Tangs in a 90?
 

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.

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.

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.

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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.

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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.

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

[quote="naesco"] 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: }

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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

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:

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.

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.

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

i agree 100% cutting off the tail would be cruel
removel of the head is a far better option

post
 

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

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:

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.

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?

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

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:

This thread is awfully heated. Please everyone drop down the tone a notch or two, and engage in civilized discussion. Thanks!

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

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.

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!!!

post
 

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

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"

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

[quote="StirCrazy"]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.

Re: post
 

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

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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.

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

[quote="Doug"]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:

damage? dang dude join greenpeace.

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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.


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?

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:

post
 

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.

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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.

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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.

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?

Re: Tangs in a 90?
 

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:

Nemo, :lol: Too funny. Do you think they have a little more room out there..... :rolleyes: :arrow: :idea:



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

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

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.

that answer would probably get me banned for sure.

no

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.