Tank aqua scaping help

Myka · #1 09-24-2012, 01:56 AM

I don't like that column in the center, and I think if you removed that then the rest of the 'scape actually looks quite good I think!

Great post Albert! There is at least one advantage to having "more rock than you need" though...there is more capacity for denitration.

I have never been a fan of rock in the sump because of detritus build up even when using a filter sock. However, I think rock in the sump can be beneficial for denitration provided the sump area is siphoned of detritus at least once a month. Many people are not likely to do this maintenance though, so generally it is better idea to just not put rock in the sump.

Coralgurl · #2 09-24-2012, 02:03 AM

Thanks Myka. I wish I could get better pics as it really does look better overall than what I can capture.

Myka · #3 09-24-2012, 02:05 AM

It is very difficult to take full tank photos that really capture a reef tank. I have a heck of a time getting a half decent FTS.

Coralgurl · #4 09-24-2012, 02:09 AM

The photos look flat and no depth. I tried getting some coral pics as well, all crap. My camera and tank do not like each other.

I'll see how I like it over the next few days. Part of me was concerned about reducing the amount of rock overall and the centre colum is all live rock, not base. They are both nice pieces that have great features.

daniella3d · #5 09-24-2012, 03:20 AM

I think that looks very good. Maybe just make sure that you have enough room in between to allow for enough coral growth.

I like the different level in the sand as well.

intarsiabox · #6 09-24-2012, 03:33 AM

Here's my thoughts: I like the islands on the left and right but centre island looks out of place. Possible to join the 2 rocks that make your centre island side by side and bridge the two other islands with an arch? This would give a more open appearence and leave lots of room on the sand bed for corals such as brains and other bottom loving types. As I don't see anything on your sand bed right now this may not be at all what you want it's just what I like.

Coralgurl · #7 09-24-2012, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intarsiabox

Here's my thoughts: I like the islands on the left and right but centre island looks out of place. Possible to join the 2 rocks that make your centre island side by side and bridge the two other islands with an arch? This would give a more open appearence and leave lots of room on the sand bed for corals such as brains and other bottom loving types. As I don't see anything on your sand bed right now this may not be at all what you want it's just what I like.

I like this idea of a bridge or arch. Those pieces of rock are heavy so I don't think theyll work. There is loads of room on the sand now, I moved all the corals on the rock for now except 1 brain who likes the front right corner and my bubble in the left corner. Back to looking for rods

Coralgurl · #8 09-24-2012, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daniella3d

I think that looks very good. Maybe just make sure that you have enough room in between to allow for enough coral growth.

I like the different level in the sand as well.

Thanks Daniella. There is room between the column and corners. I'm happy with the sides, just gotta figure out the centre.

The sand has been blown around, really deep on the left side, I haven't moved it...

daplatapus · #9 09-24-2012, 01:56 PM

I hope this isn't hi-jacking this thread, but I'm a bit confused with some comments made about moving rocks to the sump. Coral girl said in post #9 that's she's only got 150 lbs of rock for her 180 gallon. Given that the go to answer for "how much rock do I need?" is roughly 1-2 lbs per gallon I'd hardly call that over kill.
I would agree with Albert that there is a point that more doesn't do any good, but in my limited experience, I wouldn't have thought this tank was really there yet. The original question was about moving some of that 150 lbs of rock to the sump so there was more room in the display tank, not adding more rock to the display to get more filtering capabilities.
If the bacteria on 150 lbs of rock is processing all the tanks parameters well, I do not understand why it would matter where the rock is. If someone really likes the look of sand flats and the creatures that lived there, what would stop them from having no rock in the DT and 150 lbs of it in the sump? As long as there is proper water flow and maintenance in both tanks, there's no reason why it wouldn't keep water parameters in proper alignment, no?
I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just curious for my own benefit and others following along. Help me understand

albert_dao · #10 09-24-2012, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myka

Great post Albert! There is at least one advantage to having "more rock than you need" though...there is more capacity for denitration.

I don't want to come off as argumentative, but hell, in for a dime, in for a dollar...

Again, no. We still have a problem of Aerobic bacteria density = NH4 + various other organics x surface area***. Aerobic bacteria are the things pulling oxygen out of the water as it diffuses through the rock. Oxygen doesn't just "magic" into oblivion. A 50 gallon tank filled with 200 lbs of rock, all other things being equal, is going to have no less nitrate in it than a the same tank with 65 lbs of rock. Feed carbon, and we'll talk, but short of that, it's just not going to work. Same problem, different pile.

*** for the sake of discussion, let's assume our rock is porous and we have sand -- remember, you don't get to choose where your bacteria go, they do.

God, I feel like the next thing to pop outta my mouth is gonna be somewhere along the lines of "git off my lawn!".. haha