Are corals really strictly carnivorous?

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message . ..
> I don't know how will you understand that corals are
> CARNIVOROUS and don't eat the algae.

Are you 100% sure this statement is correct for ALL known corals ?

And one more thing, how do you define "don't eat the algae" ?
Do you really mean strict 0% of any coral diet is algae ?

> Yes, the algae's, and any plant for that matters,
> production is fixed on its leaves. That is the reason why the
> coral CAN'T benefit from the algae's production.

Even more interesting...
Could you please provide me with some paper elaborating on this subject ?

> Light down there uses no BALLAST OR EXPENSIVE FIXTURES. It is just natural
> sunlight, the same one that can be reproduce in your living room with
> inexpensive lights. Of course, if you want it to look pretty, the $500
> investment is worst it. But please, don't tell anyone that those lights are
> needed other than for aesthetic purposes'.

Except scientific facilities, most of the fish tanks are kept just
for the aesthetic purposes, so I am not sure what is the problem...
The statement about "reproducing sunlight with inexpensive lights"
is quite peculiar...

[TheRock]

Hold on there guy ... Did you try Google first or are you just trying to
stir the pot because
Jaime and Wayne need a pair of big puffy boxing gloves.

I found this. Your one question interested me once I cut through
the who is the marine bio guy and who is the whatever guy.
Corals
<What they can get from their algae cannot satisfy all their needs.
In fact, corals are basically carnivorous. They catch tiny animals
from seawater and swallow them. That is their main food.
What they get from the algae is only supplementary.>

http://www.nio.org/the_seas/around_us/corals/chap1.htm

Soooo...

<Coral is made by millions of tiny carnivorous (meat eating) animals called
polyps. Polyps live in groups called colonies.The polyp consists of a
stomach and a mouth at one end. The mouth is surrounded by a number of
tentacles. These tentacles resemble feet, which is how they get their name:
'polyp' is a Greek word meaning 'many feet.'

The tentacles are covered with tiny stinging cells,and when a small creature
brushes against the tentacles, it is killed. The prey is then brought into
the stomach to be digested.>

Sounds like the king of the micro jungle to me.

Thanks for making me learn something tonight.

Now play nice !



Chris



"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I don't know how will you understand that corals are CARNIVOROUS and
>> don't eat the algae.
>
> Are you 100% sure this statement is correct for ALL known corals ?
>
> And one more thing, how do you define "don't eat the algae" ? Do you
> really mean strict 0% of any coral diet is algae ?
>
>> Yes, the algae's, and any plant for that matters,
>> production is fixed on its leaves. That is the reason why the coral
>> CAN'T benefit from the algae's production.
>
> Even more interesting... Could you please provide me with some paper
> elaborating on this subject ?
>
>> Light down there uses no BALLAST OR EXPENSIVE FIXTURES. It is just
>> natural sunlight, the same one that can be reproduce in your living room
>> with inexpensive lights. Of course, if you want it to look pretty, the
>> $500 investment is worst it. But please, don't tell anyone that those
>> lights are needed other than for aesthetic purposes'.
>
> Except scientific facilities, most of the fish tanks are kept just
> for the aesthetic purposes, so I am not sure what is the problem...
> The statement about "reproducing sunlight with inexpensive lights"
> is quite peculiar...

[Jaime R-S]

To be 100% sure of anything about corals is to be a fool.
Polyps are basically carnivorous, lets say 95%.
They may feed on algae debris floating around. Their digestive system are
completely capable of digesting and utilizing some vegetation but is by
chance not by choice.
Now, as far as using the zooxantell within, that is impossible. First, the
algae is not even close to its digestive system, therefor, It can´t be
digested. Second, the algae produces vegetative living matter out of
sunlight and incorporates it to its own body which, as I said, is AWAY FROM
THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM of the polyp. Third, the algae may and will utilize
digested residoir from the polyp´s meal after it enters the polyp´s body.
With those macromolecules the algae produces carbonates that the polyp can
use for skeleton building.
Your buddy here tried to say that corals utilized algae for food. That was
a barbaric statement and I corrected him.
Enough is enough...

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I don't know how will you understand that corals are CARNIVOROUS and
>> don't eat the algae.
>
> Are you 100% sure this statement is correct for ALL known corals ?
>
> And one more thing, how do you define "don't eat the algae" ? Do you
> really mean strict 0% of any coral diet is algae ?
>
>> Yes, the algae's, and any plant for that matters,
>> production is fixed on its leaves. That is the reason why the coral
>> CAN'T benefit from the algae's production.
>
> Even more interesting... Could you please provide me with some paper
> elaborating on this subject ?
>
>> Light down there uses no BALLAST OR EXPENSIVE FIXTURES. It is just
>> natural sunlight, the same one that can be reproduce in your living room
>> with inexpensive lights. Of course, if you want it to look pretty, the
>> $500 investment is worst it. But please, don't tell anyone that those
>> lights are needed other than for aesthetic purposes'.
>
> Except scientific facilities, most of the fish tanks are kept just
> for the aesthetic purposes, so I am not sure what is the problem...
> The statement about "reproducing sunlight with inexpensive lights"
> is quite peculiar...

[Wayne Sallee]

Keep digging in those biology books, and you will slowly
learn it.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Jaime R-S wrote on 2/25/2006 11:52 PM:
> To be 100% sure of anything about corals is to be a fool.
> Polyps are basically carnivorous, lets say 95%.
> They may feed on algae debris floating around. Their digestive system are
> completely capable of digesting and utilizing some vegetation but is by
> chance not by choice.
> Now, as far as using the zooxantell within, that is impossible. First, the
> algae is not even close to its digestive system, therefor, It can´t be
> digested. Second, the algae produces vegetative living matter out of
> sunlight and incorporates it to its own body which, as I said, is AWAY FROM
> THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM of the polyp. Third, the algae may and will utilize
> digested residoir from the polyp´s meal after it enters the polyp´s body.
> With those macromolecules the algae produces carbonates that the polyp can
> use for skeleton building.
> Your buddy here tried to say that corals utilized algae for food. That was
> a barbaric statement and I corrected him.
> Enough is enough...
>
> jrs
> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>I don't know how will you understand that corals are CARNIVOROUS and
>>>don't eat the algae.
>>
>>Are you 100% sure this statement is correct for ALL known corals ?
>>
>>And one more thing, how do you define "don't eat the algae" ? Do you
>>really mean strict 0% of any coral diet is algae ?
>>
>>
>>>Yes, the algae's, and any plant for that matters,
>>>production is fixed on its leaves. That is the reason why the coral
>>>CAN'T benefit from the algae's production.
>>
>>Even more interesting... Could you please provide me with some paper
>>elaborating on this subject ?
>>
>>
>>>Light down there uses no BALLAST OR EXPENSIVE FIXTURES. It is just
>>>natural sunlight, the same one that can be reproduce in your living room
>>>with inexpensive lights. Of course, if you want it to look pretty, the
>>>$500 investment is worst it. But please, don't tell anyone that those
>>>lights are needed other than for aesthetic purposes'.
>>
>>Except scientific facilities, most of the fish tanks are kept just
>>for the aesthetic purposes, so I am not sure what is the problem...
>>The statement about "reproducing sunlight with inexpensive lights"
>>is quite peculiar...
>
>
>

[Wayne Sallee]

TheRock wrote on 2/25/2006 11:14 PM:
> I cut through
> the who is the marine bio guy

He claims to be a marine biologist, but I don't think he
realy is. I think he is just reading the books as he goes
along.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

[Jaime R-S]

Well Croosh, good try but no cigar dude!
1. The only instance that a relationship is parasitic if it is negative to
the host... There are plenty of examples of symbionts that only one side
benefits. Don't confuse symbiosis with mutualism. All mutualisms are
symbiotic but not all symbionsis are mutualisms...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=symbiosis
2. Corals don't have skeleton? For God's sake dude read a little more
please!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=coral
3. In your world, how and where plants store glucose? Do plants expell
glucose out in, lets see, some type of sweat?
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html
(this link doesn't only aply to macrophytes, the process is universal to all
plants)
4. So, acording to you anemones will die in the dark!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14920152.400.html
Do I have to say anything else?

Ignorance is daring!

Well, methinks you are one of Wayne's clients, so knowledgeable and well
informed that I have to bow and yield!

jrs

"Croosh" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jaime,
> Unless a coral can benefit from its algae, it would be called
> parasite/host relationship, not symbiosis, and many photosynthetic
> corals don't have skeleton to benefit from calcium carbonates...
> There is also a thing called carbohydrate (glucose for example) that
> coral would benefit from directly, i.e. algae consume CO2 and some
> byproducts of coral's metabolism and photosynthesize oxygen and
> glucose, which in turn benefits coral.
> Anemone is even more carnivore than an Acropora colony for example, but
> try keeping one in complete darkness and just feed solid food. It
> won't live till Christmas I bet...
> (Actually, don't do that since you'll slay a perfectly good animal)
>
> Regards
> Yuriy
>

[Pszemol]

"Croosh" > wrote in message oups.com...
> Unless a coral can benefit from its algae, it would be called
> parasite/host relationship, not symbiosis, and many photosynthetic
> corals don't have skeleton to benefit from calcium carbonates...

Actually, soft corals like the hard corals have a skeleton.
However, it is not hard and stony. Their skeleton also contains
calcium carbonate, but only in small clumps called spicules.
We aquarists do not call this skeleton, but biologists do :-)

[Wayne Sallee]

Yep, definately not a marine biologists, definatley just
reading as he goes along.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Jaime R-S wrote on 2/27/2006 8:44 PM:
> Well Croosh, good try but no cigar dude!
> 1. The only instance that a relationship is parasitic if it is negative to
> the host... There are plenty of examples of symbionts that only one side
> benefits. Don't confuse symbiosis with mutualism. All mutualisms are
> symbiotic but not all symbionsis are mutualisms...
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=symbiosis
> 2. Corals don't have skeleton? For God's sake dude read a little more
> please!
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=coral
> 3. In your world, how and where plants store glucose? Do plants expell
> glucose out in, lets see, some type of sweat?
> http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html
> (this link doesn't only aply to macrophytes, the process is universal to all
> plants)
> 4. So, acording to you anemones will die in the dark!
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14920152.400.html
> Do I have to say anything else?
>
> Ignorance is daring!
>
> Well, methinks you are one of Wayne's clients, so knowledgeable and well
> informed that I have to bow and yield!
>
> jrs
>
> "Croosh" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Jaime,
>>Unless a coral can benefit from its algae, it would be called
>>parasite/host relationship, not symbiosis, and many photosynthetic
>>corals don't have skeleton to benefit from calcium carbonates...
>>There is also a thing called carbohydrate (glucose for example) that
>>coral would benefit from directly, i.e. algae consume CO2 and some
>>byproducts of coral's metabolism and photosynthesize oxygen and
>>glucose, which in turn benefits coral.
>>Anemone is even more carnivore than an Acropora colony for example, but
>>try keeping one in complete darkness and just feed solid food. It
>>won't live till Christmas I bet...
>>(Actually, don't do that since you'll slay a perfectly good animal)
>>
>>Regards
>>Yuriy
>>
>
>
>

[Croosh]

Pszemol,
I stand corrected :) I'm by far no marine biologist, so I guess I'll
have to do some more reading.
I'm just affraid that some "dude" will read this post and try to keep
acroporas or such under 18W compact fluorescent flood light, since they
look pretty, even when bleached, and feeding well will keep them
growing.

Regards
Yuriy

[Pszemol]

"Croosh" > wrote in message ups.com...
> I stand corrected :) I'm by far no marine biologist, so I guess I'll
> have to do some more reading.
> I'm just affraid that some "dude" will read this post and try to keep
> acroporas or such under 18W compact fluorescent flood light, since they
> look pretty, even when bleached, and feeding well will keep them
> growing.

This is a risk with Jaime posts here... they are not really aquarium related.
He is using a different language and can be misinterpreted many times...

[David Zopf]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Croosh" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I stand corrected :) I'm by far no marine biologist, so I guess I'll
>> have to do some more reading.
>> I'm just affraid that some "dude" will read this post and try to keep
>> acroporas or such under 18W compact fluorescent flood light, since they
>> look pretty, even when bleached, and feeding well will keep them
>> growing.
>
> This is a risk with Jaime posts here... they are not really aquarium
> related.

Yah. Even still, he comes off as a bit of a crackpot (no offense intended
with that, I know some _genius_ crackpots... ;-).

But I don't know of another researcher who make as extensive an (ab)use of
Usenet with titillating, yet ultimately content-free, posts (OK, there _is_
one "tinfoil hat whack-o" in the sci.chem.* hierarchy, but he's freely
looney enough to be discounted after reading any one of his posts). It
ultimately only hurts his cause, if he has one. Research Ethics 101 teaches
that behavior like that is typically the purview of the classic snake-oil
vendor, and is to be avoided. It doesn't do anything to help Jaime's cause,
even if all his work itself is accurate, reputable and worthwhile.
Reputable researchers would tend more towards keeping their work "under
wraps" until it is ready for disclosure, or at least until they obtain
patent protection (from Jaime's hints, his fundamental groundwork sounds
ready enough to submit for such... What's the delay?) Hints and allusions
to a "perfect, and perfectly cheap" captive reef setup from Jaime are
abundant enough now to chafe a mostly-lurking reader reader like myself,
given their lack of actual, substantive content.

In laymans terms; it's time to s*&t, or get off the pot.

Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver

[Jaime R-S]

Thanks Wayne
That remark coming from you is a compliment.
You flattered me!

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> Yep, definately not a marine biologists, definatley just reading as he
> goes along.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Jaime R-S wrote on 2/27/2006 8:44 PM:
>> Well Croosh, good try but no cigar dude!
>> 1. The only instance that a relationship is parasitic if it is negative
>> to the host... There are plenty of examples of symbionts that only one
>> side benefits. Don't confuse symbiosis with mutualism. All mutualisms
>> are symbiotic but not all symbionsis are mutualisms...
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=symbiosis
>> 2. Corals don't have skeleton? For God's sake dude read a little more
>> please!
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=coral
>> 3. In your world, how and where plants store glucose? Do plants expell
>> glucose out in, lets see, some type of sweat?
>> http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html
>> (this link doesn't only aply to macrophytes, the process is universal to
>> all plants)
>> 4. So, acording to you anemones will die in the dark!
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14920152.400.html
>> Do I have to say anything else?
>>
>> Ignorance is daring!
>>
>> Well, methinks you are one of Wayne's clients, so knowledgeable and well
>> informed that I have to bow and yield!
>>
>> jrs
>>
>> "Croosh" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>Jaime,
>>>Unless a coral can benefit from its algae, it would be called
>>>parasite/host relationship, not symbiosis, and many photosynthetic
>>>corals don't have skeleton to benefit from calcium carbonates...
>>>There is also a thing called carbohydrate (glucose for example) that
>>>coral would benefit from directly, i.e. algae consume CO2 and some
>>>byproducts of coral's metabolism and photosynthesize oxygen and
>>>glucose, which in turn benefits coral.
>>>Anemone is even more carnivore than an Acropora colony for example, but
>>>try keeping one in complete darkness and just feed solid food. It
>>>won't live till Christmas I bet...
>>>(Actually, don't do that since you'll slay a perfectly good animal)
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Yuriy
>>>
>>
>>

[Boomer]

You are a troll or have completely lost it.

--
Boomer

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com



"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
. ..
: To be 100% sure of anything about corals is to be a fool.
: Polyps are basically carnivorous, lets say 95%.
: They may feed on algae debris floating around. Their digestive system are
: completely capable of digesting and utilizing some vegetation but is by
: chance not by choice.
: Now, as far as using the zooxantell within, that is impossible. First, the
: algae is not even close to its digestive system, therefor, It can´t be
: digested. Second, the algae produces vegetative living matter out of
: sunlight and incorporates it to its own body which, as I said, is AWAY FROM
: THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM of the polyp. Third, the algae may and will utilize
: digested residoir from the polyp´s meal after it enters the polyp´s body.
: With those macromolecules the algae produces carbonates that the polyp can
: use for skeleton building.
: Your buddy here tried to say that corals utilized algae for food. That was
: a barbaric statement and I corrected him.
: Enough is enough...
:
: jrs
: "Pszemol" > wrote in message
: ...
: > "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
: > . ..
: >> I don't know how will you understand that corals are CARNIVOROUS and
: >> don't eat the algae.
: >
: > Are you 100% sure this statement is correct for ALL known corals ?
: >
: > And one more thing, how do you define "don't eat the algae" ? Do you
: > really mean strict 0% of any coral diet is algae ?
: >
: >> Yes, the algae's, and any plant for that matters,
: >> production is fixed on its leaves. That is the reason why the coral
: >> CAN'T benefit from the algae's production.
: >
: > Even more interesting... Could you please provide me with some paper
: > elaborating on this subject ?
: >
: >> Light down there uses no BALLAST OR EXPENSIVE FIXTURES. It is just
: >> natural sunlight, the same one that can be reproduce in your living room
: >> with inexpensive lights. Of course, if you want it to look pretty, the
: >> $500 investment is worst it. But please, don't tell anyone that those
: >> lights are needed other than for aesthetic purposes'.
: >
: > Except scientific facilities, most of the fish tanks are kept just
: > for the aesthetic purposes, so I am not sure what is the problem...
: > The statement about "reproducing sunlight with inexpensive lights"
: > is quite peculiar...
:
:

[Boomer]

Just for ****s and giggles..LOL

--
Boomer

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com



"Boomer" > wrote in message ...
: You are a troll or have completely lost it.
:
: --
: Boomer
:
: If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
:
: Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
: Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
:
: Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
: http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
:
: Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
: http://www.coralrealm.com
:
:
:
: "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
: . ..
:: To be 100% sure of anything about corals is to be a fool.
:: Polyps are basically carnivorous, lets say 95%.
:: They may feed on algae debris floating around. Their digestive system are
:: completely capable of digesting and utilizing some vegetation but is by
:: chance not by choice.
:: Now, as far as using the zooxantell within, that is impossible. First, the
:: algae is not even close to its digestive system, therefor, It can´t be
:: digested. Second, the algae produces vegetative living matter out of
:: sunlight and incorporates it to its own body which, as I said, is AWAY FROM
:: THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM of the polyp. Third, the algae may and will utilize
:: digested residoir from the polyp´s meal after it enters the polyp´s body.
:: With those macromolecules the algae produces carbonates that the polyp can
:: use for skeleton building.
:: Your buddy here tried to say that corals utilized algae for food. That was
:: a barbaric statement and I corrected him.
:: Enough is enough...
::
:: jrs
:: "Pszemol" > wrote in message
:: ...
:: > "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
:: > . ..
:: >> I don't know how will you understand that corals are CARNIVOROUS and
:: >> don't eat the algae.
:: >
:: > Are you 100% sure this statement is correct for ALL known corals ?
:: >
:: > And one more thing, how do you define "don't eat the algae" ? Do you
:: > really mean strict 0% of any coral diet is algae ?
:: >
:: >> Yes, the algae's, and any plant for that matters,
:: >> production is fixed on its leaves. That is the reason why the coral
:: >> CAN'T benefit from the algae's production.
:: >
:: > Even more interesting... Could you please provide me with some paper
:: > elaborating on this subject ?
:: >
:: >> Light down there uses no BALLAST OR EXPENSIVE FIXTURES. It is just
:: >> natural sunlight, the same one that can be reproduce in your living room
:: >> with inexpensive lights. Of course, if you want it to look pretty, the
:: >> $500 investment is worst it. But please, don't tell anyone that those
:: >> lights are needed other than for aesthetic purposes'.
:: >
:: > Except scientific facilities, most of the fish tanks are kept just
:: > for the aesthetic purposes, so I am not sure what is the problem...
:: > The statement about "reproducing sunlight with inexpensive lights"
:: > is quite peculiar...
::
::
:
:

[Boomer]

More ****s and giggles
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2003/feature.htm

http://www.pacificwhale.org/childrens/fsreef.html

I could post these alllllllllllllllllllllll daaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy **** for
brains, Sorry Troll
--
Boomer

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com



"Boomer" > wrote in message ...
: You are a troll or have completely lost it.
:
: --
: Boomer
:
: If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
:
: Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
: Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
:
: Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
: http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
:
: Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
: http://www.coralrealm.com
:
:
:
: "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
: . ..
:: To be 100% sure of anything about corals is to be a fool.
:: Polyps are basically carnivorous, lets say 95%.
:: They may feed on algae debris floating around. Their digestive system are
:: completely capable of digesting and utilizing some vegetation but is by
:: chance not by choice.
:: Now, as far as using the zooxantell within, that is impossible. First, the
:: algae is not even close to its digestive system, therefor, It can´t be
:: digested. Second, the algae produces vegetative living matter out of
:: sunlight and incorporates it to its own body which, as I said, is AWAY FROM
:: THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM of the polyp. Third, the algae may and will utilize
:: digested residoir from the polyp´s meal after it enters the polyp´s body.
:: With those macromolecules the algae produces carbonates that the polyp can
:: use for skeleton building.
:: Your buddy here tried to say that corals utilized algae for food. That was
:: a barbaric statement and I corrected him.
:: Enough is enough...
::
:: jrs
:: "Pszemol" > wrote in message
:: ...
:: > "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
:: > . ..
:: >> I don't know how will you understand that corals are CARNIVOROUS and
:: >> don't eat the algae.
:: >
:: > Are you 100% sure this statement is correct for ALL known corals ?
:: >
:: > And one more thing, how do you define "don't eat the algae" ? Do you
:: > really mean strict 0% of any coral diet is algae ?
:: >
:: >> Yes, the algae's, and any plant for that matters,
:: >> production is fixed on its leaves. That is the reason why the coral
:: >> CAN'T benefit from the algae's production.
:: >
:: > Even more interesting... Could you please provide me with some paper
:: > elaborating on this subject ?
:: >
:: >> Light down there uses no BALLAST OR EXPENSIVE FIXTURES. It is just
:: >> natural sunlight, the same one that can be reproduce in your living room
:: >> with inexpensive lights. Of course, if you want it to look pretty, the
:: >> $500 investment is worst it. But please, don't tell anyone that those
:: >> lights are needed other than for aesthetic purposes'.
:: >
:: > Except scientific facilities, most of the fish tanks are kept just
:: > for the aesthetic purposes, so I am not sure what is the problem...
:: > The statement about "reproducing sunlight with inexpensive lights"
:: > is quite peculiar...
::
::
:
: