Green Water?

[Dave Spencer]

Nitrites aside....nitrifying bacteria oxidize nitrIte (no2) into the more usuable form of nitrAte (no3). I agree, it is getting picky now. The point is that there is no difference between ammonia and nitrAte as far as viability for plants.

There is a difference. Plants prefer ammonia to NO3 as a source of N, simply because less energy is expended. Plants will actually take up ammonia where present, to the exclusion of NO3. There are the odd exceptions, but this can be considered the case in an aquarists tanks. Plants are able to take up ammonia with sufficient efficiency to deny algae this trigger. Algae is actually better adapted to ammonia reduction, so if the ammonia persists, algae will take its cue.

No, light, nitrogen and Co2.

No, I did mean ammonia, and not nitrogen. N is also present in nitrates, but I can`t trigger algae with nitrates, whereas I can with ammonia.

I truthfully do not know what levels of NO3 and PO4 (for example) cause problems for plants or induce algae in a fully planted tank. NO3 levels above 40ppm can cause fish health issues. PO4 at very high levels can influence alkalinity (KH) above 5ppm-10ppm.

This article is three years now and a long time since I last read it. That will teach me. anyway, the author has since discovered that NO3 levels up to 100ppm in fresh water have produced no problems in many diverse species we keep in out tanks.
The same goes for the quote below. The author was the originator of this dosing regime, and as such, didn`t feel he should make statements unless he had the empirical proof to back it up (my thoughts, not his). I can assure that he has now confirmed that algae is not induced. the only issue remains with fish health, which he has done some long term studying with.

I truthfully do not know what levels of NO3 and PO4 (for example) cause problems for plants or induce algae in a fully planted tank. NO3 levels above 40ppm can cause fish health issues. PO4 at very high levels can influence alkalinity (KH) above 5ppm-10ppm.

Your source also delves into the subject of light and how you and I are both fully aware of the fact that watts per gallon is inaccurate --- but I am sure some argument can be made about plant growth under certain spectrums of light and perhaps algae is less picky but direct sunlight is usually connected to algae blooms. That is another subject that I will gladly go into with you, but right now I assume you want to stick to nutrients....?

Aquarium lighting for FW is something that I feel most people over complicate. All I do is go for a colour rendition that is good to my, showing the plants in a natural colour and all will be fine.

For many years this has been the assumption but it is incorrect. Ammonium (NH4+) at low levels have been the primary causative agent for algae blooms in terms of an "excess" nutrient.

Perhaps I should define the terminology more accuarately in terms of nutrients, but I have always considered ammonia to be an unwanted toxin, rather than a nutrient, despite how plants see it. Light should also a nutrient, and can control algae when reduced, but I see it as being right at the beginning of triggering photosynthesis. But yes, here is a case of reducing a nutrient source to control algae. Still, the issue here has been reducing N and P to control algae.

But how can you prevent the formation of NO4 when you adding NO3 to water? My understanding is that some ammonia will always become ammonia and the problem is then compounded, by multiples of 10, as the pH becomes more acidic. In any case, if that wasn't any problem at all, why does the author go on to say:

I don`t think adding KNO3 in salt does produce ammonia, but I am not sure about this. all I can say is that if it did, my fish and tank in general would be a mess.

Which means fish are your enemy in a planted tank?

In a well maintained tank, this should never be the case. Sometimes I think you fail to find the middle ground. Estimative means just that...an estimation. Not dumping in chemicals willy nilly, but adding them in a fashion that gives a safety margin to avoid plant and fish issues.

I think your point about planted and non planted is relevant, but algae is algae. Everybody on this forum has unwanted/unneeded nitrates and phosphates in their FW tanks, and they introduce them with evry water change. not all of them have algae. By reducing these nutrients, you imply a level at which algae can be control. If I can grow algae in water at the quality of 0.02 microSiemens/cm, how low do you propose people should go?

Dave.


Damnit man, you`ve posted twice while I was writng!

I`ll give it a rest for now.

Dave.

Damnit, man! You have posted twice while I was writng.

I`ll give it a rest for now.

Dave.

 

[Tommy Gun]

No, I did mean ammonia, and not nitrogen. N is also present in nitrates, but I can`t trigger algae with nitrates, whereas I can with ammonia.

In a cycled aquarium, ammonia should not remain. In fact, nitrifying bacteria can also oxidize ammonium into nitrites - and then on to nitrates so either is not a problem. Why do you not take this into account? In a cycled aquarium there is not excess ammonia due to the nitrogen cycle. (Sorry if that is wrong to do...a mod can delete the link if it go against forum policy or rules)

I don`t think adding KNO3 in salt does produce ammonia, but I am not sure about this. all I can say is that if it did, my fish and tank in general would be a mess.

This was my mistake, I meant NH3 and NH4 - sorry about that. I know what you mean though and agree about the KNO3.

In a well maintained tank, this should never be the case. Sometimes I think you fail to find the middle ground. Estimative means just that...an estimation. Not dumping in chemicals willy nilly, but adding them in a fashion that gives a safety margin to avoid plant and fish issues.

The point I am trying to make here is that you make it sound like you have all of these excess nutrients in your tank all of the time and still have no algae as if that should equate to my being able to add as many nutrients to my cichlid tank (sans plants) and I would not have any algae growth either when we both know that is not true. The difference between your set up is mine...and the one with the algae bloom which began this conversation...is that the nutrients in your tank, and the environment you are creating is set to create a more ideal situation for plants versus algae; but what happens when there are not plants there and there is an excess of nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates? The algae is free to use them all and will most likely do so.

Let me make it 100% clear here that I understand your tank is working and I have no doubts that you have no algae. Like I said, I made an attempt at a planted tank and to be honest, I simply did not have the time to pay enough attention to it as I was trying to get it established (like I also said or alluded to, I have a reef tank as well) so I had to step away...but I did dose nutrients, much like I am sure you do (KNO3 and one other I can't remember right now), use Co2 and had about 2.5 watts per gallon of light so I have at least an idea of what is involved. I am also not very new to the hobby and have spent a lot of time discussing problems like algae in an unplanted tank so I am more than confident that my suggestions for algae blooms not only work, but work for most people in most unplanted situations.

Everybody on this forum has unwanted/unneeded nitrates and phosphates in their FW tanks, and they introduce them with evry water change. not all of them have algae.

I am sure that this is not always true. I do not add any phosphates to my tank via tap water, but add ammonia in the form of chloramines. It is also easy to avoid adding anything 'bad' by using RO water (with some sort of product like RO-right, or via salt mix) so we cannot blame algae on tap water. Additionally, our fish generate both nitrogenous compounds and phosphates (either from the fish directly or via the food we feed....note the "phosphorus content" clearly labeled on flake foods and such) that build up over time and it is this build up that we address via water changes (although this isn't the only reason for water changes as we all know). Nitrogenous compounds and phosphates can also collect at a higher rate through the addition of organic detritus such as uneaten foods or even if you are not removing dead/decaying plant matter, hence the ultra common advice of not over feeding and gravel vacuuming, among other similar notions.

So, yes, more appropriate water changes, including short periods of very frequent water changes can help control algae....and you do the same with your method of dosing each week by performing a large water change to 'reset' nutrient levels. If you did not do this, I am 100% sure you would have an algae problem of some sort. This is why not every tank has an algae problem

Still, the issue here has been reducing N and P to control algae.

The reduction of light has also been suggested multiple times as well - either as far as a blackout, reducing the length of time the lights are left on over the tank, and avoiding ambient light (e.g. sunlight) from reaching the tank. In fact, it has been suggested to literally cover the tank (albeit not airtight) to remove any and all ambient light. However, like I said, does the removal of all light not defeat much of the purpose of having an aquarium to some degree? (i.e. why have a tank full of fish that we can barely see) With that in mind, for those of us who only have one or two singular T12 florecent bulbs over an aquarium, it becomes hard to limit the light further to avoid algae - other that to restrict the photoperiod - so where else can we turn to? Limiting nutrients such as nitrogen (nitrates), phosphates, and Co2.

In fact, over that same 90 gallon tank that was a planted tank at one time and is now my cichlid tank, I have the same 4 bulb HO T5 light system right now. However, I do not have much of an algae problem because I do large water changes weekly (an estimated 75%) and three out of four bulbs are actinic....which I am currently hold the understanding that most algae or plants cannot use this light. You also have to agree that all light is not created equally - meaning you have a certain spectrum (in kelvin temperature) of bulbs over your tank right now - I believe it is between 5,000K and 10,000k or more specifically, near 6,500k??? - and algae might be more of an issue if you did not provide your plants with the largest amount of usable light as possible. So light as a nutrient makes sense for a lot of us, but on the other hand, a lot of us simply purchase any bulb that is not specifically advertised for plants when we do not have a planted tank....meaning we are further restricted in our ability to influence algae growth via light as a nutrient.

So, to sum up my point, my stance here is that, while we have quite a bit of control over a lot of issues as far as being able to increase them (e.g. light, nitrogen, Co2, O2, etc...), we have less control over the same items when we want to minimalize various issues while at the same time, maximize our enjoyment of having an aquarium. It is my contention that nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphates, probably Co2 as well, are the factors that we can have an easier time reducing. Even if we have no ability to eliminate nitrogen and phosphates completely because our tap water contains them, because they build up over time due to the processes of life, we can keep them minimal by changing water more frequently. (By the way, I am 99% sure that nitrogen will gas out of water if it is boiled, so that could be another option for anyone with high amounts in tap water)

I will also be as bold to say that if you stopped dosing nutrients, your plants would suffer, right? Why would that also not apply for algae?

Damnit man, you`ve posted twice while I was writng!

I`ll give it a rest for now.

Dave.

Sorry about that...apparently there is a limit to how many blocks of quoted text I can post at one time so I had to post my entire response in peices.