In my opinion, tangs and large angels should be upped. Remember that these fish acquire "attitude" as they mature.
RC vs. Live Aquaria
- Thread starter jhawksoon
- Start date
- Status
In my opinion, tangs and large angels should be upped. Remember that these fish acquire "attitude" as they mature.
Actually the list was a consensus of Reef Central Staff and took a substantial amount of discussion. As a diver, I would tend to agree that a Vlamingi would be more appropriate in a 1200 gallon tank. These fish get big. Fast.
davocean
Active member
I don't think it's too difficult to find posts of the exception's to the rules, but rarely do people admit wrong doing's, so quite often we see people post having more than one pair of clowns, mandarin's in tiny tanks, and tangs in small tanks.
Not very often do we see people step up and admit it didn't end well, or they noticed poor color or health, fin degeneration, disease, or increased aggression that is typical of undersizing their habitat.
Not very often do we see people step up and admit it didn't end well, or they noticed poor color or health, fin degeneration, disease, or increased aggression that is typical of undersizing their habitat.
Let's be fair to Live Aquaria. Yes, their business is "selling fish", but I don't know that I have ever encountered a company more willing to listen to hobbyists regarding their recommendations for tank sizes. Remember, when some of those recommended sizes were first published by different "experts" (Scott Michael, etc), a 75 tank was a large tank, and 300 gallon tanks were almost unheard of. Few people had experience observing these fish in tank sizes that are common today.
The thread stickied by TRC members was an "updated" view of these stocking recommendations, after years of experience monitoring and observing tangs in "larger" tanks (300, 500, etc).
The thread stickied by TRC members was an "updated" view of these stocking recommendations, after years of experience monitoring and observing tangs in "larger" tanks (300, 500, etc).
Matt_Wandell
New member
That assumption is correct, and the list is wrong.
I have 12 years of experience and have maintained a couple dozen full grown N. vlamingi for a few years--I have a pretty good idea of how much space they need.
That assumption is correct, and the list is wrong.
I have 12 years of experience and have maintained a couple dozen full grown N. vlamingi for a few years--I have a pretty good idea of how much space they need.
And I would have to vote with Matt on this one. A full grown N. vlamingi will make a 1200 gallon tank look small. I have an acquaintance who has a 1000 gallon tank and that tank is not as large as one might envision when you start putting two foot fish in it. Still, when the RC members had the discussion, the sizes agreed upon were much better than any existing standards that I have seen. N. vlamingi is one of my very favorite fish and I would NEVER put it in my 350 gallon tank.
MammothReefer
Active member
lol.. like my 3 tangs in a 65... TEEE HEEEEE HEEE.. Runs away.
Angel*Fish
cats and large squashes
The angelfish police is just me - a tiny voice against what seems to be the rest of the world.
And as for the tangs - I've posted about this a few times, so some people are tired of hearing it. I saw an 8-9 in unicorn tank in a long 400 g L shaped tank and not only did he looked cramped in there, it made the tank look small. And it's not like he's finished growing.
The same day I visited a LFS with a 4,000 g long winding pond style tank with a tang about the same size, 8-9 inches. It covered the whole area a number of times in the 15 minutes that I stayed to watch it. I could see that fish covering a huge range. If fish can be bored, that's what he was.
Angel*Fish
cats and large squashes
There are so many fishes that for all practical purposes should just be left in the ocean. Maybe labeled by special order only. What I find is new hobbyists can't wrap their brains around the fact that LFS's sell tons of animals that are either doomed to die or are too big for anything but a public aquarium. And why do so many think fish will size themselves for the tank- where did that come from??
Matt_Wandell
New member
fsbbn@hotmail
New member
I have a 2 foot long unicorn tang in a 2500 Gal tank. For the most part the tank seems large enough but once in a while the tang will get excited and swim across the 17ft tank in less than a second. I do not think the fish is cramped except if a fight ever broke out between the unicorn and the Valmingi, it could be ugly.
The Reef Central recommendations are taken from Scott Michael's minimum recommendations. Those recommendations are minimum tank sizes for a single fish of that species and do not take into consideration the presence of corals in the tank. In other words, they are FOWLR recommendations, not reef tank recommendations. Scott assumes that the reader is smart enough to adjust his minimum recommendations for other factors, such as the presence of corals, that take up considerable volume and restrict swimming space for fish, and the presence of other fish. He also assumes that the reader is smart enough to know that you can't keep two of the same species of some fish together unless the tank size is considerably larger than his minimum recommendation due to territorial issues.
Unfortunately, many newer hobbyists don't understand his recommendations and think that they can stick three or four of their dream fish in that size tank along with a few hundred corals and lots of live rock.
As far as the recommendations of any of the online vendors are concerned, I take all of them with a rather large dose of skepticism. If they are correct, it is usually just a coincidence.
geaux xman
New member
came to my friends house that i just met yesterday, he has 4 vlamingi in a 280g(72x30x30). 2 of them are about 9-10" and 2 about 3-4". he said hes had the 2 big ones for about 4yrs, the 2 small about a month. the 2 bigs use to be in his 200g and he had just upgraded to the 280g about 6months ago.
in addition a ~4" blue tang, 2 yellow tangs, plus a few other small fish and about 300lbs of rock in the tank too. i'll try to get a video one day.
in addition a ~4" blue tang, 2 yellow tangs, plus a few other small fish and about 300lbs of rock in the tank too. i'll try to get a video one day.
Last edited:
small alien
The fungus is among us.
It is definitely not "all about opinions". It is in part a matter of opinion. And it's a lot about science and the facts of the matter.
People say its all opinion when they're fixin' to do something they know doesn't make sense.
Angel*Fish
cats and large squashes
I believe Scott Michael has stated what he had in mind with these tank sizes. I sure know he's been asked. Ninong may be quoting directly from the source.
It very common that newer hobbyists don't understand that the experienced hobbyists really do know what they're talking about. As far as speaking in absolutes what may to the inexperienced seem like an unclear issue full of shades of grey, may be crystal clearly obvious and without mystery to the advanced hobbyist.
This tang issue is especially frustrating, in my opinion the typical person arguing for small tanks doesn't know what a healthy, "happy" unstressed tang looks like. Same goes for angels except no one ever seems to argue about it. It seems like if I say a certain size tank is too small for a dwarf angel, I just get ignored as if I hadn't posted. lol
It very common that newer hobbyists don't understand that the experienced hobbyists really do know what they're talking about. As far as speaking in absolutes what may to the inexperienced seem like an unclear issue full of shades of grey, may be crystal clearly obvious and without mystery to the advanced hobbyist.
This tang issue is especially frustrating, in my opinion the typical person arguing for small tanks doesn't know what a healthy, "happy" unstressed tang looks like. Same goes for angels except no one ever seems to argue about it. It seems like if I say a certain size tank is too small for a dwarf angel, I just get ignored as if I hadn't posted. lol
Wolverine
Premium Member
I have spoken to Scott on several occasions about the minimum tank sizes in his books, and he has told me that many of them, especially for the larger fish, are smaller than what he would keep those fish in. One reason is to not undermine his own information. If he says you can't keep a yellow tang in a 75g tank, it won't be long before someone comes along and says, "See, I've keep this tank in a 75g tank for years, proving that there's no reason to trust anything in Scott Michael's books." Of course, leaving aside the ridiculously fallacious reasoning there, it's just going to create more hassles than it's worth, and it would serve to undermine all of the other good information in his books.
I have a hunch there was also some pressure from stores, etc to not make the tank sizes too big, because then they'll have a harder time selling fish, but I don't know that for sure, and I think (and hope) that Scott wouldn't bow to that kind of pressure, though it's possible the publisher would.
Sounds like you're hinting that Scott Michael is a puppet. Why would anyone believe anything else in the book if he admits that his recommendations on tank size for tangs is incorrect. I'm glad you brought up that it is Scott Michael's recommendations listed on RC. Other members have been saying that it is a collaboration of hundreds of members on RC that came up with the list.
Hmm, again, I think maybe you're thinking in absolute terms too much. No one is saying that Scott Michael isn't a wealth of good information, regardless of some of his tank size recommendations. Nor should you view all tank size recommendations as either just correct or incorrect, IMO. Also, no one said that they are his recommendations on the RC sticky... more of a starting point.
If you don't mind me asking, what is it you are trying to figure out about this list of recommendations? As I said before, it is a list of recommendations provided by RC to help make one's tang keeping experience a pleasant one. It's not part of the UA
- Status
