Too much LR? 100+ lbs in 55 gal

slice

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1guyDude http:///forum/thread/386614/too-much-lr-100-lbs-in-55-gal#post_3398335
So let me get this straight . Im talkin about the bacteria that breaks the anmonia down into trates and joe is talking about the bacteria that breaks the trates down into trites....or do i have the nitrites and nitrates backwards....i never knew things lived inside the rock i just pictured it as solid rock! LOL
with a bunch of holes in it and that where the bacteria lived!

Yes, you got it backwards. Re read:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/forum/thread/386044/let-s-talk-about-cycling
and in Joe's own words:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/forum/thread/343948/anaerobic-nitrate-reduction-but-how
You can also use this site's search function to search:
anaerobic bacteria
for further understanding
 

spanko

Active Member
"with live rock that is very porous, you get the standard aerobic (oxygenated) bacteria on the outside where there is good water movement. Deep down inside the rock, where there isn't much water movement, all the oxygen gets used up, creating an anoxic (oxygen free) zone."
 

slice

Active Member
AARRGGHHHHH!!!!
One simple little question about how much LR might be too much and an hour and a half later I am still chasing down loose ends of research and googling terminology. It is amazing how one tidbit of information leads to another to another.....
2(NO3-) + 5(H2) + 2 (H+) = N2 + 6 (H2O)
 

reefkprz

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice http:///forum/thread/386614/too-much-lr-100-lbs-in-55-gal/20#post_3398362
AARRGGHHHHH!!!!
One simple little question about how much LR might be too much and an hour and a half later I am still chasing down loose ends of research and googling terminology. It is amazing how one tidbit of information leads to another to another.....
2(NO3-) + 5(H2) + 2 (H+) = N2 + 6 (H2O)
ok let me simplify it for you, I'm sure joe, spanko, 1guy, and anyone that has a lot of experience with marine tanks can agree on. get enough rock in your tank too look good to you somewhere in the range of one to two pounds per gallon then add or remove to suit your taste. as long as 0.5 lbs per gallon isn't your idea of overloaded you should be fine.
more rock = more surface area for bacteria. less rock means less surface area.. its not brain science or rocket surgery. and don't over worry about it.
 

florida joe

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefkprZ http:///forum/thread/386614/too-much-lr-100-lbs-in-55-gal/20#post_3398421
ok let me simplify it for you, I'm sure joe, spanko, 1guy, and anyone that has a lot of experience with marine tanks can agree on. get enough rock in your tank too look good to you somewhere in the range of one to two pounds per gallon then add or remove to suit your taste. as long as 0.5 lbs per gallon isn't your idea of overloaded you should be fine.
more rock = more surface area for bacteria. less rock means less surface area.. its not brain science or rocket surgery. and don't over worry about it.
and reefkprZ shall lead us well said my friend
 

deton8it

Member
Very well said. It's not really about weight. Its about surface area. Simply put, the more surface area, the more bacteria. A one pound piece of gold is a lot smaller than a 1 pound pile of feathers. They still weigh the same though.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
What do you guys think about this....http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rs/feature/index.php
Problem Rock:
There is only one problem related to the use of live rock as an effective source of biological filtration. For the rock to be the site of efficient biological filtration, water has to be passed slowly and steadily through the rock. The most likely way that will happen is by the activities of the myriad of animals that live in the rock. Of course, for this to happen there must be animals living in the rock, and lots of them. Therein lies the problem with using live rock as a biological filter. Live rock comes from many sources in today's hobby, and the products that these vendors provide are by no means uniform in their capability to provide biological filtration.
The live rock may be collected and shipped "as is," or it may be "treated" or "cured" in different ways to remove various components of, primarily, the animal fauna living on and in the rock. Some collectors and vendors go to great lengths to ensure that their rock is free of as much of the material as possible that can potentially rot and foul a system. These vendors provide rock that often is covered with a large amount of coralline algae, and very little else. This rock is free of much of the material that can die in transit and rot in the destination tank. It is also free of most animal life. This rock can provide a beautiful backdrop or substrate in a tank, but, unfortunately, it simply can't provide much in the way of biological filtration. The small animals that moved water through the rock are not only dead and gone, but there is likely no fauna available to colonize the live rock and replace them in the destination tank. This rock is full of dead space and algae. Once in the destination tank, such rock will become populated with algae, much as it was in nature. However, there will be no water pumped through the small channels and pores in the rock, and such pores will begin to fill in, primarily by the growth of algae. Such rock has quite a potential for the internal buildup of noxious compounds. If a significant amount of algal and worm biomass was killed by the collection and curing process, this material will mostly remain in the rock, where it will rot. Instead of functioning as a biological filter, such rock would contribute to the system's organic load as these rotting materials slowly diffuse out of the rock over a period of several months.
Growth of coralline algae over the rock's surface will close off most of the small channels and passageways, largely contributing to the decline of the rock's biological filtration capacity. Hobbyists may further contribute to this degradation of filtering capacity by gluing coral fragments to the rock's surface, thus sealing off more of the pores. This may make the inside of the rock anoxic and, if there is much organic material inside the rock, it will start to rot. If the ******** of the rock is subsequently exposed to the tank environment, such material could be deleterious.
Some of the larger openings into the rock will remain. In some cases, these will become occupied by larger worms. The movement of these larger worms can help facilitate biological filtration in the rock, but they cannot maintain it anywhere nearly as efficiently as could the large populations of small worms that had been previously living in the rock.
 

1snapple

Active Member
Just too put in me $.02 here, i have a 95g "wave" tank and i believe i have close to 160+ lbs of live rock and man it looks pretty, i personally like it, there are tons of caves for the small fish and tons of room outside and large enpugh spaces in the rocks to allow the larger fish to swim through the aquascape, the niger trigger loves it.
 

reefkprz

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///forum/thread/386614/too-much-lr-100-lbs-in-55-gal/20#post_3398470
What do you guys think about this....http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rs/feature/index.php
Problem Rock:
its a viable point in the case of only buying rock from one source. but as the op mentioned he has established rock, which already has its microfauna in residence, so even if the rock he is adding is dead base rock the micro fauna living in his rock will colonize the newer stuff.
but it should if like most of the articles on feefkeeping.com be written well enough to recognize that you can buy rock from multiple sources, and with the various curing methods used by the various places still wind up with quite a diverse selection of benthic microfauna. ( I read the article now hence the edit) it doesn't but it mentions that borneman and shimek are going to actually purchase from various vendors and pick apart the rock to see the microfauna diversity and post the results of the life found on the rocks.
Quote:
This may make the inside of the rock anoxic and, if there is much organic material inside the rock, it will start to rot. If the ******** of the rock is subsequently exposed to the tank environment, such material could be deleterious.
if you break apart a large rock that is anoxic, it could be bad.... yup and if you stir anoxic areas of your sand bed it could be deleterious too. which is more likely to happen and accidental stirring of the sand bed or accidently breaking open a rock? it seems to border on fear mongering over rock.
you really have to read the whole article. its not only about bad rock. its about the De-nitrification capabilities of rock, not the standard nitrification that most use rock for. even if the ******** r4egions get locked up the larger and outer pores of the rock will be surface area for nitrifying bacteria.
 

slice

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefkprZ http:///forum/thread/386614/too-much-lr-100-lbs-in-55-gal/20#post_3398421
ok let me simplify it for you, I'm sure joe, spanko, 1guy, and anyone that has a lot of experience with marine tanks can agree on. get enough rock in your tank too look good to you somewhere in the range of one to two pounds per gallon then add or remove to suit your taste. as long as 0.5 lbs per gallon isn't your idea of overloaded you should be fine.
more rock = more surface area for bacteria. less rock means less surface area.. its not brain science or rocket surgery. and don't over worry about it.
I wasn't really worried about it, I find this stuff fascinating. My angst was getting pulled into the hunt and spending more time than I should have...since I am supposed to be "working"...
 

flower

Well-Known Member
Well maybe it's just me but do you want a fish tank or a tank full of rocks? Too much is too much, 100 pounds of rock in a 55g won't give any space for caves...it will just be a pile of ugly rock.
Now if you don't intend to have any fish, or maybe tiny fish here and there for effect and just a pile of rock covered in corals...that would look good. In the end it's your fish tank for you to do what you want. We can offer opinions all day...what do YOU want to accomplish?
 

acrylic51

Active Member
Agree way to much rock for a 55. Take a gander and you can see quite a few thriving SPS setups with minimal LR. The "old school" rule/thinking 1-2lbs per gallon is a broad baseline. Go over to RC or here and search threads on "aqua scaping"!!!!
 

reefkprz

Active Member
agreed it is a very broad baseline, which works for your average aquarist most of the time. you can do less, sure as long as you have the filtration or low enough bioload to compensate with out any troubles. you can also do more if you want the create the reef drop wall look. myself I alwayslike to run heavy on rock for microfauna and because I am usually worried about coral growth rate, and propagation more than the artistic aspects of scaping, but thats probably because I really suck at aquascaping.... ;o)
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Here's some shots of my 50g, it's the same footprint as a 55g just 2" shorter. I have approximately 70-80lbs of wet "live rock", so right around 1.5lbs per gallon. There are lots of open areas in between the rocks that the fish can swim in and out off plus I think it looks nice. JMO


 

aquaknight

Active Member
And on the flip side of the coin, here is 65lbs of LR in a 29gal
. It really fails back to what I said earlier, choosing different and interesting pieces of LR. The main shelf the xenia/frogspawn is on, is 15lbs.
 

reefkprz

Active Member
this may help give you some ideas on what various amounts could look like in various tanks
this is my 75gback in 2009 with over 150lbs of rock in it. about 2lbs/g
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q434/ReefReady/DSCN3940-1.jpg
125gwith roughly the same amount of rock
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q434/ReefReady/DSCN4552.jpg
this is a friends 30 with about 45lbs (give or take) roughly 1.5 lbs/g
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q434/ReefReady/DSCN3741.jpg
this is a 55g reef from 2008 that had about 60-70 lbs just over 1lb/g
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q434/ReefReady/DSCN3630.jpg
 
Top