The argument of tank size.

[LayzorBeams]

So i just want to start a discussion about how the sizes of aquariums we need for fish has drastically changed in the last several decades.

If you look online at documents written decades ago, and even as recent as the early 2000's, you can see these differences.

My first example is Oscars. We all know about these giant "puppy-fish" that starts off as an adorable black and red goofball and grows into a giant maelstrom of food and poo.

If you look at most earlier documents, you can see that the size recommended for a Oscar was between 30-40 gallons. After that, the amount of Oscars in a large tank didn't increase linearly, it seems to increase in a more exponential fashion. You can find examples of whole aquarium communities agreeing that a 75 gallon is perfectly fine for 4 foot-long Oscars. We now can just barely justify keeping a single Oscar in a tank of 75 gallons, with many saying that you need a 90 gallon tank for either a single O or a pair. Why? People kept foot-long Os in 40 gallon tanks for a long time.

(I choose to say a "foot-long" fish as this, or an inch or two bigger, is the usually the biggest you commonly see, although i understand they can reach larger sizes. Its a rare occurrence)

Betta fish are some of the most well known, popular aquarium fish out there. Why is it that people in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia kept them and continue to keep them in jars barely larger than the bowls you take them home in from you local Petco, and we have to give them 5 gallons to be acceptable? If they could create a breed of fish thats popularity could reach around the world and who's fighting spirit wouldn't be dampened by the confines of their homes, why do we feel the need to give them so much space?

However, there is another way you can flip this coin. An example is Goldfish. How many times did we see them at the local fair in tiny glass bowls, and think that it was ok before we realized that they grow into foot-long, food-gobbling, golden monsters. (I say that in a nice way)
So why do we still let stores sell them like this when they will die in weeks and nothing will be learned from it?

So obviously, sides are to be taken in every argument revolving around the size of tank you need. What do you believe, and why? I know lots of us would like to keep fish in smaller tanks but don't like to be put down by people who believe differently. There is evidence and decades, maybe centuries, of human experience we can learn from, or return to.

Also, why do you think some people feel this way? Is it that we want to be nice to a simpler creature who doesn't feel emotions or pain in the same way we do, and sometimes not at all? Is it because we have better access to them so we say "Ehhh why not?" Or is it because we need an excuse to get a bigger tank? Wht do you think?

The last things i want to say: please be nice and also, don't use the argument that they "thrive" in a larger tank. They don't thrive in anything less than a lake or river. The best we can do is allow there survival in our homes be as long as possible.

So what do you say?



Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[LayzorBeams]

And, on a non-serious note, i am SO happy i managed to type all that in such a professional way. Booooyah


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[Mebbid]

Its scary to say, but generally the most outspoken people (as long as they can back up their stance in logical manner) can change the way entire communities think.

I will use aquariumadvice as an example. Back when i joined fish in cycling was evil and inhumane. In the short time that ive been here jetajockey was the fore runner in accepting fish in cycling as a humane practice. Myself and a few other heavy posters joined him in spreading the joys of fish in cycling and nowadays here its relatively well accepted.

 

[LayzorBeams]

That makes sense.

To be honest i don't see how it directly relates to this, but its a good point.

I might just be dumb though


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[SpaceFish42]

These are all interesting points, although I am personally on the "bigger is better" side. I would like to see where this discussion goes.

 

[LayzorBeams]

Personally, i am quite alright with doing either. If i want a fish i will get it if i want it. But if i can manage, i would do a bigger tank.




Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[Mebbid]

That makes sense.

To be honest i don't see how it directly relates to this, but its a good point.

I might just be dumb though [emoji14]


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

Well.. look at it this way using oscars as an example.

55g tanks have been a long term standard for minimum tank size for oscars.

Then some people join the aquaria community with a well thought out argument that they need a 75g and pass it around a few times. Those posts are then regurgitated a few times by other people. Eventually its said enough that it becomes accepted as truth by the majority of the community.

 

[LayzorBeams]

Yeah but what I'm trying to get at is why did they think about that in the first place?


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[Mebbid]

Yeah but what I'm trying to get at is why did they think about that in the first place?


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

It depends on the basis for their argument really. Some will see the 12 inch width of a 55g and say its too small for an oscar. Others will see the huge nitrate problems and say its a water volume problem.

 

[LayzorBeams]

But then again, why couldn't they go back to the 40 gal breeder? Its wider than a 55, and as said earlier people did it for years.


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[Mebbid]

But then again, why couldn't they go back to the 40 gal breeder? Its wider than a 55, and as said earlier people did it for years.


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

They could, ive contemplated doing that exact thing. But its a pita keeping nitrates low enough on a 55g. If water parameters were removed from the equation, i would consider doing it.

 

[RedDevil83]

When it comes down to it all, alot are just opinions, I would look at fish behaviour in a tank before accepting what others think they know..

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[HausMaus]

I remember lamenting to my LFS dude that I felt sorry for bachelor bettas, but he said "Do you know where they normally live? In puddles in rice paddies."
I have a square shaped 35L/10g tank and I kind of wished I had got a rectangular tank so the guppies had more length to swim along. I have no idea if they prefer this, but I just thought it would've been "nicer" for them.
Interesting topic

 

[LayzorBeams]

They could, ive contemplated doing that exact thing. But its a pita keeping nitrates low enough on a 55g. If water parameters were removed from the equation, i would consider doing it.

And i think, same as you, that if you took parameter out of the equation it would change things. But there are many ways around this as well, to reduce nitrates and stuff.


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[Caliban07]

This topic was always one that grated on me when I first joined the forum. I don't claim to know a great deal about fish, I enjoy the whole idea of keeping them but it didn't take me long to figure out that most of the recommendations for tank sizes were base and regurgitated information as Mebbid has already pointed out. I thought that there was some kind of magical chart that people were referring to when the came out with minimum tank sizes. "You could do a x in a x size tank" or "x needs at least and x size tank"

Having said that I just prefer to give the fish more room if I can afford the space. More things for the fish to explore that encourages more natural behaviour the more enjoyment I get from watching them.

Water parameters are another issue. There may be an argument that there is no real evidence to suggest nitrates over 40ppm are bad for fish. I've seen studies where the nitrates have been in the several hundreds before the fish was affected


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Delapool]

It's an interesting trend. I've been pressing that one room in the house should be converted to an aquarium but so far no luck. Perhaps one day!

I don't know why goldfish seem to be a blind spot. Perhaps they are seen as a beginner fish (and thus kept by people very much learning?).

Case in point - a guy at work mentioned he was keeping small goldfish and one was rolling over. Possibly bloating - case solved.

A bit more chat.

3 goldfish in 20litres (5 gall).

Acclimatisation - none.

Filters - none.

Tank cycled - no (blissfully unaware).

Water testing - none.

First time fish keeper - yes.

Perhaps by the time he gets to oscar keeping, he is more experienced? I'm not sure on the goldfish side but on the tropical side I get asked a lot about the tank size I have when I'm buying fish.

 

[MissGurnus]

Personally I abide by the 5g minimum rule. Even for betta's, yes they might live in puddles naturally but as a pet we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of care.

When we move into new places we always lean towards places with more space, not because what we had was insufficient but because it feels good to have more room to breathe. The same holds true for fish. Just because a betta can live in a 2.5 doesn't mean it wouldn't be happier in a 10


Sent from my iPod touch using Aquarium Advice

 

[fishliker]

I agree with red devil. We are putting our fish in a cage for our enjoyment. My goal is to keep these pets in conditions that are as natural and stress free as possible. The fish are healthier and display their natural behavior and colors which to me is very rewarding. I keep 5 pearl gourami in a 55 gallon tank with plants and driftwood. They appear relaxed, swim gracefully all over the tank without feeling threatened and they interact with each other.


Sent from my iPad using Aquarium Advice

 

[ImACoolguy]

This is a great read and I'm glad everyone has stayed respectful.

My take: we have more access to larger tanks and technology today. It probably doesn't sound like much but I'd bet that 10g aquarium sitting across from my bed(it's 7:30am can't sleep ) has better glass and better silicone seals than a tank made 10-15 years ago. Look at filters, we are constantly improving them, more media in a compact space.

I agree with Mebbid on the Oscars, many consider the 55g an unsuitable home not because of the water value, but because of its dimensions. If we shaved off a foot of lateral swimming space and added 6 inches to the width of each side that would be a lot more room for the fish to swim. After all, I can't recall an Oscar ever moving very fast(haven't owned one though).

You can also take into account that over there where Betta fish are farmed and raised it is a subtropical climate. Temperatures are naturally where they need to be. Who needs a heater if the air is hot enough to give them the right temperature? That being said I still don't agree on bowls.

A while back I read on another ethical discussion much like this. It was on ethics but in one part of the thread particularly about filters. We preach about good filtration. Look back to the dark ages of fishkeeping and you might find a simple air pump at most. People kept fish long before filters were made. Through daily water changes and cleaning you can keep a tank just as clean without a filter. Filters are a major convenience, not a necessity. One could tie that in to bettas in bowls again.

The mistreatment of goldfish still amazes me though, they are still sold in mass numbers and in small bowls at carnivals. Can we at least switch it to bettas? Considering they would last much longer being labyrinth fish.

When it comes down to it, within reason I don't think it's a matter of tank size, it's a matter of convenience. You can keep an Oscar into adulthood in a 40 breeder just fine but you will need to perform tons of water changes to cope with the excessive bio load. And back to my first point, nowadays, we have much better access to much larger tanks for these fish to live in. It's easier on us, and them.


Caleb

 

[buffalochip]

well, when you look at the equipment we have now that is so much better with canister filters etc, it is really possible to keep fish in smaller tanks than before.
Our drift toward larger tanks has to be our perception of "quality of life" for the fish. Also as a hobbyist we want our practices to be accepted by the rest of the community (refer to previous post about in-fish cycling).