Health of Goldfish as Influenced by Various Environmental Factors - Report 1 | |
---|---|
Goldfish Keeping as a Hobby | |
Lastufka Labs | 16 May 2002 |
Investigators: | Primary: Arin Lastufka
|
This article contains the abstract a brief version of the full report. The full report is available on request to those wishing to duplicate the experiment.
Four goldfish were exposed to different environmental conditions and observed with the purpose of determining how their health was affected. Factor selection depended on conditions fish are sometimes exposed to by different hobbyists, as well as other factors which were already known to have a noticeable effect on goldfish. This was to verify the credibility of other observations. Two goldfish bowls were used, each with two resident fish. One bowl was designated the 'Control', while the other's environment was identical, excepting the factor under investigation.
Factor 1, sand in the 'Variable' bowl and gravel in the 'Control' bowl, was found not to significantly influence the fishes' health. Factor 2, darkness in the 'Variable' bowl with the 'Control' bowl exposed to light, significantly influenced their health; with extremely obvious reactions, such as decreased activity levels.
Goldfish are among the most popular pets in the world. As a result, hundreds of books have been written on the subject of goldfish keeping. But how many are backed by scientific evidence? Most are based on casual observation and "experience".
But are they really right? And if they are, what effects do they really have on the fish? What about the subjects that get mentioned in passing - "either this or this is right"? Are they correct?
This set of experiments is easily reproduced, and full details are available on request. It must be taken into account, however, that all living organisms are unique, and there is a small probability that other fish might not respond in the same way to the same factors.
The only serious drawback in these experiments is the goldfish bowl, which is not recommended, because of the decreased surface-to-air ratio. However, this hopefully should be compensated for by the use of an air pump, which is not normally used in a goldfish bowl. There were, of course, natural variations in temperature and humidity, but as the bowls are were the same room at the same time, both were be subject to the same conditions. These are the same circumstances a hobbyist's goldfish would undergo.
The conditions in the Control bowl were selected according to recommendations in 'the books' (bibliography included). The conditions in the Variable bowl were identical to those in the Control bowl, excluding the variable being tested.
Control bowl environment:
Glass 1 | gallon goldfish bowl |
Aeration | airstone |
Gravel | depth: 7 cm |
Plant | Elodea |
Place to hide | broken garden pot (with no sharp edges) |
Water changed once every week | |
No algae | |
Dechlorinated water | |
Light | |
Two fish per bowl |
The "varied"(Control) diet was based upon recommendations by various goldfish hobbyists.
Feeding at 0700 hours:
1/12 teaspoon of crumbled dry flake food per bowl
Feeding at 1815 hours:
2 frozen, husked peas per bowl
1/12 teaspoon of freeze-dried tubifex or blood worms per bowl
Above foods to be alternated each day
24 hour time used for clarity
Observations took place at 0710 and 1805 hours (24 hour time used for clarity). These times were selected as they occured 10 minutes before and after feeding. Feeding was observed to stimulate action from the fish; therefore, observations before and after feedings should document the fish at their 'high' and 'low' points of activity.
Measured factors:
Water was changed every Sunday at 1700 hours. The slightly different changing times did not noticeably affect the outcome of the experiment.
Experiment 1 (Gravel vs. Sand): Sand substituted for gravel. Time: 13 days
Experiment 1 setup
Following the experiment, the Control bowl was renamed 'Variable', and the Variable redesignated as 'Control'. This was to avoid any possible effects of the previous factor upon the second experiment. The fish were then allowed a week to acclimate to their new conditions.
Experiment 2 (Light vs. Dark): Variable bowl covered with a light-obscuring bag to simulate darkness. Time: 11 days
Much of the analysis of the data obtained boiled down to the table below.
Experiment 1
Averages | Time | Fish ID | Rate of Breathing (breath/min) | Activity Level | Eye (Clear or Cloudy) | Fins (Clamped or Not Clamped) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control Average | 0710 | Alpha | 81.23 | 6.08 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) |
Beta | 75.08 | 6.85 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | ||
Variable Average | Delta | 69.54 | 5.69 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | |
Gamma | 71.69 | 7.85 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | ||
Control Average | 1805 | Alpha | 65.00 | 5.08 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) |
Beta | 69.33 | 6.00 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | ||
Variable Average | Delta | 65.00 | 6.00 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | |
Gamma | 68.67 | 6.50 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) |
Experiment 2
Averages | Time | Fish ID | Rate of Breathing (breath/min) | Activity Level | Eye (Clear or Cloudy) | Fins (Clamped or Not Clamped) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control Average | 0710 | Alpha | 61.82 | 5.18 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) |
Beta | 61.45 | 4.27 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | ||
Variable Average | Delta | 72.36 | 11.27 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | |
Gamma | 77.09 | 12.00 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | ||
Control Average | 1805 | Alpha | 66.91 | 5.36 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) |
Beta | 69.09 | 4.91 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | ||
Variable Average | Delta | 78.91 | 11.18 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) | |
Gamma | 76.73 | 12.00 | Clear(100.00%) Cloudy(0.00%) | Not(100.00%) Clamped(0.00%) |
Experiment 1
There is no significant difference between the health of the control fish and the health of the variable fish. This is in accordance with the references, which mention sand and gravel with no indication as to which is more beneficial. Therefore, sand has no effects, or extremely trivial effects, on the health of a goldfish. However, gravel is probably more convienient for the goldfish owner, as the water becomes cloudy after bowl cleaning.
Experiment 2
According the analysis of the data, there is a significant difference in the health and activity of the inhabitants of the different environments. In the morning averages, there was a difference of at least ten breaths per minute, and a difference of at least six in the rate of activity. The evening averages differed by about nine breaths per minute, and about six in the rate of activity. It may be concluded that dimness adversely affects goldfish by slowing breathing and activity. Etoilation (abnormal elongation of stem due to lack of light) of the plants was also observed.