# 2.5G planted jar. Any fish options?



## thanatopsian (Dec 11, 2016)

Nope.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Kehy (Feb 5, 2012)

Sure you can. 

Some microfish that's I'm pretty confident would be happy there include:

Heterandria Formosa (world's smallest livebearer and US native, no heater needed)
Mircodevario Kubotai
Bororas Maculatus
Bororas Brigittae

and so on. Tiny little fish, but they'll still need good care and at least weekly water changes. Assuming your temps are both high enough and stable, a betta can work *one that likes small tanks*


----------



## takane2 (Feb 3, 2017)

I have a bunch of Bororas Brigittae in another tank. They are so cute!

I'd never heard of Mircodevario Kubotai, they seem interesting. Might see if they are available near me. Thanks!


----------



## ryry2012 (May 30, 2015)

People who have had kubotai told me that they were very active, so they needed a 20 gallon tank. Most kind of nano fish love to shoal, so a 2.5 gallon is not suitable for them.


----------



## justinmo (Nov 3, 2016)

I disagree with Kehy's suggestions. All of those fish would probably be better suited to at least the base dimensions of a 5 gallon standard tank. Simply because the fish are small doesn't mean they need a small space. What are the dimensions of that jar? IMO I don't think you should put any fish in the jar. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kehy (Feb 5, 2012)

justinmo said:


> I disagree with Kehy's suggestions. All of those fish would probably be better suited to at least the base dimensions of a 5 gallon standard tank. Simply because the fish are small doesn't mean they need a small space. What are the dimensions of that jar? IMO I don't think you should put any fish in the jar.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Heterandria Formosa I know from personal experience would be perfectly happy in that jar, perhaps as many as 10 of them. I've had a colony of 20 in my 5, and had I not thrown as many as I could catch in a pond, I'd have had more. I've kept 10 in a 2.5 gallon jar like this, even less densely planted. They didn't care. They were happy and active, and had no issues with the tight quarters.


----------



## limeslide (Jan 27, 2010)

I've seen vlogs of people successfully keeping and breeding pygmy sunfish (Elassoma sp.) in similar planted 2.5g set ups, check Inglorious Bettas on YouTube.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Can keep and eagle in a bird cage,or raise a child in a closet,what does this prove?
Do we think the eagle or child would thrive?
Do we think the fishes might like larger tank,or do we care?


----------



## Kanped (Dec 3, 2016)

A betta can be perfectly happy in a 2.5g, especially if it's this heavily planted. Bigger is always preferable but it can work fine. I've seen people keep Boraras successfully in tanks that size, too.


----------



## AquaAurora (Jul 10, 2013)

Its better to give fish a larger (specifically longer) tank with more water volume-more water=more stable environment (ph, temp, nitrogen dilution, etc). 
The only fish I'd consider in a 2.5 is a betta, with no tank mates-a snail has a surprisingly large bio load for its size, also no shrimp ans they have a high possibility of being on the menu-bettas are predators so don't' except them to ignore their hunting instincts when presented with a food source (shrimp).
Set tank temp in the 76-82F range for your betta. 
When buying a betta if you get it local check cup-make sure no white poop (sign of illness), only buy an (1) active betta that reacts to you, if its lethargic or having sbd problems (stuck at surface or at bottom of cup) it has problems. Check closely for ich, fin rot, eye fungus, or external parasites. Usually these guys can be fixed (often with just warm tank with clean water-daily 90%+ water change, sometimes some meds/aq salt are needed) but if you don't want a hospital tank and some extra work get a healthier betta. 
Be mindful of ones with scales starting to grow over their eyes (this is call diamond eye) common in metallic and dragon scale betas-scales can grow over the eyes and partially or fully blind them. They are not too difficult to keep but need a little extra care when it comes to feeding-must have a consistent feeding spot and ques used to tell them to come eat. I have/had 4 bettas with eye issues and all were able to eat with just a little extra attention-one had to eat food from the substrate as they top of his eyes were completely covered, others feed at the surface but take a little more work than non diamond eyes.
I'm not trying to deter you from having a betta-I have quite a few and LOVE them but some can take a little work/extra care.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I'd go just shrimp and snails. Effectively with the plants and other things in there it's more like 1.5G and it's vertical.


----------



## limeslide (Jan 27, 2010)

I second AquaAurora, snails can have a surprisingly large bioload! Especially if you have species that breed in freshwater like MTS or pond snails who over time can become swarms.

One thing interesting to note is how we often relegate bettas to the smallest of tanks despite advocating for smaller species needing larger set ups. I understand species behavior is a difference, as most 'nano' fish are schoolers and prefer space to shoal around. Many find bettas a lot more stagnant, perhaps due to the (perhaps terrible) mutations we have bred into them, or boredom, but the exceptionalism is still interesting to see. Subjective metaphors aside, observing successful and unsuccessful attempts at keeping fish/organisms in set ups like yours is the best track to seeing what works for you.


----------



## Kehy (Feb 5, 2012)

I think that perhaps the most important quotation that hasn't really been looked at is the footprint of the tank. A 1/2" fish might very well be comfortable in a tank 20 times its length. That would be a 10" tank. Small, yes, but not unreasonable for such a small fish.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Kehy said:


> I think that perhaps the most important quotation that hasn't really been looked at is the footprint of the tank. A 1/2" fish might very well be comfortable in a tank 20 times its length. That would be a 10" tank. Small, yes, but not unreasonable for such a small fish.


Most important quotation to me was in title of thread "A jar" :frown2:


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

roadmaster said:


> Most important quotation to me was in title of thread "A jar" :frown2:


Jars are usually vertical in nature. So I think a 2.5G normal tank shape would be different in terms of what you can house.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Yes,would certainly be a step up, or improvement.
Larger surface area for oxygen exchange by far.
With dollar a gallon sales on aquariums at chain stores like Petco,it passes my understanding as to why the notion of placing fishes in such a small vessel is even briefly entertained.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I don't get it either. I think part of the problem is the tiny tank recommendations from at least one of the big chains on housing for example Bettas. They recommend 1/4G or larger. That is absurd, once you add gravel, small decor, plant what ever your dealing with an 1/8 of a Gallon.


----------



## Kehy (Feb 5, 2012)

Part of it is the challenge and novelty of creating a world in such a small space. Other times it's an aesthetic choice. A flash of life in an otherwise ordinary setting


----------



## justinmo (Nov 3, 2016)

Kehy said:


> Part of it is the challenge and novelty of creating a world in such a small space. Other times it's an aesthetic choice. A flash of life in an otherwise ordinary setting




IMO I think you should put the fish's well being above that. Though nano fish would fit in there, most are schoolers and would not thrive. Just because you can stuff 20 fish in there doesn't mean it's ok to do. 

In this jar I would simply keep shrimp maybe snails. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## electrofunky (Jun 3, 2017)

We all know, within the aquatic industry, we're only just beginning to make true progress, with regards to welfare, or at least the consideration of such a thought. Now, advocating placing fish of any species in that tank, is not something I can honestly do. As I have been working extensively (and successfully I might add), in taking tiny tanks out of show in local LFS's. Instead, understanding there is a niche and need for them, but encouraging a conversation first be had with the potential customer as to why they wish to purchase. So is it for just a couple of shrimp, a few plants, so forth. If it's for anything other than that type of environment, then no, you're going to need more space. With all of this said, a handful of shrimp, go easy on the food, stick to well established strains of shrimp too, if you can in your area. So a generic cherry shrimp would not only pop with a dark substrate and greenery, but also be low cost for this experiment of sorts. Whilst snails would (depending on the type) digest uneaten shrimp food, I would personally suggest leaving it as a species only environment, and feeding so that you can see the food has clearly been eaten in a few hours. If your shrimp then happen to breed successfully, at that very moment you need to be thinking of your next tank and establishing a larger environment for them. Or keeping either all males/females of course.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

I don't think this tank is too small for H formosas. I've seen them in videos and they aren't very active. The bigger issue is maintaining the water quality. Don't skip any water changes and keep the temperature steady. Dirty water kills much faster than claustrophobia.

Electrofunky, whatever your personal feelings about stocking, remember that there's no scientifically tested standard for how much space pet fish need to be happy, so it's ultimately up to each aquarist how they stock their tank.

Although I agree that fish need ample swimming space, I can't help but wonder - if fish are stressed by being in small tanks, why don't they school tightly in them? I'm no expert, but I think tight schooling is an indicator that the fish feel exposed. Loose schooling in small tanks may indicate that the fish feel safe, as if they were in a secluded cave or a dense patch of plants.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

One more time..
Folk's keep referring to a "Tank" in this thread when in point of fact, it is a JAR suitable for perhaps a small colony of shrimp only, or flower's.
No escaping this for most who possess any true empathy for the welfare of fauna.


----------



## Kehy (Feb 5, 2012)

roadmaster said:


> One more time..
> Folk's keep referring to a "Tank" in this thread when in point of fact, it is a JAR suitable for perhaps a small colony of shrimp only, or flower's.
> No escaping this for most who possess any true empathy for the welfare of fauna.


The difference between a jar and a tank being... one has silicone? I've seen round tanks and square jars. You can have a filter, heater, and light on a jar (done it), and you can have a filterless, heaterless, natural-light only tank. It's a matter of providing that which is important to an animal's wellbeing, and not necessarily the way that is done.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

These small volumes of water or whatever you wish to call em(looks like a duck,quacks like a duck) are not suited for the well being of fishes.
Maybe 5 out of a 100 hobbyist's could sustain a few small fish in these small container's successfully over the long haul.
These 5 people don't come looking for advice on how to successfully accomplish it.
Is widely known among experienced hobbyist's, that these small container's are much more difficult to maintain healthy/stable condition's in ,suitable for long term health of life therein.
May as well give it those that don't know straight.
The fact that some video exists, showing a group of small fishes swimming about in these small container's, does not mean they survived more than a few day's or week's.
I could post up a video of an Oscar in a ten gal tank , or a dozen Koi in a 55 gal,
In reality the two examples would not help anyone(fishes either) other than those who search out someone,anyone, on these forums also doing the wrong thing to make themselves feel better about doing likewise.
I recall a young girl on another forum who prolly had thirty small bowls in her home she shared with her mother that each held a Betta or perhaps as many as 6 females to a bowl.
She was indeed able to care for these fishes until an injury left her temporarily unable to. And as she recuperated in the hospital,she left the small bowls in the charge of her mother.
Long story short, when she was able to leave the hospital and return home,she was saddened by the death of a few fish and overall condition's of these small death traps.
She then proceeded to publicly flame her mother for not providing the same care that she provided.
It was unreasonable to expect that her mother or anyone else could or would.
Just as unreasonable in my opinion, to expect much in a small jar where water chemistry /stability are much more quickly influenced than in a larger volume of water. 
Opinion's vary.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

roadmaster said:


> I recall a young girl on another forum who prolly had thirty small bowls in her home she shared with her mother that each held a Betta or perhaps as many as 6 females to a bowl.
> She was indeed able to care for these fishes until an injury left her temporarily unable to. And as she recuperated in the hospital,she left the small bowls in the charge of her mother.
> Long story short, when she was able to leave the hospital and return home,she was saddened by the death of a few fish and overall condition's of these small death traps.
> She then proceeded to publicly flame her mother for not providing the same care that she provided.
> ...


This is so very true. The same can be said for the plant side of things. You'll see new aquarists, showing a picture of an incredible aquascape and saying they want to do the same thing. Not realizing the experience and DEDICATION it takes to keep something like that going. They usually end up with a tank of alga so bad it looks like a Tim Burton movie set. 

The jar by definition is a _wide-mouthed, cylindrical container made of glass or pottery, especially one used for storing food.
_ ....and that's exactly what it should be used for.


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

I would only do this as an experienced fish keeper and only if you have a source of really tiny or young fish you want to keep temporarily. I did keep some of my few week old C. chopra fry in the upper 'tub' part of my 3.6 gallon tank/satellite, with about 6 fish as a grow out tank until they got to be about 1/2" in length.

In other words, nope, not a good idea with fish, a small population of shrimp would work with careful observation.


----------



## thanatopsian (Dec 11, 2016)

To the OP: as you may now realize, you hit on a very visceral, impassioned topic amongst the aquarist community. Hense, my original response of "nope". I had hoped by not faning the flames it wouldn't come to this, but as it has, i'll throw in my two cents. 

I bought my son, against my better judgement, a 2.5 gallon tank to house a betta. To this day, I believe that I did everything right from a technical standpoint: feeding, planting, cycling, waterchanging, etc. I even kept him alive for almost 2 years before he succumed to a bacterial infection.

I thought I could make it work because my degree is in Biology (with a focus in molecular and micro biology). I know all of the major reactions going on in a tank inside and out. 

My point isnt that you need a degree to keep a small fish in a small tank, or that having a degree makes it acceptable. My point is that no matter how much you know or understand, fishkeepers are human. You will make a mistake eventually, and that small volume of water will be unforgiving. A minor lapse in attention or judgement that would would barely shift your paramaters in a 10 gallon tank will litterally be 4 times worse at 2.5 gallons. That doesn't even take into account conditions that precipitate other conditions (such as a ph spike affecting your benificial bacteria, which causes ammonia to spike).

Personally, I wouldn't go smaller than 10 gallon with livestock, regardless of what they are. This gives you the wiggle room (if properly stocked) to make mistakes and fix them before they get out of control.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

> These small volumes of water or whatever you wish to call em(looks like a duck,quacks like a duck) are not suited for the well being of fishes.


By what means did you determine this? What are your criteria for evaluating the health and happiness of fish? What is the minimum amount of water required to eliminate signs of distress?

Let me clarify that I believe animal welfare is very important. I do believe that fish are able to suffer, are able to feel pain, and are able to feel rudimentary emotions like fear, curiosity, relief, and happiness (if by happiness we mean emotional pleasure, not perpetual bliss, which is impossible even for humans). I have read books about animal psychology that make a good case that fish can feel frustration. They can learn and remember. But the problem with creating standards of welfare without evidence is that there's no reason for anyone who disagrees with your standard to follow it. They could just as easily say yours is too low or too high compared with their equally untested standard. Which is what I am doing.



> Maybe 5 out of a 100 hobbyist's could sustain a few small fish in these small container's successfully over the long haul.


A quick Google search states that roughly 12,500,000 American households keep fish as pets. Let's assume your definition of "hobbyist" is super tight and applies to only 1% of them (125,000). In that case, roughly 6,250 households are skilled enough to maintain fish long-term in a nano tank. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that the OP might become one of them.



> These 5 people don't come looking for advice on how to successfully accomplish it.


Sure they do. Knowledge can only come from two sources: personal experience, and the verbal or written records of others' personal experience. If we limited ourselves to the first, we would all be keeping handcaught minnows in buckets. The OP is doing exactly what you should when you're about to try something new: ask others for advice. And you're using that as evidence against him?



> Is widely known among experienced hobbyist's, that these small container's are much more difficult to maintain healthy/stable condition's in ,suitable for long term health of life therein.


Considering this guy has a healthy stand of plants growing in the jar, I think we could say he's experienced. He probably has a working understanding of water chemistry and the need for stability. That's a good enough foundation to start branching into more difficult areas. 



> May as well give it those that don't know straight.


Yes, let's discourage people from trying hard things. How do you think the magical 5% of aquarists learned to keep small tanks? Trial and error. Why should they be allowed to do it and not the OP?

The OP is asking for advice so as to achieve the same result as more experienced aquarists with fewer mistakes. Instead of telling him how to avoid the pitfalls, you're saying it can't be done and he shouldn't try, whereas he can clearly see that it can be done (since others have done it), and you are preventing him from learning how.



> The fact that some video exists, showing a group of small fishes swimming about in these small container's, does not mean they survived more than a few day's or week's.
> I could post up a video of an Oscar in a ten gal tank , or a dozen Koi in a 55 gal,
> In reality the two examples would not help anyone(fishes either) other than those who search out someone,anyone, on these forums also doing the wrong thing to make themselves feel better about doing likewise.


I agree, a few minutes of video says nothing about the long term viability of any setup. But it's not hard to find entire breeding setups with tiny barren tanks packed full of fish. Killifish breeders in particular like to use very small tanks. In laboratories, zebra danios are bred and raised in tanks less than 5g, often without any decor, as you can see here:









How do these tiny tanks work? The water is kept clean, the temperature and pH are kept stable, and the fish are observed daily for signs of disease. If the OP maintains those conditions in the jar, the fish should be fine.

Oscars and koi are unsuited to such small tanks because they both grow to very large sizes. Would you agree that a 10g is enough for a betta? An Oscar is over 5 times the length of a betta, and easily 20 times the weight. Should their tank be either five or twenty times larger than a betta's? H Formosas are less than half the length and a quarter the size of bettas, so why should a 2.5g jar be too small for them?



> I recall a young girl on another forum who prolly had thirty small bowls in her home she shared with her mother that each held a Betta or perhaps as many as 6 females to a bowl.
> She was indeed able to care for these fishes...


In other words, it can be done.



> ...until an injury left her temporarily unable to. And as she recuperated in the hospital,she left the small bowls in the charge of her mother.
> Long story short, when she was able to leave the hospital and return home,she was saddened by the death of a few fish and overall condition's of these small death traps.
> She then proceeded to publicly flame her mother for not providing the same care that she provided.
> It was unreasonable to expect that her mother or anyone else could or would.


I agree it's unreasonable to expect others to be able to step into your shoes when you have a hobby that requires a lot of expertise and commitment. I think it's equally unreasonable to ban everyone from diving that deeply into their hobby. Just about every high-tech reefer would have to quit.



> Just as unreasonable in my opinion, to expect much in a small jar where water chemistry /stability are much more quickly influenced than in a larger volume of water.


I don't think the OP is expecting too much. He didn't ask how many goldfish he could put in the jar, he asked what species of fish are small enough to live comfortably in it. He doesn't expect a large fish to live in it, he expects a small fish to live in it. Which is possible, though difficult.

Your objection seems to hinge, not on the practicality of maintaining fish in the jar, but on the morality of keeping fish in small spaces. Centuries ago, keping fish in small pots and bowls is how the hobby started. Most people who get into the hobby start with a small bowl or tank. You can't deny that fish can live in very small containers. You can't even deny that they can breed and several generations can live out their natural lifespan in such containers. So, on what evidence, aside from your own personal feelings, do you say that these small containers are completely unsuitable for keeping even the smallest and hardiest fish?



> Opinion's vary.


Exactly. Why should your opinion be given more weight than mine or the OP's? Give me evidence supporting your opinion, and mine may change.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Fishly said:


> How do these tiny tanks work? The water is kept clean, the temperature and pH are kept stable, and the fish are observed daily for signs of disease. If the OP maintains those conditions in the jar, the fish should be fine.


I didn't read your whole post, but are you actually comparing the stability and cleanliness of a huge central filtration system to a jar with a sponge filter. Sorry, you lost me on that one. :frown2:


----------



## Doppelgaenger (Jul 20, 2015)

If I were to place a fish in there it would probably be a betta because they really are best off all on their own. And I wouldn't put a community of fish in something that small.

Bettas are smart and curious, and they like interacting with humans as far as I can tell, so they won't be unhappy if you put this in an area of heavy traffic. I have housed a betta in a tank this small and he did well for quite a while (he got upgraded to a 6 gallon eventually). But I do agree with everyone else that maintaining a tank this small is going to require a good deal of work. Then again, it gives you the time to interact with your fish every time you have to maintain it.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> I didn't read your whole post, but are you actually comparing the stability and cleanliness of a huge central filtration system to a jar with a sponge filter. Sorry, you lost me on that one. :frown2:


If you didn't read my post, why should I bother answering you with another?

My point is that the fish are able to live in the small tanks because the water stays clean and stable. It's true that large bodies of water tend to be more stable, but if the aquarist is able to keep the jar clean and stable, the small swimming space becomes a matter of ethics, rather than practicality.

It's worth noting that filling a large volume of water with a large amount of fish negates some of its benefits in terms of stability. You can't put a shark in a 100g tank any more than you can put an Oscar in a 10g. The fish to water ratio matters. The question is: what should the ratio be?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Fishly said:


> My point is that the fish are able to live in the small tanks because the water stays clean and stable. It's true that large bodies of water tend to be more stable, but if the aquarist is able to keep the jar clean and stable, the small swimming space becomes a matter of ethics, rather than practicality.


You can not compare a huge filtration and temp system serving small tanks with that of a jar and sponge filter in terms of cleanliness and stability. It's not a valid point that's all I'm saying.

And that doesn't even take into account the human factor that will eventually fail with the upkeep of a jar compared to a automated system in a lab. Life tends to get in the way.


----------



## Kehy (Feb 5, 2012)

houseofcards said:


> You can not compare a huge filtration and temp system serving small tanks with that of a jar and sponge filter in terms of cleanliness and stability. It's not a valid point that's all I'm saying.
> 
> And that doesn't even take into account the human factor that will eventually fail with the upkeep of a jar compared to a automated system in a lab. Life tends to get in the way.


Your opinion is perfectly fine in your situation, where you decide what exactly goes where and how it will be done. Other people have other opinions.

Use sense when stocking. A betta is fine, and some smaller fish are also acceptable in some instances. If there's signs of distress in the fish, please address them. If this means relocating the fish to a larger enclosure, so be it. If there are issues with water quality, please address them. You are god to these less-capable creatures, please be a kind one.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Fishly said:


> By what means did you determine this? What are your criteria for evaluating the health and happiness of fish? What is the minimum amount of water required to eliminate signs of distress?
> 
> Let me clarify that I believe animal welfare is very important. I do believe that fish are able to suffer, are able to feel pain, and are able to feel rudimentary emotions like fear, curiosity, relief, and happiness (if by happiness we mean emotional pleasure, not perpetual bliss, which is impossible even for humans). I have read books about animal psychology that make a good case that fish can feel frustration. They can learn and remember. But the problem with creating standards of welfare without evidence is that there's no reason for anyone who disagrees with your standard to follow it. They could just as easily say yours is too low or too high compared with their equally untested standard. Which is what I am doing.
> 
> ...


No interest in changing your opinion, and the question's you ask are clear indicator that you might want to read more, and theorize less.IMHO
Challenge you ,or anyone else, to produce any literature,or website,or forum, that advocates the keeping of small schooling species in JAR's over larger volumes of water(reefer's included), where fish waste and fish food's work toward's deteriorating water condition's.(daily)
Until then I will stand by what I have submitted as will you,, eventually.
No where did I say it could not be done,but most would/will find the attention needed to be less relaxing or enjoyable.
Cannot say you are an advocate of fishes welfare as you profess, when so much can go wrong so quickly with the fishes in a jar approach.
I'm about done kickin this dead horse, and will await any evidence that I have spoken any untruth.
Felt I was being generous with the 5 out of 50 that could maybe pull it off over extended period (month's,year)


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Kehy said:


> *Your opinion* is perfectly fine in your situation, where you decide what exactly goes where and how it will be done. Other people have other opinions..


If we are being honest, I don't think its my opinion that a jar with a sponge filter is as stable as a central filtration system like this (which is the one servicing the small tanks you referenced)


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

houseofcards said:


> I didn't read your whole post, but are you actually comparing the stability and cleanliness of a huge central filtration system to a jar with a sponge filter. Sorry, you lost me on that one. :frown2:


 Not to mention if this is a research facility underwritten by a big university, you've got a few extra interns earning their degrees feeding, maintaining and checking over the tanks. Which I kinda doubt happens with most at home nano tanks.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

GrampsGrunge said:


> Not to mention if this is a research facility underwritten by a big university, you've got a few extra interns earning their degrees feeding, maintaining and checking over the tanks. Which I kinda doubt happens with most at home nano tanks.


Absolutely, at home care will vary by how long the tank has been setup as well as ones daily schedule, etc.


----------



## awesometim1 (Oct 31, 2013)

Shrimp are fun to watch and have a low bioload. Starting a colony of red cherry or other neocaridina shrimp might be a good option. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Roshan8768 (Mar 18, 2009)

awesometim1 said:


> Shrimp are fun to watch and have a low bioload. Starting a colony of red cherry or other neocaridina shrimp might be a good option.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This ^ Start with 5 or 6 individuals and you will soon have a very robust colony in that jar that will provide movement and be entertaining to observe


----------

