The Ultimate DIY Rocks!

[Qcks]

:rollface:

Just a quick question, since cooking your own rock seems to be a fairly involved process, has anyone considered using any electrolysis methods like those use in making BioRock?

It seems like a good solution to the problem.

It could be used to create custom shapes, the pourocity can be controlled by manipulating the current, and it appears stable once formed.

Specifically, i think the scientific paper documenting the controlled growth of and composition of rock would be helpful.

Further, if you experiemented with it and it turns out to be relative safe and easily operated (a bit of a stretch actually), it could be used to assist hobbyists grow acropora and other rock building corals. Additionally, the article says it's currently used to excellerate the growth of SPS type corals, but i wonder if it could be used to help halimedia type macroalgae.

Any way... just some thoughts. maybe i'll be able to experiment with this soon. We'll see.

 

[Neptune777]

Re: Bad or Good...

Re: Bad or Good...

You don't give yourself enough credit...that rock looks great!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10581952#post10581952 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Insane Reefer
I took my last piece out a little early. I said I'd post it, good or bad.
The jury is out on this one. I was going for a piece smaller than 10X14. I want to use only one piece in my nano, so need a lot of places to mount stuff. Tried to go more open and branching like Neptune's piece, but with more shelving area to make it more functional. My mix was too dry to get really good detail, will try for a different consistency if I do this again.

The photos make it hard to see, but the whole thing is sort of open - it isn't really a solid mass like it looks in the photo.

I like it well enough, but I may try one more time to get my nano piece, lol.

 

[sunkool]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10586723#post10586723 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Qcks
:rollface:

Just a quick question, since cooking your own rock seems to be a fairly involved process, has anyone considered using any electrolysis methods like those use in making BioRock?

It seems like a good solution to the problem.

I tried this on a small scale. the problem is that you need to use steel to make the net or what ever shape you want to make. That steel will rust away, maybe long after the calcium builds up. maybe not a problem in a ocean but in a tank?
not to mention the time it takes for this to start encrusting.
I used a glass with a 12v deep cell trolling motor battery, 2 paperclips and alot of calcium. after about a month of charging the battery and not enough buildup I gave up. I wiuld estimate that to get a 1" thick buildup of calcium on the paperclip would take atleast 3 years.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10584177#post10584177 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jasonh
The (non-)issues of silica-based sands have already been thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread. Each can come to his own conclusion about using silica sand in the rock or as a casting material. Not to mention, we have people in here now putting silica (in the form of silica fume) IN the mix.

That is all.

I don't think it was discussed. A few people just claimed they were going to go ahead and use it because it was cheaper.

 

[pdhenderson]

Personally I think it is best to keep any product with silica in it away from your system and yourself. I personally have experienced the effects of products like diatomaceaous earth, containing silica.
Of course one should consider using a fine particle mask when working with any of the products.
More so, when intorducing a silica based substance into your system, expecting the diatoms to die of starvation is praying for rain. Intoducing new silica ie:Tap water, substrates, and some products used in the trade can reintroduce and feed dormant - not dead- organisms, creating a hellish algae problem.
Alot of products out there state silica free, the earth i was working with also stated that but was far from the truth,
caveat emptor


I have made my rocks yesterday ( Cant post pics, wife has camera )
Without salt, I made nice gnarly surfaces!!
Will post soon

 

[cayars]

I think it was discussed enough to come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. For the most part the article Randy wrote on Silica based sands pretty much covers anything anyone would care about as far as using it in our rocks.

Randy and others ADVOCATE adding silica or dosing silica (he does) to the tank because IT IS NEEDED.

Not that anyone cares but I've used this for 20 years before I ever heard it "was bad". I think the problem of aragonite/silica based sand choice comes from a couple of things:

1) some people have a problem and it gets blamed on silica sands. They may have had the same problem with a different sand. It could just be stirring up the tank or a change that caused the problem.

2) some people could be extremely high on silicates to begin with. The addition of sand put them over the top until the diatoms take care of the business then they are ok.

3) people believe the myth that aragonite based sand helps with alk/ph in marine tanks. It doesn't to any degree that we care about. To get the "buffer" effect everyone talks about from the sand the ph needs to be well below what the livestock can take. Thus for the sand to be of big benefit the livestock is already dead. Yes, you can get some minute small amount of buffer from the sand at 8.2 or so and below but it's so minute it doesn't matter. If you dipped your finger in some baking soda and touched the tank water you will add more "buffer" to the tank then the sand will in a month so it's a mute point.

4) Aragonite sand will break down/crush/breakup (not buffer wise) faster then silica sand so from the standpoint of having rock that stays together longer (integrity) the silica is better.

In reality I personally don't think it matters one way or the other and have always purchased what was cheapest. What's FAR MORE IMPORTANT then this debate is watching the type of sand you get and making SURE it doesn't contain anti-bacterial agents or fungicides.

This of course is only my 2 cents and doesn't make it right for anyone other then me.

Carlo

 

[jasonh]

Thanks for chiming in on this Carlo. This is the conclusion I had come to after reading the topic discussed in this thread.

In my case, I am not really worried about it much at all. I won't be using silica as a substrate, and I am adding very little to my mix to make the rocks. Heck, I don't think I'll even be casting in the stuff.

Speaking of casting materials, I pulled my rocks from the molds this morning. They look ok, but the bottoms are a bit smoothish. I think I might have just plopped too much down at once - I'll need to do smaller globs next time.

I think the sand was a little easier to work with, assuming you have a ready supply of damp sand on hand (just pulling sand from the dry bag doesn't seem to work well), but I don't like how it sticks to the rocks. I haven't used a brush or anything to scrub the sand off yet though.

I liked the salt. A little more difficult to get cool shapes in the base, but it comes off the rock really easily. I don't like, however, the squarish looking indentations it leaves. I am thinking about rinsing my casting salt in hot water first, to soften the edges and get something more natural looking. I am thinking this may be my main casting method. I tried making holes/caves in both my rocks, and this seemed to be the easiest to remove from the holes.

The water flows through the rock fairly well - there is no rolling off of the rock when I pour water on top...just through it.

The cement I purchased definitely isn't white, but it's not as dark of a gray as plain portland either (at least I think so). I think I might be ok with this, but I might want to get it a little browner. I'm thinking of trying the oak leaf method, or maybe I could just use some tea bags?

I'll see if I can post some pictures later.

EDIT: ok, I have some pictures. The one on the right was cast in sand. Left was salt. In one of the pictures you can see the smooth sides, and also the leftover sand.

 

[mr.wilson]

Randy Holmes Farley wrote a great article that dispelled the myths surrounding silica sand and silicates; however, the article proves the opposite of what many in this thread are claiming to be true (that silica is inert and a good product to use in a reef tank).

In the article, Randy clearly states that silica sand WILL leach a substantial amount of silicates into the water in a short period of time. He also proves that aragonite releases exponentially fewer silicates. His test was carried out with Quikrete playsand which is what many here are advocating the use of.

He also clearly states that silicates WILL cause a marked amount of diatom algae to grow. He didn't cover the topic of dinoflagellates, blue green algae (cyanobaceria), or hydroids, but it is a well known fact that silicates are a significant growth limiting factor for them. In other words, using playsand will cause all forms of nuisance algae to proliferate at an accelerated rate.

The only benefit for the addition of silicates that he mentions is for keeping sponges. Very few people keep sponges, due to the difficulty in acquiring them, feeding them, and keeping them alive. Randy stated that his theory of supplementing silicates failed to keep his sponge alive anyway. He also mentioned that gastropods require it, but there is more than enough silicate to fulfill the needs of this niche demand for it already (from source water and nutrient import).

The only support he offers for the use of silica-based media is when he claimed that it's "probably safe". That's not a resounding endorsement for its' use by any measure. Certainly not enough to warrant the minor price difference vs. extended time required to establish a tank and battle nuisance algae issues. Once a tank starts off on the wrong foot, it never catches up.

His article was written with silica substrates in mind. He did not address the practice of completely removing all aragonite from the system, including the rock work. Subsequently, the amount of silicates that he was supplementing, may be a lesser amount than that which would be experienced with silica-based rock work.

The silicates bound in portland cement are not a readily soluble form, and thus, will not contribute to an algae problem. Calcareous media will in fact reduce nuisance algae, as it releases calcium that binds with phosphates, to form calcium phosphate precipitate.

Randy used his established reef tank that incorporates live rock and a refugium to test the theory of having elevated silicates. While he experienced no measurable problems, other than an increased amount of diatoms, the results would be significantly different if it were conducted with silica-based rock and sand, with no refugium (or at least an unstable, new one), and a sterile (new tank) environment with little or no beneficial bacteria.

Diatoms are one of the planets oldest denizens. They are the first life form to appear in a new tank as well. A tank with calcareous live rock and substrate (manmade or natural) will quickly develop other competing organisms that will eliminate diatoms and dinoflagellates. One of the tell-tale signs that a marine tank is becoming stable, is the loss of diatoms, and start of blue green algae. He touched on this subject briefly by stating that cyanobacteria (green slime algae) and diatoms are mutually exclusive. Only when silicates are at elevated levels, will diatom algae out-compete with cyanobacteria.

What this all means to someone starting a new tank using silica sand and rock made with silica, is you will have to fight diatoms, and possibly dinoflagellates, for several months, instead of a couple of weeks, as you would with a calcareous media. Tanks with manmade rock already have the cards stacked against them, as they are not inoculated with nitrosomonas (ammonia consuming bacteria), nitrobacter (nitrite consuming bacteria), or pseudomonas (nitrate consuming bacteria). Not only are these microorganisms missing, but also missing is the organic load that feeds the nitrogen cycle.

Tanks with manmade rock should be dosed with ammonium chloride for several weeks until it can be maintained at 0. At that point in time, sodium nitrite should be dosed until a colony of nitrobacter can be established to maintain nitrite at 0. This step can take several months. The final step in the nitrogen cycle is comprised of bacteria that is very difficult to establish (denitrifying pseudomonas). It often takes a whole year to get to the point at which nitrite is has been present long enough to allow nitrate to accumulate, thus developing a god colony of pseudomonas to keep residual nitrate at 0.

The necessary bacteria needs to be added at the appropriate times throughout this cycle. That means that you are inoculating the tank/rock with nitrosomonas when you start the tank, nitrobacter a month later, and pseudomonas about four months into the tanks life. Calcareous live rock offers the benefits of an existing colony of bacteria, a bioload to feed the nitrogen cycle, bioavailable carbonates (ALK) for bacteria, and lots of suitable sites within its' pore matrix.

Randy Holmes Farley studied the chemical make-up of silica sand, specifically, how his existing reef would be affected by elevated levels. His study did not encompass the biological merits of it. The study did not focus on silica's suitability for nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. Silica is crystalline with no inner pore matrix, and as such, offers a poor home for the bacteria we strive to keep.

Silica sand substrates are also too sharp for marine organisms. Silica is basically glass and is just as sharp to fish and inverts as glass is to us.

The worlds reefs have evolved over hundreds of millions of years with a calcium carbonate substrate and rock composition. It isn't realistic to believe that it can be replaced with plastic, silica, or volcanic rock without loss of biodiversity and balance. I've heard a few reports of successful tanks with silica sand substrates and rock, but I haven't seen any pictures to substantiate this.

I have witnessed numerous, problematic reef tanks that were "fixed" through the removal of silica sand.

 

[Neptune777]

I run 2 remote DSB's with silica sand. I have zero issues with any of the issues you mentioned Mr. Wilson. My SPS dominate tank has been running since early last year with these.

I also run a calcium reactor so I am positive that with that absence of aragonite in the system the needs are still being met.


I disagree with this statement:

"Tanks with manmade rock should be dosed with ammonium chloride for several weeks until it can be maintained at 0. At that point in time, sodium nitrite should be dosed until a colony of nitrobacter can be established to maintain nitrite at 0. This step can take several months. The final step in the nitrogen cycle is comprised of bacteria that is very difficult to establish (denitrifying pseudomonas). It often takes a whole year to get to the point at which nitrite is has been present long enough to allow nitrate to accumulate, thus developing a god colony of pseudomonas to keep residual nitrate at 0. "

Fish poo is all that is need to kick off the cycle. I have a 30gal cube that was constructed with all base rock (dry) and no live rock. It was maintaining corals in a couple months after startup. Denitrifying bacteria are not that difficult to establish......they just need the proper set-up (i.e anaerobic zones).

 

[cayars]

Hardly any bacteria comes to our tanks via live rock. It almost always dies off but it doesn't matter anyway. Bacteria will populate on it's own during the cycle period. Nothing needs to be added to a tank but something to decay or other source of ammonia.

Technically the information provided above is wrong anyway. Only a source of ammonia is needed and not the nitrite. The nitrites will come on it's own from the nitrogen cycle and from the ammonia, just as nitrates will come from the nitrites. The information doesn't say but gives the impression that the ammonia should be stopped or switched to nitrite dosing which would not be a good idea. If you remove the ammonia source the bacteria will die off since there is no food source.

The bacteria populate very quickly and it shouldn't take more then a few days and certainly not several months. That sounds more like they are talking about die-off from rock changing to ammonia which is not the same.

Carlo

 

[cayars]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10591882#post10591882 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mr.wilson
Randy Holmes Farley wrote a great article that dispelled the myths surrounding silica sand and silicates; however, the article proves the opposite of what many in this thread are claiming to be true (that silica is inert and a good product to use in a reef tank).

I don't think anyone was saying it's inert, only that it's OK to use. Some people have an impression that silica sand is not natural in the ocean which isn't true. You can find many beaches and ocean floors that aren't aragonite and silica (ever been to Florida) or many reefs themselves?

In the article, Randy clearly states that silica sand WILL leach a substantial amount of silicates into the water in a short period of time. He also proves that aragonite releases exponentially fewer silicates. His test was carried out with Quikrete playsand which is what many here are advocating the use of.

Substantial is in the eye of the beholder. Yes we know from Randy it was 10 times higher then aragonite but that in itself is not surprising since it's "silica sand" we're talking about. Randy was able to measure 0.8uM of silica in freshly made salt water and when adding sand to it mixed with a powerhead (we don't do this) after 2 days measured 17uM. Still not a lot considering you may need to dose more then this!

From Randy: "Why would I recommend dosing silica? Largely because creatures in our tanks use it, the concentrations in our tanks (at least in mine) are below natural levels, and the sponges, mollusks, and diatoms may not be getting enough to thrive."

"Here’s how to determine dosing amounts. I’ll assume that you want 17 uM (1 ppm SiO2) dosing, and you can scale from there."

Look at that. His recommended dosing amount is the same as the sand when being mixed with a powerhead for 2 days. One can only assume if the powerhead wasn't being used to keep the sand mixed with the water the levels would be lower and this wouldn't be enough silica in the water and we would still need to dose. He also mentions scaling the dose from 17uM which would indicate most tanks will need more then a 17uM dose.

He also clearly states that silicates WILL cause a marked amount of diatom algae to grow. He didn't cover the topic of dinoflagellates, blue green algae (cyanobaceria), or hydroids, but it is a well known fact that silicates are a significant growth limiting factor for them. In other words, using playsand will cause all forms of nuisance algae to proliferate at an accelerated rate.

This was in the general "silica" part of the article and does not correlate with the amount of "leach" from the sand.

He also talks about not getting diatom outbreaks in his own tank when dosing more then the sand will leach.

Apples and Oranges here.

The only benefit for the addition of silicates that he mentions is for keeping sponges. Very few people keep sponges, due to the difficulty in acquiring them, feeding them, and keeping them alive. Randy stated that his theory of supplementing silicates failed to keep his sponge alive anyway. He also mentioned that gastropods require it, but there is more than enough silicate to fulfill the needs of this niche demand for it already (from source water and nutrient import).

Again, I think you read into what he said. Sponges had little to do with the article.

Not true at all. Look what he says "Why would I recommend dosing silica? Largely because creatures in our tanks use it, the concentrations in our tanks (at least in mine) are below natural levels, and the sponges, mollusks, and diatoms may not be getting enough to thrive." We also know other organism need silica even though rand only mentioned a few.

The only support he offers for the use of silica-based media is when he claimed that it's "probably safe". That's not a resounding endorsement for its' use by any measure. Certainly not enough to warrant the minor price difference vs. extended time required to establish a tank and battle nuisance algae issues. Once a tank starts off on the wrong foot, it never catches up.

Again you are reading into the article and assuming there is nuisance algae which was never mentioned. The opposite is true as he said he never experienced this. Silica in abundance isn't a big deal, diatoms will quickly remove it. This isn't an element where we are talking about toxic levels that can kill things.

His article was written with silica substrates in mind. He did not address the practice of completely removing all aragonite from the system, including the rock work. Subsequently, the amount of silicates that he was supplementing, may be a lesser amount than that which would be experienced with silica-based rock work.

Actually only one part of the article was about this "The Dissolution of Quartz Sand" and the rest was just about "Silica". Also I'm not sure what the difference would be without aragonite in the tank. We don't need it. It's not needed for calcium or alk purposes since we dose these and the amount we would get from it is very small. Heck even in a reactor that is recirculating and injected with CO2 to drastically lower the pH some tanks can't keep up with demands.

The silicates bound in portland cement are not a readily soluble form, and thus, will not contribute to an algae problem. Calcareous media will in fact reduce nuisance algae, as it releases calcium that binds with phosphates, to form calcium phosphate precipitate.

Non-Issue IMHO as the Ca levels are going to be there regardless and has no correlation to the silica sand. I agree the amount of silica in cement are trivial just as I do in the sand itself.

Randy used his established reef tank that incorporates live rock and a refugium to test the theory of having elevated silicates. While he experienced no measurable problems, other than an increased amount of diatoms, the results would be significantly different if it were conducted with silica-based rock and sand, with no refugium (or at least an unstable, new one), and a sterile (new tank) environment with little or no beneficial bacteria.

Why would it be different? Also without the beneficial bacteria the tank is going to have problems in general but this isn't to say that having aragonite is somehow better then silica in the tank. A problem is a problem.

Diatoms are one of the planets oldest denizens. They are the first life form to appear in a new tank as well. A tank with calcareous live rock and substrate (manmade or natural) will quickly develop other competing organisms that will eliminate diatoms and dinoflagellates. One of the tell-tale signs that a marine tank is becoming stable, is the loss of diatoms, and start of blue green algae. He touched on this subject briefly by stating that cyanobacteria (green slime algae) and diatoms are mutually exclusive. Only when silicates are at elevated levels, will diatom algae out-compete with cyanobacteria.

True on the diatoms. False on the calcareous rock and substrates. Doesn't matter what they are made of as long as the proper amounts of these are in the tank. The life forms don't know if it comes from the breakdown of live rock or sand or from a bottle onside the tank.

What this all means to someone starting a new tank using silica sand and rock made with silica, is you will have to fight diatoms, and possibly dinoflagellates, for several months, instead of a couple of weeks, as you would with a calcareous media. Tanks with manmade rock already have the cards stacked against them, as they are not inoculated with nitrosomonas (ammonia consuming bacteria), nitrobacter (nitrite consuming bacteria), or pseudomonas (nitrate consuming bacteria). Not only are these microorganisms missing, but also missing is the organic load that feeds the nitrogen cycle.

Pretty much everyone experiences diatoms. It's natural and you want this to happen. But saying it is going to be longer with manmade rock or silica sand is just wrong. If you get anything from the article get the fact that Randy suggests dosing more then the silica sand (being blown by a powerhead) gives off. Nothing more needed to be said.

Carlo

PS I love debating

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10592128#post10592128 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Neptune777
I run 2 remote DSB's with silica sand. I have zero issues with any of the issues you mentioned Mr. Wilson. My SPS dominate tank has been running since early last year with these.

I also run a calcium reactor so I am positive that with that absence of aragonite in the system the needs are still being met.


I disagree with this statement:

"Tanks with manmade rock should be dosed with ammonium chloride for several weeks until it can be maintained at 0. At that point in time, sodium nitrite should be dosed until a colony of nitrobacter can be established to maintain nitrite at 0. This step can take several months. The final step in the nitrogen cycle is comprised of bacteria that is very difficult to establish (denitrifying pseudomonas). It often takes a whole year to get to the point at which nitrite is has been present long enough to allow nitrate to accumulate, thus developing a god colony of pseudomonas to keep residual nitrate at 0. "

Fish poo is all that is need to kick off the cycle. I have a 30gal cube that was constructed with all base rock (dry) and no live rock. It was maintaining corals in a couple months after startup. Denitrifying bacteria are not that difficult to establish......they just need the proper set-up (i.e anaerobic zones).

So you dispute Randy Holmes Farley's findings? It would help if you posted a picture of your tank.

Using fish to establish the nitrogen cycle is very slow and costly, as stressed fish get sick. Both ammonia and nitrite will linger longer than with a system with established sand or rock added to it. Most aquarists mistakenly assume that their tank is "cycled" after a month because they measure ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate at 0, while in reality, the hard part has not yet begun. Fish and invertebrate mortality and algae blooms are then falsely attributed to lighting, calcium, alkalinity and PH levels, and pre-existing health issues from the LFS.

The bacterial colony volume has to match the bioload. By using fish to feed the nitrogen cycle, you need to slowly stock the tank and allow for growing pains while the nitrifying bacteria always lag behind. Ammonia is unlikely to be a problem after the first month, but high nitrite levels will stress fish and cause ich for at least three months.

With respect to having sufficient anaerobic zones, the RDSB Bucket thread is massive with no success stories to be found. It's a sound practice, and the scores of people doing it are properly executing it. It just takes a while to achieve.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10592375#post10592375 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cayars
Hardly any bacteria comes to our tanks via live rock. It almost always dies off but it doesn't matter anyway. Bacteria will populate on it's own during the cycle period. Nothing needs to be added to a tank but something to decay or other source of ammonia.

Technically the information provided above is wrong anyway. Only a source of ammonia is needed and not the nitrite. The nitrites will come on it's own from the nitrogen cycle and from the ammonia, just as nitrates will come from the nitrites. The information doesn't say but gives the impression that the ammonia should be stopped or switched to nitrite dosing which would not be a good idea. If you remove the ammonia source the bacteria will die off since there is no food source.

The bacteria populate very quickly and it shouldn't take more then a few days and certainly not several months. That sounds more like they are talking about die-off from rock changing to ammonia which is not the same.

Carlo

Discount live rock that has been stored on a skid for weeks is devoid of macro-life, but bacteria is still thee to seed the system.

I was a little tiered when I posted last night. Yes, nitrosomonas will convert ammonia to nitrite, but this will take a month in a sterile tank.

Mike Paletta recommends the addition of sodium nitrite to skip this step, as nitrobacter is harder to establish. If a load of ammonia isn't kept constant, the residual nitrite will dissipate and the food source for nitrobacter will wane and lead to its' demise.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you use chemicals, fish and corals to start a tank. My example was in reference to a sterile tank. Most hobbyists making their own rock will not have calcium reactors, sulfur-based denitrators, refugia and a working knowledge of chemical cycling a tank.

 

[jasonh]

Here are my thoughts on using the silica in the mixture for MMLR...

Silica sand can in fact leech some silica. Ok, no big deal. Would I be wrong to interpolate then that the "available" silica would then be at least somewhat used during the hydration process of the cement? After all, this is what is happening when adding the microsilica to the mix....

Furthermore, I am not saying I am going to use a silica-based sand as the substrate for my tank. I am using a very small quantity of it in my rock - not hundreds of pounds just thrown into a system with a powerhead mixing it around. Somehow I think this will really have a minimal impact. I am setting up a new system, so obviously I am expecting some algae issues anyway. I doubt I'll be upset by the "extra" diatoms present during this stage, since it'll be there anyway

I really think we're reading in to this a bit much, honestly. If we really want to get to the nitty gritty, I'd suggest someone setting up two identical tanks side by side with identical amounts of rock - 1 with rock made with silica-based sand, the other with aragonite based sand. My hypothesis would be we wouldn't see any catastrophic differences.

When you look at these discussions, you see a lot of this no matter where you go. If you ask one FW planted person, silica-based pool filter sand is one of the best substrates you can get for the money (it is very nice, actually). The next person you ask would tell you it will cause all sorts of problems and your plants will not grow, and you should spend $25 per bag for Flourite (also very nice). See what I mean?

Not everybody can find aragonite playsand at their hardware store. (just like not everyone can find huge bags of locally manufactured perlite for cheap) I for one don't feel like spending $25+ a bag for aragonite sand at the LFS just to make some rocks. That kind of ruins the spirit of the MMLR for me honestly. I spent $50 and have enough supplies to make over 100lbs of the stuff...add 2 bags of aragonite at $25 a pop, and I might as well just go buy some LR off a fellow reefer for $2 a pound and save myself some hassle.

If it comes down to it, screw it, I'll just ditch the sand in the mix. I'm not sure how much of a difference a small amount of it is making anyway.

 

[Neptune777]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10593464#post10593464 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mr.wilson
So you dispute Randy Holmes Farley's findings? It would help if you posted a picture of your tank.

Using fish to establish the nitrogen cycle is very slow and costly, as stressed fish get sick. Both ammonia and nitrite will linger longer than with a system with established sand or rock added to it. Most aquarists mistakenly assume that their tank is "cycled" after a month because they measure ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate at 0, while in reality, the hard part has not yet begun. Fish and invertebrate mortality and algae blooms are then falsely attributed to lighting, calcium, alkalinity and PH levels, and pre-existing health issues from the LFS.

The bacterial colony volume has to match the bioload. By using fish to feed the nitrogen cycle, you need to slowly stock the tank and allow for growing pains while the nitrifying bacteria always lag behind. Ammonia is unlikely to be a problem after the first month, but high nitrite levels will stress fish and cause ich for at least three months.

With respect to having sufficient anaerobic zones, the RDSB Bucket thread is massive with no success stories to be found. It's a sound practice, and the scores of people doing it are properly executing it. It just takes a while to achieve.

I will gladly post a picture and I have in the past. I'm not exactly sure what your motivation here is Mr. Wilson but you have a distinct tendancy to argue against mainstream ideologies and with points that make no sense at all.

Example: "Ammonia is unlikely to be a problem after the first month, but high nitrite levels will stress fish and cause ich for at least three months" What??? Ich is not caused by Nitrites or stress...it is a parasitic organism with a very well documented life cycle that is either present in your system at all times, or it is not. It doesn't majically manifest itself when the fish is stressed.

"Using fish to establish the nitrogen cycle is very slow and costly, as stressed fish get sick".....I said fish poo as an example, and does not cause stress if you stock light to start. Heck use any material that will decay and cause ammonia to be present.....

I'm done debating the use of silica sand as it HAS been well documented to not be a major concern in the captive reef.

Can we get back on the discussion of making rocks?

 

[pdhenderson]

Just a few points ten back to the rock making

ICH
"http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-08/sp/index.php

"This disease is usually associated with several environmental triggers. Changes in water temperature, exposure to high levels of ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate, low pH levels, low dissolved oxygen, and overcrowding are all factors contributing to the onset of the disease. You could lump all of these in a general category of stress, but I find it more appropriate to think of all of these as wholly unnatural conditions. In fact, Cryptocaryon irritans is rare in the wild, and even more unlikely to be lethal (Bunkley-Williams & Williams, 1994). Ich is truly a disease that exploits the conditions of captivity to reproduce and easily find suitable hosts."

SILICA

Many species of these kinds of algae exist in your aquarium and can harm your fish merely by blocking light and monopolizing space. Should they become too prolific, the dead and decaying population will quickly increase toxin levels and reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen available for your fish and invertebrates.

Diatoms are a type of golden-brown algae (Chrysophyta) that secrete silica â€"œ or “glass” â€"œ in order to form their microscopic homes called frustules. Some scientists classify diatoms in a group all to themselves, the Bacillariophyta.
As their nickname “grass of the sea” implies, these phytoplankton are ubiquitous and thus will appear at some point in just about every well-lit, well-run saltwater aquarium. These plankton are often the first to colonize new surfaces in both fresh and saltwater tanks. In some cases, diatoms are the result of problems with your initial set-up and will subsequently cause difficulties with maintaining good water quality throughout the life of your tank.

Encrusting diatoms are most dangerous in reef tanks since they will first start to grow at the base of corals and move upward. They will cause the corals to recede and in a matter of a few days can kill the colony.

When You See a Buildup

If you begin to see a buildup, which becomes obvious as the diatoms adhere to the tank walls giving them a brownish tinge, clean the panes with a soft cloth or sponge. Begin at the bottom and swipe slowly upward in one sweep. If you keep surgeonfish, tangs or damselfish, they will graze on the loose scrapings. Clean the sponge after each sweep. When the all the panes in your tank have been cleaned, allow some time for the particles in the water column to settle. Then, siphon the gravel and substrate for the loose particles and dead and dying algae since these provide a constant source of silica, and decomposing will reduce the water quality in your tank. Siphon and clean the tank weekly until you notice a reduction in algae growth.

Controlling Diatoms

The best way to deal with a diatom problem is prevention. In order to produce their frustule and live out their lifecycle, diatoms need abundant silicates or silicic acid. Silica sand is a common source, so it is highly recommended that you use a limestone sand or gravel instead. Some commercial salts for mixing marine water will also increase the levels of silicates â€"œ be sure to read the labels and know what you are adding to your water.

Water also contains silicic acid, so treat the water with agents designed to reduce the acid to at least 0.5 ppm, since you can never eliminate all of it. Silicate-reducing compounds and specialized filters are readily available from commercial aquarium supply stores. The material used in these filters must be changed more frequently than your regular filter, depending on the size of your tank, the water quality and the consistency of the diatom problem. Check the manufacturer's recommendations for the best results.

When you perform water exchanges, you can reduce the amount of available silicates by filtering the “new” water three to five times through filter sheets that contain compounds that will eliminate silicates. This is especially wise to do if you want to eliminate a persistent problem with silicate levels. As you keep treating the water you will find that diatom growth is slowed to “normal” levels. Test-kits for silicates are available although not really necessary if you keep an eye on your tank for a potential problem. If you have waited too long before taking measures to keep the silicate levels low, you may even have to double the frequency of your water exchanges for a couple of weeks to solve the problem.

Keeping grazing invertebrates such as snails is also a good preventative measure because these species will roam the tank and graze on the algae both on the tank walls and in the rocks, crevices and other hard-to-reach spots in your aquarium.













NOW ROCKS NO MORE SILICA DEBATES< SORRY I EVER STARTED IT


I made a rock that is way too big, any ideas how to break without a jack hammer, lighting bolt etc.
I tried chisels to no avail, dropping.
Think I made too good a mix.

 

[mr.wilson]

We cannot learn without these discussions (sounds friendlier than "debate"). Hopefully both sides will take something away from it.

A friend sent me a link to a great post/article in the New Jersey Reefer Club Forum, on sulfur denitrators. I recognized the author. Great write-up, full of unique insight.

I'm sure the beaches of Florida have silica sand, but they are likely the result of the tourist industry.

Caribbsea used to spike their sand with silica to save a few bucks. Aquarists were having nuisance algae problems, and the source was traced back to them, and corrected. They have long since stopped this practice, but if it were doable, they would be there in a second.

The "live sand" collected in Florida on a true reef does not have any silica granules in it. The issue at hand is the bioavailability of silicate in the aquarium and the physical pore structure of silica sand.

Perhaps I missed the importance of dosing silicates in his article. Randy made a short list of which animals that required it, including sponges, mollusks, and diatoms only. These are not the type of organisms that warrant supplementation that will lead to the demise of other display animals (due to algae out-competing with corals).

The much longer list of organisms that require phosphates could be made, and would cater to more desirable organisms than sponges, mollusks and diatoms. One could argue that phosphate dosing would benefit many marine organisms in our tanks, but that's a just scientific perspective of one aspect of the issue. The greater issue of nuisance algae would overshadow any benefits.

A parallel can be easily drawn between silicates and phosphates. Many reef aquariums have algae problems that are driven by phosphates, yet measure PO4 is at, or near 0. As soon as silicate (or phosphate) becomes available in the water column, it's quickly picked up by algae, so it doesn't show up on a test kit. This is how you can have silicate levels below NSW and still have too much.

I don't think the focus of the article was a broad study of typical levels of silicate in
"typical" reef aquariums. There certainly wasn't an argument brought forth to support levels that are higher than that found in NSW.

Dr. Ron Shimek reported that silicon is typically at lower levels in aquariums than that of NSW. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php He doesn't go on to explain why, a that wasn't the focus of his study. perhaps it's lower levels in salt mixes (due to public demand), or it could be due to the fact that it's quickly removed by nuisance algae that is in greater abundance in our tanks than on a reef.

Silicates can be bioavailable, without showing up on test kits. This is exactly why nuisance algae grows on surfaces that have bound silicates and phosphates.

Randy shows a picture of diatom algae in his tank after five days. At the five day mark, the walls of the tank have a considerable amount of diatom algae. It appears that the tank would require the walls to be cleaned every day or two.

 

[Neptune777]

""This disease is usually associated with several environmental triggers. Changes in water temperature, exposure to high levels of ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate, low pH levels, low dissolved oxygen, and overcrowding are all factors contributing to the onset of the disease. You could lump all of these in a general category of stress, but I find it more appropriate to think of all of these as wholly unnatural conditions. In fact, Cryptocaryon irritans is rare in the wild, and even more unlikely to be lethal (Bunkley-Williams & Williams, 1994). Ich is truly a disease that exploits the conditions of captivity to reproduce and easily find suitable hosts."

-This information is inaccurate. It is a parasite not a disease:

http://www.petsforum.com/personal/trevor-jones/marineich.html

"Does stress cause "Ich"?

Stress and poor water conditions do not cause marine "Ich", although they will lower a fish's resistance to infection and impair their immune system. If C. irritans is not present in a tank, it doesn't matter what how stressed a fish may be, it cannot get infected. In a tank where parasites are present, stressed fish are more likely to show signs of "Ich" before more healthy fish, but the healthy fish are just as likely to become infected as the numbers of parasites increase. Those fish species that are less susceptible to "Ich" or those individuals that have an acquired immunity, may show no signs and may not get infected. "

I'm done, now back to rocks!

 

[pdhenderson]

silica debate placed here please

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=10594549#post10594549

 

[Neptune777]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10594560#post10594560 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pdhenderson
silica debate placed here please

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=10594549#post10594549

Good call! Thanks...