up to 40% of the phosphates taken in by algae is released back into the water column as organic phosphates. not inorganic anymore, but still phosphates none the less.
The stronger the light on algae, the more it grows and uses P for that growth, and the less is released as vitamin C, amino acids, etc. However, the vitamin C, amino acids etc that are released by the algae are vitamin C and amino acids that you don't have to buy and dose. This is, btw, where these things come from in the ocean... algae.
if there is an ever increasing mass of algae, then there must be an ever increasing mass of food for the organisms
No, the opposite. As algal growth increases, the remaining food supply decreased, provided the P input to the system is level.
where is the inorganic phosphates coming from to feed the Chaeto
From the food that is put into that tank that is not bio-assimilated.
feed the organisms we bought, then remove their waste products before they have a chance to be broken down by bacteria into inorganic phosphates and nitrates to feed the algae.
I prefer to stir up the solid waste products (can't really stir up the liquids) and feed them back to the corals and small fish.
until the algae dies, because its source of food is gone
In a non-self-shaded enviroment, non-fed algae will not die and dissolve into nothing. Instead it will reach a steady state thickness, where minute bacteria or pod consumption equals minute algal growth.
why not just remove the poo before it decomposes
Yes, send it to the corals and small fishes.
i am one that believes the more bio-diversity in a system the less stability. the more populations needing balanced nutrient imports the greater the chance of one of those populations crashing and causing a sudden influx of their bound nutrients to the system.
The greater-biodiversity = greater stability concept comes about because organisms do the opposite of what you just described. When one organism has trouble because of an environment alteration, the other organisms adjust their nutrient status to offset (which they can do because their requirements are different). If there were only one total species, the environment alteration would eradicate it.
Any waste products that are not used locally are simply diluted and carried away by the constant influx and outflow of oceanic water.
You'd be surprised, that the majority of nutrients (sometimes 100%) on a reef are not washed out; they are recycled within the reef... sometime within a few meters, by other organisms (usually a mixture of phyto, and benthic algae). A google of "reef nutrient recycling" is always a good read.
I found that feeding a lot of food and waiting for it to rot and then getting rid of the byproducts left me with corals that were just as healthy as in my previously leaner system.
This is similar to the surprise that many reefers get when they learn that not only do acro's and other hard corals grow extremely well in dark lagoons, but also, the nutrients in the lagoons are usually lower (and the particle food supply, higher) than on the reef itself. This is of course due to the larger quantity of algal biomass in the lagoons.
Algae may be inefficient but it works
Why inefficient? You dont' have to buy and add additional quantities of vitamin C, aminos, etc, that you otherwise skimmed out. And you don't have to have P or N removers. And you usually don't have to clean your glass as much
In running a small Nano tank for five years, in contrast to my much larger previous systems, it became very apparent that a reduced bio-diversity was not at all detrimental to the system as I had always read from many of the 'experts'.
Most of the diversity comes from the microbes, not the corals. You may have had only 10 species of corals instead of 50, and only 5 fish instead of 25, but both systems probably has 25,000 species of sub-visible things.
On the contrary, in a small system where every death has a lot more influence on the system's health, a reduced sub-set of creatures has proven to be very stable and resilient.
I think what you mean here is not diversity, but "quantity". True, less quantity of biomass in a small system, would be more stable.
What I see as the biggest problem, especially for new reefers, is developing an understanding that a system that continuously increases in eutrophication will at some point collapse
Yes, but equal in importance is understanding that by just increasing the export, there will be no such collapse.
There comes a point where the nutrients are just too high and the system 'crashes' as the organisms within die in a chain reaction effect.
Yes, because there was not enough export.
It has long been known that a 'mature' system is best for sensitive species. 'Stability' in this sense is largely due to robust and stable bacterial populations that develop
And don't forget the periphyton; it's the reason that the rocks are no longer white, and it does an awful lot of photosynthesizing (nutrient removal).
would be nice to know roughly how much--10%? 70%? of the food we add will be used by organisms without adding to their mass
That number would be 90%. In other words it's very accepted that an organism only assimilates 10% of what in taken in. This is the basis of the oceans and lakes being 90% algal biomass (besides bacteria). "Aquatic trophic pyramid" searches will show some nice diagrams of this.
i know of several people that are incorporating the conical settling tanks right now. i am also working on a desktop small system that will incorporate a conical settling tank.
This would be useful in a predator tank, and I've seen patent applications that describe them. But for reefs, I say, stir up the food particles and let them do more feeding until they are used up.
i am curious to know how you think an ATS is different than a conical settling tank? they both trap detritus.
Algae traps very little. Chaeto probably the most, because it's thick and wirey, and because it usually does not tumble or get enough flow. But a waterfall or upflow, with it's mostly linear GHA, traps almost nothing compared to what settles at the tank bottom.
)
