According to swai farmers they reach market size(2-3 lbs) in under a year, some as quickly as six months, and have a far better feed conversion ratio than channel cats. If the fish are staying small it's almost certainly some failure in husbandry. I'm not passing judgement as it seems many who provide what we would consider at least decent conditions have the same issue.8" in 125 gal is good, IMO.
That's what I used to think too for years based on my experience and that of others. I have changed my view because of the threads like this http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/f...05668-ID-sharks-theories&highlight=IDS+growth
There appears to be some IDSs that grow slow and small. ATM, it remains an unexplained mystery AFAIK.
Right. But I wouldn't rely on words in this case. We need good photos. Moreover, can someone cite a source or a study for this connection between eye size and stunting. I have never heard it and want to learn, please. Till then, please allow me remaining dubious.hmm quite peculiar. But he did say that the eyes were large in comparison to the body, so that may be an indication that it is stunted.
At the face value, this is a very strange statement. Elaborate, please, if you will.I'm glad that you brought up large eyes. Both sharks have large eyes that do not react to fungal or bacterial treatment...
Right and all agreeable, except maybe the feed conversion ratio and the undeniable fact that a large % of IDSs sold grow slow and small in proper care.According to swai farmers they reach market size(2-3 lbs) in under a year, some as quickly as six months, and have a far better feed conversion ratio than channel cats. If the fish are staying small it's almost certainly some failure in husbandry. I'm not passing judgement as it seems many who provide what we would consider at least decent conditions have the same issue.
I've never heard of dwarfism in IDS. Can anyone confirm or refute?Maybe theyr just minis (Wich apparently is seen before), but if not these Guys are seriuesly stunted, and the big eyes point to that. If theyr 5 years old they should be 2ft to 2,5ft and are under 1 foot, Theres a real problem... Im not an Expert on stunted fish, but i dont know if a bigger tank would help, or they would just remain on this size.
I am not. The fact of fast growth does support your thinking. The fact that they remained 8" in a 125 gal does not. Can it be that your water changes are exceedingly small/rare? This leads to an accumulation of the growth-inhibiting hormones in the water and, hence, to stunted fish.Every time I've graduated them to a larger tank, they grow quickly, giving them only a few months of true free space in a tank. So, while I recover financially from tank to tank, I move ornaments and fish around to make space. So, I'm confident these are the true-blue 4' ID sharks...
Is it possible to set up an intex pond for them? That would be cheap. Or at least a 300 gal rubbermade tub....I'm so glad I found this forum, and thank all of you very much for your quick, honest, and informed replies. I had no idea my progress was too slow for their growing bodies. I'll find the fastest way to find these two guys a larger home.
With cichlids at least large eyes in comparison to body means stunting. It happened with my kenyi when I first tried them (kenyi are about as elongated as an id shark scaled down of course). Their eyes were large and I thought it was normal until years laters when I got new kenyi and properly cared for them. I can't imagine this only happening with cichlids. Sorry, I have no scientific papers about this though.Right. But I wouldn't rely on words in this case. We need good photos. Moreover, can someone cite a source or a study for this connection between eye size and stunting. I have never heard it and want to learn, please. Till then, please allow me remaining dubious.
AFAIK, the body parts of a stunted fish do not change their proportions significantly (we are not talking short-body fish here).