700 gallon Fish Stocking Ideas

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
A public aquarium is not a prerequesite, but for optimal, comfortable conditions I would say the tank/pond should be at least 1.83m wide (1.5+ times the length of the fish) and perhaps at least 7.32m long (that's with PFK's 6x the length rule, but there could be some wiggle room) in footprint.
Not sure about the height, but assuming it was the same as the width, that tank would be 24,514 liters. Easily within the size range of ponds owned by private individuals.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Caveden
MultipleTankSyndrome said:
A public aquarium is not a prerequesite, but for optimal, comfortable conditions I would say the tank/pond should be at least 1.83m wide (1.5+ times the length of the fish) and perhaps at least 7.32m long (that's with PFK's 6x the length rule, but there could be some wiggle room) in footprint.
Not sure about the height, but assuming it was the same as the width, that tank would be 24,514 liters. Easily within the size range of ponds owned by private individuals.
Click to expand...
This argument has been on so many different threads. Once a silver Aro hits 24” the growth slows down tremendously. 700 gallons would be more than enough for a silver Aro. Even a 300 gallon 6x3x27” would do fine. Would it be happier in an extra 6’ of length? I don’t know, I don’t speak fish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krismo962 and PhishMon84
Lepisosteus said:
This argument has been on so many different threads. Once a silver Aro hits 24” the growth slows down tremendously. 700 gallons would be more than enough for a silver Aro. Even a 300 gallon 6x3x27” would do fine. Would it be happier in an extra 6’ of length? I don’t know, I don’t speak fish.
Click to expand...

Growth slowing down isn't an excuse to have a fish in an inadequate size tank. A 61cm silver arowana would obviously be able to do well (albeit only temporarily, until it gets bigger) in a smaller tank than a 1.22m one, but regardless of whether or not the growth slows down, it will still grow some more and should still be provided with a large enough tank for its 1.22m adult size.

For a 61cm silver arowana the 91cm width is likely fine, but the 1.83m length seems very minimal since it's only 3x the length of the fish.
I think it should be common sense that said 61cm arowana would be happier (or at the very least, more thriving vs surviving) with an extra 1.83m. More space is always enjoyed by aquarium fish, especially those in cramped conditions.

And do you mean 2650 liters would be enough for a 61cm arowana or a 1.22m arowana? I'd agree with you if it was the former (although only temporarily), but certainly not the latter (as I already stated before).
 
  • Like
Reactions: neko1
MultipleTankSyndrome said:
Growth slowing down isn't an excuse to have a fish in an inadequate size tank. A 61cm silver arowana would obviously be able to do well (albeit only temporarily, until it gets bigger) in a smaller tank than a 1.22m one, but regardless of whether or not the growth slows down, it will still grow some more and should still be provided with a large enough tank for its 1.22m adult size.

For a 61cm silver arowana the 91cm width is likely fine, but the 1.83m length seems very minimal since it's only 3x the length of the fish.
I think it should be common sense that said 61cm arowana would be happier (or at the very least, more thriving vs surviving) with an extra 1.83m. More space is always enjoyed by aquarium fish, especially those in cramped conditions.

And do you mean 2650 liters would be enough for a 61cm arowana or a 1.22m arowana? I'd agree with you if it was the former (although only temporarily), but certainly not the latter (as I already stated before).
Click to expand...
arowanas have bred in captivity inside of a 300-500 gallon aquarium. A lot of people use reproduction or the state of being able to reproduce as a sign of fish health. This indicates that a 300-500 gallon not only is sufficient for the species but big enough to consider them “healthy”. As is a 180 gallon for peacock bass. Sure some (such as yourself) with your years of expertise in keeping these fish will say otherwise. I will continue to guage fish health based on their activity, ability to accept food, and ability to reproduce. All of which will be checked off with an arowana in a 700 gallon.

care to explain how you consider a fish surviving as opposed to thriving?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate B, aroijuana, Caveden and 2 others
Lepisosteus said:
arowanas have bred in captivity inside of a 300-500 gallon aquarium. A lot of people use reproduction or the state of being able to reproduce as a sign of fish health. This indicates that a 300-500 gallon not only is sufficient for the species but big enough to consider them “healthy”. As is a 180 gallon for peacock bass. Sure some (such as yourself) with your years of expertise in keeping these fish will say otherwise. I will continue to guage fish health based on their activity, ability to accept food, and ability to reproduce. All of which will be checked off with an arowana in a 700 gallon.

care to explain how you consider a fish surviving as opposed to thriving?
Click to expand...

I disagree with breeding being a sign of health, rather more of an instinct of something that has to be done before the fish die so they can pass their genes on. Siamese fighting fish in bowls, for example, will build bubble nests. But clearly they aren't thriving in said bowls, so it stands to reason they're acting instinctually, and the same applies to the remainder of those species.
I see no reason to believe they're acting on anything but instinct.

Let me ask you this: have you ever seen an arowana in a tank of at least 7.32m by 1.83m in footprint? You may consider an arowana reasonably active in a 1135-2650 liter, but there's a lot more room to be active in a tank at least 1.5x as wide as the fish and several times longer than it than there is in a tank narrower than or only as wide as the fish, and only a few times as long.
From what I read in the thread I linked (from DrownedFishonFire), silver arowanas are a reasonably active species. They are therefore not going to be able to display their natural activity in conditions as cramped as you describe, and if the owner has never seen them in a larger tank (as I described above), they may be misled to believe that that's how active they are when they're thriving, while they actually aren't.

I consider a fish thriving instead of surviving if it's in a tank that allows it to fully behave as it would in the wild (such as being as active as it would be in the wild, and having enough space to comfortably turn around without having to bend like it would in a tank only as wide as or narrower than it) as opposed to a tank that won't kill it but does not necessarily provide for its needs that it won't die without (but nonetheless still needs for reasons other than life and death).

In short, as you were probably able to figure out, I generally share the sentiments of Stanzzzz7 Stanzzzz7 from the last arowana tank size thread that I linked.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: neko1
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom