Live Rock Saturation?

Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum

Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:

Hiya Willy (Scott)!!

This question is kind of based on on an article by Dr. Ron where he said that because LR was covered in Corraline that it would not act as a biofilter anymore and thus it was a useless waste of money to purchase it.

What we have to keep in mind is that bacteria live and work in the world of microscopic and more importantly in the world of biofilms. Microscopic bacteria build biofilms that cover pretty much any and all surfaces, living or dead. With in these micro enviroments bacteria reproduce, travel, reduce, waste and basically do all thing that bacteria do. Nutrients (or food sources) are sequestered, reduced and moved on to other bacterial types with in the biofilms. So when looking at bacterial communities and their relationship to the surfaces they grow on we can determine that the rougher the surface the more biofilm/bacteria we will get (glass say being smooth so a lower amount).
In corraline algae it grows by forming plates basically, we see round spots of it on our rocks to start with, each of those being an algae spore that has grown. As time goes by these round spots continue to grow and/or fill in. When then encounter each other to us it looks like a continious sheet, but in reality it is millions of individual colonies. They will either bump into ecah other and create a wall between themselves and grow up, or one will overgrow another. Now look at this happening over and over again as time goes by, what you end up with is a multi layered mix match of substraights. This in itself provides a great surface area for bacterial growth.
Next thing to incorporate is the interaction between bacteria and the algae itself. Several scientific studies show bacteria begin to rely on the algae's organic matter exuded from the algae with which they are associated. So a slightly more complex yet just as effective means of reduction.
Thirdly is as mentioned above thier is never a case where corraline actually covers all of the rock. In most cases not even 50%. Through mechanisms for water movement: advection diffusion, pumping by organisms, and flow induced by pressure differentials all create and healthy enviroment for the induction and expulsion of nutrients via a LR system with in the tank.

Woo its to earlier to have to think this hard, time for more coffie


MIke
 
Hi everyone. Sorry to add to this discussion at this late point, but am curious...
First off, I'm not a marine biologist, and have no overtly practical experience with marine ecosystems, or microbacteriological studies. Doctor-talk and Latin also escape me.
But...
Do the any of the bacteria in our LR, eat the rock itself? (and/or) does it help build the rock? I can imagine some of the shedding is thru die-off and expelled nutrients (waste), but some of the LR I've got, it looks like a row of old rusted cars, stacked in a junkyard. The structure is there, but something (bacteria, mold, oxidation) slowly eats it away.
Also...
I didn't see anything in this thread that said anything about cooking skeletal rocks. Are they considered in the same category as LR? Reason I ask, is that I've got a few nice calcified coral-skeleton type rock I was thinking of 'cooking'. Should I worry more about these fumes than regular LR? Should I avoid cooking these type of 'Bio-rocks'? (I don't know whay you'd call them if they aren't LR)
Thank you in advance for your patience with us newbies.
 
Willy/Scott - I'm glad you jumped in the discussion with your question. It is a good one for sure, and Mike explained it well. I hope it makes sense now?

Zen Reeferer - Welcome to Reef Frontiers!!!

I imagine the enzymes the bacteria use to eat with will break down LR a bit. For sure, not all the detritus in my tank is strictly wastes...it does look to be fine rock particulate, too. Good question, hopefully we can get some more discussion on this.

As a side note, the small rocks that I boiled for 5+ hours.....the bubble algae, although was a whiteish color, was still in tact. The bubble was still a fluid filled bubble. I don't think the spores would be viable after the excessive heat, though. Any thoughts?
 
Perhaps the algae spores hitch a ride in our salt mix? In our live sand? Speaking of which, has anyone ever cooked thier LS? If so, what kind of LS and how did it turn out? If not...how come?
(Am I wandering off-topic? If so...sorry)
 
NaH2O said:
Willy/Scott - I'm glad you jumped in the discussion with your question. It is a good one for sure, and Mike explained it well. I hope it makes sense now?

yeah i think that answered my question to where i understand it. Correct me if I am wrong, the coralline could actually add to the surface area of the rock instead of take away from it?
 
Zen Reeferer said:
I didn't see anything in this thread that said anything about cooking skeletal rocks. Are they considered in the same category as LR? Reason I ask, is that I've got a few nice calcified coral-skeleton type rock I was thinking of 'cooking'. Should I worry more about these fumes than regular LR? Should I avoid cooking these type of 'Bio-rocks'? (I don't know whay you'd call them if they aren't LR)

First off, welcome to Reef Frontiers!!!

I've cooked LR before which doesn't actually involve higher heat....it's just a term for extended curing.

However, I have boiled LPS and SPS skeletons outdoors. I've never done it indoors so I cannot tell you about the fumes. I would actually assume the fumes would be less but that's just an assumption. Obviously LR is nothing more than old corals skeletons held together by old coralline algae that becomes more porous over time. Newly dead coral skeletons are not going to be as porous so there are going to be less algaes, worms, etc.

However, my attitude is better safe than sorry unless you cannot do it outside.
 
Willy said:
yeah i think that answered my question to where i understand it. Correct me if I am wrong, the coralline could actually add to the surface area of the rock instead of take away from it?

That would be correct. The thalli of the coralline fuses together but it is an incomplete fusion. The end result is more surface area.
 
mojoreef said:
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

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.

Mike wouldn't the occurrence of N and P in these areas be possibly due to acumulation and not production and don't certain corals specifically LPS do very well in these types of environments ?
 
Last edited:
NaH2O said:
As a side note, the small rocks that I boiled for 5+ hours.....the bubble algae, although was a whiteish color, was still in tact. The bubble was still a fluid filled bubble. I don't think the spores would be viable after the excessive heat, though. Any thoughts?

Can't some alga's survive really high heat?:?:
 
Scooterman said:
Can't some alga's survive really high heat?:?:

I don't know about boiling temps though, Scooty. I had the temp of that water 250F. The turf algae was like mush and disintegrated when I pulled it off. The water smelled so bad it almost made me heave, but not too much detritus on the bottom which was surprising to me.
 
Yea I had a bad experience with the smell, I boiled it hotter than that, it was on an open burner, also not much on the bottom but it sure made a nasty soup:D
 
IMO it is highly unlikely that anything viable of the bubble algae survived other than the calcerous portion of its structure. boiling at excessivley high heat plus tumbling the rock as it boils ensures that all surfaces get exposure to the heat and thus reduce bacterial levels to bascially insignificant levels and the chlorplast and unicelluar sections of most algaes would simply explode IMO. I imagine at the quoted level of heat 250 degrees plus 5 hours would be more than enough to properly sanitize the rock.
 
I pose this as an extended part of the conversation on "rock shedding" and present it partially as a hypothesis. Since live rock is priniciplely made up of calcium carbonate and a few other basically inert compounds wouldn't it stand to reason that "rock shed" is a result of calcium precipitiating back into solution due to PH fluctutation and the presence of other free radialcals such as magnesium iodine phospherous, oxygen and carbon dioxide and other mettalic compounds. Don't we contribute to rock shed and precipitation by the elemeents we add to our tank? Additionally, algaes themselves are dynamic organisms that deposit holdfasts and skelatenous materials. Isn't it possible that they increase the shed as they die off?
 
ethanriley glad to see you jump in. Interesting idea, On the calcium percipatates I dont think that one would work as when calcium percipatates it looks for a seed surface to attach to, so that the calcium that is percipatating is not going to make it past a clean seed surface. On the metalics I would imagine they would get bound up by bacteria prior to the ions leaving the rock.
From my experence with LR I would say about 50% of it is actual rock fragments that come off the rocks due to rock boring critters such as worms, clams, sponges and so on. The balance seems to be end product along with unprocessed waste.


Mike
 
"
On the calcium percipatates I dont think that one would work as when calcium percipatates it looks for a seed surface to attach to, so that the calcium that is precipatating is not going to make it past a clean seed surface."
Mike though I don't disagree with your point that calcium does look for a seed surface calcium ions do exist in solution both in natural and synthetic sea water. Ions in solution generally only precipitate when a bond occurrs with another ion example sodium and chlorine. In the case of PH shift isn't it possible that calcium dissolved on the surface of the rock either by PH shift or some other anomoly(bad spelling) could then re-precipitate particularly after say a dose of Kalkawasser. Please note I am by no means a scientist. My chemistry experience doesn't go beyond first year organic, however, it is my belief that the chemical composition of live rock and the manner in which we supplement our tanks is directly correlated to the expansion and decline of each algae species we seek to control or eradicate. Additionally, though I support the bacterial absorbtion of mettalic ions that we release into the water the pace of absorbtion does not always equal availability thus some of the ions would either form salts or some other compound or remain in solution. Getting back to the point of Algae control one of the critical points may not only be supplementation, but how much, when and at what time of the day we supplement. I have kind of run on but I hope this thread continues and that there are several relevant notions contained in my ramble. thanks for your feedback and encouragement.
 
Originally Posted by NaH2O
On the bioload....do you think live rock can actually contribute to the bioload of the tank with its continual shedding?
I think the answer to this is yes if we identify that certain rocks from certain areas are comprised both of different organic compounds different salts, different metallic compounds then what the rock releases into solution (either organic or inorganic) directly contributes to the bio load of the tank. The rate at which the rock releases into solution also determines which organism or organisms proceses it for example bacteria or algae.
 
I think it might be worthwhile to provide analysis of absorbtion rates and release rates of dfferent types of rock for example Florida (very dense rock) versuses Tonga. It is worth noting in my many dives off of Nassau that the densest areas of coralline I have seen in the wild have two corresponding characteristics they are generally in areas of high flow and are generally adhering to some metallic compound particularly in manmade breakwaters reinforced with steel. Turf Algae occurrs at the reefline and often in areas where there are high levels of phosphoric compounds and nitrates being introduced into the water this also generally corresponds with warm currents associated with affluents. Green hair algae is most often encountered in areas with very low flow like sheltered shallow lagoons maximum light maximum water clarity minimum refraction/ I put this in here because this also determines "saturation"
 
Another theory expanding on m previous thoughts. Heavily skimmed tanks mayhave the most extensive rock shed as a result of ions free radicals supplements being removed at a very fast rate by the skimmer. It may be interesting to see that skimming though helpful in reducing dissolved organics may contribute to rock saturation and to algae reproduction as a result of the many cmpounds it affects including salinity. As always it is an imperfect science and it appears nothing beats good consistent water changes in maintaining balance for all organisms present in our tanks IMO.:D :eek: ;)
 
Yes sir, I have thought the same thing for quite some time after noticeing the build up on rocks in tanks that skim.



Does anyone have any ideas for quantifying this of rock shedding? I am going to be doing a test soon between 2 10gal tanks setup with a high bioload and a 10gal fuge for each tank with an equal mount of cheato in each tank. One tank setup will have a skimmer on it, one tank setup will just use the cheato.

My goals were to test/demonstraight that skimming increases phosphates by over feeding about 4-5 damsels in each 10 gal tank, and testing the nitrates and phosphates in each tank daily. Food will be flake measured on a precision scale daily, powerheads, lighting etc will be exactly equal in each tank, and each tank will have an equal as possible chunk of live rock. There will be no water changes of course.

My hypothesis is that the tank with with the skimmer will take longer to accumulate nitrate initially, but the cheato growth will be slowed causeing phosphate to accumulate. I plan to run the test for 3 months or so, or possibily longer if I cant find a clear trend from only 3 months of data.

I belive by the 2week area, both tanks will hold zero nitrates/nitrites, but I am really curious to see if the skimmed tank acumulates phosphates as rapidly as I think it will.


The display with the rock will be live rock and BB, the fuge will be shallow crushed coral with high water flow for nitrification only, no anerobic action, I want the cheato and skimmer(for the skimmed tank) to be the only system for removeing nitrates.

If anyone has an idea for measureing the quanity of material that 'sheds' off the rock, I think it would be a great test to see what factors effect this rock sheding and rock saturation concept you guys have.
 
I also wanted to add, if anybody would like some analisis of the elements present in 'saturated' rocks vs 'new' rocks, I can have access to equipment to perform an analisis if its something you guys are serious about.
 
Back
Top