Fish per gallons?

[MarAzul]

Okay, so when I first got into the hobby as a kid the standard was 1 fish
per gallon. When I got back into 2-3 years ago I find now it goes by the
actual size of the fish. If I have it figured out correctly by this
standard, in a 10 gallon tank I could have: 10 1 inch fish, 5 2 inch fish,
etc.. Is that about right? Because this leads me to my next question.. Where
do the decorations figure into that equation? I mean, if you have a heavily
planted tank, it would seem like you couldn't have as many fish. Same thing
if the majority of your tank space was taken up by rocks/caves, etc...

Anyway, I'm just curious and my brain won't let me sleep when it's like
this.. :)

Mar
------------------------------------------------
"I meant," said Ipslore, bitterly,"what is there in this world that makes
living worthwhile?"

Death thought about it.
"Cats," he said eventually, "Cats are nice."

-Terry Pratchett, 'Sourcery'

[Gail Futoran]

"MarAzul" > wrote in message
news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
> Okay, so when I first got into the hobby as a kid the
standard was 1 fish
> per gallon. When I got back into 2-3 years ago I find now
it goes by the
> actual size of the fish. If I have it figured out
correctly by this
> standard, in a 10 gallon tank I could have: 10 1 inch
fish, 5 2 inch fish,
> etc.. Is that about right? Because this leads me to my
next question.. Where
> do the decorations figure into that equation? I mean, if
you have a heavily
> planted tank, it would seem like you couldn't have as many
fish. Same thing
> if the majority of your tank space was taken up by
rocks/caves, etc...
>
> Anyway, I'm just curious and my brain won't let me sleep
when it's like
> this.. :)
>
> Mar

I go by surface area more than by gallons, but in your case
you would presumably consider only the actual amount of
water in the tank. Decorations, gravel, etc. reduce the
space for water.

Here's a different way to stocking you might find helpful.
I don't know how the experts feel about this system of
calculating stocking, but I prefer it.

http://www.thetropicaltank.co.uk/tanks-us.htm

Gail

[NetMax]

"MarAzul" > wrote in message
news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
> Okay, so when I first got into the hobby as a kid the standard was 1
fish
> per gallon. When I got back into 2-3 years ago I find now it goes by
the
> actual size of the fish. If I have it figured out correctly by this
> standard, in a 10 gallon tank I could have: 10 1 inch fish, 5 2 inch
fish,
> etc.. Is that about right? Because this leads me to my next question..
Where
> do the decorations figure into that equation? I mean, if you have a
heavily
> planted tank, it would seem like you couldn't have as many fish. Same
thing
> if the majority of your tank space was taken up by rocks/caves, etc...
>
> Anyway, I'm just curious and my brain won't let me sleep when it's like
> this.. :)
>
> Mar

The 1"(without the tail) per gallon guideline applies loosely to medium
bodied fish, principally for biological loading. Smaller fish (ie:Neons)
or larger bodied fish (ie: Oscars) don't fit the guideline. The
guideline is actually more properly applied to the fish's mass, rather
than it's length, but estimating grams of weight would be futile ;~).
The most relevant method, (as it's a biological load calculation) is to
look at the amount of food going into a tank. Two fish fed twice a day
would have the same biological load as 4 fish fed once a day. This
loading guideline let you pick the right filter, because the manufacturer
assumes that you are around the guideline, so filters are sized to the
approximate waste generated by a normal fish-load being fed 2 or 3 times
a day. Extra fish can often be compensated for by extra filtration.

The cautions are i) territory (some fish like to be crowded, others not)
and ii) your safety margin in the event of a power failure. A crowded
tank will exhaust the available oxygen more quickly, and without
aeration, the fish could begin dying off.

Using the surface area to decide the number of fish is probably the
oldest method, based on the rate of oxygenation at the surface (more
surface = more oxygen replenishment), however with modern 24/7 aeration,
this guideline has become less useful. For non-filtered tanks, the
surface calculation is critical. There is also the widely different
metabolism of fish. A very active Silver Dollar will use 4 times more
oxygen than a similarly sized pleco, who can actually gulp air for
oxygen.

Substrate, rocks, plants, decorations etc take away from the swimming
area and the total volume of water. If territorial requirements are your
constraint, it might increase your fish load. If swimming area is your
constraint, then it reduces your fish load. If you are using surface
calculation, it has no effect (on paper). If you are using volume as
your constraint, then everything except the plants reduces your fish load
(plants are O2 neutral, but biologically positive, as they remove waste
products from the fish).

confused yet ? ;~)

Two things which will maximize your fish load are:
i) layering the fish, top-feeders, mid-water and then bottom-feeders, &
ii) respect their territorial requirements, (maximum load is usually
achieved with a species tank of community fish)

So, generally, you can have more fish, by having less species, and then
more of each (ie: schoolers, shoalers, community fish), or until you hit
the territorial ceiling.

You should be able to sleep now, if I haven't already put you to sleep
;~)

NetMax

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Fish per gallons?
>From: "NetMax"
>Date: 1/28/2004 5:37 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >

(Not copying post)
Very nicely done NetMax!

[MarAzul]

So basically, what you're say is that it varies.. :) Great info.. thanks..
:)

Mar
------------------------------------------------
"I meant," said Ipslore, bitterly,"what is there in this world that makes
living worthwhile?"

Death thought about it.
"Cats," he said eventually, "Cats are nice."

-Terry Pratchett, 'Sourcery'
>
> The 1"(without the tail) per gallon guideline applies loosely to medium
> bodied fish, principally for biological loading. Smaller fish (ie:Neons)
> or larger bodied fish (ie: Oscars) don't fit the guideline. The
> guideline is actually more properly applied to the fish's mass, rather
> than it's length, but estimating grams of weight would be futile ;~).
> The most relevant method, (as it's a biological load calculation) is to
> look at the amount of food going into a tank. Two fish fed twice a day
> would have the same biological load as 4 fish fed once a day. This
> loading guideline let you pick the right filter, because the manufacturer
> assumes that you are around the guideline, so filters are sized to the
> approximate waste generated by a normal fish-load being fed 2 or 3 times
> a day. Extra fish can often be compensated for by extra filtration.
>
> The cautions are i) territory (some fish like to be crowded, others not)
> and ii) your safety margin in the event of a power failure. A crowded
> tank will exhaust the available oxygen more quickly, and without
> aeration, the fish could begin dying off.
>
> Using the surface area to decide the number of fish is probably the
> oldest method, based on the rate of oxygenation at the surface (more
> surface = more oxygen replenishment), however with modern 24/7 aeration,
> this guideline has become less useful. For non-filtered tanks, the
> surface calculation is critical. There is also the widely different
> metabolism of fish. A very active Silver Dollar will use 4 times more
> oxygen than a similarly sized pleco, who can actually gulp air for
> oxygen.
>
> Substrate, rocks, plants, decorations etc take away from the swimming
> area and the total volume of water. If territorial requirements are your
> constraint, it might increase your fish load. If swimming area is your
> constraint, then it reduces your fish load. If you are using surface
> calculation, it has no effect (on paper). If you are using volume as
> your constraint, then everything except the plants reduces your fish load
> (plants are O2 neutral, but biologically positive, as they remove waste
> products from the fish).
>
> confused yet ? ;~)
>
> Two things which will maximize your fish load are:
> i) layering the fish, top-feeders, mid-water and then bottom-feeders, &
> ii) respect their territorial requirements, (maximum load is usually
> achieved with a species tank of community fish)
>
> So, generally, you can have more fish, by having less species, and then
> more of each (ie: schoolers, shoalers, community fish), or until you hit
> the territorial ceiling.
>
> You should be able to sleep now, if I haven't already put you to sleep
> ;~)
>
> NetMax
>
>

[Dick]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
> wrote:

>
>"MarAzul" > wrote in message
>news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
>> Okay, so when I first got into the hobby as a kid the standard was 1
>fish
>> per gallon. When I got back into 2-3 years ago I find now it goes by
>the
>> actual size of the fish. If I have it figured out correctly by this
>> standard, in a 10 gallon tank I could have: 10 1 inch fish, 5 2 inch
>fish,
>> etc.. Is that about right? Because this leads me to my next question..
>Where
>> do the decorations figure into that equation? I mean, if you have a
>heavily
>> planted tank, it would seem like you couldn't have as many fish. Same
>thing
>> if the majority of your tank space was taken up by rocks/caves, etc...
>>
>> Anyway, I'm just curious and my brain won't let me sleep when it's like
>> this.. :)
>>
>> Mar
>
>The 1"(without the tail) per gallon guideline applies loosely to medium
>bodied fish, principally for biological loading. Smaller fish (ie:Neons)
>or larger bodied fish (ie: Oscars) don't fit the guideline. The
>guideline is actually more properly applied to the fish's mass, rather
>than it's length, but estimating grams of weight would be futile ;~).
>The most relevant method, (as it's a biological load calculation) is to
>look at the amount of food going into a tank. Two fish fed twice a day
>would have the same biological load as 4 fish fed once a day. This
>loading guideline let you pick the right filter, because the manufacturer
>assumes that you are around the guideline, so filters are sized to the
>approximate waste generated by a normal fish-load being fed 2 or 3 times
>a day. Extra fish can often be compensated for by extra filtration.
>
>The cautions are i) territory (some fish like to be crowded, others not)
>and ii) your safety margin in the event of a power failure. A crowded
>tank will exhaust the available oxygen more quickly, and without
>aeration, the fish could begin dying off.
>
>Using the surface area to decide the number of fish is probably the
>oldest method, based on the rate of oxygenation at the surface (more
>surface = more oxygen replenishment), however with modern 24/7 aeration,
>this guideline has become less useful. For non-filtered tanks, the
>surface calculation is critical. There is also the widely different
>metabolism of fish. A very active Silver Dollar will use 4 times more
>oxygen than a similarly sized pleco, who can actually gulp air for
>oxygen.
>
>Substrate, rocks, plants, decorations etc take away from the swimming
>area and the total volume of water. If territorial requirements are your
>constraint, it might increase your fish load. If swimming area is your
>constraint, then it reduces your fish load. If you are using surface
>calculation, it has no effect (on paper). If you are using volume as
>your constraint, then everything except the plants reduces your fish load
>(plants are O2 neutral, but biologically positive, as they remove waste
>products from the fish).
>
>confused yet ? ;~)
>
>Two things which will maximize your fish load are:
>i) layering the fish, top-feeders, mid-water and then bottom-feeders, &
>ii) respect their territorial requirements, (maximum load is usually
>achieved with a species tank of community fish)
>
>So, generally, you can have more fish, by having less species, and then
>more of each (ie: schoolers, shoalers, community fish), or until you hit
>the territorial ceiling.
>
>You should be able to sleep now, if I haven't already put you to sleep
>;~)
>
>NetMax
>


Nice by the book write up.

I have 5 tanks: 75, 29, 10, 10, 10. All run over the 1 fish per
gallon rule and well over 1 fish inch/gallon. No adjustment for sand,
ornaments, rocks.

I have 14 species of fish and they do normally stratify. All of the
tanks are healthy.

I am entertained by how collegial fish can be. Sometimes, especially
in the 75 gallon tank, they will swarm up and down in a corner leaving
most of the tank void of fish. Other times they practically disappear
into the closely planted bottom and then they do usually disperse and
the tank then "looks" heavily populated.

I learned the rules, worried as I "over stocked" by accident.
Finally, I saw the fish weren't worried and seemed very content. I am
trying to follow their example. <g> I have been overstocked for about
6 months.

My next worry are the Clown Loaches and Siamese Algae Eaters getting
too big for my tanks. At least they grow slowly.

[NetMax]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"MarAzul" > wrote in message
> >news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...

<snipped my long bla bla on fish-loading>

> >You should be able to sleep now, if I haven't already put you to sleep
> >;~)
> >
> >NetMax
> >
>
>
> Nice by the book write up.

Hmmm, was that a compliment? I write most of this stuff from memory &
experience, and when I'm put to the task, I will pull out reference books
to support me.

> I have 5 tanks: 75, 29, 10, 10, 10. All run over the 1 fish per
> gallon rule and well over 1 fish inch/gallon. No adjustment for sand,
> ornaments, rocks.
>
> I have 14 species of fish and they do normally stratify. All of the
> tanks are healthy.
>
> I am entertained by how collegial fish can be. Sometimes, especially
> in the 75 gallon tank, they will swarm up and down in a corner leaving
> most of the tank void of fish. Other times they practically disappear
> into the closely planted bottom and then they do usually disperse and
> the tank then "looks" heavily populated.
>
> I learned the rules, worried as I "over stocked" by accident.
> Finally, I saw the fish weren't worried and seemed very content. I am
> trying to follow their example. <g> I have been overstocked for about
> 6 months.
>
> My next worry are the Clown Loaches and Siamese Algae Eaters getting
> too big for my tanks. At least they grow slowly.

When someone has a working recipe, my strategy is to keep my mouth shut
and listen (my ability to learn new things drops exponentially every time
I open my mouth too long ;~).

Maybe we need yet another guideline ;~), this one by hobbyist experience:
For new hobbyist with tanks running less than 3 months, you are allowed
1" per 3 US gallons.
For hobbyists with tanks less than a year (but already cycled), 1" per
gal.
For hobbyists beyond 1 year, no guideline. Hopefully, by this point, you
have researched enough to make your own determinations, (and .... it's
very difficult to get established hobbyists to change their ways anyway
;~), all you can do is make suggestions. :o)

Maybe we should write a test, to graduate ppl from 3 months to the first
year fish-loading rate? *humour(?)*

ps: my 'suggestions' for anyone overstocking are: overfilter, 2 filters
are better than 1, never clean both filters at the same time, and as Dick
said, watch the fish.
cheers
NetMax

[flupke]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

> I learned the rules, worried as I "over stocked" by accident.
> Finally, I saw the fish weren't worried and seemed very content. I am
> trying to follow their example. <g> I have been overstocked for about
> 6 months.
>
> My next worry are the Clown Loaches and Siamese Algae Eaters getting
> too big for my tanks. At least they grow slowly.

My tanks are always overstocked according to the "book rules".
Never had a problem but i indeed do not mix a lot different species of fish.
It helps that i do a 20% water change every week and have a filter that is
"heavier" than i normally should be for the tank size and i also have
a lot of plants.

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Fish per gallons?
>From: "flupke"
>Date: 1/29/2004 9:49 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
>
>> I learned the rules, worried as I "over stocked" by accident.
>> Finally, I saw the fish weren't worried and seemed very content. I am
>> trying to follow their example. <g> I have been overstocked for about
>> 6 months.
>>
>> My next worry are the Clown Loaches and Siamese Algae Eaters getting
>> too big for my tanks. At least they grow slowly.
>
>My tanks are always overstocked according to the "book rules".
>Never had a problem but i indeed do not mix a lot different species of fish.
>It helps that i do a 20% water change every week and have a filter that is
>"heavier" than i normally should be for the tank size and i also have
>a lot of plants.
>
>
>

The weekly water changes and size of your filter *are* the reasons why you are
able to do this. = )

[Vicki S]

My tanks are always overstocked according to the "book rules". Never had
a problem but i indeed do not mix a lot different species of fish. It
helps that i do a 20% water change every week and have a filter that is
"heavier" than i normally should be for the tank size and i also have a
lot of plants.

Mine are overstocked too. And like you have a lot of plants and do
weekly water changes. I change 50% once to twice a week on my fresh
water tanks and the only real use I have for a filter is water movement.

This is my recipe for a healthy tank but as always YMMV.

Vicki

Visit me on line at http://shamrock4u.250free.com

[Dick]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:28:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> wrote:

>
>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"MarAzul" > wrote in message
>> >news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
>
><snipped my long bla bla on fish-loading>
>
>> >You should be able to sleep now, if I haven't already put you to sleep
>> >;~)
>> >
>> >NetMax
>> >
>>
>>
>> Nice by the book write up.
>
>Hmmm, was that a compliment? I write most of this stuff from memory &
>experience, and when I'm put to the task, I will pull out reference books
>to support me.
>
>> I have 5 tanks: 75, 29, 10, 10, 10. All run over the 1 fish per
>> gallon rule and well over 1 fish inch/gallon. No adjustment for sand,
>> ornaments, rocks.
>>
>> I have 14 species of fish and they do normally stratify. All of the
>> tanks are healthy.
>>
>> I am entertained by how collegial fish can be. Sometimes, especially
>> in the 75 gallon tank, they will swarm up and down in a corner leaving
>> most of the tank void of fish. Other times they practically disappear
>> into the closely planted bottom and then they do usually disperse and
>> the tank then "looks" heavily populated.
>>
>> I learned the rules, worried as I "over stocked" by accident.
>> Finally, I saw the fish weren't worried and seemed very content. I am
>> trying to follow their example. <g> I have been overstocked for about
>> 6 months.
>>
>> My next worry are the Clown Loaches and Siamese Algae Eaters getting
>> too big for my tanks. At least they grow slowly.
>
>When someone has a working recipe, my strategy is to keep my mouth shut
>and listen (my ability to learn new things drops exponentially every time
>I open my mouth too long ;~).
>
>Maybe we need yet another guideline ;~), this one by hobbyist experience:
>For new hobbyist with tanks running less than 3 months, you are allowed
>1" per 3 US gallons.
>For hobbyists with tanks less than a year (but already cycled), 1" per
>gal.
>For hobbyists beyond 1 year, no guideline. Hopefully, by this point, you
>have researched enough to make your own determinations, (and .... it's
>very difficult to get established hobbyists to change their ways anyway
>;~), all you can do is make suggestions. :o)
>
>Maybe we should write a test, to graduate ppl from 3 months to the first
>year fish-loading rate? *humour(?)*
>
>ps: my 'suggestions' for anyone overstocking are: overfilter, 2 filters
>are better than 1, never clean both filters at the same time, and as Dick
>said, watch the fish.
>cheers
>NetMax
>

I do get upset that those that like the chemistry of fishing scare
less technical types off. However, for those of you that enjoy that
approach I am a bit envious. Like so many other things I am not into,
I find other people's talents awesome. We each seem to have unique
approaches to fishing and probably life. I enjoy having the
colorful motion surrounding me, I enjoy the changes over minutes to
months and wonder what will happen over years. I don't like my early
efforts to "control" the tanks with chemistry. I killed some fish
when I overdosed in trying to bring down the Ph in my 75. I noticed
my fish all crowding in a corner of the tank, eyes funny looking. I
new I had just added chemicals to pull the Ph down. When I checked I
had gone way acidic. I did some fast water changes but not before
losing some fish. I am too careless to take control. So I focus on
less intrusive control. Works better for me. <g>

[NetMax]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:28:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"MarAzul" > wrote in message
> >> >news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
> >
> ><snipped my long bla bla on fish-loading>
>
> I do get upset that those that like the chemistry of fishing scare
> less technical types off. However, for those of you that enjoy that
> approach I am a bit envious. Like so many other things I am not into,
> I find other people's talents awesome. We each seem to have unique
> approaches to fishing and probably life. I enjoy having the
> colorful motion surrounding me, I enjoy the changes over minutes to
> months and wonder what will happen over years. I don't like my early
> efforts to "control" the tanks with chemistry. I killed some fish
> when I overdosed in trying to bring down the Ph in my 75. I noticed
> my fish all crowding in a corner of the tank, eyes funny looking. I
> new I had just added chemicals to pull the Ph down. When I checked I
> had gone way acidic. I did some fast water changes but not before
> losing some fish. I am too careless to take control. So I focus on
> less intrusive control. Works better for me. <g>

You're certainly not alone. My approach is to familiarize myself with
the water parameters, and then select fish which match them, but because
I'm also in the business, my 'familiarity' gets pretty detailed ;~). At
home, I'm on a well, and I keep well-appropriate fish, so I never need or
use any chemicals. At work, it's commercial applications, so chemicals
are used, but judiciously. For new customers, I encourage them to start
with fish which I know match the conditions of their municipal supply.
The only chemicals they need are a de-chlor (and perhaps some test kits,
depending on their application).

I keep most of my chemicals behind my counter (not on the store shelves),
so people cannot walk out with a bottle of pH down without speaking to
someone first. Customers (usually new hobbyists) tell me how they read
on the Internet that they should use pH down, up, stabilizers, salts etc,
so then I need to explain the concepts of water-parameter stability and
the virtues of water changes. If I determine that they have no real need
for chemicals (98%), I then remind them that the money they save, can be
better spent on fish, plants and fish-foods (I do have a fish dept to run
;~). If they do need chemicals, then I try to take some time to explain
how they work, if they should be mixing it in water used for water
changes (not in the tank), and I list all the other water-altering
options which are available. I then also mention the option of changing
to fish more appropriate for their application.

It's a recipe, and the less ingredients you use, the better your chances
of success :o)
NetMax

[Albert Turner]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Dick" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:28:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Dick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"MarAzul" > wrote in message
> > >> >news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
> > >
> > ><snipped my long bla bla on fish-loading>
> >
> > I do get upset that those that like the chemistry of fishing scare
> > less technical types off. However, for those of you that enjoy that
> > approach I am a bit envious. Like so many other things I am not into,
> > I find other people's talents awesome. We each seem to have unique
> > approaches to fishing and probably life. I enjoy having the
> > colorful motion surrounding me, I enjoy the changes over minutes to
> > months and wonder what will happen over years. I don't like my early
> > efforts to "control" the tanks with chemistry. I killed some fish
> > when I overdosed in trying to bring down the Ph in my 75. I noticed
> > my fish all crowding in a corner of the tank, eyes funny looking. I
> > new I had just added chemicals to pull the Ph down. When I checked I
> > had gone way acidic. I did some fast water changes but not before
> > losing some fish. I am too careless to take control. So I focus on
> > less intrusive control. Works better for me. <g>
>
> You're certainly not alone. My approach is to familiarize myself with
> the water parameters, and then select fish which match them, but because
> I'm also in the business, my 'familiarity' gets pretty detailed ;~). At
> home, I'm on a well, and I keep well-appropriate fish, so I never need or
> use any chemicals. At work, it's commercial applications, so chemicals
> are used, but judiciously. For new customers, I encourage them to start
> with fish which I know match the conditions of their municipal supply.
> The only chemicals they need are a de-chlor (and perhaps some test kits,
> depending on their application).
>
> I keep most of my chemicals behind my counter (not on the store shelves),
> so people cannot walk out with a bottle of pH down without speaking to
> someone first. Customers (usually new hobbyists) tell me how they read
> on the Internet that they should use pH down, up, stabilizers, salts etc,
> so then I need to explain the concepts of water-parameter stability and
> the virtues of water changes. If I determine that they have no real need
> for chemicals (98%), I then remind them that the money they save, can be
> better spent on fish, plants and fish-foods (I do have a fish dept to run
> ;~). If they do need chemicals, then I try to take some time to explain
> how they work, if they should be mixing it in water used for water
> changes (not in the tank), and I list all the other water-altering
> options which are available. I then also mention the option of changing
> to fish more appropriate for their application.
>
> It's a recipe, and the less ingredients you use, the better your chances
> of success :o)
> NetMax
>
>
Thank you for "broadcasting" some good sense.

I wonder how many fish have been killed by the misapplication of
well-meant advice.

Thanks for taking the time to write thoughful, cogent, and literate
responses to anything that comes your way.

BT

[Dave Painter]

MarAzul > wrote in message
news:BG_Rb.7686$QJ3.3267@fed1read04...
> So basically, what you're say is that it varies.. :) Great info.. thanks..
> :)
>
He could have summed it up 'YMMV',

LOL

Dave

[Dave Painter]

NetMax > wrote in message
. ..
<snip>
> It's a recipe, and the less ingredients you use, the better your chances
> of success :o)
> NetMax
>
I like that, a lot.
Going to put it over a picture of my tank,
inspirational poster!

Thanks

Dave

[Dick]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:20:03 -0500, "NetMax"
> wrote:

>
>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:28:47 -0500, "NetMax"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"MarAzul" > wrote in message
>> >> >news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
>> >
>> ><snipped my long bla bla on fish-loading>
>>
>> I do get upset that those that like the chemistry of fishing scare
>> less technical types off. However, for those of you that enjoy that
>> approach I am a bit envious. Like so many other things I am not into,
>> I find other people's talents awesome. We each seem to have unique
>> approaches to fishing and probably life. I enjoy having the
>> colorful motion surrounding me, I enjoy the changes over minutes to
>> months and wonder what will happen over years. I don't like my early
>> efforts to "control" the tanks with chemistry. I killed some fish
>> when I overdosed in trying to bring down the Ph in my 75. I noticed
>> my fish all crowding in a corner of the tank, eyes funny looking. I
>> new I had just added chemicals to pull the Ph down. When I checked I
>> had gone way acidic. I did some fast water changes but not before
>> losing some fish. I am too careless to take control. So I focus on
>> less intrusive control. Works better for me. <g>
>
>You're certainly not alone. My approach is to familiarize myself with
>the water parameters, and then select fish which match them, but because
>I'm also in the business, my 'familiarity' gets pretty detailed ;~). At
>home, I'm on a well, and I keep well-appropriate fish, so I never need or
>use any chemicals. At work, it's commercial applications, so chemicals
>are used, but judiciously. For new customers, I encourage them to start
>with fish which I know match the conditions of their municipal supply.
>The only chemicals they need are a de-chlor (and perhaps some test kits,
>depending on their application).
>
>I keep most of my chemicals behind my counter (not on the store shelves),
>so people cannot walk out with a bottle of pH down without speaking to
>someone first. Customers (usually new hobbyists) tell me how they read
>on the Internet that they should use pH down, up, stabilizers, salts etc,
>so then I need to explain the concepts of water-parameter stability and
>the virtues of water changes. If I determine that they have no real need
>for chemicals (98%), I then remind them that the money they save, can be
>better spent on fish, plants and fish-foods (I do have a fish dept to run
>;~). If they do need chemicals, then I try to take some time to explain
>how they work, if they should be mixing it in water used for water
>changes (not in the tank), and I list all the other water-altering
>options which are available. I then also mention the option of changing
>to fish more appropriate for their application.
>
>It's a recipe, and the less ingredients you use, the better your chances
>of success :o)
>NetMax
>

I am sure that for some people, keeping the "right" conditions for
their fish is a challenge and interesting. I find it easier to use
"natural selection" to get to a "stable" tank. (not for sea horses
<g>)

I am a clutz with chemistry and watch my fish and plants for signs of
problems. I have to buy everything on the internet, so if I want Rx I
have to have things on hand or forget it. Deliveries usually run
close to 10 days counting weekends, much to late if problems have
started. Fortunately my tanks have been very stable for almost a
year. I did set up a quarantine 10 gallon tank, but mostly keep a
bunch of unexpected mollies to keep the tank cycled. If I don't know
how to treat a fish, at least I can lower the stress of my other
community tanks and try salt or Melafix.

Glad to know you approach your business in the same attitude. I also
worry about the high tech LFS that keeps its plants in CO2. If I get
these plants it is like taking a Preppy and putting him in the slums.
When I was buying plants I asked they not be from tanks with CO2.

"Survival of the fittest" has worked its wisdom and my 5 tanks are
very stable, at least at this moment. Time trips up such statements.

[NetMax]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:20:03 -0500, "NetMax"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:28:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Dick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"MarAzul" > wrote in message
> >> >> >news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
> >> >
> >> ><snip>>

> Glad to know you approach your business in the same attitude. I also
> worry about the high tech LFS that keeps its plants in CO2. If I get
> these plants it is like taking a Preppy and putting him in the slums.
> When I was buying plants I asked they not be from tanks with CO2.
>
> "Survival of the fittest" has worked its wisdom and my 5 tanks are
> very stable, at least at this moment. Time trips up such statements.

Good point regarding the CO2. I wondered the same thing. Plants are
highly adaptable, yielding entirely different leaves and stem structures
depending on the light, water and CO2 parameters. As an example, at home
(hard water, high pH), my Madagscar Lace leaves are huge and hug the
ground (which makes an excellent shelter for fry to swim underneath). At
work (soft water), the same lace plants are tall and narrow. I've
noticed the same wide range with many other plants. Do I do my customers
a dis-service by running CO2 plant tanks?

I ended up by compromising, using typical lighting (about 1.3w/g) and a
single CO2 canister rated for 20g (in a 60g plant tank). The plants are
mostly not there long enough to be significantly effected by the CO2,
(but it does help them recover from transit), and it still advertises the
CO2 option to my plant enthusiasts.

Anecdote warning: I had a customer last week clutching a list of plant
names she made off the internet. She had been visiting all the pet shops
in town to stock her tank. She kept listing off the names expecting to
be disappointed, but I had everything except some Reineki (sold out), and
only one little Red Tiger Lotus left . She left with Java moss, Riccia
Fluitans and Rosafolia and the biggest grin :o) She said she would be
back next week for the Tiger Lotus, and might then pick up some Anubius
and Lace as well. What a pleasant change from my daily dissertations to
newbies about cycling tanks.

NetMax

[Dick]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:01:48 -0500, "NetMax"
> wrote:

>
>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:20:03 -0500, "NetMax"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:28:47 -0500, "NetMax"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dick" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0500, "NetMax"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"MarAzul" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:daVRb.6576$QJ3.2479@fed1read04...
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip>>
>
>> Glad to know you approach your business in the same attitude. I also
>> worry about the high tech LFS that keeps its plants in CO2. If I get
>> these plants it is like taking a Preppy and putting him in the slums.
>> When I was buying plants I asked they not be from tanks with CO2.
>>
>> "Survival of the fittest" has worked its wisdom and my 5 tanks are
>> very stable, at least at this moment. Time trips up such statements.
>
>Good point regarding the CO2. I wondered the same thing. Plants are
>highly adaptable, yielding entirely different leaves and stem structures
>depending on the light, water and CO2 parameters. As an example, at home
>(hard water, high pH), my Madagscar Lace leaves are huge and hug the
>ground (which makes an excellent shelter for fry to swim underneath). At
>work (soft water), the same lace plants are tall and narrow. I've
>noticed the same wide range with many other plants. Do I do my customers
>a dis-service by running CO2 plant tanks?
>
>I ended up by compromising, using typical lighting (about 1.3w/g) and a
>single CO2 canister rated for 20g (in a 60g plant tank). The plants are
>mostly not there long enough to be significantly effected by the CO2,
>(but it does help them recover from transit), and it still advertises the
>CO2 option to my plant enthusiasts.
>
>Anecdote warning: I had a customer last week clutching a list of plant
>names she made off the internet. She had been visiting all the pet shops
>in town to stock her tank. She kept listing off the names expecting to
>be disappointed, but I had everything except some Reineki (sold out), and
>only one little Red Tiger Lotus left . She left with Java moss, Riccia
>Fluitans and Rosafolia and the biggest grin :o) She said she would be
>back next week for the Tiger Lotus, and might then pick up some Anubius
>and Lace as well. What a pleasant change from my daily dissertations to
>newbies about cycling tanks.
>
>NetMax
>

I have to get everything over the internet. I miss talking with fish
dealers, but these newsgroups help.