. It certainly has quite a lot of debris all over the place and organics from all the flake food and 200+ endlers. 

Is 5.6 TOC a "high" level? I think we need a lot more results. Look at Cavan's results, he has double my TOC and I don't think he has huge amounts of algae.


----------



## Yo-han

Zapins said:


> Is 5.6 TOC a "high" level? I think we need a lot more results. Look at Cavan's results, he has double my TOC and I don't think he has huge amounts of algae.


I'm not sure whether 5.6 is high, I was under de assumption 1 was super clean and 8 really polluted, but I can't find my source.

About Cavans tank, I think he has a thread going about trouble in his tank as well. I don't know whether it is the one from the sample. Second, when someone is using less light, he might get away with a high TOC, so I think you can't compare tanks just based on the absolute number.


----------



## Yo-han

JeffyFunk said:


> I'm not sure you can necessarily correlate TOC and [O]. If you want to measure [O], you really need an oxygen sensor...


No, you're right, there is no hard correlation. I was thinking that to break down TOC, bacteria need lots of oxygen. But perhaps I was a little fast with my correlation.


----------



## Zapins

His other thread:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/88403-trouble-farm-help-20.html

He had a zinc toxicity which was stunting his plants. I don't think he really has algae issues as far as I remember.

If you can find info on TOC I'd like to see it, I haven't found much background info on it.


----------



## Yo-han

Zapins said:


> His other thread:
> 
> http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/88403-trouble-farm-help-20.html
> 
> He had a zinc toxicity which was stunting his plants. I don't think he really has algae issues as far as I remember.
> 
> If you can find info on TOC I'd like to see it, I haven't found much background info on it.


My bad!

About the TOC values. The average from my tap is 1.2 (1.0-1.3) mg/L. There is no legal maximum in the Netherlands, but for our rivers they try to keep a maximum of 4 mg/L by controlling the amount of TOC in waste water from sewers and factories.

@Jeff: _"TOC may be broken down by micro-organisms, in the process consuming oxygen"_


----------



## BriDroid

Jeffrey,

I'm sending my samples today.

My tank is CO2 injected, EI fertilized, and I use tap water through a carbon block filter for water changes. I don't have BBA, but I do have green spot, green dust, and brown diatoms like crazy.

I've attached a few pics for reference.


----------



## Zapins

Be sure to send a sample of your tap water as well as the tank water.


----------



## BriDroid

Zapins said:


> Be sure to send a sample of your tap water as well as the tank water.


I did, the water from my carbon block filter and tank water.


----------



## Zapins

An interesting speculative article on the topic of TOC (basically) and algae.

What do you make of it?

I'm still having trouble finding the support for claims 1-3 in the literature.
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Algae/balance.html


----------



## rjordan393

Here is what I make of it:

1. We need to separate the fast growing plants from the slower one's or accept the difficulties that appear when the slower growing plants develop symptoms or if the fast growers show symptoms. 

2. Hobby test kits are only an aid and in my opinion give ballpark results. You can have two identical tanks but tested each with different test kits. One result is 10 ppm NO3 and the other is 20 ppm NO3. So accuracy most likely is somewhere in the middle. One can always buy excellent kits from Hach or LaMotte, but who wants to afford it.

3. Gravel was mentioned in that thread. I just changed over from Flourite to Eco-Complete for a few reasons. I never like Flourite and it is extremely difficult to rinse it clean and it packs down hard which I think it makes it harder for water to flow through it. Also when I vacuum, I cannot tell the difference between uneaten food or fish waste from the fine particles of the Flourite.
Its only been a week since the Eco-Complete was installed; so after a few months, I can offer an opinion.
However, it did rinse 100% plus better then the Flourite.
Also I am looking forward to see the results of my water samples to compare with my test results and my water companies report. I do not want to see this thread get sidetracked as this is the most interesting thread put forth in my opinion. We are lucky to have Jeff do an analysis of our water.


----------



## niko

Phosphate -$50.
Nitrate - $110.

http://www.petstore.com/hanna-instruments-checker-phosphate-colorimeter
http://www.hach.com/nitrogen-nitrate-color-disc-test-kit-model-ni-14/product?id=7640220990

Oh my, $160! For the same money I can get a real Chinese LED light with 3 different colored LEDs.

Dull joke or not, that is all true.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Back from Aquafest! What a great time! It was a lot of fun to meet a lot of the folks that i've chatted w/ online. I got a bunch of samples this weekend and so i hope to have those samples analyzed by the end of the week.



Zapins said:


> An interesting speculative article on the topic of TOC (basically) and algae.
> 
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Algae/balance.html


Interesting article. I love the fact that the last post is from Tom Barr and is somewhat off topic... lol. In any case, the most interesting post is the penultimate post "an algae experiment" by Roger S. Miller. In a nutshell, he states that when plants are nutrient deficient, aquatic plants are not able to grow properly and 'leak' organic compounds (like sugars) into the water column. These organic compounds is what algae is able to utilize to grow. If this is true, then it's possible that elevated levels of TOC is not really the cause of algae (BBA), but rather a symptom of the plants being nutrient deficient (what the limiting nutrient is is not important or even stated in the article, though i suspect it's carbon... though it would be odd that if a plant is limited in carbon, it would leak... carbon).



Yo-han said:


> @Jeff: _"TOC may be broken down by micro-organisms, in the process consuming oxygen"_


Again, while there may be a correlation between TOC and [O] (as the article points out), i don't think you can necessarily say that high [TOC] will cause low [O] (which could then be the cause of algae). The [O] is affected by a lot of things and the effect of low [O] should be studied separately from TOC.



rjordan393 said:


> 1. We need to separate the fast growing plants from the slower one's or accept the difficulties that appear when the slower growing plants develop symptoms or if the fast growers show symptoms.
> 
> 2. Hobby test kits are only an aid and in my opinion give ballpark results. You can have two identical tanks but tested each with different test kits. One result is 10 ppm NO3 and the other is 20 ppm NO3. So accuracy most likely is somewhere in the middle. One can always buy excellent kits from Hach or LaMotte, but who wants to afford it.


I can agree with the first point. I know that certain plants seem to get BBA faster / worse than other plants (i.e. Cyperus helferi is a BBA MAGNET), but the original question still remains... why do we get BBA? Is there a correlation between TOC and BBA? While the answer may be more nuanced (i.e. certain plants will get BBA at X TOC values while other plants will not get BBA until Y TOC values), I don't think we should get bogged down by the selection of plants...yet.

With the second point, i somewhat disagree. All test kits are based off of sound and proven chemistry. (It's not difficult to look up articles in the library or online). The problem with a home test kit is that hobbyists are unlikely (or even know how) to verify that the test kits and their results are accurate. Without verification, all results are going to be questionable and the hobbyiest is going to have to rely on faith that the results are accurate.


----------



## rjordan393

Jeff,
About #2; I checked online for standards to validate my results at a volume and price that was reasonable.
On the sites that I visited, I either had to buy too much or the cost was prohibitive. If you know of a site that will sell standards in small amounts and are cost friendly, let us know.


----------



## Zapins

Why not make your own standards? A known amount of fertilizer (weighed on a scale) in distilled water.


----------



## Cavan Allen

What about organics from fish waste/food/source water/dirty tank vs those from stressed plants? You will note that BBA will grow on inanimate objects as well as the plants themselves. Plants not doing well do tend to accumulate BBA faster, which makes me wonder if they are feeding off sugars in the micro environment of the leaf itself (to say nothing of decaying leaves!). That doesn't really explain the stuff growing on the filter outflow, does it? I kind of think that organics released from struggling plants must only be part of the issue.


----------



## Zapins

I wonder if it isn't more to do with allelopathy than sugars. 

We all know that when plants are happy algae isn't. Which makes me wonder if plants aren't suppressing the alga's growth in some way. This is also consistent with observations that algae isn't triggered to bloom in high nitrate and phosphate environments. The funny thing is, in the wild it has been well documented that nitrates and phosphates do cause algal blooms, but not in our tanks. We tend to keep a much higher plant density than in the wild and so perhaps these algaecidal chemicals build up to higher than normal concentrations and stop the growth of algae, which matches the whole high NO3/PO4 doesn't cause algae observations.

Alternatively, algae could just be programmed to bloom when certain nutrient criteria are met. The most obvious example is for green water. Add some ammonia and vuala. Perhaps each algae has a certain ratio or nutrient it waits for to change in a favorable direction before it blooms and it just so happens that the values and ratios we keep our tanks at tend not to favor any of those bloom criteria.

Then there is the whole sugar post which I linked to.

There really seem to be an almost limitless number of possibilities for the cause of algae. I don't know how we can figure out what is more important without some very high level chemistry experiments.


----------



## rjordan393

Quote <I kind of think that organics released from struggling plants must only be part of the issue.>

Another thought would be; what is released when we trim the plants?


----------



## JeffyFunk

Just some random comments...



rjordan393 said:


> Jeff,
> About #2; I checked online for standards to validate my results at a volume and price that was reasonable.
> On the sites that I visited, I either had to buy too much or the cost was prohibitive.


This is a problem with chemistry tests - they're expensive if you want to do them properly. When you think about it, a laboratory has to go through multiple analysis steps / samples in order to be confident that the results are accurate (This is often times referred to as a QA/QC program - quality assurance, quality control). Fortunately, I work in a laboratory where i have all or most of the equipment (maybe minus a certified standard or chemical or two, but i do have a balance, verification weights, volumetric flasks, pipettes, etc) in order to implement a rigorous QA/QC program. Just to be clear, i'm not blaming anyone for not having a rigorous QA/QC program at home. I'm just stating that certified laboratories must have a rigorous QA/QC program in place in order to verify the results that they produce.



Zapins said:


> Why not make your own standards? A known amount of fertilizer (weighed on a scale) in distilled water.


Making standards is one thing. Verifying that your calibration curve is correct involves analyzing a certified reference material against your calibration curve and checking that it analyzes correctly. Also, in order to make standards, you need all of the materials listed above to ensure that your results are as accurate as possible.



Cavan Allen said:


> What about organics from fish waste/food/source water/dirty tank vs those from stressed plants? You will note that BBA will grow on inanimate objects as well as the plants themselves. Plants not doing well do tend to accumulate BBA faster, which makes me wonder if they are feeding off sugars in the micro environment of the leaf itself (to say nothing of decaying leaves!). That doesn't really explain the stuff growing on the filter outflow, does it? I kind of think that organics released from struggling plants must only be part of the issue.


Good points. Obviously leaking organics from plants cannot be the only reason for BBA on plants, I have tons of BBA on my hardscape and equipment to verify that... lol. Hopefully this analysis gets us started in the correct direction...


----------



## Zapins

JeffyFunk said:


> Making standards is one thing. Verifying that your calibration curve is correct involves analyzing a certified reference material against your calibration curve and checking that it analyzes correctly. Also, in order to make standards, you need all of the materials listed above to ensure that your results are as accurate as possible.


True but using a hobby test kit isn't really that accurate to begin with. With no digital read out you lose a good bit of accuracy simply because it is based on the human eye and matching colors on a card. I think at best its an approximation even with standards made up.

I wonder if you can make a standard up, then seal it and keep it for reference? Or will it degrade and change color over time? I seem to remember having a nitrate test kit in botany class that had small vials with different strength solutions in it that you compared the color to rather than a print out card.


----------



## Cavan Allen

rjordan393 said:


> Quote <I kind of think that organics released from struggling plants must only be part of the issue.>
> 
> Another thought would be; what is released when we trim the plants?


Straight into the water! Though I imagine the damage would probably be mitigated by a sharp pair of scissors. I'd think just pinching would make leakier wounds.


----------



## Yo-han

Zapins said:


> True but using a hobby test kit isn't really that accurate to begin with. With no digital read out you lose a good bit of accuracy simply because it is based on the human eye and matching colors on a card. I think at best its an approximation even with standards made up.
> 
> I wonder if you can make a standard up, then seal it and keep it for reference? Or will it degrade and change color over time? I seem to remember having a nitrate test kit in botany class that had small vials with different strength solutions in it that you compared the color to rather than a print out card.


The Hanna colorimeters are a good way to rule out the human eye. This way we the inaccuracy of the test kit is the only inaccuracy you have. (and it appears this can be quite a lot depending on the brand)

About the references. I tried this once, the PO4 didn't changed as far as I could measure. The NO3, was lower after a few weeks and it contained NO2. My guess was that anaerobic denitrifying bacteria got into the solution. Couldn't think of any other way how an inorganic salt solution changed. So make sure it is sterile! 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Marcel G

Zapins said:


> I wonder if it isn't more to do with allelopathy than sugars ... This is also consistent with observations that algae isn't triggered to bloom in high nitrate and phosphate environments. The funny thing is, in the wild it has been well documented that nitrates and phosphates do cause algal blooms, but not in our tanks ... There really seem to be an almost limitless number of possibilities for the cause of algae. I don't know how we can figure out what is more important without some very high level chemistry experiments.


Although it's a little off topic, I would like to point out, that according to my opinion sugars are not the direct cause of algae bloom. I did a little test with different kinds of sugars in jars, and there was not correlation between high level of sugars and algae bloom (see http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_algaeSugars). Also I would not agree with the statement that high nitrates and/or phosphates do not cause algal blooms in planted tanks. The reason why we don't have algal blooms in nutrient-rich water of our tanks is that we do regular water changes, thorough maintenance, and have some algae-eaters. The algae need some time also to proliferate (at least 2 weeks without disturbing = without maintenance and water change), so if we do regular water changes + maintenance, we "reset" their environment, so that the algae must start over and over again.


----------



## niko

Ardjuna,

Algae can take over your tank overnight. Especially if you have any measurable N and P floating free in the water which most of us see as a necessity but that's not the end of the story at all. On the other hand there are many cases of badly polluted tanks (N>1 and P>0.1) which have no algae.

High or low fertilizers may seem like a confusing puzzle but it's not impossible to see how confusion can happen - the processes are dynamic and depend on each other. Experimenting with sugar may show you one result today and another tomorrow. It is all in how things interact - many factors are at play. Put a lot of N and P in a jar and set it outside in the sun and there is no guarantee algae will grow but they should. Some factors are not accounted for if you simplify everything. A perfectly clean tank can start to deteriorate for no apparent reason. Something that we normally do not account for comes into existence or gradually disappears. This thread is about one such "something" - "organics" which we have been neglecting for years. 

A planted tank is not just fertilizers, CO2, and light. Finally we are starting to talk about that.


----------



## Marcel G

niko said:


> A planted tank is not just fertilizers, CO2, and light. Finally we are starting to talk about that.


Niko,
for me its a little funny how you're trying to reinvent the wheel. I'll cite you one article which was published on 2001 in one aquarium journal in the Czech Republic:
_"Imperfect activity of mineralization bacteria and subsequent accumulation of toxic organic substances in water is therefore, in our opinion, the main reason why the aquarium algae begin to appear!"
_

And one more citation:
_"Based on the above experiments and observations I would say that excess nitrates and other nutrients are not directly associated with the occurrence of algae."_
[This fact was lately reinvented by Tom Barr in the US.]

(Original article in Czech: http://www.rataj-spk.cz/publikace/at2_01.htm)


----------



## Zapins

It is too bad we don't all read Czech then we wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel :/


----------



## JeffyFunk

Hey everyone, just a quick teaser update. I have all of the water samples analyzed and am in the process of formatting the data gathered so far into one giant table. Looking at the data, I am also going to reformat it by (1) removing some metals data that doesn't seem to provide any utility (Ba, Co, V) to the study here (because they are truly not essential or needed in such small quantities to be considered irrelevant) and (2) rearranging the data so the TOC analysis results are more easily analyzed. I'm also going to make an additional table with tank conditions and comments so people can try to correlate the data with what they observe. If u have sent me samples, I may have some questions to ask u to clarify things. I'm working on the chart during my free time (lol) at work so I hope to have this complete by tue or wed.


----------



## BriDroid

Awesome! Looking forward to the results.


----------



## niko

Ardjuna,

You are missing the big picture. If you can, scan both this and the theplantedtank forum for the important post in the last decade. What do you see? What has been happening in the last 10 years? What are the popular notions, beliefs, approaches, recurring discussions? I don't think you will spend the time doing that so the following is an attempt to give you an overview how the US hobby has been rolling the last 10 years.

Yes, it is funny - we are going back to basics. Finally. Things that people knew and used literally 40 years ago. "Inventing the wheel" in a some ways indeed (one example: No one has put numbers behind what is a "clean tank" up until this thread you are reading now was started a couple of weeks ago). You don't even have an idea how long, slow, and frustrating the road to this point has been. 

Besides - as we often see in life the fact that something is out there and it is true does not make it accepted, well known, or desirable. Non-American sources of information are normally ignored big time on both forums. I do not think that many folk even know how to pronounce the word "Rataj" or to tell if if that's a person's name or something else. I can show you a gigantic document in Russian that describes everything one needs to know about the planted tank and the planted tank hobby in details that most of us have not even dreamed about. You will find maybe two references to that document on the US forums. Same with a very comprehensive German website dealing with filtration specifically in aquariums. Your link to the Czech source from 2001 was probably the first ever reference to it on an US forum. What do you think about all that? 

For too long our focus has been way too narrow - fertilizers/CO2/light. Since about 2006 a few people have tried to debunk the notion that we need to add a lot of fertilizers to the water to make plants grow well (the so called "Estimative Index" (EI) named so by a vocal individual named Tom Barr, which as you aptly noted has the habit of reinvention). We all marvel at the Japanese tanks which use tiny daily doses of ferts but you will find that most people believe in loading their water with chemicals until it qualifies as "severely polluted". The sarcasm here is that EI does not call for huge amounts of ferts but people misunderstand it and (again, as usual in life) fiercely defend what they do not understand but believe in. EI is also all encompassing - if you have ever varied the amounts of ferts you add and if you have ever changed water you have been following EI. EI existed before EI according to most folk. How is that for "inventing the wheel"? Please do not run over to theplantedtank and try to say anything negative about EI, quoting Czech sources from 12 years ago and so on - you may dislike this hobby all of a sudden because (put nicely) people will simply not like what you are saying. On the other hand the people that you see posting in this here thread are the people that are trying to change something for the better. This is the only place where you will find a more or less truly free discussion about planted tanks in English (forum moderators apply). Hope you start to see how the US hobby rolls, why "inventing the wheel" could be a good thing, and start to appreciate more this thread and the people that are part of it.


----------



## Marcel G

niko said:


> ...Please do not run over to theplantedtank and try to say anything negative about EI, quoting Czech sources from 12 years ago and so on - you may dislike this hobby all of a sudden because (put nicely) people will simply not like what you are saying. On the other hand the people that you see posting in this here thread are the people that are trying to change something for the better.


Hi Niko,

first of all, I didn't mean it wrong. I'm not visiting this forum just to say any critique. Actually, I like this thread very much, and I'm eagerly awaiting the test results to compare them with what Mr. Rataj has found out (measured) here in the Czech Republic. I understand very well that sometimes someone discover something which appreciate just a small number of people ... so often we need to speak it again and again, so that more and more people will finally get it. So, I'm sorry if I put it in a wrong (offending) way.

PS: Can you send me the link for the Russian document (or the document itself)?

Marcel


----------



## Zapins

Is there a translation to English for the czech site you linked? I think a lot of us would be interested in reading what has been written about.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Zapins said:


> Is there a translation to English for the czech site you linked? I think a lot of us would be interested in reading what has been written about.


http://translate.google.com/


----------



## Zapins

Jeffy,
I think you are right taking out those elements from the result table. I don't think they have much to do with plant and algae issues.

I think I remember you saying your machine wasn't set up for nitrogen or phosphates, but would it be possible to add sulfur to the list of things to test?

Also as a side note, my apartment tank has had green spot algae for quite some time now which is on both leaves and the glass. I know conventional wisdom says GSA is cured by low PO4, however, I keep testing my PO4 levels and they are 1 ppm out the tap and then I add another 1.5 ppm for a total of about 2.5 ppm. I was reading through some old posts and I found two other possible causes. The first was Tom Barr chanting his CO2 mantra - but my CO2 is at 5 bbps and I don't want to go higher for fear my rainbows will die (already lost 2 to high CO2 levels during acclimation). The other was a post by freemann from 2008 that mentioned potassium was needed in order to help PO4 absorption.

I looked over at my test values for my tank and found that my K levels are very low. So I wonder if there is some truth to this. According to some other unrelated research it seems that potassium levels should ideally be around 2x higher than calcium levels (roughly equal with nitrate levels). So I think I will try adding some more potassium and see if that helps reduce GSA growth. Maybe around 15 - 20 ppm K.



Code:


| Sample               | K   | Ca  | Mg  | Na  | TIC | TOC |Gen. Hard. (dGH) | CO3 Hard. (dKH)| 
| MT Apt Tap 10/8/13   |  6.7| 58.8| 19.3| 48.0| 22.6|  2.5|   226 (12.7 dGH)|  188 (10.6 dKH)|
| MT 90g Apt Aq 10/7/13| <1.0| 20.0|  7.4|  8.3| 16.5|  4.2|  80.5 ( 4.5 dGH)|  131 ( 7.3 dKH)|


----------



## JeffyFunk

Here are the analysis results that I have so far. If you have sent me samples and would like to add any comments, clarifications or concerns about your samples with respect to tank conditions, BBA algae, etc, please send me a message ASAP so i can update the table accordingly. Otherwise, a moderator will have to go in and edit the post (since you cannot edit posts after a certain amount of time.

Once i have more information on BBA conditions in people's tanks, i think we can go ahead and analyze the samples not by name but rather by [TOC] to look for any possible correlation.

Please note - The data in these tables was condensed and rearranged. Metals that are not standard components of most trace mixes were removed (except Sr, which probably should be removed as well, though). Boron was only analyzed for a few samples - samples it was not analyzed in are marked with a "-"... B has a higher reporting limit than the other metals so results below the reporting limit are clearly marked. All other metal results have a reporting limit of 0.01 ppm and results below that reporting limit are marked as "<".

Zapins - Technically speaking, I could analyze Sulfur on the ICP-OES, but i have no plans to reanalyze any samples for either B or S as I just don't have the time to try to add that to my ICP-OES. Second of all, there is no official test for total S according to the EPA so having total S results probably wouldn't be that useful anyway as there is nothing to compare them to. (There are testing methods for Sulfate, Sulfite and Sulfide, but not total Sulfur.) Besides, i just don't have the samples anymore as i've thrown them all out after i finished analyzing them.



Code:


| Sample               | Al  | B   | Cu  | Fe  | K   | Mn  | Mo  | Sr  | Zn  | 

| CA Tap 9/1/13        | 0.03|  -  | 0.04|  <  |  3.3|  <  |  <  | 0.23| 0.12|
| CA T w/ Sub 9/16/13  | 0.08|  -  |  <  | 0.10|  35 |  <  | 0.01| 0.15| 0.03|
| CA RO 9/12/13        |  <  |  -  |  <  |  <  |  1.1|  <  |  <  | 0.03|  <  |
| CA RO 10/18/13       |  <  |<0.10|  <  |  <  | <2.0|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  |
| CA Tank 9/1/13       |  <  |  -  |  <  | 0.04|  41 |  <  |  <  | 0.25| 0.41|
| CA Tank 9/12/13      |  <  |  -  |  <  | 0.04|  36 |  <  |  <  | 0.17| 0.27|
| CA Tank 10/2/13      | 0.06|  -  |  <  | 0.03|  33 |  <  | 0.01| 0.14| 0.03|
| CA Tank 10/18/13     | 0.02| 0.12|  <  | 0.30|  28 |  <  |  <  | 0.09| 0.09|
| TG Tap 10/12/13      | 0.02|  -  | 0.01|  <  |  3.3|  <  |  <  | 0.27| 0.19|
| TG 20g Aq 10/12/13   |  <  |  -  |  <  |  <  |  57 |  <  | 0.01| 0.26| 0.02|
| TG 40g Aq 10/12/13   |  <  |  -  |  <  | 0.03|  70 |  <  | 0.01| 0.25|  <  |
| RJ Tap 10/14/13      |  <  |<0.10| 0.01| 0.02|  2.6|  <  |  <  | 0.10| 0.07|
| RJ 75g 10/14/13      |  <  | 0.19| 0.02| 1.7 |  66 |  <  | 0.02| 0.20| 0.07|
| BM Tap 10/17/13      | 0.02| 0.16|  <  |  <  |  7.0|  <  |  <  | 0.54|  <  | 
| BM Aq 10/17/13       | 0.04| 0.26| 0.02| 2.7 |  73 |  <  | 0.01| 0.53| 0.10|
| AT Old Home Tap 9/18 | 0.01|  -  |  <  |  <  |  9.7| 0.32|  <  | 0.41| 0.05|
| AT Tap 9/1/13        | 0.02|  -  | 0.01|  <  |  2.0|  <  |  <  | 0.07| 0.01|
| AT RO 9/18/13        |  <  |  -  |  <  |  <  | <1.0|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  |
| AT 30-B 9/1/13       | 0.06|  -  | 0.01| 0.01| 140 |  <  |  <  | 0.51| 0.01|
| AT 90-P 9/1/13       | 0.02|  -  | 0.05| 1.6 | 100 |  <  |  <  | 0.10| 0.05|
| AT 90-P 9/18/13      | 0.01|  -  | 0.08| 1.2 |  68 |  <  |  <  | 0.21| 0.04|
| MT Old Home Tap 10/8 |  <  |  -  | 0.01|  <  |  1.9|  <  |  <  | 0.10|  <  |
| MT Home Tap 10/8/13  |  <  |  -  | 0.01|  <  | <1.0|  <  |  <  | 0.06|  <  |
| MT Apt Tap 10/8/13   |  <  |  -  | 0.06|  <  |  6.7|  <  |  <  | 0.24| 0.10|
| MT 90g Apt Aq 10/7/13|  <  |  -  | 0.04| 0.14| <1.0|  <  |  <  | 0.27| 0.18|
| MT 90g Home Aq 10/7  |  <  |  -  | 0.26| 0.01|  23 | 0.01|  <  | 0.06| 0.03|
| MT 180g 10/7/13      |  <  |  -  | 0.02|  <  | <2.0|  <  |  <  |  <  |  <  |
| KW 12g 10/20/13      | 0.07|<0.10|  <  | 0.03|  3.7|  <  |  <  | 0.06|  <  |
| KW 33g 10/20/13      | 0.05|<0.10|  <  | 0.02|  3.9|  <  |  <  | 0.07|  <  |
| KW 50g 10/20/13      | 0.10|<0.10|  <  | 0.05|  2.0|  <  |  <  | 0.04|  <  |
| KW 75g 10/20/13      | 0.02|<0.10|  <  | 0.04|  4.1|  <  |  <  | 0.07|  <  |




Code:


| Sample               | TOC |     | Ca  | Mg  |Gen. Hard.|  
 
| CA Tap 9/1/13        | 2.9 |     |  48 |  11 |  9.3 dGH | 
| CA T w/ Sub 9/16/13  | 8.9 |     |  26 |  6.7|  5.2 dGH | 
| CA RO 9/12/13        | 1.8 |     |  6.6|  1.6|  1.3 dGH | 
| CA RO 10/18/13       | 1.8 |     | <1.0| <1.0| <0.5 dGH |
| CA Tank 9/1/13       | 12.1|     |  48 |  12 |  9.5 dGH | 
| CA Tank 9/12/13      | 9.3 |     |  27 |  7.4|  5.5 dGH | 
| CA Tank 10/2/13      | 10.6|     |  26 |  7.1|  5.3 dGH | 
| CA Tank 10/18/13     | 11.0|     |  16 |  4.5|  8.6 dGH |
| TG Tap 10/12/13      | 1.7 |     |  41 |  11 |  8.4 dGH | 
| TG 20g Aq 10/12/13   | 1.6 |     |  35 |  10 |  7.5 dGH | 
| TG 40g Aq 10/12/13   | 3.3 |     |  39 |  11 |  8.0 dGH | 
| RJ Tap 10/14/13      | 3.1 |     |  32 |  8.0|  6.3 dGH |
| RJ 75g 10/14/13      | 7.6 |     |  52 |  9.9|  9.6 dGH |
| BM Tap 10/17/13      | 8.1 |     |  36 |  4.0|  6.1 dGH |
| BM Tank 10/17/13     | 10.4|     |  33 |  11 |  7.2 dGH |
| AT Old Home Tap 9/18 | 1.0 |     |  29 |  18 |  8.2 dGH | 
| AT Tap 9/1/13        | 1.7 |     |  19 |  5.2|  3.8 dGH | 
| AT RO 9/18/13        |<1.0 |     |  1.3| <1.0| <0.5 dGH | 
| AT 30-B 9/1/13       | 7.8 |     | 110 |  32 |   23 dGH |  
| AT 90-P 9/1/13       | 10.6|     |  33 |  10 |  7.0 dGH | 
| AT 90P 9/18/13       | 12.9|     |  3.6|  10 |  7.5 dGH | 
| MT Old Home Tap 10/8 | 1.5 |     |  39 |  9.2|  7.6 dGH |  
| MT Home Tap 10/8/13  | 1.3 |     |  20 |  7.8|  4.6 dGH |  
| MT Apt Tap 10/8/13   | 2.5 |     |  59 |  19 |   13 dGH | 
| MT 90g Apt Aq 10/7/13| 4.2 |     |  20 |  7.4|  4.5 dGH |  
| MT 90g Home Aq 10/7  | 5.6 |     |  54 |  19 |   12 dGH | 
| MT 180g 10/7/13      | 5.1 |     |  1.9|  1.3|  0.6 dGH |
| KW 12g 10/20/13      | 5.0 |     |  17 |  5.9|  2.4 dGH |
| KW 33g 10/20/13      | 7.8 |     |  16 |  6.5|  3.7 dGH |
| KW 50g 10/20/13      | 8.3 |     |  9.6|  4.7|  3.7 dGH |
| KW 75g 10/20/13      | 6.6 |     |  16 |  6.8|  3.7 dGH |




Code:


| Sample               | CO2 |  BBA   | Comments                                       | 

| CA Tap 9/1/13        |  -  |   -    |                                                |
| CA T w/ Sub 9/16/13  |  -  |   -    | Tap Water soaked w/ soilmaster/Flourite to check for metal|
|                                     |   leaching                                     |
| CA RO 9/12/13        |  -  |   -    | RO Water prior to maintanence                  |
| CA RO 10/18/13       |  -  |   -    | RO Water after maintenance (Replaced membranes)|
| CA Tank 9/1/13       | Yes |Yes     | The Water Parameters that started this all...  |
| CA Tank 9/12/13      | Yes |Yes     |                                                |
| CA Tank 10/2/13      | Yes |Yes     |                                                |
| CA Tank 10/18/13     | Yes |Yes-some|Scarce green spot, BBA.  Excel, Flourish Nitrogen                                                |
| TG Tap 10/12/13      |  -  |   -    |                                                |
| TG 20g Aq 10/12/13   | Yes |   No   | Uses carbon in his filter                      |
| TG 40g Aq 10/12/13   | Yes |   No   | Uses carbon in his filter                      |
| RJ Tap 10/14/13      |  -  |   -    |                                                |
| RJ 75g 10/14/13      | Yes |Yes-some|                                                | 
| BM Tap 10/17/13      |  -  |   -    | Tap Water filtered w/ Carbon block             |
| BM Tank 10/17/13     | Yes |   No   | GSA & GDA Algae                                |
| AT Old Home Tap 9/18 |  -  |   -    | 'Magic' Water Source                           |
| AT Tap 9/1/13        |  -  |   -    |                                                |
| AT RO 9/18/13        |  -  |   -    |                                                |
| AT 30-B 9/1/13       | No  |Yes-Some|                                                |
| AT 90-P 9/1/13       | Yes |Yes-Some|                                                |
| AT 90P 9/18/13       | Yes |Yes-Some|                                                |
| MT Old Home Tap 10/8 |  -  |   -    | 'Magic' Water Source                           |
| MT Home Tap 10/8/13  |  -  |   -    |                                                |
| MT Apt Tap 10/8/13   |  -  |   -    |                                                |
| MT 90g Apt Aq 10/7/13| Yes |  Yes   | Spot algae and some clado                      |
| MT 90g Home Aq 10/7  | Yes |  no    | Overrun with Staghorn, Hair, Clado, Cyano and  |
|                                     |   Spot algae                                   |
| MT 180g 10/7/13      | No  |Yes-lots| Spot algae also present                        |
| KW 12g 10/20/13      | Yes |Yes-Some|                                                |
| KW 33g 10/20/13      | Yes |Yes-Some|                                                |
| KW 50g 10/20/13      | Yes |Yes-lots|                                                |
| KW 75g 10/20/13      | Yes |Yes-lots|                                                |

All results are in units of mg/L (ppm). Metal analysis results were analyzed by ICP-OES. TIC & TOC analysis results were analyzed by method SM 3510 C - Heated-Persulfate Oxidation. General Hardness are in units of dGH, calculated from ppm CaCO3 eq (calculated). Please note - Limited QA/QC solutions were run on these samples and these analysis results are for personal use only. These results may not be used for regulatory reporting purposes or compliance testing. If anyone else would like their water tested, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.


----------



## BriDroid

Thank you so much for that!

My results are BM on the chart. My K is REALLY high! Need to stop dosing K2SO4! Could the high K and Fe be causing my brown algae?


----------



## JeffyFunk

BriDroid said:


> My K is REALLY high! Need to stop dosing K2SO4! Could the high K and Fe be causing my brown algae?


Personally, i don't think the [K] is really that high. Aaron Talbot has [K] that are even higher... and furthermore, i've seen references that Amano has [K] around 40 ppm or so (it was in the digital version of Aqua Journal - not sure which issue, though) ... To me, the [Fe] looks very high. Fe is just an odd nutrient in general because it has multiple oxidation states, is chelate dependent, is photosensitive, etc... Since both K & Fe are high, I think you should just dose less of everything in general... Also, the [TOC] of your tap water is very high as well. Everyone else has Tap Water [TOC] < 2.0 ppm...


----------



## Zapins

I want to say that this is top 5 most interesting threads I've ever read.

Jeffy, I would never expect you to re-test all the samples! That would be horrible! I was asking to see if it was possible and relatively easy for you to add the S to any future tests. I think even if only sulfate were tested it might still be useful since most people tend to add sulfates (MgSO4, K2SO4, etc...). If it is difficult then no worries, I'd rather have it be easy for you to test and keep getting these amazing results than get an S value and make it difficult on your end.

I think it is only fair to make it a requirement that if you get your water analyzed by Jeffy you must also record what algae/how much, if you are using CO2, Excel and any other conditions so we can properly analyze the results. Pictures would also be beneficial.

As for the results, a lot of really interesting things in there. I personally like the K column next to the Ca and Mg since those three affect each other, I could move it if you don't object? And I can fill in any changes we need to make to the charts, just send me a PM or write it out in this thread. Also would you like me to move the TOC value so it sits directly next to the BBA column? Might make referring to values easier?

It seems that there is no correlation between CO2 and BBA at all. Of course, we can't know exactly what concentration everyone has but to me if there was such a strong relationship between CO2 and no BBA I think we'd see more of that in the data. It looks more like BBA and CO2 are unrelated. 

On the other hand it seems the TOC and BBA values are much more related. It looks like any tank over 5 has BBA and any tank below 4 does not. I think it is too early to tell for sure (and I'll have to run this through Prism 5 for the statistics on it). Also, I see that "BM's Tank 10/17/13" has a very high TOC of 10.4 but he has no BBA. He does happen to have an extremely high iron level of 2.7 ppm. Perhaps they are related? The only other person with high values is Aaron, but we need to fill in his BBA status to see if there is anything to the high iron and BBA theory.

Also, BriDroid I don't think potassium is causing algae, you actually have a pretty good ratio of K:Ca:Mg, there should be more K than Ca to avoid any kind of competition between the uptake of those nutrients according to research in hydroponics.


----------



## BriDroid

Thanks! My tank has just had brown diatoms since day one. It's over 7 months old and they won't go away. The filter came from an established tank, so it shouldn't take a long time to establish? I'm just wondering why I can't shake the brown algae!


----------



## Zapins

Diatoms are not algae (they don't photosynthesize) so they should not be taking up plant nutrients at all. They are dinoflaggelates and are said to be related to high silicates in the water, or high organics which they supposedly feed on. This is why they tend to disappear in new tanks as they mature (silicates are depleted and organics stabilize). 

Speaking of silicates, is that something that could be added to future tests without too much trouble? It would be nice to know if that silicates = diatoms statement is true since it has been said around the hobby for decades.


----------



## Yo-han

Zapins said:


> Diatoms are not algae (they don't photosynthesize) so they should not be taking up plant nutrients at all. They are dinoflaggelates and are said to be related to high silicates in the water, or high organics which they supposedly feed on. This is why they tend to disappear in new tanks as they mature (silicates are depleted and organics stabilize).
> 
> Speaking of silicates, is that something that could be added to future tests without too much trouble? It would be nice to know if that silicates = diatoms statement is true since it has been said around the hobby for decades.


Diatoms are classified as algae and many species do use light...

But I've noticed a correlation with silicate as well. which is not strange because their mantle contains a lot of silicate.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Zapins

Good catch, I meant to say the *dinoflagellates* we know as "brown algae" are not photosynthetic.


----------



## Yo-han

Zapins said:


> Good catch, I meant to say the *dinoflagellates* we know as "brown algae" are not photosynthetic.


I hate to say this, but most dinoflagellates do photosynthesize. And just by the fact that they are always in the brightest place in the tank and not randomly scattered all over (even in dark corners) I would say they do. Still I would love to see whether silicate is correlated to diatoms so if you could test that Jeff, I think you are a aquariumhero

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Zapins

Not all species photosynthesize and the brown one that is easily scraped off objects in our tanks does not. It is well documented. It can grow in total darkness.



University of California said:


> They may be photosynthetic or non-photosynthetic; about half the species fall into each category. The photosynthetic dinoflagellates are second only to diatoms as primary producers in coastal waters.
> 
> Non-photosynthetic species of dinoflagellates feed on diatoms or other protists (including other dinoflagellates); the genus Noctiluca is large enough to eat fish eggs, and is able to swallow protists larger than itself. Some species will parasitize other organisms, such as zooplankton and other protists, filamentous algae, or fish.


*From:*​From:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/dinoflaglh.html​


----------



## Cavan Allen

Thanks again Jeffy. 

I'm wondering if there's more to it than just the TOC measurement. Generally, there's a pattern (TOC over 5), but how do we explain the BM tank with TOC over 10 and no BBA? Also, does adding things like Excel and Flourish Nitrogen throw off readings? Perhaps the carbon in those/Flourish/etc matters less than from fish waste/dead leaves and so on? BBA is pretty scarce in my tank and was as of the last sample posted here, but TOC is still fairly high. 10mls a day of Excel have anything to do with that? Without naming names, I can say that one tank sampled here has a LOT more BBA than mine (and a much, much higher fish load), but a lower TOC reading. I'm eager to see how Organit reduces the TOC levels. 

Excel and carbon/organic remover columns would be good, no doubt.

Can we get the KH column back?


----------



## BriDroid

Yes, I also dose metricide 14 daily along with blasting the thank with CO2. I'm concerened though since my tap water is 8! Maybe time to invest in a RO unit?


----------



## Zapins

It is surprising you have such a high TOC from the tap. I wonder what the limit is on TOC for drinking water. I feel like someone has mentioned it before in another post or thread but I cannot remember where. Might have been Yo-han?


----------



## BriDroid

Zapins said:


> It is surprising you have such a high TOC from the tap. I wonder what the limit is on TOC for drinking water. I feel like someone has mentioned it before in another post or thread but I cannot remember where. Might have been Yo-han?


I'm wondering if it has to do with our water situation down here. We are in a severe drought. The lake that we're pulling water from is about 17 feet low. I do know that they have really increased the chloramines lately as well, you can smell them. That's the main reason I started using the carbon block because the consistency out of the tap has been bad.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Zapins said:


> As for the results, a lot of really interesting things in there. I personally like the K column next to the Ca and Mg since those three affect each other, I could move it if you don't object? And I can fill in any changes we need to make to the charts, just send me a PM or write it out in this thread. Also would you like me to move the TOC value so it sits directly next to the BBA column? Might make referring to values easier?
> 
> It seems that there is no correlation between CO2 and BBA at all. Of course, we can't know exactly what concentration everyone has but to me if there was such a strong relationship between CO2 and no BBA I think we'd see more of that in the data. It looks more like BBA and CO2 are unrelated.


I moved the K analysis results to the other metals column to reduce the 'clutter' around the TOC analysis results. Ca & Mg are together because together they define hardness (even if the actual calculations are not shown). My preference is to leave everything where it is cause that's how i have my master tables set up ... That said, anyone is free to copy the tables to their own post and rearrange them as they see fit.

The purpose of this post was never to look at [CO2] because, frankly, i have no way of measuring CO2! The purpose was to look solely at the organics issue to see if we can observe any correlation or not.

One thing i would like to do in the future would be to test more samples from tanks that do not inject CO2. I personally think that in those tanks, the organics in the water column are utilized by the plants as a carbon source. But that's just a personal opinion and i have no data to support that yet...



Zapins said:


> Speaking of silicates, is that something that could be added to future tests without too much trouble? It would be nice to know if that silicates = diatoms statement is true since it has been said around the hobby for decades.


Si could be added to the ICP-OES analysis, but i would not be able to do that until i purchase a certified reference standard to verify my results. That wouldn't be until next year at the earliest since that's when i typically make that purchase...



Cavan Allen said:


> Thanks again Jeffy.
> 
> I'm wondering if there's more to it than just the TOC measurement. Generally, there's a pattern (TOC over 5), but how do we explain the BM tank with TOC over 10 and no BBA? Also, does adding things like Excel and Flourish Nitrogen throw off readings? Perhaps the carbon in those/Flourish/etc matters less than from fish waste/dead leaves and so on? BBA is pretty scarce in my tank and was as of the last sample posted here, but TOC is still fairly high. 10mls a day of Excel have anything to do with that? Without naming names, I can say that one tank sampled here has a LOT more BBA than mine (and a much, much higher fish load), but a lower TOC reading. I'm eager to see how Organit reduces the TOC levels.
> 
> Excel and carbon/organic remover columns would be good, no doubt.
> 
> Can we get the KH column back?


From reading his posts, it looks like water source from BriDroid (BM) is not typical since texas is in the middle of a drought. I remember reading on TPT that the Senske brothers from ADG were having similar issues with their water supply and so they switched all of their freshwater tanks to reconstituted RO because of that... I would therefore be careful how you interpret the results from his tanks.

If one is adding a lot of fertilizers like excel, flourish Fe, flourish nitrogen, etc. that contain a lot of organic compounds in them, i would certainly expect those products to affect the analysis results. To determine what effect they have on your tank and the analysis results, you would have to do more sampling and testing. For example, if i dosed everyday, i would collect aquarium samples (1) before i dose, (2) ~5 minutes after i dose, (3) every couple of hours after that during the day (maybe up to 3 additional samples) and (4) the next day, again before i dose. What i would expect to see would be a spike in the TOC results after the addition of the fertilizers, followed by a decrease in the TOC results over time as they are utilized by the plants. The sample results from before you dose and the next day before that day's dose should be about the same.

Another thing to remember is that TOC only measures the organics in the water column. If you have a really dirty tank w/ a lot of fish mulm, most of the mulm organics are not water soluble and will not hence not be part of the TOC analysis. The assumption here is that mulm does contain some organic compounds that will leach into your water column and those can be detected by an increase in the aquarium TOC analysis.

I took the KH column out for clarity sake since i wasn't sure it was really telling us anything different from the general hardness... I can add it back in if people think it's actually telling us something that the GH column is not...


----------



## Zapins

Non-CO2 tanks would certainly be interesting. The problem with those in my opinion is that the lighting is usually very low and not much algae grows because of that. Might come to the wrong conclusion unless we take into account lighting to some extent. All the CO2 tanks have medium/high lighting and are probably considered "high tech" tanks. So there is some degree of consistency.

That is the case with my 180g tank, the bottom has a 1-2" thick layer of decayed moss that has built up over the years and the TOC is 5ish. I would have expected it to be higher. That one's mineral values are wacky because I use straight RO water and nothing else in that tank. I don't dose ferts either since I consider it is mainly a fish tank rather than a plant tank though it does have quite a lot of plant mass in it and a decent set of lighting (2x96w power compacts).

I did like the KH chart.

I am in the process of doing some stats on the results comparing both TOC to BBA presence and TOC to CO2 addition. Should I exclude BM's results then? I may also be able to compare more than one factor in a one way ANOVA analysis if people are interested and have a theory about what affects what in addition to TOC.

I'd really like to get Aaron's BBA status for his tank values, otherwise I'll have to redo the entire thing again when he replies. We have 15 tank values without his results at the moment which is a decent sample size for some preliminary statistics.


----------



## Marcel G

JeffyFunk said:


> ... anyone is free to copy the tables to their own post and rearrange them as they see fit.


Hi Jeffy (and others),

I took your data, put it into all-in-one table, and publish it on my website (I hope it's OK). Also I have translated some articles by Mr. Rataj which can be useful to the TOC stuff here. I hope it may help.

Marcel


----------



## niko

I read only part of Rataj's article but it blew me away already. I know for sure that all of us can find empirical proof from our own experience for the things that he talks about - the importance of Oxygen delivered to the substrate, the importance of N and P *only* if the bacteria does its job well, BBA growing because of the presence of "organics" as the primary cause (not low CO2) and several other things we all have observed and discussed.

Time for Ardjuna to tell everybody who Rataj is and why it is a good idea to pay attention to what he says. It would be best if that is done in another thread with Rataj's name in the title because it is very important information. Basically that man is a source of information that we can trust. Which as we all know cannot be said with full honesty about many people in this hobby.

One of my recent experiences with "invisible organics causing BBA" as I like to put it. Because I've been working too much the big non-CO2 tank full of fish has been neglected. No point of sending a water sample to Jeffy because sure enough after I stopped changing the water every other day Clado got thicker and very happy. But something else made me happy yesterday: The 4-5 healthy swords from a high tech tank that I put in the non-CO2 tank have been turned into a Pleco feasting grounds. Now all the swords have leaves looking like Madagascar lace plants - holes everywhere and very happy Plecos always hanging around the plants. Certainly we will all agree there is quite a bit of plant juices flowing from the damaged leaves. Yesterday the BBA strands that I noticed growing on one of the leaves made my heart jump. "Organics" = BBA, period. But if you prefer call that "lack of CO2", I will not stop you. Just don't insist I hook up CO2 to the tank to fight BBA growing on plants oozing what not 24/7.

Another recent experience that shows the same thing: Tank with big discus fish, I change 30% of the water once a week. The owner likes to feed beef heart. The tank doesn't even develop spot algae lately after I dialed in the Redfield ratio and vastly improved the flow pattern. But the flow and the planting of Crypts in the tank is such that dirt accumulates in one particular small part of the tank. It is the same area where I inject the CO2. Yes, all the snails in that tank live in that area. Yes, there is BBA - and it grows on the sponge from which the microbubbles of CO2 gush out! With 108W of German T5HO with individual reflectors 1-1/2" from the surface you bet I run quite a bit of bubbles per second. But the BBA grows where the CO2 comes out! So much for Tom Barr's claims that increased CO2 will make all your dreams come true. Yes what he says works but there is more to the picture and we here are on a great quest. The plants in that discus tank grow very well but the area with the waste accumulation tells us something we need to listen to: It is not all about fertilizers, CO2, and water changes (EI). It is not about water flow rate and pattern, amazing PAR and filtration. It is about all those things and more. If you didn't read the article in the link that Ardjuna translated do so now. Please.


----------



## Yo-han

Let me add a nice example. A tank from a client runs for a year now without any algae. Low/medium light, CO2 and everything. He wanted angelfish. I advised adults because they need less food. He wanted small ones and feeds them twice a day to grow them to nice large eimekeis. Guess what happened in two weeks without changing anything else... BBA all over the place. He increased water changes to twice a week 50% and now BBA is barely growing. Keep the data coming Jeff, and all other info that is available. CO2 might be the answer for tanks were CO2 was not in balance with the amount of light and produce organics because of CO2 shortage. It isn't the answer for everything. Now the million dollar question, which organics? Sugars? Lipids? ... ? In 20 years I hope this is all commonly known and we laugh about this thread

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Marcel G

niko said:


> Yes, there is BBA - and it grows on the sponge from which the microbubbles of CO2 gush out!


Once I asked one professor from department of botany (Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Algology research group) what is causing algae in our tanks ... and when I told him we are supplying CO2 in there, he begin to laugh. He told me that *algae in fact love CO2* much more than any other thing (same with plants). So if you supply CO2 to your tank, then you actually feed your algae with very delicious food. CO2 will not stop them ... it will fatten them!


----------



## niru

Hi all

What i have observed is Ammonia is a major reason for algae.. Perhaps the spores sense NH3 and start feeding.. Causes for ammonia could be very many: organics decay, plant damage, local rot, improper / under uasge of ferts or co2 all leading to imbalance in plant growths etc all start leaching ammonia locally. For eg a damaged leaf triggers algae on that leaf which then starts to spread. 

Perhaps one needs to factor in this in the discussion?


Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Yo-han

niru said:


> Hi all
> 
> What i have observed is Ammonia is a major reason for algae.. Perhaps the spores sense NH3 and start feeding.. Causes for ammonia could be very many: organics decay, plant damage, local rot, improper / under uasge of ferts or co2 all leading to imbalance in plant growths etc all start leaching ammonia locally. For eg a damaged leaf triggers algae on that leaf which then starts to spread.
> 
> Perhaps one needs to factor in this in the discussion?
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk


This is one often mentioned but I used a seneye monitor to monitor NH3/4. It didn't measure above 0.003 ppm. I did had a clear tank at the beginning and did had BBA, some GSA and some BGA after two months. When dosing ADA brighty lights, you dose way more NH4 daily and this off course doesn't induce algae.

I also used ammonia to cycle a goldfish rack. Dosing was way higher and no algae. So that is why the step before ammonia is now investigated, the organics that lead to NH4.

Jeff: do you think excel measures as TOC? Can you check by adding some excel to RO water and measure this for TOC?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Marcel G

Yo-han said:


> Jeff: do you think excel measures as TOC? Can you check by adding some excel to RO water and measure this for TOC?


Maybe, it would be better to simulate the "recommended dose concentration" of Excel in your sample, and then measure TOC, so that we know how much TOC increases with recommended dosage.
PS: I would guess that liquid carbon (C5H8O2) should have some impact on TOC levels.


----------



## JeffyFunk

ardjuna said:


> Hi Jeffy (and others),
> 
> I took your data, put it into all-in-one table, and publish it on my website (I hope it's OK). Also I have translated some articles by Mr. Rataj which can be useful to the TOC stuff here. I hope it may help.
> 
> Marcel


Ardjuna - I'm flattered that you find this conversation interesting and useful enough to publish on your website. My only criticism is the fact that you changed the values in the tables. Other than the TOC analysis results, all of the other values were expressed in up to two significant figures. For example, 110 ppm Ca (2 significant figures) is not the same as 110.0 ppm Ca (4 significant figures). I simply don't feel comfortable reporting results with significant figures ignored.

Also, it's nice to know where the general idea that a TOC < 4-5 ppm is about what we should be aiming for...



Yo-han said:


> Keep the data coming Jeff, and all other info that is available. CO2 might be the answer for tanks were CO2 was not in balance with the amount of light and produce organics because of CO2 shortage. It isn't the answer for everything. Now the million dollar question, which organics? Sugars? Lipids? ... ?


I wish i had more data to give you guys to analyze, but i don't have any more samples. As for that million dollar question, i have no idea. You would need a high resolution liquid chromatography system to answer that question or have someone perform a bunch of experiments to see what algae like to feed on specifically. who knows? maybe algae feeds on fear...



Yo-han said:


> Jeff: do you think excel measures as TOC? Can you check by adding some excel to RO water and measure this for TOC?


I'm pretty sure that excel is detectable in the TOC analyzer. We have a PAPAS meeting this weekend so i can pick up some excel from my local fish store and measure the change in TOC from a standardized dose. The real question, however, is how long dose excel last in the water column? That can only been done by dosing excel and then taking samples @ routine intervals over time.


----------



## Marcel G

JeffyFunk said:


> Ardjuna ... my only criticism is the fact that you changed the values in the tables ... for example, 110 ppm Ca (2 significant figures) is not the same as 110.0 ppm Ca (4 significant figures). I simply don't feel comfortable reporting results with significant figures ignored.


Hi Jeffy,

I will change this tomorrow at the latest. I did this on purpose, so that the numbers are all aligned by the decimal point. Sorry for that.

PS: *PLEASE, can all the participating people publish a few pictures of their tanks*, so that we know how they looks? I would like to add these pictures into Jeffy's table on my website. I did this already at Zapins tank "MT 90g Home Aq 10/7" => just put your cursor over the sample's name, and you see the pictures. I think it will be a good reference for other people to visualize the conditions in these tanks. Also I added some more info about the tanks which I found here on this thread (or here). I anyone feels uncomfortable about their names being there, just let me know. I don't want to offend anyone.


----------



## BriDroid

ardjuna said:


> Hi Jeffy,
> 
> I will change this tomorrow at the latest. I did this on purpose, so that the numbers are all aligned by the decimal point. Sorry for that.
> 
> PS: *PLEASE, can all the participating people publish a few pictures of their tanks*, so that we know how they looks? I would like to add these pictures into Jeffy's table on my website. I did this already at Zapins tank "MT 90g Home Aq 10/7" => just put your cursor over the sample's name, and you see the pictures. I think it will be a good reference for other people to visualize the conditions in these tanks. Also I added some more info about the tanks which I found here on this thread (or here). I anyone feels uncomfortable about their names being there, just let me know. I don't want to offend anyone.


Pics of my tank are posted earlier in this thread. My results are listed BM in the chart.


----------



## Yo-han

JeffyFunk said:


> I'm pretty sure that excel is detectable in the TOC analyzer. We have a PAPAS meeting this weekend so i can pick up some excel from my local fish store and measure the change in TOC from a standardized dose. The real question, however, is how long dose excel last in the water column? That can only been done by dosing excel and then taking samples @ routine intervals over time.


I believe Tom Barr once said he had a glutaraldehyde test kit. I never saw the results though, but I'll check that tomorrow (its already late over here).

I used to work with a HPLC quite a lot. Unfortunate I don't have excess any more. Otherwise I would have loved to do some organics test myself.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Zapins

I did a project on gluteraldehyde back in college. The stuff is not stable in water and it breaks down very quickly. I forget what the half life is exactly but at 24 hrs after a dose it is basically not detectable anymore.

ardjuna I like the colors you used on the chart it is easy to look at and see differences.

I edited our original table to include BBA and CO2 status as well as comments for my MT tanks. I messaged Aaron for the BBA status of his tanks but he has not replied to me yet. Check back to the table soon for his results.

The 0.26 ppm copper tank is clearly suffering from all kinds of issues. I think part of it is the high copper level and part is CO2 deficiency. The plants in that tank are forming calcium scaling on the leaves which doesn't happen unless dissolved CO2 is basically non existent.


----------



## Cavan Allen

I took a photo earlier, but most of the BBA is gone, so I'm not sure how good it is for illustrative purposes. 

KH column please!


----------



## AaronT

Here's a recent shot. If you look closely you can see the little bits of BBA on the substrate and powerhead. Not much, but some.


----------



## Marcel G

We all know that in the newly setup tanks there are usually huge algal blooms. The terrestrial substrate is flooded with water. Many chemical and biological processes take place in there. I would like to know if these algal blooms are also linked to higher TOC levels, or there is some other reason for blooming. What do you think?


----------



## Yo-han

ardjuna said:


> We all know that in the newly setup tanks there are usually huge algal blooms. The terrestrial substrate is flooded with water. Many chemical and biological processes take place in there. I would like to know if these algal blooms are also linked to higher TOC levels, or there is some other reason for blooming. What do you think?


In my experience yes! When using submersed plants, a cycled filter and inert gravel, you barely have algae blooms. When using organic based substrate or emersed plants (that loose their emersed leaves and leach organics into the water) or a filter without an established bacteria culture to break organics down, this is way more likely to happen. When all three are used, like a new ADA setup, the only way to reduce this change is to do daily water changes. Guess what they do... 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Cavan Allen

I wonder if Aquasoil and/or mineralized soil contributes to TOC levels.


----------



## Zapins

My guess is that Aquasoil sequesters TOC. It has a lot of clay in it which is negatively charged. This tends to pull out minerals and other particles from the water. So I'd expect to see lower TOC levels in an Aquasoil tank. 

We need to test some Aquasoil tanks.

By the way I edited the results to include what AaronT told me in a PM. He uses CO2 and has some BBA (not a lot at all).

It is interesting because even though his TOC is high he has very little BBA. This mirrors BT's results. They both have high TOC and High Iron and No/Very little BBA. It is quite possible that high iron levels are toxic to BBA. Now that I have the full set of results I will do some stats and figure out if this effect is significant or not.


----------



## Yo-han

I think aquasoil (I'm talking ADA) leaches organics in the beginning. Perhaps sequesters a little afterwards when nutrient are user, it but will become saturated quite fast. 

I used different alternative brands of aqua soil like Fluval. This binds waaaayy more PO4 and is definitely less rich in nutrients so I think this has more binding spots for organics as well.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## JeffyFunk

Cavan Allen said:


> I wonder if Aquasoil and/or mineralized soil contributes to TOC levels.





Zapins said:


> My guess is that Aquasoil sequesters TOC.





Yo-han said:


> I think aquasoil (I'm talking ADA) leaches organics in the beginning.


lol - Cavan, don't you remember that you did this experiment already? The first two entries in the table show the results of your tap water and your tap water soaked w/ ADA AquaSoil. You can clearly see (1) the TOC value increase and (2) the Ca & Mg values decrease. Here is the table again... expanded w/ KH. (Which i still believe doesn't tell us anything different than the GH)


Code:


| Sample               | TOC |     | Ca  | Mg  |Gen. Hard.| CO3 Hard.|  
 
| CA Tap 9/1/13        | 2.9 |     |  48 |  11 |  9.3 dGH |   10 dKH |
| CA T w/ Sub 9/16/13  | 8.9 |     |  26 |  6.7|  5.2 dGH |  4.1 dKH |
| CA RO 9/12/13        | 1.8 |     |  6.6|  1.6|  1.3 dGH |  2.6 dKH |
| CA RO 10/18/13       | 1.8 |     | <1.0| <1.0| <0.5 dGH | <0.5 dKH |
| CA Tank 9/1/13       | 12.1|     |  48 |  12 |  9.5 dGH |  9.9 dKH | 
| CA Tank 9/12/13      | 9.3 |     |  27 |  7.4|  5.5 dGH |  5.9 dKH |
| CA Tank 10/2/13      | 10.6|     |  26 |  7.1|  5.3 dGH |  5.2 dKH |
| CA Tank 10/18/13     | 11.0|     |  16 |  4.5|  8.6 dGH |  4.4 dKH |
| TG Tap 10/12/13      | 1.7 |     |  41 |  11 |  8.4 dGH |  5.9 dKH | 
| TG 20g Aq 10/12/13   | 1.6 |     |  35 |  10 |  7.5 dGH |  4.2 dKH |
| TG 40g Aq 10/12/13   | 3.3 |     |  39 |  11 |  8.0 dGH |  5.4 dKH |
| RJ Tap 10/14/13      | 3.1 |     |  32 |  8.0|  6.3 dGH |  9.4 dKH |
| RJ 75g 10/14/13      | 7.6 |     |  52 |  9.9|  9.6 dGH |  6.9 dKH |
| BM Tap 10/17/13      | 8.1 |     |  36 |  4.0|  6.1 dGH |  5.3 dKH |
| BM Tank 10/17/13     | 10.4|     |  33 |  11 |  7.2 dGH |  3.8 dKH |
| AT Old Home Tap 9/18 | 1.0 |     |  29 |  18 |  8.2 dGH |  2.5 dKH | 
| AT Tap 9/1/13        | 1.7 |     |  19 |  5.2|  3.8 dGH |  4.9 dKH |
| AT RO 9/18/13        |<1.0 |     |  1.3| <1.0| <0.5 dGH |  0.6 dKH |
| AT 30-B 9/1/13       | 7.8 |     | 110 |  32 |   23 dGH |   17 dKH |
| AT 90-P 9/1/13       | 10.6|     |  33 |  10 |  7.0 dGH |  5.2 dKH |
| AT 90-P 9/18/13      | 12.9|     |  3.6|  10 |  7.5 dGH |  5.1 dKH |
| MT Old Home Tap 10/8 | 1.5 |     |  39 |  9.2|  7.6 dGH |  9.4 dKH |  
| MT Home Tap 10/8/13  | 1.3 |     |  20 |  7.8|  4.6 dGH |  7.0 dKH |
| MT Apt Tap 10/8/13   | 2.5 |     |  59 |  19 |   13 dGH |   11 dKH |
| MT 90g Apt Aq 10/7/13| 4.2 |     |  20 |  7.4|  4.5 dGH |  7.3 dKH | 
| MT 90g Home Aq 10/7  | 5.6 |     |  54 |  19 |   12 dGH |  7.7 dKH |
| MT 180g 10/7/13      | 5.1 |     |  1.9|  1.3|  0.6 dGH |  1.2 dKH |
| KW 12g 10/20/13      | 5.0 |     |  17 |  5.9|  2.4 dGH |  0.8 dKH |
| KW 33g 10/20/13      | 7.8 |     |  16 |  6.5|  3.7 dGH |  0.9 dKH |
| KW 50g 10/20/13      | 8.3 |     |  9.6|  4.7|  3.7 dGH |  1.1 dKH |
| KW 75g 10/20/13      | 6.6 |     |  16 |  6.8|  3.7 dGH |  2.4 dKH |

All results are in units of mg/L (ppm). Metal analysis results were analyzed by ICP-OES. TIC & TOC analysis results were analyzed by method SM 3510 C - Heated-Persulfate Oxidation. General Hardness are in units of dGH, calculated from ppm CaCO3 eq (calculated). Carbonate Hardness results are in units of dKH, calculated from TIC analysis results, not titrations. This is not an offical method for the analysis of KH. Please note - Limited QA/QC solutions were run on these samples and these analysis results are for personal use only. These results may not be used for regulatory reporting purposes or compliance testing. If anyone else would like their water tested, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.


----------



## Cavan Allen

I do not use Aquasoil. It's a mix of Soilmaster and Flourite Black.


----------



## BruceF

Did you drop the TIC results for a reason?


----------



## JeffyFunk

BruceF said:


> Did you drop the TIC results for a reason?


Yes. I dropped the TIC results because nobody really has a reason to look at those numbers. The TIC results are more 'useful' when they are converted into the units of degrees (as in dKH). If there is literature that has TIC results in them and references to analysis with TIC results, i can always add them back.



Cavan Allen said:


> I do not use Aquasoil. It's a mix of Soilmaster and Flourite Black.


My apologies then. It certainly looked like Aquasoil in the bag to me. (I've never used SMS so that could have been it, but i've seen Flourite Black and it was too round / smooth to be that).


----------



## BruceF

Well I am sure I have no idea! The TIC number just seemed like a nice shorthand for how much inorganic carbon was available. Especially for those of us who have no idea how you calculate carbonic system variables in the first place. 
http://www.werc.usgs.gov/OLDsitedata/seki/pdfs/carbon freshwater plants 1992.pdf


----------



## JeffyFunk

BruceF said:


> Well I am sure I have no idea! The TIC number just seemed like a nice shorthand for how much inorganic carbon was available. Especially for those of us who have no idea how you calculate carbonic system variables in the first place.
> http://www.werc.usgs.gov/OLDsitedata/seki/pdfs/carbon freshwater plants 1992.pdf


That seems to be something different entirely. From reading the introduction (only), it seems that they are looking at the ratio of 12C to 13C. My guess is that that in terrestrial plants, because all of the carbon is from atmospheric CO2, the 12C:13C ratio is pretty consistent. In aquatic plants, however, because they are able to derive carbon from multiple sources (atmospheric CO2, carbonates, dissolved organic compounds), each of which has a different 12C:13C ratio, the overall 12C:13C ratio is different (which is what the paper is about).

That has nothing to do with TIC. In my TOC analyzer, the initial step is the acidify the sample with acid. This converts all of the inorganic carbon (carbonates and bicarbonates) to CO2 gas. This gas is then collected and sent to an IR detector for be quantified. There is no way for the IR detector to determine the isotopic 12C:13C ratio.

After thinking about things for a little bit, i realized that the TIC analysis result was a measurement of the carbonates & bicarbonates in a sample which are usually measured by titrating the sample with acid to a designated endpoint. This is the carbonate hardness of a sample, KH. Therefore, i should (theoretically) be able to convert the TIC analysis result into the carbonate hardness of the sample. Hardness ratings are oftentimes referenced in aquatic plant books so the analysis results should make more sense when thought of in terms of hard or soft.


----------



## rjordan393

Jeff,
You list my dKH as 9.4 from my tap water. But my Nutra-fin test kit tests it at 3.36 dkh and this is inline with the average dKH of my towns water report of years 2010 and 2011. I will see my water authority for the 2012 report and see if I can also get the current report for dKH.
I do not believe that my test kit can be that far off. 3.36 to 9.4 is a big jump. If there is an error, I would expect it to be no more then 1.5 dkh. Am I missing something?
Also my towns water report list alkalinity as calcium carbonate with no mention of magnesium carbonate. So I expect the value to be approximately 50 ppm alkalinity for October. Your thoughts?


----------



## Marcel G

Hi Jeffrey (and others),

I would like to know if you see any correlation between algal blooms and low redox values, as high organic load should relate to low redox also? So if we would like to find out what are the algal bloom triggers, maybe it would be good idea to test the ORP also. What do you think?

PS: I have found one thread on barrreport, where Biollante states that under 260-mV ORP the algae presence is usually prevalent.

Marcel


----------



## rjordan393

Ardjuna,
I sent a reply to your private message. Check the Private messages box.


----------



## rjordan393

Ardjuna,
It appears I am having a problem with private messages. This old picture is from my profile on another forum. See if this works:
http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/members/35246/album/updated-10-08-12-4670/75-gallon-29682.jpg

The picture was taken on 10/14/2012
I will send an updated picture of the tank later today.


----------



## JeffyFunk

rjordan393 said:


> You list my dKH as 9.4 from my tap water. But my Nutra-fin test kit tests it at 3.36 dkh and this is inline with the average dKH of my towns water report of years 2010 and 2011. I will see my water authority for the 2012 report and see if I can also get the current report for dKH.


The dKH i calculated is from the TIC analysis result, not a titration, which is the official method for determining carbonate hardness. It is very possible that the TIC analysis result is biased high because there is, as far as i know, no way to purge the sample of any dissolved CO2 prior to acidification (which converts the inorganic carbonates and bicarbonates to CO2. The CO2 is then measured, giving you your result). If there was a way to degas my samples prior to analysis (via Freeze/Pump/Thaw methods or bubbling He through the samples) i would, but i simply do not have that capability.

I have always stated that my method of calculating KH is not the official method and without actually doing an official comparison with the titration method, i have always qualified my data as such. I would trust your water report in this case.



rjordan393 said:


> Also my towns water report list alkalinity as calcium carbonate with no mention of magnesium carbonate. So I expect the value to be approximately 50 ppm alkalinity for October. Your thoughts?


According to the Standard Methods of Analysis, Hardness is *defined* in units of mg equivalent CaCO3/L such that:

Hardness = 2.497 [Ca, mg/L] + 4.118 [Mg, mg/L]

The [Mg] is factored into the hardness parameter.

Where do you get an alkalinity of 50 ppm? You can use the hardness calculation to determine your hardness from the Ca & Mg concentrations in the table, which gives you a calculated hardness of 116 mg/L for your tap water. This value is then converted to degrees of general hardness where 1 dH = 10 mg/L CaO = 17.848 mg/L CaCO3. Why? Because many references are listed in these units of degrees hardness so the degrees hardness is a unit of measurement many of use are more familiar with.



ardjuna said:


> Hi Jeffrey (and others),
> 
> I would like to know if you see any correlation between algal blooms and low redox values, as high organic load should relate to low redox also? So if we would like to find out what are the algal bloom triggers, maybe it would be good idea to test the ORP also. What do you think?
> 
> Marcel


Marcel - As much as I would like to, I am not able to make ORP analysis readings. According to the Standard Methods of Analysis, For ORP analysis "Do not store samples; analyze on collection. Minimize both atmospheric contact and delay in analysis." In other words, you should really do ORP analysis @ the location of the samples and it's not possible for me to travel to everyone's aquarium to make ORP measurements.

Therefore, i really can't have any opinion on that topic as I simply have no data on it myself.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Get Thee an ORP probe Jeff!


----------



## Phil Edwards

After going back through and reading a few pages of posts I'd like to make a few hopefully helpful comments.

1. Aqua Soil DOES leech organics in the form of humic and fulvic acids. I don't have the data in front of me, but back in the day I did an organic matter (via combustion) on some year old AS and there was measurable organic matter in it. I used analytical methods and equipment, but only did stuff on one or two small samples so it's not a truly scientific replicated analysis. 

The clay component DOES adsorb appropriately charged ions, compounds, and molecules. However, due to the nature of the combination of materials used to make it, initial release is greater than the materials' ability to sequester them. Furthermore, decay of labile organic material in the stuff causes a release of nitrogenous materials...aka NH3 and NH4. 

Interestingly, I've seen more BBA growing on Flourite than on AS or any other substrate, for that matter. Flourite doesn't release any nutrients as far as I know. 

2. Stressed, damaged, and/or dying plants leaking organic compounds. This absolutely happens because the plant is no longer able to maintain integrity for whatever reason. In Niko's case it was fish rasping the tissues down and opening up pathways for sugars, proteins, amino acids, and other complex organic molecules to leak into the water column. 

3. Niko's observation of BBA growing on the CO2 sponge and thoughts on CO2 being preferable for algae. I've had a ton of BBA infest all sorts of glass ad plastic materials in my tanks, from CO2 diffusors to filter pipes and powerheads. I've had just as many experiences where it never appears in my tank regardless of methods used to keep plants; from no tech to ultra high tech. 

That being said, the time I had my worst issues with BBA was when I was feeding discus a lot of beef heart. Little chunks of the stuff would get down into a thick glosso bed and decay. BBA would grow in that area prolifically and eventually colonized the substrate, wood, rock, and Anubias in the system. Once I stopped doing that and completely redid the tank; all new plants with removal/heavy H2O2 treatment of colonized substrate bits, BBA didn't show up again. Everything else was the same; lighting, filtration, fertilization, etc. Only this time there were no discus and no beef heart. That got me thinking...why the difference and what may have caused BBA issues? 

Proteins. Feeding a high protein diet in that tank caused the release of a lot of proteins and fatty acids..all nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon rich organic molecules. I've seen this occur in numerous systems, planted and not, where the fish are fed unprocessed protein rich foods. While BBA is not exclusive to such systems, in my experience outbreaks are worst in these tanks. 

4. Why does BBA happen in tanks that have never seen unprocessed protein rich foods? Poor filtration and/or husbandry practices and/or an imbalance in things important to plants, including light. Think about fish tanks with inadequate sponge filters and/or those that have fish that eat protein rich foods. If water isn't changed enough decomposition of feces and uneaten food break down the proteins in the food. It just takes a little longer and may require more food per unit (volume and/or time), but it still happens.

BBA issues in my tanks can be traced to poor filter maintenance and/or nutrient imbalances. Poor filter maintenance reduces the systems ability to biologically sequester dissolved/aqueous proteins and other N, P, and C rich compounds. Likewise, imbalanced mineral nutrition stresses plants, which causes them to leak the stuff talked about earlier. The combination of both creates a nasty positive feedback loop. That's where upping CO2 and nutrients, AND cleaning the filter, help control an algae outbreak. Giving the plants and bacteria what they need to repair themselves, take up the host of organic compounds floating around, and doing a water change to dilute compounds already present in the water column all go a looooong way to restoring balance to the system.

5. TOC and wild plant health. Be wary of using limnological or other aquatic ecosystem literature to make comparisons to our aquariums. The processes going on in nature are vastly more complex than our aquariums and our aquariums are a totally different beast than a lake, pond, or river...no matter how "natural" we may try to make them. Even ADA's line, that arguably mimics natural processes the closest is pretty far removed from a natural open system. 

TOC is considered a pollutant for a reason. At natural levels organic molecules are an essential source of food for a host of organisms. At elevated levels microbial proliferation and metabolism depletes water of oxygen. Plants and algae preferentially take up inorganic carbon, aqueous CO2 and carbonates, because they're easier to use for photosynthesis than complex organic molecules. Bacteria on the other hand...they love the stuff because it has a lot more energy per unit than CO2 or xCO3. 

Also, please keep in mind that in general, plants in our aquariums are a lot healthier than those in the wild. There are fewer predators and pathogens to hurt them and they get an abundance of mineral nutrients compared to unpolluted natural systems. In the wild plants have to scrounge and fight for every ion they get. Our domesticated plants get coddled and given an excess of anything and everything they need, except maybe light.  We're basically keeping highly eutrophic systems that are only kept healthy through our water changes and cleaning. Think of all the ponds, lakes, and rivers that get loads of agricultural runoff. You don't see many pristine, heavily planted ponds on a golf course do you? 


TL/DR version. Keep up the great ideas, but remember we're talking about an ecosystem here and ecosystems are very complex webs of cause-effect. No one factor can explain all of anything. It's always a this->then this->then this->then this->etc cycle.

Aquatic ecosystem studies are a great place to look to find out how we can start approaching our aquariums, but the only way to reliably explain what's going on in an aquarium is to do studies in an aquarium. Let's keep up the thinking, testing, and inquiry!!! I think we're on the right track and are doing things that US plant hobbyists need to do.


----------



## Yo-han

That sums it up perfectly Phil!


----------



## Cavan Allen

Proteins. Feeding a high protein diet in that tank caused the release of a lot of proteins and fatty acids..all nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon rich organic molecules. I've seen this occur in numerous systems, planted and not, where the fish are fed unprocessed protein rich foods. While BBA is not exclusive to such systems, in my experience outbreaks are worst in these tanks. [/QUOTE]

I've actually wondered if I should compare the protein and/or ash content of fish food I buy. I have only a very few tiny fish, but still. I have noticed that cherry barbs and glow-light tetras* absolutely devour blanched peas intended for my shrimp. Maybe I could just feed them mostly that.

* Yes, I am aware that I just flippantly used some common names for fish despite my distaste for them being used when it comes to plants.



Phil Edwards said:


> TOC is considered a pollutant for a reason. At natural levels organic molecules are an essential source of food for a host of organisms. At elevated levels microbial proliferation and metabolism depletes water of oxygen. Plants and algae preferentially take up inorganic carbon, aqueous CO2 and carbonates, because they're easier to use for photosynthesis than complex organic molecules. Bacteria on the other hand...they love the stuff because it has a lot more energy per unit than CO2 or xCO3.


With some difficulty, I maintain enough co2 in my 40 (I think). I wonder now if 10mls of Excel a day is beneficial or even a tiny bit harmful, although, you almost make it sound like I should use it as a bacteria fuel!


----------



## Phil Edwards

Cavan,

There are more effective and safer ways of supplying carbon to bacteria in an aquarium than gluteraldehyde or polyacetalgluteraldehyde. That stuff is used as a disinfectant after all. Reef folks have been using white vinegar, vodka, and our Reef BioFuel to supplement carbon in their systems for years. I'm fairly certain our planted tanks aren't carbon limited though. There are enough biogenic sources of C and preferential uptake of inorganic C by plants leaves plenty of organic C available for bacteria. With abundant N and P I highly doubt nutrients are limiting microbial growth; if any limitation exists. That's one of the points I was trying to make when comparing natural systems vs. aquariums. In nature bacterial/phytoplanktonic influence can be great, but not so much in our aquariums.


----------



## niko

*"CO2 Deficiency" Definition discussion*

About the impact of fish food on what ends up in the aquarium: Many years ago I conducted an utterly unscientific experiment involving the cheapest test kits for N and P. I may have been way off (bad tests?) but I could not find a single fish food that raised N. All of them raised P though. I tried a few kinds of dry food and 3 or 4 kinds of frozen food. I think I tested the water the next day - so the food passes through the fish and the filter has a chance to process whatever it processes.

That same topic was discussed recently somewhere here. I think Yo-Han posted a table with the N and P content of foods if I'm not mistaken. But what is on a label somehow does not necessarily end up in the water. That's what would be interesting to figure out too, along with putting numbers to "organics".


----------



## Zapins

Your tests niko likely needed more time between feeding and testing the water for nitrates. If you had no plants to remove the nitrogen then it would have taken a few days for the food to go from ammonia to nitrite to nitrate, not just the next day.

Also, no way to know if your nitrate test was capable of detecting nitrate correctly. With no positive tests it might not have been working at all.

I moved the CO2 deficiency deficiency thread to a new post: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...iciency-definition-discussion.html#post665123


----------



## JeffyFunk

More analysis results.

I bought a bottle of Flourish Excel and diluted it to determine the TOC concentration of the material. The sample was diluted and analyzed at three different concentrations; the concentration of Excel should be the slope of the data (TOC vs Dilution). I chose to do it this way in order to try to overcome any impurities in the ASTM Type 1 water we may have (since we normally just store it in carboy's rather than use it directly out of the water purification system).



Code:


| 0.06% Excel |  9.007 ppm TOC|
|  0.1% Excel | 14.397 ppm TOC|
|  0.2% Excel | 27.965 ppm TOC|

By a quick and dirty calculation, i calculate a difference of ~13.5 ppm per 0.1% Excel. Therefore, the neat Flourish Excel TOC concentration is 13,500 ppm TOC.

At the recommended initial dosage of 5 mL Excel to a 40 L Aquarium, using the equation of M1V1 = M2V2 or (13,500)(5 mL) = M2(40 L), the TOC added is 1.7 ppm TOC.

At the recommended subsequent dosage of 5 mL Excel to a 200 L Aquarium, again using the equation of M1V1 = M2V2 or (13,500)(5 mL) = M2(200 L) the TOC added is 0.3 ppm TOC.


----------



## Yo-han

Another reason not to use it?


----------



## JeffyFunk

Yo-han said:


> Another reason not to use it?


That's not really the way i interpret the results. I just know that a lot of people throw their hands in the air and wave them about and say things like 'i use excel, which is made of organics, so that must be why my TOC is so high'... And from the numbers you see here, i don't think that's the case. The TOC values cannot be interpreted in a vacuum since the discussion has lead to the fact that the TOC of, say, protein is different than the TOC of, say, Excel.

What i think we can say is that the recommended dosage of Excel contributes not a whole lot to the TOC of the aquarium. I think you really need to do absorbance or decrease in Excel over time to see how fast it is being utilized. I'm sure an aldehyde colorimetetric test would be better since you could then test for the Excel directly, but unless anyone has a link to a good derivative / UV-Vis test, TOC is probably easier to do. It's just a matter of dosing Excel and taking several samples over time to see how the TOC values change.

Furthermore, a lot of people say that Excel is used up pretty rapidly, so i just can't see how Excel could 'accumulate' in an aquarium over time to give people 'high TOC values'...


----------



## Zapins

Interesting Jeffy.

I also agree 100% with your take on using excel. It isn't something to worry about.

This link has a really good article about Gluteraldehyde - they recon its half life is 12 h and give a lot more info on the break down in water etc...

http://msdssearch.dow.com/Published...ides/pdfs/noreg/253-01447.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

Here is an abstract from another paper:

"Material balance studies of glutaraldehyde in a river water-sediment system demonstrate that glutaraldehyde preferred to remain in the water phase. Glutaraldehyde was metabolized rapidly under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The pseudo-first-order *half-life of catabolism*, based on the loss of glutaraldehyde from the water phase, was *10.6 h aerobically* and *7.7 h anaerobically*. In contrast, under sterile conditions at pH 5 or 7, no appreciable degradation of glutaraldehyde was observed over a 31-day period. At pH 9, about 30% of the glutaraldehyde degraded over the same period. The major degradate was identified as 3-formyl-6-hydroxy-2-cyclohexene-1-propanal, a cyclicized dimer of glutaraldehyde. The extrapolated half-life of abiotic degradation was 508 days at pH 5, 102 days at pH 7, and 46 days at pH 9. Under aerobic conditions, glutaraldehyde was first biotransformed into the intermediate glutaric acid, which then underwent further metabolism ultimately to carbon dioxide. Metabolism of glutaraldehyde under anaerobic conditions did not proceed ultimately to methane, but terminated with the formation of 1,5-pentanediol via 5-hydroxypentanal as an intermediate."​
*From:*​Aerobic and Anaerobic Metabolism of Glutaraldehyde in a River Water-Sediment System. 
By Leung, H.-W
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, ISSN 0090-4341, 10/2001, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp. 267 - 273​


----------



## Marcel G

JeffyFunk said:


> More analysis results. I bought a bottle of Flourish Excel ...


Jeffrey, you are a real blessing to our hobby! I want to *THANK YOU* for your effort, enthusiasm, and willingness to do all these analysis. I really appreciate it.


----------



## Phil Edwards

That's really interesting Zap, thanks for the link and abstract. Jeff, thank you for all your hard work on this.


----------



## AaronT

I've recently stopped dosing glutaraldehyde and the empirical evidence suggests it does more harm than good to dose it. My plants are growing much faster now.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Aaron,

Were you dosing for algae control or as the main source of carbon?


----------



## Yo-han

AaronT said:


> I've recently stopped dosing glutaraldehyde and the empirical evidence suggests it does more harm than good to dose it. My plants are growing much faster now.


Me too! I stopped because I didn't feel comfortable that the toxic levels were so close to the beneficial levels for plants. Since than, I feel (sounds scientific doesn't it) plants grow faster and healthier. Fish are more colorful my Staurogyne finally took off (in two tanks!). So I only use my 5 gallon (sigh...) excel for cleaning diffusors and such.


----------



## AaronT

Phil Edwards said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Were you dosing for algae control or as the main source of carbon?


I was dosing on top of CO2 addition as insurance and algae control. I found it also inhibited plant growth too. When you figure it can melt Vals and some other species you begin to wonder just how much good it is doing.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Uh huh. I stopped using it when I wiped out a 10g chock full of Anubias back in '04.


----------



## maboleth

^ I was afraid of adding that stuff before... bunch of Vals, Otoses, Amano shrimps... However, I had an annoying outbreak of staghorn algae so I began adding minimal doses (4ml to 250l tank) and raised 1ml every week. Now I'm at 8ml and all creatures are doing fine. In fact, Vallisneria tortifolia is a beast. Has a wide thick leaves and spreads like a weed. In the same time, I got staghorn algae and BBA under control.

So I'm not planning to stop adding EasyCarbo anytime soon with a goal to reach 10ml for a daily dose.


----------



## Zapins

I had a chance to look over the data and run a few numbers on the relationship between TOC and BBA and also between CO2 and BBA. 

Basically concerning the theory that "adding CO2 eliminates BBA," we have 8 individual tanks that use CO2 and have BBA and 4 tanks that have CO2 and no BBA. This proves that CO2 is not a 100% effective cure for eliminating BBA otherwise there would be no BBA in tanks with CO2. This doesn't eliminate the possibility that CO2 reduces the growth of BBA by some degree. 

I do not think it is possible to tackle the question of how much CO2 reduces (if it does at all) the amount of BBA without a research grant and funding. The number of tanks and equipment needed to get clear results is way beyond the scope of the hobby. However, we can definitively say that adding CO2 does not completely eliminate BBA entirely from a person's tank. Unfortunately this leaves us with the lingering possibility that CO2 may reduce BBA growth to some degree (though looking at the samples we collected we have 8 cases of CO2 and BBA to 4 cases of CO2 and no BBA). 

As far as the "high TOC promotes BBA growth" theory goes. This one is actually provable one way or another on a hobbyist budget. We do however need a bit more data to be able to tell which way the relationship goes. We need 15-20 total samples from tanks that have CO2 and BBA, and another 15-20 samples from tanks from tanks that have CO2 but no BBA. We are currently about 40% of the way to having enough data to run a meaningful T-test.

So we need to start gathering samples again before we can get a statistical answer. 

Any volunteers?


----------



## rjordan393

I can send a sample but not until the holidays are over. I am one of those who do not have bba but did have it about 6-8 months ago. However, I do have black spot algae and perhaps its related to bba. I have been trimming the leaves on my anubias whenever it shows up and I have decent water flow on these plants.


----------



## UAHUA

This is one of the most interesting and informative threads that I have read on a planted tank site in quite some time. Thanks for all the work put into this. Now it's time to go digest all of this I just read.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Gave Tim a bunch of samples for you Jeffy. One leaked out, but we should get an idea of how TOC builds up, how long Organit lasts, etc.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Zap,

As soon as I start getting BBA (if I ever do, I hope I don't) I'll send samples and keep sending them until it's gone. 

Do you have access to any statistical software, like SAS, Statgraphics, or Statistix at school? T-tests are nice, but an ANOVA or ANCOVA would be more powerful and could take into account other factors too. A three-way ANOVA looking at CO2 concentration, organic carbon concentration, and presence of BBA might be enlightening. A light/DOC/BBA analysis could be good to do too. That way we could test for significant interaction effects rather than just Yes/No vs. DOC.


----------



## Zapins

I've got Prism 5 which does ANOVA's and graphs things as well and SPSS which I could also use. I suppose I could also do the calculations out by hand if I really needed to but that is laborious.

The thing with adding lots of other conditions in the study is we'll need huge data samples (hundreds or thousands) to see any meaningful results. Trust me I'd love to go that route but I think it is too complicated for now. Maybe if we can involve a lot more people with tanks and more people like Jeffy with testing equipment then we can make a proper study of it. Haha maybe even do a kickstarter project to get funding for some experiments.


----------



## Tugg

Perhaps we're tackling this from the wrong angle. Maybe we should solicite all our fish clubs to collect a bunch of samples with the members filling out a uniform questionaire for their samples. Then the club could send the box of samples.

Saves on shipping for everyone and could produce a TON of samples.


----------



## Zapins

That would be an interesting way to go about collecting data. Then later on we could use that data to answer any number of questions.

The only problem with it is that it puts a lot of emphasis on Jeffy to analyze many samples.


----------



## happi

*Zapins * "Tom Barr chanting his CO2 mantra"
this made my day and couldn't stop laughing. thanks to you and all the other members about this thread.

my threads don't go so well at the TPT and i also chanted CO2 mantra and it is not always the answer to everything, i have learn more stuff here than the TPT, over there is a law that no one can go against EI. thanks to *JeffyFunk* for doing all the test and providing the data.

i have a quick question:
when you guys are talking about Organics in the water, are we talking about fertilizer that are organic? such as Urea? or are we referring to some other organics? i myself dose 0.7ppm of Urea in my tank everyday and never saw any BBA at all, unless we are talking about some other organics. i can understand too much mulm, waste, debris can lead to BBA as well. i also found co2 does not reduce the amount of BBA, instead more co2= more BBA, i would also like to ask how do we compare this with *Christian_rubilar* theory. no offense to any members, i am just curious to know why do most of us think co2 fix the BBA.

i apologize if my question is immature


----------



## Zapins

Organics are basically any organic molecules like proteins that do not break down fully in the water column. They are digested very slowly by bacteria and are eventually removed but remain in the water column for long periods of time. 

I remember reading a paper a while back that discussed the link between organics and algae. To paraphrase it - apparently certain species of algae can feed directly on dissolved organics (which was a surprise to the researchers who believed fungi or bacteria was needed to digest it). In addition, organics provide CO2 as they are decomposed and may stimulate algae growth in a hormone like way.

So urea is not considered dissolved organics (as far as I know). 

I am actually not sure why people believe CO2 cures BBA. I have no idea how that idea got started or why it has persisted so long. If anyone finds the start of that myth I'd like to read the person's reasons. Looking over the data we collected in this thread it actually seems BBA is more common in tanks with CO2, so go figure right?


----------



## happi

Zapins said:


> Organics are basically any organic molecules like proteins that do not break down fully in the water column. They are digested very slowly by bacteria and are eventually removed but remain in the water column for long periods of time.
> 
> I remember reading a paper a while back that discussed the link between organics and algae. To paraphrase it - apparently certain species of algae can feed directly on dissolved organics (which was a surprise to the researchers who believed fungi or bacteria was needed to digest it). In addition, organics provide CO2 as they are decomposed and may stimulate algae growth in a hormone like way.
> 
> So urea is not considered dissolved organics (as far as I know).
> 
> I am actually not sure why people believe CO2 cures BBA. I have no idea how that idea got started or why it has persisted so long. If anyone finds the start of that myth I'd like to read the person's reasons. Looking over the data we collected in this thread it actually seems BBA is more common in tanks with CO2, so go figure right?


thanks man, i know some member on TPT who Had Crazy BBA and it was fixed by reducing the amount of Organics in their substrate, adding the spray bar also helped to reduce the BBA as well, i guess it has something to do with o2/co2 gas exchange when this method was used, in return co2 would be gassed out little bit, which mean adding more co2 wasn't the cure for BBA, opposite was true.


----------



## Zapins

happi said:


> adding the spray bar also helped to reduce the BBA as well, i guess it has something to do with o2/co2 gas exchange when this method was used


This line of thinking is straying into niko's filter territory 

It makes sense - lots of filtration capacity and aeration = happy bacteria that break down dissolved organics in the water quickly = less BBA (?).


----------



## happi

Zapins said:


> This line of thinking is straying into niko's filter territory
> 
> It makes sense - lots of filtration capacity and aeration = happy bacteria that break down dissolved organics in the water quickly = less BBA (?).


on this tank, look at the miracle of spray bars, on the other hand on a different tank with no good surface movements resulted in BBA (sorry i don't have any pic), followed the old BBA theory and increased the co2 without making any changes to surface movement, resulted in even more BBA. so, Niko is also right about his theory. i was under the impression that in order to have algae free tank we must add tons of co2 and not worry about the O2 or surface movement, but i was wrong. i hope my post relate to this thread, i don't want to go off topic.


----------



## Yo-han

Algae love CO2 just as much as plants. So increasing CO2 when algae proliferate on something else is stimulating them.

@Zapins: I think the CO2 BBA myth is coming from the fact that if your plants are CO2 deficient (not strange with the amount of light some people advocate), plants produce more organics. Increasing CO2 would in that case decrease organics, thus decrease BBA.


----------



## JeffyFunk

happi said:


> when you guys are talking about Organics in the water, are we talking about fertilizer that are organic? such as Urea? or are we referring to some other organics?


If you think about the way that organics are "defined" and, more imporantly, the method in which they are analyzed, then any molecule in the water column with a carbon in it (that isn't an inorganic carbonate) will be considered an "organic".

This is how the TOC analysis works. In the first step, the sample is reacted w/ an acid to convert any inorganic carbonates to CO2. The CO2 is then analyzed via an IR sensor. Once all the inorganic carbon (as carbonates) are removed, an persulfate solution is added to the sample and then heated up. @ 100oC (or with UV radiation), the persulfate anion will decompose to form a radical species which will then rapidly oxidize any organic matter present to CO2. The CO2 is then analyzed via an IR sensor.

Knowing what the mechanism of organic analysis, let's then consider the case of urea. The molecular formula for Urea is (H2N)2CO, giving it a molecular mass of 60.1 g/mol. The percent carbon can be calculated to be 20%. Therefore, to the TOC analyzer, 1 ppm of urea is really only equal to 0.2 ppm TOC because the IR detector will only see the 20% of the molecule that is carbon.

In the grand scheme of things, if we're considering that TOC values greater than 5 are "high", then 20% of 0.70 ppm Urea dosed per day = 0.14 ppm TOC... That's only about 3% of the 5 ppm TOC value so I think it's safe to say that the "organic" contribution from Urea is insignificant...


----------



## Zapins

Yo-han said:


> Algae love CO2 just as much as plants. So increasing CO2 when algae proliferate on something else is stimulating them.
> 
> @Zapins: I think the CO2 BBA myth is coming from the fact that if your plants are CO2 deficient (not strange with the amount of light some people advocate), plants produce more organics. Increasing CO2 would in that case decrease organics, thus decrease BBA.


An interesting thought. It certainly seems that when there are a lot of happy plants there isn't a lot of algae. I wonder if that is because plants don't put out organics as you say, or if like algae plants can consume organics, or perhaps plants inhibit algae with allelopathy?


----------



## Yo-han

Zapins said:


> An interesting thought. It certainly seems that when there are a lot of happy plants there isn't a lot of algae. I wonder if that is because plants don't put out organics as you say, or if like algae plants can consume organics, or perhaps plants inhibit algae with allelopathy?


Plants consuming organics would be possible too. Would be a great source of carbon. Hard to digest perhaps, but still.


----------



## BruceF

Heterotrophic bacteria thrive on? Organic carbon . 
Autotrophic bacteria thrive on? Inorganic substances.


----------



## Tugg

@BruceF, yes. The filter bacteria that we typically talk about are chemoautotrophs. They eat inorganic carbon and make food. The heterotrophs eat their byproducts, or just them. If DOC causes algae, then it would likely be a photoheterotroph. If we can promote more chemoheterotrophs in our filter systems, then they can starve the photoheterotrophs of carbon.


----------



## Zorfox

I just finished reading most of this thread. Zapin referred me here from TPT. Thanks Zapin. This has been a very educational and enlightening read.

The evidence does suggest a relationship between BBA and TOC. Are there any plans to increase the data set? Possibly with injected and non-injected tanks both with and without BBA. 

This information raises more questions for me than answers. Could fluctuating CO2 levels alter rubisco production or, more likely, other reactions causing an increase in specific components of TOCs leading to BBA? CO2 stability does seem to have a direct correlation to BBA blooms. The data also suggests that iron has an inhibiting effect to BBA yet not GSA, GDA and brown algae. Could this be accurate as well? 

Very interesting. I look forward to seeing how this develops. Thanks to all that have been participating.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Zorfox said:


> The evidence does suggest a relationship between BBA and TOC. Are there any plans to increase the data set? Possibly with injected and non-injected tanks both with and without BBA.


The data set is only limited by the amount of samples i get. I have yet to get any more samples, unfortunately... (I think i left my samples from Cavan @ Oddball - have to call to find out...)



Zorfox said:


> This information raises more questions for me than answers. Could fluctuating CO2 levels alter rubisco production or, more likely, other reactions causing an increase in specific components of TOCs leading to BBA? CO2 stability does seem to have a direct correlation to BBA blooms. The data also suggests that iron has an inhibiting effect to BBA yet not GSA, GDA and brown algae. Could this be accurate as well?


First of all, Fe is a tricky subject to really analyze properly because i've noticed that the type of Fe dosed makes a big difference. Fe(EDTA) as in CSM+B has a tendency to build up in the water column while Fe(Gluconate) as in Seachem Fe does not. Therefore there's another factor that has to be considered when talking about Fe and [Fe] in the water column...

Second of all, the only way to discuss CO2 is to measure CO2 in tanks w/ a CO2 probe. That is unfortunately beyond the scope of this forum post as i really have no way of making those measurements and why i tried to stear this discussion toward the topic of Organics as measured by TOC only.


----------



## Zapins

Zorfox said:


> The evidence does suggest a relationship between BBA and TOC. Are there any plans to increase the data set? Possibly with injected and non-injected tanks both with and without BBA.


I've got a sample I need to send in to Jeffy. It is from a friend's tank with medium-high lighting and no BBA or CO2. He also doesn't do a lot of water changes on it and has only one or two tiny fish. So I am interested to see what his organic readings are.



Zorfox said:


> This information raises more questions for me than answers. Could fluctuating CO2 levels alter rubisco production or, more likely, other reactions causing an increase in specific components of TOCs leading to BBA? CO2 stability does seem to have a direct correlation to BBA blooms.


I don't think there is any way to know exactly what is increased in aquatic plants with CO2 addition without proper lab tests. Probably a lot of the normal proteins and enzymes are upregulated to handle more CO2 and a faster growth rate.




Zorfox said:


> The data also suggests that iron has an inhibiting effect to BBA yet not GSA, GDA and brown algae. Could this be accurate as well?


There is a lot of data in the journals about toxicities and algae. Many species of algae are more sensitive than plants to heavy metals. Here is a link to a little test I did a while back.

High iron and black spot algae:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/89326-green-spot-algae-black-spot-algae.html

Also, about BGA - I just read a paper last night that describes how blue green algae has an advantage in water with a low Nitrogen to phosphate ratio and high iron. From "The paucity of blue-green algae in meromictic brownie lake: iron..." by Swain, Edward Balcom 1984, page 63.

BGA can make its own nitrogen fertilizer using its bacterial enzymes. Thus in low nitrate tanks it gains an advantage over other types of algae and can basically feed itself this vital nutrient.

In order to do this the algae has a protein which requires a lot of iron atoms, thus, if you have high iron in the water and low nitrates with phosphates being present you will give BGA exactly the conditions it needs to grow.


----------



## Tugg

Zapins said:


> Also, about BGA - I just read a paper last night that describes how blue green algae has an advantage in water with a low Nitrogen to phosphate ratio and high iron. From "The paucity of blue-green algae in meromictic brownie lake: iron..." by Swain, Edward Balcom 1984, page 63.
> 
> BGA can make its own nitrogen fertilizer using its bacterial enzymes. Thus in low nitrate tanks it gains an advantage over other types of algae and can basically feed itself this vital nutrient.
> 
> In order to do this the algae has a protein which requires a lot of iron atoms, thus, if you have high iron in the water and low nitrates with phosphates being present you will give BGA exactly the conditions it needs to grow.


That is pretty much is spot on for my high-tech tank. I dose the iron on the high side for the red plants and hair grass. My nitrogen is COMPLETELY sucked out of the water in no time. For the trifecta, my wife overfeeds and I haven't been able to stop her, so I would suspect the phosphates are very high.

It's no wonder BGA is such a headache for me. I REALLY need to get that Pond Matrix out of the filter. It's too awesome for it's own good.


----------



## niko

Hey, lots of interesting reading added in one day. Don't you people work or something?

And before I read anything let me say what I deem to be extremely important, relevant, and intelligent; It's about BBA and... something going wrong. I cannot say if it is organics as I usually believe. I do not see any other explanation but this time things appear a bit different - both BBA and plants grow like crazy:

Tank with lots of CO2, diffused extremely well, great circular flow. 2 bubbles per second. So CO2 is not a problem. Normally BBA grows on the sponge of the CO2 diffuser because that is the only area of the tank where the dirt manages to settle. One big reason for me to believe that CO2 has no direct effect on BBA.

Tank had a big A. ulvaceus. The leaves of this thing are soft. Something has been eating the young leaves lately. For a month already. BBA grew somewhat healthy only on the CO2 diffuser sponge and the small area near it where dirt always accumulates. At that time plant growth was severely slowed down - barely any in a week.

My super scientific tests showed low (rather non-existing) Mg. N=10, P=0.5 - pretty good for a 55 gal. tank housing two big discus. I added some Mg. And 10 ml of Excel just because it "kills BBA". A week later the plants had gone crazy - I removed about 1 lb of clippings. Huge Hydrocotyle leaves with bubbles underneath. 3 big new leaves on a Lotus, Valisneria making very wide and long leaves, new Sword leaves looking extremely healthy, every Anubias had 1 leaf and another one starting. AND the BBA was eating the entire tank alive! I had not seen such healthy black BBA in ages... It had even covered the brand new sponge that I had put over the CO2 diffuser a week ago... My friend told me that she fed the discus much less that week - every other day instead of every day. So where is that BBA coming from?

My take on this is that the A. ulvaceus bled juices in the water until they accumulated to a level that caused BBA to explode. How else can you explain the strong plant growth, the pearling, the high CO2 and the vigorous BBA? One other thing is that with lots of CO2 the biofilter is suffocating. As we all hopefully learned recently pH = 8.5 is what the biofilter likes. With my 2 bps of CO2 I am far below that. Biofilter is barely working.

Long story short I pulled the badly bitten A. ulvaceus out. Removed lots of other plant's leaves. Trimmed in a way that the flow is not impeded even if all the plants grow a lot in a week. Flow was beautiful after that - a 90% gyre and all plants waving their leaves in the current. 

I will see the tank this Saturday. Hopefully all my dreams will come true.


----------



## Zorfox

Zapins said:


> Also, about BGA - I just read a paper last night that describes how blue green algae has an advantage in water with a low Nitrogen to phosphate ratio and high iron. From "The paucity of blue-green algae in meromictic brownie lake: iron..." by Swain, Edward Balcom 1984, page 63.
> 
> BGA can make its own nitrogen fertilizer using its bacterial enzymes. Thus in low nitrate tanks it gains an advantage over other types of algae and can basically feed itself this vital nutrient.
> 
> In order to do this the algae has a protein which requires a lot of iron atoms, thus, if you have high iron in the water and low nitrates with phosphates being present you will give BGA exactly the conditions it needs to grow.


I was under the impression that various forms of BGA utilize heterocysts for atmospheric nitrogen fixation when aqueous nitrogen is absent. I suppose iron would be needed in the creation of heterocycst since it employs a photosystem which requires Fe. But large amounts? The heterocysts are generally not present when sufficient nitrogen is present. When nitrogen falls heterocysts become apparent so I can see where iron may become important in the absence of nitrogen. However, I'm not familiar with the enzyme. I can't seem to find a place to read the study you suggested any ideas?


----------



## happi

another thing came to mind is that some people use Ascorbic Acid and Potassium Sorbate in their solution, do any of these cause anything organic?

*JeffyFunk* thanks about explaining regarding Urea.


----------



## Zapins

Pg 61


> It is perhaps critical to the Brownie Lake hypothesis to note that the enzyme system that is responsible for N-fixation (nitrogenase) is rich in Fe (22-40 atoms Fe per enzyme molecule, Bothe 1982) -- and that nitrogen fixation by blue-green algae thereby entails an increased demand for Fe (Murphy and Lean 1975, Murphey et al. 1976). If Fe is in short supply in a N-deficient (low N/P) system, then blue-green algae have limited capacity to make use of N-fixation. If combined N is in short supply, N-fixing blue-green algae need a relatively great Fe supply. Therefore, for blue-Green algae, Fe and combined N are partially substitutable resources (hemi-essential resources sensu Tilman 1982:19).


The full article citation is:

THE PAUCITY OF BLUE-GREEN ALGAE IN MEROMICTIC BROWNIE LAKE: IRON LIMITATION OR HEAVY-METAL TOXICITY? (EUTROPHIC, PALEOLIMNOLOGY, PIGMENTS)
SWAIN, EDWARD BALCOMView Profile. University of Minnesota, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1984. 8413827​
It is available on proquest's site if you have journal access.


----------



## niko

happi said:


> another thing came to mind is that some people use Ascorbic Acid and Potassium Sorbate in their solution, do any of these cause anything organic?


I can't comment on any specifics but in my super duper example above it looks like BBA developed only after certain kinds of "organics" accumulated. BBA was not taking over the tank despite the 2 big discus being fed beefheart every day and once a week water change. If indeed organics cause BBA then it seems that it is certain kinds, but not others. Or it would be more realistic to suppose that certain kinds of organics cause BBA in certain conditions. Match them and you got a winner! A mismatch could cause obvious trash to not lead to BBA. Frustrating.

Another example could be about the amount of the organics: I had a tank in which BBA told me that there was a dead fish every single time. Those where fish that got severely territorial with age. They killed each other gradually - about 1 dead fish a week. If I didn't see the dead fish BBA showed up overnight. And it never grew again until there was another dead fish which I hadn't removed promptly. That correlation repeated at least 10 times. That was the first time when I connected BBA with organics. The 60 fish that I had in that tank did not cause BBA if everybody was alive. Tank had no CO2 and no plants so it all seemed pretty simple. What else could be causing BBA every time other than stuff oozing out of the dead fish?


----------



## niko

Zapins said:


> This line of thinking is straying into niko's filter territory
> 
> It makes sense - lots of filtration capacity and aeration = happy bacteria that break down dissolved organics in the water quickly = less BBA (?).


Oh, I do like to hear that someone has been lead astray by my insistence that water flow and biofiltration are everything! One could specualte that that was my original intent - to let people that don't want to see the big picture go by themselves into another tight corner. But no matter how I want it to be flow and filtration are just part of the whole picture. I chant about them because somehow since about year 2002 no one discussed them in details. We were focused on things that some guru told us will fill the sky with stars for us. My point is - it starts to look simpler and simpler now - the tank needs proper flow, filtration, fertilizers... Filling the gaps is a good thing. Makes for an enlightened tank. Sort of like the tanks they had in the old days, ahaha.

Flow and filtration are The Great Equalizer. The tank does not have funny areas, suspicious spots, mini-ecosystems of evil. Food is brought in and trash is taken out. That's a pretty novel idea for most people I guess. And it doesn't mean that algae will not be happy to have food brought in.


----------



## niko

JeffyFunk said:


> ... In the first step, the sample is reacted w/ an acid to convert any inorganic carbonates to CO2. The CO2 is then analyzed via an IR sensor...


Thank you for the explanation of how this test is done.

Now tell me why the inorganic C has to be analyzed too if the organic C is analyzed in the end?

I see that Wikipedia describes two methods - measuring the total C and the inorganic C and subtracting, and removing the inorganic C and then measuring just the organic C. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_organic_carbon

Not being cheeky, just trying to learn a few new things.


----------



## Zapins

> I can't comment on any specifics but in my super duper example above it looks like BBA developed only after certain kinds of "organics" accumulated. BBA was not taking over the tank despite the 2 big discus being fed beefheart every day and once a week water change. If indeed organics cause BBA then it seems that it is certain kinds, but not others.


I think simple organic molecules are more quickly broken down. So citrate, etc is removed quickly and does not accumulate like other organics. I wonder if anyone has actually tested the dissolved organic solids in water samples to see what they are made of? I will see if I can find out.



niko said:


> Oh, I do like to hear that someone has been lead astray by my insistence that water flow and biofiltration are everything!....


I have to admit I am starting to think filtration capacity is more important than I had initially thought. I wonder if we can find any sort of trend with a tank's maturity and TOC?

Does TOC initially increase then decrease with time once the filter becomes established?


----------



## niko

Tugg said:


> @BruceF, yes. The filter bacteria that we typically talk about are chemoautotrophs. They eat inorganic carbon and make food. The heterotrophs eat their byproducts, or just them. If DOC causes algae, then it would likely be a photoheterotroph. If we can promote more chemoheterotrophs in our filter systems, then they can starve the photoheterotrophs of carbon.


I like that diagram. Not hard to remember, hope everyone remembers what is what now.

Since that post where you told me that the filtration is not about aerobic/anaerobic but about auto/heterotrophs I have been wondering one simple thing - How do we come up with an adjustable filter that allows you to have more of this or more of the other kind of organisms? This present discussion about organics is great, I love it. But it looks like one day we may have answers about organics and algae but not a clue how to control the organics other than vacuuming and water changes.

My notion that this is all about aerobic/anaerobic organisms comes from a simple observation: I've seen this happening countless times. Actually just this last week I saw it again: Vacuum a tank that is running so-so. Stirring some fines is inevitable. The water turns opalescent for 2 days. Then make a small water change without disturbing the substrate. On the 3-rd day the water becomes exceptionally clear. And the fish seem to perk up visibly. My take on that is that the substrate gets aerated. But it could be that the organisms in the substrate get to actually do what they do best when the clogging is removed. Not necessarily aerobic vs. anaerobic. Is that about Oxygen I do not know. But I can say with certainty that aerating the water on day 1 and 2 really helps - the water becomes closer to clear somewhere on day 2. I've observed that in different tanks - CO2 and non CO2. Maybe it is all about the ratio of different organisms and not about one group dominating. So the same question pops up here too - how do we create a predictable population?


----------



## Zapins

A nice explanation of dissolved organic carbon.



> Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) refers to the hundreds of dissolved compounds found in water that derive from organic materials, and is composed of 'organic acids', 'organic bases', and 'neutral groups' (Seitzinger et al., 2003). The operative boundary between DOC and particulate organic carbon is set as that which will pass through a 0.45 μm filter. DOC is a mixture of simple substances such as carbohydrates, fatty acids and alkanes, and of complex polymeric molecules (aromatic and carboxylic carbon). They can be present as truly dissolved molecules, as colloids or as viruses (MacDonald et al., 2004). The amount of DOC in the hydrosphere (700 gigatons) is almost the same as the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (750 gigatons). Fully understanding the carbon cycle is of great importance to discovering the "missing sink" of CO2 - current global carbon cycling models are unable to account for 20% of global carbon dioxide (Willey et al., 2000). Therefore both inorganic and organic carbons must be taken into consideration when clarifying the carbon cycle (Sugiyama and Kumagai, 2001). Rainwater DOC contributes significantly to the atmospheric carbon cycle - global rainwater flux was recently quantified as 430 × 1012 g C yr−1 (Willey et al., 2000). When this is considered along with the rainwater flux of 80 × 1012 g C yr−1 for dissolved inorganic carbon, it is equivalent in magnitude to approximately one-third of the missing carbon sink (Schimel et al., 1996 and Willey et al., 2000).


From:
Analysis of rainwater dissolved organic carbon compounds using fluorescence spectrophotometry Catherine L. Mullera, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, Andy Bakera, Robert Hutchinsonb, Ian J. Fairchilda, Chris Kidda a School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK b Meteogroup UK, PA News Centre, 292 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London SW1V 1AE, UK​


----------



## niko

Yo-han said:


> Algae love CO2 just as much as plants. So increasing CO2 when algae proliferate on something else is stimulating them...


Here. You just said that followers of EI that fight algae with more of the same medicine (ferts, water changes, and maybe increasing CO2 if possible) are wrong. I can see how they are right - if the lights was an overkill and the ferts where an overkill and somehow the CO2 was a bit low then, yes - you can fight algae by increasing CO2. But most EI followers have everything sky high because that is the meantlity of EI so low CO2 is not the usual issue. But I maybe missing the big picture - EI tanks never have issues.

What I do know for sure is that if you raise the CO2 in a dirty tank one thing will happen, guaranteed: Algae. Increasing the CO2 in a tank with algae and hoping that the plants will outcompete algae by brute force is a pipe dream. I learned the other day that in evolutionary aspect algae are at least 20 years older than plants and know a few tricks. I guess these tricks are part of the reason we are having this thread.


----------



## niko

Zapins said:


> Pg 61
> The full article citation is:...


Then it looks like someone should try to use a resin that soaks up Iron to see if this will inhibit BGA growth. Or add extra Iron (hoping it is in a form that BGA likes) and see if it increase BGA growth.


----------



## Tugg

Is measuring the inorganic to account for deterioration in the samples? We are taking living water, sealing it up, and shipping it for days. Those hungry bugs are going to keep eating and doing their thing.

As for type of DOC, when I was reading about UV exposure, one study I read had shown then the UV doesn't directly remove a samples DOC, but it did aid the bacteria by breaking down the complex molecules to smaller more easily digested components. I would suspect that BBA is able to eat the complex DOC more easily than the other plants and microbes. Giving it an advantage in a dirty tank.


----------



## niko

Wow! I learned a lot today:

- "Meromictic/holomictic"

- BGA <--> Fe

- Oxygen-hating "heterocysts" shielded by 3 walls come to the rescue if N is low and are being fed sugar by the neighbouring cells (Read this, it is an easy read and fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyst)

- How chemoautotrophs could be good for you and bad for algae

- How Jeffy does magic in the privacy of his own home by making use of TOC

- That we still don't know what is a "good biofilter" but it starts to get closer to our radar.

Best of all - this amazing thread is everybody's work!


----------



## Zapins

> The $\sp{14}$C tracer incubation technique was applied to estimate the extent of release of photosynthetically produced dissolved organic carbon (PDOC) from natural communities of phytoplankton and the quantitative importance of PDOC as a carbon source for heterotrophic bacteria in four temperature lakes of different levels in concentrations of nutrients and humic substances. In addition, the molecular size distribution and biochemical composition of PDOC and of those PDOC fractions which were utilized by the bacteria were assessed. The release of PDOC constituted a variable proportion (both within and between lakes) of the diel phytoplankton primary production, ranging from 6 to 40%, and between 5 and 57% of the released PDOC was assimilated by the bacteria. Within the lakes, the uptake of PDOC accounted for a variable contribution to the total heterotrophic bacterial carbon uptake (estimated with the ($\sp3$H) thymidine incorporation method), but the mean contribution was generally high ($\ge$48% of the total carbon uptake) in all four lakes. PDOC made a somewhat lower contribution to total bacterial production in the humic lakes, thus suggesting greater importance of bacterial utilization of substrates other than phytoplankton derived PDOC, probably dissolved humic substances, in the humic lakes. In all lakes, the PDOC always contained both high ($>$10 000 dalton) and low ($<$1 000 dalton) and often intermediate mol. wt substances, but their respective contribution was highly variable both between and within lakes. The high and intermediate mol. wt substances were in most cases dominated by polysaccharide, while the low mol. wt components contained quantitatively important amounts of amino acids, other organic acids and carbohydrates.* The low mol. wt components of the PDOC were generally those of highest quantitative importance as substrate for the bacteria, and amino acids, other organic acids and carbohydrates could all be important fractions of the bacterial utilization of low mol. wt PDOC. The high mol. wt components were utilized very slowly in most cases, and thus probably contributed to the build-up of high mol. wt refractory DOC in the pelagic zone of the lakes.*


From:
The dissolved organic carbon released from lake phytoplankton: Biochemical composition and bacterial utilization Sundh, Ingvar. Uppsala Universitet (Sweden), ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1991. C218046.​


----------



## rjordan393

Jeff,
When will it be best to send another sample of my tank and tap water if I made some changes in my setup of my 75 gallon tank.
Here are the changes:

I replaced the red Flourite gravel with Eco-Complete.
I also removed most of the fine material from it.
I replaced an XP3 Rena filter with two Marineland 350 magnums using their micron cartridges.
I use to have two anubias attached to driftwood and they were removed because I suspected the source of Black Spot Algae came from either one of them and then spread to other plants. 
I added more plants.
I am now treating the tank with 30 ml Excel daily for a week to hopefully kill off any spores left in the tank.
So in the coming weeks, it may be interesting to see if I was successful in keeping this algae from appearing. Its been about 6 to 8 months since I had a little of bba and bsa in my tank. When the bba went away, the Black Spot Algae took over. (maybe they are related) 

The Eco-Complete has its pro's and con's but the thing I like best about it is that because of its lightness, it does not pack down hard like other substrates and this allows better water flow through it. it is also easier to vacuum up organics.


----------



## Darkcobra

Followed a link on TPT to this thread, saying it was interesting if you have an hour to spare.

It was, and I'm glad I spent the hour. 

Are samples still being solicited? I have a high light tank which I made algae-free by committing the "blasphemy" of dropping CO2 to 15ppm. Niko made a comment suggesting that this could occur when organics are high. I'd love to know my TOC, and contribute to some _real_ science.


----------



## Yo-han

niko said:


> Wow! I learned a lot today:
> 
> ...
> 
> Best of all - this amazing thread is everybody's work!


Sticky?


----------



## Zapins

I found an extremely detailed study that documents several species of mixotrophic algae (algae that can both use CO2 and dissolved organic compounds), and the exact chemicals they use and the metabolic byproducts that are made and used by the algae. The study mostly focused on cyanobacteria (BGA). It seems that many species of BGA are quite capable of using up dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to fuel growth. The study also mentions several other types of algae that do the same thing. It seems that using up DOC in the water column is quite a common algae practice among species of algae. Therefore, I see no reason why BBA wouldn't do the same.

This makes sense if you think about where you usually see BBA (old deteriorating leaves, filter return pipe - full of DOC from the filter) and how it anchors to and damages leaves (makes plants leak out DOC that it uses to grow).

Part of the mixotrophic life style is that both CO2 and DOC are used for growth. So it makes sense that you'd see BBA in high tech tanks with a lot of DOC. It has everything the algae wants.

It looks like the DOC theory is gaining more traction.



> *Mixotrophy *is deﬁned as a growth regime in which CO2 and organic carbon are simultaneously assimilated. The assimilation of organic carbon can be through either phagotrophy or osmotrophy. For the purpose of organic pollutant degradation, mixotrophs employing osmotrophy for organic carbon chemical substances are relevant. Since the concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) is less in many water environments, the majority of phytoplankton obtains DIC by osmotrophy, which actually facilitates autotrophic assimilation. Biochemically, both photosynthesis and organic carbon catabolism (respiration) can have opposing inﬂuences on each other. Without forming a unique group, algal species of different physiological guises belonging to different taxonomic groups have the capabilities to grow mixotrophically. There are many physiological trade-offs, which are due to the limited cell surface area, the need for transporter sites for both organic and inorganic sources, the internal cellular components for both autotrophy and heterotrophy, and increased metabolic costs (Litchman et al., 2007; Raven, 1997). Crane and Grover (2010) opined that mixotrophs as generalists utilize resources which are shared with two specialists such as autotrophs and heterotrophs.
> .....
> Algal capacity to grow mixtrophically during periods of low nutrient concentrations and their tolerance to extreme environmental conditions can be a competitive advantage over heterotrophs or autotrophs as bioremediation agents. A good strategy to degrade organic pollutants in soil environments is to enrich and isolate the pollutant-degrading mixotrophic algae, because of their dual capabilities of CO2 assimilation and utilization of pollutants as organic carbon substances.
> .....
> The abilities to capture energy and sequester C through photosynthesis, and degrade organic pollutants by mixotrophic cyanobacteria and microalgae could offer more competitive advantages in bioremediation efforts.


From:
Suresh R. Subashchandrabose, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan, Mallavarapu Megharaj, Kadiyala Venkateswarlu, Ravi Naidu, Mixotrophic cyanobacteria and microalgae as distinctive biological agents for organic pollutant degradation, Environment International, Volume 51, January 2013, Pages 59-72, ISSN 0160-4120, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.007.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012002310)​


----------



## Zorfox

There are many types of Audouinella algae. I'm going on the assumption that we're referring to BBA as being primarily Audouinella hermannii and to a lesser degree daviesii, unifila and floridula. Is that a fair assessment?

There is evidence of many algae performing better from organic nitrogen sources over inorganic sources&#8230;

"After an initial 4-5 day lag, Cyclotella grew rapidly until day 14 and reached even higher maximum yields with the organic nitrogen substrates than with NH4+ or NO3-." 
Algal growth on organic compounds as nitrogen sources

This does suggest that high organics could be a factor in the proliferation of BBA. However, in natural settings the distributions of BBA seems to be in clear, unpolluted, moving bodies of water. Could this distribution of BBA be an adaptation to reduce competition for organic nitrogen sources?



> The abilities to capture energy and sequester C through photosynthesis, and degrade organic pollutants by mixotrophic cyanobacteria and microalgae could offer more competitive advantages in bioremediation efforts.


There's an interesting study utilizing Audouinella hermannii among other periphytons to monitor water quality... 
Biomonitoring of organic pollution using periphyton.

In this study BBA (attached to artificial substrates in various areas) seemed to be absent in areas with high organic pollutants and present in areas with low pollutants.


----------



## niko

Hm, BBA naturally grows in water that is unpolluted and moving. Wow.

I think we could use Tom Barr's logic which is proven to work wonders by assuming that aquariums are not Nature and you can create an unnatural environment which will work within the glass box only. And work especially well on the internet and even better if you don't ask too many questions. That means that BBA in aquariums will not grow in polluted and barely moving water. So here we are, starting with a flawed basis I arrive at a junk conclusion. Except that apparently that is not what happens in Nature.

I am now confused about clean water, flow and BBA. This last week I cleaned 2 tanks from BBA by doing water changes and improving flow. Just yesterday I rubbed off BBA from some leaves and it came off like lose dust - it was already dead. With 2 big discus in the tank "organics", N and P are never zero. In the other tank I have so many fish that the "organics", N and P are never zero either. So what causes BBA and why my triumphant water changes work?

I've said that before but this is a good place to repeat it: Some years ago I had a tank in which the BBA grew only in certain small area. After some months I got tired of that and removed everything from the tank, rubbed all glass sides with salt, put brand new substrate, new filter, new biomedia, new heater, new water flow direction. BBA showed up again. In the exact same area! There were no fish in the tank, just plants. Organics or not the "special" area that BBA liked really did not make any sense.

It seems that all of us here are after a barely scientific conclusion. Meaning that we will get our answers about organics some day but the science behind the results will most likely be blurry. I bet that Jeffy will get to test tanks that show low organics and have BBA too. I personally will be happy with any definite results that let us reduce and even completely eliminate BBA and other algae when we really want to. Numbers and "gurus" have done more harm to this hobby than plain old observation and experience. I think that combining the two is what we are after here.

Which, once again, leads me to the question that I already put out there: When we find out what causes BBA and other algae to grow what equipment and practices will we come up with? So every newbie that shows up all disappointed can actually get real solutions for their issues.


----------



## Zorfox

niko said:


> Which, once again, leads me to the question that I already put out there: When we find out what causes BBA and other algae to grow what equipment and practices will we come up with? So every newbie that shows up all disappointed can actually get real solutions for their issues.


I think the hobby will split in two; a technological approach and the natural approach. The naturalist will accept that a certain amount of algae is normal and plants don't need to grow an inch per day. The technology side will strive to control everything.

New technological discoveries?

Water filtration will be replaced by water recycling. Similar to pumping water continuously through and R/O unit and adding a plethora of things back.

UV sterilizers will run constantly to kill bacteria that will thrive in a nearly sterile unnatural system. Much like becoming the algae of the future.

CO2 diffusers will be exchanged for a gas mixing device where O2 and CO2 levels can be changed by your personal computer. Much like a lung. A sealed wet/dry chamber with mixed gases circulating the environment. The bio balls representing the alveoli.

Lighting will resemble an LED flat screen capable of an infinite number of specific spectral ranges. All this tied into your computer app.

Sorry to get off topic but you did ask nicely lol


----------



## Darkcobra

Zapins, several years ago I found a paper that detailed how plants could uptake a significant amount of nitrogen (possibly carbon too) directly from amino acids; released from breakdown of proteins in soil. Will post the link if I can find it.

Speaking theoretically, I also think it likely that both plants and algae likely have multiple methods by which they can flourish, in a variety of conditions.

Lets say we have a graph, where X is one environmental condition, Y is another, and Z is either plant or algae response. It would be nice for us if such a graph always looked like this:










And in some cases that will be true, but in others it's likely more like this:










In which case, experimentally attempting to find a desirable global maxima (for plants) or minima (for algae) can be tricky, as you're more likely to find a local max/min instead. Especially since most people tend to explore the extremes. Minimize nitrate, maximize CO2, or whatever - find something that works and become another evangelist for the one true way that should work for everyone; but in reality the majority of possibilities remains unexplored.

And of course in the real world, parameters do not work singly or even in pairs, in isolation from all others both known and unknown.

Trying to at least determine what additional parameters may be relevant, like TOC, is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Zapins

Zorfox said:


> There are many types of Audouinella algae. I'm going on the assumption that we're referring to BBA as being primarily Audouinella hermannii and to a lesser degree daviesii, unifila and floridula. Is that a fair assessment?


I've often wondered what species of red algae we actually have. I know a guy who studies algae for a living who could probably tell us exactly what it is. But I hesitate to ask him.



Zorfox said:


> There is evidence of many algae performing better from organic nitrogen sources over inorganic sources&#8230;
> 
> "After an initial 4-5 day lag, Cyclotella grew rapidly until day 14 and reached even higher maximum yields with the organic nitrogen substrates than with NH4+ or NO3-."
> Algal growth on organic compounds as nitrogen sources


I will need to read this later on, been busy.



Zorfox said:


> This does suggest that high organics could be a factor in the proliferation of BBA. However, in natural settings the distributions of BBA seems to be in clear, unpolluted, moving bodies of water. Could this distribution of BBA be an adaptation to reduce competition for organic nitrogen sources?


Without reading the above study, I feel like this still makes sense. Unpolluted moving bodes of water does not necessarily exclude them from being exposed to DOC. DOC is made wherever there is soil, it is in rain and falls everywhere. So I'd bet that algae living in limited places like a pristine highland stream would be more adapted to taking advantage of whatever nutrients they had available to them (DOC).



Zorfox said:


> There's an interesting study utilizing Audouinella hermannii among other periphytons to monitor water quality...
> Biomonitoring of organic pollution using periphyton.
> 
> In this study BBA (attached to artificial substrates in various areas) seemed to be absent in areas with high organic pollutants and present in areas with low pollutants.


I very briefly looked over this study (I'll look it over thoroughly later), but the study seemed to focus a lot more on other species of algae, and stated that the body of water they were studying was primarily dominated by diatom algae. In one of the tables there are 2 different dates they looked at the same body of water. In the first examination there was no red algae present in control or at the sample site, the second time they looked there was some red algae in the control group but none after the slaughterhouse's effluent had been released into the stream. So out of two data points only one saw a decrease in red algae. I recognize the difficulty in figuring out exactly what caused this decrease, and also the difficult in finding studies that examined Audouinella hermannii and DOC but I wonder if this decrease was due to an increase in DOC, or related to some other environmental factor (perhaps the stream wasn't that habitable for the red algae to begin with since it wasn't really there in half the time points, and the body of water was diatom dominated in general)?

I found a few other interesting DOC and Audouinella hermannii studies describing the areas the algae likes to live in. I'll post about them later on.

Glad you are looking up studies it is great to have someone else looking up these kinds of things as well! The studies you posted are studies that I don't think I would have seen using my database access. I hope you keep looking into these issues, it is very helpful to have someone else to bat ideas around with.


----------



## niko

Zorfox said:


> I think the hobby will split in two; a technological approach and the natural approach. The naturalist will accept that a certain amount of algae is normal and plants don't need to grow an inch per day. The technology side will strive to control everything....


The "naturalist" approach will have less or no algae at all. That's because in the old days people ran tanks without CO2, no pumps, and not even water changes. Someone messaged me recently about a fish store run by a guy that does everything the old way. Very infrequent water changes, does not believe in filtration and a few other things that we, today, find very odd. Guess what? Zero algae in all tanks.

And when I was getting into the aquascaping hobby in 1981 it was because of a person that did things in a similar way. Tiny water changes, no pumps, no CO2. And there where no heaters - the incandescent bulbs warmed up the tanks during the day and let them go cool at night! Plants where busting the tanks out of the seams every week, fish where spawning on a regular basis. There was no algae in sight. I got introduced to aquariums without any algae. Had no idea how they looked like. One day I saw something green and slimy in a pet store aquarium and I liked it and wanted it in my tank... Old school magic I guess.

To me anything forced throws an entire universe of natural reactions into a very unpredictable state. Our high CO2, high light, water changes using tap water that we don't even know is the same as last week's, big flows and so on are perfect examples of forcing things. The "technological" approach has led us to where we are today - about 15 years of using high light/CO2/ferts and still having very little understanding of how to handle problems because we don't understand how it all works. I am not saying that an old school approach has understanding. But only chasing numbers and chemical concentrations is indeed wrong.

Darcobra' post above with the fancy graphics makes a lot of sense to me now. We all know the feeling of hitting a "sweet spot" in your tank where everything works perfectly. And along with that there is a feeling that this is all pretty fragile - it is indeed finding a "local min/max" as Darkcobra says. To me the old school approach was way closer to a clean AND stable tank because everything was done without any rush. That does not make it right or wrong, but you do end up with a way, way more stable tank. Which cannot be said for a high-tech approach, not even close. In our hobby today it is customary to "shut down" the tank when you go on a vacation and to "fix it back up" when you are back. That says everything about all the amazing methods that have become widely used in the last decade (EI and PPS). But your choice of running an aquarium has to do with your mentality. It is not hard to agree that most people's mentality is "I want it fast and I want it now." That has lead to the ridiculous state in which for years we have ignored filtration and "organics". Very much every single newbie that has scanned the forums and wants to do a planted tank asks about light, CO2, and fertilization. Nothing else. I take that to be a natural response to what is found on the forums. That's why topics like this one about organics make me happy. They are a chance to move forward, away from 15 years of Dark Ages.

And here's a mental experiment for all of us to try: Imagine a aquarium with low flow and visible trash on the bottom and some of the decorations. Then imagine another tank - with water moving everywhere and no trash in sight. Do you feel like BBA has more chances in tank 1 or tank 2? I believe most of us will say "Tank 2 is going to be BBA-free.". But scientific research apparently says otherwise. The conclusion is that we are used to think in a certain way but WITHOUT all the facts. If we somehow start to see at least part of the big picture (close to indefinite number of reactions that can take place in our tank) we will start to develop a mindset that will be rooted in reality better and will allow to run cleaner tanks and actually provide better solutions. Sticking with only ferts/CO2/light/water changes is an extreme partial approach although it does feel right. A feeling similar to the mental experiment that I described above.


----------



## UDGags

Great discussion and data in this thread everyone.

Here's my experience with BBA.

I started my first planted tank roughly a year ago. It's high light, EI, CO2, etc. I've had gotten BBA on three separate occasions.

1. This was my first tank since high school so I'm novice in terms of feeding fish, etc. I would always feed the fish in the same spot (front/middle). I ended up getting BBA there. Once I stopped feeding in the same spot the BBA went away.

2. When my son was born I semi-neglected the tank in terms of water changes and maintenance. I got BBA and hair algae. This was semi due to CO2 since I wasn't keeping on top of getting the tank filled and adjusting. I know this because of the hair algae since I only get when my CO2 fluctuates.

3. After I recently rescaped I was messing with my feeding again and got BBA in the spots where there was the most food.

I understand peoples stances about CO2 causing BBA but I also know its related to tank cleanliness (either directly or indirectly) from my own experiences. If I'm careful on how I feed and what I feed I tend to avoid BBA as long as I do regular water changes and everything else is in check.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Whew! Lots of things to answer (it's easier to type from my desk @ work between analysis than to do it @ home...)



happi said:


> another thing came to mind is that some people use Ascorbic Acid and Potassium Sorbate in their solution, do any of these cause anything organic?


All of those compounds have an organic component so theoretically they should contribute to the TOC of the water column. The question you have to ask yourself is 'how fast/easily are the plants able to assimilate them?' All the metal chelates are organic in nature so those should contribute to the TOC measurements. If they are assimilated by the plants faster than they can be assimilated by the algae, however, then they shouldn't be a problem. To determine this, you'd have to do sample measurements over time after dosing with a chelated Fe source, for example. That said, think we've determined that BBA seems to be caused by only certain organics, but at this point in time, it's not possible to definitively say which ones those are.



niko said:


> Now tell me why the inorganic C has to be analyzed too if the organic C is analyzed in the end?
> 
> I see that Wikipedia describes two methods - measuring the total C and the inorganic C and subtracting, and removing the inorganic C and then measuring just the organic C.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_organic_carbon


The TC (total carbon) of a sample is composed of (essentially) two components, the TIC (total inorganic carbon) and TOC (total organic carbon). Each of these carbon components exhibit different reactivity and so they are analyzed separately. The TIC is more easily reacted - simply add acid to convert the carbonates to CO2. The remaining TOC is then reacted via thermal decomposition by a persulfate as i explained previously.

To further clarify things, DOC is simply the amount of TOC in the sample after it has been filtered through a 0.45-um filter. I see that as an unnecessary step (since it's all in the aquarium and i'm sure algae are not that selective...).



niko said:


> What I do know for sure is that if you raise the CO2 in a dirty tank one thing will happen, guaranteed: Algae. Increasing the CO2 in a tank with algae and hoping that the plants will outcompete algae by brute force is a pipe dream.


Funny you should mention that because i just experienced that myself. Thinking that my one tank must have BBA because of low CO2, i tried just leaving the CO2 diffuser on 24/7 (instead of on and off w/ the lights). Within a week i got green water... Guess that isn't the answer to how to solve "low CO2"...



Tugg said:


> Is measuring the inorganic to account for deterioration in the samples? We are taking living water, sealing it up, and shipping it for days. Those hungry bugs are going to keep eating and doing their thing.
> 
> As for type of DOC, when I was reading about UV exposure, one study I read had shown then the UV doesn't directly remove a samples DOC, but it did aid the bacteria by breaking down the complex molecules to smaller more easily digested components. I would suspect that BBA is able to eat the complex DOC more easily than the other plants and microbes. Giving it an advantage in a dirty tank.


I don't think it's possible to say that TIC is the deterioration product of TOC... They're really just two different components as i stated previously... In the official sampling and testing plan, samples to be analyzed for TOC should be refridgerated and analyzed within one month's time. If you want to preserve the sample from degradation further, you can preserve them with the addition of sulfuric or hydrochloric acid to a pH less than 2 (at the expense of the TIC anaysis).

As for UV exposure, i'd recommend using caution when reading those articles. The wavelength used in the UV exposure has a tremendous effect on the efficiency of TOC degradation... The lower the wavelength, the higher the energy of the UV photons, the easier it is to degrade TOC... For example, in the water purification system we have in our laboratory, several UV lamps are utilized to reduce to TOC of the water to <10 ppb. That said, those lamps operate at ~180 nm or ~250 nm... Those UV light wavelengths are way shorter than what you will find in, say, the UV sterilizer you can buy at your fish store...



Darkcobra said:


> Are samples still being solicited?


All samples are welcomed for analysis. Just send me a PM for shipping information.

I'm glad you enjoyed reading this thread... I must admit that when i posted this thread and requested samples for analysis, i had no idea i would get the response that i did... Thanks for everyone that's contributed to the discussion here. And for the most part, the discussion has been pretty positive and highly informative (TPT may have more posters, but a lot of the time, the discussions there just end up as a giant pissing contest IMHO).

I even got a positive mention by Tom Barr himself!

http://www.barrreport.com/showthrea...row-aquatic-plants-better?p=121796#post121796


----------



## Tugg

JeffyFunk said:


> I don't think it's possible to say that TIC is the deterioration product of TOC... They're really just two different components as i stated previously...


I was just speculating as to why you would bother to measure the TIC as Niko had asked. Does the IR sensor measur while it's still in solution with the sample or as a released gas? If it's still in solution, then I can obviously see needing the initial TIC, because the later fully oxidized version would have the original inorganic, plus the newly decomposed organic (now as additional TIC).



JeffyFunk said:


> As for UV exposure, i'd recommend using caution when reading those articles. The wavelength used in the UV exposure has a tremendous effect on the efficiency of TOC degradation... The lower the wavelength, the higher the energy of the UV photons, the easier it is to degrade TOC... For example, in the water purification system we have in our laboratory, several UV lamps are utilized to reduce to TOC of the water to <10 ppb. That said, those lamps operate at ~180 nm or ~250 nm... Those UV light wavelengths are way shorter than what you will find in, say, the UV sterilizer you can buy at your fish store...


It was at 240nm if I recall correctly (can't find the link). I would think the key is to ensure you get a UVC lamp, which any true sterilzing one should have. Since we're less focused on total viral sterilization and instead looking to add the lost element of outdoor sunlight, putting even a weak one on a timer should help breakdown the larger molecules for easier consumption.



JeffyFunk said:


> All samples are welcomed for analysis. Just send me a PM for shipping information.


How much is too much? I previously brought up the idea of having clubs collect a variety of samples from their members and then ship as a group. I think we can get a lot collected this way since it won't directly cost the members anything.



JeffyFunk said:


> I even got a positive mention by Tom Barr himself!
> 
> http://www.barrreport.com/showthrea...row-aquatic-plants-better?p=121796#post121796


I'd much rather have dwalstads :clap2:


----------



## JeffyFunk

Tugg said:


> I was just speculating as to why you would bother to measure the TIC as Niko had asked. Does the IR sensor measure while it's still in solution with the sample or as a released gas? If it's still in solution, then I can obviously see needing the initial TIC, because the later fully oxidized version would have the original inorganic, plus the newly decomposed organic (now as additional TIC).


The IR sensor is physically separated from the aqueous sample chamber. In essence, the CO2 produced via acid addition (TIC) or persulfate oxidation (TOC) is collected in the sample chamber, then the sample chamber is purged, sent through a drying tube (to reduce H2O interferences) to a cell with the IR sensor. This is the best way to reduce the noise in the CO2 IR detection.

As i said before, TIC & TOC have different reactivity so they are treated differently. If you don't care specifically about TIC, then you simply ignore that part of the analysis. Also, the analysis method specifically states that you need to verify that your analytical instrument can separate the TIC component from the TOC component. Perhaps i should have said that in the first response...


----------



## Zorfox

Very well said Nikko! I completely agree with everything you've said. If history has taught us anything it's that trying to control nature always turns out badly. Does the dust bowl from the thirties ring a bell? What about all the new resistant strains of bacteria&#8230;MRSA?.

That's why I read all these academic papers. Few hobbyist realize the amount of data there is online these days. We can learn a lot from the study of natural systems. I know the old mantra about our tanks being a glass box. I just choose to ignore it. This recent research about BBA has taught me a great deal.

Here is a chapter from a book some may find interesting FRESHWATER HABITATS 
OF ALGAE. It discusses the types of algae found in various water bodies. It didn't take long to notice that most of the algae we have is found in moving bodies of water. In fact BBA is rarely found in lotic systems. The predominant algae in moving systems are generally macroscopic (can see them with the naked eye). They are generally filamentous. In lotic (calm waters) systems, the predominant algae are microscopic and non filamentous. In the heavily circulated waters of a planted tank I would expect to see these types. It makes sense.

There is speculation that the filamentous type of algae that anchor to hardscape (sound familiar) may require more nutrients which is why they position themselves in moving water. The moving water is a constant supply of fresh nutrients.



> Greater current velocity provides a continuous replenishment of nutrients from upstream and a steeper diffusion gradient near the cell surface (Whitford,1960; Horner et al., 1990).
> Page 35 of the chapter above.





> Greater densities of Audouinella hermannii were observed on substrata without large crevices, but total biomass was greatest on surfaces that were roughened, independent of the presence of crevices.
> Page 36 of the chapter above.


From the two quotes above we can see that BBA is performing as it would in nature. Not such a mystery about why it grows on filter tubes in high flow huh. If it does indeed require more nutrients then which type does it prefer? If we assume it prefers organic nutrients then it would make sense that BBA would be present in tanks with high organics. Knowing that, what would happen if we added CO2 into a tank full of plants? The plants would utilize the preferred nutrient source that the BBA relies on. So it would make sense CO2 would affect the BBA. However, if the organics were eliminated the BBA would be also. It kind of all fits.


----------



## BruceF

Off track probably.
I am interested in plants that are able to process carbon in the absence of co2. Or maybe more to my own interest plants that fair well without supplemental co2. Anyway I found this interesting in terms of what happens when in a high co2 environment that co2 availability is reduced. 

Large changes in the physiology of the plants grown under low CO2* were evident. The most important of the changes was the extent to which the plants could utilise HCO3– as a carbon source for photosynthesis. At the end of the incubation period, the plants under the reduced CO2* treatment were using HCO3– extensively, whilst those under the full CO2* treatment had lost any ability which they had previously.
DOC]
The metabolic cost of bicarbonate use in the submerged plant ...



nora.nerc.ac.uk/5358/1/JIJones.doc‎







by JI Jones - ‎2005 - ‎Cited by 16 - ‎Related articles
Keywords: aquatic plant; bicarbonate use; carbon dioxide; light; growth; ... 1985), it would be beneficial for the plant to use HCO3– by active uptake only when ...

.


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> And when I was getting into the aquascaping hobby in 1981 it was because of a person that did things in a similar way. Tiny water changes, no pumps, no CO2. And there where no heaters - the incandescent bulbs warmed up the tanks during the day and let them go cool at night! Plants where busting the tanks out of the seams every week, fish where spawning on a regular basis. There was no algae in sight.


But what plants were used in the tanks you saw in 1981? I suspect they were low light and maintenance, like anubias, swords, java. Or fast growing weeds, like hornwort, cabomba, anacharis, hygro. They're common because they're super easy and undemanding. Nowadays folks want to be able to grow any selection of plants, from any part of the world, regardless of difficulty. And _all in the same tank_, even though they might never be able to grow side-by-side in any natural environment.

As I increased my tanks' tech level, I was able to grow a lot more plants, but also _lost_ the ability to grow some. Notably, easy ones like cabomba, hornwort. I used to be able to crank these out like crazy, now they barely grow at all. Something I've noticed a few other high-tech folks also have problems with. Duckweed too, though few would miss it.  Your comment about incandescent makes me wonder if light is at least partially responsible, since I progressed from 2700K -> 4500K -> 5000K -> 6500K over the years. Though I'm not ruling out other possibilities.



niko said:


> To me the old school approach was way closer to a clean AND stable tank because everything was done without any rush. That does not make it right or wrong, but you do end up with a way, way more stable tank. Which cannot be said for a high-tech approach, not even close.


Excluding Walsted and natural style tanks (which I've never tried), I've been able to solve virtually every stubborn problem by following one general rule. If the tank tech level is high, lower it a bit; or if it's low, raise it a bit. The more I try it, the more I find the middle ground is awesome. Pure zen.

Whereas I see a lot of advice tends towards suggesting people having problems with one extreme, switch to the other extreme.

Or worse, are advised to push further into the extreme. 30ppm CO2 not working for you? Try 45, 60, or whatever the fish will "tolerate" without gasping at the surface. Must be unpleasant living _just short of gasping_, but we can't see that kind of suffering, so we can pretend all is well. If the beneficial bacteria are suffering too, we can't see that either. Sure the plants love CO2, but maybe even here we're reaching the point where there are some negative side effects to plants, which go mostly unnoticed because they're masked by positive effects. Copper is like that also, necessary yet harmful in excess; and you could raise copper to keep a tank algae-free, but would you really want to in this day and age? Here's a fun exercise, every time you see someone saying "more CO2 will solve every problem", try replacing the word _CO2_ with _copper_. Hilarity results.

Our community needs a pervasive medium-tech philosophy, in my opinion.



niko said:


> Very much every single newbie that has scanned the forums and wants to do a planted tank asks about light, CO2, and fertilization. Nothing else. I take that to be a natural response to what is found on the forums.


Of course. Give the plants light, CO2, and ferts, and we assume they take care of organics, oxygen, algae, and everything else automagically. We just don't know exactly how, and so we get into trouble when they don't perform as expected.


----------



## niko

That guy is my long lost brother!


----------



## niko

I too believe that the old school is not something we want to go back to 100%. I don't remember all the plants that where in those 1981 tanks. There were crypts, swords, Cabomba, Bacopa, Ceratopteris, Fontinalis, Valisneria, Elodea, Riccia. I can guarantee you that back then that was the best collection of tropical aquarium plants in the entire little country. I now wonder if the owner of these tanks could actually grow some "modern day" plants too despite any logic.

Funny thing, eh - the old school way allowed you to keep only certain plants. Just like Amano never uses certain plants I guess. Heteranthera, Erios come to mind. His goal is money and to make things look easy and sleek. So it looks that ADA uses very much a limited number of species because that is what works in their environment. Phil Edwards visited the ADA gallery and in his opinion the tanks are clean and healthy but they look somewhat on the weak side, as if slightly starved. On the other end of the spectrum, away from old school and ADA is EI. It makes you believe you can keep any species you want and do it "cheap and easy" as the original post says. Along with that cheap & easy promise it introduces a plethora of problems without a solution. I might agree that without EI you cannot grow certain species of plants. But how on Earth do they make in in Nature where you never, ever, find N=20 and P=2 combined with 30ppm CO2? It does start to look like the middle of the road seems to be the best of all approaches.

Something about the stability of the high tech or mid-tech tanks. I have said that before - there is a way to setup a virtually indestructible tank by using CO2, ferts, and mid or even high light. It can be left to evaporate 30% and go without water changes for many weeks. The way I have encountered that phenomenon was through another phenomenon - pure laziness. What has to happen is the tank needs to let establish VERY slowly for many weeks, months rather. One of these tanks started by being only water and substrate. There were some kind of seeds in the substrate and they sprouted. I let them grow and about 5 months later the tank was full of plants. I continued to barely take care of it and it never developed any algae. 30% evaporation, only adding water, or doing a proper water change - the tank didn't care. 

That extreme stability can be achieved intentionally by starting a tank from zero and increasing the fertilizers in the water very gradually. Letting the tanks guide the dosing. What happens is that you end up adding quite a bit of ferts but they are consumed super fast. Algae has very little chance. If it develops one to three water changes take care of it, guaranteed every time. And the tank can be let be by itself for a few weeks, possibly very long. The plants just stop growing but do not die. If anyone is interested in details do a search here on APC for "SubZero". I named that fertilizing approach that way because most of the fertilizers do not appear on common tests but since you added them yourself you know they are in the tank.

Honestly, it could be that our concern for organics and all kinds of interdependent secret bio reactions is best taken care of through patience. Letting the tank develop without forcing it. Some years ago Luis Navarro, a person that knows planted tanks like no internet guru, told me that to him a tank is fully established only after 6, possibly after 8 months! (Maybe I will run to TPT now and post that so I get all kinds of monkey reactions.) That came from a guy whose tanks appear fully established and picture perfect somewhere on week 4. One of his newly setup tanks had water so clear that I thought it was empty! Somewhere in 2004 I mentioned organics to him and he laughed and said he knows about them and takes care of them. Today, 2014, we, here on APC are talking about things that should have been in the spotlight a long, long time ago. Instead we have all the things you see me bash left and right.


----------



## Zapins

niko said:


> ADA gallery and in his opinion the tanks are clean and healthy but they look somewhat on the weak side, as if slightly starved.


I've often thought that they looked slightly starved.



niko said:


> But how on Earth do they make in in Nature where you never, ever, find N=20 and P=2 combined with 30ppm CO2?


The concentration of N=20, P=2, CO2=30 doesn't matter, what really matters is that the supply of nutrients don't run out. EI is designed to address the problem of nutrients running out during the week in small volumes of water. It does this by increasing the concentration of nutrients because there is no other easy way to increase the quantity of nutrients in a small volume of water. Light intensity and temperature are what really set plant growth rates, not the concentration of nutrients.

In lakes and ponds the ppm of N might be at a lower concentration, but it never runs out so plant are in unlimited nutrient conditions as surely as they are when kept in EI tanks at higher concentrations. I'd argue that natural bodies of water are actually closer to EI conditions than you might think. Just because the concentrations are different does not mean the idea behind unlimited growth conditions is. The concentrations in EI are higher because the body of water is smaller and so there is a constant risk that nutrients will be depleted in our tanks.

To show you what I mean, if you add 1 gram of a given fertilizer to a 10 gallon tank you'll have 1 gram / gallon. If you have a 100 gallon tank you'll need to add 10 grams to get the same 1 gram/gallon concentration right?

Now say you have the same amount of plants in both the 10g and the 100g tank. If the plants need 1 gram of fertilizer per week in both cases, then in the smaller tank they will deplete all of the fertilizer in the water by the end of the week, but in the larger tank they'll only have used 1 gram, so you'd have 9 grams left over in the big tank at the end of the week, even though the concentrations were initially the same. So in reality the plants only need 1 gram in 100 gallons per week to sustain their growth which is 0.1 grams/gallon versus the 1 gram/gallon concentration needed in the smaller tank.

This means that in larger volumes of water you can have a lower concentration of nutrients but still have a large, long lasting reservoir of nutrients compared with a smaller volume. This is why larger tanks are more stable (think of all our salt water cousins).

I believe it is this nuanced difference between concentration and quantity that allows plants to grow very well in ponds and rivers even though our test kits read 0 ppm nitrate, phosphate and ammonia. Because even if the lake has only 0.01 ppm (0 on our test kits) that is still 100's of pounds of each fertilizer available to the plants, versus our tanks which have higher concentrations but lower reservoir capacity.

Plant's are very good at finding tiny concentrations of nutrients, their nutrient transporter enzymes have a very high affinity for nutrients which allows them to do just as well in high and low concentration settings, it really boils down to whether they run out of nutrients in the water or not.


----------



## niko

Zapins,

Nice explanation, made me look at EI from another angle. I still don't like it and can come with a few easy hits right away:

For example why dump a spoon of ferts once a week instead of drop a few grains of the fert every day? For a long time now I've looked at planted tanks fertilization as a "reservoir" as you very precisely put it. Meaning that the plants do not care if the P is 0.01 or 1. They will dig it up wherever it is and use it. Ok, lots of ferts = big fert buffer, everybody always happy. But in a tank overloaded with ferts algae can explode literally overnight and be my guest and try to clean it. While in a tank with low ferts 1-2-3 partial water changes bring everybody's growth to a halt and the algae suffers way more than the plants.

If we are talking consistency here than a daily dose makes much more sense. Right now I finally made a tank that I maintain for a friend pearl and grow well and things are looking great. But I cannot make it there for another 7 days. I just added the last cap of Fluorish and my friend will not be able to add any for several days. Tank is high speed now. I worry about the very thing you are talking about - running out of traces while everything else is available. Algae will pop up in no time because N is about 8 and P is about 0.5 (discus in the tank). If the macros where closer to zero I am pretty sure the only thing that would happen is the plants stop growing.

And one last thing - if Nature is an example of a system always close to zero but never actual zero then why not try to emulate that in a tank. If I can look at the tank for 30 seconds every day then I can certainly add a few drops of ferts too. ADA does exactly that.


----------



## Zapins

niko said:


> For example why dump a spoon of ferts once a week instead of drop a few grains of the fert every day?


I used to think this was the recommended procedure as well, but I recently double checked it and the formal EI procedure is to dose a minimum of 3x a week (more is better but usually too much work for most people). The more frequent doses use smaller quantities of fertilizer in each dose. This tries to ensure that the total concentration never gets extremely high (avoids toxicity range). Micros are the only fertilizers that are at risk of overdosing and causing toxicities. This is because the recommended range for micros is fairly close to the toxic range (within 10x normal recommended dose for several ferts). So perhaps we need to re-work EI's dosing recommendations for micros.



niko said:


> But in a tank overloaded with ferts algae can explode literally overnight and be my guest and try to clean it. While in a tank with low ferts 1-2-3 partial water changes bring everybody's growth to a halt and the algae suffers way more than the plants.


To the best of my knowledge there are very few examples of cause and effect where you can definitively say "so much of this nutrient = this type of algae." Green water comes to mind. But other algae like hair algae? Green dust? Green spot? BBA? Clado? There are lots of recommendations for how to cure each type floating around the internet, but none of them seem to work 100%. Also, by the same token, if the cures worked then you'd expect to be able to trigger each species of algae at will by lowering or raising certain nutrients. Furthermore, there are lots of examples of people who keep N=20, P=2, etc. with no major algae blooms of any kind. If nutrients were solely to blame then you'd expect people with those conditions to have lots of algae.

Instead things are much more unclear. Higher light and lots of CO2 coupled with lots of fertilizers seems to be less stable than lower light tanks, but are they? Is the difference due to starving algae by placing lighting limitations the only answer? Or are there broader reasons algae comes and goes? I'm not sure anyone knows, even scientists that have devoted their careers to studying algae. I am glad we have this thread though since a lot of useful conversations are happening that I really think the hobby needs to have in order to move forwards.



niko said:


> And one last thing - if Nature is an example of a system always close to zero but never actual zero then why not try to emulate that in a tank. If I can look at the tank for 30 seconds every day then I can certainly add a few drops of ferts too. ADA does exactly that.


That is definitely one way to go about dosing, but the only reason I see to go that route is if you are 100% certain that high nutrient levels = algae. If you can't be sure of that link then the added maintenance that dosing every day requires seems a lot like "keeping the faith." I suppose you could invest in a peristaltic pump and digital timer and program it to dose continually for you. I've seen a few people who went that route and it seems to have worked for them (freemann had a really nice system for dosing.).

Lots of good points niko, I enjoy your view point.


----------



## Darkcobra

Actual micro consumption by plants is low enough that you can get away with weekly dosing, while avoiding toxicity and deficiency.

However, that's entirely dependent on the pH being low enough to ensure stability of the chelator used, so that the micros are actually available for the full week. And with the cheaper and weaker EDTA being so prevalent, that isn't guaranteed in every tank; so dosing systems are typically designed around that variable.

I dose micros (and K) daily. Not for the direct benefit of the plants, they respond no differently than if I dosed every other day. It's just easier to ask myself "did I dose today?", than "what day is it?". Otherwise I'm likely to make mistakes, and avoiding those does benefit the plants. Especially since I do not always adhere to a fixed seven-day water change cycle, I'll often delay it a day or three until more convenient. For anything dosed daily, I use conveniently measured liquid solutions. Currently dosing seven tanks, which takes about three minutes. As lazy/distracted as I often am, I can find no reason to complain about this.

For nutrients that won't adequately dissolve in liquid (Ca), and those that are non-chelated and mostly supplied by fish waste in my well-stocked tanks (NO3/PO4), I dose after water changes only. Again, the plants respond no differently than dosing daily, or every other day.

Of course all this applies to dosing systems based on continual excess. [Niko], I did check out your thread on SubZero. At first, I just looked at it like, "say whaaaat?" 

But after mulling it over for a while, it started to make sense. Under some conditions, plants can go into a torpor for long periods of time without apparent harm, remaining unchanged even for months, then start growing again when conditions are better. I get the impression you're partially triggering that adaptation, by letting the majority of nutrients run out on a daily basis. As the plants don't count on nutrients being there, they're always biochemically prepared to rapidly switch into a semi-torpid state should dosing be interrupted.


----------



## niko

Zapins,

See! Every time you attack EI you do the very thing EI employs - myopia. One sided view not considering obvious factors. And the way people make use of EI is the best example of that; Some months ago I sent private messages to a few people asking them if I actually understand EI. I didn't find anything new but I found something else. EI does call for starting with too much ferts and later tapering down to what your plants actually need. I realized that the vast majority of vociferous EI fans do not even know that they are supposed to adjust the dosage. The mantra is "N=10-20 and P=1-2" - that's what most fans do. The understanding is that the 3x a week dosing is "meant" to keep the N and P at their way-too-high levels because your plants grow big and healthy and eat a lot and you gotta feed them. Right?

So from that narrow sighted mindset stem all kinds of consequences. One of them is the pretty much complete unawareness of the role of organics. Doesn't this current thread feel like something special? It does. Because, as far as we here know, no one has gone that far before. And our "far" is not very far either but it is both special and groundbreaking. Only because of the sad state the narrow mindset has put the hobby in.

EI does not need reworking because you think that micros are toxic or I can say they turn unuseable in a flash because of chelation or whatever. It is not the one-sided fertilizing approach that needs adjustments. It is the mindset that it feeds. In the "world of EI" there is no right and wrong because it has all very simple and clear to understand and make work.

You know, for some time now I've thought that the internet does not represent what happens in the hobby 100%. Here's a very simple logic: If my tank is running well I am glad to show it and talk about it. If my tank is not doing very well I ask a few questions and get a few so-so helpful answers. I don't ask endlessly how to fix my tank. So, how many people have tanks half full of algae and an ok plant growth? We don't know. But we do see and hear from all the folk that have "great" tanks. So I don't believe that the argument that there are plenty of tanks with N=20 and P=2 that are clean is realistic. If anything the ratio is 50/50 because the Algae sub-forums are still around. All that is not to say that EI is to blame. It is, once again, the lack of a holistic view of the glass box full of water and dirt.

So here we are - overfertilize and forget about filters, flow, organics, heterotrophs, Oxygen being pumped through the roots. Make the tank dependent on the food you add. Many years ago someone told me that this planted tank hobby shows that I am too controlling. I know I am not but it made me think that in a way aquarists like to play God. We create these little worlds and we keep them going. It is wonderful to see them fluorish. If this amateur psychological analisys is true then it should be easy to suppose that God doesn't like to be wrong or frustrated because he is God. But people are different so here we are - a group of us talking about organics.

I really enjoy this thread. It has made me happy. "The internet people make me happy, Ma..."

DarkCobra,

Kudos to you for reading and trying to understand the SubZero write up. I'm pretty sure that with a number of posts about it and with a few pretty aquascapes engineered to be liked by most people SubZero would have caught up. But I never cared to go that route because I felt that it still centers everything around fertilizers and ignores the big picture. EI, PPS... who needs another fertilizer-centered dogma? The basic idea is not hard to understand - the stress is on matching the ferts to the plants requirements. You got new plants in a tank, they don't know what happen to them and how they ended up in there - ok, don't slam them with everything at once because they don't need it in industrial amounts right now. Watch them and follow what they tell you. Start with minimums that do nothing and upgrade slowly.

I've never thought why SubZero produced an extremely stable tank. I think that inadvertently I have stumbled on an interesting phenomenon. I never thought about the stability of the tank but rather I assumed that if I kept the nutrients available but close to zero I will make all my dreams come true.

My main goal was to be able to replicate something that I did years ago - made algae completely disappear from the entire tank with a single 30% water change. The only thing that I remembered from that tank was that the nutrients were there because I added them but I could not detect them with my test kits. I now have a new appreciation for SubZero. If it teaches you anything else other than "ferts are the only thing you need to worry about" it is patience and ability to notice trends. I think it'd be fair to say these are valuable things. I have a ready-to-go tank that I might actually run using SubZero to see if all that I wrote can indeed be replicated. Thank you.

And since this is a thread about organics I have to say I am very close to sending a sample to Jeffy. I have been changing water and vacuuming my big tank and from what I see everything has been very predictable. The water is sparkling clear, the BBA and some Staghorn have become minimal. Clado is still there but I expected that. To me Clado is the worst algae ever, all others are more or less predictable. Anyway - the tank is very clean. Hey, what do you expect when the vacuum dug all the way down to the glass can't suck any dirt? What I need is to continue doing what I've been doing for 10 days now so I get a feel exactly how things are going before sending the sample.


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> One sided view not considering obvious factors. And the way people make use of EI is the best example of that; Some months ago I sent private messages to a few people asking them if I actually understand EI. I didn't find anything new but I found something else. EI does call for starting with too much ferts and later tapering down to what your plants actually need. _I realized that the vast majority of vociferous EI fans do not even know that they are supposed to adjust the dosage._


Oh, that's funny. As a recovering vociferous EI fan, let me tell you exactly why that is.

Most initially learn about EI by reading a guide, written by someone other than the creator of EI. It's been a while since I read one, but I don't recall ever seeing an explicit suggestion that it should be adjusted; much less down to what plants actually need. For the keen eye there is always an obvious clue though - the sample dosing recommendations specify "high light and heavily planted".

So upon reading that guide, you may have questions. Or upon implementing it, you may have issues. In which case you ask for help on a forum, the creator often replies, and in dialogs with him you gain the following list of assertions:

1) You're supposed to adjust EI to fit your needs.
2) You cannot estimate light level, only a PAR meter will suffice.
3) You cannot test nutrient levels, because any test kit short of expensive Lamottes are unreliable.
4) You cannot estimate nutrient uptake rate based on planting density, as that's qualitative, and doesn't account for different growth rates and species.
5) Excess nutrients don't cause algae, and toxicity thresholds are so high that they're impossible to accidentally reach.

#2 thru #4 remove all _means_ the average hobbyist has of adjusting EI. #5 removes all _reason_ for adjusting EI.

#1 is therefore typically discarded as irrelevant. If it any guide were to explicitly say it should be adjusted down to near what plants actually require, the glaring contradiction would cast doubt on the entire method.

#1 then frequently serves only one purpose. When your tank hits 100ppm NO3 and 30ppm PO4 as a result of blindly EI dosing on top of a heavy fish load, GSA and GDA are everywhere, and plants are stunting and only grow briefly after each water change - then you can be told, "That doesn't cause algae, but why are you dosing so much? You were _supposed_ to adjust it". Thus simultaneously defending the method, and making you look like... well, like an idiot than cannot follow directions. (Response paraphrased for brevity, but an entirely true story from personal experience.)

And the funny thing is, the very first argument I had with Mr. Barr was that after being introduced to EI for the first time, if EI should be adjusted for light level and plant density, then shouldn't it be adjusted for other major factors like fish load too? The suggestion was brushed off as irrelevant, other discussions were equally fruitless, years go by and even I forget about this possibility. So when it actually occurred and proved to be a real issue, it took me months to figure it out. Needlessly, and this is certainly not the first time that following advice - rather than my own intuition - has led me astray.

Since then I've adopted a different mindset. While I listen to everything, I do not consider _anyone_ a "guru", and consider _all_ advice suspect. No disrespect meant to anyone, nor do I trash others' methods without very good reason. I simply find this mindset allows me to advance faster. If any method doesn't work for me as claimed, and I'm unable to find a reason, I do not waste time doubting myself or beating my head against a wall. I just consider the method inapplicable to my tanks and try something different. And neither do I limit myself from things I've been told should not work, if it seems like it might be interesting, I try it and see. Like running a high light tank at 15ppm CO2 - supposedly impossible without algae, right? Yet it's working great for me, algae is as close to nonexistent as I've ever seen. You better believe I'm going to follow up by doing other "stupid" things, I have a long list, starting with pushing it to very high light at the same CO2 level just to see what happens.


----------



## niko

DarkCobra,

What you are saying is what I have seen too. I don't think I ever got into an argument with Barr himself. I am either a coward or very smart. There are plenty of posts exchanges that showed me not to mess with that individual. What you write and even the way you write it surprise me - it's like I have come up with it.

Let's leave EI out of this thread. That's a hard for me to do but here, I said it. Since you say you always look for better things here's a better thing to do:

I don't know if you know about a huge website that describes aspect of running a planted tank. It is in Russian and you have to translate it for yourself. The author is an architect and is accustomed to provide proof and sources for everything he says. That website is the most comprehensive planted tank setup and maintenance guide ever. A lame detail is that few years back the author left his usual information-gathering lurking aside and got on a few forums. Soon he had questions for Barr (initially everything was civilized) but soon after that things went South. Guy disappeared into oblivion. It is a pity that two people that can surely contribute to this hobby for real cannot work together.

A lesson that I learned from that website is that very few people in this hobby are interested in actual knowledge. The website is also barely popular in the Russian speaking planted tank world. United Nations of Planted Tank Stupidity, ahha.

You sound like you may actually translate the site for yourself and read it. You will find many interesting things and you will like the exhaustive approach. In case you don't realize - what you are seeing is the result of the old style Russian schooling - no second chances, no multiple choice questions, and everything has to be proven and in touch with reality. Have fun but also remember that some things are lost in translation because of the style that the author uses:

Original site, works on and off:
http://amania.110mb.com

Copy of it on some other server:
http://www.bialix.com/amania/index.html

The orange menu on the right opens up everything.


----------



## Tugg

http://translate.google.com/transla...tp://www.bialix.com/amania/index.html&act=url

Google Translate makes is a bit easier to read


----------



## Zorfox

I'm not familiar with everyone's preference or perspective here. I'm an outsider looking in. I'm new here. So I'll explain my views briefly from an outsider's point of view on nutrient management. I'm not a Tom Barr groupy, TPT snob or any other nickname I may not be familiar with. I prefer logic and science. Neither of those methods ever choose sides.

EI is a concept of providing non limiting nutrients to plants. It's nothing new, been around for nearly a hundred years in horticulture. Limit nutrients and you limit plant growth. The goal with production methods are exactly that, production. Grow plants as fast as possible.

The low tech naturalist approach has been around for millions of years. Long before there was ever such a thing as a "glass box". Balancing nature in a way that is equally beneficial to all with minimal interventions is the goal. It's all about balance and stability. IMO harder than the high tech production methods.

So why is it that the lines between the two become so mottled? The EI concept will produce better than any method to date. However, it comes at the cost of stability and interventions required. So why are we comparing apples to oranges? It makes no sense to me.

More importantly this thread was about BBA. Both styles suffer from it. Growth is faster in the high tech methods as it should be. However, BBA still exists in both. Preference to organic nitrogen supply, current velocity, water change frequency, CO2 levels or any other number of things? I feel the problem with people finding the solution is viewing it as a single cause. Instead it is clearly a combination of events. Could TOC have an impact? Darn right! Could CO2 affect the proliferation of BBA? It certainly can. What's the root cause? Hmmmm.

The few samples collected point to TOC as a cause. Interesting since this is the first time I am aware it has ever happened. Is it the root cause? We will have to wait and see but it is certainly a contender.

Rather than debating the benifits of one method over the other maybe we should start looking at the commonalities of the two. BBA exists in both types.


----------



## BruceF

I don't think we look for a cause. What we look for is a trigger.


----------



## Zapins

Zorfox, everything in your last post is bang on the money.

We do need to focus on the similarities and differences between tanks to figure out what is going on here. We really need more samples from medium-high light tanks without BBA, and med-high light tanks without CO2 and no BBA to figure out what is going on.

Here is a picture of our enemy. I pulled a piece out of my tank and put it under the microscope.


----------



## Darkcobra

*[Tugg]:* Thanks for the translated link, was appreciated while the caffeine hadn't fully kicked in. 

*[Niko]:* Have seen that site mentioned before, and have now read it. I feel like I might have missed the intent of your directing me there. It is mainly EI, even credited as such. There are few concepts of other origin that I would consider small improvements, but I'm curious, what is it in particular that interested you?

*[All]:* I'm new - or at least newly active - here as well. Having a blast getting to know all of you and share ideas, but I feel like I'm contributing to pulling this thread off topic. I'll keep further non-algae/DOC responses brief.

I have tendency to overstock. Which means my tanks should tend towards higher DOC. And while NH4 doesn't accumulate to levels detectable by a normal test, I know a steady and substantial stream of it is being produced. A good and reliable food source for plants. Algae too, if they desire it.

But I'm nearing 10 years of this hobby and I've never had much trouble with BBA. I've seen others post pics of their tanks, which should be less predisposed to BBA; yet they look like some sort of aquatic furry convention. Why?

But BBA's cousin, staghorn, is another matter entirely.

After it was first introduced to my tanks several years ago, it became the plague for me that BBA is some others. It displaced BBA on outflows. And it was highly resistant to all common treatments. I had to create a new one just to keep my tanks from getting wiped out, later refined and written up as the "One-Two Punch".

With that available, I was able to conduct an exhaustive search of environmental parameters. NO3, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, and other micros as a group - all of these were tried at both high and low levels (although I never went as low as plant starvation, and some could not be lowered beyond what the fish load alone supplied). None of these had the slightest impact. Nor did 50% water changes twice weekly, or Excel from absent to 3X normal daily dosage. Even daily doses of Prime were tried, hoping to alter any influence of NH4.

Here is, at least for my tanks, the staghorn generator equation: _light * CO2 * flow_. Stated as multiplicative, because if any is high enough, it can partially substitute for others which are lower. If all three are high, watch out.

At first I tried to control staghorn using light and flow restrictions, assuming reduced CO2 was out of the question. This worked, but proved to be inconvenient in practice, because these factors are not uniform throughout the tank. To avoid all outbreaks, I had to reduce these more than I really wanted to. Or keep plants trimmed away from the top of the tank and flow channels. Very restrictive. BBA also returned on outflows, not that this particularly bothers me, but it's worth noting.

It was only when I threw out deeper assumptions, and tried restricting CO2, that I found it to be superior. No staghorn. All BBA on outflows disappeared. More GDA/GSA in some cases, especially when I switched to 15ppm CO2 under high light. This was eliminated by paring down EI dosing as much as I could without risking plant limitation, though I highly suspect adaptations occurred over time in the tank ecosystem that were responsible as well.

But I'm still not ruling out DOC, NH4, or P. All supplied by my heavy fish loads, and I didn't resort to making seafood gumbo just to test a hypothesis. Even if that did work and the gumbo was delicious, I'd still prefer limiting CO2 to limiting fish. Purigen and phosphate adsorbents also weren't tried, perhaps I should have just to see; but I have a personal bias against reliance on these types of consumables, they are another expense, and point of failure should they become used up before expected. And while I did try twice-weekly water changes, it could be that simply wasn't enough to produce a visible impact.

The availability of DOC testing is a welcome - and quite possibly superior - alternative to explore these potential issues. Not to mention that it could reveal other non-DOC surprises. So...

*[JeffyFunk]:* You're awesome for doing this. I'm waffling on which selection of my tanks might provide the most meaningful contrasts, but will continue to think it over and PM you when I've got it figured out.


----------



## Zapins

Darkcobra, Zorfox, and niko you too! You guys all need avatars 



Darkcobra said:


> [JeffyFunk]: You're awesome for doing this. I'm waffling on which selection of my tanks might provide the most meaningful contrasts, but will continue to think it over and PM you when I've got it figured out.


I can't agree with this enough. Having access to so many valid test results has really made the mysteries of the hobby accessible for the first time ever. I really appreciate what you are doing for all of us.


----------



## niko

DarkCobra,
Because that's a website that is a summary of everything actually important in the planted tank hobby in the last 10 years. No fluff, no profit, no personal agenda.

You will find one chapter that compares the 3 ways to run a planted tank. It is all "biased" toward ADA being the one and only. Except when you read the details you can not not agree.

Zapins,
You know, for many years now I have stopped looking at algae as an enemy. Algae tell us much more than "you are doing this wrong, haha". One strange thing about algae is that if you actually try to induce them it is not that easy. That's one of the reasons I believe that there is much more to the glass box than we think.

Zorfox,
Like in everything else personal and mercantile interests blur reality to get their gain. ADA did not invent anything new but most of us certainly believe that. Excessive fertilization was not invented 10 years ago in America but most people believe that is so. It was not meant to be a substitute for running a planted tank as a system but most people are convinced that it is. BBA was not something that was common in old school tanks but today most of us believe that any algae is inevitable.

What will take us forward is looking at things on a larger scale. Finding connections. ADA does not really want anyone to think too much about details - they provide a full blown system ready to go. And no surprise - there is no progress in the ADA world for many years now. Other than making more of their precious money it is all the same - the same layouts, the same products. Limit yourself and you will get limited indeed. No need to extend the example to what drives what has been happening in the US hobby for more than a decade now - it is all clear enough if one cares to see things realistically - 10-12 years ago the advice to algae issues would have been the same as it is today. Barely any progress. Here's a fresh post; Let's see the advanced advice this wide-eyed kid will get by tomorrow:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...048-best-practice-high-tech-planted-tank.html

Maybe we can start an offshoot topic stemming from this current one - "Describe your best way to start and run a planted tank". I think we will see that most people will describe something between old school and high tech.


----------



## niko

Can someone give an easy to understand explanation what is the origin and transformation of "organics" in an aquarium? 

What are the stages/states that may make them or make them lead to algae, sequester nutrients, etc.? 

How long can organics cause harm in an aquarium if not removed?

What to look for in a tank where the organics are processed well? What to look for in a tank that has a problem with organics?



To me it is all about active molecules. The waste products from animals and plants are larger molecules. Once released from the living organism they cannot exist as long, complicated structures. They start to fall apart or are broken down by different organisms. Eventually they become low-energy or inert substances but before that they gradually transition from large molecules to smaller ones. During these transition stages they can bind or release nutrients depending on different factors. This leads to an environment that is unpredictable and eventually leads to algae. 
If the above is generally true what are the details that we all need to know?


----------



## Zapins

Not sure that I have all the answers but I'll write what my understanding of it is.



niko said:


> Can someone give an easy to understand explanation what is the origin and transformation of "organics" in an aquarium?


Organics come from several places. Our tap water has some level of dissolved organics in it, this likely comes from decaying plants in or near our water source. Once in the aquarium a lot of organics come from decaying food/fish wastes. More comes from damaged plant leaves which leak out some sugars and other chemicals. As plant leaves die they decay and release their contents. As bacteria live and die so they also produce wastes which float around the tank for a while. Basically anything and everything that is alive in our tank contributes in some way to organics.

Organics "transform" by being degraded. You might start off with a large protein or carbohydrate and then as algae and bacteria work on it they tear pieces off it, or use the entire molecule for nutrients and growth. From what I've read there aren't a lot of answers on exactly how these organics are used inside algae other than if they are there, then algae can definitely use them as a food source.



niko said:


> What are the stages/states that may make them or make them lead to algae, sequester nutrients, etc.?


Not sure what this question is asking exactly.



niko said:


> How long can organics cause harm in an aquarium if not removed?


Organics are made up of millions of different molecules and so they degrade at different rates. So, when you ask how long, there are a million different answers. Generally smaller molecules are used up quickly and larger ones are slower to be removed from the water.



niko said:


> What to look for in a tank where the organics are processed well? What to look for in a tank that has a problem with organics?


I don't think you can really look for a sign of having high organics. You'd have to test the water to know. Also, I'm not sure that our tanks can process organics properly. I feel like the limited amount of space we have in our tanks coupled with the high plant and fish loads we keep makes it very unlikely that we can ever make a large enough filter to remove all organics or even close to that. Who knows though, perhaps we can.

Also, keep in mind that many of the natural processes that exist in nature to remove organics (biofilms, and algae) are not desirable in our aquariums, so we aren't really staying true to nature when we try find ways to eliminate both algae and organics.


----------



## Zapins

Random little bit of information that may shed some light on EI and why it seems algae outbreaks are inevitable. So it seems algae recover faster from deficiencies than plants do. perhaps this is why algae outbreaks occur relatively frequently? The tank develops a deficiency, plants stop photosynthesizing as much, don't grow, don't suppress algae in whatever way they do it, algae is also suppressed, then nutrient is added again plants take 3-7 days to recover (possibly longer) but algae are right back on their feet instantly, and bloom.



> In the case of green algae it has been shown that deficiencies of manganese, potassium, phosphorous, nitrogen, magnesium, iron and sulphur all reduce photosynthesis. *With algae it has been possible to show that when the deficient element is resupplied in some cases there can be a rapid (1-2 hours) recovery of photosynthesis* which preceeds the formation of new chlorophyll. Such recovery occurs in the case of manganese, potassium and phosphorous deficiencies and it has been suggested that responses of this type occur with elements that play a direct role in photosynthetic reactions


From:
The effect of nutrient deficiencies on photosynthesis and respiration in spinach, by D.E. Bottrill, J.V. Possingham and P.e. Kreidemann, C.S.I.R.O. division of horticultural research, adelaide, south Australia, plant and soil 32, 424-438(1970)​


----------



## Yo-han

I think we never get to limiting amounts of algae. I've seen an article that algae is limited in the ppb range, were plants are limited in the ppm range. So whenever you drop below the treshold for plants, algae can still scavange nutrients and thus take over.


----------



## UDGags

Zapins said:


> Random little bit of information that may shed some light on EI and why it seems algae outbreaks are inevitable. So it seems algae recover faster from deficiencies than plants do. perhaps this is why algae outbreaks occur relatively frequently? The tank develops a deficiency, plants stop photosynthesizing as much, don't grow, don't suppress algae in whatever way they do it, algae is also suppressed, then nutrient is added again plants take 3-7 days to recover (possibly longer) but algae are right back on their feet instantly, and bloom.


The issue isn't with EI in this case, its with the user. If someone keeps up with their tank maintenance and does EI regularly than theoretically you should never have a nutrient deficiency. The only time you would have a deficiency is if you stop adding fertilizers for some amount of time. The whole idea behind EI is that you have more nutrients than needed in the water column. I agree if someone goes on vacation/neglects their tank, than yes they will get algae. But I think this could be said for most fertilizer schemes when pressurized CO2 is in the mix. I think low light tanks are a bit more forgiving. One could always play with water temperature, amount of light and ramp down/up ferts, etc. as well to combat algae issues while they are away from their tank.

Personally, I've done EI and the only algae I've ever had in any large amounts is BBA on plants close to the substrate. I got this when my son was born and I neglected maintenance (he was in the NICU unexpectedly).

I'll have to see if I can get some of these papers through work to read.


----------



## Zapins

I agree with you. I think EI is a good system and it is one of my favorite ways to set a tank up, but it does seem to lend itself to instability more than other methods. Plants grow so quickly that they frequently run out of a nutrient (even if it is just for a day between doses). Not a failing of the system really, just a consequence of fast growth rate, small tank volume and inattentive hobbyists.

Yo-han, many plants take up certain nutrients in the ppb and even ppt range, it isn't just algae. Micros are one example of that. I do not know what plant's lower limit for the macro nutrients so perhaps that is what you were reading about? 

I do know that if plants are chronically grown in low nutrient conditions they up regulate certain genes and become even better at taking up low concentrations. I do not know if algae can adapt like this over time. 

I'd love to read the paper you are talking about if you can find it.


----------



## jeff5614

Yo-han said:


> I think we never get to limiting amounts of algae. I've seen an article that algae is limited in the ppb range, were plants are limited in the ppm range. So whenever you drop below the treshold for plants, algae can still scavange nutrients and thus take over.


I hope you all don't mind me jumping into the conversation. I've been following the thread and it's all very interesting and really encouraging to see some "advanced" thinking ( for lack of a better term ) concerning the hobby.

To follow up Yo-han's comment. I recall Tom Barr mentioning something similar when I asked him about limiting nutrient levels to control algae. He said that algae is never limited, their requirements are so low.


----------



## Zorfox

I do see your point Zapins. However, the EI concept is to never let nutrients become limiting. If we do we've failed. Though I do believe there is a correlation to altering the plants ability to uptake resources.

Plants do get lazy when they have resources. The energy cost of manufacturing enzymes to process nutrients and CO2 is very high. When there are plenty to go around the plant can reduce production of these enzymes directing that energy into growth. When we lower anything we force the plant to crank up enzyme production at a cost. During this time the plant is basically starving because it needs these enzymes for metabolism.

Now that said CO2 (Rubisco) and light (Chlorophyll s) can do the same thing to plants. Don't forget temperature, water flow, and probably others we haven't even thought of. Basically, we are limiting resource allocation. The plants don't respond fast. It takes time to ramp up enzyme productions. Algae can respond very quickly to changes. Put simply it is a much simpler organism. The nutrient requirements for algae are minuscule.

So exactly what triggers BBA? *IF* organic nutrient sources are preferred by plant and algae then that would be the first to get used up. When the plants are sucking things up like a vacuum that's the first to go. Now limit the plant by changing any one of the parameters up top. Plants are using very little while they ramp up enzyme production. So the organics appear in the water. Remember the algae can adapt crazy fast. Now the alga has a preferred food source. Happy days! Let's go forth and prosper.


----------



## Zapins

I appreciate your thoughts jeff5614 it is good to have you join the discussion.

My main gripe with Tom is that he says a lot of things, but never shares the names of the papers or resources that support his claims. There is no way to fact check most of what he says. Conversely, the people in this thread share the published work they read with each other so we all benefit and use it to move forwards.

The thing I'd most like to see from him is the names of the articles he read that led him to his ideas on CO2 deficiencies. He puts so much emphasis on CO2 levels being high to avoid competition and deficiencies between plants, but as far as I can tell there are very few if any journal articles that describe the visual symptoms of a CO2 deficiency. My guess though is that he does not actually have a hoard of papers on CO2 deficiency, instead I am starting to think he just states his thoughts on the topic as fact.



Zorfox said:


> I do see your point Zapins. However, the EI concept is to never let nutrients become limiting. If we do we've failed. Though I do believe there is a correlation to altering the plants ability to uptake resources.
> 
> Plants do get lazy when they have resources. The energy cost of manufacturing enzymes to process nutrients and CO2 is very high. When there are plenty to go around the plant can reduce production of these enzymes directing that energy into growth. When we lower anything we force the plant to crank up enzyme production at a cost. During this time the plant is basically starving because it needs these enzymes for metabolism.
> 
> Now that said CO2 (Rubisco) and light (Chlorophyll s) can do the same thing to plants. Don't forget temperature, water flow, and probably others we haven't even thought of. Basically, we are limiting resource allocation. The plants don't respond fast. It takes time to ramp up enzyme productions. Algae can respond very quickly to changes. Put simply it is a much simpler organism. The nutrient requirements for algae are minuscule.


I'm with you up to here, but the next bit, I'm not so sure about since I have not read anything about plants using organics, only algae does that as far as I know, though perhaps plants can as well?



Zorfox said:


> So exactly what triggers BBA? *IF* organic nutrient sources are preferred by plant and algae then that would be the first to get used up. When the plants are sucking things up like a vacuum that's the first to go. Now limit the plant by changing any one of the parameters up top. Plants are using very little while they ramp up enzyme production. So the organics appear in the water. Remember the algae can adapt crazy fast. Now the alga has a preferred food source. Happy days! Let's go forth and prosper.


On a slightly different topic, I think we need to kick each other's butts and start sending Jeffy some good samples. I've had a few from my friend's tank sitting in the fridge for the last 3-4 weeks. I hope they are still good for analyzing?

*[JeffyFunk] *- how would you feel about us organizing a thread on APC and TPT calling for water samples from people's tanks? An open invitation to send in samples for analysis? I wouldn't mind handling it for you if you don't want dozens of people messaging you. We could put in place some criteria for samples maybe even a picture of the tank requirement.


----------



## Zorfox

Zapins said:


> I'm with you up to here, but the next bit, I'm not so sure about since I have not read anything about plants using organics, only algae does that as far as I know, though perhaps plants can as well?


Exactly. Hence the IF in bold capitals. I have not seen enough research to support that claim. Although, I haven't been looking for it either :wink:



Zapins said:


> *[JeffyFunk] *- how would you feel about us organizing a thread on APC and TPT calling for water samples from people's tanks? An open invitation to send in samples for analysis? I wouldn't mind handling it for you if you don't want dozens of people messaging you. We could put in place some criteria for samples maybe even a picture of the tank requirement.


 +1

Any help needed in soliciting samples let me know. If we do that I agree a standard list of criteria would be needed. That's a lot of work for Jeffy but could be of great importance. Just let me know what I can do to help. This is a very rare opportunity to properly test organics in planted tanks.


----------



## Darkcobra

Zorfox said:


> Plants do get lazy when they have resources. The energy cost of manufacturing enzymes to process nutrients and CO2 is very high. When there are plenty to go around the plant can reduce production of these enzymes directing that energy into growth. When we lower anything we force the plant to crank up enzyme production at a cost. During this time the plant is basically starving because it needs these enzymes for metabolism.


Yes, and I feel that this is one possibility why keeping CO2 around 15ppm is producing superior results in my tanks. The plants are forced to produce more Rubisco, and aren't as "lazy". Therefore they tolerate CO2 fluctuations better than they could at 30ppm or above. While most hobbyists tend to go with at least 30ppm or nothing, I've also experimented with 5, 10, and 15ppm; the lower the average CO2 level, the larger the fluctuation a tank will tolerate before algae appears. At 5ppm I can even suddenly shut off the CO2 without issues. 15ppm has so far proven to be a good compromise between growth and stability for me, and importantly, plant health does not appear to be compromised at all.

Nitrogen is another interesting area. I've seen papers describing the following in regards to several aquatic plants:

* If ammonia is provided in excess, plant growth is highest.
* If nitrate is provided in excess, plant growth is lowest.
* If both ammonia and nitrate are provided in excess, such that either alone could provide 100% of nitrogen requirements, plant growth is somewhere in the middle.

The reason is simple enough. Nitrate is metabolically more expensive to process, consuming limited plant energy to do so. However, the plants in these studies could not _reject_ nitrate in favor of a preferred source.

Let's assume this holds true for the majority of aquatic plants. Obviously the way to maximize plant growth is to provide sufficient ammonia and zero nitrate, but that often isn't practical. Second best is to provide both ammonia and nitrate, but with nitrate in _reasonable_ amounts, so that plants don't fill up so readily on nitrate that they let ammonia linger in the system, or needlessly expend too much additional energy processing nitrate.

For brevity's sake I coined a term for this, the "buffet effect", based on the following analogy. Imagine you go to a buffet, and it has prime rib - your favorite! But will you eat prime rib alone? No. You'll also sample the fried shrimp, the mac & cheese, have a little salad, and so on. And the bigger the buffet, the less prime rib you'll eat. So if you want to get best value for your money, go to a small buffet that has prime rib. (Apologies to vegans/vegetarians, but you get the idea.)

Consider also that algae may not always follow the same rules as plants. GDA is often identified to be Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, and it can do something that the plants in the above examples cannot - when sufficient ammonia is present, it stops producing nitrate reductase. In less than a day the algae can live off of ammonia alone and reject nitrate entirely, using the energy this conserves to grow instead. If a tank is overfed with nitrates to the point where plants no longer keep ammonia low enough, this algae should have a distinct advantage over plants - as it can go straight for the prime rib! I have observed this directly in my tanks with heavy fish loads. As nitrate climbs over reasonable levels, GDA becomes increasingly more prevalent.

The "buffet effect" may also extend to other nitrogen sources as well, some of which might conceivably be specific algal triggers. It would be interesting to see if by controlling the quantity of excess nitrate, DOC could be affected. There may even be triggers based on nutrients other than nitrogen. Do I know for sure? No.

But in the face of both what is known and unknown, it serves to reason that when any dosing scheme is used where nutrients are provided in excess, only a _moderate_ excess should be provided. Enough that we can avoid accidentally crossing the line into deficiency as tank consumption fluctuates with plant growth, trimming, and other variables; without having to frequently test and alter dosages.

EI makes no attempt to do that, nor does it even acknowledge any reason to do so - its biggest failing, IMO. Compared to EI, PPS is two steps in the right direction, when I'd say only one is actually needed for many people. I usually say I use EI but that's not truly accurate, in practice I operate somewhere between the two; using a combination of water changes, infrequent tests, and reading plants/algae symptoms, all to maintain moderate excesses. Perhaps one day I will write up a formal dosing system and give it a fancy name.


----------



## UDGags

> I agree with you. I think EI is a good system and it is one of my favorite ways to set a tank up, but it does seem to lend itself to instability more than other methods. Plants grow so quickly that they frequently run out of a nutrient (even if it is just for a day between doses). Not a failing of the system really, just a consequence of fast growth rate, small tank volume and inattentive hobbyists.


If plants are running out of nutrients than the person is doing EI incorrectly. Or as you call it inattentive hobbyists. I think the core thing to take away is that maybe EI isn't the greatest for beginners or people who don't spend a lot of time on their tank.

Looking at the data though it's interesting to see the range of values on certain tanks. Just need like 50-100 more data points to get some good analysis going.



> My main gripe with Tom is that he says a lot of things, but never shares the names of the papers or resources that support his claims. There is no way to fact check most of what he says. Conversely, the people in this thread share the published work they read with each other so we all benefit and use it to move forwards.
> 
> The thing I'd most like to see from him is the names of the articles he read that led him to his ideas on CO2 deficiencies. He puts so much emphasis on CO2 levels being high to avoid competition and deficiencies between plants, but as far as I can tell there are very few if any journal articles that describe the visual symptoms of a CO2 deficiency. My guess though is that he does not actually have a hoard of papers on CO2 deficiency, instead I am starting to think he just states his thoughts on the topic as fact.


I think a lot of what Tom says is based on his personal experience over the years. Nothing beats experience in my opinion for any field. Tom does state papers every so often but I think he responds to so many posts it's impossible for him to do it every time. I'm on the fence if this is good or bad....does one cater to the beginner side or the more advanced side? There are far more beginners than there are people who are going to read research papers/articles. If one wants to build the hobby you need to get more people into it, which means cater to beginners. A beginner just wants a nice tank so telling them to turn this knob to X so they have a nice tank is going to be the most productive. If you start getting heavy into science they are just going be confused and get frustrated when everything goes haywire. There are very few beginners who have the pedigree to understand the deep "science" right away.

*But let's stay on topic*...I like people listing papers and getting into the science in this thread. I can't wait to see more data!

I sent my water samples (3) to JeffyFunk last week and it was delivered Friday so I hope we see that data this week or early next week.

DarkCobra, what's your PAR like on your tanks with 15ppm? Did you send water samples in?


----------



## Darkcobra

UDGags said:


> DarkCobra, what's your PAR like on your tanks with 15ppm? Did you send water samples in?


Unknown PAR, do not access to a meter. Light level is estimated by comparing against similar tanks of those who do. I have three tanks at 15ppm, covering low, medium, and high light. With high confidence in the classification of the high light tank, since it uses the common DD Giesemann Midday/Aquaflora combo and Icecap reflectors, it's a predictable and well-documented setup.

Will be sending samples soon. The high light tank will definitely be included, not sure which others I'll choose yet. Need to give it some thought, but focusing on construction of a LED fixture at the moment.


----------



## niko

You can get an inexpensive PAR meter from Hoppi on TPT. Except that I constantly doubt mine. Seems to show way high PAR values. He calibrates his meters with a commercial one. I compared my readings with another one of his and they were very close. 

Either way for the money ($80 I think) it's a fun thing to have. I even found a bulb that at 250W produces PAR of 1700 at about 5' away - PAR like the sun outside.


----------



## Zapins

He sells them or lends them out?


----------



## Darkcobra

Zapins said:


> He sells them or lends them out?


He builds them, it's a DIY design.



niko said:


> Except that I constantly doubt mine. Seems to show way high PAR values.


Yep. I followed his development and am familiar with the light sensor and filter he uses. The spectral response curve is wrong. You get reasonable results only if the spectral balance of the light source you use is similar to the one it was calibrated with. Early on I suggested an equally priced sensor that detects red/green/blue/white individually, which would have allowed much better correction of the response curve in software, but it wasn't pursued.

Not to be overly negative about Hoppi's PAR meter, as I'm glad such an inexpensive option exists, that he had the initiative to pursue it to completion, and furthermore offers completed meters. A dubious quantitative estimate is still better than none at all. And if I were starting in the hobby today, with all the confusion I went through trying to determine whether any problem was related to light or something else, I would snatch up an $80 DIY PAR meter in a heartbeat regardless of accuracy.

But the more experienced I become, and the more reference points the community generates, the less I find I want or need to own a PAR meter. The only time I find myself wishing for one is when I encounter someone who has the attitude "you can't make any useful observations without one". And on principle, I wouldn't spend $80 just to try to placate them. It would probably be futile anyway, they could then claim the same if I don't own a commercial meter. Or a particular brand. Or a PUR meter, or Lamotte tests for associated nutrient levels...

And even commercial meters can mislead you. There was a recent thread on TPT, I think it was a representative of Apogee who stated that they use such a sharp infrared cutoff filter, that it won't read properly for LED fixtures which extensively use deep red 650nm LEDs to optimally stimulate the absorption peak of chlorophyll A. Such things just weren't anticipated when the meter was designed, and switching to a different filter now would affect accuracy in other situations, causing confusion.


----------



## BriDroid

Interesting thing happened to my tank, the one with high organics. I travel out of town two weeks at a time, so my wife does my top offs (open top tank) and dumps the pre-measured frets in while I'm gone.

Long story short, I got a RO Buddie got Christmas and pretty much gave up on my current tank. Decided when I got back in town I was going to tear it down, give it a through cleaning, and set it up with RO water.

I got back this last Saturday and the tank is spotless. All the algae is gone and the water is crystal clear! All I changed is the water I had her top it off with was 5 gallons of RO water. Same fret regimen and feedings.


----------



## niko

BriDroid said:


> Interesting thing happened to my tank, the one with high organics. I travel out of town two weeks at a time,... I got back this last Saturday and the tank is spotless. All the algae is gone and the water is crystal clear!.....


I think that has to do with letting the tank do its thing. Remember what someone reliable had told me - it takes 6-8 months for a tank to establish. And just yesterday I talked to "one of us" - a guy that had aquariums in his blood. He had done both salt and freshwater, worked as a maintenance tech in the past and so on, had different tanks, fish etc. To him it was a simple thing to make an aquarium stable - let it establish by itself and use mainly biofiltration. Funny, eh?

One thing that seems confusing about organics is that we all know tanks that have visible trash but they stay algae free all the time. And the opposite is true - a spotless tank may need constant care to stay that way. That's why I think it is more about the processes that take place than overall cleanliness.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Hi everyone! Couple of comments...



UDGags said:


> I sent my water samples (3) to JeffyFunk last week and it was delivered Friday so I hope we see that data this week or early next week.


UDGags - i got your samples and will try to get them analyzed sometime. At this time, the TOC analyzer is being repaired (the autosampler got out of alignment and needs to be recalibrated). Once that gets back, i'll let you all know, etc... As for that TPT thread asking for samples, i'll get that posted once i get the TOC autosampler back as well. (I find there are more diva attitudes on TPT, which is why i posted on APC first... just my observation).



Darkcobra said:


> Yes, and I feel that this is one possibility why keeping CO2 around 15ppm is producing superior results in my tanks.
> 
> ....
> 
> Nitrogen is another interesting area.
> 
> ....
> 
> But in the face of both what is known and unknown, it serves to reason that when any dosing scheme is used where nutrients are provided in excess, only a _moderate_ excess should be provided. Enough that we can avoid accidentally crossing the line into deficiency as tank consumption fluctuates with plant growth, trimming, and other variables; without having to frequently test and alter dosages.
> 
> EI makes no attempt to do that, nor does it even acknowledge any reason to do so - its biggest failing, IMO. Compared to EI, PPS is two steps in the right direction, when I'd say only one is actually needed for many people. I usually say I use EI but that's not truly accurate, in practice I operate somewhere between the two; using a combination of water changes, infrequent tests, and reading plants/algae symptoms, all to maintain moderate excesses. Perhaps one day I will write up a formal dosing system and give it a fancy name.


Darkcobra - First of all, the topic of nitrogen is WAY beyond this topic. The issue i have with nitrogen specifically is that it can be found in so many different forms and i'm sure they all are treated by the plants differently. Off the top of my head, nitrogen can be dosed in the chemical forms of... nitrate, nitrite, ammonium (Let's leave ammonia out of this since we know the equilibirum is pH dependant), urea and guanidinium. And of course there's the cation to consider in these salts as well...

Second, I find the notion that limiting CO2 to be very interesting. How were you able to test and/or measure the amount of CO2 in your tank?

Thinking about this more has gotten me thinking about the following question: (Yes, i know this is totally off the topic, but it's an interesting thought and can be broken off later if needed...).

*If nutrients can be thought of as having deficient, optimal, excessive, and toxic ranges, what do the excessive and toxic ranges of CO2 look like FOR PLANTS?!*

As far as i know, everyone talks about CO2 excess in relationship to fish and shrimp but never plants. Is it even possible to have excess or toxic levels of CO2? If we consider that DarkCobra has had better luck w/ his tank using 15 ppm CO2, can we conclude that it is possible that excess CO2 is causing the proliferation of BBA? Could it be that having excess CO2 causes the plants to pig out (i.e. buffet analogy) only on CO2 and ignore the 'organics' in the water column? Could it be that excess CO2 and 'organics' together trigger algae? If there is such thing as 'excess CO2', does that not conflict w/ reports about emergent plants (like marijuana and poison ivy) growing better in CO2 enriched grow atmospheres/chambers?

Thoughts? Is this not the craziest thing you've ever heard or what?!


----------



## Zapins

Yes it is possible to have CO2 toxicity. You'll find a lot of papers on that due to the whole "human caused CO2 & global warming" trend. I do not know what the corresponding CO2 levels are for aquatic plants in submersed form since the bulk of the CO2 in the water is in carbonic acid form which is not the same as CO2. I have not chosen to read about toxicity to this point, but perhaps I will now that you bring the subject up, it seems an interesting topic and something worth reading about.

Two papers which I found recently seem to have some relevance to your points/questions:

CO2 Toxicity and Deficiency symptoms:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01904169009364136?journalCode=lpla20#preview

Thoughts on CO2 limitation/excess:
http://www.cedarcreek.umn.edu/biblio/fulltext/t1690.pdf


----------



## BriDroid

niko said:


> I think that has to do with letting the tank do its thing. Remember what someone reliable had told me - it takes 6-8 months for a tank to establish. And just yesterday I talked to "one of us" - a guy that had aquariums in his blood. He had done both salt and freshwater, worked as a maintenance tech in the past and so on, had different tanks, fish etc. To him it was a simple thing to make an aquarium stable - let it establish by itself and use mainly biofiltration. Funny, eh?
> 
> One thing that seems confusing about organics is that we all know tanks that have visible trash but they stay algae free all the time. And the opposite is true - a spotless tank may need constant care to stay that way. That's why I think it is more about the processes that take place than overall cleanliness.


Niko, great observation. On a side note, I stopped the EI dosing and went to the DIY Tropica recipe. Maybe that, combined with the "leave it alone" is that answer?????? I just thought it was really interesting, because when I left, the tank looked BAD!


----------



## jeff5614

Zapins said:


> Yes it is possible to have CO2 toxicity. You'll find a lot of papers on that due to the whole "human caused CO2 & global warming" trend. I do not know what the corresponding CO2 levels are for aquatic plants in submersed form since the bulk of the CO2 in the water is in carbonic acid form which is not the same as CO2. I have not chosen to read about toxicity to this point, but perhaps I will now that you bring the subject up, it seems an interesting topic and something worth reading about.
> 
> Two papers which I found recently seem to have some relevance to your points/questions:
> 
> CO2 Toxicity and Deficiency symptoms:
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01904169009364136?journalCode=lpla20#preview
> 
> Thoughts on CO2 limitation/excess:
> http://www.cedarcreek.umn.edu/biblio/fulltext/t1690.pdf


Here's an interesting thread regarding decreasing CO2 levels on Tom's site. Of course, he refutes most of the OP's observations but it's interesting anyway.

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/13239-Decreasing-c02-observations


----------



## BruceF

I don't know how to link to this doc but,anyway . The suggestion here is that under higher co2 levels the plants will lose their ability to take up carbon in other forms. Hence it would seem the fluctuation of co2 levels being delivered would have deleterious effects on those plants.

"The plants which had been subjected to the higher CO2* concentration showed a significant decrease in HCO3- utilisation, when compared with the starting population (p < 0.05, Table 2). After 21 days of incubation, the full CO2* plants were unable to use HCO3- as a carbon source for photosynthesis, whereas the reduced CO2* plants were able to use HCO3- in photosynthesis at a rate equivalent to about one third of that when CO2* was plentiful (Table 2). "

[DOC]
The metabolic cost of bicarbonate use in the submerged plant ...

nora.nerc.ac.uk/5358/1/JIJones.doc‎


----------



## niko

Funny thing we started talking about too much CO2 maybe leading to BBA. I just came back from servicing a tank that I thought I had all figured out. The plants are pearling like crazy. Growth is spectacular. And BBA has come back.

I do not see anything that I can think of that will make the BBA appear again. The dosing is down, the fish feeding has been reduced. I have been vacuuming most of the substrate the last 3 weeks. The flow is vastly improved after removing a big plant from the tank 2 weeks ago. On day 2 after a water change the water looks perfectly clear.

The only thing that is different from before that I can tell is that the CO2 is now more. I did that because after removing the big plant and trimming quite a few of the other plants a lot of light entered the tank - shading is way, way less now. Of course you need more CO2. Or so we all think. Organics or not, CO2 suffocating the filter or being "too available" for the plants... I really do not have an answer this time.


----------



## Cavan Allen

I'm starting to think that at some point, a substrate just gets too dirty and you have to start over.


----------



## Darkcobra

JeffyFunk said:


> Darkcobra - First of all, the topic of nitrogen is WAY beyond this topic.


Yep, I know.  I even said I'd try not to get off topic again, just can't seem to help myself, the flow of ideas here is AMAZING. Starting another thread is probably a good idea, but as the OP, I'll let you (or a mod) make that call.



JeffyFunk said:


> Second, I find the notion that limiting CO2 to be very interesting. How were you able to test and/or measure the amount of CO2 in your tank?


When I was keeping my tanks at 30ppm, I used a commercial 4°KH reference solution, API pH test drops, and aimed for lime green. For 15ppm, I simply make a bottle of 2°KH by mixing 4°KH and distilled water 1:1, using large enough quantities to minimize measurement errors; then use the new reference and aim for the same color.

Note also that CO2 in all three tanks is supplied by DIY (yeast), with a single bottle per tank, and each bottle/recipe set to run for three weeks with an _average_ color of lime green. At the beginning, it's a bit more yellow. At the end, more blue _and plant growth rate visibly drops_.

Hardly exact, but the really interesting thing is that _it doesn't need to be_. I have a pressurized CO2 system I used to use on the high light tank. Yet I'm getting more consistent algae prevention now with ~15ppm - _despite_ the inherent fluctuations of single-bottle DIY - than I got with 30ppm pressurized. Choosing to use DIY instead of pressurized, and especially running single DIY bottles longer than I really should, are in part _deliberate_ disadvantages I've imposed on myself. I don't just want a tank that works when everything is done consistently right, I want as close to foolproof as possible; and to properly test that, I have to act the fool. 



JeffyFunk said:


> *If nutrients can be thought of as having deficient, optimal, excessive, and toxic ranges, what do the excessive and toxic ranges of CO2 look like FOR PLANTS?!*


I don't know. Toxic threshold must be really high. Tom Barr runs his tanks at 45-60ppm. At least one person runs at 90ppm in fishless tanks to quickly farm salable plants. And on the flip side, [Zapins] had a great thread about the "myth" of CO2 deficiency, discussing whether it's actually harmful to plant health in all cases, or sometimes just a growth rate limitation. (Finding that thread, followed by this one soon after, is what enticed me to go from occasional lurker to active here.)

RuBisCo is a plant enzyme that aids in efficient CO2 collection. It's metabolically expensive to produce, so plants make only as much as needed. It also takes substantial time to ramp up production in response to a drop in CO2 levels.

Plants can use a lot of CO2, probably more than we normally supply, especially with increasing light. But I wondered if at 30ppm if plants were already producing so little RuBisCO, that they might be intolerant to even slight downwards fluctuations. A series of tests were performed in low and medium light tanks, at 5, 10, 15, and 30ppm DIY CO2. Subject to drop checker accuracy of course, and at the lowest levels I had to rely more on recipe manipulation to alter production rate than measurable levels. In each test the bottle was allowed to naturally taper off and then run completely out, and plant and algae response was noted. Tests were also done where CO2 was abruptly shut off.

In every case without exception, the lower the _peak_ CO2 level, the more it could _drop_ without causing algae, and _less_ algae resulted. At 10ppm I was almost unable to produce algae except by shutting CO2 off abruptly. At 5ppm, I was unable to cause any algae whatsoever. Exactly as I expected, though I can't say if it's for the _reason_ I expected.

I did _not_ expect to be able to run a high light tank at 15ppm. Just for giggles, I tried it anyway. It didn't work so well at first, GDA/GSA was a serious issue for a few weeks. But I expected far worse than that, so I persisted. And was rewarded.

For a month now, it has been the most algae-free high light tank I have ever run. And the plants are doing well, merely growing slower as expected, showing that CO2 is definitely a limitation. Alternanthera reineckii is the only plant that's not doing well, new growth is stunted and deformed; but that was an issue that existed prior to starting this experiment. I'm just now starting to work on that, as I didn't want to potentially disrupt the experiment with another variable.

I am not ruling out possibilities other than my original RuBisCO hypothesis. Like these:



JeffyFunk said:


> If we consider that DarkCobra has had better luck w/ his tank using 15 ppm CO2, can we conclude that it is possible that excess CO2 is causing the proliferation of BBA? Could it be that having excess CO2 causes the plants to pig out (i.e. buffet analogy) only on CO2 and ignore the 'organics' in the water column? Could it be that excess CO2 and 'organics' together trigger algae?


All feasible and worth looking into, plus more. There are probably several effects working in tandem. I do have have high fish loads, odd tapwater (GH=0, KH=8 ), and maybe other unknown but significant variables which may be uncharacteristic of the majority of tanks; so this may be a "sweet spot" for me, but not for others. Won't know until other people try, I'd really love to see if these results are replicable and under what conditions - DOC included. If anybody is up for it, I'd recommend in low/medium light tanks for now. High light is more experimental, I did have problems at first; so try that only if you're willing to assume some risk, and can easily turn things around should they go south.



Cavan Allen said:


> I'm starting to think that at some point, a substrate just gets too dirty and you have to start over.


Another possibility. I have seen evidence of this. Although with inert substrates, I've so far been able to rejuvenate them with a series of dilute H2O2 injections.


----------



## UDGags

> UDGags - i got your samples and will try to get them analyzed sometime. At this time, the TOC analyzer is being repaired (the autosampler got out of alignment and needs to be recalibrated). Once that gets back, i'll let you all know, etc... As for that TPT thread asking for samples, i'll get that posted once i get the TOC autosampler back as well. (I find there are more diva attitudes on TPT, which is why i posted on APC first... just my observation).


I had to smile at this...our autosamplers break quite often on our thermal analysis equipment (DSC, etc.) as well.



> I don't know. Toxic threshold must be really high. Tom Barr runs his tanks at 45-60ppm. At least one person runs at 90ppm in fishless tanks to quickly farm salable plants. And on the flip side, [Zapins] had a great thread about the "myth" of CO2 deficiency, discussing whether it's actually harmful to plant health in all cases, or sometimes just a growth rate limitation. (Finding that thread, followed by this one soon after, is what enticed me to go from occasional lurker to active here.)


I'm somewhere in the 60-80ppm range as well and don't believe it's toxic or even close. Emergent plants in air see such higher values I find it hard to believe when they get submerged those values suddenly become toxic.


----------



## Zapins

My guess is that the CO2 wouldn't be the toxic part but rather the carbonic acid if a toxicity can happen at all underwater. There is 1000x more CO2 in carbonic acid form than CO2 gas in water.


----------



## rjordan393

Can oxygen be a limiting nutrient and is it related to CO2 and bba. Lets look outside of the box for a moment. How much oxygen does a plant need overnight to stay healthy? I read an article on the net that stated that plants can survive at an oxygen level of 2 ppm. (fish would die at that level). But it did not described how the plants looked. I believe it is assumed by many that plants will produce sufficient oxygen during photosynthesis to feed the plants overnight. But do they? In a heavenly planted tank, I suspect they do. But what about tanks with less plants?
I consider my tank about medium planted or slightly less. The only algae I have now is a thin film on the glass. Up to a week ago, I had black spot algae and now it is gone and the reason for this is twofold. I started dosing hydrogen peroxide every night at 60 ml per 64 gallons which is close to the actual volume of water in my 75 gallon tank. Hydrogen peroxide has properties that will kill bacteria and algae and it can also wipe out your biofilter if overdosed. So you ask, what does oxygen have to do with all this? Well one other property of hyd. peroxide is that it breaks down into oxygen.
Now my plants appear healthy and with no signs of black spot algae. So if one is dosing CO2, then I submit that one also has to provide sufficient oxygen overnight to cancel out the amount of CO2 added during photosynthesis. A small power head controlled by a timer, aimed at the surface will do this. So now I am cutting back on the hyd. peroxide to 30 ml because the bsa is gone and I will stop using it after this week to see if it shows up again. It just might well be that the power head by itself, will provide sufficient oxygen to prevent bba or bsa. Now I believe both bba and bsa are related and the extra oxygen provided by hyd. peroxide is just a treatment and not a cure. I look forward to more questions about "Dissolved Organics" which may be the source of both bba and bsa.


----------



## Darkcobra

rjordan393 said:


> I started dosing hydrogen peroxide every night at 60 ml per 64 gallons which is close to the actual volume of water in my 75 gallon tank.


Was this applied as a spot treatment, or as a whole tank treatment; and for how many nights did you use this dose? If you have an existing thread with details, a link would be great.


----------



## niko

I like the suggestion that Rjordan made. 

Earlier in this thread someone said something about hitting minimums/maximums in the tank - basically constantly trying to stay within some narrow "sweet spot" - knowingly or not. IF BBA indeed shows up mainly in connection with organics then it would be logical to suppose that fluctuations in the processing of these organics will determine if today you don't have BBA but tomorrow you start to see them. Here it looks like we will all agree that Oxygen seems to improve filtration - clean your filter, shake up your gravel, add a little more surface movement and usually the next day the water is clearer and the fish often look perkier too.

That of course is a simple empirical observation connecting the biofilter to the processing of organics. Your biofilter may not have too many organisms actually processing organics for example. But the general idea seems to make sense - some factors (Oxygen) affect other factors (the biofilter) which leads to reduction/oxidation of factors ("organics") that may lead to algae. If high CO2 means lower O2 then things may make sense.

So to clarify:- Is high CO2 concentration indeed cause lowering of the Oxygen concentration as most of us think?

On a larger scale: Do you think that Oxygen has a farther reaching role in the tank than we all normally think - (help the dark phase of the photosynthesis + support the biofilter)?


----------



## Zorfox

I have serious doubts whether the actual CO2 concentration can become toxic to aquatic plants. Typical CO2 concentrations on injected systems never approach atmospheric levels, currently around 392ppm. Ninety five percent of our plants are emerged seasonally. Even if we had CO2 concentrations of 100ppm, the plant can obviously tolerate levels 4 times this high during emergent growth. However, CO2 has other impacts to consider within an aquatic environment primarily PH changes.

The CO2 gas injected undergoes changes based on the carbonate system. The resulting dissolved inorganic carbon pool is primarily bicarbonate. 


> The sum of all dissolved carbon forms composes the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) pool. A small fraction of DIC (<1%) remains in the form of dissolved CO2, while the rest is converted into HCO3- (bicarbonate) (~90%) and CO32- (carbonate ions) (~9%) with the consequent release of H+ and progressive decrease of pH [135].


Naturally injecting CO2 changes the PH. We all know this; in fact we use this to control CO2 injection. These changes in PH have significant impacts on the mineralization of organics by bacteria.

Organics start as large molecules. The bacteria processing these are unable to perform intra cellular processing due to the size of the molecules. So they utilize extra cellular enzymes to pre process organics into smaller molecules that can further be reduced. The predominant type of enzyme reduction is oxidation. This would suggest that higher levels of O2 would accelerate the process. In fact, that's why a wet/dry filter can process organics at a higher rate.

The enzymatic process is impacted by PH to a large degree. I notice that Darkcobra is running CO2 24 hours per day. So there will be little PH changes compared to injected systems which turn off CO2 at night. Could this PH change alter the mineralization rate? It seems to be a valid question.



> Several studies have reported that, in freshwater habitats, Leu-amp has a narrow pH optimum of ca. 7.5, with low activity at pH <6-7 and rapid decline in activity above pH 8.5-9 [91-93] whereas algal activity within periphyton communities can cause pH to exceed 9 [94-99]. However, for periphytic Leu-amp, displaying higher pH optima (> 9.75), a stimulation of enzymatic activity by photosynthetic activity can also occur [60].


The quotes above are from a paper I had read long ago, Bacterial Extracellular Enzymatic Activity in Globally Changing Aquatic Ecosystems. When Darkcobra said he ran CO2 24 hours it made me remember the impact of PH on bacterial mineralization.

The papers below are also interesting. They suggest increased uptake of trace metals and other toxic substances under high CO2 levels for terrestrial plants. I found those interesting since injecting CO2 could possibly exaggerate toxicity of trace elements.

Increased mercury in forest soils under elevated carbon dioxide

Plant and Soil Mediation of Elevated CO2 Impacts on Trace Metals


----------



## Darkcobra

Zorfox said:


> The enzymatic process is impacted by PH to a large degree. I notice that Darkcobra is running CO2 24 hours per day. So there will be little PH changes compared to injected systems which turn off CO2 at night. Could this PH change alter the mineralization rate? It seems to be a valid question.


That's an interesting idea. With 15ppm CO2 and 8°KH, my tanks do not go below about 7 pH - whereas at 30ppm they do - and that may be significant. Perhaps I should try raising my KH to the point where I can maintain the same pH, but at 30ppm CO2, and see what happens.

Back when I was running pressurized @ 30ppm, I did try shutting it off at night, or not. I don't recall any major difference so long as I had the level decent again by lights on, but that was some time ago, and I wasn't keeping detailed journals like I am now.



Zorfox said:


> The papers below are also interesting. They suggest increased uptake of trace metals and other toxic substances under high CO2 levels for terrestrial plants. I found those interesting since injecting CO2 could possibly exaggerate toxicity of trace elements.


I was mulling over what [rjordan393] said. His oxygen idea is interesting too. But I wanted to comment on this in particular, which in a way also ties in to your comment:



rjordan393 said:


> So if one is dosing CO2, then I submit that one also has to provide sufficient oxygen overnight to cancel out the amount of CO2 added during photosynthesis. A small power head controlled by a timer, aimed at the surface will do this.


Adding H2O2 won't raise pH. But either shutting off CO2 or increasing surface agitation at night will. If it rises enough, then it will start to break down EDTA chelated traces. Which could reduce toxicity, if present, by reducing both available levels and pH-related uptake. (Or if levels are marginal, possibly cause a deficiency, so that axe can swing either way.)


----------



## rjordan393

The hydrogen peroxide was used as a whole tank treatment with the pumps running and the lights out. There are a few articles on the net about treating a tank with it or spot treating. But I caution those to measure it and not just open the bottle and pour some in. I dosed for 7 nights at 60 ml per 64 gallons and now I am dosing at 30 ml for another week and then cease it and keep a close watch to see if the black spot algae re-appears. One important thing; if you dose it, use the 3% solution. Also I trimmed all affected leaves before the treatment and a few more after the treatment started.
See these articles:
http://www.h2o2.com/products-and-services-/us-peroxide-technologies.aspx
http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/Hydrogen_peroxide
http://fish.bakerweb.biz/peroxide.html

Now on the article Called "Jerry's Planted Aquarium Pages" he has dosed up to 15 ml per 9 gallons which is much higher then my dose and he reports no ill effects. The article does not state how many days/nights it was dosed. So take it with a grain of salt.

The article from the Aquarium Wiki is the one that I follow. Also be aware that hydrogen peroxide will oxidized ferrous iron, manganese, arsenic, and selenium. Ferrous iron caught my eye as I dose this occasionally. This is one of the two reasons I dose hyd. peroxide at night. the other is that it is more effective at night because light breaks it down quicker. This is why the manufacturer puts the product in an dark bottle.


----------



## rjordan393

The first url is not recognized. but if you go directly to US Peroxide web site, you will find all you need to know. Notice what it says about organic oxidation. Here is a sample of the information.

H2O2 Stand-Alone Applications



Odor control

Oxidizes hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans, amines and aldehydes. Hydrogen peroxide may be applied directly to aqueous wastes containing these odorants, or to wet scrubbers used to remove them from airstreams. If the odors are the result of biological activity, H2O2 may instead be added as a preventative to eliminate the anoxic conditions which favor the generation of odors. 

Corrosion control

Destroys residual chlorine and reduced sulfur compounds thiosulfates, sulfites, and sulfides) which form corrosive acids when condensed onto processing equipment and oxidized by air. 

BOD/COD removal

Oxidizes both organic and inorganic pollutants which contribute to BOD and COD -- catalytic, hydrogen peroxide may be needed to oxidize the more resistant substances. hydrogen peroxide may also affect BOD/COD removal by enhancing the performance of other processes (see below). 

Inorganic oxidation

Oxidizes cyanides, NOx/SOx, nitrites, hydrazine, carbonyl sulfide, and other reduced sulfur compounds mentioned above (odor/corrosion control). 

Organic oxidation

Hydrolyzes formaldehyde, carbon disulfide, carbohydrates, organophosphorus and nitrogen compounds, and various water-soluble polymers; and (with catalysis) destroys phenols, BTEX pesticides, solvents, plasticizers, chelants, and virtually any other organic requiring treatment. 

Metals oxidation

Oxidizes ferrous iron, manganese, arsenic, and selenium to improve their adsorption, filtration, or precipitation from process waters and wastewaters. 

Toxicity reduction/Biodegradability improvement

With catalysis, chemically digests complex organics into smaller, less toxic and more biodegradable fragments. 

Disinfection/Bio-control

Checks excess biogrowth in water supplies and cooling circuits, and (with catalysis) disinfects process waters and biological effluents.


----------



## Darkcobra

rjordan393 said:


> The hydrogen peroxide was used as a whole tank treatment with the pumps running and the lights out.


Thanks! I typically use H2O2 in a different way. Due to a large number of people who tried this method, I learned the effective vs. hazardous dosage varies from tank to tank, based on multiple variables - some of which aren't yet identified. Mine require/tolerate more H2O2 than most. Experimenting with various small daily doses, I was never able to do more than slow algae growth at best. It's good to know this does work better for some people.


----------



## Zapins

rjordan393 said:


> Can oxygen be a limiting nutrient and is it related to CO2 and bba. Lets look outside of the box for a moment. How much oxygen does a plant need overnight to stay healthy? I read an article on the net that stated that plants can survive at an oxygen level of 2 ppm.


Plants can be O2 deprived, but it is unlikely since they make O2 during the day. Also, many of the algae threads we see on the forums are in newly setup tanks where oxygen shouldn't be limiting.

Also, the symptoms of O2 deprivation are rapid death (within a few days).



rjordan393 said:


> Now I believe both bba and bsa are related and the extra oxygen provided by hyd. peroxide is just a treatment and not a cure.


Peroxide breaks down into a radical which is just a single oxygen. This radical is very unstable and binds to cells and rips them apart as it finds something to bind with and become stable. Most cells have peroxidase which is an enzyme that helps the radical find an appropriate partner without damaging the cell, this makes O2 which is released in a fizz of bubbles. So, the toxic effect that hydrogen peroxide has on algae isn't because of the O2, it is because of the O that damages the cell before O2 is made.



Zorfox said:


> I have serious doubts whether the actual CO2 concentration can become toxic to aquatic plants. Typical CO2 concentrations on injected systems never approach atmospheric levels, currently around 392ppm. Ninety five percent of our plants are emerged seasonally. Even if we had CO2 concentrations of 100ppm, the plant can obviously tolerate levels 4 times this high during emergent growth. However, CO2 has other impacts to consider within an aquatic environment primarily PH changes.


I agree with this. I doubt CO2 itself harms the plants, it would be more likely to be the carbonic acid formed by too much CO2 that hurts the plants. The pH can decrease at most to 5.5 under normal conditions, which is fairly acidic. This inhibits the filter bacteria, and may also inhibit certain species of plants. So, perhaps the story of CO2 toxicity is not that the gas hurts plants but rather the acidity caused by the CO2 hurts the plants?



Zorfox said:


> ... This would suggest that higher levels of O2 would accelerate the process. In fact, that's why a wet/dry filter can process organics at a higher rate.


This makes sense, and I suspect this is the role of O2 in our aquariums. The problem is you cannot increase the concentration of O2 in our aquariums very easily. I believe about 8 ppm is the most our warm tank water can absorb.



Zorfox said:


> The enzymatic process is impacted by PH to a large degree. I notice that Darkcobra is running CO2 24 hours per day. So there will be little PH changes compared to injected systems which turn off CO2 at night. Could this PH change alter the mineralization rate? It seems to be a valid question.


When pH is at the extremes like 5.5 or 8.5 it definitely plays a significant role. What do you mean by mineralization rate? Most micro nutrients seem to be more soluble and usable in lower pH environments.



Zorfox said:


> The papers below are also interesting. They suggest increased uptake of trace metals and other toxic substances under high CO2 levels for terrestrial plants. I found those interesting since injecting CO2 could possibly exaggerate toxicity of trace elements.


An interesting idea, I think this is what happened in Cavan's "trouble on the farm" post. The link to my thoughts on it is below, and a summary of what was discussed is here:



zapins said:


> I'm not calling it for certain but it is something to think about. Why are your zinc levels higher in your tank? Isn't it interesting that the symptoms match, and you said the plants seem to recover if you do frequent water changes? Water changes would flush out accumulated zinc resetting it to the 0.12 ppm mark and *also increase the pH for a short amount of time. Also, as you gun your CO2 higher and higher over the week the acidity increases making more zinc soluble*. I wonder if excess zinc isn't your issue?


*From: *
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/88403-trouble-farm-help-9.html#post660574​


----------



## Zorfox

Darkcobra,
I don't think increasing the KH would make much of an impact. Instead maintaining a stable PH may be more beneficial. I included the fact that O2 levels can affect decomposition of organics as a result of rjordan393 comment. Both oxygen and CO2 impact other things beyond plant metabolism. I think this idea has been largely ignored in the hobby.

When we refer to CO2 injection, most apply this to the plants without much regard to anything else except the fish or shrimp. We assume as long as it's good for plants we should add as much as possible without killing our fish. However, how many people consider the effects to the other processes at work including reduction of organics by bacteria? Our tanks are more than fish and plants. The balance of this eco system is not as stable as we may like to think.



Zapins said:


> I agree with this. I doubt CO2 itself harms the plants, it would be more likely to be the carbonic acid formed by too much CO2 that hurts the plants. The pH can decrease at most to 5.5 under normal conditions, which is fairly acidic. This inhibits the filter bacteria, and may also inhibit certain species of plants. So, perhaps the story of CO2 toxicity is not that the gas hurts plants but rather the acidity caused by the CO2 hurts the plants?


We know for a fact the bacteria are hindered at extreme PH ranges. There are countless studies proving this. How many of those studies varied PH as we do with CO2? We know plants have to adapt to changing CO2 levels. We seem to ignore that bacteria may also be impacted by PH. It's possible the constant fluctuations impact bacteria more than a single PH extreme.



Zapins said:


> This makes sense, and I suspect this is the role of O2 in our aquariums. The problem is you cannot increase the concentration of O2 in our aquariums very easily. I believe about 8 ppm is the most our warm tank water can absorb.


The oxygen demand for bacteria, fish and plants would be low. Just like Liebig's law of the minimum, once you reach the non limiting range excess plays no role. I doubt any level of oxygen higher than what we can obtain by good circulation would be beneficial. Yet if we have low oxygen the ramifications can be serious.



Zapins said:


> What do you mean by mineralization rate?


From Wikipedia, "Mineralization in soil science is decomposition or oxidation of the chemical compounds in organic matter into plant-accessible forms."


----------



## Darkcobra

Zorfox said:


> I don't think increasing the KH would make much of an impact.


Exactly! Neither do I. And I don't think anyone else would either. As a result, that means maybe no one has tried. Just like running a high light tank at 15ppm CO2, and the result of that was a big surprise. So that's why I focused on that aspect. It sounds like an experiment right up my alley. 

Not to minimize the potential importance of pH stability, but I consider that regularly experimented with - even if people don't realize they're doing it - when they experimentally determine whether cutting CO2 off at night works acceptably for them.

And as for oxygen levels at night, that's typically done with cutting off CO2 and/or agitation, which has the side effect of raising pH. Or H2O2 in [rjordan393]'s case, but that has algicidal side effects. Both of which may make it hard to interpret the results of oxygen alone. I can count maybe _two_ people who have experimented a bit with pure O2, as a pressurized and regulated O2 system is a bit too expensive to play with unless you already happen to have access to one. But I can build an electrolytic O2 generator in a couple of hours, and for a few bucks worth of materials. If you read my last response in your "tank of the future" thread on TPT you already know I'm experienced in that area.


----------



## rjordan393

I edited my post #231 by adding the following:
< Also I trimmed all affected leaves before the treatment and a few more after the treatment started.
See these articles>.


----------



## niko

Here I go again: I vacuumed the entire bottom of my 6' long tank full of fish. and 3 or 4 9" tall swords (no C02, low light). In preparation to send a sample to Jeffy I have been changing 20-25% of the water every other day and once a week vacuuming the bottom too. This time the day after the water change the water became extremely clear. Looking from the side you will never tell you are looking through 6' of water. Fish look suspended in nothing. 

Tank has inert pool filter sand (only 3/4" thick), one 4 gallon Eheim filter full of lava rock only, and a HOB magnum with Activated Carbon. No mechanical filtration. Eheim and HOB are placed against each other, one by front glass the other by the back glass so the gyre water movement is the best I can muster. Total flow rate is about 1000 gph, tank is 160 gallons.

That clarification of the water after vacuuming the bottom happens every time. But right now it is truly spectacular.

I attribute that to unclogging the substrate. Not sure if it is about Oxygen or not. Not sure if it has anything to do with organics processing as I like to think but that is the point of this thread so I post about my observation.


----------



## rjordan393

I just did a nitrite test and it read 0.3 ppm. I will test again in 3 days just to see where it goes. This tells me that the H2O2 treatment is affecting my biofilter. So I ceased the treatment and will lower any future dose to 45 ml per 64 gallons of 3% H2O2 for one week only. I added Seachems stability to provide more bacteria. My nitrates are down from 25 ppm to 20 ppm which I question because I expected much less.
H2O2 is supposed to break the bond on nitrogen compounds unless something else is at play here; perhaps pH which has been climbing from 7.10 at treatment start and this morning, it was at 7.77 pH or maybe the temperature which I maintain between 77.5 to 78.5 F. 
So now, I must assume that one week or less would be sufficient to kill black spot algae and I think it may work for black beard algae


----------



## Zorfox

Darkcobra said:


> Exactly! Neither do I. And I don't think anyone else would either. As a result, that means maybe no one has tried. Just like running a high light tank at 15ppm CO2, and the result of that was a big surprise. So that's why I focused on that aspect. It sounds like an experiment right up my alley.


I like the way you think. It certainly won't hurt anything and you have everything to gain.



Darkcobra said:


> Not to minimize the potential importance of pH stability, but I consider that regularly experimented with - even if people don't realize they're doing it - when they experimentally determine whether cutting CO2 off at night works acceptably for them.


I doubt PH fluctuations have a huge impact on organics. I do however think it plays a role. The cumulative approach seems to be the key to a healthy tank. Everything we can do adds up. That elusive magic bullet for planted tanks just doesn't exist IMO. How many times have we heard the term balance? There are many pieces to a nice puzzle. The more pieces you find the better the final puzzle looks.



Darkcobra said:


> I can count maybe _two_ people who have experimented a bit with pure O2, as a pressurized and regulated O2 system is a bit too expensive to play with unless you already happen to have access to one. But I can build an electrolytic O2 generator in a couple of hours, and for a few bucks worth of materials. If you read my last response in your "tank of the future" thread on TPT you already know I'm experienced in that area.


Add another to your 2 people that have tried O2 injection. I am a retired Paramedic so I happen to have loose O2 odds and ends lying around. I was more interested in algae control when I played with it. It seemed to make little difference with exception of making nearly any plant pearl. I honestly SAW no difference. Did it lower organics? Don't know I couldn't test for these at the time. I can say from my experience with it that it's not worth the effort to create an O2 generator. A simple wet/dry will give you all the O2 and biological filtration you would ever need.

I missed your post in the tank of the future thread. I've been pretty busy lately. That was truly a fascinating build. If I have time in the future I will pick your brain. I like the idea of a stable CO2 generator. This is something the hobby is missing. To few people ever try it other than typical DIY methods like yeast. If it didn't cost $300 to inject CO2 properly maybe more would realize the importance of it.


----------



## niko

Zorfox said:


> ...O2 injection. I am a retired Paramedic so I happen to have loose O2 odds and ends lying around. I was more interested in algae control when I played with it. It seemed to make little difference with exception of making nearly any plant pearl. I honestly SAW no difference. Did it lower organics? Don't know I couldn't test for these at the time. I can say from my experience with it that it's not worth the effort to create an O2 generator. A simple wet/dry will give you all the O2 and biological filtration you would ever need.
> 
> ... I like the idea of a stable CO2 generator. This is something the hobby is missing. To few people ever try it other than typical DIY methods like yeast. If it didn't cost $300 to inject CO2 properly maybe more would realize the importance of it.


- Did you just say that increased pearling didn't mean an overall improvement of the plants/tank? That's how I read it and from what I have seen in a few occasions pearling is not everything as I like to think.

- A pressurized CO2 rig can be had for $150, solenoid included. What do you consider proper CO2 injection? I ask because maybe my view of a bottle-double gauge-solenoid-needle valve-bubble counter may not be all there is to it.


----------



## Zorfox

niko said:


> - Did you just say that increased pearling didn't mean an overall improvement of the plants/tank? That's how I read it and from what I have seen in a few occasions pearling is not everything as I like to think.


Plants pearl when O2 saturation is high. The O2 produced by the plants won't dissolve because the O2 level is high. So injecting pure O2 simply saturates the water causing any O2 produced by the plants to pearl. It does not mean the plants are doing better.



niko said:


> - A pressurized CO2 rig can be had for $150, solenoid included. What do you consider proper CO2 injection? I ask because maybe my view of a bottle-double gauge-solenoid-needle valve-bubble counter may not be all there is to it.


Sure you can get setups for $150. However, by the time you buy quality parts like dual stage regulator, needle valve, solenoid, anti siphon valves, a PH controller, a reactor... that price goes up quickly.


----------



## Tugg

Reactors are cheap and a pH controller is not required. Niko is right, an inexpensive setup is very doable at 150. I have a 20# tank rig that was under 100 when completed.

Also, as been explained to me in the past. Pearling could also just mean O2 production is exceeding the rate of absorption. It doesnt mean you're saturated. For example, insuffecient flow could cause pearling.


----------



## Zorfox

I agree setups can be had for that price. I never disagreed. IMO CO2 management is the most difficult thing to get done correctly so I prefer quality parts and a PH monitor. My $300 quote was a ball park for a quality setup nothing more.



> Also, as been explained to me in the past. Pearling could also just mean O2 production is exceeding the rate of absorption. It doesnt mean you're saturated. For example, insuffecient flow could cause pearling.


That's basically what I said :wink:


----------



## Darkcobra

Zorfox said:


> So injecting pure CO2 simply saturates the water causing any O2 produced by the plants to pearl. It does not mean the plants are doing better.


Typo here - I'm sure you meant "injecting pure O2".



Zorfox said:


> The cumulative approach seems to be the key to a healthy tank. Everything we can do adds up. That elusive magic bullet for planted tanks just doesn't exist IMO. How many times have we heard the term balance? There are many pieces to a nice puzzle. The more pieces you find the better the final puzzle looks.


Couldn't agree more.



Zorfox said:


> I agree setups can be had for that price. I never disagreed. IMO CO2 management is the most difficult thing to get done correctly so I prefer quality parts and a PH monitor. My $300 quote was a ball park for a quality setup nothing more.


And this being why I prefer to focus on pieces of the puzzle that make CO2 management less critical. I can understand your decision to go with the more expensive setup given the current state of the high-tech portion of the hobby, which on average, is too focused on CO2 IMO. Ideally, every tank _should_ be tolerant to fluctuations or even "deficiencies" in CO2, so that we do not have to be so concerned with a single parameter. In reality, some show that tolerance, and others break at the slightest disruption. The million dollar question is what puzzle pieces account for this difference...



Zorfox said:


> If I have time in the future I will pick your brain.


Sure, any time.


----------



## niko

Eh, surely a temporary extra release of gasses from the plant leaves does not show the plants are doing great. This often happens after a water change because of the higher content of gasses in the tap water. I thought that you meant that there are times when the plants pearl for a few days without any obvious good results.

Since 2002 I have always had the cheapest dual gauge CO2 regulators you can buy. I must have used about 10-12 of them. Not a single problem. I read that some people do have issues with their cheap regulators. But a piece of the CO2 rig that I find truly important to improve is the needle valve. The standard ones are hard to adjust. I've never had a metering valve but could be that's the way to go - which adds about $80 I think.

I personally find a controller to be one of the pieces of equipment that only adds complications to everything. A controller relies on a pH probe. These things must be calibrated on a regular basis or else. In this case it really seems that being observant of the CO2 effect in the tank AND having a stable tank is the best way indeed.

The point of stability/balance is something that has made me question the established notions on our hobby. To me if we have a way to create a stable tank we can focus on the actual aquascaping. I used to think that aquascaping is the main focus of all people in this hobby but that is an unrealistic view. In any case - a way to make a balanced and stable tank will most likely keep more people in the hobby.

And another thing - cheap is cheap. A statement like "you can have a CO2 rig for $150" is not a very good idea for a public forum. It helps people think that this hobby is cheap. I really dislike that probably because I think that aquatic plants have exquisite beauty. "Cheap" doesn't go with that.


----------



## Zorfox

Darkcobra said:


> Typo here - I'm sure you meant "injecting pure O2".


Thanks. That was a big typo lol. I corrected it.



niko said:


> In this case it really seems that being observant of the CO2 effect in the tank AND having a stable tank is the best way indeed.


I completely agree! Unfortunately, stability goes down when you inject CO2. Things just happen much faster so a keen eye on your tank is more important than setting a monitor. I personally used a PH probe as a reference and safety feature more than anything. Too many people rely on numbers and test results. I think this is one of the reasons so many have CO2 issues. A perfect example of this being a drop checker. They aren't very accurate at all. However, you will see a blue drop checker pretty quick alerting you to an empty tank or other problem. That's about all I use one for. Kind of like the canary in the tank. If it stays yellow it's a canary otherwise you have a huge issue.

Another use for CO2 I don't hear much about is for growing in an aquascape. Once the tank has filled in you can slowly remove CO2. Then you're left with a well developed low tech tank.

Sadly, many new to the hobby have high tech techniques crammed down there throat initially leading to nothing but problems. The stability of low tech tanks gives a new hobbyist time to see changes and make corrections. I wouldn't suggest CO2 to a complete novice.


----------



## Zapins

Just a brief comment today since I am very happy/distracted in real life. I got an email this morning telling me I have an interview at the Philadelphia's medical school 

I recently took photos of my tank and its iron deficient plants and one of the rotalas was even pearling while it was iron deficient and unable to grow healthily. So, the photo is just proof of what has already been mentioned above (pearling doesn't always = healthy plants).


----------



## Zorfox

Zapins said:


> Just a brief comment today since I am very happy/distracted in real life. I got an email this morning telling me I have an interview at the Philadelphia's medical school


That's awesome! Congrats. Hope you get it. Pretty close to CT to.


----------



## Zapins

thanks. I'm looking forwards to the interview, I really like the school.

Lots to organize though so I'll probably post a little less often until I get everything sorted out.


----------



## Marcel G

Zapins said:


> pearling doesn't always = healthy plants.


----------



## niko

Well, I just got back from servicing a tank that has very strong growth (in 7 days every Anubias has made a new leaf plus another one coming, crypts look very strong and healthy, Lotus has huge leaves, Valisneria is the usual pest with healthy wide leaves). The fish have been fed 50% less than previous weeks. BBA is still there - just a small increase but not going away really. When I walked in the Swords and the Lotus where pearling.

I think that that is an example of a tank that has good plant supplementation but is "dirty" - it does not process organics properly. Vacuuming the bottom produces a good amount of trash but what's left settles very fast which is usually a very good indicator for things going right. But something is off, not too much but it is off.


----------



## rjordan393

<I think that that is an example of a tank that has good plant supplementation but is "dirty" - it does not process organics properly. Vacuuming the bottom produces a good amount of trash but what's left settles very fast which is usually a very good indicator for things going right. But something is off, not too much but it is off.>

Maybe this tank does not have good surface movement after lights out to provide sufficient oxygen. Oxygen as you know is an oxidizer. The process that goes on in our tanks depend on sufficient oxygen to perform their tasks. So the CO2 has to be removed quickly and replaced with oxygen by aeration for this to occur. When I mentioned this idea about oxygen being limited, I thought the imput would go further then it did. Most aquarist's do not have an expensive oxygen meter to determine where they stand and I don't blame them. the cost is prohibitive. I read a article where the author states that the average aquarium is only 70% saturated with oxygen. Full saturation at 78.8 degrees F is at 8.09 ppm. So if we are near the 70%, then we would have something close to 5.66 ppm oxygen during the lighting period and I do not think that is enough and is too low for proper biological functions of the aquarium without oxygen supplementation. So unless someone with a oxygen meter cares to perform some tests, I and many others will know more then we do now. Its been about a week now since I stopped the H2O2 treatment and I do not see any sign of the black spot algae. This and the BBA, I think are related to insufficient oxygen at night. Something to think about.


----------



## Ryan Monroe LA

I happened upon this thread a few days ago, and it inspired me to investigate the TOC content of my tank, tap, and RO water. I work at a chemical plant and have access to a TOC analyzer. What I found is the following:

Tap Water: 2.90 TOC
RO Water: 1.05 TOC
Tank Water: 1.03 TOC (I've really been working the water changes over the past month)

My 75 gallon tank that has been set up for 5 years and has been highly unsuccessful over the entire period, despite trying many different "fixes". 'Organics' were my latest hypothesis on what may be wrong, but given the numbers above, that latest theory seems to be shot.

The tank over the entire 5 years has been plagued with BGA and diatoms and nearly zero plant growth. I use CO2 with a pH controller and have tried everything between 6.5 and 7.6 pH and between 5 and 30ppm CO2. I have tested different light intensities and sources (florescent to metal halide). A couple months ago I was inspired by Nico's thread on strong circular flow and filtration capacity and that made some substantial improvements only to the ten small fish (glowlights and cardinals). My plants appear as if they are constantly afflicted with severe deficiency or toxicity. Only Crypts manage to at least maintain their state of health. Swords don't have a chance. Even easy-to-grow stem plants grow extremely poorly.

I am starting to come to the inevitable conclusion that the (soft) tap water in this area sourced from scummy bayous is simply not suitable for plant growth. It does not work when simply dechlorinated, nor when reconstituted from the RO membrane. I have reconstituted via RO right, equillibrium, and individually measured CaCO3 and MgSO4. I have fertilized with commercially available micro and macro fertilizers and using various strengths of th EI method using all the individual dry ferts. NOTHING WORKS.

I started in this hobby around 1998 after being inspired with simple but beautiful planted tanks that I saw in East Lansing, Michigan pet shops. I picked up a 45 gallon tank, some crappy painted pea gravel, a T12 shoplight fixture, and a magnum hot canister fed by a yeast DIY reactor, and some ferts in a bottle and was wildly successful right from the start. When I moved to Corvallis, Oregon, I could not duplicate this success, and it got even worse when I tried again when I moved here to Monroe, Louisiana. The pet shops in the latter two cities had no successful planted tanks either, and I think that is no coincidence. I think the water in East Lansing made the hobby easy. And I have spent the last year or so trying to prove to myself that my moves toward "high tech" and/or "loss of the basics" has not been the reason for my failure. Like anything it may be multiple factors, but I believe what is coming out of the tap is a BIG contributor.


----------



## Darkcobra

*[Ryan, Monroe, LA]*,

I live three hours away from you in Baton Rouge. Here the water comes from deep artesian wells, is quite pure, and undergoes minimal processing. Contains chloramine, 0dGH, 8dKH from sodium bicarbonate, 1ppm phosphate, and nothing else significant that I'm aware of. I typically add CaSO4 and MgSO4 to bring it up to 2dGH, though I'm experimenting with 4dGH now and it seems promising.

Your surface water undergoes much more processing to be fit to drink, and is probably not too great for aquariums. But you have a RO unit, which assuming it's working properly, should provide adequately clean water to build on. Given 1.05 TOC from it, it may not be working right, I'm not sure. But let's assume it's fine, you use 100% RO water, and then reconstitute with CaCO3 and MgSO4 for example.

Then the difference between my water and yours, that immediately jumps out at me, is the sodium level. This is an essential plant micronutrient, notably required for regeneration of CO2 fixation mechanisms. And is NOT provided by the majority of products you listed or are likely to have used. None in CSM+B, Microplex, Flourish Trace, or Equilibrium. Regular Flourish and RO Right contain only a small amount as other sources are assumed. You also seem to have a very small fish load, so that would not be a significant supply either. And I think most folks use CaSO4 (or a product containing it), then separately adjust KH; rather than adjusting both simultaneously with pure CaCO3 or a single product.

I don't know for sure if this is your issue, but if I were faced with your situation and reasonably sure no basics were overlooked, it's the very first thing I'd look into. Reconstitute with CaSO4, MgSO4, and NaHCO3, and see what happens. Failing that, add more fish to ensure other "exotic" micros aren't overlooked. And if that too fails, go back and question the basics, including the proper function of the RO unit.


----------



## Marcel G

Hi Ryan,

please, can you post here (or send me on e-mail) some pictures of your tank? I would like to see how your tank (and plants) look like.

Also, you mention that your "plants appear as if they are constantly afflicted with severe deficiency or toxicity" ... did you try to do an analysis of your substrate? Or what substrate are you using? Is it not possible that there are some toxic elements in it? What is its pH?

On the one hand, we can finally come to the conclusion that TOC has no reliable relation to the algae proliferation (at least not by itself). We still do need more samples being analyzed. And I hope that Jeffrey will analyze some algae-free tanks also, so that we can see if the TOC is high in some of them also.

On the other hand, it seems weird to me that your plants were doing always poorly in your tank. That's just very unprobable case. If you give your plants enough light and enough nutrients, they should grow nicely. There must be something hidden in your tank.

Marcel


----------



## niko

rjordan393 said:


> Maybe this tank does not have good surface movement after lights out to provide sufficient oxygen. Oxygen as you know is an oxidizer. The process that goes on in our tanks depend on sufficient oxygen to perform their tasks. So the CO2 has to be removed quickly and replaced with oxygen by aeration for this to occur..


Hm, good point. The tank does have a lot of surface movement but the CO2 runs 24/7. The easiest way to add air at night would be with a timer and an air pump. I will look into that for sure. Thank you!


----------



## niko

Ryan said:


> ...I am starting to come to the inevitable conclusion that the (soft) tap water in this area sourced from scummy bayous is simply not suitable for plant growth. It does not work when simply dechlorinated, nor when reconstituted from the RO membrane...


Lately I really started to believe that the tap water royally messes up many people's tanks. At least 4 reasons below:

1. There is a local guy here that can grow anything he wants, any way he wants. CrownMan here on APC. He has a full blown planted tank room with low tech, high tech, new and very well established tanks, all kinds of lighting etc. It is spectactular. He lives in an area where the water seems to do magic. Noone in Dallas can grow Mermaid Weed but CrownMan's plants are always ultra healthy:









Take a stem from him, place it in your tank (Dallas) and watch it die. Seems like his water makes all the difference. Pictures of that room:
https://plus.google.com/photos/111646610078083070168/albums/5251595775918128321?banner=pwa

2. Recently here on APC someone PM-ed me about a local shop at his city. The owner is a guy that does not believe in most things most aquarists believe. One of them is water changes. He apparently keeps his tanks with minimal water changes. The reason he gives is apparently that the tap water is bad, unpredictable, etc. No algae in any tank in the entire shop as I understand.

3. The problematic tank that I described above started to develop BBA after some fish started to tear up a big plant. I thought that juices oozed out of the plant and caused BBA. That may have been so but also at that time I started bringing water from my house instead of using the water in the house where the tank is. Another questionable situation I guess.

4. When I got in the planted tank hobby back in 1981 in Bulgaria what you did to prepare the tap water is to pour it in a shallow pan and let it sit for 24 hours. That made the Chlorine "evaporate", haha. Ok, funny but that was the water that allowed you to grow any plant you could find (common plants today) without CO2 and fancy lights. My point is not that old time communist water was the best (which it was - it came from the nearby mountain and everybody, always, drank straight from the tap, no funky taste) but fact is that today you can NOT let tap water sit in a pan and put it in your tank, no way. Meaning that there is a level of complications that we can't even start to explore because of the many chemicals that end up in city waters. Hormones and other medicine among them as I understand.
ADG in Houston runs all their water for water changes through huge Activated Carbon filters. I have been using one of these big canister filters to run my tap water through Activated Carbon for about 10 years now. It is time to admit that maybe the Carbon inside maybe bad. Either way - using Activated Carbon for tap water maybe one mandatory (but not solve-it-all) step we all need to adopt.


----------



## rjordan393

Using an air pump or power head is your choice but I believe a power head aimed at the surface would be more efficient. Running CO2 at night is counter productive. I would advise the tank owner to put that on a timer also.


----------



## Zorfox

> When I mentioned this idea about oxygen being limited, I thought the imput would go further then it did.


I certainly didn't mean to derail your observations on oxygen. When I tinkered with O2 injection I was more interested in the algae's response. Oddly enough that algae was BBA. I simply could not see a difference. That doesn't mean there were no changes that I may have missed or more importantly couldn't test for. Clearly O2 plays a role in our tanks. Most likely in ways we haven't even begun to see.

The things we haven't considered are most likely where our answer lies. This thread is about TOC and its possible role in the proliferation of BBA. What have we heard time and time again from Tom Barr? "It's a CO2 issue". The reason he says this is because that's the only way he has found to reproduce the problematic BBA. That's a fair statement. In fact, that's the only way I have found to cause BBA repeatedly. So ignoring that huge piece of the puzzle seems illogical.

So here we are talking about TOC and we know CO2 plays a role. The assumption is we don't need CO2 at night, the plants won't need it. That's a correct assumption. Now think about what happens in a natural environment.

Natural bodies of water are huge unlike our tanks. The resource bank for CO2 and nutrients in nature are tremendous. The level of resources is lower but the uptake by plants and bacteria are insignificant so little change is seen. This means the fluctuations are minimal and changes are slow. Everything in our tank has evolved for millions of years based on those conditions.

We're doing the exact opposite with most CO2 injections. We're not only causing a change in CO2 levels we're changing the PH of the water. The PH change can be a huge biological factor. We already know that PH changes can have an impact on bacteria. What about the others things we don't know? Dare I mention allelopathy. Allelopathic compounds are organic as well. Does PH affect the plants ability to produce these compounds? Does PH affect the effectiveness of them?

We don't know the answer to these questions. What we do know is that turning off CO2 at night can create biological changes. It would seem a closer approximation to nature if we kept our PH and CO2 level stable 24/7. Yes, I'm suggesting a PH meter to do this. If the decrease in O2 levels affects your inhabitants run an air stone or increase circulation. The CO2 levels should be compensated for by the PH controller. True you will lose CO2 but it's cheap. A PH controller is also cheap insurance against gassing your fish.

Just a few of my hair brained observations thus far.


----------



## rjordan393

I have a Salifert Oxygen test kit ordered and I want to see what the oxygen levels are during the day while dosing CO2 compared to an overnight strong surface movement (without CO2) by a power head before the CO2 is activated the next day. Their O2 test kit in addition to testing saltwater will also do freshwater. If my hunch is correct, I might see as high as 6 ppm oxygen during the lighting period and as high as 8 ppm overnight after 11 hours of surface movement. Then if that happens, the 2 ppm difference is a substantial increase that will improve the health of the fish, plants and the biofilter. 
I also have a redox meter on order and I prefer one of these over a Dissolved Oxygen meter that needs calibration every time its used. The redox meter can be used to determine water quality when the Biological Oxygen Demand increases. When the BOD increases and starts to get close to the out of range recommendation, it affects the reading on the redox meter. I also like the idea that it can be placed in service 24/7. So it will be interesting to see what readings I get over a 24 hour period with CO2 activated or deactivated. I should have an update of my findings, first week of February.


----------



## BruceF

If the diurnal variation in co2 levels is a minimum at midday or so and a maximum in the morning what difference does it make if one turns it off at night?


----------



## Zapins

Ryan said:


> My plants appear as if they are constantly afflicted with severe deficiency or toxicity. Only Crypts manage to at least maintain their state of health. Swords don't have a chance. Even easy-to-grow stem plants grow extremely poorly.


Welcome to APC Ryan.

In an effort to keep this thread on track please make a new thread in the deficiency forum and I'll help you figure it out. Include as many close up pictures of the damaged plants as you can (new and old growth), along with the specs of the tank/lighting/ferts.

Deficiency forum:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/plant-deficiencies/


----------



## Zapins

Darkcobra said:


> Then the difference between my water and yours, that immediately jumps out at me, is the sodium level. This is an essential plant micronutrient, notably required for regeneration of CO2 fixation mechanisms. And is NOT provided by the majority of products you listed or are likely to have used.


Sodium is not an essential plant nutrient, plants can grow perfectly well without it. It can be beneficial to some species of plants when it is around, but it is not essential.









From: http://soils.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/listofel.htm



ardjuna said:


> On the one hand, we can finally come to the conclusion that TOC has no reliable relation to the algae proliferation (at least not by itself). We still do need more samples being analyzed. And I hope that Jeffrey will analyze some algae-free tanks also, so that we can see if the TOC is high in some of them also.
> 
> Marcel


I don't see how you arrived at this conclusion. We still don't have enough data to figure out whether TOC=BBA, and from the look of the data so far it looks as if there is a fairly strong association between low TOC and no BBA.



Zorfox said:


> This thread is about TOC and its possible role in the proliferation of BBA. What have we heard time and time again from Tom Barr? "It's a CO2 issue". The reason he says this is because that's the only way he has found to reproduce the problematic BBA. That's a fair statement. In fact, that's the only way I have found to cause BBA repeatedly. So ignoring that huge piece of the puzzle seems illogical.


See, this is the part I've never understood. CO2 is a major plant nutrient for both plants and algae, so why increasing CO2 would miraculously be toxic to BBA is beyond me (especially since studies with terrestrial plants show CO2 toxicity starts at around 10,000 ppm). What physiological reason would cause CO2 to be beneficial to algae and plants at ambient aquarium levels and then suddenly turn toxic to algae only at 30 ppm?

In fact, the time I had the worst BBA problem I've ever seen was when I was dosing CO2 until the water fizzed like soda (no fish). I won the "worst algae ever" contest on APC that year.

The problem with the CO2 theory and all CO2 related advice is that there is no easily available CO2 meter that people can use to prove their CO2 is at a given ppm. In addition there is no easy way of coaxing BBA to grow on a given surface so that it can be measured and kept track of when CO2 concentrations are changed. These two problems essentially guarantee that we will never figure out if CO2 does or does not cause BBA growth. This is why the TOC theory is much more interesting, it can be easily measured and used to prove or disprove the TOC=BBA theory.

A small slice of my 55g tank that had BBA and hair algae on every surface:











rjordan393 said:


> I have a Salifert Oxygen test kit ordered and I want to see what the oxygen levels are during the day while dosing CO2 compared to an overnight strong surface movement (without CO2) by a power head before the CO2 is activated the next day. Their O2 test kit in addition to testing saltwater will also do freshwater. If my hunch is correct, I might see as high as 6 ppm oxygen during the lighting period and as high as 8 ppm overnight after 11 hours of surface movement. Then if that happens, the 2 ppm difference is a substantial increase that will improve the health of the fish, plants and the biofilter.


I would love to see the results of your tests, but even if the O2 is 6 ppm, you'd need to find out literature values showing that 6 ppm is too little O2 for aquatic environments. Then you'd need to show that there is some substantial benefit to adding 2 more ppm and have concrete ways of measuring the benefit.

Possible, but a lot of work.


----------



## Ryan Monroe LA

Darkcobra said:


> *[Ryan, Monroe, LA]*,
> 
> I live three hours away from you in Baton Rouge. Here the water comes from deep artesian wells, is quite pure, and undergoes minimal processing. Contains chloramine, 0dGH, 8dKH from sodium bicarbonate, 1ppm phosphate, and nothing else significant that I'm aware of. I typically add CaSO4 and MgSO4 to bring it up to 2dGH, though I'm experimenting with 4dGH now and it seems promising.
> 
> Your surface water undergoes much more processing to be fit to drink, and is probably not too great for aquariums. But you have a RO unit, which assuming it's working properly, should provide adequately clean water to build on. Given 1.05 TOC from it, it may not be working right, I'm not sure. But let's assume it's fine, you use 100% RO water, and then reconstitute with CaCO3 and MgSO4 for example.
> 
> Then the difference between my water and yours, that immediately jumps out at me, is the sodium level. This is an essential plant micronutrient, notably required for regeneration of CO2 fixation mechanisms. And is NOT provided by the majority of products you listed or are likely to have used. None in CSM+B, Microplex, Flourish Trace, or Equilibrium. Regular Flourish and RO Right contain only a small amount as other sources are assumed. You also seem to have a very small fish load, so that would not be a significant supply either. And I think most folks use CaSO4 (or a product containing it), then separately adjust KH; rather than adjusting both simultaneously with pure CaCO3 or a single product.
> 
> I don't know for sure if this is your issue, but if I were faced with your situation and reasonably sure no basics were overlooked, it's the very first thing I'd look into. Reconstitute with CaSO4, MgSO4, and NaHCO3, and see what happens. Failing that, add more fish to ensure other "exotic" micros aren't overlooked. And if that too fails, go back and question the basics, including the proper function of the RO unit.


Sodium deficiency is definately a potential cause... along with any other trace metals not provided in my tap water or CSM+B (i.e. copper???). The symptoms of sodium deficiency you describe seem to match my plants' non-response to CO2 fertilization. I have used CaCO3 and MgSO4 to provide GH and KH in my aquarium for some years now, and before that I dosed KH and potassium exclusively with potassium bicarbonate, and used Equillibrium before that. Never have I used sodium bicarbonate in my aquariums. I added one gram to the tank at lunch time today as a test. I can add more and replace some of the CaCO3 with CaSO4 if necessary as I have both on hand although I have never used the latter for aquarium applications. I also have calcium nitrate which is not caustic like I believe CaSO4 is.

It does appear the TOC values that I measured on my RO water are consistent with other RO water samples that were published in this thread. The membrane is only a couple months old and I am using a special carbon block designed for chloramine removal.

This tank has seen higher fish loads, and that did not to correct my deficiency. Fish TB killed my rainbows and now only the tetras remain. Thanks for the input and I'll let you know how it goes.



ardjuna said:


> Hi Ryan,
> 
> please, can you post here (or send me on e-mail) some pictures of your tank? I would like to see how your tank (and plants) look like.
> 
> Also, you mention that your "plants appear as if they are constantly afflicted with severe deficiency or toxicity" ... did you try to do an analysis of your substrate? Or what substrate are you using? Is it not possible that there are some toxic elements in it? What is its pH?
> 
> On the one hand, we can finally come to the conclusion that TOC has no reliable relation to the algae proliferation (at least not by itself). We still do need more samples being analyzed. And I hope that Jeffrey will analyze some algae-free tanks also, so that we can see if the TOC is high in some of them also.
> 
> On the other hand, it seems weird to me that your plants were doing always poorly in your tank. That's just very unprobable case. If you give your plants enough light and enough nutrients, they should grow nicely. There must be something hidden in your tank.
> 
> Marcel


I posted pics under a new post in the "Ferts" sub-forum. Here is the link:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...lp-likely-toxicity-deficiency.html#post670280

There are not but four small plants left in the tank-- one crypt and four swords at death's doorstep. The substrate is 5/6 ecocomplete and 1/6 Florite. Seachem Root tabs invoke no response on the swords and they used to cause them to grow like crazy in East Lansing.

My pH currently is set to control between 6.8 and 7.0, although I previously had been running been running between 6.5 and 6.7. There are periods where I shut off the CO2. KH I have tried between 1 and 6 (currently six). I've gone as high with my GH as the middle of the recommendations for Ca and Mg in the EI "starting targets" in the Fertilator section of this site.

I agree there is something hidden about my tank and I think it is a micronutrient missing in my Tap and reconstituted RO water. Clearly it does not affect the diatoms or BGA. I see very little true green algae. Light level is definately medium to high... am currently using pendant-style compact florescents (105 watt and 150 watt suspended about a foot over the water on each side).



Zapins said:


> Welcome to APC Ryan.
> 
> In an effort to keep this thread on track please make a new thread in the deficiency forum and I'll help you figure it out. Include as many close up pictures of the damaged plants as you can (new and old growth), along with the specs of the tank/lighting/ferts.
> 
> Deficiency forum:
> http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/plant-deficiencies/


just saw your post... will from here on out... did keep at least somewhat on topic with posting my TOC numbers. Thanks for the list of essential nutrients... likely not all are provided by my major ferts, CSM+B, and my tap/RO water. Normally back-adding dechlorinated tap would fix this problem for most hobbiests but apparently not for me... mineral/spring water dosing perhaps?


----------



## Zorfox

Zapins said:


> See, this is the part I've never understood. CO2 is a major plant nutrient for both plants and algae, so why increasing CO2 would miraculously be toxic to BBA is beyond me (especially since studies with terrestrial plants show CO2 toxicity starts at around 10,000 ppm). What physiological reason would cause CO2 to be beneficial to algae and plants at ambient aquarium levels and then suddenly turn toxic to algae only at 30 ppm?


You're not alone Zapins. I still can't wrap my head around why existing algae can't outperform plants. Algae are more adaptable, require fewer resources, and reproduce faster than plants. One would think algae would be the clear winner. That however isn't the case.

I don't think the CO2 becomes toxic to BBA. Instead, there is something that CO2 is doing that removes the trigger for BBA to reproduce. Is it the CO2 alone or changes that CO2 induce? Probably a combination IMO.

That has been my train of thought during this entire thread. If TOC plays a role, what role does CO2 play in the spread of BBA. We already know BBA will spread with poor CO2 injection. I've personally done it several times. Fluctuations in CO2 seemed to be the worst trigger in my experience. So how does CO2 affect TOC?

Let's assume that we found 95% of tanks with BBA had high TOC and tanks with low TOC has little. Our next question is why? That's where I have been going here. Start looking into how CO2 can affect TOC. My recent suggestion that PH changes may change bacterial uptake is another. Ever read articles about ocean acidification from increasing CO2 levels?

Rather than looking at CO2 as a nutrient view it as an additive. It can change water chemistry which may be a huge deal. The hobby seems to ignore the other effects CO2 plays a role in. Our goal is to grow plants so we have tunnel vision when it comes to its role. What else does CO2 change?



Zapins said:


> The problem with the CO2 theory and all CO2 related advice is that there is no easily available CO2 meter that people can use to prove their CO2 is at a given ppm.


Maybe the problem is the stability of CO2 and not the level itself. I realize PH/KH relationship is flawed since there are other buffers in the equation. However, a PH controller can be used to control the level regardless if we know it or not. We complain high tech loses stability yet we drop our PH a full degree every 24 hour cycle. That NEVER happens in a natural system. It simply seems wrong and related to this discussion.


----------



## Ryan Monroe LA

Moved


----------



## Ryan Monroe LA

Moved


----------



## rjordan393

Zapins said:


> I would love to see the results of your tests, but even if the O2 is 6 ppm, you'd need to find out literature values showing that 6 ppm is too little O2 for aquatic environments. Then you'd need to show that there is some substantial benefit to adding 2 more ppm and have concrete ways of measuring the benefit.
> 
> Possible, but a lot of work.


To be honest, my search did not provide me with numbers using lab equipment to test oxygen levels in a medium or heavy planted tank during periods of CO2 injection during the day or oxygen supplementation at night. But I did come across one paragraph in an article and just under a oxygen chart that stated:


> The above levels show 100% saturation, the maximum possible. The average saturation in an aquarium is about 70%.


So fish, plants and the biofilter can get by with 5 to 7 ppm oxygen but would it be better if we can provide the missing 30, 20 or 15% more oxygen? It just seems logical that a tank would be more healthy. The more oxygen provided, I think will break down organics faster.
Go to: http://www.algone.com/articles/technical-aquarium-information/oxygen-in-the-aquarium


----------



## rjordan393

BruceF said:


> If the diurnal variation in co2 levels is a minimum at midday or so and a maximum in the morning what difference does it make if one turns it off at night?


When I get my oxygen test kit and a redox meter, it may provide an answer.


----------



## Zapins

Ryan said:


> Sodium deficiency is definately a potential cause...


Deficiencies are only possible for essential nutrients. Sodium is not essential and therefore if you had perpetual 0 ppm levels of sodium your plants would never show deficiency symptoms. The problem you have is 100% not due to a sodium deficiency.



Ryan said:


> I will post pictures in a new post when I get home.


Looking forwards to your post, I'll keep an eye out for it.



Zorfox said:


> I don't think the CO2 becomes toxic to BBA. Instead, there is something that CO2 is doing that removes the trigger for BBA to reproduce. Is it the CO2 alone or changes that CO2 induce? Probably a combination IMO.
> 
> That has been my train of thought during this entire thread. If TOC plays a role, what role does CO2 play in the spread of BBA. We already know BBA will spread with poor CO2 injection. I've personally done it several times. Fluctuations in CO2 seemed to be the worst trigger in my experience. So how does CO2 affect TOC?


Actually, I question that conclusion. Every time I've dosed CO2, whether it was consistent, non consistent, high or low concentrations I have never seen a clear cut relationship with BBA's growth (more CO2=no BBA) in any of my tanks at any of the various places I've set them up. Of course this is only observation with no numeric data behind it. If you look back at the results, you can see that in tanks with CO2 injection BBA is quite common, so I'd actually argue that CO2 has either no effect on BBA or it has a positive (helps it grow) effect.



> Let's assume that we found 95% of tanks with BBA had high TOC and tanks with low TOC has little. Our next question is why? That's where I have been going here. Start looking into how CO2 can affect TOC. My recent suggestion that PH changes may change bacterial uptake is another. Ever read articles about ocean acidification from increasing CO2 levels?


This is the key I think. To figure out if the association between BBA is tighter with high TOC values or with CO2 use.

I also wonder if pH plays a role with algae.



> Maybe the problem is the stability of CO2 and not the level itself. I realize PH/KH relationship is flawed since there are other buffers in the equation. However, a PH controller can be used to control the level regardless if we know it or not. We complain high tech loses stability yet we drop our PH a full degree every 24 hour cycle. That NEVER happens in a natural system. It simply seems wrong and related to this discussion.


The stability argument is a slippery one, because how can every person manage to keep CO2 levels perfectly stable? I feel Tom suggested this years ago because if his advice failed, then it must be user error (CO2 isn't high/or consistent enough). Fluctuating CO2 levels opens up a gray area where if you have BBA/plant health issues it can be blamed on an unmeasurable statistic - stability. In my opinion, this is a bad one-size-fits-all explanation that doesn't hold up from what I've seen.

I suppose it is possible that fluctuating CO2 levels could cause BBA, but we just don't have access to the equipment we need to test that theory at all. I feel we should focus on the TOC theory for the moment because it is testable. Perhaps we can investigate a simple version of the CO2 and BBA theory if we look at whether pressurized CO2 is used (assume they are all =) and count it as a yes/no variable instead of a ppm value like we are doing for TOC.

*rjordan393* - I fixed your quote above, but if you want to quote someone in the future or add other text effects to your post look at the tiny link in the bottom left of your screen called "BB code." The instructions on how to format text are all in there.

Here is the link:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/misc.php?do=bbcode


----------



## niko

Zorfox said:


> ...This thread is about TOC and its possible role in the proliferation of BBA. What have we heard time and time again from Tom Barr? "It's a CO2 issue". The reason he says this is because that's the only way he has found to reproduce the problematic BBA. That's a fair statement....


--> Tank1: In my problematic tank where the plants pearl and grow BBA is most dense and healthy on the sponge placed over the outtake of a small powerhead. This is the powerhead that breaks up the CO2 into a zillion bubbles and they shoot from all sides of the sponge and raise up from like mist. Bubble rate is about 1.5/second. The BBA covers the entire sponge - all 5 sides of it.

When the tank was clean there was BBA only on that sponge. Not a lot but it was only there.

--> Tank2: 10 gallon with DIY yeast CO2. Some weeks the CO2 runs out and I let it be. Some batches of yeast make a lot of CO2, some make less. Wildly fluctuating CO2 levels. Tank has been pristinely clean for 6 years now. The Anubias taken out of it are absolutely immaculate. It is 10 feet away from Tank1. Same water is used for water changes. Overfeeding dry flakes. Tiny filter that is cleaned maybe once a year.

*BBA is not a CO2 issue*. The only connection is through the plant health - in most cases good plant health means vanishing BBA. But not always.


----------



## whiskey

This is a fantastic thread! Threads like these really do advance the hobby.

A couple questions come to mind reading this. 
1. What of the people who have kept a no water change tank? For low tech this is common, Walsted, and Tom both advise staying away from water changes in non co2 tanks - I've done it myself with great success.

Do we think that the faster CO2 charged growth is somehow producing organics faster and overwhelming the system? Or that CO2 is hurting the organic breakdown process? Or something else? In a tank like this why do water changes seem to promote algae? What are your thoughts?


2. What about UV? I've heard that breaks down organics. Does that make things better by eliminating them faster? Or worse by breaking them down into a more palatable form for the algae faster? Or no effect? I'd love to hear thoughts on this as well.

Whiskey


----------



## Phil Edwards

The more I think and read about this the more I think algae proliferation is a result of bioGEOchemical, not merely biochemical processes. For the most part, until recently technically minded hobbyists have concerned themselves mostly with biochemical pathways and reactions in plants in an attempt to explain things. Adding the topic of organic carbon species opens the discussion up to interactions between plants and bacteria and cycles of chemicals in their environment; biogeochemistry.

I love that we're investigating TOC as a possible stimulator of algal growth. It's one of those things that is often forgotten but has impact on, and is impacted by, so many aspects of our systems. I think once we get a handle on the current TOC study it will provide a strong stepping stone for other investigations that tie in things like filtration, oxygenation, pH, and microbial influences. 

Personally, I can't help but think that TOC and, to a lesser extent DOC, as they influence BOD and COD, have an appreciable relationship with filtration, the health of filter microbes, and through that the overall health of an aquarium. The more robust the microbial community is in an aquarium the more able they are to mineralize organic compounds and improve overall water quality. The healthier and more actively photosynthesizing our plants are the more oxygen they're putting into the system for the microbes to use to break down complex molecules….

GAH! I really want to get back to school. This would be an amazing doctoral study.


----------



## Zorfox

Phil Edwards said:


> The more I think and read about this the more I think algae proliferation is a result of bioGEOchemical, not merely biochemical processes. For the most part, until recently technically minded hobbyists have concerned themselves mostly with biochemical pathways and reactions in plants in an attempt to explain things. Adding the topic of organic carbon species opens the discussion up to interactions between plants and bacteria and cycles of chemicals in their environment; biogeochemistry.
> 
> I love that we're investigating TOC as a possible stimulator of algal growth. It's one of those things that is often forgotten but has impact on, and is impacted by, so many aspects of our systems. I think once we get a handle on the current TOC study it will provide a strong stepping stone for other investigations that tie in things like filtration, oxygenation, pH, and microbial influences.
> 
> Personally, I can't help but think that TOC and, to a lesser extent DOC, as they influence BOD and COD, have an appreciable relationship with filtration, the health of filter microbes, and through that the overall health of an aquarium. The more robust the microbial community is in an aquarium the more able they are to mineralize organic compounds and improve overall water quality. The healthier and more actively photosynthesizing our plants are the more oxygen they're putting into the system for the microbes to use to break down complex molecules&#8230;.
> 
> GAH! I really want to get back to school. This would be an amazing doctoral study.


Bravo, Phil. Nicely said. I completely agree with you. I suppose that comes as no surprise considering my last few posts lol. We have become so focused on balancing the big three, light, nutrients and CO2, that we have been largely ignoring the ecosystem. There is far more than plants and fish in our tanks. The magic happens in the interaction between more than one organic life form.

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on CO2 being a FACTOR in BBA proliferation. I'm surprised a yeast CO2 ran for 6 years without any algae. That happens to be the easiest way I found to induce BBA. I can't ignore what I saw several times. However, how important the role of CO2 has is unclear. As I've said many times before it is most likely a chain of events, CO2 being a link in that chain.


----------



## krisw

Zapins said:


> Actually, I question that conclusion. Every time I've dosed CO2, whether it was consistent, non consistent, high or low concentrations I have never seen a clear cut relationship with BBA's growth (more CO2=no BBA) in any of my tanks at any of the various places I've set them up. Of course this is only observation with no numeric data behind it. If you look back at the results, you can see that in tanks with CO2 injection BBA is quite common, so I'd actually argue that CO2 has either no effect on BBA or it has a positive (helps it grow) effect.
> 
> This is the key I think. To figure out if the association between BBA is tighter with high TOC values or with CO2 use.


My experience is the same, Zapins. I've never had a reduction of BBA by increasing CO2. I have reduced BBA by lowering light levels however. I always figured that I was dosing too leanly, and the light was exhausting nutrients, causing imbalance, and thus algae, blah, blah, blah. I still think that's a piece of the picture. The thing I can't understand is some of the most stable algae-free tanks I've had are ones with some sort of soil or worm castings underneath a thick Aquasoil layer. I guarantee that the substrate is a dirty mess! Of course, it likely has all kinds of bacteria colonies that aren't in a clean commercial substrate. Or, on the flip side, the soil provides just enough nutrients to prevent the tank from bottoming out if I dose too leanly.


----------



## Zapins

It would be interesting to see if we could find a way to intentionally grow BBA in a small 2.5g test tank. Innoculate it with some BBA, then wildly fluctuate the CO2 and see if BBA grows, or add TOC and see if it triggers growth.

I suppose we could evaporate tank water to concentrate the TOC for the test. In this way we could obtain and use very high levels of TOC and see what happens with the algae.

Alternatively we could go to LFS' and take sample water from tanks with BBA in it. See what the TOC is on those tanks. They might be our easiest source of non-CO2 BBA tanks? Though the lighting is not = to the T5HO bulbs we use, I'm not sure if that makes much of a difference since we aren't really controlling the light levels in our samples to date.


----------



## niko

Zapins said:


> It would be interesting to see if we could find a way to intentionally grow BBA in a small 2.5g test tank. Innoculate it with some BBA, then wildly fluctuate the CO2 and see if BBA grows, or add TOC and see if it triggers growth.....


That is how I see my big tank and that's why I really wnt to to send a samples to Jeffy. I've not done a single water change for a week now and the BBA is slowly coming back. That's after a few weeks of water changes every other day and eradicating the BBA. That tank has been completely predictable for about 5 years now - if I change water all algae gradually goes away (2-3 weeks), if I stop changing water they come back slowly (1-3 weeks).

One thing that happened in that tank recently was an extreme overnight clarification of the water. I attributed that to vacuuming the substrate once a week. I'm not sure that's the reason but what I see now, with the BBA returning, is that a crystal clear water in which the fish look suspended in nothing does not have to do with absence of BBA. What I mean is that it seems that "waste" floating in the water may not necessarily cause BBA, although it makes sense to think so. It does look like BBA takes advantage of boundary areas - this last BBA that I got grows exclusively on the leaves of the few swords that are in that tank. The plants are struggling under low light and no CO2. But that does not explain another strange thing about BBA - it likes to grow on the heater. That could be because the heater has some old black paint and the BBA maybe finding a good substrate to attach to. This maybe the same with the plastic bulheads where BBA also likes to grow. Another place is the silicone. Besides the plants, heater and bulkhead the tank (glass and substrate) does not get BBA easily.

The tank does not have CO2 but I can predictably clean it of any and all algae by water changes or let the BBA come back by stopping the water changes.

Setting up a new tank as a test tank maybe problematic. Just like trying to make green water in summer, under the open sun - it does not always happen for whatever reasons.


----------



## niko

I'm not sure how this thread became about a connection between BBA and organics. To me organics are the root of all evil and I don't consider BBA to be the worst algae at all. To me the worst algae is Cladophora because it acts like a fast growing plant. 

For about 10 days now I've been neglecting my tanks. I have a 30 gallon cube with old inert gravel and a bunch of crypts covering the bottom. Tank has been pristinely clean for ages. After planting the crypts 3 months ago I watched them grow pretty fast considering there is no CO2 and there are only 48 watts of some kind of Chinese T5HO bulbs over the tank. About a month and a half ago the leaves showed pinholes which some K cured surprisingly fast. Then about 1 month ago the leaves started to show some minor yellowing here and there. I decided that I need Mg and Fe/Trace mix. Added a pinch of both once a week. Minor dosing...

Except that about 10 days ago the crypts apparently ran out of something. Some leaves melted. The barely visible strand of Clado that I had noticed in one single place is now everywhere. I just sucked it "all" with a small size hose and what I saw was much more melting leaves than I thought. 

So do not blame me for believing that organics are the root of all evil. Not just good ol' BBA. The way I see it my "minor dosing" knocked that low tech tank off balance and I didn't strut down the road of constant water column fertilization. The plants started to melt. The waste in the water brought the Clado explosion.


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> I'm not sure how this thread became about a connection between BBA and organics. To me organics are the root of all evil and I don't consider BBA to be the worst algae at all. To me the worst algae is Cladophora because it acts like a fast growing plant.


Hehe, you've got a point. But only twice in 10 years did I get a plant with clado, both times it was eliminated before it could spread, and I couldn't induce clado now if I tried because there's simply none in my tanks. It's an issue many never experience. For the unlucky, if it _truly_ grows like a plant, then there is little or no hope of selective control through organics or any other water parameter.

BBA on the other hand is _everywhere_. It's safe to say if you have a plant, you have at least BBA spores in your tank, waiting, lurking... It can obviously be controlled, but the existing methods seem imprecise and unpredictable. Just about everyone has gone a round with it and wants to know what the missing puzzle piece is.


----------



## niko

Here's another assumption that seems to make sense:

As I said above my big tank's water has cleared up above the wildest imagination. The fish indeed look like suspended in nothing. I can see my neighbour's house through 6' of water as if I'm looking through nothing.

That extreme clarification happened after about a month of weekly gravel vacuuming exercises and 30% water changes every other day. I also added a 350 gph filter on one side and the water has been moving in a very much perfect gyre, throughout the entire tank.

What I think happened is probably the entire intert gravel (pool filter sand) turning into a biofilter that is NOT clogged. Add the good water circulation rate (about 1200 gph). No decorations to obstruct the flow pattern. Tank has no mechanical filtration. About 50 2" fish. 4 struggling swords. Be my guest - make the water of such a tank crystal clear... Looks like biofiltration can do it IF it is running properly.

BBA now grows only on the swords which are not doing very well because of no CO2, low light, and no added ferts in the water. The swords had minimal BBA when the morning sun was hitting the tank for about 30 min. But in the last 2 weeks the weather here has been overcast. No sun. The swords really started to suffer. That is when BBA stepped in.

Once again, that story is a story about "good waste processing + good plant growth = good results" and "bad waste processing + bad plant growth = issues". What is interesting to me is that it looks like you can get things "right" without added CO2 and ferts. But the simple basic things you setup must make sense - biofiltration and water movement. Simple is hard, as always, haha.


----------



## niko

And another story that probably has to do with bad processing of waste and little else.

The 55 gallon tank. Saw it yesterday again. 3 new Lotus leaves larger than my hand in one week. Every single Anubias has a fully developed new leaf. Crypts are looking strong, Valisneria is growing of course. Swords have very wide and long new leaves. Everything is growing well.

N=10, P=0.2; Ca:Mg = 3.8:1; GH=12.; CO2 = 2 bps. The flow makes all plant leaves wave gently.

(Please do not start a discussion of the GH being too high. It is not. 100 years ago at some big event Amano blurted that "soft water grows better plants". Hope you understand why there is no point in discussing any of that.)

BBA all over the plants.

Filter is perfectly clean - pulled all media out. Zero clogging.

A good friend of mine that knows a thing or two about planted tanks told me that the ceramic media must be clogged. It looks clean but it is not doing what it should.

Either way - the tank definitely has a problem with processing waste. Not with fertilization. The problems started when about a month ago some fish where damaging a big A. ulvaceus. My best guess now is that the media got clogged at that time.

I am starting to think that a tank can look as clean or as dirty as you want it to look and still have zero algae. Or be full of algae. My latest view is that processing is everything. It is a dynamic thing and that's why it is elusive to catch. My TOC maybe good today but not that great tomorrow. Jeffy can't be checking my tank every other hour. It looks like it makes a lot of sense to make sure that the tank is running very consistent. Meaning - the processes that provide basic "cleaning" actually stay running good 24/7. Only AFTER that you can think of fertilizers, CO2 and all that cheap pop music.

Stability - what a novel idea. No sticky about it on any forum. All kinds of other stickies instead.


----------



## Zapins

A little update on my 90g tank.

I went away about 2 weeks ago, and on the day I left my canister filter impeller broke. So for two weeks the tank had no filtration. I added a second power head to circulate the water and prevent stagnation.

When I came back the tank had a lot of green spot algae, and a lot of BBA, it is even growing right next to the CO2 power head. 

I've saved a sample of water to test the organic levels and I have a separate sample from before I left so we can accurately compare before and after. But from my perspective it looks like organics are to blame. Losing the bio filtration and having a fish die and muck up the tank like that seems pretty convincing. Will wait on the test results though.

Jeffy is the machine working?


----------



## UDGags

He told me it was but they were backed up with samples. He said he might get to my water samples I sent a couple weeks back late this week.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk


----------



## happi

*Here's my observation:*

My tank mainly suffer from BBA and I carried out few test and I have noticed changes to BBA in each test.

*Test 1:* vacuumed the substrate, trimmed and replanted the plants, cleaned the filters and added spray bar for better gas exchange, my water is very soft, so I started dosing potassium carbonate every day. Tank started to look better and better every day, BBA wasn't growing anymore and was slowly disappearing, but eventually it did return. Two 50% water changes during this week after the cleaning.

*Test 2:* all the parameter kept the same besides no vacuuming the substrate, no cleaning of filter and BBA was only getting worse day by day, but it was growing quite slower than before. Doing two 50% water changes per week did not make any dent to BBA this time.

*Test 3:* all the water parameter the same, no cleaning beside two 50% water changes per week, this time I started to dose Urea along with the Nitrate and BBA was growing quite faster, this is interesting because I have used urea before and BBA was never an issue.

*Test 4:* all the parameter the same, this time only substrate cleaning and no dosing of Urea, also two 50% water changes, BBA still growing and cleaning of substrate, water changes, surface agitation have no impact on the BBA anymore like it did on test 1.

In my case so far: Reducing the light made the BBA only worse, increasing the co2= more BBA, BBA grew the best around the area where ever most of the flow hits, including the inlet (10% of the BBA is here). 80% of the BBA is growing on the substrate and plants on the very front, this is where most of the flow is from the spray bar, surprisingly most of the plants that are all the way in the back wherever there is less flow have no BBA or 10% of the algae is here.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Just a quick update. 

As i told UDGags, we did get our autosampler back from the manufacturer. However, when i set everything back up, we found that we lost a washer or ferrel or something and now we have a leak in the needle valve assembly... Grr... Needless to say, it's still not working correctly. I did call them to figure out the problem and order the correct parts to remedy the situation, but the part i need is on backorder. More Grrr... 

Hopefully, i get the part sometime soon so i can work through all of our work samples and then start up on the aquarium samples.


----------



## UDGags

Just curious....do samples go bad? Or does the standard call out certain time windows. I packaged mine on 1/13/14 so probably will be 1.5 months before they get tested.


----------



## Yo-han

I think it will be best to freeze them, but I don't know how long they will last that way...


----------



## JeffyFunk

If I remember correctly (I'm not at work ATM), standard methods generally does not recommend freezing samples or standards with the notable exception of organic samples / standards. In that case, it's important to note that most organic standards are not made in a water matrix, but in an organic solvent matrix like methanol. You also have to think about the sampling containers - most organic analysis require sampling in glass with no head space. Putting that in the freezer will crack the container.

Let's think about why we have sampling and testing recommendations: to ensure that nothing bad happens to the sample, positive or negative. In most cases, ur results will be skewed low due to sample degradation. The question is how (1) how stable are the analytes in general and (2) what will they degrade to? For example, nitrite (NO2) has a sample holding time of 2 days and cannot be preserved because it is converted by bacteria or oxygen to nitrate (NO3) easily. pH has a holding time of 15 minutes because it is easily changed due to degassing. Organics are prone to eventual degradation by bacteria but they can be preserved. In the chart I plan on flagging the results from this unfortunate delay so we all know they may be biased low.


----------



## niko

Ahaha! This is turning into an delightful nightmare. That 55 tank with the nice growing plants and the BBA all over keeps on giving. Today the new Lotus leaves where even larger than last week's, all Anubias had huge new leaves and one other developing already, the swords are going strong with long and wide leaves. BBA is looking perfect.

All that after last week I cut the CO2 in half, cleaned the filter that didn't need any cleaning and so on. Today I stuck an Eheim canister full of Eheim biomedia and 2 jars worth of Purigen, did the usual 40% water change, removed a ton of plants to make room for better flow. 

This is definitely a problem of processing the waste. I am not convinced that the HOB filter and the Eheim canister will take care of it. Water is crystal clear anyway, even before the Purigen overkill that I started today. There is something else going on. Next thing to do is to improve the flow pattern somehow.


----------



## niko

Since this is a thread about catching something elusive (organics, whatever they are) I think it would be good to mention once again the impact of water changes on the tank.

Yesterday I changed water in two of my tanks and didn't dechlorinate properly. I run my tap water through a big carbon filter (a 2.5 ft tall cylinder) and I also use Prime as normal. I normally run the water to the tank and add the Prime into the tank. This time I used an old bottle of Prime that had a little liquid left on the bottom. When it was too late I remembered that some weeks ago I rinsed that bottle with tank water to get out the last portion of Prime. Some water was left in the bottle. Yesterday I "dechlorinated" with water...

What happened made me think of how easily a water change can affect the tank and how hard to pinpoint the problem is. In the big tank the fish where skittish but only one of about 60 died. In the other, smaller tank, the neon tetras could care less but the rasboras took a bad hit. Also this morning that small tank has opalescent water - a sure sign that I wiped the biofilter. Neons could care less, crypts appear fine too. But the tank was shot badly for sure.

Now, dechlorination is seldom discussed because it seems straight forward. But for some time now I have started to think that adding the tap water to the tank and the dechlorinator to the tank is a very bad idea. Not all the water mixes immediately with the dechlorinator. Some untreated tap water can actually end up in the filter and kill some of it. Some will hit the gravel, some will go around the plant leaves - suddenly altering the state of the environment. All of that will seriously impact the microorganisms. Everything will appear well but we introduced a sudden change her and there. If nothing else the tank now has spots where it is not functioning properly. In a few days everything balances out but the bad practice of dechlorination in the aquarium is most likely a source of many unexplicable problems.

To that you should also add the "help" of the water supply company which changes the content of the tap water depending on a variety of factors.

No wonder that old Asian guy that I mentioned before (owns a store, no algae in sight, minimal water changes, etc) has started to believe that water changes are not that great of a practice.

How does all that pertain to organics? I think that we should remember to look at the effort to find some sense in organics analysis without forgetting the basics. Are the samples that you send to Jeffy from completely stable tanks?


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> But for some time now I have started to think that adding the tap water to the tank and the dechlorinator to the tank is a very bad idea. Not all the water mixes immediately with the dechlorinator.


I have had instances where on occasion, something is "off" about the tap water and a 50% water change inexplicably and rapidly kills a few fish in multiple tanks. Seemed to happen a few times a year. I tried in vain to figure out why. Couldn't link it to increased chlorination, time of year, temp, pH, oxygenation, or anything else that folks suggested.

But I did find a solution. Remove 50% of the water, add dechlor, fill only 25% from the tap. Wait at least 15-20 minutes before filling the rest of the way. I spend that time draining and partially refilling other tanks, so I can go round-robin with no idle time required. No more deaths since I started doing this.

Not knowing the nature of the problem, I can't say why this works. But if it's chlorine, this procedure is certainly capable of reducing both peak and overall chlorine exposure from a water change. After the first 25% refill, the dechlor is more concentrated, and the chlorine less so than if you'd filled 50% all at once. And by the time of the second 25%, the first shot of chlorine is (hopefully) entirely gone, and the dechlor already well dispersed throughout the water.


----------



## niko

Today, 3 days after the water change without dechorinator, the tank is sparkling clean again. Except that every single crypt has leaves that show spotty melting. As if you touched the leaf in a few spots with your finger. Apparently that is damage from no dechlorinator. If I was nice and not lazy I'd even take pictures for Zapins super duper plant deficiency website. Because how often have you seen posts about someone crypts suddenly melting?

One thing about this disaster that I really do not understand is how unpredictable the signs are. One out of 60 fish dies in one tank and it is not even one of the weaker fish. The neons in another tank really did not hear anything about having to die - despite the fact that they are store bought and like to pass some kind of ugly disease to each other so every few weeks one dies - the two weakest neons that are on their last leg are still alive. Crypts made new leaves the last 3 days because I'm special and added 1.5 hours of funky expensive bulbs to the normal light period + started to add Fe/Traces. At the same time leaves affected by the tap water are all over.

Here's the tank a day before my divine no-dechlorinator intervention. I am prepping it to send to the ADA contest for lack of an even better contest... Maybe later today I will make another video of how it looks now after the disaster is over:





Truly, in our day and age if you don't pay close attention to your tap water you are setting yourself for problems. I think that instead of doing the 25% trick that Cobra here does I'll move my lazy donkey and start dragging the 40 gal. trash bin that I have in the garage for exactly that purpose - pre-mixing dechlorinator in the tap water.


----------



## rjordan393

Pre-treating the water is how I get my water ready for a water change. I even switched to a bi-weekly water change. I dose my dechlorinator and wait two days for it to lose effectiveness, then I treat with hydrogen peroxide. In the second week I add some magnesium to bring it up to a 1 to 4 ratio to calcium. Then on the day of water change, I add some acid buffer to bring the pH down to match close to what the aquarium water is.
However I have use H2O2 directly in the aquarium in the past and do not recommend it on a continuous basis. H2O2 is so good, it does too much.
Here is an interesting article from "US Peroxide" the manufacturer.
www.h2o2.com/products-and-services/us-peroxide-technologies.aspx

Click on Products & Services; then scroll down to Treatment Applications using Hydrogen Peroxide.
Read up as much as you can on the net as you can disrupt your bio-filter if you use too much too soon in the aquarium or at worse lose it altogether. This is why I prefer to use it in my makeup water.


----------



## niko

Rjordan,

I think you should start a new thread about what H2O2 does, how and why use it in a planted tank. For now we squirt it in the water over algae to kill them. That is a pretty pathetic use of an oxidant that can apparently do way more things (some may not be that useful - "removing iron" maybe).

Also - why do you wait 2 days for the dechlorinator to lose effectiveness?
And what's the purpose of pre treating your water with H2O2?


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> I think that instead of doing the 25% trick that Cobra here does I'll move my lazy donkey and start dragging the 40 gal. trash bin that I have in the garage for exactly that purpose - pre-mixing dechlorinator in the tap water.


Here's your sign that you're planted tank obsessed - you sacrifice your back to drag around 40G of water on a hunch! Unless you actually have a donkey? I suppose anything is possible. LOL. But really, why not come up with a smarter solution? They have those attachments for garden hoses, designed to meter and mix a small amount of fertilizer or whatnot fairly uniformly into a large volume of water. Wouldn't be too hard to put one on a Python.


----------



## rjordan393

Niko,
I thought about it but I think whatever the conclusion will be after Jeffrey's analysis, then we will be left without a solution and maybe just the cause of bba. By inserting that link to US Peroxide, will give those who take the time to read all of the H2O2 Stand Alone Applications will know that it would be a better choice to clean up the water before it goes into the main tank. Here is part of which caught my eye when I read that article.
1. Oxidizes both organic and inorganic pollutants which contribute to BOD and COD.
2. Oxidizes nitrogen compounds and destroys chelants. (which is why I do not use it in the aquarium).
3. Oxidizes ferrous iron. 
I threw ferrous iron in there so that those who are dosing ferrous iron with H2O2 in the aquarium will know it will be oxidized. 
Overall H2O2 seems to be a good choice for makeup water but not the aquarium based on the good things about it. But it also has enough bad things.
I wait two days after dechlorinating because that is the maximum time that Seachem recommends. The effects of Prime should all be worn off. There would be a conflict between "Prime" and H2O2 if the effects of both were still working. Prime is a reducer and H2O2 is an oxidizer.
The reason I treat my tap water with H2O2 in my make up tank is that I have an average of 1.7 ppm of total organic carbon in it. So according to the article, it will be oxidized but only if the proper amount of it is dosed and that now is anybody's guess. So if I can start out with less TOC after a water change, then I am better off. Again, the product is useful for us if we treat our tap water with it and wait a few days before adding the water to the aquarium. When I do my bi-weekly water changes, the effects of H2O2 have worn off because its been more then a week since it was dosed.


----------



## Zapins

Darkcobra said:


> Here's your sign that you're planted tank obsessed - you sacrifice your back to drag around 40G of water on a hunch! Unless you actually have a donkey? I suppose anything is possible. LOL. But really, why not come up with a smarter solution? They have those attachments for garden hoses, designed to meter and mix a small amount of fertilizer or whatnot fairly uniformly into a large volume of water. Wouldn't be too hard to put one on a Python.


+1 sounds like a lot of work niko!

I used to do water changes on 5 large (55g-180g) tanks every week with a 5g bucket. One trip to dump the water one trip to fill up a bucket. Definitely messes your back up!


----------



## niko

I see that you two are new school. Old school does things the hard way and doesn't know it's called "hard"!

I've seen one of the mixers that mixes tap water and Prime. It was at the house of a monster fish keeper guy. His 300 or so gallon tank had constant water change and the Prime was being injected continuously. Do not know any rates but the humongous fish in that tank where very healthy (my estimate is that there was about 80 lbs. of fish in that tank, including a 1 ft. goby with body thicker than my forearm) and the 3 year old tank was so clean that I thought it was brand new. So yes, you can figure out an easier way to do proper water changes instead of dragging buckets and bins and keeping your donkey busy.

But what Rjordan talks about (H202 and Prime, timing, etc) seems to suggest a better way to prepare the tap water. Not just drop a few drops in a bucket or squirt a little into an injector. Once again, in our day and age, things like that are very much mandatory. In the old days, in a country far, far away the tap water was being prepared to be added to the tank by letting it sit in a shallow tray for 2 days. Try that today and you will have proof how much things have changed.

And by the way I have found a way to get rid of every single strand of Cladophora in every nook and crany of my tank! Just use non-dechlorinated tap water to the point of almost killing plants and fish, preferably killing some of them, and definitely messing up your biofilter. I just noticed how freaky clean the tank is. Whatever sorry strands of Clado I can manage to see are transparent and dead. Very dead. Here's the promised video of the tank with melting crypt leaves, new crypt leaves, neons that didn't get the memo and are still alive, and ZERO Cladophora. But look closely - the green spot algae on the strategically placed Iwagumi stone and on the pump pipe are alive and well. Indeed, tap water can do horrible damage here and nothing over there. And only god knows how it plays out in the biofilter. I hope to somehow find a way to incorporate what Rjordan just told us about H202, Prime and so on in whatever I do (or rather "I think I do") with my tanks.






And below is a link showing pictures of the melting crypts' leaves. For Zapins with love.
https://plus.google.com/photos/1116...ms/5982695586686538321?authkey=CMnb6Pu4x4bdQw

And since this topic is still about organics I'd like to see what is the Clado going to do now. I obliterated it with straight tap water but now I got melting leaves. Certainly organics will be present, no need for Jeffy to tell me so. Will the Clado return? Will the 2-3 tuffs of BBA that I had in the tank return? Or maybe I will end up with a completely algae free tank. The Holy Grail, you know. Through tap water chemistry.


----------



## Darkcobra

Hehe, I guess we are new school. Though in another country far away, old school means things like raising fish in muddy water laden with ammonia, no care for water parameters at all. I've personally witnessed healthy betta and guppy fry raised in ammonia higher than test limits and alkaline pH, don't ask me why that worked, I just can't explain it.

I've done a lot of experiments with algae treatment, and here's a few observations on the algae you mentioned.

Clado can also be gradually removed by periodically adding a bit of H2O2 to the water, and directing intense flow at it while the H2O2 is present. It can be eliminated to the point where it cannot return, unless reintroduced from an outside source. You might just luck up there. If you wanted the clado gone, that is. 

BBA, forgeddaboutit. Kill it all you want, it will still return if conditions are right. I'm only half joking when I say it seems like it's airborne and omnipresent.

And look close at your GSA. You might see it shrank a bit, like a hair's worth. Being non-fibrous, the outer layer takes the hit, and protects the rest for the day or two it takes to flake away. Frequent and small treatments work better than any single massive treatment.

I've heard of a very few people successfully using untreated tapwater for algae control. It's gotta be the harshest option I can imagine, though.


----------



## niko

Darkcobra, since we are still talking organics here we got to mention ozonators.

What is your opinion on using measured doses of ozone?

I'm sure this "miso pretty" device is a cute miniature ozonator. What is your take on using that insead of H2O2? In my mind 3 is better than 2, and I know you get my jokes so tell me.






Here's what Yo-Han says:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/equipment/69012-ozone-planted-tank.html#post635958


----------



## Darkcobra

Ozone is just another method of delivering _reactive_ oxygen, exact same effects as H2O2, just created electrically and on-demand. 3 isn't better than 2, both O3/H2O2 give up exactly one reactive O to become stable O2/H2O.

That device you linked is a high-end aerator. Similar to an Atomic Diffuser, but designed for much higher gas volumes. Useful only for air, as the gas flow rate required to make it work would nuke a tank if used for CO2. It's not used for ozone either, for the same reason, plus you don't want fish swimming through a cloud of ozone bubbles.

Ozonators are hooked up inline, performing all the same functions that [rjordan393] described for H2O2. Except unlike H2O2, the ozone breaks down very rapidly; even if there is nothing else to react with, it's so unstable it will readily react with more of _itself_ (O3+O3=3*O2). In normal "intended" usage, ozone never makes it into the tank in significant quantities; and so in a way, it works like a UV sterilizer that can break down a wider variety of compounds. Of course you can get ozone in the tank if flow and production rates are cranked up.

There is also a new anti-algae device which produces oxygen _nanobubbles_. Much smaller than the bubbles in that video. Due to the extreme surface area to volume ratio of these nanobubbles, anything they contact absorbs oxygen so fast and efficiently, that a bit of reactive oxygen is formed on contact as well. Again, the effect is like H2O2. I forget the name, there was a thread on it over on TPT, I think the price was around $300. Most people thought it was snake oil, but the technique has a documented history of successful usage in real industrial applications; and in large scales it's cheaper in the long run than oxidizing chemicals or ozone generators. So the technique works at least, even if the hobbyist-grade device might not.

And then there's peat moss, which in a filter is supposed to slowly break down into a continuous trickle of H2O2, and is why some folks attribute anti-algae properties to it. I've never used peat moss, but I tried to replicate a similar effect by dosing very small amounts of H2O2 daily, with the filter off and powerhead on for 30 minutes after dosing. Earlier in this thread, [rjordan393] reported he tried this on BBA, with success. I tried it on hair algae, and it was a complete failure. Slowly increasing the dosage over weeks, by the time there was any impact on the hair algae, the fish were noticeably suffering. By contrast, for me a single non-repetitive large dose of H2O2 had far more impact on the algae, and far less impact on the fish. But that's just one test on my part, far from conclusive. I moved on to testing other methods, one in particular seems very promising and gentle (not oxygen related).

Think that covers reactive oxygen vs. algae in fair detail.


----------



## Yo-han

It certainly does!


----------



## rjordan393

> Earlier in this thread, [rjordan393] reported he tried this on BBA


Unless I typed in BBA which was wrong; it actually was BSA. I decided not to use h2o2 as a whole tank treatment because there's too many tradeoffs that work against you.
If dosed too much, I experienced a drop in KH along with pH. And I think it will affect the bio-filter. When my pH controller came on, it was reading 6.00 pH. At first, I thought my CO2 manifold got stuck in the open position at lights out and stayed on for a few hours. But when I checked my fish, not one was gasping for oxygen. So I added enough buffer to bring the pH up to 6.60.
For the time being, I am now treating my make up water with h2o2. And I give it at least one week for the h2o2 effects to wear off before I use it in the aquarium.


----------



## niko

Ah! That was a wonderful portion of this thread!

I didn't know that Oxygen bubbles made very small could do what bigger bubbles can't. In that sense I can speculate that the size of the CO2 bubbles should have different impact too and some years ago someone had the brilliant idea that visible CO2 bubbles ending up under the leaves are the best way to supply CO2 - except that noone wants a tank full of microbubbles. But here we talk about getting rid of organics and burning them (oxidizing) so let's keep it that way and expand on it.

It seems that oxidizing is the only thing that has been used with good results for now. This makes me very curious about Darkcobra's secret home experiment because what I have seen in the past that was not Oxygen has not caught up - sound waves, and things like the "magnetizer" pipe and of course the Plocher energy system (sold by ADA as "Tourmaline") which claim to restore the overall balance of the aquarium (which somehow excludes the older living things (algae) and includes everything we consider pretty).

So let me get this straight - if I find a way to inject super fine bubbles in my tank (smaller than those made by an Atomic diffuser) I may see a "burning" effect on living things? Simpler organisms (algae only hopefully) will die first. 
Or the logic is different?

Another thing: In another thread, I think, we agreed that to get rid of BBA you need not only a very clean tank but also very well growing plants. Could it be that healthy plant growth has something to do with oxidizing also?

Rjordan,
I like the idea of pre-treatment of the tap water. As I said already in this day and age we simply don't have an option but to be very aware that the tap water is a complicated dynamic mix of what not. But what do you gain by using H2O2 to get rid of organics in the tap water? I assume that the tank has way more organics than the tap water. Isn't the goal to target the organics in the tank?


----------



## rjordan393

Niko,
Jeffrey's analysis of my TOC are tap water 3.1 ppm and tank water 7.6 ppm; now if I can manage to remove all of the TOC from the tap water, then I am left with an average of 4.5 ppm in my tank. I would consider that an impressive drop.
But as of now, I need to send Jeffrey another sample because I removed everything from the aquarium, sanitize it and put in Eco-Complete to replace the Flourite. So I am waiting for the tank to mature for 6 months before I collect a sample. 
I would not be surprised if the next results in the tank water are lower in TOC because the water can flow more easily through Eco-complete. This in turn keeps the gravel cleaner and easier to vacuum.


----------



## niko

Wow, I didn't realize that organics in the tap water are so high. I imagined that aquarium water has many more times the organics of tap water. Granted, that may vary by area but anything like 20% or more of tap water organics compared to the in-tank number has got to be dealt with.


That was eye opening! Especially coupled with the likely variation of the number. If you constantly change the water composition through water changes no wonder problems are constant also.


Sent from my RM-893_nam_att_206 using Tapatalk


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> This makes me very curious about Darkcobra's secret home experiment because what I have seen in the past that was not Oxygen has not caught up...


It's nothing new per se, or new-agey (like tourmaline, heh). Like the One-Two Punch, it's a new way of using something old. If you want some preliminary details, let me know and I'll start a new thread where we can discuss it.



niko said:


> So let me get this straight - if I find a way to inject super fine bubbles in my tank (smaller than those made by an Atomic diffuser) I may see a "burning" effect on living things? Simpler organisms (algae only hopefully) will die first.


Exactly. I recall from some patents I looked at that nanobubbles can be created via electrolysis, ultrasonics, mechanical vortices, or gas exchange membranes; often a combo is used.



niko said:


> Another thing: In another thread, I think, we agreed that to get rid of BBA you need not only a very clean tank but also very well growing plants. Could it be that healthy plant growth has something to do with oxidizing also?


I've heard plants can increase "oxidation/reduction potential" (aka ORP or redox), but I'm not clear on the details. If anyone can explain this better than a textbook definition, especially how (or if) plants accomplish this, I'm interested too.


----------



## niko

Of course, start a new thread about the new-old anti algae thing. As we should know very well by now this hobby can not invent anything truly new. But in the light of things like tap water not being what it used to be, high tech fads etc. everything old takes a different shade. It's very interesting for sure.


----------



## niko

Darkcobra,

Post some links of people discussing that nanobubble device for $300. All I could find was a comprehensive test of the Twinstar Japanese device on the British forum. But while reading the posts I got lost in the strangest of strange things - an ADA distributor talking about all kinds of algae in their tanks and even mentions problems after leaving the tanks without care for a holiday. I suppose he is talking about barely visible algae issues but it all sounded too much like tanks that have problems to start with being fixed with yet another gizmo.

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/twinstar-what-is-it.28335/page-25

Youtube has a ton of videos about nanobubbles cleaning everything from fish farm water to the follicles of every single hair you have on your body. But planted tank applications are not to be found.


----------



## Darkcobra

Yes, it's the Twinstar. Tried finding the thread on TPT I mentioned for you, apparently it's been deleted! What the heck. Found only a Google cache of page #3:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RCx9izaOXuUJ:www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D4775977+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Which unfortunately mostly contains only my response, and not of the others before me. Not sure if there's a way to coax the other pages from Google's cache. I'm a bit harried at the moment, trying to complete a computer module for a color tunable DIY LED fixture with radio control, LOL. When things slow down I can check into it some more, and post up that other algae control topic.


----------



## rjordan393

For $300.00, I would not even consider it. Let this product prove itself. Let them explain the science behind it. For that kind of money, it easy to see that the manufacturer claims he's holding the Holy Grail. And what does Twinstar say about BBA? On the front page of their site, they say its not effective.


----------



## Phil Edwards

In response to the question about ORP/Redox potential-

ORP is, for hobby purposes, a measure of your aquarium ecosystem's ability to consume organic matter and organic molecules. The more oxygen in the water, the higher the ORP will be in general, and the greater the ability of the biota in the system to consume (oxidizing) organic compounds. Lose Electron Oxidation, Gain Electron Reduction; LEO GER. 

Consider a simple fish tank that only gets oxygenation via a filter spray bar or wet/dry chamber. ORP will be relatively constant with fluctuations based on how much oxygen is being consumed. Let's give it an arbitrary measure of say 300 right when the lights go on. The fish start waking up, moving around, and consuming more oxygen than they did when asleep. ORP drops a little. Then you feed the fish and ORP drops a little more as the fish digest it and uneaten food particles settle and are consumed by bacteria and/or invertebrates. Once that's done it'll go back up. 

Looking at a planted tank. Our ORP cycle is going to peak at times of maximum photosynthesis and dip lowest during periods of greatest O2 consumption with minor troughs when food and or fertilizers containing organic chelants are added. Sooo, a tank full of healthy and well photosynthesizing plants will increase ORP, thereby increasing overall organic material consumption by animals and substrate and/or filter bacteria.

That's why many reefers and aquaculturists will use ozonaters. They not only increase reactive oxygen, but oxygen levels in general, as mentioned before. Reactive oxygen species are good for killing nasties while the increased ORP helps the system break down labile organic compounds.


----------



## Marcel G

I have also read the whole thread on ukaps.org, and from what I have read I think that the ORP is quite important in regard to organics in our tanks. According to the patent on this device, it "_may apply a positive (+) voltage and a negative (-) voltage alternately, when supplying power to the killing apparatus (= the grid). The killing apparatus may perform a sterilizing operation by doing following two actions: First, as a direct action, the killing apparatus destroys cell membranes of a microscopic organism such as germ by means of an electrical potential difference between the interior and the exterior of their cell membranes, by applying voltage to the microscopic organism. Second, as an indirect action, the killing apparatus generates *radical* and sterilizes the fish tank by means of the radical. In addition, the killing apparatus may assist the growth of water plants in the fish tank. That is, positive ions such as Ca+2, K+, Mg+2, Fe+2, Zn+2, and/or Na+ are activated in water by the killing apparatus, thereby contributing to the growth of the water plants._" On ukaps.org there are six tests by Viktor Lantos in which the device seems to prohibit green algae, diatoms, and cyanobacteria. And although it doesn't seem to be effective against BBA, it seems to stop its growth. It is a pity that there is no one willing to measure ORP in a tank with this device. I suppose that the ORP must be quite high because of the radicals produced by it. If someone can confirm the high ORP values in these tanks, than we will know that ORP contributes to "algae free tank" quite a lot.

PS: If you have no time to read through the whole thread about Twinstar on ukaps.org, you can read my summary here (use Google Translate, it's in Czech language ... I work on english version also).


----------



## Phil Edwards

I may have an ORP probe at home. If I do I'll hook it up. I'm not going to blow $300 on this device, but perhaps ORP readings in conjunction with other things we -are- looking at might lend us an extra piece of info to help put things together.


----------



## Darkcobra

Ok, I was mistaken. The device [Niko] linked in a video is indeed the Twinstar, I mistook it for a high-output aerator I'd seen previously which looks a lot like it.

Interesting to see the patent for the Twinstar. It's a water electrolysis device. Use of platinized titanium electrodes for long life explains the pricetag (they are NOT cheap). You might be able to build a DIY version with smaller electrodes for $100 or so.

Stainless steel mesh could also be used, cheaper still and some of us have it on hand. Not sure how long it would last. Maybe just long enough the curious to at least test claims?

And then there's graphite, cheapest of all. But that would produce a version of the Carbo-Plus, with some (most?) of the oxygen going to CO2 production instead, through consumption of both graphite and any available KH.

I'm not sure if the Twinstar would consume KH or not, and can't comment on the claims of "activating" other nutrient ions.

But it will produce hydrogen as a byproduct. This is something we don't know much about. Hydrogen is almost insoluble by water, but that's as measured by mass. Since it has so little mass, by volume you can actually dissolve a fair bit. I've dissolved hydrogen into a few tanks, as a byproduct of another type of electrochemical CO2 generator I was experimenting with. I inquired about any possible effects, some speculated the hydrogen might feed anaerobic bacteria along with sulfates, to form toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. I didn't see any evidence of this though. The only unusual thing I took note of is a slight increase of brown biofilm accumulation in plumbing.

*[Phil Edwards]*, thanks for the clear explanation on ORP!


----------



## Phil Edwards

You're welcome. There's a lot more to ORP than that, but that pretty much explains hobby level stuff.


----------



## rjordan393

Phil,
I agree with your reply #315. I just started 36 hour study of orp, oxygen levels, pH and temperature. I want to see if there are any differance's in the numbers when I am supplying aeration overnight using a power head and with no aeration overnight. 
I will post my results when finished.
I wonder how many hobbiest's give it a thought that the demands for oxygen increase more at night then during the lighting period. its my belief that heavy aeration at night makes for healthier plants. By driving off most of the CO2, plants do not have to work as hard to get the oxygen they need if there was no aeration. So I will see what my results turn up.


----------



## niko

This is getting better and better!


Sent from my RM-893_nam_att_206 using Tapatalk


----------



## Marcel G

rjordan393 said:


> its my belief that heavy aeration at night makes for healthier plants.


Maybe, that's the reason why Takashi Amano suggests using aeration at night also.


----------



## Phil Edwards

I've posted a request on most other forums I go to so I'll post it here too. I'm trying to collect a nice set of data to do some tests with and since rjordan is starting I may as well ask here too. 

What I'm looking for:
KH, pH, ORP without (and with) aeration with pH and ORP readings taken as frequently as possible up to every hour for a week or two. Lighting type, photoperiod, CO2 injection period, % substrate plant coverage, algae presence/absence, type(s) of algae and general % algae. Depending on Jeff's ability to run tests daily DOC samples would be cool too. Dissolved oxygen would be icing on the cake.

The goal is to get a broad baseline data set to graph out the ORP cycle over 24 hours and compare that to CO2 weighted by % plant coverage.

*Rjordan*,

If you'd be willing to do the above with and without aeration each for a week and then send me your numbers I'd be grateful.


----------



## Yo-han

I certainly believe this as well. Since I turned my pH controller of at night, my tank looks way more healthy. And in the lfs I work, we have most trouble with the tank with the pH controller vs CO2 on a timer. Ferts and maintenance are all the same.

I always explained this in two ways, more oxygen at night, and a higher pH at night. A higher pH means bacteria do their job better -> less organics.


----------



## rjordan393

I can do observations on orp , pH, etc and do oxygen tests as requested, but my oxygen test kit will not last a week if I test for this every hour. The Salifert O2 test kit does 50 tests and I already used up about 5 tests before I started the data collection. But what I can do is test for this every two hours from lights on to lights out. So I will extend my data collection for a week.


----------



## Phil Edwards

rjordan,

If you can take readings from your electronic probes hourly and DO as frequently as you care to that would be great. If you're up for taking hourly DO readings for one day throughout the photoperiod to get a good resolution set then regular tests at whatever frequency you care to (as long as it's regular, like every day at 6pm) that would be awesome. DO really is just icing on the cake so do whatever you want. Any little bit of info will help.  Ideally we'd be able to hook probes up to a data logger for frequent recording but that's not an affordable option for most folks.


----------



## BruceF

Not that you can't improve on nature but isn't the circadian rhythm one in which o2 is highest at the afternoon and co2 is the highest just before dawn?


----------



## UDGags

I can probably give you everything via Apex logs...pH, ORP, etc. I have a LaMotte oxygen test kit as well.


----------



## Phil Edwards

*UDGags*,

Any and all data you can provide would be welcomed.


----------



## rjordan393

> Not that you can't improve on nature but isn't the circadian rhythm one in which o2 is highest at the afternoon and co2 is the highest just before dawn?


According to what I see written, oxygen concentration peaks sometime in the afternoon but I am not so sure about CO2 being highest just before dawn. It all depends on other factors and two of these is overnight aeration vs no aeration. That is what I am performing now to see what the numbers are. I can tell you now that on Monday night at 8 pm when the lights went out, the O2 tests at 12 ppm.
The following morning at 8 am, after heavy aeration, the O2 tests at 11 ppm. I am hoping that my test kit is accurate because this tells me that the heavy aeration is meeting the demands of the plants during the lights out period. 
But this very fact troubles me a bit because according to an online table of Oxygen saturation, at 75.2 degrees F , with zero salinity, the saturation point is reached at 8.4 ppm oxygen. So why is my test kit giving me a result of 12 ppm? Maybe the author of the table is referring to the air/water interface without much aeration. So a chemist would have to step in and give an explanation, if any.


----------



## Phil Edwards

How do the O2 concentrations compare if you go up the salinity axis? Do they get larger or smaller?


----------



## BruceF

Heck I don’t understand most of this stuff. I have just always understood that nighttime aeration was to keep the o2 levels higher for the fish. I never really thought about the plants. Is there actually a level of co2 that is detrimental to the plants? I realize there must be an absolute level but I doubt we would reach that even at night without killing off the fish.


----------



## Yo-han

BruceF said:


> Heck I don't understand most of this stuff. I have just always understood that nighttime aeration was to keep the o2 levels higher for the fish. I never really thought about the plants. Is there actually a level of co2 that is detrimental to the plants? I realize there must be an absolute level but I doubt we would reach that even at night without killing off the fish.


I don't think so. Atmospheric CO2 is 400ppm if I recall right. I know people tested 200ppm without fish. Plants grew faster, no problems. I only read of one person saying cell tissue could burst with too much CO2 inside the leaf. Still way outside the concentrations we use.



Phil Edwards said:


> How do the O2 concentrations compare if you go up the salinity axis? Do they get larger or smaller?


I don't think they change. Oxygen levels in reef tanks are about the same. Although if it would change, I would say with more dissolved substances in the water, there is a little less room for oxygen in the water. But probably neglectable.


----------



## BruceF

I do think the high o2 levels are important for the bio filter.


----------



## rjordan393

Phil,
At the same temperature of 75.2 F, oxygen levels will drop at increased salinity levels. At 5 ppm salinity, its 8.16 ppm. At 35 ppm salinity, its 6.87 ppm. With increased temperatures, the oxygen levels will also drop.


----------



## rjordan393

> Is there actually a level of co2 that is detrimental to the plants? I realize there must be an absolute level but I doubt we would reach that even at night without killing off the fish.


I don't think we need to worry about the level of CO2 for plants. This is what they feed on. Its the fish that will show discomfort when the pH decreases to below a certain number and the KH is high enough to show that one is over the recommended value on a CO2 chart. Take a look at this chart.
http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/images/d/daCO2_Graph.gif


----------



## Phil Edwards

I agree. CO2 should not get to the point where it's harmful to plants without killing all of the fish, shrimp, and snails in a tank first. 

As long as CO2 is high enough to stimulate photosynthesis and increase oxygen concentrations, and presumably ORP, which presumably enhances organic compound breakdown, then that's really what's important to the topic at hand. It seems to me that ORP is one of the measurable variables that's part of investigating the effects of organic compounds and, by extension "Healthy plants, healthy aquarium".


----------



## niko

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/oxygen_nanobubble_water_and_method_of_pr.pdf

http://www.nanobubbles.com/nanobubb...l-physico-mechanical-properties/#.Uwz_262Yboo


----------



## niko

Rjordan,

I want to try to pre-treat my tap water with H2O2. I have no idea if I have any organics in it but recent VERY unexplicable bouts of BBA has made me do everything I could think of. It works (more bio and mechanical filtration, Purigen overkill, added fish that make mulm waterbourne, trimmed many plants, improved flow along the surface). So naturally I got paranoid and interested in getting rid of organics in my tap water using H2O2 like you do.

--> Now, I may not need it at all, my tap water maybe pristinely clean (yeah, right). But what would be a general rule of thumb to treat one's tap water with H2O2? How many ml of the 3% H2O2 per 10 gallons? 

--> Also I have no clue how dechlorinators work. In particular Prime. Why do you wait for 2 days for the effects of dechlorination to wear off? What are the basic reactions.

All of that is a good small step forward toward understanding more what we are actually doing.


----------



## rjordan393

I would refer you to this article for H2O2 use. http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/Hydrogen_peroxide

As a guide to how much; I cannot say because even I do not know if it will work and I will not know until I send in a new sample of my water to Jeffrey. This will take time until my tank has matured enough as I tore it down in January. Like I mentioned before, I do bi-weekly water changes and my treated water has enough time to wear off the effects of a one time treatment during that period. But is it enough? I do not know.
But if you want to treat your water with H2O2, then this is what I do. I use the paragraph titled "As an Algae Killer" as a guide. It states: Using 3% H2O2, dose 60 ml per 66 gallons. That comes out to
0.909 ml per gallon. But I double that amount because It is not going into my aquarium until the effects have worn off. So do not do this if the treated water is going into your aquarium right away or you could possibly wipe out your inhabitants or lose your biofilter.
This is a new area for me as is everyone else who uses it.
As for why I wait two days is because Seachem says their product "Prime" is effective for 24 hours but to be sure all the effectiveness is worn off, then 48 hours should be sufficient time. This is helpful when you want to treat the same water with another chemical that might conflict with the first.

As for your lack of knowledge of how dechlorinators work; there are websites such as "Seachem" that has all that information. Either you are a lazy fish keeper or you are jesting with me. You have over 2,000 post to my 250 I believe. How can you not know about how dechlorinators work? When I started in the hobby two years ago, I started a library and now have 5 loose leaf books on just about anything about the aquarium hobby that I downloaded, which I use as a reference.


----------



## Darkcobra

The question about Prime isn't frivolous or surprising. I don't think the reactions that occur are public knowledge, as Seachem doesn't share exact ingredients. They do have a good bit of info but all limited to _what_ it does, not _how_.

*[Niko]*, the amount of H2O2 needed will depend completely on the amount of reactable material in the tapwater. To determine the _exact_ amount needed, you'd probably have to experimentally determine how much is too much, by testing for residual H2O2. Potassium permanganate is a strong dye (and oxidizer like H2O2). Take a tall narrow glass container, fill with distilled water, determine how much dilute PP solution you need to add so the water looks barely but detectably pink when viewed top-down. Refill with your H2O2 treated water, add the same amount of PP, shake well. Any residual H2O2 will rapidly react with the PP, eliminating the color; and you know less H2O2 is needed. Treat a new batch of tapwater with reduced H2O2, repeat until you get it zeroed in. Haven't done this myself, but I understand variations of this technique are used in determining dosage for either chemical in pond treatments and such.

I think I'd get an RO machine, or splurge on store-bought water for a limited test, and then fully remineralize and verify effect on BBA before going to such trouble though.


----------



## niko

Thank you both for the answers.

Rjordan, 

I really have no clue how dechlorinators work. To me it was simple - tap water was clean but it needed the Chlorine/Chloramine taken out. I assumed that dechlorinators precipitate them and make insoluble bonds. And on top of that in my head that happened immediately because, once again, pretty much everybody dechlorinates in their tank so it must be an immediate reaction. I applied that beautiful fantasy to the water that I always ran through a big Activated Carbon filter and for years thought that I am really making some kind of magic super clean water. Unlike before when for years I just ran the tap water through the Carbon and did not add any dechlorinator. Carbon + dechlorinator where all fine and dandy in my head and kind of ok in my tanks until few days ago when you posted about your tap water having just about 50% of the organics in your tank. Now it sounded like I am not only loading the water with dechlorinator but the stupid water maybe too dirty to start with. Recently one of my tanks had a weird case of growing both plants and BBA like there is no tomorrow. That made me really think that we got to get down to the very basics of what we do if we want to make a little more sense of the questions without answers we constantly face.

Also, usually, I ask questions that are meant to be helpful for other people too. I bet very few people know what is it that dechlorinators do. For years I avoided them using the logic "the less stuff I add the better". Well, it is hard to justify that if you live in a city but it does make sense theoretically. The thing about dechlorinators and planted tanks is that it is all very specific - just like many other things commonly used outside of the hobby get funky when in contact with a planted tank. That is why I asked you to describe how dechlorinators work. Reading official documents is often not enough when it comes to planted tanks.

Darkcobra,

For years I used an RO rig and I have to say that the problems that I recently saw in that one tank where both the plants and BBA grew like crazy started gradually when I stopped using the RO. I don't remember constant presence of more or less algae every single week when I was using RO. As I said - with common sense actions the tank is looking way better now but I still think something beyond filtration/flow/good plant growth was and is still off. I maybe introducing the problem every single week... For months now the tank has had zero other algae, just BBA. Right now the BBA is greatly reduced and all plants have huge new leaves, including Anubias which got harsh bleach treatment last week.

Another "dumb" question: So an RO unit will produce water void of organics? I ask that because it is obvious that the organic molecules have got to be large enough to be filtered out but there is something in the water here that never lets my RO have pH of anything different than 7.2. I have tested pH with at least 7 different pH meters and is rock solid 7.2 every time. Sounds like some kind of buffer makes it through the membrane but that does not make a lot of sense. Unless you have a good explanation of that I believe that some things do pass through the RO membrane. Organic or inorganic molecules it does not matter - something makes it through. And that's why I ask about organics passing through the membrane. Plus I think that a $100 RO unit is the best investment if you want to get the water for your tank right. Everybody would be better off reading this black on white.


----------



## Phil Edwards

*Niko,*

Sodium Thiosulfate, Na2S2O3, is a common dechlorinator used in pools and aquariums. Basically a couple reactions occur that converts the dissolved chlorine to chloride ions which then bind to other ions or are off gassed. That's also why a lot of commercial dechlorinators have a strong sulfurous smell.

Take a Google gander at Thiosulfate reduction of Chlorine.

As for RO systems; your results don't surprise me at all. The process of RO filtration uses pressure to push water across an semipermeable osmotic membrane against the concentration gradient. Quality of filtration depends on the membrane used. The larger the pores on the membrane the larger, and more, dissolved ions/molecules will pass through. Hobby grade RO filters use a membrane with larger pore sizes to keep cost down. That's why people often combine RO units with DI units.

Adding H2O2- you can add as much as you'd like as long as you let it sit for a while before adding it to the tank. Rather than dumping a big slug in all at once try using a venturi on a powerhead to suck it out of a bottle and disperse that way.


----------



## Zapins

Organics are unlikely to pass through RO membranes, even hobbyist grade RO membranes. They are generally huge molecules with hundreds to millions of atoms in them. RO membranes can filter out atom sized particles which is how they exclude calcium/magnesium/etc ions from your water. These are 1 atom big.

You are probably getting some small amount of mineral passing through the membrane. Test it with a TDS meter and see if the reading is 0. Also, when the water has no buffering capacity even a tiny amount of an acid or base can swing the pH of the water one way or another, you could be getting contamination from somewhere else that is giving you different pH values.

Also, most organics are slightly acidic, so another clue that whatever is buffering your water isn't likely to be organic.



wikipedia said:


> Membrane pore sizes can vary from 0.1 to 5,000 nm (4×10−9 to 2×10−4 in) depending on filter type. "Particle filtration" removes particles of 1 µm (3.9×10−5 in) or larger. Microfiltration removes particles of 50 nm or larger. Ultrafiltration removes particles of roughly 3 nm or larger. "Nanofiltration" removes particles of 1 nm or larger. Reverse osmosis is in the final category of membrane filtration, "hyperfiltration", and removes particles larger than 0.1 nm.


From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis

Atoms are between 0.1 and 0.5 nm wide.

From: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelPhillip.shtml


----------



## niko

Cool website, check out the other topics too (2011-2014)
http://lafertie.blogspot.com/2013/11/residents-of-black-brush-algae.html#more

Ok, so one way to make sure you are not adding organics is to use RO water. I think I will start doing that before playing with H2O2. I will probably end up adding some H2O2 eventually because I will be mixing tap water + RO.

Ok so that's one step ahead.


----------



## niko

Another question: In another thread someone was asking about a filter material that will help him filter out organics. Someone else commented that dissolved organics will not be retained by a fine sponge or mat material. Purigen was suggested as the only option.

So, do dissolved organics form from the break down of larger particles? Does it make sense to try to filter out visible dirt or dissolved organics just spring to life as already dissolved?

I'd say "of course, filter out all visible dirt". But what to do with the dirt that cannot be retained by the filter?


----------



## rjordan393

For those who are waiting for the results of the oxygen testing, pH, orp and Kh ; there has been a delay until my new Oxygen test kit arrives from the "Hach" company.
My original oxygen test kit by "Salifert" is not up to the accuracy I demand. I hope to have 5 to 6 days of testing and observations and then I will submit them to the forum.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Niko,

Dissolved organic compounds (DOC) come from the breakdown of organic matter (OM) such as feces, left over food, and decaying leaves AND are exuded directly by the plants, animals, and bacteria in your tank. As you said "filtering out all of the visible dirt" is a great idea as is siphoning it out during water changes. 

Purigen isn't the only material that will remove DOC. Various brands and grades of activated carbon, OrganitR, IonitR, Redoxiclean, Chemipure, and any of the reputable microbial blend supplements will address DOC and in some cases enhance OM break down (Redoxiclean and various bacteria blends) too.


----------



## Phil Edwards

rjordan,

At least we know that Hach isn't a bunch of hacks and an be relied upon.


----------



## niko

I wonder if someone could tell us how OrganitR, IonitR, Redoxiclean differ from each other and how they differ from Purigen?


----------



## niko

If I understood correctly contraptions like the Twinstar may very well reduce organics by the way of very small bubbles that don't feel like floating up. They linger in the tank and oxidize all kinds of bad things and promote the growth of all kinds of good things. The way I understand it it is not about pure Oxygen or free radicals but about huge contact surface - nanobubbles of air. 

So what about using an Atomic diffuser to try to emulate the supposed good effect of lingering air bubbles?


----------



## TAB

I don't think a standard airpump can run one.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk


----------



## niko

TAB said:


> I don't think a standard airpump can run one.


Case solved with one of these babies:









Joke aside if tiny air bubbles indeed make the difference between night and day I'd say that people would start to hook up another pressurized bottle to their tank. But I still think that the interest in a nanobubble crutch is because of lack of understanding or desire to do things in a simpler way.


----------



## Yo-han

Here were nanobubbles already discussed: http://www.barrreport.com/showthrea...day-seems-to-grow-aquatic-plants-better/page3

From post 27 on. If you can keep an orchid a month submersed, there must be something special about nanobubbles.

The question is, does it need to be oxygen? Most people notice clearer water with CO2. While the small bubbles dissolve, at some stage, they are nanobubbles. Do they help as well? Or is it just an indirect effect -> the extra oxygen the plants produce makes the water more clear.


----------



## TAB

The change in ph can cuase clearer water as well. Same with increased plant growth. There are so many factors its hard to say what does what.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk


----------



## niko

I read some years ago that the CO2 bubbles provide flocculation. Now, it is not that hard to see what happens to the organics when the meet a bubble - they stick to its surface. But what I don't quite understand is what happens to the flocculated organics after that. They float to the surface eventually or end up going through the filter as aggregates of many tiny molecules. So what if they end up on the surface? And the filter still can't retain them. 

The water clarity may have to do with healthy plants. How, I do not know. But tanks with very healthy plants also have very clear water.


----------



## niko

Just read that funny PowerPoint presentation that Yo-Han linked to. It says that the nanobubbles stay in the water for about 100 days. Here's something that may have to do with that:

It is not unusual to notice that the line to which the water level dropped during a water change seems to divide very different environments. Algae does not grow above it. The glass and decorations above the line (parts exposed to air) stay clean for weeks. I remember ADG mentioning that they use that effect to suppress algae by draining the entire tank and leaving it exposed to air for a short time. I have a tank with the "special line" right here - about 4 inches from the top rim I have zero algae and below that I have some algae on the glass. From experience I know that it takes weeks of neglect for the algae to start to grow above the line.

Still not sure if all this is about Oxygen or air.


----------



## Phil Edwards

niko said:


> I wonder if someone could tell us how OrganitR, IonitR, Redoxiclean differ from each other and how they differ from Purigen?


Gee, wonder who that could be&#8230;.

If I knew what Purigen was made from I could tell you how it differs from the above. Unfortunately I don't, so I can't answer that particular question. I can say that OrganitR does the same thing as Purigen but doesn't require bleach to regenerate; regular table salt will do the trick. They're both a form, or forms (again, not sure what Purigen's made from), of charged resins that adsorb dissolved organic compounds. IonitR is a blend of resins that selectively take up (sorry, don't know the kinetics of the selectivity) dissolved organics, ammonia/um, nitrite, nitrate, and phosphate. Redoxiclean is a liquid solution of manganese salts that will enhance ORP. No, it's not just H2O2 in a fancy bottle and insane mark up, I promise. I wouldn't recommend it for every day use, but for treatment of acute DOC/OM issues it's pretty good.


----------



## Phil Edwards

If a nano bubble is a tiny little bubble with a charged surface then it will adsorb ions/molecules carrying the opposite charge. As long as the bubble itself doesn't burst then it will eventually either a) get pulled into the filter or b) settle to the bottom with a load of adsorbed molecules. CO2 and O2 bubbles do the same thing except the surface area of a like volume of gas created by a twinstar vs what goes through a diffuser is orders of magnitude greater. More surface area = more adsorption. 

I'm not really up on how nano bubbles act as oxidizing agents. I read what you posted Niko and it makes sense, but it's not a field/application of technology I'm very familiar with. From what it sounded like I got the impression that the massive amount of super tiny charged bubbles float around and contact the delicate outer cells of a green alga and cause them to lyse somehow, probably by pulling an electron off an important molecule or million. 

My real concern/question is what are these nano bubbles doing to the gills of fish and shrimp? Are those tissues tough enough to withstand the effect of the bubbles?


----------



## xev11

Phil Edwards said:


> Gee, wonder who that could be&#8230;.
> 
> If I knew what Purigen was made from I could tell you how it differs from the above. Unfortunately I don't, so I can't answer that particular question. I can say that OrganitR does the same thing as Purigen but doesn't require bleach to regenerate; regular table salt will do the trick. They're both a form, or forms (again, not sure what Purigen's made from), of charged resins that adsorb dissolved organic compounds. IonitR is a blend of resins that selectively take up (sorry, don't know the kinetics of the selectivity) dissolved organics, ammonia/um, nitrite, nitrate, and phosphate. Redoxiclean is a liquid solution of manganese salts that will enhance ORP. No, it's not just H2O2 in a fancy bottle and insane mark up, I promise. I wouldn't recommend it for every day use, but for treatment of acute DOC/OM issues it's pretty good.


Could you possibly do a quick summary of your understandings of NitratR? I created a quick spreadsheet from the provided descriptions of these products and IonitR and Purit have identical descriptions.


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> It is not unusual to notice that the line to which the water level dropped during a water change seems to divide very different environments. Algae does not grow above it. The glass and decorations above the line (parts exposed to air) stay clean for weeks. I remember ADG mentioning that they use that effect to suppress algae by draining the entire tank and leaving it exposed to air for a short time. I have a tank with the "special line" right here - about 4 inches from the top rim I have zero algae and below that I have some algae on the glass. From experience I know that it takes weeks of neglect for the algae to start to grow above the line.


You're not the first I've seen mention that recently. I've never seen a similar effect. Especially since I delay refilling the last 25% at least 15 minutes, sometimes 30 or more, I'd think it would be obvious. Wonder why we get different results?


----------



## niko

And I wonder why the magic line shows up in some tanks and not others. And it does not show up predictably in the same tank either. It does not depend on how neglected the tank is or it isn't. But it surely scares algae... lifeless for a long time.

Also I do not understand why the magic line can go over anything - the glass, the silicone, over wood, over the rubbery cap of a heater, over suction cups. All these materials stay pristinely clean above the magic line and get algae just below it. And in the case of ADG using the exposure to air to "sterilize" a tank - it apparently keeps algae off plants too.


----------



## niko

OrganitR sounds really good. I am very scared of using bleach to make Purigen new again. I'd rather buy a new package than risk. Just the other day I found 100 grams of Purigen being sold for only $5 at some online store. I bet OrganitR is more expensive but the regeneration with regular salt is indeed a great thing.

On a cheap, DIY, proper stingy planted tank enthusiast note - all these resins are nothing too special in the industrial world. They are sold in big bags - 50, 100 lbs. The problem is that if you start looking into affirming your cheapness you will drown in a sea of options. Adsorption resins come in a bewildering variety of flavors - to adsorb this and not that or this group of stuffs and not that group and so on. 

...Because of that crazy variety of options I suspect that they are manufactured from expired batches of ice cream... Tonight I will chew on some Purigen and let you know if I taste something interesting... Wish me luck because the way I see it in the eyes of the little Purigen balls I am nothing but a big piece of organics. I may get adsorbed or something.


----------



## Phil Edwards

*Niko*,

YGPM. As much as I'd love to derail the topic to discuss the ins and outs of these products publicly I don't want to piss off the site sponsors or use this forum as a means of shilling our products without being a paying sponsor. (any more than I did in a previous post which I can't edit to remove at this point) If anyone else has the same questions Niko does, I'll take them in pm.

You're right, resins like this are used widely in many many many industries. However, they are not cheap unless you're looking at buying in industrial use quantity and even then you'll be spending many hundreds or thousands of dollars on a minimum order that's enough resin to last your aquariums the rest of your life and fill your house with bean bags filled with the stuff. I exaggerate a little there, but the point is made.


----------



## Zapins

It just occurred to me, if organics = BBA, then we should be able to test this by gathering up all the mulm from several tanks and the filters and dumping it into a BBA free tank. This should boost the organic content of the water and promote BBA.

Anyone up for a test??


----------



## rjordan393

From what I read about ferrous and ferric iron on the net tells me that the mulm that I see on the inside of my suction and discharge hoses is actually caused by iron bacteria. When they eat the ferric iron, the iron bacteria leaves a orange colored slime. So the higher we dose with our iron supplements, it appears the slime will appear much quicker. It also appears we cannot count on our over the counter test kit for iron or any other parameter to give us decent results. Jeffreys analysis on my 75 gallon tank says I had 1.7 ppm iron in my tank water, But my test kit indicated much, much less.
The OTC test kits are a disgrace especially when we pay 14.00 to 20.00 per kit. I have seen this with two oxygen test kits. One was a Salifert kit and the other was a Hach kit. There was a big difference in the readings. The Salifert indicated 12 ppm oxygen which I suspected was wrong. The more expensive Hach test kit indicated 8.3 ppm and when you pay $117.00 for a Hach oxygen test kit; what kit would you believe in? 
So this is one request for mulm that I have to pass on as I am trying to avoid or delay the accumulation of mulm in my hoses. So it appears I will be purchasing a Hach iron test kit and an nitrate and phosphate kit to follow.


----------



## Yo-han

Unless you cooled the water for the salifert test, 12 ppm is impossible. At 25 degree celcius (77F) max oxygen saturation will be 8.2 ppm.

But I must say, I made known concentrations for alkalinity, PO4 and NO3 once and I tested them with salifert test kits and they were all spot on! Except for 1 PO4 test kit over the years that did always show 0 ppm I really like them. But I never used the oxygen test.
Although they do sell an organics test kit lately and been tempted to try that one, but I got nothing to compare it with...

Never bought any iron test kit. They are useless and every brand shows another outcome.

I've seen a filter a few years back that was covered in rusty red slime. No idea how this happened but this turned out to be iron bacteria. It looked totally different than the sludge I remove from my hoses (which look like it contains mostly organics). I'm not saying it doesn't contain iron bacteria but not mainly.


----------



## rjordan393

> Unless you cooled the water for the salifert test, 12 ppm is impossible. At 25 degree celcius (77F) max oxygen saturation will be 8.2 ppm.


I use a chart to determine % saturation whereas a line is drawn from the temperature to the oxygen level and where it intersects the saturation scale indicates the % saturation. So you are basically correct but according to the "LaMotte" company, a manufacturer of test kits, it is possible to go over 100% saturation on a sunny day when dense areas of plants or algae produce oxygen. So a hobbiest with strong lighting with a heavily planted tank may be able to get 9.5 ppm at 77 degrees F. This would make it 110% saturated only if a correction factor for altitude does not need to be applied.

I misspoke about test kits in general as being a disgrace but I believe salifert is over stating that their product can be used for fresh water. If I am not mistaken, their test kits are all designed for the marine hobby.


----------



## Yo-han

rjordan393 said:


> I misspoke about test kits in general as being a disgrace but I believe salifert is over stating that their product can be used for fresh water. If I am not mistaken, their test kits are all designed for the marine hobby.


I´m not sure on this one, but I don´t see why any marine test kit can´t be used for freshwater. In salt water, there is much more interference from other ions, so this makes accurate results harder. If a test kit is suitable for salt water, I think it is safe to say it is suitable for fresh water as well (except perhaps the range is different).


----------



## Phil Edwards

rjordan393 said:


> From what I read about ferrous and ferric iron on the net tells me that the mulm that I see on the inside of my suction and discharge hoses is actually caused by iron bacteria. When they eat the ferric iron, the iron bacteria leaves a orange colored slime. So the higher we dose with our iron supplements, it appears the slime will appear much quicker.
> 
> The more expensive Hach test kit indicated 8.3 ppm and when you pay $117.00 for a Hach oxygen test kit; what kit would you believe in?


When I was in environmental consulting one of the regulatory wetland indicators we used was presence/absence of iron reducing bacteria in streams. It was a rust colored coating on the sediment, wood, or algae present in the water. Sometimes it was accompanied by an oily looking slick on still water, indicating an organic rich anaerobic environment supplying water to the stream/pool.

I was talking with some folks over on APE the other day about DO. At Standard Temperature and Pressure (25C and 1 atmosphere; our typical tank) DO won't get higher than 9.1 ppm. I'd trust the Hach results of 8.3 as that's what he's getting using his calibrated DO meter.

Something to consider with adding mulm, if it's from an established tank chances are it's already fairly well broken down and full of beneficial bacteria. We'd have to add a lot to a tank to ensure maximum addition of labile organic matter.

Adding sugar, lactic acid, or humic/fulvic extracts may be best. If someone's willing to test it in their tank I'll be happy to send small baggies with some humid/fulvic extract and kelp extracts (both loaded with plant-derived organic molecules).


----------



## BruceF

Phil could you explain this to those of us who are slow on the uptake? 

"Adding sugar, lactic acid, or humic/fulvic extracts may be best. If someone's willing to test it in their tank I'll be happy to send small baggies with some humid/fulvic extract and kelp extracts (both loaded with plant-derived organic molecules)."


----------



## Phil Edwards

Sure thing Bruce,

Sugar (glucose, fructose, or sucrose), lactic acid, humic/fulvic acids, and the kelp extract I'm talking about are all organic molecules or contain organic molecules likely to be found in some concentration or another in plants or our tank's water. Rather than adding a synthetic organic compound like gluteraldehyde to increase DOC, it seems best to me to add the stuff that is likely in the highest concentration somewhere in the tank and/or hasn't shown biocidal/algaecidal properties. I've only got 5-6 months to get my tanks into competition shape for entry into the AGA this year or I'd do it myself.


----------



## niko

Zapins said:


> It just occurred to me, if organics = BBA, then we should be able to test this by gathering up all the mulm from several tanks and the filters and dumping it into a BBA free tank. This should boost the organic content of the water and promote BBA.
> 
> Anyone up for a test??


Hold your horses, cowboy!

It doesn't work like that. Not every dirty tank has BBA. That's why I gently mentioned that I have started to believe that BBA has to do with the processing of organics, not just their presence. But the first thing to figure out is some kind of tangible connection BBA<->organics. I think that can only happen in a tank that has BBA and you are able to make it show up and disappear a few times in a row predictably.

Also there are other reasons for BBA for sure. In one of my tank the plants have explosive growth and make huge leaves. With lots of filtration (bio and mechanical) + Purigen overkill the water is visibly cleaner. The water changes now make barely murky water (vacuuming gravel, yes) while before I syphoned root beer colored water. No other algae in sight other than BBA. Only on the edges of the swords. 2-2.5" wide sword leaves are not unhealthy. But BBA is all over them.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Really interesting read linking aquatic plants, DOC/DOM, and microbial metabolism. Interesting to note that the author points out an inverse relationship between DOC release and microbial metabolism with(vs.) presence/mass of algae.

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/shivers_stephen_d_201012_ms.pdf

A study of oligotrophic Canadian lakes cites up to 9.8 mg of C per m2 per hour DOC release by aquatic plants.

TLDR: Plants release significant organic carbon into the water (often in the form of monosaccharides) during periods of photosynthesis. The released O and C stimulate bacterial metabolism and following a point the author made earlier, algae are reduced.


----------



## niko

I read al 88 pages. 15 times. Here's something that I really liked, on page 76:
_"...This study also found that different plant leachates can have different carbon bioavailabilities..."_

Leachates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate

So it looks like the plants in my tank may make organics that are not as available as someone else's tank. To me that sheds some light on the question why some tanks get BBA and some don't. At least some light.


----------



## rjordan393

I printed out all the pages of that study and will make an effort to read them on Monday. In the meantime, my oxygen study results will be finished after 8 pm tonight. So I should be able to post them by 9 pm.


----------



## Zapins

Good news let us know the results.


----------



## rjordan393

Here are the results of my 4 day study of Oxygen.


----------



## niko

Hm, that was unexpected (the O2 staying stable all night).

Also something that maybe a fluke but... How come on 3/5 at 8PM the O2 is 75% and the ORP is 218 but the next morning (3/6, 8AM) the ORP is about the same (213) with 20% more Oxygen. I was under the impression that pumping air in the tank (increasing the O2) does an immense lot of good to the bacteria and ORP jumps up.

Did Amano lie to us about nightly aeration? Is Twinstar a practical gizmo after all?

Great read about ORP here:
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/rhf/feature/index.php

Numbers are numbers but what I know for sure is simple - stir all the dirt in your tank, vacuum as much as you can, hook up an air stone. 2 days later I guarantee you a visibly clearer water. Every single time. I always attributed that to good old Oxygen getting to more bacteria than usual. Now I am not so sure but the observation still stands.


----------



## Zapins

Hmm. I'm not seeing a lot of strong patterns in the data.

Why not try running the tests on a sample of RO water at the start of the day or just before making a reading. I wonder if the ORP meter is not calibrated, or is drifting each day?


----------



## rjordan393

I can only guess why the orp at 8AM was about the same as I expected it to be higher. Starting with the first guess.
1. Electrical interference: When I first installed the orp meter, I was getting some interference. Anytime a pump would start or stop, the reading on the meter would change. So I re-arranged all the wires of my other components and it has helped. In this case, the powerhead shuts off at 8 AM and about a few minutes later, I make note of the orp reading. I believe that anything in the water such as heaters and powerheads may cause interference when they cycle on and off. I'll watch for this at 8 AM Sunday. 

2. When I purchased my orp meter, I was getting readings that were suspect. So I took some hourly results and contacted American Marine and they agreed that the probe appears to respond too slow to changes. When I examined the probe, there was crystals or bubbles inside of it. So American Marine replaced it and it also had crystals or bubbles. So I thought this is common with orp probes. now I am not so sure. I will have to go to a local distributor and ask to see a new probe. I was in the marine hobby for 10 years (1985 to 1995) and do not recall seeing this in any of the replacement orp probes.

3. I read some article on the net that stated that it is normal for orp to drop when the pH increases and when pH drops, the orp increases. I am not sure that is correct.

That's about it for guessing.
But you may have missed the pH readings when the tank was aerated. it responded to the increase in oxygen, whereas the pH was lower when the tank was not aerated.


----------



## rjordan393

> Why not try running the tests on a sample of RO water at the start of the day or just before making a reading. I wonder if the ORP meter is not calibrated, or is drifting each day?


It was calibrated about 2 weeks ago. but as you say, it may be drifting. I will test the orp of ro water and report back.


----------



## rjordan393

I watch the cycling of the powerhead at 8am and its affects on the orp. Just before the powerhead shut down the orp was 202 and after it shut down, the orp went up to 215 and settled in at 213. So to answer your question Niko, it appears the real orp at 8 AM should be 11 mv higher.
And to add more to the confusion, I removed the powerheads electrical plug and place in in another power supply close by. The result this time is the orp went from 213 to 233 mv.

So I do not intend to let the confusion of orp get the best of me because "Randy Holmes Farley" a well respected chemist who keeps reef aquaria does not use one. He says there are too many complexities that are involved that will change the values. There are many things about orp that even the best minds of science do not understand. So what I intend to do is to use orp only occasionally when I decide if to use an oxidizer to tell me when enough is enough. A value of 300 to 350 might be the correct value, but I need to do some more research on it.


----------



## Zapins

If there is electrical interference then removing a specific amount of water from the tank in a plastic container should help eliminate the interference you mentioned. Test the sample water in the container not the tank water.


----------



## rjordan393

The ro water in a glass read 267 mv while sitting in the water.
It read 256 mv when lightly stirred. both readings were taken at 64 degrees F. 

The tank water read 197 mv. But when a sample was placed in a plastic container, it dropped to 190 mv and slowly climbed back to 197 mv. So I am ok there. ph at time of readings was 6.47 to 6.50.

Now I have to wait till 8 pm when the powerhead kicks on and see if the interference is temporary or continuous.
On another point, I checked out a new orp probe and it has the same characteristics as mentioned before; so my probe is ok after all. It will be placed in storage solution until I need it to check the oxidative power as I add some to treat the tank either for organics or bsa and/or bba.


----------



## niko

"Randy Holmes Farley", a "well respected chemist"... and an internet aquarium guru. I can easily think of another example. Don't let me say anything negative, I'll just scoff instead.

Whatever recommendation someone is giving are all fluff because if it was so clear and working so well aquarium problems would be unheard of by now. They are not. Nothing else to say. But the information about ORP is interesting by itself.


----------



## TAB

I don't think we are even close to understanding how orp works but as you said it is very interesting

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk


----------



## rjordan393

From what I read on the net; one of the authors stated that orp was being misinterpreted and the manufacturers were quick to pick up on this. Someone stated that it measures water quality. So lets separate fact from fiction.
Orp meters measure the oxidative or reductive power of the solution which may or may not improve water quality but it does not measure water quality. For instance; if one takes a glass of ro water that has germs in it and adds a few drops of chlorine, it will kill the germs but is it drinkable? So what was improved? Yes, the germs were killed but what is gained if we cannot drink it? So that's what orp is all about. Too much oxidation is harmful and too much reduction and the water would be tasteless.
Its a balancing act between both.


----------



## Marcel G

According to my opinion the redox is our best bet in determining the water quality. I know that it could be tricky, but if you use the values reasonably, then it can give you some hints on what's going on in your tank (what are the tendencies/trends). If you have 300-400 mV ORP then I would say that you probably have very good conditions in your tank. And on the contrary, if you have 100-200 mV, then you have probably some serious problems.


----------



## Phil Edwards

ORP in itself isn't terribly complicated; it's massive jumble of redox reactions that go on in water that are.  As a measure of water quality, it's pretty good too. We're not talking about potability, but overall pollutant load. Water can be high quality from an environmental standpoint even if it's not potable.

Thanks for the observations rjordan, they're interesting. I'm glad to hear your probe is working as intended. You were getting 267 mV? That sounds kind of low. What does it get to after you've done a water change and cleaned your filter?

PaulG over at APE shared some really telling pictures of graphs on his Apex logger. ORP and DO had a fairly close relationship with ORP lagging an hour or so behind DO. DO had a min/max of 40%/90% saturation, with 8.3 ppm being 100% and ORP ranged from 300-350 mV with small drops after feeding and/or supplementation with chelated ions.

Check out this thread and take a look at his graphs. They're telling. http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts....iscussion/5612-ph-orp-planted-aquarium-2.html

I really want to get an Apex now. LOL


----------



## niko

Man! How did you make it without an apex so far???










I guess my dear granny was right again. "You can when you want!" she always told me....


----------



## niko

So how is it that ORP measures all kinds of oxidation/reduction but when PaulG pumped raised the dissolved oxygen the ORP did not jump up immediately? 

I was under the impression that Oxygen itself would raise the ORP just like that! Add an oxidant = raise ORP. But it sounds that ORP measures something else. Can someone clarify?


----------



## JeffyFunk

rjordan393 - Question for you... How did you calibrate the ORP electrode? What reference solution did you use? According to Standard Methods, we verified the response of the electrode using ZoBell's solution (Light's solution is the other reference solution). The ZoBell's solution is orange in color (from the Fe+3/Fe+2 species).


----------



## Phil Edwards

Niko,

ORP is a measure of *potential* and must take into account the demands the system is placing on oxygen. Even though DO may increase it takes time for the dissolved O2 to get to a point where dissolution rates are greater than biological or chemical demands. Redox chemistry can get really complex and that complexity is what's governing ORP. That's my guess as to why there's a lag, at least. I'll need to take some more time to think about it.


----------



## Darkcobra

niko said:


> So how is it that ORP measures all kinds of oxidation/reduction but when PaulG pumped raised the dissolved oxygen the ORP did not jump up immediately? I was under the impression that Oxygen itself would raise the ORP just like that! Add an oxidant = raise ORP. But it sounds that ORP measures something else. Can someone clarify?


A layman's thought on it. Plain old O2 isn't a very reactive oxidant. You can breathe 100% pure O2, your lungs won't immediately start burning away. Breathe pure O3 or H2O2, that's another matter.  So adding oxygen in the form of O2 might not raise ORP directly, unless/until other processes transform some of it into more reactive versions.


----------



## rjordan393

I believe when the tank inhabitants are fed that this will cause a delay in the oxygen level. So far I found out that ferris gluconate will drive down orp. Did Paul G. also monitor pH. ? Normally If the pH goes up, then the orp drops. I say normally as there are things that can interfere. Unless what I been reading on the net is completely wrong.


----------



## rjordan393

Jeff,
I used American Marine ( the mfg. of the Pinpoint line of products) 400 mv calibration solution for orp. They do not supply a reference.
However, I found out that my meter needed calibration. It was last calibrated on 2/22/14. That is too soon to need calibration again. I think I know how it went out of calibration. I tested my tap water and the value went to 550 mv and the meter seems to need calibration when it is use for sudden and higher orp values. this is not in the instructions.
So my data on orp should be about 70 to 80 mv higher then reported. What a bummer! 
The meter is now calibrated and my present orp is 284 mv. It was at 294 before I fed the fish.


----------



## Phil Edwards

rjordan,

Yeah, Paul also had pH. The Apex keeps it at 6.7 +/- 0.02, so it's rock steady for all intents and purposes. The Nernst equation does predict lower ORP at higher pH, but that's typically only useful for certain things like lab work or industrial chemistry where reactions are controlled and there's no biological intermediate. (Jeff would be the best one to talk about this in-depth). 

It's common for salt water tanks with a pH around 8 to have ORP values of 350-400 mV. It makes sense that ORP might be higher under ideal/theoretical conditions when pH is lower because there are more H+ floating around waiting to accept an electron and be reduced, or be the oxidizing agent for an electron donor. We see lower ORP (via lower eH) in aquatic soils with fairly low pH. Typically, as O2 and carbon are consumed and the redox potential/ORP goes down, then acids form and pH decreases. 

Ferrous gluconate will drop ORP thanks to the gluconate (organic molecule) chelator. Feeding causes a temporary drop in ORP too. Anything that can take an electron from something else (be reduced) that's put into the tank will affect ORP as some of the reactive species the probe is measuring are now being used for redox reactions rather than just sitting around waiting for something to play with. We've also got to consider the impact of metabolism on ORP too. The higher the O2 concentrations the greater the potential for microbes, higher animals, and plants to sustain aerobic metabolism and consume (reduce) organic matter. COD and BOD both have an impact on ORP.


----------



## Darkcobra

Perhaps this is slightly off-topic, but discussion of ORP has me wondering about something regarding use of H2O2 as a whole-tank algae treatment.

As a result of my "One-Two Punch" treatment, I've gotten countless reports that suggest the effects of H2O2 are highly variable. For example, in my tanks 4tbsp/10G will have good algicidal effect, and appears harmless to fauna. But in most other folks' tanks, that's too much and will kill fauna; instead for them, 2tbsp/10G has the same effect that the higher dose has for me.

I've long believed DOC has at least something to do with this, as it provides something that will rapidly react with H2O2, and decrease the amount available to react with other things. The oxidative power of H2O2 also increases with decreasing pH. But I get the feeling that neither of these adequately explains such a widely variable effect.

Although thanks to this thread I have a better understanding of ORP, I'm not confident enough in its implications to answer the following question: _Is it possible that ORP could be the prime variable here?_


----------



## rjordan393

> As a result of my "One-Two Punch" treatment, I've gotten countless reports that suggest the effects of H2O2 are highly variable. For example, in my tanks 4tbsp/10G will have good algicidal effect, and appears harmless to fauna. But in most other folks' tanks, that's too much and will kill fauna; instead for them, 2tbsp/10G has the same effect that the higher dose has for me.


From the reports that I have read state that 15 ppm of 3% h2o2 per 48 hours is considered by many to be a safe dose. Your dose (4 TBS per 10 gallon) which is equal 60 ml is way over the recommendation.
H2O2 can affect your nitrifying bacteria, fish and inverts if over dosed. Take a look at this article from the Aquarium Wiki where the author gives the safe dosage.
http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/hydrogen_peroxide

I decided to use H2O2 as a spot treatment only. However, I do use much more in my preparation water two weeks before it goes in my aquarium in the hopes it will remove DOC from my treatment water.


----------



## Darkcobra

rjordan393 said:


> From the reports that I have read state that 15 ppm of 3% h2o2 per 48 hours is considered by many to be a safe dose. Your dose (4 TBS per 10 gallon) which is equal 60 ml is way over the recommendation.
> H2O2 can affect your nitrifying bacteria, fish and inverts if over dosed. Take a look at this article from the Aquarium Wiki where the author gives the safe dosage.


I'm quite aware of various recommended dosages, and the effects. The whole point of my post is that generalized recommendations aren't particularly useful, because the dosage vs. effect varies from tank to tank. For example, I have five tanks in which the recommendation you provided has no effect whatsoever, on anything at all. 4tbsp/10G was determined experimentally, by starting low and increasing it 0.5tbsp/10G at a time until desired effects were seen, without side effects. And so that is the proper dose for these tanks, regardless of any recommendation.

I simply want to solicit additional ideas on why it behaves this way.


----------



## rjordan393

There was this one time that I did not follow the recommendation and the result was my nitrites climbed to 0.4 ppm. But I also intervened by making additional water changes and adding Seachems Stability before it got any higher. I was adding H2O2 every night and the recommendation was every 48 hours per dose. So maybe the answer your looking for lies in how often you dose and how much.
Another thing one needs to be concerned about is the orp of the dose. How high is too high?
If your 5 tanks are on the low side, say about -200 mv, then there's a reason why you can dose higher. One aquarium business owner recommends + 350 mv as a temporary orp to clean up organics.


----------



## niko

Ok, here's an observation that I find interesting. It has been what, about 2 or 3 weeks now, since I obliterated my tanks by doing a water change with no dechlorinator. The tanks got super clean, no algae in sight. Plants died, fish died, biofilter died. But today the Clado is back.

I find that interesting because it really looked like I sterilized the entire tank (2 tanks to be exact). They looked like ADA close-up pictures - meticulously hand scrubbed for the photo shoot, except that I had done an accidental chemical bleaching instead. I really thought that the Clado is completely, absolutely, 100% gone. But it is not.

That makes me think that suppressing algae is an on-going effort. It is about the processes that constantly take place in the tank. Not so much about swift, aggressive, actions that clean the tank.


----------



## Zapins

Any photos of the plants shortly after the chlorine "treatment"?


----------



## niko

https://plus.google.com/photos/1116...86686538321?banner=pwa&authkey=CMnb6Pu4x4bdQw


----------



## niko

Haha! Back to the.tap water quality... Today I met someone that told me that some students at the local college where testing the tap water as part of some project. The tests showed that the water was polluted to the level of being non-potable. Ain't that swell!

I really think that a planted tank in this day and age has to be run considering our environment. Gone are the days when I was collecting rain water for my tank. Maybe the bad tap water is indeed the culprit for my friend's tank having super healthy and fast growing plants covered with super healthy BBA. I am getting a new RO system today. Will be fighting bad water through wasting water. 3 parts water will be discarded to get 1 part clean RO water... For those of you that did not know - that is how bottled water is made too. Except that the waste is closer to 7 to 1 because of bottle manufacturing and transportation! Clean here means dirty somewhere else. Which in my area has come back to bite my donkey.


Sent from my RM-893_nam_att_206 using Tapatalk


----------



## niko

Ok. A tale of two tanks happening right now:

So here I am every Tuesday changing 30 gallons of water in a 65 gallon tank. I collect 2 piling handfuls of clippings. Anubias make 1 full leaf and have another started every week. Swords have huge leaves. BBA is doing well. I too am doing well with the light, CO2, ferts, cleaning filters, using Purigen meant for a 500 gal. tank, flow. The whole 9 yards with lots of effort.

Few blocks away one of our local club members runs a 150 and a 75 gallon tanks. Water change about every 3 months. About 10 gallons. All along adding tap water to compensate for evaporation. Tanks are stuffed with plants. Tanks are stuffed with fish (Angelfish included). The 150 tank does not even have a filter. I am not sure I saw any water movement but there is a pump on the 150... Algae can be found only one one Anubias - spot algae from low P. He said he can run CO2 or not run CO2 - tank does not care. About 20 species of plants. Some show slight deficiencies but algae are deficient way more - they do no exist.

So here we have it - lots of maintenance and internet "wisdom" vs. Old School clay substrate with inert cap on top, barely any Traces and completely hands off.

Jeffy, if you are still up for it I can get samples from the Old School tanks and send them to you. Let's see how high his organics are so I can tell him how to fix his tanks!


----------



## krisw

Niko, heck I have these kinds of tank disparities in my own fish room on a regular basis despite the same maintenance. It's frustrating!


----------



## Zapins

Clay substrates carry a small net negative charge and can often pull other charged substances out of the water column.


----------



## Zapins

Going back to page 22 post number 216 the question of CO2 toxicity level is asked.

I came across this study today that discusses CO2 + HCO3's effects in water culture on pea roots. It seems that concentrations of 30-150 ppm CO2 stimulated longer roots, but 150-250 ppm CO2 caused root length to be drastically reduced.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/38/1/77.full.pdf+html?sid=774eabb5-c2ec-4976-9191-29f9a058bfdc

*From: *​http://www.plantphysiol.org
Morphogenetic Influence of (CO2 + HCO3-) on Roots' G. Geisler C.S.I.R.O., Division of Plant Industry, Tobacco Research Institute, Mareeba, Queensland, Australia​
Take it for what you will (since the study used pea plants) but I think it is interesting to know that CO2 in water cultured plants does have measurable effects on plants. Now whether reduced root length = toxicity or reduced uptake that is something the study didn't cover, but then again, how can reduced root length be a good thing?

Perhaps this study is useful for giving us a ballpark idea of what ranges of CO2 in water are beneficial and harmful? What do you think?


----------



## niko

Perhaps, Zapins, you didn't get my sarcasm. Fred's neglected super clean tanks do not need any help. If anyone needs help this is me with my big water changes and flourishing plants AND BBA.

Come to think of it in my own tanks the two that are doing very, very well are the ones that get minimal interventions. One of them is behind me right now. Evaporated 4 inches. No algae in sight, tons of fish, looking ugly allright. But I can do anything I want with this tank - increase light, CO2, feed fish or not feed fish. Heck, just a week ago I dumped 20 new fish in it. Nothing bad happened.

Just an hour ago I got a new RO system. And started looking for organic removing resins. Brightwell's resins are not easy to buy. While looking for them I started to get the feel that I'm going away from common sense once again. This is not about what I can add to a tank. This is about how the tank runs and establishes itself. I think that that is exactly what Fred does - lets the tanks be. There is a meeting at his house in a month or so. Hope that there will be pictures. His Madagascar lace has 3 ft long healthy leaves. He has some swords that I had never seen before - the leaves are dark maroon color, almost metallic, like dark chocolate maybe. That is in addition to all the other plants. Pretty good for a no-filter, no water changes, no fertilization tank stuffed with fish. Only "secret" - some kind of local clay capped with about 2 inches of coarse gravel. A secret, allright...


----------



## niko

On the topic of plant health <--> CO2 levels; Back when I was growing HC hydroponically I was always astonished at the long, thick, snow white roots that the HC made. I did not use any CO2 or fertilizers. The setup was just AquaSoil flooded for 1 hour a day with water that I just topped off (never changed).

I've mentioned that many times before - that HC was a unique high quality. Something no one has seen since. I say that because apparently the hydroponic setup was perfect for the HC. Meaning that the levels of CO2 may have been low in the air but the plant was growing in conditions that allowed it to make use of whatever it needed VERY well. My point is - we can try to figure out what are "optimal" CO2 levels but I think that what we will find is that it all depends on the other factors. Look at an EI tank - this thing must have 30 ppm CO2 or else. For that kind of half-baked environment a lot of CO2 is optimal. That does not make high CO2 a golden rule for everything.


----------



## Zapins

Right, but unfortunately neglect is not something that you can recommend to others as a surefire way of having a good looking tank. He might have a nice tank, but he could just be lucky that a constellation of factors aligned and produced the tank you see. I've seen plenty of tanks that got neglected and turned out terrible. I can accept your frustration and the idea that it seems almost crazy to go to the extent that we all do trying to purify our water in order to remain algae free. But look at it this way, you are experimenting and pushing the frontier of what we know by using RO and trying out every setup rather than accepting the mystery and relying on neglect to get you an algae free tank.

We need to figure out what is going on, understand the parts and then the whole. I refuse to believe algae just randomly decides to bloom and grow without a trigger or set of triggers. 

Still interested to hear everyone's opinion on the CO2 excess study I found.


----------



## niko

Yes, we do need answers. For now the only advice that a newbie can get is along the lines of "do X because everybody does it". Same thing like 15 years ago. Not good enough.


----------



## UDGags

So I'm assuming my water never got tested?


----------



## rjordan393

I think you will need to be more patient. he may have a lot of samples to test or has been sidelined. I am sure he will present all the results once he can find the time to do it.


----------



## rjordan393

Zapins,
I did not read the report but from the results you gave; I would imagine that no one comes near to the CO2 concentrations given in the report for fear of gassing the fish. My KH changes during the seasons from 2.4 to 3.5 and that puts me in the range of 47 to 56 ppm CO2. My plants are growing well and I do not want them to grow any faster.


----------



## AaronT

Jeffy seems to have disappeared for a while.


----------



## UDGags

rjordan393 said:


> I think you will need to be more patient. he may have a lot of samples to test or has been sidelined. I am sure he will present all the results once he can find the time to do it.


It's going on 4+ months...safe to assume if it hasn't been tested the results aren't valid anyways.


----------



## SBS

jeff5614 said:


> I hope you all don't mind me jumping into the conversation. I've been following the thread and it's all very interesting and really encouraging to see some "advanced" thinking ( for lack of a better term ) concerning the hobby.
> 
> To follow up Yo-han's comment. I recall Tom Barr mentioning something similar when I asked him about limiting nutrient levels to control algae. He said that algae is never limited, their requirements are so low.


I hope you don't mind me guys jumping in as well but I've been reading with interest and all the information is very much appreciated.

Here is my story on BBA.

I have a tank that had a never ending BBA problem. The tank was dosed with Excel and micros/macros, overfiltered, very good flow. I tried everything written around the forums such positioning the outlets of the filters/powerhead to create circular flow, lowered the light(though the tank had run a year with no algae whatsoever with same lights), increased excel dosing to 3x at some stage, increased all ferts to EI doses(in not so densely planted tank), big weekly water changes, etc... but no luck whatsoever. If anything BBA was happier than the plants. At some stage people were saying the big water changes were the problem but I have another 4 tanks on which I did same large water changes and they had no BBA so I refused to believe(and still don't believe water changes cause fluctuations that trigger algae)
Then of course the advice was I need injected CO2......at which point I gave up as I wasn't going to.

One day after BBA destroyed my plants to the point I no longer cared about them(I have some massive anubias inside and it was the end for them) I gave up. I stopped dosing anything at all. Left it to fend for itself. The only thing I kept doing is 50% weekly water changes as I always used to do that on any tank.
Well, two months the most after that and BBA was gone completely. It died. However the plants suffered severe deficiencies too but free of algae on the leaves which were discoloured for lack of some sort of nutrients. That happened more than 6 months ago. I hadn't dosed anything since yet, but for the record the plants were getting worse as in colouration and quality of growth but still no BBA. So plants are way more resistant to lack of nutrients than BBA the least. At some stage due to laziness I didn't do water changes for a couple of months, still no BBA...Now I want to give the remaining plants a chance and start dosing again but I am afraid to even start in this tank.

I have been able to have deficient tanks with no algae whatsoever at least 3 times and it was always in a plain substrate tank. Dosing the water colum with excel and ferts has caused BBA in two tanks so far(maybe I was doing something wrong but stopping dosing of any kind has cured the BBA in both but would never advise anyone repeating that because the plants will suffer massively too).

Since I switched to soil substrates I have been keeping algae free tanks with very healthy plants with or without water changes, high organic loads, etc... The one thing in common they all have is being overfiltered if that matters, light was never on the low side. In fact the lowest lit tank was the BBA ridden one because I decreased to a minimum at some stage. It seems to me that low amount of ferts in the water colum but nutrients in the soil instead has worked best for me so far. I know the water column is deficient of nutrients because floaters such as salvinia and frogbit eventually refuse to look good and even completely die off but the planted plants have no issues whatsoever at the same time. Hence with anubias, my best results were when I plant the roots in the substrate with the rhizome above of course.

I happen to have a picture of my old nano tank(plain sand) which was on the border of nutritient deficiency although no algae(despite the window sunshine on top of a light period). It was very ugly so my point is not to show aquascaping skills here  But the deficiencies in my tanks show up like this and if I leave it, the plant will eventually suffer to the point the leaves will turn completely yellow/r develop big holes/ or fall apart literally/or die but without any algae issues to follow or precede. There's no way I can grow salvinia or frogbit when the tank is in this state, neither can I grow algae at the same time.

The picture below is not the worst scenario I've had of plant deficiencies but as someone else said we avoid taking pictures when tanks aren't at their best.
Mind you the tank was not waterchanged or cleaned for that picture. I took it just before taking the tank apart to put soil in it. The tank was never fertilised with anything at all.










This below on the video is the tank now a year after but with soil substrate, no water changes at all(presuming it has higher organic load than before as I used to do weekly water changes before putting soil) , no fertilisers as usual, same light, same duration, same location of tank and no algae again but no deficient plants. Now I've never cleaned the glass either, so it has some sort of hazy biofilm which the snails and shrimp eat vigorously but it's nothing much for a year to be honest.





Macro shot of the ludwiga


----------



## niko

Whoa! That SBS guy just flew in from another planet! 

Planet "Common Sense".

On the internet algae can not be starved by doing water changes. But in real life you can do it.

On the internet deficient plants grow algae. But in real life they make it through while algae barely creeps along and is a few water changes away from disappearing.

On the internet circular flow is magic. But in real life stagnant water tanks are clean and stable.

On the internet you have to add ferts to the water to make it polluted to toxic levels. But in real life nowhere in Nature plants find such virtual paradise, yet have lived for millions of years.

On the internet there are gurus. In real life there is glass box full of water.


Sent from my RM-893_nam_att_206 using Tapatalk


----------



## rjordan393

Thanks for sharing your experience. This will lend support to Jeffrey's analysis. Your tank has a very low bioload with no fish and it would be interesting if those using soil with fish and plants have the same experience.


----------



## SBS

rjordan393 said:


> Thanks for sharing your experience. This will lend support to Jeffrey's analysis. Your tank has a very low bioload with no fish and it would be interesting if those using soil with fish and plants have the same experience.


Yes, the tank above has just shrimp in it.(fed daily)
I have a 5f tank with soil that never had algae in it for the 1.5 year setup so far. I followed Aaron Talbot's mineralization technique for the soil. It has 20-ish platies, 40-ish corydoras and a bushynose pleco and lots of shrimp and 3 kinds of snails I suppose breeding well. It has gone 6-7 months with no water changes. The tank is so clean of algae and the water clear I remember someone asking me if I use purigen. I've never had even oily biofilm which the small tank on the pictures above had at some stage but it dealt with it itself.
The only "algae" I've ever seen in the 5f tank is super minor diatoms once when I added 20 fish at once a year ago. Needless to say substrate was never vacuumed. I honestly don't think organic load in practice is an issue. I think it is to do whether it gets utilized in a tank via the various chemical processes and the likes, or maybe how fast...I don't know but cleaning or no cleaning makes no difference whether the tank is free of algae or algae ridden in my cases.
The tank in which I had persistent BBA does have high organic load(6 clown loaches and a common pleco on top of smaller fish) but the BBA disappeared when I stopped dosing anything, with the bioload remaining the same(probably higher because those platies breed like crazy) So it still doesn't explain why the BBA disappeared when I stopped adding nutrients and excel. The inhibition of BBA was visible when it started receding but I refused to believe my eyes until one day a coulple of months later I couldn't see any at all. Trust me it was such a relief. I'll try helping the plants with a bit of ferts and see how it goes now since algae is gone.
The second tank in which I briefly had BBA while dosing ferts and excel had almost no bioload at the time, it had 6 shimp in it if I am not mistaken that I didn't feed. I was never going to dose ferts and excel on a permanent basis because I didn't want it to affect the shrimp so one weekend I cut out all affected BBA plants which was the dwarf sag covered in it. I didn't dose anymore anything and I've never seen BBA since, it was probably about 2 years ago.


----------



## SBS

For the record, here is how a severely suffering hydrophila looks now in a malnourished tank that isn't dosed with ferts anymore and was previously bombarded with BBA. It's a very tough plant that will survive anything but will show all colours under the sun if suffering.










Not the best picture as I was probably taking a pic of the moss but behind the moss is a healthy hydrophila in a 5f soil tank that never had any algae. The hydrophila is no longer there because it grows huge and obstructed my other plants.


----------



## niko

Check out how people deal with BBA in the organics ladden El Natural tanks:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/93873-bba-el-natural-tanks.html#post697578


----------



## Zapins

Are El Natural tanks actually full of dissolved organics? 

I don't think we ever actually tested any to see. It might be that the cap holds all the organics down below and what organics are down there are bound to clay and are not dissolved in the water column. That combined with super low lighting conditions might be enough to prevent it from growing.


----------



## niko

Eh, since when did BBA start caring about light? Since someone told them I guess.

Now the hidden rich soil in an El Natural tank maybe a good point - their water may be void of dissolved organics. But look at the tanks - how often do they get water changes? How often do you remove anything from them (stuff in the water)? Like never. So where does the stuff go, why doesn't it cause algae? 

The water in El Natural tank full of plants that breath, eat, spit, cough, sneeze, and reproduce in it has no organics? Joke aside - honestly, I believe that could be so. 

Low light slows down algae growth, yes. But if we believe that algae can never be nutrient limited than we must believe that algae is never light limited either. Actually I have an example of that - a tank with just gravel + water in a room that gets illuminated by a puny fluorescent light about 7 hours a day. Tank has no fish, no plants, no filter, no light but it grows algae. So in an El Natural tank algae should slowly but gradually take over despite high or low organics in the water column. Apparently that does not happen very often, if ever. Nutrient limitation or excess is not the direction we need to be looking. If it made sense we would not be sitting here discussing organics but would be enjoying clean, stable tanks every single time without much discussion.

It is not about the chemicals themselves only. It is about interactions also. That is why this fascinating thread has lost some its original interest for me. I found a very good blanket explanation of why BBA shows up and persists in a tank. Interactions running bad.

As we speak I am about to redo that weird tank I mentioned a few times already. Just the other day I removed about 1.5 lbs of cuttings from it. Plants are exploding. Now I start to see new species that had been in there barely alive in the shadows. It is super healthy. Just like the BBA that plagues it. All parameters are perfect, you name it - it is perfect. Even the TDS is now 199 - lower than our tap water because I started to use RO/DI. My hypothesis that BBA is a question of interactions going wrong seems the best so far. Parameter values work for the plants as I saee but help nothing with the understanding why the BBA is very happy too.


----------



## Zapins

niko said:


> Now the hidden rich soil in an El Natural tank maybe a good point - their water may be void of dissolved organics. But look at the tanks - how often do they get water changes? How often do you remove anything from them (stuff in the water)? Like never. So where does the stuff go, why doesn't it cause algae?


It may never actually leave the substrate cap and remain trapped under it. The only way we'd know the answer to this is if we had tank water analyzed. I'd be very interested to see what aquasoil based tanks read at.



niko said:


> Low light slows down algae growth, yes. But if we believe that algae can never be nutrient limited than we must believe that algae is never light limited either.


Algae can definitely be nutrient limited just like plants. I think the reason we don't recognize nutrient deficiencies in algae like we do in plants is because it is all filamentous or microscopic. This is the same reason why grass like plants and thin leafed plants make terrible nutrient deficiency indicators - because the thin leaves don't have enough space to properly show the visual deficiency symptoms that broad leaf plants do. It isn't that algae can never become deficient in a nutrient.

In fact, I'd guess that algae is more easily nutrient limited than plants are. Nutrients are all taken up by transporters in the cell walls. Many of these transporters are likely very similar if not exactly the same for plants and algae. Meaning they can both take up nutrients if the concentration of a given nutrient is above some tiny value (for this example say 0.0001 ppm). So if nutrient levels in the water ever drop below 0.0001 ppm then plants and algae get nutrient deficiencies as long as they cannot get nutrients from some other source.

So one possible answer to why soil based tanks (El natural, aquasoil, high tech soil) have very little algae is that the water column becomes devoid of nutrients (below our arbitrary 0.0001 ppm value) which starves algae but not plants who have roots which give them access to unlimited nutrients. This idea makes a lot of sense because plants absorb nutrients from the water column by using their leaves and stems. This may help deplete water column nutrients quickly and prevent algae from feeding. Therefore, you'd expect any algae in soil based tanks to be near or in the substrate and that is typically what you see (think about the green tinge white sand substrates develop over time).


----------



## niko

Why would I post the following here? I have no clue.

http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/05/a-social-brain-is-a-smarter-brain


----------



## Skizhx

Regarding organics in El Natural. After a couple years of being established without cleaning or maintenance your substrate cap will gradually accumulate a mulm cap. Still no algae problems.

My old ecology prof actually grew plants in inert gravel saturated with mulm collected from other tanks and accumulated.

Maybe the cap locking in the organics has something to do with it initially in the tank's younger stages... But I don't think that's all there is to it.


----------



## SBS

Is mulm, when it becomes mulm, actually organics releaser? I thought mulm is the product of organics in a way but it doesn't contribute to the organics load.
When I setup my small tank I loaded the soil with mulm from several tanks, like lots of it, no algae outbreaks afterwards but I never thought mulm releases any nitrogen products such as organics do. I have actually used mulm to raise cory fry without consequences. I covered them in mulm to the point I could not see a thing.


----------



## Skizhx

No, I wouldn't imagine fully decomposed mulm product releasing organics. But the process of allowing it to accumulate (in other words, letting a layer of organics sit in the tank long enough to fully decompose on a regular basis without removal) would. I guess the real question is how much of it is actually accumulating, since we typically don't do water changes.


----------



## niko

I have 3/4" of mulm in one of my tanks. Tank is low light, no CO2. Algae is zero, fish overload, minimal flow. At least 50% of the tank is occupied by plants - mainly moss, but there are about 10 other species of plants in there. The TDS in that tank is the highest of all of my tanks - 550, but it was 600 when I started to add RO water to it about 2 weeks ago. Minimal water changes. Plants are starving.

How is it that this tank stays algae free? Maybe a tank like that is a good candidate to send a sample to Jeffy to test for organics. Everything says it should be overloaded with them.


----------



## Yo-han

Perhaps the mulm adsorbs (not absorb) the molecules that trigger BBA (or algae in general). Mulm has quite a high CEC and binds lots of stuff. Maybe it's not high organics in general, but just a single (group of) molecule(s) that triggers them. Perhaps this molecule is often present in tanks with high organics, but not always.


----------



## niko

Mulm that can be stirred and 2-3 minutes later settles and leaves the water completely clear is different from mulm that stays suspended for hours and makes the water murky. I assume that the first kind is mineralized. And I assume that that kind of mulm has completely different properties and impact. That is the stuff that you can syphon from your tank and add to a brand new tank and have instant cycling.

Actually tanks that have been started that way run perfectly from day 1. I have done that maybe 2 or 3 times. One of them has been running 100% problem free for 5 years now! Another tank was setup during one of our club meetings. We setup the tank at a school and we dumped some mulm in it. Could have been the dirt we squeezed from a filter. The tank instantly turned into a box of mud. Then we stood in front of it, smiled, took a picture. And everybody said we should have taken the picture before dirtying up the tank, haha. That was pretty funny, but what was not funny was what had happened to the tank 2 months later (I think, no less than two months for sure). 2+ months later it had 2 angelfish in it - too crowded for its size (29 gallons). The kids loved the tank and the fish. The fish had names and all. The water was crystal clear. They told me that it was super clean like that from day 2 and never gets dirty. Now that I find funny indeed!


----------



## Skizhx

Ok, so... Let's assume organics are the culprit... What have we learned? What do we change?

Don't overfeed? Keep a sensible bioload? Don't grow your plants at pointlessly fast rates just because you can? Facilitate fast and healthy decomposition? Use a good substrate to bind compounds from the water?


----------



## SBS

I am not sure if the dissolved organics or organics in the soil are the issue or rather the "filthy" looking tanks when there are visible organic pieces floating in the water.
In one of the tanks in which I had BBA, prior to that I had a strange issue where the water was so dirty looing that plants got covered in debris max a day after good filters clean and water changes. It's like something was causing the organics to be suspended in water and land on the plants and the amount was rather high as if my mechanical filtration failed or the organics were not dissolving/decomposing. 
I decided it's due to not enough filtration but too turbulent flow(powerful powerhead adding up to 20x flow) stirring everything, and at some stage, after the BBA had already taken hold I installed another filter which did clear the water for good but did not stop the BBA at the time. Though now this tank is totally clear of it after a year battle and with same organic load.
So it's organics, but it seems to matter where they are exactly, in the water column, covering surfaces of the tank or in the soil/filters decomposing happily away from light availability for algae to take hold.

Hence, I don't use powerheads any more. If I need more flow I add a filter. At least it does something else than blowing around.


----------



## Skizhx

> So it's organics, but it seems to matter where they are exactly, in the water column, covering surfaces of the tank or in the soil/filters decomposing happily away from light availability for algae to take hold.


Makes sense to me.

So how do you figure this differs for Walstad tanks then, which are able to be stable in stagnant water, or just enough minimal flow to circulate nutrients?

I guess what I'm asking is, why do Walstad tanks get away with using substrate decomposition only, but the rest of the hobby seems to feel that decomposition MUST take place only(or mainly) in the filter?

For someone who's done a lot more stagnant tanks than filtered tanks, it sometimes looks like people are forgetting what substrate decomposition can do for a substrate, and the many ecological roles it plays which support the plants and drive ecosystems (it seems we have a lot of mulm fans here already), and are instead trying everything they can to pull all the waste off the bottom of their tank to trap it in their filter (Why? So it can be removed easily to prevent decomposition?). Then they wonder why there's bits of waste floating around in their tank that never seem to decompose properly...

From my perspective it seems a bit counter-intuitive... Inhibiting a natural plant-supporting process by separating it far away from the plants with the notion of strengthening a miniature ecosystem that's intended to support plants.


----------



## krisw

This recent discussion takes me back 10 years to when we debated whether or not to add peat moss under the substrate or not. A quick googling bring up a very similar discussion.... In my fishroom, the only tanks that stay mostly BBA free are brand new Aquasoil tanks (for about 3-6 months, and then BBA creeps), and my farm tank that has wormcastings capped with old Aquasoil, running 5+ years as such.

Are any of you using peat moss/mulm under the more inert substrates like flourite, eco-complete, etc and noticing less BBA in those tanks?


----------



## SBS

> So how do you figure this differs for Walstad tanks then, which are able to be stable in stagnant water, or just enough minimal flow to circulate nutrients?


I am not sure how a stagnant Walstad tank differs to high flow Walstad tank and to other tanks in general. I keep mine with high flow. Maybe the substrate produces nutrients equally all around, plants don't rely on ferts dumped in the water, but mostly on the substrate so flow doesn't matter that much. Either way, it works with high flow for me. It seems to work with low flow or none at all for others.
I know that some reckon carpet plants such as glosso produce enzymes that inhibit compact growth so maybe lack of flow affects plant structure. Some can grow leggy because of that. I was able to grow glosso in my el natural before my tank lights blew up because the tank stayed lightless for a few weeks. It was a slow growth but it was surely carpeting. I got bacopa australis to carpet a small portion too. I don't know if it was because of the flow or the higher light, etc..

Walstad tanks also aren't highly fertilised, some like mine not at all so plants are forced to use any organics, including organic nitrates, etc.. 
It could be just because one forces the plants to adapt to what's available /produced in the tank rather than spoil them with inorganic ferts so in turn the organics are consumed happily by the plants, at least those in the water column would be rapidly consumed and could be scarce, thus not available to certain algae that loves the organic molecules in nutrients. It's just one guess but it could be something else. Also, as mentioned earlier, Walstad tanks or tanks with similar substrate may just have that better potential to convert the decomposing organics to organic nutrients better than a normal high tech wiped "clean" tank that does it via heavy cleaning and water changes.

Also, as someone else said Walstad tanks are always highly planted to start with. People try to promote "natural growth" and give the relevant environment, pick their plants by what suits the tank, their growth rate, demands, combine plants with different demands to create a balance, etc.. rather than pick plants by what they look like.



> I guess what I'm asking is, why do Walstad tanks get away with using substrate decomposition only, but the rest of the hobby seems to feel that decomposition MUST take place only(or mainly) in the filter?


I don't think high tech keepers promote any decomposition whatsoever. Organics is considered the devil and gets "cleaned" from every surface or device as much as technically possible. This is supposedly to prevent decomposition bacteria to settle in as it competes with the nitrification bacteria for oxygen. That's one of the ideas anyway, along with organics considered a trigger for algae in all type of tanks in most views.

But in a Walstad tank we welcome organics decomposition as it's the main contributor of CO2 and also keeping the tank ticking as organics are kept being produced and not removed via heavy maintenance.

In newly setup tanks(inert substrate, no plants) I happened to over clean my filters sometimes and caused ammonia spikes because of it. So no matter what one says it's possible constant cleaning to be changing the type or amount of certain bacteria. In a balanced tank you want a bit of everything. Even pathogenic organism have enemies in a balanced tank and thus don't overwhelm the fish.

So if you keep disturbing the bacteria, some species of them might as well pack their bags and leave to a better place.
This approach obviously won't do well in a bare bottom tank or tank with unbalanced inert substrate so it all depends on the setup what works best. For some tanks heavy maintenance is essential, for others the opposite could be essential.


----------



## Yo-han

So would it be better to not vacuum the tank substrate? Or only the top layer?

I don't believe organics in general to be bad. Aqua soil is loaded with it, but certain organics must be triggering algae when BBA pops up when I increase my feeding.


----------



## Skizhx

> I don't think high tech keepers promote any decomposition whatsoever. Organics is considered the devil and gets "cleaned" from every surface or device as much as technically possible. This is supposedly to prevent decomposition bacteria to settle in as it competes with the nitrification bacteria for oxygen. That's one of the ideas anyway, along with organics considered a trigger for algae in all type of tanks in most views.


Well said.

Rid our tanks of ecologically essential processes, control every parameter, make our system unflexible and sterile. That's how to achieve the stability and beauty of nature!

Lots of literature out there cites resource competition in nutrient-limited habitats and allelopathy as the mechanisms that plant communities use to force algae out of their habitats in nature.

It was over 30 years ago (at least that's the oldest journal article I have that explicitly mentions the transition) that aquatic plant cultivators began adopting the practice of using natural substrates to replace water fertilzation because they realized they could largely eliminate algal blooms and increase the stability in their cultures. So... Why exactly did the hobby revert back to a dependence on water column ferts?



> This approach obviously won't do well in a bare bottom tank or tank with unbalanced inert substrate so it all depends on the setup what works best. For some tanks heavy maintenance is essential, for others the opposite could be essential.


Also well said. To each their own. It all depends on what kind of tank you feel like running I guess. I'm also not implying that it's all as simple as switching to a soil substrate or anything. I'm just more doubtful of the sources and experiments that provided the data we use as foundations than anything else.

I'm also somewhat bothered by how readily we accept information from anyone who seems vaguely qualified. A lot of notions in this hobby just seem bizarre and misguided with terrible evidence/data backing it up. As far as I've been able to experiment on my own, some of them seem downright false.

It's nice to see fans of mulm and natural substrates though!


----------



## Cavan Allen

I suspect that as opposed to fish only tanks, where autotrophic bacteria (amonnia reducers) should be favored, in planted aquariums it's actually better to favor heterotrophic bacteria (organics, sludge reducers). As we know, plants prefer ammonnia as a food source, so I don't think we really need bacteria to reduce that to nitrate. But we do need bacteria to reduce organics. If that's the case, I suppose the "you don't really need a filter" and "more filtration!" crowds are both right to a point. I may be wrong, in which case I will return to plant identification.


----------



## Yo-han

That is my point of view too So for my new tank I'm working on how to optimize the heterotrophic bacteria growth and minimalize ammonia reduction and nitrate loss


----------



## krisw

Yo-han said:


> That is my point of view too So for my new tank I'm working on how to optimize the heterotrophic bacteria growth and minimalize ammonia reduction and nitrate loss


Deep substrate beds?


----------



## SBS

Well most heterotrophs are facultative anaerobes, so it depends on the conditions in the tank what exactly function they perform. Depending on the conditions, they can decompose organics in the presence of organics and oxygen, or convert nitrate to nitrite in anaerobic substrate(which is scary), to converting ammonia to nitrite when in the water column and in contact with ammonia and oxygen( bacterial blooms are caused by fast expanding heterotrophic bacteria) They can double up their amount in a couple of hours where autotrophs such as nitrifying bacteria takes 24hrs and more. So they have the potential to take up all surfaces if let free and you end up with nowhere for the nitrifying bacteria to grow. Which eventually leads to water quality issues because heterotrophs are one million times less efficient in converting ammonia to nitrite and they can't really convert nitrite to nitrate but can convert nitrate to nitrite in anaerobic conditions.

So personally, although they are fine in small numbers in the substrate when they decompose organics in the substrate, they are not welcomed either in an anaerobic substrate or in oxygenated water column.

Anyway, with all that said we are already promoting good heterotrophic activity by ensuring they have organics and oxygen inside the substrate. Planting with heavy rooters, having not so deep substrate, a bit of flow reaching it too, detritus from fish and fish food should ensure they have all that they need to be sludge reducers and not something else.
If they don't have oxygen, they won't decompose organics but do something else harmful that happens in anaerobic conditions. If they don't have organics as their nitrogen source they'll be converting ammonia instead if oxygen is present.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Update: I finally got motivated and fixed the TOC analyzer (long story short, there was no motivation on my behalf to get it fixed (since we REALLY don't use it much at work anymore) and a complicated set of problems to be fixed...). Here are the results from the samples analyzed.

But before that, a few caveats... (1) the metals analysis is still valid. The metals have a holding time of 6 months (except Hg) when preserved with HNO3 so those are still good. (2) the TOC samples were preserved with HCl when i got them, so technically, they should be still good. That said, they are over the recommended holding time of 30 days, so there's no way to really know. In order to see how well the preserved samples hold up over time, i am going to analyze them all again in a few months time and then we can compare the results.

Looking at the aquarium results and comparing them with the TOC analysis results at work, the one thing that can give us some insight of the quality of the results was the matrix spike & matrix spike duplicate QA/QC results. A matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) is when you add a known quantity of the analyte (10 ppm TOC in this case) to a sample and then calculate the % recovery of the matrix spikes versus the original sample and to each other (acceptable results are +25% of the theoretical value).

For the samples that were prepared and analyzed right away (i.e. prior to the TOC machine breaking), the MS/MSD % recoveries are typically been between 90-105% recovery. For the samples that were prepared and analyzed much later (i.e. after the TOC machine broke), the MS/MSD % recoveries were more erratic - from 37%-127% recovery (64%-114% if we exclude the highest and lowest % recoveries). Of the 10 MS/MSD solutions prepared, only 3 were outside the acceptable % recovery range of 75-125% and the average % recovery was actually 90%.

The take away message of this all? The results should be interpreted with a grain of salt but are probably fairly accurate (though of course we have no way to find out).



Code:


| New Samples            | Al  | B   | Cu  | Fe  | Mn  | Mo  | Zn  | 

| CA Tank 10/18/13       | 0.02| 0.12|  <  | 0.30|  <  |  <  | 0.09|
| CA Tank 10/23/13       |  <  | 0.13|  <  | 0.03|  <  |  <  | 0.09|
| CA Tank 10/23/13       |  <  | 0.12|  <  | 0.14|  <  |  <  | 0.08|
| CA Tank 10/30/13       |  <  | 0.13|  <  | 0.20|  <  |  <  | 0.27|
| CA Tank 10/30/13       |  <  | 0.10|  <  | 0.02|  <  |  <  | 0.03|
| CA Tank 11/13/13       |  <  | 0.13|  <  | 0.05|  <  |  <  | 0.03|
| CA Tank 11/22/13       |  <  | 0.12|  <  | 0.13|  <  |  <  | 0.03|
| CA Tank 12/12/13       |  <  | 0.12|  <  | 0.01|  <  |  <  | 0.05|
| UDGags Tap 1/13/14     |  <  |  <  | 0.04|  <  |  <  |  <  | 0.01|
| UDGags Tank 1/13/14    | 0.05|  1.5| 0.18|  11 | 0.03| 0.09| 0.57| 


| New Samples            | TOC | K   | Ca  | Mg  |Gen. Hard.| Comments  | 
 
| CA Tank 10/18/13       | 11.0|  28 |  16 |  4.5|  8.6 dGH |           |
| CA Tank 10/23/13       | 13.1|  36 |  24 |  5.8|  4.7 dGH | Before WC |
| CA Tank 10/23/13       | 12.1|  28 |  16 |  4.6|  3.2 dGH | After WC  |
| CA Tank 10/30/13       | 13.0|  34 |  22 |  5.3|  4.3 dGH | Before WC |
| CA Tank 10/30/13       |  9.9|  26 |  15 |  4.1|  3.1 dGH | After WC  |
| CA Tank 11/13/13       | 10.4|  31 |  18 |  4.6|  3.6 dGH | Before WC |
| CA Tank 11/22/13       |  8.0|  32 |  18 |  4.2|  3.5 dGH | Before WC |
| CA Tank 12/12/13       |  8.9|  33 |  20 |  4.2|  3.8 dGH | Before WC |
| UDGags Tap 1/13/14     |  1.2|  2.8|  18 |  29 |  8.8 dGH |           |
| UDGags Tank 1/13/14    | 22.4|  78 |  20 |  26 |  9.2 dGH | Before WC |

p.s. i haven't been following this conversation in quite a while since i've just been focused on other things (@ work and @ home - it's gardening season!). i have some thoughts and comments on things, but will post those things later since i just wanted to get this information out first.

p.p.s. another thing that i noticed. when i prepared the samples for analysis, i forgot to preserve a sample for duplicate analysis (as part of our standard QA/QC protocol). So i just poured a duplicate of UDGags Tank 1/13/14 into a vial (which was UNPRESERVED) and analyzed that as the duplicate. The sample value (preserved) was 22.4 ppm TOC. The duplicate value (unpreserved) was 2.2 ppm TOC. This just shows that the acid preservative was doing something... we just don't know how well it worked...


----------



## Tugg

JeffyFunk, if the analyser is back online, does this mean you would like to start collecting samples again?


----------



## JeffyFunk

Tugg said:


> JeffyFunk, if the analyser is back online, does this mean you would like to start collecting samples again?


I've always been able to analyze samples for metals analysis.

But, yes - The TOC analyzer is working again so i will be happy to analyze samples for people if they want to collect them.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Compared that to my records and it looks like the Organit caused roughly a 25% drop in TOC. That was 13 tablespoons in an Eheim filtering my 40.

Will send more samples. My tank is nearly spotless now, with growth that's for the most part quite good.


----------



## Yorkie

Hi Everyone,

This has got to be one of the most interesting and most useful threads I've ever read on any Aquarist forum! I'm so pleased to have discovered this thread and, indeed, APC. The thread has confirmed for me the importance of DOC/DOM. And I note that the thread was started back in 2013!

Yorkie =D>=D>=D>=D>


----------



## Yorkie

Yorkie said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> This has got to be one of the most interesting and most useful threads I've ever read on any Aquarist forum! I'm so pleased to have discovered this thread and, indeed, APC. The thread has confirmed for me the importance of DOC/DOM. And I note that the thread was started back in 2013!
> 
> Yorkie =D>=D>=D>=D>


Hi Again,

I see that I wrote the above just over a year ago.

I have a non-logging ORP electrode and meter on which I keep a close watch of ORP. This reading is typically 350 to 400 mV. If it varies outside this range, it's a rare occurrence and is a cue to investigate the cause.

Yorkie


----------



## Yorkie

niko said:


> Today, 2014, we, here on APC are talking about things that should have been in the spotlight a long, long time ago. Instead we have all the things you see me bash left and right.


Hi @niko and _all_ other contributors to this amazing thread,

And, now that a further eight years have passed, it would be very interesting to hear your views on how much, if any, we have progressed in understanding the importance of organics in our tanks.

Yorkie


----------

