Simplified reef system possible?

[mmfish]

With a a basement filtration system, would a skimmer be enough "equipment " with a diversified refugium? I plan on mangrove plants and live rock refugium the same volume as display tank, 130 gallons

[Myka]

How about a skimmer and a biopellet reactor? Biopellets are simpler than mangroves, and possibly cheaper to run since mangroves require lots of lighting. I wouldn't bother with a refugium.

[mmfish]

It is never possible to duplicate nature what a mangrove plant takes out of water cannot be duplicated by anything humans can organize or do.Think about it, the closer you can get to a natural environment with your reef tank, the more sustainable it will be.

[blennieluvr]

What do you plan to keep in your 130? Your bioload will make a huge difference on your filtration needs. Sometimes a skimmer is enough along with the live rock.

[mmfish]

Sps coral,other corals, various reef inhabitants, 130 gallons

[BoisBlancBoy]

How about a skimmer and a biopellet reactor? Biopellets are simpler than mangroves, and possibly cheaper to run since mangroves require lots of lighting. I wouldn't bother with a refugium.


Why would you say not to bother with a refugium?

[mikeatjac]

The extra live rock would be great, it has worked for me. The mangrove is not very efficient.

[Epicreefer]

I would skip the mangroves and stick with macro algae. Mangroves grow in tidal mud the best, high nutrient levels, also they like direct sun so that's a lot of light needed. Macro is better at lower light levels and better suited to remove nutrients from the water column. The amount of equipment really depends on the bio load you put on the system. Algae turf scrubbers seem to be a space efficient some what low maintenance natural method. I would do an ATS before a fuge personally for sps, for lps and some pipefish I would go with a fuge for the pods and nutrient issues wouldn't be as big a problem.

[Myka]

Why would you say not to bother with a refugium?

The OP asked if a refugium was enough equipment, which implies he would be using a refugium for nutrient export. Not saying it can't be done, but when most people try to use a refugium with, say a DSB, the refugium tends to become a nutrient sink rather than a nutrient exporter. I find people generally have more luck trying Chaeto or an ATS as a "natural" nutrient export system than a refugium or mangroves.

As a note, there are several species of Chaeto. Some are fast growing and some are slow growing, so if your Chaeto isn't growing, find a new source and hope for a different species.

Still, biopellets are probably the easiest means of nutrient control and just require a simple reactor which usually take less space and less maintenance than an ATS or growing Chaeto.

[Giovanni]

On my 330g tank (easily 450g total volume) I am running an over sized skimmer, cheato LR and biopelets. This is a fairly new system that will be SPS dominated with a clam field and probably end up overstocked on the fish end.

Get a skimmer that is bigger than you think you need. IMHO Cheato does not take much space and works great! It never hurts to have as much LR in your system as possible. I would not use a DSB, as it will eventually crash if not swapped out. We are all lazy at times! I have never had any luck with mangroves either. As for Biopellets they have their pros and cons according to the web. I am using and old calcium reactor for a biopellet reactor but do not have enough experience with them to say one way or the other yet. As I am sure you know, if your setup is lacking, you will have to do more frequent water changes.

Here is a link to my build. (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2228590&page=1)

[Cliff519]

I use a combination of a skimmer and a macro algae compartment on both of my set-ups and they both have very large amounts of live rock. I am amazed at how well the combination of skimemr and macro algae works in both set-ups. I don't need to use any bio-pellets or phosphate removers and my nitrates never get above 2ppm. That may change when the bioload increases, but I can always add biopellets latter on if needed.

From what I have read, that works better than mangroves, but I don't have any first and experiance with mangroves so take that for what's its worth

[reefgeezer]

The answer to the OP's original question is yes. There are, IMO, better ways. If I were building a new sump it would use just a big skimmer and some sort of carbon dosing. I like a simple dosing pump with vinegar but biopellets I think would be another option. Alternately, if I had a fuge I'd feed it with water from the skimmer to ensure detritus didn't build up. It would be bare bottom with Cheato in it.

[cap032]

It is never possible to duplicate nature what a mangrove plant takes out of water cannot be duplicated by anything humans can organize or do.Think about it, the closer you can get to a natural environment with your reef tank, the more sustainable it will be.

Therein lies the problem. In our small enclosed systems, with the amount of livestock we typically incorporate, achieving a natural enviornment is dang near impossible without man made products. And yes, man made products can pretty much duplicate what a mangrove does. It may just take several man made products to do so. A mangrove would indeed take nitrate and phosphate from the water. The question is, how many mangroves and how much lighting would it take to remove the same amount of nitrate and phosphate as a skimmer/reactor would remove? As you may see, the mangrove route wouldnt be practical for most people due to due size/space limitations. Dont get me wrong, some people are very successful going "all natural" if you will. "Most" of us however, wouldnt fare so well. Likely, the best we can do to even come close to replicating "what happens in the ocean" is to incorporate a good combination of both nature (live rock, macroalgae, etc.) and mand made devices (skimmers, reactors, supplements, etc.).