PJ Reefs 2.0 Dwarf Seahorses

[cpbartak]

Thoughts on this Kickstarter project based around a dwarf seahorse focused setup?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pjreefs/mini-seahorse-aquarium

 

[vlangel]

I have read about this system on another forum. His magnetic artemia feeder intrigues me as it would remove some of the rigorousness assosciated with feeding dwarfs. It does not address enriching the artemia to make them more nutritious. Dwarf seahorses tend not to thrive and breed long term when they live only on unenriched artemia. I am still watching it to see how it does.

 

[cpbartak]

I brought up your concern to him, asking if the brine can be enriched via this feeding method. His response was, "Yes, you can enrich it with Selcom. Also, brine shrimp cysts have come a long way since a decade ago. There are new strains with better nutrition profiles."

 

[vlangel]

I brought up your concern to him, asking if the brine can be enriched via this feeding method. His response was, "Yes, you can enrich it with Selcom. Also, brine shrimp cysts have come a long way since a decade ago. There are new strains with better nutrition profiles."

PJ Reefs certainly have my attention!

 

[rayjay]

I don't see any good that comes from hatching cysts in tank water as the nasty bacteria that is known to be on cysts can end up causing problems for the inhabitants.
I've not seen any method to be able to magnetise the cysts as indicated in the diagram although I can see the fixture being held in place through magnetism.
Also, there are NOT new strains of artemia with better nutrient profiles available to any hobbyists.
Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources.
The cysts we buy come from large bodies of water like the Great Salt Lake in Utah and most definitely there is NO way to change the nutrient profile in these bodies of water. While you might be able to change the profiles over time in a laboratory, there is NO practical way to do it on a commercial scale.
As for enriching the artemia, that should NEVER be done in the tank water itself.
I think the people at the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent would be laughing at these claims.
I have been researching, growing, using and selling brine shrimp now over the last two decades plus and I expect I have a reasonable knowledge base on artemia.

 

[pj86]

I don't see any good that comes from hatching cysts in tank water as the nasty bacteria that is known to be on cysts can end up causing problems for the inhabitants.
I've not seen any method to be able to magnetise the cysts as indicated in the diagram although I can see the fixture being held in place through magnetism.
Also, there are NOT new strains of artemia with better nutrient profiles available to any hobbyists.
Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources.
The cysts we buy come from large bodies of water like the Great Salt Lake in Utah and most definitely there is NO way to change the nutrient profile in these bodies of water. While you might be able to change the profiles over time in a laboratory, there is NO practical way to do it on a commercial scale.
As for enriching the artemia, that should NEVER be done in the tank water itself.
I think the people at the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent would be laughing at these claims.
I have been researching, growing, using and selling brine shrimp now over the last two decades plus and I expect I have a reasonable knowledge base on artemia.

Hi. Luckily I was able to find this thread on google. I'm very open to talking about advances in the hobby, don't feel afraid to reach out.

Magnetized artemia is not new to the hobby, it has been around for a couple of years. It is made by OceanNutrition. Many hobbyists haven't heard about it because it is marketed toward large fisheries. Here is the information for reference:
http://www.oceannutrition.eu/products.aspx?Product=sep-art-artemia-cysts

The unique part I created was the small container that holds a small quantity in a small tank. A small quantity means a very small amount of bacterial content, which is mainly on the shell. Also, having a small container allows hobbyists to remove the small container and enrich the artemia outside the tank, rinsing and then reintroducing it.

You are correct that there are no different strains of Artemia, but incorrect in that there isn't a different nutritional profile that artemia hatcheries market. Larger companies that cater toward fisheries sell artemia according to their hatch rate and also to their HUFA profile. The artemia suppliers do this by testing small batches of Artemia from each respective spot. The suppliers market large quantities by hatch rate and HUFA profile because it is critical to know for aquaculture/fisheries. And this nutritional profile does vary by location and time. Here is a paper of interest talking about how it is done.

Peykaran Mana, N., et al. "Proximate composition and fatty acids profiles of Artemia cysts, and nauplii from different geographical regions of Iran." Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences 13.3 (2014): 761-775.

Also, I'm open to comments and insightful information that can help us advance the hobby.

Paul Roncal

 

[rayjay]

Magnetized artemia is not new to the hobby, it has been around for a couple of years. It is made by OceanNutrition. Many hobbyists haven't heard about it because it is marketed toward large fisheries.

First of all, I didn't know of this process so my bad for that. The cyst itself isn't magnetized but it IS coated with a magnetised material. The product is NOT made by Ocean Nutrition but rather by INVE (introduced in 2009) who market the product for others to sell and/or resell which in the case of ON is to resell packaged with their name on the product.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=..._Sep-Art.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0rzaDuUCWA_aZIgMu2jlEv

The unique part I created was the small container that holds a small quantity in a small tank. A small quantity means a very small amount of bacterial content, which is mainly on the shell. Also, having a small container allows hobbyists to remove the small container and enrich the artemia outside the tank, rinsing and then reintroducing it.

I feel you do a disservice to hobbyists stating it is only a small amount of bacteria and that it is mainly on the shell. Small amount only means possibly hours before it is a large amount. The bacteria do not all remain on the shell and can be carried into the general tank water. IMO, there is NO point in possibly adding bacteria to the tank that may not already be there.
If you are going to remove the nauplii to enrich, you are already negating most of the supposed benefit of in tank hatching as you need something else to enrich them in which can also be the hatching vessels themselves.
In addition, in the video it mentions that the supply is good for several days. In fact, the nauplii VERY QUICKLY loose the nutrition they have to start (hours, not days), or even after enrichment, so I recommend removal of depleted nauplii and then add newly enrich nauplii.

You are correct that there are no different strains of Artemia, but incorrect in that there isn't a different nutritional profile that artemia hatcheries market. Larger companies that cater toward fisheries sell artemia according to their hatch rate and also to their HUFA profile. The artemia suppliers do this by testing small batches of Artemia from each respective spot. The suppliers market large quantities by hatch rate and HUFA profile because it is critical to know for aquaculture/fisheries. And this nutritional profile does vary by location and time.

I did NOT say there wasn't a differing nutritional profile that hatcheries market. In my post I said: "Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources".
As for HUFA profile, that alone is NOT the main need of seahorses. Seahorses cannot manufacture their own DHA, and DHA is sadly lacking in MOST artemia profiles to the best of my knowledge. Using your link to the Iranian information for instance, shows 3 locations with varying DHA levels between 2.56 and 15.44 so that while HUFA level itself may be fine, it probably will also be deficient in the DHA levels.
Now, all that being said, INVE source their cysts from Great Salt Lake, Siberia, and Bohai Bay with Great Salt Lake cysts usually providing 60% of their demand.
http://www.inveaquaculture.com/latest-news/new-long-term-artemia-agreement/
They do NOT state whether their sales are a mix of these different cysts or even what the normal DHA component level would be combined or separate. Great Salt Lake cysts do not have a reasonable DHA level for seahorse purposes. (as a side note, products containing schizochytrium, or, schizochytrium itself are probably the highest source for DHA enrichment)
Suppliers of cysts to the aquaculture market are primarily choosing based on price, size of nauplii, hatch rate and somewhat on nutrient profile of clients. However as the client needs are varied, it is the usual practice for these client to enrich the nauplii before use although some are able to use the nauplii just as hatched.

 

[pj86]

First of all, I didn't know of this process so my bad for that. The cyst itself isn't magnetized but it IS coated with a magnetised material. The product is NOT made by Ocean Nutrition but rather by INVE (introduced in 2009) who market the product for others to sell and/or resell which in the case of ON is to resell packaged with their name on the product.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjEjd7ck8HXAhVU3GMKHWTbBTAQFghXMAk&url=http://www.yooyahcloud.com/SEAFOODCOOPERATIVERESEARCHCENTRE/njGJJ/Wim__Martens_Sep-Art.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0rzaDuUCWA_aZIgMu2jlEv


I feel you do a disservice to hobbyists stating it is only a small amount of bacteria and that it is mainly on the shell. Small amount only means possibly hours before it is a large amount. The bacteria do not all remain on the shell and can be carried into the general tank water. IMO, there is NO point in possibly adding bacteria to the tank that may not already be there.
If you are going to remove the nauplii to enrich, you are already negating most of the supposed benefit of in tank hatching as you need something else to enrich them in which can also be the hatching vessels themselves.
In addition, in the video it mentions that the supply is good for several days. In fact, the nauplii VERY QUICKLY loose the nutrition they have to start (hours, not days), or even after enrichment, so I recommend removal of depleted nauplii and then add newly enrich nauplii.


I did NOT say there wasn't a differing nutritional profile that hatcheries market. In my post I said: "Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources".
As for HUFA profile, that alone is NOT the main need of seahorses. Seahorses cannot manufacture their own DHA, and DHA is sadly lacking in MOST artemia profiles to the best of my knowledge. Using your link to the Iranian information for instance, shows 3 locations with varying DHA levels between 2.56 and 15.44 so that while HUFA level itself may be fine, it probably will also be deficient in the DHA levels.
Now, all that being said, INVE source their cysts from Great Salt Lake, Siberia, and Bohai Bay with Great Salt Lake cysts usually providing 60% of their demand.
http://www.inveaquaculture.com/latest-news/new-long-term-artemia-agreement/
They do NOT state whether their sales are a mix of these different cysts or even what the normal DHA component level would be combined or separate. Great Salt Lake cysts do not have a reasonable DHA level for seahorse purposes. (as a side note, products containing schizochytrium, or, schizochytrium itself are probably the highest source for DHA enrichment)
Suppliers of cysts to the aquaculture market are primarily choosing based on price, size of nauplii, hatch rate and somewhat on nutrient profile of clients. However as the client needs are varied, it is the usual practice for these client to enrich the nauplii before use although some are able to use the nauplii just as hatched.

Thanks for such an extensive response. I reviewed it and I will have a response tonight. Good information, some statements I agree with but others I disagree.

Also, you can always state your peer-reviewed sources. I have a Degree in Neuroscience from the University of Texas and also 3 years of Medical School from UTHSCH (Clinical and Research). Didn't end up pursuing Medicine because it was not my true passion. I've been pursuing the saltwater industry for 5 years now and I'm also a curriculum manager for a private tutoring company.

 

[sde1500]

Also, you can always state your peer-reviewed sources. I have a Degree in Neuroscience from the University of Texas and also 3 years of Medical School from UTHSCH (Clinical and Research). Didn't end up pursuing Medicine because it was not my true passion. I've been pursuing the saltwater industry for 5 years now and I'm also a curriculum manager for a private tutoring company.

Interesting discussion, but holy pretentious response....

 

[pj86]

Interesting discussion, but holy pretentious response....

My apologies if that came out pretentious. The response was not unwarranted and was a reply to this statement/credentials:

I think the people at the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent would be laughing at these claims.
I have been researching, growing, using and selling brine shrimp now over the last two decades plus and I expect I have a reasonable knowledge base on artemia.

I will keep the discussion to what I've learned the past three years of researching dwarf seahorses. Although I would really like to know who I'm speaking to.

Best, Paul

 

[rayjay]

I think the people at the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent would be laughing at these claims.
I have been researching, growing, using and selling brine shrimp now over the last two decades plus and I expect I have a reasonable knowledge base on artemia.

I guess that is my fault as I didn't really specify what exactly the claims were. It wasn't a comment on your design work, it was in reference to the post "I brought up your concern to him, asking if the brine can be enriched via this feeding method. His response was, "Yes, you can enrich it with Selcom. Also, brine shrimp cysts have come a long way since a decade ago. There are new strains with better nutrition profiles." This is incorrect.
First of all, Selcon or Selco are emulsion products and SHOULD NOT be added to any in tank hatcher. From the way he posted, I think CP may have thought you could add the Selcon to the hatcher. In fact, the nauplii would exit the hatcher BEFORE they advance to Instar II stage where digestive tract has fully developed and they are able to feed.
Brine shrimp cysts have NO new strains with better nutritional profiles. The nutrient profiles strictly depend on the sellers choice of where they buy the cysts from which is NOT specifically directed for seahorse feeding.
My engineering field or your medical field have nothing to do with all of this as neither field is a prerequisite to knowledge of artemia. I too found I wasn't happen in my original choice so after ten years I ended up in business for myself, which again, had no bearing on my research on Saltwater aquariums and artemia, but more directed since 2003 to seahorses with dwarfs as well as angustus, barbouri, abdominalis reidi, comes and erectus.
Much of my information, but not exclusively, comes via the Artemia Reference Centre at the University of Ghent.
For me, the most informative single article would be the Manual on the Production and use of Live Food for Aquaculture with artemia information in Section IV.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3732e/w3732e00.htm
There are NUMEROUS articles published on many sites, mainly aquaculture specific rather than hobby specific that come via the people at the Artemia Reference Centre, but like your Iran piece, many that come from other sources as well. Some of the other sources though need vetting to determine what the information provided is really worth as many can say anything even though it's not fact.
So all that being said, it is up to the readers to decide for themselves if it is worth doing the Sep-Art-artemia method, or use the more conventional external hatch and enrich.
For me personally there is no question as IMO the nauplii need to be enriched after they reach Instar II, and, the cost of the cysts as seen on Age of Aquariums site are 200g(.44 lbs) @ $139.95 which would make it $317.69 for one pound of cysts. I presently buy my cysts from Brine shrimp Direct @ $48.95 for a pound of top of the line Premium Grade Cysts. (that's a multiple of 6.5)
It's a WAY too expensive for me, especially when you consider that by UNVE's site, the improvement in shell content of harvest goes from >1% to <1% using the magnetised cysts.

 

[Lucie]

Are we talking A.salinas or A.franciscana?
The second specie should be prefered, because of his better nutritious profile (especially with decap) and his smaller size.
Enrichment, for sure, can t be done in the tank itself or in the hatching part...
Also, I m concerned about the eggs. Most dwarf owners use decapsulated eggs because of hydroids...
It s also more convenient : better hatching rate, faster hatching, better nutritious profile..
For juveniles and adults, you must enrich baby brine, it s very important, and I m afraid people who will buy this setup will not do it...
Do you plan to sell it with a very explicated « how to use » note? (Sorry I m French, lack of vocabulary)

 

[pj86]

I feel you do a disservice to hobbyists stating it is only a small amount of bacteria and that it is mainly on the shell. Small amount only means possibly hours before it is a large amount. The bacteria do not all remain on the shell and can be carried into the general tank water. IMO, there is NO point in possibly adding bacteria to the tank that may not already be there.

This is not a disservice, and I stand by this statement. Artemia cysts shells have a low chance of carrying vibrio and other pathogens. Vibrio sp. is a gram-negative bacteria and facultative anaerobe. They are grown in a medium that resembles the conditions of saltwater because they require it to survive. A dry surface of a cyst will unlikely have Vibrio and certain bacteria. Some bacteria can survive long-term on dry surfaces but there are fewer spore-forming species. Vibrio sp. and other bacteria are opportunistic in nature and do inhabit saltwater tanks. Read the portion Role in Aquaculture.
(Biodiversity of Vibrios, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC515257/)
Also, the Syngnathid Husbandry in Public Aquarium 2005 Manual is a good reference on diseases of seahorses. Unfortunately, vibrio and bacteria can be harbored within the Nauplii themselves or can be quickly colonized by opportunistic bacteria after hatching. Bacterial load was observed to be the highest in enriched artemia (Vibrio spp. Control at Brine Shrimp, Artemia, Hatching and Enrichment http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jwas.12096/full). Artemia cyst shells are a low nutrient medium, enriched artemia a high nutrient medium and aquaculture tanks a high nutrient medium for bacteria to multiply. Cyst shells themselves are an unlikely cause of pathogenic disease.

If you are going to remove the nauplii to enrich, you are already negating most of the supposed benefit of in tank hatching as you need something else to enrich them in which can also be the hatching vessels themselves.
In addition, in the video it mentions that the supply is good for several days. In fact, the nauplii VERY QUICKLY loose the nutrition they have to start (hours, not days), or even after enrichment, so I recommend removal of depleted nauplii and then add newly enrich nauplii.

In the video, I don't state the food is good for several days. I say you need to repeat the process every 2 days. The food will continue hatching. I have not finalized the instructions and it will be clearly shown in a manual accompanying the food. The way it works is that the container is placed halfway in the aquarium and halfway out of the surface of the water. This causes a gradient of water and also of exposure to oxygen. The eggs that are agitated more and are in or close to the water hatch first, eggs further out of the surface hatch later. After the first hatch one moves the container further down and allows the rest of the eggs to hatch. Nauplii are consumed immediately as they are released into the system, this is the best nutritional value one can get without enriching artemia.

I did NOT say there wasn't a differing nutritional profile that hatcheries market. In my post I said: "Nutrient profiles DO vary from year to year and even within a same year, as well as varying between sources".
As for HUFA profile, that alone is NOT the main need of seahorses. Seahorses cannot manufacture their own DHA, and DHA is sadly lacking in MOST artemia profiles to the best of my knowledge. Using your link to the Iranian information for instance, shows 3 locations with varying DHA levels between 2.56 and 15.44 so that while HUFA level itself may be fine, it probably will also be deficient in the DHA levels.

I do agree with the importance of DHA levels. I would like to add that DHA is more important at certain developmental stages. DHA is important for the maintenance of the cell membrane and neuronal development. It is critical for the development of embryos. Without DHA an embryo will not form correctly or will have neuronal malformation. In short, DHA is critical for juveniles. Now going to the nutritional needs of adults seahorses is less well understood. It is considered an essential fatty acid and seahorses cannot produce it. In human physiology, we do know that it aids in retinal maintenance and is present in cell membranes. My understanding is that DHA became more important for marine aquaculture because studies have shown a 2:1 ratio of essential fatty acids in the nutritional profile of several aquaculture species. Now its incorporation to the cell membrane gets complex and has been shown that increasing one will lead to a decrease of another. (Recent Developments in the Essential Fatty Acid Nutrition of Fish http://storre.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/2776/1/JRS - Barcelona MS.pdf)[/QUOTE]

 

[pj86]

Now that I covered my thoughts about artemia and nutritional profiles. I want to focus on what I want to accomplish with a dedicated system.

The system I created is not perfect. I'm aiming to greatly improve the practice of the care and maintenance of dwarf seahorses.

The history of dwarf seahorses in the hobby begins in the early 1960's to late 1970's. Unfortunately, their introduction to the hobby was fraught with misconception. Companies took advantage of their easy capture from the wild and would sell them to customers with a small plastic bowl, with a small bag of artemia and a pretty distressed wild caught seahorse. Unfortunately, these seahorses would not survive for longer than a few days. In 1980-1990's they were collected in large numbers, dried up and traded as a curio object. Luckily that practice is now illegal. For the past 2 decades, they have been only open to dedicated hobbyist that are willing to prepare live food every day and understand the biological filtration necessary for their survival in captivity. Currently, the best practice is to do the following:


1) Tank size: 2-10 gallons
2) Filtration: Sponge Filter
3) Water Movement: Only movement from air bubbles
4) Temperature: 71-75 degree Fahrenheit (although they are found in a wide range of temperatures)
5) Feeding: Live artemia (done every day at least 2-3 times a day)
6) Water Changes: Weekly
7) Wild caught specimen price: $5 dollars
8) Captive Bred Specimen: $30 dollars

This is the best practice in its simplest form.

What I want to accomplish:

Aquaculture
First, I will address why the Dwarf Seahorse.

I picked the dwarf seahorse as the candidate for a dedicated system because of this article (The Need for Cultured Specimens by Ricardo Calado).

I feel his flowchart in deciding what species is appropriate for aquaculture illustrates why the dwarf seahorse. The reasons are listed below:

Could a species be promoted for aquarium trade Flow Chart

- Protected, Endangered or threatened? Data Deficient
- Legal for export/import (CITES)? Wild caught specimens NO, captive bred YES
- Invasive: NO
- Grow too large for beginners tank? NO
- Special requirements: NO (with the proper equipment)​

The flowchart ends with dwarf seahorses being suitable for the aquarium trade.

How should the species be produced?

- Can a wild harvest maintain habitats and ecosystems? NO
- Will aquaculture hasten the decline of wild populations? NO
- Is the species a domesticated strain or variety? YES
- Will Aquaculture benefit wild population (ranching)? YES
- Can the species be captively propagated? YES​

The flowchart ends with Dwarf Seahorses being a good candidate for aquaculture.

Also, there several scientific articles explaining best practices for aquaculture of several species of seahorses. We will be using them as a basis and also improve the practice.

Filtration
Sponge filters are essentially large surfaces with thousands of different species of bacteria, beneficial and non-beneficial.
To keep the benefits of a sponge filter one has to be very careful with feeding and also water maintenance.

In the system we created, not only do we have a sponge filter but also have introduced an inverted carbon filter. It is inverted (hanging from the top) because the live food will go through the centrifugal pump and not get trapped in any of filtration and be reintroduced until consumed.

The addition of a way to control carbon filtration, while eliminating the possibility of it being clogged by live artemia is an advantage to any hobbyist wanting to care for them. Also, this leads to a healthier sponge filter and overall health of the seahorse.

Lighting
LED allows for better control of excess heat in a small aquarium. Also, we included a base that will act as a mode to improve on utility.

Feeding
The limiting factor for keeping dwarf seahorses is feeding frequency. Having a method that allows having more consistent food be delivered is an advantage to the hobbyist or a beginner trying to start with seahorses.
Also, the nutritional profile of Artemia is at its greatest when first hatched. The limiting factor is kinetic movement after hatch and then enrichment. The bacterial load is minimal compared to the bacteria present in the surface of the sponge or even the walls of the aquarium.


I do not think the system is perfect but I believe it is many steps in the right direction. It is meant to improve and allow for easier maintenance for dwarf seahorses.

 

[sde1500]

I will say, it is a nice looking little aquarium for sure. My hesitation is it seems to make things look simple, for a species that need significant care. Frequent water changes, live food which the hatchery does seem to address, the risk of hydroids. These all in one packages marketed to the public seem cool, but I guess I worry it may oversimplify the process and you get the people who want nemo in a fishbowl buying it.

 

[Lucie]

I will say, it is a nice looking little aquarium for sure. My hesitation is it seems to make things look simple, for a species that need significant care. Frequent water changes, live food which the hatchery does seem to address, the risk of hydroids. These all in one packages marketed to the public seem cool, but I guess I worry it may oversimplify the process and you get the people who want nemo in a fishbowl buying it.

Agree with that!
I livery curious about the PJ reef and especially want to see how it does long term, how does the light long term with macro...
Dwarfs are messy eaters, I will say proportionally more than bigger species.
I personally do a 50% at least waterchange, everyday, in my dwarfs tanks
I could do less for sure but perfect hygiena kind of obsess me in bare bottom tanks, especially with fry.
A dwarf can eat 3000+ live invert a day...
Mines are in constant huge amount of live food
I think for the pj reef, a very detailed and explicative booklet must be provided with the tank.
As you all know, the smaller it is, the most instable it gets.
People with no knowledge to water cycling, chemistry, and especially in saltwater, will not be able to handle dwarfs if they are not able to have a regular maintenance.
Especially these thousands of girls who constantly say « awww seahorses, they are so cuuuuuute, it s my dream to have some” and don t step in because of known complicated maintenance...
This tank looks easy to handle, so many could give it a try...
that s why the booklet is very important.

 

[pj86]

@sde1500 Thank you. I did put a lot of thought into this system. I actually did think about the what I like to call the "Nemo" mentality. I had two choices, make the product cheap which would allow access to everyone or making a modern and more expensive product that would restrict or at least make you think before making the purchase. I went with the latter, the product is not cheap. Also, so far it has only 40 backers, which I think is a good size to educate my backers, talk to them, do LIVE demonstration (which I have been). Then they will spread the knowledge. This is my goal.

@Lucie Thank you, Lucie. Great to see you join the discussion, enjoyed meeting and chatting with you on Facebook. You have an impressive collection of captive dwarf seahorses.
I wanted to address the hydroid possibility. I was researching easy methods for hobbyists to eliminate this possibility. I know that once a system is cycled, one can wait to see if hydroids are present in the cycling method. I haven't been able to find peer-reviewed papers on hydroid presence on Artemia. It is well-known that hydroids can become a problem in dwarf seahorse setup. I personally have not had any outbreaks in display tanks that warranted Panacur (fenbendazole.) I need to do more research on the life cycle of a hydroid and see where in the life cycle it would be best to use preventive measures.
Now methods of sterilizing artemia eggs on peer-reviewed papers mention the use of a solution of NaOH and even UV sterilization. I was seeing what other methods could be effective that a hobbyist can easily perform. I know that alcohol is not considered a sterilizer but is a efficient way to disinfect. Disinfect means to eliminate pathogenic bacteria, but does not mean to eliminate all bacteria. Now I'm researching if this would be a good method to eliminate hydroid eggs. This is in a research stage and would need further exploration into the literature.

 

[rayjay]

First of all, I applaud you for the time you are investing in this.
While it would never be something I would use now or in the past there are people out there looking to simplify the dwarf hobby.
Forgive me for being a while to reply as my age factor means for me I have problems now, not being able to stay on a topic a long time to read your links all at once, and, it is very tiring as I have to close one eye to be able to read/post. It's a big reason I no longer do a lot of investigation over the last couple of years now.
In that fisheries technical paper I linked to there is information about the mainly vibrio bacteria and fungai found on the cysts and at the time the recommended procedure was to decap
Another problem is that all sources vary in the levels of pathogen introduction, bacterial and fungal. Tests conducted on cysts from one source can be quite different when you test cysts from another location. In terms of the GSL cysts, there was a publication some years ago showing a variance even in different part of the lake.
I also agree you can't rid ALL of the pathogens with any known procedure today, but again, the less you start with, the slower the possible problems introduced when feeding.
It's my belief that nauplii contamination by pathogens stems from the hatching water so it's important to lessen the chances by being sure the cysts are sterilized to the point it is very minimal if any vibrio strains or indeed any other pathogen survive.
For myself, I sterilize the cysts (decap is best IME) hatch in bleach or microwaved water, and then I use peroxide in the hatching water just before harvesting to again minimise possibilities. At least if this is all done before Instar II stage at least they cannot ingest any pathogens.
There is no point in my commenting on the hatching of the expensive Sep-Art cysts in tank as I believe it should not be used but rather hatch externally, grow out to second Instar and then enrich properly. One 12 hour stage to gut load nauplii, and two 12 hour stages with new water and enrichment for the second stage which by then will have the enrichment assimilated into the flesh of the nauplii. I feed dwarfs 3 times a day and remove the uneaten nauplii with lowered nutrient profile before replacing with fresh enriched nauplii.
Anecdotally, I found that going from using newly hatched nauplii for dwarfs, to later on switching to enriched nauplii meant the longevity of the dwarf was increased noticeably. (Dan Underwoods advice at the time)
Speaking about Dan Underwood, I wish I still had all the publications and links to publications that Dan had sent me over the years but unfortunately when you don't have a backup system other than a partition on "C", all is lost when the computer fried. While there are not many studies that are directly done with seahorses in mind, Dan seems to find them.
There are all too many publications by reputable sources done on many things that could affect seahorses, but because they have NOT specifically tested with seahorses in mind, they often don't really apply. For example, when dealing with the vibrio species and cysts/hatching of artemia, it is a fact that seahorses are far more susceptible to bacterial infections than other marine species.
I used artemia in all of my reef and fish only tanks for over 20 years without bacterial problems (other than cyano) but when I moved to start with seahorses, the problem was very evident.
Probably with respect to aquaculturing industry, the only thing that comes close is Penaeid shrimp culturing.
As to your aspirations for getting the system you designed to a point it minimises the efforts of dwarf keeping, you do have a lot of good ideas to pursue, but, I don't think you can EVER get it to the point where just anyone buying your setup and reading how to do it and able to succeed. IMO there will be degrees of success in spite of your attempts to simplify but that is because of human involvement more than design faults. (I still consider non enrichment a design fault)
All this being said, it may all be a moot thing if dwarf keeping is to be made illegal. There are not many breeders presently for dwarfs, and if the proposed regulations come to fruition, there will not be wild caught to start or refresh cultures for captive breeding. I know Dan Underwood is one of those no longer culturing dwarfs just because of pending regulations.
This link may provide some information on that, but I'm already too worn out to read it at this time but I'll post just in case it does provide something you can use.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/10089/0
I don't think either of us will convince the other of all our points of view but I'm certainly glad this all came up as I previously had no knowledge of the coating of cysts with magnetic material. I just can see the economics of it at this time though.
It would be interesting to know the process the cysts are put through. Would the process itself be a self sterilizing thing, or would it possibly just cover up possible pathogens.

 

[Jerry Gunn]

New member, First post...First marine tank
I found this thread very interesting because I started an experimental Dwarf Seahorse tank last November. Its doing quite well so far. There is one thing I would really like narrow in on first.

Hydroids hitchhiking on dried artemia cysts. I found numerous references to hitchhiking hydroids on the cysts (Seahorse.com, A.W. Abbott (Complete Guide to Dwarf Seahorses), etc.

Then I found another reference stating there is no dry form of hydroid (cannot find that reference currently). I checked the lifecycle of hydroids and it seems there is truly no dry form.

I hatch cysts in a divided section of the tank and have seen no hydroids so far. Also, its a seahorse only tank with only Chaetomorpha grown from a single small piece. I have no other marine tanks.

So I wonder if the hydroid from cyst problem really exists. Maybe the hydroids enter tanks by other means no matter how carefully we add other lifeforms and then just thrive in the artemia dense environment. I have avoided adding any other creatures at this point manly to avoid any possible hydroid problem.

I am interested to find out what others think.

 

[pj86]

Hi Jerry, welcome to reef2reef.

Nice to see someone caring for Dwarf Seahorses since November.

I have not found any literature stating that hydrozoan can survive with a small % amount of water. I have found this article on the biological structure of Artemia cysts. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/W3732E/w3732e0n.htm

I wouldn't be surprised that most hydrozoan introduction comes from other systems that contain a greater biodiversity such as a reef aquarium. Most of us are guilty of having many tanks at once, haha.