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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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:

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 :)

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

Absolutely makes sense.

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:

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.

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.

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:

reply
 

I just thought this was funny.
Since both ends a clearly needed, wouldn't it make more sense to cut a bit right out of the middle? :razz:

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.

tangs
 

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

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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…

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:.

Mark, well said. Thanks! Regards Ken

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.

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.

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: