Let's talk about water quality in an SPS tank.

[JB NY]

What do you guys think of the MRC Fluidized Reactors for Carbon or a GFO?

IMO it's too big for what it needs to to. That thing is 6" in diameter. With the amount of GFO I use, I only fill my 3" tube about 3/4" with GFO and anther 2"-3" with carbon. In my system a 6" chamber is just to large.

So IMO it's an expensive solution that is over built for what it's used for.

 

[Fliger]

About 125-150gph seems to work really well for me in both reactors. Sometimes you can get the media to "roll" which keeps it from clumping.

For scale here is a FR509 sitting next to a Phosban reactor when I was setting everything up. I use the Phosban reactor for carbon, work great. The 509 IMO is much better for ROWA, if you don't mind paying the extra dough.

And on the other end of scale .....

 

[Fliger]

BTW that's great news on the refills. $140 for 200 tests is very well worth it IMO.

 

[fishgeeksrus]

Just a quick question...

Pordon my ignorance.

If you buy the ROWAphos in bulk, will it exhaust itself while sitting on a shelf.

 

[Larry Combs]

As long as you dont let it dry out, it should be fine. You can always take a damp sponge and keep it in the container with the ROWA as a precautionary. HTH

 

[fishgeeksrus]

Yes, thanks

 

[THP]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=3418246#post3418246 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JB NY
I'm a big believer of lots of flow through a refugium if you are using it solely for nutrient export via macro algae. In the past I had it set up with not a lot of flow and poorly designed so the surface of the water always had scum on the top as well as cyano growing in the tank. I redesigned the refugium and removed the substrate and went bare bottomed with only cheatomorpha algae in the tank. The result has been a very clean refugium that allows me to grow macro algae with none of the associated cyano or micro algae problems I had in the past. IMO the slow flow allows the nutrients to become a sort of sink that cyano and other micro algae thrive in. Also, once a week I siphon out any detritus that settles in the bottom of the refugium.

I also removed all traces of caulerpa from the tank. After looking into the matter and speaking with people such as Calfo and Borneman I can to the conclusion that caulerpa is just way too toxic to be in a reef tank. So only cheatomorpha for me from now on.

IMO if the macro is not growing the nutrient levels are not high enough, which is a good thing. I used to dose iron to help the macro grow. But I don't anymore. I feel if the macro is growing it's removing stuff from the water, if it's not, the water is clean enough right now.

Just a stupid qestion but being new to refugiums, I wonder if they are necessary at all. It seems that once the water quality has been reached, the refugium can barely survive. Any comments on this? Not trying to challange here but just curious on this topic.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

Thanks to new technologies and husandry, refugiums aren't needed. They are certianly beneficial in some setups, but are not for every tank.

Skimmers today are much more efficient than ever before. Couple that with reefers today using higher flow to keep wastes and detritus in suspension, and you wont have high enough nutrients to grow algae. I've tried a few times, but have never been able to setup a successful ball of cheato, in a traditional refugium, BB, or otherwise.

 

[MiddletonMark]

Refuigiums [IMO] can have a number of purposes.

Perhaps in terms of nutrient-export via algae they may not be needed for some, as you mention.

But, in terms of providing a safe haven for lots of pods/life that can supply the tank with natural food/etc ... I feel that there would be benefit. [esp for heavy fish loads, anthias, mandarins/etc]

 

[THP]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=3418246#post3418246 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JB NY
I'm a big believer of lots of flow through a refugium if you are using it solely for nutrient export via macro algae. In the past I had it set up with not a lot of flow and poorly designed so the surface of the water always had scum on the top as well as cyano growing in the tank. I redesigned the refugium and removed the substrate and went bare bottomed with only cheatomorpha algae in the tank. The result has been a very clean refugium that allows me to grow macro algae with none of the associated cyano or micro algae problems I had in the past. IMO the slow flow allows the nutrients to become a sort of sink that cyano and other micro algae thrive in. Also, once a week I siphon out any detritus that settles in the bottom of the refugium.

I also removed all traces of caulerpa from the tank. After looking into the matter and speaking with people such as Calfo and Borneman I can to the conclusion that caulerpa is just way too toxic to be in a reef tank. So only cheatomorpha for me from now on.

IMO if the macro is not growing the nutrient levels are not high enough, which is a good thing. I used to dose iron to help the macro grow. But I don't anymore. I feel if the macro is growing it's removing stuff from the water, if it's not, the water is clean enough right now.

Just a stupid qestion but being new to refugiums, I wonder if they are necessary at all. It seems that once the water quality has been reached, the refugium can barely survive. Any comments on this? Not trying to challange here but just curious on this topic.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

Wow, a double post separated by almost an hour, how did ya pull that one off? :lol: just giving you a hard time...

Mark, I agree that in terms of pod production they are probably the best thing we have going. But honestly, I've never been that convinced that a good number of pods make it from the refugium to the display anyway, even in the best of circumstances (overflow directly into the display). I suppose it could be a good thing for mandarins, but I believe they would benefit more from rubble piles in the display. Most (all?) of the pods we grow in our tanks are for the most part benthic, and therefore rather resistant to being transported to the display, and even then will only be in the water column for a few moments before hitting a surface and quickly retreating. With fish like anthias which feed out of the water column, I just cant see even a large refugium which empties directly into the display making much of a difference.

 

[gary faulkner]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11319939#post11319939 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Refuigiums [IMO] can have a number of purposes.

Perhaps in terms of nutrient-export via algae they may not be needed for some, as you mention.

But, in terms of providing a safe haven for lots of pods/life that can supply the tank with natural food/etc ... I feel that there would be benefit. [esp for heavy fish loads, anthias, mandarins/etc]

Mark,

Agree totally.

 

[THP]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11321991#post11321991 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by LobsterOfJustice
Wow, a double post separated by almost an hour, how did ya pull that one off? :lol: just giving you a hard time...

Yeah, not sure. Went for lunch and it was still hanging when I came back. Submitted again and presto! 2 posts

So I guess no one had a comment with regards to how long a refugium would last given the excellent water parameters we strive for. I guess the way to go is set one up, watch the macro-algae and if they grow, your water is less than prestine, if they die, your doing good

 

[melev]

:lol:

Regardless, there are other benefits. It could be filled with more sand to be a denitrifier, and as discussed a pod-breeding ground.