Tank Size Confirmation Please :)

[Glass Box Diaries]

There is no clear tank size for all fishes.

You can account for that by recommending ranges rather than a single number.

For example: if many people consider 54 L acceptable, a guide could suggest 54 L as a bare minimum, 112 L as a comfortable standard, and 160 L+ as ideal.

That still respects individual variation.

In addition how you scape a tank (including having lots of very large leaves that are constantly updated) make a huge difference in what tank size works.

That’s exactly my point — this is the kind of information that should be included in stickied, easy-to-find threads.

It is like saying all pit bulls are easy going lovable dog and then encountering one that rips your throat out.

We’re trying to provide guidance for the majority of keepers, not design recommendations around outliers.

General baselines are still useful even if exceptions exist.

 

[MacZ]

For example: if many people consider 54 L acceptable, a guide could suggest 54 L as a bare minimum, 112 L as a comfortable standard, and 160 L+ as ideal.

Funnily enough... you answered your question yourself. That fits quite well for the majority of species.

It’s 2026 — I think most people today would expect a site literally called apistogramma.com to have regularly updated, stickied threads with clear tank size recommendations.

I completely understand. But: The forum is small. We're maybe 5-15 regulars (depending how you want to define it.), relatively high age average and maybe 2-3 new members a month that actually post something and many people come here once to get a fish ID'ed and never show up again. Maybe 1-2 threadfs to pick the regulars' brains.

The most frequent questions concern sexing and ID, followed by how to source certain obscure species, then come breeding issues and health issues. It's probably telling, that I can actually name the top 5 from the top of my head, although I probably am one of the most active members besides anewbie and Mike.

Considering this, there is little to no demand for that. The few people that ask a question can be answered directly by the members.

 

[Glass Box Diaries]

I completely understand. But: The forum is small. We're maybe 5-15 regulars (depending how you want to define it.), relatively high age average and maybe 2-3 new members a month that actually post something and many people come here once to get a fish ID'ed and never show up again. Maybe 1-2 threadfs to pick the regulars' brains.

Ahh, I see the problem, I didn't think the forum would be so small considering how popular Apistogramma seem to be in the hobby!

 

[Kirsten]

All, thank you very much for this insight!
While my expertise regarding Apistogramma is rather limited, I do have more than 30 years experience as a scientist. I worked in human nutrition research, where much of the essential background information suffer from exactly the same issues: Data are collected using different methods, metrics and contexts, and relatively few published original data are recycled by well-meaning people, who copy from old and newer books and try to fill in the gaps from other sources, without the means to test if either type of data are actually reliable (not all even being aware of the need for this). In my personal view, I became quite successful (but not always popular) by actively looking for inconsistencies or contradictions in the literature, and then focusing my investigations on locating, understanding and actively correcting the errors.
Now that I'm retired, I am happy to offer those data curation skills to support this community, which is new to me!
Therefore I created an initial version of an Excel file, which I attach here for your information. Actually I can't attach an Excel file, so it's a pdf. Please let me know what you think about it, and suggest improvements. Once it is developed a little more, I am happy to set it up as a new resource and also to keep updating it with new information from members.
As starting point I used a list conveniently generated by Fishbase; you can see how I have incorporated the information received in this thread.
If needed I could read some books (particularly since my German is probably sufficient for where it is needed), but now that I am retired, I am reluctant to spend a lot of money on this. The issues of scientific names are probably no less complex and emotional than for horticultural plant varieties, and therefore I prefer to just list synonyms without judging which one is more correct. Some of the entries (rows) are probably irrelevant and can be removed or merged with another row, and surely some species are missing and should be added; please just advise me and I will update the spreadsheet. I noticed that for some species, for example Ivanacara bimaculata, the differences between sources seem to be so large that it may be useful to distinguish between large and small strains, both in the table and in the trade. Or this species may have some other property where the size depends on the environment? Does a member of the Apistogramma.com community have experiences that can detemine this?

However, to collate existing published information is only a starting point. The important objective is to use this as a 'scaffold' to collect and use the new relevant experiences obtained by the members, in the context of healthy fish kept in tanks without predators or hunger seasons. If together we can develop a consistent ranking of the sizes of the 20ish most popular dwarf cichlids, then this can be used as a resource both by people who want to keep these fish themselves, and by those who sell fish and want to provide good service to their customers, by giving both groups reliable advice on what to expect when the fish grow up. It will still be useful to know even if this consistent ranking may show that 10 of those species are all so similar in size, that individual fish are more different within a species than between them. Since this is already much more accurate information than is available elsewhere.

 

[Kirsten]

Funnily enough... you answered your question yourself. That fits quite well for the majority of species.


I completely understand. But: The forum is small. We're maybe 5-15 regulars (depending how you want to define it.), relatively high age average and maybe 2-3 new members a month that actually post something and many people come here once to get a fish ID'ed and never show up again. Maybe 1-2 threadfs to pick the regulars' brains.

The most frequent questions concern sexing and ID, followed by how to source certain obscure species, then come breeding issues and health issues. It's probably telling, that I can actually name the top 5 from the top of my head, although I probably am one of the most active members besides anewbie and Mike.

Considering this, there is little to no demand for that. The few people that ask a question can be answered directly by the members.

Sorry I didn't see this, was busy writing my own post, which may then be much less useful than I thought...

 

[KenL]

Tank volume is not that important, footprint dimensions are key.

As an aside, people outside the USA are not familiar with phrases like 20 breeder. US gallons are also different to imperial gallons. Litres are, thankfully, the same the world over.

 

[MacZ]

It takes a while, to get somewhat used to it, but still often strugglring. As soon as you get 20, 40, 75 gallons are the imperial standards you start treating them like 60, 80, 100, 120cm

 

[Mike Wise]

I always try to use both metric and imperial values when I discuss volume and linear measurements just so everyone knows what I am writing. I understand that the US and Myanmar(?) are the only 2 countries that don't use the metric system. My wife was the top metrologist (weights and measures) for the state of Colorado. She had a poster in her office that claimed, "The United States is going metric - one inch at a time". And it still is.