iantoh

hi somebody, for a two feet tank, id suggest any small specimen from the fromia species of sea stars. try searching yahoo or google for fromia. either the fromia monilis or qhardaqana will be good. one is the marbled orange starfish, the other is red with white spots. both are lovely and remain relatively small- up to 3 inches approx- and are detrivores so entirely reefsafe. id avoid the linkias as even though theyre detrivores too, they grow too large or are sold as too large a specimen for a two feet tank. youd need a larger, perhaps 5 feet tank to keep either the blue or orange linkias. alternatively, you could keep quite a few of the small brittle stars. any brittle star will do- just try to find small ones, and avoid the green caribbean ones as they are likely to prey on dormant or sleeping fish when they get bigger. brittle stars are by far the hardiest and easiet to keep. try pm-ing venezia. her sump has lots of mini brittles, and they are great as a clean up crew. cheers, ian ps: if you happen to find some fromia monilis while youre shopping for stars, if you dont mind, pm me can? as i'm looking to add one to my tank too. hope that helps.

hi all! thanks for your thoughtful reply weileong. guess higher bioloads really are more challenging. well, keep us all posted on the successes of your respective systems ya. cheers all ian

hi rav-65, i think you forgot to mention the tube lengths. does daz mean deltec? also, wanted to ask someone so shall ask you first: my HO T5 e-ballast states 2x24w or 2x39w, that means only those two combinations right? i mean, i cant have one 24w and one 39w running simultaneously right? or can i? thanks, ian

hi everyone, tis a down time for a DSB believer i think. everyone's seemingly so convinced of the ill-effects of the DSB system that its honestly quite unbelievable. the DSB has been in use in public aquaria and is championed by most noted marine aquarists, and has been tried and tested past a decade now (two ten year plus examples, the waikiki and monteray bay aquariums, and eric bournman's personal tank featured on reef.orgs a while back) i have tried to write up replies to these posts because my DSB has served me well all this time, and i figure it deserves some defense, seeing as it is unable to speak for itself, so i shall try to recap the major arguments on both sides for you, albeit entwined with my DSB philosophy. the barebottom perspective: 1) the bare-bottom system is basically the extreme manifestation of the use of powerful skimming as advocated by the Berlin system. as skimming is about the removal of organics within the water column before it can be broken down into nitrites, nitrates, phosphates, etc, the best way to efficiently remove as much of this organic material as is possible is to have excellent water circulation to keep water-borne all the wastes that are produced within the tank. a DSB or a shallow sand bed for that matter, will logically be counterproductive towards this end as there will invariably be dead spots if you dont wish to blow sand everywhere, hence, the bare-bottom idea. it makes sense really. theres no actual need for cycling of a barebottom tank seeing as the entire premise is to prevent any nutrient cycling from taking place within the tank, and to remove all nutrients before it breaks down. the thing is, it is not possible to entirely skim every molecule of water at every instant, so it is inevitable that nutrients will still break down within the barebottom system, either within the liverocks, or in the water column, leading to a build up of nitrates and phosphates eventually. the DSB system: 1)heres where the DSB comes in. a functional DSB requires at least three to four inches of fine oolithic sand, the rationale being to create varying levels of oxygen within the sand bed. the top two inches where oxygen is lowered but still present will allow bacteria that convert ammonia to nitrites and nitrites to nitrates to develop and colonize. the bottom last inch is ideally undisturbed, even by sandsifting stars or gobies (perhaps only explored by worms as three inches is deeper than most critters care to venture). this last inch should be kept anoxic, that is, as an oxygen-less area to allow the bacterias that break down nitrates back into nitrogen and oxygen to survive and grow. the problem with this is that in an oxygenless environment, hydrogen sulfides will accumulate. this however, is not meant to be an issue if the sand bed is left as it is, to function as a sand bed for nutrient cycling. DSBs have been in use properly for over a decade without any sulfide leeching in numerous public aquariums, etc. the key is in utilising a correct depth of sand. very often, people use less than 3 inches of sand. with a half-baked DSB of say one to two inches, the bottom last cm or so is likely to become anoxic with time through the compacting of the sand, and will allow the colonization of anoxic bacterias to go to work there, but with this anoxic region will come hydrogen sulfide accumulation, and the risk of resultant leeching because a shallow sand bed is easily disturbed, both by the aquarist as well as by the life within the tank. this is usually the case of how sulfides are leeched into the system. its the same with liverocks. as bro tuan mentioned on another thread, the centre of liverocks, if you break one up, are black and full of hydrogen sulfide. this is because this is the anoxic region deep within the rock where bacterias break down nitrates (this is the very reason why we have so much liverocks in our tanks, for nutrient cycling). now, the same way that your rocks dont cry out to be broken within your tank to release these chemicals, your DSB similarly does not ask of you to disturb it. as for the issue of PO4, i think this issue has to do with overstocking more than DSB, or any sand bed. the link is most likely spurious and incidental. alot of reefers keep alot of fishes these days due to the ability to export organics provided by powerful skimming. but wastes will break down within the tank to some extent no matter how powerful the skimming and how great the circulation, and will eventually cause nitrates and PO4 to build up. this is especially so if there are no macroalgaes within the tank or sump to absorb these nutrients. PO4 mainly enters the system through the foods we feed our fishes, in particular, foods for herbivorous fish such as tangs. the reason why we are often advised not to keep more than one or two tangs per closed system is not just because of conspecific agression, but also because of waste build up issues. phosphate is a primary constituent of all plant matter, and herbivorous fish such as tangs will require foods such as nori, macroalgaes or formula 2. all of which are high in phosphate content. the excretions from these fish will then cause the build up of PO4 within a system, and not the DSB. both ways, as i believe time will tell, the barebottom system will also experience PO4 issues as long as the tanks are overstocked. there is also the misconception that PO4 is the chief factor in diatom or other microalgae growth within our tanks hence the desire to eradicate PO4. for sure, phosphates are required by plants for growth, but to deal with diatoms and cyanobacteria, silicates are more crucial. it has been proven that when silicates rise above 0.05ppm, diatoms will grow prolifically, and diatom gowth is highly correlated with silicate levels. hence, an easier method to prevent diatoms would be to remove silicates. heres two great articles on this matter: http://www.reefs.org/library/aquarium_net/0297/0297_3.html http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2003/feature.htm either ways, i think silicates and phosphates are necesary for the photosynthesis of zooxallanthae within corals so entirely removing both will not be a desired thing. and reverse osmosis or distillation processes that we use for our top up water may remove hard metals and chlorine and all that, but it has similarly been shown that the ability of the resins to remove silicates is short lived. i think the best way for us to better improve our tank water quality is to use phosban that is a resin for both phosphate as well as silicate removal. sadly though, i havent seen it on the local market. well, hope that fills you in sufficiently on the current trend of barebottom systems. i think the barebottom system has its merits, as it basically extends out of the Berlin system, but that overstocking will still invariably cause nutrient and chemical buildups even within the best maintained barebottoms. same with DSBs. just that proper DSB systems have the added benefit of complete nitrogen cycling to help with the nutrient breakdown. cheers everyone, ian ps: sorry to ramble on so long. i'm quite long winded i think

hi guys, its my holidays so took some time to read up more on silicates and phosphates and heres another great article by Thiel again on silicates and how they are the primary determinant of diatom growth in aquaria. hope it helps to check it out ya. http://www.reefs.org/library/aquarium_net/0297/0297_3.html cheers, ian

hi everyone. just some thoughts that came to me upon reading this thread that i think might be of help. 1) i think the use of a large clean up crew- snails, cukes, etc- will have limited benefits without a DSB, primarily because any algal matter that is consumed by the snails (that contains binded phosphates within their algae tissue) will be excreted by the snails in their poo. in this manner, phosphate isnt exactly dealt with but recycled within the system. 2) some diatoms within a system is unavoidable i think, because the only way to entirely eradicate diatoms is to have absolutely no nitrates, phosphates, and silicates within your tank's water, and short of arguing that i think that is not possible, such a situation would be detrimental for your corals because even though phosphates and nitrates are undesireable in our tanks, a small amount is still needed for photosynthesis by the zooxallanthae that reside within your corals. the more important aspect to reducing micro algae growth i think (diatoms/cyano), is control of the silicate level within your tank. it was the topic of concern in the advanced aquarist a few months back if i remember correctly. silicates at 0.05ppm will allow zooxallathae photosynthesis whilst limiting microalgae growth such that you can clean your glass with a magnet cleaner once a wk and that should be enough. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2003/feature.htm 3) from what i infer, i think most of you keep more than one tang in your tanks. the reason why most marine aquaria authors discourage keeping more than one tang per tank is not only due to conspecific agression but also due to bioload issues. tangs are the cows of the ocean, and require a great intake of food for proper nutrition, so keeping more than one in a tank that is not above 100g will cause a higher bioload then that tank can naturally handle. rightly though, here comes the berlin system that you guys are using, which allows overstocking, but only to an extent. powerful skimming may remove most of the organics within your tanks waters, but it is inevitable that some organics will be broken down into nitrites and nitrates before they can be skimmed. you cant skim every single particle of water in your tank at every instance. good circulation helps, but is limited as long as bioload is high. 4) i think it is unfounded and spurious for one to draw the conclusion that PO4 build-up is from the DSB. if you said the DSB was a source of sulfides, perhaps, but phosphates? no. in time, you are going to get PO4 build-up even without your DSB. 4 days into a bare-bottom system will not reveal the true ability of the system to handle PO4 buildup. just let it run another fortnight and measure your PO4 again. i'm rather sure it'll be back up. tangs are herbivores, and a large proportion of the foods fed to them, either the macroalgaes or hair algaes within the aquarium or foods such as formula two will contain high concentrations of phosphates, and this is your source for PO4- the phosphates that are present in plant materials consumed by your herbivorous fish that then excrete this PO4 back into your water. broken down PO4, unless it is binded through photosynthesis by diatoms or other macroalgaes will not be skimmed out by your skimmers, and will only build up. in this way, diatoms and cyanobacteria may be helpful, as they may bind PO4 in their tissues for you to clean them later and allow them to be skimmed out, along with them the PO4. think of diatoms as the natural way. better to have easy to clean diatoms then blue/green algae anyway. 5) perhaps using a resin or ferrous iron filter media for phosphates may help. well. hope that helps. cheers, ian

hi ervine. i thought the use of epoxy was conceived because superglues, prior to the advent of cyanoacrylate esther glues, were not reef safe. as it is, epoxy isnt entirely reef safe- there are warning disclaimers even for human handlers. if you wish to attach something vertically with super glue gel, youre supposed to add a large blob to the piece you are gonna attach, as well as the actual place youre attaching to (you can just add some to your finger then push it onto the location). thereafter, youre supposed to bring two of the glued ends together and twist them (circular motion downwards) till the consistency is firmer then hold in place for a min or two. not to disagree with epoxy users- just my suggestion as its worked brilliantly for me in many instances, and my fragged xenias grow over the glued bits, testifying to their reef-safe-ness in my experience. cheers, ian

hi everyone, id recommend loctite super glue gel if anyone is looking for an alternative to epoxy. it is entirely reefsafe, being based on cyanoacrylate, and its less bulky to use. diatoms and algaes readily grow over it, and its way cheaper too. cheers, ian

hi there, snails and other critters that make up janitor clean up crews are living things too and require nutrition. imagine the amount of diatoms or blue green algae a snail might need to consume to be able to maintain healthy growth with its large shell and all. if youre not intending to clean your system much, that is, wipe off or magnet-clean the algae that builds up on your tank's glass surfaces, then perhaps more snails would be good, but if you do clean your tanks, perhaps one snail per ten gallons is more than sufficient for diatom and cyano clean up on the live rocks, etc. cheers, ian

hi there ervine. your bicolour psuedo chromis is just clearing himself a cave of sorts. they usually do this, and if you use a syringe or your hands to shovel the sand back to cover the area it cleared, it will just repeat it, so just leave it for now. you can blow the sand off the rocks once hes done with clearing his lair. cheers, ian ps: my gf has the big bird figurine in your avatar. hahha

hey hobbes. nice looking tank. take note bout your nitrites and nitrates though ya. hhahaha. you need water changes for such a small system la. and skim more! cheers, ian

hi yongwil and other bros, here are the two articles i mentioned. sorry bout forgetting to include them in my original post. http://www.wetwebmedia.com/marine/setup/lighting/index.htm http://www.kentmarine.com/university/reeflighting.html cheers all, ian

hi stardust, try leather corals if youre intending to keep a pair of clownfish. leather corals or sarcophytons as they are more properly known as, are entirely photosynthetic and just require sufficient lighting for their sustenance. T5 lightings for your tank ought to be sufficient. the clown fish will also play within the coral's tentacles in the absence of anemones which are harder to keep and ought not to be tried immediatly by beginners. try to get two or three palm sized leather corals (they cost about $5 to $8 per colony) so as to allow the clownfish to play in them whilst also allowing the corals nemo-free time to extend their tentacles and feed on light. think they make excellent beginner corals and are relatively easy to keep. just ensure you maintain the same water parameters as you would for your fish- that is, above 8.0 ph, above 8dkh, and low/no nitrites, nitrates. another hardy coral you could consider would be the hairy mushrooms and ricordea yumas. these are the cheaper, more common mushroom corals, and clownfish are known to rest on them in the absense of anemones. they are also photosynthetic and do not have very strong lighting or water flow requirements. do read up more about these two corals species and possibly others before you purchase them. for easy reading, you can check out www.liveaquaria.com, and for more advanced reading, www.wetwebmedia.com cheers, ian

hi everyone! think our discussion is really lively- good. in response to madmac and blueheaven, i incline more towards blueheaven's views in that i do not see "how a sandbed can be like a sponge which can be a sink for nutrients." the entire rationale behind a DSB is to create possibly anoxic regions by which bacteria that process nitrates into nitrogen and oxygen can proliferate. the accumulation of phosphates and of nitrates within any tank ought not to be attributed to the DSB system. nitrates arise because of either excreted wastes or uneated organics that then decompose within a tank. nitrates will be produced whether or not you have a DSB without proper skimming. the Berlin system aims to remove organics before it even breaks down, undercutting the entire nitrogen cycle. phosphates on the other hand, along with sulfides which are poisonous, will accumulate in live rocks as much as they will in DSBs. as bro Tuan quipped, and i'm sure youll probably have observed before, if you chip or break a piece of live rock, whether fresh from the ocean or from your tank, the centre areas will be black and absolutely putrid smelling. thats the sulfides accumulating in the deeper anoxic regions within the liverock. and thats why liverocks contribute to the denitrification processes within marine tanks. if the suggestion is that sulfides, phosphates, and nitrates will be caused by DSBs and that the sulfides may leech back out into the system, then honestly, the likelihood is that the risk between this leeching is similar between liverocks and a DSB. pls do understand that the DSB system does not ask you to over agitate its sand bed in the same way that liverocks do not court you to break them up. digging up a DSB will render similar consequences to breaking up your live rocks and uncovering their blackened centers inside your tank. DSBs should not have too much burrowing life that may then risk compromising the DSB. if you have the whole four inches of sand as a DSB requires, and not like the usual one or two inches that most reefers who claim they have DSBs employ, then i can hardly think of any critters that have not just the curiosity to, but also the capacity to dig so deep. thats alot of weight you know. worms will hardly cause much bother unless they are too numerous, and sand sifting gobies and dragonets will hardly move an inch of the sand, and even then only in small areas where they assert their territoriality. the anoxic region in the DSB is meant to remain as it is! anoxic and undisturbed insofar as to allow the oxygen-averse bacteria that convert nitrates back into nitrogen and nitrates to survive. pls do consider the DSB system as it is meant to be employed, and in its entirety. it is the closest replication of nature's ways in our artificial reefs, and it achieves numerous benefits. as a fellow bro quoted earlier, eric bourneman has achieved success with his own personal reef tank utilizing a DSB for more than a decade. likewise, decade long DSBs are on display at numerous public aquaria such as the monteray bay aquarium. this is not to suggest DSBs are enough on their own. for the overstocked tanks that many reefers keep, efficient skimming will be necessary too, and the Berlin system is superb. but all these different systems should be a means to serve us reefers- for us to utilize them in tandem, to hybridize our systems- rather than have our tanks subordinate to the systems itself. cheers, ian

hi yongwil, heres two fantastic articles on lightings that i came upon in my research during my last upgrade and they debunk lots of indicators and clarify the most important aspects to marine reef lighting. for example, you mention 10000k and 20000k. these kelvin ratings only demonstrate the colour temperatures of the light bulbs and do not specify totally the kind of wavelength spectrums they emit nor the intensity of the light produced. natural sunlight is actually 5000k with a CRI of 100. in typical reefs from which our corals originate, the lights received will be about 10000k as the red, yellow, and orange (shorter wavelengths) will have been refracted or diffused out as the light travels pass the first few meters from the surface. hence the light in reef areas are usually more blueish in colour. for increasingly deeper reefs, 12000, 14000, and 20000kelvin. for a typical mixed reef, my recommendation will be either one 6500k bulb and one 10000k bulb plus one actinic bulb of 420 to 470 nm in wavelength spectrum; or one 10000k bulb, one 20000k bulb, and one actinic. metal halides are a good choice for sps as their lumens rating, that is, the penetrative strength of the light given off is super high- above 5000. HOT5s are typically about 3000 lumens. think you might have to think more about the wattage of your MHs than the colour temp of the bulbs as thats pretty straight forward- 10000k being the middle choice. perhaps a four feet MH fixture with two 150 or 250watt MH 10000k bulbs, together with perhaps one 6500k and one 20000k HO T5 bulb, plus actinic PL bulbs? i'm giving you the best possible combinations that will ensure the fulfillment of most coral's needs, but youll have to decide based upon your budget and also on other's comments and recommendations ya as this is from what ive learned and experienced and other's might know more or have different experiences. i think two 250watt 10000k MH bulbs, honestly, will suffice to keep sps in your tank. the rest are just beneficial safe guard extras. plus the actinics for aesthetic looks. well.. hope that helps. try reading the articles. they explain the factors better than i have. cheers, ian

hi eveyone, here are two fantastic articles that i came across in my research prior to upgrading my lightings. http://www.wetwebmedia.com/marine/setup/lighting/index.htm http://www.kentmarine.com/university/reeflighting.html they make informed comparisons between the various lighting fixtures available, like flourescents vs HO T5s vs Metal halides, etc. the articles also debunk several lighting indicators that aquarist have grown to adjudge lightbulbs but which do not accurately reflect or reveal the aspects to the lightings to which we marine aquarists are interested in. for example, people often speak of watts per gallon, but consider this, a 50 watt bulb at a foot's distance and a hundred feet's distance yields the same wattage per gallon figure, but clearly, their relative light strengths will differ greatly. likewise, 6500k or 10000k merely refers to the light temperature emitted by the bulbs, and at that, it only refers to the peak temperatures. actual sunlight is only around 5000k. typical shallow reefs receive light of about 10000k as most of the red, orange, and yellow spectrums (those of shorter wavelengths in nm) will have been refracted or diffused in the upper surfaces of the water, allowing only the more blue higher temp spectrums to permeate. next, the lumens rating. lumens refers to the penetrative strength of a light source and for reef type lightings where photsynthetic corals are the mainstay, a lumens of at least 2000 is recommended. this is the primary factor that disfavours flourescents as their lumens rating is low. but as the articels expound, lumens increase with added bulbs, that is, with more bulbs, you get more lumens, so someone running a two footer with flourescents may achieve the lighting penetrative qualities of using HO T5's, but will require more flourescents to make up for each individual fl bulb's low lumens or penetrative light strength. from what ive gleaned, including through some emails i sent to various light bulb manufacturers, Metal halides are highest in lumens (above 5000), and because they come in varying colour temperatures and high CRIs, they are very good. but here comes the caveat- MHs typically burn at above 100 degrees celcius, and add alot of heat to the tank's water, and will almost necessarily require the use of a chiller. furthermore, it is scientifically evidenced that it is possible to have too much light. a MH fixture of 150w on a one foot high tank with the bulb placed at a normal distance will almost mean too much light for its inhabitants. the zooallanthae in the corals will create too much oxygen per amount of time that will cause poisoning of the coral's tissues. there are ways to rectify this. slowly acclimatize corals so that the coral has a chance to either increase its zooallanthae count if lighitngs too weak, or to expel some zooallanthae if lightings too strong. apparently, iodide is used by corals in this acclimatizing process but i dont typically add iodide so i'm not sure about its use for that. T5s according to deltec are about 3000 lumens so i think for most tanks T5s are adequate for healthy coral growth. they are what i use and i'm suitably pleased with mine. but do read up best as you can on your inhabitant's requirements before establishing your lightings. hope that helps. i was rather confused at the start, and was even conned years ago by irresponsible and ill informed lfs owners that actinics were enough on their own, or that flourescents were strong enough for sps, etc, so i just hope to share my experience and help prevent such bad choices (as i made before) from happening again. cheers all, ian

hi there somebody, actually you could consider adding some more hardy corals to your tank and then allow the perculas some time to pair up and you could have a breeding tank. the fun you can have from trying to raise the fry is immense i think. as above bros mentioned, firefishes (the helfrinchi sp is beautiful) and fairy wrasses will be good additions to a two footer. the firefishes arent likely to jump as long as water parameters are fine and there are no other tank inhabitants that bully it. try the carpenter's filamented fairy wrasse, the filamented fairy wrasse, the lubocke's wrasse or the normal fairy wrasse. these grow at most to 3inches and may be kept in your tank long term. you can also consider clown gobies though you ought to have copepods thriving in your system before you consider adding one just in case they dont feed. as always, damsels and chromis are good candidates. the blue fin damsel is quite nice i think and hardy, and they are open water swimmers so youll get to see them swimming about all day. the marginated damselfish is gorgeous but i havent ever seen one in an lfs. dont add bluedevil damsels though as they are terribly agressive in my opinion and will eventually bully all smaller inhabitants. perhaps invertebrates such as palaemonidae or ###### anemone shrimps? last note: youll need efficient skimming and a decent sandbed to help accomodate your increased bioload in a two footer. grammas are beautiful too but more ex, so make sure things are settled in your tank before adding them in should you decide to ya. cheers, ian

when considering lighting, the key determinants are given by these three indexes: 1) light temperature; 2) colour rendering index (CRI), and 3) the lumens rating (that demonstrates the penetrative strength of the bulb. natural sunlight is about 5000-6000k, 100 CRI, and the lumens varies on the depth of the water or reef area. photosynthetic corals harbouring zooallanthae typically receive light of about 10000k temperature, that is, with most of the yellow and red wavelengths having been refracted out at shallower depths so only blue and whitish spectrums remain. at even deeper depths, light of above 10000k. it is important to note though that colour temperature itself doesnt tell you much. a 10000k bulb one feet from you and one hundred feet from you will still both emit 10000k light but the further one is obviously of less strength and usefulness. hence CRI and lumens. CRI is measured as a percentile, with 100 being light of perfectly full spectrums (having all spectrums and as similar as possible to natural sunlight. for marine aquaria use, it is recommended by most marine aquaria authorities that you look for bulbs with CRI above 90. lumens is the penetrative ability or light strength of a bulb, and above 2000 will do for most tanks. typically, a T5 bulb is about 3000 i think. most lighting manufacturers do not specify their CRI and lumens ratings on their packaging so as not to disfavour themselves, but the better brands do. if youre thinking of using flourescents, the coral sun brand is great as it gives you a range of 6500k to 20000k and a CRI rating of 96, though their lumens rating would be lower than 2000k. as rule, the more bulbs, the greater the lumens, so if youll need more flourescents per area for greater intensity than you would HO T5s, and correspondingly, more T5s to match metal halide lamps. if youre keeping a mixed reef tank with corals and fishes from everywhere, most of which their original reef depths you are unsure about, id recommend one 6500k bulb and one 10000k bulb, both with as high CRI as possible. couple this with an actinic bulb with wavelength spectrums from 420nm to 475nm and youll fulfill most of your organisms lighting requirements. if you envisage yourself in this hobby for long, and i hope you do; and if you can afford it, try out HO T5s. for a two feet tank, Wakai sells retrofits that cost about $80. they're good and can easily be refitted should you decide to upgrade either your tank or your coral types in the future as theyve been proven good enough even for sps. hope that helps. there are alot of factors involved in lighting, so it can all get confusing, but if you observe the lightings of long term sucessful tanks, like many of those that have been posted by reefers on src, youll note the benefit of T5s and MHs. MH's are really strong though, and heat up above 100 degrees celcius, so i'd recommend T5s. remember too that too much light can and will damage corals. the overproduction of oxygen by zooallathae within a corals tissue will poison the coral unless the change is gradual and the coral is allowed time to expel some zooallanthae to adapt to the lightings provided, so slow change is best too ya. i just upgraded my lightings so ive still got all this jazz in my head- hope it helps. cheers, ian

hi aquaz. may i ask if you can provide us with the Colour Rendering Index and lumens rating of your T5 bulbs. i am presently running two aquaz 10000k, but am thinking of renewing my tubes so am considering a few brands. thanks, ian

hahah. hey tuan. thats so true. its the same way with corals and the fads that seem to come and go periodically. all it takes is for someone to post some glorious photo of a certain coral, and suddenly, everyone wants one. its so human. like the ric yuma or florida thing going on now that allows lfs shop owners to price single polyps at such high prices. just think back to their prices two years back. even actinodosas are like $5 per polyp now when they used to go for bout $10 for a rock full of them. and like anthony calfo recently wrote, on advance aquarist i think, this price inflation relates purely to consumer trends. the largely third world collectors of the corals which end up in our tanks receive peanuts for braving the dangers of diving and hand collection whilst it it the end retailers that profit largely. i think we need to cultivate more responsibility to our hobby, and exercise more individual discernment in our response to each upcoming fad. i thought of adding mirrors on the outside of the sides of my tank to help reflect light but have put it off thus far. hearing of your mylar foil makes me think about getting down to doing that. what do you bros think? anyone tried mirrors on the side of their tanks? i'm thinking that glass has reflective and refractive properties already and adding mirrors to the non-viewing sides might be overdoing it. by the way, are mylar's metal in nature? cheers, ian

hi fellow reefers, especially bro tuan, apologies first if any of my comments have been misplaced ya. i'm wondering if we can set up a collective experiment to adjudicate the various benefits to the different systems, and also whether hybrid systems are better, etc. it might be fun for us to set up two nanos or something and periodically monitor their parameters. all the same, i think that all our mini-reefs require lots of attention and diligence. the coral reefs of nature are diverse and complex and have the entire ocean's water body to buffer its wastes, so clearly we, and our equipment, must work harder to achieve similar results. think all of us here must spend a great deal of time on our tanks anyways so either system you prefer, it will still require work, just some less, some more. some off the point notes: i read in Time magazine and the japanese technological conference website that in osaka i think, during the world tech conference, they exhibited a tank that held both freshwater and marine fishes in the same water. something achieved by the infusion of nano bubbles invisible to the ###### eye that allows both types of fish to breathe in freshwater. isnt that amazing?! anyone know more about that? perhaps sometime in the future we might be able to keep reef fishes in freshwater with the nano-bubble chambers. also, bro tuan, someone mentioned youre in the uk? there long term ah? lets have a gathering le! the reefers on arofanatics routinely have barbeques and such, and the yanks and brits often have frag meets. think we could certainly have more of those in our community, lest our pasar malam forums become solely auction type forums devoid of sentimentality and cordial exchanges. i'd personally like to meet more reefers and make more reefing friends too so tell me what you all think ya. cheers all, ian

hi tuan.. thats informative. thanks. guess we all ought to add more infauna to our DSBs then. cheers, ian

hi everyone, and especially bros tuan, gouldian, blueheaven and madmac, no tuan, the comments are directed particularly at you. i just meant to clarify that i meant to say DSBs do not necessarily require lots of minute life (i.e. does not mean that no copepods will not work), and also that, as i maintained throughout this thread, that different systems should be employed in tandem, and for us to expand out collective knowledge as opposed to engendering different camps of different systems in debate. you see, i began the hobby years ago on dodgy advice from both lfs shop owners and reefers who have limited experience but go on to assert many things in very absolutist ways. like people who say you must have DSB, or you must have chiller, or must buy Beckett, etc. and i think these absolutist comments mislead the impressionable or greenhorned. furthermore, as my posts must have revealed, i am quite passionate about reefing, so i just wished to balance your seemingly negative views of DSB. i sincerely hope i didnt offend you bro tuan. also, i think sand clumping is far more likely to be a result of cyanobacteria and algae proliferation than either calcium precipitation or calcium chloride solidification as most of these lumps, like in my old tank, may be dissolved in household bleach. if the bonds were calcified, they would not dissolve in bleach, least far as i understand. think bro tuan can help enlighten me on the calcification part. lastly, i think DSBs are useful, but they must be employed along with its periphery conditions, for example, adequate water flow, some infauna to colonize the sand, and i think most importantly, appropriate stocking. in singapore, we see too often examples of overstocking, like three tangs in a two footer when even one is possibly pushing it. alamak, i didnt remember bout the calfo seminar last night. was preoccupied plus no kaki to go with or remind me. sigh. those who went perhaps can share with us somemore ya. cheers all, ian

hi tuan. i know youre refering to live sand thats approximately SG $50 dollars per bag. and i also know youre refering to the infauna that helps activate a sand bed such as copepods, amphipods, mini stars, bristle worms, lymphic worms, etc. no misconception. i meant to say that a DSB even without the critters that you suggest are necessary for a DSB to work, the DSB can still facilitate denitrification. recharger packs are for the breaking down of organics in ways that help to facilitate the quicker processing of ammonia and nitrites into nitrates and to provide more sugars in this breaking down process so that nitrites do not accumulate where it is not broken down quickly enough. the critters do not convert nitrates back into nitrogen and oxygen. it is the bacteria that do this. the DSB will still work as long as bacteria are allowed to colonize the sand bed and the sand bed is deep enough. if you read up on DSBs, they actually discourage the introduction of sand sifting starfish of all genus, sand bed disturbing gobies or dragonets, and too many worms because such sand shifting activity aerates the sand bed too much and causes the oxygenation of the lower depths which you actually want to be oxygen-free for the proliferation of nitrobacter sp. ian ps: pls do read up on DSBs, understand the science behind it, and give it a full chance before you deride it.

anytime bro, cheers