TROLL January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 Low ratio is correct- if fewer rocks in system, there won't be enough nitrifying bacteria to process the decomposted waste. I don't think high ratio would have adverse impact on spikes, I've seen some people going with 4 lbs per gal. I've had 5 lbs per gal and my system did so well that one time I accidently spilled all fish food in it and there wasn't even any spike in the following week.
jason the filter freak January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 I've got a clown you can get from me (eating, healthy, personality, easy) test out your skill after a few weeks (try a damsel fist), I can also cross test my kit to yours and check your spec grav with a refractometer. Come see your tank etc... (Give advice in person, for all the good it is), tank pics. also fab go to bed geeze I mean really who's on the board at 3 in the morning anyway? I also wonder what you were trying to say troll
TROLL January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 I also wonder what you were trying to say troll Which part? Was I being vague?
fab January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 (edited) It doen't matter who is on the board at 3 am or whenever I'm on the board. With regard to my own posts all that matters to me is who is on the boards after I am, and who reply to my posts with valuable info and insight. fab Edited January 16, 2007 by fab
fab January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 (edited) Troll, I will not represent that what I say next is actually correct or not. I know that I do not know. It is only my surmise and speculation. It seems to me that the ratio of rock volume, or weight (as a poor proxy), to water volume does not indicate the processing capacity of a tank to be cycled. Rather it should only be the volume of rock itself. However, the rate of processing would seem to be affected by the ratio of the rock to water volume. If I had to cycle 100 lbs of rock, would I be better off doing it in a 200 gallon tank, a 100 gallon tank, a 50 gallon tank or a 25 gallon tank? Consider the question while allowing that protein skimming is provided in each case, consistent with the volume of each tank. Holding the amount of rock constant, as we consider each tank size in this mind experiment, would hold constant the total amount of bacteria available to process whatever amount of decomposition the set amount of rock has that must be processed. By reducing the volume of water from one case to the next, the concentration of the decomposition products would increase, but not the total number of bacteria available to do the processing. I don't know of any advantage to the cycling process of forcing a higher concentration of the offending chemistry that attends the decomposition process. In fact, expecting there to be an advantage goes against the idea of doing water changes while cycling. On the other hand, it seems to me that some critters might survive the cycling process in the least concentrated environment of the largest volume tank, thereby reducing the amount of "secondary" die-off that would otherwise have to be processed by the number of bacteria that is hosted by the set amount of rock. So, my speculation leads me to conclude that your claim is at least counterintuitive, if not incorrect. Shy knowlege to the contrary, I am quite curious as to where is my logic is flawed? Can someone, please, help me on this? fab Edited January 16, 2007 by fab
dhoch January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 Well I'm totally confused on what both of you are saying. Cycling is allowing the buildup of the beneficial bacteria.... There are 3 types: 1 which breakdowns ammonia and turns it into nitrite another which turns nirtite into nitrate and a 3rd which turns nitrate it to harmless gases (I forget which) When rock is placed into a system there is always some die off, especially if it's pulled from the ocean (there are lots of things the ocean can support that our systems can not, especially new systems), also there is die off from transport. This creates ammonia, so there is a population explosion of the first bacteria... this creates nitrite which causes a population explosion in the 2nd bacteria, etc.... I'm not sure why a low or high volume of rock would change this at all... EXCEPT as you measure it... realizing that a low volume of water will cause higher values of the measurements since you are measuring concentrations (i.e. amount of something in the water)... the amount of die off is not changing, just the amount of water you are putting it all in...so the concentration (and thus the measurements are higher)... Dave
TROLL January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 I think there've been a confusion here. What I was trying to say that to use completely cured live rocks and cycled fully then add a bit over time. Eventually grow to 1 to 2 lbs per gal ratio, there's no instabilty afterward. I know that some rocks will goes through die-off period- don't jam whole in there, just gradually add some more over time. Lower ratio of rocks to gal doesn't cut it I.E. 10 lbs in 100 gal would obviously not be sufficent. The LFS has tanks full of live rocks and there's no spikes from fully cured rocks, right? They've cured them already and filled the holding tank with them. The ratio store goes with are typically 7 to 10 lbs per gal. The concept here is to have good amount of live rocks so there'll be enough population of bacteria to decompose the matters in tank. Just be aware that even putting in completely cured rocks doesn't necessarily mean it would do well in new tank and should be monitored carefully for first few weeks. If it all goes great then add some more over the time to establish good architecture layout. Higher ratio of rocks would certainly benefit the system but only if those rocks are already in present system for a while. All decomposed matters would be taken care of easily due to population of bacteria present in those rocks. I've conducted a lot of experiment regarding ratio of live rocks to gal and I've found 1 to 2 lbs per gal works great! Generally, people would advise 3/4 to 1.5 lbs per gal- this is pretty good ratio and also, economical. However, the best recipe that works for me over 7 years is 1 to 2 lbs per gal. I'm sure everyone have different options of their set-up, that's what make reef such interesting hobby because there's so many topics to debate over- lighting, filter, sand, etc.
dhoch January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 Again I don't think the ratio of rock to water means anything... I mean 10 lbs of rock in 100 gallons of water is probably sufficent to support a damsel fish correct? But i'ts not enough for a fully stocked tank. Also rock is not the only issue skimmers and other filtration devices play a huge role (removing stuff before it is broken donw)...The tank I was at last night had a lower rock concentration than many I have seen, but I a way oversized, for the system, skimmer... There is not a single right way to do this....Instead lots of different good ways depends on how you want your tank to look, what you are going to keep. Dave
trble81 January 16, 2007 Author January 16, 2007 (edited) Well, I think you will all be happy to know that we have about 40lbs of LR in our 35g hex tank currently. So far (a week after getting our first LR) the concentrations haven't changed at all. We'll see if this time next week we can say the same. Oh, and the polyps that came along seem to be quite happy with their new home. We can't seem to find the starfish anymore though. Edited January 16, 2007 by trble81
jason the filter freak January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 Did you drip acclimate the star fish... they tend to melt with a swing in new water chemisty if not acclimated
trble81 January 16, 2007 Author January 16, 2007 Did you drip acclimate the star fish... they tend to melt with a swing in new water chemisty if not acclimated Since I don't even know what you mean by "drip acclimate" I am going to say no we didn't. We didn't even know he had tagged along until we saw him crawling all around on the glass. Since that first day, we haven't seen him. Not sure if he is in the LR or if he is gone. He was smalled than a dime (maybe the size of the tip of your pinkie finger).
fab January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 dhoch, It sounds like you support my position that more water for cycling a given amount of rock doesn't degrade the cycling process. I wasn't addressing the amount of rock needed for filtration of a bioload. I was only speaking to the issue of rock volume to water volume during the curing, or cycling, process. In the other direction, there is an adverse effect of having too much rock per volume of water for the cycling process. An aspect of what I wrote is that water changes during cycling is good and that is something akin to having a larger volume of water while curing. Are you agreeing with this? thanks, fab
TROLL January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 (edited) Again, after the cycle process not during the cycle process. Seems like you're not getting what I was saying at all. I understand the parameter issue behind additives etc. This discussion is closed because it's not fair to turn over the topic to something different from what trble81 would like to learn regarding new tanks. Let's get back to trble81 and have normal discussion so she'll learn more from us. I'm not being mean or anything, I hate to see the topics become warped from debates. Edited January 16, 2007 by TROLL
jason the filter freak January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 Guys it's cool. It's not going to make a particular bit of diffrence. They've already added the LR to the tank, the tank will go though cycles in the next month or so (ish) and then they can add fish accordingly. BTW Drip acclimating. I can give you a kit for like $1 or $2 is the proscess of slowly acclimating fish to your tank. Similar to the "float your bag for 20-40mins bs" that you get for all major retailers including my unfortunate place of employment, and some of the crappier lfs. Basically you need to very slowly over a long period of time acclimate your saltwater specimins to your unique water chemistry. I can make you a kit and show you how to use it if you'd like. Guys it's cool. It's not going to make a particular bit of diffrence. They've already added the LR to the tank, the tank will go though cycles in the next month or so (ish) and then they can add fish accordingly. BTW Drip acclimating. I can give you a kit for like $1 or $2 is the proscess of slowly acclimating fish to your tank. Similar to the "float your bag for 20-40mins bs" that you get for all major retailers including my unfortunate place of employment, and some of the crappier lfs. Basically you need to very slowly over a long period of time acclimate your saltwater specimins to your unique water chemistry. I can make you a kit and show you how to use it if you'd like.
trble81 January 17, 2007 Author January 17, 2007 Just wanted to post some pics of our tank to show folks the live rock we had going on in there. It's in the member albums but here's the url: http://www.wamas.org/forums/index.php?act=...m&album=126
jason the filter freak January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 I figured I would take one more shot of the thing. Here's the tank from the left side. I like the "rock" that's just a little right of center. It's actually an old dried-out piece of a bowl-shaped coral that looks kind of like my tank gets satellite tv. Another overall shot, from the right side this time. The pic is a little fuzzy but they're there. The purple on this rock is like this rock invented the color. If you look at the top corner of it, you'll see the polyps that hitched a ride to our place. The live rock here is 50% from our LFS (Scales) and 50% from a WAMAS member who had it for a year in their tank (go Steve!). All of this is on live sand (aragonite).
TROLL January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 Very beautiful!!!! Those'll get covered with coralline algae in few months and just shoot that purple haze through your mind! As for drip accilimator- My recipe uses top-cut plastic 1 gal spring water jar, air hose, and valve. A few clips and rubberbands to hold hose in line during the process. It's very simple to construct a basic one, only hardest part is to get drip at steady rate.
jason the filter freak January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 Why would you not drip acclimate with water straight out of your tank... rather than using the spring water bottle?
TROLL January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 Why would you not drip acclimate with water straight out of your tank... rather than using the spring water bottle? I put the fish in the jug, sit by the tank, siphon the hose to the jug from tank, pop the valve on the other end. Doesn't have to be jug but appropiate size container which livestocks can be put in during the drip accilimation.
jason the filter freak January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 OH gotcha... also another tip, is if you don't want to suck on your tank water filled air line, you can use a 10ml syringe to create a syphon to start your drip acclimation
TROLL January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 OH gotcha... also another tip, is if you don't want to suck on your tank water filled air line, you can use a 10ml syringe to create a syphon to start your drip acclimation Other way, soak the hose in water and fill it up, hold both end then place them in their position, let go- siphon process starts
dhoch January 17, 2007 January 17, 2007 Jeez no wonder you two are running up the post count... trble81... looks good... in the future for posting pics... when you are typing in your reply look for this button: if you press it, you'll get a pop up window with a list of all the images in your gallery. THen clicking on an image will post the code for putting that image in-line in your post like Jason did. How much flow do you have in there? (hard to tell from pics...) Dave
trble81 January 17, 2007 Author January 17, 2007 How much flow do you have in there? (hard to tell from pics...) Dave It has a pretty steady flow going in a circular motion around the tank. I am not sure how to quantify the speed or anything, but all of the water is moving all the time.
trble81 January 17, 2007 Author January 17, 2007 We have a pole coming out of our visijet filter return that has like 10 holes in it that pushes the water around the whole tank. We were told that we don't really need any powerheads because our tank isn't that big. I think anything stronger and we would have a whirlpool starting.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now