Rock "Cooking"--a dangerous trend or something worthwhile? - Page 2

bertoni · #26 01/29/2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sindjin
What organisms living in rock would Dark Curing kill? These are bacterial organisms, etc that already live in complete darkness. They would actually thrive in this environment, IMO.

We've been through that a number of times, with plenty of examples. In general, removing photosynthesis removes a potential food input to the system, as well.

You might have gotten a bunch of rock with a lot of life that is dying off slowly, or that contained a lot of inorganic phosphate that is leaching out. Neither seems a common problem to me.

Quote:

I never said the rock cant be usable. And just because people do it all the time doesn't make it the best method, either. Just ask the Lemmings.

I see no point in name-calling.

Sindjin · #27 01/29/2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

You might have gotten a bunch of rock with a lot of life that is dying off slowly, or that contained a lot of inorganic phosphate that is leaching out. Neither seems a common problem to me.

My rock is actually some of the healthiest i've seen. I removed the dead/dying stuff early on with scrubbing, dunking and swishing.
As of now, I have sponges, Porites, tube worms, etc... that are thriving. ALL Live Rock will have PO4 buried in it...no matter where you get it. Thats just it. It ALL contains it. So it is VERY common. No one has ever tested it though.

Here's what my Rock Looked like out of the box:

And here it is 1 week in to cleaning, scrubbing, dunking and swishing:

Pretty clean rock I would say. Especially for UNCURED. I lost my digital camera otherwise I would post some recent pics.

bertoni · #28 01/29/2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sindjin
ALL Live Rock will have PO4 buried in it...no matter where you get it. Thats just it. It ALL contains it. So it is VERY common. No one has ever tested it though.

Anything that has live organisms will have phosphate in it. It's an essential part of protein and many other compounds associated with live animals. So I don't see what your point is, or why you assume that no one has tested it.

Sindjin · #29 01/29/2006, 05:47 PM

I meant no one has testd it other than testing the water column.
Such as in the way I extracted the detritus expelled from my rock and tested that sample. It was MUCH higher than what my water column tested. This shows that the mineral detritus coming out of the rock was loaded with PO4. And my point was to show you that is IS common, where as you said it wasnt common.

Quote:

You might have gotten a bunch of rock with a lot of life that is dying off slowly, or that contained a lot of inorganic phosphate that is leaching out. Neither seems a common problem to me.

bertoni · #30 01/29/2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sindjin
I meant no one has testd it other than testing the water column.
Such as in the way I extracted the detritus expelled from my rock and tested that sample. It was MUCH higher than what my water column tested. This shows that the mineral detritus coming out of the rock was loaded with PO4. And my point was to show you that is IS common, where as you said it wasnt common.

How do you know that no one has tested the phosphate content of live rock.

What I said was that it doesn't seem to be a common problem with most people's live rock. I don't see why the PO4 in your water sample is supposed to support dark-curing all live rock, and it doesn't demonstrate that the base source of the phosphate was anything other than the result of dead organisms decaying.

inwall75 · #31 01/29/2006, 06:04 PM

BTW, nice looking rock!!!

Calcium carbonate is a natural adsorber of phosphorus. If you have LR, you have introduced a form of P to your tank. Some rock will have more, some will have less. Luckily for us, bacteria are usually efficient enough to bind up most phosphorus before algaes can utilize it.

I can tell you why you are finding a lot of P in your rock and a lot of sediment.

Quote:

This photo shows one of the areas that we use for the harvest of our Fiji Premium. The area shown on the left is about 40 kilometers in length and runs along the western side of the main Island. We are able to utilize this coast because of its heavy agricultural runoff and high nutrient content in the water. Very little coral grows on this coast because of the heavy wave action and large amounts of sediment and algae (including coralline) in the water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This picture shows a close up of the same area with some of the collectors working in the tidal zone. Interesting to note the average depth of the water that live rock is collected in and the lack of most other types of coral life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the rock arrives at the warehouse in Fiji it receives a thorough cleaning by our crew. First we clean off all of the excess plant life and sponge that will just decay in the shipping process then we power wash it to remove the mud. This step is very important to insure good clean rock during transit rather than stinky unclean rock that will really cause havoc on your system on the receiving end. This step also allows us to judge the rock for good coralline coverage and reject any pieces that do not meet the standards for Fiji Premium from Walt Smith International.

Once the rock is cleaned it is placed in our system and receives a constant spray of clean filtered water. We use spray to keep the coralline alive and moist while some of the "undesirables" either crawl off or (in the case of sponges) die off. Many people ask why we do not keep the rock fully submerged and the answer is simple. If we were to keep the rock under water at this stage of curing the ammonia created in the system would kill off everything, including coralline, and the stinky mess it would create would reduce the Fiji Premium to base rock. From our experience rock kept our way for at least 4 - 6 days prior to shipping allows for nice clean rock upon arrival without fouling your system.

http://pacificaquafarms.com/premium.htm

While I mostly have Marshall Island rock, I do have some Fiji mixed in because I really like the looks of it. However, IMO, any rock from Fiji should be cured well before adding it to the tank. There will be high P content due to agricultural runoff and there will be high sediment because they are digging it out of muddy areas and powerwashing it.

Does this mean, "Don't buy Fiji LR"? NNNOOOO!!! It just means be aware that this LR comes from an area that has too much P for stony corals to grow because of agricultural runoff, contains a lot of algaes (including coralline), and is muddy. Curing well would be a very good idea IMO.

If you want to cure it with the lights on...fine. If you want to "cook" it with the lights off....fine. Each method has it's plusses and minusses. You will likely lose some of the coralline coverage with cooking but will have less adsorbed phosphorus and the pieces of broken LR that gets shed will be in a tub instead of your tank. You also won't likely have the typical "cycling" algaes in your tank.

If you cure it with the lights on, you will likely have to manually remove some problem algaes in the beginning, will likely have more diatoms in the beginning, more cyanobacteria in the beginning, etc. However, you will likely have more coralline algae and that is important to a lot of people.

I don't understand the "Us" vs "Them" on the issue. We all have differing goals for our tanks. Heck, I have 2 mantis tanks. Not many people find them as fascinating as I do. Those tanks are set up to cater to those animals. My attitude is let people do what they want. Let them know the facts about their choice but let them do what they want (as long as it isn't unethical).

I can personally testify that "cooking" doesn't kill everything. If you need me to upload a picture with my right hand raised and my left hand on a Bible, let me know. At the same time, while it hasn't happened to me, some people seem to have lost some of their coralline algae and that is a very big negative to some.

Pick your poison....neither method is without flaws. Choose which flaws you want to live with.

inwall75 · #32 01/29/2006, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bertoni
I don't see why the PO4 in your water sample is supposed to support dark-curing all live rock, and it doesn't demonstrate that the base source of the phosphate was anything other than the result of dead organisms decaying.

I'm curious by nature. (I even made a custom 10 micron filterbag to go over my return once to see if pods could survive the trip from my sump/refugium). OK...I admit it. I'm a dork. But I'm a curious dork. I once did exactly what he did and was amazed at the P content after letting the "shedding" sit in my tube for 15 minutes or so. I then retested my water column and didn't have problematic phosphate levels. Once, on some thread, he said that he had this coming out of his rock and I told him to run a P test on it. It turns out, he's curious too because he had already done it.

I see no sense in arguing the cause because whatever it is, the "shedding" from LR is very high in P.

Sindjin · #33 01/29/2006, 06:36 PM

Inwall,

Good post on the Live Rock!

Quote:

What I said was that it doesn't seem to be a common problem with most people's live rock. I don't see why the PO4 in your water sample is supposed to support dark-curing all live rock, and it doesn't demonstrate that the base source of the phosphate was anything other than the result of dead organisms decaying.

It doesn't seem to be a common problem with most people's live rock because most people don't specifically test their detritus piles from their rock for PO4. That's why. I would have never realized it either if I just tested my water column... it tested .05ppm. The detritus pile was 4ppm. All live rock will house mineral detritus thats loaded with PO4. How much? WHo knows...thats just it. You dont know.

bertoni · #34 01/29/2006, 06:53 PM

So why should I test the detritus pile? Why should I care about the PO4? I'm missing any connection between "live rock contains phosphorus" and "everyone should cook their rock".

gillies · #35 01/29/2006, 07:10 PM

That's because your not talking about algae anymore. All the threads on cooking rock sought to eliminate problem algae, not measure PO4. I'd bet you could cook a rock for nine months, grind it up and test it for PO4 and still show levels above what is in the water column. So what? The damn algae will be gone - at least initially. Sorry to see this thread turn into another excercise in RC cerebrial masturbation.

Randy, if you are still watching this thread, could you address the algae and life questions I asked earlier?

Sindjin · #36 01/29/2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

So why should I test the detritus pile? Why should I care about the PO4? I'm missing any connection between "live rock contains phosphorus" and "everyone should cook their rock".

PO4 is a nutrient that doesn't get broken down. Unlike Nitrate which will be denitrified... Phosphorus naturally sinks deeper into substrate. ("which is why we have Phosphate mines in Florida" -Bomber)

If you have a DSB... detritus will sink into the sandbed. The PO4 will not go away. It will accumulate and possibly be released later when the sink is full.... OR when conditions in the deeper sand bed become acidic (less than 7.9). Those acidic conditions will cause any PO4 thats bound to calciferous substrate to be released as well.

Cooking Rock will help you, the aquarist prevent uneccessary amounts of P04 to accumulate in the sandbed. Its obviously easier to export PO4 out of a BB, but an SPS dominant tank needs to maintain the lowest levels of PO4 at all times.

The bottom line? I want clean rock. period. It was a hellava lot harder to get clean rock in the lighted display then it would have been if I just cooked it. To each his own!

bertoni · #37 01/29/2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gillies
All the threads on cooking rock sought to eliminate problem algae, not measure PO4.

Not at all true. Sindjin has been quite explicit in saying that everyone should dark-cure all live rock. A search in the NTTH forum will bring up more than one thread.

bertoni · #38 01/29/2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sindjin
If you have a DSB... detritus will sink into the sandbed. The PO4 will not go away.

There's no evidence to support that statement, and a lot of evidence against it. I've posted a number of references on the topic.

gillies · #39 01/29/2006, 08:02 PM

Yeah, ok. Thanks for all your help bertoni RC mod.

bertoni · #40 01/29/2006, 08:12 PM

Sorry, I didn't answer your questions because you directed them at Randy. I didn't mean to be quite so curt about the various posts all over the place, either.

You could try the dark-curing. It would eventually most likely kill off any pest algea, although I suppose spores, etc, might remain. Other than that, I don't see any problems it's necessarily going to solve.

Dark-curing should remove nutrients from the rock, but you might be able to get the same effect by the usual nutrient export mechanisms. Surely the rock will simply go back to the high-nutrient state if the underlying problem isn't solved.

gillies · #41 01/29/2006, 08:24 PM

Apology accepted. I searched through the NTTH forum but could find nothing about "cooking" there. I'm no chemist, but I'm no newbie to the hobby either. Bare bottom was a big deal when I was building tanks in '84. Funny it's hot again now.

Perhaps I should re-explain my original question. From what I have read, valonia and this "red turf" algae has little to do with "high nutrients." Is this correct, or have I wasted several hundred dollars on a published library, not to mention countless hours on RC?

When posted, problems with either of these algaes is never addresses adequately. Perhaps there is no answer to either one. I am only trying to gain opinion from folks who are more experienced than myself as to whether "cooking" rock could be, however extreme, an answer to this problem. If you have others, feel free...

bertoni · #42 01/29/2006, 08:39 PM

Unfortunately, algal problems can be all over the place. Algae do need food to grow, but then you have to consider the ability of the various algae to compete against each other, etc.

When I had a red hair algae problem, I was able to kill it off over several months. I was more careful with my feeding, kept my skimmer clean, and adding a macroalga to the system to export more nutrients. With a bit of hand-pruning now and then, the red hair simply faded over time and is now gone. Actually, I've had the stuff in three tanks, and it's gone from all of them.

In two of those tank, the water column was perfectly clean throughout, as far as hobbyist test kits go, and none of the tanks had any damage from nutrients or the red hair alga. I just decided it was ugly, and it would have covered some corals if I had let it go much longer.

Valonia is pretty similar, IME. I have never gotten rid of all of it, but I don't really want to do so, either. It can be outcompeted by a skimmer and Chaetomorpha and Caulerpa, IME. Maybe I'm just lucky.

gillies · #43 01/29/2006, 09:34 PM

Basically my experience also. My tank looks nothing like those presented above in this thread. I'm not overrun with HA or either type I've mentioned having. I just wanted to know what other options there might be. Thanks.

RichardS · #44 01/29/2006, 11:43 PM

Well I posted on this topic in another forum but since the original post seems to have been posted all over the place I'll copy it here...

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardS
Just because something is "new" on rc doesn't mean some people have not been doing it for a long time. "Rock cooking" really isn't any different than curing your rock for an extended period of time (several months at least in a dark trash can) beyond the no more ammonia/nitrite point before putting it in your tank. Some, like me, have been doing this for a long time. Guess someone just came up with a catchy name for it other than patience.

I agree there is some "spin" to your post. The same type of things can be said for the dsb approach. Oh you only have 4" of sand...you need 6". Still have problems...you need more sandbed critters - order from ipsf. Still have problems...you need more macro algaes. Whaa? your water is green now...you need uv sterilizer. More problems??? you need a bigger skimmer. Algae still??? oh well you need a phosban reactor or two. Still not happy??? well your tank is overstocked...only one tang per 200 gallons...on and on and on.

There are a bunch of methods that can yield excellent results and they all have their up and downsides. So I think the real question is...Why does it bother you so much?

With the added comment that, at least from what I have read in this thread, the rock cooking thing does seem to be uhhh let's say oversold.

No stony corals if you use fiji rock because of too much p? OK, that's a new one.

You know reef tanks really aren't this hard...

inwall75 · #45 01/29/2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardS
Well I posted on this topic in another forum but since the original post seems to have been posted all over the place I'll copy it here...

With the added comment that, at least from what I have read in this thread, the rock cooking thing does seem to be uhhh let's say oversold.

No stony corals if you use fiji rock because of too much p? OK, that's a new one.

You know reef tanks really aren't this hard...

I don't believe you've read my post carefully. That is not what I said at all.

RichardS · #46 01/29/2006, 11:54 PM

I stand corrected..that is not what you said. Sorry.

inwall75 · #47 01/30/2006, 12:12 AM

No worries...not a problem.

RichardS · #48 01/30/2006, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by inwall75
No worries...not a problem.

Ok, good. I was a bit glazed over after reading through this post in two other forums before reading this thread. Perhaps I should become a politician...take half of a sentence and ignore the rest.

RichardS · #49 01/30/2006, 01:02 AM

Randy (or anyone),

With all of these type of threads revolving around p, I am wondering why there is never any mention of polyphosphate accumulating bacteria?

Randy Holmes-Farley · #50 01/30/2006, 09:05 AM

My questions for Randy would be: as far as the die off of organisms, won't corralin algae regrow over time? Wouldn't putting in a few pieces of fresh live rubble re-seed the system with additional life forms? Will this method offer me a chance to "try again" with the battle against "low nutrient" algae?

Yes. But in my opinion, that emphasizes that this is a last ditch effort. I'm not convinced that one cannot often (maybe always)accomplish the same goals with other means of phosphate export (like GFO) that are no so disruptive to the aquarium.