limiting shark size

seems most think balas and redtails need 40+ gal tanks. My experience has been that keeping a couple in a smaller 20 gallon tank, they just don't grow to full size but are fine. The tank size limits their maximum growth. this is unusual?

 

limiting a fishes tank capacity will limit its growth, but at a price, its internal organs do not stop growing nor do its bones, you can google stunted fish to see the results, the fish can get very sick and deformed from having their growth stunted through having too small of a tank. that's the reason it is advised to have a larger tank for larger fish especially ones as active as the red tail, bala, or rainbow shark.

 

Yes it will limit there growth and there life span. Its is very unhealthy for them. It would be like living your life in a closet and never coming out (very uncomfy). Also balas are a schooling fish and would need at least 200g+ tank

 

Welcome to Fishlore!

The whole "organs keep growing" thing appears to be a myth. I've read a couple of studies that have disproved it.
However.
This doesn't mean it isn't bad for them. First of all, there's the "living in the closet" concept. Fish growth doesn't become stunted until the fish is already bigger than is healthy for the size of the tank it's in.
Second of all, studies were done on stunting catfish, and one thing that was noted was that catfish whose growth was stunted for more than a year were sterile, even after the stunting conditions were removed. Even stunting of a couple of months caused a drastic spike in sterility. Fertility is kind of like the body's canary in the mine. When something negatively affects fertility, there's usually damage happening to the rest of the body, as well.

And yep, Balas aren't only big fish that require a school, but they also need a lot of swimming space. I personally wouldn't keep them in anything less than a heated pond. I definitely agree that, if you're going to keep them in a tank, they should have hundreds of gallons, preferably in a long tank.

 

Very interesting SDS. I, like many others, have bought into the "organs keep growing" theory for quite some time. Any chance we could get a link or two to the studies you mention?

Dale

 

I'm currently looking at a 9 year old Red Tail.

 

How do you know they were happy?

 

I had a rainbow shark in a 46 gallon. I'd had him for a few years. Over that time span, as his body grew, so did his aggression level. At the length of about 4 inches, he now was constantly pestering a blood parrot and then he ate the entire school of danios. I rehomed him to someone with 125 gallons. If you "keep" fish, as opposed to "have" fish, you know the right thing to do. He was telling me in every way but vocally that he was not happy in his surroundings. So, I rehomed him. Now, I don't recommend anything less than 75 gallons for rainbows.

 

Very interesting SDS. I, like many others, have bought into the "organs keep growing" theory for quite some time. Any chance we could get a link or two to the studies you mention?

Dale

Sadly, I found them on Ebscohost, to which I no longer have access (I'm not in school anymore).
Ooh! OOH! I happened to know where to find one of the articles (sadly, I'm not sure if it can be accessed online outside of the college/library article system).
Aquaculture Research; Jul2004, Vol. 35 Issue 9, p836-841, 6p

This one is on carp (sorry, thought it was catfish) and how, when they're stunted for a period of time and then the stunting conditions are removed, their bodies will quickly catch up to where they should be, but fertility will be negatively affected.

 

Some happy fish invited me to a party?

 

Do you know the name of the special? I'd like to keep an eye out for it being re-aired.

 

They seemed kind of giddy.

 

hi, I don't understand what this section means? Excellent strategy for overpopulating medium sized fish with a max size no larger than 2 inches shy of the smallest dimension of the tank. ] thank u

 

My view on stunting is Why?
When we know the potential size of a fish it's in the fish's best interest to have proper accommodations for that fish.
Otherwise we are stocking for what we want not what's best for the fish.

hi, I don't understand what this section means? Excellent strategy for overpopulating medium sized fish with a max size no larger than 2 inches shy of the smallest dimension of the tank. ] thank u

That statement hurts my brain.

 

hi, I don't understand what this section means? Excellent strategy for overpopulating medium sized fish with a max size no larger than 2 inches shy of the smallest dimension of the tank. ] thank u

The idea is, if a fish grows to be 10" long, then the shortest side of the tank can be no less than 12". That way, the fish can easily turn around.
I disagree greatly with this. It's like living in a hallway that's a little bit wider than your shoulders, allowing you to easily turn around, but your movement is primarily in one dimension.

 

the worst cases of stunted growth ive witnessed is with all types of catfish especially the paroon shark and iridescent sharks. I fail to understand why the LFS are naive enough to allow the trade, 90% of these poor specimens end up in aquariums which don't meet even their minimum tank requirements let alone provide them with a happy home.

most of these poor guys I see which are roughly 6-7 inches are deformed.

 

hi, I don't understand what this section means? Excellent strategy for overpopulating medium sized fish with a max size no larger than 2 inches shy of the smallest dimension of the tank.

Sorry 'bout that. Brain hurts trying to fit in the box. Accustomed to open perspective diversity.

 

[QUOTE=uphill4me;1292236]What I mean to say is that I would not put a fish larger that 10" into a 12" tank, at all. I would still avoid a 10" and prefer 4-6" or a max of 6-7" for a 12" wide tank. But you are able to put more of these medium size fish in (assuming they prefer a crowded school) and sustain the ecosystem as previously described. An appropriate example would be overpopulating 3-4" serpentine Loaches in the described way in a well planned 12" wide tank.

I don't encourage making your fish feel like their environment is too small. If they can happily move around and interact well with tank mates you can sustain the Ecosystem with a few extra suitable fish. If they there is potential that they cannot move around as they please, address the problem or avoid it in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, uphill4me, for the extended explanation...I was obviously confused and now I understand what you meant.

 

Always happy to clarify.

 

The only thing I can say is that we as fish-keepers should never intentionally stunt the growth of any animal regardless of how much damage is may or may not do to the fish, we arnt them, and the can't tell us if their having pains, sure we can tell sometimes, but if its just a back ache or stomach ache for them, we may never catch it and they would have to deal with it.

 

I'm with LyndaB. I had an albino rainbow shark in my 29gal, along with a school of 10 tiger barbs. The tiger barbs ranged in size from 2" to 2.5". The ARS was approximately 2.5" when I bought it. Over the course of the six months I had the ARS in the tank with the tiger barbs, the ARS grew to approximately 4". When it reached 4", it began taking out my tiger barbs one by one. I watched it take out the last two. I ended up giving the ARS to my LFS. I will now never do a rainbow shark or redtail shark in anything less than a 4ft tank.

 

Good morning,

If you haven't already done so, do a Search Fish Lore close to the top of this page for Stunting. There is a good bit of information there.

Ken