FOWLR to Reef. Give me the truth.

[rickh]

I have had FOWLR tanks with good results for several years. I have good filtration, lights, etc. So theoretically all I need to do is to get rid of the non-reef fish and add the coral. That's the information that 90% of the aquarium forums dispense. The remaining 10% tell horror stories of spending thousands of dollars on soon to be dead coral and additional equipment. Supplements, trace elements, test kits for everything in the universe, calcium-CO2 injectors, and mystery food for the little critters. The list goes on. So what is the real story? With FOWLR I can go away for a week and have the neighbor kid feed them one or twice. I don't want to start a reef if it will turn into a monster that needs constant attention, feeding 3 times a day, etc. Thanks. R

 

[ChrisRD]

IMO it really depends on what you want to keep.

There are some extremely low maintenance corals out there that basically wouldn't require any additional attention/feeding/supplementation and are probably harder to kill than your fish.

 

[Azrile]

I agree, The best thing would be to give everyone your lighting specs (probably the biggest jump from FOWLR to Reef), and maybe some of your fishes, and ask opinions on which corals you should start with. IMHO, if you have the lights, and you dont' have any bad fish, then it's not much of a jump. There are a bunch of 'beginner' corals that aren't harder than a feather duster to keep.

 

[Newbler]

Ditto, tank specs please.

 

[SnowManSnow]

I think you should be able to make the move with an upgrade in lighting.. and a good skimmer... if you dont already have one. As far as all the trace elements and such.. just add B-Ionic 2part and let it ride.

It really isnt that expensive or complicated once you get your feet wet.

B.

 

[Anonymous]

I have left my reef for 2 weeks - Not even that concerned with feedings or suplements. Just have someone by the house every other day to top-off the water and make sure all the pumps are working.

IMO - If you pick the correct corals they are WAY easier to keep than most fish.

 

[rickh]

Thanks for your help. I currently have 29 gallon with 3-4" of sand so the 130 watt PC is not too far from the substrate. It has a 15 gallon sump with the skimmer, etc. The only non-reef safe fish is a Flame Angel. He may go on vacation to a friends tank.
Do you think a ~10% or so weekly water change is enough to replace the trace elements and make it unnecessary to monitor the calcium and other levels?? I just want to feed them (the fish and coral) and not spend 1/2 my life with test kits. Thanks. R

 

[SnowManSnow]

Your lighting WILL be an iissue unless you only keep "low light" corals. If you plan on a BTA or anything you will need more light to keep it in good health.

As far as monitoring things...a good rule of thumb is.. NEVER add an additive if your'e not going to monitor it. ANd never add anything you CANT monitor.

That being said... my reef has been up for 1.5yrs and I've only tested for CA about 5 times, and Nitrates and so forth only 2x. I really dont reccomend this practice though haha.

B.

 

[Anonymous]

As far as testing goes I have only tested a few times as well. Though not recommended. Once my tank was stable and I was in a routine on doing things, my thoughts are if I do everything the same, everytime, all the time, then it will not change much. If I see signs of distress (which I haven't) then I would immediatley check, but other than that..ride it till the wheels fall off!!

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your help. I currently have 29 gallon with 3-4" of sand so the 130 watt PC is not too far from the substrate. It has a 15 gallon sump with the skimmer, etc. The only non-reef safe fish is a Flame Angel. He may go on vacation to a friends tank.
Do you think a ~10% or so weekly water change is enough to replace the trace elements and make it unnecessary to monitor the calcium and other levels?? I just want to feed them (the fish and coral) and not spend 1/2 my life with test kits. Thanks. R

I have the same size tank with almost the same volume in the sump, and no 10% isn't enough of a water change. That's about a 5g water change and not nearly enough to lessen tank pollutants much less replace trace minerals. Also, as Snow mentioned, that 130w pc lighting isn't going to let you do much in the way of corals. You'll be limited to mostly soft corals such as muschrooms and leathers or nonphoto's like sun polyps which require target feeding. Maybe some zoas higher up, as mine seem to like more light than just the pc's I had.

I have mostly lps, so dose b-ionic periodicly, but I don't ness. test all that often. I really should do it at least once a week, but I'm slack, what else can I say.

 

[ChrisRD]

FWIW...

My first reef was a 50 gallon tank with a decent hang-on skimmer, about 50 pounds of Fiji rock and maybe of 1/2" aragonite sand on the bottom. Lighting was a DIY setup with 120 watts of NO fluorescents. Lamps were only a couple of inches from the water and I had a good DIY reflector, so light levels were actually pretty good. I kept mostly zoanthids and mushrooms in it.

The only thing I added to the tank besides food for the fish was a diluted kalkwasser solution for evaporation top-off (keeps the coralline looking pretty :wink: ). I did about a 10% water change when I thought of it (once per month max - often less frequently) and I rarely tested anything.

I'm not advocating that as the way to run a tank, but the fish and corals did extremely well for several years like that (until I took it down to move and sold everything off). It was very low maintenance and very cheap to run. I would do things a bit differently today, but the experience proved to me that you can have a pretty basic/easy reef setup if you want to...

 

[rickh]

Thanks so much for all the great info. I actually have a friend who might be interested in buying the 130 watt PC light--it just depends how much I want to lose. Has anyone tried the 130 watt PC combo MH light?? It looks good, but it's about $370!! I don't think my wife would go for a MH pendant hanging from the ceiling :wink:

 

[ChrisRD]

IMO your current lighting is fine for many of the good starter corals like mushrooms, zoanthids, etc. so it's not necessary to spend the dough for a MH setup just yet. If you decide to try higher light animals later you can always upgrade then.

 

[rickh]

ChrisRD,
Thanks for the information.
I also love the link to the "information disclaimer". There is a lot of 3rd hand info freely dispensed in INTERNET forums. Rick

 

[Anonymous]

FWIW I have a 49gal with 192 watts of PC lights. I have LPS and SPS corals. You just have to have the light intense ones right up next to the surface. If you go to the main reefkeepers forum and look at the pics of my tank you will see what I mean. All the corals I have have polyps out and are healthy and growing, albeit not as branching or as fast probably as would with MH, but they are growing none the less. I also have a flame angel, he nipped twice at the Xenia about 2 weeks ago or so, but hasn't since, other than that he is a great and beautiful fish. As was explained to me and as I have seen now the xenia grows so dang fast I don't mind if he trims it now and again, but now the prob is he stopped and it is still growing lol. Anyway, just thought I would give my .02 worth. The only thing I will add is that I dose every third night with liquid reactor from kent to supplement the calc and mag. I am in the process of hooking up a sump and when I do I will go to a kalkwasser drip from a IV bag lol. Totally ghetto but worked with great success on my last tank. That and it didn't cost anything but a trip to the medics, and an IV in the arm for a few minutes lol. Good luck and keep us posted.