Do fish really stop growing if kept in a small tank?

Is fish size restricted by the size of the aquarium?

  • Yes I think it is

    Votes: 28 38.4%

  • No I don't think so

    Votes: 43 58.9%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
Leighlou said:
From what I understand, if you put a fish in a smaller tank like you often see goldfish in (Which can get up to 8 inches) the fish will put out a hormone that will stop its body from growing but the internal organs don't stop growing, which is why you see some goldfish with really big eyes. It also cuts the life expectancy. But that is what I've been told on here though it does make sense, since I had a 6 inch goldfish.
Click to expand...

8 Inches is actually the very LOW end of the spectrum, something I am actually surprised Lupin did not point out, lol. Other than my three tiny baby pearlscales, my SMALLEST goldfish is six inches long, And I am talking fancies, NOT comets, commons or shubs.

theredchaser said:
I think its best to do whats fair to the fish you own. I've seen numerous promises of upgrading the tank size when they get larger, or doing more water changes to compensate, but they rarely actually follow through. The easiest thing to do is to simply get fish that your tank can handle, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I agree here. It seems to me that the people that feel the need to make these types of excuses are the ones that are not going to follow through. Smaller than recommended tanks are not a death sentence for every fish. I will admit that I have three baby goldfish in a 30 gallon tank. BUT, I do really big water changes every other day (I did 80 percent water changes in my 80 gallon for MONTHS also) and these little fish have absolutely doubled in size in the last month or so.

I still say that tank size more often than not causes stunting. There are still too many people out there that think that twice yearly or even once monthly water changes are okay. There are still too many people that put a goldfish in a 1 gallon bowl, or a common pleco in a ten gallon with an oscar as a friend. Is it the stores fault for misleading the buyer? Is it the buyer's fault for not doing thier own research? Yes, and Yes. Blame can be apportioned to both.

So, I guess technically, it is a combo of water changes and tank size. Still, I can't see my ten inch + fantail goldfish Mei living in a ten gallon tank, even if I changed the water 4 times a day.

Kristina
 
"LeahK;2132055]I was in a similar situation once ...Just speaking for myself, I felt like it was my responsibility to rehome them. After all, it was my fault for buying them without researching them, so I considered myself responsible for caring for them--even when "caring for them" meant finding them a new owner."

:iagree:

Thanks for this thought Leah. As you say I am now responsible for his welfare. Think I will see if I can find someone who has an appropriate set up to take him and then get some Kooli loaches as suggested by someone else. Might try Brighton Aquarium!
 
Of all the factors that lead to stunting in fish, I'd have to say that tank size is probably the least important determinant. Given ideal feeding regimen and flow through water changes, a fish will continue to grow to the point where it is no longer able to move within the confines of the aquarium. Studies have been done with channel catfish that do bear this out entirely. The issue becomes the feasibility of providing ideal conditions within the limited confines of an improperly sized aquarium. Suffice to say, the actual size of the tank is not the important part, rather the speed at which metabolic waste and hormones accumulate when there is not sufficient amounts of water moving through the aquarium. I voted no, because at the end of the day, its not the size of the tank, but rather the incompetence of the aquarist that leads to stunting.
 
Inka4040 said:
Of all the factors that lead to stunting in fish, I'd have to say that tank size is probably the least important determinant. Given ideal feeding regimen and flow through water changes, a fish will continue to grow to the point where it is no longer able to move within the confines of the aquarium. Studies have been done with channel catfish that do bear this out entirely. The issue becomes the feasibility of providing ideal conditions within the limited confines of an improperly sized aquarium. Suffice to say, the actual size of the tank is not the important part, rather the speed at which metabolic waste and hormones accumulate when there is not sufficient amounts of water moving through the aquarium. I voted no, because at the end of the day, its not the size of the tank, but rather the incompetence of the aquarist that leads to stunting.
Click to expand...
wow..I'm going to agree with INKA:jaw-dropping::lipssealedsmilie::shocked::thud:
 
84487630.jpg


My take on all of this - "Yes, but only because of the stress inherent in living in too small a space and the associated water quality problems." In other words, I voted "No".
 
I think in most real life cases, science aside, that a fish kept in a cramped tank for its species will most likely die from ill health before it would become an issue of "did it reach full size?" Regardless of how you look at it... its cruel.
 
I know that in a smaller tank a fish will not reach it's full potential but will nevertheless grow too big to be comfortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom