Has anyone thought of this creatively? "But honey, I know you care about the fish and can see they are way too crowded for their health. We seriously need that 25,000 gallon tank.Even if it means a new mortgage."
you just proved that the cubic inch per gallon, while much better than the inch per gallon, still doesn't work. for a 12" oscar, while it would be great for a 216g tank, the minimum tank size would be a 75g.I can understand where they are going with it but it is as inaccurate as the 1" per gallon rule as well. It all depends on the fish. The way it should be is 1 gallon per cubic inch of fish. using a 6" Cichlid as an example:
Typically it would be 6" long about 4.0" high and about 1.5" wide.
1G per 1" = a minimum 6 gallon tank (too small)
By table above it needs to be a minimum 216 gallon tank.
1G per cubic inch = a minimum 36G tank
A fully grown Oscar at 12" long 6" high and 3" wide would require a 216 gallon tank where by the chart above you would need a 1,728 gallon tank.
Anyhow, that's just my opinion and that is how I usually set up my tanks for stocking.
As for fish waste, That would deal more with filtration rather than tank size.
what they are saying is not that a 24" fish needs a 13K tank, but that it takes 13K one inch fish (i.e neons) to account for the same bioload.so then a 24" fish is going to need a 13,800g tank? i'm so freakin tired of these crappy rules.
i vote for the neons:headbang2:what they are saying is not that a 24" fish needs a 13K tank, but that it takes 13K one inch fish (i.e neons) to account for the same bioload.