Aqua-scaping

[Doug]

Everyone now likes the sparse look. While it has its attractions, where the fish suppose to hide?

I have always liked the full look but still done nicely. My fish have tons of hidey places and feel safe. My fish seem to always be content and long lived.

If ya need swimming room for large fish, then perhaps a bit more sparse but they still need to hide. I see some designs now where a fly cant find a good spot to hide....:lol:

Perhaps I will try the more two island type look. Hmmm. I have a 120lbs of rock to play with for my 50g.....:lol:

[Aquattro]

For a 50g, I'd use about 40 pounds max!

[Leah]

What no poll

[jason604]

Holy crap 120lbs for a 50g? That's insane lol. Is there even space to put ur hand in the tank?

[Doug]

For a 50g, I'd use about 40 pounds max!

Thats not very much Brad.

Holy crap 120lbs for a 50g? That's insane lol. Is there even space to put ur hand in the tank?

I bet I could scape with that much, {which Im not} and still have lots of room. I will tell you fish like wrasses, dwarf angels, blennies and so on would love it.


So does this mean Im having a rock sale....:lol:

[Aquattro]

Thats not very much Brad.


The advantage to "lite" rock work is lots of flow to remove detritus and keep the water cleaner. And once the coral grows in, the tank gets pretty full. I would actually use 25-30 pounds in a 50g, but I gave you an extra 10 to play with 'cause I know you're old school :)

As a reference, I have about 100 pounds in my 180 and the fish are running out of swimming room.

[kien]

If you have smaller fish then giving them a nook or cranny to hide/sleep in will definitely be appreciated, but you don't need to build mount everest to achieve this. Even one porous boulder can house lots of small fish.

For my tangs, they are ok under an overhang, although I do have an open(ish) cave area that they retreat to as well.

Also, an open aquascape doesn't necessarily mean sparse. You can have a decent a mount of rock in there with nooks and crannies and even caves, while still maintaining an open aquascape with lots of negative space.

[Doug]

The advantage to "lite" rock work is lots of flow to remove detritus and keep the water cleaner. And once the coral grows in, the tank gets pretty full. I would actually use 25-30 pounds in a 50g, but I gave you an extra 10 to play with 'cause I know you're old school :)

As a reference, I have about 100 pounds in my 180 and the fish are running out of swimming room.


That I am my friend...:smile:

I have 50# of Pukani, so guess its all I will use and a couple flat ones I bought to do my overflow but they skinny.

Wanna buy a tub full of Fiji.....:lol:

[kien]

I guess it also depends how you define sparse.

I wouldn't consider my aquascape sparse in rocks. Here's my middle structure that actually has a fair amount of rocks with lots of places in it for small-medium sized fish to hide. The structure itself is made of pretty large porous rock, while its overall footprint is light.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/10397348263_923915254d.jpg

[Doug]

If you have smaller fish then giving them a nook or cranny to hide/sleep in will definitely be appreciated, but you don't need to build mount everest to achieve this. Even one porous boulder can house lots of small fish.

For my tangs, they are ok under an overhang, although I do have an open(ish) cave area that they retreat to as well.

Also, an open aquascape doesn't necessarily mean sparse. You can have a decent a mount of rock in there with nooks and crannies and even caves, while still maintaining an open aquascape with lots of negative space.

Some look like a bean pole sitting in the middle of a playground though. Now thats sparse. :lol:

Ok Im going to look yours over again

[kien]

Some look like a bean pole sitting in the middle of a playground though. Now thats sparse. :lol:

True. I have seen people take it to the extreme. I guess it's up to you to decide where to draw the line. It's one part aesthetics and one part functionality.

[Doug]

True. I have seen people take it to the extreme. I guess it's up to you to decide where to draw the line. It's one part aesthetics and one part functionality.

Yours looks very nice. I would have a bit more on the right side in mine but overall, looks good.

Plus I wont have any tangs, just smaller fish.

[asylumdown]

If you have smaller fish then giving them a nook or cranny to hide/sleep in will definitely be appreciated, but you don't need to build mount everest to achieve this. Even one porous boulder can house lots of small fish.

For my tangs, they are ok under an overhang, although I do have an open(ish) cave area that they retreat to as well.

Also, an open aquascape doesn't necessarily mean sparse. You can have a decent a mount of rock in there with nooks and crannies and even caves, while still maintaining an open aquascape with lots of negative space.

+ 1! I aquascaped my tank so that when I was done on day one, there was as much negative space as I wanted, I barely accounted for corals. Now that things are growing in I would like nothing more than to remove about 1/3 of my rock, but at this point there's too much coral too well encrusted and interwoven to do that safely. I feel like you can always add more rock later, but removing it once the system grows in is a much larger kind of surgery

[Aquattro]

Doug, as an example, look at the 2011 full tank shots thread. You can see where i started with 1/2lb per gallon. Then find one of my more recent pics and you can see that all that space is now gone.
Try to envision what the corals will take up in a year or two.

[nickguay]

I always thought that more than 1 pound of live rock per 1 gallon of water simply meant extra filtration, with no real disadvantage other than some loss of space obviously... Does this make any sense?

[Doug]

Wow. Your comparison shot on the 2013 thread shows all that coral growth. Mine never grow like that....:lol:

Guess I need t-5,s....:D

[Aquattro]

I always thought that more than 1 pound of live rock per 1 gallon of water simply meant extra filtration, with no real disadvantage other than some loss of space obviously... Does this make any sense?

I found the more rock, the more space for crap to build up. I've been running 1/2lb per gallon (roughly) for the last 6 or 7 years in various tanks, and have much better results than my old 150g that had over 200 pounds of rock in it. When I dismantled that one, it was like a sewer under the rock!

[Doug]

I always thought that more than 1 pound of live rock per 1 gallon of water simply meant extra filtration, with no real disadvantage other than some loss of space obviously... Does this make any sense?


There was a time way back when it was suggested at 2lb per gal. Now thats old school.:smile:

[Doug]

I found the more rock, the more space for crap to build up. I've been running 1/2lb per gallon (roughly) for the last 6 or 7 years in various tanks, and have much better results than my old 150g that had over 200 pounds of rock in it. When I dismantled that one, it was like a sewer under the rock!

Fair point. Cant disagree with that. And thats from my experience in other tanks to.

[kien]

I always thought that more than 1 pound of live rock per 1 gallon of water simply meant extra filtration, with no real disadvantage other than some loss of space obviously... Does this make any sense?

I'm probably somewhere at around 1/4 a pound per gallon of rock :biggrin:

Also, it really isn't how much rock you have in weight. Some rocks can be ridiculously porous and light, which is more important, rather than a giant bolder that weights 3 times as much.

[Aquattro]

I'm probably somewhere at around 1/4 a pound per gallon of rock :biggrin:



I was close to that, but had to add a bit more when I restructured. But even with that little, NO3 has always been 0, so it's enough for filtration.

[Doug]

I'm probably somewhere at around 1/4 a pound per gallon of rock :biggrin:

Also, it really isn't how much rock you have in weight. Some rocks can be ridiculously porous and light, which is more important, rather than a giant bolder that weights 3 times as much.

Yes, the fiji I bought is much heavier and less porous than the Pukani but I could not resist that good sale he had on the Pukani...:lol:

[Doug]

I was close to that, but had to add a bit more when I restructured. But even with that little, NO3 has always been 0, so it's enough for filtration.

Do you still have your shallow sand bed Brad?

[kien]

I was close to that, but had to add a bit more when I restructured. But even with that little, NO3 has always been 0, so it's enough for filtration.

Can't forget the filtration provided by all those granules of sand as well. That's a lot of surface area right there.

[Doug]

Can't forget the filtration provided by all those granules of sand as well. That's a lot of surface area right there.

You have a shallow sandbed also? I have to go back and look again.

[Aquattro]

Do you still have your shallow sand bed Brad?

I do in this tank, but did not in the last 2 setups. Same results either way.

[nickguay]

I found the more rock, the more space for crap to build up. I've been running 1/2lb per gallon (roughly) for the last 6 or 7 years in various tanks, and have much better results than my old 150g that had over 200 pounds of rock in it. When I dismantled that one, it was like a sewer under the rock!

Thank you! Very good point, I never thought of that

[kien]

You have a shallow sandbed also? I have to go back and look again.

Yes. My sandbed is about 1/2 to 1". Simply for aesthetics but but the sand grains do provide surface area for biological filtration as well.

[lastlight]

The structure itself is made of pretty large porous rock[/IMG]

just how porous is epoxy? :biggrin:

[somewherebeyondthesea]

I'm probably somewhere at around 1/4 a pound per gallon of rock :biggrin:

Also, it really isn't how much rock you have in weight. Some rocks can be ridiculously porous and light, which is more important, rather than a giant bolder that weights 3 times as much.


+1 That's my understanding of that as well. You could put large non-pourous boulders and you wouldn't acheive very much filtration. When I go diving I study the reefs really close, and I've found the base of the reefs are very dense and then they become pourous as you ascend higher up the reef wall.

My Dad uses a ton of Rock but there are many spaces for caves, he went with lots of flat pieces rather than large boulders, his tank is over 10 years old...I've had better luck with pourous light rock myself.

[Doug]

+1 That's my understanding of that as well. You could put large non-pourous boulders and you wouldn't acheive very much filtration. When I go diving I study the reefs really close, and I've found the base of the reefs are very dense and then they become pourous as you ascend higher up the reef wall.

My Dad uses a ton of Rock but there are many spaces for caves, he went with lots of flat pieces rather than large boulders, his tank is over 10 years old...I've had better luck with pourous light rock myself.

Your papa is old school like me....:mrgreen:

[asylumdown]

I was just reading Vancouver Reefer's thread in the tank journal section and he had a link to a great aquascaping thread on RC that I have managed to not see until just right now. It might help you with some tips/tricks. I wish I had had the patience to create my structures outside of the tank.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2217633

[StirCrazy]

There was a time way back when it was suggested at 2lb per gal. Now thats old school.:smile:

or like my 250lbs in a 90 gal, I am like you now I like the sparse look but not as far as most seam to take it, I would go 1 to 1.5lb per gal depending on type of rock.

Steve

[Doug]

or like my 250lbs in a 90 gal, I am like you now I like the sparse look but not as far as most seam to take it, I would go 1 to 1.5lb per gal depending on type of rock.

Steve

Now thats more my speed. And I will have some left for you..:D

[titus]

Hello

I agree with others that you are planning to use too much rock. While rock does help with bacterial filtration that's not justification for using that much. You still can't really get away from good circulation and skimming.


Titus

[Doug]

Hello

I agree with others that you are planning to use too much rock. While rock does help with bacterial filtration that's not justification for using that much. You still can't really get away from good circulation and skimming.


Titus



:wave:


Hi boss.

[titus]

Hello

Nice to see you back in action BTW.


Titus

[Doug]

Thanks Titus

[Skimmerking]

Hello

Nice to see you back in action BTW.


Titus

yes its nice to see Doug back in to the groove again....... all of us on Canreef missed him a lot and glad that he is back to his crazy self.....

[Doug]

yes its nice to see Doug back in to the groove again....... all of us on Canreef missed him a lot and glad that he is back to his crazy self.....


:smile:

[eli@fijireefrock.com]

Oh man so I am an oldie to for loving my rock (http://www.fijireefrock.com/) covering the entire back and sides of my tank and having pillars and shelf pieces coming of Pukani and Tonga branch:biggrin: becauseThat's what I am basing my new build on, with my sumps going to be cryptic rim loaded with broken pieces of my old live rock.

[Doug]

Oh man so I am an oldie to for loving my rock (http://www.fijireefrock.com/) covering the entire back and sides of my tank and having pillars and shelf pieces coming of Pukani and Tonga branch:biggrin: becauseThat's what I am basing my new build on, with my sumps going to be cryptic rim loaded with broken pieces of my old live rock.

Hah. Me and you both my friend. :smile:

[Doug]

So by looking at those progression pics, {stunning tanks , IMO}, part of the problem we discussed here is not only to much rock but way to many corals.

Perhaps for my reasoning I can split the difference...:D