cabrerad
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by cabrerad
-
-
I have an air water and ice unit and it performs very well. I have the typhoon III.
David
-
Welcome,
It looks like you are well on your way. I also second the need for a RO/DI unit, especially if you are thinking about corals. To give you an idea, the water out of my tap reads around 150ppm, out of Brita filter for drinking it goes down to 50ppm, and out of my RO/DI is is 0. That's lots of potential nutrients for algae to grow. In addition, some nutrients in tap water, such as phosphate, are not good for SPS like Acropora. Good water for drinking does not mean good enough for a reef tank. There are lots of good RO/DI units that are inexpensive. Here is a little primer on what these TDS measurements mean:
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-04/rhf/feature/
David
-
I never could find the faucet adaptors at local hardware stores, and bought them online. I know online vendors Marine Depot and Air Water and Ice (that's where I got my unit) have them.
DMC
-
Dano,
I have to agree with SDE and Lee. If you want to go for the more light demanding anemones (or if you eventually SPS/LPS corals) on a tank that size, it is best to go with Halides. VHO/PC/T5 d o not have the punch that a point source halide light has. This is especially true for corals kept in lower parts of a deeper tank. In addition, I actually think it is rather inaccurate to say they cost way more than PC/T5/VHO set ups. The set up may cost more initially, but you don't need as many bulbs per unit area/volume, and the bulbs have a much longer useful life (up to 1 year plus vs say 6-9 months plus). So when you factor in the number of ballasts/fixtures/bulbs and bulbs needed to match the output (but not penetration) of halides and the fluorescent fixtures don't really save you much if any money. Heat output, of course, is another matter.
If you want to stay with fluorescent fixtures, there are many corals that would do ok in the top third of the tanks and some at the bottom. If you are willing to use retrofits, I am sure you can do it for much less than 450 dollars. You could buy another 2 X55 retrofit for example and ditch the NO (or se it for the sump if you have one). You could also see if any WAMAS members are selling retrofits or canopies. And yes the Angel will be a problem not only with nipping corals, but by the fact that it will outgrow your tank. Also, fair warning, urchins knock corals over so be ready for that. They are little builldozers. I would think hard about what you want to keep now and what you may want to keep in the future so you buy the right stuff.
Weapon,
If you want clams, SPS, and anemones I would not bother with T5's on that size tank for the reasons mentioned above. I would look into a halide set up and supplement actinic with your current PC fixtures. I know a few people are prasing the wonders of T5's and I don't dispute they are nice. But if you take a closer look lots of these T5 systems are more shallow and I know of at least one case of someone photoshoping ( and a really bad job of it) Acros (imagine a glow in the dark blue tort that is so blue it makes the rock around it glow blue also :o ) to try to make the T5 performance look better. Also, I would plan out how to keep SPS and anemones so they don't crowd each other. I have a four year old BTA that has completely taken over half of a 29 standard (I have to keep taking corals out of the tank as it grows).
David
-
Anyone know of a good place in MD for bulkheads etc? Home Depot and Lowes can be hit or miss. I usually order them online, but it would be nice to have a dependable local source.
DMC
-
So I wonder what the ramifications will be of listing these two acro species in terms of how they will be protected. I also wonder what is neccesary to go from "proposed" to actually listed.
DMC
-
I also agree with the above. You might want to at least consider a tank bigger than a 55. It is possible once you have a 55 set up for a while tht you want to go bigger. If that's a possibility, then it's just cheaper to get abigger tank to start of with. Something to think about anyways. With that said, there is a balance to be struck as maintenance costs do become an issue with really large tanks, so talk to people who own the size tank you are interested in to get an idea. If you do decide to just stay at the 55, you might want to also consider a 58. The 55 is very narrow and makes reef aquascaping a bit difficult. Then again the 55 does have more length.
Just some thoughts,
David
-
All the previous advice is very good. I would also second that the tang is eventually not going to be happy in the tank. Not only will it reach 9 or so inches, it also needs more swimming room than a similar sized clownfish for example. In addition, a fish that eats a lot, poops a lot. That will tax a smaller system such as yours. If your wife wants to keep it, strike a bargain..tell her you need a 75 gallon or so tank so you can keep the tang! :P Also, I think you may be a bit high on the seastar side as well. I think their food may overlaop somewhat and their may not be enough food for that size tank. The sandsifter may or may not have enough sand to sift through to eat. I would definitely get rid of the chocolate sea stars if you are thinking of going reef. Also you might want to add a powerhead to improve water movement. Once you cut down on the livestock, I think you will see dramatic improvements.
-
Next comment:
Yes, I wouldn't not use a food just because it has copper in it (all do), but if it is intentionally added at some unknown concentration that is not claimed by the manufacturer to be safe for inverts, I'd avoid it.
FWIW, I discuss copper levels in foods (natural seafoods and formulated commercial preparations) in this article:
Reef Aquaria with Low Soluble Metals
-
Here is the response I got from Dr. Holmes-Farley in response to my question if this form of copper is potentially dangerous:
It could be, if there was enough of it present. If it is inteded for fish only, there might be too much for a reef. I don't suppose it says how much actual copper is present, does it?Certainly, all, or nearly all organisms need some copper. It is all a question of amount.
Michael,
I read through the reply you received from Mathew Boyd. If there is a potential toxicity issue may come down to how much copper is present. The above reponse indicates to me that there is a danger if too much copper proteinate is present in the feed.
With respect to the differences stated between copper sulfate and copper proteinate, what Mr. Boyd stated leaves me a bit confused. First off, it is not just the sulfate in copper sulfate that is bad or we would treat fish disease with just sulfate.
Second, I am a bit confused about the role of adding a chelating agent (copper proteinate is a chelated complex of copper) to copper in nutrition. My understanding is that chelates, when used in diet supplements, are intended to make the metal ion more bioavailable to the organism being fed (i.e. get them across lipid based tissues etc). Chelates, however, are also used to treat metal poisoning as they form a water soluble complex with the metal and dramatically reduce absorbtion so they can be excreted. So are chelates used in nutrition to both increase bioavailability to tissues and also keep the solubility down to a level where too much is not absorbed? That's what confuses me.
Regardless, the copper is included in animal feeds and I think we can assume there is going to be copper exposure when the feed is used. So the question is, in my mind at least, how much is safe?
David
-
All,
This got me wondering as well. I posted a question about copper proteinate in the reef chemistry forum at RC. Perhaps Mr. Holmes-Farley will have some insight. I am also interested in what Michael finds out.
David
-
Hi all,
I thought I would post some pictures of what I found in a lugols dip of one my acros. I wanted to check if any bad critters were there. Lucky for me nothing bad was found. I found what I think are copepods, a smaller number of maybe amphipods, a bristle worm, some sort of pod, what appears to be a nematode, and various phtyo whatsits: (when i get some time i will actually try to key these things out..if my pics are good enough that is. Everything was taken with an inverted scope at 100X unless otherwise specified. I found that the scope was shaking a bit due to a close proximity to some other equiipment. I will have to move it, so the pics are not as crisp as they could be.
Harpatacoid copepod?
another one:
Dorsal view of a pod:
Nematode? worm (200X):
Scary big one (two pics..too much magnification):
anterior:
Posterior (reversed obviously):
David
-
Thanks to all who traded with me.
Killrblue: I personally use super glue gel. It does have to be the gel type to work well. I take whatever I am going to glue the frag to out and let it air dry for a minute or so and then add some superglue gel. Then I attach the frag and let it sit for another minute or so and then I place the frag back in the water. Some people are particular about how they attach their caps so they get maximum whirling etc., so if you are concerned about that maybe someone else can chime in. The caps do seem to encrust more quickly if you glue part of the leading edge to the rock as opposed to the cut (fragged) edge or the bottom of the cap.
David
-
-
GaryL,
I'll bring some of the green tentacle zooanthids for you.
Also,
Anyone have a frag of a multi color Caulastrea (different color center)? I will trade an all pink or all green caulastrea frag (or something else). I am trying to collect different colors.
David
-
I have zoos with green tentacles and purple/ white centers if anyone is interested. I Have large rocks covered with them so I could cut to pretty much any size.
David
-
<font color='#000000'>I have the following available for trade/sale:
Purple with green tentacle/specks zooanthids
Orange/pink Montipora cap like sp. frags, mounted (2)
Montipora digitata green frags, unmounted
Pink Caulastrea (Doug, Moshin)
Green Caulastrea
Free
Borneman Litho/Capnella (Naso)
Purple/green mushrooms (Naso, cjm033, Ghazanfar) *Gone*
Brown zoos with pinkish center (Naso, David Fernandez)
New additions I have:
Green Ricordia florida single polyp..for trade or sale
David</font>
-
I just wanted to make sure you were not reading 2.5dKH. The alkalinity is not too far off normal saltwater values. I am a bit surprised you have 500ppm calcium and your alk is not higher. It implies that calcium is being overdosed with respect to alkalinity. So increasing alk and watching Ca can help. Do you dose calcium seperately as well (CaCl, calcium reactor)? If so, you may be adding too much. Check this link out on how to adjust your alk. Your values fall into zone 4.
-
Chris,
Moving your DSB could certainly have caused the bloom you describe. Basically you turned your nutrient sink into a source by moving it. I second the use of carbon to help out (with water changes as well). With regard to Rowaphos, I have not used it personally, but I believe it needs to be fluidized to work effectively. Also, what are your units for your alkalinity value (DKH, Meq/L)?
David
-
58 Gallon (27 total):
Pieces obtained through WAMAS/ local reef keepers: 22
Obtained via WAMAS alone: 22
Pieces fragged for trade/sale/donated by me: 6
29 gallon (11 total):
Pieces obtained through WAMAS/ local reef keepers: 1
Obtained via WAMAS alone: 0
Pieces fragged for trade/sale/donated by me: 6
20 Gallon (5 total):
Pieces obtained through WAMAS/ local reef keepers: 4
Obtained via WAMAS alone: 4
Pieces fragged for trade/sale/donated by me: 4
Grand total Pieces: 43
Pieces obtained via WAMAS/local reefers: 27
total fragged: 16
David
-
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=475712
Above is a link to a discussion on acropora browning. Many seem to agree that wild caught or grown corals will initially brown (increased zooxanthellae density, and also decreased UV protecting pigments) when introduced in the hobbyist's tank. One individual did state browning is due more to increase in photsynthetic pigment density than symbiodinium density. Comments?
Some corals go back to their inital coloration, some don't.
Many seem to connect browning to lighting. I imagine in the cases where the corals do eventually "color up" the initial browning is a compensation mechanism to the new conditions. So is the interpretation that if the lighting is different than in the wild, but still sufficient, the corals will eventually photoadapt and begin to "color up"?
I wonder if some of this is a way to compensate from the initial stress of transport (the repair of which is going to cut into the energy budget of the coral), although I did not see this mentioned.
Nutrients, especially nitrate are also cited as a cause of browning. I imagine this is a major factor in tanks where the corals do not "color up", or tanks where previousy non brown corals start to brown. It does seem, however, that more remains to be learned on the subject.
-
My understanding is that brown outs are fairly common in imported coral mini colonies. Some of these corals have come from outdoor pens where conditions and lighting are very different from that in a tank. In addition, these corals have been through quite a lot before they got to us. So although the coral may look quite nice when you buy it, chances are it's highly stressed. So, provided you have a mature tank and water parameters sufficient for acros, you can still see brown outs. It will take time for the coral to recover and adjust to the new tank conditions. Even so, some corals do not make it in even optimal conditions. I know I have seen threads about this subject at reefsorg and reef central, so searching the threads may also be a good idea.
-
I second what Chris said. Regardless of whether one area has better water than another, you are still going to be introducing various dissolved compounds into your tank. My RO/DI water reads 0ppm, my Brita water reads around 50 (for reference) and I can't quite remember, but I think my tap is well over 200ppm. So if I were to use tap water I would be introducing all kinds of stuff to the tank, some of which i can't test for. I try to make it a rule to not add anything to my tank I cannot test the levels of. You can buy a very good unit for not a lot of money (pm me if you want some suggestions on good models, i love mine). For reefing I consider having at least RO water a must. It makes life much easier in maintaining proper conditions in the tank. This is especially true for those corals sensitive to things such as phosphates.
David
-
Personally, I would opt for better lighting than NO. First, your tank is going to look better. Second, the fauna on your live rock will fare better. Third, anecdotally at least, I have seen marine fish fare better with better lighting. I don't know if anyone has tested this or not, but it's just from my experience and that of some others (if these are reef fish they are exposed to really high light conditions in nature). Fourth, you may decide to add corals later on and really need the lighting. What kind of set up are you thinking about?
David C.
packing up equipment
in General Discussion
I would second the last suggestion. I would soak the water exposed parts in vinegar for a good long time. I had an Iwaki seize after a power outage a while back and after cleaning and soaking all the relevent parts in vinegar, it was good as new. That way you get rid of as much as possible before storage. As for whether the Iwaki will be fine after storage (I swapped in a new one while cleaning), i don't know yet
Maybe someone with long term storage experience will pipe in.