Refugiums

[puttputt]

its like arguing with the wife, never get the last word.

[lduncan]

The oxygen, and carbon demand can be a massive load on the system, much more than the fish and corals.

[puttputt]

The oxygen, and carbon demand can be a massive load on the system, much more than the fish and corals.

What, from a small refugium. Rubbish.

opinion instead of fact!.

[lduncan]

It's not opinion. If you take into consideration all the bacteria, critters etc which come with adding a refugium, what you're doing is adding bioload to the tank.

This added bioload has a large demand for oxygen and carbon in particular.

[puttputt]

the load has gone from massive to large,

moderate to small next maybe.

What are you comparing this massive load to?? A DSB, 2/3/4 extra fish, another 20kg of rock??all very subjective statements Layton based on what?

[chimera]

its like arguing with the wife, never get the last word

:lol:

[Fay]

[lduncan]

Sure it's relative, but based on the context where talking about here though, a typical sized refugium relative to main tank size, it's a good generalisation.

But if you want to find an extreme case you can, but i'm generalising on what people actually do.

[puttputt]

not talking about any extreme cases Layton, std ref. Mines a 1m tank, tell me what massive bioload that is adding to my system.

[lduncan]

That statement there is kind of my whole point.

You think that adding a 1 meter tank with "life" (sand macro pods bacteria etc) is adding minimal bioload to the system. Most people pass it of as trivial, or don't even think about it.

It's not trivial, it's adding substantial bioload to the system.

Layton

[puttputt]

massive - large - substantial.

getting there,

how much layton. Do you know??? As much as a small Damsel?? All guess work.

[lduncan]

Look at the volume of fish and corals relative to the volume of sand, algae etc you have in a typical refugium.

Then remember marine sediments are one of the most productive areas on earth.

It's pretty easy to see that the added bioload is not at all trivial.

Don't ask me to quantify it, it's pointless.

[puttputt]

my point Layton, you don't know what bioload a ref with a sand bed, and pods is adding, you can't quantify it because you have no idea.

To say that it is a massive load on the system, more than all the fish and corals is another exagerated opinion by you, without any sound facts behind it.

[lduncan]

But you CAN generalise and say what i said, without quantifying exactly what the bioload is, based on typical stocking and relative refugium sizes.

There are sound facts behind it. Just not specific numbers. It's not exaggerated, or opinion.

I could just as easily say your statements on how little bioload they add is exaggerated.

Layton

[puttputt]

I haven't stated what i think the bioload is, just asked you to back up your statements, and indicated that my opinion is that you are exaggerating, substantially.

[KP]

you guys still going? Wheres wasp? :lol: :lol:

[puttputt]

I feel for wasp.

[lduncan]

...and indicated that my opinion is that you are exaggerating, substantially.

So in your OPINION, you think what i've said is wrong. Ok.

Is that based on any "sound facts", or just opinion?

I think i'll leave this one here.

Layton

[puttputt]

just opinion Layton, never claimed anything else, unlike yourself.

Anyway, fun during a boring day at work

[jetskisteve]

wasp's busy admiring his new Luminarc

[puttputt]

you and your luminarc's

[wasp]

wasp's busy admiring his new Luminarc

Yes! Got a luminarc!!

It's at one end of the tank, that used to be the dull end, now the other end is the dull end, so now I'm just waiting to win lotto so I can get a luminarc for the other end of the tank :lol:

So, back to the subject, refugiums. Smallreefer, they were popular, mostly overseas, a few years ago, when skimmers were not so good, to help with the filtration. The basic idea was that to stop algae growing in the main tank, the refugium would be stocked with macro algae, and this would be very brightly lit to encourage maximum growth, so that the macro algae would be able to outcompete, for nutrients, any algae trying to grow in the less brightly lit main tank. This was often very effective, people experiencing good success at reducing / eliminating algae from their main tank. The main nutrients targeted for removal were phosphate and nitrate, although the macro algae would in fact utilize a whole host of undesireable nutrients and even heavy metals from the tank.

Many Reef Central Tanks of the Month have refugiums even nowadays, both for nutrient removal, and the other benefits they provide. Some of the bigger tanks they are harvesting a pound or more macro algae a day from the refugium, an excellent way to remove surplus nutrients from the water.

On the not so positive side, having a large quantity of macro algae will produce a slight discoloration in the water so carbon should be used to remove this. Some macro algae also produce toxins although the effect of this has been overblown, in fact most of the organisms we keep produce toxins. The other drawback is that nowadays we want extremely low nutrient water to grow sps corals, rather than the softies that were the mainstay of a few years ago. Macro algae, put into a polluted tank, will use a large amount of nutrients. However, once the nutrients get down to a certain level, the macro algae will stop growing. Unfortunately this level is slightly higher than what is ideal for sps corals, although sps corals will certainly grow. Softies etc will do fine.

In my humble opinion, refugiums can be an excellent addition to the aquarium, if you have the space and the money. However there are many other ways to reduce nutrients, some of which will do a better job.

Here is a useful article http://www.aquariumadvice.com/article_v ... fldAuto=33

[puttputt]

where were you when I needed you!!

the point I was trying to make is just as you say, that there are alot of other benefits to having a refugium, but not nutrient control, I struggle to grow any macro algae, and when a little does grow, it quickly runs out of nutrients and I have to remove it. But the critters that thrive in the ref are brilliant.

I don't beleive for a moment, what Layton wrote, that the bioload of these critters and bacteria in a std size ref is massive, more than all the fish and corals in the main tank put together.

The fact is I am not feeding these critters, would not input any less food, or additions if I didnot run a refugium so can't see his point.

[lduncan]

So you have more life with a refugium, but no more bioload than without?

Refugiums are nutrient traps. It's one of the reasons why they support all that "life".

The fact that you don't feed any extra doesn't mean there isn't any more bioload in the tank. It means that the tank and it's inhabitants are better at sequestering and holding onto the food which is added. (Meaning less is exported)

So can someone sum up the benefits of refugiums? We agree in general they are not good for nutrient removal. So what are they good for?

[Smallreefer]

Hey wasp thanks for your great info and link. very interseting, so many different oppinions about fuges. I may still get one now

Cheers

Dan