...most nutritious food is actually mucus from the other fish's slime coat.
Does anyone know of any studies on the makeup of fish slime? It would be interesting if a specific replacement food could be found based on its nutrition.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...most nutritious food is actually mucus from the other fish's slime coat.
Does anyone know of any studies on the makeup of fish slime? It would be interesting if a specific replacement food could be found based on its nutrition.
...That's much higher (50/50) than I've ever heard anyone attest to (not debating; I just find that observation interesting). Sure, I'm intentionally exaggerating with "Think 0.1%", but I hate to see people buying this species without knowing what they're up against. It's such an attractive species it easily catches people's eyes, and then the price is usually just as attractive... Not a good recipe.
But is this really something to do with Hawaiian fish, or just the fish which are regularly collected in Hawaii? We could counter this with plenty of other examples of Hawaiian fish which are conversely easy to keep. Not to derail the topic, because this topic certainly could!
In my experience and from what I have read, cleaner wrasse rarely if ever eat ich. Ich cleared up because the fish were healthy, eating well, and not stressed. IMO ich is not a big deal if your fish are established, healthy, in a healthy environment with lots of flow, and not fragile species. I am rarely if ever concerned about ich.
Ich clearing up after adding a cleaner wrasse was merely a coincidence. IMO IME
Does anyone know of any studies on the makeup of fish slime? It would be interesting if a specific replacement food could be found based on its nutrition.
While cleaner wrasses themselves do not consume many of the actual ich parasites, the cleaning behavior does help fish be more resistant to being infected. The slime coat is the first defense against parasites and disease, followed by the scales of the fish. When the slime coat is not healthy or there are dead or demaged scales it is much easier for parasites to infect, and their trophonts to reinfect a fish. The process of removing dead and damaged scaleshelps to provide a surface that is dificult for the parasite to penetrate. And even the practice of eating some of the slime coat has been shown to help the fish produce a more even coating of the mucus. So, even though cleaner wrasses do not actually consume the parasite they are helpful for a speedier recovery and overall healthier fish.
Is this conjecture on your part. or is there linkable research? Not saying what you post is wrong, necessarily; just that I have heard arguments to the contrary.
FWIW, I have not found the cleaner wrasse to be hard to keep long-term - maybe just dumb luck, dunno.
I happen to know of a particular "authority" on another forum that strongly states that cleaner wrasses do not do anything for ich and other parasites, and while protozoan parasites are a negligeable part of their diet, they do benefit the overall health of other fish.
Hah. Do you not think he is an authority then? Personally, I have found the cleaner wrasse to have no affect on reducing the incidence of ich. I was questioning whether (in our tank) the actions of said cleaner fish would help or hinder the ability to resist a ich infection. More intellectual curiosity than anything else.
Interesting that you mention that - I have noticed that keeping my tanks saltier than necessary has benefited many Hawaiian fish such as the Achilles tang. I believe 1.026-1.0285 is the necessary range for optimal health of that fish in particular. In my experience, and I a few veterans that have been doing this far longer than me and kept Achilles far longer than I have.TJ and Hunter, on the questions regarding fragile nature of some Hawaiian Fish I from my own personal observations in Hawaii am inclined to think that a couple factors may play a roll in this.
~ #1 Specific Gravity, having measured from several locations the avg off Beach/Reef readings were between 1.0275 --> 1.0285 which are much higher than I would have believed, even inside Pearl Harbor at 1.027+. Does the reduced S.G. also reduce the Fishes slime coat production/protection ???
~ #2 Nutrient level or lack there of in most offshore collection locations, giving indigenous species little tolerance to built up levels within most crowded Trans-shipper/Wholesaler holding systems. ^Above^ mentioned possible lack of slime coat production.
Also seems similar issues to some Red Sea Fish species and may be due to same factors.... I don't know for certain but certainly food for thought.
Cheers, Todd
Watching one of mine eat nori as we speak. Very strange..
LOL... Gotta love those learned feeding behaviors! All of our fish (except the Kaudern's Cardinal) eat nori off the clip - including our clowns and 5 chromis.