AlgaeFix: Experiences, Experiments, and Thoughts
Planted Tank Forums
Your Tanks Image Hosting *Tank Tracker * Plant Profiles Fish Profiles Planted Tank Guide Photo Gallery Articles

Go Back   The Planted Tank Forum > Specific Aspects of a Planted Tank > Algae


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-08-2013, 05:15 AM   #9
plantbrain
Planted Tank Guru
 
plantbrain's Avatar
 
PTrader: (256/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The swamp
Posts: 13,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkCobra View Post
1) Busan 77 affects algae by causing their cells to absorb water until they burst.
2) It affects animal gills by disrupting O2 exchange in the cells.

Both of which are well documented, no stretches or assumptions on my part.
Without any concentration mentioned, it does make a big difference and specifically to say trout vs say a warm water fish.

Take NO3 for example, it's very toxic to trout fry, but to guppies? Tetras?
I also made mention of selectivity to shrimp vs fish, both have gills but shrimp are far more sensitive to the product as labeled.

This is about all I know.

Quote:
Then you've had atypical results. It only takes a quick Google search to easily find dozens, if not hundreds of people who've had great results with AlgaeFix on green water.
I tried it 2x, did not work. Broke out the UV.
Green water might be milder perhaps, or higher light in the tank I had might be the cause, if it "works", it should work for most everyone. Several other hobbyists I know tried it and failed, does not work on GDA BTW.


Quote:
Rapid fish death, with symptoms of respiratory distress, is also an atypical result. Still, it does happen, regardless of whether you personally have witnessed it or not.
I have elephant noses which are certainly by any experienced fish keeper's experiences, some of the more touchy species. In the cases where fish issues did occur that I read off the web, the aquarist had other issues and did not take good care of the tank to begin with. Most of the people agreed on those post with that assessment. I watched the fish closely. I saw some evidence perhaps of the fish not liking it.

But...........for a few hours, the same cannot be said for CO2 gas enrichment. That causes stress as well. Lots more death and risk associated there than a one time treatment here or there with algaefix for hair algae.
Green water? There's are a few different non chemical ways to get rid of that.

Hair algae? Much tougher.

So the issue is highly specific and the dose treatment is relatively brief.
So not many folks will have many issues I would reason.

Shrimp folks? Oh yea. They would not be happy.
I got plenty of RCS to torture and kill.



Quote:
Now while I didn't make the particular "huge stretch" you previously claimed, I admit I have made a stretch in presuming to know the reason for these rapid fish deaths. I have only tenuous documentation in my favor, and a few experiments.
Well, I'm not sure, I can only say what I've seen.
The fish I have did not die or appear overly stressed near as I could tell.
This is about 700-1000 fish total.
So quite a few, maybe 20-25 species.

What I read on line suggested user errors and care more than the product itself.

Quote:
If I'm wrong, then nothing whatsoever is lost by splitting AlgaeFix into smaller, more frequent doses. If I'm right, and people take my advice, it may prevent a few needless deaths; which is a definite gain.
Agreed. I tried 1/2 doses split for 2 days. Same result with hair algae, but, still killed shrimp some. No difference with fish.

I'm not certain if the % mortality with the shrimp was similar vs full dose.
Did not do a count for the 1/2 dose treatment and I only did one treatment like that.

I'll likely keep doing the 2 day 1/2 dose method if need be in the future.

I think the utility is your advice is reduced shrimp mortality. While people seek to reduce fish stress, I think 1-2 days of mild stress is not going to be a big issue for most.

Shrimp deaths? Well.........that is a deal breaker for most.
Still, not a bad selling point: less stress to fish.

Good either way.



Quote:
Yet I've waited two years to write up this information. Between my own uncertainty, and those who seem to feel the need to discredit any new idea, I felt it likely that no one would end up trying it. Making both the initial write-up, and subsequently addressing misleading statements like the first I've quoted from you, an utter waste of effort.

I sincerely hope this will not be the case.
Why wait 2 years to write it up? Input, develop, hone, improve, address questions etc. Dosing 1/2 doses is a new idea? Would you want me to agree with EVERYTHING you say?

Hehe, come on. If the idea is good, it will easily stand up on it's own .......and anyone with any common logic will go "okay, that's correct(or not)".

Maybe I need to go back and run a few more runs with the product and look specifically are respiration rates, or try it on green water a few times more. I see value in those comments.

Quote:
I've looked up many toxicity reports on my own, looking to find evidence that either supports or refutes my own hypothesis. And I found them insufficient, because they all lack a key piece of information.

They do tell us that a certain amount of Busan 77, constant over a period of a few days (or weeks), was lethal to 50% of the test species.

They don't tell us when within that test period the fish died.
They should have a mortality curve somewhere in the data. Mortality vs time/dose(concentration vs time). A regression curve etc. Extrapolated etc.

It would be unusual for a published data NOT to have this information in the full paper.

The issue for us is the time frame, and the binding with soil(ADA AS, MTS etc). We dose a smaller amount and then have these other things that bind it rapidly. Then water changes and a cocktail soup of ferts, CO2 etc, plants and uptake by them......And it's not an easy test to measure Busan 77 in tank water.

I can do this for H2O2 or Glutaraldehyde.

Quote:
If, for example, the death rate were observed only to rise over time and particularly at the end, then this suggests only chronic toxicity is a factor.
But if there is also a distinct peak at the beginning, then this could support my hypothesis of respiratory distress, caused by a sudden increase in the amount of chemical.

Now if you can provide any report that includes this information, that would be truly useful.
I'll find a mortality vs time curve for you.

Some day I'll do the time vs Glut decay. If you'd like, I can ship the Glut test kit I have here as a spare. The only requirement is that you document and share the info. I will not be doing it for at least 4-5 more months.
__________________
Regards,
Tom Barr
plantbrain is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Planted Tank LLC 2012