[griMReefer]

Quote: Originally Posted by kimoyo They can remove organic solids. Thats why the BB people like becketts so much, remove as much as you can before the bacteria break it down.

yeah in a way then, a good skimmer is like weightwatchers - If taking the organic solids away from the bacteria causes them to "focus" on removing more ammonia from a tank, maximizing ammonia removal, which is crucial once you add up all the critters stuffed into a reef tank nowadays?

i have questions too about nitrites like what people mean when they say the corals (well, the corals' symbiont algae) consume some of the wastes (which ones?).... and that clams consume some nitrate.

[kimoyo]

Quote: Originally Posted by griMReefer yeah in a way then, a good skimmer is like weightwatchers

Thats a good analogy .

Quote: Originally Posted by griMReefer If taking the organic solids away from the bacteria causes them to "focus" on removing more ammonia from a tank, maximizing ammonia removal, which is crucial once you add up all the critters stuffed into a reef tank nowadays?

There are a lot of different bacteria in your tank that do different things. They are really just converting one thing into another.

Quote: Originally Posted by griMReefer i have questions too about nitrites like what people mean when they say the corals (well, the corals' symbiont algae) consume some of the wastes (which ones?).... and that clams consume some nitrate.

Yeah clams actually use nitrates. But with sps corals, the zoox algae will use the nitrate to grow (not always a good thing), but the coral itself uses ammonium to do its thing.

	SPS Small Polyped Scleractinians - Sometimes known as Small Polyped Stony corals. These are hard corals that have extremely small polyps. They are typically on the difficult side and require Metal Halide lighting or dense Power Compact or T5 arrays. These corals are prized for their rareness and ability to be easily fragged into multiple colonies.

[griMReefer]

thats what i want to know about, why do they say corals need some ammonia if at the same time it is highly toxic? is there any detailed scientific article on that matter (corals and utilization of ammonia) out there?

[kimoyo]

Read thru the nitrate thread two threads down in this same forum.

Corals can use ammonium which is less toxic than ammonia. And highly toxic to who, the corals or the fish?

[House of Laughter]

I think Rich's question is "how do you know when enough rock is enough? AM I right Rich?

I think this question can be answered, but not without a ton of research and mathematics.

For instance, your tank walls need to be measured and the amount of nitrifying bacteria that will collect there needs to be measured as opposed to how much rock you have an how much nitrifying bacteria collect there. Once that can be obtained (is it really obtainable???) then you would have to be able to measure how much total nitrifying bacteria there are? and how much it is able to export. Once you know this number, then you need to know how much waste each added inhabitant creates - that could be calculated against the amount of nitrifying bacteria is in the tank and once you have more fish waste than nitrifying bacteria you have problems since you would have no other way to export them. I don't think this kind of measurement is possible, but this is how I would think it logiclaly goes together based on the info on this and the Nitrate thread

Awesome threads BTW, whoever thought up having an Advanced Forum deserves a few beers on the House (notice the capital "H")

BTW, this measurements I noted above that I think would need to be known in order to calcualte the rock amount does not include all the other areas where bacteria could collect (sump walls, tubing walls, pump parts etc). You would have to know ALL of those measurements (I think) in order to accurately calculate how much rock. (this also assumes there is only one bacteria type - which we know there are many).

That being said ,I think this is one of the reasons why we don't have an EXACT way to calculate how much rock is needed and only and pragmatic way of doing so.

In short, I use 2lbs per gallon as a rule and is one of the reasons why I think my tank took so long to get healthy. I have 380lbs of rock in my display, BUT 140lbs of it was dry base from reefer rocks - what I put in there that had been established from a previous tank was 200lbs. My total water column is 255g - while I don't have exactly 510lbs of rock (supporting the 2lbs/g theory) I do have 380lbs worth of rock in my 180. The base is now established and covered with coralaine - so all 380lbs is working.

This is my non-scientific hypothesis.

House

[Chiefmcfuz]

I guess the standard 1 lb for every gallon is not the answer you were looking for huh? LOL

[NYPDFrogman]

I understand what Rich is getting at, like him I dont have a 100% understanding of the chemistry involved,both of us still have successful thriving tanks.
I think it would be very difficult to come to a steadfast or difinitive number of how much rock. Like most in the hobby we tend to "overdo" or go to extremes with some things.
one thing I think we could all agree on that in the wild there is a consistant balence and stability.

when you think of tanks, the amount of nitrifing bacteria should be consistant with Bio load rather than water volume.
IE, if I had one 2" fish in a 100 gallon tank, and another tank of the same size with 10-2" there would need to be 10X the amount of nitrifiyng bacteria to maintain the latter?

OK now I'll really complicate things do Corals add to the biological load of a tank?

[Chiefmcfuz]

I would say yes they do add to it. Any living thing that you add to a tank is going to add to the bioload.

[jackson6745]

Actually my question was more like what's the smallest amount of rock can you get away with. Reason why I ask is because i have less than 100lbs in my 120gal reef with 21 fish and no problems. IMO less rock is better because it allows for more flow, more swimming space, and more growth for the corals.
This made me think with a low bio load, with only the rock base that a coral is mounted to will be enough bacterial surface area.



I'm in he same boat as you Frank

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Quote: Originally Posted by griMReefer id never trust skimmers alone-- do they remove organic solids, not ammonia and other dissolved fluids (fluids meaning other aqueous and gaseous compounds not suspensions)? i think not.

I second your opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted by griMReefer as for the bio chain its the bacteria are needed in order to quickly convert the ammonia (excrement) and other waste (elimination, poop) that the fish and other non-photosynthetic are constantly putting out, into nitrites that are less toxic and can be utilized by coral unlike nitrate which is poisonous to them? or something like that.

Wrong equation here. Bacteria are needed but not because nitrites are less toxic to the coral than nitrate. The nitrate level within an aquarium is usually not toxic to coral nor fish.... I guess most tanks do not have nitrate lv as high as 50 ppm! It's believed to be the side effect of the Zoo aglae growth within the coral that slow down the coral. However, nitrites when enter blood stream of a fish will decrease the blood cell to carry oxygen. Thus, in general we want to strike down the nitrite first then nitrate.

Further off topic a bit: One observation froma MR member is that it SEEMS(not always but often) tanks with higher nitrate levels seems to have better color. A lot of the color of a coral comes from the aglae within it. If there are a lot of nitrate that supports a large number of the aglae inside, the coral, in general colors better. Once a while when the coral split out brown stuff, those are dead cells of the zooxanthellae.

	Manhattan Reefs Manhattan Reefs, the best aquarium community on Planet Earth!