Discus

[tHE SCRiBBLEs]

Im gettin a 55 gallon tank tommorrow and will put discus in it once i get the money to buy them and all the stats are right.

Got any last minute suggestions?

Could I mabey try and stick 6 in there or is that pushin it?
It will have great filtration and I will preform two 25-50% water changes weekly.
What should there main source of food be, Flake, bloodworm, etc?
Any info will help

Thanks for the info,
-Chris

 

[Jim Curtis]

You could have 6 easy. Probably want to do more water changes. I try to do 40-50% daily but it's usually 5-6 times a week with my 55 gallon.

 

[mike os]

in a 55us gal I would not want more than 5 as a beginner.

food wise... everything, particularly very high protein foods such as beefheart, turkeyheart etc.

 

[DiscusKeeper403]

If you are getting little ones then 6 should would be fine, but I would still recommend 5. If you choose 6, you would need to keep an eye on aggression as they get bigger though. You would be surprised. 5 adult Discus in my 50 gallon looks cramped!

 

[rabbut]

in a 55us gal I would not want more than 5 as a beginner.

food wise... everything, particularly very high protein foods such as beefheart, turkeyheart etc.

Still advising that beefheart and other similar foods are a good diet are you, despite the fact that they can caurse a premature death due to fatty liver disease and other dietry ailments?

Diet shoud be a good dry food as staple, such as Hikari discus mix, Tetramin granuals, New Era Central and South American cichlid pellets or Discusin, suplimented with a good quality tropical quintet frozen food mix Beefheart can be OK if you make it yourself, and limit the amount of it in the mix (make it about 10%, the other 90% assorted veg and frozen ocean going animals along with mineral supliments) A good beefheart mix takes a lot of effort to make, and IMO isn;t worth the effort Especially as even then it should only be used weekly as a supliment, not as the staple of the diet

HTH
Rabbut

Edit to add, I personally think 6 would be fine in a 55g, so long as you keep up with waterchanges. Mine get 50% twice weekly most weeks, twice weekly 30%'s or a 50% weekly if not.

On a side note, two 25% waterchanges don't add up to one 50% a week They might in volume, but not in effect, as the toxins removed by the first change will be diluted by the second change

 

[DiscusKeeper403]

Have to agree with Rabbut about the heart. It really isn't a good thing to feed on a regular basis. As a treat once a week or so, is fine, but I wouldn't do much more then that. Mike, you were correct about a high protein diet, but Beef heart or even Turkey heart aren't very high in protein.

Beef heart is better if it isn't store bought. Jack Wattley raves about stuff he makes and says he uses it as a staple food, but every fish keeper is different.

 

[mike os]

what a load of tosh LOL

heart is probably the most cost effective and best growth food for discus at any price. There is NO evidence for health problems at all, only supposition and conjecture. despite several "analasys" of food constituents..... and I have seen too many, depending on what point you wish to make no food has any food value except my brand.... It always amazes me...BH has no value, yet the biggest discus I have ever seen (well over 20cm SL measured) come from someone who only feeds BH

I could point you to several major breeders in europe and asia who use it, one I know ONLY feeds BH and always comes away from shows with prizes and is a name everyone in europe will know.... as well as the farther of discus breeding himself....

although I agree with it not being a sole diet, as any sole diet is not good, as a staple there are few things to compare to it. This is from someone who has actually tried it for themselves, ie reared multiple split batches of fry on various feeding regimes to 4", in a real and honest trial to find an alternative for myself, and in every case the fish fed on BH/TH mixes were far larger, better formed, usually better coloured (reds show better colours when fed a diet high in red colourants[from whatever source]), more active etc. And while I would be reluctant to consider the "test" anything more than a subjective study, given the number of fish and varieties, (several hundred [finished fish, not culls &the like] and 5 var.) I was convinced enough to stop looking for a viable prepared alternative, given the amount I used to use a prepared dry food would have been very welcome.

 

[rabbut]

Read carefully. Beefheart or turky heart alone will caurse issues, as will store bought mixes, as they contain it prodminantly. These foods are high in vitamin B1 so if you identify a lack of this in your fishes diet, these heats can be used to add it in as a supliment. (Discus health by Dieter Untergasser printed 1991) but it lacks carbohydrate, Riboflavin, vitamin B6, B12, Viatmin C, Vitamin H, further it contains Avidin which is a know anti-vitamin for Vitamin H. As a supliment for fish lacking B1 in their diet, it is a good supliment, but not a good staple food, due to a lack of vitamins and it's antivitamin content.

Dietry deficiencies can take years to exhibit themselves. A discus with a good diet and care should last 35+ years. Most breeders feeding beefheart report 10-15. Reason; they breed their fish. Yes breeding fish is a strain and can shorten life spans if you overbreed from them (an error of care) but even then to loose just shy of 3/4's of a fishes life to it TBH I feel that's an oversight on the breeder's part, and I personally recon it's down to dietry issues and even if it isn't, I think they are being a little short sited to say that is normal. A loss of life expectancy of that kind is a husbandary issue, plain and simple. If these breeder can't see that for whatever reason and fix it, I won't be taking their advise on care.

Dietry issues can take years to show themselves as issues. Also dietry issues give none-specific symptoms, such as loss of apitite, total or partical loss of site and just wasting away, as well as manifesting as other infections, such as bacterial and Flagellate infections such as hole in the head. This makes them very hard to diagnose, and they often get overlooked as something else. Less commonly you can also see anemia in some cases. (again Discus health by Dieter Untergasser)

There was a scientific study into the protien issue I raised with you before, but I currently can't find it ATM. The vitamin content point, or more to the point antivitamin content and lack of vitamins is a nail in beefheart's coffin in itself, unless you have a source contradicting that? If so, I'd love to see them Mike OS If not, I'm sure that when you see this study, you'll be happy to admit that the final nail has gone into the coffin of the beefheart diet so that we can all place this debate 6 foot under in it's wooden box. I'm happy to continue, and even bow to the diet on the other hand, if you have some good references to contradict mine. So far though, you have only posted your experiences and those of others without a great deal of detail about how the diet fares long tearm, unless you have a Discus that lasted 35 years on a beefheart staple, and know many breeders that have also?

All the best
Rabbut

 

[mike os]

35 years.....?? where? so somewhere there are fish that were alive when i first saw them???

as with any study I am always ready to learn, to date all I have seen is the usual "no cows in the Amazon" type approach, ( to which I usually add no tetra/spinach/fishmeal/vegiburger/whatever trees there either LOL) none with even a beginning of research based on basic scientific precepts, and unfortunately I don't think there is likely to be one as there is no commercial application. (those produced by fishfood manufacturers are immediately suspect, unless they endorse someone else's' product....) Given the data above such an investigation would take at least 70 years to develop any meaningful data, ie 2 full generations as a basic minimum. Also bear in mind that prolonged and dedicated observation/investigation/trial by non scientific methods still produces viable, applicable and relevant data.

Again I would say any sole diet is not good.

 

[rabbut]

The paper I've seen was produced by the aquaculture industory, not a commercial fish food company. Fish farms look to feed their fish the best diet possible to get best growth rates from their fish, thus boosting efficiency and profitability for them, thus they are not likely to tip their research as they would not get any benefit from it I was mebe economical with the truth though, as the paper isn't linked directly to discus, it was focused on Salmon I think (still digging for it, on and off. It does not help that I can't remember where I first saw it linked to, from) Even though, I can't see why it would not be linkable almost directly to discus TBH... Unless you can think of a reason?

You would not need to see two generations pass for accurate results. The key here is in the caurse. The mamillian protien breaks down to form an indigestable fat that the fish absorbs and thus starts to build up arround it's liver and other vital organs. To do a reasonable test, you need only examine a fish under autopsy to look and see if there are any abnormal build-ups arround the liver, heart and kidnies e.t.c. Mamillian based protiens were (and in some cases still are) used as a protien source in fish feeds both commercially and in aquaculture, hence why research may be ran by these organisations Even if the study did target Discus specifically and yoiu were waiting for the fish to die before autopsy, on a fish fed mamillian protien as a staple examined over 2 generations would only expect to need 20 years due to the decreased life expectancy Dieter Untergasser gives reference to the adverage age of his fish as arround 35 years in the book referenced below, so it is entirely possible that some of the first dicus you saw are still alive, assuming you first saw them less that 35 years ago and that they have had good care

Again I would say any sole diet is not good.

Oh good, we agree on one point at least

While digging, I found a paper containing the break-down of the fatty acid contained in a commercial food compaired to palin beefheart and a beefheart-seafood mix. Interestingly, the paper finds that beefheart is more palitable than the comemrcial food and increases the egg yeald of spawnings, with an even greater improvement seen in the beefheart-seafood mix for the same tests, despite the commercial food having more fatty acids in it... This source does not test any other form of vitamin or protien for beefheart though, which is slightly dissaponting I can see from these results though, why some may choose to use beefheart over other foods.

Table 11. Fatty acid profiles of three maturation diets used for C. aeneus. Values are reported in mg/100 mg as fed.
Fatty Acid Beef Heart + Seafood Beef Heart NutraFry
14:0 0.01 0.03 1.83
16:0 0.20 0.33 4.48
16:1n7 0.01 0.05 1.77
18:0 0.20 0.29 0.82
18:1n9 0.17 0.62 1.76
18:2n6 0.51 0.30 0.90
18:3n3 0.06 0.03 0.27
18:4n3 N.D. 0.00 0.42
20:1n9 0.00 0.02 0.29
20:4n6 0.15 0.11 0.23
20:5n3 0.03 0.03 2.41
22:1n11 N.D. 0.01 0.08
22:6n3 0.10 0.00 2.05
Total Fatty Acids 1.46 1.82 17.30

Please see the origional below for the actual table. You are looking towards the bottom, page 9;

http/www.lib.noaa.gov/japan/aquaculture/...rt28/Tamaru.pdf

All the best
Rabbut

 

[DiscusKeeper403]

35 years.....?? where? so somewhere there are fish that were alive when i first saw them???

as with any study I am always ready to learn, to date all I have seen is the usual "no cows in the Amazon" type approach, ( to which I usually add no tetra/spinach/fishmeal/vegiburger/whatever trees there either LOL) none with even a beginning of research based on basic scientific precepts, and unfortunately I don't think there is likely to be one as there is no commercial application. (those produced by fishfood manufacturers are immediately suspect, unless they endorse someone else's' product....) Given the data above such an investigation would take at least 70 years to develop any meaningful data, ie 2 full generations as a basic minimum. Also bear in mind that prolonged and dedicated observation/investigation/trial by non scientific methods still produces viable, applicable and relevant data.

Again I would say any sole diet is not good.

Hmmm... With that idea of no cows, all I can think of, is have they looked at the back of the package for these Discus pellets? Heck, any fish food? Of course we feed them things foreign to their natural habitat.

Foreign ingredients in Hikari Discus pellets:
krill meal
wheat flour
starch
sea weed meal
spirulina
yeast


And probably a whole lot of the vitamins/minerals in the list, I would guess.


That is really all I can contribute anymore, as the last post has gone way too deep for me (espeically the quote ) .

 

[mike os]

As ever, commercial fish research is principally aimed a salmonids & similar farmed species, typically cold water, and therefore although inferences can be drawn from findings no categorical statements can be made, inferences are little more than informed guesses and may be as inaccurate as a total guess. ie there is no data on feeding mammalian protein to tropical species. If you would like a kind of idea try penicillin research on hamsters.... a great antibiotic but lethal to hamsters ergo penicillin is lethal....? ie no inference can be drawn for other species that is totally or sometimes even reasonably accurate.

Part of the overall product based on mammalian protein may "break down to produce...." not all, as in sole diet the fish would simply starve if this were the case.... the fat MUST be digestible otherwise it would simply remain in the gut & be passed as waste, only digestible matter is absorbed by the body... not necessarily "foodstuffs" but the digestive tract must be able to process this material to deposit it elsewhere, ergo the fish has a built in method of dealing with this kind of material. Even such deposits do not mean there is a problem per se, fish fed on a totally man made dies and wild specimens would need to be autopsied for any meaningful results, and the impact of any such "problem" examined in terms of life quality and length, ie is there any real impact or is it irrelevant? For this you need life cycle studies & these take several generations to produce meaningful results.

I have never been an advocate of single food diets for any animal. LOL

If you have a ref for Untergasser I would like it please, don't have time atm for a proper look or re-read.

As to the report attached..with ref to BH... all it shows is that for 1 trop species ( C anaeus) BH in the diet shows increases in egg size & numbers, with no info on life/health issues.

A reasonable inference from this is that it may also prove true for other trop species. Also that manmade feeds may have a detremental effect on egg size & numbers

from the P scalare tests it may be inferred that not all manmade foods are created equal, or that they are not all suitable/best for all species, ie a more tailored diet on a species by species basis may be nessisary rather than a universal flake/pellet for all species.

(numbers are interesting, but not always relevant, espescially with so many variables.)

PS /edit nice to see some investigation on trops rather than food fish