so....I don't need a skimmer?

[esmithiii]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

i thought the currents help take the all the crap in the water away.

Away to where? The waste gets processed, by the reef.

Of course the density of fish in the ocean is much smaller than that in our tanks, hence my comment about "under stocking." There are some currents in the reef, and tides move some water around but many reefs are somewhat closed ecosystems.

Obviously our sand beds function differently than those in nature. My goal as an aquarist is to create a balanced ecosystem that simulates a real reef. In my opinion, smaller tanks are harder to achieve that goal. In my opinion, nano reefs are not for the novice reefkeeper. Again, that is just my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess to answer the original question, do you need a skimmer on a nano, No. Is it an absolute requirement on bigger tanks, No, as well, many people have successful skimmerless reefs, albiet these are usually very mature tank kept by experienced hobbyists. Is a skimmer going to afford you some error room and for the price of one that will drive a small tank will it provide a good safety measure, IMHO, Yes.

 

[Anonymous]

My answer to that would be, don't expect your larger tank to come close to simulalting the stability or diverstiy of a real coral reef either! My 7 gallon nano comes just as close as my 92 gallon, or your big tank for that matter, and I have kept larger tanks as well. No tank that you can fit in your home will over simulate everything about a real reef - period.
Regards
Jim

 

[DEADFISH1]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>

Obviously our sand beds function differently than those in nature. My goal as an aquarist is to create a balanced ecosystem that simulates a real reef. In my opinion, smaller tanks are harder to achieve that goal. In my opinion, nano reefs are not for the novice reefkeeper. Again, that is just my opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>

if you mean a balanced ecosystem where you don't have do anything but look at your fish then your right, you cannot create a balanced ecosystem in a nano.
but if you mean a balanced ecosystem where you have water changes, then yes I do believe that you can.

 

[Anemone]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by FLOPPYFISH:
<strong>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, </strong><hr></blockquote>


You illustrate my point exactly. A new hobbyist will overstock their tank (I'm not picking on you here, we've all done it). You will add that third or fourth fish, and either immediately, or down the road (when those fish grow.....I hate it when they do that

), your tank will go downhill (either disease outbreak in the fish, algal problems, or "mysterious" coral health problems, etc), and no amount of water changes will stop it. In a larger tank, these changes happen much more slowly, allowing a hobbyist time to recognize the problem and react. In smaller tanks, the problems can become "full-blown" literally overnight, and by then the hobbyist is already behind the curve, trying to catch up.

FWIW,
Kevin

 

[M.E.Milz]

Putting aside all the back-and-forth of the pros and cons of nanos, if I were going to set up a nano, I would probably use an AllGlass 10g/15g "Designer" tank. The 15g measures 12" x 12" x 18"tall (I think). The added height leaves plenty of room for a decent DSB.

Another nice size for a "smaller" tank is Oceanic's 37g, which measures 18" x 24" x 21"tall. The 21" height is plenty for a DSB, and the 18" front-to-back dimension allows plenty of room for rock work.

By the way, a CPR BakPak works well on either of these tanks. ALthough I agree that you could skip it on the 15g by substituting regular, frequent water changes.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: M.E.Milz ]</p>

 

[esmithiii]

4 fish in a 15? How about one. Twou would be pushing it. I have 7 in my 180!

Ernie

 

[2poor2reef]

Ernie makes a key point that I suggested in the beginning: if you overstock on fish you are done for in a nano. I've kept one three inch blenny in a 15g without running into trouble. Even then I skimmed. Why the fascination with stuffing fish in a nano? They make terrific small coral tanks. Makes maintaining water quality so much easier, assuming you're not trying to keep an anemone or sun coral or something. It's not nice to keep any fish in a tank so small they canm barely turn around. Keeping more than one adds territorial stress as well. One fish I can see. If that fish is a type that owns a spot and defends it. Gobies, blennies, unhosted clowns, etc.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>posted by esmithii:
Away to where? The waste gets processed, by the reef.<hr></blockquote>

Ambient concentrations of nutrients on reefs fall into an equilibrium. Thus, up and down the reef, usually regardless of pollution or zone, ambient concentrations remain almost equal (low). Thus, this means you have an input and escape value that are not equal, and necessary, specific biotopes present grow to meet this equilibrium (we're talking very intensive biological activity here: the ambient concentration of phosphorus in the waters over reef areas is so low, it is at the point of limitation for phytoplankton growth, much less the limitation point of myriads of benthic photosynthetic organisms) and it indicates that you are correct in saying that most waste/nutrients are processed by the reef.

The other major processor of any available nutrients is the seagrass beds the lateral swells most often carry them to. Evidence supports bio-decomposition (and regeneration), inputs from land, upwelling foods, current-brought nutrients, etc., etc. as primary food sources to add to recycling and allow growth. The infinite dilution factor plays more prudence in the population/density of potential pathogenic agents and the limiting of ambient nutrients that reach autotrophs than the dynamics of nutrients produced on the reef itself.

Chris

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: galleon ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

Yep, lets stick to the subject. You don't need a skimmer, especially on a mature tank, and especially on a small one where water changes are no trouble.
Jim

 

[Anonymous]

Boy can I kill a thread.

 

[2poor2reef]

Galleon, here are a few tips to avoid killing threads in the future:

First, you used 21 words over ten characters long, including "pathogenic" and autotrophs".

Second, you used the word "Thus", which sound very Biblical and holier than thou.

And lastly, you used the word "prudence" in connection with the reef-keeping hobby. Every time a reefer hears any variation of the word prudent, it reminds us that we weren't, or we wouldn't have gotten into this money-pit of a hobby. Which is a little depressing and tends to make you wish the post would fall off page one.

I hope you've learned your lesson.

 

[2poor2reef]

I never use the icons 'cause I always thought my jokes were self-evident. But I have to keep in mind that most people don't know me. Good point!

 

[esmithiii]

Galleon-

I didn't respond because I didn't want to say "Nah, nah I told you so!"

But speaking of killing threads, you never answered my questions on this one:

http://www.reefs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=034464

Ernie

 

[FLOPPYFISH]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

the water can go bad surprisingly fast but i'll have all the answers for whatever goes wrong anyway, i'll have the answers before things go wrong so most likely things won't go wrong.

yes that is quite an irresponsible statement on my part and i know i don't know everything otherwise i wouldn't be posting these threads,but what i meant to say is that i have answers from all of your experiences, i'll have some of your experiences working for me whether good or bad which helps me significantly more than just my own knowledge and from reading books, reading books help but experience is where the money is.

THANKS for the replies

Matt

 

[Anonymous]

Ernie,

OOOPS!!! Sorry about that

Taken care of now, my friend.

Chris

 

[FLOPPYFISH]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

You illustrate my point exactly. A new hobbyist will overstock their tank (I'm not picking on you here, we've all done it). You will add that third or fourth fish, and either immediately, or down the road (when those fish grow.....I hate it when they do that ), your tank will go downhill (either disease outbreak in the fish, algal problems, or "mysterious" coral health problems, etc),

I know i'm know expert on nano's but i see picturess of nano's smaller than my tank with 2-3 fish, i'm noit saying thats an excuse for me too overstock my tank but it also depends on the size of the fish if you find some fish thats total length is 1in. (adult) than i could put more than 1 or 2 of them in my tank if i get a Panther Grouper of course thats the only fish i could put in the tank, but i think i know enough not to get a grouper, or an Emperator Angelfish(is that the name?) just because it looks pretty. i'm not that selfish. I won't buy a fish just cause i just have to have it and cram it into a small tank for cetain death. thats part of the research im doing before i buy any live animal. if having a nano means all i get is one fish so be it. i'd rather have one healthy happy little guy, than two or three fighting stressed out fish.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

in a 15 gal i can put a few corals and 2 maybe 3 or 4 fish in my tank.

that was said based on pictures i have seen at various web sites, trust me i want to succeed in this hobby and be a lifer too,( i know it must not seem like that to esmithiii but i have
a deep respect for life and won't needlessly kill beautiful fishm and corals)i am well aware that overstocking is bad and have no plans for it.
I hope you don't have hard feelings towards me Earnie but this size tank is my only option and i tell you i'm doing my research on everything i plan to buy before i buy it and i hope i can show you all some nice pictures of my tank when i finally get it going.
Thanks for everything

Matt

 

[esmithiii]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> trust me i want to succeed in this hobby and be a lifer too,( i know it must not seem like that to esmithiii but i have
a deep respect for life and won't needlessly kill beautiful fishm and corals)i am well aware that overstocking is bad and have no plans for it.
I hope you don't have hard feelings towards me Earnie but this size tank is my only option and i tell you i'm doing my research on everything i plan to buy before i buy it and i hope i can show you all some nice pictures of my tank when i finally get it going.
<hr></blockquote>

I am no expert and have no cause to judge anyone. I sincerely apologise if my comments seemed that way. One down side to the internet is it is hard to reflect intonation or the subtleties of body language.

I wish you the best of luck with your tank. I would rather see you have a nano reef over no reef tank at all! I simply wanted to show why I think it a mistake to recommend that newbies (whether you fall into this category is for you alone to decide) start small as opposed to starting large. I firmly believe that anyone new to this hobby should start with the largest tank that they can afford. If it is 200 gal, great. If it is 15 gal. great.

When I started out in salt water, I got a used 55 gal thinking that it was huge (compared to my FW tanks...) and that by getting it used I could save money! Image that! Now I wish that I had started with a larger tank. Most the equipment I bought was junk, but I thought it was the greatest stuff out there. Currently I have a turboflotor skimmer, a wet-dry hang on filter, a seperate overflow box/siphon tube, several crappy heaters, a fluidized bed filter, 2 canister filters, 2 biowheel filters, a 55gal tank and other "junk" that I wish I had never purchased all sitting in my garage or attic!

Needless to say that I didn't know about this board then.

Anyway, I have no hard feelings towards anyone. Life is too short to get bent out of shape over things like this.

Part of my problem is that I grew up in a house full of debaters. Sometimes it is hard to keep simple statements from sounding like an argument.

As for respect for life, I can't really judge anyone. I enjoy hunting, fishing occasionally and am an avid meat-eater so it would be hard for me to judge anyone in this category.

Ernie

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>posted by FLOPPYFISH:
if i get a Panther Grouper of course thats the only fish i could put in the tank, but i think i know enough not to get a grouper, or an Emperator Angelfish(is that the name?) just because it looks pretty.<hr></blockquote>

I can't be the only one that sees the horrific irony in this...

 

[FLOPPYFISH]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

As for respect for life, I can't really judge anyone. I enjoy hunting, fishing occasionally and am an avid meat-eater so it would be hard for me to judge anyone in this category.

of coures! i didn't mean by having respect for life mean that i'm a hardcore vegetarian(plants are living creatures too)but i meant i'm not going buy a fish knowing i don't have the means to keep it healthy. example: a mandarin fish, beautiful as they are i'm not going to buy one just so i can have a pretty fish for a month only too have it die. hey i'm a hunter too and fisherman but that type of killing is justified because you are doing it for food whether to feed a family or just cause you want a fresh meal of fish. anyway back on track.

posted by FLOPPYFISH:
if i get a Panther Grouper of course thats the only fish i could put in the tank, but i think i know enough not to get a grouper, or an Emperator Angelfish(is that the name?) just because it looks pretty.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>posted by galleon:
I can't be the only one that sees the horrific irony in this... <hr></blockquote>

what do you mean galleon?

I guess it flew over my head

Matt