YOUR OPINION - what is the real deal with tank size?

cgib831 · #1 08/17/2007, 01:17 PM

I have seen and have been involved in a couple of heated discussions regarding tank size. There are a lot of guys who just want to know what they can put in their tanks, and a lot of other guys who say you need a 7,00 gallon to keep one baby fish. Opinions, rules of thumb, what does everybody think? I am on the small side because I have to be, but I have turbo filtration and am religious with care. Stay civil though, as this topic seems to generate a lot of passion.

NewKid630 · #2 08/17/2007, 01:48 PM

It's basic common sense.

You don't keep a baby whale shark in a 55 long. You don't keep a green moray in a 30 tall. and you don't keep a human infant in a 15. Just because it fits in the space doesn't make it apporpriate.

Doesn't matter how big the baby is the fact that you must "reamin" small limits your potential to keep a fish healthy and happy for very long in your small tank. That means you (not you specifically) don't put a clown trigger in your 29 and think just because you over filter the system that it's ok to do. It's not.

SDhky · #3 08/17/2007, 01:55 PM

Your whale shark example was irrelevant and over the top, He is asking why people think yellow tangs need a minimum of a 6 foot 100 gallon tanks. Personally I think people who have the money always say it needs a huge tank. someone said a naso tang needs a minimum of 1000 gallons, I would put one in a 225.Honestly IMO there isnt a difference in a 120 or 150 compared to the ocean

BRabbitC · #4 08/17/2007, 02:16 PM

I have been doing this along time and when people ask me about tank size I have allways been told that (WHEN DEALING WITH MARINE FISH ONLY) The ratio should be for every 1 inch of fish you need 5-10 gallons of water. This is not the same as freshwater. Personally I feel that this is a fairly good ratio for community tanks. Obviously there are fish out there like (Bat Fish) that really need alot more water than this. For triggers, damsels and other hardy fish this ratio has allways been pretty good for me. This is only information met as input into the conversation and in no way is intended to generate an argument. Remember to respect each others opinons.

SDhky · #5 08/17/2007, 02:19 PM

I agree with the ratio

johno4 · #6 08/17/2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SDhky
Your whale shark example was irrelevant and over the top, He is asking why people think yellow tangs need a minimum of a 6 foot 100 gallon tanks. Personally I think people who have the money always say it needs a huge tank. someone said a naso tang needs a minimum of 1000 gallons, I would put one in a 225.Honestly IMO there isnt a difference in a 120 or 150 compared to the ocean

Yellow tangs are very active and need as much space as possible to be healthy/happy.

If you think it is ok to put an almost 2ft fish in a 6ft tank I feel bad for the fish.

A 120 is 4ft. and a 150 is 6ft. pretty big difference. Compared to the ocean abviously all of our tanks are tiny.

You have to remember, these are living things and we should try and provide them with the biggest, best tank we can. If you cant afford a large tank its no big deal; but you should be responsible and put in fish that will fit in your tank comfortably. The fish should not suffer because we cant afford bigger; get fish that will be happy in your tank. Do research and ask questions BEFORE you buy so you dont end up getting flamed on a public forum.

LukFox · #7 08/17/2007, 02:29 PM

A good rule to keep is for any given actively swimming fish, the length of the tank should be 5x the max size of the fish and the width of the tank should be 2x the fish's max size.

For eels and such you could likely just have the length be 2x the eel's max size, and the width 1/2 the eel's length.

For lions and relatives the tank's length should be at least 4 times their max size, and the width should be 1.5 times their max.

Just a quick guideline I think is sensible. Won't work for -every- fish, but for many it works just fine. Eh, it's just what I use to calculate if a fish would be comfortable in a tank longterm.

SDhky · #8 08/17/2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

A 120 is 4ft. and a 150 is 6ft. pretty big difference. Compared to the ocean abviously all of our tanks are tiny

a 120 can be 4 feet if its 3ft tall but Ive never seen one like that, usually 6 feet and ive seen 7 foot 150's. tanks come in all dimensions and you took the extremes of the 2 to compare.

johno4 · #9 08/17/2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SDhky
a 120 can be 4 feet if its 3ft tall but Ive never seen one like that, usually 6 feet and ive seen 7 foot 150's. tanks come in all dimensions and you took the extremes of the 2 to compare.

FYI a standard 120 is 4x2x2 and a 150 is 72x26x18. You really should research so you dont look foolish.

SDhky · #10 08/17/2007, 03:39 PM

Wow, the point was to say there isnt a difference between 1 foot of swimming space compared to the ocean and you go off into dimensions. You really should not go around trying to prove others wrong so you dont look like a nerd.

johno4 · #11 08/17/2007, 04:28 PM

You can definitely tell who the kids are...

To keep the thread on track, do what you think is right for your fish and use common sense. If your not sure ask.

thepudge · #12 08/17/2007, 04:48 PM

Nothing funnier than a bio teacher and a bio student at each other's throats.

SDhky · #13 08/17/2007, 05:12 PM

haha

mattsilvester · #14 08/17/2007, 05:26 PM

I have always thought it a good rule of thumb that a tank sould be a minimum a 6 times its maximum NATURAL length. Alot of folks read that as 6 times the probable length.....

I'll take a "flag ship" example.... emporer angel.

Natural length = 16" (x6) so a 96" long tank is a good size.
Assumed length = 12" (x6) so folks often state a 6' tank is big enough.

In my opinion - in the case of the emporer angel, I think the 8' is the minimum length. I think volume, while not irrelevant, is alot less relavent than length.

I do not think that most fish will actually reach their natural size in captivity (that is an opinion, and an entirely different debate), but by using the 6 times natural length rule, you are hitting what I call a realistic compromise.

Staying with my example I have a juv emporer angel in my 8x2x2 tank at the moment. He is 4". I have had a 6x2x2 tank in the past, with an emporer in it, and in my view, as this fish grows it is certainly going to need the 8' tank....... if he starts to exceed the "assumed" length of 12", then I am going to need to review my system.......

This is of course a "rule of thumb", t which there are always exceptions.....

(1) Tangs - I think fish like sohal tangs should be given more space..... more like 8-10 times their natural length.

(2) Groupers, morays, lions...... 4-6 times their natural length

(3) Low stocking...... if you are gonna dedicate a tank to a large speceis, like an angel, then a smaller tank is ok .... 4-6 times.

(4) High stocking...... if you are going to jam pack your tank full of fish.... well its a different ball game.

All opinion only................... I certainly dont think my opinions should be anyones rule book......... nor or anyone else's mine. There comes a time in the hobby where if you haven't made up your own mind about something as fundamental like stocking, well you never will

HTH anyone starting though

Cheers,

Matt

Tiggsy · #15 08/17/2007, 05:57 PM

interesting - i am setting up a 4ft 180g and realise that it will prevent me from having large tangs (maybe even no tangs)......but i can get a LOT of smaller fish in compared to a "normal" 4ft tank

LukFox · #16 08/17/2007, 06:20 PM

What are the dimensions of your 180, Tiggsy? Sounds interesting.

SDhky · #17 08/17/2007, 06:27 PM

I like the sound of a 180 gallon cube, it seems more interesting

NewKid630 · #18 08/17/2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SDhky
Your whale shark example was irrelevant and over the top, He is asking why people think yellow tangs need a minimum of a 6 foot 100 gallon tanks. Personally I think people who have the money always say it needs a huge tank. someone said a naso tang needs a minimum of 1000 gallons, I would put one in a 225.Honestly IMO there isnt a difference in a 120 or 150 compared to the ocean

1) I don't see any mention of a yellow tang.
2) If you don't have the money for this hobby, get out.
3) You are a butter knife.

SDhky · #19 08/17/2007, 07:11 PM

no Im a steak knife, duh

Chef Choy · #20 08/18/2007, 12:14 AM

I think the fact that we are here talking about this issue means we all want the best for our fish. I dont think that any of us would make bad decisions. I think that this site has alot of people who think on the extreme when it comes to volume and fish, because I have seen alot of people be pretty harsh. I believe that saying that "its easier to attract bees with honey.........". I think that if you just lash out on people and call them stupid or ignorant, they are not going to listen to an ounce of what you say. I have to admit that I have seen some things that make me think "what the hell are you thinking", but I think that if people are on here, they are trying to do the right thing, and no need to bash them.....

AquaKnight407 · #21 08/18/2007, 12:14 AM

IMO there is only one rule, ratio, law etc, that is of course, commonsense. While it's amount is falling drastically by the wayside each day, it's still the only standard to go by. Each tank, fish, setup, is different and unique. I.e. there are Naso's that will be more then happy in a 150 and some that will kill everything in a 220. They are called guidelines for reason, you can go above and under them.

So when somone posts about their yellow and kole tangs w/some other fish in their 75gal, don't jump on them. For all you know, those fish could very well be excited about living there!

Chef Choy · #22 08/18/2007, 12:18 AM

one thing to think about........I have seen clown fish get 6 plus inches, and I have an engineer goby that is 7in, so to tell people that they have to have a 75 or a 90 to keep a clown..........well, we would probably have alot less people in the hobby, alot less inovations, alot less products, and alot less stores.......food for thought.

Chef Choy · #23 08/18/2007, 12:19 AM

couldnt have said it better myself aquaknight

SDhky · #24 08/18/2007, 12:36 AM

Amen, I will give 1000 dollars to the first person that knows exactly what their fish wants. Either because it told them or they used their powers to find out

AquaKnight407 · #25 08/18/2007, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SDhky
Amen, I will give 1000 dollars to the first person that knows exactly what their fish wants. Either because it told them or they used their powers to find out

I guess I'll take that in Paypal. When I'm opening the dried seaweed box, I know exact that the tang's wants some seaweed. He goes ape %$*& and zooms back and forth along the front glass.

I agree with what you said, but let's not put it towards an excuse to stuff a 10" titan trigger or sohal into a 120...