general question about stunted growth

P

pelican5868

AC Members
May 3, 2007
5
0
0
44
I'm new to this forum, so forgive me if this has been addressed before, but what exactly is the effect of 'stunting' fish growth? I understand that by feeding sparsely or keeping larger fish in too small a tank, they will not develop in the same way as if they had been fed amply and allowed plenty of room, but what's the correlation between stunted growth and fish 'happiness.' I realize that we all anthropomorphize a bit, but I'm curious what actually goes on (i.e. shortened life-span, more disease prone, etc.).
 
Picture your internal organs growing at a normal rate, but your body growth being restricted. Eventually the internal organs will fail much earlier than they should ...

Considering that, yes fish have a shorter life-span and are more prone to disease and illness. Sexual maturation can also be a problem for stunted fish - and thats surely no fun!
 
thanks for the prompt response, very helpful.

I was just curious because I recently saw a video on youtube where something like 500" of fish (stingrays, RTCs, gars, you name it) were crammed into maybe a 250 gallon tank, and it was nuts. The guy (I'm assuming women are less capable of that type of cruelty) even set the video to techno music.

In retrospect, I imagine the tank was probably in a fish shop like the one in china town here in SF and consisted of fish/rays that outgrew their owners' tanks. Pretty sad anyway.
 
One last note: is there a difference between stunting growth (in the manner described in the various posts above) and the phenomenon of larger aquarium fish not reaching the same size as their wild counterparts? I have an electric cat currently at about 12", maybe a bit bigger, that started out as a 2" baby (now in a 100 gallon), and in all the literature I've seen online, that's about the expected size for these guys (even though in the wild they can reach a reported 39" or so). Is this the result of a kind of 'benign' stunting? Am I simply too unobservant to notice the effects? The fish seems more than 'happy' in terms of behavior etc., and I do bi-weekly water changes, have a huge filter, etc., so I doubt that any of the other conditions exist.

Alternatively, is it categorically unethical to keep any fish that has the potential to grow in excess of 2 feet or so in the wild in anything other than a massive 500+ tank or indoor pond?
 
pelican5868 said:
Alternatively, is it categorically unethical to keep any fish that has the potential to grow in excess of 2 feet or so in the wild in anything other than a massive 500+ tank or indoor pond?
Click to expand...
Well, that's a good point honestly, but then on the same lines it would be best that ALL wild animals are left in the wild...

Anyways, to your Q; Most species continue to grow throughout their lives. As they age they slow this growth considerably, or some simply continue to get "fatter" as opposed to "larger" (i.e. length). In fact, given the proper diet and space requirements, many wild animals will easily exceed their wild brethrin! Very, very few wild animals can achieve their maximum size due to various pressures wether it be predation, illness, or simply getting too big and slow to avoid these pressures in old age.

Now as for Cat fish, as a whole, to speak generally, they are a species that do not stop growing until they die of old age. Again this growth is severely reduced. Also, as a side note, a diet rish in protien will speed up their growth, but it will also reduce their life-expectancy as well.

In a confinded space (ultimately a tank is, well, just a tank) most animals can adapt to this space. The space can be physical (tank size) or relative (stocking or crowding conditions).

Their adaption is to slow their growth if simply given enough room to grow properly (i.e in a non-stunting condition where this is measured as the body not growing in proportion to it's internal growth). Thus a 2 different 5 year old fish of the same species can be of comepletely different size. This is true even in the same size tank, but with diff. diets, or the same diets in diff. sized tanks or overstocking conditions.

Ultimately, we are stressing the fish regardless of what we do IMO. We can only striv to reduce this affect as much as we can, which I feel is our obligation as we are simply harboring these creatures for our own pleasure...
 
I agree with a lot of what is said in the above post.

I have heard the argument that unless a fish reaches its maximum full size that it will somehow live a short and unhealthy life..

problem is, that does not appear to be the case except in extreme examples, such as jamming a 7 inch oscar in a 20 gallon or something.

for the most part, in the aquarium, if competition for food holds a fish down a bit, they still will lead very happy and long lives provided they are properly cared for.

for example, there are lots of oscars out there (and tons of other fish) that don't reach their full size in the home aquarium for a variety of reasons, yet still live very long lives in captivity, usually much longer than they normally would in the wild.

My saltwater monos are a good example. I have 4 in a 65 gallon and they eat like pigs and are very healthy, but are only about 4.5 inches long, but all the books say they can reach 10 inches.

they are many years old now and do not seem to be showing any signs of adverse affects from stunting.

the reason, of course that they have not grown bigger is that they compete with each other for food.

This sort of thing is common in the hobby.

my 4 inch 10 year old clowns are another good example.

Sure, they are not going to become 12inchers any time soon. But they show no indications of any adverse effects because they have not attained their 'book value' in terms of size.

they have always lived with larger fish, so again, I guess ccompetition for available food has probably prevented them from reaching their full size.

this sort of phenomenon is very common in this hobby. Or at least, it appears that way after being into fish for all these years.
 
IMO while we do place unatural stresses on the fish that we keep in our aquariums, it's a trade off for the fish, because at the same time, we are removing a lot of the stresses that would be placed on it in the wild. All in all, captive fish would appear to live less stressful, longer, healthier lives in captivity, provided they are cared for properly and humanely. So I guess the question of "is it humane to keep wild a species captive?" is subjective at best. If they could talk they would be able to tell us what they prefer, but don't always assume that a wild exsistence is the prefered choice, because you all know how absolutely brutal nature can be. It's all a matter of perspective.
pills11.com ;))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom