First, fantastic thread to all involved, this has easily been the best discussion I've read in the last year.
Thank you @Xiaozhuang
for your efforts to advance
the community as a whole (sorry, my puns are a terminal case) particularly to consider all the various causes of algae, instead of simply assuming that high light produces it. I'm now cleaning religiously compared with before and looking forward to improvement in things.
Thank you to @Greggz
in particular for your religious data keeping for fertilization.
Thank you to @Maryland Guppy
for the laughs.
you're both relatively new to the community as far as I know but clearly you've been doing research, and have experience, your words show it, I'm looking forward to your contributions to the PT community in the next few years.
Thank you @OVT
for saying it like you see it. We need people to be honest at times to help avoid "group think"/"crowd/forum mentality."
Thank you @burr740
for the historical perspective you bring and familiarity with Tom Barr's methods in particular, not everyone on this forum reads the report (or at least I know I would certainly benefit from spending more time there, but this is the forum I've called home).
congrats on your 1,000th post. I also laughed when you reminded people (post#26) that YOU remind people to turn down light at times when others don't think to. (though we can see in this thread that lowering light will reduce algae growth but may not remove the actual cause of it.
Thank you @Deanna
for "There is no doubt that all the non-nutrient aspects are a major contributor to my success and, because of the move away from EI, I have been able to maintain the appearance but with greatly throttled growth and, therefore, lower maintenance. We should encourage and be tolerant of all voices."
Thank you @happi
for being willing to dissent and avoid "group think" as well as being a long time member of the hobby who's got a historical perspective to offer.
Thank you @Quagulator
for the very fascinating agricultural insight in post #91
I could go on, but this post is already very weirdly appreciative for the norm here. I know I'm not a recognized pro on the boards but that doesn't mean I'm not reading some of what most of you contribute, and you've all contributed to a fantastic community.
That having been said, @Xiaozhuang
seems to be pointing to a general notion that I haven't seen stated quite this clearly: Algae is not caused by light, fertilizer or CO2, rather it is a "plant" that seems to opportunistically grow and feed on compounds produced via methods other than chemical fertilizers (urea/ammonia excluded?) but rather as a result of either plants leaching nutrients(?) due to some form of stress (of which many have been mentioned) or fish producing waste which can leach these particular waste nutrients. The various things produced by those processes I'll assume are much more organic in nature than our fert salts and likely tied to specific bacterial action as well. Algae is nature's process for cleaning up after fauna and flora waste. If we remove fauna waste products before they can feed bacteria (which may create by products which feed algae, not just nitrate) or algae, then we starve algae off.
Is that correct? (sorry for the lengthy/necro? post)