refugiums

[bmullikin1]

how many of you use them and have you noticed a reduction in problems red slime etc. what type hang on or in sump. thanks

[rogergolf66]

yes I love mine. I have a 55 gallon tank I modded to a refugium.

Roger

[gsellers1245]

i use a han on and a 40 gallon external source. I also have never seen red slime in my display in the full year its been setup.

[mflamb]

My refugium is 1/3 of a 125 gallon tank. This pic was taken when I first added all the algae. I harvest regularly and throw it in the tank for the Tangs.

[SoundsFishy2me2]

Absolutly. Simply adding additional water volume alone is helpful let alone the pods that grow in the macro algae and feed the tank and the reduction of nitrate plus reverse schedule lighting on the refugium helps keep PH up at night when it typically falls off the most. I made mine out of 40g long tanks & lowes cut glass with a place for filtersock(s). (see other posts regarding detailed DIY builds here from other Rc members for some great ideas.) --Darin

[tedmonds]

Best filtration there is. I've been skimmerless on my 120 softie tank for almost 6 years. I only do water changes 3-4 times a year. The only filtration on the tank is (yep you guessed it) a 10 gal fuge with chaeto and a few mangroves.

[gsellers1245]

KINDA BRAVE ON THE WC'S HUH?

[forddna]

Any other experiences with HOT refugiums??

[bmullikin1]

thanks for all the feedback, have limited room under cabinet, thinking about using 5/10 tank built slightly above the one in the sump area, anyone have any pictures of something like that. thanks

[triggerfish1976]

Originally posted by tedmonds
Best filtration there is. I've been skimmerless on my 120 softie tank for almost 6 years. I only do water changes 3-4 times a year. The only filtration on the tank is (yep you guessed it) a 10 gal fuge with chaeto and a few mangroves.

Interesting. What is your bioload?

[gwaco]

Originally posted by mflamb
My refugium is 1/3 of a 125 gallon tank. This pic was taken when I first added all the algae. I harvest regularly and throw it in the tank for the Tangs.

so let me get this right ! you ask the algae to absorb nitrate and phosphate and then throw it right back in the tank for the tangs to eat it ! seems awfully counterproductive ! just because the algae absorbs these compounds , it does not make them disappear !
i must be missing something

[gwaco]

i also don't understand why one would want their tank to be algae driven instead of bacteria driven !

[killagoby]

Could not live without one...

[triggerfish1976]

Originally posted by gwaco
so let me get this right ! you ask the algae to absorb nitrate and phosphate and then throw it right back in the tank for the tangs to eat it ! seems awfully counterproductive ! just because the algae absorbs these compounds , it does not make them disappear !
i must be missing something

I have to agree to some extent. It is similar to the theology of clean up crews. Snails eat phosphate laden algae but the snail doesn't just absorb it all so most of it goes right back into the aquarium.

I am also curious if everyone who has posted thus far has actually noticed a significant decline in their phosphates and nitrates since they started running a refugium and can actually trace it to the refugium as being the main source of nutrient removal.
I ask because I just don't see how they could make a huge difference in phosphate reduction, which I imagine is the main filtering goal since algae makes poor nitrate filters.
I have noticed that most people who run fuges normally setup either a separate tank or do a dual sump/refugium. The tank volume dedicated to the actual refugium is usually in the 10g-20g range or is typically no more than 10-20% of the total volume of the system. I have tried to find some literature on the PO4 absorption rates of macro algae but no luck yet. I can't imagine the percentage is very high if you have a decent bioload because there is only so much the algae can absorb before it becomes oversaturated.
IMOP in order to see significant phosphate reduction we would have to run a refugium close to if not equal in size to the main display. This would allow us to maintain enough algae (as long as it is pruned constantly and discarded) to use as a legitimate filter.

[mflamb]

Originally posted by triggerfish1976
I have to agree to some extent. It is similar to the theology of clean up crews. Snails eat phosphate laden algae but the snail doesn't just absorb it all so most of it goes right back into the aquarium.

I am also curious if everyone who has posted thus far has actually noticed a significant decline in their phosphates and nitrates since they started running a refugium and can actually trace it to the refugium as being the main source of nutrient removal.

The theory of clean up crews is that they eat the trash and algae not removed by other means to make things look better. Their waste is much less since MOST of what they consume is used to maintain their life and to grow. The energy they use requires fuel which is provided by the waste. As for phosphates, it is already proven and accepted in biological science that phosphate is a building block of life. If the algae needs it to grow, it consumes it. If the fish need it to grow, their bodies consume it. Part of the fish waste is always going to contain phosphates, but MUCH less than went in their mouths originally. My refugium and my cleanup crew (over 500 snails) are not what I rely on for filtration. I have a very large dual beckett skimmer, lots of rock and sand, filter socks, phosphate reactor, etc. The refugium and cleanup crew are just small parts of the picture. Reverse lighting of the fuge provides proven pH stability, helps in gas exchange (CO2/O2), and provides some natural food for the Tangs. Just part of my system.

[gwaco]

quote//.. I am also curious if everyone who has posted thus far has actually noticed a significant decline in their phosphates and nitrates since they started running a refugium and can actually trace it to the refugium as being the main source of nutrient removal

but you will see a reduction ! but it will be short term until the leaching starts ! plants and algae are constantly leaching phosphates - its just what they do ! there are no stop switches in bacteria and algae , they will continue to pull phosphates and leach phosphates , and release it all back into the system when they die .

[gwaco]

quote// IMOP in order to see significant phosphate reduction we would have to run a refugium close to if not equal in size to the main display. This would allow us to maintain enough algae (as long as it is pruned constantly and discarded) to use as a legitimate filter. >

this is not just your opinion ! its fact !

[gwaco]

Originally posted by mflamb
The theory of clean up crews is that they eat the trash and algae not removed by other means to make things look better. Their waste is much less since MOST of what they consume is used to maintain their life and to grow. The energy they use requires fuel which is provided by the waste. As for phosphates, it is already proven and accepted in biological science that phosphate is a building block of life. If the algae needs it to grow, it consumes it. If the fish need it to grow, their bodies consume it. Part of the fish waste is always going to contain phosphates, but MUCH less than went in their mouths originally. My refugium and my cleanup crew (over 500 snails) are not what I rely on for filtration. I have a very large dual beckett skimmer, lots of rock and sand, filter socks, phosphate reactor, etc. The refugium and cleanup crew are just small parts of the picture. Reverse lighting of the fuge provides proven pH stability, helps in gas exchange (CO2/O2), and provides some natural food for the Tangs. Just part of my system.

sorry but your tank sounds like a time bomb , just ticking away ! the only thing you have listed here that 'will' remove the phosphates from your system is the skimmer , everything else is just moving it around .
and yes , things need phosphate to grow , but not at the rate to which we introduce it into our tanks .
again i have to repeat - their is no stop mechanism in algae or bacteria , they do not get full and stop processing , they just leach it back !
quote // -( The theory of clean up crews is that they eat the trash and algae not removed by other means to make things look better) . that is a very poor theory !

[triggerfish1976]

I think we all can agree that in order to have an ideal reef tank we need to remove as much or more waste then we put in.
Like gwaco said, clean up crews and refugiums only move nutrients around but they still keep it in the tank.
If you don't believe this theory consider this:
A hobbyists with a 180g reef tank buys a 1" regal tang because they are led to believe that it will solve an algae problem that they have in their tank. The algae is growing like crazy because of an elevated phosphate problem. Over the course of a year the tang does a great job of keeping the algae visibily in check and the tang has grown to over 8" due to the amount of food that it has available at all times. The phosphates continue to be a problem because the tang is constantly pooping thus releasing phosphates back into the tank. The few soft corals that the hobbyist has are growing and look ok but the SPS are turning brown or have showed zero growth over the last few months.
One day the hobbyist comes home and finds the tang dead and starting to decay.
Considering that the fish is 8" and if this was your tank would you:
a. Remove it immediately and throw it away.
b. Take it out of the tank and put it in your sump to allow it to decay?
c. Leave it in the tank and allow your clean up crew to eat it?

[DaddyJax]

The thing about plants is that there is a conversion with consumption. Much like the plants that we need to produce O2 and remove CO2, the plants consume PO4 and use it for fuel and converts it. As far as the cleanup crews are concern my understanding is very similar in the since that the waste is much more broken down and easily consumed by bacteria in the rocks, macroalgae, phyto and zooplankton and removed by a skimmer. Since most of which the cleanup crews food consist of the afformentioned, it is a cycle of some sorts. The main thing to remember is that it is all converted into energy and used to build and that Phospates is the building block for all life. So as long as you have growth then you have Phosphates consumption. This is my understanding.

I have a Fuge for pod population because I believe that pods consume and use way more PO4 than the Macro itself and if you combine the two then you can do the math.

[mflamb]

Very interesting Jason, I didn't consider the pod angle.

I don't think a refugium will ever suffice as the only source of "filtration" on a reef tank with very many fish.

[WarDaddy]

I have a refugium that grows cheato like MAD. I took ball that filled a 3 gallon bucket out a week ago. That is a TON of excess nutrients that I just exported from my system that would have been suspended in the water had I not provided the space for the cheato to grow, no?

A refugium can very well be a great exporter of nutrients.

To speak to Mike's point about feeding his Tangs the algae he is growing. Is it not better to feed the tangs the algae he grows than to solely rely on Nori, which would be importing more phosphate into the system? While Mike might be moving his phosphate from the water column to the algae to the fish to the water and back to the algae again, is that cycle not better than constantly adding more phosphate in terms of prepared food from outside th tank? PLUS, there has to be a net decrease in that cycle as well. The fish is growing, so there is a net loss of phosphate in the tank as a result of that cycle.

Now he is adding phosphate in the other fish foods, but his algae cycle is doing wonders in having at leas a small reduction.

I would venture to guess that the filter sock catching diatoms and the export there has to be a good remover of phosphates as well. Time will tell, but a time bomb is not how I would describe Mike's system.

wow that was wordy...

[gwaco]

if you want to have fish , then you are correct ! we have to accept the fact that adding food ,will add phosphates to the tank , can't get around that .you want phosphates to be limited . adding any source back to the tank is not limiting .
if your growing these big cheato balls , what is that telling you ?
if you have to run a fuge loaded with cheato and run a gfo reactor , what is that telling you ?

sorry , but i don't see why everyone is so in love with water fleas ! they provide what amounts to nothing in nutritional value , don't serve any purpose in the tanks except to eat dirt , poop , and make more fleas , all which (except make more ) can be done way more efficiently with a siphon hose and a skimmer .

[plc001]

Originally posted by gwaco
[B]you want phosphates to be limited . adding any source back to the tank is not limiting....sorry , but i don't see why everyone is so in love with water fleas ! ....

Uhh, Uhh I know, I know:


Do not feed the tank, no phosphates in, no need to take out.


Now, how I am going to get all my pods out?????

[gwaco]

quote// ( I have a refugium that grows cheato like MAD. I took ball that filled a 3 gallon bucket out a week ago. That is a TON of excess nutrients that I just exported from my system that would have been suspended in the water had I not provided the space for the cheato to grow, no? )

sounds to me like a roller coaster ride of nutrient control .