what's worse?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo

ronnie08

Candiru
MFK Member
Sep 27, 2008
267
1
48
new zealand
what do you guys think is worse to keep fish in

a tank that's too small for the stock but very well filtered and good maintenance or a tank that's the right size but very underfiltered and bad maintenance?
 
Very interesting question. Depends a lot on the tolerance level of fish towards changing environmental conditions. This in itself is very subjective at the very least but it makes better sense that the absolute worst case scenario is badly maintained tank that makes the fish more susceptible to health issues. Of course, if you consider again the fact your tank is quite small despite well maintained, the fish would still not be very comfortable in it thus it only adds up to its stress. Depending on your maintenance, if you are quite capable of frequent water changes to lift off the growth hormones released in response to stress by the fish which then inhibits its growth, then technically, the situation itself is a lot better than a tank, regardless of size, badly maintained.
 
well if you were going to be lazy if we said that large and under-filtered is ok then no, keep doing WCs. If you have no way to do WCs then get a large tank with a few inhabitants to lessen stress, or better yet, dont get any fish.
 
I don't think there's a good answer to this question, I guess I wouldn't want to do either one
 
I think this could go either way depending on the fish.

Goldfish, go with underfiltered and bad maintenance.

Fish that need oxygen, go with the smaller tank
 
First option if the filtration is good.
The two O's:
Overstocked and Overfiltered.
Overcleaned too. If you have the first one, you better have the other two.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com