my filter should do 10 times the gallons that the filter is rated for

[louie4979]

I'm starting my first salt water tank and it's hard to get straight answers from fish store owners who are trying to make a buck. A guy told me that my filter should do 10 times the gallons that the filter is rated for! All the books I read and all the guys I've talked to say twice! I have a 60 gallon tank and I bought a Rena XP3 rated at 375 and a Reef Octopus protein skimmer at 150 gallons. I plant to use about 50 pounds of live rock and I'm going to start with fish only. This has got to be enough right? Also do I really need live sand to start with or would a regular substrate be ok. It's starting to get real expensive.

 

[austinsdad]

Welcome to AA!!

Dry aragonite sand very well rinsed will do just fine. The joke around here goes something like this... "didja hear the one about the live sand sealed up in an airtight bag...?" Get it, right?? Nothing lives in a sealed bag sitting on a store shelf. Read our articles section for fishless cycling too.

 

[Fishguy2727]

What kind of tank are you trying to have? What types of fish? Most saltwater tanks do better with a sump, not a canister. Is the skimmer a HOB?

Live sand IMO is just wet sand with the equivalent of a bottled bacteria supplement in it. Bacteria can go dormant, sit idle as a spore, and then when in the right conditions seed a thriving community of bacteria. Just because it is in a sealed bag or bottle doesn't mean it is sterile. That said I wouldn't waste my money on it. You should have live rock and that alone will be much more than you will need to seed the microbial ecosystem in your tank.

I used dry black sand in my reef, love the look of it.

 

[Wy Renegade]

+1 to the dry aragonite sand; only thing I would suggest differently is picking up a cup of sand from a fellow reefer or from you LFS as seed for the new sandbed.

 

[louie4979]

+1 to the dry aragonite sand; only thing I would suggest differently is picking up a cup of sand from a fellow reefer or from you LFS as seed for the new sandbed.

The sand the guy has is from his tanks. That's a good idea! I'll just buy a pound from him. Thanks.

 

[louie4979]

What kind of tank are you trying to have? What types of fish? Most saltwater tanks do better with a sump, not a canister. Is the skimmer a HOB?

Live sand IMO is just wet sand with the equivalent of a bottled bacteria supplement in it. Bacteria can go dormant, sit idle as a spore, and then when in the right conditions seed a thriving community of bacteria. Just because it is in a sealed bag or bottle doesn't mean it is sterile. That said I wouldn't waste my money on it. You should have live rock and that alone will be much more than you will need to seed the microbial ecosystem in your tank.

I used dry black sand in my reef, love the look of it.

Yeah it's a HOB skimmer. A sump will be hopefully in the future and with more experience. I'm just going to start with a couple of fish and see where it goes. A sump looks complicated. Is there a website that tells you how to go about it?

 

[austinsdad]

When you cycle the tank and establish bacteria, it'll be no time until your sand is alive with organisms too. What does "seeding the sand" mean anyway...at least compared to what happens when a tank is cycled? If someone could explain that, it'll help me learn something too.

 

[Fishguy2727]

Seeding the tank with live rock means that whatever came in on the live rock can find new and more places to grow, so you get more life growing. More filter feeders filtering, more scavengers scavenging, etc.

What fish are you thinking of so far?

Every sump is different, but they are definitely worth the work. Mine has three sections. The first is where all water going into the sump goes (from the display, skimmer, reactors, and auto top off). It is also where any additives are added. The next section is the refugium with chaeto algae growing in it, some oolite sand as a substrate, some Xenia, a few pieces of rock rubble, and a heater. The last section is for all the pumps (return to display, skimmer, and reactors) and the sensor for the auto top off. Your sump doesn't have to be this complicated, add what you need for your tank, not what you can find or see on other aquarists' sumps and tanks. If I did it again I would use dark glass for the baffles so the light stays in the fuge and doesn't grow algae in the other sections.

 

[austinsdad]

Don't put xenia in a sump.

 

[Fishguy2727]

Why not? It is a great method of nutrient export, just like chaeto. Some people even use tridacnid clams for the same purpose (although they are more than beautiful enough to be in the display IMO). My Xenia is a better method of nutrient export than my chaeto. It is more valuable when you try to get rid of it too.

 

[mr_X]

how do you know xenia is more efficient than macro algae? just because it grows quickly?

 

[Fishguy2727]

My Xenia grew very well and my macroalgae stopped growing. There was so little nitrate and phosphate that it couldn't grow. The Xenia kept growing very well though, and if it is growing it is using nutrients. It definitely won't hurt to use it as nutrient export (which I have seen listed multiple times in books and online).

 

[mr_X]

but they are photosynthetic. i'm not saying they aren't nutrient users, but i believe they can get nutrition from light. they don't necessarily need nitrates and/or phosphates.

 

[Fishguy2727]

Yes they do. Light is a source of energy, not nutrients. Light doesn't give them carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, or any other nutrient, they still need every nutrient from the water or food (Xenia use effectively only water, they are not big on actively eating). Obviously putting Xenia in the sump requires lighting, just like macroalgae.

The light provides energy for the zooxanthellae algae to make food using the nutrients from the water (photosynthesis). The Xenia gets most of its nutrition from the excessive amount of food produced by the zooxanthellae (which use very little of what they make).

 

[mr_X]

i was under the impression they could create their own food using photosynthesis. sort of like the plant in the cup of water on the window sill, that keeps growing, even though there is no dirt. it grows from the tiny amount of nutrients in tap water?

i'm still not convinced that xenia is more effective at nutrient export than the macro algae because they are 2 different structures. they grow at different rates, and one needs X amount of nutrients and the other Y amount.
the only way to know for sure is to take 2 specimens of the same size and put them in same size tanks, add the same amount of nutrients, then test after adequate time has passed....

 

[Fishguy2727]

My tank has very low nutrients (no nitrate or phosphate on tests) so I think has a lot to do with. I also mentioned I have both, not Xenia instead of macroalgae, so you get the best of both. I think systems with higher nutrient loads would be better off with all macroalgae.

What plant are you growing with no dirt?

The zooxanthellae still need to get nutrients from the coral (either from the coral's metabolic waste or from the water through the coral). Photosynthesis is just the conversion of certian nutrients into others, not the creation of nutrients. The light simply powers the reaction.

 

[mr_X]

lol..i don't know the name of it, but it was a small branch that broke off of a larger house plant. it has been in a cup of water for like 6 months and has grown roots and considerable height with only water (i guess she's too lazy to replant it).

 

[Fishguy2727]

Probably Pothos/Devil's Ivy.

 

[mr_X]

she told me it's a jade plant.

 

[austinsdad]

Guess I'm just too cautious about xenia's ability to crash a system.