Questions About Red Eye Puffers and Dwarf Puffers

[Pony]

I have a 10 gallon tank I've been preparing to get a small freshwater puffer, and it will be my first time keeping a puffer, but I have been keeping freshwater fish for awhile now. I was originally planning on getting a dwarf puffer, but then I learned about red eye puffers and I'd really like to get one if I can. A lot of the places I read about them online said that a single red eye could go in a 10G as long as it's closely monitored and very well cared for, but a couple of places said you would need a bigger tank than that no matter what. I keep bettas and I know there's a lot of dispute about whether the minimum size for a betta is 2.5G or 5G, and I don't know if this is just another dispute like that, or if it is really is a myth that 10G is fine.

The main reason I would want to keep one in 10G, other than that I have one already, is that I'm going to be moving out within a year and I know that a lot of places have 10G tank limits, and while I'm hoping I won't have to be limited to that, I want to be in a situation where I would be prepared to handle that. I have knowledgeable family members that could care for my bettas if it came to it, but they would not be up for caring for a puffer. Therefore I feel the best way I can be prepared is sticking to the 10G tank for the puffer I get, so if I can't keep a red eye in the 10G I will just get a single dwarf puffer and wait to be in a more stable situation before getting another larger tank. But keep in mind I'm open to doing plenty of water changes if needed, if that's the problem. Either way I would like to know more about how I can best prepare a tank for either fish.

I read that it is recommended to double the filtration for a puffer. I have a cycled Aquaclear 20 running in the 10G, so since it has a 20G capacity that should cover that, right? Or should I go with even more?

As far as current goes, I've heard mixed reviews. Do they like like current, and is an airstone appropriate?

I've gathered that they prefer lower light. Since the tank will be densely planted, would I be best off sticking with low light plants and keeping a low light bulb on the tank, or would the fact that it's planted densely be enough to counteract a moderate lighting setup? I'm equipped for either and I'm working on planting it right now, but I'm not sure which would be the better plan of action.

I'm breeding ramshorn snails for feeding purposes. I also keep frozen bloodworms and brine shrimp. I know their diet should be varied, so what are the best and most cost-effective things to feed?

Anything else I should know?


Thank you so much for any help offered, it's very much appreciated!

[DMD123]

There are a few different puffers called 'redeye', but if you look at the PufferPedia it is recommend to home them in a 20g tank. Not that you could not house a 2"-3" fish in a 10g but due to the type of diet and high amount of waste produced by a puffer the extra water volume is a huge help in keeping the water quality up.

[DMD123]

Oops, forgot to say welcome to the forum!

[hadla]

Welcome! I'd go with 3 female dps! They're so fun to watch! But if you want a little bigger puff, go with irrubesco! Just do 2-3 water changes a week and don't over feed and it should be fine in a 10g, they're not very active puffs. Just make sure to put lots of plants and decorations for them to explore!

[RTR]

Sorry to disagree with others, but I am more conservative than many hobbyists. I like to think that my conservatism is from well over 50 years of keeping puffers.

The only puffer I would keep in a 10 US gallon tank is a DP, and I would not keep three of those in less than a 15 US gallon tank. I do not like razor's edge tanks - there are too many problems which can arise during vacations, illness, etc. I want my wet pets to do more than just survive, I want them to thrive. I would allow 5 gallons nominal US gallons volume per Dwarf Puffer, or 20 nominal US gallons per Red-eye.

FWIW, YMMV

[gkai]

Irrubesco indeed do not like strong lights, especially at the beginning when they are not confident in their new tank, or when they get scared (mine do not like when I clean the glass ). I think that's why they red eyes have the reputation of not very active puffer, or nocturnal, when in fact they are just shy of strong lights....
But you could go with normal lighting while still have a lot of shadows: use floating plants (or floating leafs, like the different lotus - choose a small one, given the size of your tank). Additional benefit is that if your floating plants grow vigorously, it will help a lot for water quality.
I have such a setup, just a few places where you have direct light, everything else is filtered by duckweed or lotus leafs,and the irrubesco love it. She get quite active all day with this setup, constantly following me for begging, or exploring when I am not in sight (not easy to achieve while spying on her, she recognize humans quite well now...). Only sulking in her cave when I use the magnet scrubber lol....

I have a 25 G and it is enough for the irrubesco, even if I would like to have bigger (she is not alone in there). But it also depend on the type of tank, mine is quite long and not so deep...And I have a canister filter, which basically add to the amount of water instead of removing some in case of internal filters. If you have a large footprint and not too much height, good planting and a small canister instead of an internal filter, 10 G (35-40 l, right?) should be fine for a single irrubesco imho.

[RTR]

The so-called aquariun "lotus" are actually water lilies, and the can form excellent shade plantings in many tanks if their floating leaves are allowed to develop, but I actually prefer the so-called "banana plants" which have heavier floating leaves, green on the exposed surface but beautiful dark red undersides. If the tank is sited where the undersides are visibe while the viewer is seated, the effect is spectacular. Thes plants also produce offset baby planlets for trade goods or other tanks. These plants are also good nutrient users from the substrate. Quite a few Crypts will grow under these plants, as will Anubias nana, but not Anubias nana petit.

FWIW, YMMV.

[Pony]

Thank you guys very much for the input so far. It sounds like still kind of mixed reviews on whether the tank will be appropriate, so it looks like I'll just have to think long and about it unless anyone comes in with a majorly definitive answer. I still have plenty of time as I want to wait a few more weeks to be completely confident that the tank is stable before adding anybody.

Sorry, I should have been now specific about the species I'm looking at, I thought red eye was enough because that's the only full common name I see for c. lorteti. If I can find one, that's the species I was aiming to get, either that or maybe an irrubesco. I know both can be difficult to track down! Also I noticed that when I read about lortetis, the vast majority of places suggested 10g as the minimum, whereas with irrubescos about half of the places I read suggested 10 and half suggested larger. Not sure if that is just a coincidence or if there is any accuracy to that finding.

And thanks so much everyone for the lighting and plant suggestions! I'll look into the floaters suggested.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the filter, airstone, and food questions?

[Pony]

Update to my last post: on the filter, I've just ordered a canister filter, I figure regardless of which of the three species I end up with it will be a good idea to have a more powerful filter.

[gkai]

Also I noticed that when I read about lortetis, the vast majority of places suggested 10g as the minimum, whereas with irrubescos about half of the places I read suggested 10 and half suggested larger. Not sure if that is just a coincidence or if there is any accuracy to that finding.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the filter, airstone, and food questions?

Strange, cause from what I have read, lorteti are the largest of the red eye family. Not by much, but it seems they get slightly larger than irrubescos. Besides the size, the biggest difference is the temperament, lorteti are the most aggressive of the family too. Not a big factor as you would house a single one, so you should not observe much difference between the red eyes species. On the bright side, it seems lorteti are the easiest to find....
I would also suggest a female for a 10G, they stay significantly smaller than the males, so you will limit pollution. It also means you will get a quite similar look whatever the red eye kind you can get, it's the males that differ more. The females also differ, but in a more subtle way.... I think she would do fine in a well planted well cycled 10G with a canister filter. I would go without airstone, just orient the canister so that it cause surface motion, that plus plants will oxygen the water well enough. And red eyes do not like strong currents, so breaking the exit of the canister would be a good idea. Which size (Lxwxh) would be the 10G? If you can find one not too deep but with a largish footprint it will be great I think....
Food is not really difficult for red eyes once they get comfortable. They are glutonous and will eat red worm, frozen or live, small snails, raw squid from the supermarket (cut in small parts of course), and probably any kind of non dry protein you give them as food (I use pincers, and my red eye now "attack" it as soon as it is in the water even when there is no food. She probably think "just in case" lol). They take less time than dwarf to get used to feeding, at least that's my experience. And both (Dwarf or red eyes) will remove all snails present in your tank, quickly. Also dental growth problem seems absent in both, unlike some other puffers. Either their teeth grow slower, or they can manage to trim them themselves on stones/sand even without snails. I think it is the former, they eat snails without crushing the shell if they can avoid it...

[RTR]

Part of the variation you see on recommended tank sizes may also be from the measures used by the country of origin. This particular site is hosted in the USA, and our gallon is smaller than the British or Imperial gallon. Our ten-gallon tanks are smaller than British ten-gallon tanks. But our membership is world-wide, so any given poster may be referring to their own local tank sizes. Plus there is the peculiarity that nominal tank sizes do not ever reflect the working water volume held by those tanks, but are always smaller than their names would imply. That means that the tank-keeper has a smaller margin of safety and that tank conditions will degenerate faster than they would in a larger tank.

Personally, I gave up using "minimum" tank sizes decades ago. I want to maximize my margin of safety, not minimize it. If I have to miss a partial water change, I do want to risk less-than satisfactory tank conditions for any fish I am likely to be keeping for ten to 20+ years. I also, whenever possible, multi-filter all of my tanks - for exactly the same reasons - I don't want a mised water change or a small overfeeding or a failing pump to put the fish at risk. The differences in costs turn out to be trivial over a ten to twenty or more years is almost always trivial. To me it is cheap insurance. If I am going to do the care and investment and time commitment to a pet long-term, I want a margin of safety. I do not want to operate on the thin edge of disaster. In other words, if I cannot do it "right", I will not do it at all. For me it works well. I have a number of "old" fish. I am old myself. Almost all of my fish set-ups are easy to care for, and they appear healthy and active. Relatively few aquarium pets are short-term. Puffers, catfish, Cichlids, loaches, and a number of others should have tank lifespans comparable to, and in some caae longer than, cats and dogs. Set up their housing for easy and long-term care and I am far more likely to get that care done, and will do less damage if I miss a water change or filter rinse this week. I have a long term friend who owns the best local pet store - he is constantly amazed at how long my fish live. I keep telling him that their lifespans are what they should be in captivity. It is sad that my fish are exceptional - I only give them what they need.

FWIW

[bertie 83]

A bigger tank is always more suitable. A red eye could certainly live in a10g, it would unlikely thrive in that small space though. If you wish to fully enjoy the personality of the fish give it room. The most interesting and fun tanks I have ever had running are 90l (20usg) tanks with a pair of dps, they are hilarious to watch

[hadla]

A bigger tank is always more suitable. A red eye could certainly live in a10g, it would unlikely thrive in that small space though. If you wish to fully enjoy the personality of the fish give it room. The most interesting and fun tanks I have ever had running are 90l (20usg) tanks with a pair of dps, they are hilarious to watch

Especially when their little eyes are focused on something and they're trying to get the best angle possible to attack lol

[RTR]

I'll restate my usual objection to minimum tank sizes: The minimum tank size is never an optimum tank size.

If the minimum tank size is selected, the fish so housed is unlikely to have full normal configuration, and is less likely to have as long and healthy a lifespan as that fish would have in a 1.5 or 2xx minimum sized tank. Minimum suggested tank sizes pollute far more quickly than roomier tanks, so are also more demanding on regular and routine upkeep, so they put more stress on both the fish and the care-giver to keep up with more rigid upkeep schedules. The wider margins of safety of roomier tank, at least for FW and light BW tanks is cheap long-life insurance.

FWIW

[Pony]

I guess perhaps it's possible that in this case minimum tank size means something different than what I've considered it to mean based on my experience elsewhere? I would assume that minimum tank size would be the minimum size that could house a species safely and comfortably, though it may require more maintenance than a larger tank (as is always the case anyway) and larger is always better (as is also always the case) that it would not become dangerous to the species so long as appropriate maintenance was kept up. I can't understand how minimum size could mean anything that could be detrimental to the fish, physically or mentally. This was my assumption in pursuing the minimum size as 10G, again, for the valid reason that I want to ensure that if my circumstances change and I'm forced to be limited to 10G my fish will be able to stay with me. Of course naturally if space and money were limitless I would most want to keep all of my fish in huge tanks, but I'm also content to keep them in smaller tanks so long as it's enough room that they're happy and don't feel they're missing anything and I don't mind putting out the extra work to make sure they're safe in their more space-conscious homes.

With that said, if 10G is actually not safe or fair for a red eye, and it's not just a personal preference thing, then I would have no interest in attempting it, as my intention from the start has been to prepare an appropriate home for the fish I'll be getting. A single dwarf puffer will be perfectly happy in the space, correct?