Basic Refugium Maintanance Question
- Thread starter jmaxwell
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Scott it really all depends on the totals system and how you have it designed. For those that use a DSB you dont have a nutrient export system, so alot of folks have to go down the road of the other additional systems as mentioned above. I just like picking on them, 
. SO tell what your system is and maybe I can help.
MIke
. SO tell what your system is and maybe I can help.MIke
NaH2O
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 8,568
mojoreef said:a skimmer will export as good as any of the before mentioned, BUT it wont die, go sexual or have to be pruned, hehehe...sorry I will leave you folks alone I promise
MIke
GASP!! A skimmer won't die? Good thing it won't go sexual, as I wouldn't know how to care for a bunch of little skimmers......
On a side note: I did read somewhere that people are using aiptasia in fuges for animal filtration, as well.
Mike,
I'm still in the design phase of my system. I want to have an SPS tank with either BB or thin layer of CC in front of live rock. I have an IAP 150 gal(60"x24"x24")tank. It has a trapazoid center overflow. 21" of linear length. Using the overflow calculator in the forum here I estimated overflow capacity at aprox. 1400gal/hr. The tank will be lit with MH and some sort of actinic supplement. Not sure yet if VHO or PC?My question is concerning weather to have a berlin style sump with just micron bag filters and a euroreef CS8-2 skimmer? Or to add a refugium to the sump also?What are the pros and cons of having a refugium or not? I still havn't understood why many reefers are removing their dsb and yet still have a sand bed in the fuge? Enough Questions?:lol: Let me know if you need more info? Thanks Scott
I'm still in the design phase of my system. I want to have an SPS tank with either BB or thin layer of CC in front of live rock. I have an IAP 150 gal(60"x24"x24")tank. It has a trapazoid center overflow. 21" of linear length. Using the overflow calculator in the forum here I estimated overflow capacity at aprox. 1400gal/hr. The tank will be lit with MH and some sort of actinic supplement. Not sure yet if VHO or PC?My question is concerning weather to have a berlin style sump with just micron bag filters and a euroreef CS8-2 skimmer? Or to add a refugium to the sump also?What are the pros and cons of having a refugium or not? I still havn't understood why many reefers are removing their dsb and yet still have a sand bed in the fuge? Enough Questions?:lol: Let me know if you need more info? Thanks Scott
NaH2O
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 8,568
szidls - my thoughts on the BB, with DSB in fuge is this.... some want the denitrification help with the DSB, but want to be able to take the SB "off-line" so to speak. They do this in order to change out portions of the SB to try and avoid saturation or to be able to change it all at once in the event of saturation. As far as determining whether to have a refugium or not, depends on your husbandry, IMO. If you feel like you are going to have excess nutrients that will need to be exported, then a refugium may be right for you. Also, if you will be keeping animals that require pods to survive (i.e. Mandarins) then a refugium would be an asset in creating a safe haven for the pods to propagate. A refugium, as with so many things in the hobby, has many pros and cons. Understanding your systems needs as a whole can help determine whether or not a refugium is right for you.
Last edited:
Nikki is right on with the dsb in the refugium thing, although it still does spew phosphates. The original concept of a refugium was for a place with out preditors. It has some how evolved from that.
If you are wanting a pure sps type system IMHO a refugium as they are set up and run today is not worth it what so ever. Macro algae scrubbers, dsb's remote dsb's and so on are basically crutches for system that are not designed to remove the detritus prior to rotting. what ends up happening is folks usually build a house of cards, one system dependant on the other, finally building up to a system that exports to a point. but we all know what happens to a house of cards if one of the cards falls out....hmmmm that may have been a bit strong
Anyway Scott I would suggest designing your system to simply remove the detritus, then all this other stuff doesnt pertain.
Mike
If you are wanting a pure sps type system IMHO a refugium as they are set up and run today is not worth it what so ever. Macro algae scrubbers, dsb's remote dsb's and so on are basically crutches for system that are not designed to remove the detritus prior to rotting. what ends up happening is folks usually build a house of cards, one system dependant on the other, finally building up to a system that exports to a point. but we all know what happens to a house of cards if one of the cards falls out....hmmmm that may have been a bit strong
Anyway Scott I would suggest designing your system to simply remove the detritus, then all this other stuff doesnt pertain.
Mike
Eryl Flynn
New member
I disagree on feeding the macro to the tank. As long as you are using it to replace a regualar feeding all you are doing is recycling. Your 2 scenarios are removing nutrients in macro form, and adding back in food, or removing in form of macro, and feeding it back as food.
The idea is that we are always adding nutrients, and we want to pick up the spare nutrients the fish, and other inhabitants can't or won't be using and either remove them or change them to a form that can be used.
Of course this all depends on what kind of macro you are using, any that fish won't readily eat should not be put into the tank after pruning.
The idea is that we are always adding nutrients, and we want to pick up the spare nutrients the fish, and other inhabitants can't or won't be using and either remove them or change them to a form that can be used.
Of course this all depends on what kind of macro you are using, any that fish won't readily eat should not be put into the tank after pruning.
Hiya Eryl and welcome to the board. on the feeding of the macros back to the tank, thier was a article written on a study of that. I will try to find it. Something about the toxic. Eryl idnt dont know about the viableness of that. you go through all the trouble of growing the macro to absorb the excess nutrients and then take the stuff and feed it back to the tank, if a fish gets it and eats it, thier only going to retain 10% of what they eat, so that puts 90% of the nutrients back in the cycle again. If you remove it with out re feeding it your getting a possitive export. thier has to be a point where the constant putting stuff back into cycle is going to reach critical mass sooner or later?
what do you think?
Mike
what do you think?
Mike
Solov
Ez reefer
I have a question Mike about your point of removing detritus before it rots...
HOW?
Because it seems to me that the amounts and granulation of food we use is quite beyond being effectively managable at feeding time, therefore there will always be leftovers. And if there's a system that allows effectively remove it prior to rotting I'd Love to know about it.
HOW?
Because it seems to me that the amounts and granulation of food we use is quite beyond being effectively managable at feeding time, therefore there will always be leftovers. And if there's a system that allows effectively remove it prior to rotting I'd Love to know about it.
NaH2O
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 8,568
Solov, I believe by using adequate circulation and flow paths in the tank itself will keep the detritus suspended in the water column to be removed by the skimmer, filter socks, etc. IMO, water changes would also be a good time to take a power head, blast off the accumulation on the rock and any areas on the bottom that collects it. This would also help to move the detritus into the water. Hope this makes sense.
Solov the priciple is pretty much as Nikki discribe it. a well designed flow system will keep the vast majority of the detritus/waste in the water column (and available to those that eat it) but you will always have a small amount that will build up some where in the tank. For those areas I simply syphon vac it out. You have to keep in concideration we have LR in our tank also which will act as a denitrifier to, also critters such as those that are not conducive to DSB type system can be used to. Lots of different ways
Mike
Mike
Solov
Ez reefer
I see. So nothing "magical" :lol: (Well carefully designed flow is a kind of magic ).
But would it work for anything except bare bottom tanks? I used to have crushed coral and in a way it's even worse than sand, (because it tends to hold more food between coral pieces).
And about bare bottom ones - how do mandarins, crabs, hermits etc. feel about it? Don't they need at least some substrate?
Also is there anything particularly bad in sand beds to your opinion other than potential of accumulating phosphates?
P.S. The reason I'm asking, is because even though I have (not so deep) sand bed right now, eventually I plan to start new bigger tank, so I'm collecting opinions and facts
).But would it work for anything except bare bottom tanks? I used to have crushed coral and in a way it's even worse than sand, (because it tends to hold more food between coral pieces).
And about bare bottom ones - how do mandarins, crabs, hermits etc. feel about it? Don't they need at least some substrate?
Also is there anything particularly bad in sand beds to your opinion other than potential of accumulating phosphates?
P.S. The reason I'm asking, is because even though I have (not so deep) sand bed right now, eventually I plan to start new bigger tank, so I'm collecting opinions and facts
fishermann
Well-known member
I have lots of hermits, brittle stars and snails and a mandarin in my bare bottom tanks and have never had any problems, They seem happy feeding off of the live rock and seem to feed off the bottom empty clam shells and such. There are plenty of bugs growing in the live rock, you don;t need a dsb for mthat purpose. The mandarin well do fine if you have nothing that well out compete it for food like small wasses or such
Solov not really. With a finer sand you get the same ammount fo detritus stuck in thier it is usually just been processed into finer peices due to smaller critter doing it. The whole concept my friend is to simple remove the detritus/waste/excess food prior to allowing it to rot. It does not matter if your tank is BB, or CC or thin bed. with a BB you can be more effective with flow (makes life a little easier) with CC you can still achieve some decent flow but as you said it will trap some.....so just set up a maintence schedule to syphon it out once a month or so. With a finer sand but shallow you cant have as much flow so a little more maintence is required. But the basic premise is the same.
with manderins are you taliking about pods??? if so pods are a critter that actualy perfers rocky surfaces to the sand, I know I have billions, lol On crabs and hermits, same deal they will go where the food source is. WIth sand beds most of the algae and so on the happen in the tank is thier.
Phosphates are just the one that usually gets to reefers. constant algae battles really suck. On the dsb basically every thing that enters it (with the exception of some nitrogen based products) say in the bed and begins to cycle, so in effect it is a sink for all these other products. With the constant addition of all these elements and the fact that it stays in the bed it begins to fill, the filling will eventually reduce the areobic zone and the bed will stop nitrification.
MIke
Electrobes
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 21
I much perfer spaghetti algae... as of now I have both suction-cup culerpa and spaghetti algae. I have been trying to make the spaghetti algae grow, hopefully it will eventually take over the entire refugium, so I can just get rid of the suction cup culerpa alltogether. I also have live sand in my refugium, and some base rock, plus I am running the 24/7 photoperiod to prevent the culerpa from going sexual. Once the spaghetti takes over I will revert to reverse photoperiods (12 hrs)... mainly because I think it will be easier for the lifeforms in the refugium (ie. pods, hermits, etc). Here is a pic of what I have now...
plumber_bob
Well-known member
I've noticed with the New T-5 bulbs that caulerpa is thriving like crazy... We just switched one of our little refugiums at Saltwater City to T-5 bulbs and it is thriving like crazy.... it is actually unbeliveable how well it is doing.
Here is something that may help you folks in making a choice.
In order to make a meaningful comparison, we need some standardized measure of growth, however, because a "stalk" of one alga and another may be quite different. The most common measure is "specific growth rate" in which the growth is measured in mg per gram of algal body weight per day, or percentage increase. So, to compare the specific growth rates of some of the more common species that I can find data for, the maximum growth rates appear to be something like this:
Halimeda: ~2% / day (10-20 mg/g/d)
Dictyota: ~ 10% (50-100 mg/g/d)
Padina: ~ 10% (75-100 mg/g/d)
Caulerpa: ~ 10% (50-100 mg/g/d)
Thalassia: ~1.5% (10-15 mg/g/d)
Palmaria: ~15% (doubled in 1 week)
Enteromorpha: 20% (7 fold increase in 1 month)
Gracilaria: 6-10% / day
However, if you want to maximize the nutrient export, the clear winner in field experiments is the cyanobacteria Lyngbya, which grows at a rate of roughly 5 times that of any of the common macroalgae in the trade, and adds an average of about 35% (300-400 mg/g/d) of it's weight per day! But it would be a pain to remove and looks like hell....
So, obviously there is a bit of a trade-off that we have to take into account when we talk about nutrient export. We want something that grows fairly quickly to remove nutrients, but also you want something that is easily controlled, harvested, and doesn't make your tank look like a cesspool. The other consideration is that most of the common algae on the reef (e.g., Dictyota, Padina, Caulerpa) are often highly chemically defended (otherwise they are eaten by herbivorous fishes), and most people seemt to be trying to avoid such species in their tanks. So you have to balance the specific growth rate against the suite of secondary chemicals which these species release and the ability to harvest them for nutrient export. So, taking all of this into account (growth, ease of removal, chemical defenses, probability of overgrowth, appearance, etc.), my favorite choices for macroalgae in my own tanks is typically Halimeda or Ochtodes if included in the main display tank, and Enteromorpha, or Graciliaria, if included in a refugium or a sump....
mike
In order to make a meaningful comparison, we need some standardized measure of growth, however, because a "stalk" of one alga and another may be quite different. The most common measure is "specific growth rate" in which the growth is measured in mg per gram of algal body weight per day, or percentage increase. So, to compare the specific growth rates of some of the more common species that I can find data for, the maximum growth rates appear to be something like this:
Halimeda: ~2% / day (10-20 mg/g/d)
Dictyota: ~ 10% (50-100 mg/g/d)
Padina: ~ 10% (75-100 mg/g/d)
Caulerpa: ~ 10% (50-100 mg/g/d)
Thalassia: ~1.5% (10-15 mg/g/d)
Palmaria: ~15% (doubled in 1 week)
Enteromorpha: 20% (7 fold increase in 1 month)
Gracilaria: 6-10% / day
However, if you want to maximize the nutrient export, the clear winner in field experiments is the cyanobacteria Lyngbya, which grows at a rate of roughly 5 times that of any of the common macroalgae in the trade, and adds an average of about 35% (300-400 mg/g/d) of it's weight per day! But it would be a pain to remove and looks like hell....
So, obviously there is a bit of a trade-off that we have to take into account when we talk about nutrient export. We want something that grows fairly quickly to remove nutrients, but also you want something that is easily controlled, harvested, and doesn't make your tank look like a cesspool. The other consideration is that most of the common algae on the reef (e.g., Dictyota, Padina, Caulerpa) are often highly chemically defended (otherwise they are eaten by herbivorous fishes), and most people seemt to be trying to avoid such species in their tanks. So you have to balance the specific growth rate against the suite of secondary chemicals which these species release and the ability to harvest them for nutrient export. So, taking all of this into account (growth, ease of removal, chemical defenses, probability of overgrowth, appearance, etc.), my favorite choices for macroalgae in my own tanks is typically Halimeda or Ochtodes if included in the main display tank, and Enteromorpha, or Graciliaria, if included in a refugium or a sump....
mike
sharkbaitx2
Active member
I've REALLY enjoyed reading these three pages (for the second time) and I'm thrilled to be learning about toxins, DSBs. harvesting and their role with the growth of Caulerpa. I'm new to this "game" with a 55 gal. glass, 10 gal sump with live rock and "fuge". All of which is still cycling. The one thing that still throws me though is the lighting factor. Over the fuge is a compact flourescent(sp) which I believe is 18w. 90% of what I read states - run the lights at 24/7- period. Except now Kent Marines book (for DI/RO) states "Never, Never, Never, Never" run the lights 24/7. thats right - 4 times. I've learned to accept the variance of opinion among reefkeepers but these are in direct contradiction to each other. Or - is my own brain turning to Caulerpa and it all depends on: amount of light, thickness of the algae, type grown, when its harvested, metal scissors, rinsed - AND whatever works for me?? Facts or opinions would be greatly appreciated even though my wife won't agree with you either.
Similar threads
