Tank aqua scaping help

[Coralgurl]

My 180 has been running since Feb this year. I do not like my aqua scaping and have tried to redo it and I dislike it even more. I've looked through other threads and love how everyone comes up with great scapes, I just can't seem to get mine to work. I have big pieces of lr, some base rock, some branches but it all looks like a pile of rocks.

What's the best way to start over with fish and corals already in the tank?

[Nano]

I had to move all my stuff into a few buckets when I did mine initially, but then redid it during the move ;)

[RuGlu6]

My best one was when i put all the rocks in to the tank when water was so murky that i was Not able to see anything.

[Coralgurl]

I did that with my other tank and loved how it turned out!

[Nano]

Well there's your answer ;) turn out the lights, blind fold yourself and go nuts :P never know what you'll get in the end

[Aquattro]

My best one was when i put all the rocks in to the tank when water was so murky that i was Not able to see anything.

That's how my current tank got done. It took two days before I could see anything :) Happy with how it turned out.

so maybe get some sand, dump it in the tank unrinsed, then start adding rock by feel -lol

[ScubaSteve]

For me the scaping usually just turns out how the rocks fit together but there are a few rules I aim for:

1) use negative space (google the concept). In our tanks this would be bare sand, open swimming areas and view of the back of the tank. This gives the tank an open, clean, uncluttered feeling.

2) use the rule of thirds to distribute the rocks. For example, create a valley in the middle of you rocks about 2/3 of the way along the tank... So 2/3 on one side, 1/3 on the other. Have bare sand in between to highlight the divide. Or pile all your rock on 2/3 of the tank (and piled up to 2/3 of the height high) and slope it down continuously to the sand at the 2/3 point. Have bare sand on the other 2/3. Or try making two islands with one island 2x the size of the other.

3) do not make a wall of rocks

4) try to create tunnels and holes to swim through. Overhanging ledges are great spots for corals and provide the fish with places to hide, especially when the main lights are on.

5) if you want to get really crazy, you can drill your rocks and strap them together to create all sorts of interesting designs. Google bonsai reef tanks.

[Aquattro]

Here's a shot of mine a couple of days after (when the milk cleared). Actinic only, so very blue, but you can see the open scape idea, bare sand and channels that give it a bit of depth. More noticeable in person, but maybe this will help

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd101/reef_raf/DSC_1897_crop.jpg

[Coralgurl]

For me the scaping usually just turns out how the rocks fit together but there are a few rules I aim for:

1) use negative space (google the concept). In our tanks this would be bare sand, open swimming areas and view of the back of the tank. This gives the tank an open, clean, uncluttered feeling.

2) use the rule of thirds to distribute the rocks. For example, create a valley in the middle of you rocks about 2/3 of the way along the tank... So 2/3 on one side, 1/3 on the other. Have bare sand in between to highlight the divide. Or pile all your rock on 2/3 of the tank (and piled up to 2/3 of the height high) and slope it down continuously to the sand at the 2/3 point. Have bare sand on the other 2/3. Or try making two islands with one island 2x the size of the other.

3) do not make a wall of rocks

4) try to create tunnels and holes to swim through. Overhanging ledges are great spots for corals and provide the fish with places to hide, especially when the main lights are on.

5) if you want to get really crazy, you can drill your rocks and strap them together to create all sorts of interesting designs. Google bonsai reef tanks.

I've tried 1, 2, and 4 and end up with 3....not sure if you've some of my posts, I am not good with tools and equipment so haven't even attempted drilling or strapping rocks.

I'll keep looking at others and trying to put something together.

I've got approx 150 lbs of rock give or take, is it as beneficial to have some in the sump? That would give me more room.

[Coralgurl]

Here's a shot of mine a couple of days after (when the milk cleared). Actinic only, so very blue, but you can see the open scape idea, bare sand and channels that give it a bit of depth. More noticeable in person, but maybe this will help

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd101/reef_raf/DSC_1897_crop.jpg

That's pretty talented, love how this looks! I have sand now, don't need more, maybe the blindfold idea would work...lol

My goby makes caves or tunnels under all the rocks and right now, all the base rocks are on the glass but I don't think he would cause a collapse if they were on the sand.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll keep messing around with it.:lol:

[Aquattro]

I've got approx 150 lbs of rock give or take, is it as beneficial to have some in the sump? That would give me more room.

My tank only has a little over 100#, makes it easier to get that open look. I don't have any in my sump, but it can't hurt.

[albert_dao]

My tank only has a little over 100#, makes it easier to get that open look. I don't have any in my sump, but it can't hurt.


I'd argue against putting rocks in the sump. They just become detritus traps down there unless you add a bunch of powerheads. And really, why?

[Aquattro]

I'd argue against putting rocks in the sump. They just become detritus traps down there unless you add a bunch of powerheads. And really, why?

I'd tend to agree, but most people do it, and I'm tired of arguing anything about rocks :) Like I said, no rocks in my sump. Well, one little one, it's for the crab to hang in :)

[smokinreefer]

I'd argue against putting rocks in the sump. They just become detritus traps down there unless you add a bunch of powerheads. And really, why?

if you have the room for it, wouldnt it allow for a heavier bioload? heavier feedings?

[Aquattro]

if you have the room for it, wouldnt it allow for a heavier bioload? heavier feedings?

Shao, I think if you have a sand bed, that provides more than enough extra surface area for bacteria. I have a fairly high load and feed heavily, and only run about 1/2 pound of rock per gallon. If no sand, then extra rock may allow heavier stocking, but I would suggest that it would need cleaning every now and then..

[Coralgurl]

This is my first sump set up, I've heard the argument of rock in the sump and detritus build up in the past. I do have a bit that I try and clean out with water changes, but find the filter socks do help with this. I also have some lr in there already, smaller pieces that I couldn't make work in the dt. I have an 86 gl sump so loads of room.

I've treated the tank with chemiclean for cyano and lights are now off for 3 days. Once the cyano clears I'm going to rearrange the rocks, likely power heads as well. when I change out the water this weekend, it'll go in bins so I can pull the rocks out to work in the tank.

The way I initially laid out the rocks was to cover up the corner overflows and tried to have an open scape in the middle, but I love the islands so am going to work towards that look.

[Aquattro]

but I love the islands so am going to work towards that look.

We're all waiting for the pics :)

[Coralgurl]

Once it's done I will post!:biggrin:

[magikof7]

Can't wait to see what you come up with! I know how frustrating it is now! it took me 4 days to get it right.

[intarsiabox]

When I originally did my 90g aquascaping I had more LR than I needed, but I didn't want to waste it so I stuffed it all in and it looked OK but I was never happy with it. I finally decided to bite the bullet and remove pieces (and not worry about hiding my corner overflow) and the more I took out the better it looked. I ended up with a couple islands and arches and the open space really made it look more natural and allowed for better flow. I admit I did use acyrlic rod and zip ties to hold some pieces together because I didn't have some larger pieces to span some areas to my liking. Sorry no pics as I rarely photograph my tanks. I think I've posted one tank shot since I came to Canreef and only have taken about 3 since I started into SW. This nano contest is going to be a bit strange for me!

[Aquattro]

Once it's done I will post!:biggrin:

I've eaten, gone to the store, changed a diaper (kid's, not mine) and fed the dogs. Come back, still no pics!! sheesh..

[Coralgurl]

Not planning on starting till the weekend, see this taking more than a couple of hours. Doesn't everyone here preach patience in this hobby??:mrgreen:

[Aquattro]

. Doesn't everyone here preach patience in this hobby??:mrgreen:

Yes, we preach it all the time. We just don't practice it very often :)

[albert_dao]

if you have the room for it, wouldnt it allow for a heavier bioload? heavier feedings?

No, this is a false pretense.

Think of it this way, bacterial masses are governed by the same ecological constraints of any living population. That is, population = resources (in this case, food) x available real estate. In our tanks, resources, not real estates, are the limiting factor. More surface area does not ≠ more bacteria. More food does.

To illustrate the point, let's use the example of bioballs and why they are generally regarded as a detriment to reef systems: Nitrate.

But why? Why is liverock, which is just a big load of surface area not a NO3 factory, while efficient, human engineered substrates are?

Think of it this way, bioballs have a higher surface area to volume ratio than the average piece of liverock, which is denser due to the crystalline nature of aragonite and how it is deposited by corals. Additionally, bioballs have the added advantage of being highly porous or "open", so all the surfaces are readily exposed to oxygen during operation.

Going back to liverock. While it is true that liverock has a lower surface area to volume ratio, it also has a big thing going for it: "closed" surface area. Water permeates through the rock via diffusion. As it passes to the core of the rock, the aerobic bacteria along the way strip it of its dissolved oxygen. By the time water gets to the core of the rock, it is oxygen poor, allowing for anaerobic processes to take place (chiefly, mineralization of NO3).

Back the idea of resource limitation -- if you add a porous, man-made substrate to the system, the populations of aerobic bacterias are naturally going to shift towards surface areas which are more ideal to their aerobic metabolisms. In essence, bioballs "steal" these aerobic populations, shifting them from the rock. This eventually allows oxygen laden water to penetrate deeper into the core of of the rock.

So now we have a problem, resource limitation has reduced our system's capacity to mineralize NO3 (reduced anaerobic zones) while retaining it's NH4 and NO2 processing power. The end result? A rise in NO3 with no means to process it.

Don't think the math works? Add a biofilter to your tank and watch your NO3's start to climb. Remember, NH4 is the limiting factor for NO3, and it was at zero before.... :) :) :)

Anyway, segueing back into our initial statement (I know, I know, it was a long digression)...

IF YOUR TANK HAS ZERO NH4, YOU HAVE LIKELY HIT THE LIMITING RESOURCE POINT FOR NH4 AND NO2 AND THE RESULTING AEROBIC BACTERIAL POPULATION DENSITY OF YOUR SYSTEM. ADDING MORE ROCK TO YOUR SUMP WILL NOT IMPROVE YOUR SYSTEM'S BIOLOGICAL CAPACITY ONE BIT.

But Albert, won't the extra space allow me a buffer in case I accidentally overfeed or kill something?

In a word, no. Why? for the same reason it took you a month to cycle your tank in the first place. A sudden influx of organic waste may be a bonanza for bacteria, but not one that they can capitalize on fast enough for your water parameters not to be affected. In addition, it is likely that you have more than enough unoccupied real estate in your system.

Hint: Sand has HUUUUUGE surface area and can accommodate for many times more bacteria than the tank is probably supporting.

But Albert, those guys with no rock and no substrate, how do they do it?

Magic and vodka. But that's another topic for another class :D

HTH

[Aquattro]

No, this is a false pretense.


HTH

Thanks for the great explanation!

[albert_dao]

Thanks, I just wish I could edit out some poor grammar, haha!

[reefwars]

well said man:)

[Bblinks]

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i331/bblinks/12c335ba.jpg

old tank, typical fruit stand look.

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i331/bblinks/117457fa.jpg

I went with a less is more approach. Left side is an island and right side a lagoon. I still ended up with more rocks then I anticipated in the DT but I really like it. Make sure you do account for coral growth which I didn't think would have been an issue in the 300 but think again.:redface:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i331/bblinks/IMG_0879.jpg

semi recent picture, running out of room quick. I did sold off 4 of my large colonies to the lfs and its looking less crowded now. kinda...

[Coralgurl]

:crazyeye:

Please excuse my ignorance or stupidity with this as I've read Albert's post a few times. Sump vs DT - basically flow to push the water through the rock? (obviously over simplifying the entire explanation)

And, Brad, you have 100#'s in what size tank? Next question is then do I need 150 #'s in the 180?

[Aquattro]

:crazyeye:

Please excuse my ignorance or stupidity with this as I've read Albert's post a few times. Sump vs DT - basically flow to push the water through the rock? (obviously over simplifying the entire explanation)

And, Brad, you have 100#'s in what size tank? Next question is then do I need 150 #'s in the 180?

Not sure I understand the first part.

No, I have that in a 180. So I would use anywhere from 90ish to 120, depending on porosity, shapes, etc.

[albert_dao]

The long and the short of it is if you have zero NH4, adding more rock to your sump will not improve your biological capacity. The rest of it was just a roundabout way or proving that bacterial populations have a limiting factor.

[Coralgurl]

First part of my statement was just saying I didn't completely understand Albert's explanation and how it tied in to the original question of relocating the rock to the sump that is currently in my DT.

[Aquattro]

First part of my statement was just saying I didn't completely understand Albert's explanation and how it tied in to the original question of relocating the rock to the sump that is currently in my DT.

I think the point is that no, there is no advantage, and in fact could be detrimental to add the rock to your sump. You likely won't need it (assuming you add the 100ish pounds to the DT) and it could collect detritus, causing nutrient buildup.

[Bblinks]

Check out this thread (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2184371&page=2) on rc, pretty cool

for aquascaping ideas...

[Coralgurl]

Check out this thread (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2184371&page=2) on rc, pretty cool

for aquascaping ideas...

Well that looks better than a pile of rocks! Thanks for posting!

[Coralgurl]

I think the point is that no, there is no advantage, and in fact could be detrimental to add the rock to your sump. You likely won't need it (assuming you add the 100ish pounds to the DT) and it could collect detritus, causing nutrient buildup.

Well that kinda sucks! I know with less rock in the tank it would make scaping a lot easier but I don't think I'd want to get rid of any either. Will work with what I've got.

Cyano looks like its clearing up! Might be able to do this tomorrow instead of Sunday!:lol:

[albert_dao]

You know, some of the best rockwork I've ever seen is right in Calgary. Check out Fooser's tank:

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=77349

Here's a video I made the last time I was over at his place:

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k500/TentotheTwenty/th_AnthonysTank.jpg (http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k500/TentotheTwenty/?action=view&current=AnthonysTank.mp4)

Zap straps and epoxy all the way!!!!

[albert_dao]

First part of my statement was just saying I didn't completely understand Albert's explanation and how it tied in to the original question of relocating the rock to the sump that is currently in my DT.

I was qualifying why adding rock to your sump is a worthless pursuit when it comes to bacteria, using bioballs as an example of resource limitation and its effect on the ecological balance of your system.

Not just that, it is a detriment for completely different reasons (detritus build up).

[daniella3d]

wow, that's awesome!

do you have pics of it recently?

Here's a shot of mine a couple of days after (when the milk cleared). Actinic only, so very blue, but you can see the open scape idea, bare sand and channels that give it a bit of depth. More noticeable in person, but maybe this will help

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd101/reef_raf/DSC_1897_crop.jpg

[Coralgurl]

I was qualifying why adding rock to your sump is a worthless pursuit when it comes to bacteria, using bioballs as an example of resource limitation and its effect on the ecological balance of your system.

Not just that, it is a detriment for completely different reasons (detritus build up).

Thank you! I appreciate the feedback and advice!

Going to find some inspiration now!

[Coralgurl]

I have some pretty big pieces of rock that are really hard to work with. Most of the scapes look like they are put together with smaller pieces. Is this accurate and should I try breaking them? What do most people prefer?

[Aquattro]

Mine are fairly good sized pieces. I wouldn't break them unless you have to, it's tough to get them to break where you want.

[reefwars]

I have some pretty big pieces of rock that are really hard to work with. Most of the scapes look like they are put together with smaller pieces. Is this accurate and should I try breaking them? What do most people prefer?


i wouldnt break them either, i prefer larger rocks too:)

[Coralgurl]

Done....pics once the tank clears.

Kinda looks the same, but more defined I think. I have a bin of rock left over, all the big pieces :lol: I haven't placed the corals in a location yet, will do that tomorrow. I tried to get islands but i couldn't make it work. I also need to add more water, currently mixing. There's a bit of space in the middle of the tank that I could fill.

Now to clean up the mess....

[Coralgurl]

So I wasn't completely happy with how things looked today once the tank cleared this morning, so I played around with the pieces of rock I had left over and created an island in the middle.

I'm uploading from my iPad and can only upload one pic at a time, otherwise I lose the text, so may take a while to get the thread updated.

Please feel free to offer any suggestions or criticism. Thanks

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa476/coralgurl143/DSC_0728_zpsee583c19.jpg

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa476/coralgurl143/DSC_0718_zps758b0057.jpg

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa476/coralgurl143/DSC_0720_zpsd2904ad3.jpg

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa476/coralgurl143/DSC_0727_zpsd5143232.jpg

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa476/coralgurl143/DSC_0719_zps2b719d18.jpg

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa476/coralgurl143/DSC_0722_zps32846651.jpg

[Myka]

I don't like that column in the center, and I think if you removed that then the rest of the 'scape actually looks quite good I think! :D

Great post Albert! There is at least one advantage to having "more rock than you need" though...there is more capacity for denitration.

I have never been a fan of rock in the sump because of detritus build up even when using a filter sock. However, I think rock in the sump can be beneficial for denitration provided the sump area is siphoned of detritus at least once a month. Many people are not likely to do this maintenance though, so generally it is better idea to just not put rock in the sump.

[Coralgurl]

Thanks Myka. I wish I could get better pics as it really does look better overall than what I can capture.

[Myka]

It is very difficult to take full tank photos that really capture a reef tank. I have a heck of a time getting a half decent FTS.

[Coralgurl]

The photos look flat and no depth. I tried getting some coral pics as well, all crap. My camera and tank do not like each other.:twised:

I'll see how I like it over the next few days. Part of me was concerned about reducing the amount of rock overall and the centre colum is all live rock, not base. They are both nice pieces that have great features.

[daniella3d]

I think that looks very good. Maybe just make sure that you have enough room in between to allow for enough coral growth.

I like the different level in the sand as well.

[albert_dao]

Great post Albert! There is at least one advantage to having "more rock than you need" though...there is more capacity for denitration.




I don't want to come off as argumentative, but hell, in for a dime, in for a dollar...

Again, no. We still have a problem of Aerobic bacteria density = NH4 + various other organics x surface area***. Aerobic bacteria are the things pulling oxygen out of the water as it diffuses through the rock. Oxygen doesn't just "magic" into oblivion. A 50 gallon tank filled with 200 lbs of rock, all other things being equal, is going to have no less nitrate in it than a the same tank with 65 lbs of rock. Feed carbon, and we'll talk, but short of that, it's just not going to work. Same problem, different pile.


*** for the sake of discussion, let's assume our rock is porous and we have sand -- remember, you don't get to choose where your bacteria go, they do.

God, I feel like the next thing to pop outta my mouth is gonna be somewhere along the lines of "git off my lawn!".. haha

[intarsiabox]

Here's my thoughts: I like the islands on the left and right but centre island looks out of place. Possible to join the 2 rocks that make your centre island side by side and bridge the two other islands with an arch? This would give a more open appearence and leave lots of room on the sand bed for corals such as brains and other bottom loving types. As I don't see anything on your sand bed right now this may not be at all what you want it's just what I like.:wink:

[Coralgurl]

Here's my thoughts: I like the islands on the left and right but centre island looks out of place. Possible to join the 2 rocks that make your centre island side by side and bridge the two other islands with an arch? This would give a more open appearence and leave lots of room on the sand bed for corals such as brains and other bottom loving types. As I don't see anything on your sand bed right now this may not be at all what you want it's just what I like.:wink:

I like this idea of a bridge or arch. Those pieces of rock are heavy so I don't think theyll work. There is loads of room on the sand now, I moved all the corals on the rock for now except 1 brain who likes the front right corner and my bubble in the left corner. Back to looking for rods:lol:

[Coralgurl]

I think that looks very good. Maybe just make sure that you have enough room in between to allow for enough coral growth.

I like the different level in the sand as well.

Thanks Daniella. There is room between the column and corners. I'm happy with the sides, just gotta figure out the centre.

The sand has been blown around, really deep on the left side, I haven't moved it...:biggrin:

[daplatapus]

I hope this isn't hi-jacking this thread, but I'm a bit confused with some comments made about moving rocks to the sump. Coral girl said in post #9 that's she's only got 150 lbs of rock for her 180 gallon. Given that the go to answer for "how much rock do I need?" is roughly 1-2 lbs per gallon I'd hardly call that over kill.
I would agree with Albert that there is a point that more doesn't do any good, but in my limited experience, I wouldn't have thought this tank was really there yet. The original question was about moving some of that 150 lbs of rock to the sump so there was more room in the display tank, not adding more rock to the display to get more filtering capabilities.
If the bacteria on 150 lbs of rock is processing all the tanks parameters well, I do not understand why it would matter where the rock is. If someone really likes the look of sand flats and the creatures that lived there, what would stop them from having no rock in the DT and 150 lbs of it in the sump? As long as there is proper water flow and maintenance in both tanks, there's no reason why it wouldn't keep water parameters in proper alignment, no?
I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just curious for my own benefit and others following along. Help me understand :)

[Aquattro]

I hope this isn't hi-jacking this thread, but I'm a bit confused with some comments made about moving rocks to the sump. Coral girl said in post #9 that's she's only got 150 lbs of rock for her 180 gallon. Given that the go to answer for "how much rock do I need?" is roughly 1-2 lbs per gallon I'd hardly call that over kill.
I would agree with Albert that there is a point that more doesn't do any good, but in my limited experience, I wouldn't have thought this tank was really there yet. The original question was about moving some of that 150 lbs of rock to the sump so there was more room in the display tank, not adding more rock to the display to get more filtering capabilities.
If the bacteria on 150 lbs of rock is processing all the tanks parameters well, I do not understand why it would matter where the rock is. If someone really likes the look of sand flats and the creatures that lived there, what would stop them from having no rock in the DT and 150 lbs of it in the sump? As long as there is proper water flow and maintenance in both tanks, there's no reason why it wouldn't keep water parameters in proper alignment, no?
I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just curious for my own benefit and others following along. Help me understand :)

The go to answer, in my opinion, is created by people that sell rock. I have always, quite successfully, used ~1/2 pound per gallon. So at 150 pounds, in my mind, that's more than is needed.
Now, let's say we have the perfect amount of rock, and we want to open the landscape a bit. Moving existing rock to the sump removes it from an environment designed to keep it clean. This includes clean up crews, and more importantly, flow. The flow in my DT is about 9000gph. The flow through my sump is 10% of that, which will allow for settling and accumulation of detritus on the rock, which will lead it higher nutrients.
Rock is not an item where more is better. It has to be planned well to facilitate the removal of detritus. Even in a DT, if you have too much rock, you're going to get buildup of crud. I learned this years ago when I took apart a 150g with about 200# of rock. It smelled like a sewer and the water went grey as I removed the rock piles. Since then, I've kept a very open and minimal rock load, and had much greater success in my reef.

[albert_dao]

If the bacteria on 150 lbs of rock is processing all the tanks parameters well, I do not understand why it would matter where the rock is. If someone really likes the look of sand flats and the creatures that lived there, what would stop them from having no rock in the DT and 150 lbs of it in the sump? As long as there is proper water flow and maintenance in both tanks, there's no reason why it wouldn't keep water parameters in proper alignment, no?
I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just curious for my own benefit and others following along. Help me understand :)

On top of what Brad said, take a look at this:

http://www.eplantscience.com/botanical_biotechnology_biology_chemistry/principles_of_horticulture/images/17.10.jpg

What I'm trying to illustrate is that no matter what amount of rock in your tank, its surface area will always pale in comparison with the of your substrate -- by a long shot!

One of the points I stress is that you don't get to pick where your bacteria go. They will always colonize surfaces best suited for their metabolism. In this case, surfaces that have:

1. proper texture
2. high oxygen exposure
3. high resource saturation.

The surface of sand allows for this more so than any measure of rock. So you will find the vast majority of biological activity within the top ~1/2" of sand, grade dependent. IMO, rock is mostly an aesthetic. Its filtration capacity, while good, are nowhere near the effectiveness that we give it credit for.

Regarding anaerobic processes: While it is true that this happens within your live rock, it's generally pretty minimal because of the ecology constraints I described in my earlier posts. That's why normal fish tanks struggle with NO3. Of course, there are bacterial solutions to this (probiotic/carbon dosing, zeovit, biopellets, sulphur denitrifiers, etc), but they are outside the scope of this discussion. I'm just pointing them out to cover my a$$ :P

[reefwars]

hey albert, this has been a very informative read , have you considered writing something up along these lines for others to read and learn from??

im sure there are alot of people out there that are confused about topics like this and would love to have a read like this easily available to them:)

cheers:)

[albert_dao]

hey albert, this has been a very informative read , have you considered writing something up along these lines for others to read and learn from??

im sure there are alot of people out there that are confused about topics like this and would love to have a read like this easily available to them:)

cheers:)

Nope :)

[Aquattro]

Nope :)

lol!!

[Coralgurl]

Thanks to this thread, none of my excess rock (3 large pieces) went in the sump. Very informative and helpful and I appreciate all the feedback, advice and constructive criticisms!

Now, to clean up the equipment, wiring and overall appearance of my fish room...another thread????? lol, just kidding...:mrgreen:

[Myka]

Albert, there is no argument to be had that there will only ever be enough nitrifying bacteria to compliment that amount of available ammonia. A person could not argue that. My experience is that there is often a lack of anaerobic bacteria for which there could be many reasons (poor rock density, rocks too small, etc). The sand bed is not usually a host to anaerobic bacteria unless a person has a very healthy, well-functioning DSB which is a rare thing for sure. For these reasons, it is definitely possible that more rock would provide more options (and thus more likelihood) for anaerobic bacteria populations which could then have a nitrate-lowering effect compared to a tank with a lack of anaerobic bacteria.

Coralgurl, go check out sphelps' tank journals for pics of really nice, clean, and organized sumps, cabinets, and fish rooms. I can never keep that tidiness up...