FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I've been wanting to plant my 75g forever it seems like. Now that Im getting a big black piranha Im wondering if now is the time to do it. In general how do rhoms do with plants. Im thinking of just doing 5 or 6 big plants

I'm kinda just wondering how you will get your hands in the tank all the time to be trimming/planting. I know I wouldn't want to. I have my hands in my tank all the time pulling out dead leaves, trimming, and generally just tinkering around - sometimes for hours at a time. I guess that wouldn't be a big issue with a few sturdy plants though.

I'm pretty sure that they do well with plants(don't do physical damage to them).

Last edited by mattyboombatty at 10-Dec-2005 16:06

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

How do you plan on keeping a 20" fish in a 75 gallon aquarium? Nats can do quite a bit of damage to the plants that are placed in with them, so I'd use only tough stuff such as anubias etc. etc.

I am not keeping nats Im getting a Black Diamond Rhombeus. Also it will take over a decade for it to get anywhere near 20", If it even can. It is very unusual for them to get bigger than 15". I also have a 125g for when the time comes. I was wondering what some nice big plants would be for the tank. Im thinking a big amazon sword would work well. I will deal with trimming later too, I still have to see what his personality will be like.

I am aware that you're not keeping nats. However, I mentioned it because I assume that both would be similar in their affinity for slashing plants. Also, most piranhas only live a stone's throw more than a decade in the wild, thus, I'd highly doubt that it'd take it's entire lifetime to reach it's maximum size of 20". From what I've seen on pf, which I do visit often, it seems that rhombs do reach 18"+ with a fair amount of regularity, so, well, I wouldn't count on your specimen staying below 15" (even then, as a robust, nomadic fish, it needs more than a 75). Most places I know of recommend a 180 gallon tank or greater.



Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 10-Dec-2005 22:50

Hmmm....I've read that red bellies would be good in planted tanks, just figured it was the same.

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

Red bellies would not do fine in a planted tank. Hell, I had a trio of red bellies that spawned for me a few times. These things tore apart my plastic plants. I can only imagine what they would do with the real deal.

Dang...I hate false information. I always thought it sounded odd. I've never tried it myself.

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

With plants it all depends on the individual fish. Some may ignore them and some may destroy them. A thread on pfury specifically talks about growing large rhoms in captivity. There is not a whole lot of people that actually have 18"+ Rhoms (which most are bought) and very few that grew them out.

Last edited by greenmonkey51 at 10-Dec-2005 22:23

[font color="#000080"]EDIT: Unsuitable link duhleted.[/font]

Last edited by sirbooks at 11-Dec-2005 10:25

I've actually read through that thread before. The bottom line is that most rhoms are housed in INSUFFICIENT aquaria, resulting in a relatively diminuative. Considering how wild caughts are growing to such a huge size is a testament against some of the proposed ideas about this dwarfism, including genetics.

Just because some wild caughts are large doesn't mean that all of them get that big. Those fish are specifically caught because they're that large. Who knows what the ratio of large rhoms to smaller rhoms is in the wild. Humans grow to all different sizes because of genetics so why couldn't fish. Also most people that buy high dollar rhoms know what they're doing and will keep them in good conditions, you could argue that all fish are kept in insufficent aquaria. Obviously a wild fish will grow much larger than one kept in a tank its whole life.

Not to be rude, but that's a ver ignorant school of thought. If you cannot house a fish properly, then do not get it. It's not fair to the fish.

"Just because some wild caughts are large doesn't mean that all of them get that big. Those fish are specifically caught because they're that large."

I've read accounts of collecting in the AM/LL, and from what I've seen, all adult fish caught were larger than the 12'15" that you quote them at.

"Who knows what the ratio of large rhoms to smaller rhoms is in the wild."

Scientific studies/collecting logs are currently our best bet. All sources point to "larger than 15""

"Humans grow to all different sizes because of genetics so why couldn't fish."
They, of course, do. However, the thing is that "small" in terms of wild rhombeus is 17", not 12", Thus it is an insufficient argument when attempting to explain why aquarium raised rhoms only reach 12" (which I find untrue anyways).

"Also most people that buy high dollar rhoms know what they're doing and will keep them in good conditions, you could argue that all fish are kept in insufficent aquaria."

Obviously not quite enough. It seems as if Asian raised characins of this genus grow much larger than their American analogues. We must be doing something wrong. Then again, maybe not. From what I've seen, many long time rhomb keepers have had their stock grow to immense sizes, provided they are housed sufficiently. Regardless, though; the point in question is that you cannot suitably house this fish, in either a 75 OR a 125. Don't get it if you can't afford anything larger.

"Obviously a wild fish will grow much larger than one kept in a tank its whole life."

Wrong. With the advent of new, protein rich and vitaman overpacked foods, not to mention heavy feedings, many fish grow much larger then their wild analogues. You are, however, correct if you were referring to saltwater fish whose growth are usually dictated by a number of minute and uncalculatable factors, not to mention dietary niceties that we cannot hope to replicate. Thankfully, FW fish are far easier to keep.