# Are we really advancing the hobby?



## Soilwork (18 Oct 2019)

Hi All,

So thats my topic of discussion.  Are we really advancing the hobby? Or rather, has the hobby really moved forwards over the last 80 years or so? Has it moved backwards?

Below is some text taken from an old aquarium book that outlines the ‘four principles’ 

the first thing this book tackles is what I believe is the most important parameter any hobbyist should consider, and that is Oxygen.  Do we have enough? Do we really give this parameter as much respect as it truly deserves? How does today’s most popularly proposed equipment of choice compare to the humble air driven equipment that was the equipment if choice back in the day? 






Today, when we talk about aquarium balance we immediately think about light, co2 and nutrients.  This is the key balance that makes it to the forefront of most of todays aquarists advice.  Do we think too much about plants in isolation when in reality, plants are only a part of the jigsaw that makes for a healthy ecosystem.  Should we not instead promote microbes, oxygen and plants when we talk about a healthy aquarium and a healthy ecosystem?

Today, I think that there is an overly incessant need to control something that was originally brought to the home to study up close.  To create and not control.  I can’t help but feel that our controlling nature makes this hobby so much more difficult than what it really ought be once we have mastered the ‘four principles’ and strived to achieve overall microbial/plant balance.

One thing that springs to mind is our fear of algae.  Rather than embrace algae as an almost inevitable part of our journey towards true balance, we do everything in our power to eradicate it.  This only serves to disturb the process.  Chemicals even more so.  One might even argue that algae was very rare a number of decades or so ago disease too.

below are a couple more snippets taken from an old book about water changes and plants



 




 

This is how I run my tanks, nutrient lean, full of plants, full of oxygen and with the understanding that water should not need changing.  Microbes undisturbed. 

Obviously, with the surge in popularity of aquascaping, goals have changed and new methods of looking after plants have emerged.  Equipment, chemicals, substrates.  My question is, do we really hold more knowledge than that of our ancestors and have we really advanced the hobby from an ecological point if view?  Tanks are pretty for sure, but are we missing the point of aquaria?  Looking through the mass of confused posts and troubled aquaria one would tend to think we are and that we haven’t really gotten that far in all this time.

How many people don’t know these forums exist or simply don’t seek them out because well, they just do what they have always done and never really had any problems?

What do you think?

CJ


----------



## tam (18 Oct 2019)

I think you are lumping too many different things together under 'hobby'. For some people a balanced ecosystem is not the goal, the goal is a beautiful aquascaped aquarium - plants aren't selected or arranged for how they help create an environment for fish to live in they are selected to look aesthetically pleasing. Sometimes the two goals overlap but they are very different approaches to having a tank with plants in. If it was all about balanced eco-systems for fish no one would be pumping CO2 in.


----------



## akwarium (18 Oct 2019)

I think there is much to learn, from nature, from old literature and new research. I also think there is a lot of ignorance wen it comes to water chemistry and the feeding of our fish. Water chemistry should be good for the specific species of fish that are kept in there, but most are satisfied wen it is regarded to be safe for most fish. Many aquascapers invest a lot in hardware, plants and fertilizers, soils etc. and then buy the most budget friendly fish food.

In the old days I think people paid  more attention to the well being of their fish, reproduction and preservation. On the downside there where not as many technical possibility's to improve water quality or nutrition. Today we have those possibility's. So yes there is room for improvement. Which should involve a return to the fundamentals of fish keeping in stead of only focusing on creating a living piece of art.

However, I am disgusted by the stupidity of those people that choose to believe that nature will solve all problems as long as we do not intervene. You have to be a naive idiot that basses his knowledge on Disney's Lion King or Bambi to believe that to be true. A few liters of water between 5 sheets of glass will never be "a self sustaining ecosystem". Whatever that may be, because in nature ecosystems are always changing.  It is nothing more then a romantic notion, that seems to be trendy...

Successful long term aquariums are based on the principle of controlled nature, natural processes closely monitored and corrected wen necessary. So get off that lazy ass and do a proper water change.


----------



## dw1305 (18 Oct 2019)

Hi all,





Soilwork said:


> Below is some text taken from an old aquarium book that outlines the ‘four principles’


They look about right. I think that the fundamentals of fish keeping remain the same. Most good ideas will <"come around again">. 





Soilwork said:


> This is how I run my tanks, nutrient lean, full of plants, full of oxygen and with the understanding that water should not need changing. Microbes undisturbed.


I'm in agreement, other than the water changing. I'm old enough to remember when <"aged water" >was considered to have all sorts of magical properties and I'm sure that changing water really helps with tank management and doesn't adversely effect the microbial assemblage.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tim Harrison (18 Oct 2019)

Nice post, what books were the extracts taken from, who were the authors and when were they published etc ?


----------



## becks (18 Oct 2019)

its like everything, what we know about today can be contradicated by what we know tomorrow.


----------



## Soilwork (18 Oct 2019)

tam said:


> I think you are lumping too many different things together under 'hobby'. For some people a balanced ecosystem is not the goal, the goal is a beautiful aquascaped aquarium - plants aren't selected or arranged for how they help create an environment for fish to live in they are selected to look aesthetically pleasing. Sometimes the two goals overlap but they are very different approaches to having a tank with plants in. If it was all about balanced eco-systems for fish no one would be pumping CO2 in.



I purposefully took the time to mention goals.  My point was are the practices required to fulfil the goal of art really good for the ecosystem as a whole?


----------



## Soilwork (18 Oct 2019)

[QUOTE="akwarium, post: 575005, member: 4490]

However, I am disgusted by the stupidity of those people that choose to believe that nature will solve all problems as long as we do not intervene. You have to be a naive idiot that basses his knowledge on Disney's Lion King or Bambi to believe that to be true. A few liters of water between 5 sheets of glass will never be "a self sustaining ecosystem". Whatever that may be, because in nature ecosystems are always changing.  It is nothing more then a romantic notion, that seems to be trendy...

Successful long term aquariums are based on the principle of controlled nature, natural processes closely monitored and corrected wen necessary. So get off that lazy ass and do a proper water change.[/QUOTE]

The trend is to change water, not to stop doing them.  I don’t like my tap water and my fish have been much better off without the large, unpredictable fluctuations in dissolved solids.

Occasionally I will use rainwater to top up.  Local water report now shows a a parameter marked ‘pesticides’.  That is what I find disgusting.


----------



## tam (18 Oct 2019)

Soilwork said:


> I purposefully took the time to mention goals.  My point was are the practices required to fulfil the goal of art really good for the ecosystem as a whole?



Nope they aren't, but if you aren't trying to make an ecosystem then who cares. You're writing like there is only one point in having aquaria. It's quite the opposite, it's not that we aren't advancing, it's that we are diversifying - there are many reasons people choose to have containers of water in their home and those diverse aims are the reason there so many different practices being developed, and part of that expansion is trial and error. Yes, people could succeed by repeating the same formula over and over, but where would be the fun (or learning) in that!


----------



## DeepMetropolis (19 Oct 2019)

akwarium said:


> Many aquascapers invest a lot in hardware, plants and fertilizers, soils etc. and then buy the most budget friendly fish food.


Thats really stupid. Buying decent fish food is not that expensive, even compared to other house kept animals. You can even have life foods for free during summer times, pick some nettle it grows everywhere cut of pieces of your veggies before you spice them. 
Buy large frozen blister packs and decent fish foods.. I never give the same foods twice in a row.. 
If you like aquascaping because you love nature you have to think about the life stock too.


----------



## Soilwork (19 Oct 2019)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,They look about right. I think that the fundamentals of fish keeping remain the same. Most good ideas will <"come around again">. I'm in agreement, other than the water changing. I'm old enough to remember when <"aged water" >was considered to have all sorts of magical properties and I'm sure that changing water really helps with tank management and doesn't adversely effect the microbial assemblage.
> 
> cheers Darrel



That’s a fair summary Darrel.  But is not changing the water inherently bad?  If that was the case I would be losing fish, they would be losing colour, slowing in activity, something would be ‘off’.  So although aged aquarium water may not be an elixir of health, I would also argue that it certainly isn’t a cesspool of filth either.   

Regards 

CJ


----------



## Soilwork (19 Oct 2019)

Tim Harrison said:


> Nice post, what books were the extracts taken from, who were the authors and when were they published etc ?



Hi Tim,

The book is Exotic Aquarium Fish by William T Innes 1935 U.S.A. 

Regards 

Cj


----------



## Zeus. (19 Oct 2019)

Yes  without a shadow of dought the hobby is advancing OFC. The simple fact you made this thread and others with the same hobby are reading it all over the world. 
The fact dated books are no longer needed to do the hobby, you can read others experience pm experts in the field. We have never had it so good.
More energy efficient lights pumps filters and massive choice, not being at the whim of what the LFS salesman may recommend 
Choice of plants, fish, substrates, fert routes, CO2 I even have a PLC that controls the lights ferts the whole system.
Is it all eco friendly, better for the livestock is another completely different question OFC
Is it better to buy algae pellets or to crop nettles blanch them in boiling water burning fossil fuels to feed our creatures kept in our man made prisons!
Mother Nature is responsible for the extermination of all species of life that have ever live, those that still thrive though Darwinism have the ability to thrive in different enviromental parameters, that doesn't mean changing the water isn't better for them, it's more a case that lifeforms have to ability to still thrive in less than ideal conditions.
Some old book quoting four parameters for your tank is IMO of historical value only! Most of what it says is comman sense for for an educated person and is subjective to interpertation 
We could look at an old medical book and say great we was thriving and the world was a better eco friendly place! Do we ignore the advances in medicine just because we as humans have become less eco friendly and aware of it !!!!!
I could 'rant' some more but I think you may get my perspective


----------



## akwarium (19 Oct 2019)

Soilwork said:


> [QUOTE="akwarium, post: 575005, member: 4490]
> 
> However, I am disgusted by the stupidity of those people that choose to believe that nature will solve all problems as long as we do not intervene. You have to be a naive idiot that basses his knowledge on Disney's Lion King or Bambi to believe that to be true. A few liters of water between 5 sheets of glass will never be "a self sustaining ecosystem". Whatever that may be, because in nature ecosystems are always changing.  It is nothing more then a romantic notion, that seems to be trendy...
> 
> Successful long term aquariums are based on the principle of controlled nature, natural processes closely monitored and corrected wen necessary. So get off that lazy ass and do a proper water change.



The trend is to change water, not to stop doing them.  I don’t like my tap water and my fish have been much better off without the large, unpredictable fluctuations in dissolved solids.

Occasionally I will use rainwater to top up.  Local water report now shows a a parameter marked ‘pesticides’.  That is what I find disgusting.[/QUOTE]

I don't like tap water in general for aquariums, but there are alternatives. RO units and DI filters are easily available and quite affordable, so we are not restricted to tap water or rain water anymore


----------



## dw1305 (19 Oct 2019)

Hi all, 





Soilwork said:


> But is not changing the water inherently bad? If that was the case I would be losing fish, they would be losing colour, slowing in activity, something would be ‘off’. So although aged aquarium water may not be an elixir of health, I would also argue that it certainly isn’t a cesspool of filth either.


That is really the million dollar question, a lot of it is going to depend on the rest of the environment.  

Because we can't quantify exactly what makes an aquarium "successful", and what factors stop this happening, we are reliant on best guess based upon the scientific advice that is available, the views of successful aquarium keepers  and our own personal experience. 

It really is a _shades of grey_ world, there isn't the presence (or absence) of a single factor that makes a tank successful and resilient. 

Personally I'm <"pretty sure that water changes help with tank management">, and they are important, but I can't quantify *exactly why.  *It may be to dilute dissolved organic compounds, it might be to  be reduce levels of elements that plants don't need, or only need in very small amounts (chlorides, sulphates, sodium etc), it might be to replenish other elements that plants and fish require in small amounts etc. 

With rooted & floating plants, dissolved oxygen levels and a substrate its easier to quantify that they are important, because you can find ample scientific evidence to back up your best guess.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus. (19 Oct 2019)

Most bodies of water where life thrives have a supply of water bringing nutrients in needed for their  excistance. If the rains didn't fall in the mountains the silica wouldn't get washed into the oceans and the great diatoms algae blooms wouldn't happen and the O2 which we take for granted in our atmosphere would be at 20%, bit scarcy when you think the algae we find a bit of a nuisance supplies the O2 we need to survive. 
Darrel was pointing out in thread about the essential nutrients which plants need, I noted one that I wasn't supplying, but when I checked my local water supplies water report the element was already in the water, quick run though the maths and the levels needed for plant growth and the element was in the correct order of magnitude for the plants. If I didn't do WC esp in high tech tank with high growth the plants would be deficient in that element 
Hence the reason  most folk using RO /rain water normally cut the mix with tap water.


----------



## Soilwork (19 Oct 2019)

Zeus. said:


> Most bodies of water where life thrives have a supply of water bringing nutrients in needed for their  excistance. If the rains didn't fall in the mountains the silica wouldn't get washed into the oceans and the great diatoms algae blooms wouldn't happen and the O2 which we take for granted in our atmosphere would be at 20%, bit scarcy when you think the algae we find a bit of a nuisance supplies the O2 we need to survive.
> Darrel was pointing out in thread about the essential nutrients which plants need, I noted one that I wasn't supplying, but when I checked my local water supplies water report the element was already in the water, quick run though the maths and the levels needed for plant growth and the element was in the correct order of magnitude for the plants. If I didn't do WC esp in high tech tank with high growth the plants would be deficient in that element
> Hence the reason  most folk using RO /rain water normally cut the mix with tap water.



I do hear this rhetoric an awful lot.  But if you analyse the data presented by Tropica on south american biotopes (see below) you will see that the conductivity (where life thrives) is so low that there can’t possibly be much of anything present.  Where the the supply is constant or not doesn’t disguise the fact that the levels are actually so low they are often undetectable. 

This is why I believe that the amount of nutrients that plants actually require is far far less than we think.  You can see how much balansae I pulled out today with a TDS of 230ppm.  I don’t see any deficiencies here and they don’t show any sign of slowing down.


----------



## Conort2 (19 Oct 2019)

Soilwork said:


> I do hear this rhetoric an awful lot.  But if you analyse the data presented by Tropica on south american biotopes (see below) you will see that the conductivity (where life thrives) is so low that there can’t possibly be much of anything present.  Where the the supply is constant or not doesn’t disguise the fact that the levels are actually so low they are often undetectable.
> 
> This is why I believe that the amount of nutrients that plants actually require is far far less than we think.  You can see how much balansae I pulled out today with a TDS of 230ppm.  I don’t see any deficiencies here and they don’t show any sign of slowing down.
> 
> ...


You have to remember these biotopes will look nothing like our tanks which have numerous plant species all flourishing. They’ll be one or two species probably all tattered and covered in algae. There are very few biotopes in the world which look like our planted aquariums. I can think of bonito in Brazil and crystal springs in Florida but there aren’t too many and even then they will not have the variation seen in our aquarium.

personally I always change water, 50percent each week normally. Regardless whether the aquarium is high tech or not. I never used to change water as I wasn’t even aware you had to back in the day! Most fish bar a select few would survive but not live an extremely long life, few years at most. Now I have nano species living over four years and showing no signs of slowing down and still spawning.

 I think the positives out weigh the negatives in regards to water changes, I have never had a fish be stressed due to large water changes but have certainly seen fish stressed in tanks where water isn’t changed and cleanliness is not maintained. However I think it is important to be consistent, if you were for example do a large water change now this would significantly change the parameters in your aquarium. Where as I do this weekly the parameters will remain consistent.

cheers

conor


----------



## Soilwork (19 Oct 2019)

Thanks for the input so far everyone. 

Something that I guess was always inevitable but not my intention is that we seem to be getting too focused on plants which in my opinion as stated ‘are only part of the jigsaw’ and also on water changes (always a contentious area).  I was hoping to broaden in to other areas such as equipment like filters and air pumps, how we view microbes, and and the chemicals we use it todays hobby etc.


----------



## Zeus. (19 Oct 2019)

Soilwork said:


> This is why I believe that the amount of nutrients that plants actually require is far far less than we think. You can see how much balansae I pulled out today with a TDS of 230ppm. I don’t see any deficiencies here and they don’t show any sign of slowing down.



Balansae is a pretty non demanding plant and the water is relatively soft which makes growing plants easier. Darrel doesnt do a WC until is TDS is over 300 (if remember correct!)

Dont get me wrong if it works for great. If I dont put Fe EDDHA in my 500l I soon see Fe deficiency even in my anubius


----------



## dw1305 (19 Oct 2019)

Hi all,





Zeus. said:


> Darrel doesnt do a WC until is TDS is over 300 (if remember correct!)


No it isn't me. I run the tanks at <"about or just below 100 ppm TDS">. 

I think @Iain Sutherland ? found his water had crept up to quite high TDS values.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus. (19 Oct 2019)

Stand corrected  but my water is well hard can't remember if it's 400ppm or more straight from the tap (on hols so can't do a quick check)


----------



## dw1305 (19 Oct 2019)

Hi all,





Zeus. said:


> if it's 400ppm or more straight from the tap


Yes, that is about what our <"tap water"> reads. I think that if your water comes from a limestone aquifer, and is fully saturated with Ca++ and HCO3- ions, that is about the datum value.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo (20 Oct 2019)

Soilwork said:


> Are we really advancing the hobby? Or rather, has the hobby really moved forwards over the last 80 years or so? Has it moved backwards?



That is an interesting and rather philosophical question. It is also a relative, that must be viewed in perspective. If you do this, then a sum of yes's, no's, pseudo's and neutrals can be added. Since there are still many more theories and questions than facts and answers in this hobby. Then I have to guess, the bottom line conclusion probably will be "Actually not so very much". 

And what's actually there to advance in?


----------



## Soilwork (20 Oct 2019)

zozo said:


> That is an interesting and rather philosophical question. It is also a relative, that must be viewed in perspective. If you do this, then a sum of yes's, no's, pseudo's and neutrals can be added. Since there are still many more theories and questions than facts and answers in this hobby. Then I have to guess, the bottom line conclusion probably will be "Actually not so very much".
> 
> And what's actually there to advance in?



Thats actually a very good question.  If there is nothing to advance and we haven’t moved forward, have we stayed the same or gone backwards? 

When I say backwards, I mean has our new found interpretation of ones success (how well they can grow plants and combat algae) at the cost of a truly balanced ecosystem and is it making the hobby more difficult than it really is? 

We have a whole forum dedicated to algae and most modern tanks are only one miscalculation away from joining it.


----------



## Zeus. (20 Oct 2019)

Do not most most bodies of water have seasonal algae blooms! My pond gets blanket weed at least once a year when conditions are right for it, sorts itself out most off the time. Having a forum for algae questions/issues is an advancement in itself.
Most tanks may be only one step alway from an issue as folk choose hard things to grow as well as getting somthing wrong. Sharing these errors/problems/succes is an advancement in the hobby. Years ago folk didn't post about algae issues as there was no where to post


----------



## zozo (20 Oct 2019)

It is a very good question, that i do not deny. It's a question i asked myself after coming back into the hobby again after more than a decade pause. For me personally, i came to the conclusion nothing much has changed the last 45 years. It's more of a status quo in my opinion.

for example, I started with a simple and only one available Eheim canister filter in the early 1970s. Now we have canisters with bells, whistles and digital displays but the bottom line principle didn't change. It's still a bucket with a pump.

To get to a definitive answer we first would need to determine the advance in the perspective of what do we really know.  And then make a differentiation in the alleged advance, is it an assumption, an opinion or a fact? Another perspective to view is, is the advantage in the hobbyist benefit/convenience or the captive organisms benefit?

Since this hobby from the perspective of the organism still is far from an exact science we have very little facts to go with.

Take for example the general consensus about the benefit/advantage of water changes. Back then it was considered a sin, a disruption of balance. An aquarium should smell like an old swamp. Books advised keeping your hands out of the water as much as possible. Hence the magnet glass cleaner was invented and very popular must-have device. Anyway, even today after decades the need for doing water changes is still under debate. Still enough under debate that a very knowledgable scholar wrote best selling books about it to dispute this new alleged advance. And it's still not fully clear if the conclusion is an opinion and assumption or a fact.

The only fact in the conclusion of the book is we have different scenarios that can make it something to neglect or a necessity. We have little saying in it, it's waiting for it and if the tank and or the organisms in it tells you it's accumulating nasties and it needs a water change you better do it or it suffers the consequences. Viewing a water change in the later perspective, makes it more of a preventive "If it doesn't help it doesn't harm" theory than a fact. And then even doing water changes still doesn't prevent failures..

I thought a lot about your question long ago and i yet only found one answer. "I consider myself still that one idiot that asks more questions than 100 professors can answer."


----------



## sciencefiction (20 Oct 2019)

I think that as far as aquariums are concerned, nothing has changed.  What has changed is our understanding of them, particularly our individual level of understanding.  Every fish keeper starts off not knowing much at all. Some remain where they started, some get confused and get the wrong ideas,some don't. 

As far as the book is concerned, it is as relevant today as any other. Light, oxygen, plants, plants consuming nutrients, the need of more plants, that most tanks do not have sufficient plants, the importance of clean, odorless water, to avoid overstocking, overfeeding...The only part it got wrong is the understanding on how you achieve clean/odorless water. These type of wrong conclusions are seen among aquarium keepers even today despite all the information available.

Gadgets wise, I am thankful for the availability of better filters and better lights,heaters, and also higher quality fish food . It just makes the hobby much easier.

When I started keeping fish,which was in my first year of school, I hadn't read even one fish related book and I didn't know anyone that kept fish. I didn't happen to read or hear one should not change water, so I did change water weekly because it would get stinky otherwise...I changed pretty much all of the water every weekend. I'd take the fish out in a glass jar, dump the water from the tank, fill with aged water and put the fish back. As for where I got the idea about aged water, my mom didn't let us drink water straight from the tap, she said it needed to degas first so she would fill glass bottles and let them stand. I assumed fish needed the same type of water so I did the same for my fish tank water.

I tried to keep plants but they kept dying. I didn't know why back then but now I know it was mainly because I had no light over the tank.

All my fish were fed dried daphnia for the most part as that's all I had access to. I noticed if I fed too much, water would get milky and the fish would get sick and die, so I started feeding less. ..I did not have a filter. I didn't know I needed one and I had no clue about the nitrogen cycle but I did get myself a "bubbler" because water should be moving, as in the rivers where fish come from....  I had also gotten the idea that cleaning the tank glass had a very negative effect. Only later did I understand that when you run a tank with no filter or substrate, the biological filtration is on the surfaces of the glass...That slime my mother kept telling me to clean off.... and I didn't due to laziness, until she did in my absence one day and I came back to dead fish..

Everything I did those first few years was through observation and intuition, rather than acquired knowledge. I learned about the nitrogen cycle much later in life. So as far as I am concerned, I haven't changed much.  My base point has always been my fish, if they're healthy and live long lives, I am doing it right, if not, something's got to change....Only now I have a lot more brains to pick on


----------



## Soilwork (21 Oct 2019)

Now the philosophical bods are creeping in this is good.  There’s no real right or wrong answer here.  Reminiscing is good.  It reminds us things we may have forgotten.

I remember my uncle telling me once.  My auntie had a tank and they left for Germany for a year.  He said when he came back the tiger barbs had tripled in size but he couldn’t quite see them because of the amount of plants in the tank.  All that had happened is that they’d been fed everyday for the past 12 months by my aunties mother who knew nothing about tanks.  Got me thinking about the bottled garden that grew for 40 years recycling and cycling what had been put in there before the cork went in.  How that little bottle just carried on with no interruption for the outside world.

Then I think, the earth is a lot like that, what is on the earth just gets cycled and recycled, moved around but its the same ‘stuff’

it’s taken me 3 years in and out of high tech to get my tank where it is now and for me it’s the healthiest its ever been.  Very stable with absolute minimal input.  Algae just does not survive in this tank.

I felt I was losing my way but really I was just missing the picture


----------



## rebel (21 Oct 2019)

Soilwork said:


> has the hobby really moved forwards over the last 80 years or so?


Yes. Mainly CO2 injection, growing of multiple species in very thick and lush growth. Better and more efficient lights. More reliable silicone, rimless tanks etc etc.

Salt water has advanced even more I think but don't know the details.


----------



## sciencefiction (21 Oct 2019)

There's nothing philosophical at all here  We still discuss topics such as water changes, or how much to feed....The consensus is more water changes and feeding less is better but there are people on both sides of the spectrum. Some do regular and large water changes, some do none. Some overfeed, some underfeed, some feed just enough. One has got to figure it out for themselves each time one starts keeping fish .....In the end, we all believe in what works best for us individually. 

Question is, how much has one's general knowledge advanced since? All those scientific articles and books mean nothing if one has not read them throughout their fish keeping experience...again as an individual because we all start with zero knowledge on the topic. It's not like people do a course or are prepped in school. I don't remember being thought anything much of use about the water world back than. I only remember lions, bears and rabbits.I have friends that ask me if those underwater plants are real plants. Some are not familiar with plants growing under water and 99.9% do not know the names of common tropical fish, never mind endangered species, although they can name almost every land animal in existence.


----------



## rebel (21 Oct 2019)

sciencefiction said:


> Question is, how much has one's general knowledge advanced since?


Not sure about actual knowledge but access to good knowledge is much better now. However access to bad information is also better.
If someone has read the information and understood is another question and maybe related to human psychology than fish keeping.

Compared to 80 years ago, I think most beginners now have an idea on 'cycling' the tank.



sciencefiction said:


> In the end, we all believe in what works best for us individually.


This is a great description of the general human condition and doesn't just apply to fish keeping.


----------



## zozo (21 Oct 2019)

sciencefiction said:


> There's nothing philosophical at all here



Well, it depends... Since philosophy is the oldest theoretical discipline that expresses the striving and desire for knowledge and wisdom. Making scientific theories contains a huge dose of philosophizing.

Take for example the medieval biologists sharing thoughts/philosophizing about how the hell do pikes end up in an artificial pond dug out exclusively to breed carp? For centuries they were in consensus that they must grow in and from pickerelweed. Since pikes (Chain Pickerel) are opportunistic ambush predators always hiding and spotted in the vegetation. This also explains Pickerelweed etymology.

Keeping aquarium IMHO is very much a Theoretical Discipline. 

And we philosophize a lot about it. Even more in the internet era... And this is indeed partially advancing the hobby.


----------



## Tim Harrison (21 Oct 2019)

I think the central premise of the question, 'are we really advancing the hobby', depends on two factors...

Has the science that can be applied to the hobby advanced?
And are the majority of hobbyists able to apply it effectively?

I think this is where potential problems occur...where half understood scientific theories, pseudoscience, aquarium folklore etc start to clash with current scientific theory, and perhaps more importantly common sense.

The social media revolution has no rival as a tool for disseminating information, and unfortunately misinformation and so can also exacerbate the problem. We've all seen examples of spurious advice handed out on Facebook, for instance.

Fortunately, forums like UKAPS and the Barr Report have a reasonably rigorous scientific approach to the hobby and its problems, which on balance perhaps compensate for this to some degree or other.

Either way when all said and done it depends on the individual and their capacity and enthusiasm for learning, thirst for knowledge and perhaps ability to think critically to get to the truth.

Most of the folk on this forum are here because they want to learn and improve their planted tank or aquascaping knowledge and skills. So as far as our little UKAPS niche is concerned, at least, I think that yes we have advanced the hobby and continue to do so...


----------



## mort (21 Oct 2019)

For me the hobby has advanced. When I ran a lfs I had lots of tropical fish customers who thought rainbow castles and skulls where the height of decor. Many of us would be disgusted by this type of tank but generally they all actually knew what they were doing, or were willing to learn, so kept the fish better than most. Some of this was by getting problems and learning how to solve them from my advice or searching online and this is where I think we are better, we can learn very very quickly and massively progress at a pace we couldn't before.
In more general terms I think with many dedicated aquarists exploring biotopes and trying to mimic nature as close as possible, we are making some big steps forward. We also have riparium type setups that take things to the next level, actually creating little ecosystems. There are also quite a few non filter tanks, very different from those of the past, which basically run themselves successfully because of our new found knowledge of running them.


----------



## jaypeecee (21 Oct 2019)

Yes, I think there have been many major advances in the hobby. If I were forced to give just one example, it would be in the field of microbiology and the work done by the likes of Dr Tim Hovanec. We now have a far better understanding of which organisms are responsible for processing fish waste (particularly ammonia). These are quantum leaps. As I understand it, this would not have been possible until the arrival of genetics and our knowledge of DNA.

JPC


----------



## sciencefiction (21 Oct 2019)

I think some of you guys are talking about technological advances. Hence the difference in opinions. Take for example surface scam. We have surface skimmers now but the knowledge of how to prevent the unsightly biofilm appearing is only anecdotal, e.g. surface agitation, the napkin method, siphon it out via a water change, etc..



zozo said:


> Keeping aquarium IMHO is very much a Theoretical Discipline


Perhaps, because we can't prove half the stuff we claim as fact 



jaypeecee said:


> If I were forced to give just one example, it would be in the field of microbiology and the work done by the likes of Dr Tim Hovanec.



Yes, problem is it is fairly recent  and it is mostly on nitrifiers, as if they're the only microbes in a fish tank....They are billions of them that work together, we don't know exactly how and why.

I'll give another example of how little we have advanced..., we have at least 2 very long threads here on Black beard algae, lots of us rambling about our beliefs ...still no definitive solution to the algae problem. The threads about algae on plant forums are never ending, so are the threads about sick fish on fish dedicated forums, very little fish keeper development on these topics...which I think are the major ones. If one can't keep plants algae free or fish disease free, then one is a beginner and so are all those that can't help him, which is the rest of us


----------



## zozo (21 Oct 2019)

jaypeecee said:


> Yes, I think there have been many major advances in the hobby. If I were forced to give just one example, it would be in the field of microbiology and the work done by the likes of Dr Tim Hovanec. We now have a far better understanding of which organisms are responsible for processing fish waste (particularly ammonia). These are quantum leaps. As I understand it, this would not have been possible until the arrival of genetics and our knowledge of DNA.
> 
> JPC



Sorry for being philosophical again. 

But this is an advance in our understanding of how it works. But that doesn't make it an advance in the hobby. Simply because it always worked like this, but a decade ago we didn't know it.  
I can't see the advance in the hobby because of knowing we were wrong al this time.

It doesn't change a thing in the aquarium. It changed something in us. And if this advance in us changes something in the hobby maybe needs a few decades longer to proof. But till now it's proven we were wrong and didn't need the specifics we always added. After all, what we really needed came on its own devices. And we added the wrong mix sold in a bottle from the lfs.


----------



## jaypeecee (22 Oct 2019)

zozo said:


> But this is an advance in our understanding of how it works. But that doesn't make it an advance in the hobby.



Hi zozo,

It is most definitely an advance in the hobby because we can now purchase bottled bacteria that can reliably cycle a brand new unplanted tank in a week (using a source of ammonia). By which, I mean that a small number of fish can safely be added to the tank upon completion. And I'm not talking about Zebra Danios. I've successfully done this with German Blue Rams and they are still as healthy today as the day they were added to the tank.

JPC


----------



## jimi (28 Oct 2019)

akwarium said:


> You have to be a naive idiot that basses his knowledge on Disney's Lion King or Bambi to believe that to be true. A few liters of water between 5 sheets of glass will never be "a self sustaining ecosystem". Whatever that may be, because in nature ecosystems are always changing.  It is nothing more then a romantic notion, that seems to be trendy...
> 
> Successful long term aquariums are based on the principle of controlled nature, natural processes closely monitored and corrected wen necessary. So get off that lazy ass and do a proper water change.



I'm not so sure about that. About 10 years ago when I first started in this hobby I had a 4ft clear-seal for about a year. It was chock full of plants. No co2 or anything until I started to try and grow HC towards the end. Anyways, After about 3 months when the plants had matured I hardly ever did a water change, and I do mean hardly ever and the parameters were pretty much 0 all the time. So I do think its possible, with a big enough tank, the right light and the right stocking that you could let nature get one with it. How, I have no idea as I will admit that this near perfect balance I achieved was pure luck and I have never managed to do it since. 

So I don't think people are stupid or lazy or an idiot to try this approach as it is obviously possible. I just don't have a lab to set up umpteen tanks and try numerous things to try it again.


----------



## akwarium (28 Oct 2019)

jimi said:


> I'm not so sure about that. About 10 years ago when I first started in this hobby I had a 4ft clear-seal for about a year. It was chock full of plants. No co2 or anything until I started to try and grow HC towards the end. Anyways, After about 3 months when the plants had matured I hardly ever did a water change, and I do mean hardly ever and the parameters were pretty much 0 all the time. So I do think its possible, with a big enough tank, the right light and the right stocking that you could let nature get one with it. How, I have no idea as I will admit that this near perfect balance I achieved was pure luck and I have never managed to do it since.
> 
> So I don't think people are stupid or lazy or an idiot to try this approach as it is obviously possible. I just don't have a lab to set up umpteen tanks and try numerous things to try it again.



1 Nitrification is an acidifying process, the conversion of ammonia to nitrate leafs excess H+. overtime pH en alkalinity (KH) will drop. Water changes are there to restore those values.
2 we can only measure so much, we have a handful of mostly indicative tests. Water quality is also about all kinds of other stuff, organic waste etc. Those who measure EC or TDS  know that no matter how much plant growth,  EC/TDS will always rise, more and more solids get dissolved, it may go reasonably slow, but will never stop.

It's not a law to do lots of large water changes, and your tank and fish may still do ok if you don't change water for a few months. But water quality will go downhill without a proper water change from time to time.


----------



## Soilwork (29 Oct 2019)

akwarium said:


> 1 Nitrification is an acidifying process, the conversion of ammonia to nitrate leafs excess H+. overtime pH en alkalinity (KH) will drop. Water changes are there to restore those values.
> 2 we can only measure so much, we have a handful of mostly indicative tests. Water quality is also about all kinds of other stuff, organic waste etc. Those who measure EC or TDS  know that no matter how much plant growth,  EC/TDS will always rise, more and more solids get dissolved, it may go reasonably slow, but will never stop.
> 
> It's not a law to do lots of large water changes, and your tank and fish may still do ok if you don't change water for a few months. But water quality will go downhill without a proper water change from time to time.



And exactly how does one measure water quality? About one of the best indicators I know of is BOD and that takes at least 5 days.

There it is again.  Organic wastes.  Every time I ask someone exactly what these ‘organic wastes’ are and how they affect the system they just go blank ‘you know, like wastes and stuff, organic ones’ 

Secondly, what is actually supposed to happen when pH and KH drop?  What happens if KH runs out completely?


----------



## Affinis (29 Oct 2019)

akwarium said:


> Those who measure EC or TDS  know that no matter how much plant growth,  EC/TDS will always rise, more and more solids get dissolved, it may go reasonably slow, but will never stop.



This may be the case with high tech or fertilised tanks, but in my experience with very low tech systems the opposite is true. My TDS drops consistently by one or two points a week on average. I certainly don’t have to do water changes to keep it under control. In fact I’m more likely to use a water change to push the KH back up, but with my hard water it takes years to hit this stage.


----------



## akwarium (29 Oct 2019)

Soilwork said:


> There it is again.  Organic wastes.  Every time I ask someone exactly what these ‘organic wastes’ are and how they affect the system they just go blank ‘you know, like wastes and stuff, organic ones’


That question has a nearly endless row of correct but incomplete answers.  compare it to the question "what are books about?" 

Organic waste can be, and will be, many things. The only thing they all have in common is that they are carbon based. Other characteristics differ, some might be beneficial (to some extent) others mostly harmful. Everyone who has ever bred fish and raised fry will tell you that daily water changes increase growth significantly. I think it is safe to say that removing organic wastes is beneficial if not necessary. (and it is also the "natural" thing to do) 

wen we measure KH we are measuring alkalinity. alkalinity will probably never reach 0 (because of conjugated bases) but it can come close . pH may drop to 5 or 4,  that won't kill most fish immediately, but will harm them over time. 

again, i'm not saying that you should be changing your water all the time, depending on stocking levels, plants, filtration methods, substrate, additions, the water chemistry you start with,  needs of the fish etc, small water changes once every few weeks might be enough.

 i am only protesting against the idea that you can do totally without changing water, or that it would be preferable.


----------

