The December FOTM Contest Poll is open!
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆
It is known, however, that the
alarm pheromone of a species can affect even members of another superorder, if the
receiving species also has an alarm pheromone system
interesting read, but after searching several state/goverment studies on fish, I have yet to see one report on the growth inhibitors that is taking over the fish hobby. I am beggining to believe it is false. As for the fish not taking on color would not mean that a pheromone is inhibiting growth, it could mean the fish just didnt develop it until the father was removed. Not wanting to start an argument but I have become very intrigued by the "growth inhibitor" and whether or not it is true. I believe several factors could be causeing growth stunting in fish and I doubt it would be a pheromone that would be the culprit. I wont labor over the reasons, but why would in nature a fish release a pheromone to stunt the growth of other fish and it not affect the one giving off the chemical(if that was the case there would be probably more pygmy species out there or someone would have bred a pygmie betta). How would nature know not to stunt the host fish? the brothers and sisters would be of the same DNA and it would be more than likely some would have the same DNA. I also was checking out a study on feral children and speaking abilities and if they werent spoken and nutured when younger during the crucial development , then they would not ever develop because the time had passed. And since the father was in the tank with the children stunting growth, did the window pass for growth? and how did they grow if the time had passed? It is too inconclusive. I am not saying the pheramones theory is wrong, but it is just that a theory. Just like the nitromonas/nitrobacter was considered to be gospel truth and now is being disputed by the Biro spira people. I just want more proof, because i see too many "old wives tales" running around in the hobby, and if this were true, i am sure there is some report/test was done to prove this.treefrog said:My understanding is that the "inhibitor" that you speak of is a pheromone. I have not yet found any articles done by a college on this pheromone. All creatures emit pheromones even humans . They are generally picked up through smell, which is why they wouldn't affect the one giving them off (like the people who can't smell their own stink ). The fish are seeking to establish dominance . This is widely known to be an occurence with lots of fish not just bettas. I have experienced it raising Cichlid fry and in my research about it found discussions by all types of fish keepers on it. The article Kelly shared in the betta forum about leaving the fry with the father helped illustrate this point. If you remember the juveniles did not really develop finnage and color very well until removed from the father(he was releasing pheromones). Some speculate the pheromones build up in fish waste, others believe they are emitted through the gills, still others believe that they are manufactured and released through skin cells, I have not heard one thing definitively. Fish use pheromones for lots of other things as well. I did some googleing and found a bunch of interesting articles here are a couple...
alarm pheromones
pheromone functions
Sorry didnt mean to hijack your thread from the little cutie pies!
pffft, you're talking to the queen of hijacking No problem , I hardly say my thread is ruined because it has some interesting contentrollntider said:sorry to hijack )