Companionship !

And no I do not want a date. I have bantams now and someone has offered to ship me some Orange Spotted. What do you think? I also have some warmouths. Very very young warmouths that are actually smaller than my baby bantams. If I grow these out together, bantams, orange spotted, and warmouth do you think the warmouth would be a problem. I have owned one warmouth and he seemed calm and sedate. And what about other tank mates for this Forty gallon breeder I have. Bantams six, Orange spotted 4 to six, and warmouth one. I know the warmouth loves a fish diet but do you think he could swallow a three inch bantam when he was raised in the same tank with the smaller sunfish with him starting out smaller than the bantams.

Appreciate any and all input.

Daniel

No body like me any more I would really like to know your opinions right or wrong or guessing. No problem. I usually just go by reading and gut instinct. So please let me know you opinion.

I too find warmouth to be somewhat shy and ignore other fish rather than be real aggressive. I would think it would be ok as long as the warmouth doesn't get so much bigger that the others could be considered food.

No body like me any more I would really like to know your opinions right or wrong or guessing. No problem. I usually just go by reading and gut instinct. So please let me know you opinion.

It isn't that nobody likes you. It was only about six hours since your original post. A lot of people have not gotten home to read your post.

Somebody on this forum recently wrote that warmouth are commonly available throughout the east. Well, they are endangered in Pennsylvania, so they are not so common here. I have never seen one in person. But since you are asking for a guess, I'm guessing that the warmouth should not remain in the same tank as the orangespotted sunfish. They may be okay together while their sizes are similar, but the orangespotted sunfish I think will stay small, while the warmouth will grow significantly larger.

If you want to try it, keep an eye on their growth knowing you may have to separate them. Let us know how it works out.

Yea o-spot get no bigger than 6" and warmouth can get up to 12"...Sounds bad to me.

Chad

It isn't that nobody likes you. It was only about six hours since your original post. A lot of people have not gotten home to read your post.

Somebody on this forum recently wrote that warmouth are commonly available throughout the east. Well, they are endangered in Pennsylvania, so they are not so common here. I have never seen one in person. But since you are asking for a guess, I'm guessing that the warmouth should not remain in the same tank as the orangespotted sunfish. They may be okay together while their sizes are similar, but the orangespotted sunfish I think will stay small, while the warmouth will grow significantly larger.

If you want to try it, keep an eye on their growth knowing you may have to separate them. Let us know how it works out.

Thanks Ed, I thought my post was on there much longer than that. No offense meant. And this also answers another question on the other post that I created about "Whats the matter here" I guess I get grumpy too fast LOL. So with that said anyone, even you Ed, that cannot get warmouths I have several babies right now that would be perfect to grow out. What can I say I am learning and old.

It boils down to this again. So many fish so few tanks/money. May have to do with out warmouths for a while. But actually I may try to raise them together for a short time and watch their growth rate. Would be a good study I suppose. But I must say for those that are new to this forum like me that Warmouths are really awesome to the greatest degree. Great temperment, good looks, and they blush lilke a camillion.

Again quoting sizes from books is not very accurate as they usually list the max size that any one has ever seen. At least that is what is seems like to me. I lived in Oshawa Ontario Canada for around six years and would catch pumpkinseed all the time. I have never seen one over seven inches. In fact if I caught one seven inches that would be considered very large to me up there. I believe the books say sixteen inches. So while books are good for ID purposes I do not believe most of the size specs. they give. Some yes, most no.

the size factor is true to an extent with the warmouth too but I have had them get up to 10 or 11" in a tank. They do indeed get rather large if well fed. I should also say though that I don't recal ever catching one in the wild above 9" maybe 10". Seems good care and a lot of food can push the limits of the natural world.

I have never kept any of those species but I think a 12" warmouth would have a difficult time eating a 6" orangespot, batams are smaller however and a warmouth may be able to eat those. I simply would not do it based on tanksize alone however. I don't know how many water changes you plan to do or what kind of filtration you have but I would not put a 12" fish alone in a 40g, let alone a 12" fish pluse the others you mention.

A twelve inch fish in a forty gallon tank a no no!! Well not for me. That sounds rediculous to me actually. I have kept and Oscar, eight inch warmouth, five inch central long ear, and four inch green sunnie in there. Maintainence was practicaly nill. Like I have said before. I do not rely on book specs very much. I think the same of some books. Extreem to the max. I have heard some one say one inch of fish for ten gallons of water. Even one inch of fish to each gallon can be pushed much further with the proper set up. Those fish had plenty of room and a water change once a month would be at most the most often I would do. And then only 25% at most. I hear people say they do fifty percent like twice a week or once a week. I am very surprised that the fish do not die with that much disruption of the water parameters. Again just my "HUMBLE" if you will opinion. And I have been keeping fish since my age was in the single digits and I am almost a half centry now.

A twelve inch fish in a forty gallon tank a no no!! Well not for me. That sounds rediculous to me actually. I have kept and Oscar, eight inch warmouth, five inch central long ear, and four inch green sunnie in there. Maintainence was practicaly nill. Like I have said before. I do not rely on book specs very much. I think the same of some books. Extreem to the max. I have heard some one say one inch of fish for ten gallons of water. Even one inch of fish to each gallon can be pushed much further with the proper set up. Those fish had plenty of room and a water change once a month would be at most the most often I would do. And then only 25% at most. I hear people say they do fifty percent like twice a week or once a week. I am very surprised that the fish do not die with that much disruption of the water parameters. Again just my "HUMBLE" if you will opinion. And I have been keeping fish since my age was in the single digits and I am almost a half centry now.

Well then you represent a very different side of the hobby, I cannot imagin doing what you do. Personally, I'm not happy unless a 12" fish can swim 4 times it's own body length...so any fish that's a foot long needs a 55g IMO just for space alone. Also, I cannot imagine what your nitrates were like, or the stunting you're fish went through. I had HITH problems with my oscars due to nirtates over 20 ppm. That was 2 in a 75g that got weekly 50% water changes,sometimes more. I ended up loosing an oscar. I would never go a month without a water change in any of my tanks as they are now, let alone stocked like yours.

Well then you represent a very different side of the hobby, I cannot imagin doing what you do. Personally, I'm not happy unless a 12" fish can swim 4 times it's own body length...so any fish that's a foot long needs a 55g IMO just for space alone. Also, I cannot imagine what your nitrates were like, or the stunting you're fish went through. I had HITH problems with my oscars due to nirtates over 20 ppm. That was 2 in a 75g that got weekly 50% water changes,sometimes more. I ended up loosing an oscar. I would never go a month without a water change in any of my tanks as they are now, let alone stocked like yours.

Well I only mentioned 12 inches because the other person used that length as a bench mark. I do not think my largest fish was nine inches maybe a little more. But I stick with my comments. The warmouth was comfortable under the log. The greenie was fine with his hiding place in the log and the long ear did not last long, not that he died but that he started eye nipping my warmouth and his eye was clouding up. I removed the long ear and the warmouth's eye cleared right up. So I guess I clash with the mainstream. But I am not one to follow mainstream anyway. I go the way I think is right and offer no justification for it in all I do, not just fish keeping. But I won't go there on this forum. It is against the guidelines. And I hope I am not comming across as bashing your system for that is against the guiedlines also. I just think the guiedlilnes set forth in books are eccentric/overkill/etc etc. I have never had any mass die offs of any kind. In fact I hardly ever have fish die except for old age.

Well then you represent a very different side of the hobby, I cannot imagin doing what you do. Personally, I'm not happy unless a 12" fish can swim 4 times it's own body length...so any fish that's a foot long needs a 55g IMO just for space alone. Also, I cannot imagine what your nitrates were like, or the stunting you're fish went through. I had HITH problems with my oscars due to nirtates over 20 ppm. That was 2 in a 75g that got weekly 50% water changes,sometimes more. I ended up loosing an oscar. I would never go a month without a water change in any of my tanks as they are now, let alone stocked like yours.

No offense meant here but did you ever stop and think that the Oscar died because the water parameters were disrupted way to often and way to much at one time. I have never read a book that said change 50% of the water at one time. Actually I have read that 25% should be the maxium you ever change at one time. I honestly think you changed the water way too much. My opinion and two faced answer since I said I did not think books set forth correct guide lines. I guess I read books then I use common sense and come up with my own formula.

nah water changes are a good thing I mean ask any discus breeder wat he does for water changes.
he'll say 50% a week or more

nah water changes are a good thing I mean ask any discus breeder wat he does for water changes.
he'll say 50% a week or more

Well I guess I just agree to disagree. Now you are talking about discus. Wild native north american fish are not discus being bred. No fifty percent water change or more for me in a week. No way.

I'm not trying to bash your methods either, just a friendly discussion is how I see it. As for my oscars, no, I don't think it was the water changes. I think it was high nitrate levels, oscars are known to be sensitive to high nitrates and it is a well known cause for HITH. I still do the weekly 50% change on all my tanks and have never lost a fish from it, my remaining oscar is healthy now. For the record, I don't go by the books either, I read very few fish keeping books. I normally don't like the advice books give. Most of what I learn comes from forums such as this, where I talk to other keepers, breeders or dealers. If you system is working for you, that's fine...I don't know how it works, it sounds to me like it would not work (I mean, if you're not reducing nitrates, what is?) but that's what you choose to do.

Again the only place I have ever read to change 50% water every week is in breeding fish that need exceptionaly clean water, and on this site. I think the general/normal accepted method is to change 25% water every month. And they advise actually to not change more than this as it may harm the bio whatever of the water. I am no scientist I just keep fish so that is why I do not write like a scientist. I desire to learn so maybe I stand to be corrected but that would be a hard sell to me this 50% water change per week thing. This is the only way I have ever kept fish. On my fifteen when I was not into natives I was keeping it as a tetra tank. Buy the book if some one could prosecute and hang for what I did I would be dead now (number of fish in there). but on the back of that little tank I ran three power filters with biowheels on two of them. When doing water changes once a month I would only change one filter and wash the other two in the dirty water not to harm the benificial whatever. Like I said I am not a scientist so I do not write like one. But I knew tetras could be touchy to sudden changes thus the three small filter method versus the one large filter to match the tank size. Actually each filter was rated to ten gallon tanks. So I had double the filtration needed. So there you go I am not cruel to my little fishies. And by the way if you add a protien skimmer you can reduce your maintaince to as much as every six months. And I am not makeing this up on my own nor did I read it. A private pet store owner taught this to me and he kept a tank in his store like this for show purposes. Worked great and there were plenty of happy healthy fish in there. I have been wanting to add a protien skimmer not so I do not have to change water just every six months but I think it keeps the water much cleaner and healthier. So now you heard the rest of the story. And no my name is not Paul

Take care,
Daniel

Again the only place I have ever read to change 50% water every week is in breeding fish that need exceptionaly clean water, and on this site. I think the general/normal accepted method is to change 25% water every month. And they advise actually to not change more than this as it may harm the bio whatever of the water. I am no scientist I just keep fish so that is why I do not write like a scientist. I desire to learn so maybe I stand to be corrected but that would be a hard sell to me this 50% water change per week thing. This is the only way I have ever kept fish. On my fifteen when I was not into natives I was keeping it as a tetra tank. Buy the book if some one could prosecute and hang for what I did I would be dead now (number of fish in there). but on the back of that little tank I ran three power filters with biowheels on two of them. When doing water changes once a month I would only change one filter and wash the other two in the dirty water not to harm the benificial whatever. Like I said I am not a scientist so I do not write like one. But I knew tetras could be touchy to sudden changes thus the three small filter method versus the one large filter to match the tank size. Actually each filter was rated to ten gallon tanks. So I had double the filtration needed. So there you go I am not cruel to my little fishies. And by the way if you add a protien skimmer you can reduce your maintaince to as much as every six months. And I am not makeing this up on my own nor did I read it. A private pet store owner taught this to me and he kept a tank in his store like this for show purposes. Worked great and there were plenty of happy healthy fish in there. I have been wanting to add a protien skimmer not so I do not have to change water just every six months but I think it keeps the water much cleaner and healthier. So now you heard the rest of the story. And no my name is not Paul

Take care,
Daniel

I don't think anyone is telling you that you must perform %50 water changes weekly. I started out changing %30 as often as I could (every week to two weeks). I joined forums and the guys I trusted always performed these huge water changes. I was skeptical just like you for concerns of crashing my biological filter. I'm not a scientist either but I was willing to try just to see what happened. I should mention that all owners of fish must own at least a nitrAte test kit. This is the only way you can regulate the water change schedule. These kits are cheap and pretty easy to use. Needless to say the %50 water changes allowed me to either have more fish in my tanks or change water less frequently. I now have lots more fish and never suffered a biological filter crash. Obviously you must have good water from the tap and dechlorinator is mandatory with any water change.

With all this said, if you keep few small fish in your tanks you really don't need to change all that much water all that often but you certainly need a nitrate test kit to see where you're at.

Again the only place I have ever read to change 50% water every week is in breeding fish that need exceptionaly clean water, and on this site. I think the general/normal accepted method is to change 25% water every month.

It really depends on how many fish you have in what size tank, that determines how often you must change it. There is no set rule. Some setups may not require 50% weekly changes, but some (like mine, and from the sound of it yours) need water changed more often. Bascially, you test the nitrates in the water and use that as an indication of when it needs a change. I try to keep my nitrates below 20-40 ppm depending on the tank, this requires a weekly water change in most of my tanks.

And they advise actually to not change more than this as it may harm the bio whatever of the water. I am no scientist I just keep fish so that is why I do not write like a scientist. I desire to learn so maybe I stand to be corrected but that would be a hard sell to me this 50% water change per week thing.

The nitrifying bacteria will be fine. If it can survive the fast flowing streams and rivers they live in in the wild then they can survive the suction of a siphon. One thing you don't want to do that I should have mentioned before if change the filter media often. I hardly change mine at all,I typically just scrub the waste off gently in a bucket of tank water.

Actually each filter was rated to ten gallon tanks. So I had double the filtration needed. So there you go I am not cruel to my little fishies.

Extra filters does not mean you need to change the water less, though the bacteria will use up ammonia and nitrite they don't use up nitrate.

Extra filters does not mean you need to change the water less, though the bacteria will use up ammonia and nitrite they don't use up nitrate.

It would if they were changed frequently so that accumulated organic material was removed before it broke down.