Fish Poop as coral food?
- Thread starter taketz
- Start date
SIZZLA KALONJI
New member
It's important to remember that on an average only about 1-4% of everything taken into a fish's gut is used/icorporated into that animal,so whats comming out the Cloaca is really like a moving buffet..spreadding all kinds of goodies over the natural reefs as well as these small closed systems we create in our homes.
IMO...........as per my understandding(but i don't know anything)!
Hows that for a "disclaimer"
IMO...........as per my understandding(but i don't know anything)!
Hows that for a "disclaimer"
T Man
~PPPPPPP~
I have observed one of my damsels hover over my Goniopora and evacuate themselves. The wierd thing about is, it looked like the poo landed in the center of one of the polyps, and the tentacles seemed to grab it, break it up into smaller peices and passed it around like it was sharing! That's really what it looked like............ my personal observation. TinMan
MCsaxmaster
New member
There have been a number of studies over the years that have found corals with resident fish (usually damsels or grunts) grow faster than those without fish and that growth slows if fish are removed. Most of those were done in the 80's or earlier. Some more recent work (last 3 or 4 years) has been done in Eilat, Israel looking at the effects of fish farms (aquaculture) on coral health and growth. They species used (Stylophora pistillata and Acropora verweyi) grow faster and are healthier by every metric when close to the farms as compared to those far from them. Do a google scholar search on this and you'll find the papers.
Chris
Chris
MCsaxmaster
New member
What "bad" stuff in fish waste are you talking about?
kaptken
New member
My opinion is:
What's good for the Doo Doo-er! Is good for the Doo-EE! I'm quite sure polyps are not that selective on what they snatch and grab from the water column, as long as it has some edible value!
YUCK!!
How can such pretty corals have such bad taste??
I don't know... It's a mystery to me?
What's good for the Doo Doo-er! Is good for the Doo-EE! I'm quite sure polyps are not that selective on what they snatch and grab from the water column, as long as it has some edible value!
YUCK!!
How can such pretty corals have such bad taste??
I don't know... It's a mystery to me?
antonsemrad
New member
Indeed, the 'fish poo' method gets good reviews.
But it seems to me, that folks don't give 'fish food' much thought. What is flake food anyway? Who keeps it in the fridge? What is the date on it? Why is it that color?
Why is it that on a natural reef, there is way more fish poo floating around than in the dirtiest reef tank that you ever saw, but yet still, the corals feel the need to capture food with a higher nutrient profile at night?
Am I wrong about this?
What about the inorganic nutrients (ammonia) that the fish leave behind? Doesn't it just get converted to carbon/sugar/carbohydrates/mucus that is not all that useful for growth?
Or, can some corals culture (with mucus) bacteria to eat, and in the process convert undesirable nutrients into something more useful for growth?
I suspect that this is the case with montiporia. And then there are the 'slimers'.
Anyway, food for thought (I hope)
Anton
But it seems to me, that folks don't give 'fish food' much thought. What is flake food anyway? Who keeps it in the fridge? What is the date on it? Why is it that color?
Why is it that on a natural reef, there is way more fish poo floating around than in the dirtiest reef tank that you ever saw, but yet still, the corals feel the need to capture food with a higher nutrient profile at night?
Am I wrong about this?
What about the inorganic nutrients (ammonia) that the fish leave behind? Doesn't it just get converted to carbon/sugar/carbohydrates/mucus that is not all that useful for growth?
Or, can some corals culture (with mucus) bacteria to eat, and in the process convert undesirable nutrients into something more useful for growth?
I suspect that this is the case with montiporia. And then there are the 'slimers'.
Anyway, food for thought (I hope)
Anton
There may be one other step in the process: the bacteria in the sand, and the bristleworms. I have heard it said that without the worms, there would be far fewer corals, since the worms break down poo into a finer particle, and may process out some of the inconvenient chemicals.
MCsaxmaster
New member
Why is it that on a natural reef, there is way more fish poo floating around than in the dirtiest reef tank that you ever saw, but yet still, the corals feel the need to capture food with a higher nutrient profile at night?
It seems as though you're assuming that the only function of polyp extension is food capture. Yes, this is a major reason a coral extends its polyps, but certainly it is not the only reason. Besides, there is a lot more food available at night and some corals extend their polyps 24/7. There are many reasons both day and night to extend or not extend polyps and food availability, while critically important, is only one of them.
What about the inorganic nutrients (ammonia) that the fish leave behind? Doesn't it just get converted to carbon/sugar/carbohydrates/mucus that is not all that useful for growth?
Ammonia can be used to produce amino acids, proteins, and other N-rich substances, not sugar/carbohydrates. Some N is lost as mucus, and dissolved substances, for sure, but symbiotic corals are pretty good at retaining nitrogen.
Or, can some corals culture (with mucus) bacteria to eat, and in the process convert undesirable nutrients into something more useful for growth?
Corals probably can and do make use of the bacteria on their surface layers (actually, it would be really shocking if they weren't living in some sort of symbiosis) but it doesn't seem that these surface layer bacteria can contribute very dramatically to the nutrition of the corals. Also, which nutrients are you suggesting would be undesirable? The zooxanthellae can take up ammonia, nitrate and orthophosphate and translocate these to the coral. However, the concentrations in nature are usually so low that this only happens (net uptake) when the local conditions elevate these inorganic nutrients for short periods of time (upwelling, passing fish, etc.).
There may be one other step in the process: the bacteria in the sand, and the bristleworms. I have heard it said that without the worms, there would be far fewer corals, since the worms break down poo into a finer particle, and may process out some of the inconvenient chemicals.
Large decomposers breaking detritus into smaller pieces definitely faciliates decomposition and may make detritus a much more managable size to eat for a lot of corals. What 'incovenient chemicals' are you talking about though?
cj
It seems as though you're assuming that the only function of polyp extension is food capture. Yes, this is a major reason a coral extends its polyps, but certainly it is not the only reason. Besides, there is a lot more food available at night and some corals extend their polyps 24/7. There are many reasons both day and night to extend or not extend polyps and food availability, while critically important, is only one of them.
What about the inorganic nutrients (ammonia) that the fish leave behind? Doesn't it just get converted to carbon/sugar/carbohydrates/mucus that is not all that useful for growth?
Ammonia can be used to produce amino acids, proteins, and other N-rich substances, not sugar/carbohydrates. Some N is lost as mucus, and dissolved substances, for sure, but symbiotic corals are pretty good at retaining nitrogen.
Or, can some corals culture (with mucus) bacteria to eat, and in the process convert undesirable nutrients into something more useful for growth?
Corals probably can and do make use of the bacteria on their surface layers (actually, it would be really shocking if they weren't living in some sort of symbiosis) but it doesn't seem that these surface layer bacteria can contribute very dramatically to the nutrition of the corals. Also, which nutrients are you suggesting would be undesirable? The zooxanthellae can take up ammonia, nitrate and orthophosphate and translocate these to the coral. However, the concentrations in nature are usually so low that this only happens (net uptake) when the local conditions elevate these inorganic nutrients for short periods of time (upwelling, passing fish, etc.).
There may be one other step in the process: the bacteria in the sand, and the bristleworms. I have heard it said that without the worms, there would be far fewer corals, since the worms break down poo into a finer particle, and may process out some of the inconvenient chemicals.
Large decomposers breaking detritus into smaller pieces definitely faciliates decomposition and may make detritus a much more managable size to eat for a lot of corals. What 'incovenient chemicals' are you talking about though?
cj
antonsemrad
New member
Orthophosphate mainly, nitrate and ammonia too.
I am under the impression that they are less useful, as opposed to food as prey capture. I guess I should have said less desirable, especially when talking about aquaria.
Thank you for you well thought out responses.:thumbsup:
