FO vs FOWLR

[Terrance]

Besides having the abilty to house anaerobic bacteria, does live rocks do anything else? Does having live rocks worth the expense over media in HOB/canister/sump? Would it be better to have the FO system since it does not throw off nitrate readings (the number that indicates when to do a water change)? This is all assuming no skimmer and macroalgae.

I think its better not to have live rocks in a reef-less system unless for aesthetic purposes.

[J-P]

YES.

It houses 1000's of critters that act as a clean up crew, not to mention the algae, sponges and filter feeders that come with it.

Simply put, there is no system designed by man that can match what live rock can do.

[Terrance]

There are actually thousand of critters on the live rock after you buy them? I've asked this question on another forum and they never mentions these critters.

When you say algae, do you mean the coraline algae? I thought they were only for looks.

What are these sponges and filter feeders that you're talking about? Are they totally different and serve a different than biological aerobic bacteria that I could get with traditional filters - HOB/canisters?

Basically, how does live rock help water quality?

[J-P]

some of those questions are beyond my expertise.

Critters: You will get "pods" They will propagate and make more "pods". These are tiny little critters related to shrimp or sand fleas.

Algae: Coraline is only one kind. But it is still algae. It will still provide O2 to the tank and suck out Nitrates (and looks good)

Sponges are fragments or spores that are stored in in the rock that have not matured as of yet. They will in time. They are part of the filter feeders.

Filter feeders and worms: These include bristle worms, tube worms and feather dusters. They all play an essential role in the mini eco-system.

Of course you have the unknown "WTF!! is that??" growing in the tank. That is part of the joy and research. You may also get a hitchhiker or 2. For myself, it was a crab that is one bad a$$ crab that rivals puffers.

Live rock in no way - no how, can be duplicated and in itself is a joy to watch it develop.

If you want a 100% sterile environment, get some dry rock and some Dr. Tims. It is much cheaper but there is no fun in that.

[Terrance]

Thanks JP. Will puffers try to eat those filter feeders, worms, and whatever critters that come out of the rocks? This would explain why the puffers at the LFS bite at the live rocks whenever I visit them.

Without the live rocks, could the beneficial kind of algae grow?

[Pufferpunk]

http://saltaquarium.about.com/od/livero ... e-Rock.htm

[Terrance]

I've seen that article before. Its very vague. Aren't the amount of coraline (or whatever good type of algae grown) very minor? I read somewhere that I could take some algae scrapings of the good algae off live rocks and put it into my tank for growth. I'm just uncertain if live rocks are even needed? Is it possible to put some live rocks from established system and let them swarm fake decor?

[J-P]

base rock and a bottle of Dr tims will be enough. BUT it is not the same. you just don't get the enjoyment or the pleasure of watching something grow from virtually nothing.

The other algae you are thinking about is macro algae. Chaetomorpha linum (Chaeto), is a great way to go. It is easy to control, grows quickly and is a nitrate sponge.

[Pufferpunk]

That is NOT enough, unless you seed the base rock with at least one piece of live rock with the beneficial creatures in it.

[J-P]

if Terrance is inclined to go with mechanical filtration, the base rock + the seed bacteria will do the job. It won't be nearly as effective as your method and will require more long term maintenance, but it can be done.

[Pufferpunk]

What long-term maintenance? Mechanical filtration, unless rinsed 2x/week, will become a nitrate factory unless of course he plans on doing weekly 50% WC, which is what is recommended without the correct amount of LR. Less maintenance???

We're not just talking about nitrifying bacteria in LR. The thousands of detritus-eaters come with it, too. All are necessary to keep a healthy closed SW system.

[RTR]

FO is comparable to FW nitrification via standard aerobic bacteria. It is a tiny section of the nitrogen cycle. FOWLR plus skimmer plus lighted microalgae refugium provides a complete nitrogen cycle, both aerobic and anaerobic, plus both mictoflora amd microfauna to quite closely replicate the full nitrogen cycle (where FW tanks can only replicate the aerobic microbial portion, plus the plant mediated nitrate consumption of nitrate if the tank is fully and densely planted. Note that this still requires large-scale water partials foe high water quality). FOWLR also replicates a good part of the full nitrogen cycle (aerobic and anareobic, bacterial and plant-mediated) along with a significant part of the microscopic and small macroscopic grazers on bacteria and algae and sponges, and scavengers of other excess nutrients within the semi-closed SW system, while the skimmer removes excess DOCs which would otherwise pollute the system and require routine large scale water partials.

The three-part system provides the closest approach the home hobbyist can come to a closed system, but do note that it is still only a semi-closed system. It require much lower water change levels than the 50% weekly recommended for bacterial nitrification plus skimmer (really foam fractionation), but still must have water partials.

To achieve a true closed system is still beyond our capabilities. It may well require DSB or plenum, possibly plus seagrass beds or other techniques with periodic harvest of biomass for excess nutrient export to approach a closed system more closely. But the three-part system is relatively simple and many-fold better than bacterial nitrification only. A fully closed system is still not available to us.

HTH

[J-P]

What long-term maintenance? Mechanical filtration, unless rinsed 2x/week, will become a nitrate factory unless of course he plans on doing weekly 50% WC, which is what is recommended without the correct amount of LR. Less maintenance???

We're not just talking about nitrifying bacteria in LR. The thousands of detritus-eaters come with it, too. All are necessary to keep a healthy closed SW system.

Yep!

I never said less, I said MORE. We're on the same page here. You're just better at saying it

[Terrance]

Ok lets leave the skimmer and refugium out of the FO vs FOWLR for easier understanding the full effects of live rocks vs traditional filters (HOB/canisters/media in a sump).

So this is my understanding from all of your posts and previous knowledge:

Live rocks carry a bunch of critters and organisms. These organisms feed on organic and inorganic waste. Is that how it effects water quality?

We can take live rocks and seed base rocks - 90% base and 10% live to help budget. After an extended period of time, we can remove the live rock since the base rock would be "live" - meaning that critters and other organisms spread over the base rocks.
Would it be possible for these critters and organisms to spread over fake decor? This would be a huge budget savings for people with large tanks.

I think rocks take up a lot of space for large fish - such as our Porcupine friend.

I've always thought base rocks would build up a layer of mulm, which makes it more difficult to keep anaerobic bacteria. The critters and organisms from live rocks keep the rocks clean right? No maintenance necessary?

Again this is just assuming no skimmer or refugiums. Just straight FO vs FOWLR.

I understand why its not a good idea to have a canister - maintenance is a big hassle. HOB was pretty easy though, but I wouldn't want to do it every week. Media in a sump is simple. Rinse the media every few months. IME filter socks is super easy to own. I take out my filter sock once a week, throw it in a washer with bleach, then dry. When I take out the socks, they are practically empty, but the white sock part turns brown (100micron socks).

[RTR]

You are missing a basic point. LR is only one component in a system. Alone it is good, but without a skimmer and the refugium, the system is far less effective. and in not really self-propagating. The picture you paint by saying "We can take live rocks and seed base rocks - 90% base and 10% live to help budget. After an extended period of time, we can remove the live rock since the base rock would be "live" - meaning that critters and other organisms spread over the base rocks." is in itself misleading and incomplete.

The so-called now "live" formerly inert base rock is not and is unlikely ever to be the mass equivalent of the original live rock. It does not and never will have the diversity of the original LR. IMHO & IME it will certainly be functional to some degree, but cannot equal the functionality of the original LR. No semi-closed system is ever going to have the biodiversity of a reef in the wild. What we could call "second-generation" live rock is useful, but cannot and never will equal first-generation LR.

To go further, if your system omits skimming, your live rock will not continue to "improve" but will degenerate as the DOCs continue to increase and effectively smother the LR. That is, it will decline in diversity strongly with time and may effectively "die".

The refugium, along with providing food and sheltered space for 'pods and worms and such, by the necessary thinning of the macroalgae itself, it is another highly targeted nutrient export needed long-term to protect the "life" of the LR as well as the micro-flora and micro-fauna diversity.

The "system" components are mutually beneficial and codependent. You cannot in fact "isolate" a component and hope or expect it to function long-term as it would in a more comprehensive system.

Socks and such are primarily mechanical filters. As such, the more frequently they are cleaned, the more effective they are. A disadvantage is that they can and do gather mircofauna. Allowing them long-term residence without cleaning converts them to organic digestion devices which contribute to water pollution more than they subtract from it. I would consider anything over one week's residence to be a negative effect on water quality. To me, that is the strongest argument against canisters as mechanical filters. Very few canisters are sufficiently user-friendly to allow weekly or more frequent cleaning of internal capture media.

HTH