Solo geophagus?

[Roger Mcfish]

Yes, absolutely; it's amazing how most of our standard aquarium species can adapt, thrive and breed in a wide range of pH, hardness/softness, temperatures, etc...and yet it seems to be a trend now to fret about flow rate as if only a very specific amount of water movement will provide comfort to the fish. In a natural situation it would be easy to find 2, 3 or more species of fish found living side by side in a stretch of water, but whose feeding strategies keep them in completely different rates of flow. A pelagic species or a bottom feeder in open areas would be exposed to the highest rates of flow, but other species living an ambush predator lifestyle would spend the vast bulk of their time in a slack water micro-environment in the lee of a rock or other obstruction, from which they would periodically launch attacks on nearby prey items.

Seriously thinking that both of those types of fish could be housed in their "preferred" flow rate within the confines of a typical aquarium is delusional. The entire aquarium in most cases is smaller than many of those slack water zones, and yet we have keepers thinking that a few cubic feet of space can be used to replicate the various areas of an entire river. It's just not realistic.

Before we decide that a given fish species is "happier" in a social group or as a single fish...consider that fish, like all species of wildlife, are concerned about not only their own survival, but also to at least the same degree they are driven by the reproductive imperative. The desire to breed and perpetuate not the species, but rather their own bloodline within the species, is being frustrated whenever we keep a single fish. We do it because their aggressive tendencies become inconvenient for us; we can't keep a pair together because they may breed, causing problems for other tankmates, so we keep a handful of singletons together to minimize their aggressions. It makes it easier for us to crowd more species and individuals into our tanks...but think of the frustration we create for them! If you want something obscure about which to worry...there's an interesting target.

I agree as I may have mentioned in this thread, why spend all that money on geophagus for a group that everyone recommends to do but they become aggressive towards each other as they mature. A lot of geophagus aren't just $5-$10 at all especially for popular or rare species.

 

[RD.]

Before we decide that a given fish species is "happier" in a social group or as a single fish...consider that fish, like all species of wildlife, are concerned about not only their own survival, but also to at least the same degree they are driven by the reproductive imperative. The desire to breed and perpetuate not the species, but rather their own bloodline within the species, is being frustrated whenever we keep a single fish. We do it because their aggressive tendencies become inconvenient for us; we can't keep a pair together because they may breed, causing problems for other tankmates, so we keep a handful of singletons together to minimize their aggressions. It makes it easier for us to crowd more species and individuals into our tanks...but think of the frustration we create for them! If you want something obscure about which to worry...there's an interesting target.

This made me think back to a male African Cichlid that I owned years ago. One of the more peaceful species, that as he aged would not tolerate females of any species, from the same genus, Aulonocara. Not tolerate, as in he killed them all.

As for the purist types, I decided a long time ago that wild fish are probably best left in the wild. Domestic strains won’t miss what they never had.

 

[duanes]

To me, what most aquarists think of a strong current in a tank, with a HOB, a few airstones, even maybe a canister, is barely any current at all, compared to where I collect rheophillic species, and have a hard time just maintaining balance, or standing in the flow (if at all)


,
So guessing that it will be enough current to quell aggression in species such as rheophillic Geophagines, Retruculus, or Tomocichla, is probably not being very realistic.

 

[Roger Mcfish]

To me, what most aquarists think of a strong current in a tank, with a HOB, a few airstones, even maybe a canister, is barely any current at all, compared to where I collect rheophillic species, and have a hard time just maintaining balance, or standing in the flow (if at all)

View attachment 1571036
, View attachment 1571037
So guessing that it will be enough current to quell aggression in species such as rheophillic Geophagines, Retruculus, or Tomocichla, is probably not being very realistic.

Then it looks like you should probably look into a different species that doesn't require high flow.
I meant that in no shape or form as getting rowdy either. As someone else mentioned, wild caught should be left in the wild whereas tank raised can be kept in so the preaching of what each species needs in the wild, doesn't necessarily have to be true for tank raised.

I'd like to add, how true is it really that most/majority of fish that "require" high flow, actually stay in high flow their entire lives. I can't see breeding to where eggs end up blowing down stream.

 

[duanes]

Of course when most Geos, and many other rheophillic species breed, they seek out oxbows and slack waters to spawn and raise young.
But most of their lives, those rheophiles spend time in quite fast, highly oxygenated conditions.
And of couse there are seasonal situtions where conditions change.....
but if expecting natural behavior in the confines of a puddle from that group is a bit of at stretch....and or maybe as as said.... some of these Geos should not be kept in aquariums at all, if we are actually being serious aquarists and trying to keep them healthy.

In my rheophillic cichlid tanks along with strong pumps to force walls of water along the endtire length of the tank from planted sumps, and also suppliment flow with wave makers to maintain extra flow, to mimic the flow rates where I catch them, and hold similar water parameters.

The average Orinoco River flow rate in S America is 1.37 million gallons per hour, at 0 ppm nitrate so maybe its true...... capturing any Geo from the river to keep in a 4 ft tank with a canister filter as pumpage is a tad ridiculous.

The Amazon dumps 55 to 60 million gallons per second into the Atlantic on average....
I guess we all do the best we can,... its all about how persickity we want to get.

 

[HUKIT]

I’ve had easily more than a dozen WC cichlids and there is definitely a very clear difference in their behavior when compared to domestic bred fish. The CB often became more aggressive, were far more curious(less skittish), and less wary of potential threats. These behaviors could be due to a consistent food source, lower densities of con-specifics, and less natural environments(glass boxes), making them appear to be less skilled at foraging, and avoiding predators compared to their wild counterparts.

 

[Roger Mcfish]

Of course when most Geos, and many other rheophillic species breed, they seek out oxbows and slack waters to spawn and raise young.
But most of their lives, those rheophiles spend time in quite fast, highly oxygenated conditions.
And of couse there are seasonal situtions where conditions change.....
but if expecting natural behavior in the confines of a puddle from that group is a bit of at stretch....and or maybe as as said.... some of these Geos should not be kept in aquariums at all, if we are actually being serious aquarists and trying to keep them healthy.

In my rheophillic cichlid tanks along with strong pumps to force walls of water along the endtire length of the tank from planted sumps, and also suppliment flow with wave makers to maintain extra flow, to mimic the flow rates where I catch them, and hold similar water parameters.

The average Orinoco River flow rate in S America is 1.37 million gallons per hour, at 0 ppm nitrate so maybe its true...... capturing any Geo from the river to keep in a 4 ft tank with a canister filter as pumpage is a tad ridiculous.

The Amazon dumps 55 to 60 million gallons per second into the Atlantic on average....
I guess we all do the best we can,... its all about how persickity we want to get.

If most of this is the case, not one soul should house any kind of fish in a glass box.

 

[duanes]

Above is the Rio Las Margaritas one of the rivers where I collect wild Darienheros (below)

So the flow rate from my sump, looks like this, I know, close but no cigar

and these are tests for the same rivers water parameters

And with every other day 40% water changes, and a planted sump, these are my tanks water parameters.

Not perfect, but trying to get close, all one can do is try to get get close.

 

[Roger Mcfish]

View attachment 1571050
Above is the Rio Las Margaritas one of the rivers where I collect wild Darienheros (below)
View attachment 1571051
So the flow rate from my sump, looks like this, I know, close but no cigar
View attachment 1571052
and these are tests for the same rivers water parameters
View attachment 1571053View attachment 1571054
And with every other day 40% water changes, and a planted sump, these are my tanks water parameters.
View attachment 1571055
Not perfect, but trying to get close, all one can do is try to get g

We understand this as you constantly show the same photos. Once again not saying you're wrong, but most of us take that into consideration to try and keep nitrates low. All of my tanks stay roughly less than 5ppm, no plants and undetectable and the only reason for that is most of my tank have solo residents, over filtrated and I perform 80-90% weekly water changes. That's about not just me, but any of us can do with glass boxes.

 

[jjohnwm]

But most of their lives, those rheophiles spend time in quite fast, highly oxygenated conditions....The average Orinoco River flow rate in S America is 1.37 million gallons per hour, at 0 ppm nitrate so maybe its true...... capturing any Geo from the river to keep in a 4 ft tank with a canister filter as pumpage is a tad ridiculous.

Those numbers sound impressive, and are impressive, but...let's do some math.

A quick search of the stats for the Orinoco gives a vast range of average widths and depths, largely depending upon the season (wet vs dry). The bottom extreme of this range...the narrowest average width...was shown as about a kilometer (1000m or about 3300 feet). Likewise, the shallowest average depth was claimed as 50 meters (about 165 feet). That gives us an average cross-sectional area of well over a half million square feet. Since the bottom of the river slopes downward from the shore to the deepest part and then back up again to the opposite shore, let's divide that area in half...one quarter million square feet.

As that 1.37 million gallons of water per hour hurtles downstream, it is spread over a quarter million square feet of cross-sectional area. A quick calculation seems to show that the flow rate per square foot is something around 5 gallons per hour per square foot.

Of course this is too simplistic; there will be huge variations from area to area. So multiply our number by ten, or even by 100...it's still somewhat underwhelming. Set up a tank, of any length, with a depth and a height of one foot. Slap on a canister or a HOB that moves 500 gallons per hour (not unrealistic). Extend the intake to one end of the tank and the return to the other end. You have a created a microcosm that approaches, matches or even exceeds the monumental flow rate of the mighty Orinoco river.

Please, prove me wrong. I was never fully behind the idea that flow rates in nature were so far in excess of those in our tanks...but now I'm shocked to see how feeble they are in practical terms. I don't care about the huge numbers needed to describe the overall amount of water rushing to the sea; I'm thinking more about the actual amount of water flowing around the fish where they are situated.

On top of that, I can't help but compare this to my observations of trout in their natural environment. Everybody "knows" that trout "need" fast-flowing, highly-aerated water...but the fact that they often live in small, shallow, clear-water streams makes them a prime candidate for "fish-watching". No need to flop around in the water with them; it's fairly simple to find an elevated bank or other dry, comfortable perch from which to observe them. Surprise! They don't spend most, or even much, of their time fighting a raging current. They almost always lurk in a quiet section of slack water, in the lee of a boulder or other obstruction, from which they launch their feeding attacks on passing prey items.

Usually, the biggest/oldest/most dominant fish are found in places like beaver ponds or still-water pools along the stream. The big guys are no dummies; they, like most animals, follow the path of least resistance to conserve as much energy as possible.

Certainly, they need high oxygen levels, as the water in which they live has been thoroughly oxygenated in riffles, rapids and shallows...but they find much less energy-intensive places to rest and enjoy all that wonderful oxygen.