Tropical Fish And Marine Fish!

[australia]

i am looking into marine fish and i want the opinions of people that have both setups, freshwater, and saltwater....

do u think there is mutch difference in looking after marine fish compared to cichlids? even hard species to look after like trophies?

 

[Zooomzoomguy]

i am looking into marine fish and i want the opinions of people that have both setups, freshwater, and saltwater....

do u think there is mutch difference in looking after marine fish compared to cichlids? even hard species to look after like trophies?

there is way more care involved with marine fish then it is with freshwater, specially if you get into keeping harder species like powder blue/brown tangs, if anything walks by the tank those things get ich i swear,

 

[CFC]

The main difference is another few hundred dollars/pounds worth of equipment and rocks needed for running a marine system.

 

[mark7616]

If we are just talking about the fish then marine fish are no harder to look after than freshwater fish. If you are doing a FO marine setup you look after it no different to a freshwater setup you dont need fancy lighting or skimmers and you dont need to get to involved with the chemistry its only when you want to start looking at FOWLR (fish only with live rock) and reef systems it get complex.

 

[TylerFerretLord]

As stated above, it's really only an increase in price and an extra piece of filtration equipment (skimmer) that makes up most of the differene.

 

[andywg]

In addition to the above, I will go and say that so long as you are keeping the more normal community style fish it is easier. I spend far less time maintaining my SW system than my FW systems. Only reason I spend more time with the SW system is a preference for the rarer fish I am keeping and trying to wean frogfish onto dead foods.

Also, with the state of play now, it is not so horrendously expensive to go marine. Live Rock is usually £10 per kilo or less if you shop around (better than the £15 per kilo of a couple of years ago) and you can make your own, if you are patient, for as little as 50p per kilo.

I can guarantee that CFC has a harder time looking after many of his fish than I do looking after some of my rarer SW oddballs.

One of the main differences is the price of ordinary stock. If you mess up and lose 5 neons you have probably lost £1 of fish. Lose 5 of even the cheaper SW fish and you are looking at being down from £25 to £50.

IME the most common source of the SW is harder than FW is either people with only FW who don't feel happy doing marine and don't want anyone else doing it, or from SW people who don't want more people to do SW and so try and keep the mystique od the salty side going.

 

[australia]

okay thanks everyone

 

[fiskkeeperpro]

it is harder to keep marines but imo it is worth it. The colours are more vibrant. If you are going to go marine, research a lot, i spent about 6 months researhcing before i started my nano and im no way near perfect. Then, when you feel you are ready take the plunge. It is worth it!!!!! although start up costs a re high, running costs are no way near as high.

Will

 

[SJ2K]

Ill certainly have a go at the salty side once my funding is enough to alot of people the added 'challenge' is a downer but to me its a total plus

 

[eschaton]

If we are just talking about the fish then marine fish are no harder to look after than freshwater fish. If you are doing a FO marine setup you look after it no different to a freshwater setup you dont need fancy lighting or skimmers and you dont need to get to involved with the chemistry its only when you want to start looking at FOWLR (fish only with live rock) and reef systems it get complex.

This actually isn't true. FOWLR is much easier than a FO tank, as the live rock replaces your filtration (though you need powerheads for current), and doesn't need any special lighting unless you're planning on growing corals and the like on it. It also cycles way, way easier than a FO system, as you can just plunk in your live rock, test for awhile, and once the readings are stable, you're ready to roll.

Probably the biggest difference between marine and freshwater tanks are stocking levels though. In a freshwater 20 gallon you can get away with one or two shoals of small schooling fish, some bottom feeders, and a centerpiece. In a marine tank, you'll be lucky to fit four small fish in the same area. Don't even think of having shoals unless you have a tank in the hundreds of gallons.

On the other hand, you can put as much coral into a tiny tank as you can fit (assuming the coral doesn't attack each other), as coral absorbs nitrates like plants as it grows. It's why people are drawn towards reefs, despite the huge costs for lighting.

 

[andywg]

Probably the biggest difference between marine and freshwater tanks are stocking levels though. In a freshwater 20 gallon you can get away with one or two shoals of small schooling fish, some bottom feeders, and a centerpiece. In a marine tank, you'll be lucky to fit four small fish in the same area. Don't even think of having shoals unless you have a tank in the hundreds of gallons.

Unless you have small species such as clown gobies, of course, in which case a 20 gallon would easily hold a shoal.

On the other hand, you can put as much coral into a tiny tank as you can fit (assuming the coral doesn't attack each other), as coral absorbs nitrates like plants as it grows. It's why people are drawn towards reefs, despite the huge costs for lighting.

Do you have anything to back this statement up? If nitrates are absorbed by corals why do reefkeepers spend so long trying to get them as close as possible to zero? I am fairly sure that nitrates are detrimental to coral growth, so please tell me where you found the above statement.

 

[eschaton]

Probably the biggest difference between marine and freshwater tanks are stocking levels though. In a freshwater 20 gallon you can get away with one or two shoals of small schooling fish, some bottom feeders, and a centerpiece. In a marine tank, you'll be lucky to fit four small fish in the same area. Don't even think of having shoals unless you have a tank in the hundreds of gallons.

Unless you have small species such as clown gobies, of course, in which case a 20 gallon would easily hold a shoal.

On the other hand, you can put as much coral into a tiny tank as you can fit (assuming the coral doesn't attack each other), as coral absorbs nitrates like plants as it grows. It's why people are drawn towards reefs, despite the huge costs for lighting.

Do you have anything to back this statement up? If nitrates are absorbed by corals why do reefkeepers spend so long trying to get them as close as possible to zero? I am fairly sure that nitrates are detrimental to coral growth, so please tell me where you found the above statement.

1. Clown gobies are a poor example, as they are territorial (like many reef fish) and unless you get a mated pair, they'll pester each other in a nano tank. You *can* keep a group of neon gobies together though I believe, and if you're lucky enough to find a Trimma or Evotia goby you can keep a large group in a small tank. However, the smallest true shoaling species are things like Chalk Bass, Carpenter Wrasse, Fairy Wrasse, and Anathias, which can all be kept singly in a smalish tank, but need 100 gallons plus in order to have a shoal of any one of these.

2. Surprisingly, reef tanks and most corals need nitrates to survive. The zooxanthellae present in all photosynthetic corals are algae. They need nitrates to grow. But when nitrate levels are too high, it causes an explosion of the zooxanthellae population within the host coral and in turn, actually decreases the rate of growth of the coral. This begins to occur in some SPS corals when nitrate levels reach a low 0.5 – 0.7 ppm. LPS and many soft corals can tolerate 3-5 times this concentration with no ill effect. At 5.0 ppm and higher, nitrates become poison to many SPS corals. To make matters worse, high nitrates cause runaway film algae which covers the skeleton and polyps of these corals, exacerbating the problem.

From here

Of course, as it says, at a higher level nitrates are an issue (and "higher levels" means something different here than in freshwater). But even tanks packed wall to wall with photosynthetic coral are not "overstocked" in the sense a tank crammed with fish is. I've seen tanks (albeit not pretty ones) with nothing but coral and a CUC which never have water changes and persist for years. I've also heard many cases where people have over skimmed tanks, and/or algae in the refugium has been so good at absorbing nitrates that the coral cannot grow.

 

[andywg]

2. Surprisingly, reef tanks and most corals need nitrates to survive. The zooxanthellae present in all photosynthetic corals are algae. They need nitrates to grow. But when nitrate levels are too high, it causes an explosion of the zooxanthellae population within the host coral and in turn, actually decreases the rate of growth of the coral. This begins to occur in some SPS corals when nitrate levels reach a low 0.5 – 0.7 ppm. LPS and many soft corals can tolerate 3-5 times this concentration with no ill effect. At 5.0 ppm and higher, nitrates become poison to many SPS corals. To make matters worse, high nitrates cause runaway film algae which covers the skeleton and polyps of these corals, exacerbating the problem.

From here

Some interesting points in there, though I would prefer it if the author cited their sources. I do actually doubt whether the corals do take in external nitrogenous compounds from the water (remember that algae, like more developed plants, prefer to take up nitrogen as ammonia than nitrate) as opposed to receiving any nitrogen necessary from the host animal. All that would be noticed is a fractionally reduced ammonia production from any animals in the tank.

I have seen no evidence that corals can be used to process excess nitrates in the way plants are utilised in FW, such as running tanks without any filtration but plants and any comparison on the ability of corals to remove nitrates to that of FW plants is somewhat misleading. Perhaps a more important point is that if the tank has nothing but corals then it is unlikely to have any great levels of ammonia productions to lead to nitrate since so much ammonia is excreted in osmoregulation by the fish; something a coral as an osmoconformist does not have to do.

With correct filtration one can easily defeat the need for water changes. I know of many tanks running algae turf scrubbers that have heavy fish loads with regular feedings that do not need water changes. ATS can even render a protein skimmer superfluous.

I've also heard many cases where people have over skimmed tanks, and/or algae in the refugium has been so good at absorbing nitrates that the coral cannot grow.

I severely doubt that overskimmed tanks will cause a coral to stop growing since, as already mentioned, the most likely source for any nitrogenous demands will be the host and not the water column. And how do those people know? Your own link points out that a nitrate test can show zero and still have from 40 to 100 times as much nitrates as the wild.

 

[TylerFerretLord]

I guess I should ask because I'm sure others are just as curious as I am- What is an algea turf scrubber?

 

[andywg]

In essence an algae turf scrubber grows a turf of algae on mesh screens under a light. These screens are located just above a sump. the ater from the main tank flows down into a bucket which once full tips water across the screens. This occures once every 40-50 seconds or so.

The algae grows and consumes ammonia before it is turned into nitrites or nitrates. A public aquarium started using them in Australia and found that the skimmer (which previously needed emptying around once or twice a week) was not full after weeks.