Will having CC in refugium be enough buffering?

[DONT PANIC]

I am in the process of finally getting my tank going and I have a substrate question.

To reduce costs I wanted to use PFS (pool filter sand) as a substrate for my tank. I have a local vendor that sells clean, good looking sand for very cheap.

My tank is decent size so the cost to use 100% reef sand would be significant to me.

It is my understanding that while PFS is safe to use for a reef, it will not give me buffering capacity to help maintain stable h2o parameters.

I planned on a refugium with crushed coral in it, and or mixing some arogonite sand in with the pool filter sand.

My question is how much CC per gallon is recommended. Would I be able to get away with just having some in the fuge?

Any advice/feedback would be appreciated.

 

[mcgyvr]

0% "crushed coral" is recommended.
Its particle size/shape is too large/inconsistent and typically allows too much crap to get down deep in and rot causing high nitrate problems.

"PFS" is a rather generic term and doesn't necessary say if its silica or quartz based or whatever.. In general some feel that silica based sands can cause problems with diatom blooms (even though the silica won't readily dissolve in our tanks) and others feed quartz based sands are too abrasive/sharp compared to calcium carbonate based sands (oolitic) and can cause damage to sand dwelling creatures.


One comment.. please don't take it the wrong way..
Reefin ain't cheap.. If you are already looking for ways to "skimp" on stuff as cheap as sand then you might want to rethink a saltwater tank.
Many of us have made that mistake before.. Many times going cheap now will cost much more in the long run.

 

[fermentedhiker]

for the record aragonite sand does absolutely no buffering in a saltwater aquarium. If it did corals wouldn't be able to maintain their skeletons. The PH at which the Calcium Carbonate starts to dissolve back into solution is so low that everything in the tank would already be dead anyways. Your PFS should be perfectly fine so long as it's free of soluble contaminates.

There may even be a benefit of not using a CC based sand. Since CC bonds with phosphate but will also leach it back into the water the sand bed as well as reef rock can become a phosphate sink that leads to algae problems down the line.

 

[disc1]

The PH at which the Calcium Carbonate starts to dissolve back into solution is so low that everything in the tank would already be dead anyways. .

Calcium carbonate starts to dissolve around a pH of 7.4. That's not nearly low enough to be the certain death to everything that you describe. Most of your inhabitants would be OK except for the stony corals would have a hard time maintaining their skeletons.

I will agree that the sand doesn't do anything particularly useful in the buffering realm. You generally don't get the pH low enough and if you have rock in there then that will serve the same purpose. I wouldn't bother with the crushed coral. It tends to cause more problems than it solves.

 

[DONT PANIC]

I do understand the cost of the hobby, it's wallet draining. But I also know that some things in the pet industry are just hyped up and not worth the additional cost.

For example, I used to work at a BB pet store where we sold "Betta Water". It is purified water in a 1L bottle for 4 bucks. Ridiculous.

I believe the sand to be quartz based, so i will have to research further about how that would effect sand dwellers. It is a pretty fine consistent grit so my first thought is that it would work great.

In the fuge i was planning on having a layer of CC with sand on top. Bad idea???

I appreciate the comment about trying to save $$. I have found though if you are very patient, you can save a lot of money by purchasing used goods from people that are leaving the hobby or upgrading or whatever. Perhaps a better way to save some money would be to try to get some sand from someone taking a tank down, but I thought that might start me out with whatever pests they may have present.

As it relates to buffering capacity, should I be focused on getting a certain type/amount of substrate in my system?

 

[DONT PANIC]

Thanks for the replies, so am I to understand there is no benefit to aragonite sand being important to help keep parameters stable? I always thought thats why CC was a recommended substrate for SW aquariums "back in the day"

 

[disc1]

If you have rocks then they'll do anything you were expecting the sand to do. They're made of the same stuff.

Yeah, people used to like CC for a number of poor reasons. People used to like saccharine too. Times change and people learn better.

 

[DONT PANIC]

If you have rocks then they'll do anything you were expecting the sand to do. They're made of the same stuff.

Yeah, people used to like CC for a number of poor reasons. People used to like saccharine too. Times change and people learn better.

So in the fuge just go sand? I thought different grit sizes promoted better diversity, like when people still had *gasp*.... plenums?

 

[DONT PANIC]

I only use sugar, and real butter btw

 

[d2mini]

So in the fuge just go sand?

Depends what you want your fuge to do.

 

[coralsnaked]

Nothing wrong w/ crushed coral if used properly. It can be well used in aquariums w/ only 1" depth if you regularly vacuum vigorously. Which you can't do w/ sand as you will siphon it all out. In old tanks regularly cleaned CC prevents OTS when the sand starts giving up it's years of accumulated goodies.

 

[DONT PANIC]

Depends what you want your fuge to do.

Provide an area where organisms which would fall victim to feeding inhabitants in the display can reproduce. Pods, macro algae, etc.

I was under the impression that was what everyone wanted their fuge to do for the system. Are there other goals, or purposes I should be considering?

 

[DONT PANIC]

BTW this is the PFS I was considering in my FW tank. I took a pinch out for a better look. To me it seems like it would be no different then many reef sands on the market, in regards to sand dwelling critters. It is clean and very consistent in grit. Anyone have bad experiences with their use of PFS?

 

[DONT PANIC]

Oh geez now i cant post pics. Guess I need to go to the beginners forum.

 

[DONT PANIC]

Ok now i think i got it.

 

[cloak]

I'm not to familiar with pool filter sand, but Silica is definitely a no no in a reef tank.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/1/aafeature1

 

[morty]

Provide an area where organisms which would fall victim to feeding inhabitants in the display can reproduce. Pods, macro algae, etc.

I was under the impression that was what everyone wanted their fuge to do for the system. Are there other goals, or purposes I should be considering?

While I think your idea for what you want your 'fuge to do is its best application, there are other things people hope to get out of them. Many reefers illuminate them aggressively, hoping to get good macroalgae growth. The macroalgae can then be periodically harvested back to a small amount, with the excess tossed in the garbage (or into a composter), and this is a way of eliminating excess nutrients from your system. Others will put several inches of fine sand in a 'fuge, as a means for nitrate reduction (denitrification). And many are like you, who want their 'fuge to mainly be a source of pods that make their way into the display as an additional food source.

There is a good video from MACNA that was recently put up by BRS on YouTube. It's a debate between Jake Adams and Julian Sprung on the merits of having a refugium or not. In the video, Jake points out that many people try to set up their 'fuge to do all three things, and as such they don't do any of them well. A 'fuge set up as a "remote deep sand bed" (RDSB) performs best when not lit. And nutrient reduction through algae growth/harvest is better accomplished with a dedicated algae scrubber rather than macroalgae harvesting from a 'fuge.

I look at my own refugium as mainly a place to maximize pod production. Consensus seems to be a layer of gum ball to golf ball-sized rubble makes the best pod habitat, so that's what I went with. My 'fuge is also lighted with a 200W equiv. CFL and I have a ball of cheatomorpha macroalgae tumbling in it that I periodically cull, but I consider the cheato more as additional 'pod habitat/food source (they feed on the biofilm that covers it) than a nutrient export mechanism. (I think my biopellet reactor does a much better job controlling nitrate/phosphate.)

As far as the substrate in your display tank, while it's probably ok to use a quartz-based sand, it wouldn't be my first choice. IMO unless you are setting up a deep sand bed for denitrification (which I think is out of vogue), in which you would need at least 5" of sugar-fine, coral-based sand, the display's sand bed should be no deeper than about 1/2" (again, IMO), so it's easy to stir the detritus out of it periodically. I prefer to use something like Carib Sea's "special grade" substrate, because it doesn't blow around as much as sugar-fine stuff, and doesn't trap as much crud as regular crushed coral. Even with a large tank, if the sand depth is around 1/2" you shouldn't need more than a single 15 lb bag, so not a wallet-buster. (I'm also not much of a believer in the bags of of the more expensive "live sand" that LFS's sell.)

And with quartz-based sand I would be concerned about a grain of it trapped under my magnetic cleaner possibly scratching the glass.

 

[DONT PANIC]

I'm not to familiar with pool filter sand, but Silica is definitely a no no in a reef tank.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/1/aafeature1

That article is interesting, but I don't really understand if there is a specific conclusion to be drawn that it's a no-no bc not all silca sands are of the same quality or composition.

I does seem increased diatoms could be an (ascetic) issue.
hmmmmmm..

 

[greaps]

Why not go bare bottom? Look into it if you haven't its not necessarily easier to maintain than sand, just different, perhaps cheaper, I have seen some really amazing tanks bare bottom. As far as aesthetics its debateable , and up to you, but cheaper, definitely.

 

[DONT PANIC]

While I think your idea for what you want your 'fuge to do is its best application, there are other things people hope to get out of them. Many reefers illuminate them aggressively, hoping to get good macroalgae growth. The macroalgae can then be periodically harvested back to a small amount, with the excess tossed in the garbage (or into a composter), and this is a way of eliminating excess nutrients from your system. Others will put several inches of fine sand in a 'fuge, as a means for nitrate reduction (denitrification). And many are like you, who want their 'fuge to mainly be a source of pods that make their way into the display as an additional food source.

There is a good video from MACNA that was recently put up by BRS on YouTube. It's a debate between Jake Adams and Julian Sprung on the merits of having a refugium or not. In the video, Jake points out that many people try to set up their 'fuge to do all three things, and as such they don't do any of them well. A 'fuge set up as a "remote deep sand bed" (RDSB) performs best when not lit. And nutrient reduction through algae growth/harvest is better accomplished with a dedicated algae scrubber rather than macroalgae harvesting from a 'fuge.

I look at my own refugium as mainly a place to maximize pod production. Consensus seems to be a layer of gum ball to golf ball-sized rubble makes the best pod habitat, so that's what I went with. My 'fuge is also lighted with a 200W equiv. CFL and I have a ball of cheatomorpha macroalgae tumbling in it that I periodically cull, but I consider the cheato more as additional 'pod habitat/food source (they feed on the biofilm that covers it) than a nutrient export mechanism. (I think my biopellet reactor does a much better job controlling nitrate/phosphate.)

As far as the substrate in your display tank, while it's probably ok to use a quartz-based sand, it wouldn't be my first choice. IMO unless you are setting up a deep sand bed for denitrification (which I think is out of vogue), in which you would need at least 5" of sugar-fine, coral-based sand, the display's sand bed should be no deeper than about 1/2" (again, IMO), so it's easy to stir the detritus out of it periodically. I prefer to use something like Carib Sea's "special grade" substrate, because it doesn't blow around as much as sugar-fine stuff, and doesn't trap as much crud as regular crushed coral. Even with a large tank, if the sand depth is around 1/2" you shouldn't need more than a single 15 lb bag, so not a wallet-buster. (I'm also not much of a believer in the bags of of the more expensive "live sand" that LFS's sell.)

And with quartz-based sand I would be concerned about a grain of it trapped under my magnetic cleaner possibly scratching the glass.

thanks morty,
i will definitely check out that video. The tank is acrylic, so ANYTHING under an algae magnet would mar it up. I'm 100% sure that a 15lb bag wouldn't cover the bottom of my tank though even at a half inch. Im sure I can find a guide or calculator to estimate what I would need to get it covered.

I thought you would want a minimum of about an inch though, not so??