Consider using the widest aquarium your space and budget will allowI wouldn’t exactly say I have major regrets about choosing a standard 125-gallon tank for my current marine aquarium system, but if I had to do it all over again, I might go in a slightly different—rather, slightly wider—direction. For the benefit of any salties out there who are planning a new setup, I thought I’d share why I think going with a wider tank might have been a better choice. First I should specify that aquarium dimensions are typically given as length x width x height, with length representing the side-to-side measurement and width representing the front-to-back measurement. This always throws me because to my way of thinking, width should describe an object’s measurement from one side to the other. After all, when I look at my reflection in the mirror, I don’t think to myself, “Wow, my belly sure is getting long!” And there’s a reason ABC’s old sports anthology series wasn’t called The Long World of Sports.But I digress. This aquarium—which is 18½ inches wide (counting the trim)—has been operating for the better part of 10 years and functioned as a FOWLR system for most of that time. The tank serves as a room divider, separating the great room in my home into two distinct sitting areas, and is viewable from three sides. I only recently converted it to a reef tank after tearing down my 75-gallon system, which, as I’ve mentioned in prior posts, had become largely overrun with green star polyps and pulsing Xenia.
The post Wishing I’d Chosen a Wider Marine Aquarium appeared first on Reefs.com.
Reading the chatter swirling around the reef aquarium hobby, it seems like many aquarists are upset that the first popular home aquarium fish, the Banggai cardinalfish, has been listed as threatened via the Endangered Special Act (ESA). Even though the National Marine Fisheries Service has yet to recommend any restrictions on keeping or trading the species, many aquarists have cited outdated data as the culprit behind the listing. They remind everyone that for years now Banggai cardinals have been captive bred, and collected from areas where they are considered invasive. While this is true, various experts claim the fish is still often collected from its native waters. NMFS cited the fish’s limited geographic range and isolation as a factor in their decision to list the species under the ESA.
The ESA is one of a few dozen environmental laws in the United States, which passed in the 1970s. It is the enacting legislation meant to carry out provisions set forward in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). While some aquarists have commented that the ESA is a liberal agenda, it was actually signed into law by Republican president Richard Nixon in 1973, and was designed to protect imperiled species from total extinction due to the activities of economic growth and development ignoring the needs of conservation. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the intent of Congress in enacting the ESA was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have administration authority over the ESA.
In the perfect aquarium, nitrate is naturally removed via anaerobic bacteria within live rock, or the sand bed. If there is still residual nitrate, it’s assimilated by macro-algae growing in the refugium. That’s a perfect scenario, and as aquarists, we rarely have things work perfectly. Residual nitrate often accumulates within our tanks. It may be the fault of a high fish load, or perhaps over-feeding. It could be that the aquarium cannot support a strong enough population of anaerobic bacteria, or something is leeching a constant stream of nitrate into the water. Whatever the culprit, nitrate is difficult to totally eradicate from the marine aquarium. To make matters worse, we all know the cost of nitrates, increased algae growth, potential for cyanobacteria, slowed coral growth, coral browning and possible rapid tissue narcosis. In any event, excessive nitrates are bad news for reef aquariums. While a nitrate level of three ppm or under is manageable, many reef aquariums drift into the territory of nitrate readings exceeding 10 ppm. It leads to a host of problems, and is often difficult to correct. Enter sulfur based nitrate reactors. 
Aquarists usually go through a lot of trouble trying to reduce nitrates. Some add more live rock, hoping to increase the surface area for anaerobic bacteria. Others form deep sand beds, or pack their refugiums full of macro-algae. Some reef keepers install a bio-pellet reactor, or traditional nitrate reactor. Bio-pellet reactors use a bacteria digestible carbon polymer (often called a bio-plastic) to increase the presence of anaerobic bacteria. The bacteria use carbon as a food source, and as they digest the bio-plastic, they also assimilate nitrate. While these reactors are known to work, they have been implicated in cyanobacteria break-outs, if the reactor’s output isn’t directed into a protein skimmer.
This past weekend three sperm whales were found dead on an Eastern English beach. This is just a week after other sperm whales were found dead on German and Dutch beaches. It is believed that the whales were from the same pod. Scientists believe that the whales may have become disoriented while hunting. The sperm whale is the largest of the toothed whales and has the largest brain of any animal on earth. They reside in deep water and usually always travel in pods. It is likely that the whales may have become separated from their pod while hunting, went into shallow water, and became disoriented, which could of lead to their death. Scientists believe they died before becoming beached at shore.Scientists from the