Stunt?

[Tez_20]

Well like someone here said there’s often a difference between captive and wild size. Guess it’s just the way it is. I’ll opt to believe they’re all happy

Jimmy your Danio's will love that size i've had them in the past and their behaviour is very fast and they love covering tanks and if you have pressure running high the faster they grow i noticed, as it makes them more hungry come feeding time.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

Well like someone here said there’s often a difference between captive and wild size. Guess it’s just the way it is. I’ll opt to believe they’re all happy

It would be problematic to compare wild and farm-bred fish, as it's really like comparing apples with oranges. The differences between the two in their upbringing and lifestyles are extremely complex. Sometimes, the apparent 'fact' that wild fish are bigger than their domesticated cousins is used as an argument against keeping fish in captivity. It can also be used as an argument amongst aquarists to try and replicate the water papameters found in the wild.
However...

Fish caught in the wild are the ones that have survived a relatively dangerous environment, where survival of the fittest is a truism. It's true that average sizes are calculated by taking many samples and it isn't the easiest to catch the smaller fish...whose very lives depend upon not being caught. Wild fish are subjected to all manner of stresses, facilitating buff wee bods. Farm-bred fish, on the other fin, have all been brought up in a relatively static environment and supplied with the same amount of food. Generally, they haven't needed to pile on the pounds.
An alternative argument suggests that the stresses of being farmed in an artificial environment, placed in bags and shipped across the world, to be placed in fish shops and then tanks, no matter how well managed, are NOT as conducive to fish health as being pursued by hungry piranha every so often.

Only a couple of decades ago, we realised that fish actually don't grow to fit the tank and that aquarists had been unwillingly shortening the lives of their fish...and we still have lots to learn.
In another couple of decades, we might find that our fish will be living as long, or even longer, than their wild counterparts.

All that said and to answer your question, I missed the bit where you said how many of these fish you intended to keep in that nice, big tank and how many are required to make a shoal a happy and content shoal?

 

[Jimmy74]

It would be problematic to compare wild and farm-bred fish, as it's really like comparing apples with oranges. The differences between the two in their upbringing and lifestyles are extremely complex. Sometimes, the apparent 'fact' that wild fish are bigger than their domesticated cousins is used as an argument against keeping fish in captivity. It can also be used as an argument amongst aquarists to try and replicate the water papameters found in the wild.
However...

Fish caught in the wild are the ones that have survived a relatively dangerous environment, where survival of the fittest is a truism. It's true that average sizes are calculated by taking many samples and it isn't the easiest to catch the smaller fish...whose very lives depend upon not being caught. Wild fish are subjected to all manner of stresses, facilitating buff wee bods. Farm-bred fish, on the other fin, have all been brought up in a relatively static environment and supplied with the same amount of food. Generally, they haven't needed to pile on the pounds.
An alternative argument suggests that the stresses of being farmed in an artificial environment, placed in bags and shipped across the world, to be placed in fish shops and then tanks, no matter how well managed, are NOT as conducive to fish health as being pursued by hungry piranha every so often.

Only a couple of decades ago, we realised that fish actually don't grow to fit the tank and that aquarists had been unwillingly shortening the lives of their fish...and we still have lots to learn.
In another couple of decades, we might find that our fish will be living as long, or even longer, than their wild counterparts.

All that said and to answer your question, I missed the bit where you said how many of these fish you intended to keep in that nice, big tank and how many are required to make a shoal a happy and content shoal?

I’m keeping 6. I guess what I’m getting at is That I’ve noticed a lot of people on this website getting on others for keeping fish in too small a tank. Like you said there’s a lot we don’t know. Everybody justifies things differently.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

I’m keeping 6. I guess what I’m getting at is That I’ve noticed a lot of people on this website getting on others for keeping fish in too small a tank. Like you said there’s a lot we don’t know. Everybody justifies things differently.

I think what you'll actually notice are members describing their stocking levels which are inappropriate for the set-ups that they have...followed by, hopefully, an education of those members by those who know what they're talking about.

Looking at your own example, all I know is that it is a 6 foot long tank. How deep and how wide is it? (So we can work out the surface area).
Do you have other fish in there?

 

[Colin_T]

I have never seen a 6 inch long giant danio. I have only ever seen a few that were 3 inches long (not including tail).

An aquarium that is 6 foot long is a good size tank and is fine for giant danios.

No, there is nothing wrong or cruel with keeping a group of giant danios in a 6ft tank. The only thing I would do is increase the number of them to 10 or more.