Is your tank overstocked? check out kool www.aquadvisor.com
- Thread starter sushiray
- Start date
A single cory is a lonely cory.90 gal. FW 2.common plecos,3.clown loach,1 bronze cory,2 Satanoperca jurupariopcorn:
I know ,I've had it going on 5years and Lost 2 about a year and a half ago,it seems to be doing fine.
Hello,
I also have a stocking calculator system (I use a spreadsheet application, however) and I have shared info with yhbae on occassion. I usually find his computations to be pretty safe. As to the 90-gallon setup, I would agree with yhbae: the plecos and clowns, if kept such thatthey reached their full potential would create a lot of waste and place a significant strain on the system. Granted, most people never see the full potential of these fish due to stunting and other factors, but I firmly believe that aquarists should try to account for ideal conditions. Thus, compared to the ideal, your tank is "seriously overstocked."
This is the greatest problem I have encountered with my own stocking theories, personal beliefs. I have heard people say time and again that a computer cannot handle the factor that go into aquarium keeping, but the biggest problem I have seen is getting aquarists to agree on even basic operationalizations. The problem is often not the data; the problem lies with who is interpreting the data.
No less, I am still going to keep creating stocking formulas
. I feel that more can be gained by trying to account for problems in a systematic way than by simply leaving such discussions to ambiguity.
Have Fun,
MOA
I also have a stocking calculator system (I use a spreadsheet application, however) and I have shared info with yhbae on occassion. I usually find his computations to be pretty safe. As to the 90-gallon setup, I would agree with yhbae: the plecos and clowns, if kept such thatthey reached their full potential would create a lot of waste and place a significant strain on the system. Granted, most people never see the full potential of these fish due to stunting and other factors, but I firmly believe that aquarists should try to account for ideal conditions. Thus, compared to the ideal, your tank is "seriously overstocked."
This is the greatest problem I have encountered with my own stocking theories, personal beliefs. I have heard people say time and again that a computer cannot handle the factor that go into aquarium keeping, but the biggest problem I have seen is getting aquarists to agree on even basic operationalizations. The problem is often not the data; the problem lies with who is interpreting the data.
No less, I am still going to keep creating stocking formulas
. I feel that more can be gained by trying to account for problems in a systematic way than by simply leaving such discussions to ambiguity.Have Fun,
MOA
I think it's a good place to start when planning to stock a tank. It can point you in the right direction.
The system is based on a fishes adult size. Clown loaches and common plecos get huge, so yes once full grown, your tank will be overstocked.
The system is based on a fishes adult size. Clown loaches and common plecos get huge, so yes once full grown, your tank will be overstocked.
XMAN,
Yhbae does not account for plants because he is afraid that the inclusion of plants may result in a condition in which the aquarist might not have to do water changes (and water changes should be done regularly, even if the water chemistry seems fine). Another problem with adjusting for plants is that it is hard to find solid data that can account for how a plant interacts with fish waste byproducts. As far as I know, my spreadsheets are the only stocking calculator on the web that account for plants. I, however, cheat a little in that my formulas are not species-specific but instead use the plants' growth rate. It is a complicated formula yet has worked well so far.
Rbishop,
The calculation is probably correct--what makes the difference is how you interpret the result. The basic question is whether or not you agree with yhbae's operationalization of what is "ideal."
The reason why I bring this up is that I kinda hate to see a formula be blamed for what is really more of a personality/belief issue. In other words, not agreeing with the result does not make the underlying computation wrong. Contrarily, it means that the users may simply disagree.
Cheers,
MOA
Yhbae does not account for plants because he is afraid that the inclusion of plants may result in a condition in which the aquarist might not have to do water changes (and water changes should be done regularly, even if the water chemistry seems fine). Another problem with adjusting for plants is that it is hard to find solid data that can account for how a plant interacts with fish waste byproducts. As far as I know, my spreadsheets are the only stocking calculator on the web that account for plants. I, however, cheat a little in that my formulas are not species-specific but instead use the plants' growth rate. It is a complicated formula yet has worked well so far.
Rbishop,
The calculation is probably correct--what makes the difference is how you interpret the result. The basic question is whether or not you agree with yhbae's operationalization of what is "ideal."
The reason why I bring this up is that I kinda hate to see a formula be blamed for what is really more of a personality/belief issue. In other words, not agreeing with the result does not make the underlying computation wrong. Contrarily, it means that the users may simply disagree.
Cheers,
MOA
