BBA in low light tank

[PeterGwee]

Wahboy, if budak removes the peat, that means he would have to remove the tank's substrate (aquasoil)...LOL. []

[budak]

The barclaya seems to be doing well, but it's not really a low light tank - it gets some sun light 4-5 hours a day. But the new leaves are robust, though not too long. in comparison, those in my Co2 tank seem to develop holes in the leaves (high Redox??). I find it's another plant that does better with neglect, like crypts.

I don't like riccia, mini or many.

i am leaning more towards BClee's thinking....

wahboy, if i am to remove the peat, i would have no substrate at all..... i switched to the Aquasoil to grow low substrate pH-loving Indo-malayan crypts (cordata, nurii, griffithi etc), and these plants are doing well, with new growth and no melts. I would be happy to settle for low to moderate algae growth if the crypts can do well, but I think the idea of reducing CO2 to battle BBA is worth a try.

[PeterGwee]

Budak, limit Fe in your case and use Fe balls in your substrate.

[budak]

I will try this as well...

Budak, limit Fe in your case and use Fe balls in your substrate.
----------------

[Plantbrain]

Well I said a plant can meet it's nutrient needs primarily through roots IF the light is low. If it's high it needs the water column also.

But I never said that plants/low or high light/ do better with only substrate feeding.

I'd have to say all plants do better if they got only water column fertilization only.
Light levels are not critical.

Now adding some iron and some(not a lot) of organic matter to the substrate will help, and will add to the water column nutrient source.
This can help plant growth using both(Water column + the substrate).
But if you are going to pick one, water column or the substrate, and you use CO2, stick with the water column.

Non carbon enriched tanks a a differrent matter.

BBA doesn't care about PO4 level in our tanks. Even at 0.0ppm with a Lamott test kit for several months, BBA still grew.

My tanks acss he bay had 1.0ppm of PO4 and had no BBA, so if PO4 caused BBA, where was mine?

BBA has extremely low PO4 requirements for growth. It is impractical to limit algae growth through limitation.

This still gets back to the CO2 issue.
You can claim all you want that it's PO4 or this or that, but I've been around this a few hundred times, it's the CO2.

You add enough of the traces/K/PO4/NO3 then do large weekly water changes so all that's left is the CO2 which admittedly you don't know what's happening there.

I have to recheck my CO2 and double check it befiore assuming anything else.

I have not had BBA for a decade now. Europeans have noted a lack of BBA with folks that add CO2 properly also.

You can try the wild goose chases, but in the end if you want to control the BBA you'll need to address the CO2/KH/pH for long term control and remove/trim off what's there now. Also, add some SAE's/Shrimps.

If you can maintain 20-30ppm of CO2 for the entire day length, you'll have it licked.

I've seen BBA in very low light tanks(.2-.3w/L).

Regards,
Tom Barr

[bclee]

----------------
On 7/22/2003 3:22:35 AM

But I never said that plants/low or high light/ do better with only substrate feeding.

----------------

I think we are on the same page on this. I never said that too. I have never claimed that PO4 limited tanks keep algae away.

I have read your posting on photorespiration theory. I am really buying into that theory for high light and CO2 enriched setups.

But the thing I am curious is that it is a fact that people have kept algae free tanks without CO2 enrichment. What is then keeping algae away?

I know Budak has been keeping planted tank for some time now and have tried the high CO2 and high light setup with good success. So we do not really have to teach him about CO2 enriched tanks and all the NO3 and PO4 thingy. He knows those quite well. He is now trying to explore the other way of doing planted tanks. Isn't that the way we learn?

BC

[geoffrey]

----------------
On 7/22/2003 8:48:11 AM

But the thing I am curious is that it is a fact that people have kept algae free tanks without CO2 enrichment. What is then keeping algae away?

I know Budak has been keeping planted tank for some time now and have tried the high CO2 and high light setup with good success. So we do not really have to teach him about CO2 enriched tanks and all the NO3 and PO4 thingy. He knows those quite well. He is now trying to explore the other way of doing planted tanks. Isn't that the way we learn?

BC
----------------

I am of the opinion that in a high light tank, plants photosynthesize readily hence CO2 enrichment is mandatory. Problems occur when CO2 is insufficient. When both CO2 and lights are in balance, uptake of nutrients are accelerated tremendously hence when macro and micro needs are not met, problems will occur again.

While in Budak's tank, he has low light but he enriched it with CO2 to accelerate growth. The low light, high CO2 setup he has did indeed accelerate growth, given the fact that pearling occurs and his dosage of NO3 and PO4 were depleted to a low. This prove that in relatively low light environment, CO2 can be added to accelerate growth too.

It is my speculation, thus far, low light, low tech tanks do better with DOC for their source of C. However if we still want to enriched a low light tank with external CO2, macro and micro have to be dosed sufficiently too. Hence, it does make sense for Budak to lower CO2 if that is the direction he is going.