New goldfish tank questions

[Flaringshutter]

I think we will have to agree to disagree, reptile.

I've heard posters here dispute the adult size of fancies over and over, and I think it's time to put that to rest. I keep an eye on all the breeders websites and I'm in regular contact with quite a few good breeders. So I'm seeing fish of 8 inches regularly. I know it's unusual to see fish that large in pet stores and in your LFS, but I am sure it is simply that those are very young fish and have not yet reached their full sizes. With good food and clean water, I am confident that at least 75% of goldfish have the capacity to reach at least 8 inches.

For example, here is a 6.5 inch ranchu from the current goldfishconnection auction:

A 9.5 inch red cap oranda:

Here's a 7 inch pearlscale from raingarden:

A 7 inch ryukin from raingarden:

A big black ranchu from raingarden:

Another big ranchu, this one from David Lains:

A 7 inch ryukin from Fish Sempai:

A nearly 8.8 inch oranda from Fish Sempai:

A 7 inch ryukin from Fish Sempai:

A 9 inch oranda from Fish Sempai:

A 9 inch ranchu from Fish Sempai:

And here is a group of really giant ryukins and lionheads, up to 12 inches:

More photos of this group here:
http://thegab.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12339&highlight=inch

So I don't think it's so remarkable for fish to reach these sizes. Sure there are healthy fish that are smaller, but I don't think it is the standard by any means. I think most fish, if given the room and a proper diet, will reach upwards of 8 inches.

 

[reptileguy2727]

Yes, but won't most breeders be keeping and raising their best options available? The ones who grow faster, have the better colors, form, etc. will be the ones kept by breeders to raise. I am in no way saying they won't reach these sizes, obviously they do. But to say they all will or that almost all will is not completely true. The other half of that is all of the others at the same age who are not remarkably large. The ones who are avergae size and therefore are not noticed and have threads started about them. The ones that the breeders sell off or cull because they were growing so slowly or did not show the potential to attain such large size. Without taking entire broods and growing them together, never culling or removing any individuals, and monitoring their growth I think it is really hard to say that so many would or should reach that size if properly cared for.

I do think that effectively all goldfish do not attain their individual maximum potential because of diet, water quality, etc.

 

[Flaringshutter]

The photos I posted are not breeders' broodstock. These are fish for sale. So they are not even the best or largest specimens. And again, we will just have to agree to disagree.
I think variations in size in fish of the same age are exclusively due to diet, water quality, and space.
Although breeders certainly select for the largest and best conformation or coloring, there have been thousands, if not millions of generations since the fancy goldfish was developed. So it's not like we are seeing huge variations at this point, even between varieties, as we would if this was the F2 or F3 generation from the wild carp. The individual traits of each fancy type have been established, and at this point there is no substantial quantity of potential three inch fish and eight inch fish within the same spawn. I am confident that the average size is well established. Even across the whole span of goldfish bred, bought and sold today.
Take coloration, for example. In a spawn of two randomly selected orange comets, 99 % of the offspring will likely be orange comets. It's not as though we are so early in the development of goldfish we will see some bronze, some yellow, some orange, some white.... fancy fish size is a similar situation. An adult that develops into a white or bronze fish from that spawn would be a rarity at this point, just as an adult that develops into a three inch or 14 inch fish would be a rarity.
That's my opinion.

 

[Danyal]

anyway, back to the original posters questions. a 37g isn't big enough for life, however at this point it'll be more than suffecient for the goldfish at this point, as well as a school of white clouds, i'd recommend 8 or so and if you can sex them, a ratio of 3 females per male.

 

[reptileguy2727]

If variation at the same size was due to diet and water quality than why is there so much variation within a single brood that is reaised together? If they are in the same tank they are exposed to the exact same water quality and diet and still there is significant variation in size.

Breed age may minimize it, but there is still variation. If there is no genetic variation in a population you are asking for problems.

Anyways, this person is doing enough water changes.

Everyone should do the best they can to provide the best home reasonably possible for their fish. This means an aggressive water change schedule, the best food reasonably possible, aggressive filtration, large water volumes, etc.

 

[reptileguy2727]

I would not consider a 37 adequate enough to also add a school of white clouds. It is arguably good enough (if well maintained enough) for the three goldfish, but without an absolulte guarantee that there is a larger tank in the future of these fish, adding more fish is only contributing to the problem.

Those aren't past breeders? Or individuals that were kept in hopes they would be good enough to breed? I doubt they are keeping and growing them to such large size simply to sell them at a larger size, it is not cost effective.

 

[J double R]

If variation at the same size was due to diet and water quality than why is there so much variation within a single brood that is reaised together? If they are in the same tank they are exposed to the exact same water quality and diet and still there is significant variation in size.

Breed age may minimize it, but there is still variation. If there is no genetic variation in a population you are asking for problems.

Anyways, this person is doing enough water changes.

Everyone should do the best they can to provide the best home reasonably possible for their fish. This means an aggressive water change schedule, the best food reasonably possible, aggressive filtration, large water volumes, etc.

everyone should do the best they can to provide the best home PERIOD, (ie. not "reasonably"), or pick a fish that they CAN house properly.

 

[reptileguy2727]

I say reasonably because there is always better. I could get a 5,000 gallon pool for my basement for my goldfish, but that is not reasonable. I could mail order a food and end up paying $100 a pound for it to be shipped from a breeder in China, but that is not reasonable. There is a minimum, reasonable by no means makes it okay to have them if you can't provide the minimal. It just means if it is a reasonable way to improve their care, do it. And if you can't provide minimal then move on to a different species.

 

[April12]

Ditto to everything Reptileguy said.

 

[Flaringshutter]

I agree with you reptile, that there is no room for a white cloud school at this point. In a larger tank, white clouds would make a great addition. But a 37 is too small for goldfish and white clouds.

And no, those aren't breeders or past breeders. They are simply good examples of the size a healthy fish given clean water and good food can attain.

An average spawn should not yield fish that have a big size variation. If you're seeing a lot of size variation, there is not enough room or there's too much competition for food. There is the occasional tobi, one or two fry that grow much larger than their siblings, but that can also be a sign of improper feeding. There's an interesting article by Steve at raingarden on tobi here:
http://www.raingarden.us/tobi.pdf

And here is a quote from him that I think is particularly relevant:

In some batches of fry the size distribution is large and there is an unusually large number of tobi. In other batches the size distribution is narrow and the siblings look almost identical. In general, the better the fry are fed the less variation there will be in their size. If abundant live food can be kept in front of the fry at all times while maintaining good water quality, there is a much lower incidence of tobi. Under the best of conditions the growth of fry is phenomenal and most of the population (except for those with serious deformities) has the potential to grow at the rate of tobi. The best way to minimize the number of tobi is to provide better nutrition and husbandry.
The biggest and best koi and goldfish will have had the best nutrition and water quality their entire lives. Periods of less than optimal conditions can have long-term effects. In extreme cases, we say that the fish is stunted. The younger the fish, the more severe and lasting the effect of poor nutrition and water quality.

I'm sure we could debate this forever, reptile. People have! But it is good to have the discussion.