[Zorfox]

I think one of the reason BBA is so heavily debated is a combination of misunderstanding and misinformation. Misinformation, many claim that BBA is caused from high light. Yet BBA is a low light algae. It does not like high light. Another is that BBA is caused from polluted water. BBA generally grows in clear moving water bodies. Those are only two. Researching BBA in natural systems from academic sources can yield quite a lot on the nature of this cancer.

Misunderstanding. The experts claim BBA is a CO2 problem. This is absolutely true. However, the experts have never claimed that this is the only factor. Many seem to ignore this important piece of information. The "experts" don't report cures and causes unless they can be reproduced and verified. CO2 happens to be the only way BBA issues have been caused and corrected in a predictable and more important repeatable manner.

If I understand your post you're claiming that DOC plays a role in BBA? I certainly can't say either way. It does appear that this may be the case. To be able to definitively claim this we have to be able to verify it. We can't test for DOC with a kit from Walmart so it's hard to say what the DOC was. Furthermore, DOC is a very general term for dissolved organic carbon. There is a thread about this at APC Organics analysis. A member there is testing water samples with laboratory grade equipment to determine TOC content and the presence of various algae.

If DOC plays a role then why would you reduce water changes? This will increase the problem. To be honest, if your BBA disappears how can you say what the cause was since your control tank has different parameters and both tanks have changing conditions. Try eradicating BBA from one tank using ONE method. Then apply that ONE method to another. Then remove that method and see if BBA reappears. If it does, apply that ONE method and see if it disappears. Then "rinse and repeat".

If DOC is a cause then regular water changes, meticulous maintenance, proper nutrient levels (including CO2), proper water column flow and adequate gas exchange would go a long way at reducing DOC. The addition of activated charcoal will remove a lot of the DOC although mostly the smaller molecules.

Don't get me wrong I'm not bashing you for reporting your observations. I appreciate others reporting what has worked or not and how they came to the conclusions. It's how we learn and discover, or at least I do. :icon_wink

 

[Zorfox]

But thanks folks, its nice to get some feed back, I really did not want to start a big long thread on this, just to report what I feel will help many, & what has helped my tanks. I know my tanks , I could not stop this stuff from steadily growing now it is fading back so I thought I would let some people know.

I hope you keep it up! As I said I’m not flaming you just making my own points. Debating is totally different than arguing. I learn quite a lot from debates. NEVER mistake my comments as being argumentative. I will also never discount experiences other hobbyists have had. For example, if one hobbyist said adding a tablespoon of orange juice once a week cleared their BBA I would be very skeptical. Yet, if a few hundred kept reporting the same event, well…. Never let others influence what you see and experience. On the flip side you also have to be open to what the majority have seen.

Adding O2 at night seems to be the biggest solution to date. Aeration should improve redox & help the beneficial bacteria do its job. People with sumps in theory will have a huge heads up on this provided the sump is kept in clean & a healthy condition.

I agree. Yet why does improving redox help? Increased BB activity reducing organics? So why would water changes or AC be any different? Eliminate the organics and eliminate the problem. Hence water changes and good tank maintenance if indeed DOC plays role. Yes, it may very well be a catalyst.

I think it important to eliminate variables when looking for a cause to any problem. Nutrients being a good example. Since you lowered PO4 and Fe you have an algae problem. We know this to be the case. This is predictable and preventable if PO4 and other nutrients remain non limiting. However, we don't have evidence that supports non limiting nutrients being a cause of algae. It would seem reasonable to eliminate fertilizer additions from the equation completely by providing a given range known to work. Then concentrate on other variables such as DOC, CO2 or orange juice lol.

Regarding how it grows in nature. Well I will not try an answer that only thing is what we are doing is really not that natural & actually I do not think we fully understand nature anyway.

I completely agree! A natural environment and an aquarium are different. However, we can learn a great deal from nature. We most likely will never have complete control over this. That's one of the reasons I like this hobby so much. It can NEVER be mastered.

This hobby is much simpler than most seem to think or imply.
It's about growing the plants well, so the focus should be there.
If you have algae, then you are not focused on the plants enough.
It really is that simple.

This is very true. If we want algae free tanks and healthy plants this should be the focus. I do however think that this methodology prevents discovery of what is actually causing BBA or anything else for that matter. Curiosity plays a role in this hobby for many people. Some folks like to know how things tick. I've always been one of those. It’s not enough to have a perfect burger by following a recipe. Instead why does it taste so darn good? Can I improve it? That’s the beauty of this hobby. We'll never have all the answers.

 

[Zorfox]

I think I've done enough discovery, that was not my goal, nor most when they started out in this hobby, the goal was and this is true for 99% of the hobbyists, (thus I can certainly make a broad generalization), to garden aquatic plants nicely.

No one gets into this hobby to find all the causes for algae. Getting side track is fun at times, but it certainly dissuades hobbyists from their original goal, intent and primary focus.

Point taken and I actually agree with your advice. Concentrating on horticulture usually abates algae issues.

Stay focused on the problem and stop looking for silver bullets, easy ways out.

The search for silver bullets is one of the primary reasons I cannot resist entering into these debates. Snake oils and theories are endless in this hobby. BBA is the one area where there seems to be more dissension and myths than any other. I'm sure after I have as much time as you under my belt as you I will tire with the repetition. In many aspects that's already the case. I suppose firing at these types of debates can lead to more myths and folklore. Yet I do try my best to put some to rest and prevent others from starting. Although in the time I've been contributing to these forums it seems to be a losing battle.

This same old manure is repeated and no know one learn beans and little is done to improve their gardening skills.

So yes, you learn, but not what you wanted or your original goal.

Well said. I honestly can't argue this point at all lol

 

[Zorfox]

I think you've misinterpreted my stance on this subject hardstuff. I do not believe that CO2 is the only factor for the spread of BBA. It is however the only one that has proven to be repeatable and predictable. If we are discussing possibilities then organics does make sense. However, until we can verify this I will continue to suggest CO2 as the cause because this is the only one we are SURE of.

I know your views on relating natural system to aquariums. However, as I said we can learn from nature. Here is a chapter from a book you may find interesting FRESHWATER HABITATS OF ALGAE. It discusses the types of algae found in various water bodies. It didn't take long to notice that most of the algae we have is found in moving bodies of water. In fact, BBA is rarely found in lotic systems (calm waters). The predominant algae in moving systems are generally macroscopic. They're generally filamentous. In lotic systems, the predominant algae are microscopic and non filamentous. In the heavily circulated waters of a planted tank I would expect to see these types. It makes sense.

There is speculation that the filamentous type of algae that anchor to hardscape (sound familiar) may require more nutrients which is why they position themselves in moving water. The moving water is a constant supply of fresh nutrients.

Greater current velocity provides a continuous replenishment of nutrients from upstream and a steeper diffusion gradient near the cell surface (Whitford,1960; Horner et al., 1990).
Page 35 of the chapter above.

Greater densities of Audouinella hermannii were observed on substrata without large crevices, but total biomass was greatest on surfaces that were roughened, independent of the presence of crevices.
Page 36 of the chapter above.

From the two quotes above we can see that BBA is performing as it would in nature. Not such a mystery about why it grows on filter tubes or high flow areas. If it does indeed require more nutrients then which type does it prefer? If we assume it prefers organic nutrients then it would make sense that BBA would be present in tanks with high organics. Knowing that, what would happen if we added CO2 into a tank full of plants? Would the plants utilize the preferred nutrient source that the BBA relies on? If so it would make sense CO2 would affect the BBA. However, if the organics were eliminated the BBA would be also. It kind of all fits.

 

[Zorfox]

Zorfox - how are we sure that CO2 causes or contributes to BBA?

Direct observation. I personally tinkered with this notion. However, my experience differs. The only way I could predictably increase growth was with unstable levels. DIY CO2 with one bottle seems to be a perfect BBA factory.

From what I've been able to gather from the data in the APC thread it seems more common in tanks where CO2 is injected. If our hypothesis says CO2 will stop BBA from growing then that is 100% proven false simply by its presence in more than 50% of the high tech CO2 results we collected.

To the contrary. I think poor CO2 delivery is a primary cause. Before I go any further, remember we're talking hypothesis here lol.

If indeed BBA prefers specific nutrients then poor CO2 delivery would increase those levels in a planted tank based on the inability for plants to uptake nutrients. Rubisco production follows the levels of CO2. This is a rather expensive enzyme for plants to create. It also takes time. So if we provide fluctuating CO2 what happens to plants? It would seem the Rubisco production goes hay wire. They either spend energy producing it or fail to have significant amounts to utilize nutrients when CO2 is low. In both situations the plants have a decreased ability to uptake nutrients.

This leaves an opportunistic algae to scavenge. Algae respond to changes much quicker than plants so these changes won't have as much effect. Does BBA respond to CO2 levels directly? I have no idea. I do however think there is a relationship between the two sides of this debate. We know that the CO2 side of the debate alters BBA production. The why is still rather grey.

 

[Zorfox]

Mistergreen,

Did you see the link I posted there? That article describes how they built theirs with quite a lot of detail. If I remember correctly they used a PTFE tube sealed with plasti dip.