???tank Size???

ME · Post by ME » 04 Apr 2004, 00:54

I have 2 flat bullheads (currently about 3" maybe), it says they grow to be about 11.6" i have a 40 gal tank 36" long and about 13" wide will this be a good home for them?

Wood · Post by **Wood** » 04 Apr 2004, 02:39

For a while but plan on getting a much larger onf. Good luck.

lilobitrice14 · Post by **lilobitrice14** » 27 Jul 2004, 16:06

I'd get a 180 gallon tank or 300.But they would do better in a pond or lake.If i were me i'd raise it till its bout 14 inches in a 135 gallon tank and then i would release it into a lake or pond.

Taratron · Post by **Taratron** » 27 Jul 2004, 21:51

Please do NOT release your fish into a local lake. The potential for disease tranmission is exceedingly high.

Once you have an animal in captivity, it is exposed to many disease pathogens it would not encounter in the wild. Releasing the animal into the wild introduces such diseases and parasites into an ecosystem that cannot cope with them. Think of the Native Americans with smallpox scenario.

Stevetd · Post by **Stevetd** » 29 Jul 2004, 10:08

I'd have to agree with Taratron, that was pretty irresponsible advice from lilobitrice14!!!

a.d.wood · Post by **a.d.wood** » 29 Jul 2004, 13:26

I would actually argue that its the other way around.

We keep our fish in a controlled environment and when disease occurs, we treat and eradicate that disease from the system. Therefore the potential for introducing new diseases to the environment must be minimal (but still possible!!).

The biggest problem would be releasing a captive fish (which is acclimatised to specific light, water food etc conditions) into an environment where this conditioning is likely to be in conflict with the natural environment and put this fish at a major disadvantage not to mention the host of disease causing bugs it will also come into contact with (and I would think this even applies to large catfish).

On saying all that though, I would be interested to see other peoples thoughts on releasing indigenous species back into the environment??????

Andrew

Stevetd · Post by **Stevetd** » 29 Jul 2004, 13:49

You also have a point. Disease transmission can be a two-way process.
Over-time, a fish will have built up a certain level of immunity to conditions
typical of a home aquarium. Upon release, these conditions do not exist in the
wild so this immunity is useless - and vice versa with the fish being exposed to
conditions not encountered in aquariums.
Keeping the fish with un-natural tankmates (i.e from different parts of the world)
may also result in the transmission of diseases whilst the fish is captive.
Releasing the fish back to it's natural environment, it will then be carrying foreign diseases
to which other fish will have no immunity!
The idea of fishkeeping for most, is to replicate the natural environment of a particular
species - so therefore releasing into the wild shouldn't result in conditions
totally and utterly different to those already experienced?

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 29 Jul 2004, 17:53

Wrote:

I would actually argue that its the other way around.

We keep our fish in a controlled environment and when disease occurs, we treat and eradicate that disease from the system. Therefore the potential for introducing new diseases to the environment must be minimal (but still possible!!).

Andrew,
There is no such thing as ERADICATION of a disease organism. Disease organism are ubiquitous and cannot to any level of assuredness be even remotely considered "eradicated". Besides, we are talking about much more that the protozoan "ICK". These diseases (at least those we can identify) include protozoans, bacteria AND viruses.
Controllable in the aquarium? Yes to some degree. Limited to the point of not longer causing visible symptoms? Yes. Eradicated? No. Not possible.

Properly cared for in a stress free environment, the fish in our systems develop an immune response sufficient to control diseases present. They are continually exposed and are constantly fighting off infection/disease. Just like every other living organism in it's respective environment. Just because you cannot detect a visible symptom of pathogen doesn't mean it's not present and doesn't mean there isn't a battle being waged for the health of your fish (or even you for that matter)

History would argue strongly against you. Look at the affects of captive Tortioses in the natural range of the Gopher Tortiose. Captive animals that were exposed to viral pathogens common and considered "harmless" in other species of Tortiose(even in the captive Gopher Tortioses). These pathogens now cause "Heartwater disease" that is decimating the wild populations of these animals.

You couldn't be more wrong...

a.d.wood · Post by **a.d.wood** » 30 Jul 2004, 09:15

Hi,

I was coming from the view of a microbiologist and concern over bacteria entering the environment(my own background), certainly protozoans present a whole different issue.

For a disease causing bacteria to survive, it must have a host. Without that host then the organism will die (although certain bacteria have survival stages such as spores). I would have thought the most common disease causing bacteria that our fish (tanks and environment) are exposed to will be the enteric organisms (campylobacter, salmonella etc are the well known ones). They will either cause a disease or will not be present, they are not part of the commensal flora (organisms that are always present but do not cause disease unless the opportunity arises, eg E coli) and will therefore not be present in the fish if it is healthy.

Eradication > this does work, the classic example being smallpox (although we know this organism is maintained in some laboratories, human and animal infections have been eradicated).

And my comments at releasing to the wild were directed at indigenous species, not non indigenous species.

Certainly the problem we face with micro organisms is their ability to adapt (rapidly!!) and break all the rules we have established!!

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 30 Jul 2004, 17:32

adoo wrote:

For a disease causing bacteria to survive, it must have a host.

Not true. What about Pseudomonas/Aeromonas (spelling may be off a bit, been a few years since I took Microbiology). They are clearly opportunistic and can survive quite readily without a host. But that's not really the debate.

The debate is rather: Is it a good idea for an aquarist to release captive fishes (even inside of their natural range) into the environment?

Adoo also wrote:

Eradication > this does work, the classic example being smallpox (although we know this organism is maintained in some laboratories, human and animal infections have been eradicated).

I knew this example would come up, I just got tired of typing by the end of the previous post.
Smallpox was "eliminated" by results of a WORLDWIDE cooperative effort spanning several decades. Millions of people (and animals) have died as a result of this infection. Do you honestly believe such an effort would be expended on animals (possibly obscure species) in an aquatic ecosystem? Species with undefined/underdefined roles in the environment? Let's be realists here.

You also didn't address the role of Viruses in diseases. These (as well as Protozoans, bacteria, etc.) may be present in numbers sufficient to wipe out a given population, but may be attenuated by it's history. This attenuation may/or more likely may not hold once introduced into an open system.
Bacteria can behave in a similar manner. Case I am leading to is demonstrated in Mycobacterium infections(TB). The causative agent may be present but in a nonvirulent form. Conjugation (primary functional mechanisms in this)...

their ability to adapt (rapidly!!) and break all the rules we have established!!

...can rapidly create extremely virulent forms that we see at Tuberculosis infections.

Menengitis infections can lay dormant for decades, only to crop up periodically. I could continue but I think my point is made.

You also haven't addressed the fundimental question eluded to, but not directly asked in my previous post. How is an aquarist to KNOW? How would one of us know whether or not a disease organism with untold destructive potential in the nature biome is present in our aquariums? Your statement in your initial post that diseases are "ERADICATED" assumes that knowledge where none truely exists.

Scientists with full Microbiological Laboratories at their disposal have a hard time debating the potential risks of the re-introduction of species that are CRITICALLY ENDANGERED. Without full understanding of the potential, we have no business even considering it.