Sump Live Rock ...Why?

[markaren]

I have the fun of taking months and months building a system again with the now much much better toys. Some of you may know I have narrowed my choice down to a Marineland 93 cube...then I noticed yesterday that the 120G 48x24x24 is less price.

Live rock in a 120 got me thinking. Why would Live Rock in a sump 3 feet away make any kind of beneficial contribution to the system worth the cost and effort of more lighting and 30ish lbs of live rock to the same water that is in a flow 3 feet away with multiple times more Live rock with lighting.

In essence...if I had a 90G tank with a 40 gallon sump and live rock in both, it seems a 120G system with live rock in just the tank would have about the same.

Is Live Rock in the sump old school? My LFS's do not have it in their sumps. It always seems to be skim skim skim and Calcium Reactor. I am sure a "...well it doesn't hurt.." applies. But considering costs and cleaning of the sump , it would hinder in some ways and ad no real benefit more than having a tank un seen ...lit....in a dark cabinet.

Opinions?

 

[jeffesaurusrex]

The idea is that you can fit more live rock in the system with the sump. There is a limit to how much you can put in the main display without it looking bad, and that's where people get the idea to put some in the sump.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In my system, I have 3 large refugia (44 gallon Brute cans) that are nearly rock filled. They provide a place for bacteria to grow, supporting denitrification and aerobic growth of bacteria (if any) from the organic carbon (vinegar) that I dose.

 

[markaren]

This info seems supportive.
So...let me ask...how much is enough per system gallons. At some point I would think rock in a sump hides junk that becomes a strian that the rock in the sump becomes a slave too cleaning its own area. Does this make sense.

 

[RedStangGA]

Tagging along as it seems to me more LR in the sump allows you to feed, or stock, more heavily. I'm going with a 150gal rubbermaid stock tank for either a fuge or sump. Leaning towards loading it up as a fuge and just using something smaller for sump and skimmer.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This info seems supportive.
So...let me ask...how much is enough per system gallons. At some point I would think rock in a sump hides junk that becomes a strian that the rock in the sump becomes a slave too cleaning its own area. Does this make sense.

That's certainly possible. I ignore the detritus mud that builds up visibly in my sump, and I expect there is as much or more in my refugia. I guess it depends a bit on what you are trying to accomplish, and whether a ULNS system is part of your plans (it is not in mine).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Tagging along as it seems to me more LR in the sump allows you to feed, or stock, more heavily. I'm going with a 150gal rubbermaid stock tank for either a fuge or sump. Leaning towards loading it up as a fuge and just using something smaller for sump and skimmer.

If the stocking limitation is phosphate causing algae/cyano problems, then the rock won't impact that limitation in a positive way.

 

[rl225]

Live rock in a sump reduces the huge ugly rock wall in the DT. This would be the main reason for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gweston]

Live rock in a sump reduces the huge ugly rock wall in the DT. This would be the main reason for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 I am going this route with my new system. Rock in the displays is for putting corals on and appearance. The majority of liverock for filtration will be spread between the fuge and sump.

 

[Enavas]

Have you guys consider aglae turf scrapper? I heard that works very well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Not sure who you are asking, but I've certainly considered all possible methods.

An ATS can be a fine method, but I prefer the mix of methods I use. In general, however, having a variety of different methods is a good plan, IMO. Most have pros and cons that other methods can help deal with.

Be sure to get a balanced viewpoint on any method, and not just from vocal proponents of any method that purports to be "the" way to go.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

what determines the amount of bacteria? the surface area or the amount of food/resources available to the bacteria.

G~

 

[SneakyPete]

what determines the amount of bacteria? the surface area or the amount of food/resources available to the bacteria.

G~

I believe the answer to that question is "Yes".

If you don't have food for the bacteria, it won't/can't grow, but if you don't have anywhere for the bacteria to grow, it doesn't matter how much bacteria food you have in your tank.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

how much area is actually necessary for the bacteria to grow. they are colonial after all. what happens when bacteria are spread out over a larger area instead of congregated together? how does this affect their efficiency to process resources?

G~

 

[MaxxedMan]

what determines the amount of bacteria? the surface area or the amount of food/resources available to the bacteria.
G~

Both

I would like to point out, as an assumption, that most people do not purchase "extra rock" for their sump most of the time. You buy 100 lbs of rock, 70 looks good in the display, but you aren't going to just toss out the other 30 lbs...

If you want 80 lbs in your water volume, there are two places to put it that counts. If you don't want to waste extra rock, you can put it in your sump.

60 lbs of rock in your display is the same as 30 lbs in your display and 30 lbs in your sump. Determine how much rock you want, where you put it isn't as important.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

why do you even need 60lbs total? where did this number come from? who determined that 1lb. per gallon was what we needed? just because it sounds good?

G~

 

[MaxxedMan]

I wasn't commenting on how much you need, just saying once you get that number, put it where you want.

Some rock is a lot more dense, and provides very little surface area for the weight then light porous rock. The more porous and lighter your rock, the less weight of it you need to match heavier dense rock. Any measurement based on weight is flawed and meant as a starting point to be adjusted based on 100 factors. What do you like for rock? What do you want you aquascape to be? What other filtration do you have? What will your bioload be?

IMO, since bacteria growth is related to what it has to feed on, as long as it has places to grow, that the exact amount of rock isn't that important. 0.5 pound per gallon to 1.5 pounds per gallon probably has about the same effect.

(unless we start talking about hiding spots, breeding spots, coral placement, ect)

 

[markaren]

Both

I would like to point out, as an assumption, that most people do not purchase "extra rock" for their sump most of the time. You buy 100 lbs of rock, 70 looks good in the display, but you aren't going to just toss out the other 30 lbs...

If you want 80 lbs in your water volume, there are two places to put it that counts. If you don't want to waste extra rock, you can put it in your sump.

60 lbs of rock in your display is the same as 30 lbs in your display and 30 lbs in your sump. Determine how much rock you want, where you put it isn't as important.

This is what I was kinda thinking. To recap simply...rock in the sump can't not hurt. I was thinking of starting with a bareach sump firsT

Lots of perspective here...please keep adding methodology.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

rock in the sump can become problematic if it makes it harder to siphon out the detritus that accumulates in the sump. it can also collect the detritus that is flowing through the sump. just something else to clean.

make the tank work for you, not the other way around.

G~

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

what determines the amount of bacteria? the surface area or the amount of food/resources available to the bacteria.

G~

Both.