Inches of Fish per Gal ???? What you guys have !!Research !!
- Thread starter Paul Davies
- Start date
zemuron114
In Memoriam
55 gallon - 12-13" roughly
110 gallon - 25" (i have a 7" golden eel... do eels count? lol)
thats it
110 gallon - 25" (i have a 7" golden eel... do eels count? lol)
thats it
zukihara
New member
Kmdale, I wasn't speaking of tangs
I was merely pointing out there are intricacies around determining "boundaries of captive specimens" cited as the goal in the original post. Im saying 2 people have 120g tanks. Both have 24" of fish. One has a 55g sump and one doesn't. Well, that's less inches per gallon for that guy. More rock would also displace water volume but would provide for a bigger fishload.
Just saying when determining these boundaries the original poster might want to define his research parameters a bit or any research may very well be wholely inaccurate.
I was merely pointing out there are intricacies around determining "boundaries of captive specimens" cited as the goal in the original post. Im saying 2 people have 120g tanks. Both have 24" of fish. One has a 55g sump and one doesn't. Well, that's less inches per gallon for that guy. More rock would also displace water volume but would provide for a bigger fishload.
Just saying when determining these boundaries the original poster might want to define his research parameters a bit or any research may very well be wholely inaccurate.
stevebydac
New member
Agree with this 100%. Also, three other factors:
1) The "Eels Rule" - a 24" moray is a medium sized fish. A 24" puffer, grouper, trigger, etc. is a HUGE fish.
2) Less active fish need less room. A lionfish needs less than a same-sized tang.
3) Territorial/ highly aggressive fish need more room than passive fish.
kbmdale
In Memoriam
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6531528#post6531528 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zukihara
Kmdale, I wasn't speaking of tangs
I was merely pointing out there are intricacies around determining "boundaries of captive specimens" cited as the goal in the original post. Im saying 2 people have 120g tanks. Both have 24" of fish. One has a 55g sump and one doesn't. Well, that's less inches per gallon for that guy. More rock would also displace water volume but would provide for a bigger fishload.
Just saying when determining these boundaries the original poster might want to define his research parameters a bit or any research may very well be wholely inaccurate.
but the sump doesn't come into play with the inches per gallon. Your fish can't swim in the sump. Like I said you can't stock a 50 gallon tank with a 50 gallon sump like you would a 100 gallon tank. You have to stock it like a 50 gallon tank.
techigirl78
New member
:lol: :lol: :lol:
ratherbediving
New member
For many reasons, a gallons per inch rule does have some issues, but I do think it is a useful guideline-- unless we could think of something to replace it.
You could argue both points--
If you had two systems, one with a 50 gallon display tank and a 50 gallon sump, the other with a 100 gallon tank and no sump-- and each system had the same amount of live rock and used the same skimmer... and each person performed the same water change routine... then the systems should be able to provide for the same bioload, or the same number of fish "inches". That is not saying a tang would be as happy in either system; the 50 gallon tank is too small for a tang for other reasons besides the bioload. It just means you could have the same number of chromis
However, if you add too many caveats or calculations to the rule, then the rule becomes to complicated or controversial to use. What happens when someone uses a larger skimmer? What about people who feed their corals heavily (or who target feed their anemone)? What about people who use a refugium to export nutrients, shouldn't that help as well? It might be better just to keep the rule as 5 gallons in the display tank per inch, if that is how people currently interpret the rule.
On first glance, I run my tank heavily stocked, at a little over 3 gallons an inch (planned adult sizes). However, I use a sump with a refugium, use a skimmer (over)rated to a 200 gallon system and have fairly small fish. That makes me think that I should be okay with the fish load I have. If I had never heard of the '5 gallons per inch' rule, I would really have no idea however if I was overstocked or not... it is useful as a rough guideline/ starting point IMO.
kbmdale
In Memoriam
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6538966#post6538966 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ratherbediving
For many reasons, a gallons per inch rule does have some issues, but I do think it is a useful guideline-- unless we could think of something to replace it.
You could argue both points--
If you had two systems, one with a 50 gallon display tank and a 50 gallon sump, the other with a 100 gallon tank and no sump-- and each system had the same amount of live rock and used the same skimmer... and each person performed the same water change routine... then the systems should be able to provide for the same bioload, or the same number of fish "inches". That is not saying a tang would be as happy in either system; the 50 gallon tank is too small for a tang for other reasons besides the bioload. It just means you could have the same number of chromis
However, if you add too many caveats or calculations to the rule, then the rule becomes to complicated or controversial to use. What happens when someone uses a larger skimmer? What about people who feed their corals heavily (or who target feed their anemone)? What about people who use a refugium to export nutrients, shouldn't that help as well? It might be better just to keep the rule as 5 gallons in the display tank per inch, if that is how people currently interpret the rule.
On first glance, I run my tank heavily stocked, at a little over 3 gallons an inch (planned adult sizes). However, I use a sump with a refugium, use a skimmer (over)rated to a 200 gallon system and have fairly small fish. That makes me think that I should be okay with the fish load I have. If I had never heard of the '5 gallons per inch' rule, I would really have no idea however if I was overstocked or not... it is useful as a rough guideline/ starting point IMO.
Good Post...I agree
zukihara
New member
Ok let me try this from another angle. If you are talking "boundaries" then that would infer "limits", not acceptable stocking parameters.
Unless I am just insane, having more water volume in a remote location would allow more inches of fish(generally speaking) than without. This is EXACTLY what people do every day in this hobby. We use external means to help stability, manipulate ph, export nutrients, provide oxygen and on and on. All this allows for a higher bioload in the display.
Indeed maybe the research would be better termed "manipulating the boundaries of captive systems" or maybe I just misunderstood the original question
All I'm saying is it's fairly impossible to establish an inch per gallon rule without setting some limits on variables.
Unless I am just insane, having more water volume in a remote location would allow more inches of fish(generally speaking) than without. This is EXACTLY what people do every day in this hobby. We use external means to help stability, manipulate ph, export nutrients, provide oxygen and on and on. All this allows for a higher bioload in the display.
Indeed maybe the research would be better termed "manipulating the boundaries of captive systems" or maybe I just misunderstood the original question
All I'm saying is it's fairly impossible to establish an inch per gallon rule without setting some limits on variables.
