Not buying this study on water changes

[neutrino]

First, it's not what I've seen in my tanks, if anything it's been the opposite-- maybe it's because I do 80-90% water changes and typically feed them a treat immediately afterward... that, and as I understand it they kept 3 fish per tank. Second, I say the premise is flawed, considering how much of the time they're getting 1000% water changes every minute in the wild. If I had to guess I'd suggest what they were seeing was cleaner water = less lethargic behavior.

Angelfish in your aquarium getting angry? Try changing their water less often | Science | AAAS

 

[Midwater]

No, that article is pure bollocks. (Am I allowed to say that?)

 

[Milingu]

I bet the fish were like, “The piss is finally gone, now we have enough energy to get back to our normal behavior.”

 

[Cichlids-r-beasts]

Ah yes, because any living thing would be comfortable literally living in their own waste. Smh

 

[jjohnwm]

Yep, just more evidence for the premise that common sense is actually so rare that it qualifies for super-power status.

But I'll bet that lazy aquarists everywhere read that and felt their hearts palpitate a little, thinking "I knew it! Changing water is baaaaad!"

I see the author of that fluff piece is a college senior "pursuing a career in ecology- and environment-oriented reporting". I wonder if he works part-time at Father Fish's LFS?

 

[tlindsey]

wonder if he works part-time at Father Fish's LFS?

 

[RD.]

I wish I knew this sooner, all these anger issues could have been avoided.

The World's Toughest Angelfish

I'm not typically one to share fish stories, but this one is pretty out there. A buddy of mine has a couple Asian aro tanks, and when visiting this past weekend I noticed that one of Ryan's tanks had a male gold marble angelfish. (shown below) Apparently this angel came from his cousin, and...

www.monsterfishkeepers.com

 

[neutrino]

Yep, just more evidence for the premise that common sense is actually so rare that it qualifies for super-power status.

But I'll bet that lazy aquarists everywhere read that and felt their hearts palpitate a little, thinking "I knew it! Changing water is baaaaad!"

I see the author of that fluff piece is a college senior "pursuing a career in ecology- and environment-oriented reporting". I wonder if he works part-time at Father Fish's LFS?

I'm not anti-science, quite the opposite, but a lifetime of science reading has taught me that papers and studies can be flawed, especially in recent years with more and more pressure to publish and the peer review process not being what it used to be. That and how easily they can be misinterpreted and their significance exaggerated and exploited for clicks and headlines. Many don't understand that "study suggests" often means the author(s) of a study have suggested, "study concludes" often means the author(s) of a study have concluded, and "scientists say" can often (though not always) mean a few or a certain number of scientists have a view that holds no consensus. In each case other scientists may disagree.

 

[Milingu]

Does anybody know where the actual paper for this is? The doi under the article isn't leading anywhere.

 

[jjohnwm]

I'm not anti-science, quite the opposite, but a lifetime of science reading has taught me that papers and studies can be flawed, especially in recent years with more and more pressure to publish and the peer review process not being what it used to be. That and how easily they can be misinterpreted and their significance exaggerated and exploited for clicks and headlines. Many don't understand that "study suggests" often means the author(s) of a study have suggested, "study concludes" often means the author(s) of a study have concluded, and "scientists say" can often (though not always) mean a few or a certain number of scientists have a view that holds no consensus. In each case other scientists may disagree.

Yeah, and the wording of the story can often be misleading, either by artful omission of certain facts or more often simply because the journalist is exactly that, i.e. a journalist and not a scientist. So you get a scientist with a vested interest in producing relevant research and getting published...and once his data is published, you have a writer who reads it...maybe...and then writes a puff piece that he claims is designed to make the data "accessible" to the lay audience...but is really geared towards getting him published.

Not that I'm cynical or anything...