Elegance Coral Theory questions
- Thread starter kathywithbirds
- Start date
- Status
kathywithbirds
Well-Known Member
OK, now I have to go look up a whole new bunch of definitions again...
however, am I correct in getting that these microbes are species specific? That's my assumption based on what has been said. Or are they common and just taking the opportunity to attack?
however, am I correct in getting that these microbes are species specific? That's my assumption based on what has been said. Or are they common and just taking the opportunity to attack?
If the issue is lighting it's simple enough to correct but somehow I don't think it's quite that simple ! Because it's affecting Catalaphyllias only and not other LPS corals taken from the same location I suspect it's a pathogen and it's species specific.
BTW welcome to reefsanctuary Eric and your friends from Portugal say hello
BTW welcome to reefsanctuary Eric and your friends from Portugal say hello
elegance coral
Member
There is no evidence that shows us these microbes (fancy word for tiny bugs) are species specific. This is a very broad term that is used when we don't have a better name for the organism that's being discussed. All we know about these bugs is that they have been found in damaged Elegance coral cells. It has not been proven that they are opportunistic either. We do not have a name for these organisms. We don't know anything about their life cycle, where they come from, nothing. Could these microbes live in the substrate feeding on organic matter and hitch a ride into our systems on the skeletons of Elegance corals, then begin feeding on the corals tissue as it breaks down? Sure. Nothing has been proven though. To find an unknown microbe in damaged coral tissue is not evidence that it is species specific or that it caused the damage. Mr. Borenman"s research stopped after finding a host of organisms in damaged Elegance coral tissue. You can pick any species of coral and examine damaged tissue from that coral and you will find many organisms in it. In fact you can examine tissue of any dead animal and find many different organisms, even dead humans. This is not evidence that these organisms caused the animals death. To find organisms in damaged or dead animal tissue and make the statement that they caused the animals death is a huge leap that the evidence simply does not support.
charlesr1958
Active Member
Its just plain obvious that you are determined to stay with your theory that light is the cause of all that ails this species of corals and that by your "new method" of placing them in subdued lighting is the cure, regardless of other evidence or just plain common sense. There is no discussing or argueing with you. Is a claim to fame that important to you that you are blind to all else?
Light is not the cause or the cure. Period.
An infectious agent is clearly at work, and it appears that the infections happen after collection. There is no way that collecting a so called deeper water specimen is going to be at more risk than a shallow water specimen. The way they are talked about, yo would think they are two different species. For a coral, any coral, to be UV damaged, or hurt by stronger light intensity, it would have to be subjected to such things for quite some time. And if the coral is so damaged by light, how would that allow a variety of microbes to just suddenely imbed themselves deep within the corals tissue. Since a great many corals (on a daily basis) are damaged by too intensive of light within this hobby, how is it that with just a bit of TLC, most all survive and are not coming down with multiple tissue infections/invasions.
You know what, I could go on and on and try to get through to you, and am kicking myself right now for even trying once again.
Okay, light kills elegant corals and you have the cure. Cool.
Chuck
oh, almost forgot..... aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! UNCLE!
Light is not the cause or the cure. Period.
An infectious agent is clearly at work, and it appears that the infections happen after collection. There is no way that collecting a so called deeper water specimen is going to be at more risk than a shallow water specimen. The way they are talked about, yo would think they are two different species. For a coral, any coral, to be UV damaged, or hurt by stronger light intensity, it would have to be subjected to such things for quite some time. And if the coral is so damaged by light, how would that allow a variety of microbes to just suddenely imbed themselves deep within the corals tissue. Since a great many corals (on a daily basis) are damaged by too intensive of light within this hobby, how is it that with just a bit of TLC, most all survive and are not coming down with multiple tissue infections/invasions.
You know what, I could go on and on and try to get through to you, and am kicking myself right now for even trying once again.
Okay, light kills elegant corals and you have the cure. Cool.
Chuck
oh, almost forgot..... aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! UNCLE!
*sigh*
Elegance coral - I do not think you have the knowlege to answer Kathywithbird's question. That question, IMO, should be answered by someone that has a background in marine biology and has studied marine organisms. How do you know this microbe that Mr. Borneman has found is common to other damaged corals?
Once again you have stated your OPINION that you think Mr. Borneman's findings are invalid yet you have no research to back up your arguement. What type of degree do you have in marine biology? Micro biology? Have you ever studied micro-organisms? How many examinations have you made of damaged coral tissue?
What makes you think you can disprove a scientist's discoveries without evidence to back it up? Anyone may question it but for you to continually state that 'the evidence simply does not support it' without having any evidence is worthless.
With or without a pedi stool, Mr. Borneman is a scientist that has done proper studies to support his findings. Until he or another scientist completes the elegance studies, we will never know.
If you continue to bash Mr. Borneman's findings, this thread will be closed.
Elegance coral - I do not think you have the knowlege to answer Kathywithbird's question. That question, IMO, should be answered by someone that has a background in marine biology and has studied marine organisms. How do you know this microbe that Mr. Borneman has found is common to other damaged corals?
elegance coral said:
Once again you have stated your OPINION that you think Mr. Borneman's findings are invalid yet you have no research to back up your arguement. What type of degree do you have in marine biology? Micro biology? Have you ever studied micro-organisms? How many examinations have you made of damaged coral tissue?
What makes you think you can disprove a scientist's discoveries without evidence to back it up? Anyone may question it but for you to continually state that 'the evidence simply does not support it' without having any evidence is worthless.
With or without a pedi stool, Mr. Borneman is a scientist that has done proper studies to support his findings. Until he or another scientist completes the elegance studies, we will never know.
If you continue to bash Mr. Borneman's findings, this thread will be closed.
What I find real questionable about this lighting theory is if the issue is intensity why are we not getting the same symptoms from other corals taken from the same depth such as Trachyphyllias, Cynarinas etc ? Why do all others expell their zooxanthellae from the overproduction of oxygen and not the Catalaphyllia ? Why is Lynn's Elegance continuing to decline when it's shaded from direct light ? Why are others not having sucess using your methods of acclimation ?
Last edited:
lcstorc
Well-Known Member
I have one thing left to say on this thread. After this any posts about my elegance can be found on my 125g reef thread linked in my sig.
THIS IS NOT WHAT RS IS ABOUT!!!!
We are hobbiests and experts sharing our experiences both good and bad. No flaming allowed and everybody plays nice together.
We really need to remember why this forum was created and stay true to what it was designed for.
THIS IS NOT WHAT RS IS ABOUT!!!!
We are hobbiests and experts sharing our experiences both good and bad. No flaming allowed and everybody plays nice together.
We really need to remember why this forum was created and stay true to what it was designed for.
prow
Well-Known Member
that could be dangerous, sometimes my fingers have minds of their own.:bouncebox
hummm, how did i know this thread was going this way, lol.
elegancecoral, may i make a suggestion? your work on the elegance coral is a good thing. at this point it might be best to go ahead with your work. there is no point in defending your position and thoughts until you complete it. you have a theory, cool. now is the time to develop your hypothesis.
to use the scientific method you need to state your hypothesis in a testable way and include both independent and dependent variables. also; background research, materials, experimental procedures, data analysis and a discussions on it, lastly your conclusions.
your findings and statements are showing a correlation between the corals and amount of light. there are too many intervening variables that can possibly be the direct cause-and-effect on the coral, other than lighting, to use the scientific method here. i suggest you alter your approach or develop your hypothesis.
eric, i looked back through some of the work you did and found the answer to the fungal question. well since these rods have also been found in wild corals that rules out the alk thing, aswell as lighting, the fungal and the bacteria found as possible portals of entry seems worth investigating. have you been able to r/o a bacterial or viral infection preceding the fungal?
kathywithbirds
Well-Known Member
Yes, everyone needs to be nice. This is all about education on our favorite subject.
Doni, um, I have to say, I don't really read that Elegance is bashing Eric Borneman. Misinterpreting, disputing, or just plain wrong, maybe, I'm certainly not in a position to say about the correctness of what everybody's saying. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with what is being discussed to recognize what you're calling bashing? Not championing or taking sides or anything, just calling what I see.
lcstorc
Well-Known Member
Oh he is definitely trashing both Eirc and his sudies.
But regardless we all need to remember this is the sanctuary,
Maybe Elegance is going to MACNA. I am almost positive Eric is on the list. That could be an interresting debate.
BTW went realy drastic with my elegance. Time will tell if it was the right or wrond decision but other corals were being effected in spite of tons of carbon so something drastic has to be done. I'll update my thread tomorrow with pics after it hopefully looks a bit better.
But regardless we all need to remember this is the sanctuary,
Maybe Elegance is going to MACNA. I am almost positive Eric is on the list. That could be an interresting debate.
BTW went realy drastic with my elegance. Time will tell if it was the right or wrond decision but other corals were being effected in spite of tons of carbon so something drastic has to be done. I'll update my thread tomorrow with pics after it hopefully looks a bit better.
kathywithbirds
Well-Known Member
Now that would be something. I have to watch my pennies but I'd spring to go just to see them discuss this.
kathywithbirds
Well-Known Member
prow
Well-Known Member
eeeewwww
Unfortunately, the hotel that is next to the Expomar, where MACNA is being held, is booked. I am on the waiting list for a cancellation. Apparently, there is a Holiday Inn about 1-1/2 miles away that is taking reservations and there is a complimentary shuttle to and from the meeting.
I have spent far more money than I can afford, and way to much of my time on this project to argue with people about what I have learned, like in the thread you talked about. I believe I can help people keep these corals alive. There are those that are interested in how I keep my corals alive. There is a thread on "Thereeftank" where I am talking about this and it is going very well so far. I will not be going back to "Reefsanctuary". I went back and deleted a great deal of what I posted on that sight.
Hobby Experience: 20 years, reef tanks
Current Tanks: 29 gallon disply,55 gallon sump/refug, 5 gallon kalk doser, 3'x6" skimmer, 250w MH, one 40 W 50/50, two 40W o3, two 20W o3. sump lights= one 70W. 4000K MH and two 65W 10,000K compacts.
Interests: Coral research and breading.
hmm
Hobby Experience: 20 years, reef tanks
Current Tanks: 29 gallon disply,55 gallon sump/refug, 5 gallon kalk doser, 3'x6" skimmer, 250w MH, one 40 W 50/50, two 40W o3, two 20W o3. sump lights= one 70W. 4000K MH and two 65W 10,000K compacts.
Interests: Coral research and breading.
hmm
- Status