This Board Could Discuss....

[-germ-]

Certainly love to see some more detail on osmoregulation in freshwater fish.
As synirr suggested a few basic cycling experiments could be extremely interesting considering the assumptions (at least i think they are assumptions)that are often bandied about.
The science behind a good diet as well or at least the technicalities of what a fish actually needs to thrive and avoid nutrition related difficulty, and suitable food sources.
Euthanasia of course. Although covered in emergencies occasionally, an in-depth analysis of the commonly used techniques would be interesting.
Perhaps a look into performing post mortems on fish for illness analysis purposes.
Also personally interested in the effects of keeping a fish outside its traditional habitat (with wild caught fish particularly) may have on the fish, especially as concerns PH, i'm sure there is already a wealth of info on this, but still.....
In depth look into illnesses, unless such topics are more suited to emergencies.

 

[Dave Spencer]

I'd personally like to see this sub-forum be a step away from practical considerations or even applications. We *have* forums about disease, rare fishes, plants, etc. Discussions of whether hydrometers are worse than refractometers or what sort of lighting works best for corals are better placed in the more general forums where others can share.

I think this forum should be more cutting-edge stuff.

[*]How osmoregulation works (as opposed to how hobbyists think it works).

Cheers, Neale

I think you make some good points Neale. What I would like to see is some of the info the more educated people, such as yourself, submit to this forum being collated and used to create new or amended pinned topics for the other sections on this forum. Even basics such as the nitrogen cycle aquarists learn on day one need revising.

It would be a shame if this sub forum became a bit elitist. Information can be gleaned from here, condensed in to a more accessible form for all levels of aquarist to understand, and then be pinned in the relevant section. You could call yourselves the "mythbusters" and dance around to a cheesy 1980s tune that will get on everyone`s t!ts for the next twenty years.

Dave.

 

[andywg]

some good points above but i do think there should be a breeding journal, i think alot of people could benefit from it

But breeding is not related to the science aspect of this forum. A breeding journal for, say, rare catfish would be better placed in the catfish forum.

I personally like the sound of the topics neale has put forward. As he stated, the forum should not be too close to the practical side of the hobby (how to breed, how to cycle) but if anything the underlying reasons for that.

osmoregulation and anaerobic substrates would be of high interest for myself.

 

[nurglespuss]

Valid points :>

I think the reason breeding journals would be ideally placed here, is for their scientific interest. Various scientific auatic journals contain complicated written reports on breeding strategies etc. here this would be a 'live feed' and could lead to bscientific break throughs and conservation efforts.

Its all very well to discuss text book stuff like anaerobic cycles, nitrogen etc. I agree. Lateral line systems within aquaria is a topic I often revisit for my own research, equally the effects of dried food over long periods (which i personally believe to be a major cause of many fish health problems). etc. Starting to ramble.

But science is about learning, and the most important thing we can learn is how to conserve the hobby.

 

[nmonks]

I think it's fine to discuss breeding where a species hasn't been bred before, or is so rarely bred that any new information is valuable. Experiences of breeding clown loaches, for example, would interesting to discuss. But in most cases, breeding fish, propagating corals, or whatever are better left in their own forums since these are practical issues rather than scientific ones.

Really, the focus here should be on less "applied" and more "theoretical" issues. To take an example, it's often said that anaerobic decay in aquaria is bad. It's simply accepted as true. But is it really bad? It's pretty normal in ponds, and yet you don't see dead goldfish in ponds all the time. In marine fishkeeping there are these "deep sand beds" that (presumably) have some level of anaerobic decay, and yet these seem to improve not diminish water quality. Equally, live rock is said to contain anaerobic decay, and yet unquestionably living rock provides an overall positive benefit to water quality. So what's the deal here? This is a case where discussion from different branches of the hobby can come together. People with planted aquaria have a different view of anaerobic decay in the substrate to people keeping freshwater stingrays who are different again to reef tank owners and they're different to pond keepers. In this case, has a simple scientific fact -- hydrogen sulphide is poisonous -- been spun totally out of context to the degree that the practical applications of anaerobic decay are overlooked or misunderstood?

Cheers, Neale

 

[Maximus]

I thought this discussion was a great read.

Maybe it could go into more detail, without the presence of a certain person in denial

Anyways, a great topic for me at least.

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...amp;hl=flounder


Cheers,

Maximus

 

[andywg]

I thought this discussion was a great read.

Maybe it could go into more detail, without the presence of a certain person in denial

Anyways, a great topic for me at least.

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...amp;hl=flounder


Cheers,

Maximus

Topics like that, but with both sides taking a slightly less aggressive tone, and both sides presenting evidence is what I hope this forum to become.

 

[toppman]

when is the decision to be made on what will be discussed here?

i would like to see;

fish diets in depth
breeding journals fish/inverts and raising fry (maybe not of the commonly bred species such as kribs and common livebearers)
and perhaps a more in depth look at common myths in the hooby as someone said like "mythbusters"

 

[steelhealr]

Hi.....the first step is to develop a set of guidelines for the forum...this is in progress. The guidelines will be developed with several of our members and then presented. Critique and comment on this will be welcome by all members. I hope to be merely the 'editor and presenter' of the writeup. Authorship should come from all.

Second step will be to decide on a method of topic selection. I hope, as we all discussed above, this forum will NOT be used to discuss topics 'handleable' in our usual forums. The topics will be, as the name implies, more scientific in nature. Some of nmonks suggestions are excellent. If possible, it would be interesting to have a paper discussed if we can obtain permission to do so. Discussions will not be based on 'opinions' as they are in other forums. I think that it will be exciting that one's positions will have to be supported by scientific date or results based evidence.

Let's try and keep THIS thread as an area of posting. Other posts will be deleted to keep the area clean for now.

SH

 

[steelhealr]

Hi.....the first step is to develop a set of guidelines for the forum...this is in progress. The guidelines will be developed with several of our members and then presented. Critique and comment on this will be welcome by all members. I hope to be merely the 'editor and presenter' of the writeup. Authorship should come from all.

Second step will be to decide on a method of topic selection. I hope, as we all discussed above, this forum will NOT be used to discuss topics 'handleable' in our usual forums. The topics will be, as the name implies, more scientific in nature. Some of nmonks suggestions are excellent. If possible, it would be interesting to have a paper discussed if we can obtain permission to do so. Discussions will not be based on 'opinions' as they are in other forums. I think that it will be exciting that one's positions will have to be supported by scientific date or results based evidence.

Let's try and keep THIS thread as an area of posting. Other posts will be deleted to keep the area clean for now.

SH

 

[Danno]

Since it is a scientific section I think that it should be kept to science and not ethics (i.e Pro Life, Euthanasia). But, then again people always like to throw there "feelings" into sciences for being, quote on quote, politically correct.

 

[nmonks]

Ah, but you can't have good science without ethics. Example: the widespread use of feeder fish is predicated on the assumption fish don't feel pain. If they don't feel pain, or any pain is minimal, then the use of feeder fish is a question of personal morality. You either like using feeder fish or you don't. But if fish do feel pain, then the use of feeder fish becomes a question of animal cruelty. You either ignore the suffering of the feeder fish, or you don't use them to prevent that suffering.

Now, the point here is that within fish biology there is no consensus as to whether or not fish feel pain. At the very least, they don't feel pain using the same systems as terrestrial vertebrates do. But science is being done to research this, with interesting results, and increasingly fish are being accorded the same basic welfare standards in labs as animals like mice and chickens have for years.

Science without ethics becomes the stuff of nightmare. Think "medical research" on inmates in concentration camps by Nazi Germany for an extreme example. All good scientific research in the biological and medical fields has an ethical dimension, even in high schools, where, in the UK at least, students are taught to appreciate things like the potential for suffering by the subject at hand.

But if you're saying, this forum shouldn't be a place to air personal belief systems, I agree.

Cheers, Neale

Since it is a scientific section I think that it should be kept to science and not ethics (i.e Pro Life, Euthanasia). But, then again people always like to throw there "feelings" into sciences for being, quote on quote, politically correct.

 

[severum boy]

Even though its fairly unanimous in the feeling of the board on this subject, but the science behind GM fish could be discussed, but in more detail then "Don't mess with nature" and looking at the implications for us on where genetics is going at the moment. For instance (made up topic, but cirtanly do-able) looking at genes within particulally fast and large growing fish species and implanting them into large, slow growing and hardy fish to create a large, fast growing hardy fish to support people in Real Poverty by keeping it in large pools. Is this a way to end Real Poverty?
Although genetics has been used by people for line breeding and developing new strains and colour varietys, what is the best way to create a new variety, but whilst keeping the strain pure and most importantly, healthy?
I know my suggestions are looking at how genetics and fish can benefit us, but never the less, it is what I would like to be discussed.

 

[nurglespuss]

Perhaps the main point though, is that no assumptions are used; i.e. everything must be backed up with evidence (just like in 'real' science :> )

In this way discussions can be complex, but easy for all concerned to understand.

And on the subject of GM, we could also discuss Hybridisation.

 

[Danno]

Ah, but you can't have good science without ethics. Example: the widespread use of feeder fish is predicated on the assumption fish don't feel pain. If they don't feel pain, or any pain is minimal, then the use of feeder fish is a question of personal morality. You either like using feeder fish or you don't. But if fish do feel pain, then the use of feeder fish becomes a question of animal cruelty. You either ignore the suffering of the feeder fish, or you don't use them to prevent that suffering.

Now, the point here is that within fish biology there is no consensus as to whether or not fish feel pain. At the very least, they don't feel pain using the same systems as terrestrial vertebrates do. But science is being done to research this, with interesting results, and increasingly fish are being accorded the same basic welfare standards in labs as animals like mice and chickens have for years.

Science without ethics becomes the stuff of nightmare. Think "medical research" on inmates in concentration camps by Nazi Germany for an extreme example. All good scientific research in the biological and medical fields has an ethical dimension, even in high schools, where, in the UK at least, students are taught to appreciate things like the potential for suffering by the subject at hand.

But if you're saying, this forum shouldn't be a place to air personal belief systems, I agree.

Cheers, Neale

Since it is a scientific section I think that it should be kept to science and not ethics (i.e Pro Life, Euthanasia). But, then again people always like to throw there "feelings" into sciences for being, quote on quote, politically correct.

While you say that this shouldn't be an area to air personal beliefs, one of the topics that you would like to discuss is pure ethics. Organisms feel pain on a scientific level, but wither or not one fish should be sacrificed to feed another with human intervention is not science! That is psychology! I am by no way say that we should practice sadistic science here and give fish lobotomies though.