Mini Refugium

[Ef3s]

I have a 2 gallon capacity HOT filter. I removed all inards so it's basically 2 seperate 1 gallon tanks with a divider. I have a 20 watt 50/50 that sits perfectly on top of the filter.

Would this work as a mini refuge? Could I put some sorts of micro algae I have heard about in this? Would I want different lighting ?

Would this be effective in removing nitrates? If so what should I put in this.... Live sand?

 

[Anonymous]

Live sand, Live rock, and algae like chaeto. I don't know the different algaes or their different benefits. They say it removes nitrates but I dunno if it really does.

 

[Ef3s]

IS this even big enough to make an impact?

Or should I just go with a 20 gallon...

I just REALLY don't want to add an overflow...!

 

[Anonymous]

My GUESS is that it really doesn't impact the nitrate removal. I depend on my skimmer to do that. I added a refugium in my sump so it can grow the benefecial pods.

I don't know if you have a sump or not. My tank isn't drilled so I had to get an overflow box, but having the sump has a lot of advantages. The extra 20 gallon really helps. I had a couple small floods, but now I got it all worked out.

 

[cindre2000]

That would make a very good Hang on Refugium. It would help reduce the nitrates some; however, it probably a bit small to do it alone. However, it will a great place for pods to grow. Yes that light will work; though, you don't need to splurge on 50/50, algae likes the yellow light.

As for the MACRO algae, the two most common types are Caulerpa and Chaeto. Caulerpa grows 24/7 but has a nasty penchant of going sexual (basically liquefies itself releasing toxins) if you ignore it too long. Chaeto does not have the nice 24/7 growing pattern and it can grow slower, however, it does not go sexual. Also, some people like to go with a reverse photo period on their refugium to keep oxygen levels steady- which may or may not be relevant with you.

 

[Ef3s]

I'm guessing you meant CHaeto is the one that can't go sexual. This is what I will be looking to get.

I bought 2 spiral 50/50 lights for $2.50 each.

I have the photoperiod reversed from the main tank.

I just like looking at something with a light on it at night!

 

[Ef3s]

Where would I aquire these "copepods."

 

[FinalPhaze987]

Where would I aquire these "copepods."

youll get alot of these when you acquire macro algae from an established fuge....they even come hitchhiking on live rock...sometimes if you look close at a tank cycling with live rock you can see them on the glass during the "diatom bloom"...copepods, amphipods, mysis are all useful in your aquarium...its why people suggest not purchasing a mandarin goby until you have an established reef with a decent pod population..pods are one of its main sources of nutrition....if you have live rock im sure you have some...

 

[mr_X]

My GUESS is that it really doesn't impact the nitrate removal. I depend on my skimmer to do that. I added a refugium in my sump so it can grow the benefecial pods.
quote]

my macroalgae grows at a rate of about a softball sized glob a week. i feed my fish and corals very heavily, and i see no other form of nutrition that could fuel this kind of growth. my nitrates are always low. no, i've never ran the refugium by itself without the skimmer and waterchanges to see exactly how much the macros are exporting nutrients, but i reallt believe that they are a tremendous help. about every 2 months i bring a large container of the overgrown chaeto and bubble caulerpa to the LFS for credit (3.00 a handfull ) and their macro tank is empty within 2 days.
i highly suggest a 6500k bulb or less.

 

[ChrisRD]

FWIW, in well run tanks (ie. effective protein skimmer, aggressive detritus removal, regular water changes, pure source water, etc.) I've never had detectable nitrate levels with/without sandbeds or refugiums.

IME if I'm making an effort to keep nutrients low, I find macros grow so slowly (if at all) that they don't offer much additional nutrient export. When I let nutrient levels get high enough for the macros to grow, I see signs of excess nutrient levels in the display tank.

That said, I have nothing against the macro fuge idea. I know it works for some people. Based on my experience, however, I think they're more effective at nutrient export in "dirtier" run systems. So, depending on how you prefer to run your tank, I feel they may/may not be an effective form of export.

Regardless of nutrient export, however, I think they are very useful for providing a source of live food to the system.

JME/JMO

 

[ChrisRD]

my macroalgae grows at a rate of about a softball sized glob a week. i feed my fish and corals very heavily, and i see no other form of nutrition that could fuel this kind of growth. my nitrates are always low.

Phosphates. For most of the algaes/macros we deal with in our tanks, phosphate is the limiting nutrient.

That said, when excess nitrates are present they may also be exporting nitrate, but I don't know to what extent...

 

[mr_X]

what are you saying? that my macros are growing off of phosphates? what do you mean by "limiting nutrient"?

 

[ChrisRD]

"Limiting nutrient" means it's the one they can't live without. If there isn't enough phosphate, they won't grow (regardless of what else is available).

Basically it means that if you're getting rapid macro growth you've got plenty of phosphate available. Some folks run their tanks so nutrient poor (some of the hardcore SPS keepers for example) that they can't even get macros to grow in their systems (and have little to no nuisance algae either).

Again, I'm not against using macros for nutrient export, but whether or not it will be a significant benefit has a lot to do with how you choose to run your system.

 

[Ef3s]

but whether or not it will be a significant benefit has a lot to do with how you choose to run your system.

I don't think ANYBODY chooses to run a dirty system....

 

[ChrisRD]

Well, it's a relative term - that's why I said "dirty". :wink:

...but that said, I think many people - particulary beginners - run their tanks "dirtier" than ideal, thus all the questions on nuisance algaes, excess nitrates, etc. With newer folks this is often a result of using cheap, ineffective skimmers, not using pure source water, etc. In those cases I think algae filters provide some extra forgiveness.

Then there are experienced reefers who are keeping animals they know don't require ultra low nutrients to thrive (for example, many soft corals). In that case, they may choose to go with a setup that is less labor intensive to maintain, even though it may not result in the "cleanest" system.

There are different schools of thought on how to run a reef. Some prefer to control nutrient levels within the system with algae filtration, deep sandbeds, etc. Others prefer to rely on direct removal of the wastes (ie. detritus removal, heavy skimming, GFO/GAC, water changes, etc.). Many do some mix of both. IMO a lot of it depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

I've developed my own preferences over time, but whatever works for you - as long as you can maintain good water quality and keep your system healthy.

 

[mr_X]

but....i don't have algae issues. then if that's the case, i would say refugiums are a must for people who like to feed often, if you don't want nuisance algae issues and such. :wink:

 

[Ef3s]

I feed often I have no nuisance algae...

I always assumed hair algae was the same as corraline...it had to be introduced into your tank..?

 

[cindre2000]

Thing is, every time you buy a coral at the store you could be introducing hair algae spores into your system. The underside of the rock that new coral is on is often quite interesting biologically.

A really oversized skimmer and good flow could easily work better than a refugium. But you are spending money on that extra big skimmer and the electricity to run it and all those pumps to have great flow.

 

[ChrisRD]

You spend money setting up and lighting a refugium too. :wink:

IMO good flow is needed to maintain a healthy reef tank regardless of what types of filtration you're employing. In fact, I think one of the reasons we're able to keep so many coral species so easily these days is because we've come to realize the importance of flow (thus all the new propelller pumps on the market, etc.).

Again, I'm not against algae/macro filters, but I think it's important for people - especially newcomers who read threads in this forum - to understand that they're just one of many tools and they have their limitations, pluses and minuses.

Keep in mind there are plenty of long time aquarists out there who've experimented with various setups, including algae filters and choose not to use them. I think this speaks well to the fact that they're not required for a successful tank and don't suit everyone's reefkeeping style.

An interesting sidebar... ...back in the early years of reef aquaria, prior to modern protein skimmers, people tried to rely soley on algae filters to sustain reef aquaria (known as "Dutch" systems). These systems were not very successful with most of the corals we can easily keep in our care today and water clarity was an issue. Not just hobbyists had problems with them - places like the Smithsonian as well...

 

[cindre2000]

Not to counter you ChrisRD, but I think newcomers see the big price tag of some of the nice skimmers and think they can just down grade the skimmer and toss on a refugium. The couple extra bucks they spend on the refugium is nothing since it is a whole new piece of equipment in their eyes, so they get two pieces of equipment for the 'price' of one.


But I totally agree with you on the flow, the difference it has made in the tanks I have worked on is exceptional when you just ramp up the flow!