It's bigger than the Tang thread

[Stuart60611]

I hate to post in succession, but I just had an idea for another even less scientific approach to seting minimum tank size which may actually be the easiest to accomplish. A committee consisting of a group of the most well known, respected, and credentialed home aquarists who have substantial personal husbandry experience with a particular species could establish minimum tank size as well as corresponding husbandry information and the reasons therefor which they all would sign onto as a group (groups could be formed from RC members). If each group consisted of very influential, experienced, and well known forces in the hobby it would seem the findings would be accepted by many. I would add that the findings would also be hard to reject for on line vendors or other authors in the hobby.

I am not convinced that this is the best approach, but it something to consider. It is kind of what RC did with its tang list, although this approach may gain greater acceptance if the applicable committee seting this information was sufficiently credentialed.

Again, not objective or purely scientific, but it is also not purely arbitrary or capricious, nor based on heresay or totally subjective since it is based on first hand observation and the collective experience of a group. Also, an approach oould be taken which combined the authoratative committee approach described here with the use of certain of the metrics as I describe in some of my other postings or a hybrid approach.

 

[frankpayne32]

I think that is a good idea and would be a very good starting point for inexperienced aquarists. This has actually already been done on this forum... Everyone would just need to keep in mind that those numbers are the opinions of the people who listed them and that the numbers listed are recommendations and not necessarily requirements.

 

[Stuart60611]

I think that is a good idea and would be a very good starting point for inexperienced aquarists. This has actually already been done on this forum... Everyone would just need to keep in mind that those numbers are the opinions of the people who listed them and that the numbers listed are recommendations and not necessarily requirements.

I agree, however, I think minimum tank size should be expressed as a minimum required size in the opinion of the committee who would be difficult to refute provided it consisted of some of the most knowledgeable and influential people in the hobby who are most experienced in the husbandry of the given species. This approach has its flaws -- not the least of which is securing the appropriate people to serve on a given committee. A more objective based approach using measurable criteria may be more manageable, and although perhaps more difficult to formulate in the beginning, once formulated would be likely more easily applied to vast array of species expeditiously.

 

[Sk8r]

I would suggest on a dirt-simple basis that if you have a fish that is hanging motionless in the center of his tank all day, that is getting a girth that does not look ordinary for its species in the wild, or that swims at angles it did not use when it was smaller; that has nervous small fin-flicks especially when approached, that are not what it used to do, and whose tank-mates are vanishing one by one---this is a fish that needs a new home.
I would suggest, again on a dirt-simple basis, that nobody should get a fish with an adult size that would look unreasonable in his tank.
That nobody should get a fish with an adult size challenging his financial means or his attainable wall space. Where on earth will you find a re-home for this creature?

All of us admire fishes that are beyond our means, our living space, or the ability of home tanks to keep them. But what happens to the hobbyist and the fish that now sits, unable to find another taker, in a tank that now is inadequate? There is a tomorrow in this hobby.

 

[mthomp]

thats a good point sk8r, Honestly it is pretty obvious what is to big and what is not for our tanks, just by simply looking at the fish thats a foot long in a 4 ft tank would not look very appealing to me. Perhaps a better approach would be to "suggest" maximum fish size for tank size, not gallons so much but length more or less.

 

[Sk8r]

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.

 

[LisaD]

+1 for both of sk8r's posts.

it doesn't always have to be complicated.

 

[Stuart60611]

+1 for both of sk8r's posts.

it doesn't always have to be complicated.

But here I do think it needs to not be arbitrary or purely based on subjective opinion, or otherwise, I think such a designation will be viewed by many as having little value. In a hobby grounded in science, I think it is important that such standards are the product of a thoughtful process with some level objectivity, or many hobbyists will feel little need to seriously consider this information. I think that the importance of this has been made abundantly clear from the voices in this thread who oppose formulating such a mininum tank size standard. I think to attempt to formulate a minimum tank size standard without developing it to attempt to best address these concerns will undermine its utility to the point that it will do little, if anything, to advance the issue beyond its current state of confusion. I agree that it does not need to be extremely complicated, but I do strongly feel that effort needs to be made to formulate it so that it is grounded in a methodology which allows for its determinations to be considered credible and not just the product of the opinions of a few hobbyists.

 

[Angel*Fish]

I have some questions about the cortisol collection. I assume for the captive fish they were collecting it without disturbing the fish in the tank water. I would think collecting the feces from wild fish would at least involve catching the fish? Or is that poo also collected from the water? I wonder how long it takes for the cortisol to reach the point of collection. In other words can the stress from capture possibly effect the result? Or how about the stress from humans chasing them around trying to collect their poo One would hope they aren't comparing poo taken directly from the fish to poo diluted by water. One would assume they've accounted for all these variables. But it seems to me on this subject no one is willing to give any assumptions.

Here's an article on some of the considerations.
http://168.68.129.70/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/04pubs/wash041.pdf

Here's a study on the parrotfish from 2003. It looks like the answers are there as to collection protocol. I guess if no one else knows and I get curious enough I'll spring for it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WG0-48WJNTB-3&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1586908053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=578c4380836493c10fa1d6ec27938648&searchtype=a

Anyway it's somewhat a comfort to know we are not completely dependent on interpretation of others or the whimsy of someone who has tossed some information at us then said goodbye. Those other studies must be published also.

 

[Sk8r]

I had this mental picture of a fish dashing in wild-eyed panic ahead of a weird-looking diver trying to jam a collection jar under his [ahem!] rear...the cartoon possibilities are definitely there.

 

[Beaun]

Here you go Marie

http://www.reefmonitor.org/document...s in parrotfish...[Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2.pdf

 

[Angel*Fish]

Here you go Marie

http://www.reefmonitor.org/documents/Measurement%20of%20fecal%20glucocorticoids%20in%20parrotfish...%5BGen%20Comp%20Endocrinol.%202.pdf

Thank you so much, Tyler!! From a quick peek it looks like for the aquarium study they used feces that had fallen to the bottom of the tank and for the wild:
"Sites were accessed using SCUBA or snorkeling, and samples were collected by following parrotfishes until they defecated. Parrotfishes are not
generally skittish. We attempted to minimize stress to them by following at distances at which they continued routine activities and seemed undisturbed
by our presence. If a given fish was stressed by our presence, it is unlikely that hormonal response to this would appear in samples collected in that
session, since GI transit times in fish are generally longer than the 15–30 min intervals between defecations in parrotfishes."

I wish I had a video of that -lol.

Parrots "are not generally skittish"? Are tangs?

 

[frankpayne32]

But here I do think it needs to not be arbitrary or purely based on subjective opinion, or otherwise, I think such a designation will be viewed by many as having little value. In a hobby grounded in science, I think it is important that such standards are the product of a thoughtful process with some level objectivity, or many hobbyists will feel little need to seriously consider this information. I think that the importance of this has been made abundantly clear from the voices in this thread who oppose formulating such a mininum tank size standard. I think to attempt to formulate a minimum tank size standard without developing it to attempt to best address these concerns will undermine its utility to the point that it will do little, if anything, to advance the issue beyond its current state of confusion. I agree that it does not need to be extremely complicated, but I do strongly feel that effort needs to be made to formulate it so that it is grounded in a methodology which allows for its determinations to be considered credible and not just the product of the opinions of a few hobbyists.

I definitely agree with what Sk8ter said. Tank size recommendations have to be subjective and from the practical experience of veteran fish keepers. I know you want there to be a scientific way to say "this size fish should live in this size tank" but there just isn't.

 

[Stuart60611]

I definitely agree with what Sk8ter said. Tank size recommendations have to be subjective and from the practical experience of veteran fish keepers. I know you want there to be a scientific way to say "this size fish should live in this size tank" but there just isn't.

I agree that a purely scientific approach is not feasible and that minimum tank size will always have substantial subjectivity to its determination. What I am seeking here is some methodology for its determination which makes it more reliable and credible than mere and pure subjective heresay of one or couple hobbyists. Without any criteria used for its determination and without providing some credability to the standard it really has little value in the hobby and will be ignored by most, particularlly when considering the disparity that exists in this information from the varying sources who provide it.

 

[Angel*Fish]

Unfortunately inexperienced people mostly don't understand that what they see when observing a fish is different from an expert in husbandry sees. It that "you don't know what you don't know" factor.

 

[Stuart60611]

And unfortunately this will continue to be a heated issue because inexperienced people mostly don't understand that what they see when observing is a fish is different from an expert in husbandry. It that "you don't know what you don't know" factor.

I agree. I think this is exacerbated by the vast disparity of minimum tank size information being quoted from authoratative sources which greatly adds to the confusion of inexperienced hobbyists. A logical methodology for making such determinations combined with the application thereof being made by highly experienced hobbyists I think will go a very long way to eliminating this problem and provide a basis for credability to be attached to the standard.

 

[Angel*Fish]

I agree. I think this is exacerbated by the vast disparity of minimum tank size information being quoted from authoratative sources which greatly adds to the confusion of inexperienced hobbyists. A logical methodology for making such determinations combined with the application thereof being made by highly experienced hobbyists I think will go a very long way to eliminating this problem and provide a basis for credability to be attached to the standard.

It's a nightmare trying to explain to someone who has Scott Michael's book in his hand saying that his flame angel will be fine in a 20g. Do you have any ideas on how to go about this? I can't picture anyone funding such a project. I don't know what criteria Jonathan Bertoni used, it might be helpful if more info was given about that. But whatever it was I don't know that we're going to have anything better.

 

[Stuart60611]

It's a nightmare trying to explain to someone who has Scott Michael's book in his hand saying that his flame angel will be fine in a 20g. Do you have any ideas on how to go about this? I can't picture anyone funding such a project. I don't know what criteria Jonathan Bertoni used, it might be helpful if more info was given about that. But whatever it was I don't know that we're going to have anything better.

Precisely my point and agree 100%. How can we as experienced hobbyists explain to someone new in the hobby that we know better than Scot Michael or Live Aquaria about minimum tank size unless we can point to some metrics on how this should be determined and have the determination made by people who have comparable level of experience in fish husbandry. I have pointed to some potential metrics that can be used in some of my prior posts, such as: (1) fish size; (2) typical purchase size; (3) growth rate; (3) actual or estimated fish weight; (4) typical maximum size achieved in home aquaria; and (5) swimming habits or other behavorial traits. I suspect that there may also be many others to consider. These criteria could be used to form minmum tank size parameters and the pluging in of values for these criteria could be accomplished by highly experienced hobbyists (or best a group of them) to eliminate some error and to reduce subjectivity and increase the credability of the determination.

 

[frankpayne32]

I agree that a purely scientific approach is not feasible and that minimum tank size will always have substantial subjectivity to its determination. What I am seeking here is some methodology for its determination which makes it more reliable and credible than mere and pure subjective heresay of one or couple hobbyists. Without any criteria used for its determination and without providing some credability to the standard it really has little value in the hobby and will be ignored by most, particularlly when considering the disparity that exists in this information from the varying sources who provide it.

I understand, but that sort of methodology is just not possible in this case.

 

[frankpayne32]

Unfortunately inexperienced people mostly don't understand that what they see when observing a fish is different from an expert in husbandry sees. It that "you don't know what you don't know" factor.

Very true.