Ph, Marine Ich, Osmosis, Etc....

[Tommy Gun]

Hey all! In the spirit of no longer wanting to continue 'hijacking' another member's thread, I figured I would start this individual thread. Hope no one minds.
==============================================================

 

[Tommy Gun]

Thanks for the additional info Lynden!

After reading those links you provide in regards to marine Ich a couple of times now, I am not sure where either of them state that the theronts are stationary and lie in wait for a host fish. In fact, from what I gathered, it sounds as though they are explaining how the trophont - the stage of Ich which we see as the white spots - tried to locate a place where a fish frequents and then, almost like it is a sort of proximity mine, it releases the thermonts, but otherwise, this is basically the end of any stationary 'stalking'.

So, while I have a better understanding of this topic after reading the info on those links, I still have to stick to my guns on the fact that the thermonts are swimming within the water column and hence, are likely to be pushed through a UV sterilizer. In fact, your first quote from wetwebmedia states that the thermonts 'swim into the water in search of a host fish', not 'wait near the sleeping area of the fish'. However, you are right in that the other stages of the Ich life create a situation in which UV is not going to help at all (nor meds I believe)

. Bignose writes about this ability of fishes. This particular writing applies to freshwater fishes but since the pH and GH of saltwater is much less variable than in freshwater, then logically wouldn't "pH shock" apply greatly moreso to freshwater fish than to saltwater fish...? Wouldn't this in turn indicate that acclimation times of more than about an hour do more harm than good for saltwater fish, in the form of accumulating ammonia and lowering oxygen? Something to think about.

No offense, but I think you may be making too many assumptions within your comparison between FW and SW fish because they both approach their surrounding water in an opposite manner - meaning, FW fish are constantly trying to push water out of their bodies in order to retain the appropriate amount of salt (obviously salt being sparse in FW) but saltwater fish are constantly trying to bring water inside their bodies to 'dilute' the over abundance of salt. Or in short, SW fish 'drink' much more water than FW fish which means FW fish are not as immediately effected by pH changes, perhaps giving them additional time to adjust.

=====================
Sidenote:
I am a bit confused as to bignose's logic in that smaller fish should be able to adjust to pH faster because, while that makes sense, he also states that a fish can adjust to pH by four units per kg an hour. So, what I am confused about is that under this logic, the larger the fish, the better (a 1 kg fish can change 4 units per hour, a 2 kg fish can change 8 units per hour, a 3 kg fish can change 12 units per hour, etc...) Perhaps I am not reading that right though.
=====================

Acclimation times can be important but pH is rarely an issue in saltwater fish, and only in freshwater fish if the pH difference of water is several points away. Water hardness is of much greater concern but saltwater isn't highly variable when it comes to GH because of the buffering effect.

One of my other main points in many of our conversations is that it becomes extremely easy to make suggestions based upon one or two considerations, but we really are best off if we look at the 'big picture'. That being said, it seems as though you are wavering a bit on your 'acclimation is over rated' suggestion because here you point out that there may be other reasons for acclimation above and beyond pH. You also bring up the hardness topic, which I agree with you on, however, there are variables from one saltwater tank to another which give purpose and reason to acclimation - such as TDS. So, IMHO, stating that acclimation procedures are a waste of time and/or effort isn't all that accurate.

[/size]

since the pH and GH of saltwater is much less variable than in freshwater

This is essentially what I have been trying to say all along! So, if you acknowledge this notion as being true, why shouldn't a freshwater bath have the same, or close to the same pH and/or Gh if saltwater fish are not used to all this variance?

indeed our own brackish expert

Neale Monks states that mollies "can be almost dumped into seawater from a freshwater tank without problems". Care to explain how these fish all survived if osmotic shock is such a huge concern?

No, I cannot explain that...however, did you notice the word "almost" in that sentence? When you put that sentence back in context, I think you might agree with me in that it sounds as though he was exaggerating. In fact, when you put that sentence back into context, it sounds as though he is simply making a comparison between guppies and mollies and not trying to state that this is an acceptable practice. Perhaps someone should ask him to elaborate on that comment for all of our benefit.

Even further, I didn't use the internet when I first started freshwater fish keeping and it wasn't for months after I set up my first salt tank that I signed up at this web site. I always used to use the "float and dump" method or even just the "dump" when I was in a hurry. Only one fish could have possibly died from this - a severely compromised blind cave tetra that was dumped into water several degrees F. below the tank he was in before. I have acclimatised more than a hundred fish. Care to explain why all those didn't die if "shock" in it's various forms is so important? Not saying it isn't necessarily but my experience tends to indicate otherwise...

Once again, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. I have no doubt that you have just 'float and release' a FW fish without huge consequences all of the time, however, as I explained, saltwater fish may prove to be different. I am also sure that I have acclimated well over 100 fish...in fact, I probably have close to that, if not more in my house right now. I can tell you that I have lost some of them within hours of bringing them home...especially when I was adding FW fish to my planted tank; until I learned more about acclimation. However, the bottom line here is that FW fish and SW fish are different in many ways and so trying to 'bridge' logic between the two is not always accurate. This is also a conversation which deals heavily with osmosis - which, in this case, is the ability for water to enter and/or exit a cell, which can become an issue when large changes in water chemistry occur for whatever reason....hence the need for acclimation procedures.

However, after looking back at some of our previous conversations, I noticed that you once said that acclimating a fish for one or two hours is sufficient --- and I completely agree. That being said, I am starting to wonder if someone had once told you that you should acclimate our fish for much much longer than that? If so, I can tell you that I have always read/heard that acclimation for two to four hours (depending on the livestock of course) is great plenty....so my suggestion to you might be to explain that you mean approx 2 hours is fine rather than simply saying "fish can acclimate quickly" because this is open-ended and we may all have a different definition of what 'quickly' means in terms of minutes, hours, days, weeks, etc...etc...etc...

Lastly, if by 'saltwater fish can acclimate to pH quickly', you mean 2 hours, then I do agree with you and apologize for continuing this debate since I was under the impression that you were trying to imply that it is ok to 'float and dump' new purchases.

 

[Lynden]

I myself have dumped mollies from fresh to salt, and the pet store has similarly dumped eels from fresh to salt. That "float and dump" technique was also used by me for several months when dealing with saltwater fish when I acclimated nearly a dozen fish, and my cousin who often "trades fish" with me cares even less about acclimation often simply dumping the SW fish in withoat any floating, even. They all thrived, including a lawnmower blenny and a sailfin tang.

I don't do this nowadays but I do still think that one hour is more than enough for any fish and almost any invertebrate, and that this could be extended to an utmost maximum of two hours when dealing with the most delicate of animals (such as Linckia starfish or a Heteractis magnifica that was shipped in water) or acclimatizing a euryhaline animal from fresh to salt. Past this it does much more harm than good (as in it does no good and some harm).

Also that doing a 100% water change with new salt water is guaranteed to be less deadly than ostraciitoxin, that adding carbon/GFO will do much more benefit than harm, etc.

 

[Tommy Gun]

I myself have dumped mollies from fresh to salt, and the pet store has similarly dumped eels from fresh to salt. That "float and dump" technique was also used by me for several months when dealing with saltwater fish when I acclimated nearly a dozen fish, and my cousin who often "trades fish" with me cares even less about acclimation often simply dumping the SW fish in withoat any floating, even. They all thrived, including a lawnmower blenny and a sailfin tang.

IMHO, your propagating this 'you don't need to acclimate fish' without explaining that an hour to two hours is sufficient is misleading and honestly, you might want to rethink that. If it gets too boring for you to type that out every time, then don't reply with only half of the story. My reasoning for saying this is because I am miffed at why you would base some relatively important advice on such little evidence and/or theory....namely ONE sentence posted by nmonks and purely hearsay that you have done this and your LFS has done this. Surely this is not something that would 'fly' at school would it? While I am sure you won't believe me, I am 30 years old and have been attending college since I left the Army in 1998. I have various degrees, the highest being an MBA, in fact, I just graduated and am now about to start working on a second concentration. Point being, I am exceptionally familiar with research techniques and honestly, I have tried hard to find information which would prove you right here (to be subjective) and have failed. That being said, unless you can point out some empirical evidence to prove otherwise, your advice is extremely risky.

Past this it does much more harm than good (as in it does no good and some harm).

How and why? Where is the evidence that acclimating for 2 hours, 30 minutes is going to cause more harm? Ammonia levels are going to rise so quickly that in the one hour it takes me to get home, plus the four hours it might take me to acclimate a hundred dollar fish? Do you know how gas exchange works? Don't you think that a quick shake of the bag wouldn't solve the consumption of O2 in the water? How can places like Drs. Foster and Smith send livestock to places across the US and they still arrive alive? How can some of the other members on this forum ship their fish over night without them dying? How come my own experiences with purchasing livestock at the Drs. Foster and Smith outlet store and then having to drive the approx 5 or 6 hours to my house and still have them alive and well in my tank right now not count as much as your experiences with 'floating and dumping'? Why do you seem to ignore the other portions of the 'big picture' that I pointed out? Why is drip acclimation and similar variances such common advice these days? Why are you the first to figure out that they are completely wrong? Why is it so hard to find evidence of a neutral source that supports you?

Inquiring minds want to know this sort of thing....especially those who are beginners, trust me. My contention here is that you may not be busting very many 'beginner's myths' or misconceptions, but rather adding to the confusion in many cases. And of course, I resent the fact that you are so quick to say that I am wrong, or ignore what I have to say, but then can only provide only the most thin thread of evidence.

 

[Lynden]

One of your biggest flaws is that you seem to base your points not on evidence but on "the other guy has to be wrong since I've never heard of this happening". This isn't a good way to go about things and though I may have little evidence you have nothing but anecdotes as far as I'm concerned (liveaquaria tells me it's true so it has to be true, etc.).

You yourself have proven to me that beginner misconceptions are alive and well, especially the "ocean is a stable environment and therefore fish cannot tolerate variations". This is certainly not true (anyone with both snorkeling/SCUBA experience and common sense will realize that); fish have evolved over hundreds of millions of years to adapt to a changing environment. If they hadn't I'm afraid we'd have far fewer fish around as they would die whenever it rained or there was a hot day.

Acclimating fish for hours on end is insanity. It causes stress as the fish is left in the bag for even longer than it needed to be, and it is simply not needed. In my opinion the fact that all those fish did fine just being "floated and dumped" is proof enough that hours and hours is not needed to acclimate a fish, and I'm afraid I will be forced to trust years of experience over what "Tommy Gun" tells me I'm an idiot for not believing.

<a href="http/wetwebmedia.com/acclimat.htm" target="_blank">http/wetwebmedia.com/acclimat.htm</a>

So, anyways, I'll continue to tell people that fish can adapt quickly to slightly different conditions, but that near an hour is a good acclimation time. OK?

 

[Tommy Gun]

One of your biggest flaws is that you seem to base your points not on evidence but on "the other guy has to be wrong since I've never heard of this happening". This isn't a good way to go about things and though I may have little evidence you have nothing but anecdotes as far as I'm concerned (liveaquaria tells me it's true so it has to be true, etc.).

I disagree with you to some extent here because, even though I do point out that I haven't heard one thing or another before, this only prompts me to explore a bit deeper about it. You are also going to have to trust me when I say that I have read copious amounts of posts on forums, including this one, among other resources; so I feel as though the odds are above average that I would have run into this info/idea before. However, the most important thing here is that I am simply trying to learn more about your comments...and not in a manner which I am simply trying to prove you wrong, I assure you. Also, for the record, I do tend to refer to liveaquaria.com quite a bit because, within the 'circles' I have been around in the past are very familiar with that website....but if you ever find yourself wanting me to provide more 'proof' than that website, I would be more than willing to provide that. Again, you will have to trust me on this one since I don't want to break any of this forum's rules by linking to or advertising a competing website, I have spent a lot of effort (thousands of posts in fact) on trying to 'break' myths and misconceptions...after all, just because I am new to this website, I am far from being new to the hobby and/or hobby related forums which means I can recognize those myths and misconceptions and resent the fact that you would imply otherwise.

That being said, you are the one who is making these points that I find so interesting which should mean that you are the one who has the burden of proof, so to speak, not me. I can assure you that I can easily find dozens of resources which support my point of view here where you haven't been able to quite yet.

You yourself have proven to me that beginner misconceptions are alive and well,

I sincerely doubt that you needed me to prove that beginner misconceptions are alive and well; however, I am trying to accomplish the exact same thing as you say Andy and yourself are.

especially the "ocean is a stable environment and therefore fish cannot tolerate variations". This is certainly not true (anyone with both snorkeling/SCUBA experience and common sense will realize that); fish have evolved over hundreds of millions of years to adapt to a changing environment. If they hadn't I'm afraid we'd have far fewer fish around as they would die whenever it rained or there was a hot day.

Hopefully for the last time, I will once again point out that I am 100% in agreement with you on this sentiment....however, ONLY as it applies to freshwater fish. In regards to this applying to saltwater fish though, since you have yet to find any solid info to conflict my stand that SW fish cannot adjust to every and any rapid/frequent changes in water chemistry, I will continue to dispute you on this.

Let me ask you this....

How much rain do you think it would take to change the pH of an ocean?
***Now here is the very important point that I hope you will let sink in a little bit.....I am NOT trying to say that a saltwater fish cannot acclimate to water chemistry changes, I am ONLY trying to say that they are not able to do so as rapidly as you seem to be saying here. Case in point - I would have to assume that it would take a HUGE amount of rain to change the water chemistry in a body of water as large as an ocean within a few minutes; hence, I think it is logical to say that there is no great need for marine life to acclimate to those changes within the same few minutes. Make sense? However, let me clarify that by saying that I am NOT trying to imply that rain does or does not change an ocean but ONLY that, due to its immense size, it would change slowly. That being said, my contention here is that moving a SW fish from one tank to another cannot be compared to the slowly changing ocean.

I also want to point out that your comments on rain being a factor is mostly borrowed from the FW world and is not as applicable to the SW world since, for the most part, lakes, rivers, and other smaller bodies of water are more easily and rapidly changed in relation to oceans.

Admittedly, if the fishes are in good shape and the new environment not too unsuitable, you could throw them into their new homes with little ill effect.

I also read through that wetwebmedia link you provided, and assume that the statement above is highly supportive of your opinion....however, they very next sentence is:

With attention to proper acclimatization, however you will minimize your losses.

Which is EXACTLY my point here! Do you not agree with that statement? If so, then I hope you realize that I am not trying to propagate any 'beginner's myths' at all, but trying to bust the all-to-common advice/myth of 'float and dump' being the best way to go.

Scrolling down a bit further in that article you linked to, I also see where they state that a "a minimum of fifteen minutes, maximum of an hour or more may be required for the fishes to stabilize and reconstitute". While I am not going to argue with that notion, I want to point out that the sentence contains the words "an hour OR more" which is awfully open ended don't you think? HOWEVER, I do notice a lack of information or comments surrounding the idea that acclimating fish for too long is harmful and/or dangerous.

I am also glad you pointed that article out because if you read the section under the heading of Salt-Water Acclimation, they point out what I have been trying to say is a large difference between FW and SW fish - which obviously supports my opinion that you are comparing apples to oranges in at least a few cases.

. All attempts should be made to match the holding water to the shipping water; temp, pH, SPG, etc. As an example, if pH of shipping water is 8.2 -

Ironically, I also found this statement on your beloved wetwebmedia within another article regarding acclimation of saltwater livestock which I believe acknowledges my point that matching water chemistry - above and beyond pH alone - is important....so, unless the water in the bag is very similar to what you have in your tank, acclimation procedures are needed to help bridge that gap.

Follow along with me here as you start to make that checklist of who’s going in, in what order based upon your working knowledge of the following parameters and that life: Size, Growth Rate, Temperament, Diet, Light and Circulation.

While I realize that this is a bit off the current topics and that we are past this debate, while browsing through wetwebmedia, I stumbled upon that article above which addresses multiple considerations for reef tank stocking....which supports my point that what a fish does or does not eat is only one piece of the puzzle. You can check it out by clicking HERE. I just figured that since you seem to refer to that website often, which I assume is because you feel as though it is trustworthy, I would revisit that subject.

 

[Tommy Gun]

Sorry...didn't notice your edit before posting the above

So, anyways, I'll continue to tell people that fish can adapt quickly to slightly different conditions, but that near an hour is a good acclimation time. OK?

Once again, thanks for taking the time to listen and consider my points. I do agree that fish can quickly adapt to slightly different conditions in a short period of time....however, the problem then becomes how can we be sure that the water from the LFS's tank is only slightly different or hugely different without performing test - some of which we might not have at the time. Point being, I feel as though it might be more efficient to simply use drip acclimation under the assumption that the differences are large because, by the time we get through all of those tests, we could probably be half way done with an hour long acclimation procedure. Make sense?

Also, please keep in mind that the term 'quickly' is often defined differently from one person to another, or is an otherwise vague term. FOr example, I honestly feel that one hour is pretty quick and so I do understand what you are trying to say....however, I think it could be possible that some hobbyists might feel as though an hour is an eternity and define 'quick' as five minutes (for example).

 

[sophos9]

Setting up a design of experiments would prove the issue around acclimatisation and using regression you would get the calculation needed to predict the optimum time, an 2 factor 2 factorial orthogonal array based design would work well.

You null hypotheses (H0) would be that fish do not need acclimatising with the alternate hypothesis (Ha) being that they do need acclimatising. So H0 = (Ac <> Ac) and Ha = (Ac = Ac)

The reason you would choose this design is too reduce risk of making an incorrect decision so with an alpha of 0.05 (95% confidence that you are correct) your reduce the possibility of type I or type II errors (alpha & beta errors)

So after finding which hypothesis stands you can then go out to prove root cause using a DOE as mentioned above, when you understand the factor that contributes the largest amount of variation to the model then you can talk with confidence as you have proven beyond it reasonable doubt.

You see, part of what I do for a living is providing facts so people can make multi-million pound decisions, get it wrong and you are on the street... Now if someone can sponsor 20 fish of the same breed I can run the experiment, any takers?

 

[Lynden]

So, I guess the only point left to argue is that while the open ocean is a stable environment, areas near the shore may or may not be, which I feel I have covered well in other posts.

My major issue with people fearing "pH shock" is that it appears that some of them would risk not doing a 100% water change when something in the tank goes wrong, such as if a boxfish releases ostraciitoxin or something dies and is rotting.

 

[Tommy Gun]

Sophos9,

Of course an experiment would be settle some issues, however, I am not interested in taking part in something that may put some fish in jeopardy when it is easy enough to to acclimate fish for a reasonable amount of time...even if it is on a 'just in case' basis.

Lynden,

I am not insinuating anything, I promise, but I was wondering where you have investigated tidal pools and such. Since Andywg suggested that I take a look into diving, I have done some very primary research into it, but since it would require me to travel, I wanted to get some good ideas of where to look for these sorts of opportunities.

Anyways, if I have implied that I feel as though there are absolutely no places in the world (e.g. tidal pools) where saltwater is not affected by items such as run-off, rain, etc..., I did not mean to. What I did mean to say is that the very vast majority of the oceans are not easily affected in a manner which would result in large water chemistry changes quickly (i.e. minutes).

I also feel as though your list of fish and inverts that you have noticed within those tidal pools us relatively small in comparison to what I can find at my LFS's. Granted, I am sure this isn't an exhaustive list, but the point I would like to make is that these tidal pools cannot be compared to an aquarium in every aspect. I would assume that there is even less comparion available between these pools and a reef (keyword: assumption).

 

[Lynden]

I was wondering where you have investigated tidal pools and such

Hawai'i, especially near Hilo and Kailua-Kona.

All the lava makes for a large amount of tide pools. Very intersting... found one that was literally carpeted in shrimp. The springs around there also create brackish pools that are filled to the brink with crabs and shrimp, and near one of the hotels was a pond that contained about a dozen of the fattest koi imaginable, thousands of mollies, and a convict tang. An odd combination.