Coral Tank from Canada (1350gal Display Tank)

[nineball]

There's been a lot in this thread that has blown me away.....the size, the scope, the amount of $$ being tossed around here and there....yikes...keeps me coming back for more, let me tell ya .......and yeah, who doesn't wish it'll be them one day watching their tank being air-lifted through the back window of their house? LOL

That said, every time I read this thread, I get a bit more anxious about how this tank will pan out in the LONG run.

Then my heart starts racing harder when I read stuff like this:



You've been advised by many large reef tank keepers that it would probably be best to cook your rocks (especially for a super large tank!).....this is probably one of the biggest steps you can take to mitigate pest-related problems from arising in the future....and you're choosing to NOT do it??

You have no idea how fast those unwanted critters can multiply to the point where they stop becoming "interesting" and turn into something just plain, ugly, annoying or destructive.

I implore you to re-think this. That's all I gotta say.....you don't want these problems in the future....cook your rocks (all this fauna that seem to amaze you now can easily be re-introduced via quarantined stock - didn't someone mention this to you already??)...it takes time and patience to succeed in this hobby.....and this is how we do it.

I want this tank to succeed as much as you do, believe me....so, please don't cut corners (with the rock, at least!). Deal with the rocks in the way other large tank keepers - who've been THERE and done THAT - have advised.



Be realistic, Ching. I don't know either you or Peter at all, but I can say you prolly know a helluva lot more about reef tanks/husbandry than him. Don't measure his success (the tank ain't even runnin' yet!!!) by yours, that's just foolish. Peter has a long way to go...and with a 1300gal tank, it'll be one helluva a long way.




THIS.

Shawn, as always, you tell it like it is....keep it up, man! (oh yeah, check your PM )

Thank you for your advice Patwa and you are right, Chingchai has considerably more experience than me.

Peter

 

[nineball]

theres alot of good hitchhikers as well. i do agree tho that it is a tad of a gamble but i think its the way to go. ive had no problems with my fiji rock. do carfully inspect every thing 3 times i got cyano from a frag that i didnt clean and i payed in a 3 month long battle with the stuff. also peter be shure to get LED moon lights i love seeing what nocternal life there is every night. also interesting to see fish sleeping.

Thanks Antonais and I did get the moon light for that reason.

Peter

 

[chingchai]

Thank you for your advice Patwa and you are right, Chingchai has considerably more experience than me.

Peter

But we do have the same obsession which is equal. Right?

 

[venom550pm]

Thanks venom, that is very helpful. I am configuring the canopy to maintain a negative air pressure with a dedicated system to draw any heat or humidity into the purpose built HVAC system in the fish room which then takes it outside. Hopefully, without the ability to build up heat the system should behave......I hope. Thanks for the feedback and heads up.

Peter

Your most welcome, Peter. Just out of curiousity, what is the cover charge to see the tank once its up and running?

Phil

 

[nineball]

But we do have the same obsession which is equal. Right?

Yes my friend, an obsession that seems to overtake everything else I might add. It's a responsibility that keeps growing and unlike kids, our obsession won't leave home anytime too soon. Well at least the fish won't ask to borrow the keys to the car!!!!!

By the way Ching, nice fish..........


Peter

 

[nineball]

Your most welcome, Peter. Just out of curiousity, what is the cover charge to see the tank once its up and running?

Phil

Phil, you are either a tall good looking woman or you are bringing a frag to the party......either way that gets you an invite!

Peter

 

[MarkusII]

Hello,

well this thread is going fast....

@ Dave.m and Reefski:
just a remark on this request (posted on Page 64 of the thread) concerning the posting of Reefski´s pictures (although not dealing with the tank building thread as such)

Way cool, Reefski! Truth to tell, I am far more interested in a tank full of the stuff that lives on the rock than in keeping corals. As Mr. Wilson has noted, however, nobody bothers to transport these life forms but rather, we are stuck hoping that a bare few might survive the shipping process.

A few questions:

What are the brown root-like structures in this image?


What are the large white root-like structures in the foreground of this image?


And most especially, what are the fine white little hair-like objects growing on the rock in this image?


Thx also to Mr. Wilson. If one were going to build a dedicated cryptic refugium, how would one determine the rate of flow required through it? Should the tank be sized to a certain percentage of the system volume?

Thx again, everyone!

Peter, I will keep you busy adding new elements to your set-up for at least another year.

Dave.M

those are no tunicates but sponges and the white long sponge is a http://www.reeflex.net/tiere/2202_Carteriospongia_vermifera 02.htm

regards

Markus

 

[dave.m]

Thx, Markus. Any idea what the fine white hairs are in the last image?

Dave.M

 

[poposherry]

Hi Peter

If you would like to use the LED lights, this will be good one for you
this is my friends tank in taiwan
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1783517
but i think you could mix some T5 lights,
that way you can mix the colour you like for your awesome tank

Morgan

 

[mr.wilson]

I never liked the term "cooking live rock". The term itself implies that you are sterilizing the rock. If yo want to kill all of the good organisms in order to kill a few potential bad organisms, then the most efficient way to achieve this would be to bleach the rock, then dechlorinate it two hours later. The problem with going this route is you extend the cycling period from weeks to months and in the process, a lack of beneficial organisms leaves room for more opportunistic pests (cyanobacteria, diatom algae & dinoflagellates) to get a foothold. This drastic method of "cooking" leads me to wonder why you wouldn't just use dead rock or portland-based aragocrete.

The other definition of "cooking" I've heard thrown around is the process of keeping the rock in the dark for a few months to kill off nuisance algae. It seems silly to me as a low nutrient tank will not have nuisance algae, so the problem isn't the rock, but the water quality.

The usual suspects we know as "reef parasites" are not photosynthetic so depriving them of light will do nothing for the cause. Many of the reef parasites we encounter come from corals, and not from the rock so drastic measures in rock acclimating are often moot. As long as you have removed all crabs, mantis shrimp, and nudibranchs (sea slugs) you're covered. There are a few macro algae species that can proliferate and take over, but there are chemical (magnesium) and biological (herbivorous fish & inverts) methods of keeping them in check. Parasitic worms such as "red bugs" and flatworms enter the tank as hitchhikers on their coral hosts, and can be treated with dewormers like praziquantel (droncit), piperazine (entacyl), ivermectin or trichlorfon (dylox) .

In my opinion, the primary goal in live rock acclimation is to biologically assimilate the massive die off of macro organisms on the surface of the rock, and the greater die off of micro organisms within the rock. I know first hand from drilling core holes in live rock that there are large burrowing urchins and burrowing snails and nudibranchs deep inside the rock. It looks like Peter has made it through this critical die-off period and has done so without compromising coraline algae. This isn't to say that coraline algae won't grow on dead or artificial rock, as it will in about six months. It's just an indicator of a broad biodiversity of life... more good than bad.

keep your wife in the dark (about aquarium costs), not the rock

 

[nineball]

Hi Peter

If you would like to use the LED lights, this will be good one for you
this is my friends tank in taiwan
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1783517
but i think you could mix some T5 lights,
that way you can mix the colour you like for your awesome tank

Morgan

Morgan, that is a phenomenal tank. Very, very nice. It certainly looks very encouraging for the look of the LED's. The photography is excellent as well.

Peter

 

[mr.wilson]

I hadn't heard of this light until I read about it here in your thread, so I know very little about it. That won't stop me from commenting on it though Just to clarify, "HID" stands for "high intensity discharge" which encompasses metal halide, high pressure sodium, mercury vapour, plasma, and anything that we can call "bright".

You have a wide tank so focused light fixtures may be too much of a spotlight. It may be better if you had one fixture on each side of the reef angled 30 degrees back toward the reef, pointing at each other. This would minimize shadows and keep light off of the viewing panels while allowing the spotlight to focus on corals rather than just the top of the reef structure.

Selecting intensity (wattage) is a matter of water depth and the type of corals you want to keep. If you plan on having SPS, than you need to be at the high end of the scale. The rule of thumb for selecting intensity with a mixed reef is...
150/175 watts for tanks up to 24" in depth
250 watts for tanks up to 30" in depth
400 watts for tanks up to 48" in depth
1000 watts for anything deeper than 48"

The 3' width of your tank will allow you to use a light on the brighter side (400 watts) without casting too much light on the open sand and viewing panels. Your 150 watt MHL lights will not be enough for even basic soft corals. A good reflector can make a big difference on the total light output. The undersized reflectors that come with the light you have selected cannot possibly compete with larger parabolic reflectors. Most of the light is reflected right back into the bulb with small reflectors.

I'm nitpicking, but I don't like computer/muffin fans on light fixtures, as they are noisy and less efficient than larger blade circulation fans. A properly vented fixture with a heat sink doesn't need a fan. Fans should be reserved for aiming down at the water for evaporative cooling. I can't tell from the pictures. but they may also have the fans pointing the wrong direction (up). When you want to recycle the heat trapped at the ceiling, you have a ceiling fan spin so it pushes the air up against the ceiling so the heat runs across and down the walls to the floor. This appears to be what the fans on these fixtures do. In other words, all of the heat generated from the fan will be pushed into the eater when you aim the fan up. The fans should point down, as moving air is cooler and the reverse effect will happen as hot air runs across the surface of the tank and up the walls to the ceiling where it collects and hopefully is vented out. It's a good idea to install an intake vent at the floor under the tank. As hot air is pumped out near the ceiling, cool air from your floor will replace it. You should buy a directional laser (point & shoot) thermometer to get readings all over your fish room and around the tank. http://hardwareaisle.thisoldhouse.com/2008/08/point-and-shoot.html

I haven't heard of any new LED technology from Philips. They have been six months behind Cree for a few years now. You have to be careful what you read or hear in the lighting business, as the numbers can be manipulated to make it sound like something it is not.

It's a matter of personal taste, but I'm not all that crazy about actinic lighting. I am however sold on moonlighting as I like watching the lunar cycle and the subtle eerie colours at night. I find actinic lighting is too over-the-top for my taste. An alternative is to use really blue 20,000 K 150 MHL watt lights in concert with 13,000 K 400 watt lamps for PAR. You can set all the MHL lights on a timer system so the lights come on in the morning and shut off at night one light at a time, 15-30 minutes apart with the "sun" rising in the East and setting in the West.

If you had selected a 250 watt fixture, you could go with the "wait and see how it looks" approach, but I think you are better off using these fixtures in your fish room or reselling them before they depreciate (as soon as they are out of the box). If you are not sure about how it is going to look you should borrow a few fixtures and test it out. I have been surprised myself on more than one occasion and had to go back to back to the drawing board.

I have a water-proof lux meter but I haven't gotten around to buying a quantum/PAR meter yet. I know where I will be able to borrow one soon though

A quick general lighting tip... wash the protective glass lens weekly, as they can greatly diminish in intensity with salt build-up. People spend a fortune on updating their bulbs and fixtures only to have that light filtered out by salt on the glass. It's the cheapest lighting improvement you can make. A new single edged razor blade and some vinegar on a lint-free cloth is all you need. Just remember to let it cool down first. Also make sure your loc-line sump returns aren't spraying the lens. I find loc-line cavitates and leaks when used out of the water.

 

[nineball]

I never liked the term "cooking live rock". The term itself implies that you are sterilizing the rock. If yo want to kill all of the good organisms in order to kill a few potential bad organisms, then the most efficient way to achieve this would be to bleach the rock, then dechlorinate it two hours later. The problem with going this route is you extend the cycling period from weeks to months and in the process, a lack of beneficial organisms leaves room for more opportunistic pests (cyanobacteria, diatom algae & dinoflagellates) to get a foothold. This drastic method of "cooking" leads me to wonder why you wouldn't just use dead rock or portland-based aragocrete.

The other definition of "cooking" I've heard thrown around is the process of keeping the rock in the dark for a few months to kill off nuisance algae. It seems silly to me as a low nutrient tank will not have nuisance algae, so the problem isn't the rock, but the water quality.

The usual suspects we know as "reef parasites" are not photosynthetic so depriving them of light will do nothing for the cause. Many of the reef parasites we encounter come from corals, and not from the rock so drastic measures in rock acclimating are often moot. As long as you have removed all crabs, mantis shrimp, and nudibranchs (sea slugs) you're covered. There are a few macro algae species that can proliferate and take over, but there are chemical (magnesium) and biological (herbivorous fish & inverts) methods of keeping them in check. Parasitic worms such as "red bugs" and flatworms enter the tank as hitchhikers on their coral hosts, and can be treated with dewormers like praziquantel (droncit), piperazine (entacyl), ivermectin or trichlorfon (dylox) .

In my opinion, the primary goal in live rock acclimation is to biologically assimilate the massive die off of macro organisms on the surface of the rock, and the greater die off of micro organisms within the rock. I know first hand from drilling core holes in live rock that there are large burrowing urchins and burrowing snails and nudibranchs deep inside the rock. It looks like Peter has made it through this critical die-off period and has done so without compromising coraline algae. This isn't to say that coraline algae won't grow on dead or artificial rock, as it will in about six months. It's just an indicator of a broad biodiversity of life... more good than bad.

keep your wife in the dark (about aquarium costs), not the rock

Sean, I couldn't agree more. I would just add that it would be patently silly to go to the expense of flying live rock from the source (first class:sad2 and then killing it to remove the very attributes that you wanted in the first place.

Having said that I don't suggest that obvious areas should be ignored. I have done the water change, improved the salinity (1.025), raised the temp (80F) and surface inspected each individual piece of the 2,200 lbs of rock. Each piece was shaken vigorously as suggested before moving it back into the new tank with my new heavy duty gloves. I suspect that the critters with improvements to the environment have burrowed deep in the rock and there is probably very little I can do to get them out till THEY decide. I do have one last serious shot I think as I plan to prepare for the aqua scaping challenge.

My goal is to do as much of the assembly of the rock sculpture in the vats with the live rock remaining under water and then move to the display tank for final positioning. This will be alot of work but absolutely worth while, I hope.

Peter

 

[mr.wilson]

I would just add that it would be patently silly to go to the expense of flying live rock from the source (first class:sad2 and then killing it to remove the very attributes that you wanted in the first place.

Peter

You've mentioned flying the rock first class a few times now. At first I thought you were joking, but now I'm not sure what you mean. There is no such thing as first class or business class for that matter in cargo. Do you mean it was sent air cargo, rather than by boat, truck or train?

 

[mmotown]

You've mentioned flying the rock first class a few times now. At first I thought you were joking, but now I'm not sure what you mean. There is no such thing as first class or business class for that matter in cargo. Do you mean it was sent air cargo, rather than by boat, truck or train?

I think 9ball meant next day air

 

[swissgaurd]

I never liked the term "cooking live rock". The term itself implies that you are sterilizing the rock. If yo want to kill all of the good organisms in order to kill a few potential bad organisms, then the most efficient way to achieve this would be to bleach the rock, then dechlorinate it two hours later. The problem with going this route is you extend the cycling period from weeks to months and in the process, a lack of beneficial organisms leaves room for more opportunistic pests (cyanobacteria, diatom algae & dinoflagellates) to get a foothold. This drastic method of "cooking" leads me to wonder why you wouldn't just use dead rock or portland-based aragocrete.

The other definition of "cooking" I've heard thrown around is the process of keeping the rock in the dark for a few months to kill off nuisance algae. It seems silly to me as a low nutrient tank will not have nuisance algae, so the problem isn't the rock, but the water quality.

The usual suspects we know as "reef parasites" are not photosynthetic so depriving them of light will do nothing for the cause. Many of the reef parasites we encounter come from corals, and not from the rock so drastic measures in rock acclimating are often moot. As long as you have removed all crabs, mantis shrimp, and nudibranchs (sea slugs) you're covered. There are a few macro algae species that can proliferate and take over, but there are chemical (magnesium) and biological (herbivorous fish & inverts) methods of keeping them in check. Parasitic worms such as "red bugs" and flatworms enter the tank as hitchhikers on their coral hosts, and can be treated with dewormers like praziquantel (droncit), piperazine (entacyl), ivermectin or trichlorfon (dylox) .

In my opinion, the primary goal in live rock acclimation is to biologically assimilate the massive die off of macro organisms on the surface of the rock, and the greater die off of micro organisms within the rock. I know first hand from drilling core holes in live rock that there are large burrowing urchins and burrowing snails and nudibranchs deep inside the rock. It looks like Peter has made it through this critical die-off period and has done so without compromising coraline algae. This isn't to say that coraline algae won't grow on dead or artificial rock, as it will in about six months. It's just an indicator of a broad biodiversity of life... more good than bad.

keep your wife in the dark (about aquarium costs), not the rock

i couldnt agree with you more upon the term cooking the rock.
youd be killing the rock of all benificial bacterias so then peter could just as well bought dead rock,many think that rock carries ich, i dont believe this at all.i would have suggested a large waterchange but what peter has done with the rock process is very good.

only one thing i have done in the past is aquire a small octupuss added to the aquarium to rid of the hitchhikers, that is food for the octupuss.


also if you strip the bacteria from the rock and you plan on having the sandbed what will seed the sand.

vic

 

[venom550pm]

Phil, you are either a tall good looking woman or you are bringing a frag to the party......either way that gets you an invite!

Peter

Well, i'm guessing your wife would prefer the frag so that is what i'll bring

 

[Aquarist007]

Sean, I couldn't agree more. I would just add that it would be patently silly to go to the expense of flying live rock from the source (first class:sad2 and then killing it to remove the very attributes that you wanted in the first place.

Having said that I don't suggest that obvious areas should be ignored. I have done the water change, improved the salinity (1.025), raised the temp (80F) and surface inspected each individual piece of the 2,200 lbs of rock. Each piece was shaken vigorously as suggested before moving it back into the new tank with my new heavy duty gloves. I suspect that the critters with improvements to the environment have burrowed deep in the rock and there is probably very little I can do to get them out till THEY decide. I do have one last serious shot I think as I plan to prepare for the aqua scaping challenge.

My goal is to do as much of the assembly of the rock sculpture in the vats with the live rock remaining under water and then move to the display tank for final positioning. This will be alot of work but absolutely worth while, I hope.

Peter

I have had excellent results with Texas holey rock (base rock) that Dan Cole brings in(Mops) I hand pick the pieces however and make sure they are porous.
After 2 months this rock IMO is just as biologicallly sound as the rock we get off the reef.
With the harvesting of live rock becoming more and more regulated I think we have to look to other means of providing it or the biological filtration it provides.

 

[nineball]

You've mentioned flying the rock first class a few times now. At first I thought you were joking, but now I'm not sure what you mean. There is no such thing as first class or business class for that matter in cargo. Do you mean it was sent air cargo, rather than by boat, truck or train?

I think 9ball meant next day air

You are both right. I was commenting on the cost for next day air from Jakarta. So there was humour in the suggestion that I could fly first class return from toronto to Jakarta for less than the cost of the live rock.

Peter

 

[nineball]

Well, i'm guessing your wife would prefer the frag so that is what i'll bring

Sadly, Venom you are correct.........:sad2:

Peter