Seeing as how this is a forum for open opinions....
If what you said were true in every situation, my pool man wouldn't be testing my swimming pool for phosphate
But we're not talking about pools. We're talking about planted tanks. After all, this is a fish forum and we are in the planted section.
Plant decay, excess food, fish waste, dead fish, a recent gravel clean or serious rescape, dosing with meds, a change in photoperiod, a lack of maintainance, all can contribute to algae growth. Phosphate is a by product in some of these processes.
Ammonia is a result of
all of these factors, and
that is what produces the algae.
in a lightly planted tank with minimal light and no CO2, in which case it needs to be treated as if it wasn't a planted aquarium.
This is a trickey one. If the aquarium was medium - densely planted then I would disagree.
However if there are only one or two plants then I agree with you, llj.
Point I--I didn't just mention pools, I also mentioned Saltwater systems and non-planted tanks (All three of which possess higher pH levels, a point that is important later on). And actually, there are some similarities between how a pool functions and how a large aquarium functions. I was really just critiqueing your generalization. When keeping tanks, you cannot apply a certain set of rules. What works for you, or what may be the cause of one person's algae problem, may not be the cause of the another's. I'm not disaqreeing with you, I just like avoiding generalizations.
Point II--Yes, ammonia
is a by-product, whether directly or indirecty, of the factors listed above. I agree that of the culprits, ammonia should be ruled out before phosphate. I'm, however, assumed that there isn't ammonia in the aquarium. There shouldn't be, as it is toxic to fish. In a densly planted aquarium, it is readily absorbed by plants, very quickly infact (plants love the stuff), but in a non-planted tank, it can accumulate. If a level of 0.5 ppm can cause fish stress (clamped fin, etc, just reading a test kit value), would the trigger for an algae bloom be at a lower level? Perhaps low enough to not register in a standard ammonia test kit? If you have ammonia spikes in your aquarium, wouldn't you see the toxicity affect your fish before it manifests in an algae bloom? Again, this is probably going to boil down to the type of planted aquarium that one possesses. An ammonia spike in a High-tech, CO2 tank (or in a densly planted, mature lower light system) may actually manifest an algae bloom before the fish register the toxicity. The process of CO2 injection, lowers the pH of an aquarium significantly. The lower the pH, the less toxic are the affects of ammonia. So, more ammonia can accumulate before it adversely affects the fish, in which the algae bloom will then probably proceed the toxicity and then the ammonia is the cause for the spike. I agree with this completely. That is a give in. However, in low-light, non-CO2 tanks that are lightly planted, the pH will probably be higher (unless the pH is low by nature, not common in our city-run water management), resulting in greater ammonia toxicity towards fish. The fish will manifest symptoms of the ammonia toxicity faster than the algae can react to the ammonia spike via a bloom.
This is a mute point, however, if the algae bloom is triggered at a lower toxicity level. But I don't know what are the minimum ammonia levels in ppm to trigger an algae bloom, and unless it's posted in the internet somewhere, I'm not finding out. I'm not keen on using my tanks as an experiment to determine the levels either. I possess higher pH levels, and I'm not playing around with ammonia levels to see what happens first, an algae bloom, or stressed fish.
Point III--It's a 65g tank, chances are it's going to be nowhere near dense enough.
I'm glad you opened this up, RadaR, because what you are seeing here is the emmergence of two distinct philosophies for planted tank maintenance. There are those, like you and others, who like to keep the substrate and water column full of nutrients and CO2, and light. You don't get algae (often
unless something goes wrong). I believe in this as well, to some extent, depends on the type of system I'm working with. Then, there are those, a little older, who believe in maintaining a very lean water column, especially with regard to phosphate, nitrate, and ammonia. Again, something can always go wrong. Successful planted tanks are maintained everyday using both ways. Having done both, nothing is wrong with any of the philosophies, if applied correctly.
I guess the central point is not to generalize. It's really difficult not to do, and sometimes I catch myself doing it too, like when I said test for phophate. I made an assumption based on what type of system I thought Schooly had.
Schooly, you can take whatever you want out of these recommendations. If you really want a planted tank, it is my opinion, that you'll have to reconsider some of your current choices.
1. Some of your fish aren't compatible with a true planted aquarium (Silver dollars, large gouramis, large plec). They eat plants, which can lessen plant health, cause decay, and possilby trigger algae.
2. Add more plants, they can consume the extra nutrients and help ward off algae. Something tough that will resist your fish.
3. Consider upgrading your lighting a little. If your bulb is a standard output T8, .6WPG isn't going to encourage the kind of plant growth you'll need to ward off algae, which is feasting on either your ammonia or your phosphate, depending on how you think. 1WPG may be more of what you are looking for, or even between 1-1.5WPG, might be something to think about.
4. If you don't want to do any of the above, consider heavier water changes. That may reduce the excess of whatever you have in excess that is supplying the algae. Your fish are heavy waste producers, maybe 35%, especially if you over feed isn't enough. Your tank is also quite new. 3 months is not a mature tank by any means, and it is still in the stabilization proces. Ity is pointless, IMO, to maintain a nutrient rich water column if there is nothing to consume the nutrients.
5. If we haven't driven you crazy yet, please feel free to post a picture of your tank, so we can stop speculating and figure out what kind of system you actually have.
llj
