my house reef (211 g.)

[kimoyo]

Hey Mesocosm,

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7096188#post7096188 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
While it is true that nonzooxanthellate derived pigments profoundly impact coloration of corals (more so than many high post-count RC regulars acknowledge), pocciloporins are but a group of a much larger set of compounds. Pocciloporins are but one of MANY chromoproteins which influence what humans perceive as coral "coloration." Astaxanthins, ketones, carotenoids, xanthophylls, melanins, purines, ommochromes, porphyrins, to list but a few, are ALL involved ... and the list becomes more defined in the literature each year. To assert that pocciloporins are the determinant compounds for coral coloration is ... well ... forgive me ... misleading.

I thought the first coral pigment identified was a pink colored pigment found within a Pocillopora damicornis stony coral, so they were given the name pocilloporin.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7096188#post7096188 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
Zooxanthellae DO in fact directly synthesize proteins that are directly expressed in terms of fluorescence ... among these are MAA (mycosporine-like amino acids), flavines, urobilines, and pterines. "These compounds are responsible for some of the blue, green, and pink fluorescent colors found in so many corals of the reef. ... Many corals in the aquarium become fluorescent green under strong lighting, and it is likely that these pigments are responsible for the color change (Borneman 2001)." Just because a compound is colorless in a test tube does NOT mean that it lacks either fluorescent or refractory properties in situ.

This is to say nothing of the role that pigment precursors synthesized by zooxanthellae play in the synthesis of nonzooxanthellate pigments within cnidarian cells.

I have no objection to the assertion that nonzooxanthellate derived pigments may end up being the most significant influence of a given specimen's coloration, but to say that "these pigments determine the colors" is ... well ... incomplete.

Do you have the rest of this quote from Borneman or the supporting research article. The vastly dominant zoox pigments are chlorophyll_a & chlorophyll_c and carotenoid peridinin. While they absorb colors in violet/blue range (some green for carotenoid) they reflect/flouresce green (chlorophyll) and red (carotenoid). The combo creates brown but the color most of us are looking for come from the coral.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7096188#post7096188 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
No problem with the first part (having recently asserted it myself), but ... is it being suggested that zooxanthellae (the vast majority of which reside in the gastrodermis below the epidermis) are "covering the colors" of nonzooxanthellate pigments (which are primarily located in the epidermis above the zooxanthellae)? Hmmm ... maybe a German-English translation glitch involving "covering"? Even so ... if the CSD of zooxanthellae are capable of determining the color of a coral specimen, not because of pigmentation, but because of the CSD's effect on the refraction of light, how can it be asserted that MAA is not doing the same thing?

Obviously he didn't mean that the zoox physcially cover the coral, I hope the majority of us understand that the zoox are actually inside the coral. He used cover in the sense of conceal or cloak. The more zoox the more brown we see.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7096188#post7096188 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
See above responses ... I would respectfully assert that it is not that simple and that zooxanthellae are directly involved in the biosynthesis of compounds which result in what we refer to as "color". The literature simply abounds with references to the functioning of zooxanthellae in what Humans refer to as "coloration."

Can you be more specific with what you are saying here. Thanks.

BTW, if your intereseted in a good dicussion (for the most part) you should check out this thread.
We've actually already discussed some of the articles you posted.

 

[mesocosm]

What's up Kimoyo? We've never met, but I typically enjoy your posts immensely.

I thought the first coral pigment identified was a pink colored pigment found within a Pocillopora damicornis stony coral, so they were given the name pocilloporin.

Indeed ... but are we really saying that a ketone is properly categorized as a pocciloporin? ... or a xanthophyll as a pocciloporin? Maybe within the context of "the hobby" ... fair enough (in which case I withdraw my objection, and apologise for wasting everyone's time) ... but it seems to me that we can (and should) do better than that. As long as we're trapped in the realm of anecdotal "evidence" and hobbyist "literature", we're just that ... trapped.

JMO ... FWIW.

Do you have the rest of this quote from Borneman or the supporting research article. ...

The quote is extracted from Aquarium Corals: Selection, husbandry, and Natural History(Borneman 2001). From the zooxanthellae chapter ... I want to say somewhere around page 54, but it's not in front of me right now. I haven't checked out the chapter's bibliography ... but that's a great idea.

... The vastly dominant zoox pigments are chlorophyll_a & chlorophyll_c and carotenoid peridinin. While they absorb colors in violet/blue range (some green for carotenoid) they reflect/flouresce green (chlorophyll) and red (carotenoid). The combo creates brown but the color most of us are looking for come from the coral.

Agreed ... but this kind of makes my point, doesn't it? The assertion was that zooxanthellae don't determine color ...

I'm talking about "what we see" ... as opposed to "what we're interested in seeing." I don't see any way to either cleanly, or (more importantly) usefully separate out the pathways ... at least not from my read of the literature.

More to the point ... are people suggesting that photosynthates and pigment precursors (generated by zooxanthellae, and controlled by zooxanthellae DNA, respectively) have no determinant effect on the pigment which is synthesized? If not ... then please explain how we can talk about zooxanthellae not being responsible for pigment biosynthesis.

It seems to me that we're talking about subtle stuff ... in the absence of definitive research literature (I don't mean it hasn't been posted yet ... I mean it hasn't been created yet). I remain open to suggestions ... and look forward to hearing what people have to say. (BTW ... ALWAYS looking for better references. Please post them for everyone).

... He used cover in the sense of conceal or cloak. The more zoox the more brown we see.

Fair enough (I guess I just don't share your optimism regarding baseline knowledge regarding anthozoan physiology) ... but we're talking about the effects of refraction, yes? How can the zooxanthellae in the gastrodermis effect refraction, but not the MAA in the epidermis?

This was the intended point ... the reflection/fluorscence off of a pocciloporin granule or chromophore results from light waves which have already been refracted by MAA ... a refraction "pattern" which continually changes in response to MAA concentration.

Is it being suggested that a given pigment would "look the same" in the absence of such MAA refraction? If that answer is 'no' (which is my assertion), then the concentration and structure of MAA is partially determinant (not completely, of course) of the fluorescence of a pocciolporin. MAA are synthesized by the zooxanthellae ... therefore they do in fact participate in the determination of color.

In other words ... the colors we're all interested in having our specimens produce results from an interaction with things other than the pigment itself. Many ... but certainly not all ... of those "things" are biosynthersized (or caused to be biosynthesized) by zooxanthellae.

Can you be more specific with what you are saying here.

If we're going to call everything a "pocciloporin" ... and say everything is done by cnidarian hosts cells ... aren't we overlooking the actual mechanisms (in favor of readability, or something worse)? Therefore aren't we missing out on opportunities to manipulate the color expression that we seek?



From a different angle ...

Question: Other than water flow and the genetic predisposition of specimens ... How is it that some BB Berlin-style reefs are able to generate and manipulate quite excellent pigmentation even though their masters supplement neither coral "foods" or amino acids in any direct form?

Answer: (Primarily through ...) Manipulation of nitrogen limitation (through "husbandry" and/or "control" of vertebrate excreta), and photoadaptive response ("lighting" selection and management).

Question: What is the primary "target" of such a nitrogen limitation & photoadaptive response strategy?

Answer: Zooxanthellae.



JMO

 

[mesocosm]

I haven't checked out the chapter's bibliography ... but that's a great idea.

No it's not ... never mind. Not chapter indexed ... alpha numeric. How inconvenient is that?

Do you have the rest of this quote from Borneman or the supporting research article. ...

My bad ... page 53. Paragraph immediately following the section heading "Fluorescent Pigments".


BTW ... in the same book ... check out the glossary on page 415 where Borneman defines "pocilloporin" ...

Pocilloporin: a pigment of unknown function responsible for the pink or blue coloration in some genera of corals, most notably Pocillopora and some species of Acropora.

Extracted from:
Aquarium Corals (Borneman 2001)
Glossary page 415

For the record, Calfo uses the term "pocilloporin" as a specific chemical label also (as opposed to useage as a group name ... not that either Borneman or Calfo are definitive). Calfo writes ...

Pocilloporin is only found in daylight flooded, shallow water speices, and while its role has not been clearly defined ... .

Extracted from:
Book of Coral Propagation Calfo 2001-2003)
page 237.

Not that I have any particular objection to the use of "pocilloporines" ... it's just that I prefer more precision. It's like with fish ... some people use Blue-Line Tang, Bluelined Sailfin Tang, Brown Sailfin Tang, Brown Sailfin Surgeonfish, Brown Sailing Tang, Brown Tang, or Brushtail Tang to name the same fish. I prefer Zebrosoma scopas. (Fishbase.org Common Names for Zebrasoma scopas)



Mind you ... it's not like there isn't a history to the useage of "pocillioporins" in the literature which arguably lays claim for the term to describe a larger class of pigments ...

Isolation and Partial Characterization of the Pink and Blue Pigments of Pocilloporid and Acroporid Corals.
Dove, Takabayashi and Hoegh-Guldberg
Biological Bulletin 189; 288-297, (December 1995)
Full Article (pdf)

BTW, from the same article ... "Pocilloporin may act as an agent that enhances the abilities of the pigmented morph to resist fouling, or predation, or to compete successfully ... . Pocilloporin, therefore might function in the coral's immunological and chemical defense systems."



My perspective ... while admittedly more than a little twisted ... is hardly outside the mainstream of the literature ...

J.-K. Yu, T.-H. Liao, L.-S. Fang, W.-S. Tsai, C. A. Chen. Do color patterns of Pocillopora damicornis correlate with zooxanthellae diversity? . Coral Reefs . 19. 98-99, 2000.

I'll let you folks hunt this one down. (Hint: Unless you want shell out $30, you'll need a library card).



JMO

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7109988#post7109988 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
What's up Kimoyo? We've never met, but I typically enjoy your posts immensely.

:lol:, you probably haven't read most of them.

Nice to meet you also and I also like some of the stuff you said on that 'other' forum .

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7109988#post7109988 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
Indeed ... but are we really saying that a ketone is properly categorized as a pocciloporin? ... or a xanthophyll as a pocciloporin? Maybe within the context of "the hobby" ... fair enough (in which case I withdraw my objection, and apologise for wasting everyone's time) ... but it seems to me that we can (and should) do better than that. As long as we're trapped in the realm of anecdotal "evidence" and hobbyist "literature", we're just that ... trapped.

JMO ... FWIW.

I assume that the problem is that one of the best research articles, Dove, S G, Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Ranganathan, S. (2001) "Major colour patterns of reef-building corals are due to a family of GFP-like proteins." Coral Reefs 19: 197-204, that is frequently referenced was done on pocciloporin stoney corals. Therefore when most people talk about this type of stuff they will refer to pocciloporin but your right its probably not the best thing and I've often wondered about that myself.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7109988#post7109988 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
Agreed ... but this kind of makes my point, doesn't it? The assertion was that zooxanthellae don't determine color ...

I'm talking about "what we see" ... as opposed to "what we're interested in seeing." I don't see any way to either cleanly, or (more importantly) usefully separate out the pathways ... at least not from my read of the literature.

More to the point ... are people suggesting that photosynthates and pigment precursors (generated by zooxanthellae, and controlled by zooxanthellae DNA, respectively) have no determinant effect on the pigment which is synthesized? If not ... then please explain how we can talk about zooxanthellae not being responsible for pigment biosynthesis.

It seems to me that we're talking about subtle stuff ... in the absence of definitive research literature (I don't mean it hasn't been posted yet ... I mean it hasn't been created yet). I remain open to suggestions ... and look forward to hearing what people have to say. (BTW ... ALWAYS looking for better references. Please post them for everyone).

I don't know. I'm actually in the middle of an ongoing discussion about this type of stuff and have a lot of reading to do before a fellow hobbyist gets back from vacation to continue our talk. Since they are symbiotes they might very well affect coral pigments but I haven't read anything specifically on it.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7109988#post7109988 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
Fair enough (I guess I just don't share your optimism regarding baseline knowledge regarding anthozoan physiology) ... but we're talking about the effects of refraction, yes? How can the zooxanthellae in the gastrodermis effect refraction, but not the MAA in the epidermis?

This was the intended point ... the reflection/fluorscence off of a pocciloporin granule or chromophore results from light waves which have already been refracted by MAA ... a refraction "pattern" which continually changes in response to MAA concentration.

Is it being suggested that a given pigment would "look the same" in the absence of such MAA refraction? If that answer is 'no' (which is my assertion), then the concentration and structure of MAA is partially determinant (not completely, of course) of the fluorescence of a pocciolporin. MAA are synthesized by the zooxanthellae ... therefore they do in fact participate in the determination of color.

In other words ... the colors we're all interested in having our specimens produce results from an interaction with things other than the pigment itself. Many ... but certainly not all ... of those "things" are biosynthersized (or caused to be biosynthesized) by zooxanthellae.

Not necessairly. The pocciloporin pigments (I'm using that term because thats the only data I've seen) will absorb certain colors (wavelengths) which don't have to be violet, blue, or green. To add to that not 100% of the incident radiation will be influenced by them, so refraction might not be an issue. I might be missing something but I'm not sure how much of an effect refraction would have anyway since it doesn't change the wavelength of light.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7109988#post7109988 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
If we're going to call everything a "pocciloporin" ... and say everything is done by cnidarian hosts cells ... aren't we overlooking the actual mechanisms (in favor of readability, or something worse)? Therefore aren't we missing out on opportunities to manipulate the color expression that we seek?



From a different angle ...

Question: Other than water flow and the genetic predisposition of specimens ... How is it that some BB Berlin-style reefs are able to generate and manipulate quite excellent pigmentation even though their masters supplement neither coral "foods" or amino acids in any direct form?

Answer: (Primarily through ...) Manipulation of nitrogen limitation (through "husbandry" and/or "control" of vertebrate excreta), and photoadaptive response ("lighting" selection and management).

Question: What is the primary "target" of such a nitrogen limitation & photoadaptive response strategy?

Answer: Zooxanthellae.

I still have a lot questions and am trying to work stuff out with the help of others. I think some of the things your bringing up are very interesting. For example, I still don't understand the affects of dosing amino acids in this situation (and I think it is more complicated than any explanation I've read in this thread so far) but I would still do it :lol:.

 

[mesocosm]

Rain destroyed SBC connection last night ... dang.

I assume that the problem is that one of the best research articles, Dove, S G, Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Ranganathan, S. (2001) "Major colour patterns of reef-building corals are due to a family of GFP-like proteins." Coral Reefs 19: 197-204, that is frequently referenced was done on pocciloporin stoney corals. Therefore when most people talk about this type of stuff they will refer to pocciloporin but your right its probably not the best thing and I've often wondered about that myself.

Agreed. And it's worse than that ... this kind of "imprecision" gets easily entrenched. Consider its antecedent ...

Isolation and Partial Characterization of the Pink and Blue Pigments of Pocilloporid and Acroporid Corals.
Dove, Takabayashi and Hoegh-Guldberg
Biological Bulletin 189; 288-297, (December 1995)
Full Article (pdf)

Do you have the rest of this quote from Borneman or the supporting research article. ...

My bad ... page 53. Paragraph immediately following the section heading "Fluorescent Pigments". BTW ... in the same book ... check out the glossary on page 415 where Borneman defines "pocilloporin" ...

Pocilloporin: a pigment of unknown function responsible for the pink or blue coloration in some genera of corals, most notably Poccilopora and some species of Acropora.

Extracted from:
Aquarium Corals (Borneman 2001)
Glossary page 415

For the record, Calfo uses the term "pocilloporin" as a specific chemical label also (as opposed to useage as a group name ... not that either Borneman or Calfo are definitive). Calfo writes ...

Pocilloporin is only found in daylight flooded, shallow water speices, and while its role has not been clearly defined ... .

Extracted from:
Book of Coral Propagation Calfo 2001-2003)
page 237.

Not that I have any particular objection to the use of "pocilloporines" ... it's just that I prefer more precision. It's like with fish ... some people use Blue-Line Tang, Bluelined Sailfin Tang, Brown Sailfin Tang, Brown Sailfin Surgeonfish, Brown Sailing Tang, Brown Tang, or Brushtail Tang to name the same fish. I prefer Zebrosoma scopas. (Fishbase.org Common Names for Zebrasoma scopas)


Okay ...

Since they are symbiotes they might very well affect coral pigments but I haven't read anything specifically on it ...

This is where I need to be careful ... other wise I'll blunder (more than I already have) into one of those chicken-egg conundrums. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the relationship between host-symbiot in terms of pigmentation biosynthesis ... I make no claim of a definitive answer. My perspective ... while admittedly more than a little twisted ... is hardly outside the mainstream of the literature ...

J.-K. Yu, T.-H. Liao, L.-S. Fang, W.-S. Tsai, C. A. Chen. Do color patterns of Pocillopora damicornis correlate with zooxanthellae diversity? . Coral Reefs . 19. 98-99, 2000.

I'll let you folks hunt this one down. (Hint: Unless you want shell out $30, you'll need a library card).

... I still don't understand the affects of dosing amino acids in this situation (and I think it is more complicated than any explanation I've read in this thread so far) but I would still do it .

My opinion isn't even within the same astral plane as "definitive" ... and I'm going to leave the refraction thing alone (not the place/time for an "optics" rant).

That being said ... the amino acids are being presented to symbiots and host cells by both direct absorption across tissue layers, and translocation within the tissue structure (post-"digestion"). For sure they're altering the C:N:O ratio (... from "Redfield Ratio" ...) so they're directly impacting "productivity" ... and not just in terms of host-symbiot ... the bacterial guild is also being enriched (if you want a bacterial guild to scavenge phosphorous aggressively after you've "upped" the carbon, you need to be sure that N doesn't become limiting in the way that carbon was prior to dosing a carbon source ... JMO). I would submit that they're also contributing pigment precursors/"building-blocks" ... but I don't currently have the literature to back that up.

Why care? At some point the data will accumulate to the point that specific amino acids will be recognized as being linked to the biosynthesis of specific pigments, or their in situ precursors (this is why my bizzare insistence on precision with regards to pigment chemical nomenclature). At that point we'll all be able to go to a chemical supply house, order happy little vials (... because there's going to be more than just one AA involved ...) of reagent grade AAs ... and save 80-85% of what we're currently paying per unit weight.

Can anyone say "control"? How ironic will it be when it turns out that bacterioplankton filtration configurations facilitate husbandry control/manipulation pathways with a stoichiometric precision that other configurations can only dream of?




JMO

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7113338#post7113338 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
I might be missing something but I'm not sure how much of an effect refraction would have anyway since it doesn't change the wavelength of light.

Wow, I'm sorry ignore this comment, I was thinking reflection. Thats what I get for trying to write when I'm tired.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7115781#post7115781 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
That being said ... the amino acids are being presented to symbiots and host cells by both direct absorption across tissue layers, and translocation within the tissue structure (post-"digestion"). For sure they're altering the C:N:O ratio (... from "Redfield Ratio" ...) so they're directly impacting "productivity" ... and not just in terms of host-symbiot ... the bacterial guild is also being enriched (if you want a bacterial guild to scavenge phosphorous aggressively after you've "upped" the carbon, you need to be sure that N doesn't become limiting in the way that carbon was prior to dosing a carbon source ... JMO). I would submit that they're also contributing pigment precursors/"building-blocks" ... but I don't currently have the literature to back that up.

Why care? At some point the data will accumulate to the point that specific amino acids will be recognized as being linked to the biosynthesis of specific pigments, or their in situ precursors (this is why my bizzare insistence on precision with regards to pigment chemical nomenclature). At that point we'll all be able to go to a chemical supply house, order happy little vials (... because there's going to be more than just one AA involved ...) of reagent grade AAs ... and save 80-85% of what we're currently paying per unit weight.

Can anyone say "control"? How ironic will it be when it turns out that bacterioplankton filtration configurations facilitate husbandry control/manipulation pathways with a stoichiometric precision that other configurations can only dream of?

People have access to purified forms of AA's right now. But before we get there how do we know the corals would get them before the bacteria (someone asked me this question)? The corals have a slime coating that seems to house bacteria. I thought (similar to your thinking) that the coral assimilated ammonia/ammonium converted from organics by the bacteria thru their tissue layers. But are they actually asborbing the bacteria?

 

[mesocosm]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7115983#post7115983 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Wow, I'm sorry ignore this comment, I was thinking reflection. Thats what I get for trying to write when I'm tired.

ROTFL ... hehe, get in line ... I am clearly ahead of you in the line of succession for the next opening of "Czar of Posting while Semi-Conscious". I knew what you meant ... your expertise precedes you.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7116136#post7116136 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
People have access to purified forms of AA's right now. But before we get there how do we know the corals would get them before the bacteria (someone asked me this question)? ...

The "outcome" is mixed (an opinion) ... I don't have any hard number for the ratio of "make it to absorption" vs. "assimilated by bacteria". If I had to make a completely unsubstantiated, unempirical (if that's a real word) guess-timate? ... 10:30:60 (10% absorption; 30% assimilation delivery; 60% assimilation export).

Even so, I get the sense that it's going to turn out that it doesn't matter than much. One of the beauties of Iwan's method, the ZEOvit method (and the other methods utilizing bacteria inoculations and carbon source dosing) is that the resultant bacterial guild either delivers the assimilated AAs to the coral specimen ... or to the protein skimmer (although the guilds which result from the various product lines ARE fundamentally different).

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7116136#post7116136 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
... I thought (similar to your thinking) that the coral assimilated ammonia/ammonium converted from organics by the bacteria thru their tissue layers. But are they actually absorbing the bacteria?

Yep ... but it's way more cool than that ...

Mucosal capture occurs in several ways as well. Many corals form mucus nets to trap particulate matter and free-floating bacteria that they can ingest. ... The mucus is often extruded between septa and tentacles , where beating cilia "comb" it into a fine net. When the mucus net has captured enough food, the cilia reverse, pulling the mucus and food back to the mouth where it is ingested. Some corals (Porites species, pocilloporids) produce mucus flakes, which are then ingested when food has attached to them. These flakes aid in lumping particles together, immobilizing prey or material facilitating the swallowing process. ...

Both tentacles and cilia can move captured prey and food toward the mouth for ingestion. Hydnophoraspecies, and some other short-tentacled corals, extrude the mouth and mesentrial filaments in a tube, engulfing and digesting prey on the exterior of the coral. ... Normal mesentrial digestion occurs when gland cells near the mesentery base secrete proteases and other enzymes that lower pH and break down food. The filaments further the process by grinding the material into smaller particles. Phagocytes (engulfing cells) near their base then capture the smaller particles, moving them into the interior coral tissue for final digestion. The entire process takes 2-3 hours in stony corals and from 6-12 hours in soft corals. Two final methods of capture and digestion can occur when 1. proteases are secreted by epidermal cells onto material trapped on the surface of the coral; or 2. very small particles of dissolved material are taken up directly from the surface itself (pinocytosis).

Extracted from:
Aquarium Corals (Borneman 2001)
Chapter 4: Foods & Feeding; pp. 61-62.

So ... yeah ... there's no question in my mind that corals are actually consuming (as opposed to merely ingesting) bacteria ... with or without associated "mulm".

Apologies for repeatedly quoting Borneman, but I like his writing style, the style seems appropriate for readers in this cyberspace, and ... in this area (as opposed to industry specimen importation number citations) ... I have a great deal of respect for his expertise.

If anyone is interested in looking through the "raw" literature in this area (and related areas), you might consider sifting through the references in these threads ...

The Bacteria Thread
The "Mulm" Thread
Zooxanthellae Abstracts
Scleractinian Feeding Strategies

If anyone is interested in reading more about what Borneman has to say about bacteria as a "reef food", RC's Reefkeeping magazine has this one ...

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/eb/index.php

... in fact, the entire series is pretty good stuff. JMO.



BTW ... different tangent ... I don't know if anyone caught this bit: "The entire process takes 2-3 hours in stony corals and from 6-12 hours in soft corals." Seems to me that this might have some application in terms of frequency and timing of both feeding ... and amino acid & vitamin dosing schedules.


JMO

 

[alien9168]

You have some really long posts on this forum!
Everyone does too...its not like its one guy who posts posts in the form of books

 

[robthorn]

copy paste bulks it up alot

 

[TryTheChi]

Hi Alien

Yes - its good stuff isnt it - Great food for thought and great results. A real gem of a thread.

This dialogue between Gary and Paul is particulalry interesting. Every now and then there is a theory to practice nugget that I cut and past to word. Then Iwan posts an 'OMG' pic every once in a while. Marvelous.

Should get even better when people start posting pics of thier outcomes.

Cheers
Simon

 

[Obi-dad]

From that Borneman food of reefs article link posted above:

It has been found that bacteria alone can supply up to 100% of both the daily carbon and nitrogen requirements of corals. All corals studied consume dissolved organic material, bacteria, and detrital material. This is more than can be said for any other food source, including zooplankton and light.


Interesting. I had heard that ORA doesn't 'feed' their corals, even though I had heard from many people that you need to 'feed' the corals (like with zooplankton, cyclop-eeze, golden pearls, 'mush' recipes, etc).

So it appears if bacteria is growing well on the surfaces on the corals (mentioned in mesocosm's posts) then you don't need to 'feed' the corals - so how do I maximize the chances that bacteria will grow?

 

[alien9168]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7119396#post7119396 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TryTheChi
Hi Alien

Yes - its good stuff isnt it - Great food for thought and great results. A real gem of a thread.

This dialogue between Gary and Paul is particulalry interesting. Every now and then there is a theory to practice nugget that I cut and past to word. Then Iwan posts an 'OMG' pic every once in a while. Marvelous.

Should get even better when people start posting pics of thier outcomes.

Cheers
Simon

I agree with you 100% :thumbsup:

 

[kirstenk]

So it appears if bacteria is growing well on the surfaces on the corals (mentioned in mesocosm's posts) then you don't need to 'feed' the corals - so how do I maximize the chances that bacteria will grow?

Ya dose Bacteria and Bacteria Foods. Like Prodibio, Zeo, PolypLabs.

 

[iwan]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7119396#post7119396 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TryTheChi
Hi Alien

Yes - its good stuff isnt it - Great food for thought and great results. A real gem of a thread.

This dialogue between Gary and Paul is particulalry interesting. Every now and then there is a theory to practice nugget that I cut and past to word. Then Iwan posts an 'OMG' pic every once in a while. Marvelous.

Should get even better when people start posting pics of thier outcomes.

Cheers
Simon

More than 1000 words says a picture.
There are many people who extremely much understand of the biological and chemical processes. There are many people who have a great theoretical knowledge. My deep respect!
But if it turns out well to realize this knowledge also in success, then this is the perfection! I also know people with great knowledge but moderate successes. One is at least just as important as knowledge at the reef keeping ....the "salty thumb", the basic sense of the tank.

 

[TryTheChi]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7121073#post7121073 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by iwan
More than 1000 words says a picture.
There are many people who extremely much understand of the biological and chemical processes. There are many people who have a great theoretical knowledge. My deep respect!
But if it turns out well to realize this knowledge also in success, then this is the perfection! I also know people with great knowledge but moderate successes. One is at least just as important as knowledge at the reef keeping ....the "salty thumb", the basic sense of the tank.

More than 1000 words says a picture.

Absolutely!!

I also know people with great knowledge but moderate successes

Yes - I'v also been disappointed when I'v seen the tanks of some theoretical experts in books and on the www.

Personally - I'd much rather follow the example of a beautiful tank rather than a beatiful theory if a choice had to be made.

Maybe my request for a 'Dummies Guide to SPS coloration' - should be renamed ' Learning to Read Music for SPS coloration':

The way I envisage looking after a reef is like listening to music....you listen to all sorts of music and then come accross something like Mozart. This is completely captivating and inspiring. Some people are inspired to want to play Mozart and they can be taught to do so -some even very well. And for most people that involves learning how to read music - then being competant at making it on one instrument. Practice, practice, practice - based on a 'discipline' ie the 'Dummies Guide'.

IMO - the 'Salty Thumb' is is the artistry and skill based on a firm understanding of 'sound' basic principles. You cannot be taught to compose like Mozart, but you can be thaught to play Mozart

JMO

Simon

 

[coraladdict]

I'll be starting a new 65 gal tank 18" deep with 4 " oolitic sand and Live Rock.
This will mainly be a sps and clam tank.
My questions are , where can I by the same lighting as Iwan or an equivalent and is there a place I can by the prodibio products in Canada or the US?
Thanks

 

[alien9168]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7122468#post7122468 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coraladdict
I'll be starting a new 65 gal tank 18" deep with 4 " oolitic sand and Live Rock.
This will mainly be a sps and clam tank.
My questions are , where can I by the same lighting as Iwan or an equivalent and is there a place I can by the prodibio products in Canada or the US?
Thanks

Cool!

 

[melev]

<i>As I sit here reading over the past 50 posts chewing up tootsie roll after tootsie roll, washing it down with nice cold RO water, my eyes glaze over....</i>

Wow, you guys have truly turned this into a science. As a hobbyist, I tend to seek relatively simplistic information that I can apply. Sometimes it requires some deeper reading to gain better comprehension, but you guys are taking it to a much greater level. Soon you'll be explaining the DNA code, showing where we need to bridge specific gaps in the chain to attain ultimate SPS compilation. Umm. I updated my signature line.

Here's a a picture of my tank, 7 days after dosing Prodibio products (no ReefBooster yet).

I need to get some water tests done just to see where the numbers are.

Regarding zooxanthellae, I only have a basic understanding that may seem childish to some of you here, but for those reading along munching on their own batch of tootsie rolls/toblerone/marzipan/almonds/etc:

The symbiotic algae in the coral, when healthy, produces sugars that is then converted into energy that the SPS uses to continue the building process of new skeletal growth. When the coral expels it, the coral bleaches and obviously at that point, growth will come to a stop. If the coral isn't stressed any further, it can regain more zoox, and color will return.

That one point about how the corals take in food, even grinding it up and lowering pH to dissolve it further was fascinating. Thanks for that quote. A true nugget, to be sure.

 

[TryTheChi]

Thanks for the update Marc - early days - but any observations so far? Water clarity changed at all?

I'm with you on distilling the info to nugget form - with referencing for those who are interested. Ideal topic for reefpedia.