Nitrites!

optional

Some leave it in, and some remove it. Personally, I prefer to let the whole thing decay and let the bacteria do its "thing." I'm probably joining in "late" on the establishment of the tank, but if you have your sandbed in, it won't hurt to gently stir it to accelerate the spread of biofilm within the sandbed. Again, not necessary - it will eventually get that way as critters move and sift, but it kind of makes sense that it helps the progress along with the end goal being tank stability, no?

Good luck, and don't "test-strip" yourself to death. There's really no need, although I vaguely remember testing our very first system several times a day! Oddly enough, after a couple of years (back in the crushed coral days ) I found myself again testing it every day for nitrAtes. Even though I haven't a nitrate kit that's not "outdated" in the house, they have these little strips that can't hurt to be used once every couple of months, "just to make sure" everything's fine. Cheers!

Hey, glad I got ya!

Super that you haven't added any rock yet. Why? Well, here's what I would do; it saves money, the natural reefs in the oceans and it is awesome to "watch happen":

At any time (as in tomorrow, even - or whenever you can get it) I would get some dry lace/bowl rock. This is usually kept in large, dusty bins under the lineup of tanks in some fish stores. It is dusty and dry (quite "dead" as you can imagine ) but you can get some large pieces which form large, stable "caves" on your substrate. Now, you don't want to "cover" your whole sandbed (keep in mind with the rock that you want as much detritus to fall on the sandbed and not simply clog up the rock pores so you continually need to be "basting" it off). But you can use the dry rock as your bottom base piece(s) and build on top of it. Advantages? You betcha! You won't have to worry about rockfalls as much because this is the most stable base you can naturally form without gluing rock together. It forms a natural cave for the fish(s) that take up residence. For a small tank, you might use one cave piece as your base. For larger tanks, you can use more - each one will normally only be "taken" by one fish. Or not. In our reef we've got it all set up like a 5* hotel, but both the yellow tang and the powder blue prefer "smaller" residences. In another tank? That cave is owned by a clown trigger... but guess what? After learning that he was an endless chase for dinner with no yummy results, a blue damsel is no longer "always on the run" and shares the back portion of the cave with him (close to an exit hole, of course! ).

Point is, it may or may not be used (some fish actually like the smallest nook they can fit in), but you can look "in" to these caves at any time, day or night, and see the epifaunal life literally "swarming" around.

Okay, that's the "foundation" part of your reef structure. Now? I absolutely recommend "forming" your live rock with as much as 80-85% additional rock pieces. Hey, "dead?" you might ask? Don't worry about it. Not "pretty?" Again, don't worry. I left about 15% unaccounted for, no? This you can seed with premium live rock that you hand pick from your favorite lfs.

Why this "process?" The rock immediately begins accumulating all the same bacteria that would normally be populating any other "live" rock in the tank. It immediately provides the most important part - shelter. It also "makes" a reef. But it's not purple and pretty! Again, don't worry! You know the "seed" rock? All that stuff will spread to the "barren" rock. Within a year, you should not be able to tell a bit of difference - I mean that. There's not a person (myself included) that would be able to "sort" which rock in my tank came from the natural "reef" and which portion was actually "created" within the tank. Because of it's "lava-like" porous structure, some pieces of lace rock I know went it "dead" but that's the only way I have of knowing.

And when all is said and done you will have done a fine part in "saving" your otherwise chunked off portion of the natural reef along some beautiful coast. I'm the last person who's going to be labelled an "ecofreak," but I do like to be responsible and conscientious on my own so I can tell the PETA folks where to go! Seriously, though we should take whatever steps we can to be conscientious with both rocks and fish/inverts we take as pets.

Also? It sure is neat to watch your rock come alive with the spread of polyps and coraline algae. Super! You will suffer not a single thing in the process, nor will you tank be any less "able" to perform as a sound biological filter. This is the only way we start up a new system. At first, the lure was the money we saved in buying hundreds of dollar's worth of rock. Now that I can't tell a difference after the tanks are established, it's not just the money saved, but the joy of watching an actual slice of reef "form" in your own tank.

Anyway, that's just my "take" on adding your rock. If you haven't added any "live sand" yet, sure - stir the sand again before you lay your rock down... won't hurt, helps accelerate the bacterial population. Also, as long as you feed the tank (to feed the bacteria to maintain the cycle started with the shrimp) you should experience no cycle "spike" with the addition of any few pieces of live rock you add to seed the base rock.

This is not THE way. It is only my personal way. But not a person who has gone this route regrets it... Meaning, you are not being "shorted" in your goal of a beautiful reef. Some order 1lb/per premium live rock from a M/O company, and some "build" it piece by piece from handpicking the "best" pieces from lfs in the area. We've done both. But now we only "grow" our own. And you don't need to heed any pound-per-gallon "rule." Just build enough to provide necessary "hiding spots" for any fish and enough to have places for coral attachment/growth. Sometimes it's nice to aesthetically build a formation you want - but you only need enough rock to do so. More important than excess rock is not "smothering" the surface of your DSB. That's your "spent/excess nutrient processing grounds," if you will.

So that's my take on it. You can build your rock at any point with the dry base rock, and as soon as your nitrates zero out you can slip in the seed live rock with no risk of creating any new mini-cycle. You may want to "seed" the DSB with a scoop of sand from your lfs at this point, as well. Enjoy the ride! I think it's absolutely awesome to "grow" your own slice of reef with a bit of "seed" and if I could, I'd be starting a tank every two months! HTH!!

Fishwhisperer, just so you know when collecting LR no real harm is done to the living reef in terms of destroying existing structure. the rock is all debris that was broken off in storms over hundreds of years. it just lies there and is picked up in the shallows. if you are concerned that this process is destroying reefs, then get some aquacultured rock that was mined on land and placed in the sea for at least 5 years. you get all the benefits of liverock and the quality is usually better.

Wrong. Collected rock is most certainly not all "rubble." Well, it's "rubble" after it's been blasted, I suppose.

There's certainly documentation that blasting still occurs today, for both fish and rock.

But you are failing to consider a very important fact when you get rock (aquacultured or not): Huge diversities of life are destroyed when taking that life from coastal reefs. You limit this when you use just enough to seed. And you only need just enough to seed. You can "aquaculture" it in your own tank, and in less than a year be unable to tell the difference.

Cheers!

here's something that i've heard. when a highway project or some other project that involves going over the water the rocks are blasted. that's very true. this doesn't really happen too much anymore. but instead of the rocks just going to waste they are now sold to aquarists. if blasting for construction is going to happen then i would rather see the rock go to aquarists then go to waste and the life on the rock being completely wasted.

now, if you think about it if the aquacultured rock was never there the life would have no where to settle. while the rock is in the ocean it is gaining life that would never be there in the first place. if it would never be there in the first place i don't really think there's much of an impact on the enviroment. well over 95% of juvinile reef organisims don't make it do adulthood. by putting some rock in the ocean you are slightly increasing the survivorship of these creatures. so you're probably taking out life that would never be there in the first place. if you could prove to me with a scientific journal of some sort that states the collection of liverock is destroying reefs then i will reconsider the use of liverock in my aquariums. until then i think there are some more important issues.

dynamiting, cyanide, and irresponceble collection are far more important to the destruction of coral reefs the collecting some rock. so i try to educate more people about these topics then the possible evils behind the collection of LR (especially aquacultured which is the best solution to true LR yet).

if you could prove to me with a scientific journal of some sort that states the collection of liverock is destroying reefs then i will reconsider the use of liverock in my aquariums.

Click to expand...

I never said it was "destroying" reefs. Having an impact? You betcha. Scientific Journal? National Geographic works for me. They collect fish, rock, etc. specifically for the aquarium trade (not blasted for bridges). Most recent I've come across was July 2002. Now, keep in mind, their purpose is not just live rock, but it is certainly sold for the trade. WHen you consider that more than 90% of the Phillipine reefs have been damaged by agricultural runof, dynamite fishing and/or cyanicde poisoning, we most certainly should grow aquacultured rock there, and leave it alone. That's my only point. Not that "rock" is not the primary reason for blasting, just that it is indeed included for the trade. When you consider we've decimated 90 percent of the reefs in that region, the last thing we should do is let some species "regrow" on aquacultured rock just to chunk them off with no remorse because "they weren't there" in the first place. This region has a 90% reduction in over 500 coral species and 34 kinds of endemic fish.

It is just my opinion that we should strive to not take/destroy any more life than necessary to indulge in our hobby. We can do so responsibly, even. It is my point that removing enough rock to stock a tank is not necessary at all. No tank will suffer with base rock seeded with only a few pieces of premium live rock. As conscientious hobbyists, we should strive to have minimal impact on the natural reefs. This should be across the board, in all areas.

Again, don't misinterpret that I am suggesting our live rock is destroying the reefs. But it is the very foundation of the reefs, and it is not a part we need to overindulge in. Aquacultured-rock farms would be a good place for us to start giving back to the reef populations - not simply serving as further hosts to the destruction of any sort of marine life.

If tank-reared clownfish are such a great thing, then so should "tank-reared live rock" be regarded as equally preserving in nature. That is my suggestion to the original poster. Populating your own live rock is less invasive of the world's reefs. That is a fact. Nobody needs a scientific journal for proof.

Now that all that is out of the way, I hope you understand my POV. I am NOT an eco-freak, or any sort of "tree-hugger." But I can understand more and more where these people have a leg to stand on if we don't engage the hobby as responsibly and ethically as possible. This, in my opinion, means that we don't destroy populating corals just to take the rock they are attached on - whether it be aquacultured or not. If I were on their side, and I saw that people were removing rock (aquacultured or not) for their "hobby" and in the process corals were getting strewn and shredded - you bet I could make a reasonable stink. See, it's all about us conserving within the hobby so we don't run the risk of being policed by busybodies outside the hobby. The mantra is simple: If you don't need to destroy something to maintain the hobby... don't. There should be no major issue with that. There's plenty of "live rock" out there. How about keeping it that way? We don't need to stock our tank full of gathered live rock - this is my point. The reasons, hopefully, have been stated. Cheers!