A little reading: Blue Coral Method

[Curtswearing]

Over the course of the last 25 years I have seen a great many "methods" come and go, and then come and go yet again. After the initial "wow" factor has worn off, it all usualy goes back to just plain old basic husbandry skills and trying to emulate nature a bit better (DSBs, water changes, feeding and so on). There is no magical formula for good coral health and growth, You will get the same results of any "flavor of the month" method by providing the corals with what they recieve in the wild, which is good water quality, good lighting situations, and food.

And in 25 more years, it will boil down to this still. I've certainly not been doing this for 25 years but I'm amazed at some of the fads I've seen.

Even though someone mentioned 191 amino acids, Alina's research has found that only 16 (if my memory is correct) are "essential". All of the other ones are not utilized and essentially nutrients with no purpose. On a well-skimmed tank, this probably isn't that big of a deal. A good blender mush will break down into amino acids as well. I suspect that's why when I improved the ingredients in my mush, I got real good results as well. (You should have seen my 200g prop tank....it was a real good white trash hillbilly tank and I got amazing growth on my colonies and most of the tank was lit by PC's....yes you read that right...PC's). This is why I don't have a problem with people experimenting with AA's....it's just feeding in a chemical form. As long as you are careful and don't force the coral to grow too fast (therefore not putting down enough skeleton), I don't have a problem with it. I suppose it could be viewed as trying to perfect the food mixture.

BTW, for those who liked the study I posted earlier on the thread, here's more excellent articles by Alina Szmant on similar subjects.


Szmant, A. M. 2002. Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: Is it a major cause of coral reef decline? Estuaries 25: 743-766.

Miller, M.W., E. Weil and A.M. Szmant. 2000. Recruitment patterns and grazing regime as factors structuring reef benthic communities in Biscayne National Park, USA. Coral Reefs 19: 115-123.

Szmant, A.M., E. Weil, M.W. Miller and D.E. Colón. 1997. Hybridization within the species complex of scleractinian coral Montastraea annularis. Marine Biology 129: 561-572.

Szmant, A.M. 1997. Nutrient effects on coral reefs: the importance of topographic and trophic complexity on nutrient dynamics. Proc. 8th Internat. Coral Reef Symp., Panama, June 1996. Vol. 2: 1527-1532.

Szmant, A. M., L. M. Ferrer, and L. M. FitzGerald. 1989. Nitrogen excretion and O:N ratios in reef corals: evidence for conservation of nitrogen. Marine Biology. 104: 119-127.

 

[charlesr1958]

Very well said! and wish I had been the one to say it...lol, I do have to say that I am bit a surprised that for some, it seems to have come as a shock or a new found idea that corals need food by prey capture. It takes protein to grow or heal and they can only get that from eating. I guess the debate is in how we provide that protein. But I do have to say that I would be willing to bet your tank,,,err, my tank, that the corals recieve what ever protein / amino acids? that they need from the natural foods that they capture. I mean, how else do they get what they need and have evolved for just those diets. I can see no benefit from adding more protein to an already protein rich diet. Which are mostly larval plankton (shrimp, crab, pods and so on) and is why I use liquified shrimp to feed my system.
Any astounding new growth observed can simply be put down to the corals finally being fed and fed in proper amounts, those amounts are usualy thought of as being huge and scares the bejesus out of us. Which is why this comes as shock or new idea to most of us. The addition of anything extra to an already diverse diet (shrimp, clams and so on) is probably just wishfull thinking. Corals are only going to extract what they need from their food source, any "extra" is a waste and most likely just an additonal nutrient source for less desireable inhabitants such as algae or another load on your filtration.
The original concept should have been "Feed your corals, they grow faster! and here is my seafood recipe that I use" and left it at that...lol

Chuck

 

[charlesr1958]

I also forgot to say that I apologize to anyone if I seemed to have freaked out at first, which I did actualy..lol, My error was in assuming that everyone fed their corals in much the same manner as I do (flooding the tank with food) and the only thing that leapt out at me was the use of additives. Which is the part that freaked me out. And you have to admit, the first post which quoted the reasoning behind it all is (the quote) very poorly written and explained and comes off sounding like someone trying to hype it up.
This is also exactly how "fads" or "methods" get started, someone stumbles onto an idea that should have been common knowledge in the first place, or is common knowledge and in their search for fame and glory, figure that if corals use protein, well then, lets REALLY give them some protein. Which is where voodoo science and ancedotes come into their own. A recipe is born and great results are achieved, with never a thought that the corals are just benefiting from the regular food to begin with and only taking what they need. Thankfully, it would appear (to me) that the "magic" part of the recipe is of no real great harm, but could be. The same can not be said of other fads though. Anyways....thanks ya all!

Chuck

 

[Curtswearing]

Good point Chuck and I would like to expand a little on it.

We all know that SPS grow in oligotrophic (nutrient deficient) conditions. Yet coral reefs are the most productive (HIGHLY SIMPLIFIED descripton would be producer of nutrients) ecosytems known to mankind. Click for citation.

How can that be? An ecosystem that is known for producing nutrients yet is nutrient deficient. Should our tank be starved so that our tank is nutrient deficient? NOPE You'll get slowly growing SPS that will continually lighten in color. Should you have a tank filled with tons of nutrients for the SPS to feed on? NOPE Remember most SPS live in oligotrophic conditions. If you do this, you'll end up with ugly brown sticks.

How do you solve this problem? Feed your tank well and get rid of the waste afterwards. That's how the reef does it. Tides, upwellings, and storms give a reef waterchanges that no human could possibly duplicate. (There's also a very tight cycling of nutrients that happens that's beyond the scope of this thread).

 

[ReeferPatt]

The "quote" was written in Italian then translatet to English so we could read it. It was already known that not all 191 AA's were not being known. They are working on a study and research paper which will give the infor on what AA's are actually being used. So no doubt good skimming is essential.
Have a good one.

 

[CarlaW]

Does anybody know what these folks are doing as far as water changes go? I don't remember anything about that on the RC thread, although I probably missed it.

 

[ReeferPatt]

Does anybody know what these folks are doing as far as water changes go? I don't remember anything about that on the RC thread, although I probably missed it.

I don't remember reading anything about that myself. I think they just chauked it up to good husbandry.

 

[ReeferPatt]

Curt, great reply. Thanks.
As far as "additives" being used, AA's, I think the idea here is to find a source of AA's that works the best. GLN, Asperatic Acids ect. are just another source. Is it experimenting, probably so. The Italians won't elaborate on what AA's they've found that work the best yet. When they are finished with their study they will publish their findings for everyone to see.
Being these are closed systems and like was said, we can't even to begin to duplicate the ocean. All we can do is try......

 

[class clown]

Here's a question.. it's been recomended the dosage be once every 2 weeks. Why not break the dosage up into 1/14th the size and do it everynight? It seems that it woudl be less shock on the animals, no?

I'm sure there is a good reason why, but it's bugging me. Hopefuly someone has some light to shine on the subject.

 

[ReeferPatt]

Here's a question.. it's been recomended the dosage be once every 2 weeks. Why not break the dosage up into 1/14th the size and do it everynight? It seems that it woudl be less shock on the animals, no?

I'm sure there is a good reason why, but it's bugging me. Hopefuly someone has some light to shine on the subject.

I really couldn't give you a good reason why. I've been feeding once a week from the beginning. Now every four days. I think about the only reason not to feed every nite would be the skimmer. It would skim off all the good stuff unless you turned it down every nite. To much hassle for me.

 

[CarlaW]

Here's a question.. it's been recomended the dosage be once every 2 weeks. Why not break the dosage up into 1/14th the size and do it everynight? It seems that it woudl be less shock on the animals, no?

I'm sure there is a good reason why, but it's bugging me. Hopefuly someone has some light to shine on the subject.

If it was me, I would start with the recommended dose, and see what happens. I wouldn't go "whole hog" up until I started seeing some positive results. JMHO

 

[class clown]

I really couldn't give you a good reason why. I've been feeding once a week from the beginning. Now every four days. I think about the only reason not to feed every nite would be the skimmer. It would skim off all the good stuff unless you turned it down every nite. To much hassle for me.

I can just program my controller to only run the skimmer during the day so the hassle is not much of a concern. But do I have to reach a point of decent saturation in the water with this food for it to have the good affects claimed, or do you think a little even bits every night woudl have a better effect? I dunno.. it seems like the least invasive way to introduce this to the system woudl be in even small increments. other thoughts?

 

[ReeferPatt]

I can just program my controller to only run the skimmer during the day so the hassle is not much of a concern. But do I have to reach a point of decent saturation in the water with this food for it to have the good affects claimed, or do you think a little even bits every night woudl have a better effect? I dunno.. it seems like the least invasive way to introduce this to the system woudl be in even small increments. other thoughts?

My thought on that is the skimmer will run everyday, skimming of the food. So I don't think you'll be able to reach a saturation level. If I remember correctly your tank is 125g? Feeding in such small amounts I personally think you won't be feeding enough to give the corals the amount of foods to do much good. IF it were me, and it's not, I'd stick with the once a week feeding. This will allow the tank, corals, to adjust to the recipe. You put the GLN in, correct. That is new to the system. If you were able to reach saturation levels your nutrients may be off the chart. I feed then do a water change a day or two after. I've found this to be of help in keeping the nutrients in check. Also if you were to be able to reach saturation levels, you'd be cleaning your glass everyday due to diatoms or even algae outbreaks. That's my .02, hope that helps..

 

[class clown]

Roger that.. thanks Pat

 

[ReeferPatt]

Hey Ben, one other thing. I noticed you run 250w Reeflux 12k. Just a little advice, for what it's worth to ya. The 12K bulb puts out "half" the par as the
10k, seriously. INTENSE lighting is another factor in this. Not as blue as the
12K but a very nice bulb. Just a thought:idea:

 

[class clown]

yeah.. see when I was researching the 12ks, I read somewhere that they were the same par as the 10ks. The good news is that it's only a 55 display, so the 2 250w is plenty. I could really only keep my 10ks on for about 5 hrs during the day or else my tips got burnt. these I keep on for a good 10 hrs and no burning so I believe it that the par rating is half. do you by chance know where I can get the stats on these bulbs? a link to some more info where you found that info perhaps?

 

[ReeferPatt]

yeah.. see when I was researching the 12ks, I read somewhere that they were the same par as the 10ks. The good news is that it's only a 55 display, so the 2 250w is plenty. I could really only keep my 10ks on for about 5 hrs during the day or else my tips got burnt. these I keep on for a good 10 hrs and no burning so I believe it that the par rating is half. do you by chance know where I can get the stats on these bulbs? a link to some more info where you found that info perhaps?

Yep, right here: http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com
Sanjay has tested just about every bulb out there. Along with reflectors.
You can also ask questions on this thread and there's plenty of lighting guru's there to help.http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9289783#post9289783

 

[jezzeaepi]

93 pfd for 10k, 75 ppfd for 12k. Thats only a 20% difference.

 

[ReeferPatt]

93 pfd for 10k, 75 ppfd for 12k. Thats only a 20% difference.

I was quoting someone who had just tested both, back to back, same reflector, same ballast. You may very well be right though. I'm definetly no lighting expert, by a long shot.

 

[jezzeaepi]

Im defintly no expert either, but I trust Sanjay's measurements. I only looked it up because I was planning on using 12k reefluxes on my future tank and wanted to see exactly how they stacked up.