Live Rock Busted!!

[aquariumdebacle]

The issue is not about processing wastes. The issue needs to be exporting wastes in excess of what is cycled. You have a very low bio-load and you do the usual recommended water changes so I don't think calling it a loaded system is accurate.

The real problem is not with nitrates at all, it is with phosphates. You are probably right in your assumption that the nitrates are being processed but with out a significant export mechanism you are slowly building phosphates in the system.

Phosphates in particular are a real problem for corals. They replace the calcium ions and have a much more loose and latticed structure to the skeleton. This cause the coral to become weak and brittle as well as allowing sites of tissue damage. This provides a place for hair algae to grow on the coral. Anytime you see a little tuft of algae growing it is a sign that you have too many phosphates.

A good export system can keep the phosphate levels at bay. This should include primarily an oversized expensive skimmer and regular water changes. Phosphate adsorbers work to keep the small amounts down. When diatoms start forming on the glass in a visible amount it is time to change the adsorber medium.

What you put in to the tank does not magically disappear with live rock or any other method. Waste must be physically removed or it will just stay there.

 

[csababubbles]

ok you can't really argue with someone's fish dreams ;-)

 

[csababubbles]

"The issue is not about processing wastes. The issue needs to be exporting wastes in excess of what is cycled."

Phosphates are not a huge issue in regards to health of fish. Corals do but we are not talking about a tank with corals here. Phosphate simply fuels algae growth. Hence why people have macro algae in their sumps. My cheato seems to be growing very well and I have little nuisance microalgae. But this is the exact same thing that can happen with a regular tank with live rock. You find a method to reduce phosphates, but thats not really an issue relevant to this discussion.

 

[burning2nd]

no arguement here... its simple
www.reeffrontiers.com Key word in the adress is REEF.

2nd key word REEF tank.
reef's are not reefs with out Rock.

Fiji, soloman island, tonga

ive never seen a SPS tank with out reef rock.

 

[csababubbles]

And in the era of wet-dry filters, you almost never saw live rock in a tank. methods change. you think we should stop trying to evolve this hobby?

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

In my tank... yes.

In your tank... I really don't care. Evolve all you want. Not really sure why it has to be one way or another.

And while a picture of your tank would be nice, I'm really curious as to what a horny panda is?

 

[JeffGil]

I'm curious to see a picture too. I've been lurking reading these posts and I'll preface my comments by saying that I'm thinking the forum mods are pretty much experts on this stuff and know what they're talking about. Additionally, these are all my personal opinions and not based on any kind of true research or experimentation.

I personally believe that live rock is required for reef & fish tanks, but maybe fish only tanks, with very few fish, can get by without it...getting by not being the same as being happy without it. I've never seen a real reef without...well the reef, and never seen a fish who lives on reef structures chilling out in the middle of the ocean without it happily.

I don't think the results from your 'experiment' can truly be proven without creating an exact duplicate (or as close as possible) to a reef tank with live rock. If you can create, and sustain for some period of time, a non-live rock/sand aquarium with the same types of fish and/or corals that you can sustain in a similarily sized reef tank with live rock and sand then I'd say it's time to close the book on live rock and sand. I'd be very interested to see those results as live rock has always been a major expense in setting up marine aquaria so if it can be replaced by something else then I'm onboard. It needs to be a true experiment though with a standard reef setup to compare the results against even if it's only two 10 gallon tanks.

Your current set up doesn't seem to be very bioligically loaded to me and there's no control group with live rock and sand to compare it to in order to really claim any result against. I personally think you're just getting by with a minimal amount filtration needed to keep the tank going and if you add much more it's going to crash.

Of course, the same could be said of running a tank without live sand a few years ago and now that is all the rage. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just saying that your efforts could be being wasted right now without a solid baseline (aka similar live rock/sand aquarium to baseline against) to prove your results. Without that it's always going to be your opinion against others.

I would love to see the results of a true experiment like that, but for now, I'm sticking to live rock and sand because I think that's better both physically and mentally for the inhabitants of my tanks, and because live rock is so expensive I'm sure someone else has tried this before and failed.

 

[trido]

Wow Ive been watching this one for a while now!

so why is everyone so invested in this whole live rock deal? it brings with it bad hitchhikers including crabs, glass anenomes, valonia, caluerpa, etc. etc. It costs a lot of money too. Using artifical decor,

Artificial decor is exactly that. Fake. I gave up plastic plants, rock, and bubbling ships a long time ago. Ive also created faux back walls and rocks, and seen some real nice purchased stuff that is new on the market. It still can't compare to what mother nature has created over hundreds and thousand of years. Without natural decor for my reef Ill save myself the thousands on lighting etc. and set up a guppy tank for my five year old.

Only thing I could think of is that there must be some sort of really thin layer of bacteria over every surface area of the tank that is making use of this energy

Your right, there is a thin layer over every surface. In the hobby, we call it denitrifying bacteria. Alot of us reefers set up QT and hospital tanks exactly the same way. That works great if you keep your bioload to a minimum as you've done. The nice thing about LR is it is extremely porous increasing the amount of bioload that a given tank can handle. Your 30 for example. Even if you put more of you ceramic structures in it Say 20 lbs. I doubt you would be able to keep SPS thriving long term. Now add 20 lbs of LR. The LR likely has at least 50x the surface area of any thing man made. As long as you keep up on WC's, give adequate lighting and flow. Your SPS will thrive. Diligent people have done it in nanos without skimmers for years

You claim that LR brings unwanted hitch hikers. I can tell you from experience. The diatoms, cyano, algeas, and pest anenomes are far less severe to most reefers than the pathogens that come in on the corals and fish that we intend to keep any way. For example, fin rot, flukes, ich, red bugs, monti eatin nudi's and acro eating flatworms just to name a few.

You've hardly busted live rock. You've simply set up a system that alot of SW keepers were using back in the 80s. Your just one step in front of an under gravel filter.

 

[dailydriven911]

So the macroalgae is taking in your nitrates. Try removing your macros and see what happens. I'm a big believer in the use of l/r. You seem to think your on to something here but like duane (trido) mentioned it's just a hospital tank.

 

[burning2nd]

lol its funny.... all the old heads except for a few that were able to change there old ways... are all about how hard a salt water tank is to keep...

when you tell people at work or something like that.. you always get the "arnt they really hard to keep"

and im over here like damn near hands free.....

times change Free flowing anti detritus makeing systems are the key.. skimmers and LR
no filter pads no mechanical filtation...

not that its not still used... but its what i consiter to be secondary types of filtration.. i mean i just got that diotom filter to polish the water... and it works good.. but i would never rely on a Hob filter or can filter to keep my tank pritty

 

[burning2nd]

also id like to state the painfull truth....

here we are 4 pages latter still runing our mouths about how are tank doesnt need LR... and i still havent seen a picture.

 

[tike]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.......................

 

[Krish]

I just glanced over everything (didn't read every single detail) and not sure if it was mentioned yet, but in order for denitrification to take place, you have to have anaerobic zones (void of oxygen) for the necessary anaerobic bacteria to peform the function. Denitrification cannot take place in aerobic zones where oxygen is present so therefore, what is happeneing in this tank is probably not denitrification, but rather nutrient export by the macro algae. With a small bioload and with water changes, the limited amount of waste that is being produced by the fish etc, the algae and the water changes alone can probably easily take care of. However, toss in more bioload and you may have a problem. Add corals into the mix and they may not thrive...Who knows. A FO system is by far the easiest thing to take care of. A reef setup that consists of fish, inverts, corals etc is a different story. You need stability with all your parameters for everything to do well. I live in the Bahamas near the ocean and dive regularily and I have never seen a "reef" with just fish only

In any event, to each his own. Personally, I'd never suggest someone run a tank without atleast liverock in it, but that is just my opinion. You look at a real reef and what is the first thing you see that makes up the entire foundation of a reef? Rock...Must serve a purpose

 

[jhampton_wsu]

I just read this thread. I'm curious how the experiment and picture downloads are coming along.

 

[burning2nd]

lol Burn!!!...

ya need Lr...

 

[boosted306]

Any picture yet?