Paul_MTS
MAD
not sure about if it's true or not but it's a great way to stop people buying too big fish by saying that will have a slow and painful death eventually bursting open....well thats what i tell customers
Fish Myths
- Thread starter Phantom Thief
- Start date
April FOTM Photo Contest Starts Now!
🏆 Click to enter! 🏆
LoachLover
Snails Beware
Unfortunately even that won't stop some peoplepaul_v_biker said:
And they're the ones I track down and re-educate with a baseball batLoachLover said:
Stunt this! **WHACK**
LoachLover
Snails Beware
ummmm, I'm glad I don't stunt my fishSirMinion said:
moneywastedonfish
Fish Crazy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 0
just my thoughts on myth 1.
I have seen birds with fishing line that is embedded in the skin, ie. the skin grows over the line and the bones and ligaments and muscle still continues to grow.
I have also read some rather gruesome tales (i will try to track down the reference but it was some years ago) of prisoners who have been kept so long that the skin once again grows over the ropes.
I know that both of these could be influenced by the cutting action of the line/rope but in both cases the body and internals continued to grow.
But i can't see the fish stopping growing unless there was some physical resistance, ie the fish would have to be touching the sides of the tank at all times.
As someone else said the ammount of bacteria would be proportional to the surface area, although the filter is designed to make bacteria 'comfortable' so if the surface area of the filter medium and the gravel was the same the filter would probably have more bacteria.
Ciao
I have seen birds with fishing line that is embedded in the skin, ie. the skin grows over the line and the bones and ligaments and muscle still continues to grow.
I have also read some rather gruesome tales (i will try to track down the reference but it was some years ago) of prisoners who have been kept so long that the skin once again grows over the ropes.
I know that both of these could be influenced by the cutting action of the line/rope but in both cases the body and internals continued to grow.
But i can't see the fish stopping growing unless there was some physical resistance, ie the fish would have to be touching the sides of the tank at all times.
As someone else said the ammount of bacteria would be proportional to the surface area, although the filter is designed to make bacteria 'comfortable' so if the surface area of the filter medium and the gravel was the same the filter would probably have more bacteria.
Ciao
moneywastedonfish
Fish Crazy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 0
one more myth,
freshwater fish don't drink but salt water ones do - its true.
freshwater fish don't drink but salt water ones do - its true.
Synirr
"No one is a failure unless you try"
moneywastedonfish, you make a valid point, but it can be easily observed that a large fish in a tank which is too small will stunt -- one of the reasons why iridescent sharks usually only get about 12" in captivity while they can reach 40" in the wild. Living in a small area and having wire or rope tied around a part of your body are very different situations... nevermind that humans and birds are quite different from fish, eh?
As for the organs thing, I have no idea. I do know that, in the past when I was still very young and ignorant, my mother and I kept a common goldfish in a 10 gallon aquarium, and it lived about 15 years before it died.
As for the organs thing, I have no idea. I do know that, in the past when I was still very young and ignorant, my mother and I kept a common goldfish in a 10 gallon aquarium, and it lived about 15 years before it died.
OP
OP
Phantom Thief
Population Control Volunteer
Actually synirr, you bring up a very good point. Many fishes grow much larger in the wild then they do in the home aquarium. Does this mean we are stunting them?
P.T.
P.T.
mwm
Push it to the limts
I never thought of that..We have all stunted our fish, should we beat ourselfs... 
Sorrell
If you're a bird, I'm a bird
That's actually truePhantom Thief said:
Bettas are territorial and will out do themselves partrolling a large tank. Also the larger tanks will have filtration which is also stressful on a betta. I'm not suggesting the should live their lives in jars, but I certainly wouldn't go over 10 gallons tops
Synirr
"No one is a failure unless you try"
In most cases I'd say yes. For iridescent sharks the cause (in my opinion) is almost always tank size, but keep in mind that diet and water quality can also stunt fish. It's possible, too, that some species commonly bred for tanks have been bred down in size, though I can't say for certain if that's true. I just know that aquarium fish are bred for colour and finnage, and in the case of crowntail bettas, that also results in them being, on average, smaller. The same thing could possibly happen with other fish as well, I supposePhantom Thief said:
mwm
Push it to the limts
Good to know sorrell ive heard that to but i didnt understand why it would be true, but now it makes sense 
Stunting occurs in nature, quite frequently. Consider a lake full of juvenile fish that had its food source cut in half -- the fish will become viable adults, but will be somewhat smaller due to the nutrient limitaitons. State wildlife and gaming commissions check these things all the time, and sometimes will 1) limit fishing a lake so that the fish may grow bigger next season or later or 2) will encourage a lot of fishing to thin out the population and let the remaining population get at more reseources. Long-term stunting (from polluted waters, or again food limitations) is why there are dwarf species of some of our favorite fish.
Yes, there is a hormone that is excreted by fish as they are growing, but the water changes we should all be doing limits that. Also, there are several (most) fish that can grow to be signifcantly larger in the wild than in home aquaria. However, when you consier that most aquarium fish are fairly low on the food chain, and that large percentages of them will be killed and eaten very quickly, aquairum life doesn't look too bad now.
I would like to see a picture of an aquarium fish, that is bulging with misshapen organs purely from stunting -- not from cancer, or an infection, or anything else. No more of this "I read..." or "I know a guy who knows a guy..." stuff. Just because it has been passed around on the internet does not mean it is true -- someone could have made it up to scare and horrify some fool that had a bala shark in a 10 gal tank, and since then it has taken on a life of its own. Stunted fish from the wild do not show these bulging organs.
Finally, the chemicals that get adsorbed onto the actived carbon are in equilibrium with the tank water. The activated carbon will take up chemcials until that equilibrium is reached. What that equilibrium point is depends upon the concentration of the pollutant and how used up the carbon is already -- what percentage of the active spots on the carbon are still available.
Normally, when using carbon to take out medications for example, it will take up an overwhelming percentage of the chemicals. Say from 100% to 0.1%. What I mean is that 0.1% is the equilibrium. Now, you do a 25% water change. So, concentration of chemicals is now 0.075% in your tank. If you do not change the carbon at this time, the carbon will release some of the chemicals, again going towards equilibrium. Since, most of the chemicals are on the carbon now (99.9% of the original amount) given enough time (and this depends on temp, pH, etc.) the sysytem will tend toward equilibrium again. Meaning the carbon realeases 0.025% back into your water, to bring the concentration of chemcials back to 0.1% -- equilibrium.
Not a huge amount, but you see how a little bit can be released back. And long-term exposure, even at very low concetrations can lead to ill health.
Yes, there is a hormone that is excreted by fish as they are growing, but the water changes we should all be doing limits that. Also, there are several (most) fish that can grow to be signifcantly larger in the wild than in home aquaria. However, when you consier that most aquarium fish are fairly low on the food chain, and that large percentages of them will be killed and eaten very quickly, aquairum life doesn't look too bad now.
I would like to see a picture of an aquarium fish, that is bulging with misshapen organs purely from stunting -- not from cancer, or an infection, or anything else. No more of this "I read..." or "I know a guy who knows a guy..." stuff. Just because it has been passed around on the internet does not mean it is true -- someone could have made it up to scare and horrify some fool that had a bala shark in a 10 gal tank, and since then it has taken on a life of its own. Stunted fish from the wild do not show these bulging organs.
Finally, the chemicals that get adsorbed onto the actived carbon are in equilibrium with the tank water. The activated carbon will take up chemcials until that equilibrium is reached. What that equilibrium point is depends upon the concentration of the pollutant and how used up the carbon is already -- what percentage of the active spots on the carbon are still available.
Normally, when using carbon to take out medications for example, it will take up an overwhelming percentage of the chemicals. Say from 100% to 0.1%. What I mean is that 0.1% is the equilibrium. Now, you do a 25% water change. So, concentration of chemicals is now 0.075% in your tank. If you do not change the carbon at this time, the carbon will release some of the chemicals, again going towards equilibrium. Since, most of the chemicals are on the carbon now (99.9% of the original amount) given enough time (and this depends on temp, pH, etc.) the sysytem will tend toward equilibrium again. Meaning the carbon realeases 0.025% back into your water, to bring the concentration of chemcials back to 0.1% -- equilibrium.
Not a huge amount, but you see how a little bit can be released back. And long-term exposure, even at very low concetrations can lead to ill health.
And, I've got a myth that I know everyone has heard:
There is ich in every fish tank
"What utter rubbish" noted Dr. Peter Burgess in Nov 2001's Practical Fishkeeping He studied Ichthyophthirius multifiliis for his Ph.D. thesis topic. Many fish from dealer's tanks are carriers, and if the fish is only lightly infected, the whitespots may not be visible or are only present on the gills of the fish -- not visible from the outside.
The neverending ich myths come about if you do not treat ich to the fullest -- through several lifecycles and with sufficient medications. It is tough since you know the fish aren't happy swimming around in the medications, and you haven't seen whitespots for like 5 days -- but you must keep medicating! That is the only way to completely eliminate it, and then you can put the neverending ich to bed for good. This is especially pertinant since there is at least one commerical medication that claims that ich is gone in 24 hours after adding the medication. This is just plain wrong -- ich has several life cycles and is only vulnerable to medication in one of those stages. Virtually all of the medications lose all of their potency after 24 hours of adding them, so you have to keep redosing so that effective medications are available and all the Ich has a chance to be exposed.
And, as if often noted, a fish may be a carrier for a long period of time (with just one or two protozoa living in the gills) and not break out until stressed. Also, lots of us add a new fish here or there which, if they are also carriers, may push the tank over a critical limit. Makes a good case for quarantining, eh? Two-weeks is not really enough time for ich to go through enough lifecycles so, it is unlikely to know for sure if your newly-bought fish is a carrier or not, for at least a month.
It is important to note that Ich is an organism -- yes, fish can become more suspectible and show more symptoms when stressed, by cooler temperatures, for example. But, if there is no I. multifiliis in the tank, your fish will not get Ich. An othewise healthy carrier host that is stressed may spread it to your other fish, but if there is no Ich in the first place, it is exactly the same problem as when your mother told you if you didn't wear your coat in the winter, you would get a cold. Not wearing a coat can weaken your immune system, making you more susceptible to the cold germs your office-mate is sneezing out, but the act of not wearing a coat alone will not make you sick. Same with ich and stress. Stresses will make the fish more susceptible, but the stresses themselves cannot cause the ich organism to spotaneously appear.
There is no dormant stage, at least that has been found yet, and ich cannot survive if it gets dried out. The dormant ich myth may have came about because of a similar marine ciliate parasite called Cryptocaryon irritans, sometimes called "Ich's marine counterpart." Crypto can remain dormant for up to 30 days, especially at lower temperatures.
The good news is that if a fish survives an ich outbreak, you may notice that it does not seen to be as affected if you have a second outbreak. There is research going on right now looking for an ich vaccine.
There is ich in every fish tank
"What utter rubbish" noted Dr. Peter Burgess in Nov 2001's Practical Fishkeeping He studied Ichthyophthirius multifiliis for his Ph.D. thesis topic. Many fish from dealer's tanks are carriers, and if the fish is only lightly infected, the whitespots may not be visible or are only present on the gills of the fish -- not visible from the outside.
The neverending ich myths come about if you do not treat ich to the fullest -- through several lifecycles and with sufficient medications. It is tough since you know the fish aren't happy swimming around in the medications, and you haven't seen whitespots for like 5 days -- but you must keep medicating! That is the only way to completely eliminate it, and then you can put the neverending ich to bed for good. This is especially pertinant since there is at least one commerical medication that claims that ich is gone in 24 hours after adding the medication. This is just plain wrong -- ich has several life cycles and is only vulnerable to medication in one of those stages. Virtually all of the medications lose all of their potency after 24 hours of adding them, so you have to keep redosing so that effective medications are available and all the Ich has a chance to be exposed.
And, as if often noted, a fish may be a carrier for a long period of time (with just one or two protozoa living in the gills) and not break out until stressed. Also, lots of us add a new fish here or there which, if they are also carriers, may push the tank over a critical limit. Makes a good case for quarantining, eh? Two-weeks is not really enough time for ich to go through enough lifecycles so, it is unlikely to know for sure if your newly-bought fish is a carrier or not, for at least a month.
It is important to note that Ich is an organism -- yes, fish can become more suspectible and show more symptoms when stressed, by cooler temperatures, for example. But, if there is no I. multifiliis in the tank, your fish will not get Ich. An othewise healthy carrier host that is stressed may spread it to your other fish, but if there is no Ich in the first place, it is exactly the same problem as when your mother told you if you didn't wear your coat in the winter, you would get a cold. Not wearing a coat can weaken your immune system, making you more susceptible to the cold germs your office-mate is sneezing out, but the act of not wearing a coat alone will not make you sick. Same with ich and stress. Stresses will make the fish more susceptible, but the stresses themselves cannot cause the ich organism to spotaneously appear.
There is no dormant stage, at least that has been found yet, and ich cannot survive if it gets dried out. The dormant ich myth may have came about because of a similar marine ciliate parasite called Cryptocaryon irritans, sometimes called "Ich's marine counterpart." Crypto can remain dormant for up to 30 days, especially at lower temperatures.
The good news is that if a fish survives an ich outbreak, you may notice that it does not seen to be as affected if you have a second outbreak. There is research going on right now looking for an ich vaccine.
Angry_Platy
Sleepy Chook
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 0
I have had stressed loaches in my 75gal....and they have never had ich. They have never been, as far as I am aware, exposed to ich. Ich has never been in that tank....
Loaches are meant to be very prone to ich.....
Loaches are meant to be very prone to ich.....
Most reactions
-
343 -
192 -
149 -
141 -
124 -
122 -
112 -
111 -
109 -
91 -
82 -
76 -
70 -
69 -
61
