pbnj

I use the BRS ROX carbon. Maybe it's just my impression, but my water seems to stay much clearer, much longer compared to other carbon I've used. I switched to the BRS Soda Ash for Alk (huge savings), but I still use Seachem Reef Compete for calcium because it doses other ions as well (magnesium & strontium). I hated B-Ionic....could never keep Ca/Alk in balance.

Ocean View (talk to Jake at RCA).

Yes, support our sponsors!

Funny, I read this same article yesterday. I had my tank between 77-78 and yesterday I upped it to 78-79. Next week, I'm going to up it to 79-80. I used to keep my 75g at 80-81 without any issues, but I decided to follow popular thought when I set-up the 135g and go cooler. Part of the reason for this change is based on what I read, but the other part is that at 77-78, my chiller was kicking-in every other hour. I think if the tank has proper water flow and aeration, the higher temps are fine.

Perfect example. In a true, deep sandbed whose purpose is to serve as a biological filter, fish like certain gobies and jawfish are no-no's. Critters should be sand-sifters, not sand-"tossers". A biological deep sandbed should remain relatively undisturbed. If you don't have a true, deep sandbed, all those fish are doing is churning the sand and burying those big chunks of fish-poo and other detritus under the sand to decompose. I noticed that now with my very shallow sandbed, the chunks of fish-poo sometimes get mixed into the sand and it looks like dirty cat litter. It would be less evident if my sandbed was 2-4 inches deep.

I know you have to feed substantially because of your fish-load. I would either remove some of the sand or use one of those siphoning-devices to clean the sandbed wherever possible.

I'm of the belief that reefers should either run a properly designed deep sandbed or little/no sandbed. I think the worst case scenario is a deep sandbed consisting of course sand or crushed coral, containing the wrong sand-sifting critters, and that gets disturbed drastically during cleanings. It's the perfect recipe for a whole host of problems. How do you know if you have a healthy sandbed? Here's the test: Gently stir a small section of your sandbed down to the bottom. With a proper sandbed, there should be no cloudy/muddy water released. In fact, you should see nothing but bubbles rise out of the sandbed. I've witnessed such a deep sandbed and it was impressive. I also believe we add way too many snails to our systems. We all know those Turbos never last long and when they die and start decaying, they just make an awful mess. I've been amazed how clean my 135g has been maintained by just six Black Margarita Snails and a Lawnmower Blenny (plus a few scattered hermits).

Doing well, thanks. It must have been eating something in the 75g because it doesn't look emaciated. There we're a lot of empty snail/hermit shells in there!

I check my Alk/Ca API test kits from time-to-time on a new batch of saltwater. I know the levels provided by my brand of salt (Seachem), so it's easy to check the test kits that way.

This is where it came from.....

I'd like to present you all to the "FREAK": "What's the big deal, just looks like another fish.", you might be thinking to yourselves. Well, let me share with you the story of this little Golden Dottyback. I had it in my 75g for well over a year. It always hid in the rockwork and only made lightning-quick appearances to feed and torment the occasional snail/hermit. About a month before I shut down my 75g and moved everything into my new 135g, this guy just disappeared. I figured it must have died somewhere in the rockwork. For the past 3 months, my 75g has been sitting fallow, with no circulation/filtration/waterchanges. The water has evaporated to about the 50% mark. This past weekend, I removed most of the remaining rock, which stirred-up an awful mess. You can imaging the water conditions. Tonight, just as I pulled out the last large rock, I heard a loud dunk/splash sound. I peeked into the tank and lo and behold, this guy is zig-zagging around the bottom. I tested the water and the nitrates are somewhere between 80-160ppm. It's now acclimating and getting ready for the move to the 135g. So, the next time you're about to give-up on that fish you just never see anymore, remember the "FREAK" and don't abandon hope.

Randy Holmes-Farley on RC said the calcium is the same, but different dosing methods add different ions....basically, nothing magical is coming out of a calcium reactor.

I once listened to a vendor who was demonstrating how to set-up a calcium reactor. At one point, he mentioned something to the effect that the quality of the calcium provided by a calcium reactor was much better than any calcium that could be added through a dosing regiment. At the time, I just thought it was just part of the sales pitch. But lately, I've started to wonder if there's some truth to that statement. I can't help but notice that all of the best SPS tanks I've ever seen (growth-wise) run a calcium reactor. Yes, I've also seen beautiful tanks that use dosing pumps, but they never have anywhere near the same amount of growth as those running calcium reactors. I realize there are a million other factors that go into proper SPS growth, but back to the original question..... Is the quality of the calcium provided by a calcium reactor better than the calcium added through a dosing regiment? Also, I've been reluctant to set-up a calcium reactor because of all the 'dialing-in' issues I've read about, but if the calcium produced by reactors is truly superior, how about this for an alternative: Using a calcium reactor to produce calcium, but don't run it directly on the system? In other words, run the reactor so that the effluent produced is stored elsewhere, then later dosed into the system via dosing pumps?

Here's an intro video:

Mark/Mike should buy this for Fat Jack when the great LED experiment fails. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Use the advanced editor.

BTW, who owns Fat Jack and the LED fixture, you or Callahan?