cleaner wrasse

[fishoholic]

Originally Posted by justinl

forget it. this fish is an extremely bad choice because all they eat is fish parasites; and even the rare few who accept prepared foods often die long before they should. The number of successful cases can be counted on your hands... the number of unsuccessful cases that end up with dead cleaner wrasses every year is something I don't even want to know. these are better left in the ocean to clean wild stock of parasites... if you've ever seen a line of fish waiting for a single cleaner wrasse's services in a wild reef, you would know why.

edit: another solution you might look into is neon gobies.

This is odd to me. I know 5 people including myself who have cleaner wrasses and have had them for over or close to a year. All of them eat nori and some eat mysis as well. These five wrasses were all eating in the lfs before being bought. Maybe the trick is to buy one that is already eating. I tried neon gobies because I was told they were a better choice but the two I had went into the rock he first day we bought them and I never saw them again. Guessing they died or got eaten.

[blueyota]

ok thanks all ... i think ill give one a try

[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).

[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]

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]

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...

[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.

[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.

[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.