virginiadiver69
New member
I think I may just get cold easy.
Common Misconceptions In the Hobby
- Thread starter Peter Eichler
- Start date
Paul B
Premium Member
The only thing I caqn say about tridacna clams is that they are all over the place in the South Pacific especially Bora Bora and you have to watch that you don't step on them in the shallow water. I have had many of them which I have never fed and they grow a little over an inch a year with no food what so ever.
This bay in Bora Bora is loaded with them.
This bay in Bora Bora is loaded with them.
:lol: that proves my whole point!!! he wrote the article FOR them and if you read it and believe it you would think that if you didn't feed your clam it will die. complete BS!! zoox do not live in the blood, in context or out, they dont do it.
do you think Dennis would have paid for an article that looked unfavorable of phytoplankton? that article says that clams only eat phyto, false!
i think this is the reason why some aren't so smitten with Shemik. he doesnt seem to have a problem crafting thing to his liking
MiddletonMark
Premium Member
Ninong, while the statement about most of the year was incorrect .... they do get to the 70's, but range fairly widely.
I should have said, `they can get to the mid-70's, without issue for the health of the reef'.
I was just attemting to correct the misconception that healthy reefs don't exist in those temps. Reef is a pretty wide category, as we both know.
If I may add one common hobby misconception:
Generalizations rarely turn out to be fully correct
Seems to apply across the board, exception one thing IME .... that when you meet up with reefkeepers of all ages, sizes, and kinds - they tend to be nice in person.
My explanation that the article was written by Ron Shimek was in response to RichConley's comment that he doesn't believe anything on DT's website. It wasn't intended to prove or refute your point.
Of course, the article is going to recommend feeding live phytoplankton. Do you think Dennis would have paid for it if it didn't?
Anyway, I think feeding live phytoplankton to juvenile clams is a good idea. It may not be absolutely necessary, but it's still a good idea in my opinion.
The operative phrase from Shimek's quote about zooxanthellae in the blood is "Tridacna and Hippopus clams have symbiotic zooxanthellae located in their blood."
I hope we're not going to get into a Clintonesque discussion of the definition of is, but no one used the word "live" except you.
BTW, on page 32 of the June/July 2004 issue of Coral magazine, Daniel Knop says "giant clams contain symbiotic algae in their blood systems."
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10647451#post10647451 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mbbuna
wrong, ill get back to ya ninong
OK, here's my statement that you say is "wrong" --
"In their natural environment, juvenile Tridacna clams get as much as 40% of their nutrition from filtering. This percentage decreases with age until it drops to less than 5% in mature clams."
Let me clarify it in case you're reading something into it that I didn't say.
Juvenile clams get as much as 40% of their nutrition from filtering. This has been established. I even linked to a study of T. gigas juveniles that measured this.
This percentage decreases with age until it drops to less than 5% in mature clams. It's around 5% in T. gigas and zero in other Tridacnids. It's sometimes slightly more than 5% in T. gigas depending on the environmental circumstances. T. gigas retains the ability to move between hetero- and autotrophic uptake its entire life.
Aquarist007
New member
is this a quantum leap--or are we not to have faith in DT phyto either.
I started my own phyto awhile ago and was discouraged from using it----reasons being that eventually it would have only one strain due to Darwinism, and it was fully of phosphates due to the nurtrient we were using (miracle grow). It was suggested that DT was the best way to go-------
and this question resurfaces( I think it got ignored in the hands vs the brains debate going on
) How much is misconception that we have to feed our coral and I guess we could add clams large daily doses of phyto and zooplankton?
Peter Eichler
New member
Haha, gotta love the twists and turns this thread takes 
But, lets lay off on bashing people that aren't here to defend themselves (saying you don't agree is perfectly fine). Unless you all want to bash Thiel, then go for it! 
:lol:
Also, thanks to all for all the contributions, and all the debates that have made the thread interesting. You've all played a part in getting this thread nominated for thread of the month (even the crumudgeons) .
Now go vote for whichever thread you like best!
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1193958
But, lets lay off on bashing people that aren't here to defend themselves (saying you don't agree is perfectly fine). Unless you all want to bash Thiel, then go for it! :lol:Also, thanks to all for all the contributions, and all the debates that have made the thread interesting. You've all played a part in getting this thread nominated for thread of the month (even the crumudgeons
) .Now go vote for whichever thread you like best!
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1193958
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10647794#post10647794 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
OK, here's my statement that you say is "wrong" --
"In their natural environment, juvenile Tridacna clams get as much as 40% of their nutrition from filtering. This percentage decreases with age until it drops to less than 5% in mature clams."
Let me clarify it in case you're reading something into it that I didn't say.
Juvenile clams get as much as 40% of their nutrition from filtering. This has been established. I even linked to a study of T. gigas juveniles that measured this.
This percentage decreases with age until it drops to less than 5% in mature clams. It's around 5% in T. gigas and zero in other Tridacnids. It's sometimes slightly more than 5% in T. gigas depending on the environmental circumstances. T. gigas retains the ability to move between hetero- and autotrophic uptake its entire life.
What I hear you stating in praticalities is that all clams esp adult ones should be placed up high in the reef near the halides?
Like this little guy---would not open and was just plain unhappy until I moved him up high
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10648020#post10648020 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Haha, gotta love the twists and turns this thread takes
Also, thanks to all for all the contributions, and all the debates that have made the thread interesting. You've all played a part in getting this thread nominated for thread of the month (even the crumudgeons
Now go vote for whichever thread you like best!
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1193958
I asked this earlier---how many votes do we get?
Its really a toss up between this thread and and the thread where the two college kids were bashing everyone who didn't agree that could keep six tangs in a 29gal tank(slight exaggeration) :smokin: :rollface: :smokin: ---and then when they didn't receive praise "moved on"
Peter Eichler
New member
That really depends, many clams can do quite well at the bottom of fairly deep tanks (24ish inches) as long as lighting is strong enough. I had a Crocea that bleached in shipping and it regained it's full color being 24" below 6x39w T5s.
FWIW I've had 4 clams(2 Croceas, a Deresa and a Squamosa) at the bottom of a 24" tank (first a 90 and now a 120) for several years now. The longest being there ~ 4 years and the shortest about 2. They do very well under SE 10K 250 watt MH run on manetic ballasts with VHO atinics.
Seeing as how you are running 150 watt lights it very well might like it a little higher. Deresas are a lower light clam FWIW.
hth, Chris
Seeing as how you are running 150 watt lights it very well might like it a little higher. Deresas are a lower light clam FWIW.
hth, Chris
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10648062#post10648062 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
What I hear you stating in praticalities is that all clams esp adult ones should be placed up high in the reef near the halides?
Like this little guy---would not open and was just plain unhappy until I moved him up high
Wow! I didn't say that anywhere in this thread that I know of. However, I do think that Tridacna crocea and T. maxima clams do better when placed on a flat rocky surface and in a location where they will receive adequate light. In most reef tanks under typical lighting that means higher on the rock structure rather than lower. If you're running 1000w lamps, then place them anywhere you please.
In their natural environment both crocea and maxima clams are found on rocky substrate or on coral heads. Gigas clams and derasa clams are found on the sand bed. Derasa clams do attach to the reef initially but they lose their byssal attachment once they achieve female sexual maturity at around 30cm and then they become unattached and fall to the sand bed. The weight of mature gigas and derasa clams keeps them upright.
P.S. -- I've kept both croceas and maximas in as 120-gal tank under 250w 10,000K DE halides and the croceas definitely retain their mantle coloration better when placed higher up on the rock structure. IME, croceas require more light than maximas but I didn't put any of them on the sandbed.
Last edited:
Peter Eichler
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10647995#post10647995 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
is this a quantum leap--or are we not to have faith in DT phyto either.
I started my own phyto awhile ago and was discouraged from using it----reasons being that eventually it would have only one strain due to Darwinism, and it was fully of phosphates due to the nurtrient we were using (miracle grow). It was suggested that DT was the best way to go-------
and this question resurfaces( I think it got ignored in the hands vs the brains debate going on
How much is misconception that we have to feed our coral and I guess we could add clams large daily doses of phyto and zooplankton?
That's a very difficult thing to answer due to all the possible factors involved. In short, sometimes they need to be fed, sometimes they get enough food indirectly, sometimes they can produce 100% of their nutritional needs through photosynthesis and perhaps a little particulate matter here and there.
Read this for a much more in depth portrayal of corals nutritional requirements.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-07/eb/index.php
Here's another interesting read by Rob Toonen.
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/r_toonen_102500.html
Last edited:
Peter Eichler
New member
Just to expand on the above a bit, I'd say it's a misconception that photosynthetic corals only need light in order to thrive. It's also a misconception that all corals need supplemental feeding beyond what nutrition they get from leftovers from feeding your fish and other nutrients in the water column.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10650150#post10650150 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mbbuna
wow ninong!! i have a lot of posting to do in the morning:lol:
so really, all gigas and derasa just happen to come out of there planktonic state and land on the edge of the reef so that when they reach full sexual maturate they fall to the sand?
this is getting good
Tridacna gigas are commonly found in muddy seagrass beds, not shallow water reef flat areas like most other tridacnids.
I didn't say all gigas and derasa just happen to settle on the edge of the reef. What I'm saying is that it is common for gigas and derasa to lose their byssal attachment as they mature and this results in them ending up in another location from the one where they settled in most cases.
Similar threads
