So happy other people are speaking some sense! AA's are simply marketing genius. Companies are simply branching out from the "health and fitness," market into anything that 'eats or feeds.'
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The best thing I ever did for my tank in which coloration and growth made a noticeable change? Feeding at least once an hour.
concerning the amount of light the tank receives vs amount of food added. And how they seem inversely proportional in relation to each other.
If corals and zooxanthellae are symbiotic and not parasitic, then
We know corals and the symbionts utilize AA's. So why would we limit the array of "foods" we put into the tank?
I see tanks all the time having problems, and it's usually 1 of 3 things. Phosphate is zero, nitrate is zero, or you see them say, "I feed once a week".
The best thing I ever did for my tank in which coloration and growth made a noticeable change? Feeding at least once an hour.
Even had this kind of conversation with my gf last night concerning the amount of light the tank receives vs amount of food added. And how they seem inversely proportional in relation to each other.
Then I realized while trying to explain to her, it really is as stupidly simple, yet elegant, as this:
If corals and zooxanthellae are symbiotic and not parasitic, then each is going to contribute as much as it can in relation to the other, to work together, because if one is producing less than the other, it's parasitism and not a symbiosis.
If you give them light, sure the zooxanthellae will do fine, but what about the coral? Absorption of AA's is only 1 way that can assist the coral vs the zooxanthellae. Like someone said, particulates. The obsession in the hobby is to have sparkling, crystal clear, amazingly glassy water surfaces that only rival the shiniest of all gems in the world! But is that the case in nature? Maybe in part, but if you're comparing out tanks to nature, you're leaving out the sheer amount of floating particulate food that is passing by 24/7. Then I'm sure many would say, "well it's not possible to feed that much!" But it's not about feeding that much, it's about balancing the input vs the output vs the inorganic buildup. What I mean is, you could dump a whole pound of pellets into a tank continually everyday, and still remain near-zero for nitrate and phosphate. "How?!" you scoff? You wouldn't have any filtration in the tank that would capture and allow things to sit more than an hour or so. And you would just have to remove the pellets from the system shortly after adding them, before they start to break down.
That's the trick. But point being, there's multiple ways to assist the coral with it's nutrition, AA's aren't bad imo because we sure starve the corals on a regular basis trying to keep the algae at bay and do less water changes, it also allows for easy removal as opposed to pellets/etc that require more than a skimmer in the objective of removing from the system within a short period of time after introduction to only keep FOOD in the system and not inorganic nutrients...
As to which AA's like the OP asks is the golden question, though in a nutshell I find the science to back up AA's usefulness outweighs the hypothesis of 'it's a marketing gimmick'.
until i see conclusive evidence of actual "uptake" of AA with some sort of measurement, and not the degredation to nitrogen being taken up, i will stay skeptical.
In the article on biologists.org they broke down the uptake by specific amino acids, and this was from aminos that had been assimilated into tissue. This seems pretty concrete and it was even testing on a coral lots of us actually keep
Skeptical is still good, because I think it might be true that most people reading this are looking for "pop" rather than healthier corals. Almost anything can be abused or not work if used inappropriately.
Feeding corals isn't like feeding fish....it isn't straight forward in most cases.
Was it @cromag08 that said "pop" should be kept in the refrigerator?
I think it's arguable that amino dosing is preferable from one standpoint, in that they CAN BE used in their amino form and may carry some unique benefits this way, but they also theoretically break down to a good nitrate source. So there are at least two opportunities for aminos to be of use to corals nutritionally.
The "best" way to go about this isn't clear.
That's why I'm doing 10mL PER DAY of Spectracide, and only dosing 5mL PER WEEK (dripped daily) of AA's.
Moving slowly.
I've taken another approach, 1ml SELCON, 12 drops of Elos amino acid daily.
I don't have much for pictures because phone and stuff.
I've taken another approach, 1ml SELCON, 12 drops of Elos amino acid daily.
This debate, which might be warranted, but I think unnecessary, as to IF AA's actually do anything, could be compared to other things.
I fully agree with the end product being nitrate is yet another desirable tangent.
Also, corals DO absorb things through their tissue so whether or not polyps are out isn't the point. (even humans do and that's not one of our main sources of "feeding")
Otherwise one thing it makes me think of, that I have yet to see blow up in the forums, is Vitamin C.
I recall a corals genome was sequenced, and they found a gene for the expression of vitamin c in skeletal growth. Meaning that corals use vitamin c during skeletal growth?! How many people actually dose vitamin c? :| I know there's sources via food, but if corals can absorb things through their tissue, why wouldn't we prefer to add liquid foods/additives? I guarantee the surface area of the tissue is vastly more expansive than the surface area of polyps.
Just a couple thoughts that came to mind about this 'debate'..