Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Fish disease affecting shiners

Started by Guest_jblaylock_* , Mar 23 2012 06:17 PM

Prev

Next

Please log in to reply

68 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:28 PM

OK, so I read back through this and 1st if I sounded defensive or argumentative...I'm not. I'm not some peroxide nut and thinks it's a cure-all. It is, however, unbelievable at cleaning my background. When dealing with a very large aquarium that is a show-tank in your dining room, it is important to have it clean and the background is the focal point. I'm not trying to be difficult, just frustrated and worried about loosing fish that I would have to drive many hours to find again.

Doug, I didn't know you adjusted the forumla. And I can't specially answer your questions. I can give you rough figures. 1. The dosage is probably closer to 1/2cup and it's applied directly to the background, not the water. 2. I have a large aerator that blows bubbles out of a water pump about 19 hours out of 24. I can't estimate the organic material the H2O2 comes in contact with before hitting the water, but when the peroxide hits the algea on the background there is lots of fizzing and even 'steam' at times. This isn't super helpful as there are no specifics.

My fish problem started about 2 weeks ago and I've been using H2O2 for about 5-6 months. Lets assume it is the H2O2 that is causing the problem. Is there a way I can use it to clean my background and not harm the fish? I mean, I guess I could use it, fill the tank and then change the water again, but that adds up to a lot of water, time, and Prime.

Back to top

#22 Guest_gerald_*

Guests

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:40 PM

Here's another thought -- possible INDIRECT affect of peroxide: At one of Diana's talks on Mycobacterium she emphasized how Myco, which is slow-growing, grows best in the absence of other bacteria. It can live in water distribution pipes with chlorine, ozone, etc, wher other bacteria cannot. Tanks with high poppulations of waste-processing heterotrophic bacteria tend to be poor environments for Myco. Sp perhaps you have shifted your tank's bacterial assembleage with peroxide to favor Mycobacterium, which is weakening your fish. Fish getting thin and more susceptible to other common diseases may be Myco symptoms.

Back to top

#23 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:46 PM

Mycobacterium, are we talking Fish TB now?

Back to top

#24 Guest_Doug_Dame_*

Guests

Posted 25 March 2012 - 11:43 PM

Josh, I didn't take you as either defensive or argumentative, just a guy understandably unhappy and frustrated with the situation in his prize show tank.

We don't know what a no-impact H2O2 dose would be, and we don't even know whether it's directly affecting the fish (I don't know how the toxicity works, I was thinking maybe "burning" of delicate gill membranes but that's just a guess), or having an indirect effect via the bacterial colonies, or not actually to blame at all. H2O2 being the culprit is only a theory.

If it were me, I'd do smaller bouts of cleaning, followed immediately by 50 or 60% water changes. And I'd probably cut down the hours of lighting to slow down the algae from re-establishing itself. (Somewhere I read once that two five hour blocks of ON light, separated by an hour off, didn't bother normal plants at all but impeded unicell algae, compared to an uninterrupted 10 hours. I like that idea, but I don't know if it's true.) Also, what does the manufacturer of your spiffy background say about in-tank cleaning?

I assume moving the fish to another tank for a few weeks while you do the rest of the cleaning would be a major PITA. But on the cheerful side, if your wife let you keep fish in the bathtub for a couple of weeks, that'd rank right up there in NANFA lore with Casper's Cee-ment pond.

Edited by Doug_Dame, 25 March 2012 - 11:44 PM.

Back to top

#25 Guest_Doug_Dame_*

Guests

Posted 25 March 2012 - 11:58 PM

Anybody else notice the odd time-stamps on our server? I checked a World clock, the only major city in the world our clock aligns with is Kathmandu, Nepal. Odd place for the North American Native Fish Association's server to be hosted. (Mumbai and Bangalore are a 1/2 hr off due to some local wrinkle to the normal GMT+ scheme.)

No complaint, just an observation.

Now return to your regularly scheduled water changes.

Back to top

#26 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:52 AM

Ok, so I'm going to try not using H2O2 for a while and see what happens. The manufacturer suggests to use a soft bristle brush to clean the background. However, when you really can't 'scrub' a surface it's hard to get all the algae off. H2O2 gets it all and leaves it looking new. I did decide to purchase a new filter seen here http://forum.nanfa.o..._100#entry97663, so I'll likely be increasing filtration and maybe that will help also.

So now that I do have the problem, regardless of reason, how do I treat it?

Back to top

#27 Guest_gerald_*

Guests

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:27 AM

Recite with me: Algae is beautiful .... Algae is beautiful .... Algae is beautiful .... Algae is beautiful ....
And if attitude-shift isn't working for you, how about 2 dozen Amano shrimp to scour algae? They do fine with small-med shiners and darters, as long as you dont have any sunfish or big chubs in there. Ive got a couple Amanos (Caridina japonica) in my N.chrosomus tank for nearly 3 years.

Back to top

#28 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:16 AM

I've been trying to say it Gerald....I just can't do it!

I guess I'll go back to using the brush to clean the background and maybe once a month/two I will use H2O2 to thoroughly clean the background and do a double water change.

Back to top

#29 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:10 AM

I've been trying to say it Gerald....I just can't do it!

If you don't find algae beautiful (I don't either), try decreasing your lights to two hours less a day and keeping your nitrate 30 ppm less than it is currently. The algae is probably growing at an abnormally high rate because your nitrate is too high at 40-50 ppm. If you linked a refugium to your tank, the plants would suck up all that nitrate and reduce the concentration to 10 or 20 ppm. Then the algae in your main tank would grow at a much slower rate with decreased light and decreased aqueous nitrogen.

I found out exactly how much faster algae grows with too much light when I left for spring break for a week recently and left my tank light on all week. Things were pretty hairy when I got back (ha ha).

Edited by EricaWieser, 28 March 2012 - 08:16 AM.

Back to top

#30 Guest_VicC_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 10:48 AM

Add a reflector to keep the strong light from shining on the background.

Also, aquatic plant people tell me,
good light grows plants,
substituting more hours of regular light just grows algae.

Back to top

#31 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:08 AM

I think alot of my problem is how close my lights sit to the background. I actually havn't been running the light closest to the background to help slow the growth, and I do that to decrease lighting in the winter to help with the natural cycle.

VicC, what do you mean good light/regular light.....

Back to top

#32 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:43 AM

Erica, what's your thoughts on an algae turf scrubber. Maybe that's my answer.

Back to top

#33 Guest_steve_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:46 AM

Hi Josh, I can't say for sure, but I suspect the reference to the lighting might have to do with wavelength. Plants use light with 400-500 & 600-700 nanometer wavelengths. If you're hitting in that area, your plants have a better shot at using the waste/nutrients than the algae does. I learned this from Erica and she could probably do a better job at giving the full explanation, but that's what I know.

I'm not Erica, but I just built an algae scrubber last week. It's still too early to tell, but I've read that it grows algae so efficiently that it doesn't grow in your tank. I can let you know in a few more weeks how it's working. Hope this helps.

Steve

Edit: I got the idea from Ken discussing the one he uses for his darter tank. He'd probably know. I remember him saying that it depletes the waste/nutrient level so well that he has a hard time getting plants to grow.

Edited by steve, 28 March 2012 - 11:49 AM.

Back to top

#34 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:50 AM

I'm not Erica, but I like the idea of an algae turf scrubber as a filter... but I am not sure if it would really reduce your algae in the main tank... I mean a lot of algae would be in the system... you might be able to suck up all the nutrients with the scrubber, but you may still have to live with some algae... but I can tell you that I would like to see you try this...

I also wonder about some way of blacking out your tank... When I bought my 75 the back and both sides had this black film on them... at first I thought it looked strange, but it has grown on me, and really keeps down the algae growing on the side walls of the tank. So that might also help you in keeping extra light off the background.

But please try the scrubber... and Steve, please share your experiences here on the forum somewhere... I'm sure there are others that would love to hear your experiences.

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#35 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 12:29 PM

Erica, what's your thoughts on an algae turf scrubber. Maybe that's my answer.

I had heard of the term algae turf scrubber mentioned a few times but didn't really know what one was or how it worked, so I looked at http://www.reefsanct...everything.html and found the quote,

The principal is very simple: You have a screen; light is aimed at the screen, and tank water is streamed over the screen. What happens is that a type of algae called "turf" starts growing on the screen (it feels very similar to artificial turf on football fields), and this turf eats ALMOST ALL the nitrate and phosphate in the water flowing over it. However, the turf does NOT eat the food/pods/plankton in the water, so this food will stay in the water for the corals to eat. This is the OPPOSITE of a skimmer, which takes out the food/pods/plankton (so corals starve), but leaves in the nitrate and phosphate that you have to then get out using other means. What about fish waste that skimmers normally pull out? Well that's food too, for somebody. Only after waste decomposes completely into nitrate and phosphate is it no longer "food", and at that point the turf algae zaps it! After all, what do you think the green algae on your rocks and glass are eating? Food? No. Nitrate and phosphate!

That's very sound logic. That's what plants do, too, which is why they make such great filters ( http://www.theaquari...ical_Filtration ). I guess the difference between a refugium and an algae turf scrubber is which plant they use; refugiums use a fast growing species of vascular plant or macroalgae and an algae scrubber uses turf algae. But they both work basically the same way.

An algae scrubber seems to (again, from a brief google poll of the people whose tanks I saw used one) take up roundabouts the same amount of space that a densely planted refugium takes up. So from my cursory amount of research into them there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage to algae turf scrubbers over refugiums or to refugiums over algae turf scrubbers. Both take up about a 10 gallon tank's worth of space and have to be connected to your main tank using PVC pipe. Either is a valid method for reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus molecules in your main tank's water column. If it were me I'd find it easier to toss a clump of ceratophyllum demersum or chaeto into a 10 gallon tank than to build all those sheets and tubes and whatnot for the algae scrubber.

Now, the website I quoted above does have a second quote, which says,

The only thing you need to decide is how big your screen needs to be, and if you want it to be in a bucket or your sump. The basic rule is one square inch of screen for each gallon of tank water. A 5 gallon bucket (like a salt bucket) can hold a screen about 12 X 12 inches = 144 square inches = 144 gal tank; a 2 gallon bucket can hold about 7 X 7 inches = 49 gal tank; a one gallon bucket about 6 X 6 = 36 gal tank. Turf filters get really small as you can see. A 12 gal nano tank needs just 3 X 4 inches in a tupperware container! This small thing replaces the skimmer, refugium, phosphate removers, nitrate removers, carbon, filtersocks, and possibly even waterchanges (if the purpose of the waterchanges is to reduce nitrate and phosphate.) If your tank is bigger than a 144, then just start with a 5 gallon bucket size and see how it goes. You can always add a second one, or build a bigger one later.

That's what they said, but every time I found an image of an ATS setup, the footprint of the space they used was around the same 10 gallon tank size that would be all the space your ball of floating ceratophyllum or chaeto would need. So is the screen small? Yes. But with the water flow tube and the tank underneath the screen, these setups all seem to be about the same size as a comparable refugium. *shrugs* Just my opinion.

The saltwater people never really seemed to understand that the point of the refugium was to get the maximum possible amount of new plant tissue being formed as quickly as possible. Just look at the pitiful small amount of space they gave to chaeto in this proposed refugium setup: http://www.fishtanks...ium30-large.jpg . Maybe the algae turf scrubber is one way to convince that crowd to use more plant. But my idea of a planted 10 gallon tank used for a refugium means that it should be filled from end to end and top to bottom with rapidly growing plant tissue. For example, here is a photo of my 10 gallon guppy tank: http://img.photobuck...imiru/014-5.jpg . At that point there's enough plant tissue growing fast enough that that 10 gallon tank could be used as a refugium for a much, much larger nonplanted tank. So I guess my point is: Yes, there must be plants in your refugium for it to be able to work, where working is defined as sucking out nitrogen and phosphorus from the main tank's water column. But whether that plant mass is algae or vascular plant doesn't really matter, as long as whatever you have is growing very very fast.

The one question I would have is does the algae need to be trimmed? Does the old tissue go away somehow? Because if there was such a thing as a growing tank that you never had to trim well then that, alone, would be a major advantage. The guppy tank I showed you above has to be trimmed regularly or the fast growing plants basically turn into a solid cube of green plant tissue. If the algae scrubber never has to be trimmed then that would mean it could be used in setups like museums where the staff may not necessarily know how to do tank maintenance. I think there was a forum question about that not too long ago. But I wouldn't choose an algae scrubber over a refugium in my own home because those plant trimmings make me enough money to pay for all my tank upkeep costs. I regularly sell snippets of plants to people through aquabid, craigslist, and local fish club meetings. So, pros and cons. It's all about which one you, jblaylock, prefer.

Edited by EricaWieser, 28 March 2012 - 01:03 PM.

Back to top

#36 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:07 PM

Oh, there are two ways to remove nitrate, by the way. You mentioned you were doing water changes once every two weeks and that your nitrate is at 40-50 ppm. If you did water changes every single week instead of every other, the nitrate would be reduced to around 20-25 ppm. More frequent water changes is also an option.

You can tell which of the two options I chose (water changes or plant removal of nitrate) by looking at that picture of my 10 gallon tank http://img.photobuck...imiru/014-5.jpg . On the pros side, I can't remember the last time I did a water change on that tank. But on the cons side I trimmed the plants just yesterday. Pros and cons.

Edited by EricaWieser, 28 March 2012 - 01:10 PM.

Back to top

#37 Guest_steve_*

Guests

Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:17 PM

The newer, cheap DIY algae scrubbers that people are building anymore actually use green hair algae instead of turf algae. It's supposed to be more efficient. Here's a link to the description and directions that I used:
http://www.livingree...ber-t32422.html

It does explain that the more algae you can grow in the scrubber the less that will grow in the tank. It makes sense. Unfortunately, I had to take the tank lights off of my 150 shortly after I added the algae scrubber so this may not be the best experiment to answer your questions. If things go well though, I'm hoping to bring the lights back on at some point, so it may just take a little longer.

Here's another link that I referred to while building my scrubber:
http://www.livingree...diy-t16734.html

Lots of options. Please let us know what you try and how it works.

Steve

Back to top

#38 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:58 PM

So things haven't gotten much better. I had a small Hogsucker that was affected, he died. Now, I have several fish showing signs of Fin Rot. This might be another manifestation of flexibacter. I have been doing some treatment with Melafix, this is the only thing I've found to help fin rot, but I don't think it's helping. I'm not sure what to do now, other than water changes, maintaince, and beef up filtration. I guess I'll have to accept fish deaths as they come.

Back to top

#39 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:35 PM

Well things slowed down on the shiners. Though there is still some finrot symptoms, it has slowed.

HOWEVER:

My wife and I had our 1st baby last Tuesday and we were at the hospital from Monday till Friday. When I came home I had 7 dead darters, and it appears I'll lose another today. I know that 5 days without food is a bit much, but usually darters can go around a week. I'm not sure if it was coincedence or not. 2 of the darters had been dwindling for a while and I wasn't surprised by their deaths. 2 others were adults when I collected them, and I have had them for around 3-4 years, so they could have just reached the end. But, I don't think it was just coincedence. I don't know what's going on in that tank.