This is only true if the GH and KH are quite low. The GH and KH both affect the pH. And since GH has more direct effect on fish, it is the primary parameter of the three.
Yoyos and Barbs Eating Veggies
- Thread starter Circus
- Start date
This is only true if the GH and KH are quite low. The GH and KH both affect the pH. And since GH has more direct effect on fish, it is the primary parameter of the three.
The individual who posted that video on Youtube should be arrested and charged with causing detriment to the ecosystem. But I doubt the government of the country cares much. The species being released are not native to this river system. Dozens of people have posted the same under the video on YouTube.
It is ignorant people like this individual that harms our hobby and gives credence to those who are calling for an end to the hobby.
It is ignorant people like this individual that harms our hobby and gives credence to those who are calling for an end to the hobby.
Last edited:
That is the substrate where wild yoyo are found but if you read further you will find:
A natural-style arrangement could include a substrate of sand or fine gravel with lots of smooth, water-worn rocks and pebbles plus driftwood roots and branches.
Give me links you already found
Absolutely
Ifalso housing little jewels like Paracheirodon axelrodi you will need to add plants.
You already provided the link just read further down....Give me links you already found
Absolutely
Ifalso housing little jewels like Paracheirodon axelrodi you will need to add plants.
I read it many times and as I said it many times I always have a basis for natural habitat parameters and set up. I believe in atavism.
You make me
Botia "yoyo loach" almorhae needs rocky ground.
Bolivian Mikrogeophagus needs fine sand or mud.
Ancistrus sp. likes sand so that it buries inside.
Less important for Cardinal tetra, leerii. barbs.
Provide evidence that botid loaches need rocky substrate, and what harm sand with rocks can possibly cause.
What is this meant to prove?? Byron already showed you why it does nothing for your argument, and how harmful the person in this video is to the environment.
Give me links you already found
As @anewbie already said, your own link. To Seriously Fish, a respected site. I'll quote it for you, just in case;
"
All botiids need a well-structured set-up although the actual choice of décor is more-or-less down to personal taste.
A natural-style arrangement could include a substrate of sand or fine gravel with lots of smooth, water-worn rocks and pebbles plus driftwood roots and branches."
So even when proven that they don't need a rocky substrate, by your own source no less - that they're not suffering any harm or ill-effects, nor being prevented from practicing any natural behaviour, you're still going to use it as an excuse to nitpick at @Circus 's set up?
So it isn't about the welfare of her fish at all. It's about never admitting to being wrong, or expecting all of us to perfectly replicate natural habitats, with no room for the slightest variation, no matter how harmless.
Myraan
Fishaholic
PFK magazine usually has an article where an explorer/collector will go to a natural with nets and cameras. They nearly always comment during the article how surprised they are at the variety of habitats various fish are found in when compared to the received wisdom of what hobbyists say they need.
Not my own source. Source of everybody wants to read as Seriously Fish, PlanetCatfish for example.
Any link on this goldmine of information ?
Which again, says that they can also live on a sand substrate. Yet you're still arguing that it's wrong.
Myraan
Fishaholic
I couldn't find the article I remember reading about that wild C.aenus are observed in their thousands living over a massive variety of substrates from mud to flat slate, in a fairly large range of pH, gH and temperature. I did find a few articles describing the massive seasonal changes to habits such as the pantanel, but they don't discuss species commonly seen in shops so you would not consider them as valid proof of your point. My point is that at any given time the conditions a wild fish are in may not be ideal; we cannot as a result know the conditions a fish does best in without guessing, experience or experimentation.
I apologise if I am misunderstanding but you seem to imply that the middle of any range quoted on a species page of Seriously Fish is the exact biotope that fish is always found in and therefore those are the conditions it "needs". Organisms in nature may not be happy they are just doing better in a niche that may be stressful for them than their competitors. Human Beings are adapted to live in tropical deserts, but we are not necessarily healthy and happy when we live in them, we are just manage to do it (through evolved intelligence largely) better than most other animals.
I apologise if I am misunderstanding but you seem to imply that the middle of any range quoted on a species page of Seriously Fish is the exact biotope that fish is always found in and therefore those are the conditions it "needs". Organisms in nature may not be happy they are just doing better in a niche that may be stressful for them than their competitors. Human Beings are adapted to live in tropical deserts, but we are not necessarily healthy and happy when we live in them, we are just manage to do it (through evolved intelligence largely) better than most other animals.
Seriously Fish, FishBase, Fishipedia, Planet Catfish, Corydoras World (charged but considering the amount of knowledge, it worth it) are amongts the best sources of information, so yes, as said above and many other times, I always relied on what the natural habitat parameters and set up of the fish source of info indicates.
I also said to never target the "extrems" that is to say the lowest tolerated or the highest tolerated, but target the average parameters, best way to avoid mistake(s).
I believe in atavism : a leopard cannot change its spots.
I agree.... without forgetting "our" fishes are captive and didn't ask for anything, all the more reason to take enough time to refine their "prison".
Myraan
Fishaholic
Ok, I didn't misunderstand you....
The leopard incidentley does change its spots when living in dark environments, its melanistic form is more successful, though I admit that proves your point more than mine. Leopards are ridiculously common compared to the other big cats because they are "happy" in such varying conditions.
When I read sites like Seriously Fish it seems obvious the range of conditions to keep fish common in the hobby is based on decades of aquarist literature where breeding success was had rather than a perhaps unknowable preferred parameter. And if we rely on the parameters that wild specimens are found in, well which particular article will you decide on? Most wild tetras live in such bad parameters in the wild they are functionally an annual fish. Bettas are found in stagnant puddles both in the wild and in captivity, yet when it happens in captivity the keeper is (rightly) disapproved of.
That said, I think I agree that extremes are most safely avoided, but how bad an extreme might be likely varies depending on the particular fish in question.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
236 -
206 -
200 -
166 -
165 -
151 -
144 -
131 -
103 -
99 -
97 -
89 -
87 -
83 -
71