Blanket weed / high PH

Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,299
Location
Phoenix AZ
capewind said:
LOL ... I did not use the word only:) But my OPINION is if algae is going to town
You are entitled to your OPINION. Facts are another matter.

capewind said:
SOMETHING is feeding it.
Obviously, but that has nothing to do with the claim or opinion, that...
capewind said:
Algae taking over a pond is NOT a sign of being in excellent shape, but an ABUNDANCE of nutrients ...
ABUNDANCE, in caps. Seemed pretty clear what your position is. My question is what is an ABUNDANCE? What level of nutrients is required for algae to grow? Caps would indicate some pretty high number. Like some out of control thing. Like some "out of balance thing". So I'm asking you to define your meaning of ABUNDANCE in the context used. I think that's fair since you decided to use all caps like ABUNDANCE was some obvious fact and not just some made up thing that sounded good.

My position is algae will grow like gangbusters in a pond that measures zero ammonia and zero nitrate, the 2 nutrients most commonly produced in a pond. To me a pond measuring 0 would not be considered an abundance and certainly not an ABUNDANCE. But I don't know what you consider to be an ABUNDANCE. If you consider 0 to be an ABUNDANCE then we're on the same page and just using a completely different lexicon.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,293
Location
Cape Cod, MA
LMAO WB ... I see a balanced ecosystem as one capable of substaining a variety of life forms ... Just because there is no ammonia or nitrates, does not mean it is a balanced ecosystem. The more the algae grows, the less likely one is to test positive for ammonia without additional factors ... Algae depleting the water of oxygen, presents an issue for let's say the fish (let's skip over the algae lessons in decomposition) .,, funny little buggers fish are, for needing air;-) Algae, just like my baby watercress ... grows just fine in PLAIN water, but when FED, you can see the difference. Bet if I feed them more, they would even grow more (although then I run the risk of ramifications of overfeeding/tipping the scale too far for the plants). What roles do phosphates and KH play in the FOOD chain of algae? Irrelevent? I think not. They are all interconnected, including bacteria (heading towards decomposition of plants through DOCs here) ... If you want an actual NUMBER, I think it will take a chemist a little while to work out based on a pond by pond evaluation.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,299
Location
Phoenix AZ
And that's why forums are a dangerous place for newbies to look for info. Thousands of posts written as what appears to be fact. When once in a blue moon a "fact" is questioned the poster can simply just fall back and say "why little old me, that was just an opinion". The concept is that facts can be disputed, questioned while opinion is holy ground that must be accepted and never questioned. So just turn an assertion of fact into an opinion to get out of a position. Newbies have no way to tell the difference.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,293
Location
Cape Cod, MA
If you can provide the chemisty statistics, I would be happy to spend the time reading. Without that, I can only go off of observations. We can use the words theory or hypothesis instead of opinion if you prefer. Personally, I think this whole subject boils down to a scientific hypotheses (not able to be explained well enough by scientific theory) ... if I am wrong, please do correct me, as I am interested in this area of environmental science.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,299
Location
Phoenix AZ
capewind said:
If you can provide the chemisty statistics, I would be happy to spend the time reading.
First of all "chemisty statistics" is a nonsensical. Chemistry is a term and statistics is a term, but together makes no sense. Chemistry isn't proven by statistics.

If what you're trying to ask for is chemical equations that prove something...what exactly isn't clear... come on, seriously? You're going to read chemical equations? Plus they wouldn't prove anything. Take a simple equation like conversion of ammonia to nitrite. A proven fact sure. But it proves nothing. Proof would be tying that fact to a specific case.

capewind said:
Without that, I can only go off of observations. We can use the words theory or hypothesis instead of opinion if you prefer. Personally, I think this whole subject boils down to a scientific hypotheses (not able to be explained well enough by scientific theory) ...
And that's why there is never any point "discussing" anything in a forum. In forums people express opinions. They dress them up as fact, they imply fact, but they can always fall back to "hey, its only my opinion".

Sure, I'd love to have even one real discussion even on such a simple subject as algae and nutrients. It's a very easy subject and people can even easily measure nutrient levels in their own ponds to confirm. To me it would be fun. And to be able to end the thousands of "opinion" posts screaming about how algae is caused by ABUNDANT nutrients would be a huge benefit for the hobby.

A back and forth with links to all the different studies showing the relationship of algae and nutrient, and the follow up studies confirming earlier study. That would be great...sign me the F up.

BUT...that's not going to happen in a million years. That's not what forums are about. Forums are for expressing opinion. Opinions are personal. If I refute your opinion you take it personally because it's a direct reflection on your thought processes. You own your opinion. You will defend yourself (your opinion) by any means necessary. Spinning words, red herrings, nonsensical terms, personal attacks...normal forum crap. BUT if you question one of MY FACTS I really have no problem with that. Please, tell me more. Show me where you learned this so I can learn more. The difference is MY FACTS are not mine at all. I didn't do the studies. My career isn't being questioned. I have zero reason to defend any FACT. Prove one of MY FACTS wrong and I have two words for you THANK YOU.

In typical forum behavior you didn't ask for me to provide more info, link or what not, which I would have been happy to provide. Instead you provide an argumentative post dismissing my post based only on your own private personal opinion based stuff you think you've seen or read. You could not be more clear that you have absolutely no interest in serious discussion or discovery.

capewind said:
if I am wrong, please do correct me, as I am interested in this area of environmental science.
If you were actually interest in algae's relationship with nutrients it's a pretty simple subject and just a Google away.

If you wanted to start that research and discuss what you find then super. I'd be happy to be a part of that discussion as I would no doubt learn a lot. But the concept of me putting a lot of effort into posting a bunch of links that you're not going to read or only read to pick out a few bits out of context to defend your incorrect opinions...been there, done that. It's a waste of both of our time and kind of boring.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,293
Location
Cape Cod, MA
In the middle of something else, but a fast response is in order ... Poor wording on my part, but I was seriously interested in if there were studies showing stats AND chemistry, as it applies to this conversation. My intent is not to say I'M RIGHT and Joe Smow is WRONG ... If my theory/opinion/observation is incorrect, SHOW ME why you feel differently. Chat boards ARE for sharing of information, as well as pictures, chit chat etc. I have done websearches on this subject, and in all honesty, am not finding the info I am looking for here. My "thought process" as you put it is to continue to gather info (on any subject I am interested in), to form opinions based upon FACTS. As more FACTS become available, some OPINIONS CHANGE based upon new information. If you feel all anyone does is share useless opinions, not facts, and dont want to provide facts to help educate, WHY do you waste your time with forums at all? That sounds like a pretty sad existence. Oh well, enough things going on in the real world.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,299
Location
Phoenix AZ
capewind said:
WHY do you waste your time with forums at all? That sounds like a pretty sad existence. Oh well, enough things going on in the real world.
I agree 100%. It is a silly waste of time and a bad habit which I have kicked for years at a time in the past. I have the same issue with FreeCell and watching TV. Complete waste of time, but I'm human. I quit FreeCell but picked up the forum habit again. And I just love this forum's editor and lack of ads. Can't even use GardenWeb for all the pop up ads.

I do find forums very interesting and addictive. Not the content of course but to see the way peoples' minds work. What makes them happy, what makes them sad, what makes them mad. It's like field work anthropology. From a computer, in PJs, I can watch an entire civilization shift in just a few years. To be able to study how hundreds of different people interact with other people is very interesting to me. Does get a bit boring sometimes but I always come back.

And recently I found out it maybe not be a complete waste of time. I'm a software engineer and I just found out there's money to be made programming bots to act like humans. They post in forums, Twitter, Facebook, Digg, Yelp, everywhere. They write reviews and even generate content. That's one reason there's so much crap on the web, bots and human assisted bots take existing content off web pages and perform what's call Article Spinning, and post it on another web page. Content = Google hits = page views = clicks on ads. It's a money maker.

These aren't the evil spam bots of five years ago. They're not trying to steal anything. The goal of these bots is to appear as human, to be enjoyable to interact with. They're encouraged by the owners of forums, Twitter, Facebook, Digg, Yelp, etc. It's all pretty mainstream. Just marketing.

Kind of like the electronic pets that people had to virtually feed and care for. Creates a completely fake human connection but people still felt and enjoyed the connection. If people enjoy it what's the harm kind of thing? Whether it's healthy to form an attachment to a non-living thing, or even a non-human thing, is another issue, but not my job.

For the past few days I've been building and messing around with bots. I find it absolutely fascinating. I've upped my normal forum activity in several forums to get more data. These freaking bots are simple to build, work great and people absolutely love them. It is weird as heck. So maybe someday I'll be able to turn all this wasted time into a new line that I enjoy. I used to write video games but this is even more fun.

On the algae thing, if you're serious I was too. Google something like "algae nutrient requirements". It's really difficult to wade thru the crap but tons of serious and not very complex stuff. You can narrow that by focusing on agriculture related pages as these talk more to farmers so simpler to understand and a bit more focused on ponds. Once you start finding stuff like "green ponds always test zero for this or that nutrient" you're on the right track.

If you want to ask any questions or more tips on finding stuff I'm open to try and help. But the first step is on you.

However you brought up a good point. I have a project I have to finish before I can spend a lot more time on bots. It's 4:30 pm and I've hardly written any code today so maybe I should get serious about taking a break from forums for awhile. And really I should at least redirect my "spare time" to the bot forums anyways. I'm posting more in pond forums about bots now than about ponds which is not right. So thanks for the intervention whether intentional or not. Seriously.

I apology, if I can actually kick my pond habit for awhile, and not able to join an algae discussion. But I know there are a couple of people here who might be into a study group. How you keep all the opinions out is a nut I have no idea how to crack. I think maybe it would have to been done more in a Wiki type forum rather than a wide open public forum. Good luck. It's worth the effort imo.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,293
Location
Cape Cod, MA
Bots huh? I have no clue if you are serious or making a joke. The concept is a little sci-fi for me, but if you are serious, all I can say is if it is something you are interested in, have a blast with it. Everyone needs a hobby, and if there's a chance of making a profit from an interest, you'd be foolish not to go for it (regardless of what it is) ... I've made a profit off of a few of my hobbies ...

On the algae end of the conversation ... I spent a good hour reading last night, planning to do more today. The more basic info I found supported my present opinions, but then found another page that was really interesting. It gave several species by name (not that I'll remember them) but it started dividing them into catagories. I need to read more to better absorb the info (was getting tired and a bit dizzy from the Latin names and chemistry), but one page simply divided it into "fast" and "slow" growing varieties. The FAST growing varieties DID fall in line with my present thinking and the acceleration of growth with the uptake of macro/micro nutrients, but the SLOW growing varieties were UNAFFECTED by nutrients ... I'll keep reading just to gain a better handle on the slow growing varieties but to answer MY questions, I'll eventually have to try to figure out which varieties we have in our ponds (or class of varieties).

My most basic questions ultimately come back to WHY we have algae growth in the spring, and with doing little (other than physically removing some), it goes away. I know there is more to it then a use of nutrients, and our planted plants taking up the nutrients (the theories on our plants starving the algae). I dont believe it is as simple black and white as that. I *think* there is more inter-relationships, interactions, then just that. I knew photosynthesis/sun exposure, only played a small role. Not yet ready to form a formal conclusion by far, but found a few sites noting longer sun exposure only accelerated the growth rates on the faster growing varieties. Very interesting reading.
 

crsublette

coyotes call me Charles
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
1,100
Location
Dalhart Texas
Hardiness Zone
6a
Blah blah blah. Wow, alot of preaching and zero teaching here. I guess chastising and being a bully is the new form of education. I have another word for that but children might be reading here. Waterbug, I'm calling bull on this idea of you just wanting to have a real discussion. I have been reading that from you long enough, it is old, and it is suggesting a pattern. I have not yet once seen you have any intent of having a real discussion. Rather, you jump right on to mount somebody. Heck, your very first post in this thread was to mount the OPs and then attempt to back peddle by suggesting, "wasn't really meant to be an insult, just pointing out the obvious." Right... And, sheesh, this instance reminds me of something.. Do you still believe carbonate is not a salt of carbonic acid? That was one particular odd exchange really suggesting you were very interested in not having a real discussion.


Waterbug said:
Well, there is a difference between measured nutrient levels and produced nutrient levels. With the fish, food, decomposing stuff a pond is continuously producing nutrients, a never ending supply. Algae can consume those nutrients so they never accumulate in the water where they could be measured.
Waterbug said:
Sure, I'd love to have even one real discussion even on such a simple subject as algae and nutrients. It's a very easy subject and people can even easily measure nutrient levels in their own ponds to confirm. To me it would be fun. And to be able to end the thousands of "opinion" posts screaming about how algae is caused by ABUNDANT nutrients would be a huge benefit for the hobby.
The typical hobbyist will never have access to the proper tools to ever properly measure anything. We only have access to the very basic necessities of chemistry. The only reason we have what we have is due to the fact it is all we need and further precision is a waste. There are specific ion digital tests out there, which is what you would need to test to an extremely low precision, but they are unbelievably expensive. These type of tests are exactly what you would need to perform any kind of meaningful hobbyist experimentation unless you are supremely confident in your water capturing abilities and have the money for it to be sent off and tested at a labratory.


This idealist approach of suggesting "nutrient abundance does not indicate algae growth" is purely based on opinion based on a not very well thought out argument. Actually, your argument against "nutrient abundance" does not dispute it; it actually proves it. Once you are aware of the determining nutrients, how do you control the paritcular nutrients? Simply by introducing an opposing force that battles for that same nutrient or find a way to precipitate that nutrient.


It is a FACT, particular algae species do grow according to the abundance of particular nutrients just as any plant. I believe this is the point Capewind was trying to propose. To suggest this is not true, is to suggest that biology does not apply to algae. If this is not true, please point me to an algae species that do not require something to thrive, that applies to our context; the algae that can thrive in outterspace or deep ocean caves is quite pointless to mention here. There are self nitrogen fixing algae species, but their processes do still require an energy source. Oxidation is definitely a treatment that robs the algae of a necessary nutrient. Again, to deny this, then you are suggesting biology does not apply to algae. Even poisons, such as a microbicides or the multitude of allelopathic toxins, rob the algae of the appropriate material for growth due to the fact the algae can not prevent their cell walls from deteriorating.

Planted aquariums actually do not have to worry about particular algae species since the proper lighting is lacking. The exact purpose of algae scrubbers and particular macroalgaes is to restrict the nutrient supply, that does prevent other algae growth in coral reef aquariums. So, Liebig's law of the minimum of indicating nutrient restriction determining plant growth does appear to apply also to algae.

Beyond the quite obvious consumption of fish toxic nitrogen, after this entire exchange, I have not yet read how algae is a benefit to ponds, that is other than being the occasional saving grace when significant ammonia is present and to provide fish nourishment particularly during the winter months. I suppose it is this fact of the plant acting as a very excellent bio-filter and is exactly why only particular species are cultured to grow in aquariums and others species are specifically controlled to not be grown in a healthy aquarium.

The proper view of algae should be that of a noxious weed since folk are wanting a pond for their luxury, not a luxury for the fish. On the farm, blank ground is an invitation to have noxious weeds to grow since the sole purpose of these noxious weeds are to protect the soil from deterrioration; however, this is not always true and is never healthy for the farmer. There are even noxious weeds that are parasitic in nature to kill existing life. Algae is not much different. There are many species out there and many species simply have no purpose, that is in our context, other than to be noxious invaders to provide an environment for its self to live or something else to live within it.

There actually have been serious fish kills cause by algae, even in lakes and bays, that was brought on by fisherman boats. Did this algae occurence indicate the water was initially unhealthy prior to the explosion of the toxic algae? Nope. There simply was too much blank ground, which was quite healthy, and this algae had the capabilities to take its opportunity to eradicate life on that ground, that is much like a parasite infecting its host through an unfortunate orifice.

I have yet to read how rampant algae growth indicates the pond's health. As far as I am aware, eutrophication is the major reason to rampant algae growth and eutrophication is not what we want to allow to happen in our ponds.

If a person is attempting to maintain an acidic pond, which has very low alkalinity, while keeping healthy fish, then algae presence is definitely not something desired in the pond due to algae's consumption and release of inorganic carbons.

The exact reason why we have algae growth in the spring is due to the increase nutrient abundance overcumbing the biological filtration, and the biological filtration can be a multitude of variables including the algae its self!!

Ultimately, if folk are relying on algae to fix their pond and do not properly test their water, then one day they will have some very serious pond health issues such as depleted alkalinity.


Now, Waterbug, that is my quite persuasive argument and so now the owness is on you to prove I am wrong. Show me these facts and studies that you whisper about that indicate how wrong I am. Why? Since you believe you are so right with out even attempting... not even attempting at all to provide a good persuasive argument... All you can do is chastise how wrong everyone else is with their supposed pig headed opinions... Come on man... Get off it...
 

crsublette

coyotes call me Charles
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
1,100
Location
Dalhart Texas
Hardiness Zone
6a
richyd said:
I took a sample of water to my local aquatic guy today for him to test with his API test kit.
He said everything was fine apart from my PH being 8.8. After a brief discussion we started talking about blanket weed and the affects of it in a pond. Recently my neighbour has had some trees cut down and now I get full sun on my pond, and the blanket weed is thriving.

My question is what is the most effective way of getting rid of this stuff. Last year I tried the barley straw method in a mesh bag, but this did not work at all. I'm looking for a quick effective fix. Please help
Many thanks
AlgaeFix is a good quick, effective product. I do not use it, but I know a very well experienced fella that I trust and he uses it with good success on other folk's ponds. Just follow the instructions precisely, no guessing, and be sure you know very close to your pond's exact volume.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
31,563
Messages
518,929
Members
13,813
Latest member
momodede

Latest Threads

Top