Geophagus without sand

[WhistlingBadger]

I believe Byron and Malfunction both have valid points, here, and I think they are presenting two sides of the same coin.

The difficulty is twofold: First, keeping a fish in a glass box is an inherently unnatural situation; at best we are simulating a natural environment, not recreating it, and we are unable to provide every factor to which a wild-caught fish is accustomed (nearly unlimited space being the most obvious example). So, there are questions of degree in how far we go in our efforts to recreate this natural habitat, from gigantic tanks set up as strict biotopes to more practically sized boxes with fake plants and spongebob decor. Both can raise healthy and happy fish. Where we draw the line gets out of the realm of scientific fact and into the realm of opinion.

Which brings me to the second difficulty: What exactly do the fish consider "essential." Most common aquarium fish occur in a variety of habitats and are at least somewhat adaptable. There are exceptions, of course, species that only occupy very small, very specific habitats. But most animals enjoy a certain level of adaptability. I have seen brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) thriving in tiny, torrential, stone bottomed mountain streams; in large, boulder-strewn rivers; in driftwood choked, muck-bottomed beaver ponds; and in sand-bottomed, wide-open lakes with very little if any underwater structure. So what do they consider essential? All of their habitats have very cold, very clear, very clean, highly oxygenated water with plentiful macroinvertebrates for food. So any habitat I provide for them had better have those things too, or the fish aren't going to be as healthy as they could be. On the other hand, if I provide those things, I can almost certainly leave out the boulders and drift logs in lieu of spongebob decorations and fake castles, and the fish will behave naturally and be as happy as fishies are capable of being.

I've never kept geophagus, so I can't speak to them from experience. Speaking for myself, I don't see any reason not to keep them on sand, and if I had a strong dislike of sand in my tanks, I would simply look for a different species. The guy in Jurassic park made a point valid to our hobby: "T-rex doesn't want to be fed. He wants to hunt." Maybe the same applies to geos. "Geo doesn't want to be fed. He wants to sift."

 

[GaryE]

We always loop back around to the elephant in my room, at least. Should we even keep fish captive?

We have the debates between ornamental fishkeeping, and behaviour fishkeeping. There's no side going to 'win' there. They're different views.

Humans and fish are very alike, in that we have a lot of hard-wired behaviour, and needs. We can change what they eat - many good fishkeepers will give them prepared foods, for example. How they eat can be changed too. I think Geophagus hit a nerve because their name says so much - eartheaters. Personally, I have no clue why anyone wouldn't want to watch why they got their name, but many people do things I don't appreciate, and that's life.

@Byron has really good arguments that often make me wonder why I keep fish at all, but I get the motivation. @malfunction has good points too. The difference is philosophical and not set in stone (except geology is a big part of fish evolution, etc). Where you stand comes down to what you have concluded about the hobby.

You can stop here - I'm going philosophical on you!

I know people who keep ugly brown fish and adore them because they show mysterious behaviour that reflects ancient habitats, and I know people who keep glofish. In between is a lot of ground, all of it shared to a degree.

I've spent the past couple of years squirreling away money from side work to travel. In a few weeks, I'll be on a fish collecting expedition in Africa, helping some researchers look for species that will expand our knowledge of a region not often fished except for food. I'm the amateur, and I do want to bring fish home (all permits etc are in place). Pretty fish? You bet. I know what others have found in the region, and have been given good info on where things are and where other unknown things might be. If I bring fish back, I expect a mix of homely but interesting species and vividly coloured ones. I expect to have a brainfull of observations on their habitats, feeding, distribution etc. The world is the best fishbook out there.

The scientists will be doing the valuable work with what we find. Their work will be there for others in the future to learn from. I'm a hobbyist - I'll be no better or worse than a person who grabs the tackle box and goes hunting for bass in the local lake. I'm just a guy going fishing. If I bring back "new" species, I feel an obligation to make videos, write blogs and articles, and share what I've learned in case anyone is interested. I'll try to breed them and spread them in the hobby. I'll document habitats because I think they should be kept in as close to nature as we can manage. What happens after that is nothing I can influence. In hobby terms, how different is what I'm doing than someone who goes to a new store, or travels to an aquarium convention? It's all in what we want to take or learn from our interests.

I do know there is a Genus of Cichlids there that behave a lot like Geophagus, as sand sifting detritus eaters. It's going to be really interesting to see if I can find long bare glass bottomed creeks out there in the jungle, under pellet dispensing trees. I'll take lots of pictures if I do.

 

[anewbie]

To deprive a fish of what it considers essential is cruel and inhumane. Period. You cannot ever rely on anything in a fish store when it comes to their tanks. Permanent housing at home for the entire life of the fish is a very different matter. Do your research, and be prepared to provide what the fish needs.

I'm not sure i agree with this comment; while i personally plan on using pool filter sand with my geo when i setup the 450 up next month; to relate to fishes in human terms i believe is inappropriate. The fish evolution and behavior is based off of their natural habitat; does not mean that (in all cases) the fish suffers in human terms by being placed in a different environment. After all in the unnatural environment they are being provided a home without predators and food that is readily available. To carry your statement to an extreme providing geo a food that does not require sand shifting would in-itself be cruel and inhumane.

Having said that i am not implying that geo will live ok without sand but if it is demonstrated that in an environment without sand they can readily feed and not suffer ill health or disease over long period of time so be it.