Roekil sevs super slow growers?

[BMac91]

So, I picked up a rotkeil sev about this time last year and granted he was tiny, probably 1" maybe 1.25". He has been in similar water conditions for the last year or so always in decent sized tanks (125+) but he just doesn't seem to want to grow. At first he was super picky and only wanted blood worms, I don't feed blood worms often usually once a week max but usually closer to twice a month. He eventually got sick of waiting on me to feed worms and would eat a few crushed cichlid flakes here and there and would gnaw on the mini sinking hikari pellets, but never seemed thrilled about it.

Now a year later, he is roughly 3.5" maybe, still lives for the day I feed worms and seems to only eat enough other foods to keep himself living until the next worm day. I have watched the other 2 Sevs in the tank (a turq and a gold) go from 2-3" to 7-8" in the same year, granted they aren't picky and readily eat anything offered. I am most amazed that I added 2 tiny Uaru at the beginning of the year and they have tripled in size and outgrew the rotkeil in a matter of 4 months. I always thought Uaru were super slow growers, but they have thrived.

Would you guys agree that he literally isn't growing faster because he chooses not to eat more frequently and varied items?



Water:
240 gallon tank
nitrates 5ppm
ammonia 0
nitrite 0
pH 8 (comes from tap @ 7.0 but has loads of C02 that gases off and levels at 8)
tds was around 30-40 last time I checked

Picture might skew the actual size different a bit, but they are tough to get clear pictures of. Rotkeil and his buddies.

 

[CrazyPhishMan]

My severums all took over a year to hit maturity.

I have 2 rotkiels I got December of 2016 1 is about 4” the other closer to 3” both are finally showing color.

But my standard efasciatus, super red and gold all grew about 30% faster.

I think most SA cichlids grow rather slowly- exceptions being chocolates and oscars

 

[ryansmith83]

Runted/stunted. It happens. Healthy rotkeils should grow at the rate of any other Heros. They’re usually 3 - 4” by a year old and an adult size of 7 - 8” by year 2. Sometimes you get monster rotkeils but 7 - 8” is more common.

I’ve got a pair of Heros now that are breeding at 3”. I picked them up at an LFS and their growth had already been compromised, probably from being crammed in a small, dirty tank with poor water for way too long. Though they eat well and spawn, they’ll probably never be more than 4 - 5” fish at most.

 

[bothdays]

beautiful fish!

 

[BMac91]

My severums all took over a year to hit maturity.

I have 2 rotkiels I got December of 2016 1 is about 4” the other closer to 3” both are finally showing color.

But my standard efasciatus, super red and gold all grew about 30% faster.

I think most SA cichlids grow rather slowly- exceptions being chocolates and oscars

My SAs have always been hit and miss when it comes to growth rate, but I think that is common. I will have some that grow like a weed, others that grow pretty normal.
This is my first one that I have had almost a year that just doesn't seem to be putting on size, my concern was exactly what Ryan posted was that it may be a runt or stunted growth for some reason or another.

Runted/stunted. It happens. Healthy rotkeils should grow at the rate of any other Heros. They’re usually 3 - 4” by a year old and an adult size of 7 - 8” by year 2. Sometimes you get monster rotkeils but 7 - 8” is more common.

I’ve got a pair of Heros now that are breeding at 3”. I picked them up at an LFS and their growth had already been compromised, probably from being crammed in a small, dirty tank with poor water for way too long. Though they eat well and spawn, they’ll probably never be more than 4 - 5” fish at most.

Yeah, I was thinking this might be the case. I just thought it was odd that Uaru from January 2018 came in the same size he was in June of 2017 and have already outgrown him in just a few months. Thanks for the info!

beautiful fish!

Thanks!

 

[neutrino]

Mostly agree. I kept rotkeils for years, bred them for a while, raised a lot of fry, and didn't find them to be especially slow growers considering their adult size, which is a bit smaller than most other sevs ime. Most of mine would get minimum 4, up to 5.5, inches in a year, some closer to 6, another couple of inches in year two, maybe an inch after that, depending on individual. Similar growth curve to a lot of cichlids ime-- growth curve, at least in the conditions I raise them, is similar for most cichlids ime, excluding, perhaps, some big, exceptionally fast growing, or especially long lived types (Cyphotilapia, for example, will follow a typical curve for the first two years, but go on adding measurable size for another few years). Fully grown, my rotkeils were pretty consistently in the 8-ish to 9 inch range.

Blood worms don't do much for cichlid growth ime, though as a treat they do seem to encourage spawning in a few species. Better treat for growth is freeze dried mysis-- my experience.

To branch out and be more general about feeding sevs, I sometimes see people recommending low protein, 'veggie' diets for them, and yes they do like to eat plants and veggies, but 'low protein' is a mistake, they should be fed as omnivores.

Since the subject is growth, besides water or tank size, nuances of feeding can come into play and ime a great food for rotkeils is NLS. NLS is not the only product I like, not the only product I ever fed them, and I generally avoid making food recommendations, but mine undeniably looked good on it-- especially, perhaps, the Thera-A. Take it as just my experience.

I've done a LOT of food comparison and testing, have been comparing certain products I like for years, and based on this I suspect some of the varying opinions on food is:
a) sometimes little more than prejudice and personal opinion
b) sometimes because some species will look better on one food vs. another and with other species the difference is negligible-- so in some instances it may depend on the type of fish
c) occasionally other factors, varying characteristics of one tank vs. another, water, stress or illness, etc.

 

[CrazyPhishMan]

I think a lot of confusion exist in the hobby given the different styles of measurement- as these are aquarium fish and not one you catch on a rod and reel sizes should be listed in SL not TL and should omit the tail length. Or at the very least posters should qualify the type of measurement they are referencing for me it’s always SL

 

[neutrino]

I always use total length. I've been an admin on 3 forums, member of a few more, visited many others, and I rarely (or usually never) see it brought up on most forums. An exception might be specialized forums for just a few types of fish; for example, I've seen it sometimes with angelfish, or it makes sense for fancy goldfish. So I assume total length unless someone specifies something else.

Most people selling cichlids use total length. Fishing regulations use total length-- or, for fork tailed fish, forked length. It's a simple way to compare apples to apples within a type or species. What, exactly, is the necessity to deviate from this on a fish forum, except that a minority, small to nonexistent on most forums I've seen, thinks it's an issue?

If this wasn't the case, you'd have to add varying tail lengths according to species to understand the size of a fish in a tank and how much tank it needs. Example, most of the frontosa keeping world knows males can get 12-14 inches, occasionally longer. They fit just fine in a 72 x 18 inch footprint tank, as most of the frontosa keeping world knows, and that's what 80% of the frontosa keeping world keeps them in. This footprint wouldn't work if measurements were actually standard length plus 2-3 inches for their tail.

If omitting tail length was the standard measure for aquarium keeping, you'd constantly need to add tail length anyway-- and this varies by type of fish. You'd have to answer what size tank questions with something like Standard length is x inches, then you add x average inches for the tail on this particular species, so your 55 gal tank is too narrow for a 12 inch fish with a 3 inch tail. Total length, tip of the nose to end of the tail is simpler-- a 13 inch wide tank is too small for a 15 inch fish.

In an aquarium, total length, including tail, is what matters.

 

[CrazyPhishMan]

I always use total length. I've been an admin on 3 forums, member of a few more, visited many others, and I rarely (or usually never) see it brought up on most forums. An exception might be specialized forums for just a few types of fish; for example, I've seen it sometimes with angelfish, or it makes sense for fancy goldfish. So I assume total length unless someone specifies something else.

Most people selling cichlids use total length. Fishing regulations use total length-- or, for fork tailed fish, forked length. It's a simple way to compare apples to apples within a type or species. What, exactly, is the necessity to deviate from this on a fish forum, except that a minority, small to nonexistent on most forums I've seen, thinks it's an issue?

If this wasn't the case, you'd have to add varying tail lengths according to species to understand the size of a fish in a tank and how much tank it needs. Example, most of the frontosa keeping world knows males can get 12-14 inches, occasionally longer. They fit just fine in a 72 x 18 inch footprint tank, as most of the frontosa keeping world knows, and that's what 80% of the frontosa keeping world keeps them in. This footprint wouldn't work if measurements were actually standard length plus 2-3 inches for their tail.

If omitting tail length was the standard measure for aquarium keeping, you'd constantly need to add tail length anyway-- and this varies by type of fish. You'd have to answer what size tank questions with something like Standard length is x inches, then you add x average inches for the tail on this particular species, so your 55 gal tank is too narrow for a 12 inch fish with a 3 inch tail. Total length, tip of the nose to end of the tail is simpler-- a 13 inch wide tank is too small for a 15 inch fish.

In an aquarium, total length, including tail, is what matters.

I’m sorry that I offended you, I remember reading in a book called something like enjoying your aquarium years ago, like I was still in junior high, that SL was the proper measurement of aquarium fish.
I’ve assumed every size I’ve ever read unless otherwise specified was SL.
I personally think this is the much more relevant size, given the flexibility of the tail, in choosing a tank size.

By all means I will not argue with someone over their preferrences- but can admit I assumed incorrectly all this time.

 

[neutrino]

Not offended at all. Just my opinion and what I've seen for the most part. Occasionally I see someone bring it up here and maybe one or two other places, or occasionally on certain forums, like this one, I see someone spell out whether they mean SL or TL. Normally it's a live and let live subject for me, but just this once I thought I'd present my reasoning on it.