URGENT...VERY sick clown
- Thread starter delpni
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 0
Isnt the natural reef salinity 1.026? I maintain my stores systems at 1.024-1.026. When fish come in I match sg and then do not top off until the sg reaches natural levels. Usually takes 2 weeks.
JennM;533801 wrote: Small fish - juveniles, likely more fragile.
I've always aimed for 1.023 in reef systems. I know that more "modern" thinking is to go higher...I've been doing the same thing for 20+ years so I guess I'm just set in my ways.
Fish prefer it lower, certain inverts prefer it higher. Go too high and it becomes stressful to the fish, too low and it's stressful to the inverts. I was taught to aim for 1.023 so that's just how I've always done it.
We have BTAs in a tank we've maintained going on 10 years now, at that SG, and they are gigantic and regularly produce daughters. The original BTA was placed there in November 2000.
Like I said, others can and likely will disagree with me, and I'm OK with thatThere are many different ways and means. Since you asked me, that's my way. Certainly not the *only* way but it's worked for me since the mid 80s.
Jenn
If there is one thing I have learned in this hobby, it is that everyone has varying opinions based on their experience. lol Having the success you have over 20+years most certainly speaks volumes, to me anyway! I think I will slowly begin to drop my SG to 1.023-1.024. To make this change, given that I have cleaner shrimp and anemones, over how long of a time, in your opinion, would you make the drop?
I'm sure it varies from location to location. Red Sea is higher around 1.027.
In my experience, many wholesalers keep it at about 1.023 also, so it makes acclimation easier at the retail end.
In my experience, 1.023 is good to keep both fish and inverts content. There's also a bit of forgiveness for evaporation - if it's on the high side to begin with and evaporation that isn't addressed pushes it too high, that can really be stressful on some creatures. We have auto-topoff but not every hobbyist does.
It's a little bit like in a freshwater community tank - some freshies like higher pH, some like lower, but most fish can be just fine in neutral 7.0 pH (unless you've got a biotope that needs to be maintained at a particular pH)... it's like the "happy medium" that most can thrive in.
The store I worked in 10 years ago used to keep their SG in FO systems at 1.017-1.018 - less stressful on the fish, but not so much if the hobbyist was taking a fish home to a 1.023 tank or higher
Sometimes adaptations from what occurs naturally, are preferable. A closed system is not the same as the open water.
Jenn
In my experience, many wholesalers keep it at about 1.023 also, so it makes acclimation easier at the retail end.
In my experience, 1.023 is good to keep both fish and inverts content. There's also a bit of forgiveness for evaporation - if it's on the high side to begin with and evaporation that isn't addressed pushes it too high, that can really be stressful on some creatures. We have auto-topoff but not every hobbyist does.
It's a little bit like in a freshwater community tank - some freshies like higher pH, some like lower, but most fish can be just fine in neutral 7.0 pH (unless you've got a biotope that needs to be maintained at a particular pH)... it's like the "happy medium" that most can thrive in.
The store I worked in 10 years ago used to keep their SG in FO systems at 1.017-1.018 - less stressful on the fish, but not so much if the hobbyist was taking a fish home to a 1.023 tank or higher
Sometimes adaptations from what occurs naturally, are preferable. A closed system is not the same as the open water.
Jenn
I would probably drop it 0.01 every few days. Nothing good happens fast.
Most creatures react better to a drop, rather than a rise, but there's no sense rushing it.
Evap and topoff (if not done automatically) can cause that much of a change, and the smaller the system, the more it's going to swing.
Jenn
Most creatures react better to a drop, rather than a rise, but there's no sense rushing it.
Evap and topoff (if not done automatically) can cause that much of a change, and the smaller the system, the more it's going to swing.
Jenn
coolsurf;533817 wrote: If you ask 10 different people how to do something in this hobby, you will probably get 10 different answers with none actually being wrong!! LOL
Truer words never spoken. There are a lot of variables, and a lot of different ways of doing the same thing, with the same outcome, but much different techniques. That's why I mentioned that, "some may disagree" - and that's OK.
Keeping in mind what your particular store does and recommends, is a large factor that frequently goes overlooked. Bottom line, it's probably best to ask first, check the bag water for yourself, using the same instrument that you test your own tank with... even something like using different devices to compare different samples, can yield discrepancies.
If my water is 1.023 with a calibrated refactometer, but your water is 1.023 with an uncalibrated device that is off by 2 PPT can mean that the samples differ ... by a significant margin... if the uncalibrated device is reading high, the water could be 1.021, if it reads low, it could be 1.025.
Jenn
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
JennM;533815 wrote: I'm sure it varies from location to location. Red Sea is higher around 1.027.
In my experience, many wholesalers keep it at about 1.023 also, so it makes acclimation easier at the retail end.
In my experience, 1.023 is good to keep both fish and inverts content. There's also a bit of forgiveness for evaporation - if it's on the high side to begin with and evaporation that isn't addressed pushes it too high, that can really be stressful on some creatures. We have auto-topoff but not every hobbyist does.
It's a little bit like in a freshwater community tank - some freshies like higher pH, some like lower, but most fish can be just fine in neutral 7.0 pH (unless you've got a biotope that needs to be maintained at a particular pH)... it's like the "happy medium" that most can thrive in.
The store I worked in 10 years ago used to keep their SG in FO systems at 1.017-1.018 - less stressful on the fish, but not so much if the hobbyist was taking a fish home to a 1.023 tank or higher
Sometimes adaptations from what occurs naturally, are preferable. A closed system is not the same as the open water.
Jenn
Jenn, Im CERTAINLY not picking on you with this, but can you provide any information or details saying that fish "prefer" or "do better" at lower salinities? I ahve heard this so many times, but I dont believe it to be true.
Fish work to excrete salt from their systems constantly. In higher salinity, they have to work harder to excrete the salt.
I'm running out the door to the shop right now but I'll try to find some references - I know I've read them over the years, so I'll see if I can find one to link here. It's a valid question.
Similarly - hyposalinity treatment to rid parasites... part of that method involves creating a hostile environment for the parasite, so it doesn't thrive as well (parasite is an invertebrate)... but the other half of that is that it reduces stress on the fish...
Heading to work now - back in a bit when I'm caught up.
Jenn
I'm running out the door to the shop right now but I'll try to find some references - I know I've read them over the years, so I'll see if I can find one to link here. It's a valid question.
Similarly - hyposalinity treatment to rid parasites... part of that method involves creating a hostile environment for the parasite, so it doesn't thrive as well (parasite is an invertebrate)... but the other half of that is that it reduces stress on the fish...
Heading to work now - back in a bit when I'm caught up.
Jenn
OK... insert "Twilight Zone Theme Here"...
Just got to work... have that very book on display on the front counter and grabbed it. We're both reading the new updated version... back in my early days, Moe's books were the only ones readily available, and I was just looking at the exact passage that Brett just posted...
The only thing I'd add, is earlier on the page he does feel that it's a good idea to keep reef tanks at 1.026, and mentions that some delicate shrimps etc., will expire quickly upon a rapid salinity change. (that's me paraphrasing the paragraph immediately above what Brett posted).
The method in my madness is that many hobbyist systems can and do fluctuate due to evaporation, and 1.023 gives a comfortable margin. Keeping it on the higher end provides less wiggle room for it to rise into dangerous territory. The paragraph following Brett's quote, supports that notion also.
I've got the revised Conscientious Marine Aquarist open also - page 104 in the new hardcover edition. Fenner goes into detail about different types of systems, FO systems typically 1.022-1.025, commercial FO systems often 1.017-1.020 and describes the reasoning including the less hospitable environment for parasites. He also mentions that the O2 concentration is enhanced, increasing the the carrying capacity and possibly the health of the system.
There's too much for me to copy here but it's a good section to read. He mentions that Red Sea fish come from 1.027, and should be maintained at 1.023-1.025.
He also mentions that a rapid reduction in SG can correlate to spawning activity (interesting!).
And he mentions that many hydrometers are calibrated to 60F, and if a hobbyist wants to maintain a SG of 1.025, it should read 1.023 on that type of hydrometer.
Most refractometers have ATC (automatic temperature compensation) ...
Jenn
Just got to work... have that very book on display on the front counter and grabbed it. We're both reading the new updated version... back in my early days, Moe's books were the only ones readily available, and I was just looking at the exact passage that Brett just posted...
The only thing I'd add, is earlier on the page he does feel that it's a good idea to keep reef tanks at 1.026, and mentions that some delicate shrimps etc., will expire quickly upon a rapid salinity change. (that's me paraphrasing the paragraph immediately above what Brett posted).
The method in my madness is that many hobbyist systems can and do fluctuate due to evaporation, and 1.023 gives a comfortable margin. Keeping it on the higher end provides less wiggle room for it to rise into dangerous territory. The paragraph following Brett's quote, supports that notion also.
I've got the revised Conscientious Marine Aquarist open also - page 104 in the new hardcover edition. Fenner goes into detail about different types of systems, FO systems typically 1.022-1.025, commercial FO systems often 1.017-1.020 and describes the reasoning including the less hospitable environment for parasites. He also mentions that the O2 concentration is enhanced, increasing the the carrying capacity and possibly the health of the system.
There's too much for me to copy here but it's a good section to read. He mentions that Red Sea fish come from 1.027, and should be maintained at 1.023-1.025.
He also mentions that a rapid reduction in SG can correlate to spawning activity (interesting!).
And he mentions that many hydrometers are calibrated to 60F, and if a hobbyist wants to maintain a SG of 1.025, it should read 1.023 on that type of hydrometer.
Most refractometers have ATC (automatic temperature compensation) ...
Jenn
One of the clowns is - so I'm told - a Maroon, though any picture I have seen of a true maroon clown, they have "hooks" coming out either side of their cheeks and mine does not. I also have read they are extremely aggressive (as far as clowns go), and mine is not; he's actually quite friendly, unless you mess with his anemone!! My largest clown is a False Percula and my healthy baby (about 1-1.5 inches long) is supposedly a False Percula, though I am wondering if he is actually a True Percula due to his markings (I am only saying this compared to pictures I have looked at of these fish; bright orange, white stripes, and bold black markings bordering. His center white strip on wraps half way around his body). Either way, I was warned against placing these fish together and for quite some time, I had the "Maroon" in his own tank; I moved him to the 75 gallon with the other two after 2-3 weeks of there settling in. When I first introduced him, I had him in a breeding net so they could not physcially fight and to this day, they have not and it's been nearly 2 months. :thumbs: I like what my LFS says: "Fish don't live by a handbook and don't know the 'rules' of what fish to like and dislike!" lol If things change however, and they begin to fight, I always have my BioCube ready if a temporary move is necessary...
Absolutely. While there are people who have kept more than a pair of clowns in the same tank, it is usually a very large tank. Even so, some have done OK in typical size systems. This is the exception rather than the rule.
I'd pare down to two clowns, and get rid of the damsels. Sometimes it's hard to give a damsel away, though. I had the same issue with a "rescue" yellowtailed damsel. He lives in my frag tank and is doing fine... but I tried to give him away with no success.
I'd pare down to two clowns, and get rid of the damsels. Sometimes it's hard to give a damsel away, though. I had the same issue with a "rescue" yellowtailed damsel. He lives in my frag tank and is doing fine... but I tried to give him away with no success.
I think OP has 2 threads going - I've posted in both, I think in the other I asked what species he had... going to check that now.
Multiple clown species in the same tank, usually does not end well, unless it's a very large tank with enough territory for all. IMO a 75 doesn't fit into that category. They might get along OK as juveniles, but as they become sexually mature, the fighting starts.
Jenn
Multiple clown species in the same tank, usually does not end well, unless it's a very large tank with enough territory for all. IMO a 75 doesn't fit into that category. They might get along OK as juveniles, but as they become sexually mature, the fighting starts.
Jenn
So you have a Maroon, an Ocellaris and a Percula?
You can't tell an Ocellaris from a Percula just by markings, especially nowadays with all the tank-raised, "designer" fish. The two are closely related and can and will hybridize, so I'm not as concerned about those 2 together (key physical differences are the amount of fin rays and teeth - who gets that close to check?)... colour is really not a good way to judge. They are close enough that they don't seem to mind if you start with juveniles.
The Maroon will eventually become larger and more aggressive - not a good match with the smaller species, IMO.
Yes, it's true that fish don't read the books - but the literature is there for a reason. There will always be exceptions to the generalizations, and some that don't behave as expected, but IMO that's not a good "excuse" to ignore the good advice you received suggesting you don't mix species.
It would be one thing if you decided to mingle species after keeping the individual specimens for several years and knowing their own unique dispositions, but it's not a good idea to just go ahead and disregard conventional wisdom "just because".
Jenn
You can't tell an Ocellaris from a Percula just by markings, especially nowadays with all the tank-raised, "designer" fish. The two are closely related and can and will hybridize, so I'm not as concerned about those 2 together (key physical differences are the amount of fin rays and teeth - who gets that close to check?)... colour is really not a good way to judge. They are close enough that they don't seem to mind if you start with juveniles.
The Maroon will eventually become larger and more aggressive - not a good match with the smaller species, IMO.
Yes, it's true that fish don't read the books - but the literature is there for a reason. There will always be exceptions to the generalizations, and some that don't behave as expected, but IMO that's not a good "excuse" to ignore the good advice you received suggesting you don't mix species.
It would be one thing if you decided to mingle species after keeping the individual specimens for several years and knowing their own unique dispositions, but it's not a good idea to just go ahead and disregard conventional wisdom "just because".
Jenn
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
This, while sound in theory, doesnt apply practically. Otherwise, why not keep these fish in 1.003? Why does that kill them? I dont discount that hyposalinity has negative effects on parasites, I just want to see where it is "beneficial" to fish, and why mother nature hasnt figured this out yet!
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Again, "theoretically", its sound. yet, why are reef fish NOT found in less saline conditions naturally then, if it provides benefits to them? Please refernce where other "experts" show where lower salinities than NSW is beneficial to teh fish. That is what I want to see.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Jenn, this is all double talk to my question. I dont really care (honestly), what it does to parasites, I am refuting that lower salinity is <u>BETTER </u>for marine fish.
Well, I did provide 2 references from noteworthy authorities... and as I said earlier, that's how I was taught based on the knowledge of the day, and, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I guess it's like many things, there are many techniques and opinions, and while they may vary, they aren't "wrong."
Jenn
I guess it's like many things, there are many techniques and opinions, and while they may vary, they aren't "wrong."
Jenn
I am just thinking about Monty Python's "Argument" sketch...
We could go all over the place with that, including food sources, rock and coral structures and such, found in higher salinity etc.
I can ask the same question, can you demonstrate that maintaining fish at 1.023 is somehow detrimental? That seems to be what you're implying.
I suggest that the fish are more adaptable to different specific gravities, but the key is to maintain a steady specific gravity, regardless of the chosen value. I think we can both agree that consistency is important.
Jenn
We could go all over the place with that, including food sources, rock and coral structures and such, found in higher salinity etc.
I can ask the same question, can you demonstrate that maintaining fish at 1.023 is somehow detrimental? That seems to be what you're implying.
I suggest that the fish are more adaptable to different specific gravities, but the key is to maintain a steady specific gravity, regardless of the chosen value. I think we can both agree that consistency is important.
Jenn
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Actually, the Moe refernce says that "theoretically", they should benefit. Using the same theoretical logic, the fish should benefit MIORe in 1.003, or even 1.000. Why not keep them ther then? because the theory isnt practical. Plain and simple. Theoretically, you can keep a shark in a 55 gallon, but practically, it isnt feasible. You see where Im going. Theoretical mention doesnt tell me anything.
And the Fenner refernce does not, in any way, indicate that fish do "better" at lower salinity. It says that parasites do worse, and 02 concenttration for increased carrying capacity- both ahve NOTHING to do with what I asked. Neither says "the fish will do better". In fact, I have discussed this with Fenner, and he believes the exact opposite.
Essentially, I am merely stating that hyposalinity, that while certainly not dangerously or aggressively harmful to a fish, is an unnatural condition for the fish to be in, and is harmful to a degree, and will argue that it is not, in fact, "better for the fish". It is tolerable for the fish, and the things that cause harm to fish are impaired by it, but it is not better for them. Can a refernce be provided where a published author states "Hyposaline conditions, as compared to NSW, causes the fish vitality to improve by X,Y, Z"? I highly doubt it, but if it does, I would like to see it.
And the Fenner refernce does not, in any way, indicate that fish do "better" at lower salinity. It says that parasites do worse, and 02 concenttration for increased carrying capacity- both ahve NOTHING to do with what I asked. Neither says "the fish will do better". In fact, I have discussed this with Fenner, and he believes the exact opposite.
Essentially, I am merely stating that hyposalinity, that while certainly not dangerously or aggressively harmful to a fish, is an unnatural condition for the fish to be in, and is harmful to a degree, and will argue that it is not, in fact, "better for the fish". It is tolerable for the fish, and the things that cause harm to fish are impaired by it, but it is not better for them. Can a refernce be provided where a published author states "Hyposaline conditions, as compared to NSW, causes the fish vitality to improve by X,Y, Z"? I highly doubt it, but if it does, I would like to see it.
