Decision Time

[guidedbyechoes]

I currently have a planted 25 gallon with a betta and a dwarf frog. I have decided to get rid of this setup and put my current underwater friends in a 5 gallon unfiltered. I have been trying to decide what to purchase next. I either want either a 25 gallon nano reef starting out only live rock then graduating to corals or a 50 gallon planted freswater with mostly live bearers.

Either way, I have decided to opt for a wider tank instead of high which my current one is. The person I got the tank from had a nano reef but obviously didn't do much research because the light is only an ocean sun 15 watt. As far as the nano reef side goes to my understanding I will need:

stand
tank
live rock,
most likely but no imperative live sand or coral substrate (which I have),
a power head that will move the water about 10x per hour min.
marine salt (which I have)
a hydrometer or refractor
a light or lights that will get me 3 watts per gallon
possibly a protein skimmer
clean up crew
ultimately live stock and coral

foods

thermometer

Which brings me to the question of how do you measure the waste adage of coral? I know it by inch with fish. But with them

What is the benefit of a Refugium? Is it imperative to obtain one?

PLEASE TELL ME IF I FORGOT SOMETHING

On the freshwater side.

I will need:
stand
tank
fluorite
fertilizer
other specific minerals depending on the plants chosen
substrate sand or small gravel
bogwood
non calcium rocks
Co2 system(Which I have)
Filtration system (more gallons per hour the better)
Adequate lighting (3 watts per gallon once again)
plants
livestock
foods
thermometer


I believe that covers it. I really can't go wrong either way. The 25 gallon I have just isn't going to work for me unless, I remove the current residents, and even then the tank shape and volume, if I do freshwater won't cut it for me. Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this. I wrote this in a hurry so if you need clarification I will do my best to clear up any miscomunications.

 

[Esfa]

I would do the 55 gallon planted freshwater

But maybe with angels, headstanders and a peackock eel or something like that? Not exactly that, its bad But planted with unusual fish, instead of livebearers. Might make it a bit more nteresting

 

[guidedbyechoes]

I would do the 55 gallon planted freshwater

But maybe with angels, headstanders and a peackock eel or something like that? Not exactly that, its bad But planted with unusual fish, instead of livebearers. Might make it a bit more nteresting

I'm pretty set on the endlers but I am open to other options it doesn't have to be 100% livebearers. I'm not down with eels though they resemble snakes far too much. I'm not against snakes but water snakes, not having it.

 

[Tommy Gun]

Well....I have to admit that I am a big fan of both FW and SW equally, so I can't really give you a fair opinion on what set up I think you should go with...and IMHO, is ultimately up to you anyways so if you are leaning one way or another, I would go with your gut feeling. That said, I believe I can help you out with a few things:

What is the benefit of a Refugium? Is it imperative to obtain one?

In saltwater, a refugium could be described as a sort of 'glorified sump' in that it is, in very generalized terms, a sump which contains an area to place macro-algae -- which is basically a glorified term for saltwater plants. The benefit to using a refugium is that the macro-algae (SW plants) will use and hence, remove certain nutrients (e.g. phosphates) that the annoying type of algae (micro-algae) might otherwise thrive upon. Of course, this can also be achieved by placing the macro-algae directly into the main tank, but for those of us who have fish which would make a quick meal out of these plants, a refugium allows us to gain the benefits without risk of being eaten.

Additionally, a sump and/or refugium also provides other benefits such as adding more water volume to the entire system (which goes along well with the 'bigger is better' theory), providing a place to hide or otherwise keep equipment (e.g. heater, filter, chiller, skimmer, etc...etc...etc..) out of view, and depending on how it is set up, can quickly add high amounts of dissolved oxygen into the water; among other things.

To be honest though, the use of a refugium and/or a sump is not solely limited to SW tanks since FW tanks can benefit from them as well...and for the same reasons. In fact, I know quite a few people who use a sump, refugium, and/or both on his or her FW tanks and probably would never go without one in the future.

a light or lights that will get me 3 watts per gallon

Perhaps the most common advice given to those who are thinking about starting up a saltwater tank, at least to help avoid 'sticker shock' anyways, is to purchase the more expensive equipment/supplies over some period of time (e.g. a year)...which I think makes perfect sense in some ways; however, I realize that a year long wait is not always something we can endure. That being said, it is very possible to start up a 'frugal' SW tank sooner rather than later and then add/upgrade equipment while you enjoy your fish. For example, you do not literally do not need any light in order to keep a Fish-Only or FOWLR tank since fish and inverts (except corals, anemones, etc...) are not photosynthetic. And, just in case you are wondering, you do not need light to keep live rock...although Coraline algae growth may be slowed/stopped due to lack of light - but that is not the end of the world IMHO, especially if you will be upgrading later on.

To add to that, you may also be able to 'get away' with not using a skimmer on a fish-only or FOWLR tank (although, if you can, I would add it) and, with a little bit of patience, can save some big money by purchasing mostly base rock and only a relatively small amount of live rock since, if kept in the tank together, the base rock will eventually 'cure' or become live rock....which may take 12+ weeks to accomplish, however, it is possible to complete the nitrogen cycle before all of the rock is cured completely. I also noticed that you do not list a filter on your saltwater list, which is absolutely fine, but you are then likely to need larger amounts of live rock and/or substrate so you can have sufficient biological filtration (I believe most would suggest 1.5 pounds of live rock, live sand, or both per gallon of water)....and of course, the right amount of water flow in order to bring the ammonia and nitrites to the bacteria on the rock/substrate. And you are right, you can do without substrate and add more live rock if you like...and while I don't really want to start a debate, IMHO substrate (especially sand) is a great thing to have not only due to aesthetically reasons, but also because it will help buffer and maintain the very strict pH range (8.4, give or take .1 or .2 in either direction, with no exceptions) saltwater fish/inverts need - although there are other ways to approach that requirement as well.

how do you measure the waste adage of coral

There is no need to measure the addition of waste made by corals...I believe you can keep as many as you can properly (meaning, compatible corals with each other, or close to each other) fit in the tank --- and if I am wrong on that, my reef is by far the exception. Also, you do not need to compensate or make considerations for other inverts such as crabs, snails, shrimp, anemones, etc...

I know it by inch with fish

To be blunt, there are a TON of holes in the inch-per-gallon "rule" and should be thrown out completely since it really only applies to fish which reach no more than 4 inches in length, have a similar body to a neon tetra (for example), and do not grow any thicker than one or two pencils side by side...which is not to mention that it implies that we can keep a 10 inch fish in a 10 gallon tank. Anyways, I also feel as though it should not be used in SW stocking either, but if it is, then the "rule" would be changed to something in the ranges one inch of fish per 2 gallons or 5 gallons; depending on who you talk to. But again, there are lots of holes in that rule too....for example, a lionfish might add a much higher amount of wastes than a different species even if they are exactly the same size. In fact, tangs are probably the exact reason why any inch-per-gallon rule cannot be applied to SW because, regardless of their size, they need a lot of room to swim, hence they need an otherwise abnormally large tank...and yes, it really does matter, especially seeing as how, in general, Tangs are one of the most Ich/illness prone fish available because they produce a very thin slime/stress coat as compared to others....which isn't going to be important for you if you go with a 25 gallon tank anyways.

Rather than use the inch(es)-per-gallon 'rule', I would suggest relying on our test kits to tell us when we are appropriately stocked, as well as take into consideration the tank's dimensions (longer fish need 'deeper' tanks from front to back) and each fish's 'lifestyle'/habits. Don't get me wrong, it isn't really all that hard to figure out SW stocking, but can be different than FW in quite a few ways.

P.S. If you go with the FW tank, I agree with you on the Endler's being a great little fish....I have been breeding them for a few months now and think they are one of the best little fish available. However, if you plan to breed them as well, be sure you are actually getting an Endler female and not a female guppy since the fry will not have as much, if any, coloration they otherwise would.

 

[guidedbyechoes]

The addition of the refgium makes a lot of sense. It never dawned on me that it would add more water area to a smaller tank, with the added bonus of more filtration. What all would I need for the refugium? Pumps? Pipes? Tubing?


I read on another forum that corals need about 10 watts per gallon. But as you said that is not a huge concern if I do a FOWLR at the start.

I read that filtration besides the live rock and power head was not necessary but I do have a filtration system that filters a 30 gallon 3 times in one hour for my 25. So that's an added bonus. I did plan on using sand for substrate but I also heard of using play sand. I think if I do commit to this I will use live.

On the fish end I planned on getting two osc. clowns and a goby of some type. I don't plan on going crazy with over stocking.

Another thing I was told is expect start up on salt to be in the range of $50 per gallon. So 1250 to get setup? I don't see how people can keep 150 gallons with that adage!

 

[Dave Spencer]

3WPG for a 55G FW planted tank is more than you will need, and will only serve to cause you a lot of unnecessary hard work. Look to keep it below 2WPG, unless you are willing to stick to a rigid CO2 and fertiliser regime.

Dave.

 

[Tommy Gun]

What all would I need for the refugium? Pumps? Pipes? Tubing?

There are a few different methods of adding a sump/refugium to an aquarium (both FW or SW), but more or less, yes, you would need pumps, some tubing, some pipes, and probably an overflow system (the much much 'safer' way to go). If you are really interested, I have some decent pictures of my SW sump set up that I can share and explain.

I read on another forum that corals need about 10 watts per gallon

Well, that other forum has misled you....the light needed by one coral versus another can, will, and does vary...and I know of no coral which needs 10 watts of light. In fact, some corals need no light and would be harmed by light in some aspects - for example, those who would very easily die if algae was to cover them. While it might spark some controversy, I will be glad to point out that we can more or less disregard any statement which is as 'concrete' as "corals need 10 watts per gallon of light"; meaning, those statements which leave no room for exceptions (the coral one being an extreme IMHO and IME). Point being, do your best to verify and double-check any info/idea that you are given regarding a SW if you have no information to back it up with (use the 'rule of three'....if you can find the exact same info/idea on three, totally unrelated resources, then it may hold some water -- no pun intended)

I read that filtration besides the live rock and power head was not necessary

Very true....IF other conditions are met

I also heard of using play sand. I think if I do commit to this I will use live

Like I described with base rock becoming live rock, you can cure regular (but aquarium safe) sand into live sand - which can save money. Currently I am using about 70 pounds of mixed white and black sand (marketed for use in a FW tank) and one 10 pound bag of live sand to 'seed' it all. Has been great for me for over a year now. In absence of a large amount of calcium carbonate material in my substrate, I have added and mixed in about 10 pounds of crushed coral to help buffer the water.

I don't plan on going crazy with over stocking.

Good....becuase if overstocking is bad in a FW tank, it is really going to cause problems in a SW tank. SW fish, unlike FW fish, use a much higher amount of their surrounding water within their bodies, making them more 'sensitive' to toxic chemicals. The same can be said about most, if not all corals, so this is why reef tanks are often looked upon as the 'ultimate challenge' (although, that may be changing somewhat these days).

Another thing I was told is expect start up on salt to be in the range of $50 per gallon. So 1250 to get setup? I don't see how people can keep 150 gallons with that adage!

This is Bologna, which is my reasoning for pointing out how you can save a TON of money with setting up a SW tank. I have a 125 gallon reef tank which has been thriving for a year and two months and I can still pay my bills comfortably. Heck, I more than 500 watts of light over this tank and spent less than 500 dollars to do so (including Mh!!!!). The whole notion that saltwater tanks are 'too hard' or 'too expensive' is one of the largest myths in this hobby.

 

[guidedbyechoes]

Yes pictures would be great thanks.

I'm glad I'm double checking everything. It seems like bad info can really detour people from their options.

On curing base rock, I read a online diary of a guy doing it and he said there was a lot of foul smell involved. It also took a while for it to work. If I can't get cured how can I reduce the smell?

 

[guidedbyechoes]

Yes pictures would be great thanks.

I'm glad I'm double checking everything. It seems like bad info can really detour people from their options.

On curing base rock, I read a online diary of a guy doing it and he said there was a lot of foul smell involved. It also took a while for it to work. If I can't get cured how can I reduce the smell?

Any one? I've learned a ton and have decided to up the nano to a 50 G.

 

[eschaton]

Which brings me to the question of how do you measure the waste adage of coral? I know it by inch with fish. But with them

Most corals act more like plants in a marine aquarium than animals, insofar as they'll absorb nitrates, phosphates, and other waste materials directly out of the water. If you're keeping non-photosynthetic coral like sun polyps it's another story, but these are a comparative rarity in the hobby.



More generally, planted freshwater is way cheaper to keep for the following reasons.

1. Lighting needs are generally lower
2. You don't need to buy live rock
3. Coral frags are much, much more expensive than plants. I seldom see a frag cheaper than $15, but I've never seen an aquatic plant at my LFS which costs more than $10.
4. With the exception of damsels, fish tend to be around five times more expensive in saltwater.

Balancing this out a bit dedicated planted substrate is probably more expensive than good quality marine sand, and you need to purchase a C02 system if you have powerful lights - but even a C02 tank, valve, and bubble counter cost less than $100 if you plan it out right. Altogether I'd say a good 50-gallon can be set up for $500, with the bulk of this money going towards lighting. Marine will cost at least three times that much when everything is put together.

 

[guidedbyechoes]

Which brings me to the question of how do you measure the waste adage of coral? I know it by inch with fish. But with them

Most corals act more like plants in a marine aquarium than animals, insofar as they'll absorb nitrates, phosphates, and other waste materials directly out of the water. If you're keeping non-photosynthetic coral like sun polyps it's another story, but these are a comparative rarity in the hobby.



More generally, planted freshwater is way cheaper to keep for the following reasons.

1. Lighting needs are generally lower
2. You don't need to buy live rock
3. Coral frags are much, much more expensive than plants. I seldom see a frag cheaper than $15, but I've never seen an aquatic plant at my LFS which costs more than $10.
4. With the exception of damsels, fish tend to be around five times more expensive in saltwater.

Balancing this out a bit dedicated planted substrate is probably more expensive than good quality marine sand, and you need to purchase a C02 system if you have powerful lights - but even a C02 tank, valve, and bubble counter cost less than $100 if you plan it out right. Altogether I'd say a good 50-gallon can be set up for $500, with the bulk of this money going towards lighting. Marine will cost at least three times that much when everything is put together.

I already have a co2 system. The only problem is I dunno what kind of fish to stock the FW with..... I have also thought of getting a nano salt.