Goniopora feeding: a proprietary formulation and an endpoint discrepancy
Goniopora columna
Author-reported Goniopora columna; source specimen identity not independently verified.
Reading the evidence
These records describe traits and results under specific study conditions. They do not establish recommended aquarium settings.
What the study tells us
Endpoint polyp count is not net increase. Table 4 and the prose disagree about dispersion, and the formulation is undisclosed. These data cannot select a substitutable retail food or dose.
Study conditions
duration: 8 weeks; feeding: Daily 08:00; R, yeast or microalgae at source-labelled 5% or 10% (w/v) of tissue and skeletal dry weight; unfed C; experimental treatment, not instruction; flow: Pump-generated; no velocity recovered; light: Purple 400–430 nm; PAR 71.03 ± 0.21 μmol m−2 s−1; replication: Three replicates of ten colonies per treatment as stated; donor genotypes unspecified; salinity: Table 2 per-treatment values not normalized; setting: Recirculating aquaria; Coral King Coral Farm stock; two-month acclimation; starting_polyps: 5; temperature: Table 2 per-treatment values not normalized due to flattened row ambiguity
Ding et al. (2021) report more endpoint polyps in G. columna receiving formulated R feed than in the tested microalgae, yeast and unfed groups after eight weeks; the undisclosed formulation prevents translating this result into a retail-food prescription.
Commercial-in-confidence R formula is unavailable; results cannot specify a substitutable product or dose.
Table 4 R(5) endpoint is 40.00 (2.34) and net increase 35.00 (2.34); abstract describes 40.00 ± 2.43 as an increase. Header says ±95% while footnote says SD; preserved as unresolved.
No genus-wide feeding optimum; one cultured species and unspecified genetic replication.
Same farm permit/proprietary feed as the 2022 light study; independent genotypes between studies are not established.
study-10.3390-ani11113009; one farm experiment, not independent evidence for each feeding group.