My LFS Said One Thing But Aquadvisor Says Another Re African Cichlids

[The Lumpfish Guy]

Ah I love to see a nature/ Nurture argument.
I would like to start by saying that you both have some very good and valid points.

Byron- I have read the study you are on about, interesting stuff, not a brilliant methodology mind and possibly oversteps findings for the discussion. I actually know the people who conducted the study and even they will admit that there is considerable leeway in the interpretation.

I'd like to see that you understand the issue because it is critical to fish keeping. I cannot understand those who do not accept scientific fact. We cannot change it. It has nothing to do with feeling safe.

Just be aware that you still have to read scientific papers with some degree of caution, these experiments are very specific and controlled and conclusions can only be given about that particular situation tested. an in depth look at the methodology in these papers can tell you a lot about the results and how they can be applied in a real situation.

However, as with many traits in humans we simply do not know if these things are coded for in DNA or a product of learned behaviour. And I can give you numerous examples in many different animals on this. Homosexuality and humans jumps to a very controversial front of mind.
So in fish our knowledge is even more lacking. That being said there is some evidence that there is a genetic component to schooling in fish ( Greenwood et al 2013). However this is related to physiological changes, such as that in the lateral line, or neural linkages which facilitates behavioural changes not necessarily that behaviour itself.

It is entirely possible that fish could negate their shoaling behaviour in an aquarium and not have any detrimental effects. (A comparison cannot be drawn with tigers ect as they are entirely different in the wild.) The study you quoted looked at aggression between fish, which was increased in low stocking densities. This is not an indicator of stress, poor welfare or any other issue. Common indicators of stress (biological stress) were not measured, nor were indicators of poor welfare. Feed latency was used, but has been shown to be affected by many different factors which were not controlled for in the experiment. Therefor any welfare conclusions in this study should be taken as a overstepping of the results.

I believe Science is open to a lot of interpretation.

No If you look at a scientific study the results are the results, and generally speaking the author has done a good job of interpreting those results. The variation come in the methods. Most experiments happen in controlled circumstances, this makes them inflexible to any other situation. So Especially behavioural studies, which try and isolate specific behaviours are very limited in their scope

 

[FishGuest5123]

Studies showed a baby aspirin a day would help prevent strokes. Now they say it can cause them. Scientific studies said bacon will cause cancer. Now they say it may be good for you. In the psychiatric field that I left recently, there are a number of anti-depressants that studies showed were excellent for controlling depression. New studies have found that the same anti-depressants can cause suicidal tendencies. I’m sorry but I have seen too many things change in healthcare over the course of my career. All were based on scientific studies. People who believe all scientific studies are gospel truth are quite nieve. I do what works for my hobby. My fish are healthy and some are very old. I doubt seriously they have lived a stressful life. Science will change tomorrow and so will we.

 

[Byron]

Deanasue, with respect you are confusing different aspects of "science." Studies carried out on groups of people to determine the effects of drugs or food relating to health is one thing and obviously the control factors are crucial to the findings. A scientific paper documenting scientific investigation by an ichthyologist/group of ichthyologists is a very different thing, and those findings are accepted by peer review.

An example. The genus Corydoras presently holds 162 described (distinct) species [Fishbase, Feb 2019]. Phylogenetic analysis by Dr. Marcello Britto (Britto, 2003) determined that the genus is polyphyletic with nine distinct lineages. Unless it can be shown that his phylogenetic analysis was somehow flawed, those determinations are valid. Subsequent studies using phylogenetic analysis of this same genus have confirmed the nine lineages (Shimabukuro-Dias et al, 2004; Alexandrou et al, 2011; Tencatt & Pavanelli, 2015). This means the Corydoras "genus" is in fact nine distinct genera in origin, with the species within each lineage having descended from a separate ancestor for each lineage. Additional study is needed but in time we will have nine different genera replacing the one. The genus Brochis has already been synonymized with Corydoras because the three "Brochis" species are now determined to have descended from the same ancestor as two distinct species in Corydoras.

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

Studies showed......

All of these studies you have looked at are done entirely differently to those done on non human animals. In human trials, in (most) cases the Scientists look at correlations between, to use your example aspirin intake and heart issues, or bacon intake and cancer.
1) correlation does not equal causation and most of these studies cannot draw solid conclusions from their data.
2) it is the main reason why human based sciences, such as psychology (which isn't really a science) and medicine have an incredibly low rate of being able to be reproduced.
3) in trials which require human testing the number of replicates used in these studies significantly lower than those used in Non-human animals.
4) Even the way that vaccines, and medicine are tested in humans relies on volunteers which has been shown to narrow the tested people to a certain range limiting it's use in a wider population. Some trials use serial or "professional" drug testers, who have done multiples back to back studies, or where many psychology studies use the student body, which limits to those who are young, have a higher level of wealth, education drink and drug related issues and so on.

In studies of non-human animals there is more control, more freedom to attempt an experiment and studies are able to control for variables and apply treatments to groups, as opposed to using medical histories, questionnaires ect which are all highly subjective.

I'm not saying science doesn't make mistakes, but it is wrong to believe that you can draw equivalence between the human and non human based trials. And due to the more controllable and less restrictive laws regarding non-human animal testing there is a stronger and more reliable base of information.

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

A scientific paper documenting scientific investigation by an ichthyologist/group of ichthyologists is a very different thing, and those findings are accepted by peer review.

You are right, there are differences in the way that different aspects of science are conducted. But all published science is subject to peer review. But you have to be careful, journals such as Nature, Aquaculture, Journal of fish biology for example have higher standards of publication than other journals, which might accept sub-par manuscripts.

That being said Byron, The findings which you quote are our best interpretation of the data we currently have, should we find something new that requires us to re-asses of current theory then that's when the "facts" need to change.

 

[FishGuest5123]

May I ask what both of your occupations are?

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

May I ask what both of your occupations are?

I am an Aquaculture scientist specialising in Fish, Broodstock management, with two undergraduate degrees one masters degree and a Phd.
Might have an idea about fish science...

 

[FishGuest5123]

I figured as much. Your comment regarding psychology tipped me off. I found it very offensive. Good day!

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

Well, I will apologise for causing any offence to you, that was not my intent.

I take it you work as/ within that area, I am more than happy to change my opinion regarding Psychology's standing as a science should you like to help me to improve my opinion of the subject.

Always happy to learn something new

 

[FishGuest5123]

A scientifically sound theory is falsifiable. So no, it is not the case that “hard” science has “facts” and psychology has theories; we all only have theories. In every way, psychological science adheres to the scientific method as much as any other science.

Yes, I’m an RN with a Master’s in Healthcare Administration. I was in healthcare for 33 years. The last 7 of those were in one of the most prestigious Psychiatric facilities in the Country. Our primary focus is on research although we are also a treatment facility. I have watched patients that were so severely disabled with mental illness walk out of our facility and function as a contributing human being to society. This was all made possible by extensive research and cutting edge psychiatric practices. If you’ve never suffered from a mental illness or known someone who has then you are very fortunate. Yes, Dr. Lumpfish Guy, Psychology and Psychiatry are sciences. I am proud to be a part of that science and to have known each patient who left our facility in a better state of mind. God bless each one of them and God bless you, too. We are way off subject now so enough if this.

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

A scientifically sound theory is falsifiable. So no, it is not the case that “hard” science has “facts” and psychology has theories; we all only have theories. In every way, psychological science adheres to the scientific method as much as any other science.

I have never stated that harder sciences have "fact" You'll see I have attempted to show Byron this matter. And is not the issue I have with Psychology.

Science requires reproduction. Psychology has been unable to reproduce over 95% of the experiments which have been conducted in the field.
It is a field which relied heavily on correlations to suggest causation, small targeted sample sizes which are often made up of students and serial subjects. And many of the early studies and theories such as the Myers-Briggs (based on Karl Yungs (guess) work) were just fabricated and guessed. And many of the techniques developed eg Roschach test Is often used inappropriately in the profession.

In the UK most Universities Classify it as an Arts degree not a science degree. And the ones that classify at a BSc require more mathematical classes with little to no change in psychology subject material.

I am aware that it attempts to adhere as close as possible to the scientific method, but there are natures of these experiments ( not limited to psychology, it's in medicine too) which prevent it from being solid science. I point to the idea of double blind studies as a prime example of this.
It is a combination of all of these factors with has founded my opinion regarding Psychology's standing in the Science community.
This all being said, I acknowledge that as a subject it still has a valuable contribution to make in the world, however that is not reliant on it being classed as "science".

 

[AbbeysDad]

I believe Science is open to a lot of interpretation. At one time it was believed that the earth was flat.

And Galeleo would have been put to death if he didn't recant his round theory!

 

[AbbeysDad]

Whew...back on track maybe...
@Byron - we've known each other a long time and you know I respect you and your fish knowledge. But we don't always see quite eye to eye.
I don't have a scientific study, but I have just two Pepper Corydoras in my 60g as a part of the cleanup crew. I've had them for about 8 years now. They are lively, healthy fish that are sometimes near each other, but for the most part, ignore each other. They don't shoal or show any signs of stress.
------
You tell me I can't have Angels and livebearers in the same water. You're convinced Angels must have soft, acidic water while livebearers must have hard, alkaline water. My water is neither hard nor soft and my pH is about 7.6. I've had them both in 'my' water for over 20 years. I have bred and grown out both. In the last year, I've bred, grown out, and sold about 12 dozen fish.
I must have magic water! <grins>
------
In reality, generations of fish we have in the hobby are bred and raised in tanks and ponds with many different water chemistries than their wild cousins. Perhaps these fish that are denied the water chemistry of their ancestors won't have a 30 year life span, Then again, with good regular food, clean water, and no predators, maybe they'll be okay for 10-15.

 

[Byron]

And Galeleo would have been put to death if he didn't recant his round theory!

You're a little mixed in who believed what. I'm not sure who first promoted the spherical earth concept, but Galileo Galilei got into trouble over his concept that the sun and not the earth was at the centre of the universe, and the earth (and other planets) revolve around the sun. This got him into trouble with the Western Church (RC) which had held that the earth was the centre of the universe as God created it. It was however not the concept as much as the fact that GG went against the authority of the Church in saying this. The Church has always maintained that in matters of faith and morals it is infallible, and in those darker days there were very serious consequences to opposing the Church's authority. Fortunately that has changed (excommunication, not death under torture) and scientific evidence is now accepted as fact or truth where it does not specifically negate God.

On to fish matters.

I don't have a scientific study, but I have just two Pepper Corydoras in my 60g as a part of the cleanup crew. I've had them for about 8 years now. They are lively, healthy fish that are sometimes near each other, but for the most part, ignore each other. They don't shoal or show any signs of stress.

They may not show stress but that does not mean it is not present.

You tell me I can't have Angels and livebearers in the same water. You're convinced Angels must have soft, acidic water while livebearers must have hard, alkaline water. My water is neither hard nor soft and my pH is about 7.6. I've had them both in 'my' water for over 20 years. I have bred and grown out both. In the last year, I've bred, grown out, and sold about 12 dozen fish.
I must have magic water! <grins>

Not an accurate synopsis of my contentions. While angelfish are a soft water species, that does not mean that they cannot survive in moderate water. And livebearers must have moderately hard or harder water or they will not be in good health, that is true, but you do not give any GH level so I can't say more.

In reality, generations of fish we have in the hobby are bred and raised in tanks and ponds with many different water chemistries than their wild cousins. Perhaps these fish that are denied the water chemistry of their ancestors won't have a 30 year life span, Then again, with good regular food, clean water, and no predators, maybe they'll be okay for 10-15.

It is not humane to approach the care of any animal, be it fish or other including human beings, as OK regardless of whether or not it harms the animal in some way, and a shorter lifespan due to the conditions is evidence of harm to the animal. The blue citation in my signature speaks to this. As for the ability of a species to adapt, there are so many factors it would take a book to explain. But my position is that it is always better husbandry to understand the needs of the fish/animal and provide a reasonably close environment. A Betta will live, perhaps a lifespan, in that cup of water; but is that the best we should attempt?

 

[AbbeysDad]

The more you learn, the more you know that there's much more to learn. Not so for the closed mind of a know it all. Further discussion seems pointless so I will just move along.