Comment On The New Newsletter

[nitey4ever]

The article about stunted growth in the 1st edition of the newsletter has me worried.
TFF 1st Edition Newsletter: Myth of the Month

I'm scared that people are going to read it and think that they can go buy traditionally big fish, put them in a small aquarium to stunt their growth, and this will be ok.

There is no warning in the article saying this is NOT an acceptable habit. It happens, yes, but I'm worried that people will purposely do this because of that article. Is there any way to get a note added warning about this?

 

[Bignose]

Ummmmmm, did you read the last paragraph?

... it's probably alright to stunt fish, isn't it? No, not in the least. Stunting still causes internal damage to the fish, and can still slowly kill it. One of the organs ...

My comment actually is that the article could have gone into much more in depth. Like the origins of the exploding organs myth as a misapplication of the fact that fish are indeed indeterminate growers, that is they will always be growing bigger and bigger albiet more slowly the longer they live. But indeterminate does not mean that the skeleton stops while the organs keep going, nature just doesn't work that way. I would have liked to see the article discuss this in further depth.

Another thing, it would be nice if the text in the articles was regular text that could be highlighted and because of that, could be found in a search engine. The way it is now, Google and company won't be able to properly put the words in the search database. It would be great if the newsletter could included and even better if it was near the top of the search engines.

 

[nitey4ever]

eh no...did not see that. I guess by the time I got half way through I was a little incensed that there was no big warning across the top of the article or something...

I working in a job where you have to assume that *everyone* is an idiot, and therefore, treat them that way...including idiot warnings (if you don't know what idiot warnings are...there the things like a "Caution: Beverage is Hot" warning on your coffee cup).

I agree about the newsletter being highlightable (is that even a word?) and that it could have included alot more information. I mean, for beginners I guess there's such a thing as too much...but more would have been nice on a topic that isn't so popular like this.

 

[Lateral Line]

Without commenting on the subject of the article, I would say that...

I got half way through I was a little incensed

... hoist by your own petard! If the article was long enough to cover all the aspects of a story, nobody would read it to the end.

I kind of agree though, it might have been better done.

 

[Mr Miagi]

"Caution: Beverage is Hot" warning on your coffee cup).

So if I read "Caution: Beverage is......." and gave up cause I was bored, or "incensed" about a lack of warning, could I then complain because there was no big warning accross the top? Just kiddin.

I think the article was fine, and I fail to see where any more information could have been added to again condem the act of putting a large fish in a small environment. But, your right, Id like the ability to select and highlight etc. Isnt that the method that the Newsletter was constructed though?

 

[Inchworm]

Please let me put my 2 cents worth in here...............

I think the Newsletter people worked hard and put together an excellent collection of articles. But, this is the first edition and the best way to learn how to do something is by getting up and doing it. I expect that over time it will evolve to meet the needs of our members, which will also change over time. Your feedback, both positive and negative, is the best way to help them do this.

I wonder if they are planning to have a Letter to the Editor section.

Edit: BTW, since this is a forum, if an article can spark a discussion about a controversial matter, it's a good thing. I don't mean do this to belittle any writer, since so much of fishkeeping is based on personal experience as well as hard science, but rather to have an opportunity to explore a subject in more depth.

 

[nmonks]

Inchworm has basically said it all as far as the article goes. But let me underline her comments by saying that as someone who works with printed fishkeeping magazines, I can tell you the job is difficult. By any standards the newsletter people did an amazing job for their first attempt. With each issue it will get better and better.

As for stunting of fish, I'd like to see a discussion on this, if only to lay out where the science is and the made-up myths touted by aquarists.

Cheers,

Neale

 

[OohFeeshy]

I think the point the OP is trying to make is, although not scientifically true or proven, it is probably better for people who don't know any better (after all, only those who have looked into the effects of stunting will realise it's probably untrue) to think that by stunting something 'really bad' is going to happen as opposed to just 'bad'.

 

[Bignose]

As for stunting of fish, I'd like to see a discussion on this, if only to lay out where the science is and the made-up myths touted by aquarists.

Cheers,

Neale

I started one of these over a year ago. http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=93933&hl=

It came to a pretty unsatisfactory end in my opinion. I'd be willing to start up another discussion on it, though.

 

[nmonks]

It's interesting the samples you kick off that thread with are carp. Now, I'm dragging stuff up from 15 years ago so it may be blurry, but when I was at university an aquaculture professor explained that carp, unlike salmon, "grow" to the size of the pond they're kept in. The reason is nothing to with swimming space but water chemistry. Carp release chemicals into the water. These chemicals supress the growth of other carp of the same species. I can't remember if this is deliberate or not. Anyway, in a river this effect doesn't occur because the chemicals wash away, but in a pond or tank the concentration goes up, and this slows down the growth of the fish.

Salmon and tilapia don't work this way. So some fish stunt this way, Cyprinidae mostly, and others don't, and this is a subject for aquaculture research for obvious reasons, because invariably you want to get the biggest fish in the smallest ponds.

The other issue overlooked is selective breeding. People tend to breed fish as soon as possible, and usually with fish the mature quickly. So you end up with generations of tank bred fish coming from parents who were prematurely mature compared with wild fish. Hence a lot of aquairum fish are undersized genetically because they come from parent stock that would never get as big as more slowly maturing fish. You see this a lot with angels and discus, and also sailfin mollies.

Cheers,

Neale

I started one of these over a year ago. http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=93933&hl=
It came to a pretty unsatisfactory end in my opinion. I'd be willing to start up another discussion on it, though.

 

[black angel]

Its true of goldfish that they release a chemical that stops other fish around them from growing which is why you will see in a tank of goldfish that one is almost always bigger than the others. I cant remember the name of the hormone thats released though. Fish can become deformed in the spine if they cant grow and fins are bent out of shape.
As for the internal organs growing and then causing the fish to die prematurely or burst open, ive never seen any actual evidence of this happening.

I liked the first attempt at the newsletter and look forward to the second.

 

[WILDER]

Well done to the newsletter team.

 

[nitey4ever]

Oh believe me, I am impressed enough with the newsletter, and will continue to read it (well, what topics are interesting to me anyway). But OohFeeshy articulated what I meant to say: "it is probably better for people who don't know any better ... to think that by stunting something 'really bad' is going to happen as opposed to just 'bad'."

Thank you for that OohFeeshy.

And yes, for the authors in the article, good job and keep it up!

 

[Inchworm]

...But OohFeeshy articulated what I meant to say: "it is probably better for people who don't know any better ... "

Thank you for that OohFeeshy.

I have to disagree strongly with that statement. IMHO, it's when some people assume that what they believe is best for others be the only thing written, or made into law, that trouble starts. Freedom of speech, people who keep an open mind, and the education of everyone who wants to learn, is the basis of a successful society, as well as the things that do the most to advance science.

And the purpose of a forum is to provide an opportunity for all members to talk and to listen, not to be dictated to by anyone else. An interesting thing to notice here is that the most knowledgeable and educated members seem to be the most willing to help newbies by explaining basic principles and answering their questions, rather than by quoting some silly rule-of-thumb that may or may not have any basis in reality. They also seem to be the least likely to flame anyone for doing what they consider the wrong thing.

 

[Bignose]

Hear Hear Inchworm. You have said it better than I ever have in those few short lines.

On this topic in particular (see my old thread), I really dislike the people that said "Well, it scares the beginners into doing the right things, so it is perfectly ok." Or, to quote a cliche: The ends justify the means. I think that the real consequences -- shorter lifespan, more susceptibility to disease, etc. -- are just as powerful to a responsible fishkeeper than the fabrications used to scare 'em straight. If the person is irresponsible, they aren't going to care or pay attention either way!