Two Controversial Questions - Small Tanks Again

[Majjie]

Following on from the recent thread about small tanks:
http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=177181

Question 1
If you only keep very small fish - why are small tanks inherently more unstable than larger ones, requiring more frequent maintenance?
I can see why - if you keep the same size fish in two different sized tanks - there would be a difference in stability. But .... if your fish are proportionately smaller, you feed them a proportionately smaller amount of food and the filter is an appropriate size .... why the difference? Everything should be in proportion, surely, including the amount of ammonia produced by the fish in the event of a disaster.

George Farmer's tank in the previous thread looks beautiful - and as he points out, the ratio of his fish size to the tank size is actually a lot less than many larger tanks - so they have plenty of swimming room. He changes some water every other day - but I suspect this may be as much for plant maintenance as fish maintenance. If the filter works adequately why would extra maintenance be required?

[STATUTARY WARNING: don't try this at home folks unless you know what you are doing - small fish does NOT mean baby fish that will grow huge - that a fish will physically fit into a tank isn't a good enough reason to put it in there - you need to prove that the filter works efficiently by adding ammonia and testing for removal of this and the resulting nitrite - and you need to keep a check on nitrate levels]

Question 2
Why do so many people say that Bettas prefer small tanks and will be unhealthy in larger ones. Is there actually any documented proof of this? Or is it simply to justify keeping the poor things in tiny spaces. (You'll notice I wasn't brave enough to put this in the Betta forum - which I don't visit because I don't keep them). I'm aware that traditionally these fish have been kept and bred in tiny jars - but is this any reason to keep doing it?

I have a friend who kept a beautiful male Betta in a 60 gal tank that has a strong filter current and is a stunning 2 foot high. Victor stayed near the surface, by the floating plants, a lot of the time but he often vigorously chased the tetras down to the bottom of the tank and patrolled around mid - tank. He lived an apparently happy life for around three years and had amazing flowing fins. I don't think three years is particularly long lived for a Betta - but neither do I think it's an abnormally short life. The only time he appeared stressed was when he caught sight of his own reflection!

Apart from anecdotal evidence along the lines of ..... "I put my Betta in my 20 gal tank with my red tailed shark and my tiger barbs and he wasted away ..." what is the justification?

Apologies for such a long post but I'm intrigued - and I thought the previous thread was already plenty bulky enough.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

1 - I think the main danger is that if something goes wrong in a very big tank then because of the sheer quantity of water the effects will be diluted and hopefully then you have a decent margin for error. on a very small tank if something goes wrong, even the tiniest bit of pollutant getting into the water could cause massive damage.

2 - betta's do struggle swimming and are very territorial, so in a big tank may feel the need to constantly patrol they're territory which can over exert them as they find it hard to swim

 

[~T~]

Following on from the recent thread about small tanks:
http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=177181

Question 1
If you only keep very small fish - why are small tanks inherently more unstable than larger ones, requiring more frequent maintenance?
I can see why - if you keep the same size fish in two different sized tanks - there would be a difference in stability. But .... if your fish are proportionately smaller, you feed them a proportionately smaller amount of food and the filter is an appropriate size .... why the difference? Everything should be in proportion, surely, including the amount of ammonia produced by the fish in the event of a disaster.

George Farmer's tank in the previous thread looks beautiful - and as he points out, the ratio of his fish size to the tank size is actually a lot less than many larger tanks - so they have plenty of swimming room. He changes some water every other day - but I suspect this may be as much for plant maintenance as fish maintenance. If the filter works adequately why would extra maintenance be required?

[STATUTARY WARNING: don't try this at home folks unless you know what you are doing - small fish does NOT mean baby fish that will grow huge - that a fish will physically fit into a tank isn't a good enough reason to put it in there - you need to prove that the filter works efficiently by adding ammonia and testing for removal of this and the resulting nitrite - and you need to keep a check on nitrate levels]

Question 2
Why do so many people say that Bettas prefer small tanks and will be unhealthy in larger ones. Is there actually any documented proof of this? Or is it simply to justify keeping the poor things in tiny spaces. (You'll notice I wasn't brave enough to put this in the Betta forum - which I don't visit because I don't keep them). I'm aware that traditionally these fish have been kept and bred in tiny jars - but is this any reason to keep doing it?

I have a friend who kept a beautiful male Betta in a 60 gal tank that has a strong filter current and is a stunning 2 foot high. Victor stayed near the surface, by the floating plants, a lot of the time but he often vigorously chased the tetras down to the bottom of the tank and patrolled around mid - tank. He lived an apparently happy life for around three years and had amazing flowing fins. I don't think three years is particularly long lived for a Betta - but neither do I think it's an abnormally short life. The only time he appeared stressed was when he caught sight of his own reflection!

Apart from anecdotal evidence along the lines of ..... "I put my Betta in my 20 gal tank with my red tailed shark and my tiger barbs and he wasted away ..." what is the justification?

Apologies for such a long post but I'm intrigued - and I thought the previous thread was already plenty bulky enough.

The way I see it.

1. Smaller tank usually mean smaller less efficient filters so if there was something to cause a sudden spike in ammo/nitrite(say a fish death or uneaten food for some reason)it wouldnt be sufficent to deal with it.Bigger tanks also mean the pollution is more diluted.

2. As long as the betta has a place out of the flow of the filter to call its own and a combination of no nippy tankmates and a good diet then I dont see why keeping them in larger tanks is a problem.Keeping them in smaller quarters just means their diet and health can be monitored properly.I dont advocate keeping them in bowls or jars myself but would only reccomend them to people who have very peaceful tanks.

 

[andywg]

As mentioned:

1) It is about the total volume of water rather than the fish. More water = larger safety net - 'the solution to pollution is dilution';

2) The bettas with the more elegant tails (such as the crown tails) are not natural. In the wild the fish do not carry around such extensive finnage. Also, they will be patrolling a large area carrying more fins than they would in nature. That is the thinking behind smaller tanks for bettas rather than justifying existing conditions.

 

[Majjie]

Thanks for your replies.

Yes, I take your points about pollutants in general, like paint fumes or polish, or something, - they would have a greater effect on a smaller tank. I don't see the ammonia/nitrite argument though - because proportionately there would be much less of a problem anyway with such tiny fish. As for the filter - it could easily be tested with ammonia to check that it had high enough capacity - remember we're talking tiny fish here.

So - so far:
you'd need to be very careful about external contaminants
and you'd need to test the filter capacity

I remain entirely unconvinced about the Bettas - surely in a larger tank the Betta would just choose a smaller territory to defend. Although I entirely agree about peaceful companions.

 

[~T~]

I wasnt really talking about external pollutants.I mean if something was to die or a piece of food become trapped somewhere it couldnt be eaten then it would in turn cause an ammonia/nitrite spike and in such a small body of water could mean the death of the other inhabitants.This wouldnt be as dangerous in a larger tank.I know what you mean about the filter but the ones usually used in small tanks tend to be either air driven sponge or undergravel or small internal with just sponges.

 

[crazie.eddie]

1. The only real problem is that people just start out in the hobby go with smaller aquariums. They tend to overstock the tank, put fish that should really be in larger tanks, not enough filtration, or they do not really understand the importance of maintenance and water changes are. Therefore, they tend to have too many problems. Many experienced hobbyist keep and use smaller tanks without any problems.

2. Bettas, I'm not an expert on. I'm sure they can survive in a large tank, depending on it's tank mates. I have often seen bettas at stores in larger tanks and don't see a problem with it. It's just bettas are not too active of a swimmer and mainly just stay in one area or just sit on the bottom. They are probably succeptable to fin nippers, due to the large flowing fins of the male.

 

[Majjie]

Hmmm ..... I'm almost tempted to try this out - but the last thing I need is more tanks - and it would need very close monitoring - at least to start with.

I think that with the size of the fish body (in the event of a death - although in a tank that size I don't see how you could fail to notice there was one missing!) and the quantity of food we're talking about - it would be no worse than in a bigger tank and the filter would cope easily.

I should perhaps stipulate that my hypothetical low maintenance micro tank would have to be heavily planted (to take up some extra ammonia and possibly nitrate) and would also have a few little tiger shrimp to eat up excess food.

I fully accept crazie.eddie that there is a big problem in the hobby with overstocking of small aquariums and the keeping of fish that are too large in the same - - but my hypothetical micro tank isn't overstocked and the fish in it will never be anything but tiny
My query is about why a tank can't be successfully scaled down to this size.

The smallest tank I actually have, by the way, is a 30 litre (about three times bigger than my hypothetical one!)

[And once again folks - DON'T try this at home - if I did try it I have six other tanks I could rescue the fish into - three of which would actually be suitable for doing so! ]

 

[~T~]

I have small tank(bout 8gal)that is heavily planted and at the moment houses 10 rainbow shrimp, 5 dwarf corys, 4 ottos, 1 male endler and 1 dwarf rasbora.I am planning on adding more rasboras and shrimp.The little filter actually has a compartment for bio media as well as the sponge.I change about 20% weekly and top up every other day(its open top).My tests are usually fine but I still get the odd small reading of ammo as the filter just is not up to it.If I was to hook an external up to it I dont think I would have any problems at all.

 

[lljdma06]

Question 1
If you only keep very small fish - why are small tanks inherently more unstable than larger ones, requiring more frequent maintenance?
I can see why - if you keep the same size fish in two different sized tanks - there would be a difference in stability. But .... if your fish are proportionately smaller, you feed them a proportionately smaller amount of food and the filter is an appropriate size .... why the difference? Everything should be in proportion, surely, including the amount of ammonia produced by the fish in the event of a disaster.

As others have pointed out, outside situations and filter efficiency would be for me the main reason. But, I see your point. My 8g nano can go a week between maintenance, but I have fry in the tank and my Hemianthus grows very quickly. Pruning the plant and keeping the tank clean for the fry require maintenance 2x a week. Otherwise it would be every week and this tank would be similar to my larger systems. I can do this, I think, because I've compensated for the lack of efficiency of the smaller filter by adding another filter. My other nano, a 2.5g with a betta has the same Hemianthus issue, otherwise it would be able to go a week without maintenance as well. The betta is very small, a dwarf from Synirr's first spawn. He's about an 1.25" long, not including a short tail, so the tank is understocked if you go by inch per gallon. This tank has a single, more efficient filter. All of my filters are HOB, which are better than the other types of filters mentioned. So, I think that my tanks actually conform to your point rather well.

Question 2
Why do so many people say that Bettas prefer small tanks and will be unhealthy in larger ones. Is there actually any documented proof of this? Or is it simply to justify keeping the poor things in tiny spaces. (You'll notice I wasn't brave enough to put this in the Betta forum - which I don't visit because I don't keep them). I'm aware that traditionally these fish have been kept and bred in tiny jars - but is this any reason to keep doing it?

I have a friend who kept a beautiful male Betta in a 60 gal tank that has a strong filter current and is a stunning 2 foot high. Victor stayed near the surface, by the floating plants, a lot of the time but he often vigorously chased the tetras down to the bottom of the tank and patrolled around mid - tank. He lived an apparently happy life for around three years and had amazing flowing fins. I don't think three years is particularly long lived for a Betta - but neither do I think it's an abnormally short life. The only time he appeared stressed was when he caught sight of his own reflection!

Apart from anecdotal evidence along the lines of ..... "I put my Betta in my 20 gal tank with my red tailed shark and my tiger barbs and he wasted away ..." what is the justification?

I wouldn't of posted this question in bettas either! To answer your question, I don't know! I'd love to see a book written on this, offering up exactly that, scientific justification. For your benefit, I looked up a few sources to see what they recommended.

Horst Linke (Labyrinth fish): Natural environment: "...paddy fields and associated ditches, in marshes and flooded grass pits and in the canals of the residential parts of towns and villages." These are the wild fish. According to Linke, there is "No natural habitat for the veiled fighting fish." "The general care of Betta splendens is unproblematical. They can either be kept in either the 'small' or the 'large' aquarium for labyrinth fish." He goes on to recommend a tank that is 70cm long, densly planted, and with peaceful inhabitants, avoiding barbs and tetras, is the best way to show off these fish. He doesn't clarify whether males should be kept alone and he even implies that males raised together in a large environment can coexist peacefully, if new members are not introduced.

Hans A. Baensch and Dr. Riehl (Baensch aquarium Atlas): Natrual enviroment: not mentioned. Aquarium environment: "Keeping males individually in small glass containers hold less than one quart of water must be regarded as cruel." They go on, "With smaller containers the surface must be kept free of dirt and the water must be changed frequently." In their basic stats, the minimum aquarium length is 25cm, quite a bit smaller than Linke's recommendation, and smaller than what I keep my male in. Females can be kept together in an aquarium, males should be kept singly but can be kept by themselves in a community, though they make no mention of recommended tankmates.

These are just two sources, that IMO are pretty reputable, perhaps a little dated, but the needs of the fish are, I believe, well met with their recommendations. I have kept bettas successfully in smaller and larger aquariums, and as long as the tank mates are peaceful, I have no opinion either way regarding bettas in a community. I imagine breeders have to deal with special circumstances and can justify keeping their fish in smaller environments. It is impractical, due to space, for active breeders to keep every jarred male in a 2.5g tank. Imagine a batch of 250+ fry and half are males? Jarring 125 males in 2.5g tanks? That would be ridiculous!

I don't think this helps much, but I'm trying to avoid answering the betta question with my experience and give you some information from other sources.

llj

 

[~T~]

The only thing that stops me from keeping the whole betta in a bowl thing is not being able to heat it.In the uk the water can get quite cold in an unheated tank.

 

[t.ropical_m.istx3]

I remain entirely unconvinced about the Bettas - surely in a larger tank the Betta would just choose a smaller territory to defend. Although I entirely agree about peaceful companions.

not really. my boy pacific was in a MUCH larger bowl when i was cleaning out his tank and he pretty much went into panic mode. he raced around it, trying to control it all (he's very territorial) even though there were no other fish. he's quite happy in his one gallon and i'd prefer putting him in a two gallon, though i wouldn't risk putting him in anything larger. i wouldn't go any smaller. shadow i think would be perfectly fine in anything from a one gallon to a 2000 gallon. he's quite a relaxed fellow. he's in a 2.5ish gallon right now.

 

[Majjie]

I have small tank(bout 8gal)that is heavily planted and at the moment houses 10 rainbow shrimp, 5 dwarf corys, 4 ottos, 1 male endler and 1 dwarf rasbora.I am planning on adding more rasboras and shrimp.The little filter actually has a compartment for bio media as well as the sponge.I change about 20% weekly and top up every other day(its open top).My tests are usually fine but I still get the odd small reading of ammo as the filter just is not up to it.If I was to hook an external up to it I dont think I would have any problems at all.

I think 8 gal is about the same as 30 litres isn't it. Mine has a sponge, a big spongy carbon filter (which has been in there three years and obviously isn't working as a carbon filter anymore - but as a biological one) - and ceramic noodles. I've never had any trouble with it - but admittedly it's a while since I tested it. You surprise me that you have trouble with ammonia. Would obviously have to choose the filter on my hypothetical tank very carefully!

 

[Majjie]

.......................
These are just two sources, that IMO are pretty reputable, perhaps a little dated, but the needs of the fish are, I believe, well met with their recommendations. I have kept bettas successfully in smaller and larger aquariums, and as long as the tank mates are peaceful, I have no opinion either way regarding bettas in a community. I imagine breeders have to deal with special circumstances and can justify keeping their fish in smaller environments. It is impractical, due to space, for active breeders to keep every jarred male in a 2.5g tank. Imagine a batch of 250+ fry and half are males? Jarring 125 males in 2.5g tanks? That would be ridiculous!

I don't think this helps much, but I'm trying to avoid answering the betta question with my experience and give you some information from other sources.

llj

Thanks llj - info is very interesting. And yes, I can see that breeders would need to use smaller containers. I guess breeders of other species often have less than ideal, overcrowded tanks when the fish are young and small. It's a pity we can't ask the fish what they'd prefer once they've grown up

Also, of course, glad to hear that your small tank fits into my theory!!

 

[Majjie]

not really. my boy pacific was in a MUCH larger bowl when i was cleaning out his tank and he pretty much went into panic mode. he raced around it, trying to control it all (he's very territorial) even though there were no other fish. he's quite happy in his one gallon and i'd prefer putting him in a two gallon, though i wouldn't risk putting him in anything larger. i wouldn't go any smaller. shadow i think would be perfectly fine in anything from a one gallon to a 2000 gallon. he's quite a relaxed fellow. he's in a 2.5ish gallon right now.

Thanks for your reply t.ropical. I'm sure different Bettas have different personalities - but can we be sure that your Pacific wouldn't settle down in a bigger tank, given time and if it was nicely planted with some floating plants?