Could I keep these in a 46g FO?

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree with you a bit here.

I was under the impression that if you start with a small tang, and keep it in a small tank, it will cease to grow. A gentleman who studies fish and hormone chemistry wrote a 3 page diatribe telling me how I was wrong.

As another scientist, I conceded the point because it was well supported and documented.

I will see if I can find the thread.

 

[AF Founder]

Terry,
Are you of the opinion that in , say, a 1000 gallon tank, said yellow tang would not achieve its wild size? I am trying to fond out why you make that statement.

I must say, I do not agree with your stance so far in this issue, but agree with your last post. Unfortunately, I have been guilty of the same thing. I told somebody the other day that that reflects worse on the one talking than the one being talked about. I hope to avoid it in the future. [/b]

I'm not at all sure; if I have to speculate I would say that surgeonfish will not reach the largest size possible even in a 1000 gallon tank, and habitat size is not the only issue. I don't think filtration systems can handle the food necessary to grow large surgeonfish without polluting the system.
Frankly, what I don't understand about this whole discussion is the focus on size. Why is the size that a particular fish can grow in the wild the prime cconsideration? AND, I'm not taliking about putting a shark in a ten gallon tank. My P. navarchus was purchased as a juvenile over ten years ago. It is now about 8 inches long and as you have seen from pictures it is a healthy beautiful fish, but I have little doubt that in the wild it would now be a foot long. Why does that matter?

 

[naesco]

Terry everyone on this and other boards respect you and the advice you give. It was with reluctance that I made my first post on this thread.

I cannot disagree with the comment you made but you did not answer the questions I posed.

Today we are pastusing damsals to cycle tanks.
Today we are concerned about out hobby and how others see it because we do not want to see it closed down by regulations.

I see you as not only being an expert's expert but as a leader in the reefing community and accordingly I would repectfully ask you to reconsider your original advice and further to take a more (for the lack of better words) ethically responsible view particularlyu when dealing with advice to newbies as was done here.
Thank you for your kind consideration.

 

[Anonymous]

Brain,

Actually, its "Brian" not "brain", but I get that all the time....

I'm indeed sorry that you feel that I have betrayed one of your ideals

Do I detect a note of sarcasm here? Surely not.

but as I said earlier we are talking about a 1.5 to 2 inch tang,

...which, unfortunately for it, will grow even though confined to a 46 gallon tank

which assuming it doesn't become a meal for a larger fish in the wild

so we are doing it a favor by keeping it in a small tank?

will only grow to a size smaller than it would have in the wild.

Could you provide some authoritative reference for this statement? I would like to read it. Thanks.

If the aquarist is skilled enough for it to live a long, healthy life in captivity then I'm satisfied

Terry, I have been following these boards for a number of years, as I know you have. Honestly, how often do you see "my tang has ich" threads where the fish is in a properly sized tank or where stocking levels are reasonable? Rarely, if ever. The vast majority of posters who have sickness and disease in their tanks are those who push the envelope with stocking. No amount of experience can change that.

I have NEVER lost a tang, nor have I ever had any illness with these supposed "ich magnets". I am not a skilled aquarist, but I have never kept a tang in a tank less than 180 gallons. Put a fish in the proper environment, and you don't need "skill" to allow it to live.

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. It's all a matter of perspective.

Yes, and my perspective is if you want a large, free-ranging fish like a tang, at least give it some room to swim around.

Brian

 

[danmhippo]

I apologize for being sarcastic. But, for all these times we are preaching "being a responsible aquarist", yet a person with influences in the hobby as you, come saying It's OK for a newbie who may not have the capacity to upgrade to a bigger tank to put a fish in a 46Gal with the possibility that the fish could out grow his tank. IMHO, if one loves his fish, he would do all he could to provide the best possible care for it until it meets it's faith at the old age. Not all of us could do that, but we strive to select only the specimen that would not out grow the environmental limitations.

I am no where close to being a scientist nor biologist. But I have heard too many stories that their fish out grow their tank. Being a fish lover, I am imagining a yellow tang (regardless of it's size) in a 46G as keeping a St. Bernard in a 6ft x 6ft cage.

Years ago, I upgraded from a 55G to a 75G, and then to a 150G the following year. I have to say that after the final transfer to the 150G, the yellow tang and the purple tang no longer pace back and forth nervously. They are able to swim more graciously, and be at themselves. Witnessing the changes, I've finally decided to give it back to my LFS to house in their show tank with plenty of swimming space.

It's pretty obvious some of us do not agree with the advice you've given to the original poster. I will still do my best to steer new comers to this hobby away from keeping tangs in small tanks.

Frankly, what I don't understand about this whole discussion is the focus on size.

Because we believe the tang will out grow his tank in no time.

 

[naesco]

"Why does size matter"
What is this 14 year old newbie going to do when in a couple of years as he is now dealing with a six to eight inch tang? Hopefully you do not advocate placing a tang of that size in a tank that small.
This young fella has 3 options
1. Buy a 100 gallon plus tank (not likely at 16 years old)
2. Return, sell or trade this regal tang after two years (impossible)
3. Continue to keep the tang in this small tank (likely and ethically unacceptable given the minimum requirments for this species)
It is because of this advice that I and others posted our concern and are awaiting, as the young fella is, your further comments.

This 'ocean issue' you raise in the last few threads is most frequently used bya minority of reefers trying to justify their keeping tangs in small tanks.
Those of us who keep tangs, including yourself Terry have observed the obvious behaviour of tangs kept in tanks of some length vs. tanks kept in small tanks.
I know I do not have to describe to you what I am referring to.

 

[AF Founder]

Okay! Let's talk about ethics. Let me be as clear as possible: It is my hope and editorial goal to completely end our reliance on wild flora and fauna, and I'm happy to report that we are moving in the right direction. I want to see the day when we populate our reef tanks with completely aquacultured animals. I personally don't even approve of fish only tanks for many species, especially surgeonfish. In this or another thread recently I made that point. Remember, I go back to the late sixties with marine fish, and remember too well the battles with parasites and ultimately HLLE. The reef tank is a better environment, but we had to start somewhere.
However, if you attack a kid, who is trying to get his/her feet wet with holier than thou posturing you don't achieve your goal. The newbi stops listening. The kid will write you off, because he/she will find many aquarists who have a nice healthy tang in a "46-gallon tank." I'm always bothered by absolutist, hyperbolic language. It would have been better to say, 'you might get away with a small regal tang, but in that size tank you will have a greater chance of success with xxx.' Young people live in a world today where it's almost impossible to distinguish between the truth, opinion, salemanship, and good old spinning. I do know what I'm talking about in this regard, having taught college students for 33 years.

I hope you realize that we are on the same side; i am not your enemy.

 

[Anonymous]

Terry,
I have read other threads, and Dr. Reef has referred to one, where it has been stated that the hormones given off by the fish when being "stunted" (for lack of a better term) actually wind up causing damage to the internal organs of the fish. As with Reef, i can't remember who wrote it or when. That is one reason. Another is the change in behavior I have seen in fish when placed in a larger tank. I watched my yellow tang go from a 55 to a 100 gallon tank. In the 55 he was about 2 1/2-3" long and, in retrosepct, not "comfortable" in his surroundings. When I placed him in the 100, he was visibly changed. His behavior was more "relaxed". He also grew to ~5-5 1/2". Based on this observation and other aquarist reports it seems to me that supplying something more in line with the optimum environment instead of the minimum environment is better for the fish, both in health and comfort. I would hazard a guess that fish kept in minimum environments, due to stress, are more inclined to get sick, behave more agressively, in general not act naturally. It is more these latest reasons than the disease I mentioned at first that changed my way of thinking.

 

[AF Founder]

Guys,

One more thing: except in very very unusual circumstances fish do not outgrow the size of the tank they're in. As some have pointed out, their growth potential is stunted, which is not ideal, but hardly the worst thing that can happen.
What I find inexcusable is someone buying a mature 8 inch reef fish and putting that into a 50 to 500 gallon tank, and except for very small mature fish, I oppose capturing, selling, and buying any mature fish. Fortunately, this practice is not as wide spread as it was years ago.

I hope this clears some of this up.

 

[naesco]

Terry I applaud you and encourage your leadership on the ethical considerations of wild catchment and tang tank requirements.

It was for that reason that I was shocked by your original post and felt obligated to respectfully challenge it.

In the past we bought fish which could not survive in our tanks and we simply replaced them.

Today with advice from the experts and hobbyists with experience easily available on boards like this, the fish carnage Learning curve?) in no longer necessary. But IMO you have to call a spade a spade ALWAYS.
The young poster may not listen and do his own thing, but as you will note there are several others reading this thread who will listen and we will have saved a few fish and hopefully our hobby.

 

[Anonymous]

Terry,

Perhaps if you knew more about this "kid" you would understand better the response he has received. On many threads on Aqualink, he demonstrated rude, sarcastic behaviour and went out of his way to let people know he would do things "his way". Now he comes to this board with the same attitude.

If you question anything I say, I invite you to contact the administrators of that board.

I resent your "holier than thou" comment. Everyone that has responded has personal experience with tangs, and some have even undergone a conversion after seeing the change in behaviour of their tangs after moving them to larger surroundings. So this isn't about being "holier than thou". It is an attempt by EXPERIENCED aquarists to help newbies (who you are concerned about) avoid making the same mistakes that they may have made. Experience is our best teacher, and sharing our experience is not being "holier than thou". It is providing real life experience to real life situations to allow those with an OPEN MIND make their own choice. Since the thread starter made it clear that he was going to do whatever he wanted to do, I can understand why some lost their patience.

brian

 

[AF Founder]

Brian,

When I used the term holier than thou I was not thinking about yours and other's ethical positions, but the use of language.
You are correct; I don't know the kid, but I still think for the sake of the poor animals that may die due to his ignorance we ought to try to save him, and yelling at him will not work. Of course, nothing may. I guess I have reveled my bias -- you get more with honey that vinegar, unless you want to enrich your calcium that is. :wink:

Incidently, you are quite correct about tang behavior in terms of tank size: when my tangs don't see me (they swim to the feeding spot when they do) they spend all of their time grazing, except for squabbles over a particular spot. The larger the tank, the more natural the behavior, with that we are in agreement.

 

[Chucker]

Perhaps if you knew more about this "kid" you would understand better the response he has received. On many threads on Aqualink, he demonstrated rude, sarcastic behaviour and went out of his way to let people know he would do things "his way". Now he comes to this board with the same attitude.

I for one have been following this thread, and as I warned earlier, the original poster's replies and previous board posts provide no excuse for responses "in kind" that have been expressed by more than one poster in this thread.

Is it not possible for you guys to engage in a discussion, where there is a legitimate difference of opinion, to refrain from sarcasm, character assination, hyperbole and stick to the issue?

Words to live by.

This board is what you, the user, make of it.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I spent entirely too long on my fruitless search trying to find the aforementioned thread. While I could not find the thread, I did see some of the references in a cursory look thru google.

The gentleman who spoke to me in the thread was correct when he stated that tangs have a notable increase in stress hormones in response to being confined. This was determined in many fish to be a direct response to decreasing size of the tank.

I was trying to make the case that adequate food supply and habitat heterogeneity would keep the tang too busy to notice, but the other guy was correct in pointing out the very unconscious hormonal changes that occur in these fish.

The end result is that in all but the larger tanks, tangs make unsuitable captives because they succumb quickly to stressors.

Even if they survive, it doesn't make me too happy to know that they are constantly trying to fight off disease due to a compromised immune system impacted by increasing stress hormones.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps Terry S should take a lesson from Terry B

DR. Reef,
The tangs space requirements is not a matter of exercise. It is a matter of confinement stress causing a continuous release of stress hormones into the fish’s bloodstream. This chronic stress inhibits immune function and digestion among other things. It will also slow growth which may be why the tang has been a slow grower. I have research stress in fish in great detail and I have authored a number of published works on the subject. According to the scientific journals there IS something implicit about confinement to a small space causing chronic stress.


Posted: 12 May 2002 23:08 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are correct that cortisones are part of the stress response in fish. I haven’t personally noted that a lack of shoal or school causes tangs in particular chronic stress. However, it is easily observed in some species that will hide or change other behaviors when they do not have a shoal to belong to. Behavioral changes are the easiest indicators of stress to observe. I believe the space requirements vary from species to species and that size, sex and age of the fish are all factors.
Yes, the inhabitant and emulating the natural environment as much as possible play key roles in stress reduction. Does this mean that using the same sand found in their natural environment reduces stress, I doubt that (unless they are sand sifters or diggers). Creating an environment with subdued lighting and lots of hiding places for fish that come from this type of habitat is important though. Reducing the animals awareness of the environment and activities outside of the aquarium does help to control stress. This is why new acquisitions should be kept in quarantine in a quite location, with dim lighting and lots of hiding places. Painting the back, sides and bottom of the quarantine tank is another way to reduce awareness of the environment outside of the aquarium. There are several things we can do to reduce stress, but space will always be an important factor.
Since each species and even each specimen can have different space requirements it is impossible to formulate a general space requirement for fish. I can only agree with you that the vast majority of aquarium fish are housed in a tank that is far too small and they share it will too many other inhabitants. Just one more reason that lightly stocked aquariums have healthier fish and less disease problems.
If you are interested in reading a series of articles that I wrote about stress in fish let me know. I must warn you though the series contains about 15,000 words and it is not exactly light reading. It gets a little less technical after the first part (nine articles) but I think most people get confused or bored before the get to what they would call “the good stuff.” I am not saying that you wouldn’t benefit or enjoy reading it, its just a bit overwhelming for many casual hobbyists.




Terry B

I found the thread.

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... t=hormones

 

[Anonymous]

Chucker,

I don't excuse the posts some have made. My comment was only that with knowledge of past history you may better understand why some seemed so quick to lose their temper. I agree that rudeness rarely solves anything.

Terry,

I don't know if Chucker is saying from his post that I was being rude. If that is the case, I did not mean to be, and if so I apologize. I know that people keep tangs alive in small tanks, and they can be fat, beautiful, and long-lived. However, just as you believe tangs do not belong in FO tanks (which people have done successfully, I am willing to wager), I believe tank size and ability to exert those strong impulses to swim are just as important to provide the type of home that provides both the tang and its keeper with the most satisfaction.

My position is not to ask "Can we do it", but "Should we do it".

Brian

 

[AF Founder]

Brian and Dr. Reef,

I don't disagree with either of you. I have successfully kept tangs, even powderblues and achilles in FO tanks, but the price was too high in terms of lost fish and fish disfigured by HLLE.
I also agree regarding stress and fish's immune systems, which is why IME reef fish are far healthier in reef tanks, which are more like the environment they evolved in. Furthermore, I suspect that juveniles are more adaptable, less stressed by change to a captive reef systm.
I wrote years ago that the use of copper to treat fish in FO tanks was as useful as chemo in treating aggressive cancer in humans -- which will die first, the parasite or the fish, the cancer victum or the cancer.

Just keep the old cliche in mind: don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Also, do recognize that the relationship between stress and the immune system in living things is very complex, with the final word along way from being written.

 

[SPC]

Posted by Terry:

Steve,

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't follow your logic. Furthermore, I never said I was proud of stunting a fish's growth; I said it was the inevitable outcome of keeping most of the fish we keep in the confines of a tank.

-And I must disagree once again with this line of thinking. It is not the "inevitable outcome" if one matches the animal with the proper environement, I know this because I have zero stunted fish in my tank. Now if what you are saying is "it is the inevitable outcome to have stunted fish of the kind of fish I want, in the size tank I want (can afford, have room for etc...) then you are correct. But to a person outside the hobby this way of thinking appears to be cruelty to the animal, and it is these people that will decide if this hobby is ethical and should be allowed to continue.

Why do you see stunting, in the scheme of things, as such a great evil?

-For the reason that was pointed out by Dr Reef in the thread he posted. Besides any scientific data, common sense would tell us that an animal who's growth has been stunted is not being given the basics that it needs.
And once again, painting this sort of picture for the general public is not going to make any new allies for this hobby.

We all know that nature cares a lot less about individuals then most of us do. In nature, it is the survival the species not an individual that matters.

-We are not talking about nature here Terry, we are talking about the ethical choices that each of us makes with the individual animals that we choose to care for. There is a big difference in how this is perceived by the general public and the organizations who would like to shut this hobby down.
Imagine PITA with this information, "Terry says it is ok to stunt the growth of reef animals (you know, the reefs that are already in trouble) so that he can keep them in his living room." The general public will see this only one way, this hobby is cruel to animals and should be shut down.
Steve

 

[AF Founder]

Steve,

I don't want to continue this forever, but though I don't disagree with most of your points I think you're putting too much emphasis in the wrong place. The future of our hobby is in aquaculture, which is why we have Marini and Moe doing monthly columns on breeding.
Putting surgeon fish in a container which doesn't allow for full growth and natural behavior is very problematic. To create a container that would allow for natural surgeonfish behavior would eliminate surgeonfish for 99.9 % of hobbyists, because it would require a tank containing many thousands of gallons. In terms of surgeonfish growth and behavior the difference between 50 and 500 gallons is trivial.

The larger issue for me is that the nature that we love will ultimately only exist in zoos, public and private aquariums, parks, etc., and they will only exist if people care about the animals they contain. That is, pay admission to see or keep them. It is people like you and I that care and will pay the price of admission.
The only other alternative that I can imagine is for the most successful predator on this planet -- us -- to stop breeding in the numbers that we are breeding at, and I don't hink that is going to happen.

 

[wombat1]

Whew!!! Can we stop now??