Has Anyone Tried a "Rubble Bottom?"

[algaeguy]

miatawnt2b:

I have to agree with Barry about the potential for phosphate levels in the Tufa. It can be nasty!

I believe that you are correct in asseting that most of your denitrification will occur in the rock itself (at least that's MY theory!). I don't believe that removing the volume of water that you are talking about should have any detrimental effect on the denitrification process. BTW, Barry's manifold idea is really cool!

Again, this is a theory, based upon my experience, but I believe that there is some validity to it. I don' think that disturbing a rubble zone layer for cleaning is as disruptive or potentially harmful as disturbing the anoxic layers of a DSB, for example. Of course, as we've mused about on this thread repeatedly, the potentially higher biodiversity and cryptic animal population of a rubble zone may more efficiently make use of detritus for food sources, so as long as the amount of detritus accumulating in/under the rubble zone is not excessive, and if good attention is paid to overall husbandry, I'll wager that your water quality will not suffer over time!

Do keep us posted on your new tank' progress!

Scott

[barryhc]

Originally posted by algaeguy
Again, this is a theory, based upon my experience, but I believe that there is some validity to it. I don' think that disturbing a rubble zone layer for cleaning is as disruptive or potentially harmful as disturbing the anoxic layers of a DSB, for example. Of course, as we've mused about on this thread repeatedly, the potentially higher biodiversity and cryptic animal population of a rubble zone may more efficiently make use of detritus for food sources, so as long as the amount of detritus accumulating in/under the rubble zone is not excessive, and if good attention is paid to overall husbandry, I'll wager that your water quality will not suffer over time!

Scott

Thanks Scott, I just don't think you can bring up the bio-diversity part here, often enough. I think it is actually not only beneficial, but possibly even crucial to the success with this, especially if you don't want to "blow and vacuum" all the time, which I suspect would be detrimental to a considerable portion of the organisms that we want to promote.

I'm not trying to make it sound "touchy", but we need to understand our objectives and keep an eye on critter popupation, to keep our "ducks in a row".

This brings to mind either the RUGF under the rubble, or the "void sweeping" canister, or similar to handle "bottom detritus" autom aticly.

Just thinking out loud again.

> Barry

[Konadog]

Congratulations Scott on becoming Januarys Thread of the Month!

[barryhc]

GO SCOTT GO ! ! ! ! !

Cogratulations Scott, I hope this thread continues for a very long time. You deserve it, AND all the contributing posters as well !

> Barry

[Rip Current]

What about replacing the bio balls in a wet dry with rubble?
With a slow flow, and rubble the right size and porosity.

just a thought...........

[Tunguska]

"External Rubble Zone"

**pretend indignation** We are still in the anecdotal stage of our inquiry, and we're already being asked "Can you make it portable?"

Seriously though, I think it's a great idea. If you try it, let us know how it goes!

[Tunguska]

BTW, congrats, Scott!

[algaeguy]

Wow- "Thread of The Month"- I think everyone deserves a pat on the back for keeping this discussion so civilized and informative! We have a great group and a lot of interesting material! I'm glad that everyone feels comfortable enough to throw out new ideas without fear of being flamed. Seemingly commonplace, obvious stuff might not be so obvious after all- and might even be the key to the next big idea!

Just because people have been using rubble for a long time doesn't mean that the idea isn't new or beneficial. I think the key is in what our GOALS are for using rubble; wether it's trying to increase biodiversity, experiment with denitrification, or simply trying an alternative biotope to emulate. No holding back, gang...Let the ideas flow!


Rip Current- Interesting thought about the live rock in a wet/dry. It does, however, remind me of some of the trickle filters that I saw in the 80's. Lots of different media was being used, including dolomite, calcite, crushed coral. etc.

Essentially, the rocks are becoming bioballs. Just another substrate for bacterial growth. I bet that it will be subject to the same "shortcomings" as bioballs, such as accumulation of nitrate, and probably not acheive as much biodiversity as submerged rock. However, you mentioned lower flow and lots of porosity...Interesting, and probably worth testing out! However, if you light it, I wonder if you could keep some intertidal animals in there? Maybe partially submerged and part as a trickle substrate.

On the other hand, lots of folks have been placing rock/rubble in the "wet" section of their trickle filters for years, and I've seen amazing diversity in this technique.

Here's a thought- a rubble zone refugium. Again, not new or novel, but possibly underutilized?

You'd essentially plumb a small tank in line with your system, but the tank would be packed with rubble and seeded with pods, etc. No sand or macroalgae to speak of. You probably wouldn't even need to light it. In addition to providing a settling area for detritus, it could serve as a cryptic zone and supplemental food production facility. In fact, if it is determined that rubble zones foster denitrification, this may be an option in place of the remote DSB's that people talk about now and then. I'm sure that someone has tried this already...

Finally- what about the RUGF in the rubble refugium? Any advantages?

Keep the ideas flowing, everyone. If we keep this brainstorming session going, I'm sure we'll come up with some new applications for this technique.

I was also pondering about the chance of increased odds of successfully keeping multiple Firefish or Pseudochroomids in rubble systems, because of the greater number of hiding places and "territory" this substrate may afford. Anyone doing this? I know that my Blennies like this type of setup; I'm thinking that this may also be a good way to keep some Centropyge species in groups as well.

Keep those thoughts coming!

Scott

[barryhc]

Originally posted by algaeguy
I'm glad that everyone feels comfortable enough to throw out new ideas without fear of being flamed. Seemingly commonplace, obvious stuff might not be so obvious after all- and might even be the key to the next big idea!

I think this has been the big winner here. Scott has allowed us to have a "THINK TANK" ! ! ! Pun Intended ! !

Just because people have been using rubble for a long time doesn't mean that the idea isn't new or beneficial. I think the key is in what our GOALS are for using rubble; wether it's trying to increase biodiversity, experiment with denitrification, or simply trying an alternative biotope to emulate.

I think this is very important also, to realize that there isn't a "single objective" in these various considerations. This is why many different methods can be equally effective but for different purposes. Stating the intended objective(s), would be helpful as well.

I was also pondering about the chance of increased odds of successfully keeping multiple Firefish or Pseudochroomids in rubble systems, because of the greater number of hiding places and "territory" this substrate may afford. Anyone doing this? I know that my Blennies like this type of setup; I'm thinking that this may also be a good way to keep some Centropyge species in groups as well.

I REALLY like this part, it is what drives nearly all my investigations into Reef Keeping Methods. I love the great bio-diversity that is in our oceans, and I want to keep a wider range of it in my tank than common "wisdom" has been allowing us.

The Rubble Bottom, and other offerings here, are giving us the opportunity to expand our Reef Keeping experience.

Thanks again Scott ! > Barry

[miatawnt2b]

Originally posted by barryhc
OK . . .


Over the top of what ? Is something between the manifold and the Rubble ?


How much monthly water change are you anticipating ?


What substrate ? On the Tufa, I'm not as familiar with that as I should be, but I believe it is extremely light weight ? At the very least do some research or testing to determine its Phosphate concentration.

> Barry

The rubble is going to sit directly on the manifold. I usually do religious 3 gal/week water changes in my 55 with great results so far. So every 4th week I'll take the water from the manifold instead of my normal routine of blowing ditrus off the rocks and vaccuming. I am thinking about the same in my 90 even though there is more area, I don't plan on increasing the bioload that much. water tests will always tell the tale though. I have had good luck using dry tufa before. (I let the pieces soak in the toilet fill tank for a week before I add them to the tank) I've never noticed any ill effects... I didn't realize I should be aware of phospates with the tufa. Maybe I should look into alternatives.

-J

[lillibirdy]

OK someone needs to hurry up and try that mulitple firefish idea, I am loving that thought!!!!

[barryhc]

Originally posted by lillibirdy
OK someone needs to hurry up and try that mulitple firefish idea, I am loving that thought!!!!

DITTO ! ! !

I'm not "up" on this yet as much as I should be, because I'm still trying to get far enough with the substrate, "grain" size, RUGF, Wasting Plenum, Rubble, RDSB, RRB ( thats Remote Rubble Bottom ) , etc. , but I think that at least we could say that the Rubble effectively increases the "size" or "area" that the animals occupy. I think that is what Scott is hoping for. Me too !

Many of the smaller bethnic fish, that myself and others are interested in are described as being territorial, and requiring "X" amount of space to be "happy" or not unduly "pestered" in.

Two or more Rubble zones, might allow a species to think that his "individual zone" is his, and be satisfied, more so, than if the whole bottom is Rubble, and he can't define "his" fence.

Rubble Bottom, the great "Tank expander" ! I hope so.

> Barry

[rsteagall]

The way I see it is this whole rubble bottom idea is pretty much the same thing that garf.org has been doing for years. I mean, garf's grunge is basically rubble bottom bagged and sold.

http://www.garf.org/GRUNGEPLUS1/SHOW/index.html

Everyone has presented good ideas, but that slideshow above should define what a rubble bottom is. Its merely a place to create a "Cryptic Zone" inside your aquarium.

When someone asks what kind of sandbed you have, I forsee a future term of "CZR", that will stand for "Cryptic Zone Rubble" sandbed. Or maybe just "CR" for cryptic rubble... I think I like that better. One less letter

[lillibirdy]

I am unfamiliar with Garf grunge. Is it really as big as the rubble we are talking about? My rubble is mostly 2-3 inches, some tinier, some larger...

[barryhc]

No, it isn't. The Garf "Cryptic Zone" Rubble is from about 1/8" to 1/2" as far as rock, with a few pieces, and some shells, that get up to 3/4".

I got a suction cup and a couple of broken fittings in mine too.

The www.Garf.org site has a tremendous wealth of information, and I understand that they have some fantastic frags you can purchase as well.

The level of organization has been "abysmal" over there for quite some time, and I can't say if it has improved recently or not.

In any case, if you are going to purchase anything alive from them, be sure that you have them identify the shipping method, and demand that you are notified immediately about the "departure" of your package.

The pods and worms and stars and "stuff" that they show in their pictures, just aren't showing up in the Grunge packages lately.

> Barry

[barryhc]

The Garf Grunge is at least 2/3 dark gray "mud" as well. It is not predominantly "rubble" regardless of the specific size.

> Barry

[rsteagall]

Originally posted by barryhc
The Garf Grunge is at least 2/3 dark gray "mud" as well. It is not predominantly "rubble" regardless of the specific size.

> Barry

I didn't realize garfs had that much mud, but over time, anyone's CRZ/CR/CZR would have some "mud" as well. Stuf is just going to break down and you can't stop that.

I guess there should be a poll on what size is considered rubble. I would certainly consider subsrate with any significant amount or majority of rock chunks of 1/2" to 2" to be considered rubble. IMHO if you get much bigger than that, your simply dealing with a bare bottom and live rock setup.

[algaeguy]

rsteagall:

Interesting thoughts on rubble sizing. I suppose, as I think we mentioned early in the thread, you could make the argument that rubble bottom tanks with larger rock pieces could be a form of BB (at least aesthetically)...But I think the similarity ends there. We're talking about not being afraid of detritus accumulation in the rubble zone, as it may actually be of benefit to the organisms living and "working" in there! Yes, we embrace protein skimming, etc., but I think it can be safely stated that we're departing form the "conventional" BB methodology somewhat. Perhaps the "rubble bottom" is really a sort of "fusion" of several schools of thought.

I do like the GARF stuff, and you are right- they have been advocating this type of thing for some time. However, as we've discussed, although the cryptic zone idea is a very important part of the rubble zone methodology, it is also a biotope to model. BTW- I love the "CZR" term...!

I suppose it can also be argued that rubble could be anything from the 1/2" size that you mention, all the way up to small chunks of rock. My thinking is that even 4"-5" pieces of broken slab can, if stacked on the bottom of the tank, be considered "rubble", or at least comprise a "rubble zone".

I think that we can stretch the working definition of "rubble zone" to something like: " A concentration of various-sized pieces of calcareous materials, loosely stacked upon each other at varying depths for the purpose of increasing biodiversity, creating a functional habitat for fishes, encouraging the production of supplemental food sources, and fostering natural (denitrification) processes."

Yikes- that's a seriously long definition! But, I think it covers some of the stuff we've been disussing here. "CZR" certainly is easier to write! LOL

In the end, I guess we really cannot take ourselves too seriously- we're just a bunch of fish geeks trying to have fun! And I tell ya- the ideas in this thread are just soo cool to see!

Lots of different ways to run a rubble zone system, I think!

Keep it comin'!

Scot

[rsteagall]

Oh yea man, no doubt... its all about the fun. I know I spend more time on the forums researching than I do sitting looking at my tank. I'm about to build an experimental tank and will probably seed it with something like garf or just by getting a scoop of sand from everyone's refugium I know and trying to add as many detritivours as I can. I'd love to see a bunch of micro serpent stars in a czr system.

I think your definition is right on with what I had in mind. Basically not fine stuff or bare bottom, but a mixture of stuff where a majority of the makeup is of a certain size not to mistake it for sand/crushed aragonite or too big as to call it a bare bottom w/LR.

[barryhc]

I think we should get into the "production of supplemental sources" part of this. It is a large part of the advantage of "Rubble Bottom", to generate some good "faunal bio-diversity".

The question is, just what "fauna" are we looking for. A "tasty snack" is one answer, but where do we get these, and what do we call them.

Another very important aspect here, is to find animals that are detrivores, so that they do our cleaning chores for us. Detrivores which are also tasty snacks would be pretty slick as well. I'm very interested in these animals, but haven't found that much info yet.

The common answer is that "they" will self populate from your live rock, and to some degree I'm sure this is true, but we could help them along if we knew what "they" were, and where to get them.

> Barry

[Paul B]

The question is, just what "fauna" are we looking for. A "tasty snack" is one answer, but where do we get these, and what do we call them.

I collect amphipods by the hundreds or thousands in the summer, they are all over my boat. They seem to meet the criteria of a detrivore and tasty snack. I can't find any in my tank now so I don't know if they were all eaten or if they can't breed at tropical temperatures.
Paul

[engagg]

There are a few online shops that sell detrivore kits, Ie pods, worms, micro stars. **************** and inland aquatics are two that come to mind but I am sure there are many more.

How often do we need to replenish these critters is one question. Another is how much do they eat versus how much they poop into the system? I know some of these come off LR when cycling with the rock, but if we cook the rock how much do we loose? I know on the past when I ran my 33long fishless for a while I had pods and minishrimp like mad only took them about a month to populate the tank to where you could see them everywhere.

Greg

[engagg]

whoa, my apologies didn't know I could not type in nonsponsors websites.

[algaeguy]

I've also been experimenting with various "mud" additives to see if they really do add any minerals that help foster the reproduction of these animals.

An interesting point that you bring up, engagg, is the replenishment/reproduciton rate of these various creatures. I think that , although our rubble systems may help propagate these creatures, the fish that we like to keep in them migh do an equally good job of eating them!

Interesting dynamics come into play, for sure!

Barry- I think that the various species of worms that we see in detritivore kits are probably the most common creatures we'd want, but I'll be that mysids and other shrimp may help, as well. Another group of animals I'd consider deliberately stocking in our systems are sponges. Within the various cryptic areas that a rubble system affords are lots of good places for sponges to hide and grow! And, they have the added benefit of providing a source of supplemental "filtration"!

Anyone keeping starfish of any type in rubble-dominated systems?

Keep the ideas flowing!

Scott

[jnowell]

Great Thread! I've been thinking along the same idea for my upcoming seahorse tank. I was considering having one side sand, fluidized by a RUGF with rubble on top blended into another side with sand / GARF grunge sitting on top of a plenum. Kinda the best of all three worlds in my opinion. Obviously with seahorses, pod production was my motivator, but the filtration that "should" result would be great IME.

I bought some of the "frag" rocks from reeferrocks.com (cheap, and not chipped off a living reef somewhere). They are beautiful pieces of calcium carbonate rock, already sized to 2-4", you might check into that if you need more.

I'm in the process of converting my old Oceanic 58g from coral propagation to seahorse habitat, so excuse the horid look of this tank right now, but here is a pick of some of the pre-made rubble that I speak of that i threw in to cycle while I sell off most of the coral. I think this pic represents about $10 worth BTW - The stuff on the bottom was added 2 days ago, the small pile behind the zoanthids on the rack is about 2 weeks old. Might be an economical solution for anyone wanting to try this.

Jason