Tank size does affect growth rates

[Anonymous]

Yeah, that's kinda what I was driving at (in terms of hormones or other chemical compounds that affect life processes) . I have been under the impression, though, that hormones can have both positive and negative effects, though.

There is so much to consider with an idea like this.

 

[sammy stingray]

Wow, I just checked back to see what you guys thought about the post I made....absolutely great responses. I saw diet mentioned a few times regarding the full grown size of fish, and how can you not agree with that when we have even seen this with humans the last few centuries? This would of course have little to do directlywith tank size on fish other than feeding less to keep a small tank at a lower bioload or the fish being stressed due to tank size and eating less healthy. What is the ultimate question, that many seem to claim exists, is "why would a healthy fish in a clean tank stunt it's own growth"....OK, so some agree that poor water quality would effect growth, but how does the common hobbiests determine what exactly in that "poor water" caused it? I really wish I would have asked the guy a few more questions about this when he was around. I would not doubt that some of the articles, some may have read, in magazines may have been written by him. I don't think the idea too unthinkable at all, but I actually have no idea whatsoever because I am just a common hobbiests, and of course, I have never done testing even close to this. It was interesting what he said back then, and I really appreciate the intelligent responses you guys gave in this post. Perhaps I will post here more often. Please, don't stop posting on this subject for our original poster and the untold thousands who are still debating this all over the world, and happy Thanksgiving to you guys. Great posts.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps I will post here more often

Please do!

We appreciate your input, sammy.

 

[Apophis924]

Interesting ideas indeed. The thing that leads me to discount the idea of growth inhibitor hormones is the sexual maturity thing. A speices is not considered successful unless it can produce fertile off spring. You can have two speices. One that lives 100 years and can out perform all others in its enviroment but only breeds once a year. And it takes its offspirng 2 years to reach sexual maturity. The other species lives 10 years and is not fast or strong. Yet it has off spring 3 times a year and they reach sexual maturity in 1 year. Now from a BIOLOGICAL/Darwinian point of view The latter species is more sucessful. Because its produces fertile offspring more often and reaches sexual matruity sooner then the other in time it will out compete its counter part. Growth inhibiting hormones would also retard sexual devlopement. which is a death sentence in terms of survial of the speices. You may be stronger, faster and live longer than me But if I produce more fertile off spring more often I (my species) will be the more sucessful in terms of biology. Growth inhibiting hormones would be counter productive against another species or even ones own species since these fish that limit growth based on the tank size are not in competion with anything bu themselves or else everyone else in the tank would stop growing but the the fish emitting the hormones. Biological it just doesnt work, no matter how nice and neat the theory fits into what we as untrained observers think we see. We must always be careful not to draw faulty conculions form untrained or tainted observations.