Yesteryear Aquarists

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

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

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

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

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

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 he
Email me he

"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

"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

"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!

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