View Single Post
  #5  
Old February 26th 06, 06:59 AM posted to rec.aquaria.marine.reefs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Are corals really strictly carnivorous?

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
t...

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...