Thoughts on this Kickstarter project based around a dwarf seahorse focused setup?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pjreefs/mini-seahorse-aquarium
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pjreefs/mini-seahorse-aquarium
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.
PJ Reefs certainly have my attention!I brought up your concern to him, asking if the brine can be enriched via this feeding method. His response was, "Yes, you can enrich it with Selcom. Also, brine shrimp cysts have come a long way since a decade ago. There are new strains with better nutrition profiles."
I don't see any good that comes from hatching cysts in tank water as the nasty bacteria that is known to be on cysts can end up causing problems for the inhabitants.
I've not seen any method to be able to magnetise the cysts as indicated in the diagram although I can see the fixture being held in place through magnetism.
Also, there are NOT new strains of artemia with better nutrient profiles available to any hobbyists.
Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources.
The cysts we buy come from large bodies of water like the Great Salt Lake in Utah and most definitely there is NO way to change the nutrient profile in these bodies of water. While you might be able to change the profiles over time in a laboratory, there is NO practical way to do it on a commercial scale.
As for enriching the artemia, that should NEVER be done in the tank water itself.
I think the people at the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent would be laughing at these claims.
I have been researching, growing, using and selling brine shrimp now over the last two decades plus and I expect I have a reasonable knowledge base on artemia.
First of all, I didn't know of this process so my bad for that. The cyst itself isn't magnetized but it IS coated with a magnetised material. The product is NOT made by Ocean Nutrition but rather by INVE (introduced in 2009) who market the product for others to sell and/or resell which in the case of ON is to resell packaged with their name on the product.Magnetized artemia is not new to the hobby, it has been around for a couple of years. It is made by OceanNutrition. Many hobbyists haven't heard about it because it is marketed toward large fisheries.
I feel you do a disservice to hobbyists stating it is only a small amount of bacteria and that it is mainly on the shell. Small amount only means possibly hours before it is a large amount. The bacteria do not all remain on the shell and can be carried into the general tank water. IMO, there is NO point in possibly adding bacteria to the tank that may not already be there.The unique part I created was the small container that holds a small quantity in a small tank. A small quantity means a very small amount of bacterial content, which is mainly on the shell. Also, having a small container allows hobbyists to remove the small container and enrich the artemia outside the tank, rinsing and then reintroducing it.
I did NOT say there wasn't a differing nutritional profile that hatcheries market. In my post I said: "Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources".You are correct that there are no different strains of Artemia, but incorrect in that there isn't a different nutritional profile that artemia hatcheries market. Larger companies that cater toward fisheries sell artemia according to their hatch rate and also to their HUFA profile. The artemia suppliers do this by testing small batches of Artemia from each respective spot. The suppliers market large quantities by hatch rate and HUFA profile because it is critical to know for aquaculture/fisheries. And this nutritional profile does vary by location and time.
First of all, I didn't know of this process so my bad for that. The cyst itself isn't magnetized but it IS coated with a magnetised material. The product is NOT made by Ocean Nutrition but rather by INVE (introduced in 2009) who market the product for others to sell and/or resell which in the case of ON is to resell packaged with their name on the product.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjEjd7ck8HXAhVU3GMKHWTbBTAQFghXMAk&url=http://www.yooyahcloud.com/SEAFOODCOOPERATIVERESEARCHCENTRE/njGJJ/Wim__Martens_Sep-Art.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0rzaDuUCWA_aZIgMu2jlEv
I feel you do a disservice to hobbyists stating it is only a small amount of bacteria and that it is mainly on the shell. Small amount only means possibly hours before it is a large amount. The bacteria do not all remain on the shell and can be carried into the general tank water. IMO, there is NO point in possibly adding bacteria to the tank that may not already be there.
If you are going to remove the nauplii to enrich, you are already negating most of the supposed benefit of in tank hatching as you need something else to enrich them in which can also be the hatching vessels themselves.
In addition, in the video it mentions that the supply is good for several days. In fact, the nauplii VERY QUICKLY loose the nutrition they have to start (hours, not days), or even after enrichment, so I recommend removal of depleted nauplii and then add newly enrich nauplii.
I did NOT say there wasn't a differing nutritional profile that hatcheries market. In my post I said: "Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources".
As for HUFA profile, that alone is NOT the main need of seahorses. Seahorses cannot manufacture their own DHA, and DHA is sadly lacking in MOST artemia profiles to the best of my knowledge. Using your link to the Iranian information for instance, shows 3 locations with varying DHA levels between 2.56 and 15.44 so that while HUFA level itself may be fine, it probably will also be deficient in the DHA levels.
Now, all that being said, INVE source their cysts from Great Salt Lake, Siberia, and Bohai Bay with Great Salt Lake cysts usually providing 60% of their demand.
http://www.inveaquaculture.com/latest-news/new-long-term-artemia-agreement/
They do NOT state whether their sales are a mix of these different cysts or even what the normal DHA component level would be combined or separate. Great Salt Lake cysts do not have a reasonable DHA level for seahorse purposes. (as a side note, products containing schizochytrium, or, schizochytrium itself are probably the highest source for DHA enrichment)
Suppliers of cysts to the aquaculture market are primarily choosing based on price, size of nauplii, hatch rate and somewhat on nutrient profile of clients. However as the client needs are varied, it is the usual practice for these client to enrich the nauplii before use although some are able to use the nauplii just as hatched.
Also, you can always state your peer-reviewed sources. I have a Degree in Neuroscience from the University of Texas and also 3 years of Medical School from UTHSCH (Clinical and Research). Didn't end up pursuing Medicine because it was not my true passion. I've been pursuing the saltwater industry for 5 years now and I'm also a curriculum manager for a private tutoring company.
Interesting discussion, but holy pretentious response....
I think the people at the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent would be laughing at these claims.
I have been researching, growing, using and selling brine shrimp now over the last two decades plus and I expect I have a reasonable knowledge base on artemia.
I guess that is my fault as I didn't really specify what exactly the claims were. It wasn't a comment on your design work, it was in reference to the post "I brought up your concern to him, asking if the brine can be enriched via this feeding method. His response was, "Yes, you can enrich it with Selcom. Also, brine shrimp cysts have come a long way since a decade ago. There are new strains with better nutrition profiles." This is incorrect.I think the people at the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent would be laughing at these claims.
I have been researching, growing, using and selling brine shrimp now over the last two decades plus and I expect I have a reasonable knowledge base on artemia.
I feel you do a disservice to hobbyists stating it is only a small amount of bacteria and that it is mainly on the shell. Small amount only means possibly hours before it is a large amount. The bacteria do not all remain on the shell and can be carried into the general tank water. IMO, there is NO point in possibly adding bacteria to the tank that may not already be there.
In the video, I don't state the food is good for several days. I say you need to repeat the process every 2 days. The food will continue hatching. I have not finalized the instructions and it will be clearly shown in a manual accompanying the food. The way it works is that the container is placed halfway in the aquarium and halfway out of the surface of the water. This causes a gradient of water and also of exposure to oxygen. The eggs that are agitated more and are in or close to the water hatch first, eggs further out of the surface hatch later. After the first hatch one moves the container further down and allows the rest of the eggs to hatch. Nauplii are consumed immediately as they are released into the system, this is the best nutritional value one can get without enriching artemia.If you are going to remove the nauplii to enrich, you are already negating most of the supposed benefit of in tank hatching as you need something else to enrich them in which can also be the hatching vessels themselves.
In addition, in the video it mentions that the supply is good for several days. In fact, the nauplii VERY QUICKLY loose the nutrition they have to start (hours, not days), or even after enrichment, so I recommend removal of depleted nauplii and then add newly enrich nauplii.
I did NOT say there wasn't a differing nutritional profile that hatcheries market. In my post I said: "Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources".
As for HUFA profile, that alone is NOT the main need of seahorses. Seahorses cannot manufacture their own DHA, and DHA is sadly lacking in MOST artemia profiles to the best of my knowledge. Using your link to the Iranian information for instance, shows 3 locations with varying DHA levels between 2.56 and 15.44 so that while HUFA level itself may be fine, it probably will also be deficient in the DHA levels.
Agree with that!I will say, it is a nice looking little aquarium for sure. My hesitation is it seems to make things look simple, for a species that need significant care. Frequent water changes, live food which the hatchery does seem to address, the risk of hydroids. These all in one packages marketed to the public seem cool, but I guess I worry it may oversimplify the process and you get the people who want nemo in a fishbowl buying it.