• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

What exactly causes BBA? Part 2 - Bacterial imbalance

I run purigen and API Bio-Chem in my cannister. 2 weeks ago, I got a BBA outbreak without changing anything with the tank and I realized it had been 5 months since I changed my chemical media. Manufacture recommendation is 3-6 months. I'm going to change out the chem media every 4 months this time, I'll let you know if I get another BBA outbreak.

Yes, please, let me know. I have never used carbon nor Purigen for longer than a few days, in rare circumstances, because I am afraid they can remove nutrients (traces) for plants, but maybe I have been mistaken on that... Do you think carbon or Purigen can be used on a regular basis without issues for plants? I mean, without removing too much nutrients from water?
 
Fablau, have you read the 'Good Algae Article' at the top of the Algae section?

I found it really interesting what was said about keeping ammonia and organics low to battle algae.

Sorry, I haven't tested this yet (but it's interesting that we're considering this as alternative ways of battling BBA).

Yes, I read that several times, and it's true our tanks need to have low organically. Especially old tanks like mine, over 5 years old... If we can actually use either carbon or Purigen to help reducing DOC (without affecting nutrients for plants though), that would be worth trying.
 
Rebel, hard determinist's link to Audouinella Medium shows that the best way to grow algae in a lab is to grow it on a substrate which includes vitamin B12. This must have been found through properly controlled experiments.

If heterotrophic bacteria produce B12, you'd have to make sure everything was sterile before accurately testing for low levels of B12. The environment would have to be clean, correct temperature, correctly lit etc. How would you be 100% you could prevent bacteria getting into the system in a home? Better done in a lab.

If this has been carried out previously in a lab and been shown to be true (published scientific paper), can we accept this?

In which case, hard determinist's post gives us the ideal conditions (and therefore what to avoid) to grow algae.
Thanks Andy for your answer. I've read the abstract. Will read the whole thing tonight.

In this case, how do people view Seachem ENVY (yeah I know.... magic potion etc etc) which has guess what? B12... among others...

http://www.aquavitro.com/products/envy.html said:
envy™ is a comprehensive carbohydrate, vitamin, amino acid, and polyunsaturated fatty acid supplement that addresses the micro and trace nutritional requirements of plants. envy™ contains ascorbic acid in a base of chlorella that contains a rich assortment of amino acids and vitamins.

Chlorella is a unique algae that grows in fresh water. It is extremely high in enzymes, vitamins and minerals, including the full vitamin-B Complex. It is over-flowing with unsaturated fatty acids, amino acids, and proteins. There are also vitamins found in Chlorella including: Vitamin C, pro-vitamin A (B-carotene), thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), pyridoxine (B6), niacin, pantothenic acid, folic acid, Vitamin B12, biotin, choline, Vitamin K, lipoic acid, and inositol. Minerals in Chlorella include: phosphorus, calcium, zinc, iodine, magnesium, iron, and copper. It contains a higher level of amino acids than spirulina and is FDA approved for use with ornamental fish.
 
Thanks Andy for your answer. I've read the abstract. Will read the whole thing tonight.

In this case, how do people view Seachem ENVY (yeah I know.... magic potion etc etc) which has guess what? B12... among others...

You brought up a very interesting question about Envy... It includes vitamin B12, among others as you said. I am wondering: how can plants use that stuff?? Never heard of plants feeding on vitamins or other similar compounds... Unless that solution is going to feed specific bacteria or something else which could potentially benefit plants indirectly.... But, what an irony the fact we have been discussing about the possible positive effects of vitamin B12 on BBA, and they are selling a product which includes vitamin B12 which is supposed to improve plants growth??!
 
I don't know. However, if this thread has helped to move this issue forward and focus the experimental aquarists attention where it may help defeat BBA, I'd be happy.

I'm not much of a scientist, all I really want is a nice algae-free aquarium. If you can demonstrate, in a reasonably controlled scientific experiment, that certain maintenance routines (like keeping organics low) actually impact BBA, I think you'll add a lot of value to the community. The why (bacteria imbalance), although interesting to read about, is slightly less important to me than figuring out what to do to reduce BBA.

The overwhelming theory on this board is that organics => BBA, but I haven't really seen anyone do a controlled experiment on it. I think the closest thing to real data was a compilation of various water samples vs algae that someone put together, but they abandoned the project and the experiment was inconclusive. There is, however, abundant anecdotal evidence from many people saying that they've observed organics => BBA. For me, that's enough evidence to put in 60% effort in reducing organics. I'm not going to go 100% effort on limiting organics until someone (maybe AndyMcD?) proves it in a controlled experiment. For many years there was abundant anecdotal evidence that phosphate/nitrate => algae too. Look how true that theory turned out to be.

The nice thing about the organics => BBA theory is that proponents say organics are sufficient to induce BBA. This should make it very easy to at least disprove this theory - all you have to do is show one tank that has no BBA and high organics. That is enough to prove that organics may be necessary but not sufficient.
 
Last edited:
The nice thing about the organics => BBA theory is that proponents say organics are sufficient to induce BBA. This should make it very easy to at least disprove this theory - all you have to do is show one tank that has no BBA and high organics. That is enough to prove that organics may be necessary but not sufficient.
Please, don't provoke me with such a weak conclusions!
One tank that has no BBA and high organics won't disprove this theory. That's another myth out there in the forums realm. I know you may disagree with me on that but for me the assertion that high phosphate/nitrate levels have no correlation to algae infestation is another myth, and many leading scientists investigating this topic will confirm this (if you ask them). It is similar to the law of gravity. When I take a book into my hand and stretch the hand out with the book in it ... does it mean that the law of gravity is not valid (because the book is not falling to the ground)? Absolutely not! Although my strength can temporarily overcome the law of gravity, and thus the book in my hand won't fall to the ground, no one doubts the law of gravity acts upon the book, and finally will defeat my strength and win (and the book falls down). According to the same principle, high levels of phosphates and/or nitrates are encouraging the algae growth, but there may be some "strength" working against this law. So, having a tank that has no BBA and high organics at the same time, don't prove some theory is false. As it was proven so many times that there is a strong correlation between P and N levels and algae, then the absence of algae in a tank which is full of nutrients proves only that there is "something" that works against the inevitable = algae infestation. So even if high organics would prove to be the reason for BBA appearance, I can have many tanks with high organics and no BBA => what about tanks with high BBA together with a high number of BBA-eaters (like SAE)? Or what about high organics accompanied with a low pH (like pH 4 to 5)? Or high organics with lower temperature? Or high organics without some specific amino acid (which the BBA may need to grow and multiply)? Don't you think that similar things won't have any negative effect on BBA growth? As I already pointed out, if you want to know what works against some algae, it may help to know the ideal growth (culture) conditions ... and then you should avoid such a conditions (as much as possible). I think that the BBA may be combatted from many sides. If it prefers a temperature range of 25 to 28°C, we can combat it by keeping the temperature below 25°C or above 28°C; if it prefers high flow, we can combat it by low flow; if it prefers a pH range of 6.5 to 7.5 we can combat it by keeping the pH below 6.5 or above 7.5; if it needs vitamin B12 to grow, we can try to remove it from our tanks by special filter media or frequent water changes ... etc. Some of these techniques may be more effective than others. But for sure there are many ways to combat it, because there are many optimal parameters which it needs to grow well. So focus and target the optimal parameters for its growth. The "elimination of vitamin B12" technique may be very effective in combatting this algae, but you must first fine some way how to put this technique into practice => how do you remove the vitamin B12 (or B1 or H) from your tank (how do you remove all its sources)?
 
I know you may disagree with me on that but for me the assertion that high phosphate/nitrate levels have no correlation to algae infestation is another myth, and many leading scientists investigating this topic will confirm this (if you ask them).

Hi, I do not disagree with you on this :). I think we're both on the same page, but I may need to clarify my word choice. The following two statements are similar, but logically very different:

1. nitrate/phosphate is sufficient to induce algae in a planted aquarium
2. nitrate/phosphate encourages algae growth when X, Y conditions are met

I can agree with #2 and still disagree with #1. #1 can be dispproven by a simple counter example. #2 requires a controlled experiment controlling for X, Y among other factors.

Many people back in the day asserted the #1 case, which was definitively proven false. Circling back to BBA, which one of the following is true:

1. organics is sufficient to induce BBA in a planted aquarium
2. organics encourages BBA growth when X, Y conditions are met

1 is powerful in that if it's true, we need only focus 100% of our efforts on a single factor. 2 is less powerful, but also more likely to be true. It's less powerful because even if it were true, we would need to find out what percent organics plays in the equation. is it 25 % organics + 25% X + 25% Y + 25 Z = BBA? The formula would require a massive undertaking to experimentally prove, and also a lot of work to implement once proven. I think the most practical and feasible experiment is if someone could prove that 70% organics + 25% misc = BBA. That way, if we devote 100% of our time to organics, we have no/little BBA 70% of the time.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to propose that we bring this thread to a conclusion. I'll update a diagram to capture what has been discussed. However, as various people have said, without experiment now we'll struggle to prove that this theory is true. As a model, I think it does match a lot of the proposed causes and effective controls. It has had a lot more views / interest than I expected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
However, we need to be realistic about the money and time we have available to carry out such a large scale experiment with so many possible variables. Also, few of us have a lab in our homes to be able to meaningfully carry out such experiments. Once you had drawn your conclusions, you'd then be faced with relating this to the real life ecosystems in our aquariums (... But I don't have these plants / soil / fish etc).

Someone at APC forum once tried. He collected samples from hobbyists to see whether there was a correlation between organics and BBA/algae:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/89126-organics-analysis.html
 
because I am afraid they can remove nutrients (traces) for plants, but maybe I have been mistaken on that...
Purigen removes nitrogenous organic compounds not inorganics like EI salts. I have run for ages with Purigen and not had any plant issues or algae issues, and have nice crystal clear water.
 
The nice thing about the organics => BBA theory is that proponents say organics are sufficient to induce BBA. This should make it very easy to at least disprove this theory - all you have to do is show one tank that has no BBA and high organics. That is enough to prove that organics may be necessary but not sufficient.
RisingSun, I hope you were making a throw away comment with "one tank". As you would know, one experiment would be a pilot or hypothesis generation. You'd need consilience of evidence before it became and accepted theory.

Have a look here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Sorry OT.
 
Purigen removes nitrogenous organic compounds not inorganics like EI salts. I have run for ages with Purigen and not had any plant issues or algae issues, and have nice crystal clear water.

Is activated carbon doing the same? I mean, taking just organic compounds? What about traces? Just asking, because I am thinking to add Purigen and/or carbon to see if it is actually making any difference to my tank which is still infested of BBA after several weeks of cleaning and adding nitrifying bacteria, improving oxygen, etc. yes, any action toward favoring autotrophic bacteria haven't gotten any better result so far :(
 
Is activated carbon doing the same?
Activated carbon effectivity of removal:
activated_carbon_table2.jpg
 
Fablau, sorry to hear the theory isn't working out for you.

Purigen would help to reduce ammonia levels.

Activated carbon would help reduce organics.

May want to try both?
 
I don't want to discourage you but purigen didn't work out for me. I think you need a ton of it to make a change when organics are out of hand produced 24/7. But yes, the water seemed clearer. I could see my pleco's poop clearer too :)
Cleaning the tank, media and water changes didn't help either. I've always been pretty consistent about it as I am dealing with live beings. The only thing that helped and seemed to help within weeks of the change was offload some fish from the tank.
 
Potassium deficiency allows staghorn to colonize leaves. K deficiency also causes necrosis.
Staghorn on leaves? Probably potassium deficiency. Also, mini bolbitis has very very small submerged leaves, under 2" long.
I've also noted that BBA is associated with potassium deficiency. This has occurred numerous times that I think it's not a coincidence. K deficiency may set in motion a chain of events which ultimately leads to BBA on Anubias (and possibly Bolbitis) leaves. It doesn't affect plants such as Rotala's and Ludwigia's, so perhaps Anubias and ferns require much more potassium than stem plants to be healthy.
This is incorrect. Potassium deficiency does not necessarily cause staghorn to grow on leaves. What I thought was a potassium deficiency was actually a micronutrient toxicity. Thus, it's a micronutrient toxicity that damage leaf margins which results in staghorn and BBA. Adding extra potassium is one way to offset this symptom of toxicity. However, this does not eliminate the toxicity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is incorrect. Potassium deficiency does not necessarily cause staghorn to grow on leaves. What I thought was a potassium deficiency was actually a micronutrient toxicity. Thus, it's a micronutrient toxicity that damage leaf margins which results in staghorn and BBA. Adding extra potassium is one way to offset this symptom of toxicity. However, this does not eliminate the toxicity.

Guest, I am beginning to think about a possible toxicity in my tank. I have just measured my Fe and it is almost at 3ppm (2.94ppm). I dose CSM plus DTPA, but I also have high KH (7) and GH (15-18) which should mitigate any possible toxicity of CSM.

I am following this thread as well:

CSM+B Toxicity Experiment


And what you observed above (damaged leaves margins, BBA, etc) are the exact symptoms I have in my tank. Despite I pump a ton of Co2 (80ml/minute, over 1.5 PH drop with KH 7!!!), BBA is always there, mostly on slow growers, mostly on the edges of older Anubia leaves.... My Valisnerias also get regularly fuzz or BBA on the edges of leaves... And so Alternantheras. Could that be really related to a toxicity??! Maybe we are here thinking about wrong Co2 or lack of autotrophic bacteria, when instead is just overdosing of traces??!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top