Poll: LR in Sump Chamber vs. Refugium

[jrosenblum]

I have 59 gallon tank with a 10 gallon sump.

Main display has about 55 lbs LR, 8 fish, 2 soft corals, 1 SPS, 1LPS, 2 Gorgonians
Sump's left chamber has about 5 lbs of live rock, right chamber has skimmer and return pump. Running Purigen and Chemi-pure in a top area.

Question: would it be better to remove the 5 lbs of LR in the left chamber and set up a refugium for macro-algae and pods to subliment feeding or keep it as LR.

 

[jrosenblum]

leveldrummer;884045 wrote: In my opinion, it woul be best to remove the rock and put the skimmer in there. With the skimmer and return pump in the same section, the skimmers water level will constantly fluctuate. Skimmers work best in a consistent water level. You have enough rock in your tank for all the bio filtration you need, a refugium would help, but I think a consistent skimmer would be more beneficial. Not to mention, being able to clean the detritus from that chamber would help as well.

The left chamber has a tray on top which holds filter pad, carbon, etc. so I cannot put the skimmer there. I have not noticed the water level fluctuating. Except for evaporation the water level on the right side stays constant. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

[picoreefguy]

jrosenblum;884060 wrote: Except for evaporation the water level on the right side stays constant. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

yes the evaporation is what he was talking about as the water level slowly comes down so does the level in your skimmer and with it the top of the bubbles which mean they wont be able to get to the top and burst leaving the in the cup. instead youll just have a bunch of junk built up in the neck of your skimmer and not much in the cup. one easy way to solve this would be to get an auto top off unit. the water will still fluctuate but only like a quarter inch or less depending on the ato which is not enough to mess with your skimmer but also i would remove the live rock and substitute something like marine pure ceramic block or seachems matrix both of which make much better bio filters than live rock.

 

[sn4k33y3z]

I'm planning on running the Matrix in mine. However, I do wonder why/when is it benificial for someone to start growing macro algae? As I've seen some run matrix for more biological filtration, but then I've seen others setup a fuge. Is there a turning point when a fuge is needed or are there certain circumstances that would require someone to setup a fuge?

 

[jrosenblum]

Picoreefguy;884164 wrote: yes the evaporation is what he was talking about as the water level slowly comes down so does the level in your skimmer and with it the top of the bubbles which mean they wont be able to get to the top and burst leaving the in the cup. instead youll just have a bunch of junk built up in the neck of your skimmer and not much in the cup. one easy way to solve this would be to get an auto top off unit. the water will still fluctuate but only like a quarter inch or less depending on the ato which is not enough to mess with your skimmer but also i would remove the live rock and substitute something like marine pure ceramic block or seachems matrix both of which make much better bio filters than live rock.

Got it, thanks. I top off twice a day so it doesn't fluctuate more than an inch, but I will get an ATO as soon as budget permits.

 

[picoreefguy]

jrosenblum;884263 wrote: Got it, thanks. I top off twice a day so it doesn't fluctuate more than an inch, but I will get an ATO as soon as budget permits.

no problem

Sn4k33y3z;884178 wrote: I'm planning on running the Matrix in mine. However, I do wonder why/when is it benificial for someone to start growing macro algae? As I've seen some run matrix for more biological filtration, but then I've seen others setup a fuge. Is there a turning point when a fuge is needed or are there certain circumstances that would require someone to setup a fuge?

like level drummer said running a fuge has its advantages the biggest of which is that its a place for pods to grow. but one of the main reasons to run a fuge is for nutrient reduction i.e. nitrate and phosphate. and the effectiveness of your fuge really depends on two factors one being the size (how much algae you can fit/grow in it) and two would be your bio load (how many critters you have that poop in your tank and how much you feed them). the way most tanks are setup a refugium wouldnt be practical because there is a moderate bioload and usually not enough sump space to grow sufficent algae to negate all of that poop. but you can easily have the nutrient reduction benefits of a fuge by running carbon, gfo and matrix or the like in your tank.

 

[jrosenblum]

Sn4k33y3z;884178 wrote: I'm planning on running the Matrix in mine. However, I do wonder why/when is it benificial for someone to start growing macro algae? As I've seen some run matrix for more biological filtration, but then I've seen others setup a fuge. Is there a turning point when a fuge is needed or are there certain circumstances that would require someone to setup a fuge?

Even with Matrix, you would still need to empty the sump from time to time to clean, yes?

Edit:

Picoreefguy;884296 wrote: no problem



like level drummer said running a fuge has its advantages the biggest of which is that its a place for pods to grow. but one of the main reasons to run a fuge is for nutrient reduction i.e. nitrate and phosphate. and the effectiveness of your fuge really depends on two factors one being the size (how much algae you can fit/grow in it) and two would be your bio load (how many critters you have that poop in your tank and how much you feed them). the way most tanks are setup a refugium wouldnt be practical because there is a moderate bioload and usually not enough sump space to grow sufficent algae to negate all of that poop. but you can easily have the nutrient reduction benefits of a fuge by running carbon, gfo and matrix or the like in your tank.

I am a total rookie in this hobby and I get that people are passionate about this subject, but I need a quick attitude or fact adjustment regarding macroalgae's reduction of phosphate. Perhaps I totally underestimate growth rates, but I read that harvesting 10 grams (dry weight) of one of the better macroalgaes from an aquarium would be the equivalent of removing 24 mg of phosphate from the water column - that's reducing the phosphate concentration from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in a 67-gallon aquarium. So if my target were .1 ppm and my bio-load *only* produced .2ppm per week, I would have to harvest 10 grams (dry weight) each and every week (or have that amount of growth). Is that really realistic

 

[picoreefguy]

im not a scientist or a macroalgae expert so dont take my word for the gospel. but i dont think that you could get enough algae growth unless you start out with a decent amount of it to begin with and when i say decent amount i mean enough to fill a sump bigger than your tank. and again it would all really come down to your feeding habits and the amount of critters in your tank.

 

[picoreefguy]

leveldrummer;884337 wrote: With a large fuge, that would be realistic, a smaller one like your talking about that might be a stretch. but consider that the macro export shouldnt be your ONLY means of phos control, just one additional one that you use in conjunction with others to keep the water polished. you will still want a skimmer, and water changes. and possibly even a GFO, all these combined will keep your tank extrememly healthy.

im of the school of thought that you cant have enough macro algae in a normal sized sump to tackle your phosphate and nitrate needs but it can help in conjunction with other methodslike leveldrummer said

 

[tbub1221]

Picoreefguy;884340 wrote: im of the school of thought that you cant have enough macro algae in a normal sized sump to tackle your phosphate and nitrate needs but it can help in conjunction with other methodslike leveldrummer said

i do not believe this to be true myself , with some macros its maybe an issue , but with chaeto imo it gets so thick and grows so easy and fast it flat knocks nitrates and phos out , i run no purigen or phos guard , just a skimmer and chaeto , my phos never has ever been over .25 and nitrates stay at 0
i use to run a large clump of caulerpa and i had higher nitrates and phos then.
my system is smaller than what you guys are discussing so for that reason alone it may not be relevant , but i have high stock and a high bio load for the size with 2 clown a blenny a goby and a dottyback shrimp crabs coral , i spot feed every other day and feed the fish 2x times a day in a 29g biocube so my 5g worth of fuge 1/3 full of cheato on the back with a 15w curly q florecent bulb keeps my water spot on .
like i said the setup is different but the concept is the same .
i have 35 lbs of sand and 12-15 lbs of rock in tank and about 3-5 lbs of rubble rock in the bottom of the fuge. the rubble rock in the back probably isnt needed but i had a few smaller pieces that were well with pods when i moved to this setup so i just tossed it in and it stayed.
i vaccume the muck from the back every 12-15 days when i do a 15% water change

 

[heathlindner25]

Tbub1221;884446 wrote: i do not believe this to be true myself , with some macros its maybe an issue , but with chaeto imo it gets so thick and grows so easy and fast it flat knocks nitrates and phos out , i run no purigen or phos guard , just a skimmer and chaeto , my phos never has ever been over .25 and nitrates stay at 0
i use to run a large clump of caulerpa and i had higher nitrates and phos then.
my system is smaller than what you guys are discussing so for that reason alone it may not be relevant , but i have high stock and a high bio load for the size with 2 clown a blenny a goby and a dottyback shrimp crabs coral , i spot feed every other day and feed the fish 2x times a day in a 29g biocube so my 5g worth of fuge 1/3 full of cheato on the back with a 15w curly q florecent bulb keeps my water spot on .
like i said the setup is different but the concept is the same .
i have 35 lbs of sand and 12-15 lbs of rock in tank and about 3-5 lbs of rubble rock in the bottom of the fuge. the rubble rock in the back probably isnt needed but i had a few smaller pieces that were well with pods when i moved to this setup so i just tossed it in and it stayed.
i vaccume the muck from the back every 12-15 days when i do a 15% water change

Phosphates at .25 are extremely high. unless you're using API test kits, then who knows what the real number is..

 

[tbub1221]

heathlindner25;884453 wrote: Phosphates at .25 are extremely high. unless you're using API test kits, then who knows what the real number is..

i say .25 because i naturally asume there must be some therer im not going to kid myself and pretend its pirfect , but thats the first shade on the color chart , i use a api reef master test kit is the phos test in accurate ?
its the only phos test iv got but i have a few seachem test as well and iv taken test with both kits and have never seen them be off , i dont have a seachem reef , just strontium ,mag ,nitrate and ph/alk
so the ph and n03 are the only things i can double check but have always seemed accurate

but either way how is the lowest physical percent available for the test to read considered high when i see ppl write in and say theirs 0.5-1.0

Edit: ok i get what your saying about the api kit , the lowest measurement is way to high , iv never had algae or corals loos color , but i have no clue what the actual number is , i may need myself some phosguard or something but first i need another test .
ty for pointing that out to me

 

[picoreefguy]

just putting this out there but seachem has a phosphate kit that reads low range in increments of .01 ppm and their kits are know to be pretty reliable and acurate. they even include a refrence test of a known value so you can make sure the test isnt bad.

 

[tbub1221]

Picoreefguy;884477 wrote: just putting this out there but seachem has a phosphate kit that reads low range in increments of .01 ppm and their kits are know to be pretty reliable and acurate. they even include a refrence test of a known value so you can make sure the test isnt bad.

I'll just make it a point to get one asap .
I'm glad I asked , Ty for tha info fellas

 

[the curious]

Throwing in my 2cents. Every system i have used Chaeto in has had lower PO4 and NO3 than my systems that did not have it. Even systems with higher bioload and less mechanical filtration.

Chaeto is awesome IMO.

 

[picoreefguy]

the curious;884586 wrote: Throwing in my 2cents. Every system i have used Chaeto in has had lower PO4 and NO3 than my systems that did not have it. Even systems with higher bioload and less mechanical filtration.

Chaeto is awesome IMO.

im not saying macro dosent do its part but i am saying it cant be relied on as the sole means of removing nutrients especially in a normal sized sump now you throw a 100 gallon fuge on a 50 gallon tank with a normal bioload you might be able to get a way with it.

 

[the curious]

Picoreefguy;885233 wrote: im not saying macro dosent do its part but i am saying it cant be relied on as the sole means of removing nutrients especially in a normal sized sump now you throw a 100 gallon fuge on a 50 gallon tank with a normal bioload you might be able to get a way with it.

jrosenblum already has multiple methods of filtration already in place. I didn't say he should take out the live rock, skimmer, Purigen, and Chemi-pure from his sump and replace it with chaeto. Nor did I say that chaeto would work as the sole means of removing nutrients. I was simply saying the I had personally seen better nutrient export in my tanks that ran chaeto.

Good luck jrosenblum...its an awesome hobby. If you would like some chaeto and a free lil frag, PM me...I live in Alpharetta too.

 

[jrosenblum]

the curious;885292 wrote: jrosenblum already has multiple methods of filtration already in place. I didn't say he should take out the live rock, skimmer, Purigen, and Chemi-pure from his sump and replace it with chaeto. Nor did I say that chaeto would work as the sole means of removing nutrients. I was simply saying the I had personally seen better nutrient export in my tanks that ran chaeto.

Good luck jrosenblum...its an awesome hobby. If you would like some chaeto and a free lil frag, PM me...I live in Alpharetta too.

Thanks!!

 

[snowmansnow]

if the question is ONLY about 5 lbs of live rock.. I doubt you'll miss it if you just got rid of it.

 

[jrosenblum]

This is what I ended up doing 4.5 months ago:

1) Removed the live-rock from the sump and added matrix
2) Removed the skimmer -- no more skimmer
3) No macro-algae to speak of
4) Two units of Chemi-pure and one of Purigen changed monthly

I have 2 peppermint shrimps, 2 Emerald Crabs, variety of snails and hermit crabs, Kole Yellow Eyed Tang, Sail-fin Tang, Mandarin, Yellow Wrasse, 2 Ocellaris Clownfish, and a Bicolor Dottyback, ~13 Corals of all kinds.

Weekly 5 gallon water change


Nitrates never measure more than .3 per Salifert test kits.

Now, I probably have nitrates being produced that I cannot measure as they would be feeding algae that the Tang's and Emerald's are eating, but this set-up has been very, very easy to maintain over the last 4 months