A hypothetical question about Red Tailed Shark minimum tank sizes

Dewclaw83

Member
Okay, so I love the red tailed sharks at my LFS, just because their simply gorgeous (they occasionally have nearly full sized ones, I just love them). However, I don’t have any tanks set up that are remotely close to the size required, so they’re not in the books for me... but I’ve been wondering about something:
The minimum tank size listed on all the sites (included this one) is usually 50-55 gallons... these fish hang out in the mid to bottom, and are from Thailand, from similar kinds of waterways as bettas (shallow, but long/wide), so longer/wider is better in a tank too - is this correct? Assuming that is correct, lots of 50/55s I see are very tall and thin with hardly any floor space. In that case, wouldn’t something like a 40b with more floor space be preferred? Even though it’s less gallons overall? (The tanks I mention are just examples to make my question more clear)

Again, I’m just curious and wanted to know your thoughts on this
 

CichlidFreak7000

Member
I'm not an expert, but if all the information you have is correct, you may be right. Although I'm sure if you actually kept one in there it would need very frequent cleanings.
 

NickGNz

Member
I have one in my 55 with MalawI cichlids. He isn’t fully grow but gets around the entire tank at all levels. I would certainly say the more swimming room the better.
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
CichlidFreak7000 said:
I'm not an expert, but if all the information you have is correct, you may be right. Although I'm sure if you actually kept one in there it would need very frequent cleanings.
Have you ever kept one? I haven’t, hence my question based on the information lol


NickGNz said:
I have one in my 55 with MalawI cichlids. He isn’t fully grow but gets around the entire tank at all levels. I would certainly say the more swimming room the better.
Fair enough - out of curiosity - does he spend most of his time at the bottom or swimming around? (It cause they’re always listed as bottom/mid dwellers)
 

CichlidFreak7000

Member
No, I don't have a big enough tank.
 

NickGNz

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
Have you ever kept one? I haven’t, hence my question based on the information lol



Fair enough - out of curiosity - does he spend most of his time at the bottom or swimming around? (It cause they’re always listed as bottom/mid dwellers)
All over. He just does his own thing but gets all around the tank, all water levels. He will come up with the Cichilds at feeding time.
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
NickGNz said:
All over. He just does his own thing but gets all around the tank, all water levels. He will come up with the Cichilds at feeding time.
Huh. So between a 55 with little floor space, and a 40b, you’d go with the 55?
 

NickGNz

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
Huh. So between a 55 with little floor space, and a 40b, you’d go with the 55?
No I’d go with the 40 with more floor space.
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
NickGNz said:
No I’d go with the 40 with more floor space.
Oh okay! Why, exactly?
 

NickGNz

Member
More swimming space, they can be a bit aggressive
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
NickGNz said:
More swimming space, they can be a bit aggressive
Fair enough, probably more room to turn around too for the big ones!
 

qldmick

Member
mine was to aggressive for my star sapphire cichlids in my 5ft so I've had to move him out. he was picking on my small females.
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
qldmick said:
mine was to aggressive for my star sapphire cichlids in my 5ft so I've had to move him out. he was picking on my small females.
Did that have to do with the tank size? What’d you move him into?
 

AquaticQueen

Member
CichlidFreak7000 said:
I'm not an expert, but if all the information you have is correct, you may be right. Although I'm sure if you actually kept one in there it would need very frequent cleanings.
My personal opinion: Any fish that is over 24 inches should be kept in a 250 gallon tank. Okay, real opinion: A 55 gallon at least.
 

FinalFins

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
Okay, so I love the red tailed sharks at my LFS, just because their simply gorgeous (they occasionally have nearly full sized ones, I just love them). However, I don’t have any tanks set up that are remotely close to the size required, so they’re not in the books for me... but I’ve been wondering about something:
The minimum tank size listed on all the sites (included this one) is usually 50-55 gallons... these fish hang out in the mid to bottom, and are from Thailand, from similar kinds of waterways as bettas (shallow, but long/wide), so longer/wider is better in a tank too - is this correct? Assuming that is correct, lots of 50/55s I see are very tall and thin with hardly any floor space. In that case, wouldn’t something like a 40b with more floor space be preferred? Even though it’s less gallons overall? (The tanks I mention are just examples to make my question more clear)

Again, I’m just curious and wanted to know your thoughts on this
Theoretically, you are correct, you could technically put a red tail shark in a 33 long even so but a 48x12 tank has its advantages over a 36x18. Being longer gives the advantage of other fish getting away from an aggressor and it, in my opinion, separates territories that fish make better than a 40b since longer mean it can't get surrounded by aggressors as easily. But then the extra floor space a 40b has evens it out a bit.
 

david1978

Member
I like this site. They quote length and width not gallons.

 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
FinalFins said:
Theoretically, you are correct, you could technically put a red tail shark in a 33 long even so but a 48x12 tank has its advantages over a 36x18. Being longer gives the advantage of other fish getting away from an aggressor and it, in my opinion, separates territories that fish make better than a 40b since longer mean it can't get surrounded by aggressors as easily. But then the extra floor space a 40b has evens it out a bit.
So in your estimation, longer is preferable to wider? Regardless of gallons (and height?)?
 

Sanderguy777

Member
Why not just go full bite and get a 360g with dual corner matten filters and a 100 gallon sump?

I think I had one once but my "angel" fish didn't like him. But space wise, he seemed fine in my 60 gallon(3 inches taller than a 55g)
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
Kdizzle said:
My personal opinion: Any fish that is over 24 inches should be kept in a 250 gallon tank. Okay, real opinion: A 55 gallon at least.
The red tailed shark only gets like 4-6 inches?
but you’re saying gallons are more important than dimensions then?

david1978 said:
I like this site. They quote length and width not gallons.

Epalzeorhynchos bicolor – Red-Tailed Black Shark (Labeo bicolor)
that is a nice resource!
 

Sanderguy777

Member
Kdizzle said:
My personal opinion: Any fish that is over 24 inches should be kept in a 250 gallon tank. Okay, real opinion: A 55 gallon at least.
So, you are saying that you can keep at least 5 in the 250 then?
 

FinalFins

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
So in your estimation, longer is preferable to wider? Regardless of gallons (and height?)?
Wider is great but I would prefer longer, more area to break up territories with. So much easier to separate territories IMO but it is also doable in a 40b
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
Sanderguy777 said:
Why not just go full bite and get a 360g with dual corner matten filters and a 100 gallon sump?

I think I had one once but my "angel" fish didn't like him. But space wise, he seemed fine in my 60 gallon(3 inches taller than a 55 gallon)
I am not looking to get one I am just questioning the importance of dimensions versus gallons when deciding minimums
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
FinalFins said:
Wider is great but I would prefer longer, more area to break up territories with. So much easier to separate territories IMO but it is also doable in a 40b
That is a good point then longer is easier to divide, that’s for sure lol
 

FinalFins

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
I am not looking to get one I am just questioning the importance of dimensions versus gallons when deciding minimums
Dimensions are much more important than gallons in the world of fishkeeping
 
  • Thread Starter

Dewclaw83

Member
FinalFins said:
Dimensions are much more important than gallons in the world of fishkeeping
That is exactly how I feel about it. So then, I must question why minimums are so often listed as such?
 

david1978

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
That is exactly how I feel about it. So then, I must question why minimums are so often listed as such?
Gallon wise they quote are for standard tanks. I don't like to quote gallons because they make all minds of weird tanks. Like a 55 gallon column tank shouldn't even have fish in it.
 

Sanderguy777

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
That is exactly how I feel about it. So then, I must question why minimums are so often listed as such?
I think that it is probably easier to say 60 gallon or 55, than 24hx48lx12w or "at least 576 sq inches." But also, there are fewer people thinking about the natural habitat of the fish and its requirements rather than "well, it CANT go in anything smaller than a 360g because I used a 360g and George looked happy."
Also, other than normal opinion, there are certainly very few people who experiment with dimensions rather than just put the fish in a tank and try to breed it or whatever.
 

Sanderguy777

Member
david1978 said:
Gallon wise they quote are for standard tanks. I don't like to quote gallons because they make all minds of weird tanks. Like a 55 gallon column tank shouldn't even have fish in it.
Would reticulated hillstream loaches work it one? I always just see them stuck to the glass at my lfs. So maybe they would be happy in one? (obviously they probably would need floor space if you wanted to breed them, but other than that I don't know.)
 

david1978

Member
Sanderguy777 said:
I think that it is probably easier to say 60 gallon or 55, than 24hx48lx12w or "at least 576 sq inches." But also, there are fewer people thinking about the natural habitat of the fish and its requirements rather than "well, it CANT go in anything smaller than a 360g because I used a 360g and George looked happy."
Also, other than normal opinion, there are certainly very few people who experiment with dimensions rather than just put the fish in a tank and try to breed it or whatever.
Haha. You have never visited some of the fish forums. They will argue why 6 fish is better then 5 and why a 21 inch tank is better then a 20 inch. In those forums I feel really dumb.
 

qldmick

Member
Dewclaw83 said:
Did that have to do with the tank size? What’d you move him into?
no the tank was big enough, it was because he was bigger and my females couldn't fight back. I have kept them in the past with larger MalawI cichlids and everyone chases everyone and its all fair. he's in a 6x2x2 Australian native tank, I'm trying to sell him because he looks out of place. rainbow sharks and albino rainbow sharks aren't as aggressive either.
 

Sanderguy777

Member
david1978 said:
Haha. You have never visited some of the fish forums. They will argue why 6 fish is better then 5 and why a 21 inch tank is better then a 20 inch. In those forums I feel really dumb.
Yeah, I haven't been on many fish forums, tis true.

I think more cichlids is better than fewer just to spread out the aggression, but that dream 360g I mentioned would need A LOT of fish to overstock!
 

AquaticQueen

Member
Sanderguy777 said:
So, you are saying that you can keep at least 5 in the 250 then?
Yep.
 

Most photos, videos and links are disabled if you are not logged in.

Log in or register to view

Top Bottom