“Live” bio blocks

[pygoplites77]

Do you think that just 50 kg of live rock is enough for a 600 liter tank that will be a full sps low nutrient system?
Once upon a time the rule of 20% tank volume / live rocks was followed. Today perhaps a little less thanks to the improved skimmers, but I believe that at least 75 kg are necessary out of 600 net liters

 

[brandon429]

this is no overstatement; I have never ever seen a reef tank have too little live rock, counting no other active surface area (so that we include bare bottom tanks as well) such that it couldn't carry even a large fish bioload.


running low on or out of surface area in a display reef does not occur. in fact, it's so ironclad, check out the heart of this big work thread...this is literally us taking apart large and small reef tanks for sixty pages removing their sandbed, all biomedia if any in place, and even half their rock in a few jobs where they wanted to carve down the aquascape


we remove those instantly, not as ramp down over three weeks. instantly we reduce the surface area in any reef that wants to post there leaving only a portion of their live rock and none of them are losses or recycles.

the reason this info is handy is because you can use surface area science to accomplish reef things that save us money

that whole thread is a couple million bucks of us moving reef tanks or upgrading them, and in some cases we're fixing an invasion

but the steps aren't different for each tank which is why this is a handy application study for surface area science.

*since we're able to remove the extra surface area leaving only the rocks and have a neutral outcome, you're able to add more surface area than the surrounding rocks and still have a neutral outcome.

In my opinion you'd have to carve your live rock down to the size of ping pong balls to undercut it. because the live rocks are in the display, vs hidden down in a sump, they immediately contact wastewater right where the ammonia is produced, that's another reason live rock is so efficient, the fish are literally putting their exuded waste right on it, there's low to no actual swirl time for dissolved waste when the active surface is in the display and is a craggy and convoluted as live rock is

Official Sand Rinse and Tank Transfer thread

If you are reading this thread to cure a tank invasion from a link I sent you, we do not need to identify your type of invasion here we do not need you to test anything at anytime regarding nitrate, phosphate etc Above all, we do not need to see a microscope slide picture of your invasion at...

www.reef2reef.com

that's surface area science in a nutshell imo

I fully agree the 50 kg's will carry any bioload you want and we werent even factoring the sand surface area...that is going to be a big boost past what the rocks need.

 

[brandon429]

I wish I kept the pics but I didnt, it was a ~300 gallon setup scaped as a negative aquascape setup. live rock was just about invisible, because it was only half-brick sized portions in a giant open reef, with sps coral colonies attached to the half brick portion of rocks that were big enough to stand straight up in the tank

all you could see is just coral, and they had big fish all around. in that case the coral itself (destined to be called live rock one day in the distant future) is it's own acting filtration surface area along with being coral flesh too.

one of the top most discoveries in updated cycling science is the degree of harsh work we're able to do knowing nobody is ever going to lose control of their filtration, ammonia conversion control, unless they're doing something not seen before.

for all the variable ways people set up common reef tanks, in all that variation ammonia control is inherently present, our reefs just want to eat it up. outside of oxygen I bet it's the #2 or maybe #1 in demand molecule in our reef as a metabolic substrate.

 

[pygoplites77]

this is no overstatement; I have never ever seen a reef tank have too little live rock, counting no other active surface area (so that we include bare bottom tanks as well) such that it couldn't carry even a large fish bioload.


running low on or out of surface area in a display reef does not occur. in fact, it's so ironclad, check out the heart of this big work thread...this is literally us taking apart large and small reef tanks for sixty pages removing their sandbed, all biomedia if any in place, and even half their rock in a few jobs where they wanted to carve down the aquascape


we remove those instantly, not as ramp down over three weeks. instantly we reduce the surface area in any reef that wants to post there leaving only a portion of their live rock and none of them are losses or recycles.

the reason this info is handy is because you can use surface area science to accomplish reef things that save us money

that whole thread is a couple million bucks of us moving reef tanks or upgrading them, and in some cases we're fixing an invasion

but the steps aren't different for each tank which is why this is a handy application study for surface area science.

*since we're able to remove the extra surface area leaving only the rocks and have a neutral outcome, you're able to add more surface area than the surrounding rocks and still have a neutral outcome.

In my opinion you'd have to carve your live rock down to the size of ping pong balls to undercut it. because the live rocks are in the display, vs hidden down in a sump, they immediately contact wastewater right where the ammonia is produced, that's another reason live rock is so efficient, the fish are literally putting their exuded waste right on it, there's low to no actual swirl time for dissolved waste when the active surface is in the display and is a craggy and convoluted as live rock is

Official Sand Rinse and Tank Transfer thread

If you are reading this thread to cure a tank invasion from a link I sent you, we do not need to identify your type of invasion here we do not need you to test anything at anytime regarding nitrate, phosphate etc Above all, we do not need to see a microscope slide picture of your invasion at...

www.reef2reef.com

that's surface area science in a nutshell imo

I fully agree the 50 kg's will carry any bioload you want and we werent even factoring the sand surface area...that is going to be a big boost past what the rocks need.

 

[pygoplites77]

I will calmly read the discussion you attached, now here in Italy it's time to sleep..
In conclusion, if I understood correctly, despite the translator mixing up the words a bit, for you 50 kg of live rocks on 600 net litres, without any addition of biomedia, are definitely sufficient to work the complete nitrogen cycle, regardless of the organic load that will be in the tank, and maintaining the nutrients at barely measurable levels, for good growth and coloring of the sps.
What then would be the minimum quantity of rocks to insert? Or the ratio of live rocks/liters without DSB or biomedia in your opinion?

 

[brandon429]

as a sidenote

some companies claim their ceramic media is nitrate reducing as a benefit, not just for ammonia

I find that claim hard to harness, it's not like high nitrate tanks just drop in siporax and instantly fix their problem. if it were that easy Randy wouldn't have to write ten pages of materials for items that reduce nitrate in a reef tank, the answer would be simply add some siporax where it says removes nitrate off the label.

it doesnt always work

most surface area added to a reef tank, unless we're lucky, is functioning aerobically and in favor of reducing ammonia not nitrate.

 

[brandon429]

Or the ratio of live rocks/liters without DSB or biomedia in your opinion?

regarding that question, post here a pic from a similar aquascape layout you can find on the web, from those dimensions we can make a for sure plan. I don't really have a minimum we've encountered in the jobs before but let's see a pic when you can find one of a similar ratio aquascape you're planning.

 

[pygoplites77]

Or the ratio of live rocks/liters without DSB or biomedia in your opinion?

regarding that question, post here a pic from a similar aquascape layout you can find on the web, from those dimensions we can make a for sure plan. I don't really have a minimum we've encountered in the jobs before but let's see a pic when you can find one of a similar ratio aquascape you're planning.

Here is the tank with the layout rock that I would like... This too has 600 liters net, 50 kg of live rock but has a plus the DSB . The tank is mine, i would like to replicate it in another tank but without DSB

 

[brandon429]

That’s really amazing agreed that’s the best scape I’ve seen in a while

if the live rock plus corals were the only surface area in the system beyond the tank glass, the fish bioload + daily feeding would be fine

 

[pygoplites77]

That’s really amazing agreed that’s the best scape I’ve seen in a while

if the live rock plus corals were the only surface area in the system beyond the tank glass, the fish bioload + daily feeding would be fine

Thanks for the advice and compliments.. I built it by piercing the rocks with a diamond-tipped drill and joining them with plexiglass tubes, so that they are solid together but also removable

 

[carri10]

@brandon429, thanks for the explanation and logic on surface area for ammonia removal. I
want to come back on the use of surface area to allow denitrification and the removal of nitrates. A lot of people put a refugium in to remove nitrates, but do you think we can realistically create enough anaerobic surface area in an aquarium to do the job via denitrification? have no idea how rapid a process notification is, I assume quite slow and other methods of NO3 removal are faster.

 

[brandon429]

It’s that you can attempt to gain denitrification using bio media placed in aerobic zones (which is 99% of places in a reef tank) but there’s no guarantee, even if you try hard and even if you copy a setup from someone who does lower it that way


this is why they make denitrating reactors, those are the controllable environments able to be harnessed routinely. Same for carbon dosing, boosting up systemic bacteria that uptake extra nitrate and phosphate in their growing mass works across tanks, same for plants

each of these methods work in a place that’s 99% aerobic

but trying to create an anaerobic zone in a reef tank, then actually have that reduce nitrate measurably is just a football field-sized leap in consistency compared to those other options.


a small detail nobody counts on: have you ever met a reefer who doubts what their test kits say? Would you yourself doubt an api reading, or a red sea nitrate test, if it said a given level?

Search out nitrate test kit comparison threads and articles that show returns on a single sample across kits, there are posts here plenty that show the range

it’s as high as a hundred ppm difference across kits you can see


intermixed in -all this planning- is the mere fact 99% of reefers self convince themselves they know their tanks nitrate levels accurately, so that a response and measure can be banked on

when the day comes that 99% of reefers really do know their nitrate levels you will see a rise in posts about similarity in readings among kits vs the status quo

we are a long long way from a group of ten people across ten different reef tanks actually being able to know their nitrate levels and if any of these means worked for them at all.

the nitrate game in reefing is a game of self-convincing. I myself will never need to know it in order to reef, my tank is eighteen years old and nitrate doesn’t factor. It’ll keep any coral I want to keep, that’s the goal, wrestling over nitrate is simply not needed in this hobby.

I don’t know if my nitrate is high or low, because to toil over it is an option


it’s possible, and easier, to unfactor it permanently from reefing at home.