Common misconceptions on swf.com

[crimzy]

Let me start by saying that there are some people on this sight who are more intelligent and more experienced than I could ever be in this field. However, I do see some recurring misconceptions that are touted and then repeated by those who may be have moderate or no experience. I may do things a little differently than the mainstream but I have had great success in my tanks. Here is what two plus decades in this hobby have taught me:
(1) The "6 foot rule" is a fallacy!!
People seem so convinced that a tang must have 6 feet of length in order to survive, with little attention paid to anything else. The truth is that length is only one part of the total surface area, which is the important measurement. Tangs do not simply pace the length of a tank all the time. They constantly make quick turns and swim lengthwise, front to back and (to a lesser degree) bottom to top of the tank. If people want to advise on the proper tank size for a tang, please get some information on the minimum surface area necessary and give the right advise based on the length x width of the tank.

(2) A reef safe ich medication cannot work... period.
This is untrue. While I will agree that these products are generally hit or miss and that hypo and/or copper may be more reliable to treat ich. However, there are many people who have had success with certain products. Many people have shared successes and failures with these products and IMO, we can learn from both experiences. I am not saying that advising for hypo or copper is a bad idea, however, the closed-mindedness of so many people, who claim that there is NO possibility that an alternate cure can be effective, is the thing that bothers me.
(3) Damsels are not the proper way to cycle a tank.
This one may be an ethical question. However, I have cycled numerous tanks with damsels (and other live fish) and have never lost a fish due to cycling. Also, I feel that cycling with damsels will give you a better biological base than trying to use just liverock and ghost feeding. The shrimp method is also an effective alternative. However, most people want some life in their tanks and cycling does not generally cause any long term damage to a damsel, if done properly.
These are the only ones that come to mind immediately, although if I think of more I'll post them.

 

[stanlalee]

those arent misconceptions, they are oppinions. Fish keeping, kid keeping, dog keeping, plant keeping or keeping anything alive isn't an exact science. Everybody is entitled to their own or who's they choose to endorse. the first two rules didn't originate from SWF but oppinions of the most respected names in aquarium keeping and reef collection, hence they are just about universally excepted by everyone except those without 6ft and QT tanks. the 3rd one is a matter of personal ethics. I dont feel its a big deal personally.

 

[srfisher17]

Thanks to both of the above for reminding us that this is a Forum; not a court of law or school of absolute facts. Here's a definition from one dictionary: "an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest." (Discussion being the key word, IMO)

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Stanlalee
the first two rules didn't originate from SWF but oppinions of the most respected names in aquarium keeping and reef collection, hence they are just about universally excepted by everyone except those without 6ft and QT tanks.
Just out of curiosity, can you point to an actual reference that teaches us about the "6 foot rule"? I have read a lot of books on this subject but have yet to find that rule pronounced by anyone other than those on message boards.

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Just out of curiosity, can you point to an actual reference that teaches us about the "6 foot rule"? I have read a lot of books on this subject but have yet to find that rule pronounced by anyone other than those on message boards.
while the 6' rule isn't mentioned, here's a site where you can do your research on tang sizes. most of them say over 100 gallons for a tank, so i don't know what size that is, but you wanted a reference point: http://www.reefpedia.com/index.php/Category:Tangs
pretty much it seems your post is there just to stir up the bee's nest IMO. let's see you post it's ok to keep a mandarin in a 10 gallon tank with no live rock next.

 

[jamparty]

Most of what you said is just a general rule of thumb. Nothing is ever carved out in stone, but to people who say, don't do any research on their own at all and expect a quick answer, with little to no experience in the hobby, that's what those are there for. Obviously there are an infinite amount of variables and exceptions, those are just there to provide a general guideline. People with more experience can obviously bend guidelines the way they want because they know what they're doing, while those who have no clue need some base rules to stick to until they get more experience.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by renogaw
while the 6' rule isn't mentioned, here's a site where you can do your research on tang sizes. most of them say over 100 gallons for a tank, so i don't know what size that is, but you wanted a reference point: http://www.reefpedia.com/index.php/Category:Tangs
pretty much it seems your post is there just to stir up the bee's nest IMO. let's see you post it's ok to keep a mandarin in a 10 gallon tank with no live rock next.

Call it what you want. The reality is that there is no "6 foot rule" referenced anywhere that I've seen, by the scientific community. I just like to see good information passed and the aforementioned misconceptions are extremely pervasive on this board. People here spend so much time ripping LFS for giving out bad information but. Is incorrect information here any better?

 

[jamparty]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Call it what you want. The reality is that there is no "6 foot rule" referenced anywhere that I've seen, by the scientific community. I just like to see good information passed and the aforementioned misconceptions are extremely pervasive on this board. People here spend so much time ripping LFS for giving out bad information but. Is incorrect information here any better?
did you even bother to read what I had to say? It's admirable that you are taking such a passion to this, but in all honesty, a lot of the information on these boards are based off personal experience from enthusiasts with as much experience as 47 years. I would personally value advice from someone who has been in the hobby that long over a book any day. And again, they're there to set guidelines...not commandments.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by JamParty
Most of what you said is just a general rule of thumb. Nothing is ever carved out in stone, but to people who say, don't do any research on their own at all and expect a quick answer, with little to no experience in the hobby, that's what those are there for. Obviously there are an infinite amount of variables and exceptions, those are just there to provide a general guideline. People with more experience can obviously bend guidelines the way they want because they know what they're doing, while those who have no clue need some base rules to stick to until they get more experience.
Very well put. I can accept this... the only problem is that those with nominal experience, who were once given this advise, start flame wars based on these theories and think that they are true scientific guidelines.

 

[murph]

I have to agree crimzy and these misconceptions that tend to get stated over and over in these forums is one of the reasons I tend to post less and less.
I could add several more but the best thing to keep in mind is when it comes to people who tend to state "absolutes" about this hobby its a pretty sure sign of limited experience. Simply put other than basic water chemistry issues there really are no absolutes. Over the years I have encountered several situations in this hobby that the current trends and excepted methods would rule as impossibilities.
These excepted methods are actually no more than trends in the hobby and will change, revert and contradict each other given time. This is why just as with the cloths you wear don't toss out that UG filter. Given enough time it most likely come back in style, at which point there will be a flood of post wanting to know how to remove there sand and install UG filter without settng off a cycle.

 

[jamparty]

I personally don't use any of this advice as absolutes nor do I try to present it that way. I simply try to use them as a general set of guidelines.
The truth of the matter is this.
We are involved in a hobby that pretty much consists of living organisms we only pretend are domesticated. Even aquacultured livestock still has completely wild instincts about it. Fish, coral, invertebrates...these aren't dogs or cats. Because of this, nothing can ever be accepted as an absolute. I think most people would agree that the wild is the wild and will always be the wild. And part of being wild means that it is unpredictable.

 

[1journeyman]

Just a reminder to everyone to keep civil.
Crimzy, as someone early on pointed out, these aren't "fallacies" but rather opinions based on the general consensus of aquarists.
1. We both agree that tangs swim a lot, correct? We also agree that even the smallest Tang species can get to be a decent size. Why would a Tang not need a 6 foot tank? People often ask "What's the big deal with a 6 foot tank...". Well, for starter's it's 33% longer then a 4 foot. To me it's a non-issue. A fish that can get to be over 8 inches long that is an active swimmer needs a 6 foot tank.
2. "This is untrue. While I will agree that these products are generally hit or miss and that hypo and/or copper may be more reliable to treat ich..." That sums it up. Medications are generally hit or miss. As you know ich can appear to be gone in an aquarium for months only to "reappear". In th case of many marine diseases, including Ich, we are dealing with the life and death of a tank inhabitant. Why recomend a treatment that "might" save it's life? If we both agree that Hypo/copper work then display medications offer convenience, nothing more.
Furthermore, you are correct in that there are success stories with medications. Often though these are short term as the Ich comes back. Also, as I'm sure you've read, there are products that claim to be reef safe that have attributed to wiping out tanks.
3. I'm confused on this one; Is your argument that Ammonia does not harm Damsels? What is the "proper" way to cycle to prevent harming a Damsel? What did you mean when you said an aquarium has a better biological base cycling with Damsels?
As folks have posted, this is a discussion forum. Let's keep one important fact in consideration, however. We're talking about the life and death of living creatures. What works for one person should not be touted as "success" or "bucking the trend". Murph posted "when it comes to people who tend to state "absolutes" about this hobby its a pretty sure sign of limited experience...". In my opinion that is not the case. Beth, for instance, posts a million times a day on hypoing fish for Ich. Would one argue she has little experience?
This is an evolving hobby so there are few "laws". The probelm is two fold for forum discussions though:
1. No oversight to see if a person is being trueful. "I've kept a Tang in my 2 gallon Nano for 5 years and he's so happy he smiles at me every morning..."
2. People don't come here to report failures.
Take salinity for instance. My local pet store owner is convinced I'm an idiot for keeping my salinity at 1.026. He keeps his reef tank at 1.021 and all of his tanks at that level. So clearly there is no salinity 'law". Still.. would you want to start telling people inverts can thrive at such low salinity?
Just because one person has success at doing something doesn't mean it's good advice. If you want to change the "6 foot tank Tang Fallacy" for instance do a study that can be scrutinized by scientific review. Set up a 1000 tanks, buy 1000 same species Tangs from one distributor (to insure Tangs are genetically similar make sure they are collected from the same area), and place half in 4 foot tanks. Plumb the tanks together. Use the same lighting. Feed exact same amount. In 10 years measure and weigh the fish.

 

[reefernana]

And may I add that people have to take responsibility for their own decisions on how they may interpret the advice given. If you ask a question on this board, you are asking for answers. Those answers though are just people's experiences. They are not written in stone and should not be thought of as law. You have to be the one to make the ultimate decision if you want to follow these suggestions. I would hope that everyone should know that, even with the supposed experts that are on this board, it is still up to the individual seeking answers to be able to sort out any, all or none of the advice given. It is our own responsibility to make the final decision.

 

[srfisher17]

There's a lot of "forum" stuff here! If I remember that I'm reading (almost always) opinions and experiences; I'll learn something every time I'm online--regardless of how long I've been in the hobby. I'm also guilty of what 1jouneyman said about not reporting failures. Example: I've successfully raised both a Blueface and a an Imperator Angel from juvenile to adult in a 55gal-when that was all I had. But; I would never pass that on as "advice", because I probably lost at least a half-dozen similar Angels in the process. Was that dumb? Yes. Was it a chance I was willing to take? Also, yes. Quite a dilemma--but the final choice is mine.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Crimzy, as someone early on pointed out, these aren't "fallacies" but rather opinions based on the general consensus of aquarists.
1. We both agree that tangs swim a lot, correct? We also agree that even the smallest Tang species can get to be a decent size. Why would a Tang not need a 6 foot tank? People often ask "What's the big deal with a 6 foot tank...". Well, for starter's it's 33% longer then a 4 foot. To me it's a non-issue. A fish that can get to be over 8 inches long that is an active swimmer needs a 6 foot tank.
Why would a tang not NEED a 6 foot tank??? Who can argue with this. But by this logic, why not give a tang a 10 foot tank? This will give them so much more swimming room. However there are 200-300 gallon stock tanks that are less than 6 ft. Most of those tanks will offer far more swimming room (surface area) than a standard 6 ft. 125 gallon tank.
The funny part to me, though, are the amounts of people who vehemently argue that this is an absolute rule. Do a search of the numerous arguments about this. People even take is a step further and discuss some pseudo-scientific principles of the physiology of the fish and its musculature.
I think that, for the fish's best interests, we should all start talking about an "8 foot rule" for tangs. They will be so much happier.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Take salinity for instance. My local pet store owner is convinced I'm an idiot for keeping my salinity at 1.026. He keeps his reef tank at 1.021 and all of his tanks at that level. So clearly there is no salinity 'law". Still.. would you want to start telling people inverts can thrive at such low salinity?
This was another misconception that I forgot about. The higher salinity is correct for a reef system, however everything I've ever read or done in this hobby has stated that an optimal salinity for fowlr is between 1.019-1.022. The lower salinity being less condusive for ich. However, most people are unaware of this and tend to advise everyone to keep their tanks at 1.025 even though it's less than ideal for fowlr tanks.

 

[1journeyman]

Crimzy, just for the sake of clarification, I don't think anyone argues that a Tang must have a 6 foot tank. They argue that a tank, 33% bigger than another tank, is a minimum. If tanks were sold as big squares then surface area would be a great measurement. Tanks sold are more often then not rectangles. Thus the "6 foot suggestion.."
I don't believe low salinity has any benefit other than fighting parasites and saving folks money on salt. The long term effects of keeping fish at below sea level salinity has not been studied to my knowledge. So again, why do it?
Crimzy, that's what a lot of this comes down to; Money and convenience.

 

[stanlalee]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Just out of curiosity, can you point to an actual reference that teaches us about the "6 foot rule"? I have read a lot of books on this subject but have yet to find that rule pronounced by anyone other than those on message boards.
go to ***** (let's call it Fenner's website) run by bob fenner and go to the tang "systems" or any of the surgeon fish FAQ and all throughtout it there is the reference to at least a six foot tank on most tangs. Here's a quote taken straight off the FAQ:
"<Well, to be honest, I'd be hesitant to recommend any Tang, including Zebrasoma species, in anything less than a 6 foot long tank. These fishes, although certainly not the largest of the Tangs, require significant amounts of physical space. They are active fishes, that are accustomed to foraging over large areas in the wild. To "rat hole" a fish of this nature into a tank that doesn't afford a lot of room to maneuver is really a sort of cruel fate, IMO. Kind of like having to spend the rest of your life in your living room...sort of comfortable- for a while. Also, these active fishes consume a great deal of food, and larger water volumes also offer better dissolution of the copious amounts of metabolic waste products that these grazers produce. You sound like a very conscientious aquarist, so I know that you'll understand and appreciate my admonition about space and Tangs.> "
Quote from Surgonfishes and Rabbitfishes by Rudei Kuiter and Helmut Debelius
"All surgeonfishes are busy swimmers and need space. the bigger the aquarium the better" they also go on to say Unicorn (Naso) are mostly suitable for only aquariums (not home). while there is no reference to the 6ft rule common sense tells the bigger the better doesn't imply most if any 4ft tanks.
I can find more if you wish for me to waste my time finding references what we already know to be true: known experts recommend 6ft tanks for tangs.

 

[jamparty]

thanks for taking the time to find references, that must'v been slightly annoying.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Stanlalee
go to wet web media run by bob fenner and go to the tang "systems" or any of the surgeon fish FAQ and all throughtout it there is the reference to at least a six foot tank on most tangs. Here's a quote taken straight off the FAQ:
"<Well, to be honest, I'd be hesitant to recommend any Tang, including Zebrasoma species, in anything less than a 6 foot long tank. These fishes, although certainly not the largest of the Tangs, require significant amounts of physical space. They are active fishes, that are accustomed to foraging over large areas in the wild. To "rat hole" a fish of this nature into a tank that doesn't afford a lot of room to maneuver is really a sort of cruel fate, IMO. Kind of like having to spend the rest of your life in your living room...sort of comfortable- for a while. Also, these active fishes consume a great deal of food, and larger water volumes also offer better dissolution of the copious amounts of metabolic waste products that these grazers produce. You sound like a very conscientious aquarist, so I know that you'll understand and appreciate my admonition about space and Tangs.> "
Quote from Surgonfishes and Rabbitfishes by Rudei Kuiter and Helmut Debelius
"All surgeonfishes are busy swimmers and need space. the bigger the aquarium the better" they also go on to say Unicorn (Naso) are mostly suitable for only aquariums (not home). while there is no reference to the 6ft rule common sense tells the bigger the better doesn't imply most if any 4ft tanks.
I can find more if you wish for me to waste my time finding references what we already know to be true: known experts recommend 6ft tanks for tangs.
Fair enough, I see that he is offering an opinion to a newbe in the context of an online question and answer. I wonder, if this is an absolute rule as presumed by so many on here, why the requirement is not listed on the informative section of this reference. I further wonder how Fenner would feel about a yellow tang being housed in a 48" x 48" 200-300 gallon tank. Just curious...

 

[larryndana]

6ft for a tang-
usually i read that when someone is trying to fit a tang in a small tank.
i believe this to be a minimum size recommandation.
as for the damsels-
it doesn't make since to use them for cycling. there are many of ways of doing a cycle that would in no way harm a fish. Why would cycling with fish be better? you said 'cycling with damsels will give you a better biological base than trying to use just liverock and ghost feeding.' this puzzles me. i don't think there is anything in the fishes waste that would make the process better. sounds like a fact and not an opinion, can you list references to this.
of course my opinion on using damsels is that lfs want to make money and will either not allow you to return them or if they do they buy them back at a lower cost.