• 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?

Also, please, do me a favor and ask some true experts on growing aquatic plants (not T.Barr). Ask them what nutrient concentration they usually use for growing non-rooted aquatic plants. I'm absolutely sure they will recommend you much higher nutrient levels then EI recommends. Then ask yourselves why is this? Why they use several times higher nutrient concentration if T.Barr showed us that IE is already non-limiting? ... Oh, sorry, I know what you'll say ... that all these scientists are just old-school and they're lying to themselves (and other) for all their life. I'm sorry I'm so sarcastic, but I just don't like your way of criticising others while you did not show me any solid data yet.
 
Jose said:
A dropchecker doesnt really tell you anything. Measure ph and there should be at least a 1 unit ph drop.
Click to expand...

My PH drop is 1.4 (from 7.6 to 6.2). Is that enough?? I think so! Not only I measure PH drop, but I measure how much actual Co2 inject: 80ml per minute. I Think that's a lot. Diffusion method? Reactor with needle wheel pump.
 
Last edited:
Ardjuna, I agree with you that non limiting can be a lot higher than EI. But you yourself have shown how the growth figure for all plants looks like. After a certain value it can be considered non limitting even though plants can still grow faster at higher levels.

This non limitting arguement only draws attention from the important stuff. If you run the experiments at your non limitting levels your conclusions will be pretty much the same.

Having more nutrients to the water will only up the demand for co2.

Im sorry if you feel offended by my lack of data. Well Im no scientist and I dont have such thing. I never intended to have this data since ive always been clear about my situation and lack of resources. I only have a small tank atm. But still having more numbers doesnt prove a thing. And if data is needed we can all stop debating all this.
 
To Fablau: if you have everything spot on as you say, what would you say the problem is? Ardjuna, how would explain his problems/algae? I would like to see alternatives from thos who think Tom Barr is wrong.
Ardjuna, so what if EI is not strictly non limitting? How does this affect anything? It just doesnt.
 
To Ardjuna, the main thing here is that i dont pay much attention to the numbers unlike you but I look into the theory and how it explains things. So what if 3 isnt non limitting for most and maybe 5 or 7 is? This isnt really the questions we have to ask IMO.
Plus this isnt explaining anything algae wise or is it? I cant see the relationship between algae and this non limitting values. If we achieve higher non limitting levels, what effect is this going to have? Less algae? More algae?

In the end its all about semantics. Non limitting. What does this mean? The levels so that plants grow at a maximum speed? Well then this values are very high yes. But it can also be considered non limitting when a plant grows maybe at 90% its maximum potential. The difference can be 5ppm of phosphates yes but growthwise its pretty mucch the same. Even you yourself have mentioned this before.
 
I recall you having this conversation with T Barr. I think the consensus was a bit like: OK, EI isnt strictly speaking non limiting but its the most non limitting method out there, and good luck trying to convince people to dose more than EI.

Another thing: the article you posted is all about very weedy plants like vallisneria, ceratophylum, elodea etc, which will obviously uptake loads of nutrients.

Im not saying 3 ppm of phosphates is ideal. I dont know this, nor do I know if Tom Barrs numbers are exactly right. But I do know this exact numbers wont make much of a difference In the overall philosophy which is what Im interested in.

I once prepared a 2 ppm solution and got green spot algae, so what did I do?just doubled it up, and problem fixed.
 
Last edited:
Jose said:
I recall you having this conversation with T Barr. I think the consensus was a bit like: OK, EI isnt strictly speaking non limiting but its the most non limitting method out there, and good luck trying to convince people to dose more than EI.
Click to expand...
he doesn't need to threes plenty people dosing extra phosphates to combat gsa.
EI estimative index is a starting point and should be adjusted up or down according to your needs. At one point I was dosing 2.5X basic ei just to see if it made any difference to plant growth and i didn't see much if any improvement so reduced the dose back down I am still dosing 2x phosphates though
 
Me too Big Clown. Im not saying he needs to. Its just what Barr said. Keep in mind all the trouble hes gone through to convince people about EI levels not being dangerous. So imagine recommending more.
 
ardjuna said:
Also, please, do me a favor and ask some true experts on growing aquatic plants (not T.Barr).
Click to expand...

To be fair, he doesn't seem to be too bad at it!

55e8217c2343978a43f2104e26e7a6d8.jpg


82416ae6ae1d36c3517ea5c10b30e35a.jpg


How about a little friendly competition. Let's put it to the test. Ardjuna Vs Tom. Who can produce the most varied, healthiest planted tank?

(Just messing with you a little Ardjuna. I do like reading your posts. )
 
Jose I don't think its semantics. I think its accepting that the explanations that are presented aren't necessarily correct. You repeatedly state that you have no numbers or proof and that you aren't a scientist, but you also repeatedly disagree with people. It exposes a pretty strong bias which is frustrating to read. Haven't seen you once accept a point! Even in the face of EI being limiting (i.e. directly opposed to the science justifying it), you are dismissing ardjuna's point that the science is poor

I've come at this with a very similar experience to you, in that the methods proposed by tom barr clearly work. But the articles linked by ardjuna do show flaws in the explanations backing it up. Its similar to broscience in the gym: you can hear some outright BS come from the mouths of big fellas. Clearly they get results, but it might not be because they drink a shot of olive oil when they wake up (...thats a thing). Making theories to fit limited data is really rather easy, which is why stating anything with certainty is pretty useless at this point. Ardjuna is trying to understand the science, TB is trying to provide a "formula" for success. The reason they clash is because TB is using allegedly flawed science to bolster his claims. This is peer review at work, yay science. TB can propose methods and a theory. The method may work brilliantly but this doesn't prevent the theory being a load of toss!
 
It would seem that much more scientific research is required, more specifically, where planted tanks are concerned. Unfortunately we aquarists have not got the funds available to research it properly, so we have to rely on interpretations of papers that aren't really relevant to planted aquaria and hobbyists anecdotal data.
I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion, experiments, or even peer reviewed papers just saying they may not be very accurate. unless we spend millions on research on scientific research all we have is a "best guess" situation
It is still an interesting discussion though
I wonder what Clive's thoughts are on the matter.
 
Nice tank, but those picture look edited to me.. increase color saturation isn't hard to do to a picture... but still a extremely impressive tank
 
Jose said:
To Fablau: if you have everything spot on as you say, what would you say the problem is? Ardjuna, how would explain his problems/algae? I would like to see alternatives from thos who think Tom Barr is wrong.
Ardjuna, so what if EI is not strictly non limitting? How does this affect anything? It just doesnt.
Click to expand...

No idea! That's why I am asking you guys. The only answer I got is: pump more Co2 or make it more stable, but I don't think I need more Co2 and I think it is stable unless something else is going on as I was asking (degas, flow, rippling... What else??)
 
Its a very interesting conversation. Still I dont see any alternative explanations, even though some studies have been linked etc.

Ardjunas points have been:

-10 ppm co2 is enough with high nutrient levels. Well many tanks show this isnt true and you need more co2.

-EI is not strictly non limitting. I admitted this as true in many cases. But how does it affect everything else? This does not affect anything in my opinion.

So when people agree with Ardjuna can they say exactly in what. Because then you can try a high light tank with 10 ppm co2 and 9 ppms of phosphate And 100 par. We shall see what the result is.

p.s: I think T B uses some lights with a red/purple hue to achieve this colours. I dont really think they are photoshopped. He is very critical of this, but Im not sure.

To those who say I dont admit anything: I admitted Ardjunas last argument to being right, but I also explained why it is taken a bit out of context and Im still wondering how this proves TB is wrong or how it disproves anything.

Weve been shown a lot of data but nothing really that says something new. I do appreciate all the info thats been added and its been quite interesting for me. The thing is that people think Im going to believe TB even if he is wrong. Well I want to know the truth and I dont care if its from Mr Ardjuna or Mr Barr.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there's just one cause for BBA. I think several different causes or combination of them can lead to the same thing, favourable conditions for BBA.
.
Andy D said:
Maybe. Check out the video -
Click to expand...


The tank looks great, no doubt. But the first time I watched it ages ago I remember seeing the thick green algae on the glass when he removed plants to the very left, around 14:00 min into the video. It looks like it has been previously scrabbed to the very bottom but someone missed that spot. :p Maybe it was old left overs. :)
 
Saying 9 ppm of phosphates is strictly non limitting for some weed doesnt mean that 3 ppm isnt mostly non limitting for most of our tanks. See the context here? See why you need to be critical with the info? Look at the growth figure for aquatic plants. There are different areas in the figure. Ei might not be in the highest but its still over the limitting values. Ok so its not 100% non limitting but maybe 80% depending on the plant. So?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top