Petshrimp.com Discussion Forum

Can someone tell me what is this yellow stuffs growing inside my Red Cherry shrimps ?

See picture:
http://tinypic.com/2r607

I have found more and more adult shrimps affected by it.

Is it an organ or eggs of some sort ?
Does it happens only to female shrimps ?


HG

I don't know the answer to your question but if it is not harmful and all your shrimp develop it (and if they breed true--that is, if their offspring have that same golden mark), you'd have a beautiful new color to start a buying rampage with. I hope it isn't a bad thing because it looks real good.

Those are plain and simple eggs in preproduction in the ovaries of the shrimp. It shines through their skin. So...only females have that. Soon you will see the shrimp carrying eggs.

Mustafa

Thanks Mustafa for this important information.
I'm glad it's not due to inbreeding or disease.

too bad it's not a New breed 51Cornell.. maybe next time.

HG

I've been seeing the same thing and wondering what it was. Thanks Mustafa.

Now I'm worried that I may have all females -- many of the shrimp showing this "yellowing" are the paler ones that I had pegged as males.

At what point does fertilization take place? Will the females develop eggs if there are no males around?

Hi Amanda,

Fertilzation takes place before the female starts carrying the eggs under her pleopods (the things she uses for swimming). Unfertilezed females usually do not carry eggs. Sometimes even unfertilized females initially carry eggs, but drop them shortly thereafter.

You might in fact have all females. Most shrimp that get imported into the US are females (since they are the really red ones) and it's quite hard sometimes to find males. Maybe you're lucky though and there is a male somewhere. If all of your shrimp have the yellow spot on their necks, though, then they are all definitely females.


Mustafa

They don't all have the yellow, but many of the ones that have very little red, that I had assumed were males, are showing the yellowing. I'll try to get a pic of one of the least red ones to show you.

I'd been looking for cherries for the longest time and I finally found them recently. I tried to get a mix of what I thought were males and females. Yesterday when I was checking them out, I saw one of the females carrying eggs, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I've got at least one male in there somewhere.

So if fertilization occurs before the eggs develop, would that be before or after we see the yellowing? Sorry to keep pestering you for info, but I find this really interesting.

Hi Amanda,

The yellow you see on the "neck" are the ovaries producing eggs. The fertilization takes place after the eggs are produced (i.e. after the "yellowing") and then the eggs are transferred to the abdomen area.

Take care,
Mustafa

Here's a pic of what I thought was a male (not very red), showing the yellowing...


And here's an egg-carrying female, showing much redder colouring...

Hi Amanda,

These are both definitely females. The not-so-red one will probably turn red with time. By the way...what camera did you use to shoot these pics?

Mustafa

Hey Mustafa... What're you doing up so late? Or is it early?

If not for the yellowing, would you have said that paler one was a female? How pale are the males usually?

I took the photos with a hand-held Canon 10D, macro lens and an off-camera flash. I'm blown away by all the beautiful photos I see people have taken with point-and-shoot cameras. But I like playing with different lenses & settings (photography is my other big hobby). What camera do you use?

This is my male and female Red Cherry shrimp.

@Amanda

That's a great camera! I was looking into buying one, but I can't bring it over myself (yet) to spend that much money. Have looked into the Nikon 70? How do both compare? How much was your macro lens? Sooner or later I will have to get a digital SLR since my pictures are horrible (in my opinion). I am using an old Sony DSC-P7 digital camera (3.2 megapixels) and I *hold* different lenses in front of the camera's own lens to give it better macro capabilities. I salvaged those lenses from old binoculars and an old polaroid camera...LOL . I know it's "ghetto", but it's better than nothing. At this point I have no choice. My camera has horrible macro capabilities and a really slow shutter...no manual controls...just a point and click camera.

Again...I'll have to save up for a digital SLR. Your pictures are extremely high quality and very sharp....I never get my pics that sharp. I just wish that they had good quality digital SLRs that cost less. I will only be using the macro capababilies to photograph shrimp and similar animals, so I feel apprehensive about spending big dollars for a digital SLR that can be used for so much more (but which I don't need for more).

Do you know of any non-SLR digital camera (i.e. one for all lens) that has superior macro capabilities?

@thgng

Nice pic! Is your male brownish or does it just appear that way? Mine are all somewhat reddish.

Mustafa

Hey Mustafa

I know what you mean about not wanting to spend so much for that one feature, but like I said, photography is a big hobby of mine. I've been buying bits and pieces for years, so when I went digital I just had to buy the camera itself. I already had the macro lens from my old film SLR -- I bought the lens 2nd hand a long time ago and I can't remember what it cost. Sorry.

A friend of mine has a Sony as well, and she's not too happy with the quality. If you're looking for a new point-and-shoot, I'd look at Canons -- I hear nothing but good things about them. dpreview.com is a good site for reviews, samples & comparisons. If you're looking for an SLR, the Canon Rebel is pretty affordable.

But I'll say it again, I've seen a lot of fantastic pics taken with point-and-shoots. Including some with lenses held in front of the camera like you're doing. In fact, check out this photo and read down to see how it was taken.

Hi Amanda,

The Rebel 300D looks like a very good choice for a first digital SLR. I might just wait a little and save up for the new Canon 20D, though. I know it's overkill but I might as well get the "real thing" if I am spending $1000+ for a camera anyway and use it as my main digital camera.

The small Sony is convenient to take along and takes very good pictures in bright daylight, but if the light is not perfect or if the object is very fast (as in animals and nature photography) it is next to worthless. However, as I said, when there is sufficient light it takes some good pics. Here is an example, which I thought turned out really well:

http://www.petshrimp.com/files/butterfly.jpg

I have a feeling, though, that the colors could be more vibrant with a better camera. I wish I could take my shrimp outside and takes such good pics.


The Rebel does not seem to have all that many manual controls as the higher end SLRs. Manual controls seem to be quite important when it comes to macro photos.

Mustafa