Confused and ignorant

[MnFish1]

Low nutrients happen with no water changes when if nutrient consumers (algae, corals) are fully consuming the nutrients being generated.

Actually water changes only reduce changes not prevent build ups and depletion. Hence, the dosing schemes to maintain calcium and the like. What happens is the tank builds up to where the nutrients removed by the water changes equal the buildup between water changes. For instance, if you have 1ppm per day increase in nitrates and change 10% of the water every 10 days the tank builds up to where the nitrates before the water change is 100ppm. After the water change you have 90ppm which rises to 100 before the next change.
By contrast, in a system balanced out with algae you simply have 0ppm nitrates regardless of the water changes. Even no water changes.

my .02

The fact that a water change 'limits' the build-up (in your example to 100) means that it prevents buildups doesn't it? It prevents a buildup for example to 110. Also 0 measured 'nitrates' does not mean there are no nitrates in the tank - it just means that they are being used by algae, coral, bacteria, etc quickly.

 

[MnFish1]

As I uderstand it the Redfield ratio > 106:16:1 > carbon:nitrogen/Posphorus is the ratio for micro algae > phytoplankton.
The paper I provided a link to states that the ratio of Nitrogen to Phosphorus take up by macro algae varies considerably depending on species, as well as "various physical, chemical, and biological factors".
The variation is from 10:1 to 80:1 Nitrogen/Phosphorus

The Redfield ratio - is used for 'phytoplankton'. Its importance is that it showed that it does not vary between widely dispersed populations of phytoplankton in all of the worlds oceans. It does not imply utilization rates of nitrogen or phosphorous. In fact - Redfield proposed that the Nitrate and Phosphate levels in surrounding seawater were the way they were becasue of the organisms present - rather than the other way around. Its an interesting puzzle though.

"In 1958, almost a quarter century after first discovering the ratios, Redfield proposed that the ratio of Nitrogen to Phosphorus in plankton resulted in the global ocean having a remarkably similar ratio of dissolved nitrate to phosphate (16:1)."

Whether this means that we should try to keep our N and P at these levels in our tanks (ie. if the N is 60 to 1 should we try to reduce nitrate because it implies an imablance - or vice versa - I am not sure there is evidence - but again its interesting

 

[Oshengems]

After we add them we tend to forget that our rocks and sand also act as a filter, keep that in mind

 

[Oshengems]

This has been by far the cleanest most successful tank I’ve done from my previous 3 one bein FOWLR but I had minimal rocks and sand, on my 75g, 30g sump I have about ~120lb of LR and about 80lb of sand I run a reef octopus skimmer the sss-110 which is rated for a 90g so you could say I’m under skimming. I had to remove my cheato because it was dying and then placed my skimmer on a 12hour timer and still read 0-5 nitrates and .04-0 phosphate, and that’s with 16 fishes in my 75g currently about to start dosing nitrates since my corals we’re loling pasty

 

[beaslbob]

The fact that a water change 'limits' the build-up (in your example to 100) means that it prevents buildups doesn't it? It prevents a buildup for example to 110. Also 0 measured 'nitrates' does not mean there are no nitrates in the tank - it just means that they are being used by algae, coral, bacteria, etc quickly.

you're correct on both counts.

 

[phil bevilacqua]

As I uderstand it the Redfield ratio > 106:16:1 > carbon:nitrogen/Posphorus is the ratio for micro algae > phytoplankton.
The paper I provided a link to states that the ratio of Nitrogen to Phosphorus take up by macro algae varies considerably depending on species, as well as "various physical, chemical, and biological factors".
The variation is from 10:1 to 80:1 Nitrogen/Phosphorus

What is best macro to grow?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

What is best macro to grow?

Well a scrubber is normally self seeding, & from what I see, mostly from photos, mature growth screens have some species of Ulva on them (not lettuce ulva) but longer thin strands (not as thin as typical hair algae).
This is Ulva on my screen

Ulva is fast metabolising (fast growing) & so is very good for filtration. Fish will also eat it.

I think you have a fuge as well? If so, chaeto is good. Depending on the size of your scrubber (depending on how much you feed your tank) the fuge may not be needed. The ulva/scrubber will outcompete it also if their is not enough nutrients for both.

 

[phil bevilacqua]

That’s what it looks like in my scrubber. Not that big , And my fuge has cheato

 

[vetteguy53081]

How big a scrubber?

Under-rated ands over-rated in gallon size tank acceptable. A long as it is producing...its' doing its' job. I have one rated for 200 gal on my 360 and its performing great!

 

[Scrubber_steve]

. I have one rated for 200 gal on my 360 and its performing great!

Scrubbers should never be rated this way because tank size is meaningless. They are rated by cube equivalents ,,, of food. How much you feed a tank per day.
Organics in = inorganics out

 

[vetteguy53081]

Scrubbers should never be rated this way because tank size is meaningless. They are rated by cube equivalents ,,, of food. How much you feed a tank per day.
Organics in = inorganics out

That's why I use the one I have not to mention available space for the unit