Has Anyone Tried a "Rubble Bottom?"

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6340190#post6340190 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
Lillibirdy, 175gph sounds more like it. I ran my UG filter faster for many years but the nitrate was always up around 10. I have a theory that slower is better because at a slower rate there will be more areas in between the gravel grains for anerobic bacteria to grow. it is only "my" theory and all I can base it on is my personal experience. You can't read about this stuff because no one uses a reverse UG filter.

That is what I have thought all along, but like you say, there is no info. I imagine that the amount of flow would depend at least, on the depth of your bed, and maybe grain size also. With no std. values, or "model" for anyone to use, who knows what people might have tried, and then failed with, leading of course to mass hysteria I suppose, years ago. :lol:

I agree about the crap shoot, I've been all over looking for compatability info. on corals, and there just about isn't any.

I like the green guy, he's cute!

Thanks Paul > barryhc :)
 
<a

Not sure you understood, there is an 695 gpg pump on each end of the tank. TWO of these each pushing water from their own end.



Lillibirdy..........what pumps are you using on each end of your RUGF?:)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6339389#post6339389 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lillibirdy
OMG!!!!!!!!! I just realized I was looking at the wrong box to find out my flow for my RUGF......talk about brain dead. It is the penguin reverse flow powerhead at 175 gph that is on the RUGF. I was looking at the box for my power head that is just for flow.

Wow, that is quite a difference, sorry guys, gonna go fix my old post if it lets me...

Lillibirdy.........disregard my other question on your pump flow. I just say this thread reply from you

Don
 
Lillibirdy, you now have 350 GPH ( maybe ), and therefore 1MM of vertical water flow per second, over the 55 gal. tank area. That is 1/2" every 12 seconds. Did you try it yet?

> barryhc :) :)
 
Barry, OK I just tried turning everything off cept the RUGF pumps, and was surprised to find some stuff hitting bottom and settling into the substrate ( fish poop, lol, they kept eating the food before it could hit). I guess my flow keeps it suspended enough for the Aqua C Remora pro skimmer to get it out. So not really sure what my UGF is doing, must be some anerobic spots in there. I am just happy I don't find much detritus when I water change.
 
Reef crest? I am assuming that to mean the surf zone of a coral reef, if so, it would be impossible to recreate such an area within the confines of a tank, I seriously doubt any species that are adapted to such a zone would be up for export/sale as no one would be foolish enough to attempt to go into such a zone let alone hang around to try and collect corals. One would be beat to a pulp trying to do so. A high flow tank I can believe, a reef zone? How does one create breaking waves? or am I misunderstanding the term reef crest? and while I am asking, a rubble zone? again, I can understand a rubble substrate, but a zone? only rubble zones I have ever seen were just that, rubble, corals and other life have little chance to gain a foothold in such areas since the rubble usualy has a high turn over rate, either by wave action, which is what usualy is what creates the rubble and piles it up or by animals turning it over looking for food. Sorry, am sure I sound like I am nit picking, maybe I am a bit, but to say that we can recreate zones that in nature are made by wave action is just using incorrect terminology. On the bright side..lol, I like the looks of a rubble substrate myself and think it would provide alot of habitat, if one is of course willing to keep things vacuumed up a bit. Am sure it will look great. I use such a "zone"..lol in a back corner of my tank to provide such habitat or more of a refuge area for pods and such to hide out.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6343607#post6343607 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by charlesr1958
Reef crest? I am assuming that to mean the surf zone of a coral reef, if so, it would be impossible to recreate such an area within the confines of a tank

Take a look at what Paul is doing at www.OceansMotions.com Check out his "Tsunami". He's so close to breaking waves, you will be in shock!


I seriously doubt any species that are adapted to such a zone would be up for export/sale as no one would be foolish enough to attempt to go into such a zone let alone hang around to try and collect corals. One would be beat to a pulp trying to do so.

Waves do not always "break" 24/7. There are opportunities to collect in these areas.

Sorry, am sure I sound like I am nit picking, maybe I am a bit, but to say that we can recreate zones that in nature are made by wave action is just using incorrect terminology.

So, what do you think of Paul's Tsunami?


On the bright side..lol, I like the looks of a rubble substrate myself and think it would provide alot of habitat, if one is of course willing to keep things vacuumed up a bit. Am sure it will look great. I use such a "zone"..lol in a back corner of my tank to provide such habitat or more of a refuge area for pods and such to hide out.

"Now your talkin"!

> barryhc :)
 
charlesr1958 does bring up a good point...It may be almost imposssible (noticed I said "almost" impossible!) to duplicate a reef crest in every detail, but the whole biotopic concept is very valid. We're getting closer, though! I've seen a system or two with amazing surge systems built in...unbelievable!

This is a pretty exciting time to be in the hobby- We can duplicate many environmental and physical conditions of the wild reef as never before: We've got pumps that can create realistic curent patterns, protein skimmers and calcium reactors that can keep water qaulity high and alaklinity on par with the natural environment, and we've got excellent near-natural food sources for hard-to-keep animals...Compare this to the state of the reef hobby even 10 years ago and it'll blow your mind!

I've been a bit absent from the very htread that I started, but I must say that my reef flat rubble zone biotope system is doing very well. Some of thee things that I worried about initially (excessive detritus buildup, nitrate excesses, chemical instability, etc.) have simply not come to pass. It's my opinion that the "rubble bottom" idea (an a number of variations)can be a valid methodology to run a diverse and healthy reef system. Yes, there are valid caveats about maintenance, just like any system.

I'd like to hear more long-term results from people who are trying this idea!

Thanks for keeping this thread alive and sharing your ideas about this interesting concept!

Scott
 
I have kept a 120 gallon experimental reef system for two years now, which is plumbed into a 450 gallon seven tank system to experiment with filter feeding organisms. The bottom contains 4-6 inches of rubble which was supplied to me by CaribSea (thank you, Rick Greenfield!). I worked with this material for a number of years in different capacities. The pieces are typically 25 cent in diameter. They sit on the bottom.

Before the present tank, I did one with these pieces and Caulerpa. That tank didn't do well; the Caulerpa grew between the pieces so densely that it trapped too much gunk. I didn't like it.

The present bare bottom with 4-6inch rubble tank has matured, and contains a huge amount of life- small brittle stars, pods, worms, including tube worms, and a heavy sponge growth. Surprisingly, there is at most 1/4 inch of very well worked detritus on the bottom- and this is a very heavily fed tank (twice to three times daily feedings for dendros by target feeding of copepods, oyster eggs, phyto, golden pearls, many other things over the years- sometimes feeding at much higher rates).

There has been NO significant accumulation of detritus.

I believe that burrowing animals eject material that is carried out of the aquarium into the skimmer. The fine stuff on the bottom is probably live rock borings.

I also have an Eco-Wheel algae scrubber on another tank in the series, that has a bare bottom in it- that too has at most 1/4 inch of detritus, very well worked.

I am quite sure that detritus will not be a problem over the long term in a rubble tank- whereas I am concerned about detritus in a sand bed (Vibrio and basically going sour in there, especially with tanks that are heavily fed). I have set up many, many tanks over the years basically experimenting with substrates.

I recommend the rubble substrate; it's also a good way to start frags.

Charles Matthews M.D.
 
Yes, Charles- please do tell more! Sounds cool!

Does Carib-Sea market this rubble material? It seems like it would be interesting stuff...Is that by chance the "MacroMedia" that they advertised a couple of years back? Never did manage to find it anywhere...

Pictures of your tak would be most welcome!

Thanks for sharing!

Scott
 
Charles, glad to have you here. I enjoy reading you're articles in MF & R. People do alot of talking on the subject, but you actually have the experience with them and are taking step's to further the hobby. Thank you, and great job!!
 
I've got a 90 with 2 Tunze 6100's. Sand is not really an option since it just gets blown all over the place. I have a rock rubble bottom since I don't like the looks of a bare bottom. My substrate is actually 50/50 rubble and Carib-Sea aragalive... So far soo good. Been about 5 mos. I have a Euro Reef 6-2 running 24-7 and I don't feed that much. My nitrates stay steady at ~ 3ppm.
 
Charles, I agree with you that most detritus is rock borings and will not affect anything. I use a reverse UG filter and there is 25 years between cleanings of the UG filter plates, I am sure if the detritus was a problem I would have found out by now.
My substrate is basically dolomite with the addition of over thirty years of other "stuff" which I have collected consisting of barnacles, shells, asphalt, broken glass and whatever else in is New York water. I guess I can call it rubble. I also have numerous starfish, urchins, anemones, worms etc.
Good luck on your experimantal tank.
Paul
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6358331#post6358331 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cwegescheide
I've got a 90 with 2 Tunze 6100's. Sand is not really an option since it just gets blown all over the place. I have a rock rubble bottom since I don't like the looks of a bare bottom. My substrate is actually 50/50 rubble and Carib-Sea aragalive... So far soo good. Been about 5 mos. I have a Euro Reef 6-2 running 24-7 and I don't feed that much. My nitrates stay steady at ~ 3ppm.

I tried a rubble bottom in my BB sps tank for just over a month. In that case I beleive it was just not allowing the system to function properly. My nutrient's never rose substantially, but detritus was not being removed like it previously was, and the tank did start to grow green film algae on the glass, where normally it would only develop a white film of bacteria. The time involved was too short to say anything, the tank may have adjusted in the future, but for the purposes of that tank, I thought it was a bad idea.

Now i have a 20 gallon prop tank with a bare rubble bottom, I'll see how that does.
 
I think that we should consider here, the fact that "detritus" exists in two primary forms. There is of course the "poop" form, and then there is the mineral form. It seems to me anyway, that the "poop" form is the primary "detractor" from good tank health, and that the mineral form is nearly, if not totally "benign".

I understand that this is not the "common concensus", however I believe that we might benefit from further consideration here.

> barryhc :)
 
Barry, I totally agree. Poop will soon disappear as it is mainly bacteria and vegetable matter. The rest of it stays in the tank for years and is the end product of denitrification and the mineral portion of rock that was excavated. It will do no harm except maybe asthetically.
Paul
 
I'm in complete agreement as well on both thoughts.

I believe that soo much has been made about the "dangers" of detritus accumulation that people are attempting to create systems that are almost sterile.

Sure, uneaten food I can see as a potential problem, but the by-product of denitrification- just seems to me that lots of this stuff is probably inert, right?

Good husbandry is always "ins style", regardless of one's substrate philosophy, and I cannot imagine allowing excessive ammounts of detritus to accumulate in a tank, but common sense must prevail at some point!

Thanks for the continued feedback! Great stuff here.

Scott
 
I don't know about sterile, but with a BB setup it is really easy to have the nutrient level's too low. The thing that worked best for me is just keeping some chaeto in the sump, that and heavy feeding keep the coral's from lightening up. And I don't get the algae associated with the rubble bottom in there. And like Charles wrote for the mag. chaeto does seem to do a great job of limiting other types of algae growth.
 
You're right, Mike- perhaps "sterile" was too broad a term!

Barebottom systems do allow the aquarist to have a great deal of control over nutrient accumulation, but like any system, maintenance and common sense are required. It just seems like in every discussion with barebottom enthusiasts there is an almost obsessive desire to eliminate all detritus from within the system. Not that this is a bad thing, but I think the rubble bottom approach embraces a slightly different philosophy about this stuff.

I suppose one could make the argument that a "rubble bottom" could be considered a variation on the BB philosophy, although it seems that we have a small consensus that is not as overly concerned about detritus as some of the hardcore BB people.

I think that what I'm trying to get at is that we should not be overly obsessed about completely eliminating all detritus within our systems as with the "pure" barebottom approach as it seems to be presented now.

It's important to remember that many of the life forms that grow in the rubble bottom and related "cryptic zones" can utilize materials within the detritus as food sources, and complete elimination of all detritus might deprive the very organisms that we are trying to foster their natural food sources.

I'm also a big one on growth and harvest of Chaetomorpha as a means of nutrient export. It also supports some organisms like amphipods and mysids that certainly benefit our aquaria.

Just goes to show you that there is more than one way to run a successful reef system!

Scott
 
Back
Top