I have some of the whitest Utah sand and the most porous Utah rock you will ever see. Let me know if you are interested.

I could be wrong on my whole thought process however. Mark?

Before I forget, there will need to be a strainer on the return intake.

 

Yes, that entire baffle area except for a short dam to hold the sand is what I would remove. Another very uneccesary baffle is on the far right side.

To be honest, the whole baffle thing baffles me. I have never used them and never found them to be necessary. The key is a good wall to wall growth of Macroalgae. It stops all the bubbles. A filter sock under the drain can really help if a hobbyist doesn't mind changing it regularly. There is greater benefit with a larger Refugium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do we think that more complicated means better? Maybe it's because we just don't know. And when we don't know, we think, "Ahh here is someone that has really thought this out and developed this intricate maze of technology. Since I don't have the experience or the time to figure it all out, I will just pattern it after that one. The person that did that must be smarter than me so I will do it like they do it. The person that uses that simple setup probably does not know how to do something more intricate and complicated. That simple setup probably does not work."

Thanks for reading. Maybe I have spent too much time and effort in this hobby.

I would love some macro to get it started.

I don't understand the theory behind rock rubble being better than bio balls. They are both places where debris and poop can get trapped and slowly leach phosphates and nitrates into the tank. They block and slow down flow therefore stuff will settle like detritus.

I will be the devils advocate and totally throw you for a loop here. Don't put any sand or rock in your sump! If you want to run macro algae then put a ball of chaeto in there and a light over it.

I personally do not believe that a little 2 gallon area of sand and rock is gonna really do anything in the grand scheme of things. Have plenty of flow in the display tank and plenty of flow in your sump so that detritus can never settle. Thus you reduce the possibility of phosphates and nitrates leaching into the tank.

I find it funny that usually all the loved tanks on this site don't run a refugium. I would argue that most here love Brad Syphus' tank. Last time I heard he doesn't run a refugium. Not a single tank at Reef Runners or Aquatica runs a refugium. You have plenty of surface in the display tank to filter your tank.

I would MUCH rather fill that big middle space with a HUGE skimmer and let it do the work for me. I have three tanks at home and not a single refugium on any of them.

http://www.rimlessreef.com/ - http://www.rimlessreef.com/  - this tank doesn't run a refugium either.

I remember talking with someone in this club that had spoken with Eric Borneman on the issue of refugiums. He said they are a total waste unless you can match the display tank size. Actually on his forums over at Marine Depot he says we should all be using refugium style tanks that are 5x the size of our display tank. Just some food for thought.

Quoted as new sig!

LOL welcome to the hobby! A million ways to get to the same point or at least close...

None is right or wrong. Choose what suits YOU, the tank owner, best! I personally see no need for a fuge. I think a skimmer is a WAY better investment and does way more given the same space as a fuge. I also think fuges and protein skimmers contradict each other. Have one or the other IMO.

 

Personally I don't have a fuge or a skimmer but I would argue that my tanks are healthy and low maintenance. Should everyone run their tanks like mine? Of course not.

 

Some people like no sand in their display tank but prefer to put a DSB in the sump of fuge,

Reverse Daylight in a fuge keeps Oxygen levels more constant day and night. Skimmers remove detris and excess food before they are converted to nitrates, DSB allow the food and detris to feed the life that exists in the sand bed and allow nitrates to be created and consumed in the DSB.

 

Do your research and decide on what system you want to try. The nice thing about that sump is it has plenty of room to do just about anything you want to do with it. You can even change your mind and try something else if your original plan doesn't work out the way you expect it to.

It's pretty funny, a LFS tested my water and thought there was something wrong with my system because I had zero nitrates. Phosphates were zero also. I haven't done a water change since I set it up. I even let new rock cycle in it. I don't have a big enough fuge right now but it is still working. I have a tiny skimmer for the size of my tank and it is still working.

I will have to do water changes for other reasons, but not to remove nitrates or phosphates. This is the way my tanks have always functioned.

I don't know why anyone would want to fight with a tank when it is so easy to take care of a system with a fuge and DSB. Algae is my friend.

Ok

 

Contradict is probably the wrong word. They both attack the same problem in different ways and yes there is nothing that says you have to have one or the other.

 

A Skimmer attempts to limit Nitrates and Phosphates by eliminating the food sources that create them in the first place. It does not actually reduce existing Nitrate or Phosphate.

 

The Fuge exports Nitrates and Phosphates by using them as food for Macro.

 

A DSB reduces nitrates by converting them to free nitrogen.

 

All Good

I was wondering the same thing but afraid to ask it was starting to get a little crazy!

 

It can be incorporated into the tank, Fuge or sump.

Sure the fuge will still have some stuff to eat but I would want my fuge to have as much food as possible and thrive, not simply survive. Again JMO.

 

What I want to thrive is my display. The Fuge, Skimmer, DSB are to some extent overlapping systems that create an equilibrium based on the bio-load of the tank. Should one fail the others will compensate. I use a DSB and the Hiatt System for nutrient export but have been considering a fuge or skimmer should I get a bigger tank some day.

 

Like I mentioned earlier they are all good as long as they are maintained properly.

 

Edit below

 

As long as my water quality is good and my display is thriving I don't think I would complain that my fuge just isn't growing enough Macro or my skimmer isn't pulling enough skimmate. All these systems support my display.

 

Send me a PM if your interested in ways to take some of the PITA factor out of the tank by automating some of the daily tasks. I don't really want to hijack this thread.

 

 

If you are set you  up so that your water is running through the bio ball section just before hitting the return, then yes, ditch the bioballs and you might consider using the bioball section to hold a couple of media bags of carbon in there instead... this way, you have carbon filtration without having to hook up a seperate reactor or canister filter.

 

If you had a larger capacity skimmer I's say skip the fuge but I think you will be fine with it in the center section in your case.

 

With most systems there are going to be trade offs because of limited space and resources. I know that if I had the space and budget I would have a lot more systems in place on my tanks. I don't think anyone would argue that the fuge is of no value but there are plenty of cases where a choice has to be made between a fuge, or skimmer and even sumpless. Fortunately there are ways to make all of them work.