Live Rock Saturation?

[Scooterman]

All some very good ramblings curt, I think your right about the time we cure rocks one thing to consider is transit these days is probably a little faster causing less time out of the water & dieing off but all the same I think you should qt (cook) rock throughly before using them, one thing mojo always stressed from as far as I can remember & he was particular on this, is his rocks, he took time to pick them of unwanted nasties & cured them well better than most I'd say. I guess some of this we talked back and forth indirectly but this thread recalls what we already know just more focused on the lr. Thanks mojo, MikeS & Curt all very good information, Mojo I really like the way you worded things it opened up other questions, unfortunately I have to go to work ugggg!

 

[mojoreef]

All in all....would you classify Live Rock as "bioload" on the tank, or more of a response to the system? I say initally it contributes to bioload, but in the long run, it is more of a response to the individual system it is in...

Bioload for sure, it comsumes and wastes and it also puts a hit on oxygen levels

MikeS

Two observations in my tank history lead me to believe this...first...with a DSB I saw virtually no shed from my rock

LR that sits on a sand system (or any sediment system) is not really LR as we know it but rather an extention of the sediment system it lays upon. Shed is caused by bacterial action and gravity. the grow of bacteria, thier death, biproducts, enymes and so forth are occuring in a place (the rock) that has a limitied amount of space, as the above functions occur material is forced out (kinda like Booomers watermelon and the butt theory, lol) from their gravity takes hold and and because thier is an open bottom the material sheds. LR will shed alot more with the bottom uncovered. When the rock is lying on the sand or simular you loose that gravity pull, as in the center out type of matrix. What you get instead is migration of material to the sand to feed it, or if the sand system is saturated then you get a migration of material into the rock.


Mike

 

[Curtswearing]

I know I'm going to be sorry for asking this. However, what is Boomer's "Watermelon and Butt Theory"?

 

[mojoreef]

LOL its basically the rock is limited in the space it provides, trying to add more into a saturated space is like try to....................... hehe


Mike

 

[CarlaW]

I know I'm going to be sorry for asking this. However, what is Boomer's "Watermelon and Butt Theory"?

Your are right Curt, that is one heck of an analogy!!!!


Following an earlier thought, does anybody think that we might have to rethink our theories of curing live rock?
With alot of the newer, more porous rock, that is showing up, and more people going to BB systems, our theories of detritus removal might also need updating.

 

[Scooterman]

Boomer's "Watermelon and Butt Theory"?

No way man this just can't happen :lol: Boomer must have one big #%$ Butt that is all I can say.

 

[Curtswearing]

Good heavens!!! I knew I was going to be sorry.

 

[MikeS]

Bioload for sure, it comsumes and wastes and it also puts a hit on oxygen levels

Agreed, it definately does consume and produce waste. The others had hit on this fact. The effect on oxygen is a very good and interesting point as well. Pherhaps we are simply dealing with different definitions of "bioload". Personally (and my view on it may be a bit myoptic and overly simple) when I hear the term "bioload" I tend to think of the higher organisims in the tank, in particular the ones that require nutrient input from we the reefkeeper, ie, fish in particular. To me this is the primary bioload on the tank, this is how nutrients are introduced. The other organisims that are not being directly fed by the reefkeeper I tend to see as either secondary and/or responsive to the intial input of nutrients into the system. I do realize that this is a vastly complex system, but isn't the real limiter here the amount of nutrients being introduced into the system in the first place? That's why I see LR as secondary or responsive to the initial load on the system. Am I being too simplistic here on my view of bioload? I really do understand what everybody else is saying about rock consuming and producing waste, but to me (and I'm going to qualify this by referring to an older system where the inital nutrients stored in the rock no longer are a factor) the consumption and waste production seen in the live rock is dependant upon and responsive to the available nutirents in the tank. After all, we are not feeding the rock directly...I guess I have always viewed the term "bioload" in referrence to the amount of nutrients initally introduced into the system...

LR that sits on a sand system (or any sediment system) is not really LR as we know it but rather an extention of the sediment system it lays upon. Shed is caused by bacterial action and gravity. the grow of bacteria, thier death, biproducts, enymes and so forth are occuring in a place (the rock) that has a limitied amount of space, as the above functions occur material is forced out (kinda like Booomers watermelon and the butt theory, lol) from their gravity takes hold and and because thier is an open bottom the material sheds. LR will shed alot more with the bottom uncovered. When the rock is lying on the sand or simular you loose that gravity pull, as in the center out type of matrix. What you get instead is migration of material to the sand to feed it, or if the sand system is saturated then you get a migration of material into the rock.


Mike

So you are saying this process is basically more physical in nature (migration into the sandbed) rather than biological (processing of nutrients in the sandbed in addition to the rock)?

Thanks again mojo....

MikeS

 

[mojoreef]

when I hear the term "bioload" I tend to think of the higher organisims in the tank

Does a 3 inch fish produce the same amount of bioload as 50Lbs of rock?? or say a 4 foot by 2 foot by 6 inch sandbed?? does a school of fish?? Or the opposing question does a fish burn off more energy?? that is something that can be figured out, I will dig a little and see what I can come up with.

So you are saying this process is basically more physical in nature (migration into the sandbed) rather than biological (processing of nutrients in the sandbed in addition to the rock)?

What I am saying is that both LR and sediment systems operate pretty much the same way. Sediment can carry more bacteria but can a bed shed if it sits in a tank with a bottom and four sides? The bottom line to everything we are trying to achieve with either sand or LR is the exporting of nutrients, are we truely doing this?? or is it more like a final polish of nutrients that maybe left over??


Mike

 

[MikeS]

Does a 3 inch fish produce the same amount of bioload as 50Lbs of rock?? or say a 4 foot by 2 foot by 6 inch sandbed?? does a school of fish?? Or the opposing question does a fish burn off more energy?? that is something that can be figured out, I will dig a little and see what I can come up with.

Thanks mojo....I get your point. Does everybody else in the discussion see "bioload" this way? Again, I've always viewed it as inital nutrient input, but I definately do agree that anything alive in the tank, bacteria included, will change the dynamics of the system. I don't think any of us was in disagreement on this point at all, perhaps what we (or maybe just me:lol: ) needed is a good definition of the term "bioload" that we could all agree on, or at least all understand what is meant by the term as far as this discussion is concerned...

What I am saying is that both LR and sediment systems operate pretty much the same way.

I would defiantely agree with this...only diifference is particle size...

Sediment can carry more bacteria but can a bed shed if it sits in a tank with a bottom and four sides? The bottom line to everything we are trying to achieve with either sand or LR is the exporting of nutrients, are we truely doing this?? or is it more like a final polish of nutrients that maybe left over??

Very good point....and I would say there would be the attraction of a plumbed plenum with the ability to remove this shed, for those interested in a substrate in the tank...hmmm...this gives me an idea for a different thread :lol: (no....not a plenum thread)...:lol:

MikeS

 

[mojoreef]

Mike the reason I would classify LR and sediment as a bioload is that in the wild Sediments near reefs and LR masses are actually one of the main primary producers of both N and P. NOT a reducer of the before mentioned.


Mike

 

[mojoreef]

Back up.

The occurrence of P and N in the sediments has been investigated on Davies Reef in the central region of the Great Barrier Reef Complex. Concentrations of inorganic P and N in the water were typical of nutrient-depleted tropical surface water. Carbonate sediments were found to contain a uniform pool of P (300 ppm by wt), principally in the form of inorganic phosphate. The interstitial water of the surface layer of sediment contained micromolar concentrations of inorganic P and even higher concentrations of inorganic N, principally as ammonium.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-3590%28198305%2928%3A3%3C465%3APANICR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE

The primary source of nutrients for seagrass growth is considered to be the sediment porewater.Concentrations of nutrients in porewater varied widely, with median values of 0.34 mu M for soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) and 78.6 mu M for NH sub(4)u+. SRP and NH sub(4)u+ concentrations were positively correlated. Due to spatial heterogeneity, there were no apparent trends with sediment depth (down to 40 cm) in the porewater nutrient concentrations

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2962867&q=nutrients+from+Carbonate+sediments+&uid=787193607&setcookie=yes

determine the role of fine-grain calcium carbonate and high organic matter on sedimentary P, we investigated the solid-phase P pools in seagrass sediments. Calcium-bound P accounted for approximately 56% of total P and 96% of inorganic P. Our total calcium-bound P was in the range (34–151 µg P g-1) reported for coarse-grained low organic sediments, while the organic P associated with this fraction was slightly (10%) higher than those reported for other carbonate systems. The second dominant P fraction was residual organic P (30–71 µg P g-1) accounting for 42% of TP.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://ap/ec/2001/00000052/00000002/art00751&unc=

In contrast, nearshore tropical ecosystems are more susceptible to nitrogen loading as depurative capacity of the microbial communities is limited by the fragility of the nitrification link. At the same time, accumulation of organic matter in nearshore carbonate sediments appears to impair their capacity for phosphorus immobilization. In the absence of depurative mechanisms for either phosphorus or nitrogen, limitation for both these nutrients is alleviated and continued nutrient loading fuels the proliferation of nuisance algae.

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=4582814

The sediments associated with these mat-forming and rhizophytic species appear to function as localized nutrient sources, making sustained growth possible despite the oligotrophic water column. In wave-exposed habitats such as the Kaneohe Bay Barrier Reef flat, water motion is higher than at protected sites, sediment nutrient concentrations are low, and zones of high nutrient concentrations do not develop near or beneath macroalgae, including dense Sargassum echinocarpum canopies. Under these conditions, macroalgae evidently depend on rapid advection of low-nutrient water from the water column, rather than benthic nutrient sources, to sustain growth.

http://www.springerlink.com/(xktoul45v2yody55srkuzgfb)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,19;journal,89,109;linkingpublicationresults,1:100441,1


thiers lots more


Mike

 

[Maxx]

Great thread.
I've been trying to follow along but work has prevented me from really being able to keep up with the thread as it grows......

So we are now re-classifying LR as a bio-load in the tank....I might be nit picky here, but I tend to think of the rock as the location of choice for bacteria and other animals to do their thing, and they are the bioload.

As a question to those who've seen shedding LR even after cooking the rock, How did you cook the rock? There is a good thread over on RC that basically defines (according to the thread starter anyway) the correct method to cook the rock. As far as I understand things, incorrectly cooking the rock, means you're not cooking the rock.

The purpose of "cooking" your rocks is to have the bacteria consume all (or as much) organic material and PO4 stored on, and in, the rock as possible.

The first step to this is commitment.
You have to be willing to remove your rock from the tank.
It doesn't have to be all at once, but I feel if you are going to do this do it all. In stages if that is easier but make sure that all of it gets done.

The new environment you are creating for your rock is to take it from an algal driven to a bacterial driven system.
In order to do this, the rock needs to be in total darkness to retard and eventually kill the algae's on the rock and to give the bacteria time to do the job.

From The "How to go Barebottom thread."

If you're not keeping your rock in a light tight container, you're not keeping the algae from utilyzing photosynthesis. If it can use photosynthesis, it will keep growing and utilyzing nutrients in the water column and in the rock itself....as opposed to the bacteria we want to use the nutrients....

My rocks werent kept in a light tight container, and I didnt change the water they in....I'm also noticing some hair algae in the cracks and crevices, and some other types of algae in other places. Might be unrelated, but I kinda doubt it.

Nick

 

[Scooterman]

Nick I had a solid rubbermade cover on my rocks, I also changed out the water often or as it smelled.

 

[mojoreef]

So we are now re-classifying LR as a bio-load in the tank....I might be nit picky here, but I tend to think of the rock as the location of choice for bacteria and other animals to do their thing, and they are the bioload

Was it ever classified as anything but?? if so what?? The rock is of coarse a location to house bacteria and other higher life forms, including algal systems.
On the system of cooking as outlined I dont think your ever going to kill the algae syste on the rock, you may reduce it, eliminate some but definately not all.
I think we are kind of missing something here. From reading the thread we are tending to be concentrating on individual components instead of the total system. Algae will thrive in a more nutrient laidened enviroment and corals will thrive in a more nutrient poor system (again pending on the coral). If you have issues with algae you have your system leaning more to the algaes enviroment. So you need to go in thier and change that. Controling input we all know about so lets stick with nutrients bound in the rock. Bacteria will cycle nutrients while only using fractional amounts as energy so total relience on them will work but its going to take some time. With deeper collected rocks your going to get more nutrient content due mainly to the content of sponge, so physically removing them is a far quicker way to achieve your goal in this case, Scratch and snifff baby, lol.
For rocks that are just saturated (as in older rocks that are full of detritus) sometimes thiers just no way to catch it up the natural cycling way, unless you have a lot of time on your hands, So in those cases I tend to just boil the &((* out of it and call it a day.


Mike

 

[Maxx]

How often did you do water changes Scott?

You don't want the detritus to sit there long enough to rot, release water soluble P again. You want to take it out while it's still locked up in that bacterial detritus.

During the first couple of weeks it is recommended to do a swishing and dunking of the rocks twice a week.
What this entails is to make up enough water to fill up those buckets and the tub the rock is in.
First, lay out your empty tub(s) and fill buckets the same as before.
Then, uncover tub with the rock in it. Take a rock and swish it in the tub it's in to knock any easy to get off junk.
Then, swish it thru the 3 buckets again, and place in the empty tub..
Repeat for all your rocks.
Then empty the tub that all the rocks were cooking in, take it outside and rinse it out with a hose.
Place tub back where it was, fill with new saltwater, add rocks and powerheads, and cover.
Wait again until the next water change.
You will be utterly amazed at how much sand, silt, detritus is at the bottom of the tub and every bucket. It is amazing.

I should clarify....I'm not saying "YOU DID IT WRONG!!!", rather, what I thought was the right way to cook rocks was not the case....I feel that if I had actually followed that particular thread to a T, I woulndt be seeing as much algae as I am now. I feel that my circulation is not up to keeping things in suspension so the skimmer or corals can get to them.
Hope that makes sense...

Nick

 

[Scooterman]

Nick I didn't go to his extreme but every week I did flush the rocks & change water, It helped the rocks very much but these rocks ware plugged up & full of algae, this guy your referring to is being a little extreme & it still wouldn't remove all the algae or up-plug a stopped up rock unless you cooked it over a year like Scott did & he still had problems with it. I had Razor that was actually doing well in the dark.

 

[Maxx]

That doesnt make sense to me Scott...algae needs 3 things to survive...
Food/fertilizer...P and N
Light
water

If you eliminate one of the three, the algae dies. Is it possible your rubber maid container was translucent enough to allow light through the sides?

Nick

 

[Scooterman]

The container is solid Grey, it is also kept in my garage where most of the time it is dark unless I'm going or coming from work it usually is closed. The algae will stay alive that is all I can tell you, what about deep sea algae?

 

[Maxx]

Mike,
Good point regarding looking at the system as a whole....I have a tendancy to pick apart things, and dissect one issue at a time when dealing with something as complicated as this...makes it less overwhelming in my mind I guess...

Scott, hope it doesnt sound like I'm trying to argue with you, (cause I'm not...honest )...
I've been SCUBA diving many times, and I havent found algae at depths greater than 80-90 feet. At that point, the red, yellow and orange wavelengths are filtered out of the water, leaving behind blue and purple wavelengths...which dont support algae growth well.

What algae were you referring to?

Nick