Oxymonacanthus longirostris pair enters a mixed reef environment

[small alien]

I have a few sexy's in my frogspawn. I doubt the files have noticed them yet. No cleaners or other larger shrimp. With how much effort mine put into eating a piece of mysis, it is hard for me to imagine them going after a live shrimp. But you never know of course.

Thinking about trying a pair, Steve?

 

[snorvich]

I have a few sexy's in my frogspawn. I doubt the files have noticed them yet. No cleaners or other larger shrimp. With how much effort mine put into eating a piece of mysis, it is hard for me to imagine them going after a live shrimp. But you never know of course.

Thinking about trying a pair, Steve?

You folks are an inspiration. I have only one place that they might go and that is a very large tank and it is not ideal, at least from what I read in your threads. But I am, quite honestly, drooling over your success.

 

[Makenna]

To that point I also I am having great succes and I got them from DD as well.

They have quickly become some of my favorite fish and a source of fun for many of hte local guys.

I am probably not going to put them in my mixed reef, but I am moving towards setting up a 60 cube just for them.

Great thread!!

 

[twiggyb]

I have three sexy shrimp in with mine. He's no where near big enough to tackle them though :lol: Even if he was bigger I think the small mouth they have wouldn't allow to go after bigger shrimp other than brine or mysis IMO. Could be wrong though.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

I'm mostly worried about my corals. We'll see what happens.

This is an issue I think you'll have to accept. Despite what he will eat, you cant take away the instinct of what he wants to eat.

A whole other topic will be, is what we will eat going to be what he should be eating? But, I wont derail. Good luck!

 

[small alien]

Corals

Corals

Thought I'd list the corals I have in the tank for reference. So far, the files only seem interested in:

M. spongodes - no PE whatsoever since they went in.
M. digitata - same, no PE.
Green "Fungia" - they seem to be picking at it some.

The following do not seem appealing to them so far:

M. capricornis
Tubastrea sp.
Two types of photosynthetic gorgonians
Two other "fungia"
Two Lobos
Discosoma
Rhodactis
RBTA
Hydnophora
"Favia"
St. Thomas bubble mushroom
Zoas
Cyphastrea

They are currently eating:
Prime Reef Flakes
Formula 1 gel
NLS small pellets (soaked)
Mysis
Cyclops
Prawn Roe

My feeling is they would love to be in a big tank. The bigger the better. They really cruise around a lot. Again, also seem to like lots of flow which seems sensible if they come from an SPS kind of environment.

:bounce1:

 

[small alien]

Just want to add, the nibbling on the first three corals listed is pretty limited and pretty random. It's not like they just sit there munching on them. Just kind of a quick nip every once in a while if they happen past. I think if they were really hungry, they'd likely do a lot more damage than if they're well fed.

 

[small alien]

This is an issue I think you'll have to accept. Despite what he will eat, you cant take away the instinct of what he wants to eat.

A whole other topic will be, is what we will eat going to be what he should be eating? But, I wont derail. Good luck!

Derail away, my friend.

Are you hinting at potential nutritional deficiencies from not eating what they eat in the wild?

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Yes, thats what I was alluding to. I am not going to go as far as to claim that we cant provide appropriate nutritional care with substitute diets. I am just concerned because , realistically, little to nothing is known about how or why these fish metabolically consume them, and what is derived. What is known, is that aside from arguably "accidental" ingestia of other items, these fish only consume coral polyps in the wild. And have evolved for millions of years to do so- metabolically, digestively, and physiologically. Adjusting that to other items in a few weeks to months cant undo that evolutionary specificity. What harm it will or wont cause is the question. Which I dont have answers to, and neither does anyone else. It is completely unknown. But, I find it hard to accept that there is no real basis for them to forage and predate only certain items in the wild, when a comparably beneficial and nutritious diet could be had. Just my opinion.

 

[small alien]

And a well stated one at that. Thanks. It is an open question. I remember reading somewhere that Matt Pederson, who has successfully bred these fish, felt that there was no magic nutrient in coral polyps. Like your opinion, his was based on his own logic more than any evidence. But the way he presented it I felt it had some merit.

At this point, keeping this fish on prepared foods in a reef tank environment is an experiment on a number of levels. We shall see what happens. I feel that, ethically, it's okay to try this approach and push the limits. Some may disagree. We will surely learn a lot in the process.

Good topic. Thanks for raising it.

Cheers.

 

[snorvich]

Perhaps an analysis of the content of coral polyps versus supplied food would provide a hint about success in the longer run?

 

[small alien]

Thinking about this nutrition issue a little more. Are there not many species of butterflys and angels that we ween onto prepared foods that are very different from their evolved diet? Aren't there some coralivorous butterflys that are frequently weened to prepared foods? Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure someone will let me know.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

And a well stated one at that. Thanks. It is an open question. I remember reading somewhere that Matt Pederson, who has successfully bred these fish, felt that there was no magic nutrient in coral polyps. Like your opinion, his was based on his own logic more than any evidence. But the way he presented it I felt it had some merit.

At this point, keeping this fish on prepared foods in a reef tank environment is an experiment on a number of levels. We shall see what happens. I feel that, ethically, it's okay to try this approach and push the limits. Some may disagree. We will surely learn a lot in the process.

Good topic. Thanks for raising it.

Cheers.

I have discussed this ad nauseum with Matt. We essentially agree to disagree. He has accomplished some great things and Im certainly not discrediting his work at all. In fact, I am in awe of it.....but, I dont feel its quite appropriate to do a victory dance just yet. He states (sic) that fish that breed must be healthy. I disagree. I think the drive for fish (or any animal) to breed surpasses everything. If there was "no magic ingredient" in coral polyps, then how and why do these fish specifically target it and become obligate consumers? If the essentials are available everywhere else too?

Perhaps an analysis of the content of coral polyps versus supplied food would provide a hint about success in the longer run?

I agree. And a more valid scientific look into obligate corallivores and their method of digestion.

Thinking about this nutrition issue a little more. Are there not many species of butterflys and angels that we ween onto prepared foods that are very different from their evolved diet? Aren't there some coralivorous butterflys that are frequently weened to prepared foods? Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure someone will let me know.

The key is the "obligate" term. Angels are not obligate consumers. The butterflies that are obligate corralivores, have never had success on substitutes, as far as I know. Every once in a while, someone states they do, but there is never any real evidence, that I know of.


Overall, I just find it remarkable that these fish are found in natural habitats with microfauna (like amphipods, mysids, crustaceans, bivalves, etc), and yet NEVER eat them in the wild. We bring them into captivity, and they eat it (for some reason). Can we really expect them to be attaining the same level of health? Again, I dont know the answer, whether I'm right or wrong, but my gut says no, and no one can really show me otherwise.

 

[snorvich]

So, can one establish a benchmark for success? If these fish live in aquaria (on the diet supplied) for three years would that constitute a success?

 

[twiggyb]

If it was obligate to coral polyps then why does mine still accept mysis when there is perfectly good across to chew on? I believe IMO that perhaps to have a healthier happier fish there needs to be some coral present for it's diet. Not that weening them off completely isn't good progress since supplying the sps would be quite expensive after a while and frowned upon by some for killing corals as I found out at another site but like I said, jmo. Any progress with these fish in captivity is amazing to me though. Beautiful fish!

 

[jmaneyapanda]

So, can one establish a benchmark for success? If these fish live in aquaria (on the diet supplied) for three years would that constitute a success?

I do think there are probably a few who have some "success" at the span. I think Matt Pederson did tell me that, but Im not positive of that. I am "arguing" more the theory and principle than the definitive number. I just find it too hard to believe that these fish will thrive on this type of diet. Akin to the revelation that feeding goldfish to lionfish actually turned out to be bad for them (despite the fact they would eat millions of them, and grow and "live").

If it was obligate to coral polyps then why does mine still accept mysis when there is perfectly good across to chew on? I believe IMO that perhaps to have a healthier happier fish there needs to be some coral present for it's diet. Not that weening them off completely isn't good progress since supplying the sps would be quite expensive after a while and frowned upon by some for killing corals as I found out at another site but like I said, jmo. Any progress with these fish in captivity is amazing to me though. Beautiful fish!

Well, there is NO disputing that wild fish ARE obligate corralivores. They only forage acropora polyps. A field study of stomach contents did have some other material (such as sand, calcareous algae, fish eggs, etc), but they were in such small proportions that they were deemed "accidentally" ingested while consuming polyps.
But, to answer your question, I cant say, except for likely the same reason I can live and continue eating pizza and beer everyday and every meal, but it doesnt mean Im healthy, or am eating what I "should". Im not a filefish, so I cant say why yours is looking for mysis in lieu of acropora polyps, but I would speculate that 99.9% of this species would eat such polyps over all else, if given the choice.
In regards to the cost of feeding acros, this is exactly inconsequential to my contention. I dont think "cost of feeding" should be play a role in this discussion. I think the well being of the fish should. If we somehow "knew" that these fish should only be eating acro, and our feeding them otherwise were cheaper, but unhealthier, I would think we would all conscientiously choose the healthy route for our fish, despite the cost, if we wanted to keep them. Thats my hopes, at least.

 

[small alien]

The key is the "obligate" term. Angels are not obligate consumers. The butterflies that are obligate corralivores, have never had success on substitutes, as far as I know. Every once in a while, someone states they do, but there is never any real evidence, that I know of.

Thanks for clarifying. So, no, there aren't any real parallels it seems. The whole thing is kind of messing with my mind. :hmm5:

 

[small alien]

Video

Video

Here's a video of them and all their pals eating.

First, Formula One Gel, then PE Mysis and then Cyclopeeze.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GG2rBOr-0do&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GG2rBOr-0do&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[small alien]

Sorry, my camera is made of sticks and rocks.

 

[small alien]

I'm trying to reason out this feeding preference issue a little more since I currently lack that ability to study coral polyp nutrition.

Why would this fish only eat coral polyps in the wild when many potential food sources are present. I don't don't think the answer to this has to be that the polyps have special nutrients. What if the polyps are just very available? More available than other foods. And what if the file proved to have the ability to effectively consume and utilize the coral polyps in a way most of its fellow reef inhabitants could not? So it sort of defaulted to the polyps. Rather than required them. Does that make some sense?

And the issue of why they'll eat many other foods in our tanks even when acro polyps are available. This is an interesting question and one that I don't feel has been fully answered. Why will it do this in the aquarium but not in nature even though both environments have a range of potential food items? Were these fish starved into it by Diver's Den? Did they just get so hungry they'd eat anything and then decided they liked it? You'd think they would have tried the alternative foods on the reef at some point. But maybe the polyps are so abundant, there is never a need.

I know if my 4 year-old daughter was in a room with a bowl of oatmeal and a bowl of gummy worms, she'd go for the gummy worms. Are these other prepared and frozen foods so much tastier than polyps? They certainly have much more raw food value than candy, even if they do lack some mystery nutrient.

It would be very interesting to hear an evolutionary biologist speak to how feeding preferences and nutritional needs generally evolve in the wild.

Any evolutionary biologists out there?

Cheers.