Algae Advice Again

[Ps3Steveo]

Ok cool 2ml excel, what about tpn+? I'll do morning water changes twice weekly 50% too?

 

[ian]

again with the plant mass, upping to 4ml, isn't going to hurt IMO. But do keep up with the water changes.

 

[JenCliBee]

Agreed, in tanks that are using some form of carbon addition, you dont need to worry about CO2 fluctuations with tapwater. Water changes in the morning before the lights go on would be beneficial. Obviously in tanks that are non carbon/CO2 this isnt advised.

I have to disagree, i think even with addition of carbon, more water changes would still cause co2 fluctuations.... the only way i would imagine not is by exceeding or matching carbon amounts above what a water change would add.... and to do this i would imagine having to really overdose carbon continuously to stop any water change fluctuations?.


Adding pressurised co2 is different because you are already adding a much greater amount of co2 constantly for a water change not to actual alter co2 levels.


BBA in lower light is caused by fluctuating co2 levels and you are not getting this with one water change so doing 2 water changes a week MAY solve one problem but could bring on another and i know which algae i would rather try and avoid and it certainly wouldn't be GSA.


Now im not 100% sure on the co2 levels and water changes still potentially making it fluctuate but i would more than assume it would.


So basically i wouldn't up the changes and do 1x 50% per week just like you are doing and also up the carbon and tpn+.

 

[ian]

but doing the change when the lights are off does make the difference. I personally change the water after lights out, that way the 'extra carbon' will be 'gassed off'. I think doing water changes before lights on would maybe cause a problem.

 

[JenCliBee]

but doing the change when the lights are off does make the difference. I personally change the water after lights out, that way the 'extra carbon' will be 'gassed off'. I think doing water changes before lights on would maybe cause a problem.

But how long does it actually take to gas off co2 added through water change?.... i would imagine a certain amount would still be there by the time light are on and then adding carbon aswell would make it fluctuate.

I'm not actually sure on this but would be interested to actually know.

 

[ian]

i'm also not sure on that one, but if we are to go by a drop checker on the pressurised side of things...maybe 2 hours or so?? I imagine it would be hard to measure.

 

[RadaR]

Theres a thread on ukaps where Clive explains all (one of the most knowledgable people when it comes to planted tanks). I'll try find it tomorrow when Im back on a computer.

 

[JenCliBee]

i'm also not sure on that one, but if we are to go by a drop checker on the pressurised side of things...maybe 2 hours or so?? I imagine it would be hard to measure.

But on the other hand the drop checker could just be telling us that levels are not at there optimum 30ppm?.... it could well be that all pressurised co2, carbon or excess water change co2 is gassed off well before lights on... im really not sure..... but then on the other side we have i would imagine an increase fluctuation levels while light's are off due to plants emitting, fish waste, decaying plants/foods producing co2 etc etc.. yes i know co2 is not utilised after lights out but while lights out.... co2 is fluctuating and then a water change is done.... then carbon is added and then lights on.... surely there has to be fluctuation up till lights are on and after lights are on until the tank re-balances itself after levels have fluctuated while lights are off? (really hope that made sense lol).

Then again i guess co2 levels at lights on and throughout the day.... only have to be more than what the plants need and can consume.

I still think though extra 'un-needed' water changes are a waste and a fuel for problems unless you are concerned of ammonia spikes and the like.... this would surely be the only reason extra water change would be needed in a low tech (low light) NON pressurised co2 tank?... weather carbon was added or not?. Why else would you need to do extra water changes?.... unless the tank has just been setup and your trying to eliminate ammonia levels... in this case the tank isn't a new setup and is at a far less chance of getting ammonia spikes.

Theres a thread on ukaps where Clive explains all (one of the most knowledgable people when it comes to planted tanks). I'll try find it tomorrow when Im back on a computer.

Cheers mate, yes i agree there about Clive.. will be an interesting read

BTW, this is all just asumptions.... not 100% sure but in my mind at least... it has to make sense lol

 

[RadaR]

Found it
http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12904
Off to bed!

 

[JenCliBee]

Found it
http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12904
Off to bed!

Cheers for that mate and to a certain degree i get where you are coming from with what is implied.

However.... isn't what Clive's saying, relevant to the OP's problem of algae and his method of trying to get rid?

The water changes are there to enrich the tank with a boost of co2 for the plants at lights on, the OP's plants were suffering so the boost of co2 and the uptake of extra nutrients because of this will help conserve more food at lights out so the extra reserves of sugar are there so the plants don't starve at any point, which eliminates algae to most degrees (the old plants thriving so algae cant sort of thing)... so is what's been said.. more on the side of because the plants are suffering.. your getting the problems you are and the water changes are to try and eliminate as many algae spores untill he actually finds a better balance or regime of co2 and ferts?.... so his plants thrive rather than suffer?.

So rather than more water changes needed... if there was more co2 and ferts there to start with there wouldn't have been the problem in the first place?

In the case of the OP here, plants are not suffering... it's just an algae problem which is caused by other problems... fluctuating co2 maybe? or shortage of P which i thought was the main reason for GSA? or infact both?.


I may just be rambling here lol.

 

[RadaR]

Found it
http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12904
Off to bed!

In the case of the OP here, plants are not suffering... it's just an algae problem

Plant health and algae are directly linked. If the plants were happy as larry then there would not be any algae.

Found it
http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12904
Off to bed!

it's just an algae problem which is caused by other problems... fluctuating co2 maybe? or shortage of P

Which the plants are not liking. The presence of algae tells the owner that the plants need more CO2 (or more stable) and P.

Found it
http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12904
Off to bed!

fluctuating co2 maybe? or shortage of P which i thought was the main reason for GSA? or infact both?.

They are the main reasons. When the plant experiences a lack in these two (or just one) then it's internal degradation and leaching will create the environmental triggers that GSA can use to bloom and then grow.

The OP of this thread was suffering from GSA due to insufficient CO2 and or P. Instead of increasing these, they were lowered. The BBA has been brought on by unstable or too low levels of CO2 (which the plants respond negatively to and leach the same combination of sugars, proteins etc that triggers BBA).

Bringing these levels up to what they were originally should soon counter the BBA (manual removal is always advised too). Lets assume the GSA comes back due to these levels not being enough. The extra dosing of nutrients, excel and the boost from CO2 in the water changes will not only give the plants exactly what they need, but also help reduce any spores, organic matter and ammonia. The result? Healthy plants and no algae.
Could the OP counter the GSA by just increasing the nutrients and CO2, Excel and no extra water changes? Probably yes, but the water changes should help speed this all up.

 

[JenCliBee]

In the case of the OP here, plants are not suffering... it's just an algae problem


Plant health and algae are directly linked. If the plants were happy as larry then there would not be any algae.

But is this indicative of all algae though.... how lacking does a plant have to be to actually be deemed as suffering?... not liking something isn't suffering.... i dont actually like not having salt on my dinner.... however if i dont have it i wont actually suffer... i just dont like it lol.

Would this constitute to how a plant 'could' potential work aswell?.

Could it be the plant just doesn't grow fast and produce larger leaves?.. rather than over nutrients/co2 rich environment where it doesn't have to worry about this....

Basically a person in a cake shop can eat as much cakes to over load everyday, whereas the next person could have 1 cake a day.... which theoretically would become the largest?.... 'could' plants see things in the same way?.

Interesting?

it's just an algae problem which is caused by other problems... fluctuating co2 maybe? or shortage of P


Which the plants are not liking. The presence of algae tells the owner that the plants need more CO2 (or more stable) and P.

But, "does not liking constitute suffering"? or could the algae be thriving because the plant is existing rather than what we would call thriving... thriving and existing... either doesn't mean something will die.

Does this mean that the plants where available are just not able to take all nutrients from the water but enough to have a comfortable existence (ie the OP's tank)... which leaves excess of everything the plant doesn't take so the algae will do instead..... would this actually constitute to the plants suffering or just existing.

If algae is present does this immediately mean plants are suffering... or does it just mean the plants could do better... if given a chance. <-- not sure if that comment is going anywhere but.... it's relievent to a degree so will leave it lol.

fluctuating co2 maybe? or shortage of P which i thought was the main reason for GSA? or infact both?.


They are the main reasons. When the plant experiences a lack in these two (or just one) then it's internal degradation and leaching will create the environmental triggers that GSA can use to bloom and then grow.

The OP of this thread was suffering from GSA due to insufficient CO2 and or P. Instead of increasing these, they were lowered. The BBA has been brought on by unstable or too low levels of CO2 (which the plants respond negatively to and leach the same combination of sugars, proteins etc that triggers BBA).

Bringing these levels up to what they were originally should soon counter the BBA (manual removal is always advised too). Lets assume the GSA comes back due to these levels not being enough. The extra dosing of nutrients, excel and the boost from CO2 in the water changes will not only give the plants exactly what they need, but also help reduce any spores, organic matter and ammonia. The result? Healthy plants and no algae.
Could the OP counter the GSA by just increasing the nutrients and CO2, Excel and no extra water changes? Probably yes, but the water changes should help speed this all up.

I wont disgree, you have it spot on and doing extra water changes now wasnt actually the issue..... when the answers were originally given, the water changes (weather menat that way or not).... were advised to be perminant .. ie do extra water changes becasue this will solve the problem.... No, water changes will help rid the problem and faster and then upping the amounts of co2 and ferts will ensure it wont come back. This leaves the extra water changes afterward redundant becasue you dont actually need them..... this was what i originally tried to state.

The same as im stating now that there isnt any need for the extra water changes becasue you dont need to give the planats a boost becasue you are upping co2 levels with carbon.

Water changes would be a help to rid alage spores while doing this... as would (as you stated).. manually removing BBA becasue it speeds up the process.


I never actually read what you stated.... to only do the extra water changes while this problem persists, i read as though you were advising to up the water changes even once the problem is iradicated.... so yes silly me if this is waht you meant... but long term there is no need to do extra water changes becasue there would be sufficient co2 in the water for the plants not to actually need a boost by that water change and with the amount of carbon in the water, the extra water change would casue a fluctuation i would imagine?.


Just to clarify (because i have a tendancy to seem like im argueing lol).... im not dismissing anything you or anybody else is saying nor argueing, i was actually just interested in the matter at hand and why and how other people percieve how differnt ways soleve different problems

 

[minnnt]

Lol last week I was told to stop the twice weekly water changes as that can cause a high dose of natural co2 which can cause gda lol advice was from mint, I'm confused lol. Right guys I'm gonna trust what you say so recommend me what you'd dose and water changes wise and I'll give it a go. Cheers btw.

Unsure as to why you think the advice was given to you by me regarding GDA as i didn't even know what it was until earlier in THIS thread...

On my higher tech tank i perform 2x25% water changes weekly and dose TPN+ and Flourish Excel daily in an attempt to keep the nutrient levels more stable for longer.

I doubt i would have told you anything different as i am only just learning about plants myself. All i know is that what i am doing is working.

 

[Ps3Steveo]

Think it might have been someone else actually lol sorry dude

 

[minnnt]

lol, no worries buddy... i didn't think it sounded like me as i know jack sh....