A Rhetorical Question with Some Relevance

squidd

squidd

Active Member
I was just pondering this as I look at the new tank
I'm preparing to set up...
A general "rule of thumb" for Live Rock is 1-1 1/2 lb per gallon of tank size...right ?
This should supposedly give you sufficient "surface area" for bacteria to grow to process the waste of a given amount of fish (provided you don't overstock/overfeed)
I know this is a general statement and there are other variables (like skimmer/fuge/sand-deep or shallow,etc...) But my 125 has about 150-160 lbs of rock and a 1" sand bed and 5 fish...and my levels would be considered "good" for a FOWLR Aggressive Tank... 0 ammonia, 0 nitrIte, <10 nitrAte, etc...
So the question arises..."If I move all the contents of my 125 to the new 210...same rock, same sand, same fish, same skimmer/fuge/etc...
Would I "Have to" get more Rock in order to maintain stability ?
(Let me put your mind at ease and say I will be adding more Rock to the 210 to start the cycle and fill it's "hugeness")
But the question remains..."The 160 lbs Rock/sand /filtration system was "working" in 125 gal water...Wouldn't it work just as well in 210 gals of water...?
:thinking:
 
squidd

squidd

Active Member
I would "assume so" as well...
Which brings me to part 2 of my "ponderings"...
As the fish grow (or if I add another fish) I would most likely need more Rock to process the additional bioload...
So...Rather than recommending lbs per gallon...shouldn't we come up with a formula for lbs of Rock per inch of fish...?
That way if you only had one small 1" fish you would only need say 10 lbs Rock...and if you added another fish you would need 20 lbs Rock...and as the fish grew, you would need to add 10 lbs Rock per inch of fish...? (or some such formula)
This would also eliminate the sometimes confusing "inch(s) per gallon" or "gallons per inch" rules for choosing fish...It would also eliminate the need to try and figure out the "adult size" of the fish you just bought...
You got so many "inch's" of fish...you need so many lbs of Rock...
When you run out of room for Rock...It's time to get a bigger tank...
This could revolutionize the "Fish Keeping" Trade...
I should write a book... :thinking: and start my own web page...:thinking: This could be BIG...:thinking:
 
bonermeister

bonermeister

Member
There is so much more to it than inches to lb. of rock. But to answer your question, the only thing you are changing by moving to a 210 is adding more water. So it will not hurt anything except make the system even more stable.
 
squidd

squidd

Active Member
So, We are all agreed that 160 lbs of rock will be adaquite in a 210...
So why does everyone recomend 1 - 1 1/2 lbs per gallon when half that will work...160/210= 3/4 lb per gal...
It's so confusing...
I'm telling you, "LBS PER INCH", It's the Future...:D
 
jlem

jlem

Active Member
It's the whole watts per gallon thing in another light. After you subtract the glass and the fact that most tanks are not filled to the brim then it all comes down to what looks good for you. It really does not take that much rock to perform adequate biological filtration and if you have any substrate then it takes even less. Besides the fact that you need salt there is not one set standard in this hobby and probably never will.
( MY DEEP THOUGHT OF THE DAY )
Something that floats ones boat will sink anothers. :D
 
squidd

squidd

Active Member

Originally posted by jlem
( MY DEEP THOUGHT OF THE DAY )
Something that floats ones boat will sink anothers. :D
Unless you both had submarines...(They are called "Boats")
If they are on top of the water, then they are called "Ships"
But your in the Navy...so you already knew that...:D
 
masterreef

masterreef

Member
It also depends what type of rock you have. Florida rock for example, is nearly twice as dense as some fiji or tonga (branch or slab). So the weight is more of a basic guideline than anything. It's really the more surface area, the better . . .
 
T

thomas712

Guest

Originally posted by Squidd
Unless you both had submarines...(They are called "Boats")
If they are on top of the water, then they are called "Ships"
But your in the Navy...so you already knew that...:D
And if they are above the water they are called kites

Or flying boats. Would the PBY qualify :notsure:
Squidd - I think that with the same amount of live rock that you have vs. the increased volume of water then you would wind up with less nitrate removal, by that I mean the minimum nitrate procesing that occurs deep within the live rock.
Of course you will also perhaps have a larger substrate surface area which might also negate that small factor so you may never notice if you have a DSB.
I guess my thoughts are with the obvious, the more live rock you have the better the biological filtration, you may still have the same amount of surface area for bacteria with the 160 lbs of live rock but I am just trying to think about what happens to that filtration deep within the rock as well.
Just thinking out loud
Thomas
Whatever floats your boat, why? Because whatever floats your ship sounds funny.
 
cincyreefer

cincyreefer

Active Member
I think the flow through rock is more important than the amount of rock. If you have 200 lbs of "piled" rock that doesn't get much flow through all of it, then I would rather have 100 lbs of rock on some sort of pvc structure that can provide a lot of flow through the rock.
 
T

thomas712

Guest

Originally posted by Infalable
Hey Thomas - I bet not to many will know what a PBY is. There cant be too many around.
I know *sniff*sniffle*, but I list it among one of my favorate planes of all time, along with the B-17 and P-38.
 
jlem

jlem

Active Member

Originally posted by Squidd
If they are on top of the water, then they are called "Ships"

99.9 % of sailors call their ship their boat. you hardly hear sailors say that they are going out on the ship. They say that they are going on the boat.
Since I am in the Navy I know this:yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top