1 Basics, 2 Cycling, 3 Food, 4 Water, 5 Toxins, 6 Filtration, 7 Media, 8 Filters, 9 Aeration, 10 Diseases, 11 Symptoms, 12 Treatment, 13 Stocking, 14 Equipment, 15 Plants, 16 Algae, 17 Fish, 18 Maintenance
The author, David Bogert (LaBelle, Florida), has kept many aquariums of all sorts and fish of all sorts for over 56 years. But note he is NOT an “expert” on ANY of the aspects let alone all of the aspects of keeping aquariums. The chemistry and biology of an aquarium are far too complex for anyone to be a true “expert” in ANY of the various aspects.
The author, has a BS in chemistry, something which is useful only in the sections on chemicals like water chemistry, rocks, silicones, conditioners, and fertilizers. He has some 42 patents, largely in the field of medical devices. This ability to invent things only helps with some DIY designs. But he has also worked for much of his life as a research scientist doing literature searches, data analysis, statistics, and a little-understood field called “design of experiments” or “DOE”. This experience is very applicable to ALL of the fish-keeping science.
Thought Processes of the Author
The author generally uses three ways to justify statements on this website:
- Simple logic and common sense
- Experiments with computerized statistical analysis of the data
- Journal Articles and Books
The author has an extensive library of books on fish husbandry, tropical fish, and tropical fish diseases. These references, references from researchgate.net, sematicsscholar.com, and sciencedirect.com, references from papers on such search engines as Google Scholar, and references from a private search service form the basis for many of the more “in-depth” articles on this website.
Opinion and Anecdotal Evidence
This is a blog, not a science journal paper. So in addition to science, the author does occasionally use:
- His own opinion
- Anecdotal evidence
The opinions of the author are given out where opinions are all there are, such as the articles on stocking and data sources. And occasionally I use some anecdotal evidence when that anecdotal evidence simply adds additional weight to the science. I do try to identify opinions and anecdotal evidence whenever I use them. But one should note that my opinions and ONLY my opinions are 100% accurate (that is a JOKE folks!).
A Double Standard
Note that many will criticize the author for not providing a C.V. that proves his abilities are somewhat akin to Albert Einstein. These same people will then say suppliers and YouTube gurus who give no C.V., have no qualifications, and do no testing are accurate in all their claims. This is a classic “double standard”.
As an example, some individuals have said will say that a simple test is done by this author which conclusively shows Seachem Prime does not detoxify ammonia is thus invalid because the author hasn’t “proven” his qualifications. Or the testing wasn’t “peer-reviewed”. And they will ignore the fact that two other professionals duplicated the author’s tests (actually they did much better tests than the author did!), added some tests of their own, and came to the same conclusions.
These same individuals will say Seachem’s claim that Prime does detoxify ammonia is valid with absolutely no testing data and only anecdotal evidence that it does what it says. There is no c.v. or qualifications on the anecdotal evidence authors. Since there is no testing data “peer review” is of course impossible. But the claim is valid per these same individuals. This double standard is repeated over and over again. Talk about bewildering!
But I ignore criticism on the internet. I’ve learned to never get into debates over the internet. Even with folks who call me an idiot.
Experiments by the Author
The author has also done over thirty simple scientific tests on aquarium topics. All these tests used replicate experiments with controls. Almost all had very powerful computerized statistical analysis done on the data. Some took as long as 15 months to complete. These tests were deliberately kept simple so that home hobbyists can duplicate them if they so desire.
Now many take issue with these tests, saying they don’t meet this or that “scientific standard” or the data is “too scattered” to be of use. They ignore the fact that the tests had very powerful computerized JMP statistics performed on them that typically say the data is meaningful with at least a 95% confidence level. They also conveniently ignore the fact that there are typically absolutely NO tests by anyone with any data which proves the author wrong.
For example, a few probably well intentioned individuals who simply are not up to speed on the latest in computerized statistics said the author doesn’t do the tests on “bacteria in a bottle” cycling products properly. Supposedly the author had only two replicates and had more than one variable and that the data he got was too random to be meaningful. Interesting critique.
- First off the tests were done properly. The data was found statistically significant by well-established JMP statistical computer software. This would not happen if the testing was improperly done (i.e. not enough replicates or too many variables). Powerful modern software can analyze data with NO replicates and LARGE numbers of variables. Welcome to the age of computers!
- Secondly the natural process of “cycling” will have huge variations simply because it is a very complex natural process with a huge number of variables that simply cannot be closely controlled. Indeed, any experiment on cycling which does NOT have a lot of variation is probably fake.
- And finally, there is absolutely NO testing that can be found which confirms the opposite, namely that bacteria in a bottle products work. That’s right. NONE! ZERO! Not one journal article anywhere!
The author has acted as the consultant on many projects where he had to use complex computerized statistical software. He is an expert in that field. But many with only a very rudimentary understanding of statistics and modern computer programs seem to be very free with their criticisms of the experiments and computer statistics done by the author. Such is what has happened with the internet, where everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is an expert.
References
Others take issue with the fact that the author does not provide all the details (journal, Journal number, all the author’s full names, etc.) on referenced journal articles via a “standard” method. The author doesn’t do that because the various bibliography and citation methods used in various research papers in academia (APA, CSE, ACS, “Harvard method” etc., etc. ad infinitum) are very outdated.
With modern computers and modern research search engines, all that detail (complete journal pages, all the authors, etc.) is NOT necessary. Put in the title in the search engine and up will pop the article, or even just the subject and the author’s last name. Easy. So I don’t put in “all the details” or some long bibliography. It just is not needed in the age of computers. And adding the unnecessary information will just make some long boring articles even longer and more boring.
The Author does not Mince Words
Because the author calls out all the many parroted myths of social media, many say he is a “contrarian” (“a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion”). Because the author doesn’t like fake “marketing hype” and calls it out whenever he sees it, many say he “has a chip on his shoulder”. The author pleads guilty to both charges.
We list 150 separate instances where we reject “popular opinion” because the “popular opinion” is not supported by science. We also list 25 separate instances where we reject “marketing hype” as it is not supported by science. Some seem to think this makes the author “opinionated”. If rejecting ideas that cannot be supported by the science is “opinionated”, again, we plead “guilty as charged”.
Unfortunately, I am also a completely tactless, crusty, curmudgeon. At a reader’s suggestion, I did a word search of this website and eliminated about seven times I called people idiots. I replaced the term “idiot” with hopefully some more diplomatic wording. Hey! I’m trying!
Author Bias
And the author does admit to a strong bias against several companies where snake oil marketers blatantly use huge amounts of egregious “pseudoscientific bedazzlement” to sell worthless aquarium products. I can’t help it. I think it is called “being human”.
Also note the author does admit a certain bias against some organizations (such as PETA) and individuals which equate passionate opinions with a right to criticize newcomers to the hobby. I have found that to keep my blood pressure under control, I have to just block these “fish police” whenever I see them.
Unfortunately, newcomers to the hobby haven’t blocked them and thus get these folks’ wrath pretty much daily. I wish administrators would be more proactive in removing and blocking the fish police.
.
Return to Home Page and Main Menu
.
Aquarium Science Website
The chapters shown below or on the right side in maroon lead to close to 400 articles on all aspects of keeping a freshwater aquarium. These articles have NO links to profit-making sites and are thus unbiased in their recommendations, unlike all the for-profit sites you will find with Google. Bookmark and browse!
RayT says
Refreshing & exactly the type of information I have been after. Thank you
Dorianne says
Dave you have a good sense of humor- how refreshing!
Dave says
In reply to Michael …. No I do not have either a book or a pdf. Nobody seems to read books anymore.
Mitch Axelrod says
Hi David, I have a goldfish pond, but I’m learning a lot and enjoy your writing style. My great uncle, Herbert Axelrod wrote some good fish books and would be proud of you. My biochem degree didn’t help a bit with water or fish science, sad.
Michael says
Hello Dave, thank you for your website full of great information on keeping and maintaining a fresh water aquarium. I have a question. Do you offer all of this insightful and helpful information in an ebook or a PDF file? Thank you.
Best regards,
Michael
nicholas cosgreave says
Many thanks David,
I now have crystal clear water in my 6x2x2 discus tank.
I Have been keeping tropical fish for 45 years, but over the last 4 years, having switched from rift chiclids to discus, I had been struggling to keep the fish healthy let alone crystal clear water, I had gone down the rabbit hole of wonderful and expensive filter media and water changes 20% four times a week believing that this was required to keep dicus, how wrong that all was. I now have more time to enjoy lovely fish and have saved a lot of money as well.
Andy says
Thanks for keeping this informative site up and running. Your personal touch makes it entertaining as well!
I wish you were on the tube though, that would be really entertaining if you enter that hornests nest. However – I totally understand if recording videos is not your thing.
Thanks again!
Dave says
In reply to Tim … I recommend that if you want decent numbers of decent sized fish (like mollies) that you hold off on the plants all together. https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/1-1-10-plants-and-the-new-hobbyist/ https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/15-11-many-fish-many-plants/
Tim Seibold says
Hello Dave,
Thank you for this great site. I’m slowly making my way through it all. It is very helpful to someone who is a beginner.
We have setup a simple 20 gallon long tank, with gravel, a heater, a couple plants, and a filter. We have a couple mollies in our relatively new tank. Our interest in the hobby is growing, so we want to add plants (to create a more interesting and natural looking environment) and more fish. I’m trying to discern whether it is better to simply add plants planted in small pots (to help mitigate gravel disruption due to vacuuming) or switch over to a tank like Father Fish. Would you recommend one potential path/option over another? We want to create an interesting tank with a good amount of diverse fish.
Dave says
In reply to Patrick. … Pretty tight
PATRICK K SHOCKLEY says
I’m going for the pot scrubber idea!!! But — just how hard (tightly) do you ‘cram’ them in there?
T Sharp says
This site is fantastic. The internet can be such a confusing mass of contradictory opinions with little displayed reasoning behind any of them. This site is to-the-point, backed by explained reason, and so very, very comprehensive. This deserves to be a printed text on the hobby alongside the greats. Thank you is all I can add.
Pete says
Nice website Dave. Sorry to hear you can’t actively keep aquariums anymore. That must’ve been a difficult transition. Hopefully this website will keep going. I like the fact that you have all the information someone needs to start doing this for 0 dollars. No spam, no clickbait ads, paywall etc. It’s like the first days of the www when people just shared information without trying to sell you something. Anyway, just saying thanks.
Dave says
All the photos are just captured off social media.
Anonymous says
I have a question, are all of your photos throughout the site your own? Where do you get so many pictures? Stores?
Dave says
In reply to Francesco ….. I give no advice on marine tanks. Sorry.
Anonymous says
Hi Dave
I started the fresh water hobby in covid and made many mistakes and wasted a lot of money before I came across your website by chance. I now only use 30ppi poret foam in all my canisters and have not opened them in years and still flowing perfectly, with crystal clear water. Thanks so much. I’ve no doubt you’re making a significant difference.
I would like your advice on the following: I’m dabbling with the idea of starting a marine tank. I know it’s not your forte, but I assume many principles remain the same. Could you use the same beneficial bacteria to cycle a marine tank? If not, what would your recommendations be to start the cycle in salt water?
Regards
Francesco
Joran says
This site is awesome. Thanks for putting in the effort of making it!!
Dave says
In reply to D. J. U. …. I’m a big fan of undergravels AS LONG AS YOU DON’T CLEAN THEM. More about them can be found here https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/8-5-under-gravel-filters/
D. J. U. says
Hi David! I hope everything is going good! You’re website is an excellent resource for people new to, and experienced with aquariums. I’m interested in understanding more about under gravel filters. I found a video on Youtube explaining a few things about them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OTmYKujKss
I’m mostly concerned with their performance vs other types of filters, as well as the underside getting clogged….maintenance. What do you think of the suggestions in the video and can you add any of your personal thoughts on this? Thanks!