# What stocking guidelines you use in your tanks?



## milalic (Aug 26, 2005)

I will like to know what stocking guidelines you follow when getting fish. I have heard the 1in per gallon...


----------



## John P. (Nov 24, 2004)

That rule is fine. I also think you should choose fish that are appropriate for the size of tank. Obviously, a 10" Oscar would not thrive or look well in a 10 gallon tank. Smaller fish in smaller tanks, etc.


----------



## trenac (Jul 16, 2004)

The 1" per gallon rule is only good on fish that are under 3". Go by the body mass of the fish or how much waste the fish will produce. The larger the body mass the more waste the fish will produce. IMO, it is always better to under stock a tank, no matter what the size of tank you have.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

I use one I came up with. fish have more than just length, they have volume, so 

measure body in inches in all dimensions. LWH/3=volume of fish

L times W times hight devided by 3 is volume of a fish to the nearest I could get it without making the equation to difficult.

for tanks of 20-30 gallons roughly 1 cubic inch of fish per 10 gallons is the point where you get into needing to do more waterchanges if you go above.

large tanks 200-300 can have abit more due to the larger volume being more stable, one of takashi amano's discus tank 300 gal+ has 3 cubic inches of fish per 10 gallons.

smaller tanks like 10 gallons and less really drop off of the above stocking ratio, say 1/2 or 1/4 cubic inch per 10 gallons.

It would take about...
9 bettas to equal 1 cubic inch
Adult angelfish 1.5 to 2 cubic inches
about 30 inch long fish to equal 1 cubic inch
discus 30 cubic inches. 

give discus abit more room and you may find that they arn't demanding at all 

Granted there is alot more to it than that, but at least gives a frame of reference that lets you compair a 5 inch khulie and a 5 inch clown loach


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

No comments? 

I wonder if it is because the inch per gallon rule is so easy and bad that it creates interaction and learning. Every time i bring this up all interaction just seems to die.

Any one get anything out of it? Is it worth anything? 

sigh, I guess I'm just wondering if I should keep posting about it if this subject comes up.

edit: would a metric version of the above help more?


----------



## Osteomata (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm just trying to imagine 9 bettas crammed into a cubic inch. hehe.

It strikes me that the inch per gallon guide is just that, a general guide. You have chosen to develop something a bit more detailed and complicated. I suspect that those who get enough knowledge to "go beyond" the inch/gallon rule are also savvy enough to figure their max biolode by monitoring their nitrates and other stats.


----------



## Simpte 27 (Jul 16, 2004)

I don't have a rule, just a set list of fish (and fish of the similiar types) for my stocking levels. For instance:
Oscars - Big "meaty" fish (lots of body mass) 1 in a 55 gallon, 2 in a 75
Danios - small schooling fish 1 per every 2 gallons
Bettas - 1 per tank 
I think it has more to do with personal experiences with fish of these types and of similiar body mass and length. I also tend to bend the common acceptance of stocking levels. I have kept multiple bettas in the same tank but I've worked with them for some time now.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Osteomata said:


> It strikes me that the inch per gallon guide is just that, a general guide. You have chosen to develop something a bit more detailed and complicated. I suspect that those who get enough knowledge to "go beyond" the inch/gallon rule are also savvy enough to figure their max biolode by monitoring their nitrates and other stats.


I understand experience. Experience is good. But well meaning people without such take the inch per gallon "general guide" as a hard rule.

We try here to create more successful aquatic gardeners by setting out a detailed account of what works, not inaccurate general guides.

Why is it that we tell new fish keepers use this inaccurate guideline and possibly fail, and hopefully you will develop some experience befor you give up out of heartbreak?

Is something closer to the truth that complicated to give someone that doesn't have experience to go by?


----------



## milalic (Aug 26, 2005)

I think Snake has a point. This 1 in. rule does not make sense to me at all...what it is based on?


----------



## JanS (Apr 14, 2004)

SnakeIce said:


> No comments?
> 
> I wonder if it is because the inch per gallon rule is so easy and bad that it creates interaction and learning. Every time i bring this up all interaction just seems to die.
> 
> ...


I was going to post almost the same thing you said, but you did such a great job on it, I figured I shouldn't confuse the issue by adding my 2... 

One of the other big things with stocking rules that makes me crazy is the fact that so many people don't take the adult size into consideration. They just look at a 1" Bala (as an example) in the store and figure that into their 1" rule, even though they can reach 14" or more.... Disaster...:shock:


----------



## Lydia (Jun 20, 2005)

Yeah that is the problem with the one inch per gallon rule. Most people don't figure it by the adult size, they figure it out by the purchase size. Which is normally no where close to the adult size. Another problem is that fish don't all produce the same amount of waste. For instance, a pleco that is the same size as a giant danio or something like that will produce waaaaay more waste. Goldfish produce a whole lot of waste too. So the one inch per gallon rule, IMO, is not really much good at all.


----------



## Osteomata (Jan 11, 2005)

OK, I hear you Snake, but let me give you a real life situation:
I visited the Miami Beach Home Show this weekend, and 3 or 4 different aquarium shops/manufacturers had booths set up. One of them was selling those wall mounted tanks, about 3 inches deep. So I'm listening to the sales rep give his pitch to a woman in front of me, and she asks the obvious questions: "How many fish can I put in there?" OK, now the display tank was filled with cichlids, probably 12, in this rougly 5 gallon tank. After hemming and hawing a bit, he told her not much more than the display! So thats what, about 5 inches per gallon? I cut in and gave her the 1 inch per gallon rule. "Miss, about 1 inch of fish per gallon is a good rule of thumb."
Now you tell me, should I have instead given her your rule? "Miss, what you do is estimate the lenght, width, and height of your fish, multiply them together, then divide by three. Now, if your tank is 10-20 gallons, you can fit 1 cubic inch of fish per 10 gallons, but if your tank is smaller, go with.... Miss?... Miss I'm not quite done with the explanation. Miss?"

My point is that its simple for a reason, and its just a rule of thumb, not a law. Just listen to what we are saying to each other in this thread:
-Too many new aquarium keepers don't even take the adult size into account
-Too many new aquarium keepers don't take into account different waste production amounts for equally sized fish

If this these new aquaiurm keepers won't even take those into account, do you really want to give them a more complicated rule of thumb involving volume calculations of their fish? The inch per gallon rule is supposed to be an easy guide to a safe number, giving a bit of buffer. And when I hear it advised on this fourm it usually comes with the warning that it only applies to fish up to about 3 inches long.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Time and a place for everything.

For someone casually looking at a tank and considering it, inch per gallon is better than most salespersons would tell you.

But, here we have a thread where someone is interested. I am merely saying that more than the inch per gallon guideline should be given in this case.

I have long ago learned to only try to help those that care to learn. If an answer I give isn't thought over, questioned why or expressed desire to act based on information given I move on.

Most of the people that take the effort to come to a fish forum are interested in more than a simple answer. I try to honor that interest with worthy information.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Osteomata said:


> -Too many new aquarium keepers don't even take the adult size into account
> -Too many new aquarium keepers don't take into account different waste production amounts for equally sized fish
> 
> If this these new aquaiurm keepers won't even take those into account, do you really want to give them a more complicated rule of thumb involving volume calculations of their fish?


I don't follow that line of reasoning. New aquarium keepers don't take things into account because they don't have the experience or knowlege to be able to. That says nothing about the desire to do so.

Saying they won't take those things into account(because they don't have the experience to) so why give them information about my experience is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or in this case the new aquarium keeper out with the waterchange. [smilie=d: [smilie=n:


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

Go online. Look at successful healthy tanks. Stock your tank acordingly. Add slowly. Learn.


----------



## dominic (Feb 28, 2006)

SnakeIce said:


> discus 30 cubic inches.
> 
> give discus abit more room and you may find that they arn't demanding at all


SnakeIce - I know this is an old thread, but I was just browsing around, and noticed your post on this (like the rule BTW). I'm just about to embark on converting a six year old ex-piranha tank to a planted discus tank (will be the first time I've kept discus, but not the first planted tank... but hopefully the most successful planted tank so far ).

Anyhow, wrt Discus, is that an error in the calc? I'm assuming that discus go to around 8" x 8" * 0.5" in which comes out to approx 11 cubic inches.

Was there an error in the calculation, do discus grow bigger than I thought, or were you making the point that discus just need more space than the average fish?

My tank is 6'x2'x2' and I'd hoped to put 4 - 6 discus in there with some shrimp and small tetras (cardinals/neons/rummy noses).


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

I may have had an error in the measurements I had on discus. I don't have any first hand observations of adult discus so I may have been off. I made a guess that discus are a little thicker side to side than my smaller bodied angelfish. I could have guessed wrong. My angelfish is .625" thick, I just scaled it up for discus.

Even considering that there does seem to be an error in that number. Even If I put them at an inch thick it only comes to 21 inch^3 with your other measurements. This is one thing that is lacking in trying to figure this: everyone knows about how long a fish is, but no one recordes the other measurements.

I do know the general thing I have heard on discus that 10 gallons per fish needed is more crowded than I would want to keep them based on their body volume.

There are things you can do if you know your tank is on the high side of stocking levels like extra water changes that means there isn't a single right or wrong stocking level. This was just intended to give a number that does reflect biological mass in an aquarium.

Your planned tank sounds quite reasonable, Discus and plants can make things interesting if you don't have both the fish keeping and the plants down well, but it is very doable.


----------



## dominic (Feb 28, 2006)

Thanks for the info SnakeIce - I'm thinking that I'll start off small with the tetras and keep a track on how things go with them and the plants. Depending on how things go at the start I may decide to chicken out on the Discus though I'd love to have them. The thing that I've heard nearly everywhere I've gone is: if you look after the plants, then they'll look after the fish - So I guess if I get the plant keeping side down first then I'll have a good shot with the fish.


----------



## standoyo (Aug 25, 2005)

Same goes with the WPG thing. 
thanks snake ice for your efforts. 
passion drives people to be more detailed. 
we all want the best for our pets...
i know my 9 altums will out grow my 72G. they are 6-7 in ht now
i have a 120G on standby when the reach 8-9 in
i have a 250G on standby when they reach 11-12 in for them to retire and reach thier max size of 14-15 in.

key is to read more...from passionate people. all of you.


----------

