Gravel Question

[The Lumpfish Guy]

Thank you.
Very hard to find that paper, still not convinced.

 

[Byron]

Thank you.
Very hard to find that paper, still not convinced.

You posted this as I was editing my previous post, adding some relevant citations from a much more recent source.

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

You posted this as I was editing my previous post, adding some relevant citations from a much more recent source.

See my issue is this, Nowhere in that text is there any reference to a peer reviewed study (please correct me if they are at the end of the chapters I don't have access to the book). As is the same with many articles on PFK, TFH ect which reference and endless loop of articles over and over again. But no peer reviewed works.

The only papers I have found which have actually looked into the effects of water harness on fish has been in Tilapia (2 species plus hybrids), African catfish (plus hybrids), Salmon (Diploid and triploid) and Trout. Where growth performance was affected (still way above "natural") but no effects on measured welfare indicators including skeletal deformities, cataracts ect.

I am not disagreeing that water hardness has an effect on the fish, I am of the opinion that this effect is massively overstated in most fish. And encouraging people to meet certain Gh's Kh's, TDS levels ect and chasing numbers creates a less stable environment (in most cases, especially in beginners) and does more harm to the fish and to the hobby.

Stability is the key, not number chasing.

 

[Byron]

See my issue is this, Nowhere in that text is there any reference to a peer reviewed study (please correct me if they are at the end of the chapters I don't have access to the book). As is the same with many articles on PFK, TFH ect which reference and endless loop of articles over and over again. But no peer reviewed works.

I cannot understand why you would need to see peer-reviewed articles to prove that fish have evolved to function best in a very specific habitat. To me that is just common sense. It would be like my wanting to see articles to prove that fish need an aquatic environment and in the absence assume they do not. I may be simple-minded but I tend to accept what I learned and what biologists with far more knowledge than I have do not contradict.

In the state of our planet today, we should by now have learned that every species is specific to its environment to some measure. We have managed to change that environment through pollution and all the rest, and species are dying at a faster rate than any period in history including the mass extinctions. All of this is connected. You just cannot change what took millions of years to evolve, life.

I have had a few discussions with Neale Monks on issues like nitrates and over-use of conditioner, and such, and when we come down to the consequences of exceeding the "safe" limits he is quick to point out that we know biologically that these things weaken the fish, somehow, and make it more likely for other issues to arise down the road. Which is pretty much what the authors I cited in my previous post are also saying. The fact that the fish doesn't turn belly-up immediately does not mean it is not being affected very fundamentally. The shorter lifespan is proof positive; when the necropsy determines calcium blockage killed the fish--there is no other conclusion to come to.

And encouraging people to meet certain Gh's Kh's, TDS levels ect and chasing numbers creates a less stable environment (in most cases, especially in beginners) and does more harm to the fish and to the hobby.

Stability is the key, not number chasing.

I agree. Which is why I and most other members here advise that once a new aquarist knows their source water parameters, find fish suited and do not think of changing parameters at least not until they understand what this involves. Water chemistry is a very complex issue, and I have only the most rudimentary level of knowledge on this that is sufficient to tell me the "why" in basic terms and then leave it alone.

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

I cannot understand ...

I don't think either of us are going to change each-others minds on this, and I could spend all day discussing this If you want to move it to the science section.

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

I personally think this thread should be closed. There has been a lot of good discussion on this thread, but I think this has turned into a, “See whose smarter” thread, than a, “Help @Narwoo” thread.

Hence why I didn't post my reply. happy to carry on if needs be in the science section
Isn't the whole point of these forums to facilitate discussion on fishkeeping?

 

[Colin_T]

Isn't the whole point of these forums to facilitate discussion on fishkeeping?

Yes, but threads are also meant to stay on topic, so it might be better to make a new thread to discuss water chemistry and its importance to individual species.

 

[Fishmanic]

Just start a new thread in an appropriate area with an appropriate title and continue the discussion there if desired. As long as discussion remains respectful all is good . Or perhaps we could end the discussion here if there is no need for further comments.

thread cleaned up for readability and flow.

 

[Back in the fold]

“American Water”, huh? Do they realize how large America is, anyway? We have so many different types of water and sources that no fish could acclimate to all even after many generations. Kind of a crazy statement, isn’t it?

Just like religion, you will hear all kinds of goofy things out of people. Ignorance, misinformation, and hearsay. Most, if not all of it, is never checked for accuracy or verified in any way whatsoever. A guy really has to keep his ears open and his thinking cap on. If it sounds goofy it probably is and don't be afraid to show your own ignorance and ask questions.