Do fish eat better in captivity or in the wild?

[Sump Crab]

Honestly I am not sure how anyone can make a valid argument that fish in captivity as a whole are better fed than fish in the wild. No matter how well fed YOUR fish are just stroll through a Petco or PetSmart, look at the average fish buyer, and tell me that the majority of fish kept in aquariums eat better than their wild counterparts.

 

[BZOFIQ]

The ocean!

I've snorkeled in many places and the girth of any fish specimen in their natural habitat is something I VERY rarely see in this hobby. They are just nice and plump.

 

[MnFish1]

I am sorry but I do not understand your reasoning as to why my post "goes against every zoo in the country". Please explain more clearly. Thank you.

You answered 'No' to the original question. You said most people feed cheap food (implying poor quality), You said we can never replicate the food provided in a natural environment - If I take all of these things as 'true' - it implies that you do not feel that most fish are fed properly in captivity. You also say wild food is much better than the food we feed in captivity.

Most zoos do not feed 'wild fresh food' to their animals - yet they thrive and breed. So - what you are saying goes against the practices of most zoos. Again - in the end it all comes down to protein, carbohydrates and fat - and some trace elements/amino acids that might be required - whether its given in a cube - or a black worm - there is no difference.

Also on a slightly different topic - though fish 'graze' continuously throughout the day - they do not always get 'what they need'. I.e. - I dont see any evidence anyone has presented that 2-3 larger feedings a day is worse than letting a fish 'graze'.

 

[MnFish1]

Honestly I am not sure how anyone can make a valid argument that fish in captivity as a whole are better fed than fish in the wild. No matter how well fed YOUR fish are just stroll through a Petco or PetSmart, look at the average fish buyer, and tell me that the majority of fish kept in aquariums eat better than their wild counterparts.

Petsmart and Petco I would not hold up as 'the average fish buyer'. FWIW - I am not implying that the majority of fish kept in aquariums are fed better than their wild counterparts - I'm only saying its completely possible for them to be - with or without live foods.

 

[MombasaLionfish]

I think captive fish are feed better because they are guaranteed a meal every day. While wild fish get better quality.

 

[lapin]

Captive are fed more. Wild eat better. We cannot replicate the wild diet of the fish. Everything they eat (creeepy crawlies) have a lot of bacteria and small living organisms we do not have in our tank.
We feed like we eat. Its all about nutrients now days. Cereal is a good example. Maybe you will get some fiber in some cereals but of them they add everything else to make it somewhat good for you.

 

[siggy]

Video - Livestock Series - Fringe Fish - Part 2 - SaltwaterAquarium.com

www.saltwateraquarium.com

I recall someone mentioned keeping triggers and tusks as debatable....well this popped up today and I thought to post

 

[Sarah24!]

Hello,

I’d say no absolutely not, simply because even as humans we can’t even determine what is good or bad for you. How many times have we said if you eat this then you prevent cancer etc. (something along those lines), yet it seems to change often.

With live animals we study and always make hypothesis
About what they need or what’s better. But we havnt even uncovered 1/4 of the ocean. How could we possibly know? Yes fish may or may not live longer in captivity. Example marine ick or velvet, we can introduce anything wet and risk their lives. In the Wild that’s more unlikely. At the same time yes they don’t have predators, but look at tank aggression? Yes it’s nice because captive breeding has kept animals from extinction. But most of them were do to human interference as to why they were becoming extinct aka condor, rhinos, whales, fish.

So I feed what they like and eat so they can live a long or longer life. But what can’t possibly imagine what it’s like to be in a permanent reef for life. Yes nice no pollution waste or bigger fish to get eaten by among others. Yet slightest water parameter, mishap and fish can die before you have time even react. Mother Nature is the way it is for a reason, maybe we should figure that out.

 

[KLaRue]

This is a question without a simple yes/no answer.
A captive fish kept by a person with sufficient means AND desire will feed those fish with a diet formulated to (hopefully) meet/exceed the dietary needs of the fish. Given that, those fish are at the least having their dietary intake equal their wild kindred.
Those fish that aren’t in the care of one of these fishkeepers, not so much.

 

[Kyuss414]

I have no idea as I'm not a marine biologist, but it does make me wonder if any proper studies have been done on the subject.

 

[Sump Crab]

You answered 'No' to the original question. You said most people feed cheap food (implying poor quality), You said we can never replicate the food provided in a natural environment - If I take all of these things as 'true' - it implies that you do not feel that most fish are fed properly in captivity. You also say wild food is much better than the food we feed in captivity.

Most zoos do not feed 'wild fresh food' to their animals - yet they thrive and breed. So - what you are saying goes against the practices of most zoos. Again - in the end it all comes down to protein, carbohydrates and fat - and some trace elements/amino acids that might be required - whether its given in a cube - or a black worm - there is no difference.

Also on a slightly different topic - though fish 'graze' continuously throughout the day - they do not always get 'what they need'. I.e. - I dont see any evidence anyone has presented that 2-3 larger feedings a day is worse than letting a fish 'graze'.

Yes, you are right that I answered NO to the original question posed. The original question was not if fish in captivity are fed properly or whether or not captive fish receive the essentials to survive and thrive. It was simply if fish eat better in wild or in captivity, to which I believe they feed "better" in the wild.

Obviously zoo's do not feed "wild, fresh food" to their animals. In what world would a zoo source live gazelle to feed to lions? Feeding food like this would be impossible and a zoo's feeding "practices" are based upon this.

Yes we are able to provide our fish with everything they need to survive and in many cases thrive in captivity but to argue that the average fish in captivity is eating any better than they would in nature is crazy. Sure there could be extreme examples in either direction but we are simply talking about the majority, not the minority.

 

[Sump Crab]

Petsmart and Petco I would not hold up as 'the average fish buyer'. FWIW - I am not implying that the majority of fish kept in aquariums are fed better than their wild counterparts - I'm only saying its completely possible for them to be - with or without live foods.

I would say that the average fish keeper is not obsessed with the hobby such as we are but simply a person or family who enjoys having a fish tank to look at. I think it would be naive to think that the casual fish owner is using anything other than some cheap flake food to feed their goldfish, betta, or tetras.

The question posed was: Are fish better fed in captivity or the in the sea? Not if it is possible for captive fish to be more nourished than their wild counterparts. It was a general question that, in my estimation, was asking about the majority of fish in the wild vs the majority of fish in captivity. So if you are "not implying that the majority of fish kept in aquariums are fed better than their wild counterparts" are you then stating that the majority of fish in the wild eat better than the majority or fish in captivity?

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, you are right that I answered NO to the original question posed. The original question was not if fish in captivity are fed properly or whether or not captive fish receive the essentials to survive and thrive. It was simply if fish eat better in wild or in captivity, to which I believe they feed "better" in the wild.

Obviously zoo's do not feed "wild, fresh food" to their animals. In what world would a zoo source live gazelle to feed to lions? Feeding food like this would be impossible and a zoo's feeding "practices" are based upon this.

Yes we are able to provide our fish with everything they need to survive and in many cases thrive in captivity but to argue that the average fish in captivity is eating any better than they would in nature is crazy. Sure there could be extreme examples in either direction but we are simply talking about the majority, not the minority.

Yeah - I think part of the problem is - as others have said - 'what does better mean'. I hope you didnt think I was trying to fight you

 

[Sump Crab]

Yeah - I think part of the problem is - as others have said - 'what does better mean'. I hope you didnt think I was trying to fight you

Nah, were good. I just wanted to understand you and for you to understand me. Have a nice day.

 

[maroun.c]

I'd say fish in the wild.eat better quality food but fish in our tanks are more fed, if we feed enough. I do feed quality foods and boost it with vitamins to increase its value and the difference shows only fish when people with tanks come.abd visit they notice it immediately.
Fish prepared foods have come.a.long way and are still improving unfortunately I do t feel.its a topic many tank keepers are aware of or seeking to improve the quality of the food we give to our fish. Its also difficult for the hobbyist to assess what advantages some foods have to fish or if they are really better in what manufacturers claim.
Yet as we are better able to keep many varieties of fish and also to breed them now with improved foods am sure this will continue to improve.

 

[jx fang]

I believe modern fish foods has improved a lot in recent years.
If a fish can be kept in captivity more than 20 years.
I believe the fish is pretty well fed.
Don't argue with success.
We still have to figure out how to feed those finicky eaters like the moorish idol.