THE BIG QUESTION: WHAT DETERMINES THE MINIMUM TANK SIZE???

[Matt724]

I know this is the number 1 rule to follow in the book of "What Fish You Can Keep" and I wanted to know who determines this factor?

I mean, who can tell whether a fish can survive in a 100 gallon tank, but not a 90. Or who says that the Oscar fish is too big for a 35 gallon tank? I understand that basic factors such as how much waste the fish excretes, how long and wide it gets, etc... but who makes the final call and why?

 

[Deep Blue Sea]

for me its that the fish can comfortably turn around and the tank has to be atleast twice as long as the fish. so for say a 30" arowana ud need a 36" wide by 72" long

 

[tyndall72]

I agree with deep. It has to be able to comfortably turn around and have enough room so that if there is a freak out It has room to calm down

 

[Deep Blue Sea]

If you want to go buy the scientific rule its 1 cubic each for each gallon of water

 

[mgk]

If you want to go buy the scientific rule its 1 cubic each for each gallon of water

this doesn't work for all fish and situations.


There is no answer use your best judgement. Or if you lack good judgement go with the judgement of the majority.



if you meet either of these conditions you have bad judgement.
A)if you have consistently poor water quality, no matter what try.
B)if your fish has trouble turning around in the tank.

 

[Luc53]

Definitely has to be wide enough for the fish to be able to turn around without tying itself in knots.

Unlless you plan to onsell/give them away, I see no point in buying a fish which is going to outgrow its tank in a relatively short period of time.

My saratoga has the potential to grow to nearly 1 metre and will outgrow its current tank in around 2 years. If I still want to keep it, I'll be looking at building a plywwod tank (LxWxD) 300x150x75 centimetres.

Luc

 

[Naldo]

Many people are very purist in their thinking on this topic, but often that is simple parroting of what they have been told or read that says fish X must be in a minimum tank size of Y. Often these folks may appear arrogant, but usually they are trying to advocate for more proper fish keeping and have seen far too many 10 gallon cichlid tanks, goldfish bowls, and dixie cup bettas.

On the issue of minimum tank size and also on the realted issue of stocking levels my opinion is simply are the fish healthy. If the fish are healthy, good color, eating well, not exhibiting undue aggression and display appropriate behaviour for a captive specimen then what you have is probably acceptable in size and the set up of the tank is working.

The big problem is the number of people that might refuse to recognize these signs. Too many people don't observe their fish enough to detect problems or signs of stress that might be screaming "My Tank Is Too Small For Me!", "I Don't Like My Tankmates!", "You're Not Feeding Me Right!" When this happens, it will if you keep fish for any length of time, you have to be willing to change, and that can require a getting a bigger tank or getting rid of some fish.

The fish make the call, with their health and behavior!


Naldo

 

[syddakyd]

it seems like nothing but personal opinion especially on forums.

i think as a bare minimum the width should be the fishes length plus a few inches and fish itself be no more then 1/4 the length of the tank.


for instance...everyone says a midas needs a 75g to be truly happy.


i think a female could do just fine in a 55g though

 

[Zfishies]

And how come when you have 1 fish in a 50 gallon tank (example) it will grow really fast?

 

[Bderick67]

for me its that the fish can comfortably turn around and the tank has to be atleast twice as long as the fish. so for say a 30" arowana ud need a 36" wide by 72" long

This is because you lack experience in the matter. Once, or if your aro gets to 30"plus your opinion will change. Actually you could see how wrong you are right now. You think it to be OK to keep a 8" silver aro in 20" long 10" wide 10 gallon tank? Or how about a 10"er in a 24x12" twenty gallon?