Here are some somewhat random thoughts about my algae problem that, in the end, connect up and lead me to take certain steps.
1.) I have been too sparing with both CO2 and nutrient provision. I knew of Leibig, but I just haven't been playing this game on the correct scale of intensity. I have been dosing on a kind of PPM regime with testing. If nitrate and phosphate were showing as just barely there, I assumed that the plants were uptaking right down to the wire. Same with Fe (and thus all trace). I also expected CO2 at 30 ppm to be satisfactory.
I've been telling anyone who will listen for some years now that PHOSPHATE DOES NOT CAUSE ALGAE, yet I had a reluctance to "overdose." I have had recurring nuisance algae infestations - very discouraging. I went back and reread all the threads about dosing and algae and light and reabsorbed everything Tom Barr has posted here. When I started gradually, over three days, increasing macros and CO2 and tested every twelve hours, it did not take long to realize that the plants ate the stuff in truly huge quantities. I also am cutting back the light with the view to adding it in later as can be allowed (hopefully I can bring it all back because it's a really nice bright 6300K day in there when it's all aglow). Lots and lots of LEDs.
The plants had seemed to be okay, in good color, and pumping out the O2 pretty well (I monitor O2 saturation %) under the bright light. But the CO2 - Nutrient - Light balance was out of whack. Some newly planted Hygrophila and Ludwigia shot up, but had then seemed to stop "being vigorous", and all my Crypts and swords just decided to stop growing and fairly rapidly collected algae on their leaves (interestingly, the older leaves are more vulnerable).
Rereading those threads, I got up the gumption to go straight at this problem with some real conviction. Now, going into a fresh day with nitrate at least 20 ppm, phosphate around 3 ppm, and iron (all forms) at 1 ppm, and CO2 right at about 60 ppm, I am anxious to see results.
Thus far, none of the many small fish that reside therein have commented on the new conditions.
2.) Tom Barr has used the term "algaebuster" in connection with certain types of hardy plants. For a fact, he used the term in his 2012 AGA Convention address in passing, and when he said it, I wanted to stop him then and there and pump him for more info. Being left to speculate, I will do so - Plants that are aggressive CO2 competitors and grow really fast - i.e. "weeds".
If algae is inhibited by macrophytic growth, then It makes sense that lots of these types of plants in a system WITH ALL LIMITS REMOVED is a good (fast and easy) way to thwart algae. For that matter, I get that this applies to all plants no matter how demanding or exotic, but the "algaebusters" are the tough and hungry weeds. Such as Egeria densa, perhaps, or Hygrophila difformis (Wisteria). Tom, have I got this right? I would appreciate your elaborating on this. Very much.
Speaking as an experienced novice (I have been a newbie for about 12 years), I confess I like weeds because I like the jungle look and it's easily achieved with plants that are not highly demanding (proviso - all the more important to flood the environment with resources for growth).
So, here's a hypothetical proposition that derives from this: You have a high-light high-tech tank that is prone to frequent algae infestation. You suspect "old tank syndrome" so you uproot everything, remove and rinse all the gravel, scrape and scrub all the surfaces - and you trim and attempt to salvage your Echinodorus. Plant great whole bunches of Egeria, Val, and Hygro, turn down the lights and turn up the food. New algae will not come roaring back. Any older places of infestation that eluded removal will eventually die back. Faced with the prospect of harvesting large surpluses of waterweed, you are happy. Is this reasonable?
1.) I have been too sparing with both CO2 and nutrient provision. I knew of Leibig, but I just haven't been playing this game on the correct scale of intensity. I have been dosing on a kind of PPM regime with testing. If nitrate and phosphate were showing as just barely there, I assumed that the plants were uptaking right down to the wire. Same with Fe (and thus all trace). I also expected CO2 at 30 ppm to be satisfactory.
I've been telling anyone who will listen for some years now that PHOSPHATE DOES NOT CAUSE ALGAE, yet I had a reluctance to "overdose." I have had recurring nuisance algae infestations - very discouraging. I went back and reread all the threads about dosing and algae and light and reabsorbed everything Tom Barr has posted here. When I started gradually, over three days, increasing macros and CO2 and tested every twelve hours, it did not take long to realize that the plants ate the stuff in truly huge quantities. I also am cutting back the light with the view to adding it in later as can be allowed (hopefully I can bring it all back because it's a really nice bright 6300K day in there when it's all aglow). Lots and lots of LEDs.
The plants had seemed to be okay, in good color, and pumping out the O2 pretty well (I monitor O2 saturation %) under the bright light. But the CO2 - Nutrient - Light balance was out of whack. Some newly planted Hygrophila and Ludwigia shot up, but had then seemed to stop "being vigorous", and all my Crypts and swords just decided to stop growing and fairly rapidly collected algae on their leaves (interestingly, the older leaves are more vulnerable).
Rereading those threads, I got up the gumption to go straight at this problem with some real conviction. Now, going into a fresh day with nitrate at least 20 ppm, phosphate around 3 ppm, and iron (all forms) at 1 ppm, and CO2 right at about 60 ppm, I am anxious to see results.
Thus far, none of the many small fish that reside therein have commented on the new conditions.
2.) Tom Barr has used the term "algaebuster" in connection with certain types of hardy plants. For a fact, he used the term in his 2012 AGA Convention address in passing, and when he said it, I wanted to stop him then and there and pump him for more info. Being left to speculate, I will do so - Plants that are aggressive CO2 competitors and grow really fast - i.e. "weeds".
If algae is inhibited by macrophytic growth, then It makes sense that lots of these types of plants in a system WITH ALL LIMITS REMOVED is a good (fast and easy) way to thwart algae. For that matter, I get that this applies to all plants no matter how demanding or exotic, but the "algaebusters" are the tough and hungry weeds. Such as Egeria densa, perhaps, or Hygrophila difformis (Wisteria). Tom, have I got this right? I would appreciate your elaborating on this. Very much.
Speaking as an experienced novice (I have been a newbie for about 12 years), I confess I like weeds because I like the jungle look and it's easily achieved with plants that are not highly demanding (proviso - all the more important to flood the environment with resources for growth).
So, here's a hypothetical proposition that derives from this: You have a high-light high-tech tank that is prone to frequent algae infestation. You suspect "old tank syndrome" so you uproot everything, remove and rinse all the gravel, scrape and scrub all the surfaces - and you trim and attempt to salvage your Echinodorus. Plant great whole bunches of Egeria, Val, and Hygro, turn down the lights and turn up the food. New algae will not come roaring back. Any older places of infestation that eluded removal will eventually die back. Faced with the prospect of harvesting large surpluses of waterweed, you are happy. Is this reasonable?