Feeding corals in a coral only tank?

[Joe Batt]

I am setting up a RedSea Nano as a quarantine frag tank, as the first step prior to adding corals to the display. It will be totally fish free.

I intend to just use kalkwasser in the ATO for Alk and Ca but, how is best to feed a fish free tank? Will the likes of RedSea Reef energy be enough to feed the corals? There will be no nitrates and phosphates being added by fish poop and waste food but they will need some.

 

[Crabs McJones]

I am setting up a RedSea Nano as a quarantine frag tank, as the first step prior to adding corals to the display. It will be totally fish free.

I intend to just use kalkwasser in the ATO for Alk and Ca but, how is best to feed a fish free tank? Will the likes of RedSea Reef energy be enough to feed the corals? There will be no nitrates and phosphates being added by fish poop and waste food but they will need some.

If you want to feed a coral only tank, either BRS Reef Chilli or Reef Roids would be a good choice You can also still feed some larger meaty foods such as brine or mysis shrimp. Not sure about the RedSea Reef Energy...

 

[Joe Batt]

Reef-roids would give some nitrates and phosphates to the water I assume?

 

[Halal Hotdog]

You will want to introduce a little nitrates and phosphates, otherwise the corals will not thrive. Fish waste is also a food source for corals. If I had a fish-less tank I would target feed my corals 2-3x/week with reef roids. Typically if big enough you may want to keep a tang or other herbivore in there to keep the algae under control.

 

[Joe Batt]

One of the reasons behind the fishless tank is that I want to make sure as near as possible that any frags I import to my tank have been well quarantined and sorted for pests and also that they are free of any fish diseases.

The intention is a 76 day quarantine for all frags. If I add a fish to the tank it would allow any cysts to hatch and transfer from the corals to the fish and back to the corals. Being fishless the life cycle of fish pests inadvertently added via coral frags is broken.

 

[Halal Hotdog]

QT anything wet is a good idea, that being said I have never done it. In the past I have removed previous plug, dip, and wash frag with tank water. By doing this I have never gotten a fish parasite. Not that it is impossible, but I have yet to see it.

 

[Maggie321]

Give them good light and feed a couple time a week reef roids. That will add enough nutrients for them. Test like you would a tank with fish. Specifically nitrates and phosphates. That sounds like a great idea for a coral QT.

 

[tankstudy]

I use brightwell's neophos and neonitro in my QT systems that I run for about 8-12 weeks.

 

[Dana Riddle]

In my experience, the tank should be fully cycled perhaps with addition of live rock. Feeding the corals will add nutrients to the water. In addition to those factors mentioned previously (light, feeding) don't forget good water motion to keep particulate foods in suspension.

 

[Mikedawg]

And I'll put in a plug for Hakari's Reef Gumbo - good variety of seafoods, right size for corals, etc.

 

[Joe Batt]

In my experience, the tank should be fully cycled perhaps with addition of live rock. Feeding the corals will add nutrients to the water. In addition to those factors mentioned previously (light, feeding) don't forget good water motion to keep particulate foods in suspension.

There was an interesting article on ReefBuilders about cycling coral only tanks. Basically Jake was saying it is not required. Personally, I feel happier with it cycled (no need to rush). I will, however, take a slight shortcut in that I have the sponges from the Nano frag tank in the display sump at the moment, plus the NanoTech Bio Spheres that I am going to be using in place of live rock are also in the refugium of the display tank being 'seeded'.

The main display tank is FOWLR at the moment, having only completed the cycle a month ago. I will use the water from a water change to start the Nano quarantine. This along with some good bacterial addition, when I add water, should give a pretty fast cycle.

https://reefbuilders.com/2018/04/20...=1771314299601632&fb_action_types=og.comments

 

[Dana Riddle]

There was an interesting article on ReefBuilders about cycling coral only tanks. Basically Jake was saying it is not required. Personally, I feel happier with it cycled (no need to rush). I will, however, take a slight shortcut in that I have the sponges from the Nano frag tank in the display sump at the moment, plus the NanoTech Bio Spheres that I am going to be using in place of live rock are also in the refugium of the display tank being 'seeded'.

The main display tank is FOWLR at the moment, having only completed the cycle a month ago. I will use the water from a water change to start the Nano quarantine. This along with some good bacterial addition, when I add water, should give a pretty fast cycle.

https://reefbuilders.com/2018/04/20...=1771314299601632&fb_action_types=og.comments

Glad to hear it worked for Jake. I did for me in one case, but not another. I tested some of the commercially available bacteria supplements and found they might speed up cycling by a few days.

 

[mcarroll]

One of the reasons behind the fishless tank is that I want to make sure as near as possible that any frags I import to my tank have been well quarantined and sorted for pests and also that they are free of any fish diseases.

The intention is a 76 day quarantine for all frags. If I add a fish to the tank it would allow any cysts to hatch and transfer from the corals to the fish and back to the corals. Being fishless the life cycle of fish pests inadvertently added via coral frags is broken.

I ran a fishless coral only system for around five years, barely feeding at all. (Then I had a handful of Barnacle Blennies....hardly a major bioload. Back to fishless these days tho.)

Yes corals need dissolved nutrients.
Yes they need food.
And both need to add up to "enough"....either source or both seems to work well.

But I think we sorely underestimate the amount of planktonic/detrital foods they can pick up in a healthy reef.

Consider every bristleworm, amphipod and copepod spawn....likewise each of their molts as they grow....and of course all the other microbes making a living in the tank (or their byproducts). They all get consumed as well.

But corals seem to need an extremely moderate amount of food as my corals always grew too fast, if anything. I would have paid for them to grow slower so I could avoid fragging for longer. Nope....even mostly without food they grew like crazy.

I say "mostly" because I did feed the tank a few things over the years.....but results were always mixed, with cyano a predictable end-result and me wondering if the corals really ate any of it.

I think corals are extremely easy to overfeed – so I don't recommend it.

Instead....

IF and only IF you see problems with how your corals are doing (pale, slow growth, etc) then check your dissolved nutrient levels.

Consider the levels you find along with the general condition of the tank, etc...and if it makes sense, then dose some nitrate and phosphate fertilizer instead of feeding. It sounds unusual, but it's actually easier to do than feeding so OVERfeeding is almost impossible. And 99% of the time there shouldn't be anything for you to add. My corals never got pale or grew slowly, so I doubt yours will either.

I have to emphasize this is info is for a healthy reef.

In a bare frag tank, or even a "typical" display running nutrient removers and carbon dosing, activated carbon and all the other things the cool kids are doing, your results will be a lot more mixed.

Doing this without real live rock is a stunt IMO. I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Here's a peer-reviewed by Rob Toonen concerning coral farming, feeding, etc. Good stuff.
http://www.academia.edu/1647139/Coral_farming_effects_of_light_water_motion_and_artificial_foods

 

[Joe Batt]

Thanks

I ran a fishless coral only system for around five years, barely feeding at all. (Then I had a handful of Barnacle Blennies....hardly a major bioload. Back to fishless these days tho.)

Yes corals need dissolved nutrients.
Yes they need food.
And both need to add up to "enough"....either source or both seems to work well.

But I think we sorely underestimate the amount of planktonic/detrital foods they can pick up in a healthy reef.

Consider every bristleworm, amphipod and copepod spawn....likewise each of their molts as they grow....and of course all the other microbes making a living in the tank (or their byproducts). They all get consumed as well.

But corals seem to need an extremely moderate amount of food as my corals always grew too fast, if anything. I would have paid for them to grow slower so I could avoid fragging for longer. Nope....even mostly without food they grew like crazy.

I say "mostly" because I did feed the tank a few things over the years.....but results were always mixed, with cyano a predictable end-result and me wondering if the corals really ate any of it.

I think corals are extremely easy to overfeed – so I don't recommend it.

Instead....

IF and only IF you see problems with how your corals are doing (pale, slow growth, etc) then check your dissolved nutrient levels.

Consider the levels you find along with the general condition of the tank, etc...and if it makes sense, then dose some nitrate and phosphate fertilizer instead of feeding. It sounds unusual, but it's actually easier to do than feeding so OVERfeeding is almost impossible. And 99% of the time there shouldn't be anything for you to add. My corals never got pale or grew slowly, so I doubt yours will either.

I have to emphasize this is info is for a healthy reef.

In a bare frag tank, or even a "typical" display running nutrient removers and carbon dosing, activated carbon and all the other things the cool kids are doing, your results will be a lot more mixed.

Doing this without real live rock is a stunt IMO. I wouldn't recommend it.

Thanks for your input I will indeed adjust as I see the tank evolve. Because I'm running it purely as a frag tank and not a display tank, any frags will be in there 76 days. I think the live rock is a good point, however, I am going to try it with the seeded balls from my display tank and see how it goes. I want it simple but effective, an interesting experiment and I will need to keep a close eye on it.

 

[mcarroll]

Here's a peer-reviewed by Rob Toonen concerning coral farming, feeding, etc. Good stuff.
http://www.academia.edu/1647139/Coral_farming_effects_of_light_water_motion_and_artificial_foods

Nice link, Dana – Thanks!!

Great read – I have tons of questions!!

First, their concluding statement:

The overall implication from this study is that abiotic conditions and artificial feeds can be optimized to have large beneficial effects on coral growth. A systematic examination of the requirements for agiven species of reef building coral can result in more successful cultivation of that variety, and may yield interesting insights into basic ecology and organismal biology in theprocess.

Overall the results of the study are very intriguing as well as eye-opening – so anyone interested should definitely go click and read.

Don't take my questions and curiosities as criticisms. I probably need some corrections to these, in fact.

But here are the questions that came to me on a read through of the article (along with some supplemental reading)


1) There seems to be a pretty consistent bias, duplicated on this article, toward thinking that fast growth is "better".

Is faster growth, in fact better?

I get that it's optimal for coral farmers – but I've never seen that point investigated from the point of view of "what makes the healthiest corals".

Unless you count the coral-wounding article I've posted a few times (again below) where they showed that Acro's that grew more slowly were able to heal faster.

At least IMO that points to at least a possibility that slower growth being more optimal from the coral's point of view.

Fast Growth May Impair Regeneration Capacity in the Branching Coral Acropora muricata

Are you or anyone aware of some actual research that specifically looked at fast vs slow growth in stony corals (vs just injury recover)? (I came up dry on this front.)


2) They turned the pumps off for 2-3 hours a day "to allow feeding".

This may be a "dumb land-lubber" question (and not within the goals of the study), but...

Is zero-flow feeding actually pretty "unnatural" for coral? Wouldn't 4 or 11 cm/s have probably been "more natural"?

In other words, is there a phenomena in nature they are modeling that allows corals to feed in totally still water for 2-3 hours a day, or do you otherwise know why they chose that vs more natural feeding conditions, such as just leaving the flow running?

It seems like zero flow might be as apt to cause less prey capture as more, depending on the coral.

Plus, this graph...

FROM: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/TidalCurrentsEducationalPamphlet4.pdf​

...is theoretical, but seems to say that there are three "slack" periods where flow traverses through zero cm/s as the waters transition from flood to ebb (and back).

Isn't that more like a theoretical zero? Or are there some reefs that actually may experience still water during slack periods? It's hard to imagine, but I'm still learning.



BTW, for way cooler graphs as well as analysis of actual tidal flow in 2D and 3D from a real location check this one out:
Tidal interactions with local topography above a sponge reef

 

[Joe Batt]

I think in the ocean even briefly in the slack flow period between tides there will always be flow just down to the wave action of the ocean. I think a lower flow is more akin to nature for brief periods each day.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Nice link, Dana – Thanks!!

Great read – I have tons of questions!!

First, their concluding statement:


Overall the results of the study are very intriguing as well as eye-opening – so anyone interested should definitely go click and read.

Don't take my questions and curiosities as criticisms. I probably need some corrections to these, in fact.

But here are the questions that came to me on a read through of the article (along with some supplemental reading)


1) There seems to be a pretty consistent bias, duplicated on this article, toward thinking that fast growth is "better".

Is faster growth, in fact better?

I get that it's optimal for coral farmers – but I've never seen that point investigated from the point of view of "what makes the healthiest corals".

Unless you count the coral-wounding article I've posted a few times (again below) where they showed that Acro's that grew more slowly were able to heal faster.

At least IMO that points to at least a possibility that slower growth being more optimal from the coral's point of view.

Fast Growth May Impair Regeneration Capacity in the Branching Coral Acropora muricata

Are you or anyone aware of some actual research that specifically looked at fast vs slow growth in stony corals (vs just injury recover)? (I came up dry on this front.)


2) They turned the pumps off for 2-3 hours a day "to allow feeding".

This may be a "dumb land-lubber" question (and not within the goals of the study), but...

Is zero-flow feeding actually pretty "unnatural" for coral? Wouldn't 4 or 11 cm/s have probably been "more natural"?

In other words, is there a phenomena in nature they are modeling that allows corals to feed in totally still water for 2-3 hours a day, or do you otherwise know why they chose that vs more natural feeding conditions, such as just leaving the flow running?

It seems like zero flow might be as apt to cause less prey capture as more, depending on the coral.

Plus, this graph...

FROM: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/TidalCurrentsEducationalPamphlet4.pdf​

...is theoretical, but seems to say that there are three "slack" periods where flow traverses through zero cm/s as the waters transition from flood to ebb (and back).

Isn't that more like a theoretical zero? Or are there some reefs that actually may experience still water during slack periods? It's hard to imagine, but I'm still learning.



BTW, for way cooler graphs as well as analysis of actual tidal flow in 2D and 3D from a real location check this one out:
Tidal interactions with local topography above a sponge reef

Good questions! I have some thoughts to share but busy today. I'm pretty sure I have some water velocity measurements taken with the electronic meter in one of the notebooks. Some where.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Thanks for sharing the A. muricata/regeneration paper! I have lots of questions about that paper, starting with lower irradiance/zoox densities. This is contrary to many observations. To be honest, I've given that reference only a cursory review but it makes me wonder if untested parameters are in play?

Nice link, Dana – Thanks!!

Great read – I have tons of questions!!

First, their concluding statement:


Overall the results of the study are very intriguing as well as eye-opening – so anyone interested should definitely go click and read.

Don't take my questions and curiosities as criticisms. I probably need some corrections to these, in fact.

But here are the questions that came to me on a read through of the article (along with some supplemental reading)


1) There seems to be a pretty consistent bias, duplicated on this article, toward thinking that fast growth is "better".

Is faster growth, in fact better?

I get that it's optimal for coral farmers – but I've never seen that point investigated from the point of view of "what makes the healthiest corals".

Unless you count the coral-wounding article I've posted a few times (again below) where they showed that Acro's that grew more slowly were able to heal faster.

At least IMO that points to at least a possibility that slower growth being more optimal from the coral's point of view.

Fast Growth May Impair Regeneration Capacity in the Branching Coral Acropora muricata

Are you or anyone aware of some actual research that specifically looked at fast vs slow growth in stony corals (vs just injury recover)? (I came up dry on this front.)


2) They turned the pumps off for 2-3 hours a day "to allow feeding".

This may be a "dumb land-lubber" question (and not within the goals of the study), but...

Is zero-flow feeding actually pretty "unnatural" for coral? Wouldn't 4 or 11 cm/s have probably been "more natural"?

In other words, is there a phenomena in nature they are modeling that allows corals to feed in totally still water for 2-3 hours a day, or do you otherwise know why they chose that vs more natural feeding conditions, such as just leaving the flow running?

It seems like zero flow might be as apt to cause less prey capture as more, depending on the coral.

Plus, this graph...

FROM: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/TidalCurrentsEducationalPamphlet4.pdf​

...is theoretical, but seems to say that there are three "slack" periods where flow traverses through zero cm/s as the waters transition from flood to ebb (and back).

Isn't that more like a theoretical zero? Or are there some reefs that actually may experience still water during slack periods? It's hard to imagine, but I'm still learning.



BTW, for way cooler graphs as well as analysis of actual tidal flow in 2D and 3D from a real location check this one out:
Tidal interactions with local topography above a sponge reef

 

[Dana Riddle]

After reading the Toonen article, I see there is no need for me to dig through my note - there is a reference concerning water motion(although I can say I never saw water velocities as low as 1 cm/sec. This was probably seen in a lagoon or isolated tide pool.

I don't understand why pumps were turned off to facilitate feeding. I can see turning off the exchange water to prevent loss of particulates in the overflow, but turning off the circulation pumps? I must be missing something.

Not surprised at all by Montipora capitata ('rice coral') doing better in low light. Their zoox definitely prefer low light, and any specimens seen in Hawaiian shallows struggled in high light and were often bleached.

There is a mention of Phestilla nudibranchs on the Porites compressa. Those are nasty little animals and can consume large patches of Porites corals in just hours. Worse, the whole colony suffers when even one nudi is on it (poor polyp expansion, general poor appearance.) I've always wondered if the nudis produce a chemical (digestive juices?) that affects areas in close proximity to them. Also wondering how this could have affected the outcomes.

Nice link, Dana – Thanks!!

Great read – I have tons of questions!!

First, their concluding statement:


Overall the results of the study are very intriguing as well as eye-opening – so anyone interested should definitely go click and read.

Don't take my questions and curiosities as criticisms. I probably need some corrections to these, in fact.

But here are the questions that came to me on a read through of the article (along with some supplemental reading)


1) There seems to be a pretty consistent bias, duplicated on this article, toward thinking that fast growth is "better".

Is faster growth, in fact better?

I get that it's optimal for coral farmers – but I've never seen that point investigated from the point of view of "what makes the healthiest corals".

Unless you count the coral-wounding article I've posted a few times (again below) where they showed that Acro's that grew more slowly were able to heal faster.

At least IMO that points to at least a possibility that slower growth being more optimal from the coral's point of view.

Fast Growth May Impair Regeneration Capacity in the Branching Coral Acropora muricata

Are you or anyone aware of some actual research that specifically looked at fast vs slow growth in stony corals (vs just injury recover)? (I came up dry on this front.)


2) They turned the pumps off for 2-3 hours a day "to allow feeding".

This may be a "dumb land-lubber" question (and not within the goals of the study), but...

Is zero-flow feeding actually pretty "unnatural" for coral? Wouldn't 4 or 11 cm/s have probably been "more natural"?

In other words, is there a phenomena in nature they are modeling that allows corals to feed in totally still water for 2-3 hours a day, or do you otherwise know why they chose that vs more natural feeding conditions, such as just leaving the flow running?

It seems like zero flow might be as apt to cause less prey capture as more, depending on the coral.

Plus, this graph...

FROM: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/TidalCurrentsEducationalPamphlet4.pdf​

...is theoretical, but seems to say that there are three "slack" periods where flow traverses through zero cm/s as the waters transition from flood to ebb (and back).

Isn't that more like a theoretical zero? Or are there some reefs that actually may experience still water during slack periods? It's hard to imagine, but I'm still learning.



BTW, for way cooler graphs as well as analysis of actual tidal flow in 2D and 3D from a real location check this one out:
Tidal interactions with local topography above a sponge reef