Why scare newcomers into using dry rock?
- Thread starter ktownhero
- Start date
I clarified in the thread that I wasn't referring to bacteria.
RocketEngineer
Space is big.
That's the package I got to add to my existing LR when I upgraded. I put the rocks with lots of algae types on them in the refugium. I now have 5 different types of algae growing in there, all at different rates. The dry rock now has sponges, feather duster worms, and a number of different small inverts make nightly appearances plus spots of halimeda and other macro algae. It just takes patience.
Would you mind clarifying your rock set up here? It sounds like you had dry rock in the display and then bought a gulf package to supplement it both in your fuge and display?
RocketEngineer
Space is big.
It's a little long but here is My Build Thread.
Almost 18 months ago, I upgraded from a 75g to a 125g. In the process I took several of the big rocks out of the 75g setup that I didn't like. The remainder was combined with BRS Pukani dry rock that I had been "cooking" for about 3 months beforehand. Dry Rock Arrives. New Setup First Day.
Shortly after I had the new tank up and running, I started experiencing issues and ultimately lost almost everything in the tank. The Crash. About 9 months after the crash, I decided I wanted to re-introduce the biodiversity that I used to have before everything went sideways. Gulf Live Rock Arrives.
Since then the most notable changes in the tank have been the algaes and sponges. A big part of the reason why some of the life didn't survive is my fault but that which did has spread out to all the rocks in the system. Those bare rocks from 18 months ago are now covered in life (and GHA....still working that).
coralsnaked
New member
No matter which you start with in the long run you end up with the same. As you purchase corals and critters the hitchhiker's all come anyway. Do whats best for yourself, neither way is wrong nor is one better than the other.
Let me preface this by saying it's up to the individual which way they want to go, but "in my opinion" dry rock is best for the following reasons.
When I started researching saltwater systems I found countless articles and threads about common pests and nuisance algae taking over tanks which include year long battles with this and that. To answer your question, I'd imagine for the new hobbyist many times these pests and nuisances win the battle. A. Because it's in the tank and B. The inexperience fails to provide them with the knowledge to battle it and even that is no guarantee. If you're spending most of your time fighting something you don't want in your tank how is that enjoyable? It's not. And talking with very experienced hobbyist and veteran store owners the consensus is the drop out rate is rather high for the aforementioned reason or the lack of money.
Think about this. We quarantine fish and corals to avoid any pests entering our system, yet people will dump live rock loaded with the bad. This makes no sense to me.
I started my tank 6 months ago with dry rock cherry picked from Tampa Bay Saltwater (about a 30 minute drive for me). I looked at his live rock and yes it was very nice and loaded with life. Lots of unattractive corals, sea squirts, barnacles, sponges and macro algae. None of which I wanted in my tank and a lot of that will die off in captivity anyways. If you want a Gulf bio type, there's no doubt that's the way to go.
Back to my experience... With the (acid bath and bleached) dry rock, live sand and a bottle of bacteria that I put in my tank I did not detect ammonia and nitrite and after ghost feeding for a couple weeks my nitrates held steady at 2. I started stocking at the 2 week mark and my tank just turned 6 months the other day with minimal loses along the way. Some of which were unavoidable (Yellow tang killed a maxima clam, needless to say the Tang was swapped out). I tested for ammonia for weeks and weeks and it was never detectable. Everything in my tank was added by me. All of the cool hitchhikers were allowed into my system by me from livestock purchases. (Various "good" worms, pods, feather dusters, "good" snails, sponges, mini starfish, etc.).
Now to my point about the bad stuff being introduced, there is no nusiance algae in my tank, no hair algae, no bryopsis, no dinoflagellates, no bubble algae, no macro algae, no cyano bacteria, no aptasia, no manjo anenomes, no nudibranchs, no welks, no bad snails, no crabs, no mantis shrimp, etc., etc. None. Because I didn't allow it to come in on live rock. Yes I'm sure the seeds of some nuisance algae and cyano are present, but that falls on my husbandry. I believe as long as I can keep it in check and my corals and coralline algae take up most of the real estate it will find it very difficult to ever thrive in my system.
Again, this is my personal opinion and while I respect the decision of buying live rock, I've compared my rock during lights on and lights out to tanks with live rock and you wouldn't know the difference. Both are crawling with life.
Here's a recent GoPro pic of my tank. The one mistake I did make is not getting a bigger tank to begin with. I haven't decided the exact dimensions yet, but I'm thinking 96x24x24.
buddhafish
New member
Wow CuzzA...That is a beautiful aquascape!
Thank you. It's basically 3 structures after everything was put together.
Buddafish brings up another great point. I couldn't imagine trying to create a really cool aquascape with live rock. I'd bet there would be a lot of die off and I hate the pile of rocks look that so many tanks have.
Pigpen17
New member
That's impresive.
I don't know. Maybe things have just changed a lot. The hobby has become so focused. Honed. In that light, I can see the benefits of dry rock, but being of the old breed, I enjoyed the ocean in a box. The good, the bad. My Daughter and I used to get up at 1:00 am and grab the flashlights and see what we could see., and it was always a show. Maybe things are just worse now as far as pets go. I have not bought live rock in many years. I still have the 60+ lbs I had 2 tanks ago. I can see that times have changed, but I really loved the ocean in a box.
I don't know. Maybe things have just changed a lot. The hobby has become so focused. Honed. In that light, I can see the benefits of dry rock, but being of the old breed, I enjoyed the ocean in a box. The good, the bad. My Daughter and I used to get up at 1:00 am and grab the flashlights and see what we could see., and it was always a show. Maybe things are just worse now as far as pets go. I have not bought live rock in many years. I still have the 60+ lbs I had 2 tanks ago. I can see that times have changed, but I really loved the ocean in a box.
I really appreciate you taking the time to share your experience. If I were starting this thread over again I would change the title to "Why the shift to dry rock?" in light of your response as well as others.
That said, with all due respect, based on what you've written here you have never kept a tank with proper live rock and therefore sort of fall into the category of what I describe in my OP in that you don't really know what it's like to have a tank with proper live rock. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This thread, though started in a sort of declarative fashion, has turned out to be more of an inquisitive thread for me and I am glad I started it. I have a better understanding of why people use dry rock and the pros of it. At the same time, I think it's hard for newcomers to the hobby to really understand how amazing it is to watch a tank unfold over time that was started with aquacultured live rock. I have quite a bit of time before I start my next tank so I will most certainly take everything here into strong consideration.
You're welcome. As with anything it's personal preference. Yes you are correct I don't have experience with true live rock from the ocean, other than friends tanks. For me I don't really care what may or may not pop up in the tank. And rarely do I get up in the middle of the night anymore to see the mini life. I'm just trying to build a clean beautiful healthy mixed reef where the inhabitants will live complete lives. And honestly what made the decision even easier was $100 for dry rock or $700 for live rock. ;-)
dkeller_nc
New member
Just to clarify for newbs that might be reading this thread - there are some advantages to using all dry rock to start a tank, but they aren't necessarily the ones that get posted frequently on forums.
Specifically:
1) All dry rock is a good deal less expensive than high-quality live rock.
2) You can build an aquascape at your leisure without being concerned with keeping the rocks wet.
3) Dry rock is always available. High-quality live rock from the Pacific is becoming much harder to get since CITES started equating live rock with live coral as far as permitting and quotas are concerned.
However, there are "advantages" that are posted on Reef forums and even in companies literature and websites that make artificial, cultured "live rock" that are simply not true. Some of these "advantages" are simply feel-good wishful thinking, others are selective extraction of information without the whole picture. To wit:
Conditionally False: Starting a tank with dry rock avoids introducing pests.
This statement is only partially true under very strict conditions. If one starts a tank with all dry rock, and importantly, doesn't use a "seed" amount of live rock and quarantines not only fish but also every coral, crab, snail and any other life in the tank, then this statement is partially true. "Partially true" in the sense that one can much reduce the possibility of introducing a macro-pest like aiptasia and majano anemones, unwelcome crabs, and the like. However, one cannot avoid introducing the spores of the most common nuisance pest - algae of various types, some of which are very difficult to deal with such as bryopsis.
And importantly, one must quarantine corals and other life for a number of weeks (certainly over a month) in a tank that includes high intensity lighting, protein skimming, etc... Most beginners will balk at the expense of duplicating just the high intensity lighting component alone in a QT tank. If you don't do this, then there is no pest reduction advantage to using dry rock.
Completely False: Using dry rock or man-made "cultured" live rock is "eco friendly".
This is the most problematic oft-repeated claim. There is no doubt that it is possible to devastate a reef by removing a massive amount of the substrate in a short period of time, just as its possible to devastate a forest by clear-cutting every tree and burning the underbrush.
However, what is often missed is that live rock collection for aquaria is a very tiny percentage of the "reef rock" harvested every year for the purposes of road and building construction as well as just fill material in island nations that otherwise don't have the geology/land area to source the material terrestrially. Harvest of live rock for aquaria is such a tiny percentage that it would make zero difference if all live rock collection were completely and globally banned. Moreover, rock for aquaria isn't harvested from the reef itself - it's harvested from surf zones, rubble fields created by storms, etc... There are several reasons for this, but the most important is economic. It's simply vastly more expensive to remove chunks from a reef and clean off any live coral attached (as strongly incentivized by CITES regs) vs. harvesting already-detached rock in a surf/rubble zone.
Moreover, just as banning all timber harvest from a rainforest can result in the local population not valuing its presence and illegally clear-cutting and burning it for farmland, banning collection of live rock from a locale can result in denying the local populace a significant source of income. Under such circumstances, there's less incentive to prevent the sale of timber concessions that affect the reef through run-off and siltation. There are multiple documented cases of exactly this perverse de-incentivizing of reef protection by the local populace.
Furthermore, a heck of a lot of "dry rock" that is sold for aquaria is actually live rock removed from the ocean and killed/dried for shipment. This is the case for "Pukani", "Tonga Shelf", and many other types of very popular dry rock choices. There are a couple of reasons for why this takes place; as mentioned earlier, much live rock is harvested for building materials, and diverting a small amount of it for sale to well-heeled aquarists (at least in comparison to the local populace) is very profitable for the harvesters. Perversely, the CITES regs that equate live rock with live coral and place quotas on export incentivize the locals to "kill" live rock - dried, harvested rock from the ocean doesn't count against CITES quotas.
Just as there are some disadvantages to the use of live rock (the smell and wait for curing the rock is one example, expense is another), there are also disadvantages from using dry rock:
If the rock is terrestrially mined, fossilized coral rock (typically from Florida and the Bahamas), then there's a strong possibility that it may harbor phosphates, metals and other undesirable elements from groundwater exposure. In some cases, these materials are actually part of the rock itself, and cannot be removed.
If the rock is removed from the ocean, then it can (and usually does) contain a good deal of dead sea creatures which can leach a great deal of phosphate into a reef tank and cause huge algae problems, particularly during the initial part of a tank's life (cycling and the first few months). This problem can be mitigated by acid washing and/or long soaks in saltwater, but most beginners don't view handling the dangerous hydrochloric acid associated with acid washing nor the patience required to soak the rock in saltwater for a month or two favorably.
Lastly, let's address the captive culturing in closed systems of man-made rock from an "eco friendly" perspective. As discussed above, there is no advantage in this material from the perspective of "saving reefs". Another aspect of eco-friendly that is often discussed is the carbon footprint of manufacturing a consumer item. From this perspective, closed-system artificial rock is an utter disaster. Much of the mass of this rock is made with calcined lime as a binder, and mining and manufacturing this material requires a huge amount of energy. Calcined or "slaked" lime is a component of cement/concrete, and the manufacture of this material is so energy-intensive and so polluting from a greenhouse gas perspective that a great deal of money is spent in the form of grants at universities researching a suitable alternative. Aside from the carbon footprint of manufacturing the components of this type of artificial rock, there's also a high cost in energy for the culturing of the material before it's sold to the aquarist in the form of electricity for water circulation/filtration/heating.
In closing, there are many other aspects of the dry-rock vs. live-rock approach that can be argued both ways. But to summarize:
The principle advantage to using live rock is cost. It isn't "eco friendly" in any sense of the word if considered logically, nor does it eliminate pest problems when used in the manner that most aquarists, particularly beginners, use it. And in my opinion, the hobby loses a significant aspect if the collection of natural or the production of mari-cultured live rock goes away.
Specifically:
1) All dry rock is a good deal less expensive than high-quality live rock.
2) You can build an aquascape at your leisure without being concerned with keeping the rocks wet.
3) Dry rock is always available. High-quality live rock from the Pacific is becoming much harder to get since CITES started equating live rock with live coral as far as permitting and quotas are concerned.
However, there are "advantages" that are posted on Reef forums and even in companies literature and websites that make artificial, cultured "live rock" that are simply not true. Some of these "advantages" are simply feel-good wishful thinking, others are selective extraction of information without the whole picture. To wit:
Conditionally False: Starting a tank with dry rock avoids introducing pests.
This statement is only partially true under very strict conditions. If one starts a tank with all dry rock, and importantly, doesn't use a "seed" amount of live rock and quarantines not only fish but also every coral, crab, snail and any other life in the tank, then this statement is partially true. "Partially true" in the sense that one can much reduce the possibility of introducing a macro-pest like aiptasia and majano anemones, unwelcome crabs, and the like. However, one cannot avoid introducing the spores of the most common nuisance pest - algae of various types, some of which are very difficult to deal with such as bryopsis.
And importantly, one must quarantine corals and other life for a number of weeks (certainly over a month) in a tank that includes high intensity lighting, protein skimming, etc... Most beginners will balk at the expense of duplicating just the high intensity lighting component alone in a QT tank. If you don't do this, then there is no pest reduction advantage to using dry rock.
Completely False: Using dry rock or man-made "cultured" live rock is "eco friendly".
This is the most problematic oft-repeated claim. There is no doubt that it is possible to devastate a reef by removing a massive amount of the substrate in a short period of time, just as its possible to devastate a forest by clear-cutting every tree and burning the underbrush.
However, what is often missed is that live rock collection for aquaria is a very tiny percentage of the "reef rock" harvested every year for the purposes of road and building construction as well as just fill material in island nations that otherwise don't have the geology/land area to source the material terrestrially. Harvest of live rock for aquaria is such a tiny percentage that it would make zero difference if all live rock collection were completely and globally banned. Moreover, rock for aquaria isn't harvested from the reef itself - it's harvested from surf zones, rubble fields created by storms, etc... There are several reasons for this, but the most important is economic. It's simply vastly more expensive to remove chunks from a reef and clean off any live coral attached (as strongly incentivized by CITES regs) vs. harvesting already-detached rock in a surf/rubble zone.
Moreover, just as banning all timber harvest from a rainforest can result in the local population not valuing its presence and illegally clear-cutting and burning it for farmland, banning collection of live rock from a locale can result in denying the local populace a significant source of income. Under such circumstances, there's less incentive to prevent the sale of timber concessions that affect the reef through run-off and siltation. There are multiple documented cases of exactly this perverse de-incentivizing of reef protection by the local populace.
Furthermore, a heck of a lot of "dry rock" that is sold for aquaria is actually live rock removed from the ocean and killed/dried for shipment. This is the case for "Pukani", "Tonga Shelf", and many other types of very popular dry rock choices. There are a couple of reasons for why this takes place; as mentioned earlier, much live rock is harvested for building materials, and diverting a small amount of it for sale to well-heeled aquarists (at least in comparison to the local populace) is very profitable for the harvesters. Perversely, the CITES regs that equate live rock with live coral and place quotas on export incentivize the locals to "kill" live rock - dried, harvested rock from the ocean doesn't count against CITES quotas.
Just as there are some disadvantages to the use of live rock (the smell and wait for curing the rock is one example, expense is another), there are also disadvantages from using dry rock:
If the rock is terrestrially mined, fossilized coral rock (typically from Florida and the Bahamas), then there's a strong possibility that it may harbor phosphates, metals and other undesirable elements from groundwater exposure. In some cases, these materials are actually part of the rock itself, and cannot be removed.
If the rock is removed from the ocean, then it can (and usually does) contain a good deal of dead sea creatures which can leach a great deal of phosphate into a reef tank and cause huge algae problems, particularly during the initial part of a tank's life (cycling and the first few months). This problem can be mitigated by acid washing and/or long soaks in saltwater, but most beginners don't view handling the dangerous hydrochloric acid associated with acid washing nor the patience required to soak the rock in saltwater for a month or two favorably.
Lastly, let's address the captive culturing in closed systems of man-made rock from an "eco friendly" perspective. As discussed above, there is no advantage in this material from the perspective of "saving reefs". Another aspect of eco-friendly that is often discussed is the carbon footprint of manufacturing a consumer item. From this perspective, closed-system artificial rock is an utter disaster. Much of the mass of this rock is made with calcined lime as a binder, and mining and manufacturing this material requires a huge amount of energy. Calcined or "slaked" lime is a component of cement/concrete, and the manufacture of this material is so energy-intensive and so polluting from a greenhouse gas perspective that a great deal of money is spent in the form of grants at universities researching a suitable alternative. Aside from the carbon footprint of manufacturing the components of this type of artificial rock, there's also a high cost in energy for the culturing of the material before it's sold to the aquarist in the form of electricity for water circulation/filtration/heating.
In closing, there are many other aspects of the dry-rock vs. live-rock approach that can be argued both ways. But to summarize:
The principle advantage to using live rock is cost. It isn't "eco friendly" in any sense of the word if considered logically, nor does it eliminate pest problems when used in the manner that most aquarists, particularly beginners, use it. And in my opinion, the hobby loses a significant aspect if the collection of natural or the production of mari-cultured live rock goes away.
Green Chromis
New member
:fish1: Hi Everyone, the main reason people use dry rock is the cost of live rock vs dry rock. I would never use dry rock to start a system as I enjoy the biodiversity that live rock will give you even in a large system. This is a very expensive hobby so don't skimp on your bio filtration. :fish1:
mandarin_goby
New member
When I started my 12 gallon long tank, my 1st salty tank, I bought 15 lbs of live rock. I never had any troubling hitchhikers. As a noob, that was a huge relief.
When I upgraded to the 40b, I bought 10 lbs of live rock and 20 lbs of dry to add to the original 15 lbs, as a kind of filler and it was cheaper. I didn't even consider hitchhikers, it was mainly cost. I still haven't had any issues, over a year later.
When I upgraded to the 40b, I bought 10 lbs of live rock and 20 lbs of dry to add to the original 15 lbs, as a kind of filler and it was cheaper. I didn't even consider hitchhikers, it was mainly cost. I still haven't had any issues, over a year later.
lhm nole
New member
I did not use live rock in my tank and love the almost instant reef life in my tank..I have a buddy that used all dry rock and it looks great , he had to seed with coraline.. One huge advantage he has is he has no aptasias and I am having to get rid of a few here and there to avoid a takeover...And also cost wise I spent 3x more..
hogfanreefer
Active member
Beautiful tank Cuzz! Amazing progress in such a short period of time. Speaks for your husbandry/skill. Thanks for sharing it and your experience.
Mine is a little different. I can say the same things about my tank (15 months old) except I used live rock. I did get some aiptasia but it didn't come from the live rock but from some macro algae I purchased for my refugium around the 11 month mark. I did get a few pests from the live rock but even as a complete newbie I dealt with them fairly easily thanks to the knowledge available on this and similar sites.
I'd wager that the truly hobby ending pests (bryopsis, hair algae, bubble algae, etc.) don't enter tanks on live rock but on frags/corals/desirable macrolagae, etc. Every LFS I've ever set foot in has at least one of those visible somewhere in their tanks. It isn't always possible to see and eliminate it before it enters our tanks.
Thank you. I agree. I know there's thousands of tanks that used live rock and have had no issues. Also, like I said I know there's probably some algae spores just dying for me to slack on my maintenance. Running GAC and GFO from day one was probably a huge help in removing phosphates, etc.
I don't quarantine corals, but I always clean up frags very well. If you look hard enough you can find those hitchhikers. If you look at any list of good hitchikers I'd say I have about 75 percent of them in my tank. But my procedure goes as follows... remove corals from their plug if possible, (the best hiding spot for hitchhikers) and of course "DIPPING EVERYTHING". Zoanthids get a freshwater bath and egg inspection, no exceptions. Snails, crabs and clam shells get scrubbed thoroughly. In fact my awesome LFS put my clam in their peppermint shrimp tank before I took it home and I was shocked at all of the flat worms, aptasia etc. getting ripped to shreds, but I scored a nice limpet and a few mini brittle stars.
I know there's no guarantee something won't get into my system, honestly, I can't say 100% there isn't something bad already in there just waiting to get big enough to breed and wreck havoc on me, but I'm going to try my best at preventing it from happening. With a tank, other hobbies, home, business, family and 18 month old son to raise I really don't have the time nor want the hassle of chasing or removing some of the pests we've discussed.
To each his own, right? ;-)
hogfanreefer
Active member
Agreed Cuz.
I've had some success at paying attention during my dips and rescuing bailing good hikers early on and them surviving to be put in the tank/sump.
I've had some success at paying attention during my dips and rescuing bailing good hikers early on and them surviving to be put in the tank/sump.
