Is aquiring frags just to make us feel better?
- Thread starter Bill2
- Start date
Wow! This is a fantastic thread! I am very sorry to jump in so late but.....Please do not take anything I have to say too seriously. I am finding people in the hobby and industry are just too serious these days and it infringes on plain FUN...We can be serious and conscientious reefers and still enjoy the hobby and the beautiful animals we keep. This is good and right for everyone particularly the well cared for animals in our systems.
There is a huge difference between chopping up wild colonies and raising higher generations of captive raised corals. Captive propagation allows us to "cull the heard" leaving only the most hardy, adaptive, and beautiful corals for reef tanks all over the world. When we captive propagate we take considerable pressure off the natural reefs for two reasons: First being that for every coral captive propagated there will be one less collected in nature. Second, higher generation captive corals simply do better in captive systems thereby reducing the frequency of replacement due to unexpected/unexplained die off common in wild collected SPS. Third, captive propagated corals are usually obtained from small independent farmers who do this for the love of the corals and the hobby. This means far more intimate knowledge of any particular coral we raise which directly translates to the eventual keeper's accelerated knowledge and success!
Captive raised corals are generally more expensive than wild collected but this too will change in time. I feel there is still a way to have a sustainable harvest from nature but this can only happen with rational cooperation between all parties involved. I am very proud of reef keepers for the positive impact you have on natural reefs around the world. Because of all of you there is hope! Captive propagation is just one more expression of our collective desire to take some of the pressure off Mother Nature AND have the most beautiful and hardy reef displays possible. We can do both and we are working hard to prove it every single day.
There is a huge difference between chopping up wild colonies and raising higher generations of captive raised corals. Captive propagation allows us to "cull the heard" leaving only the most hardy, adaptive, and beautiful corals for reef tanks all over the world. When we captive propagate we take considerable pressure off the natural reefs for two reasons: First being that for every coral captive propagated there will be one less collected in nature. Second, higher generation captive corals simply do better in captive systems thereby reducing the frequency of replacement due to unexpected/unexplained die off common in wild collected SPS. Third, captive propagated corals are usually obtained from small independent farmers who do this for the love of the corals and the hobby. This means far more intimate knowledge of any particular coral we raise which directly translates to the eventual keeper's accelerated knowledge and success!
Captive raised corals are generally more expensive than wild collected but this too will change in time. I feel there is still a way to have a sustainable harvest from nature but this can only happen with rational cooperation between all parties involved. I am very proud of reef keepers for the positive impact you have on natural reefs around the world. Because of all of you there is hope! Captive propagation is just one more expression of our collective desire to take some of the pressure off Mother Nature AND have the most beautiful and hardy reef displays possible. We can do both and we are working hard to prove it every single day.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> If you mined it and put in the ocean and went back and got it, then you have
contributed zero impact on reefs.[/B] <hr></blockquote>
Hmm Let me see if I get this right. You dump a foreign matter on the ocean floor. In a place that does not have any natural reef. You then proceed to hope that it becomes a reef and once it does you "harvest" it off the sea floor and once again return it to it's previous condition. If I was a fish or mantis shrimp or coral that found a nice new reef that someone so graciously has put down for me and then 2 years later "harvested" it I would think this would have an impact upon my life as a reef animal. You have worse than an small impact upon a reef. You remove the reef! What about the animals that were living there before these rocks came?
Ok since some of you stated that aquaculture is placing something specifically in the ocean for the purpose of later harvesting. If I put let say Concrete Blocks (material does not matter) down that were to be harvested at a later date and then the stuff on them was later sold. Is this aquacultured?
Bill
contributed zero impact on reefs.[/B] <hr></blockquote>
Hmm Let me see if I get this right. You dump a foreign matter on the ocean floor. In a place that does not have any natural reef. You then proceed to hope that it becomes a reef and once it does you "harvest" it off the sea floor and once again return it to it's previous condition. If I was a fish or mantis shrimp or coral that found a nice new reef that someone so graciously has put down for me and then 2 years later "harvested" it I would think this would have an impact upon my life as a reef animal. You have worse than an small impact upon a reef. You remove the reef! What about the animals that were living there before these rocks came?
Ok since some of you stated that aquaculture is placing something specifically in the ocean for the purpose of later harvesting. If I put let say Concrete Blocks (material does not matter) down that were to be harvested at a later date and then the stuff on them was later sold. Is this aquacultured?
Bill
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> IMO the reefs are in the shape they are because of this belief that man has dominion over all of creation.
<hr></blockquote>
So Stev,
What gives you the right to pluck an animal out of its home and drop it in your living room?
Glenn
<hr></blockquote>
So Stev,
What gives you the right to pluck an animal out of its home and drop it in your living room?
Glenn
naesco,
Wouldn't that still have a negative impact on living wild animals? They had no idea that their new home was going to be ripped out from around them leaving them defenseless to predators or even worse, a one way ticket into a clear box in Kansas. We may know that the reef they call home was only meant to be temporary but I'm sure no one informed the animals. If a Tang is killed by predators because it's home was removed from around it or it dies in a 55 gallon tank in Kansas, it's still dead.
Carpentersreef,
What we have to remember, most of the laws being passed to protect the reefs are laws to protect them from us, our hobby. Without the hobby I think the reefs would be better off short term and long term. Lets face it, if you leave the reefs alone they're going to do better then if they are constently picked at.
Just to clarify, I love the hobby and hope that it continues with as little impact to the reefs as possible. I see nothing wrong with responsible havesting of the reefs.
Wouldn't that still have a negative impact on living wild animals? They had no idea that their new home was going to be ripped out from around them leaving them defenseless to predators or even worse, a one way ticket into a clear box in Kansas. We may know that the reef they call home was only meant to be temporary but I'm sure no one informed the animals. If a Tang is killed by predators because it's home was removed from around it or it dies in a 55 gallon tank in Kansas, it's still dead.
Carpentersreef,
What we have to remember, most of the laws being passed to protect the reefs are laws to protect them from us, our hobby. Without the hobby I think the reefs would be better off short term and long term. Lets face it, if you leave the reefs alone they're going to do better then if they are constently picked at.
Just to clarify, I love the hobby and hope that it continues with as little impact to the reefs as possible. I see nothing wrong with responsible havesting of the reefs.
JimMurray,
I do see your point, and I hope you see mine. Take me for example - joe blue collar worker..... If I didn't know any better, and if our government wanted to say, build a hotel on a beach front, and it needed to expand the building area by dumping load after load of fill on top of existing reefs. If I knew nothing about reefs, I would support the action because I wanted the employment for building the hotel, and the government would want the revenue that the new facility brought in.
Knowing and appreciating reefs though, I would want the government to find another way.
I guess I think that today's reefs have to pay a price of sorts to educate us. But the reefs of tomorrow will survive. (and there WILL be reefs tomorrow. Humans are not THAT significant on this planet. We just don't always do what's in our own best interest.)
I support laws that regulate the harvesting of the reefs. Companies that are overharvesting the reefs now would otherwise just move on to another area, and we would wind up just not having that reef to learn from anymore.
Mitch
I do see your point, and I hope you see mine. Take me for example - joe blue collar worker..... If I didn't know any better, and if our government wanted to say, build a hotel on a beach front, and it needed to expand the building area by dumping load after load of fill on top of existing reefs. If I knew nothing about reefs, I would support the action because I wanted the employment for building the hotel, and the government would want the revenue that the new facility brought in.
Knowing and appreciating reefs though, I would want the government to find another way.
I guess I think that today's reefs have to pay a price of sorts to educate us. But the reefs of tomorrow will survive. (and there WILL be reefs tomorrow. Humans are not THAT significant on this planet. We just don't always do what's in our own best interest.)
I support laws that regulate the harvesting of the reefs. Companies that are overharvesting the reefs now would otherwise just move on to another area, and we would wind up just not having that reef to learn from anymore.
Mitch
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>If I put let say Concrete Blocks (material does not matter) down that were to be harvested at a later date and then the stuff on them was later sold. Is this aquacultured?
<hr></blockquote>
I would have to say no. All of the organisms that colonized that artificial reef would have colonized somewhere else if not for our intervention. In order for something to be "aquacultured" in my opinion, the reef should retain the exact number of species before and after. We are not creating an abundance of reef living species, we are creating an abundance of habitat and hoping to "catch" the reef dwelling species. (No one would want empty live rock) Either way, after harvest there is less in the ocean than when we started. The rock may have been added but we still "harvested" the desireable species. For sake of example let's say there is an incredibly endangered species of nudibranch that hasn't even been discovered yet. In fact there are only two of them. They decide to make a home on this nice looking rock. They breed and make thier babies, two weeks later the rock is ripped up and shipped to an aquarium store causing the species to go extinct. Does it really matter if the rock was "real" or "aquacultured"?
Glenn
<hr></blockquote>
I would have to say no. All of the organisms that colonized that artificial reef would have colonized somewhere else if not for our intervention. In order for something to be "aquacultured" in my opinion, the reef should retain the exact number of species before and after. We are not creating an abundance of reef living species, we are creating an abundance of habitat and hoping to "catch" the reef dwelling species. (No one would want empty live rock) Either way, after harvest there is less in the ocean than when we started. The rock may have been added but we still "harvested" the desireable species. For sake of example let's say there is an incredibly endangered species of nudibranch that hasn't even been discovered yet. In fact there are only two of them. They decide to make a home on this nice looking rock. They breed and make thier babies, two weeks later the rock is ripped up and shipped to an aquarium store causing the species to go extinct. Does it really matter if the rock was "real" or "aquacultured"?
Glenn
So since concrete blocks are not aquaculture then how are aragonite stones?
Aquacultured rock is just another method of harvesting live rock. It is neither more or less destructive that getting live rock from fiji.
Caribean live rock is great don't get me wrong but it's great because of the opportunity to get more diversity in your tank and the opportunity to get corals and inverts that cannot be harvested legally. To believe you are saving reefs because you are buying florida rock is in my opinion a smoke screen
Aquacultured rock is just another method of harvesting live rock. It is neither more or less destructive that getting live rock from fiji.
Caribean live rock is great don't get me wrong but it's great because of the opportunity to get more diversity in your tank and the opportunity to get corals and inverts that cannot be harvested legally. To believe you are saving reefs because you are buying florida rock is in my opinion a smoke screen
Is cultured rock the same as a multiple frag'd coral? IMO No.
It depends on a couple of factors:
Are the animals that settle on aquacultured rocks causing a net diffusion and overall thinning of the animal populations in a general area?
OR
Are the larval forms that a cruising along in the currents and all of a sudden go "hey that looks like a happy home" and settle out on an artifical reef when they could just wander and never find a suitable home or get eaten.
Someone would have to go dump a few hundred tons of calcium carbonate rocks next to a real reef and study the overall animal populations. I'm guessing but I would bet you'll see a net increase in life.
Now the rock used in Florida farming is mined on land and is not causing any harm AFAIK. However I'd be curious as to the source of the rock that Walt Smith is using.
It depends on a couple of factors:
Are the animals that settle on aquacultured rocks causing a net diffusion and overall thinning of the animal populations in a general area?
OR
Are the larval forms that a cruising along in the currents and all of a sudden go "hey that looks like a happy home" and settle out on an artifical reef when they could just wander and never find a suitable home or get eaten.
Someone would have to go dump a few hundred tons of calcium carbonate rocks next to a real reef and study the overall animal populations. I'm guessing but I would bet you'll see a net increase in life.
Now the rock used in Florida farming is mined on land and is not causing any harm AFAIK. However I'd be curious as to the source of the rock that Walt Smith is using.
Bill,
We'll just wait for the Vogons to come along and blast away our planet to make way for an interspace highway and then we'll see how we like having our home taken away.
Just make sure to bring your towel...
Shane (aka 'liquid')
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: LiquidShaneo ]</p>
We'll just wait for the Vogons to come along and blast away our planet to make way for an interspace highway and then we'll see how we like having our home taken away.
Shane (aka 'liquid')
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: LiquidShaneo ]</p>
I agree with Tom here, you guys are making an assumption that there are only a certain % of reef animals in the larval stage to begin with. The whole point of artificial reefs is to give these animals a home. The way I look at it is there are more than enough animals but only a certain amount of suitable habitat for them. Am I missing something here?
Steve
Steve
Couldn't the same thing be said for fish? By reducing the populations through collection we are opening up the resources for more larval stage fish to settle? Unless I'm not remembering right most fish start out in a planktonic stage and settle where the resources are available, we "harvest" the juveniles and there are plenty more in the plankton stream to replace them. By that rationale it seems you are assuming that the supply of reef critters is limitless.
Glenn
Glenn
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
