What's your mortality rate?

[Bent]

This question has lingered in my mind for a while. One of my goals jumping back into this hobby was to be mindful, careful and attempt to keep my mortality rate at 0% for intended purchases. (Excluding hitch hikers and other "incidental" life.) So far that hasn't happened. A
After thinking about it, is 0 a unrealistic goal? I'd be curious to know what everyone else estimates their mortality rate at.

So far I think my mortality rate may be 35% if I add up what has survived vs what has died.

 

[shifty51008]

Sence i set this tank up 6 years ago i have had 0 fish deaths but have lost some snails

 

[Taahirs]

I'm ashamed to say, but I've lost 4 fish since I set the tank up over a year ago. Which is a 40% death rate.

Also lost some snails. Haven't lost a coral though.

 

[ca1ore]

So many variables really. I'm always suspicious of folks who claim they have no losses (though I suppose it will be true in rare cases). It also depends on how one measures 'losses' and the level of difficulty one chooses in fish and invert choices.

For example, in two years, I have introduced many fish into my display, but only lost one of them. But, I have lost quite a few in QT. Do they 'count'? I have also had a number of SPS colonies with STN. Colony dies but frags survive, and regrow into a colony? Is that a loss? Also, how long does one go before a loss doesn't count?

Zero losses ought to be the goal, but it is also unrealistic unless one is both lucky and selecting easy animals. As long as you are using sensible practices loss rates are what they are.

 

[Sk8r]

Experience counts. Not making wrong fish choices, not putting sick fish, most of all, setting up with a crew you plan to keep unchanged, ie, picking your fish and just not visiting the fish store with the 'what's new this week' fever. Visit the fish store to look at gear, new 'stuff' and to buy food and such, but don't run a 'roach motel' sort of tank, constantly putting in another fish to take the place of a deceased one. Every time you add a fish to the tank you run a monumental risk of bringing in problems, either with disease, dominance issues, environment issues like jumping, or just 'one fish too many' that will grow into a fish-fight. The sooner I can get all the fish a tank will ever have ---in, and happy, the better. I've set up no few tanks in a long time in this hobby, but for me, I don't LIKE acquiring fish. It's dangerous, messy, and full of risks. I want to do it and be done with it and just enjoy the tank's growth.

 

[running scott]

How does anyone figure if it is a loss due to husbandry, or just a animal at the end of its life span? For example I used to love having blennies of all Types in my tank, but they kept dying every 3 or 4 years. Seemed like after they became old friends they would die. Then I found out that was how long they lived! There are lots of fish in this hobby that live long lives, but there are numerous ones that live short lives. Then when you buy a fish you don't always know how old it is.

 

[snorvich]

Define mortality rate. Perhaps losses over five years?

 

[Bent]

I would say that to contribute to your mortality rate an animal would have to meet the following:

1: be an intentional addition
2: die from anything other than old age.

That would probably be my only two criteria.

 

[Xxero]

At the 6 month mark:

* I killed my Yellow Anthias. :worried2: When I recently increased my lighting, she went into hiding for long periods of time and eventually starved because of it. It really sucks because I thought she was beautiful.

* And I lost a Peppermint Shrimp to a Haddoni Carpet Anemone early on. I believe this was a suicide though, the Peppermint having made a few poor investment choices just prior to the unfortunate event.

 

[shifty51008]

I should state this is my 3rd tank that i setup. My 1st tank before i found rc i lost quite a few fish, my 2nd tank, i didnt qt and ended up with some parasite and lost 3 fish. So now i have over 15 years in the hobby and learned so much.

Btw how can you tell if the fish die of old age when i dont think its possiable to tell a fishes age unless captive bred. Even then do we know the actual life span of a fish?

 

[Ron Reefman]

Nobody said reef life would be easy. Animals kill each other or die on environmentally stable reefs all the time. So when we artificially start taking animals (corals, fish, anemones, snails, clams, etc.) from all over the world, put them in a small glass box and expect them to all live together peacefully? Good luck with that!

 

[Ray68]

Had a copperband butterfly get stuck to RW 8 wavemaker, and emerald crab eat long nose hawk fish,and a canary blenney. Last a red scooter dragnet want carpet surfing. Can't wait to see what the next 10 months will bring.

 

[SecretiveFish]

I just had a four line wrasse die in quarantine after 8 weeks and am still pretty bummed. Water quality was OK and the other fish in there is fine. What could have killed it?!? The fish looked pristine upon examination... just dead.

Be prepared for a rant, but it seems like a lot of distributors are infected with assorted pests/parasites. Let's see, 150 became infected with velvet from a coral frag, lost 50% of the fish; got montipora eating nudibranches from a distributor (Coral Rx does nothing against these, SO was able to save at least pieces of colonies surprisingly); got red planaria from a LFS that are completely resistant to Flatworm Exit and find Coral Rx to be a lovely massage; fish in 65 got ick from a coral frag. There have been other delights but those elude me right now. I am pretty sure a fish we got from LA DD came with ick, fortunately he is in quarantine with tank transfer beginning today!

On the other hand, we do have a left handed hermit crab that is approaching 5 years old. I had no idea they could live that long!

 

[ca1ore]

I would say that to contribute to your mortality rate an animal would have to meet the following:

1: be an intentional addition
2: die from anything other than old age.

That would probably be my only two criteria.

There have been occasional threads on this subject, and the conclusion is that the vast majority of fish do not live out their natural maximum possible lifespan in the hobby. Inverts may; and corals are another story. Many reef fishes have the potential to outlive most hobbyists time in the hobby. There are folks here who have 15 plus year old tangs. I've never lived a anywhere long enough to keep a particular setup that long - and when I move, I typically sell off the livestock and start anew.

My own definition of success is getting a fish through QT, and keeping it for at least 3 years in my display. Arbitrary, perhaps, but not unreasonable.

 

[brett559]

For every one fish you successfully QT, put into the display and get to "thrive," probably 30-40 died in transit.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/aquarium-fish-death.html#cr

This is a selfish hobby, no two ways about it. Any argument to the contrary is simply delusional. This hobby kills hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of fish each year that would have lived longer in the ocean. We aren't doing these fish any favors, and deep down we all know that, or should at least.

 

[KafudaFish]

For every one fish you successfully QT, put into the display and get to "thrive," probably 30-40 died in transit.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/aquarium-fish-death.html#cr

This is a selfish hobby, no two ways about it. Any argument to the contrary is simply delusional. This hobby kills hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of fish each year that would have lived longer in the ocean. We aren't doing these fish any favors, and deep down we all know that, or should at least.

You cannot make that part of the statement because of natural mortality rates.

 

[brett559]

If 4 out of 5 are dying in transit, I think it's safe to say that most of those 4 would have lived longer in the wild.

 

[KafudaFish]

Not really because all five could have died the same day if a predator came through even when daily mortality rates are estimated at 0.1 to 0.01 depending on the lifestage.

 

[brett559]

My own definition of success is getting a fish through QT, and keeping it for at least 3 years in my display. Arbitrary, perhaps, but not unreasonable.

This is my point, and I agree completely with what ca1ore said. This is what the hobby is. We've all decided that we are okay with removing beautiful animals from their natural environment so we can enjoy them for a brief time. That's why I do it. That's why you do it. And there's nothing wrong with it.

When was your last cheeseburger or piece of fried chicken? I don't really see a difference.

 

[Mark9]

For every one fish you successfully QT, put into the display and get to "thrive," probably 30-40 died in transit.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/aquarium-fish-death.html#cr

This is a selfish hobby, no two ways about it. Any argument to the contrary is simply delusional. This hobby kills hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of fish each year that would have lived longer in the ocean. We aren't doing these fish any favors, and deep down we all know that, or should at least.

Touchy subject, but you are right, whether people want to believe it or not.