8 goldfish in a 10g. opinions on a very controversial article... tank size

as I keep doing more and more research before getting my new fancies, I find this article. I had stumbled upon it after discussing with an lfs employee that he believed 8 fancies would be fine in a 40 gallon, after I had told him I would do 3 max. the dude looked at me like I was crazy. however I decided to do research and find more info on the topic. in this article it talks about how stunting isn’t harmful, there is no evidence of it being harmful, and the oldest living goldfish ever were stunted and lived in what we would consider small tanks. however more people correlate that water volume=water quality, when it reality it doesn’t, water quality is just much easier to control in bigger volumes. another point she brings up is that the reason goldfish die in too small of a tank is because of too frequent water changes, removing the GIH, causing growth, NOT stunting; but she says that with stable water quality-a good bacterial colony, plants, and overall stable parameters = less water changes, therefore more concentrated GIH therefore stunting happens, but not “bad” things. the fish is still healthy. she also takes swimming room into consideration and that there is such a a thing as too small. she says that the hobbyist gets to set goals, ie how big they want their fish, and not all fish need to grow as big as possible. she uses 8 goldfish in a 10 gallon as an example (she doesn’t justify it if I remember) which to most of us is so crazy, but maybe in reality it could be done.

what’s everyone’s take on this? it definitely opened my eyes to other opinions than those i’ve been “fed” almost. it reminded me that I need to form my own opinion and gain my own experiences. at first when I started reading it I thought this lady was off her rocker, but now after processing it and reading elsewhere it makes sense. a lot of sense. my question would just be how does one get such a stable tank that throwing a numerous amount of goldfish in it and having to frequent water changes. I guess you could condition the tank to grow a bigger colony with fishless cycling. but even then you would need a lot of plants to get rid of all that nitrate. lots of questions.

anyway it’s super interesting i’d give it a read. definitely is tempting me to get more fish.


Why Goldfish Tank Size Isn't as Important as You Think

 

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I'll be honest, I haven't read the article, I might find the time tomorrow. But right now, my unswayed opinion is that yes, you can obviously control water parameters to a safe level in a small tank, but that would require some really powerful filtration and/or an incredible amount of water changes.

I think, from what you're saying, that this author is a bit hypocritical in saying that fish just need stable water, but then she's so insistent that small tanks are fine - because, by her standards, small tanks certainly aren't the most stable. She says less frequent water changes are best, but again, you'd have to do large water changes on a tank of that size to keep up with goldfish: hypocritical. The only way I could see her getting around this is having a monster filter on a tiny tank to hold enough bioload to support that many goldies in a tiny tank. And at that rate, why not just have a larger tank anyway? Make the fish a bit happier with some more room.

It's also a logical fallacy to say that "the oldest goldfish was stunted and kept in a tiny tank, therefore all goldfish are fine to be stunted and kept in a tiny tank." That could be the exception to the rule, not necessarily the rule itself.

Maybe I'm missing something by not reading the article. Will have to see later.

 

very insightful, thanks for the reply! that’s where I was having questions too. however she does keep her one oranda in a 30 gallon by their lonesome! definitely read it if you can! it’s really interesting

 

Because I'm a master procrastinator, I just read the article. I'm sort of dumbfounded by one of her comments. Someone asked if a 6/7 gallon water change per week on a 26 gallon tank with 3 goldfish is too much (equates to about 25% water change per week). Author commented back that she would be "cautious of changing out that much water," and that less would be better. Seems very strange to me...

I'd like input from mattgirl who I know has opinions about water changes.

 

Because I'm a master procrastinator, I just read the article. I'm sort of dumbfounded by one of her comments. Someone asked if a 6/7 gallon water change per week on a 26 gallon tank with 3 goldfish is too much (equates to about 25% water change per week). Author commented back that she would be "cautious of changing out that much water," and that less would be better. Seems very strange to me...

I'd like input from mattgirl who I know has opinions about water changes.

I've not read the article and most likely won't simply because I am a firm believer in water changes. I would never tell anyone that they are changing out too much water if they were only changing out 25% per week. Just because one may be able to stunt a fish and keep them smaller does not mean it is a good thing to do.

 

Someone else pointed this out in another thread - I personally don’t know much about goldfish (yet) - and I just thought I’d pass this thought along (I’ve also cleaned up the wording a lot):

Many people view stunting and bad for the fish’s health. How, then, is that different from purposefully breeding goldfish to have deformities that keep them smaller? Take, for example, shubunkin and fancies. Both are the same exact species, but one grows to 12”, and the other to 8”. We’ve stunted this fish through genetics rather than GIH, is that better? Is that more moral?

Again, don’t come at me... I know nothing. I just thought it was an interesting point to add

 

Someone else pointed this out in another thread - I personally don’t know much about goldfish (yet) - and I just thought I’d pass this thought along (I’ve also cleaned up the wording a lot):

Many people view stunting and bad for the fish’s health. How, then, is that different from purposefully breeding goldfish to have deformities that keep them smaller? Take, for example, shubunkin and fancies. Both are the same exact species, but one grows to 12”, and the other to 8”. We’ve stunted this fish through genetics rather than GIH, is that better? Is that more moral?

Again, don’t come at me... I know nothing. I just thought it was an interesting point to add

I don't really think either are great things to do, in my opinion. I'm not a fan of fancies. It's the same reason I don't like flowerhorns: it's the same amount of internal organs squished into a smaller space, which make them more prone to health issues, like swim bladder disorder and constipation. This can eventually lead to serious issues too, where their bodies simply fail to operate from the lack of room they have. One might hypothesize that seemingly overnight fish deaths in squished-body fish might have to do with compression on their heart, and thus decreased circulation, and/or eventual heart failure. I've seen numerous big fish youtubers lose squished-body fish for seemingly no reason, like king of DIY losing his flowerhorn and MD fish tanks losing his fancy goldfish. Both just keeled over for no real reason.

 

I try not to get into any of this. I don't agree with deforming any creature for our viewing pleasure but maybe that is just me. Does anyone think a dog small enough to fit in a teacup happened naturally? Every dog that has ever blessed me with their company has been a mixed breed dog. Thankfully none of them have had good health bred out of them and once they came to live with me or as soon as they were old enough they were spayed or neutered. That was as far as I would go toward to changing something natural to them.

This like so many other things in life "just 'cause you can doesn't mean you should" and this is all I will say on this subject.