Filters,heaters,air and other fish myths.

[AKfish]

And Byron your the one telling people they need a 6 foot tank for a senegal bichir because it gets 18" long. Bro your giving aquarium advice. They won't have an 18" senegal in a tank. Maybe a big one in the wild gets 18" but even then it's a not an average size, it's a big one. So we all mislead and give bad info at times. Like yours. Always funny watching someone throw stones from their glass house.

 

[Colin_T]

Do you really believe that fish all over the world. Same specie's in different locations differ in average size do to fishing??

Yes.

There is an island off the coast of Queensland, Australia. The island is part of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) marine park, and has been set up as a sanctuary where nobody can take any fish. The only people allowed near the island are scientists and researchers.

The fish species living around the island are also found along the GBR, however the fish found around the island are larger and in much higher numbers than the fish found elsewhere on the GBR. This is purely because nobody is allowed to catch fish at the island and the fish can grow to full size.

Other countries around the world have set up similar sanctuaries where nobody can take fish. The fish grow to maturity and breed readily. The surplus fish (usually the larvae in the plankton chain), move to other parts of the reef and repopulate the other reefs. The fish in these sanctuaries are always bigger than the fish found in other areas where fishing is allowed.

 

[AKfish]

Yes.

There is an island off the coast of Queensland, Australia. The island is part of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) marine park, and has been set up as a sanctuary where nobody can take any fish. The only people allowed near the island are scientists and researchers.

The fish species living around the island are also found along the GBR, however the fish found around the island are larger and in much higher numbers than the fish found elsewhere on the GBR. This is purely because nobody is allowed to catch fish at the island and the fish can grow to full size.

Other countries around the world have set up similar sanctuaries where nobody can take fish. The fish grow to maturity and breed readily. The surplus fish (usually the larvae in the plankton chain), move to other parts of the reef and repopulate the other reefs. The fish in these sanctuaries are always bigger than the fish found in other areas where fishing is allowed.

I understand. And that's a terrific point. Has nothing to do with my original point. Bass in texas are much bigger then bass in Idaho. People travel from across the US to catch trophy bass in texas. Guess who travel's to Idaho for bass? No one. So by your explanation bass in Texas should be far smaller because fishing is the reason we have smaller fish of the same specie's in different parts of the country. Are you still with me? This is exactly why I get so frustrated. People only read a Small part until they can find something and disagree to it. You really never heard my point at all. Your argument that the reason same specie's fish are different sizes in different parts of the country isn't environment it's fishing. Makes absolutely no sense in my example I have in the first place. But now three posts later hopefully you can understand what I'm saying. Way more bass fishing in Texas then Idaho. Way bigger fish in Texas then Idaho. Get it?? The bigger fish exists where the fishing is the heaviest? So it is most probably environmental as I originally said. Would you still not agree? Because that would have to be just to be contrary. So to me it seems very obvious that judging a fish health or quality of water based on size is as flawed a method as you can get. Because even though bass are much smaller in the wild in Idaho. In no way means they are not as healthy.

 

[AKfish]

I keep telling myself I'm not getting back on here. But can't help it. I'm obviously the bad dumb guy reading back through. Seems I made no sense at all and you darn guys are so much smarter. This forum is a joke for sharing thoughts. I disagree with you. Seems a more sensible person may actually have a give and take type conversation. But nope. It's your way or the highway lol. I do apologise for letting myself get too carried away. Definitely took things far more serious then I should. Let git really get under my skin. But facts are your all a screen name. Claims of this and that are essentially meaningless. I'll take my info from sources I can vet lookup and form my own opinion. I have heard the science quoted a few times. But many of the aquarium norms are debated to this day by scientist. Still debate if your filter truly houses the bacteria they used to claim. Shoot that's been the stand for decades and common knowledge. But nope it's debated by the actual scientist doing the test/studies. But here in this forum it seems pretty concrete. And that's something I just can't wrap my head around. And as Byron said what would this forum be if we didn't correct wrong information. Maybe it would be more open to discussing experiences people have had. I would hate to talk about some of my experience with fish. I would feel judgement from all around. This forum is for advice on illness or nitrogen cycle. Entire roster of folks looking to tell people what they are doing wrong. But anyone trying to actually talk about the hobby and anything out of the norm. Probably better find another forum for that. If you do please let me know.

 

[Colin_T]

If fishing is not the cause of the difference in size, then it is either environment, food or genetics.
Fish grow bigger in bigger volumes of water. If the rivers in Texas are deeper and wider than in Idaho, the fish could grow bigger.

If the water is warmer in Texas, the fish will grow faster than in cooler water, which might occur in Idaho.

If there is more food in Texas, the fish will grow faster. More food is usually related to a warmer environment, which allows food sources to grow faster and continue for longer.

It could be the fish in question are actually a subspecies of bass. We have fish in the south-west of Western Australia called Pygmy Perch. They all resemble each other but are found over a fairly large range. Originally it was thought they were all the same species but recent DNA research (By Dave Morgan at Murdoch Uni) has found there are several different species. They all look very similar but one species only grows to about half the size of the other species. All these fish, including the dwarf species, are found in shallow pools, creeks and rivers, so water volume is ruled out as the reason for size variation. They all occur in similar water and eat the same foods. The dwarf species is found in slightly cooler water than some of the northern species but there are other rivers near the dwarf species that are also cold and they have full sized fish. These dwarf pygmy perch are simply genetically different and don't grow as big as the other pygmy perch in the area.

-----------------------------

So to me it seems very obvious that judging a fish health or quality of water based on size is as flawed a method as you can get.

I kept rainbowfishes between 1987 & 2006. They can reach sexual maturity at 2 inches long in 2-3 months (depending on species). They can reach 4 inches in length, which is close to their maximum size) in 6 months under good conditions, but most take 12 months to reach 4 inches long. Most male rainbowfish get tall in the body and it takes about 12 months in good conditions and 2 years in average conditions for the males to develop the tall body. These sizes are from my own observations while I specialised in keeping and breeding rainbowfishes from Australia and New Guinea. Big tanks and deep water help them grow faster and develop the taller bodies quicker.

My own tanks were 4 foot long x 14 inches wide x 18 inches high and had undergravel filters. They had lots of aeration from an air pump, which ran the undergravel filters. The fish were fed well each day and given a 70-80% water change each week. I also gravel cleaned the substrate each time I did a water change. My fish hit 4 inches long in 12 months.

The main tank in the original video looks to be about 6 foot long x 18inches wide x 18 inches high, or something similar to that. It doesn't get regular water changes but does have an internal power filter to remove ammonia and nitrite. This tank and my tanks both had live plants in. This tank is bigger than my tanks so the fish should grow just as quickly as mine if not faster due to the bigger aquarium.

If the tank in the video has been set up for 2 years and the rainbowfish have been in that tank for 2 years, the male rainbowfish should be much bigger than they are. The Glossolepis incisus in that tank should have been about 5 inches long x 2-3 inches high and bright red in colour. It wasn't. The Melanotaenia praecox rainbows (neon dwarf) only grow to 2 inches long and also get deep bodies but they did not appear to be full grown. M. praecox should be full sized in less than 12 months in an aquarium.

--------------
If rainbowfish are not fed well when young, they don't grow fast if at all. I have seen juvenile rainbowfish that were 6 months old and only 1 inch long. These fish were in a tank that was 5 ft long x 18inches wide x 18 inches high and didn't get any water changes. There was a filter and lots of aeration and plants, and the water was warm enough for them. Lack of food and lack of water changes caused this. When these fish were fed regularly and got some water changes, they started to grow.

--------------
Looking at a fish's size can give you some indication of whether it has been grown in good conditions or simply left to survive in an environment. If the rainbowfish in that tank are 2 years old, they have not been grown under good conditions. And if that is the case, they could well have health issues due to being raised in less than optimal conditions.​

 

[AKfish]

Ok. Did he say those fish have been in it since the begining? He sells juvi rainbow fish. If you are any successful you are hopefully moving stock if your selling anything. Not only possible those fish are passing through but probable over the span of a couple years. Again at least in my opinion. So instead of actually talking fish. Which you do sound like you know plenty about. We spent two days arguing rather those fish have been there the entire time. Don't believe he even ever said they were. But definitely feels like people were so quick to comdem the concept. Every little thing he said was picked apart and scrutinized. Look I don't know the guy don't care to. I liked the thought of getting a very balanced tank. I don't have a problem doing water changes. I normally do smaller ones a couple times a week with a big one each 3wks - a month.W my system I don't have bad water or sick unhealthy fish. I'm sure this will be cursed as horrible fishkeeping. But really I'm not too worried about if anyone agrees with it. Would hope we could still have a civil conversation and talk even though we don't agree. But so far it's been a lot more of just picked apart. And Colin, how you started your last comment. The first paragraph. That's basically exactly what I was saying in different words. I didn't include fishing I simply pointed out fish environment dictates size as much if not more then quality. Making judging health on size very inaccurate. Your reply to that was fishing pressure was the reason fish of the same speceis were different sizes in different areas. What I'm saying if you agreed with me why that response? Again why I was getting frustrated because it seemed like just being contrary for the purpose of being contrary.

 

[Colin_T]

The guy in the video does not say the fish have been in the tank for 2 years, but he does imply that when he says the tank has been running for a couple of years. If he provided more information, (eg: the tank has been set up for 2 years but these fish have only been in it for 6 months), that would be different and we would have responded differently. But the way he was talking, it implied the tank had been set up with those fish in, for a couple of years.

------------------------
People do keep natural system aquariums, and they are becoming more common with coral reef tanks. They use a deep sand bed (about 5 inches thick) and lots of live rock. The live rock develops aerobic bacteria on the outer surface of the rock, which breaks down ammonia and nitrite into nitrate. Anaerobic bacteria grow inside the rock, which breaks down nitrates into nitrogen gas that comes out of the water. Anaerobic bacteria also grow in the bottom of the sand and help remove nitrates from the water.

These tanks have lots of water movement, corals, macro algae, and a few fish. People monitor the water chemistry and add supplements and freshwater to keep everything alive.

A lot of these tanks run for years without water changes but they do require a lot of monitoring and don't have many fish in them.

------------
Fish ponds are regularly run as a natural system with plants and a few fish. Most ponds get a lot of gunk in the bottom and have algae blooms in spring or early summer. The algae use up heaps of nutrients before dying off and rotting on the bottom, where the nutrients get released and sometimes used by bigger plants (water lilies, iris, etc) growing in the pond.

People stick a hose in their pond and let it fill up and overflow and that equates to a water change.

The main difference between these natural systems and the display tank in the video is the number of fish vs the volume of water. Every natural system tank I have seen, that was successful, had a few fish in a large volume of water.

Natural systems can work but they can also crash badly. A natural system with a big water change every month is one way to go. But without regular water changes, the water in these tanks eventually turns yellow from fish waste and proteins breaking down in the water. The fish end up living in their own waste.

 

[Byron]

And Byron your the one telling people they need a 6 foot tank for a senegal bichir because it gets 18" long. Bro your giving aquarium advice. They won't have an 18" senegal in a tank. Maybe a big one in the wild gets 18" but even then it's a not an average size, it's a big one. So we all mislead and give bad info at times. Like yours. Always funny watching someone throw stones from their glass house.

For the record, the advice I give is not something I dream up, it is the consensus of the ichthyological/biological aquarium authorities. Seriously Fish is one such reliable site, and to my knowledge I have never advised anything contrary to what is on there when it comes to fish species and habitat, and BTW that agrees with every reliable source in the hobby. Senegal Bichir data:
http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/polypterus-senegalus-senegalus/

 

[AbbeysDad]

@AKfish - you write that you wanted a discussion and when you get it with different opinions you're defensive, antagonistic, and somewhat disrespectful. This brings to question your true motivation. A different opinion IS a discussion. When you made your original post did you really think we'd all just jump up and down and cheer for Lucas Bretz?
------
I think Lucas is confused about the long term effects of high nitrates. I've seen a lot of his videos and not once have I seen him test for nitrates. I've heard him say that "fish do fine in dirty water - water in nature is pretty dirty". I think he confuses muddy water with polluted tank water.
------
To a degree, fish can tolerate and adapt to poor water quality, especially when it degrades slowly. We often hear tales of 'established' aquariums where "the old fish are just fine, but when the hobbyist adds new fish they always die in a day or two" - classic signs of old tank syndrome.
------
A 'problem' in the hobby is there are no absolutes....and there are so many variables in tank condition. Water volume, temperature, bio-load, feeding, tank maintenance, plants or not, fast growing plants vs. slow growing plants, and on and on. What works well in one tank may fail miserably in another.
Some think their filters clean water, when filters merely make water look cleaner but detritus decomposes and pollutes the water. Some add more or bigger filters then don't service them often enough. One fellow thought he could skimp on water changes because he had a 'heavily planted tank'. In fact his tank was full of slow growing anubis, java fern/moss etc, that did little to reduce ammonia.
"I don't need to do weekly water changes because my fish are just fine." Most hobbyists never get to see their fish live 15-20 years - they don't even realize that's the AVERAGE life span for well cared for tropical fish!
------
An undeniable fact in the hobby is that routine periodic partial water changes of an appropriate volume are of huge benefit to the stock.

 

[AKfish]

@AKfish - you write that you wanted a discussion and when you get it with different opinions you're defensive, antagonistic, and somewhat disrespectful. This brings to question your true motivation. A different opinion IS a discussion. When you made your original post did you really think we'd all just jump up and down and cheer for Lucas Bretz?
------
I think Lucas is confused about the long term effects of high nitrates. I've seen a lot of his videos and not once have I seen him test for nitrates. I've heard him say that "fish do fine in dirty water - water in nature is pretty dirty". I think he confuses muddy water with polluted tank water.
------
To a degree, fish can tolerate and adapt to poor water quality, especially when it degrades slowly. We often hear tales of 'established' aquariums where "the old fish are just fine, but when the hobbyist adds new fish they always die in a day or two" - classic signs of old tank syndrome.
------
A 'problem' in the hobby is there are no absolutes....and there are so many variables in tank condition. Water volume, temperature, bio-load, feeding, tank maintenance, plants or not, fast growing plants vs. slow growing plants, and on and on. What works well in one tank may fail miserably in another.
Some think their filters clean water, when filters merely make water look cleaner but detritus decomposes and pollutes the water. Some add more or bigger filters then don't service them often enough. One fellow thought he could skimp on water changes because he had a 'heavily planted tank'. In fact his tank was full of slow growing anubis, java fern/moss etc, that did little to reduce ammonia.
"I don't need to do weekly water changes because my fish are just fine." Most hobbyists never get to see their fish live 15-20 years - they don't even realize that's the AVERAGE life span for well cared for tropical fish!
------
An undeniable fact in the hobby is that routine periodic partial water changes of an appropriate volume are of huge benefit to the stock.

I agree and I did try to apologise for my response. I did take things a bit personal. And that's on me, my bad. I was feeling as if people were disagreeing with certain things just to simply disagree. Was incredibly frustrating and I responded in a way I'm not entirely proud of. I stand by the points I was typing to make. But apologize for the way in which I made some of them. To any I personally offended I truly do apologise. Wasn't my intention when joining this forum. I was hoping for a free exchange of ideas. I don't think anyone is doing anything"wrong" unless they truly are not caring at all about their fish health. I don't see an issue with trying different things and seeing how they work. Of course with in reason as I have said before. I would always recommend changing water. I don't exactly agree with the generally pushed rules of water changes. But again I believe there are many ways of keeping fish properly. Believe in regularly checking water quality. All the same stuff most in here seem to. Never meant to post the video as if the guy making it was some fish God ( he does get called "shrimp Jesus" by some lol) or as a how to video. Simply to spark discussion and give a jumping off point. The immediate response was to just point out everything that was disagreed with and question his work ethic or fish health or what not. wasn't exactly what I was trying to accomplish. The title was to get clicks and eyes on the post obviously. Was also a little frustration coming out due to a I had said before my opinions being "corrected". I believe if you look back through my posts I definitely didn't start out rude or aggressive to anyone. I'm normally a very respectfully person. So to end my post I want to apologise again to anyone I offended personally.

 

[AKfish]

For the record, the advice I give is not something I dream up, it is the consensus of the ichthyological/biological aquarium authorities. Seriously Fish is one such reliable site, and to my knowledge I have never advised anything contrary to what is on there when it comes to fish species and habitat, and BTW that agrees with every reliable source in the hobby. Senegal Bichir data:
http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/polypterus-senegalus-senegalus/

That's great Byron. But I have raised and actually spawned a pair. Unfortunately I lost the fry and didn't have much success getting them to do it again. What they don't mention in that information is they won't spawn for at least 2-3 years. Females seem to take longer to become sexually mature. However the males will push them around showing mateing behavior basically after the first year give or take. Yes in the wild they get very big, potentially. In the aquarium its just not seen much. I have never seen one near 20" and I'm a big fan of bichir. Not a senegal anyway. I dont exactly know what makes that site the top source for information. Not saying it isn't just have never used it so never have researched it. But I was trying to say we all don't know everything. We are people so prone to mistakes. Your responses have been so matter of fact and said with a confidence. But can be misleading and not entirely on point. Which is why you had been seemingly giving me a hard time about. I simply wanted to show we all can be guilty of that.

 

[AKfish]

The guy in the video does not say the fish have been in the tank for 2 years, but he does imply that when he says the tank has been running for a couple of years. If he provided more information, (eg: the tank has been set up for 2 years but these fish have only been in it for 6 months), that would be different and we would have responded differently. But the way he was talking, it implied the tank had been set up with those fish in, for a couple of years.

------------------------
People do keep natural system aquariums, and they are becoming more common with coral reef tanks. They use a deep sand bed (about 5 inches thick) and lots of live rock. The live rock develops aerobic bacteria on the outer surface of the rock, which breaks down ammonia and nitrite into nitrate. Anaerobic bacteria grow inside the rock, which breaks down nitrates into nitrogen gas that comes out of the water. Anaerobic bacteria also grow in the bottom of the sand and help remove nitrates from the water.

These tanks have lots of water movement, corals, macro algae, and a few fish. People monitor the water chemistry and add supplements and freshwater to keep everything alive.

A lot of these tanks run for years without water changes but they do require a lot of monitoring and don't have many fish in them.

------------
Fish ponds are regularly run as a natural system with plants and a few fish. Most ponds get a lot of gunk in the bottom and have algae blooms in spring or early summer. The algae use up heaps of nutrients before dying off and rotting on the bottom, where the nutrients get released and sometimes used by bigger plants (water lilies, iris, etc) growing in the pond.

People stick a hose in their pond and let it fill up and overflow and that equates to a water change.

The main difference between these natural systems and the display tank in the video is the number of fish vs the volume of water. Every natural system tank I have seen, that was successful, had a few fish in a large volume of water.

Natural systems can work but they can also crash badly. A natural system with a big water change every month is one way to go. But without regular water changes, the water in these tanks eventually turns yellow from fish waste and proteins breaking down in the water. The fish end up living in their own waste.

I hear you Colin. I respect your obviously knowledge and totally understand questioning if the fish have been in that system for two years. But doesn't the immediate response that came from that video seem a bit strong for an assumption? He may have implied that to some. I didn't take take it that way but I also knew he breed abd sold them. So revolving stock was always a possibility in my mind. But no one really seemed to asked any questions. Just made snap judgments and assumptions. I never have ment to defend any of his fishkeeping. Just wanted to discuss it. And I'm sure the title of the post didn't help. But as I said in the other post the title was click bate and a bit of my frustrations showing.

 

[Byron]

The individual in that video has grasped a few things about biology but drawn erroneous conclusions that are contrary to proven science and that erodes his credibility. His oft-repeated "I get away with it" is closer to the actuality...his fish are not thriving they are surviving because he refuses to properly look after them. That is not how I approach this hobby; if I am going to bring home fish, those fish will now live out their days in my care until they die, and I have a moral responsibility to provide the best environment I can because that and only that is the key to healthy thriving fish.

 

[AKfish]

The individual in that video has grasped a few things about biology but drawn erroneous conclusions that are contrary to proven science and that erodes his credibility. His oft-repeated "I get away with it" is closer to the actuality...his fish are not thriving they are surviving because he refuses to properly look after them. That is not how I approach this hobby; if I am going to bring home fish, those fish will now live out their days in my care until they die, and I have a moral responsibility to provide the best environment I can because that and only that is the key to healthy thriving fish.

And that is a great way to do things. I completely respect thats the way you do it. To me this is one of the things that make any animal keeping tricky and controversial. We will probably always as people debate rather keeping a lion in a cage is humane. Same for the aquarium. Also the specific requirements and every other subgroup of animal keeping will all be debated. What makes it tricky is everyone's moral compass is their own. Mine isn't the same exact as anyone's. And if someone does something that falls below my moral compass I want to react as though they are wrong. If it's above I want to dismiss as over cautious or unnecessary. I believe that's something we all do. Making animal keeping as controversial as any subject discussed. Me personally I try to not push my moral compass on anyone else. In nature animals live and even thrive in some very rough uninhabitable places on earth. To a degree I believe most animals can handle more then we assume. The wild is a crazy unforgiving place to live. That's not an endorsement to throw a fish in a bucket. Just saying growing up as a kid I had two goldfish. I begged my mom for weeks to take a bath with them. She finally had gotten tired of cleaning their bowl (already in poor conditions). So she allowed it. They took baths with me in hot bubbles for two years. One went down the drain the other went to my uncle's. Again not something I'm recommending or suggesting made them healthy lol. Just saying crazy unexplainable stuff happens. They should have died and pretty quickly in 90°F + water full of bubble bath.

 

[Colin_T]

Never meant to post the video as if the guy making it was some fish God ( he does get called "shrimp Jesus" by some lol) or as a how to video. Simply to spark discussion and give a jumping off point.

You definitely did that

I hear you Colin. I respect your obviously knowledge and totally understand questioning if the fish have been in that system for two years. But doesn't the immediate response that came from that video seem a bit strong for an assumption? He may have implied that to some.

If I assumed that, then other people would have too. If those people are new to fish keeping and didn't know better, they would think, cool, I'm going to set up a tank and do water changes every few months, and my fish will live for years.

The guy in the video needs to provide more information and make sure it is accurate before promoting a different way of fish keeping.

In nature animals live and even thrive in some very rough uninhabitable places on earth. To a degree I believe most animals can handle more then we assume. The wild is a crazy unforgiving place to live.

People can survive in harsh places too, doesn't mean we thrive. I lived on the street for almost a year and nearly died because of it. People live in polluted environments and drink contaminated water just to stay alive. Birds and animals do the same thing. Most of them never live to see old age and die as young adults. It's the 21st century and homeless people actually die on the streets in modern civilised cities. That really shouldn't happen in this day and age. In third world countries people die all the time from unsanitary conditions and the richer countries don't do a great deal to help fix the problems, which include basic amenities, clean water, sewers, electricity, modern medicine.

Yes animals, plants and people can live in rough inhospitable areas, and people can tolerate a lot more than we think we can. Whether we thrive in those environments or just survive, that depends on just how harsh it gets and how well adapted we are to those conditions. If you evolved in those conditions and have thousands of years for your species to adapt, it's not such an issue. But if you evolved to live in large volumes of clean water and are suddenly put into a tiny enclosure with hundreds of other individuals, your not going to do that well.