Yesteryear Aquarists

[Ricky]

What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate? If
they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?

Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it had
to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.

Thanks,
--
Richard W. Ayers
SuryaPlexus
Managing Life through Yoga
203-879-3473

[coelacanth]

Well, Ichthyosaurs were much hardier when I was a lad.

Seriously, though, my foggy memories are that we
did test pH and then used pH Up or Down to feed
the algae. Other than that, there were fewer varieties
of fish available, most were bred on this continent
and they were not nearly as inbred. Why, Angelfish
used to have straight dorsal fins and grow to the
size of Labrador Retrievers...mumble...grumble
dern kids and their "RO" water.

-coelacanth

"Ricky" > wrote in message
om...
> What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
If
> they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>
> Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
had
> to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Richard W. Ayers
> SuryaPlexus
> Managing Life through Yoga
> 203-879-3473
>
>

[Ricky]

Thanks for your answer. It makes sense that the larger variety of fish does
make for new necessities. I have noticed that there are more colorful
freshwater fish than there were when I was growing up in the 70's.

If you could afford the tank, wouldn't it be nice to have that Labrador
Retriever sized angel fish? Then you can take it for a swim every
afternoon. :)

Thanks again,

--
Richard W. Ayers
SuryaPlexus
Managing Life through Yoga
203-879-3473
"coelacanth" > wrote in message
. com...
> Well, Ichthyosaurs were much hardier when I was a lad.
>
> Seriously, though, my foggy memories are that we
> did test pH and then used pH Up or Down to feed
> the algae. Other than that, there were fewer varieties
> of fish available, most were bred on this continent
> and they were not nearly as inbred. Why, Angelfish
> used to have straight dorsal fins and grow to the
> size of Labrador Retrievers...mumble...grumble
> dern kids and their "RO" water.
>
> -coelacanth
>
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
> om...
> > What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
> If
> > they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
> >
> > Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
> had
> > to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Richard W. Ayers
> > SuryaPlexus
> > Managing Life through Yoga
> > 203-879-3473
> >
> >
>
>

[Albert Turner]

Really good question.

Some of us did just fine, thank you. Maybe a litmus paper test of the local
water supply, but
not a lot more in the way of pretend chemisty and bacteriology. I started in
1961 and
ran for 22 years without a lot of full-tank problems.

Setting up a tank meant "getting the tank established." You did that by
aging the water, letting the plants
get established, and then adding fish over a period of time. I used
airstones and floss plus activated charcoal filters.
It looks like modern filters use much less charcoal than the older ones did.
Charcoal was the key to removing
urea and the compounds that it changed to. It worked whether we knew the
details or not.

I grew mostly water sprite with other plants worked in there occasionally. I
and my
fellow fish keepers raised about the same varmints that I read about
nowadays, probably more of them were
imported though. The key to freedom from disease was being certain of the
health of the fish that one
bought and keeping stable conditions. Every impulse buy of a fish from the
dimestore resulted in a problem.

I recall changing water twice, other than in moves. That was to remove
medication from the system.
What a horrible mess. If I had had to do that on a regular basis, I would
never
have continued with the hobby.

My entire testing lab staff had scales and wore slime coats.
That is, if the fish moved actively per species, were in color as they
should be,
ate with gusto, and (for some of them) paired and mated, everything
as good as it was meant to be. We aimed for good health and avoided
introducing ANY chemical into the water
unless absolutely necessary. We read the books and bought the products, but
basically followed sound practices.
My wife, a bacteriologist, says it sounds like some people are most
interested in raising bacteria than
in raising fish.

As Tetramin became available in the 1960s, I fed that, along with frozen
brine shrimp, fresh and frozen
freshly-hatched brine shrimp, and finely chopped fresh liver, piece by
piece, for the larger fish.

As I read the newsgroups and other web material, I get the impression that
people are killing their
fish with chemicals, medications, conditioners, and too much water changing,
probably not of the proper
temperature. Of course if you add all this stuff to the water, changing the
water will benefit the fish!
Was I just lucky? I knew lots of people, also in graduate school, who kept
fish for relaxation, and who
had the same practices and good successes.

If I were to start up again today, in retirement, I would probably do it all
the same way.
I might find a way to invest some retirement money in test kits,
medications, conditioners, etc. I'd rather have that in
the income column rather than the expense column.

Bert




"Ricky" > wrote in message
om...
> What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
If
> they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>
> Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
had
> to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Richard W. Ayers
> SuryaPlexus
> Managing Life through Yoga
> 203-879-3473
>
>

[Ricky]

I remember my aunt and uncle having an aquarium and not seeing a labratory
nearby, which is why I ask the question. It seems in order make make things
better, safer, and easier for ourselves, we tend to make them more
complicated.

I teach yoga for a living and or complications are seen in how yoga is
practiced in the Western World. We've placed too much emphasis on making
the postures as scary looking as possible, when the true value is the inner
peace acquired regardless of the beauty of your posture. Anyway, it seems
that the same holds true for the aquarium. The emphasis seems to be placed
somewhere that is probably less concerned with keeping the fish in a natural
environment for the sake of creating a seemingly healthy environment. We
don't do as much for ourselves, smog... Mostly we figure that if we're not
walking around lopsided the unseen elements can't hurt us, and usually they
don't as much as we would like to believe they do. So, I guess as long as
the fish aren't swimming inside out or gasping in desperation, the unseen
elements in the water aren't so important. They only become important when
they present a problem, but we all know the simplest solution is the best.

In fact, if seems that all I've been reading is. "What's your Ammonia like?
If it's too high do a partial water change", "What's your Nitrites like? If
it's too high do a pratial water change.", "What's your Nitrates like? If
it's too high do a partial water change." So basicly it sounds to me that
no matter what's happening in the water, it doesn't matter what's too high,
you just 'do a partial water change'. Why do we torture ourselves and our
fish?

Anyway, if someone reading this believes strongly in their methods, don't
feel like I'm ripping you apart. I'm just trying to understand why it has
to be so complicated. I agree, Bert, with your wife that it sounds more
like the Petri Dish Institute when we talk about aquariums.

I'm going to try the old fashioned method and see if I can have good success
and happy fish. If it doesn't work, I will go to the new way, but I have a
feeling that either way works.

Thanks,

--
Richard W. Ayers
SuryaPlexus
Managing Life through Yoga
203-879-3473
"Albert Turner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Really good question.
>
> Some of us did just fine, thank you. Maybe a litmus paper test of the
local
> water supply, but
> not a lot more in the way of pretend chemisty and bacteriology. I started
in
> 1961 and
> ran for 22 years without a lot of full-tank problems.
>
> Setting up a tank meant "getting the tank established." You did that by
> aging the water, letting the plants
> get established, and then adding fish over a period of time. I used
> airstones and floss plus activated charcoal filters.
> It looks like modern filters use much less charcoal than the older ones
did.
> Charcoal was the key to removing
> urea and the compounds that it changed to. It worked whether we knew the
> details or not.
>
> I grew mostly water sprite with other plants worked in there occasionally.
I
> and my
> fellow fish keepers raised about the same varmints that I read about
> nowadays, probably more of them were
> imported though. The key to freedom from disease was being certain of the
> health of the fish that one
> bought and keeping stable conditions. Every impulse buy of a fish from the
> dimestore resulted in a problem.
>
> I recall changing water twice, other than in moves. That was to remove
> medication from the system.
> What a horrible mess. If I had had to do that on a regular basis, I would
> never
> have continued with the hobby.
>
> My entire testing lab staff had scales and wore slime coats.
> That is, if the fish moved actively per species, were in color as they
> should be,
> ate with gusto, and (for some of them) paired and mated, everything
> as good as it was meant to be. We aimed for good health and avoided
> introducing ANY chemical into the water
> unless absolutely necessary. We read the books and bought the products,
but
> basically followed sound practices.
> My wife, a bacteriologist, says it sounds like some people are most
> interested in raising bacteria than
> in raising fish.
>
> As Tetramin became available in the 1960s, I fed that, along with frozen
> brine shrimp, fresh and frozen
> freshly-hatched brine shrimp, and finely chopped fresh liver, piece by
> piece, for the larger fish.
>
> As I read the newsgroups and other web material, I get the impression
that
> people are killing their
> fish with chemicals, medications, conditioners, and too much water
changing,
> probably not of the proper
> temperature. Of course if you add all this stuff to the water, changing
the
> water will benefit the fish!
> Was I just lucky? I knew lots of people, also in graduate school, who kept
> fish for relaxation, and who
> had the same practices and good successes.
>
> If I were to start up again today, in retirement, I would probably do it
all
> the same way.
> I might find a way to invest some retirement money in test kits,
> medications, conditioners, etc. I'd rather have that in
> the income column rather than the expense column.
>
> Bert
>
>
>
>
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
> om...
> > What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
> If
> > they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
> >
> > Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
> had
> > to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Richard W. Ayers
> > SuryaPlexus
> > Managing Life through Yoga
> > 203-879-3473
> >
> >
>
>

[Victor Martinez]

Ricky wrote:
> it's too high do a partial water change." So basicly it sounds to me that
> no matter what's happening in the water, it doesn't matter what's too high,
> you just 'do a partial water change'. Why do we torture ourselves and our
> fish?

I'm far from bein an "old time" aquarist, but I don't do water changes
as frequently as folks recommend. The large tank gets a 10-20% water
change every month or two. The small tank gets a 30% water change once a
month or so, if I remember. Both are heavily planted, which reduces the
nitrates accumulation that most folks see as the reason for regular
water changes.

Cheers.

--
Victor Martinez
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Toni]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
om...
> What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
If
> they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>


We did have pH kits <g>.
As far as everything else the conventional wisdom was to stock very slowly
over a long period of time. Lots of live plants, and charcoal everywhere.
Looking back (I first had fish in 64-65??) we did pretty good- bred lots of
species and enjoyed a good long run.
Later after my Dad started his retail fish business around 68 we learned
more about keeping the tanks clean and changing water. I suspect that many
of our tanks had "old tank syndrome"- we regularly broke them down every
couple of years.

Many of the fish species were much better looking then- Red Velvet Swords so
huge and red and vibrant. BIG Black Sailfin Mollies like I never ever see
anymore. We had paired Discus and Oscars- Scats and Monos were very popular.
Killiefish were big also until the African Rift species began showing up.

I remember our first sal****er tank around 76 or so- we had seahorses,
anemones, peppermint shrinps, and fish in the same tank. That's when I first
heard about testing for nitrites and nitrates- it was very scary,
intimidating stuff.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/discus.htm

[NetMax]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
om...
> What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH,
nitrate? If
> they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>
> Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
had
> to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Richard W. Ayers

We tested pH, we watched the fish very carefully for signs of stress, and
relied on water changes when something did not look right. The UGF
filters were also a bit more forgiving as they were less susceptible to
losing all the nitrifying bacteria during power failures. Planted tanks
did great (too much mulm ;~), and (in my case) old tank syndrome was
somewhat averted by regular tank teardowns. We also stocked the tanks
less, due to the lower reliability of the filters systems available then.
In the early 70s, we were already talking about regular water changes
being very desirable, mostly from anecdotal evidence from grow-out tanks.
It just slowly went mainstream as we learned more about DOCs. and old
tank syndrome.

So observation, common sense, better fish genes and serendipity were our
tools, but there's no substitute for knowledge ;~) IMHO

NetMax

[luminos]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
> I remember my aunt and uncle having an aquarium and not seeing a labratory
> nearby, which is why I ask the question. It seems in order make make
things
> better, safer, and easier for ourselves, we tend to make them more
> complicated.
>
> I teach yoga for a living and or complications are seen in how yoga is
> practiced in the Western World. We've placed too much emphasis on making
> the postures as scary looking as possible, when the true value is the
inner
> peace acquired regardless of the beauty of your posture. Anyway, it seems
> that the same holds true for the aquarium.

Oh brother.

Back then you could not reliably keep half the species that are now common.
Science to the rescue!

[Charles]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:54:18 GMT, "Ricky" > wrote:

>What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate? If
>they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>
>Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it had
>to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
>Thanks,


Read some of the older books. The more delicate fish "require well
aged water." That was water with a bacterial content, but we didn't
know it then.

Really older books were more interesting. In the 50s I read the books
in the school library, they were quite old. they spoke of oil burning
lamps set beneath the bottom of the tank. Tank bottoms were metal.
It was recommended that the water temperature be checked every two
hours during the night. That was dedication.


--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others

[Sue]

>
> Really older books were more interesting. In the 50s I read the books
> in the school library, they were quite old. they spoke of oil burning
> lamps set beneath the bottom of the tank. Tank bottoms were metal.
> It was recommended that the water temperature be checked every two
> hours during the night. That was dedication.

A bit before my time -my first tank ( c.1960) had a slate bottom but did
have a submersible heater which had to be wired to an external thermostat!
My next pair of tanks were 36"x15"x15" with angle iron frames & the glass
held by putty. One of my earliest memories is these tanks in the
conservatory being filled-emptied- refilled while the putty set.
They were my combined forth birthday/Christmas present from my parents but I
think they fancied bigger tanks too ;o)
Were were helped by a local experienced aquarist & he gave me my first fish
for these tanks -a rosy barb & a ticto barb for one tank & what seemed like
loads of swordtails for the other..
Swordtails back them grew to 5"+

I remember the shock on my science teachers face when ( aged eleven) he
discovered I knew more about elecrical wiring than he did as I'd been wiring
up tank systems for years - no just plug in options then.

A fish I got for my eighth birthday lived until I was 25

I'm not ancient -honest ;o)

Sue

[Albert Turner]

"luminos" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh brother.
>
> Back then you could not reliably keep half the species that are now
common.
> Science to the rescue!
>

Oh, brother? Where do you get your information?

Here is a list of what I can remember that I kept between 1961 and about
1984.

Bettas, Dwarf Gouramies, Pearl Gouramies, Blue Gouramies, Three-spot
Gouramies,
Kissing Gouramies, Tiger Barbs, Rosy Barbs, Red-tailed black sharks, Zebra
Danios,

Harlequin Rasboras, Cardinals, Neons, Lemon Tetras, Black Tetras, Rummy-nose
Tetras,

Piranha (one), Dwarf Pencilfish, Hemiodus, Anglefish (various),

Corydoras (various, including albino), Banjo catfish, Plecostomus (various),
Otocinclus, Talking Catfish,

Pimelodus, Upside-down catfish, Glass catfish, Loach (various),
Monodactylus, Puffer.

All this is in answer to the original question of what "Yesteryear
Aquarists" did.

It was a very enjoyable and relaxing hobby. We weren't as ignorant as you
might believe.

Nextr, you whippersnappers will tell us that you invented sex!

Best,

Bert

[Vicki]

"Ricky" > wrote in message >...
> What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate? If
> they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>
> Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it had
> to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
> Thanks,

I started keeping fish in the mid to later 70's and I still do basicly
the same things now as I did then. I was a big water changer back
then, not because I thought it was good for the fish, but that I just
could not keep my hands out of the tank. I have never been one to do
water tests and to this day I only know what the water company sends
me once a year but for some reason (only God knows) I have had very
good luck with my fish. I also have never been one to add any
chemicals besides the de-chlor and once again my fish are happy. I
guess if I was trying to breed (they do it all by themselves)
specialty fish or keep something which likes harder water than I would
probably invest in some, but this old timer does well with what she
has.

Vicki

[luminos]

My response was to the obtuse, PC nonsense in the original post. I have
been keeping aquaria since 1958.

"Albert Turner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "luminos" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Oh brother.
> >
> > Back then you could not reliably keep half the species that are now
> common.
> > Science to the rescue!
> >
>
> Oh, brother? Where do you get your information?
>
> Here is a list of what I can remember that I kept between 1961 and about
> 1984.
>
> Bettas, Dwarf Gouramies, Pearl Gouramies, Blue Gouramies, Three-spot
> Gouramies,
> Kissing Gouramies, Tiger Barbs, Rosy Barbs, Red-tailed black sharks, Zebra
> Danios,
>
> Harlequin Rasboras, Cardinals, Neons, Lemon Tetras, Black Tetras,
Rummy-nose
> Tetras,
>
> Piranha (one), Dwarf Pencilfish, Hemiodus, Anglefish (various),
>
> Corydoras (various, including albino), Banjo catfish, Plecostomus
(various),
> Otocinclus, Talking Catfish,
>
> Pimelodus, Upside-down catfish, Glass catfish, Loach (various),
> Monodactylus, Puffer.
>
> All this is in answer to the original question of what "Yesteryear
> Aquarists" did.
>
> It was a very enjoyable and relaxing hobby. We weren't as ignorant as you
> might believe.
>
> Nextr, you whippersnappers will tell us that you invented sex!
>
> Best,
>
> Bert
>
>
>
>

[luminos]

Viz:

I teach yoga for a living and or complications are seen in how yoga is
practiced in the Western World. We've placed too much emphasis on making
the postures as scary looking as possible, when the true value is the inner
peace acquired regardless of the beauty of your posture. Anyway, it seems
that the same holds true for the aquarium. The emphasis seems to be placed
somewhere that is probably less concerned with keeping the fish in a natural
environment for the sake of creating a seemingly healthy environment. We
don't do as much for ourselves, smog...


Oh Brother!

"

[T]

"Vicki" > wrote in message
om...
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
>...
> > What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
If
> > they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
> >
> > Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
had
> > to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> I started keeping fish in the mid to later 70's and I still do basicly
> the same things now as I did then. I was a big water changer back
> then, not because I thought it was good for the fish, but that I just
> could not keep my hands out of the tank. I have never been one to do
> water tests and to this day I only know what the water company sends
> me once a year but for some reason (only God knows) I have had very
> good luck with my fish. I also have never been one to add any
> chemicals besides the de-chlor and once again my fish are happy. I
> guess if I was trying to breed (they do it all by themselves)
> specialty fish or keep something which likes harder water than I would
> probably invest in some, but this old timer does well with what she
> has.
>
> Vicki

Well I am not an old timer, but I remember the tanks my parents had in the
70's.. Boy we seemed to have lost an awful amount of fish. I do not ever
remember my the water ever being changed. Hench the old tank syndrome may
have had an affect on the fish.. I do remeber the fish kicking the bucket
when Pop's painted the house though.. Opps... I took the hobby back up in
the mid 80's for about three years.. In that time I killed more guppies by
what I figure now was over stocking then I have now.. Although the 10 gallon
tank I had with two Black Skirts and a Silver dollar did really fine for the
three years.. Of course I never had a heater or any filtration which
probably helped thier demise along... Now in my 30's I picked the hobby back
up again, with a lot more success. Armed with my science kit I now can
control the correct pH a little better for the species.. I now understand a
lot better about creating the proper environment for certain species... I
use the science kit when I am cycling the tanks, or when I suspect there is
a water issue.. Other wise, I just maintain the water changes every few
weeks and enjoy my fish... After all, how many people sucessfully keep
Oscars, Koi and GF in one tank?? If it ain't broke... don't fix it... My
brother still maintains his tanks the same way my parents did, and he does
well, needless to say his fish grow a lot slower and when they breed, he
does not have as many fry as I do.. But he enjoys his hobby..Anyways...
Happy fish keeping... Friends, of any age...

Tim... Cdn in Cali

[Andy Hill]

"Ricky" > wrote:
>What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate? If
>they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>
>Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it had
>to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
Hmmmm. Back in the early 70's, when I first started fishkeeping, I didn't do
any of that testing. I also only cleaned the tank when it started to get
cloudy, and I don't think I ever had a tank go a year without a major die-off.
Of course, I was just a kid, and my parents had no more clue what should've been
done than I did. The one time I really had a nice, stable setup going, my
little sister "fed the fishes" by dumping in an entire can of Tetramin. Fishies
were belly-up before I noticed a problem.

Of course, nowadays I still don't bother with all those funky tests, but I do
vacuum the gravel every couple of weeks while doing a major (50%+) water change.
I've yet to have any major problems in the 4 years since I've resumed the hobby.

[Carol Barclay]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
om...
> What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
If
> they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
>
> Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
had
> to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.



Sorry to reply to such an old thread. I am thinking about seting up a tank
after years out of the hobby, and I just dropped in on this group to pick up
some ideas. This question really struck a chord with me, as I have just
started doing some reading, and am having the same reaction: why is all this
necessary? I always had lots of plants, with nary a CO2 injection system in
sight.

I had fish in the 60's and 70's. My apistogrammas spawned in a 30 gal
community dwarf cichlid tank with rams and kribensis. (Didn't raise the
young though.) I had one 30 gal gourami tank that had lush water sprite,
amazon swords, a few cryptocorns, grown with incandescent light. That tank
went for over 5 years with no filtration, just occasional partial water
changes, with blue gouramis raising many generations of young.

Does anyone remember the concept of the "balanced aquarium?" The theory was
that with the right proportion of plants to fish, with enough light, the
tank would behave like a natural pond ecosystem, the fish wastes would be
used by the plants and not build up to toxic levels. Is there any reason why
that is not really possible? My gourami tank certainly seemed to work on
that principle.

Carol Barclay

[CJ]

Hi Carol: I too have wondered about fishkeeping in the past. I'm
encouraged to know that there was some success without so much chemistry and
painstaking monitoring and treatment and equipment, etc.... I've wondered
if water conditions in general have deteriorated so much in the last few
decades, (I could sure believe it from sipping restaurant water from various
locations as a child and sipping it now!) that current water-quality alone
makes for a huge obstacle to smooth, successful aquarium-keeping. Not in
all cases, I'm sure, but I seem to read about people battling water issues
so often.

Welcome back to the hobby.


"Carol Barclay" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
> om...
> > What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH, nitrate?
> If
> > they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
> >
> > Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but it
> had
> > to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
>
>
> Sorry to reply to such an old thread. I am thinking about seting up a
tank
> after years out of the hobby, and I just dropped in on this group to pick
up
> some ideas. This question really struck a chord with me, as I have just
> started doing some reading, and am having the same reaction: why is all
this
> necessary? I always had lots of plants, with nary a CO2 injection system
in
> sight.
>
> I had fish in the 60's and 70's. My apistogrammas spawned in a 30 gal
> community dwarf cichlid tank with rams and kribensis. (Didn't raise the
> young though.) I had one 30 gal gourami tank that had lush water sprite,
> amazon swords, a few cryptocorns, grown with incandescent light. That tank
> went for over 5 years with no filtration, just occasional partial water
> changes, with blue gouramis raising many generations of young.
>
> Does anyone remember the concept of the "balanced aquarium?" The theory
was
> that with the right proportion of plants to fish, with enough light, the
> tank would behave like a natural pond ecosystem, the fish wastes would be
> used by the plants and not build up to toxic levels. Is there any reason
why
> that is not really possible? My gourami tank certainly seemed to work on
> that principle.
>
> Carol Barclay
>
>
>

[J Cox]

Welcome back to the hobby Carol.

The answer to your question I believe is this, nothing has really
changed. Just our knowledge and perception of that knowledge. Over the years
we have learned from our mistakes and have developed easier methods of
keeping fish alive longer. In the past aquarists lost many fish to things
that we can now prevent with testing of the water and so forth. Some say
water quality has deteriorated, and I will not argue with that, but I don't
believe that has had much of an impact on aquarists. If you were able to
keep happy fish in a tank without any testing or expensive equipment, then
the more power to you! Many people do in fact keep aquariums that use
natural filtration, these people tend to be devote fanatics and have complex
systems to achieve their end. All of this does not mean a balanced system
cannot be cheap, or easy to maintain, I do it with a little tank on my desk.
I'm sure anyone can do it with a little effort. My point is, some of the
info in these posts are good, sometimes it is junk. :)

[Carol Barclay]

"J Cox" > wrote in message
gy.com...

...snip...

> Many people do in fact keep aquariums that use
> natural filtration, these people tend to be devote fanatics and have
complex
> systems to achieve their end. All of this does not mean a balanced system
> cannot be cheap, or easy to maintain, I do it with a little tank on my
desk.
> I'm sure anyone can do it with a little effort.

....snip...

Thank you, and to CJ, too for your replies and welcomes. I don't have a
tank yet, so I am just virtually back in the hobby so far. I want to stay at
this stage for awhile yet, to learn some more of what has changed and decide
what I want to do. I always enjoy the research stage of projects. Sometimes
virtual hobbies are as much or more fun than real life ones. Definitely less
expensive!

Could you explain what you mean by what you wrote above about "devoted
fanatics" to "natural filtration" and the "complex systems" they have? I
don't think I know what "natural filtration" means in that context. What do
you have in the little balanced tank on your desk? How big is it? Thanks!


Carol Barclay

[NetMax]

"Carol Barclay" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
> om...
> > What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH,
nitrate?
> If
> > they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
> >
> > Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but
it
> had
> > to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
>
>
>
> Sorry to reply to such an old thread. I am thinking about seting up a
tank
> after years out of the hobby, and I just dropped in on this group to
pick up
> some ideas. This question really struck a chord with me, as I have just
> started doing some reading, and am having the same reaction: why is all
this
> necessary? I always had lots of plants, with nary a CO2 injection
system in
> sight.
>
> I had fish in the 60's and 70's. My apistogrammas spawned in a 30 gal
> community dwarf cichlid tank with rams and kribensis. (Didn't raise the
> young though.) I had one 30 gal gourami tank that had lush water
sprite,
> amazon swords, a few cryptocorns, grown with incandescent light. That
tank
> went for over 5 years with no filtration, just occasional partial water
> changes, with blue gouramis raising many generations of young.
>
> Does anyone remember the concept of the "balanced aquarium?" The theory
was
> that with the right proportion of plants to fish, with enough light,
the
> tank would behave like a natural pond ecosystem, the fish wastes would
be
> used by the plants and not build up to toxic levels. Is there any
reason why
> that is not really possible? My gourami tank certainly seemed to work
on
> that principle.
>
> Carol Barclay
>

The OP asked about testing ammonia (NH3/4), nitrites (NO2), nitrates
(NO3) and pH. Typically, in a 'balanced' aquarium, decomposing plant
matter and detritus accumulating in the substrate will exhaust the buffer
(kH) and cause the pH to drop. As the tank was previously 'balanced' the
NH3/4 and NO2 would have been zero (consumed by plants and bacterial
nitrification) and the plants would have also been feeding off of the
NO3. As the pH drops lower, bacteria go dormant and die off, but toxic
ammonia (NH3) converts to non-toxic ammonium (NH4), so the loss of
nitrifying bacteria is not a major problem. Plants continue consuming
NH4. Surprisingly, many fish are not significantly affected by a gradual
drop in pH. The fish were healthy to start with, the pH drop was gradual
and all other conditions are non-stressful (no NH3 or NO2). There is
some risk of anaerobic bacteria cooking up some nasty conditions in the
substrate, but UGFs kept substrate better aerated for longer periods of
time, so this risk gets pushed out. Plants, snails and regular diggers
(ie: loaches) also helped prevent this from happening. The entire
scenario just described is typically known as OTS (old tank syndrome).

As a footnote, yesteryear aquarists would sometimes recognize the gravel
was getting a bit too dirty and proceed to do a tank tear-down, leading
to some mortality, leading some to believe that it's better to leave the
tank alone.

How quickly tanks go into OTS (or if they even go there at all) depends
on the amount of food going into a tank (starts your whole food chain),
the fish load and the plant load. A well planted, lightly stocked tank
which was fed sparingly could take years to go into OTS, and even in OTS,
the fish could be fine and the only noticeable change would be high
mortality when adding fish from another tank (DOC/pH shock), and some
difficulty getting certain fishes to spawn (ie: Rift lake Africans).

I've also been 'successfully' keeping fish, as far back as the late 60s.
It's now been a fascinating exercise returning to the hobby and learning
some of the science behind the things I was doing right and doing wrong.
Atypical fish behaviour caused us to gather more airstones, spread the
fish out more thinly and do a water change ;~) It now seems that those
actions were not such a bad idea. The additional airstones increased the
O2 levels, so fish which were under respiration stress (from low O2, NH3
or soft water shock) would have more time to acclimate, spreading the
fish out would decrease the rate NH3/NO2 build up and water changes
diluted the accumulated toxins.

The difference science has made (for me anyways) is that in addition to
providing an understanding of what and why things were happening, I can
now prevent or address problems much earlier (rather than reacting to
symptoms). Science, coupled with a foundation of experience, has given
me the confidence to keep absolutely any & every fish available to the
hobbyist trade. JMHO :o)

NetMax

[Carol Barclay]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Carol Barclay" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ricky" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > What did Aquarists(?) do before tests for ammonia, nitrite, pH,
> nitrate?
> > If
> > > they were able to do it in the past, why do all the testing now?
> > >
> > > Sorry to sound naive by questioning the necessity for the tests, but
> it
> > had
> > > to have been something done by sight and general care in the past.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to reply to such an old thread. I am thinking about seting up a
> tank
> > after years out of the hobby, and I just dropped in on this group to
> pick up
> > some ideas. This question really struck a chord with me, as I have just
> > started doing some reading, and am having the same reaction: why is all
> this
> > necessary? I always had lots of plants, with nary a CO2 injection
> system in
> > sight.
> >
> > I had fish in the 60's and 70's. My apistogrammas spawned in a 30 gal
> > community dwarf cichlid tank with rams and kribensis. (Didn't raise the
> > young though.) I had one 30 gal gourami tank that had lush water
> sprite,
> > amazon swords, a few cryptocorns, grown with incandescent light. That
> tank
> > went for over 5 years with no filtration, just occasional partial water
> > changes, with blue gouramis raising many generations of young.
> >
> > Does anyone remember the concept of the "balanced aquarium?" The theory
> was
> > that with the right proportion of plants to fish, with enough light,
> the
> > tank would behave like a natural pond ecosystem, the fish wastes would
> be
> > used by the plants and not build up to toxic levels. Is there any
> reason why
> > that is not really possible? My gourami tank certainly seemed to work
> on
> > that principle.
> >
> > Carol Barclay
> >
>
> The OP asked about testing ammonia (NH3/4), nitrites (NO2), nitrates
> (NO3) and pH. Typically, in a 'balanced' aquarium, decomposing plant
> matter and detritus accumulating in the substrate will exhaust the buffer
> (kH) and cause the pH to drop. As the tank was previously 'balanced' the
> NH3/4 and NO2 would have been zero (consumed by plants and bacterial
> nitrification) and the plants would have also been feeding off of the
> NO3. As the pH drops lower, bacteria go dormant and die off, but toxic
> ammonia (NH3) converts to non-toxic ammonium (NH4), so the loss of
> nitrifying bacteria is not a major problem. Plants continue consuming
> NH4. Surprisingly, many fish are not significantly affected by a gradual
> drop in pH. The fish were healthy to start with, the pH drop was gradual
> and all other conditions are non-stressful (no NH3 or NO2). There is
> some risk of anaerobic bacteria cooking up some nasty conditions in the
> substrate, but UGFs kept substrate better aerated for longer periods of
> time, so this risk gets pushed out. Plants, snails and regular diggers
> (ie: loaches) also helped prevent this from happening. The entire
> scenario just described is typically known as OTS (old tank syndrome).
>
> As a footnote, yesteryear aquarists would sometimes recognize the gravel
> was getting a bit too dirty and proceed to do a tank tear-down, leading
> to some mortality, leading some to believe that it's better to leave the
> tank alone.
>
> How quickly tanks go into OTS (or if they even go there at all) depends
> on the amount of food going into a tank (starts your whole food chain),
> the fish load and the plant load. A well planted, lightly stocked tank
> which was fed sparingly could take years to go into OTS, and even in OTS,
> the fish could be fine and the only noticeable change would be high
> mortality when adding fish from another tank (DOC/pH shock), and some
> difficulty getting certain fishes to spawn (ie: Rift lake Africans).
>
> I've also been 'successfully' keeping fish, as far back as the late 60s.
> It's now been a fascinating exercise returning to the hobby and learning
> some of the science behind the things I was doing right and doing wrong.
> Atypical fish behaviour caused us to gather more airstones, spread the
> fish out more thinly and do a water change ;~) It now seems that those
> actions were not such a bad idea. The additional airstones increased the
> O2 levels, so fish which were under respiration stress (from low O2, NH3
> or soft water shock) would have more time to acclimate, spreading the
> fish out would decrease the rate NH3/NO2 build up and water changes
> diluted the accumulated toxins.
>
> The difference science has made (for me anyways) is that in addition to
> providing an understanding of what and why things were happening, I can
> now prevent or address problems much earlier (rather than reacting to
> symptoms). Science, coupled with a foundation of experience, has given
> me the confidence to keep absolutely any & every fish available to the
> hobbyist trade. JMHO :o)
>
> NetMax


Thanks, NetMax, for a very informative post. I'm saving it for future
reference.

--Carol Barclay