Has anyone noticed this in the aquarium hobby?

I'm in many different hobbies and their forums along with them, and I feel like, amongst all hobbies aquariums are amongst the least scientific of all. Now here me out for a second. Now I look at the anatomy of fish, and the nitrogen cycle's specific bacteria, micro-fauna of the aquarium, etc. But I feel like out of all hobbies aquariums are just not as much so. What has recently made me realize this is the baking, pastry, and gastronomical hobbies. There is some, but not much rigidity in these hobbies. There are a million levels of dessert between a cookie and a cake. Flan, flagnarde, choux pastry, and then there is cookies made out of cake dough. There is just so much experimentalism in it.

But with the aquarium hobby, a lot of times, we don't look at the actual limnologists and biologists to find out why the things in our aquarium happen, and so few people want it that it is not often published by the biologists. For example, while setting up a tank we might make assumptions such as these:

• You want it to look (Not saying water parameters, etc.) as natural as possible (I.e. wood (Even if not releasing tannins) or no bright colors/SpongeBob decor)
• You should have a heater, you should feed certain types of food (Those fish take to more readily)
• All water (Even well water) needs conditioner
• You should have only white light (Or a mix of colors to get white light) on your fish tanks and not colors such as a black light
• Certain fish should get certain sized tanks (Solely based on size; rather than behavior for the majority of fish)
• You can't have certain ph for certain fish species (Believed by a select few people in very extreme regulations, but even the general public's broader opinion's such as some bettas and gouramis or african cichlids)
• Which fish are either always or never compatible

So many assumptions to be made. And yes experience is often times helpful, but many things we no longer have any experience to prove the alternatives to these things don't work, and it's just been passed down from who knows who started it. It's just something I've been thinking lately as in the past when I think of debates I've had on here and in person, I've always seen so many advocates for the mainstream opinion, and next to no evidence for a lot of these. And just looking at my other hobbies, they all have most information backed up by science and experience, and not solely experience, or experience from 50 years ago which could have been accidentally twisted over time, or alleged experience that no one knows where it came from.

Thoughts? Any ideas to move towards a more scientific way?

Though I don't know IF the hobby could ever be half as scientific as others, as fish are live animals and it's harder to find the true science of animals opposed to molecules. Could we ever find what stresses a fish out chronically and if the fish is truly satisfied with there surroundings (For example a betta needing things to interact with to keep them "Occupied," could we ever find out even if they were being stressed to death any way other than experience. Obviously the fish's health as far as how they're contained is just one facet of fishkeeping and one area of the question I'm asking, but what about the rest, I feel like the rest could also still be a lot more scientific than we allow it to be.

P.s. Btw, I am not doing this in direct response to the certain fish's temperature requirements thread from a while ago, just the hobby in general.

Best regards, Ryan.

 

Interesting point… although all hobbies seem to have their own lore and laymen opinions… my first response to your observations is it does seem that most scientific journals and research papers address fish in their natural habitats. Perhaps the science doesn’t address home aquariums because they are focused on a more ecological and environmental perspective.

 

Amazes me how some simple things(like temperature ranges), people won't even take the time to look up on a non-forum setting though. That is DANGEROUS!!

 

The science in aquarium keeping is there. You just have to know where to look.

Heck, the API master test kit tests- there is basic chemistry in what you are doing, I can't confirm it, but the pH test just looks like a solution of bromothymol blue. Indicator solutions are a normal part of chemistry - chemistry is part of science, is it not?

You have people recording wild conditions for fish. Observing behavior and habitats of fish. This is part of science. Not all science is diligent experimentation and testing. We take the results we find, even if it is just simply data collection by looking, and we can apply it to our hobby. This data can be used to better improve aquariums, or create biotopes.

Curing disease in aquarium fish - a lot of this is a scientific process. We have to identify an issue, and figure out why and how this issue was caused. There's many medications on the market - but we know which ones to use because of science and experience. For example, we know why osmotic shock happens - not specifically because of the science around fish, but rather the science of how cells interact with our environment.

People have analyzed the guts of wild fish, and determined the percent of what a fish consumes in the wild. It's probably not just a coincidence that Fluval's bug bites have remained such a popular and high quality food for hobbyists.

I don't think that the hobby is not scientific, it is just that we are now at the point where science can only carry you so far. Basic principles of fish have become established where we can expand upon it with first hand experience. This experience gets shared, and over time it may become altered or changed, but as we compile more experience we learn more about how fish should be kept. Is a long record of experience by multiple keepers not essentially experimentation with different variables?

Some species, we don't know much about because either nobody keeps them, or nobody has officially logged information about them under their care. Dario tigris was only very recently scientifically named - according to Aquariumglaser, observation in aquaria led us to believe that they were in fact, not a color variation of Dario hysginon but a whole separate species. Would this technically fall under ichthyology rather than the aquarium hobby? Maybe, but it still gives a little insight on how just keeping species in aquaria can contribute to science.

What I am trying to say is that the aquarium hobby has it's scientific parts. However, some people just don't care, because they literally don't need to. We have a plethora of experience and information compiled on the web that are more than enough to support claims we make. So, we claim certain fish need certain tank sizes and parameters - scientifically, we know how large they get, and the behavior they exhibit, and as more people keep those fish, we use experience to find slightly fuzzy but definable ranges that our fish can inhabit.

 

To me there is an enormous amount of science involved in our hobby.

Only think we "common people" hardly use any in any hobby, we can't "translate" science into our daily life and if so we humans stubborn try to proof science was wrong and set our own bounderies.

Using meds in our hobby is more a gamble based on marketing strategy of the brands than science.

 

Science is heavily involved. Especially for the sincere fishkeeper that neither sees the animals as "just pets" nor as a commodity.

It's not a coincidence that people ask for quotation when a statement is made. That's fine, that's scientific practice. Being in academia for almost 20 years: Yes, not all is your own experimentation, you have to first justify your arguments by quoting those who worked on something before you, argueing why and how and IF their results, statements and interpretations are correct, before you can start your own study. Especially in fields like the humanities where experimentation and empirics are very limited and you have to make a very good argument.

It becomes ridiculous though, when people start to ask for a quotation for common knowledge. Or saying it a bit exaggerated: People questioning the nitrogen cycle itself (not specifics like microorganism species, pH-ranges etc.) is like questioning gravity or time.
Those who ask for that have lost touch with reality or have not understood how the system works.

Otherwise the learning curve and knowledge progress of a fishkeeper are similar to that of a university student. You start with the basics and specialize. But in contrast to academia the hobby has no set goals (like exams and degrees) that determine the minimum knowledge you have to acquire and the skills you have to develop are also pretty basic.

So it's up to the individual. Some do their thing for decades, without ever expanding their theoretical knowledge as they don't see a reason as "things work, why change?" and being content with their way of fishkeeping. This can go well for the fish, but bad thing if people keep buying new fish every month for decades without ever thinking about why they lost so many ever.
Others have just begun but already overdo it by overcomplicating it. You see that a lot with beginners, especially young university students that just got into contact with academia and not yet settled in it. Calculating nutrients to the microgram, light intensity, soil types... all correct in theory, but in pratice they have no idea why algae X has colonized their tank and a. think they have to extinguish it and b how to read the signs in the tank.

That brings me to the next: The influence of marketing.
There are several ways marketing has influenced the hobby, good and bad.
Fact is: Many companies do in fact do their research, pay people to do studies and go on expeditions. The results do get implemented in new tech and products.

But there are always results that are not marketable. Let's take cycling and pH ranges. Science has proven in more than one study that the standard ammonia/nitrite-oxydizing bacteria can be extracted and put in a bottle to start colonies in a tank. Of course provided all the other stuff around it. The bacteria in these bottles are of certain species with a preferred pH-range, as determined in well known studies from the 1960s. Which is convenient for the manufacturer: They can then take this range to market things around it. pH-up, pH-down, pH all around. No seriously, it goes as far as the green, yellow and red ranges in water test scales are at least partially linked to this. This has been going on so long, people think outside these ranges life isn't possible.
But, oh shock: Scientists not involved in the industry found out that the species composition of microorganisms in the filter media of a fish tank is determined by factors as pH and hardness, showing clearly: Of course you can cycle a tank in a pH of 6. Or 9. Or 5. It will only take different amounts of time and many products sold are not necessary.
And no, I'm not saying the evil megacorporations are exploiting us in a big conspiracy. Well... it's a given, as that is just a description of capitalism.
But the example shows how much marketing can influence the common perception of scientific knowledge and promote their products based on science, even if outdated science.

Which takes me to the next part: Science is flexible. To a degree.

This can become a problem, when science and experience get into conflict. Everybody here knows the situation - Somebody comes here with a problem. A majority of people, using common sense, scientific results and experience say "Hard to impossible to solve. Please leave it be, if 100 people before you tried and failed, here is the reason why."
And then there is that one person saying "Do it! It works!" claiming they had success either failing to provide prove or failing to realize that it has massive downsides for the animals, they don't acknowledge to exist.
Nothing against pioneering and inventor spirit, this takes us back to the top: Is it necessary to try and fail again and again, if the result is literally DEATH?

Yes, experimentation and risk taking is necessary to move science in some direction (I don't want to say progress, as I don't see the concept working out.), but within reason, please. And if you do, failing or not, please document everything meticulously and try to eliminate any errors of measuring, do your research in advance and always think about other explanations before exclaiming you have made the find of the century, just to be disproven by someone who may not be experimenting but has the basics of the field down to a T.

Lecture over, have a nice summer.

 

Look, a Dario tigris in my avatar!

Anyways, I agree with the above statements. There is plenty of science and there are plenty of online forums where the scientific discourse is much more common.

It is just not this forum. Here, the concepts of "because of" and "despite of" are interchangeable. Fishlore attracts a different audience. That makes this forum cringingly fun for me.

Scientific thinking is not intuitive. It costs a lot of glucose.

If I really like to grasp understanding of how denitrification in soil takes place (without the non-existing anaerobic layer...), I go and look somewhere else.

 

It is just not this forum. Here, the concepts of "because of" and "despite of" are interchangeable. That makes this forum cringingly fun for me.

Yeah, strong tendency to false balance.

 

Yeah, strong tendency to false balance.

That's the reason why you keep returning to this forum, mister.

 

That's the reason why you keep returning to this forum, mister.

I know. It's an endless struggle.

 

Science is heavily involved. Especially for the sincere fishkeeper that neither sees the animals as "just pets" nor as a commodity.

It's not a coincidence that people ask for quotation when a statement is made. That's fine, that's scientific practice. Being in academia for almost 20 years: Yes, not all is your own experimentation, you have to first justify your arguments by quoting those who worked on something before you, argueing why and how and IF their results, statements and interpretations are correct, before you can start your own study. Especially in fields like the humanities where experimentation and empirics are very limited and you have to make a very good argument.

It becomes ridiculous though, when people start to ask for a quotation for common knowledge. Or saying it a bit exaggerated: People questioning the nitrogen cycle itself (not specifics like microorganism species, pH-ranges etc.) is like questioning gravity or time.
Those who ask for that have lost touch with reality or have not understood how the system works.

Otherwise the learning curve and knowledge progress of a fishkeeper are similar to that of a university student. You start with the basics and specialize. But in contrast to academia the hobby has no set goals (like exams and degrees) that determine the minimum knowledge you have to acquire and the skills you have to develop are also pretty basic.

So it's up to the individual. Some do their thing for decades, without ever expanding their theoretical knowledge as they don't see a reason as "things work, why change?" and being content with their way of fishkeeping. This can go well for the fish, but bad thing if people keep buying new fish every month for decades without ever thinking about why they lost so many ever.
Others have just begun but already overdo it by overcomplicating it. You see that a lot with beginners, especially young university students that just got into contact with academia and not yet settled in it. Calculating nutrients to the microgram, light intensity, soil types... all correct in theory, but in pratice they have no idea why algae X has colonized their tank and a. think they have to extinguish it and b how to read the signs in the tank.

That brings me to the next: The influence of marketing.
There are several ways marketing has influenced the hobby, good and bad.
Fact is: Many companies do in fact do their research, pay people to do studies and go on expeditions. The results do get implemented in new tech and products.

But there are always results that are not marketable. Let's take cycling and pH ranges. Science has proven in more than one study that the standard ammonia/nitrite-oxydizing bacteria can be extracted and put in a bottle to start colonies in a tank. Of course provided all the other stuff around it. The bacteria in these bottles are of certain species with a preferred pH-range, as determined in well known studies from the 1960s. Which is convenient for the manufacturer: They can then take this range to market things around it. pH-up, pH-down, pH all around. No seriously, it goes as far as the green, yellow and red ranges in water test scales are at least partially linked to this. This has been going on so long, people think outside these ranges life isn't possible.
But, oh shock: Scientists not involved in the industry found out that the species composition of microorganisms in the filter media of a fish tank is determined by factors as pH and hardness, showing clearly: Of course you can cycle a tank in a pH of 6. Or 9. Or 5. It will only take different amounts of time and many products sold are not necessary.
And no, I'm not saying the evil megacorporations are exploiting us in a big conspiracy. Well... it's a given, as that is just a description of capitalism.
But the example shows how much marketing can influence the common perception of scientific knowledge and promote their products based on science, even if outdated science.

Which takes me to the next part: Science is flexible. To a degree.

This can become a problem, when science and experience get into conflict. Everybody here knows the situation - Somebody comes here with a problem. A majority of people, using common sense, scientific results and experience say "Hard to impossible to solve. Please leave it be, if 100 people before you tried and failed, here is the reason why."
And then there is that one person saying "Do it! It works!" claiming they had success either failing to provide prove or failing to realize that it has massive downsides for the animals, they don't acknowledge to exist.
Nothing against pioneering and inventor spirit, this takes us back to the top: Is it necessary to try and fail again and again, if the result is literally DEATH?

Yes, experimentation and risk taking is necessary to move science in some direction (I don't want to say progress, as I don't see the concept working out.), but within reason, please. And if you do, failing or not, please document everything meticulously and try to eliminate any errors of measuring, do your research in advance and always think about other explanations before exclaiming you have made the find of the century, just to be disproven by someone who may not be experimenting but has the basics of the field down to a T.

Lecture over, have a nice summer.

May I add that we humans are wonders in often pulling conclusions out of scientific research done on very different topics. Some sort of bycatch.

For instance pointing on the impact of temperature while impact of ammonia on the fish is the topic of research.

 

May I add that we humans are wonders in often pulling conclusions out of scientific research done on very different topics. Some sort of bycatch.

For instance pointing on the impact of temperature while impact of ammonia on the fish is the topic of research.

Yes! Good point!

 

Besides of that our Aquabrands tend to "play" with science when it benefits their profits. Still am amazed how brands sell bacterial "starters" that only buy time cause the right bacteria aren't in it. "a mix of nitrifying bacteria", yeah but different ones than people think

We are fooled constantly !

 

Besides of that our Aquabrands tend to "play" with science when it benefits their profits. Still am amazed how brands sell bacterial "starters" that only buy time cause the right bacteria aren't in it. "a mix of nitrifying bacteria", yeah but different ones than people think

We are fooled constantly !

You think that's how politics works as well?

I'm just kidding.

 

You think that's how politics works as well?

I'm just kidding.

It's how HUMAN SOCIETY works.

 

Clearly there's plenty of science to aquatics, and fishkeeping. The average person isn't going to read or understand any of that though unless that have an honest interest in that.

The average person just wants to keep fish and have a pretty tank. With luck they decide they want to learn more about processes and the science behind the processes at a later date but that's not why they came to the hobby.

The hobby is full of basics and generalizations and methods that work for many, but not all, it's not a one size fits all to fish keeping. Everyone's water is different, and what they keep is different.

It's not baking where you can follow the recipe and the measures and temperature and get a cake. There's no one formula to works for every single situation. Even if you gave formulas starting with RO/DI water, and wrote it from start to finish step by step, someone, just like with a cake, is gonna screw it up by not following it closely or slacking on something and the results turn out different so this is why nobody really just makes a "recipe" and just makes a guideline to get started.
Plants are it's own science, water is it's own science, bacteria is its own science, fish is it's own science, lighting, filtration, aireation, ect. Ect. There isn't really a single science that covers it all but about a dozen sciences that don't really overlap and are massive individually to do research within the given scientific area.
Nature can make all these processes work in harmony easily, we struggle with it to make it work and strive to understand the science of the interactions of the processes that nature just makes work.

There's always going to be a darkness in the hobby, and thats mostly due to people not wanting it to be all that complicated, they just want to keep fish, not become biologists or understand the mechanisms. They are content when it works and vexed when it doesn't and don't care all that much on the why.

 

Besides of that our Aquabrands tend to "play" with science when it benefits their profits. Still am amazed how brands sell bacterial "starters" that only buy time cause the right bacteria aren't in it. "a mix of nitrifying bacteria", yeah but different ones than people think

We are fooled constantly !

Yes and I’ve got some new nitrate removing products that can really help this hobby!!! Or my pockets .

Yes there’s science involved. But unlike cooking or baking (which have been going on since the Stone Age) with fish everybody’s water is different and science doesn’t care about fish or this hobby. Next the last time science was interested in fish was probably the 60s. All those books written were about fish in there natural environment. Since I’ve started so many things that were just aren’t any more. Main thing is that fish can adapt to many different water types. The science in the earlier books was never followed long term.

Fish keeping is a rather new hobby. Yes they’ve found tank from earlier days but it’s not like they were for a hobby more like a status thing. So with under a hundred year of research there still lots to learn. Thing is it’s only hobbiests involved with it. Nobody’s really researching how an angel fish survives in a ph of 6.2 in Joes tank an 8.0 in Pete’s. Only thing there interested in is what they can sell. Come on theyre now selling us erythromycin for our fish. Really? Do you believe there were long term studies on this? Or profit studies.

It will take another 100yrs to make this hobby as easy as baking cupcakes. But through sites like this many of us are able to enjoy our fish and learn what we’ve done wrong and how to fix it but because of everybody’s different water everything needs to be tinkered with. That’s the hobby .

 

There is no room for people with a "The Lore in Fishlore" badge in this thread.

Sorry 86 ssinit.....
MacZ.....
DoubleDutch....
FinalFins.....
BigManAquatics....

Sigh, nevermind.

 

science doesn’t care about fish or this hobby. Next the last time science was interested in fish was probably the 60s.

I could post dozens of studies done on aquarium fish, the fish trade, ornamental fish diseases and other aquarium related topics. ALL written in the past 5-10 years.
I could also link you to useful aquarium literature. Also all written in the past 5-10 years.

So with under a hundred year of research there still lots to learn.

We're at about 170 years of the modern hobby... It's 2022 not 1990. The first book on ornamental fish was published in China in the 1500s. The first book on home aquaria in the west was published in 1857.

Thing is it’s only hobbiests involved with it.

I think dozens of scientists from different fields specialized in fish and fishkeeping will tell you otherwise.

Nobody’s really researching how an angel fish survives in a ph of 6.2 in Joes tank an 8.0 in Pete’s.

There are plenty of studies about osmoregulation in fish and the results can easily explain this.

 

I've had tanks for a little over 2 years after having tanks in the 70's and 80's. There's a lot of info available now but there are still a lot of times when a beginner is on their own. And because we're keeping live animals, mistakes are brutal.

Thanks to everyone who helped me over the last couple years.

 

The aquarium supply companies can do just fine without the science. Some just state things as fact on their product labeling, but then refuse to explain the science behind it because it "proprietary". It's a faith based system.

The onus is on the hobbyist to educate themselves, but I think that often does not go beyond the advice of a fish store employee who may or may not know what they are talking about. Many come to Fish Lore and other forums after problems begin. If only they would come her first (some do). But even here there will be bad advice at times (I'm sure I've stated "facts" in the past).

I think if one views the fish as more than a disposable commodity and they take their role as it's caretaker seriously they are more likely to take an interest in it's well-being and seek out sound knowledge. I think...

Some people just don't care. Two people I know made this clear to me. One told me if he had to do a water change more than once a month he wouldn't keep fish. Another said if he had to walk his dog or pick up it's poop he wouldn't have a dog. (If I had to change my kids diaper more than once a week, I wouldn't have a kid). Of course, my reply was, "Well maybe you shouldn't", but that just got a chuckle in reply. For some, keeping pets is about themselves and not the pet.

Has anyone created a web site that is a repository of relevant research for fishkeepers? Actual scientific research, not anecdotes and stories. MacZ mentions a lot of research. It could be and awesome resource and a fun collaborative project for memebers here perhaps.

 

Has anyone created a web site that is a repository of relevant research for fishkeepers? Actual scientific research, not anecdotes and stories. MacZ mentions a lot of research.

I use general search and resource websites like researchgate, academia.edu, google scholar, and my access to university library catalogues. Additionally specialist websites (e.g. on L-number catfish, dwarf cichlids or malawi cichlids) often have a bibliography section, as do profiles on seriouslyfish (most) and fishbase (all).

It's quite easy to get information if you know what to look for and where to look.

But a repository specifically with relevance to fishkeeping? Not that I know of. In any of the languages I speak/understand.

It could be and awesome resource and a fun collaborative project for memebers here perhaps.

Agree, but It would take at least one person with an IT background and one (or better a group) with a scientific background (for the neccesary literature research skillset).

 

Yes and I’ve got some new nitrate removing products that can really help this hobby!!! Or my pockets .

Yes there’s science involved. But unlike cooking or baking (which have been going on since the Stone Age) with fish everybody’s water is different and science doesn’t care about fish or this hobby. Next the last time science was interested in fish was probably the 60s. All those books written were about fish in there natural environment. Since I’ve started so many things that were just aren’t any more. Main thing is that fish can adapt to many different water types. The science in the earlier books was never followed long term.

Fish keeping is a rather new hobby. Yes they’ve found tank from earlier days but it’s not like they were for a hobby more like a status thing. So with under a hundred year of research there still lots to learn. Thing is it’s only hobbiests involved with it. Nobody’s really researching how an angel fish survives in a ph of 6.2 in Joes tank an 8.0 in Pete’s. Only thing there interested in is what they can sell. Come on theyre now selling us erythromycin for our fish. Really? Do you believe there were long term studies on this? Or profit studies.

It will take another 100yrs to make this hobby as easy as baking cupcakes. But through sites like this many of us are able to enjoy our fish and learn what we’ve done wrong and how to fix it but because of everybody’s different water everything needs to be tinkered with. That’s the hobby .

I somewhat agree, but it's sort of jaded. Yes, if people want to research something as a career, and make money, then they have to find an area someone is willing to pay for the research and that's usually a business that has an idea of a product to sell. It's the R in R&D, and people don't pay for research if it's not going to make money, you don't get to research what you want, you research what you are paid to do and do your job if you want the money to keep coming.
And a person doesn't spend a ton of money to get a degree to then spend their life independently studying and broke. ( usually, there are exceptions).

Without money as a motivator, very little gets discovered or accomplished.

I research for myself, with my free time, I do my actually job to pay my bills. I won't be writing any books on what I know, but I might share what I know and hope something clicks a spark in someone else that is motivated to keep going down that rabbit hole, I'm just not that detailed of a person to stay on task to really know something inside and out.

Like that Dr. Tim , Timothy Hovanec. Without the degrees, and the paycheck to immerse himself in developing products for a career, he wouldn't know what he knows right now, and be the guy at this moment in time with likely the most knowledge on aquatic bacteria. His scope of knowledge is really narrow though, because he's spent his time working with one specific aspect of ecology.

Had he dropped out of school and become an HVAC repair guy, instead of sticking it out for a Ph.D. in ecology, likely most folks wouldn't know who he is, or know what he knows on the subject at all since he also gets paid to write papers and perform speeches.
if there wasn't money in it and opportunity for him to make that his career, he'd of likely gone down a much different path as most people do when they find out what they enjoy doesn't make money if they do it.

Fishkeeping has evolved a lot in my time in the hobby, it will continue to evolve, but it's always going to be a hobby.
Still though, because of aquaculture and aquaponics, a lot has been learned, and more still to be learned from that, again, that learning was motivated by profit. Without it, and without the "products" in the hobby financing the research, there's not going to be anything more than people like us, sharing our experiences or ideas. with anything, there are scams and inferior products and there are some gems.
Electric cars sound great on paper, but ain't cheap, and costs an arm and a leg to replace that battery which eventually fails. We don't ever get to something better and a better concept if nobody will invest in it and we don't have experts that focus solely on a certain issue as their life's work and paid to be able to do it.
Same way we pay olympians, if we didn't make it so they could train all the time, well, we'd be like the rest of the countries that don't win medals. You try being a medal winning olympian working 60 hours a week year round to make ends meet and unable to focus on training.

 

I use general search and resource websites like researchgate, academia.edu, google scholar, and my access to university library catalogues.

It is so easy now to find good scientific information if you can be bothered to look. When I was writing my PhD I had to spend hours at the University library looking through biological and ecological abstracts, using various relevant keywords, then writing off to authors for reprints if our library didn't have the journal, then waiting for the reprints to arrive....

 

I was never a good student. As soon as the test was done, I forgot most of it.

 

I was never a good student. As soon as the test was done, I forgot most of it.

Still fits 9 out of 10 students nowerdays.

 

I think people are misunderstanding my baking analogy. The thing about baking is that it ISN’T super rigid, you can design recipes and mess with proportions. And the aquarium hobby, while it shouldn’t be, is taken as something that is rigid and only one way for things to work.

Look, a Dario tigris in my avatar!

Anyways, I agree with the above statements. There is plenty of science and there are plenty of online forums where the scientific discourse is much more common.

It is just not this forum. Here, the concepts of "because of" and "despite of" are interchangeable. Fishlore attracts a different audience. That makes this forum cringingly fun for me.

Scientific thinking is not intuitive. It costs a lot of glucose.

If I really like to grasp understanding of how denitrification in soil takes place (without the non-existing anaerobic layer...), I go and look somewhere else.

Which forums are you talking about that have a more scientific focus?

 

is taken as something that is rigid and only one way for things to work.

Look:

And because we're keeping live animals, mistakes are brutal.

THIS is the reason many people in the hobby are rigid in their views. Well, at least it SHOULD be.
But frankly, often it's just human behavioural patterns that make them act like it. I know many other hobbies and fields in which people show similar rigidity.

Which forums are you talking about that have a more scientific focus?

I could name some but either the local forum system renders the link invalid or the forums are not in English.

 

• You want it to look (Not saying water parameters, etc.) as natural as possible (I.e. wood (Even if not releasing tannins) or no bright colors/SpongeBob decor)
• You should have a heater, you should feed certain types of food (Those fish take to more readily)
• All water (Even well water) needs conditioner
• You should have only white light (Or a mix of colors to get white light) on your fish tanks and not colors such as a black light
• Certain fish should get certain sized tanks (Solely based on size; rather than behavior for the majority of fish)
• You can't have certain ph for certain fish species (Believed by a select few people in very extreme regulations, but even the general public's broader opinion's such as some bettas and gouramis or african cichlids)
• Which fish are either always or never compatible

I'm trying to understand where you are going with this exactly. You speak of "science" and "rigidity" and that one implies a lack of the other.

Some of the points you mention are only rigid if we choose to make it so and others are... well, because science, actually.

 

I think people are misunderstanding my baking analogy. The thing about baking is that it ISN’T super rigid, you can design recipes and mess with proportions. And the aquarium hobby, while it shouldn’t be, is taken as something that is rigid and only one way for things to work.



Which forums are you talking about that have a more scientific focus?

do you bake?
baking is pretty rigid, get it wrong it doesn't taste good or is too wet or too dry or something completely else when it's done and not what you intended it to be. Bread without yeast or kneeding doesn't rise, and is pretty terrible texturally.
cooking stuff in the over is easy, set the over to 350F, pop it in, and in 30-35 minutes it's done.
I don't even attempt to bake using cups and teaspoons and tablespoons measures, ect. I use grams and I get a consistent finished product every time.

You can design recipes of course and make whatever you like and eat it whether it's good tasting or texturally appealing or not, as long as you don't use poison as an ingredient but baked goods being correct and the expected outcome, well there's only one way to do it right, and every other way to do it wrong and not get the right finished product at the end of the work.

I don't think most folks take fishkeeping seriously or rigid enough really. There's lives of animals in the mix, people can experiment with recipes, I really dislike people experimenting with their pets. Things people do to their fish, they would never do to their dogs or cats, and a petstore or shelter would never keep selling dogs and cats to the same person every other day like they do with fish. somewhere around animal 5 they are gonna wonder where they all are going, but not with fish....
I don't think it's taken seriously enough honestly.

 

I could post dozens of studies done on aquarium fish, the fish trade, ornamental fish diseases and other aquarium related topics. ALL written in the past 5-10 years.
I could also link you to useful aquarium literature. Also all written in the past 5-10 years.

We're at about 170 years of the modern hobby... It's 2022 not 1990. The first book on ornamental fish was published in China in the 1500s. The first book on home aquaria in the west was published in 1857.

I think dozens of scientists from different fields specialized in fish and fishkeeping will tell you otherwise.

There are plenty of studies about osmoregulation in fish and the results can easily explain this.

I understand your points. But your not getting the facts. Yes there are a very very few people studying fish. So few they don’t matter. And who’s paying for their studies.

Like I said yes aquariums we’re around for years. But nobody but the very few studying them even knew about them. Yes there were bookwritten but if the stuff in the 60s is now no longer correct do you believe the stuff in the 1500s is useful now? Hey we’ve now got electric!

Yes science can help us make our tanks better. But again very few of us would know where to start. Most of us keeping fish are just your everyday people. A lot blue collar workers. Most’s biggest attempt at science is testing water . Like I’ve said before this is a hobby. Not a very active hobby either. This is a community tank forum with lots of active members. Try a single type fish forum there’s nobody on them. Don’t count Facebook it’s Facebook !! The best we can do is try to keep our fish healthy. Learn what you can.

 

Yes there are a very very few people studying fish. So few they don’t matter. And who’s paying for their studies.

There are more than you think and they do have more impact than you think.
Who pays? Usually the tax payers in countries that invest in their universities and that have not commercialized education. But that's too political for this forum and won't translate culturally I suppose. You are also obivously looking only at the English speaking world and presumably only at the US and at best also at Canada.
There is A LOT going on outside your sphere of perception. Especially in South America (Brazil, Peru, Colombia) there are permanently studies published. Even in English. Because the fish are quite a big business factor there and at least countries there have realized that this is important.

Like I said yes aquariums we’re around for years. But nobody but the very few studying them even knew about them. Yes there were bookwritten but if the stuff in the 60s is now no longer correct do you believe the stuff in the 1500s is useful now? Hey we’ve now got electric!

You completely missed my point. The hobby and literature about it have been around MUCH longer than you said. It's about the context.

A lot blue collar workers. Most’s biggest attempt at science is testing water. Like I’ve said before this is a hobby. Not a very active hobby either.

So what? That's a weak argument and such argumentation is one of the reasons some things never change. This is active refusal of knowledge and education. To yourself and to others. But as they say: You can lead a horse to the water...

Don’t count Facebook it’s Facebook

At least one thing we can agree on.

This is a community tank forum with lots of active members.

To which you are technically denying more and better knowledge by your argumentation.

Try a single type fish forum there’s nobody on them.

Small communities, but a. often with scientific backgrounds and b. true specialists. Without them the bigger forums would only regurgitate the stuff from the books from the 60s and what the industry dictates. Without our input things wouldn't move at all.

The best we can do is try to keep our fish healthy.

By learning and researching, ideally.

I think it's for the best we ignore each other in the future. I see no point to argue with you. It's a bit one-sided.

 

Which forums are you talking about that have a more scientific focus?

For anything related to aquarium plants, I go to a place that is created by the guy that came up with EI.

Regarding fish, inverts, fungi, mold, bacteria and soil, its mostly papers.

 

There is no room for people with a "The Lore in Fishlore" badge in this thread.

Sorry 86 ssinit.....
MacZ.....
DoubleDutch....
FinalFins.....
BigManAquatics....

Sigh, nevermind.

Huh?

sigh, nevermind.

 

I guess I was kind of adressing 2 different problems in the hobby.

One the lack of rigidity in certain things and 2 the over-rigidity in others. For tha lack of rigidity, I would say is the lack of science available to the english speaking world. (Sorry if I don’t speak any other languages, though in the process of) Even on like google scholar, which I’ve used, it often doesn’t have true parallels to the aquarium hobby. I don’t know what it’s like in other languages though. And then the whole rigidity in things that have not been proven since the 60s, and are outdated and who knows how accurate? But what I’m not saying is question everything (As I was suggesting in my original post of maybe some things we won’t be able to know) and experiment with everything, because although I like the hobby as a science. I also value the fish like I would a dog or cat. And don’t want them to die. But that doesn’t mean don’t experiment at all, because some could be for the benefit of all fishes’ lives.

Also, please don’t pick apart my entire post and look for a problem in every sentence even if there isn’t a problem everywhere. Frankly, it’s rude. Just adress the points that need adressing, thanks.

This last paragraph is kind of just in response to SparkyJones ’s comment on baking. Also, with the baking thing, you can just bake pre-designed recipes. But there is a pretty big hobby that designs desserts from scratch (I.E new desserts with textures from pudding to flan to cake to cookie and everything inbetween) based on the science of baking and ingredients. (There are whole books on it) So baking can be simple plug and play but it can be VERY experimental. Even trying to find the best recipe for the best dough consistency of cookies, many do.

 

would say is the lack of science available to the english speaking world. (Sorry if I don’t speak any other languages, though in the process of) Even on like google scholar, which I’ve used, it often doesn’t have true parallels to the aquarium hobby.

Question, because I was thinking about that in the meantime: Do you look for explicitly aquarium-related works or are you looking in the fields that have significance for the hobby?

Because those are two very different things and it is a matter of course to take results from e.g. a study of the stomach contents of characins in the Rio Ucayali, abstract the relevant information and transfer that to the composition of the diet offered to the fish.

Most directly aquarium related works I know of are concerning medication, disease prevention and filter systems, and most of those come from the aquaculture sector.

Just to get that thing straight. Relevance for the hobby is not identical to reference of the hobby.

 

I guess I was kind of adressing 2 different problems in the hobby.

One the lack of rigidity in certain things and 2 the over-rigidity in others. For tha lack of rigidity, I would say is the lack of science available to the english speaking world. (Sorry if I don’t speak any other languages, though in the process of) Even on like google scholar, which I’ve used, it often doesn’t have true parallels to the aquarium hobby. I don’t know what it’s like in other languages though. And then the whole rigidity in things that have not been proven since the 60s, and are outdated and who knows how accurate? But what I’m not saying is question everything (As I was suggesting in my original post of maybe some things we won’t be able to know) and experiment with everything, because although I like the hobby as a science. I also value the fish like I would a dog or cat. And don’t want them to die. But that doesn’t mean don’t experiment at all, because some could be for the benefit of all fishes’ lives.

This last paragraph is kind of just in response to SparkyJones ’s comment on baking. Also, with the baking thing, you can just bake pre-designed recipes. But there is a pretty big hobby that designs desserts from scratch (I.E new desserts with textures from pudding to flan to cake to cookie and everything inbetween) based on the science of baking and ingredients. (There are whole books on it) So baking can be simple plug and play but it can be VERY experimental. Even trying to find the best recipe for the best dough consistency of cookies, many do.

I agree, I wasn't suggesting you valued fish any less than other animals, Just saying people in general see dogs and cats as pets without a doubt, and see them as living, feeling things by most everyone. A dog or a cat isn't a "hobby". there's millions of products, foods and gadgets still, some very safe, some not so safe all being marketed to people with pets. Is anyone innovating the science of dog or cat keeping?
Not really. but lock 40 dogs up in 4x4 cages their entire lives to kick out puppies and let the SPCA find out and watch the hellfire rain down upon them for doing it. That's a business though, more akin to factory farming I suppose, still not a "hobby" really. People and petstores can severely overcrowd or abuse fish and just trash bin the dead daily and nobody even much cares..

Fish and fishkeeping and aquarium keeping, it's a hobby. it's just not seen or treated the same way and in the end animals are animals, and pets are pets, fish, dog or cat or snake all living things. but aquatics for some darn reason is treated as a whole, much like coin collecting or model airplane building or knitting. or even simple home furnishings, more akin to "gardening" than pet keeping. and it just kind of vexes me on general principles.

experimentation in a hobby or profession can lead to innovation. However THIS hobby is kind of unique as a "hobby" in that it is living things. Is farming a "hobby"? I suppose it could be.... but I digress.
I've no interest in taking risks or gambles with fish with possible negative outcomes of death, any more than I have interest in testing vaccines on animals. I leave that up to the scientists for companies.

I'm all for the "hobby" trying to innovate methods or procedures that are safe for the living beings that are being kept, doing things different sometimes leads to doing things better, but I'll leave all the heavy lifting of the experimentation that might kill things to the "professionals". jUst like "pets" though, there's gonna be a ton of products and gadgets and foods, that may or may not be safe put out each year for cash grabs.
I think most people don't have the basic knowledge or the patience or restraint to be experimenting on their tanks in the first place, and just blindly try things without a clue of the possible outcomes, research and a risk assessment, and get into trouble and then do the work they should have done beforehand as their fish are damaged and dying.
....plenty of pet stores for replacement fish out there I suppose.

 

I tend to find people get into a hobby, any hobby, and go from 0-60 in no time and are experts writing "how to's" in a week.
The science is mostly there, it is commercial marketing that introduces quite a bit of nonscience (ahem....seachem).

 

Question, because I was thinking about that in the meantime: Do you look for explicitly aquarium-related works or are you looking in the fields that have significance for the hobby?

Because those are two very different things and it is a matter of course to take results from e.g. a study of the stomach contents of characins in the Rio Ucayali, abstract the relevant information and transfer that to the composition of the diet offered to the fish.

Most directly aquarium related works I know of are concerning medication, disease prevention and filter systems, and most of those come from the aquaculture sector.

Just to get that thing straight. Relevance for the hobby is not identical to reference of the hobby.

I just look up aquarium species in the wild or home aquaria in general; I’m not saying there’s none, but it’s just scarce and hard to find.

 

There's a good amount of research on ncbi on filtration, bacterias, pathogens mineralization etc. if you know how to find/read it. Most of the testing done in labs is accomplished using danio as test subjects but there are a ton of .edu resources available with papers on more specific subjects and various species. Unfortunately there is allot of half committed research from the 70's 80's that is still looked at as gospel as it was released in fish keeping journals that used to be the trend and a few of my fish keeping role models locally still swear by it. I had a conversation go wildly wrong while discussing what I believe to be convective stratification caused by thermocline in lake Tanganyika causing slight clorophil, lighting and mineral variations that may trigger certain fishes breeding behaviors. The keeper I was visiting (and do sincerely look up to) was very certain that there's no stratification or thermocline in Tanganyika as it wasn't discovered or talked about when he started keeping fish from that region 20+ years ago. I honestly don't have the resources to pursue the study further but was surprised he was so vehemently against the concept. Anyhow, there's a tangent.

I guess there's lots of science out there, but you won't find many people willing to experiment outside of *maybe* switching brands of buffer/conditioner, and that switch would likely be described by the participant in a way that closely correlates to confirmation bias of brand marketing/loyalty. I love to get in the weeds, but I'm pretty sure most people just haze over when I break out the chemistry stuff, I don't think most people even follow along when I get into the power/electricity stuff, and that literally applies to nearly every aspect of daily life..

Be honest, we're all here for the flame wars and sick burns.