Aquabiomics Live Reef Rubble

[MuscleBobBuffPants]

I just received my shipment of Live Reef Rubble from Aquabiomics - I'm very excited to start my new frag tank with this shipment of bacteria straight from the Ocean and a guaranteed analysis of no pests - verified by DNA sequencing. The future is here y'all. I've constantly heard about how superior live rock is compared to dry rock + bacteria in a bottle. So now I am very happy to join the club with regards to bacteria straight from the ocean. It's very interesting to see the report on the number and types of microbes that are in a sample. I have the report scanned if anyone would like to see what it looks like.

 

[LRT]

Id like to see it and this is awesome. Ive never seen the rubble in stock.
I already use ocean rock but this is a whole other dynamic to the game.

 

[Jekyl]

Lotta money for half a pound of rock. Keep us updated if it makes a difference or not.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just curious, what sorts of pests does DNA analysis suggest are "not" present?

 

[Midrats]

$100.00/lb

 

[brandon429]

also consider this:

ok so one vector is controlled


what about vectors 1,256 that any reef tank will see: such as a new snail.

or a fish
or a coral or a limpet, they're all hardscapes we bring in that undoes the original controls right? I guess not for ardent fallowers. going off the fish disease forum, them r rare


so to really help the rubble situation we need to be fallowers

 

[MuscleBobBuffPants]

Mainly what I'm hoping for is a quick establishment of a diverse microbiome which will hopefully help with an easy - and hopefully non-existent ugly stage. I'm starting to see a bit of cyano on my display tank- but I'm hoping the introduction of the bacteria will help with that and I can maybe skip the ugly stage all together. The experiment on it's own is worth it to me - hopefully I have some great results.

 

[MuscleBobBuffPants]

Just curious, what sorts of pests does DNA analysis suggest are "not" present?

The report lists all of the pathogens that were screened for - and that were not found. Including eukaryotes that are responsible for the main fish diseases.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The report lists all of the pathogens that were screened for - and that were not found. Including eukaryotes that are responsible for the main fish diseases.

Call me a skeptic. Is there any validation they are accomplishing something useful?

Does DNA show up on such a test in rock that carries pests that later go on to actually cause fish diseases?

 

[MuscleBobBuffPants]

Call me a skeptic. Is there any validation they are accomplishing something useful?

Does DNA show up on such a test in rock that carries pests that later go on to actually cause fish diseases?

I suppose there is always the "chance" that the DNA analysis could have missed a few strains of any organism here or there. I also know that as a scientist you're probably skeptical of a lot of things (that is the job of a scientist after all I suppose) but I can tell you that I feel 100x better about putting this in my tank - than just buying some random liverock or bacteria sample with no analysis done to it. I feel that the small test set up @AquaBiomics did with the 6 brand new tanks to test diversity added some knowledge to the hobby and the extension of that test with a quick and non existent ugly cycle was also of value. Perhaps Eli can add to this conversation? How are the tests performed with regards to "missing" some DNA that could be in the sample?

With regards to the accomplishment of something useful- absolutely (in my opinion). We are adding a source of biodiversity to the tank with the confidence of no pests or hitchhikers. That is the entire service.

 

[Cell]

So if there was a tiny aptasia hidden somewhere deep in a crevasse of a rock, they claim they would be able to detect aptasia DNA in the water sample?

 

[Cell]

How do they know they didn't just miss something in their sample?

 

[Jekyl]

Mainly what I'm hoping for is a quick establishment of a diverse microbiome which will hopefully help with an easy - and hopefully non-existent ugly stage. I'm starting to see a bit of cyano on my display tank- but I'm hoping the introduction of the bacteria will help with that and I can maybe skip the ugly stage all together. The experiment on it's own is worth it to me - hopefully I have some great results.

Diversity is only a small part of it. Maturity is what people are really paying for.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I suppose there is always the "chance" that the DNA analysis could have missed a few strains of any organism here or there. I also know that as a scientist you're probably skeptical of a lot of things (that is the job of a scientist after all I suppose) but I can tell you that I feel 100x better about putting this in my tank - than just buying some random liverock or bacteria sample with no analysis done to it. I feel that the small test set up @AquaBiomics did with the 6 brand new tanks to test diversity added some knowledge to the hobby and the extension of that test with a quick and non existent ugly cycle was also of value. Perhaps Eli can add to this conversation? How are the tests performed with regards to "missing" some DNA that could be in the sample?

With regards to the accomplishment of something useful- absolutely (in my opinion). We are adding a source of biodiversity to the tank with the confidence of no pests or hitchhikers. That is the entire service.

I'm not concerned about missing some "bad" DNA. That may happen, but its a technical issue that I hope they can deal with.

I'm concerned with the implied claim that there would be bad DNA from other types of rock, and that such DNA is an indication that the rock would cause a problem. Why would anyone accept that assertion without evidence?

The entire service might be a scam and you'd never know it. Not saying it is (or is not), but how would anyone know? Does ANY rock ANYWHERE show such DNA and then go on to cause fish diseases? Does a simple rinse wash it away?

IMO, it is up to the person making the claim (implied or otherwise) and making money from it to justify it.

At least the first step of showing that rock from, say, 5 local LFS, do show such pathogens, and this special rock does not.

next step up in complication is to show that the rock actually causes diseases that the DNA suggests.

Then I'd believe it to be useful.

 

[Calm Blue Ocean]

So if there was a tiny aptasia hidden somewhere deep in a crevasse of a rock, they claim they would be able to detect aptasia DNA in the water sample?

I've have had samples tested for both of my tanks and it's interesting what they can detect but the Eukaryotic analysis is not flawless. For instance the sample from my nano detected the anemones that my pom pom crab carries but didn't detect the pom pom crab herself. It detected many of the individual coral species in my tank but not all of them. The results from the test are definitely interesting but have limits.

 

[Cell]

That's amazing to me it detected the pom poms.

 

[MuscleBobBuffPants]

Diversity is only a small part of it. Maturity is what people are really paying for.

Hopefully the past few hundred million years has allowed the ocean to cook up a mature microbiome.

 

[MuscleBobBuffPants]

I've have had samples tested for both of my tanks and it's interesting what they can detect but the Eukaryotic analysis is not flawless. For instance the sample from my nano detected the anemones that my pom pom crab carries but didn't detect the pom pom crab herself. It detected many of the individual coral species in my tank but not all of them. The results from the test are definitely interesting but have limits.

Fascinating.

 

[Jekyl]

Hopefully the past few hundred million years has allowed the ocean to cook up a mature microbiome.

Meant when usually it's a much larger quantity.

 

[Calm Blue Ocean]

I'm not concerned about missing some "bad" DNA. That may happen, but its a technical issue that I hope they can deal with.

I'm concerned with the implied claim that there would be bad DNA from other types of rock, and that such DNA is an indication that the rock would cause a problem. Why would anyone accept that assertion without evidence?

The entire service might be a scam and you'd never know it. Not saying it is (or is not), but how would anyone know? Does ANY rock ANYWHERE show such DNA and then go on to cause fish diseases? Does a simple rinse wash it away?

IMO, it is up to the person making the claim (implied or otherwise) and making money from it to justify it.

At least the first step of showing that rock from, say, 5 local LFS, do show such pathogens, and this special rock does not.

next step up in complication is to show that the rock actually causes diseases that the DNA suggests.

Then I'd beleive it.

I suspect what the analysis is really saying is that the system that this rock came from doesn't show any known pests and has a particular bacterial diversity, at least as far as the tests can show.