# Does CO2 injection cause disease? Thoughts?



## Andy D (30 May 2015)

Hi All,

Just read a blog from Nathan Hill. What are your thoughts / take on this?

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=6769


----------



## Richie (30 May 2015)

Food for thought there. Shame symptoms are so hard to identify especially in small fish.
Must admit I have thought before,can it be good to for fish to be long term in an environment where they are on the verge of showing signs of hypoxia.

Think that's why I prefer the idea if having co2 on a timer and degassing overnight....but then there is the ph swing of course ...


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 May 2015)

It's a ramble round the planet gonads...a dead donkey...they've got to write something to produce the mag, and I'm guessing not much is happening in the finite news/article worthy fish world.


----------



## sciencefiction (30 May 2015)

Well, it's very easy find out if someone is honest enough to actually admit either way.
If you've got fish that should live X amount of years but they never do in your tank, then something is not right for them, be it CO2 or something else.
So many people have CO2 injected tanks I'd be very curious to know how they are getting on in the fish department and life spans of their fish.


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 May 2015)

I suppose we could all send our dead fish to Nathan Hill for post-mortem examination, then maybe he'd actually have something to write about


----------



## George Farmer (30 May 2015)

Now, now, Troi. Please play nicely.


----------



## ian_m (30 May 2015)

My Cardinal Tetra's and Ottos I got in early 2012 are still going despite numerous attempts to gas or over fertilise them. Before my tank went hi tech my fish never lasted long.


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 May 2015)

Sorry George, I'm doing my best...but it's a bit sensationalist.


----------



## EnderUK (30 May 2015)

Andy D said:


> I didn't bother reading the new threads


just saying


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 May 2015)

What about the old threads?...http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/are-co2-enriched-tanks-really-fair-on-the-critters.20578/


----------



## Iain Sutherland (30 May 2015)

if we are brutally honest, far more fish die from open top tanks and idiots with no knowledge of keeping an aquarium than long term co2 effects.... what ever they are..??
while i hold myself to account for open top tanks i always consider my fish purchases as saving the fish from slow deaths with said idiots!  

demonic co2 , give it a rest.


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 May 2015)

I guess most fish are lucky if they live long enough to suffer the alleged effects of long-term CO2 abuse...let alone over fertilisation...


----------



## sciencefiction (30 May 2015)

I think we all have killed our share of fish one way or another.  At least I have and I certainly didn't need injecting CO2 to help me out.   But from this and other similar threads I am getting the idea that for any lack of optimum achievement in the fish department we just shift the spotlight to those that are even worse fish keepers.
I was once advised to stop comparing myself to others but to start thinking about my own agendas and what I should be doing to achieve them.  So I think that what "most" people do to "most" fish is not an excuse for what we do as individuals.


----------



## xim (30 May 2015)

Tank's temperature affects growth rate and lifespan. Mine is generally at 28 celsius and dosing CO2.

My Oto cats die at average age of 5 years. Black neon tetras, 4 years. A Rineloricaria sp., 6 years. 
There are several that died from diseases and accidents. But I think it's probably normal?


----------



## Iain Sutherland (30 May 2015)

sciencefiction said:


> So I think that what "most" people do to "most" fish is not an excuse for what we do as individuals.


agreed, however i would say that the article is in the public domain, i guess with the intention to stimulate fish welfare discussion, in that sense writing articles around the biggest issues would be more beneficial.....  seeing an article about the shortened life expectancy of keeping fauna in the wrong GH/KH, temp, fishless cycling etc would have a bigger impact and larger audience.  I can hear the 'idiots' now... "at least i dont inject co2" 
Thats not excusing what we do as individuals simply a case of picking your battles


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 May 2015)

Hmmm...that was my first thought as well. Perhaps I'm overstating, but I feel that sort of journalism is a bit irresponsible especially considering the lack of scientific evidence to support it. I should also state tho' that I usually like Nathan's pieces.


----------



## sciencefiction (30 May 2015)

Iain Sutherland said:


> agreed, however i would say that the article is in the public domain, i guess with the intention to stimulate fish welfare discussion, in that sense writing articles around the biggest issues would be more beneficial.....  seeing an article about the shortened life expectancy of keeping fauna in the wrong GH/KH, temp, fishless cycling etc would have a bigger impact and larger audience.  I can hear the 'idiots' now... "at least i dont inject co2"
> Thats not excusing what we do as individuals simply a case of picking your battles



Well, that's a bit harsh. Certainly not having injected CO2 is one less worry to accidentally kill fish.
 You are shifting the spotlight as usual to different topics like the significance of Gh, Kh, etc....which are not the subject of discussion here. I don't think it's about picking battles, but right now it sounds like it's about avoiding battles.
  There was a character in a book that once said: "It's not important that I am bad. What's important is that average Joe is worse."


----------



## dw1305 (31 May 2015)

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> I think we all have killed our share of fish one way or another.


I certainly have, I used to kill them with such alarming regularity, that I stopped keeping fish for several years. I knew it had to be things that I was doing that caused the deaths, but I didn't know what they were, and before the WWW most of the literature available suggested that "aged water" was an elixir of fish health, rather than a toxic brew of ammonia etc.





sciencefiction said:


> Certainly not having injected CO2 is one less worry to accidentally kill fish.


I've never been tempted to add CO2 for the same reason.

In terms of the article, I agree with the other posters 





> As plants photosynthesise, they draw carbonic acid out of the water, causing pH levels to increase. When plants respire (as they do at night) some of this carbonic acid is reintroduced back to the water, causing pH to plunge. This back and forth of acid/alkaline levels can easily prove fatal to many fish, and all too often does.


 This sort of statement doesn't show the level of understanding you would expect from from a professional publication.

However, whilst I don't agree with all of it, but I think that he makes a lot of valid points in the article. I'm not arguing that fish health is worse in the tanks of forum members who use CO2, in fact I'd vehemently argue that planted tanks (of any persuasion) are much more likely to contain healthy fish.  





Richie said:


> Must admit I have thought before,can it be good to for fish to be long term in an environment where they are on the verge of showing signs of hypoxia.


 Would be my worry as well. If any-one wants some more, there is this thread <Fluval Studio......>.

cheers Darrel


----------



## TonyE (10 Jul 2015)

Troi said:


> Hmmm...that was my first thought as well. Perhaps I'm overstating, but I feel that sort of journalism is a bit irresponsible especially considering the lack of scientific evidence to support it.



The problem with this statement is that it isn't true.

As I mentioned on another thread it was my original email to Nathan that spurred his blog post.

so, a little background.

I have Danios. I'm also interested in the science part of fishkeeping. which essentially follows from my low tech approach.. a kind of walstad style. (ish)

While reading about Danios I soon realised 2 things. They're of extremely high importance to 'Science' and because of this have been investigated thoroughly and this isn't new, its been going on for years. This makes the species fairly unique within the hobby as the only fish we're likely to keep that has had any genuine research done upon them. (some of the findings are really fascinating and eye popping in their implications - but I digress.)

I came across a website devoted to the maintenance of these fish in Laboratories. It should be fairly obvious that keeping the species in perfect health is the only way to get good results. If you're doing research into a gene or genes related to (for example) Ageing. Then a fish or group of fish that die early due to some other factor or have a chronic illness - can upset your findings. It can destroy months or even years of work at a stroke. any paper that was going to result from the research will be worthless.

This site I mentioned is operated by the University of Oregon. They have a section devoted to disease. some i had heard of. some not. This entry stood out:

*Nephrocalcinosis*

This condition occurs in many species of fish held in captivity, and we occasionally observe it in our diagnostic cases. Nephrocalcinosis is the accumulation of calcium deposits in kidney tubules and collecting ducts. Causes of nephrocalcinosis include high CO2 (e.g., > 12 mg/L) in water or excessive levels of calcium and magnesium in the diet. The use of calcium carbonate (rather than sodium bicarbonate) to buffer water in recirculating systems has been associated with the condition (Chen et al. 2001). Only when the lesions are extensive is the condition associated with overt clinical disease. In other words, we see many fish with the condition (diagnosed by histology) in which it was probably not a significant cause of the disease.

*Clinical Signs and Gross Pathology.* We have not observed macroscopic changes due to nephrocalcinosis in zebrafish. However, with larger fish, kidneys with severe nephrocalcinosis may exhibit distinct, white, opaque deposits in the kidney. The ureters may be filled with a chalk-like material, and vermiform deposits may occur in collecting ducts and tubules.

*Microscopy.* Histological sections reveal basophilic, crystalline deposits (uroliths), in renal tubules and collecting ducts. The deposits often cause severe dilation of the affected structures.



*Click for high resolution image*

*Histological section showing masses of basophilic crystalloid material (arrows) in kidney tubules and collecting ducts
Diagnosis. *Observation of calcium (basophilic) accumulations in the kidney by histology is generally sufficient for confirmatory diagnosis.

*Control and Treatment.* With zebrafish, high CO2 associated with crowding or the use of calcium carbonate (e.g., crushed coral) are two factors that have the potential to cause nephrocalcinosis. Chen et al. (2001) recommended buffering with sodium bicarbonate. In addition, proper CO2 concentrations should be maintained by proper water exchange and avoiding crowded conditions. Proper atmospheric CO2 levels should be maintained by appropriate ventilation.

end.

Obviously i didn't leave it at that.. it didn't take long to find a multitude of papers that addressed this problem.. nearly all in the fish farm industry. It was first recognised as a problem in the early 1970s and since then has been largely forgotten about. With the method of prevention being so simple.. its really no longer an issue. Its reappeared in more recent times due to side effects of other problems in as an example the Baltic sea fishery. elevated CO2 due to environmental factors. pollution etc.

To say there is a lack of evidence to support it is much like suggesting Rickets isn't a problem. we know the cause, we know how to prevent it. Its now extremely rare in western society. so why do any more research? thats probably a terrible analogy. ho hum.

The problem we face is that there has been no research. the levels of CO2 in 'High tech' aquaria do not, as far as I can tell exist in nature. All the people with a financial interest avoid it like the plague. Obviously the quote above means its still seen in laboratory fish. And that resource can then be called upon by any research team that find it in autopsied fish. "ah.. calcium deposits. we need to look at the co2 levels in our fry and holding tanks."

I thought this was interesting stuff. but I didn't know what to do with it. so, before unleashing hell by starting a thread i gave a moderator on the PFK forum the heads-up. He told me to get in touch with Nathan Hill.. who, it appeared found the entire thing fascinating and wrote his piece.

its pretty obvious to me that this is likely an issue. but Im not daft, Ive seen fish in CO2 injected tanks and they 'appear' absolutely fine. But, after I came across this information i wondered if that was really the case. are they really as fine as they look. I can't honestly answer that. but i think it is at least worth considering.. and hopefully at some point. a definitive answer will be forthcoming.


----------



## zozo (10 Jul 2015)

Many animals/pets in captivity live much longer then they would in nature that's already a prooven fact for many spieces. I guess this also goes for certain kinds of fish. In captivity there is (mostly) better care, less parasites, no predators, so if they get older and weaker of old age, they live till dying of old age. In nature it probably was one of the first to be a predators dinner. This goes the same for weakend fish by parasite or illnes.. Most of them die in the mouth of the predator instead.

Fish living longer in captivity do as we humans also suffer from certain luxury diseases because they get to time to develop them.

I do not believe our fish are getting realy that sick from fluctuating water parameters. In nature the parameters fluctuate maybe even as much or maybe even more (dangers). Mother nature isn't far from constant as our tanks are. I think that those fluctuating parameters will make them only stronger than an constant healthy environment. If you stay out of the killing zone of course. This works the same for us, look at the hobo's they eat from the trashbin and nearly never get ill from it. And somebody always living very clean and protected eats an expired sausich  and sits on the toillet for the rest of the night feeling green and blue.

Go 200 years back in time  back then the avarage age of a human was 35 maybe 40 years and then you were considered an old fart. Only the very rich and protected lived somewhat longer if not poisened. 70 years was considered as old as methusalem and e rare find. 60% of the children died before the age of 3. Diseases like cancer were not realy invented because nobody lived long enough to get it. Back then nobody died of smoking..

So actualy yes  living longer causes more diseases to discover. And i can't imagine anybody taged a Oto or a Tetra with a transmitter to follow them to see how old they get in nature..


----------



## TonyE (10 Jul 2015)

Thats all very interesting. but unfortunately this has nothing to do with age. its not a disease of old age.


----------



## Tim Harrison (10 Jul 2015)

Thanks Tony, you're right it is very interesting. And thanks also for the background, I think I understand what you're getting at, but that in itself does not constitute scientific evidence, and neither does the paper you linked unfortunately. 

You're also right in that Nephrocalcinosis is a concern for the aquaculture industry and I believe it has long been a concern in farming salmonids. However, although there is a suspected link between nephrocalcinosis and high CO2, as far as I'm aware a direct causal link between the two has yet to be established...maybe in part due to confounding factors associated with poor water quality, which are likely to work in synergy to cause disease.

Further, stocking levels and environmental conditions in most of our planted tanks are completely different to those typically associated with aquaculture...they are completely different entities...and therefore the two can not be directly compared.

Like you say the problem is there hasn't been any research to provide scientific evidence. Nevertheless, I'd be really interested to read any peer reviewed literature that demonstrates a significant causal link between Nephrocalcinosis and high dissolved CO2 in planted aquariums. Even then, although this usually ensures a degree of scientific rigour it isn't always the case.

So back to my statement, which you quoted, there still remains a lack of scientific evidence to support it...


----------



## zozo (10 Jul 2015)

That's also not realy the point if it has some to do with age or not. I agree with the story that many keepers should realise that the fish health needs to have the first place in a planted tank. Why do we need an article like this to try to get it into peoples minds? That's just historical. shortage in education and the freedom to do what you want with animals in captivity and use them as kind of ornamental subject instead of a living been with feelings, is the problem here.

But in an aqaurium where the co2 levels are kept within healthy parameters fish get as old as in low tech aqauriums. Even if they show abnormalities in their organs compared to low tech kept fish and maybe some die of it eventualy.

The same is.
Why do so many of pet cats die of kidney failure? Because the cat food industry puts a lot of salt in their food as preservative. Most cats die of other causes before they get old enough to devellop that diseas. But many cats still suffer from this and not die of it and cats not killed by other causes and growing old almost all die painfull of failing kidneys and protien poissoning. A cat in nature never will die of kidney failer because it never eats salty. And never will get as old as a pet cat..


----------



## TonyE (10 Jul 2015)

Troi said:


> However, although there is a suspected link between nephrocalcinosis and high CO2, as far as I'm aware a direct causal link between the two has yet to be established.



It doesn't appear to be a controversial idea. the most cited reference material is Bekesi et al. 1984; Smart et al. 1979; Gottschalk 1991

This info leaflet produce by the scottish government provides other source material.
http://www.gov.scot/Uploads/Documents/16_1996.pdf



Troi said:


> I'd be really interested to read any peer reviewed literature that demonstrates a significant causal link between Nephrocalcinosis and high dissolved CO2 in planted aquariums.



thats possibly moving the goalposts. but anyway...

Seems doubtful that would happen as there's no incentive. no money in it. laboratory standard studies don't come cheap. And really, why should any fish disease specialist care? mention elevated CO2 to them and they'll likely just point you at the Journal of Fish Diseases. and the study by Harrison and Richards 1979.

As I mentioned, or implied. the only people who are interested in prevention are those with a financial stake. and/or reliable results in the lab. In both cases the way to prevent it is also non controversial. Also when it turns up in the wild it seems to cause some excitement in environmental science circles. elevated CO2 being a hot topic these days.

fwiw. im glad this is now 'out there'  whether your demands for 'proof' will ever be met and whether that will ever satisfy you. remains an open question.


----------



## zozo (10 Jul 2015)

TonyE said:


> Seems doubtful that would happen as there's no incentive. no money in it. laboratory standard studies don't come cheap. And really, why should any fish disease specialist care? .



Thanks for the read..

But why would someone become a fish disease specialist and than not care?

a while back i saw that BBC documentary about dog breeds, was even more disturbing.
Makes me think.. Love and ignorance, hand in hand?


----------



## Tim Harrison (10 Jul 2015)

Thanks for the Scottish government leaflet, the "causes" section confirms my initial comments in that its considered a phenomenon associated with intensive aquaculture owing to a raft of confounding factors and synergies, which are highly unlikely to occur in our planted aquaria...still no absolute single CO2 casual link either way.

Whether you consider this moving the goal posts or not, is irrelevant...I'm making it relevant to UKAPS which is a forum specifically designed for planted tanks...not aquaculture.

If however, your primary agenda is promoting aquaculture fish health I suggest you address your concerns appropriately elsewhere.

The primary reason it's not financially feasible is because it's not a problem in our planted tanks. Like zozo implies our fish will usually die of old age before they even get a whiff of Nephrocalcinosis...but we're quite happy to send our dead fish to you or Nathan Hill for forensic pathology

Regarding elevated CO2 being a hot topic within environmental circles...well that's a whole different ball game...and one that many people buy in to unconditionally...my advice is to try and think a little more critically...

And finally the open question is...robust science demands rigour in the form of quantitative proof...in this case there isn't any...whether that satisfies me or not is also irrelevant.


----------



## TonyE (10 Jul 2015)

zozo said:


> But why would someone become a fish disease specialist and than not care?



bad phrasing on my part. put it this way, if you were to ask a scientist interested in this field what high co2 levels do to fish, they will point you at the description. the disease itself and its cause plus method of prevention. why should they care to go further than that?



Troi said:


> Thanks for the Scottish government leaflet



more than welcome.



Troi said:


> If however, your primary agenda is promoting aquaculture fish health I suggest you address your concerns appropriately elsewhere.



If by aquaculture you mean its strictest sense.. rearing fish for food. then no. thats of no interest to me. I was more interested originally by the short entry in the disease manual at zebrafish.org. Im not partial to danios as a snack item. Im interested in their health. as well as some of the research that has been done on the species.

I guess I'm quite amused by the reaction.. a disease manual for a fish species we keep. I'm guessing that none of the diseases they discuss are even remotely controversial.  like velvet disease. but this one is.
never mind eh.

for anyone interested the disease manual can be found here: https://zebrafish.org/health/diseaseManual.php

I think that about wraps this up.


----------



## Tim Harrison (10 Jul 2015)

In answer to your original post, "Does CO2 injection cause disease?" I think that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to support it we can conclude that the answer is a resounding NO!


----------



## Jose (10 Jul 2015)

Maybe there isnt much evidence to support this writing but we all have to admit one thing. *CO2 is the number one fish killer for the people in this forum*. Lets be honest with ourselves here. If you dont want to kill fish then dont use co2. Dont need no evidence to know that. There is one solution though. ADA knows it. Inject co2 and keep it in the form of bubbles, dont dissolve it. Plants do much better this way and so do fish.


----------



## Tim Harrison (10 Jul 2015)

No it's not Jose...and that is beside the point of this thread...

P.S. I think that stewardship of living organisms, whether they be from the kingdom Plantae or Animalia, is of paramount importance to all of us at UKAPS...


----------



## Jose (10 Jul 2015)

Then whats the main cause for fish deathsaround here troy?Maybe its not your case but certainly is for most here including myself. I do think its part of the point of the thread because sometimes we half gas our fish, next day they are fine and eventually die after maybe some weeks. Even if there is no evidence for this. We should just realise this. If you know your weakness then you can get better at it.

Im not really arguing nephrocalcinosis here, just co2.


----------



## Tim Harrison (10 Jul 2015)

Definitely old age in my case...I have fish that weren't supposed to live so long under any circumstances (CO2 included) but just keep on going...Try not to be too cynical; most of us care a great deal about our pets...small and insignificant though they may seem to others...


----------



## Jose (10 Jul 2015)

If anything Im trying to  be realistic here trying to think outside my tank. The more you are aware of the dangers of co2 the least fishes you are likely to kill, specially beginners. I have no doubts that experienced hobbiests can keep healthy fish for a long time in this environments. But its about numbers and not about a few exceptions.


----------



## Tim Harrison (10 Jul 2015)

Maybe a new thread would be more appropriate for this subject...it's best not to conflate issues no matter how closely they at first appear to be related...


----------



## alto (11 Jul 2015)

@ *TonyE*

_With zebrafish, high CO2 associated with crowding or the use of calcium carbonate (e.g., crushed coral) are two factors that have the potential to cause nephrocalcinosis. __*Chen et al. (2001)*__ recommended buffering with sodium bicarbonate. In addition, proper CO2 concentrations should be maintained by proper water exchange and avoiding crowded conditions. Proper atmospheric CO2 levels should be maintained by appropriate ventilation_

Do you have a direct link to this paper (or copy) you can share?
Google keeps sending me roundabout  

I tried playing ornamental fish + nephrocalcinosis + CO2 but several pages of false leads is all I seem to accumulate.

As I read that (oft copied) statement, the original research dealt only with

1) (extreme!) over-crowding of tilapia (not really closely related to most ornamental fish that I'd be tempted to keep in my home aquarium - I mention this as species significantly affect observed sensitivities of fish (& inverts) to many factors such as ammonia, nitrites, nitrates, sewage waste, industrial effluents etc) causing elevated CO2 levels  -  which differs rather significantly from the elevated CO2 levels as used in planted aquaria, which tend to quite low fish loads ...
(overcrowding is a major stress factor in fish & impacts many aspects of their physiology) 

and

2) calcium carbonate buffering


----------



## alto (11 Jul 2015)

TonyE said:


> As I mentioned, or implied. the only people who are interested in prevention are those with a financial stake. and/or reliable results in the lab.



There are innumerable research projects contributing to masters & doctoral theses & published papers that have no (direct) financial objective.


----------



## zozo (11 Jul 2015)

After reading all these articles sheets reports what ever, i can understand the scientific validity of the question "Does Co2 injection make our fish sick?" _But asking this question like that with a pointing finger in the aquarium community is on forehand already a bit like putting the cat among the pigeons. i think it's a bit harsh to put it that way among the aquatic plant society's and ask them the not well founded question do you make your fish sick? You do not need to be a psychologist to understand that putting this story out here with such a sensational accusative touch will have more of a counterproductive effect. You are more creating just noise and asking to get the story swept under the carpet and make people to want to forget about it than make 'm think and maybe even help to get funds or just help by stimulating people to observe their livestock more seriously and report findings.. _

Of what i understand of the chapter _Nephrocalcinosis it should rather be considered a condition than a disease a fish suffers from. There are no macroscopic signs observed that the fish suffers at all or even is affected by it. It is occasionaly observed in their diagnostic cases, so with this line i think i'm correct to assume that not all fish are affected with this condition even when kept in the same environmental circumstances._ So this means that more research needs to be done to see if other physiologic conditions are a possible cause of this exceleration in accumulation of calcium deposites in their organs. To find out why certain fish or spieces are more susceptible than others. Etc etc.

It's like calling someone with a bladder stone diseased.. And why does my girlfriend have one and i don't and we both live the same condition and eat the same diet?

Wrong place, wrong time (should heve been brought much earlier to attention with a bit more prudence) and so above all wrong reporter.


----------



## Iliveinazoo (11 Jul 2015)

Troi said:


> In answer to your original post, "Does CO2 injection cause disease?" I think that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to support it we can conclude that the answer is a resounding NO!



The thing with studies is that you can always pick holes in the methodology of the experiments and if, as you suggest, there is an absence of 'rigorous' scientific evidence how can you have such a resounding conclusion?

It is well known that high levels of atmospheric CO2 for humans causes lethargy and headaches increasing to asphyxiation and death, the fact that CO2 from respiration from people in buildings such as offices can reach levels high enough to cause lethargy and headaches is why the building services industry has developed ventilation guidelines to keep the workforce more productive.  Because CO2 does affect humans negatively it stands to reason that it will also affect other species of animal in a similar way.

While many tanks will have higher than atmospheric CO2 levels that cause little or no ill effects there will be other tanks that run CO2 to such levels that will cause ill effects.  I would be very surprised if an animal species could live over an extended period of time in an environment where they are struggling to maintain sufficient levels of oxygen in their bloodstream without a detrimental effect on their immune system.

There will inevitably be variations to what maintained level of CO2 is safe for each species of fish because of the variations of environment from which they originate.


----------



## Tim Harrison (11 Jul 2015)

I'm sure your right, but we're specifically discussing the link between CO2 injection in a planted aquaria and Nephrocalcinosis in pet fish. 
On reflection my concluding comment does seem a little contradictory, however the main thrust of the discussion is based on Tony's suggestion that there was scientific evidence to support the above link, but in actuality I think we've established that there isn't any...at least so far.


----------



## zozo (11 Jul 2015)

This debate can only come to one end..  If we start humanizing animal behaivor and living conditions.. We can only take it a level higher and come to one conclusion.

We do not like to be captivated in a small invironment, not even under perfect condistions. We could take it for many years but still would go crazy and get bored to dead.

So we should stop keeping pets and stop captivating animals and just keep them where they belong. If you don't have the abilities to visit animals in their natural habitat, just take comfort with looking at a picture or a documentary. Why would you need such an animal in a cage or a tank? What comfort is there to find?

Who are we to put an animal in an confined space and just by looking at say.. Oh!? look how nice it swims... or Oh!? Listen how nice it signs  It must be happy!?

But on the other hand what do we do, we still do the contrary  We still see ourselfs as the image of god, devellop intelligence tests and let animals perform tricks. And so we can classify them by brain size and behaivor. We realise, we know so much and still act like we know so little. No wonder we are at the top, we developed and judge the tests our selfs.. What do we realy know?

I know why the caged bird sings... For the caged bird sings of freedom!!





So now we all should go to the little room, lock the door and cry a little. Come out cuddle our tank and turn the needle valve down a notch.
That's what i'm going to do now. Have a nice day..


----------

