Growth Rate Overreactions/Exaggeration?

[benzjamin13]

I was talking with a friend. I think it would be a pretty interesting debate. So here we go...

I see a lot of post of "that tank will only last you a few weeks...you'll need to upgrade in a month...you're going need a bigger tank like now!" Honestly...I really find it hard to believe that people really insist that a 2" Oscar will outgrow a 29g in a few weeks or even a month along with stating that a 1.5" RTC will outgrow a 55g tank in the same manner. How do you determine that they will outgrow these dimensions in such a small amount of time? Or how can you say that a 10” fish is already due for an upgrade from its 55g tank? Is it something that is said so often that people just repeat (obviously, I doubt those who just repeat what they heard will respond honestly) or do you really have the experience to back it up?

I wanted the experience of keeping an RTC. It may not have been as long as I would've liked, but the fact is...I had a baby RTC. A few years ago, I bought it at 1.5" and placed it in a 55g tank. Did it only last me a few weeks? No. Did it grow like a weed? Yes. It grew from 1.5" to 11" in 8 months. I had that RTC in a 55g. One to two feedings a day, weekly water changes, filtered with a Fluval 405. Very basic, no rush to make it a "Monster," but not depriving it of food to slow down its growth. That's normal feeding procedure for me. Later on I got a CK to join him. 2 Monster Fish that lasted more than what some people say here.

Personally, I believe that as long as the tank length is at least 3 times the length of the fish and the width is at least the length of the fish, then it should be fine. An example would be people stating that a 14" Oscar would not fare well in a 75g (which I believe it will do fine, providing proper maintenance). I had an 11” Oscar in a 75g with no health issues. I also had an RTC that I raised from 1.5" to 11" in 8 months in a 55g. These were maintained with weekly water changes and 1-2 feedings daily.

 

[Crazyfish88]

11" in 8 months for a rtc is slow. In my experience I've raised 3 Rtc's before all different times and they reach from 3" to 18"-20" in a year starting in a 72 gallon then upgrading to 250-450g. My last previous RTC reached from 7"-21" in just over 6 months started him in a 225g then upgraded to a 450g for him and I fed twice a day. Honestly it won't outgrow a 55 in a few weeks but if your not gonna upgrade the tank then I don't see a point in keeping or raising one. Would be a waste of money and time on feeding/maintenance if you only grow it to 12" then getting rid of it. It will bust your 55 when it reaches 18" from not able to turn.


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[benzjamin13]

I don't think it's a waste of time if it's something I wanted to experience. After all...RTCs are suppose to be those wet pets with a dog-like personality. Nothing is a waste if you can learn from it. To be honest...I'm not sure if it was 5 months or 8 months. I want to say 8 months just because most fish that I've kept has always been over 6 months unless it's a complete bore or it's just not working out with the tank mates.

 

[Psylant]

I raised and kept a single Oscar as a wet pet in a 55g from 1" to 12" in a year. He lived to be a little over 5 years old and was about 13" when I had to give him away to move back home from school. I wouldn't try it with anything smaller or with tankmates. Ideally a bigger tank is always better, of course. But if you're very dedicated to water changes you can do things like that and be successful.

 

[Crazyfish88]

I don't think it's a waste of time if it's something I wanted to experience. After all...RTCs are suppose to be those wet pets with a dog-like personality. Nothing is a waste if you can learn from it. To be honest...I'm not sure if it was 5 months or 8 months. I want to say 8 months just because most fish that I've kept has always been over 6 months unless it's a complete bore or it's just not working out with the tank mates.

Well I do my research before I buy in the end it's your fish, time and money. Do what you want with it.


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[koltsixx]

I've never been as adamant as some others on here about tank size, but I do still have my own opinion on tank size minimums. Personally I think you have to look at every fish species individually and based on their habits decide just how big a tank you would need to house them comfortably.

Example: in my opinion despite Gulper cats growing to 11 inches they can be housed in alot smaller aquarium comfortably than say a 11 inch Amphilophus Lyonsi. I'd recommend a minimum of 75 gallons for a Lyonsi while I believe a Gulper can be kept comfortably in a 30 gallon 36 1/4 x12 5/8 x16 3/4.

Now this is just my opinion, but I've kept a 4 Gulper's in a 125 and all they did was hover about, never really patrolled the tank unless he was hungry and even then it was a slow half-hearted patrol. So in my experience they're not very active and therefore can be maintained in a much smaller tank.

While the Lyonsi are active patroler's and in my opinion need some room to move so they can be more comfortable. So while I think they'd survive in a smaller tank I think mentally the fish would be stressed and less likely to present his full colors and personality and detract from the whole keeping a Lyonsi experience.

I use the same logic for grow outs and take into account their presumed natural habits. Giving more space to fish that develop territories early on that grow at accelerated rate and less to fish that are used to bunching together for protection. So my opinion is that yes some exaggeration does occur regarding growouts, but that's because I consider every detail about a fish and kind of go against the norm using my logic which may not be perfect. Though there are cases where I do agree with the norm and adapt accordingly. Certain species just do need the room in my opinion.

As for keeping fish like a RTC I kept one and felt horrible about it. Once he got to a decent size I realized that he was almost guaranteed to have a miserable short lived existence. Not many have the room for such an active and large fish and they aren't in demand at larger sizes. So I sold him to someone with a bigger tank, but I knew that even that person wouldn't be able to keep him longterm and I wondered what would happen to him when he out grew his new home. In the end I just regret buying him as I know all I did was feed the industry more incentive to keep offering these guys to the general public. While I feel bad for the RTC in a LFS I feel it's better to let the few suffer so that perhaps the industry realizes it's no longer a profitable fish and stop offering them to the public and perhaps save the thousands that might be offered in the feature the same fate. Though don't get me wrong I will never judge someone who buys one just offer them my opinion, as I believe in the adage one doesn't throw stones if one lives in a glass house.

 

[Fat Homer]

I've learnt to try and not mention time frames any more... Rather just point out that eventually certain fish will outgrow certain tanks and to be prepared for it...


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[woofy]

Sometimes people say it will get to big for tank in the terms of how much the fish can stay in the tank without it affecting its growth or health. so if u buy a 2" oscar and put him in a 5g sure it looks lime he will not outgrow it for a while but stunting will have occured long before he cant phsycially move or turn around anymore. i use to be of that mentallity that no way this fish cant live its whole life in that tank but lately ive been thinking and realizing that i couldnt imagine seeing "the boss" my 10" red oscar in a 55 or even 75. ny 125g looks small.

 

[PDRed302]

I think what might be happening here is people essentially just trying to scare fish owners into getting the ball rolling on upgrading their current tank to house thier new baby monster. The problem is that a lot of times people go out and buy a fish with the intention to upgrade but drag their feet after the fish has been homed in thier existing tank. It's not that they are trying to hound anyone into upgrading, more just letting them know that it will be time to upgrade before the owner expects it. A lot of times people don't account for setup and cycle time, or even how long it will take to find the new setup. The problem with shouting out growth rates is that they differ so dramatically. I've had Oscar's grow from as slow as half an inch per month to 2 inches a month. When I bought my silver Arow I was expecting 1 to 2 inches a month, because that's what I had read about them. If you had told me that I needed to upgrade even sooner than I had expected I would have just shrugged it of. Now, after watching her average about three inches a month, with her first month being almost 4 inches of growth, I can understand where a lot of this rush to upgrade is coming from.

I try to refrain from jumping into peoples posts and telling them to upgrade ASAP but sometimes it just may be what some fish keepers need to hear. I know that I have been upset by posts before but if they were made by someone knowledgeable then it may be the best thing to be said.

 

[framcosco]

I think what might be happening here is people essentially just trying to scare fish owners into getting the ball rolling on upgrading their current tank to house thier new baby monster. The problem is that a lot of times people go out and buy a fish with the intention to upgrade but drag their feet after the fish has been homed in thier existing tank. It's not that they are trying to hound anyone into upgrading, more just letting them know that it will be time to upgrade before the owner expects it. A lot of times people don't account for setup and cycle time, or even how long it will take to find the new setup. The problem with shouting out growth rates is that they differ so dramatically. I've had Oscar's grow from as slow as half an inch per month to 2 inches a month. When I bought my silver Arow I was expecting 1 to 2 inches a month, because that's what I had read about them. If you had told me that I needed to upgrade even sooner than I had expected I would have just shrugged it of. Now, after watching her average about three inches a month, with her first month being almost 4 inches of growth, I can understand where a lot of this rush to upgrade is coming from.

I try to refrain from jumping into peoples posts and telling them to upgrade ASAP but sometimes it just may be what some fish keepers need to hear. I know that I have been upset by posts before but if they were made by someone knowledgeable then it may be the best thing to be said.

VERY WELL SAID.