Diane Wahlstad and biofiltration making plants suffer and causing algae?

[Matti]

What you have been told is to get an expensive oversized filter, throw away the filter sponges and use Matrix with strong a flow. The filter is super effective in converting ammonium to nitrates which the plants will use. And this is good and the only right way to go.

But is this all wrong?

I read Wahlstad's "The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" and as every one who has read the book knows, one of the confusing parts is chapter 7 "Plant nutrition and ecology":

-"Aquatic plants can use ammonium (NH4+), nitrite (NO2-) or nitrate (NO3-) as their nitrogen source. Many aquatic plants have been found to prefer ammonium over nitrates, and this preference is substantial."
-"My point is that plants readily take up ammonium from aquarium water and probably grow better using ammonium. This means that biological filtration (nitrification) can be de-emphasized in aquariums that contain healthy aquatic plants."
-"Plants use the N of ammonium (not nitrate) to synthesize their proteins.5 So if nitrifying bacteria convert all ammonium to nitrates, plants are forced– at a great energy cost– to convert nitrates back to ammonium.
The energy loss can be detrimental to sensitive plants."
-"In my planted tanks I have been surprised at how little biological filtration is actually required. When I decreased biological filtration (by removing the filter media in the canister filters), I had fewer problems with nitrate accumulation and water acidification."

So too strong bio-filtration makes the plants suffer and cause algae?
Did I do it wrong by installing an Oase Biomaster 250 to my 55l planted tank? Instead of keeping the HBO and just replacing the bio media with a course sponge?
What makes Wahlstad's book interesting that it is the only book about aquariums where the author has real data to back her claims. For e.g the number of scientifical papers of only chapter seven is 88.

 

[erwin123]

What you have been told is to get an expensive oversized filter, throw away the filter sponges and use Matrix with strong a flow. The filter is super effective in converting ammonium to nitrates which the plants will use. And this is good and the only right way to go.

But is this all wrong?

I read Wahlstad's "The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" and as every one who has read the book knows, one of the confusing parts is chapter 7 "Plant nutrition and ecology":

-"Aquatic plants can use ammonium (NH4+), nitrite (NO2-) or nitrate (NO3-) as their nitrogen source. Many aquatic plants have been found to prefer ammonium over nitrates, and this preference is substantial."
-"My point is that plants readily take up ammonium from aquarium water and probably grow better using ammonium. This means that biological filtration (nitrification) can be de-emphasized in aquariums that contain healthy aquatic plants."
-"Plants use the N of ammonium (not nitrate) to synthesize their proteins.5 So if nitrifying bacteria convert all ammonium to nitrates, plants are forced– at a great energy cost– to convert nitrates back to ammonium.
The energy loss can be detrimental to sensitive plants."
-"In my planted tanks I have been surprised at how little biological filtration is actually required. When I decreased biological filtration (by removing the filter media in the canister filters), I had fewer problems with nitrate accumulation and water acidification."

So too strong bio-filtration makes the plants suffer and cause algae?
Did I do it wrong by installing an Oase Biomaster 250 to my 55l planted tank? Instead of keeping the HBO and just replacing the bio media with a course sponge?
What makes Wahlstad's book interesting that it is the only book about aquariums where the author has real data to back her claims. For e.g the number of scientifical papers of only chapter seven is 88.

In UKAPS the two things I learnt are "Plants are the filter" and "Flow is king"!

Before discovering UKAPS my canister filters were packed full of filter media. Now I have removed most of my matrix/ 3DM media. However, I like crystal clear water so I have fine sponges and polishing pads. Since these reduce flow, I need to make sure I have 'extra' flow so I have 2 canister filters.

The part about Ammoniacal Nitrogen is why some of us live dangerously and insert Osmocote into the substrate, though there is certainly debate about whether it is beneficial to do so.

 

[Nick potts]

Plants use the N of ammonium (not nitrate) to synthesize their proteins. So if nitrifying bacteria convert all ammonium to nitrates, plants are forced– at a great energy cost– to convert nitrates back to ammonium.

While this maybe true, it is clearly not the case that using KNO3 causes any issues with growing happy plants, as evidenced but the sheer number of people on here who dose EI levels and have great looking tanks with lush plant growth.

Did I do it wrong by installing an Oase Biomaster 250 to my 55l planted tank? Instead of keeping the HBO

No, not IMO, while lots of bio media isn't needed, flow is very important in most tanks.

What you have been told is to get an expensive oversized filter, throw away the filter sponges and use Matrix with strong a flow

I find the opposite is true, at least on this forum anyway.

I run large canisiter filters in my tanks, i dont use any "bio media", just corse sponge. The advice you will often be given here is use minimal bio media as it really isn't needed, sponges work just fine.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

What you have been told is to get an expensive oversized filter, throw away the filter sponges and use Matrix with strong a flow. The filter is super effective in converting ammonium to nitrates which the plants will use. And this is good and the only right way to go.

I don't see a filter that is a <"nitrate factory"> as a bad thing at all.

The <"rapid removal"> of ammonia (NH3 / NH4+) and nitrite (NO2-) is always a good thing for your livestock, even if plant growth may be slightly compromised.

In terms of how compromised? I think we are back in the <"all day buffet">, with the <"one-legged Irishman">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Tim Harrison]

But is this all wrong?

No not at all. There is more than one route to success, and discussing those routes is something this forum does particularly well.
I think what is generally advocated though is a tried and tested method that will hopefully provide the greatest chance of success. This especially so when it comes to high-energy tanks.
But like any method it's not carved in stone and is open to interpretation and experimentation.

Personally I have had success growing aquatic plants using a variety of methods including the Walstad method and the polar opposite high-energy method.

 

[Matti]

I'm quite new in this hobby, my tank is just one year old (or the second one, i broke the first one). One thing I noticed right from the beginning is that the information you get is often confusing. Or that it's not explained in a convincing manner. Like "too low CO2 is the main cause of BBA", if that's the case why increasing CO2 to the optimal level has no effect on my BBA?
And when you start to learn a bit more, you notice that things are actually more complicated compared how they are explained by the youtube experts. Like the in the case of ammonia and how to measure it, the difference between NH4+ and NH3, and how they are related to PH and temperature. And the notion that NH4+ is actually good for your plants and not so bad for your fish, as long as NH3 stays low. The thing I'm trying to understand at the moment:
But all these variables are actually what makes this hobby so interesting.
"Don't waste your time and money on test kits" is one of these confusing advice you sometimes get. "Just watch how your plants grow and you see the symptoms of fert deficiency". For a beginner it's not that easy. After a year I've learned to see K deficiency on Hygrophila, and fosphate deficiency on Cuba. Rest is just guessing.
And pardon me, but even George Farmer could have a use for test kits, if you think of his discus tank and how he took of all plants, co2 and stopped fertilising. He was suspicious that the co2 caused distress to the discus. What I'm suspecting that the combination of hard water, high dosing of CO2 and Tropica, heavy fish food together with high temperatures, all the ingredients for the perfect storm, eg a NH4+/NH3 imbalance. But this too is again just guessing.

 

[erwin123]

I'm quite new in this hobby, my tank is just one year old (or the second one, i broke the first one). One thing I noticed right from the beginning is that the information you get is often confusing. Or that it's not explained in a convincing manner. Like "too low CO2 is the main cause of BBA", if that's the case why increasing CO2 to the optimal level has no effect on my BBA?

One of the causes of BBA seems to be CO2 instability (I got some BBA recently when tuning CO2 which result to CO2 levels being all over the place until I managed to get a stable setting).
After CO2 is stable, new BBA stops appearing, but the old BBA, you may need Excel/APT Fix/H2O2 to remove them.

You may also want to read through the 2hr Aquarist website - I find it useful as well.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

One thing I noticed right from the beginning is that the information you get is often confusing.

I have a bit of a jaundiced view of this, some companies are selling products that they know are useless (<"pH buffers etc">). I always tell people that this forum has nothing to sell, we just want people to have successful planted tanks.

Like "too low CO2 is the main cause of BBA", if that's the case why increasing CO2 to the optimal level has no effect on my BBA?

We just don't know what causes, or sustains, outbreaks of BBA, we have some <"very detailed BBA threads">, but without any firm conclusions.

ike the in the case of ammonia and how to measure it, the difference between NH4+ and NH3, and how they are related to PH and temperature. And the notion that NH4+ is actually good for your plants and not so bad for your fish, as long as NH3 stays low. The thing I'm trying to understand at the moment:

Scientists use TAN (Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen) as a measure to get around the pH / NH3 / NH4+ relationship. Personally I would always be very worried <"about NH4+ becoming NH3">.

Don't waste your time and money on test kits" is one of these confusing advice you sometimes get.

You can get accurate values for nearly all the parameters that we are interested in, water companies do this all the time. The only provisos are time and money, and you need a lot of both. How much? I'd guess even <"if you had the kit"> it would still be several thousand a year in running costs, that is without without costing the time of the operator.

If there was a dip meter you could pop in the tank, and it gave even ball-park figures for tank health, I would unequivocally recommend it.

Just watch how your plants grow and you see the symptoms of fert deficiency". For a beginner it's not that easy. After a year I've learned to see K deficiency on Hygrophila, and fosphate deficiency on Cuba. Rest is just guessing.

I understand that, I'll be honest it is all guessing for me. I don't even try and <"work out which deficiency it is"> away from <"iron (Fe)">. I used a floating plant for the <"Duckweed Index"> to take CO2 out of the equation.

cheers Darrel

 

[Matti]

One of the causes of BBA seems to be CO2 instability

If so , then why? It cannot be the CO2 itself, it must have something to do with the way plants use nutrients, as healthy, well growing plants don't get BBA.
Watching the video above, CO2 instability means fluctuating PH-levels, which in turn change the NH3 / NH4+ -levels. Which could have an effect on plants, but again, this is just guessing.

 

[Tankless]

If so , then why? It cannot be the CO2 itself, it must have something to do with the way plants use nutrients, as healthy, well growing plants don't get BBA.
Watching the video above, CO2 instability means fluctuating PH-levels, which in turn change the NH3 / NH4+ -levels. Which could have an effect on plants, but again, this is just guessing.

You should read the bba thread and post your theory's there.

What exactly causes BBA? Part 2 - Bacterial imbalance

Following on from the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread, I've been reading some of the scientific literature around the subject and I'd like to make a radical proposal of an alternative cause of outbreaks of black beard algae (audouinella) in planted aquariums. I have listed some of the sources of...

www.ukaps.org

 

[erwin123]

If so , then why? It cannot be the CO2 itself, it must have something to do with the way plants use nutrients, as healthy, well growing plants don't get BBA.
Watching the video above, CO2 instability means fluctuating PH-levels, which in turn change the NH3 / NH4+ -levels. Which could have an effect on plants, but again, this is just guessing.

I am totally ok with not knowing the 'why'. Its sufficient for my purposes to understand what are the common practices widely adopted by aquascapers with "successful" tanks and to try them to see if it works for me. For 'preventing' BBA, the 2 practices suggested are (i) keep CO2 stable, (ii) keep tank clean.

By the way, I never have BBA in my low tech tank. I have other types of algae, but I've not gotten BBA yet. In contrast, BBA appears in my high tech tank when I mess around with the CO2. Maybe in my low tech tank, the amount of CO2 is 'stable' because I don't inject any, and I don't add liquid carbon?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

By the way, I never have BBA in my low tech tank. I have other types of algae, but I've not gotten BBA yet............. Maybe in my low tech tank, the amount of CO2 is 'stable' because I don't inject any, and I don't add liquid carbon?

I usually have a bit of BBA low tech in places where <"the snails can't graze">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Matti]

By the way, I never have BBA in my low tech tank. I have other types of algae, but I've not gotten BBA yet. In contrast, BBA appears in my high tech tank when I mess around with the CO2. Maybe in my low tech tank, the amount of CO2 is 'stable' because I don't inject any, and I don't add liquid carbon?

I'm getting more convinced that you should keep the tank stable, CO2, PH, NH3 etc
Aquarium is a very complex system were all factors, like PH seem to have an influence on the others.
What I'm trying to do is the keep the values stable, that means also not doing any more those massive, weekly water changes of 50-60%
Instead I change 25% weekly, it doesn't mess up the system so much.

 

[jaypeecee]

What you have been told is to get an expensive oversized filter, throw away the filter sponges and use Matrix with strong a flow. The filter is super effective in converting ammonium to nitrates which the plants will use. And this is good and the only right way to go.

But is this all wrong?

I read Wahlstad's "The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" and as every one who has read the book knows, one of the confusing parts is chapter 7 "Plant nutrition and ecology"

Hi @Matti

For many years, I ran my tanks structured around filter-based biological filtration. Two or three years ago, I was told about Diana Walstad's Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. Being scientifically-minded, it just made an awful lot of sense to me. So I started to explore the scientific principles on which her methodology is based. For just over three months now, I have been running a 30 litre cube that incorporates some of Ms Walstad's ideas. It would be wrong to refer to it as a Walstad tank as it doesn't have an active substrate. It is proving to be successful at this early stage.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no right or wrong way to set up and run an aquarium. Do what works for you and your tank inhabitants.

JPC

 

[jaypeecee]

If so , then why? It cannot be the CO2 itself, it must have something to do with the way plants use nutrients, as healthy, well growing plants don't get BBA.

Hi @Matti

The following is an extract from that great resource, The Krib*:

"Another nutrient which may be related to the sustenance of red algae is inorganic carbon. This exists in the aquarium as dissolved CO2, bicarbonate or carbonates. The equilibrium of these carbon species depend on pH. Free CO2 becomes available at pH less than 8.0 and predominates when pH is less than 6.5. In my experience, I have only seen red algae in low alkalinity, low pH conditions. Tanks with calcareous substrates will push the carbonate equilibrium from CO2 to HCO3- and red algae seem to diminish. Accordingly, I used to see beard and brush algae in my South American cichlid tanks, but never in the Tanganyikan tanks with their crushed coral substrate. It seems that red algae may be among those algae and water plants that can only utilize free CO2".

So, what is your aquarium water alkalinity/KH and water pH?

BTW, BBA is a type of 'red algae'. For some bedtime reading (!), you may find this useful:

Black beard algae (BBA) - | Aquasabi

Red algae in the aquarium

www.aquasabi.com

* The Krib (Aquaria and Tropical Fish)

JPC

 

[Matti]

My PH is between 6,6-7,0, depending at what time of the day I measure it, for how long CO2 has been on. KH6, GH10.
The CO2/PH -theory is interesting, I once had a hard water Tanganyika tank with no CO2 and no BBA, but it had no plants either.
So CO2 it seems to be the key factor, as it is itself a nutrient for the plants. And when there is a CO2/PH problem, the slow growing plants will first show signs of distress and cannot protect agains BBA.

 

[jaypeecee]

The CO2/PH -theory is interesting...

Hi @Matti & Everyone,

Yes, it's certainly something to keep very much in mind. For anyone reading this, perhaps you could indicate the presence (or not) of BBA in your tank(s) and report the tank water KH, pH and if CO2 injection is used. That may prove to be interesting. We'd only need a few measurements to get an idea. I guess it would be possible to set up a poll for this purpose? That may be better as it's a bit of a deviation from this thread's title!

JPC

 

[erwin123]

one way of doing data analysis would have been to
(i) go to the Journals subforum
(ii) perform a search "BBA"
(iii) see the threads/journals that appear
(iv) analyse each journal - injected CO2 or no-injected CO2, other parameters, etc
See if any correlation.
Except that "BBA" was too short a search term for the forum.... maybe I will do a gradually do a manual search of low tech tank journals for "BBA" 😅

 

[erwin123]

The data extraction would look something like this - just picked out some journals for now - i could progressively add to it since I like browsing journals and viewing tank photos. Of course, accuracy could be increased if we sent the journal owners a survey for example, in case they had BBA but didn't mention it in their journal. (but since they mentioned other algae, no reason why they wouldn't mention BBA?)

I'm not out to prove or disprove any hypothesis, just collecting the data. Darrell has already mentioned that his low tech had BBA, so its not that BBA cannot exist in low tech. Maybe its not the fact that these tanks have no CO2 injection... but that they are small, for example... anyway, this is a long away from a statistically meaningful sample size...

There are some journals that I've not included because of a lack of information - i..e. not really a journal, just a photo gallery.

Journal Link	Description	Any CO2?	Any mention of BBA?	Algae types mentioned
My low tech shrimp nano cube (20 litres) My first proper planted tank after experimenting with a biorb. 20l Dennerle cube kit, inc. their deponit mix substrate, led light and corner filter. Interpet nano heater (mostly to keep the shrimp warm - house gets pretty cold). Two bits of bogwood leaning against each other (pretty stable)... www.ukaps.org	My low tech shrimp nano cube (20 litres)​	No	No	Type not specified Photo shows green algae on moss
35L jungle Tank - 35l dennerle scaper's tank Light - dennerle 5w Heater - nano 50w Filter - Eheim biopower 160 with sponge and seachem matrix Using seachem stability, tnc carbon and dennerle daily fertiliser 50% daily water changes to start Substrate - dennerle scaper's soil and ada la plata and root... www.ukaps.org	35L jungle​	No	No	"slimy brown algae" on moss
Referb and restart after 30 years. Low tech. I have been meaning to start a journal for this little project for ages. I have all the pics, just have not found the inclination. So here goes: The tank has not had water in it for about 30 years. It is only a Small Tank 30.588L, size cm 49.4w x 25.8d x 26.5h It used to be my breeding tank. Had... www.ukaps.org	Referb and restart after 30 years. Low tech.​	No	No	"brown algae" "stringy algae" "bluegreen algae"
Marshlands This is my first journal, but I want to learn so don't go easy on me. My main interest is in life right along the water’s edge with a side dish of epiphytes, so my tanks tend to have vegetation either spilling out of them or with a focus on more terrestrial species entirely. Most of the setups... www.ukaps.org	Marshlands​	No	No	"Cyano"
Naufragium / Shipwreck (Dennerle scaper 35) The ‘big tank’ (well, 60p) set up is on hold for the foreseeable while we wait for building work, so I’ve treated myself to a Dennerle scaper’s tank 35 as a caridina shrimp tank. I’ve fancied having a go at some caridina for a while and the excuse is that this tank is small enough to move round... www.ukaps.org	Naufragium / Shipwreck (Dennerle scaper 35)​	No	No	"algae on Anubias" Type not mentioned, but plenty of photos, no BBA seen?
The Mossy Spider (Nano Lowtech) This journal is for my new tank, a 30cm-cube which sits on my desk. I got it to keep shrimp, as they don't like my main tank's rainwater, so I'm giving them some good, old-fashioned London tap. I started my first tank in June, and have been completely taken over by it, MTS was inevitable! Along... www.ukaps.org	The Mossy Spider (Nano Lowtech)​	No	No	"filamentous thread algae"

 

[Matti]

At the moment no BBA! I had a BBA problem for months and in the end I soaked all buces and Anubis in bleach. Now I'm trying to keep it coming back: no extra fish food, less lights and a new more powerful filter. The filter was changed before I read the Wahlstad article, a bit confusing it that sense, but it's a good filter and at least I have now better water circulation. I also took changed rotalas to hydrophila 53B, again for better water circulation, added some floaters. Now I'm trying to keep the tank stable, less water changes and not too much fertilisers, yes I know "fertilisers don't cause algae" but I am not that convinced. Especially with too much iron.
PH is between 6,6-7,0; KH6, GH10. CO2 according to those values between 18-30. It's not stable but there is not much I can do about it as injection is controlled but timer, not by PH.
I dose Tropica Specialised 4ml weekly and keep NH3 between 10-20. Tropica is low in phosphates so I add 2ml phosphates weekly. And some iron and potassium every two weeks. It's a 55l tank.