Thank you so much AussieJJDude! That's really what it comes down to. Small tanks are often associated with the three yo kid who won a goldfish at a fair, and his parents quickly grabbed a bowl, water conditioner, and flakes and popped in there, for it to die two days later. This is NOT what I encourage, and I try to help friends and family from making these mistakes. I am talking about a cylced, planted tank, with a small number of goldfish (just two) with a responsible owner, who knows how to care for a nano tank. These fish are healthy, long lived, (the top several oldest goldfish were living in 10 gallon tanks and bowl, I have a nano setup with 6 yo fish, I know several other too, it's really not TO uncommon, unlike some say) these fish show no signs of stress that I (or anyone else so far) can see, and are very healthy.
Trust me these fish have not exploded/died from huge oversized organs, THIS IS A MYTH. Why have so many fish in small tanks died? Poor water quality, because of overfeeding, no filtration, and no water changes. If those are an issue in ANY tank, the fish will die. Doesn't matter if it's a one hundred gallon, or a five gallon. People often associated the growth inhibiting hormone with bad water, because it is removed with water changes, and in the cliche goldfish scenario, that I talked about at the top, water changes aren't happening, and neither the ammonia, nitrite, nor the stunting hormone, are being removed. That's why people sometimes think it leads to death, I could see that being confusing to a new fish owner who doesn't understand the nitrogen cycle. They want the blame to go to something else, and blame it on the GIH, after all, the internet says it doesn't stop the organs from growing, while the rest of the body stops growing, and the fish therefore died because of that. We know that isn't the case in this type of situation. And to be honest, this theory that the organs don't stop growing just doesn't even make sense. From debating with you I can see you are intelligent, well informed people, who obviously understand how fish work, and you are saying this is true, without proof, and it just doesn't make sense. I have yet to see one case of this happening to a goldfish.
I don't believe everything said about goldfish in every blog is true, and I love pure goldfish, but these are my own opinions I developed from experience. You need to search for yourselves, and come to your own conclusions using logic, not blindly following a few internet articles. Like in your article link Sien, it alines the bad water with the GIH. This is because water changes, and sometimes carbon in filters, is pretty much the only way to remove the GIH, and when you don't do water changes, you not only have bad water, but the GIH too. This is why people often associated bad water, and the GIH together. BUT its not always this way. In a filtered, planted tank, with awesome water quality, where water only needs to be topped off, or only small water changes needed, the GIH is not going anywhere, but ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate ARE.
This is why nano tanks (when well cared for and properly established) have healthy fish. If the tanks aren't established, and water changes are necessary, frequent, and large, the GIH hormone is removed, and the fish keeps growing. This is where hobbyists denounce the saying "goldfish only grow to the size of their tank" and the owner is forced to upgrade.
Neither of these issues happen in well cared for nano setups. The first, is prevented mainly by the plants, and mechanical filters help to remove toxins, but not the GIH.
The second is prevented, because with perfectly tailored filtration, large frequent water changes simply aren't necessary.
Just a quick question how can YOU tell YOUR fish are happy? Do your fish look healthy, act healthy, eat fine, are they swimming right ect.? I am sure they are! I know I can easily check these off in my head, just like you did! Us fish owners usually assume our fish are in good condition when we see they are healthy, and know there is no reason for us not to believe they aren't. My fish don't exactly seen depressed. I don't know if they can be... I know they feel pain, and most likely some other emotions too, but I really doubt the care if they have a huge tank or a small one, as long as they have a comfortable amount of room, and have good water, and of course are eating! (Did you know your goldfish can never actually feel full? When it's warm and food is abundant they feel instinctively the need to eat as much as they can and get fat for winter. Such little pigs lol! )
As long as my fish are healthy as yours, and there is no proof otherwise, I will keep them in my nano setup.
Pros of a nano setup:
-Less work because of good filtration
-Less money
-More time to actually enjoy my fish
-They live longer
-Small tank=Less space taken up=More space for more tanks....
-I can be a good example to others on how to have a simple and effective setup with out spending a ton of money.
Cons:
-Fish aren't huge?
-People can be rude at times. (You guys have been nice though while disagreeing, even nicer than me at times, looking at Miss Noodles I'm really sorry for snapping...Many aren't as respectful and kind as this community. )
-Not huge amount of space for viewing I guess...?
I hope that didn't offend you. It's refreshing to debate this with people who actually understand fish and care about them, instead of someone who just wants to fight. So thank you all for discussing with me, it's been really interesting! Again if I offended anyone, I am super sorry, I really just wanted to address all the points you have made against my argument, have a wonderful day! (And remember to do your water changes ) <3
Interesting point. I don't think the surface area of a tank is often considered when speaking about stocking.One thing that I think American orientated boards fail at (compared to the rest of the world) is that they so hung up about the volume, they fail to take into consideration the dimensions of the tank. Maybe its due to the prevalence of standard tank sizes, so over time dimensions have been replaced by volume. Not a bad thing, but when it comes to tanks of custom dimensions, sometimes it can fall a little flat.
But in other parts of the world, standardised tank sizes aren't available- to the extend like US. So instead of focusing for volume, we tend to focus on dimension - particularly surface area. Surface area to me is important, not only for lateral movement but also for oxygen diffusion.
IMO, the same volumetric tank, but one is shorter (but wider/longer) and the other is taller... which is better? IMO, the short one. The shorter one could hold a greater amount of fish compared to the taller one simply due to surface area - diffusion.
Stemming from this, a tank that has the same surface area but a smaller volume - could keep the same amount of fish. Of course, one must take into account good filtration as well as systematic removal of waste to keep things fresh. But at the end of the day, keeping fish isn't a mathematical equation. Your fish aren't going to die if its kept in a tank that has 1, 2 or 10 gallons less room. Sure, does 1, 2 or 10 gallons help reduce the chance of wild swings in parameters and help the aquarist - and of course, give the fish room. Yes, but its not overly critical if one is willing to do the work in a smaller body of water.
I can't tell if my fish are happy. I can check to see if they're SICK, which would mean that they'd be lethargic or not eat etc, but what about the middle part of it all? If your fish isn't half dying, then it's considered happy and healthy? IMO, swimming around and eating tons are not necessarily the signs of a happy fish. A dog can eat and run around in a small pen but that doesn't mean it's 'happy.' It's incredibly hard to label the way a fish behaves from a human's point of view as what we see as 'happy' may be completely different from the way that they display it. All I do is do the best that I can to provide a good environment for my fishies. Can fish be depressed? I don't know. If they were depressed, would I know? No, probably not. This is because all creatures show their 'feelings' differently. Do I want to take the chance that they could be depressed? No, no I don't.
Pros of a nano setup:
-Less work because of good filtration - I could get good filtration in a big aquarium too?
-Less money - Depends on where you live and where you buy from... I could buy a 5Gal tank for the same price as a 30Gal where I am... (still ridiculously overpriced though, I might add)
-More time to actually enjoy my fish - How exactly?
-They live longer - Proof? IMO, these were lucky flukes. Living vs Thriving
-Small tank=Less space taken up=More space for more tanks.... - True, but I could get a big tank and stock it with more fish which equals... well, more fish.
-I can be a good example to others on how to have a simple and effective setup without spending a ton of money. -
Cons:
-Fish aren't huge? - I might want to get a ton of small fish but I'd need a bigger tank due to the bioload..?? I'd say Con: incredibly limited stocking options.
-People can be rude at times. (You guys have been nice though while disagreeing, even nicer than me at times, looking at Miss Noodles I'm really sorry for snapping...Many aren't as respectful and kind as this community. )
-Not huge amount of space for viewing I guess...?
I don't know about your pros/cons list. Seems rather flimsy IMO with not much evidence to support it...
No, you've been fine. It's always great to have some healthy debate and see what everyone else thinks about this topic.
For tank size making a difference in happiness. Think of you happiness difference living in your closet your whole life (and possible not growing well because of it, maybe even having back problems) versus having a big yard to run around in all day, in what situation would you be happier? Not that fish should be compared with humans, I’m using this as a happiness example. Just because you don’t grow very big so you can still survive in your closet, and maybe you even live to be 100, doesn’t mean you like it there.There are a lot of similies (is that spelled right) being made, but I don't see they are really appropriate to this. Dogs, are animals we know love to run and hunt, and need room to grow. Fish are very different, goldfish aren't know for being fast and needing a lot of exercise every day, and they don't even move like we do. They can go up and down, and touch every inch of the tank if they wanted to. They utilize the entire space the have. I don't see what exactly you're saying about the 'happiness' of the fish though. I don't see how a smaller tank would take any more chance of giving my fish depression than putting them in a larger tank or a small inside pond, or anything. I don't think I'm taking a huge risk though. I wouldn't take any risk that I could avoid.
I also like the counter argument for the the pros and cons, and I think my side might need an update to clarify what I mean.
Pros:
-More time to enjoy my fish, because less water changes, (with good filtration) and well when they are needed, it's like a gallon or two max.
-Less money, well as you said it really just depends. But overall, the filter if you are using mechanical (as opposed to only using plants) is probably going to be a lot cheaper, heater (if you are going to use one) also, you can use a little substrate from a larger tank, or even get some sand (from a river) and boil it, really just doesn't cost very much as opposed to a larger tank.
-They live longer. Here is a compilation of the oldest goldfish in the world, I could send you the separate links to all the articles, but pure goldfish has the links in this article on the top oldest. (All stunted and in small tanks, with careful feeding) Mine aren't too old yet, (1 is 6, several are 1 and 1/2) but they are healthy and doing well. A friend of mine has a stunted goldfish in a ten gallon doing well, not sure how old it is. But remember these are just a few, not everybody's long lived fish ends up on the news.
9 Oldest Goldfish in the World Have 4 Weird Things in Common
-More space for more tanks, well you get it. You make a fair point.
You didn't combat the last one, but it was not like a huge selling point so whatever now to cons!
Cons: Fish aren't huge? I mean the point of nano is basically having an easy(er) option to have a few goldfish, and still be able to have a nice downsized aquascape. Really both having a monster goldfish and having a lot of goldfish are not really the point of a nano tank. So it's really only a con if you wanted a huge fish, or a lot of fish, but couldn't afford it, or didn't have enough room. Any kind of goldfish would work, as long as you buy small. And there are quite a few breeds to choose from. So it's really just your opinion if you don't like many of the options I guess.
The rest of the cons weren't really necessary to refute, so you didn't and I won't either.
And to LittleBlueGuppy, I don't know much about Oscars, I only keep goldfish and betta fish, so I don't know really what to tell you. As for the bio load, as I said, with the right filtration combo it's not an issue. I adore goldfish as well, and I would only keep them in nano if I firmly believed it was safe, and I do and there just really isn't solid proof against me, so I am going on personal experience, and what I know about goldfish, and how they react to small aquaria. (As far as we can tell)
This brings up a point: I don't know how tanks are marketed in other countries, but in the US, the standard tank sizes are optimized for viewing, not surface area or fish comfort. Take a 55 gallon for example; it is much thinner and deeper than a 40 breeder, which I think is really backwards. A 55 is about a foot wide, while a 40B is 18 inches wide!One thing that I think American orientated boards fail at (compared to the rest of the world) is that they so hung up about the volume, they fail to take into consideration the dimensions of the tank. Maybe its due to the prevalence of standard tank sizes, so over time dimensions have been replaced by volume. Not a bad thing, but when it comes to tanks of custom dimensions, sometimes it can fall a little flat.
But in other parts of the world, standardised tank sizes aren't available- to the extend like US. So instead of focusing for volume, we tend to focus on dimension - particularly surface area. Surface area to me is important, not only for lateral movement but also for oxygen diffusion.
IMO, the same volumetric tank, but one is shorter (but wider/longer) and the other is taller... which is better? IMO, the short one. The shorter one could hold a greater amount of fish compared to the taller one simply due to surface area - diffusion.
Stemming from this, a tank that has the same surface area but a smaller volume - could keep the same amount of fish. Of course, one must take into account good filtration as well as systematic removal of waste to keep things fresh. But at the end of the day, keeping fish isn't a mathematical equation. Your fish aren't going to die if its kept in a tank that has 1, 2 or 10 gallons less room. Sure, does 1, 2 or 10 gallons help reduce the chance of wild swings in parameters and help the aquarist - and of course, give the fish room. Yes, but its not overly critical if one is willing to do the work in a smaller body of water.
I like Marineland aquariums for that reason. Their tanks only have the dimensions on the labels, unless they're part of a kit.Yes here in the USA are tanks are pretty standardized. If you go on sites like seriouslyfish they go by dimension and not volume.
For tank size making a difference in happiness. Think of you happiness difference living in your closet your whole life (and possible not growing well because of it, maybe even having back problems) versus having a big yard to run around in all day, in what situation would you be happier? Not that fish should be compared with humans, I’m using this as a happiness example. Just because you don’t grow very big so you can still survive in your closet, and maybe you even live to be 100, doesn’t mean you like it there.
Use common logic, a fish won’t be as happy in a small tank as in a big one. I have my single betta in a 10 gallon. He loves it. He is super active and patrols his tank all day. I tried dividing the tank once. He got really mad. He swam up to the divider and started flaring at it, then pouted in the corner till I took it out. I’m not making this up.
This brings up a point: I don't know how tanks are marketed in other countries, but in the US, the standard tank sizes are optimized for viewing, not surface area or fish comfort. Take a 55 gallon for example; it is much thinner and deeper than a 40 breeder, which I think is really backwards. A 55 is about a foot wide, while a 40B is 18 inches wide!
I also think it's a economical (ergonomical?) problem that tanks are marketed by volume instead of dimensions in the US. I work at a pet store, and the majority of the people who want fish are intimidated by anything bigger than 3 gallons. It's really baffling sometimes, how they can judge a tank without even looking at it. Marketing them by dimensions might get them to buy a better tank for what space they have available.
Going off on a little tangent:
It would make more sense to just get a big kiddie pool for my goldfish, and all goldfish in general. Dirt cheap and more practical with tons of surface area, plus plastic pools don't have to be leveled. Lots of breeders use kiddie pools. I'm not picky about home decor or feng shui, so I don't care if it looks tacky in my house either.
I used to own goldfish and man, they used all their space. They used to be very active and reminded me of dogs, following my finger around the tank and letting me hand feed them. I'm comparing them to dogs as they are living, breathing creatures that feel pain and I want to treat them the same way I'd treat a dog I own. With lots of time and room to exercise, doing what I can to avoid pain, giving them the best life that I can, etc.There are a lot of similies (is that spelled right) being made, but I don't see they are really appropriate to this. Dogs, are animals we know love to run and hunt, and need room to grow. Fish are very different, goldfish aren't know for being fast and needing a lot of exercise every day, and they don't even move like we do. They can go up and down, and touch every inch of the tank if they wanted to. They utilize the entire space the have. I don't see what exactly you're saying about the 'happiness' of the fish though. I don't see how a smaller tank would take any more chance of giving my fish depression than putting them in a larger tank or a small inside pond, or anything. I don't think I'm taking a huge risk though. I wouldn't take any risk that I could avoid.
I also like the counter argument for the the pros and cons, and I think my side might need an update to clarify what I mean.
Pros:
-More time to enjoy my fish, because less water changes, (with good filtration) and well when they are needed, it's like a gallon or two max.
-Less money, well as you said it really just depends. But overall, the filter if you are using mechanical (as opposed to only using plants) is probably going to be a lot cheaper, heater (if you are going to use one) also, you can use a little substrate from a larger tank, or even get some sand (from a river) and boil it, really just doesn't cost very much as opposed to a larger tank.
-They live longer. Here is a compilation of the oldest goldfish in the world, I could send you the separate links to all the articles, but pure goldfish has the links in this article on the top oldest. (All stunted and in small tanks, with careful feeding) Mine aren't too old yet, (1 is 6, several are 1 and 1/2) but they are healthy and doing well. A friend of mine has a stunted goldfish in a ten gallon doing well, not sure how old it is. But remember these are just a few, not everybody's long lived fish ends up on the news.
9 Oldest Goldfish in the World Have 4 Weird Things in Common
-More space for more tanks, well you get it. You make a fair point.
You didn't combat the last one, but it was not like a huge selling point so whatever now to cons!
Cons: Fish aren't huge? I mean the point of nano is basically having an easy(er) option to have a few goldfish, and still be able to have a nice downsized aquascape. Really both having a monster goldfish and having a lot of goldfish are not really the point of a nano tank. So it's really only a con if you wanted a huge fish, or a lot of fish, but couldn't afford it, or didn't have enough room. Any kind of goldfish would work, as long as you buy small. And there are quite a few breeds to choose from. So it's really just your opinion if you don't like many of the options I guess.
The rest of the cons weren't really necessary to refute, so you didn't and I won't either.
And to LittleBlueGuppy, I don't know much about Oscars, I only keep goldfish and betta fish, so I don't know really what to tell you. As for the bio load, as I said, with the right filtration combo it's not an issue. I adore goldfish as well, and I would only keep them in nano if I firmly believed it was safe, and I do and there just really isn't solid proof against me, so I am going on personal experience, and what I know about goldfish, and how they react to small aquaria. (As far as we can tell)
One, the pro section. Dogs aren't restricted by water area. They can leave the house when available. I don't see goldfish leaving their tanks. Plus when in a large enough tank, they will become as active as your dog.There are a lot of similies (is that spelled right) being made, but I don't see they are really appropriate to this. Dogs, are animals we know love to run and hunt, and need room to grow. Fish are very different, goldfish aren't know for being fast and needing a lot of exercise every day, and they don't even move like we do. They can go up and down, and touch every inch of the tank if they wanted to. They utilize the entire space the have. I don't see what exactly you're saying about the 'happiness' of the fish though. I don't see how a smaller tank would take any more chance of giving my fish depression than putting them in a larger tank or a small inside pond, or anything. I don't think I'm taking a huge risk though. I wouldn't take any risk that I could avoid.
I also like the counter argument for the the pros and cons, and I think my side might need an update to clarify what I mean.
Pros:
-More time to enjoy my fish, because less water changes, (with good filtration) and well when they are needed, it's like a gallon or two max.
-Less money, well as you said it really just depends. But overall, the filter if you are using mechanical (as opposed to only using plants) is probably going to be a lot cheaper, heater (if you are going to use one) also, you can use a little substrate from a larger tank, or even get some sand (from a river) and boil it, really just doesn't cost very much as opposed to a larger tank.
-They live longer. Here is a compilation of the oldest goldfish in the world, I could send you the separate links to all the articles, but pure goldfish has the links in this article on the top oldest. (All stunted and in small tanks, with careful feeding) Mine aren't too old yet, (1 is 6, several are 1 and 1/2) but they are healthy and doing well. A friend of mine has a stunted goldfish in a ten gallon doing well, not sure how old it is. But remember these are just a few, not everybody's long lived fish ends up on the news.
9 Oldest Goldfish in the World Have 4 Weird Things in Common
-More space for more tanks, well you get it. You make a fair point.
You didn't combat the last one, but it was not like a huge selling point so whatever now to cons!
Cons: Fish aren't huge? I mean the point of nano is basically having an easy(er) option to have a few goldfish, and still be able to have a nice downsized aquascape. Really both having a monster goldfish and having a lot of goldfish are not really the point of a nano tank. So it's really only a con if you wanted a huge fish, or a lot of fish, but couldn't afford it, or didn't have enough room. Any kind of goldfish would work, as long as you buy small. And there are quite a few breeds to choose from. So it's really just your opinion if you don't like many of the options I guess.
The rest of the cons weren't really necessary to refute, so you didn't and I won't either.
And to LittleBlueGuppy, I don't know much about Oscars, I only keep goldfish and betta fish, so I don't know really what to tell you. As for the bio load, as I said, with the right filtration combo it's not an issue. I adore goldfish as well, and I would only keep them in nano if I firmly believed it was safe, and I do and there just really isn't solid proof against me, so I am going on personal experience, and what I know about goldfish, and how they react to small aquaria. (As far as we can tell)
He is happy with his life, and he has a lot of space, but the point was, he wouldn’t be if he didn’t have that large amount of space. If I stuck him in a bowl, or even a 2.5 gallon, he would be absolutely miserable, and he’s not even 1/8 the size of a fancy goldfish.See the issue here is, once again, fish aren't people. And honestly, it would be more accurate to say an average sized bedroom, instead of a closet, just technically speaking. Unless the closet is really huge I guess. Plus, I'm an introvert and staying in my room all day would make me happy, but unfortunately I have to work and study and do stuff. But seriously, what makes you think they like it in a 30, 50, or even 100 gallon? (For happiness example) What if you got an upgrade from your bedroom, to a house, or an apartment. You can't leave. It's still clean, and you are feed well, and have space, but it's not really a huge upgrade, sure the first month or two might be exiting getting used to a new place, but it's not really that different. The ideal of course, would be a huge natural pond or gentle river, most tanks we use compared to that are waaaaay smaller.
Plus, fish don't have as complicated feelings and emotions as a human, OR a dog. (even though I'm sure mine are smarter than my yorkie, he is not the smartest ;P)
Mine act the same way large fish in 100 gallon tanks do, and are just as curious and perky as they are. I have no reason to think they are sad, or bored, they peck at all the tank decor looking for food, they follow they biggest fish around like he's their mother duck, they get super exited when the see me coming to feed them, just like most goldfish do.
My betta is funny like that too, once I took out his favorite decoration, to clean the algae off, and he just sat where is was until I put it back, also he tries to jump and grab the food out of my hand before I drop it, especially if he see the pellet jar. (They have great personality don't they LittleBlueGuppy? )
Any way, we can't read their minds to know what they are thinking, but I doubt you think your, healthy, proud, little betta is upset with his life because he wishes he had more space. Why? You have no logical reason to think so. Neither do I. Once again I mean absolutely no offense, as I frequently say I know you guys just love fish, and are trying to help as many as possible have good lives, that's why you're here. I hope I can show you the joys of nano tanks, and really that the # of gallons doesn't matter as much as we think it does, (for goldfish) as long as the environment is right, and proper care is being given.
See, we keep coming back to the stunting issues. I can't prove its pain free, but how would I? Can you prove growing is pain free? Can you prove stunting is painful? Can we even measure fish pain? I don't know. But really anything can be painful. I know for a fact there are fish medications that are painful. Shots, are painful. Some dropsy treatments come as shots. Is stunting painful? I don't see my fish showing visible pain, I don't know if it would, but I doubt they are in pain. You can't prove I'm wrong or your wrong. Stale mate here. I can always say growing hurts. You can always disagree and say stunting hurts.
Okay, on to water changes, which I have proof for. So to answer both arguments against me let me break this down for you. Ok so we all know about the nitrogen cycle, right? (If you don't please leave and come back when you do.) K. So ammonia (toxic) in a cycled tank, is turned in nitrite (toxic, not as much, but still very toxic) which is turned to nitrate (only toxic in large amounts). Goldfish are famous for producing more ammonia than other fish, and so many people say you must keep them in large quantities of water with filtration to dilute the toxins. In a small tank, the toxins are more deadly with less space to dilute them. So we use more filtration, but wait! What about nitrate?? The good bacteria don't eat that, so we use some thing else....plants. Plenty of plants, to eat the nitrate, and oxygenate the water. Trust me, it works, the nitrates are very low, and with out a lot of nitrates, we don't need to do a ton of water changes, and we won't get rid of that good somatostatin. If you don't know what that is I explained it a while ago so you can just backtrack a little.
I agreed about the bowls. The only use for a bowl is copepods or shrimp.Is there evidence to support that stunting still leads to organs growth? May be wrong, but from what I'm aware, its never been determined and simply an internet related rumor.
One thing that many fish keepers do is anthropomorphise their pets. Understandable, I do it too. But in a debate such as this, it hardly makes a worthy contender for a logical thought (statement).
As for the pros/cons, they certainly an individuals view on the matter. Its an aquarium, where one persons experience differs from others. (There's people with large aquariums that require more work than people with small aquariums, and then there's the flip side.) Depending on location, can play a massive role into the wellfare of their pets. Not everyone has access to large aquariums, nor has the space for a pond. Does that mean they can't keep goldfish in an appropriate sized (even if volumetically small) space? No, they can IMO. They just have to ensure that theit fishes needs are being met.
As for the long lived fish potentially being 'abused' (aka - not being kept in optimised conditions)... who says that they aren't being abused? How can we determine whether those fish have had a better quality of life than our own goldies simply cause the tank is too small? IMO, I think its a bigger testament that they lived so long, while others chase numbers (size of tank, stocking density, parameters ect) and constantly running into issues.
But what I do think, is the bowl really has no reason to be in the aquarium industry - and best left to people that have the experience! Maybe some of the really large and custom bowls (like biOrb, or those mammoth bowls that people go wow and cost a pretty penny) works for people that aren't as experienced, where there's systems in place to help the aquarist (filtration).... but the smaller bowls (less than a foot in diameter) is best left out of the aquarium industry.
There is no reliable evidence (at least that I have found) to prove it leads to extended organ growth. My main issue is that we just don't know, so why risk it. Also people have this idea that the fish literally needs to be swollen with it's organs sticking out and physically exploding. It does not take much for the organs to get too large and the fish to die, maybe only takes an organ like the heart doubling in size to shut down. We wouldn't be able to see that. There have been no autopsies or x-rays and that is what would be needed.Is there evidence to support that stunting still leads to organs growth? May be wrong, but from what I'm aware, its never been determined and simply an internet related rumor.
One thing that many fish keepers do is anthropomorphise their pets. Understandable, I do it too. But in a debate such as this, it hardly makes a worthy contender for a logical thought (statement).
Apologies! I know I am one person who said marine...should have said 'freshwater biologists'! My bad.(Also, not sure why marine biologists would be the appropriate expert to consult on issues concerning freshwater fish.).
That was an awesome article and was backed up with plenty of citations/sources. Thank you for finding and sharing that.Stunted growth means stunted lives
That's a really great point and I completely agree. I had a little minnow who had a disease that eventually killed him and he was acting completely normal and what we'd perceive as 'happy.'I really don't want to get super into this because I must admit I personally find the thought of keeping any fish in a tank smaller than the recommended minimum to be at best a poor decision. I totally respect your experiences and opinions, you clearly have done a lot of research and put a lot of thought into this.
However, I would like to point out that fish usually will act the same whether in a tiny tank or massive pond. I don't have much experience with goldfish specifically but I do with bettas, fish that are also kept in bowls. Healthy bettas will generally act the same in cups as they do in tanks. I've seen bettas at the pet store blowing bubble nests in water that literally when tested showed ammonia was at 2.0. Fish (as well as pretty much all animals) will try to breed when they can but that doesn't mean the conditions are ideal. I would also like to point out that while some people have experienced supposed success when keeping fish in these conditions, even more (amateur and experienced) have experienced failure.
As a child I kept a goldfish for almost 12 years in a 5 gallon tank with a filter that only ran for 3 of those years, no plants, and only 1 water change a month. I know for a fact that ammonia was never 0 and half the time I didn't add conditioner to the water. The fish swam around happily, ate, wasn't lethargic or showing signs of stress, etc. Now that I'm older and know what I'm doing I can recognize that how I kept that fish was not ideal to say the least. The fish did, however, survive for 11 years and 9 months in obviously poor conditions. I have not researched as much as you, I have honestly not thought too much about keeping fish in smaller spaces before- but I believe the fact that some goldfish (like my own) can survive and seemingly thrive this way is just a sign of how adaptable and resilient they can be. I also think that just because they can doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best or necessarily even a good option.
In my opinion the goal when taking care of fish (and honestly most pets) should be to replicate it's natural habitat as closely as you can. Even though they are bred and born in aquariums they still come from large bodies of fresh water and should ideally be kept in them.
Thank you for taking time to respond. I edited out the first part to focus on the things I stated.Sien, I think you have twisted my words, accidentally, but still it's a huge insult to my knowledge. I know they have emotion, I simply pointed out they don't think as deeply as we do, and I completely agree that they do need mental stimulation, I never said otherwise. I have read on those subjects too, and from what you said it leads me to assume that you believe a larger tank is much more mentally stimulating than a smaller tank. Yeah sure it can be but a small tank can be mentally stimulating too, add some small decor, plants, interact with your fish, are those not enough or wait I forgot they need to swim in BIG circles as opposed to smaller ones in addition. I can't help but feel a little attacked when you tell me I'm taking big risks with my fish, and I am giving them horrible lives.
Pros and cons time
Pros: Less work because of good filtration. This can be true for any tank though, I might add, if you add enough plants, and the water is so perfect that the nitrates are constantly extremely low that you don't need water changes, or if they are so good you only have to do a water change every two or three weeks, why is this being selfish? I'm sorry is it bad that I have water so good that I don't have to do a lot of work? What a horribly selfish thing that I want my fish to have clean water to enjoy.
Less Money. I'm not sorry that I didn't need to spend a pretty penny on things I felt weren't necessary, I'm proud. Is it bad that my fish have a good, while not foolishly expensive habitat?
I'm sorry if I'm so selfish as to not spend money unnecessarily.
More time to enjoy my fish. Goes with the first one. I can put time previously used to do water changes to spend with my fish, toward changing up the look, teaching my fish to be hand fed, and enjoying watching them or really whatever. I mean it's kinda selfish, but its because I love them, they aren't just fish to me, they are so much more than "just a fish".
I'm sorry, what an awful thing that I care about my pets and want to spend more time with them.
They live longer. Ok there haven't been scientific studies, but it's too many cases to call a coincidence. I mean all the DOCUMENTED oldest fish at least, have been stunted and came from mostly inadequate homes. Imagine how long they will live in perfect nano conditions! That's the best proof I have, because there as we agree there is pretty much no good research. It's not a super strong point, and if you find a case of a monster 60 year old goldfish from a one hundred gallon tank, I will gladly accept that.
More space for more tanks. What's wrong with having multiple pets as long as you can take care of them right? I'm sorry that I like animals and enjoy rescuing fish actually in cruel abusive places and placing them in a habitat they can live in and *oh-boy-I-hope-you-don't-get-mad-about-this-but-it's-how-I-see-it-and-you-can't-change-my-mind* THRIVE. (There. I said it. Don't hate my guts please.)
I'm a good example to others, basically you disagree. That's fine I get it. I won't even call myself that ever again, but here's the catch, you can't call me a bad one either, because you admit, that like me we have no proof. Deal?
Cons: (We will ignore the first one because it doesn't need refuted or defended its just kind of random and true so on to the real ones.)
Rude people. Yes they are everywhere, but just how quickly did people start to tell me what a cruel and wrong thing it was to put a goldfish in a bowl. I mean it was a suggestion. I provided a place to research more. And said ok hope you just have a good time doing WHATEVER you pick to do with that bowl, I didn't really think he would take my suggestion, but if he did that'd be cool. And there have been a few disrespectful comments, I would be rude to point them out, but the point is people are super quick to hate on me, and other nanos. You can't even say it's not true, say you have a goldfish in pretty much anything under 20 gallons and you will be called an animal abuser like I and my friends have.
I feel like you keep coming back to 'it is for sure 100% safe? No, we don't know, why would you take that risk with your fish who you care about?' And to be honest, I could say that with about anything. Sien, why do you (insert whatever hasn't been proven to be 100% safe that you do, I know there is something) you aren't 100% sure it's safe? Why do we let goldfish grow large when it's not proven to be 100% safe and painless? Why do we do any. Stinking. Thing. You give me an article that tells me it is not safe with scientific proof instead of opinions that a goldfish is in pain because it's stunted. Give me an article with scientific proof instead of opinions that a goldfish has absolutely no pain from being stunted and stunted fish have long HAPPY lives. Either would be fine, but there just aren't I have checked both ways and I can't find any thing with solid, credible proof. Until then my fish will remain in my nano tank in there great quality water.
Also the correct term is aquatic biologist. Just fyi.
You say that how do we know that growing to full size is safe and painless? I believe that growing full size is the right way, because that’s how God intended it. Fish naturally grow full size in nature. God knows best, God made the natural way, so the natural way is best. God didn’t make goldfish to get stunted, that’s obvious. If they where supposed to get stunted then God would have just made them smaller, I think that’s basic logic.
I was referring to the fact that, in nature, fish are not stunted, so I think basic logic should say that nature has the best way. I’m not sure what you mean by that not being competent theodicy.Listen, I don't want this thread to get shutdown, but basic logic, that's not even competent theodicy.
I am a Christian and I really appreciate how respectful you have been, and I do understand that we all feel especially passionate about this. I don't want you to think I though you purposefully twisted my words. I know you just disagree, and it's ok. I accept your apology, and I (and everyone should) really just try to keep in might we are all fighting for goldfish to have good lives, in different ways. And that's ok.NevermindIgnoreMe I do not think any one is saying you personally are a bad fish keeper/owner. I do not think anyone hates you on here, despite how heated this debate has gotten. I really want to make that clear and hopefully others do not mind I am speaking for them. Also hope no one on here would hate an internet stranger for having a different thought lol. Everyone on here is stating their opinion and the conclusion they have come to based off their experience and knowledge. I apologize from all of us if you feel attacked NevermindIgnoreMe. I would feel the same way to if I had to respond to a bunch of people disagreeing with me. Hopefully even during the rest of this debate and times we all cross paths on the forum, we can make this a welcoming place for everyone.
Guppy I'm going to write you a thing on your page real quick. Relating to this.I was referring to the fact that, in nature, fish are not stunted, so I think basic logic should say that nature has the best way. I’m not sure what you mean by that not being competent theodicy.
Are you referring to part about God making nature?
I don't, or try my best not to anyway. I'm just lucky there are people who actually do care about goldfish, and will actually talk with me about fish! I live in a low population area, with almost no one who understands my fish obsession. At least I know you guys are as crazy as I am about fish!!Hopefully you don't take this personally. Its a very controversial topic and yea its a fish forum so the members are passionate about all our pets.
It sounds as though you are saying that a fish growing to the size it's meant to be at could he harmful? I'm sorry, but this is pretty absurd. Goldfish were made to grow that size. They would grow that size if people weren't stunting them (accidentally or on purpose)Thank you, very much AussieJJDude. The organ growth has no proof, and is really just illogical. I really appreciate someone speaking up, who actually has EXPERIENCE in both keeping nano tanks, (even if it doesn't contain goldfish) and goldfish. I don't mean to be rude, but I doubt I would be received very kindly if I came up to one of you, and criticized how you keep a fish ( think of the one you are I don't even keep, and tell you it's abuse. Even if they do it kindly, it would probably make you angry.
Mine aren't even in a bowl, it's ten gallons.
You have been very kind, Seamonkey but if I have to explain the nitrogen cycle to someone who wants to tell me I'm abusing my fish that I have kept for years, than they really do not need to be here. But really, if they want to be engaged and understand this debate they should have some basic knowledge about beginner fishkeeping.
Sien, I think you have twisted my words, accidentally, but still it's a huge insult to my knowledge. I know they have emotion, I simply pointed out they don't think as deeply as we do, and I completely agree that they do need mental stimulation, I never said otherwise. I have read on those subjects too, and from what you said it leads me to assume that you believe a larger tank is much more mentally stimulating than a smaller tank. Yeah sure it can be but a small tank can be mentally stimulating too, add some small decor, plants, interact with your fish, are those not enough or wait I forgot they need to swim in BIG circles as opposed to smaller ones in addition. I can't help but feel a little attacked when you tell me I'm taking big risks with my fish, and I am giving them horrible lives.
Pros and cons time
Pros: Less work because of good filtration. This can be true for any tank though, I might add, if you add enough plants, and the water is so perfect that the nitrates are constantly extremely low that you don't need water changes, or if they are so good you only have to do a water change every two or three weeks, why is this being selfish? I'm sorry is it bad that I have water so good that I don't have to do a lot of work? What a horribly selfish thing that I want my fish to have clean water to enjoy.
Less Money. I'm not sorry that I didn't need to spend a pretty penny on things I felt weren't necessary, I'm proud. Is it bad that my fish have a good, while not foolishly expensive habitat?
I'm sorry if I'm so selfish as to not spend money unnecessarily.
More time to enjoy my fish. Goes with the first one. I can put time previously used to do water changes to spend with my fish, toward changing up the look, teaching my fish to be hand fed, and enjoying watching them or really whatever. I mean it's kinda selfish, but its because I love them, they aren't just fish to me, they are so much more than "just a fish".
I'm sorry, what an awful thing that I care about my pets and want to spend more time with them.
They live longer. Ok there haven't been scientific studies, but it's too many cases to call a coincidence. I mean all the DOCUMENTED oldest fish at least, have been stunted and came from mostly inadequate homes. Imagine how long they will live in perfect nano conditions! That's the best proof I have, because there as we agree there is pretty much no good research. It's not a super strong point, and if you find a case of a monster 60 year old goldfish from a one hundred gallon tank, I will gladly accept that.
More space for more tanks. What's wrong with having multiple pets as long as you can take care of them right? I'm sorry that I like animals and enjoy rescuing fish actually in cruel abusive places and placing them in a habitat they can live in and *oh-boy-I-hope-you-don't-get-mad-about-this-but-it's-how-I-see-it-and-you-can't-change-my-mind* THRIVE. (There. I said it. Don't hate my guts please.)
I'm a good example to others, basically you disagree. That's fine I get it. I won't even call myself that ever again, but here's the catch, you can't call me a bad one either, because you admit, that like me we have no proof. Deal?
Cons: (We will ignore the first one because it doesn't need refuted or defended its just kind of random and true so on to the real ones.)
Rude people. Yes they are everywhere, but just how quickly did people start to tell me what a cruel and wrong thing it was to put a goldfish in a bowl. I mean it was a suggestion. I provided a place to research more. And said ok hope you just have a good time doing WHATEVER you pick to do with that bowl, I didn't really think he would take my suggestion, but if he did that'd be cool. And there have been a few disrespectful comments, I would be rude to point them out, but the point is people are super quick to hate on me, and other nanos. You can't even say it's not true, say you have a goldfish in pretty much anything under 20 gallons and you will be called an animal abuser like I and my friends have.
I feel like you keep coming back to 'it is for sure 100% safe? No, we don't know, why would you take that risk with your fish who you care about?' And to be honest, I could say that with about anything. Sien, why do you (insert whatever hasn't been proven to be 100% safe that you do, I know there is something) you aren't 100% sure it's safe? Why do we let goldfish grow large when it's not proven to be 100% safe and painless? Why do we do any. Stinking. Thing. You give me an article that tells me it is not safe with scientific proof instead of opinions that a goldfish is in pain because it's stunted. Give me an article with scientific proof instead of opinions that a goldfish has absolutely no pain from being stunted and stunted fish have long HAPPY lives. Either would be fine, but there just aren't I have checked both ways and I can't find any thing with solid, credible proof. Until then my fish will remain in my nano tank in there great quality water.
Also the correct term is aquatic biologist. Just fyi.
How so? What do you define as minimum requirements? Cause minimum requirements to some may differ greatly to mimimum requirements to others. Is it simply referring to tank size? If so, is it volumetically or simply the dimensions of the tank?Threads like this make me wish for laws for minimum requirements for fishkeeping. Including a knowledge qualification tests for the keepers.
How so? What do you define as minimum requirements? Cause minimum requirements to some may differ greatly to mimimum requirements to others. Is it simply referring to tank size? If so, is it volumetically or simply the dimensions of the tank?
Or is it stocking density/choices? Filtration requirements? Plants? Substrate? Water parameters?
Why? There's no such requirements for the idiots we vote into public office.
I'm not going into that at all. In my opinion this depends on what species one keeps and may differ anyways. If there was ONE base rule to stick to, the hobby would be dead on arrival because all traders would have to shut down.
I was actually aiming for the knowledge requirements. That alone would help a lot.
