Refugium?
- Thread starter Warnberg
- Start date
well dave I do not run one right now. I have in the past. never saw a benefit from it at all. never saw it hurt either. I think of them as another tank that isn't near as cool. most of them I see end up as frag tanks. if you want to get some shrimp in there and pods and things that will breed then it can and probably will happen in a refugium normally without stars. lots of stars eat what you might want growing in the refugium. it is a good place for denitrification. if you are bare bottom I would say it would be a great thing to have. that way you can still have the sand bed with out blowing all the sand around in your display and you can maintain a high level of water flow in the main display. the reason I don't have one is because in all honesty in order for it to be as beneficial as it should be it would need to be larger than my display tank and I just don't have room for that. it's a great place to grow natural food for your fish both plant life and animal. it's also better to have it higher than your display so it can drain right into it. that way the animals aren't chopped up by the pump needed to lift them. I am sure you have read all this before but seeing it all in one place might make you realize why you don't already have one.
good luck and any recent pics of your tank?
good luck and any recent pics of your tank?
Fuges have benefits, but you need to first think of why you want one. On my old 55 gallon I had an inefficient (prizm) skimmer and always had an elevated nitrate level - I aded a fuge with macro algae which brought the nitrates to 0. On my new tank I have an oversized ER skimmer and have zero nitrates, therefore I run without a fuge. I was thinking of adding one to support a strong pod population, but as my tank matured I have a large pod population without a fuge so I have not added one. So, think about what you are trying to accomplish before you add one - IMHO.
Though I usually agree with robthorn, I'll take the other side of the arguement on this one.
Size is not as important as some would say for a refugium. No matter what size the fuge is, it will provide benefits. To an extent, the larger the better. My 390 is being setup with a 44 gallon refugium. The key is much more what's in it. A DSB if very beneficial in a fuge for denitrification. Macroalgae is very beneficial for export of nutrients. Do a search through Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley's articles on RC and you will see the benefits of macroalgae in nutrient export. The macro must be continually harvested to ensure/allow continued growth. Macroalgae and rock rubble will provide a safe place for pods to multiply, therefore predators of pods must not be kept in the refugium. Also in an article on RC, an experiment was done where pods were passed through a pump from a fuge to a display tank. Over 96% of the pods survived the trip. In the real world, fish would rapidly consume the ones that didn't survive the trip, which is the purpose of raising pods in the fuge in the first place. As the pod population in the fuge increases, the number of pods that make it to the tank increases, which in addition to the macroalgae you raise in the fuge for feeding to display fish, now you are providing a steady source of fresh pods for fish food. It is important that sump/fuge flow be correct for pods to make it to the display. The fuge water must not pass through the skimmer. The skimmer will remove a vast majority of your pods from the water. If you have a recirculating skimmer, almost 100% of the pods that pass through the skimmer will become skimmate. Another benefit of the refugium is the additional water volume in the system, which allows for a higher bioload with less load on the system.
JMHO
Size is not as important as some would say for a refugium. No matter what size the fuge is, it will provide benefits. To an extent, the larger the better. My 390 is being setup with a 44 gallon refugium. The key is much more what's in it. A DSB if very beneficial in a fuge for denitrification. Macroalgae is very beneficial for export of nutrients. Do a search through Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley's articles on RC and you will see the benefits of macroalgae in nutrient export. The macro must be continually harvested to ensure/allow continued growth. Macroalgae and rock rubble will provide a safe place for pods to multiply, therefore predators of pods must not be kept in the refugium. Also in an article on RC, an experiment was done where pods were passed through a pump from a fuge to a display tank. Over 96% of the pods survived the trip. In the real world, fish would rapidly consume the ones that didn't survive the trip, which is the purpose of raising pods in the fuge in the first place. As the pod population in the fuge increases, the number of pods that make it to the tank increases, which in addition to the macroalgae you raise in the fuge for feeding to display fish, now you are providing a steady source of fresh pods for fish food. It is important that sump/fuge flow be correct for pods to make it to the display. The fuge water must not pass through the skimmer. The skimmer will remove a vast majority of your pods from the water. If you have a recirculating skimmer, almost 100% of the pods that pass through the skimmer will become skimmate. Another benefit of the refugium is the additional water volume in the system, which allows for a higher bioload with less load on the system.
JMHO
hey mflamb by reading your post i don't see how you disagree but thats a ggod thing. the bigger the better for so many reasons. nutrient export and food is all good. benefits I meant were my corals didn't look any better and my fish are already pretty fat. the extra water volume is a given and I said a 1 gallon does more than none so a small one will do something but again bigger is better. no matter what our wives tell us. I guess the pump is what you disagree on I guess. although I have never counted how many are dead or alive I just figure a whack with an impellor is bad for them. then again what pump did they use? was it a close tolerance pump like alot of people are using these days or was it a junk style mag or something? extremely different and i can only assume would create different results. never take science as the word. it's only as good as the scientist. your own better judgement is probably very good.
hhehee thanks but my reef indicates I know how to screw things up. my last tank was way better than this one is. not perfect at all but alot better. I have tried to take it to the next level with for the most part failure. at least in my eyes. I am proud to say I have never actually watched either one of those shows. I have seen bits and pieces when other people had it on but I know what they are about so I stay clear.
I will ask my question in your thread it's not fair to dave for me to take away from his very legitimate question.
I will ask my question in your thread it's not fair to dave for me to take away from his very legitimate question.
tedmonds
New member
I'll chip in my 2 cents. I've been running a skimmerless softie 120g for over 5 years now. No mechanical or chemical filtration other than some carbon and the 10g refugium. I don't really test my water quality anymore but the exceptional growth and health of the corals speak for themselves. I guess the moral of the story is that yes a fuge can provide wonderful benefits but it depends a lot on the rest of your tank set up. For my system, which is all softies and lps the fuge and natural filtration work perfectly but I probably wouldn't recomend this set up for sps and don't think I would bother with a fuge either. I will say that my mandarin loves the fuge cause he's fat, happy and relatively old. : )
Your best bet is to feed your tank well and filter it well, skip the fuge. If you really want one, a small tank filled to the hilt with chaeto is best, and only for organic waste removal. As it grows, remove handfulls on occasion and move on. Also, reverse lighting the fuge may have a pH benefit, but otherwise, keep a clean tank, good filtration, good equipment, heavy(varied) feedings, and all should be well.
yeah why not? hehehe 
I am too lazy to take care of one in all honesty. I don't say no at all. to me it's all personal preference. I forgot about the ph stability if you run the lighting cycle opposite or as some do and go 24 hour lighting on the refugium.
hey dave? are you still into your tank pretty heavy?
I am too lazy to take care of one in all honesty. I don't say no at all. to me it's all personal preference. I forgot about the ph stability if you run the lighting cycle opposite or as some do and go 24 hour lighting on the refugium.hey dave? are you still into your tank pretty heavy?
plyle02
Active member
I have a 20 gallon long fuge, and will never run a system w/o. I run an 8.2 ph, stable night or day. I use a reverse light cycle, and currently house chaeto, green grape, and prolifera as my macros. I have a 2-3 inch sand bed, w/ lots of snails, and yes, 2 mollies.... My sump has a mag 7 to the fuge, and mag 9.5 to main tank. I also use a secondary skimmer on my fuge(Seaclone/modded). The indirect feeding for the main tank is my ultimate goal, and I think the I am heading in the right direction, considering the growth of my corals in the main tank. Here is what my fuge looks like. Good luck....
college429
Member
I have run a fuge for years. IMO any size fuge with macro algae will help a tank, but the bigger the better. I run the light cycle opposit of my tank. I saw my phosphates go down after the addition of a fuge. For about 6 years now I have run a successfull tank without any mechanical filtration (no filter socks), all I have is alot of flow, a refugium and a little carbon. I have never had a problem with nusiance algae.
Warnberg
New member
Rob, I'm into the tank all the time now... About 4 to 6 months ago now I had a little disaster, to make a long story short the GFI tripped, drained the tank down about 6 to 8 inches and the temp hit 92 in the tank. Ever since I have been battling a explosion of red algae (yes it's algae). I have done about 300 gallons worth of water changes in the last two months, I switched salt, I upgraded the lights, had a custom sump made (thank you John), I run rowaphose 24/7 and change it about once a month, I have to clean the skimmer daily (about 2 cups) and I still can not seem to get ahead of this algae.
So to assist I was thinking about starting a refugium, but I wasn't sure it would really help of not. I'm about ready to tear this tank down, scrub the rock and start over but my corals are going nuts, my mandarin is fat and happy, my clowns act like they are about ready to deposit eggs and other then this darn algae everything is doing great.
So I am at a loss......
So to assist I was thinking about starting a refugium, but I wasn't sure it would really help of not. I'm about ready to tear this tank down, scrub the rock and start over but my corals are going nuts, my mandarin is fat and happy, my clowns act like they are about ready to deposit eggs and other then this darn algae everything is doing great.
So I am at a loss......
DaddyJax
New member
A fuge is something that is in my future. I run 2 125g tanks into one sump and it is BB. I feed heavily twice a day and have had no problems but yet I feel that there is some nutrients missing that a small fuge with a DSB would provide. I believe that the sand breaks down and releases nutrients that you cant get with BB. But I also believe that only a small area of sand is needed. Also I believe that size can be important in accomplishing what you are going after. In my case I am looking to add nutrients instead of removing with a fuge while most are looking to use it to remove nutrients. So I would only want a small fuge. Another thing is the position of the fuge setup. Do you put it before the sump or after? I have seen both but I believe the best is after the sump and having it just before your return pump. This is just my opinion.
I think just about anywhere is fine. no filter is 100% effective so things will get past it.
dave sorry about the set back I know they suck. I wouldn't pull everything out and scrub the rocks. believe it or not the algea will not die for good. maybe if you took the top layer off it would work. sometimes white vinegar works to remove phosphates but I did what you are wanting without helping. seemed like it came back stronger because I killed more stuff inside the rock. you could try a few pieces at a time and see if it helps at all or if it comes right back.
what salt did you switch to?
dave sorry about the set back I know they suck. I wouldn't pull everything out and scrub the rocks. believe it or not the algea will not die for good. maybe if you took the top layer off it would work. sometimes white vinegar works to remove phosphates but I did what you are wanting without helping. seemed like it came back stronger because I killed more stuff inside the rock. you could try a few pieces at a time and see if it helps at all or if it comes right back.
what salt did you switch to?
