|
|
|
|
#1
10/22/2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First SPS tank; need advice
After several years (and tanks) experience w/ soft corals and fish, I am thinking of "graduating" to SPS. I would like to try a small (say, 50g plus sump/refugium) system first and keep it very simple until I have gained some experience w/ the more demanding chemistry/water-quality regimen.
With that in mind, would a no-rock, all PVC-and-egg-crate system work? (to keep out problems -- algae and other -- associated with live rock; not to mention expense) Or, alternatively, would I be better off to use live rock, but just be extremely careful/thorough w/r/t curing/ageing it? (several months, minimum, in my expereince --- although maybe I've just gotten lousy rock!) In either case, I envision this tank being sort of "experimental" -- within a year or two I would "graduate" (again) to a more full-fledged (and probably larger) display tank. What problems might I encounter with each approach, and which is recommended? |
|
#2
10/22/2007, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My advice is stay away from SPS, it is worse than cocaine.
Fro your question, You can do a no rock tank but IMO you'll need a sump or refugium with a lot of Rock. The rock is the main filtration in your tank, and you need pristine water for SPS. If you do some other type of filtration (like canister filters) you might have other problems like nitrates and phosphates. It all depends but in a reef system you'll always need LR somewhere, just my opinion. What you can do is a bare bottom tank (no sand), to avoid cleaning the sand and be able to have high currents in there. |
|
#3
10/22/2007, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I did intend to have rock and/or sand in the sump/refugium. My (bad) experiences w/ rock have all involved nuisance algae, and that can (I think) be kept under control by keeping the rock in a dimly lit or unlighted sump/refugium.
But I may be way off base.... which is why I post this thread. And, not to start an off-the-subject line of debate, I postulate that pretty women (esp. plural) and SPS may be more problematic than SPS alone! |
|
#4
10/22/2007, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IMO, I would go with cured liverock, and minimal is better. Keep in mind though you will need a skimmer rated 2-3 times your tanks volume, need some sort of filtration. As ganjero stated, like a crack addtiction.....lol... I would start with aquacultured frags to have a better survival rate. Stability is key, maintaining a constant and consistent levels for calcium, alkalinity, and magnesium is a must. Phosphate and Nitrate need to be as close to zero as possible. Also, a nutrient starved sps tank will show with pale or pastel colored corals, so you need to bring heavy nutrients in with heavy export, this is where a quality well over-rated skimmer comes into play. I say go for it, but be advised once you get the sps bug, you will be hooked.........
|
|
#5
10/22/2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am all for big skimmers. I plan not to skimp here. What, more specifically, do you mean by "bring in heavy nutrients"? (the heavy export part I get.)
An, fwiw, I plan/hope to do all aquacultured.... |
|
#6
10/22/2007, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy fish load with heavy feedings, lots of fish pooh for the corals to feed, then excess is skimmed out. Also lots of flow, try and keep detritus suspended in the water column and alleviate settling spots.
|
|
#7
10/22/2007, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sounds good; define heavy in a 50g + sump/refugium system: are we talking 3 fish, 5, 10? (small ones -- I hate to coop big fish up in small tanks). And I've read all sorts of bad things about phosphate in prepared foods -- do I need to go some other route? (I've always been a stingy feeder...)
|
|
#8
10/22/2007, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
you don't need any rock for filtration.
sand has way more suface area than rock will ever have. i do like the look of live rock tho, but if your main concern with it is filtration then save your money. |
|
#9
10/22/2007, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How did you do your sand? (shallow, deep, plenum, ???) And do you need to keep a lot of "stirring" critters in it? If so, which ones? I've had mixed success with sand, but had come to think the consnesus (among the RC crowd) was that it was more trouble than anything else...
Again, maybe way off base.... |
|
#10
10/22/2007, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And, isn't maintaining sufficient flow with sand a hassle? Especially if you're trying to avoid having detritus fall to the bottom? I like the look of sand (and rock), but what I want is to keep it simple (in this "experimental" tank).
But maybe I'm taking it too far (in the direction of simple).... |
|
#11
10/22/2007, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
sorry if it sounds like i am flaming you as that is not my intention. just a question
__________________
Sam |
|
#12
10/22/2007, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fair question. I have determined (based on years of experience and observation) that in my still-limited experience, my problems w/ algae have come from the rock itself (or my inability to completely/properly cure/age it -- not poor attention to water quality.
So, I thought I might try w/o the rock. An alternative I am very willing to explore (based on advice and recommendations) is to try with rock, but concentrate on limiting/avoiding the problems I've had in the past. To wit, what is the closest thing to a "fool proof" method for introducing live rock to a new tank? If I were to do it again, I think I would try something like this: get the tank thru most of the cycling process with little or no rock (and very little or no light); meanwhile, cure/age all rocks that will be introduced. This process would take 10-12 weeks, minimum. At end of 12 weeks or so, introduce thoroughly aged/cured rock, and slowly bring up light levels (and other bio load/feeding). Then, assuming the rock looks "clean" bring light up to the levels necessary for corals, etc. I would appreciate a critique of that proposed appraoch -- as I say, I have a lot of experience, but many of you have MUCH MORE. |
|
|
Linear Mode
