New Here, Need Help! Lighting For Planted Tank. Algae Bloom

FishForums.net Pet of the Month
🐶 POTM Poll is Open! 🦎 Click here to Vote! 🐰
I've never heard of bubbles having any effect on liquid CO2 before.  Where did you read that?
 
Plants will take a week or two to properly adjust to any changes you make so I wouldn't expect improvements overnight.
 
The subject of liquid carbon on fish and especially invertebrates is a bit controversial and you will get widely different answers depending on who you ask.  Some people are of the opinion that liquid carbon is toxic and has no place in a fish tank.  Yesterday I read a post on another forum from somebody who was dosing nearly 20 times the recommended amount of liquid carbon in his tank and insisting it does no harm.  These are both extreme views.  The most sensible general advice would be that the recommended dose of liquid carbon is fine in any tank unless you are trying to breed sensitive shrimp or fish.
 
I would like to offer some comments on a couple of issues in the last few posts.  First up, daizeUK is quite correct that it takes plants a couple weeks to adjust to changes in lighting, fertilization, etc.  We had a few issues here so there was more than one suggested change, because we are (hopefully) establishing a more realistic balance level.  But this needs a couple weeks, then it can be tweaked depending upon the response of the plants and algae, but the tweaking will probably be one thing at a time at that point.  Primarily, you want to see algae not increasing further beyond where it is now, but you also don't want to see a decline in the plants.  We (you and other members) can discuss issues at that time.
 
Second point is on the bubbles and surface disturbance.  This is a relatively new idea that I first came across two or three years back.  Prior, any reliable plant source (Hiscock, Walstad, etc) advised against excessive water disturbance at the surface (from filters) or via bubblers.  When I read Rhonda Wilson's article in TFH in which she went counter to this, I questioned it on plant forums with people like Tom Barr and Amanda Wenger.  In the final analysis, no one has any documented evidence that one can increase CO2 by increasing water disturbance.  However, some disturbance seems helpful, provided it is not taken to excess.
 
Which brings me to the CO2 in aquaria.  The majority of natural CO2 occurs from the breakdown of organics in the substrate.  The CO2 added from respiration of certain bacteria, all fish and all plants [yes, plants also respire the same as fish 24/7] is minimal by comparison, or should be.  This is why the substrate is normally not overly-cleaned; you want a build-up of organics as that is your prime source of CO2.  But like everything, this can be taken overboard.  It too is part of this balance I keep referring to, involving the light intensity, light duration and nutrients.
 
During daylight, meaning when the tank light is on with the purpose of driving photosynthesis, and assuming that all required nutrients are available to the plants, they will produce oxygen and take up CO2, and much more than occurs via respiration of fish and plants (which is continuing in the plants) and usually significantly more than what is occurring during daylight from the breakdown of organics.  In natural or low-tech method planted tanks, where natural CO2 is the only CO2 available, the CO2 can be exhausted after a few hours.  The species and numbers of plants, the available nutrients, and the light intensity all factor into this equation.  Plant photosynthesis will slow and may even stop, and at this point one usually ends the duration aspect of the light, again because it will only serve to promote algae from this point on.
 
During darkness, meaning when the tank light is not on, and the room is relatively dark to completely dark, the CO2 rebuilds from respiration and organic breakdown.  Some will advocate adding water disturbance during darkness, thinking that CO2 will increase to the extent that Oxygen becomes inadequate for the fish, but this is highly unlikely unless the tank is overstocked.  Obviously, CO2 would be driven off by this additional disturbance, otherwise there would be no possibility that Oxygen could enter the water.  No one argues this, so the conclusion clearly is that excessive disturbance of the water/air relation is going to be detrimental because valuable CO2 is being lost, and there will be even less during the daylight.
 
So, to sum up my thinking on this matter of water disturbance, I would suggest it not be excessive.  I have surface disturbance in my tanks, via the filters, and I would consider it relatively substantial but not excessive.  I do not use bubbling devices, aside from the sponge filters in smaller tanks.
 
On a related point, the liquid CO2.  Obviously many people use these products--and I am referring here to those products made from glutaraldehyde such as Seachem's Excel and API's CO2 Booster--and the fish are not dying.  But that does not mean it is wise to use them.  I cannot understand anyone thinking that adding such a toxic chemical to an aquarium is safe.  As I mentioned previously, even when used according to the manufacturer's directions, some plants (Vallisneria for one) usually die outright.  If overdosed, other plants can deteriorate, and both fish and bacteria can be killed with enough of it.  This chemical is used in hospitals to disinfect surgical instruments, and in ship's ballasts to kill bacteria when the ship moves from one ocean to another.  Obviously the chemical is toxic.  Some people won't use conditioners that have aloe vera in them (and I agree), yet they will use Excel and think nothing of doing so.  There is a real risk; any and all substances added to the water in an aquarium enters into the fish across the gills or by osmosis through every cell on the body.  The fish is going to have to deal with this; and if the product does cause issues for sensitive or spawning fish, that is a sure sign that it is affecting the fish to some degree whether it is seen in all of them or not.  I do not see any logic in risking the fish when it is not necessary to begin with, as the natural CO2 can be adequate.  If high-requiring plants are intended, then diffused CO2 will likely be necessary.  But it is possible to have a lush planted tank following the natural or low-tech approach if you select the plant species with this in mind.
 
Last issue is the blue night light.  This does affect plants and fish, so it must not be on all night.  But during the evening for example should not pose problems, provided the aquarium receives several hours of absolute and complete darkness.  This is essential for the circadian rhythm in fish, and plants have much the same thing.
 
Byron.
 
I had not seen any repercussions from using the excel. My val is still doing great. got lucky i guess! but i never overdosed. I did dose at night a couple times... so that was bad? or what does that do
 
So aloe vera is bad? i think the conditioner i have has it. I'm not sure if the other bottle does but its the same brand.
 
This is all so very interesting! 
 
Byron said:
During darkness, meaning when the tank light is not on, and the room is relatively dark to completely dark, the CO2 rebuilds from respiration and organic breakdown.  Some will advocate adding water disturbance during darkness, thinking that CO2 will increase to the extent that Oxygen becomes inadequate for the fish, but this is highly unlikely unless the tank is overstocked.  Obviously, CO2 would be driven off by this additional disturbance, otherwise there would be no possibility that Oxygen could enter the water.  No one argues this, so the conclusion clearly is that excessive disturbance of the water/air relation is going to be detrimental because valuable CO2 is being lost, and there will be even less during the daylight.
 
Byron I didn't understand the part where you said that CO2 must be driven off in order for oxygen to enter the water.  It is well understood that CO2 does not displace oxygen in the water but they exist side by side.  Did I misunderstand your meaning?
 
The problem with high levels of CO2 asphyxiating fish (which is generally only an issue where pressurized CO2 is being added) has nothing to do with insufficient oxygen.  It is possible (and common in high-tech planted tanks) for both CO2 and oxygen levels to be very high at the same time.  The fish asphyxiate despite having sufficient oxygen because they cannot breathe the CO2 out.  It's to do with the mechanism of gas exchange across their gills, such a strange concept to us as air breathers, we never think of breathing out as being a problem since our only concern is obtaining enough oxygen!  But a fish simply cannot 'exhale' CO2 if there is already too much CO2 in the surrounding water.
 
Diana Walstad did indeed originally recommend minimal surface disturbance in order to preserve CO2 produced in the substrate by decomposition of organics.  I think she was referring specifically to a soil substrate and not an inert substrate such as gravel or sand.  However the bacteria that carry out this decomposition are aerobic bacteria, requiring oxygen to produce the CO2.  Walstad therefore changed her mind and now advises increased surface agitation in order to maximise oxygen.
 
squidsagirl420 said:
I had not seen any repercussions from using the excel. My val is still doing great. got lucky i guess! but i never overdosed. I did dose at night a couple times... so that was bad? or what does that do
 
So aloe vera is bad? i think the conditioner i have has it. I'm not sure if the other bottle does but its the same brand.
 
This is all so very interesting! 
 
As I tried to explain previously, the problem often is that we cannot see the repercussions.  Stress can occur to a fish and continue for some time before it either goes away or it may turn into acute stress which is when we can begin to detect external issues resulting.  I really don't want to argue this, as I fully accept that this opinion is not shared by everyone and there will be those who continue to use it, but there are some facets of it which cannot be logically disputed, and one is that this substance is a toxic disinfectant that does kill life forms at certain levels.  I do not want to subject my fish to this, and I feel it behoves me to point out the dangers.
 
I would not dose any plant fertilizer at night, though I have no evidence for my reasoning, which is that plants can only use nutrients during the daylight so it makes sense to add them at the start of the day when they are most likely to be useful.  The other aspect is that fish are preparing to enter their rest phase during darkness, and it seems better to not be adding chemicals of any sort that have the however remote possibility of disturbing the fish.  Night is intended as the time for fish, like all animals, to rest and recharge their systems, and this is not going to occur if the fish are having to deal with toxic substances.  For similar reasons we are told not to excite fish at this time, or feed them (aside from the exceptions of nocturnal feeders obviously).
 
On the aloe vera...I'd like someone to provide the scientific proof that this benefits a fish.  I was using the Nutrafin conditioner until another member pointed out to me that it contains Valerian, and he asked me what benefit did I expect from that?  Well, obviously none...I mean, why would anyone want to dope their fish, or gum up their gills with aloe vera?
 
Many of these products have no immediate detriments, by which I mean the fish don't all turn belly up if we use them.  But when you realize that every substance that enters the water is getting inside the fish...just what is all this stuff really achieving?  Is the fish any healthier, or the opposite, actually being weakened?
 
Byron.
 
daizeUK said:
 
During darkness, meaning when the tank light is not on, and the room is relatively dark to completely dark, the CO2 rebuilds from respiration and organic breakdown.  Some will advocate adding water disturbance during darkness, thinking that CO2 will increase to the extent that Oxygen becomes inadequate for the fish, but this is highly unlikely unless the tank is overstocked.  Obviously, CO2 would be driven off by this additional disturbance, otherwise there would be no possibility that Oxygen could enter the water.  No one argues this, so the conclusion clearly is that excessive disturbance of the water/air relation is going to be detrimental because valuable CO2 is being lost, and there will be even less during the daylight.
 
Byron I didn't understand the part where you said that CO2 must be driven off in order for oxygen to enter the water.  It is well understood that CO2 does not displace oxygen in the water but they exist side by side.  Did I misunderstand your meaning?
 
The problem with high levels of CO2 asphyxiating fish (which is generally only an issue where pressurized CO2 is being added) has nothing to do with insufficient oxygen.  It is possible (and common in high-tech planted tanks) for both CO2 and oxygen levels to be very high at the same time.  The fish asphyxiate despite having sufficient oxygen because they cannot breathe the CO2 out.  It's to do with the mechanism of gas exchange across their gills, such a strange concept to us as air breathers, we never think of breathing out as being a problem since our only concern is obtaining enough oxygen!  But a fish simply cannot 'exhale' CO2 if there is already too much CO2 in the surrounding water.
 
Diana Walstad did indeed originally recommend minimal surface disturbance in order to preserve CO2 produced in the substrate by decomposition of organics.  I think she was referring specifically to a soil substrate and not an inert substrate such as gravel or sand.  However the bacteria that carry out this decomposition are aerobic bacteria, requiring oxygen to produce the CO2.  Walstad therefore changed her mind and now advises increased surface agitation in order to maximise oxygen.
 
 
Thanks very much for questioning me on this.  When I raised the issue on the plant forum, no one could really explain things.  I have understood that the gaseous exchange occurs when water is agitated with air, and depending upon the initial levels, oxygen moves one way and CO2 the other.  Tom Barr didn't seem to counter this, but my question may not have been clear.  And I will see if I can contact Diana for her thinking, I am on her forum.  I did email Rhonda Wilson after reading this in her column, asking if she could explain it as it was new thinking to me, but she never responded.  Oh well.  Thanks again, B.
 
I definitely understand, i was referring to the Val. I haven't used it since you told me it had poison in it. It would be silly to not think your fish are not exposed and even consuming anything you put in there.. So i have no interest in a toxic product. i like natural things.. i even got a natural ich treatment instead of the kind that stain. honestly because i didn't understand why they needed something that did that. LOL. I know that most people use the malachite or whatever.. but it worried me.. So it makes sense not to even use aloe vera since they would never be exposed to that. It just made sense that it helped coat them or heal injuries since i use it myself. but again, i don't drink and live in the stuff.
 
I'm about logic, and what makes sense. if it wouldn't happen naturally, it probably shouldn't be done.. some people want to intervene and not let nature run its course...
i get that you have to manually do SOME things.. because its in a man made environment, but for the most part, once established things should go rather smoothly with little maintenance... I HOPE anyway
smile.png

 
and im all about learning something new!
 
I'm about logic, and what makes sense. if it wouldn't happen naturally, it probably shouldn't be done.. some people want to intervene and not let nature run its course...
i get that you have to manually do SOME things.. because its in a man made environment, but for the most part, once established things should go rather smoothly with little maintenance... I HOPE anyway
 
 
I think this way too.  As I believe I posted previously, once you place fish and plants in a container of water, certain biological and chemistry processes/principles will establish.  My approach over 20 years has always been to assist them but try not to thwart them, and to let nature do most of the work rather than resorting to chemical additives and elaborate filtration.  We have to feed the fish, and similarly we must feed the plants, so these additives are necessary.  We must do significant water changes for the health of the fish, and there is pretty good evidence that these can help plants too and discourage algae.  I have chlorine in my source water so I must use a dechlorinator; I have tried several, looking for effective ones that do the dechlorination but little else.  It is a fairly simplistic approach, but it does work; the aquarium is biologically balanced at a certain level that is governed by the aquarium dimensions/volume (thinking of the fish) and light (the plants).  As soon as you raise this level of balance, you begin to interfere with the natural processes, and while this can work if one understands all the interactions, it can also backfire.
 
Byron.
 
Byron said:
As I tried to explain previously, the problem often is that we cannot see the repercussions.  Stress can occur to a fish and continue for some time before it either goes away or it may turn into acute stress which is when we can begin to detect external issues resulting.  I really don't want to argue this, as I fully accept that this opinion is not shared by everyone and there will be those who continue to use it, but there are some facets of it which cannot be logically disputed, and one is that this substance is a toxic disinfectant that does kill life forms at certain levels.  I do not want to subject my fish to this, and I feel it behoves me to point out the dangers.
I wholeheartedly agree with this attitude. I've seen no solid evidence regarding long-term effects of liquid carbon on fish and invertebrates, either for or against, so the humane choice for those who care about the welfare of their animals should be to err on the side of caution . Currently I double-dose LC in a tank with fish, no invertebrates, and I single-dose it in a tank with non-breeding Amano shrimp, in both cases staying within the recommended usage guidelines stated on the bottle. Ideally I would prefer to stop using LC completely and my aim is to find a balance where I don't need to dose it any more.

However if I was going to play Devil's advocate then I'd argue that toxicity is just a question of concentration. Our bodies are capable of dealing with toxins on small scales every day without causing us long-term damage. Only when the concentrations of these toxins are increased beyond a certain threshold do we start to suffer organ and tissue damage. There are many substances which we consider toxic which therefore do us no harm in small quantities and likewise any substance is harmful when considered in large enough concentrations - including oxygen and water. Copper is well known to be highly toxic to invertebrates and yet it is essential to keep them alive - they need it in minute quantities for their bloodstreams.

I don't mean to sway minds that have already been made up or derail the OP's thread, just thought it was an interesting discussion to have.
smile.png


Welcome to the forum, Squidsagirl!
 
Thanks! I dont mind any info at all.
And i had recently read the back of the food i was feeding the shrimp, and was surprised to see so copper in more than one ingredient. Interesting! so what kills them, makes them stronger. haha!..
 
And I agree that too much of a anything, even good..., isnt.
smile.png

 
We had mostly figured out my problem so i don't mind more and different opinions. its all more info for me to have and decide what im comfortable with.
(also, i was using flourish excel) not sure if it contains the same extra crap that the other brand does.. but not sure 
 
 
OH and about the algae, I havent gotten my siphon yet so i havent scraped the glass.. should i anyway? I cant tell if its the same or if there is a little more on the glass.. UGh
 
Alright Byron, 
 
I'm pretty sure my algae is still growing. is this because i cant siphon yet? which would make sense... anyway can i slow down the growth until it comes in the mail?
 
squidsagirl420 said:
(also, i was using flourish excel) not sure if it contains the same extra crap that the other brand does.. but not sure
The active ingredient in both Flourish Excel and EasyCarbo is glutaraldehyde. It's an organic carbon compound used as a disinfectant in concentrated form - pure glutaraldehyde is pretty nasty stuff. The stuff we buy is already in highly diluted form and then diluted further when we add it to the tank.

As for the diatoms, I would just gently wipe them from plant leaves and glass. Diatoms are very common in new tank setups but as the tank matures they should eventually disappear.
 
Agree on the diatoms.  Once we have the tank's biological system balanced, this will not continue (we hope).
 
If I may, I'd like to comment on an earlier point from daize:
 
However if I was going to play Devil's advocate then I'd argue that toxicity is just a question of concentration. Our bodies are capable of dealing with toxins on small scales every day without causing us long-term damage. Only when the concentrations of these toxins are increased beyond a certain threshold do we start to suffer organ and tissue damage. There are many substances which we consider toxic which therefore do us no harm in small quantities and likewise any substance is harmful when considered in large enough concentrations - including oxygen and water. Copper is well known to be highly toxic to invertebrates and yet it is essential to keep them alive - they need it in minute quantities for their bloodstreams.
 
This point about toxicity/concentration is very true, but I would respectfully suggest that it is very different when one is talking about un-natural chemical toxins entering the aquarium and the fish as opposed to natural minerals.  Fish and plants have ways of dealing with minerals, up to a certain point, but do they really have a safe method of dealing with a toxic chemical compound in the water?  As with so many examples in our continuing destruction of the environment, we have seen that nature is able to handle some issues, but there also comes the point at which this is no longer possible.  The threshold for something like glutaraldehyde is unknown, and it may have repercussions for the fish's physiology.  There is also the unknown factor of how long this remains in the fish, building up.  Is the risk really worth it?
 
Byron.
 
Byron said:
There is also the unknown factor of how long this remains in the fish, building up.
 
I've heard before that Excel/EasyCarbo does not last long in the tank, hence the necessity of dosing it every day.  I did a quick search for more info and turned up this interesting fact sheet:  http://www.caiber.com/info/UCARCIDE%20CATALOGO.pdf
 
The summary is that glutaraldehyde is a biocide which degrades to carbon dioxide in aerobic systems with a half-life of about 10 hours.  It doesn't last forever so I don't think there is any risk of it building up.  The fact sheet also gives the results of some environmental studies and concludes that "the environmental toxicity of glutaraldehyde does not increase significantly with repeated exposure".
 
Seachem seem reluctant to give many details about exactly what Excel contains but apparently it is not pure glutaraldehyde but rather their own proprietary glutaraldehyde-based isomer, the exact details being a closely guarded secret while they try to patent it.  Seachem claims that this isomer is safer than glutaraldeyde and more easily utilized by plants.  They claim that it is completely safe for fish when used as directed and that it can be used with snails and shrimps in the tank.  [source]
 
 

04-10-2013, 12:22





Tech Support LD
user_offline.gif

Administrator


 


Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 86
 




Re: Prime Overdose and Excel Together
Hello NicciL,
You are correct that you should not dose Prime together with Flourish Excel because they are reducing agents. If you are cycling you can add Prime every 48 hours; no need to add it daily. It is better to be safe and not use them both; especially at the higher doses.
from http://www.seachem.com/support/forums/showthread.php?t=7007
 
So how many folks do a water change add Prime and then Excel for their plants? How many are dosing above label levels?
 

Most reactions

trending

Staff online

Members online

Back
Top