The Puffer Forum

Hello All

I was reading the pufferpedia on minimum tank sizes for the Fahaka and Mbu and was wondering why the Mbu's (1000 US gallons/4000 liters) is 10 times bigger than the Fahaka (120 US gallons/450 liters)

I know the Mbu grows 8 inches longer but is that really what makes all that extra space necessary?

I know both fish would love 1000 gallon tanks to live in but shouldn't the Fahakas minimum tank size be increased to come more in line with the Mbu?

Just a thought

Bioload is different.

Also the Blue-spotted Puffer grows to 48 inches which is almost twice the size of a Mbu and that has a minimum tank size of 300 US gallons/1000 litres?!

That estimate is incorrect IMO. It should also be 1000g. I do believe the ocean is recommended for these fish & not to keep them in captivity at all.

Christemo wrote:Bioload is different.

Really, don't they eat the same amount and kinds of food though and even if the Mbu does produce a larger Bioload an extra 3500 litres to handle it seems alot

Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit picking

Have you ever read the post or the article about Clooney (Mbu Puffer)? It explains alot about why you need such a large tank.

One thing to keep in mind, too, is that the 8 inches in length is not simply a single-direction difference in size. An 8 inch length increase on an 18 inch fish is roughly a 45% increase in length (which really isn't a "small" difference). Compound this percentage increase with the width/girth of the puffer (as a puffer that is 8 inches longer will undoubtedly be considerably thicker, and thus consume more), and you're going to have AT LEAST a 45% increase in waste output (assuming the relation is linear, which it most likely isn't).

The next issue is that, if you have a fish that's 24 inches (excluding the tail fin, remember), there aren't really any tanks less than 500 gallons that could even provide a comfortable setting for the fish to turn around in, let alone sleep or enjoy a good physical workout. With minimal room to move, you inevitably get obesity, which increases the bioload even more.

Also, you have to consider that most large fish will never thrive in an aquarium (unless their owner builds a small lake into their house) and never sees the full span of their life (which is at least 15 years), as they are almost-always stunted in aquarium environments or die from complications that are most likely linked to unbalanced water chemistry.

Lastly, our estimates are the MINIMUM that the puffer can *survive* in (note that there is a big difference between surviving and thriving). We just try to make sure that, even in the minimum tank, the puffer won't be killed by its own toxins and will have some swimming room to work with, but we can't make any guarantees on how often the water is changed and the dissolved organics are removed. The 120 gallon requirement for the Fahaka should really address the dimensions of the tank, too, so that the puffer would have some turning room to work with, as some 120 gallons are still pretty short (in terms of width, not length).

Sorry for the novel. ^_^

edmlfc1 wrote:Have you ever read the post or the article about Clooney (Mbu Puffer)? It explains alot about why you need such a large tank.

Hey edmlfc1

Yeah I have read that artical, very sad, he had it in a 5ft tank and it wasn't wide enough for him to turn round in. Before I had found this site I had watched videos of Clooney on Youtube

Agnate wrote:One thing to keep in mind, too, is that the 8 inches in length is not simply a single-direction difference in size. An 8 inch length increase on an 18 inch fish is roughly a 45% increase in length (which really isn't a "small" difference). Compound this percentage increase with the width/girth of the puffer (as a puffer that is 8 inches longer will undoubtedly be considerably thicker, and thus consume more), and you're going to have AT LEAST a 45% increase in waste output (assuming the relation is linear, which it most likely isn't).

The next issue is that, if you have a fish that's 24 inches (excluding the tail fin, remember), there aren't really any tanks less than 500 gallons that could even provide a comfortable setting for the fish to turn around in, let alone sleep or enjoy a good physical workout. With minimal room to move, you inevitably get obesity, which increases the bioload even more.

Also, you have to consider that most large fish will never thrive in an aquarium (unless their owner builds a small lake into their house) and never sees the full span of their life (which is at least 15 years), as they are almost-always stunted in aquarium environments or die from complications that are most likely linked to unbalanced water chemistry.

Lastly, our estimates are the MINIMUM that the puffer can *survive* in (note that there is a big difference between surviving and thriving). We just try to make sure that, even in the minimum tank, the puffer won't be killed by its own toxins and will have some swimming room to work with, but we can't make any guarantees on how often the water is changed and the dissolved organics are removed. The 120 gallon requirement for the Fahaka should really address the dimensions of the tank, too, so that the puffer would have some turning room to work with, as some 120 gallons are still pretty short (in terms of width, not length).

Sorry for the novel. ^_^

Hey Agnate

Thanks for putting the time in to reply to me, very intresting read and has answered all my questions

Hehe, thanks! The long paragraphs make it seem like I spend huge amounts of time, but in truth, I just type fast!

There's also a very story on keeping a mbu stickied here.

Pufferpunk wrote:That estimate is incorrect IMO. It should also be 1000g. I do believe the ocean is recommended for these fish & not to keep them in captivity at all.

but their fresh water

I believe PP was referring to the Blue-spotted Puffer

Bioload is based in good part on fish mass - so the math is actually based on two multiplications, rather than being linear. Lets say an 18" long fahaka is also 3 inches wide and 3 inches tall(on average over it's length) and weighs 6 pounds(I have no idea if this is the case, it's just a number to show the relative mass relationship, I'm making the incorrect assumption a fish weighs just a bit more than an equal volume water.) And lets say a Mbu gets to 28 inches by 5 inches by 5 inches, on average - that means it would weigh about 22 pounds, almost 4 times as much for only ten inches of additional length, meaning the minimum tank size by proportionate mass would be almost 500 gallons, assuming mass and bioload are directly proportional. So the numbers aren't as skewed as it might seem.

Nick wrote:Bioload is based in good part on fish mass - so the math is actually based on two multiplications, rather than being linear. Lets say an 18" long fahaka is also 3 inches wide and 3 inches tall(on average over it's length) and weighs 6 pounds(I have no idea if this is the case, it's just a number to show the relative mass relationship, I'm making the incorrect assumption a fish weighs just a bit more than an equal volume water.) And lets say a Mbu gets to 28 inches by 5 inches by 5 inches, on average - that means it would weigh about 22 pounds, almost 4 times as much for only ten inches of additional length, meaning the minimum tank size by proportionate mass would be almost 500 gallons, assuming mass and bioload are directly proportional. So the numbers aren't as skewed as it might seem.

Thanks for the Info Nick