# 55 gallon



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

hello, im new to the forum. i have quite a few questions. right now i currently have a 10 gallon reef tank. i am upgrading to a 55 gallon. i am going to make it a fowlr tank. could anyone help me with the filteration, what type of salt would be best, how many power heads would be suffeceint, just pretty much all the basics. i am very fimilar with the live rock, live sand, fish everything like that. i am just curious on what kind of equipment i would need. thank you for all the help!


----------



## aunt kymmie (Jun 2, 2008)

Welcome to the forum, Rookie. Glad to have you on board. I wanted to say hi. 
I'll let the pros answer your questions on equipment!


----------



## mrdemin (Oct 4, 2009)

Welcome to the forum! While I cannot really suggest any equipment there are plenty here that can. You should check out some of the user written articles on the forum relating to saltwater tanks, I've been reading them, getting a little aquainted with saltwater setups and must say they are very informative.


----------



## onefish2fish (Jul 22, 2008)

a sump with a skimmer. http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/member-submitted-articles/understanding-sumps-15930/

atleast 2 hydor k #2 powerheads, if not #3s. salt brands are a personal preference.

55 gallon tanks are narrow and are alittle more tricky to place your live rock then in a wider tank. standard 75 gallon tanks are the same lenght but alittle wider then a 55. im not saying you cant use the 55 gallon as your tank, the extra width of the 75 makes aquascaping your rocks easier. can you post a stocking list of what you wish to keep?


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

onefish2fish said:


> a sump with a skimmer. http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/member-submitted-articles/understanding-sumps-15930/
> 
> atleast 2 hydor k #2 powerheads, if not #3s. salt brands are a personal preference.
> 
> 55 gallon tanks are narrow and are alittle more tricky to place your live rock then in a wider tank. standard 75 gallon tanks are the same lenght but alittle wider then a 55. im not saying you cant use the 55 gallon as your tank, the extra width of the 75 makes aquascaping your rocks easier. can you post a stocking list of what you wish to keep?


i have not purchased the tank yet so i am highly considering the 75 now. would this size tank need a sump for sure or could i just get a good quality hang on skimmer? what about a 100 gallon? how hard are these to keep compared to a 55 or a 75 gallon? it will be a fish only with live rock so i am not really planning on any corals and as of the fish im not sure. it will just be a decision in the future. it will probably be more little fish and shrimp and such.


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

onefish2fish said:


> a sump with a skimmer. http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/member-submitted-articles/understanding-sumps-15930/
> 
> atleast 2 hydor k #2 powerheads, if not #3s. salt brands are a personal preference.
> 
> 55 gallon tanks are narrow and are alittle more tricky to place your live rock then in a wider tank. standard 75 gallon tanks are the same lenght but alittle wider then a 55. im not saying you cant use the 55 gallon as your tank, the extra width of the 75 makes aquascaping your rocks easier. can you post a stocking list of what you wish to keep?


i have been doing a lot of research and a lot of thinking.. i need help from anyone please. would it be better for me to get a 55 gallon tank+ all the things to go with it or should i just get a 29 gallon biocube?


----------



## Pasfur (Mar 29, 2008)

rookie said:


> what about a 100 gallon? how hard are these to keep compared to a 55 or a 75 gallon? it will be a fish only with live rock so i am not really planning on any corals and as of the fish im not sure..


There is no debate at all on this. The 100 gallon would be MUCH easier to care for. And your fish selections would open up to some more popular fish. For example, you would never put a Tang in a 55, but in a 100 you have these options. I would suggest measuring your floor space and purchasing the largest aquarium your wallet can handle, because care gets easier and less time consuming as the tanks get bigger. (within reason of course)

For any of these size tanks, I would highly suggest an overflow with a sump. A pre drilled overflow is easiest. Your sump will house a protein skimmer, and give you a place for additional equipment, such as the heater, activated carbon, and a UV Sterilizer if you like. ( I recommend this.)

The price on the skimmer will go up a bit as the tank gets larger, but not a lot. An extra $100 or so can really be the difference in a 55 gallon vs. 125 gallon skimmer. The same can be said for the return pump, which won't really by much more costly. 

The biggest cost difference is in the tank, live rock, and lighting. Lighting won't be much of an issue for a FOWLR tank. You can save a ton of cost on live rock by using 75% dry rock from Marco Rocks The finest aquarium rock available, base rock, live rock, reef rock, marco rock, reef tank saltwater fish, live corals, Marco rocks, Fiji live rock, Tonga Live rock. This is what I used in my 180. http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/saltwater-fish-pictures-videos/pasfurs-180-reef-build-21979/


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

Pasfur said:


> There is no debate at all on this. The 100 gallon would be MUCH easier to care for. And your fish selections would open up to some more popular fish. For example, you would never put a Tang in a 55, but in a 100 you have these options. I would suggest measuring your floor space and purchasing the largest aquarium your wallet can handle, because care gets easier and less time consuming as the tanks get bigger. (within reason of course)
> 
> For any of these size tanks, I would highly suggest an overflow with a sump. A pre drilled overflow is easiest. Your sump will house a protein skimmer, and give you a place for additional equipment, such as the heater, activated carbon, and a UV Sterilizer if you like. ( I recommend this.)
> 
> ...


thank you for all the information! one of the things i was worrying about in the 100 gallon tank was defiantly the expense of the live rock. i am just curious, i have a wet/dry filter right now i used a while back on a 55 gallon. i do not like it what so ever. could i take the bio balls out along with all the filter pads and just add the sand bed in the first chamber and live rock in the second to create a sump? of course i would have the over flow box and the powerhead going back to the tank.


----------



## Pasfur (Mar 29, 2008)

You can use the old wet dry to create a sump, but I would not use it as described. I would empty the bio balls and filter pads, then modify the unit to contain a protein skimmer, and possibly a refugium. Can you post pictures of this sump and the dimension of each section? Then we can get very specific.


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

Pasfur said:


> You can use the old wet dry to create a sump, but I would not use it as described. I would empty the bio balls and filter pads, then modify the unit to contain a protein skimmer, and possibly a refugium. Can you post pictures of this sump and the dimension of each section? Then we can get very specific.


Coralife Super Skimmer Needle Wheel
is this okay for a 75 gallon?


----------



## terryap (Sep 22, 2009)

Are you planning on getting the 125 model?


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

terryap said:


> Are you planning on getting the 125 model?


not anymore. i will be getting a 55 model


----------



## Pasfur (Mar 29, 2008)

rookie said:


> Coralife Super Skimmer Needle Wheel
> is this okay for a 75 gallon?


I'm not a big fan of this skimmer for a 75 gallon tank. I just feel like the skimmer is by far the most important piece of equipment you will purchase, and when it comes to larger tanks you should really consider something nicer.

That being said, the Coralife Super Skimmer rated for a 125 would probably be an acceptable starting place for a 75 reef. But man, if you can find an extra $100 somewhere in this project, spending it on a skimmer upgrade would be ideal.


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

Pasfur said:


> I'm not a big fan of this skimmer for a 75 gallon tank. I just feel like the skimmer is by far the most important piece of equipment you will purchase, and when it comes to larger tanks you should really consider something nicer.
> 
> That being said, the Coralife Super Skimmer rated for a 125 would probably be an acceptable starting place for a 75 reef. But man, if you can find an extra $100 somewhere in this project, spending it on a skimmer upgrade would be ideal.


i can find a little extra money defiantly if its for the skimmer. once i get all my equipment can i post pictures and let you give me a walk through of how you would do it? you seem to be the most popular around here pasfur, i have bee n reading a lot about you and agree on just about everything you say.


----------



## Pasfur (Mar 29, 2008)

I'm happy to help. We have a good overall team here, I believe. We have a number of us with considerable experience. Posting pictures of your equipment before you start the setup would really help us all to give some input.



rookie said:


> i have bee n reading a lot about you and agree on just about everything you say.


What is it you disagree with? ;-)


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

Pasfur said:


> I'm happy to help. We have a good overall team here, I believe. We have a number of us with considerable experience. Posting pictures of your equipment before you start the setup would really help us all to give some input.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you disagree with? ;-)


i really don't have anything to disagree with honestly. i have spent a TON of time reading your post. the only thing i could say is that in my opinion if you do not use a portien skimmer and your mainly focusing on using water changes i think the use of a hang on filter could be used just to take big pieces of waste out such as left over flake food or such BUT it would have to be washed everyday to keep build up off of it.

OR you could just take out the filter media out of it and run it with activated carbon if there was no where else to run the activated carbon.


----------



## Pasfur (Mar 29, 2008)

rookie said:


> i really don't have anything to disagree with honestly. i have spent a TON of time reading your post. the only thing i could say is that in my opinion if you do not use a portien skimmer and your mainly focusing on using water changes i think the use of a hang on filter could be used just to take big pieces of waste out such as left over flake food or such BUT it would have to be washed everyday to keep build up off of it.
> 
> OR you could just take out the filter media out of it and run it with activated carbon if there was no where else to run the activated carbon.


I was just kidding actually, but I agree with you on this as well. Although I would be hard pressed to think of a marine tank that I would run without a skimmer.


----------



## willieturnip (Aug 30, 2009)

Pasfur said:


> I was just kidding actually, but I agree with you on this as well. Although I would be hard pressed to think of a marine tank that I would run without a skimmer.


Your slacking, I can think of a one at least. :lol:

Any tank that needed to be quiet I suppose, which would be fine so long as water changes are big and frequent. Which is why smaller is better in this scenario. 

I actually often think about ditching the skimmer on my nano for either the aforementioned regime or an algae turf scrubber. I'm not convinced I want to change anything at all on that tank though, I still can't get nitrite, nitrate or ammonia to even register :shock:...


----------



## wake49 (Jul 2, 2008)

willieturnip said:


> Your slacking, I can think of a one at least. :lol:
> 
> Any tank that needed to be quiet I suppose, which would be fine so long as water changes are big and frequent. Which is why smaller is better in this scenario.


I just want to clear up that Water Changes and Protein Skimmers do not do the same thing. In fact, I use the two for very different reasons altogether.

I use my Protein Skimmer to remove dissolved organic compounds from the water column. This cannot truly be acheived at the same level by water changes. The skimmer is working 24 hours a day and hopefully having all the water in the tank run through it. Even a large Water Change of 30% would only remove 30% of the pollutants (Which I don't reccommend; large water changes can shock the inhabitants of the tank, at the very least stress them out). The only thing that I would substitute for a Protein Skimmer on a small tank would be a bag of activated carbon (I use both on my 150).

I use Water Changes to replace trace minerals and keep my water at desirable Cal and Alk levels. I have found that changing 10% of the water a week (along with dosing) helps keep my Calcium between 400-450 ppm, and my Alkalinity between 8-12 dKH. I don't even consider the water changes as a way to remove pollutants, as my Nitrates are almost never detectable, and 'Trites and Ammonia are always zero (as a result of Live Rock and Live Sand Bed).


----------



## willieturnip (Aug 30, 2009)

Depends what water you take out of the tank, how much flow you have in the tank and where the flow is directed if you ask me. Most of the dissolved proteins (70-80% if memory serves) in the tank build a film on the surface with slower flow up top, so if you manually "skim" the surface with water changes you can effectively remove a huge amount of waste when compared to regular water changes.

Take that with a pinch of salt though and I would almost always recommend a protein skimmer. I'm just saying that tanks _can_ thrive skimmer-less.


----------



## wake49 (Jul 2, 2008)

willieturnip said:


> Depends what water you take out of the tank, how much flow you have in the tank and where the flow is directed if you ask me. Most of the dissolved proteins (70-80% if memory serves) in the tank build a film on the surface with slower flow up top, so if you manually "skim" the surface with water changes you can effectively remove a huge amount of waste when compared to regular water changes.
> 
> Take that with a pinch of salt though and I would almost always recommend a protein skimmer. I'm just saying that tanks _can_ thrive skimmer-less.


I agree that tanks can survive skimmer-less, but I would use Activated Carbon in place of the skimmer. You are correct that a good portion of the organics find their way to the top of the suface of the water. This is why reef-ready tanks are more effective at protein skimming. They skim the water from the surface, and a good sump will have the skimmer right next to the inlet. 

I still do not suggest water changes as a method of waste removal in a marine tank. Water changes, as I use them, are used primarily to replace ions and elements that keep your Calcium and Alkalinity in balance.


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

wake49 said:


> I just want to clear up that Water Changes and Protein Skimmers do not do the same thing. In fact, I use the two for very different reasons altogether.
> 
> I use my Protein Skimmer to remove dissolved organic compounds from the water column. This cannot truly be acheived at the same level by water changes. The skimmer is working 24 hours a day and hopefully having all the water in the tank run through it. Even a large Water Change of 30% would only remove 30% of the pollutants (Which I don't reccommend; large water changes can shock the inhabitants of the tank, at the very least stress them out). The only thing that I would substitute for a Protein Skimmer on a small tank would be a bag of activated carbon (I use both on my 150).
> 
> I use Water Changes to replace trace minerals and keep my water at desirable Cal and Alk levels. I have found that changing 10% of the water a week (along with dosing) helps keep my Calcium between 400-450 ppm, and my Alkalinity between 8-12 dKH. I don't even consider the water changes as a way to remove pollutants, as my Nitrates are almost never detectable, and 'Trites and Ammonia are always zero (as a result of Live Rock and Live Sand Bed).


i defiantly agree with this post. on my tank i have now i do water changes about 20 percent a week. i have found out that just by doing this water change it helps keep everything in balance. even if you are running a protein skimmer you can use water changes to balance out ABOUT anything.


----------



## Pasfur (Mar 29, 2008)

I love these conversations. One thing I am finding is that Wake and I approach this hobby almost identical. There is not much difference at all in how we care for our tanks, except that Wake changes water more than I do. I tend to lean on supplements and testing.


----------



## wake49 (Jul 2, 2008)

Pasfur said:


> I love these conversations. One thing I am finding is that Wake and I approach this hobby almost identical. There is not much difference at all in how we care for our tanks, except that Wake changes water more than I do. I tend to lean on supplements and testing.


Water changes alone don't keep my alkalinity and calcium in check. I have noticed since I started regular water changes again that my test results are more stable, and I dose once a week instead of two or three times. This could all be in my head, because after my 46 bow was established, I gave up on weekly water changes and did small monthly changes. I still feel this is a better way to keep trace elements in check without testing...


----------



## rookie (Dec 17, 2009)

wake49 said:


> Water changes alone don't keep my alkalinity and calcium in check. I have noticed since I started regular water changes again that my test results are more stable, and I dose once a week instead of two or three times. This could all be in my head, because after my 46 bow was established, I gave up on weekly water changes and did small monthly changes. I still feel this is a better way to keep trace elements in check without testing...


great post.


----------

