Fuel To The Fire Of Acclimatization

[jollysue]

This was recently emailed to me from one who know my interest in good fish practice and an open minded look at our traditions:


What About Temperature Acclimation?

Temperature acclimation, in fishes, typically takes 10 days or more. That means that whether the temperature of the water a fish is increased slowly over a period of 20 minutes to 1 hour or is done almost instantly, the fish still requires several days to acclimate to the temperature change. It is also a fact that rapid temperature changes which occur in a fish's environment are stressful.

In a shipping bag all kinds of stressful changes occur. First, the temperature typically changes, and often, by more than just a couple of degrees. Secondly, the fishes excrete ammonia (NH3) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from their gills during respiration. Thirdly, the pH changes; typically it drops, and solid particles from feces can accumulate. The water in the shipping bags is polluted by the inhabitants.

Also, due to the fact that there will always be small amounts of dissolved and suspended organics in the bag water there will also be an increase in the bacterial count. Many, if not most, of these bacteria can be pathogenic (disease-causing).

Corys "R" US uses Ship Right to relieve the physical stress the fishes suffer when netted prior to packing and to replace any damaged skin slime (which always happens when fishes are handled with nets) and remove ammonia from the water during shipping.

Given the conditions which typically occur in a shipping bag, even with proper treatment of the water as Corys "R" Us does, there will still be conditions in the bag at the time of receipt that requires getting the fishes out of the bag and into their receiving tanks as soon as possible.

One should keep in mind that not floating the bag of water is not the entire story. One should get the fishes out of the bag's water and into the aquarium environment in which the fishes will be maintained as quickly as possible. This means that dumping the contents of the bag into a bucket or other container and slowly adding water from the aquarium is not much better than simply floating the bags. Similarly, one should not adjust the pH in the bag to match the aquarium and one should not adjust the pH in the aquarium to match that of the bag.

It is, therefore, not logical to expose the fishes to the conditions inside the bag any longer than necessary. Floating a bag of fishes means that the water in the bag usually increases in temperature (especially if the fishes have been shipped during the winter months). A temperature increases of just 5ºC means that the un-ionized (toxic) ammonia level in the bag will increase by almost 34%! In saltwater that same temperature increase will lead to a nearly 40% increase in the toxic ammonia content.

Increasing the water temperature also increases the fishes' metabolism. That means their oxygen consumption increases, their respiration rate increases and the amount of ammonia and carbon dioxide being released into the bag's water increases.

In general, then, floating a bag of fishes simply means that the conditions inside the bag are made worse rather than better.

Other Considerations

If the water inside the bag isn't the best, think about the "stuff" that might be contaminating the outside of the bag. Probably 50% of the boxes used in the aquarium trade are recycled. Few, if any, of these boxes are cleaned and disinfected prior to reuse. They often have water in them left over from the last shipment and sometimes there is even dirt and debris inside.

The actual bags themselves start out clean, but during the the bagging process they are set down on wet tables, laid out on the floor and handled by less than clean hands. In general, the outsides of the bags are dirty and should not be floated.

Lastly, plastic bags, even if they are not the new "breathable bags" allow for some exchange of oxygen and CO2 through the bag's wall. This happens where the water inside comes into contact with the bag. Therefore even bags which are depleted of their original oxygen fill can sustain fishes for a period of time as long as the temperature is not too high. Once a fish bag is immersed in water the gas exchange is stopped. There, the negative effects of floating fish bags is even more pronounced when the oxygen fill has been depleted. The increasing water temperature increases the fishes's needs for oxygen, while also decreasing the oxygen's solubility in water.

Overall, the effects of floating fish bags can be very stressful on the fishes.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

That is really interesting, thank you for posting it. I have often thought it might be better to get the fish out of the small body of polluted water and into the tank as quickly as possible but have always gone with "tradition". I also never thought about the possible pollutants on the outside of the bag!

I would like to see some supporting evidence though (mainly in regards to fish needed to take several days to adjust to changes in temperature). I would also like to see some evidence of how quickly fish adjust to PH/KH changes which shows its better to have one larger change quickly then smaller changes over the course of 40minutes-1hour (when taking everything else into consideration). Would also like to hear from anyone that has tried just adding the fish directly to the tank, what fish they where and how they faired.

It does make a lot of sense to me but I'm still not sure if I'm convinced enough to break tradition (it sadly is a case that if people have a method that seems to work they are not very willing to try an unknown).

 

[jollysue]

This is a thread following up on another earlier threadon acclimatization. that addressed the "Plop" method of acclimatization. Basically float the bag for temp and then plop the fish immediat;y that the bag is opened. You can look for it about a month back, or I will get around to posting a link.

 

[andywg]

What About Temperature Acclimation?

Temperature acclimation, in fishes, typically takes 10 days or more.

Says who? Temperature change in the natural world appears far swifter than this (see below).

It is also a fact that rapid temperature changes which occur in a fish's environment are stressful.

A fact eh? Just saying it is a fact does not make it so. Many fish endure rapid temeperature changes with little problem. Scott Michael describes seeing "sensitive" (in the trade) marine angelfish swiming from water that is warmer to cooler water where the difference is so great that heat shimmering is occuring at the boundary. I would say the fish can adjust to different temperatures quite nicely, and quickly.

A temperature increases of just 5ºC means that the un-ionized (toxic) ammonia level in the bag will increase by almost 34%! In saltwater that same temperature increase will lead to a nearly 40% increase in the toxic ammonia content.

Hmm, I can't help but think that is quite high. Bignose has a table here. It indicates that at 20 degrees C and a pH of 7 there is 0.1071% toxic ammonia (compared to ammonium). At 25 degrees it is 0.1110%. I make that a 3.6% rise, not a 34% rise. Perhaps if other factors occur the balance could change (such as a pH rising upwards as well as a temperature increase). But the statement above is incorrect.

Other Considerations

If the water inside the bag isn't the best, think about the "stuff" that might be contaminating the outside of the bag. Probably 50% of the boxes used in the aquarium trade are recycled. Few, if any, of these boxes are cleaned and disinfected prior to reuse. They often have water in them left over from the last shipment and sometimes there is even dirt and debris inside.

In other words, we can't be bothered to use clean stuff for you.

The actual bags themselves start out clean, but during the the bagging process they are set down on wet tables, laid out on the floor and handled by less than clean hands. In general, the outsides of the bags are dirty and should not be floated.

I find it hard to believe that the amount of contaminants on the outside of a bag will create any large problems in all but the most extreme examples.

Lastly, plastic bags, even if they are not the new "breathable bags" allow for some exchange of oxygen and CO2 through the bag's wall. This happens where the water inside comes into contact with the bag. Therefore even bags which are depleted of their original oxygen fill can sustain fishes for a period of time as long as the temperature is not too high. Once a fish bag is immersed in water the gas exchange is stopped.

Umm, I struggle to understand here, but they seem to be saying that a sealed waterproof layer is allowing gas exchange, but only with air, not with dissolved oxygen in water.

There was an interesting thread on this before where it was pointed out that hardness changes are quite bad for fish and are responsible for what we term pH shock. The main thing wil be how any Carbon dioxide reacts to alter the Alkalinity (KH) of the water and what levels of ammonia are present upon the end of the shipping process.

 

[jollysue]

The artical does address that there are ph changes affecting the ammonia toxicity.

I think if what is on my hands and put in the tank is important and we warn others about, then what is on the bag can be important. Actually a rinsing or dip could deal with that, I suppose.

As I remember your conclusions were not definitive, andywg.

another discusion of the issue

and here

and here

Truth is many use the plop method and it works. For me it has worked better than long hours of acclimatizing. The fish I use the fast method with are spawning within hours.

I find dialectic enlightening, but not sarcasim and belittiling others.

 

[chishnfips]

I have never had a problem with acclimitisation, I float the bag for an hour swapping water every 15 mins, seems to work fine. I think you guys are looking into this a bit much.

 

[nurglespuss]

Just as a basic thinking point here:

Any zoology text book has a great section on temperature/chemical etc. acclimation, and yes it does take many days for the body to fully acclimate to the surroundings.

E.G. flying abroad: going from a cool country to a hot country, you sweat differently to the local (acclimated) inhabitants, this takes about a week to correct itself. Theres your 'fact' I suppose.

Also fish have a temperature 'zone' in which their body is capable of tolerating rapid/instant change (note this zone is usually much smaller than the fish's total temperature range). A safe 'estimate' is 3-5 degrees eitherside of their current temperature.

So if your water is at 27 and the water in the bag is at 25, you could just plop the fish in, but it is less stressful to the fish, if you give it a little more time, merely because it is less harsh than an instant change.

Finally chemical change is THE most important factor to consider, and the fish can take up to a month to acclimate chemoreciptively.

Hope that helps. Some of you may find it useful (and this not meant to patronise) to pick up a zoology text book, and examine such environmental factors that have been researched, to formulate your own opinions.

 

[jollysue]

Interesting, nurglespuss.

And it is a fact that the "plop" method, which usually includes an unopened bag float, is a very well established method in the fish industry.

As I say, I have just recently started to use it and the fish have recovered much faster for me showing much less stress than with the slow drip methop I have used in the past which takes hours and does leasve the fish in the old water rather long.

I really think that ammonia burn is much more dangerous than anything e;se.

I am I must admit a little more skeptical of sudden temp shook and don't plan to chang the float yet.

Nevertheless, when a fish comes in nastly with a dead floater, I do not hesitate to skip everything and plop! (The old water never goes in the tank.

 

[nurglespuss]

Oh I dont hold any stock with the drip method, or the idea that mixing in a little aquarium water will help etc. Like I said, not a long enough time period to acclimate. I just balance temp, then in they go.

 

[andywg]

I think if what is on my hands and put in the tank is important and we warn others about, then what is on the bag can be important. Actually a rinsing or dip could deal with that, I suppose.

Careful with the royal "we". There are not too few people who think nothing of just putting their hands in the tank. I take no special care before placing my hands in a tank (FW or SW) whether I have been working outside, or just had a shower or been playing with the car. I will certainly never moan at someone for not sanitising their hands prior to putting them into a tank.

As I remember your conclusions were not definitive, andywg.

Indeed they weren't, though I do not believe I have stated anything to the different, merely that there was an interesting discussion before.

I find dialectic enlightening, but not sarcasim and belittiling others.

I am happy for you. Is there an insinuation in there, or is it just a general statement to the world at large?

Do you take issue that I hate things unsupported statements like "It is a fact that..."?

Any zoology text book has a great section on temperature/chemical etc. acclimation, and yes it does take many days for the body to fully acclimate to the surroundings.

E.G. flying abroad: going from a cool country to a hot country, you sweat differently to the local (acclimated) inhabitants, this takes about a week to correct itself. Theres your 'fact' I suppose.

I am sure you can retort with a more relevant example, but you can surely understand why I am not going to accept that the fact that I (an endothermic mammal) will sweat differently in a hotter country as proof that a tropcial fish (an exothermic fish) suffers greatly from a temperature difference. The differences there are too great to truly cross over.

I am not sure what temperature difference is needed between two bodies of water to create a shimmer (and am struggling to find any thing with google) but I would guess it is more than 3 degrees. The fish in my earlier example in the wild would be crossing such boundaries at least once per day (in a daylight tide) so it must be more than just "tolerating" such a temperature change. If all temperature acclimatisations truly took 10 days, then these fish will be in a constant state of flux.

Remember that this is referring to fish in the tropical seas, generally considered the worst at adapting to different conditions (though recent research into the euryhaline abilities of many marine fish is making many reconsider the adaptability of these fish).

I would be interested to know what factors take so long to change in temperature changes. I have found a 1966 paper by M W Smith which found that the sodium glucose function in the intestine of goldfish was completely acclimatised to 25C after just 20 hours (from 8C). So there are some factors which adapt quicker to temeprature change than others. I wonder just how important the functions which take 10 days or more to acclimatise are.

 

[jollysue]

andywg, the problem I encounter in a discussion with you is that your comments are full of sarcasim and more about winning an argument than discovery. I don't find it enlightening or edifying to argue over egos and small poorly stated points rather than discover the thought and intent. And after that to discover the information that may be useful.

Sorry if I neglected to include you in the royalty. lol


Some of my responses were to chishnfips

 

[andywg]

andywg, the problem I encounter in a discussion with you is that your comments are full of sarcasim and more about winning an argument than discovery.

Wrong, I enjoy debating, but I hate the standard phrases "It's a fact" or "it's well known that" when there is no evidence to back it up at all, and it is not a general consensus (such as claiming the world is broadly spherical). As to sarcasm, I find very little of it in my posts, save for when it is followed by emoticons to show that I am joking, or at least not being fully serious. Others may see it, but that is the wonder of the written word, each person can interpret it themselves.

If you think my statements are all about winning the argument, then maybe there is a flaw in your argument. I explore flaws in what has been said and offer my own knwoledge/references where it counters it. This is the crux of any good debate, exploring what has been said and identifying possible flaws or contradictions (within and without the other person's position).

I don't find it enlightening or edifying to argue over egos and small poorly stated points rather than discover the thought and intent. And after that to discover the information that may be useful.

No? I find a good heated debate forces people outside of their comfort and to go and look things up. nothing sends me reading my Ichthyology reference books quicker than a good flame war. Nothing wakes up the grey matter like a good, heated debate. So long as there is no ad hominem attacks then it is all fine.

Sorry if I neglected to include you in the royalty. lol

You misunderstand. It appeared I was included in the royal we, something I most certainly should not be. I am against the growing movement to treat our fish tanks like a new born baby with no immune system, thus requiring sterile, or aspetic, conditions as much as I am against the "you must keep nitrates at 20ppm or below" trend which runs through here at times.

 

[jollysue]

My computer was typing backwards, so I have been messing around. But it stopped.

I am sorry we have gotten off on the wrong foot, andywg. I know that you have some respect. Perhaps if we exchange privately we can iron it out.

Still I found your response to nuglepuss unnesessarily demeaning. He was just exchanging ideas, but for some reason you found it necessary to include a little back handed slam in order to make whatever your point was. And frankly the message I get from that is more about who you want people to think you are than about the discussion.

You also missed the royal retort completely.

It seems I am more about communication and consensus, and where do you stand again? That I believe is sarcasm.

Hating a phrase and therefore missing the message does not lead to good debate or dialectic. Dialectic is about struggling together respectfully to come to understand one another and therefore make new insights on both sides. I must admit that I have added the respectfully. But I find it hard to see why you miss that you get stuck on picking at some phrase or hated idiomatic jargon and miss the big picture. Well that is how it seems to me.

I was able to get some foothold in your last post on a possible future exchange.

 

[andywg]

Still I found your response to nuglepuss unnesessarily demeaning. He was just exchanging ideas, but for some reason you found it necessary to include a little back handed slam in order to make whatever your point was.

Backhanded slam? I pointed out that the example given is not a good one, but clearly stated that I had little doubt they can provide a more accurate one. I then backed up some of my beliefs with a research paper I found. You can hardly moan at me when I bring clarity of information into a thread which is all about discussing the science behind acclimatisation.

And frankly the message I get from that is more about who you want people to think you are than about the discussion.

Then you get a message that isn't there. I just want complete information. I couldn't care less who a bunch of people on the internet think I am.

Surely you can understand why I said that comparing humans to fish is not good, especially in a somewhat technical debate like this. The biggest problem for non scientific minded people when looking at animal treatment is an eager readiness to anthropomorphise. By not challenging what was put forward a path is laid that can lead people increasingly to compare themselves to fish.

So what if I sweat when I go abroad, I have an internal metabolism that burns energy from food I eat at a certain rate to maintain my internal body temperature. Most fish (almost all tropical fish) rely on their envirnment to maintain a body temperature. Two completely diffferent systems, and as such, not as directly compatable. The fact that nurglepuss seems to have a good scientific backing meant I didn't spell it out as I assumed they would be able to instantly see what I was saying and come back with a better example, preferably showing what sort of functions take so long to acclimatise (and, indeed, I requested such information later in my post).

You also missed the royal retort completely.

Maybe, but the attempt at a joke was so poor, IMO, that I decided to treat as serious

More seriously, not all people will be common with the term "royal we" and as such may read the thread and misunderstand what it refers to. I thought I would clarify it.

It seems I am more about communication and consensus, and where do you stand again? That I believe is sarcasm.

I have no ide what you are actually trying to say here. From the Sarcasm Society website definition of what sarcasm is:

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm (this is no time to indulge in sarcasm)

I have no intention to cut or give pain, hence why I said I was sure nurglepuss could provide a better example (and will be extremely happy to see such an example). And there was little irony or wit in my comments to np either. I think, perhaps, you have decided I am sarcastic, and are then looking for it in everything I do.

Hating a phrase and therefore missing the message does not lead to good debate or dialectic. Dialectic is about struggling together respectfully to come to understand one another and therefore make new insights on both sides. I must admit that I have added the respectfully.

So in actual fact, it does not have to be respectful, and can be heated. It is just that you don't like it to be heated, so therefore attack me for debating in a style you do not like.

By doing so, you are picking up on the fact that I tend to attack people who make baseless statements (debating in a style I do not like).

Can you spell irony? (or possibly even sarcasm?)

Wiki has this to say on dialectics:

The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion

If we allow untruths, or baseless statements to go past without counter, then the discussion is not truly rational. From reading the wiki artcile further, one can see some strong similarities between my debating method, and that described as socratic dialectic:

Socrates typically argues by cross-examining someone's claims and premises in order to draw out a contradiction or inconsistency among them.

This is exactly what I do. I look for where someone's argument is flawed, and point it out. You, here, on the other hand, are indulgin in ad hominem attacks. You are not addressing the points I have made, but rather the person who has made them. This is surely against dialectics, and is often (but by no means always) a sign that the person conducting the attack cannot adequately retort on the points raised.

But I find it hard to see why you miss that you get stuck on picking at some phrase or hated idiomatic jargon and miss the big picture. Well that is how it seems to me.

Because the devil is in the detail. By taking what you are saying, one could say that you have no problem if people say a whole load of rubbish, so long as you agree with the overall sentiment, or the big picture.

Such an example is stunting. We say stunting is bad because we want people to keep fish in the correct sized tank. Some go on to say that the organs carry on growing inside the fish. This is a myth and no evidence supports it. By your statement above, you would not want me to pick apart the obvious fallacy, or flaw, in the argument because you agree with the big picture - attempting to prevent people keeping a fish in too small a tank.

By pointing out the flaws, or possible flaws, int he posts someone should then respond. If the have proof for what they say, then that part of the argument is strengthened. If they can find no proof then it shows a possible problem and we can look for a better reason.

For example, we have established in a previous thread that "pH shock" is not a problem, fish cn adapt their internal pH extremely quickly. however, the GH and KH figures are probbly responsible for what has previously been called pH shock.

The big picture there is that a rapid change in conditions is bad for the fish, the details is that it is not a rapid change inpH, so much as a rapid change in dissolved salts level. The real detail was when bignose provided the review paper showing just how quickly fish respond to pH changes.

 

[ArauraDiscus]

I personally believe that whether or not it takes 10 days for full acclimitization, it's still better than nothing to let a fish sit in a bag for 10 minutes. Because the temperature will gradually go up in the span of 10 minutes rather than instantly go up if he is dropped into the fish tank. Just my opinion. Makes sense to me at least, if not anyone else.