Can I do Tiger Barbs in a 25 gallon tank?

[Moe55]

I have a 25 gallon tank with a Marineland Eclipse II hood and was curious if it would be big enough to house about 7 tiger barbs? That would pretty much be the extent of my stocking since few other fish can coexist with the barbs in a space that small. What do we think? Yeah or Nea?

Moe

 

[spoonman]

I would say that is plenty big for those and a few other fish if you could find something that would get along with them. (which I havent had much luck doing)

 

[Nippy Fish]

I would say that you can do it, but no other fish. Tiger Barbs can reach 3" each and that would be 21" of fish in a 25 gallon tank. Sounds full to me. You don't want to crowd Tiger Barbs. Besides, they are so entertaining you won't need any other fish!

 

[Moe55]

Are there any solitary bottom dwelling species that I can keep one of in this tank with the Tiger Barbs? It seems the common advice is to have a red tail shark but my tank will not support a fish of that size and aggression level. Any others? Thanks for the advice.

Moe

 

[Nippy Fish]

Perhaps some type of dwarf loach. Loaches Online - Community Edition — Loaches Online

 

[severum mama]

Inches of fish per gallon is irrelevant. The issue is bioload of a given species, as well as activity level. I think you could keep your 7 tiger barbs in the 25 gallon, and if you're diligent with maintenance, 4-5 kuhli loaches if you like those. RTS or rainbow shark probably isn't the best addition.

 

[Nippy Fish]

The inches per gallon guideline is often referenced in all the major magazines, books, websites, research, and other literature. It is hardly irrelevant. And it was never meant to be the only factor considered, that is why it is a guideline. We have other factors to consider such as bioload, activity level, mating behavior, aggression, territoriality, etc. To completely dismiss a long-standing, perfectly good guideline that was only ever meant to be a starting point in determining fish load is ridiculous.

 

[severum mama]

The inches per gallon guideline is often referenced in all the major magazines, books, websites, research, and other literature. It is hardly irrelevant. And it was never meant to be the only factor considered, that is why it is a guideline. We have other factors to consider such as bioload, activity level, mating behavior, aggression, territoriality, etc. To completely dismiss a long-standing, perfectly good guideline that was only ever meant to be a starting point in determining fish load is ridiculous.

Thank you for making my point.

These are precisely the factors that, when taken into consideration, render the inch per gallon guideline useless. It's a shame that it's referenced at all, let alone in magazines, books, etc.

 

[HN1]

Thank you for making my point.

These are precisely the factors that, when taken into consideration, render the inch per gallon guideline useless. It's a shame that it's referenced at all, let alone in magazines, books, etc.

+1

The inches per gallon guideline is often referenced in all the major magazines, books, websites, research, and other literature. It is hardly irrelevant. And it was never meant to be the only factor considered, that is why it is a guideline. We have other factors to consider such as bioload, activity level, mating behavior, aggression, territoriality, etc. To completely dismiss a long-standing, perfectly good guideline that was only ever meant to be a starting point in determining fish load is ridiculous.

There was a long standing belief that water changes could do harm and they were often done only in conjunction with complete tank cleanings (new substrate, new media, the works). I've chosen to dismiss that one as well. Animal husbandry doesn't need artificial and generic rules to be done correctly IMO. The inch per gallon thing is propogated because it's easy to teach to entry level chain store associates.

 

[Dekz]

The inches per gallon guideline is often referenced in all the major magazines, books, websites, research, and other literature. It is hardly irrelevant. And it was never meant to be the only factor considered, that is why it is a guideline. We have other factors to consider such as bioload, activity level, mating behavior, aggression, territoriality, etc. To completely dismiss a long-standing, perfectly good guideline that was only ever meant to be a starting point in determining fish load is ridiculous.

You know at one time there were a lot of people that would tell you the earth was flat

 

[Smitty]

I have 13 Tiger barbs in my 55 with 3 cory cats. I've never seen them bothering the cats at all.

I also have some rainbow fish but they are about 2x's the size of the barbs. Everyone appears to be happy.

 

[Moe55]

Still trying to decide what to do with this tank. So many fish, so many options. I may still do the tiger barbs or lately I've been thinking that a community tank with a single anglefish, 4-5 panda cories, and a small school of tetras would be a nice setup.

Moe

 

[Smitty]

I've recently been introduced to albino tiger barbs. I'll tell you that I really like them. They are bright orange/yellow and have white stripes. They look really good in my tank. Of the 13, 3 are albino and I may pick up more along the road.

 

[taylorodw]

lately I've been thinking that a community tank with a single anglefish, 4-5 panda cories, and a small school of tetras would be a nice setup.

Moe

That does sound nice... however just FYI (don't know if you have experience with Angels) that angel would eventually require a tank upgrade, whereas the Tiger Barbs could live their full lives in the 25g.

 

[severum mama]

If it's a 2 foot 25 gallon, I would agree with Taylor. I personally like to keep a single adult angel in no less than 29 gallons, although some will disagree with me.

 

[Nippy Fish]

I agree about the angelfish needing a bigger tank. I wouldn't put one in less than a 40 gallon. They can be 12" tall. Some people do put them in smaller tanks, but I like my fish to have room to swim. They really need room to manuever.

 

[severum mama]

P. altum can easily reach 12 inches in height (and I've seen some this large- quite impressive!), but p. scalare won't, which is the species we almost always encounter at the LFS. Still, they can get 6-8 inches tall and appreciate a tall tank as well as horizontal swimming space.

 

[Moe55]

Thanks for the input. I though maybe with the 25 gal being almost 21" high that a single angel would be ok but most here seem to think that it's too small. No problem. Maybe a nice King Betta instead. Most people keep their bettas in a tiny bowl. Is there anything wrong with keeping a nice betta specimen in a community tank with tetras and cories? The king betta has much shorter fins than a delta or crown tail so there shouldn't be a problem with fin nipping or current bothering the betta. Any thoughts?

Moe

 

[mfdrookie516]

Thanks for the input. I though maybe with the 25 gal being almost 21" high that a single angel would be ok but most here seem to think that it's too small. No problem. Maybe a nice King Betta instead. Most people keep their bettas in a tiny bowl. Is there anything wrong with keeping a nice betta specimen in a community tank with tetras and cories? The king betta has much shorter fins than a delta or crown tail so there shouldn't be a problem with fin nipping or current bothering the betta. Any thoughts?

Moe

what kind of tank do you have? 21" tall??? was that a typo meant to be 12" tall?

 

[Moe55]

I have a 25 gallon which is 24" long by 20" tall. Same exact footprint as a 20 gallon but 4.5" taller.

Moe