Has Anyone Tried a "Rubble Bottom?"

[algaeguy]

Hi everyone:

I've been working with my new 225 reef, which is being modeled after a "rubble zone" area of a reef. Predominant corals are various Faviids, with a smattering of Pocillopora colonies.

Anyways, the tank has started out more or less barebottom, as I have wicked flow provided by 4 Tunze Streams and a Sequence Dart for the main return. Such flow has made a conventional sandbed a bit of a problem, so I have avoided one altogether. I like the look of sand (at least in a shallow depth), but I do like the ease of maintenance that barebottom affords (thanks to Bomber and others for inspiration!). Have thought of about 1/3-1/2 inch of coarse media, such as Carib-Sea "Aruba Puka" aragonite and perhaps crushed coral.

I have been using moderate-sized pieces (2"-4") and broken- up (1"-2" chunks) of Tonga slab to construct some "rubble piles", and I must say, it's coming out pretty decent...

What I am thinking of doing is to cover the entire bottom with small rubble pieces (with appropriate crevices and nooks). Maybe even some finer (1'2"- 3/4) smashed up pieces...all at a very shallow depth. I realize such a setup may not be for everyone, as much attention needs to be paid to detritus accumulation and overall husbandry...I consider myself a master of aquatic husbandry, so maintenance is not an issue. The areas in the tank where I have done this already are looking great, and the system has been chemically stable for the 4months that the system has been up and running. I'm really interested in my fellow reefer's thoughts on the aesthetics of such a bottom...

Fishes include lots of blennies and gobies, Halichoeres wrasses,a Centropyge angel, and a couple of Zebrasoma sp. tangs. Everyone seems to be doing fine.

Has anyone run, or contemplated running, such a system? If so, I'd love to hear comments and thoughts, or even see some pics if you have them.

As always- thanks to all in advance for your feedback.

Scott

[Kimo]

I say go for it!

I have wanted to incorporate rubble in my tank like that, but I can't get past the look of sand ;)

I think that a 'rubble-zone' tank is a really cool idea, especially if you pay attention to the stocking so that it is appropriate. It sounds like you have some really good ideas. Most books (like scott michaels') list livestock from the rubble zone, and you could stock from those. As you mentioned, you will need to siphon the substrate.

Do you have pics?

What kind of angel do you have?

jamie

[algaeguy]

Hi Kimo!

Thanks for the encoragement...It's amazing, many of my friends are really supportive about the idea. It may not be for everyone, but I think it can work! I've been studying and working on this for some time, and it seems to be working well so far.

Agreed with you about the need to siphon. What is interesting, though is that the rubble areas are hosting an interesting array of small fauna (pods, etc.). The fishes (particularly the wrasses) spend a lot of time foraging in these areas.

I hav an African Flameback (C. acanthops) in my tank. Being a Pacific "snob", I would have rather tried a C. fisheri, but this wonderful little Flameback became available before I could locate one! He (she?) has been a perfect citizen thus far, happily picking at the rock and avoiding my Faviids and other corals.

You're right...Scott Michael's books have been an excellen source of information for fishes that inhabit this zone. I really think that hobbyists who want to keep multiple Centropyge angels in a tank will have better luck with such as system.

I do have some pics, but I am an incompentent when it comes to posting on RC! If you want some pics of what I've done so far, I'd be happy to send 'em to your personal email.

Anyways- thanks again for the feedback!

Scott

[Gobydude777]

It's awesome to see some reef tanks that aren't modeled after the Reef Crests. Good Luck!

[algaeguy]

Thanks Gobydude...

I agree with you. I really wanted to try something different. There are lots of amazing reef crest biotope tanks out there, but some of the more obscure reef zonesseem to never get replicated in our aquaria.

I'd sure like to reefers try to emulate other biotopes....I'll do my best to keep everyone informed as this moves along...

Scott

[wayne in norway]

I have tried this twice.
try 1 - had sand in tank - looked great, algal nightmare, lots of deads spots for detritus build up
try 2 - working better , no sand, but have to stir it up, move it round to sop detritus collection.

If like Bomber you have some mighty flow you might do better than me.
It does look good, whether or not a bit of stirring up is a big deal or not is a moot point. I used bits up to 2 inches, maybe 3 in size.
Fish love it.

[algaeguy]

Thanks for the input, wayne!

I agree that the idea of using conventional substrate in this kind of biotope is potentially problematic! I think that the "rubble bottom" is essentially a barebottom system with rubble rock serving (at least from an aesthetic standpoint) as a "substrate". This is why I belive that we are both experiencing some success, with careful and due attention to husbandry procedures.

I've been using the little flat pieces of broken slab rock to construct a "matrix" of sorts, which still leaves some open areas. Sounds similar to yours.

I'd love to see some pics, if you have any!

Thanks!

Scott

[wayne in norway]

I'd rather not! - after the original problematic attempt I dumped all my live rock rubble into a 35 litre acrylic tank, accidentally creating a nano en route. The hardware is not beautiful, the rubble is. I do a 10 litre water change one (occasionally twice) a week and make sure I pull out as much gak frm the bottom as I can.

I think the potential is there to produce a spectacular looking display if it was done on a large scale..

[Herbert T. Kornfeld]

I tried it. Im with wayne on this one...they rubble becomes a detrious magnet...and its hard to clean. I did it because I didnt want bare bottom any more. Lets face it, even with bare bottom, its near impossible to blow all the detrious out. And now it just sits there decomposing w/o sand to help digest it. And now with rubble that prolbem will become many times worse. FWIW, a medium sand, 2-5mm is the best substrate around. Doesnt get all funky and hard to clean like the sugar aragonite, and just leaving a 1" layer all over is enough to keep everything happy. It almost cleans itself...and what it cant, you can now at least have sand-sifting organisms to help out as well. All that even a 180g needs to keep its sand perfect is one sand-sifting goby...they rock!

[cduran02]

I just keep a 2 ~ 3 inch medium sand bed. My two horse shoe crabs keep the sand nice and clean.

[ricky1414]

Originally posted by cduran02
I just keep a 2 ~ 3 inch medium sand bed. My two horse shoe crabs keep the sand nice and clean.

Don't horse shoe crabs solely consume microfauna? I would think that that was bad.

[cduran02]

Naw....horse shoe crabs eat small crustaceans (pods) and worms. When they get bigger they will eat mussels, clams and snails, but in an aquarium they dont get to the size where they could.

[Gobydude777]

Don't they get huge though? I heard they turn into living bull-dozers eventually.

[cduran02]

yeah, they get about 12" ~ 13" in diameter in the wild. I dont think they will get that big in an aquarium, I guess if they get that big Ill donate them to the Miami Seaquarium....unless I find another way to keep em. Since they can live on land also (by the shore), i could build them a mini beach in my back yard. Though I know they will freak out my wife, she's freaked by them now and they're only about an inch in diameter.

[ghotiFL]

If you are doing a rubble bottom, why not place eggcrate (or something similar) under the rubble? Then the detritus can fall past the rocks, and it will be easier to siphon out.

If you can drill, you could even place a drain in the bottom to make that easier.

[algaeguy]

Neat idea, ghotiFL...

A very interesting way to access underneath rockwork....

Scott

[ghotiFL]

Had another thought too... take the "filter" part out of an underground filter, and hook up a small(er) powerhead to that... Anything that falls through the cracks would get recirculated.

[lillibirdy]

I am a newb so I will not presume to suggest anything to a "master" but I have a 55g with two small islands that are big ol caves, and in between them is rubble. I really love the way it looks, (pic don't do it justice) and haven't had any real detritus problem. I have large CC and a reverse UGF, (but just recently reversed it), when it was running forward for last 7 months, I was vacuaming once a week, but didn't really dig into the rubble pile cause I was trying to get some pods to grow in there...just blew it off with a power head. I also had a hob and skimmer getting stuff up, and filtering small crapola outa the tanks. Only 5 fish, and only 5 snails and a emerald crab for clean up so far. And seems very stable, perams always good, and nitrates about 12-15, (no sump). I just turned the hob into a mini refugium (still have a filter pad at return) to see if I could get the Nitrates lower, might put a coral or two in there if I can achieve this.

I would love to see what others have done with rubble. I am finding no detritus problems, (so far so good).

Since pic taken, (6 wks ago) added surface skimmer box to Remora pro...and reversed the UGF...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y215/Lillibirdy/realnicefrontview2.jpg

[algaeguy]

Hi lillibirdy:

It's neat to see what you're doing in the center of the tank! It would be a neat place for Xeniids or Blastomussa or other corals, such as Sinularia, which can attach to this substrate.


I think that the biggest concern with coarse substrates and rubble, as others have outlined here- is the long-term possible accumulation of detritus., which could lead to long-term deterioration of water quality through nitrate/phosphate accumulation.

I've long been convinced, from both my experience and that of others, that coarse substrates can be problematic if they are too deep. On the other hand, very shallow (less than 1")coarse substrates may actually be easier to clean than fine sand at the same depth, IME. A more conventional siphon can be used, and the detritus is easier to separate from the substrate.

I don't think you'll ever see success in the long term with a "deep" coarse substrate, but I don't know too many folks who have actually tried that!

I think that there is definite accumulation for detritus to accumulate on a bare bottom covered by rubble, but I also think that many of the husbandry techniques and stocking ideas (ie; use of detritivorous fishes and inverts) of the bare-bottom technique can help.

Thanks much for the input!

Scott

[~ChrisB~]

I basicaly wanted to tag this thread. I have been BB for several years now. I have debated this rubble issue for too long. Today I have 75lbs of rubble coming in from PA. I will be covering my 300g BB with one layer of rubble. We shall see how it goes. I plan on once a week, give or take, siphoning of the rubble into a 50 micron sock and back into the system. I just got tired of the lack of visable mico life in my tank. Figured a rubble zone would support some more diversity.

Thanks,
Chris

[artis]

Quite accidentally, I ended up with a good bit of rubble on the bottom of my 20L nano. I have to say it looks ok. Two things to watch out for, however. First, keeping it clean can be a challenge, though a bigger tank might help that. Detritus and some bit of calcium snow are commonly siphoned from the spaces between the rocks. Second thing to watch is that you can't treat the rubble as a typical substrate by setting larger rocks on it. It shifts about quite a bit, particularly during siphoning. My only casualty so far in six months is a shrimp caught on the wrong end of landslide.

I'm using some rubble substrate in my 55. However, I have a pump directed low and the larger rock are seated on the bottom.

Not enough time on either tank in my case to speculate on long term nutrient impact.

[~ChrisB~]

All of my actual rockwork is sitting on eggcrate approx 1 inch above the tanks bottom. This actualy has a cool effect with the rubble in the tank. Kind of creates a shallow cave for some of my shrimp and such to hide out. I would say that 50% of the tanks bottom has this gap and the reast has rubble directly on the bottom.

As far as cleaning goes.... The rubble I got from PA was all of a pretty good size, leading me to believe that siphoning it should be relatively easy. The eggcrate also allows me the opportunity to place my closed loop back in and have the outputs run along the bottom of the tank. Either way I think it looks sweet.


Thanks,
Chris

[algaeguy]

BOTR:

Glad to hear that you're going for it...I think that only actual experimentation and use will give us the final answer as to how well a rubble bottom works. Do keepus posted on this!

I agree about the slightly larger pieces of rubble working better- will definitely assist in access to get at detritus.

artis- I think you brought out a key point: Lots of flow down low! (I think that this will help keep detritus accessable for removal). Again- please update as your tank matures!

Thanks!

Scott

[astronaut]

i have rubble on my sandbed in one area.

[H20ENG]

Youve got plenty of pumping power. I think that will be key. I love the rubble look too, but am fighting hair algae.
I think you need more flow than just going bare bottom!
While Bomber and GregTs tanks look super clean and have awesome flow, I prefer a more natural look than the barren "lab" style bare bottom look. Just my preference....

[Puffers]

To help keep the rubble "clean" try doing a UGF but in reserve, pump that water to a separate sump or hang on filter, then filter that water before returning it to the main tank. I know Paul B has this type of setup (reverse ugf with its own sump) and his tank is older than I am! I'm not sure how to keep all the little critters out of the UGF... I’ve even thought of putting this type of set-up on a surge to achieve more vertical movement of the water.

[algaeguy]

Puffers...

Neat to hear this kind of "out of the box" thinking on keeping these types of tanks.

I love the ideas and experimentation that people are trying. It's certainly different than the usual stuff !

Thanks for sharing!

Scott

[Paul B]

Algaeguy, as Puffers said my substrate is rubble. It started out as dolomite gravel over thirty years ago but in all those years with all the dead snail and urchin shells and all the rocks and rubble I collect it is definately a rubble bottom. I also do run a reverse UG filter and would not go any other way with that type of substrate. I occasionally stir things up with a diatom filter and suck out any detritus. Last year I lifted the UG plates for the first time in 25 years and it was relitively clean under there.
I think it looks very natural and there is no possability of hydrogen sulfate. The only problem with large rubble is that you will have no nitrate reduction from the substrate and will have to incorporate a seperate nitrate removal system. I also have some smaller grains in my substrate and some sand just to slow down the flow and offer some nitrate removal. My nitrate is zero.
Good luck and have a great day.
Paul

[algaeguy]

Thanks much, Paul.

I appreciate your input! Sounds like you may have been running a rubble bottom longer than anyone else!

Very interesting to hear about the reverse UGF as a facilitator of the rubble bottom approach!It may be time for the hobby to revisit this technology as an appropriate alternative for some approaches to marine aquarium husbandry!

I've been leaning towards utilizing larger pieces of rubble (1"-4" or 5 ") loosely stacked on each other, with lots of space in between. I am thinking of incorporating a very thin layer of mixed grain substrate (like 3/8" or 1/2") around the rubble, mostly for the aesthetic. I realize the denitification issue is probably the biggest "functional" loss of this type of bottom, along with the posible detritus accumulation. As you suggested, denitrification can occur elsewhere in the system within other areas (ie; a remote DSB, etc.).

Again, my belief is that the overall system husbandry is the critical issue in this type of setup. Obviously, your atention to maintenenace, stocking, and other details has paid dividends over the very long term! Perhaps such a bottom may simply be looked upon as a bare-bottom tank with a lot of rock, but I'm wondering if this is just semantics! Perhaps this is seen as making a relatively simple approach unduely complex...However, I'm thinking that, if well-maintained, this concept can provide other benefits (ie; cryptic zones within the display, possible production for natural plankton, etc.).

I'd love to hear from bare-bottom enthusiasts regarding their thoughts on the rubble bottom approach. Bare bottom enthusiasts such as Bomber and others, do recommend excellent overall husbandry, which is obviously a key to success with ANY system! Particularly, keeping detritus from accumulating within the system, and very aggresive protein skimming.

Ya' out there, Bomber? Would love your feedback!

Scott

[edwar050]

I would think as previously stated that it would trap alot of dietrius. What about using a couple of concentrated rouble areas out of sight somewhat and growing small ammounts of macro in them? Would be great for a mandarin-

[~ChrisB~]

The point of my adding the rubble is pretty much astethics for me.

I think with the right kind of flow, the right critters, and good husbandry this will work out just fine.

To give you an idea of the flow in my tank.... I have two 1 1/2 inch eductors each ran by a Sequence Baracuda and two Tunze wavebox's.

This equates to a pretty massive amount of flow if you consider the dimensions of my 300. The tank is 48x48x30. Seems to be plenty to keep "stuff" stirred up.

Thanks,
Chris

[algaeguy]

BOTR, I am intrigued by your thoughts on this concept, too. Again-I also think that the aesthetics is a bigger issue to me. I know that my husbandry skills will be possibly challenged, but I wonder to what extent detritus accumulation will occur...

You and I both have what I would consider massive flow in our tanks (I have a Sequence Dart, 2 6100 Streams and 2 6200 Streams, so I don't think that dead spots are an issue). Nonetheless, I am sure that detritus can accumulate somewhere in the system if left unchecked, despite our best intentions.

I think that long-term success is possible, though!

Let's herre more opinions!

Thanks!
Scott

[Randall_James]

Originally posted by H20ENG
Youve got plenty of pumping power. I think that will be key. I love the rubble look too, but am fighting hair algae.
I think you need more flow than just going bare bottom!
While Bomber and GregTs tanks look super clean and have awesome flow, I prefer a more natural look than the barren "lab" style bare bottom look. Just my preference.... I just completed a 20L rubble experiment, and I also had terrible hair algae issues. I have never had a tank with algae issues until this little venture. As algae needs nutrient to grow, that points the finger at me for feeding. I think that the food for the fish was the cause and that the feed ends up trapped in the rubble before the fish can get at it. I broke the tank down the the detritus was also a lot worse. It looked like a years build up in 60 days. That test tank is currently a sand bottom and I am turning some of the rubble into a sculptured structure. Think that will look kind of cool and the fish a place to play.

[~ChrisB~]

Also I am banking on the motion of the water. Not just the direct flow. From watching the WaveBox's I think I have a pretty good up/down water motion as well. Hoping that this will help to suck the left-over foods up out of the rubble and into the overflow.

I want to be sure to say that I have two very different flow patterns in my tank. As I said before I have a very strong up and down motion, as well as a strong horozontalish current generated by the Eductors. Boy I hope this helps keep things clean.

I'm not convinced that a steady current in any one direction could maintain a system like this. Random current in every direction is needed, unless you want to siphon every other day!


Thanks,
Chris

[lillibirdy]

I am sure my flow in my 55g FOWLR is nothing compared to you guys, and I haven't had any hair algae, nor much algae in general even while cycling....wierd huh, (8 months now). I was running a UGF, which I assumed pulled the detritus down into the CC substrate and rubble , so I vacuumed, and dug in where no rocks where, and worried about under the rocks. I recently (2 weeks ago) reversed the UGF, and added a mini refugium in a hob filter, now even the tiny bit of algae I used to get on the glass after a week is less... Not recommending UGF's or CC to general populace, so don't jump on me,lol. I know most of you think they are archaic, just info for you to think about. My detritus is minimal still, and when Paul B took his apart after many, many yrs, and the gunk under his plates where minimal.

I origionally wanted to make a home for pods, and put the rubble between two islands of rock. Now I just love the way it looks, so much unless it becomes an issue, which it isn't now, I will keep this tank set up this way permanently.

I was doing weekly water changes, and tried an experiment to go two weeks just to see my perams. I am amazed they are still stable and Nitrates actually went down by end of week one to under12mg, by end of week two where only back up to 15. I am working toward 0 so I can add some corals in the Spring when I upgrade my lights. I have no sump either, so if I can't get NO3 to 0 by Spring I will go ahead and get one with a bigger refugium.

[Herbert T. Kornfeld]

when you upgrade your lighting, you might want to look into some clams...they will lower that nitrate level.

[lillibirdy]

OMG is this true! I didn't know clams would help lower Nitrates, I thought I had to be 00000000 to even try a clam. Haven't studied them too much yet, trying to learn in order of need to know......lol. Wow. I love clams and can't wait!

[~ChrisB~]

Sure clams are excellent for that. Try going with Crocea as they as one of the faster growing and take up quite a bit. At one point I had 9 in my 300, sold them all, now have 2 Gigas and 1 Tear Drop Crocea.



Chris

[algaeguy]

Ya know what is really cool about this thread, guys? It's that we're talking about some really out-of-the-box thinking on substrates and ecosystem designs!

Utilizing different types of hardware, unique approaches to creating microhabitats...This is what the hobby is all about. Sure, there may be some failures, and some disappointments, but since there is more than one way to run a reef, it's neat to hear about everyone's experiments.

Clams as a "filter" is not entirely new, but it is cool to think of when we're also examining alternative substrates and set ups.

Thanks again to everyone for this thought provoking discussion!

Scott

[LazyReef]

My experience articulated previously is that rubble is a detritus trap. Pocillopora colonies I have encountered in wild are always shallow, sand bottom sloping down to 60 feet before a drop. They were located in 15-20 feet of water. Usually anemones are in the same area. I would not call it a fore or aft reef, but more of a lagoonal type reef. Flow is not high, but fresh deep water is always close by. Favids would probaly do better in a zone like this a high flow rubble. Siphoning once a week is way too much work for me, but rubble if kept clean will give you a habitat for pods. First time I heard of horeshoes for sand stirrers, but I am going to have to give that a try. Interesting thread, a lot of different ideas going on.

[Paul B]

Horseshoe crabs should not be put in a reef. They are not tropical animals and they always live in mud. I can collect them locally here in NY by the hundreds any size from 1/4" to a foot. They live on mud and rarely venture onto rubble although there is plenty of rubble here. They are also temperate animals and will not live long at tropical temperatures. They should live a few monthes but at 80 degrees I doubt they will last much longer. I have collected them many times. Let me know if anyone had one for a long time.
Take care.
Paul

[sgolden]

thanx for the ideas guys.......i think i'll be building a pvc plenum of "rails"to put under my sandbed...with holes drilled on the bottom to keep all detritus from settling...and have lotsa holes (some on angles)aimed up at the sandbed.....so if the sand settles in areas and makes dead zones i can just adjust the flow till the entire sandbed is percolating...then back it off......do you think anything would still live in the sand???

[bigreddog]

A buddy of mine has a 210g with a rubble bottom. He put a thin layer of aragonite sand, about a half inch, underneath a nice layer of 1-2" pieces of marshall and tonga rubble. It gives the effect he was looking for and adds valuable biofiltration. It's been nearly a year since he set it up and never a problem.

[algaeguy]

bigreddog:

Any chance of getting a pic of your buddy's tank?

Sounds like something worth seeing!

Thanks!

Scott

[jimbo045]

I seem to be doing the rara. Lots of live rock and only a Protein Skimmer, no wet/dry

[ghotiFL]

OT: Horseshoe crabs not tropical? Then the ones here must be mutated. I see em all the time here in Florida. On the gulf coast.. and our water temps range from 90 in summer to 65 in winter.

[Paul B]

ghotiFL, If you see horseshoe crabs in Florida then I stand corrected. They have to be the same species becfause there is only three species of them and only one in North America.
It is amazing that an animal (it's not really a crab) can live here in NY under the ice and also live in Florida. I still don't think they will do well in a reef though. But I could be wrong again. My wife tells me I am wrong all the time.
bigreddog, I like the picture of the male blue devil in your avitar. That is what they look like when they are in breeding condition. I used to breed them all the time many years ago.
Take care Paul

[Tunguska]

I have a "rubble zone" substrate, but it isn't just rubble. I have everything from oolitic aragonite and "special grade" sizes to CC, shells, sand dollar pieces, and LR chunks. The amount of microscopic life this mix supports is quite amazing.

I have at least 2 species of snail breeding successfully in my tank (one looks like turbo snails, but I'll wait till they grow more before trying to ID, the other looks like a slug with a hard shell on top). I also have tunicates and sponges spreading like crazy. Mysis shrimp have set up breeding stations in some large shells I have in there. I also have some kind of stationary snail that casts a "net" for either bacteria or plankton, and a non-photosynthetic clam that came with one of my rocks that is still alive after one year this month.

I think the sandbed/rubble zone creates a zone where natural phyto production can occur, as well as a place where the snail larvae can survive. I don't feed phyto. I also have 0/0/0 amonia/nitrite/nitrate. I attribute this to feeding almost nothing (I'm not giving the sandbed ALL the credit ;)).

I think rubble zones are something to look at, and not just as BB replacements. Just my opinion based on 1 year of SW.

[Paul B]

Tunguska, I have also raised over 100 of these lettuce slugs in my reef but I doubt the substrate has anything to do with it, but it may.
Paul
http://www.breedersregistry.org/Articles/baldassano2004/SolarPoweredSlug.htm

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/13094Elysia_Crispata_002_small.jpg

[lillibirdy]

Oh my Gosh Paul, thats a lot of slugs. So what ever happened to them? Are they still in there and reproducing? You shoulda sold some babies to LFS or local reefers. I am fascinated by these little buggers, but am afraid of the toxicity factor. Hmmm idea for another poll...

[algaeguy]

Tunguska:

I'm fascinated by your "mixed grain" sand/rubble zone. You mention what I feel is one of the biggest benefits of this type of setup- the biodiveristy and and potential for alternative food sources being developed within the system itself...sort of an in-tank refugium.

Sandbeds are still a controversial topic, but it's very nice to hear success stories from hobbyists using a variety of approaches.

Thanks again for your input!

Scott

[Paul B]

Lillibirdi, that was last year, the slugs lived about 18 monthes which is a lot longer then they are supposed to live. I did sell most of them to a researcher in Conn. Many more I traded to a LFS. I used them like credit cards. I don't think there are any more of them in my reef. They reproduced a few times then ran out of steam.
Paul

[Tunguska]

algaeguy:

Yes, it is basically an in-tank reffugium. Initially, I added the larger rubble in "pod piles" in anticipation of adding a mandarin -- I got a scooter blenny about a month ago. It is my only fish. Eventually, I filled up the hidden spots behind rocks with all the rubble I added, so I just started dropping it where ever. This led to my mixed grain rubble DSB.

[Tunguska]

Paul:

Congrats on your breeding success! I tried a lettuce slug once, but I saw my crabs kill it. I always thought they were supposed to be poisonous? Anyways, I think the "slugs" I have are really snails with slug shaped bodies and semi-ovoid shells. They are mostly light green, with parts that fade almost to white. One of them is jet black. I've never seen them before, and I don't have a camera for pictures, so I still dont know what they are.

[just dave]

While not exactly what you are going for I have my tanks viewable bottom area covered with rock and where it meets the glass it is rubble. Works great so far.

[algaeguy]

Actually, Dave- it is very similar...

How 'bout some pics?

Scott

[just dave]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/593968_13_05_1_rc.JPG

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/593968_13_05_3_rc.JPG

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/593968_13_05_4_rc.JPG

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/593968_13_05_2_rc.JPG

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/593968_8_05_7_rc.JPG

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/593968_8_05_6_rc.JPG

[lillibirdy]

Dang that's a purty tank! I am still trying to figure out how you guys can get all the different corals so close without them trying to sting each other...

[algaeguy]

Really nice stuff...That's a true "rubble bottom" over a "BB" . I like the idea...Very unique.

Thanks for the pics!

Scott

[jda]

Saw this thread kinda late, but I use a rubble bottom on my FOWLR. About 50% Carib Sea Sea Floor and about 50% hammered-up live rock. I started this because I did not want the fish to move all the substrate around. The hunks are from M&M size all the way up to Jawbreaker/Golf-Ball size.

It gets a nice layer of coralline on it and looks pretty good. It also houses a LOT of mini stars, worms and pods. I don't vacuum it and my NO3 is about 1 and PO4 about 0.

Sure some food ends up in there, but the worms and fauna take care of it. You would be suprised how the fish can "blow" and all the food comes back up for them to eat. Even the eels can get to it.

The triggers and puffers like to find the occasional worm or star out in the open as a real treat. At night, there are pods like crazy all over the place.

[Randall_James]

Just Dave, how large is that tank?
You did a spectacular job with the appeance of "Depth" The images give an illusion of "zones" with way different looks in each.

[algaeguy]

jda:

Interesting point that you bring up- one that always seems to be mentioned in conjunction with rubble bottom tanks:

The large amount of infauna and natural food being produced in the tank! This type of information is really useful. The more I hear from fellow hobbyists about the rubble bottom, the more I think that this may be a really cool way to run a tank!

Thanks again for your input!

Scott

[just dave]

Originally posted by Randall_James
Just Dave, how large is that tank?
You did a spectacular job with the appeance of "Depth" The images give an illusion of "zones" with way different looks in each.


Thanks.
It's 48"x48"x24" so the depth part you are seeing may not be an illusion.

[Don424]

Originally posted by algaeguy
Hi everyone:

I've been working with my new 225 reef, which is being modeled after a "rubble zone" area of a reef. Predominant corals are various Faviids, with a smattering of Pocillopora colonies.

Anyways, the tank has started out more or less barebottom, as I have wicked flow provided by 4 Tunze Streams and a Sequence Dart for the main return. Such flow has made a conventional sandbed a bit of a problem, so I have avoided one altogether. I like the look of sand (at least in a shallow depth), but I do like the ease of maintenance that barebottom affords (thanks to Bomber and others for inspiration!). Have thought of about 1/3-1/2 inch of coarse media, such as Carib-Sea "Aruba Puka" aragonite and perhaps crushed coral.

I have been using moderate-sized pieces (2"-4") and broken- up (1"-2" chunks) of Tonga slab to construct some "rubble piles", and I must say, it's coming out pretty decent...

What I am thinking of doing is to cover the entire bottom with small rubble pieces (with appropriate crevices and nooks). Maybe even some finer (1'2"- 3/4) smashed up pieces...all at a very shallow depth. I realize such a setup may not be for everyone, as much attention needs to be paid to detritus accumulation and overall husbandry...I consider myself a master of aquatic husbandry, so maintenance is not an issue. The areas in the tank where I have done this already are looking great, and the system has been chemically stable for the 4months that the system has been up and running. I'm really interested in my fellow reefer's thoughts on the aesthetics of such a bottom...

Fishes include lots of blennies and gobies, Halichoeres wrasses,a Centropyge angel, and a couple of Zebrasoma sp. tangs. Everyone seems to be doing fine.

Has anyone run, or contemplated running, such a system? If so, I'd love to hear comments and thoughts, or even see some pics if you have them.

As always- thanks to all in advance for your feedback.

Scott

Lillibirdy is right on with a good way to do it. Nice job on your tank Lillibirdy ............it looks great. What HOB are you using and what pumps are you using for the Reverse flow UGF?

Algaeguy,

Put a UGF plate in. Put your rock on it then the rubble. Use a high flow/reverse flow powerhead on each end tube. The high flow powerheads like the penguin/ reverse flow unit at i think 175 gph each will give you alot of flow to blow the detritus up into the water column. No detriitus........no nitrate:cool:

[lillibirdy]

Thanks Don, HOB is millenium 2000, My pumps are indeed the Penguin 660Reverse flow at 175 gph. I am hoping it helps with keeping detritus up in water column, sure seems to be helping. Not sure if it will be low enough for certain corals, but we shall see. Like Paul B's, I might have to allow it to develope some (much smaller) areas of anaerobic bacteria in the CC, but if so I spose I will have to stop stirring the skinny area behind my rocks maybe, that and get a clam, (yaaay). I like the out of the box thinking. And the idea that I can do this without spending TONS of money on equipment.

[Don424]

Originally posted by lillibirdy
Thanks Don, HOB is millenium 2000, My pumps are indeed the Penguin 660Reverse flow at 175 gph. I am hoping it helps with keeping detritus up in water column, sure seems to be helping. Not sure if it will be low enough for certain corals, but we shall see. Like Paul B's, I might have to allow it to develope some (much smaller) areas of anaerobic bacteria in the CC, but if so I spose I will have to stop stirring the skinny area behind my rocks maybe, that and get a clam, (yaaay). I like the out of the box thinking. And the idea that I can do this without spending TONS of money on equipment.

Lillibirdy

Yeah........those penguins are supposed to be good. Are they quiet? I'm going to my LFS with one of my MaxiJet pumps to see if the Penguin conversion fitting will fit on to it. Make sure you rinse the pre-filter sponges every 1-2 weeks or so. I'm going to guess that some of the anerobic bacteria will build up underneath your rock in the CC over time.
Should be low enough for corals .........down the road....I'd wait a bit. Keep an eye open for an ammonia/nitrite spike :beachbum:

[lillibirdy]

I guess it's quiet, all I hear is my dang skimmer noise, (Remora pro sucking noise, but that is much better since I added a bit of folded filter material over the left side). I do rinse my sponges every week with my water changes, and don't even see that much stuff on them. My skimmer pulls out lotsa wet green yuk too. So far so good!

[Whaledriver]

I saw this thread today and thought I would toss out a few ideas I was thinking of for a tank in the future.
I would use a undergravel filter plate and maybe open up the grateing a little. Put a valve on your sequance so that you can put all the flow through the undergravel filter for an hour a day. During the rest of the day you can have a maintenance flow as needed. What this will do is keep anything from collecting at all and it should toss all the pods and mysis into the water creating a nice feeding opertunity for the fish.
I would stick with rocks larger than an inch with plenty of nooks and cranys for life to hide in
With this much disturbance in the rock level on a daily basis you should not have any trouble with detritus buildup. It should also let the skimmer keep up with the silt buildup

[NeilPearson]

Originally posted by cduran02
Naw....horse shoe crabs eat small crustaceans (pods) and worms.

... in other words - microfauna

[Don424]

Originally posted by lillibirdy
I guess it's quiet, all I hear is my dang skimmer noise, (Remora pro sucking noise, but that is much better since I added a bit of folded filter material over the left side). I do rinse my sponges every week with my water changes, and don't even see that much stuff on them. My skimmer pulls out lotsa wet green yuk too. So far so good!

Lillibirdy

Yeah.....those Remora's can make a racket from what I've read over the past year but I'm sure it will calm down as this new set up matures in the tank. By the way.......what/who's undergravel filter do you use? I was going with a Perfecto but they have ridgespeaks & valley's) in them........I'd prefer all flat but can't seem to find one that doesn't bend do to the weight of my live rock. Any suggestions?.............and keep me up to date on your tank and if you get any new pictures...chiao:thumbsup:

[Don424]

Originally posted by Whaledriver
I saw this thread today and thought I would toss out a few ideas I was thinking of for a tank in the future.
I would use a undergravel filter plate and maybe open up the grateing a little. Put a valve on your sequance so that you can put all the flow through the undergravel filter for an hour a day. During the rest of the day you can have a maintenance flow as needed. What this will do is keep anything from collecting at all and it should toss all the pods and mysis into the water creating a nice feeding opertunity for the fish.
I would stick with rocks larger than an inch with plenty of nooks and cranys for life to hide in
With this much disturbance in the rock level on a daily basis you should not have any trouble with detritus buildup. It should also let the skimmer keep up with the silt buildup

Interesting idea........might also promote nitrate reduction to if you're suggesting having the reverse flow on for only an hour a day. Tha t might promote a slow construction of anerobic bacteria under the plate or the bottom layer of the CC...............and maintenance flow would keep the rest of the crud moving around so the skimmer or HOB filter could catch it.

Anybody else out there have a spin on Whaledrivers idea?:idea:

[Don424]

Sorry Whaledriver..........I mean the bottom layer of the rubble......not CC

[algaeguy]

Don and Whaledriver:

Thanks again for the sweet ideas...Who would have thought that the humble UG filter can be a valuable ally in a 21st centrury setup? It's cool to see this kind of creative thinking!

What I've been doing so far is using large pieces of Tonga slab rock placed directly on the bottom, with pieces loosely stacked on top of others, yet leaving plenty of "void" space in between. With my Streams blasting a cycle of 30%-100% throughout the tank, and the Sequence doing its magic, I have only seen detritus accumulation in one easy-to-siphon area. Surprisingly(?), I have seen no detectible nitrate or phosphate thus far.

I think if I were doing it over again, I'd try the UGF plate idea. This may be a fantastic way to maintain such alternative systems for the long run.

Keep the ideas coming!

Scott

[Whaledriver]

This idea would also let you set up the tank and not have to do much maintenance. Like the old fresh water days you could put a automatic feeder on it and just check it once a week to clean the skimmer.

I think a Manderin would love hunting the rubble for food all day.

[lillibirdy]

Don, how will the the bottom of layer of rubble grow anaerobic bacteria? I thought it wasn't condensed enough to shut out oxygen? In my own tank, I think the areas under my rubble that is CC will surely grow some, and if I stop stirring CC behind rocks.

But won't the actual rubble layer itself get to much oxygen to allow that type of oxygen starved bacteria? Maybe I am confused again, wouldn't surprise me none...lol.

[Don424]

Originally posted by algaeguy
Don and Whaledriver:

Thanks again for the sweet ideas...Who would have thought that the humble UG filter can be a valuable ally in a 21st centrury setup? It's cool to see this kind of creative thinking!

What I've been doing so far is using large pieces of Tonga slab rock placed directly on the bottom, with pieces loosely stacked on top of others, yet leaving plenty of "void" space in between. With my Streams blasting a cycle of 30%-100% throughout the tank, and the Sequence doing its magic, I have only seen detritus accumulation in one easy-to-siphon area. Surprisingly(?), I have seen no detectible nitrate or phosphate thus far.

I think if I were doing it over again, I'd try the UGF plate idea. This may be a fantastic way to maintain such alternative systems for the long run.

Keep the ideas coming!

Scott

Scott

For that zone that's accumulating some detritus, any chance a spray bar across the bottom of the tank would help or a maxijet powerhead with that Hydor rotating flow head on it?

Look....even if you go into the tank once every week of 2 with a powerhead and blow the stuff up into the water column, that should be fine. Very short maintenance time......should take all of a minute or two.
I sent you an email to get pictures::D

[Don424]

Originally posted by lillibirdy
Don, how will the the bottom of layer of rubble grow anaerobic bacteria? I thought it wasn't condensed enough to shut out oxygen? In my own tank, I think the areas under my rubble that is CC will surely grow some, and if I stop stirring CC behind rocks.

But won't the actual rubble layer itself get to much oxygen to allow that type of oxygen starved bacteria? Maybe I am confused again, wouldn't surprise me none...lol.

Lillibirdy

I was referring to Whaledriver's suggestion/idea that if Algaeguy used a UGF plate with the rubble on top and sequencing reverse ugf flow for only an hour a day. Maintenance flow would be in the tank the rest of the time from other circulating pumps. Since the water under the ugf would be semi stagnant/very low flow lets say for 22 hours or so, there's a good chance that the anerobic would have a chance to build under the plate and seed into the bottom of the rubble.

The same principal and theory would apply to your tank with CC also. You're not confused......It didn't come out of my mouth the right way :)

[Whaledriver]

I think that with the large rock type rubble you would never go anerobic and wouldnt wat to anyway. The daily didturbance of the water would allow the funky water to mix with the fish water. I would have some very large rock, like 20-40 pound pieces to give the fish a place to hide.

On of the things I was thinking would be to use an Oceanic tank with the corner overflows. I would have a section in front of the overflows on each end blocked off with a 3-6 inch piece of glass. This would let me put a deepsand bed in the roughly one foot square created on each end of the tank. The rest would have a rubble bottom with a undergravel filter plate under it. I think this would give me the best of both worlds

[Paul B]

I would love to see how this mixed rubble, temporary fast, temp. slow rerverse UG filtered tank works out. I have my feelings about it but since I am an inventer I love controversial endeavours.
Good luck.
Paul

[lillibirdy]

My LFS guy just rolled his eyes and told me since the only purpose of an UGF is to make nitrates, and that it will do so whether it's reversed or not, that I should take it out, (and the CC). I hate it when someone I have to deal with, thinks I am a big ol doofus... I am aiming at mainly fish and by Spring maybe a few LPS and softies, (might experiment with an easy SPS). Is Nitrates of 12 really so bad? I am aiming lower, with refugium and some other ideas, but was just so discouraged, glad I didn't mention the big rubble pile in the middle.... I just hate telling anyone my set up......

[Paul B]

lillibirdy, I told you were going to get that from people. Especially people who don't have a tank for very long.
Paul

[algaeguy]

Yep...don't be discouraged. You have a vision and a plan- a unique one...Stick to it!

Scott

[Don424]

Originally posted by jda
Saw this thread kinda late, but I use a rubble bottom on my FOWLR. About 50% Carib Sea Sea Floor and about 50% hammered-up live rock. I started this because I did not want the fish to move all the substrate around. The hunks are from M&M size all the way up to Jawbreaker/Golf-Ball size.

It gets a nice layer of coralline on it and looks pretty good. It also houses a LOT of mini stars, worms and pods. I don't vacuum it and my NO3 is about 1 and PO4 about 0.

Sure some food ends up in there, but the worms and fauna take care of it. You would be suprised how the fish can "blow" and all the food comes back up for them to eat. Even the eels can get to it.

The triggers and puffers like to find the occasional worm or star out in the open as a real treat. At night, there are pods like crazy all over the place.

Where do you get pods and worms from?:confused:

[H20ENG]

How about a modded maxijet with prop, or a tunze feeding the UGF plate. That would get a lot of upwelling going on.
You could also have a surge bucket feed the thing.

Great thread, BTW!

[Whaledriver]

If the rubble is large enough junk wont collect and nitrates should not be a problem.

You could just put 2 powerheads on the inlets to the undergravel plate. One would be small to keep it areobic. The other would run an hour or two a day and be larger to surge out all the silt and junk.

When you talk to someone about this idea just dont use the word "undergravel". The word just brings up the stone age of saltwater

[algaeguy]

I've noticed some interesting things about my rubble bottom so far (it's been expanding slowly every week as I accumulate more appropriate pieces). First is that there really has been no accumulation of detritus in the gaps in the rubble. Second has been the remarkable growth of some "cryptic" organisms, such as sponges. Another cool thing that I have found is that some little "bits and pieces" of SPS frags and zooanthid polyps that may have broken off through my own carelessness have fallen into the rubble area and have began to encrust! I think that I have really strong flow down there, and have actually decided to secure some frags deliberately down there, similar to just_dave.

Finally, the best thing I've noticed is that my nitrate and phosphate are still at undetectable levels almost 6 months into this! I really think that it's all about husbandry, flow and a really good skimmer!

Scott

[Whaledriver]

This might be a great idea for a grow out tank with a shelf system. Stuff ( little "bits and pieces" of SPS frags and zooanthid polyps) can collect on the rocks and can then be moved to larger rocks for grow out.

[algaeguy]

EXACTLY!

In fact, I've seen this type of set up at a number of different coral propagation facilities. Not only does it make it easier to remove corals to give/trade with other hobbyists, but it looks pretty darned cool, too!

I'm looking forward to this rubble bottom expanding and filling out.

Although I didn't do this- the ideas for the UGF on the bottom are very interesting and make lots of sense!

Scott

[Whaledriver]

?golf ball size?

[Mike O'Brien]

Here is a shot of my 10 gallon bare bottom rubble zone tank, it is dedicated to a mandarin. It really can be an effective in tank refugium for pod's.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y157/Mike0101/pics445.jpg

[algaeguy]

Awesome!

I'll bet that the pod poulation and other microfauna is amazing. Im hoping that my 225 grows up to be just like your 10!

Thanks for sharing!

Scott

[Don424]

Originally posted by Mike O'Brien
Here is a shot of my 10 gallon bare bottom rubble zone tank, it is dedicated to a mandarin. It really can be an effective in tank refugium for pod's.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y157/Mike0101/pics445.jpg

I gotta tell you.......after seeing your tank and algaeguy, I am so tempted to go UGF/reverse flow and full rubble floor with a few showpiece of LR. I am really liking the look.........I've seen rubble zones when snorkeling and the tanks look like what I've seen........ and with a high reverse flow I think there will be little to no problems with nitrate, phosphate and consequentially little or no algae......man this is tough.:hmm4:

[algaeguy]

I'm lovin' this!

Scott

[Mike O'Brien]

Thank's guy's. The fish is happily fed. There are plenty of different pod's in there, and I use a sponge prefilter in there as well to increase the surface area for them.

[Chicago]

do you really want the sponge filter? looks like pleanty of rock... is the sponge filter adding nitrate to the system. ?

[Mike O'Brien]

It's just the sponge, pod's live in it. Did I say I did 70% WC's a week. What are nitrates?

[Chicago]

sorry didnt catch that about the sponge

[aurorafish]

I basically have had a 90 gallon rubble bottom for the last 3 months since I am cooking most of my rocks to go barebottom. I have all the rocks up about 3" on eggcrate with a couple mag pumps underneath for flow. I actually get more compliments now than before, I think mostly because the corals and fish dominate the tank. So far my tank has been very stable and have not had to scrape the glass much. My mandarin needs to go on a diet.

[andycook]

What size rubble pieces are typically used? The rubble size used in most of the tanks in this thread seem to be on the small side, under 1".

My idea for my 180 is to use pieces 1"-6", like Mike O'Brian's tank except the pieces should be proportional to a 180g rather than a 10g.

[algaeguy]

Hi andycook:

I think that your idea for rubble sizing is right on. I think it is driven as much by aesthetics as it would be for maintenance. What I have found with my system is that the rock is rather loosely placed on the bottom, so there are really no areas that accumulate detritus. Essentially, the rubble bottom that I am using is a bare-bottom system, I suppose. Hence my thoughts about running lots of flow in the system.

The UGF ideas that have been proposed in this forum sound fantastic. I'd love to see what kinds of things reefers are doing along those lines!

I found that it is quite easy to get realtively inexpensive slab rock and "bust it up" with a soft mallet to meet your own size requirements.

Last night, I was at the house of a local reefer/friend who has a rubble bottom similar to mine in his 350gal, and the tank/effect is stunning. He has all kinds of Zooanthids, Blastomussa, Faviids, etc throughout his rubble bottom, and the sheer diversity of life is amazing!

He has a very large population of foraging fishes, like Mandarins, blennies, gobies, Centropyge Angels, Leopard Wrasses, etc. All are thriving, and the colors are spectacular.

Again, I think that the "rubble bottom" idea is really a neat concept. Hardly rocket science, but just another way to run a cool reef tank!

If I had to do it all over again, I think that I would have ran my system "fishless" for a few months, while innoculating the system with cultures of amphipods from a source like IPSF, and really letting the system acheive maximum biological diversity before stocking with fish and corals...Would take a lot of patience- but how cool would that be?

Scott

[andycook]

Scott, I'd like to see pictures of that 350.

I can't say I'm excited to do an under gravel, even if it is reversed.

[surg_xero]

Everything comes back in fashion. Let's begin reinventing an old idea with new tools.

[lillibirdy]

My 55's reverse UGF with it's CC substrate and with a large rubble area in the middle is now 0 Nitrates!!! Not sure why, but has been steadily 0 for a couple months now. Nothing has really changed except added two small xenia, and I doubt they reduced it that much. Oh and I am changing 20% every OTHER week now instead of every week..... go figure. I have 6 smallish fish and I always worry I am overfeeding, but apparently, the skimmer and clean up crew is dealing with it just fine.

When I wc and clean, I stir some CC that is in open areas and few times have used turkey baster on rubble pile, and for some reason, not as much comes up from the CC and rubble, as does when I directly blast the big rocks themselves. So strange.

[barryhc]

Lillibirdy, your results are very interesting. I was going to use this type of set-up 10 mos. ago, when I started my latest tank, but the DSB VS BB rhetoric was so bad, along with the UGF's are "old-school-nitrate- factories etc., that I went with a "plenum-DSB". It is working fine, but I'm very interested in your success, along with the other posters here as well.

This seems to be the only thread I've seen where these ideas can be discussed freely, and it is a credit to you all.

But back to your tank. What is your bio-load, or animal population, what and how much do you feed, and most importantly, how much flow is going thru your Reverse UGF?

Congratulations on your success!! > barryhc :)

[lillibirdy]

Thanks Barry, it is nice to be able to discuss different things without getting nailed. I hesitate to tell you my fish list, for fear someone will jump on it, not knowing my future plans, or giving me credit for having thought it out...ya know. But here goes.

one clownfish
one pajama cardinal-(both in there since tank began over a yr ago)
firefish, 2 "
blue green chromis 1"
Coral Beauty Angel 2 1/2"
Blue Tang 2" (the last fish added bout three months ago)

Skunk cleaner shrimp
Fire shrimp
about 15 snails (variety)

I feed once a day, probably too much, I try to add a bit at a time so none settles anywhere while they are eating the rest. I can't not feed them every day like some do, they beg at me and I feel sorry for them, lol. But usually only what they can eat in couple minutes. Hang Nori for the Tang every few days.

Flow on both ends of UGF is from millenium 1200's which says it is 695 gph.

I am experimenting with some rics, yuma and florida, xenia and mushrooms. I still have only NO flors for light, (till income tax refund time), so I added a grow light on each end of the tank, and put them there. All are growing really well. I did my very first frag, split a Yuma into 4 which all came thru and rounded back out very quickly. Glued each to a piece of CC, then to a rock. One bailed from the rock I had it on, and they are so small, can't find it's teensy self in my CC rubble....but, all in all, I am very happy with this tanks progress.

I can't friggin wait to see what else I can grow in there. My parameters seem fine for softies and LPS, but I am soooo curious about SPS. Oh yea, I am now flip flopping between getting VHO's or t-5's. I am still so mindboggled by the thread, "show me your VHO ONLY tank". I soooooooooo want to have some clams and SPS in my "dinosaur" - RUGF, CC, sumpless, VHO lit tank, just to prove there is more than one way to run a reef, and that it can be done without spending a ton of bucks. It really insults me when someone has the attitude of, if you can't afford aaaall the crapola, you shouldn't be running a reef. Ya know, how arrogant is that? I am enjoying each step of it's beauty and growth. And am willing to experiment a bit, (like PaulB). But as to the lights, my space is limited for the big bulbs, and might have to go with t-5s. I have no sump, so I have crap taking up room on the back on my 12" tank...aaaaarg.

My mind is just spinning on all the possibilities of what I am going to do with my next tank....

[Paul B]

Lillibirdy. I am glad all is well with your reverse UG as I knew it would. I am waiting for the doubters who will tell you it can't work.
Have a great holiday and good luck.
Paul

[lillibirdy]

Hi Paul B. Well, there are the doubters that's for sure.....but you and I are showing them. I can't really say nany nany neeners quite yet, it's still a young tank. But of course you have quieted many a doubter all on your own, haven't ya? There are others who are scared to post Have any idea where my nitrates went? I don't even change the filters in the hob or my sponges on the UGF cept every two weeks now. According to all I have heard, I should be having quite the little nitrate factory in there.... I am going to get some mangroves for the millenium hob. Not sure why now, (if Nitrates are 0), but I like the idea of them sticking out the top of my tank, waaaaay up on my desk.

Happy holidays to you too Paul!

[Paul B]

"nany nany neeners" I don't think I ever said that, but I think I will start. Luckily for me, there was no internet when I started so no one could jump on my, and besides we all had UG filters then.
I had my nitrates tested yesterday (I have no test kits that are not years out of date) and mine are also zero. My UG filter was probably about $12.00 when I got it in 72 so it cost me about 30 cents a year, I can do that.
I also love mangroves.
I can't wait until you can say nany nany neeners.
Have a great holiday.
Paul

[barryhc]

Lillibirdy, I'm just thinking about flow rate relative to water, and much more importantly, to the area and depth of the gravel. what is the depth of the gravel?

I am trying to figure out how you are maintaining 0 Nitrates. You have a "decent" load of fish, and they are usually considered "most of the load". You are also using mechanical filtration, and that's a particularly awful "NO-NO".

The nice thing about the RUGF, is that you aren't going to collect detritus or whatever under your gravel, so the conditions you have "should remain" quite stable. Anything that is supposedly trying to develop in there, is being continuously diluted into the "column water", so nothing can build-up.

I am working on a plenum wasting experiment, and it has a lot of promise, but as stated, it is experimental, and certianly more complex.

Anyway, I'm sort of "all over" this "bacterial-process" stuff, and with an exceedingly open mind, but digging out what interactions are occuring at "specifcly what levels", is very hard to come by.

"This happens", and "that happens", and so do "these and those". Yes they do, but only in "static-beds", and at some unknown depth.

Try to talk about water flowing in a substrate, and the whole world starts "burning".

Anyway, I'll take a stab at it. We'll assume that you have a high quality test kit and use it correctly. So, this may be nothing more than a wild guess, but here goes.

700 GPH is really a tiny amount of flow when dispersed evenly across the area of a 55 gal. tank. I have about 450 GPH thru a RUGF in a 55 gal. freshwater tank, and the output "appears"to be nearly zero as far as I can tell. Food falls to the bottom easily in this tank, but it never "pulls down in" like it would otherwise. Of couse the scavengers feed here, and nothing noticable gets down in the gravel.

Your UGF plate design could play a role here. Many are not designed for reverse flow, and could easily trap water in some "low flow" areas, with no one having any idea that this could occur. there could also be low flow areas around the edges, and even under your rocks, or in your rubble pile.

This could be happening by accident or coincidence and no one is the wiser. Then again it may not be. If it was, you could be getting some denitrification from some very low oxygen areas that are still not "anoxic". this could be helping some. now if you are blowing the byproduct of the denitrification process ( which is bacteria at this point ) right into the water column, then these bacteria could be picked up in your mechanical filtration, as well as the skimmer.

Here they process a little farther, but not to the point of dumping ammonium and nitrite back into your water, which they certainly can do eventually. If any of this were occuring, it would be crucial not to let the filter material go "too long" without changing. Time will tell, if you continue "stretching" your "media-change-intervals".

I have always thought this could work in this way, BUT the "world" says otherwise. I really don't know. I am trying to find out. I really would have set-up an identical system if I had not been talked out of it. I should set one up soon as an experiment. If you live "inside a box", you don't see very much.

Keep it up and let us know how it's going. I am very interested. (obviously ) > barryhc :)

[lillibirdy]

I put a few new pics in gallery. Sure not much to speak of compared to the rest of ya's, but since I am waiting on lights and only have grow lights I am happy as heck with params and whats growing already. Quite confident it is ready for more stuff soon as lights go on. So do I have to add corals slow slow slow too? Is a few at time ok?

[lillibirdy]

Barry, you have given this whole thing way more thought than I have, lol. I did read up, but you will probably have to tell me, how and why it is working, lol.

Not sure you understood, there is an 695 gpg pump on each end of the tank. TWO of these each pushing water from their own end.

I assumed my gravel, rocks, and 2" of CC where doing the work of growing enough good my bacteria. Technically I don't even have enough rock to do a proper job according to most folks. I rinse my filter pads in fresh sink water every other week now too, because I had not thought of them as sources of anything else except catching some misc junk, the Millenium hob mainly for creating flow, oxygen, (future tiny refuge for some mangroves)... I find when I rinse them out, there isn't much stuff on them really, same for my sponges. I am thinking it must be due to my Remora pro skimmer and box catching most of it. I have two power heads on the ends aimed at the front lower 1/3 of the tank. I don't see much of anything settle on the bottom, just keeps going in the current. I worry about the behind parts a bit, but unless it lands IN a rock stuff just seems to keep on floating till fish eat it, or skimmer gets it. I know I am pushing my bio load. I was changing religiously once a week, had family problems and went to every other week a few months ago, and was aaaaall worried, and shocked to find Nitrates at 0. Bought another different test and had same results. So keeping it there for now, with my eye on it. I will not be stretching my water changes any further, and if need be, will go back to once a week.

As to there being low oxygen areas, I spose...but my rocks are mostly stuffed down into the CC for stability sorta ON my UGF plate with the CC piled around them. Maybe under the rubble yea... And I was stirring it up where I could in the open spaces in the front and sides. I left open so I can get in to clean glass in my very narrow tank. All I know, is when I started this tank, and was sweating everything soooooo much, measuring all the time, and worrying, it seemed as if I couldn't get it stable. Now, that I have relaxed, and am not trying as hard, not adding PH buffer like LFS told me too, ect ect ect......it is very stable, and things are doing great. Go figure huh? lol

Yea, my ph is also considered low, 8.0 another thing everyone had me all freaked out about. But I have seen several amazing tanks where this is the case, and stable 8.0 is waaaaay better than bouncing around. Sooooooo it seems for me too.

I DO realize, when I get some stony corals that they will consume calcium, and I will have had to have decided ahead of time, how I will deal with all of that. Hoping for the simple inexpensive method for that as well....lol. A friend told me, when I was spinning in circles trying to do everything right, that simple is better, and I think I am agreeing.

I put some pics in gallery. I will update when I get the lights and some more interesting stuff spread out in there, and not just on the ends of the tanks rocks.....looks silly and people ask me why in the heck I don't spread it around. I have to explain about lights, and tell them, if it bothers them that much I am taking money donations for my lights..lol.

[barryhc]

Isn't amazing how worried "everybody else" is about "your" tank?:lol: I think the patience factor is very valid. I went through the same thing, and I am much more relaxed now. I don't use a third of the additives and "stuff" I bought when I started.

The Anthelia crashed on the third day after introduction, and my wife was sure that the starfish was eating them or something. She's the paranoid type anyway, and doesn't know diddly about the tank.

I just looked at them and said "HUMPH". Three days later they were twice the size they had been in the store. Two weeks after they are twice as big again. "Weeds" > pretty weeds! Patience my freind. > barryhc :)

edit: ooPS, Your flow and frugal feeding are serving you well. Still, even 1400 GPH in that tank, evenly dispersed through the gravel is going to appear "miniscule". That flow rate across your entire bed area, is a vertical flow rate of 5/32" per second. I'm quite the "math-guy".

Turn off all your pumps ( and skimmer ) except for the RUGF, and put in a few flakes or whatever food. Then watch, you will see what I mean. The only point here is the slow movement of water that it represents, and how easily low oxygen areas could develop in this "low-flow".

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not criticizing or reccomending anything. Just trying to get a handle on how your Nitrate reduction is working. It is obviously working well. :) :) :)

[Paul B]

I don't even have a quarter of that flow in my UGF. I think I have 50 gal/hr down each tube.
Paul

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6334078#post6334078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
I don't even have a quarter of that flow in my UGF. I think I have 50 gal/hr down each tube.
Paul

Paul, you are sort of the expert here, you have done this the longest of anyone. What I'm trying to say here is that the highest possible flow is probably not the best thing for RUGF. I'm just trying to learn, and your tank is a great example.

I will fall back to listening unless some one has a question. I hope I have not disturbed the thread.

Happy Reef Keeping > barryhc :)

[lillibirdy]

Holy cow Barry, your ARE quite the math guy! I am gonna have to write that down somewhere! I don't mind your input at all, I am trying to learn too. Sometimes some of the technical stuff goes over my head, I might have to ask you to dummy it down for me......lol.

It's so interesting that both Paul B's and my UGF rubbly tank are both doing their job just fine, and our flow is very different. He is my inspiration, and we must both be doing something right in spite of the neysayers...lol.

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6334941#post6334941 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lillibirdy
It's so interesting that both Paul B's and my UGF rubbly tank are both doing their job just fine, and our flow is very different. He is my inspiration, and we must both be doing something right in spite of the neysayers...lol.

You know, only just recently, many knowledgeable people have been explaining about how denitrification is occuring in aerobic areas, and/or with aerobic bacteria. Most of this is being used to debunk sandbeds, and I don't have a side, I'm sure you can tell.

Still the information is interesting. This is very recent, and I haven't had a chance yet, to research and verify, but I will.

You are quite right how interesting it is that the far different flows are both working so well.

There is a huge debate going on elsewhere about introducing corals a few at a time, VS all at once. How could that happen?:lol:

I would go for only 3 or 4 at a time myself, but even with a few, how do we know who the "culprit" is, if toxic warfare "breaks out"?

Paul B. Would be the man to ask I think. What kind of corals are you looking into?

Best, > barryhc :)

[Whaledriver]

I think anytime the word gravel replaces rubble in your thinking you are setting yourself up for trouble. I would not try this with anything smaller than 1 inch in size. You might also glue sand or paint the under gravel plate to hide it.

[lillibirdy]

Whaledriver, not sure what your responding to. I have both rice krispie sized CC and 1-2" rubble pile in center. It's not been trouble so far, working good for me.

[lillibirdy]

OMG!!!!!!!!! I just realized I was looking at the wrong box to find out my flow for my RUGF......talk about brain dead. It is the penguin reverse flow powerhead at 175 gph that is on the RUGF. I was looking at the box for my power head that is just for flow.

Wow, that is quite a difference, sorry guys, gonna go fix my old post if it lets me...

[Paul B]

Lillibirdy, 175gph sounds more like it. I ran my UG filter faster for many years but the nitrate was always up around 10. I have a theory that slower is better because at a slower rate there will be more areas in between the gravel grains for anerobic bacteria to grow. it is only "my" theory and all I can base it on is my personal experience. You can't read about this stuff because no one uses a reverse UG filter. I use them because if you read all the problems people have with different systems you will know why.
Barryhc, about adding corals, it is a crap shoot. I don't think it matters if you add them all at once or one at a time. There will always be chemical warfare and the type, size and health of the specimins will determine the result. There are certain corals I can't keep, it is probably because of the other corals I am keeping. Certain types of corals I have kept for years then for some reason, a different type will grow large and the others will wither.
People think it is their husbandry, water parameters, pH, lighting copepods, etc. and that does of course play a role but if you think you can keep all types of corals just because you have $10,000 worth of techno wizzardry, you are mistaken.
Whaledriver, I have no clue.
Here is a coral that I have for quite a few years, for the first five years or so the thing was about 1/2" tall and would not grow. All of a sudden within a week or two it grew like crazy. I don't think it's because of my good looks.
Have a great day.
Paul
I'm talking about the green thing in the front. (I can't remember the names of anything)

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/13094DSC01329.JPG

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6340190#post6340190 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
Lillibirdy, 175gph sounds more like it. I ran my UG filter faster for many years but the nitrate was always up around 10. I have a theory that slower is better because at a slower rate there will be more areas in between the gravel grains for anerobic bacteria to grow. it is only "my" theory and all I can base it on is my personal experience. You can't read about this stuff because no one uses a reverse UG filter.

That is what I have thought all along, but like you say, there is no info. I imagine that the amount of flow would depend at least, on the depth of your bed, and maybe grain size also. With no std. values, or "model" for anyone to use, who knows what people might have tried, and then failed with, leading of course to mass hysteria I suppose, years ago. :lol:

I agree about the crap shoot, I've been all over looking for compatability info. on corals, and there just about isn't any.

I like the green guy, he's cute!

Thanks Paul > barryhc :)

[Don424]

[QUOTE][i]<a

Not sure you understood, there is an 695 gpg pump on each end of the tank. TWO of these each pushing water from their own end.



Lillibirdy..........what pumps are you using on each end of your RUGF?:)

[Don424]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6339389#post6339389 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lillibirdy
OMG!!!!!!!!! I just realized I was looking at the wrong box to find out my flow for my RUGF......talk about brain dead. It is the penguin reverse flow powerhead at 175 gph that is on the RUGF. I was looking at the box for my power head that is just for flow.

Wow, that is quite a difference, sorry guys, gonna go fix my old post if it lets me...

Lillibirdy.........disregard my other question on your pump flow. I just say this thread reply from you

Don

[barryhc]

Lillibirdy, you now have 350 GPH ( maybe ), and therefore 1MM of vertical water flow per second, over the 55 gal. tank area. That is 1/2" every 12 seconds. Did you try it yet?

> barryhc :) :)

[lillibirdy]

Barry, OK I just tried turning everything off cept the RUGF pumps, and was surprised to find some stuff hitting bottom and settling into the substrate ( fish poop, lol, they kept eating the food before it could hit). I guess my flow keeps it suspended enough for the Aqua C Remora pro skimmer to get it out. So not really sure what my UGF is doing, must be some anerobic spots in there. I am just happy I don't find much detritus when I water change.

[charlesr1958]

Reef crest? I am assuming that to mean the surf zone of a coral reef, if so, it would be impossible to recreate such an area within the confines of a tank, I seriously doubt any species that are adapted to such a zone would be up for export/sale as no one would be foolish enough to attempt to go into such a zone let alone hang around to try and collect corals. One would be beat to a pulp trying to do so. A high flow tank I can believe, a reef zone? How does one create breaking waves? or am I misunderstanding the term reef crest? and while I am asking, a rubble zone? again, I can understand a rubble substrate, but a zone? only rubble zones I have ever seen were just that, rubble, corals and other life have little chance to gain a foothold in such areas since the rubble usualy has a high turn over rate, either by wave action, which is what usualy is what creates the rubble and piles it up or by animals turning it over looking for food. Sorry, am sure I sound like I am nit picking, maybe I am a bit, but to say that we can recreate zones that in nature are made by wave action is just using incorrect terminology. On the bright side..lol, I like the looks of a rubble substrate myself and think it would provide alot of habitat, if one is of course willing to keep things vacuumed up a bit. Am sure it will look great. I use such a "zone"..lol in a back corner of my tank to provide such habitat or more of a refuge area for pods and such to hide out.

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6343607#post6343607 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by charlesr1958
Reef crest? I am assuming that to mean the surf zone of a coral reef, if so, it would be impossible to recreate such an area within the confines of a tank

Take a look at what Paul is doing at www.OceansMotions.com Check out his "Tsunami". He's so close to breaking waves, you will be in shock!


I seriously doubt any species that are adapted to such a zone would be up for export/sale as no one would be foolish enough to attempt to go into such a zone let alone hang around to try and collect corals. One would be beat to a pulp trying to do so.

Waves do not always "break" 24/7. There are opportunities to collect in these areas.

Sorry, am sure I sound like I am nit picking, maybe I am a bit, but to say that we can recreate zones that in nature are made by wave action is just using incorrect terminology.

So, what do you think of Paul's Tsunami?


On the bright side..lol, I like the looks of a rubble substrate myself and think it would provide alot of habitat, if one is of course willing to keep things vacuumed up a bit. Am sure it will look great. I use such a "zone"..lol in a back corner of my tank to provide such habitat or more of a refuge area for pods and such to hide out.

"Now your talkin"!

> barryhc :)

[algaeguy]

charlesr1958 does bring up a good point...It may be almost imposssible (noticed I said "almost" impossible!) to duplicate a reef crest in every detail, but the whole biotopic concept is very valid. We're getting closer, though! I've seen a system or two with amazing surge systems built in...unbelievable!

This is a pretty exciting time to be in the hobby- We can duplicate many environmental and physical conditions of the wild reef as never before: We've got pumps that can create realistic curent patterns, protein skimmers and calcium reactors that can keep water qaulity high and alaklinity on par with the natural environment, and we've got excellent near-natural food sources for hard-to-keep animals...Compare this to the state of the reef hobby even 10 years ago and it'll blow your mind!

I've been a bit absent from the very htread that I started, but I must say that my reef flat rubble zone biotope system is doing very well. Some of thee things that I worried about initially (excessive detritus buildup, nitrate excesses, chemical instability, etc.) have simply not come to pass. It's my opinion that the "rubble bottom" idea (an a number of variations)can be a valid methodology to run a diverse and healthy reef system. Yes, there are valid caveats about maintenance, just like any system.

I'd like to hear more long-term results from people who are trying this idea!

Thanks for keeping this thread alive and sharing your ideas about this interesting concept!

Scott

[charles matthews]

I have kept a 120 gallon experimental reef system for two years now, which is plumbed into a 450 gallon seven tank system to experiment with filter feeding organisms. The bottom contains 4-6 inches of rubble which was supplied to me by CaribSea (thank you, Rick Greenfield!). I worked with this material for a number of years in different capacities. The pieces are typically 25 cent in diameter. They sit on the bottom.

Before the present tank, I did one with these pieces and Caulerpa. That tank didn't do well; the Caulerpa grew between the pieces so densely that it trapped too much gunk. I didn't like it.

The present bare bottom with 4-6inch rubble tank has matured, and contains a huge amount of life- small brittle stars, pods, worms, including tube worms, and a heavy sponge growth. Surprisingly, there is at most 1/4 inch of very well worked detritus on the bottom- and this is a very heavily fed tank (twice to three times daily feedings for dendros by target feeding of copepods, oyster eggs, phyto, golden pearls, many other things over the years- sometimes feeding at much higher rates).

There has been NO significant accumulation of detritus.

I believe that burrowing animals eject material that is carried out of the aquarium into the skimmer. The fine stuff on the bottom is probably live rock borings.

I also have an Eco-Wheel algae scrubber on another tank in the series, that has a bare bottom in it- that too has at most 1/4 inch of detritus, very well worked.

I am quite sure that detritus will not be a problem over the long term in a rubble tank- whereas I am concerned about detritus in a sand bed (Vibrio and basically going sour in there, especially with tanks that are heavily fed). I have set up many, many tanks over the years basically experimenting with substrates.

I recommend the rubble substrate; it's also a good way to start frags.

Charles Matthews M.D.

[lillibirdy]

Wooooooooooow, waaaaaaaaaaay cool. Please tell us MORE!!

[algaeguy]

Yes, Charles- please do tell more! Sounds cool!

Does Carib-Sea market this rubble material? It seems like it would be interesting stuff...Is that by chance the "MacroMedia" that they advertised a couple of years back? Never did manage to find it anywhere...

Pictures of your tak would be most welcome!

Thanks for sharing!

Scott

[Mike O'Brien]

Charles, glad to have you here. I enjoy reading you're articles in MF & R. People do alot of talking on the subject, but you actually have the experience with them and are taking step's to further the hobby. Thank you, and great job!!

[cwegescheide]

I've got a 90 with 2 Tunze 6100's. Sand is not really an option since it just gets blown all over the place. I have a rock rubble bottom since I don't like the looks of a bare bottom. My substrate is actually 50/50 rubble and Carib-Sea aragalive... So far soo good. Been about 5 mos. I have a Euro Reef 6-2 running 24-7 and I don't feed that much. My nitrates stay steady at ~ 3ppm.

[Paul B]

Charles, I agree with you that most detritus is rock borings and will not affect anything. I use a reverse UG filter and there is 25 years between cleanings of the UG filter plates, I am sure if the detritus was a problem I would have found out by now.
My substrate is basically dolomite with the addition of over thirty years of other "stuff" which I have collected consisting of barnacles, shells, asphalt, broken glass and whatever else in is New York water. I guess I can call it rubble. I also have numerous starfish, urchins, anemones, worms etc.
Good luck on your experimantal tank.
Paul

[Mike O'Brien]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6358331#post6358331 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cwegescheide
I've got a 90 with 2 Tunze 6100's. Sand is not really an option since it just gets blown all over the place. I have a rock rubble bottom since I don't like the looks of a bare bottom. My substrate is actually 50/50 rubble and Carib-Sea aragalive... So far soo good. Been about 5 mos. I have a Euro Reef 6-2 running 24-7 and I don't feed that much. My nitrates stay steady at ~ 3ppm.

I tried a rubble bottom in my BB sps tank for just over a month. In that case I beleive it was just not allowing the system to function properly. My nutrient's never rose substantially, but detritus was not being removed like it previously was, and the tank did start to grow green film algae on the glass, where normally it would only develop a white film of bacteria. The time involved was too short to say anything, the tank may have adjusted in the future, but for the purposes of that tank, I thought it was a bad idea.

Now i have a 20 gallon prop tank with a bare rubble bottom, I'll see how that does.

[barryhc]

I think that we should consider here, the fact that "detritus" exists in two primary forms. There is of course the "poop" form, and then there is the mineral form. It seems to me anyway, that the "poop" form is the primary "detractor" from good tank health, and that the mineral form is nearly, if not totally "benign".

I understand that this is not the "common concensus", however I believe that we might benefit from further consideration here.

> barryhc :)

[Paul B]

Barry, I totally agree. Poop will soon disappear as it is mainly bacteria and vegetable matter. The rest of it stays in the tank for years and is the end product of denitrification and the mineral portion of rock that was excavated. It will do no harm except maybe asthetically.
Paul

[algaeguy]

I'm in complete agreement as well on both thoughts.

I believe that soo much has been made about the "dangers" of detritus accumulation that people are attempting to create systems that are almost sterile.

Sure, uneaten food I can see as a potential problem, but the by-product of denitrification- just seems to me that lots of this stuff is probably inert, right?

Good husbandry is always "ins style", regardless of one's substrate philosophy, and I cannot imagine allowing excessive ammounts of detritus to accumulate in a tank, but common sense must prevail at some point!

Thanks for the continued feedback! Great stuff here.

Scott

[Mike O'Brien]

I don't know about sterile, but with a BB setup it is really easy to have the nutrient level's too low. The thing that worked best for me is just keeping some chaeto in the sump, that and heavy feeding keep the coral's from lightening up. And I don't get the algae associated with the rubble bottom in there. And like Charles wrote for the mag. chaeto does seem to do a great job of limiting other types of algae growth.

[algaeguy]

You're right, Mike- perhaps "sterile" was too broad a term!

Barebottom systems do allow the aquarist to have a great deal of control over nutrient accumulation, but like any system, maintenance and common sense are required. It just seems like in every discussion with barebottom enthusiasts there is an almost obsessive desire to eliminate all detritus from within the system. Not that this is a bad thing, but I think the rubble bottom approach embraces a slightly different philosophy about this stuff.

I suppose one could make the argument that a "rubble bottom" could be considered a variation on the BB philosophy, although it seems that we have a small consensus that is not as overly concerned about detritus as some of the hardcore BB people.

I think that what I'm trying to get at is that we should not be overly obsessed about completely eliminating all detritus within our systems as with the "pure" barebottom approach as it seems to be presented now.

It's important to remember that many of the life forms that grow in the rubble bottom and related "cryptic zones" can utilize materials within the detritus as food sources, and complete elimination of all detritus might deprive the very organisms that we are trying to foster their natural food sources.

I'm also a big one on growth and harvest of Chaetomorpha as a means of nutrient export. It also supports some organisms like amphipods and mysids that certainly benefit our aquaria.

Just goes to show you that there is more than one way to run a successful reef system!

Scott

[Mike O'Brien]

In fact, I added detritus to my rubble bottom 10 gallon. The same stuff I siphoned out of my BB sps tank. After a while it made a nice fine sediment that was full of life. That tank was desinged for the growth of pod's and such, and the detritus provided both more pod's and food.

[algaeguy]

Awesome!

[wrassie86]

Good reading here.I'm planning a move in about 2 months and thought i might try some of the ideas listed here.I have a 125g tank with a DSB now, but after the move i was thinking BB.I really dont like either method as ive been BB before.
But i was thinking about using the rubble rock and a UGF, that would be 4 riser tubes 2 blowing in 2x175gph reverse power heads,2 sucking out with 300gph maxijets.I figured that would make good flow under the rocks and pull any matter that settles.But i'm not sure it would work as i thought UGF's needed a certain amount of smaller gravel on top to create a vacumm or am i wrong on this?

On a side note, i'm not worried about nitrifacation from the rocks or gravel as i have nitrate reductor.But i dont want stuff settling either.

[Kent E]

I'm going to attempt this as well. I will have about 40x turn over with sps so fine sand isn't possible or desireable. If this thread is still around I'll post my observations.

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6361194#post6361194 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wrassie86
I was thinking about using the rubble rock and a UGF, that would be 4 riser tubes 2 blowing in 2x175gph reverse power heads,2 sucking out with 300gph maxijets.I figured that would make good flow under the rocks and pull any matter that settles.But i'm not sure it would work as i thought UGF's needed a certain amount of smaller gravel on top to create a vacumm or am i wrong on this?

On a side note, i'm not worried about nitrifacation from the rocks or gravel as i have nitrate reductor.But i dont want stuff settling either.

The system that you outline is set-up more like a "void space" sweeper, than a RUGF. This would be accurate, if you had the same flow "in" as "out". Your proposed set-up has 350 GPH "in", and 600 GPH "out". The net effect of this is that 250 GPH must be sucked through the substrate, to accomodate the "imbalance".

This makes it function more like a std. UGF which collects food and poop, with a suction "into" the substrate.

It might be more appropriate, to set-up for RUGF, and add a seperate "closed loop" to the "under plate" area, and through a canister filter, for occasional "sweeping".

This is a method that has been mentioned previously as a possibility, but I don't know of anyone who has tried it, to report on results. It makes sense to me.

I hope this is helpful. > barryhc :)

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6362281#post6362281 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kent E
I'm going to attempt this as well. I will have about 40x turn over with sps so fine sand isn't possible or desireable. If this thread is still around I'll post my observations.

BB, DSB, Rubble, you name it, they are all fine when operated appropriately. I have to point out however, that I have an 1 1/2" deep 1-2mm layer of gravel over a 3" deep layer of oolitic sand in my tank, and I have tested flow up to 60 X with no problem whatsoever with "sand blowing", so I still fail to understand this supposed discrepancy between "flow" and DSB".

It just isn't so.

> barryhc :)

[Kent E]

Barry,
Are you purposely blowing the bottom of the tank? I will be.

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6364317#post6364317 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kent E
Barry,
Are you purposely blowing the bottom of the tank? I will be.

No I am not. There are a thousand ways to skin a cat. If you are running BB, then "blowing" water at the bottom of the tank can be conducive to eliminating "pockets of detritus".

As has been pointed out however, most recently in this thread, not all "detritus" is the villian that it is sometimes made out to be.

The vast majority of the detritus that is immediately problematic in reef systems, is the organic type, which is made up mostly of fish poop, uneaten food, and "sloughing" of some animal tissue.

This is the detritus that needs to be removed right away, and is done so quite well with skimming and or mechanical filtration.

This material is very many times more bouyant than "mineral detritus", and is easy to keep up in the water column, without having to "blow" directly across the bottom. Many people are obsessing unreasonably IMO, about mineral detritus, not distinguishing between the two types. They think that if they see "anything" on the glass bottom, they are "in trouble".

There is a scheme for water flow, that sends most all of the flow across the top of the water, and is then dispersed down the front glass, and then across the "bottom". From there, of course, "up" to the overflow. There is high flow "across the bottom", but it is not "direct flow", as in "immediately from" a powerhead, or outlet, or spraybar.

Bomber is the king of Bare Bottom, and he uses exactly this kind of flow in his main tank. I have DSB, and have the same type of dispersed flow. It works very well for both of us.

I hope this is helpful. > barryhc :)

[barryhc]

Wrassie86, you might want to set-up your flow just the opposite, with 600 GPH "in", and 350 GPH "out", which will cause a forced upwelling, of about 250 GPH, while still doing come continuous flushing of the void space under the UGF panels. Penguin has larger 300 gph units that adapt just as well, to the "reverse" adapter. I have one on my 10 gal. freshwater, by the way, and the flow is "undetectable" unless you "add air" to the flow.

I have this on the ten gallon tank, with the opposite "up tube" as an "outflow", and NOTHING comes out of the upflow riser tube. There is no other "flow" in the tank.

This is with a 1 1/2" depth of "free-flowing" 4-6mm river gravel. The resulting "general flow in the tank is "UNDETECTABLE"!!

Isn't that interesting? Some experimentation is probably in order, check with Paul B.

> barryhc :)

[Kent E]

Thanks Barry for clarifying. I'm going the other route. I want to have a substrait but also blast it so I'm going for rubble fir that simple reason.

[sradmin]

I am following this thread closely because it has particular relevance for me. I about to tear down and restart my 54 gallon corner tank, just as soon as I make other tank arrangements for my Pearly Jawfish. He's getting a species tank of his own. I have been weighing my options, and have cosidered an number of different set-ups for my reef: BB, DSB with plenum wasting, and a "false bottom" with rubble covering and partial sand front.

I am heaviliy leaning toward using the false bottom idea. I want to cut a piece of eggcrate to fit the bottom of the tank, leaving it 4-5 inches short of the very front pane of glass. I'll explain why in just a second... The eggcrate will be sitting on top of 1 1/2 or 2 inch pvc risers. On top of the eggcrate will go the live rock, with any remaining visible part of the eggcrate loosely covered with rubble. Underneath the eggcrate, and plumbed up through the back of it will be a very simple pvc manifold consisting of just enough pipe to accomodate and evenly disperse the mad flow I intend to inject into this area. Forcing water through the manifold and into the false bottom leaves the water nowhere to go but up, so organic materials shed by the rock should remain suspended in the water column where they can be sent to the skimmer for removal.

I want to cut the eggcrate short of the front pane of glass so I can create a wall with a piece of acrylic (or something similar). The acrylic will be bonded to the eggcrate, which will be cut to match the front pane of glass (curved)- creating a space of several inches between the front glass and the acrylic wall behind it. What I want to do is fill this area with sand. Doing so will effectively hide the eggcrate from the viewing front, and possibly provide a home for a variety life. It may also offer some de-nitrifying ability as well, provided the appropriate grain size substrate is used, but I am not counting on this because of the lack of area- the sand portion will have a small footprint. Other than hiding the front of the false bottom, I really don't care if there are any additional benefits to having the sand in the display. Since there will be nothing on top of the sand, it should be easy enough to keep it clean with proper flow, and even if it does fill up with organic material to the point of being a problem, it should be easy enough to siphon out without disrupting the rest of the tank.

I have not yet worked out details such as flow rate or manifold design, but I would surely welcome any suggestions or comments. I'm mostly just thinking out loud right now...

[wrassie86]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6364952#post6364952 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Wrassie86, you might want to set-up your flow just the opposite, with 600 GPH "in", and 350 GPH "out", which will cause a forced upwelling, of about 250 GPH, while still doing come continuous flushing of the void space under the UGF panels. Penguin has larger 300 gph units that adapt just as well, to the "reverse" adapter. I have one on my 10 gal. freshwater, by the way, and the flow is "undetectable" unless you "add air" to the flow.

I have this on the ten gallon tank, with the opposite "up tube" as an "outflow", and NOTHING comes out of the upflow riser tube. There is no other "flow" in the tank.

This is with a 1 1/2" depth of "free-flowing" 4-6mm river gravel. The resulting "general flow in the tank is "UNDETECTABLE"!!

Isn't that interesting? Some experimentation is probably in order, check with Paul B.

> barryhc :)

That sounds better,but what i cant wrap my brain around is even with the RUGF and just a rubble bottom.with a bigger tank, i just dont see that items that settle will be flushed out.and more so with out a layer of crushed coral.RUGF work on pressure and UGF work on vaccum.with out some kind of layer to even out the flow in or out i'm just not so sure it would work.

[Don424]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6361194#post6361194 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wrassie86
Good reading here.I'm planning a move in about 2 months and thought i might try some of the ideas listed here.I have a 125g tank with a DSB now, but after the move i was thinking BB.I really dont like either method as ive been BB before.
But i was thinking about using the rubble rock and a UGF, that would be 4 riser tubes 2 blowing in 2x175gph reverse power heads,2 sucking out with 300gph maxijets.I figured that would make good flow under the rocks and pull any matter that settles.But i'm not sure it would work as i thought UGF's needed a certain amount of smaller gravel on top to create a vacumm or am i wrong on this?

On a side note, i'm not worried about nitrifacation from the rocks or gravel as i have nitrate reductor.But i dont want stuff settling either.

Wrassie86,

No need to do the pulldown with the other 2 powerheads. All the powerheads should be reverse flow only. For a 125G 4x175 should be ok. I also suggest that you don't earmark your skimmer for mechanical filtration. Use an HOB or canister for MECHANICAL only. If you do a canister, do a spray bar across the back pointed to the front....................nice top down & up the rear of the tank circulation occurs.

I just removed a DSB in my 75G and I'm doing RUGF with a 1" CC bottom for a FOWLR. I'm getting great flow from underneath. If the CC doesn't work out, I'm going for the rubble. It's a great idea and concept. Good luck :)

[Brent Hutchings]

I have been thinking about a rubble bottom as well. I am in the planning stage of a 150 (60x24x24). I am considering using an under- gravel filter plate(s) and running the main return through them in a reverse flow. This would keep any detritus in suspention. I am furthur considering diverting some of the flow from a closed loop, through an ocean motions 4 way, to the under gravel plate as well to give a surge effect and reduce or eliminate dead spots. Could this be the potential middle ground in the BB/SB wars? ;-)

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6366205#post6366205 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sradmin
I have not yet worked out details such as flow rate or manifold design, but I would surely welcome any suggestions or comments. I'm mostly just thinking out loud right now...

Steve, this is an interesting idea. you might want to consider how much "area" you want to allow for the front "sand wall". Many very interesting creatures would love to be "displayed" here, and need the sand to do well or survive in the tank. Open brain, slipper coral, tongue coral, fungia, etc. etc. It would be a great specialized " front display area".

Maybe "6" wide. you could use large wide slots at the base of your acrylic wall, some 6mm screen, a couple of thin graded layers of gravel, tapered to "almost nothing" at the front, and then "sand". The slots and gravel ( being adjacent to your high flow ), would give enough oxygenation that Hydrogen sulfide could never occur. Add a dozen Nassarius snails, and a tiger "cuke", and you would never have to do any maintanence to the sand at all, and not worry about it either.

Just a thought. > barryhc :)

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6366542#post6366542 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wrassie86
That sounds better,but what i cant wrap my brain around is even with the RUGF and just a rubble bottom.with a bigger tank, i just dont see that items that settle will be flushed out.and more so with out a layer of crushed coral.RUGF work on pressure and UGF work on vaccum.with out some kind of layer to even out the flow in or out i'm just not so sure it would work.

The "panels" that come with a std. UGF, will actually even out the flow quite well, even with no more than just rubble. There are Diy ways to accomplish this as well. You can incorprorate some finer substrate, under the rubble, if you want, as well, for denitrification, but it isn't needed to "balance" the flow.

My only problem with std. UGF panels for this type of application, is the "riser tubes" and the way that they connect to the panels. I like PVC better than the thin acrylic, and it is easier to "plumb". Some conversion could be made to the panels without too much difficulty.

The animals that you intend to keep really play a large role in the kind of substrate scheme that will work best for you. Can you tell us a bit about the animals that you want to keep?

> barryhc :)

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6367595#post6367595 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Brent Hutchings
I have been thinking about a rubble bottom as well. I am in the planning stage of a 150 (60x24x24). I am considering using an under- gravel filter plate(s) and running the main return through them in a reverse flow. This would keep any detritus in suspention. I am furthur considering diverting some of the flow from a closed loop, through an ocean motions 4 way, to the under gravel plate as well to give a surge effect and reduce or eliminate dead spots. Could this be the potential middle ground in the BB/SB wars? ;-)

I really like the "RUGF-Surge" idea, I wonder if a "dimmer" could be used on "Paul's 4-way" to modify the "cycle interval"?

Maybe only 2 or 3 out of 4 or 5 available "zones", so that "pods" could "remain" in the others. Say it was two out of four, and the
remaining two offered opposing turbulence, in the water column.

> barryhc :)

[Paul B]

I know something about UGF plates and I would not use a RUGF in any manner for any time without a seive, strainer, filter or sponge on the intake. I know it has to be cleaned and it is a pain but it is a necessary evil. I do not backwash or blow any water under my RUGF. The last time I removed the UG plates was for the 25 year cleaning. It was really not that bad. If I really want to I could do water changes by siphoning water up the downflow tubes. I can look under my tank at the UG filter plates and there is nothing in there but I do use a sponge filter on the inlet to the manifold that feeds the thing. I only pump about 50GPH down each tube. I could buy a bigger pump but that would defeat "my" use of a RUGF. I don't want much flow because I do want dome denitrification. I understand, many of you guys are looking to keep detritus suspended. I do not think that will work but thats just my opinion.
Paul

[Whaledriver]

Just to review what I thought this thread was about.

Rubble bottom with large rubble NOT sand or gravel.
High flow to keep crap in suspension with no low flow areas.
The use of a undergravel plate to help waterflow only.

Dont be fooled into thinking that a undergravel filter is actually holding gravel.

The design of a system like this is to foster growth of microfauna and help feed hard to keep fish. ie copapods and mysis schrimp for a Manderin or Buterfly fish

[~ChrisB~]

Just an update from my tank.


It has been 5 months, and I decided to move the rubble a bit to see about accumulation beneath the rubble bed.

There is none. I am very happy about this.

I have my system set up so that all of the LR is suspended about 1-2inches above the bottom of the tank, and the rubble is about 2 inches deep. I used fairly large pieces, about the size of golf balls.

Water flow is provided by one AM3K and 2 Tunze WB's. My bioload is fairly light for my saize tank, and I skim moderately.

I love the look of rubble compared to BB, and like the fact that there are very few, if any, dead spots in the substrate. This allows many hiding and breeding spots for the fauna in the tank.

[~ChrisB~]

Let me also add that my original plan was to siphon the rubble on a weekly basis.......... I have yet to implement that plan. ;)

[algaeguy]

Although Whaledriver is right about my original concept for this thread, I must say that it is really cool to hear all of the neat ideas that are coming out concerning the use of "alternative" substrate materials and the fascinating utility of the UGF! It's neat to hear some "outside-the box" thinking going on here, besides just the usual BB vs. DSB wars!

However, my interest is with the larger rubble pieces. I like what BOTR is doing with the golf ball sized rubble. That's really neat. If I wasn't such an incompetent photgrapher/photo poster, I'd get more shots out here. I'd like to see some pics from everyone else's rubble bottom systems to see where we are all going with this idea.

sradmin and barryhc are discussing a neat idea with an isolated sandbed...Possibly the best of both worlds?

I'm particularly interested in the "larger rubble" users, though. In particular, what types of creatures are you using as adedicted "clean up crew"? Or, are you using any at all? I've found that my wrasses and blennies really seem to enjoy poking around in the rubble. I think I will ultimately add a Ctenochatus Tang of some sort to help pick at the rubble area to assist in controlling any nuisance algae or detritus.

BOTR, I too felt that I would really heavily siphon the rubble weekly, but I've found very little to actually remove in there! I think with the right fish population, and the resulting macrofauna residing in there, heavy siphoning may not be all that critical. I'll bet a lot of the material within the detritus is being utlized somewhere as a food source.

Out of sheer curiosity, I have taking phosphate tests from my water both in the open area of the tank, and even beneath some of the gaps in the rubble zone, and my Deltec/Merck kit yields undetectible phosphate and I'm also getting undetectible nitrate readings.

I was a bit surprised, frankly, as I initially thought that denitrification would be limited in such a system and nitrate levels would creep up...Guess I was wrong about that one! Overall, stability in this system has been remarkable...Have other rubble bottom users experienced similar stability? I guess it all boils down to husbandry, but it is a bit interesting to see such an alternative methodology netting positive results!


I do think that just_dave's tank was a great example of a rubble bottom as I've visualized it, but there are lots of cool ways to go.

Keep the ideas flowing, guys!

Scott

[Konadog]

Scott, I'm glad you started this thread as I have been wondering what to do with my next tank. I find this "rubble bottom" very interesting. I don't want a sand bed, and I'm not sold on the look of a BB tank. I have been thinking shallow sand bed, but like this rubble idea. I'm wondering what the pod population must be in a tank like this. This might be one of the reasons you don't find much detritus buildup.

[algaeguy]

It really started as a result of horror stories I've heard about dandbeds blowing all over in super high flow tanks, and the desire to try something just totally different.

I think that barebottom is a very viable concept, but my lousy aquascaping skills keep me from assembling an attractive BB tank! I find sandbeds fascinating, but I think the "rubble" idea is more visually interesting.

I think the fisrt examples I've seen of cool "rubble systems" were in the Long Beach Aquarium of The Pacific about 6 or7 years ago. They had a large tank with tons of broken Tonga branch on the bottom, and lots of wrasses and blennies swimming and foraging in and out...I dug it, and vowed to try that one day!

Besides, one day this might be a cool way to support a breeding group of Centropyge hotumatua, if I can ever locate/afford some! LOL!

I say go for it, Ken!

Scott

[Konadog]

Scott, the LB Aquarium still has that tank. Most of the branch rock is at the front 6 feet of the tank. It's pretty cool.

I've been following a bunch of thread on aquascaping to figure out what I'm going to do, and with what rock. Another thing about a rubble bottom is that you can suspend your main rock using rubble to improve water flow around the main structure. I still like the pillars that Pierce had in his 150.

[algaeguy]

Yep- I haven't seen that tank ina couple of years- I'm overdue to visit LBAOP this year!

I like the idea of "pillars" around a rubble area, too- sounds nice!

I've also been obsessing about a seagrass tank lately, but that's another subject for another thread! I think I just need a bunch of tanks to try all of my wacky ideas!

I'm sure that your new tank will be awesome!

Scott

[Konadog]

Sea grass?? We need to find Joe Kelly and bring him back into the hobby. His tank with sea grass was awesome.

I hope my new tank will turn out nice. You can only read so much before you just need to jump in and do something. I've only been tank-less for 2 months and it's driving me crazy!!!

[barryhc]

I think the most interesting thing about this thread, is that it is covering a lot of territiry, and I mean a REALLY LOT OF TERRITORY, which borders on BB, and DSB, and RUGF, and "zonated" areas in the tank, and many more areas of possible setups, and it is doing so in a particularly civilized, and "nondebative" manner.

I am very impressed with "all of you", and all the ideas.

This is the way that RC should operate, and I feel very lucky to participate.

Thanks to all of you. > barryhc :)

[Paul B]

Sea Grass? How about codium seaweed from Montauk New York. I'm up to my elbows in it.
Paul
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/13094Local_Codium_2.jpg

[Konadog]

Paul, your tank looks great. Is the seaweed growing out of the sub-straight or rock, how old is the tank?

[Paul B]

Ken, I collect that seaweed with a holdfast. It grows on limpets and when the limpet dies it floats to shore with the seaweed attached.
The tank will be 35 years old next month.
Paul

[Konadog]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6390913#post6390913 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
The tank will be 35 years old next month.
WOW :eek1: Now that's a long term success story!
Back to the rubble bottom, does anyone notice a better pod population or different type of critter population compared to other sub-straight bottoms?

[barryhc]

"Bumpedy-Bump"

[algaeguy]

After seeing another thread on rock cooking and a "how to go DSB" thread starting up, maybe us crazy rubble bottom, out-of-the-box thinkers are on to something. Just another neat way to keep a reef...not the best...not the worst- just a different and interesting method!

Ken- I must say that I do notice a lot of interesting fauna in the rubble zone. My wrasses, blennies, and Centropyge angel spend a lot of time foraging in this zone, which means there certainly is some stuff in there!

I do wonder if a DSB has more creatures residing within it, however. I suppose that you can expect different types of creatures in different grades of media. I could imagine a well established rubble zone system being an ideal home for Mandarins or even Pipefishes. I think that the potential for fantastic biodiversity is fantastic in rubble systems.

Again, I continue to be pleasantly surprised by the chemical stability of this system. Has anyone else been pleasantly surprised by this in their tanks?

Keep the sharing up, guys...Some great ideas here!

Scott

[barryhc]

There seem to be many types of "substrate" that can, and have, been used with success, and to the benefit of the reef animals.

I'm wondering if more than one "type" can be used in the same aquarium, where several "zones" might be available for different animals to utilze for their benefit, and if these different "substrate zones" might give us a greater variety of the infauna as well.

I suppose if three different substrate-zone types were used, it might be looked on as just three times as much work, or trouble, or complexity.

Just thinking out loud.

> barryhc :)

[miatawnt2b]

I am very interested in an out of the box approach for my next tank (a 90 RR). I am torn between a few different approaches being plenum wasting, rubble bottom, and DSB in a bucket. I would like high flow in this new setup, but I like the plenum wasting option which poses a few problems with sandstorms and such. I like denitrating ablities of a DSB however, and was wondering if the rubble bottom has similar denitrating abilities? Would someone be able to comment?

Thanks,
-J

[algaeguy]

miatawnt2b,

I can only speak from my experience, but I have not had any detectible nitrate at all since my system was set up in March of last year...I am certain that soem denitrification takes place within the rocks in the system, and I suppose rubble has the same attributes. Good husbandry and a productive skimmer can't hurt, either!

barryhc- I, too was wondering about differnt "zones" in the same system. For example, a rublle zone over 2/3 of the tank, with a DSB/seagrass area over the rest...Has anyone tried a "mutlizone" approach?

Scott

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6436572#post6436572 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by algaeguy

barryhc- I, too was wondering about differnt "zones" in the same system. For example, a rublle zone over 2/3 of the tank, with a DSB/seagrass area over the rest...Has anyone tried a "mutlizone" approach?

Scott

I haven't tried it yet, and like you I would love to hear from anyone who has. PaulB has been at this for quite a while, maybe he can help some.

I am trying to get ready for a 200 gal. setup, and this is one of "very many" possibilities that I'm looking into. Plenum Wasting might do well for a DSB zone. It is experimental, and I'm trying to develop it.

RUGF may be the hot ticket for the Rubble zone. I'm sure starting to like the idea of a Rubble zone in my tank.

Maybe a Jaw fish garden as well.

I think it would be more conducive to fairly large tanks, but maybe that won't turn out to be a restriction. I need to learn a lot more about the various "fauna" and where they "like to live".

Happy Reef Keeping! > barryhc :) :)

[lillibirdy]

Miatawnt2b, My tank is not just rubble, so maybe this don't count, but it has 2" of CC and in the middle a rubble pile on top of it, with a RUGF. It is very stable, in spite of having some supposed nitrate factories attached. (hob filter pads, and sponges on the RUGF intake) and I think we decided there must be denitrification going on in there somewhere cause I have had 0 nitrates for months now.

[Paul B]

Hello there Lillibirdy,
I also have no readable nitrates and have not had any in many years. My reef is mostly dolomite with some sand, rubble, broken glass, asphalt, shells and who knows what else. I run my reverse UG filter very slow with the theory that there must be many areas between the gravel and under the rocks where anerobic bacteria can thrive and reduce nitrate. My nitrate read about ten when I had a wet dry filter and I ran the UG filter much faster. My substrate is loaded with life that you can see with the naked eye. There are "bugs" running all over the place that are much larger than copepods. Spaghetti worms are in every nook as are tiny brittle stars, starfish and multi colored worms as well as an abundance of tube worms. This may have something to do with the fact that I collect amphipods by taking porous rocks from a muddy beach at low tide and swirling them in a pail of water, what ever I collect (except crabs) I dump in the tank with some of the mud. I have been doing this since 1972 and I believe it is one of the factors that has kept my tank healthy all of these years. Almost every tank I have ever seen was much too sterile.
I even did an experiment once with some mud from the Long Island Sound in NY. I filled a shallow pan with it and let it sit on the bottom of my tank for a few months. It didn't prove anything that I could tell but it didn't hurt either.
I also collect NY seaweed and plant it all over the tank, great stuff.
My RUGF theory is that it can reduce nitrate while having very little chance of producing any hydrogen sulfide. It also seems to have the ability of doing this forever, or at least 35 years with "almost" no maintenance. The UG filter plates were used for 25 years before I cleaned them and they were not that bad, most of the stuff in my gravel was tubeworms.
Have a great day.
Paul

[lillibirdy]

Yea Paul, I love your seaweed, and I wish my tank had more buggy life in it. I tried to introduce some once, by using some sand from anothers tank, and also introduced ick...which I assume is still in my tank since I did nothing but feed with garlic, (altho the fish show no signs now). I was hoping the rubble pile would be good haven for pods, but I can't see if I have them or not, too tiny. I have recently some wierd little white dots growing on the glass I initally thought were buggies of some sort, but they are very hard and need to be scraped off...(not corralline). Any idears? I think using sand might be the wrong approach, cause we are talking about different critters that thrive in DSB vs CC and rubble. Any ideas how to get my tank more critter life?
Thanks!

[Paul B]

I use a jewelers loupe to look for pods and other stuff. I also have a magnifying glass resting on the edge of the tank.
Lilly, Oregon is not exactly the salt water critter collecting capital of the world so it may be tough. I mean I could mail you a bunch of life from the sea but although my tank seems to be immune from any diseases or paracites, yours may not be. My tank has always been exposed to natural life and I really don't know what the consequences would be to dump a bunch of stuff in your beautifully running reef.
Paul

[lillibirdy]

Well, as kind as that is of you, your probably right, who knows what would happen in my tank that isn't used to the misc additions from time to time. Thanks tho!

Any idea what the hard white spots might be?

[HybridFish]

IMO using rubble is the same as CC.

[lillibirdy]

I dunno bout that, (rubble being the same as CC) what ways do you mean?? My CC is quite different than my rubble. The rice krispie size CC is settled all close together. The rubble is 1-2+ inch chunks with much larger air spaces in between.

[HybridFish]

Larger airspace means more detritus that will settle. You're right though, it's not the same as CC... It's worste than CC! Imagine the maintenance that will go with having to move rubble around just to get to the krud that accumilates at the bottom. At least w/ sand it stays mostly at the top w/ bare bottom, well there's really no where to hide. It's just my own common sense and no one elses. And so there's no misunderstandings, what I meant was a base w/ JUST rubble and nothing else like sand or CC to acompany it. I think reef central was created so we can learn from everyone elses mistakes and accomplishments. With that being said, let me me know how rubble only base media goes...

[~ChrisB~]

Larger airspace means more detritus that will settle.

Not true. This simply means that the flow of the tank also has the ability to remove it from the substrate. I have seen this in my own tank. Initialy the waste is heavy and falls directly into the rubble. After a time (hours) as the waste begins to break down it seperates and becomes a bit more boyant and gets pulled up and away by my WB's.

This is unlike a SB in that it is pretty much perfectly clean even after 5-6 months. With a SB the really fine detritus works it's way into the bed, never to be removed. Per my obs. My rubble bottom acts almost exactly like my BB, except I have quite a few more critters now.

This thread is better served by stories of personal exp., not conjecture. Lets not shoot any of this down untill you've really witnessed one that has been set-up to be effective.

[algaeguy]

I think that BOTR's observations are consistent with mine.

I have NOT noticed signifigant maintenance issues. Sure, there is some detritus, but it's pretty easily removed.

I'm not sure if everyone agrees, but it might be somewhat descriptive to say that a rubble bottom is very similar to a BB system, with the exception of the greater biodiversity in the rubble zone. In fact, it may or may not be "politically correct" to label it a version of a BB system. At least, that's my theory at this point. As I gain more experience with this, I'll be in a better postion to test this hypothesis.

However, I'm pretty convinced that this is a valid way to run a reef.

lillibirdy mentions a valid point- size of the rubble pieces. I would classify "rubble" for our purposes as 1"-2" and up to say 5"-6" pieces...That's my thinking anyways...Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Scott

[lillibirdy]

I agree on maintenance,....now whether it is my RUGF, the size of my rubble, water flow, whatever I just don't see a lot of detritus in either the CC OR the rubble zones. I'll take the turkey baster from time to time and squirt it down into the rubble, and you'd think I would get a swoosh of junk coming out, but I just don't. I have a two rocks that seems to shed more crap then rubble gives up (when squirted)! They are the man made rocks I bought from the store too, (big cool round opening) so not sure what the heck thats about...texture is grabbing detritus maybe. But my rubble seems OK.

[~ChrisB~]

ttt

[HybridFish]

Do any of you have a good picture of your base media?

[Cody Ray]

I would also like to see more pics

I am also wanting my next system to have a rubble bottom, however, I would like to have about an inch of CC on top of a RUGF that is fed by the return from the sump. The plan is to layer this much like a plenum would be, with the RUGF, then an inch of CC, and the rubble layed across the bottom, with a few pieces of taller liverock sticking out. I would have to imagine that the CC would eventually be filled with bristle worms :D

Also, has anyone thought about adding several firefish to their rubble systems? Watching them pop in and out of the rubble would be awsome!

[nickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6454628#post6454628 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ChinChek787
Also, has anyone thought about adding several firefish to their rubble systems? Watching them pop in and out of the rubble would be awsome! There's a currently not-too active thread about keeping fish in paris and groups (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=243359). One of the posters (Minh Nguyen) reported success in keeping a spawning pair of purple fire fish (nemateleotis decora) in a 450G tank. However, he and two other posters reported no success with groups of firefish: severe fighting and deaths. All of these experiences were in tanks over 200G in size.

[Cody Ray]

I have a question, was it mutual fighting, or fish chasing others? I would have to imagine that in a rubble system there would be plenty of places to hide if a fish was being picked on, but if they were just fighting...

[nickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6454940#post6454940 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ChinChek787
I have a question, was it mutual fighting, or fish chasing others? I would have to imagine that in a rubble system there would be plenty of places to hide if a fish was being picked on, but if they were just fighting... You'd probably be best to read through the whole thread. The most direct comment is from Minh Nguyen:Firefish only live single or one pair. Anything more than one pair will end up with one chase out of the tank (to the carpet). Sometime one firefish will chase another out of the tank after a few months. However, none of the tanks were rubble bottom as far as I can tell.

[DesertBandits]

Can some of you here tell me more about your rubble systems? Is everything else similar to any other tank (in terms of flow, skimming, lighting, etc). Are there any other parts of these systems are departures from average reefkeeping.

[Whaledriver]

This is a rubble bottom thread?! If you think CC is part of this idea you should re read this thread. The concept is closer to BB than a sand bottom. Rubble on the bottom with enough flow to keep silt from collecting on/under/around the rubble.

As far as other issues that are different? I dont think so

[lillibirdy]

Well in the 8 pages I read, I got the impression we where talking about ALL the ways rubble could be incorporated into a tank, and just lots of "out of the box thinking" about rubble in general. In some tanks CC is involved, others some dolomite, others sand areas...

I hope it don't turn into a bb/rubble type only thread. I have been enjoying all the ideas!

And yes, it is fun watching my one firefish darting in and out of the rubble, tho he is less skittish than most of the firefish stories I have heard about. I think this is cause he has so many hidy holes to jump into with rubble, and this makes him feel safer to be OUT.... can't speak to having more than one, that would be a personality thing with the fish I guess.

[barryhc]

Go Lillibirdy!!

Happy Reef Keeping!! > barryhc :)

[Whaledriver]

Thats fair enough to say. But someone who doesnt know enough is going to make a mess of things.
What if you put a few inches of CC with a few inches 4-6 inches of rubble in the bottom of a tank? Whith low or no flow to blow out the detritus you would end up with a mess that wouldnt work. Shades of gray are nice if you know whats going on in you tank.

[lillibirdy]

Desert Bandits, there is quite a lot of descriptions of peoples specific tanks in this thread. With this rubble idea, I don't think anyones is exactly the same, kinda of a new idea, and it would be hard to generalize about differences between rubble bottom and DSB or whatever else, because there is not a rubble standard...at least not yet, or not in this thread. We are sort of pioneering some new ideas, and getting excited about our findings, and sharing them.

My favorite part is finding out that what was not supposed to work, is working just fine.....lol. I would not survive long in other threads because my tank is supposedly set up all wrong, and I would be/have been slammed for everything from my CC to my RUGF. I love this thread!

[Paul B]

Lillibirdy, If they slam you in another thread let me know, your tank is set up almost like mine and they really can't slam me.
I am going for a AS (asphalt bed)
Paul

[lillibirdy]

Why thank ya daaaaaaalin. Now tell me more about the asphalt bed?

[Paul B]

Actually I was kidding about the asphalt bed but since you asked. There is a quantity of NY asphalt in my tank that I collected underwater locally. In Ny they dump a lot of asphalt on muddy beaches to control erosion. This piece was underwater fifty years before I aquired it. It was full of amphipods. From adding this stuff so often there are a lot of pieces of it in my substrate. It is very brittle.
Paul
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/13094Asphalt_rock.jpg

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6476891#post6476891 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Whaledriver
Thats fair enough to say. But someone who doesnt know enough is going to make a mess of things.
What if you put a few inches of CC with a few inches 4-6 inches of rubble in the bottom of a tank? Whith low or no flow to blow out the detritus you would end up with a mess that wouldnt work. Shades of gray are nice if you know whats going on in you tank.

That's what were all here for. The thread was not started for newbies, and good information has been given here. If a newbie only reads this thread, he is in big trouble regardless.

"Black" and "white" are the most dangerous "viewpoints" that anyone can adopt.

> barryhc :)

[lillibirdy]

Good point Barry, this is the advanced topics section of RC, I hadn't thought of that.

Paul, I knew you had some asphalt in there, just thought maybe you were going to start a new adventure in reefing with ALL asphalt, vs the variety of stuff that makes up your substrate and rubble and rock. Wouldn't surprise me none..lol. But then it has been working so good for so long, maybe I can't see you changing anything after all...lol.

[algaeguy]

Good points by all. What is really interesting here is that even with an idea like a rubble bottom, we have a number of different approaches to accomplishing it. In fact, we all seem to have some slightly different definitions of the term "rubble"!

I think that lillibirdy hit it on the head: A lot of folks categorically state that these types of systems cannot work! Paul's tank and quite few other's prove that school of thought wrong!

Nonetheless, I do agree with barryhc and Whaledriver that this is really not beginner material; that is, not unless you have a really good handle on husbandry and an understanding of the potential problems with coarse substrate materials.

I'm still kind of wondering about the whole "detritus issue". I mean, yes, it's not a good idea to allow uneaten food and fish waste to accumulate in excess. However, I'm sure that some detritus must be realatively inert at some point, right? Has anyone ever really studied the compostion of detritus in captive aquaria, or assessed its ability to degrade water quality if small amounts do accumulate? Just curious.

Also, unlike barebottom systems (which I think share some kinship with a rubble bottom), these tanks foster greater biodiversity due to the susbtrate material used and the development of semi-cryptic areas, which means that many beneficial animals can assist in the processing of this material.

Have you you notice the behaviors of your fishes in rubble zone tanks? They are almost constantly picking through the rubble zones, much as in nature. I think that something positive is happening down there! I would imagine that fish "just doing there thing" also assist in maintenance of these systems.

Again- thanks to all for sharing. This thread has really tuned into a great source for unique concepts...keep it coming!

Scott

[Paul B]

Scott, I have no data on how detrimental long term detritus is but as I said, last year I removed my UG filter plates, I wanted to see what was growing under there since it was 25 years since I looked under there. Of course there was detritus ans some of it may have been there since the eightees and it did not seem to do any harm. I did get some cycles of algae and I still do but I think that would happen with any tank that is old enough. I doubt there are any studies done on reefs over thirty years old or even ten years so it's all conjecture.
Paul

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6488492#post6488492 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by algaeguy
Also, unlike barebottom systems (which I think share some kinship with a rubble bottom), these tanks foster greater biodiversity due to the susbtrate material used and the development of semi-cryptic areas, which means that many beneficial animals can assist in the processing of this material.

Have you you notice the behaviors of your fishes in rubble zone tanks? They are almost constantly picking through the rubble zones, much as in nature. I think that something positive is happening down there! I would imagine that fish "just doing there thing" also assist in maintenance of these systems.

I could not agree more Scott. I think the bio diversity, and the "bethnic fish activity" are the really HUGE features of this idea. I think I'm going to include a "Rubble Zone" in about 1/3 of my 200 gal. set-up for exactly these reasons and benefits. Possibly quite similar to PaulB's set-up, but maybe with a bit more "large rubble" ( 1-3" )
if that makes any sense.

Any thoughts? > barryhc
:)

[algaeguy]

Interesting stuff, Paul. I really wonder if the concerns about SOME detritus in our systems are over-stated? Perhaps there is some "good" to its presence in our aquaria...As more peopel try alternative methods like rubble bottoms, maybe we'll get a better idea.

baryhc- I'm using larger (like 3"-6") pieces of broken Tonga Slab rock, interspaced with smaller (1"-2") pieces. It forms a loose "matrix" with lots of nooks and crannies that the fish just love poking through and foraging among. In fact, it appears that my Swalesi Basslet regularly moves across the full length of my tank from the main rock structure on the left side, all the way to the right by using this "network" of "tunnels", never exposing himself until he reaches his "destination"! It's cool to see!

I think sand and then a rubble zone in the center or of to one side would be awesome! The beautiful thing about a rubble bottom is that you "make your own" by smashing up inexpensive pieces of base rock, or by collecting rubbble from the good stuff at your dealer's.

Can't wait to hear what you come up with!

Scott

[barryhc]

Think of it this way Scott. The animals in the rubble are much better at processing "whatever", than a skimmer is, and it is "natural" and beautiful as well.

Now let's keep those skimmers running while we're at it folks ! !

Thanks > barryhc :)

[danieljames]

Really enjoying this thread. I had a thought on your nitrate situation scott. Is it still undetectable? I was thinking perhaps there is more area for denitrification in many smaller rocks, as opposed to fewer larger ones. Kinda like more surface area with a jar filled with bb's than one filled with marbles. I don't know at what depth in a given substrate/rock that denitrification occurs optimally, but perhaps it is at a smaller depth, say within an inch or so of a rock. That would make a rubble bottom with appropriate sized rubble much more effecient at denitrification than a display filled with just larger rocks and bb (assuming detritus removal is equal in both systems). Probably still not as efficient as a sandbed, but still efficient enough with proper husbandry to run a cool system.

[algaeguy]

Hi danieljames:

Yep- the nitrate is still undetectible. I am interested in your thoughts on the rubble as an efficient denitrification zone. I, too have thought about this, and I'm inclined to agree with you! I recall reading somewhere (Maybe in Sprung and Delbeek) about denitrification ocurring within the rock itself, so perhaps the larger sizes of material that we are talking about ARE performing denitrification in a more efficient manner!

I agree that it may not be as efficient at denitrification as a DSB, but it may be a very viable alternative. It's funny, when I first set up my rubble system, I anticipated greater biodiversity (in terms of fauna) in the system, but perhaps some detectible nitrate. After almost a year, I've been pleasantly surprised with no detectible nitrate AND great biodiversity. Like you mention, it is a cool way to run a system!

Scott

[Orangeman]

How about some pics people? Didn't anyone get a digital camera for XMas?

[lillibirdy]

I got one, but still can't make it take pics good enough to post.....I will keep trying.

[barryhc]

Yeah Scott, pictures ! !

Your making us suffer. :D

> Barry :)

[algaeguy]

I'm kind of embarrassed, but I have never been able to successfully post pics on RC. "Photographically Challenged" would be an understatement! I'd love to share my tank, though. Perhaps I can take some pics this weekend and email them to someone who can?

In the meantime, lets see some pics from people who can post tem! LOL

Scott

[Konadog]

Scott, you can email them to me or even put them on a laptop and bring them to me at the next meeting, and I'll remove them!

How's that for an offer. ;)

[barryhc]

When I first read about Scott's "rubble" bottom, I had these visions of carefully selected 3/8" to 3/4" dia. "tonga branch".

These visions were "dancing in my head". They still are, and now I can wait for another year to revisit Disney World.

When I get there I will be looking for any version of "branch or rock" that I can get out of the state "legally" ?

> Barry :)

[algaeguy]

Hi Ken:

I'll shoot some pics this weekend and get them to you!

Barry:

I think the idea of using Tonga branch for the rubble bottom is a very cool one. I've used mostly Tonga slab pieces, but I think that the branch might actually make more sense, as it will provide a more "open" structure. Man, even with an idea like a rubble bottom there are different ways to go!

Scott

[Konadog]

I'll try to get a few pictures of the Tonga branch rubble bottom at the Long Beach Aquarium tomorrow to show off for everyone.

[Don424]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6542952#post6542952 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by algaeguy
Hi Ken:

I'll shoot some pics this weekend and get them to you!

Barry:

I think the idea of using Tonga branch for the rubble bottom is a very cool one. I've used mostly Tonga slab pieces, but I think that the branch might actually make more sense, as it will provide a more "open" structure. Man, even with an idea like a rubble bottom there are different ways to go!

Scott

Yeah.............busted up Tonga branch on the entire botton.....sweet. I think I'll do that on my new 75g and a screened reverse flowUGF.:dance:

[danieljames]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6534817#post6534817 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by algaeguy
Hi danieljames:

Yep- the nitrate is still undetectible. I am interested in your thoughts on the rubble as an efficient denitrification zone. I, too have thought about this, and I'm inclined to agree with you! I recall reading somewhere (Maybe in Sprung and Delbeek) about denitrification ocurring within the rock itself
Scott

The anaerobic zone within our rock is definately an area for denitrification. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could offer something about the optimal depth that this occurs. I would think there would be variables, ie: porosity, etc, but if there is a measurable area that could be looked at in a generalized way with different types of rock/rubble (like pacific vs atlantic), you could choose your rubble accordingly. I like the idea. Blasting a rubble bottom with a powerhead a couple of times a week to loosen detritus would not be a big deal to me. Not a difficult thing to do imo.

[algaeguy]

danieljames:

Yep- you'd be surprised how easy it actually is to maintain. And detritus has not been at all difficult to remove. Tends to collect in lower flow areas. The Streams do a good job movin' water, I tell ya!

Scott

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6534817#post6534817 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by algaeguy
I am interested in your thoughts on the rubble as an efficient denitrification zone. I, too have thought about this, and I'm inclined to agree with you! I recall reading somewhere (Maybe in Sprung and Delbeek) about denitrification ocurring within the rock itself,

I agree that it may not be as efficient at denitrification as a DSB, but it may be a very viable alternative.
Scott

I doubt that the Rubble Bottom can out-perform a DSB, BUT, with some consideration of the "rubble" selection, it might come a lot closer than many people would think.

No amount of "depth" is going to affect denitrification significantly, because the amount of water around the rock will diffuse oxygen to levels that cannot support denitrification in the "interstital water". Interstital water is just the water between the rocks.

HOWEVER, If the rock selected, has a lot of surface area, like danieljames stated, that is a very big PLUS ! Also, if rock that is very porous, is selected, that will also increase the denitrification capability TREMENDOUSLY.

A REALLY NICE FEATURE, here, is that Hydrogen Sulfide production, and heavy metals "sinking" would be NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to occur ! ! ! ! !

Watta ya tinks of dem apples, heh ? ?

> Barry :)

[algaeguy]

Me likes!

I agree that hydrogen sulfide would no doubt be limited, particularly if sufficent flow is applied...

Interesting. How is everyone else's long-term (or near-term) nitrite trend in their RB systems?

Scott

[Cody Ray]

Hey guys, just thought I would post a diagram of a 75 gallon rubble bottom system I have been thinking about.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/FLCL787/75.jpg

[H20ENG]

Chin,
Dont rely on the check valve alone. ALWAYS use a siphon break hole at least 1/4" dia.

[Cody Ray]

Won't that spray water everywhere?

[crazzyreefer]

if you want a water sample let me know, I have had this system up for years now without a probem, for rubble I use frags of zoos and mushrooms and slice the rocks with a tile saw to make them flat bottom, and just lined the glass with the frags., I run this system compleatly filterless, and do a 10% water change every month or 2 months.

[danieljames]

What kind of flow crazzyreefer?

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6580474#post6580474 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ChinChek787
Won't that spray water everywhere?

You can use smaller holes as well, say (4) 1/8" holes. In either case, drill the holes at an angle, like 30 deg. "down". You will hardly notice any spray. You can even locate the top of the hole at your water level, and have no visible "spray" at all. About 3/16" of the water will drain by the time siphon is broken, but this is often not a problem.

> Barry :)

[algaeguy]

crazzyreefer,

Please do run some nitrate, phosphate and alkalinity tests and share the results, if possible.

It would be interesting to hear about parameters in a long-established rubble-bottom system!

Thanks for offering!

Scott

[barryhc]

Hey Scott, and all you other "Rubble bottom" peoples, check this out ! ! ! !

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=760064

They are asking for votes for Thread Of The Month ! ! !

"Rubble Bottom" is on the list. Let's get going here with some votes, and kiss some babies if need be!

Congratulations Scott ! > Barry :)

[lillibirdy]

Very cooooooool. I voted. At first it looked like we were way behind, then I realized there where only 7 votes so far.....lol, sooo actually it is anybodys race...GO VOTE!

This is very cool validation! The fact that we are opening up such new and different new schools of thought, AND it hasn't turned negative! I am proud of us!

[algaeguy]

Hi gang!

I'm thrilled that we're all keeping this thread going! Barry, lillibirdy, and all- thanks so much for sharing here and helping to inspire others!

It's really proven to be an interestig thread to participate in! We've covered a lot of ground and I hope we'll continue to do so. As Barry has mentioned, it's so cool that everyone is discussing and sharing their experieinces and providing feedback in a civilized, friendly manner.

Maybe this thread has not been ground-breaking, but if nothing else, it has provided a great forum for us to share some cool ideas with fellow reefers. No fights, no flaming-just sharing of good solid information on the hobby we're all nuts over! And THAT'S what Reef Central is all about! Kudos to ALL!

I hope that everyone here continues to post and discuss their experiences and concepts with "Rubble Bottoms" and alternative substrate methodologies. The "state of the art" of our hobby is really for all of us to develop and share- so let's keep it up! Inspiration is a big part of what we're doing here. Hopefully, lots of other hobbyists can try this idea and give us their feedback-good and bad!

I'm as guilty as anyone here in one regard- I've got to get some decent pics up! I'd love to see everyone else's systems out there, so if you have some- don't be shy!

Thanks again to everyone here for sharing! I SWEAR I'm breaking out the camera this weekend!

Scott

[Konadog]

Scott, I didn't get the pictures of the Aquarium of the Pacific's rubble bottom tank as planned. I worked late and could only drop my kids off for "Teen night" they wouldn't let me run in and take some pictures. My daughter tried to take a few, but they came out to dark. I'll be back in a week or two to try again.

I picked up my tank last weekend (see our forum), and after I get my act together, will be going with a rubble bottom. I've always liked the idea of "pod piles" and to think of having an entire bottom for places to hide......well, I can't wait!

[algaeguy]

SWEET!

What kind/size of rubble do you plan on using? The Tonga Branch stuff, or slab, or...?

Are you going to have a rockscape along with the rubble? I'm curious to see what you'll come up with! I still have this strange fascination with seagrasses, too, and was thinking about a rubble bottom combined with areas of sand to plant seagrasses...On the other hand, the entire tank as a rubble zone is really a fascinating biotope!

Are you going to seed the rubble with pods and leave the tank fishless for some time before you get things really going? Can you imagine the biodiversity of a rubble bottom system if the reefer could handle waiting a few months before adding fishes? How cool would THAT be?

See ya!

Scott

[Konadog]

I'm planning on using small branch stuff along with some smaller irregular rocks for most of the bottom, will see what I like. For the rockscape, I'm planning on doing some pillars and the reef ceramics for the back wall. I just need to find the right rocks for the pillars.

My original plan was to just have the rock for a few months, without fish. That plan has changed as I also took all the livestock that was in the tank when I picked it up. I hope the rubble bottom along with the fuge will keep the pod population up.

[Don424]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6595023#post6595023 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Hey Scott, and all you other "Rubble bottom" peoples, check this out ! ! ! !

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=760064

They are asking for votes for Thread Of The Month ! ! !

"Rubble Bottom" is on the list. Let's get going here with some votes, and kiss some babies if need be!

Congratulations Scott ! > Barry :)

This thread got my vote. Best thread going on here in a long time.

When you step back think about all that has been said on this thread,.....for this point in time in this hobby, the thoughts and ideas are out in left field...................but then again, not really.
Like many other hobbies, technology has driven the direction of
"How To". Yet Paul B has been doing it "the old fashion" way for 30 years with a few "tweaks" here and there.........Lillibirdy and some others here are like the contemporary Paul B doing the same thing basically 30 years later with some "tweak" and validating today what most consider a "dinosour" methodology and doing it very cost effectively but most importantly.......successfully. When I started in saltwater 4 years ago, I had the same thinking as Paul B and Lillibirdy for doing a simple tank but thought "I" must be wrong in my thinking because on reading RC and other boards around, NOBODY was doing it this way........... until Algaeguy brought up the subject. Algaeguy...........THANK YOU for bringing this to lite. I hope others(from newbies to expereinced reefers) that are on RC or any other message board catch this thread. It brings an entirely new perspective on "HOW TO" to this hobby.

Anyway........I just got my new equipment for my tank. Now I just have to paint the wall behind the tank, and set it up. After following this thread, I can't wait 'cause it will be a rubble bottom.

I'm looking forward to more replies from others on this thread and hope it doesn't stop :)

[lillibirdy]

Go Don!! This thread will continue, and you will be a contributer!!!! Seems like there are several people gonna try some version of rubble. I can't wait to hear what y'all have to say!

[Tunguska]

Wow, this thread is still going...

Well, sadly, I had to dismantle my plennum/DSB/Rubble tank since a friend of mine moved away and gave me ALL of his reef stuff-tank, livestock, equipment, etc. Imagine my bad luck. :dance:

Anyways, I didn't have room for 2 55's, so for the sake of the livestock involved, I took everything from both tanks, then put all of the rock and livestock in one tank and all of my sand and rubble in a 32 gallon rubbermaid with a pump.

Some observations on the takedowns:

My tank (set up for 1.5 yrs) had slight detritus accumulation under the UGF plate I used for the plennum. This stuff is very fine, such that you would find in a swamp or a mudbank in a very slow river (the kind of mud you sink in past your knees). Makes me want to set up a seagrass tank, but I don't have nearly enough of it!

My friend's tank had a SSB. It was siphoned regularly, but still contained more and larger detritus than mine by far. It also contained a sizeable population of micro-stars (not micro-brittle stars).

Anyways, I feel that a plennum system will eventually clog in every case. The RUGF idea would greatly extend the useful life of any system utilizing a void space under their substrate, as PaulB has proven.

Also, there aren't many pics in this thread! I don't have a camera, but I bummed one from a buddy and took some crappy pics about a week before I took down my tank! Without further ado:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152188&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152187&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152186&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

more in a sec...

[Tunguska]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152183&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152244&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=152245&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

It appears I have no idea how to post a picture. These links to my gallery shoud suffice, I guess. Oh well.

[Tunguska]

On a side note, please excuse the poor quality of my pictures! I have no experience whatsoever with reef photography, but I need to get y'all posting pics! :p

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6629509#post6629509 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tunguska
Well, sadly, I had to dismantle my plennum/DSB/Rubble tank
This sounds EXCEEDINGLY experimental.

Some observations on the takedowns:

My tank (set up for 1.5 yrs) had slight detritus accumulation under the UGF plate I used for the plennum. This stuff is very fine, such that you would find in a swamp or a mudbank in a very slow river (the kind of mud you sink in past your knees).
Under the "plate" is the best place for it, for sure. A lot of this could be "sacculus" ( or bacteria carcusses ), and Mineral detritus, which is not particularly a problem.

Anyways, I feel that a plennum system will eventually clog in every case.
Eventually is a very LARGE word. Potentially as large as a 6 foot dia. sewer pipe, which also will clog, eventually.

The RUGF idea would greatly extend the useful life of any system utilizing a void space under their substrate, as PaulB has proven.

Actually, I love the RUGF idea, and I am trying to help promote it as well. I've discussed it with Paul considerably, and hope to use it in my 150 gal. Predator tank, very soon.

I think the RUGF, is probably a little bit "touchier" to get set-up just right, than what has been presented here so far.

I'm just giving you a hard time about the "plenum" because I know a lot about them, and I want to keep peoples perceptions about reef systems accurate.

I happen to promote "Wasting Plenums" in the Advanced Topics Forum, and I believe they are Best form of sand bed operation available, HOWEVER, I must point that they are still experimental as well, as is most everything we're discussing here.

FOR A REAL SHOCKER , I'm right on the edge of even COMBINING THE TWO ! ! ! :idea:

Maybe even Rubble on top as well, just for fun, and the "looks", and the "pods", and WHY NOT ? ? ? ? :hammer:

> Barry :beachbum: :thumbsup:

[Paul B]

I think we should use 12" of EDSB (extreamly deep sand bed) below that a layer of rubble, a foot under that a RUGF and about 6" below that a bare bottom. We could throw in that "wasting" option on all three substrates.
I would also lay a few cro- bars on top to make it a real man tank.
Paul


:smokin: :beer:

:eek1: :eek1:

[Tunguska]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6632755#post6632755 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Eventually is a very LARGE word.

That's why I used it! :D
That said, I think that a RUGF would be a better option than any plenum without some way to remove accumulation of solids.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6632755#post6632755 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
I'm just giving you a hard time about the "plenum" because I know a lot about them, and I want to keep peoples perceptions about reef systems accurate.

Don't mention it! My perceptions of the methods being discussed two years ago led me to put my system together the way I did. If I didn't understand the way certain methods were intended to work, I couldn't have modified them successfuly. I must admit, however, that my decision to throw all of my LR rubble into my sandbed was merely a refusal to waste any of that rock I paid so much for! The bits of shells and sand dollar pieces were added later.

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6634921#post6634921 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
I would also lay a few cro- bars on top to make it a real man tank.
Paul


:smokin: :beer:

:eek1: :eek1:
I don't think the crow bars would really be appropriate without a couple of cases of beer, and a diatom filter ( just for safety ) !

:beachbum: :thumbsup: :hammer: :wavehand:

[miatawnt2b]

This really excites me. I cannot wait to build my new 90 gal tank. I plan on using the rubble bottom with manifold wasting. I will install a 1/2" pvc manifold like barryhc has designed at the bottom of the tank, and using 1-2 inch tufa rubble 2-3 inches deep overtop. I will waste the manifold once a month to remove trapped ditrus. I am actually thinking of wasting 3 gallons to ensure complete removal of trapped solids at the bottom of the rubble. I am not so much worring about hurting denitrifying bacteria in the substrate as I believe the denitrifying properties will come from the interior of the rubble and not be effected by drawing that much water from the bottom.

Thoughts?

-J

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6640319#post6640319 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by miatawnt2b
This really excites me. I cannot wait to build my new 90 gal tank. I plan on using the rubble bottom with manifold wasting. I will install a 1/2" pvc manifold like barryhc has designed at the bottom of the tank,
OK . . .

and using 1-2 inch tufa rubble 2-3 inches deep overtop.
Over the top of what ? Is something between the manifold and the Rubble ?

I will waste the manifold once a month to remove trapped ditrus. I am actually thinking of wasting 3 gallons to ensure complete removal of trapped solids at the bottom of the rubble.
How much monthly water change are you anticipating ?

I am not so much worring about hurting denitrifying bacteria in the substrate as I believe the denitrifying properties will come from the interior of the rubble and not be effected by drawing that much water from the bottom.
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 :)