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...