LR quantity?

[MizTanks]

Do I really NEED 40lbs of LR in my 40b? I'll be running a 20g sump. Most likely with chaeto and or other macro along with some rubble.
I really like the minimalist rock look :) ATM I have 25lbs of BRS Reef Saver.

[Tom@HaslettMI]

In my opinion the proper amount of live rock is as much, or little as the tank owner wants to have. There are amazing looking SPS dominant tanks with almost no rock at all.

It is all just a matter if balancing filtration and bioload. Less LR just means using other filtration methods and/or having fewer fish.

Tom

[Sir Patrick]

I agree with what tom said.

If you end up wanting to keep the minimalistic look, but keep more rock, just add it to the sump.

[jimsflies]

I think that the old school recommendations (1 pound per gallon) results in too much live rock. Having too much live rock limits what you can do with aquascaping.

While I agree that livestock and other filtration need to be considered, I think the average reef aquarium has plenty of nitrifying bacteria...the kind that lives on the surface of liverock (rarely do you see a cycled tank with an ammonia problem). The bigger filtration issue tends to be denitrifying (which removes nitrate). My guess is that most liverock we use for aquascaping is too small to have a large population of denitrifying bacteria as these would need to be at several inches thick to have an established anaerobic area which would contain the denitrifying bacteria.

[MizTanks]

Thanks guys! Here's a couple shots of me messing with the rock. Something I didn't do with the 26.
9185
9186

[Dmmz]

I was thinking of something like this but seems like a lot of rock 9187

[jimsflies]

Dennis...one of the most original aquascapes yet! :cool:

What's that you have it in?

[Dmmz]

It's in a 40b I am doing for my sister inlaw for her birthday that is why I have been watching miz threads for ideas since it is the same tank

[binford4000]

I like what you got in the picture. I agree the 1#/gal rule of old is really not correct. This is just my opinon but I actually believe less is more in the tank that is. In our new tank I tried to duplicate the reefs we see diving. Most of what I noticed is the reefs are really small to medium sunken islands. So how does that equate to me ?? 1 st like Jim stated the rock is really to small to create nitrifying benefits unless you use large thick rocks and then it will take a while tell it really helps out. Add nice porus rubble to the fuge and rocks galore!! Let your fuge do the work. 2nd,the less rock plan allows for better flow which in turn makes getting particulate material suspended easy. This means it will get to your overflow and skimmer better. 3rd you can keep diffrent species separated by dedicating an island for each. This in turn will help you keep evasive species(like shrooms) under control. 4th,it gives your fish more room to swim and also gives you more room to catch them! 5th it gives your corals like acros more room to grow out 6th and most important!! It just looks better then a pile of rocks covering 50% of your tank. Well that's my .02

[CalmSeasQuest]

I wouldn't worry about a pound-a-gallon Jamie. I've used far less than the 1:1 ratio, in fact I've had tanks with no LR whatsoever, using Marine Pure spheres or plates instead. Assuming you have adequate biological filtration - I like the less-is-more approach when it comes to LR and aesthetics. My all time favorite "Scape" was pretty minimal. Although it was planned as a planted tank - I liked it so much, I left it dry. It now sits in my foyer...

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n622/CalmSeasQuest/Iwagumi/Iwagumi.jpg (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/CalmSeasQuest/media/Iwagumi/Iwagumi.jpg.html)

I think us "reefers" can learn a lot from some of the amazing planted and Iwagumi style tanks. They spend as much (if not more) time designing the hardscape as they do plants and fish - and almost always use much less rock.