I was reading through a thread in that other reefing forum and was surprised by people stating that Live Rock in a refugium are nitrate factories. I always thought that the opposite is true.
Here are some quotes:
What are your thoughts on this subject?
Here are some quotes:
What are you planning on having the rock in there do? You have a skimmer which equals export. You want to use Chaetomorpha for export as well. (There are far more effective macros around than Chaeto, but... ) Then you have rock, which does nothing but produce what you are trying to export. That is why bio-balls went out of vogue; rock = bio-balls.
What he really trying to say is the rock will produce more nitrate problems in your tank than beneficial pods being produced... there is no need for rocks in your fuge...or sand for that matter just a giant ball of cheato rolling around...
+1 to the rocks being a waste and counterproductive in that fuge. I would eliminate the rocks and run with the chaeto. It will provide plenty of refuge for pods to populate without causing a detritus trap and nitrate factory that will result from the rocks in there.
The larger misconception is that the rock rubble contributes to denitrification because it has holes in it. That is very unlikely as there is no mechanism for the bulk movement of water through the rock, at precisely the correct rate, which would be required for denitrification to occur. Certainly the conditions probably exist though the rubble is pretty small. (till the "pores" become clogged with glycocalyx; bacterial secretions,) However there is still the problem of bulk water movement. Sand beds operate differently, as they are "fluid" rather than solid rock...
...Looking at it logically, the DT produces, and the sump exports. Adding production to the sump, makes the system less efficient.
What are your thoughts on this subject?
