Help with water quality. Add fuge? - Page 3

OceanicCorals-Ian- · #21 05-19-2010, 06:20 PM

Sorry digi, I didn't mean this to be hijack to your thread, shoot me a pm as I have something for you to try.

Zoaelite · #22 05-19-2010, 06:56 PM

In a tank that small I would stay away from Biopellets, as whatcaneyedo has so expertly stated you run to many risks as you are running a smaller water volume without a skimmer.

Back to your original question, I think a fuge would make an excellent addition to your tank. Not only do they provide great places for the culture of micro life but with the use of microalgae, mangroves and a DSB you can completely eliminate nutrients from your system (The natural way

). A 10g tank drilled will a 5 inch sand bed and a clip on light is cheap and looks amazing alongside a reef tank.

digi · #23 05-19-2010, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoaElite

In a tank that small I would stay away from Biopellets, as whatcaneyedo has so expertly stated you run to many risks as you are running a smaller water volume without a skimmer.

Back to your original question, I think a fuge would make an excellent addition to your tank. Not only do they provide great places for the culture of micro life but with the use of microalgae, mangroves and a DSB you can completely eliminate nutrients from your system (The natural way

). A 10g tank drilled will a 5 inch sand bed and a clip on light is cheap and looks amazing alongside a reef tank.

No worries on the hijacking.

I appreciate everyone's comments... although I'm sure pellets and such would work, I'd rather stay away from reactors, and dosing - I know very little about that subject.

Sounds like its boiling down to these two options that are best suited for me:

1. A small skimmer or
2. A fuge.

I'm aware of the potential con's of a skimmer, but is there any con's that can come with a fuge? In my setup it'll be quite easy for me to implement, so I don't see that as a downside. On the other hand, I have seen some reports of fuge's being entirely unsuccessful though, and only to be a source of growing live food... this leaves me confused

whatcaneyedo · #24 05-19-2010, 08:34 PM

The only general cons to refugiums growing macroalage that I can think of are that they take up a bit of space and require additional lighting... not a big deal for most setups.

However the type of algae that you choose to grow could have some negative effects on your tank. While caulerpa grows quickly and is wonderful for exporting nutrients it is known to yellow the water, release chemicals that stunt the growth of stony corals and potential go sexual and nuke everything. Chaetomorphia is relatively safe but like Caulerpa you don't want any getting into your display tank because once it takes hold on your rocks it is very difficult to get rid of. Gracillaria is my favorite... except that it doesn't grow worth a damn for me. None of them do anymore. I think the GFO I'm using works a little too well and that I need to cut back.

Zoaelite · #25 05-19-2010, 08:35 PM

Small nano skimmers tend to be pretty inefficent so If I were you I would go 100% fuge. The only possible problems you could run into stem from a DSB getting mixed up or certain macro algaes going sexual on you but as both of these are easily avoided you have nothing to worry about.

intarsiabox · #26 05-20-2010, 12:47 AM

I stated earlier that when I added a refugium to my tank there was no change in water quality or livestock health but I was using a skimmer long before I added the fuge so my nutrients were already being taken care of. Don't be discouraged from adding a fuge, it probably would help your tank but again I really don't think you have a problem. If you are thinking of a HOB skimmer here's a list of 3 inexpensive but good performing units: Octopus HB1000, Warner Marine H1 and the Eshopps PSK-75H. I have been using an Aqua-C Remora on my nano and it does an OK job but not exceptional. There's also the Deltec 300 but it is very expensive.