My KH of my 2ft tank is 11. How?!?

[geoffrey]

Thanks Pete but not for a 2.5ft. Don't want wires running around for a small tank

[PeterGwee]

...Only one extra wire...the powerhead supply line. Mine is only 2ft and yet I can hide it pretty well behind the plants...it shouldn't be an issue with looks. Well...its your choice.

Regards
Peter Gwee

[geoffrey]

Thanks again Peter. Right now, my tank is NPK short, not CO2 short. Got to get my plants back in shape again. Anyway I have been running fine with the present CO2 levels albeit some fluctuations and the plants can live with it

[naturetan]

[quote:ea02fb33e6="geoffrey"]Good, at least that clear up some stuff about planted aquarium. CO2 is not the only issue for BBA. If you get it right, do look at other factors. But always start with CO2, then NO3, then K then TE and PO4. Chances are they are under-provided.[/quote:ea02fb33e6]
I agree with Geoffrey that CO2 is not the only issue. There's something quite amazing about my friend's tank that I find it difficult to understand.

The tank I saw is a 4X2X2 ft tank, running the ball reactor type with only about 1 bps. Lighting ~2.1Wpg. When I measured his tank CO2 concentration, it's only about 10-15ppm, or even less. He changed water and fertilised his tank only once in 2 weeks which is not high, but his tank is amazingly free from algae or BBA!!! Plants are growing well too.

How could that happened? I simply don't understand, beside his bioload contributing to his tank fertilization perhaps.

Based on Tom theory, insufficient CO2 should have caused havoc and outbreak for BBA. But friend's experience as an aquarist is already 3 yrs+, and always his tank is so successful with less CO2, yet no BBA. This give me a food of thought about his method of maintaining - change water and fertilise averagely, not excessively.

A theory is always a theory unless it has constantly proved to be true, then it can be accepted as valid prove. But I doubt over-pumping CO2 is a life and death issue for BBA problem. If so, why several people tanks I know are BBA free, yet they can't even bother to measure their CO2 which is usually underdose? Hmm... I prefer to believe things with my own eyes, not dogmatic.

Don't believe? You're welcome to witness my friend's tank for surprise.

[PeterGwee]

Naturetan, your friend's lighting is on the low side which will allow more errors for CO2 and nutrients and seem more towards the non-CO2 method (his tank is CO2 limiting and sort of like non-CO2 method). Folks here tend to go crazy with high lights since they are taught that high lights = very red plants which is not true. Ask your friend to up the lights to 3-3.5W/G and tell me what you see then? Care to accept this challenge? Remember its like driving a car....drive slower and you feel less impact if you hit a hump. Some folks just get lucky and they thought it works that way. Note that Tom Barr and folks has done pretty much in way of testing before coming up with the method he recommends to folks. It is not dogma as to speak. You saw one thing and come to conclusion...that is dogma.

Regards
Peter Gwee

[naturetan]

[quote:7c0c45fff9="PeterGwee"]Care to accept this challenge?:[/quote:7c0c45fff9]Alamak, not sure why you like to challenge? I'm not interested. I'm not here to challenge specifically your view. I'm just interested to share my observation for discussion, just like Geoffrey and BC Lee, not challenge, since I gain nothing if win. Neither am I interested to show anyone whether I know nothing or not, since my main issue is to learn the truth, not to show. I invite anyone to see and perhaps discover it yourself.

Remember its like driving a car....drive slower and you feel less impact if you hit a hump. Some folks just get lucky and they thought it works that way. Note that Tom Barr and folks has done pretty much in way of testing before coming up with the method he recommends to folks. It is not dogma as to speak. You saw one thing and come to conclusion...that is dogma.

This I'm aware about the speed of driving. But I don't even see any slight bump of BBA. This is consider a CO2 tank, since the physiology of it works thus, whether low/high lights, as mentioned by Tom Barr.

Not sure how's your education level like? If we study research methodology, you'll know that if you make a claim, like "99% of BBA is caused by lack of CO2" or your case "100%?", and if it's proven to be otherwise, then such validity no longer exist. Experts in different field made mistakes in their hypothesis that are subjected to rejection. Likewise for this case and it's very commonly done in the University. So usually it's not an offence or whatever, but an evolution for higher knowledge and discovery.

I've not made any conclusion in my previous post, as I leave it an open questions, so is that dogma? Please note that I'm interested on the issue and the truth, not attack, as this is always not my style to communicate, and I'll rather do other better thing than this. I'm just saying that there might be some other phenomenon that causes BBA, not just CO2, as I've already stated clearly in the first paragraph. And if you don't mean that, it doesn't apply to you too. Wah, tiring talking. Anyway, thanks for your interest.

[geoffrey]

[quote:dda7982e8d="naturetan"]
The tank I saw is a 4X2X2 ft tank, running the ball reactor type with only about 1 bps. Lighting ~2.1Wpg. When I measured his tank CO2 concentration, it's only about 10-15ppm, or even less. He changed water and fertilised his tank only once in 2 weeks which is not high, but his tank is amazingly free from algae or BBA!!! Plants are growing well too.
[/quote:dda7982e8d]

I have seen these type of tanks and I am amazed and puzzled too.

[ckll]

[quote:1397a212c3="naturetan"]
The tank I saw is a 4X2X2 ft tank, running the ball reactor type with only about 1 bps. Lighting ~2.1Wpg. When I measured his tank CO2 concentration, it's only about 10-15ppm, or even less. He changed water and fertilised his tank only once in 2 weeks which is not high, but his tank is amazingly free from algae or BBA!!! Plants are growing well too.
[/quote:1397a212c3]

2 things come to mind :
- ~2.1 wpg being slightly on the low end of the spectrum (wrt ~3-4wpg that some hobbyists are deploying), allows more room for error. It's more forgiving, imho.

- being a 4x2x2, circulation could be a question. Perhaps the water that was used to test for CO2 has a different concentration compared to that near the plants? Maybe the water near the plants have higher CO2 concentration? Just a thought.