wattage per gallon...
- Thread starter amandab
- Start date
Amanda- Choosing a lighting based on watts per gallon is much like choosing a car by the size of its gas tank. What is important is the following:
Using the term watts/gallon oversimplifies the issue too much.
Tell is more- what size is your tank? Do you have a sand bed? How much liverock? SPecifically what kinds of coral do you want to keep?
- Height of tank
- Distance from lights to water
- Types of lighting (MH, NO, VHO, PC, Etc)
- Height of liverock in the tank
- Lenght and width of tank
- Reflectors used
- Intensity of bulbs
- Spectrum of bulbs
- Orientation of bulbs
- Type of livestock you wish to keep
Using the term watts/gallon oversimplifies the issue too much.
Tell is more- what size is your tank? Do you have a sand bed? How much liverock? SPecifically what kinds of coral do you want to keep?
Sorry for being hasty, I was on my way out... Anyway, tank is standard 55 gallon AGA. 48" long by 13" wide by 21" high. 4-5" deep sand bed, 90 pounds of live rock, 2 ocellaris clowns, 1 royal gramma, 1 neon cleaner goby, and the usual cast of hermits and snails. Lights would be about 3 or 4" above the water level, VHO lighting, 110 watts per bulb, 3 10,000K full spectrum daylight bulbs and 1 "03" actinic. Live rock stops 3 inches below water line. I was interested in button polyps, colony polyps, and hairy mushroom coral. None of this is in my possesion yet except the tank, I was just doing some research...Thanks again.
Sounds great. As for the parabolic reflectors, I don't have any personal experience with them.
What do you plan on using for filtration and for circulation?
Everything else sounds great. The fish load is appropriate for a tank that size, and there aren't any obvious compatibility issues.
Ernie
What do you plan on using for filtration and for circulation?
Everything else sounds great. The fish load is appropriate for a tank that size, and there aren't any obvious compatibility issues.
Ernie
Or, how about going via refugium for primary filtration? Then you can skip the skimming altogether, utilize a DSB along with macro algae and good quality live rock, and then you'd have a set up that's not only more natural, but that would provide a myriad of organisms that would feed you clams and other filter feeders. At that point good circulation in the main would be your biggest issue, and as esmithii said, you can do this with powerheads.
How exactly would I set up a refugium if my tank is not drilled? I haven't heard very good things about siphon overflows, and I'm reluctant to use them... I would love to have a sump.... I think I'm going to go with the Prizm Pro skimmer... What exactly would removing the canister filter do to the system? Would that cause any conditions I have to watch out for?
I used a siphon overflow for years on my 55g, and I would hate to go back. I think you can do it without the sump, even though they are great.
As for removing the canister, if you have LR, a DSB and plenty of circulation it just isn't necessary (IMO)
Ernie
As for removing the canister, if you have LR, a DSB and plenty of circulation it just isn't necessary (IMO)
Ernie
I just read Bob Fenner's new book, and he also mentions using high circulation and efficient protein skimming while omiting the "multi-stage filtration". It seems like a sound theory to me after thinking about it for a while. You all have been really helpful, thank you so much.
I'd like to interject a little bit here...
1) a refugium has nothing to do with filtration. A refugium is a place free of predation for macro life to develop (pods et al).
2) an algal scrubber or equivalent... a tank loaded with a macro algae can serve to remove some compounds from the water, but very few and very poorly.
3) going without a skimmer is IME and IMO not good for someone new to the hobby, its asking for major algal outbreaks.
So, here is the reasoning for not going with only an algal scrubber... first take a look at this:
Algae removes small inorganic compounds such as phosphates and nitrogen compounds fairly well. But, aside from fish waste (ammonia), most waste in a tank is larger organic molecules. This means that in order for the macroalga to remove the waste, it must first be broken down into consumable parts (sugars, amino acids, etc). The organisms that break these down are, in many cases, 'undesirable' in a display tank. Some filter feeders can help, but most of the breakdown is fungal or bacterial in nature.
A skimmer and activated carbon both function by removing the larger organic molecules directly (before breakdown). Which means that you don't have the time wait or the presence of lots of organisms which break down the more complex wastes, which directly translates into a 'cleaner' appearing tank.
That make sense?
I'd go with a good skimmer, a refugium/algal scrubber if you can manage it, along with regular water changes and use of activated carbon.
Wade
I'd second Wade's post above.
Granted natural filtration is a good thing to strive for, but recommending it to a newbie is setting them up to have some headaches. I've visited Inland Aquatics and they use 100% natural filtration using an algal turf scrubber, macroalgae tank, etc. Tropicorium does similar except they use large tanks with large weekly waterchanges. When I talked to the staff at Inland they mentioned that they really need to watch how much they feed their tanks as based on their setup it's not hard to overwhelm the ATS' and macroalgae tanks. Granted they are running a pretty heavy bioload in their systems since they are a retailer, but it also goes to show that natural filtration does have a bioload limit. Adding a high quality skimmer to a natrual system certainly isn't going to hurt and it creates some elbow room for making mistakes early on when establishing a tank for the 1st time by a newbie. Many of the more seasoned reefkeepers could probably keep tanks on the natural filtration method alone but they also know what to look for when it comes to overfeeding and also diagnosing problems.
Food for thought.
Shane
Granted natural filtration is a good thing to strive for, but recommending it to a newbie is setting them up to have some headaches. I've visited Inland Aquatics and they use 100% natural filtration using an algal turf scrubber, macroalgae tank, etc. Tropicorium does similar except they use large tanks with large weekly waterchanges. When I talked to the staff at Inland they mentioned that they really need to watch how much they feed their tanks as based on their setup it's not hard to overwhelm the ATS' and macroalgae tanks. Granted they are running a pretty heavy bioload in their systems since they are a retailer, but it also goes to show that natural filtration does have a bioload limit. Adding a high quality skimmer to a natrual system certainly isn't going to hurt and it creates some elbow room for making mistakes early on when establishing a tank for the 1st time by a newbie. Many of the more seasoned reefkeepers could probably keep tanks on the natural filtration method alone but they also know what to look for when it comes to overfeeding and also diagnosing problems.
Food for thought.
Shane
Hmmm...well if you were to read the skimmerless forum over at Aqualink, you will quickly see that as far as they are concerned, the whole bioload thing is a myth. They run skimmerless tanks with no issues whatsoever.
Having said that, I've yet to see a nice skimmerless SPS dominated tank! They are usually softies and such.
Cheers
Jim
Having said that, I've yet to see a nice skimmerless SPS dominated tank! They are usually softies and such.
Cheers
Jim
No issues? I will dig out my first attempt at a skimmerless tank. I had a byropsis bloom the likes of which you rarely see. I (twice) removed ALL of the rock, scrubbed every bit of byropsis with a toothbrush and then replaced it. It was horrid. As soon as I added a powerful beckett skimmer, it cleared. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Wade
Wade
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:
