Refugium VS Protein Skimmer

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Ok not phosphates but organics before they break down into phosphate and it does a better job at removing organics than a suspended tumbling ball of chaeto. I guess I would say the best way to lower phosphates is to limit their sources and a skimmer does a better job at removing organic sources.

OK, I agree that a skimmer removes organics before they break down and a refugium does not.

I just wanted to clarify that the net effect of removing organics on inorganic nutrients is not focused on phosphate any more than nitrate (IMO).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

To be able to remove produced ammonia by growth the feces must be broken down and reused. Because a skimmer removes part of the feces but not ammonia, how growth will be able to take up all produced ammonia?

What substance are you claiming must be released from feces for macroalgae or corals to take up nitrate or ammonia?

 

[Jarry]

I also vote for both, for me this works on 300 gallon tank with 8 tangs, Chelmon, Siganus magnificus and other 8 smaller fish to keep NO3 at 2,5mg/l and PO4 0,05mg/l without any additional export method. Sump is 80 gallon, light is 12-16h a day in reverse cycle. I feed quite a lot, 3 times a day, 2 times frozen + pellets and I also feed corals twice per week.

 

[fishmonkey]

It’s probably better to have both. They do different things really. One sucks up nutrients and the other removes protein particles.

Skimmer can skim out all kinds of stuff too not just protein. It also oxygenates the water and stabilizes ph if your room gets fresh air. Downside is you need to clean the skimmer every once in a while and the water level needs to be right. It also needs to be tuned sometimes. Some skimmers are loud.

The refugium sucks up nitrates and phosphates and other elements. It also can raise ph a bit. I think the best benefit is that micro fauna can grown in the chaeto. Copepods and such. The downside is it gets messy. And not just your refugium. The light for growing the macro algae will make your whole sump a mess. But hey I guess that adds more biodiversity

If I could only pick one I would go with the skimmer.

 

[DJF]

OK, I agree that a skimmer removes organics before they break down and a refugium does not.

I just wanted to clarify that the net effect of removing organics on inorganic nutrients is not focused on phosphate any more than nitrate (IMO).

Fair point and I see my leap. My overall view is that many reefers (myself included) add tools just because it’s the next step or as a result of a commercial disguised as a how to video. I’ve since learned to test and add/remove tools to address issues as they arise- you don’t need a skimmer until you do… you don’t need a refugium until you do. I’ve both added a refugium too early resulting in dead chaeto in my display (what a pain) and I’ve also kept a refugium on too long resulting in starving my corals.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

What substance are you claiming must be released from feces for macroalgae or corals to take up nitrate or ammonia?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

What substance are you claiming must be released from feces for macroalgae or corals to take up nitrate or ammonia?

If it is not logic for you, it is for me.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Growth clears the water, all growth. It is about the need for reminerelizing organic waste to be able to remove all produced ammonia. Most ammonia is used by fast growing heterotrophic bacteria braking down organic waste ( feces) too low in nitrogen, until the carbon is used up. Slower growing autotrops will use the nitrogen left over, produce nitrate to remove toxic ammonia not used for the growth needed for remineralization, using up produced nitrate and produced inorganic nutrient to produce new life. If most of what is going in is turned into ammonia, most of what is going in must stay available to remove the nitrogen.
Nutrient and nitrogen management starts with what is going in, starting with managing the protein content of the feed

A refuge is not a bowl of Chaeto.!!!! A refuge is a life support system used for managing the growth needed to clear the water, any growth. For example it can be used for installing a veryy effective remineralisation filter ( bio-filter) followed by an algae filter taking up all produced nutrients ( must not be chaeto!!!!); One can filter out particulate organics but instead of removing them, reuse them, promoting remineralisation,, and use produced elements (inorganic nutrients) for clearing the water off all nutrients by new growth, creating a balance between reducers and producers.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Growth clears the water, all growth. It is about the need for reminerelizing organic waste to be able to remove all produced ammonia. Most ammonia is used by fast growing heterotrophic bacteria braking down organic waste ( feces) too low in nitrogen, until the carbon is used up. Slower growing autotrops will use the nitrogen left over, produce nitrate to remove toxic ammonia not used for the growth needed for remineralization, using up produced nitrate and produced inorganic nutrient to produce new life. If most of what is going in is turned into ammonia, most of what is going in must stay available to remove the nitrogen.
Nutrient and nitrogen management starts with what is going in, starting with managing the protein content of the feed

A refuge is not a bowl of Chaeto.!!!! A refuge is a life support system used for managing the growth needed to clear the water, any growth. For example it can be used for installing a very effective remineralisation capacity removing most DOC ( bio-filter) followed by an algae filter taking up all produced inorganic nutrients ( must not be chaeto!!!!); One can filter out particulate organics but instead of removing it, reuse it, promoting remineralization,, and use the produced elements for clearing the water off all nutrients by new growth, creating a balance between reducers and producers. clearing the water of DOC and nutrients.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If it is not logic for you, it is for me.

You made a statement and cannot even explain what it means?

You claim without any evidence that something won’t work and yet many reefers see tor themselves that a skimmer and a refugium together is a fine combo that can result in a fine reef aquarium.

 

[Garf]

Growth clears the water, all growth. It is about the need for reminerelizing organic waste to be able to remove all produced ammonia. Most ammonia is used by fast growing heterotrophic bacteria braking down organic waste ( feces) too low in nitrogen, until the carbon is used up. Slower growing autotrops will use the nitrogen left over, produce nitrate to remove toxic ammonia not used for the growth needed for remineralization, using up produced nitrate and produced inorganic nutrient to produce new life. If most of what is going in is turned into ammonia, most of what is going in must stay available to remove the nitrogen.
Nutrient and nitrogen management starts with what is going in, starting with managing the protein content of the feed

A refuge is not a bowl of Chaeto.!!!! A refuge is a life support system used for managing the growth needed to clear the water, any growth. For example it can be used for installing a veryy effective remineralisation filter ( bio-filter) followed by an algae filter taking up all produced nutrients ( must not be chaeto!!!!); One can filter out particulate organics but instead of removing them, reuse them, promoting remineralisation,, and use produced elements (inorganic nutrients) for clearing the water off all nutrients by new growth, creating a balance between reducers and producers.

Nutrient and nitrogen management starts with what is going in

This applies no matter the export method. Surely not all foods are made equally with a perfect balance of N & P. Maybe I misunderstand.

 

[areefer01]

You made a statement and cannot even explain what it means?

You claim without any evidence that something won’t work and yet many reefers see tor themselves that a skimmer and a refugium together is a fine combo that can result in a fine reef aquarium.

They stated: A refuge is not a bowl of Chaeto.!

From reading what he said I think some of his thought process is that a refugium is not a Chaeto reactor or similar space. I don't believe he is arguing that a skimmer and refugium can't be paired but rather what a refugium is and is not.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

They stated: A refuge is not a bowl of Chaeto.!

From reading what he said I think some of his thought process is that a refugium is not a Chaeto reactor or similar space. I don't believe he is arguing that a skimmer and refugium can't be paired but rather what a refugium is and is not.

He states this:

“Because a skimmer removes part of the feces but not ammonia, how growth will be able to take up all produced ammonia?”

He is clearly stating that if you remove feces by skimming, that growth cannot take up the ammonia. Reefers with skimmers do not have excess ammonia or nitrate issues any more than no skimmer users.

I see no justification for such a claim, which is why I asked what in feces is needed for growth to take up ammonia. It’s as if he believes that phosphate is only in feces, but I’m not going to go down that road if that isn’t what ge means.

 

[areefer01]

He states this:

“Because a skimmer removes part of the feces but not ammonia, how growth will be able to take up all produced ammonia?”

He is clearly stating that if you remove feces by skimming, that growth cannot take up the ammonia. Reefers with skimmers do not have excess ammonia or nitrate issues any more than no skimmer users.

I see no justification for such a claim, which is why I asked what in feces is needed for growth to take up ammonia. It’s as if he believes that phosphate is only in feces, but I’m not going to go down that road if that isn’t what ge means.

Np. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

You made a statement and cannot even explain what it means?

You claim without any evidence that something won’t work and yet many reefers see tor themselves that a skimmer and a refugium together is a fine combo that can result in a fine reef aquarium.

Did I say it something won't work? it is about making choices, leaving the choice to the reader, this after bringing in the arguments. What arguments are not correct and why? Was the explanation not logic?

You do support the claim using a skimmer and using a refuge for promoting growth for clearing the water off nitrogen is a good ( fine) combination? Maybe you can explain why and how? I can not! I do not see the logic in such combination. Maybe you can help me to understand. I thought a skimmer was used to limit growth.

A lot of reefers using the combination can see for them selves why it is not a good combination, algae filters not growing or not growing fast enough while nitrate is still accumulating.

It has been shown the past decades growth is not able to clear the water of nitrogen, in marine tanks using a skimmer.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Did I say it something won't work? it is about making choices, leaving the choice to the reader, this after bringing in the arguments. What arguments are not correct and why? Was the explanation not logic?

You do support the claim using a skimmer and using a refuge for promoting growth for clearing the water off nitrogen is a good ( fine) combination? Maybe you can explain why and how? I can not! I do not see the logic in such combination. Maybe you can help me to understand. I thought a skimmer was used to limit growth.

A lot of reefers using the combination can see for them selves why it is not a good combination, algae filters not growing or not growing fast enough while nitrate is still accumulating.

It has been shown the past decades growth is not able to clear the water of nitrogen, in marine tanks using a skimmer.

yes, you did say something wouldn’t work. I’ll point it out for the third time. You reiterated it again above, and it just seems so grossly incorrect that I cannot believe you keep posting it.

“It has been shown the past decades growth is not able to clear the water of nitrogen, in marine tanks using a skimmer.”

It says that tanks with a skimmer will always have elevated nitrogen.

Of course that is not the case. And there is NO evidence that adding a skimmer to a skimmerless system would make N (ammonia or nitrate) rise.

 

[D3DPrintedThingz]

I'd start the tank with a refugium full of live rock... no lights... no Cheato... no cycling... just live rock

this is how my tank has been running for about 7 months. golf ball thru baseball sized live rock in the refugium, every chamber. if i ever upgrade i can, but it is doing well!! added bonus if any rocks get too covered in algae you can just switch them out. nice clean rock to replace the algae until it all gets stabilized

 

[Belgian Anthias]

yes, you did say something wouldn’t work. I’ll point it out for the third time. You reiterated it again above, and it just seems so grossly incorrect that I cannot believe you keep posting it.

“It has been shown the past decades growth is not able to clear the water of nitrogen, in marine tanks using a skimmer.”

It says that tanks with a skimmer will always have elevated nitrogen.

Of course that is not the case. And there is NO evidence that adding a skimmer to a skimmerless system would make N (ammonia or nitrate) rise.

it seems.? Why? Please ad your argument .
Did I say a tank with a skimmer will always have elevated nitrogen? if I did, this is not correct. That depends on feeding , but in tanks only using a skimmer on the long term nitrate will acumulate, also depending on the natural nitrogen export rate which is also influenced by the skimmer. Natural nitrogen export, denitrification, is based on anaerobic remineralisation, needing organic waste.
it is obvious your point of view is not mine. I look for improvement. I say that during the past decades skimmers are used and all that time in most tanks growth is not able to clear the water of nitrogen. My conclusion is that something is basically wrong, something prevents growth to be able to clear the water. It is not " fine" at all!!!! You say a skimmer and a refuge ( algae filter?) is a fine combination. I say it is NOT a fine combination and explain why I do think so? One must have reasons for braking down logic arguments without any logic eplaination , just saying the combination of both a skimmer and a refuge (algae filter) is " fine" . I do know the combination is NOT " fine" because it can be done a lot better , improving the definition of "fine".

A skimmer or a refuge? Or the combination of both? it is " fine" With only a refuge it is also "fine" but one does not need a skimmer.

Why one may need a skimmer if one has a refuge removing as much as possible?
Why one may need a refuge when having a skimmer removing as much as possible?

Using AAM with or without a skimmer shows the difference between " fine with a skimmer" and " fine without a skimmer".

If a choice has to be made starting up a system using a skimmer or using a refuge ( algae filter?) it is obvious to me a refuge is the best choice. I did explain why? You claim my arguments are grossly incorrect. I only can take note of your claim without adding anything useful.


If one starts up a system using a skimmer and keep on using it, nitrogen and phosphate may accumulate and one may have a reason for using a refuge but one will never know what "fine" result may be achieved without using a skimmer first.
The other way around, if one starts up a system using AAM ( active algae management) one will never have the need for a skimmer to remove nitrate and phosphate.



Adding a skimmer in a skimmer-less system and adding the same food will increase the nutrient unbalance, changing the carrying capacity of the system to become more autotrophic ( autotrophs producing more nitrate to eliminate more ammonia left over due to reducers not needing it now having a limited food source) The evidence is all around you and obvious for those who want to see it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Adding a skimmer in a skimmer-less system and adding the same food will increase the nutrient unbalance, changing the carrying capacity of the system to become more autotrophic ( autotrophs producing more nitrate to eliminate more ammonia left over due to reducers not needing it now having a limited food source) The evidence is all around you and obvious for those who want to see it.

There’s no evidence that skimmers case a nutrient imbalance, and the only evidence you have provided is a statement that the evidence is all around us. You won’t even explain what is unbalanced by skimming.

Sorry, I see no evidence and think that opinion is not supported by reality.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

If one add balanced food it contains everything needed for new growth, inclusive everything for producing the energy to grow. When it is digested it falls apart into organic waste containing what is left over of the carbon and inorganic nutrients, ammonia, phosphate, CO2, For growth being able to use up all already produced inorganic nutrients from what is present in the organic waste once part of the balanced food is needed . After most carbon has been used for fast growth using available ammonia, slower growing autotrophs and photo-autotrophs ( algae; phyto) will use all the elements becoming available. They will import carbon to make new life using up available inorganic nutrients, this as long all nutrients for balanced growth are sufficiently available. If part of essential nutrients and elements are exported, part of availble nutrients will not be usable until the balance is restored.

If one exports +- 35% of the organics once part of balanced food before it is reduced ( the main task of a skimmer) the balance is lost. Where all the nutrients needed for new growth able to take up all released inorganic nutrients, once part of the balanced food, will be retrieved from? The fast growing reducers will consume a lot less ammonia increasing the need for a good autotrophic based carying capacity, having to transform more ammonia into safely stored and usable nitrate. My Conclusion, more nitrate is produced using a skimmer.
Using a skimmer it is important to use food having a low protein content, this to limit the ammonia production.
Matter of course much more is going on in a tank but finally it is all about what is going in and what is going out and why some nutrients may accumulate and are not used up by natural growth.

Managing the nutrient content and nitrate production starts with managing the feed and the food content.
Starting up a new system using a skimmer, managing the feed is a very difficult task because the export rate of a skimmer is unknown and very unreliable. It is difficult if not impossible to match what is going in and what is going out.
Starting up using AAM, using a refuge for supporting new growth, for removing produced DOC and clearing the water of all produced inorganic nutrients, the feed can easily be matched to the removal and or export rate ( harvest) and nutrients availability can be managed as desired.

Having a free choice, there are very good reasons for starting up a new system using a refuge and no skimmer.