Come across this interesting read when searching about temperature stability . Worth a look

[TwoTankAmin]

The one thing I learned in all my research and also from some personal experience in tanks where heaters malfunctioned, I know the following facts to be accurate.

1. No fish require a specific temperature. What the do need is to be within a specific range of temperatures.

2. If you have a fish in water at either of the two temperatures extremes where it's behaviour indicates if it remains it there it will be dead fairly soon, the solution is, as fast as possible, the get it into water which is within it's normal temperature range. There is not time for acclimation and no need.

3. Species adapt to specific conditions over a period of time. That is why we cannot put fish with thrive in cold water into warm water of soft water fish into hard water etc.

4. Different species of fish have a different range of temperatures in which they can thrive. Species which become an isolate pocket can have the ability to adapt to a somewhat changed range of parameters. This is most likely when the parameter change is somewhat gradual.

4. When science investigates all of this, the one thing they all seem too do before they start the actual experiment is to acclimate the fish to their base conditions for 30 days. This is not a universal,but it is typical. I have seen shorter acclimation periods but they are all measured in days not hours. This includes for temperature. (This is why I am one who never acclimates fish, I plop and drop them.)

Anybody who ships fish know about temperature risk if shipping in the heat of a summer or the freezing cold of the winter. The fish I have bred are all warm water fish. I usually keep their tanks in the low 80sF. I have heater controllers which work in C even the I work on F. I like that because it means they turn on and off in an F range of about 2 dg +/- from a target temp.

I sent out a box of very expensive fish last week. I am not far from NYC and the box went to Buffalo which is in the opposite corener of NY from me. It arrived in a snow storm and was delayed by almost 4 hours from the promised delivery by 9:30 a.m. But the 72 and 30 hours heat packs were working fine and the insulation was good. There were 3 layers of bags and the bottom layer had the coolest temp., in the low 70F. But the fish were all fine. The fish I breed can handle temps from the mid 70s to the low 90s. I have seen them survive at 104F and explode at over 120F. I have seen them survive 69F for a short time as well. Both because of heater malfunctions in a tank or a delayed delivery where the heat packs ran out.

 

[Leeatl]

I cringe whenever I see that site referred to on any forum, especially in answer to a newbie's question.

 

[Richee]

I cringe whenever I see that site referred to on any forum, especially in answer to a newbie's question.

Who’s the newbie? And what was the question

 

[Leeatl]

Who’s the newbie? And what was the question

I meant in general. Did not mean to imply that you are a newbie. Don't be so thin skinned and if you are not a newbie, then do some research on that site and it's author.

 

[Richee]

I meant in general. Did not mean to imply that you are a newbie. Don't be so thin skinned and if you are not a newbie, then do some research on that site and it's author.

No I thought you were talking about the website not me but I’ve done more research on the author

 

[MaloK]

If you stack all the fishes that died for science side-by-side. You could probably reach the moon a couple times.

I hate these kind of "test", It's not because just a few individuals died, that it means the others loved it.

In nature fishes that find themselves in a "cold spot", can flee from it if they want to. Not in an Aquarium.

Exposing them to such treatment for "Science", is just an unjustified aberration that is absolutely not necessary and will at no point enhance the fish keeping hobby in any manner.

Good water, keeps good fish. Great water... Great fish... Nothing scientific about that.

 

[Byron]

I cringe whenever I see that site referred to on any forum, especially in answer to a newbie's question.

I agree. I've taken exception to this site more than once, I don't bother any more, it is not worth trying to sort out the good from the bad advice.

 

[emeraldking]

I've read some replies about scientific reads but just know if an article has been published, results from a study or research can be made out of conclusions or out of proof. A lot of people think that an article about a research or study (especially when it's published ina scientific magazine) and shows results, that it must be proof. There are lots of scientific articles that are build on conclusions as well. Conclusions doesn't have to be exact evidence. So, I do understand the various information one can come across on the internet or even books.

For instance: I've read an article somewhere that it was proven that when a female guppy mates with more than one male, that when she uses stored sperm packets that it will always be the last donated sperm. I contradicted that. It turned out that the research they did at a lab, consisted out of three females and a couple of males that were put in with a female for a short period. Apparently, they've mated . Once that was done, the male was replaced by another and that a couple of times. It turned out that the male offspring of each female looked almost identical to the last male that was put together with a female. But that was based on what they saw. So, a conclusion.
This research has been repeated by others and the outcome was totally different. But I already knew that a female will release sperm packets randomly. It just happened that with just three females, the last donated sperm packets were used. But as good scientists, they should've used more females to make a better conclusion.
This is just an example. For there are also other studies about if fish need steady temperatures. Well, first of all, you need to know with what fish we're dealing with. You just can not generalize stuff like this for all fish. Yes, temperature can have an impact on fish. The question is: What kind of impact? And again, that depends on the fish we're dealing with.

Science isn't always exact. Why do you think new studies are in play about the same issue, whatever field we're discussing? If we don't have enough data to work with, we make a hypothesis. Along the way we try to get as close to our hypothesis. If there's a problem that doesn't go along with our hypothesis, we try to figger out what the missing link is. And so, results will change with it. And this can go on and on till we've got it right.

 

[GaryE]

The number of fish sacrificed for science probably is a fraction of those used for chowder this year. I don't like experiments that kill other animals - we can be beyond that. But that doesn't mean proper experiments should not be made to look at temperature. I think even the most rabid oil company publicist has to be able to notice climate change now. And how fish will react to that depends greatly on temperature tolerances.
I expect a lot of our beloved aquarium fish can't adapt. Small size often means very specific adaptations, and specialists die during times of great change.

I also still think we aren't being very serious if we talk about fish. By now, we should have figured out more about diversity - and should be considering species. Or even regions.

A Canadian fish has to have adapted to changing temperatures. An equatorial fish won't have - they live in great temperature stability. An experiment with one won't say much about the other.

When I see the one size fits all clowns online - what can you say? They have charisma, and they make money. If income is the measure of worth, then there are some worthy ones out there, compared to here.