I have been noticing that the BBA in my tank seems to take longer to die when squirted with excel then it used to when I first started dosing excel. The BBA went from turning red the next day after application to requiring 2 applications to turn red.
Has anyone else noticed this in their tanks?
Does anyone think this might be a problem in the future? I haven't found anything else that really kills BBA off like excel (CO2 doesn't kill the tuft, spikey, dark green kind in my tank), so I wouldn't know what to do if it becomes resistant.
I've used double what is recommended by Seachem for months and it doesn't seem to inhibit growth of BBA for me. Manual removal during water changes is the only thing that I have been able to do for BBA control.
I have heard from my local fish shop seachem has recently changed the formulation of Excel. Something to do with their Product Disclosure Statement i believe. Any feedback?
Why don't you query Seachem directly from our sponsor group forum. In the past they have been very helpful and informative, though I'm sure they won't disclose composition of their stuff.
Composition of excel really seems to be a secret. I believe there are some ingredients acting as an algicide. By time excel becomes less effective and should be consumed in 2-3 months according to my experiences.
I use 3% H2O2 full strength as a plant dip for algae (including BBA) During WC's I uproot the affected plant and dip the leaves only for a couple of minutes.
Replant and the next day the algae are pink/orange in color. A couple of days later it's gone.
H2O2 used in moderation is safe for fish.
I've tried injecting 2 ml/gallon over the affected plant but it doesn't work for me like the full strength plant dip does.
I buy H2O2 at a local dollar store @ .50 a bottle.
Charles
I just put 80ml every other day for two weeks into my 180g tank. It had no noticeable effect on BBA whatsoever. The Excel was a new 2l bottle I just purchased. Overall, it was like dosing water as far as I could tell.
Spot or regional treatment with a syringe is much succesful. I applied 25 ml everyother day for one of the show tanks, a 100 g. In each aplication with the above method I targeted a different location of the tank and in two weeks no sign of algea since a month. During this two weeks period I applied 30 % WC twice a week (instead of one 50 % in regular) and everything else was the same (dosing, lights, CO2).
Some people seem to have success adding it to the water column. I find squirting it directly on the BBA works best. My Excel is well over one year old and still effective.
I agree, the best way to kill BBA is to use a syringe directly over the BBA. If you wanted to water dose, you would need to add 2x initial dose, and at least 3x the daily recommended dose to get the same effects as with a syringe.
The new batch of excel smells less volatile then the old batch does.
I noticed with the bottle I just got that it doesn't smell as strong and doesn't give that "wavy-strong-chemical-being-added-to-water-look" that the old excel used to give.
As far as being algecidal, my opinion is that the active ingredient is gluteraldehyde (splelling? ) or something similar that acts like formaldehyde. Adding it directly to the water column gives the chemical a chance to spread out and become 'harmless' and then break down into CO2 + whatever else. When squirted directly on algae, the chemical binds the protiens of the thin-cell-walled algae and kills it.
Before anyone thinks I know what I'm talking about, I'll qualify the above by saying I have no idea how this stuff works, but I've read many, many comments from people who seem to have some "good smarts".
My guess is that Seachem finally realized how dangerous gluteraldehyde is and modified their formula!
If you want the old stuff just buy gluteraldehyde!
My compliments to Seachem for doing the right thing!
There is, at present, a rumor that SeaChem changed formula of Excel. Until we hear it from them or get some verification, I'd leave this firmly in the "rumor" category.
Yep, I subscribed to the thread Newt I'm interested in hearing the answer from them.
davemonkey - I think you are correct. Excel is used quite often in botany and other areas of research to bind proteins, and even to "fix," or "cross-link" DNA. I don't think it works well on normal plants because they have somewhat more resistant epithelial cells than algae does. This is probably why plants like riccia can't handle excel.
Hmm. Still, something might have changed. Perhaps the algae has simply developed a resistance and been spread around from person to person... or maybe it was just the conditions in my tank that made it seem like the algae was more resistant and in fact, it is still as susceptible as it has always been...
There are literally thousands of varieties of algae. Not all BBA varieties are created equal. It's pretty easy to imagine strains that are more susceptible than others.
Excel's algicidal properties aren't those that an organism could develop resistance to any easier than an organism could develop resistance to acid or fire. Glutaraldehyde is inherently toxic!
BryceM I agree with what you say about not all BBA being equal and perhaps that is why the BBA is being more difficult to kill off. Do you know if BBA sexually reproduces? Or does it just fragment and reattach in some way?
But, organisms most certainly can become resistant to disinfectants like gluteraldehyde! If the excel isn't applied in adequate concentrations to fully kill off the BBA then more resistant strains can survive and refine their resistance over time.
Currently there is a lot of research going into bacterial resistance to disinfectants since it is of huge concern in hospitals. But the same is true of algae in our aquariums and virtually any other living creature.
Innovations Report said:
The scientists discovered that different bacteria and different strains of the same bacteria have different levels of resistance to disinfectants and antiseptics. The researchers have found genes in some strains of MRSA which allow the bacteria to make pumps in their cells which remove the disinfectants from the cell to avoid damage.
Organisms have developed resistance to acid water with pH values at 2 or less and other organisms thriving in boiling water at volcanic vents on the sea bed.
Any organism that reproduces quickly and or in large quantity has more of an ability to shift genetically. There are a very small number of mutations, of various sorts that very naturally occur but in a large population of young (sometimes literally millions) it is relatively easy to have a changed organism show up, especially if situations are controlled to allow a new and interesting form to survive.
It is not likely that we are breeding a resistant strain of Algae but it is certainly possible.
Yes, there are organisms that thrive in a low pH, but I'm not sure that one would describe that ability as an acquired resistance. Those same organisms would die very quickly in another environment. What they have is more an adaptation to their respective niche.
I'll guess where there may be some wiggle room here is in a dilute concentration of glutaraldehyde. In a strong glutaraldehyde solution any living cell or bacterium will be killed almost immediately. The stuff indiscriminately cross-links proteins and wreaks all sorts of bio-molecular havoc. In contrast, penicillin-resistant bacteria can live perfectly well in enormously high concentrations of the stuff. The specific mechanisms of toxicity are different. Antibiotics (on which models of drug resistance are based) are fairly discrete in their mechanism of action. Almost all of them work to inhibit a single biochemical process. Most antiseptics are rather crude in comparison, destroying or denaturing proteins willy-nilly (to use the technical term).
In a dilute solution environment, like at typical aquarium doses, it's easy to imagine a scenario where the susceptible species of BBA were killed off and more difficult-to-eradicate species have taken over. That isn't so much a matter of acquired resistance as it is one of species selection.
Who knows.
I'm actually inclined to believe that what we're talking about here are a series of unrelated anecdotal experiences. The 100 people for whom glutaraldehyde have been working remain quiet while the other 6 speak up and get a thread moving. Scientifically proving anything with these sort of "studies" just isn't going to happen.
In a dilute solution environment, like at typical aquarium doses, it's easy to imagine a scenario where the susceptible species of BBA were killed off and more difficult-to-eradicate species have taken over. That isn't so much a matter of acquired resistance as it is one of species selection.
I'm actually inclined to believe that what we're talking about here are a series of unrelated anecdotal experiences. The 100 people for whom glutaraldehyde have been working remain quiet while the other 6 speak up and get a thread moving. Scientifically proving anything with these sort of "studies" just isn't going to happen.
Ahh so true... what a pity anecdotal experiences aren't very useful. Still though, there is some use in them. After all psychology is based off them.
I wonder if at some point in the future it might become possible to organize some research on aquatic plant issues between serious hobbyists. Perhaps some kind of collaboration on a few of the most important problems.
I wonder if at some point in the future it might become possible to organize some research on aquatic plant issues between serious hobbyists. Perhaps some kind of collaboration on a few of the most important problems.
The problem with this is most of us aren't willing to sacrifice our manicured tanks to run any experiments. Doing it right would entail exact conditions for all tested tanks (water, lighting, ferts, fish, etc), then throw in the variable you're testing and appropriate controls - you're talking a minimum of 2 tanks per tested variable. Unless you work in a lab, not feasible for most folks.
Wouldn't it be great though to create a lab just for the purpose. Imagine 50 or 60 identical 50g tanks, all set up with identical systems of lighting, plumbing, filtration, etc. It would be a simple matter to change and observe a single variable over relatively short amounts of time. Add to this some lab-quality light meters, nutrient level monitors and precision metering equipment.
That would shed some light on a few issues in short order. In 10 minutes I could probably come up with enough experiments to last five years.
Hehe it would be great! I have too many 10 gal tanks that aren't being used at the moment and a plethora of extra equipment. I'd be willing to set up a test or two if someone else wants to as well.
Maybe we can start a new forum for members who want to set up controlled experiments and title it "Advancement of Aquatic Issues" or AAI for short.
Actually if you do that they beat you up because they don't want to hear what you say!
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Aquatic Plant Forum
730.4K posts
52.5K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to aquatic plant owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, tanks, styles, troubleshooting, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!