Anyone run GFO in systems with a refugium?

[Joel_155]

Hi all,
Looking for ways to reduce my po4 and I wondered if anyone has had success with running GFO along with a refugium? My only concern is that the gfo would nuke the fuge and then I would have to buy more chaeto. Right now my sump goes drain, mechanical filtration (filter floss), skimmer, and return (RDSB in the return chamber). I was thinking of adding gfo in the skimmer chamber after the fuge. Any ideas or feedback?

[HeadleesSon]

I ran one in a refugium and everything thrived.

[PhaneSoul]

if your looking to reduce po4 then you should disconnect the fuge and export more detritus. if you have to employ gfo then your fuge apparently isn't controlling phos.

unless the reason for having a fuge is not to help control po4, in which case more detritus removal will help control po4.

gfo removes inorganic phosphate, rotting detritus is the source of inorganic phosphate

[CHSUB]

if your looking to reduce po4 then you should disconnect the fuge and export more detritus. if you have to employ gfo then your fuge apparently isn't controlling phos.

unless the reason for having a fuge is not to help control po4, in which case more detritus removal will help control po4.

gfo removes inorganic phosphate, rotting detritus is the source of inorganic phosphate

what about po4 leaching from LR, or from calcium reactor media, GAC, or salt mixes; all sources of po4. simply removing detritus is not always the answer!!!

IMO, start with a small amount of GFO; test and watch the results.

[power boat jim]

if your looking to reduce po4 then you should disconnect the fuge and export more detritus. if you have to employ gfo then your fuge apparently isn't controlling phos.

unless the reason for having a fuge is not to help control po4, in which case more detritus removal will help control po4.

gfo removes inorganic phosphate, rotting detritus is the source of inorganic phosphate

This is a very good place to start ^^. Where in the system is there likely the biggest build up of detritus? that would be the first thing I eliminate as well as possible look at the RDSB as a cause.

[rogersb]

I run a refugium and gfo. My total system is 300g+ but my refugium is only 60g of that. A refugium so small can't keep up with the po4 so I have to run gfo.

[CHSUB]

you should disconnect the fuge

apart from removing detritus, how does disconnecting the fuge help? algae is going to grow, why not grow it were it can be removed easily. i would not take this advice!!!

[power boat jim]

you should disconnect the fuge

apart from removing detritus, how does disconnecting the fuge help? algae is going to grow, why not grow it were it can be removed easily. i would not take this advice!!!

If it is like alot of areas with slow moving water then its a good place for detritus to collect. Clean it and return it back online is another possibility. Although if it is the source of the problem then it is creating a bigger problem then its solving-hence the removal of it all together.

I would not rule out anything at this point.

[PhaneSoul]

If it is like alot of areas with slow moving water then its a good place for detritus to collect. Clean it and return it back online is another possibility. Although if it is the source of the problem then it is creating a bigger problem then its solving-hence the removal of it all together.

I would not rule out anything at this point.

Detritus IS the single source of phos (provided your ro/di and salt mixes are free of phosphate like they claim to be and should be). Calcium carbonate is a phosphate sponge, a holding area if you will, not a true source. A fuge needs correct maintenance just like anything else or the sponge fills up.

A fuge is not a true source of phos, the detritus in it is, it's simply a sponge that can fill up.

I agree if you have created a nutrient rich environment because that's what you need for your critters, then growing algae in another place is nice, not my personal choice because I have a tang that enjoys algae, however yes, in a well maintained system detritus is the biggest source of phos.

[ca1ore]

I think part of the problem with the Refugium, depending upon your goals for it of course, is that they are just too small. Consequently, whether a notable source of food or consumer of nutrients, anything less than half the size of your main display (my own rule if thumb based on trial and error) simply isn't going to be fully effective. Running GFO is fine, though at some point one can do so too aggressively and have your macros wither.

[PhaneSoul]

Is that for the fact of fitting enough macro and items into the fuge?

[Hodge1995]

I say you just drain the tank and put some plastic fish in there. There is more than one way to have a successful reef tank guys.

[Joel_155]

Lol thanks for all the comments all. At this point I have to agree with Phanesoul about detrius in the tank. I need to thoroughly clean the sump and give it a few weeks before making any rash changes to the system. I plan on leaving the RDSB in for the time being as my nitrates are virtually undetectable and I don't want to increase that number without an export plan in place. Eventually I would like to start manual carbon dosing but want to get PO4 under control first. Right now if I started it wouldn't work as po4 was at .13ppm and nitrates were at . 05ppm (guessing, basically zero on red sea pro test). Carbon dosing would fail without having nitrates to remove.

[HeadleesSon]

Where would the detritus in a fuge come from? Just the over flow I would think (not feeding the refurgium, would anyone do that?) If so it can just be siphoned out. I am not sure I understand how it would get in there.

[power boat jim]

Where would the detritus in a fuge come from? Just the over flow I would think (not feeding the refurgium, would anyone do that?) If so it can just be siphoned out. I am not sure I understand how it would get in there.

It is in suspension and will settle out in anyplace water slows down. Gravity does the rest.

[Rybren]

rotting detritus is the source of inorganic phosphate

Interesting POV. Do you have any scientific data to support that statement? I only ask because RHF has stated on numerous occasions that his 3 x 44G refugia are thick with detritus and have never been cleaned. To the best of my knowledge, he does not have an issue with PO4.

I'm just wondering what is at play here.

[Stackemdeep]

Joel, I have run GFO and a Fuge at the same time but it is possible to drive PO4 down to ultra low levels. If this happens, you may find your macro barely growing and your sps turning pale and not showing the color you want to see. As far as detrius in the fuge and sump, that is a controversial subject. Personally I do not clean mine, and have not for several years. Food is my primary concern for inbound PO4. To each their own. Eventually as my tank matured I ended up pulling the GFO completely.

[ca1ore]

Interesting POV. Do you have any scientific data to support that statement? I only ask because RHF has stated on numerous occasions that his 3 x 44G refugia are thick with detritus and have never been cleaned. To the best of my knowledge, he does not have an issue with PO4.

I'm just wondering what is at play here.

I don't siphon detritus and don't have a phosphate problem ether (at least not one than manifests on test kits or in observable pest algae growth). Don't think its unreasonable to assume detritus is going to be a source of excess phosphates, but as long as you have adequate export mechanisms, it clearly doesn't have to be a problem. Just my opinion, of course.

[CStrickland]

Where would the detritus in a fuge come from? Just the over flow I would think (not feeding the refurgium, would anyone do that?) If so it can just be siphoned out. I am not sure I understand how it would get in there.
Besides the flow of nutrient rich decaying matter from the DT, you also have all of the dead algae and bacteria in the fuge itself contributing to the problem. Consider what a good fertilizer composted leaves makes.

Interesting POV. Do you have any scientific data to support that statement? I only ask because RHF has stated on numerous occasions that his 3 x 44G refugia are thick with detritus and have never been cleaned. To the best of my knowledge, he does not have an issue with PO4.
I'm just wondering what is at play here.
if you like Randy's style, this is an oldy but a goody [RHF Aquarium Fish Magazine] (http://web.archive.org/web/20040704055819/http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=2276) I believe the following would apply to bacteria consuming organic phos and then dying in the water column.
Unfortunately for those of us trying to master phosphate chemistry, the world of organic phosphates is far larger than inorganic phosphates. Many common biochemicals contain phosphate esters, and every living cell will contain some. Such molecules as DNA, ATP, phospholipids such as lecithin, and many proteins contain phosphate. In these molecules, the basic phosphate structure is covalently attached to the remainder of the organic molecule through one or more phosphate ester bonds. These bonds are stable for some period of time in water, but will eventually break down to release inorganic phosphate from the organic part of the molecule, a process that can be sped up through the action of acids, bases or enzymes. Addition and removal of phosphate from ATP, for example, is a highly regulated process taking place in all organisms.

I think display macro looks awesome, but if the fuge is just a tool to remove phosphates and the nutrient problem persists, then I would try something else. If simple maintance and a 4"x2" GFO reactor can do the same job as a second tank half the size of my display, it seems like a no brainier to ditch the fuge and run GFO. Some like to feed less, but I'm a sucker for my fish's puppy dog eyes, so I keep him fat and clean up after him.

During the process of trying to find a balance that works for me, I'm trying one thing at a time. Adding more and more contraptions seems like a good way to wind up with a very complicated tank, and no idea which export mechanism is doing any good. If someone wants to run a skimmer, fuge, dsb, reactor, and carbon doser, that's up to them but I'm looking for a way to keep things simpler and focused on the display that I want to look at.

[Joel_155]

Joel, I have run GFO and a Fuge at the same time but it is possible to drive PO4 down to ultra low levels. If this happens, you may find your macro barely growing and your sps turning pale and not showing the color you want to see. As far as detrius in the fuge and sump, that is a controversial subject. Personally I do not clean mine, and have not for several years. Food is my primary concern for inbound PO4. To each their own. Eventually as my tank matured I ended up pulling the GFO completely.
The idea is to get for low po4 to minimize HA and babe algae in the DC. I have kind of ran the gammut with nutrient exportation processes over the years and at this point I'm trying to go entirely natural. I have fought Ha and nuisance algae since I've been keeping a saltwater tank and I finally feel like I'm getting it under control. I was thinking of running GFO after the fuge just as a temporary measure to control the excess nutrients and kill off the bubble algae in the DT.

[PhaneSoul]

if you take away detritus where does the inorganic phos come from then? everything that's living wants phosphate, they need it.

the more detritus you keep in your system the more nutrient rich the system as whole is going to be. doesn't necessarily mean its going to be a problem. but it does mean there will be more organisms in the system. if everything were to die all at once the inorganic phos would skyrocket.

[Stackemdeep]

The idea is to get for low po4 to minimize HA and babe algae in the DC. I have kind of ran the gammut with nutrient exportation processes over the years and at this point I'm trying to go entirely natural. I have fought Ha and nuisance algae since I've been keeping a saltwater tank and I finally feel like I'm getting it under control. I was thinking of running GFO after the fuge just as a temporary measure to control the excess nutrients and kill off the bubble algae in the DT.

Some choose to do just that, and be fairly aggressive with GFO to run ultra low on purpose & get all the PO4 to leach from the rocks. Good Luck!

[ca1ore]

During the process of trying to find a balance that works for me, I'm trying one thing at a time. Adding more and more contraptions seems like a good way to wind up with a very complicated tank, and no idea which export mechanism is doing any good. If someone wants to run a skimmer, fuge, dsb, reactor, and carbon doser, that's up to them but I'm looking for a way to keep things simpler and focused on the display that I want to look at.

It's a good point. Changing or trying multiple thing simultaneously does make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of one thing versus another. For me though, the technical aspect of my tank is as interesting as the actual display, so it's hard for me to not tinker. I run a skimmer, waterfall ATS, remote DSB, poly filters, GAC and GFO - phew - and while collectively they control nutrients, I could probably remove one or more of them to little effect. But I also have 35 odd fish, many of which require multiple daily feedings, and I keep SPS; so at this point I see no good reason not to simply continue to do what has worked well so far.

[Joel_155]

As I read this thread and continue to think things over in my head I'm going to just continue doing 5-10 gallon weekly water changes (60 gallon DT with 15 gallons in the sump). I'm a bit of a gear nut and have to constantly remind myself to leave the system alone and let it mature on its own.

[ca1ore]

Is that for the fact of fitting enough macro and items into the fuge?

Common sense, really. I see all these folks with small refugiums that aren't effective at processing nutrients ..... Because they're tiny compared to the main display. Same relative problems with pod production. When I was younger, and had both time and patience, I played around with refugia of various sizes and concluded for my own relatively heavily stocked tanks, a refugium at least half the size of my main display was the sweet spot.

[CHSUB]

Common sense, really. I see all these folks with small refugiums that aren't effective at processing nutrients ..... Because they're tiny compared to the main display. Same relative problems with pod production. When I was younger, and had both time and patience, I played around with refugia of various sizes and concluded for my own relatively heavily stocked tanks, a refugium at least half the size of my main display was the sweet spot.

i have to disagree(respectively, of course), i run a 10% fuge and maintain po4 between .00 and .02 without GFO and a medium bioload.

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b606/CHSUB/photoskimmer_zpse6db89b5.jpg (http://s1294.photobucket.com/user/CHSUB/media/photoskimmer_zpse6db89b5.jpg.html)

i do, however, use Gracilaria Parvisipora in the fuge; which grows quicker and absorbs more po4 than other macros. i harvest a basketball size piece weekly.

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b606/CHSUB/image.jpg1_zpspjjvhosx.jpg (http://s1294.photobucket.com/user/CHSUB/media/image.jpg1_zpspjjvhosx.jpg.html)

[ca1ore]

i have to disagree(respectively, of course), i run a 10% fuge and maintain po4 between .00 and .02 without GFO and a medium bioload.]

Hah, well then you're the 'exception that proves the rule'. Seems like you run yours essentially as an ATS. Not suggesting you do,so, but it'd be interesting to take it offline and see actually how much PO4 it's consuming.

[Mcgeezer]

I run GFO and a refugium with red and black mangroves and form caulerpa.

All of it still grows, just not exponentially. The macro/mangroves will derive most of its energy from remaining nitrates.

[Joel_155]

Chsub, so I read online (random Google search) that the algae you're using consumes nitrates to phosphates 30:1. Not sure how valid that is built how does that compare with your numbers?

[CHSUB]

Chsub, so I read online (random Google search) that the algae you're using consumes nitrates to phosphates 30:1. Not sure how valid that is built how does that compare with your numbers?

sound like what i read too, could you post link? iirc, it was the highest % of po4 to no3 listed. most macros are 60:1 or higher?

[Joel_155]

It was just one of the old threads from RC.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2444101

[Joel_155]

Im going to stick with this setup for a while as I've learned you need to be patient in reefing. Right now nitrates aren't an issue due to my DSB and po4 isn't bad but not great. Going to do some parameters testing this morning so we'll see how the week was with regard to nutrient exportation

[Joel_155]

So PO4 went up from . 13ppm to . 17ppm. What do you guys feed and how often? I think I fed my tank a little too much last week. The fish loved it but I need to manage this piece. I have four fish and I fed them about 5 times in the past 7 days.

[PhaneSoul]

I feel sorry for your fishies.. Mine get a 5 ml syringe of blender mush once an hour thurs-sun for 4-5 hours and a 5ml syringe of blender mush once every two hours for 10 hours mon-wed. Idk how you guys can compromise feeding habits to keep a dsb, jmho

[Joel_155]

Hey phane can you elaborate? I've read that a RDSB is a great way to control nitrates which is why I use one. I also am trying to control all parameters naturally. I would love to feed more however I have heard that food is a big source of PO4. I also have four fish and one of those is a lawnmower blenny who grazes on hairalgae. I would love to feed more and control po4 however I haven't figured out a way to do that. If you have it dialed in I would love to know. Thanks in advance for all the help!

[dkeller_nc]

So PO4 went up from . 13ppm to . 17ppm. What do you guys feed and how often? I think I fed my tank a little too much last week. The fish loved it but I need to manage this piece. I have four fish and I fed them about 5 times in the past 7 days.

While cleaning your system (fuge, sump and DT) of detritus is a good occasional husbandry practice, long time reef keepers will recognize that keeping a squeaky-clean system doesn't help all that much from the standpoint of keeping phosphate concentrations low. The reason is fairly simple - we are adding a boatload of phosphate as we feed fish/coral compared to the max. amount of phosphate we'd like to stay below in the tank water.

The only solution is either drastically limiting the amount of phosphate being introduced by sharply restricting feeding of fish/corals, or dramatically raise the export of phosphate. There are 2 main ways of preventing some of the introduced phosphate from being liberated into the water column and increasing the inorganic phosphate concentration of the tank water: increasing skimming capacity and/or using GAC to absorb phosphate-containing lipids and other organic materials before they're broken down into inorganic phosphate and nitrates. It's definitely possible to use GAC in this way, but most of us choose not to because of the expense and the PITA factor of changing out a GAC reactor every few days.

With respect to skimming, it is capable of both removing the organic phosphates that are excreted by the animals, and removing bacteria that have incorporated phosphate into their cell walls and cytoplasm. Using a highly effective skimmer and carbon dosing are aimed at increasing export through this last mechanism. Many have found that's all that's needed and don't use GFO.

The other route to go (and can be complimentary to preventing the release of inorganic phosphate into the water column by removing organo phosphates) is increasing the export of inorganic phosphate. This can be done by water changes, but in general water changes aren't very effective at removing materials being added to or generated in the aquarium that we wish to keep to low levels. Randy Homes Farley wrote a very good analysis on this subject here (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/). Other methods are chemical absorbants (GFO), chemical precipitants (lanthanum chloride use, possibly use of kalkwasser) and removal of life that's consuming nutrients (i.e., macro/micro algae, bacteria or even xenia).

In my opinion, I'd suggest trying out some GFO. There's no question that one can way too much way too fast to a system and potentially damage corals. But used judiciously, it's about the least complex, highly effective method available.

I wouldn't discount carbon dosing, either, presuming that you've an efficient skimmer. Given your description of the algae in your system, it's quite possible that you have quite a bit of nitrate production in the tank that you don't see in a test kit because it's being rapidly consumed by the growth of (undesirable) algae.

Finally, regarding chaetomorpha algae; this is incredibly sturdy stuff. I have some in each of 5 small tanks that are copepod cultures. These cultures get room light and/or stray tank light only, and the chaeto holds it's own, even after many months. So you could simply remove the chaeto to a bucket with an air stone if you're concerned with having it die off from phosphate reduction in the water column.

[ca1ore]

That's exactly right. Conceptually, it's pretty simple: input must be balanced with export. If you decide you want to 'starve' your fish, then basic export will suffice. If you must feed your fish more frequently (keeping anthias, for example, as I do), then export mechanisms must be increased proportionally. Prior post summarized them pretty well. No correlation between how much you feed and DSB, by the way, its simply another mechanism to further breakdown excess nutrients (if you have them). I'd certainly argue that phosphates are the main problem, and in tanks with heavy macro growth (or even ATS) nitrates may start to become a growth limiting factor. I've not does nitrates in any of my tanks because I feed so much, but I could see doing it is some cases.

[CStrickland]

Joel: what is your maintenance routine, like how are you removing waste currently?

[Joel_155]

I try to do a 5 gallon water change once a week and keep the ATO topped up. I just replaced my skimmer with an aquamaxx cones co1 as my old one was too big for the tank and would only skim dry. I'm using red sea coral pro salt and have a fairly low calcium/alkalinity demand based on corals. As of right now I have two month's ( from same specimen, piece broke off and grew info it's own) a hammer coral, a torch coral, GSP and some pulsing xenia. The xenia as of late has slowly been dieing off as I try to remove access nutrients from the tank.

[Joel_155]

I have only had this sump for around 6 months and this one is much bigger than the previous ad added a fuge. Previously I was using a biopellets reactor with a skimmer but found that it wasnt removing the po4. Hair algae went crazy and gfo wasn't keeping up. I ditched the biopellet reactor and due to a Nitrate spike lost my old monti (about a year ago). I added the RDSB as I've read that it is a good way to control nitrates (it seems to based on my testing) and it is removable if I choose to or if it starts to go south. My ultimate goal is go start Carbon dosing and supplement po4 removal with my fuge. My old skimmer would only skim super dry so I waited until I could replace it before starting carbon dosing.

[Joel_155]

I figure at this point I'm right at a good starting point for carbon dosing. I liked the biopellets however I would prefer to control how much carbon goes into the tank and how often as opposed to having a reactor full of carbon waiting to be consumed.

[CStrickland]

You mean you just take water out and add new stuff, without blowing off the rocks or vacing or anything?

I think by just relying on the skimmer to remove organics you will always be playing nutrient catch up. There's probably a lot of rich detritus settling around your tank and rotting into fertilizer. If you like natural, think of how the waves and tides wash dead organisms like algae and bacteria as well as waste out to the deep parts of the ocean. Then try pointing a powerhead at your rocks and watch the poo fly.
Haha, next time I vac my sand I'm gonna pretend I'm a tide monster. Rawr! :)

[Joel_155]

I just did a 10gallon water change and siphoned Detrius from the dt

[dkeller_nc]

You mean you just take water out and add new stuff, without blowing off the rocks or vacing or anything?


Keep in mind that there are great many of us that don't do this, and generally don't have nutrient problems, even in very well established tanks. In general, diligently (and maybe obsessively) vacuuming sand beds, cleaning out sumps, blowing rocks off and running filter socks to keep a neat 'n tidy system is more a function of the reefer's personality and preferences than it is a husbandry requirement to keep a successful reef.

[PhaneSoul]

I go minimal to control things. I just reset my system due to wanting a change and then found a leak in my sump so now I'm trying a new strategy, not that my old one didn't work.

My old system was barebottom with a 55 gal sump as a settling chamber and a filter sock, nothing else I don't have a skimmer yet. Good growth on my lps and the monti cap i had. I would just siphon out my sump once a month, I only had 1 sps so low low nutrients were not my goal. Nitrates stayed at 10-20 depending on the time of month and phos was not an issue. I feed a ton, probably a lot more then most do here. Phos was the limiter in my system. I tested this once. I didn't touch my tank for 3 months that's when it started growing algae, introduced a kole tang then vacuumed out the sump and went to my normal maintenance routine and the algae died back in a week. The only downside to that experiment is my nitrates went sky high and were not readable on a tests. But I had only an algae film develop on the glass that I cleaned once a week.

I used the bacteria to control the phosphates while I controlled the detritus. I keep the detritus in check and the bacteria consume any phos brought into the tank.

[CStrickland]

Keep in mind that there are great many of us that don't do this, and generally don't have nutrient problems, even in very well established tanks. In general, diligently (and maybe obsessively) vacuuming sand beds, cleaning out sumps, blowing rocks off and running filter socks to keep a neat 'n tidy system is more a function of the reefer's personality and preferences than it is a husbandry requirement to keep a successful reef.

I don't think that a couple squirts with a baster and pushing a tube around the sand for 3 minutes every Sunday is "obsessive", do you? I also cant think of much besides salt water, food, and flow that is a "requirement" to keep a successful reef. Many diff approaches work, but this OP asked for help with theirs.

What I do think is that unlike the established happy tanks you refer to, OP wants their nutrients lower, and since they state a preference for "natural" approach it might be worth considering removing some of the detritus that is no doubt contributing to the issue. I suppose it is somewhat a personality thing, I am a fairly common sense person so it makes more sense to me to get the junk out before it rots than to leave it in the tank and try to pull the resultant fertilizer out on the back end. But if OP were satisfied with that approach I certainly wouldn't suggest they abandon it.

[oseymour]

Most of the time, the sizes of our refugiums are not enough to export all the nitrate and phosphate our systems produce. GFO is another way to reduce phosphate.

Another thing I've learned is that each system is completely different and what works for one will not neccessarily work for another.

[Joel_155]

I think like everything with this hobby depends on the personality of the reefer and their individual tank. I have been lazy with maintenance in the past and have suffered the consequences from it. I'm still fighting bubble algae and had a little cyano so that's why I siphoned the DT. Normally I use a maxijet and pump water from the sump for a water change. While I'm dealing with bubble algae I'll probably siphon the DT every few weeks.

[Dan_P]

what about po4 leaching from LR, or from calcium reactor media, GAC, or salt mixes; all sources of po4. simply removing detritus is not always the answer!!!

IMO, start with a small amount of GFO; test and watch the results.

Agree. A balanced view point and conservative approach.

If your substrate is like mine, the interstitial water is high in phospates and it is slowly diffusing into the system.

My native macro algae grows well with no detectable nitrate and phosphate in the water column although the substrate contains phosphate but zero nitrate. GFO did not interfer with growth but periodically there is some die back of the algae.

[Joel_155]

Okay so far what I've gotten from this thread is that there are many ways to skin a cat! I think at this point I'm going to try a balanced approach. I'm going to continue with 10g water changes and siphon out BA, Cyano, and HA and see how things measure up. I'll do this for the next month or so and see what happens.

[Joel_155]

Hey all, So how would I go about replacing LR in my tank. I have GSP in my tank and although it looks great it is slowly growing over everything and I don't want it to take over the tank. I was thinking about buying some dry rock (Marco rocks for example) and curing them in qt before adding it to the DT. I figure I can sell the LR with the GSP on it and the replace it with newly cured rock. I just don't want to pull out too much LR to negatively affect the tank. Any suggestions on how do this correctly?