Having trouble growing plants in refugium

[duane C]

Hello all,
I have had my tank set up for over a year... Did a major upgrade about 2 months ago with new rock, a much larger refugium (55 gallon), Large protein skimmer (octopus 300) and a UV light and controls for my lights (2 - 250MH and 4 t5 50/50) have a compact flouresent bulb for my refugium...
And have healthy fish but cant seam to grow plants in refugium...what is going wrong...

 

[duane C]

And all leavels are good... alkalinity is a little high and calcium is also... found it to be the salt im using... has a high level and im correcting that..

 

[duane C]

I just noticed I have lost a small frag I bought of mushrooms...

 

[duane C]

 

[bang guy]

That looks like a tiny light if it's CF. Could it be the algae is starving for light?

 

[duane C]

that is what I also was wondering and just orderd a 10watt 6500k CF to replace it...

 

[lmforbis]

I use a 23w compact fluorescent bulb from Home Depot in a cheap clip on fixture. It works great in fuge.

 

[duane C]

and added those to the order. Will try it...thanks

 

[reefkeeperZ]

I would agree with what everyone else is saying, it just doesnt look like enough light on the fuge. whe your trying to grow algae more par in the red end of the spectrum is best so as many watts of regular plant spectrum bulb as you can easily get on there is what you want.

 

[flower]

You have to have dirty water to grow macros, besides the light of at least 6500. They feed on the nasty stuff in the water, Nitrates, phosphates, ammonia and nitrites, which is why folks want macroalgae in the refugium, to feed on it, and then remove it from the system by harvesting the macros, otherwise they won't grow. Mushrooms also like a little dirty in the water, and since you mentioned you lost them, that may be why neither one is doing well in your tank. Mushrooms are considered a good beginners coral because new hobbyists don't have stable systems. The good news is that you should be able to keep the more sensitive corals.

 

[duane C]

wow. Never thought about that... nitrites and nitrate are both zero and so is ammonia...this was my first frags I have purchased.... thanks

 

[reefkeeperZ]

You have to have dirty water to grow macros,

I would be very surprised if any water was "too clean" to grow macro algae, unless there was another algae consuming the nutrients (like a turf scrubber), if there are fish in the tank there is plenty of fuel for the macro algaes.

OP: your test kits aren't going to register positive low enough to indicate if there are enough nutrients in the system for macro's or other algaes. you are probably testing in PPM or PPT(million or thousand) and the macros are going to be able to grow in a rather low PPB (parts per billion). I would definitely say its more likely not enough light for macros

.the mushroom corals could be any reason they died from being introduced into too much light (and you have a ton of light), to temperature shock in shipping, to a secondary infection. too clean of water is pretty much never a thing in our little glass boxes.

 

[flower]

I would be very surprised if any water was "too clean" to grow macro algae, unless there was another algae consuming the nutrients (like a turf scrubber), if there are fish in the tank there is plenty of fuel for the macro algaes.

OP: your test kits aren't going to register positive low enough to indicate if there are enough nutrients in the system for macro's or other algaes. you are probably testing in PPM or PPT(million or thousand) and the macros are going to be able to grow in a rather low PPB (parts per billion). I would definitely say its more likely not enough light for macros

.the mushroom corals could be any reason they died from being introduced into too much light (and you have a ton of light), to temperature shock in shipping, to a secondary infection. too clean of water is pretty much never a thing in our little glass boxes.

There are a corals that just don't do well in pristine water conditions. Elegance, mushrooms and Xenia to name a few. There are indeed many reasons a coral doesn't do well. I couldn't keep clove coral alive in my tank to save my life.

I'm going to stick by my first opinion on the macros. If you have hair algae for example, doing daily or weekly water changes, and keeping the water parameters pristine will eliminate it... guess what, hair algae is a macroalgae. It's true that another macro or a turf scrubber would out compete the macros for food...we get macros to put in our refugiums for that very reason, but if the water is pristine, macros won't grow. LOL...However, I agree most people don't have that problem.

 

[bang guy]

Hmmmm, I'm not sure hair algae is considered a macro algae. In my experience macro algae will outcompete micro algae if it has good waterflow and adequate lighting.

 

[reefkeeperZ]

yeah GHA is generally considered a micro algae, along with most of the pyto algae types. Macro algaes generally consist of things like Phaeophyta, Chlorophyta (you know like Caulerpa, Valonia etc. or the calcareous ones like Halimeda, Ripocephalus etc.)

But of course in this hobby we tend call a lot of things algae that arent actually algae like cyano bacteria, and diatoms neither of which are actually algae in any way shape or form but often called a micro algae or just algae.

And just as an observation the OP's tank has been up over a year, there is probably no system in existence that has been running over a year with fish in it that wont have enough nutrients for some sort of macro to live if not thrive. the only thing new is some rock the fuge and light.

we are missing the obvious and ignoring the facts if we don't consider the fact that almost 700 watts of light might toast a low light coral like a mushroom when introduced, and instead insist the water is too clean in a tank thats over a year old.

 

[flower]

Hmmmm, I'm not sure hair algae is considered a macro algae. In my experience macro algae will outcompete micro algae if it has good waterflow and adequate lighting.

I understand, and after looking it up...GHA is a microalgae, not a macro, I am guilty of grouping them all together. That being said... hair algae can not grow without phosphates, nitrates and all the other nasty stuff we don't want in our water, if that is eliminated from the system the GHA will go away and die...so will a macroalgae.

ReefkeeprZ, 250 MH with fluorescent bulbs, is a very common light fixture, and lots of people have kept mushrooms just fine with that light. For years it was considered the best lighting to get, so it isn't overkill.

The macros are in a refugium...away from the lights. Neither mushrooms, nor macros stay alive, the only things both need is a little dirty in the water. Mushrooms, elegance and Xenia are filter feeders, and they don't like perfect water conditions... I don't know why to be honest, they just do better in a tank that isn't perfect. Duane said his Phosphates, nitrates and all the rest of the bad stuff are reading 0. While it is very unusual to find truly pristine water conditions, that doesn't mean it can't be done.

The fast growing green macros we put in a refugium, need at least 6500w of light, and enough dirty in the water to grow. If water is pristine, it won't grow. The entire reason we put macros in the refugium is to absorbs the bad stuff so it can be removed from the system. It's a natural method because macros need those bad things to grow.

A simple plant grow light is all that's needed in a refugium. What Duane has on his refugium looks like a clip on desk light, that light isn't the right kind, but a grow light bulb in it would work....and I don't know if that clip on fixture will hold a grow bulb

 

[bang guy]

The fast growing green macros we put in a refugium, need at least 6500w of light

6500w is like stadium lighting. I'm not sure they require enough light to boil the water Flower.

 

[reefkeeperZ]

6500w of light? I'm sure you mean 65k. and the macros will grow in any range of light that contains PAR if you have enough of it (photosyntheticly active radiation which ranges from 400-700 nm (which would actually be almost all visible light ranges par varies by kelvin. you can grow macro algae under a soft white bulb form home depot, which is no where near 65k. i'm sorry but I think lack of intensity in the fuge was at fault for the macro. (which is funny now that you've changed your diagnosis from clean water, to clean water and the wrong light)

Also i never said you can't keep shrooms under halides, but its not unreasonable to think that he may have light shocked them if they came from lower light. I've cooked a coral or three under my previous set up of 2x250w halide with 220w vho. heres a surprise for you flower, ALL corals are filter feeders (or at least feed organismaly, as in they ingest physical matter, trapping methods vary), Xenia is probably the closest coral to NOT being a filter feeder in so far as it can absorb nitrate from the water by absorbing and releasing water and has been shown by research to be the closest thing to a purely photosynthetic coral.

Either way I'm probably not going to convince you. Which is fine by me as long as the OP realizes how silly the concept is given the situation. If it was a new tank started with all dead rock maybe, but a tank over a year old. come on, I just can't stop laughing.

here is a chart showing the activity level of photo synthesis along the entire visible light spectrum the peaks in blue and red are best but notice plants/algaes can still photosynthesize along the entire wavelength

 

[flower]

6500w of light? I'm sure you mean 65k. and the macros will grow in any range of light that contains PAR if you have enough of it (photosyntheticly active radiation which ranges from 400-700 nm (which would actually be almost all visible light ranges par varies by kelvin. you can grow macro algae under a soft white bulb form home depot, which is no where near 65k. i'm sorry but I think lack of intensity in the fuge was at fault for the macro. (which is funny now that you've changed your diagnosis from clean water, to clean water and the wrong light)

Also i never said you can't keep shrooms under halides, but its not unreasonable to think that he may have light shocked them if they came from lower light. I've cooked a coral or three under my previous set up of 2x250w halide with 220w vho. heres a surprise for you flower, ALL corals are filter feeders (or at least feed organismaly, as in they ingest physical matter, trapping methods vary), Xenia is probably the closest coral to NOT being a filter feeder in so far as it can absorb nitrate from the water by absorbing and releasing water and has been shown by research to be the closest thing to a purely photosynthetic coral.

Either way I'm probably not going to convince you. Which is fine by me as long as the OP realizes how silly the concept is given the situation. If it was a new tank started with all dead rock maybe, but a tank over a year old. come on, I just can't stop laughing.

here is a chart showing the activity level of photo synthesis along the entire visible light spectrum the peaks in blue and red are best but notice plants/algaes can still photosynthesize along the entire wavelength

Golf coast ecosystems sells macros... when you click on a macro it tells you if it needs bright lights, the lower light ones require 6500k (sorry I added a w before), but according to the macroalgae book they need at least a grow light. At any rate I'm not an expert, and folks have posted that they only needed a regular bulb.

This is an honest question, I am not trying to argue. If all corals are filter feeders, why do some require chunks of food to be fed to them? On another site ( It's not allowed to post the link), there was a discussion about frogspawn and the administrator said frog spawn was not a filter feeder, below is the quote, the question was for a BTA (not a coral, poster called his anemone a coral) and frog spawn:

Quote: Okay, now I got it.
Neither of those are filter feeders. Filter feeders are things like gorgonians or sponges.
The BTA will be happy with the silver sides. You don't need babies though, you can just cut the big ones into smaller pieces and feed a piece.
Brine or mysis shrimp will work for the frogspawn as well.
If they have plenty of light both will only need supplemental feeding.

 

[reefkeeperZ]

he's sort of splitting hairs (probably to clarify or make it easier for the person he's responding to to understand), frogspawn feed by holding the tentacles in the current and trapping particles and microfauna by shooting it with nematocyst, filtering the water that flows through its tentacles for chunks big enough to stab and trap. same for a lot of anemone, He's over defining filter feeder to a sub category that doesn't really exist but we use in a general way in the hobby like calling cyanobacteria an algae even though it is in fact a bacteria. Any sessile (can't move) creature that feeds on what flows to or through its specialized appendages is technically a filter feeder (some motile ones too like clams) . On the other hand a fish hunting prey would be a motile predator which corals are definitely not. mushrooms like discosomas feed by using their sticky slime coat to trap bacteria and digestible organic particles in the slime then they consume the slime. sponges pass water through channels and use specialized cells to trap the right particles inside for digestion, clams suck water in and pass it through a (for lack of better word) screen. All are various methods of filter feeding. the difference would be the size of prey desirable and organic make up (zoo vs phyto etc) people loosly (and incorrectly) use the term filter feeder only for the group that feeds on the smallest organisms even though its correct for a far larger assortment of creatures.

technically the baleen whale is a filter feeder too.... (crazy huh)