Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[brandon429]

the plant matter binding the po4 has it out of solution, it is not xferred back and forth until death and recycling.

 

 

same thing was said earlier about using mangroves, that they have to be pruned to be exported.

 

sure, if you are talking about exporting leaves out of the air to some other place in the air but not connected to the original plant. as soon as nitrogen and phosphate are converted into the usable forms of plant matrix building blocks they are exported from the water table and are considered biologically fixed. you do not have to prune

 

but we tend to run low on free real estate, so we prune, like the ats pic above, and in the case of many plants pruning actually causes growth and may cause a faster uptake, but no you dont have to remove leaves to keep phosphate out of the water unless you plan on leaving those leaves to degrade back into the tank.

 

this question about refugiums is exactly the same as all reef tank comparison methods. in my mind if you arent feeding twenty times the normal amount your reef needs with 100% water changes weekly then your tank wont las long :} of course thats bias we all have it and get caught leaking that assumption sometimes. when sitting back and pondering the real state of reefkeeping as a whole many methods are successful there is no winner. any tank that supports and produces coral biomass is legit, thats what it comes down to.

[xerophyte_nyc]

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...

 

Before I started using an algae scrubber I may have believed the above to be true. If algae is such a poor exporter, then what is consuming all the phosphates in my tank? I don't have a skimmer, and I don't use phosphate removing media. I do a 20-25% water change every 3 weeks. Is it all the pods? It's not the sandbed. I guess the UCLA Dept. of Agriculture has no idea what they're talking about when they recommend phosphate as one of the big 3 nutrients necessary for supporting photosynthesis and plant [algae] growth.

[Psychosis]

The original intended purpose for a Refugium wasn't nutrient export, it was literally to provide a refuge for microfauna. That's it. If you have a large, active, and well trimmed refugium (think at least 1/3 larger than the DT) and you run your system dirty, it'll work like a charm if you're constantly maintaining it. The real benefit is stated above, with the added bonus that a display refugium can look awesome if any thought at all is given to it.

 

That being said, I don't think a refugium that is maintained at all can actually be a detriment to the system. As stated, when nutrients are available, the algae grows, when they're depleted, they stop. Simply avoid macro's that feel sexy, get the ones with low self esteem. A refugium on a tank with reactors, skimmers, etc. will probably just sit there as it was originally intended, crankin' out pod's and all other sorts of beneficial life for food.

 

This is strictly my opinion, but I feel it's based in reality. YMMV.

[xerophyte_nyc]

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

 

And a healthy cycad collection that could make a SoCal-ifornian jealous

[Amphiprion1]

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...

The first part is by someone with enough knowledge of biology to be dangerous. Yes, there is excretion of phosphorus by algae in various mechanisms. Under appropriate conditions (i.e. light, water, etc.) there is still a net uptake (as opposed to excretion) of these comounds. It is also assimilated in many other forms that are longer lived than just energy molecules, such as DNA, RNA, phospholipids, phosphoproteins, etc. Lots of things, essentially. It is one of the most abundant anions in just about any cell, so there is often a significant uptake of it, even in animals (in food).

 

The second one, yes and no. Bacteria are obviously everywhere and extremely efficient. Given the right circumstances, they alone are more than sufficient. In fact, if everyone stocked carefully in relation to their tank size, surface area and volume, bacteria would easily keep up with everything. Plenty of people have done this. When that doesn't exactly work out (most people want more "stuff" in their systems, which often necessitates the need for extra filtration), algae are yet another step in assimilating both phosphorus and nitrogen. Uptake by algae can be significant and like bacteria, I see no reason not to take advantage of it.

 

Third one--okay. Most people do this in some form or another if they have a bare-bottomed sump/refugium. It will eventually reach some sort of equilibrium, though, with something consuming it as it is deposited. Whether or not the effects of that equilibrium are nice to the aesthetics of your tank is variable.

 

Last one--no, just no. Neither of those have proven to be efficient long term controls. Large water changes and ridiculous skimmers can be effective, but there are simply more efficient ways of getting it done. The major instance I can see a skimmer being even reasonably efficient is if one is carbon dosing (or using something like lanthanum chloride).

[Psychosis]

Can we get this guy a crown?

 

All hail.

[patback]

Op came specifically to troll. Our refugiums are exponential nally larger compared to our total volume than those "scientists" with 300 gallon tanks and a 40 breeder sectioned off for a sump. Just another rc user that wants to put down people who can sustain life in a small system and tell them they are wrong. Believe what we have recorded over here, or believe you Internet buddies opinion.

[JPF]

I place macro in a fuge. I illuminate the fuge. The macro in the fuge grows fairly rapidly. What did the macro use to grow?

[jedimasterben]

Algae definitely doesn't use nutrients. Nope. Algae scrubbers can't work. This definitely isn't growth you're seeing.

 

 

 

 

[--chris--]

Why choose a side?

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

 

Fuge's have there place. They dont fit everyones regimine, and they dont always work when setup poorly. I dont think everyone should use one, nor do i think they are useless. Nothing is ever black and white.

[Grape Nuts]

Op came specifically to troll. Our refugiums are exponential nally larger compared to our total volume than those "scientists" with 300 gallon tanks and a 40 breeder sectioned off for a sump. Just another rc user that wants to put down people who can sustain life in a small system and tell them they are wrong. Believe what we have recorded over here, or believe you Internet buddies opinion.

 

Why resort to name calling? Do you call everyone a troll that asks a question that you don't agree with? I have nano's and have had fuges. My largest tank is 28g. I don't want to argue with you but I like hearing both sides. I have no allegiance to TRT or NR. But it should be noted that nobody called me a troll at TRT when I questioned thier no-fuge philosophy.

[Deckoz2302]

The original intended purpose for a Refugium wasn't nutrient export, it was literally to provide a refuge for microfauna. That's it. If you have a large, active, and well trimmed refugium (think at least 1/3 larger than the DT) and you run your system dirty, it'll work like a charm if you're constantly maintaining it. The real benefit is stated above, with the added bonus that a display refugium can look awesome if any thought at all is given to it.

 

That being said, I don't think a refugium that is maintained at all can actually be a detriment to the system. As stated, when nutrients are available, the algae grows, when they're depleted, they stop. Simply avoid macro's that feel sexy, get the ones with low self esteem. A refugium on a tank with reactors, skimmers, etc. will probably just sit there as it was originally intended, crankin' out pod's and all other sorts of beneficial life for food.

 

This is strictly my opinion, but I feel it's based in reality. YMMV.

 

This. I run two reactors a gravity and sump fuge and skimmer. The skimmer and reactors do most of the work. But still I trim my cheato to baseball size and a month later I have a basketball and a half. But its main purpose has always been for pods. I could go upto a month without feeding

And I have before to see what happens. All my stock survived and were still plump and healthy living off pods that were living off cheato.

 

Fuge = something I will always use

[DPRoberts]

A year or so ago, I put a 10 gallon tank on the floor by a sunny window. I put about an inch of dry sand at the bottom. I then threw in a couple pieces of macro algae (4-5 different types). I haven't fed anything, or done any water changes (just topoffs).

 

The algae quickly spread over the sand bed. The floating algae filled up about half of the remaining open space. It hasn't grown out of the aquarium and onto the floor, but it hasn't died off either. It's no pod factory (I see a few amphipods here and there, and lots of bristleworms - all of which must have been attached to the algae when I put it in there). The water is also pretty cloudy. However, the algae hasn't disintegrated or anything either. If macroalgae was supposed to die off or 'splode when it suddenly ran out of nutrients, I think it would have happened by now.

[Veng]

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."

So this guy things phosphates is a perpetual motion machine.

"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.

Biological filtration is ammonia to nitrites to nitrates, and it stops there. This has nothing to do with phosphates or the export of nitrates.

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."

It's called a filter sock and adequate flow.

"There are only two ways to truely Export Nutrient.

One is a Skimmer, and Two is a waterchange."

Skimmers only export nutrients if you are dosing vodka or something similar.

varoius posters...

And they're all ignorant or off topic.

 

There's something called conservation of mass. Cheato isn't making detris, it's making more cheato. That you're then removing, thus the export. The people above are simply ignorant mostly, or you are quoting really out of context.

[Fish_Bagger]

Why choose a side?

 

Fuge's have there place. They dont fit everyones regimine, and they dont always work when setup poorly. I dont think everyone should use one, nor do i think they are useless. Nothing is ever black and white.

 

+1

 

I am torn as we are setting up display tanks for coral and there will not be ANY live rock at all. I was thinking of adding a rather large fuge to it. But at the same time I do not want any negative effects from it and surely do not need a crap ton of extra maint.

[metrokat]

I place macro in a fuge. I illuminate the fuge. The macro in the fuge grows fairly rapidly. What did the macro use to grow?

Cooties?

[Veng]

Op came specifically to troll. Our refugiums are exponential nally larger compared to our total volume than those "scientists" with 300 gallon tanks and a 40 breeder sectioned off for a sump. Just another rc user that wants to put down people who can sustain life in a small system and tell them they are wrong. Believe what we have recorded over here, or believe you Internet buddies opinion.

300 gallon tanks with 40B of which are half full, and less than half is used for fuge space. Thus a 1:30 ratio of tank volume to fuge volume, which is well outside the accepted limits for fuge to display volume ratios for them to be effective.

 

I place macro in a fuge. I illuminate the fuge. The macro in the fuge grows fairly rapidly. What did the macro use to grow?

Because you sacrificed a pixie to the unicorn gods. Demon worshiper! Black magic! It's a WITCH!!! BURN IT!!!!

[JPF]

Cant be cooties. I always wear a condom.

The pixie gpt uppity. I pinched her head off like a dandelion flower. It needed doing.

[metrokat]

[Grape Nuts]

I really wish some of you guys would go over there and discuss this topic. My fuge experiences have all been positive. I am always looking for ways to do less maintenance and originally I figured a fuge was a no brainer. I had a fuge before there was internet! I simply just don't know any more. No offense to anyone.

[Veng]

I really wish some of you guys would go over there and discuss this topic. My fuge experiences have all been positive. I am always looking for ways to do less maintenance and originally I figured a fuge was a no brainer. I had a fuge before there was internet! I simply just don't know any more. No offense to anyone.

Just some future advice for you. If you are going to go in someplace and tell everyone the way they are doing something is wrong, you better bring some concrete proof, and it should go in the OP. Not, some random quotes from random people none of which are anything more than "I think this that or the other:.

[metrokat]

link it. lets see what is going on.

[brandon429]

people are just harsher here due to the posting freedom but its really funny if you arent on the receiving end

 

 

place grows on you, cant stp psting

[--chris--]

Every site on reef keeping seems to have there own preferred methods of getting shit done. Obviously fuge's are not there forte.

 

If it were me setting up a REEF tank that just happen to have fish in it, id go with bio pellets or a automated doser with vodka and MB7. If i was setting up a reef tank with a focus on keeping a diverse selection of fish and not necessarily corals...id probably make room for a good size fuge to produce micro fauna for the fish.

 

Thats my more thorough response to this topic.

[Deckoz2302]

Actually the nutrient cycle ends at nitrogen gas...not nitrates.

 

 

Protein skimmers export proteins. Aka urine, bacteria, poop, anything protein based that adheares to air molecules. You use a protein skimmer to skim these out of the water column before they become nitrogen based waste.

 

 

Filter socks filter out detritus which could also be undisolved proteins. Not reaching the skimmer for removal.

 

 

 

Macro algae grows off nitrates, phosphates, potassium, iron, iodine/iodide and a few other elements.

 

 

So your filter sock catches things that dont make it to the skimmer which turn into nitrogen based waste when bacteria colonizes it. So now your only hope is a sandbed or live rock with denitrifying bacteria to ride your nitrates or a water change.

 

Or yoy could resort to a fuge and grow macro algae which uptakes it

 

Or you could use biopellets or dose vodka sugar vinegar which makes bacteria grow that uptakes the nitrates...which guess what bacteria is protein based so it can be skimmed out ....