Aquarist007
New member
I guess the thread is dead---too bad I learned alot from this one
Common Misconceptions In the Hobby
- Thread starter Peter Eichler
- Start date
Frick-n-Frags
New member
also, the main problem with swingarms is not the repeatability(if kept clean/soaked etc). they are very repeatable. (same with $2 glass thermometers)
BUT, they are not calibrated. Once you calibrate your hydrometer (mine =1.026 when it reads 1.020. I detritus you not! it is .006 off heh) it is now as accurate as anything else, once the correction value is applied to the reading. same with the cheap glass thermometer. they are way more repeatable than average digitals. just compar e it to a nice like lab thermometer. mine cheap glass one reads exactly 1º high, like the piece of paper needs a bump
i went through about 4-5 digitals. they suck. i hate them. i will never use anything but these little glass jobs (unless I get a controller of course)
BUT, they are not calibrated. Once you calibrate your hydrometer (mine =1.026 when it reads 1.020. I detritus you not! it is .006 off heh) it is now as accurate as anything else, once the correction value is applied to the reading. same with the cheap glass thermometer. they are way more repeatable than average digitals. just compar e it to a nice like lab thermometer. mine cheap glass one reads exactly 1º high, like the piece of paper needs a bump
i went through about 4-5 digitals. they suck. i hate them. i will never use anything but these little glass jobs (unless I get a controller of course)
davidryder
Claris or Elliot?
I don't think that swingarms are worthless junk but they are rarely calibrated correctly and I think refractometers are 10x easier to deal with. I don't have to worry about error correction, soaking them in DI, flicking the hydrometer until my finger bleeds to free the bubbles from the arm, etc...
JimKelly12203
New member
I don't get the people who are saying that aquaculturing corals won't help the reefs. And i realize that you're not necissarily saying that it won't help. It's more of an arguement that it's only one of many factors contributing to the death of coral reefs around the world.
Even if it's only one contributing factor, if every reef keeper out there had a frag tank and traded their coral frags it would NECISSARILY reduce the stress on the world's reefs from the harvesting standpoint.
It is true that harvesting corals is only part of the problem. It is true that it is NOT the most detrimental factor at play in the death of coral reefs.
But does it help? Absolutely!!!
We are facing the very real possibility that the vast majority of living corals on this planet will be in the tanks of reef keepers in the next 100 years (if humanity makes it that long i'll be shocked). In many ways, it is our job to not only enjoy keeping these beautiful animals, but also to defend them from extinction.
It's happening now and the comming years will not be better. It will always get worse.
Barring a massive plague that kills of 80% of mankind (and many posters on this board) the coral reefs of the world WILL DIE! In many ways, you could consider us proactive archeologists.
We work with living fossils. Don't have any illusions on this matter. The coral reefs of the world are doomed. It is our duty to do everything in our power to keep them alive.
Aquaculture is our best friend.
To the extent that posters on this forum are Ski-dooing themselves about the great barrier reef, there are more effective ways to save the reefs. But most of us are in North America. Not the South Pacific.
Even if it's only one contributing factor, if every reef keeper out there had a frag tank and traded their coral frags it would NECISSARILY reduce the stress on the world's reefs from the harvesting standpoint.
It is true that harvesting corals is only part of the problem. It is true that it is NOT the most detrimental factor at play in the death of coral reefs.
But does it help? Absolutely!!!
We are facing the very real possibility that the vast majority of living corals on this planet will be in the tanks of reef keepers in the next 100 years (if humanity makes it that long i'll be shocked). In many ways, it is our job to not only enjoy keeping these beautiful animals, but also to defend them from extinction.
It's happening now and the comming years will not be better. It will always get worse.
Barring a massive plague that kills of 80% of mankind (and many posters on this board) the coral reefs of the world WILL DIE! In many ways, you could consider us proactive archeologists.
We work with living fossils. Don't have any illusions on this matter. The coral reefs of the world are doomed. It is our duty to do everything in our power to keep them alive.
Aquaculture is our best friend.
To the extent that posters on this forum are Ski-dooing themselves about the great barrier reef, there are more effective ways to save the reefs. But most of us are in North America. Not the South Pacific.
davidryder
Claris or Elliot?
Nicely said Jim
greenbean36191
Premium Member
No one is saying that aquaculturing corals won't help the reefs. However, ex situ aquaculture (fragging them stateside) does almost nothing.
The idea that ex situ culture will save the reefs is based on the premise that we can reduce demand for corals on the reef by growing them here. That premise completely ignores the economics of the situation. The collectors don't have a whole lot of economic alternatives besides collecting. There's also plenty of demand for their resources besides the hobby. Whether they get a few dollars a colony for the hobby or a few dollars per truckload for the construction industry, they're going to collect.
In situ aquaculture does have a positive impact because it prevents the harvest of wild corals and at the same time gives the collectors jobs.
The idea that ex situ culture will save the reefs is based on the premise that we can reduce demand for corals on the reef by growing them here. That premise completely ignores the economics of the situation. The collectors don't have a whole lot of economic alternatives besides collecting. There's also plenty of demand for their resources besides the hobby. Whether they get a few dollars a colony for the hobby or a few dollars per truckload for the construction industry, they're going to collect.
In situ aquaculture does have a positive impact because it prevents the harvest of wild corals and at the same time gives the collectors jobs.
JimKelly12203
New member
How could i argue with that pretty face? 
JimKelly12203
New member
How could i argue with that pretty face?
Aquarist007
New member
Heres a link to another thread---claiming all fish in the wild carry ich---if this isn't misconception for the masses then it is misconcenption for me
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1239762&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1239762&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
Paul B
Premium Member
I believe that many or possably, most fish in the sea have ich just as all humans carry mites. If you look at a microscope drop of seawater you will see that there is not much free room in there with much of it taken up by tiny life.
Ich in the see is totally inocuous and does not harm anything.
It is only when it is confined to a tank does it multiply to proportions where it can affect fish. Ich itself does not directly harm fish much. The sheer number of paracites infecting the gills interfere with the transfer of oxygen along with the scar tissue they create there. Tiny paracites on the scales don't bother the fish at all but if you see them there it is a sure sign that the gills are infected.
Ich in the see is totally inocuous and does not harm anything.
It is only when it is confined to a tank does it multiply to proportions where it can affect fish. Ich itself does not directly harm fish much. The sheer number of paracites infecting the gills interfere with the transfer of oxygen along with the scar tissue they create there. Tiny paracites on the scales don't bother the fish at all but if you see them there it is a sure sign that the gills are infected.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Studies in the wild show that it's not ubiquitous, but fairly common with somewhere between 1/3 and 3/4 of fish tested carrying it. However, like Paul said, the parasite loads are small at between 2-15 parasites per fish.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
And another ich myth while I'm at it: keeping the salinity in the 1.021 range will keep fish healthier. There is absolutely no evidence of this. I suspect it's based on the false assumption that if fairly short stints at really low salinities hurt parasites then long term exposure at slightly low salinities will get them too. One of the same studies that looked at the overall prevalence of ich in the wild also compared rates between estuarian and oceanic areas. The infection rates were consistently higher in the estuaries.
And it may be geographically related because the incidence of C. irritans appears to vary widely with some studies showing very few, if any, infected fish and other studies showing low levels of infestation to be fairly common.
Study finding few, if any, infected fish in Puerto Rico: Bunkley-Williams L. and Williams E.H. 1994. Disease caused by Trichodina spheroidesi and Cryptocaryon irritans (Ciliophora) in wild coral reef fishes. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 6:360-361.
Diggles and Lester found low levels of infestation were fairly common in southern Queensland:
Diggles B.K. and Lester R.J. 1996. Influence of temperature and host species on the development of Cryptocaryon irritans. J Parasitol 82:45-51.
Diggles B.K. and Lester R.J. 1996. Variation in the development of two isolates of Cryptocaryon irritans. J Parasitol 82:384-388.
There are older studies that also seem to confirm that distribution varies geographically.
I suspect it may also be based on the recommendation by Delbeek and Sprung (1994) in The Reef Aquarium, Volume 1 that lowering the specific gravity to 1.017 is effective in controlling outbreaks of C. irritans. It isn't. Tomonts can survive salinities as low as 15 ppt (1.011 SG) according to studies done by Colorni, 1985.
And if you have any invertebrates in your tank, then I think it would be unwise to follow this "advice."
P.S. -- This particular bit of "advice" from these two authors has been a topic of discussion for years. I haven't come across anything online from either one of these gentlemen either retracting or clarifying their original recommendation.
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
so this is the reason for hyposalinating to low levels like 1.009?
Aquarist007
New member
the other thread I was referring to stated all fish caught carry ich----do you think that is too broad a generalization here?
quote: my LFS says that all wild-caught fish have it. It's just inherent, with cysts essentially hanging out in the fish's mucus until a period of stress arises. This is why some fish, like the tangs - which are easily stressed, are more prone to it. Their immune systems just can't keep it at bay. Makes sense to me.
I am going to continue the 5-nitroimidazole treatment of my display tank with a lot of water changes, and run a copper-containing QT henceforth.
Yes. A specific gravity of 1.009 would effectively kill off the tomonts.
However, there are a few recorded instances of new strains of Cryptocaryon irritans that have been discovered in estuaries with much lower salinities. Since few of us are likely to acquire fish that were collected from these locations, we should be safe with the 1.009 SG recommendation.
Similar threads
