What Other "centerpieces" Would Work?

[N0body Of The Goat]

Bosemanis and most other 10cm+ Rainbows need a 4-foot long tank tank as adults, no question... and even that is cramping them a little.

They are very active fish, just like my Opsarius, for whom I cannot wait to be able to setup Nelly's 5x2x2 tank in my garage (along with my Barilius bakeri & canarensis, plus Puntius denisonii youngsters).

 

[Wills]

Just seems a bit small for a group of 5-6 inch fish for me personally thats all but then again Im just one guy what do I know.....

 

[Carlovel1]

Just seems a bit small for a group of 5-6 inch fish for me personally thats all but then again Im just one guy what do I know.....

I know what you mean, a bigger tank always seems the best option

@N0body Of The Goat
Can you find me a website or a book that says a '10cm+' rainbowfish need a 4 feet tank?
I mean even in massive aquariums, it doesnt mean banded/boesmani rainbowfish will reach its 13cm size. The biggest ive seen is 9cm including tail in a 400litre tank and even now its the same size!

I do think that 20gallons tank min is too small, maybe 30 gallons in more appropiate for these active fish.
I pulled out this piece of info for a website
'Even a small 50 litre (14 gallons) aquarium can comfortably house one male and two females. The Banded Rainbowfish is known to congregate around sunken trees in the wild, and will therefore appreciate hiding spots created by driftwood in the aquarium'

 

[kizno1]

It depends on the tank shape really. But the point is that The rainbowfish I mentioned can fit into a bowfront 46 gallon tank. You cant say that the rainbowfish need a 55gallon tank minimum(even if its preferable) when a large portion of websites say they can live in a 20 galllon, 30 gallon, 25 gallon and so on.
http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/e_goyder.php
http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/e_boese.php
http://www.freshwater-tropical-fish-care.com/boesemani-rainbowfish.html
http://www.fishlore.com/fishforum/freshwater-beginners/45300-bosemani-rainbow-fish.html
http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com/wiki/Banded_Rainbowfish


And that youre saying that centrepiece fish have to be a single fish i think is a personal opinion. Im my tank, I have shoal of large male Congo Tetra so...

They can live in a 20G but IMO they are extremely active fish that need to be in groups and have alot of space to swim. I saw some in a huge atleast 8 foot tank and they are alot bigger and chunkier than you think and they used the hole tank swimming from side to side in seconds and thats in a 8 foot tank so i cant imagine how little room there would be fore them in a 2 or 3 foot tank.

 

[Wills]

I just point blank disagree with you Carlovel1 there is just no way any fish that is as active and as large rainbow fish should be put in anything less than a 4 foot tank those websites you linked are not what I would call a valid resource. Aquahobby is unreliable on a number of levels IMO

I dont know where you got that quote from at all about them being kept as a trio they are egg scatterers and have no interest in forming a hareem or pairing etc so the concept of keeping them in a small tank with a view to them having it as a territory like a cichlid would is just point blank ridiculous.


I imagine this forums definitive source on this forum aka Drobbyb will be along at some point - they are the person to go to for info on rainbows and to be fair anything I know about rainbows I know from them.


If you are keeping these large rainbows in small tanks I would seriously reconsider your stocking

 

[Carlovel1]

I just point blank disagree with you Carlovel1 there is just no way any fish that is as active and as large rainbow fish should be put in anything less than a 4 foot tank those websites you linked are not what I would call a valid resource. Aquahobby is unreliable on a number of levels IMO

I dont know where you got that quote from at all about them being kept as a trio they are egg scatterers and have no interest in forming a hareem or pairing etc so the concept of keeping them in a small tank with a view to them having it as a territory like a cichlid would is just point blank ridiculous.


I imagine this forums definitive source on this forum aka Drobbyb will be along at some point - they are the person to go to for info on rainbows and to be fair anything I know about rainbows I know from them.


If you are keeping these large rainbows in small tanks I would seriously reconsider your stocking

I thought you'd disagree...
http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/rainbowfish/banded.php
You don't have any proof that these fish need 55gallon/4 foot tanks. All of you keep saying , oh 'these fish are far too active, they need a much bigger tank' , and 'these fish are too big'. The annoying thing in the fish keeping industry is that the people who think they know it all always exaggerate on the min tank size of a fish , I bet the next person will say that boesmani rainbowfish need to be kept in a 10000 litre tank. You guys dont understand...

 

[kizno1]

I just point blank disagree with you Carlovel1 there is just no way any fish that is as active and as large rainbow fish should be put in anything less than a 4 foot tank those websites you linked are not what I would call a valid resource. Aquahobby is unreliable on a number of levels IMO

I dont know where you got that quote from at all about them being kept as a trio they are egg scatterers and have no interest in forming a hareem or pairing etc so the concept of keeping them in a small tank with a view to them having it as a territory like a cichlid would is just point blank ridiculous.


I imagine this forums definitive source on this forum aka Drobbyb will be along at some point - they are the person to go to for info on rainbows and to be fair anything I know about rainbows I know from them.


If you are keeping these large rainbows in small tanks I would seriously reconsider your stocking

I thought you'd disagree...
http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/rainbowfish/banded.php
You don't have any proof that these fish need 55gallon/4 foot tanks. All of you keep saying , oh 'these fish are far too active, they need a much bigger tank' , and 'these fish are too big'. The annoying thing in the fish keeping industry is that the people who think they know it all always exaggerate on the min tank size of a fish , I bet the next person will say that boesmani rainbowfish need to be kept in a 10000 litre tank. You guys dont understand...

Its not just weather you have proof or not. How do you know how reliable them websites are? how do you know there not write but someone whos never kept them? IMO the best way to know what a fish needs is through your own experiences and i know from seeing these fish that they are far to active for a 20G. Thats the whole point of a forum to help other people from your experiences and not just you by care sheets on the internet that you dont know how reliable they are.

 

[Carlovel1]

I just point blank disagree with you Carlovel1 there is just no way any fish that is as active and as large rainbow fish should be put in anything less than a 4 foot tank those websites you linked are not what I would call a valid resource. Aquahobby is unreliable on a number of levels IMO

I dont know where you got that quote from at all about them being kept as a trio they are egg scatterers and have no interest in forming a hareem or pairing etc so the concept of keeping them in a small tank with a view to them having it as a territory like a cichlid would is just point blank ridiculous.


I imagine this forums definitive source on this forum aka Drobbyb will be along at some point - they are the person to go to for info on rainbows and to be fair anything I know about rainbows I know from them.


If you are keeping these large rainbows in small tanks I would seriously reconsider your stocking

I thought you'd disagree...
http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/rainbowfish/banded.php
You don't have any proof that these fish need 55gallon/4 foot tanks. All of you keep saying , oh 'these fish are far too active, they need a much bigger tank' , and 'these fish are too big'. The annoying thing in the fish keeping industry is that the people who think they know it all always exaggerate on the min tank size of a fish , I bet the next person will say that boesmani rainbowfish need to be kept in a 10000 litre tank. You guys dont understand...

Its not just weather you have proof or not. How do you know how reliable them websites are? how do you know there not write but someone whos never kept them? IMO the best way to know what a fish needs is through your own experiences and i know from seeing these fish that they are far to active for a 20G. Thats the whole point of a forum to help other people from your experiences and not just you by care sheets on the internet that you dont know how reliable they are.

What a coincidence 17 websites ive found say 20-35 gallon tank minimum , and NONE saying 55gallons/feet tanks.
On forums , its always biased and exaggerative

 

[Wills]

If it really comes to this

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=trifasciata&id=835

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=boesemani&id=811

Seriously fish one of the best profile sites on the net written by a lot of the best fish keepers and collectors (meaning those that collect them in the wild) in the world - a lot of the other profile sites I read and hold in regard dont often state tank size because its often down to common sense.

Even by the practical fish keeping concept on how to choose a tank size for a fish which states 6 times the length of the fish and 2 times width for the length of the fish - so in this case yeah okay it comes to 30 inches x 12 inches BUT that is the middle point its always stated as going above this for active fish like barbs and rainbows etc but at the same time the stocking rule gets shrunk for less active fish like some catfish (ie banjos etc) and often plecs.

But at the end of the day its not about what this website says and what that website says its just common sense if you want to justify putting a highly active schooling group of 5 inch fish in a 20 gallon tank (taking the smaller sizes you say is okay) then go ahead the fish are going to be cramped in end of story.

I agree bigger is better but there is no point in getting stupid about these things we are clearly not going to agree and I refuse to accept you as right because its just a joke.

 

[kizno1]

Well IMO from seeing them fully grown in a 8 foot tank and them using the hole tank i know for a fact i would never put and in my 30G let alone a 20G. Evan if the websites do say that IMO they best way to learn is through experience and i would trust what people of here say that have kept them over any website that you dont know the reliability of.

 

[Wills]

to be fair it just looks like your looking for something to tell you what you want to hear - I used to do that when I started keeping fish as well and I quickly learned not to do it because at the end of the day you can find profiles that say keeping oscars in a 30g is fine.

 

[Carlovel1]

If it really comes to this

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=trifasciata&id=835

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=boesemani&id=811

Seriously fish one of the best profile sites on the net written by a lot of the best fish keepers and collectors (meaning those that collect them in the wild) in the world - a lot of the other profile sites I read and hold in regard dont often state tank size because its often down to common sense.

Even by the practical fish keeping concept on how to choose a tank size for a fish which states 6 times the length of the fish and 2 times width for the length of the fish - so in this case yeah okay it comes to 30 inches x 12 inches BUT that is the middle point its always stated as going above this for active fish like barbs and rainbows etc but at the same time the stocking rule gets shrunk for less active fish like some catfish (ie banjos etc) and often plecs.

But at the end of the day its not about what this website says and what that website says its just common sense if you want to justify putting a highly active schooling group of 5 inch fish in a 20 gallon tank (taking the smaller sizes you say is okay) then go ahead the fish are going to be cramped in end of story.

I agree bigger is better but there is no point in getting stupid about these things we are clearly not going to agree and I refuse to accept you as right because its just a joke.

Yeah but it says, 110 litres tank minimum, which is 30 gallons not the exaggerative 55 gallons people are saying

Well IMO from seeing them fully grown in a 8 foot tank and them using the hole tank i know for a fact i would never put and in my 30G let alone a 20G. Evan if the websites do say that IMO they best way to learn is through experience and i would trust what people of here say that have kept them over any website that you dont know the reliability of.

LOL my best friend has the rainbowfish and they have been 9cm for 2 years

to be fair it just looks like your looking for something to tell you what you want to hear - I used to do that when I started keeping fish as well and I quickly learned not to do it because at the end of the day you can find profiles that say keeping oscars in a 30g is fine.

You really do think you know it all...
Quote:
'The minimum tank size recommended is 33 gallons, and this is only if you plan on housing one individual alone, without any tank mates. The recommended tank size for housing Oscar fish is 100 gallons, of course the bigger the better'

I have seen Oscars and I know that they need a tank larger than 30g.

 

[kizno1]

If it really comes to this

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=trifasciata&id=835

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=boesemani&id=811

Seriously fish one of the best profile sites on the net written by a lot of the best fish keepers and collectors (meaning those that collect them in the wild) in the world - a lot of the other profile sites I read and hold in regard dont often state tank size because its often down to common sense.

Even by the practical fish keeping concept on how to choose a tank size for a fish which states 6 times the length of the fish and 2 times width for the length of the fish - so in this case yeah okay it comes to 30 inches x 12 inches BUT that is the middle point its always stated as going above this for active fish like barbs and rainbows etc but at the same time the stocking rule gets shrunk for less active fish like some catfish (ie banjos etc) and often plecs.

But at the end of the day its not about what this website says and what that website says its just common sense if you want to justify putting a highly active schooling group of 5 inch fish in a 20 gallon tank (taking the smaller sizes you say is okay) then go ahead the fish are going to be cramped in end of story.

I agree bigger is better but there is no point in getting stupid about these things we are clearly not going to agree and I refuse to accept you as right because its just a joke.

Yeah but it says, 110 litres tank minimum, which is 30 gallons not the exaggerative 55 gallons people are saying

Well IMO from seeing them fully grown in a 8 foot tank and them using the hole tank i know for a fact i would never put and in my 30G let alone a 20G. Evan if the websites do say that IMO they best way to learn is through experience and i would trust what people of here say that have kept them over any website that you dont know the reliability of.

LOL my best friend has the rainbowfish and they have been 9cm for 2 years

Fair enough. if you think its fine go for it and see what happens all im saying is i know that i wouldnt and wouldnt recommend to others keeping them in anything less than a 4 foot tank.

 

[Carlovel1]

If it really comes to this

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=trifasciata&id=835

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=boesemani&id=811

Seriously fish one of the best profile sites on the net written by a lot of the best fish keepers and collectors (meaning those that collect them in the wild) in the world - a lot of the other profile sites I read and hold in regard dont often state tank size because its often down to common sense.

Even by the practical fish keeping concept on how to choose a tank size for a fish which states 6 times the length of the fish and 2 times width for the length of the fish - so in this case yeah okay it comes to 30 inches x 12 inches BUT that is the middle point its always stated as going above this for active fish like barbs and rainbows etc but at the same time the stocking rule gets shrunk for less active fish like some catfish (ie banjos etc) and often plecs.

But at the end of the day its not about what this website says and what that website says its just common sense if you want to justify putting a highly active schooling group of 5 inch fish in a 20 gallon tank (taking the smaller sizes you say is okay) then go ahead the fish are going to be cramped in end of story.

I agree bigger is better but there is no point in getting stupid about these things we are clearly not going to agree and I refuse to accept you as right because its just a joke.

Yeah but it says, 110 litres tank minimum, which is 30 gallons not the exaggerative 55 gallons people are saying

Well IMO from seeing them fully grown in a 8 foot tank and them using the hole tank i know for a fact i would never put and in my 30G let alone a 20G. Evan if the websites do say that IMO they best way to learn is through experience and i would trust what people of here say that have kept them over any website that you dont know the reliability of.

LOL my best friend has the rainbowfish and they have been 9cm for 2 years

Fair enough. if you think its fine go for it and see what happens all im saying is i know that i wouldnt and wouldnt recommend to others keeping them in anything less than a 4 foot tank.

It the end of the day, I was advising a person with a 46g tank which is big enough , then you lot come out saying that Rainbows shouldnt be kept in 20g/30g tanks. Im like what the hell, youre all jumping to conclusions, I was just reporting what a website said. Dont take it out on me, take it out on them , you have the links

 

[kizno1]

If it really comes to this

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=trifasciata&id=835

http/www.seriouslyfish.com/profile.php?genus=Melanotaenia&species=boesemani&id=811

Seriously fish one of the best profile sites on the net written by a lot of the best fish keepers and collectors (meaning those that collect them in the wild) in the world - a lot of the other profile sites I read and hold in regard dont often state tank size because its often down to common sense.

Even by the practical fish keeping concept on how to choose a tank size for a fish which states 6 times the length of the fish and 2 times width for the length of the fish - so in this case yeah okay it comes to 30 inches x 12 inches BUT that is the middle point its always stated as going above this for active fish like barbs and rainbows etc but at the same time the stocking rule gets shrunk for less active fish like some catfish (ie banjos etc) and often plecs.

But at the end of the day its not about what this website says and what that website says its just common sense if you want to justify putting a highly active schooling group of 5 inch fish in a 20 gallon tank (taking the smaller sizes you say is okay) then go ahead the fish are going to be cramped in end of story.

I agree bigger is better but there is no point in getting stupid about these things we are clearly not going to agree and I refuse to accept you as right because its just a joke.

Yeah but it says, 110 litres tank minimum, which is 30 gallons not the exaggerative 55 gallons people are saying

Well IMO from seeing them fully grown in a 8 foot tank and them using the hole tank i know for a fact i would never put and in my 30G let alone a 20G. Evan if the websites do say that IMO they best way to learn is through experience and i would trust what people of here say that have kept them over any website that you dont know the reliability of.

LOL my best friend has the rainbowfish and they have been 9cm for 2 years

Fair enough. if you think its fine go for it and see what happens all im saying is i know that i wouldnt and wouldnt recommend to others keeping them in anything less than a 4 foot tank.

It the end of the day, I was advising a person with a 46g tank which is big enough , then you lot come out saying that Rainbows shouldnt be kept in 20g/30g tanks. Im like what the hell, youre all jumping to conclusions, I was just reporting what a website said. Dont take it out on me, take it out on them , you have the links

I wasnt taking it out on you just saying that IMO a 30G is to small. Every one has different opinions and i was just saying mine.