It's bigger than the Tang thread

[JHemdal]

Bertoni,

And I completely disagree with you sir!

Behaviors can certainly be metrics - IF they are measured. So what ones do YOU propose to measure, and how? You still didn't answer my question about your crazy monkey analogy - what is the measure for fish then?

I produced an ethogram and time budget for a hepatus tang in a 1300 gallon tank (I presume you don't feel that is too small?) I didn't believe the data myself, the darn fish spent 100% of its time in 40% of the tank - now what can you make of that? I gave the fish gallons of extra room and it just stayed in one area...and no, it wasn't being kept there by another fish, etc.

Ethograms are really interesting. First, you make a list of all expected behaviors of the fish, then you produce a time budget to see what the fish is spending its time doing (interns are best for this). Finally, you can change the environment, and see how the ethogram changes....may favorite one was of a mimic octopus - the suite of behaviors it performed made it very interesting.


Jay

 

[syrinx]

I applaud you JHemdal for trying to get folks to understand the science behind study of animal behavior. I also thank you for saying it is poor form to quote ones own works-that has been the only aspect of your posting over the years that has bothered me. I am sensitive to that subject, as I prefer to be anon here with the projects I have worked on-and with your explanation of doing it for the sake of brevity- I am onboard with you. There needs to be data- not feelings-and even the "experienced" aquarist is dealing with woefully small sample sizes for determining any hard data.

 

[bertoni]

I never said or implied that behavior can't be measured. I know it can. Again, your response seems rather disingenuous.

The reality is that we don't have the time or money, or for my part, the inclination to study the fish in the detail that would be required to make the kind of determinations in question. That doesn't change the fact that fish might, or might not, require varying amounts of room. I'm happy with the guidelines that Team RC produced, and can live with that level of evidence. I don't find the guidelines all that restrictive, and real life forces us to make a lot of tradeoffs on what we research.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is, and it's no more scientific than anyone else's until the hard data is gathered.

 

[bertoni]

The question here is not just people's understanding of the science behind animals behavior, IMO. The issue is how do we best use what little data we have.

 

[Sk8r]

The interests of retailers and shippers who need small sized fish shipped in bulk and displayed in small tanks are quite different than a researcher who wishes to stress a fish to see how soon and of what it dies, and again all three differ from the interests of a person who wants to keep a fish longterm in a home environment in which he may watch it and admire its beauty in something like its natural behaviors.

Is the home aquarist to believe he can get anything like natural behaviors out of a fish kept in the smallest tank in which it can possibly stay alive? I doubt it will happen.

So from the viewpoint of a hobbyist the only benefit to information is not about how small a tank a fish can possibly survive, but how much of its natural growth and behavior can it achieve in my tank and how long can it live in my tank? If I can't have some reasonable chance to see it live and succeed as it does in the wild, perhaps it should be, like whale sharks thus far, best left in the oceans.

 

[LisaD]

I used to be quite active on a seahorse hobby site, still belong. I joined in January 2003. I'm not on as much, as I don't have seahorses right now, but I check in regularly.

There were the usual arguments about tank size, diet, tankmates, disease, QT, etc. However, over several years time, I witnessed the state and success of the hobby in that community advance quite a bit. This could be measured by successful raising of fry, culturing of live food, increased lifespan in captivity, improved nutrition, etc. There was not a lot of hard data available, but when people with long term success shared what worked, and others took up their practices, some tweaking from there, there was a definite improvement in success of those adopting the current "best practices". And improvements continued to build. I realize my example is anecdotal. We did have some science in our efforts - a member who is a pathologist conducted many necropsies and we ended up publishing (self-publishing) the results. Of course, we also published calendars. One member even started a successful business raising and selling captive bred seahorses. This wasn't common at all 15 years ago. Now members sell animals they raise in their homes.

My point is that I am a believer in the power of sharing current practices that work. The hobby, like science, is in flux - changes come, over time, influenced by the addition of information. When I began in this hobby, air powered undergravel filters were the standard for hobby tanks. We've come a long way since then, and many advances were made by hobbyists, or trickle-down of technologies from other fields (skimmers came from water treatment technology!) or from public aquaria.

If we can keep communicating, honestly, about our experiences, successes and failures, we can get closer to decent guidelines for keeping larger, more active and territorial fish such as tangs and angelfish. Any applicable data is great, too, but I won't hold my breath for it - the funding just isn't there. And of course, there will always be the tension of people wanting more fish than can get along or fit in their tanks. Some folks seem to need to learn the hard way, or they can learn from others' experiences.

Those of you much younger than I am, isn't there some kind of meta-analysis we can do on hobbyist set-ups that are long term, and successful? To parse out the environments that are ideal for health and longevity? I'd expect we'd see effects of tank size, water parameters, nutrition, tankmates... Seems like there could be some kind of non-parametric stats like cluster analysis to mine some good learnings...

 

[mthomp]

sk8r, I dont feel you can get natural behavior out of any fish in any home aquaria. there are many many reason for this and the size of the fish relative to the tank it is kept in is indeed part of it but, unless your home aquaria has predators and prey alike, and other natural phenomenons, it would be impossible to achieve natural behavior at home. i mean the fact that most of us keep fish and coral that from differant parts of the world together is unnatural. So in reality what we do is keep our fish in a eutopia which as we all know does not exist in the natural world.

 

[Sk8r]

Mthomp, one thing I'd love to see is more help with biotopes, I think the word is---keeping a, say, SE Asian tank, an Australian tank. I do keep my adult fish size as small as possible---with only a 54 corner to work with, I try for tranquility and for everybody having a territory: my shadow is the passing shark, and our sticky front door provides some excitement, but you are quite right: I can't supply even the random whiffs of this and that blowing through a reef. I try, however, to provide chaotic and rhythmic flow, etc, and do what I can: most of my guys would be gone in a passing predator's foraging, and they do have their politics. I watch one reef cam often, and am amazed to see that the same inhabitants have their same positions and do the same things---sort of groundhog day on the reef. So stability would not seem to be too unnatural. Just making a small point, from the end-user point of things.

 

[mthomp]

sk8r I actually am working on a new project that will be strictly hawaiian species of fish and coral. Now this is in its begining stages but while doing my research I am not at all surprised on how small the variety will be in a reef tank of this sort. You really begin to get very limited unless you do a fish only tank.

I dont want you to think i was trying to start a argument with that post but I do see the term brought up often and I just felt that regardless of how much we try and may think what we are doing is natural, it is all but impossible to achieve for most of us.

 

[Genetics]

JHemdal, could you point me to this research on HLLE involving lignite carbon?

 

[JHemdal]

[violation]...

 

[JHemdal]

Nate,

Sorry - my previous post to you was removed by one of the moderators. Makes it look like I said something rude or bad, but all I did was to talk more in depth about my HLLE research and gave you a link to my article in an online magazine (just like I've done for other people before). I think it must have been the link that was technically a TOS violation, but its not like this was ever a problem before.

So - again, sorry, I guess you are on your own to try and find that information. Not sure I can even say this, but try running a web based search for "Hemdal HLLE".


Thanks,

Jay

 

[Original Fin]

Nate,

Sorry - my previous post to you was removed by one of the moderators. Makes it look like I said something rude or bad, but all I did was to talk more in depth about my HLLE research and gave you a link to my article in an online magazine (just like I've done for other people before). I think it must have been the link that was technically a TOS violation, but its not like this was ever a problem before.

So - again, sorry, I guess you are on your own to try and find that information. Not sure I can even say this, but try running a web based search for "Hemdal HLLE".


Thanks,

Jay

I'm a little dissapointed they didn't allow it, but those are the rules. At the end of the day, pointing out inequities in rules enforcement probably won't help your cause. I suspect there are a few different agendas amongst us, but jointly, I think we really just want a chance to talk it out, no matter who you do or don't agree with... right?

On a more positive note, glad to see this thread's lasted as long as it has. If we have to wear the kid gloves to keep playing, so be it.

I thought I'd better elaborate on what I hope to get out of this. At this point, it might look like I'm just poking the proverbial hornets nest. That is not my intention. Here's the deal: I'm not hoping to see one "side" triumph over the other. At this point, I honestly don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. I don't think you can ever hope to put a number on this that everyone will be able to live with. I just hate seeing it divide reefkeepers the way it does, and it too often leads to some pretty hateful dialogue. It's more the way we deal with our differences that bothers me, and that's something I think we CAN improve on.

 

[Matt_Wandell]

I believe that I covered all of the measurable signs by normal aquarium husbandry standards. The only additional one I've come up with is cortisol levels, and I have a call in to a researcher who has worked specifically with the corticosteroid levels in captive fishes to see what he thinks....not that home aquarists are going to be able to measure that in their fish.

Hi Jay, fighting the good fight here I see.

There are some folks at the New England Aquarium measuring cortisol levels and their relation to sound levels experienced by fish. I don't have a pdf handy but the findings agree with what you've stated--cortisol levels are higher in wild fish than captive ones.

The HLLE-carbon connection has been seen so many times now that it's a foregone conclusion. It is odd going from one group of discussion where info like this is widely accepted as accurate to another where it needs to be backed up with mountains of evidence. Similarly, I know some public aquarists that are very skeptical that vodka additions will work in a reef tank, despite it being widely accepted in the hobbyist world.

As far as the tangs go, I feel the hobby benefits from more articles and posts SHOWING people what is possible, rather than TELLING them what is not.

Best,
Matt

 

[JHemdal]

Matt,

Thanks for the lead about NeAqu - I'll give Bailey a call today.....


Jay

p.s. - any idea as to what my new avatar is? Looks like a pink elephant in a white skirt or something.....

 

[Matt_Wandell]

Matt,

Thanks for the lead about NeAqu - I'll give Bailey a call today.....


Jay

p.s. - any idea as to what my new avatar is? Looks like a pink elephant in a white skirt or something.....

Hey Jay, you may want to try and contact Rebecca Isquith as well:

http://www.rotjanlab.org/Rotjan-former lab members.htm

She is my coworker's roommate, so I could probably do so as well.

 

[Stuart60611]

The HLLE-carbon connection has been seen so many times now that it's a foregone conclusion. It is odd going from one group of discussion where info like this is widely accepted as accurate to another where it needs to be backed up with mountains of evidence. Similarly, I know some public aquarists that are very skeptical that vodka additions will work in a reef tank, despite it being widely accepted in the hobbyist world.

I think Matt makes a real good point here. Liquid carbon dosing has been accepted as a reliable means of husbandry in the hobby which has been used to export both nitrate and phosphate for years. No one has conducted fully controled experiments which will satisfy all scientific scruitiny in terms of demonstrating the effectiveness of this husbandry technique, nor its appropriate use in terms of establishing with scientific certainty a suitable dosing protocal. Rather, anecdotal data has been compiled from thousands of hobbyists as to both demonstrate liquid carbon dosing's effectiveness and indeed to even fashion appropriate dosing protocal. People have dosed appropriate amounts of vodka and then measured nitrate as a means to determine how dosing should be conducted. This technique, although based on anecdotal information, is not based on the pure subjective whim of a given hobbyist and is instead premised on measurable criteria. Examination of this technique has never involved controls to eliminate other causes besides the vodka which may have resulted in the nitrate drop, nor maintained adequate controls in terms of bioload, skimming, or feeding. Nevertheless, we have come up with vodka dosing protocal which has worked very well for hobbyists.

Why is that the same anecdotal methodology cannot be used to establish minimum tank size for fish? It just makes little sense to me why there would be any resistance to this notion since we as hobbyists have been sucessfully using this anecdotal method for establishing husbandry techniques for quite a while and with great success. Most of us are not scientists. We are hobbyists. The fish we keep are not laboratory animals we experiment upon or maintan in a facility for the general public to view. These fish are our pets. We do not need to hide behind the inability to establish minimum tank size with scientific certainty to justify our failure to set any parameters concerning minimum tanks size, nor to justify keeping our pets in inappropriate sized systems. Remember, I am not harping about those tank sizes where reasonable minds can differ as to their appropriateness, but rather I am concerned with those tank sizes which virtually all hobbyists would agree are too small. I have provided some thoughts on how to move forward to establish appropriate minimum tanks size above. Further input from others is needed if any progress can be achieved on this issue. I think the goal here is not to make this determination perfectly objective or scientifically unchallengeable. Rather, the goal here should be to establish some methodology for seting minimum tank size which although not purely objective and scientifically sound provides a basis to do so with some measurable criteria so as to make the determination more reliable than the purely subjective opinion of a given hobbyist. Both physical and behaviorial/psychological needs of fish should be taken into account.

 

[frankpayne32]

I think the main reason the vodka analogy doesn't hold up to tank size is that your average hobbyist cannot measure fish health while nitrate levels can be measured easily and at least reasonably accurately. Many experienced hobbyists can reasonably measure fish health by direct and personal observation but this is individually subjective and cannot be done in such a way that the data can be quantified like it can with vodka dosing.

 

[Angel*Fish]

Hi Jay, fighting the good fight here I see.

There are some folks at the New England Aquarium measuring cortisol levels and their relation to sound levels experienced by fish. I don't have a pdf handy but the findings agree with what you've stated--cortisol levels are higher in wild fish than captive ones.

I'm not saying that's not a reliable indicator, but an animal that is stressed out enough (say collection, shipping, untenable environment, etc.) may have "blown out" adrenals resulting in lowered cortisol levels. The adrenals can no longer function properly and produce enough cortisol. Just something to factor in.

 

[Stuart60611]

I think the main reason the vodka analogy doesn't hold up to tank size is that your average hobbyist cannot measure fish health while nitrate levels can be measured easily and at least reasonably accurately. Many experienced hobbyists can reasonably measure fish health by direct and personal observation but this is individually subjective and cannot be done in such a way that the data can be quantified like it can with vodka dosing.

I agree that it would be best to use a sampling from experienced as opposed to newbie hobbyists to attempt to quantify this issue. I am by no means convinced, however, that this determination needs to be "individually subjective" and cannot be done in a way where the data can be quantified to provide some reasonable level of objectiveness to the standard.

Variables of measureable criteria for consideration could be: (1) fish size; (2) fish swimming habits or activity level or other general or typical behavorial traits observed in the species; (3) fish weight or estimated weight; (4) growth rate of the fish; (5) typical purchase size or weight of the fish; and (6) typical maximum size or weight of the fish achieved in home aquaria -- just to name a few.