Head and Lateral Line Erosion Survey
- Thread starter jhemdal1
- Start date
All,
Here are the result of my online survey of 100 aquarists concerning Head and Lateral Line Erosion (HLLE) Sorry for the formatting problems...
Jay Hemdal
1) What do you think are the POSSIBLE causes of Head and Lateral Line Erosion (HLLE)? (Check all that apply)
Bacterial infection 31.3%
Carbon (by removing essential elements) 30.3%
Carbon (Dust - as an irritant) 28.3%
Copper medication 19.2%
Diet, lack of vitamin C 62.6%
Diet, lack of HUFA's 40.4%
Diet, lack of fiber 20.2%
Electrical grounding problems 32.3%
General stress from captivity 55.6%
Iodine, lack of 10.1%
Protozoan infections, Hexamita, 31.3%
Nitrate, high levels 36.4%
Sunlight, lack of 32.3%
Viral infection 19.2%
Other causes not listed above:
Ozone, ozone-oxidants (3)
Lack of trace elements (3)
Heavy metals other than copper (4)
Poor lighting (2)
Stress from tankmates (4)
Water temperature (1)
Undetermined water quality problem (6)
Pump noise (2)
Global warming (1)
Lack of vitamin A (1)
Genetic predisposition (1)
Dinoflagellates (1)
Starvation during supply chain (1)
2) What do you feel is the SINGLE most important cause of this syndrome in fish? Pick just one answer:
Bacterial infection 2.1%
Carbon (by removing essential elements) 4.1%
Carbon (Dust - as an irritant) 5.2%
Copper medication 6.2%
Diet, lack of vitamin C 15.5%
Diet, lack of HUFA's 11.3%
Diet, lack of fiber 4.1%
Electrical grounding problems 5.2%
General stress from captivity 24.7%
Iodine, lack of 0.0%
Protozoan infections, Hexamita 4.1%
Nitrate, high levels 4.1%
Sunlight, lack of 10.3%
Viral infection 3.1%
3) Have you ever been able to completely resolve a case of HLLE? If so, indicate methods used:
Moved fish to a new tank 37.5%
Kept fish in same tank, changed diet 19.4%
Moved fish, changed diet 29.2%
Removed carbon 12.5%
Removed copper 5.6%
Added grounding probe 5.6%
Changed water 18.1%
Added supplements 20.8%
Did nothing, went away on its own 5.6%
Other methods used to completely resolve HLLE, not listed above
Regranex treatments 8
Water changes ( 1)
Moving fish combined with other changes 8
Treated with Metronidazole (4)
Selcon food additive (1)
Algae added to diet (2)
Garlic (1)
Cured fish of velvet (1)
Added protein skimmer (1)
Reduced ozone oxidants (1)
Reduced stress from tankmates (1)
4) Please indicate your aquarium experience: (choose single best answer)
Beginning home aquarist 0%
Intermediate home aquarist 12%
Advanced home aquarist 15%
Retail pet store employee / owner 3%
Public aquarist 37%
Public aquarium manager / director 29%
Marine / fisheries biologist 4%
Here are the result of my online survey of 100 aquarists concerning Head and Lateral Line Erosion (HLLE) Sorry for the formatting problems...
Jay Hemdal
1) What do you think are the POSSIBLE causes of Head and Lateral Line Erosion (HLLE)? (Check all that apply)
Bacterial infection 31.3%
Carbon (by removing essential elements) 30.3%
Carbon (Dust - as an irritant) 28.3%
Copper medication 19.2%
Diet, lack of vitamin C 62.6%
Diet, lack of HUFA's 40.4%
Diet, lack of fiber 20.2%
Electrical grounding problems 32.3%
General stress from captivity 55.6%
Iodine, lack of 10.1%
Protozoan infections, Hexamita, 31.3%
Nitrate, high levels 36.4%
Sunlight, lack of 32.3%
Viral infection 19.2%
Other causes not listed above:
Ozone, ozone-oxidants (3)
Lack of trace elements (3)
Heavy metals other than copper (4)
Poor lighting (2)
Stress from tankmates (4)
Water temperature (1)
Undetermined water quality problem (6)
Pump noise (2)
Global warming (1)
Lack of vitamin A (1)
Genetic predisposition (1)
Dinoflagellates (1)
Starvation during supply chain (1)
2) What do you feel is the SINGLE most important cause of this syndrome in fish? Pick just one answer:
Bacterial infection 2.1%
Carbon (by removing essential elements) 4.1%
Carbon (Dust - as an irritant) 5.2%
Copper medication 6.2%
Diet, lack of vitamin C 15.5%
Diet, lack of HUFA's 11.3%
Diet, lack of fiber 4.1%
Electrical grounding problems 5.2%
General stress from captivity 24.7%
Iodine, lack of 0.0%
Protozoan infections, Hexamita 4.1%
Nitrate, high levels 4.1%
Sunlight, lack of 10.3%
Viral infection 3.1%
3) Have you ever been able to completely resolve a case of HLLE? If so, indicate methods used:
Moved fish to a new tank 37.5%
Kept fish in same tank, changed diet 19.4%
Moved fish, changed diet 29.2%
Removed carbon 12.5%
Removed copper 5.6%
Added grounding probe 5.6%
Changed water 18.1%
Added supplements 20.8%
Did nothing, went away on its own 5.6%
Other methods used to completely resolve HLLE, not listed above
Regranex treatments 8
Water changes ( 1)
Moving fish combined with other changes 8
Treated with Metronidazole (4)
Selcon food additive (1)
Algae added to diet (2)
Garlic (1)
Cured fish of velvet (1)
Added protein skimmer (1)
Reduced ozone oxidants (1)
Reduced stress from tankmates (1)
4) Please indicate your aquarium experience: (choose single best answer)
Beginning home aquarist 0%
Intermediate home aquarist 12%
Advanced home aquarist 15%
Retail pet store employee / owner 3%
Public aquarist 37%
Public aquarium manager / director 29%
Marine / fisheries biologist 4%
i'll elaborate...
Jay,
first off-no offense, insult, or disrespect to you, or the effort you took to take this survey/collate the info, and i've found your posts on most anything to be sensible, well reasoned
my apologies if i came across that way...
the info itself is completely useless, hoiwever, unless all of the environmental parameters of where/how the fish were kept shortly before/during the onset of "HLLE" are given/known-not only due to what's following in this response, but also due to anything other than having that info makes the entire data set purely and completely anecdotal/ conjectural/possibly imaginary (maybe someone saw something that superficially LOOKED like what they thought hllle looks like)
i guarantee you will find a general pattern of ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION(S), (for at least one particular group of fish) one that is easily monitored, that MOST cases of "hlle" have in common/can be attributed to
99% of the time it's caused by those keeping the d**n thing -nothing else, and it started from an idiotic (imo) practice, one i've always thought was truly dumb, never made sense, and when i was told why it was thought it was a good thing to do, under certain circumstances, still never really agreed with, preached over the years by morons to naive unsuspecting noobies, who further spread the words as morons themselves-for they never questioned what's obviously so counter to common sense (or what i think is so obviously 'common sense' that this should have been nipped in the bud when the first morons started their tripe, heh, by making them tickle lionfish)
the causality info can be found on the net-after going nutzo for months trying to figure out a large scale ongoing "hlle" problem-looked at current, and all sorts of other stuff, and I was a moron for not thinking about the basics ,and for not thinking in my all too typical highly critical fashion ( i generally take no info for granted without some type of standard meeting verification/proof
my boss actually found the info via google,heh, and the entire problem of "hlle" literally vanished-like flicking a switch, for multiple tens (sometimes over a hundred at a whack) of individual fish of a species that was a chronic problem, vis-a-vis hlle
they who find the info (i'm obligated (for right or wrong) to not say what it is, and i'm making it as easy to find as i can so hobbyists can apply their brains and gumption and avoid the lazy trap i so easily slid into) will be floored by how simple a fix it is (that's another 'clue', heh) , and in most cases, the "hlle" is completely reversible
having said that- i've seen different 'types' of hlle (more extensive/deeper erosion/pitting, following more/less closely along the lateral line.....
one type seems to be 'triggered'/caused by physical damage to the skin by flukes-i've noticed a correlation with imperator angels (mainly subadults/adults) that land heavy with flukes as a grup to 'leave behind' a larger number of individuals with pitting (sometimes quite deep) around the forehead/face area, then 'extending/spreding' down the lateral line area
i've seen large maroon clowns arrive with brooklynella so advanced that after a 'hail mary' dipping/treatment regime, (which is always succesfull, due to the extent of the 'infection' already present, and other work/time constraints, heh), they would appear to have 'hlle', the skin/epithelium was so badly eroded/consumed
i truly can't see it being caused by diet, at its root- 99.9% of the critters we keep, we know the eating habits of in the wild, and fish food nutrition research was fairly well developed/founded/funded prior to my teenage years, for fw fish, at least, and by if not before the early/mid 90's, for most sw fish (we had 'amgel formula' foods by ocean nutrition, companies like o.s.i., aquarian, hbh, in addition to the commercial fish feed industry, and all of their research and development, and i lose count on how many diy articles on home food making i've seen over the decades in the hobby "rags".
some cases of "hlle" are nothing but scar tissue left as a result of "hlle" that was "cured"-the hobbyist thinks the "hlle" is till ongoing
so,
many of these cases might not even resemble each other, let alone hlle to begin with-the observer themself by be rendering the survey meaningless
there could be prior cause from further up the coc that many of these fish have in common, that has nothing to do with what the hobbyist is doing-one question that should be asked is 'how long after purchase did "hlle" develop ?"
it would be killer if those same respondents could provide the baseline husbandry practice data-i'll bet dollars to donuts you'll see a pattern, and alot of the purported causes will be negated within each group (e.g.- two hobbyists that entered "electricity" may find their "timelines" show no visible/apparent causality due to the way one happened compared to the other)
i'll bet a bajillion sump bux that 90% of ALL cases of "hlle" could have/can be prevented by looking at simple basic environmental parameters, and keeping the fish in the same environment they've spent alot of years evolving to live/function in (though the occasional 'artificially imposed' alteration may be necessary/a good thing)
for your consideration
Jay,
first off-no offense, insult, or disrespect to you, or the effort you took to take this survey/collate the info, and i've found your posts on most anything to be sensible, well reasoned
my apologies if i came across that way...the info itself is completely useless, hoiwever, unless all of the environmental parameters of where/how the fish were kept shortly before/during the onset of "HLLE" are given/known-not only due to what's following in this response, but also due to anything other than having that info makes the entire data set purely and completely anecdotal/ conjectural/possibly imaginary (maybe someone saw something that superficially LOOKED like what they thought hllle looks like)
i guarantee you will find a general pattern of ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION(S), (for at least one particular group of fish) one that is easily monitored, that MOST cases of "hlle" have in common/can be attributed to
99% of the time it's caused by those keeping the d**n thing -nothing else, and it started from an idiotic (imo) practice, one i've always thought was truly dumb, never made sense, and when i was told why it was thought it was a good thing to do, under certain circumstances, still never really agreed with, preached over the years by morons to naive unsuspecting noobies, who further spread the words as morons themselves-for they never questioned what's obviously so counter to common sense (or what i think is so obviously 'common sense' that this should have been nipped in the bud when the first morons started their tripe, heh, by making them tickle lionfish)
the causality info can be found on the net-after going nutzo for months trying to figure out a large scale ongoing "hlle" problem-looked at current, and all sorts of other stuff, and I was a moron for not thinking about the basics
,and for not thinking in my all too typical highly critical fashion ( i generally take no info for granted without some type of standard meeting verification/proofmy boss actually found the info via google,heh, and the entire problem of "hlle" literally vanished-like flicking a switch, for multiple tens (sometimes over a hundred at a whack) of individual fish of a species that was a chronic problem, vis-a-vis hlle
they who find the info (i'm obligated (for right or wrong) to not say what it is, and i'm making it as easy to find as i can so hobbyists can apply their brains and gumption and avoid the lazy trap i so easily slid into) will be floored by how simple a fix it is (that's another 'clue', heh) , and in most cases, the "hlle" is completely reversible
having said that- i've seen different 'types' of hlle (more extensive/deeper erosion/pitting, following more/less closely along the lateral line.....
one type seems to be 'triggered'/caused by physical damage to the skin by flukes-i've noticed a correlation with imperator angels (mainly subadults/adults) that land heavy with flukes as a grup to 'leave behind' a larger number of individuals with pitting (sometimes quite deep) around the forehead/face area, then 'extending/spreding' down the lateral line area
i've seen large maroon clowns arrive with brooklynella so advanced that after a 'hail mary' dipping/treatment regime, (which is always succesfull, due to the extent of the 'infection' already present, and other work/time constraints, heh), they would appear to have 'hlle', the skin/epithelium was so badly eroded/consumed
i truly can't see it being caused by diet, at its root- 99.9% of the critters we keep, we know the eating habits of in the wild, and fish food nutrition research was fairly well developed/founded/funded prior to my teenage years, for fw fish, at least, and by if not before the early/mid 90's, for most sw fish (we had 'amgel formula' foods by ocean nutrition, companies like o.s.i., aquarian, hbh, in addition to the commercial fish feed industry, and all of their research and development, and i lose count on how many diy articles on home food making i've seen over the decades in the hobby "rags".
some cases of "hlle" are nothing but scar tissue left as a result of "hlle" that was "cured"-the hobbyist thinks the "hlle" is till ongoing
so,
many of these cases might not even resemble each other, let alone hlle to begin with-the observer themself by be rendering the survey meaningless
there could be prior cause from further up the coc that many of these fish have in common, that has nothing to do with what the hobbyist is doing-one question that should be asked is 'how long after purchase did "hlle" develop ?"
it would be killer if those same respondents could provide the baseline husbandry practice data-i'll bet dollars to donuts you'll see a pattern, and alot of the purported causes will be negated within each group (e.g.- two hobbyists that entered "electricity" may find their "timelines" show no visible/apparent causality due to the way one happened compared to the other)
i'll bet a bajillion sump bux
that 90% of ALL cases of "hlle" could have/can be prevented by looking at simple basic environmental parameters, and keeping the fish in the same environment they've spent alot of years evolving to live/function in (though the occasional 'artificially imposed' alteration may be necessary/a good thing)for your consideration
addendum...
there's also the very important issue of 'lag time' between ending the root cause (whatever it may be), and the APPEARANCE of the fish being 'recovered'-when it essentially recovered long before thought by the keeper, and was merely replacing/fixing damaged tissue-what needs to be noted is what changed to STOP THE PROGRESSION, (difficult to do without daily removal of the fish/microscopy of the skin) not when the keeper decided it was fixed, either by first making note of the 'recession' (Of the 'hlle') after it began to recede, or assuming the fish was stille 'sick' w/ 'hlle' until all of the tissue healed (this also leads to the 'permanent scar tissue' causing some to think the cause is still possibly ongoing, when it may not be)
there's also the very important issue of 'lag time' between ending the root cause (whatever it may be), and the APPEARANCE of the fish being 'recovered'-when it essentially recovered long before thought by the keeper, and was merely replacing/fixing damaged tissue-what needs to be noted is what changed to STOP THE PROGRESSION, (difficult to do without daily removal of the fish/microscopy of the skin) not when the keeper decided it was fixed, either by first making note of the 'recession' (Of the 'hlle') after it began to recede, or assuming the fish was stille 'sick' w/ 'hlle' until all of the tissue healed (this also leads to the 'permanent scar tissue' causing some to think the cause is still possibly ongoing, when it may not be)
Vitz,
Please do not shoot the messenger. I did not comment on the survey results, I only posted what 100 advanced aquarists reported to me.
This was simply a straw poll, preliminary to a study that I've been funded for to delve into the cause(s) of HLLE. We've actually been able to instigate and reverse HLLE in fishes by controlling one of the factors listed in the survey (I'm not interested in debating which one until I've had time to run the controlled study).
Jay
Wisdom includes not getting angry unnecessarily. - RAH
Please do not shoot the messenger. I did not comment on the survey results, I only posted what 100 advanced aquarists reported to me.
This was simply a straw poll, preliminary to a study that I've been funded for to delve into the cause(s) of HLLE. We've actually been able to instigate and reverse HLLE in fishes by controlling one of the factors listed in the survey (I'm not interested in debating which one until I've had time to run the controlled study).
Jay
Wisdom includes not getting angry unnecessarily. - RAH
Since a high percentage of respondents are either aquarists or aquatic managers at public aquariums, my own tendency is to pay more attention to the results of the poll and examine, for instance, why moving the animal may have lead to the elimination of HLLE, rather than simply discrediting or discounting the poll altogether. Or, did you miss these stats, vitz?
Home aquarists (a.k.a. hobbyists) comprise 27% of those polled, whereas those working in the public aquarium sector comprise TWO THIRDS of the respondents (66% in total). I would first consider the source before working hard to break it down.jhemdal":16lj9h6z said:
miss them ? no, i did not miss them-but you asked:
they also happen to be among the most irrelevant of the data presented
far more relevant would be how many fish they've treated,what was observed vis-a-vis its relation to the lateral line, when the progression stopped (THAT is the 'cure moment') -and ALL environemntal parameters prior to, during, and after the c'ure', from temp onwards...least important and completely irrelevant is how many years they've been involved w/an organization, or what the name of the org is, imo
'public aquarist' could, for all i know, and as presented, mean some noob w/a one month old bs in marine bio who's been employed there for 6 months, and never had a tank of his own, or even saw a blochi, or palani (sp?) tang-maybe someone who never even saw a live fish w/hlle before?
i'm not saying such is indeed the case, mind you-but it's more than plausible, and until known to be otherwise,again, that data is irrelevant
it could be 'joe blow's basement garage fly by night imperator imports' for all i care-their fish guy could be a whiz bang genius self taught piscatorial guru w/a full lab in his basement, who's reversed 'hlle' in 10,000 angels
so who's title/place of employ is more important/relvant/qualifying now ? :idea:
i've seen enough public aquaria, and know how they run, to a limited extent where some get some/part of their livestock from, to know better than to automatically assume that the job, or position by itself accredits competence or experience/expertise in any knowledge of "hlle" (pick a disease it doesn't really matter which)
public aquaria represent a teency weency part of the landed fish population into the u.s., and i'm sure there are far more hobbyists w/ 'hlle' experience than there are public aquarists, simply due to sheer numbers
public aquaria aren't the lofty abode of fish genius heaven, and working there doesn't make anyone a fish god who should be assumed to know something or have good data simply because of the title 'public aquarist' on a survey :idea:
the same is true, of course, for importer/whiolesalers, and the MO 'industry'
so big effin tickle, some respondents are public aquarists-that by itself doesn't impress me one little bit, as relates to a survey on hlle
it's kinda like seeing someone throw around how they worked at a public aquarium to indicate they actually know the subject matter at hand while mis-identifying diseases on photos sent to them in emails, then further directing others to a website FULL of similiar 'diagnoses', from an entire staff, no less, along with a plethora of erroneous info across the board for many species of both sw and fw fish-just because it happens to belong to a great guy doesn't make all the mateial on the site great
not very impressing, either
just because they worked at an aquarium and post on a website doesn't (obviously) mean they know anything, and has NO bearing on their level of knowledge, actual or imagined, on a particular subject of fishkeeping, whatever it may be-doing so with misinformation is, well, just plain sad to see
again - name, title are good for writing on a piece of paper-for data to be relevant, the person themselves doesn't matter, their REAL experience/qualifications, data collection/analysis skills do :idea:
name dropping and title dropping serve one goal, imo - to impress, in order to help one feel less insecure, or to present a more 'secure' facade-i've always found it to be mildly distasteful, at best
there are, to be sure, some 'gem quality' exceptions, and knowledgable folk peppered in the group, to be sure-but as a title/qualification ? the last person i would pick out of a pile of apps/resumes, for MY job, or as an assistant, would be anyone who has a degree, or who's had 'public aquarium' experience-they don't necessarily mean squat to the skill set called 'husbandry'-and THAT has no relevance to the survey either
i worked in a commercial apple orchard for about 3-4 yrs. one of the 'older-timers' was this cat by the name of 'avramiko' (iirc)
i was sent to work with/for him one day, to get a 'surface' education' on a type of borer worm-the worm burrows down through the trunk of the tree, slowly killing it-they can be davastating to an orchard if unchecked..you'd try and find the entry hole of the worm, and then you'd have to poke a metal 'probe to grab the worm and hook it out-but you needed to get the whole worm out, so one would have to snake in the probe and 'feel' for the worm
this guy could walk up to a tree, tap it for mebbe 15 seconds, and know where all the worms were 8O
he didn't get to that level because his name was avramiko, or because he happened to work at 'x's orchards'-he had no degree, no title
he was a professional in the 'pure' sense of the word-not meaning being paid for what he did-but for having a cetain 'attitude' about what he did- and he did it with interest for many years
none of the above is about how i compare anyone in the survey's knowledge level/skill set to mine, or what i think they know compared to me-nor is this little tirade any attempt to claim that i'm expert at anything-i only know enough to now see just how little i know, and how little i knew when i thought i knew something, heh, when it come to the world of fishkeeping
my apologies to the 'good folks' who ARE experts in their repctive fields in the public aquaria domain -if half of the public aquaria, or zoos, for that matter, had quality folks like that-the world of animals, aquatic and non, would be a much different and better place.
i hope it's clear that this is all about surveys/extrapolation/conclusion, and how they relate to data,and what, in my opinion, makes the data valid in order to obtain a meaningful conclusion to begin with.
what's lacking in the survey itself is what's most important, and there's 'fluff' data thrown in that has absolutely NO relevance to an 'hlle' investigation/survey/data presentation
an 8 yr old kid could be one of the respondents for all i care-their data/logs/records/photos-if properly and thoroughly performed/done/collected, are NO less valid for the study than anyone elses simply because they mention that they happen to work at a public aquarium (whether part of the survey or not)
it's all about the data-properly collected data leaves very little room for argument or wastefull misdirection
it's my opinion
call me 'old school'
they also happen to be among the most irrelevant of the data presented
far more relevant would be how many fish they've treated,what was observed vis-a-vis its relation to the lateral line, when the progression stopped (THAT is the 'cure moment') -and ALL environemntal parameters prior to, during, and after the c'ure', from temp onwards...least important and completely irrelevant is how many years they've been involved w/an organization, or what the name of the org is, imo
'public aquarist' could, for all i know, and as presented, mean some noob w/a one month old bs in marine bio who's been employed there for 6 months, and never had a tank of his own, or even saw a blochi, or palani (sp?) tang-maybe someone who never even saw a live fish w/hlle before?
i'm not saying such is indeed the case, mind you-but it's more than plausible, and until known to be otherwise,again, that data is irrelevant
it could be 'joe blow's basement garage fly by night imperator imports' for all i care-their fish guy could be a whiz bang genius self taught piscatorial guru w/a full lab in his basement, who's reversed 'hlle' in 10,000 angels
so who's title/place of employ is more important/relvant/qualifying now ? :idea:
i've seen enough public aquaria, and know how they run, to a limited extent where some get some/part of their livestock from, to know better than to automatically assume that the job, or position by itself accredits competence or experience/expertise in any knowledge of "hlle" (pick a disease it doesn't really matter which)
public aquaria represent a teency weency part of the landed fish population into the u.s., and i'm sure there are far more hobbyists w/ 'hlle' experience than there are public aquarists, simply due to sheer numbers
public aquaria aren't the lofty abode of fish genius heaven, and working there doesn't make anyone a fish god who should be assumed to know something or have good data simply because of the title 'public aquarist' on a survey :idea:
the same is true, of course, for importer/whiolesalers, and the MO 'industry'
so big effin tickle, some respondents are public aquarists-that by itself doesn't impress me one little bit, as relates to a survey on hlle
it's kinda like seeing someone throw around how they worked at a public aquarium to indicate they actually know the subject matter at hand while mis-identifying diseases on photos sent to them in emails, then further directing others to a website FULL of similiar 'diagnoses', from an entire staff, no less, along with a plethora of erroneous info across the board for many species of both sw and fw fish-just because it happens to belong to a great guy doesn't make all the mateial on the site great
not very impressing, either
just because they worked at an aquarium and post on a website doesn't (obviously) mean they know anything, and has NO bearing on their level of knowledge, actual or imagined, on a particular subject of fishkeeping, whatever it may be-doing so with misinformation is, well, just plain sad to see
again - name, title are good for writing on a piece of paper-for data to be relevant, the person themselves doesn't matter, their REAL experience/qualifications, data collection/analysis skills do :idea:
name dropping and title dropping serve one goal, imo - to impress, in order to help one feel less insecure, or to present a more 'secure' facade-i've always found it to be mildly distasteful, at best
there are, to be sure, some 'gem quality' exceptions, and knowledgable folk peppered in the group, to be sure-but as a title/qualification ? the last person i would pick out of a pile of apps/resumes, for MY job, or as an assistant, would be anyone who has a degree, or who's had 'public aquarium' experience-they don't necessarily mean squat to the skill set called 'husbandry'-and THAT has no relevance to the survey either
i worked in a commercial apple orchard for about 3-4 yrs. one of the 'older-timers' was this cat by the name of 'avramiko' (iirc)
i was sent to work with/for him one day, to get a 'surface' education' on a type of borer worm-the worm burrows down through the trunk of the tree, slowly killing it-they can be davastating to an orchard if unchecked..you'd try and find the entry hole of the worm, and then you'd have to poke a metal 'probe to grab the worm and hook it out-but you needed to get the whole worm out, so one would have to snake in the probe and 'feel' for the worm
this guy could walk up to a tree, tap it for mebbe 15 seconds, and know where all the worms were 8O
he didn't get to that level because his name was avramiko, or because he happened to work at 'x's orchards'-he had no degree, no title
he was a professional in the 'pure' sense of the word-not meaning being paid for what he did-but for having a cetain 'attitude' about what he did- and he did it with interest for many years
none of the above is about how i compare anyone in the survey's knowledge level/skill set to mine, or what i think they know compared to me-nor is this little tirade any attempt to claim that i'm expert at anything-i only know enough to now see just how little i know, and how little i knew when i thought i knew something, heh, when it come to the world of fishkeeping
my apologies to the 'good folks' who ARE experts in their repctive fields in the public aquaria domain -if half of the public aquaria, or zoos, for that matter, had quality folks like that-the world of animals, aquatic and non, would be a much different and better place.
i hope it's clear that this is all about surveys/extrapolation/conclusion, and how they relate to data,and what, in my opinion, makes the data valid in order to obtain a meaningful conclusion to begin with.
what's lacking in the survey itself is what's most important, and there's 'fluff' data thrown in that has absolutely NO relevance to an 'hlle' investigation/survey/data presentation
an 8 yr old kid could be one of the respondents for all i care-their data/logs/records/photos-if properly and thoroughly performed/done/collected, are NO less valid for the study than anyone elses simply because they mention that they happen to work at a public aquarium (whether part of the survey or not)
it's all about the data-properly collected data leaves very little room for argument or wastefull misdirection
it's my opinion
call me 'old school'
Vitz,
My first inclination was to respond angrily to your lengthy diatribes. Upon further reflection, I'll just say this: you have your opinion, you have stated it, restating it 20 different ways doesn't help you make your point, and your outlandish rhetoric is only cluttering the issue.
Seamaiden,
Yes - 2/3 of the data came from people who responded to my survey through AquaticInfo, the public aquarium listserve. I know many of these people, and trust their insight. The other important bit of information was that 2/3 of the cures involved moving the fish to a new aquarium. In fact, if I had constructed the survey questions differently, I suspect that this value would have been higher. For my own facility, 100% of the remissions we have seen involved moving the fish to a new aquarium.
With the survey, I had the benefit of seeing each response by itself - so I could see which data came from public aquariums, and which came from home aquarists. Seen in that light, you could really see a big difference in the responses. Many of the outlaying data came from the intermediate home aquarium sub-set (grounding probes, Selcon, garlic, etc.)
Jay
My first inclination was to respond angrily to your lengthy diatribes. Upon further reflection, I'll just say this: you have your opinion, you have stated it, restating it 20 different ways doesn't help you make your point, and your outlandish rhetoric is only cluttering the issue.
Seamaiden,
Yes - 2/3 of the data came from people who responded to my survey through AquaticInfo, the public aquarium listserve. I know many of these people, and trust their insight. The other important bit of information was that 2/3 of the cures involved moving the fish to a new aquarium. In fact, if I had constructed the survey questions differently, I suspect that this value would have been higher. For my own facility, 100% of the remissions we have seen involved moving the fish to a new aquarium.
With the survey, I had the benefit of seeing each response by itself - so I could see which data came from public aquariums, and which came from home aquarists. Seen in that light, you could really see a big difference in the responses. Many of the outlaying data came from the intermediate home aquarium sub-set (grounding probes, Selcon, garlic, etc.)
Jay
While my own PA experience is limited, because of my experience and those I've known, I have much respect for the general level of knowledge and expertise as well. Knowing that some have fairly decent labs and veterinarians on site makes their observations even more significant, again, in my opinion.jhemdal":33usvkqn said:
I'll be interested to see where all this leads.
Jay, do you have any ideas about what might be at play here when a large part of the resolved cases came about by simply moving the animal? I mean, it can't just be a change of scenery, can it? Diet almost seems self-evident, yet it doesn't account for the greatest percentage of recoveries.
Also, you refer to the resolution of HLLE as a "remission", is this because of a tendency to return?
Also, you refer to the resolution of HLLE as a "remission", is this because of a tendency to return?
O.K. seamaiden, you asked for it!
Yep! I have some ideas as to why we can reverse the lesions when we move fish back and forth. Take a deep breath and get ready for a long read:
The only thing I've been able to demonstrate for certain as a causative agent has been activated carbon, but there are probably other abiotic factors. Although I do not believe it to be the case, I still need to rule out that the carbon isn't removing some essential compound. I still feel that the carbon connection is through some issue with the dust. I have two definitive cases in my records: one was moving a fish in and out of a tank filtered with carbon caused the HLLE to come and go. I did this multiple times. In another case, the fish stayed in the tank and I added carbon filtration, then the HLLE began. When I removed the carbon (and changed the water and the substrate) the HLLE went away. Combine this with a multitude of records I have where tanks exposed to carbon had a history of HLLE and those that never saw carbon did not. We had one 900 gallon tank that was a "HLLE factory", when we tore it down, replaced the substrate and stopped using carbon, the problem never returned. My favorite case was where we had a 500 gallon display that never had HLLE, and suddenly it developed with nothing changed. I told my staff, oh crud, that sure blows a huge hole in my idea. Sheepishly, one of the aquarists tells me, uhh - the tank was a little yellowish, so I added a bag of carbon to the filter a few weeks ago (grin).
I have on case in my records from another aquarium - they filled one of their rapid sand filters with carbon (not a good idea). The carbon basically got blasted into dust and pumped out into a huge exhibit. The fish in this system actually died from the HLLE, it was so severe. However, all the sharks and other fish that don't develop HLLE survived. I don't think I can use that case in my study because they really don't want to have their error published in a report. There are two other public aquariums who have seen this carbon connection and proved it to their own satisfaction. There are many more aquariums who suspect it, but haven't seen proof in their own tanks (yet). There are some public aquariums that don't routinely see HLLE, but they have flow-through systems (Like Monterey). That doesn't prove the carbon connection, but it doesn't disprove it either.
So why public aquariums and carbon and not so much carbon and home aquarists? I have a strong hunch it has to do with the type and grade of carbon used. I always bought the cheap dusty stuff, many other aquariums do also, Hobbyists tend to by smaller amounts, of higher grade. I've never had pelleted carbon cause this problem. One additional point - foam fractionators remove POC, carbon dust is the epitomy of POC, I still can use carbon in my reef systems with impunity.
Simply removing carbon from an affected tank will not resolve the problems, the dust is in the gravel, or in the sump. In some cases, the HLLE scarring has been in place for so long, the lesions never resolve no matter what is done to the fish (not including Regranex - I can't comment on that because I've not used it)
We know now that it ISN'T a disease caused by other organisms, and IMO, while a better diet can improve or even eliminate the symptoms, I have not seen proof that a moderately poor diet can actually cause it. A horribly defficient diet can, but then the mechanism could be different, such as collegen break-down or some such.
One problem I have is why carbon dust and not other dusts such as DE powder or the stuff that comes off crushed coral gravel? I also do not rule out other causes, but I do not believe in the "general stress" idea. Nobody has measured stress hormones in these fish to even know if they are being stressed - they just assume that captive fish must be stressed. For over 20 years, I have been collecting fish respiration rates as a relative means to determine their stress levels (we know stressed fish breath more rapidly). I won't go into all the details here, but I closed the study out when time after time, as I collected data from fish in the wild, their respiration rates were always higher than in captive fish (and yes, I took into account water temperature, fish size and species differences). So - if wild fish are more physically stressed by that measure, why no HLLE there? (Except one photo I've seen of a black longnose tang with it in the wild).
Whew!
Jay
Yep! I have some ideas as to why we can reverse the lesions when we move fish back and forth. Take a deep breath and get ready for a long read:
The only thing I've been able to demonstrate for certain as a causative agent has been activated carbon, but there are probably other abiotic factors. Although I do not believe it to be the case, I still need to rule out that the carbon isn't removing some essential compound. I still feel that the carbon connection is through some issue with the dust. I have two definitive cases in my records: one was moving a fish in and out of a tank filtered with carbon caused the HLLE to come and go. I did this multiple times. In another case, the fish stayed in the tank and I added carbon filtration, then the HLLE began. When I removed the carbon (and changed the water and the substrate) the HLLE went away. Combine this with a multitude of records I have where tanks exposed to carbon had a history of HLLE and those that never saw carbon did not. We had one 900 gallon tank that was a "HLLE factory", when we tore it down, replaced the substrate and stopped using carbon, the problem never returned. My favorite case was where we had a 500 gallon display that never had HLLE, and suddenly it developed with nothing changed. I told my staff, oh crud, that sure blows a huge hole in my idea. Sheepishly, one of the aquarists tells me, uhh - the tank was a little yellowish, so I added a bag of carbon to the filter a few weeks ago (grin).
I have on case in my records from another aquarium - they filled one of their rapid sand filters with carbon (not a good idea). The carbon basically got blasted into dust and pumped out into a huge exhibit. The fish in this system actually died from the HLLE, it was so severe. However, all the sharks and other fish that don't develop HLLE survived. I don't think I can use that case in my study because they really don't want to have their error published in a report. There are two other public aquariums who have seen this carbon connection and proved it to their own satisfaction. There are many more aquariums who suspect it, but haven't seen proof in their own tanks (yet). There are some public aquariums that don't routinely see HLLE, but they have flow-through systems (Like Monterey). That doesn't prove the carbon connection, but it doesn't disprove it either.
So why public aquariums and carbon and not so much carbon and home aquarists? I have a strong hunch it has to do with the type and grade of carbon used. I always bought the cheap dusty stuff, many other aquariums do also, Hobbyists tend to by smaller amounts, of higher grade. I've never had pelleted carbon cause this problem. One additional point - foam fractionators remove POC, carbon dust is the epitomy of POC, I still can use carbon in my reef systems with impunity.
Simply removing carbon from an affected tank will not resolve the problems, the dust is in the gravel, or in the sump. In some cases, the HLLE scarring has been in place for so long, the lesions never resolve no matter what is done to the fish (not including Regranex - I can't comment on that because I've not used it)
We know now that it ISN'T a disease caused by other organisms, and IMO, while a better diet can improve or even eliminate the symptoms, I have not seen proof that a moderately poor diet can actually cause it. A horribly defficient diet can, but then the mechanism could be different, such as collegen break-down or some such.
One problem I have is why carbon dust and not other dusts such as DE powder or the stuff that comes off crushed coral gravel? I also do not rule out other causes, but I do not believe in the "general stress" idea. Nobody has measured stress hormones in these fish to even know if they are being stressed - they just assume that captive fish must be stressed. For over 20 years, I have been collecting fish respiration rates as a relative means to determine their stress levels (we know stressed fish breath more rapidly). I won't go into all the details here, but I closed the study out when time after time, as I collected data from fish in the wild, their respiration rates were always higher than in captive fish (and yes, I took into account water temperature, fish size and species differences). So - if wild fish are more physically stressed by that measure, why no HLLE there? (Except one photo I've seen of a black longnose tang with it in the wild).
Whew!
Jay
This leads me to some more questions, first being probably most obvious, are there different sources or methods for making carbon, and what role might those methods or materials make? DE, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have as much of "The Hand of Man" in its make-up as something such as carbon. Perhaps that's part of the issue. Remember, carbonized (burned) foods have been linked to some cancers, perhaps it's an issue of the chemistry that occurs with such processes. <shrug>
In the small research I've been doing of late on terra preta I have found that both source and method of production seem to have some impact on final outcome (how productive such amended soils might become). However, in all instances the addition of bio-char seem to bring about significantly positive results, so it's a rather different beast in that regard.
Fascinating.
In the small research I've been doing of late on terra preta I have found that both source and method of production seem to have some impact on final outcome (how productive such amended soils might become). However, in all instances the addition of bio-char seem to bring about significantly positive results, so it's a rather different beast in that regard.
Fascinating.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
