The following discussion is predicated on the hypothetical scenario of a tank setup with unlimited filtration capacity, such that water quality isn't an issue. For the purposes of this discussion, assume the water cycling rate and water replacement rate is always sufficient to maintain perfect water chemistry and oxygenation regardless of the total fish count.

To curtail the effects of territoriality and overcrowding, I understand why the general rule of 10 gallons per fantail applies with smaller volumes of water (i.e. 10 gal = 1 fantail, 20 gal = 2 fantails...). I was curious if this rule had a greater degree of flexibility with larger tanks (i.e. 30 gallons+). For example, can a 30 gallon tank comfortably support 4 (or even 5) fantails without any "personality issues" coming into play? I would also imagine that long vs. tall tanks impact the total number of supported fantails.

Again, for this discussion we are assuming water quality and oxygenation plays no contributing role in our decision making.

I can't really say... but theorectically, I would say, IF you had perfect water quality (wouldn't that be nice) as a given - in perpetua - then size would still matter overall as the fish's genetic ability to grow larger would be affected, thereby affecting its longevity. In short, a stunted fish will have a shorter life span.

Our current tank is 10 gallons with 3 fantails (about 2" each). Before you gasp, just let me say that they've been living happily together for about two years with no water quality problems, oxygen issues, or fatalities; thanks in part to weekly water changes and plenty of air stones. However, our three little kids are clearly outgrowing their home.

Unfortunately (for our fish) we just bought a new apartment in NYC, so between moving, painting, and other construction, now is not the optimal time to stand-up a new tank. We've decided to wait till things settle down later this year to give our three little kids a bigger tank.

Ideally, we would like to stand-up a 25 to 30 gallon tank and keep a total of four fantails.

The problem with that is fish growth, though. Although the fish may be healthy, two year old fish should be at least 5 inches long, and idealy 6-8 inches. So even though you managed to provide a healthy environment with healthy fish, they are still stunted. I think thats also part of the 10 gallon per fish rule.

Its a very touchy topic, but I understand what your saying. I think it should start in larger tanks, though. i.e - 6 in a 55 gallon or 9 in a 75. I am happy with my two in a 55 gallon, might get one more later.

Hi,

I've tried to keep about 6 goldfish in a 29g with 600gph filtration, but was unsuccessful.

The smaller fish would be scared all the time and die of starvation. The larger fish were 3" to 6" and luckily did not bully one another. I had a very difficult time maintaining water quality.

It was a futile exercise and would not recommend anyone to try it. The tank did look very nice and full of fish for about 2 weeks though

The bottom end of the "10g rule" is also odd. I now keep a single Moor in a 10g tank, and he just sits at the bottom most of the time, looking very sad. He definitely needs company.

Slugger

Hi! I hope you don't think anyone here would judge you - we all have constraints - the fact that you are here means you care! With a little overstocking, it means you just have to be extra careful checking water quality and stay on top of water changes. I can't say whether or not your fish may have experienced some stunting or not, but at two inches you can probably hang in there (with extreme vigilence) until Christmas. Planning an upgrade is very important. You may actually find that since you know the general rule of thumb, you will feel more and more motivated to get them into a bigger tank fast! I thought I could hold off for another 6 months with my one GF in a 12 g tank - Nope! It drove me nuts until he got his 20. I'd sy we another year before I start feeling all sorry for him when I look at the 20!

I might consider, though, if it were me, restricting myself to three fish in the thirty. They will grow when you switch theminto a bigger tank. I only swear by the ten gallon rule now b/c I have lived it - my fish was on/off again sick a few times b/c his tank was so small, there was no leeway for minor w.q. fluctuations.

But, as many of the more experienced keepers here will say, any rule can be flexed - if you know what you are doing, you might be able to be overstocked for a bit!

You are absolutely correct in thinking that larger bodies of water have larger degrees of flexibility pertaining to stocking densities. This is 100% without a doubt.


As long as water quality is perfect, there is enough space for the amount of fish to move about comfortably (without bumping into each other incessantly), there is no reason to think that the fish would not thrive.

However, there IS a cap to this sort of scenario. There is a point at wich there is too many currents in a given tank for the fish to comfortably rest. Unless, of course, you had a MASSIVE biofiltration system that allowed for a minimal gph to flow through and still keep the water clean, much like pet shop filtration systems. Then, you could REALLY pack them in there. But, in my opinion, there is no fun in keeping a tank so full of fish that you cannot focus on just one....


There is a hypothetical growth inhibiting hormone that supposedly build up in the water. All of the fish in the body of water detect this hormone and slow their growth rates according to the amount of it surrounding them. You can equate it to photoperiod sensitive plants that fruit:

These plants grow vegatatively until the photoperiod begins to have more dark than light. Now, to use this trigger, there is a hormone in the plant that builds up during the dark period. Once the hormone reaches a certain level in the plant, it will put forth enegy into growing fruit during the following day of the photoperiod. If the dark period is interrupted by light, the hormone is destroyed by the light. When the source of light pollution is removed, the hormone begins to build up again. But, since it will not be able to build up to the necessary level for fruiting, it will not put forth the following days energy into fruiting, it will begin to revert back to vegatative growth.

The same can be said for the growth inhibiting hormone in fish. If it builds up to a cetain level, it can effectivelly turn off the growth of the fish for more than "a day". It is also further assumed that this homone is not easily expelled by the fish either. So, it could take quite a bit of time before the fish is triggered into growing again. This hormone is in retaliation to the lack of food, space, and water quality that is almost always part of the equation in overcrowded circumstances.


Basically, it is up to the discretion of the keeper how many fish they like to keep in any given tank. As long as the water is clean and the fish are healthy and happy, you can't knock 'em......


Java,

Dont take this the wrong way, but there is a very good reason why your goldfish are only two inches at two years of age. They are stunted. Keeping 3 goldfish in a ten gallon for that long almost assures this. Wether it be from nitrAtes being too high, hypothetical growth regulating hormoses at high levels, "fin room" or what, they are most certainly stunted. Again, dont take it the wrong way. A two year old fantail goldfish should be well over 6 inches long, unless it were a fancy variety like siamese dolls or the like.

Example: I have a goldfish, raised from fry, that is less than a year old and is now pushing 5 inches long. I predict it to be 8-10 inches by its second year. This fish was kept alone in a 5 gallon for a couple months, then a ten gallon, and now a 29 gallon.


Your idea of tanksize and gallonage for your future tank is a very realistic projection. Its definitely a good base to start from.....


Hope this helps!

Paul

Thanks guys,

In general (and in line with "toothless's" thinking), fish, and all animals for that matter, have means for adapting to their respective environments. Fish in a confined body of water will have reduced growth rates. This trait evolved for the purposes of guaranteeing survival in closed environments with limited resources, and is more prevalent in fresh water fish species than marine. On a geologic time scale, fresh water bodies are more likely to receed during times of drought than marine systems, so this "reduced growth rate" trait evolved to a greater extent in fresh water animals.

First of all, fancy goldfish are in many respects a man-made creation (work of art, if you will) Like most breeds of purbred dogs, they are so far removed from their wild ancestors, that it is unreasonable to compare their needs to a fish in a natural environment.
I feel that as a hobbyist it behooves me to provide my pets the best conditions possible, given the knowledge available to me. I consider it an extremely interesting part of the whole goldfish fancy to watch healthy fish grow to their full size potential. It is a challenge that I welcome to try to keep them stress and disease free. I chose fancy goldfish because of their beauty, personality and size. If I didn't want to spend the time and money needed to keep large fish I would have chosen a different species. Knowingly stunting their growth to fit my budget is not an option.

Make no mistake, a stunted goldfish WILL have a compromised immune system and/or possibilities for internal complications and early death.

Goldfish are, indeed, MUCH different from their wild ancestors. So much so that internal and/or genetic complications are VERY prevalent. This is because of the lack of ability to know if the fish's genetics are not high quality as far as organ developement, ability to fight off infection and many other factors. They are simply bred according to visual appearance. Not much, if any, effort is put into making sure that the genetics that control general health are being bred into the lineage. They kindof leave that up to "mother nature" to sort out. But, this is a flawed line of thought. With this in mind, stunting of a fancy goldfish's size can and will increase the possiblity of internal complications such as liver and kidney failure, too much pressure on the swimbladder (thus flipover) and some others I could elaborate on. It is very commonly known that fancy goldfish that were stunted at a young age do not live anywhere near as long as they would had it been provided a body of water that was conducive to fast, healthy growth. So, the key to making sure a goldfish lives as long a life as possible is to pay special attention to the water volume/quality while they are in their formative years. Generally, the first 3-5 years of growth.

A good analogy:

A dog without a yard to run in, daily, winds up with poor muscle mass, poor circulation and a lowered ability to fight off infections and the like. Goldfish are no different. If a goldie is not provided an ample amount of space to move about in, actively, it cannot assemble the optimum amount of muscle mass, pulmonary health and immune system that it requires to live as long as it can. Same goes for humans, if we are not active, or do not get excercise, we become unhealthy and fall ill much more often.


Good thread here guys.

I take objection to your implied criticism of the manner in which I chose to raise my fish.

Not to pull rank, but I have a master's degree in marine science, with course and field experience in marine chemistry and biology, fish and invertibrate physiology, marine microbiology, geochemistry, etc. So I have a rather well-rounded understanding of how to keep a fish happy in an artificial environment.

Fancy goldfish, by your own admission, are artificially altered animals. It is a well-known fact that breeding fish (or any animal) strictly for aesthetics will compromise the animal's immune system, ability to cope with environmental stresses, will adversely impact the size, functionality, and development of internal organs, resulting in an inferior animal that is predisposed to a shorter life-span than a natural counterpart raised in a tank under similar conditions.

With little exception, regardless of how well an experienced fishkeeper tries to maintain a genetically altered fish in captivity, the genetically unaltered counterpart kept in captivity will almost always live longer.

You state that "knowingly stunting their growth to fit [your] budget is not an option." Do you know how breeders create and maintain new and existing strains of goldfish? Commercial breeders keep the fry exhibiting desired colors and body shape and destroy the rest of the newborns (regardless of their health).

In your case, Why is knowingly contributing to the death of all those other fish by advocating the purchase and collection of genetically bred goldfish an acceptable option, while just stunting their growth is "not an option."

Why is knowingly advocating the creation of genetically inferior animals, many of which will, at some point of their lives, die early due to medical problems resulting from their inferior genetics an acceptable option, while (again) simply "stunting their growth" is not an option? Just curious.

I come in with full knowledge of where/how fancy goldfish are derived, and I do the best I can, under the conditions I’m dealt, to provide for my three fish and ensure their happiness. Considering that the average fish purchased at a pet store has a life expectancy of about a month (or less), I think my fish are pretty lucky to be where they are.

Java - With all due respect, I am just wondering why you asked us this question then if you already know what you are going to do? You are a great deal more educationally qualified than many of us here. Marine and freshwater fish are diffrent but I am sure that you will also have a great knowledge of freshwater fish. Why do you need our amateur opinion only to degree bash us with our answers?

This is not an educationally official forum affiliated with a biology or aquatic center... we are just a group of hobbyist sharing our passion for fish and trying to help each other through our personal experiences in fish-keeping. It is a friendly and casual environment (I don't know what anyone here does for a living or how many degrees they have - I could throw a few around myself if I wanted to - but why)? Some general guidelines have been established based on collective experience to help give form to the hobby for new people and those who want to expand their experience.

The answer is, in short, that 25-30 gallons is ideally inadequate for maintianing 4 goldfish in an ideal environment (despite absolute water quality). People have maintained overstocked tanks with relative success for short periods. If that is what you would like to do, even permanently, it is totally your perrogative. If you already know that you are going to do this, so be it. You are now aware of the ramifications of this and you are entirely free to decide whatever you want. You may expect some people to have differing opinions about this decision, which you made public, but I think I can speak for most people here that everyone means well!

I really hope your fish settle in well after the move! I'd love to see pictures of them!

PS - I just thought I would add I did not have the most welcoming entree here either - sometimes it's a bit awkward at first... but I stayed b/c of all the nice people!

You will be a real asset to Koko's - with your background and experience, there is so much you can share for the benefit of all of our fish. Your knowledge of fish pathogens, pharmacology, and water conditions will alot to our ocnverations and maybe even save a few!

I don't mind a lively discussion, and I did not intend to criticize, I was just stating my opinion on the original question - Does size matter?

Without getting into the ethics of genetic manipulation and commercial fish growing policies, which border on the subject of animal rights and cruelty (Koko discourages these topics on this forum) I think the focus for most people here, who already own goldfish, is how to best take care of them.
It doesn't take any degrees to weigh the circumstancial evidence stated by toothless. These fish grow big and live long given a large body of water and excellent water conditions. They stay small and live shorter lives given a small body of water and/or poor water conditions.

Perhaps there is more specialized information that contradicts these facts, but it is armed with this knowledge that I base my opinions and my husbandry policies.

Javagoldfish,

Might I ask you a question? I am not critisizing the way you keep your fish, as they are indeed YOUR fish.

If you knew that a single specimen required a minimum of ten gallons per fish(although I believe it should be closer to 20-30g per fish for fancys, 50-60g for comets and commons) why did you choose goldfish to inhabit your 10g?

Without getting into a philosophical debate about the morality of genetic manipulation through selective breeding, here is a simple statement that sums up my view:

I like black pacus. I know that the black pacu grows to well over a meter at maturety. I know that I do not have an aquarium to house this fish for its lifetime. Therefore I do not buy it.

I like oscars. I know that they grow over 12 inches in length, 5 inches in height and have a large body mass. I know they need a 75g tank. Therefor this is what I buy for it.



Could a 30g with infinate air and infinate bio-filtration maintain 4-5 goldfish? No.

If a goldfish bowl were to be continually flushed with fresh water every minute, the fish would grow as though it were in a pond, right?
Therefore if water quality were never an issue in a 30g, the fish would grow to its proper size of 12+ inches.
In a 30g a 12+ inch fish would not be able to turn around. A 10g and indeed a 20g, 29g, 30g, 55g are all only 12 inches from back to front. Therefore size is most definately an issue regardless of water quality.

Also trying to be polite here:

[QUOTE]You state that "knowingly stunting their growth to fit [your] budget is not an option." Do you know how breeders create and maintain new and existing strains of goldfish? Commercial breeders keep the fry exhibiting desired colors and body shape and destroy the rest of the newborns (regardless of their health).

In your case, Why is knowingly contributing to the death of all those other fish by advocating the purchase and collection of genetically bred goldfish an acceptable option, while just stunting their growth is "not an option." [QUOTE]

Simple. Even if I do not buy a fancy goldfish, breeders are still going to be killing fry. I am not the one killing, nor is it my fault because I buy a fancy goldfish. HOWEVER, once the goldfish is in my care it is my responsibility to give it the best conditions possible.

Also, most of the fancy goldfish you see in petstores ARE those culls, breeders grow the culls out for petstores and kill the sick/injured/kinked fry.

[/QUOTE]Why is knowingly advocating the creation of genetically inferior animals, many of which will, at some point of their lives, die early due to medical problems resulting from their inferior genetics an acceptable option, while (again) simply "stunting their growth" is not an option? Just curious.[QUOTE]

I have a german shepard. Many of them have to have full hip replacements by age 5, due to lowered haunches bred into them. Maybe I should never have bought her knowing this, although she is still a loving companion. People are still going to produce these fish, all we can do is give them the best homes possible.

I too wonder where the intentions of starting this thread lie.

Simply stated, more water is better. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is no way to argue that fact. Period.

Now, this is for the starter of this thread:

To answer your questions:

In your case, Why is knowingly contributing to the death of all those other fish by advocating the purchase and collection of genetically bred goldfish an acceptable option, while just stunting their growth is "not an option."
Ever hear of natural selection? Have you EVER heard of an entire batch of fry that lived to old age? In truth, less than half live anyway. Predators, starvation, deficiencies... How are they any different from the hand of the breeder?

Why is knowingly advocating the creation of genetically inferior animals, many of which will, at some point of their lives, die early due to medical problems resulting from their inferior genetics an acceptable option, while (again) simply "stunting their growth" is not an option? Just curious. There is no such thing as "simply stunting their growth". Make no mistake, stunting a goldfish's growth has serious ramifications for the fish. Knowingly doing so is just as bad as any animal abuse Also; Have you ever owned a cat, a dog, a hamster, a parakeet, anything? They are all "genetically inferior", as you so put it. Simply because they are, in large part, bred in captivity without natural selection at play. Does this mean we should not aquire them and provide them as good a life as we can?

If feel you are knowledgable enough to "push it" with your stocking densities, that is just fine. If you are experienced enough, you can pull it off without a hitch. But, I think what must be realized is that most of the members here are in the ranks of beginners. To suggest that overstocking is OK directly undermines one of our most important objectives here. We suggest that fancy goldfish should be kept in as much gallonage per fish as you can realistically handle/afford. Unless, of course, a 5-7 year old goldfish dying of internal complications seems humane to you. Then by all means, stuff them in there.

Back to my fist thought in this post: Seriously, what were your intentions of starting this thread? If you cannot give me a good reason for that, then I can only take your silence a hasty retreat from a self picked battle you cannot possibly win.

If you are as learned as you say you are, then you would realize your folly in starting a thread about opinions and then taking offence to the opinions you requested.

Paul

Well, I think we totally suceeded in chasing JavaGoldfish away! In retrospect I think he was just looking for some comments on fish behavior in a crowded tank, and I'm sure he thinks we all ganged up on him. . .

Java - I think you touched on a issue that people here are quite passionate about. The answer to " Does size Matter?" a resounding YES!

But come back Java - your posts were very intriguing, and sometimes it's interesting when people get all riled up!

(If you're just on vacation - ignore this plea!)

i liked reading this thread, a nice and lively discussion!

Aw no, this thread is dying/dead. It was making interesting reading as well.

Don't you guys think that even though we try to give "the best possible", all that we can do is make sure our fish do not suffer. We don't truly know if they are happy or not. I don't think we can even replicate a natural environment, because it does not exist, especially for goldfish.

To some extent, we are all stunting our fish, some more than others. I think goldfish are blessed to look so unlike their ancestors, that stunting only physically manifests as reduced size and not "abnormal" features. The side effects of stunting such as poor immune system, reduced life span etc only come into play when the fish get ill. If water parameters are good, then the fish are unlikely to get ill, despite poor disease immunity.

If a stunted fish does not get ill and has a healthy appetite, is it unhealthy? More importantly, is it suffering?

You may argue that its "true potential" won't be reached, but what is that? Supposing you kept a single goldfish in a 1000g tank, everything is perfect and it grows to 2 feet long and dies after 40 years. Would it or should it grow that big? How do we know it didn't suffer from old age for the last 30 years of its life? Creaky bones, fish incontinence ? Perhaps it wouldn't have lived that long without human intervention.

I'm not "pro-stunting" (Chihuahua anybody?), but I do try to keep an open mind. My tuppence.

Slugger

I think it is important not to make the assumption that all fancy goldfish have the potential to grow to to 6-8" if given the proper environment.

I have fish that live in the same tank, eat the same food, etc, but some have grown to be large and others are what most would call 'stunted' at only approx 2-3" at 18mths old.

Many small fish purchased at the lfs are runts of the litter, so to speak. They are the final cull from the breeder, they look good, they appear to be healthy but they are growing very slowly.

Some may counter that perhaps they became stunted before they were purchased. Yes, this is always possible but I am referring to fish bought at 1", they were only babies when purchased. Again it is likely the rest of their spawn simply outgrew them and left them behind.

Good point Annette.

I have thought of that as well. And it definitely seems that many of the fish we see at pet shops are indeed runts. In comparioson with dogs (its a stretch) the runts of the litter seem to always remain smaller than their siblings, throughout life.


Another point to consider with stunted growth is the need of getting the propor amount (and type) of food in the first stages of life. To grow fast, healthy and large, fry need to be fed a very high protein diet while they are growing. Fry being fed mainly a diet of vegetable matter (low in protien) will not grow as large, or as fast, as fry being fed a diet consisting of meat based food (shrimp meal, fish meal, insect larvae, worms etc). Of course, a varied diet is always better. As fry graduate into young adults, the assimilation of body mass slows and the need for protein lessens.

Lets say we have one of the runts of the pack. Lets also say that the runt has all of the healthy genes that the larger fry do. If it was removed from the school at a young age and fed a particularly well balance diet, it would, presumably outgrow its siblings, or at least its potential growth if left WITH the siblings. Essentially, the runts are given a bad shake from the get go. But being that they are not nurtured by the mother in the womb, they did not have to compete for nutrients, via first concieved. So removal from the school would assure it getting its correct amount of food for vigorous growth.

So, water quality is just one of the major factors when considering the growth rates, and potentials of pretty much any goldfish. BUT, genetics are the single most important factor, without a doubt......

Did that make sense? I think I almost confused myself there. Jeez, I'm beat.....

Ok, so someone said (in this topic) that a 2 years the gold fish should around 5". (or something??) Then my fish are stunted!! Because, I've had my fish for around 4 years, (two fish) and they have lived in a 1 and a half gal. tank (around there) with NO filter. And they aren't 5"! I guess because the size a the tank. I just can't afford it. I told my mom that we need a bigger tank with a filter, but she said we don't have enough money. Gladly I might be getting a 5 gal tank with a filter and light from my friend. Well, it's a step up, right?

I totally agree that genes and diet play a huge role in size. I just don't like the fact that none of my fish are Brucey proportions!!

After talking to Tung Hoi, they said that with my tank setup, I could never get huge fish I could have Bruce fry, best food but the tank size would be the limiting factor. Even if I had a 6' tank, my fish may get big, but not huge. Without a big pond, the only way for me to get a bigun would be to buy one.

BTW did you know the really nice big fish sell for about US$400-500!! They're all under a year old as well!!

Slugger

Yep, Toothy that made sense to me.

lisame, I guess it will never be known if your fish had the genetic potential to grow large because I agree with your idea that the size of your tank has stunted them. Good luck with the potential 5g tank, your fish will be much more comfortable with a bit of swimming space.

Slugger, that's a lot of money for a big fish but at least you know what you are getting - if indeed that is what a person wants. Most of our local lfs are stocked from the same supplier at Gosford. They breed many fancy varieties but we only seem to see the small ones. Maybe they hang on to the faster growers and grow them out for a bit longer. Aside from the koi farm I know of only one other store in our area whose fish are actually medium/large size when offered for sale.

Perhaps it is market demand that most fish owners only want small goldfish that will fit in a small tank? Anyway, now I have a dozen or more smallish fish that don't look like they are going to grow much bigger. We live and learn I guess.