while i agree with less, my last setup on my 90 had almost 150lbs, now im at about 75. there must have been a reason for algae was killing your inhabitats beyond the fact that you had so much rock. ive seen tanks with piles of rock and slow flow that are well balanced and thriving.

Are you sure it was algae and not slime from the black lagoon :eek: :razz:
Oh and here's 2 smilies to show i'm harmless :biggrin: :biggrin: :razz:

Females of the species are rarely harmless, what's the catch??

Doug

Dang, i have no quick comeback. I must be getting old :rolleyes:

The "algae" were actually dinos, thus toxic. Overall though, the tank became eutophic over a year or so, and detritus build up was the cause, or so goes my best guess. I think you're not getting how much rock I actually had. It was packed full, top to bottom!!

Like having 130lbs in a 75g
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...7Image0003.jpg

Almost. Now add 50 pounds :razz:

To emphasize the point of my post, all I'm saying is that filtration wise, having less rock is not a bad thing. I have a much easier time managing water quality, I have enough room to mount my corals, I have enough room for my tangs to swim and hide, AND I still have no NO3.

I used to run the 75 with at least 130 pounds and no problems, I'm just saying that you don't NEED that kind of rock. If you want it, fine, nothing wrong with that.

reply
 

Wow :eek: Pretty intense thread.
Brad, that much rock must have breached (sp) a buffering threshold or something, and your flow/filtration just couldn't keep up. Both sides of this debate are valid in regards to what you are trying to achieve with your reef. This is an 80 lbs patch reef in my 65g, 80g with sump.
http://www.canreef.com/photopost/dat...1full_tank.jpg

Not all rock has the same density, either. IMO, it's not useful to compare my 50 lbs of rock to someone else's 50 lbs of rock because of possible differences in density.

reply
 

For sure, I have two base rocks that account for over half the total weight of my pile.