Frag size does matter

NautilusQ

New member
We all have acquired different sized frags, and as we have observed time and again, survivability of small frags has been challenged. Whenever our newly acquired or propagated frag didn't survive, we'll ask, is it our water quality, tank stability, good husbandry or it all starts in the size of the frag in the first place. Let's take a look at the science of "Smarter frags"

http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/cont...-smarter-frags

For vendors and occasional enterpreneurs ( Including myself in the future, maybe...), lets reflect, set aside the "Corporate America" mentality (i.e. profit) and uphold the Ethical coral propagation. I say ethical for we should think about the survivability of these animals, thereby saving corals in the wild, and understand that it invoves the hard earned money of our fellow reefer.
__________________
This is just based on what I've read.
 
in my opinion, the study's sample size is way too small. laughably so, in fact. there is not nearly enough data behind this paper.
 
I'm curious to know what they did to get a 13% survivability rate on the small frags the first time around.


Well, here is the result of +/- 4 years of observation in my home tank (300 gallon w/100 gallon frag tank)

Acroporas:

1.25 inches will give good growth (encrusting and vertical growth)

Smaller leads to more encrusting behaviour and almost no vertical growth until fully encrusted.

At around 2.5 to 3 inches, the encrusting growth is minimal. Nearly all new growth is vertical.

Montiporas (branching):

Digitatas are nearly the same as Acros.
M. capitata (not capricornis!!!) - frags need to be closer to 2 inches before the grow vertically. Otherwise, grows into a nice thick plate and then the plate edges turn up and begin to branch.

Montiporas (plating):
Frags less than 2 inches grow very slow.

Seriatopora (birdsnests):One inch or larger with at least two tips seems to be the best. Larger than about 1.5 inches and the bases won't encrust

Pocillipora
One inch or slightly larger and they will encrust and grow vertically. At about 2 inches, they barely encrust

Chalice
1.25 inches with 3-4 eyes seems to be the best. At this size, they start growth almost immediately after fragging.

Chips and pygmy frags take forever to start new growth.
 
The researcher should have determined sample size prior to the experiment through a software program and if so that would not be an issue.
 
The researcher should have determined sample size prior to the experiment through a software program and if so that would not be an issue.

Not sure what youre getting at, because he obviously did no such thing. The only sample size he revealed was 15 frags. I'm sure if the other experiments were larger he would have said so.

His experiments are supposed to be enlightening to hobbyists and businesses, but he bases his findings on how much cutting many aquarists do in an average weekend. Many retailers (especially the "chop shops") do as much cutting as the authors did every 20 minutes. How he possibly hopes to bring new info to the hobby by analyzing such a basic experiment that so many people conduct on their own on a daily basis is beyond me.

For example, look at the info jhduyvetter posted. It's much more in depth and based on a much larger sample size than this guy's work.
 
Here's the problem I see with the study: exactly how much experience does the author and his team have with cutting, gluing, and making sure frags are healthy afterwards? Because even just how much glue you use makes a huge difference, and that's not counting flow, light, filtration, water quality, how they're cut, etc...

Those numbers are unrealistic at best. I've cut and glued over a hundred thousand frags of just about everything, and generally speaking no matter the size my death rate was maybe 1-3%. That's counting the 1/4" Acro nubs that broke off during fragging that I couldn't bear to throw out.

imo the author and his group were unqualified and unprepared to properly conduct that study. You don't see heart surgeons giving lectures on dentistry.
 
That's counting the 1/4" Acro nubs that broke off during fragging that I couldn't bear to throw out.

had to laugh at this one! I usually have one or two nubs. But, I bought a GARF Bonsai at a frag swap this weekend. It looked like a nub that was put on a 2-inch tile. completely encrusted, but almost no vertical growth. It was starting to put out 25-30 1/8 to 1/4" tips. I bought it and put it on my rack with my unsold frags to take back home. In the 2-hour ride home, it flipped and 15-20 of the tips broke off. All are 1-3 coralites. As of this morning, all are still alive. (not bragging, just very surprised....and happy)


If I'm lucky, in 6 months to a year, they'll be selling size.
 
Not sure what youre getting at, because he obviously did no such thing. The only sample size he revealed was 15 frags. I'm sure if the other experiments were larger he would have said so.

His experiments are supposed to be enlightening to hobbyists and businesses, but he bases his findings on how much cutting many aquarists do in an average weekend. Many retailers (especially the "chop shops") do as much cutting as the authors did every 20 minutes. How he possibly hopes to bring new info to the hobby by analyzing such a basic experiment that so many people conduct on their own on a daily basis is beyond me.

For example, look at the info jhduyvetter posted. It's much more in depth and based on a much larger sample size than this guy's work.

All I was stating was his sample size does not have to be an issue if that sample size represents the population. Of course a larger sample size deals with errors better than a smaller one and as Organism discussed I would be more interested in his experience and if he was the cause of the high mortality rate instead of the actual cutting of the coral. I think anyone who has made frags should get mortality rates under 5% with some practice and maybe down to 1% at a wholesale/retail level.

I have worked on projects where the sample size was 6 and it was a valid study.

So the question is why did he use a sample size of 15 and not 500?

I would say it was the species used: the seriously endangered Caribbean Staghorn Coral (Acropora cervicornis).

If you look at this section:
were obtained from donor corals and glued to substrate rocks out of the water. After 20 days only 13 percent of the smaller fragments were still alive, while the figure was 87 percent for the larger specimens. In a subsequent experiment, fragments of both sizes were glued in place immediately underwater. In this case, 92 percent of the shorter and 100 percent of the longer cuttings survived.


It seems that how the frags are glued in vs. out of water is more important than the fragment size. Maybe this species is more sensitive to air exposure or handling compare to jhduyvetter's bonsai (which is cool).
 
oh i see what you meant. what i meant is that no matter what species, 15 frags just cannot possibly be a representative sample. even if all frags are identical, statistical variation alone is enough to make a cohort that small worthless.

do you guys think his in-air frags got slaughtered by the heat of the drying superglue/epoxy? I cant think of any other way he could have such a tremendously terrible survival outcome. because we all know that air alone does not kill... right?

on a side note.. you said you did a sample size of 6 in valid study? that must have been with subjects that behave much more consistently than corals, which are just about the finickiest organism i can think of. Also im guessing your study had a range of outcomes, more than just dead or alive. because the average of 6 numbers in a consistently behaving subject is certainly much more useful than the aggregate of 6 yes/no results. am i correct here? im curious.

i think we can all agree to not take this article at face value. :beer:

thats all i want to make sure people realize.
 
In the 2-hour ride home, it flipped and 15-20 of the tips broke off. All are 1-3 coralites. As of this morning, all are still alive. (not bragging, just very surprised....and happy)

If I'm lucky, in 6 months to a year, they'll be selling size.

LOL, and now I have to clean soda off my computer screen... According to the pros yours should all be dead :)

It seems that how the frags are glued in vs. out of water is more important than the fragment size. Maybe this species is more sensitive to air exposure or handling compare to jhduyvetter's bonsai (which is cool).

I think it's more about how they handled them when they were out of the water vs in the water Just from how much and what kind of glue you use your death rate could vary by a ton... imo these guys just didn't have the experience, they did succeed in killing some frags of an endangered species though.

Fancy bar graphs are good, but when you're ignoring every variable that affects frags other than size you're throwing science out the window. It reminds me of a story I heard from my statistics professor a decade ago: there's a direct link between hole-in-ones on golf courses and drownings, and it sure looks good on paper as long as you ignore that they all happen on sunny days when more people are outside.
 
Well, I did a count last night. I had 20 tips break off. One has died and another looks really bad. Polyps are out on the other 18. So, at 4 days, I have a 90% survival rate (assuming the other one doesn't make it).

And these rolled around in a bucket! Sat in a coffee cup full of water for about 45 minutes when I got home. I'd pull out 3-4 at a time, set them on the edge of the tank, glue them to a plug and then put them in the tank.
 
Another thing to consider is that A cervicornis is not a very hardy coral to begin with. Simply handling it may seal its doom. There's a reason they're endangered.
 
The handling is the key here. The small frag will be handled over a larger % of its surface than a larger frag.
 
What I got out of the study was larger frags do better, heal faster than 1" frags. If you are going to do 1" frags keep them under the water when you frag.
 
I think it's more about how they handled them when they were out of the water vs in the water Just from how much and what kind of glue you use your death rate could vary by a ton... imo these guys just didn't have the experience, they did succeed in killing some frags of an endangered species though.

Fancy bar graphs are good, but when you're ignoring every variable that affects frags other than size you're throwing science out the window. It reminds me of a story I heard from my statistics professor a decade ago: there's a direct link between hole-in-ones on golf courses and drownings, and it sure looks good on paper as long as you ignore that they all happen on sunny days when more people are outside.

I may not have a few 100,000 frags under my belt, but I've been to this rodeo plenty of times in the last decade with several hundred frags purchased and many fragging events to these purchased corals after colonization.

Moral of the story for me is the author obviously must have clonwfish survival rates mixed up with frag survival rates. 13% is more like clownfish survival IME.
Why can't majano or aiptasia have a 13% survival rate after fragging?:celeb1:

Seriously, there are some tricks of the trade and tank conditions that must be met when considering fragging.

1) Have you ever ended up with your fingers glued together from CA? If so you would quickly realize that the CA heats up.... Bingo, a quick dunk in the tank or a syringe squirt of water cools the CA and reduces this heat. The frag out of water doesn't kill, the heat from the CA does. Try it with one of your more sensitive species and I guarantee the 'uncooled' frag will likely RTN. I can vouch for this, as ALL my frags sit on the tank rim for at least a couple minutes for the glue to setup. Then they are placed in the frag racks. Never have lost a frag since adopting this cooling method from a buddy of mine that runs a shop in northern CA.

2) Sharp bone shears are your friend. the cleaner the cut with the more precision has helped in reducing recovery time. I can only say that after I quit using SS wire cutters from Bass Pro Shops and started using surgical bone shears. As a result, my frags started healing MUCH quicker. Just my observation with particularly no scientific proof except my own eyes.

3) I can cut a 1/16" nub with corallite from a M. Digitata and will guarantee full recovery, whereas I have had a 80% STN/RTN rate with wild colonies that are baseball size+. So obviously 1/16" nubs are the best bet for all corals... If you didn't catch my cynical nature, this is exactly on par with organism's stats prof's comment. When presenting statistics, you can sway the numbers in your favor just by omitting key points of concern like how was the wild colony handled, time of year and how was it transitioned in the many systems it likely 'visited' to my posession. I can tell you the nub saw 2 minutes outside my tank and voila...back in it's happy environment only a little shorter.

If you want to be successful at fragging choose healthy specimens to start plucking branches from, use a good quality CA with a quick ooling splash/squirt, and provide the optimal flow, light & chemical balance to achieve maximum potential. I have lost my fair share of purchased frags, but had no control over these until I received them. On the other hand, I have never lost a frag from a cutting incident. I may have lost some due to light shock during a bulb change and premature acclimation, which is purely aquarist error.

It's amazing what can be published these days as scientific fact. If I turned in that kind of work for an experiment/study in college, I would have surely received a lovely 'D' for dumbXXX.
 
The one very important thing to consider about the article is that 100% of the frags are from wild colonies fragged in the ocean and brought to an enclosed system to grow out to then be returned to ocean. We all know the survival rate of wild corals but add to that, the species they are fragging is already in danger of dying off in the wild which is why they are farming them to begin with. Caribbean Acropora has very little diversity in their DNA because of the small numbers of the species to sexually reproduce with compared to Acropora in the South Pacific. I'm sure if this experiment was conducted in the South Pacific the survival rates would be much higher.
 
I get a 95% survival rate with these frags which were 1/4 at the time they were cut.

2011-10-20_22-24-12_790.jpg
 
Just curious, but why would you intentionally cut frags that small?

I don't usually cut them that small, those are from corals that refuse to grow and the frags are taken to stimulate growth, however all the cuttings survive almost every time I do it. The only reason I see not to frag that small is that they take forever to grow into small colonies.
 
Back
Top