Why Do People Suggest Livestock to Solve Other Problems

[mluntz]

I am just curious why so people suggest putting livestock in their tanks to solve other problems, such as high phosphates, nutrient problems, detritus removal, etc., instead of getting to the root of the problem. Oh, get this fish for this, this starfish for this, sea urchins, cucumbers, snails, crabs, whatever.

It just seems to me that if everyone does this, there wouldn't be any room left in anyone's tanks.

[reepher315]

Some livestock do work for detrius clean up. In the end it lessens the work you have to do. I like my snails, crabs and blenny who keep my rocks and glass clean. But thats as far as I take it. Regular cleanings still have to happen.

[whosurcaddie]

I don't think anyone suggests livestock for high phosphates or nutrient problems that would be counter productive. I regularly suggest nassarius snails for detritus though. They give me piece of mind that a lot of the poop will be eaten and my sand bed is pure white so there's that too.

[whiteshark]

Not a single knowledgeable person would ever suggest adding any fish to control nutrients.

Sometimes when certain critters become a problem, people view the animals that eat those nuisance critters as a viable solution to their problem. Often times they are. Berghia nudibranchs for aiptasia, certain wrasses for flatworms, Emerald crabs for bubble algae, etc. There really is nothing wrong with that. In that case there isn't much you can do. You can't just stop inputting nutrients and eliminate aiptasia. You can't increase calcium, alk and magnesium to get rid of flatworms. In these cases, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the tank or what the hobbyist is doing. Sometimes natural predators are the best way to go.

And that is where I think you see 99% of livestock introduction recommendations for dealing with a problem. The other 1% would be a cleanup crew to deal with things that die, and they are an important part of a reef because things will die, or to deal with something like HA. Now there is a situation I can understand getting to the root of the problem. HA is generally not something that thrives in low nutrient tanks, and if you have a major HA infestation, it's likely because you are inputting too many nutrients. There I agree. You can add as many critters to deal with it as you like, but the ultimate solution there is to reduce the nutrients in the water.

[ca1ore]

Nature's been at the game for millions of years so seems like a good model to follow no? Not suggesting that chemistry shouldn't be used, just that a natural solution is very often the best solution.

[cloak]

I am just curious why so people suggest putting livestock in their tanks to solve other problems, such as high phosphates, nutrient problems, detritus removal, etc., instead of getting to the root of the problem. Oh, get this fish for this, this starfish for this, sea urchins, cucumbers, snails, crabs, whatever.

It just seems to me that if everyone does this, there wouldn't be any room left in anyone's tanks.

I know what you mean. Trying to solve various problems with something that's going to be adding more poop to the tank is not really the best option. I used to be fascinated by all the micro fauna, the snails, the crabs, the starfish, etc, but now, the honeymoon is over. I can keep the tank clean all by myself. Good decision making and a little elbow grease can go a long way sometimes.

[E46Twist]

I tend to agree with OP, keep nutrients lows and prevent the problems from ever happening. Now if a tank has something go wrong as an accident I can see it.

[kw22]

They recommend them to help out with the problem,not solve it.

[m0nkie]

Stuff like algae, it's so hard to control. So you lower nutrients and then add a fish that eats it. Saves you a lot of work

[ca1ore]

Let's see......

Large fish population, heavy feeding (40 fish fed 5 times per day) skimmer helps but nutrient levels climb. Not interested in dosing carbon so installed ATS. Nitrates and phosphates now measure zero.

Tank with flatworm problem, used flatworm exit; still have flatworm problem. Second tank with same flatworms, bought a Dusky Wrasse; no flatworm problem.

Frag tank with GHA; low nutrients, no herbivores. Display on the same system so same water, lots of herbivores, no GHA.

Past tank had major majano problem. Tried lemon juice, Kalk paste, Aptasia-X; still had major infestation. Bought an Asfur Angel, no more majanos (no zoos, either, but hey win some, lose some).

I dunno, seems like biological solutions work pretty well.

[Misled]

Poop was mentioned earlier. I love my tiger tale cuke. He works hard at keeping the upper part of my sandbed clean. His poop is pure, white sand pellets. Mother nature knows her poop.

[mluntz]

I understand that some livestock is beneficial to the well being of any system. What I am questioning for instance is when someone says they have an aptasia problem and someone says get a Copperband butterfly. This may not be the smartest or most educated choice. Or when someone says they have an algae problem and someone suggests getting a tang or an angelfish.

People can be mislead by some of this information and without the proper education, make misinformed decisions.

[ca1ore]

People can be mislead by some of this information and without the proper education, make misinformed decisions.

Well, that's true of anything relating to keeping a reef tank isn't it; not just whether to select a fish in an attempt to solve a particular problem. As much as places like RC can be a source of great information, I'm glad I'm not a newbie as there is also a lot of really questionable advice and persistent myths here as well. It's hard to tell, for example, whether somebody proposing a particular approach has actually done it themselves or are simply parroting what they have only read about. Caveat emptor I'm afraid. Then there is the simple fact that 'correlation is not causation' and there are lots of different ways to accomplish a particular goal.

[MickeyDime53]

I can understand this. In the freshwater world everyone comes to PetSmart demanding an "allergy eater" to "keep the tank clean for me"

No. That Common Pleco will poop so much itll kill everything in you ten gallon tank lmao

I try to tell people "Get a fish because you want it.. not because you want it to do a job that you are supposed to do yourself"

Clearly there are some fish that do jobs we cant do. Those would be in a different category

[Kungpaoshizzi]

I've seen people dictate things as fact, and if you have anything other to say, you're wrong.
It comes from both directions..

I do believe it's quite nice to have a tank, and have an array of options to put in the tank.
Some methods do certain things, some fish/creatures do certain things.

Am I going to say someone is wrong for doing one thing or the other? Some things make things easier, but nobody can be at their tank 24/7.

For every solution there's a problem.

[ktownhero]

I am just curious why so people suggest putting livestock in their tanks to solve other problems, such as high phosphates, nutrient problems, detritus removal, etc., instead of getting to the root of the problem. Oh, get this fish for this, this starfish for this, sea urchins, cucumbers, snails, crabs, whatever.

It just seems to me that if everyone does this, there wouldn't be any room left in anyone's tanks.

...because the whole point of an aquarium to a lot of people is to create an actual eco system?

Questions like this blow my mind. You bring this up as-if finding a natural solution is some sort of bamd-aid solution to mask an underlying problem. I couldn't disagree more.

[mluntz]

...because the whole point of an aquarium to a lot of people is to create an actual eco system?

Questions like this blow my mind. You bring this up as-if finding a natural solution is some sort of bamd-aid solution to mask an underlying problem. I couldn't disagree more.

Your opinion is well taken, but that is not really what I am trying to say. A lot of people already have overstocked and overfed systems, which cause many of the underlying problems. To add more livestock to these systems would simply accelerate the situation. At that point you would have to treat the underlying cause.

[ktownhero]

Your opinion is well taken, but that is not really what I am trying to say. A lot of people already have overstocked and overfed systems, which cause many of the underlying problems. To add more livestock to these systems would simply accelerate the situation. At that point you would have to treat the underlying cause.

I understand what you are getting at, and I do agree with you in that context.

[DavidinGA]

You have a Aiptasia problem that has gotten out of hand; which solution do you recommend instead of livestock???

[Kona26]

I would say to the OP. Think of it like this. When someone asks a question about a problem with their tank they may get 100 answers. 75 of those people give answer from what they have tried and have been told by fellow reefer. The other 25 people most likely know what there are talking about and tell the OP why they said what they said. You can say yes get straight to the problem. But for most people they don't even know where to start. I would also say that if someone has an issue with their tank and did what ever the people post on their thread without doing some research. They should slow down. When I have an issue I look on multiple forum and pick peoples brains before I go putting my hands in my tank. I just think people are trying to help people. It is up to the OP to be smart about it.

[Titans_Reef]

Nature's been at the game for millions of years so seems like a good model to follow no? Not suggesting that chemistry shouldn't be used, just that a natural solution is very often the best solution.

+1, I tend to just let nature run its course vs me placing my hand into it as much as possible to control stuff. I had aptasia which I got some peppermint shrimps and just placed the rocks in a 10g tank with the peppermint shrimps. A week later I had no aptasia, I had no peppermint shrimps either since I didnt feed them after the first day because I placed food inside the aptasia's mouth so the shrimps will learn to eat them which they did and died after I failed to feed them after they took care of my issue. I dont have hair algae because of my foxface and tangs. I use fighting conches to clean my sand bed which I have 3 in my 125g and they keep the sand clean. Im love how nature fixes itself, one reason why I still have a planted tank I havent done a WC for a year since nitrates are 0. I enjoy to just sit back and watch my tank maintain itself and just do WC and monitor all levels to make sure everything is on track.

[PCygni]

I understand that some livestock is beneficial to the well being of any system. What I am questioning for instance is when someone says they have an aptasia problem and someone says get a Copperband butterfly. This may not be the smartest or most educated choice. Or when someone says they have an algae problem and someone suggests getting a tang or an angelfish.

People can be mislead by some of this information and without the proper education, make misinformed decisions.

The only way you survive in this hobby is to learn how not to be "misled," and that takes a lot of time and research and trial and error. I don't really understand the point of this thread. I mean, either you are going take the time to cull through all the crap in these forums and find what's true and what works, or you are not.
You can't save the whole world from making stupid choices and hasty decisions; I'd just worry about your own tank. :uhoh2:

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I understand that some livestock is beneficial to the well being of any system. What I am questioning for instance is when someone says they have an aptasia problem and someone says get a Copperband butterfly. This may not be the smartest or most educated choice. Or when someone says they have an algae problem and someone suggests getting a tang or an angelfish.

People can be mislead by some of this information and without the proper education, make misinformed decisions.

Yes, but I think you may be the one who is possibly misinformed. I have personal experience with both of the "examples" you give, and have read literally hundreds of thousands of posts.

Biological control of aiptasia is, IMO, by far the most effective method. I had a terrible aiptasia problem and got a Chelmon marginalis (like a copperband butterfly)and the problem is gone.

What would you suggest for aiptasia that is not a biological method? IMO, there are no good (nonbiological) methods as each has significant limitations.

On your second point, I got a bad caulerpa racemosa problem in my main tank as I grow it in a refugium. I tried everything I knew of and even broke the whole tank down and scrubbed every rock, but eventually it came back in some spots where I just couldn't/didn't get it all, and it started to take over again.

Then I got a Siganus unimaculatus (foxface) and it solved the algae problem. Now I can regularly bring macroalgae from the refugium to feed several of the fish and there is no concern of it getting established in the display tank. :)

[mluntz]

Yes, but I think you may be the one who is possibly misinformed. I have personal experience with both of the "examples" you give, and have read literally hundreds of thousands of posts.

Biological control of aiptasia is, IMO, by far the most effective method. I had a terrible aiptasia problem and got a Chelmon marginalis (like a copperband butterfly)and the problem is gone.

What would you suggest for aiptasia that is not a biological method? IMO, there are no good (nonbiological) methods as each has significant limitations.

On your second point, I got a bad caulerpa racemosa problem in my main tank as I grow it in a refugium. I tried everything I knew of and even broke the whole tank down and scrubbed every rock, but eventually it came back in some spots where I just couldn't/didn't get it all, and it started to take over again.

Then I got a Siganus unimaculatus (foxface) and it solved the algae problem. Now I can regularly bring macroalgae from the refugium to feed several of the fish and there is no concern of it getting established in the display tank. :)

Your point is well taken and I understand completely. My next question would be what happens to the livestock and inverts when they run out of food and the tank becomes overstocked?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Your point is well taken and I understand completely. My next question would be what happens to the livestock and inverts when they run out of food and the tank becomes overstocked?

I feed them and the tank is not overstocked.

When the Chelmon marginalis ate all the aiptasia and may not have been finding enough copepods after a while of depleting them, I started an effort to both bring them up from my refugium regularly, and I feed Rods food (containing lots of little shrimp like things) from a pipette specifically for him, which he eats from the tip. He still scours the tank looking for aiptasia and other creatures, but he clearly gets enough food since I've had him for 3 1/2 years and he looks fine.

When the foxface ran out of visible algae (took several months), he continued to scour the tank for algae sprouting up and he eats the other foods fed to the tank. He also gets a big clump of macroalgae from the refugium about once a week. That clump lasts for a few days, and he and the yellow tang eat most of it. The Chelmon marginalis also gets a bunch of copepods that come in with it. I've had the foxface for about 1 1/2 years and he too is healthy, so he clearly gets enough food.

My tank is not overcrowded, and could support more fish if I chose to add them. :)

[cloak]

Woops... (wrong thread)

[MickeyDime53]

Yes, but I think you may be the one who is possibly misinformed. I have personal experience with both of the "examples" you give, and have read literally hundreds of thousands of posts.

Biological control of aiptasia is, IMO, by far the most effective method. I had a terrible aiptasia problem and got a Chelmon marginalis (like a copperband butterfly)and the problem is gone.

What would you suggest for aiptasia that is not a biological method? IMO, there are no good (nonbiological) methods as each has significant limitations.

On your second point, I got a bad caulerpa racemosa problem in my main tank as I grow it in a refugium. I tried everything I knew of and even broke the whole tank down and scrubbed every rock, but eventually it came back in some spots where I just couldn't/didn't get it all, and it started to take over again.

Then I got a Siganus unimaculatus (foxface) and it solved the algae problem. Now I can regularly bring macroalgae from the refugium to feed several of the fish and there is no concern of it getting established in the display tank. :)
I could have to counter what if someone has a nano tank? We cant really just toss in tangs and shrimp like others could. So then in that sense a nonbiological answer would be the best.

I also think one of the points was moreso towards people who have an issue that has a preventable underlying cause. Like your macroalgae.. clearly the cause was your own doing but that cannot change so getting a fish to help was the logical answer.

For someone with another type of algae outbreak we might want to suggest doing a water test for PO4 and NO3 before throwing out suggestions for fish that would only add to the bioload. Also we should ask about the lighting schedule and water changes.

As for apastia (sp?) Thats just something on a whole other level that doesnt have an underlying cause per se. Some people have success with lemon juice or chemical means.. others such as you have success with the shrimp. Ive read many stories of people who got peppermints that didnt touch the stuff.. and just the same amount of stories of lemon juice not working. What works for some may not work for others.

But in smaller tanks we should probably try to go for non biological methods of fixing things first as well as finding the root cause rather than just patching or covering the problem up

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I certainly agree that one must limit the size of organisms put into small tanks, and dealing with pests there can be especially hard. :)

[coralsnaked]

I understand that some livestock is beneficial to the well being of any system. What I am questioning for instance is when someone says they have an aptasia problem and someone says get a Copperband butterfly. This may not be the smartest or most educated choice. Or when someone says they have an algae problem and someone suggests getting a tang or an angelfish.

People can be mislead by some of this information and without the proper education, make misinformed decisions.


I skip over most or all of the responses which come from members with only a few post to their reputation. But if you are reading the same responses from members with lots of experience I value and listen to them. I guess I would overlook my own responses as I have a limited number. HA! :reading:

[ktownhero]

Your point is well taken and I understand completely. My next question would be what happens to the livestock and inverts when they run out of food and the tank becomes overstocked?

Rule #1 of aquariums: don't over stock. Why are you insisting that people suddenly ignore that? If you don't have room for a helpful animal, then you don't use said helpful animal.

The same rules of common sense apply to adding stock no matter if they are for show or function.

Most helpful critters add little to no bioload to a tank such that if adding them is dangerous then you probably already have a poorly balanced tank.