Bigger in the wild, or bigger in a tank?

Do fish grow larger in the wild or do they grow larger in a captive environment?


  • Total voters
    63

bichir_first

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Aug 21, 2007
227
0
0
Roseburg, oregon
Nova 8;1140269; said:
Couldn't agree with you anymore Zoodiver. Even though they can have better food and water conditions in aquariums they lack the room to move, even in the biggest tanks fish can still get lazy due to that lack of predators. Exercise increases lifespan and there would be no better exercise then fighting/running for you life.

+1 i have to agree
 

vfc

Candiru
MFK Member
Jan 25, 2007
695
3
48
Philadelphia
I believe a fish in captivity can grow to be larger (fatter) than in the wild.

We should have a contest among the MFK's (for purely scientific purposes only). We could pick a freshwater species that has a relatively short life span, only grows a few inches, and prefers neutral PH and average hardness. We would not need that big of a tank to give it room to exercise and grow. We can then have a sticky where people periodically post pictures of their monster. Of course we would need all pictures to have a horizontal & vertical ruler in the foreground to determine size. Over time we can have a Hall of Fame listing of the biggest.
 

Ang

I should be a Hookworm
MFK Member
Dec 15, 2005
2,045
11
38
San Diego
This is a tough question

Fish in captivity can grow extremely large when in a large enough environment with plenty of food.

But fish in the wild also have more competition for food and that brings up the whole "survival of the fittest". They grow larger when there is an emphasis on eat or be eaten.

------So perhaps they can grow just as large in either environment for different reasons.


But can a Whale Shark in captivity grow as large as it's wild brothers? When it's wild counterparts have a limitless world, while it has glass boundaries??

I dont know
 

8o8apbt

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Feb 3, 2007
36
0
0
Earth
I say bigger in the wild but healthier in captivity...i also think that the captive environment should be similar to the wild so they can grow to their potential as to being in the wild.
 

davo

Aimara
MFK Member
Jan 9, 2006
17,529
39
132
England
Yet with a lot of herps... they are bigger in captivity. Is it just because we aren't keeping them as well as they are in the wild yet, and given the resources we could create monsters in the tank when we progress...? Just a thought.
 

Zoodiver

As seen on TV
MFK Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,872
42
1,005
South FL
davo;1141870; said:
Yet with a lot of herps... they are bigger in captivity. Is it just because we aren't keeping them as well as they are in the wild yet, and given the resources we could create monsters in the tank when we progress...? Just a thought.

Good point.
 

sandtiger

Captain Planet
MFK Member
Feb 14, 2005
3,547
4
0
39
NY
davo;1141870; said:
Yet with a lot of herps... they are bigger in captivity. Is it just because we aren't keeping them as well as they are in the wild yet, and given the resources we could create monsters in the tank when we progress...? Just a thought.
That's because it's typically easier for a hobbyst to care for a terrestrial animal. With fish you have to monitor water quality, the fact that nitrates are just about always present in our tanks certainly does not help the fact.
 

~THEO~

Candiru
MFK Member
Aug 27, 2007
345
0
46
38
Bris-ney land, Australia
AiR foRc3 wUnZ;1140162; said:
Here is my example. There are 2 identical people who lived their lifestyles the same way. One lives in world A, where the oxygen level is at 18%(Earth). Then there was this person who lived in world B, which has an oxygen level of 50%. The person in world B is living in an easier to live in environment, making his organs use less effort to do the same ammount of work as the person in world A would. So the person in world B would be older and grow to a larger size..
using this example, both individuals wouldn't be well off. Earths oxygen level is 21%. Any less the 17% and your dead. any more, say 50% and your talking a flammable gas.

Still, I would say that a fish would grow bigger in the wild.
 

cookiemonster

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Mar 17, 2007
1,191
1
38
Washington
I think most fish kept in "minimum size" aquariums are somewhat stunted. Most oscars kept in 55 gallon aquariums don't get much bigger than 14-15 inches, but I heard a story about 18 inchers that were kept in a modified swimming pool.
 

balton777

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Jan 8, 2007
7,916
21
0
Rowlett, Tx
I voted wild because of reasons mostly already listed. A fish in his own natural wild enviroment that his race evolved in is going to give him a more varied diet with bit and traces of elements man cannot provide a fish. And he has such so much greater an area to swim in. If our fish takes off swimming full speed in the aquarium, it'll hit the glass and mess his face up. In the wild they can swim full throttle and work their muscles and become super athletic fish. The females then mate with the biggest, strongest males and reproduce. Now we have fry and only the strongest of those survive to become big monster fish. Conclusion...in the wild.
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store