JoeBlog

Whoa... Teenage mutant ninjs turtles?? :-? I am surprised that you got any. I would have definitely got the big goose egg on that question!! :oops: The other dude must have been stoked then since he gets the money, right?

Were you going for the $1000 and the cluck happened before you called out, or did you miss the question?

Are importers supposed to make decisions for us upon what is acceptable and not acceptable to put in our tanks (in terms of what will kill what)? Don't we already bitch on a daily basis that MAF puts too many restrictions on what we can and can't have? Now you are asking that the importer make these same sort of decisions for you? It is the responsibility of the aquarist to educate themselves on what they put in their tank before they dish out the cash; certainly NOT the importer's responsibility. Anemones eat fish on many occasions. I can bet that you (Fay) wouldn't want an importer saying, "OK, no more anemones since they can eat a fish from time to time." We all make these mistakes of putting something in our tanks that we may wish later on that we hadn't. Don’t blame someone else for when this happens. It was nice to see that Skippy did not take this position. Sorry for your losses.

I don't know why you would say that. I personally think that the input has been useful. Layton and I have already had this talk, so I'm familiar with his answers. But when I was curious about starting up UV, these are the same questions that I had. And, I was happy to have them answered or at least discussed.

I run a Deltec 40W and a Pentair Aquatics Lifegard 40W on my 500L. I don’t think that the Deltec is working though due to broken bulb (too busy to check and not obvious because of the way it is plumbed), but the Lifegard has a new bulb in it and is working great. The output of the skimmer did increase dramatically upon installing them (only anecdotal evidence, but some evidence at any rate). I’m very happy with mine and will probably upgrade (add more 40 watt units) upon moving to the bigger system. Steve

Exactly, increase nutrient export relative to import.

I have one. It's a 70L bucket filled with sand, kept in the dark, and has a high flow over the top. I originally installed it due to a bad HA outbreak (zero readings of nitrate and phosphate on Salifert). I tried the dosing of vodka (a whole LARGE bottle of Absolute) with no effect. So, I tried the bucket. I also added the UV at the same time, so can't say which of the two drove the result, but the HA is gone.

EDIT: I meant to post this in another thread already talking about feeding, but stuffed it up. :oops: At any rate, here is my feeding routine: I have a 150 gallon tank with 6 chromis, yellow tang (4"), sailfin tang (4"), swallowtail angel (4"), blueface angel (3"), and Majestic (5"). I feed a home brew that is the equivalent of at least 10 cubes of frozen per day (I'm guessing much more) along with an automatic Eheim feeder that doses Spirulina 6 times per day. I'm going to get another Eheim to do pellet food throughout the day as well. Before this, I was only feeding 2 cubes of frozen per day and the corals were totally pale and no growth. Now, I am finally starting to get some really nice color and good growth!! I have zero reading of phosphate (Salifert) and I'm just starting to see a bit of nitrate (0.2 w/ Salifert), but who cares. As long as the color is good, I really don't care what the test says. Also, I have almost no nuisance algae. All that being said, I have a VERY good export system, e.g. +140 times turnover (4 6100's, 2 6200's, AM 3000 CL, etc...), barebottom, no rock in main system (currently cooking for the upgrade), AP902 skimmer, 80 watts UV, and run 100 micron filter socks that are changed out every other day. Anything not eaten is taken out right away. In the new tank, I am going to set it up so that I can shut off the return pump on a timer (I don't trust the setup now to not flood when the pumps turn back on :oops: ). That way, I think that I can actually reduce the input and have the same results. I'm sure heaps of food is going over the overflow to the socks. :-? On a final note, I have skipped the feeding (other than auto with the Eheim) for only two days due to work and have noticed a bad reaction in the corals, e.g. very noticeable fading of color. I think I was definitely starving the tank before this heavy feeding routine.

All that I'm saying is that if you/we learn how to use the camera properly then you/we should be able to get very good shots (given that it is a decent middle of the range point and shoot). Granted, one camera may take better pictures straight out of the box by any old monkey (not that you or I are monkeys ), but with a bit of education on picture taking, both cameras will probably take very good pictures. I can only go by your posts, but is seems that you are spending more time learning how to modify the poorly taken pictures with a program rather than first try to take a decent shot. If you want to compare cameras (irrespective of your picture taking knowledge, which hopefully will improve), then you should read the webpages refered to many times on this forum where the comparisons are done by professionals that are solely comparing technology and not the current limited ability of the photographer. Again though with out abilities and types of pictures we take, it will probably make no difference in the quality of our picture given we know how to use the camera properly. You mention now and were also stating in a different post that you couldn't get the white balance sorted and thus have crap "blue" pictures. This will be the same with ANY camera. In fact, the better the cameras get (DSLR) the harder it is to get great shots since you have way more option, => need to know more, => more to screw up. Again, please don't take offense because I really don't mean to upset you. If anything, just trying to save you some cash so you can get that upgrade of yours done sooner!! I personally think that Canons are GREAT cameras with GREAT lenses. Wish I would have bought one, but my wife has preferences as well. :-? However, they are not necessary to get really good shots.

Please don’t take this wrong because I am not talking smack at all. I just want to make the point that for they types of pictures 90% of us are trying to take, just about any “decent†camera will do a fantastic job. A mate of mine has an average camera (point and shoot) and gets just as good of pictures as any that all of you are boasting about. I have spent thousands on my DSLR camera setup and his pictures are definitely better than mine. Some of the best pictures that I’ve seen on RC are taken with some of the better point and shoot cameras. I’m sure that we could get great pictures with our current cameras (specifically that 5mp Sony that you have) if we took the time to learn how to do so. We don’t need a specific camera with a specific technology to get good “web posting†quality pictures. I think this falls into the same category of, “My tank is not as good as those RC TOTM tanks. What can I buy to make my tank that good?†Not implying that this is your husbandry philosophy Chimera, just an analogy of traits common among reefers.

Why pick this "fad" out from all the rest? Everything seems to be a fad on this forum. :roll:

Are you also testing your tank for levels of strontium and iodine as you dose?

What does low mean? If p04 is not 0.0 on the test, then there is a good starting point for your problem.

I think Reef's cardinals are the Treadfin or Bluestreak Cardinalfish, no???

Is the lux meter submergible? If so, where did you get it?

I don't think that coral is a Purple and pink pokadots montipora cap, but rather some sort of chalice???

Yup, that's the one!! He gobbled a BIG damsel! In saying that, I had two of those in may tank for ages (much smaller than my mates though) that never ate any fish.

A friend of mine has a yellow one that ate a pretty big (and tough) damsel. Although, this star is HUGE!

I agree that the strict definition of refugium is simply a place void of predators. A bare sump could certainly be a refugium. If you could keep the detritus out of the refugium, then I agree that there won't be any bioload since there isn't anything for them to eat. If it was set up for nutrient export with rock, algae, etc..., again the only way that it wouldn't become a critter farm is if you kept the detritus out of there, e.g. ran filter socks. If detritus does reach the refugium, then so can critters. Therefore, you would have bioload. No??? Just as you said Wasp, depends on how you set it up. Cheers, Steve

Very true!! In fact, your tank has been making me a bit depressed lately. We are running very similar systems and your colors are heaps better than mine!! Maybe I do need a fuge!! I was basically just thinking out load trying to figure out if it would be a good idea putting one on my new tank. My buddy helping me out with the designs, etc... has been pushing pretty hard for it. He claims that my colors are crap since the system is nutrient deprived. I've been buying into that a bit and thus all the questions. He actually has this theory of "dirtier = cleaner... to a given extent" mainly directed at BB systems with crazy nutrient export in place. I've been trying to get him to post his thoughts, but haven't been successful yet. Maybe this will bring him out of the woodwork!

I am making assumptions on bioload. I would think that the critters are eating something and then poo some time later, and thus creating bioload. I am running an ap902 with a direct feed from the overflow. The water exiting the skimmer then goes through a filter sock. It is incredible the amount of crap in the sock each day. If I leave it for just two days, it is overflowing due to being clogged with detritus. I would say that on a 150 gallon system that an AP902 is effective skimming, but still all that crap is getting by the skimmer and would settle in my sump (if I didn't have the filter socks), which I guess could then be called a fuge since there would surely be heaps of critters in there eating all the crap (pooing) protected from predation of tank inhabitants. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you said there is zero bioload. I agree that the BIG question is "how much" of a bioload does the fuge create. I have seen quite a few tanks with just insane amount of pod life, and I agree that it is scary! I also agree, but you don't have to only feed dead or dryfood. You can easily grow brine shrimp outside the tank. I used to go to the beach once a week and get a bucket full of little critters to feed to the tank. The point is that these critters don't need to be grown IN the tank and thus add to the bioload. Totally!

Can't all of these things be accomplished without the additional bioload of a typical refuge? I've addressed all of them above except for: -area for sand bed that is easy to replace. If you want the sand bed for bacteria and nitrate reduction, then a RDSB will accomplish the same without the bioload of all the critters associated with accumulating detritus. -area to place unwanted or injured animals: this can be done in a sump that is kept clean, i.e. not a place for detritus to accumulate as is the case for typical fuges.

Doesn't this above statement imply that there are extra nutrients available in the tank (not being exported) since the critters in the fuge are being supported without any addition of more food? Given that there are nutrients in the system for them to eat, aren't they going to poo as well? Doesn't this whole process fall under bio-load? When I think of thriving, I think of a very well populated colony of critters. The fuges that I've seen that would be considered "thriving" basically look like the sand itself is moving and that is only the top layer that we can see. Would that not constitute a significant bioload? OK, OK,... Regardless of whether it is a "massive" bioload or not (although still some extent of a bioload), I am curious as to the actual benefit of a fuge, and thus whether this benefit outweighs the additional bioload that could be substituted for more fish. From the article presented above, there are four basic reasons: 1) Nutrient Export: it seems to be agreed that they are not ideal for this purpose given alternative means available. 2) Grow things to feed your tank, e.g. pods, algae, etc… Can’t the hobbyist provide the same quantity and quality of food to the tank without a refugium? I can certainly grow live food outside the display system. If the fuge isn’t there, then any excess nutrient can also be directly removed if not consumed by fish and coral. Therefore, I wouldn't need the additional bioload created by the refuge to simply feed the tank, and thus could support more fish with my system. 3) pH stability with reverse lighting: I personally don’t worry about pH swings and only focus on keeping dKH stable. So, this is a non-factor for me, but may be a benefit to others. If people are concerned about having pH swings, are there other methods of controlling them without adding any additional bioload? 4) Increase the overall size of the system, i.e. additional water for greater stability. Again, you can have an area for additional water without creating a place for nutrients to collect and thus critters to feed off these nutrients and thus additional bioload, e.g. a bigger sump with nothing in it except water. Personally, I would rather have a bigger main system than more water behind the scenes, but this may not be an option with space constraints in the viewable area. Well, those are all the reasons/benefits listed in the article. Are these “benefits†great enough to outweigh the cost, i.e. additional bioload from critters and thus fewer fish? Given the above, I think it is for me. However, it appears that some people value having these little critters as diversity (pets). That may be reason enough to have a fuge. Like I said, I would rather have more fish!! Are there other benefits that the article and I am missing?

Turn over isn't a magic number, but still an indication of the ability to keep particles in suspension. Obviously there are diminishing returns and the max flow needed is just that for which dead spots are minimized.