<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10419675#post10419675 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by A3zrider
Well nurse sharks grow to over 10 feet in the wild but they seem to be the most common thing people put in their tanks. After some reading on that subject I'm under the impression that you can dictate their growth based on the size of the enviroment and the rate at with you feed them. Atlantic sharp nose is also a possibility and they only reach 2 1/2 feet in the wild
Actually, no. Jack Wattley, other renowned breeders, as well as biologists have done different studies into this wonderfully moronic urban legend that "fish grow to the size of their tank."
No offense guys, but this is a really common "rule" that is utterly bunk, and different studies have gone into this myth- all of which proving the theory wrong. Well, okay, admittedly, these studies proved it right, but in the wrong way, if that makes any sense.
The most startling example of this was an experiment involving oscars. The last time the topic of "fish grow to the size of their tank" came up, I typed up the whole thing. This time, I'm too tired to do that. So, you guys get to head to your local library or calling TFH to read back issues. However, it was in an issue of TFH under the Skeptical Fishkeeper. The article pointed to the Jack Wattley discus experiment, but also to an experiment involving oscars. Both experiments involved keeping fish in conditions that breeders and biologists would consider to be well below the minimum aquarium size. And while the fish in these small conditions did not reach a normal growth size (*as well as being more sickly and slightly deformed in cases), that was not true answer. See, as a control, both Jack Wattley and the other keeper did massive water changes in one of the groups on a near daily basis. In those control groups, the fish reached an optimal growth speed.
While both tanks contained the same amount of fish, the same equipment, the same temps, and the same feeding/amount of food, the only difference was water quality. There, in fact, is the rub. Fish with a larger biomass produce FAR more wastes than smaller animals. In smaller tanks, there is less water to dillude these toxins over. So, yeah, you'll keep a large growing animal from getting large, but you will be basically slowly poisoning it to death.
In the case of sharks, I would RARELY recommend it to an experienced keeper with a large tank and I would
NEVER recommend it to a newbie.
Check out why:
1.) Sharks are easily damaged. Their underbellies have a soft flesh that can be quickly ripped and scratched to bits by most substrates. Only superfine or sugarfine substrates can be used for sharks.
2.) Sharks QUICKLY grow large and outgrow most tanks. Get ready for a huge most-likely custom build, even if you're looking at a more dimunitive shark variety such as the small catsharks.
3.) Sharks are highly sensitive to stray electrical currents in the water, as well as some species having an exceptional sensitivity to electromagnetic fields. All equipment needs to be grounded out, as well as having a grounding probe.
4.) Be prepared to be eaten out of house and home. While some would argue a few large feedings a week is sufficient, the larger your shark grows, the more and more you're going to have to feed it more and more. And a varied diet at that!
5.) And the worst of all. Sharks are very dependent on excellent water quality.
If you're so interested in saltwater predators, why not start off with eels, triggers, or lionfish? They're large growing, with fascinating aggression and hunting patterns, as well as being relatively hardy and easy to come by. If you can be persuaded off of sharks, why not a smaller, hardier variety shark, such as the coral catshark, the bamboo shark, or the epaulette shark? Get your feet wet first before you attempt to keep animals well beyond your skill level. If you have any further questions, you can also check out the large tanks forums, or here for more info!
Welcome to the hobby!
You asked for advise but than don't want to take it.
