If you could start over: Live Rock or Dry?

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally Posted by SDguy

I've had every algae come and go in my tank, including that one. It's not an issue, with patience and proper husbandry, IMO.

x2
add many other types of algae to the list, too.
Anemones, sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, tunicates, crabs, chitons and shrimps... the list of biodiversity is endless. The "good" far outweigh the "bad" IME.

Is it a coincidence that proponents of properly functioning DSB's cite the need for sandbed biodiversity? (Remember Shimek's "critter count" recommendations?)

Biodiversity is where it's at. That's why "open" systems function much better than "closed" systems.

[MammothReefer]

Now I know I may come off a little harsh so I apologize in advance.

Dead rock is the only way to go for me. I don't see the point of so called "live" rock what so ever. From the time that it is yanked from the ocean to the time it hits your tank. That rock has been sitting and drying out anywhere from days to weeks. If not it sits in a dirty gross half maintained LFS "live rock bin", where it just festers and soaks up all the phosphates, and other nutrients from the massive pile of decay that most likely at best has a fluval canister for filtration. It's half dead, and just a rotting mess. The Biodiversity is only obtainable from live rock claim is hogwash to me.

I use dead/dry rock when I setup my systems now, and biodiversity is not an issue. If I had the patients I would make my own rock but that huge cycle time is to long for me.
Why I would assume I could get a larger amount of biodiversity via the addition of so called live rock vs the addition of wild/maricultured corals? A very large % of the corals we purchase come attached to rock, or plugs. These corals are being shipped to us WET, the rock they are attached to typically is overflowing with life and biodiversity, and is in much better shape the the half dying rotting "live" rock many of us are told is a necessity.

The past 3 systems I've setup have all used dead rock, and I have no shortage of random sponges, inverts, and algae showing up in my systems just due stocking.

Don't get me wrong, I also don't buy the "dead rock will prevent my tank from getting pests". In previous years when I used to have a shop I can tell you have just as high if not a higher chance of getting pests every time you add a coral to your tank as you do from live rock. I've fragged up montipora rocks to find mantis inside, just like I've had mantis shrimp come off of live rock. Heck, you can even unwanted things just by adding water from other systems.

The advantages of using dead rock for me is a quicker cycle time, easier to work with in terms of aquascaping (rockwalls, pillars, ect), easy storage/shipping prior to usage, and simply a cleaner tank start up. The ability to slightly control what you are adding via how to you treat new tank additions is a plus but I'm not that diligent to be able to claim so. I do dip most pest prone pieces, but not all corals. (ie I don't dip my lps unless they have other issues).

..and if you are worried about bacteria, a little nsw to start your system off usually takes care of that, or even the addition of some bottled bacterias if you want to go that route.

edit:and of course the cost.. live rock = $$$$

[Gary Majchrzak]

you didn't come across harshly

Originally Posted by MammothReefer

The advantages of using dead rock for me is a quicker cycle time

Based on comments in your post you've yet to see fresh good quality liverock.
There's no way that dead rock cycles a reef aquarium quicker than fresh good quality liverock.
Dead rock and artificial (man made) rock is certainly a viable alternative to liverock but it's not uncommon to hear many long time reefkeepers and authors cite quality liverock as the backbone of their successful reef aquarium.

[Drewbaby]

My vote is for live rock hands down. I started my 55 reef with mostly semi live rock from a lfs. At the time they were getting some pretty shorty rock in but I would try to get it from the bottom of their rock tank as to avoid the fresh new stuff that had died off during shipping. Granted at times I picked pieces with good shape and form that were a little rough. I never had any bad parasites and actually ended up with some cool hitchikers. The little dead rock I did use caused a major hair algea outbreak that ran amuck in my tank for over a year.

In my 180 I used 200 lbs of live rock. I bought it from another hobbyist thy had it for 4 year and he bought it from another guy that had it for 6 years, who in turn also bought it from a guy that had it 6 years. So it had 16 years to get established. I only paid $380 for all 200 lbs then foun out it had flatworms. I didn't really care as i wasn't planning on stocking the tank any time in the near future so I bought 4 scooter blennies and let them chow down for 6 months. No more flatworms and a good trade in for some fish. The rock was fully covered purple coraline rock with one pest that was easily wiped out. It was well worth it for the good price and it makes my tank more established.

I would much rather go live over dry because the hitch hikers on live make it interesting. They add diversity and make it more natural. Some people wipe out anything that crawls. I let it live if it won't kill fish or coral. Just one more cool thing I can show people when they come to look at the tanks

[apt220]

"Dry rock is easier to aquascape" comments are not totally true. I set up my system with 100% live and I drilled every single rock so that I could stick acrylic rods in them. The time the rocks spent out of the water is nothing compared the time it took for the rocks to make it to the US.

Also, about cost... is dry rock really that much more cheaper? Say you want 45 lbs of rock..

At BRS, 45lbs of pukani costs 157.05 + 23.00 shipping =

At Fosters & Smith, 45 pound box of fiji premium costs 149.99 + ~ 50 bucks shipping =

I'm not going to calculate that out but you should determine if that is worth it or not.

Of course there is some water weight with live rock and Fiji rock is more dense. But dense is not necessarily a bad thing. You can drill many holes into dense rock for endless aquascaping ideas.

I have setup three tanks in my life. I never had cyano or dino problems with live rock.

But to each their own. More live rock for me.

[Western_reefer]

All live rock here as well. Hey Gary Majchrzak, you need to hook me up with some of your live rock! Or perhaps a trade? ;-P PM sent.

[oscar.millan]

both would work best, majority would be dry rock - with few selected pieces of live rock.

[MammothReefer]

Originally Posted by Gary Majchrzak

you didn't come across harshly

Based on comments in your post you've yet to see fresh good quality liverock.
There's no way that dead rock cycles a reef aquarium quicker than fresh good quality liverock.
Dead rock and artificial (man made) rock is certainly a viable alternative to liverock but it's not uncommon to hear many long time reefkeepers and authors cite quality liverock as the backbone of their successful reef aquarium.

No I have, I've picked it up directly from the ws right when it hits the ground. I disagree, clean dead rock doesn't have things that need to decompose and break down like "live" rock, and as I said look (your enchino is an a great example) look at all the biodiversity that comes in w/the corals why the need for it to come in on "live" rock that has been shipped cold, and out of water for how long since collected? Even if you get it the day it lands.

[MammothReefer]

Originally Posted by apt220

"Dry rock is easier to aquascape" comments are not totally true. I set up my system with 100% live and I drilled every single rock so that I could stick acrylic rods in them. The time the rocks spent out of the water is nothing compared the time it took for the rocks to make it to the US.

Also, about cost... is dry rock really that much more cheaper? Say you want 45 lbs of rock..

At BRS, 45lbs of pukani costs 157.05 + 23.00 shipping =

At Fosters & Smith, 45 pound box of fiji premium costs 149.99 + ~ 50 bucks shipping =

I'm not going to calculate that out but you should determine if that is worth it or not.

Of course there is some water weight with live rock and Fiji rock is more dense. But dense is not necessarily a bad thing. You can drill many holes into dense rock for endless aquascaping ideas.

I have setup three tanks in my life. I never had cyano or dino problems with live rock.

But to each their own. More live rock for me.

That's not a fair comparison, you gotta compare fiji to fiji. Which is considerably cheaper. I've gotten Dead rock for as cheap as 1$ a lb. As far as cyano..eh you can't blame that on the rock I've had it in tanks w/lr and w/dr. That's all about your feeding habits.

[KafudaFish]

I guess it depends on what a person is wanting out of their system. If they want a place to hold their corals, a structure for their fish to swim through, and a location for bacteria then dry all the way. If you are a reefer who enjoys discovering new life then of course LR hands down.

Last Friday I picked up 25 pounds of LR from someone local because I figured it was time to re-seed my rock. Even if I increased the diversity by just the bacteria I am happy with it.

Pests and algae are part of the system and if there is a balance they will remain in check.

I bought my first piece of LR in 1999 and I still have it. It is my favorite piece of rock I own (sad but if you are reading this you probably understand) because of the diversity on it.

Several years ago a local reefer was breaking his system down and for $25 I got a yellow tang and he gave me over 100 pounds of the best LR I have ever seen. Downside? He was fighting flatworms and stupid me figured kill it all. If I could do over I would have starved out the flatworms or used other methods to deal with them other than a gallon of bleach in a trashcan for a few days. Live and learn I guess.

I still have that rock and use it but man I messed up on a good thing.

Under my house I have probably a few hundred pounds of dry rock waiting for that big tank some day.

(Please don't tell my wife about the rock, she does not know about it.)

[apt220]

Originally Posted by MammothReefer

That's not a fair comparison, you gotta compare fiji to fiji. Which is considerably cheaper. I've gotten Dead rock for as cheap as 1$ a lb. As far as cyano..eh you can't blame that on the rock I've had it in tanks w/lr and w/dr. That's all about your feeding habits.

Okay, 45 lbs dry Fiji at BRS is 121.05 + shipping. So about a $50 dollar difference for 45lbs to get live rock. In other words about a dollar extra per pound. I guess it is up to the reefers to determine if that is worth it.

As far as cyano, I didn't disclose the details of my comparison but the bioloads were comparable. It is obviously anecdotal, but my personal belief is that live rock can process nutrients better than dry rock--even when dry rock is "established".

[rgonzalez]

Please explain to me how LR can process nutrients better than dry rock (which was once live) which eventually turns "live" ?

[MammothReefer]

Ya, that's what I don't get is why do some of you feel you can't get the same level of biodiversity with dry/dead rock as you can with live rock.

Every time you buy a coral it comes attached to rock, those rocks are COVERED with way more life 1" by 1" then any live rock, as the rocks that are attached to said corals (or the corals grow on) are shipped over in MUCH better conditions then the live rock. This life then spreads to the rest of your tank. I just set up my 4th tank now with dead/dry rock the past 3 all over time ended up with tons of amazing rock which turned "live" after being introduced to new organisms during the stocking process.

My tanks have had many different types of algae both good and bad, tunicates, sponges of all different varieties, feather dusters, weird little snails like things I can't remember the name of, an unknown number of different pod types, mantises (ha), hydros, limpets, crabs, worms, different types of star fish..and all the fun unwanted stuff to.

As far as using old rock, I've run into all sorts of issue with this. I've found rock can get saturated with phosphates that take FOREVER to leach out even w/GFO. Which is why I never buy "used" live rock anymore. In the hay days of my reef addiction I would buy tear downs consolidate, and sell off what I didn't need. You don't know what kinda of abuse or toxins were introduced to a tank prior to yours. Which is why a few years back (I don't know if it's still popular). The whole "cooking" your rock thing started to come in vogue.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally Posted by MammothReefer

Ya, that's what I don't get is why do some of you feel you can't get the same level of biodiversity with dry/dead rock as you can with live rock.

fairly simple:
the more biodiversity you place in an aquarium the more is in it

that's why some people rotate LR in and out of their system.

[Masterofnonsense]

Originally Posted by Gary Majchrzak

here's something for the "dry rock only" crowd to ponder:

The lack of biodiversity in your system is the reason that AEFW's, Monti eating nudis, red bugs, caulerpa, cryptocaryon etc. etc. etc. can possibly wreak havoc in your system.

Many (most?) of these pests do not hitch-hike into an aquarium on liverock. If they do manage to find their way into a biodiverse system they are often controlled by some type of predator.

So what specific predators that come from liverock prey on red bugs, caulerpa, cryptocaryon, Monti eating nudis etc?

It is a very bold statement to imply that liverock is a panacea to all the pests you've listed. I'm sure people would be lining up to buy the miracle ich eating organisms you have on your liverock.

[Gary Majchrzak]

some critters actually do prey on the pests you just listed.

One actually is a "miracle" ich (actually cryptocaryon) eating organism and no, I'm not selling my liverock. Go get your own.

[apt220]

Originally Posted by rgonzalez

Please explain to me how LR can process nutrients better than dry rock (which was once live) which eventually turns "live" ?

I obviously have no proof. That is why I said "anecdotal". It just reflects my personal experiences/observations.

People assume that the good bacteria/microorganisms survive and dominate our tanks. I'm skeptical.

Some reading:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...l+biodiversity

[mgoblue]

Just read through this thread as I have to make a decision for my 75. I am going with cured liverock from my LFS. I will be paying a lot more and I will probably run the risk of getting some pests, but in the end, it seems more 'fun' to me. Battling the evil nasties is part of the challenge of the hobby. If I just wanted to look at something pretty, I would buy a blue ray of the coolest reefs and watch it on my 55" LED!

Good cases have been made on each side and I appreciate all the input. There are obviously some very passionate hobbiests on here!!!

[surfjeepzx]

I would go dry rock and take it a step further. I would build the rock custom from Aragonite so I could create a very tank specific rock scape. I remember reading on GARF.org or net ?? where they have the how to instructions for making your own rocks.

[Brian94558]

Well cured live rock seems to be the way to go. I've always had more algae problems with dry rock.

[pwfish]

I think you made a good choice my 1st three tanks were setup with liverock and my last tank (SPS) was setup with dry rock and I have to say the initial biodiversity with liverock can never be duplicated with dry rock, also takes the dry rock forever to get coraline algae established on the rock. However I don't see the fish or coral more health in the live rock tank vs the dry rock tank. If I had to start over I would go with liverock for my SPS tank. Good luck on your new tank,

[JasonBJones]

I have set up many tanks over the years and have always used live rock until my most recent one where I made all the rock.

I am incredibly happy with the current set up. I seeded the tank right off the bat with some live rock that had great coralline growth and started to see decent coverage at 3 months. There are tons of small tube worms, feather dusters and even a few small brittle stars that have hiked in on corals and from the rock seed. There is clearly not a large amphipod population like I have had in other tanks, but that doesn't bother me.

I have algae that has hitchhiked in with frags, but there is not much. I prefer using the dry and will probably do so again in the future. I really liked being able to build my rock wall exactly how I wanted it. I also really like knowing that the only way my rock will ever start leaching phosphates is if I let them become a problem.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally Posted by dixiedog

Dry.

Biodiversity, schmiodiversity.

how's your reef aquarium doing?

biodiversity is a valid choice. Many (most?) of the reef aquariums seen nowadays are lacking.
Of course, everybody has a different idea of what they want to see in their glass box!
Chaetodonts are often used as a "canary in the coal mine" to guage the health of a reef in the wild.
Biodiversity definitely helps keep them healthy in captivity.

[plyle02]

Originally Posted by Gary Majchrzak

how's your reef aquarium doing?

biodiversity is a valid choice. Many (most?) of the reef aquariums seen nowadays are lacking.
Of course, everybody has a different idea of what they want to see in their glass box!
Chaetodonts are often used as a "canary in the coal mine" to guage the health of a reef in the wild.
Biodiversity definitely helps keep them healthy in captivity.

100% agreed!

[DanConnor]

Nice necropost! :-)

Nother old fart for live rock here. Dead rock is fine for the underneath parts.

My last reef was the only one I set up with all dry rock, and what a pain to get going. It was fun to lay it all out on dry land, and definitely led to a better aquascape, but that's it. I'd be ok with dead rock if I had time to let it sit in a livestock trough with some seed rock for maybe a year though.