Rock Decisions...

neiltus · 08/08/2016, 04:31 PM

Wife and I are looking at rock for the 72g reefer...hoping some of the more recent people can chime in with some thoughts/observations re this...

Option
1) ~ 80 lbs of Pukani that has been cultured from PA.

2) a 55 lb box of walt smith 2.1 mixed with about 25 lbs of Manado.

I have never used manmade rock before...so what do the experienced say.

knutrainer · 08/08/2016, 05:07 PM

As far as I know the available surface area for man made rock is less than natural rock. So that means less available area for bacterial colonization which is important to have as much as possible. On the other hand some do not care for pukani as it can be a detritus trap but is easily manageable. I would stick with natural if it was my choice.

Butch01 · 08/08/2016, 06:52 PM

My understanding of the Walt Smith rock is exactly the opposite. Unless I'm misinformed, it's advertised as being more porous than natural rock, which is why (so it appears) that it attracts critters faster and more copiously when put in the ocean, as is done by Tampa Bay Saltwater.

I'm a total noob, but when I start my tank, I plan on getting the TBS "package".

j_mazzy · 08/08/2016, 07:06 PM

TBS package

Mr.Mulley54 · 08/08/2016, 08:24 PM

I have the 2.1 in my new setup and it cycled In 5 weeks with fish less cycle. Pure ammonia and dr. Time one and only and bio spira mix and live sand. Already noticed pods in rock. And not to mention it looks awesome in the tank from day one.

Grimreaperz · 08/09/2016, 05:32 AM

With my experience if it's DIY rock. (Cement/shells/salt) it's heavier and less surface area. I like the natural stuff due to the amount of natural hiding holes they come with and they are easy to cut/drill/shape to your needs for aqua scaping I'm only 3 months into the hobby but I accidently bought DIY rock from my LFS not knowing any better and wish I got the natural stuff instead I have a mixture of both though.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

SFish · 08/09/2016, 05:50 AM

I don't think you need 80LBS of Pukani it's bigger then most rock. If your only going with 55 LBS of the other rock then you would need even less Pukani to cover the same amount of space. I prefer the Pukani my self. It's easy to work with and you will get the most bang for your buck. If you go that route be sure to give it a lanthanum chloride bath. I would cure the rock outside the tank. In any case why limit your self to one kind of rock? Why not mix it up?

Defiant Arms · 08/09/2016, 07:07 AM

I'm either going with Tampa bay sw live rock or Caribsea life rock.

I really want the tbs live but I won't be home for a few weeks after I set up the tank to cycle and the wife probably won't want to catch hitchhikers.

That said the package by tbs for my tank is way bigger than what I need. I have a 90 and will probably go with the 45 package.

Capt.Nemo · 08/09/2016, 10:48 AM

I have about 60 lbs Pukani from BRS in my 75. It stacks, drills and shapes very easy. I requested specific sizes and shapes. Very affordable and very pourus

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Green Chromis · 08/09/2016, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant Arms

I'm either going with Tampa bay sw live rock or Caribsea life rock.

I really want the tbs live but I won't be home for a few weeks after I set up the tank to cycle and the wife probably won't want to catch hitchhikers.

That said the package by tbs for my tank is way bigger than what I need. I have a 90 and will probably go with the 45 package.

Nothing is better than a high quality live rock, nothing, it is more expensive then man made rock, for a reason. If you can afford a good high quality rock go for it, if not save up your money until you can afford it. After all , the live rock is the main biological filter for your tank. Why not wait until you get back before you buy your rock from TBS?

SFish · 08/09/2016, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt.Nemo

I have about 60 lbs Pukani from BRS in my 75. It stacks, drills and shapes very easy. I requested specific sizes and shapes. Very affordable and very pourus

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I like the two rocks on the right

Capt.Nemo · 08/09/2016, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFish

I like the two rocks on the right

That's 4 rocks, drilled with fiberglass rods. Drills like butter and no crumbling.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

SFish · 08/09/2016, 04:53 PM

This is what I'm working on

texdoc77 · 08/09/2016, 09:08 PM

Rock seems to get a lot of differing opinions. I went the live rock route when I set up my first tank and don't really have any regrets. However, for my second tank I decided on BRS reef saver rock for a couple of reasons. 1) I had some pests come in off the live rock and was never able to fully rid myself of them. 2) The curing process is quite time consuming 3) The cost is, IMHO, better spent elsewhere (like lights). I know TBS gets a lot of positive play and rightly so, but here again you have lots of pests coming in on the rock and it is fairly expensive.

Finally keep in mind that you can achieve excellent biological filtration with less rock if you use certain media in your sump and your biological filtration will only be as large as the bioload that feeds it.

My .02

Mr.Mulley54 · 08/13/2016, 07:42 PM

This is the Walter smith 2.1

Defiant Arms · 08/14/2016, 11:29 AM

messaged TBS and he is going to help me out and de bug his rock as good as he can before he sends it to me

Egg · 08/14/2016, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Mulley54

This is the Walter smith 2.1

Is that the "fake" live rock? Not so much the filtration capability, but the color. (painted) My LFS get's this stuff on occasion. There was always something fishy about it IMO.

SFish · 08/14/2016, 11:49 AM

All rock will end up colored like that. I just can't justify spending over $5 a LB on rock but that's just me.

Egg · 08/14/2016, 11:57 AM

I agree with that, but this does look like a new tank to me. It doesn't happen that quick without bits & pieces here & there.

SFish · 08/14/2016, 12:47 PM

Just takes time as all. That was my point. I care more about what the over all scape looks like then if the rock is purple right away or not.

SFish · 08/14/2016, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Chromis

Nothing is better than a high quality live rock, nothing, it is more expensive then man made rock, for a reason. If you can afford a good high quality rock go for it, if not save up your money until you can afford it. After all , the live rock is the main biological filter for your tank. Why not wait until you get back before you buy your rock from TBS?

All rock will become live rock in time. I would say it depends on how you intend to scape the tank. Base rock is way better if you intend to chop the rocks up to make new ones that don't exist. As for rock being the main filter in the tank that is true but ceramic plates in your sump can do a way better job then rocks can. I would focus on making the scape you want then throw a few plates in the sump if it looks like your light on rock in the DT.

Egg · 08/14/2016, 02:00 PM

So it is fake rock then right? I wasn't talking about the filtration capability, just the color in general. That's not natural IMO.

As far as filtration goes, I'll take live rock over the ceramic plates 8 days a week and twice on Sundays. These ceramic plates were designed to be rocks, only in a different form.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...ture/index.php

SFish · 08/14/2016, 02:37 PM

You clearly don't understand what the plates are. Rock doesn't have that much surface area. A lot of rock won't let water just run through it because it so pours. They are not designed to be rocks they are designed to be a better filter then rocks. I would not put them in the display tank. Just because it's not natural rock doesn't mean it can't be just as good or better.

Mr.Mulley54 · 08/14/2016, 04:17 PM

Ya I mean with the walt smiths 2.1 my tank cycled in 5 weeks so it's got to be doing somethin right, I have looked into the bio plates myself but as of now it's doing just fine and they clam the Walt smiths rock is just as porous if not more then natural live rock it just has the purple coloration people desire, plus without a ton or coraline algae my calcium will get taken up my my corals rather then the algae/ less dosing. But it's just my opinion I like the look of it and it does look natural in the tank. Just my two cents but it is rather expensive.

Egg · 08/14/2016, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFish

You clearly don't understand what the plates are. Rock doesn't have that much surface area. A lot of rock won't let water just run through it because it so pours. They are not designed to be rocks they are designed to be a better filter then rocks. I would not put them in the display tank. Just because it's not natural rock doesn't mean it can't be just as good or better.

lol, do you believe everything you read?

There's a reason why you don't see this stuff in the DT. I'll dunk all over you Shaq. You don't know who your dealing with here. Moderators might...

08/08/2016, 04:31 PM	#1
neiltus Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 415	Rock Decisions... Wife and I are looking at rock for the 72g reefer...hoping some of the more recent people can chime in with some thoughts/observations re this... Option 1) ~ 80 lbs of Pukani that has been cultured from PA. 2) a 55 lb box of walt smith 2.1 mixed with about 25 lbs of Manado. I have never used manmade rock before...so what do the experienced say. __________________ Build Thread http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2592260

08/09/2016, 05:50 AM	#7
SFish Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 2,062	I don't think you need 80LBS of Pukani it's bigger then most rock. If your only going with 55 LBS of the other rock then you would need even less Pukani to cover the same amount of space. I prefer the Pukani my self. It's easy to work with and you will get the most bang for your buck. If you go that route be sure to give it a lanthanum chloride bath. I would cure the rock outside the tank. In any case why limit your self to one kind of rock? Why not mix it up? Last edited by SFish; 08/09/2016 at 06:14 AM.

08/09/2016, 10:48 AM	#9
Capt.Nemo Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Franklin, KY Posts: 174	I have about 60 lbs Pukani from BRS in my 75. It stacks, drills and shapes very easy. I requested specific sizes and shapes. Very affordable and very pourus Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk __________________ if its plugged in, don't hit the puree button Current Tank Info: 75 gal salt & 29 gallon fresh

08/09/2016, 09:08 PM	#14
texdoc77 Registered Member Join Date: May 2015 Location: Waco, TX Posts: 417	Rock seems to get a lot of differing opinions. I went the live rock route when I set up my first tank and don't really have any regrets. However, for my second tank I decided on BRS reef saver rock for a couple of reasons. 1) I had some pests come in off the live rock and was never able to fully rid myself of them. 2) The curing process is quite time consuming 3) The cost is, IMHO, better spent elsewhere (like lights). I know TBS gets a lot of positive play and rightly so, but here again you have lots of pests coming in on the rock and it is fairly expensive. Finally keep in mind that you can achieve excellent biological filtration with less rock if you use certain media in your sump and your biological filtration will only be as large as the bioload that feeds it. My .02 __________________ "The terrible thing, the almost impossible thing, is to hand over your whole self; all your wishes and precautions; to Christ." -C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) Current Tank Info: Currently Rebuilding

08/14/2016, 11:49 AM	#18
SFish Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 2,062	All rock will end up colored like that. I just can't justify spending over $5 a LB on rock but that's just me. Last edited by SFish; 08/14/2016 at 11:55 AM.

08/08/2016, 05:07 PM	#2
knutrainer Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 48	As far as I know the available surface area for man made rock is less than natural rock. So that means less available area for bacterial colonization which is important to have as much as possible. On the other hand some do not care for pukani as it can be a detritus trap but is easily manageable. I would stick with natural if it was my choice.

08/08/2016, 06:52 PM	#3
Butch01 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 117	My understanding of the Walt Smith rock is exactly the opposite. Unless I'm misinformed, it's advertised as being more porous than natural rock, which is why (so it appears) that it attracts critters faster and more copiously when put in the ocean, as is done by Tampa Bay Saltwater. I'm a total noob, but when I start my tank, I plan on getting the TBS "package".

08/08/2016, 07:06 PM	#4
j_mazzy Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: about an hour from charlotte Posts: 622	TBS package

08/08/2016, 08:24 PM	#5
Mr.Mulley54 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: gloucester, ma Posts: 135	I have the 2.1 in my new setup and it cycled In 5 weeks with fish less cycle. Pure ammonia and dr. Time one and only and bio spira mix and live sand. Already noticed pods in rock. And not to mention it looks awesome in the tank from day one.

08/09/2016, 05:32 AM	#6
Grimreaperz Registered Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: British Columbia Posts: 518	With my experience if it's DIY rock. (Cement/shells/salt) it's heavier and less surface area. I like the natural stuff due to the amount of natural hiding holes they come with and they are easy to cut/drill/shape to your needs for aqua scaping I'm only 3 months into the hobby but I accidently bought DIY rock from my LFS not knowing any better and wish I got the natural stuff instead I have a mixture of both though. Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

08/09/2016, 07:07 AM	#8
Defiant Arms Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 39	I'm either going with Tampa bay sw live rock or Caribsea life rock. I really want the tbs live but I won't be home for a few weeks after I set up the tank to cycle and the wife probably won't want to catch hitchhikers. That said the package by tbs for my tank is way bigger than what I need. I have a 90 and will probably go with the 45 package.

08/09/2016, 04:53 PM	#13
SFish Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 2,062	This is what I'm working on

08/13/2016, 07:42 PM	#15
Mr.Mulley54 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: gloucester, ma Posts: 135	This is the Walter smith 2.1

08/14/2016, 11:29 AM	#16
Defiant Arms Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 39	messaged TBS and he is going to help me out and de bug his rock as good as he can before he sends it to me

08/14/2016, 11:57 AM	#19
Egg Moved On Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 16	I agree with that, but this does look like a new tank to me. It doesn't happen that quick without bits & pieces here & there. Last edited by Egg; 08/14/2016 at 12:10 PM.

08/14/2016, 12:47 PM	#20
SFish Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 2,062	Just takes time as all. That was my point. I care more about what the over all scape looks like then if the rock is purple right away or not. Last edited by SFish; 08/14/2016 at 01:25 PM.

08/14/2016, 02:00 PM	#22
Egg Moved On Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 16	So it is fake rock then right? I wasn't talking about the filtration capability, just the color in general. That's not natural IMO. As far as filtration goes, I'll take live rock over the ceramic plates 8 days a week and twice on Sundays. These ceramic plates were designed to be rocks, only in a different form. http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...ture/index.php

08/14/2016, 02:37 PM	#23
SFish Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 2,062	You clearly don't understand what the plates are. Rock doesn't have that much surface area. A lot of rock won't let water just run through it because it so pours. They are not designed to be rocks they are designed to be a better filter then rocks. I would not put them in the display tank. Just because it's not natural rock doesn't mean it can't be just as good or better. Last edited by SFish; 08/14/2016 at 03:14 PM.

08/14/2016, 04:17 PM	#24
Mr.Mulley54 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: gloucester, ma Posts: 135	Ya I mean with the walt smiths 2.1 my tank cycled in 5 weeks so it's got to be doing somethin right, I have looked into the bio plates myself but as of now it's doing just fine and they clam the Walt smiths rock is just as porous if not more then natural live rock it just has the purple coloration people desire, plus without a ton or coraline algae my calcium will get taken up my my corals rather then the algae/ less dosing. But it's just my opinion I like the look of it and it does look natural in the tank. Just my two cents but it is rather expensive.