Over-stocking

[fry_lover]

I read the Scientific Forum Rules and hope this post/thread meets them.

I understand if this thread is moved to another forum.

I posted it here as i hoping to attract some intelligent responses rather than random "speculation" as to what constitutes "over stocked", i like the Scientific Section Forums rule about no "hit and run" which basically discourages members from random posts which we see a lot of on threads, comments like "your tanks is over stocked". Sometimes its plain to see, for example, i saw a thread recently with an 8" Pacu in a 2x1x1 foot tank. But often the Original Poster is left to just try and make sense of some random comment about their stocking when it isnt that cut & dry really.

So how do we come to the "over stocked" conclusion? Sometimes its plain obvious, but other times its not.

Various formulas are used sometimes, Wolf quoted one recently that seemed to make sense, the length and width of the tank needs to be a certain amount for a certain size fish.

What about heavily planted tanks? My 330 litre is probably "over stocked" i have loads of tetra's, livebearers and corydoras, according to Practical Fish Keeping, i am almost 100% over stocked in terms of inches of fish in 330 litres. Yet, in my tank, there appears plenty of swimming room for these small fish that are not really going to get much bigger, all fish are in great form and have been for months, and my nitrate reading (average 10-15) is less than my tap water (average 20) even if i dont water change in 2-3 weeks.

I know Nitrate is not the only reason to water change, but is my tank over stocked? I will try and link this thread to the pics and stats i gonna post for my community planted tank

 

[rdd1952]

Well, I don't know that there is any hard data that will define "over-stocked". As you mentioned, tank size in relation to the fish size and probably adaquate swimming space for the number of fish would be the only true ways to define overstocking. If the fish are all compatible, you have adaquate filtration and a proper maintenance schedule, you can keep way more fish in a tank than what we quote to newbies (1" per gallon). I'm sure very high inches (5, 10, 15) per gallon would be possible and still not have any ammonia or nitrite issues as long as the filter could process the water fast enough to keep the toxins removed.

 

[fry_lover]

Well, I don't know that there is any hard data that will define "over-stocked". As you mentioned, tank size in relation to the fish size and probably adaquate swimming space for the number of fish would be the only true ways to define overstocking. If the fish are all compatible, you have adaquate filtration and a proper maintenance schedule, you can keep way more fish in a tank than what we quote to newbies (1" per gallon). I'm sure very high inches (5, 10, 15) per gallon would be possible and still not have any ammonia or nitrite issues as long as the filter could process the water fast enough to keep the toxins removed.

Well, in relation to this thread of mine tonight http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=212411&hl=

I have worked out that my Community Planted tank has approx 240" of fish at moment, which equates to 2.7" per gallon (US) and 3.3 (UK)

Always test, even though there seems no need, never an ammonia or nitrite reading and like thread says, even if i let the w/c lapse for up to 17-21 days (approx) the nitrate reading in the tank is 90% likely to be LESS than tap-water reading and never more than tap water reading. Tank Nitrate readings about 5mg/l sometimes, usually about the 10mg/l region, tap water a bit higher, actually my tap water can sometimes look over 20mg/l possibly into the 30's, this is the UK!!!!

All fish looking good, no illness or signs of illness, been this way for months, plants are flourishing

Am i "over stocked" ? I mean scientifically or at least evidenced based?

Also, its not like there is going to be a massive growth of the fish, most of them are at their full size or near enough. The only real exception to this being some of my Cory that are still quite small, the Bristlenose babies that are about 1.5 cm at the moment and the Golden Gouramis that are about 2-2.5" at the moment

I am open to people saying it or proving it or whatever but...... if i am over stocked, WHY? No one has actually said i am and i have published my pics and stats for this tank (link above) on a few forums, but i am interested nonetheless.

What about the hormones fish secrete? Does a really planted up aquarium take out other "cr*p" other than ammonia, nitrite, nitrate?

My use of the term "over stocked" in this thread is not personal opinion on how you would keep a tank and what you like looking at, but "over stocked" in terms of legitimate evidence or known facts

Also (with respect) not really looking for guesses and "worst case scanarios" around "what happens if you get a power failure" or "if one fish gets disease it will be harder to control", all valid points that are relevant in terms of risk management, but not quite what i want to investigate here I mean after all, we dont really stock our tanks to take into account power failures and stuff do we? We might take precautions and have back up plans in place or something, but we dont stock our tanks with these things in mind, well i dont!

 

[Aphotic Phoenix]

In my opinion this is far too broad a subject to be neatly summed up, or make a valid scientific thread about. There are so many different factors involving proper tank stocking and levels including initial water quality, individual species of fish, tank size, equipment used, maintenance details, presence of and particular species of plants, etc that it's pretty darn impossible to create a formulaic answer to the issue.

The metabolism, dietary needs, water conditions, natural population levels in an area, and behaviors of fish vary between each individual species of fish. Not to mention that we must remember that our tanks are far less diverse biologically on the scale of a natural ecosystem that it's difficult to replicate "natural conditions", and furthermore our ability to test for the presence (or lack there of), of a wide array of micro-organisms that could be of assistance or detriment to the tanks condition makes speculation of sustainable populations even less precise.

While heavy planting and/or inclusion of formations for use of hiding / mating / territory boundaries may be of benefit to the fish in a behavior sense, one must also consider the corresponding decrease in water volume which may in fact lead to increases in issues like Total Dissolved Solids and Dissolved Organic Compounds. Plants, stocking levels, surface agitation, water level, inclusion of CO2 diffusion systems and/or air stones, and even the decomposition of organic plant matter can affect the balance of oxygen and CO2 in the tank. Also, don't forget as minerals are absorbed and used by plants / fish, and the chemical reactions of acids being "buffered" removes minerals from the water, there will be a shift in basic pH and hardness...so original water parameters and maintenance styles schedules again become important.

Obviously lots of things to consider huh? Perhaps you could whittle down the question into something more specific...

 

[fry_lover]

In my opinion this is far too broad a subject to be neatly summed up, or make a valid scientific thread about. There are so many different factors involving proper tank stocking and levels including initial water quality, individual species of fish, tank size, equipment used, maintenance details, presence of and particular species of plants, etc that it's pretty darn impossible to create a formulaic answer to the issue.

The metabolism, dietary needs, water conditions, natural population levels in an area, and behaviors of fish vary between each individual species of fish. Not to mention that we must remember that our tanks are far less diverse biologically on the scale of a natural ecosystem that it's difficult to replicate "natural conditions", and furthermore our ability to test for the presence (or lack there of), of a wide array of micro-organisms that could be of assistance or detriment to the tanks condition makes speculation of sustainable populations even less precise.

While heavy planting and/or inclusion of formations for use of hiding / mating / territory boundaries may be of benefit to the fish in a behavior sense, one must also consider the corresponding decrease in water volume which may in fact lead to increases in issues like Total Dissolved Solids and Dissolved Organic Compounds. Plants, stocking levels, surface agitation, water level, inclusion of CO2 diffusion systems and/or air stones, and even the decomposition of organic plant matter can affect the balance of oxygen and CO2 in the tank. Also, don't forget as minerals are absorbed and used by plants / fish, and the chemical reactions of acids being "buffered" removes minerals from the water, there will be a shift in basic pH and hardness...so original water parameters and maintenance styles schedules again become important.

Obviously lots of things to consider huh? Perhaps you could whittle down the question into something more specific...

LOL, i never ever thought it could be neatly summed up, if i learn even one thing new from the thread it be worthwhile

Yes lots of things to consider! Possibly it can be narrowed down a bit into "type of set up" i.e. over-stocked Malawi, heavily planted, goldfish tank, etc etc

I know its very hard to give a precise answer, yet lots of members seem only too happy to give precise answers on threads to people who's tanks "might" be "over stocked"

I guess my thread is a little bit "playing on words"

I think when members respond on a thread they should give some further information like you have done, rather than "your tanks over stocked" and thats all they say, ALTHOUGH, i know how tempting it must be to just say that if you see a picture of some ridicolous size fish in a small tank and someone lists on their signature they have x6 Angels, 1x Pleco and 23 other small community fish in a 25 litre tank

Your right about being more specific, just in a rush now, come back to it later, thanks for reply

 

[Aphotic Phoenix]

The term "Overstocked" has really become far too generalized on the forum as it has become a catch-all for several different closely related issues usually revolving around tank size. So of course we should try to hone the definition of "overstocking" to be as specific to the particular problem as possible.

Personally I'd like this to be a collaboration of sorts because I do agree that this terminology is a good thing to discuss.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overstocked : An unsustainable bio-load. This definition would cover issues such as oxygen depletion, mineral depletion, overwhelming of the biological filter, and other organic issues such as TDS, DOC, and Nitrate levels.

Thus if we consider overstocking to be the above definition, we should also define two most common inappropriate uses of the term "overstocked":
1) Inadequate housing : Containment in an area that is too small as such that it adversely affects behavior, growth and/or movement. For example, although I could construct a system that could biologically support a Common Pleco in a 10 gallon tank, the area in which it has to move is far too constricting to provide good health and quality of life.
2) Improper stocking : An inappropriate combination of species. (This definition needs some serious work but I'll make the excuse that it is late at night for me) While the tank may be able to support the inhabitants biologically, the animals behavior is adversely affected due to aggression caused by territory conflict and/or overcrowding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone have input on these "definitions"?

 

[fry_lover]

The term "Overstocked" has really become far too generalized on the forum as it has become a catch-all for several different closely related issues usually revolving around tank size. So of course we should try to hone the definition of "overstocking" to be as specific to the particular problem as possible.

Personally I'd like this to be a collaboration of sorts because I do agree that this terminology is a good thing to discuss.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overstocked : An unsustainable bio-load. This definition would cover issues such as oxygen depletion, mineral depletion, overwhelming of the biological filter, and other organic issues such as TDS, DOC, and Nitrate levels.

Thus if we consider overstocking to be the above definition, we should also define two most common inappropriate uses of the term "overstocked":
1) Inadequate housing : Containment in an area that is too small as such that it adversely affects behavior, growth and/or movement. For example, although I could construct a system that could biologically support a Common Pleco in a 10 gallon tank, the area in which it has to move is far too constricting to provide good health and quality of life.
2) Improper stocking : An inappropriate combination of species. (This definition needs some serious work but I'll make the excuse that it is late at night for me) While the tank may be able to support the inhabitants biologically, the animals behavior is adversely affected due to aggression caused by territory conflict and/or overcrowding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone have input on these "definitions"?

EDIT: sorry Aphotic Phoenix for "going off on one a bit" when your post was very specific and more scientific

I am very much in agreement with the way you put it "The term "Overstocked" has really become far too generalized on the forum as it has become a catch-all for several different closely related issues"

Sometimes its a very legitimate response, Newbies coming here for advice, they list their tank and inhabitants and its CLEARLY inappropriate and people obviously start talking about "your tank is over stocked", but even in this situation, i would like to see more people adding some info for the original poster or linking them to a good thread rather than their only only contribution to the thread is "your tanks overstocked" even when the OP asked a completely different question. I am not saying its wrong to point this out to the OP, its actually quite responsible if the tank is indeed clearly over-stocked, but do people really have to just say "your tank is over stocked" and then disappear from the thread? I must say its not NORMAL just for a member to say "overstocked" and then they disappear, but i've seen it quite a few times, seems like everyday.

It sounds like i am getting over-defensive, well i dont feel that way, am very interested in the topic, some of my tanks are heavily-stocked, some are not.

One thing perhaps to also consider, is that very legimitate issue of "up-grading"

Often we will see fish listed in a certain size tank, and its clear that for the owner to keep these fish for the duration of their life, the owner will need to upgrade to a bigger tank at some point. For example, a 2" common plec in a 24" or 36" tank,

But where do we draw the line between what needs to happen ASAP (such as a small Pacu in a 24 or 36" which would probably need to be re-homed completely) and, say a group of x4 (2") Clown Loaches in a 36" or 48"x12x15 Nukeonekitty made a good comment i think and i am going to do a link, as i dont think he'll mind, have a look for his comment, http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...043&hl=jerk well here it is...

"Not trying to be a jerk, but why do people make such a big deal when people want to put cl in their 50 gal tanks? If they take that long to grow you have PLENTY of time to think upgrade"

This does bring up the issue of some fish potentially being "stunted" and i would like more explanaition on this in threads or a link to info if its an issue for the OP. I saw a thread yesterday about Angel Fish and the OP posted pics, one member came in and said something like "that angel fish is stunted you can tell by its eyes", someone replied "it's not stunted its just young and its eyes look big", then the poster who bought up the stunting issue came back and said "its definitly stunted trust me"

Well i wasnt gonna link the thread as i dont mean it to sound like a personal dig on anyone, but if i am quoting peeps its prob safer to link the thread in so here goes (and by the way, i dont know who is right and wrong about the stunting issue) i would hope the dude who says "trust me" is right in a way, as i would like to be able to feel assured that if someone is firmly saying a fish is stunted, then it IS stunted

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=212045&hl=

My aim is not to attack peeps, i just want to clarify and then i will learn for myself more

When peeps post a list of their fish, perhaps there should be a bit more thought about what has to be done NOW, ASAP or further down the line.

I know there must a fine line between "waiting" and then "stunting" a fish, i haven't googled it much to be honest, but is there any guidance (especially scientific) about stunting, does it affect certain fish more than others? (probably not), does water chemistry have any role to play (probably not?), i guess its about size of fish and size of tank? But what are the guidelines, is there any particular rule or formula about stunting, i guess its not that exact?

I am not arguing that we can all go and and buy tiny little fish that become "tank busters" and sit back and justify it with "well they okay at the moment and happy, with lots of swimming space" but equally, i often come across threads where i think people (not the original poster) are being far to "strict" for want of a better word. I mean, people will sometimes look at the list of fish and if one fish happens to need a bigger home at some point in their life, the OP's whole stocking is labelled "no good" or something similar

I am honestly not trying to argue that we can just base an "over stocked" arguement on what is in tank NOW, its obviously good practice to consider the fish's long term needs.

But, my personal view, is when looking at someones tank details, also have some consideration for the following.......

1. The person is on this forum in the first place, hopefully (but perhaps not ALWAYS) gathering information and feedback that is going to inprove the OP's knowledge and skill level in fish keeping. They also might already be quite knowledgable and looking after their fish very well, it doesnt necessarily follow that they have to start "re homing" fish immediately or that their tank is about to explode from over-stocking, or some terrible disease is about to be bestowed on their tank due to the stocking level (sorry for exaggeration and sarcasm) but its kinda how i feel as i am typing it!

2. Try to be aware if you stating information based on sound KNOWN issues or just putting forward your personal opinion on tank stocking, i sometimes see people giving "opinions" like they are "fact", and this can appear to leave Newbie's confused or dis-heartened, and threads have died off quickly, without some balance to the thread being added, and alternative view points on stocking and managing different levels and types of stocking.

3. Are you just being a bit of a "sheep" what i am mean by that, is when this issue of giving newbies or anyone advise on stocking and saying "you need to get rid of this, get rid of that" Experienced fish-keepers on the forum have stated "well its best to err on the side of caution" as lots of people with inadequate stocking are newbies, i do see the logic with this erring on the side of caution justification and thankfully often the more "seemingly" experienced members give clearer explanaitions as to their postings and justify it so the OP can actually learn something. But back to the "sheep" comment, sometimes i am left thinking "is is actually contagious, going into threads and dishing out over stock posts", are some of the potentially more "in experienced" following the "lead" of other forum members and getting some kind of satisfaction from telling an OP they are "over stocked". Again i am mostly having a moan at peeps who enter a thread type "over stock" and leave quickly (okay i exaggerate) they usually add a few other words!!!

4. We all know that sometimes, someones tank is just PLAIN innapropriately or over stocked. And if we asked, say, all the moderators and the top 10 respected forum members (if their is such a list LOL), everyone would say "over stocked" or "inappropriate" or "need to rehome fish ASAP" etc, and it would be an over-whelmingly agreed opinion. BUT, if its not so clear cut and "black and white" why not also ask for the OP to clarify filtration, water change routine, tank readings, future plans, and all the other stuff that goes into running a successful set-up, often in peoples signatures or initial posting about their set-up, they will not make reference to anything other than the fish in the tank (often not even the size of the fish) and the size of the tank. Yet often members replying to the post will give feedback on the stocking without even asking for other factors (i know sometimes it donesnt matter about other factors if the stocking is that wacky) but, come on, there are also plenty of threads, where a good old debate and information gathering should occur before the "over stock" or "re home some fish" responses are posted

I have made lots of references to "threads" and "other threads" sorry i can back this up by doing a lot fo links, it would take ages, i am hoping people who use this forum a lot will kinda know what i am talking about (sorry that sounds so wishy-washy)

I also am not saying all this just coz one of my threads had someone coming in with "over stock", i started this thread BEFORE that happened.

This is not a very scientific posting, sorry, and i am sure i have left lots of gaping holes in my argument!!!

 

[Aphotic Phoenix]

Okay, well first of all...the issue of members expressing "overstocked" opinions without backup has been covered before in a thread in the board suggestions forum. What you are running into are simply issues of human behavior. I studied social psychology in college, and still spend a great deal of time observing various behaviors in social outlets on the internet which luckily tends to coincide with my other hobbies (like forums and MMORPGs).

I can assure you that this behavior is in fact very normal, and can think of two psychological principles off the top of my head that help account for it. If you would like a more in-depth explaination, please send me a PM.

Unfortunately however, the scientific forum may not be the best place to complain about people not contributing explaination in their posts. After all...why would we be here if we didn't like explaining things? ~_^

 

[Bignose]

Actually, Aphotic Phoenix, I'd like to hear about the two psychological principles that you talked about. I think that this thread is appropriate, or maybe you could go ahead and start a new thread, or if you are really uncomfortable, please PM me. But, I'd really like to hear about it since I personally have studied almost no psychology at all.

 

[fry_lover]

Okay, well first of all...the issue of members expressing "overstocked" opinions without backup has been covered before in a thread in the board suggestions forum. What you are running into are simply issues of human behavior. I studied social psychology in college, and still spend a great deal of time observing various behaviors in social outlets on the internet which luckily tends to coincide with my other hobbies (like forums and MMORPGs).

I can assure you that this behavior is in fact very normal, and can think of two psychological principles off the top of my head that help account for it. If you would like a more in-depth explaination, please send me a PM.

Unfortunately however, the scientific forum may not be the best place to complain about people not contributing explaination in their posts. After all...why would we be here if we didn't like explaining things? ~_^

I already made reference in my post that it may not be scientific enough. I'll leave it up to the Mods if they want to move it.

I am not that interested personally in going into the psychological reasons for peoples responses on forums (although i did partly hit on that in one of my greviances above). I say "greviances" but lets face, its all small-potato's really....

I am a Cognitive Behaviour Therapist and i am busy enough with peoples behaviour and thoughts in my life outside the forum, without disecting it on the forum, althought partly i am already doing that, and partly, as i am sure you are aware, its unavoidable, but i certainly dont want to make a proactive attempt in doing so (getting into the psychology of it) - interesting as it may be, and i would certainly think about contributing to any thread on it.

I guess what i am saying a little contradictory as my above long post is littered with "behavioural" issues in terms of peoples responses on the forum, but i guess to sum it up..... in my working and even personal life to an extent with friends, i am attempting to work on peoples thought patterns, behaviours and emotional outcomes. I am here to learn more advanced things about fish keeping and chill out. But like i said, should any thread develop that focuses on psychogical issues i am sure i would be interested.

I would be interested in pursuing any science behind "stunting" of fish in relation to this thread topic.
Thanks for your offer of the PM, i am sure we could exchange a few useful things off each other with our backgrounds and training etc

A/P - dont quite get your last point and i want to understand it, not sure what point your making

"Unfortunately however, the scientific forum may not be the best place to complain about people not contributing explaination in their posts. After all...why would we be here if we didn't like explaining things"?

 

[fry_lover]

Actually, Aphotic Phoenix, I'd like to hear about the two psychological principles that you talked about. I think that this thread is appropriate, or maybe you could go ahead and start a new thread, or if you are really uncomfortable, please PM me. But, I'd really like to hear about it since I personally have studied almost no psychology at all.

I got some psychology for you Big Nose.... according to your profile, you are 1 year old. Is that the child in you coming out?

EDIT: thats a joke i am sure you know and not a nasty comment (your profile does actually say you were born in 2006)

 

[Aphotic Phoenix]

"Unfortunately however, the scientific forum may not be the best place to complain about people not contributing explaination in their posts. After all...why would we be here if we didn't like explaining things"?

I apologize for the unintended quippish nature of this comment. Had a rather nasty headache last night and was in a bit of a hurry to sleep it off. Basically what I meant was that considering the motivations of those who frequent the scientific section of the forum, i.e. seeking more indepth knowledge about the scientific aspects of the hobby, that the average poster here is less likely to be one who contributes unspecific and superfluous posting in other areas of the forums. Therefore if the intended goal is to create a broader awareness of the generality issue, I was simply trying to suggest that it would receive greater exposure in other areas.

I come to the science forum to talk about science, or things of a scientific nature, because in other areas of the forum one always runs the risk of overwhelming another person with information that is too specific or advanced for their levels of understanding. One of the really nice aspects of the aquarium hobby is that it can be as incredibly simple or complex as one wants to make it. Likewise, I think it's fairly understandable that most people eventually tire of writing the same long and indepth responses to the same issues over and over again. So while their intentions are good, most likely hoping to prompt the original poster into doing their own research, short and to the point does not always work.

Bignose, I'll be happy to write out a more detailed explaination of the psycological aspects of the described behavior for you, although I'm not sure about the whens and wheres. In a nutshell, this kind of "affirmative" posting is most often seen in forums with a high "community" precedent coupled with a post-count ranking system. Considering the ambiguous nature of internet social groups we automatically attach a heuristic (basically a mental shortcut that provides simple rules for defining inferences) to tell us who is or isn't a reputable source of information. Our brains love shortcuts so logically we tend to attach values such as "knowledge" onto someone who has a greater "rank" or post count. Now as a member of this community, how to we obtain such respect for ourselves? The easiest means of course is to up our own post count! I doubt that most people are even consciously aware of this little motivational factor, but I have observed a large drop off in number of these types of postings in forums in which publicly displayed post counts were removed. Basically there is a large correlation between the strength of the "community" factor in a particular forum, and the motivation of individual participants to post something regardless of how relevant it is. Even just the basic need of affirmation and the pressures of conformity play a significant role. I could go on and on about various aspects of social human behavior and how it has adapted to the net (haven't even touched some of the basic principles yet), but I think this does help cover a basic explaination of the issue.

*Edit* Before anyone calls me a bad scientist, I'm fully aware that correlation does not equal causation, but was simply using it as supporting evidence on a theory.

Also, fry_lover ...I'm unsure if heuristics or schemas would have been the more appropriate term in this situation since both can be used to infer information about an individual. If I used the incorrect one, please correct me as it has been quite a long time since I've taken my courses.

 

[Bignose]

Actually, Aphotic Phoenix, I'd like to hear about the two psychological principles that you talked about. I think that this thread is appropriate, or maybe you could go ahead and start a new thread, or if you are really uncomfortable, please PM me. But, I'd really like to hear about it since I personally have studied almost no psychology at all.

I got some psychology for you Big Nose.... according to your profile, you are 1 year old. Is that the child in you coming out?

EDIT: thats a joke i am sure you know and not a nasty comment (your profile does actually say you were born in 2006)

I did that for a reason, since I moved a while back, and tried to change the location, but, for whatever reason, the location change wouldn't "take" unless I also changed the birthday. So, I changed the birthday. I figured most people wouldn't really think that I was a really smart 1-2 year old Not only that, but I've been a member since 2004 -- since before I was even conceived! You have to admit, that's pretty good...

 

[Bignose]

That's interesting, AP, since I have never ever equated post count with knowledge. Sometimes, the easiest explanation is right there in front of you.

 

[steelhealr]

I agree that this thread is an important one, however, I would like to see a bit more science involved verse philosophy. I have tried to search out to see if there are any papers on this, but, so far, no success. SH