Do you run a refugium?

M

Mr. Thingdoer

New member
Well, a lot has definitely changed since I had my last tank running. It looks like a lot of people are deciding not to use a refugium. Going without a fuge isn't even something I considered for my current build. I'm currently shopping for a sump, and all this new information is confusing me. Have I really been doing it wrong for all those years?
 
If you have the space for it, why would this even be in question? Throw in some porous rocks and chaeto. When the chaeto takes off, it will pretty much keep phosphates at 0 with zero maintenance.
 
Last edited:
I always have ran a fuge, don't see why you wouldn't want to if you have the room. Maybe if you run a algae turf scrubber..
 
I have the space for it, but I've got multiple people, from multiple places telling me that "This isn't 2006. Nobody uses a refugium anymore."

It made me feel dumb, and wanted to see if this is a real thing, so I started doing some research. It looks like people are split on this, and more people have gone fuge-less.

I just finished listening to a recording of Julian Sprung & Jake Adams debate on which system is better at MACNA. They both had good arguments.

I just don't want to be one of those stubborn guys who does things just because that's the way we've always done things, even if they're detrimental to the system. Times change, technology advances, and new discoveries come every day. That's how science works.

Additionally, I don't want to be one of those guys who naively falls for the newest trends.
 
The only two negatives I can come up with for having a refug is 1. the space it takes up and 2. it can be a detritus trap. The biggest plus IMO, is it gives you room to grow and change in the future. We never know what is around the corner and having a sump section that could be coverted to something else or perform a second function in the future can be priceless.

I have one, but it really isn't one any more. It now has too much flow and no longer grows cheato. It is still a good place to house gear, extra live rock and even a place toss and critter in timeout. I do have to vacuum it out every couple weeks but the little hastle is nothing compared to the benefit for my system.

Hope it helps.
 
jrpark22000 said:
The only two negatives I can come up with for having a refug is 1. the space it takes up and 2. it can be a detritus trap. The biggest plus IMO, is it gives you room to grow and change in the future. We never know what is around the corner and having a sump section that could be coverted to something else or perform a second function in the future can be priceless.

I have one, but it really isn't one any more. It now has too much flow and no longer grows cheato. It is still a good place to house gear, extra live rock and even a place toss and critter in timeout. I do have to vacuum it out every couple weeks but the little hastle is nothing compared to the benefit for my system. Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

We already know the OP has room for a fuge and keeping crap off the bottom is as simple as dropping a powerhead in. I've always done it this way and can't imagine running a tank without chaeto. As soon as it grown enough, I take off GFO reactors and never worry about phosphate or nuisance algae.
 
jrpark22000 said:
The only two negatives I can come up with for having a refug is 1. the space it takes up and 2. it can be a detritus trap. The biggest plus IMO, is it gives you room to grow and change in the future. We never know what is around the corner and having a sump section that could be coverted to something else or perform a second function in the future can be priceless.

I have one, but it really isn't one any more. It now has too much flow and no longer grows cheato. It is still a good place to house gear, extra live rock and even a place toss and critter in timeout. I do have to vacuum it out every couple weeks but the little hastle is nothing compared to the benefit for my system.

Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

Your sump sounds a lot like the fugeless systems these people describe. It's basically a skimmer section, a higher flow area with a bit of live rock, other denitrification (ceramic) medium/ pellet reactor, and then a return.

The traditional refugium sections were low flow areas with a somewhat deeper sand bed, lots of rock, some critters, macro algae, and usually a bit of unintentional cyano.
 
markitekt said:
We already know the OP has room for a fuge and keeping crap off the bottom is as simple as dropping a powerhead in. I've always done it this way and can't imagine running a tank without chaeto. As soon as it grown enough, I take off GFO reactors and never worry about phosphate or nuisance algae.
Click to expand...

As Joe pointed out in post #5, He's looking and listening to debates on both sides. What negatives can you come up with for a refug to go along with your positives?
 
Mr. Thingdoer said:
Your sump sounds a lot like the fugeless systems these people describe. It's basically a skimmer section, a higher flow area with a bit of live rock, other denitrification (ceramic) medium/ pellet reactor, and then a return.

The traditional refugium sections were low flow areas with a somewhat deeper sand bed, lots of rock, some critters, macro algae, and usually a bit of unintentional cyano.
Click to expand...

Yep, totally agree. Mine started off as a refug. I've since added two other connected tanks to the same sump. Both only had the option to be plumbed into the refug section. I had no idea I'd ever want to add these other tanks when designing the original sump layout. I've also tried (unsuccesfully) to use an ATS in this sump section. Looking back, I'm very glad I did add it to allow for the modifications.

As a side note, one of the connected tanks is a 45G cube. It's a QT that's always running connected to the DT. If I need a QT it's disconnected and run seperate. I mention this as this tank has no fish, coral or CUC. It's become a 45G refug for all kinds of life as well as a great place to do WC from allowing for slow mixing of the new water into the main system.
 
Mr. Thingdoer said:
Your sump sounds a lot like the fugeless systems these people describe. It's basically a skimmer section, a higher flow area with a bit of live rock, other denitrification (ceramic) medium/ pellet reactor, and then a return.

The traditional refugium sections were low flow areas with a somewhat deeper sand bed, lots of rock, some critters, macro algae, and usually a bit of unintentional cyano.
Click to expand...

What you describe is an old school setup. Sand in a fuge is bad news. Smaller rocks, chaeto and a powerhead is all you need in a successful fuge.
 
jrpark22000 said:
As Joe pointed out in post #5, He's looking and listening to debates on both sides. What negatives can you come up with for a refug to go along with your positives?
Click to expand...

Idk any negatives if done right positives r its easiest cheapest way to keep parameters good . Lot better then spending big money on reactors and gfo or the dangers of bio pellets but thats jmo
 
This is an interesting debate. I have always run a fuge on my tank featuring sand, live rock, and cheato. I have been recently thinking of removing the sand, as I notice quite a collection of detritus building up. I think this debate has inspired me to pull the trigger on this and see what happens.
 
No fuge but I have his cousin, the algae turf scrubber, ATS. I have a DIY one that seems to work well; I even took my GFO offline.
 
markitekt said:
What you describe is an old school setup. Sand in a fuge is bad news. Smaller rocks, chaeto and a powerhead is all you need in a successful fuge.
Click to expand...

If one was to replace those live rocks with a ceramic denitrification block, would you still consider it a refugium?

I ask because that's the type of sump system that seems to be making the most sense to me, after absorbing all this new information.
 
Mr. Thingdoer said:
If one was to replace those live rocks with a ceramic denitrification block, would you still consider it a refugium?

I ask because that's the type of sump system that seems to be making the most sense to me, after absorbing all this new information.
Click to expand...

I like really porous rock, like pukani, because it provides great surface area for extra bio-filtration, while providing enough space between the rocks for flow, which prevents detritus buildup.
 
markitekt said:
I like really porous rock, like pukani, because it provides great surface area for extra bio-filtration, while providing enough space between the rocks for flow, which prevents detritus buildup.
Click to expand...

I also used to look for the most porous rock I could find. I would have again for my new build, but I started reading too many articles. At this point, I think I'm going with the least porous rock I can find, and that seems to be Tonga. My opinion may change depending on what else I learn before I go shopping for rock.

I'm new to this forum. What are the rules of posing articles from another site? I read an interesting article on the surface area of rock last night. I want to see what you guys think of it.
 
Mr. Thingdoer said:
I'm new to this forum. What are the rules of posing articles from another site? I read an interesting article on the surface area of rock last night. I want to see what you guys think of it.
Click to expand...

Go for it. It's all about learning and sharing, well unless you work for the other other site and are trying to bolster traffic :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top