- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 614
The answer to the first question is clearly no. This forum is proof enough of that.
The second question is a trick question in my view. Of course corals grow in and due to NSW because they have evolved to do so. Like all other living things on this planet.
Embedded in that question are other more relevant ones: Are they utilizing every element in their life cycle? That seems unlikely. Are there elements in NSW that prevent them from growing? Certainly not the concentrations of the NSW in the waters surrounding healthy reefs. On the other hand, we do know that many of the elements present in NSW if increased in concentration are harmful to corals. Many of those harmful elements are also necessary for their growth.
So where does asking this question get us? Back to the first one and its corollary: Which elements present in NSW are not necessary to be present in their NSW concentrations for corals to thrive? And what are the optimal concentrations of each of those necessary elements for growth and color (the two things we strive for).
Lord - there is a lot going on in this thread. I suspect optimal concentrations of necessary elements are different for every coral. And I also suspect some corals are better at competing for these elements than others. Which would argue for perhaps higher than normal overall levels to ensure all the corals in a tank have access to what they need. Of course higher concentrations can become harmful. Personally it seems safer to hold closer to NSW numbers and then just deal with what happens in a particular tank ecosystem. But I can understand the logic of "overfeeding" elements.
I would also like to take mild issue with the cat analogy. Often a species will thrive in a protected or favorable environment up until the point at which it doesn't. Perhaps the population grows too large for the food source or the thriving species slowly degrades the environment in some unknown manner. It is never simple.