Aragite - An alternative to Live Rock?

[reefjitsu]

Phil, Have you actually read those references you listed or did you just provide the refereces cited in Dr Shimek's articles? Just because someone cites something as a reference in an article they wrote, does not mean that the reference material backs up what they are saying.

Having said all that, I am well familiar with some of Dr. Shimek's articles. However, there is nothing empirical to back your beliefs anywhere in those articles. I am guessing that the majority of your information came from this article: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...ture/index.php
You will note that he nowhere presents any evidence to back up what you think he said. He is instead hypothesizing about LR and what makes it a good filter and what could be wrong. At the end of the article he states the he and Borneman will be collecting data to confirm or deny this hypothesis. I am not aware of the results of the proposed study being published anywhere. If you have a link to them I would be most interested in reading them.

It seems to me at this point, you have read a hypothesis and took it for a statement of fact.

[PhilOlsen]

Yes, I have read each one of them, there is also some good info from these studies which Dr Shimek does not list as references but have some good info. I do wish though there were some studies done with todays technology which may provide completely different data.

Fauchald, K. 1977. The polychaete worms; definitions and keys to the orders, families, and genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles, CA.


Fauchald, K. and P. Jumars. 1979. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review.

[Witfull]

by J. Charles Delbeek B.Sc., B.Ed., M.Sc.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~delbeek/homerf1.html
I prefer to use "reef rock", that is, rock that has
been collected from outer reef areas. These consist basically of
pieces of coral and coral rock that have been broken off of the reef
during a storm or through natural decay processes, and have fallen to
the bottom, where they are then covered by numerous encrusting
organisms such as sponges and coralline algae. To my mind this type of
rock makes the most beautiful and successful reef tank. It also cycles
very quickly and stabilizes the tank rapidly. Inshore rock tends to be
denser and is usually covered with numerous growths of macroalgae,
clams, mussels, crabs, shrimps and other unwanted organisms; in my
view less desirable.

[sasquatch]

Ok, yup ahh, clear as mud, this apparently is a faith issue, being a pagan, me and the skimmer folk are beating a hasty retreat.Run Awayyyyyyyyyy

[PhilOlsen]

That is a interesting article, I just ordered his book:


The Reef Aquarium: A Comprehensive Guide to the Identification and Care of Tropical Marine Invertebrates (Volume 1)

I hope it will go into more detail, he almost explains "seeding" as what I think of as curing.

[addie]

Wow everyone I didn't know this would set off such an amazing discussion. I am considering buying a small amount because your views are so interesting and you've really got me hooked into this. I would be more than willing to try to send people some if anyone is interested (depending on postage costs) although it may take a little time.

[PhilOlsen]

Originally Posted by addie

Wow everyone I didn't know this would set off such an amazing discussion. I am considering buying a small amount because your views are so interesting and you've really got me hooked into this. I would be more than willing to try to send people some if anyone is interested (depending on postage costs) although it may take a little time.

Funny, I was also thinkimg about picking up a couple small tanks just to experiment as well. Maybe we could start a AP (Addie / Phil) post to compare notes. This is just like any other topick, wether it be sports, cars, politics, medicine etc. there is going to be different trains of thought, I dont think we can answer all the questions but maybe between us we can figure some out.

[addie]

sounds good. I've been considering setting up 2 small tanks both with LR but adding this aragite to only 1. I could use something to get the decomposition process going and after a while remove the LR and see what happens to the nitrate etc. levels. Not exactly rocket science but I think it would do as an experiment.

[Witfull]

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...ture/index.php this is the article you are quoting as to what "TRUE" LR is. you have stated that worms and such only live in the rock and cannot reproduce.

Originally Posted by PhilOlsen

the larval stages of worms and various micro fauna and how they don't reproduce in the home aquarium.

but by reading the article Ron says this

there is likely no fauna available to colonize the live rock and replace them in the destination tank.

therefore, your conclusion is not totally correct. Rons continues to say

Aquacultured rock with a good growth of animals on its surface should be as good as natural rock when it comes to biological filtration.

another topic Ron doesnt even touch on is, Bacterial turgor. lots of floc is shed without one worm.

[Boomer]

Many of you seem to be agreeing and then disagreeing on the same point A reef tank is not a reef tank by far. I think what is going on here is a debate more on the order of grades of LR. Of course base rock can turn into LR but it will not nor will ever be on the order of oceanic base rock any more than you reef tank will end up as like oceanic reef. PhilOlsen is correct on some of his statements but there is more to it than that.

If one did a biodiversity count on the meiofauna of a oceanic LR and base rock, which has been kept in the aquarium for a few years, you will not have the same biodiversity. No, I have never seen such a study. I don't' need to, it follows the same rule as why we can't get many fish and inverts to breed in a reef tank. The question is do you really need all that biodiversity and the answer is no.

One point that is missed here to a degree. The biodiversity counts of LR vs base LR will merge in time to being almost the same. Note I said biodiversity which is not population density. The LR will loose its biodiversity and the base will increase its biodiversity. So, if one wanted to maximize their biodiversity one would need to change their oceanic LR ever so many years. The question is do you need to and the answer is no again. A new system with base LR will never be able to compete with a new system with oceanic LR. Thus, it is best to start a new system with oceanic LR and add base rock to it, which is a choice. If one wants to use only oceanic LR have at it. And another point there is even a big difference in oceanic LR i.e collecting rock at location x, y or z is not the same in biodiversity or population density.


I do not think people understand or know how complicated oceanic LR really is. There is actually a book on the subject. I have a copy

Introduction to the Study of the Meiofauna, Higgins, Robert P. and Hjalmar T.

Capone, D. G., S. E. Dunham, S. G. Horrigan, and L. E. Duguay. 1992. Microbial nitrogen transformation in unconsolidated reef sediments. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 80: 75-88.

Risk, M. J. and Muller, H. R. 1983. Porewater in Coral Heads: Evidence for Nutrient Regeneration. Limnology and Oceanography, 28: 1004-1008.

Kohn, A. J. and M. C. Lloyd. 1973a. Polychaetes of Truncated Reef Limestone Substrates on Eastern Indian Ocean Coral Reefs: Diversity, Abundance, and Taxonomy. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiologie. 58: 369-399.

Kohn, A. J. and M. C. Lloyd. 1973b. Marine Polychaete Annelids of Easter Island. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiologie. 58: 691-712.

Odum H. T. and E. P. Odum. 1955. Trophic Structure and Productivity of a Windward Coral Reef Community on Eniwetok Atoll. Ecological Monographs. 25: 291-320.

Fauchald, K. 1977. The polychaete worms; definitions and keys to the orders, families, and genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles, CA.


Fauchald, K. and P. Jumars. 1979. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review.

What do these studies have to do with comparing oceanic LR to reef tank base live rock ? An all these studies are also old an out dated. Much may have changed since then.

The Reef Aquarium: A Comprehensive Guide to the Identification and Care of Tropical Marine Invertebrates (Volume 1)

I hope it will go into more detail, he almost explains "seeding" as what I think of as curing.

Seeding is taking something like LR and putting it in with dead rock which then becomes LR. Curing is cleaning LR rock of the the dead material or animals that it may have on it so it is less likely to foul the tank. These are the two definitions most go by. But yes, Charles term for seeding, a rather poor choice of words, is the same as your term for curing.

You should get all 3 vols


reefitsu
It seems to me at this point, you have read a hypothesis and took it for a statement of fact

Yes I would have to agree but you "seem" to be disagreeing with Ron's' hypothesis I'll bet anything he is correct.

Witt
Aquacultured rock with a good growth of animals on its surface should be as good as natural rock when it comes to biological filtration

Agree but the debate here seems to be "the same as" vs "as good as" which is not the same thing. But all we are interested in is "as good as". A lower biodiversity can accomplish the same as a higher biodiversity, as long as we are talking within reason.

[Witfull]

Originally Posted by PhilOlsen

I completley agree, but there are alot of people who say seeded, base, DIY etc. is "as good" as real LR, which is the only thing I said was incorrect.

Originally Posted by Ron Shimek

Aquacultured rock with a good growth of animals on its surface should be as good as natural rock when it comes to biological filtration.

Originally Posted by Boomer

Agree but the debate here seems to be "the same as" vs "as good as" which is not the same thing. But all we are interested in is "as good as". A lower biodiversity can accomplish the same as a higher biodiversity, as long as we are talking within reason.

case closed~

[cheeks69]

It's funny, Ron Shimek wrote an article in reefkeeping where he says that liverock is an ineffective bio-filter even the stuff you pay $20 a lb. so which one is it ???...

IMHO I don't see a problem having alot of biodiversity in fact I encourage it as well as many of the so-called experts like Calfo and Borneman and even Shimek...lol

There's more than one "way to skin a cat" that's the great thing about this hobby there's just so many ways to be successful wether you use Base, DYI,Aquacultured or nice porous Indo-Pacific Rock !

[lcstorc]

How much of that biodiversity makes it into the tank even when buying LR?
The only final thing I have to say is my reef is a combination of LR and previously dead rock and you cannot tell the difference visually and the nitrates stay at <5. Really that is what I am looking for regardless of the details you guys want to debate.

[cheeks69]

Originally Posted by lcstorc

How much of that biodiversity makes it into the tank even when buying LR?
The only final thing I have to say is my reef is a combination of LR and previously dead rock and you cannot tell the difference visually and the nitrates stay at <5. Really that is what I am looking for regardless of the details you guys want to debate.

Visually you'll see very little but put it under a microscope and it's a different ball game. IMHO biodiversity provides stability, health and natural foods for your inhabitants.

[Witfull]

bio-diversity Vs. bio-density. now we are getting to the nitty gritty~

yes, diversity means a greater variation of creatures eating by-product of our tanks. some compete, others specialize....now how does this replicate to the "tank" as opposed to the "reef"?