The Planted Tank Forum - View Single Post - Why "aren't" chemicals the answer?
View Single Post
Old 08-23-2011, 07:57 AM   #13
roadmaster
Wannabe Guru
 
roadmaster's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Missouri united states
Posts: 1,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkCobra View Post
Yep, and I have you to thank for that.

But I learned to kill algae elsewhere. The two skills complement each other, rather than being mutually exclusive. Fix the root of the problem first if possible so it doesn't recur. Then fix the problem fast or slow. Your choice.

And there's always the odd problems like the clado in the java moss that nothing else will solve or prevent. Every tool and technique has value in the right situation. Keep trying new stuff!

I believe from past expieriences, that product Erythromycin to treat BGA which as you say is a form of bacterium, will also have negative effect on biological filter if used in the aquarium.
It makes no distinction between good,and bad bacteria.
Also believe that if light,CO2,and nutrient's are available in proper proportion's for particular application, then there is little need for chemical treatment's inside or outside the aquarium for there will be little algae to warrant the use of chemical's.
I agree with Tom Barr. Learning to grow aquatic plant's is much easier than fighting Algae. I believe folk's with high tech tank's,, where thing's happen at much accelerated rate,often panic at first appearance of algae and rather than look at CO2 distribution,flow,lighting period and or intensity,or nutrient deficiencies(sp) they focus on quick dips ,spot treatment's,alagcides, blackout's etc.
Folks with low tech tank's where thing's happen at much slower rate, and where CO2 is limited, along with demand for nutrient's, and much less light,, are often out of necessity,,, forced to focus on what is truly effective over the long haul, Plant growth.
Just my opinion from the low tech side of thing's.
roadmaster is online now   Reply With Quote