Nutrient Pressure
Bioload relative to effective system volume. Not a water-quality reading — a structural estimate of how hard your filtration is working.
Fish — 19.0🐡 Ocellaris Clownfish ×2 (2.0×2)
🐟 Royal Gramma (2.0)
🐟 Tailspot Blenny (1.5)
🐟 Firefish Goby ×2 (1.5×2)
🐟 Yellow Tang (4.0)
🐟 Six Line Wrasse (2.5)
🐟 Orchid Dottyback (2.0)
Coral & Inverts — -1.2🪸 Torch Coral (0.0)
🪸 Hammer Coral (0.0)
🪸 Acropora SPS (-0.2)
🪸 Duncan Coral (0.0)
🦐 Skunk Cleaner Shrimp ×2 (0.2×2)
🐚 Turbo Snail ×3 (-0.2×3)
🦀 Blue Leg Hermit Crab ×8 (-0.1×8)
Total bioload score: 17.8
Skimmer: 200 gal rated → 120 gal effective (60% real-world factor)
Estimate only — does not account for live rock, DSB, carbon dosing, water change frequency, or coral uptake.
Formula: score = (total bioload ÷ effective volume) × 150, capped at 100
Bioload scores are per-animal estimates of relative nutrient output. Fish are the primary drivers. Corals and inverts contribute a smaller fraction. Each animal's score is multiplied by its quantity.
Effective volume = display tank + sump + refugium (if configured in Settings → Tank Setup). A larger total volume dilutes bioload and lowers the score.
Skimmer and refugium data is shown in the breakdown above for reference but does not currently modify the score — the score is pure stocking density. This keeps it honest: filtration helps, but can't compensate for being genuinely overstocked.
- Live rock and DSB biological filtration capacity
- Water change frequency and volume
- Carbon dosing (vodka, vinegar, NoPox, etc.)
- Coral nutrient uptake (SPS tanks can run higher bioload)
- Feeding volume and food type
- Flow rate and skimmer real-world performance
Use this as a structural gut-check, not a substitute for regular water testing. Your actual nitrate and phosphate readings are the ground truth.
thanks — we read every one