Refigum? What size do i need.

[troublesx10]

my tank is 72l x 24dx 30h = 210 gallons. how do you determine correct size for refigum? tank already has 400 gal rated wetdry, and 300gal protien skimmer.

i want to do fish only with live rock and eventually start doing corals= hence the reason for large tank to begin so as to minimize purchase of a newer tank in 1 year=== and save my own life from crazed wife======

good idea to do hybrid tank= 1overflow to wetdry / 1overflow to refigum = 1 return pump to return both? (smaller refigum)

get rid of wetdry and get tank that will run only refigum?

other ideas? thank you for your time and experience.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

The bigger the better. what are you going to keep in the fuge?

 

[woochild86]

This is the question I need answered as well. Is there some type of equation for determining what size of remote tank or refugium to use?

 

[stricknine]

For a formula, I would advise as close to half your tank size as a minimum, or whatever you can fit, but limonpot above has the solution. GO BIG.

"dilution is the solution to pollution", larger water volume = less impact for pollutants. You can run a heck of an 8Gal nano with a 100Gal sump.

As for troubles 210G, think of all the equipment you may want to run. Heaters, pumps, calcium reactors, skimmer, uv filter, ATO, fuge, carbon, gfo, and so on. From my experience, the glass is the cheap part. Leave a LOT of room, and the more water volume=more stable. Glass (or acrylic) will be a fraction of the cost of rock!

+1 sisterlimonpot, GO BIG!

 

[troublesx10]

ok i can do that, what now should i look into refug units such as ecosystems, or build one to suit? i was planning to put all the extra's into the wet dry---- uv,skimmer-- won't need a heater in florida.
what is the best kind of substrate to utilize--- will have live sand/rock in tank but what about in the fugim.
wanted to do substrate ie miracle mud, and algea to help with the nitrate/phosphate load, as well as develop an enviroment for micro live food for the tank---

 

[Whys]

15 to 20% your display tank volume is what I've always read, but this is very subjective.

FWIW, my slow-flow fuge is about 17%.

 

[cloak]

Sooner or later, you'll figure out a refuge is something you do not need.

 

[Whys]

You're such a party-pooper.

Sooner or later, you'll figure out an aquarium is something you do not need.

I believe refugiums can be useful. Especially for pod and algae production. Many prefer to keep a DSB remotely in a fuge. Cloak disagrees on ideology, believing refugia a poor substitute for a balanced display tank. I personally find the slow-flow compartment useful but do question the purpose of the inline chaeto design when compared to DSB and GFO alternatives.

Go with what seems right to you.

 

[cloak]

Addition by subtraction?

 

[Whys]

Everything we add, subtracts from our wallet.

 

[cloak]

 

[troublesx10]

I personally find the slow-flow compartment useful but do question the purpose of the inline chaeto design when compared to DSB and GFO alternatives.

what does dsb and gfo mean?????

many people seem to say go for the refigum-- benefits far outway the costs???? why or why not-

i don't want to waste $$$$ but i do want to set up my salt the best way i can- striving to have the best set up for the fish/coral and future to come.

 

[Whys]

DSB = Deep Sand Bed (4"+)
GFO = Granulated Ferric Oxide (rust)

A DSB in the display tank (DT) or refugium will convert nitrates into nitrogen, when properly maintained. This is beneficial.

GFO is often placed in a reactor or sometimes a canister, like activated carbon, and is used to reduce phosphates. This is also beneficial.

"Chaeto" macro-algae will do both, but I feel there is reason to believe that when measured inch for inch, Chaeto doesn't reduce nitrates as much as a DSB or reduce phosphates as much as GFO. Thus throwing a little chaeto in a sump with a couple of dividers is an easy thing to do and really popular right now, but I don't believe it takes full advantage of the refugia potential.

The primary benefit to having chaeto in a fuge is that it helps export the nitrates and phosphates being produced in your display thru pruning. It is not necessary, but it is popular.

I actually agree with Cloak with regards to chaeto and how it is often used. But I also believe a refugium can be put to better use and consider the depositional energy aspects of a separately controlled slow flow critical to its better use.

My own ideology is to keep the nutrients bound-up within, rather than exported from, the reef bio-mass, as much as possible. I suspect Cloak would agree with this approach. What we disagree upon is how best to do that. I like to use a DSB in the display to create nitrogen from nitrate. I like to use the slow-flow fuge to collect the smallest detritus where it helps populate turf-algae and pods. The pods avoid predation in the fuge, so populate readily. I then occasionally rotate a rock from the fuge to the display to reseed pods and provide supplemental algae for food. Thus I consider a slow-flow refugium a important part of the process of keeping my display tank balanced and healthy.

It all tends to be very speculative however and refugia end up more an expression of personal style than an integral part of the filtration process. What I've described is just my 2 cents.

 

[troublesx10]

nicely explained - i understand now I have seen a lot of people talk about the deep sand and macro algea, but not the chaeto or rust--- how does that work? is chaeto the same as culpra or macro algea?--- thankyou for the insight. I have read that with perticular refigums that flow is very important to take advantage of the the macro algea within and the photosyntetic process. is it important for the particular substrate other than the live rock and the macro algea

 

[Whys]

"Chaeto" is the common name for a type of macro-algae. Caulerpa is also a macro-algae, but not one you want. It's a real PITA.

I've read arguments both for slow flow and fast flow for macro-algae. I can't say which is better, as I don't use it for that purpose. I do intend to add a little chaeto at some point, but only for bio-diversity and as a complementary environment for my pods.

Substrate can be useful for copepod production, but again, not necessary. I prefer to keep only a dusting of sand in my fuge for a little diversity while keeping it easy to clean. I am intensely dubious of "miracle mud", don't use it, and consider it a pure marketing gimmick, unless you intend to grow mangroves, but even then, I'm skeptical.

I mostly just keep liverock in mine.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Oh Whys, You're spoiling these noobies with your in depth answers

 

[woochild86]

So a deep sand bed is the best? When ever I go to any aquarium shop, I see deep sand bed set ups for their remote tanks. I'm confused

 

[troublesx10]

almost always in the sumps/refigums in the shops have macro algea and deep sand in it--- what are the benefits---- i know some say benefits are the nitro removing, however does it work and efficently?

when you say culpra is a pain in the ***,--- why ? does chaeto work better at removing nitros/phosphates? would a combo of chaeta and culpra with a rock work better------ my goal would be for nitro/phosphate lowering or removal, with growth of pods and other food source for my tank.

should i put a deep sand bed in the sump/refigum? would it be effective there or better in the display tank?
can i effectively do both-------

 

[Whys]

A DSB can turn bad if you don't pay attention to its needs, but otherwise yes, they really work. Not everyone likes the special attention they require or the space they take up. Many have placed them in the fuge for exactly these two reasons. You don't have to look at it, and if it goes bad, it's easily disconnected from the system. The down side is that a DSB does not do as well with the smaller footprint often found in the fuge. Thus it is not as effective and even more likely to go bad, IMO. One possible exception to this is a very large remote DSB in a tub. It's not practical for most hobbyists, but does seem to benefit from the best of both worlds.

I think the current Chaeto craze owes much of its existence to a decreasing interest in DSBs. It's just so much simpler to implement and maintain. But of course, you get what you work for, IMO.

I don't think anyone knows whether chaeto or caulerpa does more. The issue with caulerpa is its life-cycle. For starters, virtually nothing eats its. Once upon a time, hobbyists liked that and put it in their display tanks for looks. Unfortunately, most caulerpas can cause trouble when they go sexual, which it will do the moment you forget to turn a light on or off, and once you have it, good luck getting rid of it. The stuff roots into your rock and the smallest bit of it will regrow like mad. I had a bit of it in my fuge and had to kill it off with boiling hot water from a syringe.

If you want lots of copepods, put in a sandbed. If you want to lower nitrates, put in a DSB. If you want lots of amphipods, put in liverock and if you can, slow the flow. Chaeto is always an option, easy to add, and is generally trouble free. It will do its part to lower nitrates, phosphates, and shelter pods, but I consider its use largely complementary and not a silver bullet solution. If reducing phosphate is your concern, then you'll get much better results from GFO.

Again, just my 2 cents. I strongly suggest researching all of this further before deciding. Refugia are speculative and require you form your own conclusions.

 

[troublesx10]

ok---- so how about this? may sound ridiculious however here we go--- what about a dsb, chaeto and some live rock in the refigium? or even putting a dsb in the wetdry.
if i do what i think i want to,, i will have a wet dry and a refigium= hybrid system.. or is that overkill with too much extra maintaince? refigium would of course have light and chaeto with sand and piece of rock, wet dry only sand?
thank you for all your imput--- your probably saving me money, time, and physical pain due to frustration and lots of scratching the head.