Originally Posted by Breineach1
Don't know if this is necessarily a hijack, but earlier it was mentioned that the fish was a "nice size." Do you prefer to buy fish that are almost mature, or when they are small? I know the younger the fish, the more suseptible it is to disease and infection, but how old is too old vs how young is too young? For an example, I have seen hippos at the LFS that are tiny, but also larger ones that have a higher price tag. If you buy a fish that is already mature, how do you know it's not a risk that the poor guy will die of old age in 6 mos?
Just want to throw out there that some of these fish are believe to live 20 to upwards of 50 years of age and most fish reach a maximum size within a couple of years. So your "large" fish could still have 45 years left of its natural lifespan, so Id never pass a large fish due to the fact that it "may be too old and die soon". On that note, older fish are more set in their ways and can be hard to get eating prepared foods. Picky eaters like angels, butterflies, tangs and preditors like lions, frogfish, etc should be purchased as juvis so they can be easily trained to accept frozen foods.
Generally the smaller the better, but at the same time, too small and they are sensitive to changing conditions. I bought a 0.75" radiata lionfish (damsels dwarfed this thing!). Did a 5+ hour drip and started it on newborn guppies and small ghost shrimp. Now its by far the most active and personable lionfish Ive ever seen and I think starting it in captivity at such a small size had alot to do with that. Its a gamble either way, but 3-4" is a good starter size for most fish.
Jon
) a redmond reef (bentley of sump/fuges) and now i have a 175 model wet/dry.. bleh not my favorite approach with a fowlr because of the possibility of nitrates. I may just end up getting a 20 long and make it to a sump/fuge.. we'll see.
