230 tank plans

blaze86

New Member
hey im gonna be setting up 230 in a month or so i just wanted to read off my stuff and see what all you shark and ray experts thought.
240 72x31x24
wet dry rated for a 300 gallon tank
torbo flotor 1000
iwaki for good turn over
fine grain aragonite
1 smooth hound 13 inchs
1 ray "im likeing the yellow on this site"
1 zebra moray
maybe a grouper or volitan
thanks ahead of time for your support
 

sharkguy1

Member
Looks good ,but the smoohie gets too big for the tank. I got the same size tank ,sooner or later the smouthhound will bang up his nose bad and will be cramped in that amount of space. I had a volitan and a yellow ray and one time the ray smelt food on the lion and it wasnt good . The ray got spiked then later died. So watch out for those lions with shark and rays.
 

blaze86

New Member
yea i got a bigger tank worked out in advance. i know the rules. are the yellow rays easy to keep?
 

sharkguy1

Member
Ya,Mine was fine but he did have some eating problems. If they do get some ghost shrimp to get it eating. And There somewhat hardy.
 

gringoloco

New Member
"I think you'll need more skimmer. You might want to run Uv/Ozone as well and RO water."
I would run a bigger skimmer also, sharks can create alot of bio load on a tank. I would recommend a berlin hang on for the big tanks unless you are running a sump you can use something like a nautilus skimmer. The turbo floater is recommended up to 120 gallons. The choice of shark I would not go with either, it will out grow that tank. You can house a 3 foot shark in that tank, like a cat shark or Epaulette shark. As for a UV piece in a saltwater tank I disagree completly the uv scanner kills the bateria in the tank (the bad which is good, but the good bac which is bad).
 

tony detroit

Active Member
gringoloco-
I believe your information is incorrect on the UV. If it is correct please post a link to your source.
 

blaze86

New Member
i have already gone over the smooth hounds plans in a preveus post. i dont expect anything from that family of sharks to live in a 230 for more than maybe a year an a half. arrangements have been made in advance for this shark.
 

gringoloco

New Member
Tony Detroit, here is the source information from one case study, I can post about 40 of these but no need to argue. They are a good sterilizer but they kill everything the light hits, good and bad. I only state things like this that ive researched. But anyway here is the link. Check out the 5th paragraph of the page.
Cons:
U.V. light is indiscriminate in the destruction of free-floating micro-organisms. It kills "good guys" as well as bad. These beneficial microbes are absolutely necessary in almost all captive environments. For this reason: 1) Initial, break-in periods of new aquatic set-ups are run without the U.V being turned on. 2) It is suggested that U.V.s be left off in conjunction with some therapeutic treatments and used with others.
click here
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
Sorry, good try. Play again.

Even that article shows more positives than negatives.... The only negatives are the intitial cycle (which I disagree), and when using a treatment (I agree, but you should never have to treat).
Why dont you try a UV sterilizer on your tank (like all the people who recommend them) and then make a conclusion (which I would almost guarantee you would recommend them). There are even more benenfits that article does not go into.
 

gringoloco

New Member
It kills "good guys" as well as bad. These beneficial microbes are absolutely necessary in almost all captive environments. Organisms maintained in a "well-filtered", strongly U.V. sterilized system seem to develop a type of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Like the boy-in-a-bubble, organisms kept in an almost sterile environment seem to lose their ability to ward off infectious diseases. Now, let me explain the qualifiers placed upon the terms above. A) There are no captive systems that result in 100% effective kill of all micro-organisms. B) This loss of apparent immunity occurs over long periods of time in a highly variable, non-selective manner.
Cincy Reefer did you even read before you typed? When did I say there are no positives or more negitives? So you can play again there, and try to read more on a subject before jumping into a big boy conversation :D Find a bad response that I made there! Here Ill post it for you, ok
I posted:
"As for a UV piece in a saltwater tank I disagree completly the uv scanner kills the bateria in the tank (the bad which is good, but the good bac which is bad)."
Tony Detroit posted:
"gringoloco-
I believe your information is incorrect on the UV. If it is correct please post a link to your source."
So I dont believe in them because they destroy the good stuff in the tank, which is critical for a home tank to survive, so that my choice as to why I wont use one. So what exactly are you talking about, maybe you need to sit down and read, conprehend what you read, and then type. Obviousally you dont understand anything I wrote. If I sound rude to you, well im a little perked that you just jump into a conversation and start pointing fingers telling me im wrong, and i should use one. When I pointed detroit to a source document that specifically points to in there the exact statement ive made which is what he had asked for. So for you jumping to quick, no cookie for you. Go pass go do not collect $200 and go to jail for lack of understanding!
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
Let me ask you one question... Have you ever used one? I have on every tank I own and never had any problems. I am pretty sure Tony Detroit would say the same. I wasn't flaming you, I just always wonder why people blast UV sterilizers when they have no personal experience. I dont say "Don't keep saltwater fish... I read they were impossible to keep." Wouldn't that be rediculus for me to say if I have never tried?
 

gringoloco

New Member
I havent personally used a uv sterilizer due to the fact of my beliefs about them. I can see the use of them if you have major parasite problems and no treatment can work other than a uv light, but ive never had such a problem so I dont see the need for daily use. The good bateria, etc is referring to the natural bacteria that is created in the initial cycle takes place. This bacteria thrives on amonia, nitrites, and nitrates therefore how you can maintain a stable enviroment for the creatures inside the tank. The other concern of good things, is the live food that is inside the tank (micro-organisms) phytoplankton, pods, and other living organisms that provide a natural food source for inverts, anenomes, etc. I never said that the uv sterilizer is an ineffective product, its very effective in destroying what is not needed. The fact that I dont like is that it destroys the good stuff in the tank also. Anything that passes through the light is killed within a 98% tolerance which is a pretty accurate percent, depending on the water flow through the light. The slower the more effective.
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
Fair enough... I guess myself and many others have been lucky and never had any problems. I use protein skimmers or bio-balls as sources to remove ammonia, so maybe that is part of the reason.
I agree that killing the plankton can be a bad thing. I just rely more on lighting than food to keep my corals healthy.
 

tony detroit

Active Member
1)I was under the impression the the majority of nitrifying related bacteria were indeed NOT in the water column, but clinging to objects.
2)Being that we are in the aggressive forum and talking about a shark tank I also assumbed natural liverock occuring living organisms were not a necessity.
3)Lots of pods means you have lots of waste for them to eat. Lots of waste means a few things to me-
a)poor filtration
b)poor maintenance
c)over addition of foods, waste, etc.
If you do some looking you will find that the more experience reefkeepers as well as aggressive keepers are going toward a barebottom, properly filtered, clean, low waste tank instead of the old 4'' of sand and hope it works system.
I have run UV and I have run ozone. I would rather run ozone, but I have no complaints about either. Ozone is less maintenance, less to fail, less operating cost, etc, the list goes on, plus it performs roughly the same task as adding activated carbon.
 
Top