[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:Another Algae Problem?
>Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 09:16:33 -0500 (est)
>From: "Roger S. Miller" <rgrmill at rt66_com>
>Subject: Re: Another Algae Problem?
Thanks for the reply. I kind of figured as much (asked over and over), but
I was curious to see if there was any of those creative out bursts you
referred to. I was also hoping for some current info on new techniques, if
any, in dealing with the problem (or for any up to date info on the
nature(s) of the beasts, ya never know who's doing what research right).
>Someone else a couple years back asked why all the questions didn't get
>answered, and Karen Randall replied with a fairly exhaustive list of
>reasons. George Booth even made an offer to handle all the outstanding
>QYNGA (Questions You Never Got Answered). Maybe he'd be willing to
Yes I vaguely remember such an article, it was also published in print was
it not? In any case, I don't recall ever seeing the article George Booth
wrote? Do you know where a copy could be found? (George (Mr.Booth:) do you
have a copy you could send me?)
>You used the PMDD word, so I don't have that much to say. Just the
Can I ask why? I get the feeling I may have missed some thing.
>> Water Chem.
>> ph 7.1 +-.1 (does not want to hit 6.8 for some reason)
>> Kh 6
>> Gh 5.5
>> TH 14 (Any ideas on what the extra 2.5 dgh might be? Toronto water)
>What is TH?
I have a test kit that was given to me and it claims to measure "total
I was assuming it was both Kh and Gh combined, but the test kit
consistently measures my water 2 dgh higher then both the Kh and Gh when
added together. When I tested a test solution (A mixture of a fixed Kh and
Gh) in comes out right on the money (for the most part at least, give the
lack of standardized drops). I tested some other water that was some
distance from Toronto and it resulted in a different variant reading as was
expected. Could some thing like lime affect the tests? Could there be lime
in a municipal water system? I never bothered to get a water analysis from
Toronto (Only been here a couple of years and don't plan on staying all
>[Practiced reply follows] Refer back to the Sears and Conlin letters
>(conveniently available at www.thekrib.com) and the follow-up letters.
>The PMDD regime should be complete, and it doesn't use plant tabs. I think
>it calls for a lower iron level than you're providing, and you should have
>nitrate present in the water. When it works your phosphates should be
I have a printed copy (for personal use only) of the paper on my desk, but
I'll go back and check the follow-ups again. Although, if I remember
correctly the site doesn't give any indication of how long (ball park
figure of course) it could take for a mess like this to clear up. I also
found that the Red species do better with the additional nutrients at there
roots then with out (I found that PMDD tested rather low in the Fe test
when compared to another commercial fertilizer, but I would still say it
works great). The tank just has plan gravel with a little laterite (not
nearly enough IMO) mixed in, so I figured the roots might like the boost. I
will agree with what I hear though, .5 is way to high. The Tank used to
test at a steady .1 pmm.
Thanks, I'll keep track of current events and keep you all posted as to the
time line I'm looking for.
Shennon ta:non Nariwiio