Minimum tank size contradictions….

[Camaronero]

Good evening,

I’m planning a reef build and I’m not getting anywhere since I can’t get my fish stocking list right. I’m carefully picking the fish but then when I think I’ve got a list, I read the forums or do more
in depth research and nothing adds up.

Problem: “Minimum tank size” on one vendor’s website is different on another and when looking at forums it’s also different, especially with larger fish.

Example 1: Mystery Wrasse… 30 gallon minimum tank size on one site then others list 60, 75, 90. (With some quick research I see that it is an active fish and to minimize aggression… it makes sense that a 90 gallon tank would be ideal)

Example 2: Lavender tang… 75 gallon minimum on one site then others list 125… and then you have forums talking about 180? This is where I’m left in the air..

Example 3: Watanabei Angelfish… 30 gallon minimum (I laughed when I saw this, has to be a typo) on one site then others say 100 and 125 but I feel like these don’t consider keeping a pair.

Specifically with the Lavender tang, would let’s say a 130-140 gallon tank be adequate with careful planning? Fish compatibility, temperament, and diet are all more or less straight forward when taken into consideration but I feel like the “suggested tank size” is a blurred line!

 

[bluemon]

Yes, it’s a blurred line as in, sure you can technically keep it in a smaller thank, but it will not thrive, with lack of exercise and being close quarters with other tankmates, but it will “live”

When in doubt, take the highest of the ones you find, and even then, bigger is better obviously.

This will be more evident once you start keeping some of these fish, as you realize just how big they get, and how fast they can swim, especially their instantaneous acceleration that might cause them to bump into stuff.

So yea, it’s a blurred line as in a 100g for a big tang will keep it alive, for a long time, maybe forever, but that is cruel in the long term

 

[Camaronero]

Yes, it’s a blurred line as in, sure you can technically keep it in a smaller thank, but it will not thrive, with lack of exercise and being close quarters with other tankmates, but it will “live”

When in doubt, take the highest of the ones you find, and even then, bigger is better obviously.

This will be more evident once you start keeping some of these fish, as you realize just how big they get, and how fast they can swim, especially their instantaneous acceleration that might cause them to bump into stuff.

So yea, it’s a blurred line as in a 100g for a big tang will keep it alive, for a long time, maybe forever, but that is cruel in the long term

Agreed. My confusion stems from picking the tank size knowing that it’s a non negotiable to have the fish thriving but even when picking the highest of the “minimum tank size”, I feel like the suggestion is too vague. I’m looking at larger tanks (+130 gallons) but the bigger you go the more “minimum tank size” markers you end up hitting with other fish which makes the stocking list confusing… Especially with the idea of wanting a single tang. Looking at a 200 gallon tank for a single lavender tang (highest suggestion being 125 with vendors) I end up with a little bit larger than the minimum tank size for more attractive fish (subjectively speaking) let’s say a Desjardini sailfin tang (highest suggestion being 180)…. Aiming for a low/medium stocking list…. How would you go about this?

 

[LovinlifeinGuam]

Agreed. My confusion stems from picking the tank size knowing that it’s a non negotiable to have the fish thriving but even when picking the highest of the “minimum tank size”, I feel like the suggestion is too vague. I’m looking at larger tanks (+130 gallons) but the bigger you go the more “minimum tank size” markers you end up hitting with other fish which makes the stocking list confusing… Especially with the idea of wanting a single tang. Looking at a 200 gallon tank for a single lavender tang (highest suggestion being 125 with vendors) I end up with a little bit larger than the minimum tank size for more attractive fish (subjectively speaking) let’s say a Desjardini sailfin tang (highest suggestion being 180)…. Aiming for a low/medium stocking list…. How would you go about this?

If you are serious about considering the fish's well-being, you should determine how the species lives in the wild, interacts with other fish in terms of aggression and stress tolerance, and other factors that you won't find posted plainly anywhere.

The "recommended tank size" is based on very little actual information, everything considered.

 

[EuphyllinOHk]

One thing to also consider is that "minimum tank size" may be a roundabout way of leading you to a "minimum tank length". Fish like tangs, most wrasses, and anthias really benefit from long runs of tank. Flasher Wrasses are the example that comes up often where the commonly accepted volume doesn't really lend to the length that is healthy for them.

 

[LovinlifeinGuam]

Ok, Ill just say it...tge "minimum tank size" is a figure decided upon due to VERY little evidence for anything. In most cases, its simply general consensus.

 

[EuphyllinOHk]

Ok, Ill just say it...tge "minimum tank size" is a figure decided upon due to VERY little evidence for anything. In most cases, its simply general consensus.

Yeah this. There's no calculation of bioloads generated or tang ekgs but a general consensus has been formed for most fish in the hobby.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Good evening,

I’m planning a reef build and I’m not getting anywhere since I can’t get my fish stocking list right. I’m carefully picking the fish but then when I think I’ve got a list, I read the forums or do more
in depth research and nothing adds up.

Problem: “Minimum tank size” on one vendor’s website is different on another and when looking at forums it’s also different, especially with larger fish.

Example 1: Mystery Wrasse… 30 gallon minimum tank size on one site then others list 60, 75, 90. (With some quick research I see that it is an active fish and to minimize aggression… it makes sense that a 90 gallon tank would be ideal)

Example 2: Lavender tang… 75 gallon minimum on one site then others list 125… and then you have forums talking about 180? This is where I’m left in the air..

Example 3: Watanabei Angelfish… 30 gallon minimum (I laughed when I saw this, has to be a typo) on one site then others say 100 and 125 but I feel like these don’t consider keeping a pair.

Specifically with the Lavender tang, would let’s say a 130-140 gallon tank be adequate with careful planning? Fish compatibility, temperament, and diet are all more or less straight forward when taken into consideration but I feel like the “suggested tank size” is a blurred line!

While this is a very subjective topic, I did some work years ago to better quantify the space needs of fish. Here is a link to an updated version of that:

Estimating the Need for Swimming Space for Aquarium Fishes

This article explores required aquarium sizes for marine fishes

www.reef2reef.com

 

[threebuoys]

Yes, it’s a blurred line as in, sure you can technically keep it in a smaller thank, but it will not thrive, with lack of exercise and being close quarters with other tankmates, but it will “live”

When in doubt, take the highest of the ones you find, and even then, bigger is better obviously.

This will be more evident once you start keeping some of these fish, as you realize just how big they get, and how fast they can swim, especially their instantaneous acceleration that might cause them to bump into stuff.

So yea, it’s a blurred line as in a 100g for a big tang will keep it alive, for a long time, maybe forever, but that is cruel in the long term

I agree that "bigger is better" is usually good advice when it comes to tank size. A variation would be to buy the largest tank you can manage (variables being cost and footprint).

In my opinion, the only time "cruelty" becomes a factor is when the tank size or conditions prevents the fish from healthy survival. Too often some hobbyists equate cruelty to unhappiness and aspire to making the fish's environment the same as the fish would experience in the wild. The minute that fish was netted in the ocean that opportunity was lost.

I think @Jay Hemdal article referenced in his post above does an excellent job discussing factors a hobbyist should consider when making decisions about the relationship of tank size and fish size. Jay points out the likelihood that a captive fish will not reach the size the same fish in the wild reaches and the impact that could have on the size of tank required. Taking that a step further, I believe smaller (but still healthy) specimens will better adjust to the size of tank when first acquired than larger specimens will. I have several fish that are four to five years old but are considerably smaller than what has been documented in the wild. These fish are very healthy and active. When I first acquired these fish, I assumed at some point they could grow to a size that would require them to be re-homed. That hasn't happened yet, although some of these species have long life spans so not sure what the future holds.