article in Marine Fish 2002 annual magazine????

[Anonymous]

Yea and he corrected me, too, sort of. It seems like he wasn't saying exactly what Greg was. I do notice, though, that the picture in the article has very little live rock in it. Richard, do you plan to add more? I don't want to go back to those days, and I am sure Richard doesn't either. The question is pretty direct abut the aspect of filtration, at least to my eyes. It doesn't address the issue of the recruitment possible, as Greg pointed out. I would think that that in itself wuld cut down on the bacteria working in/on the rock.

 

[SAT]

I got my copy at North Coast Marines

 

[Scott D Passe]

Hi All,

Yes, sand beds have much more available surface for bacterial colonization.

With a DSB, you only need enough live rock for “decorative” concerns, as opposed too being tied to an arbitrary ratio of live rock lbs, per gallon.

My former 180-gallon reef, because of the DSB, required only about 150lbs of Fiji live rock to be “fully stocked”

Regards,

Scott

 

[Iron]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scott D Passe:
<strong>Hi All,

My former 180-gallon reef,

Regards,

Scott</strong><hr></blockquote>
Getting a bigger tank, moving or quitting?? Just curious. I do agree with LS not much LR is needed for biological filter. I do agree with not having a rock wall reef if you have larger fish. But there are reef zones that are all wall if your mimicing this. But i wouldn't have large fish. I do agrree that to much rock in small tanks = no room for corals. I have corals over 12" tall in my 24" tall tank=120g. But If I was lucky enough to have a 2000g I may have done it different but once the tank is probally 5yrs old and the corals are 2-3ft tall it will look nice. I probally would have a couple rock walls in that reef. i'm sure in a 24' long reef the small fish and other critters would like a place to hide. But it would be nice to see another pic of that tank every year.

 

[Russ1]

Did anyone even notice how much of a water change he was doing? 250 gal per week!

 

[rharker]

My tank is modeled after patch reefs I've dived in Micronesia and other areas.

One would be hard pressed to argue that patch reefs are somehow incomplete or dysfunctional ecosystems. Certainly patch reefs have a different mix of animals than reef walls, but a different mix of animals doesn't suggest that one is superior to the other.

The primary reason offered in hobbyist literature for live rock in a reef tank is for chemical filtration, but none of the authors of those recommendations have offered any evidence to support their recommendations. The numbers are completely arbitrary. If a hobbyist wants live rock to glue things to, great. If a hobbyist wants live rock for coral or sponge settlement, great. The point of the article was that one does not have to have the "rocks in a box" look to have adequate chemical filtration and denitrification.

I designed the tank to provide the space to grow realistically large corals, patches on the order of cubic yards. When one fills a tank with rocks, there's little room for corals to grow. Like the article said, design a reef tank for what you want it to look like a few years from now. It may look sparse now, but if I'm successful in a few years one will see corals not rock when they look at the tank. That's what patch reefs look like.

Richard Harker

 

[rharker]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Russ:
<strong>Did anyone even notice how much of a water change he was doing? 250 gal per week!</strong><hr></blockquote>

It takes some organization, but it doesn't really take me more time than it did doing a 30 gallon water change in my 300, just a lot more garbage cans!

Now I wish I had been more conscientious with water changes in my 300.

Richard Harker

 

[Anonymous]

I like the concept and agree. My 100 is only 1/4 full, although by the pictures of Richard's tank it is packed. I also am doing a back reef, so I need more rock.

Richard,
I look foreward to future pictures of the tank. Thank you for sharing your experience with us.

 

[Bob Gardner]

question for Richard Harker. I have not read the article. As far as I know, the magazine is not available in the U.K. In your posts, I did not see you mention the removal of Nitrate anywhere, only Nitrite and I was under the impression that the live rock in a tank was instrumental in removing not just the nitrite but also the nitrate. Did I miss it or misunderstand you?

Bob

 

[tstone]

Richard
If I could I would like to get off subject a little and talk about the construction of the tank. It appears from the pictures that it is cement block. Is that correct? If it is cement block is there any rebar reenforcment or just block?
Also what type of bulb are you useing in the lighting? I know that sunlight is your main source. If you did have to rely strictly on artificial lighting what would you use?
Your tank is beautiful and I hope you will use it as a subject of some other artical so that we may see its progress.
Thanks for the info on DSB. I plan to model my tank in much the same way.
Thanks

 

[LeoR]

I haven't read the article, but agree with Mr. Harker's observation in advance.

For many years I have used only 0.1 lbs/gal of rock and 2 - 3 inches of sand in my tanks and my "tank guests" have thrived.

It is only common sense that packing tanks with dead stuff has few benefits (and could be even harmful.)

Thanks Richard for rolling up your sleeves again and helping us, lazy pen and paper pundits continue doing nothing and still brag "told-ya-so".

LeoR

P.S.
We had a similar discussion on FishNet many years ago.

 

[Anonymous]

Bob: Nitrate reduction will be occuring in the sand, though I'm not entirely convinced that Richard has a deep enough bed however the enourmous surface area may substitute for that.

 

[ADS]

I have not read the article but am concerned by the implication that live rock is 'decorative' primarily and secondarily instrumental in filtration. I recently read Steve Tyree's book on sea squirt and sponge filtration, and I agree with Greg H. If you reduce some component of filtration(live rock) you'll have to supplement your filtration by other means-skimmer,ozone,some adsorptive media etc... A true reef environment should incorporate more natural filtration methods such as DSB, live rock and natural filtration by living organisms such as sea squirts/sponges and refugia systems with macroalgae. I believe most reef keepers are keeping modified Berlin systems presently incorporating some variant of each of these.
Advocates of skimmerless systems would certainly argue as to the value of live rock in the captive reef-purist or not-it's important

 

[Greg Hiller]

Richard,

>The primary reason offered in hobbyist literature for live rock in a reef tank is for chemical filtration, but none of the authors of those recommendations have offered any evidence to support their recommendations. The numbers are completely arbitrary. If a hobbyist wants live rock to glue things to, great. If a hobbyist wants live rock for coral or sponge settlement, great. The point of the article was that one does not have to have the "rocks in a box" look to have adequate chemical filtration and denitrification<

Certainly, I agree, one does not need the rocks in a box look by any means. Far less rock is needed in a tank to still have a healthy environment. I agree in general with what you are doing in your tank, and I think it will look fantastic in a few years. My only comment was that I did not want people new in this hobby to get the impression that it was a good idea to set up a tank with only sand. I really do think that the PARTICULATE/CHEMICAL filtration aspects of live rock are quite important. And, no, I cannot prove it with a chemical analysis (my day job keeps me too busy I'm afraid!).

Reply to ...was it James?:

>Then you go on to equate not providing this substrate to going back to the stone age of using ozone, canister filters, etc.

I think some of us...myself included might have missed the logical connection. Can you perhaps explain?<

This IS a logical conclusion. I believe live rock also offers settlement sites for sponge, corals, and other filter feeders. These filter feeders remove particulate, and dissolved organic material from the water colomn that would otherwise have to be removed by canister filters with filter floss, carbon (organics and coloring agents), ozone (organics and coloring agents).

FWIW, Richard is experimenting with a return to some of these devices. For a tank on the scale of his I think some of these devices (probably ozone in particular) might have some application. We cannot duplicate many of the chemical processes of the reef I'm afraid.

I did read the article this week. Wow, the size of the water changes blows my mind. I don't think I'd ever attempt more that 5% a month with a tank that size. I'm guessing that all the extra nutrients and trace elements in the artificial salt mixes probably would cause a lot of problems at that scale, particularly at start up when there are only a few (relative to the size of the tank) corals to consume the nutrients, etc.

- my $0.02, now my company's stock only needs to increase by 1000% and I'll be able to set up a tank like Richards!

- Greg Hiller

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Hiller ]</p>

 

[mariner]

Whats a reef with no colorful rock???

 

[rharker]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tstone:
<strong>Richard
If I could I would like to get off subject a little and talk about the construction of the tank. It appears from the pictures that it is cement block. Is that correct? If it is cement block is there any rebar reenforcment or just block?
Also what type of bulb are you useing in the lighting? I know that sunlight is your main source. If you did have to rely strictly on artificial lighting what would you use?
Your tank is beautiful and I hope you will use it as a subject of some other artical so that we may see its progress.
Thanks for the info on DSB. I plan to model my tank in much the same way.
Thanks</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry for the long delay in replying, but I wasn't on the forum for the holidays.

Rebar connects the front wall to the foundation and the front wall to the side walls. The back and side walls are concrete block, but the front wall is poured 5000 psi concrete.

Natural sunlight is in the 2000 uE range of intensity while the 400w Iwasaki bulbs produce only about 800 uE, so where natural light falls, sunlight produces the majority of the PAR. Unfortunately, during winter months the sun is so low on the horizon that much of the tank only receives artifical light.

Lighting has proved to be the greatest challenge. How well do corals adapt to light that varies from 800 uE in the winter months to 2000 uE in the summer? So far everything has been able to adapt.

I'm trying to document as much as I so I can do a follow-up article in the future.

Richard Harker

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Shimek has been saying the same thing about the lack of need for live rock for several years. It wasn't well received when he said it, now finally some people are starting to listen. I always felt it would reduce our hobby's impact to natural reefs, but many don't like the idea for any reason.

 

[dragon0121]

I had to agree that after all of the years of Richard arguing with Dr. Ron, I find it funny that this large tank follows so many of the principles that Ron espouses. Richard, what grain sizes did you use in the sandbed? Your old recommendation for large grain sizes or smaller particle/silt sizes?

 

[Super Len]

I need to vent a little, and I guess there's no better time or place then here

I wholly respect Ron for his knowledge and contributions to this hobby, but it erks me to no end how some people regard him as some sort of reef demigod. Dragon0121 should know perfectly well what I speak of (re: anemone nutrition). Keep in mind the bulk of academic texts he reads is also available to anyone whose interested.

Knowledgable? yes. Appreciated? yes. Ominiscent? no. It surprises me people even need to be reminded of this.