Live Rock Saturation?

[NaH2O]

Again, I don't expect you to know the history of my tank. This had nothing to do with nutrient inputs and controlling the inputs to my system (such as feeding, water quality, etc). It has to do with nutrients in the rock, and the nutrients present from the mass amount of dieing sponge during the cure process. As I pointed out, my rock was stuck in an extremely long phosphate cycle from algae to bacteria...yes I've tried phosphate removers to no avail (and no it wasn't a short term try). Why are you insisting that my algae problems were due to nutrient inputs and not a mass amount of die off?

I do not see that it will do anything to remove any of what you consider saturated inside the pores. This is the first time I have heard of anyone actually boiling live rock to unsaturate it or kill algae. Other than kill algae and sterlize it, I don't believe it wiil drive off any excess nutrients deep in the pore space.

As was stated earlier in the thread (AND a TOTM winner (12/2003) with a huge and beautiful tank)...

The high heat of the water removes all surface algaes including corraline, its a great surfcae cleaner. As per the interior of the I believe the high heat and FW (low pH) combo melt and make the detritus and decay blockage soluable and allows it to stream to the surface. I have taken what looks to be clean rock and done the boil and with the bubble action and hot water the ammount of crud that comes out is pretty impressive.
This is just a procedure I used for old rocks that are pure detritus producers and if you dont want to wait for it to cook normal. Also if you have plenty of other rock to reseed it.
It does kill off all life on and in the rock but in the case of rocks of this case that may be a good thing. With algaes, sponges and simular blocking flow and creating diversions for their own benefit, along with constant overloading of the bacterial processing system it give them kind of a fresh start with out really effecting your system.
placing them in a cuastic fluid might also work But I have no experence with that.

Its kind of the same idea as steam striping of nutrients. ALot to do with the low ph, vapor transmission and so on.

Am I saying boiling is a quick fix to a huge algae problem? I don't think so, and the majority of the people that know me and my tank, know I don't work that way (I am normally slow and take my time with everything to do it right). Some people may use it as such, but for me boiling is a way to get the pieces that were heavily loaded with algae, nice and clean again.

 

[ldrhawke]

Nikki,

My comments were general comments and my beliefs that it is not necessary to boil rock to eliminate excess algae or control excess nutrients; from a die off or over feeding . I do not believe live rock can get so saturated with nutrients from over feeding or a die off that existing bacteria,life in the tank, circulation, filtration,and good husbandry will not address the problem and that it requires removing the rock to boil it to solve the problem. Plus, I couldn't take my rock to boil it periodically if I wanted to. It is too large and has coral attached to and growing all over it.

I am not arguing with you. I'm only giving my experience. If you believe boiling rock was your only solution.......it was your only solution.

By the way I did take the time to look at you photo gallery and the photo dates, so I have some idea of your tank history. Nice looking set up. How old is you tank since you changed it all out?

 

[ethanriley]

Excellent thread guys. John I notied in your gallery that you run a DSB I estimated at least 5" with the piece of large rock did you place it before or after you put in the sand. A good questin wuld also be how do you maintain paremeters what do you supplement. Honestly I am in the same boat as you in that alot of my encrusting coral have adhered to the live rock so it is impossible for me to remove those pieces, but I was considering adding new boiled pieces t continue to add surface area over time. I hope no hard feelings.

 

[ldrhawke]

Hard feelings about what? Kidding around and giving our opinions?

The DSB has been gone a long time. The tank is bare bottom. That initial piece of live rock I built by attaching a lot of small pieces was changed out when I went BB. This was done to try to address a nutrient control and an algae problem I was also having at the time.

If you looked at my site you saw I use a slight twist on a normal circulation system to remove waste, for a better name, I call it bubble filtration. It virtually turns the tank over in about a minute several times a day with strong heavy tidal surge like flow and gives a couple of short bursts of fine air bubble while doing it. It is done to remove waste settled on the bottom and on the rocks for nutrient control.

I'm not a big believer in suppliments, not to say I have not tried a number. I have tried the Zeo system and still use some of the amino acids. Heavy feeding two or three times a week, by-weekly water changes, calcium reactor ( w/ auto pH control)and kalk reactor, rowaphos fluidized bed reactor that comes on for a few hours after midnight, carbon, filter bags with floss added to filter out the rowa iron and collect bacteria, and heavy skimming.

I periodically dose vodka into the floss if I see pockets of algae starting to bloom. ( I'm not going to get into a Vodka thread...it works for me and I've been doing it for awhile)

A few months ago I added a new fish to the tank(a Copperband to replace one I lost from a tank SG upset when a float valve stuck), but it refused to accept food. I started feeding daily in an effort to get to too eat. It would only nibble off the rocks and it slowly waste away....sad. The over feeding caused an algae bloom and a lot of heavy bacteria flock on the rock. By going back to my regular feeding schedule, changing out the Rowa, and dosing vodka daily for a few weeks, the rocks are all cleaned up again.

I watch my tank closely and don't expect dramatic changes quickly, I try to make changes slowly. My problem now is too clean. Some of the softies on the bottom don't agree with it being so low in nutrients. That is why I feed heavy to make up for lack of nutrients in the water to feed the poor softies.

 

[Scooterman]

LDRHawke in most cases you should not need to cook or boil rocks & they might last up to ten years with no problems. The problem can be caused by so many variables if is difficult to compare your tank & so many others to any other tank, we all have & do different things. I know for one thing sure & that Nikki is fully aware of good husbandry & probably goes to the extreme with exporting & not loading down her tank, her case as others is not the same as you have experienced in your tank, which is a great thing. The purpose of this thread is to find that out, discover what actually is going on that causes saturated rocks per say. I've seen this problem myself & it is difficult to explain how different rocks behave when they are stopped up like this, man it is bad.

 

[Paul B]

I just read almost all of this thread, ( I needed a lot of time) sorry to come here so late.
I have a lot of experience boiling rock because when I started my tank in 72 we all boiled rock. There was no rock for sale so I had to collect it in the Caribbean, Hawaii and New York. But boiling is not the best thing first thing to do to live rock because much of the living matter will harden inside the rock to an extent that it will be almost impossable to remove later.
It is much better to bleach the rock with regular "Clorox" for a day then if you want you can boil it but the bleach will oxidize any organics leaving you with just porous rock and nothing else.
I had to bleach my rock in the tropics before I brought it on the plane because of the obvious smell. (collecting was legal in those days, they just looked at you funny) Also, there were no reef tanks so the rock would not stay live anyway in my tank. When we would get algae we would remove the rock and bleach it again. I know it did not hurt because those same rocks are still in my reef. I still get algae cycles almost every year and then I just use a diatom filter to "powerwash" the rock. An amasing amount of detritus is released from that which is manufactured in the rock.
Anyway, nice thread guys.
Take care.
Paul

 

[ldrhawke]

LDRHawke in most cases you should not need to cook or boil rocks & they might last up to ten years with no problems. The problem can be caused by so many variables if is difficult to compare your tank & so many others to any other tank, we all have & do different things. I know for one thing sure & that Nikki is fully aware of good husbandry & probably goes to the extreme with exporting & not loading down her tank, her case as others is not the same as you have experienced in your tank, which is a great thing. The purpose of this thread is to find that out, discover what actually is going on that causes saturated rocks per say. I've seen this problem myself & it is difficult to explain how different rocks behave when they are stopped up like this, man it is bad.

No where have I implied or said, Niki isn't a good reef keeper.

I agree you should not need to boil rock....except for the arbitary time of 10 year life.

Also agree that all are tanks and setups are different.

I don't agree that same procedures that work in one tank, won't work in all reef systems with minor changes.

For more years than I want to discuss, engineers and waste treatment plant operators have made same statement to me about my process designs. "My waste treatment system and my waste is different than the guys in the next city or state, so I don't believe your process will work here." Everyone thinks their system is totally unique. I have proven that to be false in all cases. The setup of a sound process may need to be tweeked, but the basic principles, when they are sound they work in any system.

If a piece of live rock becomes saturated organic material, as has been stated, and you can use chlorine to oxidize the organic material in the pores, bacteria can do the same thing at a slower rate and better. I do not believe that even after ten years live rock becomes so saturated with organic nutrients that bacteria won't clean it off, and in the tank! Which is one of the reasons I believe in periodic use of a clean external carbon source to re-populate bacterial growth on the live rock. Adding a clean carbon source is a widely used process to increase bacteria count and commercially treat waste thoughout the world. I am not reinventing the wheel.

 

[Scooterman]

How can you say LR from different parts of the world be the same, I agree principles are the same but the rock itself is different you can't argue that & the affects it will have on a system. I didn't say you claimed Nikki wasn't a good reefer but you repeatedly posted your husbandry which also is the same principles as hers & most others. I doubt anyone thinks their tank is so unique that these principles don't apply that is a little extreme.

If a piece of live rock becomes saturated organic material, as has been stated, and you can use chlorine to oxidize the organic material in the pores, bacteria can do the same thing at a slower rate and better.

This may take more time that one wants to deal with in the main display. Basically your saying LR wont become saturated & that is your belief & opinion. Unless your willing to get some real proof of what your saying lets just leave it as your opinions, that way it will benefit everyone.

 

[Curtswearing]

It is much better to bleach the rock with regular "Clorox" for a day then if you want you can boil it but the bleach will oxidize any organics leaving you with just porous rock and nothing else.
I had to bleach my rock in the tropics before I brought it on the plane because of the obvious smell.

Interesting. I guess technically, you could increase your redox by a lot if you have ozone or could even swamp it with Potassium permanganate.

 

[Paul B]

Curtswearing, I also do use ozone and always have. As for increasing the redox, I sometimes treat NSW with bleach before adding it to the tank. The inhabitants look much better for a while after that and I can only assume it's because of the increase in the redox.
I don't know if this will help or hurt your discussion on boiling rock because it is clogged with bacteria and detritus but my rock has been in my tank for thirty years and since it was first added it has never been boiled or treated any other way except for blowing detritus off. Coraline algae still covers much of it and my nitrates are still zero so I imagine that the rock is still processing nitrates.
Paul

 

[Curtswearing]

my rock has been in my tank for thirty years and since it was first added it has never been boiled or treated any other way except for blowing detritus off. Coraline algae still covers much of it and my nitrates are still zero so I imagine that the rock is still processing nitrates.
Paul

I would imagine that your rock is still processing.

I think that blowing detritus off is a very important husbandry step yet a lot of people don't do it. I'm sure that helped your tank a lot along with the continual use of ozone.

 

[ldrhawke]

"How can you say LR from different parts of the world be the same, I agree principles are the same but the rock itself is different you can't argue that & the affects it will have on a system."

Easy.... live rock from different parts fo the world is basically the same! It may have different shapes and surface area, but it all needs enough bacteria on it surface to consume the nutrients that settle and are absorbed into it to keep from turning into an
algae farm.

" I didn't say you claimed Nikki wasn't a good reefer but you repeatedly posted your husbandry which also is the same principles as hers & most others."

Good......I wondered when my Surge bubble filtration and Clean Carbon source addition would catch on!

"I doubt anyone thinks their tank is so unique that these principles don't apply that is a little extreme. This may take more time that one wants to deal with in the main display. "

I'm saying no one needs to allow algae to get so bad that it over runs the tank and they need to remove the rock. I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't need to. Plus, many reef keepers don't have the ability to boil their rock because of the their rock size and because they have coral attached to it. Everyone cannot give their live rock a Satruday night bath boil or chlorine dip! It isn't even practical unless you only have a bunch of live rock in your tank without any coral attached to it.

"Basically your saying LR wont become saturated & that is your belief & opinion. Unless your willing to get some real proof of what your saying lets just leave it as your opinions, that way it will benefit everyone."

I'm saying live rock doesm't ever becomes so saturated that improved practices cannot clean it up in the tank.

"This may take more time that one wants to deal with in the main display. Basically your saying LR wont become saturated & that is your belief & opinion. Unless your willing to get some real proof of what your saying lets just leave it as your opinions, that way it will benefit everyone."

I think you are little confused as to where the weight is in the premise. You are the one stating live rock becomes so saturated with nutrients and non-functional that it is required to be removed to clean it up, and that it cannot be kept clean by simply using established principles of good reef keeping. That is not the established thinking.

I think it is up to you to prove keeping live rock clean cannot be accomplished by simply using good reef keeping husbandry and cannot be done without using the established or improved methods.

Thousands of reefkeepers around the world have learned how to control algae on live rock in their tanks without the need to sterilize their live rock whenever they get algae on it. Nearly anyone that has been keeping a reef tank for any period of time has learned how to control water parameters using a numerous good practices, some more successfully than others. Otherwise they get frustated and leave the game.

I am not arguing... I am simply responding to a rather argumentative response.

 

[Curtswearing]

Hakunna Matatta Scott and John (it means "No Worries").

It looks to me like you're both saying the same thing in different languages from only slightly different viewpoints. I would say that all of us would agree that anyone could clean up thier rock using established methods but there are also methods of speeding things along a little quicker. I think all of us would agree that good husbandry over time benefits all of us. I also think that all of us can agree that Nikki has done her homework, been wise regarding imports/exports, etc.

Either way, I'm reading the posts from an outsiders point of view and I've known Scott for a long time. He doesn't typically post in an argumentative manner so basically this is hopefully a misunderstanding. One of the disadvantages of this online medium is that you cannot see people's expressions. Whether I'm right or wrong, if you called a truce, I can guarantee you will enjoy posting together in the future.

 

[Scooterman]

I'm saying no one needs to allow algae to get so bad that it over runs the tank and they need to remove the rock. I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't need to.

because of the their rock size and because they have coral attached to it.

(Hate all the quotes but it is less confusing)
Two things here & you basically answered that in this statement, a full tank can have spots that you can't reach, can't get enough flow & these can accumulate waste, grow hidden algae's over time it can be a major problem. If you ever blasted rocks you know how hard it is to really get it blown off throughly. I agree if you can get to it & clean it regularly it will function better & cleaner like it should. Also think in particular to the more porous rock compared to rather tight rocks, the bacterial strings evolve differently in them or some will hold more varieties (LR 101).

You are the one stating live rock becomes so saturated with nutrients and non-functional that it is required to be removed to clean it up, and that it cannot be kept clean by simply using established principles of good reef keeping. That is not the established thinking.

Not quite right on that assumption, it wouldn't be required but rather another method of cleaning rock that isn't functioning for the purpose intended, I didn't say it wasn't functioning. BTW I ran carbon & Rowaphos (when needed) in a reactor I had custom made, it was well replaced & cleaned.
I think some of your responses were argumentative to begin with, maybe not in a bad way but just the same. If you boil rock & treat it before like Paul said then put it back into your tank, it will quickly respond to that in a positive way & very fast. This clogging may come from some of the rock that wasn't getting the husbandry needed & over time it became a problem, we seem to agree that a good house keeper will benefit with less problems, & this point you made clear repeatedly as most everyone else did also. I would never pull rock that was doing well or had just a little algae that I couldn't clean up myself, some of the rock I boiled was several years & at one time sitting in a DSB with poor circulation in spots, later these became a problem. I know in time they could be cleared up but after only small improvement with long cooking I decided to speed things up a bit & man it paid off fast, this rock turned out better looking than when I first purchased it. That it covered with coralline may be my idea of good looking rock not necessary trying to look into the biological aspects of it even though I'm sure it was seeded rather fast.

 

[ldrhawke]

the bacterial strings evolve differently in them or some will hold more varieties (LR 101).

can you give me a reference article for this statement about live rock and more varieties of bacteria? I missed that in LD101. Must have been sleeping.

When I stated a clean carbon source, I didn't mean filter carbon. I was talking about alcohol carbon to increase bacteria production on the live rock surface which consumes excess N & P on the rock.:idea:

I agree it is easier to simply remove a small rock with fern algae on it and boil it or chlorox it. When pockets of fern algae(bryopsis) get established they are more difficult to remove because they become there own filtration system to collect waste out of the water column to feed on and few fish or critters like what they taste like. When I reduce phosphates they turn yellow and die. Once they turn yellow my Tangs tear them up, including the dirty little pocket of waste they make.

I'll end this with a quote from a reefer you know well and with who's statement below I fully agree with and have been attempting to expond on......:lol:

I see with so many people having algae problems is the fact that they think their husbandry is up to par and there has to be something else to blame, I think I'm the first to say I was guilty of not cleaning my tank as often as it took to be algae free, if indeed I would of done twice the husbandry it would of never had algae problems. I noticed that if I blew off the rocks daily, vacuumed weekly along with a few other minor chorus it was pristine, If I dropped the ball just even a week It showed. So to sum it all up are we underestimating our tank husbandry requirements according to all of our knowledge maybe trying to compare what we have to some of the rather large super system we read about & see here, something we don't grasp all of the details involved in these systems that reduce your husbandry requirements?

 

[Scooterman]

can you give me a reference article for this statement about live rock and more varieties of bacteria? I missed that in LD101. Must have been sleeping.

If you read the reasoning of having different size sand particulates in all of the DSB articles & discussions would know that also fall true to the different size pours in LR will contain different bacteria, I don't think I need farther proof of that but will post some basic LR articles.
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_2/cav2i3/Live_Rock/live_rock.htm

In general, you can expect a significant variety of microorganisms to populate any given piece of live rock

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/marine/setup/filtration/biological/biofiltr.htm
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/lines/view?searchterm=live%20rock%20bacteria
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/feb2003/beginner.htm
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2002/feature.htm
Rf Discussions
http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2670

Good quote when converting from DSB to a BB It took time for me to adjust & learn the required husbandry.

 

[NaH2O]

Whew! You all have been very busy!

Please excuse my use of quotes...it makes it easier for me to respond to certain points, and I'm not trying to sound argumentative, if it does...

My comments were general comments and my beliefs that it is not necessary to boil rock to eliminate excess algae or control excess nutrients; from a die off or over feeding . I do not believe live rock can get so saturated with nutrients from over feeding or a die off that existing bacteria,life in the tank, circulation, filtration,and good husbandry will not address the problem and that it requires removing the rock to boil it to solve the problem. Plus, I couldn't take my rock to boil it periodically if I wanted to. It is too large and has coral attached to and growing all over it.

I am not arguing with you. I'm only giving my experience. If you believe boiling rock was your only solution.......it was your only solution.

So, how long do you think it would take for rock that was extremely filled with dying sponge and has since been covered in tough turf algae to clean itself out? I'm curious because I have very good tank cleaning practices, and one or two reefers have called me anal about it. I even make sure the detritus is eliminated from the sump. My tank has incredible circulation, and very good skimmer. I blasted my rock off quite frequently, barely fed, and have a light fish load. I'm sure there are alot of reefkeepers that believe their husbandry is up to par, but I'm not sure what more I could have done, because no matter how much husbandry wise I did, the turf kept spreading...and valonia coming out from the rocks (I won't dose Vodka...that's a whole other thread, plus no alcohol in the house ). I, too, have very large pieces of live rock (bought the biggest turkey fryer I could find for the boiling). 2 pieces of rock each filled half the tank and served as the base to my aquascaping. One piece I broke open, and was the reason for this thread. I did not boil the other piece, but chiseled off the excess algae and it is in the tank. Since removing the majority of the rock, the remaining rock I did put into the display is already covered (some more than others) in coralline, and the water appears much cleaner. Nothing husbandry wise has changed with my system, other than removing a large majority of the algae covered rock to cook and boil (a few pieces). The rocks are still in the basement cooking away until I feel they are ready to be used again.

Also, I'm not advocating everyone to run out and boil their rock because of a little algae growing. For sure, husbandry and other strategies should be looked at first.

By the way I did take the time to look at you photo gallery and the photo dates, so I have some idea of your tank history. Nice looking set up. How old is you tank since you changed it all out?

Thanks for the comments about my tank. Not sure what you mean by "changed it all out", though? I took the rock out right before Christmas. My tank had water and rock in it the first time back in May of 2004. Unless you are referring to the sand removal pics of my friend Hooked's tank?

Everyone thinks their system is totally unique. I have proven that to be false in all cases. The setup of a sound process may need to be tweeked, but the basic principles, when they are sound they work in any system.

I can agree and disagree with this. Yes, basic biological principles will be at work and function the same in all systems, and biological processes are what they are, however, each set-up is unique....unique in flow, shapes of rock, detritus collecting areas, bioload, bacterial populations, filtration, etc.

As per strains of bacteria on live rock, I'm not sure where Scooterman was going with his statement. I'm sure everyone has generally the same types of bacterias on/in their rock/sediments and tank surfaces..nitrifying bacteria, denitrifying bacteria, surfur-oxidizing bacteria, etc. The populations will be different from system to system based on the nutrient availability. Some rock may be more porous from different parts of the world, so that rock has the ability to house more bacteria due to the larger surface area? But, essentially, the nutrient availability will limit the populations. Bacteria are also good at recycling nutrients to themselves.

After completely losing my track of thought (a 4 year old will do that to a mom), I went and found a response to the ending quote (ldrhawkes last response, in case others have posted in the time it took to put this together), which was in another thread:

I have run many sized systems, Personally I think the whole husbandry issue is relative. It takes me alot longer to clean my glass, I produce more detritus and so on and so on. I think husbandry has to be a common sence approach, if you allow detritus to build up your going to have issues, what the husbandry schedule is depends on the ammount of inputs.Ex: you have a big tank and you feed alot, your going to have more work to do.

But what about when the inputs are from the rock itself? Despite the best husbandry I could imagine with cleaning detritus from my tank (when it collected), blasting to free up detritus from the rock, heavy skimming, etc etc etc the aglae obviously still grew. I did the best thing for my system by removing that heavy nutrient input and re-setting my rock, and so far the results show it. Like I said, nothing husbandry wise has changed, but the rock is showing better results than ever before.

 

[Scooterman]

As per strains of bacteria on live rock, I'm not sure where Scooterman was going with his statement.

I reposted above but that was meant openly porous rock will allow for more & smaller types, you have to remember Dr. Ron's point on sand particulate types allowed so much more verities as would LR's can do the same in effect.

 

[mojoreef]

LOL boy this thread has legs. Its good to see all the points of view being thrown out here. I have to admit most of the people in this thread have valid arguements.
Idrhalke you make valid points I I would have to agree for the most part. Lr as with virtually all Natural filtration in our tanks are fighting a slowly loosing battle, we just cant fit enough of the players into the game to keep up with the bioloads we choose to keep, unless of coarse we comprimise and get very little in the way of higher organisms. I believe Ron says 3 to 4 small fish in a 100 gallon tank with LR and a 6 inch DSB.
Boiling LR is a last gasp effort, the kinda of thing you do with old rock or rock that is just saturated after years of fighting the battle. I have done it a few times with rock that was very good looking but was just producing detritus and thus algae no matter what I did. In Nikkis case the scenerio was different, The rock she got was collected from deeper water, even though it was very pretty and very pourious it had a large quantity of sponge (I used the same type of rock). In my case I dug out and pulled out the majority of the sponge, ozoned the rest and then added it to an established reef tank with alot of preditation. Nikki started her tank and cycled it with the untouched rock and had virtually no preditation, thus it took for ever (if its even done) burning off the dead and or dieing sponge. For her it seemed to be a choice between keep waiting for the balane of the sponge to die and burn off or take some of the really bad peices and burn the stuff off by boiling and vapor transmisson. I would have made the same call.
The basic problem with most of the arguements here is that folks keep thinking that all the inputs of foods/additives/salt mixes and so on get processed completely and naturally. This is not even close to the case, The majority of inputs dont get processed at all by bacteria. Nitrogen products are put into cycle with fractional amounts being used as energy, most off gassing stops after 6 months. Phosphates are put into an animal/plant cycle and just continue to get bigger. The balance of the rest often are not even touched. Now add in the biproducts of bacteria (biofilms, enymes, shells, flock and so on) and its not hard to see how LR after time will cease to operate as a functional filtration system. Yes through bacterial action (birth, death, biofilm production, enyme production and so on) and a little help from gravity these products will shed fro the rock buts its usually still a net loss.
ethanriley you have some valid points also, everything biological is chemical really right?? lol that is the eternal debate between chemists and biologists. Bacteria reduction is just a matter of stealling an electron here and then adding one over thier right?? . I am having a hard time relating skimming and the algae build up though, you need to expand a bit for me.


Mike

 

[Boomer]

Late on this thread but there is NO reason, what so ever, to be adding bleach to new seawater to raise the redox, especially bleach. It reacts with to many other dissolved constitutes and produces to many unwanted by-products, not to mention increasing the chloride content in time. A better chocie it O3 , H2O2 or potassium permanganate. And ther is no reason for those.

What ever you guys do with LR I hope to God you are neutralizing the chlorine, if using it