Common misconceptions on swf.com

[jonthefishguy]

[QUOTEthirty to forty percent of them were going to die in transit before reaching the pet shop. You know full well that this is indeed what happens in the aquarium trade.
That is not true. I order livestock nearly every week and the loss through transit is very little. The only time I have seen a loss is when it is near a holiday and the airlines lose the cargo or just plain lose it and it arrives a day later. The collectors and venders would not be in bussiness if the mortality rate was high. There are somethings that are on the ordering list that specifically state that NOT COVERED UNDER ALLIVE ARRIVAL GUARANTEE because of the extreme difficulty to maintain them during and after transit. Each order usually has less than 5% loss.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by jonthefishguy
That is not true. I order livestock nearly every week and the loss through transit is very little. The only time I have seen a loss is when it is near a holiday and the airlines lose the cargo or just plain lose it and it arrives a day later. The collectors and venders would not be in bussiness if the mortality rate was high. There are somethings that are on the ordering list that specifically state that NOT COVERED UNDER ALLIVE ARRIVAL GUARANTEE because of the extreme difficulty to maintain them during and after transit. Each order usually has less than 5% loss.
You assume that Murph's argument is untrue because you see only a small portion of the shipping deaths. Although I do not have statistical proof, logic would dictate that the specimens who were going to perish would more likely die early on and that the ones who actually make it to the retailer are pretty hardy. So you ignore all of the deaths that occur in collection and shipping to wholesalers.

 

[1journeyman]

Guys, I'm trying to nail down your argument here.
So, is the argument that keeping Tangs in smaller tanks is revolutionary? Is the argument that subjecting Damsels to high concentrations of Ammonia will advance the hobby?

 

[murph]

A large percentage die before they ever make it onto the plane from the Indo Pacific. An equal percentage die before they make it to the wholesale or retail level. And everyone now that anther percentage will die in LFS holding tanks. 30 to 40 percent loss is a conservative estimate.

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by Murph
I believe you have hit on the real issue here. Many peta, yuppie, environmental wacko types (or whatever you want to label them as) have entered the hobby in recent years. Since the keeping of wild animals runs counter to there otherwise professed beliefs it becomes necessary sooth there underlying guilt by setting up certain standards and methods that qualify as "more humane".
They are then free to further displace that guilt/hypocrisy by criticising any and all other methods and label them as inhumane.
Like I said all of this has way more to do with the psychology of the hobbyist and makes little to no difference when it comes to the livestock.
Does all this mean I'll have to stop keeping tangs, and other herbivorous fish? If one dies, my kids won't eat them because they taste like vegatables.

 

[murph]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Guys, I'm trying to nail down your argument here.
So, is the argument that keeping Tangs in smaller tanks is revolutionary? Is the argument that subjecting Damsels to high concentrations of Ammonia will advance the hobby?
Of course not. The point I am try to advance is it is that these notions are becoming written in stone and that anyone who strays from these methods is somehow irresponsible. This is simply not the case.
Bottom line is you can cycle tanks with fish without harming them.
You can use smaller tanks to grow out tangs.
You can food train mandarins and other fish.
The list could go on if i thought about and all of the above took place successfully for years. It was not the livestock that decided these things were "irresponsible or inhumane" it was the hobbyist. And now it has been repeated so much that it has become excepted as fact and every time you visit a forum like this you have to hear the same old nonsense regurgitated from people regardless of there level of experience or knowledge of what actually take place on an industry level where these animals are concerned.
IMO if everyone who responded with "cycling with fish is cruel" were really concerned with the overall welfare of these animals they would stop subsidizing the large losses before they arrive at the retail level by handing over there hard earned money.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Guys, I'm trying to nail down your argument here.
So, is the argument that keeping Tangs in smaller tanks is revolutionary? Is the argument that subjecting Damsels to high concentrations of Ammonia will advance the hobby?
Journey... I have much love for you but let's not get silly. People take this discussion as "he's advising to keep tangs in 10 gallon tanks". I am just pointing out here that some of the most common principles passed as accepted, absolute facts on this site are not necessarily accurate. Just so everyone understands, here are my issues:
(1) A tang can be kept in a large enough aquarium that is not 6 feet long with no problem;
(2) The supposed reef safe medications can and have been effective on many occasions;
(3) Damsels can be used to safely cycle a tank; and
(4) (added after the fact) the appropriate salinity for fowlr is not 1.025-26 as commonly claimed here.
Anyway, thanks for the last comment. Much appreciated.

 

[jennythebugg]

wow. . .this one is moving along quickly isnt it?

 

[trippkid]

I agree with you Crimsy on those accounts

 

[nigerbang]

Originally Posted by reefkprZ
Oh my birds have a 12' x 10' x 8' free flight aviary, for four love birds and two cockatiels. most people would consider this over kill, but to me not allowing your birds free flight is like keeping a tang in a 20g. cats are domesticated and enjoy living in your house, some like being allowed out side, some could care less I have 20 of them and some of the ones that are allowed to go outside dont because they dont want to. dogs have their own particular needs.

Sweet!!! I like the new avatar also....
Anywho...
If you can keep a larger tank for larger fish, Why not do it....
Damsel can tolerate ammo better then who or what??
Goto a printing company, ask them to lock you in a room with a "Blue-Line" and get them to run copies for about 10 mins..See how you feel after being exposed to Ammonia....
I am not going to go the "Its mean" route...I could care less...I am at the top of the food chain as a human, I kill trees and eat meat...But why pay $4 when you could pay .39...
Also cycling with LR gives you a "light cycle"...Tell that to my 125 with a 2.0 ammonia reading right now that has been constant for 2 weeks....

 

[ophiura]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Seems to me it's become maybe some kind of yuppie, PETA, approved past-time. Ya'll think nothing twice about keeping a cat in your house, a bird in a cage, a dog in your yard, but somehow a pent up fish is different.

Rant over....

I disagree. If you keep any of those other animals in inappropriate conditions, you will receive a visit, a fine, and perhaps a court date.
The problem with fish is that people don't tend to care about killing them, keeping them in small tanks, etc. Most people are simply saying that we have, as hobbyists, a RESPONSIBILITY to try and provide at least a minimum amount of care for these animals, and that comes through researching their needs. Some fish are far more suitable for certain tank sizes than others, just as certain breeds of dog are not suitable for apartments. Yes, sometimes that means you can't (or shall I say shouldn't, because you can DO anything you want) have something you really like, be it a pony in your condo or a naso in your nano.
So in fact some people are trying to do the SAME for fish as is done for other animals. You can not keep other animals in toxic conditions (e.g. equivalent to that of a "hard" cycling tank) and call it A-OK...or you can, until those Animal Cops come calling. But you can do this with fish, even with other equally effective methods available. Yes, damsels can be used, there is no argument (define safely though)...and I used to sell them for this. But I would never promote it now, considering my own education on other options.
Other thoughts:
Now the footprint of the tank issue is absolutely true. The primary problem is when people state a certain "tank size" is fine without researching the footprint of the tank.
But this is a board to share OPINIONS. Sometimes I believe my opinions are better than "yours" (meaning someone posting), and I state it as "the right way" to go.
So what?
Discussion and sharing ideas is what it is about. But it is also important to know that just because it worked for someone sometime doesn't mean that "tried and true" methods should be ignored as closed minded. Some of those "it worked for me" may have nothing whatsoever to do with anything they changed or added but is mere coincidence.
Share and contribute to the board, and so what if others state things as "the only way to do it." Your actions, experience and opinions should be able to stand on their own, and no one else is wrong for sharing theirs, even if you totally disagree.

 

[ophiura]

PS...for those saying damsels shouldn't die why cycling...well let me play devil's advocate.
Proponents of "old school" fish cycling used 1 damsel per 5 gallons, fed very heavily, and left the dead bodies (yes, there were) in there. They thought this was THE way to cycle a tank...a hard cycle. Way hard. It presented the tank with a worst case scenario.
And yes, damsels do die. If you want a hard cycle...that is a fact. It is a hard environment. Now if you have fish and live rock, well this is a different issue and a different type of cycling that may ultimately have no cycle to speak of. We all have different ideas and opinions on these topics, and even different thoughts on what "damsel cycling" means.
Fact is, there are loads of equally effective ways to cycle a tank, and you need to decide what works for you, your philosophy, and your pocketbook.

 

[reefkprz]

Originally Posted by NigerBang
Sweet!!! I like the new avatar also....
thanks I was kicking around the net and found it I couldnt resist.

 

[reefkprz]

Originally Posted by crimzy
(1) A tang can be kept in a large enough aquarium that is not 6 feet long with no problem;
(2) The supposed reef safe medications can and have been effective on many occasions;
(3) Damsels can be used to safely cycle a tank; and
(4) (added after the fact) the appropriate salinity for fowlr is not 1.025-26 as commonly claimed here.
1 you said the key words "large enough" your bashing a good reccomendation because yes you can find appropriatly large tanks that dont have exact 6 foot mesuments? the average person is going to go into a pet store and Buy whatever is in stock, reccomending a 6' aquarium isnt a bad thing. maybe the store will have a 300g 4'x4' tank in strock but I doubt it, not a common purchase at most LFS's. personnally I dont think a 300G 4x4 aquarium has enough lateral movement space for a full grown tang but thats just me.
2 I have never treated ich through any method but hypo so I cant venture into this part of the discussion as I have no expirience treating it any other way. but hypo does work.
3 yes it is possible to safely cycle a tank with damsels, if the proper ammonia neutralizer is used, without it, the damsel may live but you ARE subjecting the damsel to a chemical burn by exposure to free ammonia. with a ph above 8.0 its impossible not to have free ammonia if you have an ammonia reading unless you neutralize it. there is no way around it. mild or leathal ammonia burn is ammonia burn wheather the animal lives or not, the who cares it a three dollar fish attitude is the worst attitude anyone in this hobby can have. because it doesnt propel the hobby on a forward route it sticks it in a rut "it works why find a better or safer way?" bleah, I'm all for something that works, then works better then works better, safer, less expensive. saying the bacteria is better with a fish is still nonsense, its the same bacteria. the ammount of bacteria is determined by tghe amount you feed the fish. take the fishj out feed the tank the same amount you get the same amount of bacteria. for less money. {just so you know I have cycled several tanks with damsels when I started out, and found the other methods are just as effective} I could be wrong but I believe whenever i reccomend against using damsels to cycle UI belive I say its an outdated method. and IMO it is outdated, there are other methods that work just as well without wasting money on a fish you may not want in the long run or exposing ANY animal to any danger.
4 NSW levels (indo pacific) 1.022- 1.025 fowlr tanks are generally run on the lower end for parasite prevention. reef tanks the higher end. personnally I dont recall a lot of posts stating a fowlr should be run at 1.026 thats usually the reef reccomendation. I must say I run my reef at 1.027 have lots of fish and no ich for over 3 years in my DT. now why would running a fowlr within the parameters of the ACTUAL ocean be a bad thing? this one confuses me.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
...
(1) A tang can be kept in a large enough aquarium that is not 6 feet long with no problem;
(2) The supposed reef safe medications can and have been effective on many occasions;
(3) Damsels can be used to safely cycle a tank; and
(4) (added after the fact) the appropriate salinity for fowlr is not 1.025-26 as commonly claimed here.
1. I agree. But, for practical sakes.. how often do you see 6 foot tanks by 6 inches? The 6 foot rule is used to imply plenty of swimming space. Sure a 5 foot by 5 foot square would be better.
2. "can be effective" can be translated into "might not be effective..." or "might wipe out your entire tank". Do we agree?
3. I've asked this three times now, how?
4. I disagree. The ocean is, on average, 1.026. Why would lower be more healthy for the fish?

 

[jonthefishguy]

Interesting note: the TEXAS STATE AQUARIUM and 5 RAINFOREST CAFE's I ran into, The MAUII OCEAN CENTER in Hawaii, the Aquarium at Orlando International airport along with The aquarium setup at DISNEY WORLD, all keep their Fish only tanks @ 1.021. Also I personally tested the water from Texas state aquarium from one of their displays and their nitrites were off the charts. They gave us two of their display fish due to the fact that they were changing out exhibits

 

[viper_930]

Originally Posted by crimzy
(4) (added after the fact) the appropriate salinity for fowlr is not 1.025-26 as commonly claimed here.
Just a side note, those are specific gravity levels, not salinity.

 

[ophiura]

I worked for the company that owns the Rainforest, and I can tell you that they have a hefty budget for replacing fish, and a pretty astounding budget for medications. We would treat tanks for basic diseases for several thousand bucks at a time (go Prazi

). We stocked fish to be eaten by other fish.
And like *****, Rainforest Cafe's don't always get the big

when it comes to their tanks.
Yes, try doing a 30,000g water change on a huge exhibit! (As an aside...often you will find even with sky high nitrates, the tangs will not have HLLE. So that could bring it down to diet and lots, lots, lots of room to move in big tanks). It is my personal belief from working with such systems that tank size DOES play a role in the health of many species of tangs, especially larger types.
Fish only tanks are COMMONLY kept at 1.021 due to keeping parasites low. It is also fatal to invertebrates for the same reason. There is no question you can keep the specific gravity low, and anyone who says otherwise, well...just isn't right. But it is generally abnormally low. You can do all sorts of things, go for it, and people are more than entitled to say it may be a problem too.
But let me promise you that just because big aquaria do it, does not mean that it is great or anything to duplicate. They have limitations in what they can do, and often pay the price in turnover. It isn't an ideal. They don't have refugiums, and trying to get nitrates low on a heavily stocked, heavily fed(people like to see the fishies eat) 100,00+g tank is no easy task. We did try hard, however, to keep nitrates under control with little luck.
However there is no doubt that like specific gravity, nitrates can be high in FOWLR tanks with little impact on fish health, IMO. Is it ideal? Not in my opinion, as it is a symptom of other problems that may bite you at some point.
Believe me, I've been there. No one is hiding that, nor does it prove anything. I would never run my tank, with my investment, the way many of those tanks are run. I am not in it to get the public's money, for one.
This is more than a sore point for me, yes.

Public aquaria have their own issues to deal with for sure.

 

[viper_930]

Originally Posted by ophiura
But let me promise you that just because big aquaria do it, does not mean that it is great or anything to duplicate. They have limitations in what they can do, and often pay the price in turnover. It isn't an ideal. They don't have refugiums, and trying to get nitrates low on a heavily stocked, heavily fed(people like to see the fishies eat) 100,00+g tank is no easy task. We did try hard, however, to keep nitrates under control with little luck.
....
This is more than a sore point for me, yes.

Public aquaria have their own issues to deal with for sure.
So true. I just started working at the Steinhart Aquarium in the California Academy of Sciences and they definitely have nitrate and phosphate problems on more than a few of their tanks.

 

[ophiura]

Yup, and they have them because of the situation they are in...not because it is great, ideal, what they want, etc. It is just mighty hard to fix it.