PDA

View Full Version : Tangs in a 90?


doch
05-29-2005, 01:45 AM
So there seem to be a lot of opinions out there on weathere or not a regal tang works in a 90. Just looking for some more opinions. One peice of advice I got recently is to buy the tang as small as possible and it should be OK. Do all tangs require a lot of room? or is it specifice to Regals? I also like the Powder Blues; Are they a better choice for a 90? Thanks for all opinions.

Beverly
05-29-2005, 01:50 AM
I've got a 120g and would not keep any species of tang in it. Tangs get very large. Unless you are going to do a serious upgrade in the future for the sake of your tangs, I'd hold off. JMO, though.

Aquattro
05-29-2005, 02:18 AM
Tangs get very large.

I read this all the time, but I've never actually seen a tang get much larger than it's store bought size. My yellow is the same size as it was 5 years ago, although much fatter. Same with my white cheek...hasn't grown much if any in the 2 years it's been with me. Others have noted the same thing, so since my tangs are only 3-1/2" long, they do fine in a 75g. Grnated the regal is one that is known for growing, but others are fine candidates for a 90, IMO.

naesco
05-29-2005, 02:54 AM
So there seem to be a lot of opinions out there on weathere or not a regal tang works in a 90. Just looking for some more opinions. One peice of advice I got recently is to buy the tang as small as possible and it should be OK. Do all tangs require a lot of room? or is it specifice to Regals? I also like the Powder Blues; Are they a better choice for a 90? Thanks for all opinions.

Thanks for you post.
The opinions of keeping tangs in only large tanks (six footers) is pretty much an established rule of thumb now largely based on experts and authors, and those who have experience keeping them.

Tangs are swimmers and need the length that larger tanks provide.
An exception would be the kole tang which grows large but tends to spend its whole day eating the film algae of glass and rocks which it needs for its diet.

Reef raf, if you placed your tangs in a six footer and observed them for a while, I think you might be giving this reefer the same advice as well.

Aquattro
05-29-2005, 03:21 AM
Reef raf, if you placed your tangs in a six footer and observed them for a while, I think you might be giving this reefer the same advice as well.

you just pop out of the woodwork for these tangs post, don't ya?? :razz:

While I in essence agree with you, and have had my tangs in my old 155g, their behaviour now is no different than in the 155. I will always agree that ANY fish should have as big a tank as possible, but should the big tank not be possible does not neccesarily prevent someone from having some species of tang. Can all tangs go in a 90? IMO, no. Are some candidates for a 90? again, IMO, yes. Most (all?) zebrasoma I think are fine, exception being perhaps a large sailfin. Many of the acantharus are also possibilities, although more of these really should have a larger area.

Doug
05-29-2005, 01:55 PM
[quote=doch]
An exception would be the kole tang which grows large but tends to spend its whole day eating the film algae of glass and rocks which it needs for its diet.


Again I must disagree with this. My Kole is larger than my yellow and uses more of my 170 for swimming than the yellow. So in my case its the opposite.

Plus they have a long body length, with a somewhat similar shape as the Regal, but not as large.

Yellows, Scopas and Purple tangs, seem to stay smaller and swim less. {if thats possible with tangs. :smile: }

StirCrazy
05-29-2005, 05:06 PM
The opinions of keeping tangs in only large tanks (six footers) is pretty much an established rule of thumb now largely based on experts and authors, and those who have experience keeping them.



so which experts and authors have made this a rule of thumb? I have never seen anyone but fanatics say you must have a 6 foot tank because if you think of it what does that mean? well if I have a 6 foot tank that is 12" high and 12" wide I have a 43 gal tank and by your statement It is enuf for a tang. I think water volume wise, a 43 gal is to small for any tang.

going back to your "and those who have experience keeping them" how long do you need to keep tangs to be experienced? I got 3 years now and mine have all grown in my 94 gal tank, My latest, an Achilles has grown 1" in 4 months, he is fat and generally looks content (if we can really tell with a fish) he never darts around nervously or does any weird laps in the tank. so generally I think I am successfully raising a tank in a 3 foot long tank. having said that my 3 foot long tank is 2 foot wide and 25" tall with lots of rock, kept fairly low, and massive flow for a tank that size. Maybe it is the flow that keeps the tang exercised and content who knows.

Steve

Aquattro
05-29-2005, 05:15 PM
Ya know, I just get sick of this stuff. Tangs need to be kept in oceans, not aquariums, just like all the other fish we keep. Now if punishing a fish by putting it in a 6 foot tank helps you sleep better than punishing it in a 4 foot tank, great. But let's not pretend one is any better than the other. These fish would be better off left where they came from, and we're all a little selfish in making up excuses on how we justify stealing them from their homes. So please stop with the garbage that a wild fish is better in a 6 foot box over a 4 foot box. That's just silly. There better off in their homes. Period.

Willow
05-29-2005, 05:27 PM
Ya know, I just get sick of this stuff. Tangs need to be kept in oceans, not aquariums, just like all the other fish we keep. Now if punishing a fish by putting it in a 6 foot tank helps you sleep better than punishing it in a 4 foot tank, great. But let's not pretend one is any better than the other. These fish would be better off left where they came from, and we're all a little selfish in making up excuses on how we justify stealing them from their homes. So please stop with the garbage that a wild fish is better in a 6 foot box over a 4 foot box. That's just silly. There better off in their homes. Period.

thats it im getting a powder blue! thanks brad :mrgreen:

Aquattro
05-29-2005, 05:34 PM
thats it im getting a powder blue! thanks brad :mrgreen:

remember, if it starts looking like it needs to swim more, just cut it's tail off. Then it's smaller, and needs less length!! :razz:

Oh, and not sure if you're aware, but they do better in harems.

EmilyB
05-29-2005, 08:11 PM
I guess there are always two sides to any story. A reminder to some that differing opinions should not be treated as objectionable and stomped upon.
Jeez, it's almost a sin to say sand on here.....
:rolleyes: :razz:

In my case a yellow and a kole outgrew a 72g in less than a year. Their swimming patterns were most definitely pacing and bolting.

They were moved to a 155g and the difference was remarkable. The yellow of six years is now in a 230g, after six years with me. Her swimming patterns are now definitely slow cruising and relaxed.

If your fish are fine with less space, so be it. In my case they were not.

YMMV.

EmilyB
05-29-2005, 08:15 PM
thats it im getting a powder blue! thanks brad :mrgreen:

remember, if it starts looking like it needs to swim more, just cut it's tail off. Then it's smaller, and needs less length!! :razz:

Oh, and not sure if you're aware, but they do better in harems.


Brad, do you really think this is appropriate for a moderator ? Sorry, but I think it's not really very funny at all. :frown:

DEAD_BY_DAWN
05-29-2005, 08:25 PM
i agree 100% cutting off the tail would be cruel
removel of the head is a far better option

Nemo
05-29-2005, 08:42 PM
How about we forget talking about the size of tanks, I have seen plenty of large tankss 150g + that are so full of rock and corals that the fish have bo room.
I run a 140 g with about 100 lbs of rock, there is a ton of room for the fish to swim around in, and they use it.
Just to add to the the crap for the tang police I have a regal, sail fin, yellow, and powder blue. And they have more swimming room than some of the 200 g+ tanks I have seen.
So I think it would be far more important as to how much crap you keep in your tank rather than size, of course there is an expeption to every rule, I would not try and keep a tang in a 50 g even if I had no rock in it.
And like Brad said you want to get right down to it, the best thing is to not keep fish or corals, let them be in the ocean. So for all of you who are the self proffesed tang police, sell off your equipment and contents and join some bleeding heart group to stop the sale of all fish. Stop being too faced by keeping an aquarium

JMO

Doug
05-29-2005, 09:06 PM
Lovely posts people. Poor guys asks for advice and we cant help him without posts like these.

Nemo, whats with the tang police crap now. I thought we left that behind years ago.

If we cant offer our opinions like a couple of us did, without laying on the BS, then dont answer at all. :mad:

Aquattro
05-29-2005, 09:07 PM
thats it im getting a powder blue! thanks brad :mrgreen:

remember, if it starts looking like it needs to swim more, just cut it's tail off. Then it's smaller, and needs less length!! :razz:

Oh, and not sure if you're aware, but they do better in harems.


Brad, do you really think this is appropriate for a moderator ? Sorry, but I think it's not really very funny at all. :frown:

Do I think humour is appropriate? Why, yes, I do. Even for stuffy mods. Do I think you need to lighten up? Again, ya, I think so.
If anyone is not perfectly clear that was a joke, I'm just not sure what to say. If someone doesn't think it's funny, don't laugh. Simple.

As for your tangs growing and doing better in a larger tank, glad to hear it. Sure didn't stop you from adding them to a 72 originally, did it?

I stand by my original OPINION...if someone wants to attempt a tang in a 90, my OPINION is go for it, after doing some research on which species might be suitable. Caveat: This is only my OPINION, not neccessarily that of others.
Thanks for shopping, come again.


P.S. Don't really cut pieces off tangs in an attempt to modify size or swimming habits, in case you in any way could have conceived I was in any way serious. Sheesh.

Rikko
05-29-2005, 10:12 PM
Might want to make that part of your sig, Brad. I was totally sure you were serious and was researching body modification sites. Didn't find anything on fish but I replaced my nipples with my big toes.
(Deadpan works so much better without smilies, don't it?)

Now then, if we take Robert's huge spa pump and have it blasting across the front of the tank so hard that the tang has the fight like hell for 5 minutes to get across the 36" tank, is that still too small?
Seriously... If you have strong water movement that fish is going to have to "work" more to get around.. Anybody else think that's a contributor, too?

These fish would be better off left where they came from, and we're all a little selfish in making up excuses on how we justify stealing them from their homes.

Most important thing that's ever been said on Canreef, and the one thing not enough people are going to understand.

Aquattro
05-29-2005, 11:17 PM
Seriously... If you have strong water movement that fish is going to have to "work" more to get around.. Anybody else think that's a contributor, too?



Yes, I do. I have 2 streams in my tank, so the fish in fact do have to fight to get around, they appear to love it. Well, the chromis, not so much, but the bigger fish for sure! :razz:

Delphinus
05-30-2005, 12:20 AM
This thread is awfully heated. Please everyone drop down the tone a notch or two, and engage in civilized discussion. Thanks!

Willow
05-30-2005, 12:28 AM
why is it evertime something gets debated with any level of enthusiasm the thread gets closed or moved to a black hole until we learn to litter our posts with smileys.

Troy F
05-30-2005, 01:26 AM
why is it evertime something gets debated with any level of enthusiasm the thread gets closed or moved to a black hole until we learn to litter our posts with smileys.

I don't think all threads with some heat get closed but usually the threads that are closed end up off topic with little or no relevant information shared. Where does your comment pertain to tangs in a 90?

I don't really believe tangs belong in the 4' and under category but as Brad says this is a selfish hobby so if you're going to take 'em from their home then fill your boots. My observations of their behaviour in the wild lead me to believe that only fish with a small territory should be kept in the smaller tanks. DWTFYW

EmilyB
05-30-2005, 01:38 AM
As for your tangs growing and doing better in a larger tank, glad to hear it. Sure didn't stop you from adding them to a 72 originally, did it?



No, but the long term is what I was talking about Brad. I didn't know anything about tangs when I got them.

Not everyone can afford to move up to a bigger tank in a year for the sake of the fish. Not everyone wants to trade the fish in when/or if it becomes too large, or begins to show different swimming behavior. Not everyone plans for their fish to be around for a dozen years or more. I do.

People will do what they want in the end anyway, but along the way, many will begin to see why these opinions are there. I did. So maybe some of these fish don't grow for whatever reason. Mine did. Maybe some are fine within their space. Mine weren't.

That doesn't negate me offering my experience, or does it?

Bah.

doch
05-30-2005, 01:43 AM
Wow.... didn't forsee this becoming such a heated topic. Not sure who it was, but someone had emphasized OPINIONS. This is all that I was looking for. Now, that said, it is my OPINION that I am selfish and really want a Regal, so going by a few of these OPINIONS I'm going to give it a shot. What's the worst that can happen? Either I end up needing a bigger tank (that would be HORRIBLE) or, worst case scenario, I end up having to donate a big unhappy tang to some poor soul with a tank large enough. That's the beauty of such an experiment... it's not going to kill the fish, but it may end up unhappy (not that it would ever be truly happy in one of our man made Ocean 'boxes') and if so, the fish goes to a different 'box' to someone who I'm sure would be happy to accept a free fish... especially one as beautiful as the Regal Tang. So, the end result here is I'll give it a shot! Thanks to all of the people with OPINIONS!!!

Nemo
05-30-2005, 01:59 AM
doch

Next time you want an OPINION I am sure the people on Canreef can accommadate you :lol:

And just for the staff of Canreef :biggrin: :lol: :razz: :n00b: :olympic: :rainbow1: :rainbowa: :smilecol: :usa :splat: :halfrobo:

That should just about do it

naesco
05-30-2005, 02:12 AM
Well Doch please read this short article and I would invite all to do so as in my opinion it is a reasoned discussion by an author and expert and it happens to be on the exact tang you are considering.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/hcs3/index.htm

Summary
"This works out to 25m2 per sub-group, or just over 3m2 per animal or about 10f2, or about the size of any of the commercially available 125-gallon aquariums. Hence, I would propose this is a good starting point as the absolute minimum aquarium size for any solitary individual"

After carefully reading it would you kindly post your opinion on the article.


If you were considering a ctenochaetus species (bristletooth) consider this article by another author.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-07/hcs3/index.htm
Summary
"It is unlikely that a four-foot long aquarium will provide a suitable environment to match these natural growth patterns"

naesco
05-30-2005, 02:26 AM
[quote=naesco]The opinions of keeping tangs in only large tanks (six footers) is pretty much an established rule of thumb now largely based on experts and authors, and those who have experience keeping them.



so which experts and authors have made this a rule of thumb? I have never seen anyone but fanatics say you must have a 6 foot tank because if you think of it what does that mean?
All of them Stir; the brackets indicate my opinion. I have posted some threads which I have posted in the past.
well if I have a 6 foot tank that is 12" high and 12" wide I have a 43 gal tank and by your statement It is enuf for a tang. I think water volume wise, a 43 gal is to small for any tang.
Tangs need the length for swimming. Volume is irrelavent. A large tank filled with coral with little end to end swimming room isn't any good either.

going back to your "and those who have experience keeping them" how long do you need to keep tangs to be experienced? I got 3 years now and mine have all grown in my 94 gal tank, My latest, an Achilles has grown 1" in 4 months, he is fat and generally looks content (if we can really tell with a fish) he never darts around nervously or does any weird laps in the tank. so generally I think I am successfully raising a tank in a 3 foot long tank. having said that my 3 foot long tank is 2 foot wide and 25" tall with lots of rock, kept fairly low, and massive flow for a tank that size. Maybe it is the flow that keeps the tang exercised and content who knows.

Certainly no one with any experience would keep 3 tangs in a three foot tank.
No one with any experince would mix similar species of tangs
No one with any experience would choose an Achilles tang. A tang which is almost impossible to keep by the most experienced tang keepers with ideal setups.

Aquattro
05-30-2005, 02:29 AM
And just for the staff of Canreef :biggrin: :lol: :razz: :n00b: :olympic: :rainbow1: :rainbowa: :smilecol: :usa :splat: :halfrobo:

That should just about do it

Nemo, if you're gonna post stuff like this, can you include a smily maybe, just so we know you're joking? Thanks :razz:

Aquattro
05-30-2005, 02:33 AM
No one with any experience would choose an Achilles tang. A tang which is almost impossible to keep by the most experienced tang keepers with ideal setups.[/b]

Just gotta address this one. There is a guy over here that has had an Achilles in a 75 for years, and by all measures I can think of, it appears to be a happy healthy fish. I aldo recall you telling me that my white cheek would die in three months. That was two years ago. While some generalities may exist, pleae don't make up "rules". They may not apply in all cases.

naesco
05-30-2005, 02:38 AM
[quote=doch]
An exception would be the kole tang which grows large but tends to spend its whole day eating the film algae of glass and rocks which it needs for its diet.


Again I must disagree with this. My Kole is larger than my yellow and uses more of my 170 for swimming than the yellow. So in my case its the opposite.

Plus they have a long body length, with a somewhat similar shape as the Regal, but not as large.

Yellows, Scopas and Purple tangs, seem to stay smaller and swim less. {if thats possible with tangs. :smile: }

That's the problem. We try to choose one tang knowing that in many instances a poster will only choose the opinions that confirm their desires as Doch has done. Better a small Kole than a Regal, Achilles, Niger, Vlamingi etc. IMO.

I wonder whether those who encourage a new reefer to go out and stock smaller tanks with tangs know the damage they are doing? Sadly, they are aware of the numerous authorities on the subject but choose to ignore them and give advice as if they were experts. :frown:

Willow
05-30-2005, 02:39 AM
those who encourage a new reefer to go out and stock smaller tanks with tangs know the damage they are doing?

damage? dang dude join greenpeace.

Rikko
05-30-2005, 03:01 AM
The opinions of keeping tangs in only large tanks (six footers) is pretty much an established rule of thumb now largely based on experts and authors, and those who have experience keeping them.



so which experts and authors have made this a rule of thumb? I have never seen anyone but fanatics say you must have a 6 foot tank because if you think of it what does that mean?
All of them Stir; the brackets indicate my opinion. I have posted some threads which I have posted in the past.

Hardly an answer, Wayne. Who are "all" the experts? From both links you posted I see a deliberate and powerful unwillingness to provide any concrete numbers on tank size. The best we get is "the bigger the environment the better", and really, that applies to every-bloody-thing in the world. It's a fact that many, many people keep tangs in abismally small tanks and many (I won't say many, many this time) of them thrive.
Want an analogy? Keep a chinchilla in a small cage. They're cute, cuddly, and love to be scratched. I have mine in 48x36x80"H cages and they also get the room to run around in every other night for a few hours. Know what? They're not cute and cuddly. They generally consider me a food provider and otherwise ignore me. Which of the two are better pets? Sure, the ones in the bigger cage may be closer to "wild" rodents, but if that's the only environment they've known for a long period of time, they adapt and thrive in it. Same basis for that phenomenon of long-term prisoners being released and not wanting to go.


well if I have a 6 foot tank that is 12" high and 12" wide I have a 43 gal tank and by your statement It is enuf for a tang. I think water volume wise, a 43 gal is to small for any tang.
Tangs need the length for swimming. Volume is irrelavent. A large tank filled with coral with little end to end swimming room isn't any good either.

Not depth? Not height? You propose that a tank 6" wide and 6" tall but 120" long is superior to a standard 20 gallon tank?

Certainly no one with any experience would keep 3 tangs in a three foot tank.
No one with any experince would mix similar species of tangs
No one with any experience would choose an Achilles tang. A tang which is almost impossible to keep by the most experienced tang keepers with ideal setups.

Absolute rubbish on all counts, and you know it. Taking an ethical stand on something doesn't mean you're all of a sudden on the "right" side. We're all enslaving marine life in the name of our own amusement. We aren't helping anything (or are we "learning"? I could recall other experiments where great breakthroughs were made in the early 1940s, but it's not yet time to invoke Godwin's Law). Look carefully on the net and you'll see people with tangs (and a great many other things) in environments smaller than are "optimal" - they aren't advertising it, but they do it and they succeed. C'est la vie.











:eggface: :mad: :Fade-col: :B-fly: :B-fly: :black: :sad: :angel: :idea: :lol: :cry: :mrgreen: :neutral: :eek: :evil: :question: :smilecol: :onfire: :multi: :painting: :microwav: :squarewi: :silly:

Nemo
05-30-2005, 03:02 AM
I agree with Willow

Why don't we talk about all the newbies that make mistakes and kill fish and corals! I think they do far more "dammage" than some one trying to add a fish.
Since we have mostly agreed that keeping fish in a tank is not what fish would like. Then I think we can just as easily say that if some one is keepiing a fish in a less than ideal situation the one who suffers os the buyers pocket book.
So why don't we start talking about all of those who buy fish by the box load each month.
And naesco in case you have not figured it out, even the so called experts never agree. for every book you find supporting one point, I can find one supporting the other side. I for one do not have the time to start reading everything on subject, nor do I have the time to reasearch just how they came to there conclussions.
I figure how they did there reasearch using what meathods and under what conditions is by far the most important factor, But yet this seems to be ommited from books or just skimmed over.

So in a nut shell people are not going to spend money on something if they figure it is just going to die. Each and everyone of us thinks we are providing the best environment we can for the fish or coral to thrive under a less than ideal situation.

naesco
05-30-2005, 03:02 AM
No one with any experience would choose an Achilles tang. A tang which is almost impossible to keep by the most experienced tang keepers with ideal setups.[/b]

Just gotta address this one. There is a guy over here that has had an Achilles in a 75 for years, and by all measures I can think of, it appears to be a happy healthy fish. I aldo recall you telling me that my white cheek would die in three months. That was two years ago. While some generalities may exist, pleae don't make up "rules". They may not apply in all cases.

There will always be exceptions. My comment is not a rule that I have made up,
My comment is based on reading what the experts say.
Robert Fenner
http://wetwebmedia.com/badacanthurusaq.htm
Terry Seigel had a good had a good article on them in the February issue of Advanced Aquarist 2002 but it is no longer there.
Many others have commented as well.

Nemo
05-30-2005, 03:11 AM
Certainly no one with any experience would keep 3 tangs in a three foot tank.
No one with any experince would mix similar species of tangs
No one with any experience would choose an Achilles tang. A tang which is almost impossible to keep by the most experienced tang keepers with ideal setups.

I love this quote.

I was in Hawwii a few months back, and after reading this many times I was expecting to do some dives and maybe see one or 2 tangs in a large area.
Well to my surprise I saw hundreds of yellow tangs running in schools, along with the same for other types of tangs.
By the same token I saw many pairs or groups of three. And all types of species were living together side by side on the reef.
How about they had teritories established and they each respected the others. When you add a new fish to your tank the fighting and posturing is just your fish re establishing teritories.

So before you saw "No one with any experince would mix similar species of tangs" maybe you should go inform the fish they should not be able to co exist.

naesco
05-30-2005, 03:15 AM
those who encourage a new reefer to go out and stock smaller tanks with tangs know the damage they are doing?

damage? dang dude join greenpeace.

I have. Is there something wrong with Greenpeace?

Willow Have you read this article?
?http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/hcs3/index.htm

Care to comment on the subject of this thread?

Aquattro
05-30-2005, 03:26 AM
I wonder whether those who encourage a new reefer to go out and stock smaller tanks with tangs know the damage they are doing? Sadly, they are aware of the numerous authorities on the subject but

Wayne, I'll assume this is directed partially toward me. What damage are you implying is done by my encouraging doch to get a tang? As for "authorities", by who's standards? I haven't bought any of there books, but I'm sure none of them did their Masters on Aquarium Sizing for Captive Tangs. I've only kept three tangs over 5 years, and 2 are still with me. I challenge you to come visit and explain how they are not happy. They look just fine to me. They have more swimming space now than they did in a tank twice as large, so is that bad?


As for everyone one else playing in this thread, please let's try to be constructive. Willow, we haven't even suggested closing the thread....chill.
As for naesco, sure, maybe he leans toward the tang police side of things, but if I ever come back as a tang, I want him as my attorney! Let's respect the other point of view, regardless of whether we agree or not. This is a god educational topic, and lots of readers might genuinely need to follow this to make a decision on a future purchase.

And as I said earlier, please do not attempt to modify the size of your tang to fit the tank. It's just wrong, and not very funny. :cool:

EmilyB
05-30-2005, 03:29 AM
Nemo, :lol: Too funny. Do you think they have a little more room out there..... :rolleyes: :arrow: :idea:



:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
:BIG:

Nemo
05-30-2005, 03:33 AM
Nemo, :lol: Too funny. Do you think they have a little more room out there..... :rolleyes: :arrow: :idea:





Just a bit, but you know the funny thing is they did not use it. They stayed in a very small area in large numbers.
If you are interested I have plenty of pics I would be happy to send to support that comment

Ryan7
05-30-2005, 03:49 AM
I've got a 120g and would not keep any species of tang in it. Tangs get very large. Unless you are going to do a serious upgrade in the future for the sake of your tangs, I'd hold off. JMO, though.

Doch,

I read all the posts, and I have to agree with this one. Also, if you read the articles linked they clearly support this post as well.

I do however like the idea of a huge current for a tang to swim against if you are going to put one in a tank smaller than 6FT, but it doesn't mean I would condone it.

Willow
05-30-2005, 03:53 AM
Is there something wrong with Greenpeace?


that answer would probably get me banned for sure.

Willow Have you read this article?
?http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/hcs3/index.htm

no

Care to comment on the subject of this thread?

ok, i think a regal tang in a 90 seems reasonable if given enough greens and current. although it's not up to me or you.

BCOrchidGuy
05-30-2005, 03:58 AM
I agree with Troy, not every subject that gets some attention is closed or black listed etc etc, I appreciate the fact that the moderators watch a topic like this one closely, it can quickly escalate to something ugly and they are always there to catch it if it does.

I've only had experience with a couple of tangs, Sail fin did very nicely in my 90, very nicely indeed. The Orange Shoulder, (epaulette) didn't fare well at all, it died with in two days of going into my tank, a quick look told the sad story. White nodes all over it's gills, you couldn't see them until the fish was dead. I took a lot of flack for posting about this fish as it was a very well respected store that I got it from. I still shop there and I accepted the responsibility that yes I SHOULD HAVE had a QT tank. My bad, poor fish.

Frankly, I think a tang
1: is not a beginners fish
2: needs as much room as possible
3: grows into it's environment in many ways
4: Can still out grow a tank easilly (depends a lot on the Tang though)
5: Can be kept with others that look the same etc IF sufficient room is provided.

Please note I said I think, not I know, not this is the only way it can be etc etc. You wanted opinions, well those are mine.

For the record, I kept a nice small SailFin in a 24 Gallon bow front for about 8 weeks, it kept company with a FoxFace and they both where fat when they went into the 155. Neither of them showed any anxiety about the small tank, they both ate well and did their thing (fish thing ya know).

Doug

AJ_77
05-30-2005, 04:16 AM
My opinion is that a Regal is not a good choice for a 90. I've seen a pair of them in a 300gal, and that seemed more reasonable.

I had a medium Naso in a 6-ft tank, and it could bolt the length of the tank in about .1 seconds. Just for fun. (or was it miserable? :confused: )

Now we have a small Yellow tang in a 75. Never seen a happier fish. :mrgreen:

Samw
05-30-2005, 04:36 AM
This expert has a Zebrasoma in a 38G (its says 40 but he posted that is actually a 38G).

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2002/Fish.htm

My opinion is that a fishkeeper's dedication and capability is way more important than size of a tank. I had a Hippo in a 38G several times with no problems to the fish and only got rid of them because of the bioload issues. The fish showed no stress nor stunted growth. I sold the first one to somebody with a 200G tank but due to a non-optimal environment in the new tank, the tang didn't make it very long in the new owner's tank.

I suspect that more tangs die in bigger tanks of fishkeepers who didn't know what they were doing than in smaller tanks of fishkeepers who did know what they were doing. In other words, if you know what you are doing, you can keep a tang in a small tank. If you don't know what you are doing, a tang won't survive no matter what the size of tank. Tank size is less important when compared to the fishkeeper's ability.

naesco
05-30-2005, 04:40 AM
Brad my post was a 'general lament' not meant to offend you or anyone on this board.

My objection is to a poster who posts something to the effect that
"I have three tangs in my 3 footer and they are all doing well. Go for it!"

Here is the scientific reply to those that are looking for numbers.

"Finally, no discussion of Surgeonfish would be complete without talking about tank size. This is an often-debated topic that usually becomes heated on both sides of the fence. Most everyone can agree, however, that the larger the aquarium the better off the fish will be. Many authors recommend certain "minimum" aquarium sizes; though it seems no one can agree on exactly what the "minimum" is. Realistically speaking, the "minimum" environment for these fish is any aquarium the owner feels morally and ethically comfortable putting the fish into. Each hobbyist must come to his or her own conclusions, but hopefully these decisions are made only after reviewing the data that is readily available.

Scroll back up to the paragraph discussing mating rituals and you'll see that Robertson has already given us a reference for territorial dimensions, at least during the mating season. If you take the minimum number of animals (15 - one male, two females, per group with five sub-groups) divided by the minimum defined territory (100m2) you'd discover the groups maintained a minimum of 20m2 each or a minimum of 6.66m2 per animal. For those of you not good with transcribing meters into feet, 6.66m2 works out to be roughly 21.8f2 per animal. That would be an aquarium roughly 7 feet long and 3 feet wide. Hmmm. For the sake of argument let's take the maximum number of individuals, packed into the largest territory known. Sixty-four fish (one male, seven females per group, and eight sub-groups) packed into 200m2.
This works out to 25m2 per sub-group, or just over 3m2 per animal or about 10f2, or about the size of any of the commercially available 125-gallon aquariums. Hence, I would propose this is a good starting point as the absolute minimum aquarium size for any solitary individual

Troy F
05-30-2005, 04:43 AM
Nemo, one thing about your observations and the conclussion you seem to be making that I find flawed is that in the wild they are able to move out of one anothers space at need. The cramped confines of our tanks can't be compared.

Samw
05-30-2005, 04:48 AM
If we are going to use territory to estimate the space needed for a fish, why aren't we doing that for every animal? How much space would a wild dog or horse need? In the wild, their territory span miles I'm sure. Yet, there are hundreds or thousands of dog owners in downtown Vancouver keeping dogs in their condo. Yet, the SPCA does nothing about it. Horses are kept in small fields. What about rats? Isn't a cage too small for a rat? What about birds? Isn't a cage too small for a bird? What's the minimize size of cage for a bird? Why do some many people keep these animals in spaces much smaller than their normal territory size? Those examples seem more cruel yet for some reason, people make more noise over a fish in a 90G tank.

naesco
05-30-2005, 04:50 AM
Nemo our own Stircrazy posted this in reference to mixing same species tangs in a tank

I had a yellow and a sailfin in a 94 gal, both were small and all they did was fight, I would not concider keeping two of the same genus in anything under a 200 gal tank again and even then I would have resavations.

Steve

Aquattro
05-30-2005, 04:56 AM
Brad my post was a 'general lament' not meant to offend you or anyone on this board.



Wayne, absolutely no offense taken. As far as I'm concerned, your posts on this topic are more than welcome here, and rather than a right or wrong type discussion, I see this as more an exchange of opinions.

If I had a big tank and a small tank, and bought a tang, it would most certainly go in the big one once home. In my personal case, I chose to keep both my tangs during my downgrade, as I felt I could provide a better home than just giving them away to a bigger tank. I have many years of personal attachment and investment in these fish, and while size may matter, there are many other factors that I felt I could meet in my 75. I was a bit apprehensive putting them in there, but with the massive flow and ample swimming room, they are doing just fine. (for fish out of their home). This gives me a degree of confidence in saying that yes, a tang can do well in a 90. Not all tangs in all 90s, but some can, and if you're so inclined, read these types of threads and decide for yourself.

naesco
05-30-2005, 04:57 AM
Sam the answer is obvious

This is a reefers board dedicated to helping each other out.
We owe it to the fish we keep to provide an optimal environment for them.
Optimum is not possible for all reefers but let us agree on the minimum acceptable.

Aquattro
05-30-2005, 05:07 AM
but let us agree on the minimum acceptable.

Ah, but herein lies the problem...we can't agree on what's acceptable, and likely never will.
Rather than trying to stop someone from keeping a tang in a 90 (they're going to get one), let's help the reefer learn HOW to keep the tang in the 90. Provide lots of flow, a varied diet, lots of swimming room (and hiding room) and no competition for food.
And I'll give you points on some tangs shouldn't go in a 90, IMO tangs like clowns, sohals, nasos..
but there are enough reports of success with yellows, purples, etc, that we can safely say yes, a tang like that can and often does do well in a tank of less than 6 feet.
Are we agreeing yet? :razz:

Troy F
05-30-2005, 05:07 AM
Sam, although Wayne said it well I have to add that comparing dogs to fish is ridiculous. We have social interaction with dogs that is not possible with fish. Dogs are able to communicate their feelings in a limited capacity which fish are not. I'll also add that there is a significant number of people who are dog owners for the wrong reasons.

Aquattro
05-30-2005, 05:10 AM
Dogs are able to communicate their feelings in a limited capacity which fish are not.

Um, my fish and my dog both get that same "feed me" look at dinner time. And I was playing with the female clown during the water change today.... :biggrin:

Aquattro
05-30-2005, 05:11 AM
Hey, I just noticed that we're near the bottom of page 4 and none of those pesky mods have clsoed the thread yet!! Way to go!! :biggrin:

Samw
05-30-2005, 05:16 AM
Well, what I'm saying is that its a bit overboard. I just can't imagine the same amount of noise is being made for other pets about needing to keep them in spaces equivalent to their territory size. It just doesn't seem necessary if only 1 individual is being kept in the tank as there will be no competition for food and mates, and no predation.

christyf5
05-30-2005, 05:23 AM
Well, what I'm saying is that its a bit overboard. I just can't imagine the same amount of noise is being made for other pets about needing to keep them in spaces equivalent to their territory size. It just doesn't seem necessary if only 1 individual is being kept in the tank as there will be no competition for food and mates, and no predation.

But Sam, this is a reef board. We talk about fish, not dogs. Go make a post on a dog board about keeping a big dog in a little apartment. Maybe you'll get what you're looking for there :wink:

Christy :)

StirCrazy
05-30-2005, 05:37 AM
[Certainly no one with any experience would keep 3 tangs in a three foot tank.
No one with any experince would mix similar species of tangs
No one with any experience would choose an Achilles tang. A tang which is almost impossible to keep by the most experienced tang keepers with ideal setups.

3 tangs in one tank, weird I though I only had 1, I will have to look for the other two.

as for the Achilles I did about 2 months of reading about them no where did I read imposable to keep to bad I didn't ask you. on the other hand I did read not a good starter tang and needs Very low nitrates, hmm he wasn't a starter and oh my look I have 0 nitrates. I also have no food competition for him and he picks at algae that I let grow on my rocks all day.

now back to your articles you posted, you forgot to mention one thing in your rant, that is for breeding and it is also what they maintain in the wilds, well I do not keep two females and 1 male in a tank which would require a lot more than 125 gal (about 375 gal) and I do not make my Tank search for food as he would have to in the wild nor does he compete with other consumers of the same food source. so that whole articles doesn't apply because it is under a totally different set of conditions.

In other wards in most captive tanks the fish do not have to fight, scrounge or what ever for food so it stand to reason that they can do with a smaller tank size.

a good case and point for this is anthius. even the smallest one can be kept singularly in a 33 gal tank but to recreate its proper environment you need a min of 125 gal tank but that is only the start, it should be a tank that is over 1 meter deep and wide as the mating ritual of the anthius is the do sped dives of approximately 1 meter. so ideally we should have 1 male and 7 or 8 females. so going by mating rituals these fish need more swimming area than a lot of tangs.

now I see a lot of off topic comments, lets keep them on as even though we have several different views here some good info can come from these heated "tang police" type things.

Steve

Samw
05-30-2005, 06:01 AM
In other wards in most captive tanks the fish do not have to fight, scrounge or what ever for food so it stand to reason that they can do with a smaller tank size.



Absolutely makes sense.

G1GY
05-30-2005, 06:01 AM
I keep a Yellow Tang in my 90 and it seems to be doing just great. :biggrin:

Now this is where the Tang cops are going to jump on me.......... I also kept a Yellow tang in a 33 gallon for about 3 years that also done well and never realy grew much.(It just got very fat.) That same tang lived in there untill I took that tank apart and gave it to someone with a 75. :eek:

Doug
05-30-2005, 02:10 PM
those who encourage a new reefer to go out and stock smaller tanks with tangs know the damage they are doing?

damage? dang dude join greenpeace.

Its comments like this can end up closing threads in the long run.

Or not being able to add worthwhile posts, without calling someone a self professed tang police and go join a bleeding heart group.

Hope that answers your previous question.

Doug
05-30-2005, 02:16 PM
I just can't imagine the same amount of noise is being made for other pets

In a way it is Sam, although your point about animals being kept in confined spaces is a good one.

The SPCA and other organizations try watch things like puppy mills and the such. Plus if to many dogs or cats are kept in one house, someone usually steps in.

No such regulations apply for stores that sell fish. :eek: And thats what the shame of this industry is, IMO.

You can be charged with cruelty if you beat a dog but not kill ornamental fish.

I know this is a bit far fetched but just some thoughts.

AJ_77
05-30-2005, 03:14 PM
Rather than trying to stop someone from keeping a tang in a 90 (they're going to get one), let's help the reefer learn HOW to keep the tang in the 90. Provide lots of flow, a varied diet, lots of swimming room (and hiding room) and no competition for food.
THAT'S why he gets the big Moderator pay! Well put. Berating people or debating our point of view for pages and pages likely doesn't convert anyone who is this close to getting a Tang anyways. Education, esp regarding suitable species, is the best bet.

IMO. :biggrin:

danny zubot
05-30-2005, 04:43 PM
I just thought this was funny.

i agree 100% cutting off the tail would be cruel
removel of the head is a far better option
Since both ends a clearly needed, wouldn't it make more sense to cut a bit right out of the middle? :razz:

trilinearmipmap
05-30-2005, 07:01 PM
I have a 4" Yellow Tang and a 3" Hippo tang in a 120 gallon tank.

They are healthy. I have noted that the Hippo Tang can swim from one end of the tank to the other in about 0.1 seconds. When they get bigger in a year or two they will probably be crowded.

On the other hand I believe these fishes' survival in my tank will be better than it would be in the wild.

In the wild these fish will be subject to predation. In addition, they will have to compete with other tangs for territory in order to feed. The weaker Tangs in the wild will die because they are not strong enough to compete for territory or food. That is why, with a population of Tangs that is not increasing or decreasing, out of hundreds or thousands of babies (larvae, fry or whatever) spawned, only two will survive to breeding age. This just simple math, if more than two fish survived to adulthood from each pairing, the population would increase.

In other words, the population of Tangs in the wild will expand until it is limited by predation or lack of food supply, and the overwhelming majority of Tangs will die before they reach breeding age.

My tank is not a perfect home for two tangs but it is probably a more comfortable and healthy environment for them than the cruel ocean.

fentochris
05-30-2005, 07:10 PM
alright..there seams to be alot of opinions about tangs and what size they should be kept in. I have a yellow tang in a 75gal right now, I know someone who has one in a 65gal and I also had one in a 20gal tall. They all seem to be doing just fine...I dont know if i would chance a different tang species..as regals do get a bit bigger

Johnny Reefer
06-02-2005, 03:29 AM
Dare I start this thread again. After all, I am a newbie. What I want to say is off the topic of Tangs, but, here goes anyway…

We're all enslaving marine life in the name of our own amusement. We aren't helping anything (or are we "learning"?

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with some of the above statement.
I do not think that we ALL are enslaving marine life JUST for our own amusement. I, for one, have learned SOOOOO MUCH in just the short 7 months, since I began reading on the subject of keeping marine aquariums and setting up my reef tank, that it’s hard to keep up with the wealth of knowledge and remember it all. (44 years old. For those younger folks who may not understand…the older you get, the harder it is to learn and retain information).

I also like to think that we (reef aquarists) ARE helping. The more reef aquarists there are, (within reason), the more knowledgable and aware we (humankind) are with regards to coral reef habitation. I think we make a positive impact both directly and indirectly, and in numerous ways, in both aspects. I am no marine biologist, by any means, and I don’t expect that I, personally, will ever have a direct impact on the enhancement of wild coral reefs. But I like to think that I have a positive indirect impact just by being a part of the reefkeeping hobby and providing a market and incentive for captive breeding and propagation farms to flourish. Not only will these farms help to reduce wild specimen collecting, but I’m sure the research conducted to understand how to breed and propagate in captivity will help humankind to understand wild coral reef habitats. Without thousands upon thousands (dare I say millions) of reef aquarists, in the world, who basically drive the reef aquarium industry, I very much doubt that any of these aquaculture/farms would be in existence. After all, money makes the world go around and this industry is just getting started. One might argue that if there were less aquarists then there would be less wild specimen collecting. well I suppose so, in the short term. But specimen collecting is not the only negative aspect affecting coral reefs, IMHO. Trans ocean shipping, pollution, climate change, eco tourism, human population encroachment, commercial overfishing, (have I missed anything), all impact the reefs as well. Understanding of the reefs and what affects them in the how and why is what is going to save them, IMO, and that starts with education. Heck, the marine biologist who discovers a solution to rejuvenating the dying elkhorn Acropora in the Caribbean, thus having a direct impact, may very well be some kid growing up right now in a household that has a reef aquarium and this is what drives he/she to become a marine biologist in the first place. Ya, I know, get out the violins, but think about it. (Actually, I’m sure there are already marine biologists working very hard, right now, on that issue. And I wouldn’t be surprised that most, if not all, grew up in a household with some sort of aquarium).

To summarize, IMO…no, it’s not just for amusement,
…yes, I think I am helping, and,
…yes, I, for one, am learning.

Cheers and a
:smile:.

Ken
06-02-2005, 07:17 AM
Mark, well said. Thanks! Regards Ken

StirCrazy
06-02-2005, 01:19 PM
I used to think we were learning also, but does it really matter? what are we doing with that knowledge? are we helping in research that is going to benefit the fish or even other fields of study?

If the answer is no then we are learning for our own curiosity which is a different way to describe having a tank for our enjoyment.

Steve

Johnny Reefer
06-02-2005, 01:39 PM
I used to think we were learning also, but does it really matter? what are we doing with that knowledge? are we helping in research that is going to benefit the fish or even other fields of study?

If the answer is no then we are learning for our own curiosity which is a different way to describe having a tank for our enjoyment.
Steve
I think your focus is on what we can do with our knowledge as aquarists directly. As I said, I'm no marine biologist, and I probably won't make an impact with my knowledge, in the grand scheme of things, directly. But, I feel I have a positive impact indirectly for reasons described in my previous post. So ya, I think we are helping fuel research.

As well, I think reef aquariums in our homes fuels some children's drive to make marine biology their career of choice. Again, an indirect benefit to wild coral reefs, through home reefkeeping. It's all related.

Troy F
06-02-2005, 02:51 PM
Mark, that argument has been used before. It never hurts to be educated but the truth is; collection for the hobby hurts reefs. If you have any doubts there is oodles of information on the impact of ornamental fish collection in the Hawaiian Islands.

Johnny Reefer
06-02-2005, 03:31 PM
It never hurts to be educated but the truth is; collection for the hobby hurts reefs.

I never said it doesn't hurt reefs, but I think it's a necessary evil, (provided regulations are followed), until such time that education and research have created an industry that relies primarily on captive breeding and propagation. I believe that education is due, in part, to home reefkeeping. I also believe that that education can and will be beneficial toward restoring coral reefs. Ignorance is not going to reverse the trend that face coral reefs today. Again, my (limited) knowledge probably won't matter. I'm a small cog in a huge wheel. But, if a future marine biologist gets his/her start from keeping a home reef tank then all the power to them. Admittedly, maybe this is all wishful thinking, on my part, but at least it is positive thinking and until such time that anyone can prove to me that my involvement in the hobby of reefkeeping is contributing to the total extinction of coral reefs, I will stand by what I say, and continue to support the hobby.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not in this JUST to support a platform of education for others, who might become marine biologists. I will be the first to admit that I definitely gain amusment from the hobby also, but...
I don't think we ALL are in it JUST for amusement

Johnny Reefer
06-02-2005, 04:27 PM
It never hurts to be educated but the truth is; collection for the hobby hurts reefs.

I never said it doesn't hurt reefs, but I think it's a necessary evil, (provided regulations are followed), until such time that education and research have created an industry that relies primarily on captive breeding and propagation. I believe that education is due, in part, to home reefkeeping. I also believe that that education can and will be beneficial toward restoring coral reefs. Ignorance is not going to reverse the trend that face coral reefs today. Again, my (limited) knowledge probably won't matter. I'm a small cog in a huge wheel. But, if a future marine biologist gets his/her start from keeping a home reef tank then all the power to them. Admittedly, maybe this is all wishful thinking, on my part, but at least it is positive thinking and until such time that anyone can prove to me that my involvement in the hobby of reefkeeping is contributing to the total extinction of coral reefs, I will stand by what I say, and continue to support the hobby.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not in this JUST to support a platform of education for others, who might become marine biologists. I will be the first to admit that I definitely gain amusment from the hobby also, but...
I don't think we ALL are in it JUST for amusement

Another way of putting it, with reference to this part of the overall discussion, is that I believe that wild collecting is necessary toward providing an education, in various forms, and research toward captive breeding and propagation so that that industry could be eventually predominant over wild collecting.
A means to an end.
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the FW industry not waaaay more wild caught at one time than it is today? The Discus industry is a prime example.

BTW, I realize this is off the topic of "Tangs in a 90?" and I apologize for that. :redface: