LR - Can too much be bad for water quality? - Page 2

Fryman · 08/11/2012, 08:40 PM

It seems the people "against" live rock aren't really saying live rock itself is bad, just that way too much in the display without proper circulation can cause dead zones. This is true. There are ways to avoid the problem, but it's a valid concern.

Most people don't have a problem w/ the first couple steps of the nitrogen cycle, just the last one. Many people still struggle with nitrate. More live rock seems to prevent that.

There are other ways to deal w/ nitrates, but it's nice when you don't need them.

nynick · 08/12/2012, 06:47 AM

Not having to staple your corals to the overflow box is a nice little extra too

Most of us keep our tanks for the corals and the more of them we can cram in there the better. Kinda nice to have a space to put them.

+1 for the flowrates on page 1. I say "increase circulation" so often that I am starting to feel like a broken record. I can not start to describe the positive changes in my little newbie system after chucking out my 2 smaller power-heads and replacing them with 1 big (roughly 40 times the water volume in flow).

In this hobby we have the most exacting calculations for everything....but not for flow. I am gonna go out on a limb and say that 90% or more of any "help me" thread has poor water movement as a root cause. Power-heads just aren't as sexy as skimmers and led's

sail33 · 10/11/2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHyslop

Very good point! But at the same time I don't think there's any justification for the idea that a full pound of LR per gallon is necessary for nitrification.

Think about the origins of the recommendation: 15 years ago people thought ammonia was enemy number one and most people had giant trickle filters for fear of any trace of it. When people started switching away from trickle filters the fear remained and even perhaps a subconscious incredulity that it alone could handle the alleged nitrification load. "Yeah, you can ditch the wet/dry, but you better have enough rock, man."

Every other thread on RC is about cyanobacteria, hair algae or ich. Apart from newbies on their initial cycle, how often does someone post that they're having trouble with ammonia? Nitrification just doesn't seem to be a problem, even in tanks that do have less live rock or tanks that are starting with only a few pounds of it to seed tens or hundreds of pounds of dry rock. Most of it seems to happen in biofilms which proliferate rapidly in reef tanks and not necessarily on/in the rocks themselves.

I think the ammonia issue was based on fresh water aquariums where this all started. Same with bio balls. Now we know better we are free to explore the other reasons for crashes, algae problems etc.

My question is regarding your statement "most of it seems to happen in biofilms ..." Do I understand you to say that most de-nitrification occurs in this biofilm and rocks are really just the host ?

If so, I am now motivated to trust this information and reduce the amount of rock and blast what remains clean on a regular basis. I'll up the flow rate too.

I think my biggest problem right now is that I don't have enough flow through the filter system. I put a silencer on the stand pipe in the overflow box and it's quiet but "dusty" in the tank. I've got to solve that issue. Thanks to the info here, I'm starting on that tomorrow.

DHyslop · 10/12/2012, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sail33

My question is regarding your statement "most of it seems to happen in biofilms ..." Do I understand you to say that most de-nitrification occurs in this biofilm and rocks are really just the host ?

This part of it is still hotly debated, and I carefully chose the word "seems" to express uncertainty while still expressing my own personal opinion on the matter. If you remove rock, go slowly.

Photobug · 11/07/2012, 05:00 PM

So the argument is too mush live rock is a possibility because you can not create enough current to keep it sediment free. What about cleanup crews? Won't a large population of crabs and snails climb all over the rocks to clean up the detritus for you?

I have 5 tall columns of rocks in a 4' long tank and piles of rocks in my sump. I have fives sources of flow in my DT, a lot of rocks in the sump with a sock filter, Chaeto, good flow and its own cleanup crew. Should I look to clean up by blasting the rocks and cleaning up the sump?

Alex T. · 11/07/2012, 07:32 PM

I have 90 pounds of rock in a 200 gallon tank (no LR in sump) with 80 pounds of sand.

I'm just not buying that we need more rock in our systems. I think there's plenty of surface area on my rock and sand. My feeling is that flow, open space and water volume trumps having more rock. Some of the best tanks we're starting to see popping up right now don't have nearly as much rock as the tanks from 5 or 10 years ago, and they're not all ULNS systems.

I love being able to clean the entire perimeter of the tank and not seeing algae popping up in all the places flow can't reach. As corals grow, flow becomes an issue too. If you start with too much rock, and your corals start to displace water volume, it seems inevitable that the smaller water volume will degrade faster.

Jut my .02

Mr. Demeanor · 11/07/2012, 08:23 PM

Too much?

Dont even ask because I really dont know. I just know there are "things" in there I have not seen in a LONG time and I find things I have never seen before on a regular basis.

pompeyjohn · 11/08/2012, 12:07 AM

Aside from its biological filtering capability, extra LR means extra critters.

I am running a simple skimmer biopellet sump, to which I want to add a LR cryptic fuge. I have read that sponges and pods do well in such environments. The plan is to have detritus from the rocks pulled out using floss in a dedicated reactor.

As biopellets gain momentum in the hobby I can see more chaeto fuges being converted to LR cryptic fuges.

11/07/2012, 07:32 PM	#31
Alex T. Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,803	I have 90 pounds of rock in a 200 gallon tank (no LR in sump) with 80 pounds of sand. I'm just not buying that we need more rock in our systems. I think there's plenty of surface area on my rock and sand. My feeling is that flow, open space and water volume trumps having more rock. Some of the best tanks we're starting to see popping up right now don't have nearly as much rock as the tanks from 5 or 10 years ago, and they're not all ULNS systems. I love being able to clean the entire perimeter of the tank and not seeing algae popping up in all the places flow can't reach. As corals grow, flow becomes an issue too. If you start with too much rock, and your corals start to displace water volume, it seems inevitable that the smaller water volume will degrade faster. Jut my .02 __________________ 72x26x24, custom sump, BK SM 200, 4 Vortech MP40s, 1 Tunze 6105, (3) 250 Watt Radiums in Lumenmax Elite Reflectors, Galaxy ballasts, (2) 60" Super Actinic VHOs, 2 Kessil a150s, Apex controlled. Current Tank Info: Currently in reboot mode

08/11/2012, 08:40 PM	#26
Fryman Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Belmont, CA Posts: 337	It seems the people "against" live rock aren't really saying live rock itself is bad, just that way too much in the display without proper circulation can cause dead zones. This is true. There are ways to avoid the problem, but it's a valid concern. Most people don't have a problem w/ the first couple steps of the nitrogen cycle, just the last one. Many people still struggle with nitrate. More live rock seems to prevent that. There are other ways to deal w/ nitrates, but it's nice when you don't need them.

08/12/2012, 06:47 AM	#27
nynick Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,029	Not having to staple your corals to the overflow box is a nice little extra too Most of us keep our tanks for the corals and the more of them we can cram in there the better. Kinda nice to have a space to put them. +1 for the flowrates on page 1. I say "increase circulation" so often that I am starting to feel like a broken record. I can not start to describe the positive changes in my little newbie system after chucking out my 2 smaller power-heads and replacing them with 1 big (roughly 40 times the water volume in flow). In this hobby we have the most exacting calculations for everything....but not for flow. I am gonna go out on a limb and say that 90% or more of any "help me" thread has poor water movement as a root cause. Power-heads just aren't as sexy as skimmers and led's

11/07/2012, 05:00 PM	#30
Photobug Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Oceanside, CA Posts: 262	So the argument is too mush live rock is a possibility because you can not create enough current to keep it sediment free. What about cleanup crews? Won't a large population of crabs and snails climb all over the rocks to clean up the detritus for you? I have 5 tall columns of rocks in a 4' long tank and piles of rocks in my sump. I have fives sources of flow in my DT, a lot of rocks in the sump with a sock filter, Chaeto, good flow and its own cleanup crew. Should I look to clean up by blasting the rocks and cleaning up the sump?

11/08/2012, 12:07 AM	#33
pompeyjohn Registered Member. Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 890	Aside from its biological filtering capability, extra LR means extra critters. I am running a simple skimmer biopellet sump, to which I want to add a LR cryptic fuge. I have read that sponges and pods do well in such environments. The plan is to have detritus from the rocks pulled out using floss in a dedicated reactor. As biopellets gain momentum in the hobby I can see more chaeto fuges being converted to LR cryptic fuges.