Archivarium 2004
Repository of our 2003/2004 Topics
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sergiobrid
New Members
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Bridgeport CT
|
 Posted: 2005.05.05(Thu)8:49 Post subject: |
 |
|
the advance to keep a fish tank like this is because you can have fishes that you can not have in a reef tank, like angels, butterfly trigger etc.
another thing is because of the cost, most people can't afford a reef tank cause of chiller, skimmers, lighting, live rock etc.
This type of tank, is much unexpensive and is a great start for any hobbist.
the everoment is great to like a reef tank as you can see I have a powder blue tang and everybody know in a hard fish to keep, and I have him for 7 month alread and he's great.
There is just one fish missing in the photos, is the angel I gave him for my friend because he was getting to big for my tank.
I really think reef tank is much more beatiful then FO but let's think about the money . I prefer much more a 400 gallons FO than a 75 gallons reef and if you compare the total cost will be the same. for a 400g FO and a 75g reef. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KDodds
Advisors
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Location: Suffern, NY
|
| Posted: 2005.05.05(Thu)14:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergiobrid wrote: | | the advance to keep a fish tank like this is because you can have fishes that you can not have in a reef tank, like angels, butterfly trigger etc. |
For some of the species you've listed, this is a myth. Many specimens of Chaetodontoplus, Pomacanthus, Holacanthus, Genicanthus, Centropyge, Apolemichthys, etc. CAN be kept in reef tanks. I've 4 Angels in my reef now, and plan on 2 more. I also had a Niger, that never bothered a thing but other fishes. Bluethroats, Pinktails, Sargassum, Crosshatch, etc. are all pretty much reef safe. In fact, of all of the species/genuses I just listed, ALL are, IME, more "reef safe" than Zebrasoma Tangs, which will almost always pick at certain corals. Any Butterfly that you can not house in a reef is probably better off not being housed at all. Obligate corallivores generally waste away and die in short order. There are some Butterflies that can be kept in reefs, and some that can be kept in FOs, but any that REQUIRE coral for food should not be kept at all. I won't be using "dead corals" in the 180 when I transfer it over to FO, I'll be using base rock which, FWIW, runs CHEAPER than collected, killed, and bleached coral skeletons.
| Sergiobrid wrote: | | another thing is because of the cost, most people can't afford a reef tank cause of chiller, skimmers, lighting, live rock etc. |
As stated above, you don't need to do a reef to do things responsibly. It, in fact, doesn't cost a thing to keep a reasonable bio-load (would cost less in fish, actually) and stock with only appropriately sized species. Chillers are not a necessity in many cases, nor are skimmers if you do it right. In fact, in your case, a good skimmer would probably be CHEAPER in the long run by reducing the need for water changes.
| Sergiobrid wrote: | | This type of tank, is much unexpensive and is a great start for any hobbist. |
Actually, no, it's not. The type of tank you are running quickly becomes a huge wet hole into which beginning hobbyists start throwing tons of money trying to keep things alive, and at that, usually only barely.
| Sergiobrid wrote: | | the everoment is great to like a reef tank as you can see I have a powder blue tang and everybody know in a hard fish to keep, and I have him for 7 month alread and he's great. |
Well, congrats on that at least. He does appear to be showing paling stress, tho. However, the "environment" of your tank is absolutely nothing like a reef tank.
| Sergiobrid wrote: | | There is just one fish missing in the photos, is the angel I gave him for my friend because he was getting to big for my tank. |
My apologies if I'm incorrect, but I thought I noticed a large Thallasoma also missing.
| Sergiobrid wrote: | | I really think reef tank is much more beatiful then FO but let's think about the money . I prefer much more a 400 gallons FO than a 75 gallons reef and if you compare the total cost will be the same. for a 400g FO and a 75g reef. |
Obviously, you've never priced either. A 400 gallon tank, alone, is over $2000 US. You could get all of your reef equipment, including tank and stand, for a 75 for that amount here. Granted, it wouldn't be "top of the line", but it would certainly be doable. In fact, you could actually "buy out" an existing 75 reef for under $1000. Again, may not be the best, but you'll have the livestock and Live Rock as well.
Still, I don't see what money has to do with doing things responsibly.
_________________
Kieron Dodds
Inside Aquatics
www.insideaquatics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergiobrid
New Members
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Bridgeport CT
|
| Posted: 2005.05.05(Thu)15:19 Post subject: |
|
|
sorry but I totally disagree with you.
If FO tank was not good like this the people don't spend a lot of money doing FO tanks like is in the site below.
www.houseoffins.com
there is some tanks is all dead corals too but they don't bleach the corals and let the algaes grow.
just take a look. but anyway everybody thinks diferent,and is always good to hear new opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marcos Avila
Moderators
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: Hiroshima (JP)
|
| Posted: 2005.05.05(Thu)16:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Let's please continue this discussion in the topic that was opened exclusively to discuss April's Tank of the Month. Thank you.
_________________
Are you a Fish-HAVER or a Fish-KEEPER?
Success with a fish/tank is measured in YEARS, not months or weeks... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2008 phpBB Group
|
|
Help
Search Board
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Check your private messages
Log in
Register
