MichaelJ
Member
Yes, I very much agree! Sorry @jaypeecee! I was just mostly discussing my own experience with BBA and, in my case, cure. I believe your interest in this topic goes a bit further and deeper.
Cheers,
Michael
-
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
Red Algae/BBA - An Update
- Thread starter jaypeecee
- Start date
Cheers,
Michael
Hi Everyone,
I'm bursting to mention right now another factor that I've mentioned before and I have reason to think it may be important. This has been quickly dismissed on other threads but here it is....
Light Spectrum
Oh no! Not that old chestnut again!
JPC
I'm bursting to mention right now another factor that I've mentioned before and I have reason to think it may be important. This has been quickly dismissed on other threads but here it is....
Light Spectrum
Oh no! Not that old chestnut again!
JPC
The only thing that triggers bba for me is fluctuating CO2.
If I run out of CO2 and don’t change my fire extinguisher the same day or allow my water level to drop low enough that my water agitation gases off my CO2 bba appears pretty quickly. Spot treating with Glut gets rid of it quick enough if it does appear though.
If I run out of CO2 and don’t change my fire extinguisher the same day or allow my water level to drop low enough that my water agitation gases off my CO2 bba appears pretty quickly. Spot treating with Glut gets rid of it quick enough if it does appear though.
KirstyF
Member
Some observations that may link in with some of the above and be of possible interest to the discussion.
Prior to my latest high tech beastie, I only ever ran a couple of low tech planted tanks. Maybe 4 years all in. (Can’t really include the new one as an example as it’s only 3 months old)
Only ever used all in one ferts (as per the packet instruction) Fairly low light, easy carbo when I remembered, not very difficult plants. (Fast and slow growers) Only around 5 x flow. (Through rear spraybars)
I’ve also never had BBA, in fact the only algae I ever suffered was some GSA on glass now and then and it wasn’t significant (Probably had a few diatoms early on but wouldn’t have known what they were at the time….and they went away)
My tanks, however, were in a 12M long room, tucked in an alcove so a very gloomy spot with very little natural light (needed a room light on to read even in mid-summer) WC’s were weekly without fail, though at 25% for much of the time (50% RO due to V hard water) Stocking was low to medium but I never had a tank without both Amano’s and Otto’s.
So low light (coming almost entirely from the artificial/controlled source) low organic waste (regular water change, low stock and plants not being pushed hard) Probably fairly steady Co2 (with only 25% water change, half of which would be ‘off gassed’ RO water) Enough nutrients to keep up with demand it would seem and ‘natural’ control through livestock.
Virtually no algae of any kind and all entirely by luck rather than education I might add.
I wonder, however, if the story would be the same if pushed a little harder, with more demanding goals and a broader/more complex variety of planting?
Perhaps the tenacious BBA takes advantage of those higher waste levels/additional stressors that we may inadvertently create when asking the plants to do more for us (and creating the systems to facilitate that)
I’m inclined to feel that, grow healthy plants (with all that entails) maintain good hygiene and get some ‘critters’ to lend a hand, just as @Wookii says, might be the closest to a solution we can get and that bit of BBA that just won’t go away, might be the price we have to pay for all the other loveliness we made!
Not much personal data behind that assumption mind you…..so I’ll reserve the right to shout back (and perhaps bemoan my BBA) after this rather more challenging tank has kicked my butt a few times and taught me an extra thing or two. 😊
MichaelJ
Member
Oh no! the can of worms!
... but seriously, the red algae family, which BBA belongs to, is well known to absorb light in the blue end of the spectrum, so I certainly wouldn't rule it out as an exacerbating factor, if you bombard your BBA with cool light, and if all the other adverse conditions that promotes BBA are met... but by itself, I don't think it plays much of a role in our planted tanks... I've had cool light with BBA and warm light with BBA... A clean, well nurtured tank with light intensity in prober balance with CO2 availability seems keep BBA (and other algae) at bay regardless of the spectrum of choice.Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
KirstyF
Member
Having re-read my post, please don’t take this as dismissive @jaypeecee….like we can’t really fix it so let’s not try….I am catching up on your linked articles and deep delving is always a good thing. It’s great to get folks thinking and never say never! 👍😊
hypnogogia
Member
I think you may be right. When I ran a high tech tank (a term not used at the time) with MH lights I never had BBA. But I do get them with LED lights. Those MH were like sun light. Beautiful an warm and really brought out the colours of the fish.
You probably know these papers already. Anyway, <this one in Nature> is a common reference in research into algae cultures. This <one in Cell> is also interesting. And then there is some info from the algae production industry (e.g. Lighting for Algae Cultures, Microalgae Growth Light Spectrum - Industrial Plankton)
X3NiTH
Member
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 1,647
For those that may not have found it already here’s a direct link to the book ‘Algal Culturing TECHNIQUES’ on ResearchGate.
Chapters 2, and 4 are an interesting read, read 3 if you want to consider every water body.
I probably didn’t need to smash my wallet but it’s nice having a physical copy.
When we have all read up on these chapters we should discuss the contents. @jaypeecee suggestion to consider the role of light is not an outlandish one but its inverse relationship with iron requirement for algae is interesting.
Chapters 2, and 4 are an interesting read, read 3 if you want to consider every water body.
I probably didn’t need to smash my wallet but it’s nice having a physical copy.
When we have all read up on these chapters we should discuss the contents. @jaypeecee suggestion to consider the role of light is not an outlandish one but its inverse relationship with iron requirement for algae is interesting.
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
Hi Folks,
I was really hoping to have pulled together quite a bit of information relating to BBA and lighting spectrum but, alas, I've been busy with a few other things. Anyway, here's some of my thoughts on this topic...
BBA (Audouinella) has at least one thing in common with Cyano and that is they each contain accessory pigments thus supporting the chlorophylls - a, b, etc. This is evident as they each have their own unique colour. BBA is red/black and Cyano is blue-green. What this means is that BBA is particularly sensitive to light in the green part of the spectrum and Cyano has a peak response in the red part of the spectrum. The accessory pigments responsible for this are phycoerythrin and phycocyanin, respectively.
I would therefore like to suggest that aquarium lighting with relatively high output centred around 565nm and 620nm may promote the growth of BBA and Cyano. Perhaps it's possible to tweak the green and red light brightness down a tad with recent LED lighting? What I have presented here is an unproven hypothesis so please feel free to challenge my assertion(s). But, please let's keep this civilized. We're all working towards the same objectives, I think.
Unless I'm barking up the wrong tree, wouldn't aquarium lighting be better if it had a flatter response similar to that of daylight?
JPC
P.S. Please see spectra attached
I was really hoping to have pulled together quite a bit of information relating to BBA and lighting spectrum but, alas, I've been busy with a few other things. Anyway, here's some of my thoughts on this topic...
BBA (Audouinella) has at least one thing in common with Cyano and that is they each contain accessory pigments thus supporting the chlorophylls - a, b, etc. This is evident as they each have their own unique colour. BBA is red/black and Cyano is blue-green. What this means is that BBA is particularly sensitive to light in the green part of the spectrum and Cyano has a peak response in the red part of the spectrum. The accessory pigments responsible for this are phycoerythrin and phycocyanin, respectively.
I would therefore like to suggest that aquarium lighting with relatively high output centred around 565nm and 620nm may promote the growth of BBA and Cyano. Perhaps it's possible to tweak the green and red light brightness down a tad with recent LED lighting? What I have presented here is an unproven hypothesis so please feel free to challenge my assertion(s). But, please let's keep this civilized. We're all working towards the same objectives, I think.
Unless I'm barking up the wrong tree, wouldn't aquarium lighting be better if it had a flatter response similar to that of daylight?
JPC
P.S. Please see spectra attached
Attachments
Last edited:
The main issue I have with the whole lighting spectrum thing is that if it was a big factor in BBA growth, why arent we seeing some lightsources almost never getting BBA?
If it was significant differences with spectrums there should have appeared some correlation at this point? Like "Oh are you also running "X" light and we both struggle with BBA, hmm"
I got a metric s**t-ton (thats 0.984207 imperial s**t-tons) of BBA when I just turned my light up to 100% (because I like playing with fire).
Surely the spectrum on my light did not change so significantly just from an intensity increase?
Or are you suggesting that almost all lights on the market have the wrong spectrum, so to say?
Not trying to shoot you down @jaypeecee just trying to play devils advocate 😊
If it was significant differences with spectrums there should have appeared some correlation at this point? Like "Oh are you also running "X" light and we both struggle with BBA, hmm"
I got a metric s**t-ton (thats 0.984207 imperial s**t-tons) of BBA when I just turned my light up to 100% (because I like playing with fire).
Surely the spectrum on my light did not change so significantly just from an intensity increase?
Or are you suggesting that almost all lights on the market have the wrong spectrum, so to say?
Not trying to shoot you down @jaypeecee just trying to play devils advocate 😊
Because (1) light spectrum might not be a major factor for BBA growth, (2) most lights have a very similar spectrum, their difference being the intensity of specific wavelengths. If we run a tank with infra-red or ultra-violet light we might never get BBA - or any other plant
(but it seems that <cyanobacteria may not care>).Intensity ("brightness") and wavelength ("colour") are independent variables (any frequency/wavelength can have any amplitude/intensity). However, the overall intensity of lamp results from the combined intensity of all of its different wavelengths. The proportion of each wavelength is not necessarily the same. So, the combined spectrum can indeed vary when changing the intensity of a lamp. For example, in a WRGB LED light, the White channel can be used at lower intensities but all four W+RGB channels can be combined to increase overall intensity at higher levels.
The main problem are not the lights but the algae
Algae can photosynthesize in a wider spectrum than higher plants, and the spectrum used by higher plants overlaps with the spectrum used by algae. So, a light that is "wrong" for plants can be appropriate for algae. And it is not only about the spectrum. Higher plants need more energy and nutrients to photosynthesize than algae.All of this basically means that if we are adding energy to the tank that is not useful to the higher plants, then we may be potentially benefitting algae.
Hi @Hufsa
No, I am not suggesting that. In order for anyone to do that, they would have had to obtain data either from the manufacturer or have done an awful lot of testing products - presumably at their own expense. As I said at the outset, I am simply suggesting something that may need to be considered if we want to determine why BBA occurs in some tanks but not others. I'm OK with an hypothesis being proven wrong. It means that we can then investigate other possible explanations for whatever problem we're trying to solve.
And I often have to pinch and remind myself that I shouldn't be looking for just one cause for a particular problem. It's often the case, isn't it, that only a combination of factors will yield a specific outcome?
JPC
MichaelJ
Member
Hi @jaypeecee very interesting findings. I do believe there might be a contributing factor there - all other things being equal in the sense that IF your struggling with algae that tend to have an affinity for certain wavelengths vs. others it might - just might - exacerbate the problem if your light source is particular strong around those wavelengths - that seems reasonably evident to me. However, and I know you're not rushing in with any blanket statements here about cause and effect, what I suggest is that the effect of the spectral distribution (within a meaningful range) is a drop in the ocean, so to speak, compared to the major factors we all know and agree about... such as balanced and consistent CO2 (regardless of CO2 injection or not) vs. overall light intensity (that is the main driver of nutrient demand), proper fertilization and waste management. As such, I would say the effect of the constituent of the light, while it may play a minor role, is not an issue worth worrying about up-front for practical aquarium keeping. For cultivation of algae, where an extra say 10% yield would be a big deal, and purposes beyond the scope of our discussion, I certainly agree that the light matters as has been shown in various studies referred to in this thread.
Another way of putting it in my own layman's terms is, if I would have an algae problem (which I don't...) and thought I did everything right in terms of proper maintenance, light intensity, fertilization, nutrient distribution ( flow) and I would STILL see no positive progress after an extended period of time and still have an algae problem, I would conduct a serious look for other causes.
Avoiding high output in the 565 nm 620 nm area would be a pretty tall order - Not sure I would like the look of my tanks under such light - Daylight for instance have a pretty big load of energy around those wavelengths - and it shouldn't be a surprise that nature made it so that certain (or most) algae thrive with light such as that. Warm white LED even more.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
Well that is the issue though isn't it ...at one point someone people need to be responsible with the hypotheses they make public. I have said this both in public and in private conversations.
There have been a lot of half chewed hypotheses put out there with little empirical evidence that hurt humanity (limitations of civil liberties and even tragic death of groups). It should not be taken lightly. Coming back to the less serious aspects of aquarium keeping, I wonder how many plants melted and aquarists gave up the hobby because the hypothesis "detectable phosphates in the aquarium = algae". We still have fertilizers with "contains no phosphates or nitrates" and phosphate removing chemical media. From time to time someone still stumbles across a 30+ year old article and starts limiting their plant growing potential.
In the current scientific framework the people who put the hypothesis forward are the ones tasked to try and reject it / prove it wrong. It's not on anybody else to work on gathering primary data for or against your ideas. It's why scientific research articles have data in there, not just a bullet point collection of interesting ideas that maybe, possibly, likely... Such an approach is still uncommon in the hobby so we should not wonder why we heard about antibiotic treatment against algae, specifically BBA. That user is also waiting for others to prove him wrong.
It's likely true that there are a lot of factors in the aquarium determining if one experiences a BBA bloom or not. But we need to limit relevant factors for the planted aquarium. For example, not having any water in your aquarium is a clear and definitive way not to get any BBA growth. It's also an irrelevant factor because we want plants and shrimp and fish. pH above 9 relevant for planted aquariums? Lights, fertilizers , minerals seem to be liked both by algae and higher plants. Looking forward to see new ways of covering the needs of one and not the other, that's a way forward. BBA seems to become visible in conditions with high organics and damaged plants , plant's don't need either... another approach. Hard to measure organic load and mix of dissolved organics so in practice this means working on your aquarium and not many are keen on doing this.
Last edited:
Hi @Ria95
Are you suggesting that it is irresponsible for someone to propose an hypothesis if that person is unable to prove the hypothesis? If so, that would stifle creative thinking and prevent progress, wouldn't it? Or, am I misunderstanding you?
JPC
Hi @MichaelJ
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I'm not suggesting that light at 565nm and 620nm be removed from the overall lighting spectrum. Certainly not. No, I was just suggesting that light output at these wavelengths be equal to those of the rest of the spectrum. Basically, suppress the peaks. The daylight spectrum is shown attached in my previous post. Furthermore, suppressing the peak at 565nm may not be such a big deal - the plants don't need a lot of green light, which is why we perceive them as green leaves.
JPC
MichaelJ
Member
Hi @jaypeecee Ok, I should have made it more clear what I meant... I think what your suggesting is light that not far off from what is commonly used in horticultural which have their large lumps in the blue (450-500nm range) and even more so in the red (~650-750 range)... That kind of light would make our tanks look quite funky, but sure, I hear you, there is definitely a compromise to be found there where you can suppress the ranges in question and still have perceptually pleasing light.
Cheers,
Michael
