PlanetCatfish.com

what species of walking catfish i could keep in a 75 gallon tank for life

I'd say you probably shouldn't go over 12" for a fish in a 75 gallon, and some people would even call that pushing it. Using the Cat-eLog advanced search and restricting to a maximum length of 12" and to the family Clariidae, you get these results: http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/se ... esults=100

Not that any of the clariids are especially common besides and a few others.

or would be my recommendation - both lovely fish, interesting habits & available in the UK from time to time

Richard B wrote:available in the UK from time to time

But perhaps not in "Manchester, New Hampshire" - yes, they are probably imported to the US from time to time - Rehoboth Aquatics would probably be a good place for trying to get these...

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:

Richard B wrote:available in the UK from time to time

But perhaps not in "Manchester, New Hampshire" - yes, they are probably imported to the US from time to time - Rehoboth Aquatics would probably be a good place for trying to get these...

--
Mats

Errr - oops

Which ones are legal in the US, should be the question....
Amanda

bronzefry wrote:Which ones are legal in the US, should be the question....
Amanda

I'm pretty sure Lake Tanganyika Clariidae would be legal [assuming the legislators didn't lump everything in the family as "bad"].

--
Mats

I have never seen a clariid in the states. I think the family is banned from importation.

From Columbia University's website:

"Control Method: Numerous countries have "blacklisted" the walking catfish. The United States has classified all members of the family Clariidae as injurious wildlife, illegal to possess without a federal permit."

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff ... achus.html

very shortsighted.

they can get away with this because apart for some of us -catfish enthousiasts- few people like those

it would be in the same vein to ban all Loricariids because rampant Pterygoplichthys pardalis is a nasty exotic invasive species

however they did not pull this stunt.

perhaps because of....

gulp

...the money? hint hint

L numbers are all the rage and there's a lot of money to be made in both trade and imports. Clariids are not, few people want to keep them
still there are plenty true tropical species wich cannot survive, not even in Florida.

sidguppy wrote:very shortsighted.

they can get away with this because apart for some of us -catfish enthousiasts- few people like those

it would be in the same vein to ban all Loricariids because rampant Pterygoplichthys pardalis is a nasty exotic invasive species

however they did not pull this stunt.

perhaps because of....

gulp

...the money? hint hint

L numbers are all the rage and there's a lot of money to be made in both trade and imports. Clariids are not, few people want to keep them
still there are plenty true tropical species wich cannot survive, not even in Florida.

I have a hunch that as catfish aquarists we tend to think that L-numbers make up more of the market than they do. I highly doubt that the other L-numbers are even a blip on the radar; if they wanted to ban all loricariids because of P. pardalis, I don't think there are enough people into L-numbers or enough money in L-numbers to stop them. However, they likely won't ban P. pardalis; alone the common plecs bring in a significant chunk of money for pet stores and the trade. I'm willing to bet that P. pardalis makes up more than 95% of loricariid profits in the US. Sure, L-numbers are pricy, but that is likely outweighed by the sheer volume of P. pardalis that are sold. Economics is also probably why lionfish remain unbanned in the US despite the fact they're spreading rapidly in the Atlantic.

Hello,

Going back a bit to the original question, does anyone have experience with keeping Clarias ( ex. c. batrachus ) in a smallish tank? Have you experienced that the fish grows quite large anyway regardless of the confinement or that it has restricted its growth?

Thanks

IME clarias outgrow small tanks & are NOT restricted

Thanks

Clarias batrachus is popular as a aquaculture for food. One of the reasons for it's popularity is that it's quite tolerant to poor water quality. So yes, it will definitely grow to it's potential size despite being in too small a tank - unless you get the water quality so bad that the fish is suffering badly from the poor water, which is hardly something to recommend.

--
Mats

Hello Mats,

No offcourse you are absolutely right, I don´t wish to harm them, I just thought that the confinement and not the water quality could be a size restrictor factor like in the case of Koi carp and goldfish.

At the moment I only have a 65 liter tank, so since now I know it won´t be enough to house them permanently my next question is how long would I be able to keep them in this tank before they outgrow it? I had one albino clarias batrachus many years ago when I was a child and although I passed it on to a friend after a couple of months for eating most of my fish, while I had it, it grew very fast from about 5 cm to 10 in about 2 months if I recall correctly. So what do you think? 3 or 4 months ? More ? Its very relative isn´t it? Maybe I should just restrain myself from buying them until I have a much bigger tank.

Thanks

I would get a tank that is at least 100gal/400 liters FIRST, then get the fish. The other reason these fish are popular as food producing fish is, as you say, that they grow quite quickly. Actually, I'm sure there is a post/thread about growth somewhere on the forum pages... It may be worth doing a forum search, to see if you can find that...

--
Mats

Thanks I will do that, I love them too much to not have them in the best conditions possible.
Thanks to you both for your imput.

Cheers
Sal

good to know, guys - thankx all

Walking cat have been found in numbers in south florida ,on the east coast for about 25 years.

The smaller Channallabes apus or Gymnallabes typus are better aquarium fish than any Clariidae, IMO. They would shred the fins of most other fish placed in with them but at least they didn't get large.
I stocked them all of these at times although the former were rare.
I don't think any of these have been legal in the USA since the Federal ban on all Clariidae went into effect almost 4 decades ago.
I have grown young albino Claria batrachus to 17 inches in a short time in only a 50 gal tank.
They were becoming notorious back when I had a fish shop so the large specimens were kept for about the same reasons most fish shops had at least one Piranha back then.

They would shred the fins of most other fish placed in with them but at least they didn't get large.

I'd like to know how you came by this information, because neither species is a lepidophage and as Clariids go these 2 are quite docile and harmless

they are NOT however as easy to keep. especially Gymnallabes is very prone to skin lesions when the pH goes to 7 or higher; they die quickly in alcaline water and need soft and acidic water to thrive.
a pH of 5.5-6 is perferable, also peaceful tankmates and a very well closed lid or hood; especially for Channallabes since this one is a true escape artist.

I've kept Gymnallabes with docile species like Doras punctatus, Corydoras robinae, Dianema urostriata, Devario pathirana etc and it wouldn't harm any fish, not even the small Akysis hiding in the sand.
it prefers invertebrates as food, not fins of fish.

the favourite food of Channallabes is terrestrial insects and worms. this is a fish that hunts out of the water for bugs and returns to the water once it's done hunting. luckily for us, it also accepts aquatic inverts and even regular fish food


as smaller Clariids go; there's a whole range of rarely imported 7-10" Clarias species that would do just fine in a 75G, but the hardest trick is to get them. by catches are the best oppertinuty.
I have never seen any small Clariid go after the fins of other fish. some do eat small fishes, but not pieces
the larger species, yes, they can be voracious.

sidguppy wrote:Pterygoplichthys pardalis is a nasty exotic invasive species

I would submit that the main reason why Clariidae is banned but P. pardalis is not is that the latter does not decimate populations of indigenous species of fish by voraciously eating them.

My experiences with them are what they are. They attacked some wild Aplocheilus dayi I received from the same source and shipment,
I glad your specimens were so well behaved. Mine were not quite as perfect citizens but they have much more to recommend for themselves than Clarias.

Any experienced aquarists realizes that not everyone has the same experience with a given species.
All I can comment on is my experience with those I had.

I would submit that the main reason why Clariidae is banned but P. pardalis is not is that the latter does not decimate populations of indigenous species of fish by voraciously eating them

lack of knowledge by the officials then

Pterygoplichthys pardalis does eat and attack other animals, among them the endangered manatee (!!) wich have no defense against a herd of pleco's at all.
also it outcompetes aufwuchs feeders in certain arera like for example Theraps in Central America and many grazing fishes anywhere else
lastly it has a devastating impact on the flora and the algae growth, resulting in turbid water with less vegetation wich results in less fish and more parasites and diseases

it doesn't eat many other fishes outright, but the impact on the whole ecosystem by Pterygoplichthys is much much larger than that of Clarias.

sidguppy wrote:Pterygoplichthys pardalis does eat and attack other animals, among them the endangered manatee (!!) wich have no defense against a herd of pleco's at all.

I tried to find a reference for this - I found something that said that they were "annoyed" by the fish foraging for food on the manatees. , but not quite what I'd call an "attack".

They do, however, cause a problem for fish-eating birds that don't expect that they will be as spiney and difficult to swallow, causing the bird to die either from starvation over a period of time or from puncture wounds from the fins of the fish.

--
Mats

Sid and Mats,

You both added to a more accurate description of why and how Clarias make a greater negative effect to the non-native environments. Each does harm and change the original ecosystem in many ways. Some changes are more obvious and sensational than others but both species do change their non-native environment and displace natives either directly or indirectly.

While I agree that Pterygoplichthys will have a big effect and their effect is not necessarily known, it's not just lack of knowledge by officials, but lack of knowledge by science. Very few studies have been performed on the actual impact of invasive Pterygoplichthys or an invasive fish similar to it, while knowledge of an invasive predator that can even walk on land is pretty apparent.

Hi Milton,

I agree that it is more difficult to assess the effects the big plecos have in non-native habitats, intuitively, I think they must be displacing the food source of native fish, specially their fry in such a way as to maintain a similar biomass of fish but one with a different cross section from the natives. It is possible that big plecos exploit food sources which were not extensively used by natives so there may be some mitigating factors but in the aggregate, their numbers seem to be high enough that they must be having some influence.
I think they are probably doing more harm to the smaller native species whose fry may not be finding their first foods as abundant. I know that most Centarchids spawn in the open and few are aggressive enough to defend their nests from the onslaught of a 20 inch Pleco coming in at night and vacuuming up entire broods of eggs or larvae.
Some kind of equivalent exchange must be occurring which is not simple to measure.
Given the more dramatic invasive species like Ball Pythons who knows when anyone will do any research to define what effects the large plecos are actually having? The adults do weaken the dikes and canal walls by their digging breeding burrows but those are man made constructions and therefore are not natural in and of themselves unless one is wedded to the anthropic principle that the earth, its plants and creatures exist for us to do with as we please. To a large extent, that is why societies have so much ambivalence when it comes to the subject of invasive species.

For decades there has been an underground war between fisheries management agencies and small mouth bass fishermen in Central Washington. Small mouth Bass fishermen keep reintroducing bass to trout lakes and the State poisons the lakes and restocks them with trout. This cycle has been repeated many times in the same lakes in a area where there is no shortage of lakes suitable for keeping plenty of good bass or trout fisheries but the bass keep being reintroduced and even into prime quality trout fisheries. Human nature is difficult to change. This part of my post reminds me of Mat's(grokefish) comments re: Hoplos, about who is to say if newly introduced species weren't meant to be introduced to new environments sooner or later?

At the very least, there's much more money in funding invasive species research than there is simple taxonomy, and I do believe research on invasives is on the rise. There are a couple papers on Pterygoplichthys impacts in Florida, although I have not read them, and papers published on Pterygoplichthys I'm sure will continue to increase. I am on the fence, but it's a possibility that I will get involved with studying invasive Pterygoplichthys as well.