Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board > General > Reef

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:12 PM
kien's Avatar
kien kien is offline
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸. ><(((º>
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 7,665
kien will become famous soon enoughkien will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Some look like a bean pole sitting in the middle of a playground though. Now thats sparse.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:15 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kamloops BC
Posts: 4,920
Doug has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kien View Post
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.
__________________
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:17 PM
asylumdown's Avatar
asylumdown asylumdown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,806
asylumdown is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kien View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:21 PM
Aquattro's Avatar
Aquattro Aquattro is offline
Just a guy..
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 18,053
Aquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the rough
Default

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.
__________________
Brad
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:29 PM
nickguay's Avatar
nickguay nickguay is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Memramcook NB (Canada)
Posts: 19
nickguay is on a distinguished road
Default

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?
__________________
Check out my blog: www.nickaquaria.com and my youtube: www.youtube.com/user/nickguay7/videos
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:29 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kamloops BC
Posts: 4,920
Doug has disabled reputation
Default

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

Guess I need t-5,s....
__________________
Doug

Last edited by Doug; 11-29-2013 at 03:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:33 PM
Aquattro's Avatar
Aquattro Aquattro is offline
Just a guy..
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 18,053
Aquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickguay View Post
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!
__________________
Brad
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:35 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kamloops BC
Posts: 4,920
Doug has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickguay View Post
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.
__________________
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:37 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kamloops BC
Posts: 4,920
Doug has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquattro View Post
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.
__________________
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:38 PM
kien's Avatar
kien kien is offline
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸. ><(((º>
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 7,665
kien will become famous soon enoughkien will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickguay View Post
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

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.