Live rock vs sand wrt diversity

[skippylou]

My guess is we can all agree that real ocean live rock has heaps more diversity of life than dry rock that has lived in an LFS sump for months or years but why isn't live ocean sand somewhat equivalent in establishing rock.

 

Meaning sure the higher-level life forms will only be on the rock like macro algae, crabs, etc but the sand should have the varying strains of bacteria, worms, pods, etc.

 

So my actual question is why isn't live sand/mud from say IPSF paired with similarly porous rock from an LFS sump not at least somewhat in the ballpark as getting ocean cultured dry rock from TBS or KP for instance?

[seabass]

I agree that live sand from the ocean provides some of the micro biodiversity that live ocean rock does.  I purchased some sand from the Gulf of Mexico for this same reason.  It contained some macroalgae, coralline covered shells, pods, and even a snail.  It wasn't quite as rich in larger inverts that I hoped for, but I can't complain.

 

You're right that rock which is collected from the ocean usually contains even more diversity.  I feel that your desire to increase the diversity of dry rock and packaged sand is justified.  Especially now that we tend to dip new frags (which reduces pests, but eliminates another source of diversity that we used to enjoy).

 

However, keep in mind that it's still possible to introduce pests and parasites when we are trying to increase diversity.  There is probably an advantage to quarantine these new additions before introducing them to a stocked display tank.

[skippylou]

Just to clarify what I was trying getting at in my question, let's leave pests, higher level diversity (macroalgae, crabs, etc.) and complete dry rock starts out of the context for now.

 

So to put another way the options are:

 

A - use real ocean live rock, which is hard or near impossible nowadays for most folks to get I imagine.

B - use ocean cultured dry rock (KP/TBS/etc.)

C - use LFS (or similar) soaked dry rock with something like wonder mud and live sand activator from IPSF

 

So framing with the above, A is ideal for the lower level diversity of bacteria/worms/pods but what makes B any better than C?

[DaJMasta]

It has some of the diversity, especially on the microbe side, but if you have a swim around in the ocean and look at rocky areas and sandy areas, the sand is the desert.  There will be fish in the water, the occasional thing in it or crawling over it, and it shares the system with all the other creatures, but many, many fewer organisms make their home in the sand.  What's more, the majority of things that bury themselves in the sand or graze on it or otherwise interact with it will live in the sand near the rocks because the rocks have the stability, offer some cover, and are home to most of the other things they like to eat.

There's also a matter of quantity - you don't see people buying 20lbs of live sand so often as people buying 20lbs of live rock, so I don't know if the comparison of what comes on which is entirely apples-to-apples.

Also worth mentioning that while "ocean cultured dry rock" isn't inaccurate, it's also sort of burying the lead.  The reason why those places can charge a premium for their rock is that it's spent enough time in the gulf to be covered in stuff, generally taking several years to encrust enough to be sold.  Because of the diversity of organisms, availability of food, and environmental conditions of the sea vs. the sump of an aquarium, there is no real comparison to spending a year in an LFS's sump and a year in the ocean in terms of how much biodiversity is on that piece of rock when you pull it out.  Whether that is preserved in the long term in the destination tank is harder to gauge, but at least in the initial point, you probably have 10-100x more variety of life on ocean cultured rock vs. aquarium cultured rock as a starting point.

[skippylou]

31 minutes ago, DaJMasta said:

It has some of the diversity, especially on the microbe side, but if you have a swim around in the ocean and look at rocky areas and sandy areas, the sand is the desert.  There will be fish in the water, the occasional thing in it or crawling over it, and it shares the system with all the other creatures, but many, many fewer organisms make their home in the sand.  What's more, the majority of things that bury themselves in the sand or graze on it or otherwise interact with it will live in the sand near the rocks because the rocks have the stability, offer some cover, and are home to most of the other things they like to eat.

There's also a matter of quantity - you don't see people buying 20lbs of live sand so often as people buying 20lbs of live rock, so I don't know if the comparison of what comes on which is entirely apples-to-apples.

Also worth mentioning that while "ocean cultured dry rock" isn't inaccurate, it's also sort of burying the lead.  The reason why those places can charge a premium for their rock is that it's spent enough time in the gulf to be covered in stuff, generally taking several years to encrust enough to be sold.  Because of the diversity of organisms, availability of food, and environmental conditions of the sea vs. the sump of an aquarium, there is no real comparison to spending a year in an LFS's sump and a year in the ocean in terms of how much biodiversity is on that piece of rock when you pull it out.  Whether that is preserved in the long term in the destination tank is harder to gauge, but at least in the initial point, you probably have 10-100x more variety of life on ocean cultured rock vs. aquarium cultured rock as a starting point.

Excellent points WRT sand vs rock in relation to the ocean.

 

Agreed there is a vast superiority between "ocean cultured dry rock" and LFS sump rock, million percent agree.  But!  I believe there is a vast difference between real ocean rock and dry rock put in the ocean (even for years) - porosity/density being of note for instance.

[skippylou]

Just to be clear I know you weren't claiming it was equivalent to "real ocean live rock" but I was trying to get across if it's not called "ocean cultured dry rock" what do you call it?

[DaJMasta]

As directly harvested live rock has basically just been banned across the world, I think of it as the only real live rock we get.  Perhaps the 'genuine' stuff is still better, but I think it's probably more a part of its internal structure rather than any additional life on it, as 'true' live rock would just be dead coral skeletons encrusted with things, and these fossilized ones that are mined and put in the ocean to mariculture are the same but with some of the pores filled in with time (at least in my understanding).

I think the broader point, and maybe not how you meant it, is that by calling it 'ocean cultured' sort of makes it seem like it's not the real stuff... whereas I think in reality even if something better exists, it's about the best we can get.

[skippylou]

53 minutes ago, DaJMasta said:

I think the broader point, and maybe not how you meant it, is that by calling it 'ocean cultured' sort of makes it seem like it's not the real stuff... whereas I think in reality even if something better exists, it's about the best we can get.

Actually I think you hit the nail on the head of what I meant, not necessarily what I was really starting the thread for but makes a whole other great discussion, haha.  I personally don't think it's the real stuff, not that it's bad, it's just different but that's why I like to make the distinction that it's dry rock that's been cured or cultured in the ocean for a period of time.  I think "live rock" as a label is thrown around way to much nowadays, 20 years ago it meant really only one thing from what I remember.  Now folks seem to call even dry rock sitting on shelf, live rock.

[Jakesaw]

10 minutes ago, skippylou said:

e.  I think "live rock" as a label is thrown around way to much nowadays, 20 years ago it meant really only one thing from what I remember.  Now folks seem to call even dry rock sitting on shelf, live rock.

Maybe we should use

Ocean rock ( cultivated ) 

 

Cultured rock ( cured not in ocean ) 

 

and Dry rock

 

They all become live over time.   My tank has live rock, but it was dead when I started, and the life on rock has changed over time and will continue to do so. 

[mcarroll]

Live rock was highly variable back in the day.  Sometimes you'd get light, porous stuff....more-so from the Pacific...but not always.  I think it was often carried here as ship's ballast, so there wasn't much selectivity on the supply end.  And in particular, Caribbean live rock from the 90's (before the ban) was kinda legendary for its density.  "Good" Caribbean rock was as rare as hen's teeth. 😉 

 

I do think it's more crucial than ever (now, in the dead rock era) to distinguish between actual live rock (and all that it entails) from all the other permutations that are now sold instead.

 

But If you take aragonite, and give it 1-3 years in the ocean, that's live rock to me.  I'm not sure how you'd distinguish it to be otherwise....except to designate it as "cultured" or somesuch.

 

I'm somewhat less interested in "other substances" cultured in the ocean....the aragonite is a crucial ingredient, not an inert substrate.

 

Live sand is good, but less good, mostly because it lacks any structure to preserve most of the inhabitants during collection and transport....so microbes are about all you can hope for.  These microbes are a good thing, but not equivalent to live rock IMO.  Getting larger critters is more common on live rock.

[skippylou]

12 hours ago, mcarroll said:

I do think it's more crucial than ever (now, in the dead rock era) to distinguish between actual live rock (and all that it entails) from all the other permutations that are now sold instead.

I know it veered off subject from my original question but with regards to this, that's kinda my point - that words/descriptions and context/distinction matter.  As we move further and further away from anyone having "mother nature" live rock maybe it won't matter so much as any "ocean live rock" will be initiated by humans.

 

12 hours ago, mcarroll said:

But If you take aragonite, and give it 1-3 years in the ocean, that's live rock to me.  I'm not sure how you'd distinguish it to be otherwise....except to designate it as "cultured" or somesuch.

 

I'm somewhat less interested in "other substances" cultured in the ocean....the aragonite is a crucial ingredient, not an inert substrate.

Agreed on aragonite.  I guess if we weren't to at least try to distinguish it are you saying you'd be just as happy taking human initiated, ocean culture live rock over mother nature created primo caribbean live rock?  If the answer is yes, well then I guess you don't need to try to distinguish it ;P. 

 

Either way, the more human initiated, ocean cultured live rock that gets produced the better for the hobby, the environment, etc.  It's clearly the best rock for the present and future.

 

12 hours ago, mcarroll said:

Live sand is good, but less good, mostly because it lacks any structure to preserve most of the inhabitants during collection and transport....so microbes are about all you can hope for.  These microbes are a good thing, but not equivalent to live rock IMO.  Getting larger critters is more common on live rock.

Good point on the lack of structure to preserve much.  However, were you referencing live sand as it is known on the shelf of a store or the example I gave in the option B/C choice from earlier?  The live sand that has more life than microbes, such as copepods, amphipods, algae spores, bristle works, spaghetti worms, etc. was the live sand I meant as the choice here.  If you indeed meant the latter, then curious what other larger critters beyond those you are interested in or referring to?

[jservedio]

5 hours ago, skippylou said:

Agreed on aragonite.  I guess if we weren't to at least try to distinguish it are you saying you'd be just as happy taking human initiated, ocean culture live rock over mother nature created primo caribbean live rock?  If the answer is yes, well then I guess you don't need to try to distinguish it ;P. 

 

Either way, the more human initiated, ocean cultured live rock that gets produced the better for the hobby, the environment, etc.  It's clearly the best rock for the present and future.

I don't think it matters at all - anyone who has done a bit of diving knows that mother nature doesn't care a whole hell of a lot where the substrate came from and will flourish on it all the same. Doesn't matter if it's a long dead mountain of porites or a mined rock (or even a twisted hunk of iron) - in a few years it's going to have layers upon layers of life on it and all look the same. All that matters is that it came from the ocean and is full of all sorts of life. The more life you can bring into your tank from the start - the better.

 

I haven't been in the hobby since the 90s so I don't have experience with that old mythical Caribbean rock before it was banned, but I was around long enough to still be able to get real ocean rock and while it was incredible and interesting (and very expensive), it just doesn't really compare to modern aquacultured rock because of shipping. Modern aquacultured rock goes from the ocean to your tank in a very short timeframe and is always in warm water so the majority of life survives. Compare that to rock harvested half a world away and then shipped "wet" and in the dark for weeks before getting to your LFS. Even if the rock started out far better, by the time it gets to you it's nowhere near as diverse and full of life as aquacultured rock.

 

I don't think we need to make a distinction where the substrate came from (unless it's not aragonite), as long as it spent some time in the ocean, it's live rock to me!

[mcarroll]

13 hours ago, skippylou said:

The live sand that has more life than microbes, such as copepods, amphipods, algae spores, bristle works, spaghetti worms, etc.

I've never seen a bag of live sand come with any macro-life that survived.  Most critters that live there are soft-bodied and relatively delicate.

 

By comparison, even rock from VERY FAR AWAY in the Pacific would usually come with at least SOME macro life on it....most noticeably crabs.  But sometimes a few other things like algae or coral or other invert's.

 

As long as they are from the ocean, both are great for the micro-life though.  👍