fish growth

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo

HarleyK

Canister Man
Staff member
Global Moderator
MFK Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,069
1,933
1,453
USA
Howdy,

I'd like to touch a possibly controversial topic: Who thinks that fish adjust their size to the size of the tank, and who thinks they don't?

Here's my take on it: I believe that fish do not adjust their size to the size of the tank. I think they mostly die prematurely if they do not reach their final size. This is common; I'd just like to give one example: clown loaches. They get 20+ years old, and grow to be 30+ cm. However, in the general hobbyists' tanks, they never reach that age nor that size. And since they die before they can outgrow the tank, people say they adjusted their size to their habitat, having no clue that they actually only housed juveniles.

It is true that animals' (and humans') growth depends on nutrition. If you don't feed fish sufficiently, they will remain smaller. (This was also shown on identical twins in humans - retrospectively, of course). That's a "good" way to adjust a fish to your tank. However, I don't think that's the right thing to do. After all, by taking the fish to our home, we committed to provide the best possible care for them. Starving an animal certainly is not part of that.

What's your opinion (or even better: experience), and please don't forget the poll.

Peace out,
HarleyK
 
i think its true and not at the same time.
because a fish groth will slow down in a small tank and evetully die early.
but a fish dose keep growing in the same tank so they never stop growing even if the conditions are small
 
In a way they do adjust, not adapt, adjust thier size to the tank. In most cases the way they adjust is by dieing young. there are a few fish that mature smaller in crowded conditions but that is due to high population densities not pond size, bluegills react this way to overcrowding.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com