Crushed Coral?
- Thread starter darren24
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
I do
- Messages
- 493
- Reaction score
- 0
use crushed coral on 2 /3rds of my reef and caribian sand black and white theyboth do great but the crused coral stays put alot better.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Flow is the exact reason I'm doing it. 6 mp40s and 1500 gph returns.
I use shell. Tiny Purple Coquina shell to be exact. It doesn't blow around and buffers the water perfectly. For 20 years I've used shell and never had the ph issues others have delt with. For the longest, I just thought I was more accomplished than other reefers, turns out, it's because of my choice of substrate. If you want me to go into the science of why shell is better than CC, I will, but it's borring, so be forwarned.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
I would like to hear it Dak
- Messages
- 5,121
- Reaction score
- 7
+1 i've been married 24 years. amuse me
better yet, I'll look for the (well, one of the many) article(s) I read on the topic, as one tends to get picked apart</em> on these topics of discussion.
But, in layman's terms;
The calcium found in shell has been metabolized in a different manor than in cc, and is in a purer, more bio-available form. Shell starts to release it's calcium and buffering ability at a higher PH than cc, or aroganite sand, meaning a significantly smaller PH swing triggers the release of it's buffering capacity.
While you guys trash me on my crude explanation, I'm going to go find one of those articles.
Talk quietly amongest yourselves, I'll be back.
But, in layman's terms;
The calcium found in shell has been metabolized in a different manor than in cc, and is in a purer, more bio-available form. Shell starts to release it's calcium and buffering ability at a higher PH than cc, or aroganite sand, meaning a significantly smaller PH swing triggers the release of it's buffering capacity.
While you guys trash me on my crude explanation, I'm going to go find one of those articles.
Talk quietly amongest yourselves, I'll be back.
Still looking......LOL
http://www.shellhorizons.com/default.asp">http://www.shellhorizons.com/default.asp</a>
or better yet, the page you should start looking from....
[IMG]http://www.shellhorizons.com/products.asp?Category=4">http://www.shellhorizons.com/products.asp?Category=4</a>
Great prices (I searched the internet for a month before I bought, these are the best prices around), EXCELLENT customer service!
http://www.shellhorizons.com/default.asp">http://www.shellhorizons.com/default.asp</a>
or better yet, the page you should start looking from....
[IMG]http://www.shellhorizons.com/products.asp?Category=4">http://www.shellhorizons.com/products.asp?Category=4</a>
Great prices (I searched the internet for a month before I bought, these are the best prices around), EXCELLENT customer service!
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Dakota do post links. It is rather difficult to fathom that an intact shell would be more reactive and bio-availoable as a source of calcium, bicarbonate, and buffer than a pulverized coral skeleton. The calcification process or mollusks and corals (as far as I know), is reasonablly similar, in so much as there are no exclusion companents and makeup. Looking forwrad to it.
Will do, looking for an article hasn't panned out while doing so during commercial breaks of Malcolm In The Middle (watching it with the kid.... His favorite grown up</em> show........). Shell doesn't create the issues with diatom many blame CC to cause, so at least some differences exsist right out of the gate.
......LOL, and the picking begins
......LOL, and the picking begins
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
CC causes diatom blooms? Ive never heard that before.
Here Jeremy,
Refute this until I can find more;
http://www.wamas.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19441&pid=169078&mode=threaded&show=&st=0">http://www.wamas.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19441&pid=169078&mode=threaded&show=&st=0</a>
The quick post refers to oyster shell, but ocean shell all the same.
You have difficulty believing that a bi-valved mullosk would metabolize calcium, mag, etc, and excrete the waste from those elements more efficiently than coral (which ranks somewhat lower on the evolutionary scale than mollusk)? How odd you'd think that way...... SPS (the main contributor of calified coral structures) lacks a true digestive system. Bi-valves would almost have to produce a superior calcified struture.
Refute this until I can find more;
http://www.wamas.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19441&pid=169078&mode=threaded&show=&st=0">http://www.wamas.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19441&pid=169078&mode=threaded&show=&st=0</a>
The quick post refers to oyster shell, but ocean shell all the same.
You have difficulty believing that a bi-valved mullosk would metabolize calcium, mag, etc, and excrete the waste from those elements more efficiently than coral (which ranks somewhat lower on the evolutionary scale than mollusk)? How odd you'd think that way...... SPS (the main contributor of calified coral structures) lacks a true digestive system. Bi-valves would almost have to produce a superior calcified struture.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
I find that link very bizarre, as it doesnt say much of anything, IMO. Except when oyster shell dissolves, its gone, whereas crushed coral leaves a mass. It doesnt say its better, worse, or otherwise. Just different.
Why do you believe that clams, produce superior calcium, simply because they have a more advanced digestive system? Calcification is an immensly complicated process in corals and clams, but biochemically do not behave much differently. Much of the "raw material" comes from water volume, not from ingestia. Using your logic, are mammalian bones a superior source of clacium, being we have more advanced digestive systems? But even more to the point, creating a superior calcified structures (if it does)- how does this translate to a better source of substrate , clacium, and buffer? Here is a logicx train to combat that point of view- Corals calcium structures is "protected" by the living tissue of the coral, until the coral is dead, where is can be "re-used". Mollusk shell, on the contrary, is exposed to NSW condition in life and death. What enables it to freely dissolve after death, while maintining, and depositing calcium while alive?
Why do you believe that clams, produce superior calcium, simply because they have a more advanced digestive system? Calcification is an immensly complicated process in corals and clams, but biochemically do not behave much differently. Much of the "raw material" comes from water volume, not from ingestia. Using your logic, are mammalian bones a superior source of clacium, being we have more advanced digestive systems? But even more to the point, creating a superior calcified structures (if it does)- how does this translate to a better source of substrate , clacium, and buffer? Here is a logicx train to combat that point of view- Corals calcium structures is "protected" by the living tissue of the coral, until the coral is dead, where is can be "re-used". Mollusk shell, on the contrary, is exposed to NSW condition in life and death. What enables it to freely dissolve after death, while maintining, and depositing calcium while alive?
Jeremy wrote; </em>Corals calcium structures is "protected" by the living tissue of the coral, until the coral is dead, where is can be "re-used". Mollusk shell, on the contrary, is exposed to NSW condition in life and death. What enables it to freely dissolve after death, while maintining, and depositing calcium while alive?
Didn't you just answer your own question? Coral strutures were ment to last indefinately (1000's of years) and probably have a different stuture that keeps them intact, which for use as a buffering substrate, would make cc counterproductive. Shell on the other hand is quite temporary in comparison, it would be meant to breakdown relatively much faster (but still quite slow as my original shell substrate lasted well over 15 years until the folks I sold the tank to decided they liked sand better). Breaking down faster and more easily means that it has the ability to buffer water better by more readily leaching calcium, mag and carbonates into the water.
The particular article that I'm looking for states that cc starts actively buffering in a PH at or near the range of 7.7, while shell starts actively buffering at or about a PH of 7.95. If this is true (as my above statement would suggest) the use of shell would definately be beneficial as a substrate. I just have to find the article, which was actually one of several, but by far the most comprehensive.
Didn't you just answer your own question? Coral strutures were ment to last indefinately (1000's of years) and probably have a different stuture that keeps them intact, which for use as a buffering substrate, would make cc counterproductive. Shell on the other hand is quite temporary in comparison, it would be meant to breakdown relatively much faster (but still quite slow as my original shell substrate lasted well over 15 years until the folks I sold the tank to decided they liked sand better). Breaking down faster and more easily means that it has the ability to buffer water better by more readily leaching calcium, mag and carbonates into the water.
The particular article that I'm looking for states that cc starts actively buffering in a PH at or near the range of 7.7, while shell starts actively buffering at or about a PH of 7.95. If this is true (as my above statement would suggest) the use of shell would definately be beneficial as a substrate. I just have to find the article, which was actually one of several, but by far the most comprehensive.
Similar threads
