Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Sager
[ First off, the aquarium hobby has been around way longer than the 1970s. It's knowledge base goes back to the BC era. Has there been new knowledge since then? Of course. New things are being found all the time for no other reason than fish are being hybridized like crazy creating new species and new genetics that wouldn't exist in the wild. The advent of DNA testing alone has corrected the classifications of many species. The science in our field is not lacking but not searched for from reliable sources. ( I had quite a time finding the articles I posted, and I KNEW what I was looking for.  ) There is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of it is in online fish groups as well as the people we now depend upon in stores to know what they are doing. Just look at the hobbyist that is keeping his 10" Oscar in a 30 gallon tank for 5 years, with hole in the head clearly showing, an undersized filter and he's giving advice on how to keep fish. They are out there.  But the more direct point and question I was leading to in my post is WHY is there such a difference in the fish between those kept in no change systems compared to changed systems? ( I've seen fish from more than one no change system and the results were the same.) And just for the record, I don't have the definitive answer nor do I pretend that I do. I'm not advocating one method over the other. There's more than one way to keep fish in an aquarium. The methods I follow are from people much smarter and more educated ( i.e. certified Ichthyologists) than I regarding the keeping and breeding of tropical fish so that is how I advise. I'm just stating my observations from the amount of time I have spent in the hobby. Show me some proof that your way is better. It's different than mine, that's for sure.  It doesn't seem to get the same results that mine has gotten me. ] |
You are right to ask questions. That’s the point. If you said, in my experience fish grow larger when you do water changes and this is repeatable over many years, my response would be. Hmm ok, I wonder why that is. My second question would be ‘but does a larger fish truly (think about this) mean it is any healthier? If we could categorically say that larger fish means longer life, healthier fish then I’d be interested in finding what the mechanism behind that actually is.
What I don’t like to see is this completely unproven notion that hormones and/or nitrates are the primary cause because it is completely unproven. You could present this as one hypotheses but it still needs testing.
I did state that I’ve had success keeping fish with tanks that received massive water changes and also with tanks that received none, so in my experience water changes do not define an aquarium. I also pointed out that it is irresponsible to advocate no water change systems for beginners. There are a host of things that you need to know before you can successfully go down this route.
Again I never said that my way was better I say I’ve had equal success. The issue is that you already have predetermined bias for the necessity of water changes because this way has worked for you. It doesn’t mean this is the only method that works. Like I said, I’ve tried both AND I’ve shown you a tank that has had few water changes in 25 years (not my tank), I’ve also given you a store that has sold and bred fish successfully for many years and is quite popular amongst other hobbyists. Why do these points get glossed over repeatedly?
Of course the hobby stems back way before the 70s. I’m looking at an old aquarium book that that explicitly states that the water should not need changing. My point is that with the advent of larger power filters and tap water conditioners, test kits etc have things truly changed for the better? How many people around the world are not on forums like this because things just work?
My only request is that when people say things that they really think carefully about what they are saying is accurate and scientifically proven and IF not just give your experiences and anecdotes and try not to force your beliefs on to others.
I agree nitrates are better at 0ppm. That’s how my tank runs and there’s virtually no nitrate in natural systems. So aiming for 0ppm sounds to me like good practice. But I could just as easily argue that tap water isn’t exactly clean. What if I made up a statement that flouride in tap water made fish grow bigger? If I could convince enough people….I mean it really has just as much scientific bearing as the whole hormone argument. None at all.
] So aiming for 0ppm sounds to me like good practice. But I could just as easily argue that tap water isn’t exactly clean. [And you would be correct because it isn't. Even rain water in some parts of the world is not safe to drink. Think back to the acid rains found in the midwest of the US. ] What if I made up a statement that flouride in tap water made fish grow bigger? If I could convince enough people….I mean it really has just as much scientific bearing as the whole hormone argument. None at all.
Linear Mode
