• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

griMReefer

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
kimoyo said:
They can remove organic solids. Thats why the BB people like becketts so much, remove as much as you can before the bacteria break it down.

yeah in a way then, a good skimmer is like weightwatchers - If taking the organic solids away from the bacteria causes them to "focus" on removing more ammonia from a tank, maximizing ammonia removal, which is crucial once you add up all the critters stuffed into a reef tank nowadays?

i have questions too about nitrites like what people mean when they say the corals (well, the corals' symbiont algae) consume some of the wastes (which ones?).... and that clams consume some nitrate.
 

kimoyo

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
griMReefer said:
yeah in a way then, a good skimmer is like weightwatchers
Thats a good analogy :lol:.
griMReefer said:
If taking the organic solids away from the bacteria causes them to "focus" on removing more ammonia from a tank, maximizing ammonia removal, which is crucial once you add up all the critters stuffed into a reef tank nowadays?
There are a lot of different bacteria in your tank that do different things. They are really just converting one thing into another.
griMReefer said:
i have questions too about nitrites like what people mean when they say the corals (well, the corals' symbiont algae) consume some of the wastes (which ones?).... and that clams consume some nitrate.
Yeah clams actually use nitrates. But with sps corals, the zoox algae will use the nitrate to grow (not always a good thing), but the coral itself uses ammonium to do its thing.
 

House of Laughter

Super Moderator
Staff member
Vendor
Location
Ossining, NY
Rating - 100%
310   0   0
I think Rich's question is "how do you know when enough rock is enough? AM I right Rich?

I think this question can be answered, but not without a ton of research and mathematics.

For instance, your tank walls need to be measured and the amount of nitrifying bacteria that will collect there needs to be measured as opposed to how much rock you have an how much nitrifying bacteria collect there. Once that can be obtained (is it really obtainable???) then you would have to be able to measure how much total nitrifying bacteria there are? and how much it is able to export. Once you know this number, then you need to know how much waste each added inhabitant creates - that could be calculated against the amount of nitrifying bacteria is in the tank and once you have more fish waste than nitrifying bacteria you have problems since you would have no other way to export them. I don't think this kind of measurement is possible, but this is how I would think it logiclaly goes together based on the info on this and the Nitrate thread

Awesome threads BTW, whoever thought up having an Advanced Forum deserves a few beers on the House (notice the capital "H")

BTW, this measurements I noted above that I think would need to be known in order to calcualte the rock amount does not include all the other areas where bacteria could collect (sump walls, tubing walls, pump parts etc). You would have to know ALL of those measurements (I think) in order to accurately calculate how much rock. (this also assumes there is only one bacteria type - which we know there are many).

That being said ,I think this is one of the reasons why we don't have an EXACT way to calculate how much rock is needed and only and pragmatic way of doing so.

In short, I use 2lbs per gallon as a rule and is one of the reasons why I think my tank took so long to get healthy. I have 380lbs of rock in my display, BUT 140lbs of it was dry base from reefer rocks - what I put in there that had been established from a previous tank was 200lbs. My total water column is 255g - while I don't have exactly 510lbs of rock (supporting the 2lbs/g theory) I do have 380lbs worth of rock in my 180. The base is now established and covered with coralaine - so all 380lbs is working.

This is my non-scientific hypothesis.

House
 
C

Chiefmcfuz

Guest
Rating - 100%
310   0   0
I guess the standard 1 lb for every gallon is not the answer you were looking for huh? LOL:sgrin: :joke: :lol:
 

NYPDFrogman

Advanced Reefer
Location
Vernon, NJ
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
I understand what Rich is getting at, like him I dont have a 100% understanding of the chemistry involved,both of us still have successful thriving tanks.
I think it would be very difficult to come to a steadfast or difinitive number of how much rock. Like most in the hobby we tend to "overdo" or go to extremes with some things.
one thing I think we could all agree on that in the wild there is a consistant balence and stability.

when you think of tanks, the amount of nitrifing bacteria should be consistant with Bio load rather than water volume.
IE, if I had one 2" fish in a 100 gallon tank, and another tank of the same size with 10-2" there would need to be 10X the amount of nitrifiyng bacteria to maintain the latter?

OK now I'll really complicate things do Corals add to the biological load of a tank?
 
C

Chiefmcfuz

Guest
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
I would say yes they do add to it. Any living thing that you add to a tank is going to add to the bioload.
 

jackson6745

SPS KILLER
Location
NJ
Rating - 99%
201   2   0
Actually my question was more like what's the smallest amount of rock can you get away with. Reason why I ask is because i have less than 100lbs in my 120gal reef with 21 fish and no problems. IMO less rock is better because it allows for more flow, more swimming space, and more growth for the corals.
This made me think with a low bio load, with only the rock base that a coral is mounted to will be enough bacterial surface area.



I'm in he same boat as you Frank :)
 
Rating - 99.1%
225   2   0
griMReefer said:
id never trust skimmers alone-- do they remove organic solids, not ammonia and other dissolved fluids (fluids meaning other aqueous and gaseous compounds not suspensions)? i think not.

I second your opinion.

griMReefer said:
as for the bio chain its the bacteria are needed in order to quickly convert the ammonia (excrement) and other waste (elimination, poop) that the fish and other non-photosynthetic are constantly putting out, into nitrites that are less toxic and can be utilized by coral unlike nitrate which is poisonous to them? or something like that.

Wrong equation here. Bacteria are needed but not because nitrites are less toxic to the coral than nitrate. The nitrate level within an aquarium is usually not toxic to coral nor fish.... I guess most tanks do not have nitrate lv as high as 50 ppm! It's believed to be the side effect of the Zoo aglae growth within the coral that slow down the coral. However, nitrites when enter blood stream of a fish will decrease the blood cell to carry oxygen. Thus, in general we want to strike down the nitrite first then nitrate.

Further off topic a bit: One observation froma MR member is that it SEEMS(not always but often) tanks with higher nitrate levels seems to have better color. A lot of the color of a coral comes from the aglae within it. If there are a lot of nitrate that supports a large number of the aglae inside, the coral, in general colors better. Once a while when the coral split out brown stuff, those are dead cells of the zooxanthellae.
 

herman

Moderator
Location
Weehawken, NJ
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Man thats is a lot of reading when you sleep in! Dont you guys sleep in anymore?

I have wondered about the 2lb per gallon rule of thumb frequently. Take Fiji LR for example. Very heavy! Then there are so many other rocks that weigh half of that. How do we know when we have added enough. I just go by what is optically pleasing which usually translates to a lot of rock anyway.

Also from the fifferent kinds of LR that we use which would be better the less porous Fiju or more porous and lighter rocks. How does that affect the bacteria population (anaerobic vs aerobic)
 

griMReefer

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
into nitrites that are less toxic than ammonia.
not nitrites that are less toxic than nitrate, i was asking that, about corals. thanks for the clarification.
so nitrites are less tolerable by corals than nitrate?
my reasoning is that as long as there are bacteria, nitrification is a given, and its nitrates that one has to worry about, anyway, on the coral's health.
its new to me that its okay -- and actually beneficial -- to have the the nitrate levels implied above present in order to have better colored corals in one's tank. interesting.

aside or maybe overall:

yea it just gets complicated cause everything is related once you're talking about two-way nutrient cycle in reef. while there are few, very few reefers that keep reef aquariums devoid of fish and other heavy polluters, and regardless, all living matter "poops" so to speak, even the corals.

looking back at the history or marine aquaria, first there was the sterile, carbon-only reliance on filtration, complete with stark white sand, stark white bleached corals and way too many inches of fish per gallon, then there was the bio-balls in a very artificial attempt to complement that chemical filtration with the newly refreshed importance of --sufficient - biological filtration, while preserving the same sterile look, ---assuming that supplementing the bacteria on the glass and in the sand with more surfact area, then there was the the low bioload natural approach which finally introduced a few pieces of live rock (much less than 1 lb per gallon), an airstone (lol) and fewer fish per gallon (finally). today we are at a point where bold aquarist (the reefer) wants to have the entire biotope of a reef in their aquarium. zfter all that's why we spend exorbitant amounts of hard earned cash, right? not to show off (!), but to understand and appreciate the beauty and balance of nature in the coral reef.

my opinion on that note happens to be that we've gotten carried away, stocking tanks to kingdom come while relying on all sorts of always newer contraptions and additives, etcetera etcetera to boost the ever increasing diverse species life support bill. lol


in a nutshell, even in a simple enclosed artificial marine microenvironment (any sw tank) sufficient physical substrate is necessary for nitrifying bacteria to do their thing. the more bioload, the exponentially more substrate will be needed. the actual # of bacteria is determined by the bacteria as they replicate over the course of just a few weeks by themselves (assuming they have ample substrate) in response to the particular waste load.

studies on the exact calculations of the above would be interesting and impressive to see.

overall, let's remember the increase of nutrient levels in a coral habitat is what often leads to to the reefs' demise anywhere in the world whether the other side of the world or in our living rooms.

well i'm off to read about coral's removal of any nutrients in the aquarium.
 

griMReefer

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
hermangareis said:
Man thats is a lot of reading when you sleep in! Dont you guys sleep in anymore?

....

Also from the fifferent kinds of LR that we use which would be better the less porous Fiju or more porous and lighter rocks. How does that affect the bacteria population (anaerobic vs aerobic)


ya know, im a new member and im convinced since i joined MR i've been getting alot less sleep, but its okay, theres so much to learn out there, its fascinating!

on that topic of live rock for anaerobic "de-nitrating" properities, dang that's gonna be one complex novel advanced discussion!!!
 

jackson6745

SPS KILLER
Location
NJ
Rating - 99%
201   2   0
Actually my question was more like what's the smallest amount of rock can you get away with. Reason why I ask is because i have less than 100lbs in my 120gal reef with 21 fish and no problems. IMO less rock is better because it allows for more flow, more swimming space, and more growth for the corals.
This made me think with a low bio load, with only the rock base that a coral is mounted to will be enough bacterial surface area.



I'm in he same boat as you Frank :)

Since I posted this I have had major problems and unexplained SPS loss. Seems that when I added more fish my problems began. Odd thing is that my water quality always tested within target range.

This makes me think even more that this statement is true.

"In the nitrate thread it was said that corals consume ammonium + nitrate. I am thinking that a high fishload corresponds to increased color because the lack of nitrifying bacteria compared to bioload is leaving trace amounts of ammonia in the water"

The colors of my acros were great as they were dying:eek:
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top