Crushed Coral?
- Thread starter darren24
- Start date
Yes, what I'm getting at is if the PH is lower for the crushed coral to start disolving then it would naturally have more buffering compacity given PK was the same. If its the PK value then the shell would have more buffering compacity given everything else was the same. I would also think PK is also tied into when these start disolving. I'm definetly not an expert just throwing some more fuel to the fire. LOL
Well, all I really have, in the end, is my practical experience with the stuff. It was my first and only marine substrate I'd ever used, and never once have I ever had a ph issue, ever. In fact, testing for ph is just something I've never had to do, and pretty much stopped after the first few years as it never really varied more than .1+/-. Even in the old days of tap water, overfeeding and no live rock, I've never once had a PH issue that I can recall. If after 20 years in the hobby, I haven't had significant PH issues, then I'm one heck of a great reefer, or there's something else coming into play. My guess, it would be the substrate I chose based originally (and purely) on looks.
Plus, the stuff is pretty, easy to vacuum detris from, and stays where you put it!
Plus, the stuff is pretty, easy to vacuum detris from, and stays where you put it!
I don't know Charlie, does it work? I've never used it because I've never needed it. Maybe it's cost. I know Shell is atleast twice as expensive as cc (that's conservative based on a one month period of scouring the internet looking for the best prices, and basing that estimate on the cheapest I found). I spent almost 50 bucks on my substrate whereas cc would have put me back $20.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
My question is not answered at all. If a mollusk shells will dissolve and buffer at a pH of 7.95, what happens to our tridacnid clams when the tank pH reaches 7.95, or lower (which happens in even successful aquarium ALL THE TIME). Using your logic, the clams shell will simply start dissolving, despite the fact that the live clam is still us it!
Furthermore, I think we are discussing two entirely different matters. You seem to be discussing which source would make a better buffering, in base form. Whether ground powderized shell or coral buffers water better is not at all what Im interetsed in. I am interetsed in substrate, to which buffering is only a part of the equation, and a small one at that. Do bare bottom aquariums have horrific pH problems? Ask MVM, who has a glorious tank (albeit with an ugly bottom
). Lets let push comes to shove here. As a buffering substrate, yet another reason shells will be a poorer alternative to crushed coral is the massively different surface area, to which buffering must occur. Crushed coral arguably ahs a MASSIVE amount of surface area, as compared to the relatively bulky and solid shell. Even if they do have a better buffering capacity (which I still would like to see the research for, if you can find), I would argue this is overpowered by the notably smaller surface area.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
If there's one thing I KNOW about this hobby, its that cost will not prohibit avaialbility, especially if it works. Even if it were double the cost (or higher), it would be sold if it were a panacea to calcification, as you claim.
First, my apologies to the op for getting his thread mucked up.
To rebute a few arguments made;
Shell doesn't disolve like cotton candy, it's a slow process, so I'm certain a clam's shell can withstand temporary swings in PH, as it's built up faster or as fast as it can be dissoled away. If PH would drop any lenght of time to do damage to the shell, the clam would die anyway...... no brainer on that one.
As far as surface area provided by cc, again, I've never had any issues, so I cannot refute your claim, only to say that one should have ample LR in a tank to house beneficial bacteria. I couldn't imagine relying on the substrate for this, and at an average 2" substrate, I doubt it would be enough to much good really.
As far as cost in reef additives and substrate goes, well, you're dead wrong! Please remember the company I work for supplies virtually every big name in marine and reef additives with packaging. Cost is a major factor in this market, as everything has to be purchased dirt cheap to turn a modest profit. Packaging generally costs more than the additives that goes in the packaging, and even that is cut-thoat bear bones costing. Compaines aren't going to churn out a product that a profit can't be made on...... And if common preception is that one (readily available and inexpensive) product is better than the other, why risk trying something new? If it's not broke, don't fix it.
I'll just go back to quietly enjoying my perfect PH now........ I'm done.
To rebute a few arguments made;
Shell doesn't disolve like cotton candy, it's a slow process, so I'm certain a clam's shell can withstand temporary swings in PH, as it's built up faster or as fast as it can be dissoled away. If PH would drop any lenght of time to do damage to the shell, the clam would die anyway...... no brainer on that one.
As far as surface area provided by cc, again, I've never had any issues, so I cannot refute your claim, only to say that one should have ample LR in a tank to house beneficial bacteria. I couldn't imagine relying on the substrate for this, and at an average 2" substrate, I doubt it would be enough to much good really.
As far as cost in reef additives and substrate goes, well, you're dead wrong! Please remember the company I work for supplies virtually every big name in marine and reef additives with packaging. Cost is a major factor in this market, as everything has to be purchased dirt cheap to turn a modest profit. Packaging generally costs more than the additives that goes in the packaging, and even that is cut-thoat bear bones costing. Compaines aren't going to churn out a product that a profit can't be made on...... And if common preception is that one (readily available and inexpensive) product is better than the other, why risk trying something new? If it's not broke, don't fix it.
I'll just go back to quietly enjoying my perfect PH now........ I'm done.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Dakota- I hope you are not offended or irritated by our discussion. I meant it to be just- a discussion, no more.
That being said- I dont think you are understanding my point. In order for any media to be reactive, and make a desired effect, it needs contact surface area. In the case of substrate, in the terms you are describing (buffering), the water will need to contact the substrate in order to dissolve it and buffer it. This is accomplished by surface area. It really has nothing to do with bacteria or mineralization in live rock. The smaller the object are, per volume, the more surface area (in general). For example, would one giant mollusk shell buffer as well as a million tiny ones? No, because the surface are of the million tiny ones if FAR greater, so more water will contact it, etc etc etc.
I dont understand how shells can be such a marvelous buffer, if they "tolerate swings in pH". Isnt the point of a buffer to eliminate swings in pH? How do you mainatin a rock solid pH in your tank, if a "swing" doesnt yeild an effect?
And finally, I think you are dead wrong about pricing of goods in this hobby. I can provide you with a huge number of OVERPRICED goods for reef aquarium, that yield that price, merely because they are deemed positive or effective. If shell is a magic bullet to cure pH problems (as you are stating it is), why would a company not sell it? I dont understand how it can be so head and shoulders better than CC or sand (by your claims), yet too cost prohbitive to market? I disagree 1 million percent. People pay overpriced premium for "live wet sand", and even packaged seawater!!! How can it be too cost prohibitive to package and sell another substrate (using the same packaging methods), if they can sell it as the end all solution to pH problem, diatom explosions (which I still dont understand), and buffering capacity? Please, help me to understand.
That being said- I dont think you are understanding my point. In order for any media to be reactive, and make a desired effect, it needs contact surface area. In the case of substrate, in the terms you are describing (buffering), the water will need to contact the substrate in order to dissolve it and buffer it. This is accomplished by surface area. It really has nothing to do with bacteria or mineralization in live rock. The smaller the object are, per volume, the more surface area (in general). For example, would one giant mollusk shell buffer as well as a million tiny ones? No, because the surface are of the million tiny ones if FAR greater, so more water will contact it, etc etc etc.
I dont understand how shells can be such a marvelous buffer, if they "tolerate swings in pH". Isnt the point of a buffer to eliminate swings in pH? How do you mainatin a rock solid pH in your tank, if a "swing" doesnt yeild an effect?
And finally, I think you are dead wrong about pricing of goods in this hobby. I can provide you with a huge number of OVERPRICED goods for reef aquarium, that yield that price, merely because they are deemed positive or effective. If shell is a magic bullet to cure pH problems (as you are stating it is), why would a company not sell it? I dont understand how it can be so head and shoulders better than CC or sand (by your claims), yet too cost prohbitive to market? I disagree 1 million percent. People pay overpriced premium for "live wet sand", and even packaged seawater!!! How can it be too cost prohibitive to package and sell another substrate (using the same packaging methods), if they can sell it as the end all solution to pH problem, diatom explosions (which I still dont understand), and buffering capacity? Please, help me to understand.
OK, I stand corrected................
A simple post always seems to spark the oddest debates.
I really haven't anymore time to invest in this. I looked for an article last night while cleaning house, cooking dinner, checking homework and during commerical time spent with my son. Today, I'm debating this apparently during my working lunch.......
I just don't have the time
I'll just keep my opinions and lack of PH issues to myself in the future.
A simple post always seems to spark the oddest debates.
I really haven't anymore time to invest in this. I looked for an article last night while cleaning house, cooking dinner, checking homework and during commerical time spent with my son. Today, I'm debating this apparently during my working lunch.......
I just don't have the time
I'll just keep my opinions and lack of PH issues to myself in the future.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
I dont understand. Whats the problem? No one is saying you cant make a statment, or discuss it. Why the resentment? If Im wrong, Id loved to be shown the correct information.
Similar threads
