Lets cull the nonsense..

[Colin_T]

In Asia the fish farmers try to breed soft water fishes like tetras and barbs in soft water, and hard water fishes like livebearers and Rift Lake cichlids usually get kept and bred in brackish water.

So while people are saying the fish are possibly evolving to be able to live in water with a different chemistry from where they originated, that isn't really happening because soft water fish are still kept and bred in soft water and hard water fishes are kept and bred in hard/ brackish water.

In addition to this, many of the Asian fish farmers have been getting wild caught stock to breed with and improve the established bloodlines. This means the fish being sold have relatively new genetic material from wild fishes, and that means they are not going to tolerate being kept in water with a different GH and pH to where they came from.

 

[BoningKnife]

That may be true in some circumstances, it may well even be a growing trend. However to try and pretend like that's a majority thing across the world, well, simply put it just isn't true.
I want to make it clear because it feels like this is getting way out of hand. I am not going after anybody personally. My issue is with the general philosophy on places like this that has been inbuilt over a number of years and is problematic to the reality of our hobby. If that philosophy can't change then the reality is places like this will continue to be largely irrelevant, potentially detrimental. Science is not the single handed answer. Apply common sense, utilise science. I am not here to be the guy telling people to put an Oscar with their tiger barbs. I am not trying to question anybodies expertise nor to try and suggest I am better than anybody else. I'm just saying if we as a community can alter our approach a little and see how it goes maybe we can once again have some real relevance within the hobby we all clearly love.

 

[Colin_T]

That may be true in some circumstances, it may well even be a growing trend. However to try and pretend like that's a majority thing across the world, well, simply put it just isn't true.

90% of aquarium fish come from Asia, and nearly 100% of common livebearers and common tetras come from Asia. The majority of these fish found in pet shops around the world come from Asia.

 

[Byron]

All the evidence would suggest that evolution has certainly done the job in that sense.

The fact remains the sort of fish I'm discussing have been successfully kept, maintained long term and bred all over the world for decade after decade after decade.

And yet categorically they are successfully kept all over the world under a variety of parameters.

There is no such evidence.

Your definition of "successfully kept" varies from that of many of us who agree with Nathan Hill in the blue citation in my signature block. And to Paul Loiselle's statement in green. There is scientific evidence--and it is irrefutable--that fish kept in parameters close to that for which they did evolve over thousands of years will have healthier and normal lifespans for the species. When the aquarist acquires the fish, the aquarist takes on the responsibility of providing the best reasonable care for that fish. That requires listening to and learning from the ichthyologists and biologists who have the knowledge. No one should be in this hobby if they are not willing to understand and provide for the fish's inherent needs; these have arisen throough evolution, and they are programmed into the species' DNA.

There is no evidence of evolution changing the inherent physiological needs of a particular species just because it is raised/bred in tanks for whatever number of years. In actuality, it is evidence that the particular species has an incredible will to survive in the presence of what is an inhospitable environment. Some species can adapt to some degree, and the reason they can becomes evident when one understands the physiology of that species. When this allowance is not present in the particular species, the fish can exist for a time, but it does not thrive for its normal average lifespan. It is fraught with health problems with which it would not otherwise have to contend.

Water hardness affects freshwater fishes in terms of osmoregulation. Water hardness also affects the regulation of blood calcium levels. Within any particular environment, fish have tuned their physiological functions to cope effeciently with a fairly narrow range of water hardness levels and therefore osmotic pressure. Altering the hardness values outside this range or disrupting the major ion composition of water hardness will lead to extreme osmotic stress and other physiological malfunctions. Different fish species have a varying resistance to changes in water hardness, depending upon their ability to alter their osmoregulatory process to changes in osmotic demand. Most fish can be acclimated slowly to abnormal water hardness. In general, however, they will be under unnatural stress and will not achieve optimum performance in growth, breeding or disease resistance. It is clear that it pays to provide your fish with water of the same hardness as they have evolved to deal with in their natural environment. [This paragraph cited verbatim from The Manual of Fish Health authored by Dr. Chris Andrews, Dr. Neville Carrington, Adrian Excell, and Dr. Peter Burgess.]

This is a scientific hobby. We are keeping wild creatures that have evolved to their present state, and are continuing to evolve through natural selection. Every process within the confines of an aquarium is governed by the natural laws of biology and chemistry. There are trained scientists in this hobby, and they know better than any of us. When dealing with cancer I took the advice of the doctors and specialists. I did not listen to the "advice" of the nice lady who reads tea leaves at the county fair. They are worlds apart.

 

[BoningKnife]

That practice regarding the water hardness across the suppliers is not as widespread as is being alleged is the point I would question.
Well done, you've nailed me with science. What do you want me to say? Somebody else who has already countered a lot of the points you raise I believe but ultimately what does it matter. It still doesn't detract from the points I'm trying to raise, there is still fundamental issues at hand when fishkeeping is based entirely on the science and none of the other evidence is allowed to be present. What do you deem as goals to achieve when you start out on a new tank? Having the fish as healthy as possible and looking there best, breeding maybe, ultimately that goal remains the same amongst all of us. I use science to the best of my own abilities, are you ahead of me in that respect, of course you are, you could well be ahead of me in every respect. That sorta thing was never intended to be the basis of this. If the overwhelming consensus on here is science is the be all and end all of fishkeeping, especially on something such as GH 100% of the time. Then I give up. I believe in common sense and utilising science. The point I was making was meant to be about trying to be more flexible and look at the real time situation, particularly with newbies, rather than continuing with the same blanket statements. Look at what it's become. Let the decline continue.

 

[Byron]

Scientific evidence is accepted until new evidence changes it. The hobby has progressed over many decades to recognize the evidence which has evolved as our understanding of the scientific world has expanded. Opinion that is contrary to the documented scientific fact is not comparable evidence. I cannot fathom giving incorrect advice in order to be "flexible," when the health of the member's fish is at stake. If my doctor gave me that kind of advice I would look elsewhere.

 

[BoningKnife]

To my knowledge, your not a doctor. Your a hobbyist. If the sorta species we are discussing couldn't cope without a life support system strapped to their fins they wouldn't have reached there respective places within our hobby. You cannot prove me wrong because the evidence is all over the world. I'm done with this. I'm done with banging my head against a brick wall. If you refuse to look beyond only your own perspective your not worth having a conversation with. I haven't tried to suggest the science isn't important, not once. I've suggested it's not the only factor, but you stick to your blanket statements and enjoy watching the continued decline of places like this. I know the sorta fishkeepers who I aspire to, the sorta fishkeepers I find inspirational. One of whom you mentioned earlier, several others of equal renown and a good few of whom used to be very regular contributors on this very forum. Back in the days when we didn't detract to blanket statements for every query and one where this was an open community to people of varying tastes and principles, with real guidance and a solid community feel. Now it's blanket statements, screaming the word science as loud as we can no matter what the query annd stock list a, b and c. Nice one. Good way of keeping relevant within a hobby filled with niches and opinions.

 

[JuiceBox52]

That practice regarding the water hardness across the suppliers is not as widespread as is being alleged is the point I would question.
Well done, you've nailed me with science. What do you want me to say? Somebody else who has already countered a lot of the points you raise I believe but ultimately what does it matter. It still doesn't detract from the points I'm trying to raise, there is still fundamental issues at hand when fishkeeping is based entirely on the science and none of the other evidence is allowed to be present. What do you deem as goals to achieve when you start out on a new tank? Having the fish as healthy as possible and looking there best, breeding maybe, ultimately that goal remains the same amongst all of us. I use science to the best of my own abilities, are you ahead of me in that respect, of course you are, you could well be ahead of me in every respect. That sorta thing was never intended to be the basis of this. If the overwhelming consensus on here is science is the be all and end all of fishkeeping, especially on something such as GH 100% of the time. Then I give up. I believe in common sense and utilising science. The point I was making was meant to be about trying to be more flexible and look at the real time situation, particularly with newbies, rather than continuing with the same blanket statements. Look at what it's become. Let the decline continue.

Have you refuted it with any proof? I have seen none

 

[BoningKnife]

Have you refuted it with any proof? I have seen none

No, I haven't been hit with any either way though.
If your referring to my case about GH not being the be all and end all to fishkeeping in every single case, the proof is all over the world. It has been for decades.

 

[JuiceBox52]

No, I haven't been hit with any either way though.
If your referring to my case about GH not being the be all and end all to fishkeeping in every single case, the proof is all over the world. It has been for decades.

Could you show us some? I would like to see some. To the best of my knowledge what colin said is true. I visited a fish farm in Indonesia and they added salts to the livebearers. I've heard it is the same in Florida as well

 

[BoningKnife]

Even if I'm wrong, I didn't come on here claiming to be a genius. The whole point of what this was supposed to be has been lost on picking holes in everything I say. Facts remain tetras and live bearers have been kept together just fine for many many years and will continue to be so. Facts remain they are mass produced and about as far from a natural specimen as they could be without hybridization. Facts remain they are sold and stocked all over the world for very good reason. By all means think and do what you want. I was hoping we could alter our approach slightly to get more newbies in and generally see if this place could be improved upon. It cannot. I'm going to continue as I do. Ultimately the fortunes or opinions of an Internet forum are going to have very little impact upon me. To me science is extremely important but it is not the only factor. I don't believe expecting every newbie to stick with stock list a, b or c or hitting them with more restrictions than is really necessary. Especially whilst simultaneously expecting them to spend vast amounts of money and secretly hoping they end up with MTS. Im not saying without exception, the reverse of that, that's the whole point, there are exceptions and if we can we should try to accommodate the exceptions then that should be the target IMHO. Wtf do I know though, I'll just start screaming GH in people's metaphorical faces instead. As I can clearly see by the booming liveliness of this place and its marvelous reputation within our hobby (disclaimer for Americans, this is what us British refer to as sarcasm) that tactics been working great, continue to utilise it, for every time you can copy and paste a paragraph with GH used at least 25 times then be sure to give yourself a good pat on the back for each use of it. I'm just gonna continue to do my own thing.

 

[JuiceBox52]

I do not think any of us expect people to spend tons of money or hope they end up with MTS. Yes fishkeeping is an amazing hobby and people who love it often do end up with multiple tanks, but multiple tanks is not the goal. Healthy fish is the goal.
We often suggest affordable stocking suggestions as we know most people (including ourselves) dont have unlimited cash to blow on our fish tanks.

When I had livebearers in my soft water I was always wondering why they would die at about 10 months old. All of my water quality was spot on. I was actually very annoyed that people on the other forum I was on didnt tell me that my water was not suitable for them. Yes they may breed in soft water but it has a huge affect on their bodies, leading to premature death.
I believe that it is best to tell newbies about water parameters and the different requirements for different fish. I found the hobby much more enjoyable when my fish were suitable and actually lived long lives.

We also tell them that there are options to make the water ideal for the fish they want, hardening substrate and RO water as an example. We do everything we can to help then have healthy fish and have an enjoyable hobby with minimal deaths.

And for the record, people who arent British know what sarcasm is

 

[Fishmanic]

Both sides here have given their opinions. And BoningKnife has started showing disrespect to some members on our forum and to our forum in general. This topic has run its course. It is now closed to further comments. Do not start up a similar topic to carry this on any further.