Aquarium Myths and Misinformation

[ReefLife_Guy]

More recently, Aquabiomics has begun testing tanks and some reports come back with no ich present, proving that not all tanks have ich in them.

I of course agree that the statement that "ALL tanks have ich in them" is false, but it is important to note some limitations of the methodology used by aquabiomics and why their results can't "prove" the absence of ich in a tank but rather suggestive that ich is not present:

1) their assay only tests for the presence of DNA which cannot tell us anything about the viability of the organisms detected, so a positive result could be from live parasites or remnant genomic material from dead or eradicated parasites

2) the absence of ich in the results also has limitations to its interpretation as detection highly depends on the sensitivity of the assay (What is the lower level of detection?) and quality of sampling (Are we sampling in the aquarium where the highest concentration of the organism is likely to be? Free floating vs. surface dwelling)

I would be interested to know if @AquaBiomics has sensitivity data on pathogen detection. It would be helpful to know how long pathogen DNA is detectable in the aquarium after you have successfully treated the tank using whatever method. I would guess that if it is consistently undetectable for a prolonged period of time (maybe a year or more) given that the assay is reasonably sensitive, you could be confident in the eradication of it but more data is probably needed to help establish guidelines for interpreting those results.

 

[Pickle_soup]

Judging by this statement I can tell who I am talking to. It explains now as to why you had to resort to mentioning things about people their grandmothers but failed to provide any substantial evidence towards your claim of vitamin C

And who are you talking to? Please elaborate...You just looked up some random crap and linked it. And as far as you know they are part of credible research means didly crap. Did you cross-check that research? No...so you know what you can do with that. Besides why are you still on it?

 

[lmfbs]

Reminded me of another common myth: People with purple/scopas/hippo/etc. tangs in a 40g breeder actually getting a bigger tank or rehoming the fish when it’s time (if at all).

I deliberately chose to not get a big tang because I know it's not fair to rely on upgrading, and I would be devastated to have to rehome

 

[Jay Hemdal]

UV (undersized) is a practice that acts as an inoculation for fish ime. I’ve been studying this for 20 years and while I am an amateur marine biologist (been diving 30 years keeping reef tanks for 25+) I think I have enough evidence that UV reduces the numbers of free swimming parasites leading to fish having the ability to build up its immune system and keeping outbreaks at bay. Think about all the masking during COVID. As soon as the masks came off everyone started getting serious sickness from the common cold and other pathogens our immune system had been shielded from. Our reef tanks are not the open ocean where parasitic numbers are far less concentrated than an outbreak in our tank. I’ve had a lot of experience with direct from to sea to tank captivity of fish and other organisms.

Also I know what your research says about GC but imo it does work when fed even in the display. I used to qt but no longer do I mean I think qting to avoid fish illness is misinfo. Too many reefers have qtd and still had massive breakouts. Or worse their fish die in qt bc it is not a natural environment and causes a great deal of stress on fish. QTing for a fallow tank ime is misinformation.

Finally the urban legend I want to know about is the story about the dudes dog that died after drinking seawater in a bucket containing palys. I know they can kill but my dog doesn’t touch saltwater and while it’s plausible it always sounded like a far fetched story.

Here is a more formal write up that I did about UV and Cryptocaryon:

UV sterilizers

Ultraviolet (UV) sterilizers are also sold as a “cure” for Cryptocaryon. The problem is that most hobbyist-sized UV sterilizers do not have the power to make an effective kill on the relatively large Cryptocaryon parasite. Additionally, UV sterilizers are effective only on the tomite/theront stage, as this is the only point where the parasite is even present in the water column.

For velvet, Amyloodinium, the fallacy here is that tomites/theronts must leave the fish. Actually, some of them may get caught up in the fish’s mucus and stay attached until they become infective trophonts again. For Cryptocaryon, the tomites/theronts do seem to need to leave the fish, but with side stream application of UV (where only a portion of water passes through the unit) DWELL TIME becomes the limiting factor. Only a portion of the theronts are killed before enough of them attach to the fish to continue the infection. This means that UV sterilization will not eliminate active Cryptocaryon infections from a single aquarium. Where it does have benefit is in eliminating tomites as they pass through a filtration system from one discrete tank to another (like in a public aquarium or fisheries lab). Decades ago, diatom filters were touted as cures for ich and velvet. The same issue applies with them; there are adherent forms of these protozoans that can continue to infect the fish without ever having to leave the fish’s body. Even if they do, the same “dwell time” factor means that some theronts will still be present in the water column to infect the fish.

A recent study (Ge-Ling, 2022) indicates that the UV dose required to kill Cryptocaryon theronts/tomites is 185,000 uw/S/cm2. They do go on however, to conclude: “ …both ozone and UV are ineffective in controlling infection within an individual aquarium because of the adhesive nature of C. irritans tomonts (Ma et al., 2017). Therefore, the focus on UV and ozone treatment should prevent live theronts flow into aquaculture ponds. Second, the tomonts are strongly resistant to UV or ozone than theronts, implying that recommended production doses cannot wholly kill tomonts….”

Jay

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I of course agree that the statement that "ALL tanks have ich in them" is false, but it is important to note some limitations of the methodology used by aquabiomics and why their results can't "prove" the absence of ich in a tank but rather suggestive that ich is not present:

1) their assay only tests for the presence of DNA which cannot tell us anything about the viability of the organisms detected, so a positive result could be from live parasites or remnant genomic material from dead or eradicated parasites

2) the absence of ich in the results also has limitations to its interpretation as detection highly depends on the sensitivity of the assay (What is the lower level of detection?) and quality of sampling (Are we sampling in the aquarium where the highest concentration of the organism is likely to be? Free floating vs. surface dwelling)

I would be interested to know if @AquaBiomics has sensitivity data on pathogen detection. It would be helpful to know how long pathogen DNA is detectable in the aquarium after you have successfully treated the tank using whatever method. I would guess that if it is consistently undetectable for a prolonged period of time (maybe a year or more) given that the assay is reasonably sensitive, you could be confident in the eradication of it but more data is probably needed to help establish guidelines for interpreting those results.

Circling back to the stated premise of this article though: If people say "ich is present in all/most tanks" it is up to them to prove that point. In this case, we have empirical evidence plus DNA reports that indicate that this isn't true - so IMO, that means it is a myth until it can be proven otherwise.

I have not used Aquabiomics' services, and my genetic classes in college were 45+ years ago, so I can't speak to anything other than the results people have shared with me. Still, it must be more precise than just stating "all tanks have ich" (grin).

Jay

 

[Doctorgori]

Fish only grow in size to fit their aquarium

I've read articles explaining that a fish's growth is stunted by having a tank that's too small, causing its organs to develop improperly. Leading to an unhealthy fish that won't live long. Never known for a fact that this is true though.

by that logic you should be able to grow a 10” tang in a 40 breeder,…. I think there is more to it than bio-load; I’ve seen fish grown out in tanks too small for the species, the shape/appearance is “off”, and this isn’t just my eyeballs fooling me, its true….
Sometimes its simply a matter of a fish needing to “Stretch its legs” so to speak; swimming room, plain and simple….

I deliberately chose to not get a big tang because I know it's not fair to rely on upgrading, and I would be devastated to have to rehome

Also at what point do you miss a critical point in the fishes growth curve? In other words will a 3yr old fish raised in a 20g ever catch up to a fish thats been raised in a 300g all its life? Yes fish supposedly grow through its whole life, but there are points where its exponentially faster…

Circling back to the stated premise of this article though: If people say "ich is present in all/most tanks" it is up to them to prove that point. In this case, we have empirical evidence plus DNA reports that indicate that this isn't true - so IMO, that means it is a myth until it can be proven otherwise.

I have not used Aquabiomics' services, and my genetic classes in college were 45+ years ago, so I can't speak to anything other than the results people have shared with me. Still, it must be more precise than just stating "all tanks have ich" (grin).

Jay

To that point, I actually went 10-15 maybe almost 20yrs without seeing ich, and thats w/o any real quarantine protocol. I got nothing to explain that other than perhaps statistical luck and/or the tanks never got infected…

However in the last 5-6 years I have had ich just “show up” months loooong after no fish had been introduced. It plausible ich went through its cycle, infected a host (that survived) and went un noticed. Only later to come back in numbers to kill (the “usual suspects” Tangs, grammas, et) However, in each case perhaps coincidentally; after the UV’s went offline. OR AFTER the addition of Florida LR (again perhaps coincidentally) …

Noteworthy: Scopas, Anthias, dart fish, cardinals, bettas and Lamarack angels survived unfazed apparently///
(apples spell check sucks)

 

[Icryhard]

And who are you talking to? Please elaborate...You just looked up some random crap and linked it. And as far as you know they are part of credible research means didly crap. Did you cross-check that research? No...so you know what you can do with that. Besides why are you still on it?

Again, more rambling, more personal attacks, more irrelevant stuff, still no source from your side. I didn’t “look up some random crap”. I even added the source they used, which I guess must also be fake and full of flaws and never right. The national bank of healthcare must probably be fake yes. So, where is your source after all that “Yale” and “hardvard” talk? Where is your cross-checking? Where are your statistics? At the very least I bothered to provide my source and the source backing their words. You just spout stuff and then attack people who don’t agree with you. Even worse is that you’re a hypocrite. Either provide a source with the things you mentioned, such as cross-checking and whatnot, or keep the misinformation you’re spreading to yourself. Plenty of sources out there, fake or not fake, who seem to agree that vitamin C does help your immune system. Of course I should believe mister Pickle_soup who has provided 0 sources in regards to his COVID shots and vitamin C claim, but claims somewhere out there in the wild there are 2 big names who claimed something… oh and FYI: just because Yale and Harvard say something, doesn’t make it right or wrong. They, just like anyone else, are deemed to provide evidence for their claim.

I am open to be shown that I’m wrong. I, unlike you, wish to learn and to develop. It’s a good trait to have. Unfortunately you don’t seem to have this trait.

 

[Paul B]

Red-rimmed batfish feeding on bananas:

I am not advocating or discrediting feeding bananas but many years ago I fed frozen bananas to my Moorish Idol and I kept him for 5 years. 5 Years is a total failure but it's almost a record for Idols.

I used to collect sponge here in New York to feed the Idol and he loved the stuff but when I ran out, like in the winter when I couldn't collect it, I tried a piece of banana. He wouldn't touch them unless I first froze them. After frozen they resembled the consistency of the sponge I was collecting.

I can't speak of the health benefits of bananas but it probably isn't worse than sponge. Who knows?

As to Lee Chin Eng, you are correct, he did cheat. But at the time, no one but him and Robert Straughn were keeping salt water fish. Lee kept the fish outside and used natural sun light and I also think he continually pumped in NSW and used food he collected. You can't fail with those methods but he did Father this hobby and I have a lot of respect for him.

I also built him a feeder where fish oil infused pellets would come down a tube to a dish 4 times a day to suppliment the sponge and bananas.

 

[7of9]

I am not advocating or discrediting feeding bananas but many years ago I fed frozen bananas to my Moorish Idol and I kept him for 5 years. 5 Years is a total failure but it's almost a record for Idols.

I used to collect sponge here in New York to feed the Idol and he loved the stuff but when I ran out, like in the winter when I couldn't collect it, I tried a piece of banana. He wouldn't touch them unless I first froze them. After frozen they resembled the consistency of the sponge I was collecting.

I can't speak of the health benefits of bananas but it probably isn't worse than sponge. Who knows?

As to Lee Chin Eng, you are correct, he did cheat. But at the time, no one but him and Robert Straughn were keeping salt water fish. Lee kept the fish outside and used natural sun light and I also think he continually pumped in NSW and used food he collected. You can't fail with those methods but he did Father this hobby and I have a lot of respect for him.

I also built him a feeder where fish oil infused pellets would come down a tube to a dish 4 times a day to suppliment the sponge and bananas.

Any time I start obsessing about tiny details, your posts help bring things back to the bigger picture. Thank you! (I bought your book, btw...best wishes for good health to your wife.)

 

[jda]

I love these kind of threads. Some of these things are not completely untrue, but over the years, they have evolved into punchlines. Some of these things were borne out of the days when nobody had any idea what to do, so people tried a lot of things - bananas, romaine, etc. were not al that dumb 40 years ago. Some of these were just guidance that people started to think were rules - inch per gallon as guidance for smart people is likely OK to start a mind exercise, but as a rule with set boundaries then folks can have issues like trying to push those boundaries with large fish, or such. 5w per gallon of heater is fine for guidance to be adjusted by smart people, for example. Some of them can be partial myths and partial non-myths - for example, I use GAC and have never had HLLE in my house in 30 years except for one time in a tank that never had GAC used on it and it was A. Bahanius that got the HLLE.

Then, there are things that just worked and I have no idea why. My fish got better color when Zoe and Selcon became available. I could take fish with HLLE and heal them as best as possible. Emperor angelfish could change in my house and look like it changed in the ocean. My guess is HUFAs and vitamin E, but probably because I heard this from a biologist speech at a club meeting. These supplements do not appear necessary with Mysis and high quality pellets, but I again do not really know why. I guess that technically some of this could be a myth since I do not know why it happens.

 

[Doctorgori]

…one thing to bear in mind in these threads with lots of debatable surface area is: you can’t assume everyone posting is actually an adult…( As I often also forget!)
just saying some kids are amongst us, literally

 

[alton]

I did an article 20 years ago for our local fish club on stray or induced voltage which is caused by open lamps to the water or 120 volt pumps. Since there is no current, there is no shock. So many times people associate voltage to a shock, when it is the amount of current that creates the shock.
One of our fish store owners had a great story.
(From Richard at CB pets)
We know from experience that certain fish may do poorly in tanks which have stray voltage. One example is an imperator angel we had in qt that was doing really well. Moved him out for sale and all he did was hide in the corner and would not eat. Moved him back to qt and he acted fine. Moved him back out and he quit eating. Hmmmm...so I checked for stray voltage on the tank and it was 16 volts. Added a grounding probe and he immediately started swimming around normally and ate when I fed him. So I took out the grounding probe and he immediately swam to the same corner and would not move. Put it back in and he was back to acting normal.
I guess some fish are more sensitive to it than others but since they sense electrical voltage it is probably a stressor to some degree for all fish.

Since most of us now use DC pumps and LEDS stray/induced voltage is a thing of the past. If your getting shocked find the bad pump or heater and remove it. A GFCI receptacle trips at around 5MA, a 3 MA shock is still pretty bad. Remember a GFCI receptacle/breaker will save your life, but it may not stop you from getting shocked.

 

[Crustaceon]

I have to add Phosphates to this conversation. FLAME ON. More specifically, the notion of ".03 ppm is perfect". I call nonsense on that and think we're running our phosphate levels WAY too low, which causes all kinds of problems, including loss of sps corals. For the most part, if your tank has progressed to having little purple coralline spots on the panels, there is no reason to run any less than .1ppm phosphates, especially if you're keeping sps. You know what I run mine at? .25ppm. Do I have a bunch of hair algae everywhere? No. And this is without a bunch of snails, tangs or a refugium full of algae to control nuisance algae. My acros are colorful and have great polyp extension at this P04 level and 8ppm nitrates. I dropped a new frag in the tank last week after removing it from the frag plug and it has already encrusted over the super glue that bulged out past the base of the coral. Seriously people, stop chasing the .03ppm dragon. Try .1ppm or even higher.

 

[Doctorgori]

I have to add Phosphates to this conversation. FLAME ON. More specifically, the notion of ".03 ppm is perfect". I call nonsense on that and think we're running our phosphate levels WAY too low, which causes all kinds of problems, including loss of sps corals. For the most part, if your tank has progressed to having little purple coralline spots on the panels, there is no reason to run any less than .1ppm phosphates, especially if you're keeping sps. You know what I run mine at? .25ppm. Do I have a bunch of hair algae everywhere? No. And this is without a bunch of snails, tangs or a refugium full of algae to control nuisance algae. My acros are colorful and have great polyp extension at this P04 level and 8ppm nitrates. I dropped a new frag in the tank last week after removing it from the frag plug and it has already encrusted over the super glue that bulged out past the base of the coral. Seriously people, stop chasing the .03ppm dragon. Try .1ppm or even higher.

And this too shall pass … I think the meter is moving slowly towards .1 at any rate …. most folks don’t even dare under .05. as the risk are becoming well documented….
Also to your point about algae, yes; usually when the pink dots start showing up “something” is working right
…personally I’m on the 78F crusade which I think may be another parroted alleged optimal number but hardly worth pursuing ….

 

[brandon429]

This is a big one

the role and science of surface area dynamics in reefing.


this controls what people buy as a shoreup to reefing actions; cleaning, tank relocation jobs. changing of substrate jobs, it's a market-controlling paradigm reefers espouse and nearly all of the information we trade in forums is incorrect on the matter. false sales are made and propped up by this aspect of old cycling science.


if polled without reading this thread or any other nonstandard discussion about it, I predict 75-90% of respondents would agree to the old incorrect adage: any lost bacteria from reef surface area removed or cleaned/sterilized must be allowed to relocate to a different area in the tank to preserve filter stability, must maintain the adapted-to # of bacterial cells.



that's not how bacterial distribution works in a reef tank.

surfaces hold their max bacteria relative to primarily what water shear allows...their inherent surface scums resists X flow rate before unadhesion / distribution around the tank to settle in new places and that flow rate keeps the stacks carved down

floc that is sloughed is skimmed, sinked, water-changed, eaten as coral food aggregate/becomes part of the detrital chain but they don't stack on surfaces beyond adapted shear rate X - first falsehood slayed.

reef tanks are busy enough, fast enough, that bacteria don't just stack somewhere else because they were removed from a given zone in the reef: water shear is a primary controller for that. Dr. Tim has specifically said in links we have that existing bacteria are easily able to step up and simply process more waste. a brick stacker might choose to work at 20 bricks per minute. properly incented, they can easily go up orders faster.

fallacy #2 in the old adage

Stacked bacteria don't increase filtration rate they decrease it

the thinnest possible living veneer of bacteria available on surfaces is the most efficient that given surface can be at ammonia oxidation when focusing solely on bacterial processing/removing photosynthetic command from the equation. increasing layers of bacteria on one another lowers surface area presentation to wastewater, and reduces filter efficiency.

the truth is that any degree of normal live rock use in a display will instantly run it's given bioload even if the sandbed, a trickle filter packed in bioballs, and six canister filters were removed. (an extreme example to show that live rocks are simply enough bacteria for a system + surface area, the extra can be removed because it wasn't ever needed)

reef tanks with common live rock in the display, post cycle, aren't going to run low on either filtration bacteria nor surface area. *we can safely reduce reefs down to that degree of surface area as fast as we want to.

if the degree of final surface area is insufficient for a given bioload, OR it's placed insufficiently in the flow path (stacked in a sump with an empty display tank with several large angelfish for example) then the final assembly will crash relative to the rate the bioload outpaces the filtration

and if the final surface area rock structure is fine for the given bioload (every reef tank I've ever seen for 22 years) then removing any accessory surface area, or cleaning it, or replacing it simply doesn't matter.

anyone who owns a seneye feel free to test the claim. post the before rates compared to the ending rates for nh3 control, I would value that. people are buying bottle bac to provide extra colonies for jobs that don't need it: money is being wasted as we're trained to hyperfocus on # of bacteria vs real surface area dynamics

 

[Crustaceon]

And this too shall pass … I think the meter is moving slowly towards .1 at any rate …. most folks don’t even dare under .05. as the risk are becoming well documented….
Also to your point about algae, yes; usually when the pink dots start showing up “something” is working right
…personally I’m on the 78F crusade which I think may be another parroted alleged optimal number but hardly worth pursuing ….

Oh for sure on the "78F" thing. I run all the way up to 86F in the summer for 3-4 weeks on end with no ill effects on acropora. People will fight me on this, but seriously, I've never seen a decline in color or growth at these temperatures. It's why I don't run a chiller.

 

[Nano_Man]

Great read thanks jay & Members

 

[Doctorgori]

This is a big one

the role and science of surface area dynamics in reefing.


this controls what people buy as a shoreup to reefing actions; cleaning, tank relocation jobs. changing of substrate jobs, it's a market-controlling paradigm reefers espouse and nearly all of the information we trade in forums is incorrect on the matter. false sales are made and propped up by this aspect of old cycling science.


if polled without reading this thread or any other nonstandard discussion about it, I predict 75-90% of respondents would agree to the old incorrect adage: any lost bacteria from reef surface area removed or cleaned/sterilized must be allowed to relocate to a different area in the tank to preserve filter stability, must maintain the adapted-to # of bacterial cells.



that's not how bacterial distribution works in a reef tank.

surfaces hold their max bacteria relative to primarily what water shear allows...their inherent surface scums resists X flow rate before unadhesion / distribution around the tank to settle in new places and that flow rate keeps the stacks carved down

floc that is sloughed is skimmed, sinked, water-changed, eaten as coral food aggregate/becomes part of the detrital chain but they don't stack on surfaces beyond adapted shear rate X - first falsehood slayed.

reef tanks are busy enough, fast enough, that bacteria don't just stack somewhere else because they were removed from a given zone in the reef: water shear is a primary controller for that. Dr. Tim has specifically said in links we have that existing bacteria are easily able to step up and simply process more waste. a brick stacker might choose to work at 20 bricks per minute. properly incented, they can easily go up orders faster.

fallacy #2 in the old adage

Stacked bacteria don't increase filtration rate they decrease it

the thinnest possible living veneer of bacteria available on surfaces is the most efficient that given surface can be at ammonia oxidation when focusing solely on bacterial processing/removing photosynthetic command from the equation. increasing layers of bacteria on one another lowers surface area presentation to wastewater, and reduces filter efficiency.

the truth is that any degree of normal live rock use in a display will instantly run it's given bioload even if the sandbed, a trickle filter packed in bioballs, and six canister filters were removed. (an extreme example to show that live rocks are simply enough bacteria for a system + surface area, the extra can be removed because it wasn't ever needed)

reef tanks with common live rock in the display, post cycle, aren't going to run low on either filtration bacteria nor surface area. *we can safely reduce reefs down to that degree of surface area as fast as we want to.

if the degree of final surface area is insufficient for a given bioload, OR it's placed insufficiently in the flow path (stacked in a sump with an empty display tank with several large angelfish for example) then the final assembly will crash relative to the rate the bioload outpaces the filtration

and if the final surface area rock structure is fine for the given bioload (every reef tank I've ever seen for 22 years) then removing any accessory surface area, or cleaning it, or replacing it simply doesn't matter.

anyone who owns a seneye feel free to test the claim. post the before rates compared to the ending rates for nh3 control, I would value that. people are buying bottle bac to provide extra colonies for jobs that don't need it: money is being wasted as we're trained to hyperfocus on # of bacteria vs real surface area dynamics

yeah I think Microbacter 7 and the like are for when meds or similar have totally disrupted things… Its also supposedly useful for seeding new artificial media … Honestly I’ve never found the logic in on going dosing…
TM’s line of bacterial products are supposed to be different….
I do think there is something to be said for actual rock from the ocean (real Tonga, M,I Tampa) vs. Artificially seeded “dead rock” (Marco, et) …I dunno….my eyes have/do see a difference here

 

[Doctorgori]

Oh for sure on the "78F" thing. I run all the way up to 86F in the summer for 3-4 weeks on end with no ill effects on acropora. People will fight me on this, but seriously, I've never seen a decline in color or growth at these temperatures. It's why I don't run a chiller.

yes and you can also go down to 70F-ish
Although the thing about the upper ranges is O2 saturation….also much past mid 80’s there is a chain reaction risk should that errant sea cuke or whatever decide to call it quits…
whereas in the lower limits of tolerance it is a metabolic issue and little risk of asphyxiation or cascading chain of death…

 

[jda]

This is another good example of how guideance can become absolutes and then supposed myths. I keep a wide range of acropora - some of them will absolutely suffer at 81 degrees and others don't mind at all. Saying "acropora" is just too general and way too general to fight about. Some acropora are going to die at much over 82 - period. Some people don't have those. It is not a myth. It is just a small sample size.

Some think that SPS means all types of SPS when you can often separate acropora from MBP&S.