pleco for malawi tank

macvsog23

Pleco Profiles Team - RIP FRIEND
May 1, 2009
2,671
0
36
71
Bristol
Out of curiosity do you have any scientific material to back your claims or is it just assumptions becasue you know there wild conditions?.

I know a man who does

There is a real scientific reason for not putting soft water fish in hard water.
First up Lake Malawi is fairly carbonate rich (high kH), and well buffered, so the water is very different to any in S. America, where even the white water rivers are carbonate poor (low KH).
 

JoePlec

Member
Aug 27, 2010
786
0
16
Rainhill, Merseyside
Out of curiosity do you have any scientific material to back your claims or is it just assumptions becasue you know there wild conditions?.

I know a man who does

There is a real scientific reason for not putting soft water fish in hard water.
First up Lake Malawi is fairly carbonate rich (high kH), and well buffered, so the water is very different to any in S. America, where even the white water rivers are carbonate poor (low KH).
Clutching at straws Bob. A simple apology will suffice :whistle:
 
P

Plecomadman

Guest
Hi

Simple please dont do it
It is a form of slow murder the fish will not be happy
Sadly the comments about this fish or that fish doing great are codswolop
They suffer belive me they suffer.
Regards Bob
First problem is not the water, not the temp, it is the fact that it serves no reason apart from looking good
The fish is in a totally alien environment
Like placing a person from a city in the Forests of SEA
I am not going to bang on as my views are well known
Just it is some thing I would never do and I would always advise against it for the reasons stated.
My view is we unknowingly place far too many problems in the way of our fish to add more knowingly is wrong.
When working as the sales prevention officer in my LFS if some one would wish to do this I would under the Animal welfare act 2007 refuse.
Out of curiosity do you have any scientific material to back your claims or is it just assumptions becasue you know there wild conditions?.

I know a man who does

There is a real scientific reason for not putting soft water fish in hard water.
First up Lake Malawi is fairly carbonate rich (high kH), and well buffered, so the water is very different to any in S. America, where even the white water rivers are carbonate poor (low KH).
To not be pedantic, this isn't the info i asked for... i know the reasons why PH changes and i know the reason why fish are kept in vastly different conditions... however what i asked was info on you stating fish would.. and i quote...

It is a form of slow murder the fish will not be happy
Just because the fish have different conditions 'naturally/in the wild' that doesn't necessarily mean that the fish will suffer or die prematurely as youve stated. Have YOU got any scientific evidence that the statement you made is true?. Throwing a statement made about how the wild rivers work does not back up your claim that fish will come to any harm.

I merely commented on this post to give an example of adaptation, like i said adaptation happens in all walks of life and not just limited to our fishy friends. adaptation is to me another word for evolution... something had to change and life adapted to the new conditions which were made, yet by your comments your implying that this cannot happen?.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

macvsog23

Pleco Profiles Team - RIP FRIEND
May 1, 2009
2,671
0
36
71
Bristol
I was looking forward to you answering that last question mate. Because ive kept bristlenose in malawi tanks and i was wondering if scientifically i was a murderer :whistle::woohoo:

Murder = the unlawful removal of a humans life with intent. Or premeditation.
As murder is a criminal activity i.e. covered by criminal law, I doubt if any one could scientifically be a murderer

From the point of fish keeping the law in the UK stats quite clearly.

Not only is it against the law to be cruel to an
Animal, you must also ensure that all the animals
Welfare needs are met.

These include the need:
• For a suitable environment (place to live)
• For a suitable diet
• To exhibit normal behaviour patterns
• To be housed with or apart from other animals (if applicable)
• To be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease


I would say most of us break this law at times.
 

JoePlec

Member
Aug 27, 2010
786
0
16
Rainhill, Merseyside
Murder = the unlawful removal of a humans life with intent. Or premeditation.
As murder is a criminal activity i.e. covered by criminal law, I doubt if any one could scientifically be a murderer

From the point of fish keeping the law in the UK stats quite clearly.

Not only is it against the law to be cruel to an
Animal, you must also ensure that all the animals
Welfare needs are met.

These include the need:
• For a suitable environment (place to live)
• For a suitable diet
• To exhibit normal behaviour patterns
• To be housed with or apart from other animals (if applicable)
• To be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease


I would say most of us break this law at times.
So people can now put their bristlenose back in the malawi tank and out of the mop bucket
 
P

Plecomadman

Guest
Right the end of this matter

people will have an opinion on this based on what they want
I totally agree with you on the matter of opinions and you have as much right to an opinion as the next. You initially didn't have an opinion though... it was a very bold statement on the fish suffering which i asked for some researched scientific background on which you couldn't supply.


Don't take my questioning as if i was getting at you, not my intentions at all. I was merely making sure that everybody knows that what you said 'MAY' not be 100% correct (your statement clearly stated that this IS whats going to happen) and that's what a forum is always about :thumbup:. Trying to get info even if it end's up in a debate on peoples opinions and experiences.

Murder = the unlawful removal of a humans life with intent. Or premeditation.
As murder is a criminal activity i.e. covered by criminal law, I doubt if any one could scientifically be a murderer

From the point of fish keeping the law in the UK stats quite clearly.

Not only is it against the law to be cruel to an
Animal, you must also ensure that all the animals
Welfare needs are met.

These include the need:
• For a suitable environment (place to live)
• For a suitable diet
• To exhibit normal behaviour patterns
• To be housed with or apart from other animals (if applicable)
• To be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease

I would say most of us break this law at times.
Yes but without any physical/scientific proof you have committed any of the above offenses this law cannot be used and quite rightly so, however yes i agree all of us are probably guilty of breaking this law at some point
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bigbird

Pleco Profiles Moderator - RIP FRIEND
Sep 9, 2010
6,306
1
36
Sydney, AUSTRALIA
oK, thoughts from downunder. I am under the view that we are aqua hobbyist, breeders, conservationists and fish junkies. Our mantra should be to treat our additional friends to the best suitable conditions that is found in their natural habitat. Simple. If you do not agree with that, then you might have the wrong hobby. There are fish on each continent which suits those conditions and have a function to preform under that condition. We spend so much money on aquariums and accessories and fish to try and mimic their habitat. It is in my view cruel to upset the natural habitat of my fish. Is it possible yes, sure you can have a gold fish in a heated tank, sure you can have careleus africans in a South American set up, sure you can have firemouths with frontosas, but is this our aim ? Remember my view treat our fish to the best suitable conditions that are FOUND IN THEIR NATURAL HABITAT. cheers jk :thumbup:
 

JoePlec

Member
Aug 27, 2010
786
0
16
Rainhill, Merseyside
oK, thoughts from downunder. I am under the view that we are aqua hobbyist, breeders, conservationists and fish junkies. Our mantra should be to treat our additional friends to the best suitable conditions that is found in their natural habitat. Simple. If you do not agree with that, then you might have the wrong hobby. There are fish on each continent which suits those conditions and have a function to preform under that condition. We spend so much money on aquariums and accessories and fish to try and mimic their habitat. It is in my view cruel to upset the natural habitat of my fish. Is it possible yes, sure you can have a gold fish in a heated tank, sure you can have careleus africans in a South American set up, sure you can have firemouths with frontosas, but is this our aim ? Remember my view treat our fish to the best suitable conditions that are FOUND IN THEIR NATURAL HABITAT. cheers jk :thumbup:
Tell that to the planks who have airstones incased in spongebob or deepsea divers or plastic ship wrecks. daft people with pink or blue gravel. My view is a bit of wood bit of rock and bit of sand and ure not too far wrong.
 

bigbird

Pleco Profiles Moderator - RIP FRIEND
Sep 9, 2010
6,306
1
36
Sydney, AUSTRALIA
ah yes agree with you on that issue. If you look at my tanks I am a person who like to make it as natural looking as possible. cheers jk :thumbup:
 

dw1305

Global Moderators
Staff member
May 5, 2009
1,396
0
36
Wiltshire nr. Bath, UK
Hi all,
I appreciate that we are all going to differ in views, but there really are scientific reasons why fish will be stressed in the "wrong" water.

If we stick with the alkaline end of the spectrum, we have a really good example of adaptation to "extreme" conditions, it is the sea and marine fish.
The sea is an immense volume of water and, particularly in tropical seas, extremely stable. Neither temperature nor salinity vary, and with very few exceptions fish have very restricted tolerances of changes in salinity or temperature. This is why marine reef keepers have chillers, hygrometers etc.
These are also very low nutrient conditions where even trace levels of nitrate (NO3) or phosphate (PO4) can trigger algal blooms, coral death etc.

If we look for a fresh water analogy, we actually have one - Lake Tanganyika, ancient, huge volume of water, stable temperature, highly buffered, nutrient poor etc and full of fish with some very specialised adaptations. When people started keeping Tangs they really struggled because we didn't realise just how odd the water was. We don't struggle so much now because we understand more about the water and it is relatively easy to add compounds to water to raise the alkalinity, GH and KH.

What you won't find even now is many Tangs that are cheap to buy or can be kept in ordinary water, some species are more tractable - Neolamprologus pulcher for example, but they still need hard alkaline water, even after many generations of artificial breeding and selection. The age and stability of their lake has meant that the genes that would have allowed them to thrive in different conditions have gone, in the same way that the Blind Cave Tetra has lost the genes to produce pigment or eyes.

This situation isn't true for the vast majority of tropical fish we keep. They come from rivers and non-rift lakes which are transient in evolutionary terms and produce species which can and do change, adapt and mutate over time through the action of natural selection on the genes they pass from generation to generation. It is this combination of natural selection and artificial selection that has now bred Cardinal and Neon Tetras etc. that can survive in water which is much harder and more alkaline than their natural habitat.

If we want to find fish that are a real challenge to keep we would need to find a tropical region where stable conditions over millions of years have allowed specialised fish to fill a range of evolutionary niches, ideally in very nutrient poor water with extremely low TDS (You need to remember that adding salts to water is easy, but taking them away fairly difficult).

I've just described the black and clear water rivers of the tropical rainforest zone, and their specialized fish - Panaque, Panaquolus, Cochliodon the worlds only wood eating fish, the huge speciation of the Hypancistrus's, the plecs in general, the Tetras, Geophagine Cichlids etc.

Plec keepers are lucky in that relatively few of their fish come from black waters, but many of the fish that do, Chocolate Gourami, cichlids like Dicrossus, Satanoperca, Apistogramma diplotaenia, Heckel Discus etc. are some of the most difficult fish to keep. They demand very clean water because they have little resistance to diseases (their acid water bathes them in constant very dilute disinfectant) or parasites, and they often need careful feeding because they come from water which is poor in food, and where any food item will be eaten, even after the fish is stuffed with unsuitable food.

So why can we get away with keeping Bristlenoses in akaline water? It is because they have been bred over generations (by natural and artificial selection) for hardiness, because they originally came from rivers where conditions, temperature, water quality were neither extreme nor very stable and because they had some genetic variability for natural and artificial selection to work on (probably because they show "hybrid vigour" following the mixing of genes from related species).

This is also why fish like Apistogramma cacatuoides & A. agassizii are reasonably common in the hobby, and many other fantastic Apistogramma species aren't. The black water fish will never be commonly kept, they are too difficult to keep and even more difficult to breed.

cheer Darrel
 

Doodles

Retired Staff
Apr 8, 2009
8,786
2
36
Just because Bob doesn't always come across as He should doesn't make him wrong. To argue the toss simply because you don't like the way he posts isn't productive. A bit of research can go a long way in providing better care for fishes or anything for that matter. Someone failing to provide proof doesn't mean people can't go look into it themselves.

Just search on google for osmosis in fish for starters, theres a link here

http://yarbroughlaw.com/Patent%20Projects/Everything%20you%20were%20taught%20is%20wrong.htm

Another good thing to look into is stressors, things that cause stress levels in fish to fall, short term, long term and lead to a shortened life. Theres one link here but its a PDF, so will need a viewer.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA00500.pdf
 
P

Plecomadman

Guest
Just because Bob doesn't always come across as He should doesn't make him wrong. To argue the toss simply because you don't like the way he posts isn't productive. A bit of research can go a long way in providing better care for fishes or anything for that matter. Someone failing to provide proof doesn't mean people can't go look into it themselves.

Just search on google for osmosis in fish for starters, theres a link here

http://yarbroughlaw.com/Patent%20Projects/Everything%20you%20were%20taught%20is%20wrong.htm

Another good thing to look into is stressors, things that cause stress levels in fish to fall, short term, long term and lead to a shortened life. Theres one link here but its a PDF, so will need a viewer.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA00500.pdf
Right i presume this is directed at me considering i asked for proof of a statement bob made, yes?.

Right, for a start i never said bob was wrong, i m earley stated he MAY not be 100% correct.

secondly, weather there is evidence out there or not about such matters on the OP's post, again this isn't actually what happened or what was actually asked, i asked bob for info on him stating and i quote....

Hi

Simple please dont do it
It is a form of slow murder the fish will not be happy
Sadly the comments about this fish or that fish doing great are codswolop
They suffer belive me they suffer.
Regards Bob

Now this is a sensational claim with no actual evidence behind it and i asked for relevant info for him to make such claims.

Am i wrong in asking for this info?, am i wrong in wanting to get the full info behind such claims?... personally i think the thread is very informative and the remarks made by both sides are actually worthwhile and potentially helpful for future questions regarding this matter.

Now to your comment, for somebody that has made a comment like yours in regards to another members comments and the comments he has received back to actually put what you have you have not only done what you have stated is counter productive but literally took the thread completely off track... Thankfully you did bring it back with the links provided.

Now a further comment on the OP's question...... the PH or KH which is more important of a factor differs all over the UK, yes?... well i live in a very very soft area regarding my water and but what about people that live in very hard water area's that keep plecs?, there are many that dont actually initiate any combating means to change there water yet still keep and breed plecs.

Now if this is the case and i will take London water or how it is referred as (liquid concrete), the use of RO may be used to lower the PH yes, what about the people that dont and use either straight tap water or just a bog standard HMA unit. Are these people also bad fish keepers?, are they slowly killing there fish with water that is apparently 'not ideal'. To make a claim that the conditions that these plecs need has to be ideal yet there is very very un-ideal water all over the country with no attempt at changing it and many members here would in this case be using shall we say ..far from ideal water.... are these people wrong to keep there plecs?, are they wrong in wanting to keep these fish?.

Some would say use chemicals to make the water more suited, yes?, however that is contradicting the actual main reason why they are trying to change the water in the first place, they will be masking the original problem by adding yet another unnatural substance in the way of chemicals.

Basically what im trying to say is, no one can actually give there fish the correct wild conditions no matter how hard they try, no one can actually fully make there fish completely suitable for a tank environment. This leaves me to the OP's original question, why are we stating he cant have these plecs when none of us are actually giving there fish the actual 'true needs' that the would acquire in the wild. If everybody thought like this then no one would actually keep fish.

Hope this made sense lol, getting late but wanting to actually defend myself against comments i feel are unjust.
 

Lornek8

Member
Apr 21, 2009
2,001
0
36
Hawaii
The question is not whether fish will survive but rather thrive. Whilest breeding can be looked at as a sign of thriving this may not necessarily be the case. I'll admit this one will be a difficult argument to quantify. Over millions of years life on this planet has adapted to their niche in the environment. Their physiology has adapted to a particular environment and the do their best in said environment. A fish's reaction to water hardness in not necessarily an instantaneous life/death matter. If they survive the inital acclimation shock what you would be looking at is a reduced lifespan. Look at it in terms of humans for example smokers, alchoholics, or poor eaters. You won't necessarily see an instantaneous death, but the consequences of the actions will eventually catch up with them. In the animal kingdom, i'll use tortoises as an example as I am very familiar with their care. Grazing tortoises are often fed diets that are too high in animal proteins due, in a large part to, ignorance. The result of the high protein diet is a tortoise whose growth far exceeds those on an "ideal" diet, they obtain breeding size in a fraction of the time it takes wild populations & they do indeed breed. Seems great right? Wrong, what you end up with in the long run is a tortoise who eventually becomes sick & dies of kidney failure due to their kidneys having to process the large amounts of nitrogenous waste produced by protein breakdown.

This issues is a debate that comes up all the time & ends the same way each time. There will never be a "winner" as its a philosophical debate and everyone has their own opinions.
 

JoePlec

Member
Aug 27, 2010
786
0
16
Rainhill, Merseyside
The question is not whether fish will survive but rather thrive. Whilest breeding can be looked at as a sign of thriving this may not necessarily be the case. I'll admit this one will be a difficult argument to quantify. Over millions of years life on this planet has adapted to their niche in the environment. Their physiology has adapted to a particular environment and the do their best in said environment. A fish's reaction to water hardness in not necessarily an instantaneous life/death matter. If they survive the inital acclimation shock what you would be looking at is a reduced lifespan. Look at it in terms of humans for example smokers, alchoholics, or poor eaters. You won't necessarily see an instantaneous death, but the consequences of the actions will eventually catch up with them. In the animal kingdom, i'll use tortoises as an example as I am very familiar with their care. Grazing tortoises are often fed diets that are too high in animal proteins due, in a large part to, ignorance. The result of the high protein diet is a tortoise whose growth far exceeds those on an "ideal" diet, they obtain breeding size in a fraction of the time it takes wild populations & they do indeed breed. Seems great right? Wrong, what you end up with in the long run is a tortoise who eventually becomes sick & dies of kidney failure due to their kidneys having to process the large amounts of nitrogenous waste produced by protein breakdown.

This issues is a debate that comes up all the time & ends the same way each time. There will never be a "winner" as its a philosophical debate and everyone has their own opinions.
This is taking the post off subject again. The original question was what plecs could he keep. You state "You won't necessarily see an instantaneous death, but the consequences of the actions will eventually catch up with them." You dont know that for sure whatsoever. That again is as bad as Bob saying it will lead them to a slow and painful death. Once again an outrageous statement.
 

Lornek8

Member
Apr 21, 2009
2,001
0
36
Hawaii
This is taking the post off subject again. The original question was what plecs could he keep. You state "You won't necessarily see an instantaneous death, but the consequences of the actions will eventually catch up with them." You dont know that for sure whatsoever. That again is as bad as Bob saying it will lead them to a slow and painful death. Once again an outrageous statement.
Not off track at all in my opinion. Choices are based on information. Provide the information & allow the individuals to decide what they feel is best. If everyone knew all the answers there would be no questions & no forum. Does the OP know why some people might recommend it & others not? Have they thought of all possible arguments? I don't know so I offer my opinion & why I think the way I do. I can't provide specific scientific data to support my opinions but I can provide some thought to why I think the way I do. I am not condemning nor attacking anyone so take it for what you will.

Others have asked for scientific evidence that damage is caused as some have stated, however in the same token, no one has provided scientific evidence that no damage does result. I am simply stating that empirical data from research done on other animals shows that damage can occur long-term despite what outwardly apperances show & that animals have evolved to subsist in a particular habitat and under certain conditions. If it is not so bad to keep a plec under a manner that is not at least similar to what they may encounter in nature, then why not feed them all meaty foods or staple flake like i might feed my community fish? Well, because we know that most plecs have evolved to be herbivorous & don't handle animal proteins well. Simply stating that "so&so has kept them before & never seen a problem" without providing the scientific evidence is just as bad.

So, to answer the original posters question. My personal opinion of what the responsible answer is, is to not keep any plecs in these conditions. This is based on the same lack of scientific evidence that everyone is siting. In my opinon if I can't say it is scientifically proven that it is either good or bad then I will err on the side of conservatism & at least attempt to keep plecs in similar conditions to what they may see in nature. However, not everyone shares the same views & individuals are allowed their own opinions & their own decisions.
 

dw1305

Global Moderators
Staff member
May 5, 2009
1,396
0
36
Wiltshire nr. Bath, UK
Hi all,
You may not agree with the posters on this thread, but Lornek and Bob have been successful fish keepers and breeders over a large number of years, and because of that fact alone I would always be very interested in what they have to say.

I'd also agree with Doodles, who wrote:
A bit of research can go a long way in providing better care for fishes or anything for that matter.
We have a great chance now, the internet and forums like this make it so much easier to accumulate knowledge, what is more difficult is sorting out the bits that make sense.

For those who are interested in the area of water quality there is a series of good articles (on "Aqua articles") which cover the whole subject area fairly thoroughly.

The complete Stuff that Water's Made Of series:
Part 1: The Molecule, Temperature, Saltwater, and Osmosis
Part 2: Conductivity and General Hardness
Part 3: pH & Alkalinity
Part 4: The Nitrogen Cycle
Part 5: Dissolved Oxygen

  1. http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/management/Llambi_Water1.html
  2. http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/management/Llambi_Water2.html
  3. http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/management/Llambi_Water3.html
  4. http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/management/Llambi_Water4.html
  5. http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/management/Llambi_Water5.html
cheers Darrel
 

bigbird

Pleco Profiles Moderator - RIP FRIEND
Sep 9, 2010
6,306
1
36
Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Oh please, place fish in their natural environment as nature intended it. If Africa should havehad Ls then nature would have made this possible. If South America should have had Frontosas then so be it, but be realistic, why chance it. If it does not occurr in the natural environment, then why try to change it. Please for the fishes sake...cheers jk