Better to keep GSP/Ceylon in SW or BW filtration?

[Terrance]

Hey guys

I'm just wondering if its better to keep gsp/ceylon in high-end BW or SW?

If you start out with a tiny puffer, then you will most likely have a hob filter in a FW setup. Then you slowly add salt as it gets bigger.

I don't know much about SW setups. All I know is that hob filters aren't very effective when comparing with live rocks and powerheads. Is this why you guys are pushing for full marine water instead of keeping the puffer in high-end BW? Because SW should ideally have better filtration than high-end BW? I also don't know much about tank setups for high-end BW (if someone decides to keep their fish in those water conditions), so please inform.

[RTR]

In part yes, but it is more than that. The FW style of filtration is less effective in maintaining high quality water than is FOWLR plus a good skimmer (foam fractionator) and preferably a lighted macroalgae refugium. That combination will maintain sufficient high water quality with smaller partials and frequent topping up which is far cheaper as well as better for the fish long-term than 50% weekly water changes as is done in FW and BW.

We cannot easily match that water quality in FW (where water partials are much less expensive) without lots of extras which are higher cost than simple FW partials.

We simply can operate full strength SW better than we can FW or BW. There is a higher initial capital investment in FOWLR plus skimmer + refugium, but it is easily offset with lower operating costs during the life of the fish. Puffers tend to be long-lived fish (comparable to Cichlids) and operations costs long-term are definitely not trivial.

Low-end BW (as is used for F-8s commonly) is not much more expensive than FW. But mid-level BW and full SW is a lot more costly at 50% weekly partials. SFAIK, no one has explored GSP survival long term in low end BW. That is realistically unlikely to be done at any reliable scale. It requires too much time and space and money. The true SW puffers still are likely to require the higher tech FOWLR +skimmer + refugium for extended healthy lifespans anyway.

HTH

[Pufferpunk]

When I was doing 50% weekly WC on my 55g high-end BW tank, it took 10 cups of $alt.

[Terrance]

ok so lets see if I wrap my head around this topic.

Lets say we are comparing these two setups:

1. High-end BW buy 100g complete setup for $500 and then do 50% pwc every week.

2. SW buy 100g complete setup for $1000 and then do 30-40% (virtually needing less pwc since the refugium/skimmer doing a lot of good to the water).

So over the long haul, the only cost would be food, maintenance, and pwc. Food and maintenance expense is the same for both tanks, but the pwc would cost less over a period of time. While keeping the salt expense lower, the SW setup will also keep the water just as clean as the BW tank. FW and low-end BW will always be cheaper since little to no salt is required and start-up cost is less while still keeping the water equally clean.


Is this right?

[xrayjeeper83]

With SW you dont have to do weekly water changes. You can do monthly, so you save a lot on salt

[Terrance]

Oh really? wow that's awesome! SW doesn't feel too expensive now makes me feel like starting a SW setup with a burrfish.

[xrayjeeper83]

thats with 1.5lbs of LR per gallon


SW is big money up front but cheaper in the long run

[RTR]

The best SW set-up will provide better water conditions than any BW conventional biofiltration, even with the reduced water partials. You do have to clean the skimmer regularly and top-up to replace the water removed by it. You also must harvest the excess macroalgae* periodically. That extra work is an easy trade-off for the large reduction in marine mix usage IMHO.

*Some LFS will buy or give store credit for the excess macroalgae, as they can sell it to other hobbyists.

I suspect that we will see extended life and health for the fish kept in the FOWR + Skimmer + Refugium set-ups along with the lower operating costs.

HTH

[Pufferpunk]

50% weekly partials on BW for puffers. That's a LOT of $alt!

[RTR]

And $alt means both money and time. Do you really want to tie that around your neck for the next 15-20+ years?

[seamonkeychar]

With SW you dont have to do weekly water changes. You can do monthly, so you save a lot on salt

The only way you can get away with monthly water changes in a SW set up is if you have a fairly large, well established (years old) set up with an over powered skimmer and filtration. Otherwise, you're looking at 10-20% water changes weekly. Still way less than FW, but SW absolutely does need weekly changes. And honestly, the more the better.

[sevenyearnight]

It depends on your stocking levels, but weekly wouldn't be necessary if you stock appropriately.

[Pufferpunk]

Seamonkey is correct. I have a 90g reef tank with about 250lbs LR, excellent high flow, a 20g sump & 20g fuge with a large skimmer. I do 30% WC monthly.

[RTR]

Tanks with LR, skimmer, and macroalage refugia (if FO. If reef, the algae is part of the inverts so need not be separate.) are quite different from tanks with filter-housed bacterial nitrification. Do not confuse the two types, their handling is quite different, or should be.