On fishkeeping scientific facts versus myth

I personally do think the stunted growth/huge organs "myth" is a plausable enough theory and i do remember taking part in a similar debate of this a while back, where i stated basically in a long post that the fish would die of poor blood ciculation and related disorders or from ammonia buildup in the small tank due to the filter not being able to handle the bioload.
As to the myth, it has not been proven either way and i have yet to see any solid evidence myself, but for the time being i don't see it being a bad myth and it has its uses in saving fish's lives.
Telling somone that keeping a fish in a tank that is too small for it is only just going to shorten its lifespan is not very effective at times because it seems that most people that are willing to keep their fish in too smaller tank generally get bored of their fish quickly and wait for their fish to die so they can get new ones anyways.
 
I think that the problem is there are many plausable points that support both sides of the argument to be able to definately say one side is right, im going to go look for some proof, and ill post any that i get.
 
I cannot believe it is just newer members -- because where do the newer members get their myths in the first place?

Its not the newer members. I'm pretty sure most myths come from clerks and owners of LFS' who don't know wtf they're talking about. After working in the pet trade for a while I've found that this is where most myths get started. From major morons who don't know what they're selling, but do anyways. Then the customers that are told this info pass it on to others.

I once had a guy call me up and tell me he had just started a new tank and all his fish we're dying. He claimed he had called 3 LFS' and got 3 different answers to his questions. I asked him if he called the store where he purchased his fish and he said no (now right here is a good clue that this guy is a certified dimwit).

He proceeded to tell me the responses he had gotten from those stores. They were all wrong. One place even convinced him that it was his 2 inch plecostemus that killed his all his other 4-5 inch fish. I asked him some basic questions and found out that he overstocked his 10 gallon (the usual tank choice for idiots who want tons of fish, but don't want to do any work or read, or basically listen to any info on keeping fish). I explained to him the nitrogen cycle, and what the problem was inside his tank.

You'd better beleive this guy didn't want listen. He angrily shouted that he has gotten 4 different answers and he was sure that it was the plecostemus. Then he had the nerve to ask "why should I beleive you." To which I replied, "because I know what I'm talking about and those other people don't. If you want to listen to them then go ahead and watch your fish die and wonder what the problem is. You called here and asked for my help. If you don't want it then don't call." I hung up and never heard from the moron again.

Another time I had this jerk come in and tell me the fish in his 75 gallon tank had ich and they were all dying. He told me he dumped a whole bottle of medication in but nothing happened. I told him first, you never overdose your fish, second you have to take the carbon out, third his tank was way overstocked. Then I found out he had NEVER heard of water changes. I told him all about water changes, and also salt dips and other ways to get rid of ich. I told him good water quality was the best way to insure that his fish never got sick. For 40 minutes I argued with him as he insisted that there must be some magical bottle that you pour in the tank and you never have to do any work other than twisting the cap off. I couldn't convince him and he ended up stealing some quick dip test strips (I doubt that saved any of fish).

I've also had people insist that the one inch per gallon rule was true and therefore they should be able to put a ten inch oscar in a 10 gallon tank and that I must not know what I'm talking about when I tell them why their oscar died in their stupid little tank.

But the problem didn't stop there. Countless people have insisted that I was lying to them, or trying to sell them something when I told them how to be successful in keeping fish. I've even had other customers butt into my conversations and tell false information to the people I was trying to help.

Most fish myths arise from the same ignorance that created the "pit bulls have locking jaws." One idiot (or sleazy pet store owner), who didn't know anything about the animal they were selling, mixed up information and passed it on as fact. Then the consumer culture morons who buy but don't think passed this on to others. So please people, if you ever see someone passing on false information, punch them please.

Disclaimer: When I call people names, it does not apply to anyone on this board, for being on this board means that you have taken it upon yourself to learn more about your interests and therefore are not an ignorant fisj keeper.
 
Boxcar, I understand all that, and they are all cogent points.

Maybe then my curiosity is really about how this board can carry on these myths. As you finish up your post "...it does not apply to anyone on this board, for being on this board means that you have taken it upon yourself to learn more about your interests..." that the members here are becoming more knowledgeable.

It seems to me then, the people would want the real knowledge, not exaggerations or psuedo-science. And, whenever a newer member joins, sure, they are told not to put a large fish in a small tank, but it is almost entirely explained by this organ myth.

I am not looking to convert the average customer in a shop. As demonstated by Boxcar and innumerable other posts, those people are a lost cause. I am looking to convert the members of this board to practice real science -- wait for facts to come in, be skeptical, and quit spreading unsubstantiated information. It is ok to be ignorant or to propose alternative theories -- but when the facts come in, you have to accept the facts. You cannot keep your own personal theory because you like it -- it have to bow down to the real facts out there. At this point, the fact is that I have asked several times in many threads on several different fishkeeping message boards for proof and have yet to find a single incident.

Tokis, I suppose it is your right to feel that it is okay to tell people these half-truths -- because they accomplish the goal. Two responces: 1) The means do not justify the ends, and the less cliche response 2) Don't these other people deserve the respect of the verified facts? I do not appreciate being talked down to, nor do I like being "sold" or "coerced" in a certain direction (my apologies to any used car salesmen or politicians). I do appreciate poeple being upfront.
 
Just as an update, here is some real science:

from "Development and aging of the liver and pancreas in the domestic carp, Cyprinus carpio: From embryogenesis to 15-year-old fish" by Fishelson L and Becker K in ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY OF FISHES Vol 61 Issume (1) pages 85-97, 2001,

"In 15-year-old experimentally stunted fish (110-120 mm TL) the liver and pancreas resemble those of juvenile fish appearing much healthier than those of 8-10 year old large carp from commercial ponds. "

Sure, those are only a few organs and a general assumption about all the organs cannot be completely made completlely accurately, but the liver is a fairly sensitive organ since it does a lot of the housekeeping of the fish's immune system.

My friends, I think that this is like Bigfoot or Planet X or other kinds of way-out there myths. It cannot be conclusively proved, since we haven't searched every square foot of the all the forests at once (to find Bigfoot) not have we searched all of space (to find Planet X), but the shear lack of credible proof speaks a lot. Specifcally, the shear lack of any proof about the bulging organs in a stunted fish says a lot.
 
I didn't read a of this so understand me
but i do think these myth threads go along way too a point as in there has been aenough on some stuff

I remember a great topic on keeping bgk toghether along time ago- The idea was that there electrical systems (i forget all the tech now but...) confused each other when kept toghether I always recomended against keeping too electrical fish toghether, and Blue Ice or soemone challenged it, anyways blue seemed to know alot about the bgk kept alot and such seen pictures of her kept toghether fish and such, and turns out there realy wasn't any fact supporting my original statement just what other people had "heard" and blue ices' (ithink) tank was fine.

Anyways you rarely hear about the whole thing on here again
 
I do not appreciate being talked down to, nor do I like being "sold" or "coerced" in a certain direction.


Bignose, you bring up a valid point. This may be why some individuals do not accept truthful information. Many people do not like being told that their informations is wrong, even if it is helpful. Also, many people, even though it is not intended so, feel that they are being blamed for wrongdoing, which causes them to become defensive and unacceptive of truthful information.

Also, I've noticed that those answers such as "enlarged organs" are easily understood and therefore accepted as truth. As with the man who insisted his pleco killed his fish, I think it was the simplest answer he had gotten, and the one he could most easily understand, so he beleived it must be fact.

The desire to be knowledgeable, and the desire to have easily accesible and understood information, both without requiring extensive reading, thinking, and analysis is probably what leads people to become so accepting of psuedo science.

We see it all the time in the world. Look at denver who just banned pitbulls. The ban is based on the "fact"(really not fact) that pitbulls are a vicious killer breed that no one should be allowed to own. Of course statistical evidence, as well as knowledge about the breed obtained by professionals who have spent a lifetime with the breed, all point to the contrary, the people will never listen because it is much easier, more accesible to their limited knowledge, easily fits into their sterotypical beleifs, and makes them feel as if their right.

The reason pseudo-science prevails is its EASY. It sells everything from excercise machines and fad diets to pets and pet supplies. The only way to stop pseudo science is to break people away from their tendencies towards laziness and their obsession with always being right. Actually, the best way to get rid of paeudo science is to teach people critical thinking skills. I don't think that will happen because then people would stop beleiving the rediculous things they're told by their government and advertising.
 
maybe people make these myths up to sort of "pass the blame", so instead of looking like bad fishkeepers they make up some story
eg.
The idea was that there electrical systems (i forget all the tech now but...) confused each other when kept toghether
sort of saying that it wasn't their fault that their fish got sick/died, if you understand what i mean.
 
In terms of fish growing to the size of the tank, SOME fish give of some sort of growth hormones that will indeed limit their growth if they remain in the water.

However, if water changes are carried out frequently, then the hormones/whatever will be diluted and growth will not be limited.

However, in some fish, notably red-tailed cats, this does not happen at all and they simply keep on growing.

Cheers,
Luke.
 
To start with there is the problem of the huge number of variables in a fish tank, making it hard to determine causation. Then the majority of fishkeeper's experience will be n=1 (and therefore not statistically significant), combined with people who read something on a forum and accept it as true going on to give the same advice out to other people. Oh and the general mistrust of true scientific data, the use of stupid psudo-science to sell products etc. etc.

:crazy: http://www.ecoaqualizer.com/
http://www.inlandreef.com/Testing/EcoPhotos.html

How does it work? Water simply flows through the ECO-Aqualizer unit, where the internal reaction chamber ionizes the passing water molecules. This not only neutralizes impurities but triggers the Reactivity of water. Reactivity is the molecular interactions between water molecules. This is essential because it aids in the diffusion of nutrients, reduces accumulation of toxins and supports nitrifying bacteria.

In all closed aquarium system, reactivity is decreased by the build up of metabolic wastes. ECO-Aqualizer uses PATENTED negative ionic energy provided by a proprietary blend of basic electromagnetic physics combined with NASA’s space age far infrared radiation to ensure that aquarium water is constantly being rid of its toxic impurities and remains in a healthy, reactive state. This in turn directly improves the:

quality of water

long-term health of livestock

effectiveness of filtration

bio-availibilty of Oxygen

efficiency of the nitrogen cycle.

The result is a simple, maintenance-free unit neatly designed to provide around the clock molecular purification with natural flowing streams of IONIZATION. This innovative breakthrough reduces the ionic bond of H2O molecules to allow greater oxygen availability and enhanced breakdown of impurities and ammonia. Resulting in an incredible filtration BOOST by up to 300%.

BTW I think you would like this article: http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-06/rs/index.htm
 
Where is the evidence to back up this growth inhibiting secretion. I've seen a couple of people mention it but have seen no eviddence whatsoever. I can understand it existing in fish that tend to live in smaller areas (like bettas in small ponds) but doubt it would be of any use to any other fish.

I would hypothesize that when the fish is in water that hasn't been changed for a long time it is outside influences (contaminants in the water and a lack of nutrients) that would prevent a fish growing rather than some growth inhibiting hormone which only affects the fish once it reaches a large enough concentration.
 
OK, so if fish grow to the size of their tank...and I drop this betta into this 55 gallon all by himself...in a few years I'll have...a 12 inch betta!!! Yay!!!

No? Well, if the rule will keep big fish small shouldn't it let little fish grow?

Bettas don't get to be 12 inches long? Then how can you tell me that an oscar won't, unless it dies?

So if I want a miniature pincher what I need to do is buy a doberman and make it sleep in a shoebox?

I myself am kind of fat. Maybe I should sleep in the closet.
 
Interesting site. Very vague on details and does not quote where each satement comes from but at least includes the biblio for further research. However I don't feel this is likely to impact on hobbyists as water changes will dilute the effects substantially.

I would be interested to see how these affect species in an aquarium condition. Since most fish grow smaller in an aquarium anyway (are these the cause...?). There's a good PhD subject for a biologist.
 
Boxcar Muzzdogg said:
The reason pseudo-science prevails is its EASY. It sells everything from excercise machines and fad diets to pets and pet supplies. The only way to stop pseudo science is to break people away from their tendencies towards laziness and their obsession with always being right. Actually, the best way to get rid of paeudo science is to teach people critical thinking skills. I don't think that will happen because then people would stop beleiving the rediculous things they're told by their government and advertising.
I think I love you boxcar :wub: :lol:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top