How to FEED your reef tank so that your corals will really GROW, instead of ho-hum...

[LobsterOfJustice]

Capn, heres the problem I have with that list. Cyclopeeze is good for a lot of things but IMO not SPS, and definitely not feather dusters. Rotifers, maybe, but were just guessing. Suggesting "rotifers and cyclopeeze" for SPS corals and feather dusters is like saying people could eat a piece of bacon or a pig. There are order-of-magnitude differences in size between the two, and with filter feeders size is everything. They are even on different trophic levels, cyclopeeze copepods probably eat rotifers naturally.

Nothing that I know of (including feather dusters) is capable of eating particles ranging in size from phytoplankton up to cyclopeeze. This indicates to me that the author of that list, just like most other people, is just guessing.

[jbird69]

Originally Posted by ReefTeacher

So PE is not related to feeding? I really never knew that. Why do we add Amino Acids and the like for PE?

I think the closed polyps are thought to be pulling in food. Like the way an anemone contracts too eat a silverside.

[capecoral]

Here's an update from my friend's group... I guess he'll be sending me these as they get written...


"Growth comes from food, not light. Here is a nice report/study that helps explain what is really going on:

"Effect of Natural Zooplankton Feeding on the Tissue and Skeletal Growth of the Scleractinian Coral Stylophora Pistillata. Publication: Coral Reefs, 2003"

"Coral nutrition has been of interest to marine ecologists because of the high biomass concentration of reef corals, compared to the paucity of nutrients in the tropical waters where they live. Scleractinian corals [such as Stylophora] are heterotrophs, able to utilize a variety of food sources such as sediment, dissolved and particulate organic matter, bacteria, and zooplankton. They are also photo-autotrophs [feed from the sun] because they are symbiotic with unicellular dinoflagellates [algae in the coral's skin] commonly called zooxanthellae. Such multiple modes of nutrition seem to be an evolved mechanism for coping with oligotrophic [low nutrient] tropical waters."

"Photo-autotrophy [feeding from the sun] has been well documented, and it is clear that corals obtain large amounts of photosynthetically fixed carbon [energy] from their symbiotic algae through translocation. It has been suggested that these photosynthetic products are mostly used for respiration [to stay alive], with only a small proportion being used for growth and reproduction, because such products [from the sun] are deficient in essential nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus [which are needed for growth]."

"The main questions of [our] work is as follows: (1) Does feeding increase the amount of coral tissue, and at what rate? (2) Since zooxanthellae can use the catabolic end products of [the coral's] metabolism, does feeding also affect the [zooxanthellae] by changing their amount of chlorophyll or their cell density? (3) Does feeding change the coral's calcification [growth] rate? (4) How do light levels and food supply interact to affect calcification and tissue growth rates?"

"Laboratory experiments were designed to estimate the ingestion rates of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata under varying prey [food] concentrations, and feeding regimes, and to assess the effect of feeding on the tissue and skeletal growth. Six sets of corals were incubated under two light and three feeding levels (none, fed twice, and fed six times per week), using freshly collected zooplankton. Results showed that the number of prey [food] ingested was proportional to the prey density [amount of food in the water], and that no saturation of feeding capability was reached. Capture rates varied between 0.5 and 8 prey items per 200 polyps per hour. Corals starved for several days ingested more plankton than did fed corals. Fed colonies exhibited significantly higher levels of protein, chlorophyll a, and chlorophyll c2, per unit surface area than starved colonies did. Feeding had a strong effect on tissue growth, increasing it by two to eight times. Calcification [growth] rates were also 30% higher in fed than in starved corals. Even moderate levels of feeding enhanced both tissue and skeletal growth, although the processes involved in this enhancement remain to be determined."

"In January 2000, 60 randomly selected micro-colonies [of stylophora] were divided into four aquaria containing 15 corals each. Growth of each [frag] was monitored during 2 weeks before the start of the experiment (control period). Two groups were then fed 6 days per week, for 6 weeks, with freshly collected zooplankton, while the other two groups remained starved. Each fed and starved group was maintained at two light intensities. The tank positions were changed regularly to avoid any uneven light effect. Corals within each aquarium were also rotated to avoid any position difference (flow, light) effects within the aquaria."

"In July 2000, 120 microcolonies were divided into six aquaria containing 20 corals each. Growth rates were also followed during 2 weeks before the start of the experiment. Two groups were then fed six times a week for 6 weeks with zooplankton (highly fed group). Two other groups were fed only twice a week (slightly fed group). The last two groups remained starved (starved group). Each group was maintained at the same light intensities, and treated as above."

"Plankton were collected from [the ocean] every morning and brought back immediately to the laboratory. [...] After feeding, the tanks were entirely emptied and refilled with new seawater."

"When presented with food, starved corals captured plankton at significantly higher rates than slightly and highly fed groups; there was no significant difference between the slightly and the highly fed groups."

"For both experiments, the amount of [coral tissue] per unit surface area was significantly higher in fed than in starved corals, and at both light levels, by the end of the experiment; fed corals contained 30 to 49 percent more [coral tissue] per square centimeter than starved corals. There was, however, no significant difference between coral groups fed twice and six times per week. There was a strong effect of feeding and light on these [tissue growth] rates. Feeding and light significantly increased the amount of tissue produced over a given area of skeleton."

"Skeletal growth rates, calculated for the entire incubation time, were significantly higher for fed corals, at both light levels, for the January experiment and under low light during the July experiment. [...] Fed corals experienced 50 to 73 percent more growth in January under high and low light, respectively, and 46 percent more growth in July under low light."

"Feeding is one of the least-understood aspects of coral biology, possibly because significant quantities of identifiable prey [food] items are difficult to find in [coral stomach] samples without rapid preservation, and because the sampling process is laborious. [...] Stylophora pistillata, despite its relatively small polyp size, captures and ingests zooplankton readily, mainly copepods, in these experiments."

"The number of [pods] ingested was proportional to prey density [food in the water]."

"Feeding status had an important effect on these rates; corals maintained under starvation for several days ingested more plankton than did well fed corals. However, capture rates were not significantly different between slightly and highly fed groups. It seems unlikely, that in the case of the slightly fed group in particular, a saturation in feeding response would be responsible for this difference, given the 2-day interval between feeding bouts. [A previous study] suggested that the time spent digesting prey limits the amount of food consumed, since prey are not captured while there is food in the gut [thus, feeding corals all at one time wastes the majority of the food]"

"Results obtained in this study show that feeding had a strong effect on tissue growth, increasing it two and eight times in July and January, respectively. These results indicate that, even during optimum light conditions, photo-autotrophy [feeding from the sun] cannot satisfy the maximal daily energy and nutrient requirements of corals for both maintenance and growth."

"This study also strengthens the previous results showing higher calcification [growth] rates in fed than in starved corals. The enhancement of both tissue and skeletal growth with feeding suggests that the coral Stylophora pistillata allocates a high proportion of the energy brought by food to growth, when food is available. [...] In this study, fed corals grown under low light were able to maintain their growth rates, while the growth rates of starved corals dramatically decreased during the incubation. The highest growth was, however, observed when corals utilized both heterotrophic [food] and photo-autotrophic [light] nutritional sources."

"Whatever limits calcification [growth] rates, feeding removes some of that limitation."

Attached below is Figure 5 from the study

[biecacka]

lobster of justice, what do you suggest we feed our tanks then. i have a mostly softy, lps tank with a few sps (4 frags or so) i would love to help my reef be more healthy and this is a facinating topic.

[jdyer88]

I think any of us with any experience in keeping corals understand that the ocean is the optimal place for corals to grow because of the constant food suppply and many other factors. One of those factors, and its a huge one, is water quality. We've all seen someone's neglected reef with bleached corals and it is almost always a water quality issue. We spend over a thousand dollars for the best skimmers on the market, buy expensive supplements and do water changes constantly all for the sake of water quality. Yes corals need "food", and we supply them with this, but they also need good, even great water. Target, or even broadcast feeding is the happy medium for us. It would be awsome to supply our corals with food 24/7 but the nitrates and phosphates would be so uncontrollable that it would probably kill the corals, our fish, and even our other inverts. We constantly strive to find and keep the perfect balance for our little oceanic microcosms, and a constant supply of zoos and phytos ect. is just not possible.(IMO)

[capecoral]

Whoops I forgot the two videos that went with it...

"Here is a good intro video to zooplankton:


"And here are polyps catching zooplankton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbUc4u-veZE

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by biecacka

lobster of justice, what do you suggest we feed our tanks then. i have a mostly softy, lps tank with a few sps (4 frags or so) i would love to help my reef be more healthy and this is a facinating topic.

if you have mostly lps in the tank then feed them the cyclopeese.

[Greenmaster]

Cool thread I hope to learn more... one thing that is said here is that lights don't really matter... I have to disagree I would say if you want healthy corals you need strong light that helps the plankton (micro algae) to grow so zooplankton have something to eat... so you can have a half decent ecosystem in your tank.




________________
My 320g tank build http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=1840581
If you don't like what you are looking at you are looking at it the wrong way.

[returnofsid]

Originally Posted by LobsterOfJustice

Cyclopeeze is good for a lot of things but IMO not SPS....

SPS certainly can and do eat frozen cyclopeeze. I feed it about 3 times per week and, with a magnifying glass, can watch many of my SPS corals capture and eat it!! These SPS range from Pocillopora to Acropora, Stylophora, Hydnophora...etc. I'd have never believed it, had I not seen it, through the magnifying glass.

[dogstar74]

Originally Posted by capecoral

Whoops I forgot the two videos that went with it...

"And here are polyps catching zooplankton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbUc4u-veZE

All I see is a barnacle. And that's several orders of magnitude larger than a polyp on an SPS coral. Am I missing something?

Also, I don't think zooplankton that are large enough to swim around an underwater science facility and be filmed doing it, are small enough for SPS coral polyps either.

But both were an interesting watch. I just don't see the correlation to what we're discussing here. Which is zooplankton size that is appropriate for SPS polyps to digest.

[Greenmaster]

.... dogstar did you not listen to the zooplankton one? they are not filming them in the ocean much they are using sonar (acoustic profiler)... and if you think you can't film stuff on a microscope I think you need to do some more reading.

[LobsterOfJustice]

After feeding, the tanks were entirely emptied and refilled with new seawater

Make note of that sentence above...

I'm not saying dont feed. But I think people misunderstand what to feed - and water quality is just as (arguably more) important as feeding, and there is a fine balance between the two. If I had the means to completely drain and refill my tank after every feeding, sure, I'd feed the heck out of the corals.

[Reverend Reefer]

this is so interesting and somewhat confusing in some ways. i just finished reading this thread and the basic take home message i got was we need to feed our corals. the balance is evident of course, we need to somehow balance the fact that our corals need food, while on the other hand, they also need good water quality. constant feeding is unrealistic, even in the experiment described, they would do a complete water change. i can't saturate mt tank water with live food then do a complete water change everyday.

where my confusion comes from is, ive also just read about all this zeo stuff and low nutrient systems and this seems to be in direct contradiction to the current concept of high nutrient ideas in this thread. so which one is it? lots of junk for the corals to eat or little to no junk for the corals to be happy?

[LobsterOfJustice]

Originally Posted by biecacka

lobster of justice, what do you suggest we feed our tanks then. i have a mostly softy, lps tank with a few sps (4 frags or so) i would love to help my reef be more healthy and this is a facinating topic.

I'm no expert so count this as just another opinion... but my list would be:

LPS/Anemones/Fish - cyclopeeze/mysis
SPS, many softies - detritus, copepods smaller than cyclopeeze (i.e. barely visible), rotifers, bacteria (i realize this is still a huge range in size but I have not seen any gut content studies so...)
Feather dusters - phyto/bacteria (i'm not sure)

Keep an eye on water quality though...

[LobsterOfJustice]

Originally Posted by Reverend Reefer

where my confusion comes from is, ive also just read about all this zeo stuff and low nutrient systems and this seems to be in direct contradiction to the current concept of high nutrient ideas in this thread.

This thread isnt advocating high nutrients, just high particle/food availability. There is a huge difference between the two. Unfortunately in our tanks, uneaten food and particles soon break down to nutrients, so they are connected. Many of the newer bacterial/carbon driven low nutrient systems are killing two birds with one stone by promoting bacteria to uptake nutrients, and then providing bacterioplankton to corals. I've got a hunch that the benefit of these systems comes just as much from the increase in available bacterioplankton as it does from lower nutrients.

[LobsterOfJustice]

That figure is not from the study you quoted (at least, originally). Additionally the figure just says if plankton availability increases, feeding increases. If 500 plankton "pieces" are in a 3x3x3 tank, the coral will catch one every one hour and 12 minutes. If I'm interpreting that last figure correctly...

Not trying to argue, just getting facts straight. A graph with an increasing line can be impressive but that graph is not talking about coral growth.

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by LobsterOfJustice

I'm no expert so count this as just another opinion... but my list would be:

LPS/Anemones/Fish - cyclopeeze/mysis
SPS, many softies - detritus, copepods smaller than cyclopeeze (i.e. barely visible), rotifers, bacteria (i realize this is still a huge range in size but I have not seen any gut content studies so...)
Feather dusters - phyto/bacteria (i'm not sure)

Keep an eye on water quality though...

I believe oyster eggs or Pearls(marketing name) are also suitable for sps corals?

[capecoral]

Yes the barnacles eating... I must have more experience with corals than I thought, because I had plenty of barnacles on my rowboat once

[sbabs]

Originally Posted by capecoral

With my fascination of reefs from watching tv, I have since been doing a ton of research (I knew I went to school for something!) on how to eventually have a nice reef tank. While I don't have the money to set it up yet, I do have the time to research how things actually work, and what will be needed for it. Lucky for me, a college buddy of mine was studying marine biology, and we have kept in touch ever since. He is now working with a group that is doing advanced research on coral reefs, and he was nice enough to give me some coral feeding info that they are putting together for hobbyists. He said I could post the info if I wanted, as it gets written. He also said they are trying to simplify it, to make it easier for us to understand (no complex numbers, references, researchers, etc.) So here is the first part... hopefully it will help you feed your corals, and mine too when I get some:

WHAT HAPPENS TO MOST CORALS: Reef aquariums are probably the most amazing thing you can have in your living room, and they really impress almost anybody, even if the tanks have only fake plastic corals. But reef tanks owners themselves are only impressed if they are successfully keeping real corals, which means of course, that the corals are not dying. Further, reef tank owners are even happier when their corals are actually growing and getting larger. The happiest moment for some hobbyists is when their corals are reproducing and showing up in new spots all over the aquarium where they never were before, just like corals do in the ocean.

In the real world of reef tanks, however, many corals die, or get covered with algae; they don't grow much (compared to the ocean), and hardly ever reproduce in remote spots in the aquarium (except for mushrooms, etc). If the corals grew like they did in the ocean, a three year old reef tank, started with only frags, would be packed to the glass and sticking out of the top from just the growth and reproduction of those original frags. Some hobbyists do know how to grow some corals, but they do so with lots of experience and equipment. No hobbyist, however, has been able to keep all coral types alive, much less keep them all growing and reproducing. So this info is designed to show you why this is, and maybe for the first time, to change it for the better.

CORALS NEED FOOD: If I were to tell you that I just bought a fish that lives on sunlight alone, and does not need food, you might be disappointed that someone lied to me at the fish store. But this is how many reef hobbyists think about their corals; they think that corals live on light alone, and that the corals do not need feeding. This is exactly the opposite of how it really works, and is the reason that their corals do not reproduce, grow, or even stay alive in some cases. In the ocean, there are no (zero) corals that live on sunlight alone. There are, however, corals that live on food alone, and which don't require sunlight. So, what exactly is this food that corals eat?

Corals eat PLANKTON. And the more plankton that is flowing in the water, the more that ALL the corals will grow. This is not the case with light: Corals need various amounts of light, but they will not grow more if the light increases past a certain point. With plankton, however, there really is no limit to the growth. Corals grow faster in the ocean when there is more plankton, and they grow slower when there is less. But most hobbyists have very little plankton in their tanks, if any at all, so sometimes the best they can hope for is that it's enough to keep the corals alive. Some hobbyists will mess around with the lighting, thinking it is the cause of slow growth, when actually it is just the lack of food.

WHAT PLANKTON IS: Plankton is the stuff that floats in the water. It's the stuff that looks like dust or dirt, or like little bits of trash. The bits can sometimes be so small you can't see them, or they can be as large as a pinhead. And they can be either alive or dead. The important part is, they FEED your corals. Yes, corals eat both the living AND the dead stuff that floats in the water. Here are some details on the types of plankton:

Zooplankton: These are little living animals, mostly little pods. Just remember "zoo", as in animals at the zoo. In the ocean, most of the zooplankton is copepods, which are as small as a grain of dust, or as big as the point of a pencil. Other zooplankton are rotifers and mysis. Ocean reefs are packed with zooplankton. Zooplankton is the major food of corals, and many small fish too (many baby fish eat only zooplankton).

Phytoplankton: Phyto mean "plant", and these tiny things are microscopic bits of plants that float around the top part of the ocean (about 300 feet deep, across 70 percent of the earth). They are actually algae, and they are the most important living things on the planet. They are 90 percent of all living life in the ocean (besides bacteria); they feed everything in the ocean, and they produce all the oxygen that you breath. Without phytoplankton, everything on earth would die (except maybe bacteria). Phytoplankton are so small that you cannot see even billions of them. Matter of fact, the crystal clear reefs that you think are "pure", are actually loaded with huge concentrations of phytoplankton in the water.

Detritus: Pronounced similar to "just-TRY-us". Detritus is stuff that used to be alive (zoo, phyto, fish waste, coral waste), but now is dead. Reefs have more detritus floating around than any other part of the ocean, so detritus is a major food for corals.

Bacteria: The number one life form on Earth, including in the ocean. Bacteria is very active on ocean reefs, and it feeds lots of corals, although not as much as zooplankton.

HOW FAST DO CORALS GROW IN THE OCEAN: Fast-growing branching corals, like staghorn acropora, can grow 8 to 10 inches (20 to 25 cm) per year in length. Here is a sample report:

Geoscience Research Institute
http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm

"Most polyps at 66 cm from the tip will be approximately 7 yr older than polyps at 3 cm from the tip" [this equates to a linear growth of 9 cm per year; a frag that is small today would be 18 cm in diameter (7 inches) in one year.]

"Sewell (1935) reported 280 mm/year [11 inches] in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year [16 inches] in the Celebes."

"The fastest growth rate reported for any coral is the staghorn species Acropora cervicornis. Lewis (1968) found in Jamaica a maximum rate of 264 mm/year [10 inches]. Shinn (1976) studied the growth of this species following destruction in a hurricane near Florida. He estimated linear growth rates of 100 mm/year [4 inches]. He also found that because of the branching habit (several new branches added to a single previous one), much more than the linear growth of a single branch is involved in establishing a dense stand of this coral. Under these branching growth conditions, carbonate production [growth] would be more geometric than linear, and could contribute further to the carbonate mass [size] of the reef. Gladfelter, Monahan and Gladfelter (1978) report rates of 99 mm/year [4 inches] for Acropora palmata in the Virgin Islands."

And here is another study:

Growth Of Acropora Pulchra in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Philippines. Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium, 1981:

"If mean monthly growth rates for all [test] sites are averaged, they can be extrapolated to obtain a mean annual growth rate of 18.1 cm/year [7 inches] for Acropora pulchra. 22.58 cm/year [9 inches] was obtained for the same species at Yap Island in the Western Pacific, in a study that covered only the cooler [slower growing] months of October to December."

Mean growth rates of Acropora pulchra control colonies:

Date -- Mean Growth Rate (cm/month)

10/80-12/80 Site A: 1.8 Site B: 1.6 Site D: -
12/80-01/81 Site A: 2.3 Site B: 2.0 Site D: 1.5
02/81-04/81 Site A: 1.4 Site B: 1.3 Site D: 1.2
04/81-05/81 Site A: 0.6 Site B: 0.8 Site D: 0.6


HOW TO FEED YOUR CORALS: To achieve growth like in the ocean, corals need to be fed like they are in the ocean. Most all corals do use sunlight, and this is called Autotrophic feeding. Auto means "self", and Trophic means "feeding". Sure enough, the corals use the sunlight to "make" some energy for themselves. Most all aquariums have enough light, especially reef tanks, so fortunately this is not a problem. Most of the energy from sunlight, however, is only used to keep the corals alive; very little is used for growth and reproduction, which is what we want.

The second type of feeding is call Heterotrophic. Hetero mean "different", and sure enough, corals also eat food that they don't make themselves. Matter of fact, this is how corals get most of their food, especially when it comes to growth and reproduction. This food can be any of the plankton listed above: Zooplankton, phytoplankton, detritus, and bacteria. It's the zooplankton that does most of the feeding; and since zooplankton is actually alive, the corals are said to be "predators" of the zooplankton. It's kind of weird to think of corals as predators, but if you ever get a chance to use a microscope to watch coral polyps (especially SPS) use their chemicals to zap and eat pods, you'll understand. A polyp senses a pod (some polyps actually chase pods), and then it stings the pod with chemicals; it then wraps around it with a sticky net and pulls the pod into the "stomach" of the coral where the pod gets digested over the next couple of hours.

This digestion part is important, because a polyp cannot eat again until the initial food is digested. This is why you want to supply food to corals 24 hours a day, especially at night, which is when most feeding occurs in the ocean. If you just try to target-feed your corals by blasting them with (any kind of) food, only the first few particles that hit the coral will get eaten and digested, and all the rest will go to waste. So if you are going to limit coral feeding to certain times, make sure it's at night, or else the polyps won't catch enough. But by far the best technique is 24 hours a day, just like they eat in the ocean.

SUMMARY: With some slight changes in your feeding techniques, you can multiply the growth of your corals many many times, and even get them to multiply/reproduce in remote parts of the aquarium where they never were before. And maybe you can also help save corals from extinction, starting with the Acropora cervicornis "Staghorn Coral", and the Acropora palmata "Elkhorn coral", which are already almost gone (95 percent extinct, due to environmental changes) and are not expected to be around much longer in the ocean.

Lastly, here are two plankton videos that we found on youtube, which do a pretty good job of describing what plankton is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuXMz3j9E8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9AKf6OnuPg

And here are pics of the corals talked about:

While interesting, I don't agree. Different corals react differently to feeding. Acropora does not need much in the way of food, in fact, very little IMO. But, I have other variables which make my theory more difficult to validate. One thing I know is that my main tank has the best lighting, a combo of halid and T5s and is my best maintained tank, but acros struggle in this tank for me. They live, but they bleach out more and don't show the color like I want them too. On the other hand, my "red headed stepchild" tank that gets the least attention has frags from the same acros in it and those corals do have far better color. This tank has minimal lighting, only 70 watts of T5 lighting for a 55G (Corals are high in the tank on a rack for this reason) but the tank is fed less. There is less bio load, but more green algae and even some cyano for a while, which is getting better. I don't understand why, but the corals in this tank are doing well. Both tanks have more than acceptable nitrate and phosphate levels, calcium and kh are fine and surprisingly close, and salinity and ph are right on with ph barely fluctuating for me, but running at around 7.9 at night and 8.1 in the day. The bigger tank does require me to add ph buffer now and then, but that is all.

I think that the bio load and more food from the bigger tank are the reason the corals don't do as well in the tank, I think feeding less is going to help, and I am working towards this for that reason. my softies don't seem to care, they thrive in both tanks, and I have a scoly that is rocking in my big tank, and it was doing poorly at the store. I have another brain that has really shown growth in two short months also, so I feel like softer tissue corals don't mind a little more "junk in the trunk".

This months reef of the month really got me thinking about this when he mentioned the low nutrient theory and how colors got so much better.

I think it does boil down to physiology. this is like us, not an exact science, and one thing works for one thing, and not another. We have to experiment to an extent.

[mastershake93]

so, i have soft corals, what do i feed them?

[biecacka]

now are you guys turning pumps or skimmers off during feeding?

[biecacka]

SPS, many softies - detritus, copepods smaller than cyclopeeze (i.e. barely visible), rotifers, bacteria (i realize this is still a huge range in size but I have not seen any gut content studies so...)
is this something you can buy or best to grow or hatch?

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally Posted by mastershake93

so, i have soft corals, what do i feed them?

the term "soft coral" covers a huge range of coral species!

My best general recommendation would be to feed your fishes and not your corals. Leave skimmer on 24/7 and monitor phosphates with a low range phosphate test.

[capecoral]

All this feeding. I need to get some corals so they can have some fish poop :0

Did not think it would be so involved.

[cham]

Interesting thread.

I remember reading somewhere that almost all tanks have at least some phytoplankton present. When I look at my tank I see lots of micro life going on in all the little nooks & crannies. Pods (especially tiger pods) seem to be everywhere. When these guys reproduce I would have to believe they are creating a nice zooplankton soup for my corals.

My question is about how to foster the phyto that is naturally occouring in my tank. It seems that it is the bottom of the food chain in my tank and if I foster that organism the rest will fall into place.

Am I off base?