Also if you want personal experience with these sharks, here is a link where people own the shark and talk about them:
http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/e_pang.php
http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/e_pang.php
Iridescent Shark
- Thread starter kntrygrl4lyfe
- Start date
kntrygrl4lyfe said:
I have no personal experience with them in an outdoor pond. I guess a lot of that would depend on where you live.
Everything I know and have read about them says that they should be kept in groups. A social fish like that kept singly probably wouldn't grow to full potential. Even with a small group, you would need a pretty big tank to house them, even if they only got to 8 inches. They are active swimmers and need plenty of room to swim around. I don't think they are an appropriate aquarium fish at all. When mine got to about 6 inches in a 55g I found them a new home because they didn't have enough room to swim the way I believe they are supposed to. Something to think about.
Note: Buying the I-Sharks was a noob mistake - I don't advocate buying any fish that I cannot house for its entire life span. You can't count on being able to take them back later - store policies change.
Iridescent sharks are very beautiful fish but unfortunately almost all home aquariums are inappropriate for them when full grown. An alternative would be the bala shark(mods: oo god not anothe bala shark thread), simply because bala shark grow MUCH slower than i-shark and has similar hmm.."style"?
Unlike i-sharks/pacus that will completely overwhelm the newbie aquarist in short time. Bala sharks' growth is slow, so if you have a 150+ gallon tank it is ok to have a few baby and keep them for a year or two until they reach 7"+ then move them to a more proper home, most likely a lfs with a huge pond.
personally though if i were to spend that much resource/money to build an aquarium suitable for those fish, i would be getting a shoal of piranha instead .
Unlike i-sharks/pacus that will completely overwhelm the newbie aquarist in short time. Bala sharks' growth is slow, so if you have a 150+ gallon tank it is ok to have a few baby and keep them for a year or two until they reach 7"+ then move them to a more proper home, most likely a lfs with a huge pond.
personally though if i were to spend that much resource/money to build an aquarium suitable for those fish, i would be getting a shoal of piranha instead .
gagaliya said:
Perhaps I have just had fish which grow faster than average, but bala sharks shouldn't take 1-2 years to reach 7". When I first got into fish keeping about 3 years ago, I had 3 bala sharks in a 10 gallon tank. (no flaming please.... not going into it) Suffice it to say, I had to learn many hard lessons about keeping fish, however, I did discover that despite the small environment they were kept in, they grew rather rapidly. In just 5 months, they went from 1.5" to 5-6" each. Given, I did about 30% water changes once a week, and fed a relatively high protein diet, (approx. 45%) they grew much quicker than most resources I used to estimate how much time I'd have before I had to get a bigger tank.
Now, after having learned so much and feeling very guilty for having kept fish with such maximum potential in such a small tank, I formed a radically different view on fishkeeping, which I feel has been for the best. I've spent the last 10 months educating fish enthusiasts and ensuring that their fish are provided a good spacious home. Unfortunately, as of this thursday, I'll no longer be a petsmart employee. (I put in my resignation... I'm moving on to work at a hospital) Although I may not have much of an influence on the fish keeper community in my area anymore, I can at least post my opinion here.
Strictly in my experience, bala sharks and tinfoil barbs grow much more rapidly than countless hours of research suggested they would. (2 2.5" tinfoils grew to 6" each in 2 months in my 55) A 150 gallon tank is a great start, just realize that eventually it is going to be too small. Yes, plenty of websites list a "wild max. size" and "captive max. size," frequently having the captive size be only a percentage of the wild size, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is typical. Please don't get me wrong though, I'm not trying to say my experiences are typical either... I'm just giving you the benefit of reading about what I experienced so that you have the option to weigh it into your decision. By all means, you don't have to take my experiences/opinions into account, as they are nothing more than my experiences/opinions. For what its worth, I'm just giving my opinions. I feel as though I've managed to :rant2: long enough on this topic for now.
Neither iridescent sharks nor bala sharks should take 2 years to hit 7"...in two years, under good conditions, an ID shrak should be 12"-14", a bala at least 8". And yes, ID sharks can easily hit 24"+ in even smallish (cramped) home aquaria (although most die from stress or jump out before then)...I have seen it many, many times....and being the sort of cats that they are, really need a lot of room to swim, so you are looking at 1500+ gallons eventually.
