Aquarium Myths and Misinformation

[Jay Hemdal]

Although carbon may or may not be the only cause, captivity is the key. Fish in the sea don't get it. But of course we don't use carbon in the sea.

I actually have documented two cases of HLLE in fish in the wild: a juvenile emporer angel in a black sand area and a black longnose tang. The latter was photographed with a strong flash, so that made it stand out more, but the emperor was a classic case. I suspect the volcanic black sand may have been the cause.

Jay

 

[Paul B]

OK, I stand corrected. I dove for over 50 years and never saw it, I guess I just wasn't looking closely.

But if they got it in the sea, someone must have dumped in an awful lot of carbon.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

OK, I stand corrected. I dove for over 50 years and never saw it, I guess I just wasn't looking closely.

But if they got it in the sea, someone must have dumped in an awful lot of carbon.

I think the volcanic sand had some effect on it. The angel photo was by David Doubiliet (spelling?) for National Geographic.

Jay

 

[jda]

Can we ask questions about potential myths?

If so, do sea hares actually crash tanks when they get stressed or die? I have never had one die, so I don't personally know, but I see this all of the time on the internet, but I cannot remember ever seeing anybody post about it happening.

Is this a myth?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Can we ask questions about potential myths?

If so, do sea hares actually crash tanks when they get stressed or die? I have never had one die, so I don't personally know, but I see this all of the time on the internet, but I cannot remember ever seeing anybody post about it happening.

Is this a myth?

IDK for sure, probably depends on species. But, some sea hares can "ink" and that is a huge problem. I've had them shrink away due to not having the proper food, and when those die from starvation, they don't seem to cause any problems.

Two related topics are sea cucumbers killing tanks when they stress out and evert their guts and then boxfish releasing toxins and killing fish....both of these things happen, but usually with freshly caught animals. That may be like poison dart frogs that are highly toxic when they first come in from the wild, but captive ones are not as toxic.

I pretty much focused on fish myths, since that's my area of work.

Jay

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I

Sorry - your post was blank.

Jay

 

[twiatr2001]

Thank You for taking the time to add to this forum, I read through this whole post and found everything very interesting, some of these myths I have heard, but the majority I have not, nonetheless all the information mentioned is great, Thank You again.

 

[Treefer32]

This came up as a suggested article. I'm glad I read it over a year later.

I have two thoughts that stuck out to me.
Tank stability between small and large tanks - I think the point was missed on this one. I agree that if all things were equal both smaller and larger aquariums would be just as stable. However, I would call it fat finger syndrome. Humans make mistakes and those mistakes can kill everything or have no impact. For example, if I screw up and dose more kalkwasser than I should in my 300 gallon, the impact is going to be pretty minimal unless I dump 20 gallons in. However. I screwed up once and put a pump in a 5 gallon bucket to keep my kalkwasser saturated in around 3 gallons of kalkwasser. I dosed based on top off in a 55 gallon. By the end of the day it killed everything in the tank. I was able to rescue a couple fish that were still a live and move to a QT, but lost all corals and most fish.

The issue is not stability, it's the human behind the stability. One mistake in 55 gallons or less can equal disaster. The same mistake in a 100+ gallons can maybe mean a couple fish are impacted, but not a significant issue.

The second issue - voltage:
I Had a heater go bad, it was connected to an apex, which was connected to a GFCI outlet. I didn't realize what was happening for 3 weeks, but I lost 2-3 fish a week. (I only had 16 fish or so). I couldn't figure out why, each fish had different symptoms, some had signs of uronemea (pink patches), some had signs of disaease, some just no signs of anything, just fell over dead. My corals grew faster than ever. (LPS and SPS). Couldn't figure out what the heck is going on until an LFS Said to check for voltage. That there's scientific articles out there about scientists using electrified metal plates in the ocean to accelerate regrowth of corals in reefs.

I told him I don't feel anything when I'm cleaning the tank, he said I have to form a ground to feel it. Bare feet and or touch something grounded with my hand in the water. Or a voltage meter. I tried a meter and couldn't get a solid reading no matter what setting I used nor how I grounded it. So, I used my own body, barefoot and touching something I thought was grounded. Immediately I felt my hair stand up. It was a constant buzz. I eventually powered a device off 1 at a time and discovered it was 1 of my two heaters.

I had a black long nose tang left alive in the tank and my sump was in my fish room, so I tested it a couple times to ensure I got the right device. I turned the heater back on and ran to view the tang and it started swimming in circles. I unplugged the heater and immediately the tang stopped swimming in circles and swam normally. I threw both heaters away and bought new ones.

I don't know why my apex power bar didn't do anything nor the gfci didn't trip, but based on my testing, it seemed the electricity going into the tank was constant. It wasn't oscillating up and down. I don't know how electricity works, but it definitely killed my fish and caused my corals to grow faster in the 3 weeks it was leaking in the tank.

I still have the black tang 6 years later. He's my most docile and friendly fish. Wants to be friends with everyone. He's probably less depressed due to his shock therapy. But, no signs of mental decline. Feeds great, loves nori, sleeps peacefully, no observable residual issues with him.

 

[GARRIGA]

That's interesting. Electro shocking for coral growth

 

[Treefer32]

That's interesting. Electro shocking for coral growth

A couple quick articles based on a quick google search. (I wonder if coral farms use these methods to accelerate growth for fragging and selling)

Frontiers | In-situ electro-stimulation enhanced branching but not massive scleractinian coral growth

Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is the main component of the skeleton of scleractinian corals and is a preferable substrate for attachment and growth. An electro-s...

www.frontiersin.org

This is another one - see electrified Arks:

Coral Reef Arks

coralarks.org

 

[GARRIGA]

A couple quick articles based on a quick google search. (I wonder if coral farms use these methods to accelerate growth for fragging and selling)

Frontiers | In-situ electro-stimulation enhanced branching but not massive scleractinian coral growth

Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is the main component of the skeleton of scleractinian corals and is a preferable substrate for attachment and growth. An electro-s...

www.frontiersin.org

This is another one - see electrified Arks:

Coral Reef Arks

coralarks.org

Don't know if farms using this or it's affect on other inverts plus how would they control GHA without fish such as tangs? Guessing if one would manually remove algae then perhaps it's feasible assuming it actually works in a captive environment. Not something I'm venturing to try, however.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Small aquariums are inherently less stable than larger ones: I love this myth! It’s one that every aquarist “knows is true”

Additional to the remark of @Treefer32 I also have a comment on this one:

The ratio of surface to volume differs in tanks of different sizes. Let's say you have a tank (I am used to the metric system) of 150 x 60 x 60 cm and a smaller one with only half L x D x H, 75 x 30 x 30 cm and let's say only the bottom and the back glass are covered by coralline algae, then you have 150 cm x 60 cm x 2 = 18,000 cm2 at 540 l volume while you have 75 cm x 30 cm x 2 = 4,500 cm2 at 67.5 l volume. While you have 8 times the volume (because it is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8), you only have 4 times the surface because it is only 2 x 2 = 4, q. e. d..

The volume increases with the exponent 3 or cubic while the surface only increases with the exponent 2 or square. Yes, it's logic if you think about the mathematics behind it and cannot be disproved.

This means all processes and consumptions that are taking place on surfaces like microbial processes, algal and also coral growth are taking place to a relatively bigger extent in smaller tanks than in larger tanks which alters water quality, nutrients etc. faster in smaller tanks than in larger tanks. Simplified, smaller tanks are less stable than larger tanks, it is true.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

A couple quick articles based on a quick google search. (I wonder if coral farms use these methods to accelerate growth for fragging and selling)

Frontiers | In-situ electro-stimulation enhanced branching but not massive scleractinian coral growth

Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is the main component of the skeleton of scleractinian corals and is a preferable substrate for attachment and growth. An electro-s...

www.frontiersin.org

This is another one - see electrified Arks:

Coral Reef Arks

coralarks.org

I think this method is simply a way of increasing alk and pH in the open ocean, and closed systems can do that in other ways.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Additional to the remark of @Treefer32 I also have a comment on this one:

The ratio of surface to volume differs in tanks of different sizes. Let's say you have a tank (I am used to the metric system) of 150 x 60 x 60 cm and a smaller one with only half L x D x H, 75 x 30 x 30 cm and let's say only the bottom and the back glass are covered by coralline algae, then you have 150 cm x 60 cm x 2 = 18,000 cm2 at 540 l volume while you have 75 cm x 30 cm x 2 = 4,500 cm2 at 67.5 l volume. While you have 8 times the volume (because it is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8), you only have 4 times the surface because it is only 2 x 2 = 4, q. e. d..

The volume increases with the exponent 3 or cubic while the surface only increases with the exponent 2 or square. Yes, it's logic if you think about the mathematics behind it and cannot be disproved.

This means all processes and consumptions that are taking place on surfaces like microbial processes, algal and also coral growth are taking place to a relatively bigger extent in smaller tanks than in larger tanks which alters water quality, nutrients etc. faster in smaller tanks than in larger tanks. Simplified, smaller tanks are less stable than larger tanks, it is true.

That’s a good point, but I’d have to see if that just pertains to the inside surface of the vessel, or also to the surfaces of the rock, etc. in the tank. Decades ago, I ran some tests to measure the amount of water trapped between the interstices of aquarium substrate (for more accurate tank volume calculations). I used different sized gravel in a graduate cylinder, then measured the water it took to fill the cylinder. I was surprised to see that the water volume trapped in the interstices was about 30% of the gravel volume, and it didn’t vary much with grain size until you got really far apart, like sand versus pebbles.

Surface area for biological processes isn’t much of a limiting factor in aquariums as they are normally run.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

This came up as a suggested article. I'm glad I read it over a year later.

I have two thoughts that stuck out to me.
Tank stability between small and large tanks - I think the point was missed on this one. I agree that if all things were equal both smaller and larger aquariums would be just as stable. However, I would call it fat finger syndrome. Humans make mistakes and those mistakes can kill everything or have no impact. For example, if I screw up and dose more kalkwasser than I should in my 300 gallon, the impact is going to be pretty minimal unless I dump 20 gallons in. However. I screwed up once and put a pump in a 5 gallon bucket to keep my kalkwasser saturated in around 3 gallons of kalkwasser. I dosed based on top off in a 55 gallon. By the end of the day it killed everything in the tank. I was able to rescue a couple fish that were still a live and move to a QT, but lost all corals and most fish.

The issue is not stability, it's the human behind the stability. One mistake in 55 gallons or less can equal disaster. The same mistake in a 100+ gallons can maybe mean a couple fish are impacted, but not a significant issue.

The second issue - voltage:
I Had a heater go bad, it was connected to an apex, which was connected to a GFCI outlet. I didn't realize what was happening for 3 weeks, but I lost 2-3 fish a week. (I only had 16 fish or so). I couldn't figure out why, each fish had different symptoms, some had signs of uronemea (pink patches), some had signs of disaease, some just no signs of anything, just fell over dead. My corals grew faster than ever. (LPS and SPS). Couldn't figure out what the heck is going on until an LFS Said to check for voltage. That there's scientific articles out there about scientists using electrified metal plates in the ocean to accelerate regrowth of corals in reefs.

I told him I don't feel anything when I'm cleaning the tank, he said I have to form a ground to feel it. Bare feet and or touch something grounded with my hand in the water. Or a voltage meter. I tried a meter and couldn't get a solid reading no matter what setting I used nor how I grounded it. So, I used my own body, barefoot and touching something I thought was grounded. Immediately I felt my hair stand up. It was a constant buzz. I eventually powered a device off 1 at a time and discovered it was 1 of my two heaters.

I had a black long nose tang left alive in the tank and my sump was in my fish room, so I tested it a couple times to ensure I got the right device. I turned the heater back on and ran to view the tang and it started swimming in circles. I unplugged the heater and immediately the tang stopped swimming in circles and swam normally. I threw both heaters away and bought new ones.

I don't know why my apex power bar didn't do anything nor the gfci didn't trip, but based on my testing, it seemed the electricity going into the tank was constant. It wasn't oscillating up and down. I don't know how electricity works, but it definitely killed my fish and caused my corals to grow faster in the 3 weeks it was leaking in the tank.

I still have the black tang 6 years later. He's my most docile and friendly fish. Wants to be friends with everyone. He's probably less depressed due to his shock therapy. But, no signs of mental decline. Feeds great, loves nori, sleeps peacefully, no observable residual issues with him.

I did sort of allude to human error being the true cause of small tanks being “less stable” in terms of it being easier to add too many fish to a smaller tank. I should also have mentioned that fish grow, and that changes the dynamics over time. I’m not sure I agree with dosing mistakes being more prevalent in smaller tanks. But I think I also alluded to that, didn’t I mention that adding one 2” fish to a 100 gallon tank is inconsequential, but the same fish added to a full ten gallon tank would be a problem? Same applies to anything added to a tank - overfeeding, medications, etc.

In terms of “voltage” - did I clarify the difference between “induced voltage” versus short or open circuits? Induced voltage is what I’m saying does NOT cause any health issues. Short circuits can and do cause problems in aquariums. I’ve never heard of increased coral growth from shorts, but I wonder - in those cases electrolysis is taking place, could that change the water chemistry to benefit the corals?

 

[schooncw]

One of my favourite myths, is that Cleaner Wrasses and Cleaner Shrimp will "cure" ick.

 

[Hans-Werner]

That’s a good point, but I’d have to see if that just pertains to the inside surface of the vessel, or also to the surfaces of the rock, etc. in the tank. Decades ago, I ran some tests to measure the amount of water trapped between the interstices of aquarium substrate (for more accurate tank volume calculations). I used different sized gravel in a graduate cylinder, then measured the water it took to fill the cylinder. I was surprised to see that the water volume trapped in the interstices was about 30% of the gravel volume, and it didn’t vary much with grain size until you got really far apart, like sand versus pebbles.

Surface area for biological processes isn’t much of a limiting factor in aquariums as they are normally run.

Yes, of course it is true, the surface of glasses to volume ratio cannot be applied to a decorated aquarium 1 :1 but the general assumption that the surface to volume ratio grows not with the volume remains true. But it has a lot of variables, for example how much space a branched coral occupies etc. If you have a 40 cm Acropora in a tank 60 cm high if fills the volume. In a public show tank 3 m high it will fill only a small part of the volume between bottom and surface. For massive or incrusting corals it is different because they are really "surface".

It is complicated but the general assumption that smaller tanks have more consumption and microbioal processes than larger ones and in this respect are more "unstable" remains true.

 

[GARRIGA]

Can make a smaller tank more capable by adding a larger filter. For example, oversized canister filled with biological media can out-compete live rock and act as a buffer should corals not be able to handle the load. Same with adding an oversized chaeto reactor where pruning controls nutrient extract. Understanding that corals will always have first shot at ammonia produced by fish therefore over-filtering shouldn't be a detriment.

Ran an experiment last two plus years with a 20H where biological was 25% volume of tank and no matter how much I overfed it there was no trace of ammonia or nitrites and nitrates/phosphates solved with carbon dosing. No WC either therefore less chance for error from that.

Next iteration will have an undergravel filter with two inches of substrate drawn by an FX2 which will then empty into a Fluval AquaClear 110 converted to either Fuge or ATS and this will run several tests including at some point adding corals.

Goal is to over-filter while simplifying maintenance and use of UVC and peroxide to finalize plans for main build which will be 200-400g depending on available electrical juice as I may not be able to power the necessary pumps, lights and heaters for what I ultimately want.

No WC regardless size decided on. Goal is stability through ICP testing, sponges, biological media and algae and other means to solve pollutants including coral warfare besides exchange of water. Minimize amount of dosing pumps. Minimize evaporation to that necessary for dosing liquids and might because of this implement a calcium reactor. Minimize use of wavemakers by having a closed loop system solve most if not all of flow needs.

This beast headed for autopilot because I'm getting too old to fret over details or waste remaining time doing manual labor vs just enjoying living art. Reefing should be a passion of love and not labor. At least it's not for me.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Ive never had difficulty maintaining nano tanks without doing anything special whatsoever...If smaller tanks are more difficult then a large tank must be beyond easy...

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Yes, of course it is true, the surface of glasses to volume ratio cannot be applied to a decorated aquarium 1 :1 but the general assumption that the surface to volume ratio grows not with the volume remains true. But it has a lot of variables, for example how much space a branched coral occupies etc. If you have a 40 cm Acropora in a tank 60 cm high if fills the volume. In a public show tank 3 m high it will fill only a small part of the volume between bottom and surface. For massive or incrusting corals it is different because they are really "surface".

It is complicated but the general assumption that smaller tanks have more consumption and microbioal processes than larger ones and in this respect are more "unstable" remains true.

I'm not sure about your conclusion. The genesis of this article was a book on "Mini-Aquariums" that I wrote back in 2008. For that book, I had set up a couple of dozen of micro and mini aquariums to use as "models". I found that all of these "tanks", some as small as 6 ounces, did not show the expected instability issues that everyone would have thought that they would have. I then set about trying to rationalize why that would be the case.

In the end, it comes down to instability in smaller tanks only being a problem for people who don't understand the principles involved, and treating them improperly, mostly in terms of missing the bioload part of the equation.

I don't think that I mentioned, but a HUGE factor in the "big tanks are more stable" argument comes from the LFS themselves. I worked in the retail pet trade for a decade or so and we ALWAYS told our customers that - because it equated to higher sales volume (grin). It makes this a difficult myth to bust because it is something that all new aquarists are told as dogma from day one....