The Puffer Forum

I know the given min tank requirements...and some of the logic behind that...but I was wondering if that "rule" breaks down as the tank size increases.

From This topic, I have started to question this.
(I did not want to hijack the thread to get a few more opinions on the idea)
I mean, is this rule rather hard and fast as portrayed by some of the "staff"? or is it more like the WPG rule used for plants?...which does break down as the tank size increases (not the best example...but it is the first thing to mind)

While I will not say it is a waste of space...(there is no such thing)...it seems to me that there should be a little more flexibility in the rule for a 3" fish (as in the case above) or(having only 10 dwarf in a 55 gal??? would 15 be un acceptable?)
...at this point (IMO) water quality becomes more of an issue than swimming room...and that can be readily corrected via water change and with over filtration. Territory and aggression issues (IMO) would be a non-factor given the 2-3" of height and 3-4" of depth that are added...they will be there or they wont...

Is there really that much of a difference between a 75 and 90+ gal tank (taken form above example), other than water volume, when a small fish is concerned...tank dimensions will not change that much...

Along the same lines...if I was running a sump would I still be so constrained or could I house even more?

Wasn't sure where to put this (perhaps move it to general Discussion)
...still think you need a meeting of the minds area...

My intent is not to disturb the peace (well maybe a little ), I am more curious to hear others experienced hobbyist's opinions...

I think there is room to bend the given rules on stocking. The minimum tank size and gallonage is there for a reason to act as a baseline and is especially helpful to new puffer keepers, however that is not to say they cannot be bent or pushed to the boundary with success but it could also crash and burn. However if we dont try we'll never know, this is always the risk.

Also I have to take into account practicality, each of us have lives that take differing amounts of time away from our hobby, if I pushed or bent the stocking rules and had adequate time to maintain pristine water conditions then I would try it. At this point in time I dont though.

I thought about this quite a bit when I was expecting a 30gal aquarium and got stuck with my old 20 long. It's the same footprint so territory probably wouldn't have been an issue more so than a 30gal for 2 Fig8s. Being as I'm new to puffers I opted for better water quality of having just 1 puffer and followed the guidelines here. If you've got the experience, then you should make your own rules IMO.

The hardness and fastness of the rules is pretty variable depending on who is administering them. Trying to settle on some sort of general rules is more a matter of convenience of discussion because it allows for some form of reference and consistency rather than facts of the matter that will strictly dictate success or failure.

There are a lot of factors that come into play, but there's no such thing as too big a tank for the fish, but there is such a thing as too small. Finding the middle ground is up to the individual and their particular circumstances. We tend to fall on the side of bigger is better as a general rule because it's the most responsible recommendation based on the experiences we've all gained and brought together here.

As tank sizes get larger things do get more complicated, partly ebcause of the increased size, but also because of the things that usually tend to come along with it. For instance, a beginners tank will tend to be 10-55g, and the closer to 55g the better, as the lower sizes are harder to maintain due to water volume and smaller less effective modes of filtration.

But once you get into the more intermediate tank sizes 75g-90g-120g things start to change. Methods of filtration become more sophisticated, water changes become more industrial and automated in scale and function. And the user is more experiences and knowledgeable. Greater skill allows them to maybe get away with stocking levels etc that beginner wouldn't be able to pull off.

Once you get into the advanced tanks 200g+ you usually have a lot of disposable income to through at things like sumps, skimmers, live rock, wet dry filters, large capacity canisters, etc. Also, at this point the tanks cease to be simply boxes full of water and become small ecosystems onto themselves and start to more closely approximate natural habitat.

Also, with puffers, we're usually dealing with singletons, so a minimum size tank for a single specimen is easier to come by, and carries more weight in the health of the fish. With puffers that do get along with each other it becomes a bit more difficult to propagate the minimum tank size rule down the line for multiple puffers.

That's why I think variable rules are a bit more useful. For instance, for F8s we usually recommend 15 for the first or for a singleton, and an additional 10g for each additional puffer there after. It could probably even be extended even further to state that after 200g or something only an additional 5g per puffer or something like that.

Here lies the problem... The sophistication of the rules is kind of limited by the practical amount of experience that exists in keeping a large quantity of puffers together. We simply don't know well enough how they behave in large groups in large tanks.

This is why the recommended tank sizes are more basic guidelines to try and keep a baseline of simplicity for the beginner to function under. After all, the rules are meant to allow for the greatest chance of success, not necessarily the minimum workable size in the worst case scenario. Once specific conditions are taken into consideration the lines get blurred, and the rules need to be adjusted. It's like the rules of grammar, you can only break the rules once you know how to behave within them.

SeCon wrote:I thought about this quite a bit when I was expecting a 30gal aquarium and got stuck with my old 20 long. It's the same footprint so territory probably wouldn't have been an issue more so than a 30gal for 2 Fig8s.

It's the same footprint as a 29g. A 30g is much longer.

I'm of the opinion that the more fish you have, the more space you need for each, particularly with regard to aggressive, territorial fish like puffers.

I know what Peregrine is saying, and I thought of it much myself before posting. I look at it this way- these particular puffers aren't schooling fish, even if they tend to be more tolerant than most. There are extremes in their behavior as well- some are as unpredictable as GSPs, and some are timid little sheep. In a group of them, how can one tell if there isn't one, or more, of the super-aggressive puffs. If there was one, two, three, or more of these, the docile ones would be extremely stressed, and that's where having 10 gallons per additional puff would come in real handy- so the aggressive ones have their own territories, and so the docile ones can stay away and live in relative peace. Otherwise the docile ones could get very stressed which would lead to disease and other problems.

I really don't like the term 'rule', but I did use it in the referenced thread. I think I undermined the term by how I said it, but I guess it still comes across too strong to some. These are just recommendations extrapolated from what we know of these animals' behavior. I have never read about someone who has had tank with so many Figure Eights in it, but from what I know from my experience, a lot of room is a very good idea. Maybe not necessary, but it would help prevent a lot of problems that could come up later and then lead to livestock loss or lower life spans.

I think this was all debated in a different thread by a member who left the forum. I think it is good to always question the norm, and I also love how Hilly put it:

However if we dont try we'll never know, this is always the risk.

While trying 'it' may risk the lives of the fish in the experiment, the added knowledge may preserve future lives.

I wasn't meaning to single out your post OraLacerta
...it just got me thinking...

I am not really meaning the difference between a 10-20 gal or 30 to 55 gal...where the foot print size is noticeably different...but as Phaedrus put it the more intermediate tanks of 75 gal and higher...where the actual swim room difference is only inches added to the height or depth (ie 75-90 or 90-125).
Secon, I understand what you are saying and applaud your responsible decision...Given time (as Hilly states) and experience...the boundaries can be pushed..I have kept 2 in a hex tank (33gal) and the footprint is a lot less usable than the 20long...I had the gallonage...but not the space...in that case the 20 long would have been preferable (IMO)

Personally my opinion lies more along the lines with what Phaedrus said...for much of the same reason.
The scale of the fish also poses a problem...I find it difficult to answer question like how many dwarf can I put in my 55 gal planted aquarium...10 is recommended by the standards here...but would 15 be so bad...would 20 push it too far...granted there are too many variables to account for...

But it is nice to hear what others have to say...
I know I can be a PITA some times...but if one is to advance in the hobby one must question the status quo...or else we are only drones doing what we are told...That (IMHO) is not experience but obedience

Pufferpunk wrote:

SeCon wrote:I thought about this quite a bit when I was expecting a 30gal aquarium and got stuck with my old 20 long. It's the same footprint so territory probably wouldn't have been an issue more so than a 30gal for 2 Fig8s.

It's the same footprint as a 29g. A 30g is much longer.

See how new to this I am. Can't even get aquarium sizes right. After looking at some dimensions on line, you are right the other aquarium was 29gal even though I was told 30. Now I'm glad I couldn't get it because it wasn't what I wanted to begin with.

Yes, the 30g has a much preferable footprint than the 29g.

Don't sweat it. It's good to discuss and think about these kinds of things. In terms of puffer keeping these are still early days. The more experience we gather the better our understanding will be. There will never be a definitive rule set to govern tank sizes and stocking levels.

One sidebar for me personally - If I ever give a tank size for puffers (and I do often), I am refering to a long format tank, never a taller tank. Few FW/BW puffers use the upper reaches of taller tanks (SAPs will) unless there are plants/decor at that level for them to explore for food/prey. For resting and territoriality footprint is all-important, ditto lines of sight. IMHO & IME, water quality is also all-important. But those things are givens for experienced and advanced hobbyists

I don't hesitate to "break" or bend the "rules" myself, especially short-term. But I also know what I can get away with on water quality and upkeep. In another thread here recently, I talked about the palembang's QT - a 20-long with a 15 attached - done purely for water quality purposes. The fish did not for that period "need" more footprint than the 20-long, but any chunky pure predator at 3" needs a heck of a lot more than 15(+/-)-17 gallons (and close to or below that lower figure for me) to keep water quality pristine unless it is getting daily partials, at least in my hands. But I do not operate tanks which go from 10ppm nitrate to 40ppm in a week.

To me, the figures given for minimum tank size are not aimed at experienced and fully capable hobbyists. Each such a person does know (or should if they deserve the label) what they can manage - even if the fish is a puffer. They may or may not follow those guidelines at their own discretion. If they get in trouble after ignoring these figures, they should be able to figure out what their problem is and how to correct it. Those folks are not the average individual posting here or at other speciality forums.

But just what is the aim of this thread? If it is just to review what is there, this is wasted effort. I think that Phaedrus' thread this afternoon gave the correct rationale:

"This is why the recommended tank sizes are more basic guidelines to try and keep a baseline of simplicity for the beginner to function under. After all, the rules are meant to allow for the greatest chance of success, not necessarily the minimum workable size in the worst case scenario. Once specific conditions are taken into consideration the lines get blurred, and the rules need to be adjusted. It's like the rules of grammar, you can only break the rules once you know how to behave within them."

That is the though we all had in mind when setting those guidelines.

RTR wrote: But just what is the aim of this thread? If it is just to review what is there, this is wasted effort. I think that Phaedrus' thread this afternoon gave the correct rationale:

The aim of the thread..is as it was stated..to ask if there was a point of diminishing returns, to get a more experienced outlook on the idea...I am not questioning the initial guidelines...but perhaps the extended use of those guide lines (which was dutifully responded to). If that is deemed inappropriate, or wasteful, I apologize and suggest the thread be deleted.
I don't think any question, or review is a "wasted effort". If such was the case, very few new threads would be started, as most "new" questions are covered in the thousands of threads here. As stated, my own opinions fall in line with Phaedrus', and agree one can do what ever he/she wants with their tank, as long as they are willing to live with the consequences

Unfortunately, the "discussion" was not what I had hoped for, but opinions where given and the questioned answered...fair enough.

No need for hurt feelings. Everyone's intitled to their opinions. This is a good thread.

I think to get a better idea of what good guidelines would be for large tanks with multiple puffers we'd need more experiences like those posted recently about a 90g dwarf puffer tank. It's people documenting what they experience when they try new and different things like that that will give us a better idea of what works in that area and what doesn't. I'm not sure we can speculate very well at this point what good requirements would be at those gallonages.