experimental tanks for Utah sand and rock

I would like to do an experiment with three ten gallon tanks to test the affects of Utah sand and rock.  Another brain storm as I go, so please suggest anything.  In tank number one I will use 100% Utah sand and rock.  In tank number two I will use 50% Utah sand and rock and 50% Carib-Sea Seafloor and Fiji live rock.  In tank number three, I will use 100% Carib-Sea Seafloor and Fiji live rock.  I will use the same weight of sand and rock on all three tanks.  I have a ballast that I can run three of the same PC bulb so it'll be the same lighting on all of them.  I will control the variables to the best of my abilities.  Any thoughts?  I am open.  Maybe someone who is not as deep into the debate should do it.

I am open to that.  Mark and I are going to get together this weekend to check out each others tanks so I'll talk to him about it.

uuhhmmm... Okay.  Leave it to Jon to finalize everything. Hehehe

So are you going to match wildlife?  and then record the the values of chemistry in them?

I'd add a couple of fish to each, as well as a couple inverts that are small and live corals to make it match up all the same.  OR maybe just fish.  A couple clowns in each.

Good luck, I'd be very interested in the results.

David

Maybe a scientist like Adam can correct me but it seems that the hypothesis needs to be stated plainly and specifically in the design phase. To "test the effects" is not specific.

And Jared makes a critical point. To be a valid experiment how could we compare lifeless Utah Aragonite to actual live rock. That would be like putting a beginning golfer up against Tiger Woods! Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding all along. I never said that Utah rock was better than LR, but I did state that it works! It ought to be used in addition to LR, or perhaps even as a major component! Life seems to grow on and in it just as well as and maybe a little better than the lifeless base rock that I have used many times in the past.

I am not trying to kill animals in my aquariums as one post queried, but neither am I willing to add to the destruction of the worlds reefs by buying all live rock for my aquariums. Nor am I trying to start an argument with anyone that does, but I strongly encourage everyone to help "Save a Reef" by growing their own!

Utah Aragonite Rock and Utah Oolitic Sand comprise about 90% of the rock and sand in my 10 gal. nano reef tank. I greatly appreciate it being accepted as July TOTM. This tank is clear evidence that we can do it here without touching the ocean. It is no longer acceptable just to think about how nice it would be. It is reality!

Of course, a lot of wild collected coral, fish and LR has died over the years as we have tried to learn and understand the art and science of Reef Keeping. I've done my share of killing. My wife has confronted me with that fact numerous times, calling me "fish-killer". Well, this time, even though the fish were wild caught, I only bought one coral that may have come from the ocean. Everything else was frags and cuttings. I sure do appreciate that most of the coral were from many of you. Steve Lopez' three frogspawn look great don't they! Two were buds, smaller than the tip of a pencil!

Please examine the pics. I invite everyone to see my tank in person by calling me anytime (296-1563) or go see my brother Rodney's tank on the Reef Tour.

In the three tanks (two have been successful for more than a year) in which I have used Utah rock and sand as a major component, all have had algae growth which absorbed the phosphate and other nutrients which are certainly present. (I never said it wasn't there.)

In fact, algae has always been a major part of my aquarium keeping, both freshwater and marine. Plants as nutrient users are a major part of all the worlds ecosystems. Doesn't this indicate that there are a lot of nutients present in the natural environment. Some time ago a famous statement came from somewhere that the coral reefs are like barren deserts with regard to nutrients. Yet life flourishes on the reef as it does in the rainforest. I belive it is now becoming more understood that the reefs are only seen as barren because the abundant life is eating up nutrients as fast as they become available.

Well, It's time to step off the soapbox.
So, what is the hypothesis that we should propose? What are the "effects" that will differ?

The more debate the better, at leat IMHO.  I think it would be far better to run a test then let the debate die off.

I like the debate as well.  I think though in this situation it really isn't a valid experiment.  I think in my opinion if you are talking short term benefits, it is obvious that live rock is the way to go.  If you are in it for the long term there may be cost benefits to going with base/Aragonite rock.

To be valid though I think there has to be some way to measure success rather then just ooow, this coral looks nice here.  I'm all for the experiment and would like to know the results long term.  Just wondering what would be tested and how?

"seed" the Utah rock and sand. "  I think this is the best bit of advise given thus far.  You can't expect dead rock and sand to have the same benefits as live rock and sand.    You are taking a chance with anything you put in your tank, even though the lable says it is reef safe who knows except by experimentation.  I think this test has already been done, take a look at Mark's tank, the others are ours.  Either way you set you your tank is up to you. 

The hole debate on this is a good thing.  Keep it comming, but keep it under control.

I think it'd be really cool to watch the tanks mature and see how they differ, but I don't think there's really any way to set up the experiment to give either side of the debate any "scientific" evidence.

Consider some possible results:

1.  The tanks with aragonite crash after 2 months.  Does that mean aragonite is bad?  Obviously not, because there are many who have kept successful systems with aragonite rock for much longer.  All this does is confirm the fact that the aragonite does have risks associated with it.  But we already know that.

2.  More likely: all 3 tanks will do fine for as long as Marcus or whoever is willing to keep them up.  This however doesn't mean the rock is completely safe.  Someone did report getting a piece with copper, so the risks remain.

3.  Also, very likely: the all-LR tank looks much more "alive" than the all aragonite rock tank at 6 months.  Does that mean aragonite isn't a valid choice for a reef tank?  No, it just means it takes longer for dead rock to grow life on it.  You get what you pay for.

At this point, the whole debate has reached a stalemate which wouldn't be helped by this experiment.  It's a fact that some aragonite rock has bad stuff in it, specifically copper.  Some one got a piece with some in it.  It's also a fact that there are hundreds of pounds of aragonite in healthy aquariums throughout the area.  The debate seems to just be whether people are willing to risk it.  Some say yes, some say no.  Because that's just a matter of opinion, there's no experiment which will help either side.

Now that's just my take on the debate.  I don't recall hearing (or reading) anyone say aragonite is BETTER, nor do I recall anyone saying that aragonite WON'T work.  It just seems to be a matter of risk, which is a matter of personal opinion.

Like I said at the beginning though, I think this would be a fun "experiment" for curiosity's sake.  It'd be interesting to see them side-by-side to fully appreciate the differences.

-Tom

Or then again I have not read evey post so you may have not been talking about me.