Views on this online info

[esoxlucius]

A post recently, you may have read it, regarding the ideal tank size for a saratoga leichardti had me doing a bit of digging and my findings were somewhat alarming. Just for the record the OP looks like they're looking at other options now after being advised by fellow members that their tank size wasn't suitable for this fish long term. So, firstly, hats off to them for taking the advice on board.

However, back to my issue. I had a look at the "seriously fish" site, they've always seemed pretty accurate to me with their details, at least for the fish i've been researching. By their own admittence they say that this fish grows to "36 inch (90cm), although usually smaller in aquaria". Then they go onto say that a "72x24x24" tank is a "bare minimum for an adult fish though bigger the tank the better".

Their advice basically says it's ok to house a 3ft fish in a 180g, and their phrasing of "although usually smaller in aquaria" seems to be their get out of the s**t clause. To me they're being rather blasè about the growth expectations from this fish and are just taking it for granted that a fish with the potential to reach 3ft, is, in actual fact only going to reach a fraction of that size.

Just another example of eyebrow raising online information.

 

[ichthyogeek]

So here's the page in question

You forgot to mention that the exact quoting: "72″ x 24″ x 24″ (180cm x 60cm x 60cm) – 680 litres absolute bare minimum for an adult fish though the bigger the tank the better." The absolute bare minimum.

I've never really looked at the monster fish on SF, but otherwise their information is pretty good. Now, if all monster fish are recommended for a 6'x2'x2' aquarium, that's incredibly eyebrow raising, since it's the LiveAquaria route of "it's a large fish, 180 gallons, NEXT".

That being said, even though I've never kept a monster fish, I would imagine that if it reaches 3', then you'd want at least a 6'x3' footprint instead of a 6'x2'. So I agree that 6'x2' isn't a good metric. Without any research being done, for an active fish like an arowana, I'd personally want something like a 18'x6' tank (Fish Length x 6, Fish Length x 2).

I do think though, that if there's a problem, it might be worth contacting the website with your minimum and why.

 

[duanes]

To me the idea that a 30" + fish will thrive in a 28" wide tank is outright ridiculous.
But I see this type info spewed out all the time, by so called experts(?).
Sometimes I think these experts just regurgitate info they have read, without ever keeping a similar type fish themselves.

Beside the regurgitated generic type of info, much of it does not taking into account other issues like territoriality, the need for exercise, and the water quality degradation that takes place when large fish are put in inferior size tanks.
Maybe they know most people will do what they want, and kill the fish before it lives up to its potential anyway, that is part of it, .....so yes.....seeing that the OP of the Saratoga thread actually heeding advice, was quite refreshing.

 

[Supergeorge123]

There isnt really a metric for minimum tank size for a certain kind of fish. My own metric is for inactive fish 4 times length and 1.5 times width and for active fish 5 times length and 2 times width as minimums.