 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Pet Forum / Aquaria / Goldfish / August 2004Temperature?
I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21 Celsius) as the optimum number. Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20? 21? 28? Celsius? (I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list Fahrenheit numbers!). Thanks. > I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people > recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. either is fine. Fancy goldfish seem to do better in temperatures of 27oC As long as the water is stable then you're ok. GF are often said to be coldwater fish... which they arent. fancy GF need warmer temps, like 25-27oC. Ingrid >I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people >recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Thanks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. Hi Solomani > I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people > recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21 > Celsius) as the optimum number. > > Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20? > 21? 28? Celsius? Normal for my Ryukin, Fantail and Shubunkin in my tanks is ~ 21 Celsius In ponds the temperature change from 4 Celsius (under the ice) in winter to 26 Celsius now Ryukin and Shubunkin I bred at 20-21 Celsius Look here at my pond-fishes Ryukin: http://www.shubunkin.de/upload/details.asp?id=69 Ryukin 2004 http://www.shubunkin.de/jungfische04.html hth Günther http://www.shubunkin.de > (I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list > Fahrenheit numbers!). > > Thanks. For the fancier ones, I've heard about 76 degrees is about right. Solomani, Goldfish are warmwater fish. I have Fantails, Comets and Shubunkins that stay outside in the ponds all winter. Temperatures get down to about 38 degrees F. (3 degrees Celsius). My Philly Veils I bring inside for the winter, because they do not do well below 55 degrees F. (13 degrees Celsius). All my other fish, which are Ranchu, Phoenix and Orandas I bring in also, but over the winter in the house they are maintained at temperatures around 60 - 65 degree F. (15 - 18 degrees Celsius). My Philly Veils, while inside are also kept that the inside temperatures mentioned. All my fish do great and are health and have not problems. I will admit that fish between 24 - 26 degrees Celsius will be more active, but that does not relate to being better for your fish. They do not need or is it better for them to be that temperature. Tom L.L. ------------------------------------------- > I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people > recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. 62-70f usually works well for goldfish. They will survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one.  SignatureDr5000 | ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø | ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º> All I ask is a chance to ....prove money CAN'T make me happy. _______________________ > I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people > recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. ????? why would being at an optimal temp shorten their lives? Ingrid They will >survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. Thats like saying people who live in Alaska will live longer than people who live in Florida! ? > 62-70f usually works well for goldfish. They will > survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one. Uh, Geez? Humans are warm-blooded, which mean they regulate their own body temperature. Fish are cold-blooded, which means they are at the whim of their environment. Most chemical reactions run faster with heat, so, without actual testing, I find it creditable that fish metabolisms run faster, hence, all other factors being equal, shorter lives... Although I would be willing to wager that the life expectancy of people moving to Alaska is longer than that of people moving to Florida... (But temperature would only be a second or third order cause...) ;-) -Donald > Thats like saying people who live in Alaska will live longer than > people who live in Florida! ? > >> 62-70f usually works well for goldfish. They will >> survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one. Signature"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe warm blooded mice live maybe 5 years and warm blooded humans live 72 years. the correlation doesnt hold. INgrid >Uh, Geez? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >-Donald ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish kept at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors held equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives. -D > warm blooded mice live maybe 5 years and warm blooded humans live 72 > years. the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>Florida... (But temperature would only be a second or third order >>cause...) Signature"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > Perhaps I wasn't clear. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -D I'd be highly interested if anyone can find some scientific studies on this. Donald, I'm not claiming you aren't correct (I'll remain open minded about this). I can see the pros and cons of the arguments. >> Perhaps I wasn't clear. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > minded about this). > I can see the pros and cons of the arguments. I'm not saying I _know_, I'm saying, from chemisty/biology, one can argue that... The best way to determine it would be to... ... gasp... perform an experiment and see what science thinks... ;-) -Donald Signature"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > >> Perhaps I wasn't clear. > >> > >> The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish > >> kept at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors > >> held equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives. I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the warmer water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish? -- **So long, and thanks for all the fish!** > I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the warmer > water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish? > -- > **So long, and thanks for all the fish!** Not everything is as logical as it seems. I'd love to see a scientific study on this for proof. > > I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the warmer > > water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this > for proof. Sorry Geezer, why don't you just do a google search and draw your own conclusions. I'll bet you its as logical as we say. KISS. keep it simple stupid. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor (spelling). Look that up. Life need'nt be that difficult if you don't want it to be! -- **So long, and thanks for all the fish!** because in science KISS doesnt hold up and neither does Occam's razor as a "rule". many many things are counterintuitive. Ingrid >why don't you just do a google search and draw your own >conclusions. I'll bet you its as logical as we say. KISS. keep it simple >stupid. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor (spelling). Look that up. Life >need'nt be that difficult if you don't want it to be! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. With all due respect Dr. Solo, Thats exactly why Occams razor was invented was'nt it??, if we did not we'd never be able to prove anything. Not that I'm a rocket scientist or a doctor like yourself but I'm a keen reader. It was just my 2 cents anyway. Did not mean to upset anyone. Keep it simple doctor ;) (Note the wink at the end of the sentence)...it's all tongue in cheek. -- **So long, and thanks for all the fish!** > because in science KISS doesnt hold up and neither does Occam's razor as a "rule". > many many things are counterintuitive. Ingrid [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the > endorsements or recommendations I make. "Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham)." philosopher, not scientist. Philosophers such as Aristotle gave us the earth is the center of the universe, the sun revolves around the earth Scientists like Galileo gave us the earth etc revolves around the sun. Which fits the facts. INgrid >With all due respect Dr. Solo, >Thats exactly why Occams razor was invented was'nt it??, if we did not we'd >never be able to prove anything. Not that I'm a rocket scientist or a doctor >like yourself but I'm a keen reader. It was just my 2 cents anyway. Did not >mean to upset anyone. Keep it simple doctor ;) >(Note the wink at the end of the sentence)...it's all tongue in cheek. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. I believe the term "natural philosopher" was used for what we now call "scientists" (certainly physicists) well into the 1800's... (While acknowledging that Occam was a religious philosopher rather than a natural one.) And I'll point out that a geocentric model is still perfectly useful within it's limitations. As is a "flat earth model" AS IS the heliocentric model. Which is also "incorrect" because the sun is not the center of the universe... Does the fact that Galileo's theories don't hold under relativistic conditions, while Einstein and Lorentz (sp?) do, make Galileo a "philosopher?" After all Galileo's theories don't fit those facts... I really don't think we want to toss Occam's razor out of the scientific method because he was a "mere" philosopher... As resubjected, this has nothing to do with goldfish, but I do find the debate enjoyable, and wouldn't mind chasing it about the table a couple of times off-group... ;-) -Donald > "Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval > philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham)." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>cents anyway. Did not mean to upset anyone. Keep it simple doctor ;) >>(Note the wink at the end of the sentence)...it's all tongue in cheek. SignatureEverything that counts can't necessarily be counted. (Einstein) That is why the term scientist was invented and used to describe people like Galileo who used a multistep scientific procedure that included experimentation. Take a look at Galileo's work on kinetics and give him a break he was under house arrest by the church for much of his adult life. Yes, Kepler et al were able to modify Galileo's solar system work to better fit the observations. Just as Newton was able to improve on Galileo's work on kinetics. It is the nature of science to be repeatedly tested and confirmed or corrected. the geocentric model is 100% wrong. Observations without scientific methodology is not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science. Ingrid >I believe the term "natural philosopher" was used for what we now call >"scientists" >And I'll point out that a geocentric model is still perfectly useful >within it's limitations. >AS IS the heliocentric model. Which is also "incorrect" because the sun >is not the center of the universe... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. > . Observations without scientific methodology is > not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science. > Ingrid -- **So long, and thanks for all the pseudoscience!** I observe that the sun rises daily in the east and sets in the west. I observe that negative effects happen when freshwater fishes are placed into saltwater conditions, and vice versa. I observe that when I put my foot on the gas pedal, the car accelerates and when I put it on the brake, it slows down. Does the fact that here has been no "scientific methodology" make these events any less true? Or, in your words, "junk science"? Sometimes you don't need to "do the math" to see what is happening because it is as plain as the nose on your face. BTW, if you are going to use big fancy words, look up the definition beforehand. Geocentric; adj. Relating to, measured from, or with respect to the center of the earth. Having the earth as a center. But then again, you don't read books much do you? Lilly > the geocentric model is 100% wrong. Observations without scientific methodology is > not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science. > Ingrid actually... the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west. This is a false observation. The sun doesnt move around the earth, the earth's rotation creates the ILLUSION that the sun is rising or setting. This is a perfect example of the reality being counter intuitive. Observations are observations. They may be true or false but they are not science. Yes. the geocentric theory by Aristotle, et al, that is the earth as the center of the universe is incorrect. Copernicus proposed that the Sun was the center of the Solar System (on his deathbed). Galileo et all provided experimental data to support this. http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/copernican_system.html Ingrid >I observe that the sun rises daily in the east and sets in the west. I >observe that negative effects happen when freshwater fishes are placed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Sometimes you don't need to "do the math" to see what is happening >because it is as plain as the nose on your face. >BTW, if you are going to use big fancy words, look up the definition beforehand. Geocentric; adj. Relating to, measured from, or with respect to the center of the earth. Having the earth as a center. But then again, you don't read books much do you? Lilly dr-solo@wi.rr.xx.com wrote in message news:<412dee5d.54402578@news-server.wi.rr.com>... > the geocentric model is 100% wrong. Observations without scientific methodology is > not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science. > Ingrid ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. > actually... the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west. > This is a false [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being counter intuitive. Observations are observations. They may be > true or false but they are not science. Er, might need to be a little careful here... Observations are indeed observations. They can accurately record what is being sensed or inaccurately record what is being sensed. Then there are the _inferences_ made from those observations which can be true or false. I'm not going to tell somebody that they didn't observe the sun rising or setting. I'm not going to tell them that it is a "false observation." The observation is extremely precise and repeatable. It is as true of an OBSERVATION as you can get. What is false is the _inference_ from that observation that it is the sun that is doing the moving... (Hopefully the collected audience will allow me to take a pass on explaining accelerated reference frames and allow me to go into the next point? A planet in orbit is an accelerated reference frame. Thanks...) Unfortunately this runs us into trouble. The math and physics work out in all non-accelerated reference frames. The observation from the ground that a car is going by, and the observation from within a car that the car is stationary and the ground is going by are both equally valid. If I'm trying to describe the motion of a ball tossed between two passengers in the "moving" car, it is far more convenient to assume that the car isn't moving, but the outside scenery is... The math works out correctly either way, but the notation is easier when we assume it is the car that isn't moving but the world that is... We choose the ground-stationary/car-moving reference frame to be "correct" due to convention. It is the (getting back to the original topic) simplest model that explains the behavior. One can make all the math work in the car-stationary/ground-moving reference frame, but it gets messy very quickly. We choose the conventional reference frame. The _science_ doesn't make that distiction. (And, depending on the topic / behavior under study we choose different, conventional reference frames.) If I'm doing orbitology, I'm going to choose a geocentric model. If I'm navigating my car I'll probably choose a "flat earth" model. If I'm navigating a ship or plane, I'll probably choose a spherical earth model. If I'm launching missles trying to hit targets I'll choose a more complicated than spherical earth model... Are all of those models "wrong?" Yup! Are they useful? You betcha! -Donald SignatureHum, maybe I ought to fire up the gear and work the ISS this weekend... http://puregold.aquaria.net/sp2004/p1/science_methods1.html observation is just the first step of scientific method. they can accurately record what is happening or completely lead one astray. what those observations "mean" the reality, the proof (as apposed to truth) can only be extracted by following scientific methods. It is correct to say "the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west". But it was precisely absolute belief in the observation "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" that threw Aristotle et al the curve ball leading to a hopelessly fuddled and wrong belief that earth is at the center of the universe. I do make the distinction in context of a scientific conversation however, like in class ... or when we are talking about it here. I wont correct people when they are rhapsodizing about the beautiful sunrise or sunset they experienced. Yes, most people can function throughout life using everyday observations and quite incorrect inferences. But there are exceptions. What I have found is that in general without scientific and/or critical thinking there is a vacuum often filled with magical thinking, with pseudoscience, with junk science. In our increasingly complex world these exceptions are increasing as well. Ingrid >Observations are indeed observations. They can accurately record what is >being sensed or inaccurately record what is being sensed. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >-Donald ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. > But then again, you > don't read books much do you? [whistle blowing - tweet] Unsportsperson-like conduct. Personal attack, minus 5 style points -Donald Signature"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > the geocentric model is 100% wrong. Funny, there are several very useful geocentric models / coordinate systems documented in "Space Mission Analysis and Design." Yes, the geocentric model is "wrong" in the fact that it doesn't fully reflect known "reality" however, the geocentric model is _useful_ within its limitations. For gross satellite behavior a straight geocentric model is just fine. If one needs greater precision, then modeling the earth as a multi-pole body, and bringing the moon and sun into play are probably indicated. But still, to first order, it is a geocentric model... -Donald Signature"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > As resubjected, this has nothing to do with goldfish, but I do find the > debate enjoyable, and wouldn't mind chasing it about the table a couple > of times off-group... ;-) > > -Donald Greetings Mr. Kerns :) I too find it all fascinating and entertaining and stuff :) We can take turns dashing round that table, I'm always keen on a good earbashing, what say you old chap? If no-one else minds lets keep it here, maybe we can all learn something fresh! -- **So long, and thanks for all the fish!** > > As resubjected, this has nothing to do with goldfish, but I do find the > > debate enjoyable, and wouldn't mind chasing it about the table a couple [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If no-one else minds lets keep it here, maybe we can all learn something > fresh! Well then, PMJI: Occam's Razor is usually misinterpreted today as meaning "the simplest explanation is always true." That's a simplified and mistaken version. Really, what William of Occam (a 14th century English philosopher and Franciscan monk) said was "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necesitate" which translates as "plurality should not be posited without necessity." But he didn't invent the theory, commonly known as the Principle of Parsimony. He just used it a lot in his writings. Regardless, it's decidedly NOT a scientific law, rather a philosophical outlook, and one that is in general quite useful. The best way of paraphrasing it today really is K.I.S.S., in my opinion. It doesn't mean that simple is always true, rather that given a choice, one should strive for simplicity, elegance, and straight forward thinking. But it's important to recognize that "choice" implies quite a bit, and that the entire process involves a lot of consideration of context. E.g. in explaining the existence of life, a religious person may invoke OR to justify belief that "life exists because God wanted it." In his/her mind, that's certainly simpler than the Neodarwinist's explanation. However, the Neodarwinist sees that explanation as much less elegant, and carrying a lot of unnecessary baggage. In fact, that explanation isn't even a choice for such a person, since it's no explanation at all. One may as well say that fire can be explained as the manifestation of wood's desire to create heat and light. But to use Occam's Razor as "proof" of either claim is specious and dishonest. One should only apply it when weighing equally reasonable explanations within a well-delineated set of metrics for "reasonableness" and even then with caution. Now, unless there are further questions, I suggest we turn to the next topic on the syllabus, "Business Ethics: Oxymoron?" Gunther of Sunnyvale, C.S.V. (Cleric of St. Viator) Interesting because many, many years ago in a freshman English class I used Occam's razor to refute the existence of God. There is matter which has always been and will always be. There is God which has always been and will always be (or who created God?) There is always been God creating always been matter. Use Occam's razor to remove the nonessential. Unless of course we are only the figments of God's imagination. ah well... long time ago. Ingrid >E.g. in explaining the existence of life, a religious person may >invoke OR to justify belief that "life exists because God wanted it." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >can be explained as the manifestation of wood's desire to create >heat and light. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. Ah, But the first assumption in putting the existance of (g|G)od to this sort of analysis is that this sort of analysis is applicable to the subject at hand. :-) Faith is a matter of the heart. "Proving existance" is a matter of the mind. One is the province of poets, the other science. As one distains the poet attempting science, so should the reverse be true. (And Occam's Razor doesn't PROVE anything, it merely indicates a more likely/favored supposition. Whoever let you get you away with that proof should have had their rhetorical license revoked...) ;-) -Donald > Interesting because many, many years ago in a freshman English class I > used Occam's razor to refute the existence of God. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>can be explained as the manifestation of wood's desire to create >>heat and light. Signature"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe yes, correct. GF in warmer water have higher metabolic rate for example digestion of food. but your hypothesis: higher temp = shorter life has no evidence. Ingrid >I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the warmer >water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. read up on ideal temperature ranges for parasites, bacteria and viruses of fish. Ingrid >Perhaps I wasn't clear. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >-D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. Pathogens, if allowed, would taint the results. I considered that and lumped it in with... "all other factors held equal." -D > read up on ideal temperature ranges for parasites, bacteria and > viruses of fish. Ingrid [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the > endorsements or recommendations I make. Signature"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.