Reactors vs Refugium

[AdeptMrSniffles]

Hi all,

I've been scowering Reef2Reef for while and decided to join, although I'm a member of other forums, because there seem to be many knowledgeable peeps on here. I'd like to post a question regarding the use of Reactors and Refugiums. Quick background; I have about 5yrs in the hobby and I've recently setup a 90G DT, an upgrade from a 29L, and I've bought a 20G Long tank for the sump. My question is: How many of you all think it is an ABSOLUTE necessity to incorporate a refuge in the sump?? Because I'm learning much more towards just haveing a filter sock, skimmer, and 2/MR1 reactors to run phosphate remover and carbon. I know I won't have a "safe place to culture pods" but I just don't feel like all that extra work will be worth it. Any thoughts??

Thanks,
Sniffles

 

[thewackyreefer]

Personally, I prefer phosphate and carbon myself. Unless you have a good amount of space for a fuge, it may not be worth it.

 

[MarineDepot]

How many of you all think it is an ABSOLUTE necessity to incorporate a refuge in the sump?? Because I'm learning much more towards just haveing a filter sock, skimmer, and 2/MR1 reactors to run phosphate remover and carbon. I know I won't have a "safe place to culture pods" but I just don't feel like all that extra work will be worth it.

Hello Sniffles,

That's a common question that is asked a lot. There are certainly benefits to having a refugium including, as you mentioned, a safe place for pods. Water changes and filter media can often provide the other benefits of the fuge with less space being used up under your stand and less maintenance than with the fuge. Personally, I prefer not to run a fuge on my own system for this reason. I hope this helps.

Chris R.

 

[AdeptMrSniffles]

thank you both for your replies. I've made the decsion to purchase 2 MR1 reactors and just run media. Fuge's just seem like more than I want to deal with. I love the work that goes into our tanks, of course, but to have to look after a fuge just seems silly to me.

 

[jgraz]

To be honest I'm moving in the opposite direction. I also have a newly set up 90 gal DT. I am currently running a small fuge section in my sump with macro and bit of sand and a small amount of rubble. I also run a BRS dual reactor. Recently I found a crack in my sump so I'll be replacing. In the new sump I'm making a larger refugium. I am dedicating a area equal to about 15-20 gals to the fuge. I intend on having a DSB, macro, and a bit of rubble. My intention is to move away from the reactor, specifically GFO. I don't see why it has to be a hassle to deal with. If set up properly maintenance should be minimal. And is certainly cheaper the GFO, that stuff is way too expensive.

 

[wysiwyg]

i personaly love my fuge i feel reactors are more hastle than my fuge constantly changing expensive media more pumps. when you get into the larger tanks media every 2 mnths can run hundred of dollars

 

[AdeptMrSniffles]

Hmmm... we'll see what happens. I'm going to start with reactors, daisy chained together, and see if I like my results. If need be I have a spare 10g that I could setup as a fuge and have it gravity feed the 20 long. Thx for the different views.

 

[SteezySPS]

hmm thats funny because I assumed reactors are more work but I never used them before. what do you have to do besides trim chaeto every several months? The biggest reason is I would rather buy a sump with more room for a fuge and save more money in the long run. Dont need reactors

 

[ColaAddict]

I've used both. Media reactors are actually more work than a refugium. You have to change out the media every few weeks with a reactor and it's a pain in the butt doing that, it's messy and sometimes it stinks, and it's expensive. Refugiums, all you really have to do is harvest the macroalgae and you are done. You can use LED's for grow light and you don't even worry about the light for years.
I would say that it's a fact that refugiums are less work that reactors.

 

[always reefin]

Fuge, the natural way :wink:

 

[AdeptMrSniffles]

****! Now I'm doubting my decision! I'm leaning towards reators mainly because I've seen so many amazing tanks that run chemical filtration, i.e multiple LFS DTs. I know media isn't cheap but I'm really not worried about cost of operation. When I say fuges seem to more work. I really mean that I'm lazy :tongue:. I've still gotta cut the baffles for my sump. So maybe I'll change my mind in the meantime. Hell, I may do both, reactors and a fuge. The footprint of my skimmer is pretty big though and is gonna hog a lot of space.

 

[AdeptMrSniffles]

But lets say that something chemically goes wrong in your tank. Wouldn't the reactors be much more affective in filtering out the chemical over the refuge? I just view refuge's as a setup to "hopefully" maintain nitrates and phosphates. Whereas there are many different medias that you can use in reactors to draw phosphates out quickly, if levels are high, or keep them under control is a granular phosphate remover, which should last atleast a month in the reactor. Any thoughts?

 

[wysiwyg]

fuges always work the macro algaes feed on phosphates and nitrates. when your dropping 100bucks or more a month on media youll start rethinking your decision macro algae all you have to do is trim once a mnth your reactors will need to be cleaned out and refilled every month so if your truly lazy reactors will be more of a hastle for you

 

[AdeptMrSniffles]

fuges always work the macro algaes feed on phosphates and nitrates. when your dropping 100bucks or more a month on media youll start rethinking your decision macro algae all you have to do is trim once a mnth your reactors will need to be cleaned out and refilled every month so if your truly lazy reactors will be more of a hastle for you

Touchè WYSIWG Touchè

 

[AdeptMrSniffles]

How about a couple of MR1 Shortys? Would you think that I'd have to spend a lot of $$$ on media for them? After all, it's only a 90G tank and not a 200G, which is what the MR1's are rated for.

 

[fyrfytr]

Newbie here, but for what I am reading and what I want to do with my 55gal fuge is my plan and direction. Can alway do a HOB fuge down the road with your setup if you dont incorperate one now. I agree with the ease of use, you just let it runs its course and check in on it from time to time and trim out the enlarged alge when it needs it.

Other option out there that I have seen is a modified specimine container (think what they put the fish in when they take them out of the tanks at the fish store) for a pod hideout. I can look for the plans I saw, but basically it was holes drilled on the bottom and the sides. Pods and some cheto in the container. The natural waterfow allowed for the movement of water in and out of the container (not as good as a fuge but it works) so you get some water exchange there and you can also hide your pods there and they just come out with the water movement

 

[MBSL55]

I recently upgraded from a 70g to a 260g and only ran a fuge on the 70 but I had light fish stock. For the 260, I've decided to go with both a fuge section that is about 25g and a manifold off of one of my return pumps with three separate outlets that feed a GFO reactor and carbon reactor with the the third slot being available for a biopellet reactor if I should need to go that route in the future. Manifold feed makes things easier as I do not have to deal with separate pumps for the reactors and I will just test the output from the GFO reactor to see when it needs to be changed as I do my weekly water tests.

 

[Patrick Cox]

Currently I am running GFO and Carbon in two separate Phosban reactors that are attached to a manifold and one pump. I do not have a fuge but I planning one for my next tank, but I will continue to run the two reactors as well. I am also planning for the option to use bio pellets as well if I choose to go that route in the future. I feel like I need that additional phosphate/nitrate consumption mechanism. Also, I suspect the reactors are more work than the fuge. You will be surprised how quickly your GFO is spent and it is time to change it out! Good luck!

 

[NanaReefer]

Truly couldn't get any easier or lazier then with my fuge it's been running for 1+ years and the ONLY thing I've ever done to it is trim the chaeto. Otherwise it's outta sight outta mind I've got tons of pods, sponges, worms, snails and who knows what else all thriving in there. I am happy to say in all this time I've yet to have any issues within my DT of algae, po4, no2 or no3. It's simply a great way to go Oh and I make a lil $$ on the side by trading in the trimmed chaeto at the LFS, there's my fish food!!

 

[Ashish Patel]

This is an old thread but still pretty current today. After going back and forth on this decision for months:

I went with the Refugium because I know it removes the thinks I don't want in the tank (PO/NO) proportionate to my fish and coral growth. More food and waste = faster algae growth. I don't trust PO testers fully and would not prefer using measuring GFO/flow based on unreliable dosing. Plus these Hanna checker ULR PO powder is too expensive! I theorize that the GFO is removing other trace elements and not giving anything in return - which could lead to some serious unknown long term effects - who knows if its not natural its probably got side effects! Chaeto in the refugium is surely giving of PODs, probably other amino acids, natural, and is very easy to maintain since I want it to get dirty as my nitrates are undetectable. If the nutrients get to high I can increase the photoperiod.. If you have the space highly recommend