My first tank

[Treestone]

First on the loaches, Botia almorhae (commonly called Yo Yo and various other names). All species of Botia are highly social fish; they must have a group of at least five, and they will develop a clear hierarchy very rapidly so the group should always be acquired together; there will be some in-fighting though not damaging if the fish are maintained in a group of at least five and there are numerous hiding places in the aquarium.

The above is an inherent "expectation" programmed into the species' DNA. It is cruel and inhumane to deny the fish what they need. I am not casting aspersions on the OP, as fish stores are regrettably unreliable with accurate information, and we all probably learned this the hard way. But to set the record straight, for others reading this thread and taking away "information," this is a shoaling fish and it needs a group. Denied this, it has two courses of action; become more aggressive, or withdraw and die. And before someone says it, watching these two fish swimming and eating does not mean they are "happy;" they are not.

Second on the GH issue. This is important for the long-term husbandry of the fish if we want the fish to be healthy and live a normal life. Pushing a species into an artificial number range for GH, etc, can be troublesome to say the least. I prefer to work in generalities. Fish from natural habitats where the water is very soft will be more likely to live a normal and healthy life in such water. Fish do not adapt to different water parameters, at least not in the sense the myths in this hobby would suggest. There are always exceptions, but a good general maxim is to research the habitat waters and provide reasonably close parameters. Some species have a wider tolerance than others, and when one looks into the species' habitats and geographical range this becomes somewhat clearer why it is the case. But it does not apply across the board, it is the exception rather than the rule.

Each species of freshwater fish has evolved over thousands of years to function within a very limited environment. The physiology functions well within that environment, and as soon as the environment changes, the fish is affected. Different species and differing conditions play into this, but it takes its toll on the fish. Livebearers will never live normal lives in soft water. Soft water species will not live normal lives in water than is significantly harder that what their physiology is designed to deal with, in order to maintain the every-day life functions. The farther away from the fish's preferences, the harder it must work just to exist. And this adds stress which weakens the fish in other ways, and always results in a shorter than expected lifespan.

I agree you shouldn't keep acidophiles in hard water and vice versa, yet this isn't a line we're talking about, there is a large grey area between the extremes 6.0 - 8.0. Then again you have to account for the range at which the species occur, the larger the range generally the more varied conditions they live in. Because of this when wild fish are collected, fishkeepers test the water to be able to replicate in the aquarium. Different locations have different water parameters. With species such as Ancistrus sp. whose range is very large, there may be significant changes between localities. Furthermore commercially bred fish are subject to new parameters again, far different from their wild counterparts. Bristlenose' have been bred in hard water for many, many years despite them coming from South America which has now been generalised as having soft water. People have similarly had success with Cherry barbs in hard, high pH water and soft, low pH water conditions. With so many similar species (especially ones more common among beginners) I'd call this a large exception.

But even then what would be considered within an acidophiles range. How far out those the hardness has to be to have a negative effect on the species in question.

Finally, I believe far too much criticism is focused on hardness in this forum and that many more beginner focussed fish (such as OP owns) are adaptable to a much wider range.

 

[PheonixKingZ]

too much criticism is focused

Too much criticism? We here on TFF try our best to give people the correct information, in order to keep their fish happy and healthy - even if they don't want to hear it...

I don't view it as criticism, I view it as correction.

 

[PhantomCarp]

Too much criticism? We here on TFF try our best to give people the correct information, in order to keep their fish happy and healthy - even if they don't want to hear it...

I don't view it as criticism, I view it as correction.

Yes constructive criticism to help them in the long run.

 

[FishFinatic77]

I agree with @PheonixKingZ. Why let people keep fish in unsuitable conditions just because they are beginners? Why not teach them how to properly care for their fish right away? It's not criticism we're giving them. We're telling them what is wrong and how to fix it.

 

[Byron]

There is sufficient evidence of the effect of water parameters on the welfare of fish that it cannot be ignored if we care about the well being of the fish. Back in the 1980's a study in Germany on the effect of hard water on Paracheirodon axelrodi reported in TFH found that the life span of the fish was related to the GH of the water. In very soft water the fish lived up to a decade, but as the GH was increased, the lifespan decreased. Necropsy of the dead fish revealed death had been caused by calcium blockage in the kidneys, and the higher the GH the worse the condition showed.

The fact that professional ichthyologists and marine biologists do not accept "adaptation" across species should tell us something. While it can occur in some fish, it seems to be a facet of that particular species related to its particular evolution. The fact that very soft water species may spawn in harder water (many will not, but some do) does not mean they are not being negatively affected. The green citation in my signature block is something all of us should keep in mind.

Beginning hobbyists can easily be discouraged by fish deaths. Ensuring the environmental needs of the fish are met is key to healthy fish, and this should be the goal of every aquarist.

 

[Treestone]

There is sufficient evidence of the effect of water parameters on the welfare of fish that it cannot be ignored if we care about the well being of the fish. Back in the 1980's a study in Germany on the effect of hard water on Paracheirodon axelrodi reported in TFH found that the life span of the fish was related to the GH of the water. In very soft water the fish lived up to a decade, but as the GH was increased, the lifespan decreased. Necropsy of the dead fish revealed death had been caused by calcium blockage in the kidneys, and the higher the GH the worse the condition showed.

The fact that professional ichthyologists and marine biologists do not accept "adaptation" across species should tell us something. While it can occur in some fish, it seems to be a facet of that particular species related to its particular evolution. The fact that very soft water species may spawn in harder water (many will not, but some do) does not mean they are not being negatively affected. The green citation in my signature block is something all of us should keep in mind.

Beginning hobbyists can easily be discouraged by fish deaths. Ensuring the environmental needs of the fish are met is key to healthy fish, and this should be the goal of every aquarist.

Yes, cardinal tetras would definitely be negatively affected in hard water as a hardcore acidophile, like how julies, alkaliphiles would struggle in soft water, but we're still communicating in extremes. In the context of this thread and many other similar ones is it not possible for dwarf gourami to thrive within that hardness? Extremes aside, many of the common beginner fish (of these), botia, many easier gouramis, some tetras (silvertip, pristella), danios, Ancistrus, barbs, which the most common species can survive in less specialised ranges.

 

[Salty&Onion]

Having fish in the wrong hardness of water is like people eating a high fat diet, you can live with it and even enjoy the food but in time it will cost you your health and even shorten your life.

Or kill too.

 

[Byron]

Yes, cardinal tetras would definitely be negatively affected in hard water as a hardcore acidophile, like how julies, alkaliphiles would struggle in soft water, but we're still communicating in extremes. In the context of this thread and many other similar ones is it not possible for dwarf gourami to thrive within that hardness? Extremes aside, many of the common beginner fish (of these), botia, many easier gouramis, some tetras (silvertip, pristella), danios, Ancistrus, barbs, which the most common species can survive in less specialised ranges.

This discussion began because some members were getting the impression from earlier posts that GH did not really matter much. There was also the issue of the loaches requiring a group that you denied. My post #28 attempted in general terms to point out why these perceptions are inaccurate, and having re-read it I see nothing there that I would change because it is correct as I understand fish physiology.

In my post #28 I specifically noted that categorizing a species into our artificial GH ranges was difficult and not really the answer. And yes the fish mentioned in this present post have more flexibility. But that has its limits.

 

[Treestone]

This discussion began because some members were getting the impression from earlier posts that GH did not really matter much. There was also the issue of the loaches requiring a group that you denied. My post #28 attempted in general terms to point out why these perceptions are inaccurate, and having re-read it I see nothing there that I would change because it is correct as I understand fish physiology.

In my post #28 I specifically noted that categorizing a species into our artificial GH ranges was difficult and not really the answer. And yes the fish mentioned in this present post have more flexibility. But that has its limits.

To clarify I didn't deny that they require groups, I denied that tank was too small for a group. I think a 1m long 182l tank is the minimum for the yoyo loaches but the OP has not shared the dimensions. It may work, may not. As for the hardness thing, I think we are saying the exact same thing, arguing over nothing. It's still questionable the range of a species which you have acknowledged, just no extremes should be attempted.

Just an observation that hardness seems to be a reoccurring topic in this forum. pH and KH are just as important in maintaining an ecosystem, excluding nitrogen. Just make sure the criticism is constructive. Possibly the OP should ask for constructive criticism.

As you probably have noticed the OP has not been active on this too much as this thread turned into a bit of a cluster**** (sorry mods if that ain't cool) of a debate which is largely my fault. Sorry OP, I hope you've gotten something good out of this.

 

[Retired Viking]

Well it has been an interesting debate with both sides presenting their viewpoint. It is nice to see that we can disagree on this forum without ending up calling each other names.

 

[FishGuest5123]

Too much criticism? We here on TFF try our best to give people the correct information, in order to keep their fish happy and healthy - even if they don't want to hear it...

I don't view it as criticism, I view it as correction.

Yes, but it’s HOW you say it.