1 inch of fish per gallon

[smb]

The depth of a tank has little effect on the amount of fish you can keep, within reason of course, but the surface area is the thing that matters mostly.

This isn't entirely accurate. Yes surface area is very important and often overlooked but depending on what fish you keep, depth is as important. I keep bigger cichlids and I need to know how big the fish gets at maturity to know if the depth of the tank will accomodate it so it can at least turn around in the tank. To me, depth is the most important factor. Obviously, I am not talking about 6 foot tall tanks that are 32" of surface area, but you know what I mean.


On to the question at hand.

There should never be any rules on any how many fish per gallon of tank. There are too many factors that come into play for such a generalization. Filtration, waste load, husbandry practices.

2 people have 75g tanks. They both get 3 Oscars and grow them out.

Aquarist 1- Whisper HOB filter. Does a 25% water change every 2-3 months.

Aquarist 2- External canister and 2 Emperor 400 filters. Does twice a week water changes of 35%

Now they both have the same gallons of water and the same inches of fish but, imo, there's only one aquarist there that won't have problems with water quality and diseases and will have 3 fish that die of old age.

Infact, with the filtration and husbandry practices of aquarist 2, he can even overshoot any of the gallons per inch rule within reason.

This is jmo, and I don't think my opinion matters more than anyone elses, but I don't think there should ever be a gallons per inch rule unless you know what type of fish the person's talking about and what they have in their setup.

 

[Braddah]

here, here Smb...well said!

 

[revengeishere]

The depth of a tank has little effect on the amount of fish you can keep, within reason of course, but the surface area is the thing that matters mostly.

This isn't entirely accurate. Yes surface area is very important and often overlooked but depending on what fish you keep, depth is as important. I keep bigger cichlids and I need to know how big the fish gets at maturity to know if the depth of the tank will accomodate it so it can at least turn around in the tank. To me, depth is the most important factor. Obviously, I am not talking about 6 foot tall tanks that are 32" of surface area, but you know what I mean.

Thats why the article said "within reason of course".


Anyway, youre right that each and every tank is still different, but this new method is more accurate than 1 inch per gallon thing(not rule, ok?)

 

[smb]

Thats why the article said "within reason of course".


Anyway, youre right that each and every tank is still different, but this new method is more accurate than 1 inch per gallon thing(not rule, ok?)

No, that's perfectly fine.


I'm just saying that this and every other method that generalizes is incorrect. That's jmo though, and if you or anyone else disagrees that's perfectly fine. I can't and won't argue with you on that because it's our opinions. IMO, we're both correct.

You can call it a rule, suggestion etc, but until we know the filtration, waste load and husbandry skills of the person asking the question, then we can throw all these assumptions and generalizations of inches per gallon out the window because they mean nothing.

This is jmo tho. I am not trying to argue with you or say you are wrong in what you believe. In a thread, I will reply once and let it go unless I am quoted or responded to because I don't want that person to think I am ignoring them.

I hope you don't take offense that I take a differing stance than you tho on this subject.

 

[AquaNut]

hehehe Diplomacy reigns supreme in fish forum land!

I totally agree with SMB; that's basically what I was trying to say in my post, with the exception that I can see where the 1" per gallon guideline could have some merit for newcomers who are fighting the urge to fill every bit of empty water with fish. Obviously, a tank with unsafe water conditions or neglectful caretakers isn't going to support any fish per gallon very well. Under normal, cycled, but new tank conditions, most people won't go too wrong if they don't exceed that amount.

For those of you who really want to believe this new formula is great because it says you can have more fish in your tank, maybe you're just experienced enough now to maintain a heavier load in your tank.

 

[revengeishere]

Thats why the article said "within reason of course".


Anyway, youre right that each and every tank is still different, but this new method is more accurate than 1 inch per gallon thing(not rule, ok?)

No, that's perfectly fine.


I'm just saying that this and every other method that generalizes is incorrect. That's jmo though, and if you or anyone else disagrees that's perfectly fine. I can't and won't argue with you on that because it's our opinions. IMO, we're both correct.

You can call it a rule, suggestion etc, but until we know the filtration, waste load and husbandry skills of the person asking the question, then we can throw all these assumptions and generalizations of inches per gallon out the window because they mean nothing.

This is jmo tho. I am not trying to argue with you or say you are wrong in what you believe. In a thread, I will reply once and let it go unless I am quoted or responded to because I don't want that person to think I am ignoring them.

I hope you don't take offense that I take a differing stance than you tho on this subject.

No, no,I wasnt argiung either.....lol. like you said, Just my opinion. Anyway, i bought more plants for my aquarium...I'm happy...LOL.

anyway, your right that we don't know exactly how much it is, as there is just too many variables.

Sorry if you thoguth I was trying to argue.

Cheers.

 

[smb]

Thats why the article said "within reason of course".


Anyway, youre right that each and every tank is still different, but this new method is more accurate than 1 inch per gallon thing(not rule, ok?)

No, that's perfectly fine.


I'm just saying that this and every other method that generalizes is incorrect. That's jmo though, and if you or anyone else disagrees that's perfectly fine. I can't and won't argue with you on that because it's our opinions. IMO, we're both correct.

You can call it a rule, suggestion etc, but until we know the filtration, waste load and husbandry skills of the person asking the question, then we can throw all these assumptions and generalizations of inches per gallon out the window because they mean nothing.

This is jmo tho. I am not trying to argue with you or say you are wrong in what you believe. In a thread, I will reply once and let it go unless I am quoted or responded to because I don't want that person to think I am ignoring them.

I hope you don't take offense that I take a differing stance than you tho on this subject.

No, no,I wasnt argiung either.....lol. like you said, Just my opinion. Anyway, i bought more plants for my aquarium...I'm happy...LOL.

anyway, your right that we don't know exactly how much it is, as there is just too many variables.

Sorry if you thoguth I was trying to argue.

Cheers.

Nope, didn't ever think you were, but I am a little sensitive lately that if I disagree that they might think I'm trying to be a know-it-all.

Thanks for letting me know that though. I respect your opinion as much as mine or anyone elses and this is how we all learn. If we all agreed and didn't try to learn from each other it would be really boring. I learn a lot from all of you everyday.

 

[revengeishere]

Thats why the article said "within reason of course".


Anyway, youre right that each and every tank is still different, but this new method is more accurate than 1 inch per gallon thing(not rule, ok?)

No, that's perfectly fine.


I'm just saying that this and every other method that generalizes is incorrect. That's jmo though, and if you or anyone else disagrees that's perfectly fine. I can't and won't argue with you on that because it's our opinions. IMO, we're both correct.

You can call it a rule, suggestion etc, but until we know the filtration, waste load and husbandry skills of the person asking the question, then we can throw all these assumptions and generalizations of inches per gallon out the window because they mean nothing.

This is jmo tho. I am not trying to argue with you or say you are wrong in what you believe. In a thread, I will reply once and let it go unless I am quoted or responded to because I don't want that person to think I am ignoring them.

I hope you don't take offense that I take a differing stance than you tho on this subject.

No, no,I wasnt argiung either.....lol. like you said, Just my opinion. Anyway, i bought more plants for my aquarium...I'm happy...LOL.

anyway, your right that we don't know exactly how much it is, as there is just too many variables.

Sorry if you thoguth I was trying to argue.

Cheers.

Nope, didn't ever think you were, but I am a little sensitive lately that if I disagree that they might think I'm trying to be a know-it-all.

Thanks for letting me know that though. I respect your opinion as much as mine or anyone elses and this is how we all learn. If we all agreed and didn't try to learn from each other it would be really boring. I learn a lot from all of you everyday.

Noce to know that. i dont learn just today, i always learn everyday. That's i love this forum compared to any other. I visit 4, but by fr, this is the best.

 

[aernympha]

before u guys so excited about this new formula, its nots new its in both of my fish books!!!!! but the one givern to me is more correct and better for newbies its it like the 1 inch of fish to a gallon but more accurate !!!!! as both books recomend it i think its better . the one on the net its stupid there is no way u one 2 inch fish can have a living spce of 6 sq.in.!!!!!!which is 15 sq. cm its tiny!!!!! i mean this rule on the net compared to the 1 inch for every gallon says can have double the fish i have now in my 30 galllon tank, which is rubbish!!!
there is a better metthod found in these books
Aquarium Fish by Dick Mills (famous guy been doing fishing keeping 30 years!!)
Aquarium an owners manual by Gina Sandford

the method!!!!
this is quoted guys!!

when stocking a tank,the most critical factor is surface area,rather than the total volume of water.the aqurium deth is irrelevent, its the water/airinterfaceat the surface that determines the amount of dissolved oxygen needed to support life.a 160 litre (35 gallon) tank, if 100 cm long x 40 cm deep x 40 cm wide(39 x 16 x 16 in.),will have the surface area of 4000 sq. cm (625 sq in.); alternatively, it mabe be 75 cm long x 52 cm deep x 40 cm wide (30 x 20 x 16 in.) , with a surface area of 3000 sq. cm (480 sq. in.) . although both tanks hold the same amount of water, the one with the larger surface area will suport more fish. to find the correct stocking level,first calculate the surface area by multiplying the tank length by its width.then establish the adult body length of the fish you plan to keep in the tank; for each 2.5 cm (1in.), you will require 75 sq. cm (12 sq. in.) of tank space for tropical freshwater species,180 sq cm (28 sq in.) for coldwater freshwater fish ,and 300 sq cm (47 sq in.) for tropical marine species.
in certain cases, fish may require more or less space than average.for example the discus, which gorws to 15 cm (6 in.),is best kept in pairs with little else in the tank.only in this way are you likly to grow these fish to maturity and have them breed.with good water turnover and effient filtraion,stocking levels may be slightly incresed.however , do not rely on equipment to support a heavily stocked aquarium;mechanical failure could prove disastrous.remember also that fewer fish often look far more impresive than a tank crammed with bodies.

so the basic rule is "for every inch (2.5 cm) of fish you will requies 75 sq. cm"


so i did this to my tank so i did 36 cm x 81 cm =2916 sq.cm

i sthen figured out howmnay inches of fish i could keep by

2916 divided by 75 = 38.88 inches of fish!!!

i then added alll the inches of fish i had 3.75 + 6+6+4.5+4+4+4=32.25
which menas i am not over stocked!!! an di have enuf space to put babies in my tank to grow yup a little so i can sell them to the lsf !!!!

this method is used by dick mills!!!!!!!!!! DICK MILLS!!! i mena if hes been using it for the majority of 30 years its must work so i have my faith in this formula!!! no that stupid unrealistic formula !!!! whoever made it up was stupid and is mean to his fishes!!!

 

[Moe]

I love this rule. It seems more accurate than one inch per gallon. It will also let me put more fish in my 20g!

 

[Great Lakes]

I'll chime in. I am picturing a run on the lfs and a whole bevy of high ammonia/gasping fish posts.

FWIW, here is my advice. It may not be practical for everyone, but is sound for most.

If you must have more fish, buy a bigger tank.

Many long time hobbyists have multiple tanks to house the variety of fish they desire. This is the most sound and safe way have happy fish.

In the long run, an understocked tank that is easily maintained will be more rewarding than a tank stocked at near impractical levels requiring a high degree of care.

 

[Alien Anna]

In the long run, an understocked tank that is easily maintained will be more rewarding than a tank stocked at near impractical levels requiring a high degree of care.

I agree with that strongly - and I'd also say that an under or low stocked tank can look a lot more attractive. Some of the nicest tank pictures I've seen recently on the Net (and on this forum) only have one or two fish in view.

When you look at my corner tank (the first tank I ever got), it is over-stocked (whatever the formulae say) because you can see different species of fish weaving in and out of each other all the time - it looks rather cluttered. My brackish tank, OTOH, is about 50% under stocked and although it's still developing (I've just started growing plants), I think it's shaping up pretty nicely.

I definitely need more tanks but more so I can thin out the tanks I've already got.

 

[aernympha]

i know waht u mena i gunna be over run with fry!!! i need an oscar!! lol