Refugium Algae as Fish Food? GOOD or BAD?

[rickswika]

True or False?

“…do not, under any circumstance, feed the [refugium] algae back to the fish in the main system, as this merely redistributes much of the nutrients and waste that the algae have cleaned from the system! “ http://www.kentmarine.com/kumb.html (last paragraph)

I’m skeptical. One purpose of my refugium is to provide fresh food for my main tank. Another is to recycle nitrogen. You have to feed your fish anyway; what’s the difference if that food comes from your refugium. I like the idea of recycling and being as self sufficient as possible. Why would Kent Marine make the above statement? Can anyone explain or dismiss their logic?

[CAT]

I suppose you are reintroducing a bunch of compounds absorbed by the macro by feeding back to the fish. But then again, most foods have these compounds in them anyway. I had a hippo tang in my last tank and I certainly fed him the macro I grew - made him very happy

[MontanaRocknReefer]

Sometimes when I scrape algae off the glass the fish go nuts over it! Probably a nice salad to them! I see no problems doing it!

[dark horge]

You're talking about recycling scrubber algae, rather than exporting them (along with the nutrients they've assimilated).

To be fair, at least some of that recycled algal nutrient gets assimilated in fish muscle and bone, but then again, maybe you want such fishes to be hungrily foraging in the display and keeping any unsightly algae in check, rather than relying on your handouts.

[Phantom Phish]

The macroalgae will take up nutrients in your water column, such as nitrates and phosphates. So if you want to take those nutrients out of your system as an export mechanism, you have to remove the algae as it grows. So if you feed 100% of the algae back to your fish, the net effect is you're not exporting any nitrates or phosphates. If you feed only a relatively small portion back to your fish and throw out the rest, then you will still get the benefit of some nutrient export, just not as efficiently as removing all of the new algae growth. HTH.

[Toadfish]

I don't believe nitrates nessaceraly remain in the macro algae. I believe that they are converted to energy and used to grow the macro. Cutting back the macro does help export nutrients but only what was used up by the macro in it's growth cycle. Cutting also allows more room and light for additional macro to grow allowing more nutients to be taken from the water. IMO feeding macro algae is no worse than carnivorous foods.

[laddy00]

According to Kent removing the algae simulates grazing. How about let your fish graze on the algae. Seems pretty contadictive to say "do not, under any circumstance, feed the algae back to the fish in the main system, as this merely redistributes much of the nutrients and waste that the algae have cleaned from the system! " . The reason the macro algae absorb much of the nutrients is to use it as food. Yes maybe some will be released back into the tank. But what would have been in the algae you would feed to your fish anyway.
Just my .02

[Ray1214]

I would have to agree with toadfish. I have always pruned my refugium, however I think the critters (pods and worms) convert some of the nutrients and convert it into energy and to reiterate Toad's comments the same goes for growing the stuff. Remember Einsteins theory of relativity. I have never seen my nitrates or phosphates go up as a result of feeding macro algaes back to my fish. However, once a month or so, I do have to remove globs of it and feed the trash can or a reef club memeber.

Ray

[rickswika]

Kent Marine’s statement doesn’t seem to hold water .

I don’t see any down side to feeding some of my fuge “harvest” back to my main tank. I wouldn’t dump everything from the fuge back into my main tank. Just enough to keep my fish happy. But they say “ do not under any circumstance, feed the algae back to the fish in the main system”. This statement is thoroughly misleading IMHO.

Plus, they have overlooked one more important fact… fresh food is always more delicious and nutritious then processed food. Anyone fortunate enough to have a vegetable garden in his or her backyard will tell you that. Even my fish know that.

[yardboy]

Yea, but if you feed this fresh food back to your fish, you don't buy as much "processed" food from Kent!

[ReefDave]

Yardboy hit the nail on the head. From Kents stand point it is much better to continue to put flakes/frozen food into the system and the harvest out all that nasty "natural" food. hehehe

[Imaexpat2]

Good points from all. Some nutrients will be introduced back into your system.

If your fish are keeping the display tank cleaned, then some from your refugium is not a bad thing. To export nutirients, you should be giving more of it away to other reefers or throwing it away. Otherwise you are just recycling the nutrients back into the system.

I have several herbivores in my 125 tank. In my refugium, I have a few different types of algae that I grow. Some is fed to my fish that scarf it up in short order. The rest goes to friends or the trash. But I also have 6 mangrove trees and lots of live rock rubble. So far, I am keeping zeros across the board on my water test. So this is working out great for me. The display tank has very minimal algae growth as well.

Just food for thought....