Troubleshooting fish losses over 2015-2022, summary

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo

thebiggerthebetter

Senior Curator
Staff member
MFK Member
Dec 31, 2009
17,019
14,845
3,910
Naples, FL, USA
Today is 2022. Since 2015, over the past 7 years we lost a lot of fish. If you look over this thread of ours (started in 2017), you’ll get the idea how many and what kinds of fish. We aim to be transparent and learn from the good, bad and the ugly. https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/final-measurements-as-of-recent.688002/

Seems like a good time to give account for all those deaths. Here is a concise summary of the learnings and outcomes. There have been identified many reasons, many took years to realize, understand, then correct.

[1] Too soft or too hard water. In 2015-2017 and sporadically afterwards, we had a problem with our water being either too soft (TDS ~100-150 ppm) and not buffered enough (1 degree of carbonate hardness, which means unstable pH). Or in later years sometimes we let the water get too hard, too high TDS (400-600 ppm, half is hardness), when we lost track of testing for TDS and hardness and relied on eyeballing as we make our water from raw well, light brackish water (TDS 1400 ppm, half is hardness, half salinity; some sulfur, tannin, 0.25-0.5 ppm ammonia but potable if it wasn’t for too much hardness and salinity) that is RO filtered (85%), to which we then back add 15% of the raw well water. This has been fixed.

[2] We had a problem with too infrequent sump filter cleanings of once a year or longer. The initial design of how the sumps mechanical filtration portions were to be cleaned proved to be way too laborious and too cumbersome and inefficient. Took years to realize this fully but recently, within the last year it was fixed. We removed the mechanical portions entirely, pulled out half or more of the media (too much) and now pump out / wash or vacuum the sumps.

[3] We had a problem feeding cheap aquaculture pellets as a dry feed staple, Ziegler Bros. FinFish pellet, around $1 per pound including shipping. Apparently, this results long term in poor health and longevity of the fish. We switched to 100% New Life Spectrum a couple years back. Fixed.

[4] We used to think that whole frozen fish is a complete nutritional package. It is not. Lacks some critical vitamins and minerals for sure. Now, since a couple years back, we presoak all frozen-thawed cuisine in VitaChem. Fixed.

[5] Insufficient water change. We run well water through 6 RO membranes, low pressure RO XLE-4040, 2600 gallons per day when fresh, which cost us $1500-$2000 for all 6 to replace (labor is ours). The RO membranes lose productivity over time due to calcium and magnesium salts scaling, about half in the first year. Probably only ¼ left after a couple years. This results in a continuously decreasing water change on our tanks. It is expensive to replace the membranes yearly or more often (but now we understand it’s a must) and moreover, we thought maybe things could be adequate with smaller water changes. Nope. Hence, until very recent, we had a problem with insufficient water changes of 100% in 20-30 days. Now it is 100% in 3-6 days. Fixed.

[6] We used to ride a small margin of safety with huge stocking levels in some larger tanks. It was risky and likely detrimental to fish health and longevity, either via stress or via ammonia/nitrite or lower DO, etc., despite the high turnover rate even on our largest tanks. Fixed.

[7] This is hard to fix - as a rescue we regularly get an influx of fresh pathogen cultures into our water systems. In 2018 we had a supposed columnaris outbreak, originating from fish that came from the wild and were inadequately treated in QT, that over 1-2 years ended up wiping out 25% of all fish, and this may be still continuing every now and then. This one we are working on - improving our pretreatment protocol, QT, and working toward installing a UV sanitation of our tanks.

[8] In general, we are forced to try to keep fish that can be only borderline compatible, or only temporary compatible, or whose compatibility is unpredictable, etc. Sometimes, we frivolously want to gain experience with keeping certain fish species too. This results in compatibility problems and requires constant vigilance and adjustment but still sometimes leads to deaths.

[9] When you keep at any given time about a 1000 large fish in 16 tanks, there bound to be losses of all kinds, natural and unnatural. Surely there were errors with medication dosage, maybe an occasional nitrification problem, power outage problems, etc. Some fish like arapaima merely jumped out of the too small tanks.


Hope this gives some bird eye view of our fish keeping found wanting. We are learning. Hopefully. A slow learner warning.
 
I agree with you but there are pros and cons to everything. My con arguments for why some of our tanks are bare (many are furnished), e.g. the two 4500 gal tanks, are:

[1] it'd be very hard, time consuming and laborious to catch the fish (we are a rescue, fish come and go regularly)

[2] many of these fish are incredibly powerful and any furniture will be knocked around, broken, overturned, moved, thrown into the viewing window scratching it badly, stuck into the bottom drain, potentially emptying both 4500 gal of water via overflowing and killing everyone in both 4500 gal tanks, etc.

[3] it will create more maintenance (like the removal of accumulated detritus) than I am willing to afford

[4] it will hide some fish and not let me catch illness, injury, bullying, death, etc., in good time

[5] it will not allow visitors to see all the fish all the time; in fact, some fish they and us will NEVER see, eliminating the point of keeping / exhibiting them

[6] chances are as soon as any decor goes in there it will be new territory markers and will spark fighting between the fish that lived peacefully otherwise, and we would need to provide a hiding place for every hiding fish and even then there would be fights over the "best" spots of preference.
 
That sucks. I realize that decorating the 17034 liter tanks is ultimately not worth it, but there is still one thing I'd like clarification on.

With all due respect and out of nothing more than curiosity, why keep fish at all which benefit from decor and do poorly without it if the decor creates more maintenance than you're willing to afford? That seems rather counterintuitive to the fish's well being to me.
I've always gotten the impression that to keep any animal, you must do within your abilities what is the best possible thing for the animal, not your desires or convenience, and if you're not willing or able to do whatever that is, it's probably a better idea to not get the animal in the first place.

Of course I still wish you the best of luck in fixing these losses. With hundreds or thousands of big fish in thousands of liters of tanks and so many tanks, I can only imagine how gutting it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebiggerthebetter
No problem at all. Ask away.

The best thing for the animal is to be out there in the wild. We keep fish for the pleasure and for the knowledge.

In the top 100 reasons I have ever lost fish, there has never been a reason of stress from wanting to hide and not being able to. I am far, far, far away from that interstellar level of fish keeping yet.
 
The best thing for the animal is to be out there in the wild.

Not necessarily. If the animal has all its needs met and is behaving approximately as it would in the wild (meaning that it's unstressed and satisfied with its care or at least very likely to be so), I see no reason to believe it would be better off in the wild than with the owner. All its needs that the wild would provide are being met in that scenario (leading to the behavior that approximates its wild counterparts), together with benefits of captivity the wild does not provide such as consistent food and safety.
Overall, I'd even go so far as to say it's clearly better than being in the wild.

However, you are correct that we keep fish for the pleasure and knowledge. Your statement that the best thing for the animal is to be in the wild is also correct if the animal's needs that the wild would provide - be they diet, space, enrichment, water quality, etc - are not being met by the owner (with the possibility of going to a good owner in the scenario above that makes captivity better than the wild notwithstanding).

May I ask how you know that you haven't lost a fish from lack of decor stress (such as a hiding fish not having decor in which it could hide in)? I am not doubting this, but would like to know how you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebiggerthebetter
I can only appreciate the very sobering challenges of keeping so many large and amazing fish and so many tanks. It amazes me what you accomplish. In my naive mind, one of the challenges I consider hardest is that of having to continuously add fishes who can potentially bring diseases and parasites to otherwise (relatively) established tanks/communities. Doing it occasionally means much danger; regularly and frequently, is just scary. Congratulations on your major accomplishments and thank you’ve for sharing often here, even about the frustrating setbacks that inevitably occur.
 
Not necessarily. If the animal has all its needs met and is behaving approximately as it would in the wild (meaning that it's unstressed and satisfied with its care or at least very likely to be so), I see no reason to believe it would be better off in the wild than with the owner. All its needs that the wild would provide are being met in that scenario (leading to the behavior that approximates its wild counterparts), together with benefits of captivity the wild does not provide such as consistent food and safety.
Overall, I'd even go so far as to say it's clearly better than being in the wild.

However, you are correct that we keep fish for the pleasure and knowledge. Your statement that the best thing for the animal is to be in the wild is also correct if the animal's needs that the wild would provide - be they diet, space, enrichment, water quality, etc - are not being met by the owner (with the possibility of going to a good owner in the scenario above that makes captivity better than the wild notwithstanding).

May I ask how you know that you haven't lost a fish from lack of decor stress (such as a hiding fish not having decor in which it could hide in)? I am not doubting this, but would like to know how you know.


Decor becomes fairly detrimental to large fish. They can eat fake plants, rocks, plumbing parts, leading to their own demise even when being kept in a tank alone. Injuries can happen very easily also from any kind of hides and even drift wood. Nothing worse than growing a fish to 3’ and have it gash itself open from being startled. They can also get stuck in deco resulting in injuries. The territorial disputes are always there also. No good in my opinion. Captivity will never be the wild. As long as fish are being kept in a box the most import thing to care for is water quality. To put it bluntly “enrichment” is a joke. The only plausible thing i can even entertain as enrichment for a fish is varied diet or something “fun” to eat i.e. live food and most people are appalled by that these days even tho fish eat fish, mammals, birds, etc. We all play the same game of fish in a box… play it as u wish ??… but be realistic also. Fish dont need toys… there only concerned about killing to survive ?… we provide them with a cushy life indoors in a controlled environment and out of harms way aside from “human error”…The elements alone and seasonal changes are enough to wipe out a healthy specimen on any given day not to mention something bigger… and hungry… just how it goes… its only natural.

One full speed burst into a tank wall is death to a fish despite any amt of enrichment, decorations or tank size…Nature can be filled with plenty stress and hazards also just trying to survive on a daily basis.
 
thebiggerthebetter thebiggerthebetter Vik, Ive wondered if ur use of saltwater bait fish has any ill effects on ur freshwater specimen… theres some cross overs of species u own that would naturally eat salt water fish coming up into rivers to a certain extent but others may be getting to much salt in their diet ??‍♂️… just a thought. I know its affordable and easy access in florida. One of my TSN is still floating around at Rich/Joshs’. Typical man made hybrid of p. Fascistum/corruscans and its a good 12+yrs old now. We both fed it plenty “junk” food also thats often frowned upon such as tilapia, turkey hot dogs, pork hot dogs, cheap pellets etc…. I know its not popular but turkey franks can be a decent filler food for u.

Another thought i had for u is adding some koi/goldfish into ur giant sump chamber. Ud b amazed how much they thrive on detritus/gunk alone and how clean they’ll keep it. Might eliminate having to pump it out as often or at all with the right amt of scum suckers lol… i keep regular comet goldfish in my sumps and theres not a spec of detritus left behind. They grow extremely quickly also. When they get too big i use them as “enrichment” ???… IME they grow 2-3x quicker on detritus alone then other comets i keep in regular tanks being fed pellets. Might help with the food bill also. Im sure theyll reproduce in ur basement sized sump chamber lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjohnwm
If legal, tilapia might b another option for the sump chamber. For example they use them in aquaculture when raising bass solely to eat their poop. I will stake my claims on comet gold fish tho. They get around the size of a basketball so its not too far fetched they could actually eat enough detritus in ur sump chamber to be beneficial to the system.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com