Tiger

[Jimmy74]

Is it animal cruelty to keep 5 tiger barbs in a 20H?

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

Is it animal cruelty to keep 5 tiger barbs in a 20H?

Fair question...loosely, yes. Tiger Barbs do better in a shoal of their kind.
If you have other fish in there, the Five will probably be aggressive and 'nippy' towards them.
I'd advise a shoal of at least seven.
In a 20 gallon (UK) tank, in theory, you could house around 15 Tiger Barbs, assuming your water parameters are appropriate and it's a well-planted tank.

If you have other fish, what've got?
(I'll resist asking the Water Parameter question. )

 

[Byron]

Yes (in answer to your question). I would advise higher numbers though, for both the number of the species and the size of tank. Most now agree that the group of Tiger Barbs should be in the 10-12 range, and this in a 30 gallon (30-inch/75cm length) tank, minimum. If other species are included, the tank must be larger.

There is agreement among knowledgeable sources now that the number of fish and the space provided by the aquarium has a considerable impact on the behaviour of many fish. Naturally aggressive species (like the Tiger Barb) will become more aggressive, while normally peaceful species will turn slightly (or more) aggressive if numbers or space are not adequate. Many have been saying this for years, but there have been few scientifically-controlled studies on this issue but from all reports the few there have been support the thinking.

 

[Jimmy74]

Yes (in answer to your question). I would advise higher numbers though, for both the number of the species and the size of tank. Most now agree that the group of Tiger Barbs should be in the 10-12 range, and this in a 30 gallon (30-inch/75cm length) tank, minimum. If other species are included, the tank must be larger.

There is agreement among knowledgeable sources now that the number of fish and the space provided by the aquarium has a considerable impact on the behaviour of many fish. Naturally aggressive species (like the Tiger Barb) will become more aggressive, while normally peaceful species will turn slightly (or more) aggressive if numbers or space are not adequate. Many have been saying this for years, but there have been few scientifically-controlled studies on this issue but from all reports the few there have been support the thinking.

So 6 more inches in tank length and 10 more gallons of water is fine for 12 tigers but 5 in a 20 H is cruel? This doesn’t add up really unless keeping 5 in any size tank is animal cruelty.

 

[Jimmy74]

Yes (in answer to your question). I would advise higher numbers though, for both the number of the species and the size of tank. Most now agree that the group of Tiger Barbs should be in the 10-12 range, and this in a 30 gallon (30-inch/75cm length) tank, minimum. If other species are included, the tank must be larger.

There is agreement among knowledgeable sources now that the number of fish and the space provided by the aquarium has a considerable impact on the behaviour of many fish. Naturally aggressive species (like the Tiger Barb) will become more aggressive, while normally peaceful species will turn slightly (or more) aggressive if numbers or space are not adequate. Many have been saying this for years, but there have been few scientifically-controlled studies on this issue but from all reports the few there have been support the thinking.

So if u want to have a variety of fish species that are bigger than neon tetras then one has to have a 50-60 gal tank is basically what you’re saying?

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

So 6 more inches in tank length and 10 more gallons of water is fine for 12 tigers but 5 in a 20 H is cruel? This doesn’t add up really unless keeping 5 in any size tank is animal cruelty.

It's not just about the numbers of fish per tank inches...read the posts again and look at the comments about them needing to be in a shoal of a cetain size to be at their best.
Keeping less than 7 or better still, 10, in any tank is unkind. If ever you get to see a tank with a larger shoal of Tigers in it and watch for a while, I think you'll understand what we mean.

 

[Slaphppy7]

See "Behavior and Compatibility" here: https://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/puntigrus-tetrazona/

 

[Jimmy74]

Yes (in answer to your question). I would advise higher numbers though, for both the number of the species and the size of tank. Most now agree that the group of Tiger Barbs should be in the 10-12 range, and this in a 30 gallon (30-inch/75cm length) tank, minimum. If other species are included, the tank must be larger.

There is agreement among knowledgeable sources now that the number of fish and the space provided by the aquarium has a considerable impact on the behaviour of many fish. Naturally aggressive species (like the Tiger Barb) will become more aggressive, while normally peaceful species will turn slightly (or more) aggressive if numbers or space are not adequate. Many have been saying this for years, but there have been few scientifically-controlled studies on this issue but from all reports the few there have been support the thinking.

I thought captive bread are different than wild. Or so I’ve been told on here. People said on here captives usually never grow to the size of their wild counterparts. So are your theories on tank size and stocking numbers based on captives or wild?

 

[Jimmy74]

It's not just about the numbers of fish per tank inches...read the posts again and look at the comments about them needing to be in a shoal of a cetain size to be at their best.
Keeping less than 7 or better still, 10, in any tank is unkind. If ever you get to see a tank with a larger shoal of Tigers in it and watch for a while, I think you'll understand what we mean.

I’ve seen it
Of course they act different. But are they healthier? I wouldn’t say for certain.
Unless long term studies are done recording deaths of different number groups then I guess it’s all guessing for now

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

So if u want to have a variety of fish species that are bigger than neon tetras then one has to have a 50-60 gal tank is basically what you’re saying?

Nope...I've read and re-read the responses and haven't seen anything that comes close to that.

Some fish need to be amongst a minimum number of their peers to be happy, (and by 'happy', I mean thriving. Unhappy Tiger Barbs are usually quite pugnacious and 'nippy' towards other fish).
Obviously, of those, the bigger the fish, the bigger the tank required.
A fully grown Tiger Barb can reach 5-6cm and, as I've already said, in the right water, a 20 (UK) Gallon tank could easily hold upto about 10 to even 15 of these...assuming there are no other fish present.
There are many fish that are quite happy either on their own, in a pair, or in a small group of three or four. Again, the size of the fish will then determine the best size of tank.

There are lots of fish larger than Neon Tetras that you can easily and comfortably fit into your 20G tank.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

I’ve seen it
Of course they act different. But are they healthier? I wouldn’t say for certain.
Unless long term studies are done recording deaths of different number groups then I guess it’s all guessing for now

No.
Health is way more than simply not dying.
How a fish acts is a key componant to determining its basic state of health and in this, they mirror higher animals, such as ourselves.
You could be 100% physically fit and still be clinically depressed. Being clinically depressed is not healthy and your behaviour would reflect this.

Whilst I admit that fishkeeping is a work in progress, there is a huge, (and I mean HUGE), amount of science supporting what we do and the age of best guessing is a way behind us. There are loads of studies from all over the world, producing hard evidence to support most of what this Forum's members suggest. As an example, my own Masters was in animal behaviour and much of my reading involved fish.

 

[Jimmy74]

Nope...I've read and re-read the responses and haven't seen anything that comes close to that.

Some fish need to be amongst a minimum number of their peers to be happy, (and by 'happy', I mean thriving. Unhappy Tiger Barbs are usually quite pugnacious and 'nippy' towards other fish).
Obviously, of those, the bigger the fish, the bigger the tank required.
A fully grown Tiger Barb can reach 5-6cm and, as I've already said, in the right water, a 20 (UK) Gallon tank could easily hold upto about 10 to even 15 of these...assuming there are no other fish present.
There are many fish that are quite happy either on their own, in a pair, or in a small group of three or four. Again, the size of the fish will then determine the best size of tank.

There are lots of fish larger than Neon Tetras that you can easily and comfortably fit into your 20G tank.

A happy lone fish? Hmm, interesting. I’m having doubts about that.

 

[Jimmy74]

No.
Health is way more than simply not dying.
How a fish acts is a key componant to determining its basic state of health and in this, they mirror higher animals, such as ourselves.
You could be 100% physically fit and still be clinically depressed. Being clinically depressed is not healthy and your behaviour would reflect this.

Whilst I admit that fishkeeping is a work in progress, there is a huge, (and I mean HUGE), amount of science supporting what we do and the age of best guessing is a way behind us. There are loads of studies from all over the world, producing hard evidence to support most of what this Forum's members suggest. As an example, my own Masters was in animal behaviour and much of my reading involved fish.

Doubt they’ve done studies like I mentioned. They probably should. Death is important. After they study what I’ve suggested they can classify happiness too

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

I thought captive bread are different than wild. Or so I’ve been told on here. People said on here captives usually never grow to the size of their wild counterparts. So are your theories on tank size and stocking numbers based on captives or wild?

'People' also said that there may be a good reason to suggest that there's a possible sampling anomoly that gives a false impression that wild fish are bigger than their domestic counterparts. On this point, I would happily suggest that if we all looked after our fish properly, then not only would they live longer than their wild counterparts, but the better food may increase their sizes. Ask me the question again in 20 years.

 

[Jimmy74]

No.
Health is way more than simply not dying.
How a fish acts is a key componant to determining its basic state of health and in this, they mirror higher animals, such as ourselves.
You could be 100% physically fit and still be clinically depressed. Being clinically depressed is not healthy and your behaviour would reflect this.

Whilst I admit that fishkeeping is a work in progress, there is a huge, (and I mean HUGE), amount of science supporting what we do and the age of best guessing is a way behind us. There are loads of studies from all over the world, producing hard evidence to support most of what this Forum's members suggest. As an example, my own Masters was in animal behaviour and much of my reading involved fish.

People say on here fish are more stressed in the wild so 5 tigers in a 20H would be paradise no?