Can I add an Arowana to this setup?

[RD.]

It won't be the peeps in the Lounge that dictate who comes and goes around here. Maybe next time one is in the Lounge re-read the Thunderdome thread. Rob and Justin made things pretty clear I thought, and seeing as they are the ones that typically swing the hammer around here, their advice/warning is probably the most important one to focus on. Lots of childish name calling in that discussion too.

 

[jaws7777]

It won't be the peeps in the Lounge that dictate who comes and goes around here. Maybe next time one is in the Lounge re-read the Thunderdome thread. Rob and Justin made things pretty clear I thought, and seeing as they are the ones that typically swing the hammer around here, their advice/warning is probably the most important one to focus on. Lots of childish name calling in that discussion too.

No name calling on my part just facts

Mods are not needed we can decide this as members. Infact you said you wouldnt be going to the lounge so nothing you have to be involved in.

Stanzzz and island guy have complained about it allot. Lets stop the b.s between all of us and put our money where our mouths are.

Oh btw you may want to ask the commoners (members) how they feel about that thread.

 

[duanes]

The reason I believe you see undersize Arowana, oscars, or any caged fish, has more to do with bad water quality than anything else, and the smaller the tank, and the bigger the fish, the faster the water goes bad, so the more concentrated the pheromones, hormones and growth inhibiting chemicals become a factor.
Especially in wild caught fish, natural selection will weed out the less survival of the fittest individuals, so genetics would be a rather minor factor.
In order to produce genetically stunted fish (beside going thru the survival of the fittest gauntlet in nature), two stunted individuals of the same species would need to find each other, and breed to produce a significant number of more stunted individuals. With cichlids highly unlikely, because of the spawning rituals that weed out weak or too small individuals.
Much easier in captivity to produce short bodied individuals, if that is the the breeders intent, by selecting and separating them purpose.
But in nature, or large pond breeding this selection is hardly relevant.
In any of my fish spawns, the smaller individuals are usually the first to be eaten by their larger brothers and sisters, so their chance to get to breed is highly remote.
If I end up with and raise a stunted individual, I believe I only have myself to blame.

 

[jaws7777]

The reason I believe you see undersize Arowana, oscars, or any caged fish, has more to do with bad water quality than anything else, and the smaller the tank, and the bigger the fish, the faster the water goes bad, so the more concentrated the pheromones, hormones and growth inhibiting chemicals become a factor.
Especially in wild caught fish, natural selection will weed out the less survival of the fittest individuals, so genetics would be a rather minor factor.
In order to produce genetically stunted fish (beside going thru the survival of the fittest gauntlet in nature), two stunted individuals of the same species would need to find each other, and breed to produce a significant number of more stunted individuals. With cichlids highly unlikely, because of the spawning rituals that weed out weak or too small individuals.
Much easier in captivity to produce short bodied individuals, if that is the the breeders intent, by selecting and separating them purpose.
But in nature, or large pond breeding this selection is hardly relevant.
In any of my fish spawns, the smaller individuals are usually the first to be eaten by their larger brothers and sisters, so their chance to get to breed is highly remote.
If I end up with and raise a stunted individual, I believe I only have myself to blame.

Do hormones play a role ? Ive mostly kept my cichlids as single species and not in groups. The few times i did were heterospilus where all were on the small side when i chose the pick of the litter. The other times were with zonatus and argentea. I kept this group longer before choosing the best looking and noticed the more dominant best looking of the group was also the largest and fastest growing.

 

[duanes]

If only 1 individual to a tank with a decent water change routine, growth inhibiting hormones and the like probably won't be a factor, but cram a 4 ft fish in a 6ft, and narrow tank, with a sad water change routine, and stunting will most likely be a relevant factor.

Another point, although we see many Lutino, albino, and other designer type oscars in captivity, have you noticed you hardly ever do (maybe never) see them captured from nature?
The genes are there, to go that route if it were needed.
I believe it is because they stand out and are quickly eaten by predators, jus as fish that are small will also be more easily eaten, thereby not getting a chance to spread those genes.
And in many cases those off color (by natural standards) are also often weaker.
Why are those genes then available?
Because just in case thru some aberrant natural event, habitat changes, they could be useful in the continuation of the species.
Coptodon bythobates is a good example, its ancestor was probably Coptodon zillii, which perhaps a million years ago, became trapped in a small crater lake (Lake Berlin), in this case, it was better for the continuation of the species to stay small, bythobates usually only get about half the size of zillion.
But is this extreme factor relevant enough to change to a fish species in the Amazon, hardly likely.
Hate spell check, won't allow the correct spelling of the Coptodon.

 

[duanes]

Here is Coptodon bythobates topping out at about 6-7"

Now here are zilli, only half grown, already larger than an adult bythobates

I believe in many cases using the genetics card wit fish, is an excuse for poor water quality, and lax husbandry.

 

[jaws7777]

If only 1 individual to a tank with a decent water change routine, growth inhibiting hormones and the like probably won't be a factor, but cram a 4 ft fish in a 6ft, and narrow tank, with a sad water change routine, and stunting will most likely be a relevant factor.

Another point, although we see many Lutino, albino, and other designer type oscars in captivity, have you noticed you hardly ever do (maybe never) see them captured from nature?
The genes are there, to go that route if it were needed.
I believe it is because they stand out and are quickly eaten by predators, jus as fish that are small will also be more easily eaten, thereby not getting a chance to spread those genes.
And in many cases those off color (by natural standards) are also often weaker.
Why are those genes then available?
Because just in case thru some aberrant natural event, habitat changes, they could be useful in the continuation of the species.
Coptodon bythobates is a good example, its ancestor was probably Coptodon zillii, which perhaps a million years ago, became trapped in a small crater lake (Lake Berlin), in this case, it was better for the continuation of the species to stay small, bythobates usually only get about half the size of zillion.
But is this extreme factor relevant enough to change to a fish species in the Amazon, hardly likely.
Hate spell check, won't allow the correct spelling of the Coptodon.

I dont remember the actual number of fish. Maybe 5 or 6 of each. The hets were 10. Thats a valid point about water quality. I assumed my routine of 2 or 3 big water changes a week for the little guys was sufficient. Guess i was wrong.

So with polypterus we see poor quality captive bred fish sometimes (not always) stay on the smaller side and depending on the species end up with pretty prominent deformities. Most attribute it to poor genetics. But possibly thereare aother factors in play

Yes to be clear on the aro i never suggested op put it in a 4 ft tank.

 

[duanes]

Another example of the reality of "genetically stunted".
You go into a LFS, for while trying to decide to buy a fish there. And the ones you want are always small, and in a large group, in a small tank.
You finally decide to pull the trigger, take one or two home, and in a month or less, it/they have doubled in size, but if you go back to the LFS the ones left are still basically the same size.
Each of those individuals is producing hormones that inhibit growth, and if you took them home would probably also have a similar growth spurt with proper care, and tank size.
With line bred fish, yes, stunting is a definite possibility especially in cramped tanks, but with wild fish in constant water change, very little chance ?

 

[jaws7777]

Another example of the reality of "genetically stunted".
You go into a LFS, for while trying to decide to buy a fish there. And the ones you want are always small, and in a large group, in a small tank.
You finally decide to pull the trigger, take one or two home, and in a month or less, it/they have doubled in size, but if you go back to the LFS the ones left are still basically the same size.
Each of those individuals is producing hormones that inhibit growth, and if you took them home would probably also have a similar growth spurt with proper care, and tank size.
With line bred fish, yes, stunting is a definite possibility especially in cramped tanks, but with wild fish in constant water change, very little chance ?
View attachment 1373388

Yup makes sense. I figured my water change routine was sufficient but taking your example into account i see it clearly wasnt

 

[islandguy11]

No name calling on my part just facts

Mods are not needed we can decide this as members. Infact you said you wouldnt be going to the lounge so nothing you have to be involved in.

Stanzzz and island guy have complained about it allot. Lets stop the b.s between all of us and put our money where our mouths are.

Lol no name calling huh? Dude do you even read the bs you spout or are your keyboard warrior fingers flying to fast? I guess calling me sweetheart and buttercups were just endearments? You might be into that sort of stuff, more power to you, but sorry not me). Tbh though I really don't care if you call me names/endearments, such behavior always makes the person doing it look juvenile or worse, simple-minded.

What I find truly ironic, is that somehow those who offer the most sound advice in discussions such as this, are referred to as drama queens, sweethearts, butter cups, your highness, and the pc brigade. lol

+1 -- Anytime someone starts the kiddy-like name calling, you know their cause is lost lol.

And what's just as bad if not worse: those who actively try to help others or express their view about a subject are called egoists, show-offs, elitists, know-it-alls, fish police etc. just for giving their opinions and what they hope is assistance. People thinking like that and using this terminology just don't understand the concept that some people really do enjoy helping others/returning the favor.

Yeah, dishing on well-intentioned contributors is a great way to encourage new members to learn from the site, grow and then eventually pass that knowledge on to following generations of even newer fish keepers. Maybe instead we should all just go to the Lounge, shoot the breeze, have popularity polls and pretend to be "OG" -- but frankly I don't think that's why most of us are here.