Bigger in the wild, or bigger in a tank?

[sandtiger]

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.

I have heard "stories" as well but never seen any proof. The largest confirmed oscar I have seen was a 16" TL oscar in a photograph. I would not consider a 12" oscar stunted and I would consider a 14-15" oscar pretty large.

 

[pirarucu319]

healthtier in captivity..
but MONSTER in the wild..


ANCIENT MONSTER RULEZ

 

[---XR---]

you may have already read it but here was my 2 cents in a piranha thread a couple of days ago, i'm guessing that was what sparked this thread


'No- and i'll explain both sides to you- being that in the wild there is a food chain, many fish will not live as long as they would in captivity or grow as large as possible, but in general because of the fact that "the wild" has virtually unlimited space, and food avaliabitly. they always grow larger in the wild, every species of fish. though if you took a couple dovii's for instence put them in a custom made 7895000000 gallon aquarium, gut loaded steriods had a waterfall filtration system, perfect parameters, and complete cut off the out side food chain as most hobbyists do, than there is a good chance you could grow a dovii or other fish to larger than normal sizes. but if you have ever gorwn out a fish to adult max size in an aquarium, such as for instence a jaguar and went out and caught a wild full grown male you'll see the difference, male jaguars in captivity max size- 16", male jagaus in the wild max size-22". my 2 cents'

 

[---XR---]

definetly a good and thought promoting question, but imo and ime a believe i answered it correctly

 

[Red Devil]

It really depends on the fish... in the wild most big fish can grow bigger .. they have the room and are not stifled by the size of the aquarium..in the aquarium most little fish have a chance to grow bigger.. due to the quality of food and care.. so to me it depends on the type of fish and where he is on the food chain.. and his chance of survival ..

 

[balton777]

Ok XR you've convinced me to do the experiment. I'm going to get a 789 million gallon aquarium and see for myself.

 

[---XR---]

Ok XR you've convinced me to do the experiment. I'm going to get a 789 million gallon aquarium and see for myself.

 

[DasArab]

Definatly bigger in the wild but they most likely grow faster in captivity due to a regular supply of highly nutritious food, as opposed to being oppertunits feeders in the wild. However I would say that if we gave them massive tanks and i mean massive tanks, like 1000g for a Jag then it may be possable to grow them out to full wild sizes.

 

[Mystix212]

Definatly bigger in the wild but they most likely grow faster in captivity due to a regular supply of highly nutritious food, as opposed to being oppertunits feeders in the wild. However I would say that if we gave them massive tanks and i mean massive tanks, like 1000g for a Jag then it may be possable to grow them out to full wild sizes.

Growth rate is considerably faster in a captive environment due to the amount of food the fish can eat. Yet in the wild, a snack for a fish may come around every 6 hours, or perhaps, in the dry season, every 2 days. Thus they would grow much slower, yet still have the capabilities for fast swimming and a completely natural way of living.

I Vote Wild.

 

[BrtnBoy449]

oops i voted yes but i ment no