Quote:
Originally posted by Boomer
Calfo made an interesting point. He believes that light supplies only up to 15% of the nutritional.
This is nonsense. Calfo seems to have missed the bazillion studies that say otherwise, often reported as P-R or CZAR. Some corals can get as high as the high 90's % of their needs just on light. And if corals and anemones did not mucate they could get over 100 % of their needs from light. |
I think the quote is just missing the intent of his statement. Calfo's discussion was about using invertabrate reproduction strategically for benefit in specific systems. For instance, using specific sized mediums for promoting amphipod or copepod populations depending on the feeding polyp sizes of the corals that you keep.
Part of the point that he was making, that I've also heard from others, is the fact that corals have the greatest body percentage devoted to food capture of all animals, and that deficiencies in light can be replaced by food. Basically a coral covered with polyps is lots of tentacles and mouths, meant to capture food and eat. It just makes sense based on their body structure.
He noted this in contrast to the nutrient starved tanks of the 80s, and also to hobbyists who are over-obsessively dependant on light... running tons of 400 watters... even 1000 watters... He noted one hobbyist who is experiencing good growth and colors under 175mh. There is also "brooklynjohnny" on nano-reef.com who's got acros and clams in a nano tank under PCs I believe. The difference noted in these systems is feeding.
-Rogue
