|
Post by clorey67 on Sept 16, 2008 10:37:00 GMT -5
About 7 years ago, I was given a small fish and the person did not know what kind of fish it was. Now seven years later, this fish is about 10 inches long from head to tail. I was told it is probably an ID shark. I have a tank that is 22" high x 48" wide x 15" deep. I believe this is too small a tank for this lovely fish. I have two clown loaches, several different cat fish and 3 other fish that I don't know the name of. The clown loaches are also 7 years old and are about 4 to 5 inches long. A store close by me called Aquarium Services is willing to take this fish from me and hopefully find it a good home. I love it and it is so beautiful, shy and a bit timid. He doesn't hurt any of the other fish. Is this tank too small for him and should I trust this aquarium store? They have been around for years and I have always dealt with them. Any suggestions for me?
|
|
|
Post by brenda on Sept 16, 2008 11:02:15 GMT -5
It is hard to say without a pic but it is very possible. A pic would help. If it is and you have had it for 7 yrs it is probably not going to get much bigger as these fish can get well over 24" and he would have gotten bigger by now if he were going to. The tank probably is a little small but he still has room to swim and turn around. If you think it is small for him it probably is and also I don't know how big your other fish are. It is a decision only you can make. What is your filtration and how are your water parameters? That should also be used in deciding whether to keep him or not. If everything is good I personally would keep since you seem to like him and have had him so long...others may disagree. If you do keep him though I would maybe get rid of some of the other fish to give him more room. If you would like to do something different and add more fish to your tank then get rid of him if you trust the LFS. I don't think he's going to grow anymore cause to my knowledge these fish tend to be fast growers. Hope this is of some use.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Sept 16, 2008 11:03:57 GMT -5
About 7 years ago, I was given a small fish and the person did not know what kind of fish it was. Now seven years later, this fish is about 10 inches long from head to tail. I was told it is probably an ID shark. I have a tank that is 22" high x 48" wide x 15" deep. I believe this is too small a tank for this lovely fish. I have two clown loaches, several different cat fish and 3 other fish that I don't know the name of. The clown loaches are also 7 years old and are about 4 to 5 inches long. A store close by me called Aquarium Services is willing to take this fish from me and hopefully find it a good home. I love it and it is so beautiful, shy and a bit timid. He doesn't hurt any of the other fish. Is this tank too small for him and should I trust this aquarium store? They have been around for years and I have always dealt with them. Any suggestions for me? Do you know what kind of shark it is? Or can you supply a picture? The easy answer to your question is that your tank is too small. However I stated it this way as there are many variables that go into this question that would make either a yes or no question incorrect. Here are a few considerations: *The fish itself, which includes temperament and bio needs *The filtration system (more filtration with redundancy can support a higher bio load) * Your maintenance/cleaning schedule and practices *Feeding habits *Your water parameters * Redox (which is one of your parameters, but is a better indicator of an overcrowded aquarium). Mineralization and UV Sterilization are just two things that can positively affect Redox. I know this does not seem to answer your question fully, but I have seen tanks that many would say are over crowded that are NOT and ones that might not seem over crowded that ARE. This article may help some as well: Aquarium Answwrs; StuntingCarl
|
|
|
Post by bikeguy33 on Sept 16, 2008 19:27:48 GMT -5
I hate to go against here....but it sounds like a 75 gallon tank....which in my opinion is to small for an ID shark. if you don`t trust the fish store i would find him a good home. once again....that is just my humble opinion....
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Sept 16, 2008 19:57:24 GMT -5
I hate to go against here....but it sounds like a 75 gallon tank....which in my opinion is to small for an ID shark. if you don`t trust the fish store i would find him a good home. once again....that is just my humble opinion.... Not sure you are going against me bud I am simply stating that although this is likely too small a tank, there are variables to consider before making a postive statement. For instance I had 60 gallon aquariums that were part of my studies/test in the 90s that had 9 large orandas which at first glance would be considered too crowded an aquarium, however I had (in the same controlled study) 90 gallon tanks that only had 5 large Orandas. In this study the 60 gallon beat the 90 hands down as per every water parameter (including Redox, which is important in measuring over crowding), as this tank was maintained with a more rigorous cleaning shedule, better and more filtration, UV Sterilization and good mineralization. The fish lived longer and were vastly healthier. I refer back to the Aquarium Answers article I referrenced above. I guess what I am trying to say is to look at eveything, not just fish size and tank size (although in this case you are likely correct). Carl
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Sept 16, 2008 20:08:28 GMT -5
I know what you are saying Carl. For example, one thing that at first Chris and I butted heads on was tank sizes with Arowana. As you all know my biggest tank is a 180 which with a South American Arowana would not be a suitable tank for any full grown adults, but at the same time, given the number of years it takes for some fish to reach that point, it's not to say a tank much smaller then ideal could be used to house a fish and allow it to grow out some.
Ideally speaking, a proper long term tank would be best, but some that have a flavor for larger sized fish might not afford this. I would have to say it would be very irresponsible for a keeper of fish to buy a fish knowing that it would outgrow it's tank with no long term plan to deal with that aspect. In my case with Arowana, I'd grow them out to the 24 inch size range and then sell them to those that had a proper set up, for a nice profit on top of it.
That being said, doing something like that isn't for everyone. This is the point that I really want to stress and why I feel having the proper tank from the beginning is always best. I don't know who all has tried netting up, containing and moving a fish that's about 24 inches in size, but they do not come out of tanks like that peacefully, and they certainly don't like to be contained up and moved very well either which is why I've pretty much stopped keeping South American Arowana. It's a huge pain in the rear trying to move a fish that size out. With an ID shark, if this is an ID shark, the sooner you can relocate or get a proper sized tank, the better for you and that fish.
|
|
|
Post by Chris4Reef on Sept 16, 2008 20:19:19 GMT -5
i didnt read the post, but a ID shark is truely a beast.
my stunted one was in a 72 round and it was about 25 inches long.
they probably get about 36-40 inches i believe.
and about tanksize, yea u can grow any fish in any sized tank, like the piranchu can grow in a 10 gallon... it wouldnt be practical having a fish that can get to 4 meters grow in a 10 but it can happen.
anyway i got to read the post.
Edit: i personally would get rid of a the ID shark, mines tended to be very skittish and in a small tank he would hurt himself and spalsh lovely tankwater all over the place. personally though that is my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bikeguy33 on Sept 16, 2008 21:09:39 GMT -5
they are hyper active fish from what i have seen.....4 feet isn`t enough for a fish of this size on the move all the time.....again....only my opinion....
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Sept 16, 2008 21:48:45 GMT -5
they are hyper active fish from what i have seen.....4 feet isn`t enough for a fish of this size on the move all the time.....again....only my opinion.... Oh I definitely agree. I think Jon saw my my point, that was only to think outside the box, as my goldfish analogy does not truely apply to a large shark/catfish, I was mainly applying this to how people apply rules such as inch per gallon, which is so severely flawed. In fact one of the variables I point out in my FW Basics article is to consider the fish when determining tanks size, from the article: **Also a fish such as an Arowana that stays primarily on the surface will need a disproportionately large aquarium (I recommend 200 + gallons for just one Arowana). And as pointed out earlier, you cannot compare a heavy bodied cichlid for instance to a narrow bodied tetra of similar length. Quote from Freshwater Aquarium BasicsOften persons (not saying that here) will jump to conclusions not taking in all the variables, however as Bill and Chris pointed out Pangasius Catfish are very spastic fish. However I have kept them successfully at this size in a tank like this where there was calm environment and the decor also lent itself to a calm fish. But again long term you guys are right, this will not work. Carl
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Sept 16, 2008 22:05:09 GMT -5
I did Carl and something I think Bill can also relate to in cichlid keeping for example. I've got 20-30 Protomelas Steveni Albino's right now in my 15 and at t heir size, that's more then enough room.....for about 1-2 months. Once those fish grow out, forget it. That's the biggest reason I got my 100 gallon tank, to allow something inbetween the time they would outgrow the 15 they would be spit out in, and grow, but still not quite large enough to go back in with the adults and not be a potential food source.
In my breeding aspect here, it's a staged or layered growth, as also showing, the need for larger tanks and how it's used to support keeping fish in tanks that otherwise shouldn't be done if full grown. That's all the 15 gallon really serves as, a maternity or sometimes a hospital tank since there isn't much point for me to keep a tank that small for anything else. The need for proper sized tanks serves a person tremendously is how I see it.
Most of the time you see a disccusion like this, especially in YA about Oscars and how you can keep them in a 20 or 30, temporarily. As you said Carl, sure you can actually do this. The only thing is with me, since we all know how jacked up YA is, I try not to even point that out because the intelligence level of many askers on there wouldn't grasp the concept of the need for a 55 for a full grown adult. Most likely they'd just see the oscar start to grow in that 20 and never realize it's being stunted until too late. Hence, they'll never see the need to get the larger tank and why in there I hammer the point home that if you can just get the larger tank now, it's just in your best interest.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Sept 16, 2008 22:42:59 GMT -5
Most of the time you see a disccusion like this, especially in YA about Oscars and how you can keep them in a 20 or 30, temporarily. As you said Carl, sure you can actually do this. The only thing is with me, since we all know how jacked up YA is, I try not to even point that out because the intelligence level of many askers on there wouldn't grasp the concept of the need for a 55 for a full grown adult. Most likely they'd just see the oscar start to grow in that 20 and never realize it's being stunted until too late. Hence, they'll never see the need to get the larger tank and why in there I hammer the point home that if you can just get the larger tank now, it's just in your best interest. That is true, but that is hopefully what can separate us from the black and white anecdotal stuff that goes on at YA, that is knowledge of the variables than can affect what a tank can hold, Alhough I think we can all agree as this tank being too small for this type of catfish as it grows (shark as it is being called here), I just want to make sure readers understand the other aspect of what a tank can hold. Sometimes it is clear cut such as the youtube video posted in another thread of a 29 biocube with sharks and rays (which IMO is someone just looking for attention and controversy as to post such an insane aquarium fish display), but I also have seen people getted thumbed and riduculed by others on YA who actually themselves have little clue of what is going on in aquatic bio chemistry and filtration (again I am not saying that about here, I like to think that others may come in an read this thread after search engines cache it as I know I have found interesting threads that are often 10 years old via searches). YA is a great example to me of what is wrong with the internet in general as this is where more half truths get pushed as truths and myths becoame reality. I know I am getting off topic, but if feel a few areas where poor information is especailly spewed foorth on YA and many other places includes these topics *UV Sterilization and what it really does and does not do (this one brings out more bull and the "reef keeping police " than anything) *The importance of calcium andother elements to ALL fish, even Discus *What plain salt can and cannot do in FW *What medications can and cannot do *What is Redox and its importance *What is the importance of certain fish food ingredients *How and what is the currrent knowledge in FW and SW lighting. *How does the Aquarium nitrogen cycle work and what bacteria truely make up healthy nitrification (Autotrophic vs. Heterotrophic), and as all the strange cycling methods I have read over the years including the whole shrimp method. *And of coarse aquarium capacity/stunting I guess I am getting caried away here, I just would like to make sure that we do not become like every other forum, EVEN when the correct answer seems obvious! Carl
|
|
|
Post by Chris4Reef on Sept 16, 2008 22:58:56 GMT -5
when we get into the tank size discussion what we have to also take into consideration is level of keeping
remember( completely off topic from the original post) that we are all on different levels and each have different means. i had 16 tanks to mess around with, carl had over 100, jon you have the 180 ...
and what we have to consider is how some people only have 1 or 2 tanks and they dont have the means of moving a 2 inch fish than has the potiental growth of 40 inches.
As oppose to someone who has alot of tanks and while yea 1 arowana in a 29 gallon will work...for certain amount of months... when we talk about it people get the impression that it is ok and that it makes it acceptable.... But what some beginners dont realize that we have means to careing for the fish when it is larger.
Back to Y!A, i see plenty of people spreading advise(both good and bad) and what they dont consider is that everyone is at different levels and yea i have yellow tang in a 29..... what they dont see is the 125 or lets say 4000 gallon tank in my garage.... right? so everyone assumes that this fish is going to live its entire life in that 29.
So my thoughts to sum up are dont forget everyone has different levels and while yea 20-30 cichlids in a 15 is fine, but lets not get the wrong impression...jon is going to move them... they arent spending their entire lives in there.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Sept 16, 2008 23:04:28 GMT -5
when we get into the tank size discussion what we have to also take into consideration is level of keeping remember( completely off topic from the original post) that we are all on different levels and each have different means. i had 16 tanks to mess around with, carl had over 100, jon you have the 180 ... Yes this is a good point as well, thanks for adding this Carl
|
|
|
Post by brenda on Sept 16, 2008 23:07:39 GMT -5
I do agree with you guys also...I just felt that if she has had the fish for 7yrs it probably isn't going to grow any bigger at this point. Wish we had a pic to know for sure what this guy is.
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Sept 16, 2008 23:10:49 GMT -5
Thanks Chris because that's just repeating exactly what I was saying. You've seen it too, probably in SW questions which I don't touch but probably some common fish that people get mislead to thinking is ok to keep in a smaller tank until you have to move it up to a bigger one, but how many of those people actually do? My biggest fear like with the Oscar thing is they'll never see the effects of stunting until it's too late, and thus think they were lied to about the need to move up to a bigger tank. About 20% of input I've seen in questions talk about massively over stocked tanks and how they are doing ok, but no recognition of the need to move it up down the road.
Clearly with Carl's documentation, it can be shown that you actually can overstock or keep certain species which grow to tremendous sizes as adults, in a rather large tank, but as he's also indicating like us, it's not something should be advised for long term care. Hospital tanks are another supporting case of this. It's very short term for treatment only, not intended for as long term home. It's scary how many people out there could truly believe they can keep certain large sized growing fish in tanks only a third of what is really needed if we aren't careful how we explain ourselves. Thanks Chris!!
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Sept 16, 2008 23:39:02 GMT -5
I think you guys are driving home a good point as to experience, and I think this probably should be emphasized even more in my Aquarium Size/Stunting ArticleI do have this in my list at the bottom of the article that details what goes into determining aquarium size, I now think that this point should have even more emphasis on it than I do currently (I will add more emphasis based on this thread soon) Carl
|
|
|
Post by clorey67 on Sept 19, 2008 17:48:01 GMT -5
How do I send you all a picture of this fish?
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Sept 19, 2008 17:53:58 GMT -5
If you upload the image to photobucket, you just copy the IMG code in your album then paste in a reply on here.
|
|
|
Post by murdock6701 on Sept 19, 2008 19:15:39 GMT -5
sounds to me like it's less than an 80 gallon tank - I know nothing about ID sharks but do you all agree it's a good thing for Clorey to pass it on? we kind of got away from answering her question here.....please advise ASAP!
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Sept 19, 2008 21:12:54 GMT -5
Out of all the sites I looked over for help this one is the best one I found, and even then I don't find the advice listed here to be what I'd call top notch. fish.mongabay.com/species/Pangasius_hypopthalmus.htmlI have kept these before when I had the 75 gallon tank as my biggest tank and here at this location. I didn't know hardly anything about these fish yet they are commonly sold at chain stores everywhere I've seen. In my opinion, this species of fish, though not endangered by far, should be banned from sale publicly. It is my opinion, that the potential of this fish, is not in any way suitable to the vast majority of fish keepers, short of having MASSIVE tanks or ponds. Given how easily this fish could be stunted, and how they would be sold without that warning, is why I feel they should be banned from public sales. The odds of that happening, probably 0, but I still feel it should be done. One note to add on this species too, since I did keep them once, is these fish are VERY VERY jittery. They are extremely hyper and always moving around in the tank. When doing water changes and gravel cleaning, the movement of the siphon would have these fish going berserk all over the tank. At larger sizes, 12 inches and up, you are liable to find quite a mess occur when doing a water change if you keep this species. All in all, I wouldn't even think to keep this species unless your tank is several hundred gallons.
|
|