Live Rock Saturation?

Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum

Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:

maxx said:
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.

I would tend to agree with your definition Nick, that is how I always pretty much viewed it....

mojoreef said:
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.

I suppose I never really thought of bacteria when I hear the term "bioload"...but yes, there is no denying they consume, produce waste, and use oxygen...As stated many times above, I've always defined "bioload" as the origional amount of nutrients introduced into the system...this being the main limiter to bacterial populations...but a very good point, these definatly do have a huge impact on the system as a whole biologically speaking...

MikeS
 
maxx said:
Mike,
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

Ahh, so whatever light gets through in the tub must be enough to keep it alive, if we remove it twice a week as mentioned will that aid to keeping it alive more? It stayed on my rock months, so what else is keeping it going if it isn't getting light? Unless totally void light it can survive it may seem. Just because you can't see the algae doesn't mean it isn't loaded with it, deeper down I'd imagine it is different algae, lets not get into that but lets figure out how much light is required to keep it going because it doesn't seem to take much, not grow but stay alive.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03mex/background/seaweeds/seaweeds.html
 
some algaes are able to go dormant in less than ideal conditions, right? Pherhas this is what you are seeing?

MikeS
 
I think the green algae that didn't die off was doing very well before cooking & it wasn't letting go but Nick made a good point about light. MikeS that may be the problem also maybe it was going dormant. The tub I used was a long brute grey with a dark blue cover, it was garage kept & covered unless I was attending to it. Over the months of cooking I removed lots of shedding & changed lots of water, I think like MoJo said normal cooking of rocks would of worked fine but some rock that was really dense & very filthy it probably would of taked twice as long or more, keeping this huge tub & doing the extra wc's was getting to be too much (this tub sat there with rocks in it on & off over 6 months). I think it was several things that caused problems, one very dense Clogged rock, two I think the process was working as I saw what they were dumping but probably I could of gone farther like in the links Nick posted, & lastly maybe they were getting enough light to keep alive this part is a tuff one to swallow because I tried to keep it dark but hey I was in there every week sturring up canging water. I would bet & open pouros rock would probably cook quicker. I thnk If you compare in a 100g tank 200lbs of live rock loded with life to lets say 5 medium fish, that the rocks would actually pose a greater load than the fish, billions of micro-organisms compared to a few fish that poop so much in a day, so I tend to agree the rock is a bio-load requirng food in my case I think my rocks weren't hungry they had enough food on them to last a long time without extra feeding in the tank.
 
I've always defined "bioload" as the origional amount of nutrients introduced into the system
Sure it works that way to. You have a empty tank with just water in it and then add LR, which contains all the critters, bacteria and an amount of detritus locked into cycle. Also you then must add the amount of critters (algaes, sponges and so on) that are dead from shipping and/or are on their way out. The initical cycle we put our tanks through is basically the building up of a population of bacteria (or bioload).

Remember the whole strategy of bacteria is not to export or remove nutrients. It IS to constantly cycle them over and over and over again.


mike
 
mojo - I'm not sure if you've had a chance to read through the thread yet, but my thoughts were the bacteria in my rock was recycling, and the algae was either feeding on the bacterial end products and/or using what nutrients were available by way of wastes and other inputs (ie food). I'm just trying to get a handle on this.

Also, the links you had posted, I see what you're saying about N and P being produced as opposed to being reduced, however, there are two quotes you have talking about seagrass sediments. To me this would be a more lagoonal area. This can be applied to liverock, too? (I'm not trying to be such an idiot here, just want to get my brain around this).

maxx said:
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.

Let me just say...I've seen Nick's tank, and if I had as little algae as he has, I'd be jumping for joy. :p

maxx said:
If you eliminate one of the three, the algae dies.

What about algae spores? Wouldn't "properly cured" (whatever that might be) live rock then not have any algae cycle when introduced to a new tank? Doesn't everyone go through an aglae cycle when they set-up? I don't think our systems can actually ever by void of algae, can they? Obviously, we get to a point where there is coralline algae, but as far as nuisance algaes go, can you truely be completely void of them? Are they an integral part of our little ecosystems?

At what point should someone consider boiling rock as opposed to cooking it? My understanding of boiling is the low pH of the water aids in melting (? if thats the correct term) any detritus plugged up in it, and the vaporizing effects help to push it out? Also, the extreme heat would kill everything in there. I do have other rocks I wish to boil prior to going back into my display. MikeS had pointed out in a chat that he thought I should do water changes in my boiling pot in order to export the nutrients. I did not do this, as the water level decreased as it was, and the boiling process would not have been continuous if I performed water changes. Thoughts?
 
I have read through most of this thread and others like it. It provides for interesting and entertaining discussion but my gut feeling on it after 10 years in this hobby is that it's just another fad just like the DSB stuff we went through. Anyway that is my take on it.
 
WaterDogs said:
I have read through most of this thread and others like it. It provides for interesting and entertaining discussion but my gut feeling on it after 10 years in this hobby is that it's just another fad just like the DSB stuff we went through. Anyway that is my take on it.

What's another fad, the BB tanks, Live rock being saturated, or cooking live rock?
 
Remember the whole strategy of bacteria is not to export or remove nutrients. It IS to constantly cycle them over and over and over again.

This has to be the best answer I got so far, it really changes my thinking of the whole process, dam you Mike LOL really I really never though of it that way , I guess I thought of it more as a processing plant then dumping the neutral by-product out into the tank to be skimmed off.
 
I'm not sure if you've had a chance to read through the thread yet, but my thoughts were the bacteria in my rock was recycling, and the algae was either feeding on the bacterial end products and/or using what nutrients were available by way of wastes and other inputs (ie food). I'm just trying to get a handle on this.
Yes your bacteria will always be cycling but the algae is more of a competitor to bacteria and doesnt really go after most of the biproducts that bacteria produce. To me I would say that your LR had an ammount of sponge in them and it take a long time for that material to disinagrate and then be used up by bacteria and simular. What you have seems to but just a larger longer lasting P cycle going from algae blooms to bacteria bloom. Got to remember the tank went with out preds for a long time to?

Scott one has to look at the whole ecosystem in the wild when tring to find out what one things purpose is. Reefs carry the mass majority of bioload on the planet, yet they have the lowest content of nutrients, how does this occur?? We also kow that bacterial processes are a very slow process and require massive amounts of players.
What happenes is that nutrient for the most part are swept out to more open water and then drop, I am sure we have all seen the tv shows where deep divers are swimming around in a snow storm. In these waters sediment is not required for bacteria to do thier processes. Aerobic and anaerobic processes occur in the water column. In this scenerio thier is alot of mixing of the zones and processes and the result is massive releases of ammonium which upwells and feeds/creates phytoplankton blooms which once again upwells and goes back into the food system of the reef. This is the rough outline of what happens in the cycle of nutrients in the wild.
With our tanks we dont have the ability for nutrients to make this journey, instead we tend to keep the nutrientsoff them into the abyss, it tends of overload them and then makes them more specialized towards the algae side of the game. Now they have become more of a sink, this is why we promote the use of strong flow and blowing off the LR.
When one cooks thier rock all they are trying to do is to eliminate the external food source and light for photo, and then basicall let the bacteria with in cycle and use up the material that is with in it. This process is effective but it is slow, one can assume that only about 5% is going to be used as energy and burnt off through the cycle. How long this takes is kind of up in the air (pending on amount of available nutrient and bacteria to use it). Now thier are also a number of things that screw up this cycle and interupt it or change the overall outcome. The presence of ammonia will inhibit the enzyme that bacteria use to convert nitrite to nitrate, so that process stops, instead it converts it to ammonium and the process starts over again. The presence of oxygen is another inhibitor that will screw up the N cycle, thier are many of these cases. For P its a slightly different game and tends to play in the animal (bacteria) / algae world. Bacteria bind it up into thier matrix and use it up by building thier population, this continues until the bloom of B begins to die off because they have used it up, from thier algae binds it to thier matrix (also algae can take it directly but bacteria is pretty quick) this pendulm keeps swinging from one to the other decreasing in size as the P is burnt off. .
So anyway this is what we face, for me I choose to physically remove as much dieing/decaying material prior to it going in my tank (scratch and sniff), then I try to keep the waste/detritus in the water column with this I can remove the majority of waste in mechanical meathods rather then putting to much load on the rock, and thus the rock acts more like a polisher for me.

Sorry for the long rambling


Mike
 
WaterDogs said:
Live rock being saturated and cooking live rock.

Hmmm...I would not have put this in the "fad" category myself...interested to hear your reasoning behind this....:D

MikeS
 
I really don't understand how this could be even remotely considered a fad. I guess people don't really know what happens to their rock & what they are doing, the process has been around as long as people used LR.
 
Scooterman said:
I really don't understand how this could be even remotely considered a fad. I guess people don't really know what happens to their rock & what they are doing, the process has been around as long as people used LR.


It's discussions like this that help people understand what is going on in their systems.
Maybe you want to consider it a fad if you aren't having any problems.:( :(
 
At my local meeting today, I was discussing this thread with Nikki. The question I came up with to her was...If the rock was covered in a calcerous algae would it still act like a sponge, and would it affect the rocks ability to act as a bio filter?

Scott
 
The thing is, I don't think that a rock can be totally covered in coralline, becuase the bottom of the rock usually doesn't get lite. I don't think it would affect the ability to act as the bio-filter.
 
I'm sure coralline will cover some of the pours leading into the rock, this is a really good question because some people have it loaded with coralline.
 
That is a very good question...

I'm pretty sure the coralline is porous to a degree, I'm seeing shed in my tank from rocks completely covered in the stuff...but yeah, I would imagine it hinders diffusion in and out of the rock itself...

MikeS
 

Latest posts

Back
Top