The Hypocrite thread mbu

[kevinfleming21]

Mbu's seem to almost always be "lazy", unless provoked into action by feeding or interaction. I agree there are fish of similiar size that require MORE room based on the level of activity.

 

[RD.]

I can't see a 24" Mbu needing more exercise than a 24" Asian aro, 24" Umbie, 24" giant gourami or similar sized fish.

Me either.

Mbu's seem to almost always be "lazy", unless provoked into action by feeding or interaction. I agree there are fish of similiar size that require MORE room based on the level of activity.

Exactly. Mbu are not exactly what I would consider a high energy, glass banging fish.

The tank in the link below is owned by a local person, a close friend of mine. (550 gallons, with a 130 gallon sump for filtration)

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307959

The largest arowana in that comm tank was 30" (fish on the far right in the second pic) when that photo was taken, and it had no issues moving around comfortably in that tank. That tank (along with all of his other tanks, including another 550 gallon tank) is on an auto water change system, with that tank receiving 100+ gallons of fresh water on a daily basis. Nitrates never exceeded 10 ppm, and were typically in the 5 ppm range. I find it absurd to think that my friend couldn't house a single mbu in that system, based on that tanks size, filtration, or its water quality.

I suspect that if RTR had started out with such a system we would have never read about his 1,000 gallon min tank opinion.

 

[puffa lover]

I'd like to see where I personally have stated this.

And 2x the mass?

it wouldnt be 2x the mass

 

[SimonL]

it wouldnt be 2x the mass

Although Mbus' have a larger percentage of their length made up by tail, I'd say twice the mass is a pretty decent estimate for a fish that's almost 50% longer (18" and 26" respectively). If you didn't read my previous post, I own two Azul pbass with similar disparity (12" and 18"). The bigger one is easily twice the mass of the smaller one.

 

[Pufferpunk]

Like I said, I have no personal experience with the T mbu. I questioned RTR's estimate of 1000g & where he got that number:

Easily! My T. mbu was housed in a 180 with a 120 reversed light cycle veggie filter an two 40 gallon same light cycle veggie filters, so 12 square feet of display with a half-dozen mature (6-8foot laves on all of them. Pups were removed routinely) with an additional 8 sq. (The two forty gal. tanks)ft of densely planted veggie filters on standard light cycle plus the 120 for another 8 sq. ft. on reversed light cycle. That came to 4+4+12 =20 sq ft normal cycle, plus 8 sq.ft reversed cycle planted. oxygenation was not an issue, the always was above 80% saturated, generally over 90% during the display light cycle - which is fine for even more demanding fish.

The two issues were swimming space and water quality. Swimming space was the biggest issue. The 180 is nominal 2x2x6 ft., but as you know it is really a bit less inside, The fish could not turn without fitting his caudal, and developed a permanent roll at the end of the caudal, vertical through that fin. He could only turn in the direction of that injury/chronic trauma induced damage - if you were looking down on the tank from above, he would always have to turn clockwise. The damage started before he was longer than the width of the tank and persisted throughout the rest of his life. I had had comparable damage to caudals in big ciclids at about and above 3/4 of the fish's lenght to the width of the tank, so i knew that small differences do not do the job. I extrapolated that it would require 2x the fish's length to accommodate a safe turn, and that number since has turned out to hold for all fish on which I have used it. Note that a greater depth (front to back) would be required if the tank was heavily planted. Six mature Crimums is not nearly heavily planted (all but one were in one corner, the other in the diagonally opposite corner), but their foliage did shade over 80% of the tank surface. That provides the fish with cover and assists in oxygenation.

So I went with the fish's likely maximum length of ~2 ft for the width of 4', and double that for the length, or 8 feet. I no longer think that 8 feet is enough - that is only 2 ft longer than the 180 and I know that was not nearly enough. I would say 4x4 x10-12 now, and that still presupposed an addition big tank 180 or more for a reversed cycle veggie filter, maybe two or more of those.

The big issue in reality was water quality. Two 1/3 partials per week were not sufficient to keep the nitrates low (2 each 1/3 is ~= to one 50% partial) - it took three. So metabolically I needed more partials or a lot more veggie filters or automated daily water partials. Anything over 1000 gallons I would not do if not automated.

Feel free to quote me at will and save this if you ever need it for similar use, here or elsewhere.

BTW, in one of the articles i mentioned to you from the Jan PFK, they use the same figure I had decided on for fish size versus tank size, they say 2x fish length for depth front-to-back, and six x fish length to width (end to end). So for T. mbu their size would be the same as my thinking 4x12 footprint, and a square or taller cross-section. Folks seem to ignore the mass of a 2 ft+ puffer, even one with a big caudal. I wish now that I had weighed the poor beast' s body - that was one heavy fish, and he was only 12, and still acted "young". But I did learn a hard but valuable lesson and will never make those mistakes again.
Where's the fish? - Neptune

 

[JasonsPlecosCichlids]

I did a little searching and someone always mentions the 1000 gallon rule for MBUs.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324977&highlight=1000+gallon+mbu

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=398443&highlight=1000+gallon+mbu

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=387294&highlight=1000+gallon+mbu

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=398454&highlight=1000+gallon+mbu

Cant wait till all this confusion is sorted out.

 

[puffa lover]

Although Mbus' have a larger percentage of their length made up by tail, I'd say twice the mass is a pretty decent estimate for a fish that's almost 50% longer (18" and 26" respectively). If you didn't read my previous post, I own two Azul pbass with similar disparity (12" and 18"). The bigger one is easily twice the mass of the smaller one.

pbass are nothing like the same with MBUs and fahakus, have you ever kept aMBUs or fahaku?

 

[SimonL]

pbass are nothing like the same with MBUs and fahakus, have you ever kept aMBUs or fahaku?

What are you talking about??? This has nothing to do with the care of fish, it has to do with proportionate body mass. No wonder you're apparently incapable of understanding what PufferPunk is saying...

And, are you seriously questioning my experience in the same sentence where you can't even spell the name of the fish you're talking about???

 

[RD.]

Like I said, I have no personal experience with the T mbu. I questioned RTR's estimate of 1000g & where he got that number:

Yes, we have all read RTR's opinion, this coming from someone that apparently didn't have enough common sense or experience with this species to realize that a standard 180 gallon tank wasn't nearly large enough to house an adult mbu. And that somehow now makes him an authority on the subject? C'mon .....

Take another read of my previous post, and explain to me again why a mbu couldn't live out a long & healthy life in that same system?

 

[RD.]

Although Mbus' have a larger percentage of their length made up by tail, I'd say twice the mass is a pretty decent estimate for a fish that's almost 50% longer (18" and 26" respectively).

I think that's a fair estimate, perhaps slightly less than 2x, but close enough for this discussion.