Here's the thing

[Myraan]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9Lnpy6IMAIBNvV.png

 

[FishHobby99]

There has been a modern revolution in fish keeping going on for around 50 years. ( Of which I have been apart of for 45 of them ).
Fish keeping has now been taken over by big business. You are encouraged to buy all sorts of things to improve your ability to keep fish alive and to grow plants. I have been watching this revolution take place.

New ideas come forward all the time which is a good thing. But all of these involve spending more money. You never or very rarely see a new idea that will mean you will spend less at the LFS.

We now vacuum tanks, change more water, add fertilizers for plants, use RO water in tanks, forget about pH concentrate on hardness, buy expensive test kits, get larger tanks with fewer fish, change our substrate for sand and the list goes on.

What I would ask everyone of you to do before you go and spend the next $50 at the LFS is to go to your second hand book store or online and buy a few old Aquarium Handbooks with that $50 and read them.

Then have a look at what you are doing. Fish keeping has been around along time and is very simple if you just follow some basic rules.

Can you recommend a good old book? Probably I could find it Ebay

 

[itiwhetu]

Can you recommend a good old book? Probably I could find it Ebay

Handbook of Tropical Aquarium Fishes.. Herbert R Axelrod 1971
Encyclopedia of Tropical Fishes Herbert R Axelrod 1971
The Living Aquarium Freshwater and Marine Peter Hunnam 1981

The Living Aquarium book is the absolute go to for anything to do with relationships between aquatic plants and animals.
Any book published with Herbert R Axelrod's name on it will be worth a read.

 

[itiwhetu]

I have been rereading the posts and it is an interesting insight.

Yes some of what we did was trial and error, but if we had not done that the hobby wouldn't be where it is today.
I disregard any thought that what we did was to harm any fish. We actually bred more fish in the 70's and the 80's as hobbyists than in any other period. ( My guess )
The knowledge gained then is what makes people like @Byron and @Colin_T so valuable to this forum site.
Be careful of the information that you disregard you may never find it again.

Edit I forgot to add @AbbeysDad in that mix. sorry

 

[xxBarneyxx]

While I don't disagree with your viewpoint you are very much looking at it with rose tinted glasses on. My parents both kept and bred fish through the late 60's up to the late 80' I grew up with this and have kept and bred many fish myself since then.

It wasn't all knowledge and enlightenment back then. In fact there was pretty much exactly the same conversations going on then as there is right now. There was the same amount of people that thought they knew it all and the same amount of people who thought their way was the only way. Also the fish shops back then where still just as quick to put making a buck over fish welfare so nothing really has changed there either.

This has been turned into 'the old way" vs "the new way" when it should be looking at the best of both and just be "the way".

 

[itiwhetu]

While I don't disagree with your viewpoint you are very much looking at it with rose tinted glasses on. My parents both kept and bred fish through the late 60's up to the late 80' I grew up with this and have kept and bred many fish myself since then.

It wasn't all knowledge and enlightenment back then. In fact there was pretty much exactly the same conversations going on then as there is right now. There was the same amount of people that thought they knew it all and the same amount of people who thought their way was the only way. Also the fish shops back then where still just as quick to put making a buck over fish welfare so nothing really has changed there either.

This has been turned into 'the old way" vs "the new way" when it should be looking at the best of both and just be "the way".

Please read what @PheonixKingZ wrote. Just to remind you
"The issue is, is that all that information is outdated and is no longer used in the hobby"

 

[xxBarneyxx]

Please read what @PheonixKingZ wrote. Just to remind you
"The issue is, is that all that information is outdated and is no longer used in the hobby"

Yeah and I don't agree with him either on that point. However I wouldn't make it personal against him. For one we are all here for fun and getting into personal arguments with strangers is definitely not my idea of fun.

Also to be fair on @PheonixKingZ it's not an entirely incorrect statement. I have books back from the 70's and 80's which has some real awful information in and I remember a lot from back than that has thankfully been thrown to the wayside now that we know better.

Again you are looking at things from your own personal experience. You had someone incredibly knowledgeable to teach you. The majority of the population didn't and a lot of common thinking at the time was flawed or has since been replaced by something better.

The fundamentals you keep talking about are still the core of what we are all still doing but you seem really unhappy to accept that some methods now are better than they used to be or that some people just don't have the time to DIY or go for a cheaper option and have to go for a prebuild/manufactured solution instead. Not everyone has the time or skills to build their own stands and that is 100% fine.

You suggested people build their own UGF and experiment with changing their water PH. While I understand and agree with you in principle this is also not advice that is going to help someone new to the hobby. I have seen more damage done by people trying to mess with their water chemistry then I ever have by seeing fish living on the edges of their tolerance.

Also while a UGF works, I again don't see the point in anyone new to the hobby bothering with them. Apart from the fact they are cheap and in some breeding set ups may be useful, internal and external filters are far superior for the majority of cases. I would recommend everyone understands how a basic sponge filter works just because it is so easy to chuck one together for emergencies, but UGF's, for the majority of people, are a waste of time.

I really don't disagree with what you are fundamentally saying. Once you understand the core principles of fishkeeping there is a lot of "stuff" that you can do without.

What you have to remember though is that for some people that "stuff" is part of the fun.

I have run "Old School" tanks with no filters and just plants, I have run tanks with UGF's/Reverse UGF's and sponge filters. I have done basic.

I have gone the full ADA planted tank route with super high lighting, full ADA product range, CO2, the works.

I have also done a whole range of stuff in between the two.

The point that is being missed here is that it ALL works and none of it was particularly "better" than the others. The ADA tank for example was ridiculously expensive and had a lot of unnecessary "extras". However the system worked amazingly well and it was stupidly simple to follow.

 

[itiwhetu]

Yeah and I don't agree with him either on that point. However I wouldn't make it personal against him. For one we are all here for fun and getting into personal arguments with strangers is definitely not my idea of fun.

Also to be fair on @PheonixKingZ it's not an entirely incorrect statement. I have books back from the 70's and 80's which has some real awful information in and I remember a lot from back than that has thankfully been thrown to the wayside now that we know better.

Again you are looking at things from your own personal experience. You had someone incredibly knowledgeable to teach you. The majority of the population didn't and a lot of common thinking at the time was flawed or has since been replaced by something better.

The fundamentals you keep talking about are still the core of what we are all still doing but you seem really unhappy to accept that some methods now are better than they used to be or that some people just don't have the time to DIY or go for a cheaper option and have to go for a prebuild/manufactured solution instead. Not everyone has the time or skills to build their own stands and that is 100% fine.

You suggested people build their own UGF and experiment with changing their water PH. While I understand and agree with you in principle this is also not advice that is going to help someone new to the hobby. I have seen more damage done by people trying to mess with their water chemistry then I ever have by seeing fish living on the edges of their tolerance.

Also while a UGF works, I again don't see the point in anyone new to the hobby bothering with them. Apart from the fact they are cheap and in some breeding set ups may be useful, internal and external filters are far superior for the majority of cases. I would recommend everyone understands how a basic sponge filter works just because it is so easy to chuck one together for emergencies, but UGF's, for the majority of people, are a waste of time.

I really don't disagree with what you are fundamentally saying. Once you understand the core principles of fishkeeping there is a lot of "stuff" that you can do without.

What you have to remember though is that for some people that "stuff" is part of the fun.

I have run "Old School" tanks with no filters and just plants, I have run tanks with UGF's/Reverse UGF's and sponge filters. I have done basic.

I have gone the full ADA planted tank route with super high lighting, full ADA product range, CO2, the works.

I have also done a whole range of stuff in between the two.

The point that is being missed here is that it ALL works and none of it was particularly "better" than the others. The ADA tank for example was ridiculously expensive and had a lot of unnecessary "extras". However the system worked amazingly well and it was stupidly simple to follow.

I agree with what you are saying. My point is take a deep breath occasionally and re evaluate what you are doing. Just going harder and faster at something may not be the solution to the problem.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

I agree with what you are saying. My point is take a deep breath occasionally and re evaluate what you are doing. Just going harder and faster at something may not be the solution to the problem.

I know and I agree, I think everyone else agree's as well.

Unfortunately I think that this original message got lost along the way in this thread.

 

[kribensis12]

Wow. After reading through all of this I have a lot of thoughts... I'll keep some of them to myself.

It sounds to me, @itiwhetu , that your main issue is not with better (this is blanket statement) methods of fishkeeping but the fact that these better (again, blanket statement) methods of fish keeping have been taken to the extreme simply to make more money for companies and not to actually make life better for fish or aquarists.

If that is true, I don't think a single person on this forum would disagree with you. I think the issue arising is that in doing so, you are effectively writing off many of the advancements of modern fish keeping.

Fish keeping was not in the dark ages 40+ years ago - but it certainly was hampered by the lack of easily accessible, quality knowledge. When I was in middle school I read several of Axelrod's books and found them informative and helpful; but they scratch the surface of what we know today after further observation and scientific analysis.

Reality check for everyone (if ya need it): Consumerism is real and is a byproduct of capitalism and advancing technologies. It is both good and bad. Instead of complaining that it's ruining the hobby (taking liberty with that statement), let's agree to continue to help new and experienced members alike make good, helpful choices that will ultimately benefit their fish and maybe save some money along the way.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

I don't think that there's any argument against better anything, but against unnecessary anything.
I appreciate my better lighting, for example, but it comes with unnecessary baggage in the shape of simulated thunderstorms. If the unnecessary was pared away, it could've been a cheaper purchase, but Fluval would've made less money and my inner child might've been less happy with his new toy.
There are lots of better new filters, which are quieter and more efficient and can even have their flow adjustable, but many come with unnecessary filter media, such as carbon pads, which are, according to instruction sheets, needing to be changed every couple of months or so. Of course, we could go Old School, like @AbbeysDad has suggested many times, with various containers, with various grades of pilfered media in them.
Basic tanks are now better, especially if you can remember those with the iron frames, but many of these come with unnecessary extras, such as cheap filters and one-temp heaters.

Of course, I do understand that the definitions of 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' can vary and bee quite subjective to each individual. Personally, I view fluorescent gravels and plastic plants surrounding a host of toys unnecessary, but some would argue strongly against that.

 

[itiwhetu]

I don't think that there's any argument against better anything, but against unnecessary anything.
I appreciate my better lighting, for example, but it comes with unnecessary baggage in the shape of simulated thunderstorms. If the unnecessary was pared away, it could've been a cheaper purchase, but Fluval would've made less money and my inner child might've been less happy with his new toy.
There are lots of better new filters, which are quieter and more efficient and can even have their flow adjustable, but many come with unnecessary filter media, such as carbon pads, which are, according to instruction sheets, needing to be changed every couple of months or so. Of course, we could go Old School, like @AbbeysDad has suggested many times, with various containers, with various grades of pilfered media in them.
Basic tanks are now better, especially if you can remember those with the iron frames, but many of these come with unnecessary extras, such as cheap filters and one-temp heaters.

Of course, I do understand that the definitions of 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' can vary and bee quite subjective to each individual. Personally, I view fluorescent gravels and plastic plants surrounding a host of toys unnecessary, but some would argue strongly against that.

You mentioned filters. There is lot we can do to make filters work better for us, the medium in the filter can be replaced with natural products that actually leech minerals into the tank, to aid with plant growth, help control pH and hardness. These are the things that the aquarists of the past were very good at.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

You mentioned filters. There is lot we can do to make filters work better for us, the medium in the filter can be replaced with natural products that actually leech minerals into the tank, to aid with plant growth, help control pH and hardness. These are the things that the aquarists of the past were very good at.

...And if you know what you're doing (and especially if the shop keeper knows what they're doing), then there are better materials out there than of old., but no better than of very old.
Remember when large cannisters were arriving on the scene and they came with those plastic tubes for bacteria to grow on? Thankfully, they've now been largely replaced by ceramic bits, mimicking the old broken crocks and plant pots we used, 'back in the day'.

That said, didn't someone show some fancy new, shiny plastic balls, recently?

 

[itiwhetu]

...And if you know what you're doing (and especially if the shop keeper knows what they're doing), then there are better materials out there than of old., but no better than of very old.
Remember when large cannisters were arriving on the scene and they came with those plastic tubes for bacteria to grow on? Thankfully, they've now been largely replaced by ceramic bits, mimicking the old broken crocks and plant pots we used, 'back in the day'.

That said, didn't someone show some fancy new, shiny plastic balls, recently?

Plastic balls, exactly. So, we would smash up old pots, we would go into the wilderness and find natural materials to do the job. Now we go to the shop and buy man made equivalents of those things.

 

[itiwhetu]

This is the book you should have a copy of. I got the publishing date wrong in my previous post. It was first published 1981 this is the 1995 addition

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Aquarium-Peter-Hunman/dp/1856274667&tag=ff0d01-20