pea soup mystery

[Mucky_Waters]

OK here's an experiment that should prove or disprove Waterbugs theory.
According to Waterbug, a pond that clears on it's own of single cell floating algae should have done so regardless of nutrient content in the pond, because it is some unkown element killing the algae. Based on Waterbugs theory it is not the lack of nutrients in the water killing the algae, but this yet unkown susbtance in the water.
So the simple test would be, after a pond clears you should be able to dump a good load of fertilizer in the water and the algae should not come back because the algae killing substance would still be in there and prevent the algae from growing despite the abundance of fertilizer.
Anybody have a pond they want to try this on?
I used a UV light to clear my pond, so it wouldn't be an accurate test because the pond water has to clear on it's own.

 

[brandonsdad02]

We could use WB's pond if he had one.

 

[Waterbug]

First, I can't take credit for the theory. That clear water is toxic to algae was first shown by Norm Meck many years ago. And discussed in pond forums at length. That macroalgae produce allelochemicals has been proven for many years and is well documented in studies, books and is taught in marine biology college courses. My theory is that macroalgae in ponds may be producing the substance in water that Norm Meck found which kills microalgae. If making fun of that theory gets your rocks off, happy to have made your day.

I've done the exact experiment Mucky proposed, and I've posted the results here several times. Threw lots of fertilizer into a small shallow pond that was green, went clear when string algae was added, and I couldn't get the water to go green again. At the time I was trying to grow green water to test a fabric filter I was developing. But of course me doing the experiment could never be accepted by any forum expert. And of course Norm Meck's data is also worthless because it doesn't fit forum expert dogma. Studies on allelochemicals, all worthless. Bunch of know it all PhDs using big words. They should just get off their high horse and start thinking with their gut.

But of course it is even necessary to throw fertilizer into a clear pond. Ponds have plenty of nutrients, if my theory has any merit. Just measure the nitrate level...it's that simple. Measure ammonia and nitrates in green and clear (non UV) ponds. Correlate the data. Gather enough data to be meaningful. There has to be tens of thousands of forum posts on starving green water with plants. Total number of people who've measured ammonia and nitrates when pond was green and again after it cleared? I can't remember any. And there's the bottom line.

 

[brandonsdad02]

Most people have our ponds for the enjoyment of them. Watching all of our hard work pay off by the hours of relaxation we get from it, all of the neat things that we get to see first hand. Not to run test on it, seeing which chemicals it takes to make fish grow 3 eyes or stuff like that. A simple answer will do 99% of the time.

 

[Waterbug]

So don't run any test. So don't try to figure stuff out. Some how I think the earth will keep spinning just fine.

Just keep using products that other people have taken the time and effort to figure out for you. The liners, pumps, fish, food and even where you get your water are all products that people took the time to develop so you could consume in bliss. Why soooo fired up against other people wanting to understand how things work? Does every book have to be burned before you can feel secure?

 

[crsublette]

Persuasion? Yes, in forums persuasion is all that matters. Data, worthless. Links to studies, meaningless.

Really don't need the silliness. We're all here to learn, but serving nobody by passing a thesis along as if it is fact while it still remains a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to continuing experimentation due to the remaining unkowns. If ya got the facts, hyperlink please. I know they're out there somewhere since ya say they are out there, I just have not come across it yet to read it.

Threw lots of fertilizer into a small shallow pond that was green, went clear when string algae was added, and I couldn't get the water to go green again.

What was your success rate of the theory replication of introducing string algae to reduce planktonic algae ??

------------------


Norm Meck even mentions all the unknowns. According to Mr. Meck, water changes actually encourages algae due to the dilution of the algae antibiotic. Also, interesting how Meck explains his "one square inch surface area per gallon" for a bio-filter to build appropriate hetertroph bacteria colonies, which indicates bio-filtering does have an impact on algae control.

Interesting to note Meck's comment on Barley; I wonder if all of the univserity studies on Barley chemistry also took into consideration of heterotroph bacteria colony size in relationship to water volume and the dillution affect of water exchange. Mr. Meck suggests there may likely be other source material that may match the proper chemistry for the heterotroph bacteria to produce the algae antibiotic.

None of this explains why nutrient polluted areas have the most abundant marine macroalgae and does not explain exactly what is considered to be the proper food (or nutrients) for the heterotroph bacteria to produce the algae antibiotic. They just think it is dead algae that allows the chemical reaction to produce the appropriate algae antobiotics. Definitely does not explain why marine macroalgae is used, beyond their high nutrient intake, in coral and reef aquariums.

Even you mentioned algae needs nutrients for new cell growth. So may likely be a combination. The algae antibiotic becoming dilluted allowing for algae to germinate and proper miscellaneous nutrients to allow for algae initial and continual growth.

Likes I said, there is still alot of wiggle room. Shouldn't be so quick to discount all of the variables.

Did Mr. Meck ever do a follow up report to address his hunches ?? He wrote as if he was going to further his thesis. Should not make a thesis into more than what it is, a thesis. Sounds good though.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

First, I can't take credit for the theory. That clear water is toxic to algae was first shown by Norm Meck many years ago. And discussed in pond forums at length. That macroalgae produce allelochemicals has been proven for many years and is well documented in studies, books and is taught in marine biology college courses. My theory is that macroalgae in ponds may be producing the substance in water that Norm Meck found which kills microalgae. If making fun of that theory gets your rocks off, happy to have made your day.

I've done the exact experiment Mucky proposed, and I've posted the results here several times. Threw lots of fertilizer into a small shallow pond that was green, went clear when string algae was added, and I couldn't get the water to go green again. At the time I was trying to grow green water to test a fabric filter I was developing. But of course me doing the experiment could never be accepted by any forum expert. And of course Norm Meck's data is also worthless because it doesn't fit forum expert dogma. Studies on allelochemicals, all worthless. Bunch of know it all PhDs using big words. They should just get off their high horse and start thinking with their gut.

But of course it is even necessary to throw fertilizer into a clear pond. Ponds have plenty of nutrients, if my theory has any merit. Just measure the nitrate level...it's that simple. Measure ammonia and nitrates in green and clear (non UV) ponds. Correlate the data. Gather enough data to be meaningful. There has to be tens of thousands of forum posts on starving green water with plants. Total number of people who've measured ammonia and nitrates when pond was green and again after it cleared? I can't remember any. And there's the bottom line.

Waterbug, I quoted your post and left all the parts that are interesting and worth discussing in black, and highlighted all the "worthless" stuff in red.

It seems you often want to infer some sort of negative spin on my posts even when there is no evidence to support it. Please go back and read my post and explain to me how you think I was making fun of your theory and was trying to get "my rocks off"????
Fact is I think you are on to something, and my post was simply a suggestion for someone to conduct an open and controlled experiment as a way to validate it.

You say you have already done such and experiment years ago, and that’s great. How did you document it? It would be good if you posted that documentation on your web site or somewhere, then others could follow your tests and see if they come up with the same results. (youtube?)

You know, not everyone in these forums are the dogmatic pea-brains you try to make them out to be.

 

[addy1]

OK here's an experiment that should prove or disprove Waterbugs theory.
According to Waterbug, a pond that clears on it's own of single cell floating algae should have done so regardless of nutrient content in the pond, because it is some unkown element killing the algae. Based on Waterbugs theory it is not the lack of nutrients in the water killing the algae, but this yet unkown susbtance in the water.
So the simple test would be, after a pond clears you should be able to dump a good load of fertilizer in the water and the algae should not come back because the algae killing substance would still be in there and prevent the algae from growing despite the abundance of fertilizer.
Anybody have a pond they want to try this on?
I used a UV light to clear my pond, so it wouldn't be an accurate test because the pond water has to clear on it's own.

Well not sure what I did would count, clear pond water, hooked up the lotus tub to circulate with the clear pond, 300 gallons of pea green, algae full nutrient full (feed the lotus heavy) water dumped into the big pond, algae bloom almost instantly, cleared up the next day. But it might not count we have never had green water.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Well not sure what I did would count, clear pond water, hooked up the lotus tub to circulate with the clear pond, 300 gallons of pea green, algae full nutrient full (feed the lotus heavy) water dumped into the big pond, algae bloom almost instantly, cleared up the next day. But it might not count we have never had green water.

Addy, was it a real algae bloom, or did the green water from the lotus tub just cloud up the main pond. I would think a real algae bloom would take a few days to establish itself, it wouldn't be "instant" like Nestles Quick.

In either case, the aglae died off. Was this because you had low nutriants levels (nitrates) in the water, or because macroalgae in your pond was producing a substance in water that which kills microalgae???
That's the question.

 

[addy1]

No clue Mucky all I know is the pond turned green cloudy about two hours after we started the lotus tub feed. I was, to say the least, a lil upset at that. But the next day it cleared up again.

The pond was clear for the first few hours after the lotus tub feed started, then it started greening up, yuck, I don't think it was just the water from the lotus tub or I would have seen green quicker, don't know for sure figured I would have a green pond for a while.

I always have zero on the tests.

 

[Waterbug]

Fact is I think you are on to something, and my post was simply a suggestion for someone to conduct an open and controlled experiment as a way to validate it.

I wish you luck. I've always found it difficult to get accurate data in forums.

You say you have already done such and experiment years ago, and that’s great. How did you document it? It would be good if you posted that documentation on your web site or somewhere, then others could follow your tests and see if they come up with the same results. (youtube?)

I've posted the info in forums including this one I believe a couple of times. In these posts, I've also said that my follow up experiments where inconclusive. Sometimes the string algae died, sometimes the microalgae. To take the experiment with better control was more effort than I was willing to invest, and really I'd convinced myself enough to consider the theory reasonable. But I don't think I "found" anything worth publishing. My theory is mostly derivative imo.

You know, not everyone in these forums are the dogmatic pea-brains you try to make them out to be.

I'm sorry...I said everyone was? Pretty sure I didn't. To clarify in my own words...Not everyone. But all dogmatic pea-brains are in fact dogmatic pea-brains.

It seems you often want to infer some sort of negative spin on my posts even when there is no evidence to support it. Please go back and read my post and explain to me how you think I was making fun of your theory and was trying to get "my rocks off"????

When I post in response to a specific person I normally address them by name or quote. Sorry if you thought it was aimed at you.

This is not exactly the first time I've been through this Mucky. Many years (10-15, I forget) ago I spent a year or two in pond forums explaining how concrete in water worked and how it wouldn't kill fish. Hundreds of posts, dozens and dozens of links to references. This was back when forums were full of posts saying concrete would kill fish. A single concrete block in a 10000 gal pond would kill fish. Run off from a side walk would kill fish. Dozens of resident "experts" hammered me with dogma.

And that was butt simple dogma to disapprove. Place a concrete block in a tank of water and measure pH. Zero takers. Just hundreds of flame posts. After a year or two I think I made the point. Big deal. Didn't really change anything. Newbies still get all kinds of bad advice, still plenty of myths to go around. Yeah you don't hear about concrete so much any more, but nothing really changed.

So I'm sure not really interested in a repeat. People can think whatever story they like, none of my business. I just like writing posts, thinking about different subjects, doing the research to understand the subject. If someone wants to read it fine, if not super.

 

[mogsie]

ok so ile post my very recent experiance, (i read this thread yesterday as it concerned what i was going through)... but from the begining...
i was suffering from lots of string algae so approx 4 weeks ago i purchased some barley straw logs, and i also purchased a bottle of barley straw extract which claimed to quickly rid pond of string algae, so i treated with recommended dose and hey presto string algae was gone in approx 2 days but immediately my pond started turning to "pea soup" green water with suspended single cell algae, (i have had my pond for 2 years and this is my 1st case of green water), and it was just getting greener and greener, 2 weeks ago i done a 25% water change to see if that helped clear it a bit, but to no avail it just continued to get greener, yesterday morning i done another 25% water change to try and clear it a bit, i also went online and ordered some green water treatment, by afternoon yesterday you couldnt even tell i had done a 25% water change as it was green as ever, after reading this thread yesterday i done a nitrate test on my water and the readings where 0, thaught when the treatment arrived i will treat the pond and do a nitrate test when water has cleared, anyways i go out there this morning and the green water algae has all gone completely over night without any treatment !! just dissapeared, i was pleasantly amazed, so i have just done another nitrate test and it still reads 0 !! dont know how this fits in with any of the theories above, but thaught i would post regardless !

 

[addy1]

Yeah mogsie, magic green water formula!

I was mucking around in the pond yesterday, the preforms have some fine algae on the sides, the big pond is still pretty devoid of algae even on the sides. Think the fish eat it all...........or it is just that way this year. Last year I did have algae on the sides, like the carpet stuff, this year none. This year more fish, more lilies .............. less algae in the big pond.

The bog had some string algae in the no plant sunny areas, maybe a 4 cups full, I just pulled it out and threw over the back bog wall, (love our rural land) I pulled it mainly because it was blocking some of the water flow from the bog, the water level had raised by about 2 inches. Once it was cleaned out the water level in the bog dropped back to normal. The fish ran to the water fall to snack on the debris flowing into the pond from me messing with it. Of course the pond went to murky but already cleared back up. No string algae in the big pond, none even around the plants. I need to groom the lilies today, they went crazy while we were gone, will do a better check on algae or no while in the pond. But sure don't see any when looking in, I was looking for fry, last year they hid in the side algae. None for them to hide in this year and no fry seen.

My tests have never varied from zero.

 

[mogsie]

wall ivo ordered a £12 bottle of treatment and i dont need it anymore !! yeah ive been looking for fry but cannot find any, !

 

[addy1]

If fry survive they are welcome, but if they don't that is fine too. Don't really want a way overstocked pond. We have a ton of real pretty white and orange fish, the primary mom is white with orange. Another primary mom is pure white. We also have a bunch of nice looking shubbies, some real dark, some lighter, some with long fins. I was checking them out yesterday.