live and/rock question

ace007

ace007

New Member
How many pounds of live sand and rock would I have to add to a 125 gallon? Would like to keep more puffers/triggers and an eel. Also, what other equipment would be recommended besides a protein skimmer,heater, and UV sterilizer? I have a 90 gallon with live rock and a tidepool wet/dry filter with chemical media (carbon pillow),mechanical media, and biological filtration, UV sterilizer, protein skimmer and heater. I like having everything under the tank but do I need a tidepool and is it big enough for a 125 gallon? Could I use another size tank(like a 55 gallon) under the 125 to put stuff in(protein skimmer, UV sterilizer, heater) -but what other filteration would I need besides the live rock/sand?
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
You want to do about 100 to 125 pounds of live rock in that tank, however, you do not want any live sand. You are not going to be able to keep it clean. Do aragonite, it's much finer than crushed coral and it is very easy to clean. Just do a very thin layer.
As for the tank itself, you definitely need some type of wet/dry or sump. You can use a 55 gallon tank if you want, you just will need to install the filter bag brackets (very easy). This way you can put your skimmer right in the 55 gallon tank. What type of skimmer were you looking at? I would recommend an ETSS model, such as the Super Reef Devil.
The only other thing you need is powerheads to move the water around. You want 1,875 gallons per hour moving in that tank.
 
diadema

diadema

Member
ace - the short answer to how much livesand and rock would you have to have is none. You don't HAVE to have any - especially if you're using a wetdry filtration system.
Personally, I'd use the 55 (or 30) gallon tank as a sump, and use NO wetdry. Use a good amount of rock (depends on what type you use). If you can afford to buy 100 lbs of marshall islands rock - that's what I'd recommend.
The UV system is up to you - I don't feel like they're needed really.
I'd also do livesand - or at least a bag or two of southdown (which is aragonite) seeded with a couple pounds of livesand.
You don't need filter bag brackets... in fact I'd recommend that you not use them.
The ETSS skimmers (as mentioned) are great. I run an etss 700 which is pretty nice. The statement about 1875 gallons per hour is a little arbitrary... Your actual flow rates don't matter as much in a fish only tank.
Good luck with it!
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
I agree with both using the sump idea and the fact that you do not need a sterilizer (I see no need for them as well).
However, I have two problems with your post Diadema. First off, if you do sand in a reef tank, it stays clean by the critters who sift it. In an aggressive tank (such as the one he mentioned with triggers, puffers, and an eel) sand will not do very well because the fish will eat the inverts (especially puffers and triggers) and it is almost impossible to siphon to the best degree. Thus, the aragonite would be the next step up as far as thickness. It's not as thick as crushed coral where it traps nitrates, but it is not impossible to clean in an aggressive tank like sand can be.
The filter bag brackets is debatable, so that is fine. However, I disagree with the flow comment as well. In no way is flow arbitrary in any tank you are keeping unless you like to do water changes a few times per week. If you do not have a good amount of flow in a fish tank (especially with messy fish - puffers and triggers), food is going to build up on the bottom of the tank and convert into nitrates before you get to do a water change. I have 17 times the amount of flow in my 75 and have a moderately stocked tank, only feeding them every other day, and I still see food fall to the bottom (because my puffer is a mess with his krill). In such a long tank as a 125, you are going to need a lot of flow to keep all that water moving from side to side. Fifteen times the turnover is the minimum if you ask me. Anything less and you will just watch the nitrates build up as the tank gets more and more stocked, and they get bigger and more messy.
 
E

exile415

Guest
sterlizers kill free-flying parasites and other bacteria. The reason why people say no to it is because it kills a lot of good bacteria that is good for you tank. That is why "pros" do not use uv's. I use one and i havent had a problem since.
 
diadema

diadema

Member
Originally Posted by lion_crazz
However, I have two problems with your post Diadema. First off, if you do sand in a reef tank, it stays clean by the critters who sift it. In an aggressive tank (such as the one he mentioned with triggers, puffers, and an eel) sand will not do very well because the fish will eat the inverts (especially puffers and triggers) and it is almost impossible to siphon to the best degree. Thus, the aragonite would be the next step up as far as thickness. It's not as thick as crushed coral where it traps nitrates, but it is not impossible to clean in an aggressive tank like sand can be.
The filter bag brackets is debatable, so that is fine. However, I disagree with the flow comment as well. In no way is flow arbitrary in any tank you are keeping unless you like to do water changes a few times per week. If you do not have a good amount of flow in a fish tank (especially with messy fish - puffers and triggers), food is going to build up on the bottom of the tank and convert into nitrates before you get to do a water change. I have 17 times the amount of flow in my 75 and have a moderately stocked tank, only feeding them every other day, and I still see food fall to the bottom (because my puffer is a mess with his krill). In such a long tank as a 125, you are going to need a lot of flow to keep all that water moving from side to side. Fifteen times the turnover is the minimum if you ask me. Anything less and you will just watch the nitrates build up as the tank gets more and more stocked, and they get bigger and more messy.
wow - interesting...
First - your comment about the sandbed and the fact that the sand will not do well because the agressive fish will eat all of the inverts in the sand. Microfauna and bacteria are what makes a sandbed function not the type of inverts a trigger is likely to seek out.
Look up the word arbitrary. Basically what you had stated was "you want 1,875 gph moving in that tank" which to me was an odd thing to say. Like that is the exact amount you need - no more - no less...
I guess our opinions differ... And you know what, the funny thing is that one of us realizes they're opinions.
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
Alright, I didn't mean to be argumentitive, I apologize. I didn't mean the flow statement to be exact, but just as a general ball park so that he knew how many powerheads to get to supplement his return pump's flow. I should have been a little more clear about being a ball park figure, not exact gph. You made it seem like having a lot of flow was not very important, but I just must have read your comment incorrectly. I think if anything, the one main mistake new aquarists make (myself included in this generalization when I started my first tank) is that they don't put enough flow in their tank. I work with people all the time with their tanks and they seem to have everything else that they need except a few powerheads stirring their water up.
And as for the sand bed, I guess we just have different opinions on that matter. I have done both in tanks and I was just talking out of personal experience and from everything I have also heard from others..
 
diadema

diadema

Member
so your personal experience is that a sandbed doesn't function in an agressive tank because the fish eat all the invertebrates? Or is your personal experience that the type of invertibrates that a trigger eats are what make a sandbed function?
Not sure what you mean by "Ive done it both in tanks"?
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
I never said that it didn't function. I said aragonite functions better than sand. I have kept both aragonite and sand in aggressive tanks (wrasses, puffers, triggers, etc.) and the arogonite has always done better. Aragonite is easier to sipon, whereas, sand is tough to keep clean because you can't keep any invertebrates (hermits, snails, starfish) to stir it up.
I am not anti-sand. If it was a reef tank, I would say sand all the way. The bioload is lighter in a reef tank, and you are able to keep it thriving with an abundance of invertebrates moving through it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that the triggers/puffers eat the microfauna that you are referring to. However, that is not the only thing that keeps the tank clean (nitrate free). There has to be something to stir it up as well (unless you had the 20-30 times the turnover per hour), and you are just not going to get inverts in an aggressive tank unless you want to keep repleneshing the snail/crab count and that is just not cost effective, plus, you are not being a conscientious aqaurist.
To solve the problem, you could easily just put aragonite in the main tank so that you can still gravel siphon it, and then run a refugium in a smaller tank with an abundance of macroalgae and a deep live sand bed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top