Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dear Shi Xuan, firstly: welcome here. We are always happy about newcomers to the forum, but especially those who obviously have much knowledge and experience or ask very interesting questions.
Your topic is extremey interesting and I am not able to respond in exact a manner. I think nobody has investigated in the decaying processes intensely enough to differentiate the microorganisms in precise a way. But what I can say is that you are probably right in presuming that they are different from those which take part in the normal cycling processes in a well-functioning tank. The experience of experienced aquarists leads to that conclusion. But we don’t know which organisms are playing which role in this.
With Paro-aquaristics this is partly the same as in normal aquaristics, and partly it is not because of the different water values. The situation in a blackwater tank with very low pH and very low Microsiemens maybe rather different from that in a normal tank with barbs or cichlids. Presumably, the risk is higher that the change I mention below happens faster and with more serious consequences for the milieu of the tank. Blackwater aquaristics surely is possible but we know less about it than about the normal, ordinary aquarium.
Most Paro-specialists are eager to remove decaying leaves after a certain amount of time since we have often seen maladies and indications of illness in our fish when too Long exposed to that conditions. Catappia leaves fro instance should not remain in the tank until they are completely rotten; the healthy environment they can create changes into the opposite after about four or six weeks. Then they should be exchanged at the latest against new ones.
But I must admit that I often do not follow my own insights myself. That’s a problem.
So, I do not know of any scientific articles which inform us about what exactly happens here. I should be happy to know if somebody knows things better.
It is quite clear that we cannot protest against the destruction of the peat swamps in south-east Asia and use peat in great quantities ourselves.
I have stopped using peat nearly at all. You could adjust the pH by phosphoric acid by using a few drops only and add the missing humine substances by leaves from beeches and oaks, alder-cones and Catappia-leaves.
The pH is not a value of ist own, but a means to suppress germs and unwanted bacteria. You can breed every species at higher pH (if it’s not exceeding 7.0, for the fish’s organism is adapted to a low pH) if you are able to keep the milieu germ-free. But it is nearly impossible to do so. So you have to lower the pH. It is of secondary importance by what means.
With plants it is quite different a story. There you need CO2; phosphoric acid is quite a different thing. But we speak about fish that are adapted to water with germ-concentrations as little as possible. Here you don’t need peat. Nature uses peat. In the aquarium you can dispose of it if there are reasons of the conservation of the peat swamps and bogs and moors to do so. And there are.
So Michael is quite on the right track, and Bartians advice is a good advice.
Yes Helene: You are doing a great job in your home country and here, in our project, for other regions, too.
Most aquarists only want to have fun, not work. You engage in information and education. And it’s rewarding. I know, there are many days when you see the work only. But then, suddenly, there is a reply, and you see: It was worthwhile.
But it’s an ongoing process. Many aquarists change their favourites every year; they must have them all, first the barbs, then the cichlids, then the labyrinths and so on. Behaving more steadily, keeping a friendship over years, being not attracted by every fashion is not usual for a hobbyist. That you do nevertheless, will make some people think about, and that’s a good thing to influence the hobby’s mentality.
So, congratulation, and – let’s go on!
[quote=”bartian” post=2587]@Peter
Not that I don’t believe you, but did you see the organ yourself or did you read it in a scientific article?[/quote]Bartian, I saw the labyrinth once at a large dead male (true) deissneri that was dissected. It was confirmed by Walter Foersch to me personally who had no deissneri but tweediei-like forms. But: Alas! no, I had no motive to write an article about that since it was not doubted that Paros have labyrinths. I read that opinion here for the first time. The burden of proof is with Anton, I think!
[quote=”bartian” post=2584](…) According to Anton Lamboj (an ichtyologist) paros do not possess a labyrinth organ, in contrast to all other Macropodusinae. He dissected quite some of them but did not find any labyrinth organ.(…)[/quote]
I appreciate of Anton very much but his opinion or “finding” in this case is nonsense. Paros do possess labyrinth organs which are completely developed. What Helene reports is a proof of this, and the labyrinths could be found by dissection of the body, too. Therefore, they could live for quite a long time in water with a very much reduced content of oxygen; they could not without a labyrinth. This organ seems to be be smaller as in other anabantoids (as are Paros), but it is existent and works if needed.
Maybe, the natural milieu of Paros would result in thousands of years in the complete disappearance of the labyrinth, but hitherto it has not. So far, it has only led to its non-use under normal conditions.
Greetings to Anton.
I have seen this behaviour before several times, but in two situations only: (1) when the oxygen content of the water had become insufficient, or (2) when the pH has been lowered too quickly too much.
Paros are normally not used to that, since they live in slowly flowing waters with a good oxygen level. In tanks with still water sometimes the solved oygen may be reduced too much, and then they use their labyrinth. The same holds for changes of the pH. Quick changes are out in normal conditions. They can stand it, but they must use their labyrinths. They are equipped to do so, but not as a permanent method to get clear with wrong water conditions.
If this is the case one should act. The fish are not ill but the danger is given that they become ill if this situation continues over a longer period.
I have a supposition what the reason is in this tank that you describe (and which we can see now ourselves in the video):
It may have its cause in the introduction of the many new leaves. There are lots of leaves to be seen and they may have been introduced too quickly in too fresh a quality. In my view (1) the leaves are brought in too big a quantity compared to that rather small tank. in nature, there are such big layers of leaves, of course, but the water is running; its quantity is by far greater than in this small tank. But I presume (2) that the leaves were not handled before sufficiently by putting them in boiling water for some minutes. If this is done it is impossible for the pH to fall too quickly and it is equally impossible that the level of oxygen falls to quickly and too much for a fish that is not used to use its labyrinth. The Boraras breathing quicker than usual seem to indicate the same.
My proposal: Remove the leaves as soon as possible, boil them for some minutes, make a 60% water change and introduce the leaves again in half that quantity. I should predict that the strange behaviour ends almost presently.
Ted, the two slim species ornaticauda and parvulus still present many problems to us. Especially the disappearance of many eggs over night is an unsolved problem.
I had some success by following an advice by friend Horst Linke to lower the pH to at least 4.0 or even 3.5. I know of the experience of Günter Kopic who had success with parvulus only with a pH around 3.0 (!). But equally, I had success with other pairs with a pH of 6.0 or even 6.5. It is for sure, that the activity of funghi and germs is much lower in a deeply acid milieu. That may play a role, but we do not know it for sure what other factors are of importance.
Helene, your observations and presumptions are much alike those Martin Hallmann and I made and are presented in our new book on Paro’s which has just appeared in print.
The main point is: Keeping Paro’s pair by pair in small aquaria is biologically “wrong” but nevertheless the best method to receive a good number of offspring. The “right” method would be to keep small groups of them (one species only, of course) maybe associated with some red Betta spec. and some friendly Boraras spec. in bigger tanks (at least 60 or 100 liters), but you cannot handle them appropriately in that milieu as feeding and rearing of the young are concerned.
But if you did (or do) you will see that they are not monogamous, that one female will visit neighbourung males, and one male will invite several females to its cave. The living in small groups seems to be much more appropriate for their scheme of behaviour than that in fixed pairs, but ….
we are mostly occupied by getting them fed and spawn and breed which is to be mastered in a rational way in pairs in small tanks only.So, you rightly infer that they do better in small groups if the space is sufficient. at least during that long period of adolescence, but, in principle later, too. Their highly endangered status forces us to make breeding a very important aim (we lost all Paros that were imported in the 20th century already after ten years at the latest, mostly after one year already). Keeping such fish in aquaria presupposes that we accept to look for breeding and sustainment in the first rate, but sometimes we experience that this entails structural limits of the aquarium.
Nevertheless, you are right, not as a principle guideline for keeping Paros generally, but as an insight for the best milieu and adequate behaviour. Maybe, from time to time – when you have propagated them before to a safe number – you can follow your insights and experience what is certainly closer to their natural way of living.
Armin Schaefer sent me 8 P. tweedei that were imported by Ruinemans to Holland.
They really are the correctly determined tweediei. In the meantime they appeared in some shops in German towns, too.
The posting to Germany took one day only, but the subsequent posting of the parcel to me took another three days. Nevertheless, the animals were alive and completely sound. But Armin packed them in a very experienced way: in a small styropor-box, each in a separate small amount of water. Very small indeed (not much more than 100 ml), with a leave to hide. This small amount of room and water is fully sufficient for one individual in good condition.
Bartian’s remarks on shyness are entirely correct. It depends.
Very experienced breeders (see http://www.guenter-kopic.de) make sure that their tanks are not placed within very light rooms. They cover the back and side glasses with black paper. The inner parts of the tank must be the parts with the most light, not the room outside. Then you will see you fish and they will not be shy.
It’s a marked difference with P. sumatranus. Interestingly, all breeders of this species report on its shyness. Mine were always very shy.
Cryptocoryne: We need the names, Bartian, and that is: the correct names. The normal aquarium species are species from Sri Lanka (Ceylon), such as wendtii, willisii, “nevillii”, beckettii, or undulata. The C. wendtii is the most-traded Cryptocoryne in many variants (broad leaves, narrow leaves, green, brown, speckled etc.). They are hard and to cultivate submersed in aquaria without severe problems. Nearly all species from the homelands of our Parosphromenus are difficult to cultivate submersed (not: affinis, but affinis will not do in soft water!).
Peat: Of course there is peat without any fertilizers. But you must be very conscious about that. Most peat for gardeners is sold contaminated with fertilizers. That is useless or poisonous for our purposes, of course. But you can buy pure peat.
To the questions of the Almighty:
1. Shyness: You can overcome the shyness by giving company of Boraras species. But then, no young will survive.2. Rooted plants, Cryptocoryne etc.: Think of the structure of a blackwater aquarium with pH of 6 or less and water with minimal mineral contents. You cannot add plant fertilizers in order to prevent those values to be changed considerably. Therefore planting is restricted severely. If you speak of Cryptocoryne, you probably mean Sri Lanka species. Borneo and Malaysia species (although they should be adapted to those water values) require “nutritional springs” of non-stable fertilizers (as two-valued Fe) in a river with fluent waters; you cannot cultivate them in the normal aquarium conditions). Sri Lanka species are easily to cultivate in normal tanks, but not in the water mentioned above. Of course, you can create a moderate milieu not below pH 6.0 and with a small amount of minerals and use many plants in that to a certain extent. But it’s a compromise. Plants constantly change the water conditions in order to be able to live. Therefore, most friends of Parosphromenus either dispense with plants altogether or restrict planting very much to javamoss, java fern and swimming plants. I recommend to use a very thin layer of chemically neutral gravel only (not more than half an inch or less) as a settling ground for bacteria but not for the roots of plants. Everything else is a compromise. Of course, you can accept that (I do sometimes, too), but I don’t see any better solution for reasons of the structure of an aquarium which is different to a habitat with running water and a voluminous ground of peat and old organic materials.
3. Jumping: Most Paros don’t tend to jump since they don’t use their labyrinth. But there are exceptions. There have been losses by fish jumping out. I did not experience that myself, but there are reports that it happenend.
As it seems, you may have got a variant of P. nagyi. I already thought so (but remained silent about it) seeing picture 2450. Now, the male does not show really the typical courtship colours, but somewhat getting in that direction.
There are some variants of nagyi living at the ast coast of western Malaysia arould Kuantan, Cherating and Pekan Nenas. It’s really a widespread location and the variants differ in many respects. To determine your fish more exactly, we need better photos. But one thing is typical: The white band in the caudal fin. It’s typical for some variants of nagyi around Kuantan. However, it’s not the typical Kuantan, since they have definitely a shorter caudal fin. Maybe it’s a Pekan Nenas or Chukai-variant.
Vale, you have written a very informative posting stressing the fact that we really don’t know much about the processes within blackwater aquaria.
Nearly all we know about the bacteria life in our tanks refers to the normal aquarium with much higher pH and conductivity. And there is much of “wrong knowledge” as the stability of water values in aquaria is concerned, f.i. that a tank with no calcium will not remain stable as pH is concerned. This is simply false since the humine substances in a blackwater aquarium will act in similar a way than the missing calcium does in a normal tank. I mention this only as an example of the lack of knowledge in normal aquarium literature, that is entirely written to match the needs of normal aquarists with their normal fish from normal waters.
As you rightly point out the question of the role of bacteria is similarly bad understood as tanks with soft water and low pH are concerned; under these circumstances nitrification underlies different criteria than normally.
So, your information on the work of Tim Hovanec is very valuable indeed, and still more is that hint on those Canadian findings about the differences between Ammonia Oxidising Archaea compared to Ammonia Oxidising Bacteria. So there is a central statement of yours to be found in the words: “The more acidic the environment and/or the lower the concentration of nutrient (i.e. ammonia) the less likely it seems that bacteria will be the main oxidisers.”
I shall not go further into the interesting details you report of your own experiments; there is – of course – a difference between our European industrial products and those of the U.S., but I don’t think that “we” are much more efficient in controlling the nitrification of blackwater aquaria than you in the states. It’s only a fact that we establish such tanks quite successfully with rather a satisfying stability. But how things work and why things work and which components are responsible for it: this we all don’t know in sufficient detail.
Blackwater aquaria are possible and could be stable and beautiful, but they are only poorly understood at present. Your posting is one of the few contributions to the effort of pushing the frontiers a bit wider; thanks.
Bill is right in saying that I reported that tweediei was not in trade so far in recent years (since the species was firmly determined/described by Kottelat and Ng in 2005). Kottelat thinks that it was traded before; in fact he stated that it was the most traded Parosphromenus in the eighties and nineties when all were called “deissneri” and we all thought that to be a correct determination. I doubt that. The fish that I saw in 1975 at Dr. Foersch’s home in Munich (and subsequently recieved from him) were similar but probably not identical with the later tweediei. They resembled waht we later called P. spec. Kota Tinggi. Martin Hallmann and I discuss that question in our forthcoming book on “Prachtguramis” (“Which spieces was investigated and bred by Foersch?”). But those fish were private imports by Dietrich Schaller (“Trichopsis schalleri”).
Nevertheless there were private imports of the true (later) tweediei in the nineties; the famous picture by Günter Kopic is the proof. At that time we called them P. spec. Pontian. It is possible that there were commercial imports of that species at that time, too. But this is a presumption; we don’t know it for sure. Undoubtedly, the fish described in 2005 as tweediei was not traded commercially in recent years since 2000.But there is always a first. Armin was right, these fish are the true tweediei. There is evidence of one of the best experts we have on that species, biologist Prof. Dr. Peter Beyer from Freiburg university in Germany who caught them several times himself in Western Malaysia and now saw them in Freiburg per shops in recent weeks (information by Martin Hallmann). The Dutch wholesaler Ruinemans is one of the big companies which deliver fish to many countries, and so Helene could find them in Kopenhagen, too. Therefore it is quite possible that there was an import to the U.S., too. This is possible because it is a typical scheme that there are many half-grown fish been caught and traded several months after a breeding session.
As Helene’s pictures show there are considerable parts of blue in the red dorsal and anal fins of the males. This is typical: Beyer, at different times in different years found tweediei in their original habitat “orderly” red, and at other occasions nearly all individuals were nearly completely blue! Sometimes, the colours were mixed (as they are here). He supposes this to be a question of their diets, but the thing is not yet completely clear.
Anyway, we have tweediei now in trade, and Armin is to be praised that he told us this news. Maybe, the information from the U.S. was true also, but the fish seem to be sold out. Or is there anybody who bought them and could tell us: tweediei or not?
Jeniffer, your photo shows a young male. Its dorsal fin is quite short still, that must develop a longer filament, definitely. This means: Most of the fish of this shipment were very young indeed and it takes time to develop colours and maturity. So, Bill: patience! Paros need more time than most other fish.
I guess the one other you describe may be an older female. They often have broader stripes than the males.
