Have a look at other low nutrient set ups . Low tec and ADA come to mind.
Non CO2? Yes, they do very well, ADA, I've done a lot with them for the last few years, low light, very rich sediment(so technically it's a very rich nutrient dosing method) and light water column dosing. the light was the key issue there.
No one ever bothered to measure a nice reference set of ADA tanks with the ADa lighting. Turned out they are where all very low and consistent lighting. About 30-50micromols even at 3-4 W/gal. So with some testing of other parameters that we can compare to other systems, we now have a clear picture. Prior, folks just assume all light sources where equal.
Sediments also also not tested and measured, plain sand + light ferts vs ADA AS + light ferts, all other things being independent and equal, which would grow better plants? Add lower light to these. Now which? Add more light/CO2, now which will run out faster?
This is not just about nutrients in the water column, it's naive to assume so.
Problem is, few test sediments and they do not make aquarium test kits for that.
I measure both locations as well as the tissues in the plants for research, so such issues are rather obvious and I can and do test for them.
Be careful. It's not so obvious.
I haven't attempted either. Do ADA set ups suffer BBA?
Yep, even top world ranking tanks. They take care of it, adjust CO2, water changes etc, dump some Excel etc on it. I've done several methods over the years and mastered each.
I have a green thumb. Not everyone will nor is interested in the various methods, all they generally care about is finding one that works and does not give them algae.Unless you master each method well, then you cannot compare them fairly, you only know one or two methods, not all say 5-6 methods.
Once you do, you can see the big picture and the commonalities. They you explain why they all work and the trade offs of each, why algae forms when you add PO4 to some tanks, and not others, why some tanks need far more nutrients than others, how an ADA tank can use very little dosing since they have a rich sediment source and low light..........etc.,
From all that, you can make some good general well supported conclusions.
Lower light=> less CO2 demand, more wiggle room => more flex dosing nutrients. Sediment nutrients+ water column nutrients= makes each easier and prevents limitations, vs "either or".
So now we can build a general model that works for everyone and improves all methods, not just one.
That is far more useful information to hobbyists than merely understanding one method of nutrient dosing don;t you think?
If not why not? They certainly don't have as much CO2/ferts in sln. If these set ups don't suffer from BBA outbreaks then we need to revisit the role nutrients in sln, or maybe light levels or some other as yet unknown.
Been here done this already, see above with respect to light measurement on 6 ADA tanks(see other thread of about "ADA lighting, who knew?"). Also, see above about total nutrient content when you include the nutrients in the sediment as well relative to low light, CO2 is very hard to measure truth be told also, ADA often eyeballs it.
I've never met any that really test the CO2 critically that are into ADA.
With the peat infused ADA AS, it's impossible to get a good pH/KH measurement also. A CO2 meter like I used is about the only accurate way, it's 3000$ though, so obviously not that popular in the hobby
Even at 45ppm using the meter over several months, large massive Discus have been perfectly fine, they are about the best CO2 indicator fish(larger fish and they change color when stressed).
These issues are what causes the confusion.
Yes, some folks do need to revisit some thing, but
it's not the nutrients.
It's good measurements of CO2 and light and how limiting PO4 and other nutrients influences CO2. They get so overtly focused and narrow minded they miss the big picture. Light meters are not cheap and neither are CO2.
CO2 changes minute to minute, day to day 10X or more, no other parameter has that much variation nor is 40% of plant biomass. CO2 is without any doubt, the most limiting nutrient to submersed plant growth. Algae are not limited in either case, however, algae are spores and need a germination signal to grow, just like weeds grow after spring rains etc and warmer temps.
Algae are no different than annual plants in some sense.
Plants are bit like the forest woody perennials. Clear a patch of forest, weeds and annuals quickly move it. Same type of thing here. No forest, you get weeds(algae).
Tom has shown elevated PO4 ON ITS OWN does not induce BBA. But what if the elevated PO4 combined with something else that then triggered an algae outbreak?
Then it's no longer a direct relationship so you have to account for indirect affects like PO4 limitations slowing down CO2 demand. Many hobbyist think it's a direct cause and effect relationship. See Liebig's concept on limiting nutrients for more on this and how that might influence other nutrients.
Bottom line, we do not fully understand the biochemistry of BBA.
Will anyone ever fully understand everything about BBA?
No. But we really do not need to either.
This is about plants, less about algae really.
That's our goal here, not growing algae.
Algae culture is one of my goals, but it's not shared by any hobbyist I know.
If it was as simple as CO2 then can someone please explain to me why i have tufts of BBA on my hair grass that is situated 15cm away from my pressurised CO2 outlet that reads yellow in my drop checker at 4bps in my tank that is dosed EI at 1.8-2.5wpg with 50% weekly water changes and gravel vacuuming ? Based on the other threads, the only option i see is to continue with Co2 increases gradually until the fish show visible signs of stress.
PS. Any fish species at risk with recommended dosing levels of Excel?? esp. rummy nose tetras.
LAKA
You might not have as much CO2 as you think. You also might have low CO2 in the AM, good CO2 midday and high CO2 at night. Without good careful CO2 measurements, you really cannot say much. Have you tried using Easy Carb or Excel on the few tufts and see if they grow back? Tried using just 1.8 W, or raising the light, or placing white plastic scuffed plastic to reduce the light a little?
Rummy nose are very tolerant of both CO2 and Excel, I have hordes of them in 2 large tanks.
Hair grass trends to be rather prone to BBA IME. I trim it and then add a bit more CO2, SAE's, Amano shrimp, but it typically goes away pretty easily and then new growth comes out. The initial first growth can get infested some. The new growth should not and it should grow really fast and fill in quickly if the CO2 is good.Still, if I where you, I'd kill what is there using the Excel, best done during a large water change, squirt the amount total for the tank in the infested area, then wait a few minutes, refill etc. Adjust current and CO2 to get better dispersion. Keep an eye on CO2 closely and tweak a bit, particularly note the CO2 in the first few hours(most important part), try a little less light, add Excel for 2-4 weeks to kill what is there. Check CO2 close from here on. Add a few SAE's(they take care of most small BBA issues)
BBA is bedeviling to many folks. I will not kid you. But CO2 management is the key. Less light and good care will help, perhaps some Excel here and there if you fall off the wagon. But thereafter, it becomes old hat and you know what to do.
Once it's gone and entirely out of the tank, it's much less likely to bother you. If it comes back, time to look at CO2 again.
If the COI2 is really targeted well, your tank should look "great", not just "good". Some do not mind good, I like seeing optimal growth for a given light level.
The way to control growth rates is with light though, that's where all growth and demand for CO2/nutrients start.
Regards,
Tom Barr
