Reefs.org Forums

[jamesw]

Minh et al:

I was referring to the "holdfasts" when I said that I don't believe they play a role in uptake.

Hope that clears that up.

James

[NASAReefKeeper]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mouse:
<strong>I was just thinking that Lava Rock might actually be good for marine tanks after all..... So whats stopping me from using Lava Rock to make live rocks????
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well I am not an expert on this one but I think you need to now just what form the iron is in and how fast usable (metabolizable) iron is produced. Off the top of my head I remember that it was thought that the lava rock was so high in iron that a bloom to end all blooms would be in store for the “Lucky” reefer.

For “Cheap” live rock you could do a couple of things.. I know that there is some DIY rock projects listed out there that use certain kinds of cement that have to be “Cured” and also you could use dead base rock and transform it over time to biologically active live rock. So for a big tank you could use 1/3 initial live rock and 2/3 dead base rock and wait a while to add large bio-loads until the base gets bacterialized.

[liquid]

From what I understand, lava rock can contain many other elements besides iron, many which are NOT good for the reef tank.

Shane (aka "liquid")

[Mouse]

Liquid, NASA, thank you.

I have just recieved a message from two individuals who have stocked their tanks 90% with lava Rock, and no problems yet. I have also heard all of these horror storys about lava rock and the impurities it can have. I just wonder if it isn't the case that LFS owners advise against it purely because they want you to buy LR @ £20 lb instead of the Lava Rock @ £1 lb. Recently i was diving in Hawaii and i couldn't help think that the whole island is made of the stuff, and if it really was that impure or dangerous why is it that Hawaii has one of the most delecate, diverse and unique UW eco-systems in the world. They have 30% of their species indemic, thats comepared to 2% else where. Just something that doesn't add up. [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

[liquid]

Heh, not all lava rock has the same composition... [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] It may work, it may not work. Sounds like a crap shoot to me. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Shane (aka "liquid")

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: LiquidShaneo ]</p>

[Minh Nguyen]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jamesw:
<strong>.......
I believe they do not play a role in nutrient uptake.

.......

Let's face it, the point of the caulerpa is to have a nice pretty refugium and host a lot of bugs. Everyone knows that caulerpa is pretty nasty stuff and makes a crapp filter organism. Turfs will beat it hands down any day and this is shown in "the literature" on coral reef productivity.

Cheers
James</strong><hr></blockquote>
James,
I disagree with you about your thinking on Caulerpa. I pull out about 1 gallon full every 2-3 weeks. There got to be some nutrients in this biomass. While it may be true that the tuffs algae maybe better than Caulerpa in growth and uptake nutrients, tuff needs a special condition that is more difficult to reproduce in most reef tank. I am thinking about the ATS. Caulerpa thrives in my tank without anything other than bright light. I just need to pull them out before the goes sexual. After 1.5 years, I am pretty good as predicting when is the optimal time to pull them out.
I feed my tank a huge amount, and have no problem with my tank. My coral and clams really growth well and my fish are healthy and fat.
I also have some grass in my refugium. I find that these grass grow too slow and cannot compete with the five species of Caulerpa in my refugium. I see no evidence of the toxic effects of Caulerpas on corals. The 60+ species of corals and Clams in my tank do not seem to be inhibited by the huge Caulerpas mass in my sump.

[Snailman]

James: Is that observations in the wild or observations in a closed system? There is most of the time a huge difference in observations. (This is in reference to the coral reef literature comment)

Chris

[MattM]

That's a good one since:

<ul type="square">[*]The first serious articles about DSB were by Rob Toonan, who's in California, not Florida.[*]There's a gap of several years between the ban of Florida LR collection and the popularity of DSB.[*]Who is the theoretical "they"? - I mean, Carib Sea or Southdown benefit the most financially from the popularity of DSB, and neither of them was ever involved in LR collection.
[/list]

Sounds like a good conspiracy theory to me. I'm pretty sure those guys that banned LR collection also shot Kennedy. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

[SPC]

Yea I'm pretty sure they get it from Area 51. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Steve

[Niven]

I had an LFS(one that preaches MM) tell me the reason that DSB became popular was because of regulations in Florida about taking LR. He said they couldn't sell LR anymore, so they had to sell something! They made up these theories about DSB, and there you have it.

I was trying to sell him Xenia, so I bit my cheek [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Thank you Shane and Matt for your insights,
Niven