I noticed my addiction is serious.fritz said:"I put 51 fish in a 55G tank"
Dude I don't even know what to say about that.....
You could also put a 2 foot nurse shark in there but that wouldn't make it a good idea.
"I just like busy tanks."
Something that we all grapple with is that what we love in this hobby really does no justice, or no good to the things we love. Keeping anemones, fish, corals it's really not a good thing to do. But we try to take something bad and destructive and make something positive out of it. We learn, we share we expose people to the beauty of reefs who may not otherwise see them. We hopefully and indirectly raise the awareness of the random people who come to our homes and say "Woah, nice tank!"
When we snatch these animals from the sea and force them to live in small glass boxes we usually try to make it as comfotable experience as possible for them. We try to replicate their natural environment and we try not to stress them to badly. To put 52 fish in such a small tank, I see you've never gone through central booking.
The best thing you can do is pull up wetwebmedia.com and start reading. Read everything, pick up some books on reef keeping and marine fish at your local library and read them cover to cover. To be successful in this hobby you will NEED to become a jr marine biologist. If you don't you'll fail and end up on the "for sale / for trade" board hocking all your stuff.
Good luck and please find a new home for some of those guys.
I don't feel like arguing but many of you conclusions are off base. I would suggested reading more about how bacteria works in your aquarium.fritz said:"Which is better DSB or BB?"
THat is like asking, "What is your religion and why is it better than the others?"
BB is great for advanced aquarists who keep SPS tanks.
DSBs (greater then 4 inches) are very forgiving. Most misconceptions and horror stories start with a DSB that is not really a DSB. In order to have a DSB you need it to not be disturbed! If you have a DSB with some large animals that sift the sand for you, it's not a DSB. If you started a year ago with a 3 inch sand bed much of it has disolved over the year and you no longer have a DSB. People who say "I have a 2inch DSB" they have a ticking time bomb, not a DSB.
This is dangerous because everything inbetween 1 inch and 3 inches is a death trap. It is enough to accumilate tons of waste, but not deep enough to denitrify it. When you keep a DSB you need to periodicly add sand (VERY SLOWLY a little at a time, over time). This will maintain the anerobic bacteria that break down the nitrogenous waste.
ALSO, keep in mind that the smaller the grain of sand the less of it you need in a DSB. Miracle Mud etc are VERY small so you use less. All of the above depth quotes are for "sugar sized" grains of sand. If you use larger sand grains then you need more depth.
I prefer shallow sand beds, less then 1/2 inch.
Here's a link all about DSBs http://www.wetwebmedia.com/deepsandbeds.htm
Some of things said in that study are just wrong. Its been discussed many times on many boards.prattreef said:
fritz said:To put 52 fish in such a small tank, I see you've never gone through central booking.
Randy here's the quote:prattreef said:Paul,
Until somebody actually does the research/experiments to prove that the results are wrong, I think I'll stick with the results as they stand. Lots of people on lots of boards can speculate all they want, but when a credible scientist actually takes the time to run the experiments, (they are virtually non-existant in this hobby) they deserve the courtesy of being refuted with evidence gained through similar experimentation, not extrapolation from the literature or worse from the mind of someone who thinks they know better ( I'm not referring to you).
How is that proof of anything. Of course the the DSB system will be much greater. Higher bacterial population amongst others. Thats no test!kimoyo said:Here's a test for them. Put a tank with no sand and a big skimmer vs. a tank with sand and a big skimmer. Add whatever nutrients you want and wait a while. Then purposely fluctuate the system to crash it causing bacteria to die and test for nutrients. The nutrients in the system with sand will be much greater.
Thanks thats my point.hermangareis said:How is that proof of anything. Of course the the DSB system will be much greater. Higher bacterial population amongst others. Thats no test!
Again I agree, but then why did they include them by making that remark?hermangareis said:The experiment is primarily to test the differences in sand beds. Bare bottom is well bare bottom. No sand bed. Why wouldnt they exclude it? I think it would have been less fair if it had been included.
I'm not comparing the two or saying one is better. After seeing some of the members tanks on this board I have to say that what method you use doesn't matter as long as you do it right. All I am saying is there are some seriously wrong things said in that article that people are basing conclusions on.hermangareis said:As to comparing the two - you cant reasonably compare them without getting into a major altercation on the board.
Rather than arguing which is better, we should approach it constructively and list pros and cons of each system so that people can make an informed decision as opposed to confusing people with data that they dont understand!