It's bigger than the Tang thread

[Angel*Fish]

It's easy to come across the wrong way in forums and easy to take things the wrong way. I do it all the time

 

[logan 12]

Well I agree and Disagree
In general I think about Adaptation, I read once (I think it was here in reefcentral) that a Marine biologist took care a Tang (Yellow) fish since birth place it in a 10 gallon, the fish survived was in the tank for 4 years and have not shown growth since it hit the 3" Mark.

Wait a minute, a marine biologist says that a fish showed no growth after 3 inches. Um I don't think so. look up the words "indeterminate growth."

Indeterminate growth - Does not stop growing through out life.

Indeterminate growth is present in all fish fresh and saltwater, the only reason I am pointing this out is because a marine biologist said this. It is only to inform nothing more that this is wrong.

 

[Angel*Fish]

The article was a joint effort, and I didn't write it, nor did I contribute to the tank sizes discussion. I edited the text, and wrote some programs to produce the chart, as well as doing some poking and prodding to keep the effort going (not that I was alone in that). In the end, the only reason the article has my name is that I was the one who posted it. I guess I don't mind putting a target on my back.

I suppose we should add some specific text about the article being a group effort, but lots of people seem to ignore notes like that, anyway. Maybe I'll get energetic today.

Well there is something about that in there but making it more specific might be appreciated. Fwiw, in my opinion something about the long drawn out, in depth, painstaking, thorough and grueling process of data accumulation and distillation might be a good thing to put in there. :lol:

I started to add that Bertoni did the composition and computer work on the Tang List, and no one person came up with it solo. The actual list was a composite of various reference sources reviewed by a large group of people, final say going always to two considerations: 1. can the tank recommended be bought 'off the shelf' (in some cases, different tanks are now available, compared to those available at the last revision date of the reference work) and 2. give the greatest weight to persons who are experienced in the specific type of tang in question.

If those people would/could post some of their reasoning maybe that would be helpful.

Or maybe not - it just seems like there's always going to be a bunch of people that think because they've seen it in movies or in photos and the LFS sells them, it must be ok and everybody else is neurotic.

 

[Stuart60611]

Todd, please come back. I share your frustration because this is a very contentious discussion of a difficult issue to get your hands completely around which involves emotionally charged issues and resulting discord. However, I really believe this is one of the most important issues this hobby should address from a responsibility perspective. There is complete chaos in terms of consistent and thoughtful minimum tank size information available which has resulted in many well intended and conscientious new hobbyists making incorrect stocking choices. Plus, the many fish who die quickly after aquisition because they are being kept in inappropriate conditions which are indeed sanctioned and often recommended by the authoratative literature makes this hobby look reprehensible in the eyes of those who oppose it. There will always be people who keep fish inappropriately no matter what you do. Here, a fair case can be made that the hobby itself as an institution promotes and recommends it. We need experienced hobbyists like Todd if there is ever going to be any progress on this issue so everyone lets us all try to keep an open mind and provide respectful and constructive input and not take differences of opinon personally.

 

[Stuart60611]

Well there is something about that in there but making it more specific might be appreciated. Fwiw, in my opinion something about the long drawn out, in depth, painstaking, thorough and grueling process of data accumulation and distillation might be a good thing to put in there. :lol:

If those people would/could post some of their reasoning maybe that would be helpful.

Or maybe not - it just seems like there's always going to be a bunch of people that think because they've seen it in movies or in photos and the LFS sells them, it must be ok and everybody else is neurotic.

Excellent point and agree completely. I think the tang list would be greatly improved if it provided much more of an explanation of how it was prepared and data was compiled and analyzed, who particpated in various aspects and why they were chosen, and some of the important basis and factors considered for the determinations made. The problem with disclosing this could, of course, be that it gets some people debating and disagreeing with the rationale, but I see that only as a good thing because at worst it would expose some flaw and corrections could then be made if necessary. More importantly, I think it would greatly enhance the credability of the information and go a long way toward it gaining acceptance by hobbyists.

 

[Original Fin]

Despite our best attempts to reach a consensus, Surgeonfish keeping is still a major point of contention dividing our hobby. Imagine what it looks like to the beginner.

Before continuing, I'd like to first thank all who contributed to the Surgeonfish tank suggestions list. I understand that the approach may not have been strictly speaking, scientific...and that it was probably not concieved to be the final authoritative word on the subject. None-the-less, having found nothing better, I'm grateful to have it.

Having said that, it might benefit newcomers to know just how the Surgeonfish tank list was compiled. We know that some of the best and brightest on RC came up with the list, but it might help to reinforce it's value if we knew a little more about how. What methods were employed? In other words, was it informal brainstorming, roundtable style, multiple choice questionaires? When did the data collection and collaboration on this project first begin, and how long did it last?

From the good advice and recommendations I've received, it will probably be a while if I ever do keep a Surgeonfish. Personally, I don't think my 55 would be a good long term home for even the smallest/least active of the species. But that is just my personal belief, and I respect other's rights to different views. I also try to keep an open mind towards them.
I don't have a problem with someone strongly urging another to reconsider keeping a Tang in a particular tank based on their own personal beliefs. I do, however; take exception when it results in harassment and personal attacks when that choices falls outside of what's in the RC list.

It stands to reason that beginners are the most likely to get tied up in this nonsense. It's not their fault. Who tells them it's allright to keep a Hippo Tang in a 20 gallon? Their LFS does. Online livestock retailers do. Pretty much the entire industry is guilty of it.
When beginners first get the reefing bug and become steadilly more interested and involved, they eventually stumble across RC, and then...woah...it's like their first trip to the holy land. So much knowledge. So many possibilities. Full of pride, they post their system details for the first time, and...WHAM! Gut check. All of a sudden, everything they thought they knew is wrong. Some deal with this with more grace than others, and it follows that the low hanging fruit is first to be picked on.

From what I've seen, beginners are lucky if they can find anyone on these forums willing to take them under their wings and provide them with helpful and supportive information. Too many would-be advice givers heartlessly criticize decisions and otherwise rain on parades. How is that good for business? What's the saying? In the absence of light, darkness prevails?
Is it any wonder beginners don't know who to look to and which sources to trust? And who's fault is this? I say all of ours. That's how we treat them. I'm afraid we are making our own beds here. I'd love to see us all do a much better job of advocating for the beginner, and lose the disdainful stigmatization of those whose interest, fleeting or otherwise, drives the economic engine of the industry. Keep them in the hobby, and we all benefit.

 

[frankpayne32]

Wait a minute, a marine biologist says that a fish showed no growth after 3 inches. Um I don't think so. look up the words "indeterminate growth."

Indeterminate growth - Does not stop growing through out life.

Indeterminate growth is present in all fish fresh and saltwater, the only reason I am pointing this out is because a marine biologist said this. It is only to inform nothing more that this is wrong.

Hmmm... I am unconvinced of this. It was thought for decades that reptiles had indeterminate growth. It is now known that they do not. I would be surprised of any vertebrate with truly indeterminate growth.

 

[frankpayne32]

That's what the new 'tang' list has attempted to do: of course people have already bought tanks for fish according to recommendations from other sources, and that's just as it is, and nobody wants to suggest someone is other than a conscientious hobbyist for having been at this a while. If the fish is healthy and happy, power to the hobbyist: that fish is lucky.

The intent of the 'list' is to try to inform new buyers what to expect in adult growth, what shape tank is best, what rockwork can be to get the best run---all the old questions about ok, I've got two tanks, gallons versus feet...which is more important? And this list comes down on the side of 'go for feet where possible,' to give healthy exercise.

And there was a conscious effort to list tank sizes that are commercially available, so that the list is not suggesting somebody who wants a particular fish with all their heart has to go custom to do it. The idea is to create a simple, pretty thorough list that informs people that maybe, if they live in an apartment, adjusting the furniture a bit for a 75 Long tank instead of a 75 corner and getting, say, a tomini or kole, will make a nice apartment tank with the species they most want.

After reading this explantation of the list I see the list in a different (positive) light. I thought it was meaning to say that "these were the sizes that these fish must be kept in". Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it and for all of the help you and others have given to this board. :beer:

 

[logan 12]

First of all I just want to apologize to todd, sorry again.

Hmmm... I am unconvinced of this. It was thought for decades that reptiles had indeterminate growth. It is now known that they do not. I would be surprised of any vertebrate with truly indeterminate growth.

I am not sure how to answer this. When taking ichthology (study of fish) last year, this was still common knowledge. My professor is a very good fisheries manager and has worked with some of the best ichthologist in the US. This is what I have learned from him that all fish grow indeterminately. I can try and email him if you like and have him back up this statement as a scientist. I will try and search the internet, I wish I still had the book and could site it, but I don't.

 

[frankpayne32]

First of all I just want to apologize to todd, sorry again.



I am not sure how to answer this. When taking ichthology (study of fish) last year, this was still common knowledge. My professor is a very good fisheries manager and has worked with some of the best ichthologist in the US. This is what I have learned from him that all fish grow indeterminately. I can try and email him if you like and have him back up this statement as a scientist. I will try and search the internet, I wish I still had the book and could site it, but I don't.

I am certainly not trying to call into question your credibility or say that I know better than an ichthyology professor. Fish may very well have indeterminate growth I would just be surprised if it were actually true based on the same thing turning out to be untrue with reptiles. I believe it is still being taught that reptiles have indeterminate growth as well. I would be curious to hear what your professor says though.

 

[logan 12]

I am certainly not trying to call into question your credibility or say that I know better than an ichthyology professor. Fish may very well have indeterminate growth I would just be surprised if it were actually true based on the same thing turning out to be untrue with reptiles. I believe it is still being taught that reptiles have indeterminate growth as well. I would be curious to hear what your professor says though.

I certaintly understand what you are saying, and yes I can not say this for sure only express what I have learned. I will try and email him for you and try and get a response from him.

 

[mthomp]

growth can mean several differant things. for instance humans can also be considered to have indeterminant growth if you take weight into consideration. so what iam getting it as length is not the only type of growth that is considered when a person says it has indeterminant growth. almost all animals have a max length or height but i cant think of a single one that has a max weight

 

[logan 12]

Well, sorry to all that I am going to be leaving hanging. But its time to bow out. If I keep going I fear that I may not be here on RC too much longer.

I am not talking about indeterminant growth in terms of weight, but length actual growth. I was going to post a scientific paper to back up my statement, but instead I am just going to leave this thread.

 

[bleedfire]

Hmmm... I am unconvinced of this. It was thought for decades that reptiles had indeterminate growth. It is now known that they do not. I would be surprised of any vertebrate with truly indeterminate growth.

im ganna try to find the topic

 

[Genetics]

Nate,

Sorry - my previous post to you was removed by one of the moderators. Makes it look like I said something rude or bad, but all I did was to talk more in depth about my HLLE research and gave you a link to my article in an online magazine (just like I've done for other people before). I think it must have been the link that was technically a TOS violation, but its not like this was ever a problem before.

So - again, sorry, I guess you are on your own to try and find that information. Not sure I can even say this, but try running a web based search for "Hemdal HLLE".


Thanks,

Jay

No problem. I don't find any sort of reason for an offensive remark towards my post.

I did do a search and looked at the published data. The problem is that I don't see a strong connection. I ran carbon on my system for years with multiple species of tangs without issue. I know many others that have without issue too. Of course there is no scientific study involved just observation.

Have you thought about rewording your way of testing your hypothesis? If you went with a null hypothesis with your testing it would not get as much resistance. Also, the data would need to be pretty powerful statistically in supporting HLLE from carbon dust for anyone to accept it.

Further, if the Toledo Zoo is experimenting with this possibility it may be easier to induce using a high amount of lignite coal granular/powder. Start high on dosing that demonstrates HLLE consistently. After achieving statistically significant numbers work downward on amounts until it is possibly applicable to our hobby.

 

[noobtothereef]

Id like to add, if its so irresponsible to keep a tang in a smaller tank, isnt it just as irresponsible for the guy that has a tang in a larger tank since 10 or 20 tangs died to get that 1 tang in your tank? MANY tangs die during collection, holding, importing, holding, shipping , lfs, etc... As holds true with any other fish...

 

[BrianD]

No, it isn't.

Hope this helps.