To Andywg:
With regards to looking to nature for guidance on my tanks; I think I shall prefer to copy nmonks who believes nature is the best teacher for how to keep our animals rather than your "how does the reef relate to my closed system" apparent style of approach, as if stating that what the fish can expect to live through happily in the wild does not at all relate to the tank. If the fish are experiencing changes in the wild then it is a fair conclusion to assume that such changes are not a problem in the aquarium.
No offense but I think you are also missing my point here.....I am NOT NOT NOT trying to say that fish cannot acclimate, captive or otherwise because I agree, they can. What I am trying to get across to you all has multiple facets:
#1. I do not feel as though the tidal pools and such are not 100% applicable to an aquarium because, if we are not careful, we can change the salinity or water chemistry in our tanks much much much faster than occurs in nature - basically due to the fact that more effort is required to change a larger body of water.
#2. Even if it can be argued that some tidal pools can be smaller than some of our aquariums, I have found and posted information which suggests that the life in this sort of pool is very limited and in fact, never found anything which states that, if a fish was inadvertently trapped within one, it can survive.
#3. Because we are creating saltwater out of freshwater, the salt mixes we use contain the major and minor trace elements that our livestock will benefit greatly from in various ways. That being said, my contention is that since we use salinity or specific gravity to 'measure' water quality, we run the risk of depleting valuable elements if we do not attempt to maintain a relatively constant salinity. Does it not make sense to say that if the salinity is low, the elements within the salt mix that we cannot/do not otherwise supplement are also low...or if the salinity is too high, then those same elements are also too high since, again, we are only adding them via the salt mix? If so, then salinity is important, right? Besides, one of the larger reasons for performing water changes on any tank is to resupply trace elements and such....which are in the salt and not in freshwater.
#4. You are also taking my comments on how we cannot mimic nature in an aquarium a bit further than I intended, even though that comment always followed or prefaced the specific areas I feel cannot be compared. In short, I
AM in agreement with you in that we should do as much as we can to mimic nature, however the important words here are "as much as we can" because there are obviously areas in which we cannot do that feasibly.
#5. Even thought I am very familiar with the idea of running nothing except for a biotope, let's be honest with ourselves - the vast majority of us are keeping livestock which would otherwise never run into each other in nature, which is also not to mention that many of us are not trying to maintain the exact water chemistry which our fish would be subjected to in the wild; especially when we have some fish from one part of the world versus another. HOWEVER, another one of my points has been that suggesting saltwater fish can acclimate themselves to different environments, I have never once heard anyone say that if we want to keep X-species of
saltwater fish (read: not freshwater), then our pH should be 7.4 but instead, the advice is almost always the same - keep a saltwater tank in the range of 8.4, give or take....and the same may be said about other parameters as well. Do you agree with that observation? If so, where do you think that came from? Does it not suggest that saltwater fish across the globe thrive in generally similar water? Even still, it must imply that all of the fish we keep can do well within these parameters, right? If not, how come we're not advised to change our parameters on a regular basis?
#6. Point number five also brings up another important thing which I probably should have made more clear --- I am speaking of fish that we can keep in an aquarium and realize, for example, that a whale might be subjected to wide variances as they dive from the water's surface to hundreds of feet under water. Again, I also realize that some, if not many of the fish we can keep are also subjected to what Lynden points out, however, I don't feel as though this means we should put them through the same in an aquarium if we don't have to. Isn't that simple enough?
Also I take issue with this (it is unclear from your posts whether it is you or Lynden typing it):
Out of curiosity, would it really matter who said it? Even though I honestly try not to read between the lines too much, this sentence immediately struck me as you implying that you don't want to disagree if it was Lynden, or at least, don't want to offend him, but wouldn't care if it was me. However, that is NOT an accusation, but only a 'highlight' of sorts to show why I feel as though I need to be on the defensive too often.
Can anyone find me any proof that the internal organs keep growing? This challenge has gone out a number of times on this forum and no one has ever come up with any evidence.
I have read/heard some evidence to support this notion, and if you can afford me some time, I will dig that back up and pass it along.
Indeed, big nose has often pointed out how having internal organs outgrow the skeleton when conditions do not support rapid growth would not happily agree with evolution
Can you elaborate on this a little bit since I am not sure what you mean....is this to say that if it was possible, then some species would be extinct by now? If so, I would point out that perhaps this situation is only applicable within an aquarium since I would think it rare for a fish to find itself in a glass box in nature....or even in a tiny enough body of water which mimics the confinements of an aquarium...unless of course, this is their natural habitat (e.g. Betta's).
Such a trait would see those with growing internal organs die in times of trouble before those that do not.
Again, I am not very sure what you mean by this completely...and I am not being sarcastic or rude...but I would say that yes, if a 10 gallon tank held a bala shark and a guppy, the bala shark would die first from being in that very small tank (in relation to its full potential size). Well, that is assuming that the neither one die from another cause.
None of my ichthyological reference books mention anything about the skeleton and the internal organs growing at different rates, but many inches of writing are dedicated to how less than optimum conditions can result in a fish growing much slower until better conditions are available.
Good point. Here is my view point on this subject: (keep in mind that I am agreeing with you for the most part)
#1. I suspect that most anyone would agree with me when I say that there are at least two methods of overstocking a tank:
A. Keeping too many fish in a tank
B. Keeping a fish which has the ability to grow larger than the tank it currently resides.
That being said, it has always been my assumption that the method behind the madness of point B is that this is going to harm the fish as it begins to approach that threshold of being 'just right' and 'too big' for the tank. Am I way off base on this?
#2. I agree that there is some common misconceptions on stunting and I may not be 100% on track myself (although I feel as though I am close). However, if your book points out that a fish will grow much slower until better conditions are available, what happens if those conditions never improve? Can the conditions last for so long that by the time they improve, irreversible damage is done? While it is certainly not funny at its core, I always chuckle when I read/hear about someone gloating about how he/she was able to keep his/her carnival goldfish alive for "an entire two years!" just before he/she explains how stupid everyone else is because his/her feat is empirical evidence that a fish cannot out-grow its tank. Of course, the funny part of this all-to-common situation is when that person learns that the goldfish actually only lived for approx 10%, or less, of its full potential lifespan AND could have gotten much much larger if it was kept in suitable accommodations. In fact, I once found myself in a conversation (and not even on a forum...go figure, huh?) with an acquaintance of mine (a friend's friend) who was also gloating about how he was able to keep his Hippo Tang in a 29 gallon biocube for more than 2 years without any problem at all. In fact, I think the debate was on how tangs don't need very much room at all like I think Lynden and I once spoke about. Anyways, as soon as he said that it was about the size of a silver dollar, I made sure he realized that these fish can grow up to a foot or so in length and live for more than 8 years, by some accounts. Point being, what keeps these fish so much smaller than their potential size when they are kept in a bowl or too small of a tank? Wouldn't both a goldfish and/or a hippo tang grow to much larger than a silver dollar in less that two years if the tank was more appropriate? Is this not some evidence of stunting? (And yes, I am asking for you opinions, not using a question to make a statement)
#3. Could it be possible that evidence on the complete effects of keeping a fish in too small of a tank is hard to find because, as I said before, this situation usually ends in "death by disease" or ailment long before stunting due to the stress involved?
In short, the point I was making when Lynden accused me of propagating the beginner myth of stunting (which, for the record, I wasn't) is that overstocking is a real problem for many reasons. For some reason I cannot get past my feeling that it was Lynden who said this, while at the same time I am pretty sure it happened over on my forum....but anyways, I was once told that it is theoretically impossible to overstock a tank because beneficial bacteria populations will simply increase to accommodate the exact amount of fish wastes being produced (e.g. too many fish = more bacteria). However, this thinking is again, only considering one of the many factors and hence, the statement 'overstocking is not possible' cannot or should not be said. To sum this up quickly, the point I was trying to make is that according to his profile, Lynden has too many fish in a 30 gallon tank....for what reason, I cannot remember right now.
Lastly - and please hear this as me be as honest as I possibly can - As I have said a lot already, I have never disagreed with anyone of this forum on every single point that is made. In fact, the best example of this can be found in that 'Don't overlook these fish" pinned thread because I have never once said that the fish on the list absolutely cannot be kept in a reef but ONLY that they can be kept in a reef if one understands the issues and can adapt...or, in some cases, not a good place for beginners. That being said, one of my largest, if not the largest problem with a lot of the comments is that they are given to those who are brand new to SW, or maybe even the hobby and hence, I either want to expand upon things to explain them - I figure that it becomes easier to follow advice, 'rules', 'guidelines', etc. if we understand why we should follow them - or I feel as though the option being advised could become complicated and put a bad taste in someone's mouth...in fact, I started and stopped trying to set up my first saltwater tank three times because I became so frustrated that I chose to stick with what I already knew; even after doing a lot of research before I began. And yes, I realize that I am not here to push all of my opinions upon everyone else, nor am I here to propagate my ideologies; in fact, I realize that it is in no way my 'job' to search out what I feel is bad advice and fix it (although I am VERY used to having this out look on another forum and I admit it is hard to change my approach sometimes)....however, I also feel as though one of the best features of forums like this is the fact that there are many experienced hobbyists here who will support or dispute another's advice, info, or ideas; basically a 'checks-and-balances' type environment. So, with that in mind, please understand that I am here to help out where I can - even if my tact is lackluster at times - and I hope that everyone knows that I am not 'picking on' one person, but only 'pick on' comments/posts that I feel I can add value to...even though I realize that is hard to believe.
