Compatibility Question

[mattlee]

well done bae, at last the scientific proof IC1 was after

 

[bae1994]

yeah no reply tho maybe he is embarrassed that he was proven wrong by Einstein

 

[mattlee]

yeah no reply tho maybe he is embarrassed that he was proven wrong by Einstein

it usually takes a month for the reply and to dig this thread up again so ill wait until october for the reply

 

[BackToTheFishes]

I just peed a little reading this!
Whats the point of asking opinions from people with experience then banging on about "scientific" proof to back up the advice?
Unless someone develops a way to communicate with fish and ask them how they feel in different size tanks,how will "opinions" be proved?
I for one would put the opinions of the guys here over alot of "experts" because they are doing what I am,trying their best to keep the pets they have chosen as happy as possible

 

[kaivalagi]

All I can say is thanks for being such a sport Mattlee, entertaining to say the least, I would have lost my rag a long long time ago...

Maybe IC1 has gone away to get a phD in Ichthyology before replying to say that indeed a group of 6 or more torpedo barbs needs a 4ft or bigger tank

 

[IC1]

Mattless, you're blinkered

Still no evidence! just that 4ft is better than 3ft, which I would argue is largely insignificant when comparing this species natural habitat to home aquaria.

To answer your other question the Barb appears to be doing fine, bright red stripe, feeding fine looking healthy. I do as mentioned in my posts plan for a larger tank and common tank mates.

Let us agree to disagree. (Please think before going back round the loop!)

Finally vaegavic, debating fish keeping methods and pushing for evidence is hardly 'silly'.

However you do make a point aligned to mine, 4ft v 3ft is 'irrelevant' to a point.

Your Quote:
'At the end of the day, there is no scientific proof that 4ft is better than 3 ft for a barb but, if you're keeping these fish in a confined space, under law you are obligated to make sure they are able to express themselves in the way they would do in the wild.'

Therefore, none of us should in truth be keeping any fish, as our aquariums do not allow fish to behave as they would in the wild.

6 barbs in a 4ft - not even close to the species real world habitat!

 

[mattlee]

Mattless, you're blinkered

Still no evidence! just that 4ft is better than 3ft, which I would argue is largely insignificant when comparing this species natural habitat to home aquaria.

To answer your other question the Barb appears to be doing fine, bright red stripe, feeding fine looking healthy. I do as mentioned in my posts plan for a larger tank and common tank mates.

Let us agree to disagree. (Please think before going back round the loop!)

Finally vaegavic, debating fish keeping methods and pushing for evidence is hardly 'silly'.

However you do make a point aligned to mine, 4ft v 3ft is 'irrelevant' to a point.

Your Quote:
'At the end of the day, there is no scientific proof that 4ft is better than 3 ft for a barb but, if you're keeping these fish in a confined space, under law you are obligated to make sure they are able to express themselves in the way they would do in the wild.'

Therefore, none of us should in truth be keeping any fish, as our aquariums do not allow fish to behave as they would in the wild.

6 barbs in a 4ft - not even close to the species real world habitat!

about on que IC1.... well done

i hope you are aware that 'a barb' womt really be all that happy as they are a fish that loves to be in as big a group as possible. so you have a single barb in a 3ft tank..... well done for you
"still no evidence" wasnt it you that wanted the evidence? i even started a new topic off for you, did you see it? ive not looked at it for a while and was really looking forward to you getting your scientific evidence from maybe a scientist! i guess there has been no scientific evidence proven on this forum. if thats the case then we all appologise for this have you discovered the formula for fish stocking in the last month? if so please share it with us.
"Therefore, none of us should in truth be keeping any fish, as our aquariums do not allow fish to behave as they would in the wild." in reality maybe we shouldnt be keeping fish. didnt this get covered in this post before..........? none of us can provide our fish with as big a place to live than they would in the wild, fact (not scientific but fact), but we can provide them with the best environment as possible by using our old saying "common sense" and as you can see the people on this forum using common sense would not house a fast fish in a 3ft tank.

speak to ya in a month

in case you missed it here is the topic i started to try and kick start your quest.............

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/339295-can-any-scientists-help-this-person-out/page__p__2819126__fromsearch__1&#entry2819126

 

[mbsqw1d]

Then everything is ok then..

I believed you originally posted on this forum to ask for advice. As you must have had some concern regarding the well being of your fish?

Therefore, none of us should in truth be keeping any fish, as our aquariums do not allow fish to behave as they would in the wild.

Yep. This is a truth. And until we are able to communicate with a fish and ask how it is; whether it would rather be swimming in the ocean, then we will never 100% know. (I'd bet a number of fish would ask 'what's an ocean?' since they're bred in captivity anyway )

To answer your other question the Barb appears to be doing fine, bright red stripe, feeding fine looking healthy.

So would you say your tank is big enough then? It depends on what your perception of 'appears to be doing fine' is. I'm afraid science has no place here IC1.

Someone else with 'concern' has just posted something:
http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/340655-quite-possibly-the-most-concerning-ebay-sale-ive-seen-so-far

IC1. Why not grab this 'bargain' and write a paper for the scientific section here at TFF. Find out how much space a fish needs before it 'appears to be doing fine'.

By the way. Your argument here based on the requirement of 'scientific evidence' vs 'common sense' is a joke. right?
I would make a decision based on common sense before I consult any scientist!

 

[england]

There is no scientific evidence to back this,......

It's purely down to keeping fish in a good envioroment....

For example keeping a bear in a cage, or a monkey in a small metal cage surrounded in its own excrement would you do this?

it proves the tanks obviously not big enough, does not need a scientist to tell you this really...

 

[bae1994]

ic should reply any day giving his response time thus this post lol

 

[mattlee]

i was just looking back through a few topics etc and came accross this again and bae1994 has added something also today......

how weird is that!

i see the op hasnt replied i was after a laugh as well.....

maybe he has found his treasure and his explanation but wants to keep it all to himself

shame

 

[IC1]

Hi Guys,

Nice one BAE, I like it...

RLTB still doing fine.

Nelly, please share any proof regarding tank sizes.

Yes the larger the tank the better, we all as fishkeepers agree on this. Please note this sentence when replying!

Mattlee you cannot grasp that your statement about '4ft length as a minimum' without reference to depth or free swim space or 1ft extra with relating to the fish size/swim speed/natural environment is incomplete, and after all this time you cannot develop your statement. Mattlee as you mature I'm sure you will develop your reasoning skills, until then.....

All please discuss.

 

[bae1994]

Hi Guys,

Nice one BAE, I like it...

RLTB still doing fine.

Nelly, please share any proof regarding tank sizes.

Yes the larger the tank the better, we all as fishkeepers agree on this. Please note this sentence when replying!

Mattlee you cannot grasp that your statement about '4ft length as a minimum' without reference to depth or free swim space or 1ft extra with relating to the fish size/swim speed/natural environment is incomplete, and after all this time you cannot develop your statement. Mattlee as you mature I'm sure you will develop your reasoning skills, until then.....

All please discuss.

Ahhhh no pictures

I Question wether you even own these fish still, if you are so incapable of taking others advice without "scientific proof" then how do you decide the quantity of food to feed, the percentage of water to change or the temperature of water to keep not everything has been tested by science infact the majority of things in this hobby and many other things in life is down to years of experience from generations before you and I so why argue when you have kept fish for such a short time when compared to how long ornamental fish have been imported and kept?


Preach done

 

[drobbyb]

I see IC1 posted, but all I see is blah blah blah. Lets look at his logic from another angle:

Does love exist? Let me ask someone. (makes a new topic on a forum) It does? Show me some scientific proof! Oh you can't prove it huh. Then it must not exist.

 

[twodoctors]

Hi Guys,

Nice one BAE, I like it...

RLTB still doing fine.

Nelly, please share any proof regarding tank sizes.

Yes the larger the tank the better, we all as fishkeepers agree on this. Please note this sentence when replying!

Mattlee you cannot grasp that your statement about '4ft length as a minimum' without reference to depth or free swim space or 1ft extra with relating to the fish size/swim speed/natural environment is incomplete, and after all this time you cannot develop your statement. Mattlee as you mature I'm sure you will develop your reasoning skills, until then.....

All please discuss.

I'm new to the hobby so I can't say I know more than you. However what I do have is common sense (here we go again) and I know that if I want opinion on a subject regarding fishkeeping, I can get it from forums such as this. If I want scientific proof on why X fish needs y feet tank, then I know this is not where I would find the information. It is obvious that people on this forums are (all) hobbyist, and get their info from books, past experiences, and advise from others. I don't know if there is any published literature regarding tank size for X fish or Y fish. I don't think there will ever be. There may be literatures published regarding how wide an area X fish will roam, and this area will certainly be larger than any fish tank commercially available. Does this matter? Probably not because you are also one of many people who thinks it is okay to keep a group of fish in a small box. Most of us would try to minimise this stress by trying to replicate their natural environment (and fail miserably most of the time), get a bigger tank so they have more space to swim, keeping the water quality pristine, feed them live food instead of flakes etc etc. There is no proof that RLTB needs minimum of 4ft tank. End of. There is also no proof that they are happy in a 3ft tank either. If you want scientific evidence, then google it. If you want personal opinion, then ask in the forum. If you want consensus opinion, start a poll. If you want to pick a fight or insult others on this forum, then please find a mirror and take a good look at yourself and ask, why? Why at age 35 as stated in your info, you are still behaving like a child? Why are you looking for scientific proof in a hobbyist forum and not a ichthyology journal?

Adrian