Fish - The Maximum Size Arguement

[saz326]

In the wilds of Borneo/Indonesia/ Sumatra, Clown loaches swim around merrily eating and living and growing up to a size of 30cm. (or 16 inches in a few cases)

This is not just a long length for a fish. They are also very bulky in build so they are broard and so a fully grown specimen caught at this size would certainly not be suitable for a home aquarium. (unless you have an extremly Plush set-up!)

However due to the nature of the environment inside a home aquarium, and the difference in feed that the fish recieves i.e. not cconstantly eating natural food such as worms from the river bed, aquarium specimens of clown loach hardly ever reach even half their "potential wild size" (even when given plenty of space to do so)

So.

Should we actually be looking at fish such as Clown loaches in terms of their potential wild size, or should we use historical knowledge to assume the fish will grow to maybe half its potential.

In which case perhaps some fish are more suitable than we think.

There are other fish that this is arguement is the same for. Do silver dollars actually reach their wild natural size in home aquariums given the space to do so?

....debate.

 

[Honeythorn]

There's no reason why they shouldn't reach the proper size if kept in the correct size tank that allows them to do so, and fed a diet that is as close to their natural one as possible. Worms are easily bred for example.

Frankly, if people bother to look at the maximum size ( many do not ) they should save for a tank to accomodate that size. If they don't have space for a tank that big then I don't think they should get that particular type of fish no mater how pretty or impressive they think it looks. I really do not agree with keeping a living thing if you can't accomodate it's needs.

And before anyone starts the whole " well fish tanks are not rivers they will never have the space they have in the wild blah blah blah" YES I am aware of this. But the fact remains that if you have a species that grows to a couple of feet, or 12 inches ect, and you do not have a tank that can provide enough space to do that first spate of growing, then frankly why get the fish? You can't give it what it needs and to keep it for years in a tank that is too small, while you try to save for a bigger one is purely selfish.

To provide a similie/example - Do you keep a horse in your back yard for a few years while you save for the lease on a field for it to run around and exercise as it's meant to ? No of course you don't. Therefore, do you keep a large species of fish in too small a tank while you wait around and save for a bigger one? No, it makes no sense other than the fact you want an impressive fish to show off.

I don't see why large species should be crammed into small tanks because people don't think they will reach a large size when it's known that they can and do. Frequently. Why would you not want something to grow to the size it is supposed to ?

 

[WhiteDevil]

That must be the fish for dummies version. You HAVE to watch size when getting fish, they will outgrow their environment and if cared for correctly they will exceed their tanks within months.

 

[saz326]

I quite agree with it all, and theoretically there is no reason what-so0ever why a fish shouldnt grow to it potential full size..... I wonder, do we have any people with a clown loach, or silver dollar, or any other naturally large fish that is reaching anywhere near its true size?

..someone has to hava an arowana for example.

The reason for this topic is that the only ever fully grown fish I have seen reach its max potential size was a plec- and he hit the theoretical max size and simply kept on growing. Cheeky fella.

All my fish are slightly smaller than the "normal" size excluding my tetras and my male cockatoo dwarf (who is a cockatoo Giant!)

Id love to hear of people with huge tanks and huge clowns for example.

 

[Ace Of Spades]

In the wilds of Borneo/Indonesia/ Sumatra, Clown loaches swim around merrily eating and living and growing up to a size of 30cm. (or 16 inches in a few cases)

This is not just a long length for a fish. They are also very bulky in build so they are broard and so a fully grown specimen caught at this size would certainly not be suitable for a home aquarium. (unless you have an extremly Plush set-up!)

However due to the nature of the environment inside a home aquarium, and the difference in feed that the fish recieves i.e. not cconstantly eating natural food such as worms from the river bed, aquarium specimens of clown loach hardly ever reach even half their "potential wild size" (even when given plenty of space to do so)

So.

Should we actually be looking at fish such as Clown loaches in terms of their potential wild size, or should we use historical knowledge to assume the fish will grow to maybe half its potential.

In which case perhaps some fish are more suitable than we think.

There are other fish that this is arguement is the same for. Do silver dollars actually reach their wild natural size in home aquariums given the space to do so?

....debate.

Fish keeping requires one thing, and that is common sense. Without it you will fail and your fish will suffer. Clown loaches are notorious for growing extremely slowly, the reason that you don't see many big clown loaches is that it can take in excess of 20 years for them to reach this size.

 

[crazychris]

I kept a pink kissing gourami for 13 years and he/she reached 12" exactly. Not sure how large they can get in the wild though.

 

[Ace Of Spades]

I kept a pink kissing gourami for 13 years and he/she reached 12" exactly. Not sure how large they can get in the wild though.

Useful post

 

[LauraFrog]

Actually, it is. Most of the books that I have cite 8" as the maximum size for a kissing gourami. So if they can reach 12" in a home aquarium that's something worth knowing, because that would seriously increase the tank size I would recommend to people anyway. (Are you sure it wasn't a giant gourami?)

This is possibly of greater concern to marine hobbyists, a lot of whom insist on keeping fish that have the potential to reach 15 odd inches in tanks that are big, certainly, but nowhere near big enough. (I'm talking about things like triggerfishes). A lot of books actually mention wild size as opposed to captive size, and there can be a major discrepancy. Is it because these fish do not thrive in aquariums and don't live long enough to attain their maximum size, is it inadequate diet, or another manifestation of the stunting phenomenon? I'd actually be interested to know (I've never kept marines).

 

[drobbyb]

Very interesting conversation. I totally agree with this thread so far. Personally, I think that keeping a fish in improper "quarters" could be punishable by a fine or worse depending on the severity. (Ok that's a little extreme but it felt good to hold that thought for a second)

On the flip side of the same coin, Boesemani Rainbowfish grow to larger than their wild size. I suppose thier captive diet factors in on that.

 

[LauraFrog]

LOL - I think most rainbowfish do that. I live in Australia with a considerable native population of Melanotaenia s. splendida in the local creek, personally never caught one over 4.5 inches, a friend of mine stuck some in a big tank and overfed them and lo and behold, 6 inch rainbows. Well that's what he told me, anyway. I have personally seen Pseudomugil signifer (the Cairns form, which normally does not exceed 5cm) at 8cm (male).

 

[snowflake311]

Just like people and any other animals it comes down to genetics. Some people are tall some are short. Many fish don't grow to the size they would in the wild mainly because of improper care. BUT those who take the best care of their fish and fill there every needs food wise, space , and water quality those fish will grow to a proper size.

My female clown pleco is 3.5 inch. My keyhole is 4 inches my red tail rasboras are all 2 inches my female BN is 3 inches and still growing.

So my fish are pretty much what they should be.

 

[lordtrini]

Some fish secrete a chemical in the water that limits their growth to the volume of water that they are in...
This is common in fast growing fish that live in seasonal water systems....

Some slow growing fish never stop growing... catfish, loaches, etc

 

[indigoj]

Pink Kissing Gourami are well reported to reach 12", I have a 2yo one in my 6ft tank who reached 4" super fast and is then has slowed down - 5" now and quite bulky - and still growing probably about 1/4 inch a year. I have another of certainly older age (came with my fist tank and was 5" then) who has not grown at all in 2.5 years. She was being kept in a 3ft tank...

I think this illustrates how tank size plays a significant part in fish size - regardless of the type of fish.

I think some allowances can be made for the 'normal captive size' being an inch or 2 smaller but you should always be prepared for any fish to reach it's max size and be able to provide adequate space for it.

Ultimately feeding, tank size, water, filtration and tank mates can all have affect the size a fish reaches.

I also think that adequate tank size/conditions in the early stages of growth is when it is MOST important - poor conditions for young fish will reduce the adult size as the young fish will not grow as it should.

 

[Amunet]

Very interesting topic.
As for the clown loaches. As Ace pointed out.... clown loaches grow extremely slow once they reach a certain point (have read it's at about 4-5 inches)... and have the potential of living 20+ years. So it's really no wonder why we don't see a lot of people with big loaches b/c well... how many people have kept even one alive for that long?

 

[aquila]

So it's really no wonder why we don't see a lot of people with big loaches b/c well... how many people have kept even one alive for that long?

The same argument can be used when illustrating the potential growth of goldfish - it's hard to maintain an argument with a non enthusiast when they tell you their goldfish has lived in a bowl for all of its life and never grown at all, but how many of those people can say they've kept a goldfish for their average 20 year+ life span?