Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[Grape Nuts]

I haven't been on this board in a while though I do still have a couple nano's running. Have been spending more time at another forum that is geared more towards larger tanks, which seems to be the way I am heading. The concensus among the big brains over there seems to be that refugiums do more harm than good and only cause a higher levels of funk, even if you trim your macros to remove bound up nutrients. I have had successfull tanks with and without fuges but it seems like everytime I start to understand the "best" way of reefing, things change. Not trying to cause a great debate, probably already been done (if so link me). Whatever works I am all for it. The last time I was active on this board it seemed like everyone was doing a fuge, or at least had a ball of chaeto. Do most people here still think that that is the best way to go? Or has the idea made it here that fuges are more of a cause than answer to cyano? I personally am more confused than ever but I think the BB, high flow, no filter(except skimmer) philosophy is starting to take hold in my brain. Anyone here used to promote fuges and now advises against them? Just wondering what the general idea is around here or if there is a global shift in fuge philoshy going on...

Thanks, Ron

[M&C]

Refugiums do work. Plants need nutrients to survive and grow, so if that ball of chaeto in your fuge is growing, then it has to be taking in some amount of nutrients from your water. I think the problem a lot of people have is that their refugiums aren't large enough to make a huge difference.

[jedimasterben]

There are many benefits of refugiums, but it has to be planned out and used properly for it to really make a dent in nutrient levels. Nutrient export is rather low unless your refugium is large, exceptionally well-lit, and trimmed often before any macroalgaes die off. One benefit that far outweighs that, though, is that it is a safe haven for copepods and other beneficial critters, and by that alone I think everyone should have one.

 

Do I think refugiums cause cyano? Absolutely not, unless it contains some sort of fancy 'miracle mud' (as in, it's a miracle if this stuff does anything) or the like that is not seeded thoroughly and consistently with microfauna that make a sandbed truly 'live', otherwise the bed will simply become a nutrient sink.

[Grape Nuts]

Refugiums do work. Plants need nutrients to survive and grow, so if that ball of chaeto in your fuge is growing, then it has to be taking in some amount of nutrients from your water. I think the problem a lot of people have is that their refugiums aren't large enough to make a huge difference.

 

You see that is exactly what I used to think. But I have read so many scientific posts to the contrary lately that I almost totally disbelieve that now. I mean it makes perfect sense, or maybe I was brainwashed, but now I just don't know.

[Veng]

Properly sized refugiums work, and work well. Under lit, under sized, and poorly designed refugiums don't.

[M&C]

You see that is exactly what I used to think. But I have read so many scientific posts to the contrary lately that I almost totally disbelieve that now. I mean it makes perfect sense, or maybe I was brainwashed, but now I just don't know.

 

Scientific posts or scientific papers? Do you have a link to any of these?

[Veng]

Properly sized refugiums work, and work well. Under lit, under sized, and poorly designed refugiums don't.

I've personally seen them drop my nitrates and keep them in check. If you've got links to credible sources attempting to dispute that, please post them.

[dangeroo2]

setting up a new 40 breeder nw, would love to see links to above mentioned scientific data

[Grape Nuts]

Back in the 90's I had a 40g fuge on a 6g display. I didn't get to run the setup for even a year but pods were thriving. I thought it was working quite well. Strange how different forums have different correct ways of doing things. If the FACTS came out one way or the other I don't think the wrong side could accept it.

[Seiryoku]

Scientific posts=RC users with 10k+ posts?

[bageezus]

Okay not to hi-jack Grapes post. So would going with the largest refugium I can fit in my stand better than going with one for the size of my aquarium? I am in the process of buying everything for a new 90G reef ready tank. Thanks.

[nanoreef-R]

I've taken care of a 400 gallon SPS tank run only on a chaeto reactor and water changes.

[ZephNYC]

My brutally honest opinion is that fuges are just an excuse to set up another little display. The best tanks I know dont use them.

[Grape Nuts]

Scientific posts=RC users with 10k+ posts?

 

Haha! Close. Why are they saying that over there too? Do a refugium search at TRT and see the repeated lectures that go on there from most all of the top posters. I am not going to did through there and look for scientific papers, I was actually trying to be sarcastic with that, but I have seen many links and threads there that have pretty much changed my mind. Basically the theme is if macros exported nutrients so well then wouldn't the macros just die off when the nutrients were depleted? Instead the macros thirve and rear more pods which put a bigger load on the system and it will eventually all come crashing down or some such...

[Amphiprion1]

Refugiums can and do work for export. Whether or not they cause problems in the long term depends on many factors, such as use of a sandbed, size, lighting, etc., most of which have been mentioned already. Personally, I think sandbeds in a refugium are a bad idea, as they don't usually get what they need for continued function. If you must have a deep sand bed for whatever reason, it is better off in the display. Another effective, but less popular (more controversial) method is an algal scrubber. That will function similarly to a refugium, but surface area, light, and export are optimized for growth/export. The footprint is typically more manageable on these, depending on the design used.

[xerophyte_nyc]

My brutally honest opinion is that fuges are just an excuse to set up another little display. The best tanks I know dont use them.

 

Not just another little display, but a fuge adds water volume to the system. That in and of itself can only help.

[Grape Nuts]

They speak the same way about algal scrubbers and cryptic zones too.

[Amphiprion1]

They speak the same way about algal scrubbers and cryptic zones too.

 

I would've figured as much, lol. I'm not as much of a proponent of cryptic zones, short of encouraging diversity, though.

[xerophyte_nyc]

Basically the theme is if macros exported nutrients so well then wouldn't the macros just die off when the nutrients were depleted? Instead the macros thirve and rear more pods which put a bigger load on the system and it will eventually all come crashing down or some such...

 

In our tanks nutrients are generally plentiful, unlike a reef. IIf you were to stop feeding fish and/ or coral, then the algae should indeed starve. Sometimes there is just not enough macroalgae in a fuge to help.

[JoeDigiorgio]

 

Haha! Close. Why are they saying that over there too? Do a refugium search at TRT and see the repeated lectures that go on there from most all of the top posters. I am not going to did through there and look for scientific papers, I was actually trying to be sarcastic with that, but I have seen many links and threads there that have pretty much changed my mind. Basically the theme is if macros exported nutrients so well then wouldn't the macros just die off when the nutrients were depleted? Instead the macros thirve and rear more pods which put a bigger load on the system and it will eventually all come crashing down or some such...

Because tanks with successful fuges usually have high bio loads already and no skimmer, so there is at least a constant supply of nutrient high enough to keep the macro alive, if not growing. Over filtered, under stocked and immature tanks are not going to feel the benefits of a refugium the way a mature well (heavily) stocked tank will. Refugia are a much more complete form of filtration than a wet dry or bag of chemical-pure.

 

And if you really believe that the micro fauna in a fuge is a high enough bio load to cause a tank crash you should go back on your meds LOL

[xerophyte_nyc]

They speak the same way about algal scrubbers and cryptic zones too.

 

Yeah, algae scrubbers don't work. It's just magic that I get to export this much every week, while feeding my reef and microfauna (supporting pods for a mandarin) like a maniac, without a skimmer, and just a little bit of Purigen and Carbon, with minimal nuisance algae:

 

 

[metrokat]

Not just another little display, but a fuge adds water volume to the system. That in and of itself can only help.

Don't mind him, he has a HUGE fuge with 3 foot mangroves.

[Grape Nuts]

I am still choosing sides but here are a few quotes from TRT:

 

"algae is not a good phosphate exporter. it can bind some, but until the algae is actually removed, the phosphates are still in the system and being transfered back and forth between the algae, and other organisms. phosphates are more of an energy source than a building material, so it is not actually bound up like people want to think. it just keeps changing forms and being swapped back and forth. the best place to get to phosphates is when it is in detritus form. it is temporarily locked up because it is not living. though you have to get to it quickly because the bacteria will quickly start breaking the detritus down to get to the phosphates for energy. it really is eye opening how we were hoodwinked for so many years."

 

"the biological filtration is all done by bacteria. the idea of using algae to do it does not work. as long as you have enough LR in your system to look good to you, you will have enough bacteria to filter the system.

the enemy in our system is phosphates. it has to be removed. creating a separate area for collecting detritus is not a bad idea at all. this area needs to be easy to get to in order to be of any use."

 

"There are only two ways to truely Export Nutrient.
One is a Skimmer, and Two is a waterchange."

 

varoius posters...

[Formula462]

Lol the problem I find with most people's sumps w/ refuge is that they are stagnant other than the pull from the pump clear across the sump, 4 baffles away. I always see a thick layer of detritus laying over the refugium's intended substrate or bare bottom. This is what I think you could refer to as "funk"

 

I honestly clean the fuge as often as the tank. When I kill the returns, I let it back siphon for a second to kick up all the shit at the bottom, then I start the siphon from the sump and suck out any large chunks of crud. I sometimes see people with a philosophy of "the dirtier the fuge the better" thinking that everything that is in the fuge is NOT in the DT...

[d0lph1n]

Before Steve Tyree from Reef farmers moved to Florida, I went to buy some cryptic rocks from him. He was running his (at least sps) tanks only with cryptic filtration and no skimmer. I thought he was crazy but awesome rocks. He tried to show me his cyptic filtration tanks and the general idea behind it. He seemed very happy with his methods.

 

Amazing Aquariums from Santa Ana doesn't run any refugium (that I know of), minimum feedings, no additives, just ESV salt. Ali's tanks look fantastic.

 

Vivid Aquariums, anothe store that I admire, runs everything by the book, it's a like a farmacy in there. They have refugiums and UV lights, filter socks and skimmers. The tanks are impressive. But I'm not sure if they run refugiums on their sps tanks. I'm sure Dave would be happy to tell you.

 

I'm curious what kind of filtration does Aquascapers have. Never been to their store but everything I purchased survived. They must be doing something right. Drop them an email and ask Colin.

 

Between all four, probably Tyree is the oldest witht the most experience, Colin the youngest but he dives a lot, Ali the most conservative and Dave sticks to his guns willing to experiment from time to time.