Tang and Anthias in a 3 foot 90 gallon tank.

[CJ Monty]

If you trust this LFS why are you asking us? No angels is 100% reef safe, but then again no tang is 100% reef safe either. Tangs need space, and stores have biased motives. Even when I worked in a fish store I still would not reccomend people just listen to me. They should do their own research. The hobby consensus is clear, 4ft tank for the bristle tooth’s, 6ft tank for everything else minimum. Yeah lots of people break this guideline, but they do so for their personal benefit at the detriment of the fish, which I cannot, in good conscious, endorse doing.

I have learned in my short time reef keeping there are a lot of opinions. Everyone thinks they are right and sometimes conflict with others who think they are right. I like to ask as many peoples opinion as possible and then ask why so I can make an as informed decision as possible. Not so sure about the hobby consensus as the 1st 3 people responded it is fine. I like to believe most people in this hobby do not knowingly do things wrong.

Didnt know that about tangs. I guess I have heard more about angels eating corals than tangs.

So you worked in a fish store and gave your honest opinion on fish. Why would you assume employees at other fish stores would not? Just like you, they care about the fish and want you to be successful (repeat customers are a good thing).

One thing mentioned to me was the width of a tank as well. Tangs like having a turn radius and to bob and weave instead of just doing laps. When you think about it a 75/90 gallon (48x18) has the same surface area as a 3 foot cube (36x24). Is a 75 really better?

Devil's advocate putting any fish in a 4 foot, 5 foot, 10 foot is for our personal benefit and at the detriment of the fish. That statement was purposely extreme and their are different levels to that.

Like you said everyone should do their own research and that is exactly what I am doing. This post wasnt to offend in anyway but just ask questions.

 

[TheShrimpNibbler]

So you worked in a fish store and gave your honest opinion on fish. Why would you assume employees at other fish stores would not? Just like you, they care about the fish and want you to be successful (repeat customers are a good

Personally, it has been my experience that many lfs workers have no idea what they are doing, and say anything they can to make a sale. For example, a worker at my lfs told me that neon dottybacks were peaceful fish. Three days later, I came home to find that the dottyback sold to me had killed my firefish. I have never bought fish from them again.

 

[CJ Monty]

Personally, it has been my experience that many lfs workers have no idea what they are doing, and say anything they can to make a sale. For example, a worker at my lfs told me that neon dottybacks were peaceful fish. Three days later, I came home to find that the dottyback sold to me had killed my firefish. I have never bought fish from them again.

Oh I agree they are definitely those out there. I have encountered those too. I am sure if you asked here someone would have chimed in that they are aggressive.

What I really meant by trust was experienced, knows what they are talking about and is not just trying to sell me something. Thats why I believe most LFS are not just trying to sell you something. You just dont go back. But maybe I have a rosey view of the world.

 

[pcon]

I have learned in my short time reef keeping there are a lot of opinions. Everyone thinks they are right and sometimes conflict with others who think they are right. I like to ask as many peoples opinion as possible and then ask why so I can make an as informed decision as possible. Not so sure about the hobby consensus as the 1st 3 people responded it is fine. I like to believe most people in this hobby do not knowingly do things wrong.

Didnt know that about tangs. I guess I have heard more about angels eating corals than tangs.

So you worked in a fish store and gave your honest opinion on fish. Why would you assume employees at other fish stores would not? Just like you, they care about the fish and want you to be successful (repeat customers are a good thing).

One thing mentioned to me was the width of a tank as well. Tangs like having a turn radius and to bob and weave instead of just doing laps. When you think about it a 75/90 gallon (48x18) has the same surface area as a 3 foot cube (36x24). Is a 75 really better?

Devil's advocate putting any fish in a 4 foot, 5 foot, 10 foot is for our personal benefit and at the detriment of the fish. That statement was purposely extreme and their are different levels to that.

Like you said everyone should do their own research and that is exactly what I am doing. This post wasnt to offend in anyway but just ask questions.

Sounds like you're looking for people to tell you what you want to hear. You will often find people who want to break the rules in the same way you want to, especially with stuffing tangs into small tanks. Appropriately sized tanks are big and tangs are an easy group to fall in love with, that's why this question comes up on a weekly or daily basis. There are two camps, throw them in whatever, and "the tang police" the tang police generally say 4ft for bristle tooths and 6ft for most the rest, 8ft for achilles, pacific blues, and nasos. The community at large has generally accepted these guidelines, though there are still many vocal members who advocate for more liberal tang housing. I don't know anyone personally, who has kept tangs in the minimum recommended size tanks and thought they would be happy in a smaller tank. I know lots of people myself included who regret keeping them in a small tank.

All benthic feeders have some degree of risk with corals. While not common persay, it's quite well documented that tangs may eat corals. Pacific blues are quite notorious with zoanthids.

There is a distinction between an honest and a complete opinion. While I may give my honest opinion that there likely would not be any noticeable harm to a tang kept in a 3ft by 2ft tank. As a minimum wage LFS employee I am not going to take the time to work through the nuances of why that perspective may not be best practice. Especially if my boss is going to yell at me for not making that sale, because 20 years ago it was acceptable to put a tang in any tiny tank. When the vast majority of people are out of the hobby in 18 months it often isn't in the stores best interest to break down the difference between acceptable temporary housing and long term best practices. And unfortunately most LFS owners and long term employees aren't staying very up to date on current information/best practice. Ultimately its the customers responsibility to be informed, not a stores responsibility to create expert hobbyists.

Personally I don't feel like an 18"front to back tank is large enough for a tang, why I dont have one in my tank. I feel like 48" is even a little short and probably won't be trying a tang until I get a 180g or larger. However my opinion is not the hobby consensus. I am a proponent of 3-4x body length by 8-10x body length minimum for highly active fish like tangs; this is reflective of hobby consensus in both fresh and salt. The White Tail Bristle Tooth(Ctenochaetus flavicauda) is the smallest surgeonfish, they max out at 6.5" according to Live Aquaria. Rounding down and using the low end of the range for width and length is 18"x48". Which is how the 75gal became the minimum recommended for the bristletooths.
The argument for why length matters more than just footprint for tangs is that tangs are known for swimming large distances over the reef in search of algae patches. Tangs are built to put on bursts of speed and shorter linear distances don't allow them to do this. Which is why the swimming length is emphasized over footprint area for tangs.

If you want to take my point to its hyperbolic conclusion you could say keeping any fish in any tank is for our benefit is at the detriment of the fish. however I think there is a distinction when you violate well published best practice. If you are violating the consensus for best practices it is important to have a good reason and well thought out mitigation plan. It is difficult to mitigate simply having a smaller than recommended tank. With some larger square footprints for instance like 3'x3' and a scape with this in mind, the diagonal just barely gets over 48", and so maybe that could be argued for. But a 3'x2' the diagonal is still 43 inches and effectively impossible to scape and leave the entire diagonal clear.

 

[DSC reef]

Sounds like your mind might be made up but you've got sound advice here. Many members here have been keeping fish a very long time and have nothing to gain except helping a fellow hobbyist. Hopefully you heed the advice given, I wouldn't keep a tang in that tank.

 

[TheShrimpNibbler]

Sounds like you're looking for people to tell you what you want to hear. You will often find people who want to break the rules in the same way you want to, especially with stuffing tangs into small tanks. Appropriately sized tanks are big and tangs are an easy group to fall in love with, that's why this question comes up on a weekly or daily basis. There are two camps, throw them in whatever, and "the tang police" the tang police generally say 4ft for bristle tooths and 6ft for most the rest, 8ft for achilles, pacific blues, and nasos. The community at large has generally accepted these guidelines, though there are still many vocal members who advocate for more liberal tang housing. I don't know anyone personally, who has kept tangs in the minimum recommended size tanks and thought they would be happy in a smaller tank. I know lots of people myself included who regret keeping them in a small tank.

All benthic feeders have some degree of risk with corals. While not common persay, it's quite well documented that tangs may eat corals. Pacific blues are quite notorious with zoanthids.

There is a distinction between an honest and a complete opinion. While I may give my honest opinion that there likely would not be any noticeable harm to a tang kept in a 3ft by 2ft tank. As a minimum wage LFS employee I am not going to take the time to work through the nuances of why that perspective may not be best practice. Especially if my boss is going to yell at me for not making that sale, because 20 years ago it was acceptable to put a tang in any tiny tank. When the vast majority of people are out of the hobby in 18 months it often isn't in the stores best interest to break down the difference between acceptable temporary housing and long term best practices. And unfortunately most LFS owners and long term employees aren't staying very up to date on current information/best practice. Ultimately its the customers responsibility to be informed, not a stores responsibility to create expert hobbyists.

Personally I don't feel like an 18"front to back tank is large enough for a tang, why I dont have one in my tank. I feel like 48" is even a little short and probably won't be trying a tang until I get a 180g or larger. However my opinion is not the hobby consensus. I am a proponent of 3-4x body length by 8-10x body length minimum for highly active fish like tangs; this is reflective of hobby consensus in both fresh and salt. The White Tail Bristle Tooth(Ctenochaetus flavicauda) is the smallest surgeonfish, they max out at 6.5" according to Live Aquaria. Rounding down and using the low end of the range for width and length is 18"x48". Which is how the 75gal became the minimum recommended for the bristletooths.
The argument for why length matters more than just footprint for tangs is that tangs are known for swimming large distances over the reef in search of algae patches. Tangs are built to put on bursts of speed and shorter linear distances don't allow them to do this. Which is why the swimming length is emphasized over footprint area for tangs.

If you want to take my point to its hyperbolic conclusion you could say keeping any fish in any tank is for our benefit is at the detriment of the fish. however I think there is a distinction when you violate well published best practice. If you are violating the consensus for best practices it is important to have a good reason and well thought out mitigation plan. It is difficult to mitigate simply having a smaller than recommended tank. With some larger square footprints for instance like 3'x3' and a scape with this in mind, the diagonal just barely gets over 48", and so maybe that could be argued for. But a 3'x2' the diagonal is still 43 inches and effectively impossible to scape and leave the entire diagonal clear.

While I am not part of the “tang police,” I must say that this post altered my opinion on tank sizes for tangs. It was very well written and I now understand why you would not keep a tang in a tank this size. Thank you for this!

 

[Jesterrace]

Personally, it has been my experience that many lfs workers have no idea what they are doing, and say anything they can to make a sale. For example, a worker at my lfs told me that neon dottybacks were peaceful fish. Three days later, I came home to find that the dottyback sold to me had killed my firefish. I have never bought fish from them again.

Yeah, any one who claims dottybacks are peaceful definitely shouldn't be trusted. There are good LFS that will make realistic attempts to steer you towards what would be a good fit for your tank and stocking (mine is generally pretty good but it's run by folks who have been in the hobby for years before opening up the shop). I don't trust the recommendations 100% though and do my own research so I can see what is solid advice and what appears to be a sales pitch.

 

[TheShrimpNibbler]

Yeah, any one who claims dottybacks are peaceful definitely shouldn't be trusted. There are good LFS that will make realistic attempts to steer you towards what would be a good fit for your tank and stocking (mine is generally pretty good but it's run by folks who have been in the hobby for years before opening up the shop). I don't trust the recommendations 100% though and do my own research so I can see what is solid advice and what appears to be a sales pitch.

I usually do research before I buy anything, but I had store credit that I had to use that day, so I trusted the lfs worker. The lfs that I go to now has much more knowledgeable employees, but I still don’t trust them fully.

 

[Jesterrace]

I have learned in my short time reef keeping there are a lot of opinions. Everyone thinks they are right and sometimes conflict with others who think they are right. I like to ask as many peoples opinion as possible and then ask why so I can make an as informed decision as possible. Not so sure about the hobby consensus as the 1st 3 people responded it is fine. I like to believe most people in this hobby do not knowingly do things wrong.

Didnt know that about tangs. I guess I have heard more about angels eating corals than tangs.

So you worked in a fish store and gave your honest opinion on fish. Why would you assume employees at other fish stores would not? Just like you, they care about the fish and want you to be successful (repeat customers are a good thing).

One thing mentioned to me was the width of a tank as well. Tangs like having a turn radius and to bob and weave instead of just doing laps. When you think about it a 75/90 gallon (48x18) has the same surface area as a 3 foot cube (36x24). Is a 75 really better?

Devil's advocate putting any fish in a 4 foot, 5 foot, 10 foot is for our personal benefit and at the detriment of the fish. That statement was purposely extreme and their are different levels to that.

Like you said everyone should do their own research and that is exactly what I am doing. This post wasnt to offend in anyway but just ask questions.

Unfortunately the fact that pygmy and dwarf angels can nibble is more widely reported, but Tangs for whatever reason get a pass even though there are plenty of stories (particularly from Pacific Blue Tang owners) of them going rogue on corals. I would say that a Pygmy or Dwarf Angel has a higher chance of nibbling than Tangs but there are some Pygmy or Dwarfs that still have pretty decent odds of success (ie the Cherubfish I mentioned).

So the trade off is to have a fish that gets really big for a 3 foot long tank (a tall 6-8 inch long fish) and is prone to aggression and may still nip at corals or a fish that is a bit more prone to nipping at corals but maxes out around 3 inches and adds nice color and activity to the tank.

 

[Jesterrace]

I usually do research before I buy anything, but I had store credit that I had to use that day, so I trusted the lfs worker. The lfs that I go to now has much more knowledgeable employees, but I still don’t trust them fully.

Agreed. I disagree with my LFS on some recommendations of minimum tank size and temperament but I have also seen them adamantly opposed to fish in cycles and attempt to make solid recommendations for matching up fish that are compatible.

 

[CJ Monty]

Sounds like you're looking for people to tell you what you want to hear. You will often find people who want to break the rules in the same way you want to, especially with stuffing tangs into small tanks. Appropriately sized tanks are big and tangs are an easy group to fall in love with, that's why this question comes up on a weekly or daily basis. There are two camps, throw them in whatever, and "the tang police" the tang police generally say 4ft for bristle tooths and 6ft for most the rest, 8ft for achilles, pacific blues, and nasos. The community at large has generally accepted these guidelines, though there are still many vocal members who advocate for more liberal tang housing. I don't know anyone personally, who has kept tangs in the minimum recommended size tanks and thought they would be happy in a smaller tank. I know lots of people myself included who regret keeping them in a small tank.

All benthic feeders have some degree of risk with corals. While not common persay, it's quite well documented that tangs may eat corals. Pacific blues are quite notorious with zoanthids.

There is a distinction between an honest and a complete opinion. While I may give my honest opinion that there likely would not be any noticeable harm to a tang kept in a 3ft by 2ft tank. As a minimum wage LFS employee I am not going to take the time to work through the nuances of why that perspective may not be best practice. Especially if my boss is going to yell at me for not making that sale, because 20 years ago it was acceptable to put a tang in any tiny tank. When the vast majority of people are out of the hobby in 18 months it often isn't in the stores best interest to break down the difference between acceptable temporary housing and long term best practices. And unfortunately most LFS owners and long term employees aren't staying very up to date on current information/best practice. Ultimately its the customers responsibility to be informed, not a stores responsibility to create expert hobbyists.

Personally I don't feel like an 18"front to back tank is large enough for a tang, why I dont have one in my tank. I feel like 48" is even a little short and probably won't be trying a tang until I get a 180g or larger. However my opinion is not the hobby consensus. I am a proponent of 3-4x body length by 8-10x body length minimum for highly active fish like tangs; this is reflective of hobby consensus in both fresh and salt. The White Tail Bristle Tooth(Ctenochaetus flavicauda) is the smallest surgeonfish, they max out at 6.5" according to Live Aquaria. Rounding down and using the low end of the range for width and length is 18"x48". Which is how the 75gal became the minimum recommended for the bristletooths.
The argument for why length matters more than just footprint for tangs is that tangs are known for swimming large distances over the reef in search of algae patches. Tangs are built to put on bursts of speed and shorter linear distances don't allow them to do this. Which is why the swimming length is emphasized over footprint area for tangs.

If you want to take my point to its hyperbolic conclusion you could say keeping any fish in any tank is for our benefit is at the detriment of the fish. however I think there is a distinction when you violate well published best practice. If you are violating the consensus for best practices it is important to have a good reason and well thought out mitigation plan. It is difficult to mitigate simply having a smaller than recommended tank. With some larger square footprints for instance like 3'x3' and a scape with this in mind, the diagonal just barely gets over 48", and so maybe that could be argued for. But a 3'x2' the diagonal is still 43 inches and effectively impossible to scape and leave the entire diagonal clear.

Thank you for this info. No I wasnt looking for I wanted to hear. If I did I would have a tang. Multiple LFS said it was ok (and I get your points about some employees at LFS). So if that was what I was after I would not even made this post. This is awesome info as I plan on upgrading it the next year or so. Now I know what I need to look at for my next tank if I want to keep a tang.

I started a new post for stocking ideas. I would love your input. https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/tank-fish-stocking-ideas-for-90-gallon-3x2x2-tank.669143/