Overcrowding

[gregg604]

Dear yashinfan,


-12 Goldfish in a pond
-10 Zebra danios in my NEW 30G.
-90+ fry in my 23 gallon tank
-90+ Zebra Danio fry in a 10-gallon

I think your 23 gallon and 10 gallon with 90+ Zebra Danio might be a little overcrowded. The rule goes "an inch of fish per gallon..."

[Hebdizzle]

fry are baby fish. These are only raised in this tank until they get bigger and are able to be sold.


aaron

[WolfPup522]

That should not even be a rule - it is very bad and completely misleading. There are several other factors to overcrowding. You wouldn't put a 10-inch fish in a 10-gal, for instance. I won't go into more detail here, but search the forum for things like "capacity", "overcrowding", and such. You should find out quite a bit more in previous posts.

[OrionGirl]

I am really hoping this is a joke.

[WolfPup522]

Originally posted by OrionGirl
I am really hoping this is a joke. Me too.

[kveeti]

Gee, in the short time it took me to figure out a reply without sounding snotty, 4 posts beat me to it.

[gregg604]

Just joking around with Yashinfan, although not that funny now that I think about it... This post was supposed to be a reply, not in the general forum. My mistake. You guys don't miss a beat. However, I stand behind the inch per gallon thing as a means of determining whether your tank is too full. Naturally a large fish is the exception to the estimate.

[yashinfan]

Hehe, I guess I have to stand up for myself. The tank actually looks EMPTY. (10 gallon) The 23 is also very empty as well, the fish stay to one side of it and can swim about freely as they please. I'll admit that the 10 gallon is probably not the best place for them to be, but all the fish are healthy and happy and I haven't had one death in that tank!

It is, of course, a temporary setup. I don't know many people who will transpot their fry to other tanks while they are still very young. I bought the 30 gallon tank so I could free up the 23 gallon and split the fish evenly between the two. Oddly enough, the fish in the 10 gallon seem to be growing faster than those in the 23 gallon.

If you're all still not satisfied and thinking I am abusing my fish, than I will go through the trouble of taking a picture of my tank for you to see and judge if there is not enough space for the fish. It's funny because anyone who looks at my tanks goes, "Those fish are so tiny! Why don't you put something else in there??"

I'm a good fishkeeper in most respects, I test my water for amonia, and the pH before and after most water changes. I do a partial water change 1-2 times per week, feed 3 times daily, monitor temperature, give 15 hours of light to the fish, etc..

[ChilDawg]

Originally posted by gregg604
However, I stand behind the inch per gallon thing as a means of determining whether your tank is too full. Naturally a large fish is the exception to the estimate.

As are any other fishes which don't have the body shape of a Neon Tetra...

[yashinfan]

So ChilDawg are you saying that you think that 10, one inch danios would be the most fish you could but in a 10 gallon tank?

[ChilDawg]

Actually, I won't say that...plantings and extra filtration and extra/larger water changes make it possible for more fish to be inserted in a tank of that size...I've kept more than 10" of fish in a 10 gallon tank, but I did more water changes than usual.

[ChilDawg]

Here's the other part of it, though...the 1"/gallon rule really applies to full-grown lengths. It is a silly rule, IMHO, as it serves as a guideline for only a few types of fish.

[yashinfan]

Alright, so I have 0 full grown fish. I have 4 half grown fish. I do water changes as least once per week, instead of most people who do it once every 2 weeks or more. There are no live plants in the 10 gallon as I tried it for a couple of days once but the fish kept de-rooting it. In the 23 gallon, the filtration is so over-kill that I only did a siphoning after 2.5 months and the water I siphoned out into a bucket was crystal clear and had no dirt in it! It's also an undergravel filter with an over kill power head *shakes fist at sales person!* and I would estimate you could probably keep about 50" of fish (1-2 inch per fish) in there if you did water changes once a week! In my 30 gallon, I have 10 fish (1.5-2" in size) and they take up about 1/8th of the tank and I have a fluval 203, and live plants in that tank. I've done two water changes in that tank in the month that I have had it, but it really was not necessary. Anyway, home time now! bye!

[ChilDawg]

Just so you know, I am not criticizing you...and I should clarify...the rule is for long-term care in a tank, but again it's not all that useful.

[yashinfan]

http://www.geocities.com/dawnaurora19/fish/danios.html


I made this site just for those skeptics. Take a look, if you think it is over crowded I will actually go out and buy a new tank! lol! This view of the tank if from 1-2 feet away. You can probably see about 3-4 fish out of the 90. :o

[ChilDawg]

That isn't overcrowded at all! Just keep in mind that it will get that way as they get bigger, but your tank specs seem to indicate that you already knew that.

[kveeti]

My only question is - Is Dawn Aurora your real name? It's beautiful.

Cute teeny fishies. One piece of gravel looks like a boulder in comparison!

[demon_surfer]

gregg go and post the 1 inch per gallon rule on other places in this site...or on most others and you will get shot down.

It is generally accepted as useless.

As to better ways...explain that fish need living space and cramming them in like sardines in infair to them aswell as unhealth and ensure a quick death for your fish making purchasing them a pointless endevour. Most people will listen when you tell them it will be a waste of money.

plus i think you are looking for a fight, the mods dont generally dont like trolls so dont get too inflamatory k ;)

[gregg604]

Not looking for a fight. Just looking for an answer from somebody who doesn't just say that it is a "silly rule," or that I should go post in other forums. That is completely avoiding the issue. If you are going to shoot down what somebody says at least have the evidence to back up what you are saying. Why exactly does this rule seem to bother people so much,?That's all I want to know. Since day one of purchasing my aquarium and ten different stores I have been told the same thing. After that it seemed to me that the "inch per gallon" was a generally accepted idea.

[ChilDawg]

It bothers me because the application is so limited because of the variation in body shape of fishes, as well as the fact that people may do all sorts of things to their tanks to make them cleaner.

The behavioral nature of many fishes makes it impossible to use that rule as well.

In a 10g with a Paradisefish, you could conceivably put two Bronze Corys. But the P-fish will destroy the Cories and will most likely destroy anything in a community tank smaller than 50 gallons (Aquarium Fish Magazine article on Paradisefish).

Many people have come up with ways to deliver food to each and every inhabitant of packed tanks--spread the food throughout the tank rather than just set the food in one locale. There is, obviously, no guarantee that each fish will be fed, but each one will get a "fighting chance".

[RTR]

The "inch per gallon rule" was derived back in the 1930s and 40s as a crutch for novices selecting mixed communities of small Platys, guppies, Tetras, Rasboras, and Barbs. The primary use, and only valid use, is for small, slender-bodied (flatten cyclindrical or cylindrical) fish less than 2" standard length. 1) Fish oxygen use and waste production goes up with body mass. Do you accept that? If so,2) body mass is not related to length, but closer to the cube of length, or more accurately to length and width and thickness. If you can believe that, you can see that the inch per gallon "rule" is effectively worthless. If you do not accept that, weigh and check the displacement (the two together will give you a mass index of each fish) of a variety of fish for yourself and you will find out the truth.

This also completely ignores the effects and requirements of aggresion, swimming space allowances, food competition, etc. It is based soley on mass, O2 needs, and waste production.

Beyond that, allowances must be calculated for the full adult size of the fish in question - calculations based on current size are as false as the so-called rule. There are many myth in this hobby. This is one of them and like most myths, leads the unaware into problems.

[gregg604]

While sincerely trying to avoiding beating an issue to death, I think the point I was trying to make was that the inch per gallon rule merely serves as a "rough estimate" of what the maximum capacity of your fish tank is. After using this "rough estimate" to come up with a quantitive number you can then begin to take into account all the other factors which go into maintaining a fish tank. Taking into account agression, adult fish shape and size, net gallons of water as well as water surface area ensure that you are giving your fish the best possible treatment. After searching the net for more thoughts on the inch per gallon rule I came across just as many pages for the rule as against it. Therefore it really comes down to a matter of personal preference and not who is right or wrong... :)

[demon_surfer]

no it really doesnt come down to a matter of personel preferance. it comes down to what fish you are dealing with. The rule can be applied to neons and similar tetras. It cannot be applied to goldfish. It cannot be applied to plecostomas, it cannot be applied to cichlids. basically you can aply the one inch of fish per gallon rule to fish that dont get over one inch and are not territorial, or predatory, or aggresive, or crap alot.

And yes i think you ARE looking for a fight, you start this off attacking another member and then when he vindicates himself you change the focus to the inch per gallon and insult everyone that tells you its wrong.

and as to the fish stores vs the people online..hmm who you going to believe. the people who are payed 5 bucks and hour to SELL fish or the people that have been keeping fish for years and years?

in short if you arnt gonna listen dont ask

[ChilDawg]

Originally posted by gregg604
Therefore it really comes down to a matter of personal preference and not who is right or wrong... :)

If you mean personal preference as to which fish you keep, I can dig that.

[RTR]

I have to agree that this one is not at all, in any way, personal preference. It is a matter of good fishkeeping versus subcription to myth and possible (usual) resulting poor fish-keping practices.

If you opt for the later, that is personal choice. And the consequences of that choice are yours.

[yashinfan]

Originally posted by demon_surfer
And yes i think you ARE looking for a fight, you start this off attacking another member and then when he vindicates himself you change the focus to the inch per gallon and insult everyone that tells you its wrong.


Thanks for backing me up here, but "he" I am not. I'm a girl lol, damnit, WHY CANT GIRLS LIKE HOCKEY TOO?!!! :P

[gregg604]

Found this article online outlining the methods of stocking a fish tank. Interesting stuff. It does not reject the inch per gallon rule but admits it must be used with careful consideration to other factors. Check it out:

http://freshaquarium.about.com/library/weekly/aa040703a.htm

[SimonWoodstock]

for god's sake!?

[RTR]

The only thing as misleading as the "inch per gallon" rule is the (and from the same era) "inch per 12 square inches of surface area" rule. And it is so for all of the same reasons.

Is this troll season on AC?

[gregg604]

Originally posted by RTR

Is this troll season on AC?
Note: Too much time in forums can lead to the use of silly lingo. Found some more sites with the "inch per gallon rule." Maybe you can email all the authors and tell them what you think. That is if you are not too busy replying here...

http://members.tripod.com/~lisajh62/QuickReference.html
http://www.animalnetwork.com/aquafish/reference/f34.asp
http://www.fishlinkcentral.com/articles/article026.htm
http://www.aquariumpros.com/articles/stockguide.shtml

[kveeti]

I can google "bananas are evil" and come up with 114 hits. That must make it true.

It is true that a person can find a back-up to almost any theory. What a person has to do is be like wetmanNY - be skeptical and weight all the "evidence" and think. In the end, I suppose, most people will just continue to believe what they want. I know in some situations (not fish related) that is what I do. However, when it comes to fish, I would trust what RTR, wetmanNY, OrionGirl and a host of others here say (lots of others, don't mean to leave anybody out) over my knowledge any day.

[RTR]

If you look hard enough you can find from dozens to hundreds of statements saying that non-iodized salt should be added to all FW tanks also. That does not make the statement true or valid. It is neither.

In the end, it is your tank. Do with it as you will.

But do not expect statements contrary to fact to meet general acceptance. The popularity of myth has nothing at all to do with reality.

[OrionGirl]

And on that note, I'm closing this. There is not anything more beneficial to be added, though this will likely move to archives for future reference.

If anyone chooses to believe popular myth, and defend it despite evidence and experience to the contrary, in addition to a very good explanation for it's source, there isn't much that we can do. However--sometimes, when all the lights are shining at you, it's because you're going the wrong way, not because you're on stage.