Sailfin Mollies..

[tmack]

Well, I never said I had duplicated brackish water - it would take more than the addition of only additional salt to really duplicate that. And I'm not sure what the relevance of the amount of salt in soda or soup has to do with anything concerning aquaria - we aren't keeping fish in soda or soup. And I'll have to stand by what I, and several friends have seen - that the salt at those levels has had no effect on the fish species I mentioned, for us at least. And me and the folks that have started using salt at those levels in their tanks, not as a quarantine method, but as a standard practice have all seen a great reduction in problems with disease, and our water quality is improved. Our housekeeping methods have always been better than just good, but as you should know nothing is ever perfect, and problems can always occur no matter how good a housekeeper we are. I don't consider it a waste of money at all - just the obvious - it's a money saver, and a fish saver, as it's resulted in healthier aquaria at a much lower cost than having to purchase other problem solvers. Salt addition is always a topic of hot debate, and probably always will be, but to us it's been a low cost way of lowering the chance of problems, and we're convinced, based on results (not imagination), that it's been of great benefit to our fish. I'm not saying that everyone should add it as standard practice, as I'm sure there are species that could be adversely affected. All I'm saying is that it works for us and shouldn't always be ruled out as a possible practice based on the word of what may have been a few people that used it coincidentally at the same time they had pre-existing problems that affected their fish. It should always be used with care and forethought, but it does have benefits that are at least worth considering.

 

[nmonks]

If it works for you, that's great, and I have no objections to how you keep fish. The comment about soup and soda is to make clear that the trivial amount of salt you're using cannot by any scientifically plausible mechanism affect the health of your fish. It's too low to kill fungus or bacteria. Adding 1 teaspoon of salt to your fish tank is the aquaristic equivalent of homeopathy. Do it, don't do it, but in any controlled lab experiment it would fail to have any reproducible effect, period. If it was as easy as this, fish farmers and commercial breeders would do this, but they don't because it doesn't work. When fish farmers want to use salt to help keep their fish healthy, they're keeping them in 25-50% seawater (that's about 9 grammes per litre, or about 1.2 ounces per US gallon). If they could get the same results with the miniscule doses you're using, they'd save a lot of money that way!

Have you ever seen the Simpsons episode where Lisa shows Homer her "tiger rock" that scares away tigers? Of course, Lisa is using this as a metaphor, as a rock cannot scare away tigers, but Homer believes that because there are tigers in Springfield, the tiger rock must work! Adding salt is the same. Your fish are healthy because you are a good fishkeeper. If I came to your house and locked up all the salt so you had to carry on without it, your fish would do just as well. Perhaps better if they were softwater fish that don't like salt (e.g. neons, angelfish, Corydoras). Some fishes don't care about salt and so aren't bothered either way (e.g., livebearers, many cichlids).

To treat whitespot and fungus in aquaria, the salt dosage required is about 3-5 grammes per litre, or about 0.5-0.8 ounces per US gallon.

Cheers, Neale

 

[tmack]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but with a biology and chemistry background I can't agree that at trivial amounts a truly toxic substance (which a lot of people seem to think aquarium salt is) would have no effect. If salt was as toxic to fish as some people think it is, it would kill or injure fish at very low ppm levels, much lower than 1 tbsp/5gallons. And as with some types of biocides, I'm convinced that the salt is preventing, rather than curing, disease. Higher (and most likely more toxic to some species) levels would be required to actually kill an established disease outbreak. I consider it a preventive measure, not a treatment or cure. I agree with you that at the level we use it wouldn't cure an existing outbreak of anything. But prevention is much better than treatments.

Anyway, I'm not looking for an argument. And I'm not using my background as anything to prove that I'm correct or more intelligent in these matters than anyone else. I think the only point I was trying to make was that salt shouldn't always be considered as a poison by aquarists, and that it could have benefits for more than just mollies & other originally brackish water fish. And I'll be the first to admit that I never cease to learn more about fishkeeping every day. It hasn't always been fun coming back to this pastime after several years away from it, and I've lost my share of fish to bad housekeeping and disease. I consider it a failure on my part every time I've lost a fish. There are times in the last 2 years of coming back to the "hobby" that I've considered just dropping the whole thing, but I've persevered and kept at it, and have done my best to keep my fish healthy by frequent water testing, water changes, etc. I've learned a lot of new things in the last two years, and I might get stung some day by adding a fish that has no tolerance at all to salt, but I'll have learned something from it. Till then I'll add my salt as preventive measure. I'll accept any additional kind of prevention I can use - I'd much rather prevent than treat things. When we get to the point we have to use a treatment, we often have already lost the battle to save the fish.

Thanks for honoring my right to have an opinion.

 

[nmonks]

Hello tmack!

The "argument" about salt, such as it is, comes from the fact that decades ago it was used universally, and many books recommended people use it by default. The modern style of fishkeeping is to keep fish in water that is as close to what they experience in the wild. This isn't a 100% rule though: mollies, bumblebee gobies, and figure-8 puffers all do better in different water conditions in aquaria to those they normally inhabit in the wild. In other words, most of the time, the hobby has moved towards replicating the natural environment, and for most freshwater fish, that doesn't involve salt.

As for toxicity, salt doesn't suddenly kill freshwater fish, and the line between freshwater and brackish water is very blurry. Lots and lots of freshwater fish inhabit brackish water, far more than many aquarists believe. Examples including x-ray tetras, various barbs, carp, some plecs, many other catfish, and many cichlids. Salt isn't a poison; it's a stressor. Some fish can tolerate stresses better than others. Malawi cichlids famously don't tolerate salt even though you'd guess they might; it is believed to be a causitive factor in Malawi Bloat.

The problem with the hypothesis that very low levels inhibit the spread of disease is that there's no obvious scientific reason why that should be. There are plenty of guesses though. Some put it down to the salt forcing the fish to produce an extra-thich layer of mucous. Others think it reduces the "work" their osmoregulatory system has to do. By way of parallel, it was (and may still be) quite common to keep fish-only marine tanks at what was technically a brackish water SG of 1.018 instead of a marine SG 1.025.

If you have a group of fishes that are salt-tolerant, then raising salinity may be one way to control disease. There's some suggestion that this is actually better that using copper-based medications, especially for "delicate" species like pufferfish.

It sounds like you know what you're doing and are using salt intelligently. I can't object to that. I don't agree with you, but the amount you're using is so trivially small it can't hurt either way. What I try to dissuade aquarists from doing is using salt WITHOUT THINKING purely because Dr. Wellfish (or whoever) says that adding a teaspoon of salt per gallon is a good idea. Dr. Wellfish is trying to sell overprice cooking salt, and he has no particular interest in anything else. For a lot of salt-intolerant fish, like mbuna, even small amounts of salt do indeed seem to be harmful. For livebearers and fish that need brackish water, tonic salt is far inferior to marine salt mix because it doesn't harden the water, and again, I try to dissuade aquarists from using tonic salt for this purpose.

Cheers, Neale

 

[theotheragentm]

Very well put. I really admire that you stick to your guns on what you know, but you don't push people when it doesn't matter.

 

[tmack]

Hi again Neale.

I'll have to disagree on one point - it is a known scientific fact that can easily be confirmed that salt is indeed an anti-bacterial agent, and has been used as such for ages, and continues to be. And many of the fish related diseases are bacterial, or could be bacterial related if a bacterial infection lowers immunity levels enough that parasites can take over. Unlike fish, pathogens, such as most bacteria and protozoa, are simpler forms of life that have no internal organs to compensate for the change in salt concentration, and salt will kill or at least control many of these. For instance, Velvet, as well as ich, are diseases caused by freshwater protozoans. Salt is also most definitely an electrolyte, and it's a documented fact (not just from the aquarium sale manufacturers) that electrolytes are necessary for all living cells to function properly, fish as well as humans. So call it a tonic, or a poison - all I know is that it's been proven beyond my doubt that it's resulted in healthier fish for me and my friends. When all of the water quality testing shows nothing is wrong with nitrites, nitrates, ammonia, pH, etc., and temperatures are where they should be, etc., etc., and a person still gets an attack by ich, velvet, or some other disease without introducing new fish, it really gets aggravating. All I can say is that since we've been adding salt we've had no occurrences of these diseases. There is scientific fact to support the reasons why it works. And it doesn't need to be added in huge quantities to be effective as an anti-bacterial agent. I'm not trying to tan an animal hide, or preserve meat - I'm just trying to control organisms that aren't beneficial in the aquaria water. Even "trivial" amounts are more effective than you think.

I know you'll never agree with me that salt is beneficial, but that's OK. All I know is I have solved problems using it as a disease preventive agent. I think neither of us will change their opinion on this. It's a stand off! If you're having good results with no salt, and I'm having good results using it, then that's all that really matters. Let's just consider it a win-win situation.

By the way - did you get any of that heavy snow that parts of the UK had a few days ago? I have a work buddy in Horsforth that I talk too almost daily & it didn't affect that area as of yesterday.

Cheers!
Terry

 

[nmonks]

Hello Terry --

Salt may be antibacterial in some contexts, but obviously not all... or marine aquaria wouldn't have biological filters, for a start! And brackish water fish can get sick, though to be sure not all that commonly.

Salt dips are excellent treatments that work in exactly the way you describe. A year back I cured a very mysterious slime disease on my red-tail puffers by dipping them in seawater for 20 minutes on two separate days. Did the trick, by zapping the bacteria (or whatever) without any fuss or stress. I highly recommend salt as a therapy, and many of my posts on TFF are on this topic. I just happen to place its value as a high-dose dip rather than a long-term additive.

Everything hinges on the dose. Small amounts of paracetemol are helpful, big doses will kill you. We all need a few pints of water per day, but drink too much, and we'll die. A little alcohol every day is therapeutic, too much and your liver dies. Too much salt gives us high blood pressure, no salt at all will kill us just as easily. If a tiny amount of salt has a marginal effect, I accept that small effect may be worthwhile in some cases. But I don't believe it's a terribly important effect compared with, for example, low nitrates, the right pH and hardness, regular water changes, quarantining new stock, etc.

At the end of day, everyone has to find the mode of fishkeeping that works best for them. It may be (for example) your municipal water has very high nitrates out the tap. Adding salt reduces the toxicity of the nitrates, and so the small negative (raised salinity) may offset a big negative (high nitrates). I collect rainwater for my softwater fish; again, a small risk (air pollution) is more than offset by a big gain (my fish are breeding all the time). So yes, I agree, each to their own, provided it works. As long as the facts are laid out where everyone can see them, the intelligent fishkeeper can pick and choose and experiment and then reach his or her own conclusion.

Yep, lots of snow! Ironically, I spent Christmas in Nebraska so I could see some snow, and there wasn't any until the day before I left, but since getting back to England it's snowed more times this year than in the last ten!

Cheers, Neale

 

[tmack]

Hey - maybe you could melt that UK snow & get more soft water that way. Just don't use the yellow snow LOL!

Yep - brackish water & marine fish can get sick too. I'd guess it's an evolution thing though - different parasites & diseases evolved to live in those conditions. But I don't think a freshwater aquarium adjusted with salt would have those organisms to deal with unless they came in with wild caught fish.

Hope the trip to Nebraska was enjoyable. I was over in the UK a couple years ago on business, and was surprised at how pretty it was, & how green it was in the winter. I guess a lot of the green is now white!

You'd love the water in Charlotte - 20 hardness - very soft. No rainwater needed here! No measurable nitrates either.

Cheers,
Terry

 

[cuticom]

With the fish book, I do have one, and after it told me rainbow sharks can grow to three foot long, I stopped reading it LOL. I prefer the internet, as I can get many different opinions, and then make my own choice over what seems the best way to go.

Oh thanks for the advice with Mollies and Anglels I'll avoid that then, just thought I may as well ask while I'm here LOL. As I said before I am only considering fish for a new tank, am still doing a lot of reserach on what fish i wnat.

 

[cuticom]

Just thought I'd add, I did get a molly, a male sailfin. And it looks hilarious, its twice the size of my rainbow shark.

 

[tmack]

Good luck with the sailfin! I really like the sailfin varieties.