Refugium...or not

[mindi]

I am about to upgrade from a 100 to a 150 and have the opportunity to build a refugium in my new larger sump. I can make it a decent size, light it...all that.
My question is whether there is any real proof of their effectiveness. They make obvious sense to me, but do they make science. I read a scathing critique by one seemingly persuasive writer on how ineffective they are, and yet many many more who seem to have them as 'useful' a priori.
Has anyone seen any convincing information on their usefulness either with or without a DSB base...? or is it something we take for granted. I am very much a KISS person and the inclusion of an algae garden in the sump is still on the table. Happy (even keen) to be convinced. I would be doing it for nutrient export to reduce my PO4 adsorption costs and 'improve' water quality.

See this very negative thread...a minority opinion sure

http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6...mp-204253.html

[ric167]

In my very short experience it's beneficial for copepods and/or amphipods plus pH if you have it set up with opposite light schedule

[2wheelsonly]

Not a fan, before I got into this hobby I visited alot of tanks in person. Everyone was so eager and proud to show me their mangrove farms growing out of the water while they had some garbage softy tank with crap all over the glass. It's like nice water garden bro...but I wanna see colorful SPS corals. Not interested in your greenhouse of a swamp you're growing in your living room.

I tried it on my very first tank because I thought it was required. Never again, that sand bed is a ticking time bomb and if anything. Not for me...i'm here to grow corals..not plants. Even with balls of that chaeto tumbling I still fought algae in the display. I suspect that my refugium was actually leaching nutrients into the water as a whole due to not having enough crap to feed on the nutrients.

One more design piece for me to worry about...nein!

[HidingReefer]

If not a refugium, have you considered setting up an algae scrubber? I have heard they are beneficial and will be setting up one in my new 120

[ric167]

I don't believe mangroves are a good example...but growing your own algae like Ulva or red gracilaria can be extremely beneficial to algae eaters like tangs and still help seed your main DT with pods for fish like a Mandarin....I don't use a DSB in my sump but I happily grow pods for my Mandarin, Wrasse & all the other fish that continuously eat them...the Ulva & red Gracilaria usually cant grow fast enough for my tang, blenny & sometimes even the wrasse gets a bite in...

[texdoc77]

A refugium is an excellent part of any sump for many reasons. However, I would say that it's main contribution to a tank is not for nutrient export. Nutrient maintenance should be maintained with appropriate feeding habits, a good CUC, carbon dosing if you so choose, a properly dialed in skimmer, and above all else timely and appropriate water changes.

Good reasons to have a refugium include growing copepods/amphipods, a place to harbor certain species of snail, crab or other invert that needs protection, a place to grow algae whether or not you use that for nutrient export, possibly to counter the effects of daylight pH issues and added water volume for your overall tank.

Ultimately, if you have the room in your sump I see absolutely zero reasons not to have one.

That said I grow chaeto like wildfire in my refugium, though I suspect my phosguard in the next partition over does more to rid of phosphates than my chaeto. Look, none of us need a saltwater tank. But on some level each of us enjoys maintaining life on some level and watching growth and beauty. For me a refugium is part of that.

[mindi]

Very very interesting... thanks for the replies, much appreciated. Hopefully some more overnight my time.
John
Australia

[mindi]

Originally Posted by HidingReefer

If not a refugium, have you considered setting up an algae scrubber? I have heard they are beneficial and will be setting up one in my new 120

I have thought of it but not too keen...cant see that it is any different in principle to a more passive refugium just more efficient...and that may or may not justify the effort. I think with plenty of space it may be the best way to go.

[The Kahnasaur]

+1 to the algae scrubber. Does the same thing as a refugium (minus the copepod home), usually in a smaller space.

[juniorrocketdad]

I think the refugium should only be used for pods and to feed algae eating fish, as many have stated they are horribly inefficient at removing nutrients and there are much more effective methods of doing this.

With this said I think the algae scrubber is much worse since you lose both benefits of the refugium aforementioned

IMO an algae scrubber needs to be huge to be affective as well and is not really worth it

[roli112]

DSB in a fuge is a whole other topic but having a fuge for chaeto and pods could be very beneficial I don't "grow" plants they grow themselves and I have a very healthy population of pods thanks to it. All I ever have to do is grab some scissors every few weeks and remove some of the chaeto. Sometimes I sell it, sometimes it goes to the trash. It obviously removes nutrients otherwise it wouldn't grow so much. How effective it is I have no idea, are there other means of accomplishing this? Yes. So if you need/want pods then grow chaeto, if not then do some research and see what you think will be more effective for your system.

[RicGio]

I had a DSB/refugium for years. Although I grew Chaeto like mad and had pods galore I questioned the value of the DSB.

When I RE-start up my 90 in wall, the DSB will NOT be a part of the 'fuge. It's a 10 gallon and I don't think the DSB did anything but leach nutrients. I'm trying a Bare bottom Fuge for sure.

[ca1ore]

Originally Posted by mindi

I read a scathing critique by one seemingly persuasive writer on how ineffective they are, and yet many many more who seem to have them as 'useful' a priori.

A critique here on RC or the link? I don't know who that guy is, and whether his opinion is credible or not. Always a good idea to ask somebody to show you a few pictures of their tank as a way to demonstrate credibility. Lots of people with lots of opinions who actually don't know what they are talking about.

I think a refugium is a very good idea, but it has to be big enough. Expecting a tiny one to have any effect on a big tank is foolish. My own, somewhat unscientific exploration of refugiums, arrived me at 25% of display as the point at which it was material. So on my 265 the refugium as about 70 gallons.. Folks will argue otherwise, I am sure, armed with their opinions (but no data). It's also important to not allow it to become a mechanical filter and collect detritus. Ultimately it's up to you.

A reverse lit chaeto-based refugium will help to generate copepods for your tank, help to remove nutrients and stabilize pH. All good things, as long as it's big enough.

[AlSimmons]

Everybody wants another tank and a refugium kind of falls into that category IMO. Just another gadget to fiddle with.. Me personally I like to keep things simple. Regular water changes in combination with aggressive detritus removal and an efficient skimmer seems to do the trick for me. The sump is just an area to hide my equipment, nothing more.

[reefgeezer]

I guess refugiums work well for some... but...

FWIW, my new build, designed to be a moderately populated SPS tank, doesn't include a refugium of any kind, an ATS, or even a large sump. I've tried them all. They became another detritus sink and/or something else to maintain. Particularly if you are starting from scratch, it is way too easy to manage nutrients in other ways.

Some benefit can be had from a refugium for copepods if the species you intend to keep need them i.e. Mandarins, Pipefish, & etc.. I would be more inclined to use a remote fuge rather than one built into the sump.