hey guys. i have two clams. a squamosa and a maxima. the squamosa is roughly 4-5 inches and the max is probably right at 3. i got the squamosa last xmas and it has grown a little over a half an inch (its already grown a new set of scales or yellow fingernails as i call 'em). thing is i bought the max maybe two weeks after the squamosa and it hasnt shown the same growth. it HAS grown, but maybe only an eighth of an inch. do all tridacnids grow at relatively the same rate? or should i be worried that something is wrong? i have two 175w mhs and a 96w 03 actinic on a 46 gal tank. water is quality is good with cal at or around 400ppm and alk at 9dKH. i feed phytoplankton so i know that there really isnt a concern with that. there is one thing that i think might make a difference. the max is attached to a piece of rock on the sand bed. the sand bed is up from the bottom about 4 inches. from the floor to the lights is probably around 25 inches. so with the sandbed i would say that the max is probably 20 inches from the mhs but directly under the bulb. could that be it? does it need to be closer? any help would be appreciated. thanks guys. anthony
clams growth rates
- Thread starter amnesiac
- Start date
Funny, my maxes are growing faster than my squamosas!
Either way I think your CA and ALK are a tad low. You should try to get your CA at lest up to natural seawater levels.
What kind of plankton are you feeding?
And yes, I think your max should be much closer to your halides. I think he would be much happier
Best of luck!
Jeff
Either way I think your CA and ALK are a tad low. You should try to get your CA at lest up to natural seawater levels.
What kind of plankton are you feeding?
And yes, I think your max should be much closer to your halides. I think he would be much happier
Best of luck!
Jeff
i had a long drawn out conversation with richard stark about the same thing the other day. actually from what ive researched 400-420ppm is, on average, the natural level at which most waters are at while dkh is usually from 7-8. and my readings are steady readings with little if any fluctuation. so whatevers being taken out is constantly being replenished. i find it just a tad bit pointless to try and achieve levels higher than 400ppm if whatevers being taken out is constantly being replenished. its like adding a second gas tank to your car just in case. also with my system, which is a very modest system, keeping levels higher would be more costly and in the end prove to be in excess. ive got maybe 10 corals total with only the max showing limited growth. however, i do think that my maximas placement probably is the culprit, as you said. and in answering your question i use phytoplex (the kent stuff). i ran a search in this special interest group on the kent stuff and found that it was most used in place of dts with the best results. i would have to agree just from the squamosas growth alone. thanks for the input.
Sounds good. I however, think you may have your Kent/DTs info backwards.....everybody uses DTs instead of Phytoplex Kent stuff is "clumpy" since it's dead and often too large for our clams to eat since they can only filter 5 microns or less I believe it is There was a greart Phyto study run in last year's Marine and Reef USA Annual magazine you may want to check out. Since DTs is live it contained more nutritional value.
If you did read where Kent phyto is "better" than DTs I'd like to see I've never heard anyone say that before
Best of luck
Jeff
Kent stuff is "clumpy" since it's dead and often too large for our clams to eat since they can only filter 5 microns or less I believe it is There was a greart Phyto study run in last year's Marine and Reef USA Annual magazine you may want to check out. Since DTs is live it contained more nutritional value.If you did read where Kent phyto is "better" than DTs I'd like to see
I've never heard anyone say that before Best of luck
Jeff
Similar threads
