# 90 Gallon Tanganyikan Community



## Michael R. (Oct 7, 2005)

Let me get right into it.

How's this stocklist? Numbers?

C. leptosoma 
J. regani
A. calvus

Would there be anything else I could add?

Thanks a lot,

Hope you don't find the abruptness rude  .


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

Good list. ~15 cyps, and start with 6 of each of the others to form a pair. You can also add gobies, a large shell dweller, or paracyps to the mix.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

I have a 90 gallon community tank with one cyp, 6 frontosa, 2 Julies, 4 leleupi, one calvus, 5 trophs, one nkambe, and 6 brichardi. I think they are doing great. The brichardi have had fry several times; all eaten after about two weeks. The only two problems that I've had so far was that I had 5 cyps initially, but the one cyp that I have left first mated with the three females then killed them and the one other male. The second problem was that I started with 4 nkambe, but the one that I have left killed the others. I've had the same fish in the tank now with no deaths for about 6 months.

Lots of rock (about 300 pounds) gives the fish plenty of places to hide. I like the variety. I think it makes a more interesting tank.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Jorsay, how long have you had these fish in the tank together?


----------



## ashilli48 (May 14, 2006)

I am toying with the idea of a 90gal Tang tank as well. I am definitely going to do a planted tank. I have kept Brevis, Multie, Julies, Brichardi, Calvus and Leleupi. Obviously I am not going to keep all of these together but I wanted to know if there are any other tangs that will fit well with the plants? Gobies? Cyps? I am aware of the multies and the digging but I want to make sure I don't end up with a fish that will either purposefully dig up a plant or eat it.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

djransome,

I have had these fish in this tank for six or seven months.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Jorsay, it IS an unusual mix. Are they all mature or are some of them still juvenile? Also 300 pounds of rock in a 90G for Tangs is unusual too, I think. I have 250 pounds in my mbuna tank, so I'm trying to imagine what your's looks like. Pics? I'd be interested in hearing how everyone is in a year or so.

ashilli48, from research the cyps would be good, I'm planning them in my planted Tang tank next year. But I would wonder about gobies...aren't they herbivores?

Michael R. did you get your answer? Do you have more questions? Don't want to hyjack your thread!


----------



## Michael R. (Oct 7, 2005)

DJRansome - Not at all, I find it educating reading everyone's replies.

It seems the Regani and Calvus, once pairs are formed, should be fine.

That's really all I wanted to know, thanks! Still undecided as to what fish to keep though  .


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

Here is my attempt at loading these pictures. This is my first time doing this.

Also, I don't take great pictures, but here is my 90 gallon.










Thanks for helping me post this, DJransome.

Allow me to make one quick excuse for the way the rocks are arranged. We recently changed the carpets in our house and I had to move the tank. I kind of just threw the rocks back in after moving it.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Jorsay, first you have to load the pictures to a free website like photobucket. Then at the bottom of each picture in photobucket, there are links. Click on the "img" one. You will see the word "copied" flash by. Then position your cursor in the cichlid-forum post and press CTRL-V to copy the link. Be sure to click Preview at the bottom of the post to check if you can see your picture. Then Submit.


----------



## Furcifer158 (Feb 16, 2008)

how much sand do you have in that tank?


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

It looks like a lot, but when I moved the tank, I happened to push all the sand up front. There is only about one inch of sand in the back. Looks terrible, I know. But after three weeks of procrastinating, I don't want to disturb the fish. I think the julies may have eggs and one of the tropheus is hiding and may be holding.

I am going to fix it after I finish my 300 gallon tank. I just put some water in it last night. Here are some pics without the canopy or any fish. It has nearly 900 pounds of rock and 200 pounds of crushed coral!:


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

How do I make that second image smaller?

I did it! Thanks


----------



## Furcifer158 (Feb 16, 2008)

looks great. What all are you going to put in it


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I intend to put a mix of tangs. I am not certain as to what mixture. I like strictly tangs though.

Anyway, I need and want discussion on what goes in, so I will start a new thread about this tank tomorrow after I fill it up and have it ready for fish.


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

Many suprising combinations of species can work, at least for a time. And sometimes the logical, every-fish-in-its-own-niche set ups have problems. As Tangs are expensive and sometimes rare, I do not advise the mishmash approach. When advising someone who wishes to set up a community tank with compatible species, I go for less aggressive species that can establish breeding groups without outgrowing the given tank. 
Jorsay, I'd get your fronts into that big tank before they start snacking on your other fish. :wink: A 90 is too small for them to live in much longer.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

triscuit said:


> Jorsay, I'd get your fronts into that big tank before they start snacking on your other fish. :wink: A 90 is too small for them to live in much longer.


Sounds like that is the consensus. However, I really enjoy the mix of fish and I am willing to wait until they start snacking. Anyway, the 300 gallon is already reserved. But, advice well taken, just not necessarily implemented.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

The rocks and the sand in my 90 looked so bad I was shamed into fixing them. Here is the new aquascaping in my 90. Same fish. Even more rocks (over 300 pounds).










It's amazing how much happier the fish look when they have many places to hide or even just be out of the direct line of vision of all the other fish in the tank.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

One year later and still in the 90 gallon -

All six Frontosa remain alive and well. Biggest is about 9 inches now. Still have six Tropheus Bemba. Added two to my five and one died from some strange disease (a hole in its side) about 6 months ago.

Three Leleupi left. One was beaten and kilelled by the other three a while back.

Nkambe is alive and well.

Two Juli Transcriptus still.

I added 7 small Compressiceps almost 10 months ago. One died, others look great.

That mean old male cyp that killed his three girlfriends is still alive and well. It is not a jumbo by the way. The Fronts don't bother it at all.

I put all the brichardis in my 300 gallon and I think that made the Leleupis happy.

I got rid of the calvus for the comps.

Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:29 pm
E-mail Jorsay


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

Jorsay said:


> I have a 90 gallon community tank with one cyp, 6 frontosa, 2 Julies, 4 leleupi, one calvus, 5 trophs, one nkambe, and 6 brichardi. I think they are doing great. The brichardi have had fry several times; all eaten after about two weeks. The only two problems that I've had so far was that I had 5 cyps initially, but the one cyp that I have left first mated with the three females then killed them and the one other male. The second problem was that I started with 4 nkambe, but the one that I have left killed the others. I've had the same fish in the tank now with no deaths for about 6 months.
> 
> Lots of rock (about 300 pounds) gives the fish plenty of places to hide. I like the variety. I think it makes a more interesting tank.


After a couple of years in my 90 gallon:

Still same 6 frontosa (Big news is they just mated! The female drops her eggs to eat and then picks them back up. I never heard of this. Has anyone else?
Same 6 troph bembas
nkambe grew to 6 inches and then just disappeared
All but one of the Julies died (eaten by Nkambe) so I restocked with 8 more recently after Nkambe died.
Same 4 lelupi (they mate occasionally. Only one baby has survived to be abut 3/4 inch)
same 5 compressiceps
1 one inch and a half tetracanthus that I just added from the babies of the 300 gallon pair.
The last remaining male cyp died recently. For 2 years, no one ate him. I plan to put in a group of Kerenge cyps soon after I see what happens to the frontosa babies.


----------



## Floridagirl (Jan 10, 2008)

Jorsay,

I'm not trying to cause trouble, or be hateful, but this post upset me several years ago when I saw the stocklist. Although, according to you , you have no problems with your stocking in your 90 gallon, by my count, you have lost at least 15 fish, to aggression and disease, and you are adding more, which wlil probably not make it. Not a sucess case, but an ongoing battle to live in the tank. Just because fish can live in a 90, doesn't mean they should. A 6 ft 125 or larger is recommended for the Frontosa to grow and not be stunted. I know you have a 300. Could the stocking not be distibuted between the 2 tanks, to ensure a better life for what you have, rather than purchasing more, right now? This makes me sad for your fish.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

It seems that you have attached a human quality to fish that I don't believe they have. Afterall, they are only fish. I don't believe that my fish yearn for a bigger tank or lament that they are not living in the wild. I don't believe that they love, hate, or experience depression. I don't think they would prefer your tanks to mine or my tanks to yours. I don't think they have opinions like you or I. I think they just eat, breed, and survive without ever pondering Plato, Descartes, or Kant.

When I say I want my fish to be happy, I mean no more than that I want them to be healthy. Based upon my 40+ years of raising fish, I find the fish in this 90 gal tank to be quite healthy. Their colors are good, their fins are flaired, they don't cower under the rocks, and various pairs reproduce quite often. As I stated, the frontosa just mated! The lelupi have mated in this tank as well. The single male cyp, no more than a mouthful for the fronts, lived in the tank for more than a year, and I never once saw the frontosa look twice at him. (The wild caught fronts in my 300 surely would have eaten him.)

I believe that most self professed 'fish experts' are mistaken when they talk about how many fish can be in a tank or what fish can be mixed with what. I find that it is mostly based on rumor or one bad experience. For instance, my six tropheus get along quite well in their crowded 90, despite 'experts' claiming that I need at least 20-30 in a colony. It's true that I have lost two tropheus to desease in the last 2 or 3 years, but this seems to be far more successful than most experts would predict. I have not lost a single frontosa, the largest of which is about 9 inches and which you suggest are 'unhappy' in my tank even though they have just mated. The 'experts' say that brichardi will take over the entire tank when they mate. In my 300 gallon I have had brichardi fry, Nkambe fry, and tetracanthus fry all at once in a tank with tropheus, four 7-9" frontosa, 5 lelupi, and compressiceps. Generations of brichardi team up togther to protect only the bottom corner of the tank.

My guess is that most experts don't offer enough cover for so many fish. I have seen pictures of their tanks with a few strategically placed rocks with large openings where they hope their fish will "hide" but still remain in view. My tanks are piled with rock and sand. The fish hide when they want and, perhaps because they have a place to flee too, they feel quite secure to come out and swim around.

I also think that the fish are healthier with a good crowded mix of species. After all, what is the point of 'target' fish.

I know that I can't convince a person who feels that their fish are pets. But I just feel differently. Frontosa is a staple food around the lake and I will have no problem having one of mine for lunch one day.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

In the previous post I said I didn't lose a front. I just remembered that I did lose a frontosa in my 300 gallon. About a month after I first purchased the four wild caught Mobas and put them in my 300 gallon, my big male rolled over and died.


----------



## jrf (Nov 10, 2009)

Jorsay said:


> I think they just eat, breed, and survive without ever pondering Plato, Descartes, or Kant.


And to think IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve wasted all this time reading Aristotle to them. :lol:

They may not grasp the finer points of Nietzsche. However, they do know pain, fear, and discomfort. If you choose to keep fish, as livestock or as pets, you have a responsibility to treat them in a humane manner while they are in your care. In the lake, they have the option to flee if they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like the surroundings or if they fear for their lives. In your tank, those options are much more limited. It becomes your responsibility to assess their living conditions and anticipate their needs Ã¢â‚¬â€œ even if you do intend to eat them for dinner that evening.


----------



## Floridagirl (Jan 10, 2008)

Yes, I feel that anything in my total care is my Pet, and should be kept humanely. I am responsible for their well being and providing the best care possible. I agree about providing cover, and also the fact that there are exceptions to every rule (i.e. the 30 Tropheus etc.) Gender plays a Large part of what will and won't work in a tank. Anyhow, losing a fish, to me, is a failure of my job to provide for the fish. That is why I research "the most sucessful" way to keep a species.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Jorsay said:


> It seems that you have attached a human quality to fish that I don't believe they have. Afterall, they are only fish. I don't believe that my fish yearn for a bigger tank or lament that they are not living in the wild. I don't believe that they love, hate, or experience depression. I don't think they would prefer your tanks to mine or my tanks to yours. I don't think they have opinions like you or I. I think they just eat, breed, and survive without ever pondering Plato, Descartes, or Kant.
> 
> When I say I want my fish to be happy, I mean no more than that I want them to be healthy. Based upon my 40+ years of raising fish, I find the fish in this 90 gal tank to be quite healthy. Their colors are good, their fins are flaired, they don't cower under the rocks, and various pairs reproduce quite often. As I stated, the frontosa just mated! The lelupi have mated in this tank as well. The single male cyp, no more than a mouthful for the fronts, lived in the tank for more than a year, and I never once saw the frontosa look twice at him. (The wild caught fronts in my 300 surely would have eaten him.)
> 
> ...


This is all subjective of course, and I personally disagree with a lot of what you've written here. You're also anthropomorphizing your fish when you suggest they can feel secure. As evidenced by your experience, fish can also be kept quite successfully in sub-optimal conditions, and these conditions won't seem to effect the fish in the short term, 2-3 years being a relatively short interval.

What the "experts" offer are guidelines, but being in the hobby for 40 years I would think that you would know enough and have enough experience to bend the rules. This is what you've done. I'm all for trying out new combinations of fish in different tank sizes to achieve your desired results. Having a brichardi colony mixed in with other aggressive lamps, fronts and the indestructable altos seems pretty reasonable to me. I've kept 5 species of shell dwellers together in a 4' tank and they all bred for me almost constantly and I've kept tropheus as pairing fish (we all did at one point because we really didn't know any better). The only reason I've had success with these examples is because of my experience. I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong or right and you've definitely had to iron out the kinks along the way as evidenced by your lost fish. Keep updating us as to how the situation progresses.

How you view the animals under your care is entirely subjective, to you they may be just fish and you may see a dog as a pet. But there are populations who feel that dogs are food items the same as fish. Injecting a personal bias into an argument doesn't make it any stronger. Fish are more intelligent than previously thought, I recommend this book, http://www.amazon.ca/Fish-Feel-Pain-Vic ... 0199551200 as an interesting read. The author gives a reasonably good account of how fish interact with their environment, and how we can change aquaculture and fisheries practice better for animal welfare.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

Darkside said:


> This is all subjective of course, and I personally disagree with a lot of what you've written here. You're also anthropomorphizing your fish when you suggest they can feel secure.


No argument there. I anthropmorphize all kinds of things, including even my car and my mobile phone. That doesn't mean that I believe my car loves me or that I intentionally take care not to leave it alone too long.


> As evidenced by your experience, fish can also be kept quite successfully in sub-optimal conditions, and these conditions won't seem to effect the fish in the short term, 2-3 years being a relatively short interval.


This is where we disagree. I think the so called experts are wrong. I think my fish are in near optimal conditions. Implying that a 48 inch fish tank is suboptimal for frontosa while a 72 inch fish tank is not, when in the wild they probably have a range of hundreds of yards (I am guessing here because I have no idea) seems groundless to me. On what evidence does one base such a claim. The justification for such claims that I have heard are non-scientific and based solely upon unreliable heresay evidence.



> How you view the animals under your care is entirely subjective, to you they may be just fish and you may see a dog as a pet. But there are populations who feel that dogs are food items the same as fish. Injecting a personal bias into an argument doesn't make it any stronger.


 I disagree. My comments about fish not feeling depression and other emotions are more objective than subjective. They are based upon science. Fish brains do not have the capacity to experience the world as humans do. It is enjoyable to imagine that they know us and love us, but if we were small enough and we went swimming with them, they would eat us as quickly as they would eat our neighbor and they wouldn't feel guilty about it.

I think I have lost very few fish due to disease, perhaps fewer than half a dozen out of four tanks with perhaps more than 50 fish (not counting all the babies of course) over a period of nearly three years. Especially given that I feed them live food from petsmart two or three times per week, which means that I must be introducing uncountable numbers of pathogens into my aquarium. By the way, I never medicate my tanks. I learned long ago that you lose far fewer fish if you don't medicate (Again, in contrast to the "experts"). I have the water changed once every two weeks in the 300 and once every 2 months in the 90. I think the guy changes about 20%. In the other tanks I almost never change the water. The fish look good and they mate like crazy. On what evidence would you base your view that these conditions are sub optimal? Becuase other hobbyists say so? Because if they were fish, they wouldn't want to live in my fish tank? I don't consider such evidence as reliable. I think they are wrong. I think they change the water too much and the fish fight more when they don't have many tank mates and many places to hide. I think people would enjoy chiclids more if "experts" didn't give them bad advice. But, I acknowledge that my evidence is no more conclusive than that of the "experts".

Now, I have lost fish when I experiment by putting 20 or so cyps in with my wild caught frontosa to see if some of them can survive. This is not a reflection on tank conditions or overcrowding. I also lost an entire colony of tropheus to bloat when I changed their food from live brine shrimp to NLS (They did great with the brine despite the 'experts' telling me how terrible it was.), but that was following the advice of the experts and, again not a reflection of tank conditions. BTW those 30 were in the 300 gallon with plenty of room, while the 6 tropheus in my 90 were unaffectd.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

By the way, I don't mean to come off rude. I am trying to state my opinion without emotion, which I find difficult to do. I don't wish to offend anyone.


----------



## Floridagirl (Jan 10, 2008)

I' not trying to be rude either.....but I feel we are both passionate in our points of view. I, by no means, consider myself an expert. I've only had fish for 25 years. I had African Cichlids, for a couple years in the early 90's and then 2.5 years ago, discovered this website, and a love for Tangs, especially Frontosa/Gibberosa. I've kept everything from Guppies to Reef tanks, researching for the best sucess and least disease. My thought was that I would hate for someone (without your 40+ years of experience ) to read and think..."Wow..all that in a 90...I could do that".... I guess it's best if we agree to disagree....I'm now going to destress by watching some fish swim around my tanks.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Jorsay said:


> Darkside said:
> 
> 
> > This is all subjective of course, and I personally disagree with a lot of what you've written here. You're also anthropomorphizing your fish when you suggest they can feel secure.
> ...


Your personal bias has nothing to with fish feeling depression, I'm not sure that you understand my point. Your personal experience is where you inject your bias in how you don't consider the fish as pets, while other people do. This is a subjective point and no amount of "science" will move it. Dog brains also lack the capacity to experience the world as humans do, but most people do consider them pets. Its a difference of opinion that is formed by an individuals personal experience.

Just because the fish look good to you doesn't mean they are in optimal health. You aren't supporting your argument with any science, but if you do have some references available I'd be happy to look them over. And by your token I shouldn't consider your experience with these fish as reliable. However, I can in fact point out how you're supporting the counter argument that your fish aren't being kept in optimal conditions, despite how the fish appear. Unless you have a refugium attached to the 90 gallon there is an excess of NO3 in the water, this is mildly toxic to fish, especially in higher concentrations. There is no way that the amount of fish you keep in that 90 gallon do not produce excess levels of NO3. Look here for a start: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... in+cichlid If you're interested I can dig up some more directed studies that deal more directly with Tanganyikan fish. This information isn't coming from hobbyists, its peer reviewed literature, reviewed by the actual experts in the fields of aquatic biology and biochemistry. I can probably find peer reviewed husbandry information as well if you're so inclined. The information in the hobby isn't necessarily hearsay, in fact the majority of it does come down the pipe from scientists who study fish and aquaculture. Its also coming from the combined experiences of many hobbyists over at least a 70 year span. I don't know how you can write that off because it doesn't agree with your conclusions. Even Ad Konings says so in his book on Tanganyikan cichlids (Back to Nature Guide to Tanganyikan Cichlids p. 21). I don't think any of the "experts" are giving bad advice here, they are telling people what has worked for them. I don't understand how you can overturn all of these well researched points with little to no support of your own.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

Darkside said:


> Dog brains also lack the capacity to experience the world as humans do, but most people do consider them pets. Its a difference of opinion that is formed by an individuals personal experience.


Dog brains are closer to human brains than fish brains are to dog brains. This is science, not subjectivity. Fish do not experience complex emotions such as emotional depression. To the extent that one relies on science, this is science, not opinion.



> Just because the fish look good to you doesn't mean they are in optimal health.


 Very likely I have enough experience to distinguish a healthy fish from a sick fish after observing that fish for 2 years.



> You aren't supporting your argument with any science,


 I believe that I pointed this out (other than the fact that fish brains don't have the capacity to experience complex emotions).



> If you're interested I can dig up some more directed studies that deal more directly with Tanganyikan fish. This information isn't coming from hobbyists, its peer reviewed literature, reviewed by the actual experts in the fields of aquatic biology and biochemistry. I can probably find peer reviewed husbandry information as well if you're so inclined.


 I am a scientist by trade. I know of few scientists in the field. I have done my share of reading in my 40+ years and I have yet to see science on the subject. I doubt if there is any. Please understand that science isn't when a scientist says "based on what I saw in the lake perhaps this or perhaps that" nor is it "based upon what happened in my 40+ years of experience, I think that". That is heresay and conjecture, not science. Science is when a study is done with testing, publishing, and then varified with testing by independent scientists. I don't believe there has been any research done on how many fish should be in a tank. However, there has been quite a bit of resource on animal self awareness and emotions. Chimps, for instance, have self-awareness, whereas dogs, baboons and lower animals do not. Fish are quite far down the line from chimps.



> The information in the hobby isn't necessarily hearsay, in fact the majority of it does come down the pipe from scientists who study fish and aquaculture. Its also coming from the combined experiences of many hobbyists over at least a 70 year span.


That is an accurate depiction of unreliable heresay.



> Even Ad Konings says so in his book on Tanganyikan cichlids (Back to Nature Guide to Tanganyikan Cichlids p. 21). I don't think any of the "experts" are giving bad advice here, they are telling people what has worked for them. I don't understand how you can overturn all of these well researched points with little to no support of your own.


I am not an expert on Ad Konings, though I have read some of his books. I believe that he is a taxonomist and not an experiemental scientist. I know of no experiments that he has ever done, nor that he has claimed to have done. Surely you're not suggesting that he or anyone else has done a verified double blind study on the health of mixing species in an aquarium or on how many fish is healthy in an aquarium. If this hasn't been done, any discussion is conjecture, including discussion by Ad Konings or any other author.

Two separate points:

1. *Fish don't get depressed or think about philosophy*. I'm guessing that most people probably agree. Science does support this. I am arguing that this is a *fact*.
2. I am not saying that science supports my view that the so called experts are wrong about how many fish and species can go in a tank and remain healthy. I am saying that *my experience indicates that the 'experts' are wrong* and I am saying that science does not support their view any more than it supports mine. My argument that the experts are wrong is my *opinion*. I do not support it with any scientific evidence, only rumor and heresay, just as the statement "6 frontosa cannot be healthy in a 90 gallon but can be healthy in a 125 gallon" is rumor and heresay and is opinion.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Jorsay said:


> Darkside said:
> 
> 
> > Dog brains also lack the capacity to experience the world as humans do, but most people do consider them pets. Its a difference of opinion that is formed by an individuals personal experience.
> ...


I can't believe you're a scientist, if you're a proper scientist support your points through peer reviewed literature. You should have access to a plethora of journal articles. Being a scientist you'd know better than to state anything as a fact. This is not what science does, and if you suggest that a point is a *fact* you support this evidence with some sort of reference. To say that there are few studies on Tanganyikan cichlids is a pretty large oversight, there are 1000s of references that come up from a brief search of this topic. Your arguments are conjecture based upon personal experience and you admit that they have no scientific support and thus no real merit. When you can drum up some support for your ideas then the discussion may be worthwhile, but until then there is no reason to consider any of your points valid.


----------



## Razzo (Oct 17, 2007)

Michael R. said:


> Hope you don't find the abruptness rude  .


Getting to the point is always welcome :wink:

I might consider adding some leleupi to that stock list.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

> I can't believe you're a scientist, if you're a proper scientist support your points through peer reviewed literature. You should have access to a plethora of journal articles. Being a scientist you'd know better than to state anything as a fact. This is not what science does, and if you suggest that a point is a *fact* you support this evidence with some sort of reference.


I am sorry that I am upsetting you, Darkside. I am a scientist and I don't understand your points. "Water is a liquid at stp." Isn't that a fact? Do I need to support that with 'peer reviewed literature"? "I like the color red." That is my opinion. Do I need to support that with peer reviewed literature?



> To say that there are few studies on Tanganyikan cichlids is a pretty large oversight, there are 1000s of references that come up from a brief search of this topic.


Certainly there are essays discussing Tanganyikan cichlids, and these essays are often filled with opinon. Taxonomic observations have been reported like how many spines on a frontosa and so on. But, to my knowledge no scientific research has been done supporting number of species or fish per tank. This means, there is only conjecture about such things. Even in behavioral science experiments beyond observation are necessary to test and lend credibility to theories based upon observation. For instance, before Galileo, Aristotle theorized that all things fall at the same rate. Like "six frontosa need a 125 gallon" this was dogma in the science world; obvious to all until Galileo did an experiment to test it and prove it incorrect. Opinions of scientists are conjecture until tested. It is my opinion that advice concerning number of fish in a tank is conjecture based mostly upon dogma, dogma that is accepted out of hand and repeated over and over, dogma that is fundamentally flawed.



> Your arguments are conjecture based upon personal experience and you admit that they have no scientific support and thus no real merit. When you can drum up some support for your ideas then the discussion may be worthwhile, but until then there is no reason to consider any of your points valid.


I don't think you have given this last statement much thought. My arguments are not conjecture; my opinions are conjecture. My arguments are a series of premises based upon what I believe to be facts leading to my conclusion. Arguments, opinions, and conjecture may have merit without scientific support.

For instance my argument is:

fact 1: I have more fish species than the experts say I should.
fact 2: My fish are healthy and reproducing.
conclusion: The experts are mistaken.

The conclusion is my reasoned opinion based upon the facts as I see them. If you agree with my premises and feel my argument is valid then you have a reason to consider my point (my conclusion) valid. My argument has merit. If you disagree with my premises or feel my argument is invalid then you have a reason to dispute my conclusion. As you can see, it is entirely possible to have a 'worthy' discussion with a valid conclusion without ever resorting to 'peer reviewed literature'. In fact, and of course, we all do it all the time. How many discussions have you had in your lifetime without resorting to citing 'peer reviewed literature'? Were all of those discussions without merit?


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

You're missing the boat here. I was referring to the high nitrate levels that doubtlessly come from an over-stocked aquarium and too few water changes.  I never contested that it was possible to go against the recommendations of the "experts" as there are so many contributing factors that effect how fish interact with one another and their environment. I even gave examples of how my own experience reflected yours.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

Well, I don't mind agreeing to disagree.

Based upon the look and behavior of my fish, I think my nitrate levels are fine. I think fish can tolerate levels much higher than lake levels and still be healthy. Perhaps in the long term (years and years) they may die of cancer sooner than fish in tanks with lower nitrate levels or they may simply not live as long. It's like living in LA. The air is filthy, but it would be a stretch to say everyone in LA is sickly or even 'depressed' due to the air pollution. However, I have no doubt that there are people who will want to disagree with even that. So let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Ahahaha you don't have to worry about upsetting me, unless you're physically striking me in teh face, this is an internet discussion forum. :lol:

Anyway, "[your] arguments are based upon a series of premises which you *believe* to be *facts*," is the statement that makes this thinking process conjecture. What's wrong with conjecture anyway? Its just another word for a hypothesis. Without all the relevant information I don't feel as if there is much weight behind your claims. The example of H2O being liquid at stp. is framed in by the parameters of your statement making it an easy reference to look up and support. Chemistry is a completely different beast compared to behavioural biology so the comparison is a bit lacking, especially considering how little we understand about animal intelligence.

Say I disagree with your premise that your fish are healthy as you have no way to accurately diagnose the overall health of your fish. Fish that aren't in optimal health will reproduce, just as plants that aren't in optimal health will still bear fruit. So I find the claim that your fish are healthy to be inconclusive. I don't see how you can support all of your assumptions, but this is because we don't have all the parameters concerning your water quality and temperature values. This makes your idea of what is successful and what is healthy subjective and it seems as though the general consensus is against you here. All I was suggesting is that the level of subjectivity in your arguments is unlikely to change my mind and to overturn the central dogma of fish keeping for the majority of the aquariasts on the board.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Jorsay said:


> Well, I don't mind agreeing to disagree.
> 
> Based upon the look and behavior of my fish, I think my nitrate levels are fine. I think fish can tolerate levels much higher than lake levels and still be healthy. Perhaps in the long term (years and years) they may die of cancer sooner than fish in tanks with lower nitrate levels or they may simply not live as long. It's like living in LA. The air is filthy, but it would be a stretch to say everyone in LA is sickly or even 'depressed' due to the air pollution. However, I have no doubt that there are people who will want to disagree with even that. So let's just agree to disagree.


Discussion of the scientific process is what interests me more then anything as its close to my own research interests.


----------



## Razzo (Oct 17, 2007)

LOL - I didn't read all the rest of this thread until now.

Without getting too caught up in the debate, I did want to comment on the frontosa situation.

As an experienced frontosa keeper with lots of friends who can say the same, I support the rule of thumb that frontosa should be kept in a minimum 6-foot long tank. I support that rule of thumb based on personal experiences and the experiences of many others. Every once in a while, someone will surface who does not care about that "rule of thumb"... for whatever reason. You will have a handful of people pop up who will keep fronts in a 75 too.

One problem that is commonly experienced when keeping mature fronts in smaller foot print tanks is aggression (of course, stress and death can follow). Larger foot prints seem to help. I will concede adequate cover can help in some cases too (but not in most). The reason I am chiming in is for anyone who may be new to frontosa and think they can keep them in a 75 or a 90 because of a post like this. You can do whatever you want - a few people "seem" to do fine discounting the "rule of thumb" but the majority won't. Most people consider their fish pets and a 6-foot plus tank will make them "happier" and most people getting frontosa want their fish to be "happy."

I consider my fish to be pets that I care about. I also consider fish to be a renewable resource when "harvested" wisely. I also take Proverbs 12:10 to heart when caring for my pets (A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel).

BTW: if you want to BBQ one of your fronts for sustenance, I am OK with that too. May I suggest Drakes :wink: Let me know how they taste. I'll probably stick with salmon on my grill.

Russ opcorn:


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

Razzo,

I think I agree with your entire post, and I think, though I am not certain, that I can do so without cotradicting anything that I have said in this thread. (No doubt someone will prove me wrong  )


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

BTW Razzo,

As an experienced frontosa keeper, have you ever seen them drop their eggs to eat?

2nd BTW, my female doesn't have her eggs anymore.


----------



## mel_cp6 (Feb 3, 2009)

*** only kept fronts for about 2 yrs and i to have to agree that a 72"x18" is the smallest they should be kept in.

i also had some recent experience with some smaller cyprichromis utintas and i believe a 75g (4ft) is to small for them let alone some 12" fronts. its just not right. 
that only gives them 4x their body length as a swimming space.

anyways, in regards to your female eating eggs.
this happened to my 125g when i had 2 males that werent getting along.
alpha is chasing beta, beta is also trying to breed, female fighting the beta and as a result,
eggs are being drop and they were feasting on them including the mom.

so when hierachy in the tank isnt in order, things like this happens.
as soon as i remove the beta and female, my fronts spawn with no 
issues whatsoever.


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

What I was wondering is not if its normal for her to eat her eggs, but "Is it normal for her to drop her eggs when she eats and then pick them back up."


----------



## Razzo (Oct 17, 2007)

Jorsay said:


> BTW Razzo,
> 
> As an experienced frontosa keeper, have you ever seen them drop their eggs to eat?
> 
> 2nd BTW, my female doesn't have her eggs anymore.


Hey Jorsay,

No, I have not witnessed that with any of the fronts I've kept. I've had them swallow their eggs (without dropping them though) 

Russ


----------



## Razzo (Oct 17, 2007)

mel_cp6 said:


> I've only kept fronts for about 2 yrs and i to have to agree that a 72"x18" is the smallest they should be kept in.
> 
> i also had some recent experience with some smaller cyprichromis utintas and i believe a 75g (4ft) is to small for them let alone some 12" fronts. its just not right.
> that only gives them 4x their body length as a swimming space.
> ...


Mel, I had that happen in a 6-foot tank 

With the wild caught Kap group I had, the Beta male would beat up the females. I'd put him in a jail tank and switch things around and then re-introduce him. The problem didn't go away until I fried him in Drakes on the grill.

JK 8) the prob didn't go away until I put them in a 265 (7-foot tank). Eventually, the beta caught upto the alpha and started getting affection from the females. The females started rejecting the alpha. The beta eventually took over the alpha role in a somewhat peaceful transition.

I had a group of 10 kap fry that I was growing out. I had them in a 30 gallon tank for a while (big mistake). My two inch mini-me alpha terrorized the others and I lost six of them to stress before I figured out what was going on. I never would have expected that with a two inch fish. I just didn't watch that group close enough. Unfortunately, I have a lot of experience in mistakes. In any event, I keep an eye on foot-print issues. I started keeping a couple hospital tanks on hand (and a good supply of metro & kanamycin sulfate in my Rx cabinet too).


----------



## Razzo (Oct 17, 2007)

Why is it that I only catch spelling errors after I have submitted a reply :?

Man, I couldn't spell anything right to save my life.


----------



## nvrstk (Feb 10, 2010)

I'm amazed. I've never seen anyone spend so much time convincing themselves that they are taking good care of their fish. Your nitrates are probably way out of control with too few water changes on the 90, how about a test instead of blind faith. You want to stop the argument about water quality then test the water and post results. Just because the fish live and breed doesn't mean that they are healthy or happy. Have you ever had a tank that was fine, but every fish you added to it died? The fish adjust to the bad water and get along seemingly fine, but new fish aren't accustomed to polluted water so they die.

Brichardi, my pair commandeered 75% of my 90 with breeding Julie regani and a sexfaciatus. the Brichardi ended up with their own tank. But I've seen them in a 90 in a store with 20 mbuna and they got along fine without claiming the tank. Fish can be different in attitude among the same species.

Fronts are deep water fish that roam and like space. They will live in a small tank. Just like a man can live in a 6'x8' jail cell for his entire life. But he won't be happy or comfortable. Being able to live and living comfortably and thriving are totally different. Breeding? Women in prison have gotten pregnant, so that argument doesn't hold water.

You claim to be a scientist, but you don't talk like one. You post no tests. No results. If your argument is that you are supremely knowledgeable then as a scientist you will back it up with results, not faith. You can take care of your fish however you want, eat them(just watch out for tank chemicals that can harm humans), whatever. They are your fish. Probably needs BBQ or tarter though.

But don't blow off good info for the sake of making yourself feel better about how you take care of your fish. I for one (and several others)feel that you are not keeping your fishes best interest in mind, and need more water changes! Everyone has different opinions, and I'm not trying to be mean or nasty, just getting to the point.

BTW, nice tank layout! :thumb:


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Isn't it also a fact that breeding fish are not necessarily healthy fish?


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

Alright, look. This is ridiculous. The fish are alive. They are colorful. They swim around looking gorgeous and display their fins in good condition. They breed like horny rabbits. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that they are suffering serious psychological disorders due to high nitrates, but, not having an advanced degree in fish behavioral disorders, I just can't tell. They look and act like healthy fish n every way, but deep inside they are actually emotionally scarred. Since, it's impossible for me to tell them apart from emotionally healthy fish, why do I care? And please, that's a rhetorical question.

I used to do all those water changes and tank cleanings. I used to listen to the 'experts' tell me what fish to put with what. Then, about 20 years ago, I got bored and decided to experiment. What I found out was that all those water changes didn't make a bit of difference in how the fish looked or behaved or how long they lived. Testing the water? No difference. Medicating diseased fish? More often than not, this made things worse. I found out that it was a lot more interesting mixing species and seeing how they behave with each other. I found out that it was a lot more fun having fun with my tanks then agonizing over them. Now I hate to think about the beginning cichlid owner reading all this bad advice and torturing himself over not mixing fish or not buying frontosa because he only has a 90 gallon. That's ridiculous. It takes a couple years for frontosa to grow anyway. Who knows! the guy may have a 300 gallon by then. Anyway, the fish has a tiny brain with a tiny cerebral cortex. It doesn't swim around wishing for a larger tank or wishing it could get free. Finding Nemo isn't based upon a real story. Aquarium fish don't plot how to escape. They don't think like humans. They feel pain, but they experience it and process it in quite a different way than higher animals. Sure, I like to pretend that my fish are 'happy' or 'angry' or 'noble' when they defend their babies, but the truth is, they are not. They simply aren't capable of thinking and feeling like humans.

Finally, even if a fish could feel emotions, I find it patently self-serving to argue that removing a fish from his million gallon home, his family, and his way of life, and confining him to a 6 foot space with freeze-dried food, and fake plants is somehow humane, yet confining him to a 4 foot space is cruel. How do you know this? Did someone ask the fish? Does Konings understand fish psychology so well as to make such minor distinctions with such perfect accuracy? Where is the evidence? Where is the research? Where is the science to back it up?

And "No", I repeat yet again, I am not claiming any scientific validation to my opinion. That's why it's called an opinion. (OK, The side argument about fish brains is based on science, but anyone who really needs me to look up research showing that fish don't experience emotions like humans, well, that person and I aren't going to have much to discuss anyway.)

My hope is that some guy who has raised cichlids for a couple of years, reads this and realizes, "Much of this advice is dogma. Maybe I don't need to go out and spend a few thousand dollars more to buy a 6 foot long tank that I have no where to put anyway. Maybe I can stick some frontosa in with my tropheus and Jack Dempsey." I say go for it; break the rules, because much of the advice given by 'experts' is just misunderstood and/or regurgitated advice from earlier 'experts' who really weren't experts anyway. And, BTW, you don't have to be an expert to write and publish a book. Just pick up any two books on the same subject and you will find that the 'experts' disagree, often times vehemently.

[Last thing: if you are picturing six 12 inch long frontosa in a 90 gallon, then you have not looked at my original post. Yes, I think that that would be kind of ridiculous. My largest frontosa is about 9 inches; the smallest is probably 4. The tank is plenty big.]


----------



## nvrstk (Feb 10, 2010)

I won't waste our time on most of it, but I leave you with food for thought. Your 9' front, relatively speaking of course, is the same as you in a room 8' wide x3' deep x 20' tall. Whether you think it's the same or not, the 90 is too narrow and not long enough. It'll work. Your front will live. probably will breed. Then again YOU would live just fine in a small prison cell (that's what our fish tanks really are right?) and surely would breed if given the chance(I know I would). Yeah, a bazillion gallon lake to a 6' or 4' tank is relatively the same...but a 6' and 4' are radically different especially for that big a fish! Now add multiples of that large fish and you should see our point. Take care of your fish like they deserve to be taken care of. Get the tank when/if you can(if no other choice then at least get one that's 24" front to back), and for gods sake...CHANGE THE DARN WATER!!!!! Would you sit in your garage with the car running and a pile of waste in the corner? I didn't think so, so why make your fish do it?


----------



## Jorsay (Jul 14, 2008)

nvrstk said:


> I won't waste our time on most of it, but I leave you with food for thought. Your 9' front, relatively speaking of course, is the same as you in a room 8' wide x3' deep x 20' tall.


No. It is nothing like the same thing. I am human. A fish is a fish. Human's have different emotional needs than a fish. Would you eat a human? Would you eat a fish? Would a human eat you? Would a fish eat you? Such comparisons are inane. If we disagree on this, then there is no point in discussing it. Again, I posted this so others may know that the 'experts' are wrong.



> Whether you think it's the same or not, the 90 is too narrow and not long enough.


 whether you think you are right or not, the 90 is fine.


> It'll work. Your front will live. probably will breed. Then again YOU would live just fine in a small prison cell (that's what our fish tanks really are right?) and surely would breed if given the chance(I know I would). Yeah, a bazillion gallon lake to a 6' or 4' tank is relatively the same...but a 6' and 4' are radically different especially for that big a fish! Now add multiples of that large fish and you should see our point. Take care of your fish like they deserve to be taken care of. Get the tank when/if you can(if no other choice then at least get one that's 24" front to back), and for gods sake...CHANGE THE DARN WATER!!!!! Would you sit in your garage with the car running and a pile of waste in the corner? I didn't think so, so why make your fish do it?


Again, the point is that the fish aren't human. They don't care. They are incapable of 'caring'. They live and swim in their waste products. That's what fish do. It doesn't 'bother' them. Humans don't swim and live in their waste products.

If fish look and behave the same way before you change your water as they do after, then there is no point in changing the water. Most people change the water more than they need to. You should change the water when your tank looks dirty, if your fish tend to get sick, or if you are bored.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Jorsay said:


> Again, the point is that the fish aren't human. They don't care. They are incapable of 'caring'. They live and swim in their waste products. That's what fish do. It doesn't 'bother' them. Humans don't swim and live in their waste products.


High nitrate levels do bother fish, it negatively impacts they growth and shortens their lifespan. Nitrates are toxic to fish and there is plenty of research to back this up. I'm sure that slowly being poisoned does bother fish even if they aren't of the mind to complain about it.


----------



## jrf (Nov 10, 2009)

Jorsay said:


> Again, the point is that the fish aren't human. They don't care. They are incapable of 'caring'. They live and swim in their waste products. That's what fish do. It doesn't 'bother' them. Humans don't swim and live in their waste products.


ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a misleading argument. The concentration of waste to water in your tank is much, much greater than it is in something as big as a lake. Not to mention, the ecology of a lake tends to be self maintaining and in your tank it is not.



Jorsay said:


> They feel pain, but they experience it and process it in quite a different way than higher animals


I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really disagree with your arguments about anthropomorphic fallacy. Although you take it to far with this. And youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re tossing out the biological/physical requirements of the fish under the pretense that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just more emotional B.S. that the "experts" are forcing on you.


----------



## mel_cp6 (Feb 3, 2009)

you guys should just give up on this guy.
you cant convince someone who already convinced himself that what he is doing is right.



> Again, the point is that the fish aren't human. They don't care. They are incapable of 'caring'.


am i reading this right? 
this is what i got from this statement. lol!

Again, the point is that I am not human. I dont care. I am incapable of 'caring'.


----------

