# New setup in the 200



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

I removed all fish and started from scratch. Large driftwood, concrete drainage pipes, holy rock and sand from leslies pool supply. It looks much better. I have it as a room divider in my fish room. I took the paint off the back and found alot of small scratches. It was a heavily used tank I guess. So the glass is never "clean" you know?

The stocking list in the 200 gallon

4 tilapia syndarae
4 tiny brichardi
16 small convicts
2 sajica(2 died..)
5 firemouths ( 1 pair already bred)
3 mbuna
1 sae( mean kind)
12 small mollies
6 gambusia

I am using 3 ac500's for now. and a power head to keep flow up.


----------



## skools717 (Mar 29, 2008)

_16 small convicts _

thats gonna atleast be 2 breeding pairs and thats gonna result in injured fish


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

skools717 said:


> _16 small convicts _
> 
> thats gonna atleast be 2 breeding pairs and thats gonna result in injured fish


More like 6 breeding pair  Especially if there is more female then male, they will just jump around from female to female. They are scandalous! :lol:


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

skools717 said:


> _16 small convicts _
> 
> thats gonna atleast be 2 breeding pairs and thats gonna result in injured fish


I plan on killing them all so there. :thumb:


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

So my question is...what are the mbuna doing in a clearly American cichlid setup?


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

SinisterKisses said:


> So my question is...what are the mbuna doing in a clearly American cichlid setup?


They live in there. And it is not a "american setup". Its my fish tank, and it has my fishes in it. The ones I want in there.

Jeez people can you stop being critical for a second. This place is such a downer.


----------



## convictkid (Jul 28, 2004)

> And it is not a "american setup". Its my fish tank, and it has my fishes in it. The ones I want in there


Well said.


----------



## MidNightCowBoy (May 7, 2007)

Another disaster tank in the making! Awesome!


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

MidNightCowBoy said:


> Another disaster tank in the making! Awesome!


Wait till I add the alligators and iguana's! :roll:


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

OceanDevil said:


> SinisterKisses said:
> 
> 
> > So my question is...what are the mbuna doing in a clearly American cichlid setup?
> ...


You know what is a bigger downer? People who get a bunch of fish that do not belong together in the same aquarium because it's THEIRS. Last I checked, animals were not toys but thats my opinion. Good luck, let me know when the mbuna either stress out the other fish or you have a tank full of convicts.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Nathan43 said:


> OceanDevil said:
> 
> 
> > SinisterKisses said:
> ...


Why do they not belong together?


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

I know you people all have your opinions and everything, but you need to relax. This setup is fine for now. I may need to remove all the female convicts at some point. If I end up having large males and they all have a female that would take up too much room. I do plan on having 1 sex of convicts in a few months. For now it is working fine because the largest fish is 2-3 inches long.

The fry from pairs only lasts as long as I want them to. They only survive if I leave the lights on.
The mbuna will be fearless fry eaters when grown. This is not some killing grounds for my enjoyment. It is a mixed cichlid species community. I picked fish that do not get very large. I have red devils and trimacs in the smaller tanks. by smaller I mean the 100, 75 and 3 55's.

All joking aside, why so harsh? I am getting advice on convict aggression as the first response? wow how insightful. 12 years of fish-keeping and I still cant keep cons out of my house. I just like them.

I have never had issues with keeping mbuna with CA's. The water here is perfect for CA and Mbuna. Aggression is always something to watch for. But with enough room nobody really gets hurt.

Thanks for the concern. I hope this clears things up a bit.


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

But isn't the goal to find fish that fill your aquarium at full size? Why buy a ton of fish knowing full well that you will be getting rid of some for the sole purpose of having a full aquarium at all times? Thats all I am saying. We are not here to argue with you because in the end, your gonna do what you want. As for the mollies & gambusia, seems expensive for eventual feeders 
On a side note, tilapia snyderae & sajica are some cool fish, always wanted a few of them.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

The convicts were free. So were the mollies. The sajica I am not impressed with. The Tilapia are freaking pigs, they are outgrowing everything else.

It is the breeding pairs with 4-5 inch male convicts that will be an issue. So the females will likely go. I am waiting to see how many of each there are. If there are more males then I will take them out. The largest male con is 1.5 inches. The tilapia are the biggest.


----------



## MidNightCowBoy (May 7, 2007)

OD,

Not trying to "come down on you," but this is a "do it right" type forum. I think the biggest issue with your tank will probably be if the brichardi pair up, then the fish death begins. Then again it might be the convicts doing the killing, I'm not sure because your the first person I've heard of keeping them together. Kinda sucks for the other fish in your tank. I'm just a firm believer in providing my fish with the best possible home and chance for survival, because as aquarium keepers, we do sort of play god to them.

Yes it is your tank and you can do what you want with it, but your "It's my tank and I'll do what I want" attitude is somewhat childish and not very becoming.

Good luck with your tank.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

MidNightCowBoy said:


> OD,
> 
> Not trying to "come down on you," but this is a "do it right" type forum. I think the biggest issue with your tank will probably be if the brichardi pair up, then the fish death begins. Then again it might be the convicts doing the killing, I'm not sure because your the first person I've heard of keeping them together. Kinda sucks for the other fish in your tank. I'm just a firm believer in providing my fish with the best possible home and chance for survival, because as aquarium keepers, we do sort of play god to them.
> *
> ...


It is the truth though. There is no attitude when I make a simple statement. Sorry if speaking plainly seems childish to you. I have the space to change things if some awful death binge happens. For now it is a beautiful tank to watch. Sand is so much better than gravel. I was always shy of using it for fear of impeller doom.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

Sorry... a lot of members here are interested in keeping their fish so they are fully happy and healthy with tankmates that are suitable for them, rather than just a tank full of fish because they "can".


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

SinisterKisses said:


> Sorry... a lot of members here are interested in keeping their fish so they are fully happy and healthy with tankmates that are suitable for them, rather than just a tank full of fish because they "can".


You make up rules to limit your options. If you mix species you are mixing predator with prey, you are mixing the competition. Tell me what is wrong with my tank. I have addressed all the petty issues that were mentioned.

All that I have heard is that sometime in the future, aggression might be an issue. Really? In a cichlid tank that is something you have to accept. They are not guppies, you have to be aware of it.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

Just because they are existing together, does not make them happy or truly healthy. Malawi, Tangs, and Americans all have the obvious different water requirements, etc, but they also all have very different behaviours and ways of interacting. I could never do it because I'd feel horrible for my fish. To each their own.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

SinisterKisses said:


> Just because they are existing together, does not make them happy or truly healthy. Malawi, Tangs, and Americans all have the obvious different water requirements, etc, but they also all have very different behaviours and ways of interacting. I could never do it because I'd feel horrible for my fish. To each their own.


They all live in the same city water. The water argument is baseless. Might be a factor for WC fish. Mine are captive bred.

So you would feel horrible if a convict could not interact with a mbuna properly? how strange.

They seem to do fine. The mbuna chase who they want and others chase them.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

No, I would feel horrible and feel like an irresponsible fishkeeper if I had the audacity to keep a poor convict with mbuna.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

SinisterKisses said:


> No, I would feel horrible and feel like an irresponsible fishkeeper if I had the audacity to keep a poor convict with mbuna.


You have a lot of feelings. I wonder at the degrees of hypocrisy in this hobby. And the self made rules that are set in stone for some. It is very strange.

You have fun with your wet pet tanks. Some of us like to mix things up.
Oh and btw 3 mbuna will not rule a 200 gallon tank.


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

OceanDevil said:


> SinisterKisses said:
> 
> 
> > No, I would feel horrible and feel like an irresponsible fishkeeper if I had the audacity to keep a poor convict with mbuna.
> ...


Your not getting it, plain and simple. Find one EXPERIENCED fish keeper that recommends the stock you have on a long term basis. The fact you don't grasp anyone's intensions, ignoring experienced fishkeepers advice and why they are telling you these things is because your ignorant. You say you have been keeping fish for 12 years, well do they sell books where your from? Ever thought of doing research? Everything you have said on this thread has been what we hear daily from unexperienced fishkeepers, so logically, we come to the same conclusion. What's next? You going to get a peacock bass for your fun tank? Afterall, who cares if their miserable, at least they can be miserable in 200 gallons of fury.


----------



## terd ferguson (Jul 31, 2007)

How did I miss this thread? So many quotes, so little time. 

OceanDevil, if that is your real name, I'm on your side. It's your tank, put what you want in it.

To everyone else, lay off. Do you actually think that because a mbuna has to look at a convict that the end of the world is just around the corner? Give me a break. :roll:

The atitudes around here about being "the do it right place" and the responses in this thread are why this forum is so slow. No more than 30 members on the whole site at any one time for "the largest and most visited cichlid site on the web" is embarrassing. I feel the lack of participation here is directly correlated to the amount of elitist atitudes present. I do, however like this place a lot, in spite of the pervasive atitudes like those displayed in this thread. There is a lot of knowledge here. I could do without all the preaching though. It's not that I don't understand being a purist. I do. To each their own though. At the end of the day, we all share the same *hobby*.

Lecturing someone with over a decade of experience about the different water "requirements" of fishes from different habitats is pointless. These fishes have been bred in aquariums for generations upon generations. Suffice it to say they have become accustomed to and thrive in a much broader range of water qualities than where their wild brethren come from. Is it great fun to replicate their natural enviornment? Sure it is. But is it neccessary to the point of flaming someone who enjoys the same thing you do, I think not.

God forbid I tell anyone I'm growing out my motaguense in with the africans. :roll: This thread is an excellent example of why I don't post much outside of my "Monster Predatory Community" thread. At the end of the day, we are *ALL* keeping fishes in tiny glass boxes. That is leaps and bounds more cruel than simply mixing species from different habitats. I would hope that irony wouldn't be lost on those that are flaming. But it surely will.

Some of you take yourselves waaaaay too seriously. Lighten up. :thumb: I'll go back to only posting in my thread if anyone needs me. :wink:

***LEGAL DISCLAIMER***
This post is to be taken as constructive criticism only.


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

terd ferguson said:


> How did I miss this thread? So many quotes, so little time.
> 
> OceanDevil, if that is your real name, I'm on your side. It's your tank, put what you want in it.
> 
> ...


The issue is much deeper then water quality which include diet, temperment, size, and breeding.
It's funny, I took it that the only reason you like posting in the "Monster Predatory Community" thread is because your not here to help other hobbiests or the hobby itself. Your here to prove people wrong and stroke your own ego. If you truely cared, you would give advice in the illness section, answer questions from beginners, support DIY section, etc. The only reason flaming came about is because certain people take a **** on other's opinions & facts because it doesn't coincide with their own. I have made my share of mistakes in the hobby, but I don't claim to have 12 years of "experience."


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Nathan43 said:


> OceanDevil said:
> 
> 
> > SinisterKisses said:
> ...


I stated that only smaller fish were chosen. Did you read any of my posts? There is no misery, I perform 50% WC weekly and keep a close watch for things that may need fixing.

You are the one who does not get it. The peacock bass statement was really out of context. Sheesh 3 mbuna and you people start crying.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Nathan43 said:


> terd ferguson said:
> 
> 
> > How did I miss this thread? So many quotes, so little time.
> ...


Again it is no claim, I started when I was 14. BTW nathan you sound like a political protester. Really, very rabid and angry. I hope you can relax and enjoy the hobby. It should not stress you out so much.


----------



## terd ferguson (Jul 31, 2007)

Nathan43 said:


> terd ferguson said:
> 
> 
> > How did I miss this thread? So many quotes, so little time.
> ...


Please don't take this personally Nathan. I mean no offense. I did not create my thread to "stroke my ego". *The sole purpose of my big thread is to help other hobbyists.* I answer each and every post and each and every question asked. The reason I don't post in the other forums here (as I've said above) is because when I offer help, 14 people come along and criticize my experience just as you all have done to the original poster in this thread. The reason they criticize my help is because *they* don't like what *I'm* doing in *my* tank. Do you see any similarities between that and this thread? Check me out on MFK and you'll see I help more people there on a daily basis than there are new posts here in the CA/SA forum each day. In fact, I dedicate more time to helping others than contributing to my own topics, which are few. I have nearly 1,000 posts on MFK and the majority of those are answering others' questions in _their_ threads, not mine. If the atitudes here were a little more open minded, this would be a much better place.

Responses like those in this thread have soured me from contributing much outside my thread here. Do you even remember my thread that got deleted? The elitist atitudes here are more than retarded. I'm not the one with the huge ego here. I'm not the one telling everyone to "do as I do" and no other way. I'm not trying to be some kind of interwebz hero in my thread. That thread exists *ONLY* to help others. Thinking otherwise is only germain to my point of the kind of atitudes that exist here.

Besides, does it even make sense accusing me of stroking my own ego with my thread? I don't think so. Why? Partly because I have gone against each and every rule set forth in this forum with my tank. If I wanted a buch of "attaboys", I would do things just like all you other guys who already know it all. If I wanted my ego stroked, I would do things that were in agreement with the majority here instead of the opposite. Think about it.

I'm a nice guy, really, I am. I don't have a huge ego. I'm still relatively new in this hobby. And because I've been able to accomplish a lot in a relatively short period of time, it doesn't mean I'm a know it all. It also doesn't mean I think everyone else should do exactly as I do. We are fishkeepers at the end of the day. I'm not trying to pretend I'm some kind of super miracle fishkeeper. But to tell someone it is cruel and irresponsible to keep a mbuna with a convict is just more than dumb. :thumb:

***EDITED TO ADD***
I apologize for the slight derail. :thumb:


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

I appologize for insulting you terd, it wasn't may intention but I am far from an elitest and am certainly way too lazy to be a protester . But it's not like we just make up a bunch of **** and decide that as gospel. Its common law so to speak in the hobby to create as much of comfortable living situation for your fish as possible. To respond to Ocean, I get it, trust me, I was once you, I have done very similar things as you are doing now. When you say the "smallest" ones, what you don't get is that they will soon be "Biggest" ones. You openly said you will have to remove fish so you don't have a leg to stand on with my point so stop beating the dead horse. 
But from now on, I will not give my opinion on your tanks. Good luck, I would love nothing more then to have all this work out for you.


----------



## terd ferguson (Jul 31, 2007)

Nathan43 said:


> I appologize for insulting you terd, it wasn't may intention but I am far from an elitest and am certainly way too lazy to be a protester . But it's not like we just make up a bunch of #%$& and decide that as gospel. Its common law so to speak in the hobby to create as much of comfortable living situation for your fish as possible. To respond to Ocean, I get it, trust me, I was once you, I have done very similar things as you are doing now. When you say the "smallest" ones, what you don't get is that they will soon be "Biggest" ones. You openly said you will have to remove fish so you don't have a leg to stand on with my point so stop beating the dead horse.
> But from now on, I will not give my opinion on your tanks. Good luck, I would love nothing more then to have all this work out for you.


No hard feelings. And no offense was meant or taken. It's the "common laws" (I call it "conventional wisdom") you speak of that I'm mainly addressing. A lot of these "common laws" have changed over the years. Remember when under gravel filters were all the rage? Me neither, but they were. Now they are frowned upon for better alternatives. As technology cahnges, so do the "common laws" of what is and is not possible. Some just choose to hold on the old rather than grab on to the new. It seems to just so happen that the majority of those holding onto the old are on this particular forum in the interwebz fishkeeping world.

Again, no offense and sorry again for the derail. I am interested in hearing more about this tank. That's why I looked in here in the first place. :thumb:


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

> At the end of the day, we all share the same hobby.


Yes ... and no. Some people here are indeed hobbyists. A lot of people here treat their fish as pets, not as a hobby. There is a huge differance. Kinda of like dogs. Some people have pet dogs, others it is more of a hobby. It's these people that keep 200+ lbs dogs in apartments.

And experience doesn't always mean much, working in a lfs for several years, trust me when I say I've talked to people with much more experience than I that simply didn't know or didn't care to learn more about their hobby. It is their hobby, so they don't take it seriously.

For lots here, it isn't a hobby, it's a *passion*.

I mean, think of the OP's convict ... the poor thing has to go to the yearly CA cichlid reunion and admit that it's kept with ... africans!!! The embarassment!!! Probably won't even go to the reunion! Probably lies to his friends and says he lives in your tank *terd*!! :lol:


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Nathan43 said:


> I appologize for insulting you terd, it wasn't may intention but I am far from an elitest and am certainly way too lazy to be a protester . But it's not like we just make up a bunch of #%$& and decide that as gospel. Its common law so to speak in the hobby to create as much of comfortable living situation for your fish as possible. To respond to Ocean, I get it, trust me, I was once you, I have done very similar things as you are doing now. *When you say the "smallest" ones, what you don't get is that they will soon be "Biggest" ones*. You openly said you will have to remove fish so you don't have a leg to stand on with my point so stop beating the dead horse.
> But from now on, I will not give my opinion on your tanks. Good luck, I would love nothing more then to have all this work out for you.


When you start a tank with juvies the possibility of moving fish has to be an option. I will change a tank's stock list as needed. I like to have different setups.

I chose fish that will not get over 6 inches total length. Does that make sense? The line I bolded in your quote makes no sense at all. I said I do not want multiple *full grown pairs* of cons in the tank. They have a year or 2 of growth to reach that point. I never said this tank will be perfect for 20 years. I think it is unrealistic to expect that a tanks stock list will never change.

I can make some videos of the tank if you like. I have a really awesome piece of driftwood. Its a slingshot shape, but big enough for the hulk to use.[/i]


----------



## terd ferguson (Jul 31, 2007)

dwarfpike said:


> > At the end of the day, we all share the same hobby.
> 
> 
> Yes ... and no. Some people here are indeed hobbyists. A lot of people here treat their fish as pets, not as a hobby. There is a huge differance. Kinda of like dogs. Some people have pet dogs, others it is more of a hobby. It's these people that keep 200+ lbs dogs in apartments.
> ...


I understand what you're saying and don't neccessarily disagree with any of it. I just think some here come off as very abrasive with regards to keeping africans with new worlds, hybrids, etc..



OceanDevil said:


> When you start a tank with juvies the possibility of moving fish has to be an option. I will change a tank's stock list as needed. I like to have different setups.
> 
> I chose fish that will not get over 6 inches total length. Does that make sense? The line I bolded in your quote makes no sense at all. I said I do not want multiple full grown pairs of cons in the tank. They have a year or 2 of growth to reach that point. I never said this tank will be perfect for 20 years. I think it is unrealistic to expect that a tanks stock list will never change.


I'm sure you realize this, but the convicts can start breeding at around an inch and a half. I only mention this if the reason you don't want multiple breeding pairs is because of the aggression that can come with this behavior. In other words, you may not have a year or two for problems to appear.

I, for one, would love to see some pics and your video. What you're saying makes total sense to me. I think some hear "africans with new worlds" and automatically go into flame mode, regardless of the rest of your post(s).


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

Passionate people are often abrasive about thier passion, irregardless of what that passion is. RP'ers are the same way, football people, Harley people ... stick a bumper sticker that says 'Chrome won't get you home' on a Harley and I promise you an abrasive response.  (not recommended by the way unless you have several years of martial arts training! :lol: )

I think it's worse here becuase it involves living animals. Sometimes it's hard to bite your tongue when it comes to what you equate to animal abuse. Which is what we are seeing, weither it is or not is really not the point. As long as people see it that way, there will be the harsh responses. Comes with the territory with any pet, not just fish. :thumb:


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Indeed ferg. I have already had a pair of cons breed. The fry went free swimming and in 3 days were all gone. At these small sizes they cannot really do much damage and the territory they demand is tiny. The firemouth pair had more tank control than them and the mollies were stealing fry all day. 
Thats right half inch mollies stealing fry from a pair of cichlids. Livebearers are so amazing sometimes. :lol:

I am not decided on what sex of convicts to remove. Any ideas?


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

dwarfpike said:


> Passionate people are often abrasive about thier passion, irregardless of what that passion is. RP'ers are the same way, football people, Harley people ... stick a bumper sticker that says 'Chrome won't get you home' on a Harley and I promise you an abrasive response.  (not recommended by the way unless you have several years of martial arts training! :lol: )
> 
> I think it's worse here becuase it involves living animals. Sometimes it's hard to bite your tongue when it comes to what you equate to animal abuse. Which is what we are seeing, weither it is or not is really not the point. As long as people see it that way, there will be the harsh responses. Comes with the territory with any pet, not just fish. :thumb:


PETA thinks we are all criminals. Sometimes you have to disregard what others think.


----------



## terd ferguson (Jul 31, 2007)

dwarfpike said:


> Passionate people are often abrasive about thier passion, irregardless of what that passion is. RP'ers are the same way, football people, Harley people ... stick a bumper sticker that says 'Chrome won't get you home' on a Harley and I promise you an abrasive response.  (not recommended by the way unless you have several years of martial arts training! :lol: )
> 
> I think it's worse here becuase it involves living animals. Sometimes it's hard to bite your tongue when it comes to what you equate to animal abuse. Which is what we are seeing, weither it is or not is really not the point. As long as people see it that way, there will be the harsh responses. Comes with the territory with any pet, not just fish. :thumb:


Passion is one thing and I can understand that. I am passionate as well. But, to tell someone it's cruel and irresponsible to have a convict with a mbuna is a bit much. How well would it go over here if I was so fervent about spreading my philosophy on overstocking big CA's? But, I understand what you're saying.

Harleys are overrated and so is chrome, by the way. All the cool kids know british choppers are where it's at. 



OceanDevil said:


> Indeed ferg. I have already had a pair of cons breed. The fry went free swimming and in 3 days were all gone. At these small sizes they cannot really do much damage and the territory they demand is tiny. The firemouth pair had more tank control than them and the mollies were stealing fry all day.
> Thats right half inch mollies stealing fry from a pair of cichlids. Livebearers are so amazing sometimes.
> 
> I am not decided on what sex of convicts to remove. Any ideas?


I thought that's what you meant in your post. As to which sex to keep, my opinion is to keep the males. They get larger and are more impressive in my opinion. Female coloration aside, a full grown, brutish male convict is miles better than a female.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Also females will mate with eachother and cause a ruckus. So I will go that route. Thanks


----------



## jamesd (Jul 26, 2006)

I just have to get this off my chest. I know there are some very knowledgeable fishkeepers on this forum but I think some of them have to relax just a little. We rail against some one who has a CA cichlid with some mbuna, yet none of our tanks, I repeat none of our tanks are real representations of a fishes native environment. There are about a thousand factors that go into a fishes environment and the very fact we keep them in glass cages automatically negates us meeting some of these factors. Some of us scoff at some one that has the audacity to keep an mbuna with a convict, but yet many of us keep dither fish with a breeding pair of some cichlid. Some one may keep a group of danios with a pair of rainbow cichlids, or keep a pleco with their African cichlids, and that's ok, but put a convict with an mbuna and we break out the thumb screws. There are mbuna that are as alien to each other within lake Malawi as a convict is to a yellow lab. Because mbuna are rock bound and never cross open water for fear of predation from open water predators, you can have rock outcroppings just 200 meters apart that have different species simply because of isolation combined with thousand of years of random mutations. A hobbyist may think he has the perfect "biotope" beacuse of 3 species of mbuna he has, but in the actual lake they may never cross paths only 100 miles apart in the same lake. If that's the case, those same mbuna just as well could be 10000 miles apart and it wouldn't matter. Not to mention the fact that most of the fish we own are breeder or farm raised anyways. There is always another level of biotoping that one can undertake and yet it's still not right, whether the rocks are the wrong type, or the substrate, or the water chemistry.

I have a 75 gallon mixed community planted tank with keyhole cichlids, curviceps, and kribensis, plus various tetras, denison barbs and rainbows, essentially representing virtually every corner of the globe without ANY problems of any kind. Yet a hobbyist could attempt a 75 gallon demasoni tank with 2 dozen fish and end up with 4 fish after a couple of months but because those fish were the same species from the same lake, that's ok??? I have seen shell dweller tanyanikan set-ups using rasboras as dithers with beautiful results. I guess what I'm trying to say is there is no magical formula. It's all about appropriate tank maintenance (filtration, water changes, and the like) and enjoying the hobby. Certainly there are some combinations that are recipes for disasters ie. adding africans to a discus tank, or mixing large predators with a school of neon tetras, but I think we all have to except that many nontraditional set-ups work, and work well. Some of the criticism I see on these posts are unwarranted and unfounded, especially since the original posting made no request for such criticism. If a person asks for criticism or opinions on certain stocking schemes, then we should give our opinions. But when a person is nice enough to share his tank with us and we jump all over them, we potentially lose a valuable member of this forum. Many times I see a person that wants to share a picture of a cichlid and the next 5 posts dispute the species, or tell the person it's a hybrid, or state that "that fish looks hormoned" when all the hobbyist wanted to do was share his fish with the rest of us. If the person asks for species id that's one thing, but otherwise we need to get off our pedastals. Most of us are not ichthyologists or Ad Konigs.....Oh, even he recommends the keeping of the horse face loach as the perfect scavenger fish for African tanks....


----------



## terd ferguson (Jul 31, 2007)

Yeah, what he said, lol. Well put jamesd. :thumb:

I'm still waiting on some pics or that video. 8)


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

I may have to use youtube for the videos, photobucket wont let me upload files over 100 mb.

I am at work now(shhh) so I cant post anything. I have not forgotten. The glass is scratched pretty bad and my camera is not too fancy so the pics are nothing great.


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

100 mb!  Holy buckets batman!! Should be good quality then opcorn:


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)




----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

Looks good, love the driftwood.


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

Two things:

#1)



dwarfpike said:


> Experience doesn't always mean much, working in a lfs for several years, trust me when I say I've talked to people with much more experience than I that simply didn't know or didn't care to learn more about their hobby. It is their hobby, so they don't take it seriously.
> 
> For lots here, it isn't a hobby, it's a *passion*.


Too true. Experience doesn't ever mean very much. It is more likely, in my opinion, that after thirty years of keeping fish a person could be as ignorant as when they entered the hobby THAN (Not directed at you dwarfpike, but, when did people lose the ability to differentiate between the words _than_ and _then_? Just wondering...) a new person in the hobby who loves his fish and does all the necessary research plus more becoming very wise very quickly.

#2)



terd ferguson said:


> Some just choose to hold on the old rather than grab on to the new. It seems to just so happen that the majority of those holding onto the old are on this particular forum in the interwebz fishkeeping world.


I applaud those that stick to the 'conventional wisdom' on this forum. It was named 'conventional wisdom' because no matter what happened or what changed in the world it stayed true. This persistance in the face of adversity and alteration applies to all types of 'conventional wisdom'. That is one of the reasons that this forum is actually respected (along with the Cichlid Room Companion's forum) by scientists and collectors while so many other forums are not.

You cannot argue that these fish have evolved over thousands of years to fit into a certain type of water chemistry. Even captive bred fish do not do as well in water chemistry that differs widely from the chemistry that they have evolved to function in.

Therefore, as there are thousands of different sets of water chemistries, I would never recommend keeping Africans with Americans and certain Africans with different Africans and certain Americans with different americans etc., etc., etc.

Just like I wouldn't keep blackwater _Cichlidae_ with clearwater dithers, or a Tanganyikan rockdweller with a Malawian sardine, or an amazon manatee with an african manatee, or even, God-forbid, keep a salt-water lionfish with an african riverine cichlid. They all require different approaches in captivity and because we play God when we keep them in glass boxes shouldn't we do the best we can to care for them properly (or at least as properly as possible considering, as some have pointed out, that they are, in fact, in glass boxes that in no way can mimic their natural habitat).

***BUT***

I agree that we don't have to be so mean in our approach.

***EDITED TO ADD***

Though I disagree with the stocking I think the tank looks beautiful.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Nathan43 said:


> Looks good, love the driftwood.


I found it in a local creek. Had to use a steel brush to scrape the outer layer off, and then pressure wash the heck out of it. Driftwood is a little messy compared to rock but I really love it and so do the algae eaters, sae pleco or otherwise.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

In my research I have found that modifying local water to fit a species needs is more trouble than it is worth. Unless you are breeding, the fluctuations are not worth it and cause more hassle in the end.

Stability is more valuable IMO.

Tilapia are proven to thrive in many locations.
Mbuna and CA cichlids live in rocky hard water locations.

The water chem argument fails in regards to my setup.


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

> Mbuna and CA cichlids live in rocky hard water locations.
> 
> The water chem argument fails in regards to my setup.


Central Americans thrive in lesser temperatures than that of Africans.

Your point, therefore, is moot because of the _many_ different combinations of water parameters that nature provides (I.E. the water chemistry/parameter argument never fails).



> In my research I have found that modifying local water to fit a species needs is more trouble than it is worth. Unless you are breeding, the fluctuations are not worth it and cause more hassle in the end.


This is why a great majority of hobbyists keep only fish that thrive in their local water conditions. I'm sure that the individuals that keep many species find that the 'hassle' is worth it.

Stability is very important... in bodies of water that do not have a wide natural fluctuation of water parameters in a short span of time. This is why it is important to not do too large of a water change at any one given time in tanks that keep cichlids from the lakes Tanganyika, Malawi, Victoria, et al. (very stable environments) while you can do much larger changes in riverine species' tanks (who have evolved to handle rapid changes in their surroundings).

While stability may have importance, the basic water parameters are still just as valuable in maintaining a fish's health.



> Tilapia are proven to thrive in many locations.


Tilapia are known to thrive in places whose water parameters mimic their natural environment.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

wmayes said:


> > Mbuna and CA cichlids live in rocky hard water locations.
> >
> > The water chem argument fails in regards to my setup.
> 
> ...


like sea water?


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

Most Central Americans thrive in 76-80 degree temperatures while Africans enjoy the slightly higher range of 78-82 (yes, there is an overlap - I'll give you that one... but it's still lower :thumb

There are not very many species that live full-fledged in both conditions in Africa. Most species that do originated in a riverine habitat, and as a consequence, are able to withstand a wider fluctuation/range of parameters and are therefore adaptable to living in lakes (this is how and why all of the rift lakes were able to be colonized by cichlids...) while the reverse has generally not happened because...

Give me ONE example of a tilapia _naturally_ colonizing salt-water... (??? :-? ???)

If you can I would say that we were witnessing rapid evolution...


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Well now you change the parameters of the argument. You stated that tilapia only "thrive" where water parameters mimic their natural environment. Now you ask for a natural occurrence otherwise. Introductions worldwide of tilapine species are extremely common. How can you discount man-made introductions. Many tilapine species have been used in fish farming for thousands of years. They are like chickens. :lol:

The definiton of thrive is.

To grow vigorously
To make steady progress; prosper
To grow vigorously; flourish

This is not the best word to be using..

Tilapia have been seen breeding in salt water as have a few CA cichlids, namely mayans and black belts. Salt water fish farms are being studied now, using tilapia!

The family cichlidae is very diverse and many species do not need coddling. I am not breeding rams or discus, the water parameters are not an issue. They are living in the exact same ground water that the whole county uses.

I understand that a mbuna biotope would be a different story.


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

I did not change the parameters of the argument and thrive is the perfect word to use.

The reason I discounted man-made introductions is because most in the scientific community frown upon that not only because most species that are introduced somewhere end up becoming a problem (no predation, etc) but also because it isn't particularly the best for the fish themselves if the environment doesn't match their native conditions.

As far as I know the various _Vieja_ that can are only capable of living _temporarily_ under such conditions and more often than not are found (when found short distances into open water) in places where there are river deltas that are putting out large volumes of fresh water...

As for Tilapia - I'll just concede and take your word that they can naturally invade salt water environments even though I can't find any information backing that up.

***EDITED TO ADD***

As for the word "thrive":
(as per Merriam-Webster online)
1 : to grow vigorously : flourish 
2 : to gain in wealth or possessions : prosper 
3 : to progress toward or realize a goal despite or because of circumstances â€"often used with on<thrives>

In a dictionary (I'm not sure if you know this) a colon between parts of a definition takes the place of the word "and," so:

1 : to grow vigorously & flourish 
2 : to gain in wealth or possessions & prosper 
3 : to progress toward or realize a goal despite or because of circumstances â€"often used with on<thrives>

Therefore, I'm really using definitions 1B and 2B; flourish and prosper are completely valid with my reasoning and argument.


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

Add all of this to the fact that cichlids from different areas have evolved to defend againt only certain types of attacks and attack in certain types of ways that may not be defendable for another species... The way they behave is completely different and they (if not for any other reason) should not be kept together if they can't peacefully coexist at a mature age.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

I have no idea if Tilapia can "naturally" invade anywhere.
My point was that some species can flourish there. Man has introduced tilapia all over the world. Why does a man-made introduction lower the value of their survival skills?

Your reasons for discounting them.... The fact is they are introduced. A frown will not change the facts. :thumb:


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

Man has introduced them in these places to raise as food. To raise as food does not require health or comfort of the food itself. In many cases these animals actually suffer to a degree because the environment is not ideal and in many other cases the animal itself has been genetically altered to cope with the new conditions...

Is it the best thing for humanity to have food that doesn't come from natural populations? Yes. 
Is it the best thing to make animals suffer unduly that we won't eventually eat? No.

***EDITED TO ADD***

Anyone else have an opinion?


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

wmayes said:


> Man has introduced them in these places to raise as food. To raise as food does not require health or comfort of the food itself. In many cases these animals actually suffer to a degree because the environment is not ideal and in many other cases the animal itself has been genetically altered to cope with the new conditions...
> *
> Is it the best thing for humanity to have food that doesn't come from natural populations? Yes.*
> Is it the best thing to make animals suffer unduly that we won't eventually eat? No.
> ...


What makes you believe this?


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

Common sense.

Read it again:


> Is it the best thing for humanity to have food that doesn't come from natural populations? Yes.


This makes sense completely _and_ is relevant to the topic.

Basically what I'm saying is that I applaud those that are creating an artificial habitat to grow food in so that the massive human populations that live in poverty have something to eat (It's good for humanity) AND it's good for the natural populations of those particular food staples because they are not being depleted.

I'm also saying that for that purpose it doesn't matter whether the fish live in optimum conditions because they just end up being food anyway (mainly because of the food industry's reputation for only doing the bare minimum to get past health code regulations).

With this comment -


> Is it the best thing to make animals suffer unduly that we won't eventually eat? No.


- I compare your fish to what you would eat.

Are you going to eat your fish? No. So, since you are playing God, why not keep them in the conditions that they would prefer?


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

For what it's worth here's my 2 cents. You both make very valid points, however IMO they are circumstancial. For instance the majority of fish from the average LFS is the result of countless generations of captive breeding. Most of these fish and there parents and grand parents have never lived in the wild and their normal habitat is a breeding tank and water parameters are what ever the local water parameters are. On the flip side , putting a wild Discus into a Tang. set up is asking for disaster and will most likely result in a dead discus. We can also say that a wild Frontosa placed in a black water set up will have the same effect on the Frontosa. Captive bred fish on the other hand aren't nearly so picky and will do well in a wide variety of water conditions. 
For the mimicing of native waters for tilapia , well they're doing well in south Florida along side the oscars and peacock bass so something has to be said for the adaptability of all the afore mentioned species. 
Introducing non native species for food isn't always as good of an idea as it sounds . The introduction of Nile perch into lake Victoria for instance has lead to the decimation of many species of native cichlids. 


> So, since you are playing God, why not keep them in the conditions that they would prefer?


If the fish being kept are captive raised then it's likely that placing them into water that mimics where the fish come from is infact now an alien environment. We cant just assume that your run of the mill red zebra is going to do well in water conditions it or its parents have never encountered . In that circumstance we have to adapt the fish to its "normal water parameters".


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

Good points :thumb:

I still think that putting the fish in the conditions that they have evolved over thousands of years to live in is a wiser choice.


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

> I still think that putting the fish in the conditions that they have evolved over thousands of years to live in is a wiser choice


For the most part I agree with this but captive breeding in a way is evolution, it's us though that guides the selection. Breeders choose fish that are the best looking most hardy and in some cicumstances have traits that in nature would be a detriment but in the world of fish keeping are a benificial mutation. What nature culls we keep. The more hardy and adaptable a fish is the better and that trait gets passed down and reinforce in successive generations untill we get fish that thrive in conditions that their ancestors would go belly up in. We by breeding these fish for the industry are in effect fast trcking evolution for our own purposes.


----------



## terd ferguson (Jul 31, 2007)

wmayes said:


> Good points :thumb:
> 
> I still think that putting the fish in the conditions that they have evolved over thousands of years to live in is a wiser choice.


I'm late to all this disucssion, but Charles Darwin found out that evolution can cause physical changes to occur in as little as one season. In his case, it was birds. A certain kind of plant that certain short beaked birds liked to eat died off in the Galapagos. Their beaks grew much longer in order to get seeds from different type of plant. This occured very rapidly. I'm not sure if this applies to fish or not. But, regardless, evolution doesn't have to take thousands of years. And besides, and as has been said previously, LFS fishes have been aquaria bred for generations upon generations. With evolution proven to occur so rapidly, I would argue that a lot of the more popular cichlids would probably be better off in "regular" city type water.

I, like OceanDevil, have found that it's more trouble to try and change your local water chemistry other than dechlorinating. I keep my mbuna and my CA/SA's in local city tap water with a rather neutral ph. Most city water systems change additives very often (sometimes daily according to the water company test results) and the fishkeeper trying to alter this water is always playing catch up. Fishes can suffer from constantly different water chemistry. In my opinion, water chemistry stability is a better option with all but the most fragile species.

With my opinion registered, I'd just like to add that everyone has made excellent points. :thumb:


----------



## wmayes (Oct 22, 2007)

I think you just put a nice end on a very good thread. :wink:


----------



## jack lover (Aug 12, 2008)

nice setup :thumb:


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

wmayes said:


> Common sense.
> 
> Read it again:
> 
> ...


You have to feed those fish. I don't know why you are advocating fish farms. They serve a purpose as a business but will solve no long term problems. Using natural food resources is better in so many ways. The natural environment is much more complex and supports a wider range of life. A farm is weak and dominated by a few species. They are open to disease, which in turn leads to heavy chemical use. I don't know man its a nasty circle.


----------



## OceanDevil (Jul 17, 2005)

Joels fish said:


> > I still think that putting the fish in the conditions that they have evolved over thousands of years to live in is a wiser choice
> 
> 
> For the most part I agree with this but captive breeding in a way is evolution, it's us though that guides the selection. Breeders choose fish that are the best looking most hardy and in some cicumstances have traits that in nature would be a detriment but in the world of fish keeping are a benificial mutation. What nature culls we keep. The more hardy and adaptable a fish is the better and that trait gets passed down and reinforce in successive generations untill we get fish that thrive in conditions that their ancestors would go belly up in. We by breeding these fish for the industry are in effect fast trcking evolution for our own purposes.


Line breeding, selective breeding... all the tools of humans to change and adapt our plants and animals to better suit our needs. Some of the common food crops are completely different from the wild stock which they came.

There was a quote somewhere saying that selective breeding will be the most powerful tool for genetic modification for years to come.

It is sure the simplest, using the organisms own method of reproduction to our ends. Its perfect.


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

> There was a quote somewhere saying that selective breeding will be the most powerful tool for genetic modification for years to come.
> 
> It is sure the simplest, using the organisms own method of reproduction to our ends. Its perfect.


Yes it is . 
I do have to agree that stable water parameters are way more important to our fishes health than trying to maintain conditions of some body of water on the other side of the planet. Coming from N. Texas myself , I know all too well how hard it can be to try to create those "natural" conditions with tap water that comes out of the faucet with a ph of 8 and hardness close to concrete. Great if you like rift valley fish , terrible if you like SA cichlids. The more I messed around with it the worse of I was . It was much better to just let it be . My fish did much better after that.


----------

