Fahaka max size

[RTR]

I have to respectfully but very strongly disagree with the idea that captive fish will not reach the wild size. That is contrary to my experience with a wide variety of fish, including puffers. A captive fish should reach or exceed the wild caught size IF it is properly housed and maintained. That particular concept is, I am sure, the result of under-housing and inappropriately feeding and insufficiently maintaining captive fish.

IME, the requirements that have to be met that I have identified so far include:

1. A generous sized tank. Do note that the tank sizes suggested in the PufferPedia are minimum sizes for adequate housing. I would suggest an additional 50% increase in size to be generous. Also note that the fish should be housed in such a tank from quarantine forward. To me the so-called bit of "moving the fish up as it needs it" does not work at all - for me it all but guarantees under-sized fish.

2. A visually complex environment (set-up,decor) with proper substrate and water conditions for that particular fish.

3. Appropriate feeding for the fish, without overfeeding. This is not always easy on either point.

4. Solitary specimens other than for the dwarf puffer and the schooling SAPs. It is likely best if their tank abuts another tank with either another puffer of the same species, or second best - any other fish of significant size similar to the puffer in scale and activity.

5. Start with small, young, and apparently healthy fish. You never know whether or not a larger specimen is stunted or has been seriously mishandled.

6. Careful and conscientious maintenance of the highest water quality that you can get. The large puffers IME require just as much attention in one way or another as a dog. If you realistically cannot provide that, be honest with yourself and opt for something smaller. Stinting on equipment and upkeep for large fish is self-defeating. Don't paint yourself into that corner.

If you can meet and maintain those points, your puffer should meet or exceed wild size and hugely exceed wild lifespan. If they work for me, they can work for anyone.

HTH

[Pufferpunk]

I have to respectfully but very strongly disagree with the idea that captive fish will not reach the wild size. That is contrary to my experience with a wide variety of fish, including puffers. A captive fish should reach or exceed the wild caught size IF it is properly housed and maintained. That particular concept is, I am sure, the result of under-housing and inappropriately feeding and insufficiently maintaining captive fish.

That's what I keep trying to tell everyone!!!

[Myaj]

Simple common sense says that a fish that is well taken care of and doesn't have to struggle for food, battle over territory, suffer from parasites and fluctuations of water quality will grow larger than one in the wild!

Give them plenty of clean water and proper food, and they should pretty much always outgrow their wild counterparts. Of course, the question is, CAN the fish owner really provide them with better conditions than they'd find in the wild.. if not, they probably shouldn't try to keep the fish. When it comes to the big guys, tank size and water quality is the most obvious part of this equation.

[J-P]

Can I ask a stupid question here?

I watced a documentary on domesticated animals and it showed that through the generations they actually got smaller than thir wilder relitaves. I understand most puffers are wild caught and thus should live healthier happier lives in an approproiate sized tank, but could the type of infor the Doc has produced help confuse the issue, or is it more along the lines of stunting?

[Myaj]

I would venture a guess that most domesticated animals have become smaller because humans selectively bred them that way. I highly doubt little poodles would have survived very well out in the wild, but a 140lb wolf running around a small apartment doesn't work too well either!

Other species, horses for example, have only gotten larger as humans have domesticated them. So it goes both ways, the humans pick out which ones they like best, and those are the ones they encourage to breed.

[RTR]

J-P: There are three separate issues in apparent, but not real (IMHO) conflict:

1. The issue of terminal tank size versus terminal wild size. This is no real conflict, as Myaj has pointed out plus one more factor- that captives (assuming optimum care) far outlive their wild counterparts. These fish all have full wild genome, there has been no selection from all the potential of their cousins. What is done with excellent care is permitting these fish to express their true genetic potential. Wild conditions may or may not allow that expression. Even if wild conditions are permissive, there is still chance and competition. Many hobby fish are effectively annuals in the wild - they hatch and grow through their first year, spawn at the turn of that year, and that is it. Only a very small percentage of most FW schoolers make it through their second year in the wild. Some other groups may have multiple individuals who routinely live several years and spawn annually. But they represent a tiny fraction of their year's hatch. Remember, if a male fish produces one male offspring that survives to breed, his place in the gene pool is preserved. Ditto for one female with one surviving female offspring. Most egg-layers spawn profusely, with far less than one percent survival to breeding. If a pair produces more than one pair of offspring that survive to breeding, they have enlarged their genes' presence in the gene pool. More than that and they are the fish equivalent of Genghis Khan.

2. You cannot forget that wild fish do not live long on the average. Even reaching sexual maturity is statistically a rare event - which they compensate for with fertility. And fish never stop growing. Our captive long life potential means more time for growth, more size, even if post-puberty growth is slower than immature growth rates. If the fish is generously housed from the get-go, it can be larger at puberty than if it is moved up several times "when it needs it" (an expression that is bad for my blood pressure), and without compromising water quality. And it can continue growing more slowly for years longer than the wild counterparts.

3. There are valid (again IMO) arguments on both sides of the domesticated versus wild size arguments. Domesticated animals are exactly that, domesticated. They are bred by people to suit the people's needs or fancies, not always and largely by the leader of the pack or the strongest of the herd. Wild horses were originally tiny and grew to pony size before domestication. There ain't no Clydesdales in the wild. People generated larger horses for strength and stamina. Domesticated cattle bred themselves to climate adaptations by those best-adapted to local climates surviving, and also by their owners/herders for particular use - dairy or meat or whatever, or compromises between those. Their survival and reproduction is controlled not solely by conditions, but by decisions of their owners and keepers. That makes abstractions on topics such as size variation largely meaningless. Dog sizes are human generated.

Some of our fish are domesticated - they have been bred in captivity for more than long enough. Most of the livebearers are and have suffered from it. Quite a number of egg-layers are as well. Angelfish (one species, scalare) is long domesticated by generations. Other very closely related species (altum) are still fully wild. Discus are rapidly becoming domesticated. Angelfish are commonly seen at "mature" sizes far below their wild potential, but that is from lack of attention to proper space and feeding and upkeep by the large majority of hobbyists - the breeders' fish are not small if it is a commercial scale operation. Those hobby-tank fish have the potential, but do not achieve it due to less-than-optimum care. Wild caught fish can be easily stunted as well, all it takes is crowding and poor care.

There are many variations in any wild stock. Albinos in moist species do not easily survive, even if the trait does not carry other detrimental genes. That can be purely based on visibility. Abinos stand out. predators can target them. Ditto long fins - they make the fish slower. Tank reared albinos are common. They are selected by their keepers, not by the forces of nature. Ditto for the other tank selected variations on wild coloring and form.

You can take wild stock and selectively breed for a huge number of traits - an amazing number to me. You can selectively breed mice for high or low blood counts, and it only takes about seven generation to move the couts totally outside the normal range. You go through a lot of mice, but many traits can be as easily selected for or against. That amazes me. The huge variations seen in domesticated animals is no longer so impressive. Can you regenerate the wild type? Only likely if it still exists in sufficient numbers and variety to be typed for comparison, IMO.

[J-P]

ahhh yes... they did mention selective breeding.

They only examined dogs and cats and did reverse engineering on both.. found that they got smaller.

Missed the section where they were doing Emu and Ostrich back to dinosaurs