lillibirdy
New member
Go Don!! This thread will continue, and you will be a contributer!!!! Seems like there are several people gonna try some version of rubble. I can't wait to hear what y'all have to say!
Has Anyone Tried a "Rubble Bottom?"
- Thread starter algaeguy
- Start date
Tunguska
New member
Wow, this thread is still going...
Well, sadly, I had to dismantle my plennum/DSB/Rubble tank since a friend of mine moved away and gave me ALL of his reef stuff-tank, livestock, equipment, etc. Imagine my bad luck. :dance:
Anyways, I didn't have room for 2 55's, so for the sake of the livestock involved, I took everything from both tanks, then put all of the rock and livestock in one tank and all of my sand and rubble in a 32 gallon rubbermaid with a pump.
Some observations on the takedowns:
My tank (set up for 1.5 yrs) had slight detritus accumulation under the UGF plate I used for the plennum. This stuff is very fine, such that you would find in a swamp or a mudbank in a very slow river (the kind of mud you sink in past your knees). Makes me want to set up a seagrass tank, but I don't have nearly enough of it!
My friend's tank had a SSB. It was siphoned regularly, but still contained more and larger detritus than mine by far. It also contained a sizeable population of micro-stars (not micro-brittle stars).
Anyways, I feel that a plennum system will eventually clog in every case. The RUGF idea would greatly extend the useful life of any system utilizing a void space under their substrate, as PaulB has proven.
Also, there aren't many pics in this thread! I don't have a camera, but I bummed one from a buddy and took some crappy pics about a week before I took down my tank! Without further ado:
more in a sec...
Well, sadly, I had to dismantle my plennum/DSB/Rubble tank since a friend of mine moved away and gave me ALL of his reef stuff-tank, livestock, equipment, etc. Imagine my bad luck. :dance:
Anyways, I didn't have room for 2 55's, so for the sake of the livestock involved, I took everything from both tanks, then put all of the rock and livestock in one tank and all of my sand and rubble in a 32 gallon rubbermaid with a pump.
Some observations on the takedowns:
My tank (set up for 1.5 yrs) had slight detritus accumulation under the UGF plate I used for the plennum. This stuff is very fine, such that you would find in a swamp or a mudbank in a very slow river (the kind of mud you sink in past your knees). Makes me want to set up a seagrass tank, but I don't have nearly enough of it!
My friend's tank had a SSB. It was siphoned regularly, but still contained more and larger detritus than mine by far. It also contained a sizeable population of micro-stars (not micro-brittle stars).
Anyways, I feel that a plennum system will eventually clog in every case. The RUGF idea would greatly extend the useful life of any system utilizing a void space under their substrate, as PaulB has proven.
Also, there aren't many pics in this thread! I don't have a camera, but I bummed one from a buddy and took some crappy pics about a week before I took down my tank! Without further ado:
more in a sec...
Tunguska
New member
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152183&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152244&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152245&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
It appears I have no idea how to post a picture. These links to my gallery shoud suffice, I guess. Oh well.
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152244&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152245&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
It appears I have no idea how to post a picture. These links to my gallery shoud suffice, I guess. Oh well.
This sounds EXCEEDINGLY experimental.
Under the "plate" is the best place for it, for sure. A lot of this could be "sacculus" ( or bacteria carcusses ), and Mineral detritus, which is not particularly a problem.
Eventually is a very LARGE word. Potentially as large as a 6 foot dia. sewer pipe, which also will clog, eventually.
Actually, I love the RUGF idea, and I am trying to help promote it as well. I've discussed it with Paul considerably, and hope to use it in my 150 gal. Predator tank, very soon.
I think the RUGF, is probably a little bit "touchier" to get set-up just right, than what has been presented here so far.
I'm just giving you a hard time about the "plenum" because I know a lot about them, and I want to keep peoples perceptions about reef systems accurate.
I happen to promote "Wasting Plenums" in the Advanced Topics Forum, and I believe they are Best form of sand bed operation available, HOWEVER, I must point that they are still experimental as well, as is most everything we're discussing here.
FOR A REAL SHOCKER , I'm right on the edge of even COMBINING THE TWO ! ! ! :idea:
Maybe even Rubble on top as well, just for fun, and the "looks", and the "pods", and WHY NOT ? ? ? ? :hammer:
> Barry :beachbum: :thumbsup:
Paul B
Premium Member
I think we should use 12" of EDSB (extreamly deep sand bed) below that a layer of rubble, a foot under that a RUGF and about 6" below that a bare bottom. We could throw in that "wasting" option on all three substrates.
I would also lay a few cro- bars on top to make it a real man tank.
Paul
:smokin: :beer:
:eek1: :eek1:
I would also lay a few cro- bars on top to make it a real man tank.
Paul
:smokin: :beer:
:eek1: :eek1:
Tunguska
New member
That's why I used it!
That said, I think that a RUGF would be a better option than any plenum without some way to remove accumulation of solids.
Don't mention it! My perceptions of the methods being discussed two years ago led me to put my system together the way I did. If I didn't understand the way certain methods were intended to work, I couldn't have modified them successfuly. I must admit, however, that my decision to throw all of my LR rubble into my sandbed was merely a refusal to waste any of that rock I paid so much for! The bits of shells and sand dollar pieces were added later.
miatawnt2b
New member
This really excites me. I cannot wait to build my new 90 gal tank. I plan on using the rubble bottom with manifold wasting. I will install a 1/2" pvc manifold like barryhc has designed at the bottom of the tank, and using 1-2 inch tufa rubble 2-3 inches deep overtop. I will waste the manifold once a month to remove trapped ditrus. I am actually thinking of wasting 3 gallons to ensure complete removal of trapped solids at the bottom of the rubble. I am not so much worring about hurting denitrifying bacteria in the substrate as I believe the denitrifying properties will come from the interior of the rubble and not be effected by drawing that much water from the bottom.
Thoughts?
-J
Thoughts?
-J
OK . . .
Over the top of what ? Is something between the manifold and the Rubble ?
How much monthly water change are you anticipating ?
What substrate ? On the Tufa, I'm not as familiar with that as I should be, but I believe it is extremely light weight ? At the very least do some research or testing to determine its Phosphate concentration.
> Barry
algaeguy
Over-The-Top- Reef Geek
miatawnt2b:
I have to agree with Barry about the potential for phosphate levels in the Tufa. It can be nasty!
I believe that you are correct in asseting that most of your denitrification will occur in the rock itself (at least that's MY theory!). I don't believe that removing the volume of water that you are talking about should have any detrimental effect on the denitrification process. BTW, Barry's manifold idea is really cool!
Again, this is a theory, based upon my experience, but I believe that there is some validity to it. I don' think that disturbing a rubble zone layer for cleaning is as disruptive or potentially harmful as disturbing the anoxic layers of a DSB, for example. Of course, as we've mused about on this thread repeatedly, the potentially higher biodiversity and cryptic animal population of a rubble zone may more efficiently make use of detritus for food sources, so as long as the amount of detritus accumulating in/under the rubble zone is not excessive, and if good attention is paid to overall husbandry, I'll wager that your water quality will not suffer over time!
Do keep us posted on your new tank' progress!
Scott
I have to agree with Barry about the potential for phosphate levels in the Tufa. It can be nasty!
I believe that you are correct in asseting that most of your denitrification will occur in the rock itself (at least that's MY theory!). I don't believe that removing the volume of water that you are talking about should have any detrimental effect on the denitrification process. BTW, Barry's manifold idea is really cool!
Again, this is a theory, based upon my experience, but I believe that there is some validity to it. I don' think that disturbing a rubble zone layer for cleaning is as disruptive or potentially harmful as disturbing the anoxic layers of a DSB, for example. Of course, as we've mused about on this thread repeatedly, the potentially higher biodiversity and cryptic animal population of a rubble zone may more efficiently make use of detritus for food sources, so as long as the amount of detritus accumulating in/under the rubble zone is not excessive, and if good attention is paid to overall husbandry, I'll wager that your water quality will not suffer over time!
Do keep us posted on your new tank' progress!
Scott
Thanks Scott, I just don't think you can bring up the bio-diversity part here, often enough. I think it is actually not only beneficial, but possibly even crucial to the success with this, especially if you don't want to "blow and vacuum" all the time, which I suspect would be detrimental to a considerable portion of the organisms that we want to promote.
I'm not trying to make it sound "touchy", but we need to understand our objectives and keep an eye on critter popupation, to keep our "ducks in a row".
This brings to mind either the RUGF under the rubble, or the "void sweeping" canister, or similar to handle "bottom detritus" autom aticly.
Just thinking out loud again.
> Barry
Rip Current
Member
What about replacing the bio balls in a wet dry with rubble?
With a slow flow, and rubble the right size and porosity.
just a thought...........
With a slow flow, and rubble the right size and porosity.
just a thought...........
algaeguy
Over-The-Top- Reef Geek
Wow- "Thread of The Month"- I think everyone deserves a pat on the back for keeping this discussion so civilized and informative! We have a great group and a lot of interesting material! I'm glad that everyone feels comfortable enough to throw out new ideas without fear of being flamed. Seemingly commonplace, obvious stuff might not be so obvious after all- and might even be the key to the next big idea!
Just because people have been using rubble for a long time doesn't mean that the idea isn't new or beneficial. I think the key is in what our GOALS are for using rubble; wether it's trying to increase biodiversity, experiment with denitrification, or simply trying an alternative biotope to emulate. No holding back, gang...Let the ideas flow!
Rip Current- Interesting thought about the live rock in a wet/dry. It does, however, remind me of some of the trickle filters that I saw in the 80's. Lots of different media was being used, including dolomite, calcite, crushed coral. etc.
Essentially, the rocks are becoming bioballs. Just another substrate for bacterial growth. I bet that it will be subject to the same "shortcomings" as bioballs, such as accumulation of nitrate, and probably not acheive as much biodiversity as submerged rock. However, you mentioned lower flow and lots of porosity...Interesting, and probably worth testing out! However, if you light it, I wonder if you could keep some intertidal animals in there? Maybe partially submerged and part as a trickle substrate.
On the other hand, lots of folks have been placing rock/rubble in the "wet" section of their trickle filters for years, and I've seen amazing diversity in this technique.
Here's a thought- a rubble zone refugium. Again, not new or novel, but possibly underutilized?
You'd essentially plumb a small tank in line with your system, but the tank would be packed with rubble and seeded with pods, etc. No sand or macroalgae to speak of. You probably wouldn't even need to light it. In addition to providing a settling area for detritus, it could serve as a cryptic zone and supplemental food production facility. In fact, if it is determined that rubble zones foster denitrification, this may be an option in place of the remote DSB's that people talk about now and then. I'm sure that someone has tried this already...
Finally- what about the RUGF in the rubble refugium? Any advantages?
Keep the ideas flowing, everyone. If we keep this brainstorming session going, I'm sure we'll come up with some new applications for this technique.
I was also pondering about the chance of increased odds of successfully keeping multiple Firefish or Pseudochroomids in rubble systems, because of the greater number of hiding places and "territory" this substrate may afford. Anyone doing this? I know that my Blennies like this type of setup; I'm thinking that this may also be a good way to keep some Centropyge species in groups as well.
Keep those thoughts coming!
Scott
Just because people have been using rubble for a long time doesn't mean that the idea isn't new or beneficial. I think the key is in what our GOALS are for using rubble; wether it's trying to increase biodiversity, experiment with denitrification, or simply trying an alternative biotope to emulate. No holding back, gang...Let the ideas flow!
Rip Current- Interesting thought about the live rock in a wet/dry. It does, however, remind me of some of the trickle filters that I saw in the 80's. Lots of different media was being used, including dolomite, calcite, crushed coral. etc.
Essentially, the rocks are becoming bioballs. Just another substrate for bacterial growth. I bet that it will be subject to the same "shortcomings" as bioballs, such as accumulation of nitrate, and probably not acheive as much biodiversity as submerged rock. However, you mentioned lower flow and lots of porosity...Interesting, and probably worth testing out! However, if you light it, I wonder if you could keep some intertidal animals in there? Maybe partially submerged and part as a trickle substrate.
On the other hand, lots of folks have been placing rock/rubble in the "wet" section of their trickle filters for years, and I've seen amazing diversity in this technique.
Here's a thought- a rubble zone refugium. Again, not new or novel, but possibly underutilized?
You'd essentially plumb a small tank in line with your system, but the tank would be packed with rubble and seeded with pods, etc. No sand or macroalgae to speak of. You probably wouldn't even need to light it. In addition to providing a settling area for detritus, it could serve as a cryptic zone and supplemental food production facility. In fact, if it is determined that rubble zones foster denitrification, this may be an option in place of the remote DSB's that people talk about now and then. I'm sure that someone has tried this already...
Finally- what about the RUGF in the rubble refugium? Any advantages?
Keep the ideas flowing, everyone. If we keep this brainstorming session going, I'm sure we'll come up with some new applications for this technique.
I was also pondering about the chance of increased odds of successfully keeping multiple Firefish or Pseudochroomids in rubble systems, because of the greater number of hiding places and "territory" this substrate may afford. Anyone doing this? I know that my Blennies like this type of setup; I'm thinking that this may also be a good way to keep some Centropyge species in groups as well.
Keep those thoughts coming!
Scott
I think this has been the big winner here. Scott has allowed us to have a "THINK TANK" ! ! ! Pun Intended ! !
I think this is very important also, to realize that there isn't a "single objective" in these various considerations. This is why many different methods can be equally effective but for different purposes. Stating the intended objective(s), would be helpful as well.
I REALLY like this part, it is what drives nearly all my investigations into Reef Keeping Methods. I love the great bio-diversity that is in our oceans, and I want to keep a wider range of it in my tank than common "wisdom" has been allowing us.
The Rubble Bottom, and other offerings here, are giving us the opportunity to expand our Reef Keeping experience.
Thanks again Scott ! > Barry
miatawnt2b
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6640458#post6640458 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
OK . . .
Over the top of what ? Is something between the manifold and the Rubble ?
How much monthly water change are you anticipating ?
What substrate ? On the Tufa, I'm not as familiar with that as I should be, but I believe it is extremely light weight ? At the very least do some research or testing to determine its Phosphate concentration.
> Barry
The rubble is going to sit directly on the manifold. I usually do religious 3 gal/week water changes in my 55 with great results so far. So every 4th week I'll take the water from the manifold instead of my normal routine of blowing ditrus off the rocks and vaccuming. I am thinking about the same in my 90 even though there is more area, I don't plan on increasing the bioload that much. water tests will always tell the tale though. I have had good luck using dry tufa before. (I let the pieces soak in the toilet fill tank for a week before I add them to the tank) I've never noticed any ill effects... I didn't realize I should be aware of phospates with the tufa. Maybe I should look into alternatives.
-J
