Healthier Fish: Treated Wild Caught or Captive Bred?

[revhtree Verified Admin]

Today's QOTD comes to us from R2R member @Feet4Fish and I think it should make for a great discussion! So here we go with the following question.

Which is healthier a wild caught fish that has completed a successful medicated prophylactic QT (quarantine) or a captive bred fish through QT?

image via reeftoaquarium.com

 

[flsalty]

The healthier fish is the one that's healthier. It doesn't really matter if it's wild caught or captive bred. Wild fish can be sick and captive bred fish can be sick.

 

[Surfzone]

I think that both are just as healthy or less healthy as the other. In the case of a wild caught fish that has been in QT and medicated goes back to how the fish was collected and how was it treated in transit to consumer's tank. This will make all the difference in getting the fish to eat especially more sensitive fish like butterfly fish.
As far as captive bred fish go, they are just as likely to come in with some sort of illness due to their proximity to each other. One sick fish could infect an entire system full of captive bred fish. So I think that a QT for these fish are in order too. Remember theses fish are first fed live foods which could have some kind of pathogen that rides into the larval tank. I've lost both Clowns, and Manderins to pathogens in larval rearing. Just because it's captive bred and eating prepared foods doesn't mean that it's healthy.

 

[lapin]

I have to say it is not so much as where they came from, but where they are living now and what they are eating now.

 

[vetteguy53081]

I don't get hypnotized by origin but much prefer captive and mainly pre-owned fish if you call it that and many of mine are pre-owned making them used to out typical water, food and chemicals.

 

[ca1ore]

The conversation I have frequently (locally) is whether, regardless of source, a fish that has gone though a cocktail of meds in QT is healthier or lives longer than one that was just observed in QT. I do the latter rather than the former, so no personal data points to draw any conclusions.

 

[Reeferdude1888]

I think captive bred not because it is healthier than wild caught but because there is less impact on the species from its natural environment just like coral frags and they also are just as stunning as wild caught if you keep good aquarium parameters and maintenance.

 

[cumbeje]

I monitor a fish in QT for 60 days. I treat if I see anything.

 

[The Aquatic Arsenal]

I would promote captive bred fish over wild caught fish any day of the week. I know some collection practices are still not the best as well. Small fish like damsels are shipped from overseas in just enough water to cover them for the most part. I think captive bred fish would be harder, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Bruce Burnett]

I think it has as much to do with how they were handled and shipped. I have to watch the weather if having fish shipped to my home. If the package sits on a UPS truck for 12 hours when it is 120 degrees outside. I don't really think it will make the outcome different.

 

[Blknovass]

I have always had better luck getting captive bred fish eating. In my experience a well fed fish is more healthy. Not to say wild fish won’t eat I have had better luck with captive bred.

 

[Paul B]

The healthiest fish is a wild caught, non quarantined, dipped or medicated fish.
Can't be healthier than a fish in the sea.

 

[Daniel92481]

The healthiest fish is a wild caught, non quarantined, dipped or medicated fish.
Can't be healthier than a fish in the sea.

Hmm. Good point.

 

[TheOldSalt]

Today's QOTD comes to us from R2R member @Feet4Fish and I think it should make for a great discussion! So here we go with the following question.

Which is healthier a wild caught fish that has completed a successful medicated prophylactic QT (quarantine) or a captive bred fish through QT?

image via reeftoaquarium.com

Ok, so my opinion might not be very popular, but here goes.

Wildcaught fish were raised under optimal natural conditions, more optimal than we can provide on a fish farm. They had natural light, the best food, and proper social interaction. They also had exposure to parasites and pathogens, which allowed them to develop a bit of immunity.

Next there is "quarantine."
This means different things to different people, and that's a problem.
A few weeks of observation, followed by "treatment" if the observer sees anything, is terrible and useless.
The disease that wipes out your tank is invariably the one you didn't notice.

The question of this poll is in regard to full and proper prophylaxis.
I have worked as a professional aquarist for many years, and I can absolutely assure you that if every fish is assumed from the start to be carrying every possible affliction, and treated accordingly, you won't have any problems in your tank

Wild fish, properly and fully quarantined and cleansed, are generally better than captive bred fish.

 

[SMB]

A healthy fish is a healthy fish. A captive bread fish may be more likely to survive a quarantine cocktail as it is probably already eating well and may not have been starved as long in shipping.
As mentioned above I prefer to QT new fish with observation only, allowing them to settle in to a feeding regime, gain weight and prove that they are ready for the DT.

 

[DEWreefing]

I believe both fish are fine as long as 100% quarantine is followed. But I do believe a wild caught fish will be less susceptible to illness due to build an immunity if the fish has ever contracted said illness. For instance if a human gets a strain of the flu we build antibodies to fight off that illness same with fish.

 

[Mkissane]

I think that both are just as healthy or less healthy as the other. In the case of a wild caught fish that has been in QT and medicated goes back to how the fish was collected and how was it treated in transit to consumer's tank. This will make all the difference in getting the fish to eat especially more sensitive fish like butterfly fish.
As far as captive bred fish go, they are just as likely to come in with some sort of illness due to their proximity to each other. One sick fish could infect an entire system full of captive bred fish. So I think that a QT for these fish are in order too. Remember theses fish are first fed live foods which could have some kind of pathogen that rides into the larval tank. I've lost both Clowns, and Manderins to pathogens in larval rearing. Just because it's captive bred and eating prepared foods doesn't mean that it's healthy.

Very well said!

 

[54Dutchman]

Paul B, post:
The healthiest fish is a wild caught, non quarantined, dipped or medicated fish.
Can't be healthier than a fish in the sea.

I agree and have used Paul's method with success. Used LFS and online purchases for fish.
(14 month tank)

 

[SimplyVibing]

I would rather have a captive bred fish solely due to population loss in the wild.... I can’t justify snatching fish from their natural habitat just to keep it as a pet. Plus captive bred fish are easier to get eating, less neurotic in tanks, and usually less expensive. So regardless of health captive bred is preferred for me.

 

[MnFish1]

Today's QOTD comes to us from R2R member @Feet4Fish and I think it should make for a great discussion! So here we go with the following question.

Which is healthier a wild caught fish that has completed a successful medicated prophylactic QT (quarantine) or a captive bred fish through QT?

image via reeftoaquarium.com

A healthy wild caught fish which has had no medication - but is doing fine is probably 'the healthiest'. I.e is likely at least partially immune to various diseases etc.