frankpayne32
New member
That is completely incorrect. Many prey animals are under chronic levels of stress in the wild. Nothing intermittent about it.
It's bigger than the Tang thread
- Thread starter Original Fin
- Start date
- Status
That is completely incorrect. Many prey animals are under chronic levels of stress in the wild. Nothing intermittent about it.
Stuart60611
New member
Yes, but the stress can end when the fish is no longer being preyed upon. I am sure you are not suggesting that a fish is every second of every day being preyed upon. Conversely, any stress associated from being in an undersized tank does not abate unless the tank size changes.
Last edited:
Stuart60611
New member
I agree, but my point is that a fish is not necessarily suffering from chronic stress associated with trying to avoid a predator every second of every day. At times, the stress a fish feels from predators is likely to reduce when the animal feels more safe, such as instances when the fish is not aware of any predators in immediate proximity or when the fish feels safe in the rocks, etc. My point is that whatever stress a fish feels from being in an undersized tank remains constant as long as the tank size does not change. I mean nothing more from my comments in this regard.
Last edited:
Stuart60611
New member
Fair point, and ultimately we do not know to a degree of scientific certainty, just like we do not know whether many things are correct to a degree of scientific certainty that are accepted as appropriate fish husbandry. All we are left with in practicality is loging the experience of many different hobbyists over a period of many years and extrapulating a reasonable consensus therefrom. No, this is not precise and unchallengeable science, but it is also not pure subjective conjecture and speculation like some would contend it to be.
Last edited:
Stuart60611
New member
I hate to double post, but I thought the below thread is really revealing in terms of providing a great example for my underlying point here. Below you will find a very recent thread where this consensus approach I describe is being applied in relation to the inability of keeping two halacanthus angels in the same system. Can it be proven with absolute scientific certainty that under no circumstances can two angels from this genus co-exist in the same system? Of course not. Does any experienced hobbyist challenge this contention? No. This contention is based upon numerous "horror stories" which have been reported over a period of years by many different hobbyists who have tried unsuccessfully. This anecdotal information has been used to establish a very accepted general consensus that other than in extremely large systems you cannot house two angels from this genus in the same system.
There is absolutely no reason that this very same approach cannot and should not be used to establish minimum tank size for fish with a reasonable (although not absolute) degree of certainty. A consensus can and should be established that when a species of a particular size is kept in a particular sized system certain negative behavorial traits or physical manefestations are observed. These obervations can be used to establish a consensus as to what is an appropriate minimum tank size for the species.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1947343
There is absolutely no reason that this very same approach cannot and should not be used to establish minimum tank size for fish with a reasonable (although not absolute) degree of certainty. A consensus can and should be established that when a species of a particular size is kept in a particular sized system certain negative behavorial traits or physical manefestations are observed. These obervations can be used to establish a consensus as to what is an appropriate minimum tank size for the species.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1947343
Last edited:
Stuart60611
New member
Maybe so, and I recognize that a consensus on all such issues cannot be reached when there is no clear pattern that can be derived from the anecdotal observations (in this instance, some may have had success keeping two angels from the halacanthus genus together in the same system while others may have not). I cited the thread not for the correctness of the fish husbandry principle contended as much as for the viability of the approach adopted to arrive at the principle so that the approach could be considered for determination of minimum tank size for fish.
Last edited:
Fibinotchi
Upstanding Citizen
Go spend some time alone in the wilderness, after dark, or in a dark street on a seedy neighborhood and tell me you wont feel chronic stress even though predators may be out of sight. :uzi:
frankpayne32
New member
No, I am not suggesting that. I just don't think many people understand the biological difference between chronic and acute stress. Just because an animal is not being preyed upon every second of every day (in fact, an animal can only be preyed upon once in it's life
) does not mean that it it's physiological systems are not under chronic levels of stress.
frankpayne32
New member
Stuart,
You are obviously a very intelligent and well informed person so please take this with all due respect: I just don't think you realize the biology behind the topic at hand. Just because an animal is not being chased constantly does not mean it is not under chronic levels of stress. Many people romanticize "the wild" that animals live in. It is not some perfect harmonious place where organisms are always better off. Nature is truly "red in tooth and claw" and life of all types is constantly struggling just to reach the next day and in many cases this produces sever and chronic biochemical stressors in the individual organism throughout it's life.
Frank,
I was just about to write that I wonder if some of this misconception stems from the idea that chronic stress in the wild is somehow "good" because it is natural - and then I saw you said something akin to that in your last post.
For many years, I've worked on and off with a researcher who has been measuring the cortisol levels in animals by way of their feces (a technique that has major benefits over getting a blood draw from a wild animal). He measures the stress levels in parrotfish by collecting their feces and analyzing them. He then runs the same tests in captivity. My participation has only been to help him with the animal husbandry side of things, because his staff was often not up to the task (usually interns).
He is on my institutional animal care and use committee as an advisor, I'll ask him what he thinks about captive stress vs. wild stress. We've discussed this in generalities before, and I think it mirrors what I've been trying to say about it.....
Jay
I was just about to write that I wonder if some of this misconception stems from the idea that chronic stress in the wild is somehow "good" because it is natural - and then I saw you said something akin to that in your last post.
For many years, I've worked on and off with a researcher who has been measuring the cortisol levels in animals by way of their feces (a technique that has major benefits over getting a blood draw from a wild animal). He measures the stress levels in parrotfish by collecting their feces and analyzing them. He then runs the same tests in captivity. My participation has only been to help him with the animal husbandry side of things, because his staff was often not up to the task (usually interns).
He is on my institutional animal care and use committee as an advisor, I'll ask him what he thinks about captive stress vs. wild stress. We've discussed this in generalities before, and I think it mirrors what I've been trying to say about it.....
Jay
frankpayne32
New member
Jay,
That sounds like very interesting research. When it comes to marine biology and husbandry I am a relative babe but I have been fighting similar misconceptions in the herpetology field for quite a few years now. I do not have scientific data to prove it (just years of first hand experience) but it is my belief that the majority of captive animals being kept in at least "adequate" conditions are under less stress than their wild counterparts, even if these adequate conditions are less than ideal.
I hope I am not being misunderstood by anyone though. Bigger is almost always better when it comes to captive environments. But saying the animal is "unhappy" or under "unnatural" levels of stress is anthropomorphic and often incorrect.
That sounds like very interesting research. When it comes to marine biology and husbandry I am a relative babe but I have been fighting similar misconceptions in the herpetology field for quite a few years now. I do not have scientific data to prove it (just years of first hand experience) but it is my belief that the majority of captive animals being kept in at least "adequate" conditions are under less stress than their wild counterparts, even if these adequate conditions are less than ideal.
I hope I am not being misunderstood by anyone though. Bigger is almost always better when it comes to captive environments. But saying the animal is "unhappy" or under "unnatural" levels of stress is anthropomorphic and often incorrect.
Frank,
I wrote an editorial about "happy fish". I had recently linked this in another similar thread, but I don't think I did so in this one yet:
http://microcosmaqx.typepad.com/jay_hemdal/2009/01/beware-the-tang-police.html
The last paragraph is the most important IMO....and I fully understand the ramifications of supplying personal opinion in a discussion (it is because I say it is!). Referencing one's self is usually considered poor form, but it does save a lot of typing. I'm still waiting for somebody to refute that last paragraph....
Jay
I wrote an editorial about "happy fish". I had recently linked this in another similar thread, but I don't think I did so in this one yet:
http://microcosmaqx.typepad.com/jay_hemdal/2009/01/beware-the-tang-police.html
The last paragraph is the most important IMO....and I fully understand the ramifications of supplying personal opinion in a discussion (it is because I say it is!). Referencing one's self is usually considered poor form, but it does save a lot of typing. I'm still waiting for somebody to refute that last paragraph....
Jay
frankpayne32
New member
Very interesting and funny article. I agree, I don't see how anyone can logically refute the last paragraph let alone the entire article.
Stuart60611
New member
Frank and Jay:
I admitedly am not an expert in biology, although I am certainly more informed on such matters than most folks without a degreed or formal science background based the extensive amount of reading I have done on related subjects. As such, I do sometimes use incorrect terminology for the things I describe.
Nevertheless, puting scientiic definitions of chronic stress and predation aside and speaking generally, I am very comfortable stating that especially certain groups of fish, i.e., large angels and tangs, do, indeed, have negative physical manefestations and behavorial traits when placed in tanks which are of too small of a size. I, and many thousands of other hobbyists, over a period of many years have observed this. Moreover, there have been many articles published which have also described this from people with decades of experience keeping marine fish. I have listed many (and Jay has listed others) of these negative behavorial and physical menefestations. I agree with Jay that the notion of a "happy" fish is non-quantifiable and really a very general and non-descriptiive label. I am not concerned with fish happyness, but instead fish health. I cannot imagine how it is healthy for a fish who normally swims about throughout its life to pace up and down one small section of the glass 24/7. Likewise, I find it difficult to understand how one can keep a fish in optimal health when a fish hides 24/7 and only comes out to feed sparingly and briefly when food hits the water. Moreover, I do not see a fish in good health when a fish is oddly shaped from stunting, has faded colors, or worn fins. When fish are in this condition, I have found, as have many others, that illness often follows. I and others have personally observed that much of this negative behavior or negative physical manefestations abate once the fish lives for a while in a suitably sized system. Whether you label the effect of being in too small of a tank fish "stress" or something else, the bottom line is there are a variety of negative things that can be observed ocurring with fish when they are in too small of a tank which are observeable and which usually abate when the fish in not subject to such conditions. Neither I, nor the many respected and highly experienced hobbyists who have have reported this, are imagining these things.
Lastly and respectfully, I strongly disagree with this statement from Jay's above article:
If the fish shows no signs of chronic disease or abnormality, exhibits normal feeding and reproductive behaviors and most importantly, exhibits a normal lifespan compared to that of wild counterparts (minus the predation that wild fish incur of course!), then there is no other metric we can use to determine if a certain suite of husbandry techniques are suitable or not.
I have identified a metric which can be used and which has been successfully used in this hobby for decades to determine suitable husbandry techniques and which can be used to determine appropriate minimum tank size for fish. This is making minimum tank size determinations based on consensus of many hobbyists over a period of years based on observations of the negative behaviorial traits and negative physical manefestations of species in particular tank sizes so as to come up with what tank sizes are clearly inappropriate. This methodology, although not scientifically unchallengeable, has served this hobby well for quite a while and is the basis for most of the information we have about appropriate fish husbandry in the hobby. Until the funding or means for formal science can be made available, it is imo far better to adopt this approach rather than to ignore the issue and continue to keep fish in inappropriate conditions simply because science cannot yet prove that these conditions are unhealthy to an absolute degree of scientific certainty.
I admitedly am not an expert in biology, although I am certainly more informed on such matters than most folks without a degreed or formal science background based the extensive amount of reading I have done on related subjects. As such, I do sometimes use incorrect terminology for the things I describe.
Nevertheless, puting scientiic definitions of chronic stress and predation aside and speaking generally, I am very comfortable stating that especially certain groups of fish, i.e., large angels and tangs, do, indeed, have negative physical manefestations and behavorial traits when placed in tanks which are of too small of a size. I, and many thousands of other hobbyists, over a period of many years have observed this. Moreover, there have been many articles published which have also described this from people with decades of experience keeping marine fish. I have listed many (and Jay has listed others) of these negative behavorial and physical menefestations. I agree with Jay that the notion of a "happy" fish is non-quantifiable and really a very general and non-descriptiive label. I am not concerned with fish happyness, but instead fish health. I cannot imagine how it is healthy for a fish who normally swims about throughout its life to pace up and down one small section of the glass 24/7. Likewise, I find it difficult to understand how one can keep a fish in optimal health when a fish hides 24/7 and only comes out to feed sparingly and briefly when food hits the water. Moreover, I do not see a fish in good health when a fish is oddly shaped from stunting, has faded colors, or worn fins. When fish are in this condition, I have found, as have many others, that illness often follows. I and others have personally observed that much of this negative behavior or negative physical manefestations abate once the fish lives for a while in a suitably sized system. Whether you label the effect of being in too small of a tank fish "stress" or something else, the bottom line is there are a variety of negative things that can be observed ocurring with fish when they are in too small of a tank which are observeable and which usually abate when the fish in not subject to such conditions. Neither I, nor the many respected and highly experienced hobbyists who have have reported this, are imagining these things.
Lastly and respectfully, I strongly disagree with this statement from Jay's above article:
If the fish shows no signs of chronic disease or abnormality, exhibits normal feeding and reproductive behaviors and most importantly, exhibits a normal lifespan compared to that of wild counterparts (minus the predation that wild fish incur of course!), then there is no other metric we can use to determine if a certain suite of husbandry techniques are suitable or not.
I have identified a metric which can be used and which has been successfully used in this hobby for decades to determine suitable husbandry techniques and which can be used to determine appropriate minimum tank size for fish. This is making minimum tank size determinations based on consensus of many hobbyists over a period of years based on observations of the negative behaviorial traits and negative physical manefestations of species in particular tank sizes so as to come up with what tank sizes are clearly inappropriate. This methodology, although not scientifically unchallengeable, has served this hobby well for quite a while and is the basis for most of the information we have about appropriate fish husbandry in the hobby. Until the funding or means for formal science can be made available, it is imo far better to adopt this approach rather than to ignore the issue and continue to keep fish in inappropriate conditions simply because science cannot yet prove that these conditions are unhealthy to an absolute degree of scientific certainty.
Last edited:
frankpayne32
New member
Stuart,
I do agree, some tanks are simply too small for some fish. Also, I agree that if the fish is exhibiting morbidity and later mortality in captivity then some if it's needs are not being met. In some cases that could be generally related to living in an inappropriately "small" environment. However, if the fish is not exhibiting morbidity and mortality over an extended period of time than you simply cannot argue that it is living in "too small" of an enclosure. The problem we get into now is that different people have different results. Here are some examples (these are all real and observed by me):
-Percula clownfish breeding and living for years in a five gallon aquarium.
-A hepatus tang living for ten years in a 55 gallon aquarium and growing to ten inches in length.
-A queen angel , hepatus tang, volitians lionfish, engineer goby all living together in a 75 gallon aquarium for years.
You may not be happy about some of these examples (same for me in some cases) but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Minimum tank size is simply not a quantifiable variable. But, again, I certainly agree that bigger is best.
I do agree, some tanks are simply too small for some fish. Also, I agree that if the fish is exhibiting morbidity and later mortality in captivity then some if it's needs are not being met. In some cases that could be generally related to living in an inappropriately "small" environment. However, if the fish is not exhibiting morbidity and mortality over an extended period of time than you simply cannot argue that it is living in "too small" of an enclosure. The problem we get into now is that different people have different results. Here are some examples (these are all real and observed by me):
-Percula clownfish breeding and living for years in a five gallon aquarium.
-A hepatus tang living for ten years in a 55 gallon aquarium and growing to ten inches in length.
-A queen angel , hepatus tang, volitians lionfish, engineer goby all living together in a 75 gallon aquarium for years.
You may not be happy about some of these examples (same for me in some cases) but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Minimum tank size is simply not a quantifiable variable. But, again, I certainly agree that bigger is best.
- Status
