Need advice for Sump/Refugium setup

[walshliam]

I would like to add a refugium to my sump. I cleaned up the components last night in my sump, but I can't get the middle chamber emptied out with my current sump/skimmer. The chamber on the left of my sump where the tank drains is 5.5" x 15", from what I've seen it will be difficult to find a sump for a 90G tank that will fit in there. So, should I stick with the current skimmer and buy/build a new sump or is there a skimmer I can drop into that small space that will do a good job? The overall sump size is 15x24, I could go as big as 15x39 if the new sump design had a fresh water reservoir built in.

 

[theyangman]

A refugium is sorta dated in terms of usefulness. Why do you want to add one? Everything a fuge can do, can be done with much simpler products now.

Weren't they used back in the day when skimmers kinda sucked / didn't exist?

Nowadays with a solid skimmer and biopellet reactors it achieves the same thing. Unless you wanna use it as a sanctuary to grow pods or shrimps or something of the sort.

 

[walshliam]

I was going to use it to grow some Algae. Looking for a low cost way to control nutrients in the tank. From what I understood, this was the way to go.

 

[theyangman]

Anything in particular you are trying to control?

 

[pulpfiction1]

That's the first I have heard a refugium is outdated.lol
I have a good skimmer bio pellets and a couple of reactors if someone can fit a refugium I would think that would be a benefit but that's just my opinion

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk HD

 

[walshliam]

Algae growth in the DT. I run GFO and Carbon now for a few months, but I've heard on here and other boards that a refugium was a great way to have Macro Algae use up the excess nutrients.

 

[pulpfiction1]

+1

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk HD

 

[theyangman]

So you run GFO and carbon, but don't run a pellet reactor. I would think that adding a pellet reactor would do more for your system in terms of denitrification then a fuge would.....

That is why I call it outdated. There are easier methods to replicate (in terms of nutrient exportation) then a fuge.

If you want it to grow pods and such that is a different story, but if it is purely for excess nutrient export, then they are more hassle then they are worth. If given the choice of a fuge vs. pellet reactor & gfo reactors, then the reactors win 100% of the time.

Now that being said, are you actually having nitrate problems? (I assume your GFO reactor takes care of the phosphates to the appropriate levels)

I would think all levels in your reef tank can be controlled via good skimming, and the main three reactors with no need for anything else like a fuge.

 

[theyangman]

End of the day, its your tank and if you believe that this is the best solution for your levels being out of whack, then knock yourself out.

For the record, I never claimed they didn't work, I just think there are more efficient ways to achieve the same goals.

 

[pulpfiction1]

And this is the secret to your success? I wish I had a big enough tank  I could run just as a refugium. Not to take any Thunder away from Tony but in nature there are no pellet reactors or GFO reactors. I would give up all if I had a 100 gallon refugium

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk HD

 

[walshliam]

That's why I'm posting to this site. I want the advice . . .

  Running GFO is expensive IMO. If a refugium would be beneficial and allow me to stop running GFO, seems like a positive. Having never run a refugium and still being a relative Newbie to this, I'm not sure. Everything I've read so far points to it only being beneficial, what is the downside to a regium? Seems like everyone has there opinion on the best way to do everything.

According to my test kits, Nitrates are not a problem.

I had a wicked Green Hair Algae outbreak that really impacted my system and soft corrals a few months ago. I've been recovering from that and trying to find the best way to run a stable system.

 

[pulpfiction1]

Not knowing your system I can't advise you on anything other than what you can learn here a refugium is always a good investment in my opinion

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk HD

 

[theyangman]

And this is the secret to your success? I wish I had a big enough tank  I could run just as a refugium. Not to take any Thunder away from Tony but in nature there are no pellet reactors or GFO reactors. I would give up all if I had a 100 gallon refugium

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk HD

You're right but in nature there are no LED's or T5 HO bulbs either but we use those don't we? In home aquaria we can utilize technology to benefit us in the pursuit for a perfect tank!

That's why I'm posting to this site. I want the advice . . .

  Running GFO is expensive IMO. If a refugium would be beneficial and allow me to stop running GFO, seems like a positive. Having never run a refugium and still being a relative Newbie to this, I'm not sure. Everything I've read so far points to it only being beneficial, what is the downside to a regium? Seems like everyone has there opinion on the best way to do everything.

According to my test kits, Nitrates are not a problem.

I had a wicked Green Hair Algae outbreak that really impacted my system and soft corrals a few months ago. I've been recovering from that and trying to find the best way to run a stable system.

GHA is 3 fold. Nitrates, phosphates and lighting. It can be easily controlled by reigning in those three components. Starve the crap, and it goes away on its own.

As for GFO being expensive, then I can concede that point. It has to be changed monthly and can be an added expense to your tank, but a fuge isn't free either though, it requires lighting so its not necessarily free. Downsides to a fuge? They aren't fun to have to clean and can have other issues associated to keeping a DSB, just like your main display.

End of the day the debate rages forward in a never ending war. Fugers vs. Anti Fugers. You will find convincing arguments on both sides of the fence. The final choice will be yours and what you wish to accomplish with it. If you want to find a GFO reactor replacement then I would agree with running a fuge, considering you don't have a bio pellet reactor anyways, so in your scenario it might make sense. 

Good luck.

 

[MrHermit85]

I run a simple fuge with just chaeto and live rock. No hassle at all, just a light with a timer. If I consider how much the chaeto grows every month you can't tell me that it isn't pulling nutrients out of the tank efficiently? There's no need to change media, clean pumps or anything at all so I don't see where the difficulty arises. Most efficient part of the tank if you consider dollars to effectiveness.

 

[AdInfinitum]

A fuge has no more place in a modern reef system than a turf scrubber with regards to nutrient export simply due to the same reasons of scale.  The size and space and lighting required to eliminate the need for pellets and GFO are beyond most household systems space limitations.

However as an inexpensive source of live foods for everything from micro filter feeders to fish it cannot be beaten.  Even a small fuge area like a bucket in your sump with a light and the effluent from your pellet reactor providing flow  will generate lots of creatures that will make their way into your DT providing a constant food supply for grazers as well as their pelagic larvae feeding corals constantly without polluting the tank.

The small amount of nutrient binding or expot are strictly a bonus.

BTW increasing my fuge space is one of the reasons I am expanding my sump from 75 gal to 225ish gal but not everyone has that option.

 

[theyangman]

BTW increasing my fuge space is one of the reasons I am expanding my sump from 75 gal to 225ish gal but not everyone has that option.

Your sump is larger than like 90% of the systems on this forum. lol

 

[theyangman]

.
.
.
.
.​

 

[pulpfiction1]

nice one tony,my thoughs take me to many forums where many have had issues with hair algae,
and many of then test for nitrates and phosphates and come up ZERO
some are totally confused as to why they have the problem to start with,as they have no detectable nutrients
the answer almost always lies with the algae consuming the available nutrients.
now i have seen some gawd awfull HA outbreaks but a good fuge can out compete the nutrients
available.sure lights can contribute massivley to HA but the biggest cause (IMO)
is nitrates and phosphates due to lack of good husbandry.
so if HA in a DT can leave your system with  zero readings i dont understand how a fuge would only give minimal aid in removing nutients

 

[theyangman]

The argument in my comments was never about if or if not a fuge works. This is the frustrating part. lol

I said there are other less invasive and more efficient (imo) ways to remove the same nutrients.

One downfall that does seem to be agreed upon in regards to fuges, is that once the nutrients are consumed and there is nothing for the algae in your fuge to feed on, they break down and simply re-release all the said nutrients back into the system as they are not "consuming" it like a biopellet reactor does, but rather binds it up.

 

[theyangman]

Long and short of it is, both methods have pros, both methods have cons. Everyones tank is different and what works for you might work for him but not me and vice versa. So pick and choose what you like and what works and we can all have tanks that are sweet.