Let them eat...botanicals!

Lately, we've been talking an awful lot about the environmental benefits of botanicals in our aquariums, and how they impart "functional aesthetics" to our systems. I think that's become not only more accepted in the hobby, it's backed up by a lot of scientific field studies. What is also studied by science, but a little more "esoteric" in the hobby (IMHO) is the use of botanicals as supplemental food for our fishes and shrimps. 

Now, it's known that most plant materials have nutritional value; or rather, they contain nutrients, vitamins, etc. which are known to be beneficial to aquatic organisms. Which ones are the best for use as "supplemental foods?"

Or, are they all pretty good? 

Maybe?

Well, here's the thing...

The thing that makes me curious is that most leaves and botanicals contain vitamins, amino acids, micronutrients, and other bioavailable compounds. The real question I have is exactly how "available" they are to our fishes and shrimp from a nutritional standpoint. And how "nutrient dense" these leaves and botanicals are? Do our fishes and shrimp easily assimilate all they need in every bite, or do they have to eat tons of the stuff to derive any of these benefits?

Big questions, right?

I mean, we as hobbyists sort of figure that if these things are present in the botanicals, then our animals get a dose of them in every bite, right? And, it begs the question: Are they really directly consuming stuff like Casuarina cones, or feeding on something else on their surfaces (more on this later)?

I think it's "yes" on both.

And the nutrition that they derive from consuming them?

Well, that's the part where I say, I don't know.

I mean, it seems to make a lot of sense to me...However, is there some definitive scientific information out there to prove this hypothesis?

A lot of the "botanicals for food thing" in the hobby (no, really- it's a "thing!") comes from the world of shrimp keepers. They've been touting this stuff in the hobby for a long time. A lot of it is based upon the presence of materials like leaves and such in the wild habitats where shrimp are found. I did some research online (that internet thing- I think it just might catch on...) and learned that in aquaculture of food shrimp, a tremendous variety of vegetables, fruits, etc. are utilized, and many offer good nutritional profiles for shrimp, in terms of protein, amino acids, etc.

They're all pretty good. Our friend Rachel O'Leary did a great job touching on the benefits of botanicals for shrimp in her video last Fall.

So, which one is the best? Is there one? Does it matter? In fact, other than sorting through mind-numbing numbers ( .08664, etc) on various amino acid concentrations in say, Mulberry leaves, versus say, Sugar Beets, or whatever, there are not huge differences making any one food superior to all others, at least from my very cursory, non-scientific hobby examination! 

Leaves like Guava, Mulberry, etc. ARE ravenously consumed by shrimp and some fishes. It's known by scientific analysis that they do contain compounds like Vitamins B1, B2, B6, and Vitamin C, as well as carbohydrates, fiber, amino acids, and elements such as Magnesium, Potassium, Zinc, Iron, and Calcium...all important for many organisms, including shrimp. Guava leaves are particularly good, according to some of the materials I read. Apparently, the bulk of the nutrients they contain are more "readily available" to animals than other leaves.

Well, that's pretty important, isn't it?

I think so!

Now, it may be coincidental that these much-loved (by the shrimp, anyways) leaves happen to have such a good amount of nutritional availability, but it certainly doesn't hurt, right?

Other leaves, such as Jackfruit, contain phytonutrients, such as lignans, isoflavones, and saponins that have health benefits that are wide ranging for humans. There is some conflicting data regarding Jackfruit's antifungal activity. However, the leaves are thought to exhibit a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity. In traditional medicine, these leaves are used to help heal wounds as well.

Do these properties transfer over to our fishes and shrimp?

We are not aware of any scientific studies that have been completed to correlate one way or another. That being said, they seem to flock to these leaves and graze on them and on the biofilms which accumulate on their surface tissues.

The "shrimp side" of the hobby reminds me in some ways of the coral part of the reef keeping hobby where I spent considerable time (both personally and professionally) working and interacting with the community. There are some incredibly talented shrimp people out there; many doing amazing work and sharing their expertise and experience with the hobby, to everyone's benefit!

Now, there are also a lot of people out there in that world -vendors, specifically- who make some (and this is just my opinion...), well - "stretches"- about products and such, and what they can do and why they are supposedly great for shrimp. I see a lot of this in the "food" sector of that hobby specialty, where manufacturers of various foods extoll the virtues of different products and natural materials because they have certain nutritional attributes, such as vitamins and amino acids and such, valuable to human nutrition, which are also known to be beneficial to shrimp in some manner. 

And that's fine, but where it gets a bit anecdotal, or - let's call it like I see it- "sketchy"- is when read the descriptions about stuff like leaves and such on vendors' websites which cater to these animals making very broad and expansive claims about their benefits, based simply on the fact that shrimp seem to eat them, and that they contain substances and compounds known to be beneficial from a "generic" nutritional standpoint- you know, like in humans.

All well-meaning, not intended to do harm to consumers...but perhaps occasionally, just a bit of a stretch.

I just wonder if we stretch and assert too much sometimes?

I'm not saying that it's "bad" to make inferences (we do it all the time with various topics- but we qualify them with stuff like,  "it could be possible that.." or "I wonder if..."), but I can't stand when absolute assertions are made without any qualification that, just because this leaf has some compound which is part of a family of compounds that are thought to be useful to shrimp, or that shrimp devour them...that it's a "perfect" food for them. 

It's just a food- one of many possibilities out there.

Of course, I hope I'm not out there adding to the confusion! We try to hold ourselves to higher standards on this topic; yet, like so many things we talk about in the world of botanicals, there are no absolutes here.

What is fact is that some botanical/plant-derived materials, such as various seeds, root vegetables, etc., do have different levels of elements such as calcium and phosphorous, and widely varying crude protein. Stuff that's known to be beneficial to shrimp, of course. These things are known by science. Yet, I have no idea what some of the seed pods we offer as botanicals contain in terms of proteins or amino acids, and make no assertions about this aspect of them, above and beyond what I can find in scientific literature.

However, I suppose that one can make some huge over-generalizations that one seedpod/fruit capsule is somewhat similar to others, in terms of their "profile" of basic amino acids, vitamins, trace elements, etc. (gulp). We can certainly assume that some of this stuff, known to have nutritional value, can make these materials potentially useful as a supplemental food source for fishes and shrimps.

Yet, IMHO that's really the best that we can do until more specific, scientifically rigid studies are conducted.

Now, we may not know which seed pods and such in and of themselves are more nutritious to fishes and shrimp than others, but we DO know from simple observation that some are better at "recruiting" materials on their surfaces which serve as food sources for aquatic organisms!

Yeah, I'm talking about the biofilms and fungal growth, which make their appearance on our botanicals, leaves, and wood after a few weeks of submersion...

As we've talked about repeatedly, biofilms are not only typically harmless in aquariums, they are utilized as a supplemental food source by a huge variety of fishes and shrimps in both Nature and the aquarium. They are a rich source of sugars and other nutrients, and could prove to be an interesting addition to a "nursery tank" for raising fry if kept in control. Like, add a bunch of leaves and botanicals, let them do their thing, and allow your fry to graze on them!

Don't believe me?

Ask almost any shrimp keeper-they'll "sing the praises" of biofilm for the "grazing" aspect!

And of course, it's long been known from field studies that as leaves and other plant materials break down, they serve as "fuel" for the growth of biofilm, fungi and microorganisms...which, in turn, provide supplemental food for our fishes. I've seen a bunch of videos of shrimps and fishes in the wild "grazing" over fields of decomposing leaves and the biofilms they foster.

Ahh, biofilms again.

Refresher:

Biofilms form when bacteria adhere to surfaces in some form of watery environment and begin to excrete a slimy, gluelike substance, consisting of sugars and other substances, that can stick to all kinds of materials, such as- well- in our case, botanicals.

Biofilms on decomposing leaves are pretty much the foundation for the food webs in rivers and streams throughout the world. They are of fundamental importance to aquatic life.

It starts with a few bacteria, taking advantage of the abundant and comfy surface area that leaves, seed pods, and even driftwood offer. The "early adapters" put out the "welcome mat" for other bacteria by providing more diverse adhesion sites, such as a matrix of sugars that holds the biofilm together. Since some bacteria species are incapable of attaching to a surface on their own, they often anchor themselves to the matrix or directly to their friends who arrived at the party first.

Sorta sounds like Facebook, huh?

(The above graphic from a scholarly article illustrates just how these guys roll.)

And we know from years of personal experience and observation in the aquarium that fishes and shrimp will consume them directly, removing them from virtually any surface they form on.

And some materials are likely better than others at recruiting and accumulating biofilm growth. The "biofilm-friendly" botanical items seem to fall into several distinct categories: Botanicals with hard, relatively impermeable surfaces,  softer, more ephemeral botanical materials which break down easily, and hard-skinned botanicals with soft interiors, and...

Okay, wait- that kind of covers like, everything, lol.

Yeah.

What that tells ME, the over-caffeinated, perhaps somewhat under-educated armchair "scientist"-wannabe, is that most of the botanicals we offer here at Tannin- in addition to being potentially consumed directly by aquatic organisms- likely also have some capability of recruiting biofilms.

And the idea of biofilms and such being an excellent supplemental food source for shrimp-and fishes- is not revolutionary...it's just something that we're finally getting around to agreeing about with our little friends! (And with the shrimp people, too)

Nothing is wasted in Nature, right?

To you, my fishy friends, I say, "Let them eat botanicals!" (well, at least as part of their diet, anyways!)- and the materials which accumulate on their surfaces, too!

Let's try not to make too many assumptions, or buy too heavily into vendors' marketing hyperbole- at least, not without doing some of our own research and "field work."

As hobbyists, let's continue to experiment, observe, learn from, and share our experiences and observations with others. 

We all win from that.

In fact, that's likely the one absolute assertion I will make!

Stay curious. Stay disciplined. Stay objective. Stay experimental...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

 

 

 


Scott Fellman
Scott Fellman

Author



Leave a comment