The Hypocrite thread mbu

[J-P]

On water quality:
Actually, according to RTR:
"The big issue in reality was water quality. Two 1/3 partials per week were not sufficient to keep the nitrates low (2 each 1/3 is ~= to one 50% partial) - it took three. So metabolically I needed more partials or a lot more veggie filters or automated daily water partials." (as alrady posted).

Regarding tank size:
Again 500 - 600 is subjective. What is the foot print of these tanks? That is more important. Optimal height, width, and depth for swimming space are needed. If we were talking bare minimums, why are we not talking life span also? Will an MBU live to its full life span in a 100 gal (for certainly it WILL fit).
That is where "minimum requirements" actually come into play.
How do you provide the bare minimum environment in which it will live 20+ years, be healthy and have enough water volume + filtration to cope with a bioload that would equate to 50% partials weekly?
Until someone can say (approximately) that a T.Mbu will out put x amount of bioload in a week, at a certain age and certain size, it is all speculation.

Note that the need for water changes is determined by the Nitrate levels. If you must do more partials (higher than 50% weekly) your water volume & / or filtration is off. How you accomplish the partials is up to you.
Again, you can't compare other species of fish. It just doesn't enter into the equation
I reiterate, that if you are doing more than 50% water changes per week (however you choose to do them) your housing, and filtration are inadequate. Technology has allowed us to deal more easily with our inadequacies, and over time this will improve, but then you are creating a flow chart of "ifs", in order to minimize the tank size needed for any fish.

 

[JasonsPlecosCichlids]

Question--- The filters we have today, arent they much better than what they had back in the 50's and 60's when these tests were performed? I seen that he had puffers in the 60's so Im assuming he had an mbu back then. How do the filters back then compare to what we have now? Im assuming MUCH better now than back then. I bet if you were to go thru the same tests now in a 180, the results would be very different, at least I think.

 

[kevinfleming21]

Master B, just out of curiosity...what size tank is you brute in?

 

[JasonsPlecosCichlids]

180 all to himself.

 

[kevinfleming21]

Really? He does not look that cramped. Makes me feel better about my 300...I did have a few concerns on it being a little "tight"

 

[JasonsPlecosCichlids]

Well its 24" wide, he is right at 23" and seems to be very comfortable. He is active when he wants to be, like to swim up to the 2 koralinas and swim in the current, then he lays back down, for a fat boy he sure can scoot across the tank when he wants too. I usually hand feed him and then rub his belly and 2 days ago I actually felt the sucking power he has when feeding him the shrimp, it was like a magnent and I sure am glad it wasnt my finger. My gf did get bit by my 12" mbu and she got lucky, it cracked her nail and bit her down to the bone is what she said but prolly just felt like that, she said like a hammer. Thumb swelled up and when she had her arm down, the blood rushing to her finger made it hurt even worse. She is lucky it wasnt the big boy

 

[kevinfleming21]

Yeah, I make sure to keep my head on a swivel when hand feeding these beast. My Fahaka is VERY gentle though. She "knocks" the food out of my hand first, then grabs it.

 

[RD.]

JP ........ with regards to what RTR has stated, you might want to actually read the original version in full. That post is where the 1,000 gallon minimum originated back in 2005.

http://www.**************.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=150

Jen's post in this thread was an amended or updated version, where RTR now feels a 10ft long tank is required, not 8ft as stated back in 2005.

Of course 500-600 gallons is subjective, I thought that in this discussion it was safe to assume that meant a minimum of an 8x3 footprint. Apparently not.

Personally I wouldn't keep an adult mbu in anything less than a tank with an 8x4 footprint, but that's just me.

I reiterate, that if you are doing more than 50% water changes per week (however you choose to do them) your housing, and filtration are inadequate. Technology has allowed us to deal more easily with our inadequacies, and over time this will improve, but then you are creating a flow chart of "ifs", in order to minimize the tank size needed for any fish.

Wow, just wow. So in your world anyone that utilizes a system where more than 50% water changes are performed on a weekly basis, concludes that their housing & filtration are inadequate? I'm sure that the thousands of commercial operations utilizing modern technology would find that to be a rather amusing point of view. Utilizing modern technology has nothing to do with inadequacies, and everything to do with simplification, while at the same time providing a system where far more optimum water conditions can be offered than simply performing a once a week water change, no matter how large that water change might be. Welcome to the 21st century.


To MasterB ......

Well its 24" wide, he is right at 23" and seems to be very comfortable.

Of course your mbu seems to be comfortable to you, because you have never kept this fish in anything larger to see just how big of a difference a large tank will make. To think that in some way you are providing adequate care for a 23" mbu, by keeping it in a 180 tank that measures 24" wide, is beyond ignorant. Your logic of thinking that modern filtration (canisters & HOB filters) is going to add a big plus to the equation also shows how little you understand about water quality, and bio load.
I'm glad to read that you have plans on moving this fish into larger quarters, hopefully for your mbu that will be sooner than later.

Please don't that as a personal attack, because it isn't, but comments like the ones you just made are precisely why some people feel they can properly house an adult mbu when in many cases they can't, and never will. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of people who feel that their full grown red devil, oscar, etc, are very comfortable in their 40 gallon tank, too.

All that type of behaviour from the fish is demonstrating is how resilient many species of fish are. Personally that's not something that I would be boasting about. It's exactly those types of comments that cause Jen to chime in on many of these mbu discussions, and with good reason.

My reason for posting in this discussion was simply to agree that IMO a 1,000 gallon minimum for a single mbu is overkill, but I most certainly agree with Jen that there are scores of people who buy these magnificent creatures with absolutely no idea what they are getting into.

And on that note I commend PufferPunk for her continuous effort in attempting to educate fellow hobbyists about some of the basic requirements for this species of puffer, and many others.

 

[JasonsPlecosCichlids]

JP ........ with regards to what RTR has stated, you might want to actually read the original version in full. That post is where the 1,000 gallon minimum originated back in 2005.

http://www.**************.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=150

Jen's post in this thread was an amended or updated version, where RTR now feels a 10ft long tank is required, not 8ft as stated back in 2005.

Of course 500-600 gallons is subjective, I thought that in this discussion it was safe to assume that meant a minimum of an 8x3 footprint. Apparently not.

Personally I wouldn't keep an adult mbu in anything less than a tank with an 8x4 footprint, but that's just me.




Wow, just wow. So in your world anyone that utilizes a system where more than 50% water changes are performed on a weekly basis, concludes that their housing & filtration are inadequate? I'm sure that the thousands of commercial operations utilizing modern technology would find that to be a rather amusing point of view. Utilizing modern technology has nothing to do with inadequacies, and everything to do with simplification, while at the same time providing a system where far more optimum water conditions can be offered than simply performing a once a week water change, no matter how large that water change might be. Welcome to the 21st century.


To MasterB ......



Of course your mbu seems to be comfortable to you, because you have never kept this fish in anything larger to see just how big of a difference a large tank will make. To think that in some way you are providing adequate care for a 23" mbu, by keeping it in a 180 tank that measures 24" wide, is beyond ignorant. Your logic of thinking that modern filtration (canisters & HOB filters) is going to add a big plus to the equation also shows how little you understand about water quality, and bio load.
I'm glad to read that you have plans on moving this fish into larger quarters, hopefully for your mbu that will be sooner than later.

Please don't that as a personal attack, because it isn't, but comments like the ones you just made are precisely why some people feel they can properly house an adult mbu when in many cases they can't, and never will. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of people who feel that their full grown red devil, oscar, etc, are very comfortable in their 40 gallon tank, too.

All that type of behaviour from the fish is demonstrating is how resilient many species of fish are. Personally that's not something that I would be boasting about. It's exactly those types of comments that cause Jen to chime in on many of these mbu discussions, and with good reason.

My reason for posting in this discussion was simply to agree that IMO a 1,000 gallon minimum for a single mbu is overkill, but I most certainly agree with Jen that there are scores of people who buy these magnificent creatures with absolutely no idea what they are getting into.

And on that note I commend PufferPunk for her continuous effort in attempting to educate fellow hobbyists about some of the basic requirements for this species of puffer, and many others.

The biggest tank he has been is was a 265, he done the same thing he does now, eats the same way, acts the same way. There is no difference in his actions between where he was and is now. There is no way any of us know just how "comfortable" these fish are, we are only thinking of how to make them comfortable or how they might feel. My MBU is most likely just as healthy as the next guys MBU on here.

So you are telling me when my MBU swims around the tank, he shouldnt be? or chewing on the rock? or swimming on the koralinas? You telling me basically my filtration is inadequate and water quality is bad? Should I perfrom some water testing for you? I guess the rest of my tanks water quality are bad, have less than perfect filtration, my fish are not at all comfortable, etc etc etc.

What do you want me to do??

 

[J-P]

Wow, just wow. So in your world anyone that utilizes a system where more than 50% water changes are performed on a weekly basis, concludes that their housing & filtration are inadequate? I'm sure that the thousands of commercial operations utilizing modern technology would find that to be a rather amusing point of view. Utilizing modern technology has nothing to do with inadequacies, and everything to do with simplification, while at the same time providing a system where far more optimum water conditions can be offered than simply performing a once a week water change, no matter how large that water change might be. Welcome to the 21st century.

Most commercial breeders use a massive pass through system that most home owners doesn't have access to. At best we can re-filter the water. To implement a system similar to what a commercial enterprise uses at the home level (obviously scaled down), would equate to having a sump off the main display. 8x4x? = roughly 700 gal + the sump.

** ohhh BTW... regarding breeders: The system they have in place and the level of technology they use is BECAUSE the system is so overstocked and not meant to home fish for their entire life time. Visit a trout or salmon farm and you'll see what I mean

Automated water changes are just that. A way for us to make things more simple. Without knowing what the actual bioload of the fish is, we don't know if we are wasting water or under utilizing it. The point I was trying to make was that if you are doing daily water changes simply because the filtration system can't keep up, then the system is inadequate. Having push button technology doesn't justify us having inadequate housing for our pets.

Also, if you do the math correctly anything less than 50% weekly will steadily increase your Nitrate levels to a point where the system would have to be completely flushed anyway to stay on par (what ever your par happens to be). Commercial units actually do this on a regular basis. We don't.