lduncan

Damn no editing, should be $199.

They are not on the allowed list, if that's what you're asking. A school of fish, US$299 each? Expensive.

There's only so much you can do with a 10 foot, by 2.5 foot tank (I think that's the dimensions) as far as aquascaping goes. I like the idea of it, it would look much better if it was more three dimensional, say if the tank was twice as wide. But I like the skeleton type structure of it. Here is the full tank with just rock: Then with corals added:

More pics of that tank:

It can be done with sand, it's just a LOT more work.

The more holes the better.

... or not. If you copy and paste the address in a new window they should work.

Here are links to those reefcentral images which should work: http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/8920f_tank.JPG http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500 ... k_vina.jpg http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500 ... ustom_.JPG http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500 ... 5_6_rc.JPG

We've been through this before anyway. Comments posted to create a reaction removed, albeit in humour

I said that is usually the intent. Sometimes it doesn't always work out right. Either way, you can tell that it's a tricolour, green base and purple tips. Layton

I'm after some long branchy type, rather than round bolder stuff. I might come past the shop early this week sometime anyway. Layton

Of course, because it's very difficult to get a photo which closely resembles them. Photoshop usually makes them look more real. These corals do exist in vibrant colours. They are hardly turning brown corals into multicoloured corals with photoshop.

Reefer madness: The saturation has been cranked up a little too far, it's still a real coral.

Cookie. Which ones in particular don't look real? Pics # 1,2,5,6 look absolutely fine to me. Pic's 3,4 maybe photoshopped a little too much, but they are hardly painting over brown corals with colour. Layton

Cookie, there are a lot of tanks you could say that about. Is it completely fabricated? I don't thinks so. The colours are there, they may have been enhanced to the point of being annoying occasionally, but it's hardly a conspiracy to fool people. More often than not it's done to try and make it look closer to the true colour. Layton

Japanese do some nice BB tanks: Wasp, how can you tell whether the coral is respiring, or gagging (trying to remove waste), or a feeding response based on elevated nitrogen levels? They all result in polyp extension, how do you know the cause of it for sure?

I don't really like the corals sitting directly on the bottom, too hard to clean. I'm thinking a skeleton structure rather than a brick wall type. It'll probably take a bit of epoxy and pvc rod to hold it all together. BB just eliminates a variable, it doesn't necessarily make a tank nice. Tim, do you have any big bits of rock at the shop? Layton

What's polyp extension got to do with the price of fish? It's hard to determine much from it, as the reasons for it are so varied. The corals I keep don't need much dissolved nutrients. So i'm not worried about reducing them to the point of being damaging to them. There is enough phosphate in the plastic in the tank to last them several lifetimes anyway. Layton

I think I could get away with a couple of big pieces of live rock. These bacteria are pretty efficient. But there is always a trade off between having enough rock space to place corals, and having too much rock that it becomes additional load on the tank. I have got some 10mm PVC rod which I think I'll be using to stick bits of drilled rock together with, along with a bit of epoxy. Layton

Having a BB tank, it's really easy to see how much crap is produced from live rock. Seeing the shear volume of detritus which pours out of them, makes me wonder how much live rock you really need to support the amount of bacteria we need to have a low nutrient tank, and how much is nothing more than additional bioload you have to deal with? Currently nitrate and phosphate in the water column are undetectable. But nutrients are higher than I would like. What I'm planing on doing, hopefully some time this week, is removing a LOT of rock, and seeing what effect that has on the amount of detritus which is produced each week, as well as whether it effects the detectable levels of phosphate and nitrate in the water. I have a feeling that the amount of rock really needed is a lot less than many would think. I'll post some before and after pics once I've done the aquascaping. Layton

Probably Diodogoria sp. then. If you happen to break a bit. You could always send it my way. Layton

Could be anything from Ellisella sp, Leptogorgia sp, but most probably Diodogoria sp. It doesn't look like a Gorgonia sp. They have no zooxanthellae, so they get all their nutrition from capturing food. I'd try it in high current position, and feeding fine particles of food. Don't know what exactly they feed on. I wouldn't bother with phyto. Maybe cyclopeze (sp) or baby brine shrimp, or something similar. Are the branches reasonably brittle, or are they quite flexible? Layton

Nice. Where did you get it?

See what sort of maintenance you have to do when phosphate gets as high as 0.1 as compared undetectable. I know what I would prefer. Nitrate isn't so bad really, it just use to get blamed for the problems which were actually caused by phosphate.

Brick concrete and calcium carbonate have a specific heat capacity of around 0.85 J/g . K ish compared to water at 4.2 J/g . K Which means they hold 1/5 of the heat, than water. Which would mean you would get a LARGER drop in temp if you factored them in. Some quick calculations on a 100 litre tank at 25 degrees 50% volume taken up by live rock changing 20 litres of water with a temp of 15 degrees, would drop the whole tank temp to 22.8 degrees. The difference is tiny, it's not worth the effort ;-)