How much biological load do corals produce?

[crystalnurse]

Hi again, I know that fish produce more bioload than corals. So is it better to start off with a few simple corals instead of fish at first? Polyps? Mushrooms? Leathers? What do you all think. Thanks for the input.:dance:

[der_wille_zur_macht]

This is a complicated question, and you will likely get lots of different answers. The following is my own opinion. ;)

To me, "bioload" means "the total amount of food I have to add to the tank to keep everyone well fed."

My reasoning behind that statement is simple. What are we, as aquarium keepers, always concerned about? Excess nutrients - that's why we have filters, skimmers, water changes, etc. What's the main way that nutrients get in to our tanks? Feeding. So, if we're going to have some metric to monitor the total "biological load" on our tanks, doesn't it make sense to base it on the total amount of food we have to add to the tank?

Once that definition is accepted, it's easy to judge the bioload that a given organism will add (or subtract) to/from your tank. When you add a big, messy eater that requires lots of food, you're obviously increasing the bio load more than adding a tiny, shy, gentle fish that barely eats a thing. And so on.

Where do corals fit into all of this? Well, first consider wether or not you'll need/want to feed a certain coral. For the vast majority of corals we keep, feeding is not required - in fact, we probably *can't* actually feed lots of corals, even if we think we are. So, assuming you're going to aim for minimum or no feeding for particular corals, they'll add little or nothing to the tank's bioload.

However, IMHO, the story doesn't end there - it's just beginning. Corals need to grow and respirate, wether or not we're directly feeding them - they need nutirents to survive. So, where are they getting those nutrients? Many corals can suck dissolved nutrients directly out of the water column. Or, they'll capture small particles of detritus or leftover fish food. Thus, in a sense, these corals are actually *reducing* the bioload on the tank by consuming some of the waste products we struggle with on a daily basis.

Now, does that, in itself, mean that we should start with corals instead of fish (the second part of your question)? No, IMHO that alone isn't justification. Should we start with corals instead of fish anyways? IMHO, that depends on what you mean by "start with." ;) If we're talking about a rank beginner with no experience monitoring or controlling water parameters, then IMHO simple, hardy fish are definitely the best first choice. If we're talking about someone who has at least a basic handle on things, then it's a washout - there are benefits and drawbacks to both, books could be written on the subject.

[crystalnurse]

That was a good answer for me. I am still learning the lingo on here and feel stupid asking, but what does IMHO stand for?

[der_wille_zur_macht]

It's a common abbreviation for "in my humble opinion."

In other words, make sure you really believe me before you accept the statement as absolute fact. ;) So many things in this hobby change on a regular basis. And, there are usually a dozen "right" answers to any question, so don't just take one person's word for truth.

[crystalnurse]

Thank you, you have been most helpful.

[tacocat]

I would start with fish first. I am not in 100% agreement with corals having no bioload. We do feed corals. They consume the light we put over our tanks, and suck minerals out of the water. In addition, corals do produce waste, especially the softies. Corals produce copius amounts of slime that is typically removed by skimmers and such.

The reason, to start with fish is that corals require a more stable environment, lighting, and chemical additives. These are not necessary for keeping fish. In most modern reef tanks, bioload is a not factor. Aggression will be more of a concern.

[ReeferAl]

I agree almost entirely with what der_wille_zur_macht posted. tacocat has a point about by-poducts of corals, especially softies. They don't add nutrients to the tank if we are not feeding them, but they are altering metabolites even unfed and this does affect water quality.

[rjwilson37]

Corals add very little to no bioload to the tank, unless you dose alot of zooplankton to try and feed your corals. I only dose DT's once a week, there are plenty of nutrients and food floating around your tank once it is established. This is why you wait to add corals, once your tank is stable and established you can add corals and they will be alot more healthy and happy in an established tank. You will go through different algae blooms your first 6-8 months, so you want to keep the inhabitants to a minimum except for your cleanup crew. You really don't want to add any corals the first 3 months. After 3 months you can add hardy soft corals and after 6 months, you can add hardy LPS type corals and maybe some medium care softies. But you really don't want to add any difficult corals util after 10-12 months. Bioload is food and waist, the more you feed the more waist that is produced either by the fish or uneaten food as well as excessive zooplankton. These waist/nutrients if to high and if your tank is not established enough can cause problems. These problems are algae/bacteria blooms or Ammonia spikes which cause high nitrates after being broken down. These problems will cause unwanted stress on your fish and corals and some may not make it through it, so take your times and take things slow. Don't impulse buy, always research things alot before you purchase or add to your tank.

Good Luck!

[MiddletonMark]

I personally have and will add corals before fish, every time.

Willie's point about new reefkeepers is correct - a hardy fish is probably the best livestock to keep first. But if you can keep water parameters stable and good ... I'd go with corals.

Why? Feeding + less waste compared to fish.

But more than that - fish are generally active predators - and I don't like to have my pods/etc being eaten until they can establish themselves. Nor do I want any nutrient spikes, and in my experience corals barely affect the bioload of tanks, unless they're one of the odd ones that requires regular feeding.

But if you're new with corals ... maybe a fish would be best. If you can keep conditions, though ... I'd go with corals first. Just depends the tank you want - if it's full-scale reef ... then IMHO fish are just decoration and to be added last and only to a manageable level.

Just my opinion, which tends to agree with Willie's. As said above, lots of different opinions, pick one you like, research it ... and follow it to the letter :)

[rjwilson37]

I agree with MiddletonMark and have heard that alot of experienced Reefer's will add there corals before fish. I don't think of my fish as just decoration though. I pretty much feel equal about my corals and fish and think of my reef as a whole balanced environment for corals, fish and invertibrates.

Just remember that it is a slow process in any one of the models listed above. You take your time, research what you want to do, then research it again before you do it to make sure it is going to work for you. What works for one person doesn't always work for the other because every setup is different and you will eventually find what works best for you.

[crystalnurse]

Well, I think I will prob. add a few corals and wait a month or so and a fish or two. Prob. a tang (still can't decide which one) and a flame angel for color.
So nice to get all the different opinions on things. I just have to listen to all and decide what to do. One thing everyone seems to agree on is to go slow. Patience and money---- things one definately needs in this hobby.