I wish I could agree with any of those numbers, but long term, if you have males, they will be 12 inches a piece. I contend 45 gallons for a single goldfish and 20 gallons extra for each additional fish.
Fancy goldfish substrate HELP...
- Thread starter FlanBurberry
- Start date
Stocking is more than x gallons per fish. Water quality is the problem, so getting caught up on exact gallons per fish, 'rules', and the absolute max that any specimen of that breed has ever achieved isn't necessary.
I don't even consider AqAdvisor either, I don't think it's any better than the 1"/gallon rule.
As long as the fish have enough physical space and you can keep the nitrate under 20ppm or within 10ppm without the help of live plants then they will thrive.
Do bigger water changes, 30% isn't enough. Bigger is always better. Step up slowly though so that you and the fish handle it. The last thing you want to do is bump it up to 60% and have the hot water run out halfway through. Mine get 80% per week.
I don't even consider AqAdvisor either, I don't think it's any better than the 1"/gallon rule.
As long as the fish have enough physical space and you can keep the nitrate under 20ppm or within 10ppm without the help of live plants then they will thrive.
Do bigger water changes, 30% isn't enough. Bigger is always better. Step up slowly though so that you and the fish handle it. The last thing you want to do is bump it up to 60% and have the hot water run out halfway through. Mine get 80% per week.
I agree with you on water quality, but I disagree with the 80% changes etc, not on the premise itself; rather the margin of risk in water changes that size, if something goes wrong, or the water company adds too much chlorine, so much more dangerous than say smaller 20-30% changes every few days imo
I'm going to disagree on the amount per change you're advising. Too many factors that can turn into fish deaths too quickly.
But then again I'm one of those super light stockers too because even though I can keep an aquarium pristine regardless, I'd rather the fish have some room to swim around.
If you use prime and regulate temperature, bigger is always better when it comes to water changes. Unless you never do water changes, then you need to ramp up slowly, unless you want to kill your fish.
1. Bigger is ALWAYS better, unless you never do water changes. Like you say, then you need to ramp up slowly.
2. Gallons per fish matters for beginners. They are typically misinformed, so it matters.
bigger is not always better lol...there are multiple factors that play into water changes...stock, the type of water you have specifically...my fish are much more active and healthy with multiple 20% changes throughout the week vs. one big 75% one day a week.
Yes, that goes without saying; 100% water changes are ideal, however, realistically even the most dedicated among us would be hard pressed to guarantee almost exact same temperature of replacement water along with guaranteed low contaminants, making it an unrealistic option...1. Bigger is ALWAYS better, unless you never do water changes. Like you say, then you need to ramp up slowly.
2. Gallons per fish matters for beginners. They are typically misinformed, so it matters.
Don't get me wrong, I've heard of many members who do massive water changes regularly; with no problems and healthy stock. I've also read threads about people who've had their entire tanks crash and all fish die, after doing such changes
Plus, to echo P predatorkeeper87 i personally never want to be in the position that I need to do 80% water change just to maintain my water parameters, I like having margin for error so that lets say I have to go abroad for two weeks; my levels will still be fine at the end of two weeks, and not having to rely on someone else to look after my tanks etc.
Personal preference
P.S also a final somewhat controversial point to add, on tanks that I've performed only minimal water changes over a long period of time; I've had some very large growing healthy fish. Perhaps there is something to be said about aged water, but its just a thought; really not ready to open up that can of worms haha
You are missing the context of this thread. We are speaking about Goldfish.
That is a dangerous dangerous can of worms...Yes, that goes without saying; 100% water changes are ideal, however, realistically even the most dedicated among us would be hard pressed to guarantee almost exact same temperature of replacement water along with guaranteed low contaminants, making it an unrealistic option...
Don't get me wrong, I've heard of many members who do massive water changes regularly; with no problems and healthy stock. I've also read threads about people who've had their entire tanks crash and all fish die, after doing such changes
Plus, to echo P predatorkeeper87 i personally never want to be in the position that I need to do 80% water change just to maintain my water parameters, I like having margin for error so that lets say I have to go abroad for two weeks; my levels will still be fine at the end of two weeks, and not having to rely on someone else to look after my tanks etc.
Personal preference
P.S also a final somewhat controversial point to add, on tanks that I've performed only minimal water changes over a long period of time; I've had some very large growing healthy fish. Perhaps there is something to be said about aged water, but its just a thought; really not ready to open up that can of worms haha
