dieselkeeper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2012
- Messages
- 998
- Reaction score
- 2,339
I also like refugium because of maintenance and pods. I had a fuge since day one of 10 years of reefkeeping.
More Effective: Fuge w/Macro or Algae Scrubber?
- Thread starter redsea01
- Start date
- Tagged users None
bigdan3489
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 76
- Location
- Ohio
- What state or country do you live in
- Ohio
I added a Santa Monica Filtration Drop 1.4 algae scrubber to my sump a week ago, I wanted to see what it would do. It's too early for me to tell yet, but I will post once I get some results.
FiremanRick
Community Member
I run both. I converted an old, small sump to a chaeto tank that drains across a scrubber. Have several triggers and they are messy eaters. So there is no shortage of nutrients. I also have an additional 30g tank attached to the system that has a deep sand bed, some more live rock and some cool crabs to look at. I figure I am trying, within reason, to copy the ocean. So I think there is a little bit of of all of those in the big blue.
MaccaPopEye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 697
- Reaction score
- 1,234
*Full disclosure - I haven't tried a fuge before*
I had such good results from my scrubber that I don't think I can ever try a fuge. From all rocks covered in very, long, thick algae to almost no algae in 4 months and finally algae free around 5 months.
I have a couple of pics to post when I get home (posted them all on here before) but the scrubber is just so compact and efficient I wouldn't be able to use a tank without one now.
GHA is what you want to stop growing in your display. So why not provide the perfect conditions for it to grow in your sump instead and keep your DT free?
For instructions on sizing Google "algae scrubber zoho" and click on the "zoho sites" link. It should be one or two down. But that is the algae scrubber Bible!
I had such good results from my scrubber that I don't think I can ever try a fuge. From all rocks covered in very, long, thick algae to almost no algae in 4 months and finally algae free around 5 months.
I have a couple of pics to post when I get home (posted them all on here before) but the scrubber is just so compact and efficient I wouldn't be able to use a tank without one now.
GHA is what you want to stop growing in your display. So why not provide the perfect conditions for it to grow in your sump instead and keep your DT free?
For instructions on sizing Google "algae scrubber zoho" and click on the "zoho sites" link. It should be one or two down. But that is the algae scrubber Bible!
I have had a scrubber in the past, and currently have a fuge. I think the fuge has only one disadvantage and tons of advantages over a scrubber.
Scrubber - Pros: smaller, takes less space and lighting. Cons: more maintenance in that you scrub the turf algae off every week; the screen can easily degrade/rip and you have to make a new one; it doesn't keep pH up at night nearly as much as a nice fuge because the lights are not as big; cannot house a rogue fish, etc. temporarily until you can offload it to someone else; cannot grow great macro for herbivore fish, such as Gracilaria or Ulva; does not add water volume to your system.
In the end, both do great at removing nitrates and phosphates; however, the fuge does so much more for you!
Scrubber - Pros: smaller, takes less space and lighting. Cons: more maintenance in that you scrub the turf algae off every week; the screen can easily degrade/rip and you have to make a new one; it doesn't keep pH up at night nearly as much as a nice fuge because the lights are not as big; cannot house a rogue fish, etc. temporarily until you can offload it to someone else; cannot grow great macro for herbivore fish, such as Gracilaria or Ulva; does not add water volume to your system.
In the end, both do great at removing nitrates and phosphates; however, the fuge does so much more for you!
MaccaPopEye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 697
- Reaction score
- 1,234
As promised. Here is the before and after 4 months comparison (after is the top photo). During the time frame I got really busy and lost a bit of interest in an algae covered tank and I think I actually only did one or two water changes in the 4 months (was doing 10% weekly prior). Even with next to no water changes and normal feeding the scrubber quickly helped to rid me of algae.
Here is the same time period of just one coral. I had a couple get smothered with algae and die before the scrubber really took hold. I also had a few alk swings that caused some grief but most coral in the tank recovered just fine like this one did.
And here is what a full screen looks like (I scrape it every two weeks). Including taking photos and squeezing the water out and weighing the harvest, cleaning the scrubber takes 5 min max. It is really quick.
And here is a photo of the scrubber itself.
Here is the same time period of just one coral. I had a couple get smothered with algae and die before the scrubber really took hold. I also had a few alk swings that caused some grief but most coral in the tank recovered just fine like this one did.
And here is what a full screen looks like (I scrape it every two weeks). Including taking photos and squeezing the water out and weighing the harvest, cleaning the scrubber takes 5 min max. It is really quick.
And here is a photo of the scrubber itself.
thefuz
Active Member
I ran both a scrubber and chaeto in my previous tank (90 gallon). Scrubber would outcompete the chaeto most of the time but I believe that was due to the light position favoring the scrubber (intentional on my part). I had SPS/LPS but dealt with that thick matty red cyano all the time. Could have been old tank syndrome or some other factor.
New tank (250) features a larger sump with dedicated fuge area, and I started with a healthy crop of chaeto/caulerpa in the first month or so of stocking the tank. Phosphates pretty close to zero and I still have yet to detect NO3 even with heavy feeding and turning the skimmer off for a few hours/day. I don't run GFO. I've started experimenting with dosing KNO3 but very cautiously. SPS going great. LPS pretty good also, though chalice not so much, which I guess I may expect that with such low nutrients.
If you can have a large sump with a dedicated fuge area, I'd say go fuge until the macro can't keep up with bioload. Pods galore, you can grow macro for hungry tangs, and in my experience maintenance is much easier.
New tank (250) features a larger sump with dedicated fuge area, and I started with a healthy crop of chaeto/caulerpa in the first month or so of stocking the tank. Phosphates pretty close to zero and I still have yet to detect NO3 even with heavy feeding and turning the skimmer off for a few hours/day. I don't run GFO. I've started experimenting with dosing KNO3 but very cautiously. SPS going great. LPS pretty good also, though chalice not so much, which I guess I may expect that with such low nutrients.
If you can have a large sump with a dedicated fuge area, I'd say go fuge until the macro can't keep up with bioload. Pods galore, you can grow macro for hungry tangs, and in my experience maintenance is much easier.
Just an enquiry, I was reading in an article that the Refugium should have a volume at least 20% of the Display tank for it to be of any benefit to the system ie nutrient control; is this the advised rule of thumb? If for example an In-cabinet sump can't provide a Refugium of that capacity, would an Algael scrubber be better idea
cracker
5000 Club Member
That's some real good growth Macca ! You surely had some nutrients in the tank.
I have run both a ref and scrubber never had good growth with my scrubber so I went old school and got a handful of chaeto for the fuge
I have run both a ref and scrubber never had good growth with my scrubber so I went old school and got a handful of chaeto for the fuge
MaccaPopEye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 697
- Reaction score
- 1,234
I built it myself. Never worked with acrylic before but it came out alright. A few things I would change if I ever build another one (probably will eventually) but it gets the job done.
Thanks. Yeah the tank certainly had some bad nutrient issues. But now I can feed pretty much double what I need to and still have 0 nitrate and 0.03 or less phosphate
I think the key to making a scrubber work well is to use the instructions on this site: http://algaescrubber.zohosites.com/
Get the screen size, flow and lighting correct and I don't think you can go wrong!
OP
OP
redsea01
Active Member
Wow, thanks everyone for all of your replies! I so appreciate it! Based on what I have read, I think I am going to try a refugium first. Since my tank is 125 gallons, what size refugium do you recommend/how exactly do I figure out what size pump I need? I was also curious as to how I should keep the algae from clogging the pump. Maybe put some netting in between? Thanks so much!
Science says an algae turf scrubber is per area much more efficient at removing pollutants than macroalgae.
Look it up, dr walter adey.
Personally an ats ia more efficient than macro. But macro is nicer to look at.
Look it up, dr walter adey.
Personally an ats ia more efficient than macro. But macro is nicer to look at.
UNCFAN
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 93
- Location
- North Carolina
- What state or country do you live in
- North Carolina
If you are carbon dosing and running GFO - would macro algae in the sump starve out because of the lack of nitrate and phosphate? If you have macro algae in your sump should you carbon dose and run GFO?
