How many pounds of dry rock per gallon?

[rev138]

I'd say about 40% of my rock is the tubeworm variety. The rest is regular coral skeleton. The second thread linked in my sig has pictures of it.

[MrAnderson]

Porosity is what helps reduce nitrates. Small deep holes don't have good water circulation and would be more oxygen deprived. Same way a nitrate reactor works... Porose and light rock would be able to absorb more water than a solid, dense rock deeper inside. I don't know the exact diffusion rate of water through porose rock, but I bet it's not fast enough to cycle oxygen.

 

I don't have any crappy big balls of dense LR on hand, but I bet if you smack it in half, the inside isn't wet.

 

One other thing. Using a term like "porous live rock" is an oxymoron. Naturally occurring LR is a normally porous substance. It is made up of coral skeletons and if one looks at coral skeleton in an electron micrograph this is evidenced by structures like corallites, calices, coenostenae, septo-costae, paliform lobes and columellae.

 

So for me to use the term "highly porous LR", particularly in the context of this thread where the rock in question is partially composed of old tubeworm shells, I'm referring to a higher than normal degree of porosity, an extreme along the continuum I referred to above. An extreme which IN MY OPINION might be a consideration when setting up a tank.

 

So I don't think we are necessarily in full disagreement, but only in reference to what we are each referring to as "highly porous live rock".

[HecticDialectics]

One other thing. Using a term like "porous live rock" is an oxymoron. Naturally occurring LR is a normally porous substance. It is made up of coral skeletons and if one looks at coral skeleton in an electron micrograph this is evidenced by structures like corallites, calices, coenostenae, septo-costae, paliform lobes and columellae.

 

So for me to use the term "highly porous LR", particularly in the context of this thread where the rock in question is partially composed of old tubeworm shells, I'm referring to a higher than normal degree of porosity, an extreme along the continuum I referred to above. An extreme which IN MY OPINION might be a consideration when setting up a tank.

 

So I don't think we are necessarily in full disagreement, but only in reference to what we are each referring to as "highly porous live rock".

 

 

I think I get what you're saying now. By highly porous you mean something lace rock or pumice-esque? So d@mn porous it's like a kitchen sponge? Then I don't think we're disagreeing here. If highly porous means it's like a wasp's nest or a piece of pumice... then yes, it probably isn't going to be doing very much nitrate removal.

 

As far as "porous LR" being an oxymoron, I'd disagree. "Dead LR" would be a better oxymoron. You can have a "fast racecar" even though a racecar is generally considered fast. If you already consider LR porous, then it would be redundant. But that leaves no room for dense live rock. I've definitely seen some live rock I would consider denser than your average live rock. No reason to get into a semantics debate though...

[MrAnderson]

By highly porous you mean something lace rock or pumice-esque? So d@mn porous it's like a kitchen sponge?

 

... or a mass of tubeworm shells! exactly what i'm getting at.

 

 

cool.

 

sorry, i was a little lazy explaining myself early on.

[nhan_do]

Why is everyone always spending 50-100% more $$ to get that extra 5-20% performance or improvement? This appear to be the case with computers and Reefers. Sometimes this can have a worst outcome like ppl putting 250W MH lighting over 5-10Gal tanks or 600GPH pumps in the same tanks. There are many ppl who has been very successful using basic things along with their creativity while others who invested in all the expensive tools, gadgets, gizmos and fail miserably. I also can't stand ppl who say you can't do this or you shouldn't do that without even trying just bc they heard it from Joe or Bob. It scares ppl from trying and kills the creativity of trying to get the same thing done at lower cost if you have the patience and no how. I'm going to try the same route and buy Porous dead rock and give it a 3-6months to test how it does along with my Live Rock setup. I've seen LR farms dump regular porous rocks into the ocean for 2yrs and then harvest them for reselling. If we have the time and patience, why not save a little $$ and learn along the way so long as we're not crazy about over stocking.

[kismetsh]

I've seen LR farms dump regular porous rocks into the ocean for 2yrs and then harvest them for reselling. If we have the time and patience, why not save a little $$ and learn along the way so long as we're not crazy about over stocking.

 

I think what isn't being considered is that the aquaculture folks are dumping that "dead" rock into the *ocean* which is an almost limitless source of new critters to colonize the rock. These small critters in the ocean are constantly spawning/reproducing in vast numbers.

 

Our tiny tanks are closed systems and many creatures don't even reproduce at all in them, or if they do certainly not in the numbers that they do in the ocean.

 

I don't think one can even compare putting dead rock in the ocean and harvesting it in 2 years to putting dead rock in a little glass box with just a few of pounds of "live" rock for 3-6 months. And according to the article, a lot of the "live" rock we put in our tanks is completely lacking those worms/etc that live deep in the rock.

 

KC

[MrAnderson]

I made a new thread to "unjack" this one.

 

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=112776