How long does LR last

[slick]

I was thinking today and I was wondering how long LR will last. Not in a physical manner. But in a biological manner? Sort of hard to explain what I mean. Let me try this. If you keep your tank in good shape, and never have problems will your lr last forever? I know some tanks crash after years of running just fine (can't remember what this is called?) Can LR from one of these tanks be used in another tank? This is just a question. I'm not adding lr from an old tank to any of mine. Thanks

 

[rook]

According to Dr. Ron, 5-6 before the rock absorbes dangerous levels of heavy metals, and thus needs to be discarded.
Take that how you will I guess.

 

[beanie]

whats NSW

 

[foulbrew]

I make a point of keeping up with what the good Dr. writes and some his stuff passes the smell test and is helpful. His work on metals, especailly his latest comparing ions from different salt mixes didn't. Both lacked control and ended up at best offering a conclusion/theory with a questionable foundation IMO (ofcourse I'm not a Dr).
I really don't have a clue as to the life of live rock, however I do know of two tanks over 6 years that are doing fine. Both have lotsa old rock. Neither has a DSB.

 

[macyjo]

This is a VERY interesting question..... I have no idea of the answer...but I am sitting here thinking *%$# I really never intend my tank to be done. My tank has been up for 3 years now and I am no where near having the dream tank. In 5-6 years maybe It will be "finished"--then I have to break it down.. break off the corals that have fixed themselves, change sand, live rock and essentially start over??? Man this would suck! Lets find some kind of answer to this. This is something I have never considered and it is stressing me out.

 

[david s]

I know a few guys with 10 plus year old tanks still running ??? and look awsome. the heavy metals is a thought but the rock does not disappear and coraline and critters dont just die.
the good dr had somthing about heavy metals and old tank crash could have some meat to it. so I guess ro/di and watch what additives you put in. for long term reefing

 

[newreefers]

My tank is almost 7 yrs old, been moved 4 times and about to be moved again and still has the original lr in it and it's fine.

 

[ozadars]

I think lets answer this first, why is lr going to last biological? i dont see any reason?

 

[sammystingray]

The biological processes of liverock concerning the nitrogen cycle will pretty much never cease.....even after the rock has been curroded into 100% dust, the dust will still host bacteria. This is because the only "special" thing allowing liverock to host bacteria is that it has surface area. The exact same bacteria is on the pumps, filters sand glass, heater, etc etc etc...everything, not just the rock. The rock merely adds large amounts of surface area for the needed bacteria which grows on anything when in correct conditions for either anaerobic or aerobic.
As far as the Docs theory goes about metals...I don't get it. First, because I have some rocks going on their tenth year, and also because if the metals could hurt our creatures over the years, they would be collecting in their bodies. If their bodies didn't absorb these metals, then why would it hurt them later? To say the metals fall out of solution, collect in the rocks, and then are time released somehow to fish and corals that are all of the sudden able to absord these metals they couldn't before, makes no sense??? If the fish and corals DO absorb these metals, then there is obviously an export for them......even if it is sadly dead animals over the years. I will simply place this theory alongside the forgotten "hydrogen sulfide crashes" that never happen. The "doc" doesn't even have many old tanks to play with, and claims to not even know many with them. Smart guy, but I don't think he can provide much more than a theory at this point, and one I find little worry from being that the bulk of my rocks are atleast seven years old, and some as old as ten years old.

 

[slick]

Thanks for the replies so far guys. Sammy you make some great points. I never really thought of it like that. I guess I won't have to worry to much about my rock getting old and having to be replaced.

 

[rook]

I think his point, and I could likely be wrong, was over time the live rock and sand collect heavy metals from the water. Which is good in the short term as it pulls the heavy metals from our tank water so that it will reach toxic levels in the water and harm our corals/fish/inverts. But, over a long enough period, supposedly five to seven years at the rate we add heavy metals to our tanks, the live rock and sand will reach a point were they cannot absorb heavy metals any further. Thus, the rock and sand will not be pulling the heavy metals from the water and the water will quickly accumulate toxic levels of heavy metals, and the tank will resultingly crash.
At least this is how I took his theory. And, this would seem to make sense if it is indeed true that the live rock and sand can reach maximum saturation levels of heavy metals. As long as we add heavy metals to our tanks, we need to also remove them. This is why he feels it is so important to switch to salt mixes containing a little heavy metals as possible. Live rock and dsbs are to of the best ways to remove the heavy metals according to Ron, but eventually they need to be replaced.

 

[sammystingray]

Dr. Ron also has a booklet on the shelves claiming bluelegs are excellent and every tank should have them.....later, now, if you ask him, it's a different story. He publishes without full extensive research. The blueleg thing is just a simple example of publishing quick theories of his without fully researching.....will he also change his mind on this? I believe he basically lacks the funds to fully research. Many were less than satisfied with his salt test, and last I heard, funds were being raised to retest at a greater level. I test nothing, and I believe any tests ran by Ron are an attempt to further the hobby, but I do believe the tests fail in comparison to tests backed by the funds needed for small margins of error. He himself has very few tanks with any real age, and I still say that if these metals effect fish and corals, then the creatures must somehow absorb them....AKA the metals do have an export. Maybe not a prefered export, but an export none the less. I believe he relates these issues more with sandbeds than rocks most of the time anyway. Exactly what metals does he feel are in tanks and NOT present in the ocean??

 

[sammystingray]

Also, how exactly does sand or rock draw in anything? molecular bond? I wouldn't think so. I haven't read all of his literature, but I would assume these metals are leftovers from a molecule partially used and broke down?? Make sense? Not bond to anything?

 

[broomer5]

I refer to this article by Marlin Atkinson and Craig Bingman often.
It's a pretty good study of the various stuff found in both natural seawater, and several popular synthetic saltmixes.
The article was also published in the Journal of Aquariculture and Aquatic Science 8(2):39-43.
What I find interesting is the levels of "trace" elements that were measured between all of the samples.
There are clearly higher levels of some of these elements/metals than are found in normal seawater.
If you look at the chart ( and believe what you see ) then you can see that normal seawater really does have "trace" amounts ... releative to synthetic saltmixes.
Synthetic sea saltmix has "trace" amount of these relative to the actual sodium chloride ( salt ) and bicarbonate, carbonate, calcium etc.
I know when I do a water change - I must be removing some percentage of these "trace" elements/metals.
I wouldn't expect a 10% water change to remove 10% of these elements though. I would suspect that some of them are trapped up in the living tissue of the fish/inverts/algae ..... and some may have precipitated out of solution ( forming other compounds ) down in the sandbed or live rock.
I would imagine over a period of time that some of these levels could become elevated in a tank.
Some would be exported along with water changes, harvesting algae, protein skimming, mechanical filter changing.
How much could accumulate vs how much is exported ..... I wouldn't have the slightest idea ????

 

[sammystingray]

Don't forget they usually run these tests on newly mixed saltwater verses seawater which has had how long to deal with them? They need to run these tests on tanks running using the salts, and give the tank time to process them....then test. Are these metals building up in the ocean? Are they being processed? Is the ocean on it's way to crashing? Actually how do you really compare anything just mixed to an ocean that has been running forever? Some rocks bought have been taken from ancient dead reefs.....wouldn't they have taken in their fill of these metals by now if possible? Why buy them if they are spent? My point is that if creatures are effected, then they do absorb these materials, and they are being exported/bond up. The crash theory is that materials are added but used in no way....not eaten, absorbed, converted, exported by any means of filter etc., and they simply pile up.....if they simply collect in the substrate and nothing bothers with them.....who cares, and if they actually do stay suspended in the water column....a simple water change will remove/reduce them.

 

[rook]

I know that another store (a competitor so I wont mention who) is performing a research test on the salt to determine this more accurately. I think they have raised quite a bit more funds than Ron has too, so hopefully that test will give more sound determinations of the amount of heavy metals in salt mixes.
But, it is clear that we put a large amount of heavy metals into our tanks. And, most of the "experts" including Ron/Eric and others have seemingly agreed that skimmers/algae/waterchanges/ect take out a relative small amount of heavy metals compared to what we put in. Thus, those heavy metals are in there somewhere building up and will eventually reach toxic levels, unless we find someway too remove them adequately.
Ron beleaves (not sure if I agree) that cycling live rock and sand, ie removing some of it and replacing it with new, is necessary.
How does the live rock and sand absorb the HMs? I have no clue. I wonder if he, or anyone tested the rock or sand to determine that they really do absorb HM's and if there is indeed a saturation point. I would expect though, if they do absorb, there must be a saturation point.
Sammy, I agree that it make sense that fish and inverts take in HM's as well, but that is not removing the HM's from our tanks. The fish and inverts can't possibly recycle the HM's to a not toxic substance. Thus, unless you remove the fish the HM's stay in the water. Also, if the fish/inverts absorb HM's do they have a saturation point?
Exactly what metals does he feel are in tanks and NOT present in the ocean
I don't think he says there are certain HM's in our tanks that are not in the ocean, but that our small closed systems cannot diliute and disipate the HM's like the ocean can. Also, I don't think HM's get added to the ocean at a great a rate they are added to our tanks.
Damn heavy metals.

 

[rook]

if they simply collect in the substrate and nothing bothers with them.....who cares, and if they actually do stay suspended in the water column....a simple water change will remove/reduce them.
If the substarte collects them, and reaches the so called saturation point the substrate will no longer pull the HM's from the water. And I think it has been shown that water changes do not remove HM's at a rate as fast as we add them. Thus, if the substrate stops absorbing them (if they truely do) then the water will contain high levels of HM that simple water changes will be unaffective against.
Remember, this is not my theory, just my understanding of the theory.

 

[sammystingray]

I still fail to understand how the substrate "absorbs" these metals. Is he talking about a molecule bond or are they free and just sitting there? The fishes saturation point would be death, and if these metals do not cause death, then who cares? If it does cause death, then the metals will be removed if the dead fish is. Having free metals, and bound metals are two different things..... any metal absorbed by a fish or invert is no longer a factor on the rest of the creatures. I still believe they need to run tests on long term tanks using an exclusive salt brand verses a new mix.....say tap has phosphates and is used.....does that build up, or can a well running tank remove things from the water added? They test these salts straight out of the bag. I doubt we can truly know what metals are added at what rate to the ocean for a real comparison.

 

[rook]

I think you are confusing the issue though. Ron is trying to say that over time heavy metals will reach a point that the tank can not longer handle them and thus cause a crash. Therefore, we need to limit the amount of heavy metals added to the tank. One way to limit that amount is using a salt mix which contains lower levels of heavy metals right out of the bag.
If you buy the arguement that heavy metals will eventually build up to a break point, then it make sense to want to limit the amount of heavy metals we add to the tank. Whether or not his salt test was accurate in determining which salt contains the least amount of heavy metals is not really the point. The point is, we should limit the amount of heavy metals we add. I think future test of salts, and even foods and chemical additives will help to determine how much heavy metals are in all of the items we add to our water and thus help this goal.
But, right now the main issue is, will heavy metals reach this so called breaking point, does live rock and sand absorb these heavy metals, and if so, do they reach a saturation point where they are no longer effective?

 

[sammystingray]

In all of his literature.....does he state one actual case, and produce one single tank this has been proven to happen to? I don't know, and I am asking. The last I checked, my tank has been running longer than any tank he even owns, so I really have to question how he researched this?? I am glad this topic finally made it to this site...very interesting. Is there any of his work online that I can read through? I trust Toonen much more, so is there reading from him as well? If it was a joint effort, I much prefer to read articles from Toonen on the subject.