Fish Myths

[sylvia]

Plus you need to think about brain stimulation. Experiments on baby mice have shown that a mouse kept in an empty tank with absolutely no outside interaction and on its own will not develop as fully (brain-wise) as one kept in a group with plenty of toys and attention. Both may appear healthy physicaly but one is under-developed mentaly. The same applies to many other species and I'm sure, to an extent, something similar would occur in fish - if nothing more severe than just boredome...

 

[phishluvr]

well, not really. if you had a treadmill, wouldnt you have moved a farther distance than running in circles in your house?

*sigh* really now, is being in a 75g like being on a treadmill?

i guess if you want to compare it to human movement...

First, bettas don't run, sprint maybe sometimes, but more like they... meander. so, if you walk in a circle around your house or through a park... at equal distance and the same pace... which has worn you out more? which is more stimulating?

all i'm saying is that I haven't observed my betta exhausting himself roaming the 75g.

i suppose if he were chasing the other fish all the time, maybe...but he gets along fine. And that would be an issue with tank mates and aggression than tank size.

 

[dwarf-puffers]

# 1 is 100% true

 

[pica_nuttalli]

actually, it seems like #1 is largely dependent on the species concerned. goldfish are regularly stunted whereas oscars typically will not. this makes sense to me since each fish is uniquely adapted to thrive in its particular environment. whadda think about this hypothesis:

-fish evolving in temperate waters are subject to fluctuating weather conditions. since they are more likely to have food sources reduced through environmental stresses, having a criterion-dependent growth rate would be highly beneficial. (no sense in growing huge if you've not got enough food.)

-fish evolving in tropical waters have relatively constant weather conditions. since they are not likely to enter periods of want due to environmental stress, they want to have a fast and constant growth rate in order to best compete for food. (big elbows guard the plate better.)

that would explain goldfish vs oscars. who can think of exceptions?

 

[Torrean]

That is what I was thinking Pica. because I've heard a lot of people (in this thread in particular) talk about oscars outgrowing there tanks, but noone has really mentioned other fish that have outgrown there tank. I know it happens to other fish i'm just using oscars as an example. So This makes me think that the stunted fish growth myth is true with regard to some species and false when talking about others.

 

[Ed4567]

An interesting read even if it is aimed at marine tanks:
http/reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-06/rs/index.htm

 

[Ed4567]

An for people who dont feel like clicking on a link a couple of quotes from above:

"When my cousin Vinnie added some marinara sauce to his aquariums the corals did better…."

And just how was Vinnie able to tell? This is an example of anecdote. Some folks would say "anecdotal evidence;" however, there is no evidence with anecdote. Anecdote is unsubstantiated or unverified observation generally made by an unqualified observer who often really doesn't know what they are looking at. One of the striking characteristics of the reef aquarium hobby is the reliance on unsubstantiated lore or myth, and its treatment as "God's own truth." In fact, one of the oddities of this hobby is the preference that most hobbyists seem to have for anecdote over documented or scientific evidence. I think this preference for unsubstantiated myth over documentary evidence is due to four factors. First, many of the early references were written with a glib mix of science and anecdote. This gave a lot of anecdotal beliefs an unwarranted aura of believability. Second, while the ease of communication with the internet allows the easy spread of information, most really documentary data are still primarily in print sources, not electronic ones. Consequently, the scientific data that could be used to refute some of the wacky ideas that float around the hobby are not easily accessible to the average internet surfer. Third, most hobbyists simply don't understand the difference between anecdote and experimentally derived or determined data. Finally, many anecdotal procedures or techniques are simple or promote simple clear-cut "cures" to problems. For most folks, there is a profound appeal of this simplicity over the real complexity of our aquaria and the organisms we keep. It is easier to believe in and "understand" a simple cure, even if it is wrong, than it is to believe in the more complicated processes that may actually be occurring.

This skepticism should REALLY be directed at advertisements. In our hobby, many vendors depend on hobbyist ignorance to sell their products. Ignorance, fortunately, is a condition cured by knowledge. For example, when you see a statement like "replace what gets used up," you should ask yourself the following question, "If substance "X" gets used up, what happens to it and where does it go?" The most fundamental natural law is the law of conservation of matter and energy. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, nor can one element be converted into another. So, if you see a statement that some element is "used up" in aquaria, just what does that statement mean? Ask yourself, "How has it been used by organisms?" "Has it been exported from the aquarium?" If it hasn't been exported from the aquarium, it is still there, and it hasn't been "used up;" rather it simply has been moved from one place or form to another. Then you need to ask yourself, where is the documentary evidence that any specific material is used in any manner?

 

[phishluvr]

The article discussing science-based logic makes sense but I can also see an argument for observation-based knowledge. Diane Walstad, author of the book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" is a good example. She wondered why fish hobbist insisted that soil & direct sunlight were considered inappropriate for fish tanks when they occured in natural settings. She set out in scientific methodology to discover the truth. Thus her findings and her experience through her trial and error led to her book.

Knowing the process of photosynthesis aides in determining a balance of appropriate lighting, nutrients, and CO2 for healthy plant growth. Knowing how the tank cycles aides in helping the tank achieve balance without dependance on chemicals.

On the other hand, observation is often substantial in itself. Even Walstad admits in her book that she can't predict what will always work in a tank because each environment differs. Her method is experientation with plants. She heavily plants a new tank, and tosses out those that don't thrive. Similarly, we know that two male chiclids can be territorial and therefore aggressive towards eachother. So we bring home a male and female, and the female chases the male incessantly! There are variables that can't be predicted by scientific research.

Secondly, consistent observations made by numerous hobbiest can be held to some truth as well. The actual scientific understanding of why seashells raises pH might not be in everyone's knowledge repetoire, but we know that the pH test shows a rise when we add a shell.

I think the point is well made though that with any information source we need to carefully weigh the opinion with the variables.

 

[Ed4567]

phishluvr I absolutly agree about observational knowledge being useful- science is based on observation after all.

The problem is that by the very nature of a fish tank with the huge number of variables its hard to work out what is actually causing something else- every test by the average hobbyist is probably going to have n=1.

 

[Isis_Nebthet]

18) chickenbutt koi will eat poo and survive on it

Koi do eat mulm and I'm sure do suck up some poo with it. Mulm is mostly plant material in a pond (algae and decaying plants planted or leaf fall). You *can* leave pond fish with no food and let them eat mulm, algea off the walls, and bugs that fall in...but they're not going to grow with the rates people normally look for.

Optimally kept koi should have between 200 and 500 gallons a peice and be fed about 1% of their body weight a day (since these are the figures I get looking at fishfarm sites there is some science behind it somewhere I just don't feel like looking right now . ) Mulm should be avoided just like in an aquarium (except due to volume tons better to use drains with settling tanks). It is generally agreed mulm buildup can be an ulcer threat in spring and fall as the fishes immune systems drop off at 60's (f) and psuedonomas and aeronomas like those temps and increase activity.

There's still and probably always will be a debate if the even actually need to go into a winter season.