CO2 ppms, is 30ppm good?

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
Scientists can make conclusions on facts that are known Today. When they getting another hundreds of facts, they "successfully"... make totally different conclusions. So how can a scientist make his conclusions? They will be correct only Today. :)
Or you will be like Columbus for North Amarican Indians.
If you have no suggestions (i.e. future conclusions), how can you search facts which will help to make correct conclusions?
Do you know ALL the facts? If you have facts, say why the heck algae dyes off? High plants biomass is explanation for kids, not scientists. Can you tell any scientific data? Or there is not enough facts yet?
With deep respect for both Creationists AND Scientists.
Just a homo sapiens.

The rest is later...
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
naman;16429 said:
Scientists can make conclusions on facts that are known Today. When they getting another hundreds of facts, they "successfully"... make totally different conclusions. So how can a scientist make his conclusions? They will be correct only Today. :)

We make progressive steps towards being more and more correct.
Sometimes science gets it wrong. But unlike some methods and attitudes, it at least tries to test and investigates and is very very useful in practical terms.
Praying for algae to go away is a method as well, but I do not suggest that it will cure the algae issue you might have even though I am deeply religious.
Does not mean it cannot work, it's just a lot more doubtful in applied methods.
I tried it for several years, never worked for me:eek:

If you have no suggestions (i.e. future conclusions), how can you search facts which will help to make correct conclusions?
Do you know ALL the facts? If you have facts, say why to heck algae dyes off? High plants biomass is explanation for kids, not scientists. Can you tell any scientific data? Or there is not enough facts yet?
With deep respect for both Creationists AND Scientists.
Just a homo sapiens.

The rest is later...

High plant biomass does what to the system?
It removes the NH4, stabilizes the substrate and fish waste entering the system.
These are things we can test for and see.

Do plants define the environmental system or do abiotic factors like nutrients define it?

Would NH4 additions induce algae?
We can test that.

Can we remove the fish waste and see if that increases the resiliency and stability of the aquarium? We can test that.

Why aren't PJAN,s and Amano's ADA tanks loaded with more fish?
Aesthetics?

Some claim excess nutrients.............but which nutrients?
Amano, Dupla, Dennerle, PMDD amongst others all claim NO3 and PO4.

Yet we can and have tested these at excess non limiting levels over long time frames and wide ranges of conditions and not been able to induce algae.

What if we test this by adding progressively more and more fish or shrimp into an otherwise stable tank?

The NO3 and PO4 levels are low and no different than that of the tank without fish . Yet we have algae blooms in the fish over loaded system. O2 may be added to account for low O2 levels from increased fish loads.

I've done these test several times.
They are consistent.

This suggest that NH4, not NO3 and PO4 is a causative agent.
We can also add NH4 inorganically and get algae blooms, and the higher the light, the more intense and more rapid the responses are.

This suggest that light and NH4 at progressively higher levels can cause algae blooms. Why might a new tank have an algae bloom and another new tank with a well cycled filter and/or zeolite not have an algae bloom?

Once you have a decent possible candidate for cause, you must try many possible test to falsify it. If it stands up to the rigor of good testing and various possible test and methods, we may tentatively accept it until and better model comes along.

Dismissing a model and cause merely because you have not tested it, and believe based on old text is giving into ignorance. I deal with many folks that try and argue with me in this manner.

It does not work and then end up looking bad public and then it becomes an issue of personal pride. Later, they have an agenda to prove me wrong and look for "facts to support their predetermined simplified conclusions".

I've hounded and asked folks on the web to offer alternative models to show what causes algae. I've found many known causes and methods to induce various species of algae.

When someone says that a treatment causes something, I try to be reasonable and set up a test to show that it is true(or not). I try it several times.

While I'm certainly human and feeble minded, I try hard not to over look things.
I do get rather aggressive in methods when it's plain to see that the person wanting to debate with me over the causes has not even referenced their test kit and has no ability to maintain a stable tank as control to begin with.
They have not thought much of it through very well and then generally take the personal side and forget about the debate of the idea.

It would be nice to find others in the hobby that are as serious as I am and offer some alternatives and check and verify things I have tested. I might be wrong after all. Generally I am, after making 10 mistakes, I might get one thing right!
But that one right thing and each mistake is a learning process. Just do not keep making the same ones.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
Quote: “I deal with many folks that try and argue with me in this manner.”

Tom, you get my posts too close to hart.

And I really know on NH4, plant biomass, fish load etc., and not only from your posts.
I am reading everything I can get and have time to read about planted tank last 4 years.
I thought you know that already reading my posts.
I say “less PO4 and some more NO3”, you take it like “starve algae to death”. I say “not mentioned substrate, K, micro” meaning “they always there so I did’t mentioned them”, you taking it like I am do not know how nutrients in substrate, K and micro can influence on plants growth etc.

! I have just asking whether Scientists have any NEW facts why algae dies in lakes OTHER than lack of NH4 (which plants assimilated).
I see the answer is No. They die simply because have no food – NH4 MOSTLY, and nothing else? So if there is no plants AND no NH4, there will be no algae. Plants starve algae to death not with PO4, but with NH4 only, and we have to be aware of NH4, not PO4. Is it correct and there is no other cause?
Simplifying: Less NH4 = lots of growing plants, no algae. Lots of NH4 = lots of growing plants AND lots of algae.
The answer could be: Yes man, no new facts and that is really that simple.

Thank you anyway.

BTW, that Ole’s data – have you ever thought to make similar research somehow, but with several plants. Don’t you think data could be very similar? That would be very interesting for this discussion.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
naman;16438 said:
I say “less PO4 and some more NO3”, you take it like “starve algae to death”. I say “not mentioned substrate, K, micro” meaning “they always there so I did’t mentioned them”, you taking it like I am do not know how nutrients in substrate, K and micro can influence on plants growth etc.

No, I'm not talking about you in the above post, I'm talking in general terms about the conversations I often get into.
I am not talking about you.
I hope you understand?

! I have just asking whether Scientists have any NEW facts why algae dies in lakes OTHER than lack of NH4 (which plants assimilated).
I see the answer is No.
Here is a paper about plants and about algae and nutrients:

Roger W. Bachmann

Click on the 2004 and 2002 papers.

a friend of mine and fellow grad student, now a researcher there at the lab, Sky, has done some isotopic research with NO3, periphyton and plants.

I would be interested in using enriched NH4 and NO3 isotopes to see who gets what and the growth response from each in a 2x 2 system.

That would should how much NH4 and NO3 each algae and plant gets and be able to trace the amounts.

This could be done in the lab and then applied to larger scale areas in natural systems using agar media.

While algae may die back, this may be due to seasonal changes in lighting, temperatures, low PO4, low NO3, it really depends on the system you chose and when.

They die simply because have no food – NH4 MOSTLY, and nothing else?

In natural systems or our tanks?
I'd say light is a strong variable as well as CO2 and adaptation to the environment provided by the aquarists.

Other issues can be ruled out pretty well and reasonably.

So if there is no plants AND no NH4, there will be no algae. Plants starve algae to death not with PO4, but with NH4 only, and we have to be aware of NH4, not PO4. Is it correct and there is no other cause?

Generally yes, you have the main part of the tentative theory correct, however see about, light, CO2, rapid changes in CO2/NO3/PO4.

These can play a strong role in the availability of NH4, as can uprooting and disturbing your tank too much.

Simplifying: Less NH4 = lots of growing plants, no algae. Lots of NH4 = lots of growing plants AND lots of algae.
The answer could be: Yes man, no new facts and that is really that simple.

Thank you anyway.

Well, more or less, there are other interactions that can cause a build up of NH4 and issues with CO2.

I'm not clear on a number of things and have not done further extensive test that would convince me that I knew what was going on entirely.

Thus I'm hesitant to make too many predictions, but the model does seem to work and fit, it does explain a great many observations.

I'd like to really go in a test this definitely using NO3 and NH4 15N isotopes, very clean techniques and very fine high frequency NH4 measurements. I'd also like to isolate the algae cultures and spores specifically and work with a simpler system.

BTW, that Ole’s data – have you ever thought to make similar research somehow, but with several plants. Don’t you think data could be very similar? That would be very interesting for this discussion.

Sure, I liked that he used Riccia, it removes the sediment issue.
It's easier to weigh etc.

Unfortunately, Ole no longer can get grant money to work on freshwater plants.
He is working mainly with marine ecosystems these days.
I have plenty of $, but no time:(

Lots of weeds to kill, research to write, test to do.
If a side line question is able to be answered, I will do it, but often there is little patterning to my research for the hobby.
If I am in the mood, I'll do it:)

Over the years it does add up however and I have a lot of test and manipulations and am very well experienced. The many misatkes I have made over the years allows me to quickly tell if someone has done the background test and whether they have thought about things well.

You have.

Many other folks have not!

I commend you, I was suggesting that those other folks , not you, are an issue and do not address things that they should, at least if they want to see if they are right as to the reasons why algae and plants grow well etc.

We all can do rather simple test for some things, but some deeper issues do need serious research methods applied.

But that takes time and money.
In an ideal world, Ole, Troel and myself might hang out and do such aquarium specific test and travel the world hunting for aquatic plants, taking picture and teasing Troels:p

It may surprise many, we did not talk that much about plants the 4 days we spent touring California. We where more interested about good food, company, sites, trees, coastlines, macro algae, Sea Lions, Redwood trees etc.

I think Amano and myself are similar there as well, we'd likely want to get out and go do something fun than talk about plants.;)

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
This is a good read:

Blackwell Synergy - Plant Cell Environ, Volume 23 Issue 10 Page 1119 - October 2000 (Article Abstract)

Light, CO2(via pH), wash out (like us pruning), NH4, current are all significant factors.

Pretty much what I stated.
And with the specific species that bother us in our tanks.

As these algae are highly seasonal, they are adapted to various light changes, CO2, NH4 inputs and bloom accordingly.

This research as well as the models I propose are very similar, while our tanks are not "seasonal", they can mimic these seasonal signaling changes and cause blooms in aquariums.

By reducing those signals, we can then prune and remove the remaining adult algae that are left over.

Then have the stable tank.
I support what I say both in the aquariums and in the background research. I also suggest that others try to see how well the model works and make sure they have good methods.


Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
defdac;16442 said:
How much of a algae spore trigger is O2-variations and light-variations?

I found no relationship between ambient O2(7ppm) and higher levels up to 15ppm in algae biomass.

This did not address lower O2 than ambient levels, nor light variation.
I'm not sure about how much is for the O2.
There was a strong correlation between light and growth rates of algae however(R^2= 0.88)

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
Get it, still you misunderstood some points.
Those other folks… To do not afraid of PO4 dosing and that it is not cause of algae, I would advise to make first tank without fish. When I made first high light-CO2 tank, I did at the same time smaller without fish, and get it from the first time that you can’t have good planted tank without dosing PO4/NO3, regardless how much light and CO2 you have. (I had only Sears&Conlin paper at that time!). Later you can add fish, and see how much NH4 meters :)

I must admit last post I didn’t say what I wonted to say trying to escape from arguing, irritating you, and spoil this discussion. I said “High plants biomass is explanation for kids, not scientists.”

The question is:
Algae die, but this is the Consiquensis of a big plants biomass and low availability of NH4+ etc, NOT the Cause.
Do they die because have no ability to assimilate concentrations of NH4+ lower than 0.0xxx ppm (we know plants can do that with 0.05ppm of NH4)? Any scientific data?

How do you think, may I post here picture from Ole's paper or I must ask him first? (I made a new drawing, to show better my assumptions)

naman
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
Ole only used NH4, not a mix of NO3 and NH4 to better balance the growth.
Having a balance of NO3, which is not hardly toxic at all, is better for growth.

I think his cultures had clean tissues to work with and not spores of algae or sediment spore germinating "seed.spore" bank to draw from to induce algae.

Using solely NH4 and PO4 and much less CO2 that we use, about 5x less than we typically use.......... also does not tell the whole story.

One plant, a weird aquatic liverwort, that I know grows very very fast on solely NO3 sources may not be the best model for making an argument for a position.

It's good because it's easy to raise and grows fats, no roots and can be cultured in clean conditions.

But it has other issues.
As does the test when applying it to algae, growth and development.

Ole suggest that the plant is able to grow with shading and without under high light.

Most plants can and do.
The N and P are lower in the tissues with high light.
That's what anyone would expect.

The plant is busy assimilating and has less time to take up nutrients relative to the rate of growth.

Slower growth rates= more reserves/more development time.

So how would we best achieve that?
Less light.

Which is what I've said going back 8-9 years.
George Booth has also stated in less words the same type of thing.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

markalot

Junior Poster
Apr 8, 2007
3
0
1
edit: my question was answered by the latest report. I believe unstable co2 was the reason I experienced these problems but I would still appreciate any comments about my lighting. Thanks.


Howdy,

Sorry in advance for the ignorance but I've been trying desperately to understand what's being said here.

I have a 46 gallon tank with 110 watts overhead and moderately planted. Substrate is aquarium gravel with 4 months of mulm built up. I had decent slow growth with little algae but I decided to try some DIY co2 and immediately has black thread algae (staghorn I believe -- note I bought the Barr Report to see the latest issue, it IS staghorn without a doubt) break out. Then I read this thread, then I turned off the C02.

Not enough time has transpired to know if the algae growth has stopped or not, but I suspect my unstable CO2 was the cause. Is this a safe assumption?

Do I have too much light in this tank at 110 watts?


I also have a 20 long tank where I have 50 watts overhead from a combination of an old strip light with a decent reflector and an incandescent hood with 2 CF bulbs. The tank is moderately planted. The substrate in this tank of 100% eco-complete. I added DIY CO2 and had a green water outbreak almost immediately. I used old filter media in this tank and my ammonia readings are 0 but I still have some nitrites to deal with. I am using pure store bought Ammonia to fishless cycle this tank. Is that the probable cause of the green water?

I have turned off the CO2.

Did the unstable CO2 contribute to this problem, or perhaps some unmeasured NH4? Or is this problem outside the scope of this thread? I'm not asking for anyone to solve my problems here, just wondering if my observations are valid? :)

Thanks.
 

VaughnH

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,011
95
48
86
Sacramento, CA
If you plant a tank reasonably heavily you have no good reason to cycle it in any way. Cycling is to give beneficial bacteria a chance to get established, and that bacteria consumes ammonia, converting it eventually into nitrate. Plants in the tank will just use the ammonia, eliminating the need for waiting for the tank to cycle. So......why add ammonia, with the potential for algae blooms and other disasters? In my opinion the ammonia did cause your greenwaer bloom.
 

markalot

Junior Poster
Apr 8, 2007
3
0
1
I don't think it's planted heavily enough to 'use' all the ammonia. This is why I'm seeing the nitrIte. Of course I'm probably adding more ammonia than a regular fish load would, so my readings don't mean much.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
This same plant starting biomass also applies to Marine tanks.
I tried almost everything to beat back some Cyanos to grow a small biomass of a Caulpera.

Never was able to to do it until I added a lot more Caulpera to the tank, then it bounced back after a few days.

The only thing that all that added biomass removes is the NH4 to very low levels that was not being done prior.

Low nutrient algae tend to be very good at acquiring NH4 at very low levels and bloom. GW is our equivalent in FW systems. Red cyano is the one in the Marine systems.

Regards,
Tom Barr