Lights on or off for curing

[Steve]

Should the lights be left on for the normal 10-hrs a day during the curing time or off?

 

I have heard of doing it both ways, what is the difference?

 

 

Thanks!

Steve-

[seabass]

I think that it is more popular to run a greatly reduced photoperiod when cycling a tank (to help to inhibit algae growth).

 

However, if you run a phosphate remover, I feel that you can run a longer photoperiod (like 8 hours). This will help preserve your coralline; and other hitchhikers might also benefit from the longer photoperiod. Also, use quality RO/DI water and new bulbs so as not to promote algae growth.

[Physh1]

Like seabass mentioned a reduced lighting period is something I prefer. I usually do around 3 maybe 4 hours a day. A full photoperiod can lead to crazy algae blooms....

 

Cameron

[Steve]

Seabass, Phshi1,

 

Thanks for the help:)

[reefermadness]

8 hours, watch the nitrates and change 10% of the water every other day. This takes a bit longer for a full cycle, but I have found that it saves more of the life on the rock.

[MrKrispy]

IME coralline isn't so much picky about light as it is calcium. SO as much as it sucks, cut back the lighting period.

 

YOU DON'T NEED 8 hours OF LIGHT FOR ROCK, WTF????

 

DON'T change 10% of the water every other day either, who is this character????????

[Steve]

Thanks for all the help:P

[reefermadness]

I have used this method of curing live rock when setting up a new tank (curing IN the tank) for years with great results. Getting light on the rock quickly will insure that you automatically have less die-off in the first place. Doing the water changes keeps the water params in check and creates a gentler cycle that many more organisms will weather. I have been able to save encrusted corals, sponges, and a much higher percentage of coralline this way. I wouldn't have suggested it if it didn't work.

 

If the rock starts off "dead looking", then it might not matter how you treat it and you should find a new supplier. I always get rock (luckily, perhaps) that has some life on it that I want to try and save. Sticking the rock in a trash can in the dark, with a powerhead, and huge ammonia/nitrite spikes just hasn't worked for me....I can't save all the life all the time, but I have been able to save some of it. The cycle generally takes a few days longer as the beneficial bacteria more slowly build their numbers. IMO, any rock that looks like it has potential should be cured with light and water changes. If you find that it gets to be a PITA changing all that water, you can stop and turn out the lights at any time. Mixing the water and checking the params every day IS a lot of work. I think it's worth it.

 

This method is far more labor intensive, but it works well for me. I'm not suggesting here that this is the widely accepted way of "curing" rock, but it's a way that I find effective. If you think you know a better way and you have nothing to gain from my advice, knock yourself out...I would use the trash can for mixing water (or kalk).

[MrKrispy]

Originally posted by reefermadness

Getting light on the rock quickly will insure that you automatically have less die-off in the first place.  

 

Unless the LR has actual coral specimens on it, I just can't figure this statement (or reasoning) out. Most of the countries aren't allowed to export rock that has visible "life" on it. So yah, if you see you scored a chunk of rock with a coral on it, do this. Otherwise, it doesn't seem rationale, especially scientifically reasonable, and mostus bestus not worth the risk of big time algae blooms.

[reefermadness]

MOST of the rock I get has visibile life on it. Most has sponges, tunicates, barnacles, zooanthids, palythoa, mushrooms and others. The many types of coralline are tough, but a higher percentage will make it when you give it light (and additives). You aren't likely to get spikes that will cause algae blooms if you remove the major stuff from the rock you know will die, or is dead, and monitor the water carefully and often... Like I said, if you get tired of changing water, you can always turn out the light and cycle using the traditional methods.

 

BTW, most every soft coral in my tanks is attached to rock and was collected in some of the countries where the live rock is collected. The only stipulation I know of in the collection of live rock is that it has broken off from the reef on its own (cyclones). Rock that has visible pry marks, or has obvious clean, cleaved areas is a dead giveaway that it has been illegally collected. Most suppliers will remove a lot of the life they know from experience will die during shipping. Some are overzealous in the removal of these animals/plants IMO. I have seen "cured" rock that has had literally everything scraped or scrubbed off. I prefer buying rock that is uncured or "semi" cured for this reason. If you are setting up a new tank, this works fine (I never really add uncured rock to an established tank unless it is in very small amounts). To each his own, I guess...

 

There are a number of aquarists that do this, including Albert Thiel: look here

 

OR here

 

And some live rock suppliers who recommend it:

 

Here

 

To see things that good live rock might have on it: Here

 

This way is a PITA, I agree....So if no "visible" life exists on the rock, don't do it. It is also more expensive by far: salt mix, RO, used up test kits... I don't really use my test kits (NH3 and NO2) after the cycling process, but I do need them for the next tank. It is a worthwhile endeavor to me and is not as outrageous as it might sound. If you have life on the rock, why not try to keep it?

[seabass]

I hate to get into the middle of this, but let me further explain what I was trying to say:

• A typical normal full photoperiod might be 10 to 11 hours

• A typical photoperiod during cycling might be 3 to 4 hours

 

Keeping in mind that there might be photosynthetic life that you are trying to preserve (and creatures that feed off of other photosynthetic life), you might not want to reduce the photoperiod as much as is typical.

 

I was suggesting that it might be possible (and potentially beneficial) to extend the typical photoperiod during cycling from 4 hours, to 6 or even to 8 hours (using good light, good water, and maintaining good water quality). When attempting to extend the photoperiod during cycling, you must take care to reduce the potential causes (food sources) of algae blooms (primarily phosphates, nitrates, and light).

 

Using this method, your photoperiod will be reduced by up to 5 hours; however, you must also reduce phosphates and nitrates (and potential phosphates and nitrates where possible). Using a phosphate remover from the start can help prevent algae blooms and is a good practice even if you are using a standard short light cycle. Weekly water changes during cycling can further reduce actual and potential phosphates and nitrates (food sources for algae).

 

This brings up another controversial topic: water changes during a cycle. I’m of the belief that there is no reason to avoid water changes during the cycle. A weekly 15% water change will not have a substantial effect on the bacteria populations that are becoming established; however, they can affect your water quality. I believe that it is more important to care for the life that might be on your LR, over the bacteria colonies that will establish themselves anyways.

 

I have used this method to cycle with no more than the typical temporary algae blooms. It’s hard to say if additional life was saved (reducing die-off and additional ammonia spikes). MrKrispy and reefermadness both make good points that I think should be considered when planning your photoperiod.

 

After your cycle has completed, slowly increase your photoperiod (watching your phosphate and nitrate levels) until your ultimate full photoperiod has been achieved. This method might not be right for everybody, but I don't feel that it is reckless or that it puts livestock in danger (in fact, it’s an attempt to save more livestock as well as the diversity of livestock in your reef). Even if there is no visible life on your LR, weeks later, ultimately, visible life will emerge.

[reefermadness]

That' a great middle-ground suggestion.....though a weekly water change of 15% is really no different from what you should be doing under NORMAL circumstances and IME is not enough to remove the concentration of damaging ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate. Bacteria live in the sand bed and rock. This population is largely unnaffected by water changes. The only drawback is that the bacterial population takes longer to reach its potential because the levels of ammonia and nitrite never reach damaging levels. I increase lighting to 12 hours once I see shifts in ammonia and nitrite and watch the nitrates carefully until I am certain that no blooms are possible. A phosphate remover does help in that respect, as I don't usually test for it and cannot monitor it like nitrate. Algae blooms simply should not occur if you don't give them food (nitrate and phosphate) AND light. Again, testing often (at least once per day IME) and reacting accordingly will prevent the massive spikes from killing things off.

 

Instead of a cycle of peaks and valleys, which is the conventional method, this method gives you subtler clues as to when the cycle is making progress or is complete. The changes occur very quickly, so it is difficult to keep up with the water changes. In the end, you WILL save more life on the rock this way, assuming it exists.

[seabass]

I like this method, but it might not belong in a beginner’s forum. Come to think about it, I would suggest that beginners stick to the tried and true and keep it simple (with short photoperiods).

 

This method might fall into the same category as deep sand beds (where additional experience is helpful). In this case, experience in maintaining low nutrient levels as well as experience in dealing with algae if or when it shows up.

[reefermadness]

agreed....