A definition for " live rock".

[Fish_Sticks]

This thread... Yall making it way too complicated.

Live rock is a friggen rock with typical hitchikers, algea, and bacteria on it - preferably some anaerobic.

I swear... yall think too hard about the weirdest stuff.

 

[Fish_Sticks]

And PS... You cant buy real reef rock anymore for good reason - it was destroying our oceans. Just wait till they ban wild harvesting of corals, it's not even 10 years away.

 

[muggle reefer]

I just can:t see how we can take enough out of the ocean for hobby use to do any harm. All the other things like rising ocean temperatures, oil spills, plastics do far more harm on a daily basis than our hobby will ever do. On the other hand every person that sees one of our tanks is an educational opportunity to explain how important clean oceans are. I am not saying it is okay to break off a piece of liver coral just to throw in your tank in every case, however there should be no issue to harvesting dead corals for reef tanks. Unfortunately there are far too many bleached and dead reefs in this world. I think it better to get our live corals from what we can produce commercially now. but getting rock out of the ocean for our tanks should not be an issue.

 

[HuduVudu]

And PS... You cant buy real reef rock anymore for good reason - it was destroying our oceans. Just wait till they ban wild harvesting of corals, it's not even 10 years away.

The thing you don't get is where the stuff from our hobby comes from. You have clearly never been to one of these countries. If you think that you can't get "reef rock" because some sort of love of the environment then you are naive and foolish. It is, and will always be, about money. For the places that we get our products they are always looking for more money and they only balance between what is the most lucrative source. For those places the balance is between tourism and collection.

As for coral collection my guess is that almost all of the coral will be captive raised in 10 years and that has nothing to do with environmentalism, and everything to do with market. Wild caught corals are usually mundane and boring, so buying one is luck of the draw. Not to mention acclimation. Why take the risk when captive is better cheaper and prettier, and you know what you are getting.

It is never about the environment it is always about money, and IMO free markets work best for this.

 

[Fish_Sticks]

The thing you don't get is where the stuff from our hobby comes from. You have clearly never been to one of these countries. If you think that you can't get "reef rock" because some sort of love of the environment then you are naive and foolish. It is, and will always be, about money. For the places that we get our products they are always looking for more money and they only balance between what is the most lucrative source. For those places the balance is between tourism and collection.

As for coral collection my guess is that almost all of the coral will be captive raised in 10 years and that has nothing to do with environmentalism, and everything to do with market. Wild caught corals are usually mundane and boring, so buying one is luck of the draw. Not to mention acclimation. Why take the risk when captive is better cheaper and prettier, and you know what you are getting.

It is never about the environment it is always about money, and IMO free markets work best for this.

Hah, sadly you're pretty spot on with the whole, money always wins, thing. I mean, they're still chopping down around the amazon rainforest, still dumping oil everywhere - why not continue taking corals off the great barrier reef?

I think you see what I'm getting at... a day will come when all of that comes to an end. And yes, they take corals off the GBR. It's pretty hilarious and even more disappointing.

The question becomes... should we as reefkeepers support this behavior? Its criminal in the grand scheme of things. You're exactly right about the captive breed scenario. That will blow wild harvesting.... out of the water

 

[HuduVudu]

Hah, sadly you're pretty spot on with the whole, money always wins, thing. I mean, they're still chopping down around the amazon rainforest, still dumping oil everywhere - why not continue taking corals off the great barrier reef?

I think you see what I'm getting at... a day will come when all of that comes to an end. And yes, they take corals off the GBR. It's pretty hilarious and even more disappointing.

The question becomes... should we as reefkeepers support this behavior? Its criminal in the grand scheme of things. You're exactly right about the captive breed scenario. That will blow wild harvesting.... out of the water

Fun fact this fish is an endangered species:

Nearly-Extinct Red Tailed Shark Isn't Gone Yet - AMAZONAS Magazine

News of a wild Red Tailed Shark generates hope, yet digging deeper reveals possible evidence of troubling anti-aquarium sentiments with implications for every aquarist.

www.reef2rainforest.com

I saw something really hilarious about endangered species. The person said if you want to save an endangered species, figure out how to make it food. It will make a come back immediately.

 

[jda]

Marshall Island rock was banned because the local governments were harvesting it, crushing it and making roadways and cement with it. They would destroy more to make a mile of road than what got used for a few years of export for fish tanks. The reefing hobby got caught in the crosshairs. There is always more to it than the hobby - most of the time it is money (or lack of).

 

[HuduVudu]

The question becomes... should we as reefkeepers support this behavior? Its criminal in the grand scheme of things.

This is always a quandry. Always. The problem from my point of view is property rights. There was an interesting thing that happened in the U.S. Pacific Northwest about tree harvesting. The government owns huge lands in the Pacific Northwest. They often sell logging rights on these lands. Sadly because there is no true ownership the (often large) companies come in and clear cut. They have no care whatsoever about tommorrow. They don't own the land. You could see the huge clear cuts traveling in the area, there was always a small amount of trees along the road to shield the view of the destruction behind it. Sad. The true insanity is that most of the companies that did this went out of business. They didn't even care to sustain their own businesses. There was a company though called Werehauser (sp?) that owned their own land. The knew that if they clear cut their land that it would become worthless, so they were careful not to clear cut and to replant for the future. I believe this is the appropriate way to handle things like reefs. To note there are ways for the government to mimic this function, but you have to always be aware that governments are political beasts and all of their decisions are that political. Not to say private is always good, but I find private solutions to be better in the long run, than government solutions.

 

[jda]

For those who do not think that porosity matters, this is an except from another thread taking about Pukani rock, which is pretty porous. Think of all of the area for bacteria and things to live versus non-porous surface-only areas. Also, do not discount the buffering ability of rock for phosphate, which can be really good for the tank at low levels.

BRS tested the total surface area of some rock types and got about 0.5 m2/g for Pukani. That’s 5,000 cm2 per gram. A hundred pounds of rock has 227 million cm2.

 

[Fish_Sticks]

Fun fact this fish is an endangered species:

Nearly-Extinct Red Tailed Shark Isn't Gone Yet - AMAZONAS Magazine

News of a wild Red Tailed Shark generates hope, yet digging deeper reveals possible evidence of troubling anti-aquarium sentiments with implications for every aquarist.

www.reef2rainforest.com

I saw something really hilarious about endangered species. The person said if you want to save an endangered species, figure out how to make it food. It will make a come back immediately.

Marshall Island rock was banned because the local governments were harvesting it, crushing it and making roadways and cement with it. They would destroy more to make a miles of road than what got used for a few years of export for fish tanks. The reefing hobby got caught in the crosshairs. There is always more to it than the hobby - most of the time it is money (or lack of).

Yea I heard about that. That's nuts... Whatever the use may be, Tonga and Fuji were banned for good reason. The hobby has come so far from the dark age of reefkeeping, that we're better off just leaving the ocean rocks alone.

One day we'll be able to afford the same respect with fish, such as tangs, and angles... I think we're able and ready to pull the plug on coral harvesting. As Hudu pointed out, wild harvested corals are mostly drab anyways.... why not just leave the reefs alone?

Side note: bi-monthly order of carib sea artificial rock just arrived

And to say it isnt porous enough to keep a reef and a bit anaerobic is a fools game. We can pull the plug anytime.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Generally what I have heard for years is highly porous rock is better for filtration than say granite.

That is what I also have heard over the past 3 decades. Shimek called it a dogma in his article " Live rock as a biological filter: Hit to Myth" We did some research about " live rock" , if it really makes that difference worth the efforts and money. Almost 2 decades after Shimek we could not find propper research to back up the superiority of " live rock " as a biofilter. ref: MB Anthias 2018-2019
If it is about diversity, a piece of healthy coral does in fact contain all the diversity needed to keep corals healthy.

If that granite is covered with periphyton, covered with growth, the usable space may be a lot higher compared to porous cured rock. Porosity does not much increase the biological filtration capacity due to the very limited water exchange rate in deep pores. This we know due to available research on GAC.

 

[jda]

That carbisea rock will never be like real ocean live rock unless you get some to seed it. Bacteria alone is not enough to have the kind of diversity that people see and have with real ocean live rock. We are currently in the dark ages of reef tank diversity - never been more sterile. Put that stuff in the ocean for a few years and then maybe we will get something.

I guess that if you never experienced it, then you just don't know. People spend all kinds of money to fight dinos, cyano, get their tanks moving faster along, setting up QT systems for their fish and all of this. I just purchased some real ocean live rock long ago (granted, it was easier then), and I never had any issues with dinos, cyano, ich or other fish parasites - the diversity in the tank makes a meal out of most of this stuff (figuratively for some literally for the ich tomonts).

There are farmed rocks from both the Atlantic and Pacific that would be better investments of money that any bottle of bacteria, dino x, UV sterlizer, QT tank (somewhat... too much to get into here) or other things that people buy to keep on with their thoughts that their sterile tanks will never have pest problems. IMO, live rock is the most cost effective thing that you can do for your tank.

 

[HuduVudu]

Tonga and Fuji were banned for good reason.

You're gonna laugh. They weren't banned ... Walt Smith ticked off the king of Fiji and he got booted. LOL.

The hobby has come so far from the dark age of reefkeeping, that we're better off just leaving the ocean rocks alone.

OMG the dark ages of reef keeping was well before live rock. Pulling giant coral heads out of the water and bleaching them and then putting them in your aquarium, that was the dark ages. Live rock brought the hobby to a new better place. Also just so that you know in Florida (the live rock on my build) they took an entire barge of quarried rock and dumped it in the ocean. That is where all of the live rock that I know of is coming from now. Where there was nothing now there is life.

And to say it isnt porous enough to keep a reef and a bit anaerobic is a fools game. We can pull the plug anytime.

I don't think we can do that we still need the ocean to do it's thing. I think the Florida method is the right way. Otherwise we will create demand pressure and we will go back to the unethical harvests.

That carbisea rock will never be like real ocean live rock unless you get some to seed it. Bacteria alone is not enough to have the kind of diversity that people see and have with real ocean live rock. We are currently in the dark ages of reef tank diversity - never been more sterile. Put that stuff in the ocean for a few years and then maybe we will get something.

This^ OMG this!

 

[EMeyer]

There is no reason to assume live rock or corals have to be harvested unsustainably. These are renewable resources that grow faster than trees, but we manage trees so well that heavily logged lands in the Pacific Northwest are increasing in tree cover over time rather than decreasing. Funny how when a resource is economically valuable, people are incentivized to preserve it.

Not to mention that bans on wild harvest of corals and live rock take income away from developing countries, and are not always decided by the people of those countries.

We should push for sustainable harvest in this, as in all natural resources. Bans are nearly always the wrong way to go except in extreme cases (e.g. whales).

All the aquarium industry bans in the world don't stop people living near the reef from destroying living reefs for coastal development, or prevent them from using pieces of the recently killed reef as fill for construction projects.

All they do, is remove one of the economic incentives to keep it alive.

 

[Fish_Sticks]

That carbisea rock will never be like real ocean live rock unless you get some to seed it. Bacteria alone is not enough to have the kind of diversity that people see and have with real ocean live rock. We are currently in the dark ages of reef tank diversity - never been more sterile. Put that stuff in the ocean for a few years and then maybe we will get something.

Right, it's important to nurture the rock to the microcosm and habitat we desire, as that is part of being a good hobbiest - and I'd venture to argue that simply buying rock from the ocean is the lazy way to run a reef tank, and you wouldnt learn anything by going that route, but you're also appealing to a nature is always best fallacy.

You can grow better rock than what is in some parts of the ocean through hard work and effort.

What's to say that this rock you're buying from 'lifeless zones' isnt just as lifeless as rock from an lfs, or less diverse as the rocks I've been nurturing for the past eight years?

Theres more than one way to get diversity. Assuming nature is always best, or oceanic rock is even necessary to run a wildly successful reef tank is false. Much of what you say is infatuation with a nature is best falacy...

 

[Fish_Sticks]

It's like saying that wild harvested fish are more resilient or better because they are more diverse in gut bacteria, slime coat bacteria, etc, etc... whereas we all know captive breeds are far more resilient in an aquarium environment due to their microevolution and adaptation to living in an aquarium environment.

Who's to say that the bacteria we have in our aquariums are'nt outperforming wild ocean bacteria, simply because they have adapted and evolved in an aquarium environment.

See where I am going?

 

[SMSREEF]

See where I am going?

No

many bacteria that outperform their communinity acquired relatives cause worsened disease.

just look at community acquired pneumonia or community acquired staph. Then compare to the hospital acquired bacteria.

 

[jda]

I cannot tell if these posts are a joke or not. ...the opinions in them and the false equivalencies are, but I cannot tell if this is the intent.

 

[fish farmer]

That is what I also have heard over the past 3 decades. Shimek called it a dogma in his article " Live rock as a biological filter: Hit to Myth" We did some research about " live rock" , if it really makes that difference worth the efforts and money. Almost 2 decades after Shimek we could not find propper research to back up the superiority of " live rock " as a biofilter. ref: MB Anthias 2018-2019
If it is about diversity, a piece of healthy coral does in fact contain all the diversity needed to keep corals healthy.

If that granite is covered with periphyton, covered with growth, the usable space may be a lot higher compared to porous cured rock. Porosity does not much increase the biological filtration capacity due to the very limited water exchange rate in deep pores. This we know due to available research on GAC.

Here is a quote from the Shimek article that you linked.

Good Rock:

"One of the characteristics one should look for in live rock that would contribute to its biological filtration capacity in a tank would be a good and diverse growth of animals on its surface. If these are present, it is likely that the necessary smaller animals that live in the rock are present. Rock that is naturally porous and relatively light weight for its size would likely have more highly perforated internal regions and would function better in this regard. Aquacultured rock with a good growth of animals on its surface should be as good as natural rock when it comes to biological filtration. A good growth of animals on the surface implies a good recruitment of smaller burrowing forms in the rock.

It is possible that some of the so-called live rock available for the aquarium hobby can provide significant biological filtration; however, that rock has to be carefully chosen for its array of animal life present. Rock without animals in it will not be effective at being a filtration medium as there is no way for the interior porosity and presumptive bacterial beds to be functional without a way of moving water through the rock, and the only way that movement may be accomplished is by animal action."

Both paragraphs mention porosity and the need for life to make it happen, much like in a deep sand bed. Very interesting read.

 

[Fish_Sticks]

No jokes. Theres value in what I've written - whether its true, or you agree to it or not. Way more value than a baseless appeal to nature.