cooking rock in a sump - Bomber?

[polypboy]

Hi all,
I have read a lot of SeanT's and Bomber's input on rock cooking and am convinced that I want to go this way. Apologies if I'm being dim but is there a good reason you couldn't cook rock in a sump?

If you removed all of the rock from the show tank to a totally dark sump, continued with the regular 'dunk 'n swoosh' in multiple buckets and kept the show tank and sump scrupulously clean with frequent siphoning and a filter sock over the drain from the sump, wouldn't this effectively do the same thing? Would the associated bioload from the tank help the cooking process? Wouldn't water in a sump connected to a larger sump be cleaner overall than the small volume of water in a cooking bucket?

Grateful of any feedback.

 

[PDAJunkie]

I may be wrong here but it was my understanding you want to remove any 'associated bioload' hence forcing the cooking of the rock or i.e. 'the critters in the rock are limited to eating only what is in and on the rock'. Whew! Did that make sense? If so explain it back to me.

 

[pheel]

may work to some extent, the hair algae will surely die, thus releasing phosphate into the water and feeding the ones in your display... Maybe if you add Rowaphos at the same time.

Keep us inform if you try it.

 

[polypboy]

Thanks for the replies. Let me again preface this by saying 'I've read a lot but wouldn't claim to know much about anything'

PDA Junkie, I think you're right that keeping the Nitrogenous ick down is a good thing when cooking but how low would these have to be for it to work? Are we talking about zero?

Cooking new live rock in a small bucket would mean die-off of all sorts of algae/aiptaisia/stuff and associated nitro cycle & waste in a small volume of water. Does the 'cooking' only really start when traditional nitro cycle 'curing' has finished and water changes etc. have brought even 'trates down to zero?

I, like many people people with horrible hair alge issues, would be doing it with cycled rock and in a large volume of water with (hopefully) pretty low nitrates. Lower nitrogenous waste than in a cooking bucket with new rock for at least the first bit of the process. I'm thinking that water changes on a decent size system might keep 'trates as low as those in a smaller bucket?

pheel - I am planning to remove all of the live rock to the sump.

Cheers!

 

[pheel]

I like your idea, if only I could have a big sump like yours...

 

[polypboy]

bump

 

[polypboy]

Still thinking about this.... if I did this, would I need to turn off the skimmer?

 

[kevin2000]

Cooking as described by Bomber and his crew requires you to take the rock out of the tank .... that would include the sump unless your going to disconnect that from the show tank.

 

[pheel]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10191087#post10191087 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by polypboy
Still thinking about this.... if I did this, would I need to turn off the skimmer?

why would you turn it off ?

 

[SeanT]

Hi Polypboy,
You can cook the rock in an unlit sump but just keep a few things in mind.

1. The nutrients and detritus that sluff out/off the rock WILL be introduced into your water column. This could cause algae problems. Siphon it daily.

2. You should still swish the rocks vigorously in buckets, not in your sump.

3. (And this is most important).
The process will take much, much, much, much longer due to the lack of clean water you would get in cooking tubs...the bacteria really need an incentive to bore into the pores of the rock to consume the P. If there is a food source in the water...the incentive isn't really there. It will take much longer.

hth,
Sean

 

[Dell2go]

I think the best way to do is take it out, cook it and cycle it before you place it back.

 

[SeanT]

Yes, that is the best way.
But he was wondering about doing it in the sump.