TT: Yes, because most TSNs are kept in 55 gallon tanks and fed flake food...
TBTB: Fair to say (if one means to sarcastically exaggerate) and in general I'd agree but my statement above excludes improper husbandry and also represents our collective MFK current mode operanti with respect to understanding TSN issues in our trade and hobby. I cannot take much credit for it but guys like
wednesday13
who raised about 75-100 TSNs to adulthood can.
The consensus is: there are two TSN sources - the culls from SA food fish farms and the TSN produced extremely cheaply for ornamental fish trade in SE Asia. Both are vastly inferior fish, runts, dinks, deformed fish, garbage, refuse, underperformers, and all are the same species - Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum. There is a a chance they carry some other species DNA in their genes too but it's so diluted by the overall inferiority of their DNA make up that it results in no advantage.
These inferior TSNs not only fail to grow to the expected sizes but also grow much slower than expected and die in 5-10 years of age versus at least several decades as expected.
All those are $5-$15 all over the world. There is a small fraction of wild-caught TSN in the trade for $50-$75 and those can grow to nice sizes, again, subject to proper husbandry, which is rarely found, I agree with you again here. Neither it is easy to verify that the TSN tagged w/c is indeed w/c. The temptation to up one's profit 10x is very high.
TT: The video isn't intended to represent a rule but find me a video of a 3.3' foot tigrinus and I'll eat my shoes.
TBTB: I don't understand why tigrinus gets dragged into this exchange of opinions but 3' tigs have been shown and reported, including on MFK.
TT: TSNs tend to be more active and pelagic than a lot of other cats recommended is this thread as well, which is why I suggest something like a tigrinus is a better choice. I can count on one hand the number of people with comfortably housed adult TSNs and they are all the biggest fish in their tank.
TBTB: Then I am not on your hand. My TSNs are far from the biggest fish in my tanks
Perhaps my husbandry leaves much to be desired but I try my best.
TT: Moreover TSNs tend to be more active and pelagic than say, a tigrinus.
TBTB: Agreed.
TT: I just want to make sure that OP is 100% sure what he's getting into.
TBTB: Agreed.
TT: Also I think the problem is more complicated than TSNs being "garbage gene" fish. There are 8 species in the Pseudoplatystoma genus collectively called "TSN" and there isn't sufficient data out there to characterize the genus.
TBTB: The last two revisons of the genus disagree (one has 4 species, one has 8, and there is one more article positing a 9th species), so yes, the genus is in a bit of a limbo, I agree, but we appear to be able to tell at least 4-5 species - fasciatum, tigrinum, reticulatum, punctifer, and corruscans.
TT: Moreover a lot of "garbage gene" fish get a lot bigger than their pure predecessors (liger).
TBTB: By garbage genes I don't imply hybrids at all. One species. Poor parentage line or genetic hiccups.
TT: Nobody knows how big RTCxTSNs get for that matter.
TBTB: These have been produced for 15 years now as food in SA. Their max size is well known and is about 4'.
TT: I think its a safer bet to assume that you have TSN that could get very big rather than make the assumption that you have a "garbage gene" fish that won't get much bigger than 2'.
TBTB: I am trying to describe the cumulative empirical picture collected out in the field and reported here on MFK over the last decade. The facts are not a matter of opinions. Their interpretation may be.
TT: I don't think anyone but an ichthyologist can answer that question.
TBTB: Perhaps, if you wanted to rationalize the facts / observations on a molecular and DNA analysis level.
Thanks for a great discussion, bro.
TBTB: Fair to say (if one means to sarcastically exaggerate) and in general I'd agree but my statement above excludes improper husbandry and also represents our collective MFK current mode operanti with respect to understanding TSN issues in our trade and hobby. I cannot take much credit for it but guys like
wednesday13
who raised about 75-100 TSNs to adulthood can.The consensus is: there are two TSN sources - the culls from SA food fish farms and the TSN produced extremely cheaply for ornamental fish trade in SE Asia. Both are vastly inferior fish, runts, dinks, deformed fish, garbage, refuse, underperformers, and all are the same species - Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum. There is a a chance they carry some other species DNA in their genes too but it's so diluted by the overall inferiority of their DNA make up that it results in no advantage.
These inferior TSNs not only fail to grow to the expected sizes but also grow much slower than expected and die in 5-10 years of age versus at least several decades as expected.
All those are $5-$15 all over the world. There is a small fraction of wild-caught TSN in the trade for $50-$75 and those can grow to nice sizes, again, subject to proper husbandry, which is rarely found, I agree with you again here. Neither it is easy to verify that the TSN tagged w/c is indeed w/c. The temptation to up one's profit 10x is very high.
TT: The video isn't intended to represent a rule but find me a video of a 3.3' foot tigrinus and I'll eat my shoes.
TBTB: I don't understand why tigrinus gets dragged into this exchange of opinions but 3' tigs have been shown and reported, including on MFK.
TT: TSNs tend to be more active and pelagic than a lot of other cats recommended is this thread as well, which is why I suggest something like a tigrinus is a better choice. I can count on one hand the number of people with comfortably housed adult TSNs and they are all the biggest fish in their tank.
TBTB: Then I am not on your hand. My TSNs are far from the biggest fish in my tanks
Perhaps my husbandry leaves much to be desired but I try my best.TT: Moreover TSNs tend to be more active and pelagic than say, a tigrinus.
TBTB: Agreed.
TT: I just want to make sure that OP is 100% sure what he's getting into.
TBTB: Agreed.
TT: Also I think the problem is more complicated than TSNs being "garbage gene" fish. There are 8 species in the Pseudoplatystoma genus collectively called "TSN" and there isn't sufficient data out there to characterize the genus.
TBTB: The last two revisons of the genus disagree (one has 4 species, one has 8, and there is one more article positing a 9th species), so yes, the genus is in a bit of a limbo, I agree, but we appear to be able to tell at least 4-5 species - fasciatum, tigrinum, reticulatum, punctifer, and corruscans.
TT: Moreover a lot of "garbage gene" fish get a lot bigger than their pure predecessors (liger).
TBTB: By garbage genes I don't imply hybrids at all. One species. Poor parentage line or genetic hiccups.
TT: Nobody knows how big RTCxTSNs get for that matter.
TBTB: These have been produced for 15 years now as food in SA. Their max size is well known and is about 4'.
TT: I think its a safer bet to assume that you have TSN that could get very big rather than make the assumption that you have a "garbage gene" fish that won't get much bigger than 2'.
TBTB: I am trying to describe the cumulative empirical picture collected out in the field and reported here on MFK over the last decade. The facts are not a matter of opinions. Their interpretation may be.
TT: I don't think anyone but an ichthyologist can answer that question.
TBTB: Perhaps, if you wanted to rationalize the facts / observations on a molecular and DNA analysis level.
Thanks for a great discussion, bro.
