Fish Lifespan Captive Vs Wild?

Who lives longer? A tough question. We know the average lifespan of our aquarium fish. Not to hard we watch them almost everyday of there life. But, what about there wild counterpart? Truth is we don't know for sure. (For most aquarium species that is) Its not like we can tag a fry and fallow it for a few years to see. If we did tag a few surly that would shorten there life. In my opinion I believe wild fish live longer, if of course there not eaten by predators. In the wild they have to fight to survive. In doing so they get stronger, therefore live longer. I would love to hear everyone's opinion on this.

 

I am personally on the fence, and can't really give a definite answer.

This question is kind of difficult to answer because many of the aquarium fish were bred to be different from their related cousins in the wild. Most betta's for example were bred to make brighter colors for the aquarium pet, this also partially meant making them more aggressive.

Also in the wild it is all about survival of the fittest. Many never make it past the fry stage that is why fish have so many babies/eggs at once. In an aquarium the eggs and/or fry can be separated from all predators so increase of survival rate. Plus their are diseases in fish in the wild, they don't have a human treating them like we do our pet fish. All of this does mean in general only the strongest, fish may survive to breed, but it also means many others had very very short lives.

Then again overbreeding, and insest with the more popular fish for aquarium tank has caused genetic issues that may not be present in the wild. It's a bit like puppy mills but with sick weak fry.

 

I'd wager the midlife wild specimens would be stronger faster smarter, but would ultimately live a shorter life through predation. As soon as they aren't at the top of their game, they become lunch.

 

Of course you can't compare a species that doesn't exist in the wild. Your glowfish, your long fins. There lifespan is whatever it is in the aquarium. As far as your mid life top of his game specimen, I'll wager he's the same age as his counterpart in the aquarium that's on his last leg. I feel this way for, well to be honest too many reasons to type,but primarily water conditions. Ok, today water pollution is a major issue. Most good fish keepers! change 30-50% of there water weekly. In the wild 100% of the water is replaced 2-3× daily. We can't possibly provide that kind of water quality. I'm speaking of course about river fish. Lakes are a bit different.

 

If it's river fish I'd have to agree. I don't think predation is as big a deal for some reason. I can't back that up with any knowledge other than salmon aren't a threat at that point. I had ocean fish stuck in my head for some reason.

 

Lol I don't keep salt water tanks. But how about studies that have been on salt water sharks,Or killer whales . See world will tell you they live longer in captivity. We now know that's not true. In almost all cases wild ones lived longer, and in some individuals twice as long.

 

How long is a piece of string?

 

I will always agree that an apex predator will outlast in the wild. It's the lower levels I don't have as high a hope for. Perhaps I've seen the lion kill the sick wildebeest too many times lol

 

How long is a piece of string?

If you wanna discuss string theory ,we should probably start another thread.

I will always agree that an apex predator will outlast in the wild. It's the lower levels I don't have as high a hope for. Perhaps I've seen the lion kill the sick wildebeest too many times lol

Lol I was just thinking the same thing. Salt water fish is not really my area. I've never had a salt water tank. I always wanted 1 , but I can never seem to fit it in the budget.

 

If you wanna discuss string theory ,we should probably start another thread.

Was that a pun?

 

I laughed

 

I had to say something.LOL kind of an odd question for this thread

Was that a pun?

No just a funny way of asking you to elaborate on your question.

 

I thought it was commonly admitted that all pets live shorter lives than their wild counterparts.

 

I thought it was commonly admitted that all pets live shorter lives than their wild counterparts.

It is, but there are a lot, too may fish keepers who believe they take such good care of there charges that they live longer in their tanks. The problem is that there really isn't enough proof, to call it fact.

 

Was that a pun?

Hahahaha

 

It's funny that I saw a post about string theory a few minutes ago on another forum
This is a very interesting question. I just want to add another factor and that is that many healthy and strong fish die in captivity because of neglect or lack of experience of their owners.

 

It's funny that I saw a post about string theory a few minutes ago on another forum
This is a very interesting question. I just want to add another factor and that is that many healthy and strong fish die in captivity because of neglect or lack of experience of their owners.

That true, it happens very often

 

My guess would be that in a properly maintained aquarium , the lifespan would be increased. Do to a more controlled environment and lack of predation. Alison.

 

My guess would be that in a properly maintained aquarium , the lifespan would be increased. Do to a more controlled environment and lack of predation. Alison.

Aliray I love ya, but do you seriously believe your controlled environment is healthier than mother natures?

 

I think you are oversimplifying the question. I know that Cardinal Tetras, for example, normally live slightly more than a year in the wild. They certainly live much longer in the aquarium. Basically, it is a species-dependent condition, but on average, I do believe aquarium fish are longer lived because they have a regular supply of food and no predators (unless they are feeder fish, of course). The idea that they are stronger because they have to struggle to survive is false. Struggling to survive is stressing, therefore such struggles are shortening their lives.

Many wild fish actually can have their age determined, scales can be used to calculate this. So there is some data on age of wild fish. Personally, I believe on average that aquarium bred fish are capable of living much longer than wild. Wild fish often mature faster, so you have the illusion that they are older. I've seen domestic Bettas live as much as 9-10 years in captivity, there is no way that they live that long in the wild. When they get old, they get eaten. Aquarium fish can live years past their prime, as there are no predators.

I also know that many fish do not live long lives in the aquarium, mostly because they are not kept properly. If you have a hundred Goldfish that die before they are a year old, and one that lives to be 40, the average age isn't very long, but the potential maximum is signficantly longer than any wild specimen is likely to live.

Aliray is correct, a controlled environment is healthier for most fish than living in the wild - assuming that it is controlled to give them optimum conditions. There are many species that survive very marginal conditions in the wild. Contrary to popular belief, not all wild fish are thriving. They can adapt to survive some pretty horrid situations, but that does not mean they do better in those conditions than more normal environments. Many have to survive seasonal conditions that kill off a large percentage of their populations. Then when conditions are more favorable, they breed and repopulate.

So I am firmly in the camp that says aquarium fish, on average, live longer than wild.

 

I think you are oversimplifying the question. I know that Cardinal Tetras, for example, normally live slightly more than a year in the wild. They certainly live much longer in the aquarium. Basically, it is a species-dependent condition, but on average, I do believe aquarium fish are longer lived because they have a regular supply of food and no predators (unless they are feeder fish, of course). The idea that they are stronger because they have to struggle to survive is false. Struggling to survive is stressing, therefore such struggles are shortening their lives.

Many wild fish actually can have their age determined, scales can be used to calculate this. So there is some data on age of wild fish. Personally, I believe on average that aquarium bred fish are capable of living much longer than wild. Wild fish often mature faster, so you have the illusion that they are older. I've seen domestic Bettas live as much as 9-10 years in captivity, there is no way that they live that long in the wild. When they get old, they get eaten. Aquarium fish can live years past their prime, as there are no predators.

I also know that many fish do not live long lives in the aquarium, mostly because they are not kept properly. If you have a hundred Goldfish that die before they are a year old, and one that lives to be 40, the average age isn't very long, but the potential maximum is signficantly longer than any wild specimen is likely to live.

Aliray is correct, a controlled environment is healthier for most fish than living in the wild - assuming that it is controlled to give them optimum conditions. There are many species that survive very marginal conditions in the wild. Contrary to popular belief, not all wild fish are thriving. They can adapt to survive some pretty horrid situations, but that does not mean they do better in those conditions than more normal environments. Many have to survive seasonal conditions that kill off a large percentage of their populations. Then when conditions are more favorable, they breed and repopulate.

So I am firmly in the camp that says aquarium fish, on average, live longer than wild.

Thank you for posting and explaining a lot better than I could. The same thing applies to a lot of animals as well for a lot of the same reasons. Alison

 

Thanks great answer. I over simplified the question to get that kind of opinion.

 

There was a study done on African cichlids from lake Malawi. Most of the wild fish in the lake lived 7 to 8 years. The captive ones lived 10 to 12 years.

 

I've read countless studies on the subject,and they all contradict each other.

 

I've read countless studies on the subject,and they all contradict each other.

All studies do on pretty much all subjects lol.

 

Yea that's why it's a matter of opinion.

 

Yea that's why it's a matter of opinion.

The study was by Paul Loiselle when he was at Berkley studying under George Barlow. These guys are hard core fish people who have written books and have had grants named after them. I knew Loiselle well, and he did know his stuff. So I guess it's an educated opinion.
Harry

 

Yes there's lots of educated opinions out their. And there all different. I wish we knew it to be matter of fact. Unfortunately we don't.

 

Actually, ichthyological behavioral studies by Dr. George Barlow set the standard by which most real behavioral scientists operate. There aren't any contradicting studies that involved real research. Barlow's studies were done decades ago, before the advent of the interdisinformationnet, using actual scientific methods in a university lab. Some of Barlow's students are considered to be among the premier behavioral researchers working today.

Paul Loiselle actually went to Africa to study Cichlids. He has made many contributions to ichthyology, and to the Cichlid hobby, particularly in the area of behavior. If I were given the conclusions of a study by Barlow and Loiselle, I would most assuredly accept that before someone I never heard of.

This is part of experience, knowing who to believe, and who to question.

 

Define real research and fake resesrch? Does it mean real research is done by your guys methods, and every one else's is fake?

 

Actually, ichthyological behavioral studies by Dr. George Barlow set the standard by which most real behavioral scientists operate. There aren't any contradicting studies that involved real research. Barlow's studies were done decades ago, before the advent of the interdisinformationnet, using actual scientific methods in a university lab. Some of Barlow's students are considered to be among the premier behavioral researchers working today.

Paul Loiselle actually went to Africa to study Cichlids. He has made many contributions to ichthyology, and to the Cichlid hobby, particularly in the area of behavior. If I were given the conclusions of a study by Barlow and Loiselle, I would most assuredly accept that before someone I never heard of.

This is part of experience, knowing who to believe, and who to question.

Well said!

 

All studies do on pretty much all subjects lol.

That's so true! In social sciences and human nutrition especially
Scientists are not immune to subjectivity, from the design of the experiment, choosing subjects to interpretation.


.

 

That's so true! In social sciences and human nutrition especially

Amen on human nutrition and health! Just went through all these college courses and we analyzed a bunch of the studies used to make the widely accepted "standards" by "reputable" sources such as American Heart association and ACSM. And some of them we couldn't even find the research of where they got the 'data' to make the "standards" yet it's still blindly followed and accepted

 

Amen on human nutrition and health! Just went through all these college courses and we analyzed a bunch of the studies used to make the widely accepted "standards" by "reputable" sources such as American Heart association and ACSM. And some of them we couldn't even find the research of where they got the 'data' to make the "standards" yet it's still blindly followed and accepted

I haven't studied it at the college but read quite a lot about the subject. And I came into conclusion that I try to eat the same things as my ancestors in this geographical area did for a long time.

What I find most confusing is the idea that you should eat only a little 5 times a day. I've done that for a long time and I was always hungry and always thinking about when the next meal comes! Now I've started to eat properly 3x a day, until I've had enough and it's so much better. I counted calories and found out I eat roughly the same amount, but don't experience "insulin swing" and I'm not obsessed with counting time till next meal ) I also eat less sweets and junk.

Sorry for going OT, no more posts about this from me in this thread!

 

That's so true! In social sciences and human nutrition especially
Scientists are not immune to subjectivity, from the design of the experiment, choosing subjects to interpretation.


.

Yup, just look at studies on how to raise kids. Most parents think their way is the only way, and then have studies to prove it. Except you know the other parents who have their studies too.

 

Boy this thread is going sideways! I got 1talking about his favorite scientist, 1 talking about nutrition, and now 1 talking about child rearing. LOL I just want your opinion on which lives longer captive or wild fish.

 

Boy this thread is going sideways! I got 1talking about his favorite scientist, 1 talking about nutrition, and now 1 talking about child rearing. LOL I just want your opinion on which lives longer captive or wild fish.

Oops sorry, was just speaking about how studies contradict each other everywhere which is one reason why it's so hard to answer your question directly. I think it really depends, a lot of variables. I mean I feel that some fish do live longer lives in an aquarium where the owner has a proper setup, and cares for his/her fish well.

Some fish may also live longer in the wild, especially as we get into the bigger fish or more sensitive fish. I mean look at sting rays that people are now trying to have as pets. Those I don't even think belong in a home aquarium, yet people are doing it and those rays are not living their full potential at all. Mostly because the size of their tank needs to be huge and their water parameters need to be very exact.

 

No need to apologize, I was just joking. It is tough to know the right answer to questions like these. It does, however make for good conversation.

 

No more opunions? It looks like the majority think fish live longer in captivity. Well it's not the first time I've disagreed with everyone. Probably not gonna be the last.

 

@Dave75g look at it this way. Only 1 in 100 wild fish are alive at the end of their first year of life. Survival rates are much higher for captive fish.