Columnaris Disease in Fish

Aquarium Forum/Blog Hall of Shame #6; Columnaris Disease

The treatment and prevention of the Aquarium (& pond) disease "Columnaris" seems to be one of the subjects of more inaccuracies than most disease commonly confronted by aquarists.
Surprisingly about.com has an article that although basic without much information, is generally accurate. HOWEVER from wiki to many other sites, blogs and forums this is a subject that is full of anecdotal inaccuracies.

One popular Betta site/forum (Ultimate) has an article that has a few inaccuracies in one article (often it is one inaccuracy here another there), and since it is a sad representation of what is commonly out on the internet, I will use it to make my points of inaccuracies about Columnaris

Here are some quotes followed by corrections/Refutations:

* "Maracyn is the most useful anti-biotic"

CORRECTION: WRONG! Columnaris is a strictly gram negative bacterium while Maracyn (which is Erythromycin) is a gram positive antibiotic.

If the author of this article or anyone had any success with Erythromycin, this is proof that the disease treated was NOT Columnaris, rather a gram positive pathogen. What antibiotic that has proven gram negative effectiveness will work best is more debatable, whether a combination of Furan 2/Kanaplex, Minocycline, Triple Sulfa or others, but you will not achieve success with a gram positive antibiotic!

* "Columnaris reproduces poorly in the presence of oxygen in the water, so keeping the water's oxygen content up by creating a current can help prevent Columnaris"

CORRECTION: This statement is also 100% false and has no basis in university level research or even simple reading of researched articles such as "Columnaris & Saprolegnia Disease"

Here is a quote from the above referenced article:
"In fact since Columnaris is strictly aerobic, the addition of more aeration/circulation will do nothing to stop Columnaris other than to possibly help the fish fight this disease pathogen."

I would also reference this university level article as well:
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11112004-113024/unrestricted/Farmer_thesis.pdf

* "As mentioned above, Columnaris loves hard water and high pH."

CORRECTION: This statement is not as inaccurate as the other two statements, but it does show a lack of understanding of basic disease prevention water chemistry, in particular the Redox Balance and important of positive mineral ions in the water.

As well there is no scientific data to show the statement that Columnaris "loves hard water and high pH" (although Columnaris certainly 'loves' warm water, especially over 75 F), if anything the opposite is true based on both observations and data. The lack of KH, resulting in an unstable pH can be a major Columnaris causing stressor. Even more so the lack of positive mineral ions such as calcium is not only a stressor, but lowers the Redox Balance and the ability of the fish to fight infections via proper osmoregulation.
What ironic, is that this same article later recommend the use of Atison's Betta which includes calcium along with Indian Almond Leaf (& is a good product).
Personally I think the use of a mineral block such as a Wonder Shell which will keep a constant supply of positive calcium ions in the water column (unlike Atison's Spa), combined with a more pure source of Indian Almond Leaf such as Bio Lif is a better way to go.

Forum/Blog Hall of Shame -5

Aquarium Forum/Blog Hall of Shame #5; UV Sterilizers for Aquariums

Once again in my research I stumbled upon a gem of poorly researched anecdotal information posted by about.com, which unfortunately seems to be common with this website (which is sad considering their internet prominence, at least on Google, which is another reason to avoid using Google in searches).

While there is some excellent information in this article (such as "Most effective if uv bulb is new, or replaced regularly (at least every 6-8 months)", there are several misleading or factually incorrect comments or implications

Here are some quotes, then refutations:

*"Suggested wattages are 4-8 watts for 20-40 gallon aquariums, 20-25 watts for 50-100 gallons, and 40 watts for larger aquariums."

Refutation; Better is to consider flow rate and tank turnover rate. A flow rate of 25 gph per watt and a turnover of at least twice per hour (not counting recirculation on a sump) using a quality UV Sterilizer is a much better starting spot for UV Sterilizer wattage/size.

Often when I was called out on a service call and found an ineffective UV that a client installed on their aquarium or pond it was that the flow rate was too high. This was quite common with ponds and UVs installed on high flow rate sump pumps.
This was easily taken care of using a diverter valve so as to divert part of the water the UV Sterilizer/clarifier at a correct slower rater for the given wattage

*"Using this method of treating water is quite controversial amongst aquarists. Some consider it to be a waste of money, not all that effective, or suitable for fish-only, but unnatural for reef tanks, while others feel it does have its benefits for either type of system."

Refutation; this actually is correct, as there are many anecdotal, misinformed aquarists who miss the researched benefits for use of UV Sterilizers in aquariums. However about.com words this in a way that would make any newbie wonder if this is a good investment rather than qualifying this statement as anecdotal. There are those that say the Earth is flat (the Flat Earth Society), but that does not make it true any more than stating that being controversial sheds a question on whether or not UV Sterilizers are truly beneficial).
What is missed by such anecdotal comments as to this so-called controversy, is besides aiding in the spread of disease pathogens, cloudy water & "algae blooms", a UV Sterilizer can help with fish immunity by improving the Redox Balance in an aquarium.
See these articles:
The Aquarium Redox
Aquarium UV Sterilizer Articles


*"Should never be run when treating with any drugs or medications."

Refutation; this is only partially correct, and stating half truths is not good information in my opinion. As stated in this article: ""Aquarium UV Sterilization; How it Works", chemical such as Malachite Green are not broken down where as Quinine Hydrochloride is broken down. For more information about UVC light sensitive chemicals, see the above referenced article.

*"The general consensus is that an aquarist that has a well maintained and un-crowded aquarium, as well as follows good quarantine procedures when introducing new specimens to their system, a UV light filter is not necessary."

Refutation; this comment left me both laughing and crying. Whose consensus is this? I sure do not know any persons with UV Sterilization expertise asked this question.
This is not to say a UV Sterilizer is a must, HOWEVER every test I have conducted over the years (including an extensive one with goldfish), showed that the addition of a UV Sterilizer improved health & longevity even in well kept, fed, etc. aquariums. The only possible exception might be a Reef tank used to raise large amounts of infusoria, ‘pods’, etc. (& even here my correct application of UV Sterilization caused little or no detectable problems)

PLEASE read these articles for vastly better UV Sterilization information (with current research):

*"ULTRAVIOLET STERILIZATION (How UV sterilization works)"

*AQUARIUM AND POND UV STERILIZER ARTICLES;

*UV Sterilizer Directory

Three separate fish are actually the same

Mystery solved by Scientists: Three separate fish are actually the same Cetomimid Whalefish!

From:
January 22nd, 2009 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer in General Science / Biology



This composite image (please click to enlarge) from the Biology Letters of the Royal Society shows, from top,
*Tapetail post larval stage of cetomimid whalefish off Cozumel, Mexico;
*Adult male of cetomimid whalefish from the Gulf of Mexico;
*Juvenile female of cetomimid whalefish from the eastern North Pacific.

Researchers believe they have solved the puzzle of three seemingly different fish, one all males, one all females and on all juveniles. They are the same fish, and undergo remarkable changes as they mature. (AP Photo/Biology Letters of the Royal Society) Top image: Photo/Donald Hughes Middle image: Photo/G. David Johnson Bottom image: Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Bruce Robison

"And it tells you how little we know about the deep sea", Johnson said in a telephone interview.

Cetomimidae, a type of whalefish, had been known since the 19th century, but only females had been found.
Seemingly related species called Mirapinnidae, or tapetails, and Megalomycteridae, or bignose fish, were identified in the 1950s and 1960s. Tapetails were only found as juveniles and bignoses only as males.

"Although their skeletons indicated the three were related, there were so many differences no one could believe they were the same fish at different sexes or stages in life", Johnson said.
But it turns out that is the case, Johnson and colleagues report this week in Biology Letters, a journal of Britain's Royal Society.
"All three will now be classified as Cetomimidae", he said.

Johnson said the researchers were able to link the fish through comparative anatomical study and, once they obtained fresh samples, by their DNA.

These Whalefish live in the sparsely populated deep water thousands of feet below the surface, though as youngsters they rise to shallower levels where there is more to eat. Living at extreme depths generally void of light, Whalefish have developed an exceptional, highly sensitive lateral line system (their eyes are very small & often useless). Their system of sensory pores that run the length of the Whalefish body help the Whalefish to accurately perceive its surroundings by detecting vibrations.

The larvae are called tapetails because they grow long streamers, he said. The purpose of the streamer remains unknown, but several fish larvae develop similar appendages, so it must have some value, he said. They reside within 600 feet of the surface, a region well stocked with food.
As adults, however, these fish descend thousands of feet down into the dark ocean.

There is scarce food there and the females cope by developing a large mouth - a common trait among fish living in the deepest waters - and they even develop teeth in their gill area that can serve as an additional mouth. Whalefish are known to feed primarily on small crustaceans such as copepods, euphausiids, and decapods.

Even stranger, males who reach adulthood don't eat at all. Having gorged as larvae, their jaw fuses and they develop a vestigial gut that only stores shells from previous meals. That's an advantage, Johnson said, because in the deep ocean "there's not a lot of food, you're better off taking your lunch with you." The males gorge as larvae and grow a giant liver, storing energy there to live on.

The males also develop a large nose to sense smells in the dark water.

Meanwhile, researchers had noted that females have some unusual tissue, separate from the skin, on their body. It's not luminous, so Johnson speculated that this tissue may produce a pheromone that the big-nosed male can home in on.

Resources:
*John R. Paxton of the Australian Museum, Sydney;
*Tracey T. Sutton of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
*Takashi P. Satoh and Mutsumi Nishida of the University of Tokyo
*Tetsuya Sado and Masaki Miya of the Natural History Museum, Chiba, Japan.

Melafix Dangers, Labyrinth Fish

Possible Melafix, Pimafix Dangers

I was recently brought to my attention that there were real or possible dangers with Melafix via an email I received (admittedly I at first thought the email was a sham, as I get so many of these, but I was wrong and my apologies to the person who sent it).

I then researched (via specific Blog/Forum searches) to get some background about the complaints which stemmed from use with Labyrinth Fish (such as Bettas) and Pencil Fish.

I then spent more time in university level research, mostly looking at veterinary and human studies of the known ingredients in Melafix (TTO/ tea tree oil) which is in the case of Melafix is not from the more researched Melaleuca alternifolia, but is from the lesser researched Melaleuca leucadendron version of TTO, more correctly identified as cajeput oil.

Some Background

Although I have used and tested Melafix on many Labyrinth fish (in particular Bettas) and not found these results that some are claiming (this does NOT mean these persons are making up the results, this just indicates that there are more than one factor in this equation, such as a chemical trigger, water parameter, etc.). I also know of many other aquatic professionals that have not observed the deaths in Labyrinth fish/pencil fish, but again this just tells me that we need to look deeper and not make non-scientific knee jerk proclamations based on anecdotal evidence which often all too common in this hobby (even by well meaning aquarists!).

One such forum (Fish Lore) stated that the "oils" in both Pimafix and Melafix are dangerous to Labyrinth due to the need to "breathe air". If this is the reason aquarists are contributing to Melafix, I can correct this in that part of the patent for Melafix (& Pimafix) is the process of refining of the oil out of both these products. This can EASILY be proved by adding Melafix or Pimafix to the water and watching for it to float on the water, which it does not. HOWEVER before implying this person in that forum does not know what she is talking about, Melafix can and does cause foaming, which at least in theory could be a problem with certain fish or more likely allowing for "consumption" of the TTO where the chemical reactions likely take place. BTW, my using Fish Lore is in NO WAY an indictment on this forum, I have read many of their articles and forum posts, and most are good IMO, albeit often at worst well behind better research (such as UV Sterilizers).

Current Research/Hypothesis (from Aquarium Medications Part 4, Melafix, Pimafix, Usnea

Currently the best scientific information shows that there may be link between the tea tree oil in Melafix and toxicity in Labyrinth fish/Pencil fish, but this link is NOT what many in aquatic forums are anecdotally assuming. The best information points to liver function, which would explain why some (such as myself) have not observed this problems in our test (admittedly the studies did not focus on over doses or chemistry variables in the water).
Basically Tea Tree oil (Melaleuca, Melaleuca alternifolia) is a phenol-containing essential oil. Its active ingredients are cyclic terpenes which have a similar structure and action to turpentine (a known liver toxin). The acute toxicity for the major terpenic compounds (linalool, ocimene, alpha-terpinene, 1,8-cineole, terpinolene, camphene) is 2 - 5 g/kg body weight, which is considered a moderately toxic range. From a toxicological point of view Tea Tree oil is comparable to oil of turpentine, which is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and then finds its way to the liver. What may be the problem is that under certain conditions Melafix may be toxic to the liver in Labyrinth fish/Pencil fish.

My current hypothesis (note, this is merely a hypothesis, not a fact!), is that since the best research shows similarities between TTO and Turpentine (both are terpenes, but then so is beta carotene), is that in an acidic environment, in particular an environment with nitric acid or other acids as a result of organic decomposition such as carbonic acid, the chemical reaction can produce chemicals that may harm the liver in certain fish that have a tendency to ingest the water around them such as Labyrinth fish/Pencil fish (via the surface). Certain terpenes such as turpentine are actually explosive when combined with nitric acid (this chemical reaction is used in rocket fuels!). On a VERY small scale (aquarium environment) some similar reaction may be happening that with certain fish can cause death. This would also explain why this problem has never been noted in marine fish even though they constantly drink the water around them, since marine fish are always kept in an alkaline environment.

This would also explain why this reaction has not been observed in my tests with Melafix (even at double doses) with Labyrinth fish/Pencil fish since I conducted these tests in a balanced Redox mineral/electrolyte environment.
At this point my advice is to maintain proper mineralization and Redox, which is something I have been a big proponent of for many years now based on scientific evidence of the benefits therein. If my hypothesis is correct this may be the link in this problem, especially since the TTO found in Melafix (and all terpenes) is a known Redox reducer and an acidic/oxidizing environment of ANY cause could cause possible undesirable effects.
I recommend reading these articles:
Importance of Minerals, Electrolytes, GH, KH in Aquariums
Aquarium/Pond Redox

I will try and set up some trials of this theory/hypothesis (which should include some of my colleagues). This may take several months, but until then I think this is a viable hypothesis/conclusion and this certainly makes more sense than simply blaming Melafix for unexplained fish deaths when many tests with these very fish have not yielded the same results. The ultimate conclusion may also NEVER be found, but this does not mean that Melafix should never be used (which I think Melafix is often over used for way too many aquatic problems where even though it may be harmless, it also may be useless). However one thing is for certain and that is there is some trigger that causes this problem; otherwise one can not explain the use of Melafix at up to double dose without the deadly results some aquarists are observing.
In the mean time, I think many can continue to use Melafix (for the proper conditions, please reference “Aquarium Medications Part 4” for further information in this regard).
My suggestion is to not use products such as pH Down (which honestly should not be used anyway) or any other product that may add acids to ones aquarium while treatment with Melafix is under way. Make sure your pH is at least 6.8 or higher and would strongly recommend the use of products that buffer your aquarium and add minerals/electrolytes such as Wonder Shells (which come in sizes for Betta bowls as well).

Basically Melafix is best used for external wounds, and other minor EXTERNAL infections where there are proven results in many cases, however for diseases that go systemic (which most gram negative infections common in aquariums often do), Melafix is TOTALLY USELESS.
I recommend readers read this article for more about Melafix:
Aquarium Medications Part 4, Melafix, Pimafix, Usnea

PIMAFIX

Although this article is basically intended to address concerns about Melafix, I will also address concerns about Pimafix that I discovered when researching forum/blog posts.
The concern was with Pimafix is that it contains refined Clove Oil (refined so as to dissolve in water). Many aquarists warn against the use of Pimafix for this reason, HOWEVER I think this is a knee jerk reaction with NO scientific studies to back this up. Of coarse continued use of Pimafix with no water changes or use of carbon for removal could certainly allow for dangerous Eugenol (the active ingredient in clove oil) buildup, but then ANY treatment when abused can be dangerous! I found one such reaction in Fish Lore by a person who seems quite knowledgeable, but in this case is making non-scientific anecdotal claims based not in controlled studies, but the knowledge that Clove oil can be and is lethal at certain dosage.
An example of this kind of think is the use of Tylenol (acetometaphin) in humans, which used properly is effective for headache relief and more, but when over used or worse, when combined with alcohol can be lethal to one’s liver.
My point is to use this or ANY treatment carefully (organic or otherwise) with routine water changes between doses.

Aquarium Filter Innovations

Aquarium Filter Innovations in History

This article is not meant to be an exhaustive history of aquarium innovations, and I am basically listing innovations that I have found noteworthy in my nearly 40 years in the hobby, 30 of which were in a professional capacity.
Comments that would add to this article are certainly welcome (any pictures would also be welcome)

CORNER FILTER;
I will start with the lowly aquarium corner filter (also known as an internal bubbler filter and other names as well). The one pictured to the left is the first style I owned with multi level intakes.





Later models included these Bubble-Up Filters that used an air stone to increase flow and had dual level intakes.










This same principle was also applied to the Slim-Jim Bubble-Up Outside (Hang on the back filter) where a rising column of air was used to expel water out of the filter (siphon tubes brought the water in).

These were simple filters and served their purpose, although the Bubble-UP HOB filters were often problematic and I personally would rather have an internal corner filter or the impeller driven HOB Filters that were also becoming common during this time.


POWER HOB (HANG ON THE BACK) FILTERS

The Aqualogy Power Filters such as the Aquamaster 300 or 600 were the "Kings" of the outside, hang on the back power filter..
These Filters employed often 2-4 large siphon tubes to bring water into the filters where is would be pulled through to the base of the filter via large motor (not an electromagnetic motor as found today).
These were popular with many of the "monster fish keepers" of the 70s, although often large fish would knock a siphon tube some loss of intake (and more noise)

Living World/Metaframe came out with the Dynaflo (Marineland and others followed) in 1975. These filters used a motor to pump water in rather than out as its predecessors did (the Aqualogy and similar). This eliminated the problematic siphon tubes, however I found the over-flo method less efficient than the older style and the cartridges used there in could not hold nearly as much waste as an Aqualogy 600 or similar.

These motors were also problematic with many of the bearings often seizing in either the siphon or early over flo style (the early Dynaflo filters also had issues with carbon or other debris getting trapped under the impeller causing loss of flow).

Hagen’s early Aqua Clears employed a "pinky finger" sized well that housed an impeller that used an electromagnet to pull the water in. This also turned out to be problematic with the plastic housing warping (often from heat or trapped carbon, sand or similar) and then resulting in total failure of the filter as it was often impossible to pull this melted plastic piece from the motor/power unit.

What followed next is what is now common, the electromagnet motor with a usually more durable magnet impeller that fits into a directly attaching motor that is sealed via an O ring.


A few generations of Aqua Clears, Whispers and similar employed this method, with newer innovations utilizing other innovations such as the simple Bio Bag by Whisper, Bio Grids by Millennium, Via Aqua and similar. Whisper also used a sponge Bio filter to preserve nitrifying bacteria. Marineland came out with their unfortunately over blown Bio Wheel (see this article: Aquarium Answers; Bio Wheels). Even though my tests showed the Bio Wheel over rated, it along with the grids, sponges, etc. were a vast improvement over the throw filter media that often resulted in higher ammonia levels after filter cleanings.

Via Aqua M200 has added a surface skimmer to these innovations (which is where a lot of new organic wastes tend to accumulate when first produced).
Another similar innovation is the Internal wet/dry style filter utilized in the Bio Cube Aquarium and Resun Filter Bio Filters. Although the technology really is not all that new, the simplicity and application at low cost is. These utilize proven Sponge bio capacity, along with Wet/dry style flows, and in the case of the ReSun BF200 in particular versatility such as the ability to add UV Sterilizers or other nitrifying or de-nitrifying filter media (such as crushed coral crumbles or volcanic rock)

CLEANING DEVICES, FILTERS

This is another area that I will note a few changes as in the implications for improvements in aquarium care/maintenance.

The simple Aquarium Gravel Vacuum was great improvement to siphons or similar methods of removing water and as well the battery operated vacuums that added much of the waste back into the aquarium. I immediately found improved tank parameters such as nitrates and less stress to both me and the fish when I began to use these vacuum/siphons.
Later (I believe the 1980s) Python came out with a variation of the vacuum/siphon that allowed the user to both empty and refill and even empty "uphill" which was an improvement over buckets, especially over large tanks. HOWEVER, I was already using my own version of the Python that is EXACTLY the same for less money. This involved vinyl tubing and/or hoses, sink adapters, and waterbed drains. I still use this idea and I have more about this DIY version at the bottom of this page: Gravel Vacuum; DIY maintenance system.

The Vortex Diatom/Micron Filter was another innovation I found very helpful for multiple tank cleanings (I used in my fish stores in the 70s and 80s). This was/is a simple way to remove large amounts of large particulate organic material suspended in the water and even Ich Tomites. The biggest negative to the Vortex Diatom is that for it to be most effective, the gravel needed to be stirred (similar to water changes prior to vacuums). This often added to fish stress and the highest volume of organic matter quickly fell back to the bottom of the tank.

The most recent innovation that combines the Gravel Vacuum/Python innovations with the best of the Vortex is the "Aquarium Cleaning Machine. When this first came out I was questioning this cleaning filter somewhat, however when some friends in the Aquarium Maintenance business told me about this product, I gave it a try and I was immediately sold!!
The Aquarium Cleaning Machine removes volumes of Organic matter that can cause an unstable pH, high nitrates, Aeromonas bacterial activity, poor Redox, even Ich Tomites, WITHOUT changing volumes of water as would be necessary with a Python or similar (as well the Python does not remove the contaminants a Cleaning Machine can). There is not the disruption to the fish that using a Vortex Diatom filter causes (since constant stirring of gravel is not necessary).
Like a Python or similar DIY, the Cleaning Machine is great for large tanks or several smaller tanks, however with single small tanks set up and tear down makes the Cleaning Machine more of a time hog than time saver (but if time is not your reason for this device, this machine is still a good idea for providing more thorough aquarium cleanings with little disruption of fish and sudden water parameter changes that further stresses fish).

Unusual Fish-Discoveries

UNUSUAL FISH AND NEW DISCOVERIES

Hundreds Of New Marine Species Discovered
(AP) Marine scientists say they have discovered hundreds of new animal species on reefs in Australian waters, including brilliant soft corals and tiny crustaceans.
A total of 274 species of fish, ancient corals, mollusks, crustaceans and sponges new to science were found in icy waters up to 3,000 meters (9,800 feet) deep among extinct volcanoes, they said. The scientists mapped undersea mountains up to 500 meters high and canyons larger than the Grand Canyon for the first time, the government's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) said.
The creatures were found during expeditions run by the Australian chapter of CReefs, a global census of coral reefs that is one of several projects of the Census of Marine Life, an international effort to catalog all life in the oceans.

Among the creatures discovered were about 130 soft corals - also known as octocorals, for the eight tentacles that fringe each polyp - that have never been described in scientific literature, and scores of other crustaceans that have never been catalogued, including tiny shrimp-like animals with claws longer than their bodies.

(AP Photo/Gary Cranitch)

Conjoined Nile tilapia fish

(Click Pictures to enlarge)
These conjoined Nile tilapia fish swim in a Bangkok aquarium. They are eight months old and share a part of their stomachs. The bigger fish tends to protect the smaller one from harm, while the smaller one looks for food at the bottom of the aquarium.

Nile tilapia can reach a maximum of two feet in length and can weigh up to nine pounds. Originally from waters stretching from Africa to the Cape Horn, the fish was introduced to freshwater irrigation systems so as to fight algae growth but has now become a pest.
The Nile Tilapia fish is a common freshwater species found in tropical rivers, canals, lakes and ponds but these two were found in a Bangkok aquarium.


Fish That Glow Red

(Click Picture to enlarge)
This is a striking photo of a triplefin reef fluorescing red. According to new research, many reef animals glow red but that capacity is usually overlooked scientists because most of that wavelength of sunlight is absorbed out as you go more than 10 meters down into the ocean. As a result, most animals from that zone see blue light and green light best. But University of Tübingen evolution ecologist Nico Michiels and his colleagues suggest that the red-glowing fish carry an untold biological story about the spectrum of the sea. From Science News:
Michiels noticed the red fluorescence in 2007 while diving with a mask that filtered out all but red wavelengths for another project. As he descended, the sun's available red light dwindled quickly, leaving him in virtual darkness. Then he was startled to see the red fluorescent eyes of a fish, the red fin of another …. Since then, he and collaborators have found that 32 reef fishes sampled from 16 genera give off a red fluorescent glow. Substances on their bodies capture light at other wavelengths and release the energy as red light.

Most of the red-fluorescing fish are small and likely to have mates or neighbors close by, so red glows would make good short-range signals for courtship or other local business, Michiels suggests. The idea that seawater has rendered red ineffective "is a kind of dogma we are attacking," he says. "I would hope that the whole light ecology of reefs is reconsidered."

Sources:
Fish Glowing Red
Yahoo News; Hundreds of new marine species discovered
Yahoo News; Conjoined Fish

SHO Aquarium Lights

Aquarium Forum Hall of Shame Part 4:
SHO Lamps/Lights
(including LED information)

Updated 6/27/09

This answer comes from Yahoo Answers:

Here is the question:
“SHO lighting, Marine Aquarium?
I had a friend who has her marine aquarium maintained by an aquarium tech add new lighting to her tank. He added SHO lights to her tank as he stated it is one of the newer advances in aquarium lighting for freshwater plants and marine reef.

She is real happy with the results, but I am unfamiliar with it.
Does anyone know more about SHO (I believe this stands for Super High Output) or where I might buy it?”

Here is the Answer:

Here is a little information, all it is, is a screw in PC bulb, except its 6500k as oppose to 3000-4000k for lighting up your house.

http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/PowerCompact.html

I'm still skeptical of the whole thing. The claim is, it's for "planted and reef tanks", but the pro's I've asked don't have anything nice to say about them. All it's going to be is, "the start of more lighting problems for people new to the hobby."

It's left up to you if you want to experiment with them or not, but I suggest looking into other forms of lighting.

My Answer
Thankfully this lady read more of the site and found the Aquarium Information article about Aquarium Lighting: Aquarium Lighting; How it works, about.

But these sad questions in my mind remain;

*Why did he not look past a simple search and read this article (the lady at least did)?
The answers is simple, he is sticking to his narrow view and is not willing to look outside the box to anything that may move him past these views that are BADLY outdated!!

*What Pros is he talking to? I doubt he has talked to ANY Pros as they obviously have not done ANY research past the anecdotal Aquarium hobby or he could not have made such an absurd statement. As well, has he talked to anyone outside the aquarium hobby/industry? There is much more money spent in research in other industries, such as the rapidly growing Green House industry where demand for the SHO light is creating a supply problem.
The real Pros know that the SHO and LED lights are at the very least the immediate future of aquarium lighting when cost, lighting parameters, environmental concerns and more are added to the equation.

*His answer that all it is a screw in PC bulb; so is not a VHO a high output PC bulb, come on guy, are you that ignorant!!!! This is plain common sense!!! Whether the SHO bulb meets all its claims certainly can be debated (although one greenhouse nursery purchasing 1000 per month from the distributer of the SHO light speaks volumes!), but this logic is so flawed it is pitiful.

The picture above was sent by a client (immediately after receiving them, before practical use) showing the difference with an SHO lamps vs. FOUR 36 inch T8 aquarium bulbs!! The SHO in the middle over powers out the 4 other lamps when turned on in the top view.

What also gets me is how common this is (not just in Yahoo Answers) but in many internet forums or articles where someone will make statements with no knowledge or research of the process or product they are talking about (aquarium chemistry, filtration, and medications are full of incorrect anecdotal statements).

SHO lamps/lights are a good example of how the aquarium industry is often behind the tech/research curve as SHO lights are now widely used by Greenhouses, but our sadly slow to catch on in the aquarium hobby/industry.
Quite bluntly, the future of aquarium lighting is in SHO and LED lights due to the practical applications of both, energy saving, and even cost (LEDs are coming down rapidly in cost while the light itself is improving dramatically). Sadly the only thing standing in the way of these two lights is the aquarium industry itself (a popular site has a lighting article that is woefully out of date as to LED and does not even mention SHO, this site is also sadly on the first page of Google as well).

This answer is also one more example of why Yahoo Answers should be avoided like the plague as you get persons that think they know something that actually know nothing of what they are talking about!!

For anyone reading this article/post, PLEASE use a forum such as Everything Aquatic for your questions and leave YA to the scrap heap of bad ideas!

Yahoo Answers Exposed Further

Yahoo Answers #3
By Jon V

Hello everyone, sorry for the many months not posting on this topic. Today I'd like to further illustrate the very poor levels of service that are delivered in the Yahoo Answers forum, in particular the fish section. As stated in previous blogs, YA was started with the intentions of allowing people to ask questions and get input from people all over the world that may have some knowledge or experience regarding certain things. With fish, it's no different. One real problem with the fish keeping hobby is that only a few things are an exact science as such, nitrogen cycle issues, PH, Redox, Electrolyte Balance etc... basically things that you can study and verify in biology or chemistry. The balance of topics are really more or less semi supported opinions.

Due to things being very arbitrary in fish keeping, such as proper stocking levels, compatibility of fish, substrate questions, equipment performance are just a few heated topics that come up. Where there is a failing on the end of YA is that there is little to no quality control aspects. People can post and advise to such things that are actually not in an askers best interest there, but YA has no control really to prevent or even block such input. From my point of view, there isn't as much care on the quality of answers but more concern over your avatar or links being posted. To me, I feel that if you address the quality of input, you take a secondary step to removing the typical trolling morons that haunt there. If a person is under the "threat" of having their answers removed due to inaccuracy or invalid answer to the question, trolls would be less likely to take the time to post in there. That's my speculation, and I'm sure there will be some ardent YA supporters that wouldn't agree, however, this is my blog, and I'm not a fivespeed302 and will ban you out for speaking your mind. You don't really have to agree if this will impact trolls or not actually....read on.

A secondary impact that YA either doesn't realize or care about, with not having quality control on answers, is that an asker can pick an answer based sheerly on thumbs up and down. Clearly that thumbs up and down were aimed to reward accurate on target responses, and steer people away from bad advice, the troll aspect has allowed egotistical maniacs, such as Mantra, Danielle Z, Dareyll R, llriffel, and Jack the Wong to mislead an asker to accept their input. What's a real shame is most of the input these people give, are either completely inccorect or at best only semi accurate not covering all important aspects. By use of multiple ID's the TU and TD aspect can skew someone to follow some very bad and piss poor advice.

YA has also attempted to lighten it's burden of trying to police trolls and inappropriate content by implementing this Community Moderation control, which to me, not only was trying to pass the buck off it's own responsiblity, was extremly poor and not well thought out when implemented. One MAJOR flaw with this particular system, is the fact that someone can too easliy gain trusted reporting status simply by the same way they can up levels of accounts. Create multiple accounts which are soley aimed to flame an answer, but the one main id is saved and reports against the bogus ones, and thus raises the trust factor of the real ID of someone out to do no good. Sure, once they decide to go after someone, and out of spite just report to get someone's answer removed, they take a hit, but what do you think Trolls do? They don't CARE if they take the hit. They have the time it takes to boost up as many ID's as needed, knowing the person that is giving the right answer but gets flagged is going to get sick of that bullshit and give up. THAT is their goal. YA totally failed to understand this as they don't seem to really understand what a Troll is really out to do, cause disruptions.

I've said this time and time again in the forum there in YA, there are so many things that need to be done, but just aren't. Community Moderation failed and I'm not the only person to post as such in the YA forum either. It's far too easy to manipulate. Live monitors are crucial and essential to improvement in that forum. Without an actual "judge" or "screener" on these reports, as well as the answers themselves, there's going to continue to be bogus reports against good people's answers, and 1 time of that happening is 1 time too many. I have yet to see YA ever just come out and admit, they are in over their head really, need more staff and are hiring. They just continue to find the cheapest and easiest solution out there. The people that suffer are those that know what they are talking about, aren't afraid to post it, try to help, and get swarmed on by malicious trolls.

Yet another aspect I've said would really help go a long way in YA is to simply eliminate voting all togeather. If you force an asker to pick a BA, it will impact people using multiple accounts, to some degree. Until the Community Moderation gets done away with along with voting, the bot aspect won't be deeply impacted however. While it's not a total cure for things, one thing it does is make an asker be responsible for putting up questions. There is a certain user out there in YA now that continually bombards the fish forum with question after question. It's a little 13 year old boy who's parents don't seem to monitor his internet usage, and asks so MANY questions the boy can't possibly absorb and learn everything he's asking. I've taken enough psychology to know, this isn't about curiousity or learning, it's a cry for attention the kid doesn't get at home. YA has to make people like this pick a best answer. It's a total waste of time for people to give a good quality answer and have to wait for voting and even then, monitor that answer if you feel you are right against bot voting trolls. Again, I'm sure some circumventing could be done if this was implimeneted, but it would be an improvement on current situations.

Finally, I'd like to display some very fine outstanding answers picked or voted as BA's in YA to show you why it's in your best interest to avoid YA itself and join more professional forums such as Everything Aquatic or Cichlid-Forum.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ao35emwYiDnUU2gMPJV3rpbty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080911213420AAe73it&show=7#profile-info-Xibbj4Mhaa

A true asshole at work here disceminating misinformation:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080908195850AA4RsOl&r=w&show_comments=true&pa=FZB6NWHjDG3N56z6v_2wXDcd1yFTvoYUjm1aXuPzRJUslIRiQcGQ3A--&paid=add_comment#openions

This one should give you a good laugh:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArQHXAUsST1qzau4pY5etWzty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080907215503AAnjTaZ&show=7#profile-info-KqvtWjbgaa

I'd love to know just what makes a cichlid from Malawi automatically a Mbuna and if that's accurate, then what in the hell is my Nimbochromis Venustus or my Aulnocara Baenschi?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnLp9FTnyQksK02W9O92bN7ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080908082536AABeamg&show=7#profile-info-VcTlcvJsaa

On top of that, this dickhead really likes to try to convince everyone that any fish from Malawi is a Mbuna, second time, same answer.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ao35emwYiDnUU2gMPJV3rpbty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080905035143AA1wxX2&show=7#profile-info-bxIjNO1Qaa

Funny this person never bothered to answer all aspects of the question. Once again, something like this, the asker should have stepped in and picked one

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aibxkei2WTugnZRRjmrUj0Hty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080903194533AA4oigL&show=7#profile-info-YU51MbZDaa

This isn't aimed so much on soop, other then 7 votes and didn't get help from FC? LOL :P Soop is allright in my book, but it's that asswipe Jack yet again wanting to spread incorrect information.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aibxkei2WTugnZRRjmrUj0Hty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080828091946AA3ET9A&show=7#profile-info-vF1QbxgHaa

Here's a real full of themselves idiot I'm happy to say didn't stay around long.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqojUC90hJaQ_OjTFbHnu6Lty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080825072919AAAbXST&show=7#profile-info-UvFLnV9uaa