My „Cleaning station”

[hma]

Hi together....

Today I would like to show you some pictures of my „Cleaning station” ! The two make a splendid job. Since I have the “Cleaning station” in my Fish tank, Ich is never a serious problem for my Tangs. Ok …. I uses also ozone, but the chief work however do the „ Cleaning station“.

 

[reefman420]

beautifull photos.

 

[leebca]

Sad.

 

[hma]

why sad Lee ?

The "guys are happy ... ;-)

 

[Melanie]

Beautiful photos.

 

[leebca]

Heinz,

Parasite eating fishes should not be collected and put into home aquariums. There are some good reasons to support this position:

1. Groups of up to 4 such fish form cleaning stations on the reef. Some very large marine fishes come to the known cleaning areas to be cleaned. When the fish are collected there are consequences, none good:
a. The remaining fish are so swamped with being unable to keep up the cleaning of the fish that show up, they die from shear exhaustion;
b. The fish are totally collected (very easy for the collector to get them all -- they are very brave and approach the diver to 'clean him.') from the station, and the cleaning station is destroyed; and
c. The fish used to being cleaned continue to go infected and spread disease in the reef.

2. In the aquarium, cleaner fishes can’t get enough ‘food parasites’ from the captive fish. They revert back to their basic food, which is to eat the slime coating off the fish. The pecking you see the cleaner fish do is actually removing mucous coating from the fish. The mucous coating is fairly high in proteins and nutrients. Even if the aquarist believes the captive parasite eating fish is eating brine and/or other foods put into the aquarium, these fish keep stripping off the mucous coating of the captive fishes. There are again some consequences to this, none good here, either:
a. The fish, now short mucous coating, can actually contract bacterial infections more easily;
b. The fish, having to replace mucous coating more than it would normally have to is now spending energy in this direction, rather than having extra/free energy to store up faster, or to use to keep real disease away and of course to handle the stress that captivity imposes on them.

3. The totally wrong perception is that cleaner fish remove parasites such as Marine Ich from captive marine fishes. They don’t. If the aquarist will understand that the Marine Ich parasite actually burrows under the top layer of skin of the fish, the aquarist understands the cleaner fish isn’t removing these at all. This is shown by opening up the gut of cleaner fish. No cleaner fish gut was found to contain Marine Ich parasites in the wild or in captivity.

4. The whole concept of having cleaner fish will keep disease out of the aquarium is quite wrong. If 3. isn’t convincing then just think for a minute. If the cleaner fish is keeping disease down, then who cleans the cleaner fish?

There is no gain except for the amusement of the aquarist. Ergo: sad to see these fish in captivity.

 

[caitrina]

Heinz,

Parasite eating fishes should not be collected and put into home aquariums. There are some good reasons to support this position:

1. Groups of up to 4 such fish form cleaning stations on the reef. Some very large marine fishes come to the known cleaning areas to be cleaned. When the fish are collected there are consequences, none good:
a. The remaining fish are so swamped with being unable to keep up the cleaning of the fish that show up, they die from shear exhaustion;
b. The fish are totally collected (very easy for the collector to get them all -- they are very brave and approach the diver to 'clean him.') from the station, and the cleaning station is destroyed; and
c. The fish used to being cleaned continue to go infected and spread disease in the reef.

2. In the aquarium, cleaner fishes can’t get enough ‘food parasites’ from the captive fish. They revert back to their basic food, which is to eat the slime coating off the fish. The pecking you see the cleaner fish do is actually removing mucous coating from the fish. The mucous coating is fairly high in proteins and nutrients. Even if the aquarist believes the captive parasite eating fish is eating brine and/or other foods put into the aquarium, these fish keep stripping off the mucous coating of the captive fishes. There are again some consequences to this, none good here, either:
a. The fish, now short mucous coating, can actually contract bacterial infections more easily;
b. The fish, having to replace mucous coating more than it would normally have to is now spending energy in this direction, rather than having extra/free energy to store up faster, or to use to keep real disease away and of course to handle the stress that captivity imposes on them.

3. The totally wrong perception is that cleaner fish remove parasites such as Marine Ich from captive marine fishes. They don’t. If the aquarist will understand that the Marine Ich parasite actually burrows under the top layer of skin of the fish, the aquarist understands the cleaner fish isn’t removing these at all. This is shown by opening up the gut of cleaner fish. No cleaner fish gut was found to contain Marine Ich parasites in the wild or in captivity.

4. The whole concept of having cleaner fish will keep disease out of the aquarium is quite wrong. If 3. isn’t convincing then just think for a minute. If the cleaner fish is keeping disease down, then who cleans the cleaner fish?

There is no gain except for the amusement of the aquarist. Ergo: sad to see these fish in captivity.

Could this not be said for all things we put into our aquariums? Particularly your last statement "There is no gain except for the amusement of the aquarist." Every day we are taking fish, corals, plants, etc from the oceans and reefs for whose enjoyment? Us , the aquarist. And for what purpose, our enjoyment.

 

[caitrina]

As usual, beautiful photos!

 

[leebca]

No. I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion on the ethics/morals/positives/negatives of reef keeping, however it is the uninformed public that sees reefkeeping as a detriment to the reefs.

The fact is, global warming is destroying reefs. Those aquarists who propagate marine life may actually find one day to be the ones to restore our ravaged reefs from the pollution. Those working diligently towards tank bred marine fishes, may help restock reefs. There are more than 80 fishes known to have been captive bred.

Reef fish suitable to captive life, live longer in the captive life, on a relative basis. That is, more fish live longer than their same numbers on the reef. Disease, predation, and starvation take their toll on the wild population of fishes. To maintain this kind of statement of course, requires that the person is an aquarist and knows proper fish husbandry. I find in general, those that usually don't care, don't go on the Internet to gain information, help, and recommendations about the hobby. They are the ones who the public objects to (and rightly so, IMHO).

The marine hobby does benefit reefs by bringing to the public's attention the beauty, diversity, and magnificent life in the ocean. This can inspire and also educate those around us who see our marine systems with part of that outcome being an interest to preserve that ecosystem. There are an estimated 25,000 fish species on this planet, about 75% of them are in salt water.

The matter of the hobby is debated, but not amongst those who really see the exchange for our amusement to the benefits. The key is 'responsibility' in the hobby. In the case of cleaner fish, the outcome is all negative. The end study is that the cleaner fishes don't live very long in captivity; their capture has the opposite effect on their longevity; and their removal breaks down the reef fish population, which proper collection doesn't. Proper collection is a 'thinning process' saving many young fishes from a high percent of death if left on the reef, when put into proper captivity.

I won't expand on this in this thread.

 

[caitrina]

Neither will I expand on it because I still stand by what I said just as you feel you are correct, so end of my discussion. This could only turn into a "online shouting match" which I do not have the time for nor want to participate in. You have your ideas, I have mine, that is what makes this world go round.

 

[AQTCJAK]

Great looking photos. I am courious Humu & the hippo & cleaners the sohal I know they hold thier own.

 

[BigAl07]

Are those not neon gobies? If so, they breed readily IN captivity.

 

[panmanmatt]

Are those not neon gobies? If so, they breed readily IN captivity.

Nope, they are Labroides dimidiatus, also known as cleaner wrasses.

 

[Cougra]

No those are cleaner wrasse and will most likely end up starving to deathwithin the next month or two.

One of the most common assumptions is that they eat Cryptocaryon irritains so people think that they are good for their tanks. Unfortunately studies have been done and found that they are obligate feeders and the vast majority of their natural diet are isopods, mainly gnathiid isopods. These generally aren't a problem in a captive environment. Without a steady diet of these parasites the fish will starve to death. Even if it is offered and accepts alternative foods they generally will not get all the nutrients that it requires to survive and will slowly starve to death.

Cleaner Wrasse feed on ectoparasites; parasites that live on the outside of a fishes body such as isopods, and sea lice. However Cryptocaryon irritains aren't truly ectoparasites as they burrow beneight the fishes skin while they are feeding on the fish and only come out when they are about to fall off. This is when you see them as white spots.

Cleaner Wrasse also ingests mucus and scales from fish as they are feeding it however it is unknown how important these elements are to their nutritional needs.

 

[Dentoid]

They generally eat parasitic copepods from fishes skin and gills. They absolutely do not consume the ich parasite, which as stated earlier, are imbedded within the tissue of the fish. They also don't do well in captivity. I too am for leaving them in the ocean where they can do their handiwork. Beautiful photographs though!

 

[hma]

I would like to take only few words to this Discussion.

1. my cleaners are over 6 years old. they can become old probably thus in the aquarium.

2. Each fish in the tank intervenes thereby in the cycle of nature, also you Lee,
don't you have fish in your tank ?

3. Particularly my Tangs has now already some years no more diseases. Bite wounds heal
very fast, the Claener cleans the wounds.

4. I could answer further, it does not want however

Caitrina said everything .

 

[BigAl07]

Amazing photography and we appreciate your sharing with the rest of us.

Allen

 

[hma]

No. I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion on the ethics/morals/positives/negatives of reef keeping, however it is the uninformed public that sees reefkeeping as a detriment to the reefs.

The fact is, global warming is destroying reefs. Those aquarists who propagate marine life may actually find one day to be the ones to restore our ravaged reefs from the pollution. Those working diligently towards tank bred marine fishes, may help restock reefs. There are more than 80 fishes known to have been captive bred.

Reef fish suitable to captive life, live longer in the captive life, on a relative basis. That is, more fish live longer than their same numbers on the reef. Disease, predation, and starvation take their toll on the wild population of fishes. To maintain this kind of statement of course, requires that the person is an aquarist and knows proper fish husbandry. I find in general, those that usually don't care, don't go on the Internet to gain information, help, and recommendations about the hobby. They are the ones who the public objects to (and rightly so, IMHO).

The marine hobby does benefit reefs by bringing to the public's attention the beauty, diversity, and magnificent life in the ocean. This can inspire and also educate those around us who see our marine systems with part of that outcome being an interest to preserve that ecosystem. There are an estimated 25,000 fish species on this planet, about 75% of them are in salt water.

The matter of the hobby is debated, but not amongst those who really see the exchange for our amusement to the benefits. The key is 'responsibility' in the hobby. In the case of cleaner fish, the outcome is all negative. The end study is that the cleaner fishes don't live very long in captivity; their capture has the opposite effect on their longevity; and their removal breaks down the reef fish population, which proper collection doesn't. Proper collection is a 'thinning process' saving many young fishes from a high percent of death if left on the reef, when put into proper captivity.

I won't expand on this in this thread.

@Lee

a US citizen says to a European some about global warming….. cool. Until today, the US administration did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. In Europe we already fight for many years for it. Also many US citizens fight against global warming, that's sure, but please don’t tell an European something over global warming and the consequences. We Europeans make already for years very much, are your administration those blocked again and again all decisions and recommendations. By the way, I like America, visit it very often for holidays, loves the country and the people. I could continue Lee, let’s leave it at that for now.


still another question Lee, how much gasoline uses your car?

 

[hma]

Amazing photography and we appreciate your sharing with the rest of us.

Allen

that’s music to my ears , thank you Allen:snshne:

 

[sasquatch]

Heinz! once again the adage of "no two tanks are alike" comes to mind, I congratulate your success and your "cool" lol. Steve