pledosophy
Active member
Many species of seahorses live on the reefs.
They would be a reef species then no?
Common Misconceptions In the Hobby
- Thread starter Peter Eichler
- Start date
Many species of seahorses live on the reefs.
They would be a reef species then no?pledosophy
Active member
Time for my own "misconceptions"
Number 30 ish or so
Margarita snails are good for clean up crew.
Actually they are a temperate animla that slowly cooks in our systems. They are harvested from tropical regions, however the are found at lower dpeths most often and can live for over a hundred years in a cooler climate. IMO they have no buisness in a reef system. JMO
Number 30 ish or so
Margarita snails are good for clean up crew.
Actually they are a temperate animla that slowly cooks in our systems. They are harvested from tropical regions, however the are found at lower dpeths most often and can live for over a hundred years in a cooler climate. IMO they have no buisness in a reef system. JMO
pledosophy
Active member
31 or so
Base rock will become liverock in a few months
I say myth busted.
The anaerobic bacteria that is housed within tradition live rock will take years and even decades to grow in base rock. The anaerobes don't like oxygen and are not often found floating in the water column so they have no way of entering the rock which is quickly covered by the aerobic bacteria. I never believed this myself, even after I read the study, until i cracked open a piece of base rock that was in my tank for a bit over 5 years to find it void of anearobic bacteria as compared to a piece of rock that was imported with a coral attached which had a large population of the bacteria.
JME
Base rock will become liverock in a few months
I say myth busted.
The anaerobic bacteria that is housed within tradition live rock will take years and even decades to grow in base rock. The anaerobes don't like oxygen and are not often found floating in the water column so they have no way of entering the rock which is quickly covered by the aerobic bacteria. I never believed this myself, even after I read the study, until i cracked open a piece of base rock that was in my tank for a bit over 5 years to find it void of anearobic bacteria as compared to a piece of rock that was imported with a coral attached which had a large population of the bacteria.
JME
pledosophy
Active member
Taxifolia is a great species of macro to be used by aquaqrists for nutrient export
The species is so invasive it has been banned in many states and many countries since it has been shown to grow so fast it completely decimates ecosystems. Large harbors have ahd to be closed for clean up due to someone's improper disposal of the "algae".
IT can live in fresh water, it can be completely dried, a mm can grow to 3" in a day in the ocean. It is best left alone.
The species is so invasive it has been banned in many states and many countries since it has been shown to grow so fast it completely decimates ecosystems. Large harbors have ahd to be closed for clean up due to someone's improper disposal of the "algae".
IT can live in fresh water, it can be completely dried, a mm can grow to 3" in a day in the ocean. It is best left alone.
Peter Eichler
New member
This reminds me of a myth that I was going to post when I started this thread, but I decided not to post it due to a small sample to draw info from.
It would have looked something like this...
There is a core in live rock that contains large amounts of anaerobic bacteria.
While it's quite probable there are small zones within live rock that are capable of removing nitrates I have never seen a live rock that once cut open or broken has such a core. No signs of a large presence of denitrifying bacteria what so ever. On the flipside I've broken off small pieces of rock closer to the outside surface to find indicators of the presence of denitrification taking place.
MiddletonMark
Premium Member
:thumbsup: Certainly a lot of discussion ontthe subject, great link!
Great points, Scott.
I'm not putting myself as among the experts like Randy + others ... just am suggesting that topics like this that are highly debateable perhaps should not be casually dismissed as a `common misperception'.
IMO, if the jury is still out, as it is with aminos as I've seen ---- then we perhaps should not list it as an easily dismissed misconception.
JMO, but compared to something like the use of Caluerpa taxifolia [which has some serious known issues, and can easily be substituted by another less problematic species for algae-based-export] ... I would not call this as a similar misconception, as it is [IMO] in no ways as clear cut and decided.
Anyway, I'll shut up now
MiddletonMark
Premium Member
I think some seahorses have different requirements than other seahorses.
I'm sure you're right that quite a few originate in cooler than reef waters - but I also know I've seen seahorses diving on reefs in Bonaire .... in lovely 82 degree water.
I think that seahorses might be too variable in their natural location to make a sweeping temperature generalization, as the variance between species is significant.
Aquarist007
New member
That's what I thought---- after 18 hrs on the computer--I should have known when to call it a day.
bottom line--the moderators on this site rock.:smokin:
Another myth or controversy at least
pH
Mainstream thinking is that the level of carbon dioxide in the water causes the fluctuations in pH--that's kind of a given.
The controversy or delima is how much the lowering or raising of it makes a difference to the inhabitants in the reef tank.
There have been so many posts lately--mine included
where we start to worry when the pH gets under 7.8 (nocturnally) and whether we should make adjustments according to other parameters in the tank aka alkalinity. Some feel just to leave it alone and let it rise and fall with the carbon dioxide levels in the house etc. others feel you have to act on it and use everything from kalk drips to what ever to get it up to 8.2so what are the real facts here?
thejrc
New member
well I'd say we look at the effects of Alk, magnesium, and carbon dioxide on PH as a whole
Like any other balancing act where multiple "puzzle peices" fit together to create the big picture it's easy for everyone to have their own experience in what worked and didnt when controlling PH. With so many factors involved even something as simple as top off water can all of a sudden change things if the amount is considerable.
We know the goal is to avoid large swings in PH while small swings vs. stable is yet to be proven either way. we know there's a target range and consistent elevation or drop beyond that range for long periods of time seems to be detrimental but even this could use some more study.
So why not stop and restart at the beginning? We know what seawater averages, and we know many of the fluctuations at many reef areas. if we use these levels as our constraints and figure out exactly how all of the aspects involved affect PH as a whole (light, co2, alk, etc) we might be better off in making real recommendations on how to keep it in check? and what levels are really our target.
The most interesting one I find funny is that most people assume PH levels, temp, etc. and make recommendations of such without even so much as asking what kind of environment is in the tank. Not all of our corals come from the same waters, and the introduction of aquacultured corals brings a whole new angle to the base of what we can get away with as some have simply adapted.
A lot of study still in order I suppose!
Like any other balancing act where multiple "puzzle peices" fit together to create the big picture it's easy for everyone to have their own experience in what worked and didnt when controlling PH. With so many factors involved even something as simple as top off water can all of a sudden change things if the amount is considerable.
We know the goal is to avoid large swings in PH while small swings vs. stable is yet to be proven either way. we know there's a target range and consistent elevation or drop beyond that range for long periods of time seems to be detrimental but even this could use some more study.
So why not stop and restart at the beginning? We know what seawater averages, and we know many of the fluctuations at many reef areas. if we use these levels as our constraints and figure out exactly how all of the aspects involved affect PH as a whole (light, co2, alk, etc) we might be better off in making real recommendations on how to keep it in check? and what levels are really our target.
The most interesting one I find funny is that most people assume PH levels, temp, etc. and make recommendations of such without even so much as asking what kind of environment is in the tank. Not all of our corals come from the same waters, and the introduction of aquacultured corals brings a whole new angle to the base of what we can get away with as some have simply adapted.
A lot of study still in order I suppose!
Aquarist007
New member
good point--lets start at the beginning----direct observation
There must be some common signs to look for with pH levels that are outside the "established normal range" so one can judge if chemcial action should be taken.
eg in my case I have a real delima right now--the nocturnal shift in pH went as low as 7.7 last night and presently 7.84 with alk remaining constant at 10.6.
I am familar with the ways to rise this without alk rising or raising both etc etc.
but...........
I don't know if I should be doing anything about it because over the last month with this occuring at a regular basis my tank water has never looked better and my corals have come alive more than ever?
Aquarist007
New member
that's because you are pronouncing it wrong :rollface:
:lol:
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630427#post10630427 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Anyway, I'll shut up now
Please promise the half baked half experienced that you will never to that ---then the learning will stop for sure:eek1:
Aquarist007
New member
do you think I might have coined a comparison of experienced here--or is it misconception?
fresh waiting to rise--- aka newbie
half baked-----experienced enough to foster lots of misconceptions.
"risen" to idolship aka moderator or 10,000 or more posts
fresh waiting to rise--- aka newbie
half baked-----experienced enough to foster lots of misconceptions.
"risen" to idolship aka moderator or 10,000 or more posts
virginiadiver69
New member
I have heard to many times that a Diamond Goby "will decimate your sand bed of all life". I have observed mine keep the top 1/2" cleaned and turned over but unless he gets into the bed any further than that I do not see how this is possible.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Regardless of how they've been used in the hobby, mariculture and aquaculture aren't different methods. That was the point of stating the misconception.
I was never arguing that the flow rate for killing bacteria will kill copepods. Keep in mind, those flow rates on the box are for complete kills, not sterilization. Even at higher flow rates, you get sublethal damage to DNA of anything that passes through. If you're only using the refugium as a direct source of food that's fine. Even dead "pods" still make good fish food. Most people's refugiums are pretty small though and it's not likely that they're producing enough pods to be a significant food source for the main tank. Mostly they're a source to constantly reinvigorate the population in the main tank. That doesn't work very well though if your brood stock or the egg carrying females are being sterilized before they make it to the tank.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the advice? Proponents of deep sand beds who advise against keeping sand bed infaunal predators, such as sand-sifting fish and sand-shifting sea stars, do so because the removal of the infauna in the top layer of the sand bed has a domino effect on the entire infaunal chain from top to bottom by upsetting the natural order of things. Predation by such animals can be tolerated in really large sand beds (>500-gal tanks) but not in average size sand beds.
If your goal is to maintain a self-sufficient, deep sand bed (>4" depth) with a diverse population of infauna, it is best to avoid animals that eat this infauna. If you have other goals, then none of this applies to you.
My main point was that, just like what is being disputed, a good bit of what is written in this thread is also opinion. I agree that most of the "myths" being discounted are incorrect but some not so much and that's also just my opinion.
So in short IMO it would be good for anyone that's reading this that doesn't have a good understanding of what is being discussed to take a good bit of this with a grain of salt.
As far as references I don't have the time or energy to pick out every little part I disagree with, make a counter point and come up with a reference.....nor do I want to
I haven't seen anything you have written backed up with references Peter and I don't particularly expect to.
The only people I see backing up statements with relevant references regularly on this site are Greenbean and MCaxmaster and both of those guys are working on graduate degrees in the field and have ready access to them.
If you wanted to discuss domestic animal medicine maybe I could come up with something
FWIW IMO most science related to reefkeeping (not reefs in the wild) is what I call "hobbyist science" anyway and is typically fueled by a product/sponsor or the need to support a theory that someone's "expert" reputation relies upon with facts disputing that being ignored or somehow altered.
A couple of ways I think this thread could become more useful are:
1) To consolidate the list to make it easier for new reefers to make sense of what is being discussed....adding a disclaimer about opinions of course.
2) I also would like to see pictures posted of people's tanks that are major advice givers in this thread. A picture is worth a thousand words and IMO as far as credibility in reefkeeping the best way to prove you have something valid to say. Pictures are lot easier to come up with and a lot more fun to look at anyway. I personally have to read to many papers and getting on RC is a way for me to get away from all that
Here is mine before I lost all my Acros in a mishap earlier this summer:
JMO, Chris
Last edited:
virginiadiver69
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10632302#post10632302 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
the removal of the infauna in the top layer of the sand bed has a domino effect on the entire infaunal chain from top to bottom by upsetting the natural order of things.
I guess I don't agree. For almost a year I have watched my Goby sift the VERY TOP layer only and have also watched many pods, worms, nameless critters and "bugs" flourish in the lower layers of my sand bed.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10632302#post10632302 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
If your goal is to maintain a self-sufficient, deep sand bed (>4" depth) with a diverse population of infauna, it is best to avoid animals that eat this infauna. If you have other goals, then none of this applies to you.
That is my goal. I only have my personal observations but I believe this is a huge misconception. Now if we are talking about animals that harvest from deeper in the sand bed, i.e. sea stars than I would agree. But not something that will stay within the top 1/2" max.
Most of the beneficial critters are not visible to the naked eye.
The sediment ecosystem is composed of distinct habitats, each with it's own array of organisms. You cannot disturb the infauna in just the top 1/2" without it having an effect on the other parts of the sand bed just as you can't remove certain animals from a nature preserve without it having an effect on the other animals.
Any disruption to the natural balance of infauna in a sand bed is going to lead to undesirable consequences. The various sand bed infauna comprise predator-prey relationships just as wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. When wolves were removed, the coyote populations exploded. Now that wolves have returned to Yellowstone, coyote populations are back to the previous natural levels.
A disturbance to the natural balance of macro- and micro-infaunal populations will have an effect on the natural energy pathways. There is just no way that predation of the uppermost sand bed layer can be viewed as a good thing if one is trying to maintain a viable deep sand bed long-term. This predation can be tolerated provided it is low enough relative to the total size of the sand bed but it's certainly not desirable.
Similar threads
