how long arowana in 180 gallon
- Thread starter AnthonyFish20
- Start date
agreed, and how many people have an 8x3. Even on the internet, only a handful. Shouldn't be in fish stores IMO and neither should RTC or pacu
u think a jardini could fit in aa 180 for life i might be able to get a 220-250 6ft×30inch
I get it that people are frustrated by being told their tanks are too small. But the fact is that many fish suffer from being confined in tanks that are too small.
The metric that I like to observe is not whether or not the fish looks like it can swim around, but whether or not the fish is physically affected by the tank size. And the most reliable metrics for that (imo), come from controlled laboratory studies that are published in sufficient detail to allow one to draw some inferences.
http://www.agrojournal.org/14/02-07-08.pdf
Referring to the above study, Brown Trout suffer significant growth reductions at amounts as little as 1,100 grams of biomass per 200 gallons of tank water. (Significant in that the biomass grew by 62% in the lower stocked tank while only 47% in the higher stocked tank in a span of just 6 weeks, which was significant at the p< 0.001 level.)
Over the course of a year, should those rates prevail, the average Brown Trout in the low biomass density tank would weigh 1,235 grams, but in the high density tank only weigh 538 grams. Converting that to a real fish, that's roughly a 12" Oscar versus a 15.75" Oscar.
Of course, this is extrapolating from one species in one experiment, but common experience tells us this makes sense.
But, assuming that an Aro is like a Brown Trout, and assuming that 1,100 grams of fish per 200 gallons is a reasonable point where growth rate starts being depressed, then a single 22" Aro will be depressed in a 180 gallon, even if it's the only fish in the tank.
If more fish are in the tank besides the Aro, that will occur at a much smaller size than 22". And if the water isn't kept as clean as the water in the study, it might be at a much smaller size.
The metric that I like to observe is not whether or not the fish looks like it can swim around, but whether or not the fish is physically affected by the tank size. And the most reliable metrics for that (imo), come from controlled laboratory studies that are published in sufficient detail to allow one to draw some inferences.
http://www.agrojournal.org/14/02-07-08.pdf
Referring to the above study, Brown Trout suffer significant growth reductions at amounts as little as 1,100 grams of biomass per 200 gallons of tank water. (Significant in that the biomass grew by 62% in the lower stocked tank while only 47% in the higher stocked tank in a span of just 6 weeks, which was significant at the p< 0.001 level.)
Over the course of a year, should those rates prevail, the average Brown Trout in the low biomass density tank would weigh 1,235 grams, but in the high density tank only weigh 538 grams. Converting that to a real fish, that's roughly a 12" Oscar versus a 15.75" Oscar.
Of course, this is extrapolating from one species in one experiment, but common experience tells us this makes sense.
But, assuming that an Aro is like a Brown Trout, and assuming that 1,100 grams of fish per 200 gallons is a reasonable point where growth rate starts being depressed, then a single 22" Aro will be depressed in a 180 gallon, even if it's the only fish in the tank.
If more fish are in the tank besides the Aro, that will occur at a much smaller size than 22". And if the water isn't kept as clean as the water in the study, it might be at a much smaller size.
Last edited:
