BBA in El Natural tanks?

From the responses so far.... as they say in Bulgaria "I'm not sure if I feel like crying or like laughing."

I wonder what is the dissolved organics load in a typical El Natural tank. I bet it is not low. I had seen a 75 gallon tank severely overstocked with fish (like 200) that killled BBA introduced to it within hours. talk about high organic load. The BBA didn't just die in that tank - it vanished in thin air. And no, it was not the fish eating the algae.

I wonder why we all embrace the idea that BBA will disappear if you increase the CO2 if El Natural tanks rarely, if ever, get any BBA and use no CO2.

All of that once again brings me to my view that the stability of an aquarium, planted or not, has to do with the processing of substances. Not their presence or absence. The only way that I can think of to establish these processes right is to let the tank develop both slowly and gradually. No sudden interventions. You are after interactions that are not only unknown but also fragile and impossible to force to happen.

Ok. So I am just speculating here. You can read if you have nothing better to do but these are just my current thoughts.

I think that in a CO2 injected or liquid carbon tanks with heavy fertilization, the plants themselves p roduce mass amount of organics when growing fast, which also happens to coat the leaves themselves thus if not enough cleaning//siphoning/water changes are done, one ends up with algae outbreaks in those tanks as the build up is more than the tank can handle via microorganism activity and algae just jumps in to help out in the presence of light, same as in natural systems when there's too much of a something.

The substrate in El Natural tanks would have a way bigger organic load processing capability and microorganism diversity I'd imagine than some normal inert substrate planted tanks with a pile of wood on one side loaded with anubias, java fern and java moss and a few stems sticking out behind it, barely much plants planted in the substrate itself bar some short rooters, regular siphoning, heavy wiping/cleaning, etc.. In most inert substrate tanks nitrification happens only in the surface layer of the substrate where there's oxygen.

In El natural we are advised to plant heavy, lots of fast growing plants and also heavy rooters. This results in great oxygen production for any tank, but in El natural, most importantly, oxygen is driven deep in the soil substrate itself via big plant roots which in turn supports heavy decomposition of organics as well as nitrification and other processes to a greater extent, and then plants in turn use the products of those processes maybe preventing much organics from escaping the soil and building up in the water column which could trigger multiplication of organic lovers such as algae spores waiting in the light for their share of left overs.

So a well designed soil tank is sort of a super biofilter one can't buy in the shop.

To summarise I think organics do play a role in algae I'd imagine , if algae has organics and light at the same time. The solution is either to reduce/remove organics via heavy cleaning/water changes and inject CO2 and ferts via the water column for the plants or create conditions in the tank so the tank can do that for you instead to a great extent. Promote high oxygen production in the soil and water column and media for organics decomposition and microorganism activity which lacks light in order not to attract algae instead and you are a happy lazy bunny. Deprive the tank from that and you've got to be on top of it because it can't do nothing for itself alone.

I mean it's not that hard to notice the difference in functionality between a El Natural and a High Tech.
Try not to water change or siphon a well functioning El Natural tank for 6 months, nothing much will happen as long as you trim back the plants so the tank doesn't turn into a spaghetti dinner. Try to do the same in a high tech tank for 1 month and you'll be loaded with algae.

Maybe high tech enthusiast are praising ADA Amazonia and similar substrates because they do provide similar functionality to a natural soil substrate used in El Natural tanks and are just capable of processing heavy organics, leading to more stable tanks that allow for some user mistakes, overstocking, or even a week holiday from time to time
At the same time even an inert gravel substrate in time becomes highly functional if planted, stabilizing a previously algae infested tanks that were incapable of processing much organics.
But a proper soil just gives you that effect way faster.

I think SBS gives some pretty good points...

Personally, I think the overlying theme is that the common practices associated with CO2 barely resemble plant-keeping in any form, and disregard the idea of mimicking an organism's surroundings and environment in nature to have the best chance of successfully keeping that organism.

They create enclosed conditions which maximize the potential niche for algae, and attempt to exploit resource overlaps with plants to minimize the realized niche. You're basically struggling against a favourable reaction to suppress an organism that is well adapted to establishing itself in whatever habitat it can find.

The approaches we take on the other hand attempt to mimic nature more closely in order to create a niche for aquatic plants, and it does so in a way that doesn't cater to algae in the first place (by using the substrate as the major resource bank, instead of the water). It's the algae that has to work against the plants to establish a permanent presence in the tank.

Everything going on in low-tech tanks happens in a high tech tank, too. Only real difference is this philosophy (I wont even call it a method) stems from the importance of harnessing it so the system works with you, instead of against you.

TL;DR - I think the underlying philosophy behind plant-keeping with CO2 is the problem, not any specific method or technique. Those are just symptoms of the philosophy applied.

The idea of good plant growth resulting in a huge discharge of waste by the plants is alluring. I am dealing with a tank exactly like that right now. Plants are healthy beyond belief and grow that way too. I remove two big handfuls of clippings every week from that tank (60 gallon tank). Anubias makes 1 fully developed leaf every single week + has anothe one coming. Two plants that I never knew were in the tank all of a sudden showed up, very happy to join the ride. But BBA grows on the leaves of the Swords, Anubias, Crypts. The moss that popped up out of nowhere is pristinely clean.

All that makes me like the idea of fast plant growth promiting BBA because there are more substances in the water. But that should mean that every healthy, fast growing tank will have BBA. Which is not the case with fast growing tanks with good maintenance. I am not talking about tanks that get 50% water changes a week. These are artificial house of cards and nothing to consider if you are interested in having a stable system.

The interesting thing in my tank is that the BBA does not grow anywhere else but on the plants. If that was not happening the tank would be absolutely, completely, pristine. I can not help but think that plants releasing waste when they grow very fast is a reasonable idea. That tank ran just fine for many years (on going algae because of too much water column fertilizers) but it was indeed lower light and much slower growth.

There are two big discus in that tank. Despite the two filters I still think the processing of waste in that tank is off. Not sure if it is the processeses themselves or the capacity.

Overall, if indeed BBA is a super rare thing in El Natural tanks, then we must agree that slower growth and a stable system is a way more reasonable approach to keeping a planted tank.

SBS,

As a result of your last post above I had an idea of gently aerated substrate. It is basically a perversion of what should be done in the first place - dense growth and allowing the roots to aearate the substrate. But one can try to artificially aerate the substrate too. It it possible that this will elevate the filtration potential of the substrate to a new level. Since biofiltration is way more than converting Ammonia to Nitrate the results maybe astonishing (super clean tanks that can sustain animal overloads and are also extremely stable). Read about biofiltration in Yo-Han's thread here:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...1-biological-filtration-translated-dutch.html

Some of the images are missing but the rest is a great read for sure. In case you have not figured out it already - keeping a planted tank is much more about the filtration/processing of substances than growing pretty plants.

SBS,

I am 100% with you about the view of promoting aeration in the substrate and water column to make the tank run stable and clean. A self-running tank should have been the focus in keeping planted tanks for years but instead we swim in all kinds of half-baked notions.

At least in the US I see a pretty clear connection of the way this hobby is going and the general mentality of the population. "More is better". Look at it by making a parallel with cars - you can take a small Japanese car and tune it to where it will be loud and fast. This car will run just fine IF you constantly tune it and adjust it. On the other hand you can tune it to operate optimally and then it will run without much care, just the scheduled maintenance and adjsutments. In the first case you get a lot of show with a lot of effort. In the second case you get a care-free car which, as we all know, will run just as good at 300K miles as it ran the first day.

The real question here is not "How to run a planted tank stable and clean?". It is "What is it that you want?". This hobby attracts people with certain personality traits and at least in the US that means "cheap and fast" in most cases.

Why do I say all that? So you don't eventually abandon topics like this one here. Not very many people will post in them because that is not the main focus of the hobby. But I do believe that if the hobby is to go forward it can not move on forever based on the same old Japanese aquascaping principles (which produce cookie-cutter tanks) or maintenance approaches that both make you work too hard on the tank, keep you stagnant, and always run on the edge of a disaster.

I am 100% with you about the view of promoting aeration in the substrate and water column to make the tank run stable and clean. A self-running tank should have been the focus in keeping planted tanks for years but instead we swim in all kinds of half-baked notions.

Click to expand...

I have not run a soil tank without filtration or low filtration so I can't compare but I've ran my 5f tank with 10x filtration in terms of 3 external filters and I got explosive healthy growth not just with minimal algae but no algae that my human eye can see(maybe I need glasses ) So minimizing flow and surface movement to prevent co2 from escaping or not using filtration certainly isn't a requisite to running a successful el natural tank. My small 7g tank has a 105G/H internal filter which is about 15x flow and a good surface movement which is unavoidable in this case, no issues growing healthy plants, no BBA for certain. Over it's year life in this tank the algae issues I've had were green dust algae on the glass but so minimal that I never bothered cleaning it at all and I had oily film somewhere in the first months which one day just disappeared. Plants were and are totally free of algae of any sort.

Even Diana said it somewhere that actually the more oxygen, the more decomposition, the more CO2 so the aim is not exactly to eliminate surface movement so CO2 doesn't escape, so I figure the aim is to promote more CO2 production via more oxygenation in such tanks. Oxygen can be a limiting factor in a tank and the lack of it can be the cause for its demise too. There are a lot of threads around here complaining from soil going anaerobic and causing plant melts, hydrogen sulphide, etc..basically not enough oxygen to decompose the organics content and in turn both plants, fish, everything suffers because the soil works in a different way when oxygen is limiting.

On another hand some people claim that filtration will compete with the plants for ammonia which I think can't be quite right. I was reading somewhere that although plants would prefer ammonia over nitrate, they'd only switch to consuming ammonia if it's over 0.5ppm(not sure if that's per day or at any given time but I think it's in Diana's book), otherwise they happily prefer NO3. Then I was reading somewhere else that they'd take up any nitrogen at the same time so it doesn't matter which one is prevalent. The point is either way, it works for the plants.

If you can access the article, it's a bit old, but still a pretty neat read. It also addresses what you're getting at with the whole idea of aquatic epiphytes using nutrients from host plants, etc.

B. Gopal & U. Goel. 1993. Competition and allelopathy in aquatic plant communities. The Botanical Review, Vol 59 Issue 3

Click to expand...

Thanks skizkx. Sounds like an interesting one. I'll try to find it.

Just curious, but have we identified the actual species we refer to as "BBA"? Have we even determined whether it's actually only 1 species we're dealing with in all cases?

Click to expand...

It's a good question. BBA can thrive in almost any kind of tank, it's very common in unplanted tanks too. I wish I wasn't that lazy. We do have a microscope at home but no one uses it and it won't make a difference to me because I don't know how any algae is supposed to look like when magnified.
I think that there are different species of black algae but the one we refer to as BBA is rhodophyta lemanea if I remember correctly but I might be wrong.

I was looking it up earlier, and apparently it's Audouinella, which still doesn't narrow things down much. I was unable to find an actual species though.

It seems ridiculous but the hobby has basically been acting as if there's only a handfull of freshwater algae species (green spot, green dust, filamentous/hair, staghorn, and BBA), which can all be easily categorised and reliably identified by macroscopic observation by anyone with internet connection and a search engine.

We then assume that all these "types" have the same biology and try to make rules for treating them. When those rules fail, we come up with a new rule and all these theories.

Basically, as far as I've been able to find, we don't even know what we're actually trying to control here, or how many things we're trying to control... Let alone understanding them.

SBS said:

... There are a lot of threads around here complaining from soil going anaerobic and causing plant melts, hydrogen sulphide, etc..basically not enough oxygen to decompose the organics content and in turn both plants, fish, everything suffers because the soil works in a different way when oxygen is limiting....

On another hand some people claim that filtration will compete with the plants for ammonia which I think can't be quite right. I was reading somewhere that although plants would prefer ammonia over nitrate, they'd only switch to consuming ammonia if it's over 0.5ppm(not sure if that's per day or at any given time but I think it's in Diana's book), otherwise they happily prefer NO3....

Click to expand...

See - that is what I want to try too - an "enhanced" El Natural tank. Yours, with that big filtration is something like that. I like what you say about the plant growth.

People look at this hobby in a very one-sided fashion. "If X --> do Y". It is not that simple. To me the popular approaches to fertilization are to blame for such one-sided mindset. I also think that people see this hobby as "simple" and "cheap" and what do you expect them to do then? Get all technical, no way.

Competition for Ammonia. I had a 55 gal. tank with plants only, good light, CO2, and the cheapest Chinese canister filter you can find. One day the filter literally disintegrated - the hose connections fell apart like wet bread. I threw that piece of trash away and just hooked up a powerhead expecting algae in a few days. Nothing like that happened. On day 2 the plants started to grow just a little bit better. Not way faster. Maybe 10% better but it was noticeable. I think it would be safe to assume that they were eating what the biofilter would normally eat.

Thing is - if the biofilter was so effective we would not have much issues with our tanks. But look at most people's description of their tanks. They barely mention the filter. Don't expect it to be something very crucial in depriving the plants of anything.

Another good example (if we believe what Amano publishes in his magazine) - ADA's tanks are on the verge of constant starvation according to anyone that dumps spoons of dry ferts in their tanks. For more than a decade ADA's tanks have published parameters that never change (KH=3-6, NO3=0.25-0.5, P=0.01-0.05, pH=6.6-6.8, COD=6 (whatever this "6" means)) All ADA tanks have a biofilter hooked up to them - ADA does not use mechanical filtration. Yes, these parameters are not what really happens in the tank - you feed the plants every day. But if you feed them so lightly why on Earth would you run a biofilter too? According to Phil Edwards ADA tanks look a little on the starved side in real life. But it is not like the plants show deficiencies. Also - ADA does not use all the crazy plants that easily excitable enthusiasts get and are dying to keep despite their primitive understanding of what is what. Either way - the argument of the filter depriving the plants of food is another amazing fixture in our collective planted tank mindset.

The whole concept of an ADA tank drives me to distraction. Just way too much work for what seems to happen in nature, ah, naturally. Then you read that their substrate only works for two years, whereas Walstad says her natural tanks run for eight years or more, on the same "dirt" bottom with gravel capping it. Seems to me that there's no contest. ADA is "ART" and dirt is just "common," seems to be the theme. Okay, so I'm not an artist, and at least not in the fish tank universe, but then to whom do I exhibit my "art?" My family, who seems to think it's just great.

The simple answer for all types of algae (and pathogens) is a UV sterilizer. UV doesn't "kill" anything. It scrambles the DNA of the little buggers so they can't reproduce. But beware. They are highly flow-rate dependent, meaning that some spec their functionality on gph for algae, others for pathogens (ich, et al). I can't necessarily manage what comes into my tank, but I can manage it once it's in the tank, and after having used UV, I can't imagine another tank without it. In the scheme of things, it's not that expensive, the upside is good, and I can't see any downside unless it's that it will heat the water, in my case, eliminating the need for any heaters to keep it at 76-78F.

And speaking of filters, I have a Fluval 305 which flows about 305 gph, necessitating a "larger" UV than the 29 gal high tank warrants, but I wanted to use the filter output rather than have a submerged pump and a separate outflow from the UV.

Plants need light and Carbon, probably in that order. Carbon they get from Ammonia from the water (first choice, and yes, according to Walstad's book) or the breakdown of organics surrounding the roots. Fish equal Ammonia, so fish good; no fish, not so good.

I can only speak from my own experiences with my own tank. I "over-filter," I "over-UV," I "over-light," and I probably overstock as well. And yet it all seems to be in balance and thriving, broadleaf plants adding a leaf or more per week, and leaf growth in the range of 1/2-1" per day.

On iron: has anyone just thrown in a couple of nails to see if that helps or is it really necessary to go to (expensive) "additives?" Seems like there should be a "natural solution" to this problem as well.

UV light does more than simply 'scramble' DNA. True, it is a major catalyst for genetic mutations and can directly damage DNA, but it will also result in more direct damage and kill organisms/cells than simply altering the genetic material and preventing reproduction.

There is no carbon in ammonia, only nitrogen and hydrogen. As far as fish are concerned, it's their respiration that puts carbon into the system, not the ammonia.

Iron... Yes, people used to use old nails. As far as I'm aware the biggest problem with using iron in metal form in aquariums is that the bacteria that makes the iron organically available requires anaerobic conditions. The other problem being that iron which is not organically available, or chelated is quick to oxidise (rust), which is toxic to most/all aquarium life. Laterite (which can be purchased as a powder to make pottery clay) is a nice natural source of iron, but we tend to steer clear of it because Walstad published something in her book which was largely founded on a handful of personal experience with minimal detailed investigation. She had limited personal experience, couldn't explain it herself, found primary literature that hinted at a potential answer, so she published that answer without much further investigation... Personally, I've been unable to reproduce her results, and I have laterite/soil/peat mixes working perfect well... So, make of that what you will.

My personal 2 cents is that anything our soil substrate does, every other commercial substrate will do. We don't have unique processes occurring in our substrates just because it's a soil. The only difference is we're the side of the hobby that acknowledges and works with these processes. Fluorite is perfectly capable of supporting low-light plant growth with the help of fish poop, and I'm sure aquasoil is too. Increasing light and CO2 creates a bit of a different situation though where the rate of decomposition can't keep up with the rate of nutrient uptake. Of course I would rather use soil than fluorite for other reasons (that is to say not all substrates are equal), but it's not like we're unlocking some special chemistry or ecological system here.