High nitrate and phosphate but no visible algae growth

[Levinson]

Echoing what Randy said. High nutrients equals algae is an old myth that has been disproven numerous times.

Excess algae comes from lack of predation/herbivores. It’s that simple.

ATS does not keep algae from growing somewhere else. The same conditions are present in both the display and the ATS minus one. The water is all the same and ATS lights aren’t magical. I’ve witnessed hair algae explode under only ATI Blue Plus bulbs many times. It’s not the magical spectrum growing hair algae better in the ATS. Why it grows better in the ATS is simply because of rule number one above: lack of predation.
Now for those getting their panties in a wad, I’m not dissing ATS. I’ve ran them many times over the years and really enjoy them. They are a great tool for the right job. They aren’t magical though. You can have the same results with or without one.

I could be wrong but I'm not so sure if lack of predation is the only cause, at least in my case. I think something else might also be at play though I don't know what.
I have 3 snails, 2 urchins, 2 emerald crabs, many sexy and peppermint shrimps in the tank. The urchins I know I have to feed because I tried not feeding them before and they started to lose there spikes which came back after I started feeding them again. I always find them on the same spot regardless of the time (which is weird, they've been like this over 8 months).
I feel like the rest of the animals won't be enough to cover the entire tank to keep algae from growing anywhere. I had algae infestation several months back that went away on its own and the livestock in the tank was mostly the same before, during and after the algae outbreak.

 

[rtparty]

I could be wrong but I'm not so sure if lack of predation is the only cause, at least in my case. I think something else might also be at play though I don't know what.
I have 3 snails, 2 urchins, 2 emerald crabs, many sexy and peppermint shrimps in the tank. The urchins I know I have to feed because I tried not feeding them before and they started to lose there spikes which came back after I started feeding them again. I always find them on the same spot regardless of the time (which is weird, they've been like this over 8 months).
I feel like the rest of the animals won't be enough to cover the entire tank to keep algae from growing anywhere. I had algae infestation several months back that went away on its own and the livestock in the tank was mostly the same before, during and after the algae outbreak.

Urchins, pods, other micro fauna all much on algae.

No one was dosing iron and manganese 20 years ago and we saw rampant hair algae.

There are many layers to a successful system.

 

[RSNJReef]

Interesting! I wonder what is limiting the algae growth in my tank.

My tank is going on 4-5 years as well and have very limited algae growth, haven’t even scraped my front glass in months and the clarity is just fine.

I believe a lot of it has to do with the cleanup crew you have as well as the biome being established. Bacteria play a big role in the consumption of unwanted things, and copepods/amphipods play as a part of the cuc food chain as well. If your tank looks good and there aren’t any visible problems, don’t rush things too much. I agree with lowering your nitrates and phosphate, but don’t do it too quickly because you might destabilize something. Go slow.

 

[Levinson]

My tank is going on 4-5 years as well and have very limited algae growth, haven’t even scraped my front glass in months and the clarity is just fine.

I believe a lot of it has to do with the cleanup crew you have as well as the biome being established. Bacteria play a big role in the consumption of unwanted things, and copepods/amphipods play as a part of the cuc food chain as well. If your tank looks good and there aren’t any visible problems, don’t rush things too much. I agree with lowering your nitrates and phosphate, but don’t do it too quickly because you might destabilize something. Go slow.

Yes, I'm in no rush, since the livestock are doing fine. I said I'm worried about phosphate because I don't want to use gfo or Sodium Lanthanum which means ATS is the only means of lowering it and I need to feed heavy. I suppose I can carbon dose too (and also dose nitrate if it bottoms out).

 

[Levinson]

I tested the water today. No3 is now at somewhere between 25~50ppm (from over 50ppm), and Po4 is still at 2~3ppm.
With Po4 at 2~3ppm, I'd imagine my rocks would have a ton of Po4 bound in them by now. Even when I remove Po4 from the water, the rocks will just leach it back into the water.
I did't want to use GFO because I have many sponges and I don't want to rid the water of silicates (GFO also binds silicates and apparently this uses up its capacity to bind phosphate.
I did't want to use Lanthanum chloride because I heard horror stories about it killing livestock for some people (while many had no issues using it).
But dang I might have to consider using Lanthanum, drops into a 1micron filter sock before skimmer or something.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Interesting! I wonder what is limiting the algae growth in my tank.

Most likely iron is limiting algae growth in your tank. GFO might have just the opposite effect than it is meant to have. GFO most likely will supply some iron and algae may start to grow when using it.

If not, nitrate may be the cause why iron from GFO is staying completely unavailable. Hard to say because at least bacteria have ways to make Fe(III) available with chelators. It would be an interesting experiment but I am not sure if you want to do it. If you do please report about the results.

Regarding the trace elements the reverse is also true. If you would have dosed trace elements it would be very unlikely you would have got such high major nutrient concentrations. Most likely the major nutrients would have been transformed into some kind of growth.

 

[Levinson]

Most likely iron is limiting algae growth in your tank. GFO might have just the opposite effect than it is meant to have. GFO most likely will supply some iron and algae may start to grow when using it.

If not, nitrate may be the cause why iron from GFO is staying completely unavailable. Hard to say because at least bacteria have ways to make Fe(III) available with chelators. It would be an interesting experiment but I am not sure if you want to do it. If you do please report about the results.

Regarding the trace elements the reverse is also true. If you would have dosed trace elements it would be very unlikely you would have got such high major nutrient concentrations. Most likely the major nutrients would have been transformed into some kind of growth.

If iron or other trace elements were the limiting factor, I wonder why algae is growing fine in the ATS?
Also, even after double the water volume, which I think should have replenished some trace elements, still no algae in the display tank.
I've never used before GFO btw.

I don't mind algae infestation that much. Sure a healthy tank with little algae, low nutrients, reasonable trace elements and all that is preferred but it's not like algae infestation is going to kill anything in my tank.
Heck, it would actually make the phosphate removal easier as I can pull the algae out.

 

[Hans-Werner]

If iron or other trace elements were the limiting factor, I wonder why algae is growing fine in the ATS?
Also, even after double the water volume, which I think should have replenished some trace elements, still no algae in the display tank.

Maybe precipitates. It is not uncommon that in different tanks in the same water circulation system conditions and for example cyanobacterial growth differ.

Of course algae eaters also may play a role as was previously mentioned. However, for cyanobacteria this would almost be excluded.

 

[Garf]

If iron or other trace elements were the limiting factor, I wonder why algae is growing fine in the ATS?
Also, even after double the water volume, which I think should have replenished some trace elements, still no algae in the display tank.
I've never used before GFO btw.

I don't mind algae infestation that much. Sure a healthy tank with little algae, low nutrients, reasonable trace elements and all that is preferred but it's not like algae infestation is going to kill anything in my tank.
Heck, it would actually make the phosphate removal easier as I can pull the algae out.

What sort of ATS have you got? I'm imagining one of those tiny refugium things with you mentioning Ulva. Ulva is very watery and to get a real sense of how many nutrients it's actually removing, you could dry it out and create "Nori equivalents".

 

[Levinson]

What sort of ATS have you got? I'm imagining one of those tiny refugium things with you mentioning Ulva. Ulva is very watery and to get a real sense of how many nutrients it's actually removing, you could dry it out and create "Nori equivalents".

I've got a diy river style ATS.
It's a picture from 4 years ago and it's changed a little but the design is pretty much the same. I've also made a water fall style ATS before (for a different tank) which also grew ulva at the time.
I feed the ulva I grow to the urchins.

 

[Garf]

I've got a diy river style ATS.
It's a picture from 4 years ago and it's changed a little but the design is pretty much the same. I've also made a water fall style ATS before (for a different tank) which also grew ulva at the time.
I feed the ulva I grow to the urchins.

So, you're not exporting anything really? I see what you mean about the rocks. They do look a bit white, lol.

 

[Levinson]

So, you're not exporting anything really? I see what you mean about the rocks. They do look a bit white, lol.

I export the algae, I only need less than 5% of what I grow to feed the urchins. I throw out the rest The photo is from 2020.

 

[Levinson]

I dosed some Chaetogro and increased the display tank light intensity today just to see if it would make a difference.

 

[Garf]

The photo is from 2020.

How about a more recent one?

Edit - your build thread seems to be a little outdated. Updating that would be nice.

 

[Levinson]

How about a more recent one?

Edit - your build thread seems to be a little outdated. Updating that would be nice.

Yeah that old build thread is not the same tank (the livestock, water, some of the rocks and etc moved to my current tank).

The ATS and the rocks now.

 

[Garf]

Yeah that old build thread is not the same tank (the livestock, water, some of the rocks and etc moved to my current tank).

The ATS and the rocks now.

Normally, if stuff is growing at the top (seems to be), not the bottom, I'd blame the light. How much power does the light pump out at 100%? 15 or 30 watt? I certainly don't think the scrubber has much relevance, except it's growing algae with higher light levels.

 

[Levinson]

Normally, if stuff is growing at the top (seems to be), not the bottom, I'd blame the light. How much power does the light pump out at 100%? 15 or 30 watt? I certainly don't think the scrubber has much relevance, except it's growing algae with higher light levels.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.
What do you mean by blame the light? You don't think the scrubber has much relevance to what?
Do you mean to say the reason I have no algae growth in the display tank but only in the ATS despite the high nutrient level is because of the ATS light? Or the ATS has not much relevance to the fact I have no algae growth in the display tank?

Just in case you misunderstood, the initial question was not about why nutrients were so high or why the filteration couldn't keep up. That's because I increased the feeding by a lot over past several months.
The question was more about the reason for algae not growing in the display tank but only growing in the ATS even with the high level of nutrient which had been answered by several folks here. Though I can't say I fully understand in detail.

 

[Garf]

You don't think the scrubber has much relevance to what?

The lack of growth in the display.

Do you mean to say the reason I have no algae growth in the display tank but only in the ATS despite the high nutrient level is because of the ATS light

It looks as though stuff is growing at the top of your display, nearest the light.

I have no algae growth in the display tank?

Perhaps its an optical illusion that the rocks at the top look to have turf growing, if so you can disregard my comment.

The question was more about the reason for algae not growing in the display tank but only growing in the ATS even with the high level of nutrient which had been answered by several folks here

My guess is low light in the display, unless I'm seeing things on the rocks that aren't there. How much light is going into the display? wattage will do for me, as a very rough guide.

 

[Levinson]

My guess is low light in the display, unless I'm seeing things on the rocks that aren't there. How much light is going into the display? wattage will do for me, as a very rough guide.

Could be. It was 30% of 36w before today so about 10.8w. I don't have anything that needs light to live in the tank, including the anemones so I don't have it on very bright.
But what's interesting is, back when I had algae growing everywhere, the light was at about 5.4w (I turned it down even lower afterwards) and it looked like the photo below.
Sorry when I said "no algae" what I meant to say was the kind of algae in the photo and not the microscopic kind that look like stains on the rock.

 

[Garf]

Could be. It was 30% of 36w before today so about 10.8w. I don't have anything that needs light to live in the tank, including the anemones so I don't have it on very bright.
But what's interesting is, back when I had algae growing everywhere, the light was at about 5.4w (I turned it down even lower afterwards) and it looked like the photo below.
Sorry when I said "no algae" what I meant to say was the kind of algae in the photo and not the microscopic kind that look like stains on the rock.

I'll stick with low light, for now