I looked at fishbase which indicated a max length of 40cm and max weight of 20kg which is I'm sure the source of the confusion. Fishbase is only as good as the people who give it data. If that was for the same fish that would be one truly impossibly fat fish (16 inches-44 lbs.), and certainly not the one on the pics. I tracked down the reference further and this is what I got:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=428
It says 85 cm length which is a much better fit for 20 kg. (A 85 cm pacu would weigh 16 kg.)
The 40cm length and 20kg weight are for 2 different fish of this species based upon the fishbase links. They were reported years apart and no one at fish base asked for the length/weights (or didn't use the length and weights for both fish.) For comparison, a 40 cm Pacu would weigh a little under 4 lbs.
They also caught one in Florida that was 22" and 8 lbs, which is a nice match for both pacus and the 85cm-20kg reported size.
I think this fish might be a 34" fish, 44 lb fish. Better than a 45", 82 lb pacu I think, but still a lot of fish.
http://bigfishesoftheworld.blogspot.com/2012/04/pacu-piaractus-mesopotamicus.html




http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=428
It says 85 cm length which is a much better fit for 20 kg. (A 85 cm pacu would weigh 16 kg.)
The 40cm length and 20kg weight are for 2 different fish of this species based upon the fishbase links. They were reported years apart and no one at fish base asked for the length/weights (or didn't use the length and weights for both fish.) For comparison, a 40 cm Pacu would weigh a little under 4 lbs.
They also caught one in Florida that was 22" and 8 lbs, which is a nice match for both pacus and the 85cm-20kg reported size.
I think this fish might be a 34" fish, 44 lb fish. Better than a 45", 82 lb pacu I think, but still a lot of fish.
http://bigfishesoftheworld.blogspot.com/2012/04/pacu-piaractus-mesopotamicus.html






