[APD] Re: CO2 and BBA

[Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>]

>It would seem that there could be more than one cause of BGA.

BBA?
Well BGA for that matter too.

I really don't think so, but it's possible.
It depends really on how strong of a factor is considered "a cause".

I look for definite patterns that are very strong inducers.
These tend to be easily found clear indictors that x causes y.
Then it's easy to say x causes y and not some very subtle interaction that is very toiugh tio say something, anything about.

What good is that on a practical level if you cannot tease it apart?
It's something that will never make or break a tank if the interaction is that weak. 

The real issue when we get these ******seemingly multiple causes****** is that the other parameters are ***NOT*** addressed or assumed to be correct.

This confounds the real _significant_ issue.

So then we have several things happening at once, eg poor CO2 + NO3 limitation+ low plant biomass+ big pruning and no water change+ overfeeding their fish+ not cleaning the filter's regularly, too much mulm build up........

You get the picture.

But if you do go through and keep good records/good observations/good housekeeping and mainteance, THEN manipulate the variable of interest one at a time, then you can see much more clearly the impact say CO2 in this case(BBA) causes.

What happens is that an aquarist will fix CO2, but then still have other issues lingering....................
Then the effect is not as clear and takes more time/work to get things right.

Then lots of anecdotal experiences that are similar are found and then they think it's all these other things.
Then some one say well there's all this stuff on the krib and on the net that says PO4 causes algae or that blackouts don't work etc..............

I hear this same thing day after day.
People wonder how I know this or that, well if they took care of the nutrients(the estimative index makes this very easy), added enough CO2(harder), had the light, did the mainteance(very often over looked), then the tank is very robust and does not get algae.

We all slack off. But the seasoned plantie knows it's the same old thing, mainteance, water changes, pruning and whips the tank back into shape.
There is no trick, no magic or secrets to any of this. No things that are beyond our grasp, comprehension and knowledge as far as culture and the "how".

New folks are not as seasoned with this get all excited over algae and freak out. The seasoned plantie knows it's no big deal and eventually finds enough motivation to clean their tank up and get it back where they know it should be.

Yep, there are multiple causes for most algae, but if you take care of the light, CO2, nutrients and do regular mainteance=> then you don't have algae.

If you go back and try to induce algae with each one of these parameters one at a time, then suddenly you realize that high PO4 does not cause algae etc.
Then you know what causes this BBA or BGA etc.

One run does not tell you much, doing it 20 times does.
I lost count of how many times I've done most of these things.

This notion of other "unknown causes" has been going on a very long time and does not further the hobby. It only confuses it and causes people to give up. I leave that option open certainly, but after doing this for a long time, I have a damn good understanding of what will and won't cause algae with the set of variables(light/CO2/nutrients and of course maintenance). 

It's not hard and any aquarist can go through and do this. If they don't want to that's fine also, they can take the advice and fix their problem/s. 

The method is simple, no Einstein needed.

>In a high tech, high light, nutrient rich environment, insufficient injected
>CO2 could well be the causative factor, with all of those added nutrients
>floating around and not enough plant growth to make use of them.  An
>increase in CO2 would spur the growth of the plants and consume those
>nutrients.  But in a lower light, non-CO2 injected, no added nutrients
>environment, things would be different.

This is a rate issue.
How many grams of plants/gram of nutrients/day.
The rate of inputs are sufficent to supply the needs of the plant(the output since we prune them+ water changes in CO2 plant tanks).

>There the amount of light and the CO2 (or C) level would be constant. 

No, non CO2 tanks do not have constant CO2. Quite the opposite.
CO2 enrichement adds excess CO2 so that the CO2 does not matter nearly as much.
Then it becomes a nutrient issue which is much easier IME to address than CO2. 

Sad thing is, there is little way to measure light in a meaningful manner for the hobbyist.
That's where it all starts.

 The
>only other variable would be the amount of nutrients available.  In a newly
>planted tank, before the plants began their growth, BGA and other algae
>would take advantage of the temporary surplus of nutrients and bloom. 

No, it's not the nutrients surplus, that is present in an established tank as well.
We'd get algae if that were the case in all tanks.

If the plants are rotten, limited by CO2, some nutrient, the algae typically are non limited and thrive.
If there is some NH4 present from rot, decayed plants, poor plant growth etc, then you'll get algae.

I don't get algae in new tanks, I've detailed that arguement out here and APC. 
 
 Then
>as the plants began to take up those nutrients the algae would die back.
>Sound logical?
>Bill

A little:-) 

Regards, 
Tom Barr
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants