[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: algaefix

Tom Barr wrote:
>Here we go again.

Dont jump to conclusions. I wasnt recommending its use. Only indicating my
surprise that it existed and my curiousity if it really was safe. Efficacy
is a secondary interest (for me). I do agree with you that there ARE other
methods, but some of the ones you mention are ONLY applicable to a fast
growing plant tank. As you know there are other scenarios where people keep
plants in aquariums.... including situations with a lot of fish, no CO2 and
 few plants. Can you believe that is even possible?? :-)
Well, I do. In fact, I occassionally have tanks like that.

Now, would I use algaefix. No. But the product exists, people are using it
and the questions  are:  IS IT SAFE FOR ALL FISHES AND PLANTS AT THE

I also get very pissed when products are grossly mislabeled. 

>1)If you have a fish only aquarium _without_ invertebrates this product may
>work: but...copper sulfate does the same and kills more species of algae,
>cheap and available. It also kills a number of fish parasites. So why should
>I buy this (Algaefix) product?

Just to be devils advocate, all algae are not sensitive to copper. Happens
that audouinella (BBA) and oedogonium (fur) are; but pithophora (horse
hair?) is very resistant. Also, while I am not sure it IS safe for fishes
(just because the label is silent on this subject, doesnt mean caution is
not warranted).

>2) Is it for a planted(macrophyte) aquarium? If so, this notion is
>inherently flawed from the start. It is only a "band aid", does not address
>the cause. See below.

I cant yet comment on its toxicity to fishes or macrophytes, but if it is
safe (and that is a BIG "if"), a band-aid approach does have some potential
value. Ridding a tank of algae is non-trivial in some tank situations. 

>I gave up on any focus on chemical cures. 

Me too. But that is not the purpose of me initiating this discussion. 

> If you decide that poor
>plant growth is what your goal is well... then this may be the product for

There may be some truth to that sarcasm.

>Herbivores, namely the S.A.E. (E. siamensis), will take care of both genera
>very effectively. 

My SAEs dont eat green fur algae. It is possible that a multiprong approach
is needed... ie. herbivores and good plant growth (with adequate C and
other nutrients)

>I have super planted tanks with zero visible algae presence(except for a
>Japanese Cladophra ball which I want to keep) and excellent plant growth.

As I said earlier, this is not the only type of planted aquarium. For your
tank, I dont recommend algaefix.

>Improper CO2 levels(most often too low) are almost always the root
>cause for the Audouinella (BBA) in most planted tanks. You cannot remove it
>by limiting a nutrient(N or P) without stunting and killing your plants.

I strongly disagree. In a low N,P tank with medium/low light _and_ SAEs,
you can eliminate visible audouinella. In such a tank,  the plant tissue
doesnt have critical concentrations of N and P, and are therfore not
growing at optimum levels. They may even be a little stunted. But so what!!
There is nothing wrong with some stunted pplants. They can still be healthy
nice plants that require periodic weeding. Just not every week like some
tanks REQUIRE. In fact, I intentionally maintain some tanks with stunted
plants which otherwise would outgrow my tank.

> Copper sulfate addresses the
>issues for the fish only aquarium. 

Copper is good, but it does require the removal of sensitive fishes
(cyprinids, livebearers) at needed Cu levels. This can be a pain. Cichlids
are not sensitive. Some plants are sensitive to copper. Thats why
algaecides changes from copper based in the 70's to Simazine based in the
80's/90's. The question is why this new chemical.