Fish And Temperature Changes

[TwoTankAmin]

It is not a simple rule of thumb. just like different fish can tolerate differing ammonia, different fish may handle different changes. So the question becomes not one of finding a universal number which fits all. Instead what can be done is to learn about the subject in general and then apply the parts that one can.
 
So we approach the issue in this way. We know fish live in different temps in the wild. Some live in cold water, some in tepid some in warm some in hot. The science teaches us that fish live in varied temps not one or not one narrow range. We can also learn that fish habitats do not maintain constant temperatures. This makes it pretty certain that fish are normally exposed to temperature changes. Moreover, i can use anecdotal evidence (which I know there is science to support) that many folks here also know, Swim in a lake sometime and you will find every now and then it suddenly gets cold and then warm again as you swim. Clearly there are areas of differing temperature and the fish swim through these the same as we do.
 
Now we get to the meat of the matter. We know different fish live in different temps in the wild, we also know water temps in any body of water are normally not constant. Finally we know that there are limits to the temperature any fish can handle before it dies from being too cold or too hot. So the question we are seeking to answer here is how big a temperature swing over how short a period of time might harm or kill fish in general. Given this challenge, how do you, i or anubody else answer it.
 
To suggest science can subject every single fw fish species to testing is absurd. It is simply not practical. So what happens is researchers can do two things. Firstly, they search the literature for other researchers which may have yielded results for specific fish or genera of fish relating to temperature. Or they may have researched a few different fish which all living in similar water. Then they may devise and conduct a study to further test so it adds more species and more info.
 
In the end they are often doing experiments which kill lots of fish to get the answer. How hot can a guppy live at? lest find out by putting them in tanks controlling all the variables possible and then cranking the temp each day or week or month by a degree or two and observing what happens. When the fish start to die, the scientist know at what temps are to high for guppys. Then they repeat the process going the other direction. this same sort of principle gets repeated in several tanks to insure the number are consistent. And then what the research will conclude is that guppys start to die at X temp and X+ they are all dead. What they can conclude is that if one never lets the temps get within a few degrees of the onset of death temp., you wont boil your fish. Now if they want to know if fish can live in sublethal heat or cold, that is another study. But what else might we take away from such a study?
 
For one, it is a pretty good bet that you don't need not fly to where they live and test water temps all over the place for the next 10 years tohave a good an idea what those temps will be. If the guppies are living there the water must not exceed the temps which starts to be fatal either warm or cool. If it does, there would not be many guppies there. So even if there is not a single temp. number that kills every single guppy, there is a number at which none survive. And that is useful information when folks want to set the heater in their guppy tank to know it wont boil or freeze them.
 
And I am sure there is also research out there that looks at the effects which high or low, but sub-lethal temps might do. Just like there are ammonia and toxicity studies.
 
So now on to your question. When you look at the study to which i have linked, what facts can you take away of which you can be resonably certain and which you might apply to your specific situation. And the answer is how much work are you willing to do to come up with a good answer. What part of the data and conclusions do apply to your work tank and what is the answer you want?
 
You already know the fish in that tank seem to handle the change you reference for it from your own observations, have any of the fish died in a way that would make you suspect it was temperature related. Do they act normally to the extent that you can not observe any problems? If the answer is no, then it would be curiosity that would make you want to know how big temperature change they might handle and over what period. You can search the literature for studies which answer this for your exact fish, or at least similar fish from the same region.
 
And now lets get down to the real nitty gritty. The question here is basically how does one know whether or not the difference between the bag water and the tank water temperatures are enough to have a negative or fatal effect should the fish move directly from one to another. How much change at what rate is generally safe and which is not?
 
But what the study does show is that in terms of handling temperature changes when they studies rates that differed from 1C change per hour to 1 c change per minute and some in between  the discovered that the important factors in finding out what rate of change seemed advisable it realated to how rapidly internal body temp of the fish could track the ambuent temp. remember, fish are pretty much cold blooded and their body temp is normally close to the water temp.
 
But there is one fact in all those pages that i feel gives us a really good answer about acclimating our fish, even all those not north American. When they ran their experiments and when they looked at what other had done they saw something very interesting. Two facts stick out to me at least. The first is in the trieals;

During an exposure to a constantly changing temperatures, each species of fish tends to exhibit a repeat-able sequence of actions as it approaches and finally reaches physiological death.

 and then

Relative to these definitions, the key aspects are that the CTM endpoint is a sublethal but near lethal tem-perature, that locomotion becomes disorganized, and survival occurs if test fish are immediately returned to their pretest acclimation temperature.

 
Why do I think this is important? Lets get back to the acclimation process. Lets assume you have received a bag of fish that has been in transit for a day or two. You can test the tem.p in order to know how far off it is from the tank they will go into. You can look at the fish in the bag once its out of the box and the fish have adjusted to not being in the dark. You can see how they are swimming around in the bag. If they appear OK then you can probably figure the temp is not too hot or cold even if it is not ideal.
 
So now based on the actual temps, you have some idea of what to do. Based on the techniques used in the above study you could determine the internal temp. of the fish and then the water and conduct your acclimation such that the difference never exceeds .3CoC-1 as the study suggest might be a good rate. But since I am sure most fish keepers can not even think about doing this, what are the alternatives based on the science.
 
One would be to devise a plan to raise the bag temp in stages and then observe the fish as you do. If the change is too much, they will start to swim oddly and, based on the above study, you can easily fix this by dropping the temp back to where it was before the last addition.
 
However, there is more to it than this. One of the other things that study indicated when it came to the rate of change in temperature was that too slowly was also a problem. If one is working to move a fish to a new temperature, if it is done too slowly the fish will adapt to the temp. along the way. The researchers seemed to indicate this would be a bad thing because it allowed a fish to adapt to the intermediate temp. level bofore it changed again It was observed that at a rate of change around .3oC min-1 that the body temp of small fish tracked the temp change in the water. So you can use that number as a guide. They also noted that fish body size is relevant. the larger the fish, the longer it takes for their body temp. to equalize with the water. So you have another good practice to take away form the article. Acclimate bigger fish for temp. differences slower than you do for smaller fish.
 
That study is long and detailed and a lot of it has no application to how we acclimate fish for temp or what rates might be appropriate. We can not walk away with hard and fast numbers we can apply to every single situation. But that study is also far from being useless in helping us know what factors are at work when we look to acclimate fish for different temperatures, it sure gives us some good ways we can know what to do and what is going on.
 
Now lets see if some of this can tie back into some of the other acclimation issues. Clearly if the temp change is too radical, plop and drop can kill fish if nothing is done to slowly, but not too too slowly, bring the fish's body temp closer to the tank water temp. And I am sure anybody discussing the plop and drop methods also says one should float the bags first for temp. reasons. If one has done this, and then plops and drops and the fish die, look to something besides temp. change as the cause. In all the discussions I have seen on this site relating to temperature acclimation, the one thing I can not recall ever seeing is anything to do with internal body temp. and what rate of change it can handle. That is the science part and lets us know what it is that might kill the fish in too great and/or too rapid a change. But clearly there are some amounts of change that fish can handle as they do this every day in the wild.
 
Now lets try to to connect the info about not going too slow on temp acclimation as that is counter productive with acclimation methods. And I wonder if maybe a drip acclimation might be too slow. Since I stopped using this method many years back and then only tried it once or twice, I am not sure if the posts on this site advising how to drip acclimate discuss whether you first float the bag for temp or you allow the drip to do it. But then I also wonder if you are dripping water for a few hours into a bag, what controls the water temp in the bag? Do you have the bag in a bucket of heated water? Do you use something like they put UV drips on so you can drip into the bag and have it be in the tank?
 
Of course all of the above is being discussed in the absence of any consideration to the potential for ammonia in the bags or other differences. In the end the answers of how to acclimate are not so easily simplified. What the science can do for us here is point us in the right direction. It can help us formulate methods that have the best probability of working because they are based on the science not the anecdotes. The science may change down the road, but it is the best information available at the this time. I think we would be foolish if we fail to not to take advantage of it when we find it.
 
But that study above should show folks one thing. plenty of research has been done on the topic of fish and temperature- look at the references. And that should tell us that there is science out there we might be able to use.
 
For my part I am going to see if I can locate further temp. related data because it peaked my curiosity. I would like to see more research which reached similar conclusions or else that reached completely different ones so that I can learn what the facts may be.
 
I would like to take this opportunity to provide a bit of an explanation about myself. I am retired. So I have no work responsibilities. Since my first tanks went up 13 years ago until recently, I cared for an elderly parent. Much of this involved just being available to deal with problems when the arose. This left me with aton of free time and the ideal solution was fish. I had both the free time and resources to devote to them than the average hobbyist who must fit it in with a host of other responsibilities. So when I finally found all the research was actually out there, I had the time to spend hours and hours looking for it and then reading it. And when I did, a lot of it was eye opening. It went against what I had read over and over on numerous fish sites, it went against what I believed. Had I known it in my earliest years, it would have saved me a lot of grief and a lot of fish their lives.
 
You can choose to believe me or not when I say, my reason in posting the information I do is not to show I am smarter than anybody nor to prove myself right. It is not my work I am citing but the work of others much better equipped and much more educated and experienced than I am. I post this stuff in the hope it will help others. I have the time to find it and then to share it. So take it for what it may be worth and choose to believe my motives and the information itself or not.
 
I look at the great thread daize started on bottled bacteria, the good info it contains, and can't help but wonder if maybe that piece is there, in some part, because of some of my posts. I would like to think is was anyway. I look at what mama writes - she clearly does not like me nor my style, but then she says some of what I posted she has adopted. So I know my posts must have done something to help her become a better more informed fish keeper.which I would hope also means her fish are better off. And I know a few other folks will often say thanks for the info, so I know it might of helped a few other people. And there you have it.

 

[Mamashack]

I don't doubt that what you say has merit TTA and has probably inspired people to make changes to their practices. However my issue is with how dismissive you are of people who dare to have a different opinion or have the audacity to speak without the benefit of studying to degree level.
Whilst we may "really need a fountain of smart" - we also need a bucketful of humility!

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I am really sorry you just don't get it mama. I do not fail to tolerate other opinions. What I do not tolerate is countering science with anecdote. You seem not to see the words where over and over I ask people if they can find other science that supplants what I have offered, do it, that I am happy if folks find stuff that proves the science I have shown is wrong. But what you, and most folks here do is offer anything but science. So no I will not allow folks to take down science with anecdote, with the turn of a phrase.
 
So let me ask you to try a little research project of your own. Start to go back through all the threads where I am active in terms of the science and appearing intolerant to you. Ignore anything in them anybody posted but the links to the science. Have pad and write down every time I offer a link and how many supporting links were made available as well, and then write down the same for the people who you claim I do not tolerate. Make up a science score card. See whether it is merely another "opinion" I was dismissing as refuting the science or was it other sound science I refused to accept.
 
And then if you have the time do the same with my posts that have nothing to do with science but something else. Tell me if you see me being dismissive of opinions or if I appear condescending. And if I, don't maybe ask yourself why.

 

[snazy]

Now lets try to to connect the info about not going too slow on temp acclimation as that is counter productive with acclimation methods. And I wonder if maybe a drip acclimation might be too slow. Since I stopped using this method many years back and then only tried it once or twice, I am not sure if the posts on this site advising how to drip acclimate discuss whether you first float the bag for temp or you allow the drip to do it. But then I also wonder if you are dripping water for a few hours into a bag, what controls the water temp in the bag? Do you have the bag in a bucket of heated water? Do you use something like they put UV drips on so you can drip into the bag and have it be in the tank?

 
 I am not sure if I am allowed to respond to this Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my initial post, I don't worry about temperature difference too much and never float a bag, but drip acclimate as long as it takes for levels like Ph and TDS to equalize, normally average of 2 hours in most of my cases was enough and successful and by this time, providing you aren't doing it outside in Siberia, the temperature gets close to the one in the tank.  However, I shortened once a drip acclimation method to a bare minimum of 20-30min of 5 shrimp, 2 of which arrived dead and 3 were almost dead. They were in freezing water, no heat pad, travelled in a very cold night,  so I decided I either let them freeze for longer and risk them die while I wait for the temperature to rise slowly along with the other parameters, or I try a faster acclimation as long as it needs for Ph and TDS,  so I shortened it to 30min, not really a drip acclimation but contstant water coming out from the tank.  This was 6 months ago and they are still alive. Unfortunately it's annecdotal because I've no way to prove that they adjusted to a huge temperature rise in 30min max. With fish, the minimum I've drip acclimated was 45 minutes.
 
And if you are interested how some of us drip acclimate, here is what I wrote once. My apologies if it isn't written in a language appropriate for this thread.


Stuff you need:

1. I use a 4G bucket so it holds enough water to accomodate most fish and is deep enough not to overflow as the drip may take anything between 45m to hours depending on the water the fish came in. I would not use the bag they came into, because it has no surface area and they can run out of oxygen, it's too small too. Minimum stress is the key.
2. Airline tubing long enough to run from the tank into the bucket and possibly something to secure it tightly to both ends
3. A towel to throw over the bucket to keep the fish in dark.
4. Ph test and TDS if you have it which will also measure the temperature so it's handier.
5. Dechlorinated and temperature matched water (see step 8 further down why)

Steps:
1. Make a few knots on the air line tubing and connect it from the tank to the bucket securely(you can use a valve instead of knots). It's to control the water.
2. Pour the fish with all the water they came with into the bucket. When buying fish make sure enough water comes with them so they can swim upright in the bucket/container you are using. Its better if you ask to be given extra water from the same tank but with no fish, so you can place the fish in ammonia free water that has the same parameters.
3. Take out a bit of water from the container so you can test the Ph and TDS and even the ammonia level.
4. Start the siphon from the main tank and adjust the drip by tightening the knots on the airline tubing. Adjust that so it drips, not pouring, more like drops, possibly 1-2 drops per second.
5. Cover with the towel to minimize stress and keep away from windy/cold windows that may cause temperature fluctuations inside.
6. When the water has doubled or a bit more than that, depending on how deep your container is, discard half of it. I tend to leave a bit more water than the fish originally came with, to give them more room to swim to minimize stress. However, if the water has ammonia, you may want to discard more or even adjust the drip slightly faster(not too fast) so you can dilute it faster. I've never added Prime or anything like it because it reduces the oxygen levels but a small drop should not hurt I guess because oxygenated water from the tank is constantly dripping.
7. Test what the Ph, TDS levels are now in the bucket/container. If they are slowly approaching the main tank level, you may start increasing the drip to run sliglthy faster 2-4 drops per second, therefore discarding water more often. If not, leave it until the next test. You can possibly do the first test after 30 min and then every 15-20 min thereafter.

Repeat step 6 and 7 until all levels(Ph, TDS)have equalized, KH and GH won't hurt but I never measured these myself.  By increasing the drip level afterwards, you are also equalizing the temperature eventually too. 
I keep an eye on the fish from time to time instead. Just lift the towel slightly as not to stress them with lights because it really spooks them normally. If all goes well, from scared fish staying at the bottom of the container, bunched up together, they start swimming around more lively as if they are in a fish tank.

8. Obviously when you are dripping water from main the tank, the level in the tank will go down. I top it up as it goes from the predechlorinated and temp matched water.

9. Make sure you have fed your other fish prior to that so they don't think it's food, especially if your new fish are smaller and you can turn off the lights for an hour or so. Net the fish out with minimal stress and put them in the tank. I use my hands to make them go into the net.

Obviously the time that takes depends on the fish and water they came with, but the minimum I've done is 45 min, and from then on it depends on the fish and water they came with. I've acclimated fish from a Ph around 6.4-6l.6 to my hard 7.4. They came with about 3-4 litres of water. The bucket is about 16 litres and I discarded water several times and the bucket was full to the brim before I netted the fish. So that's was a lot of dripping but time wise it still took around 2 hours from what I can remember. These were my gold lasers and I remember they immediately took to following my albinos and sift around the place.

Once placed in the tank the fish should not hide and should rather have a "curious behaviour". In a day it will look like they've always lived there

 

 

 

[Donya]

I would like to remind everyone to avoid being condescending, rude, and/or insulting towards others and/or their opinions. It would be nice if this thread could remain personal insult-free and therefore lock-free and mod-edit-free.
 
This being the scientific section, the nature of science is important, so I am going to chime in on that aspect of this thread even though it is continuing a topic deviation. The reason I am going to continue that deviation is that, in short, Mamashack's criticisms of science are correct, and this seems to have been immediately swept under the carpet.
 
Science can disprove appropriately-formed assertions through the use of counterexamples, but proving an assertion through repetition is not possible. So, it is incorrect to say something like this:
 

which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests

 
or this, from elsewhere on the linked source on the scientific method:
 

experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis

 
When an experiment is properly constructed, repetition is meant to reduce the chance that the observed results were due to random chance*. Repetition can't demonstrate that a hypothesis is correct. The only way to demonstrate actual correctness is enumeration of conditions to rule out confounding factors, which, although possible in a sandboxed field like mathematics, is unfeasible in real life. This is Mamashack's “need for more research.” This troll of the entire scientific method is quite old and has, unfortunately, traditionally been ignored by a lot of fields and a lot of scientific culture. It is also why you get cases like snazy mentioned, where one person concludes “X” and the other person concludes “not X.”
 
* This, of course assumes the correctness of sandbox-based probability theory, or the assumption that it can be safely generalized outside of its sandbox. That is a point of contention in itself to some!
 
 

I will never accept opinion over science.

 
I also like science, inclusive of its philosophical trolls. However, it is a messier thing than even many scientists like to admit, and it is also just another method of forming opinions about the world. Those of us in science would like to think it's a good way of forming opinions, but scientists are supposed to be skeptical – which means not putting ideas on pedestals.  

 

[Mamashack]

Let me say I am not anti-science, just against the misuse of it in declaring something as an absolute truth because I don't believe that exists. I'm glad you saw what I was trying to say in my statement about research, Donya so thanks for including that in your response.
 
I am also aware that my reaction to some of the previous posts in this thread have sent it askew so I apologise for that and hope I can continue to contribute without bias in the future.

 

[Mamashack]

Thanks for posting your method snazy I'm going to copy it for my own personal use if that's ok so that I can study it in greater detail in the morning.

 

[snazy]

No problem Mamashack. This method has been 100% successful for me and I am confident I can recommend it because of that. I have acclimated this way all my corys, ottos, betta, shrimp, clown loaches, plecos(two of them were fry,not even juveniles), rainbows, etc...and others I can't think off now, basically all my fish for the last years. I have not lost one during or after acclimation, nor did I cause a mysterious disease outbreak when I introduced the fish this way because I belive stress is the key to diseases and not acclimating fish to new water parameters causes a body stress one way or another too from which they can't recover as fast as they can recover from ammonia polluted water and even damage( I am sure TTA will crusify me for that but my annecdotal experience points me there are more important things when introducing fish)
So it's worth mentioning that most of these fish required to adapt from a low to high Ph, so if the theory of the ammonia becoming very toxic while drip acclimating via this drip method and these type of water parameter differences, then I would have killed them all, as they all came with certain levels of ammonia and for most I had to acclimate from their low Ph(lower TDS too) to my high Ph, increasing the temperature at the same time(I live in a country where we rarely see sunshine, so fish water does get cold enough by the time they arrive home, and I keep tropicals) But as I said, asking for clean water at the same time or using detoxifier will avoid minimum the toxins issue, although I haven't done it myself.
The drip acclimation(also removing half the water each time while new one drips in), in my experience has been enough to remove all toxic ammonia faster than let's say when your first step is to float that toxic ammonia bag to temperature match it in the tank as a first step of acclimation, hence I don't recommend that and I don't do it. Starting drip acclimating immediately allows for "clean" water to enter as soon as you get the fish, and removing half of it every so often, 30 min or even sooner if you like, will eventually get all ammonia out and I have tested this is the case. Technically it's like doing several 50% water changes one after the other, you can do more if you like, allowing and increasing slowly the water the fish can swim in.  After the first 45 min you would have removed minimum 75% of ammonia.  By this time, in most cases the TDS and PH may have equalized, so you may just net the fish out, if not, you proceed and keep removing another 50% water, which will eventually  decrease and remove the 25% ammonia still lurking in the water, and so on....In worst cases, to match TDS and Ph, it has taken 2 hours, but by then there was no ammonia in the water in my cases.
If for example you were using floating the bag method to temperature match the water first, for 20-30-45min first,  then for this period of time, the fish would be still swimming in possibly all kind of toxins, and rather crammed to the sides of a small plastic bag, with other fish in the main tank(for those that don't quarantine always) poking at them on the sides(like my fish used to do).  
If you for example, you use the lid to hold the bag, minimizing the surface area once you open this bag, you run into suffocating the fish. The fish start trying to escape in the corners, turn bellies up pretty fast, you think you bought sick fish....
 
 
And to add to that long post, I used to keep fish years ago before I took a break. I used to use the float the bag method, then drop straight away. I used the float the bag until temperature matched, then add some water, remove some water, add some water while the fish were still in the bag, both gave me not so good results although not always. Some fish used to get stressed additionally, possibly because the bag moved each time I did something to it, whether adding water, tilting it, etc.. These methods led to all kind of problems for me which I attributed to "LFS sick fish", not my fault....
 I've seen fish panicking inside the bag while doing that, nowhere to swim, or possibly I held the bag by the cover, reducing the surface area, causing suffocation. I've seen fish with "swim bladder" while I was acclimating this way, not able to stay upright. I've done it successfully sometimes, with no issues, hence I thought the LFS was selling me sick fish the times I had problems.
 But the biggest difference between that method and my "latest" method was no disease outbreaks from new fish, no mysterious deaths after some 24hrs, no fish running into hiding when added in the tank, etc.. And this is my annecdotal evidence. So so much about temperature, it just isn't the most important factor, besides extremes. Fish in nature are exposed to daily fluctuations of several degrees sometimes and even more.
 
And then even to my method, I've done exclusions depending on circumstances. Hence I mentioned the shrimp case, but this was an extreme, and I still did a 30 min drip water(faster), remove water faster but not temperature matching anything as I would have waited all day.
 
Please feel free to judge or comment on improvents and your point of view on what is the most important thing to take into account and address first(temperature, Ph, TDS, KH, Gh, ammonia/nitrite removal, oxygen, etc...) when you receive fish in non-ideal water and you need to acclimate them. I don't claim I  am totally right but what I do works for me the best way so far.  If you want proof, you've probably seen most of my fish and most of my tanks, know about each of my purchases, about their health status, etc.. as I've documented it all here at some point of time.
 
I hope I didn't deviate from the topic much.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

snazy- thanks for your answer but now I am going to upset somebody because I am going to note that you process seems to be for fish you bought at a store and drove home. Correct me if Ii am wrong in this, but the fish you are acclimating are normally not in a bag for very long before you have them home? The acclimation thread this started with and about which I was applying the concept of plop and drop to is for fish which are being shipped to you. Fish that will be in a bag for at least 24 hours most times and often 48. Sometimes fish get lost and arrive in 3, 4 or 5 days. I am not dismissing you or what you have to say, I am merely noting that the situation you are explaining and the one in the acclimation thread appear to be different.
 
Unless one does not care about money and tells the seller/shipper to put lots of water in the bag, when the box arrives there will not be a lot of water in the bag. If one is buying smaller sized fish I can guarantee you the will not be more than an inch of water in a typical bucket unless you are buying a bunch of fish. And if you are importing them you will get huge bags with 100s of fish in each- talk about potentially nasty water.
 
I find your description of drip interesting especially the towel and not feeding parts. I have read this on a number of sites but can tell you I pretty much have never done any of it. When the fish go into my tanks they normally head right for cover until they get their bearings. Of course this is in terms of my free water swimmers not the bottom dwellers who always go to ground. I find the fish will come out the fastest if food hits the water, but even if it doesn't they come out fairly fast. But  most fish will bolt for cover instinctively like that, imo. Some come out sooner, some take longer. It depends on the fish the tanks and what else may be in it. For the mot part new fish are in Q. When they are ready to go into their new home tank they are pretty much all netted carried to the tan in the net when possible and plopped. if it a lot of fish being moved, I use a bucket.
 
I agree the can really color up well fast in good conditions, I do see that part. But then I also feed new fish on the same schedule as the rest so they do not get fasted.
 
And I learned something over the weekend when I picked up 50 amano shrimp. I sat in on the fw invert presentation and the speaker explained that when amanos and other shrimp are well fed, they tend to be less active. She said when they get hungry, they become active hunting for food. So after i had temp acclimated them and plopped and dropped them, I came back in a while to check on them and they were all over the tank. So in went a bunch of spirulina sticks. Oh yes, the tank is full of plants and the light was on the whole time. So here I have just done an acclimation which is literally the exact opposite of what you describe. And I never tested. But that is because I know the person who i got them from well. I have been in her fish room many times and I know she and I have similar water params. Oh yes- no dead shrimp so far.
 
Your way and my way are pretty different. I have no problem with how you want to do it. I would not tell you to change a thing if it works for you. However, the one word of caution I would offer, is consider doing something different if you buy fish that are shipped to you rather than ones you can go an fetch yourself. Especially if they are delayed along the way. I would guess that if I do not count fry, then something in the area of 80% of the fish shrimp or snails in my tank were shipped to me and fewer than 5% came from a shop. The last shop fish I got was on 11 November 2009- I stumbled across the receipt today.
 
I find it interesting that you feel the need to spend at least 45 minutes or more to match pH (and other things) and I have changed the pH of water for fish by 1 full point down in under 5 minutes to no ill effect. I have watched another person do the same in several tanks as well. While it is a bit anecdotal, we both were using digital pH meters. If nothing else this proves to me there are fish who can handle this degree of downward change without ill effect. The opposite side of that coin is it means I can not say fish can not handle large swings. I almost never temp. acclimate for more than 15 minutes no need usually. But nastier the water, the faster the fish come out of the bags- I will skip floating if need be.
 
Donya- please teach/show me the reason there is research if the results can not be used nor relied upon. I do not understand why it exists if nobody can use it. For example, I do not understand why if I read research on fw fish and temperature and I read a bunch of studies which all found that fish tsted all die before the water temp exceeds 125F (56.6C). And if I read the same thing from study to study for different species, must they boil every fish on the planet before we can accept the result. Of course the studies must involve tropical fish for those results to be most relevant. Now even if some studies concluded that the fish all died by 118 and others come up with 121 and others 123, does it matter if I then state that science shows that fw fish can not survive at temps above 125? And if down the road somebody discovers fw fish that can survive in 140F (60C) and a few other folks replicate the study and get similar result we would have to revise what we now know and start to say most fw fish can not survive 125 however, the Asbestosis inflamulitii is able to survive in temps. up to 140. It seems to me with science you have to go with the best there is at the time and when better comes along, replacement occurs. That is part of the definition I find in every discussion of the scientific method.
 
Donya, do you mind if I ask your what field of science you work in?  Also, if you read my response to eagle, was there nothing I pointed to in that study being able to teach us as fish keepers that had any value. For instance- did most folks here know that it takes longer to acclimate a big fish for temp than it takes for a small one? That never really occured to me. But are you saying we can not accept that this as being true. Are you saying that it is not true or that it is sometimes true? And if so, how do you know? Moreover, this makes me a least wonder if fish body mass has any bearing on the ability of fish to handle swings in Hh or TDS as well. But how can I find out if it does or doesn't? To what can I turn for the answer if not science?
 
Or what about the observation that fish always exhibit the same behavior just as they approach the danger level for temperature extremes. I believe the description was lethargy then spasms. Do they or don't they and how do you know? And finally there was the point they made that if this behavior was spotted and the fish were returned to a lower temp., they recovered. Is that not true? If we are acclimating for temp and we see the fish exhibiting this sort of behavior, should we lower the temp as our first response or should we do something else? And how do you know.
 
Should we not rely on any of the results discussed in the study it to help with deciding when and how to deal with temp. issues during acclimation or in other tank related cases? I am very confused about what you are saying about the science. Because if we can not rely on the sort of info that was in that study, in the absence of newer science to replace it, what can we rely on to guide what we do so the chance of succeeding will be the highest? Should I listen to the science in that paper where I can see names, credentials methods etc. or should I just accept what somebody I know nothing about posts?
 
Please, can you tell me how anybody on this site can know whose information to trust. And this is the same on any site, not just here. Before I blindly accept something posted on a site I need to know why I can trust that the poster has good information. If I can not find out that, I can at least try to find independent confirmation for it. And if i am really lucky that confirmation comes in the form of science. Somebody who should know what they are doing, and hopefully multiple somebodys, will have done higher quality investigations, the kind we expect from good science. 
 
Let me leave you with this line which I think is one of the best on that page defining the scientific method:
 
The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

 

[snazy]

This video below was taken on the day I received(online shipment) the 6 laser corys I acclimated via the method I described earlier(and gave this as one of the examples) The video was taken straight after I netted them after drip acclimation and put into the main tank(hence the lights are off).
 I had detected ammonia as usual in the water they came in, ph was 6.4(6.6) or something in between.  It took 2 hours via drip acclimation to raise the Ph by almost a point.  By the time I had finished, there was no ammonia detectable at all in the bucket where I acclimated them anymore and almost halfway through it I could see they were feeling better swimming around in the bucket(I sneaked an eye under the towel). Three of the 6 corys sent to me had tail defect(stuck tails). I never figured if they sent me corys with birth defects or their tails dried out because they were shipped in very little amount of water, with tipped bags, exposing some of their fins out to dry.I thought they may have been sick, but they never got sick(knock wood) or brought any sickness and it's been over a year since. I didn't care about the defect. They were so cute I wouldn't have sent them back or sold them.
 
Here is how they behaved straight after the acclimation and into the tank. Please see the smaller laser corys following my albinos. Can you say they are the "new" fish that came via online order that same day, travelling who knows how long.
I belive I have a very old thread here proving I acclimated and received these fish that day too, pointing to the same link. So this isn't totally annecdotal evidence.
 
http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzsGiJhRBnk
 
So no TTA, I don't refer only to fish I got from my local LFS(there aren't many here). I've purchased online several times. I've happen to purchase fish a few times from cities not very close to where I live, leading to the fish being bagged for even 12 hours, while doing work, although the trip home was only 3 hours. I bought fish locally, just 10min away, but then once the fish stayed bagged in the car for hours again, because my car broke down and I had to wait for the insurance company to arrive, so I rarely had a smooth purchase.

 

[snazy]

I agree the can really color up well fast in good conditions, I do see that part. But then I also feed new fish on the same schedule as the rest so they do not get fasted.

 

I find your description of drip interesting especially the towel and not feeding parts

 
 
TTA, just to clear this confusion in case I understood you wrong but I said nothing about fasting fish or not feeding fish.
What I said/or meant was that I make sure the current inhabitants aren't too hungry when adding new fish to the tank, so I feed them prior.  Hungry fish attack anything that floats and I try avoiding anyone running towards the new fish while I net them in after acclimation, as much as possible, especially fry sized fish that may fit in a few ot the other's mouth if they wanted to.
I've seen guppy fry attack by accident their own sibling, same size I moved to their tank. They didn't do physical harm, but they scare the hell out of the newly added fish. My platies rushed to new fish many times too. I try avoiding this as much as I can.
 
 
And on the below concerns, I hope you don't mind me using some Einstein quotes.

 

If I can not find out that, I can at least try to find independent confirmation for it. And if i am really lucky that confirmation comes in the form of science. Somebody who should know what they are doing, and hopefully multiple somebodys, will have done higher quality investigations, the kind we expect from good science.

 
"I think and think for months and years, ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right."  Albert Einstein
 
 
 

Please, can you tell me how anybody on this site can know whose information to trust. And this is the same on any site, not just here. Before I blindly accept something posted on a site I need to know why I can trust that the poster has good information.

 
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." - Albert Einstein
 
 
 

The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

 
"Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible." Albert Einstein

 

[Donya]

Donya, do you mind if I ask your what field of science you work in? 

 
I am currently in a PhD program in a computer science department at Yale doing interdisciplinary research that involves: artificial intelligence, machine learning, linguistics, programming languages, and music theory (although largely beating it with a stick for its lack of formality). Prior to doing that, I was doing research in bioinformatics and geoinformatics/seismology. Right now I work a lot with proofs and trying to formalize models that are too fuzzy to be empirically testable without a lot of reworking.
 
 

Donya- please teach/show me the reason there is research if the results can not be used nor relied upon.

 
Scientific research doesn't require absolutes to be useful. What the process creates is a mound of best guesses built on a mound of assumptions, and that's good enough for practical purposes. For the purpose of future work though, it's important to be honest about what it is. As soon as you promote a base assumption to being a “fact” then you've introduced a logical fudge-factor and aren't being consistent. Sometimes the fudge-factor is buried so deep that it has no impact in a practical setting, but when it is closer to the surface, the impact can be significant and you can end up drawing the wrong conclusion. Some of my recent work would have been a lot easier if others before me hadn't been so quick to declare things as true.
 
The issue is often described as the black swan problem. If you know you haven't seen all the swans, you cannot prove that “swans are white,” even if you've seen a lot of them. But, if you get into a betting situation and can't see all the swans in advance, you'll want to bet on the next one being white anyway – which is using the swan research and what motivates additional swan research. In terms of the effect it can have on future work, there is a fundamental logical/philosophical difference though between saying “some swans are white” or “swans are probably white” and saying “swans are white” in the blanket sense, which requires enumeration to prove its correctness even though it is falsifiable.
 
 

Should I listen to the science in that paper where I can see names, credentials methods etc. or should I just accept what somebody I know nothing about posts?

 
I would listen to where the argument makes sense and wouldn't care about the rest. That's how blind peer review works for scientific publications. 

 

[Mamashack]

My feelings on the subject are that science is not an exact science! There have been poorly run research projects, projects that are biased from the outset and some that are able to be reproduced independently which to me is the best validation. Sometimes to pin the research down into something that is quantifiable, there have to be exclusions from the research, and there are also variables to consider. In medicine conclusions very often include a range of results eg the average pulse rate is 72 beats per minute, but the actual individual rates ranges from 60-80 (I am not stating this as medical fact just as an illustration).
Then statistics rears its head and that makes me think of Disraeli with his famous "lies, damned lies and statistics" quote (altho some have since attributed it to Mark Twain). It's alright saying that 99% of time this happens, but what if your situation is the other 1%??
I have read research (perhaps not fish-related, but both nursing and medical) and sometimes as Donya says there are contradictory results so how do you decide who is right? I look at the methodology and decide if that sounds reasonable. I shun conclusions that say they have "proved" a hypothesis or even a null hypothesis as that in my opinion is impossible. I read other research on the same subject and see what their conclusions say and then at the end of the day I take the very unscientific approach and decide by what feels right. Sometimes it's a case of try before you buy too - try this, it didn't work, try something else until something does work.
EDIT - my patients are individuals and don't sit in nice little symptom brackets and what works for one might not work for another. Sometimes we have to use our professional judgement and that may mean going against conventional understanding. Using our well-developed radar sometimes mean we may do the exact opposite of what research might suggest is the right way for most.
 
I do like your swan analogy Donya and thanks for the further info Snazy. I prefer to try something that has worked time and again for someone else rather than have dry and sterile "facts" and names quoted at me ad nauseam!
Don't tell me I am wrong TTA - it is my preference and opinion and whenever I say anything in posts I now make it clear that is the case since the time you jumped down my throat for stating something without citing the original author and accompanying research to back it up.
I think it's dangerous to live and breath by what research says, sometimes gut-feeling has a big part to play.

 

[snazy]

I don't discredit reseach totally either and it isn't my intention to do so with my comments. The problem is that I have read so many that contradict themselves that I have decided that until something is called "research" , then it is just as useful to me as reading the news....
 
I once gave an example when "research" topic was discussed, about a study published by a very well known medical scientist in relation to the benefits and danger of electronic cigarettes. He caused such an uproar in the "vaping society", that he ended up participating on one of the biggest forums in relation to his publications.  His methods and conclusions were scrutenized by thousands of "annecdotal" first hand users. You'd be surprised on the knowledge of not publicly known "non-scientific" people. In the end he agreed, nothing can be concluded with his research and more should be done to investigate further.
At least he had had the honesty and desire to find the truth.
 
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein quotes

 

[Chad]

...please teach/show me the reason there is research if the results can not be used nor relied upon. I do not understand why it exists if nobody can use it...

To say that research results cannot be relied upon as absolute truth means that nobody can use it is a non sequitur. Often research simply advances our knowledge but is eventually overturned. History of course is replete with example of the "known" being wrong even when that known was arrived at using the scientific method.
 
The reason for this is simple, there are too many variables for any one experiment to account for them all. Take this simple issue of acclimation, we could list variables and still not arrive at all of them. We simply have to take into account as many as we can.
 

• Type of fish (goes toward hardiness and ability to tolerate water changes)
• Size of specimen
• Age of specimen
• Sex of the specimen (in some species the males are more hardy and others the females)
• Overall health of specimen
• When did the fish last defecate (did he go in the bag)
• Number of fish in bag
• Size of bag
• Type of bag (gas permeable or not)
• Quantity of water in bag
• Quality of water in bag (ro, tap, pond, stream, lake, treated etc.)
• Parameters of the water in the bag
• Environmental conditions prior to being placed in the bag (this one alone has a dozen sub-variables
• Distance shipped
• Method shipped (truck, train, jet)
• Handling while being shipped (was care taken was the box treated well etc.)

All that and I know I missed some needs to be known and a comparative study made before we can form our opinion on the best acclimation method for all fish.
 
I brought up cory in the other thread because I think they are a good example. When stressed they produce a toxin that can kill them and all the other fish in the bag. Because of this we want to get cory out of that bag as soon as possible so this is one fish I would plop and drop but I've found smaller fish like the chili rasbora I keep don't do well when just thrust into a different tank of water and they do best with a slower acclimation. I've also found that too long of an acclimation can be harmful as well depending on the acclimation set up. I have a 5 gallon tank for acclimation. Due to the size I can acclimate something safely over the course of 4 hours. This is required for things like tunicates, sea stars, cucumbers, and other marine inverts I keep but I would never acclimate one of my marine fish for 4 hours even when the salinity they come from is quite low.
 
It isn't that we can't use science it's just that our own limitations make science only as good as those applying it and humans have proved themselves to be less than perfect. For that reason I don't think we will be able to say without a shadow of a doubt that plop and drop is right for all species and circumstance but we may arrive at the point where we think it's best most of the time.