McMullen
Valuable Member
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.'
diy amino acid
- Thread starter PeterErc
- Start date
- Tagged users None
mcarroll
10K Club member
@Russ265 and @McMullen
FYI, my position on DFAA's was the same as yours until I read this piece and some related literature. Did you guys grok the biologists.org article yet?
According to what appear to be some pretty careful measurements by a non-hobby publication, DFAA and Urea seem to make up <25% of nitrogen uptake, but they are still factors.
Corals appear built to use DFAA's when conditions are right. Right conditions being a lack of particulate food.....dang if I didn't lose the reference for this point tho....will post again if I can find it. But that's the deal....dissolved nutrient uptake is throttled or eliminated if the coral has a particulate food source. (With filter socks, toilet-paper-rolls and protein skimmers running, a consistent and acceptable particulate food source are unlikely in a home tank....that's the reason we have such terrible luck across the board with non-photosynthetic corals, IMO.)
Why is the "least-important" nitrogen source – urea – considered a factor in you guys' opinion, but DFAA's, which are demonstrably used more by corals, are not? I mean on what basis?
Per the article, ammonium is (as seems to always be the case) the preferred form of nitrogen, with nitrates a close second. FWIW.
The coral in the study (which is more or less directly applicable since many – myself included –of us actually keep Styo's.) seems to like DFAA'S.
FYI, my position on DFAA's was the same as yours until I read this piece and some related literature. Did you guys grok the biologists.org article yet?
According to what appear to be some pretty careful measurements by a non-hobby publication, DFAA and Urea seem to make up <25% of nitrogen uptake, but they are still factors.
Corals appear built to use DFAA's when conditions are right. Right conditions being a lack of particulate food.....dang if I didn't lose the reference for this point tho....will post again if I can find it. But that's the deal....dissolved nutrient uptake is throttled or eliminated if the coral has a particulate food source. (With filter socks, toilet-paper-rolls and protein skimmers running, a consistent and acceptable particulate food source are unlikely in a home tank....that's the reason we have such terrible luck across the board with non-photosynthetic corals, IMO.)
Why is the "least-important" nitrogen source – urea – considered a factor in you guys' opinion, but DFAA's, which are demonstrably used more by corals, are not? I mean on what basis?
Per the article, ammonium is (as seems to always be the case) the preferred form of nitrogen, with nitrates a close second. FWIW.
The coral in the study (which is more or less directly applicable since many – myself included –of us actually keep Styo's.) seems to like DFAA'S.
mcarroll
10K Club member
The particulate feeding reference I made above was from "Nitrogen Cycling In Corals: The Key To Understanding Holobiont Functioning?" by Rädecker...I think. Still short on time, so I'll be back again to double check this.
Pretty sure that's it.....another great article, regarless. No link at the moment, but schollar.google.com that title and you'll find it.
Pretty sure that's it.....another great article, regarless. No link at the moment, but schollar.google.com that title and you'll find it.
Last edited:
mcarroll
10K Club member
"Nitrogen cycling in corals: the key to understanding holobiont functioning?"
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2015.03.008
Along with the earlier link (repeated below again), these two articles make a good combo!
"Uptake of dissolved free amino acids by the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillate"
http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.012807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2015.03.008
Along with the earlier link (repeated below again), these two articles make a good combo!
"Uptake of dissolved free amino acids by the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillate"
http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.012807
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
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'.
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'.
mcarroll
10K Club member
Ultra-regular water changes (from weekly to every day; more frequency seems better) made a pretty big difference for me back when I switched to that. No additional effort toward detritus removal...just plain water changes.
2¢
You are on the right track in noting the complexity, but flow also factors in about equally. Flow - Nutrients - Light
I have another good link around here that I've posted before on this....will try to scare it up later.
Got another interesting link (again, posted before) on this.....are they really symbiotic? The answers are very intriguing.
Will try to post this one again later too.
hawkinsrgk
Valuable Member
How and what are you feeding every hour? Are you feeding using a dosing pump or automatic feeder? How did you determine how much to feed? Thanks. This is really interesting.
dragon99
2500 Club Member
This article suggests that AA should be dosed at night when corals are not making their own:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2015/5/corals
There is little doubt that marine invertebrates (including corals) can uptake dissolved amino acids. However, there is some evidence suggesting that uptake will be higher at night when amino acids are not produced (or produced in lesser amounts) by the coral or translocated to corals from zooxanthellae.
Also, the study you linked says this:
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/6/860
In contrast to our observations and those of Al-Moghrabi et al. (Al-Moghrabi et al., 1993), a faster DFAA uptake in the dark was observed for the species Pocillopora damicornis (Hoegh-Guldberg and Williamson, 1999). This inconsistency could be due to species specificity, but remains to be further investigated.
So it seems there's no consensus on when to dose AA.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2015/5/corals
There is little doubt that marine invertebrates (including corals) can uptake dissolved amino acids. However, there is some evidence suggesting that uptake will be higher at night when amino acids are not produced (or produced in lesser amounts) by the coral or translocated to corals from zooxanthellae.
Also, the study you linked says this:
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/6/860
In contrast to our observations and those of Al-Moghrabi et al. (Al-Moghrabi et al., 1993), a faster DFAA uptake in the dark was observed for the species Pocillopora damicornis (Hoegh-Guldberg and Williamson, 1999). This inconsistency could be due to species specificity, but remains to be further investigated.
So it seems there's no consensus on when to dose AA.
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.
let me explain my methods:
the point being is that AA is hit or miss with every aquarist. 50% reporting increase in cyano, 25% reporting an increase of coloration, 25% reporting no change. -in my readings.
another point:
not everyone can reproduce "improved color" dosing AA. - as opposed to pale colored corals that utilized nitrate from which there is just about a 100% consensus (minus phosphate limiting photosynthesis).
i can reproduce with 100% accuracy, paleness(in my tank) by not dosing nitrogen up to 3ppm and po4 up to .01ppm. many r2r guinea pigs have done the same for my write up of "help my sps are paling and i dont know what to do"
few can say the same about AA.
what white papers i have seen about the subject do not mention dosing (in the positive light) but the uptake of AA through a transport. (much like glucosamine shuttles) - again. why i mention it's junk science-ness. it may very well prove corals can uptake it, but i doubt at the percentage bottler's claim.
last but not least: occam's razor.
in closing:
if a basic hobbiest cant see a positive result in over 50% of cases, i dismiss it. im sure as AA dies in popularity people will come around and stick to the basics.
as far as urea/ammonium over nitrate. it is because the conversion calculation is slightly more effecient than nitrate.
in other words, it is easier to photosynthesizs ammonium than nitrogen in the conversion factor. i think @Randy Holmes-Farley may have that calculation as i am too lazy to go looking for it.
google is your friend.
btw: im not trying to poopoo any methods of reef keeping, nor sway anyone from what works for them. (i cycle my tanks with windex but wouldnt advocate it as the end all to do so) im just explaining what is on the table, how i "perceive" it, and my own experience with the fairy dust that has fallen on it's face time and time again.
let me explain my methods:
the point being is that AA is hit or miss with every aquarist. 50% reporting increase in cyano, 25% reporting an increase of coloration, 25% reporting no change. -in my readings.
another point:
not everyone can reproduce "improved color" dosing AA. - as opposed to pale colored corals that utilized nitrate from which there is just about a 100% consensus (minus phosphate limiting photosynthesis).
i can reproduce with 100% accuracy, paleness(in my tank) by not dosing nitrogen up to 3ppm and po4 up to .01ppm. many r2r guinea pigs have done the same for my write up of "help my sps are paling and i dont know what to do"
few can say the same about AA.
what white papers i have seen about the subject do not mention dosing (in the positive light) but the uptake of AA through a transport. (much like glucosamine shuttles) - again. why i mention it's junk science-ness. it may very well prove corals can uptake it, but i doubt at the percentage bottler's claim.
last but not least: occam's razor.
in closing:
if a basic hobbiest cant see a positive result in over 50% of cases, i dismiss it. im sure as AA dies in popularity people will come around and stick to the basics.
as far as urea/ammonium over nitrate. it is because the conversion calculation is slightly more effecient than nitrate.
in other words, it is easier to photosynthesizs ammonium than nitrogen in the conversion factor. i think @Randy Holmes-Farley may have that calculation as i am too lazy to go looking for it.
google is your friend.
btw: im not trying to poopoo any methods of reef keeping, nor sway anyone from what works for them. (i cycle my tanks with windex but wouldnt advocate it as the end all to do so) im just explaining what is on the table, how i "perceive" it, and my own experience with the fairy dust that has fallen on it's face time and time again.
Last edited:
if you are serious about AA.
round up everyone who says that it DOES color up corals. - lets say 20.
ill buy 20 bottles of fuel or acropower.
ill mark them 1-20.
1/2 will be emptied and filled with ro water and a teaspoon of cornstarch. (feel free to suggest a better placebo element)
the other half will have the real deal.
if over 50% can guess which is the "placebo" you have your answer.
round up everyone who says that it DOES color up corals. - lets say 20.
ill buy 20 bottles of fuel or acropower.
ill mark them 1-20.
1/2 will be emptied and filled with ro water and a teaspoon of cornstarch. (feel free to suggest a better placebo element)
the other half will have the real deal.
if over 50% can guess which is the "placebo" you have your answer.
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
I use reef energy every hour with a Drew's doser. It's just the suggested dosage divided by 24. The reason for this vs others is the AA's plus a little bit extra food. I noticed when walking the fine line taking inorganics next to zero via Nopox/biopellets, it was a lot easier to avoid necrosis events and helping avoid pale colors. (I hate the pale colors)
The RE every hour allows a baseline to gauge from. I do feed other stuff as well, but that's a different subject and doesn't include AA's.
The RE every hour allows a baseline to gauge from. I do feed other stuff as well, but that's a different subject and doesn't include AA's.
mcarroll
10K Club member
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.
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.
I don't have much for pictures because phone and stuff.
Ok wow! Used a filter and some colors look right and other well white! That last picture is of some of my best looking corals. Will try again...
mcarroll
10K Club member
I'm familiar with Selcon as a food additive, but what's the theory with dosing it to the tank water?
From what I can tell, it's fatty acids + vitamins. Seems like more of a carbon source, but not sure what the breakdown path of fatty acids in the water column would be.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=coral+uptake+"fatty+acid"
There are some goodies in there, but I'm out of reading time for tonight. Will take a look tomorrow.
Zzzz.
Throwing my hat into the ring.
Here are some of my thought of DFAA, Nitrates, and a few of the articles mentioned in this thread
Based on the 2008 paper "Uptake of dissolved free amino acids by the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillate" I think the authors show that DFAA are really just another important source of Nitrogen. Which is what a lot of us have been saying for a while. But they also show that uptake of nitrogen is optimally a combination of inorganic nitrogen, and DFAA with some urea. Inorganic nitrogen made up 75% daily Nitrogen and almost half that is NO3. So for me I think it is still good to dose NO3, as I have been doing for some time.
In reading the advanced aquarist article their recommendation of using aspartic acid and heavily feeding of zooplankton are what we have been traditionally trying to doing for a while. I think that that method is problematic for the home reef keeper. Zooplankton is difficult to consistently feed enough to ensure polyps can capture food without causing water quality issues. Aspartic acid, for many people, I think has the same problem. Aspartic acid seems to provide some true benefits, but there is no marker that you can use to tell if you are using too much until you start to see problems in the tank such as Cyano. Also for some people they see no benefit from some AA supplements and others say it really helps.
I think some of the promise of that 2008 paper is that they look at how much the coral is able benefit not just from DFAA, but urea and nitrogen. They were able to show that total dissolved nitrogen provides 99% of the daily nitrogen necessary for tissue growth, which I think could be quite helpful to coral health. Another benefit is if we could be use NO3 in conjunction with DFAA we have some ability to observe when we are adding too much by monitoring nitrate levels.
I think almost the same type of coloration that people observe when adding AA to their tank would be observed if they were to add NO3 too. It is just that we have been conditioned to believe that adding NO3 is a bad thing and adding AA is a good thing. but that 2008 paper shows that they are both useful sources of nitrogen that the corals are able to use.
As to polyp extension when dumping AA in the tank, I personally believe it is a feeding response to some chemical "smell" in the water due to the AA that the corals pick up on. As I have pointed out before, acropora do not have their polyps extended in the daytime in the wild.
FYI I have been dosing KNO3 in my tank for over 1 1/2 years.
Here are some of my thought of DFAA, Nitrates, and a few of the articles mentioned in this thread
Based on the 2008 paper "Uptake of dissolved free amino acids by the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillate" I think the authors show that DFAA are really just another important source of Nitrogen. Which is what a lot of us have been saying for a while. But they also show that uptake of nitrogen is optimally a combination of inorganic nitrogen, and DFAA with some urea. Inorganic nitrogen made up 75% daily Nitrogen and almost half that is NO3. So for me I think it is still good to dose NO3, as I have been doing for some time.
In reading the advanced aquarist article their recommendation of using aspartic acid and heavily feeding of zooplankton are what we have been traditionally trying to doing for a while. I think that that method is problematic for the home reef keeper. Zooplankton is difficult to consistently feed enough to ensure polyps can capture food without causing water quality issues. Aspartic acid, for many people, I think has the same problem. Aspartic acid seems to provide some true benefits, but there is no marker that you can use to tell if you are using too much until you start to see problems in the tank such as Cyano. Also for some people they see no benefit from some AA supplements and others say it really helps.
I think some of the promise of that 2008 paper is that they look at how much the coral is able benefit not just from DFAA, but urea and nitrogen. They were able to show that total dissolved nitrogen provides 99% of the daily nitrogen necessary for tissue growth, which I think could be quite helpful to coral health. Another benefit is if we could be use NO3 in conjunction with DFAA we have some ability to observe when we are adding too much by monitoring nitrate levels.
I think almost the same type of coloration that people observe when adding AA to their tank would be observed if they were to add NO3 too. It is just that we have been conditioned to believe that adding NO3 is a bad thing and adding AA is a good thing. but that 2008 paper shows that they are both useful sources of nitrogen that the corals are able to use.
As to polyp extension when dumping AA in the tank, I personally believe it is a feeding response to some chemical "smell" in the water due to the AA that the corals pick up on. As I have pointed out before, acropora do not have their polyps extended in the daytime in the wild.
FYI I have been dosing KNO3 in my tank for over 1 1/2 years.
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
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'..
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'..
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'..
I would guess the polyps do absorb like the skin, and PE is a way to absorb more of what they need.
Vitamin C, yes good point. I think the hobby has know for a long time of it need. However it is perishable and thus not every food we add will contain it.
Nitrate contains energy and corals can utilize it. So the question for me is why chose potassium nitrate over feeding? Maybe down the road long term my filtration can't keep up and phosphate goes through the roof. Then it would be more clear I guess.
