Hi Tom. In my last reply to you regarding algae advice (under the old
thread algae control poll), you said:

"Try adding proper CO2 levels and keeping that stable.
Do some weekly 50% water changes.

Dose good CO2 and nutrients levels and you will none have these
problems and much better plant growth as a result.
Staghorn and BBA are both red algae, but they are quite different
genera in most respects and their cause for blooming is also different.
Regards,
Tom Barr"

I have three further questions if you don't mind:

1- With 1.5 WPG (80W/55g), will extra CO2 make a significant difference? My
impression was that growth at this light level was primarily light-limited.
I have Java Ferns, Hornwort, assorted Vals (most gigantica), and some swords
(don't yet know sp.). Ph is around 7, kH 5.
2- Do I need to dose nutrients as per your typical recommendations (I've
been reading a lot of posts on the different aquatic plant forums and your
own page), and if not, why the large water changes? I have a high fish
load, including a 10-11" pleco (nature's biggest fertilizer producer!), so I
should have plenty of nutrients (even if I only feed once every 1-1/2 to 2
days).
3- Finally, could you elaborate on how Staghorn and BBA (or their genera)
are similar (same family?), yet different, and what their different causes
are?
I respect the respect you get around the 'net, so I don't mean to
challenge your knowledge. I just truly want to understand the problem and
the solutions so that I'm not just blindly following a formula. Thanks very
much,

Tony

1. yes, no

2. You certainly don't have to, but with the responses I've gotten for
the last 10 years, you can test and chase nutrients with test kits if
you want, depends on how much algae and how you want the tank to look.
Some don't mind a little algae and not do their water changes or don't
have plants that nearly as picky. But it works on those.
There are trade offs, but the water changes + adding the nutrients back
is rather simple and very flexible with many light choices.

Pythons, or other DIY water changers make water changes fast and
painless. It's cheaper than other methods, you add 3 things _once a
week_ in your case(you might split the traces into 2x a week).

With a large fish load and an unwillingness to do water changes, it's
like cramming 10 people in a bathroom and not flushing the toilet for
weeks.........
If you want success, I will say you will need to reconsider your
approach.

Say add lots of CO2, add K2SO4, and some KH2PO4 and some traces. You
might need a little KNO3, maybe 10mls of traces 2x aweek.
60% weekly water changes, should not take that long, maybe 20- minutes
to do the water change and refill.

With a high fish load, well...........I suggest something other than a
large pleco.

3. Both are Red algae. Totally different genera, staghorn often comes
with high fish load tanks, (associated with NH4), BBA with low CO2. If
you do not add CO2, you need to stop doing water changes and
ramatically lower your fish load.

If you add CO2, you need to do many weekly water changes and add plenty
of CO2.
That's your choice. But you do not get both, there's trade offs
involved here.

I don't tell folks what they want, I just help with what they want to
do.......

Regards,
Tom Barr

Regards,
Tom Barr

wrote in message
oups.com...
If you do not add CO2, you need to stop doing water changes and
ramatically lower your fish load.



why stop water changes with this scenario?

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/200302152...qs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

wrote:
With a large fish load and an unwillingness to do water changes, it's
like cramming 10 people in a bathroom and not flushing the toilet for
weeks.........

Not really. Plants consume nitrates, so constant water changes to remove
nitrates are unnecessary. I haven't done a water change to my 20g long
tank in over a year. All the plants in there are growing like weeds and
the shrimp reproduce like crazy. Crustaceans are sensitive to nitrates,
so I guess the plants are doing a good job consuming them.


--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he

Victor Martinez wrote:
wrote:

With a large fish load and an unwillingness to do water changes, it's
like cramming 10 people in a bathroom and not flushing the toilet for
weeks.........


Not really. Plants consume nitrates, so constant water changes to remove
nitrates are unnecessary. I haven't done a water change to my 20g long
tank in over a year. All the plants in there are growing like weeds and
the shrimp reproduce like crazy. Crustaceans are sensitive to nitrates,
so I guess the plants are doing a good job consuming them.



I presume you top up the water with RO/DI water? Otherwise, I can
imagine both GH and KH building up to liquid rock. But even with RO/DI
water top-ups, the hardness will build-up anyway, unless you're using
100% pure H2O.

Thinking about it. Do plants reduce GH and KH? I can imagine that plants
utilise the Mg and Ca that constitute water hardness, therefore
softening it. Just guessing.

Nikki

Thanks for the reply Tom. Just another of quick questions/comments:

2. You certainly don't have to, but with the responses I've gotten for
the last 10 years, you can test and chase nutrients with test kits if
you want, depends on how much algae and how you want the tank to look.
Some don't mind a little algae and not do their water changes or don't
have plants that nearly as picky.

That'd be me, in that I would like an algae-free tank, but time constraints
limit what I can do. And I certainly have very little interest chasing
nutrients with test kits! I'm also seriously considering having a primarily
Hornwort thank, as that stuff seems immune to algae (and grows wonderfully).
My main concern is that I don't want algae covering/harming the plants.
Which reminds me of another question- beyond robbing the plant of light,
does algae on the surface or edges of plants harm the plants? In other
words, does algae leech nutrients and/or secrete chemicals that harm the
plant?

But it works on those.
There are trade offs, but the water changes + adding the nutrients back
is rather simple and very flexible with many light choices.
With a large fish load and an unwillingness to do water changes, it's
like cramming 10 people in a bathroom and not flushing the toilet for
weeks.........
If you want success, I will say you will need to reconsider your
approach.

I already do 25% water changes weekly (with a 3 gallon bucket- bleh!), so I
guess I would have to upgrade to a python-like system if I wanted to do 50%
changes. My comment concerning large fish load was whether I would need to
dose as much fertilizers as someone with a smaller fish load. Will I need
the extra K and P? Or even the N? Coming from an old-tank syndrome with
nitrates over 200ppm (down to about 20ppm now thanks to many weeks of water
changes and vacuuming!), I just don't want to end up overdosing my aquarium.

Say add lots of CO2, add K2SO4, and some KH2PO4 and some traces. You
might need a little KNO3, maybe 10mls of traces 2x aweek.
60% weekly water changes, should not take that long, maybe 20- minutes
to do the water change and refill.

How much CO2 is "lots"? I was thinking of making the 2L bottle DIY CO2
system.

With a high fish load, well...........I suggest something other than a
large pleco.

Yeah, I know he/she's a pain to clean up after, but he/she's easily my
favourite fish. Very beautiful!

3. Both are Red algae. Totally different genera, staghorn often comes
with high fish load tanks, (associated with NH4), BBA with low CO2. If
you do not add CO2, you need to stop doing water changes and
ramatically lower your fish load.
If you add CO2, you need to do many weekly water changes and add plenty
of CO2.
That's your choice. But you do not get both, there's trade offs
involved here.
I don't tell folks what they want, I just help with what they want to
do.......

What's interesting to me is that the Staghorn didn't appear until my
nitrates got below 30ppm, while the BBA was rampant at the higher levels of
nitrates.
Thanks again Tom. You told me exactly what I wanted, which was the
straight facts as you knew them to be. I'd really like the system to be as
low-maintenance/cost as it can be, within reason. To paraphrase you, I got
this aquarium to enjoy the flaura and fauna, not to play cleaner or chemist.
As an old-school (1980s) aquarist who never touched a test kit or live
plants, I inherited this big tank as a favor to someone who was moving.
It's certainly been an interesting challenge trying to convert it into a
balanced planted tank! Cheers,

Tony

With a __large fish load__ this does occur without water changes?
Try and you'll get BBA and Staghorn as well.

I can easily balance a non CO2 tanks and not do water changes either,
but not with a high fish load like Tony's tank and big old pleco.

Well, you can do it, but the tank will look like donkey....

With a balanced fish, this is not case here, it does work well.
But that is not the case here.

You are welcomed to add many large fish in the 20 gal and see how well
the plants do then.

The RO issue? No, the plants need GH/KH, those will be used and are
plant nutrients.

Plants export the waste, if you have too many fish for a tank, there's
a limit were the plants, no matter what you do, cannot keep up with the
fish waste production rates. Then you get algae.

That's why we cannot keep adding more and more fish to the higher light
CO2 enriched tanks to supply the Nitrogen needs.
We know it's not excess NO3, PO4, traces, if we add a little NH4 we
will get the bloom.
This is a repeatable test, try adding more and more shrimp to the tank.
You will hit a breaking point.
The closer you get to this point the more sensitive the system will be
to algae also(vs adding inorganic nutrients).

I suppose one person in the bathrom and peeing on the house plants
could work, but 10? Nope:-)

Regards,
Tom Barr

I know of no algae product that does anything to plants chemically. The
main thing they do to harm plants is get the nutrients first before the
plants and the same is true with respect to light.
This only becomes an issue if there is not enough nutrient present for
the plants......algae generally always have enough nutrients, light can
be limiting for algae at 1-2w/gal while not limiting to plants nearly
to the same degree.

Are you adding CO2 now or not?
If not and you do not plan on adding CO2, lower your fish load and
increase the plants.
Victor balances his tank this way as do I do with my non CO2 tanks.

This is a balance. You do not need to do water changes, given the
plants you want and the time factor you mention, this might be just the
thing for you.

You'll need to remove the pleco and swap those big fish for smaller
ones and get a pack of algae eaters to add the icing on the cake.

Just top the tank off with tap weekly, clean filter, prune lightly as
needed.
You might add some SeaChem Equilbirum for K+/Ca/Mn/Fe/Mg/SO4, most of
the NO3 and PO4 will come from the Fish food.

This works quite well and meets the demands of the plants quite well.

With high fish loads, the tank just will not be able to keep up and the
NO3 will build.

I suggested lots of water changes if you insist on the high fish loads
because even all the plant growth that you can squeeze out with high
light and CO2 is not enough to remove the waste. Many folsk that have
planted discus tanks with live food and and lots of feeding and high
bioloads do many water changes a week, some 50% 2x aweek, some 30% 3x
aweek etc.

I'd rather do once a week water changes on a few tansk, and none of the
rest(non CO2) and have reasonable bioloads for each
method.

Generally, CO2 or not is the first choice many plant folks consider.
How much gardening do you want to do?

I do not think the BBA and SH are related so much to the NO3, as they
are to NH4 and CO2.
Each time you do the water change, you add CO2 to the tank so the
tank's stabilty is disrupted, you fool the plants rather than giving
them a chance to get use to low CO2 levels.

If you add CO2 and have stable high levels, they get use to that as
well.
That adapt but are not as fast as BBA, that alga is quick to respond to
CO2 changes more than most other algae.

Algae also need to time to adapt, but some are faster than others.
Both plants and algae prefer CO2.

You can play chemist later if you decide that is something that
interest you, many don't.
I did not for a long time but I kept asking why and hearing stuff that
did not make since.

Given your long term goal, go non CO2, you'll be quite happy and laugh
at other folks sweating with their CO2, there's a trade off, not as
fast growth, not the well pruned garden, but that can still look quite
well, even better in many cases to some CO2 enriched tanks, take more
patience and willingness to not meddle, just leave it alone.


Regards,
Tom Barr

Wow, lots of stuff. Can I paraphrase for my benefit?

High fish load tanks:
Method 1 - A tremendous amount of plants are required to keep up with
the waste production or algae grows. High light levels and C02 are
used to enable the plants to consume all of the nutrients/waste. Have
your pruning shears handy.

Method 2 - Massive water changes (50% twice weekly) to remove the
waste. Many or few plants can be used with low light and no C02.
Ample growth, no pruning required.

Low fish load tanks:
Method 1 - Heavily planted tanks with high light levels and C02 require
daily/weekly doses of nutrients to enable the plants to grow profusely.
Algae is kept at bay because the environment is perfect for growing
plants and there are no nutrients left for the algae to gain a
foothold.

Method 2 - With low light levels and no C02, slow growing plants can be
kept healthy and a balance reached where the fish waste is just enough
for the plants. This is a true low maintaince tank. Minimal water
changes required.

Is that about it? It's taken me quite a while to really understand all
the variables. I had to find my niche, where I was with my tanks, and
what method was going to work for me. A combo of high fish load, high
light levels and sparse plants with minimal water changes did NOT work!

steve

"steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
Wow, lots of stuff. Can I paraphrase for my benefit?

Is that about it? It's taken me quite a while to really understand all
the variables. I had to find my niche, where I was with my tanks, and
what method was going to work for me. A combo of high fish load, high
light levels and sparse plants with minimal water changes did NOT work!

Well the sooner my new plants arrive then the better I don't have a high
fish load, but I don't have masses of plants. Neither do I have over
lighting, but I do inject CO2 (15ppm). I fertilise with 50% recommended
doses twice daily, but I am also battling brown gunk all over (diatoms?).

I should also add that getting the fish feeding in balance is also
important. It seems to me excess food is a major cause of chemical imbalance
in a planted tank (phosphates I think).

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

Ozdude wrote:
I should also add that getting the fish feeding in balance is also
important. It seems to me excess food is a major cause of chemical
imbalance in a planted tank (phosphates I think).

Oz

Yes, that's what my major problem has been too. I was feeding all they
could eat in five minutes (less time actually). That's what we've been
preached, right? Well in just 3 minutes my angels and neons had full
balloon bellies! That's alot of food gunna get turned into
nutrients/waste. My tap water has a trace of phosphate and my tank on
a normal day had 5-10 ppm phosphates. Now, with the plants I do have
going full guns with 30ppm C02, I'm finally able to use up all the fish
food. Just this afternoon I had 5ppm nitrates and just 2ppm P04. So
tomorrow I'm going for a 50% water change, and then add a small amount
of KNO3 and KCI (potassium). I'll measure the P04 and add just a touch
if it measures none. I'm starting to grow plants!!!!!!

http://www.geocities.com/erviservy/plantsFeb3a.jpg

steve