It's not the source that these "freaks" are concerned about, it's the residuals of enforced growth which are consumed along with the abundant nutrients.


Also, by your logic it would be entirely acceptable to feed your cleaner wrasse peanut butter, just so long as it chose to eat what it was fed.

I also am interested in the lifespan of a wild cleaner wrsse. Is there info from the folks who try to breed them?

Bob... I just gotta add that while I totally support your thinking outside the box, there is a chink in that theory...

Even though Tangs will greedily accept anything we feed them, if they don't get the fibre from the greens they can't process the proteins and will waste away anyways... I'm wondering what the key ingredient is of the Cleaner Wrasses diet and whether it's planktonic or parasitic, or if it's a nutrient carried within one of those groups?

It is not really a chink in the theory. I thought I qualified my remark with the codicil "correct nutrients" :eek:

I also should mention the other codicil before someone else spots it. :rolleyes:

The animal needs to be physiologically able to digest the food provided in order for the nutrient to become avaliable. Therefore I don't think Tim's clever idea regarding peanut butter would work.

The above statement would also give more credence to the "obligate feeder" statements.

Just an update - so far so good... alive & thriving always out, still picks at my hands, still eats EVERYTHING and is FAT... and best of all no ick on anyone! :mrgreen:

INSERTS SPOON....... STIRS! :razz:

Your cleaner wrasse will last about as long as your powder blue tang.

Both fish are almost impossible to keep.

The cleaner wrasse's diet is unknown and as a result it starves to death in our tanks.

The powder blue tang, prone to disease and infections and often caught with cyanide rarely survives as well.

While some reefers with large tanks and perfect conditions are lucky enough to keep them, the reality is most become ill for no apparent reason a few months after we put them in our tank. They get ich and other stuff, decline, die and frequently take many of their tankmates with them.

I don't know about that. I had a Cleaner Wrasse that lived in my tank for one year. That tank was neither large, or special in any way. :mrgreen:

"Your cleaner wrasse will last about as long as your powder blue tang."


LOL

Sorry, but thats funny!

I understand what you are saying, and agree with you on most points. My Powder Blue is healthy and fat after 9 months, and the Cleaner is still thriving as well... maybe I should restate the purpose of the thread while it's up top...

I keep a 135 and a 72 reef - a 3 year project, and an "advanced" system by most standards. I work hard at this hobby and endevour to keep things living, corals, inverts and fish. I tend to hover on the edge of stuffing my fish and battling the inevitable algae, but my hard work keeps more or less ahead of things.

I'm not encouraging anyone with a 20g nano to run out and buy one of these, rather I am looking for comments and observations from people that have had successes keeping these critters so that we may unlock the secret and keep healthy specimens in the future. Remember a scant 20 years ago keeping ANY coral was virtually impossible. Hobbyists observations have now brought coral keeping, AND propogating to the masses - which may be good or bad... but the advent of maricultured and home aquacultured animals has me convinced we're on the right track, as does this thread, because I don't see LFS stopping importing these guys any time soon. So we might as well use this as a window to figure out whether or not we can keep these guys alive, and maybe even captive breed them one day....

Just my two bits... (.10 US)

Jim.

And a result of this trial and error experimentation by reefers seeking the answers as to how to keep that fish alive, millions of fish and coral have died and continue to die as newbies repeat the mistakes of the past over and over again.

Why don't you settle for keeping those fish and coral that we know we can keep as experts or newbies as the case may be.

Leave the 'experimentation' to the scientists who continue to seek the answers and to those experts equiped to do the job.

Let me ask - do you have a problem with comprehension? Or just skimming instead of reading?

Your sentiments were exactly that of hobyists and scientists alike when it came to keeping stony corals 15 or 20 years ago... Are there any bleeding hearts out there now that want to burn flags in protest as we destroy the reefs by keeping a couple of ACROS in our tanks? Oh wait! I forgot - So MANY of them are now CAPTIVE propogated because a few BOLD thinkers dared to tread in uncharted waters to benefit the rest of us. I KNOW people in marine biology - and what hobbyists are doing DWARFS what funding is available to institutions and scientists. As for low survival rates during transit - do you honestly believe a retailer would pay for collection and shipping for a less than half survival rate? Not at $10 - $20 a fish - they'd be broke after a couple shipments. I have asked this of retailers, and they roll their eyes at that notion.

Please read through the post and offer any concrete evidence that supports or rebuts our continued keeping of these guys and I'm ALL ears... As for MILLIONS of fish... well there are a lot of other destructive practices on the reef that occur manmade OR natural. At least HOBBYIST's attempt to keep them alive...

Wow, pretty strong words for a newbie! But, a typical response by those who attempt to justify keeping almost impossible to keep species.

My friend, nothing justifies your keeping cleaner wrasse. You are neither an expert or a scientist. The idea that it is OK for you and others to experiment with these and other species with the hope that you will come up with the magic answer to their sustained care is dated thinking.

And blaming other destructive practices for the condition of the reefs is another typical response. You are part of our hobby and owe a duty to see that the best practices are performed by the industry. That includes insuring that fish and coral that have no or little chance of survival stay in the oceans. Don't buy them if they will not live!

Great - that's your opinion - I have mine, (as of yet completely unformed as I have an open mind - if mine dies for any reason, I will be sure to post it back here with any further observations), and we agree to disagree in principle... now I ask that you kindly back yours up, as I have posted some very scientific arguments here to the contrary.

Unfortunately I was unable to find any scientific data or study results that support your theory, so here is your opportunity... DO read through the thread as I welcome the debate, OR eventual enlightenment if I am in fact, that ignorant.

I am not here to destroy the reef or fix this hobby, if you would rather I kept my observations to myself, then that is your right to feel that way... keep in mind that it is also every nanoreefer's right to plunk a pair of cleaner wrasses in a 6 gallon tank as well... so as long as they're shipped, they'll be bought, and if we all had that attitude, then YES, they will almost all assuredly succumb ... but if we people with the patience and resources to keep a larger tank endevour to study these and share our own personal observations at our own cost then why should someone jump down our throats because we dare to expand the envelope a little? It is backwards thinking like this that inhibits our own species from accomplishing our potential because it puts control of SO MUCH in the hands of SO FEW. If we all put our heads together at times instead of butting them, we might be able to accomplish things AND have a healthy impact on the ecology and environment on this precious planet.