Jump to content

Cichlid Buffers


Caesar

Recommended Posts

What this all comes down to is can the claims I made be backed up in science the answer I believe is yes how importiant to prove that here is dntknw.gif I would like someone to disprove it scientifically.

What I will say is there is not doubt that some species from the lakes can handle just about any conditions. The reason for that is in the case of Lake Tanganyika it depends on the depth they live in a good example is Frontosa people breed them in just about any water chemistry. The deeper they come from the KH and GH is not as high as in the first 20-30 meters.

It will be interesting to see when wild caught ones start arriving if this is also the case.

As for Lake Malawi they seem to adapt to just about anything. I would still say that as far as I am concerned I would rather keep them in the correct water chemistry.

I think this has been a good debate and I hope it has been informative. thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What I didn't get into is the fact that although scientific study is very black and white - we must also realise that this way of looking at things only takes a few things into account at a time. Overall conclusions or theories can only be considered together with all the data from a heap of related studies. One of the biggest traps is to draw too many conclusions without enough data. – A good scientist will be able to determine the right balance of data needed to support or disprove their theories.

BUT - this means that it is always open to interpretation and is an ever evolving beast.

We cannot isolate the problem entirely, especially when dealing with a very complex system:

The fish we keep are basically doing all they can to survive - and as a result will adapt as much as they can.

This essentially means that unless the buffer variables are way of the fish will probably do all they can to adapt, survive and propagate. Thus infinitely complicating the issue

This may seem like a contradiction but it isn't. Scientific study needs to break things into manageable pieces - but in doing so it can get lost in the data and interpretation.

This is one of the things that makes science so fascinating, stimulating and challenging. Fantastic data can be blown out of the water very easily - and the "art" of science is realising this and incorporating them into your conclusions.

If both (or all) "sides" have sound experimental design, it still comes down to a matter of opinion as to which conclusions you believe the most.

This, in my opinion, is what makes the world go 'round.

So if you find something works for you and there are few sudden condition changes and extremes are avoided - does it really matter which one you feel is best?

Furthermore: What is the "correct" water chemistry - if conditions that are not exactly the same as those found in their natural habitat but they thrive, then why not use it? The world constantly evolves and just as it could be argued that changed conditions are worse, it could also be argued that it may even be better.

This is why, even if we had funding, time and good experimental design, the question would still come down to matters of opinion (albeit all based on sound facts).

Hmm…Re-reading that I think I need to get out more LOL.gif

I hope it makes sense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I trully loved my 120y and cared about its well being then the best fuel would be the go. I spend about $80 a year on fuel. My Accent always gets premium, I only drive abot 1000km a year in it so it the best.

Does that answer your question now Ash?

Yep, it answers the question. However the Accent's "Natural Habitat" is 91RON LOL.gif

It doesn't really need premium, but you feel better "overproviding" - just as many fish will live fine in a substrate buffer tank and may or may not see an improvement in a powdered buffer tank.

I think this is the point - spending more on "the best" for your fish/car/whatever is mostly for your own piece of mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have the car analogy backwards though - if you bought a Porsche 911 turbo, would you buy 15% ethonal, dodgy unleaded petrol from a backyard garage?

Ash, you mention over-providing, the fact is, the water most people keep their fish in LACKS certain elements, which can be at least partly replaced by the correct use of salts (note, forget about buffers, different product, different concept). We are not talking about a cleaner purer fuel, we are talking about a fuel which lacks what the machine was built to run on.

Who want's to prove scientifically that the fish have evolved in the lake but that their ideal environment is on the moon? tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gents,

When Asking this question I never imagined it would raise such spirited and enthusiastic debate. It is very interesting to hear everyones opinions clap.gif

My conclusions are:

* It is personal preference. There are many very experienced people on this site who will argue for both sides.

* Even scientists cannot prove or disprove this eternal question.

* As I have never used any products and as my fish don't seem to breed as frequently as others indicate their's do, I will (after moving to melbourne) slowly introduce buffers and salts to my tanks to see if it helps.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. raisehand.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who want's to prove scientifically that the fish have evolved in the lake but that their ideal environment is on the moon? tongue.gif

Exactly. An extreme example but it does illustrate a good point. If you wanted to you probably could "prove" anything (design a study to do so and ignore some points). That is why good scientific design is so important - and interpretation with an open, yet critical, mind is what science is all about.

Who says science is not fun tongue.gif

There are heaps of well known cases that have done exactly that - and this is why there are usually lots of research groups doing similar work - and they often don't agree with eachother (and why journal articles have to be approved before publication - to make sure they are scientifically "valid" - rather than if they are "correct")

BTW Caesar - my point is that you CAN prove or disprove either point - only that you may not necessarily believe one or the other it if both sides have a compelling argument. That said - one side may be more compelling than the other.

This is why science is not for everyone. Most sane/normal people would end up in a corner sobbing. It is just us pedantic masochists who enjoy it LOL.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought my rock salt today, so from the next water change onwards I will be slowly and gradually replenishing my seachem-salted water with water treated only with rock salt (and prime of course).

I'll be doing this in one tank, and in the tank beside this one I will continue to use the seachem salts and will also use seachem buffer.

I acknowledge this 'experiment' will not be a true scientific comparison, but it will allow me to notice if the fish in the rock-salted tank begin to show any negative signs. Right now they are happy and breeding well for me.

Will keep you all up to date on any results I might notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are these tanks Seachem buffered or substrate buffered BaZ?

That whole buffers & salts are descrete entities thing. Just curious.

Perhaps for more parity of results, after a certian timeframe swap methods on the tanks? Just to elliminate any difference the individual inhabitants may have on the observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They currently have crushed marble substrate.

They have seachem salts added at a rate of 3/4 tsp per 40L at every water change, and I also use seachem malawi buffer at a rate of 1 tsp per 80L. The buffer is not added every single water change because I figured my substrate would be doing most of the job.

So one tank will gradually have the seachem additives taken out of the equation, and the other will continue to have them (i'll be more regimented with the buffer in this tank for the purpose of this 'experiment'.

Perhaps for more parity of results, after a certian timeframe swap methods on the tanks? Just to elliminate any difference the individual inhabitants may have on the observations.
Yes, if it turns out that this tank indeed suffers (decreased breeding, colour, mood etc) then you are right it would pay to swap and try them in reverse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often wondered if the fish need to exract ions from the water for use in their own metabolisms? If this is the case then a correct mixture of ions would be more important than if they do not?

The only thing I've ever bought seachem product for was my discus. Using rain water i use only a tiny amount because I suspect very soft river water would have some disolved minerals which my rain water most likey lacks. My rift lakers I have always used the home made tang receipe from this list. My methods of using it over the years have become less and less carefull and now i just throw a bit in with water changes and some bi carb because my tap water is acidic. I have not really ever noticed any difference in the fish. The main difference in fish I have ever noticed was when I stopped using cheap food, the colour got better.

I've never used rock salt but after this thread I reckon I will give it a go.

Craig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...