cleaner wrasse

[phillybean]

Although I agree to an extent with Justin, I also have a cleaner wrasse that eats Mysis, Brine, live clams and Nori and trys to eat pellets (too big for him).

I don't think that they should be imported in mass numbers, but I feel that way about a lot of fish.

[my2rotties]

Did this person check out stomach contents of cleaner wrasses from the oceans or an aquarium? I read ich is pretty much non existent in the ocean and manifests itself in our aquarium due to space constants and such.

Originally Posted by justinl

And an interesting tidbit: they don't even eat ich. A study done by Alexandra Grutter, Parasite removal rates by the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus, 1996, examined stomach content and none of the fish stomachs they found contained ich. 99.7% +/- .06% was gnathid isopods, the rest were caligid and other parasitic copepods. None were cryptocaryon (a ciliate protozoan). I could see them taking ich ectoparasites in captivity (considering there's nothing else for them to eat) but would it be enough for them either nutritionally or in sheer volume? imo, no, not unless you have a full load of fish in a 1000g tank.

Another factor to consider: would it have any real impact on ich in the tank? imo no. They'll eat the ectoparasites but ich burrows under fish scales and cannot be eaten then, nor will they be eaten in their planktonic forms or in their cyst stage in the sand. The ectoparasitic stage of ich is shortlived. They will live in the sand damn nearly indefinitely (i think it was Eric Borneman who found this out by observations of a fishless tank) so you'll basically never actually get rid of the damn things.

A better approach is other cleaners like neon gobies and cleaner shrimp, which although I understand they are hit or miss on cleaning, at least they eat other things . If you didn't stock such that you can accommodate them, tough chickens. The other solution is to not let your fish get ich. QT. Dip. Choose livestock not known to be prone to death/infection. Be proactive, not reactive (generally a good rule of thumb in this hobby).

[justinl]

my2rotties, I won't be the one to outright bash you, but I have to point out one thing: if you know how important they are in the wild, how do you justify removing them and keeping them in your tank? Does it not occur to you that now the fish in the wild will be "frantically looking all over the place" (and in vain for) their cleaner wrasse? Again, only a handful of fish (in your tank) benefit from this. hundreds of wild fish are deprived of this function now... then multiply that by however many die (lots as with any delicate fish) before yours even reaches the tank.

your cost and benefit analysis of the situation seems lacking. This is not the same case as if we remove a few damsels, who are plentiful and don't serve any "real" ecosystem function; essentially, they're expendable, which makes them a good captivity candidate. But taking out cleaner wrasses is like taking doctors out of the city one by one. things will get messy sooner or later. I can't think of any good reason to speed this process by participating in it.

[justinl]

Originally Posted by my2rotties

Did this person check out stomach contents of cleaner wrasses from the oceans or an aquarium? I read ich is pretty much non existent in the ocean and manifests itself in our aquarium due to space constants and such.

the study was conducted on wild fish. I did not know that about ich, could you find where you read that and post it for us? I'd be interested in reading it. Anyways, I know full well that in captivity, all bets are off. At least some (i don't confess to know how often this happens) cleaner wrasses eat ich ectoparasites in captivity; this has been well-documented, but that's not my point. Actually I had a few points which I already outlined: ciliate protozoans do not offer the same nutritional profile as a crustacean, often there are not enough fish to feed the wrasse this alone (volume wise), and it's not going to get rid of ich due to their life history anyways.

[my2rotties]

True enough to your point, but I did not take them out of the wild and if they were not readily available I would not have one. How many people on this forum have these fish and have not admitted to it?

My fish were taken out of the wild as well, and why should they be deprived of something essential to their health and well being? If I choose to keep marine fish they should have the right to the things they had in the wild. I had no clue cleaner wrasses were so difficult to keep since I personally have never had an issue with them dying.

This is a brutal hobby and many fish do die, but we as hobbyists choose to keep marine fish. You may as well bash me along with everyone else that chooses to be in this hobby.

Originally Posted by justinl

my2rotties, I won't be the one to outright bash you, but I have to point out one thing: if you know how important they are in the wild, how do you justify removing them and keeping them in your tank? Does it not occur to you that now the fish in the wild will be "frantically looking all over the place" (and in vain for) their cleaner wrasse? Again, only a handful of fish (in your tank) benefit from this. hundreds of wild fish are deprived of this function now... then multiply that by however many die (lots as with any delicate fish) before yours even reaches the tank.

your cost and benefit analysis of the situation seems lacking. This is not the same case as if we remove a few damsels, who are plentiful and don't serve any "real" ecosystem function; essentially, they're expendable, which makes them a good captivity candidate. But taking out cleaner wrasses is like taking doctors out of the city one by one. things will get messy sooner or later. I can't think of any good reason to speed this process by participating in it.

[0sprey]

True enough to your point, but I did not take them out of the wild and if they were not readily available I would not have one. How many people on this forum have these fish and have not admitted to it?

Actually, by purchasing this fish, you have encouraged demand for it- you ARE responsible for removing it from the wild.
Galaxy rasbora were readily available for the aquarium trade at the same time they were being exterminated in their original location... retail availability doesn't guarantee that wild populations are undamaged.
If we aren't careful, these fish will become completely unavailable- to our tanks, to the oceans, to the biosphere as a whole. And they're too important a species to risk driving to extinction, IMO. When/if someone manages to cultivate them in captivity, I might consider buying one. Otherwise, it's pretty unethical.
I heartily wish that some serious CITES restrictions on these fish would make them more or less unavailable to the public.

[justinl]

good post osprey. You're absolutely right. In fact, same thing with Banggai cardinals. Wild ones have always been readily available and are still imported with some frequency, but we were the ones responsible for their current listing on the IUCN redlist as Endangered! How many of us actually knew they were in such a steep decline five years ago? not many, I'll tell you that right now. And the frightening thing is that these are the kind of fish that should be quite resilient to collection because they reproduce easily and often with high quality larvae (relatively low initial mortality of larval forms due to size and life history) so their population growth dynamic is able to offset a pretty steep increase of removal/mortality... yet we still managed to push them right to the edge. This is a classic example of Ludwig's ratchet: as long as we demand a fish, collectors will find that fish; and if that fish gets more rare, collectors will simply look harder and use better tech to find the remainders... the time for the effects of decline show up in the store is delayed by this. This is a well-known phenomenon of human nature/economics. Like you, I find the prospect of losing a fish (from the wild) that serves such an important role as the cleaner wrasse frightening indeed.

Originally Posted by my2rotties

How many people on this forum have these fish and have not admitted to it?

Let us not talk about those who will not admit to housing this fish. They know it's wrong and hopefully they won't do it again.

Originally Posted by my2rotties

My fish were taken out of the wild as well, and why should they be deprived of something essential to their health and well being? If I choose to keep marine fish they should have the right to the things they had in the wild. I had no clue cleaner wrasses were so difficult to keep since I personally have never had an issue with them dying.

Well, you should have known. Always research carefully before you buy; info is so easily available on the net, I can't think of an excuse not to research carefully... It's not like the fish is going to swim away if you put it on hold. As for the fish having the right to a cleaner wrasse? Certainly, but we both walk a fine line here. You have a point that without a cleaner wrasse, I deprive my five fish of the service. My rebuttal is still that you deprive Hundreds of wild fish of the same service. I dunno, I mean, it seems like a pretty clear cost-benefit analysis to me. There is of course the factor of careful choice of tankmates as well; I choose fish that aren't prone to infection, so a cleaner wrasse is not vital to their health/well-being anyways. I don't pretend to be so naive to think that everyone's thinks as i do... I just have a hard time understanding people who don't.

Originally Posted by my2rotties

This is a brutal hobby and many fish do die, but we as hobbyists choose to keep marine fish. You may as well bash me along with everyone else that chooses to be in this hobby.

There's no point in such blanket statements. I think we're all aware of this rhetoric. This hobby is a gray area that we tread within lightly... it's always been the nature of the hobby. Personally, I walk the shade of gray in which I choose livestock with my morals in mind; I buy exclusively aquacultured coral and buy only fish that are well suited to life in captivity and aren't under any real threat that I am aware of; I also research potential candidates very carefully to be sure of my stated requirements and to be sure that I am entirely capable of housing them properly. I also only choose hardy hardy organisms... no ich magnets for me, thanks. Of course, no one is perfect and that certainly includes me; live rock for example is one of my guilty vices although I'm currently setting up a new tank which will incorporate mostly DIY rock. Even one of my current fish, a lyretail anthias, was a risk for me (a successful one, happily).

[fishoholic]

Originally Posted by justinl

alright, since my credibility is being questioned, read it yourselves.

from wetweb
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/labroide.htm

peer-reviewed journal
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3505553

wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaner_fish

It was noted on RC and other sources that it is unlikely that these wrasses are getting all the nutrition they need from prepared foods, thus leading to their eventual demise. Two years is not long term.

you guys are basically missing (or worse, ignoring?) my main point entirely. Let's say for argument's sake that these fish were as hardy as damsels and didn't have the abysmal death rate it currently sees in this trade. It should not have been removed from the ocean in the FIRST place. These species serve a vital role in the ocean. That's why you see lines of fish waiting at a cleaner wrasse's cleaning station. That's why you see these fish, completely unafraid of large predators like groupers, swimming around inside of their mouths picking at parasites. That's why said large predators choose to be cleaned over getting an easy meal. If they weren't such an important fish on the reefs, they would get eaten quickly after venturing in to see what shark teeth look like out of curiosity. Each cleaner wrasse station is a high demand function that serves a broad area (evidenced by lines of fish waiting their turn). Take away that fish and you remove this function from said broad area, depriving hundreds of wild fish of their parasite removal. Why? So you can save a handful of fish in a glass box.

And an interesting tidbit: they don't even eat ich. A study done by Alexandra Grutter, Parasite removal rates by the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus, 1996, examined stomach content and none of the fish stomachs they found contained ich. 99.7% +/- .06% was gnathid isopods, the rest were caligid and other parasitic copepods. None were cryptocaryon (a ciliate protozoan). I could see them taking ich ectoparasites in captivity (considering there's nothing else for them to eat) but would it be enough for them either nutritionally or in sheer volume? imo, no, not unless you have a full load of fish in a 1000g tank.

Another factor to consider: would it have any real impact on ich in the tank? imo no. They'll eat the ectoparasites but ich burrows under fish scales and cannot be eaten then, nor will they be eaten in their planktonic forms or in their cyst stage in the sand. The ectoparasitic stage of ich is shortlived. They will live in the sand damn nearly indefinitely (i think it was Eric Borneman who found this out by observations of a fishless tank) so you'll basically never actually get rid of the damn things.

A better approach is other cleaners like neon gobies and cleaner shrimp, which although I understand they are hit or miss on cleaning, at least they eat other things . If you didn't stock such that you can accommodate them, tough chickens. The other solution is to not let your fish get ich. QT. Dip. Choose livestock not known to be prone to death/infection. Be proactive, not reactive (generally a good rule of thumb in this hobby).

justinl I know you're creditable and I wasn't questioning that. I know research supports your point.

My point however is that my personal experiences differ from what the research says and that people have the right to know both sides of the story in order to make an informed decision for themselves. Also it can't just be coincidence that my experiences are similar to my2rotties experiences (see below quote) and the same goes for others I know as well.

If I'm being perfectly honest, I'm not really close to the fish in the wild, whereas I have a bond with the fish in my tank. There is no way I would deprive my fish of the important cleaning service that the cleaner wrasse provides.

To me it looks like my wrasse picks off the ich cysts from my fish. I know my wrasse eats mysis and nori (and I wouldn't recommend getting one that wasn't already eating mysis or nori etc.) I don't know if he eats the ich. All I know is that he constantly picks at my fish and seemingly keeps them ich free. Before I got the wrasse I was getting close to loosing most of my tangs from the ich virus. Within 3 weeks of getting my wrasse all my tangs and other fish made full recoveries and have never had ich that bad again.

I realize cleaner wrasses are important to the fish in the wild but (perhaps being a bit selfish maybe) I believe my cleaner wrasse is equally important to the fish in my tank. Sorry for caring more for my fish in my tank then the fish in the wild but (while I wouldn't want all the cleaner wrasses in the wild to disappear) I'm not about to let my fish in my tank die from ich when I can buy a cleaner wrasse to clean them and save their lives.

FYI if I could get a neon goby or a different type of fish to clean the ich off my fish I would be all for it. But since the 2 neon gobies I tried died shortly after buying them and the cleaner wrasse I have now has been alive for about a year, I have to say (for me) the cleaner wrasse was a better choice.

This has just been my experience (and few other people I know have had luck with cleaner wrasses as well) but I'm sure there are many people who have had back luck with them too. I also wouldn't buy a cleaner wrasse that wasn't already seemingly healthy and eating mysis or nori. I agree that they wont survive in a tank off ich alone.

Sorry if I may have offended anyone but while research supports one theory my personal experiences support another and I feel that I should share my experience so others can come to their own conclusions.

Besides, look at the belly on my cleaner, does he look hungry to you? I think not I know he wont rid the tank of ich but he keeps it under control and that's good enough for me.

[IMG][/IMG]

Originally Posted by my2rotties

I'm going to get beat up for voicing my opinion, but I would never ever be without a cleaner wrasse. I went without one with this new system and when I added one almost four months ago, he became the holy grail of the tank. Fish were lining up for him to clean them off and still do to this day.

My cleaner wrasse went missing for a few hours a couple of weeks ago, and all the fish were frantically looking all over the place for the little. When he reappeared the fish all were swimming circles around him opening their mouths, waiting for cleaning.

IMO I think it is wrong to not have a cleaner wrasse in a big tank with lots of fish. I know they do not cure ich but I never see it on any of my fish anymore. My cleaner wrasse is busy cleaning my fish all day, what he cleans I am not sure of, but I feel he is essential to the health of my other fish. Any ocean photography I usually see has a cleaner wrasse cleaning the fish in the picture.

My clean wrasse eats the particles of the home made food I make for my puffer as well. He is fat for a wrasse and is growing. I can honestly say if he dies, I will replace him. My fish appreciate him and the services he does for them...

[my2rotties]

As long as I stay in this hobby, I feel my fish deserve to have a cleaner wrasse. It is just a natural and appreciated combination, it would be cruel not to give my captive fish something they have in the ocean.

I also buy strictly aqua cultured corals and I never had a problem with hardiness of cleaner wrasses... Instead of bashing me, perhaps talk to the LFS and wholesalers of fish...It is them that brings these fish in for purchase. I recall asking about ich a very long time agom and was told to get a cleaner wrasse. I was never told they were hard to keep and always died... I have never had issues with mine to have to constantly replace them.

My fish deserve a cleaner wrasse for their well being and I find them essential to the health of my tank. Perhaps I am being selfish but this is a selfish hobby to begin with.

[TJSlayer]

I would have to say all points are valid, and I wasn't questioning anyone per say all I was saying was that I have kep one succesfully all be it from an already successful tank, but it is doing quiet fine.

And I would also never outright seeks something that wasn't already in the Petstore so to speak....

There are many things in this hobby that are consider questionable and livestock is probably the biggest, but as long as we provide the best possible atmosphere and environment for our critters I think that is all that can be asked, but to each his own...

TJ