Maximum fish sizes

[cichlaguapote]

Great read! I agree with most of the stuff here too.

Another issue i see is how the larger the fish normally gets, the comparatively smaller tank is given to it.

Minimum tank size for a Krib in many people's opinion is a 10 gallon tank. That is around 4x as wide and around 9x as long as they get. With something like a Convict they are usually said to need a 20 gallon tank that is around 3x as wide and maybe 8 or 9x the length. A JD needs a 55 gallon which is a little over 1x as wide and 4-5x its length. And the bigger the fish it seems the less space they need comparatively.

How come people aren't suppose to keep a full sized male convict, lets say 6" in a 10 gallon tank, but "experts" know a 20" dovii is completely fine in a 6x2x2!

It seems when enough people want something they all justify it and say its fine and everybody else with contradicting opinions is wrong.

Of course I'm still going to keep a JD in a 55 gallon tank and a Texas in a 75 gallon, I'm just saying.....

Good post!

The 20g/55g rules are like that I think because they are more obtainable size tanks. Those are also older rules, almost set in stone in books and elsewhere. When talking about larger fish I think most assume realistically the largest manufactured tank size is around 300g, so realistically that's what's available and adjust your ruling for that.

The good thing about bigger tanks is it gives you more water to play with, a bit more room. You can keep fish in smaller tanks, but it's more work. That's the give and take.

Really the rule is do what you see fit for your fish. Within reason. And if you think it's controversal like convicts in a 10g then keep it a secret.

I agree. My RD/Midas is over 8 years old, and barely 8". She's still slowly growing, but she'll likely never reach her "max size" of 12-14"

She's healthy, though. never been sick, and lays eggs from time to time.

Expecting every fish to reach "maximum size" is like expecting the entire human population to grow up like Shaquille O'neille or Yao Ming.

its ludicrous.

Edit: that said, one should be ready to accomidate "maximum size" when buying a particular fish. don't expect your RD to only reach 8".

Good post!

Gene's and sex of the fish sometimes play a role too. And might be playing a role in your fish as well. Also your fish is a hybrid of midas/red devil. I do believe(could be wrong) that red devil is a bit smaller fish than a midas.

You also have to take in account fish's age as it refers to max size too. Some of the fish pulled for max size might be older fish at the very end of the growth scale. Thinking about how long most of our fish can live, and how long we normally keep them around for in our hobby.

I think dovii is a good example of this. I've seen them close to 20" but after that they seem to take longer/have trouble putting on that extra couple inches.

 

[wjones1970]

This an awesome thread. I mostly agree with it also. I do agree that the maximum size is somewhat overstated, but at the same time I feel its necessary because it is a possibility. Fish longevitity should also be a target for us fishkeepers not just size. I have a small 10 gal. that contains orphans from family and friends (not raised in ideal conditions) but they all have been alive for years now. No monsters just little tetras, corys and the like. I have one little fruit tetra that is going on 5 years old and thats double what the rest of its original tank mates made it to (more fruit tetras) .. I just try and keep water quality good and don't overfeed. In my experiance this goes a long way in fish health. A person should still try and keep them in as a large of an aquarium as possibe though just make it easier on the fish and the fishkeeper. IMO.

 

[Moontanman]

This an awesome thread. I mostly agree with it also. I do agree that the maximum size is somewhat overstated, but at the same time I feel its necessary because it is a possibility. Fish longevitity should also be a target for us fishkeepers not just size. I have a small 10 gal. that contains orphans from family and friends (not raised in ideal conditions) but they all have been alive for years now. No monsters just little tetras, corys and the like. I have one little fruit tetra that is going on 5 years old and thats double what the rest of its original tank mates made it to (more fruit tetras) .. I just try and keep water quality good and don't overfeed. In my experiance this goes a long way in fish health. A person should still try and keep them in as a large of an aquarium as possibe though just make it easier on the fish and the fishkeeper. IMO.

I agree, trying to see how small a tank you can keep a certain fish in is just wrong but I also think that feeding fish huge amounts of food to try and get them to a predetermined huge size as fast as possible is wrong as well. If you start out with a small fish a small tank is ok if you really can move it to a larger tank as it grows, it's easier to ensure some fish get the correct amounts of food in a smaller tank so, Feed your fish good food in reasonable amounts and give them clean water and plenty of room. If they don't get to be world record fish it's not a problem. Fish health is not determined by speed of growth and size, I see many fish "pumped" this way over the years die in just a few months to years when they should have lived a long time. many people actually think fish only live a few weeks to months. A lot of this stuff really needs to be looked at. The iridescent shark I had was dwarfed before I got it never grew even thought it was well fed and given plenty of room, I have often wondered if it was a genetic oddity as well. 10" or so for a iridescent shark feed well and given plenty of room was really odd, to me anyway, but the fish was also one of my all time favs. I have to assume it's first months or years determined it's final size. I don't know what was done to make it stop growing but it wasn't scarred or deformed in anyway like most ID sharks are that are kept in too small tanks. I have seen similar dwarfing in other fish as well but none that severe with out some external flaws resulting from the treatment.

 

[Bogwoodbruce]

Lots of interesting ideas.

 

[BadDogsPa]

IMO max size is a guideline to go by,like average size and etc..I would get the bigger aquarium just incase you may obtain such a size. I would rather end up with a 8 inch fish in a 300 than a 14 inch fish in a 55..[/B]

 

[Passionate 4 pikes]

its funny, the other day i was thinking of things about this site that annoy me, some of them being related to this thread, and here i am finding someone already started it!


anyhow, i am torn as to which opinion is right, and i think the answer is somewhere nearer to the middle.
i was at the lake 2 weeks ago, and as i watched the baby bluegill swimming, i thought to myself, they have 3 miles to the north that they can swim, and a mile to the south ... and yet on MFK the standard is 75g. he may not use all 4 miles of water, but i bet if we asked the fish, he would ask for more than 4 feet...
and thats a SMALL fish!!! obviously NOONE can replicate the "ideal" environment, even for a "tiny" fish.
i guess my point is, there is no tank size that is going to be sufficient for any wild animal. everyone who keeps fish is putting them in a box smaller than they would like to be in. even the guy with the 50,000g indoor tank, his fish would prefer 51,000 or 52,000....

i think people need to come to terms with what they are doing as a "fish keeper" -- you are putting your fish in a box. plain and simple.

that being said, you should give it a decent sized box, and you should keep the water in the best condition that you can. you should feed your fish to be healthy, and not just to become overnight monsters. and give the fish enough room to turn around!
but everyone else should back off a little bit when it comes to the new people who come home with a 3" RTC, or a 4" silver aro. almost everyone can house them for a little while, and most people on this site can house them for a year or two, and it will still be a healthy fish (if we help them with their questions). then once it outgrows the largest tank that MFK'er has, SELL IT ON THE FORUM!!!
its a great solution. people can actually buy the fish they want, and not just the small ones! and it means cheaper fish for those of us who want big fish

and who knows, maybe some of those people will end up like me, and falling in way over their heads. i started with a 2.5g, then a 20L, now i have 6 tanks, one being a 180. i have another 180 in the very near future, and i even have plans for that "always important pond" ...
the guy at the store wouldn't let me put 15 fish in that 2.5g like i wanted to. instead they educated me, and helped me. and the tank worked out, i learned how to do it, and the fish stayed alive. 2 years later i am invested more into it, and now i have the fish that i really want, the tanks i want, and i am passionate about them and want to keep them properly.

or at least as properly as a fish can be kept in a box

Couldnt stay out of this thread any longer. i agree and disagree, it is a box but it is not cruel. a 75 gallon tank for a wild bluegill or pumkinseed gives it enough room to live out a normal life in lakes can go straight for a mile either way so what it can turn around fifty times in a hour and still be healthy and happy. cichlids esspecially they are smart enough even to form relationships with their owners when a cichlid is cramped you can see it in its eyes and its attitude. for sure my fish are not unhappy i dont know about yours though. that is also why waterchanges are a must.
interesting thread everyone. i disagree that an aro will need the biggest tanks on mfk.

 

[VLDesign]

I always quote average size.

 

[new2natives]

i agree and disagree, it is a box but it is not cruel.

i wasn't saying that it is cruel. i was just saying that there are no ideal tanks for a fish. yes, i think they can be happy in a tank (not that anyone has ever asked the fish) but not as happy as they would be in the wild.

in 1/2 hour, every bluegill i saw used more than 12 square feet (or a 180g). could it be happy in a 180 for life ... probably

 

[SteveR]

I suppose it would

Perhaps suggesting its a white lie then...

 

[SteveR]

If you had read my post you have seen I said maximum size not average size. Average size is what we should look for in most fish. the really large ones probably won't see that and a few of the smaller ones might actually get a bit bigger than average. But to say that a fish that doesn't achieve maximum size is being treated cruelly is way off the mark. Fish achieve the size they do from genetic inputs, inputs of day length, pheromones, food quality and availability and simply from the stress of captivity. If a fish doesn't become deformed or sickly reaching some ideal of maximum size shouldn't be thought of as necessary. As I have said before even perfect conditions will not always result in a maximum sized fish. In the wild only a few fish will approach the maximum for that fish. to assume we have been somehow cruel or have mistreated a fish that doesn't reach maximum size is more than a little ridiculous. I bought a pangashius shark (sp) from a pet shop that had been kept in a too small tank and was dwarfed. I tried to get it to grow bigger but it never did. It never got over 12" or so even though it was kept in a 125 in the winter and a 800 gallon pond during the five or six months of summer we have here. It was finally eaten by a bird of all things one day while I was at work. It was a beautiful fish, it knew me and would come to eat from my hand. I got a lot of enjoyment out of it over the seven years i had it and it was just as active and "happy" as any other captive fish i have ever had. If keeping a fish that doesn't reach maximum size is cruel then keeping big fish at all is cruel. No way you can really provide the environment even close to the wild for a big fish and we would be very hard pressed to even provide the bare necessities for a cardinal tetra much less an Oscar. So either it's ok to keep these fish that do not reach maximum size or it's not ok to keep any of them.

Very good point.