Thought you were overstocked? Check out this guy.

[Rascal]

Has anyone else seen this? http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_4/V4I...h/Angelfish.htm

 

The numbers are mind-boggling to me. 26 Angelfish, 6 Butterflies; 15 Tangs, 8 Triggers, and 12 "misc" fish in a 250 Gallon. And here I was wringing my hands over whether to add a 3rd Tang to my 150!

 

I'm curious as to others' thoughts and opinions on this tank. Beautiful? Irresponsible? Genius? All of the above? What do you think?

[Brian]

Just goes to show what a person can do with the correct motivation. It also shows that there is no wrong or right way to do something in your tank. As long and the water and filtration is correct it seems you can do most anything. After reading the article it shows that there was alot of thinking going into this and was planned well to handle that kind of bio load.

[jamal]

i would say irresponsible because personal space and stress are going to be issues. i feel sorry for those fish. even if bioload isnt a factor that cant be psychologically healthy

[steveoutlaw]

Stupid.......absolutely stupid.

[dbartco]

little much in my opinon. goes to show what a good bank account can do to "experiment" with such expensive fish.

 

"Quite frankly, Travis and Aquatic Environments are pushing the limits of what's possible with a closed-system marine aquarium. In the process, they are breaking every rule in the book with regard to stocking densities, blithely ignoring all the recommendations regarding inches-of-fish-per-gallon, and blatantly violating every guide on the compatibility of marine fishes that has ever been devised. Mr. Carter can tempt fate this way and survive because he has all the resources and expert help he needs to do whatever is required to make his unorthodox system work.

 

In short, this is not a system the typical home hobbyist should attempt to emulate. "

[extreme_tooth_decay]

It's not for me, but I admire and respect anyone who can make it work.

 

If he's not suffering losses, and that's what he likes, then good for him.

 

If the fish were really overstressed, they'd be dying.

Anyone who puts a fish in a tiny cage (and by tiny I mean

smaller than the ocean) doesn't really have room to point

fingers IMHO.

 

Our hobby inherently involves taking fish from their natural habitat

and trapping them in our tiny tanks and starving them. Just my

opinion!

 

tim

[yagerboy]

He will undoubtedly suffer losses.

No way he can keep all of those fish compatable for long.

[mogurnda]

The way I look at it, if you

[steveoutlaw]

The problem is, we don't know how old those fish are. If he can afford all those expensive fish, he can probably afford to replace the one's that die. I don't like it because he's making the fish suffer for his own entertainment.

[dzekunoi]

Fish can be kept in conditions like this but I think it's cruel...

 

I saw those water monitoring devices where fish sits in a tiny stall (size of the fish), water pumps through the stall and fishes breathing and hard beat are being monitored. This way possible to detect presence of contaminants, toxins etc. Fish does not dye there. They do not eat for month as well. They do not die either. Are they happy? No... Same idea.

[HowardofNOVA]

 

Yeah, I would say this is INSANE!

 

Not so much that there are 77 fish in a 250g tank, but alot of these are not SMALL FISH!!!

[Connor]

i think although some of the fish are surviving most of them are very uncomftorable, how could any fish feel free if their sharing a tank with 66 other fish. Plus its cruel to think of all the fish that probably died trying to get that tank the way it is now

[fab]

There are many condemning opinions being expressed here. Come on folks, there was no mention of having lost fish along the way due to density. In fact there are statements to the contrary where the author describes the 20 minute acclimation to move fish successfully from 'normal' salinity to hyposalinity. He describes the remarkable successes in feeding fish that are reputedly 'finicky' without catering to their idiosyncratic culinery fetishes. He describes fish retaining their vitality and brilliant colors. He describes fish that are not 'put-off' by territorial disputes. He describes fish exhibiting the kind of social harmony that Japanese and Chinese people learn from living in quarters we would regard as incredibly tight, with virtually no private space available to individuals. And he describes this behaviour being manifest by fish that are normally aggressive amongst others.

 

We do not have anything that tells us that the fish are unhappy or on the verge of nervous breakdowns. Nothing that is except our expectations; our expectations that are based on our understanding of what "needs to be" to keep a healthy fish tank. And where do these expectations come from?

 

We live by a host of 'rules of thumb.' These rules have become ingrained into us. That doesn't mean they are necessary for good husbandry; rather that they are perhaps sufficient for successful husbandry. These rules have sifted to the top because they enable the least experimental of us to succeed in keeping a tank going with some minimization of losses along the way.

 

Humans live in incredibly dense quarters in many parts of the world, Think in terms of poorer sections of Hong Kong, and much of Asia. Think in terms of Bombay, India. Children who grow up in these densely populated communities know no other way of life. They are not necessarily miserable.

 

I've seen incredibly dense marine life on reefs in the central Indian Ocean. There are times of the year and places where marine fish crowd together with extreme density. An example is in the Red Sea south of Sharm el Sheikh during June. Moorish Idols and Butterfly fish of all kinds school in dense swarms over the reef tops, mixing with the more permanent non-schooling inhabitants. I can't say I've seen them as dense as in this aquarium, but I've seen them in much, much higher density than any tanks I've seen otherwise.

 

I personally think this article points out that we know less about marine fish husbandry than we would like to admit. It shows that we strive to operate within fairly confined boundaries because we've seen it work before. It also shows that when someone else breaks our cherished rules of thumb [self-perpetuating], that we react against the breaking of the rules; rather than standing in awe of how much the rules can be bent when good methods are applied. Remember the rules, as we know them, serve to let the least energetic of us succeed in keeping a tank healthy, or fairly so. The rules do not define the boundaries of what can be done with a lot of energy and lot of thoughtfulness.

 

I do applaud this aquarist for pushing the boundaries. We can learn a lot from his successes. If he starts having failures, then we can learn a lot from them, too. But the exciting thing is that we can learn new stuff from his fabulous successes to date. That's the positive side of all this.

 

fab

[Guest Bemmer]

Frank,

Albeit I don't necessarily agree with the idea of putting so many fish in the same tank together...your argument is well taken...at least by me.

 

If Mr. Carter is successful over all (I have not read the whole article) and by successful, I mean, no more than normal mortality in his tank (I have had quite a few fish losses over time), and his water quality is not compromised (bryopsis proves that mine has been questionable), and the overall appearance of the fish does not show signs of stress or discomfort in any way ie. not eating and slowly starving, then I wish him luck. If that is not the case, well then we need to ask the fish about it.

 

After looking at the pictures, I do not find the tank to be relaxing or pretty to look at, which to me is a big part of this hobby. I enjoy watching the fish swim in a "relaxed" pattern or state, if that makes sense. But with that many fish darting in and out of each other, I see chaos and a rather ugly aquascape job. No, that tank has no appeal to me.

 

Is this really cruel??? It looks like it to me but perhaps it is not. Do we have proof to support that??? Just asking.

Edited May 31, 2007 by Bemmer

[fab]

Kind of the Grand Central Station look, eh? .. and rush hour at that!!

fab

 

Bemmer,

Is this really cruel??? It looks like it to me but perhaps it is not. Do we have proof to support that??? Just asking.

I think the proof is in the pudding. The fish are healthy looking, bright, colorful, energetic and so forth. Cruel,would likely end up with signs of stress... erratic behaviour, slinking around or aggression, and of course ICH. Seems like none of these indicators are at play here.

 

fab

Edited May 31, 2007 by fab

[jason the filter freak]

Sigh... is a tragedy.

[SDBDRZ]

The article does not specifically say whether he has had losses or not. Most of the species of fish in that tank are no where near the size they will obtain in an aquarium. Having a bottomless pit of cash to throw at a tank does not make a successful tank.

 

There is a big difference between optimum environment and minimum requirements.

 

From the article

 

"Many of the exotic fish in the Angelfish tank can reach adult sizes well in excess of 12 inches and the 250-gallon community tank is by no means the final destination for such specimens. Although all of the fish are doing well at their current level of occupancy, that may not remain the case as the juvenile fish begin to reach maturity, and their owner is preparing larger accommodations to deal with that eventuality. And, since Travis is not a typical hobbyist, he is currently contemplating a closed-system home aquarium of up to 4000 gallons total capacity for this purpose. That's a whopping 16 times larger than the 250-gallon community tank! The more spacious home aquarium will be set up in much the same manner as the 250-gallon aquarium but will have all of the elbow room even a fully grown 18-inch Queen Angelfish or football-sized clown Triggerfish needs to be comfortable."

 

Most hobbiests dont have the luxury of upgrading to a 4000g tank to deal with fish growing as they mature. I hate these types of articles because most people miss the details and think "hey that guy in Minneapolis is doing it, why cant I?"

 

Mr. Carter might get away with a tank stocked like this for the short term while he builds a 4000g tank but it does not make this an appropriately stocked 250g tank. Articles like this are a disservice to the hobby. Show me his tank in 3 or 4 years and if he hasnt had losses or had to remove a lot of fish I will eat crow. Having a ton of money to throw at a hobby does not make someone a successful hobbiest.

[fab]

SDBDRZ,

I heartily disagree that 'Articles like this are a disservice to the hobby.' The article is very thoroughly caveated with warnings that this setup and stocking is extremely unusual, that the fish will outgrow the tank and that the aquarist has a very expensive, GIANT tank to accept the fish as they grow out. That is totally responsible. We should not be afraid of someone who does have the resources to do something bold and at great expense and with apparent success so far.

 

If folks read this and ignore these important details, that is too bad. We can't overcome darwinian tendencies in aquarists. Sure if someone is stupid enough to stock a tank like this and ignore 90% of the article that goes to great lengths to explain in detail, the many special steps the aquarist has taken and the extraordinary care that has been put into many aspects of husbandry, then that stupid hobbyist will demonstrate his own stupidity. But that happens every day with hobbyists who don't research and read about husbandry requirements first. For example, how many people buy clown trigger fish and don't have a thousands of gallons to properly house this nearly pelagic fish. Sure it is cute when it is small. But they get huge. I'll bet I just stepped on the toes of some of our own members with that example.

 

I believe this article is a positive service to our hobby. It points out that rules of thumb are just that. They are not some kind of inviolable gospel or dogma.

 

Actually, it has put me to thinking of a miniature version of what I call his "grand central station." Maybe a large tank with a fairly large, diverse population of pygmy anglefish would be an interesting undertaking. It gets around the problem of the giant destination tank for the grownups. Pygmy angels get all the way up to a whopping few inches. It does retain the problem of overcoming the variable social behaviors of the little guys. But that may be one of the interesting lessons learned from this guy's experiment.

 

The article provides no basis for doomsday forecasting. Perhaps bad news has been left out. We do not know that. If bad new has been left out, then that will have to be dug into by anyone seriously interested in pursing this concept further.

 

This article inspired me to think of ways I might apply some of what has been learned from this guy's experiment. I just might monitor his progress, collaborate with him, and maybe ... just maybe, try a variation on it, myself some day. To me that shows how this article is a positive contribution to the hobby, not a disservice. And I'll project that if he can keep up his rigourous protocols, he will not have a death rate that is out of line with that is out of line with the hobby.

 

The fact that he can afford such an expensive approach to the hobby should not be held up as a NEGATIVE. I wish I had that kind of discretionary money to put into my hobby. I hope the wamas folks would not line up to put me down were I in such a position.

 

fab

[jason the filter freak]

Out of anger I think I'll also add this, in terms of astetics, this tank looks worse than my 55

[treesprite]

regardless of how well it appears to work, how healthy or not healthy the fish may be, the simple fact is that it's against nature, and isn't the whole idea of this hobby to emulate nature?

 

Further, my opinion and judgement is that the man is seeing these creatures as objects and eye candy, not living beings

Edited May 31, 2007 by treesprite

[steveoutlaw]

Well, I think they are eye candy for all of us.........if they weren't beautiful then non of us would have them. I also don't buy the argument that this is just temporary housing.......if he is building a 4000g tank he should have been more responsible in his planning.

 

The rules of thumb we use are based on the experiences of many, many people over many, many years in the hobby. Yes, fish will school on a reef........but on a reef the fish don't only have a 2x8 foot area to swim in on a reef. Judging by my own experience with Tangs they love to swim. Put them in an 8 foot tank they will be doing laps using up the entire 8' of the tank. In this tank all they can do is bump into other fish.

 

Nobody can say with absolute certainty what is best for the fish other than it's natural habitat. But we can learn from the experiences and mistakes others have made in the past......and going by those, this is a recipe for disaster.

[Guest Larry-T]

As an example of how many fish can be kept in such a volume of water, it's not even close to the PHYSICAL limit. I have seen aquaculture systems where fish were being grown for food. Through the use of massive filtration and 10-foot tall skimmers running on pure Ozone, they were able to keep Chesapeake Rockfish growing and healthy at a stocking level approaching 1/3 lb per gallon.

 

When kept in overcrowded conditions many fish lose their normal behavioral patterns and turn to an adaptation where they seem to lose a lot of their sensitivity to crowding, as well as their normal territoriality and breeding behavior. This has led to a technique of deliberate overcrowding as a way to keep many attractive and aggresive fish in a space they would never occupy in the wild. As anyone who has kept large quantities of African Rift Lake Cichlids about this.

 

Personally, I don't care for the technique. The normal behavior of these fish is much more interesting than their superficial appearance as ornimental displays. But that's just my viewpoint.

[Guest Larry-T]

Well, if we really aimed to "emulate nature" then we wouldn't have any fish other than small bottom or cave-dwelling fish and then only 1 or so per 100 gallon tank. The simply fact of the matter is that you can't emulate nature and still have a SW tank. The closest we can come to that is to simulate, to the best of our ability, those conditions we can control. If you want to see some of the roots of the hobby as practiced in the Western world and the philosophy behind it, I recommend a book called "The Toy Fish" by Al Klee. He covers the first Century of the hobby in England and America.

 

regardless of how well it appears to work, how healthy or not healthy the fish may be, the simple fact is that it's against nature, and isn't the whole idea of this hobby to emulate nature?

 

Further, my opinion and judgement is that the man is seeing these creatures as objects and eye candy, not living beings

[SDBDRZ]

 

The fact that he can afford such an expensive approach to the hobby should not be held up as a NEGATIVE. I wish I had that kind of discretionary money to put into my hobby. I hope the wamas folks would not line up to put me down were I in such a position.

 

fab

 

It was not my intention to focus my negative opinion of the article solely at the discretionary money that the person has to spend.

 

I still believe that the article, and others like it, provide a disservice to the hobby. While you and others may thoroughly read and understand the details provided in the article, many other will use it as a justification for irresponsible stocking of much smaller tanks.

 

Furthermore he is not doing something bold that should be celebrated, I have seen, read articles and looked at pictures about tanks overstocked with fish since the 80's, the only thing he is doing differently is actually planning for the fish to outgrow the tank.

 

Based on his stocking list, the fact that he does not have any significant compatibility issues raises question for me. Why would fish that are not compatible in the wild suddenly become compatible in a 250g tank? The very fact that there are no significant territorial issues is the first sign that something is amiss.

[mogurnda]

I've seen incredibly dense marine life on reefs in the central Indian Ocean. There are times of the year and places where marine fish crowd together with extreme density. An example is in the Red Sea south of Sharm el Sheikh during June. Moorish Idols and Butterfly fish of all kinds school in dense swarms over the reef tops, mixing with the more permanent non-schooling inhabitants. I can't say I've seen them as dense as in this aquarium, but I've seen them in much, much higher density than any tanks I've seen otherwise.

You really believe that the ratio of fish/water ever reaches anything close to this in the wild? Even if fish are packed in a small area on the reef, it is an open system with masses of water flowing through it constantly. Way different from a 250 gallon closed system.