so....I don't need a skimmer?
- Thread starter FLOPPYFISH
- Start date
To further Ernie's point about larger tanks and their suitability: the energies moving water across reefs and diluting them are incalculably greater than anything you can provide in any size reef tank. This movement and dilution is an incredibly large factor when dealing with certain facets of reef ecology.
And FWIW, even 25 or 30 more gallons would be much much more stable, check out a 40 gallon breeder or somethings similar. (another recommendation for a larger tank from someone whose successfully kept nanos as small as 2.5 gallons, and live coral systems as large as 200 gallons)
Chris
And FWIW, even 25 or 30 more gallons would be much much more stable, check out a 40 gallon breeder or somethings similar. (another recommendation for a larger tank from someone whose successfully kept nanos as small as 2.5 gallons, and live coral systems as large as 200 gallons)
Chris
Hey Matt, welcome to the hobby, home of the opinionated. That's one of the things I like about these forums. Don't let it get you down.
The way most newbies set up their first tank makes nanos a bad idea for their first system. But it doesn't have to be that way. My first nano was a 12g with 36w pc lighting, a hang-on skimmer and one 60gph powerhead. It housed mushrooms, gsp and parazoanthus and no (zero) fish. It's water quality was rock solid and I changed 15% of the water per month. The key is to stock lightly. IMO if you keep one fish or better yet none then a nano is a good, cost-effective first tank. Otherwise forget it.
In terms of the original questions you asked, I think a skimmer, or some other type of filtration, is very helpful on a first tank. Though I've even used powerfilters for occasional use of carbon or polyfilter in place of a skimmer on a really small tank. A good quality skimmer like precision marine's HOT-1 is only $170 or so and well woth the investment IMO.
I would not use any additives at all other than calcium and buffer. If you are really going to change water weekly then you might not even need much of those. You can easily overdose additives in a small system IMO, and frequent water changes make them unnecessary. Enjoy.
The way most newbies set up their first tank makes nanos a bad idea for their first system. But it doesn't have to be that way. My first nano was a 12g with 36w pc lighting, a hang-on skimmer and one 60gph powerhead. It housed mushrooms, gsp and parazoanthus and no (zero) fish. It's water quality was rock solid and I changed 15% of the water per month. The key is to stock lightly. IMO if you keep one fish or better yet none then a nano is a good, cost-effective first tank. Otherwise forget it.
In terms of the original questions you asked, I think a skimmer, or some other type of filtration, is very helpful on a first tank. Though I've even used powerfilters for occasional use of carbon or polyfilter in place of a skimmer on a really small tank. A good quality skimmer like precision marine's HOT-1 is only $170 or so and well woth the investment IMO.
I would not use any additives at all other than calcium and buffer. If you are really going to change water weekly then you might not even need much of those. You can easily overdose additives in a small system IMO, and frequent water changes make them unnecessary. Enjoy.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
This is a very acurate statement. As someone who has a 55 and 10 nano (and in the process of setting up up a 180), I can tell you I spend twice as much time attending to my 10 than my 55.
One of the biggest obsticles in a small tank is the automation factor. It is hard to scale down things such as top off systems and what not to a small tank, which do make larger tanks easier to maintain. And as other has stated, there is much less room for error, be that the keeper or some outside influence. I know when the cake icing at my 2 year old daughter's birthday party got into my 55, it handled it mcuh better than my 10 would have.
FWIW, I do run a skimmer of sorts on my 10 (Skilter 250, I know don't start
, but it works well for a small tank of this small size, but wouldn't wan't it on anything bigger). I would recommend a small sized skimmer simply because it does give that that room for error which you do need in such a small tank. That ouce of prevention and all.
I would say measure the space you want and get the biggest tank you can for the space and your wallet, whether that be that the 15, 29, 40, etc. The one thing I always run into is I always need more room for that new coral.
This is a very acurate statement. As someone who has a 55 and 10 nano (and in the process of setting up up a 180), I can tell you I spend twice as much time attending to my 10 than my 55.
One of the biggest obsticles in a small tank is the automation factor. It is hard to scale down things such as top off systems and what not to a small tank, which do make larger tanks easier to maintain. And as other has stated, there is much less room for error, be that the keeper or some outside influence. I know when the cake icing at my 2 year old daughter's birthday party got into my 55, it handled it mcuh better than my 10 would have.
FWIW, I do run a skimmer of sorts on my 10 (Skilter 250, I know don't start
I would say measure the space you want and get the biggest tank you can for the space and your wallet, whether that be that the 15, 29, 40, etc. The one thing I always run into is I always need more room for that new coral.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>
This statement is not accurate. Many corals are in water over a meter deep. My 180 is only 2' deep, shy of the meter plus where many corals reside.
In a nano tank you do not have the area for a DSB to work properly. You do not have the diversity that you do in a larger tank. You are severely limited in the fish that you can stock, just as one example.
My point is not that large tanks are "better" than nano-reefs, nor that nano-reefs are "bad." just that I think it is a mistake to recommend to a newbie that he/she start one.
The barrier to entry for a large tank is high. No one disputes that. When someone pays in excess of a grand on a tank it is more important to them that the tank is successful.
I will tell you that my 180 is ten times simpler to maintain than my 55 ever was. IMO it is much easier to "understock" a larger tank than a small one. I believe "understocking" (with fish that is) is key to a successful reef.
I respect your opinion, and hope to have a small reef in the future (when my wife will let me,) but again reiterate that I think it is a mistake to recommend to newbies that they start with a nano-reef.
Ernie</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doe!, your right, it is just 2'
I think it would be cool to have a 50 gal or so tank that was just 1' tall and 2' from front to back built into the wall, but that would be totaly custom and I know My wife wouldn't have it.
<strong>
This statement is not accurate. Many corals are in water over a meter deep. My 180 is only 2' deep, shy of the meter plus where many corals reside.
In a nano tank you do not have the area for a DSB to work properly. You do not have the diversity that you do in a larger tank. You are severely limited in the fish that you can stock, just as one example.
My point is not that large tanks are "better" than nano-reefs, nor that nano-reefs are "bad." just that I think it is a mistake to recommend to a newbie that he/she start one.
The barrier to entry for a large tank is high. No one disputes that. When someone pays in excess of a grand on a tank it is more important to them that the tank is successful.
I will tell you that my 180 is ten times simpler to maintain than my 55 ever was. IMO it is much easier to "understock" a larger tank than a small one. I believe "understocking" (with fish that is) is key to a successful reef.
I respect your opinion, and hope to have a small reef in the future (when my wife will let me,) but again reiterate that I think it is a mistake to recommend to newbies that they start with a nano-reef.
Ernie</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doe!, your right, it is just 2'
I think it would be cool to have a 50 gal or so tank that was just 1' tall and 2' from front to back built into the wall, but that would be totaly custom and I know My wife wouldn't have it.
We have a 10 gallon that we have had some success with ([url=http://www.inlandreef.com/nano.html]http://www.inlandreef.com/nano.html)[/url], and a 220 gallon with similar results ([url=http://www.inlandreef.com/display.html]http://www.inlandreef.com/display.html)[/url].
We do not have the time and discipline to do frequent water changes on the 10 (there is always something going on at the store to distract us), so a skimmer there is essential. IMO a skimmer gives the ability to feed more generously and that factor rather than the skimmer itself is the greatest advantage.
However, the health, stability, coral growth, and diversity of life in the 220 gallon system far, far exceeds that of the 10 gallon.
If it is all you have room for or can afford then by all means take the plunge and start experimenting with a nano-reef, but don't for a second expect that it will have the same capability as a larger tank to simulate the diversity and stability of the real coral reef eco-system.
[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: MattM ]</p>
We do not have the time and discipline to do frequent water changes on the 10 (there is always something going on at the store to distract us), so a skimmer there is essential. IMO a skimmer gives the ability to feed more generously and that factor rather than the skimmer itself is the greatest advantage.
However, the health, stability, coral growth, and diversity of life in the 220 gallon system far, far exceeds that of the 10 gallon.
If it is all you have room for or can afford then by all means take the plunge and start experimenting with a nano-reef, but don't for a second expect that it will have the same capability as a larger tank to simulate the diversity and stability of the real coral reef eco-system.
[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: MattM ]</p>
i definetly appreciate everyones opinion, and someday i hope i can get a larger tank, but living in an apartment my lease has regulations on the size of tank i can have(10gal) already am bending the rules by having a 15gal. that and i don't have room or the money to equip a 55gal. i know a 55 would be great i wish i could but simply can't at this point and time. I appreciate everybody's opinion and besure that i'm doing my homework on this subject for 4 months now and still have atleast 3 more till i set it up.(moving to new apartment in july, so i'm waiting till them and doing all the research i can. i'm not tryng to piss on anybody's parade but i like nano's, i'll go bigger some other time.
Thanks for your opinions even if you don't agree with me, very thankful.
Matt
Thanks for your opinions even if you don't agree with me, very thankful.
Matt
hey guys, I appreciate all the advice you've been giving me, but I like nano's some other time i'll go with a bigger 55 or 90gal. but right now i don't need something that large, for one there isn't enough room in my apartment for a tank that size by itself let alone a sump to go with it, second i'm held back by my lease that says i can only have a 10gal aquarium(already break'n the rules) but i also don't have money for that much right now. I know someday i'm sure i'll want something that big but i don't need it. I don't mean to piss on everybodys parade but i like nano's more than the large tanks, i've been doing research for a couple of months and have 3 more to go at the soonest before i set it up(moving to a new apmt in july)
even then i don't think i'll set it up for other reasons. but i do appreciate your advice on nano's not being a starter tank otherwise i wouldn't post threads. but i think nano's are the way to go.
Again THANKS for the advice i do apreciate it.
Matt
even then i don't think i'll set it up for other reasons. but i do appreciate your advice on nano's not being a starter tank otherwise i wouldn't post threads. but i think nano's are the way to go.
Again THANKS for the advice i do apreciate it.
Matt
how can any one take the time to look over a 90gal really good, i mean good, like when you say i look around to make sure nothing is out of order. there are so many nooks and crannys that it would take all day to do a visual inspection, now do that to a fifteen you should now what you put in your tank what it needs and how to care for it. in a 15 gal i can put a few corals and 2 maybe 3 or 4 fish in my tank. if something goes wrong in my small tank chances are i'm going to notice it, instead of having a bunch of stuff cluttered in a big tank, not knowing everything about everything in that tank, i'd say my small tank is better, i know the few animals i have and i know them well. theres not too many places to hide or to go unseen or uninspected. That would be much easier to learn what a couple of animals are doing, than compared to what a bunch of animals with plenty of hiding spaces are doing!! am I wrong? I don't know but it seems logicall to me>
Thanks again Matt
Thanks again Matt
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
I have to disagree with that statement. Ask any of the experts and they will tell you that a small tank does not have the square-footage required for a sand bed to have the proper diversity of life to function correctly.
You guys argue that the key to doing a nano-reef is the frequent water changes, and that is easier for a small tank. There are people here on this board with large tanks that go over 12 months without a water change. You are trying to tell me that your nano tank simulates a reef ecosystem just as well as our "big tanks"? Why do you have to change water so frequently if it "Simulates the real reef" just as well? Are you trying to tell me that the real reef has water changes weekly?
I think nano's are cool. I am not knocking them, just saying that they are not necessarily for beginners.
Ernie
I have to disagree with that statement. Ask any of the experts and they will tell you that a small tank does not have the square-footage required for a sand bed to have the proper diversity of life to function correctly.
You guys argue that the key to doing a nano-reef is the frequent water changes, and that is easier for a small tank. There are people here on this board with large tanks that go over 12 months without a water change. You are trying to tell me that your nano tank simulates a reef ecosystem just as well as our "big tanks"? Why do you have to change water so frequently if it "Simulates the real reef" just as well? Are you trying to tell me that the real reef has water changes weekly?
I think nano's are cool. I am not knocking them, just saying that they are not necessarily for beginners.
Ernie
For a DSB to achieve denitrification properly, there is a minimum depth required. Frankly, for a 7 gal tank, losing a good 3-4" viewing height is a biggie.
Without the depth, 1-2" sandbed is nothing more then a more efficient biological filter media.
[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: danmhippo ]</p>
Without the depth, 1-2" sandbed is nothing more then a more efficient biological filter media.
[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: danmhippo ]</p>
nano's and large tanks are obviously 2 different animals, you treat them differently, the experts your talking about are experts on large tanks, not necessarily on nano's. IMO
the more you feed any tank, not talking about the fish, but the tank, the more life you will have in your sand bed no matter what size it is, but you can't rely on a live sand bed in a nano, that's one of the differences, that's why the weekly water changes are necessary.
I have a 3" sand bed in the 7 gal and I think it's just fine.
I think people are more successful with their nano's, I've seen a hole @#$%! of lot more nano owners proudly post their tank pics than I've seen others post their larger tanks.
the more you feed any tank, not talking about the fish, but the tank, the more life you will have in your sand bed no matter what size it is, but you can't rely on a live sand bed in a nano, that's one of the differences, that's why the weekly water changes are necessary.
I have a 3" sand bed in the 7 gal and I think it's just fine.
I think people are more successful with their nano's, I've seen a hole @#$%! of lot more nano owners proudly post their tank pics than I've seen others post their larger tanks.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
I think the "experts" would disagree. Marine Biology is applicable to both small and large tanks.
Most experts suggest that you start with the biggest tank you afford. Do you think that they suggest this because small tanks are generally more sucessful so they want us to fail? Because small tanks are easier to maintain and they want us to work harder? No, just the opposite. They believe, as do I that larger tanks are more stable, and are lower maintenance.
Ernie
I think the "experts" would disagree. Marine Biology is applicable to both small and large tanks.
Most experts suggest that you start with the biggest tank you afford. Do you think that they suggest this because small tanks are generally more sucessful so they want us to fail? Because small tanks are easier to maintain and they want us to work harder? No, just the opposite. They believe, as do I that larger tanks are more stable, and are lower maintenance.
Ernie
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>
I think the "experts" would disagree. Marine Biology is applicable to both small and large tanks.
Most experts suggest that you start with the biggest tank you afford. Do you think that they suggest this because small tanks are generally more sucessful so they want us to fail? Because small tanks are easier to maintain and they want us to work harder? No, just the opposite. They believe, as do I that larger tanks are more stable, and are lower maintenance.
Ernie</strong><hr></blockquote>
you can't run a nano the same as a 58 gal. or larger and expect it to be healthy, that's what I mean by different.
it only takes me 5 minutes to change 3 gal. of water in my nano, it takes me almost 30 minutes to change the water in my 58 gal, I use a juice container to replace water in the 7, I use a 5 gal. container and a siphon hose standing on a step ladder bent over in my 58 gal tank sucking up flatworms, biweekly, for the 58, weekly for the 7, so for the month I've spent about 20 min on the 7 but I've spent an hour on the 58, on just the water changes.
the 58 I have to clean out the skimmer, clean algae of the much larger glass, clean larger light fixtures every week or so, no skimmer on the 7, and a small glass to clean algae off of that is if there is any.
I have an IV drip for the 7 that lasts over a week during the summer, I have a float switch connected to a 5 gal container that last about 4 day's in the summer on the 58, I'm spending more time on the 58 for the evap refills.
maybe I'm doing something wrong but it's almost a good work out on the 58 but not for the 7.
[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: DEADFISH ]</p>
<strong>
I think the "experts" would disagree. Marine Biology is applicable to both small and large tanks.
Most experts suggest that you start with the biggest tank you afford. Do you think that they suggest this because small tanks are generally more sucessful so they want us to fail? Because small tanks are easier to maintain and they want us to work harder? No, just the opposite. They believe, as do I that larger tanks are more stable, and are lower maintenance.
Ernie</strong><hr></blockquote>
you can't run a nano the same as a 58 gal. or larger and expect it to be healthy, that's what I mean by different.
it only takes me 5 minutes to change 3 gal. of water in my nano, it takes me almost 30 minutes to change the water in my 58 gal, I use a juice container to replace water in the 7, I use a 5 gal. container and a siphon hose standing on a step ladder bent over in my 58 gal tank sucking up flatworms, biweekly, for the 58, weekly for the 7, so for the month I've spent about 20 min on the 7 but I've spent an hour on the 58, on just the water changes.
the 58 I have to clean out the skimmer, clean algae of the much larger glass, clean larger light fixtures every week or so, no skimmer on the 7, and a small glass to clean algae off of that is if there is any.
I have an IV drip for the 7 that lasts over a week during the summer, I have a float switch connected to a 5 gal container that last about 4 day's in the summer on the 58, I'm spending more time on the 58 for the evap refills.
maybe I'm doing something wrong but it's almost a good work out on the 58 but not for the 7.
[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: DEADFISH ]</p>
Boy, there is a real disconnect going on here. You don't (or shouldn't) treat nano systems the same as large systems. If you've run both large tanks and nanos I am surprised there is not agreement on this issue. You can't have a functional dsb in terms of denitrification in a nano. But you don't need to depend on a dsb for denitrification. You can use water changes instead.
Ernie says "Are you trying to tell me that the real reef has water changes weekly?". It's better than that, ernie, a real reef is undergoing continuous water changes. That's what currents and tides are. And I hate to say it but the sand bed around a natural reef is not functioning like it does in our dsb tanks. Natural sand beds are not significant denitrifying factors in a real reef. At least that's what I understand from the "experts".
Ernie says "Are you trying to tell me that the real reef has water changes weekly?". It's better than that, ernie, a real reef is undergoing continuous water changes. That's what currents and tides are. And I hate to say it but the sand bed around a natural reef is not functioning like it does in our dsb tanks. Natural sand beds are not significant denitrifying factors in a real reef. At least that's what I understand from the "experts".
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
anyway, THANKS for the opinions keep them coming
Matt
are you saying there is no current in the ocean?! do you think all the fish crap just sits there. I dunno but i thought the currents help take the all the crap in the water away. i know thats not the only reason they survive but to say that natural reefs don't have thounsands of gallons of fresh seawater run through to wash away the left over waste is silly(JMO)
anyway, THANKS for the opinions keep them coming
Matt
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
