Live rock, still a dogma?

[Belgian Anthias]

porosity?

porosity?

I don't think anyone here would debate what you're saying. Live rock is just rock that has bacteria on it that convert nitrogen, regardless of where the rock came from. I think the real debate here is whether or not you want matured rock from the ocean. Any porous rock can be live rock, but it's the added benefit of the ocean life that people are purchasing. I think this is debating two different things.

To puchase the benefit of the ocean one thus not need the rock I would think as It can be harvested without the rock. On the rock most of it will die anyway during transport.

That is what I try to prove. Is the fact that the stone is porous ( which is not the same as with small holes) enough to conclude it is beneficial for the denitrification capacity of the system?. When it is really porous there will probably be some water exchange.

Following Shimek there must be a lot of live within the rock to get some water exchange. But even then the nitrate reduction capacity will probably be very limited.
The test I can do is only comparing one with an other and measure how much ammonium it removes over a certain period. of time Only proper research can tell us anything about the capacity. And maybe such research has been done?

 

[themagicman]

FWIW I'm going to sink an X-Wing Fighter made out of LEGOS in my tank. That, along with everything else that's submerged is the filter. Don't OVERthink it...

 

[saf1]

This threat is started to find people how can help me to find published research concerning the rocks used in an aquarium with the function of a biofilter.
This treat is not started to start a discussion concerning the use of live rock. I was carried away here!
If someone has any info about research concerning the issue , it is welcome!

Google or any other useful search engine will probably yield more results. Only other advise I could give is make sure you filter properly. Propagation or frag tank != specific or mixed reef aquarium.

 

[saf1]

On the rock most of it will die anyway during transport.

This is a false statement. In your search you should also add in TBS or Tampa Bay Saltwater rock. It is shipped over night wet, under water. You pick it up from air freight. There are some other vendors I believe that also ship in a like manor.

 

[jlmawp]

To puchase the benefit of the ocean one thus not need the rock I would think as It can be harvested without the rock. On the rock most of it will die anyway during transport.

Are you implying that transporting rock will result in a large die-off, but transporting the same organisms separate from the rock would be fine?

You have asked others multiple times for references to claims they made, so I'm going to have to ask you for references on this one as well. As saf1 said, it's false.

Is the fact that the stone is porous ( which is not the same as with small holes) enough to conclude it is beneficial for the denitrification capacity of the system?

Porous means more surface area. More surface area means more bacteria. Non-porous rock will be less effective, not because of (or lack of) special conditions within the rock, but because there will simply be less bacteria to convert ammonia and nitrites. Less rock and less surface area means less filtration.

Are you trying to find out if porous rock ISN'T beneficial, or are you trying to see if something else is just as beneficial, but just not porous. Your hypothesis is lacking in clarity.

This threat is started to find people how can help me to find published research concerning the rocks used in an aquarium with the function of a biofilter.

But you only want research that agrees with your opinion. You've been disagreeable to anything that doesn't support the subject matter you already have in mind, and when I brought up my own points on the live rock front, you said you didn't want to discuss that.

Seems you've already made up your mind on how this article will come out, regardless of what is suggested or referred to here.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Google or any other useful search engine will probably yield more results. Only other advise I could give is make sure you filter properly. Propagation or frag tank != specific or mixed reef aquarium.

Well that is what we do during the past six months and not only by Google! It was time to ask the question to the community supporting this during the past 30 years, The same question is asked on forums all over the world. Maybe there is info available of approved research. which may sustain the "hit or myth ". We have hundreds of articles concerning the issue in our data base , most of them supporting the believe without any valuable references.

I will, I am not made a believer. Yet!

 

[Belgian Anthias]

exchange rate?

exchange rate?

Are you implying that transporting rock will result in a large die-off, but transporting the same organisms separate from the rock would be fine?

You have asked others multiple times for references to claims they made, so I'm going to have to ask you for references on this one as well. As saf1 said, it's false.




Porous means more surface area. More surface area means more bacteria. Non-porous rock will be less effective, not because of (or lack of) special conditions within the rock, but because there will simply be less bacteria to convert ammonia and nitrites. Less rock and less surface area means less filtration.

Are you trying to find out if porous rock ISN'T beneficial, or are you trying to see if something else is just as beneficial, but just not porous. Your hypothesis is lacking in clarity.




But you only want research that agrees with your opinion. You've been disagreeable to anything that doesn't support the subject matter you already have in mind, and when I brought up my own points on the live rock front, you said you didn't want to discuss that.

Seems you've already made up your mind on how this article will come out, regardless of what is suggested or referred to here.

http://chucksaddiction.thefishestate.net/rock.html

Local diversity can be collected easily, can be delivered fast and can be of high quality as it is easily packed below the water surface. send by express delivery for a reasonable price.

I made up my mind many years ago as I am not a believer.. Founded on the knowledge I was able to collect. As this collection thus not contain any information about the denitrification capacity of so called "live" live rock, which is believed to be a function of the rock due to its porosity and which may be a decision maker.
If this information can be delivered we can use it.

We do have a lot of information of the denitrification capacity of porous rock as a lot of research has been done about the capacity of GAC as a bio-filter ( not only as an absorber) Some applications of GAC as a bio-filter have been pattended. Based on this information one may conclude that GAC may be an excellent bio-filter with a lot off space due its high porosity but it all depends of the water exchange with the surrounding system water.

Even when an effectiveness of 100 % is reached within porous rock, the filtration capacity depends of its ability to refresh this treated water, the water exchange rate.
The questions of Shimek asked in his article dated 2004 is how this exchange is achieved in "live"rock.(Shimek 2004/05)
The answers may be found in the flow pattern around the rock which is responsible to form a boundary layer, a layer of more or less stationary water immediately surrounding an immersed object in relative motion with the fluid, This layer may be determinant for the water exchange capacity of the rock.

 

[FoxFace Fish]

okay okay okay, I have read this one your point 4X over and it makes me laugh.

you quote what a dogma is but liverock is not. how do I know this you may ask? well, its because it works that is fact. Name one reef tank that live rock would not benefit?

I agree you do not need it but just because you do not need it does not make it a dogma.

now before you do "references" on how it works. Here is a reference the human body or the ocean.

It is not a dogma. We did not understand how the human body worked for a long time. Does that mean it is a dogma because we do not understand it? No, because it does not change the fact that our bodies work. Even if it is off of random chance. We figured that out, but it does not change the fact that it works

Also, why put "LiveRock" in quotations we all know the rock itself is not alive.It is just easier that say " oh how much is the pores rock that is in the water covered in billions of nitrobacteria cost"

Second, the reason you can not do what you mentioned about the scraping the field is because it is illegal as heck in most states. If that is your goal go collect some water change water from your buddy with a reef tank. Or wait even better idea get a rock from out of there tank wooooh crazy right?

I am not gonna argue that you need it or you do not there are plenty of reefs that do not.

But your argument to begin with is it is a dogma which you even said what the definition is. but that is the problem here it is no controversy about it well maybe in your head. as I said above it is accepted because it works well. I am literally taking a course right now about the bacteria in the ocean and I have discussed nitro bacteria so much I am about to go try a tide pod JK JK. but for real, there is plenty of science behind it and experiments for it too (every tank with it is one)

I can make anything a dogma if you think about it. You just have to accept it in your head. For example, water is wet boom a dogma there is no scientific fact behind it other than if you jump in the ocean you will get soaked.

Honestly why try to debate something that works especially if you do not want to debate it. when I read this for the first time it seemed like you were trying to sell something more than have a discussion. Why post on a discussion if you just want your side backed up that is propaganda, not a discussion.

And I am about to be asked "references" :headwally:

on a side note, you even say yourself that it is a tried and true method of biological filtration. How can something be a dogma if it is tried and true that means it has been tested and it works right?

on a side side note to quote a dogma it cannot be seen? take a microscope out and look at the rock with nitrobacteria I guarantee you can see nitrobacteria doing its nitroy jobs

 

[jlmawp]

when I read this for the first time it seemed like you were trying to sell something more than have a discussion. Why post on a discussion if you just want your side backed up that is propaganda, not a discussion.

Ding ding ding

 

[Kevin Guthrie]

Uh... guys, honestly. "Live rock, still a dogma" is an example of the Complex Question Fallacy. Even if this thread is not intentional flame bait, hard to imagine a decent discussion based on it.

Live rock was never dogma. It is part of the Berlin method which IMO is one of the more successful methods.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Hit or Myth?

Hit or Myth?

Uh... guys, honestly. "Live rock, still a dogma" is an example of the Complex Question Fallacy. Even if this thread is not intentional flame bait, hard to imagine a decent discussion based on it.

Live rock was never dogma. It is part of the Berlin method which IMO is one of the more successful methods.

The basic Berlin system has a bare bottom for easy daily cleaning. It has a very low carrying capacity.

Live rock, one can see and touch it!

But what about its capacity as a bio filter? As a regulator? Why is it so difficult to get some proof of something what is generally accepted and is successful over a period of 30 years?
An answer to the questions asked by Shimek, published in 2004!
Till now I can only conclude that it is both, a Hit and a Myth.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

proof!

proof!

This discussion proofs what this is all about.
Why rocks are transported from one side of the planet to the other.

Measuring the ammonia and nitrate reduction capacity of stone may be not an easy task.
Comparing stone for its capacity as a biofilter may not be that difficult.

 

[FoxFace Fish]

the stone has nothing to do with biofilter it is a rock. it just sits there and gathers detritus and is a surface for nitrobacteria to grow and live on nothing else.

The capacity is whatever the environment allows. if there are not enough nutrients the population of nitrobacteria dies off and will nitrify less since there are not as much of the nitrobacteria.

so what is your actual question because so far you have changed it 4 times

what other proof do you need?

 

[saf1]

The basic Berlin system has a bare bottom for easy daily cleaning.

With all due respect do you know what you are talking about?

"Peter Wilkens of the Berlin Marine Association developed the Berlin Method in 1970. It primarily involves using live rock, live sand, good water flow, surface skimming, protein skimming, and Granulated Active Carbon (GAC). The original method developed by Wilkens also included additions of kalkwasser and trace elements for corals. (Delbeek 2005)"

Mods - please shut this thread down.

 

[jlmawp]

Till now I can only conclude that it is both, a Hit and a Myth.

Good lord

 

[Belgian Anthias]

With all due respect do you know what you are talking about?

"Peter Wilkens of the Berlin Marine Association developed the Berlin Method in 1970. It primarily involves using live rock, live sand, good water flow, surface skimming, protein skimming, and Granulated Active Carbon (GAC). The original method developed by Wilkens also included additions of kalkwasser and trace elements for corals. (Delbeek 2005)"

Mods - please shut this thread down.

Dietrich Stüber,was credited for the so-called Berliner method. Wilkins published it.
Your information is incorrect.

 

[saf1]

Dietrich Stüber,was credited for the so-called Berliner method. Wilkins published it.
Your information is incorrect.

Read above - all based on Chin's concept back in the 60's I believe. Maybe have his name misspelled. Created, published, take your pick - in any case you have the system incorrect with regards to bare bottom.

 

[homer1475]

Ok so who invented it is incorrect(blame the net because without further investigating, I came up with the same inventor), but the original berliner method called for live rock, live sand, surface skimming, and protein skimming. That cannot be debated as it is how it was originally designed.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

the stone has nothing to do with biofilter it is a rock. it just sits there and gathers detritus and is a surface for nitrobacteria to grow and live on nothing else.

The capacity is whatever the environment allows. if there are not enough nutrients the population of nitrobacteria dies off and will nitrify less since there are not as much of the nitrobacteria.

so what is your actual question because so far you have changed it 4 times

what other proof do you need?

As any rock one would use for aquashaping?

 

[NO3]

One of the tried and true methods of providing biological filtration is ......

quit feeding so much dag-gone food to your fish.

fed them what they can 100% consume in 3minutes or less. Food still left floating around after 3mins? BONK! Tooooooooo much food.

less bioload = happier fish = less things DYING :dance: