Consistency Deficiency

[Hufsa]

Yesterday I got all of the shrimp out, there werent any adults left in the tank, but no less than 80 itty bitty babies were rescued and transferred to the kitchen tank 🙂❤️
The whole process took 8 hours total, I had to temporarily remove a lot of the plants and hides. But I think it was well worth it despite the really sore and painful body ill be having for a while.

Ive had some more time to look into Algaefix, the fish definitely need to be elsewhere during a treatment, if I still go through with it at all.
By my calculations, the suggested dose of Algaefix will result in a 1.2ppm concentration if dosed exactly.
The problem is that this is much higher than the LC50 for many species of fish. (Please note, the toxicity of Algaefix is much much higher in freshwater than in saltwater).
For Rainbow trout, which is a fairly sensitive freshwater fish (that I think is a good comparison to our fish), I find this data:
"Freshwater fish, Rainbow trout, Acute, 96-h LC50 = 0.047 mg/L". (0.047ppm)
(Note that LC50 is the concentration it takes to kill 50% of the fish in the given timespan. In other words, its not the "safe" dose level.)

The active ingredient in API Algaefix (Busan 77 or Polixetonium chloride) is fairly well studied, so there is a lot of data to get information from.
However this thread from reef2reef sums up the levels required to affect various algaes and plants, amongst other things;

The approximate concentrations for each group are: diatoms and cyano at ~0.1ppm, green algae at ~0.01ppm, and vascular plants at ~1ppm. The label dose of Algaefix results in an addition of ~1ppm per every 3 days. Perhaps unexpectedly, it does not seem to leave the system (though it would be expected to dissipate from the water).

I especially dont like the part (in linked thread) where it says it sticks to sediment and surfaces and doesnt degrade 😬
Nasty nasty stuff..

Id really like to get rid of this species of slimy thread algae that is plaguing me so, but not at any cost.
Im considering whether a different option like glutaraldehyde or hydrogen peroxide would be a better("cleaner") treatment for the tank (still without fish).
Im glad I dont trust marketing very much and insist on looking into things before just faithfully dosing aquarium products.
My dear fishy friends deserve the best. I wish this whole situation was easier to deal with.


On a slightly related topic though, my plants are starting to feel better. I saw some improvement after the extra increased dose of Tropica, and the improvement has carried on with the reintroduction of the DIY ferts. I would have liked to investigate the improvement with higher Tropica dosing, but unfortunately the bottle ran out.
There is increased sizes of the growing parts of the stem plants, and the P. helferi is no longer white.
The plants have quite a way to go still, but im glad they're on the mend. They will likely need a while to recover fully.

If I procrastinate the nasty algae business long enough, maybe the plants will figure it out on their own in the meantime and solve the problem for me. That would be nice wouldnt it 😊

 

[The Miniaturist]

It sounds as though you're stuck between a rock & a hard place. The Algaefix solution could cause more problems than it solves, I feel for you making a decision on whether to use it.
Could you try a total blackout instead, it would certainly be less harmful.

 

[xZaiox]

Could you try a total blackout instead, it would certainly be less harmful.

I honestly wouldn't bother with this. Blackouts can work great for green algae, but BBA is stubborn and resistant to it. I've done blackouts before and the BBA often doesn't even reduce at all.

@Hufsa , although it's annoying to have to keep doing it over and over, I can't help but feel like the best solution is encouraging healthy growth whilst simultaneously staying on top of maintenance? I.e topping the healthy parts and discarding the lower unhealthy parts. Whenever the tank parameters eventually hit the point of "not bba friendly", it should stop growing, and then the replanting will prevent it from coming back. This way is certainly safe for all inhabitants, although I do recognise it's disheartening to keep seeing it come back.

I very much doubt that algaefix will stop recurrences, I would predict that it will indeed nuke the algae in the tank, but it'll soon make a comeback unless conditions that favour them change.

 

[Hufsa]

Ive been wondering if theres a difference between ubiquitous algae and introduced algae. Some types of algae will always be there, they are in the air and the tap water, even if you remove them they will sooner rather than later be back again.
Im not entirely sure this particular species of slimy green thread algae that im struggling with is ubiquitous, I think it might be an introduced one, if that makes sense.
I believe it came with a portion of moss I bought. I never saw this kind of algae in my tank before that. It stayed in the moss for a while, I removed bits of it occasionally, but then apparently when conditions were ripe enough, it expanded to the rest of the tank.
If there is actually a distinction between ubiquitous and introduced algae, then ridding my system of this particular species should mean that it wont return unless reintroduced through new plants etc.
It seems you guys are getting a little bit confused though, im not targeting the BBA. Its the slimy thread stuff I have the most issue with, because it really clogs up the equipment.

But im really tempted to further explore ubiquitous vs introduced, see if there is anything to it

 

[_Maq_]

I know what it feels like to be desperate of algae (or cyanobacteria). I, too have acquired a few flasks of anti-algae chemicals about two years ago. In the end, I've never dared to use them.
I've spent quite a time thinking about your troubles, @Hufsa , thanks to your wonderful journal, and due to certain similarity with my own troubles. It's been repeated so many times as it resembles a cliche but I think we should definitely target the cause.
I'm thinking about disturbing the tank. Both chemically and physically. Re-planting, trimming, introducing new plants or animals, altering nutrition formulae, changing the direction & strength of flow, possibly vacillating level of CO2 (of that I've got no direct experience) - we both do these things quite often. Yeah, I know, there's always something to improve, and I could not resist introducing Ludwigia senegalensis which had appeared within my reach and for which I'd been longing for quite a time. Yet we should admit that our tanks lack stability. Right now, out of four of my Portugals, only one is clean, other two suffer from annoying amount of algae, and the fourth one has got a bloom (white-green).
I'm not going to use any "chemistry". That would be too hard, the more so that my plants, in general, prosper fairly well. I have to admit, though, that I'm not patient enough to just wait it off. So, I'm experimenting with UV-C lamp (I'm not new to it, but now I'm going to study its effects more diligently), improvised "micro-filtration", and have acquired Söchting Oxydator. After all, I'm doing exactly what my Portugals were meant for - medium-term to continuous experimenting.
---
The bottom line: I'm awaiting in horror that you'll apply that powerful chemistry. If I may suggest, you'd better calm things (& yourself) down, after all, the shape of your plants seems to be improving. Doing nothing sometimes works very well. Or, you can try some safe measures - increased WC, activated carbon, UV-C lamp, lower organic input (you don't have to feed your animals), or so.

 

[MichaelJ]

Yet we should admit that our tanks lack stability.

That is it! There is a lot of leeway in terms of dosing, water parameters etc., but whatever you choose you got to keep it stable. I've certainly had a couple of issues with my current tanks - the most successful planted tanks I've ever kept, but the few times I've induced some form of instability i.e. by too rapidly changing water parameters or dosing, lapsed on maintenance, the plants gets stressed/weakened and prone to algae outbreak. Stable meaningful tank conditions = Healthy plants = No algae... Is it that simple?

So, I'm experimenting with UV-C lamp (I'm not new to it, but now I'm going to study its effects more diligently)

I've been using low turnover internal UV filters in both my tanks for a while now. I can not quantify the effect. I think of the UV as an extra layer of protection. Killing free-floating algae spores and potential pathogens in the water column.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hufsa]

The bottom line: I'm awaiting in horror that you'll apply that powerful chemistry. If I may suggest, you'd better calm things (& yourself) down, after all, the shape of your plants seems to be improving. Doing nothing sometimes works very well. Or, you can try some safe measures - increased WC, activated carbon, UV-C lamp, lower organic input (you don't have to feed your animals), or so.

The plants are indeed recovering from their relatively brief trial of Tropica-lean ferts.
There is no significant reason why I cant delay any use of algaecide (be it this or that) a while longer. The only timescale would be new sand, im not planning to subject new substrate to anything medication/treatment wise if I can help it, as detailed before. So its just that if I would use anything nasty, it would need to be before that. But the timescale for potentially switching substrate is also up in the air as far as when it might be done. In short theres no big rush so far. I can let things be for now and see what happens.

Prioritizing removal of the algae clogging up intakes, and trying very hard to ignore the stuff elsewhere, should mean that I can endure a little while longer.

I found something interesting yesterday that might have implications for the whole substrate topic actually. Im not sure what to make of it. As mentioned the cryptocorynes seem to be improving in the cups of coarser sand. But in the cup with just coarse sand and crypt spiralis red, a black patch has already appeared. Very peculiar! I cant math the math right now, but those cups can't have been in there more than a few weeks!? But already black patch?? What does this mean for my substrate/root issue? Grain size seems not to be the whole picture?
@_Maq_ my fellow sand afficionado, what do you make of this?

 

[_Maq_]

what do you make of this?

Definitely H2S + Fe ==> FeS + H.
No need to panic. Even tiny amounts of H2S + Fe can create clearly visible patches of FeS.
On the other hand - to the topic of "oxygenated" substrate - you can see that in the cup, with all the roots and coarser sand, not only suboxic but even anoxic zones develop. (Suboxic are zones where microbes respire nitrates, trivalent iron and tetravalent manganese, while anoxic are zones of sulfate respiration and methanogenesis.)

 

[Hufsa]

I guess the question would be if black patch = bad? I got the impression from @Wookii that he had "issues" with sand turning black, but does it necessarily mean that the effect turning the sand black, is the same thing that is making the roots struggle? I genuinely don't know.
Also, when I tore up my sand last time, there was absolutely no black patches. But that was during the reign of the sand snails. If there are black patches in my sand today, I dont currently know. I would have to check. But based on the color of some of the roots I pulled out a bit ago, I think there might be black patches there now.

So is black bad, and does it mean in my case that the snails were the ones keeping it away?

 

[_Maq_]

So is black bad?

Yes, but not absolutely so.
My opinion (I know it's disputed): The substrate is largely not oxygenated. Still, it may be more or less redox negative. Black powder (in fact it's a powder and you don't necessarily see it when pulling the roots out) means that there's a pocket where redox is strongly negative, as negative as microbes respire sulfate. We can deduce that if plant's roots reach such an area, they have to pump more oxygen there than usual to keep these roots protected from reduced compounds.
On the other hand, roots seek nutrients and some of them (P, Fe, trace metals) are readily available in reduced form. In fact, roots are meant to reach suboxic or even anoxic zones.
So, a simplified answer to the question of oxygen availability in the substrate is: no, we don't want it oxygenated, but we don't want it reduced too much, either. This situation can be quantified by "oxygen demand". In too "dirty", "rotten" substrate, the oxygen demand is so high that the plants cannot handle it and the whole tank is quickly heading toward collapse. But if the oxygen demand within substrate is "moderate", that is exactly what our plants need.
The problem is that various species differ in their ability to handle oxygen demand in their roots. Those more capable can grow in polluted, low-oxygen environments. On the other side of the scale are species adapted to nutrient-poor habitats (like Isoetids in Norwegian lakes). In such places, there's not enough phosphorus and nitrogen to feed too many living creatures, vegetation is sparse and water crystal clear. Such species are often the most sensitive, "demanding" among aquarium plants.

 

[Hufsa]

In too "dirty", "rotten" substrate, the oxygen demand is so high that the plants cannot handle it and the whole tank is quickly heading toward collapse. But if the oxygen demand within substrate is "moderate", that is exactly what our plants need.

I am wondering very much why this black patch appeared in a matter of weeks...? How could the coarse sand get severely "dirty" or oxygen deprived (relative to demand) so soon?
One difference between the regular fine sand in the old substrate and the coarse sand in the cups, in addition to the big grain size difference, is that the old sand is relatively matured while the sand in the cups was new. So they didnt start on the same level of microbe maturity.
Could this influence the black patch formation?

In any case no matter what we think of all of this, I think I really need to keep an eye on those cups..
And see how the roots fare in the time coming. Will the ones in the black patch struggle and rot, for example..

I cant really make very much sense of it right now, because the buce roots are still rotting even just a few milimeters down in the old sand (but no black patch there).
Im wondering if the nutritional status of the plants may be relevant.
If they were hungry for a while, perhaps they decided not to have roots in the sand? And prioritizing only the ones in the water column that they sense are getting nutrients / are useful...
But it doesnt really explain the crypts struggling that much overall 🤔

I guess its still not too late to take up stamp collecting instead

 

[MichaelJ]

guess its still not too late to take up stamp collecting instead

Don’t you dare!

Hey, 2000 posts celebration! Calls for my mandatory celebratory group photo:

You know who is who… Maq made it in there as well.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[_Maq_]

I am wondering very much why this black patch appeared in a matter of weeks...?

I can happen within HOURS. I've observed it when I left unwashed sand in a cup underwater.
I know it's difficult to accept - in the beginning, it was difficult for me, too - but the fact is:
1) There is no mass flow within the substrate, and
2) the microbes are very very many and they respire a lot of oxygen.
And so, unless the substrate is very clean (=microbes-free), it takes no time to get devoid of oxygen.

You haven't noticed black spots when re-planting. Well, I still believe that ferric sulfide might be there. I think that it rarely, weakly adsorbs on sand grains. It's a very soft powder, micro-particles. And when you uproot a plant, you disturb a lot of detritus. I quite believe that particles of FeS are invisible in such a situation. Unless the substrate is actually rotten, full of ferric sulfide.

There is one more possible explanation. You know, there's a phenomenon called redox cascade. It ranks oxidizing agents by their energetic value. The best one is oxygen; that's why oxygen is the default agent for respiration. The next one is nitrate. In the zone right below oxic (oxygenated) zone microbes switch to respiring nitrates. Iron and manganese are next, and then sulfate.
Now, if there's a lot of nitrate in the water, the zone of nitrate respiration (yes, it's denitrification!) gets huge, and microbes are seldom forced to respire sulfate. Therefore, hardly any hydrogen sulfide evolves and reacts with iron to create ferric sulfide.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
@Hufsa congrats on your 2000 posts, and yours are long posts as well. Others may have got <"their post total up">, by "Carefully curating pre-loved material" in little chunks.

...... It is not going to work, as I' said a while a go I haven't made <"thirteen thousand posts">, I've made the same three posts recycled ("carefully curated") <"four thousand times each">. If I was a busker I'd only have one song and <"I wouldn't be very good at that">........

Hey, 2000 posts celebration! Calls for my mandatory celebratory group photo:

You know who is who…

"You know who is who"......... I honestly don't, but I usually have the startled (and slightly sad) look of the blue Moomin? at front centre.

cheers Darrel

 

[Wookii]

I got the impression from @Wookii that he had "issues" with sand turning black

Yeah I had a patch or two of black and stinky sand when I broke my tank down. A couple of the plants in those areas had rotted roots too, so it's definitely a problem.

I went on the advice given in this thread, that our substrates weren't deep enough to create a sulphur producing zone?

 

[Hufsa]

I went on the advice given in this thread, that our substrates weren't deep enough to create a sulphur producing zone?

Hmm. I didnt have any strong opinions on it before, but im trending towards believing Maq nowadays. That black patch certainly indicate that something is going on.

I wonder if I could test something like this in a visual way at home? Not a proper test by any means, but I do have access to sand particles of different grades.
I was thinking about having a few clear cups, each with a layer of different grade sand on the bottom. The cup would be filled with water of a specific temperature. Then I would gently add dyed water of the same temperature to the top of the cup. And see how long or if the dye makes it to the bottom of the cup, through the sand. If the different grades have noticeable different speeds of this? Or if it goes down at all? Unless im missing something, aside from the initial momentum of the dyed water entering the cup, the rest should be diffusion +/- some temperature related movement of water (I think those are the right words, but I dont really know). I just want to do a thing and see with my own eyes.
Obviously this is not exactly like an aquarium, there would be no plant roots or flow of water in the cup.
But testing something like capillary action of dry sand strikes me as entirely unhelpful, because thats not anything like whats happening in an aquarium.
But to visually see the dye and how it might or might not diffuse through the sand on its own, would be somewhat interesting, if still not directly applicable to anything.
Not sure why I wrote all of this down 😅 Although ive heard @dw1305 is looking to up his post count, and of course I shant be overshone, that wont do at all! 😁
So I better keep cranking out these vaguely coherent posts. I find it hard to think of having written 2000 posts. Most of it must be nonsense

 

[_Maq_]

I was thinking about having a few clear cups, each with a layer of different grade sand on the bottom. The cup would be filled with water of a specific temperature. Then I would gently add dyed water of the same temperature to the top of the cup. And see how long or if the dye makes it to the bottom of the cup, through the sand. If the different grades have noticeable different speeds of this? Or if it goes down at all? Unless im missing something, aside from the initial momentum of the dyed water entering the cup, the rest should be diffusion +/- some temperature related movement of water (I think those are the right words, but I dont really know). I just want to do a thing and see with my own eyes.

Wonderful idea! It makes me think about performing something like that.
What about the dye? I've been thinking about potassium permanganate... Any suggestions?

 

[Hufsa]

What about the dye? I've been thinking about potassium permanganate... Any suggestions?

I was thinking something more plebeian, so red or blue food dye 😅

 

[_Maq_]

Food dye... I'm not sure. If it's organic, it may be attractive for microbes or subject to decomposition... I don't know.

 

[Hufsa]

Food dye... I'm not sure. If it's organic, it may be attractive for microbes or subject to decomposition... I don't know.

Are you anticipating this to be a long term experiment? 😅
Wont the PP oxidise and turn brown at some point also? Would be less contrast then than pink/purple

Copper sulphate is plenty bright if you want something less edible 🤷‍♀️