Live rock! A dogma?

Belgian Anthias · Apr 27, 2018

A dogma is something that exists only because it is believed it exists. It can not be found, not touched, not seen, it is because it is believed it is.
In that optic live rock is not a dogma. It can be seen and touched.
It is believed that live rock is needed in a reef aquarium and that it is responsible for and able to support and maintain the carrying capacity of the aquarium system. In combination with a skimmer. This believe is what modern reefkeeping is based on. And no, this believe does not create a dogma. All what is said and written concerning live rock is probably true, to some extend.
Since the banning of bio-filters live rock has become booming business and all the benefits are gladly used by lobbyists supporting this business. Articles are written, threats are created but most of them do not contain a reference of proper research to sustain what is written. To support this booming business one would suspect that a lot of research has been done to prove the point of the lobbyists. Well, I am not able to find much. Of coarse, they have no reason to proof there point as long the majority are believers.
I am well aware that live rock is not able to replace a simple bio-filter but to proof it I need references of proper research. There are thousands of research papers and books published concerning bio-filters. Till now I could not find one that can tell me or will give me an estimation of the ammonia reduction and or nitrate reduction capacity of so called "live rock" used in an aquarium.
It is simply tested by putting some drops of ammonia chloride(5%) into a bucket of seawater. It is not that difficult. If I would publish my results here most of you would not believe me, So, proper references are needed and is what I am looking for.

Jinko · Apr 27, 2018

Tbh i think its fine to run without live rock and just have mechanical filtration, of course you will need a way to export nitrate but this can be true of most systems with live rock..

If you mean no rock at all (because it all becomes live eventually)
I guess there are some added benefits no nasty hick-hickers and less places for aptasias to live and much easier to clean a tank with limited or no rock.

Belgian Anthias · Apr 27, 2018

Shimek wrote an article in 2004: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rs/feature/index.php in which he promises to do some more research concerning the issue and publish the results. I do not know if he did as I can not find these articles.
We believe that live rock does what it is assumed to do, everybody uses it and has marvellous results. As long the bio-load is kept very low!?

But wouldn't it work with the same results with ordinary reef rock or DIY rock or other aquascaping? Proper research to compare the different options? As the max bio-load depends of the carrying capacity, the ability of reducing ammonia I can not see any difference as it depends of factors not specially connected to " live" rock. Do we need the diversity entered with so called " live rock" to obtain the carrying capacity needed? Are not all special bacteria needed included in and on pieces of real "live"rock, the corals introduced.?
Is there any difference in the capacity of reducing ammonium and nitrate with or without "live rock"? What is the nitrate reduction capacity of a piece of "live rock" and is it of any importance in the total nitrate reduction capacity of the system?
More than enough questions and more can be asked. Answers with proper references are appreciated.

Belgian Anthias · Apr 28, 2018

One of the tried and true methods of providing biological filtration is by the use of "live rock." This method has been suggested by virtually every author who has written about the aquarium hobby for the last 15 years. The advice to use live rock as a biological filter has been accepted for so long that it has become dogma. I think it is always useful to question dogma. It is easy, and comfortable, to be dogmatic, but progress comes only with periodic and critical re-evaluation of dearly-held ideas and practices. With this thought in mind, I believe it is time to critically re-examine the uncriticized use of live rock in reef aquarium systems. ( Shimek 2004/05)

14 years later and still it is not more as a believe. Is the capacity of "live" rock to reduce nitrate in the aquarium system became a dogma? ( we know nitrate reduction may take place in the stone as it happens in any biofilm installed in the system)
The questions asked by Shimek are still not answered with scientific backed up research and proof:
"How, exactly, do bacteria growing inside of rocks 'filter' aquarium water?" Or, even better, "How, exactly, does water get into and out of live rock?" ( Shimek 2004/05)

The bio-filter was banned the same way. It is believed that it is responsible for increasing the nitrate level and this is taken over by virtually every author who has written about the aquarium hobby for the last 15 years. As the function of a biofilter is reducing ammonia and for to sustain the increasing bio-load of the system it is logic that nitrate is produced by the filter. ( as live rock when it does what it should do) But is it the bio-filter which is responsible for an increasing nitrate level? Or is it the manager of the system?

Belgian Anthias · Jun 7, 2018

The question why rocks are transported from one side of the earth to the other side stays unanswered.
Is this based on the believe live rock is superior, sustained by a lot of authors, or can it be sustained by scientific supported research? I look out for some usable references.
Is it the special and or superior ability of so called "live" rock to reduce ammonia and or nitrate? Is it the imported diversity which makes the difference?
Isn't there a way to transport tropical diversity without these heavy rocks? In what way this diversity is better than the diversity imported with corals and other live forms introduced in the system?
The ability of porous rock ore stone to reduce ammonia and nitrate is not questioned but the effectiveness, the reduction rate , depends largely of the water exchange rate between the stone and the water column.
It is generally accepted that "live rock" is an excellent bio-filter because of its porousness. Is it?
When 100% of all ammonia and nitrate present in the porous stone can be reduced how much of these nitrogen compounds this stone is able to remove from the water column? What is the difference in the effectiveness and ability as a bio-filter between so called "live rock" and the same rock not been in the sea at all?
Are corals really growing better on "live rock" introduced in an aquarium?
What is the added value of so called "live rock" compared to proper conditioned base - or DIY rock ?