Minimum Tank Size

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

tawolcott

Aquarium Advice Freak
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
266
Location
Tired of the mod power plays; gone to another foru
Sooo.. I was just reading an thread on WWM where Bob Fenner was discussing minimun tank size related to stocking. His take seemed to be (although he didn't say it explicitly) that the general minimum tank size recommendations are based on that fish being in that size tank alone. That as you add more fish of that same general size the recommended minimum tank size needs to increase. The same if you have a medium stock level of small live stock.

I don't think he means that 4 tangs need 200 gallons but more that 4 tangs need more than 50 (assuming you agree that 50 is the right minimum # for a tang)

I never gave it a thought in the past, though it might explain some of the issues I had early on.

Thoughts?
 
Yup... minimum tank size is just one piece of the equation. I know folks don't like the "XX inch of fish per gallon" rule, but that's another piece of the equation. Another piece is how messy the fish is as far as eating and pooping, and how much they eat and poop. You have to look at them all together.
 
I am not a fan of the "iches/gal" rule. It does not speak to either having the appropriate stocking level as compared to biological filtration or choosing the the appropriate fish for a certain sized tank. For instance, you can have a 40gal Sw tank...while no tang will fit into this tank, you can increase your stocking options (in terms of amount) by ensuring the right amount of biological filtration.
 
I'll chime in on the bandwagon. There are many factors involved in determining proper stocking levels. The inches per gallon rule is simple to understand, but leaves a lot to be desired. I still like it for a newbie to keep them from overstocking a tank to start with. It must used by factoring the adult size of the fish, not the size you buy it at.

Some fish (tangs, etc.) just need a lot of swimming room and IMO should not be housed in a tank that is less than 6' long.

Once a tank is established and lightly stocked, and the owner has some experience in maintaining water quality, then the subtleties of stocking can come into play. Again, this just my opinion.
 
I agree Cmor. The inches rule and also the WPG rule are all kind of antiquated but they are a good starting point for people just starting in the hobby. As they get more experience under their belt then they can be technical.
 
I think you started a great discussion. Much as I would like to add another fish or two to my tank I consider it to be at capacity, BUT is it really?

5 year old 125 gallon tank with 185 pounds of LR in the tank and 15 pounds of LR rubble in the sump.
Large custom made protein skimmer in sump.
Currently stocked with:
1x coral beauty angel (5 years) 3"
2x A. percula (mated pair) 5 years 2" and 3"
1x Sailfin tang (almost 5 years) 7"
1x Foxface Lo (4½ years) 7"
1x Green Mandarin (3 years) 3"
2x Pajama cardinals (2½ years) 3" each
1x Blue tang (6 months) 3"-4"

My thoughts are adding a bi-color blenny (lost one) and/or a royal gramma (lost one).
Anyone think I can add another small to medium fish or two without tipping the balance?
 
That's a little more than me. I have 1 coral beauty, 1 bristletooth tang, 2 clarkii clowns (mated pair), yellow watchamn and 3 dispar anthias. I only plan on added a few more anthias.
I don't think adding a small blenny or gramma will tip the scale for you, but I wouldn't add another bigger fish.
 
Nitrates are undetecable using the Salifert test. I get about a .1 reading.

I'm still having the internal debate. Maybe I'll try to trade the PJ's as they hide till feeding time anyway. The only good lfs closed and I'm not sure if the other will do a trade.

Thanks guys!
 
Back
Top Bottom