Two separate system or one large one? To be or not to be

[metzer]

I currently have a 160 gallon display with a 40 gallon sump and will be adding another 300 gallon display tank with a 60 gallon sump.

Would it better to merge the 160g and 300g system to one common sump or have two separate systems. Each as their pros and con but was curious what those with experience had to offer.

Merging the system would have larger body of water, which usually allows for more stability and more room mistakes. Less control equipment, less ancillary equipment and only one body of water to test. Con of merging that is if i have an event, then it impacts the entire system and i may loose all the corals and fish.

Two separate systems would have more equipment costs, more testing, etc. but i have the opportunity to have my own back up system (a safe for my corals).

Any thoughts or examples of if you have done this and what has happened?

 

[AlexG]

I would vote for a merged everything into one system. If you build in enough redundancy into your system it can withstand some failures without impacting the entire system. My system is combined with a large reef and large fish only tank on a common filtration/sump system. It is a lot easier to maintain one set of equipment rather than two and the stability of a larger water volume is always a plus.

 

[Victor_C3]

I’d throw the contents of the 160 into the 300 and then use the 160 as a giant refugium/planted algae tank. You could incorporate a pretty decent sized cryptic zone into it as well.

However, I’m kind of biased, that’s pretty much what my system looks like. I have a 115 gallon display with 125 gallons of sump. No skimmer, no filter socks, just lots of live rock, macro algae, and biodiversity to filter and add live foodstuff to the display.

 

[Ike]

I ran a 156, 45 and 45 gallon as a single system for several years. You can see some details in the RC TOTM from April 2015. Since I've upgraded to a 225, 80, 45 and I can't imagine doing it any other way. When I was much younger and owned a frozen fish food company I had multiple systems and it's something I don't ever want to go back to.

My suggestion, find some accomplished reefers to hold backups for you or setup a smaller separate system (deep blue 45 or 80 are great) for just frags.

 

[Vette67]

I would vote for one combined system too. I have a 180 and a 75 plumbed isn’t the same 150 gallon Rubbermaid sump. Just get larger pieces of equipment that can handle the water volume. Big skimmer, etc.. the stability from having multi hundreds of gallons in your system will mitigate any potential disasters. The combined systems can absorb much more potential problems and reduce risk of failure. A fish dying is not going to cause a huge ammonia spike that can’t be handled naturally. I had a lawnmower blenny die a couple months ago. I saw it and left it in the sand as a treat for the hermits. My numbers didn’t budge, and nothing changed. Nature took its course.

So that’s my vote.

 

[brandon429]

we are starting to see from seneye data that fish deaths are indeed processed internally

even though api might show 8 lol for having any free ammonia, we're up to two tanks now reporting dead tangs and no spikes out of thousandths ppm conversion rates (the pre rot turnover levels)

I had a chance to ask Dr Tim how that dynamic may work, there's no ramp up time for new bac

he said existing bac can work harder or lesser. i then envisioned a human choosing to stack ten bricks in an hour, or two hundred. bac have adapted to all kinds of stuff we never gave them credit for, thank you api .25

*side note
I cannot recall one single time at any phase including cycling where a seneye tank reached .25. even once.

amazing what truth in measure yields. even during their ammonia spike phase the seneye cyclers (few we've seen) reported max hundredths ppm levels even when following ammonia dosing instructions on bottle for tanks.

 

[Proteus Meep]