Every so often I come up with a question that I can't find much on.
Example would be say how long can media sit in tap water before bacteria is killed off or even will they be killed off. Note this just an example.
Another might be testing Pimafix with betas or testing med combinations. If these caused issues in controlled conditions for healthy fish, it could be dubious that unhealthy fish could stand the stress. Some threads the med is blamed for fish death but is it really the med?? Note just random thoughts from over the years.
Anyways basically looking at something like a scientific experiment. In these it can be quite common to test to mortality limit.
I appreciate the work the scientific community does but as a fish keeper I'm trying to preserve life. But that seems a bit two faced. If I'm happy to read of experiment results including mortality rates, then perhaps I should be able to suck it up and perform any experiments such as mentioned above. I stress those were just example what-if situations where I've thought would it be great if a computer could simulate test results but of course nothing like that exists (at least on my wage).
I realise to certain extent we do lots of accidental experiments and gain experience. One early one was at the lfs and getting shown melted air pumps that people had thought were in tank heaters.
However these experiments would be deliberate. So a quandary. Thoughts?
Example would be say how long can media sit in tap water before bacteria is killed off or even will they be killed off. Note this just an example.
Another might be testing Pimafix with betas or testing med combinations. If these caused issues in controlled conditions for healthy fish, it could be dubious that unhealthy fish could stand the stress. Some threads the med is blamed for fish death but is it really the med?? Note just random thoughts from over the years.
Anyways basically looking at something like a scientific experiment. In these it can be quite common to test to mortality limit.
I appreciate the work the scientific community does but as a fish keeper I'm trying to preserve life. But that seems a bit two faced. If I'm happy to read of experiment results including mortality rates, then perhaps I should be able to suck it up and perform any experiments such as mentioned above. I stress those were just example what-if situations where I've thought would it be great if a computer could simulate test results but of course nothing like that exists (at least on my wage).
I realise to certain extent we do lots of accidental experiments and gain experience. One early one was at the lfs and getting shown melted air pumps that people had thought were in tank heaters.
However these experiments would be deliberate. So a quandary. Thoughts?
