Possible LARGE expansion - Opinions needed

[serpentman]

I probably need my head shrunk but I may be able to score a great deal on another 300g (96"x24"x30"). My intention would be to set up a FOWLR for some non-reef compatible specimens. Here's the dilemma.

My current system is a 300g display (500g total volume). Its running 2 skimmers (Reeflo Orca 250 and a Reeflo 200, both with pro-kits). I'm trying to decide IF I were to proceed with adding a second large tank, would I run it independently or tie into my current system? The answer to this question may ultimately decide whether I do this or not.

Running independent
Pro's
- zero impact on the reef
- run parameters different (i.e. no need to buffer calcium, etc.)
- would use "dirty" reef water for PWC's

Con's
- higher start up cost
- a separate system to maintain, top off, etc.

Tying into existing system
Pro's
- low start up cost
- add to overall water volume
- Maintain 1 system

Con's
- buffering larger water volume
- potential impact on reef

Any opinions, especially from you large tank guys, would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Jhockey]

I would run them seperately. I thought about tying my reef and FOWLR together but went against it due to the up keep it would have been. FOWLR's usually are over stocked with fish that produce a lot of waste, add that to an SPS reef and you'd be doing water changes almost daily! Your FOWLR water parameters can slide a little, most fish won't mine, your corals on the other hand...

 

[AfricaOffroad]

Run independant, but plumb it so its easy to transfer water from the coral to FOWLR system.

That said, with properly designed valving and pipework you could link the systems in the event of an emergency or if your stocking needs change in the future.

Or start with a linked system, but design it in such a way that in the future you could plumb in another sump/filtation system.

Lots of possibilities but design with flexibility and redundancy in mind.

 

[Shaqinwi 65]

Independent - water perameters are very different for the two. You could recoup your initial costs on the fowler buy lower maintenance costs.

 

[bkvreef]

Seperate!
If you are dosing the dosing would have to increase for the extra gallons, even though it would be lost on the fowlr.

 

[aleonn]

I would rather tie into one system. Less work and maintenance leads to less chance of burnout on your part. You can always run more filtration, carbon, bio-pellets, etc. if the fish load overwhelms the current filtration. As for dosing, there won't be any corals or anything in the FOWLR tank that would uptake (besides coralline).

 

[strike2867]

I would rather tie into one system. Less work and maintenance leads to less chance of burnout on your part. You can always run more filtration, carbon, bio-pellets, etc. if the fish load overwhelms the current filtration. As for dosing, there won't be any corals or anything in the FOWLR tank that would uptake (besides coralline).

While I'm with you on the tie in, I think there would likely be more dosing. Possibly from the CO2 produced by the fish would lower the Ph. New Coraline Algae will also take up Calcium. But I think having an even more stable system and leaving out the hassle of watching two systems trumps that. Besides SPS like water at least a little dirty.

 

[chimmike]

run separate. If you get one bout of an illness, you don't want it taking out your entire livestock.

 

[Nathan.Titulaer]

I voted together but it depends on the stocking level of your FOWLR. If you over stock heavily it would be better to be seperate, but I belive more is more and more water voulme is always better. So start together and if you find your stock levels of teh one are throwing your coral tank of seperate them.

 

[muttley000]

I would separate, using the reef water for the water changes for the FOWLR will put a huge dent in the upkeep costs. I would do it just to keep the reef pristine. Better yet you could turn me on to that tank you got a lead on and save yourself all kinds of money and trouble

 

[cody6766]

I would run separate with an option to join (plumbing with a ball valve maybe?) and a way to transfer reef water to the FOWLR for water changes. You could have the reef drain into the top of a tank with a bottom drain for the fish only tank. Throw one valve, measure volume in the collection tank, close first valve, open the second and you're done.

that's if you have the space. If you decided to ditch the fish only tank the the future you'd have the plumbing to go reef in it if you wanted. If you never did you'd be out a few bucks in plumbing...no big deal in the grand scheme of things

 

[snorvich]

A close call. I voted for independent, however.

 

[widmer]

I voted for separate - I think you're far better off this way for the following reasons:

1. You don't have to worry about keeping calcium high, only to have that calcium go toward coating everything in the FOWLR with coralline.

2. No problem medicating if the fish get sick or you get some strange parasites etc.

3. You get to experiment with different equipment/setup/husbandry on the FOWLR without worrying about risking all your corals. (biggest benefit IMO)

4. If something does go terribly awry with one aquarium (catastrophe or parameter problems), you already have all that extra water from the other which you can temporarily use to keep the livestock in.

5. If any of your cool non-reef-safe fish die, it wouldn't have a chance to **** off your corals.

6. How much would it really help to buffer your water in the original tank, being that it's already 500 gallons?

 

[noahm]

independent--for reasons above. You would have to keep 800g of water in pristine condition rather than 500 pristine and dosed, and 300 just clean. I think the expense of dosing, and the hassle of trying to keep your reef happy would be a constant issue and waste of money in the long run.